Scholarship on De Officiis tends to place the emphasis on those aspects of the treatise that outline the building blocks of a functioning commonwealth. What tends to receive rather less attention is Cicero’s theorizing of what to do in situations of communal breakdown. But in De Officiis he is as interested in injustice as he is in justice, in the ability of humans to inflict massive damage on each other, in the insufficiency of legislation to ensure harmonious co-existence, in fraud and abuse of power. To address the problem of harm and injustice Cicero calls for vigilance and intervention on the part of all members of the community and endorses ‘protective violence’ up to and including the license, indeed the duty, to kill tyrannical figures that threaten the fabric of communal life. This chapter argues that Cicero’s ethical extremism animates the entire treatise. To render this claim plausible it explores the historical circumstances that gave rise to it and traces its ubiquitous presence within De Officiis, with a particular focus on the conceptual strategies used to justify murder.

The chapter begins by looking into the absence of the noun frugalitas in authors before the first century BCE and traces the reasons for its rise to prominence as a virtue-label in Cicero. This involves consideration of the adjective frugi: primarily used of slaves and freedmen, it was adopted as an agnomen by Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (cos. 133 BCE) in an act of onomastic creativity. Piso’s integration of frugi into his nomenclature ennobled the attribute and thereby facilitated Cicero’s investment in the abstract noun: at two specific moments in his career, here analysed in depth, i.e. the speeches against Verres (70 BCE) and the Tusculan Disputations along with the speech on behalf of king Deiotarus (45 BCE), Cicero made the unorthodox decision to promote frugalitas as a quintessential Roman virtue, thereby setting the stage for its stellar career in imperial times and later centuries. The chapter concludes with a survey of the use authors of the early empire (Horace, Valerius Maximus, Seneca the Elder, Petronius, Seneca the Younger, Quintilian and Pliny the Younger) made of frugi, frugaliter and frugalitas.

The introduction begins with a discussion of previous scholarship on Roman frugality and a critique of its shortcoming. The second part consists of a theoretically informed reconsideration of frugality, which identifies four areas of special interest: (a) the lived realities and the husbandry of small-scale farmers and their discursive reflection in other settings; (b) ‘the frugal subaltern’: slaves and freedmen and their economic interests and acumen, as well as ‘the thrifty wife’; (c) Rome’s political culture, in particular its political economy, i.e. the interface of wealth and power; (d) the (literary/rhetorical) projects of specific individuals, not least those who invested in virtue signalling and shows of self-restraint in their self-promotion and/or authorial self-fashioning. The introduction concludes with a survey of the place and function of modes of moderation in Roman history and culture.