Greece & Rome

http://journals.cambridge.org/GAR

Additional services for Greece & Rome:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Cicero's Familia Urbana

Andrew Garland

Greece & Rome / Volume 39 / Issue 02 / October 1992, pp 163 - 172

DOI: 10.1017/S0017383500024141, Published online: 07 September 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/

abstract_S0017383500024141

How to cite this article:

Andrew Garland (1992). Cicero's Familia Urbana. Greece & Rome, 39, pp
163-172 doi:10.1017/S0017383500024141

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/GAR, IP address: 137.222.24.34 on 13 Apr 2015

Greece & Rome, Vol. xxxix, No. 2, October 1992

CICERO'S FAMILIA URBANA

By ANDREW GARLAND

The aim of this article is to demonstrate that Cicero had a relatively small
number of slaves in his urban household, reflecting his modest wealth
compared to that of some Romans. The argument follows three lines.
Firstly, there were relatively few job titles among the slaves of Cicero
compared, for example, to those of the household of Augustus' wife Livia.
This reflects Livia's relative prosperity, for the wealthier the household the
more specialists it could support. The converse also follows: Cicero had
fewer slaves with job titles, reflecting the smaller size of his household.
Secondly, even those slaves in the household of Cicero who appear to be
specialists because they had job titles were not really so since the tasks they
were given were not as narrowly defined as their specific job titles suggest.
Thirdly, other evidence from Cicero's correspondence and elsewhere
suggests that Cicero's household was relatively small compared to other
elite households of the Late Republic and Early Imperial period.
Cicero's administrators will be considered first. To handle financial
matters he had an actuarius (bookkeeper) supervised by Philotimus, his
dispensator (steward). Tiro, an ad manum (personal secretary), was also
used when matters proved burdensome, even though he was untrained in
financial matters. Other secretarial staff included librarii (clerks who
doubled as copyists) and tabellarii (messengers). Therefore Cicero's house-
hold had several administrators, but the total number of individuals
involved appears small.
Livia's household was (next to that of the Emperor himself) one of the
wealthiest, and it had far more administrators. Her financial staff consisted
of dispensatores (stewards), supervised by a procurator castrensis, arcarii
(keepers of the chest), and tabularii (record keepers), who were backed by
specialists such as a slave ad possessiones.1 Several others were required
specifically to guard her possessions.2 She also had her own slave insularii
(rent collectors for urban properties), unlike Cicero who had to rely on a
middleman.3 The job titles of many of Livia's secretarial staff match those
of Cicero,4 but this is deceptive. Her staff was clearly much larger: several
of her secretarial freedmen had their own slaves.
Among Livia's domestics were a hall-porter (atriensis) and for the
164 CICERO'S FAMILIA URBANA
bedroom a whole series of attendants: cubicularii (valets), a supra cubicu-
larius in charge, ornatrices (dressers), tonsores (barbers), an unctrix (mas-
seur), and an ad vestem (person in charge of the clothes) are attested.5 By
contrast there were few job titles among Cicero's domestics. A single
cubicularius (valet) was taken to Cilicia.6 Plutarch recorded the existence
of a doorkeeper in Cicero's household: 'There came to the house of Cicero
at midnight men who were the leading and most powerful Romans, Marcus
Crassus, Marcus Marcellus, and Scipio Metellus. Summoning the door-
keeper they bade him wake Cicero and tell him they were there.'7 In both
cases the use of the singular is instructive. On no occasion does Cicero
mention any other job titles for his domestics in his works. Generally when
Cicero referred to his domestics he used vague terms such as 'servi et
ancillae'8 and 'domesticis'.9 The lack of job titles among Cicero's domestics
showed that he owned too few slaves to allocate them to a particular job,
again reflecting how much smaller his household was than Livia's.
Slaves of lowly status were also used to facilitate the travel of the
wealthy. However, Cicero does not seem to have required many slaves for
this purpose. He probably walked while in Rome10 and seems to have used
only a litter rather than a raeda (carriage) for long distance travel.11 Livia's
requirements were on a different scale to Cicero's. She had several litters,
probably a raeda also, and consequently required the support staff to
match.12 The number of slaves involved in facilitating Livia's travel was far
higher in her household than in Cicero's. That she was able to support so
many more slaves reflects her greater wealth.
Dinner preparation would have required a large number of domestics.
Above them would have been specialists such as cooks and a cellarius
(butler). Cicero mentions a cook,13 but not a cellarius. Probably it was not
an independent function in Cicero's household: the keys to the storeroom
could easily have been held by one of his trusted freedmen - Philotimus
perhaps.14 Far more specialists seem to have been involved in food prepara-
tion in the household of Livia. A female stores' clerk (libraria cellaria),
numerous cooks, and an opsonator (buyer of provisions) are all recorded.15
The entertainment provided by Cicero at dinner was simple. A single job
title survives, that of anagnosta (reader).16 The main entertainment during
his dinner parties seems to have been that of eloquent conversation. Of his
dinner with Caesar, Cicero observed: 'It was a splendid meal, elegantly
served and not only that but cooked and flavoured well. And with good talk
- why most enjoyable.'17 The inscriptions of the household of Livia also
only yield a reader.18 However, evidence of job titles from other wealthy
households suggests entertainment in some households was on a far
r
CICERO'S FAMILIA URBANA 165

