The Roman family after the advent of Christianity has been widely discussed in Roman History. Different historians have looked at the topic in different ways. There are two articles at hand, which deal with this very topic. Brent Shaw, The family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine and Douglas ORoark, Parenthood in Late Antiquity. Both historians are looking at the family in late antiquity, after the time that Christianity was introduced to the Roman society. Through an analysis of the two essays and references to the classical period it can be seen that: The Roman family has always been an important institution in their society, its composition, roles and the functions changed little after the advent of Christianity. The Essays Each of the historians has a solid central argument, and their essays are laid out well. Shaw seeks to show the structure and the functions of the Roman family in late antiquity.
He also seeks to clear up misconceptions of the Roman family. ORoarks argument seeks to show the closeness of the parents and children in the Roman family. The important thing to realize is that both of these essays are looking at the Roman family in the same period, late antiquity, after the advent of Christianity. Also important to note is both of these essays to not specifically talk about the impact of Christianity on the family. The essays can be used to reference against each other and against the Roman family in the Classical period. Information on the Classical period is given in G. Nathans article: Two Traditions. With the three essays one can come to a good conclusion about the impact of Christianity on the Roman family. In interest of paper length the essays have been narrowed down to include only central topics. First looking at similarities, then differences. Children This is the first main aspect of the family that both historians look at.
The Essay on Rome The Roman Christianity Military Romans
The most influential event in history is the fall of Rome, more specifically was the introduction of Christianity. The Roman people's values changed from being conquer all and take over the world to bring peace and prosperity to the world without violence. Since everyone was following Christianity and it said to turn the other cheek if someone hits you in the face, no one wanted to fight for the ...
The first point Shaw brings up is that main purpose of childbearing. This was for the wife to produce a heir for the husband . The father organized the whole house around this, in preparation a son to take everything over when he died . ORoark states that a major factor in having children was to love and to care for them . He however cannot deny that before this the realization is that the father must have children to pass everything on to . In this idea ORoark says that the childs role is to live life in preparation for this transfer from the father .
Initially this was the main purpose of children, especially sons, in the classical period as well . The next idea about children concerns the benefits of having them. First, children can provide is economic support to the family. Shaw recognizes that weather intended or not, children were often needed to contribute to the family income . ORoark in a similar way says there is a common desire for many children . After a general read of the article I have concluded that one of the reasons he says this is the fact children could be an economic resource to the family.
ORoark provides more detail, saying that to few children can hurt the economy of the family, while to many can drain it . Clearly he recognizes childrens economic advantage. This economic contribution of children was also very valued in the Classical period . Shaw points out the other valuable role of the child was to care for the parents in old age. This is the idea that children would be the ones who helped aging parents, and eventually buried them . Oroark points out that for parents in old age who had nothing to fall back on .
Children were their supporters in old age . In the classical period children were to support the parents in old age and deal with their burial . Through these examples the reader can see that children always had some important role in the Roman family. Parent-Child Relations This is the other main area the two essays examine in common. This is a similar topic to children, but it is significant enough to be separated. The bulk of significance is put on the father-son relations. The Shaw article mainly focuses on this.
The Research paper on Relationship Between Parents and Children in Chinese Family
Meanwhile, Chinese parents, like the mother in Amy Tan’s article, have too much expectation to their children’s future career and give them painful stress. Certainly, this kind of parents mentioned above cannot form a benign relationship with their children, especially adolescents in the rebellious period. The point is the relationship between parents and children in Chinese family is conflicting ...
Shaw subscribes to the idea of patria potestas; this is the idea that the oldest living male, in most cases the father, was master of all in the family. This included the wife, children, and other under the roof . Right from the start the relationship between father and son is one of unequal balance. The father was dominant, and if you were the son you were to obey your father . Everything that the son did and everything that he owned was subject to his fathers dominance. The son had a love – fear relationship with father .
