Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr.

2/2008

CONSIDERAII PRIVIND CONINUTUL

PUTERII PRINTETI N DREPTUL
ROMAN

APPRECIATIONS CONCERNING THE

CONTENT OF THE PARENTAL
AUTHORITY IN THE ROMAN LAW

Lect. univ. Alin-Gheorghe GAVRILESCU

Facultatea de tiine Juridice
Universitatea Constantin Brncui Tg-Jiu

Lect. univ. Alin-Gheorghe GAVRILESCU

Faculty of Juridical Sciences
Constantin Brncui University, Tg-Jiu

Abstract:
n dreptul roman, copilul era plasat sub
autoritatea efului de familie care exercita puterea
printeasc. Aceast instituie era ns stabilit n
interesul lui pater familias conferindu-i prerogative
att de ntinse asupra persoanelor supuse autoritii
sale nct acesta putea chiar s le abandoneze ca pe
nite obiecte, s le vnd i chiar s le ucid. Aceast
organizare a puterii printeti a cunoscut modificri
n sensul c drepturile efului de familie s-au restrns
nc de la sfritul republicii iar ngrdirea lor a
continuat i n timpul imperiului.

Abstract:
In the Roman law, child was placed under the
responsibility of the family head who was exercising
the parental authority. But this institution was set out
in the interest of pater familias, giving him so extended
prerogatives over the persons under his authority that
this could abandon them like objects, sell them and
even kill them. This organization of the parental
authority has known modifications that the rights of
the family head were limited from the end of the
republic and their limitation has continued also during
the empire.

1. Noiunea de putere printeasc n

dreptul roman
Una dintre importantele instituii ale
dreptului civil roman era puterea printeasc
cunoscut sub denumirea de patria potestas.
Aceasta reprezenta puterea pe care
ascendentul o avea asupra persoanelor libere
(liberi) ce fceau parte din familia lui,
respectiv asupra descendenilor si: fii, fiice
i nepoi din fii numii filiifamilias.
Titular al puterii printeti era eful de
familie, adic pater familias. Acesta nu putea
fi dect un ascendent brbat: (tatl, bunicul
sau strbunicul) i fcea parte din categoria
persoanelor sui juris, respectiv a persoanelor
care nu se gseau sub puterea cuiva. n schim,
cei asupra
crora se exercita puterea
printeasc aparineau categoriei persoanelor
alieni juris.
Pater familias putea avea puterea
printeasc asupra urmtoarelor categorii de
persoane: 1. asupra copiilor nscuii n timpul
cstoriei sale sau a cstoriei fiilor si; 2.
asupra copiilor pe care i-a legitimat; 3. asupra
copiilor pe care i-a adoptat [1].
Plasai sub puterea lui pater familias
filiifamilias nu puteau avea ei nii o astfel
de putere asupra altora [2]. Aadar, ct

1. Concept of parental authority in

the Roman law
One of the important institutions of
the Roman civil law was the parental power
known as patria potestas. This represented the
authority the ancestor had over the free
persons (free people) that were part of his
family, and also over his descendants: sons,
daughters
and
grandchildren
named
filiifamilias.
Owner of the parental authority was
the family head, it means pater familias. This
could be only a man ancestor: (father,
grandfather or great-grandfather) and he was
part of the sui juris persons category, and
also of the category of the persons that were
not under the authority of somebody. In
exchange, those over which the parental
authority was exercised, belonged to the
alieni juris persons category.
Pater familias could have the parental
authority over the following category of
persons: 1. over the children born during his
marriage or during his sons marriage; 2. over
the children he legitimated; 3. over the
children he adopted [1].
Placed under the auhtority of pater
familias, filiifamilias could not have

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

192

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr. 2/2008

vreme bunicul tria acesta singur exercita

puterea printeasc att asupra fiilor si ct i
asupra copiilor fiilor si (nepoilor din fii).
Copiii fiicelor (nepoi din fiice) nu se gseau
ns sub puterea bunicului matern ci sub cea a
tatlui lor.
Puterea printeasc sub care fii de
familie erau pui nceta la moartea lui pater
familias cnd acetia deveneau persoane sui
juris. Nu devenea ns persoan sui juris, prin
moartea bunicului, nepotul ce se gsea sub
puterea acestuia ntruct trecea sub puterea
tatlui su, rmnnd pn la decesul acestuia
persoan alieni juris, indiferent de vrsta pe
care o avea. Dac tatl deceda naintea
bunicului nepotul devenea persoan sui juris
la moartea bunicului sau [3].
n epoca veche a dreptului roman
puterea printeasc era practic nemrginit
att cu privire la persoana ce se gsea sub
aceast putere ct i cu privire la bunurile
sale. n dreptul clasic au fost luate ns unele
msuri de limitare a puterii printeti att
asupra persoanei ct i asupra bunurilor fiului
de familie iar n epoca post clasic vechile
caractere ale puterii printeti au disprut iar
fiul de familie a dobndit o situaie juridic
similar cu cea a efului de familie [4].
2. Coninutul puterii printeti n
dreptul roman
2.1. Prerogativele lui pater familias
cu privire la persoana celui ce se gasea sub
puterea printeasc
Relativ la persona descendenilor
aflati sub puterea printeasc prerogativele
lui pater familias erau nelimitate, acesta
putnd s-i abandoneze ca pe nite obiecte,
s-i vnd, s exercit o corecie nelimitat
asupra lor, s se opun la cstoria acestora i
s le stabileasc vrsta matrimonial, s-i
dea acordul la adopie, s intenteze aciunea
n revendicare pentru a-l reclama [5] din
mna oricui s-ar fi gsit, totul culminnd cu
suprema prerogativ a efului de familie de a
dispune nestingherit de viaa celor ce se
gseau sub puterea sa. Aadar, pater familias
avea asupra celui aflat sub puterea sa o serie
de drepturi, cele mai importante fiind: dreptul

themselves such an authority over others [2].