grander scale than that of Cicero's. Carcopino, while recounting the

general pattern of Roman life among the upper classes, observed: 'It was
very generally felt that no dinner party was complete without the buffoon-
eries of clowns, antic triads of wantons around the tables or lascivious
dances to the clatter of castanets.'19
Much of the entertainment and waitering was provided by those vernae
(home born slaves) who were too young for greater responsibilities. Piso
was taken to task by Cicero for using old slaves as waiters: 'You will find in
Piso no good taste, no refinement, no elegance ... slatternly slaves do the
waitering, some even old men .. .'20 Livia's household seems to have
contained plenty of young vernae. She is recorded to have enjoyed being
surrounded by a troop of naked children and had far more doctors and
wetnurses than were necessary for her own children.21 There is, by
contrast, a surprising absence of any mention of vernae in Cicero's house-
hold. It is possible that Tiro was a vema; certainly Cicero had him when he
was an adolescent.22 Sositheus 'the charming lad' who died23 may also have
been a vema. However, there are no signs of the numbers of vernae
attested for the household of Atticus. His biographer Nepos observed that
the household contained 'highly educated slaves, excellent readers, and
numerous copiers, every one of them born and trained in the household'.24
The lack of any indication of substantial numbers of vernae in Cicero's
household reflects the small size of his household compared to that of some
Romans.
Economic self-sufficiency was one of the ideals of every wealthy Roman
landowner. The number of craftsmen a Roman possessed within his own
household was consquently a good indication of his wealth. The job title of
only one craftsman can be traced among Cicero's slaves. Cicero mentioned
an operarius when he was recounting to Atticus the absconding of several
of his freedmen: 'I am much less surprised about the other, a mere
mechanic, though he too is a thorough-paced scamp.'25 The word used,
operarius (mechanic), is significant. It implies a 'jack of all trades' rather
than a worker trained for a specific task such as plumbing or carpentry. It is
possible that for minor jobs the operarius would have supervised several of
Cicero's untrained slaves while they carried out the work. Only if the task
was a major one, such as the building of a wall, or indeed a new house,
would an independent contractor have to be called in.26
No slaves are mentioned in connection with wool production. It is likely
Cicero had slaves who could sew and repair, though they need not have
been specialists. In contrast, the craftsmen of the household of Livia were
both numerous and specialized. Sarcinatores (menders), quasillariae
166 CICERO'S FAMIL1A URBANA
(spinners), and textores (weavers) were involved in wool production, while
structores (builders), fabri (workers), and an aquarius (plumber) main-
tained the house.27 Livia was far closer to the reality of self-sufficiency than
Cicero.
The ability to support specialist professionals such as doctors and
teachers is probably the most accurate test for the wealth of a household.
Livia's prosperity is left in no doubt by this test. She had five doctors, a sick
bay, and sufficient wealth to be able to provide paedogogi for others.28
Cicero's situation could not have been more different. While in Rome
Cicero seems to have been able to use a doctor named Alexio without any
charge.29 However, Alexio's obligations do not seem to have extended
outside Rome. When Tiro fell ill at Patrae, Cicero was forced to pay a local
freelance doctor.30 As Cicero was constantly travelling between properties
it would have made sense to have had a doctor as personal attendant. That
he did not do so must point to inadequate funds. As for a teacher, he had to
borrow Pomponius Dionysius from Atticus and was unable to get another
teacher when he decamped.31 Pomponius Dionysius seems to have felt
there were better rewards to be had in other households. That Cicero was
unable to replace him indicates that he was probably right.
A second point demonstrating the small size of Cicero's household was
that even those slaves with specific job titles were not true specialists as
they were given numerous tasks beyond the strict scope of those specified
by their job titles. That Cicero required each of his slaves to carry out
varied tasks, despite their apparently specialized job titles, is a reflection of
the small size of his household overall.
This even applied to Cicero's senior slaves. Tiro, Cicero's ad manum
(personal secretary), as well as acting as secretary was required to entertain
guests,32 prepare a dinner,33 supervise the tabellarii (messengers)34 and
copiers,35 catalogue his books,36 and assist his master in his literary work.37
He was, in the absence of Philotimus (the steward), even asked to help with
the bookkeeping,38 to assist Atticus in conducting divorce negotiations,39
and to collect debts40 despite being totally untrained in financial matters.
Indeed, Cicero himself observed how much Tiro did: 'He (Tiro) is extra-
ordinarily useful to me when well in all sorts of ways, both in business and
in my literary work.'41
Tiro was not unique among Cicero's senior slaves in carrying out numer-
ous and varied tasks. The dispensator (steward), Philotimus, theoretically
only supposed to be in charge of the distribution of cash within the town
house, had to act as treasurer for all Cicero's estates. He was also asked to
deliver letters42 and accompany Cicero on his election campaign.43 At the
 CICERO'S FAMILIA URBANA 167

