This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]

On: 26 December 2014, At: 14:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Rhetoric Review
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrhr20

Administrative Slavery in the

Ancient Roman Republic: The
Value of Marcus Tullius Tiro in
Ciceronian Rhetoric
a
Zach Bankston
a
University of Nevada–Reno
Published online: 08 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Zach Bankston (2012) Administrative Slavery in the Ancient
Roman Republic: The Value of Marcus Tullius Tiro in Ciceronian Rhetoric, Rhetoric
Review, 31:3, 203-218, DOI: 10.1080/07350198.2012.683991

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2012.683991

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014
 Rhetoric Review, Vol. 31, No. 3, 203–218, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0735-0198 print / 1532-7981 online
DOI: 10.1080/07350198.2012.683991

Z ACH BANKSTON
University of Nevada–Reno
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

Administrative Slavery in the Ancient Roman

Republic: The Value of Marcus Tullius Tiro
in Ciceronian Rhetoric

Urban slave life in ancient Rome was unlike the absolute bondage and physical
labor historically associated with the term slavery. Cicero’s administrative slave
Tiro was a literary collaborator, a debt collector, a superintendent of sorts, a
secretary, a financial overseer, a political strategist, a recipient and content-gen-
erator of Cicero’s famed practice of letter-writing, and a connected component
of Cicero’s social scheming. Cicero’s correspondence with Tiro praises him for
his value and loyalty, but it also shows previously unrevealed rhetorical aspects
of the ancient orator and his relationship with his slave, colleague, and friend.

Marcus Tullius Tiro was a man of great rhetorical accomplishment, consid-

ering he was a slave, and the finest administrative acquisition of Cicero’s political
career.1 From Cicero’s personal letters, it is evident that in Cicero’s patronage
Tiro was a literary collaborator, a debt collector, a superintendent of sorts, a secre-
tary, a financial overseer, a political strategist, a recipient and content-generator of
Cicero’s famed practice of letter-writing, and a connected component of Cicero’s
social scheming. The letters praise Tiro for his value and loyalty, but they also
show previously unrevealed aspects of the ancient orator, either missed or over-
looked by previous scholars who have examined Cicero’s letters to his friends.
Tiro utilized a unique version of shorthand, research skills, and aptitude in literacy
to aid Cicero in climbing the ranks of the Roman political offices. Beyond provid-
ing unparalleled executive assistance, Tiro transcended slavehood and showcased
rhetorical abilities equivalent to the aristocrats and politicians.

203
 204 Rhetoric Review

Cicero repeatedly receives attention in scholarship, indicating continual inter-

est in the ancient orator’s rhetorical theories, but no one in either composition or
rhetoric has academically sought to mine directly the relationship of Tiro and
Cicero. In fact, the only recent attention Tiro has received comes from novels
such as Robert Harris’s Imperium and Steven Saylor’s Roman Blood, as well as
brief scenes in the hit HBO series Rome. This essay seeks to explore Tiro’s var-
ious administrative assistant-like roles in Cicero’s administration, mainly Tiro’s
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

use and development of a rhetoric that proved indispensable to Cicero’s political

life. For through a study of Tiro—born a slave, later freed by Cicero—a clearer
picture is revealed of the workings of Roman politics, aristocratic antics, urban
Roman slavery, and Cicero’s rhetorical and collaborative strategies during the
first century BCE.

A Classic Networker

Scholarship concerning the Roman politician Marcus Tullius Cicero is def-

initely not in a state of agreement. Aspects of his house in Rome (Allen), his
mother (Enos), his divorce to Terentia and his marriage and divorce to Publilia
(Claassen), and his multifarious business transactions (Wood) are just a few of the
unresolved issues regarding arguably the most famous orator of classical Rome.
One thing, however, can be certain, which is that born of a family of the eques-
trian order in the rural town of Arpinum, Italy, Cicero had to have been an adept
networker—not only in order to gain the prominence he did as a dominate politi-
cian in Rome during the first century BC but to even have a chance at doing so.
Cicero’s marriage to Terentia is by far the biggest and best move he made in
terms of financial gain and fully demonstrates his sociopolitical capability. Neal
Wood, in a piece about Cicero’s interpretation of economics, states, “Despite fre-
quent indebtedness, he was obviously a man of means who profited from marriage
to the wealthy Terentia” (742). From Wood three points of interest can be inferred:
(1) Terentia was wealthy; (2) Cicero was not wealthy until he married Terentia;
(3) Cicero had the means to secure matrimony, meaning he had the know-how to
accomplish it. Jo-Marie Claassen, in “Documents of a Crumbling Marriage: The
Case of Cicero and Terentia,” echoes further that “Cicero liked wealth and the
properties money could buy him. He delighted in Terentia’s farm, which became
‘his’ by virtue of her dowry” (211). The marriage catapulted Cicero to the upper
crust of the Roman aristocracy and permitted him to enter the Senate. Cicero’s
unique marriage to Terentia was unquestionably a game-changing relationship
for him, to say the least, yet his bond with Tiro is another strategic domestic
relationship that demonstrates his capacity as an official and a friend and better
illustrates his rhetorical genius.
 Administrative Slavery in the Ancient Roman Republic 205

As a politician Cicero benefited from a sphere of confidants on whom he

could depend amid an untrustworthy group of venomous contemporaries mouth-
foaming for political power. A small staff of mainly intellects was more common
than not for Roman politicians at the time. Quintus, Cicero’s younger brother,
was one who served in Cicero’s cabinet and later had a political career of his
own.2 Quintus served his older brother assiduously in the Roman court system
and was no doubt irreplaceable, but he, historically speaking, does not receive the
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

recognition as the man who helped enable Cicero to rhetorically outmaneuver his
colleagues/enemies in the Roman Senate: That honor goes to Tiro.