So, as long as grandfather was living, he was
exercising alone the parental authority over
his sons, and also over his sons children
(grandchildren from sons). But, the daughters
children (grandchildren from daughters) were not
under the autority of the maternal grandfather but
under the authority of their father.
The parental authority, under which the
family sons were placed, ended at the death of
pater familias, when these were becoming sui juris
persons. But the grandson under the grandfather
authority, was not becoming sui juris persons, at
the grandfathers death, because he was passing
under his fathers authority, remaining an alieni
juris person until the death of his father, no matter
the age he had. If father was dying before
grandfather, grandson was becoming sui
jurisperson at the death of his grandfather [3].
In the ancient times of the Roman law, the
parental authority was practically unlimited as
concerns the person under this authority and also
his goods. But in the classical law, there were
taken limiting measures of the parental authority
over persons and also over the goods of the family
sons, and in the post classical age the old features
of the parental authority dissapeared and the family
son got a legal situation similar to that of the family
head [4].
2. The content of the parental
authority in the Roman law
2.1. The prerogatives of pater
familias concerning the person under the
parental authority
Concerning the descendants under the
parental authority, the prerogatives of pater
familias were unlimited, he could abandon
them like objects, sell them, exercise an
unlimited correction over them, oppose to
their marriage and set out the matrimonial
age, agree the adoption, intent lawsuit for
claiming him [5] under the person he could
be, all meaning the supreme prerogative of
the family head to rule, without limit, the life
of those under his authority. So, pater
familias had, over that under his authority, a
series of rights, the most important being:
right to life and death (jus vitae necisque),

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

193

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr. 2/2008

de via i de moarte (jus vitae necisque),

dreptul de a-l vinde, dreptul de expoziiune,
dreptul de corecie, (jus verberandi) dreptul
de a consimi la cstorie, dreptul de a
consimi la adopie, dreptul de a-l reclama de
la orice persoan.
a) Dreptul de via i de moarte (jus
vitae necisque) Pater familias putea dispune
nestingherit de viaa copiilor si dup ce n
prealabil se consultase cu rudele mai
apropiate i cu prietenii din care era alctuit
tribunalul domestic [6], ns avizul acestora
nu era pentru el obligatoriu [7], tribunalul
avnd un rol formal ct timp era prezidat de
pater familias.
Acest drept al tatlui introdus, se pare,
printr-o lex regia care ar fi fost votat n
timpul regnului lui Romulus este menionat i
n vechea formul a adrogaiunii ilustrat de
Aulus Gelius n Nopile atice, cartea a V-a,
capitolul 19 astfel: Velitis jubeatis, Quirites,
uti Lucius Titius Lucio Seio justus filius sibi
siet, perinde ac si ex eo patre
matrequefamilias ejus natus esset et ei in eum
vitae necisque jus siet uti patri endo filio est
(Bine-voii de ordonai, Quiriilor, ca Lucius
Titus s fie lui Lucius Seius fiu legitim ca i
cum ar fi nscut din el ca tat i din soia sa
legiuit i s aib el asupra lui dreptul de
via i de moarte, ntocmai ca tatl asupra
fiului su) [8].
Dreptul de via i de moarte a fost
limitat n dreptul clasic, tatl care i ucidea
fiul fiind pedepsit. Astfel, n timpul
mpratului Hadrian, tatl care i-a ucis fiul
dei avea scuza c-l surprinsese n adulter cu
nevasta sa, mama vitreg a copilului, a fost
condamnat la deportare [9] ntr-o insul, cci,
aa cum s-a afirmat relatndu-se aceast
msur luat de Hadrian, omorndu-l, tatl a
procedat mai mult ca un latron, ca un tlhar,
dect a uzat de dreptul su de tat cci
puterea patern trebuie s constea n pietate
iar nu n atrocitate [10].
Jus vitae necisque a fost interzis prin
lege de ctre mpratul Constantin. Acesta a
decis c tatl care i omoar fiul este pus pe
aceeai linie cu fiul care l omoar pe tatl
su, urmnd ca, potrivit legii Pompeia s fie