same time he was Terentia's freedman and therefore presumably respons-

ible for all her affairs. Therefore, despite Philotimus' apparently specific
job title, he was not just a specialist financier, but expected to carry out
other jobs also, again therefore reflecting Cicero's inability to support a
true specialist.
The same pattern of slaves with job titles being set a large number of
tasks is repeated among Cicero's lesser slaves. Cicero's secretarial slaves,
for instance, were to be found carrying out numerous non-secretarial tasks.
A tabellarius (messenger) was sent to Tiro to keep him company when he
was ill: 'I send you Aegypta to stay with you, because he is not without
culture, and is, I believe, fond of you.'44 However, it was his librarii (in most
households specialist copiers or clerks) who were given the most tasks of
all. Librarii were used to deliver letters,45 purchase books,46 escort
Marcus,47 and even to arrange the building of a wall.48 Therefore, it seems
that Cicero regarded his librarii as general purpose slaves, rather than the
specialist clerks and copiers the job title suggests.
It was the literacy of the librarii which explains their suitability for many
tasks. Consequently it is of no surprise to find that Cicero's other educated
slaves were also required for more tasks than their job titles suggest. One of
the apedibus (personal attendants), Pollex, was used to intercept a letter,49
accept Cluvius' will as representative of Cicero on Cicero's instructions,50
and was given financial details Cicero did not wish to repeat in a letter,51
while his anagnosta (reader), as well as reading to Cicero his private
matters, was responsible for the library 52 and was sent to enquire the
whereabouts of Domitius from his son.53 Finally, the slave bookkeeper
Eros, in most hpuseholds given that task alone, was in Cicero's expected to
collect loans on behalf of Cicero54 and to bring back messages.55
Even the menials in Cicero's household seem to have been expected to
perform more than one task. The only direct evidence for this is that of the
atriensis (hall-porter) who was expected not only to usher in guests, but
also to keep the hall clean.56 Nevertheless, the job titles of the domestics
suggest that they generally carried out more than one task. The reference
to 'domesticis convictionibus' (domestic entourage), for instance,57 prob-
ably indicates each 'domesticus' was not connected to a single room, while
the services of his 'servi et ancillae'58 (menservants and maidservants)
could easily have been required outside, as well as inside, the bedroom.
The conclusion is that all of Cicero's slaves were expected to carry out
more than one task - a stark contrast to the specialists of Livia's house-
hold.59 Of all the slaves and freedmen involved with the house of Cicero,
only his teacher and doctor were true specialists. These were the very men
168 CICERO'S FAM1LIA URBANA

