The Rights of Children in Ancient Rome

The social status and rights of children in ancient Rome constitute a complex historical issue. In ancient Rome, children occupied a distinct position within society and the family. A combination of Roman law, cultural practices, and familial authority governed them.

Over time, particularly during the imperial period, the rights of children gradually expanded as parental authority diminished in favor of imperial power. During the Republican period, children were similarly subject to strict control, reflecting the cultural and legal frameworks of the time.

Patria potestas: The foundation of absolute paternal authority

In the modern Western world, the rights of children are often taken for granted. However, historically, this was not the case in many societies. In ancient Rome, the family was more than a private unit. It was the fundamental cell of Roman society and polity. Every tribe and family served as a microcosm of Roman society, which the Romans viewed organically. Each Roman family resembled a small kingdom, with the father acting as its “king” (pater familias).

Children in ancient Rome were subject to patria potestas, the absolute authority of their father gave the later unlimited rights. This gave the father extensive control over their lives, including decisions about their education, marriage, and even their survival.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the Greek historian provides detailed insights into Roman laws regarding this institution:

“But the lawgiver of the Romans gave virtually full power to the father over his son. Even during his whole life, whether he thought proper to imprison him, to scourge him, to put him in chains and keep him at work in the fields, or to put him to death, and this even though the son were already engaged in public affairs, though he were numbered among the highest magistrates, and though he were celebrated for his zeal for the commonwealth.

I forbear to mention how many brave men, urged by their valour and zeal to prove some noble deed that their fathers had not ordered, those very fathers put them to death, as is related of Manlius Torquatus and many others. But concerning them, I shall speak in the proper place.”

The sale of children: Legal norms and restrictions

At first glance, the rights of children during the Republican period of ancient Rome appear nonexistent. Sons and daughters could not own property, as all their earnings or acquisitions legally belonged to their father. Fathers determined their children’s marriages, decided their workload, and could subject them to torture or execution without trial.

Additionally, as Dionysius informs us, fathers had the right to sell their children into slavery up to three times if they deemed them disobedient:

“And not even at this point did the Roman lawgiver stop in giving the father power over the son, but he even allowed him to sell his son, without concerning himself whether this permission might be regarded as cruel and harsher than was compatible with natural affection.

And — a thing which anyone who has been educated in the lax manners of the Greeks may wonder at above all things and look upon as harsh and tyrannical — he even gave leave to the father to make a profit by selling his son as often as three times, thereby giving greater power to the father over his son than to the master over his slaves.

For a slave who has once been sold and has later obtained his liberty is his own master ever after, but a son who had once been sold by his father, if he became free, came again under his father’s power; and if he was a second time sold and a second time freed, he was still, as at first, his father’s slave; but after the third sale, he was freed from his father.”

Thus, parental authority over children in ancient Rome extended so far that sons and daughters were, in some ways, indistinguishable from slaves.

Numa makes a small change to the patria potestas institution

Dionysius adds that the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius, changed this law so that it would no longer apply to sons who would marry.

He stated:

“I infer from many other considerations and particularly from the laws of Numa Pompilius, the successor of Romulus, among which there is recorded the following: ‘If a father gives his son leave to marry a woman who by the laws is to be the sharer of his sacred rites and possessions, he shall no longer have the power of selling his son.’ Now, he would never have written this unless the father had, by all former laws, been allowed to sell his sons.”

Although Numa’s law seemed to soften parental authority by forbidding the father from selling his son after marriage, this was not entirely the case. This was because a father retained the authority to both approve and annul marriages. Romans often viewed parents as gods for children. Because of that, disobedience to them was a form of sacrilege.

Despite these harsh laws and the cultural norms that kept children under their parents’ control through guilt and fear—a situation likely prevalent during the Republican period—parental authority became milder during the imperial era.

This shift occurred because the emperor’s authority began to surpass all other hierarchies in Roman society. As power became increasingly concentrated in the emperor, traditional societal hierarchies, including familial structures, diminished. In this context, parental authority was no exception.

That’s because they started to view children as belonging more to the emperor than to their parents. This shift allowed the emperor to grant rights to underprivileged groups, including children.

Early legal reforms: Augustus and peculium castrense

Augustus, the first emperor, introduced the concept of ”military savings”(peculium castrense), which allowed Roman sons under patria potestas to own property independently if they served in the military.

The peculium castrense included wages, gifts, spoils of war and other assets gained during military service. For the first time in Roman history, sons could own property. This marked a significant step in limiting a father’s absolute control over family wealth and recognized individual property rights within Roman families. It also served as an incentive for military service and loyalty to the empire.

Although sons remained under their father’s authority (patria potestas), the peculium castrense was their own. Fathers had no control over this property, and sons could use or bequeath it as they wished.

Over time, the concept expanded to include not only soldiers but also those serving in other imperial roles, such as bureaucrats and clerks. During the Augustan period, sons also gained the right to challenge a father’s decision to sell them into slavery. If the son could prove his innocence in court, he would not not be subject to sale.

The decline of absolute paternal authority during the imperial era

Over time, societal attitudes shifted, and the killing or selling of children by their parents became less socially acceptable. Significant legal reforms occurred under Emperor Hadrian (r. 117–138 CE). Hadrian introduced punishments for parents who killed their children, marking a pivotal moment in Roman legal history.

A notable case that spurred reform involved a Roman father who killed his son under particularly cruel circumstances. The father received the penalty of exile—a relatively mild penalty by modern standards—but this case set an important precedent. It highlighted the potential for abuse under unchecked paternal authority and spurred further legal reforms.

Under later emperors, such as Constantine, the imperial authority strengthened these protections, by criminalizing child abuse and neglect. These reforms marked an essential step in balancing parental authority with the rights and protections of children in Roman society.

Protecting children from abuse and sale through the patria potestas

During the Antonine period, the emperors introduced laws condemning the torture and cruel abuse of children. One notable case occurred during the reign of Antoninus Pius (r. 138–161 CE), who was famous for his humane and equitable legal reforms.

A father, identified as Herennius Pontianus, subjected his son to severe and prolonged torture. The father would go on trial and receive penalty for his actions. This marked one of the earliest instances where the Roman legal system intervened in what had traditionally been a private family matter.

The punishment of Herennius Pontianus reflected the emperor’s broader policy of protecting the weak and vulnerable, including children, from abuse. This case contributed to the erosion of absolute paternal authority. It also led to the development of the idea that children, though under their father’s power, had certain rights that the state could protect.

Imperial authorities further restricted and eventually abolished right of parents to sell their children during the Diocletian period. Emperor Diocletian introduced laws that began to limit a father’s absolute power.

Particularly in cases where it conflicted with broader societal or legal principles. He restricted the sale of children primarily to cases of extreme necessity, such as severe economic hardship. This measure intended to prevent fathers from arbitrarily exploiting their authority under patria potestas.

Diocletian also granted certain legal rights and protections. For instance, masters treated children whose parents sold them more as indentured servants than as outright slaves. That way they had pathways to eventual freedom or reintegration into society.

Diocletian’s restrictions did not entirely abolish the practice. However, they represented an important step toward recognizing children’s rights in ancient Rome and curbing the harshest aspects of patria potestas. The practice persisted in some form until later Christian emperors, such as Constantine, enacted stricter prohibitions.