right to sell him, right to exposition, right to

correction, (jus verberandi) right to consent
the marriage, right to consent the adoption,
right to claim him from any person.
a) Right to life and death (jus vitae
necisque) Pater familias could rule, without
limit, the life of his children after previously
asking the oppinion of the closest relatives
and of the friends the domestic tribunal was
made of [6], but their agreement was not
compulsory for him [7], the tribunal having a
formal purpose while it was lead by pater
familias.
It seems that this right introduced
through a lex regia that would have been
voted during the kingdom of Romulus is
mentioned in the old formula of the
abrogation illustrated by Aulus Gelius in the
Attic Nights, the Vth volume, chapter19
thus:Velitis jubeatis, Quirites, uti Lucius
Titius Lucio Seio justus filius sibi siet,
perinde ac si ex eo patre matrequefamilias
ejus natus esset et ei in eum vitae necisque
jus siet uti patri endo filio est (Be willing to
order, Quirites, that Lucius Titus be
legitimate son of Lucius Seius as he would
have been born from him as father and from
his lawful wife and he have over him right to
life and death, just as father over his son) [8].
The right to life and death was limited
in the classical law, the father who was
killing his son was punished. Thus, during
Hadrian emperor, the father who killed his
son pretending he surprised him in adultery
with his wife, the step mother of the child,
was condemned to deportation [9] in an
island, as it was affirmed being mentioned
this measure taken by Hadrian, by killing
him, the father behaved as a latron, as a
bandit, than using his right of father, because
the paternal authority should consist in piety
and not in atrocity [10].
Jus vitae necisque was forbidden, by
law, by Constantin emperor. He decided that
the father who kills his son is the same with
the son who kills his father, following that,
according to the Pompeia law, he be put in a
bag together with a dog, a cock, a viper and a
monkey, bag that will be then sewed at

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

194

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr. 2/2008

bgat ntr-un sac, mpreun cu un cine, cu un

coco, cu o viper i cu o maimu, sac care
apoi va fi cusut la gur i aruncat n mare sau
n rul cel mai apropiat.
b) Dreptul de vnzare. Pater familias
putea s nstrineze [11] pe fiul aflat sub
puterea sa, strmutnd proprietatea asupra
acestuia n special prin mancipaie [12].
Legea celor XII Table a prevzut c vnzarea
fiului de familie era valabil pe termen de 5
ani i nu se putea face dect de trei ori. Dup
trecerea celor 5 ani era obligatorie dezrobirea
censu astfel c un copil se putea afla n
mancipio (adic sub puterea celui care l-a
cumprat) numai 15 ani [13]. Tatl care
mancipa de trei ori pe fiul su pierdea puterea
printeasc, fiul ieind definitiv de sub
aceast putere (si pater filium ter venum duuit
filius a patre liber esto). n schimb, fiul
mancipat pentru prima oar sau chiar pentru a
doua oar de ctre pater familias unei tere
persoane nu devenea sui juris odat cu
liberarea sa din mancipium ci revenea sub
puterea efului de familie. Cu toate acestea,
pentru fice i nepoi era suficient o singur
mancipaie pentru ca eful de familie s-i
piard patria potestas asupra acestora [14].
ncepnd cu mpratul Caracala
vnzarea copiilor a fost, n principiu,
prohibit. Acesta a declarat ilicit i neonest
fapta tatlui de a vinde pe fiii si ingenui.
Tatl putea ns nchiria unui ter munca
acestora. mpraii Maximilian i Diocleian
declar nul alienaiunea chiar fa de
cumprtorul sau donatorul de bun credin.
Pentru a evita expunerea (lepdarea ) copiilor
nou nscui, mpratul Constantin, a permis
vnzarea acestora dar numai n caz de mare
nevoie,
de
extrem
srcie
[15]
recunoscndu-se
efului
de
familie
posibilitatea de a-i rscumpra cu bani,
restituind preul lor sau dnd n schimbul lor
ali sclavi de valoare egal cu preul pe care l
obinuse din vnzarea acestora. Vnzarea
copiilor n caz de extrem srcie a lui pater
familias a fost permis i n timpul lui
Justinian, acesta extinznd posibilitatea de
rscumprarea a copiilor vndui la orice
persoan care ar fi napoiat cumprtorului

opening and thrown in the sea or in the

closest river.
b) Right to sell. Pater familias could
alienate [11] the son under his authority,
transferring the property over this, especially
through mancipation [12]. The XII Tables
law stipulated that the sale of the family son
is available 5 years and it could be made only
three times. After the 5 years, it was
compulsory the censu abolition of slavery so
that a child could be in mancipio (meaning
under the authority of that who bought him)
only 15 years [13]. The father that was
freeing three times his son, was loosing the
parental authority, the son being irrevocably
liberated from this authority (si pater filium
ter venum duuit filius a patre liber esto). In
exchange, the son mancipated for the first
time or even for the second time by pater
familias to a third person, did not become
suijuris once with his liberation from
mancipium, but he came back under the
authority of the family head. In spite of all
these, for daughters and grandchildren a
single mancipation was enought that the
family head loose the patria potestas over
them [14].
Starting with Caracala emperor the
chidrens sale was, in fact, prohibited. This
declared as illicit and unhonest the action of
the father of selling his ingenuous sons. But
father could rent to a third person their work.
The Maximilian and Diocletian emperors
declare as null the alienation even to the good
faith purchaser or donor. For avoiding the
exposition (abandon) of the new born
chidren, Constantin emperor allowed the sale
of them but only by all means, in extreme
poverty [15], being recognized to the family
head the possibility of redeeming them with
money, returning their price or giving instead
of them other slaves of an equal values with
the price he had obtained by selling them.
The sale of the children in case of extreme
poverty of pater familias was allowed also
during Justinian, this extending the possibility
of redeeming the sold children to any person
that would have returned, to the purchaser,
their price.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

