Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Columella and the cultivation of empire
(USC Thesis Other)
Columella and the cultivation of empire
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Columella and the Cultivation of Empire
by
Steven Gonzalez
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(CLASSICS)
August 2021
Copyright 2021 Steven Gonzalez
ii
Acknowledgments
To the institutions and people who have helped me write this dissertation, I express my gratitude.
Your kindness, patience, and support meant a great deal to me throughout the entirety of this
process and I am eternally grateful. The generous financial support from the University of Southern
California and the Classics Department were indispensable to my project. To Thomas Habinek,
whose kind words inspired me, thank you. Thank you to Claudia Moatti, whose knowledge
enriched my work and constantly challenged me. Thank you to my committee members, Stefano
Rebeggiani and Cavan Concannon. A special thanks to Tony Boyle for his wisdom, guidance, and
encouragement. To Emi Brown and Hanna Mason, thank you for your friendship and support
throughout graduate school and your willingness to read early drafts. Thanks to my mother,
Christine Gonzalez, who remains a constant source of inspiration for me, and to my father, Mike
Gonzalez. Our many trips to Keene, California, shaped my present concerns. Finally, I
acknowledge my loving wife Zerah. Your love and patience throughout this process deserve my
greatest thanks.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iv
Introduction: Columella and the Cultivation of Empire 1
Chapter One: Columella’s Predecessors: Cato, Varro, and Vergil 13
Chapter Two: Agricola Perfectus and the Formation of the Ideal Farmer 64
Chapter Three: Form and Structure of the De Re Rustica 97
Chapter Four: Agronomy and the Management of Capital 144
Chapter Five: Household Management and Administration of Empire 180
Chapter Six: The Flavians and the Cultivation of a New Imperial Subject 238
Conclusion: Columella and The Politics of Reform 285
Bibliography 292
iv
ABSTRACT
At the end of the 2
nd
century BCE, the Roman state underwent many changes brought about by
an influx of wealth from imperial acquisitions. Rome underwent significant changes. There was
a widespread reliance upon absentee management—a scenario where agricultural estates are
primarily run by slaves. I examine how the agronomist Columella responded to this problem.
Labor, power, and politics all intersect in his agricultural treatise, the De Re Rustica. Although it
is one of the most comprehensive ancient texts on the subject of agriculture, it has largely been
ignored by scholars. Most approaches have dismissed him as a compiler and a synthesizer
without analyzing his political commitments. I show how his response to the problem above
forms a politics of reform. This response is best understood through description of his distinct
version of the agricultural science (agricolatio) and examination of his approach to labor. The
approach reveals that Columella creates a vision of labor management more comprehensive than
his predecessors, based on action and visible in the explication of a pedagogical program that
distilled theoretical and practical knowledge into the figure of the ideal farmer (agricola
perfectus). Furthermore, he presents an idealized version of the household that projected an
image of sound administrative practices onto the state, forming a critique of the oppressiveness
and extravagance of the Neronian regime. This critique anticipated the key attributes that defined
the new aristocracy of Flavian Rome, with its emphasis on creating a class of administrative and
military expertise.
1
Columella and the Cultivation of Empire: Introduction
Columella’s De Re Rustica is a text that has been located outside of the interests of most
Classicists
1
. The work is both a challenge and a testament to the importance of the assertion that
agriculture was fundamental to Roman society and self-image. A challenge in the sense that
Columella writes about the theme’s neglect by the Romans, and a testament in its survival and
impact on later agronomists and technical writers and imperial policies
2
. Although the
importance of this agricultural text, especially in our contemporary world of a global, post-
industrial, technological society, seems questionable, I hope to show that Columella’s De Re
Rustica is, in fact, more relevant than ever today
3
. My aim, then, is a political reading of this text,
informed by its position within the agricultural literary discipline and from the standpoint of
labor.
In the preface to the De Re Rustica, Columella laments his contemporaries lack of
interest in agriculture, due in part to the assertions of philosophical opponents who posit that the
earth has lost its fecundity, and the fact that this preeminent activity, once practiced by the
1
As Fögen has pointed out, Copley’s Latin Literature. From the Beginnings to the Close of the Second Century
A.D., claims that Columella’s work “is not written with sufficient imagination to interest the lover of literature or
with sufficient realism to interest the farmer" (Copley 1969:316; Fögen 2016:322, n.1).
2
Martin identifies Columella as an essential source in Palladius’ Opus Agriculturae and Gargalius Martialis’ De
Hortis. He also gauges Columella’s impact on policy, establishing landownership as the foundation of the society
and the state, as playing a part in Trajan’s requirement that magistrates have a portion of their fortune invested in
Italian land (Martin 1985:197).
3
The post-industrial society and the gig economy have, according to Michael Crawford, exacerbated the problem of
alienation from the labor process in the modern world and contributed to a devaluing of the trades and a decline in
the quality of life (Crawford 2009:37-54). Furthermore, Eric Holtz-Gimenez has argued that the so-called Agrarian
Question, which had originally been concerned with the role of the small holder in agriculture under the
development of nineteenth century capitalism, persists to this day. In his view, pressures of industrialization–
especially from a post war boom in U.S. agricultural production due to chemicals, hybrid seeds, and industrial
technology–and financialization have driven medium-sized farmers out of agriculture (Holtz-Gimenz 2017:3). As a
response to these pressures, he cites the rise of food movements promoting agroecology, food justice, food
sovereignty, land justice, an increase in urban gardens, consumer cooperatives, organic farms, food workers’ unions,
and farmers markets (Holtz-Gimenz 2017:9).
2
ancestors, has been handed over to slaves: “Nec post haec reor violentia caeli nobis ista, sed
nostro potius accidere vitio, qui rem rusticam pessimo cuique servorum velut carnifici noxae
dedimus, quam maiorum nostrorum optimus quisque et optime tractaverat” (‘I do not think that
these things happened to us because of the ferocity of the weather, but rather they happen
because of our own fault, as we have given agriculture, which all the best of our ancestors had
treated in the best way possible, to all the worst of our slaves, as if to a hangman for
punishment’) (Rust. 1 pref. 1-3)
4
. In the context of an intellectual environment oriented towards
the systematization of disciplines, Columella asks why agronomy has been neglected.
Modern scholarly work on Columella’s De Re Rustica has focused on a variety of
different topics
5
. On the question of the nature of Columella’s project and its relationship to the
crisis of agriculture in particular, scholars have responded in a variety of different ways
6
. Eralda
Noè’s Il Progetto de Columella is a monograph dedicated to Columella. Noè examines the De Re
Rustica from three dominant perspectives: social, economic, and literary-cultural. She recognizes
the importance of the work’s pedagogical project, which she sees as integrating debates and
themes about the artes from Cicero, Varro, and Vitruvius. She argues that this project articulates
an ethical, economic, cultural model (Noè 2002:9). The works of other scholars are diachronic
approaches to the tradition of Roman agronomy.
4
The Latin text used is Rodgers’ 2010 OCT. All translations are my own unless otherwise stated.
5
Here is a select list: for the reception of Virgil in Columella, see Doody 2007 on the topic of authority; Gowers
2000 on poetics. For the treatment of animals in the text, see Fögen 2016; on the question of sources, Baldwin 1963;
on slavery and tenancy, see Kehoe 2007. For geometry, see Bertoni 2017; and on the topic of magic, see Ager 2019.
For an extensive overview of scholarship on Columella, see Martin 1985.
6
According to Aubert, unavoidable shifts in the distribution of wealth in the Republican period led to changes in
patterns of land holding, and as a result, in the techniques of management. He details the main features of these
transformations as follows: the concentration of agricultural estates in the hands of a restricted class of wealthy
landowners; a scattering of properties through different areas sometimes located far away from one another; the
diversification of crops, profitable activities, and specialization; widespread reliance on tenants, stewards, bailiffs,
and overseers; a more extensive use of slave labor, sometimes supplemented by wage labor (Aubert 1994: 118-119).
For this general view of the development of Roman agriculture, see MacMullen 1974; de Neeve 1984; Giardina and
Schiavone 1981; Greene 1986.
3
René Martin is another important figure in scholarship on Columella. He has interpreted
Columella’s work as similar in character to that of 18
th
Century Physiocrats, especially in its
privileging of agriculture at the expense of other forms of human activity. The Physiocrats
praised the type of the philosopher gentleman, who resided on his land for most of the year,
oversaw its exploitation, and invested heavily in making it fertile (Martin 1971:319).
Silke Diederich’s work focuses on the tradition of the agricultural handbook. She
examines Columella’s De Re Rustica in conjunction with Cato’s De Agricultura, Varro’s Res
Rusticae, and Palladius’ Opus Agriculturae. She reads the De Re Rustica as a textbook
positioned between science, literature, and ideology. She argues for an agricultural genre with
diverse literary modes aimed at expressing the ideal of the Roman landed gentry’s mode and
image of living, with all its inconsistencies and double standards—especially the image of an
outward frugality and a secret, inner luxury (Diederich 2007:368-380).
While each of these scholars address the importance of Columella’s project, they do not
consider the relationship between his project and the specific problem of labor. Scholars who
specifically examine the topic of labor and management in Columella include a dissertation
entitled, The Good Farmer in Ancient Rome: War, Agriculture, and the Elite from the Republic
to the Early Empire, by Ethan Spanier, and Heitland’s Agricola, a study of labor in the ancient
world. Spanier argues that with the monopolization of traditional honors available to elites by the
emperor, Columella promotes a turn toward the agrarian landscape, and this turn is visible in
descriptions about the organization and delegation of labor in the treatise in a way that echoes
military language and organization (Spanier 2010:210-263). But Spanier’s approach is concerned
more with language from the military context rather than an examination dedicated to the
organization and specialization of labor on the farm and within the household.
4
Heitland found Columella’s approach to the problems of labor in the Roman world
lacking. He summarizes his view about the agronomist’s solution to the problem: “The landlord
and his lady had long abdicated their interest in what was a noble pursuit: it is now a degrading
one and their places are taken by the vilicus and vilica. Yet all he can suggest is a more perfect
organization of the slave-staff, and the letting of outlying farms to tenants” (Heitland 1921:160).
In my view, Columella’s treatment of this problem is both more substantial than Heitland
intimates and engages deeply with imperial Latin literature. I hope to demonstrate that
Columella’s conception of agriculture poses solutions to these problems through the creation of
an innovative pedagogical system and a style of management. In the process, I show that
Columella displays a sophisticated understanding of the crisis of imperial agriculture, a
recognition of the decline in agricultural production in Italy, the problem of elite competition
under the empire, and a means of addressing these problems.
Prominent in Columella’s diagnosis of this problem is his understanding of the character
of labor. To be sure, Columella draws upon a number of perspectives in order to diagnose and
treat this problem. Notably, the Stoic philosophical principle of living in accordance with nature
is a central part of Columella’s pedagogical program
7
. The importance of this principle is
articulated in the preface of the De Re Rustica, where Columella argues against Epicurean views
7
Noè claims that Columella’s well-ordered version of agriculture is an imitation of the ratio of nature (Noè
2000:439). In my view this is explained by the De Re Rustica’s intersection with Stoic ethics. In the Stoic system of
ethics, things that were morally indifferent but of considerable worth were said to have precedence. A life in accord
with nature “can be promoted by everything which our sources represent as having precedence: life as opposed to
death, health, beauty, strength, wealth, good reputation, good birth, natural ability, technical skill moral progress,
soundness of limb and of the senses, absence of pain, good memory, an acute mind, parents and children (Sanbach
1975:31). Things of worth aided in leading a life in accord with nature. As Sandbach explains, the Greek concept of
nature, physis, means “growth” and “the way a thing grows”, and by further extension, “the force that causes a thing
to act and behave as it does”. For the Stoics, this force was something material and a part of the body it controlled.
Nature gave man an affinity for himself, which led to the acquisition of things that promote his survival and support
his proper constitution. As he develops reason, he modifies his impulses, “it is this new rational constitution and all
that goes with it that he now feels to belong to him” (Sandbach 1975:28-41).
5
about a decline in the Earth’s fertility (Rust. 1 pref. 1), and in a section of the De Re Rustica on
viticulture, where the agronomist recommends keeping a plot of land featuring different
examples of vine shoots arranged according to type (propriis generibus). He notes the
advantages of keeping such an area: in the first place, it would be particularly pleasing for the
wise man to observe, because of the attention to order and beauty; more importantly, “quod vel
alienissimus rusticae vitae, si in agrum tempestive veniat, summa cum voluptate naturae
benignitatem miretur” (‘because even the man who is most estranged from the rustic life, if he
should enter into the field at the right time, he would marvel with the utmost pleasure at the
benignity of nature’) (Rust. 3.21.3).
But the De Re Rustica is more than a venue for showcasing ancient philosophical
thought–even if it is inextricable from the treatise. The work is exceptional in its foregrounding
of the importance of human action, labor, and its organization. This theme is covered in multiple
books in the De Re Rustica: Book One, Book Eleven, and Book Twelve. For this reason, the
primary lens through which I view the problem voiced by Columella is labor. From Columella’s
concern over the prevalence of absentee management flows a whole host of issues: social,
cultural, moral, economic, philosophical, epistemological, and political
8
. I interpret the source of
Columella’s discontent, absentee management, as a contributing factor in elites’ alienation from
the labor process. I characterize this arrangement, which began in the Republic and persisted into
the Principate, as a separation of the labor process into planning and execution
9
.
8
The beginning of the De Re Rustica features a philosophical debate that arises from neglect of agriculture (Rust. 1
pref. 2-3). Also addressed are economic problems (Rust. 1 pref. 6; 15; 18; 20); moral and social problems (Rust. 1
pref. 7-10); epistemological (Rust. 1 pref. 11-12; 28-29; 33); cultural problems (Rust. 1 pref. 13-14; 17); and
political problems, (Rust. 1 pref. 1-3; 10; 20; 29).
9
This conception of labor is informed and influenced by both Moishe Postone’s Time, Labor, and Social
Domination and Harry Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth
Century. Postone informed my views on labor. He argues against interpretations of Marx which hold the assumption
that labor is the defining characteristic of the human species–that labor constitutes the social world and is the source
of all wealth–with the historicist view that Marx’s Capital was a critique of the specific form labor takes under
6
My approach takes into account the importance of labor in Columella’s treatise, its
disciplinary context, and its literary qualities. It is grounded in scholarly work which has sought
to identify how the Romans responded to social and economic disequilibrium from the second
century BCE on to the first century CE. According to Claudia Moatti, this disequilibrium led to a
crisis of “norms, rules, authority and consensus” (Moatti 1997:1). What united the various
responses of Roman intellectual culture to the crisis was an emphasis upon reason (ratio). This
epistemic revolution concerned all domains of knowledge and consisted of the systematization of
disparate forms into more formal structures of knowledge. Agronomy was one field that admitted
this rationalization, resulting in a systematization of the field into an ars. The Roman
agriculturalist Varro, for example, an author obsessed with imposing strict order and
categorization in the field of agronomy, is especially representative of this drive (Moatti
1997:232).
Within this framework of the reorganization and rationalization of knowledge,
Nelsestuen’s recent work has argued that Varro’s Res Rusticae develops the discipline of
agriculture through the delineation and disembedding of agriculture (agri cultura), pasturage
(pastio), and pasturage of the homestead (pastio villatica) from the broader category of the
farmer (agricola). In the process, Varro’s conceptualization of agri cultura shifts from an agent-
centric approach to one which is more abstract (Nelsestuen 2015:31-72). In a similar vein,
capitalism (Postone 1993:3). Furthermore, one of the key differences between modern capitalist society as described
in Postone’s reinterpretation of Marx and that of Ancient Rome is the position of labor within ancient or
preindustrial societies. Labor in ancient society does not determine the structure of social relations. Rather, it is
shaped by tradition and embedded within overt social relations–such as kinship relations or relations of direct or
personal domination–which “determine labors, implements, and objects that, inversely, appear to possess a socially
determining character” (Postone 1993:172). Braverman influenced my view of the nature of direct or personal
domination in the ancient world, especially his insights on the character of work in the modern world and his
critique of Taylorism, which he summarized as causing a dissociation of the labor process from the skills of the
workers, a separation of conception from execution, and a use of a monopoly of knowledge to control the labor
process and its mode of execution (Braverman 1974:77-82).
7
Martin has argued that the field of Roman agriculture progressed towards professionalization in
three stages: from approaches to the discipline based on otium, an amateurish engagement with
the activity, to negotium, a more systematic, managerial approach, and eventually occupatio, a
level of specialist knowledge (Martin 1995:80-91). This increasing sense of professionalization
in Roman agronomy culminates in Columella’s De Re Rustica.
How did Columella respond to this environment, where everything seemed to be
determined and knowledge seemed to be fixed? I show how he is an example of one individual’s
response to this process, an attempt to carve out his own space within the organizing structures
and excessive abstraction of the Roman epistemological movement. Although he accepts the
formal divisions of agriculture established by his predecessors, and even establishes and
elaborates his own, he views some of their work as the result of excessive systematization. I
argue that as a corrective to the trajectory of the agricultural discipline, Columella creates a
distinct version of the agricultural science (agricolatio), the defining features of which include
the incorporation of theory and practice in a pedagogical program and an elaboration on the
organization of labor. As a solution to the problem of the neglect of agriculture, Columella asks
his contemporaries to once again engage in a form of activity that had helped to constitute a very
specific image of Roman culture. Columella’s task of recuperating the cultural heritage of
agriculture and its connection to the land can be said to be analogous to what Cicero had claimed
in his praise of Varro on the topic of Roman history, religion, and culture:
Nos in nostra urbe peregrinantis errantisque tamquam hospites tui libri quasi domum reduxerunt, ut
possemus aliquando qui et ubi essemus agnoscere. Tu aetatem patriae, tu discriptiones temporum, tu
sacrorum iura, tu sacerdotum, tu domesticam, tu bellicam disciplinam, tu sedem regionum, locorum, tu
omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum nomina, genera, officia, causas aperuisti. Cic. Acad. 1.3.9
Your books led us, so to speak, homeward, as we were wandering and straying about like guests in our own
city, with the result that we were able to recognize at last who and where we were. You have revealed the
age of our fatherland, its divisions of time, the laws of its religion, of its priests, its civil and military
8
institutions, the topography of its districts and its sites, the terminology, classification, and moral and
rational basis of all our religious and secular institutions.
As an organizer and restorer, Columella’s efforts are concentrated on restoring the knowledge
and practice of Roman agriculture, as well as promoting the social, cultural, moral, and political
habits associated with it. Columella responds by reasserting the importance of practical
experience in relation to theoretical abstraction; and by creating a form of systematization based
on utility that rivals that of his predecessors. The first part of his response, however, clashed with
the habits of elites under the Empire. It is here where I begin to locate the political character of
his work. Whereas the dominance of the emperor and the lost opportunities for dignity forced
some to look inwards for a space of liberty and as a strategy for survival
10
, Columella formulates
a version of agriculture predicated upon embracing an active life. The sense of action behind his
version of agriculture (agricolatio) encouraged engagement with the agrarian landscape.
Additionally, he promoted a vision of household management which looked to the state as an
exemplary model of organization. In taking cues from leading intellectuals concerned with the
administration of the Empire and in connecting his agricolatio to the concept of citizenship,
Columella makes his recommendations for the household a means of addressing the governance
of the state.
This message was provocative in the context of an environment where leisure had come
to dominate social life. Especially among the elites, we hear how those in powerful positions
avoided attracting attention to themselves as a strategy for survival. Galba, for example, is said
by Suetonius to have turned to a life of sloth and inaction so as to avoid Nero, with the
explanation that: “nemo rationem otii sui reddere cogeretur” (‘nobody is forced to give an
10
Heitland cites as an example of this trend the tendency in Epicurean and Stoic philosophies to concern themselves
with the individual rather than the state (Heitland 1921:276).
9
account of his leisure’) (Suet. Galb. 9.1). Moreover, Tacitus claims that Agricola understood the
reign of Nero as one where “inertia pro sapientia fuit” (‘idleness took the place of wisdom’)
(Tac. Agr. 6.3). Although the nature of Columella’s proposal was antithetical to the lifestyle of
elites who practiced absentee management and were alienated from the land, especially since a
full embrace of Columella’s message would result in a fundamental change in the organization of
Roman society, Columella works around this problem by elaborating a pedagogical program that
distills agricultural knowledge into the figure of the ideal farmer (agricola perfectus), his
complement, the ideal overseer (vilicus perfectus), and to a lesser extent, an idealized version of
the overseer’s wife (vilica). The principles of household management outlined in this process lay
bare the labor relations of the household. Columella’s refinement of these labor relations respond
to the problem of absentee management by grounding the idealized figures of the vilicus and
vilica in past traditions of Roman agriculture. Their idealization compensates for the likely
absence of the master. At the same time, Columella promotes a conception of labor in the ancient
world which views the work of the slave as essentially the work of the master
11
, smoothing over
the contradiction between his promotion of elite participation in agriculture and the utilization of
slave labor and dependents. And although Columella’s De Re Rustica perpetuates the hierarchies
of the Roman imperial system in the portions of his work on the organization of labor within the
household, I argue that the expression of this organization of labor, in its utilization of the
language of imperial administration, forms a politics based on improving the administrative
capacities of the state
12
.
11
Reay has argued for a conception of labor in the ancient world which views slaves as an extension of the master’s
body, effectively effacing the distinction between labor performed by his subalterns and the master (Reay 2005:
331-361.
12
In this sense, I agree with the approaches of Spanier 2010 and Nelsestuen 2015. Spanier argues that agricultural
writers used their manuals to “shape an ‘agricultural discourse’ and demarcate a rural zone of power that addressed
contemporary political concerns” (Spanier 2010:94); Nelsestuen views Varro’s Res Rusticae as a “work of
rudimentary political philosophy”, arguing that “the Varronian praedium provides a model of, and for, the
10
Because my object in this study is a political reading of Columella’s De Re Rustica
informed by its place within the tradition of agronomy, the first chapter of the dissertation will
seek to understand the specifics of Columella’s contribution to agriculture by contextualizing his
work within the discipline of agriculture alongside the contributions of Cato’s De Agricultura,
Varro’s De Re Rustica and Vergil’s Georgics. I address the role of rhetoric and the development
of organizational principles within each of these works. I argue that in each of these works there
is a drive to integrate principles of rational management, a feature which is visible as a
fragmentation of the labor process.
The second chapter will argue that Columella’s De Re Rustica recognizes this
fragmentation and attempts to correct it. I suggest that this correction is visible in the De Re
Rustica’s aim to bring together theory and practice. Thus the pedagogical program of the De Re
Rustica participates in a trend within Roman education which distills into one figure (the
agricola perfectus) theoretical and practical knowledge. Furthermore, I show how this trend
responds to problems in Roman education which are articulated in Petronius’ Satyricon.
The third chapter will analyze the importance of the form and structure of the De Re
Rustica. I will consider the form of the De Re Rustica as an encyclopedic text that participates in
the imperial drive towards the accumulation of knowledge and, for this reason, poses a challenge
to imperial power insofar as it directs its reader towards a life of self-sufficiency and
independence gained from the agricultural enterprise. In order to qualify the character of
Columella’s encyclopedism, I contrast it with Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis Historia. Additionally,
I examine the work for its ability to subsume a number of literary forms, especially the poetic
Book Ten. I argue that this book acts as a protreptic to agronomy through its disquisition on
contemporary Roman imperium, which not only delineates the relationships between its various parts but offers a
theory of Roman empire” (Nelsestuen 2015:5).
11
horticulture—an accessible entry into the world of agriculture. The work is thus political in
nature: it is an exhortation to elites to remain active under the empire in agricultural and political
pursuits.
In the fourth chapter I identify capital as one of the driving forces in the organization of
agriculture into an ars. Columella’s readiness to organize his version of agriculture around the
role of capital contributes to the emphasis on management within the work.
In Book Twelve of the De Re Rustica, Columella’s treatment of household management
draws an analogy between the household and the state. I argue in the fifth chapter that this
analogy taps into a preexisting discourse of management and administration and that through it,
Columella offers a subtle critique of Neronian rule by embedding administrative practices
emphasizing clementia in his disquisition on household management. The basis for this argument
is an inversion of a methodology proposed by Seneca the Younger, which asks the reader to look
for examples from smaller-scale forms of organization in nature. Instead, Columella advises his
readers look to the administrative features of the Empire for principles of household
management. Columella’s articulation of idealized principles and agents of household
management, then, acts as a guide for the administration of the Empire. This is the basis of
Columella’s politics.
In the sixth chapter, I examine how the De Re Rustica anticipates some of the cultural
trends that come to be adopted by the new aristocracy of Flavian Rome—Vespasian’s rustic
sensibilities and modes of self-fashioning, a willingness to assimilate subjects from throughout
the empire and integrate them into its administrative structures, the observance of financial
competency and frugality, architecture directed towards surveillance, an emphasis on
12
management and military command, and sexual control
13
. Although the treatment of these
different features is not unique to Columella, the intersection of each of them within his work
positions the De Re Rustica as an important point in our understanding of the construction of the
new Flavian aristocracy of power. I suggest that Columella’s politics, which are deeply
intertwined with a well-functioning imperial system, are especially important to the definition of
this new aristocracy and help to explain the broader cultural phenomena which take hold under
the Flavians.