Cicero’s Slaves and Freedmen

Tiro’s accomplishments and abilities were unique, but his role in his patron’s
administration was actually not uncommon. Urban slave life in Rome was unlike
the absolute bondage and physical labor historically associated with the term slav-
ery. In fact, according to P. R. C. Weaver, urban slaves “enjoyed a high rate
of social advancement, which was often much greater than that of a freeborn
proletariat.” The social improvement was the anticipation of earning freedom,
which happened at the legal request of the slave’s patron. The hierarchical sys-
tem of slaves varied from household to household, but legally, there were only
two classes of slaves within the city limits of Rome: “Servi,” who were with-
out rights, and “Liberti,” free slaves or freedmen (Weaver 1). Freedmen had the
opportunity of citizenship, but not all acquired it. David Stockton in Thirty-Five
Letters of Cicero claims, “At the top of the pyramid were the highly intelligent and
well-educated slaves who served as confidential secretaries or business-managers
for owners. The most skillful and intelligent slaves were usually given their free-
dom at an early age and frequently became the confidants and personal friends of
their masters” (52). An adept, accomplished administrative freedman was price-
less for any aristocrat in early Rome—one could argue their careers depended on
it. A freedman was more of a professional, administrative hand and less thought
of as domestic help; there were plenty of servi to keep to the house chores. A free-
man, therefore, was closer to that of an apprentice than a slave. Slaves were
property, mere tools, but a trusted administrative freedman could progress to a
colleague.
Cicero employed several freedmen in addition to Tiro, but not all of the
business relationships worked out as well as he would have liked. Cicero’s expec-
tations of his freedmen were rigid and quite simple: He demanded dignity and,
above all, trust. The political climate of Rome required nothing less. Susan
Treggiari, in “The Freedmen of Cicero”3 notes, “From his own freedmen Cicero
wanted loyalty, affection, and, not uncommonly, self-sacrifice, and he was not
 206 Rhetoric Review

only offended but hurt when he failed to get them” (202). Treggiari mentions
two freedmen that abused Cicero’s professional kindness. With the first, Hilarus,
an accountant, much ambiguity exists as to the exact details of his undoing.
Apparently Hilarus was sent to C. Antonius Hybrida to retrieve some money and
was cited by the military tribune Cn. Plancius for making trouble (198). Cicero
refers to Hilarus as “a bad lot.” A second unfortunate situation occurred with a
literary assistant called Chrysippus, who worked in the library with Quintus. The
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

offense, however, took place when Chrysippus abandoned a leadership post while
the Cicero brothers were guests of King Deitarus; the event infuriated Cicero.
Treggiari adds, “He accused Chrysippus, and the ‘labourer’ who accompanied
him, of theft and other offenses, but what stung him the most was that his trust
had been abused” (199). Any slave would have been exceptionally lucky to be
bound to Cicero’s household. If they held true to his honor, Cicero was more
than happy to grant them their freedom in a timely fashion, which, according to
Stockton and others happened rather early in the life of the assistants who demon-
strated skill; early manumission seemed to be a reward and an incentive to remain
part of the administration. Treggiari argues, “One would not, a priori, think that
Cicero was likely to have been a brutal master to his slaves.” Cicero was not only
kind to slaves in the private sector, but he was also perceivably somewhat of an
advocate for their negotiated freedom based on merit. Treggiari continues,

In public speeches he frequently exploited the common preju-

dice against slaves, but his real sentiments were stoic rather than
Aristotelian and he believed that a slave was not inferior by nature,
but might rise above his lot and win his freedom and the coveted citi-
zenship, which, for Romans, was practically inseparable from liberty.
(195)

Not all Roman citizens shared his benevolent view of slavery: Cicero was
definitely accustomed to defending isolated positions, as with his vocal attacks on
Mark Antony and even Verres (Bizzell and Herzberg 285).
It is difficult to pin down the number of slaves Cicero and Terentia had at a
given time, considering they rarely listed the menial hands in their various letters
(Treggiari 196). The freedmen and more important slaves are a little easier to
quantify. According to Treggiari, “Various lists have been published” (195); she
lists the shortest:

The slaves of whom we have certain knowledge are the boy Sositheus,
“puer festivus”; another reader called Dionysius, who ran away in
46 BC and had not been caught by 44; a footman (“a pedibus”) Pollex,
 Administrative Slavery in the Ancient Roman Republic 207

and Acastus, of whom we hear because on one occasion he carried

a letter. Then there are a number of servants who may have been
either slaves or freedmen at the time when they are mentioned in the
Letters (and if they were slaves then, they may have been freed later).
These are a secretary, Spintharus, and a number of men who were
either chiefly or occasionally letter carriers (“tabellarii”), Aristocritus,
Dexippus, Hermia, Mario, and Menander (who is probably the same
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

as “Andricus,” the second name being a pinning allusion to the comic

writer Menander). Cicero’s own freedmen are his secretary Tiro; a
civil servant who is referred to only as M. Tullius; a man called
Laura who wrote a poem which survives in Pliny’s Natural History;
Chrysippus; Eros; an accountant names Hilarus; Aegypta, who was
chiefly a letter-carrier, and probably Phaetho, who also carried letters.
(196)