195

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr. 2/2008

preul lor.
c) Dreptul de expoziiune. La naterea
copiilor tatl avea dreptul de a hotr dac
acetia urmau s intre n familia sa ori nu. El
putea s-i primeasc (suscipere, tollere) ori
s-i abandoneze [16] ca pe nite lucruri
nefolositoare. ntruct muli efi de familie i
abandonau copiii din cauza pauperitii,
mpratul Constantin a acordat celor lipsii de
posibiliti materiale ajutoare alimentare i
vestimentare pentru copiii nou-nscui,
tocmai n vederea ameliorrii acestei situaii.
Acest drept al lui pater familias se
putea manifesta i ulterior naterii sub forma
abandonului noxal. Astfel, dac fiul aflat sub
puterea efului de familie comitea un delict
cauznd un prejudiciu unei tere persoane i
nu avea peculiu pentru a-l repara atunci cdea
n sarcina lui pater familias obligaia de a
plti paguba. ns eful de familie se putea
libera de aceast obligaie, abandonnd noxae
causa pe fiul su n favoarea victimei
delictului urmnd ca fiul s stea la aceasta i
s munceasc pn ce o va desduna pentru
paguba suferit. Abandonul noxal se fcea
printr-o adevrat mancipaiune [17].
d) Dreptul de corecie (jus
verberandi). Nelimitat n epoca veche,
dreptul de corecie cunoate restrngeri n
timpul imperiului, fiii de familie putnd
recurge extra ordinem la magistrai n caz de
rele tratamente. Tatl care i maltrata fiul
era, n timpul mpratului Traian, obligat s-l
emancipeze i pierdea dreptul de a-l moteni
[18] n vremea lui Alexandru Sever tatl
putea aplica el nsui celor aflai sub puterea
sa corecii lejere iar n ceea ce privete
pedepsele mai grave, trebuia s cear
judectorului aplicarea lor [19].
e) Dreptul de a consimi la cstorie.
n cazul n care fiul de familie aflat sub
puterea printeasc se cstorea era necesar
ca, pentru validitatea cstoriei, pater familias
s consimt la ncheierea ei. Acesta se putea
opune la cstoria fiului i, n plus, avea
posibilitatea de a-l cstori dup cum dorea,
fr a-l ntreba, impunndu-i viitorul partener
n nelegere cu un alt pater familias. n epoca
veche, eful de familie putea stabili, n urma

c) Right to exposition. At the

childrens birth, father had the right to decide
if these would enter into his family or not. He
could receive them (suscipere, tollere) or
abandon them [16] as abandoning useless
things. Because many family heads were
abandoning their children because of poverty,
Constantin emperor gave to those without
material means nourishment and cloth aids
for the new born children, just for improving
this situation.
This right of pater familias could also
subsequently appear as a noxal abandon.
Thus, if the son under the authority of the
family head committed a crime causing a
damage to a third person and he had not
peculium for reparing it, pater familias had to
pay the damage. But the family head could
get rid of this obligation, abandoning noxae
causa his son to the victims advantage,
following that the son live at this and
workuntil he will compensate the victim for
the damage occured. The noxal abandon was
made through a true mancipation [17].
d)
Right
to
correction
(jus
verberandi). Unlimited in the ancient times,
the right to correction knows restrictions
during the empire, the family sons can appeal
extra ordinem to magistrates in case of illtreatments. The father who was ill-treating
his son, during Traian emperor, was forced to
emancipate him and he looses the right to
inherit him [18] During Alexandru Sever,
father could apply himself small corrections
to those under his authority and concerning
the more stern punishments, he had to ask
their application to the judge [19].
e) Right to consent the marriage. If
the family son under the parental authority
was marrying, it was necessary that, for the
validity of the marriage, pater familias
consent its conclusion. This could oppose to
the marriage of his son and, moreover, he had
the possibility to marry him at his choice,
without demanding him, imposing to him the
future partner in agreement with an other
pater familias. In the ancient times, the family
head could set out, after a body examination
(ex habitu corporis) even the matrimonial age

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

196

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr. 2/2008

unui examen corporal (ex habitu corporis)