who were independent of Cicero's household: both were freedmen tied only
by obligations to render services to their former master when requested.
Indeed, Dionysius was a freedman of Atticus, not Cicero. That Cicero was
unable to have such men on his permanent staff should come as no
surprise: he lacked the resources to attract such specialists on a permanent
basis.
There is further indirect evidence that some Romans, other than Livia,
of the Late Republic and Early Imperial period were able to support more
slaves than Cicero.
Atticus was one Roman who was clearly wealthier than his close friend
Cicero. This can be seen by the way in which he had sufficient resources to
lend Cicero the specialists he lacked when Cicero needed them. It was
Atticus, for instance, who had sufficient copiers to make the circulation of
Cicero's writings possible.60 He also had specialists to correct the mistakes
in Cicero's works,61 to glue Cicero's books together,62 and to build Cicero
some smart bookshelves.63 It was Atticus who provided Cicero with a
teacher for his son. Atticus also lent Cicero general purpose slaves on
occasion; Philadelphus to boost the number of slaves accompanying Cicero
whilst on election campaign64 and probably Nicanor to assist Cicero with
his governorship of Cilicia.65 Cicero's use of Atticus' slaves shows several
things. Firstly, there were some Romans who were not even senators, such
as Atticus, who were wealthier than Cicero. Secondly, specialists did exist
in some households, such as Atticus', in the Late Republican period, even if
they did not exist in Cicero's. Thirdly, the fact that Cicero had to borrow
another attendant for his election campaign may reflect that his own
retinue was small compared to that of the other senators who were
campaigning. In the same way, the need for Nicanor may well reflect that
Cicero's resources were generally small compared to other governors -
since it was expected that a governor would have sufficient resources
within his own household to enable him to administer his allocated
province, and that Cicero was unable to do so would suggest that Cicero's
household was smaller than that of most of those eligible to become
governors. Cato the Younger, serving as military tribune in 67 B.C., had
with him 15 slaves, 2 liberti, and 4 amid, Scipio Africanus had with him 5
slaves, and Caesar 3, both probably similar retinues to Cicero's own, once
Nicanor had been added.66 Therefore, the general impression is that
Cicero's wealth was relatively modest compared to those other senators
who were sufficiently powerful to stand for election or to be given a
governorship.
The small number of attendants who escorted Cicero compared to those
 CICERO'S FAMILIA URBANA 169