Finally, the conclusion will summarize the political contribution of Columella’s work. I
evaluate the role of Columella’s call to an active life, a call which appears in the preface to the
work and the books on household management, but which is limited by the realities of the
relations of labor, the fundamental nature of which Columella acknowledges will not change.
Then, I turn to the way in which this author used his agricultural treatise to respond to
contemporary problems and as a means of formulating an ideal household unit alongside an
idealized version of the relationship between the management and the rest of the staff. I review
the broader implications of this disquisition on household management, addressing the degree to
which this content speaks to the administration of the Empire and constitutes a politics of reform.
13
In speaking of a Flavian age, I follow Boyle in his assertion that the cultural conditions, conventions, and
practices of the time have much in common with those of earlier and later times, but are neither identical nor
identically manifested (Boyle 2003:3).
13
Chapter One: Columella’s Predecessors: Cato, Varro, and Vergil
The present chapter is concerned with contextualizing Columella’s De Re Rustica within
the agronomic tradition. It will outline the contributions of Cato’s De Agricultura, Varro’s Res
Rusticae, and Vergil’s Georgics to the discipline of agriculture, especially focusing on the
impact of Varro’s work as fundamental in establishing agriculture as an ars. The chapter will
argue that agriculture before Columella was shaped by a growing concern for
professionalization, characterized by a nascent devotion to the imperatives of rational
management, especially as seen in the promotion of indirect agency and the abstraction of
agricultural knowledge. This is evident in the creation of the agricultural treatise in the Latin
language and a subsequent departure from an agent-centered conception of agriculture.
In order to argue this, I turn to the very idea of the agricultural treatise. In my view, the
creation of such a technology ostensibly had a democratizing effect on agricultural knowledge—
making it available to a wider audience. Cato’s Latin treatise in the Latin language retains traces
of the orality of Roman culture and operated through a mystification of labor in the text
dependent upon a conflation of landowner and laborer. This conflation is possible only with the
development of absentee management. Under this development, a clear aim in Cato’s De
Agricultura becomes visible: the formation of a managerial class, separate from laborers and
practitioners, yet entirely dependent upon their labor, knowledge and expertise. Thus, the
discipline of agriculture is inextricably linked with the rise of an elite circle of landowners intent
on expanding their acquisitive capacity through the rise of rational management and the
phenomenon of absentee management.
14
Then I turn to how these impulses are treated in Varro’s Res Rustica, where these trends
continue to a greater degree. The effects of absentee management are more developed in the Res
Rusticae. Varro makes his motivation for writing much more explicit than Cato had. At the
beginning of the first book of the dialogue, the erudite octogenarian claims to write at the behest
of his wife, who had just purchased a farm and wanted to make a profitable enterprise out of it
(Varro, Rust. 1.1.2). As Dyson has noted, this motivation can be linked to a tradition of female
practicality and a broader perspective that saw agricultural estates as an investment in a society
where there were few secure investments (Dyson 1992:112). The task would require the
knowledge and assistance of a skilled managerial class of workers. Although nascent in Cato,
Varro firmly establishes the discipline of agriculture as a technical field thoroughly informed by
abstract knowledge. By abstract knowledge, I mean portions of the dialogue are more interested
in theoretical conceptions of agriculture (forms of categorization and the delimitation of
knowledge) rather than specifics about its practice. In my view this coincides with the
entrenchment of absentee management in Roman culture.
After the dedication to his wife, Varro begins a series of dialogues in three books about
the best way to run a fundus. The form has been said to add pleasure to the reading of dry,
technical content and aid in the spread of serious subjects, with the effect of popularizing
knowledge and making available to the public what had been restricted to specialists (Martin
1995:81). This is a continuation of the impulse in Cato, who probably composed the De
Agricultura with similar designs in mind. It is also important to note that there had long been a
Platonic tradition of teaching associated with the dialogue form—philosophy, especially in the
form of the Socratic dialogue, frequently used humor and ridicule in its relentless pursuit of
wisdom and truth. Varro’s utilization of the dialogue form points to the work’s affiliation with
15
other genres, namely philosophy and satire, and in doing so facilitates additional metaphorical or
allegorical ways in which to read the text, rather than as a closed, technical work (Nelsestuen
2015:11). Both Nelsestuen and Martin explore this dimension of the text, the latter seeing
Cicero’s De Oratore as especially important to the understanding of Varro’s work as an ars
14
.
These observations about Varro’s Res Rusticae are important because they expand the horizon of
expectations which the text presents to its readers. With such a view in mind, I argue that Varro’s
authorial persona plays with the figure of the absentee landowner, on the one hand adopting an
identity as a stern moralist, while, on the other hand, making satirical jabs which point out the
hypocrisy of elites. I argue that the basis for this reading is a tension within the text caused by a
configuration of society based upon absentee management, which allows for elites to envision
themselves as direct participants in a tradition of agricultural excellence while remaining far
from its actual practice. In the Res Rusticae Varro utilizes satire in order to critique the tendency
of the latest agronomic practitioners to categorize the content of agronomy, presenting its
material as abstract, absurd, or unsound. In my view, this does not totally destroy the technical
achievements of the work, but instead highlights its incorporation and total embrace of principles
of rational, scientific management, in the process showing to Varro’s readers the tremendous
amount of distance between contemporary Romans and an idealized past.
Finally, Vergil’s work on agriculture, the Georgics, provides a curious test case for how I
have characterized the agricultural tradition up to the time of Columella. The work itself offers a
great deal of resistance to being placed in any singular category, especially under the parameters
which I have set forth above, as one could expect for a work with such a literary pedigree. After
14
Martin makes a comparison between the questions asked by De Re Rustica’s Agrasius (about the status of
agriculture as an art) and the De Oratore’s Cotta (on the status of speaking, artem dicendi, as an art) (Martin 1995:
80-91).
16
all, the poem was famously dubbed by Dryden as “the best poem of the best poet”
15
. It is clear,
however, that the Georgics is grounded in a feature common to agricultural texts, that is, the
drive to incorporate the principles of rational management into its conceptualization of
agriculture. The technical aspects of Roman agronomy form the very fabric of the poem. They
are integral to the structure of the poem, and conceptually, are the basis of the major themes
which Vergil addresses, especially the capacity for agriculture to provide for humans against the
vicissitudes of nature. With this admission, however, it is clear that the poem, more so than the
other texts within the agricultural tradition, aspires to more than just an explication of agronomic
principles and the elucidation of sound principles of rational management. Nevertheless, the
managerial aspects of Roman agronomy are also found within the poem and they may lead us to
a reading of the poem that helps to resolve questions concerning its genre, which has been the
source of much criticism.
In short, such is the picture of agriculture before Columella’s unique contribution to the
discipline: a conception of agriculture based upon the recognition of the importance of capital
and a new way of organizing labor, expressed through a pedagogical program for landowners
and laborers that acknowledges the satirical past of the agronomic tradition but points the way
forward to an articulation of agronomy for the new social formation ushered in under the empire.
Agronomy and the Division Between Thinking and Doing:
In order to compose an history of agriculture in ancient Rome, one must first be
concerned with words. The Latin words used to denominate the activity of agriculture varied,
showing that there is a rich history behind the activity known as agriculture. Agriculture was not
15
For a catalogue of the effusive praise of the Georgics, see Boyle 1979:1-2.
17
a transhistorical concept, but one that underwent many changes. According to Nelsestuen, the
pre-systematized world of agriculture is closely tied to “the more general Roman politico-
cultural discourse concerning the salient individual who engages in rustic enterprise: the
agricola” (Nelsestuen 2015:34). Nelsestuen further describes the predominant character of this
version of agriculture as a “disorganized and wide-ranging account of various things that
somehow (and to varying degrees) pertain to farmers” (Nelsestuen 2015:34). Elsewhere, he adds
that this early version of agriculture was embedded in a network of social structures
16
. In my
view, Nelsestuen provides a valuable means of distinguishing between the pre-systematized and
a systematized world of agriculture, that is, between Cato and Varro, but I would suggest that
reliance upon the figure of the agricola, or a discourse centered around the figure of the agricola,
makes it difficult to capture an important tendency operative in both authors: the reliance upon
absentee management. Even in Cato’s time there was a profound awareness about the identity
politics surrounding the term agricola, demonstrated in the word’s broad semantic range. The
figure of the agricola was one open to exploitation and appropriation by an established
aristocracy and an up-and-coming commercial elite. The term itself is only used in the preface to
Cato’s De Agricultura
17
. Nelsestuen’s account of the distinction between Cato and Varro
operates on the assumption that the term agricola is transhistorical, an assumption which
deemphasizes recognition of the various social and economic relationships behind the term. My
interest, then, is in the materiality of the agricola—the human relationships and the various
forms of relations of production that are mystified in the general usage of the term. The history
16
Nelsestuen uses the term ‘embedded’ as a way to describe a “discourse interconnected with and dependent upon
other discursive categories for its undifferentiated identity, as opposed to a putatively isolated, abstract and self-
sufficient system” (Nelsestuen 2015:34)
17
The word colonus (husbandman or country dweller) also appears in the same passage of the De Agricultura (pref.
1-4).
18
of the discipline of agronomy is predicated upon a division between thinking and doing, that is, a
separation between planning and execution. As an analogy to this development, I point to the
simplification of jobs which occurred in the 1950s, which sociologists have attributed to both
automation and the imperatives of rational administration. According to Harry Braverman, these
developments resulted in the degradation of work. The degradation of work refers to its
fragmentation and simplification—the development of a work process. For ancient Rome, I
suggest a similar separation ‘of thinking from doing’ was a major impetus in the creation of the
field of agronomy, and that an important factor in this split was an overwhelming emphasis on
the imperatives of rational administration. The division saw the rise of a professional managerial
class meant to oversee its workforce.
In order to situate this discussion in the Roman agricultural context, I turn to the Latin
language. But how does the farmer fit into this scenario where there is a division between
thinkers and doers? Is not the farmer responsible for both? I suggest that even though the
agricola seems to remain an important figure throughout the history of agriculture, the usage of
the word in the literary record bears traces of this very separation. By the 2
nd
Century B.C.E. the
term extended to a broad circle of participants within the farming enterprise. Generally, the word
refers to an agent, the farmer, and its usage is attested more frequently than agri cultura, a much
more abstract concept. It is comprised of both ager, “field” or “farm”, and cola, whose root is
“colere”, which, in contradistinction to the abstract word cultura, “cultivation”, probably had a
much more general meaning. It first appears to have meant “to live in” or to “inhabit” and
thereafter it is used with the general sense of “to take care of”, and more specifically within the
context of farming, “to tend” or “to cultivate”
18
. In Nelsestuen’s understanding, this means that
18
As Nelsestuen shows, colo (TLL s.v. colo) means: I. i.q. incolere, habitare (‘to dwell; to inhabit’); and II. i.q.
curare, tractare, diligere (‘to take care, to treat, to care for’).
19
the term agricola could have been applied to any person who “lived on a farm and derived his
livelihood from a field (ager) by planting crops, raising livestock, quarrying a mine, or, for that
matter, some combination thereof” (Nelsestuen 2015:70). With Nelsestuen’s comments, it is
clear that the farmer may perform activities typically thought to be outside the farming
enterprise. I aim to show how this word was used strategically in the period, as evidenced in the
first treatise on agronomy in the Latin language.
Cato and the First Roman Agricultural Treatise:
Cato the Elder’s De Agricultura is the earliest piece of literary evidence describing the
nature of agriculture. For this reason, Cato’s text is especially important in tracking the various
ways in which the activity of agriculture has changed. One distinguishing quality about this text
which separates it from its successors is a lack of organization. The De Agricultura is in many
ways an outlier—compared to other agricultural texts it features a disorganized, ad hoc structure.
The work has been routinely criticized for this reason. A cursory glimpse at the contents of each
chapter is illustrative. The preface of the work argues for the pursuit of agriculture over other
activities, namely commerce and usury, while the body includes instructions that range from
agricultural topics to medical, dietary, legal and religious prescriptions. More precisely, the first
twenty-two chapters contain information on the purchase, location, management and expansion
of existing farms; the next set of roughly thirty chapters lays out calendar-based farm operations,
starting with the grape harvest up to summer operations (23-53); the next set of chapters (69-
130) contain medical and veterinary recipes, instructions for how to make bread and cakes; the
remaining books include material as diverse as instructions on rituals, contract templates,
suggestions on where to buy equipment, instructions for the overseer, and other recipes. The
question of the text’s haphazardly organized structure has dominated criticism. Why is Cato’s
20
text organized in this way? And, what does the text’s organization mean about Cato’s conception
of agriculture and its status as a discipline?
One prominent explanation for the unorganized nature of the text has been tied to Cato’s
role as the virtual founder of Latin prose literature. Alan Astin, author of an important
monograph on Cato, summarizes the argument:
Cato did not live in an environment which constantly inculcated ideals of relevance, consistency, clarity
and techniques of composition, and had little previous experience of constructing books and equally little
opportunity to benefit from the experience of others. Astin 1978:198.
In my view the explanation is powerful. It forces one to imagine a pre-literary culture and
provokes a series of questions about Cato’s work, including his motivation in composing the
treatise, its intended audience, and the efficacy of its instruction for running a farm. In order to
understand what Cato’s motivations might be, we must place Cato’s work in a wider context—
the very origins of Latin prose literature.
Thomas Habinek has argued that the Latin literature was one of the strategies by which
the elite secured their dominance. The starting premise is that Latin literature was an intervention
in aristocratic culture. It defined, preserved, and transmitted the behavior to which individual
aristocrats must aspire. By definition, aristocrats lay claim to certain privileges, which they
jealously guard against threats from competing factions. Such a contest is visible in the preface
of Cato’s De Agricultura, which stages the struggle between landed elites and the newly
emergent classes who seek to distinguish themselves through commercial and industrial
enterprises:
Est interdum praestare mercaturis rem quaerere, nisi tam periculosum sit, et item fenerari, si tam honestum
sit. Maiores nostri sic habuerunt et ita in legibus posiverunt, furem dupli condemnari, feneratorem
quadrupli. Quanto peiorem civem existimarint feneratorem quam furem, hinc licet existimare. Et virum
bonum quom laudabant, ita laudabant, bonum agricolam bonumque colonum. Amplissime laudari
existimabatur qui ita laudabatur. Mercatorem autem strenuum studiosumque rei quaerendae existimo,
verum, ut supra dixi, periculosum et calamitosum. At ex agricolis et viri fortissimi et milites strenuissimi
21
gignuntur, maximeque pius quaestus stabilissimusque consequitur minimeque invidiosus, minimeque male
cogitantes sunt qui in eo studio occupati sunt. Cato, Agr. pref. 1-4.
It is sometimes advantageous to seek riches through commerce—except that it is so dangerous, and it is the
same with moneylending—if only it were respectable. Our ancestors thus determined, and thus placed it in
their laws, that a thief be punished twofold, a moneylender fourfold. How much worse a citizen they
considered a moneylender than a thief, from this it can be assessed. And the good man, when they praised
him, they praised him thus: a good farmer and a good country-dweller. I esteem a businessman as an
occupation energetic and eager for gain, but as I stated above, full of danger and disaster. But from farmers
the bravest men and most energetic soldiers are born, and the income from farming is especially honest and
very stable, and least subject to envy. And least ill devising are those who are occupied in this pursuit.
On display in Cato’s preface are a number of agents used by Cato to outline a moral economy
that ultimately favors the agricultural pursuit. By drawing upon ancestral traditions and his own
self-interests, Cato places businessmen and usurers in opposition to good farmers and cultivators.
By creating this opposition, Cato masks his own acquisitive strategies. It is clear in the text that
there is already an established discourse of the agricola, one which Cato appropriates for his own
purposes. Habinek demystifies Cato’s strategy in the preface: “insistence on the traditional
privileging of landowning allows Cato and his class to have their cake and eat it too—enjoying
the material benefits of a new economy, as well as the social and political privileges associated
with traditional aristocratic hegemony” (Habinek 1998:49). Habinek’s reading means that the
invention of Latin prose literature was part of a broader strategy of aristocratic acculturation. The
specific character of Cato’s intervention is the appropriation of the discourse on the agricola—an
individual’s attempt to mask his participation in a new economy based upon the proliferation of
the latifundia system of farming. The link between these two distinct spheres of activity is the
managerial system created in Roman farming which, according to Aubert, is eventually utilized
in other business contexts with a resultant expansion of Roman commercial enterprises. This
vilicus-based managerial system is visible in the De Agricultura and partly explains the
emergence of agronomy early in the history of Latin prose—an early example of the separation
of thinking from doing in agricultural practice.
22
It is perhaps this very divide which is responsible for the dual coding of the agricultural
mode of life in the Roman world. Positive attitudes about rustic life emphasize its proximity to
nature and values such as self-sufficiency and frugality. Negative attitudes about Roman
agriculture before Varro consider the pursuit a slavish activity with a considerable distance from
formalized methods of learning. It is this distance which Cicero refers to when he says a subject
like agri cultura recoils “from every kind of more polished refinement” (ab omni politiore
elegantia) (Cic. De Finibus 3.4), a statement which refers to both literary polish and systematic
treatment. The statement is a reference not only to literary aesthetics and the organization of
knowledge, but is also a class-based critique directed at the lowly practitioners rather than the
owners of agricultural estates. Distance from literary refinement also means distance from the
resources required for elite education—a life where the necessity of work for one’s livelihood is
required.
The level of rhetoric in an agricultural treatise could be considered an indication of the
degree to which a separation between thinking and doing has occurred. Columella, in a short
history of the field of agriculture, informs us of just this in his understanding of what
differentiates agricultural authors from one another. Cato taught agriculture to “speak in Latin”,
while Varro, on the other hand, “thoroughly polished” her (Col. Rust. 1.1.12). To speak in Latin
suggests a command over the various forms of rustic knowledge—a conquering of Greek forms
of knowledge and the textualization of practice. This knowledge is then codified—its
particularities are preserved in Latin speech in Cato’s prose treatise. Varro’s “polish”, on the
other hand, calls to mind the broader trends within Roman intellectual history: the important
shifts in agricultural knowledge that occurred at the end of the Republic during the
reorganization of the ways in which Romans conceptualized and categorized their world through
23
the incorporation of Hellenistic modes of thought
19
. While there is a break between Cato and
Varro in terms of the organization of knowledge, there is a strong continuity in terms of the drive
toward making agricultural knowledge the provenance of a managerial class.
Cato’s text, then, is unique for its originary status. It signals a rupture in the traditional
methods of knowledge acquisition: instead of relying solely upon oral and experiential forms of
acquisition, Cato’s work transmitted knowledge by codifying it into a treatise
20
. The De
Agricultura records the recipes, prayers and formulas of individuals associated with the Roman
countryside who knew the correct procedures and performed the labor required for its
maintenance and cultivation—Cato organized, deployed and redeployed each of these schemes.
One such example is the ritual for the clearing of a field. It begins with the sacrifice of a piglet
and, afterwards, the utterance of a formulaic prayer:
Lucum conlucare Romano more sic oportet. Porco piaculo facto, sic verba concipito: “Si deus, si dea es,
quoium illud sacrum est, uti tibi ius est porco piaculo facere illiusce sacri coercendi ergo harumque rerum
ergo, sive ego sive quis iussu meo fecerit, uti id recte factum siet, eius rei ergo te hoc porco piaculo
inmolando bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius mihi domo familiaeque meae liberisque meis;
harumce rerum ergo macte hoc porco piaculo inmolando esto." Cato, Agr. 139.
According to the Roman custom, it is necessary to thin a grove in this way: after a pig is sacrificed, repeat
the following words: “Whether you be god or goddess to whom this grove is dedicated, as it is proper to
sacrifice the expiation swine to you for the thinning of this sacred grove, and in consequence of these
events, whether I or one at my command performs it, may it be rightly done. In consequence of this event,
in offering this pig, I pray to you good prayers that you be willing and favorable to me, to my house, and
my household, and to my children. Therefore, by the sacrifice of this expiatory piglet, hail to thee!"
The ritual clearly defines an important hierarchy necessary for securing the order of things. Atop
the hierarchy is the divinity, here unspecified, followed by the constituents of the human world:
“…volens propitious mihi domo familiaeque meae liberisque meis” (‘…that you be willing and
favorable to me, to my house, and my household, and to my children’). In addition to the
importance of hierarchy, I emphasize the prayer’s allowance for the absence of the
19
As described in Rawson 1985:3-114 and Moatti 1997:55-95.
20
Traditional methods of elite learning include apprenticeships, where elites such as Fabius Maximus mentored
Cato the Elder, or Mucius Scaevola mentoring Cicero (Plut. Cat. Mai. 3; Cic. Brutus 306).
24
dominus/paterfamilias figure and the possibility that he might use an agent: “sive ego sive quis
iussu meo fecerit” (‘whether I or whether someone under my order does it’). The utterance
highlights the maintenance of hierarchical order on the farm notwithstanding the presence or
absence of the dominus/paterfamilias figure, whose duties are outlined through iussu meo. The
phrase has a specific meaning in the context of Roman law. It describes the relationship between
a principal and a dependent, a person under the principle’s power (manus or potestas). The
iussum is the authorization of the principal which allows the dependent to perform a specific
transaction, in contrast with a praepositio, which was to be carried out on a general basis. The
authorization of the iussum was neither contractual nor consensual. The legal context in the
passage is further elaborated in the use of the future imperative (concipito). The other
agricultural rituals positioned next to the field-clearing ritual also use the future imperative:
facito, dicito, praefamino, esto, obmoveto
21
. Typically the future imperative is used whenever it
is necessary that instructions be carried out or upon the fulfillment of some condition. The
instructions provided by Cato specify the delegation of certains duties. In the Suovitaurilia, for
example, Cato writes “Agrum lustrare sic oportet. Impera suovitaurilia circumagi” (‘it is
necessary to lustrate the field in this way: order that the pig, sheep, and ox be driven in a circle’)
(Cato, Agr. 141). It is understood here that the dominus/paterfamilias figure will not be the actual
person driving the animals around the farm. Instead, the language used by Cato implies that
subordinates are expected to fulfill the required ritual tasks—the master it told to command the
performance of the activity.
Cato’s focus on the managerial aspects of his work are also apparent in the sample
contracts and outlines for the diverse sets of duties and obligations to be performed by various
21
Cato, Agr. 139-141.
25
agents on the estate. For example, Cato references the duties of the vilicus and vilica, and the
terms for letting out the gathering of olives, the milling of olives, the sale of olives on the tree,
grapes on the vine, wine in jars, the lease of winter pasturage, and the increase of the flock
22
. In
the section on letting out the gathering of olives, the hierarchical structuring of relationships is
clear: “Oleam legendam hoc modo locare oportet. Oleam cogito recte omnem arbitratu domini,
aut quem custodem fecerit, aut cui olea venierit. Oleam ne stringito neve verberato iniussu
domini aut custodis” (‘It is necessary to contract out the gathering of the olive harvest in this
way: Let the whole olive harvest be collected according to the wish of the master, or whoever he
has made his overseer, or the purchaser of the harvest. Do not let the olive harvest be plucked off
or beat down without the order of the master or his overseer’) (Cato, Agr. 145). Again, in the
contract for the sale of olives, similar language is used for Cato’s associate: “Recte haec dari
fierique satisque dari domino, aut cui iusserit, promittito satisque dato arbitratu domini” (‘With
the wish of the master given sufficiently, let a contract be signed, that these payments were given
rightly and the work was done to the satisfaction of the master, or the person whom he ordered’)
(Cato, Ag. 146). There are also passages in the De Agricultura that include contracts for the
employment of share-croppers in the harvesting of grain and for cultivation of vineyards—each
of these containing instances of delegated labor
23
.
After the master, the vilicus is the most important figure on the farm. Although another
subordinate, he takes on a managerial role: Cato tells us that the vilicus is expected to be present
when the master is away and that he is the first person the master consults upon visiting the
estate. He is responsible for giving an overall assessment of the work that has been completed
22
Seasonal labor during the harvest of the vintage Duties of the overseer (5); Duties of the vilica (143); gathering of
olives (144); Milling of olives (145); Sale of olives on the tree (146); Sale of grape on the vine (147); Sale of wine in
jars (148)
23
Cato, Agr. 136 (grain) and Agr. 137 (contract for letting of the vineyard to a share-cropper).