Conceivably, they had several more domestic slaves, but Cicero never speaks of
them. He had a mind to free them all at some point in time, but also saw them as
valuable to his enterprise. Marie-Jo Claassen notes that while Cicero was in exile,
“[h]e wrote to remind [Terentia] that their slaves should be considered manumit-
ted, in the event of a final crash and consequent confiscations. The slaves would
remain their property if all went well” (215). Cicero understood the tendencies of
the mob and worried what would happen to his slaves in a seizure. A new patron
presumably would not be as kind.

Tiro’s Education and Manumission

The details of Tiro’s upbringing and relationship origins with Cicero are
unclear. Discrepancies exist regarding the exact year Tiro was born, which makes
his age during certain events difficult to confirm. It is clear that he lived to be
ninety-nine despite a prolonged sickness of which Cicero speaks in the letters
(Stockton; Bailey). St. Jerome’s Chronographia marks Tiro’s birth at 103 BCE,
which would make him only a few years younger than Cicero; St. Jerome’s accu-
racy, however, and his dating of events of others are questionable—evidence and
the events of Tiro’s life point to approximately 80 BCE as the year of his birth
(McDermott 263). The discrepancy not only questions Tiro’s age at manumission
but also his upbringing juxtaposed with Cicero’s education. Furthermore, it marks
Tiro as a child of roughly eight to ten years old during the Verres trial. If 80 BCE
is assumed to be the date of Tiro’s birth, Cicero would have been in his mid twen-
ties when Tiro was born. Considering nothing is known of Tiro’s parents, it is
not out of the question that Cicero could have been his father. McDermott notes,
 208 Rhetoric Review

“For a man of wealth and rank, as yet unmarried, to have a slave ‘concubina,’
whether formally or informally, was certainly so common that it would call for no
comment in his day. So we may speculate on the possibility that Tiro might have
been Cicero’s older son” (265). It was common for patrons to raise slaves from
birth—especially secretarial slaves, as the education was extremely specified—so
Tiro very well may have been a fixture in the Cicero household since his birth.
Susan Treggiari suggests that Tiro’s education was administered by Cicero;
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

Cicero’s reference to himself as Tiro’s former teacher in a November 50 BCE let-

ter substantiates it (Ad Fam. 16.3).4 Treggiari states, “Tiro too is called by Gellius
an alumnus of his patron’s, which suggests that his boyhood training had been
supervised by his master” (202). Cicero could then have tailored Tiro’s education
to fit his needs. It is particularly possible if Cicero was twenty-six years older than
Tiro. McDermott concurs and is led to believe that Tiro oversaw the education of
Marcus “filius,” Cicero’s son: “Again the familiar tone leads me to suspect that as
Marcus ‘pater’ had probably been Tiro’s teacher, so too it is likely that Tiro had
earlier been the teacher of the young man” (270). It makes sense that Cicero would
trust his own son’s education with Tiro if he was the one who taught Tiro. Little
if anything is known of Tiro’s actual education, but Cicero, again, would have
organized his studies in order that he be of service to himself in the future. That
service could have included assistance with Cicero’s daily regimen of rhetorical
training, which would have served Tiro as well.
As stated above, freedom was within reach for nearly all urban slaves, and
when their bondage term was complete, some maintained a professional relation-
ship with their patron. The near guarantee of anticipated manumission assumedly
promoted a beneficial working environment; both parties knew the temporality of
their association. Tiro was granted manumission in 53 BCE and continued work-
ing with Cicero afterwards. Cicero speaks of his “promise” in Ad Fam. 16.10 and
16.14, and that promise is to grant legal freedom to Tiro. Quintus mentions his
delight in Tiro’s manumission in a letter to his brother in May or June of 53 BC:
“You have done what gave me extreme pleasure, when you preferred that he
whose position was so unworthy of him should be our friend rather than a slave”
(Ad Fam. 16.6). Tiro’s relationship with Cicero definitely advanced into more of a
companionship than a bondage agreement, and one could even say it was a broth-
erhood in some regards; the surviving correspondence among the men proves that
a tone of familial relations and earnest mutual respect existed. Even Marcus wrote
to Tiro, openly and honestly (Ad Fam. 16.21).
In letters from Cicero and his brother Quintus at the time of Tiro’s legal
release to freedom, it is learned that Tiro seemed to be ill. William Fitzgerald,
in Slavery and the Roman Literary Imagination, notes of the affection, as well
as Tiro’s significance and condition, “Just how indispensable such a slave could
 Administrative Slavery in the Ancient Roman Republic 209

become is graphically shown by the letters (collected in Ad Fam. 16) that Cicero
wrote to Tiro, whom he freed in 53, and the master’s love for his (now ex-) slave
is vividly expressed in the letters he wrote when Tiro was dangerously ill with
malaria” (13). Despite his illness, the Ciceros wanted Tiro to enjoy his well-earned
freedom, and they were happy for him. They loved him like a brother. Nearly
every one of Cicero and Quintus’s letters to Tiro demonstrate a grave concern
for his health and a loving wish for his company. They continually ask that he
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

