139
mandated an equal division of the estate among the so-called sui heredes in potestate, the natural heirs still subject to paternal authority at the moment of their father's death. In the absence of natural heirs in potestate, the estate then passed to the nearest agnatic kinsmen, then the more distant, and so on (Inst. Iust. 2.13.5, 3.1.1; Ulp. 26.1). What remains uncertain is whether sons had a binding obligation at this time to make offerings to their father even if they failed to inherit property from him. Hence an attempt to determine whether the cult of the dead was at its inception rooted in kinship or property would be fruitless. One may, however, safely conclude that as the inheritance provisions of Roman law became more flexible, and fewer and fewer individuals bequeathed the entirety of their estate to their natural heirs, property steadily undermined whatever role kinship had originally played in the cult, and ultimately triumphed completely.
69
Questions of this sort can be easily multiplied, but we may suitably conclude by considering a second aspect of the cult that centres on the exercise of paternal authority as well as rights in property. This is the source of the belief that the spirits of the deceased may act with benevolence or malevolence toward the living. Here again, anthropologists present dramatically conflicting points of view. Lambert, Triandis and Wolf believe the attribution of malevolent activity to one's ancestors to be a reflection of punitive practices in infant and child rearing. The opposite point of view has been nicely summed up by Gough in a paper on the Nayars, in which she concludes that "cults of predominately punitive ancestors are likely to be accompanied by kinship relationships in which the senior generation retains control over the junior until late in life." The work of Jack Goody among the LoDagaa has powerfully reinforced this verdict. The elders of this tribe tenaciously exercise their rights in position and property until the moment of death — an event that is therefore hoped for as well as feared; when it comes, the death arouses joy as well as sadness, the inheritance brings guilt as well as pleasure. Guilt engenders a sense of fear, and encourages the living to believe that their misfortunes result from the hostility of an injured and vengeful ancestor.
139
mandated an equal division of the estate among the so-called sui heredes in potestate, the natural heirs still subject to paternal authority at the moment of their father's death. In the absence of natural heirs in potestate, the estate then passed to the nearest agnatic kinsmen, then the more distant, and so on (Inst. Iust. 2.13.5, 3.1.1; Ulp. 26.1). What remains uncertain is whether sons had a binding obligation at this time to make offerings to their father even if they failed to inherit property from him. Hence an attempt to determine whether the cult of the dead was at its inception rooted in kinship or property would be fruitless. One may, however, safely conclude that as the inheritance provisions of Roman law became more flexible, and fewer and fewer individuals bequeathed the entirety of their estate to their natural heirs, property steadily undermined whatever role kin- ship had originally played in the cult, and ultimately triumphed completely.
69
Questions of this sort can be easily multiplied, but we may suitably conclude by considering a second aspect of the cult that centres on the exercise of paternal authority as well as rights in property. This is the source of the belief that the spirits of the deceased may act with benevolence or malevolence toward the living. Here again, anthropologists present dramatically conflict- ing points of view. Lambert, Triandis and Wolf believe the attribution of malevolent activity to one's ancestors to be a reflection of punitive practices in infant and child rearing." The opposite point of view has been nicely summed up by Gough in a paper on the Nayars, in which she concludes that "cults of predominately punitive ancestors are likely to be accompanied by kinship relationships in which the senior generation retains control over the junior until late in life."70 The work of Jack Goody among the LoDagaa has powerfully reinforced this verdict. The elders of this tribe tenaciously exercise their rights in position and property until the moment of death "an event that is therefore hoped for as well as feared; when it comes, the death arouses joy as well as sadness, the inheritance brings guilt as well as pleasure."" Guilt engenders a sense of fear, and encourages the living to believe that their misfortunes result from the hostility of an injured and vengeful ancestor.”
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.