250 NOTES TO PAGES 144–155
48 Gellius, NA 2.24.14 (Augustus’ legislation); Tacitus, Ann. 3.52–5 (Tiberius’
inability to enforce it); Cassius Dio 61.10.3 (Seneca’s hypocrisy); on the house
as a status symbol, Saller (1984a).
49 Saller (1984a), 352; (1982), 127–9; Mohler (1931).
50 Hopkins (1983c), ch.3; Hammond (1957).
51 Champlin (1981).
52 ILS 7457, with Rostovtzeff (1957), 331.
53 Dobson (1974a) and (1974b).
54 Garnsey (1975) and (1981), 369ff.; Gordon (1931).
55 Oliver (1970).
56 Garnsey (1975).
Notes to Chapter 9
1 Brunt (1971), app. 9; Csillag (1976). Our discussion relates to Rome, Italy and
the West. For patria potestas (or its absence) in Egypt, see Taubenschlag (1955),
130–49; Lewis (1970); P. Oxy. XLIV 3197, XLVI 3289 (references supplied by
D. Rathbone).
2 Saller (1986).
3 A recent, welcome exception is Rawson (1986), with an excellent introduction
and extensive annotated bibliography by the editor.
4 Crook (1967b), 114.
5 For what follows see Saller (1984a).
6 Flandrin (1979), 4–10.
7 Saller (1987b); on authoritarianism in the late antique family, see Shaw
(1987a).
8 Saller (1984a), 348–9.
9 Emphasized by Laslett (1972) and Sieder and Mitterauer (1982), among others.
10 On separate residences for adult sons, see below p. 163. Crook (1967b), 117,
notes that in the handful of literary passages about brothers in a consortium ,
the families tend to be poor and so have a special incentive to avoid splitting the
family estate. Plutarch, Aem. Paul. 5.5, says explicitly that the Aelii Tuberones
displayed antique virtue in living on a single, undivided estate, that brothers in
his day made every effort to separate their property clearly to avoid confl ict.
11 Saller and Shaw (1984a), 136–7 with n. 49.
12 Corbett (1930), chs. 3–4; Watson (1975), chs. 1–3; (1967), ch. 3; Crook
(1986a).
13 On the legal implications of marriage sine manu see Crook (1967a), 99–107
and Corbett (1930), ch. 3.
14 Crook (1986a) (1986b).
15 Corbett (1930), ch. 5.