26
and the work that still needs to be performed (Cato, Agr. 2.1). Cato outlines his duties: he is
responsible for exercising good disciplina (management or instruction); the observation of feast
days; avoiding theft and preserving his own possessions; settling disputes among slaves; exacting
punishment; the distribution of resources, including food, clothing; assigning the distribution of
work; monitoring worker’s conduct; praising work well-done; minding his business; staying
sober; staying home; ensuring the completion of work; treating the master’s friends well; not
performing any religious rites except the Compitalia at the crossroads or before the hearth; not
extending credit except under the master’s orders; demanding payment for loans made by the
master; not lending seed-grain, fodder, spelt, wine, or oil; not lending or borrowing items from
no more than two or three households; keeping accounts; hiring day laborers; making purchases
only with the knowledge of the master; not consulting a fortune-teller, or prophet, or diviner, or
astrologer; knowing how to complete and actually doing all the work on the farm; finally, he
should be the first to rise in the morning and the last to sleep—that is, after closing the farmstead,
checking that the familia is asleep, and feeding the animals. The instructions in this passage are
expressed primarily through jussive subjunctives such as utatur, serventur, abstineat,
supersedeat, and vindicet. The convention is used throughout the passage until the next section,
which switches to future imperatives, presumably to indicate that the instructional content is
meant for the master, or at least meant to be more general, and to indicate that duties specific to
the vilicus have ceased
24
.
The section on the duties of the vilica, on the other hand, is clearly meant as instruction
for the vilicus: “Si eam tibi dederit dominus uxorem, ea esto contentus” (‘If the master has given
24
The switch in grammar at Agr. 5.6 may signal a more general version of instruction for the master, but could
equally apply to his subordinates or representatives: “Boves maxima diligentia curatos habeto” (‘Ensure that the
oxen are cared for with the greatest diligence’). The section before the duties of the vilicus also features the future
imperative: “Vicinis bonus esto…” (‘thou shalt be a good neighbor’) (Cato, Agr. 4).
27
her to you as a wife, you shall be content with her’) (Cato, Agr. 143)
25
. Again, the vilicus is
supposed to take on a supervisory role, ensuring that the vilica performs all her duties: aside
from showing respect to the vilicus, she must exercise restraint; not visit the neighboring women
too often, or allow them to visit; stay home for meals; not engage in religious worship without
the master’s consent; keep herself and the farmstead neat; tidy the hearth every night; hang a
garland over the hearth on holidays; pray to the household gods; keep a supply of cooked food
on hand for the vilicus and the servants; keep hens and store the eggs; keep a store of dried pears,
sorbs, figs, raisins, sorbs in must, preserved pears and grapes and quinces; keep preserved grapes
in grape-pulp and in pots buried in the ground; keep fresh Praenestine nuts in the same way;
Scantian quinces in jars; a variety of other fruits and wild fruits; know how to make flour and to
finely grind spelt (Cato, Agr. 143). The overwhelming picture presented by each of these
passages is that of a farm as a large commercial enterprise, defined by a continual delegation of
tasks to managers, subordinates, dependents or hired out through contract.
Furthermore, the contracts and prayers within the text aim at instilling managerial
competency in its readers. This is visible particularly in those passages where Cato modifies and
stretches inherited schemes, namely, legal formulae, rituals, and prayers (Sciarrino 2012:141-
160). Sciarrino notes that the Romans made a distinction between concepta verba and certa
verba, with the former referring to words that have undergone adjustment in either pattern or
form, the latter to words fixed or unchangeable in pattern or form (Sciarrino 2012:155). She
categorizes Cato’s description of the suovitaurilia as concepta verba, arguing that like the
contracts in the text, which are incomplete and therefore in need of modification, so too are the
rituals. The ritual passages appear to provide frameworks within which some variation is
25
Although meant in the immediate context for the vilicus, the passage could be equally as informative to a
landowner.
28
anticipated. This is indicated by the use of generic names in the Prayer to Mars (Agr. 141.2-4)
and in the contract template for the letting out of olives (Agr. 144). Sciarrino views the flexibility
in these formulae “as a mark of freedom from externally imposed speech and social authority”
(Sciarrino 2012:155)
26
. For example, the contract for the gathering of olives states:
Qui oleam legerint, omnes iuranto ad dominum aut ad custodem sese oleam non subripuisse neque
quemquam suo dolo malo ea oletate ex fundo L. Manli. Qui eorum non ita iuraverit, quod is legerit omne,
pro eo argentum nemo dabit neque debebitur. Oleam cogi recte satis dato arbitratu L. Manli. Cato, Agr.
144.
All who collected olives shall swear before the owner or his representative that they have not stolen olives,
nor has anyone through their deceit stolen from the estate of Lucius Manlius
during that harvest; if any of
these workers does not swear, no one will pay him or be liable for all that he has gathered. He shall give
security that harvest was collected rightly, satisfactory to Lucius Manlius.
Of course the name Lucius Manlius is here generic, merely standing in for whomever the estate
owner happened to be. The convention must be a reference to Manius Manilius, the author of
laws concerning purchase and sale
27
. My point of emphasis is that the use of contracts and rituals
in this way suggest that Cato imputes a strong sense of adaptability to the landowner. He
envisions an estate run by a landowner and his managerial satellites as being competent enough
to extend the content of Cato’s agricultural treatise—whether in the context of providing
instruction on a ritual appropriate to a specific task, or a contract template—in such a way that
they fulfil the landowner’s wishes.
Cato’s preface to the De Agricultura has been a matter of recent controversy because it
does not match seamlessly with the body of the work in terms of the types of farm which Cato
addresses. The preface implies a smaller, hands-on kind of farm while the body of the work is
almost certainly about the maintenance of large, cash-crop style farms. While an ideological
26
Sciarrino points out that the subordinate in the Prayer to Mars expected to lead the three animals is called Manius,
which she refers to as a generic name. Similarly the contracts at chapters 144 and 145 are addressed to L. Manlius
(Sciarinno 2012:155).
27
The code of Manilius is cited in Varro as the origin of the legal formulae provided for the sale of animals of
pasturage (Rust. 2.3.5).
29
understanding of the resolution of this difference has been put forth by Brendon Reay, this
reading is only a part of understanding the peculiar nature of Cato’s work. Reay bridges the
preface with the body of the work by arguing that the peculiar conception of labor at this time,
that is, the extension of the master’s body through slaves who act as prostheses of the master,
allows the master to imagine that he, as in past social formations, is the person performing the
labor on the farm. Although Cato’s use of the agricola discourse mystifies the relationship
between landowners, labor, and the various practices and rituals centered around the farm—this
should not obscure the fact that Cato openly prescribes how to delegate and manage the farm’s
labor force responsible for engaging in the execution of these practices. I suggest that the
structure of Roman business and the Roman legal system provide the basis for Cato’s
instructions.
Before specific legal innovations, business conducted on agricultural estates required the
presence of the master. While slaves were capable of carrying out transactions on their master’s
behalf, before the creation of the actiones adiecticiae qualitatis, there was no guarantee for third
contracting parties that agent or principal would honor the terms of the contract. The problem
was solved by a set of legal remedies introduced by the praetor in his edict called the actio
institoria (Aubert 1994:3). The remedies established by the praetor greatly extended
opportunities for engaging in lucrative business enterprises, in terms of scale, geographical
location, and diversification. With this legal innovation, the figure known as the vilicus became
increasingly important as he played an essential role in the management of the farm while the
master was away—thus, business in the Roman world was not strictly dependent upon agents
directly under the control of the master. In such an arrangement a contract was unnecessary
because the relationship between principal and agent was based upon the power (potestas or
30
manus) of the principal. With the newly developed legal remedies, the master could now more
liberally entrust control of his estate to managers with looser personal connections, including
freedman, the slave of another principal (servi alieni), and freeborn non-relatives. Under these
arrangements, the relationship between agent and principal was defined by the rules pertaining to
the contracts of mandate or hire (locatio conductio). This process was also undoubtedly aided by
the legal fiction of the peculium, which allowed for the creation of assets belonging de facto to
the slave, but de iure to the principal (Aubert 1994:65).
In Cato’s De Agricultura there is a split between workers and managers. The division is
evident in the emergence of the agricultural treatise, which was the product of the appropriation
and entextualization of various forms of agricultural knowledge, legal formulae, rituals, and
prayers. Cato integrates into his work principles of rational management, which instructs owners
and overseers in management. Managerial figures are represented alongside the master as worthy
of carrying out the text’s instructions. These figures, as well as Cato’s appropriation of the
discourse on the agricola, allow him to mask his own position within the entirety of the system
of production—with its diverse array of tenants, overseers, managers, foremen, and specialized
laborers. Collectively, they represent the relations of production in the rural economy. While
Cato’s efforts masked the relations of production and allowed him to lay claim to a glorious
Roman past (as evident in Cato’s self-presentation in the preface to the work), the material basis
for this ideological conception was invoked when Cato explained how landowners and managers
could use this system to their advantage. In addition to solidifying for himself a position among
the elite, Cato’s De Agricultura created a tool for dominance over slaves, free laborers, tenants,
and the rural peasantry.
31
Varro and the Tradition of Agricultural Writing:
With Cato it was clear that a discourse of the bonus agricola had already been
established, which signaled a strong connection between Roman statesmen and an embrace of
the identity of the farmer. Cato used this connection to highlight his participation in a culturally
preferred form of acquisition: income secured from owning land. Varro’s Res Rusticae reacts to
the culture influenced by Cato’s De Agricultura. The Res Rusticae continues the separation of
thinking from doing, especially in its conception of agriculture. Nelsestuen’s study of the
conception of agriculture in Varro’s Res Rusticae shows that Varro conceptualizes agriculture
differently from his predecessors. The effect of Varro’s articulation of the reorganization of the
various categories that comprise the field of res rusticae is the beginning of a process of
fragmentation. What had been the provenance of the rustic individual who engages in agronomy
is in Varro envisioned as three distinct areas of specialization.
These new Varronian forms of categorization have a direct effect on the organization of
labor on the farm: the emergence of a more developed form of household management intended
to operate seamlessly even with the absence of the landowner. The specialization within the field
of agronomy also had a practical purpose: it ensured that the performance of farming activities
could be monitored more easily and their completion could be checked. The development likely
encouraged the proliferation of a field of specialists and a reduction in the number of individuals
with a comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of the farming enterprise. However, this is not
the full story of the Res Rusticae. The Res Rusticae is a text that is much more conscious of the
division of thinking and doing. The manifestation of this awareness is shown in Varro’s
propensity to play the moralist. By adopting this persona, Varro’s engagement with the field of
agriculture amounts to a critique of the Romans’ relationship to agronomy, specifically a critique
32
of habits of production and consumption. Although Varro contributes to the division between
thinking and doing and critiques its effects on Roman production and consumption, this does not
negate the technical achievements or undermine the moralizing aspects of the this text.
As mentioned above, Varro makes his motivations for writing much more explicit than
Cato before him had. He continues the division between thinking and doing when he claims to
write at the behest of his wife, who had just purchased a farm and wanted to make a profitable
enterprise out of it (Varro, Rust. 1.1.2). But Varro’s target audience is considerably bigger than
his immediate family: his goal is a consultable text for posterity’s sake. This is supported by the
idea that the text contains a wealth of technical knowledge and was essential to establishing the
discipline of agriculture as an ars. Both Nelsestuen and Martin explore this dimension of the
text, the latter seeing Cicero’s De Oratore as especially important to the understanding of
Varro’s work as an ars
28
. In Varro’s text, then, there is a unification of practical intent—to help
his wife, Fundania—and literary polish. Both of these features indicate that agronomy had
followed a movement away from its immediate practitioners towards a circle of elites who wrote
with the highest levels of intellectual authority and polish.
The lack of systematization in Cato’s text is remedied in Varro’s Res Rusticae
29
. Under
the former, agriculture was as a pre-systematized form of knowledge centered on the activities of
the agricola and of a highly selective, unorganized character
30
. With Varro, there was the
introduction of the possibility that agriculture could be an ars—an issue which was heavily
debated. Martin, summarizing the changes, describes the movement from Cicero to Scrofa (a
28
Martin makes a comparison between the questions asked by De Re Rustica’s Agrasius (about the status of
agriculture as an art) and the De Oratore’s Cotta (on the status of speaking, artem dicendi, as an art) (Martin 1995:
80-91).
29
In Vergil’s Georgics, agriculture was an art synonymous with civilization, imposed upon humans by Jupiter after
the Saturnian age.
30
The most explicit understanding of agriculture as a discipline is found in Cato’s recommendation: “Caveto
alienam disciplinam temere contemnas” (‘don’t despise rashly the learning of others’) (Agr. 1.4).
33
character in Varro’s Res Rusticae) as a progression in the conception of agriculture from being
an activity characterized by otium to one characterized by negotium, while from Scrofa to
Columella, there is a progression from negotium to occupatio (Martin 1995:90). Otium here is an
amateurish engagement with the activity, while negotium is a more systematic, managerial
approach to the discipline. Occupatio represents the level of knowledge of a specialist. Varro,
through the character of Scrofa, decisively elaborates on the implications of viewing agriculture
as a form of negotium: “Primum, inquit, non modo est ars, sed etiam necessaria ac magna;
eaque est scientia, quae sint in quoque agro serenda ac facienda, quo terra maximos perpetuo
reddat fructus” (‘In the first place, it is not only an art, but an especially necessary and great art.
And it is a science, which specifies what crops are to be planted in each kind of soil, and what
operations are to be performed, in order that the land may continually render the largest crops’)
(Varro, Rust. 1.3)
31
. Within this summary of the transition of agriculture from a leisurely activity
to an art, there are specific developments that highlight the changes to conceptions of agriculture.
Claudia Moatti, for example, has identified as important in this process the identification of
principles (principia), limits (fines) and the divisions (partes) of agri cultura (Moatti 1997:236).
Nelsestuen has added that Varro creates the field of res rusticae through the delineation and
disembedding of agri cultura, pastio, and pastio villatica from the broader category of agricola
(Nelsestuen 2012:72)
32
. Although the systematization of agronomy followed a progression
similar to that of rhetoric under Cicero, in my view one of the key differences in the comparison
between Ciceronian rhetoric and agronomy is the convention in agronomy of using a diverse
31
While ars is the focus here, scientia deserves some comment. Moatti, following Aristotle, identifies experience
(empeiria) with the understanding of singular things, ars (techne) universal things, and science (epistēmē) as
speculative, concerned with the first causes and principals of things (Moatti 1997:236).
32
Nelsestuen’s argument follows from one made by Moatti: the abstraction of the field of agriculture in Varro’s Res
Rusticae was intertwined with the increasing impulse of rationalization within the state which filtered into many
aspects of people’s lives (demography, marriage, sexuality, etc.) (Moatti 1997:8).
34
array of managerial figures who act as mediators between landowners and workers, or even
themselves and workers. This aspect of agronomy, the increasing division between thinking and
doing, differentiates it from other technical fields.
One of the chief hallmarks of Varro’s new organization of agricultural knowledge was
the separation between agri cultura (agriculture) and pastio (animal husbandry). This is the main
topic of Book Two of the Res Rusticae. The book is ostensibly dedicated to one Turranius Niger
so that he might navigate the various demands of the Campi Macri, a district in Gaul which
featured a famous livestock and wool market. Varro informs his readers of his own expertise in
raising livestock in both Apulia and Reate. Additionally, he notes that his work is informed by a
cast of cattle ranchers in Epirus, the geographical setting of the dialogue at a time when Varro
was in charge of Greek fleets during the war with pirates. In Book Two alone, Varro provides
two accounts of the distinction between the two separate spheres of res rusticae. First, he
hammers out the distinction between the agriculture and animal husbandry through the various
actors involved:
Itaque in qua terra culturam agri docuerunt pastores progeniem suam, qui condiderunt urbem, ibi contra
progenies eorum propter avaritiam contra leges ex segetibus fecit prata, ignorantes non idem esse agri
culturam et pastionem. Alius enim opilio et arator, nec, si possunt in agro pasci armenta, armentarius non
aliut ac bubulcus. Armentum enim id quod in agro natum non creat, sed tollit dentibus; contra bos domitus
causa fit ut commodius nascatur frumentum in segete et pabulum in novali. Alia, inquam, ratio ac scientia
coloni, alia pastoris: coloni ea quae agri cultura factum ut nascerentur e terra, contra pastoris ea quae nata
ex pecore. Quarum quoniam societas inter se magna, propterea quod pabulum in fundo compascere quam
vendere plerumque magis expedit domino fundi et stercoratio ad fructus terrestres aptissima et maxume ad
id pecus appositum, qui habet praedium, habere utramque debet disciplinam, et agri culturae et pecoris
pascendi, et etiam villaticae pastionis. Varro, Rust. 2 pref. 4-5
Thus, in that land where shepherds who founded the city taught their offspring the cultivation of the earth,
there, on the contrary, their descendants, on account of greed and contrary to the laws, have made pastures
out of grain lands, unmindful that agriculture and grazing are not the same thing. For the shepherd is one
thing and the ploughman another; and likewise, even if cattle can graze in a field, the herdsman is different
than the ploughman. For grazing cattle do not produce what grows on the land, but tear it off with their
teeth; while on the other hand, the domestic ox becomes the cause for why grain grows more easily in the
ploughed land, and the fodder in the fallow land. The method and knowledge of the farmer, I say, are one
thing, and those of the herdsman another; those things which are made to grow from the earth by
cultivation of the land belong to the farmer; those things which have been born from the herd, however,
belong to the shepherd. Since the partnership between them is very great, and moreover, because it is
35
frequently more profitable for the owner of the farm to use the fodder on the farm for grazing than to sell it,
and because manure is especially appropriate for the fruits of the earth, and cattle especially suitable for
that purpose, one who owns a farm ought to have knowledge of both pursuits, agriculture and cattle-raising,
and also of the pasturage of the home.
Curiously, Varro does not use the term agricola—instead he sets colonus, arator, and bubulcus
in opposition to opilio, armentarius and pastor in order to express the opposition between the
agents who practice agriculture (agri cultura) and those engaged in animal husbandry (pastio
and pecoris pascendi). It is clear here that in describing the two separate spheres of res rusticae,
there is an emphasis upon the two different types of specialists derived from each of these
spheres. The point is reiterated and clarified in Book Three:
Agri culturam primo propter paupertatem maxime indiscretam habebant, quod a pastoribus qui erant orti in
eodem agro et serebant et pascebant; quae postea creverunt peculia diviserunt, ac factum ut dicerentur alii
agricolae, alii pastores. Rust. 3.1.7
In the first place, on account of poverty, they practiced an especially undifferentiated form of agriculture,
since those who sprung up from shepherds were accustomed to sowing and grazing on the same field,
which they divided after their properties increased, and it happened that some were called farmers, and the
others shepherds.
In this account, agricolae and pastores are foregrounded as the result of the emergence of a
differentiated form of agriculture. In the previous passage, a further distinction is made between
those who work within these distinct spheres of res rusticae, and the owner of the farm, domino
fundi (Rust. 2 pref. 4-5). Furthermore, Varro expresses that the owner of the farm, “qui habet
praedium”, should possess knowledge of both fields (utram disciplinam). The continuation of the
managerial drive in Cato is here accelerated with a strong push towards specialization. It should
not pass without comment that Varro imagines in the distant past that there was a time when
there were distinctions within the rural economy, but that these distinctions were confused on
account of greed on the part of the pastores’ offspring. Varro casts his work as recovering these
36
original distinctions, although he further divides pastio into two subdivisions (of the field and the
homestead), noting that no one before him had described them sufficiently
33
.
In order to bolster his case for the division of res rusticae into distinct fields, Varro
provides an anthropological account about the differentiation between agriculture and animal
husbandry, historicizing the division between thinking and doing as a feature of the distant past.
He uses this anthropological excursion to explain his current position within the world and its
relationship to agriculture. In his view, this differentiation occurred in stages. After sidestepping
the philosophical question about whether humans and animals always existed or were generated
from a first principal, Varro follows the Greek polymath Dicaearchus, who theorizes
contemporary human life as a progression of stages. In the first and most distant stage, humans
lived off the spontaneously generated products of the earth; then, in the pastoral (pastoriciam)
mode of life, humans survived off the collected products of uncultivated plants, such as acorns,
berries, and fruits, as well as wild animals which they caught, shut up and tamed. In the third
way of life, humans arrived at the agriculture stage (agri cultura), where they “ibi processerunt
longe” (‘progressed far’) until they arrived in the present time (ad nos)
34
. Varro uses this
anthropological ratio to explain the contemporary age, which is more than just the incorporation
of agriculture and animal husbandry into human life. The passage looks forward to Book Three,
which will describe the final part of the rural economy, the husbandry of the homesteading
(pastio villatica). It also is the beginning of a description of the social life developed under this
branch of the rural economy, one characterized by a dominant class of owners with increasingly
33
About the division within pasturage Varro says “tametsi ab nullo satis discreta” (‘although sufficiently described
by no one’), and about pastio villatica in particular “neque explicata tota separatim, quod sciam, ab ullo” (‘to my
mind it has not been explained as a separate topic by anyone’) (Rust. 3.1.8). The account of the division in Book
Two is particularly interesting because it seems to tie agricultural specialization to colonization—the nomadic
shepherds settled in the city, practiced agriculture, and then economic growth resulted in pasturage overtaking
agriculture.
34
Varro, Rust. 2.1.4-5.
37
specialized knowledge of managerial expertise. That this specialization of knowledge and people
goes hand-in-hand is evident in Book Three’s anthropological ratio where Varro repeats his
description of the separation of agriculture and animal husbandry, explaining how farmers
(agricola) antedate city people (urbanos): ‘Nec mirum, quod divina natura dedit agros, ars
humana aedificavit urbes’ (‘it is nothing to marvel at, since divine nature supplied the
countryside, while human skill built cities’) (Varro, Rust. 3.1.4). Varro implies here that
agriculture is an art that combines the divine aspect of nature with human skill. Already by Book
One the idea had been put forth that agriculture was not only an ars, but one necessary and great
(Varro, Rust. 1.3).
The differentiation of separate fields within res rusticae is grounded in Roman history.
Varro projects his conceptualization of res rusticae into the distant Roman past. In his view, the
connection between agriculture and animal husbandry is inscribed in the very founding of Rome,
a distinction as early as the founding of the city:
Romanorum vero populum a pastoribus esse ortum quis non dicit? quis Faustulum nescit pastorem fuisse
nutricium, qui Romulum et Remum educavit? Non ipsos quoque fuisse pastores obtinebit, quod Parilibus
potissimum condidere urbem? Non idem, quod multa etiam nunc ex vetere instituto bubus et ovibus dicitur,
et quod aes antiquissimum quod est flatum pecore est notatum, et quod, urbs cum condita est, tauro et vacca
qua essent muri et portae definitum, et quod, populus Romanus cum lustratur suovitaurilibus,
circumaguntur verres aries taurus, et quod nomina multa habemus ab utroque pecore, a maiore et a
minore—a minore Porcius, Ovinius, Caprilius; sic a maiore Equitius, Taurius, Asinius—et idem cognomina
adsignificare quod dicuntur, ut Anni Caprae, Statili Tauri, Pomponi Vituli, sic a pecudibus alia multa?
Varro, Rust. 2.1.9-10
Further, does not everyone say that the Roman people is sprung from shepherds? Does anyone not know
that Faustulus, the one who nourished and reared Romulus and Remus, was a shepherd? Will that most
important fact, that they founded the city in the time of the Parilia, not demonstrate that they were
themselves shepherds? Is not the same thing proved by the fact that even up to this day a fine is assessed
after the ancient custom in oxen and sheep; that the oldest copper coin which is cast is marked with cattle;
and the fact that when the city was founded, the position of the walls and gates was marked out by a bull
and a cow; that when the Roman people is purified by the suovetaurilia, a boar, a ram, and a bull are driven
around; that we have many family names which are derived from both types of herd animal, the larger and
the smaller—from the smaller are Porcius, Ovinius, Caprilius; and Equitius, Taurius, Asinius from the
larger—and the cognomina prove the same thing, that just as the Annii Caprae, the Statilii Tauri, and the
Pomponii Vituli are derived from domestic animals, so are many other cognomina?
38
Not only does Varro historicize the Romans’ relationship to pastio, he thoroughly grounds the
practice in Roman culture. As Varro demonstrates, the Roman roots in animal husbandry are
inescapable. This feature of Varro’s Res Rusticae paves the way for his final Book Three,
grounding the innovation of Book Three in Roman tradition.
Dedicated to one Quintus Pinnius, the subject of pastio villatica occupies Book Three of
the Res Rusticae. The topic completes the third and final sphere of Varro’s rural economy. Varro
remarks that before him the subject had been treated as conceptually part of agri cultura, but
Varro claims the distinction of being the first to treat the whole subject separately (Varro, Rust.