place his healthy recovery above all other interests, even coming to join them.
(None of Tiro’s authored letters have survived. It can be assumed by Cicero and
Quintus’s persistence that Tiro made efforts to join them despite his illness.) In
another November 50 BCE letter to Tiro, Cicero makes explicit his love and wish
that Tiro heal: “If you do what is most conducive to your health, you will best
obey my wishes. Think it over, and use your own judgment. For myself, I long
for your presence, but it is as one who loves you; love urges ‘Let me see you in
good health;’ longing ‘Let it be with all speed’” (Ad Fam.16.1). Earlier in April
of 53 BCE, Cicero remarks to Tiro to spare no expense with the doctors to get
well: “Please give orders that the doctor shall be promised whatever fee he asks.”
Later, after again telling Tiro not to spare any money at the risk of his health,
Cicero says that giving a household doctor more money should entice him “to
quicken his interest in you.” Tiro was seen by a handful of doctors, and at least
once Cicero mentions his dissatisfaction with the advice (Ad Fam. 16.4).
From these letters about Tiro’s manumission, a great deal can be gleaned
regarding the fraternal relationship between Tiro and Cicero, Quintus, and
Marcus. Aside from the brotherly sincerity, the fact that Tiro was in the letter-
writing loop is something to take notice of. How many Roman patrons would
waste their time writing to their slaves? And even if they were willing to write
to them, how many slaves could read the letter? The very notion that Tiro was
speaking freely in letters with the group demonstrates his acceptance long before
the actual legal date of manumission.

Tiro’s Administrative Service

What is known of Tiro is that he—by his manumission date in 53 BCE, if

not before—was absolutely essential to the professional endeavors of Cicero.
No doubt he was a fine secretarial acquisition for Cicero, but after 53 BCE, as
the corresponding letters indicate, Tiro proved himself selfless in pursuit of his
former patron’s enterprises: In Cicero’s absence Tiro was monitoring the couriers
(Ad Fam. 16.5 and 16.6), receiving Cicero’s letters and costrategizing with him
about the rising civil conflict with Caesar and Pompey (Ad Fam. 16.11 and 12),
and reporting current political affairs to Cicero as well as providing his solicited
 210 Rhetoric Review

personal opinion about what was going to happen next (Ad Fam. 16.25); while
healing at the house in Tusculum, Tiro was in discussion with Cicero about using
a metaphor in one of Cicero’s treatises (Ad Fam. 16.17), dealing with the farm
watering system working properly with the Crabra5 (Ad Fam. 16.18), seeking
settlements for debts and befriending certain characters at Cicero’s demand (Ad
Fam. 16.19), cataloguing some of Cicero’s books and in communication with the
gardener (Ad Fam. 16.20), helping the copyists to decipher Cicero’s handwrit-
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

ing and corresponding with Cicero about specific encounters with Demetrius so
that Cicero will have a reason to write future letters to him (Ad Fam. 16.22), and
completing Cicero’s taxes (Ad Fam. 16.23). Tiro was no longer a secretary; he
was Cicero’s personal assistant to the fullest. His administrative aid extended into
Cicero’s finances and property. Cicero recognized Tiro as a colleague and viewed
him as integral to his literary works. In the letters of 53 BCE and later in 50–49,
Cicero personally remarks to Tiro’s many literary collaborative qualities: He says,
“I have nothing to amuse me, no literary works on hand; I cannot bring myself to
touch it until I see you,” and “As you love me, arouse from slumber your literary
talents, and that culture which makes you so precious to me” (Ad Fam. 16.14);
he claims, “My poor little studies (or if you like, ‘ours’) have simply pined away
from longing for you” (Ad Fam. 16.10); and plainly in Ad Fam. 16.4 when he
declares to Tiro, “Your services to me are past all reckoning—at home, in the
forum, in the City, in my province, in my private and public affairs, in my literary
pursuits and performances.” Cicero also frequently refers to Tiro as clever, per-
haps because he was, as Williams suggests, “of more than ordinary intellectual
ability” (316).
Tiro ostensibly offered the basic secretarial services, but later in his career
it is found that he acted more as modern-day congressional page—only with
superhero-like administrative abilities. Tiro’s mark on history is his employment
of a personalized version of shorthand. Though he is not the inventor of shorthand,
Tiro popularized the use of it, and his patron definitely utilized it in composition
and speech recollection. In The Literate Mode of Cicero’s Legal Rhetoric, Richard
Leo Enos mentions that Plutarch implies the shorthand, or tachygraphy, was a
creation of both men; nevertheless, the skill paid dividends:

Plutarch believed that Cicero popularized the Greek method of short-

hand composition in Rome and, with his freedman Tiro, developed
a system of tachygraphy that permitted rapid recording of oral dis-
course. It could be reasonably surmised that Tiro would record oral
arguments—doubtlessly to capture impromptu passages from the pre-
viously composed notes—and have the basic text for a polished
posttrial composition. (5)
 Administrative Slavery in the Ancient Roman Republic 211