chiar i vrsta matrimonial a copiilor aflai
sub puterea sa. Spre finele republicii aceast
prerogativ a lui pater familias este atenuat
ncepnd s se contureze ideea stabilirii prin
lege a vrstei pubertii (12 ani pentru fete i
14 ani pentru brbai). Aceast idee a fost
mbriat i de ctre Justinian care
considera ca fiind lipsit de decen
posibilitatea lui pater familias de a fixa vrsta
matrimonial.
De
asemenea,
i
consimmntul la cstorie a suferit
modificri. Astfel, pater familias nu mai
putea cstorii fiii dup cum dorea iar n
cazul n care s-ar fi opus la cstorie fii aveau
un recurs extra ordinem la magistrat sau la
funcionarul imperial [20].
Alturi de aceste drepturi pater
familias avea dreptul de a consimi la adopia
copilului. n plus, el putea s intenteze
aciunea n revendicare pentru a-l lua pe fiul
su din mna oricui s-ar fi gsit ceea ce
scoate n eviden poziia asemntoare a
descendenilor cu cea a lucrurilor aflate n
patrimoniul efului de familie.
Dac n epoca veche puterea
printeasc excludea orice fel de obligaie a
efului de familie fa de copiii aflai sub
puterea sa, n epoca clasic se contureaz
obligaia alimentar ntre prini i copii.
Aprut pentru prima oar n senatus
consultus Plautianum, obligaia de a da
alimente cdea n sarcina tatlui numai fa
de copiii nscui dup divor despre care
mama lor putea face dovada c au fost
concepui n timpul cstoriei legitime.
Ulterior a fost reglementat i dreptul la
alimente al copiilor legitimi n situaia n care
prinii lor nu erau divorai, dreptul la
alimente al copiilor nscui dup moartea
tatlui precum i dreptul la alimente al
copiilor nscui n afara cstoriei. Iniial
obligaia de a da alimente revenea numai
tatlui ns apoi a fost extins i asupra
bunicilor paterni ct i asupra mamei i
asupra bunicilor materni. S-a admis, de
asemenea, obligaia copiilor de a da alimente
tatlui, mamei, ascendenilor dup tat i
dup mam dac acetia se aflau n nevoie iar

of the children under his authority. To the end

of the republic, this prerogative of pater
familias was attenuated being outlined the
idea of stipulating by law the puberty age (12
years for girls and 14 years for men). This
idea was also accepted by Justinian who
considered as being without decency the
possibility of pater familias of setting out
the matrimonial age. Also, the consent to
marriage suffered modifications. Thus,
pater familias could not marriage his sons
at his choice and if he would have
opposed to marriage the sons had an extra
ordinem appeal to the magistrate or to the
imperial clerk [20].
Besides these rights, pater familias
had the right to consent the childs
adoption. Moreover, he could intent
lawsuit for taking his son from the
authority he was found, what emphasizes
the similar position of the descendants
with that of the things in the patrimony
ofthe family head.
If in the ancient times, the parental
authority was excluding any kind of
obligation of the family head to the
children under his authority, in the
classical age, it is outlined the
nourishment obligation between parents
and children. Appeared for the first time
in senatus consultus Plautianum, the
obligation to give nourishment was of the
father only for the chidren born after
divorce about whom their mother can
prove they were conceived during the
legitimate marriage. Afterwards, it was
also stipulated the right to nourishment of
the legitimate children if their parents
were not divorced, the right to
nourishment of the children born after the
death of the father as well as the right to
nourishment of the children born outside
marriage. Initially, the obligation to give
nourishment was only of the father, but
this was then extended also to the paternal
grandfathers as well as to mother and to
the maternal grandfathers. It was also
admitted the obligation of the children of
giving nourishment to father, mother,

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

197

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr. 2/2008

copiii aveau posibilitatea de a-i ajuta.

Alimentele, prin care se nelegea nu doar
hrana (alimenta) ci tot ceea ce era necesar
pentru dezvoltarea n condiii bune a copiilor,
se obineau n procesul extra ordinem [21].
2.2. Prerogativele lui pater familias
cu privire la bunurile celui ce se gasea sub
puterea printeasc
Puterea lui pater familias era n epoca
veche nelimitat nu doar cu privire la
persoana ci i la bunurile dobndite de ctre
cel aflat sub aceast putere. De altfel, fiul de
familie nu avea nici un patrimoniu, el fiind
doar un instrument de achiziie al lui pater
familias pentru care dobndea prin munca sa
ori prin actele sale juridice, inclusiv prin
liberalitile ce i-ar fi fost fcute ori prin
succesiunile la care era chemat. Asemeni
sclavului, fiul de familie nu putea ncheia acte
juridice dect dac prin acestea fcea mai
bun situaia lui pater familias i nu le ncheia
n
nume
propriu
ci
mprumutnd
personalitatea efului de familie [22].
ncepnd cu sec. I .Hr. s-a admis c fiul
putea face mai rea situaia efului de familie,
fcndu-l s piard proprietatea unui bun sau
alt drept real ori s greveze un bun al efului
de familie cu un drept real. n astfel de cazuri
fiul care contracta cu terul l obliga pe pater
familias iar terul avea aciune mpotriva
efului de familie numit aciunea adiecticiae
qualitatis [23].
n dreptul clasic s-a admis c n
anumite situaii fiul de familie se putea obliga
n nume propriu, obligndu-l n acelai timp
i pe pater familias. n epoca clasic
principiul care guverna vechiul drept c
unicul proprietar al patrimoniului familiei era
pater familias a cunoscut unele limitri sub
forma peculiilor fiilor de familie, respectiv
peculiul profecticiu, peculiul castrense,
peculiul quasicastrense, i bona adventicia.
Aceste limitri s-au amplificat n timp astfel
nct n vremea lui Justinian dreptul tatlui
asupra bunurilor copilului a devenit excepia
iar regula era aceea c fiul era proprietar.
a) Peculiul profecticiu. Peculiul