3.1.8). He further explains that each of these divisions was hammered out for the sake of profit
(fructus causa) (Varro, Rust. 3.1.9). The interlocutor Quintus Axius defines pastio villatica,
remarking that the master: “dominum scientem esse oportet earum rerum, quae in villa circumve
eam ali ac pasci possint, ita ut domino sint fructui ac delectationi” (‘the master ought to have
knowledge of those animals which can be nourished and fed in the villa or around it, in such a
way that they are a source of profit or pleasure for the master’) (Rust. 3.3.1). The three major
divisions of pastio villatica he identifies as the aviary, the hare-warren, and the fish-pond. Each
of these categories is further subdivided into two additional classes, animals which require water
and those which do not, and animals that live inside or outside the villa. Among some of the
animals included in these division are pigeons, chickens, birds, and bees. In the course of
describing these various divisions, Axius speaks on how to acquire these animals:
De his sex partibus ad ista tria genera item tria genera artificum paranda, aucupes venatores piscatores, aut
ab iis emenda quae tuorum servorum diligentia tuearis in fetura ad partus et nata nutricere saginesque, in
macellum ut perveniant. Rust. 3.3.4
To those three classes derived from these six subdivisions, you must likewise obtain three classes of
craftsmen: fowlers, hunters, fishermen, or else you must purchase from these craftsmen those animals
which you should care for through the industry of your slaves, from the period of gestation to the time of
birth, and after they are born, you rear them and fatten them up, so that they may go to market.
39
The statement shows how the various divisions within pastio villatica require that either the farm
must carry specialists able to capture and rear such animals, or these animals must be purchased
from these specialists and the slave staff must receive training in how to rear them. Especially
highlighted in Book Three is how Varronian categorization gives rise to specialization. The idea
is taken to such an extreme that ideas about profit, production and consumption overtake the
dialogue to a degree not seen in the previous books. We learn, for example, how the well-
equipped aviary of Varro’s aunt is capable of out-earning the income expected from an estate
farm:
Atque in hac villa qui est ornithon, ex eo uno quinque milia scio venisse turdorum denariis ternis, ut
sexaginta milia ea pars reddiderit eo anno villae, bis tantum quam tuus fundus ducentum iugerum Reate
reddit. Quid? sexaginta, inquit Axius, sexaginta, sexaginta? derides. Sexaginta, inquam. Sed ad hunc bolum
ut pervenias, opus erit tibi aut epulum aut triumphus alicuius, ut tunc fuit Scipionis Metelli, aut collegiorum
cenae, quae nunc innumerabiles excandefaciunt annonam macelli.
“And further, I know that the aviary which is in that villa—from it alone—I know that they sold 5,000
fieldfares, for three denarii apiece, so that that part of the villa in that year brought a return of sixty
thousand sesterces—a return twice as much as your farm of 200 iugera at Reate brings.” “What? Sixty?”
said Axius, “Sixty? Sixty? You are joking.” “Sixty,” I exclaimed. “But to reach this profit, you will need a
public feast or the triumph of some fellow, as was Metellus Scipio’s at that time, or the dinners of the
collegia which are now so innumerable that they drive up the market price of grain. Rust. 3.2.15-16
Varro makes an interesting comment here regarding the position of pastio villatica within the
rural economy. Previously, he pointed out that agronomists before him did not treat this branch
of res rusticae as a separate entity, preferring to let it be encapsulated by agri cultura. The new
position of pastio villatica, disembedded from res rusticae and agri cultura, signals a different
attitude towards luxury in Roman culture and its ability to be integrated into country life. As
Varro has explained in his anthropological excursion, particular versions of the ancient economy
generate particular versions of social life. In his explanation of contemporary social life, he
shows that his conceptualization of the rural economy, with all its distinctions, is initially
established by greed (propter avaritiam) for the sake of profit (fructus causa). So much is this
40
the case that pastio villatica as described by Varro is said to only lucrative if large public
feasting, constant banqueting, and triumphs continue indefinitely
35
. The first chapter of Book
Three illuminates a tension that will be felt throughout the book’s entirety—pastio villatica, a
part of res rusticae which had prior to Varro been cast as insignificant (humilis), will be shown
to be a particularly lucrative pursuit of country life (Rust. 3.1.8).
In order to fully flesh out the contradictory qualities within the Res Rusticae, it is
necessary to turn to the preface of Book Two. It is in this book that Varro most strongly adopts
the persona of a moralist and it is at times strikingly at odds with his persona in the dialogue
proper. Varro develops this persona by drawing upon what he presents as the inherent morality
of rural life. In the prefaces to Books Two and Three he says about farming that nostri maiores
placed those who worked in the country ahead of those who lived in the city (Rust. 2 pref.1); he
also says that the Romans in the country are more active, making their lands more productive
and their bodies more healthy (Rust. 2 pref. 2); But the contemporary Romans begin their decline
into luxuria through the incorporation of multiple Greek architectural structures such as the
gymnasia, the procoetion (ante-room), palaestra (exercise-room), apodyterion (dressing-room),
peristylon (colonnade), ornithon (aviary), peripteros (pergola), and the oporotheca (fruit-room)
(Rust. 2 pref. 2). Varro seems to narrow down the reason why he thinks contemporary culture is
in decline when he comments on their attitudes toward work:
Igitur quod nunc intra murum fere patres familiae correpserunt relictis falce et aratro et manus movere
maluerunt in theatro ac circo, quam in segetibus ac vinetis, frumentum locamus qui nobis advehat, qui
saturi fiamus ex Africa et Sardinia, et navibus vindemiam condimus ex insula Coa et Chia. Rust. 2 pref. 3
Therefore, because now practically all the heads of families have crept within the walls, with the sickle and
the plough having been abandoned, and they have preferred to busy their hands in the theatre and the
circus, rather than in the grain-fields and the vineyards, we hire a man to bring us the grain from Africa and
35
The uneasiness with this scenario—that the villa (and the unique branch of agriculture associated with it) produces
beyond its immediate needs, is understood by me as a general suspicion against market relations and the instability
of a form of acquisition based on the consumption of luxury goods.
41
Sardinia with which we become satiated, and we store vintage that comes in ships from the islands of Cos
and Chios.
Contemporary Romans have turned their backs on the practices of their ancestors, disengaged
from farming, abandoned its implements, and would rather seek entertainment than hard work.
Such depraved behavior has resulted in terrible inefficiency—grain and wine must be obtained
far from Italy—and a crippling dependency on the market. It is possible to extrapolate a series of
antitheses which structure the passage. The passage shows how contemporary life privileges the
present over the traditions of the maiores, Greek culture over Roman culture, the city over the
country, leisure and entertainment over work, the global over the local, and market dependency
over autarky. In Book Three, Varro the moralist continues to praise country life. He champions
the practice of agriculture: “Neque solum antiquior cultura agri, sed etiam melior” (‘and not
only is the tilling of the fields more ancient—it is more noble’) (Rust. 3.1.4). It is through
agriculture that the Romans of Varro’s day are able to tap into the morality of the maiores: “Nec
sine causa terram eandem appellabant matrem et Cererem, et qui eam colerent, piam et utilem
agere vitam credebant atque eos solos reliquos esse ex stirpe Saturni regis” (‘Not without reason
did they call the same earth ‘mother’ and ‘Ceres,’ and believe that those who tilled her led a
pious and useful life, and that they were the only remnants of the stock of King Saturnus” (Rust.
3.1.5). But given Varro’s previous statement about the contemporary Roman aversion to work in
favor of entertainment, as well as Varro’s ostensible reason for composing the Res Rusticae
(especially the first book, with its emphasis upon absentee management and dedication to
Fundania), it is clear that Varro does not imagine the solution to the problematic of contemporary
culture to be elites directly working the land. Instead, Varro shows how it is a robust managerial
apparatus that solves the tensions within the Res Rusticae. In my view these tensions occur at
multiple levels within the Res Rusticae, and it is the Romans’ conceptualization of work which
42
allows the contradictions of Roman culture to coexist. This conceptualization is dependent upon
a material basis, a specific set of relations of production which allow a landowner to imagine
himself as both engaging in the work on the farm while enjoying his own pursuits in the city or
indulging in luxury. This means that the entire vilicus managerial system created in agriculture
(along with the luxury which it causes), visible in Cato and thriving by the time of Varro, is a
condition of Varro’s cultural critique.
Varro’s characterization of agronomy must also perform a delicate balance between
imitation of ancestral tradition and the incorporation of any type of innovation in farming. This
idea is reflected in the words of Scrofa in Book One:
Bivium nobis enim ad culturam dedit natura, experientiam et imitationem. Antiquissimi agricolae
temptando pleraque constituerunt, liberi eorum magnam partem imitando. Nos utrumque facere debemus,
et imitari alios et aliter ut faciamus experientia temptare quaedam, sequentes non aleam, sed rationem
aliquam. Rust. 1.18.7-8.
For nature has given us two paths to agriculture, trial and imitation. The most ancient farmers established
many things by trying them out, their children, for the most part, by imitating. We ought to do both, both
imitate others and attempt by experiment to try some things in a different way, following not chance but
some system.
Varro operates by this very methodology when he articulates the third branch of the rural
economy, pastio villatica. Firstly, he roots the subject in tradition, describing how it was
originally treated by earlier authors as a part of agri cultura, then he goes on to explicate its
disembedding from agri cultura, a development for which he credits himself
36
. Important in the
struggle for defining the scope of pastio villatica is the villa. In the course of the dialogue there
is a reconciliation between two different types of villa, the traditional farm house and the
36
“Duo enim genera cum sint pastionum, unum agreste, in quo pecuariae sunt, alterum villaticum, in quo sunt
gallinae ac columbae et apes et cetera, quae in villa solent pasci, de quibus et Poenus Mago et Cassius Dionysius et
alii quaedam separatim ac dispersim in libris reliquerunt” (‘There are two types of pasturage: one in the fields, in
which cattle-raising is included, and the other of the homestead, which includes chickens, pigeons, bees, and other
animals which are accustomed to being fed in the steading; about these two types, the Carthaginian Mago, Cassius
Dionysius, and others have left in their books certain comments, but scattered and unsystematic” (Rust. 3.2.13).
43
luxurious modern villa. But this characterization is not exactly precise. Appius champions the
traditional farm house, represented by the Villa Publica, which he claims to be more simple than
Axius’ villa in Reate. He also notes that the Villa Publica does not have the same ornate
decorations as Axius’ and is the common property of the people (communis universi populi), as
well as a site which is useful (utilis) for public business (ad rem publicam administrandam): it is
the site where people assemble for the levying of fines, the inspection of arms, and for the taking
of the census (Rust. 3.2.4). Axius responds by pointing out that the Villa Publica is adorned with
paintings, statues, lacks a field for farming, and has no trace of oxen and mares. Furthermore, it
has never been functional—it has produced neither hay, nor grain, nor wine (Rust. 3.2.6). The
interlocutors finally settle on a definition after some more disagreement, accepting that the
details are negligible so long as a steady stream of income is secured (Rust. 3.2.10). This
reconciliation places the utilis of the Villa Publica alongside fructus derived from Axius’ villa
(Rust. 3.2.10). Although this synthesis achieves the twin goals which Scrofa said agriculture
should aim for at the outset of the first book, it contradicts his remarks in Book One:
Fundanius, fructuosior, inquit, est certe fundus propter aedificia, si potius ad anticorum diligentiam quam
ad horum luxuriam derigas aedificationem. Illi enim faciebant ad fructum rationem, hi faciunt ad libidines
indomitas. Itaque illorum villae rusticae erant maioris preti quam urbanae, quae nunc sunt pleraque contra.
Illic laudabatur villa, si habebat culinam rusticam bonam, praesepis laxas, cellam vinariam et oleariam ad
modum agri aptam et pavimento proclivi in lacum, quod saepe, ubi conditum novum vinum, orcae in
Hispania fervore musti ruptae neque non dolea in Italia. Item cetera ut essent in villa huiusce modi, quae
cultura quaereret,
providebant. Nunc contra villam urbanam quam maximam ac politissimam habeant dant
operam ac cum Metelli ac Luculli villis pessimo publico aedificatis certant. Rust. 1.13.6
Fundanius said “A farm is certainly more profitable, as far as the buildings are concerned, if you direct
construction more according to the industry of the ancients rather than to the luxury of the present. For the
former built according to the size of their crops, while the latter build for their unbridled desires. In this
way, the farms of the former were more costly than their dwelling-houses, a situation which nowadays is
mostly the opposite. In those days a unit was praised if it had a good, rustic kitchen, roomy stables, and a
wine cellar and oil storage room in proportion to the size of the farm, with a floor sloping into a reservoir,
because often, when new wine is stored, the vessels used in Spain, and likewise the jars in Italy, burst by
the fermentation of the must. Similarly, they provided that all the other things which cultivation requires be
present in a villa of this kind. Nowadays, on the other hand, they direct their efforts to having as grand and
elegant a dwelling-house as possible; and they contend with the farm houses of Metellus and Lucullus,
which have been built to the great damage of the state.
44
The passage has resonances with the preface to Cato’s De Agricultura in terms of its praise of
ancient frugality and the tendency to evaluate in moral terms. But the force of this evaluative
moralizing is weakened later in Book Three, when Appius discusses his privileging of the Villa
Publica over Axius’ own luxurious villa. The ancestral villa represented by the Villa Publica is
shown by Axius to hardly be representative of notions of ancient austerity and frugality (Rust.
3.2.5)
37
. Instead, the message of ancient austerity is undermined and an allowance for luxury is
made which treats both types of villas as essentially the same. The villas are united together
under the premise that both are equally capable of securing income
38
. The reconciliation between
the two villas operates in the same way as Varro’s explication of pastio villatica in Book Three:
although the subject had before Varro’s treatment been deemed humilis
39
, in the course of the
dialogue it is shown to be an especially lucrative branch of res rusticae. Despite the tension
between the moralizing prefaces of the last two books and rest of the dialogue, the farmer’s
claim to be the embodiment of moral purity derived from the practice of agriculture is only
possible through absentee management
40
. It is this form of social life which Varro’s Res Rusticae
37
Axius points to the Villa Publica’s plastering of paintings, its statuary, and its lack of fields or oxen.
38
“Cum significasset nutu nihilo minus esse villam eam quae esset simplex rustica, quam eam quae esset utrumque,
et ea et urbana, et rogasset, quid ex iis rebus colligeret, Quid? inquit, si propter pastiones tuus fundus in Rosia
probandus sit, et quod ibi pascitur pecus ac stabulatur, recte villa appellatur, haec quoque simili de causa debet
vocari villa, in qua propter pastiones fructus capiuntur magni. Quid enim refert, utrum propter oves, an propter
aves fructus capias?” (‘When [Axius] had indicated with a nod that a villa which was dedicated to farm use was no
less a villa than one that served both purposes, that of farm-house and city residence, and asked what he gathered
from that arrangement. “Why,” he replied, “if your farm in Rosea is to be commended on account of its pasturage,
and is rightly called a villa because cattle are fed and stabled there, for a similar reason this place also should be
called a villa, in which large revenues are taken on account of its pasturage. For what does it matter if you get
revenue from flocks of sheep or from birds?’) (Rust. 3.2.10-11).
39
The prefatory remarks from Book Three describe pastio villatica as humilis: “altera villatica, quod humilis
videtur, a quibusdam adiecta ad agri culturam, cum esset pastio, neque explicata tota separatim, quod sciam, ab
ullo” (‘the pasturage of the steading, because it seems inconsequential, has been added to agriculture by certain
writers, although it pertains to pasturage; and neither has the subject as a whole, as far as I know, been treated as a
separate topic by anyone’) (Rust. 3.1.8).
40
To quote again: “Nec sine causa terram eandem appellabant matrem et Cererem, et qui eam colerent, piam et
utilem agere vitam credebant atque eos solos reliquos esse ex stirpe Saturni regis” (‘Not without reason did they
call the same earth ‘mother’ and ‘Ceres,’ and think that those who tilled her led a pious and useful life, and that they
were the only remnants of the stock of King Saturnus’) (Rust. 3.1.5).
45
is at pains to describe. The formal tension in Varro’s work reveals how a specific configuration
of social relationships allows for the idea of Saturnian abundance to persist in Varro’s
contemporary world—the mythology surrounding the figure of the farmer exists in the present,
but this image is only possible through the support of a workforce who acts on his behalf and for
his benefit
41
. Kronenberg has recognized the demystification of morality in the Res Rusticae:
“The De Re Rustica debunks the myth of the virtuous farmer by revealing that the farming life
became associated in Roman culture with morality and religion because of the material benefits
it provides the Romans” (Kronenberg 2009:97). But this is only one aspect of the complex way
that the text balances between contemporary luxury and ancient morality. Since abundance is an
integral part of res rusticae, recognition of the profit motive of farming alone does not
undermine the technical achievements of the Res Rusticae or even the moral picture it presents.
To simply dismiss the drive for profit on agricultural estates ignores the role of the various
redistributive mechanisms within ancient societies, as well as one of the important reasons for
estates to exist, the ability to secure a stable source of income. One should not simply understand
the moralizing figure of the Res Rusticae’s preface as undermined by profit. Profit, production
and abundance are key goals of the rustic enterprise. As Nick Purcell has argued with regard to
Rome, “productivity and consumption permeate the whole society” (Purcell 1995:173). In my
view, the Res Rusticae acknowledges this aspect of Roman society and recognizes the role of the
absentee management system in shaping Roman culture from the time of Cato onward.
Varro’s diagnosis of Roman culture is concerned with the violation of limits: the
substance of his critique is not simply a disparaging of the profit motive, but a diagnosis that the
41
Another aspect of this division between thinking and doing in Varro, which I have not discussed but is still
important, is the second division within agri cultura mentioned by Scrofa, the means by which land is tilled (Rust.
1.5.3). Further subdivisions of this category are mentioned by Scrofa: the articulate, inarticulate, and mute classes of
equipment which work the land (Rust. 1.17.1-2).
46
arrangement of desires in Roman culture was strikingly at odds with notions of utilitas and
frugalitas. Varro’s articulation of the three spheres of rural economy is given a corresponding
social description. The last branch, pastio villatica, is the basis for a shift in Roman social life.
Previously this life was defined by limitation of time spent in the city: “Itaque annum ita
diviserunt, ut nonis modo diebus urbanas res usurparent, reliquis septem ut rura colerent” (‘And
thus they divided the year in such a way that they attended to their town affairs only on the ninth
days, and tended their fields on the remaining seven” (Rust. 2.1.1). The sentiment here is not
simply a censure of luxury or the profit motive; Varro instead describes how dependence on the
market has altered the rhythms of social life and resulted in practices contrary to tradition. Book
Three of the Res Rusticae demonstrates the degree to which absentee management had become
embedded in society and how this form of estate management gave rise to fantastic levels of
wealth and luxury. Varro’s critique of Roman culture takes on aspects of the dialogue at the
point where Merula describes details about the three divisions within pastio villatica: “Omnibus
tribus his generibus sunt bini gradus; superiores, quos frugalitas antiqua, inferiores, quos
luxuria posterior adiecit” (‘There are two stages to each of these three classes: the earlier stage,
which the frugality of the ancients determined, and the subsequent stage, which the luxury of the
later age has now added’) (Rust. 3.2.6). The prevailing sentiment of Book Three is that the most
recent ‘stage’ (gradus) of luxury has gripped Roman culture. The censure takes on a mostly
descriptive tone, especially apt for Book Three, with its prevalence of Greek terminology for the
architectural structures of pastio villatica which had been discussed disparagingly in the preface
to Book Two. However, at points of extreme indulgence in the text, Varro’s dialogue seems to
advocate for respecting limits rather than just condemning wealth. This is especially apparent in
47
the habits of consumption of figures such as Metellus Scipio and Lucullus, men with particularly
extravagant villas
42
:
Merula, Duo genera sunt, inquit, ornithonis: unum delectationis causa, ut Varro hic fecit noster sub Casino,
quod amatores invenit multos; alterum fructus causa, quo genere macellarii et in urbe quidam habent loca
clausa et rure, maxime conducta in Sabinis, quod ibi propter agri naturam frequentes apparent turdi. Ex iis
tertii generis voluit esse Lucullus coniunctum aviarium, quod fecit in Tusculano, ut in eodem tecto
ornithonis inclusum triclinium haberet, ubi delicate cenitaret et alios videret in mazonomo positos coctos,
alios volitare circum fenestras captos. Quod inutile invenerunt. Nam non tantum in eo oculos delectant intra
fenestras aves volitantes, quantum offendit quod alienus odor opplet nares. Rust. 3.4.2.
Merula said “There are two kinds of ornithon: one for pleasure, such as this Varro of ours has built near
Casinum, which has found many admirers; and the other for profit, in which class some keep enclosures for
market, both in the city and in the country; they especially keep leased enclosures in the Sabine district,
because there, on account of the nature of the field, flocks of fieldfares are found. Lucullus wanted the
aviary which he built on his place near Tusculum, which was formed by a combination of these two
classes, to be a third class, as he had, under the same roof, an enclosed dining-room which belonged to his
aviary, where he could dine luxuriously, and see some birds lying cooked on the dish, and others fluttering
about the windows, as they were prisoners. But his friends found it unserviceable. For in it the birds flying
within the windows do not delight the eyes as much as the unfavorable odor gives offence because it fills
the nostrils.”
Lucullus’s aviary disregards the categories of profit-driven and pleasure-driven aviaries
mentioned by Merula by reaching for both goals through the cobbling together of the dining
room and the aviary. It also violates the principle of utilitas: it is deemed inutile since it fails to
reach the twin goals for which it was built, especially that of pleasure on account of the offensive
odor given off by the birds. The whole episode seems to be a prime example of a
mismanagement.
Varro presents the opposite of this case with Veianii brothers. By no means a large part
of Book Three, the Veianii brothers offer a positive example of sound management and business
practice. Merula recounts their story:
Audivi dicentem duo milites se habuisse in Hispania fratres Veianios ex agro Falisco locupletis, quibus
cum a patre relicta esset parva villa et agellus non sane maior iugero uno, hos circum villam totam alvaria
fecisse et hortum habuisse ac relicum thymo et cytiso opsevisse et apiastro, quod alii meliphyllon, alii
melissophyllon, quidam melittaenam appellant. Hos numquam minus, ut peraeque ducerent, dena milia
42
Metellus Scipio is mentioned as holding a particularly lavish triumph (Rust. 3.2.16); and also (along with Marcus
Seius) for having several flocks of large geese (Rust. 3.10.1)
48
sestertii ex melle recipere esse solitos, cum dicerent velle expectare, ut suo potius tempore mercatorem
admitterent, quam celerius alieno. Rust. 3.16.10
I have heard him [Varro] tell the story that he had two soldiers under him in Spain, the wealthy brothers
Veianii, from the district near Falerii. Although their father had left only a small villa and a little plot of
land certainly not larger than one iugerum to them, these brothers built an apiary around the whole villa,
and kept a garden; and all the rest of the land they planted with thyme, snail-clover, and balm, which some
call honey-leaf, others bee-leaf, and some call bee-herb. These men typically never received less than
10,000 sesterces from their honey, on average, since they said they wanted to wait to bring in a buyer on
their own time rather than more quickly at an unfavorable time."
The episode presents an instance of pastio villatica entirely at odds with the rest of Book Three.
Instead of luxury and excess which describes the dominant character of Book Three, the brothers
possess a farm and an enterprise which is a model of efficiency. The villa is small (parva) as is
the accompanying plot of land (agellus). It rivals in minuteness of size the ancestral plot (4
iugera) reported in Columella about Quinctius Cincinnatus (Columella, Rust. 1 pref. 13). It is the
embodiment of sound practice: in addition to a garden and various herbs, the honey production
on the plot of land brings in 10,000 sesterces. For comparison, Varro meanwhile mentions earlier
in the dialogue that Axius has a 200 iugera farm that produced 30,000 sesterces per year (Varro,
Rust. 3.2.15). The Veianii enterprise packs modern production in ancient size. Also noteworthy
is the striking independence the plot has from the market—the brothers are not required to
immediately sell their product, but can instead sit on it until it fetches the highest price, an
organization of production which allows them to retain their autonomy in the face of market
transactions. But because of the brevity of the episode, it seems that Varro is merely presenting a
plurality of organization strategies in the face of lavish, contemporary units of production which
occupy the rest of Book Three.
Varro reserves one of the harshest strains of criticism for himself. In a self-reflective
moment, he indicates an awareness that his intellectual pursuits are also a by-product of the life
of leisure provided for by absentee management. After describing an aviary constructed for the
sake of profit (fructus), the dialogue progresses to describe the aviary whose primary goal is the
49
attainment of pleasure (delectatio/voluptas). The description of the first aviary is not merely an
idealization of country life, but a full-fledged simulacrum of the city of Rome. The for-profit
aviary features domed buildings, a water supply (similar to an aqueduct), pipes (sewers), posts
described similar to structures of a theater (Rust. 3.5.1-4). Immediately after this description, and
no less extravagant, is the description of Varro’s own aviary. Although not one of the standard
targets of the dialogue, such as Lucullus, Varro’s aviary at Casinum is just as over the top. Paired
with Merula’s, Varro’s aviary also contains a theater-like structure and strives to replicate the
comforts of the city. But the features of Varro’s aviary are constructed with a patent intellectual
slant. Leigh Kronenberg has interpreted Varro’s aviary as symbolic for the life of the mind. The
basis for this reading is Merula’s exchange with Varro: “dic illut alterum genus ornithonis, qui
animi causa constitutus a te sub Casino fertur” (‘Varro tell us about that other kind of aviary,
which is said to have been built by you near Casinum for the sake of the mind’) (Varro, Rust.