who escorted the most powerful Romans in the Late Republic and Early
Imperial period is another indication of the small size of Cicero's household
in general. Cicero could spare a mere three attendants to escort Marcus.67
Of those three, two had only recently been manumitted,68 indeed they may
have been manumitted so that they would be of suitable status to escort
Marcus, while the third, Marcus' tutor, was not even Cicero's own freed-
man. Cicero himself seems to have had few slaves escorting him. He took
Dionysius alone to Tusculum, although even he thought such a small
number of educated slaves sufficiently unusual to need to explain himself:
'I have taken nobody away with me except Dionysius, but I am not afraid
of running short of conversation in such delightful company.'69 This
compares with the fictitious Trimalchio for whom an escort of eleven
slaves was felt appropriate when he went to the baths70 and the historical
Musicus Scurranus, slave of Tiberius, who had 16 slaves with him when he
died.71 The lack of attendants escorting Cicero compared to those who
escorted some wealthy Romans, therefore, constitutes clear evidence that
there were Roman senators of the Late Republic and Early Imperial period
who had greater resources than Cicero.
There are, finally, a few incidental references which indicate that there
were Romans with greater resources than Cicero in the Late Republic.
Cassius Barba, for instance, was of sufficient wealth to be able to lend
Cicero some guards when Caesar came to dinner,72 and Caesar to lend
Cicero some money.73 Lucullus had a splendid library which Cicero loved
to visit, and provided Cicero and Pompey with a meal that cost 200,000
HS.74 To put that in perspective, Cicero received only circa 100,000 HS per
annum from one of his most lucrative urban properties.75 Brutus had
agents abroad, such as in Salamis, hinting at a wealth Cicero could but
dream of.76 Finally Crassus was the wealthiest of all: he is reported to have
had 200 million sesterces, the largest fortune in the Republic.77
Other evidence also demonstrates that Cicero only had a small number
of slaves in total. In one letter to his wife he suggested shutting down his
operations at Rome and transferring the slaves to Arpinum: 'You can
conveniently occupy the farm at Arpinum with our town staff of servants if
the price of provisions has risen.'78 That Cicero seriously believed all his
urban slaves could be accommodated in a single farm must illustrate that
Cicero had few slaves overall, even at Rome.
Our conclusions: Cicero's modest wealth is shown by his possession of
relatively few slaves in relation to the number possessed by some more
wealthy Romans. This is based on the assumption that all Romans kept the
maximum number of slaves that their income could support. In Cicero's
170 CICERO'S FAMILIA URBANA

case this seems to have been true. Two separate pieces of evidence - firstly
that he had to contemplate closing his house at Rome due to the expense,79
and secondly that he was unable to find another teacher once Dionysius
had decamped80 - suggest that his financial resources were stretched to
their limit. His request for Atticus' help in his finances,81 his determination
to call in his debts,82 and his almost permanent need for new loans are all
further illustrations of the fact that Cicero's household was at the maxi-
mum size, indeed probably beyond the maximum size, that his income
could support. Since other households (including those of Atticus and
Livia) were able to support much larger numbers of urban slaves with less
apparent strain on their finances, it is clear that Cicero should be regarded
as only a moderately wealthy Roman in spite of his political success.
Secondly, and more crucially, despite the fact that Cicero was only
moderately wealthy, he was able to play a full role in public life, and
achieve honours equal to those of any millionaire. Indeed, Cicero proved
able to reach beyond the achievement of all but a few of most select
aristocratic families and reach the very top post of consul. Of course as
Habicht has recently observed83 it was extremely rare for a novus homo to
become consul. It was rarer still for a novus homo to become consul and
remain independent. Nevertheless, the fact that Cicero became consul
proves that it was possible to attain high political office in Republican
Rome even if one was an only moderately wealthy novus homo.

NOTES
1. S. Treggiari, 'Jobs in the Household of Livia', Papers of the British School at Rome 43 (1975),
48-77.
2. An ab argento, ab supplectile, and an a tabulis are all attested; cf. Treggari, ibid.
3. B. W. Frier, 'Cicero's Management of his Urban Properties', CJ 74 (1978), 1-6.
4. The only job titles recorded for administrators in Livia's household are admanum and librarius.
5. Treggiari n. 1.
6. Att. 6.2.5: 'nihil per cubicularium.'
7. Cic. 15.
8. Verr. 2.3.4: 'hunc vestri ianitores, hunc cubicularii diligunt; hunc liberti vestri, hunc servi ancil-
laeque amant; hie cum venit extra ordinem vocatur.'
9. QFr. 1.1.
10. Certainly he was close enough to walk and Milo did as a candidate: Pro Milone 9.25.
11. The use of a raeda (carriage) is only mentioned once for Cicero. This was while he was governor
of Cilicia and, therefore, the carriage could easily have been bought or borrowed for the purpose.
Usually, Cicero used a litter even for long distance travel; for instance he used it to travel from Naples
to Baiae: QFr. 2.10.
12. Although the only job titles which survive for Livia's household are that of stratores (saddlers of
the horse), Treggiari convincingly argues that a household the size of Livia's would also have had
grooms, servants in charge of the carriage, and litter bearers, with a superintendent in charge.
13. AdFam. 9.20.
 CICERO'S FAMILIA URBANA 171