ancestors of father or mother if these were

in need and the children had the
possibility to help them. Nourishments,
that included not only food (alimenta) but
all it was necessary for the development,
in good conditions, of the children, were
obtained in the extra ordinem process
[21].
2.2. The prerogatives of pater
familias concerning the goods of those
under the parental authority
The power of pater familias was in the
ancient times unlimited not only concerning
person but also the goods got by that under
this power. Also, the family son had no
patrimony, he being only an acquisition
instrument of pater familias for whom he got
through his work or his legal documents,
including the liberalities that would have
been made to him or through the inheritances
he was invited to. Similar to the slave, the
family son could not conclude legal
documents only if he was improving
thesituation of pater familias and he did not
conclude them on his own but renting the
personality of the family head [22] . Starting
with the Ist century before Christ, it was
admitted that son could worsen the situation
of the family head, making him loose the
ownership of a good or other real property or
to encumber a good of the family head with a
real property. In such cases, the son who was
concluding a contract with the third party,
pledged the pater familias, and the third party
could intent lawsuit against the family head,
named the adiecticiae qualitatis lawsuit [23].
In the classical law it was admitted
that in certain situations the family son could
pledge himself, pledging pater familias in the
same time. In the classical age, the principle
that was ruling the ancient law that the unique
owner of the familys patrimony was pater
familias, knew some limitations of the shape
of family sons peculii, as for example the
profecticiu peculium, the castrense peculium,
the quasicastrense peculium, and bona
adventicia. These limitations were amplified
in time so that, during Justinian, the fathers
right over the childs goods became the

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

198

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr. 2/2008

profecticiu era constituit dintr-un grup de

bunuri pe care pater familias le ncredina
fiului de familie pentru a le administra. La
nceput acest peculiu era format dintr-o turm
de vite mici ns ulterior s-a extins i la alte
lucruri susceptibile de posesiune sau
cvasiposesiune: sclavi, mrfuri, alte bunuri
mobile i chiar bani. n afara actelor de
administrare, fiul putea s consume bunurile,
s le mprumute, s le depoziteze la un ter,
putea s ncheie afaceri care s priveasc n
exclusivitate peculiul, dezvoltndu-l astfel,
ns nu putea s-l nstrineze prin acte cu titlu
gratuit (donaii) ori s elibereze sclavii din
cadrul peculiului [24].
b) Peculiul castrense. Peculiul
castrense era format din totalitatea bunurilor
dobndite de fiul de familie ca militar: solda
de osta, recompensele militare, daruri din
partea autoritilor imperiale, daruri fcute de
camarazii de arme, rude sau prieteni,
succesiunea pe care i-o lsa soia lui i care i
era deferit n timpul serviciului militar,
prada de rzboi precum i tot ceea ce era
produs de astfel de lucruri. Aceste bunuri
constituiau proprietatea fiului de familie
militar. n timpul mpratului Augustus fiul
de familie avea dreptul de a dispune prin acte
ntre vii de bunurile ce alctuiau peculiul
castrense precum i dreptul de a dispune de
ele prin testament ns n acest din urm caz
numai ct timp era militar [25]. Ulterior,
mpratul Adrian a recunoscut dreptul de a
dispune prin testament de obiectul peculiului
castrense i militarilor demii, veteranilor
[26]. Fiul de familie nu putea ns transmite
ab intestat peculiul castrense motenitorilor
si legitimi, astfel c n caz de deces al
acestuia naintea tatlui i n lips de
testament peculiul revenea tatlui cu titlu de
peculiu (jure peculii) iar nu cu titlu de
motenire (jure hereditario) [27]. Ulterior,
prin Novela 118 Justinian a asimilat toate
bunurile fiilor de familie cu ale persoanelor
sui juris deferindu-le jure hereditario la
clasele de motenitori create prin aceast
Novel.
c) Peculiul quasicastrense. Peculiul
quasicastrense, introdus n timpul mpratului

exception and the rule was that son was the

owner.
a)
Profecticiu
peculium.
The
profecticiu peculium was made of a group of
goods that pater familias entrusted to the
family son for administration. At the
begining, this peculium was made of a small
cows herd but afterwards it was extended to
other things, too, liable to possession or
quasipossession: slaves, goods, or other
personal estates and even money . Besides the
administration, the son could consume the
goods, lend them, store them at a third party,
he could conclude bussinesses that
exclusively concern the peculium, thus
developping it, but he could not alienate it
free of charge (donations) or liberate the
slaves of the peculium [24].
b) Castrense peculium. The castrense
peculium was made of the entire goods got by
the family son as soldier: soldier pay, military
rewards, gifts from the imperial authorities,
gifts made by the brothers at arms, relatives
or friends, the inheritance given by
wifeduring the military service, the spoils as
well as all that was produced by such things.
These goods were the property of the family
son soldier. During the emperor Augustus,
the family son had the right to possess,
through documents between living persons,
the goods that made the castrense peculium,
as well as the right to possess them through
testament, but in this last case only when he
was soldier [25]. Afterwards, the emperor
Adrian recognized the right also of dismissed
soldiers, of veterans to possess throught
testament the object of the castrense peculium
[26]. But the family son could not ab intestat
transfer the castrense peculium to his
legitimate heirs, so that, if the son dies before
father and by default of testament, the
peculium came to father as a peculium (jure
peculii) and not as an inheritance (jure
hereditario) [27]. Afterwards, through the
New Law 118 Justinian assimilated all the
goods of the family sons with the goods of
the sui juris persons by jure hereditario
submitting them to the class of heirs made
through this New Law.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