3.5.8). Here the mind (animi) is substituted for pleasure (delectatio/voluptas). She has recognized
that “the description of the aviary emphasizes its metapoetic features and transforms it into a
symbol of Varro’s literary production” (Kronenberg 2009:122). There are various fountains and
streams, the image of poetic inspiration, a museum, and an ambulatio, evocative of philosophical
dialogue. The structure itself is built in the shape of a writing tablet. Inside the aviary are birds of
all types, especially songbirds, including blackbirds (merulae) which has the effect of mirroring
the Res Rusticae’s own dialogue (Kronenberg 2009: 123)
43
. By implicating himself as the author
of such a luxurious, pleasure-driven aviary, even though the pursuit is decidedly higher than
mere profit, Varro seemingly undermines himself in his role as moralizer assumed in the
prefaces to Book Two and Three. Yet it is the life of leisure provided for by absentee
43
Description of Varro’s aviary is at Rust. 3.5.9-17.
50
management which generates this very critique. For this reason, the episode is the culmination of
the contradictory elements of the Res Rusticae, and at the heart of this contradiction is Varro’s
recognition of the increasing role that the effects of principles of management and alienation
have on Roman culture.
Varro’s abstract, theoretical concern to categorize and hammer out various divisions
within the field of agronomy are not so much required instruction for maintaining a farm as
much as they are for its management. The theoretical abstractness of the Res Rusticae further
contributes to the development of principles of rational management. This is accomplished in
Varro’s elaboration of three distinct branches of the rural economy and the agents engaged in
work centered on the farm (agricolae), on the pasture (pastores), and on the villa. While Cato
recognizes the personal benefit he can reap from the system of absentee management, Varro
considers its effects on Roman culture.
Vergil and the Agronomical Content of the Georgics
Although the literary pretensions of Vergil’s Georgics overshadow its status as an
agricultural text, the work nevertheless integrates Roman agronomy into its substance and
features an elucidation of sound principles of rational management. Because of its stellar
reputation, the work’s status as an agricultural treatise has been called into question. But the
Georgics should not be singled out for its selectivity because the prose agricultural treatises too
are selective. The point is made by Spurr, who, to name one example, says that while Varro
supplies details for the picking of olives, he “says almost nothing about the pressing” (Spurr
1986: 168)
44
. Furthermore, we should recognize that the selectivity that appears in the Georgics
44
Varro, Rust. 1.55. 1-7.
51
can be explained by a trend within agricultural literature of reducing and reorganizing
agricultural precepts. The trend is apparent in Varro, who establishes his work in three books as
the product of this trend: from Mago’s work, which reportedly contained twenty-eight books, to
its Greek translation in twenty books by Cassius Dionysius of Utica, and then finally to
Diophanes of Bithynia, who managed to create an agricultural treatise in six books (Varro, Rust.
1.1.10-11). Varro gives a robust explanation for his choice in the number of books, explaining
that he treats the subject by “sequens naturales divisiones” (‘following its natural divisions’)
(Varro, Rust. 1.1.11). Although organization of the Georgics is certainly not structured according
to the natural divisions of agronomy, Vergil’s selectivity betrays an awareness of this trend and
the succinctness of his work speaks to this awareness. Spurr claims that the organization of the
poem into four books “represented a considerable achievement, if not advance, in rational
composition” (Spurr 1986:168). The achievement is especially great if one considers the
unsystematic and disorganized nature of Cato’s De Agricultura.
Genre and Intent
The first aspect of the Georgics I wish to address is the degree to which the poem
engages with its technical content and the position of this technical content within the poem. The
poem’s debt to its technical predecessors is considerable. Its content is inspired by a diverse
array of authors, from Hesiod’s Works and Days, Nicander’s Georgika, all the way to Aratus’
Phainomena and Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura
45
. The incorporation of technical content in poetic
form was part of a trend in Hellenistic literature
46
. But the Georgics bears little resemblance to
45
For more discussion on the texts which inform the Georgics see Thomas 1988:4-11?. For the allusive program
comprised of Hesiod and Aratus for Book 1 and Lucretius for Book 2 see Joseph Farrell 1991.
46
Versified treatises exist on subjects as diverse as astronomy, husbandry, noxious animals, herbs, cookery, fishing,
zoology and extraordinary rivers.
52
these texts. Thus, the question of the generic affiliations of the Georgics is a bit more complex.
The problem has led to a debate over whether scholars think the Georgics falls into the category
of being a versified agricultural treatise, a treatise with poetic flourishes, or descriptive poetry
with political and philosophical ideas
47
. For Boyle, the Georgics bears little resemblance to
Hellenistic verse treatises, and is far more indebted—formally and substantively—to the De
Rerum Natura of Lucretius than to its Hellenistic precursors, the key difference being that
“whereas in Lucretius didactic intent and overt technical substance coalesce, in Virgil they do
not” (Boyle 1979:3). Thomas supports the idea that there is a divergence between generic
appearance and intent. He ultimately concludes that Vergil does not intend to instruct his readers
in agronomy. Rather, the didactic form of the poem is merely instrumental because “no Roman
farmer would have read the poem for practical instruction when Varro’s Res Rusticae was
available; had he done so, moreover, his success would have been limited, for Virgil is extremely
selective with his precepts” (Thomas 1988:4). While Thomas is certainly right to question the
ability of the Roman farmer to run his farm based on the knowledge within the poem alone, I
propose that one need not dismiss the didactic quality of the poem nor the soundness of its status
as an agricultural text.
To dismiss the soundness of the Georgics as an agricultural text means dismissing the
possibility that it would have been read by a farmer. The assumption is typically followed by
expectations which are far too high about the level of instruction available within an agricultural
treatise. It is clear that there needs to be clarity on the question of the identity of the potential
reader of the Georgics, whether this person is a farmer or not. There also needs to be clarity on
47
One of the problems pointed to in interpreting the genre of the work, according to Richard Thomas, is the
tendency of the literary critic to “strive for neatness, encouraged by the need to systematize” (Thomas 1988:3).
Boyle adds that metracritical focus has emphasized formal similarity over substantive difference (Boyle 1979:3).
53
the general character of the agronomic texts available to Vergil. That the Georgics is selective in
nature is no mystery. The text is simply more succinct in terms of agricultural precepts and more
imaginative in its depiction of the idealized pictures of country life than any prose treatise. But
this quality in no way diminishes the authoritative status of the poem among the later
agronomists, notwithstanding Seneca’s comments
48
. Additionally, although Thomas says the
Georgics’ status as an agricultural treatise is diminished because of its selectivity, the texts of
Cato and Varro are also extremely selective, especially Cato’s text because it was virtually the
first of its kind. Given these qualifications on the nature of the tradition of Roman agricultural
writings, there should be recognition that while the text may not be a straightforward adaptation
into verse of an agricultural treatise, it is still a text that skillfully incorporates the discipline of
agriculture into its very substance and possesses the capacity to provoke a number of
contradictory readings. For this reason, it is important not to dismiss the agronomic qualities of
the work, especially by speculating that no farmer would have consulted the Georgics when
other agricultural works were available.
As I mentioned above, Cato demonstrates just how flexible the category of farmer was—
utilizing it in his own self-fashioning without reference to the enormous staff responsible for
supporting him. In Varro, the word agricola is used to refer specifically to those who practice
agriculture (as opposed to animal husbandry), but is also used of the landowner, the practitioners
of agriculture in the distant past, and those who directly work the land. Thus, while direct
laborers might have no need for a poem on agriculture, it is possible that a landowner, or an
agent in their capacity as a manager, might indulge themselves by reading the poem. As I tried to
48
Seneca claims that Vergil “nec agricolas docere uoluit, sed legentes delectare” (‘intended not to instruct famers,
but to delight readers’) (Ep. Mor. 86.15). The Georgics has quite the reputation in both Columella, where he is
routinely cited for his knowledge of agricultural precepts, and, though less so, in Pliny.
54
show above, agricultural treatises show the process whereby there is a division between thinking
and doing, and while the Georgics engages in more fantasy and idealized poetic visualizations,
the situation is no different. In fact, there is a substantial amount of flexibility in terms of the
content of the poem because of its orientation towards the tastes of a farmer-as-manager rather
than a direct laborer
49
. Moreover, highlighting the technical content of the poem does not
diminish Vergil’s broader interests, which focus upon the broader idea of the role of agriculture
in human life.
The Georgics and Agronomy as Poetic Substance
More than just inspiration, the poem’s technical content is integral to the structure and
substance of the poem. In fact, there is a dynamic relationship between the poem and its
technical content: Books One and Three present robust technical schemes, only to show their
failures. Books Two and Four are characterized by a labor-fructus ideal: they show the
possibility of success against the harsh realities of a recalcitrant world and question the cost of
this success (Boyle 1979:66). The technical instruction provides an ostensibly positive
perspective within the poem and points the way towards explaining how the eternal necessity of
labor is best applied. There is, nevertheless, constant struggle: the prevalence of military
metaphors in the poem to describe the act of cultivation emphatically make this point
50
. The
49
For this reason, we should not foreclose the idea that the Georgics makes a technical contribution to Roman
agronomy. Thibodeau 2011:202 makes the case that the poem did make valuable contributions to agronomy and that
this contribution is visible in the poem’s reception.
50
A thorough list for military language in Book One is found in Boyle 1979, note 3: 99, 104f., 106, 114, 125, 145,
210, 155, 157, 220, 268, 269, 270, 271. Other references are at books 2.279-83, 369f., 407; 3.11, 46, 220ff., 346-48;
4.4f., 67ff., 107f., 165ff., 217., 313f. The convention of using military language to describe husbandry is found
throughout the agronomic tradition, in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, Cato’s De Agricultura, and Varro’s Res Rusticae.
Farming for Cyrus in the Oeconomicus is a preparatory activity similar to military training, which he performs
before taking a meal (4.24). Spanier 2012:137-147 argues that Cato’s forms of command are based upon a
militaristic chain of command. Varro uses the quincunx, a military formation, in the context of farming at 1.7.2-3.
55
position of the agronomic content is made clear in the theodicy (G. 1.121-146), where Vergil
narrates that it was Jupiter who, once in power, orchestrated the emergence of the arts—
especially agriculture—as the product of hardship
51
. Following the development of new forms of
human activity is Vergil’s pronouncement of the continued necessity of labor “Labor omnia
vicit/ inprobus et duris urgens in rebus egestas” (‘Wicked labor conquered all things, and an
oppressing lack in dire circumstances’) (G. 1.145-146). Vergil makes labor requisite for all
forms of human activity, an all-encompassing, oppressive force, determinative of the structure of
human life: labor is both a harsh necessity needed to extract resources from the earth and the
origin for the highest achievements of the human mind. The necessity of labor gives humans the
capacity for complex thought (curis acuens mortalia corda), a means for improving their
position in the world. That this dialectic between labor as cruel necessity and productive-creative
force is conjoined in one passage is noteworthy. Ultimately, however, the fruits of labor submit
to the general principle espoused at 1.199-203, the tendency of all things to degenerate
52
.
Vergil’s description of the present age makes the entire field of agronomy one of the primary
means by which humans perform labor and counter the forces of this degeneration.
51
Prior to Jupiter’s ascension, Vergil describes an age marked by the spontaneous generation of the earth’s fruits, a
world free of private property, and a way of life conducted through principles of communitarianism. In order to
remedy the inactivity caused by excessive sloth (gravi veterno), Jupiter first practiced agriculture, characterized by
manipulation of the fields in an organized manner (per artem). Vergil couches the birth of the arts within a
mythological tradition that stretches back from the archaic period, into the classical period all the way up to the
neoteric poets, making use of a range of topoi which often accompany the creation of human arts: mastery over
nature through agriculture, over fire, the sea through ship building, the ability to read the stars for navigation,
hunting, fishing, and finally, the rest of human art: “tum variae venere artes” (‘then came the various arts’) (G.
1.145).
52
“Sic omnia fatis/ in peius ruere ac retro sublapsa referri,/ non aliter, quam qui adverso vix flumine lembum
remigiis subigit, si bracchia forte remisit/ atque illum in praeceps prono rapit alveus amni” (‘So, fate decrees that
everything/ tumble into a worse state and slide swiftly backwards/ just as when someone whose oars can hardly
force his boat/ against the current should happen to relax his pull/ the flow will seize him, pushing him headlong
downstream.’)
56
Vergil’s image of an agronomy opposed to the tendency of all things to regenerate—the
farmer’s labor of harvesting the earth in the age of Jupiter—is consonant with the presentation of
the farmer’s obligation to practice agriculture in Varro’s Res Rusticae:
Etenim ubi ratio cum orco habetur, ibi non modo fructus est incertus, sed etiam colentium vita. Quare ubi
salubritas non est, cultura non aliud est atque alea domini vitae ac rei familiaris. Nec haec non deminuitur
scientia. Ita enim salubritas, quae ducitur e caelo ac terra, non est in nostra potestate, sed in naturae, ut
tamen multum sit in nobis, quo graviora quae sunt ea diligentia leviora facere possimus. Varro, Rust. 1.4.3-
4.
For when a reckoning with death is considered, not only is profit uncertain, but also the farmers’ life. Thus,
when there is no wholesomeness, agriculture is no different than a game of chance for the life and property
of the master. And indeed, this risk is lessened by knowledge. For in so far as wholesomeness, which is
reckoned from climate and soil, is not in our power, but is determined by nature—it nevertheless greatly
depends on us because we can, by industry, diminish its more disagreeable aspects.
The passage here shows that the poet uses Varro to think about how to practice an activity in the
face of uncertainty. Varro’s conceptualization of the purpose of agricultural labor highlights its
ability to mitigate things out of human control. Whereas for Varro, this mitigation is in the form
of production and profit, in the Georgics, it is a necessity for the well-being and survival of
mankind. Thus, although Vergil’s Georgics lacks direct discussion of profit, the spirit of Varro’s
exhortation is preserved. The sentiment is echoed at G. 1.155-159, where Vergil articulates the
necessity of constant toil for the farmer’s survival
53
. Thus the agricultural content of Vergil’s
Georgics is the very substance of the poem. And Vergil’s conception of agriculture is in keeping
with Varro’s commitment to agriculture as a science. Vergil uses the agronomic content as a
major structuring principle for the various movements within the poem and attempts to provide
53
“Quod nisi et adsiduis herbam insectabere rastris/ et sonitu terrebis aves, et ruris opaci/ falce premes umbras
votisque vocaveris imbrem./ heu magnum alterius frustra spectabis acervum,/ concussaque famem in silvis solabere
quercu.” (‘So, unless you pursue the weeds with a relentless hoe, scare off the birds with shouting, remove the shade
from overshadowed farmland with a pruning hook, and call down rain with prayers, in vain, alas, you’ll stare at
someone else’s heaps of grain and relieve your own hunger by shaking oak trees in the woods.’)
57
an ethical framework for how to live in a world where all things ultimately collapse into
disorder.
The Drive to Rational Management and the Georgics
That the poem is able to grapple with such concerns as the role of agriculture in human
experience speaks to its considerable breadth. Yet despite this breadth, the managerial drive is
still operative in the Georgics. As mentioned above, this drive is characterized by a division
between thinking and doing, and one of the ways this division is achieved in the Georgics is
through the text’s emphasis upon thinking—the bodies of knowledge which Vergil transmits to
his reader are varied and expansive. The articulation of this knowledge makes it possible for the
addressee, whom I identify as an owner/manager figure, to wield a greater degree of control over
the entirety of the agricultural enterprise. The Georgics aids in the reader-as-manager’s ability to
draw upon multiple sources of explanation for the labor processes described in the poem, and in
doing so, gives him a means of lording his authority over his subordinates.
Thibodeau has noted that Varro’s Res Rusticae incorporates “a range of scholarly fields
that include history, grammar, dialectic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, medicine, and
architecture”, a list which Thibodeau says approximates the contents of Varro’s Disciplinae, a
text whose purpose was to “spell out for a Roman audience a curriculum of interrelated topics
that a man of culture ought to have some acquaintance with” (Thibodeau 2011:128). Thibodeau
argues that the Georgics also incorporates “a complex series of ties between agriculture and
other more prestigious fields of knowledge, which elevate agronomy and make it seem like a true
liberal art” (Thibodeau 2011:117). I would add, however, that while this may be the case, none
of these developments coalesce in the Georgics in the way that they do in the other agronomists.
58
In my view, the complexity of the poem resists easy classification. Yet it is still possible to trace
some of these features within the poem.
The Georgics contributes to the rise of agronomic knowledge by adding to agricultural
precepts (basic units of advice, actions or procedures) explanations or justifications for their
particular form, a feature of technical works which Thibodeau calls “causes” (Thibodeau 2011:
129). The focus on ‘causes’ allows Vergil to draw upon a wide range of material from such fields
as ethnography, geography, astronomy, physics, botany, medicine, history, etymology, zoology,
and mythology. The convention is apparent in Book One, a passage which gives
recommendations about what to do when ploughing unfamiliar ground:
At prius ignotum ferro quam scindimus aequor,
ventos et varium caeli praediscere morem
cura sit ac patrios cultusque habitusque locorum
et quid quaeque ferat regio et quid quaeque recuset.
Hic segetes, illic veniunt felicius uvae,
arborei fetus alibi, atque iniussa virescunt
gramina. Nonne vides, croceos ut Tmolus odores,
India mittit ebur, molles sua tura Sabaei,
at Chalybes nudi ferrum, virosaque Pontus
castorea, Eliadum palmas Epiros equarum.
Continuo has leges aeternaque foedera certis
inposuit natura locis, quo tempore primum
Deucalion vacuum lapides iactavit in orbem,
unde homines nati, durum genus. Ergo age, terrae
pingue solum primis extemplo a mensibus anni
fortes invertant tauri glaebasque iacentis
pulverulenta coquat maturis solibus aestas. G. 1.50-65
And first, before we break open the unfamiliar ground with our plough, we should care to learn about the
winds and the varied habit of the climate, the ancestral forms of cultivation and the nature of the regions,
and what each tract will bear, what each will reject. Here grain, there grapes will come more fruitfully, and
elsewhere saplings and grasses grow green of their own accord. Don’t you see that Tmolus sends saffron
perfumes, India ivory, the soft Sabaeans their frankincense, the naked Chalybes iron, the Sea itself beaver
oil, Epirus the Olympian prizes of her Elean mares? Nature imposed these laws and everlasting covenants
on certain places from the time when Deucalion first hurled stones into the empty world, from which men
were born, a rude but hardy race. Come then, without delay, may your strong oxen overturn the rich soil of
the earth in the first months of the year, and let dusty summer bake the exposed clods under its powerful
suns.
Vergil extends discussion of this precept by identifying distinct causes for why one should
inspect the area, learn about the climate, its forms of cultivation, the land, and its existing
59
agricultural features. The rationale he gives for these activities is steeped in ethnography and
geography: each region contributes its best product for the Roman market. Another cause draws
upon physics through an allusion to Lucretius about the limits and laws which nature imposes
upon the world
54
. Vergil’s reasoning is that various regions behave in a particular way based on
the concept of regularity handed down by nature. Finally, Vergil appeals to the mythic tradition
in the next cause, using the Deucalion myth to establish the antiquity of the laws and pacts of
nature. It is also an explanation for the hardy nature of human beings (durum genus), which in
turn justifies the requirement that humans plough the soil in the early months of the year and
allow the land to bake in the summer. In terms of the division between thinking and doing,
Vergil’s discussion exhibits a clear separation between the information a laborer would be
expected to possess, and that of an elite figure with enough leisure and erudition. In terms of the
poem’s readership, the precepts would give the owner/manager-as-reader a functional
understanding of the tasks to be carried out, while the causes would instill him an air of
superiority which he could wield over his subordinates. The ability to link together disparate
fields would affirm his own intellectual formation. In this way, the poem appeals both to the
specialist in its ostensibly narrow subject matter, and the manager, in its attention to various
erudite discourses and its ability to coordinate between them and mobilize them into
explanations for the procedures of the farm.
Another one of the ways in which Vergil participates in this division between thinking
and doing is in his borrowing of the divisions of the rural economy found in Varro’s Res
54
Cf. Lucretius’ DRN at 1.584-9: “denique iam quoniam generatim reddita finis crescendi rebus constat vitamque
tenendi, et quid quaeque queant per foedera naturai, quid porro nequeant, sancitum quandoquidem exstat, nec
commutatur quicquam, quin omnia constant usque adeo” (‘Now, in fact, since a limit has been given in matters of
growing and holding life, according to kind, and since it stands as decreed by pacts of nature—both what each thing
is capable of, and also, in turn, what it is not capable of—and since the species do not change in any way, but all
things are constant to such an extent..’).
60
Rusticae. While Vergil never directly publicizes his debt to Varro’s conception of the rural
economy, and while his borrowing lacks the systematic treatment of Varro, it is clear that Vergil
adopts some aspects of Varro’s organization. For example, as Thibodeau has noticed, in the
discussion of pastio in the second book of the Res Rusticae, Varro covers nine different animals:
sheep, goats, swine, oxen, donkeys, horses mules, dogs and herdsmen. The dialogue also
maintains a specific rubric in discussion of these animals, including: preferred physical qualities,
differences between breeds, terms of purchase, feeding, breeding, weaning, health and number in
an ideal herd (Thibodeau 2011:121)
55
. Vergil’s third book treats the same subject, but Vergil’s
treatment is much more selective. The animals which receive the most attention include: horses,
oxen, sheep, and goats. Briefly, there is mention of dogs
56
. Vergil’s points of discussion mirror
Varro’s, but again, selectively: his disquisition covers preferred physical traits, breeding, feeding,
weaning and health, but neglects breeds, age, law of purchase, and appropriate numbers
57
. Book
Four of the Georgics also contains subject matter similar to Varro’s Book Three, where he
describes the third branch of the rural economy, pastio villatica. Apiculture and horticulture
feature heavily in this book—both forms of husbandry which fall under pastio villatica. That
Vergil follows Varro’s divisions of the rural economy is grounds for positioning the Georgics as
attending to the demands of specialization. The claim is hard to prove in the poem, especially
since mention of slaves in the poem is suppressed and agricolae themselves seem to perform
most of the labor
58
. But there are instances where Vergil mentions some specialized members of
the familia, including the harvesters (messor), ditch diggers (fossores), vine trimmers
55
Thibodeau argues on the topic of Vergil’s selectivity that it sparks the curiosity of the reader and in this way forms
a protreptic to agronomy.
56
3.404-13.
57
Physical traits: 3.49-59, 72-88, 100-102; breeding: 60-71, 95-100, 132-45. 209-11, 386, 390; feeding: 123-31,
155-156, 174-78. 205-8, 295-338, 394-97, 466; weaning 187-9, 398-99; health: 440-69.
58
1.155-59; 1.291-94; 1.353-55; 1.493-97; 2.405-7; 4.112-14.
61
(putatores), trainers (magistri) and weaving girls (puellae)
59
. Moreover, verbs of ordering speak
to the presence of a staff managed by the farmer, as does the use of delegated verbs
60
.
Even though Vergil permits features of specialization to appear in the Georgics, it is
curious that he omits direct mention of servile staff and the figure par excellence of agricultural
management, the vilicus. The problem has been noticed by Thibodeau, who finds the omission
glaring, especially since he is a prominent figure in the management of Roman agricultural
estates. He argues that this omission is necessary so that the narrator can engage in fantasy that
“he is playing the farmer” (Thibodeau 2011:47). But through the intertextual references which
Vergil mobilizes in the Georgics, it is possible to see that Vergil does allude to the vilicus. The
passage at G. 1.259-75 is illustrative:
Frigidus agricolam si quando continet imber,
multa, forent quae mox caelo properanda sereno,
maturare datur: durum procudit arator
vomeris obtunsi dentem, cavat arbore lintres,
aut pecori signum aut numeros inpressit acervis.
Exacuunt alii vallos furcasque bicornis
atque Amerina parant lentae retinacula viti.
Nunc facilis rubea texatur fiscina virga,
nunc torrete igni fruges, nunc frangite saxo.
Quippe etiam festis quaedam exercere diebus
fas et iura sinunt; rivos deducere nulla
religio vetuit, segeti praetendere saepem,
insidias avibus moliri, incendere vepres,
balantumque gregem fluvio mersare salubri.
Saepe oleo tardi costas agitator aselli
vilibus aut onerat pomis, lapidemque revertens
incusum aut atrae massam picis urbe reportat.
If at any time a frigid rain confines the farmer to his house, it is an opportunity for him to ready in good
time the many things which should be done quickly when the sky is clear at a later time: the plowman
hammers the hardy tooth of the blunted plow, hollows out troughs from trees, sets a brand upon his flocks,
or labels on his piles of grain. Others sharpen stakes and two-pronged forks and prepare ties from Ameria
for pliant vines. Now may baskets of briar canes be woven without trouble, now parch grain over the fire,
now grind it on a stone. Indeed, even on holy days, the laws of god and men permit the performance of
certain tasks. No scruples forbid bringing down irrigation water, enclosing the crops with a hedge, setting
snares for birds, burning up briar-bushes, and dipping a bleating flock in a health-giving stream. A driver
59
1.316-18; 2.262; 2.416-17; 3.118-20; 1.390-92.