14. The use of locks is widely attested: cf. Pliny N.H. 33.6.
15. Treggiari n. 1.
16. Alt. 1.12.
17. Alt. 13.52.
18. Treggiari n. 1.
19. J. Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome (London, 1941), p. 271; cf. G&R 38 (1991), 75 ff.
20. In Pisonem 67: 'nihil apud hunc lautum, nihil elegans, nihil exquisitum . . . servi sordidati
ministrant, non nulli etiam senes.'
21. Treggiari n. 1.
22. Alt. 7.2.
23. Atl. 1.12.
24. Nep. Alt. 13.
25. An. 12: 'nam de altero illo minus sum admiratus, operario, homine; sed tamen ne illo quidem
quicquam improbius.'
26. Alt. 2.4.
27. Treggiari n. 1.
28. Ibid.
29. All. 15.2: he thinks he will be one of the heirs.
30. Fam. 16.4.
31. The use of Pomponius Dionysius continued smoothly until 50 B.C. (Atl. 5.9). However, Cicero
still does not have another teacher for Marcus in 45 B.C. (Att. 13.2b).
32. Fam. 16.22.
33. Ibid.
34. Atl. 15.8.
35. Fam. 16.22.
36. Fam. 16.20.
37. Atl. 7.5.
38. Att. 15.15.
39. Atl. 16.15.
40. Fam. 16.24.
41. Atl. 7.5: 'etsi mirabilis militates mihi praebet, cum valet, in omni genere vel negotiorum vel
studiorum meorum.'
42. Att. 10.8a.
43. At least presumably he did. Cicero requiring all the attendants he could have mustered would
surely have had such a prestigious slave as Philotimus escorting him.
44. Fam. 16.15: 'ego ad te Aegyptam misi, quod nee inhumanus est et te visus est mihi diligere; ut is
tecum esset.'
45. Atl. 13.19.
46. QFr. 3.5-6.
47. Att. 7.2.
48. Fam. 14.18.
49. Att. 8.5.
50. Att. 13.46, Att. 13.47.
51. Alt. 13.47.
52. Fam. 13.77.
53. Cicero wanted to hear that Domitius had been unable to escape from Italy, so that he could
defend his own failure to join Pompey (All. 9.3).
54. Att. 14.18.
55. Att. 13.50.
56. Farad. 5.37.
57. QFr. 1.1: 'quos vero aut ex domesticis convictionibus aut ex necessariis apparitionibus tecum
esse volusti.'
58. Verr. 2.3.4.
59. Cf. Treggiari n. 1.
60. Fam. 16.22.
61. Att. 13.44.
62. Att. 4.4A.
172 CICERO'S FAMILIA URBANA

63. Ibid.
64. Att. 1.11.
65. Att. 5.20.
66. Plut. Caw 9.4; Athenaeus 273a/b.
67. Att. 7.2.
68. Ibid.
69. Alt. 4.11: 'ego mecum praeter Dionysium eduxi neminem nee metuo tamen ne mihi sermo desit'
70. Petr. 28.
71. /L51514.
72. Att. 13.52: 'dedit custodes.'
73. Att. 7.8.5.
74. Cic.de Fin. 3.2.7, Plut. Luc. 41.5.
75. Att. 15.17.1.
76. Att. 5.21. 0
77. Duncan Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1974), p. 343. T
78. Fam. 14.7: 'fundo Arpinati bene poteris uti cum familia urbana, si annona carior fuerit'
79. Ibid.
80. Att. 13.2b.
81. Att. 13.12.
82. Att. 14.18.
83. Christian Habicht, Cicero the Politician (Baltimore and London, 1990), p. 23.

This article is based on an undergraduate dissertation written for the History Department of the v
University of Bristol, under the supervision of Dr. Thomas Wiedemann of the Classics Department. \
C