Hacker News Reader

Comment by cafard | Hacker News Reader

Isn't intrafamily killing more or less a staple of ancient literature? Cain/Abel, Romulus/Remus, Clytemnestra/Agamemnon, etc.

There is quite a high local murder rate at the moment, but most of that seems to result from drug-business disputes, or simply the availability of firearms to settle neighborhood disputes.

View on HN

It was. Every time I hear people grumble about criminals walking free (which, admittedly, is infuriating) and that we should be allowed to settle things "like we used to", I think back to how disputes between families could be so bitter that you might not even be able to leave your own home. And these disputes could last for generations.

Rule of law certainly has its benefits.

Under Roman law, the paterfamilias (i.e., the eldest adult male of the extended family) had the right to kill any other family member, at his pleasure. He could also control who (or even if) they married, sell them into slavery, etc.

"Over time, the absolute authority of the pater familias weakened, and rights that theoretically existed were no longer enforced or insisted upon. The power over life and death was abolished, the right of punishment was moderated and the sale of children was restricted to cases of extreme necessity. Under Emperor Hadrian, a father who killed his son was stripped of both his citizenship and all its attendant rights, had his property confiscated and was permanently exiled."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias

Yeah, it obviously changed over time, and is no longer in effect today.

Hadrian was quite late in Roman history, far closer to its collapse than its founding.

German Wikipedia refers to this authority as "closely watched" for abuse by public officials; there being reports of such abuse, but only a few of them; and it being a "mostly symbolic" right. There are fifteen cases of killings known to us, and in almost all of them, the punishment would also have been due to other legal constructs.

None of this contradicts anything you said, I'm just adding some context. Roman heads of family obviously weren't habitually killing relatives all the time.

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_Potestas

> far closer to its collapse than its founding

Sorry, this isn't really an important point, but I found it quite implausible so I checked. Hadrian ruled until 165 years after the founding of Rome. It continued for another 257 years.

Roman empire: 27 BC – AD 395 (as a unified entity)

Hadrian: was Roman emperor from 117 to 138

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

Roman Empire was a direct continuation of the Roman Republic (indeed, for most people living at the time, they didn't even perceive it as a breaking point). It's certainly not a valid date for the "founding of Rome".

Rome was around for many centuries before the Roman Empire began. The traditional date for the founding of Rome is 753 BC (while there's no certainty in this date, it's probably not off by very much). It was a kingdom for about 250 years, then a republic for about 500 years, and only then did it become an empire.

Rome had been in existence for over 800 years before Hadrian assumed power.

Many people don't realize that Rome had a republic and then lost it. Probably more people should know that, and learn about how it happened.

And Rome would endure for another thousand years, give or take, after Hadrian, even if its capital wasn't in Italy anymore...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com