To Cicero shorthand was the equivalent of voice-recognition technology. Tiro

could copy ancient documents and record lengthy personal dictations or political
speeches with near exactness. While others were learning to make use of literacy
in politics, Tiro was fine-tuning a priceless expertise that proved advantageous
to Cicero. Tiro’s tachygraphy was crucial to Cicero’s proliferation as an orator,
writer, and politician.
In addition, Tiro played the role of a composition collaborator. As outlined
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

below, Tiro revised and edited texts for Cicero, but there is also evidence from
letters that Tiro collaborated with Cicero in the composing process. Sean Gurd’s
recent “Cicero and Editorial Revision,” where he asserts that Cicero not only had
a social, collaborative writing process but that the process played the crucial func-
tion in maintaining social alliances, claims that Tiro was “a close collaborator if
ever Cicero had one.” Gurd additionally notes that Cicero shared the authority of
his work with Tiro when, in a letter written in 53 BCE to the ill Tiro, Cicero says
“my texts—or rather ‘yours’” (53) (Ad Fam. 16.10).6 From the direct references
in the letters, it is revealed that Cicero and Tiro discussed writing conventions:
They conversed about the formality of a heading in one of Cicero’s previous let-
ters to Tiro (Ad Fam. 16.18) and the use of a metaphor (Ad Fam. 16.17). In this
capacity Tiro is clearly a first audience for his master, an occurrence with no par-
allel in classic rhetoric. (Tiro’s function in the letter-writing process is significant
because the practice of letter-writing is one of Cicero’s fingerprints in the his-
tory of rhetoric. Because of Tiro, Cicero could generate more letters and receive
feedback on what he had written: practice through repetition and insightful dis-
cussion on the writing.) So effective was Tiro’s collaborative facility, in fact, that
it called for continued praise from Cicero. Cicero makes known how he works
better with Tiro than without him: Cicero claims, “Pompey is staying with me as I
write these words; he is in good spirits and enjoying himself. When he expresses
a desire to hear something of mine, I tell him that, without you, I am altogether
dumb” (Ad Fam. 16.10). At least once, it appears, a composition begins with Tiro,
and Cicero desires to see it: Cicero says, “But about yourself, have you no light
literature with you? Or are you composing something in the style of Sophocles?
Let us see what you have done” (Ad Fam. 16.18). In addition, Cicero valued his
discourse exchanges with Tiro. Along with consistently begging for more let-
ters from Tiro, Cicero longs to speak with Tiro about literary matters (Ad Fam.
16.10 and 16.14), and Quintus emphasizes why when in a letter to his brother he
mentions Tiro’s significance in reference to his own administrative slave, “For if
Statius’ faithful service is so constant a pleasure to me, how inestimable should
such qualities be in your man, when we think too of his literary and conversational
powers, and his refinement—which outweigh even those qualities which minis-
ter to our personal comfort” (Ad Fam. 16.16). Even Marcus partook of Tiro’s
 212 Rhetoric Review

literary-discussant qualities; in a long letter to Tiro, after talking about his inter-
actions with Gorgias, a Greek teacher whom Cicero despised, congratulating Tiro
on buying a farm in Puteoli, and then asking that Tiro arrange for him to be sent
a secretary for his own literary use, Marcus says, “Above all, I would have you
take care of your health, so that we may have some literary talk together” (Ad
Fam. 16.21). Clearly Tiro’s input is valued by Cicero, and Cicero views him as a
cocreator, which is saying a lot of his role and abilities considering it is coming
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

from a vain, self-promoting first-century BCE Roman senator who would become
the quintessence of classical oratory for centuries to come.
Perhaps most importantly, the letters specify that Cicero could trust Tiro,
which was no small matter to Cicero. Aside from Quintus, who actually had
his own political ambitions, there was no one Cicero could openly trust before
he had Tiro. Shorthand was indeed a remarkable administrative tool, but what
made him inimitable to Cicero was his outright obligation to put Cicero’s inter-
ests before his own. Cicero comments to Tiro’s loyalty and trustworthy nature but
also obviously trusts Tiro to look after his money and property and to socially
interact and correspond with other notable politicians and aristocrats (Ad Fam.
16.12 and 16.26); he sent and answered letters of political nature. He carried
his master’s seal and spoke with other senators to set appointments or con-
fer legislation. Tiro, essentially, ran Cicero’s campaigns, which were tirelessly
ongoing.

The Verres Prosecution

An historical example of Cicero’s genius, and perhaps Tiro’s utility, is evi-

dent in the monumental trial of Gaius Verres versus the people of Sicily—a trial
that in the words of Richard Enos “has endured as a paradigm of eloquence in
legal argumentation” (59). The case is learned largely from Cicero’s In Verrem,
which recounts the trial according to Cicero himself, though parts of the liter-
ary work did not necessarily happen in the actual trial (60). The success of the
case, and the rhetorical talent demonstrated by Cicero during it, hoisted him to
prominence as Rome’s number one orator in the middle of the first century BCE.
There is no way to determine Tiro’s role in aiding his patron during the trial,
especially when it is believed that he was just a child during the case. If Tiro was
actually born in 103 BCE as Jerome claims, then yes he most certainly could have
and would have supported Cicero in the Verres case as Harris depicts. But strong
evidence suggests he was born closer to 80 BCE, making him just a child during
the trial; McDermott claims Jerome is off by twenty-five years (264). According
to Stockton, it was customary for the “slave aristocracy” to be manumitted at a
young age, and Tiro “was still very young” when Cicero freed him in 53 BCE
 Administrative Slavery in the Ancient Roman Republic 213

