In my post yesterday I looked at Cicero’s anxiety over his brother’s manumission of a certain slave named Statius. Today I’m interested in how Cicero and those in his circle write about Tiro, including his manumission.
First, the act of Tiro’s manumission. Perhaps I should better say Tiro’s assumed manumission, for the letters do not actually articulate whether or not this event occurred. What is the evidence? Cicero writes to Tiro saying that when Tiro comes to Cumae, that will be the “day of his promise” (Ad Familiares 16.14.2). That itself is intriguing, but the better evidence is that of a letter that Cicero received from his brother Quintus. In that letter Quintus explains that he has received good news both from Cicero himself and from Tiro. The news is so good that Quintus in fact “jumps for joy!” (Ad Familiares 16.16.1). Then Quintus mentions his freedman Statius and explains that Statius’ fidelitas is a source of pleasure for himself and so he imagines that Cicero gets a similar feeling of pleasure from Tiro.
While Quintus’ letter is evidence for Tiro’s manumission, it is also evidence that the two of them had their own relationship, albeit one that significantly shaped by Cicero’s status as Tiro’s owner. There is more evidence to Tiro’s close connections to Cicero’s family. Indeed, Cicero’s son Marcus begins a letter by writing “greetings to my sweet Tiro” (Ad Familiaries 16.21). He then chastises Tiro for not writing him more often; that point in 44 BCE Marcus is studying in Athens. Marcus also asks Tiro to end him a slave to be his secretary during his lectures, which itself is a fascinating insight into how closely slaves were bound up with the production of Greek and Roman literature and knowledge.
But just because Tiro had a relationship with these men does not imply that this relationship was one of equality. Quintus begins another letter to Tiro by stating that he has just given Tiro a sound beating, albeit a beating made up of thoughts (Ad Familiaries 16.26). Obviously such a comment is a joke, but it is a joke that recalls how Tiro’s body was, and perhaps still is, the site of punishment.
In another letter, presumably one that followed the previous one, Quintus claims that Tiro had in turn given him a thrashing (16.27). Does this verbal combat mean that there is equality between the two men? I’m not sure. Note that it is Quintus who evokes the violence both times and is therefore in control of it. His image of Tiro thrashing him has more parallels with the fantastic images of slaves beating masters in Plautus’ comedies that it does of a jocular and pugilistic relationship between two equals. (Another note: Quintus’ comment may also be funny because of Tiro’s poor health; the majority of Cicero’s letter to Tiro are written because Tiro is chronically ill and therefore can't travel with his owner).
First, the act of Tiro’s manumission. Perhaps I should better say Tiro’s assumed manumission, for the letters do not actually articulate whether or not this event occurred. What is the evidence? Cicero writes to Tiro saying that when Tiro comes to Cumae, that will be the “day of his promise” (Ad Familiares 16.14.2). That itself is intriguing, but the better evidence is that of a letter that Cicero received from his brother Quintus. In that letter Quintus explains that he has received good news both from Cicero himself and from Tiro. The news is so good that Quintus in fact “jumps for joy!” (Ad Familiares 16.16.1). Then Quintus mentions his freedman Statius and explains that Statius’ fidelitas is a source of pleasure for himself and so he imagines that Cicero gets a similar feeling of pleasure from Tiro.
While Quintus’ letter is evidence for Tiro’s manumission, it is also evidence that the two of them had their own relationship, albeit one that significantly shaped by Cicero’s status as Tiro’s owner. There is more evidence to Tiro’s close connections to Cicero’s family. Indeed, Cicero’s son Marcus begins a letter by writing “greetings to my sweet Tiro” (Ad Familiaries 16.21). He then chastises Tiro for not writing him more often; that point in 44 BCE Marcus is studying in Athens. Marcus also asks Tiro to end him a slave to be his secretary during his lectures, which itself is a fascinating insight into how closely slaves were bound up with the production of Greek and Roman literature and knowledge.
But just because Tiro had a relationship with these men does not imply that this relationship was one of equality. Quintus begins another letter to Tiro by stating that he has just given Tiro a sound beating, albeit a beating made up of thoughts (Ad Familiaries 16.26). Obviously such a comment is a joke, but it is a joke that recalls how Tiro’s body was, and perhaps still is, the site of punishment.
In another letter, presumably one that followed the previous one, Quintus claims that Tiro had in turn given him a thrashing (16.27). Does this verbal combat mean that there is equality between the two men? I’m not sure. Note that it is Quintus who evokes the violence both times and is therefore in control of it. His image of Tiro thrashing him has more parallels with the fantastic images of slaves beating masters in Plautus’ comedies that it does of a jocular and pugilistic relationship between two equals. (Another note: Quintus’ comment may also be funny because of Tiro’s poor health; the majority of Cicero’s letter to Tiro are written because Tiro is chronically ill and therefore can't travel with his owner).