199

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr. 2/2008

Constantin, era compus iniial din bunurile

dobndite de fiul de familie ca funcionar la
curtea mpratului sau din liberalitile
imperiale, fiind ulterior extins la bunurile
ctigate de acesta n calitate de avocat, preot
sau diacon ori ca funcionar salariat al
Statului. Asupra peculiului quasicastrense,
fiul de familie avea aceleai drepturi ca i
asupra peculiului castrense.
d) Bona adventicia. Acest peculiu
creat n timpul mpratului Constantin avea la
nceput ca obiect bunuri ce reveneau fiului
sau fiicei de familie din succesiunea mamei
lor (att din liberalitile testamentare ct i
din succesiunea ab intestat), ulterior el
incluznd i bunurile dobndite de acetia
prin motenire sau prin acte ntre vi de la
rudele mamei, precum i bunurile pe care fiul
sau fiica de familie le dobndea de la soia sa,
de la soul su, de la logodnica sa ori de la
logodnicul su. n timpul lui Justinian
peculiul cuprindea i bunurile pe care fiul sau
fiica de familie le dobndea prin liberalitile
sau succesiunea provenit de la orice alt
persoan cu excepia ascendentului sub a
crui putere se afla precum i acele bunuri
ctigate prin munc dar de o alt natur
dect aceea prin care se contribuia la
dobndirea bunurilor ce fceau parte din
peculiul castrense sau quasicastrense. Asupra
acestui peculiu fiul de familie avea nuda
proprietate iar pater familias avea uzufructul
i administrarea peculiului [28]. Fiul sau fiica
de familie putea dispune cu voia tatlui de
bunurile ce alctuiau obiectul peculiului
numai prin acte ntre vi, nu i prin testament.
De asemenea, ei nu puteau lsa, dup
moartea lor, nuda proprietate cu titlu de
motenire ab intestat, astfel c, dac fiul sau
fiica de familie decedau naintea lui pater
familias acestuia i revenea peculiul (jure
peculii).
[1] M. Charles Demangeat, Cours lmentaire de droit
romain, tome premier, seconde dition, Paris, Maresco
Ain, 1866, p.231.
[2] Gaston May, lments de droit romain, quatrim
dition, Paris, Ancienne Maison L. Larose et Forcel,
1896, p. 72.
[3] E. Molcu, D. Oancea, Drept roman, Casa de

c) Quasicastrense peculium. The

quasicastrense peculium, introduced during
the emperor Constantin, was initially made of
the goods got by the family son as clerk at the
emperors court or of the imperial liberalities,
being afterwards extended at the goods gained by
this as lawyer, priest or deacon or as clerk paid by
the State. Over the quasicastrense peculium, the
family son had the same rights as over the
castrense peculium.
d) Bona adventicia. This peculium
created by the emperor Constantin had, at the
begining, as object, goods that came to the
family son or daughter from their mothers
inheritance (from the testamentary liberalities
as well as from the ab intestat inheritance),
afterwards it including also the goods got by
these through inheritance or through
documents between living persons from the
mothers relatives, as well as the goods that
the family son or daughter got from his wife,
from his husband, from his fiance or from
her fianc. During Justinian, peculium
included also the goods that the family son or
daughter got through liberalities or
theinheritance came from any person
excepted the ancestor under the authority of
whom he/she was, and those goods earned
through work, but of other nature than the
contribution to the obtaining of the goods part
of the castrense or quasicastrense peculium.
Over this peculium, the family son had the
bare ownership and pater familias had the
usufruct and administration of the peculium
[28]. The family son or daughter could
possess, with the fathers will, the goods that
were part of the peculium only through
documents between living persons, not
through testament. Also, they could not let,
after their death, the bare ownership as ab
intestat inheritance, so that, if the family son
or daughter died before pater familias, he
took the peculium (jure peculii).
[1] M. Charles Demangeat, Cours lmentaire de droit
romain, tome premier, seconde dition, Paris, Maresco
Ain, 1866, p.231.
[2] Gaston May, lments de droit romain, quatrim
dition, Paris, Ancienne Maison L. Larose et Forcel,