(53); and Cicero himself in a 50 BCE letter to Atticus refers to Tiro as a “young
man” (Ad Att. 7.2.).7 Contrary to Robert Harris’s Imperium portrayal of Tiro,
where he was an integral assistant throughout the trial and roughly the same age as
Cicero, Tiro probably did not abet Cicero in a full administrative capacity during
the trial because he was just too young. All of this is not to say that Tiro had no part
at the time. Though young, Tiro could have utilized his shorthand for recounting
the events of the trial later when Cicero wished to compose In Verrem. If any-
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

thing, Tiro had a front-row seat at seeing the up-and-coming, thirty-something

Cicero publically shame a group of Roman aristocrats previously thought to be
invincible, which would allow him to see what it would take to remain at Cicero’s
side for the remainder of his life.
While governor of Sicily, Gaius Verres abused his power to the extent of inhu-
manity. He stole ancient statues, paintings, and money from the Sicilians; as well,
he broke contracts with farmers, ruined local merchants, made up charges against
slaves of wealthy landowners, demanded bribes, imprisoned innocent Sicilians,
and even murdered a few sailors to cover up a naval scam against some pirates.
With the abundance of evidence Cicero mounts during the trial, there apparently
was very little Verres did not extort from the Sicilians. He was the perfect villain.
Prior to Cicero’s prosecution of Verres on August 5, 70 BCE, Verres assumedly
was protected by aristocratic means (Butler 63). The jury consisted mainly of
senators whom he had already bribed. Defending Verres was the stellar attorney
Quintus Hortensius, the only lawman more popular than Cicero before the trial.
The current presiding judge was Marcus Glabrio, an honest man unmoved by the
bribes of Verres. The plan of Hortensius was to delay the trial long enough for
the new judge’s term to begin; Glabrio’s successor, the extortion judge-elect, was
Quintus Metellus, an associate of Verres.
Cicero took eight months to prepare the case, including a trip to Sicily to
conduct research and interview victims. When he showed up in court on that hot
August morning, he had an abundance of witnesses and evidence; Butler, in The
Hand of Cicero, notes, “The jurors found Cicero waiting for them, and he was
not alone: with him were not only his assistants and witnesses but also what must
have been a staggering number of ‘capsae,’ document boxes which may have
been locked and which certainly were guarded” (63). Because he knew the plan of
Hortensius to prolong the trial, Cicero decided to “forgo the normal prosecutor’s
speech and instead proceeded directly to the presentation of evidence,” which
he knew—due to the abundance of material and the way in which he and his
staff documented it—would illustrate the nefariousness committed by Verres and
ultimately win him the trial (64).
Cicero’s victory hinged upon the documented proof of the corruption of
Gaius Verres and his own “command of language and rhetoric” (Butler 27);
 214 Rhetoric Review

Cicero himself said, “Now let us accuse the man with account books, with
witnesses, with public and private documents” (Butler 28). Along with Cicero’s
other assistants, Tiro could have aided Cicero in the collection, sorting, extrapo-
lation, and debriefing of it all, to an extent, if he indeed was owned by Cicero at
that time—there was just so much to do. Tiro also could have used the occasion
to learn from the other assistants who were helping Cicero sift through thou-
sands of documents in the limited amount of time they had while in Syracuse.
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

The texts became the entire case. Shane Butler comments that “[a]rguably the
star witnesses for the prosecution are the ‘litterae publicae’ or ‘public records,’
of various cities, lengthy extracts from which have been transcribed by Cicero
for use as evidence” (36). These documents needed to be organized for presen-
tation. They had testimonies, court records, edicts, wills, treaties, and a speech
of a ship’s captain, and all of it had to be organized in a short amount of time
(51–54). Cicero and team must have worked day and night to accumulate and
systematize the mountains of evidence. Cicero also would need help preparing
for his legendary lengthy court speeches. The administrative and preparatory
assistance Cicero would have needed was exactly the kind of service Tiro could
have provided. All that can be said for certain about Tiro’s involvement is that
he “edited all or part of” Cicero’s published rendition of the trial, In Verrem
(McDermott 280).

A Roman Relationship

A few considerations can be extrapolated from Cicero and Tiro’s relationship.