60
See 3.295-303 for the use of verbs of ordering. The delegated verb appears at 2.298-302, cf. Thibodeau 2011:32-
33.
62
often loads the sides of his slow donkey with oil or abundant fruit, and, returning from the city, carries back
a cut millstone, or a mass of black pitch.
The passage is a reworking of Cato’s De Agricultura:
Si ei opus non apparet, dicit vilicus sedulo se fecisse, servos non valuisse, tempestates malas fuisse, servos
aufugisse, opus publicum effecisse, ubi eas aliasque causas multas dixit, ad rationem operum operarumque
vilicum revoca. Cum tempestates pluviae fuerint, quae opera per imbrem fieri potuerint, dolia lavari, picari,
villam purgari, frumentum transferri, stercus foras efferri, stercilinum fieri, semen purgari, funes sarciri,
novos fieri; centones, cuculiones familiam opportuisse sibi sarcire. Per ferias potuisse fossas veteres tergeri,
viam publicam muniri, vepres recidi, hortum fodiri, pratum purgari, virgas vinciri, spinas runcari, expinsi
far, munditias fieri. Cato, Agr. 2.2-4
If the amount of work does not seem satisfactory to him, the overseer claims that he has acted with
diligence, but that the slaves have been sick, the weather has been bad, the slaves have run away, that he
has had to do public work—when he has given these and many other reasons, call the overseer back for a
reckoning of the work done and the hands employed. Although the weather has been rainy, work could be
done on rainy days: scrubbing and pitching wine vats, cleaning the farmhouse, shifting grain, hauling out
manure, making a manure pit, cleaning seed, mending harness and making new; and the slave staff ought to
mend their garments and hoods. On feast days old ditches could be cleaned, roads built, brambles cut, the
garden spaded, a meadow cleared, sticks bundled, thorns pulled out, spelt ground, and house cleaning done.
For Thibodeau, in Vergil’s version of the passage, it is the narrator-as-farmer ordering the
apportionment of work. But as Cato’s account shows, the dominus/owner figure is the one who
reminds the vilicus, who in turn issues the commands. That allows for the possibility that the
narrator is playing the role of the vilicus. Thus, although there is a suppression of direct mention
of vilicus, in my view his presence is implied. This means that Vergil allows for the possibility of
the narrator assuming the role of the vilicus or the farmer. This blurring of identity speaks to the
similarity in the nature of the roles that such manager figures were required to assume. They
were responsible both for ordering work, understanding the duties of the farmer, possessing the
knowledge of the work he was responsible for delegating, and at times, taking part in the work
himself
61
. For all these similarities between the vilicus and the farmer/owner, one of the key
differences aside from ownership is prominently stated by agricultural writers. This difference is
in the area of knowledge.
61
Xen. Oec. 12.4; Col. 11.1.3;
63
There was an expectation among the agricultural writers for the landowner to have a
general level of competency. The notion is expressed in terms of the landowner’s self-
presentation, in which an especially desirable trait was that of autonomy—that is, not relying on
one’s subordinates. The trait is expressed by the agronomists in the case of the relationship
between the agricola and the vilicus through a frequent injunction: “ne plus censeat sapere se
quam dominum” (‘let him not assume that he knows more than master’) (Cato, Agr. 5.2-3), and
“quam proximum domino corde esse debere et tamen sibimet ispsi non videri” (‘he ought to be as
close to his master as possible in intelligence, but not think of himself that way’) (Plin. HN
18.36). Thus, it is no surprise that the poem expects some level of familiarity with the subject
matter. Under such conditions, the selectivity of the text is more understandable. The assumption
of prior knowledge also effects how we should conceive of Vergil’s readership. As Spurr points
out, the concept of the novice farmer is a modern one (Spurr 1986:168). Instead, the absentee
landowner is a more appropriate image of Vergil’s reader, making the need for a comprehensive
account of farming unnecessary and undesirable since it would diminish the pleasure of reading
the poem. The same expectation of familiarity with the subject matter is voiced in Pliny the
Elder’s discussion of arboriculture. The author proposes to treat only the “veram colendi
rationem absolutamque” (‘true and complete methods of cultivation’), glossing over vulgar
methods, and instead focusing on ones which are sources of confusion for the practical man
(Plin. HN 17.1). The selectivity of the poem, then, is rooted in the poem’s commitment to an
agricultural literature defined by the principles of labor management.
64
Chapter Two: Agricola Perfectus and the Formation of the Ideal Farmer
In the first chapter I argued that the context out of which Columella’s De Re Rustica
arises is characterized by a tendency within agricultural manuals to integrate the principles of
rational management. The second chapter of the dissertation will show the full development of
this tendency within Columella’s text. But Columella does not accept this development
uncritically: while his incorporation of the principles of rational management is by far the most
developed and detailed within the agricultural texts, the preface to Book One of the De Re
Rusticae contains a marked skepticism towards the culture created by such an environment. The
solution Columella provides to this problem begins with an educational program which runs
parallel to Columella’s outline of the duties of the vilicus.
I argue in this chapter that the distinction between the De Re Rustica and the other
agronomical treatises is its focus on implementation, that is, the ability of Columella’s De Re
Rustica to bring method into practice. I aim to show that the De Re Rustica contains a very
specific vision for the development and transmission of the discipline of agriculture. This vision,
with its incorporation of the principles of rational management, is a negotiation of the various
strands of authoritative knowledge within agronomy, including past agricultural writers,
ancestral practice, personal experience, and empirical observation. In this way, the De Re Rustica
reacts to Varro’s overly abstract approach to agriculture by staging a return to the agent-centered
approach of Cato, yet his approach to agronomy is packaged in a comprehensive and systematic
format. But the text is of course more than just a reaction: Columella’s very conception of
agriculture is based upon emphasizing the effectiveness of human action, an emphasis in keeping
with a Stoic understanding of how the physical world operates and is apparent in the very
language Columella uses to describe his conception of agriculture. Columella draws upon
65
Cicero’s concept of the ideal orator (orator perfectus) for the articulation and deployment of this
vision. It is in the course of explicating this concept that Columella outlines his pedagogical
program for agriculture—the requisite knowledge and activities of the agricola perfectus, the
person responsible for managing and sometimes carrying out the tasks on the farm. Through this
figure, Columella articulates the position of the agricola within the state and the world at large,
establishing a parallel between nature and the agricola as an artifex. That Columella draws upon
this Ciceronian concept in order to articulate his theory of education is significant. The result is
an innovative presentation of the teaching of agronomy which anticipates Quintilian’s orator
perfectus
62
. And, to further demonstrate the radical nature of Columella’s education program, I
contextualize it with contemporary criticisms of Roman pedagogical approaches, focusing
mainly on criticisms in Petronius’ Satyricon. In doing so, I show that Columella meant to
provide a solution to the continued separation of thinking and doing in Roman agronomy by
combining theory and practice in one figure.
Education: Bringing Theory into Practice
That teachability and transmission of knowledge were of concern to early agronomists is
evident in the texts themselves. The primary form that the transmission of knowledge takes in
Cato’s De Agricultura is through Cato’s own position as a teaching figure who instructs his
dominus/pater familias addressee by commanding him to order his subordinates to perform the
tasks necessary for the farm’s production and maintenance. This is the very least we can say
about this text. Mazzarino earlier argued in his comments on the editorial history of the De
62
Quintilian articulates the making of the orator through the phrase oratorem facere at Inst. 1.10.6, 2.17.11, and
10.1.65. Additionally, he refers to his own practice as a teacher through the phrase oratorem instituere (1.pr.9,
1.pr.25, 1.1.10, etc.). The outcome of his instruction is the orator perfectus.
66
Agricultura that it may have derived from a commentarius shared with the Ad Filium (1952: 38-
39; 53). Sciarrino adds that Cato may have had the father-son relationship in mind in the
composition of the De Agricultura, particularly in those passages where he modifies and
stretches inherited schemes, namely, legal formulae, rituals, and prayers (Sciarrino 2012: 141-
160). In her view, the De Agricultura expands on a pre-existing, intergenerational father-to-son
tradition, a form which underwent parody in Plautus’ Trinummus (Sciarrino 2011: 156-7). One
drawback in this early method of bringing agricultural knowledge into practice is its limited
applicability, which is due in large part to its local character. Astin notes that reliance on
commentarii and personal knowledge reflected and powerfully reinforced within the De
Agricultura “particularist tendencies in Cato’s attitudes” and that “his frequent failure to
distinguish details which were applicable to his own situation from information which had
general validity and utility” (Astin 1978: 202)
63
. Nevertheless, as Astin states, although many
Romans may have compiled information and assembled ‘books’ for private use, it was Cato who
first prepared such books for public use (Astin 1978: 182).
Varro, in keeping with Cato, explicitly states that he writes his Res Rusticae in order that
his wife Fundania might learn how to manage a farm: “ego referam sermones eos quos de agri
cultura habuimus nuper, ex quibus quid te facere oporteat animadvertere poteris. In quis quae
non inerunt et quaeres, indicabo a quibus scriptoribus repetas et Graecis et nostris” (‘I will
relate the speeches which we had recently about agriculture, from which you will be able to
reflect on what you ought to do. If what you seek is not present in those discussions, I will
indicate the writers, both Greek and our own, whom you should seek’) (Varro, Rust. 1 pref. 7).
63
“Thus recommendations as to places at which to purchase materials, statements of prices, and even calculations of
cost linked with number of days required for transportation are expressed in terms which could not have been
applicable generally” (Astin 1978:202).
67
Similarly, he aims to help Turranius Niger in taking his livestock to market, as well as Quintus
Pinnius in learning pastio villatica (Varro, Rust. 2 pref. 5; 3.1.10). But as I hoped to show in the
previous chapter, the satirical content of Varro’s Res Rusticae highlights the division in the
practice of res rusticae between thinking and doing. In my view, the tensions within the Res
Rusticae betray an awareness of this division while also further contributing to it through
theorization of the constitutive parts of res rusticae. In this way, the Res Rusticae occupies a
transitionary moment in the history of the discipline of agriculture. But while Varro’s text
develops the theoretical foundation of the discipline, it does not offer a substantial contribution
in terms of prescribing a program which encourages landowners to take part in the practice of
agriculture. In this respect, Columella and his educational program offer a significant departure
from his predecessors.
In no other text does an agronomist present himself as an educational reformer to the
degree that Columella does. In his assessment of the state of agriculture as a teachable art, he
holds it up for comparison alongside other arts: orators have those whose eloquence they can
imitate, field surveyors and mathematicians have a magister they can emulate, and singers and
dancers have their pick of skilled instructors to choose from. There are architects and craftsmen
available to people who wish to build, skilled pilots for those wishing to sail, men experienced in
arms and campaigning for wars. Agriculture, alone of the arts, has neither pupils nor established
teachers (Rust. 1 pref. 3-4). Columella explains that the predominant mode of acquiring the
skills for each of these occupations is imitation (imitentur), in addition to consulting those
experienced in their respective areas of expertise (peritus). He diagnoses the discipline of
agriculture as lacking comparable infrastructure required for the transmission of agronomic
knowledge: “agricolationis neque doctores, qui se profiterentur, neque discipulos cognovi” (‘I
know neither those who profess that they are learned in agriculture, nor students of agriculture’)
68
(Rust. 1 pref. 5). Columella, then, finds a role for himself in the intellectual environment of
imperial Rome as specialist in the education of agronomy. He announces the novelty of his
approach through coinage of a new term for his approach to agriculture. Although he utilizes the
term agri cultura, along with other words that refer to the disciplinary nature of agriculture, his
preferred term is agricolatio, which covers a broader range of activities than agri cultura, but is
still more precise than res rusticae (Nelsestuen 2012:69). I agree with Nelsestuen that utilization
of this term must speak to the more practical reality of the activities of an agricola versus the
“highly circumscribed and overly tidy bounds of Varronian agri cultura” (Nelsestuen 2012:
69)
64
. Columella’s coining of a neologism is more than just a reactionary gesture—it is an
important moment in the disciplinary formation of agriculture. It signals a conception of
agriculture that embraces theoretical abstraction and grounds it in practice
65
.
The basis by which Columella presents himself as an innovative agricultural teacher in
imperial Rome is explicitly stated. In describing how the immensity of his subject is likely to
scare away prospective students of agronomy, Columella states his pedagogical influence:
“verum tamen, quod in Oratore iam M. Tullius rectissime dixit, par est eos, qui generi humano
res utilissimas conquirere et perpensas exploratasque memoriae tradere concupierint, cuncta
temptare” (‘Nevertheless, as Marcus Tullius has rightly said in his Orator, it is proper that those
who desire to investigate the most useful subjects for the benefit of the human race, and commit
to memory their considerations, carefully thought out and investigated, to try everything’) (Rust.
1 pref. 29). The statement is a paraphrase of Cicero’s Orator (Orat. 1-2). What is not as explicit
64
Usage of the term “agri cultura” is most prevalent in Varro. Other terms utilized by Columella in the preface to
the first book include: “disciplina” or “disciplina ruris” at Rust. 1. pref. 13; 20; 22; 24; 33; “scientia” at Rust. 1 pref.
12; 22; 25; 28; 31; “ars” at Rust. 1 pref. 6; 29; 32; “res rustica” at Rust. 1. pref. 3; 4; 11; 18; 19; 20; “rusticatio” at
Rust. 1 pref. 13; 33; “res agrestis” at Rust. 1 pref. 33; “agrestibus operibus”/ “agrestium operum” at Rust. 1. pref.
17; 28.
65
The word “agricolatio” like emphasizes the quality of being a farm; at the same time emphasizing the root
“colere” (‘to dwell’).
69
is the theoretical underpinning for the agricola perfectus which Columella draws upon in order
to articulate his pedagogical program. Before I describe the Ciceronian basis of Columella’s
borrowing, it is important to offer some thoughts on the broader vision of what it means for
Columella to appropriate a concept from rhetoric.
Agronomy, Rhetoric, and Education
Firstly, the figure of the orator has an important place within the context of the state.
According to Thomas Habinek, ancient legends pinpoint the origins of rhetoric to periods in
which tyranny ceased and collective deliberation began. While scholars agree that historical
reality does not coalesce with the picture presented by ancient legend, Habinek notes that ancient
legend encodes the notion that rhetoric constitutes the special speech of the ancient state, that is,
speech that organizes the linguistic diversity of the community and articulates shared beliefs and
aspirations (Habinek 2005:1). In his view, rhetoric can be considered an extension of special or
ritual speech, an activity that orders the community in the face of chaos (Habinek 2005:3).
Cicero was well aware of the importance of rhetoric and oratory to the running of the state. In the
Brutus, for example, Cicero speculates that Brutus must have been an extremely competent
orator to expel a tyrant from the state and to bind its government to annual magistrates, laws, and
courts (Brut. 53). Oratorical skill is featured prominently in Cicero’s list of early figures who
utilized their command of speech to thwart potential uprising by plebeians. Cicero describes how
each of these figures “appeased the discord of the plebeians”, “assuaged their passions”, and
“halted their insurrection” (Brut. 54-7). Additionally, in Cicero’s De Oratore 1.30-34, Crassus
claims for orators “a primary role in the governance, preservation, and even the foundation of
states” (Mankin 2011:6). In the following statement, he explicitly summarizes the figure of the
ideal orator and his relationship to the state: “sic enim statuo, perfecti oratoris moderatione et
70
sapientia non solum ipsius dignitatem, sed et privatorum plurimorum et universae rei publicae
salutem maxime contineri” (‘For I think thusly, that through the guidance and wisdom of the
ideal orator, not only is his own dignity upheld, but also that of many private citizens, as well as
the vigor of the whole state’) (De Orat. 1.34). That Columella draws upon this figure of the ideal
orator, the person known to have specialized knowledge in rhetoric for the benefit of the state,
signifies that he imagines for agriculture a similar role for organizing and improving the state. He
says as much when he places agriculture among the topics which are of the greatest benefit to the
human race (generi humano res) (Rust. 1 pref. 29). Before I get into the specifics of Columella’s
adaptation of the concept, it is necessary to provide a sketch of how he incorporates the figure of
the ideal farmer into the De Re Rustica.
Columella and the Ideal Farmer
Rhetoric can be considered as an ordering of the raw material of human language into
ordered patterns of speech. Similarly, Columella understands that agronomy is, at its core, a kind
of shaping of the raw material of nature. This understanding is not entirely new. Varro before
him understood that nature had to be modified through agronomy in order benefit the farmer
66
.
Columella, on the other hand, reifies the concept of shaping nature through the metaphor of the
artifex:
quippe eiusmodi scriptorum monumenta magis instruunt quam faciunt artificem. Usus et experientia
dominantur in artibus, neque est ulla disciplina, in qua non peccando discatur. Nam ubi quid perperam
administratum cessit improspere, vitatur quod fefellerat: illuminatque rectam viam docentis magisterium.
Quare nostra praecepta non consummare scientiam, sed adiuvare promittunt. Nec statim quisquam compos
66
Varro says on the topic of alleviating the effects of poor climate of a farm “…nec haec non deminuitur scientia. Ita
enim salubritas, quae ducitur e caelo ac terra, non est in nostra potestate, sed in naturae, ut tamen multum sit in
nobis, quo graviora quae sunt ea diligentia leviora facere possimus” (‘And indeed, this risk is lessened by
knowledge. For in so far as wholesomeness, which is reckoned from climate and soil, is not in our power, but is
determined by nature—it nevertheless greatly depends on us because we can, by industry, diminish its more
disagreeable aspects’) (Varro, Rust. 1.4.4; cf. 1.18.7).
71
agricolationis erit his perlectis rationibus, nisi et obire eas voluerit, et per facultates potuerit. Rust. 1.1.15-
17
Of course treatises of this sort instruct more than make the artifex. Practice and experience hold governance
in the crafts, and there is no form of instruction in which one does not learn by making mistakes. For when
something managed wrongly has unfavorably failed, one avoids that in which he had erred, and the advice
of a teacher illuminates the correct method. Therefore, our precepts promise not to perfect one’s
knowledge, but to assist it. No one will immediately become a master of agriculture by reading through
these methods, unless he wants to apply them and is able to through his resources.
Columella’s use of this word artifex allows us to place him within an intellectual tradition that
had been thriving since the work of Cicero. The word can be translated as “an expert practitioner
of any art”, a “specialist”, or “master”. It can also mean a “craftsman” or “artisan”. I will come
back to the importance of the latter meaning below. In any case, usus (practice) is both
emphasized and necessary—the treatise cannot form the individual into a specialist, it can only
instruct him or her. The artifex is formed only through active participation. Situated in the
agronomic tradition, the emphasis on practice is not new
67
. But Columella departs from Varro in
that there is no overt discussion in the Res Rusticae of a specialist figure. Throughout the De Re
Rustica, Columella spends time defining this specialist and his ability to coordinate
systematically between different bodies of knowledge. The invocation of order and method
(rectam viam; rationibus) is an index of the influence of formal rhetorical instruction in the De
Re Rustica, a means of bringing the theorization of agriculture into practice. This theoretical
knowledge is, importantly, distilled into one figure. In this passage alone, there are two terms
used to describe mastery of the discipline (the other being compos). In a discussion on the
different types of soils, Columella further clarifies his idea of the competency of the artifex:
eas enumerare non est artificis agricolae. Neque enim artis officium est, per species, quae sunt
innumerabiles, evagari, sed ingredi per genera, quae possunt cogitatione mentis et ambitu verborum facile
copulari. Rust. 2.2.2
67
Varro emphasizes the importance of practice in agricultural methodology in the following places: 1.1.11, 1.18.7-8,
1.19.2.
72
To enumerate them [soil types] does not belong to a skilled farmer. For it is not the duty of an art to wander
through the species, which are innumerable, but to progress through the classes, which can readily be
joined together through the thought of the mind and brought within the compass of words.
In what is most likely a shot at Varro, Columella distinguishes his approach as one that focuses
on well-reasoned categories rather than excessive detail. Again, he references the figure of the
artifex, but whereas in the previous passage the figure was described in more absolute terms,
here the use of the adjectival form of the word signals the formation of the master farmer as a
process. And it is evident that this process is aided by practice, experience, ancestral knowledge,
and the text of the De Re Rustica itself, acting as a guide (magisterium docentis). Columella’s
explicit instruction in his methodology of teaching exhorts the prospective agriculturalist to
achieve mastery by progressing through the genera of the soil, a more finite and delimited series
of categories. The rationale given here is that the stated procedure allows the prospective master
of agriculture to establish mental connections which facilitate learning by bringing the material
together in a metaphor borrowed from rhetoric “ambitu verborum”: Columella’s use of the term
artifex establishes a vocabulary of expertise
68
.
Another term Columella uses to express the mastery the farmer has over his subject is the
agricola perfectus. The phrase occurs in Book One: “Nam qui se in hac scientia perfectum volet
profiteri sit oportet rerum naturae sagacissimus” (‘For the one who would profess to be a master
in this science, it is proper that he be most shrewd in the nature of things’) (Rust. 1 pref. 22)
69
.
Another technical writer, Vitruvius, conjoins the two words: “Itaque eum etiam ingeniosum
oportet esse et ad disciplinam docilem. Neque enim ingenium sine disciplina aut disciplina sine
ingenio perfectum artificem potest efficere” (‘It is proper that an [architect] be of natural talent,
68
The terms appears in Cicero’s works: Brut. 44, 162; Orat. 12.
69
The phrase occurs again at 1 pref. 32: “Accedit huc, quod ille, quem nos perfectum esse volumus agricolam, si
quidem artis consummatae non sit…” (‘Added to this is that in the case of the man whom we wish to be a finished
husbandman, even though he be not a man of consummate skill…’).
73
and amenable to instruction. For if he has talent without instruction, or instruction without talent,
he is unable to become a complete master’) (De Arch. 1.1.3)
70
. That Columella and other
technical writers present themselves as masters of their respective fields, and use a common
language in order to do so, suggests that they share a common understanding about the concept
of mastery and their place within the world. I would argue that the nature of this relationship to
the concept of artistry is so particular that Columella should be viewed as participating in a
shared tradition: a “cluster of authors who find in the stoic theory of oikeiosis, conciliation
between individual and universe, a justification for artistic activity as an exemplary way of living
in accordance with nature” (Habinek 2016:299)
71
. This means that, as Thomas Habinek has
suggested for Vitruvius, so too does Columella participate in “an intellectual culture permeated
with Stoic and related Academic models and doctrines that provide a framework he can adapt to
his own ends” (Habinek 2016:308). Columella’s goals, then, include communicating and
transmitting a particular worldview in his version of agriculture.
The Artist and Mastery
In order to explicate fully Columella’s worldview and his method of transmitting it, it is
necessary to return to one of the words used for mastery. As mentioned above, artifex refers to
the achievement of a high level of mastery in one’s respective field. It also means a craftsman or
70
Celsus also conjoins the two words: “Verumque est ad ipsam curandi rationem nihil plus conferre quam
experientiam. Quamquam igitur multa sint ad ipsas artes proprie non pertinentia, tamen eas adiuvant, excitando
artificis ingenium: itaque ista quoque naturae rerum contemplatio quamvis non faciat medicum, aptiorem tamen
medicinae reddit perfectum” (‘indeed, nothing contributes to the very method of bestowing care more than
experience. Although, therefore, there are many things, which are not strictly pertinent to the arts themselves,
nevertheless, they help them by stimulating the talent of the master. So that contemplation of the nature of things,
although it does not make a doctor, nevertheless it renders him more apt and perfected in medicine’). (Med. 1 pref.
47).
71
This point is especially important for understanding how Columella views the problem of labor at the beginning
of his work (Rust. 1 pref. 3).
74
an artist. These two meanings begin to articulate the particularity of Columella’s use of the term
artifex. An early influence that demonstrates the particularity of Columella’s use of this word
appears in Cicero’s Orator.