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

200

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine juridice, Nr. 2/2008
editur i pres ,, ANSA S.R.L., Bucureti, 1997, p.
97-98.
[4] E. Molcu, D. Oancea, p. 98-99.
[5] Paul Frdric Girard, Manuel lmentaire de droit
romain, Paris, Librairie Arthur Rousseau, 1929, p.
150.
[6] Ernest Perrot, Prcis lmentaire de droit romain,
Paris, Socit anonyme du recueil Sirey, 1927, p. 225;
V. M. Ciuc, op. cit., p. 201.
[7] V. Hanga, Drept privat roman, Editura didactic i
pedagogic, Bucureti, 1971, p.125.
[8] G. Danielopolu, Explicaiunea instituiilor lui
Justinian, vol. I, Bucureti, Imprimeria statului, 1899,
p. 164.
[9] C. Accarias, Prcis de droit romain, Paris, tome
premier, quatrim dition, Librairie Cotillon, 1886,
p.188.
[10] Marcian, 5.Dig., De lege Pompeia de parricidiis
(XLVIII, 9), apud G. Danielopolu, op. cit., p. 164.;
Gaston May, op. cit. p. 74.
[11] nstrinarea fiilor de familie putea fi real sau
fictiv. nstrinarea era real cnd copii erau vndui
de prinii lor pentru a scoate un profit pecuniar iar
fictiv cnd se urmrea prin aceasta realizarea altor
obiective precum nchirierea muncii fiului, amanetarea
acestuia, emanciparea sau adopiunea sa.
[12] G. S. Longinescu, Elemente de drept roman, vol
II, Tipografia Societii Anonime Curierul judiciar,
Bucureti, 1929, p.649.
[13] C. t. Tomulescu, Drept privat roman, Tipografia
Universitii din Bucureti, 1975. p. 142.
[14] V. M. Ciuc, Lecii de drept roman, vol. I, Editura
Polirom, Bucureti, 1998, p. 165; G. S. Longinescu,
op. cit. p. 649.
[15] Gaston May, op. cit. p. 74
[16] Cel care, cu tirea prinilor, lua un copil
abandonat, putea s l pstreze fie ca pe un copil aflat
sub putere printeasc, fie chiar ca rob, aceast regul
fiind stabilit de ctre mpratul Constantin.
[17] G. Danielopolu, op. cit., p. 166.
[18] C. Accaris, op. cit. p. 188.
[19] Paul Frdric Girard, op. cit. p. 153.
[20] M. V. Jakot, Dreptul roman, vol. II, Editura
Fundaiei Chemare Iai, 1993, p. 261.
[21] M. V. Jakot, op. cit., p.266-267.
[22] E. Molcu, D. Oancea, op.cit., p. 98.
[23] M. V. Jakot, op. cit. p. 262.
[24] V. M. Ciuc, op. cit. p. 205.
[25] Gaston May, op. cit. p. 75.
[26] G. Danielopolu, op. cit., p. 495.
[27] Gaston May, op. cit. p. 75

[28] Ernest Perrot, op. cit. p. 313; Gaston

May, op. cit. p. 75

1896, p. 72.
[3] E. Molcu, D. Oancea, Roman Law, Casa de editur
i pres ,, ANSA S.R.L., Bucharest, 1997, p. 97-98.
[4] E. Molcu, D. Oancea, p. 98-99.
[5] Paul Frdric Girard, Manuel lmentaire de droit
romain, Paris, Librairie Arthur Rousseau, 1929, p. 150.
[6] Ernest Perrot, Prcis lmentaire de droit romain,
Paris, Socit anonyme du recueil Sirey, 1927, p. 225;
V. M. Ciuc, op. cit., p. 201.
[7] V. Hanga, Private Roman Law, Didactic and
pedagogic publishing house, Bucharest, 1971, p.125.
[8] G. Danielopolu, Explanations of the Institutions of Justinian, vol. I,
Bucharest, State printery house, 1899, p. 164.
[9] C. Accarias, Prcis de droit romain, Paris, tome
premier, quatrim dition, Librairie Cotillon, 1886,
p.188.
[10] Marcian, 5.Dig., De lege Pompeia de parricidiis
(XLVIII, 9), apud G. Danielopolu, the cited work, p.
164.; Gaston May, the cited work p. 74.
[11] The alienation of the family sons could be real or
fictitious. The alienation was real when the children
were sold by their parents for a money profit, and
fictitious when it was followed the achievement of
other objectives, as the renting of the sons work, the
pawning of the son, the mancipation or the adoption of
the son.
[12] G. S. Longinescu, Elements of Roman Law, vol II,
Typography of the Anonimous Company Curierul
judiciar, Bucharest, 1929, p.649.
[13] C. t. Tomulescu, Private Roman Law,
Typography of the University of Bucharest, 1975.
p.142.
[14] V. M. Ciuc, Lessons of Roman Law, vol. I,
Polirom Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998, p. 165; G.
S. Longinescu, the cited work p. 649.
[15] Gaston May, the cited work p. 74
[16] That who, with parents knowledge, took an
abandoned child, could keep him as a child under his
authority, or as a slave, this rule being set out by the
emperor Constantin.
[17] G. Danielopolu, the cited work , p. 166.
[18] C. Accaris, the cited work p. 188.
[19] Paul Frdric Girard the cited work p. 153.
[20] M. V. Jakot, The Roman Law, vol. II, The
Publishing House of the Foundation Chemare Iai,
1993, p. 261.
[21] M. V. Jakot, the cited work, p.266-267.
[22] E. Molcu, D. Oancea, the cited work, p. 98.
[23] M. V. Jakot, the cited work p. 262.
[24] V. M. Ciuc, the cited work p. 205.
[25] Gaston May, the cited work p. 75.
[26] G. Danielopolu, the cited work, p. 495.
[27] Gaston May, the cited work p. 75

[28] Ernest Perrot, the cited work p. 313;

Gaston May, the cited work p. 75

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, No. 2/2008

201