The first is that no matter how the two men became affiliated, a deep intellectual
bond was the result of their paths crossing and the time they spent together. Their
connection extended beyond scholarly work and the professional realm to sin-
cere friendship—in the correspondence Cicero is concerned for Tiro’s health and
his future. The connection seems to be similar to a student-professor relation-
ship when the student progresses to an equal level of colleagueship with his or
her mentor. The overwhelming familial tone in the letters, as noted in the scholar-
ship, is obvious evidence of the reciprocated brotherly admiration the men shared.
Cicero’s attitude is apparently sincere—the several “I love you” statements in the
letters confirm that much; in addition, Cicero did not speak to other slaves or even
friends in the same manner that he spoke to Tiro. Tiro would never be on equal
footing with other Roman aristocrats and politicians, but inside Cicero’s house he
was given respect by Cicero’s choice.
Another consideration is that their relationship was very Roman, meaning
Tiro had a specific role and served a definite purpose, like that of an object. Tiro’s
job was to expand Cicero’s lot; he was to make Cicero’s desires his mission, and in
 Administrative Slavery in the Ancient Roman Republic 215

the letters Cicero is very specific in what he asks of Tiro. In a world where power
was everything and a politician was either winning or finished, Tiro was a slave
to Cicero’s voracity and passion. But not without notice; Cicero was extremely
appreciative of Tiro’s help and understood his importance. It is likely that Cicero
would never have had the same success he enjoyed as Rome’s prime orator with-
out the assistance of Tiro. Cicero benefited from an increase in productivity and
more substantial networking capabilities, possibly because the role with Tiro was
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

defined so rigidly.
One cannot dismiss, however, the fact that Tiro was used by Cicero purposely
as a rhetorical device. Ultimately Tiro was an object utilized for political gain.
If Cicero was indeed twenty-six years older than Tiro and raised and educated
Tiro from birth or near birth, the objectification of Tiro is even more evident.
Arguably, Cicero exploited Tiro for the function of gaining and retaining power.
Furthermore, the tone and language of the letters point to aspects of Cicero’s char-
acter beyond his love and concern for Tiro, aspects that further depict Cicero’s
power-hungry rhetorical tactics and objectifying nature, aspects that possibly
negate his love and concern for Tiro as genuine. For one, nearly every letter to Tiro
contains a direct command and an if-then merit-driven statement, demonstrating
that appreciation was based upon production—the appreciative “attaboys” were
merely encouragement. The ugliest examples are when in Ad Fam. 16.14 and
16.15, Cicero uses the promise of manumission to continue to get what he wants.
Cicero’s reminders to Tiro about his usefulness can be assumed as hints to Tiro
that he is esteemed because of what he can do and shows that Cicero missed what
Tiro could do for him, not necessarily Tiro himself (Ad Fam. 16.1, 16.3, 16.4,
16.10, 16.14, 16.15). Cicero’s concern for Tiro’s health and safety was actually a
concern for his own continued political and financial well-being. The trust con-
stantly brought up by Cicero in the letters was another tactic. What were his other
options? Trust no one and then get less accomplished? Cicero knew he had to trust
someone in order to advance, and the reality that it ended up being a slave, at one
time a person he owned, says a lot about who he was.
Second, Tiro continuously conducts Cicero’s dirty work; all at Cicero’s
demand, Tiro was to remind Cicero’s son-in-law’s family about the dowry they
owe him, straighten out Cicero’s financial affairs and direct other lesser-ranked
individuals—gardeners, couriers, doctors, copyists, debtors—regarding what they
are to do (Ad Fam. 16.24). Cicero used Tiro as an intermediary with people of
lower social status. It was not as if Cicero himself was going to converse directly
with those people; by use of Tiro, Cicero could keep hierarchical social distance
and authority. The fact that Tiro carried out Cicero’s every request demonstrated
command and order to those around Cicero and maintained Cicero’s authority in
his absence.
 216 Rhetoric Review

And third, Tiro served a role, mostly as a mere recipient but also as a first or
pre-audience, to hone Cicero’s epistolary rhetoric. Self admittedly, Cicero says in
Ad Fam. 16.6 that he writes to Tiro for no reason other than “for the sake of keep-
ing to my established practice” and because he found someone to carry the letter.
Twice Cicero mentions that he never wastes a courier headed to Patrae, where Tiro
was staying at the time (Ad Fam. 16.5 and 16.6). Once, Tiro was asked to court
an arriving guest for no purpose other than to give Cicero a topic about which
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

to write that person a later letter (Ad Fam. 16.22). Cicero’s continued anxiety to
receive letters from Tiro was for his own amusement, for use in his letter-writing
skills, and also for updates as to the happenings with his multiple properties and
business transactions. Just like the letter carriers, Tiro was a “kairos” for Cicero
that spanned Tiro’s entire life. Tiro’s illness kept him near home, but not from
remaining the supervisor of Cicero’s assets—no wonder the Ciceros wanted him
to stay on the mainland.
The question then remains of whether or not Cicero did Tiro a disservice by
objectifying him for most of his life. What was Tiro’s alternative to a lifelong
devotion to Cicero? Would another patron have cultivated Tiro’s cleverness and
rhetorical talents?8 Would Tiro have been able to witness Cicero’s navigation of
the Roman law courts and possibly the finest prosecution orations ever? Would
he have found friendship and family without the Ciceros? Maybe a specified role
is exactly what the lower classes wanted in first-century Rome BCE. Since the
administrative slaves knew earlier patronage to an aristocrat meant sooner class
mobility, maybe Tiro wanted to be of service to Cicero more than Cicero wanted
to exploit him. Maybe Cicero was doing Tiro a favor by developing his skills,
granting him a timely manumission, and keeping him on his staff. Tiro’s dedica-
tion to Cicero and his actions after Cicero’s death seem to speak loudly that he
took joy in his service to Cicero.
The actions of Tiro after Cicero’s death best showcase his talent as a rhetori-
cian and his devotion to his patron. He continually wrote and recollected Cicero’s
letters from his farmhouse estate near Puteoli, where he worked on The Life
of Cicero, a defensive biography of his former master (Williams 316). Cicero’s
death brought life to Tiro’s career as an author. At this time, Tiro wrote The
Humor of Cicero and the biography.9 Tiro maintained the mindset of a servant
while writing, continuing his attribute of obligation-over-self, noted earlier by
Cicero (Ad Fam. 16.9). While collecting Cicero’s letters for publication,10 Tiro
not once included his own reply—a lasting impression of Tiro is that he sought
to continue Cicero’s legacy instead of starting his own. Tiro gathered, edited,
and published the letters. Without him, intimate glimpses of Cicero would not be
available.
 Administrative Slavery in the Ancient Roman Republic 217

