No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2009
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.
1. Treggiari, S., ‘Jobs in the Household of Livia’, Papers of the British School at Rome 43 (1975), 48–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2. An ab argento, ab supplectile, and an a tabulis are all attested; cf. Treggari, ibid.
3. Frier, B. W., ‘Cicero's Management of his Urban Properties’, CJ 74 (1978), 1–6Google Scholar.
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 ancillaeque 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. Ad Fam. 9.20.
14. The use of locks is widely attested: cf. Pliny N.H. 33.6.
15. Treggiari n. 1.
16. Att. 1.12.
17. Att. 13.52.
18. Treggiari n. 1.
19. Carcopino, J., Daily Life in Ancient Rome (London, 1941), p. 271Google Scholar; cf. G&R 38 (1991), 75 ffGoogle Scholar.
20. In Pisonem 67: ‘nihil apud hunc lautum, nihil elegans, nihil exquisitum … servi sordidati ministrant, non nulli etiam senes.’
21. Treggiari n. 1.
22. Att. 7.2.
23. Att. 1.12.
24. Nep. Att. 13.
25. Att. 7.2: ‘nam de altero illo minus sum admiratus, operario, homine; sed tamen ne illo quidem quicquam improbius.’
26. Att. 2.4.
27. Treggiari n. 1.
28. Ibid.
29. Att. 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. (Att. 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. Att. 15.8.
35. Fam. 16.22.
36. Fam. 16.20.
37. Att. 7.5.
38. Att. 15.15.
39. Att. 16.15.
40. Fam. 16.24.
41. Att. 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. Att. 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. Att. 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 (Att. 9.3).
54. Att. 14.18.
55. Att. 13.50.
56. Parad. 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.
63. Ibid.
64. Att. 1.11.
65. Att. 5.20.
66. Plut. Cato 9.4; Athenaeus 273a/b.
67. Att. 7.2.
68. Ibid.
69. Att. 4.11: ‘ego mecum praeter Dionysium eduxi neminem nee metuo tamen ne mihi sermo desit.’
70. Petr. 28.
71. ILS 1514.
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.
77. Jones, Duncan, The Economy of the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1974), p. 343Google Scholar.
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. Habicht, Christian, Cicero the Politician (Baltimore and London, 1990), p. 23Google Scholar.