In turn what the son got out of this relationship was the fact his father was the one that took care of him, and in death he would get all that was his fathers. The father was to keep the son in line so that he will be responsible in taking over the estate. In regards to discipline Shaw says that fathers must discipline and domesticate their sons. The father was the teacher, and the son was the learner . With this information it can be seen both got something out of the relationship. The father got the benefits of his son as well as a heir, and the son got to claim all that was his fathers when he died. Shaw alludes to the fact that the father son relationship could provoke tension as well.
The son may not want to wait to his fathers death to get full autonomy. This could lead to tension in which the son wants to be away from the father or may resent him for his power. Next ORoark puts forth some of the same ideas. ORoark tends to dwell more on the emotional attachment to children, but still shows similarities to Shaws findings. ORoark says that in the time of antiquity the child was still under their father as master of the family . ORoark says it is the fathers job to teach the son and to make him proper.
The Essay on Father and Son Relationship, Angela’s Ashes
One of the strongest things in this world is the love that forms between a father and his son. Many boys grow up with the desire to be just like their fathers but for Frank McCourt having an alcoholic father causes him to grow up with the mentality of being the opposite of him. In Angela’s Ashes the interesting relationship between Frank and Malachy creates positive and negative impacts on ...
What the father is not able to do, he is to get tutors to help with. . I have concluded this is to get the son ready for responsibility when he is head of the family. This is similar to what Shaw implies. Shaw also talks about possible tension that may exist in the relationship. There is the notion that the father had to be careful not to put to much pressure on the son, else the son may lash out and strike the father .
Once again both historians ideas are similar to those of the Classical period. In the Classical period the son was under the role of his father as the master . The sons position had always been submissive to the father . As well in the Classical period sons got all that was the fathers at time of death . Something worthy to note is that ORoark goes into some talk of the mother-daughter relationship, whereas Shaw does not. ORoark says that the role of the Mother was similar to that of the father, but pertained mostly disciplinarian role .
It was the mother that was to teach the daughter all that she had to know . As fathers taught sons to one day take over all he had, the mother daughters to be a proper wife and the duties that went with her role . In the classical period the role of the mother was similar. In the classical period the wife was the second in command . The mother was to teach the daughter what she needed to survive in society, especially the aspects of being a good wife Roman family structure This is the first major point of contrast between the two essays. One of the central points in the Shaw essay is the layout and structure of the Roman family.
Shaw first mentions that, as stated before, the father was the head of the household and all of its members were under him . Shaw mentions slaves as part of the structure of the family, and subject to the fathers rule . Slaves were also a significant part of the family structure in the classical period . Shaw says the structure of the family could exist not just of the nuclear family, but also included grandparents, slaves, in-laws, boarders, or any other people that may reside under the same roof . Shaw states that the structure of the household could contain not only a wife, but a concubine as well . With these examples Shaw seeks to prove that the structure of the family was not just how we see the typical family today. Instead he says that the nuclear family was the core of the structure but the family could branch out much like a tree to include many other members, such as mentions above . As well in the classical period the family consisted of the nuclear family as well as extended family .
The Essay on Gender Roles & Family Structure Changes
Today, people realize and see that there is not the same consensus of family dynamics and lifestyles that the 1950's demonstrated when "the family life and gender roles became much more predictable" (Coontz 36). An analysis of Stephanie Coontz's, What We Really Miss About the 1950's, along with the episodes of Leave It To Beaver, have revealed certain roles and structure of a quintessential family ...
The ORoark essay is different. The difference is very simple. ORoark does not directly look at the family structure. The only family ORoark mentions is the nuclear family. His essay is one that looks at the relationships between the parents and the children; therefore there is no talk of any extended family structure. The two essays contrast on the topic not because they disagree, but rather one mentions family structure, as one of its main points and the other does not. Husband Wife Relations The other major contrast between the two essays is talk of the husband-wife relationship in the Christian period.
Once again it is the Shaw essay that talks about the subject, the ORoark one that leaves it out. Shaw states the husb ….