Notes
1I wish to acknowledge Jane Detweiler, Lynda Walsh, and Cathy Chaput for their insight and
continued guidance. I also want to thank Shane Borrowman for his encouragement in the early stages
of this project. My RR reviewers, George Kennedy and Richard Leo Enos, provided feedback that led
to better research and a stronger argument in the manuscript. I am grateful for their comments.
2 For the sake of clarity in this essay, Marcus Cicero will be referred to as “Cicero,” Quintus

Cicero will be referred to as “Quintus,” and Cicero’s son Marcus Cicero Junior will be called
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

“Marcus.”
3 Susan Treggiari’s “The Freedmen of Cicero” is a rich source for details about the Ciceros’

relationships with their freedmen. I draw heavily from her work in order to show how Cicero engaged
with his slaves and freedmen.
4 Cicero’s, Quintus’s, and Marcus’s letters to Tiro as well as one letter written from Quintus

to Cicero about Tiro’s manumission are taken from W. Glynn Williams’s Cicero: The Letters to His
Friends, a translation of the Epistulae ad Familiares (abbreviated in-text as Ad Fam.). This particular
group of letters is compiled into sixteen “books” based on the correspondent, and Tiro appears as the
main subject lastly in Book Sixteen, though he is mentioned briefly in several other letters, including
letters to Atticus that are not represented in the sixteen books of the Epistulae ad Familiares. D. R.
Shackleton Bailey’s Cicero’s Letters to His Friends is also a source for the translated letters, but
Williams’s version was chosen because it has Book Sixteen grouped in a single section, not arranged
chronologically when the letters were written. Both Williams and Bailey attribute Tiro as the compiler,
preserver, editor, and publisher of the books of Cicero’s letters written to his friends and family.
5 The “Crabra” was “an aqueduct extending from Tusculum to Rome, for the use of which

Cicero paid a tax” (Williams 358).

6 Williams translates the passage as “My poor little studies (or if you like, ours) . . .” (339).

Bailey’s section reads “My (or ‘our’) literary brain-children . . .” (106).

7 The letter to Atticus was taken from Evelyn S. Shuckburgh’s The Letters of Cicero and is

abbreviated in-text as Ad Att.

8 Williams remarks that Tiro had “more than ordinary intellectual ability” (316).
9 Tiro also authored a treatise on grammar and some poetry (Williams 316).
10 Stockton argues that Tiro was collecting Cicero’s letters even before Cicero’s assassina-

tion (53).

Works Cited
Allen, Walter Jr. “Nisbit on the Question of the Location of Cicero’s House.” The Classical Journal
35.5 (1940): 291–95.
Bailey, D. R. Shackleton. Cicero’s Letters to His Friends. New York: Penguin, 1978.
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the
Present. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s P, 1990.
Butler, Shane. The Hand of Cicero. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Claassen, Jo-Marie. “Documents of a Crumbling Marriage: The Case of Cicero and Terentia.” Phoenix
50.3 (1996): 208–32.
Enos, Richard Leo. The Literate Mode of Cicero’s Legal Rhetoric. Carbondale and Edwardsville:
Southern Illinois UP, 1988.
––––. “Speaking of Cicero . . . and His Mother: A Research Note on an Ancient Greek Inscription and
the Study of Classical Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 24.4 (2005): 457–65.
 218 Rhetoric Review

Fitzgerald, William. Slavery and the Roman Literary Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000.
Gurd, Sean. “Cicero and Editorial Revision.” Classic Antiquity 26.1 (2007): 49–80.
Harris, Robert. Imperium. New York: Pocket, 2006.
McDermott, William C. “M. Cicero and M. Tiro.” Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte 21.2
(1972): 259–86.
Shuckburgh, Evelyn S. The Letters of Cicero. London: George Bell, 1905.
Stockton, David. Thirty-Five Letters of Cicero. London: Oxford UP, 1969.
Treggiari, Susan. “The Freedman of Cicero.” Greece & Rome, Second Series 16.2 (1969): 195–204.
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 14:14 26 December 2014

Weaver, P. R. C. Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2000.
Williams, W. Glynn. The Letters to His Friends. London: Heinemann LTD, 1952.
Wood, Neal. “The Economic Dimension of Cicero’s Political Thought: Property and State.” Canadian
Journal of Political Science 16.4 (1983): 739–56.

Zach Bankston is a doctoral candidate and a teaching assistant at the University of Nevada–Reno.
His research interests include classical rhetoric, civic rhetoric, and web-based writing instruction. His
current projects examine the usage of ancient rhetorical theories in local political assemblies.