The Orator is the latest of Cicero’s rhetorical works, dating to around 46 B.C. Addressed
to Marcus Junius Brutus, it was intended to answer his request for a picture of the perfect orator
(Hubbell 1988:297). In the proem, Cicero openly discusses the anxiety involved in matching
one’s talents to those of an orator like Demosthenes. He advises that prospective students should
not despair of attaining such a high level of distinction. In what follows, Cicero proceeds to
outline his concept of the orator perfectus. This concept is heavily influenced by a philosophical
conception of art and is oriented toward pedagogy. His orator perfectus is “qualis fortasse nemo
fuit” (‘one who perhaps has never existed’); an unsurpassable ideal, “illud, quo nihil esse possit
praestantius” (‘that which is surpassed by nothing’) (Orat. 2.7). This ideal does not appear
throughout a whole speech but does “shine forth” at different times, infrequently in some
speakers, frequently in others. The discussion then turns to art, and Cicero explains that the
beauty on earth is surpassed “by that of which it is a copy” (Orat. 2.8). The elaboration of his
statement is an analogy to Phidias and his statues, which, although rather beautiful, are still
imperfect in relation to the image in the artist’s mind:
Nec vero ille artifex cum faceret Iovis formam aut Minervae, contemplabatur aliquem e quo similitudinem
duceret, sed ipsius in mente insidebat species pulchritudinis eximia quaedam, quam intuens in eaque
defixus ad illius similitudinem artem et manum dirigebat. Ut igitur in formis et figuris est aliquid perfectum
et excellens, cuius ad cogitatam speciem imitando referuntur ea quae sub oculos ipsa non cadit, sic
perfectae eloquentiae speciem animo videmus, effigiem auribus quaerimus. Has rerum formas appellat
ἰδέας ille non intellegendi solum sed etiam dicendi gravissimus auctor et magister Plato, easque gigni negat
et ait semper esse ac ratione et intellegentia contineri; cetera nasci occidere fluere labi nec diutius esse uno
et eodem statu. Quicquid est igitur de quo ratione et via disputetur, id est ad ultimam sui generis formam
speciemque redigendum. Cicero, Orat. 3.9-10
Surely that artist, when he was making the image of Jupiter or Minerva, was not thinking about any person
whose likeness he was using, but in his mind a certain surpassing ideal of beauty was impressed; gazing at
it, and fixated upon it, he guided his skill and his hand to the likeness of that ideal. Indeed, just as in the
case of sculpture and painting, there is some perfect and elevated quality, images of which, through
75
imitation, make reference to a vision conceived in the mind, although the very ideal itself does not appear
to the eye—so we perceive the ideal of perfect eloquence in our mind, but with our ears we acquire only the
copy. Plato, that most eminent master and teacher of not only of thought but also style, called these patterns
of things ἰδέαι; and he says that these forms do not come into being—rather they exist forever and depend
on intellect and reason; other things are born, cease to be, are in flux, collapse, and do not remain long in
the same state. Whatever, then, is to be discussed rationally and methodically, must be reduced to the
ultimate form and type of its class.
Cicero concentrates in the figure of the orator the theoretical and technical aspects of rhetoric,
namely, the concept of perfect eloquence (perfectae eloquentiae), as a methodological decision.
Columella’s use of the phrase agricola perfectus, as well as other borrowings from Cicero’s
Orator, suggests that he recognizes Cicero’s methodological choices and transposes them into
the field of agronomy. Thus, Columella’s borrowing is not without reason: by adopting Cicero’s
rationale, Columella distills into the figure of the artifex agricola the discipline of agriculture
with a view to discussing it rationally and methodically. The decision by Columella to utilize
Cicero’s concept of the orator perfectus means that his conceptualization of agronomy not only
entails a rational and systematic ordering, but also embraces pedagogical intent as essential to the
discipline of agriculture. Eralda Noe makes the same point about the agronomist due to
comments made by Cicero and Celsus on the necessity of incorporating practice into
agronomy
72
:
Columella però è convinto che il sapere agricolo frutto di esperienza e tradizione debba essere trasmesso: il
momenta pedagogico fa costitutivamente parte dell' ars. È urgente una iniziazione pedagogica, bisogna
insegnare una scientia che si sta dimenticando e che ha sue competenze specifiche rispetto ad altri ambiti
disciplinari
73
. Noe 2000: 411
72
Agriculture requires (but is not dependent upon) inputs of reason and labor: “Totae autem res rusticae eius modi
sunt ut eas non ratio neque labor, sed res incertissimae, venti tempestatesque, moderentur” (‘And the whole
business of agriculture is such, that it is regulated not by reason or by industry, but by those most uncertain things,—
the weather and the winds’) (Cic. Verr. 3.98.227). Celsus makes the point about practice more explicitly: “nam ne
agricolam quidem aut gubernatorem disputatione sed usu fieri” (‘for even a farmer, or a pilot, is made not by
disputation but by practice’) (Cel. Med. 1 pref. 32).
73
“However, Columella is convinced that agricultural knowledge, the fruit of experience and tradition, must be
transmitted: the pedagogical moment is constitutively part of the ars. A pedagogical initiation is urgent, we must
teach a scientia which is being forgotten and which has specific competencies with respect to other disciplinary
fields.”
76
The methodology is found elsewhere. A more explicit adaptation of the conventions Cicero uses
to describe expertise in rhetoric seems to occur in Vitruvius:
Cum in omnibus enim rebus, tum maxime etiam in architectura haec duo insunt, quod significatur et quod
significat. Significatur proposita res, de qua dicitur; hanc autem significat demonstratio rationibus
doctrinarum explicata. Quare videtur utraque parte exercitatus esse debere, qui se architectum profiteatur.
Itaque eum etiam ingeniosum oportet esse et ad disciplinam docilem. Neque enim ingenium sine disciplina
aut disciplina sine ingenio perfectum artificem potest efficere. Et ut litteratus sit, peritus graphidos, eruditus
geometria, historias complures noverit, philosophos diligenter audierit, musicam scierit, medicinae non sit
ignarus responsa iurisconsultorum noverit, astrologiam caelique rationes cognitas habeat. De Arch. 1.1.3.
As in every one of the arts, so too especially in architecture, there are two important considerations: that
which is signified, and that which signifies; what is signified is the subject which, having been proposed, is
under discussion; this subject is signified by a demonstration explained through systems of scientific
principles. Therefore, it seems that he who professes that he is an architect ought to be practiced in both
considerations. An architect should be naturally gifted, and amenable toward instruction. He is not able to
be a perfect master if he is talented, but without instruction, or instructed, but without talent. He should be
educated in the liberal arts, a skilled draftsman, learned in geometry, he should know much about history,
have listened carefully to philosophers, know music, not be ignorant of medicine, know the responses of
the jurists, and be familiar with astronomy and calculations of the heavens.
Although there is not a complete correspondence between Cicero and Vitruvius here, as
Vitruvius seems to draw upon a philosophical viewpoint that has more in common with Aristotle
than Plato, there is a definite influence of the concept of the artifex. Whereas Cicero used the
concept to discuss an actual artifex, Phidias, who later becomes the basis for the orator perfectus,
Vitruvius uses the term to refer to his conception of the architect. The idealized aspect of the
perfectus artifex, however, is not as pronounced here as it is in Cicero. Its expression is found in
Vitruvius’ anxiety over the many and various arts with which the architect should be acquainted
(De Arch. 1.1.13-14).
The same expectation is in Columella, who is quite specific about the various types of
knowledge he expects his ideal farmer to have at his fingertips, advising that he be “rerum
naturae sagacissimus” (‘most wise in the nature of things’), a phrase with Lucretian resonance
that here covers a range of competencies. His language is close to Vitruvius’:
Nam qui se in hac scientia perfectum volet profiteri, sit oportet rerum naturae sagacissimus, declinationum
mundi non ignarus, ut exploratum habeat quid cuique plagae conveniat, quid repugnet. Siderum ortus et
77
occasus memoria repetat, ne imbribus ventisque imminentibus opera incohet laboremque frustretur. Caeli et
anni praesentis mores intueatur, neque enim semper eundem velut ex praescripto habitum gerunt, nec
omnibus annis eodem vultu venit aestas aut hiems, nec pluvium semper est ver aut umidus autumnus. Rust.
1 pref. 22-23.
For he would profess that he has mastery in this science, it is right that he be most wise in the nature of
things, one not ignorant about climate, so that he may have considered and investigated what is appropriate
for each region and what is rejected. He should recall in his mind the rising and setting of the stars, so that
he does not commence his work when rains and winds threaten, and frustrate his labor. He should observe
the habits of the weather and the current season, for the conditions are not always the same, as if according
to a fixed rule—summer and winter do not come every year with the same appearance; spring is not always
rainy or the autumn moist.
Columella cites additional knowledge required for mastery, including: knowledge of the practice
of growing and ploughing (segetum arationumque usum); the varieties of land (terrae varietas),
nature of the soil (soli habitus); a method for the planting and tending of trees and vineyards
(rationem quoque in arboribus vineisque conserendis ac tuendis); acquiring and keeping cattle
(in pecoribus parandis conservandisque); various sorts of grafting and pruning (species
insitionum, tot putationum); the care of farmyard poultry and bees (avium cohortalium et apium
cura); and finally, the cultivation of fruits and vegetables (pomorum holerumque cultus) (Rust. 1
pref. 23-28). Mastery of all the parts in this discipline (cunctarum in ea disciplina partium)
however, is not expected right away. Columella is emphatic that the formation of the artifex
agricola is a process—there is an expectation that the student of agriculture can evolve into such
a figure with competencies in these various areas:
Post hanc tam multarum tamque multiplicum rerum praedicationem non me praeterit, si, quem desideramus
agricolam quemque describemus, exegero a participibus agrestium operum, tardatum iri studia discentium,
qui tam variae tamque vastae scientiae desperatione conterriti nolent experiri, quod se consequi posse
diffident. Rust. 1 pref. 28
After this proclamation of so many subjects and their variations, it does not pass over me, if, I demand,
from the participants in rustic pursuits, such a farmer whom we desire and will describe, that I would
hinder the zeal of learners, who, terrified by the hopelessness of so varied and vast a science, are not
willing to try what they doubt they are able to obtain.
The approach here contrasts with that of Varro, who claims to write for instruction or at least
provide reference for instruction, but does not explicitly mention that he intends to create an
78
ideal farmer
74
. While acquisition of the encyclopedic knowledge of the ideal farmer is a process,
it does not preclude one’s capacity to act as an agricola. Columella limits the encyclopedic level
of knowledge that a farmer should have by stating that a functional level knowledge at the
competency of the Roman agronomists is sufficient
75
.
Agriculture and Virtue
Along with the emphasis upon encyclopedic learning, it is a concern of Columella’s to
articulate the relationship between agronomy and virtue. This concern was also shared indirectly
by a number of technical writers, Vitruvius, for example, and directly, by philosophical writers.
Cicero writes about the topic in Academica 2, where Lucullus delivers a speech arguing that
secure knowledge of the world is possible through perception. In order to do so, Lucullus
provides a discourse derived from natural philosophy (a physicis) (Acad. 2.30). He starts by
stating how nature created (fabricata esset) every animal, especially men, as if by handicraft
(quasi artificio). It is also responsible for the power possessed by the senses (vis in sensibus) and
the process whereby humans are struck by sense-presentations (visa), which create appetition
(adpetitio), which in turn plays a role in how humans direct the senses to perceive objects (ad res
74
Writing for instruction: “Quocirca scribam tibi tres libros indices, ad quos revertare, siqua in re quaeres, quem
ad modum quidque te in colendo oporteat facere” (‘Therefore, I shall write for you three books to which you may
turn as guides, whenever you should seek, according to a given subject, how you ought to do something in farming’)
(Varr. Rust. 1.1.4). Writing for reference: “In quis quae non inerunt et quaeres, indicabo a quibus scriptoribus
repetas et Graecis et nostris” (‘should you seek matters which are not treated in those discussions, I shall indicate
the writers, both Greek and Roman, from whom you may learn them’) (Rust. 1.1.7).
75
“Nec in universa rerum natura sagacitatem Democriti vel Pythagorae fuerit consecutus, et in motibus astrorum
ventorumque Metonis providentiam vel Eudoxi, et in pecoris cultu doctrinam Chironis ac Melampodis, et in
agrorum solique molitione Triptolemi aut Aristaei prudentiam, multum tamen profecerit, si usu Tremellios
Sasernasque et Stolones nostros aequaverit” (‘Though he may not have obtained the wisdom of Democritus or
Pythagoras in the nature of the universe; nor the foresight of Meton or Eudoxus in the motions of the stars and the
winds; in the care of the flock, the learning of Chiron and Melampus; the discernment of Triptolemus or Aristaeus in
the tilling of the fields and the soil; nevertheless, he will have done much, if, in practice, he has equaled our very
own Tremelliuses, and Sasernas, and Stolos’) (Rust. 1 pref. 32).
79
percipiendas): the mind is directed to the things by which it is moved. Lucullus explains how
some of the sense-perceptions are put to immediate use (statim), some become the substance of
memory (memoria), and others are arranged according to their “mutual resemblances” from
which concepts of reality (notitiae rerum) are formed, termed by the Greeks as ennoiai or
prolepsis. Then, when reason (ratio), logical proof (conclusio argumenti), and a multitude of
innumerable details are added, perception (perceptio) of all these things is evident and the ratio,
perfected by these various steps, reaches wisdom (ad sapientiam pervenit) (Acad. 2.30-31). The
process is described as an adaptation for humans: the mind, being well-adapted (aptissima) for
acquisition of knowledge (ad rerum scientiam) and constancy of life, embraces the entire process
for two reasons: 1) out of love for itself and the light of truth; and 2) for the sake of utility
(propter usum). Lucullus summarizes what this means for the relationship between the arts and
virtue: “Quocirca et sensibus utitur et artes efficit quasi sensus alteros et usque eo philosophiam
ipsam corroborat ut virtutem efficiat, ex qua re una vita omnis apta sit” (‘wherefore, the mind
uses the senses, and also creates the arts as another set of senses, and strengthens philosophy
itself to the point that it produces virtue, from which circumstance alone, the whole of life was
joined’) (Acad. 2.31).
Some passages in Columella imply that he is at the very least aware of the substance of
these discussions and envisions an agriculture that attempts to incorporate within it some of the
justifications for the arts in Lucullus’ speech. I argue that Columella adopts two primary methods
of incorporation: 1) agriculture as an art is an extension of the senses and affirms Columella’s
vision of the nature of the physical world; and 2) agriculture as an art has practical, utilitarian
applications which improve the conditions of human existence. In each of these justifications,
there is a connection with virtue and its capacity to order life.
80
Throughout the first three books of his treatise, Columella develops the idea that
agriculture as an art is an extension of the senses and affirms his vision of the nature of the
physical world. In these books, he embraces a concept of a divine creator who employs
craftsmanship, touches upon the importance of sense perceptions, secure cognition, and finally,
holds the view of agriculture as a system. The language used by Columella also indicates that he
shares with Cicero and other technical writers a conception of the role of virtue in relation to art.
First, I begin with his view of nature. As previously stated, Columella wants his agricola to have
knowledge of nature (rerum naturae sagacissimus) (Rust. 1 pref. 22; cf. 1. pref. 32). In addition
to the various competencies mentioned above, this is a highly specific knowledge of nature, as
Columella makes clear in the preface to Book One. Here, Columella discusses how some of the
leading men of the state condemn the unfruitful nature of the soil, saying that it has been worn
out and exhausted by overproduction. In response to these claims he tells his dedicatee:
Quas ego causas, P. Silvine, procul a veritate abesse certum habeo, quod neque fas est existimare rerum
Naturam, quam primus ille mundi genitor perpetua fecunditate donavit, quasi quodam morbo sterilitate
adfectam; neque prudentis est credere Tellurem, quae divinam et aeternam iuventam sortita communis,
omnium parens dicta sit, quia et cuncta peperit semper et deinceps paritura sit, velut hominem consenuisse.
Rust. 1 pref. 2-3
Publius Silvinus, I am certain that such reasons are far from the truth, because it is a sin to judge that
nature, whom that most eminent creator of the universe endowed with perpetual fertility, is affected with
sterility as if with some disease; nor does it belong to a prudent man to believe that the earth, who was
allotted divine and everlasting youth, and is called the common mother of all, because she has always
brought forth all things and will bring them forth continuously, has grown old just as a mortal.
The passage claims that a divine creator has bestowed perpetual fertility to nature and that this
fertility is also extended to the Earth, who is also a divine creator. This divine creativity has
migrated from its initial place with the genitor mundi, to both nature and the Earth (communis
omnium parens), and eventually is realized in the figure of the artifex agricola. Furthermore,
with Lucullus’ speech in mind, the view which Columella responds to is a disavowal of the
efficacy of the arts and therefore the senses. It is an impediment to the power of the mind and its
81
process of gathering together collections of sense perceptions and forming systematic
understandings of the universe from them. Columella criticizes this viewpoint, saying that its
proponents act as if their views are founded upon solid reasoning (velut ratione certa). The
passage recalls Lucullus’ view of nature as employing craftsmanship (artificio) in the use of the
senses and the formation of knowledge.
At another point in the treatise, Columella utilizes concepts found within Lucullus’
speech, highlighting the view that the senses are inextricably linked to the formation of
knowledge:
Igitur si rerum naturam, P. Silvine, velut acrioribus mentis oculis intueri velimus, reperiemus parem legem
fecunditatis eam dixisse virentibus atque hominibus ceterisque animalibus: nec sic aliis nationibus
regionibusve proprias tribuisse dotes, ut aliis in totum similia munera denegaret. Quibusdam gentibus
numerosam progenerandi sobolem dedit, ut Aegyptiis et Afris, quibus gemini partus familiares ac paene
sollemnes sunt; sed et Italici generis esse voluit eximiae fecunditatis Albanas Curiatiae familiae
trigeminorum matres. Rust. 3.8.1-2.
Therefore, Publius Silvinus, if we should wish to look at nature, for example, through the keener eyes of
the mind, we will find that she has consecrated an equable law of fertility for plants, and human beings, and
all other living creatures; and that she has not bestowed particular gifts on some nations or regions in such a
way as to deny similar gifts to others. To certain nations she has granted the gift of producing numerous
progeny, such as to the Egyptians and Africans, for whom the birth of twins is common and almost
ordinary; but she also wanted there to be mothers of the Italian stock who possessed extraordinary
fertility—the Alban women of the Curiatian family, mothers of triplets.
While the passage here begins with what appears to be a casual observation, this observation is
loaded with philosophically inspired terms. Columella invokes the eyes of the mind, which he
describes as being keener (acrioribus). Through this utilization of the mind, which, according to
Lucullus is the source of the senses (sensuum fons) and is sensation itself (Acad. 2.30), there is a
recognition of what Columella views as a law established by nature, an equable law of fertility.
Earlier in the book, Columella detailed how this law of nature can be used to institute different
methodological procedures as a corrective (firmanda ratio) for methods employed through the
sloth and imprudence of farmers (imprudentia colonorum damnata), whose methods are
described as obscured by the darkness of ignorance (ignorantiae tenebris). A similar phrase is
82
used by Lucullus to describe the opposition to his philosophical thought (Acad. 2.30)
76
. The topic
under question in Columella is specifically the fact that Columella advises the planting of
Aminean vines over Bituric, Spionian, Basilic and Arcelacan vines, which are in fashion because
are they are believed to not suffer from a native and inborn unfruitfulness (natali et ingenita
sterilitate) attributed to Aminean vines (Rust. 3.7.2). Columella claims that the competing vines
are not prized as having the same rich flavor (pretiosi saporis) as the Aminean. Thus,
Columella’s philosophical insight informs his decision to recommend planting of the Aminean
vine because, through the equitable law of fertility, they can be as productive as other vines
77
.
The De Re Rustica has another point of resonance with Lucullus’ speech. In the
following passage, Columella relates his advice on the best part of the vine from which to get
cuttings. He concludes that one should select from a fruitful part of the vine shoots which have
already produced. Moreover, he recommends the selections of shoots which are conspicuous for
the greatest number of offspring (Rust. 3.10.17). In a lengthy digression, Columella gives the
rationale for this advice:
Videmus hominibus inspiratam uelut aurigam rectricemque membrorum animam, sensus iniectos ad ea
discernenda quae tactu quaeque naribus auribusque et oculis indagantur, pedes ad gressum conpositos,
bracchia ad conplexum, ac ne per omnes uices ministeriorum uagetur insolenter oratio, nihil aures agere
ualent quod est oculorum, nihil oculi quod est aurium. Ne generandi quidem data est facultas manibus aut
plantis, sed quod hominibus ignotum uoluit esse genitor uniuersi, uentre protexit, ut diuina praedita ratione
rerum aeterna opifex quasi quibusdam secretis corporis in arcano atque operto sacra illa spiritus elementa
cum terrenis primordiis misceret, atque hanc animantis machinae speciem effingeret.
We see that a soul animates human beings, acting as charioteer and guide of their members, and that the
senses were established in them for the purpose of perceiving those things which are found out by touch, by
76
“nam quid eum facturum putem de abditis rebus et obscuris qui lucem eripere conetur?” (‘for what should I think
that he who is trying to snatch away the light will do about matters that are hidden and in the darkness’) (Acad.
2.30).
77
The law is quoted above. A similar principle appears later in the book: “Si quis ergo tales, quales paulo ante
possedisse me rettuli, Amineas pluribus vindemiis exploratas notet, ut ex his malleolos feracissimos eligat, possit is
pariter generosas vineas et uberes efficere. Nihil enim dubium est, quin ipsa natura sobolem matri similem esse
voluerit” (‘Therefore if anyone should, over the course of several vintages, seek out and mark the sort of Aminean
vines I recounted that I possessed not a little while ago, in order to take from these the most fertile cuttings, he could
produce vineyards equally excellent and productive. For there is no doubt that nature herself has willed that the
offspring be similar to the mother’) (Rust. 3.9.4).
83
the nose, by the ears, and by the eyes; that feet were formed for taking steps and arms for giving embraces.
And in order that my speech not wander without restraint over each of the sensory functions, the ears can
do nothing which belongs to the eyes, and the eyes nothing which belongs to the ears. The capability of
giving birth was not at all granted to the hands or the feet, but the father of the universe concealed in the
belly that which he wanted to be unknown to mankind, in order that the eternal craftsman, possessed of a
divine understanding of things, might mix in certain hidden parts of the body, as if secretly and through
concealment, those sacred elements of the breath of life, together with earthly origins, and fashion this
species of living machine.
In what is perhaps the most explicit invocation, Columella uses many of the concepts from
Lucullus’ speech quoted above. A number of common elements are invoked: the senses, their
power of discernment, the purposeful design of nature—that nature acts as an eternal craftsman
(opifex) endowed with divine reason (divina ratione) and the idea that this ratio should be
applied in the work of the agricola towards the selection of vine cuttings.
Even with a persistent invocation of the philosophical concepts in Lucullus’ speech,
Columella nevertheless avoids explicitly stating a direct correspondence between virtue and
agriculture as an art. There are, however, instances where the inference is implied. In the preface
to the first book of the De Re Rustica, Columella outlines how each art contains an established
means of transmitting mastery, typically in the form of a teacher or figure of admiration to whom
prospective students and apprentices can look for instruction. In the course of describing this
feature of the arts, he summarizes his view on their relation to virtue: “Denique animi sibi
quisque formatorem praeceptoremque virtutis e coetu sapientium arcessat: sola res rustica, quae
sine dubitatione proxima et quasi consanguinea sapientiae est, tam discentibus egeat quam
magistris” (‘In a word, each person calls, from a group of sages, a fashioner of his mind and
teacher of virtue—only agriculture, which is without doubt the closest, and, so to speak, sister to
wisdom, lacks as many learners as teachers’) (Rust. 1 pref. 4). The language here is
unambiguous—the arts named by Columella up to this point, including orators, dancers,
musicians, architects, pilots, and military personnel, are directed toward the attainment of virtue.
Furthermore, although they are all important fields, agriculture is privileged for its proximity to
84
sapientia. The assertion is a convention of authors concerned with the arts, as Thomas Habinek
explains: “A number of authors go so far as to argue for the pre-eminence of the particular art
that interests them due to its distinctive role in the accommodation of humans to the rest of the
natural world, for example, Manilius in his celebration of astronomy (esp. Astr. 1.66–112) and
Diodorus Siculus in writing of the historian’s unmatched contribution to human happiness (Hist.
1.1–11)” (Habinek 2016:304). In his assessment of other arts and their methods of education,
Columella clarifies that like the other arts, which have a coterie of sages to draw upon, he intends
to produce the same for the agricultural art. And this intention is borne through in the concepts
and language he uses to describe the ideal farmer. Columella’s perspective anticipates that of
Quintilian, who endorses the view that eloquence is a virtue (Inst. 2.20.4; 8. pref. 6) and who,
additionally, argues that in educating the ideal orator he is producing a Roman sage (Romanum
sapientem, Inst. 12.2.7).
Columella is quite thorough in his discussion of the second method for the justification of
the agricultural art discussed above, its utilitarian nature. He begins explaining the benefits of his
art at the beginning of the treatise. The state can function without the other arts. Agriculture,
unlike the other arts, is necessary for feeding humans, “sine agri cultoribus nec consistere
mortales nec ali posse manifestum est” (‘yet without cultivators of the field, it is clear that
mankind can neither endure nor be fed’) (Rust. 1 pref. 7). The art remains the only one by which
an income is secured without being like those other arts, which “dissident a iustitia” (‘stand at
odds with justice’) (Rust. 1 pref. 7), such as the military art and the plunder of the soldier. The art
is also closer to the essential nature of man, unlike engaging in trade by sea, which is described
as a breaking of the pact of nature (rupto naturae foedere) for man, a terrestrial being (terrestre
animal homo) (Rust. 1 pref. 8). Columella’s art is also presented as free from the hate of usury
(faeneratio), the sleaziness of the lawyer (causiducus), and the loss of dignity experienced by
85
those who loiter at the doors of the powerful until late at night “miserrimoque famulatu per
dedecus fascium decus et imperium, profuso tamen patrimonio, mercari” (‘and through the most
wretched servitude purchase through disgrace the honor and power of the fasces,
though with
their own inheritance uselessly spent’) (Rust. 1 pref. 8-10). Agriculture, Columella explains,
when one is unwilling to degrade himself through the aforementioned methods of securing
income, is the “unum genus liberale et ingenuum rei familiaris augendae” (‘one method of
increasing the household which is noble and worthy of a free-born person’) (Rust. 1 pref. 10).
The art allows the owner to sustain smaller loses; encourages diligence and activity, a viewpoint
no doubt facilitated by Columella’s Stoic understanding of the nature of the universe, which
encourages the farmer’s activity against the claim that the earth has grown barren like a mortal;
allows one to take greater control of his or her affairs; and takes the business of running the farm
out of the hands of inexperienced slaves (Rust. 1 pref. 10-12). Furthermore, Columella writes
how the art especially aided in the Roman ancestors’ acquisition of military virtue; he
demonstrates this through exempla like Quinctius Cincinnatus, who left his plot to take up the
dictatorship, only to relinquish the position and return to his small plot of land. Men of this sort
show the connection between military virtue and agricultural practice: it keeps the body in shape
and counters what Columella presents as displays of effeminacy in the circus and the theaters
(Rust. 1 pref. 12-15). This kind of preparation is essential at wartime as it enabled the ancestors,
hardened by the labors of peace (pacis laboribus), to endure the hardships of war (Rust. 1 pref.
15). The economic dimension behind Columella’s justification of the agricultural art combats
dependence on the market, allowing Romans to feed themselves on homegrown grains instead of
those from far away provinces beyond the sea and to supply themselves with native wines, not
those from the Cyclades Islands, or districts of Baetica and Gaul (Rust. 1 pref. 20). Finally,
86
Columella objects to the claim that agriculture can be conducted by those without knowledge and
that it is extremely easy (facillimam) (Rust. 1 pref. 33).
In what can only be described as a mixture of these two methods of justifying his art, in
Book Three of the De Re Rustica, Columella advises a kind of museum-like compiling with
cuttings from different types of vines: “si sint veteranae vineae, ut separatim surculis cuiusque
generis singulos hortos inseramus: sic paucis annis multa nos milia malleolorum ex insitis
percepturos, atque ita discreta semina per regiones consituros nihil dubito” (‘If we possess old
vineyards, we should plant individual plots with cuttings of every sort, keeping each separate: in
this way I do not doubt that in a few years we would obtain many thousands of cuttings from
these grafts, and plant seeds separated according to region’) (Rust. 3.21.1). This is supposed to
aid in the practice of vines being separated according to their species and set in their proper plots,
and marked off by foot-paths and boundary lines (Rust. 3.20.4)
78
. The advantage of doing this,
Columella explains, is twofold: 1) to delight the wise man: “prudentem delectant impensius ea,
quae propriis generibus distinguuntur, quam quae passim velut abiecta et quodam acervo
confusa sunt” (‘things which are divided by their individual types exceedingly please the wise
man more than those which are randomly tossed together, so to speak, and confounded together
into some heap’); and 2) to inspire someone unfamiliar with agriculture:
Vel alienissimus rusticae vitae, si in agrum tempestive veniat, summa cum voluptate naturae benignitatem
miretur, cum istinc Bituricae fructibus opimis, hinc paribus Helvolae respondeant; illinc Arcelaca cursus,
illinc Spioniae Basilicaeve convertant, quibus alma tellus annua vice velut aeterno quodam puerperio laeta
mortalibus distenta musto demittit ubera. Rust. 3.21.3
Because even the man who is completely estranged from the rustic life, if he should come into the field at
the right time, would marvel with the utmost pleasure at the benignity of nature, when from that side, the
Bituric vines with their rich fruits answer to the Helvolans, with like fruit, from this other side; when the
78
“Nihil dubito quin per species digerendae vites disponendaeque sint in proprios hortos, semitis ac decumanis
distinguendae” (‘I have no doubt that vines should be arranged by species and distributed into their own plots, and
separated off by foot-paths and boundary lines’) (Rust. 3.20.4).
87
Arcelacans turn his course from this place, and the Spionians or Basilicans from that place, by which the
nourishing earth, each year, as if happy because of her eternal parturition, lowers down to mortals her
breasts distended with new wine.
The last reason is especially important, as Columella explains, because such an arrangement of
vines (which sets Columella’s prose off into a beautifully descriptive flourish) would encourage
the owner of the farm to visit more frequently, and by his presence, increase the productivity of
the estate. Because, as Columella explains “utilitas tamen vincit voluptatem” (‘utility
nevertheless conquers pleasure’) (Rust. 3.21.4), thus concluding a passage which combines
philosophical delight from well-ordered vines with the desire to extract profit, a hallmark of
Columella’s pedagogy.
Columella, Petronius, and the Critique of Education
In order to understand how innovative Columella’s approach is, it is necessary to situate
it within the culture of the early empire. I refer specifically to a critique of rhetoric in Petronius’
Satyricon. Initially, the pairing of these authors might seem strange since they represent two very
different Roman literary forms. Petronius’ Satyricon possesses a much more ludic and irreverent
spirit than does Columella’s De Re Rustica. Yet there is a significant amount of overlap in the
intellectual culture out of which both of these texts emerge. The differences do not end there.
Conte has recognized in the Satyricon an encyclopedic tendency in the work’s propensity for
collecting, reinterpreting, and parodying the literary genres and cultural myths of the day, a
feature which makes the work “a kind of literary encyclopedia of imperial Rome” (Conte 1994:
464). Such a description of Petronius’ text is sharpened with Rimell’s assertion that “while the
Satyricon is clearly a text of peculiar complexity, it is also clear that it cannot be said to
systematize and inform in the manner of a reference work…It cuts and pastes, pulverizes and
rehashes a vast body of literary, medical, zodiacal, culinary and physiognomic knowledge, as
88
well as less assortable savvy on how to make your way in a big, bad world” (Rimell 2007:109).
Thus, as much as both texts are concerned with the habit of Neronian intellectual culture of
covering a vast array of subjects in a single text, they are also doubly concerned with the
transmission of this knowledge.
Education receives a sustained focus in the Satyricon, especially questions concerning its
value, content, form, and the educators who act as mediators between students and the object of
their study. Throughout the text, there are times when Roman education is problematized as the
source of a degenerate culture. But the claims made in the course of this problematizing are only
recognized through the efforts of those figures deeply familiar with the set of ideals particular to
Roman education. Such an arrangement within the work creates a curious situation where, as
Rimell explains, “the acceleration, concentration and reevaluation of literary education discussed
in the Satyricon’s narratives and dramatized in the fiction as a whole, work to oppose and
destabilise a set of educational ideals to do with the objectives, pacing and exclusivity of learning
– yet these are precisely the ideals to which its audience necessarily refers in attempting to
untangle this text (Rimell 2007:113)”.
Although we may appear to be far off from the world of the De Re Rustica, I suggest that
it is precisely this same set of concerns to which Columella responds in his effort to transmit his
work. For this reason, we now turn to the beginning of Petronius’ work, where the main
character Encolpius voices a critique of rhetoric as practiced in his day. It is this critique which is
central to Columella’s approach. At the beginning of the Satyricon, the character Encolpius
blasts professors of rhetoric:
Nunc et rerum tumore et sententiarum vanissimo strepitu hoc tantum proficiunt ut, cum in forum venerint,
putent se in alium orbem terrarum delatos. Et ideo ego adulescentulos existimo in scholis stultissimos fieri,
quia nihil ex his, quae in usu habemus, aut audiunt aut vident, sed piratas cum catenis in litore stantes, sed
tyrannos edicta scribentes quibus imperent filiis ut patrum suorum capita praecidant, sed responsa in
89
pestilentiam data, ut virgines tres aut plures immolentur, sed mellitos verborum globulos, et omnia dicta
factaque quasi papavere et sesamo sparsa. Sat. 1
Now, with all this inflated content and vacuous rumbling of phrases, they accomplish only this, that is,
when [the students] actually go into court, they think they have been carried over into another world. For
this reason I judge that young men become most foolish in schools, because they neither hear nor see things
which we have in our employment. Rather, they study pirates standing on a beach in chains, tyrants writing
edicts in which they order sons to cut the heads of their own fathers, oracles that advise three or more
virgins be sacrificed to ward off a plague, sticky gobs of speech—every word and deed slathered as if with
poppy and sesame seeds.
Because it is Encolpius who voices this critique, it is necessary to question its seriousness. It is,
after all, put in the mouth of an extremely unreliable narrator
79
. Nevertheless, the substance of
this critique is that education in rhetoric, with its emphasis upon unrealistic declamation
exercises, leaves its students woefully unprepared to face the realities of the courtroom.
Encolpius grounds his critique, interestingly, in the insubstantial nature of the subject matter. The
material which professors of rhetoric are expected to teach is not able to be seen, or heard, or
even put to use—a gesture which signals that the root of this critique is not just, as some scholars
have claimed, a “toxic disordering and perversion of systems and facts” which is “set against the
fetishization and codification of Roman learning in the first century”(Rimell 2007:108)—there is
also a critique here about a Roman culture which has been thoroughly dissociated from the
processes of production. It is significant that the language Encolpius uses to make his point is
associated with the functionality of the senses. If seen from the point of view of the philosophical
speech of Lucullus, the inability to see, hear and put to use the material taught in the schools
means that the critique is about how a focus on insubstantial material leads to a lack of
confidence in systems of knowledge. For Lucullus, the senses and knowledge formed from the
senses are the basis of his concept of reality (notitiae rerum). The senses are unable to grasp the
rhetorical content in Encolpius’ complaint, and therefore, the very concept of reality is
79
Encolpius’ claims take the reader into his circle, claiming that “et tu litteras scis et ego” (‘both you and I know
literature’) (Sat. 10.5) yet at other points in the work his memory fails him (Sat. 56.10) and he is frequently drunk
(Sat. 79.2); See Rimell 2007:113-116 for more about Encolpius’ unreliability.
90
threatened. This instability of knowledge can be connected with other readings of the Satyricon,
which, in addition to interpreting the work as deeply imbued with Neronian excess,
extravagance, farce, and pantomime, see in the work an “all-penetrating mode of theatricality
which continually blurs the distinctions between the real and the artificial (Rimell 2007:116)
80
.
Whereas in Lucullus’ speech, the senses aided in the formation of concepts of reality (notitiae
rerum), in Encolpius’ critique and in the rest of the Satyricon, it is precisely the concept of
reality which is undermined. In this environment of instability, there is a shift from an emphasis
on the transmission of knowledge to aesthetics: “Qui inter haec nutriuntur, non magis sapere
possunt quam bene olere qui in culina habitant” (‘those who are brought up on such things are
no more able to attain wisdom than those who live in the kitchen are able to be fragrant’) (Sat.
2). The language Petronius uses plays with dual senses of the word sapere: in the sense of “to
have good sense”, the phrase means that the content of the classroom hinders the path to wisdom,
while in the sense of, “to have good taste”, it means that the same content prevents good taste, as
in aesthetic judgment. It is possible, then, that Petronius’s retreat into aesthetics, here spurred on
by a questioning of knowledge, is programmatic for his literary stylings, where an obsession over
artistry and aesthetics is ultimately informed by a disillusionment in the stability of systems of
knowledge.
Columella’s De Re Rustica responds to the sentiment behind this critique. I do not mean
that Columella had this text in mind specifically when he wrote his treatise; rather, I mean that
the two texts emerge from a shared intellectual culture and that Columella chose to respond to
similar intellectual trends in his own way. The De Re Rustica’s reliance upon practice means that
the author was attempting to restore intellectual stability to a culture which had been cast into an
80
On the Satyricon and its relationship to Neronian excess, see Auerbach 1953, Panayotakis 1995, Slater 1990, and
Sullivan 1968.
91
environment of uncertainty. One of the ways in which Columella’s efforts were realized is
through the application of instruction and the expected outcome of that application. A clear and
reliable method of illustrating the validity of the knowledge built up in the discipline of
agriculture was through the emphasis upon portraying the farmer as an artifex. There is a
common thread between Columella and Cicero, who had done something similar in his figure of
the orator perfectus. As much as the orator draws upon the raw material of language and a body
of established in order to fashion something new, so too does the farmer draw upon the raw
material of the earth and attempt to impose the order handed down from nature upon his object.
For this reason Columella, and Cicero before him, look to the metaphor of the artist in order to
explain their endeavors. Thus, Columella is deeply concerned with the products produced
through the knowledge of agriculture. The concrete nature of Columella’s subject matter
prevents the intrusion of the primary complaint of Encolpius regarding the insubstantiality of the
content of the classroom. For Columella, the manipulation of nature through the art of agriculture
facilitates the ability to see how humans fit within an ordered world; this manipulation, overseen
by a the ideal farmer, who functions as a master of knowledge and manipulator of nature in
parallel with the view of nature-as-creator, checks the instability of the Petronian worldview.
Furthermore, clear and explicit instruction from the De Re Rustica, with its emphasis
upon a balance between experience, tradition, and empirical observation, checks the fall into
cynicism performed in the Satyricon. After a long detail of the various sources from which the
De Re Rustica draws upon, Columella notes the equal importance of practice (usus) and
experience (experientia) alongside book-learning (scriptorium monumenta) in the creation of
mastery (artifex). Columella is emphatic, after providing a long Varronian list of sources, that
books are insufficient for mastery:
92
Hos igitur, P. Silvine, priusquam cum agricolatione contrahas, advocato in consilium, nec tamen sic mente
dispositus, velut summam totius rei sententiis eorum consecuturus: quippe eiusmodi scriptorum
monumenta magis instruunt quam faciunt artificem. Usus et experientia dominantur in artibus: neque est
ulla disciplina, in qua non peccando discatur. Nam ubi quid perperam administratum cessit improspere,
vitatur quod fefellerat: illuminatque rectam viam docentis magisterium. Rust. 1.1.15
You are to summon these men into consultation, Publius Silvinus, before you associate with agriculture, yet
not with the mindset that you will obtain completion of the whole subject through their maxims. Of course,
treatises of this sort instruct more than make the artifex. Practice and experience hold governance in the
crafts, and there is no form of instruction in which one does not learn by making mistakes. For when
something managed wrongly has unfavorably failed, one avoids that in which he had erred, and the advice
of a teacher illuminates the correct method.
Although the treatises of ancient authors can instruct, it is usus and experentia that create
mastery (Rust. 1. 1.15-16). The quality of mastery is, of course, also a desirable trait for the
overseer (vilicus)
81
. If compared with the above criticisms of education, Columella’s
pedagogical program responds to these complaints by asserting a form of mastery that
incorporates hands-on experience
82
.
In response to Encolpius’ diatribe, Agamemnon diagnoses the troubles of Roman
education to be not only about the content taught by the teachers, but also the desires of the
students. In his diagnosis, the teachers act as fishermen: “sic eloquentiae magister, nisi tanquam
piscator eam imposuerit hamis escam, quam scierit appetituros esse pisciculos, sine spe praedae
morabitur in scopulo” (‘the teacher of eloquence has it like this: if he doesn’t, just as the
fisherman, put bait on his hook which he knows his little fishes will grasp after, he’ll be stuck on
the rock with no hope of reward’) (Sat. 3). The assertion may be a deliberate confusion of the
way that cognition and the formation of systems of knowledge work according the Lucullus
passage. Instead of reliance upon the senses, seeing through the eyes of the mind as Columella
81
Col. Rust. 1. 8.10.
82
The concern of bringing theory into practice seemed to have been a major one in education, as seen in Rimell
2007:122, where she sees the opposition between the ideals outlined by Agamemnon/Encolpius and the attitudes of
the freedman, whereby a boy learns by practical experience and by observation of his respected elders, versus the
dominant form of education that pushes the student along through an artificial school system characterized by a lack
of precision, clarity, originality and morality. Columella’s intervention in education attempts to bring together the
two opposing ideals.
93
recommends, for example, and receiving guidance from the mind, the students are led according
to desires implanted by the teacher. The point is hit even harder when Petronius refers to orators
as being unsuccessful unless they lay traps (insidias) for the ears of the audience (Sat. 3).
After blaming the subject matter, the students, and the teacher for the decline of rhetoric,
the Satyricon points the finger at parents and their role in the matter:
Parentes obiurgatione digni sunt, qui nolunt liberos suos severa lege proficere. Primum enim sic ut omnia,
spes quoque suas ambitioni donant. Deinde cum ad vota properant, cruda adhuc studia in forum pellunt et
eloquentiam, qua nihil esse maius confitentur, pueris induunt adhuc nascentibus. Quod si paterentur
laborum gradus fieri, ut studiosi iuvenes lectione severa irrigarentur, ut sapientiae praeceptis animos
componerent, ut verba atroci stilo effoderent, ut quod vellent imitari diu audirent, ut persuaderent sibi nihil
esse magnificum, quod pueris placeret: iam illa grandis oratio haberet maiestatis suae pondus. Sat. 4
The parents are the ones who deserve blame, they who refuse to advance their children through stern
discipline. For in the first place, as with everything, they give over even their hopes to ambition. Then, as
they hasten their children to the fulfillment of their vows, they drive their enthusiasm, as of yet unripe, into
the law courts, and they impose eloquence, than which they acknowledge nothing is greater, upon children
who are still growing. But if they would allow gradual steps of progress to occur, so that boys full of
enthusiasm were steeped in serious readings; so that their minds would be formed by wise sayings; so that
they would dig out the right words with ferocious pens; so they would hear for a long time what they want
to imitate; so that they would convince themselves that nothing was magnificent which was pleasing to
mere boys—then that grand style of oratory would have the weight of its excellence.
The key problem here is that over ambitious parents have accelerated the pace of learning to an
unreasonable degree and to the detriment of the student. The accelerated pace of learning is the
result of ambition, typically used of the soliciting of citizens for votes in a political context, but
in this passage, of excessive desire for distinction. In the De Re Rustica, there is a similar anxiety
over the abundance of material required for mastery of an art, but Columella provides a way to
work around the sheer volume of knowledge required in the farming enterprise. Columella is
aware that the breadth of knowledge required for the farmer might be overwhelming to potential
students, so he creates a kind of shorthand for allaying their fears by recommending students
master the works of the Latin agronomists instead of a long list of specialists from different
94
fields (Rust. 1 pref. 32-33)
83
. The interest in accelerated learning to which Petronius and
Columella respond to seems in part tied to the necessity and ability of an art to earn income.
This anxiety over the ability of knowledge to earn an income is also expressed differently
in both works. As I shall show in chapter four, Columella one of the defining features of
Columella’s agriculture is the ability to secure and manage capital. In the Satyricon, anxiety over
financial stability is felt in an exchange between Agamemnon and Norbanus. Norbanus tells how
one of his sons is eager for literature, and shows promise, “sed non vult laborare” (‘but does not
want to work’) (Sat. 46). About another son, Norbanus says, “Emi ergo nunc puero aliquot libra
rubricata, quia volo illum ad domusionem aliquid de iure gustare. Habet haec res panem” (‘So
now I am buying him some books with red-letter headings because I want him to get some taste
for the law so he can manage the property. This subject has bread.’) (Sat. 46.6). Later, Norbanus
says that if this plan proves unsuccessful, he wants to steer the boy towards a trade, “Nam litteris
satis inquinatus est” (‘For he has befouled himself enough with literature’) (Sat. 46). Columella
counters assertions of this sort by clarifying how agriculture strikes a balance between literature
and the ability to turn a profit, while preaching about the importance of hard work and
diligence
84
.
83
Additionally, in Chapter Five I explore the books on the management figures (Books Eleven and Twelve) as
compensating for the master’s lack of knowledge and practical application.
84
“Sic verum industrii patris familiae est, quicquid aut emerit aut acceperit, facere fructuosum atque utile” (‘thus,
truly, it belongs to the industry of the master to make fruitful and useful whatever land he has bought or received’)
(Rust. 1.4.3); “Nec contenti tamen auctoritate uel priorum uel praesentium colonorum nostra prompserimus
exempla nouaque temptauerimus experimenta. Quod etsi per partis nonnumquam damnosum est, in summa tamen fit
compendiosum, quia nullus ager sine profectu colitur si multa temptando possessor efficit ut in id formetur quod
maxime praestari possit. Ea res etiam feracissimos agros utiliores reddit” (‘Nevertheless, not content with the
authority of either former or present-day farmers, we should transmit our own models, and attempt new experiments.
Because though this habit is sometimes injurious, in part, nevertheless, it becomes advantageous on the whole
because no field is cultivated without profit if the owner, by experimenting with many things, designs it in such a
way that it is able to excel. Such a condition also renders the most fertile land more profitable’) (Rust. 1.4.4-5).
95
For all the irreverence of Petronius’ Satyricon, its ludic spirit is more willing to explicitly
point out some truths at which an author like Columella can only hint. The Satyricon openly
censures the power teachers have in the student-teacher relationship. This power is especially
strong in arts which hold up exceptionally talented individuals for imitation. By locating the
knowledge of the art in one person, the opportunities for corruption and exploitation of students
increases. Those who act as mediators between knowledge and the students have found a way to
game the system, and from this corruption an entire industry has arisen which is not aimed at
creating authentic knowledge, but rather is directed at self-gain. This is most evident in episodes
which treat the ‘education’ of the freedman, referred to by the word artificium (Rimell
2007:118). The various associations of this word speak to its place within the Roman
imagination: the word can mean trick, device, work of art as well as talent, craft, or education
85
.
One episode shows how self-gain becomes an important theme in education. A retired legacy
huntress named Philomela entrusts her children—a young girl and boy—to the philosopher
Eumolpus, under the premise that he alone was qualified to teach her children philosophy on a
daily basis (Sat. 140. 2). Just as Philomela had her own designs to entrap Eumolpus through
legacy-hunting, Eumolpus had other, darker intentions. In the bizarre sexual encounter that
follows, the text refers to the girl’s sexual competency and talent for legacy hunting as an
artificium. The episode reveals how the acquisition of knowledge is reduced to satisfaction and
self-gain, rather than the virtue which the practitioners of the arts imagine for themselves.
Thus, Columella’s De Re Rustica offers a particular method for the express transmission
of its content into practice through reliance upon the idealization of the farmer in the concept of
the artifex agricola and the agricola perfectus. Petronius’ Satyricon, a text which arises out of
85
OLD s.v. artificium.
96
similar conditions of production, responds in a markedly different way to these conditions, using
its critical and irreverent tendencies to problematize Roman education and stage its failures. In
Columella’s work, Neronian excesses are undermined through explication of a subject matter
grounded in concrete production, clear direction, goals, and the delimitation of knowledge
required to run the farm, all with consideration for profit and the resources required for the
enterprise. In the Satyricon, on the other hand, the dominant response to a tumultuous political
situation far removed from the stability of the Republic is a complete indulgence in a Saturnalian
worldview and Neronian excess.
97
Chapter 3: The Form and Structure of the De Re Rustica
The third chapter will analyze the importance of the form and structure of the De Re
Rustica and its connection with empire. I will consider the form of the De Re Rustica as an
encyclopedic text that participates in the imperial drive towards the accumulation of knowledge
and, for this reason, poses a challenge to imperial power by acting as an arbiter of knowledge
insofar as it directs its reader towards a life of self-sufficiency and independence gained from the
agricultural enterprise; I will also consider how the form of the work engages with its literary
predecessors through intertextual references and allusions. In order to qualify the character of
Columella’s encyclopedism, I contrast it with Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis Historia. The
differences between these two texts brings out the salient features of Columella’s encyclopedism.
Additionally, I examine the work for its ability to subsume a number of literary forms. The
poetic Book Ten is especially important in this regard. I argue that this book acts as a protreptic
to agronomy through horticulture, providing Columella’s audience with an accessible entry into
the world of agriculture. Even in its focus on the garden, Columella’s Book Ten is a miniature
portrait of this drive to accumulate knowledge: the book’s disquisition on horticulture recalls the
structure of the treatise as a whole. This protreptic should also be seen as political in nature. In
this chapter and the one that follows, I aim to show that Columella provides an exhortation to
elites to remain active under the empire in agricultural and political pursuits.
Textualism and Technology
That Columella’s De Re Rustica responds to a lacuna in agricultural education during the
early empire speaks to a gap in the availability of this specialized knowledge. Early texts on
agriculture were certainly concerned with the transmission of knowledge, but as Columella’s
98
complaints show, this stance never materialized into a full-fledged pedagogical program.
Columella tells how agronomy had nowhere near the same level of pedagogical infrastructure as
other forms of knowledge (Rust. 1 pref. 3-4). As I discuss in my second chapter, Columella’s
remedy to this problem was to articulate a program for the formation of the agricola perfectus,
the ideal farmer. He thus contributes substantially to the development and specialization of the
agricultural discipline through the ability to actualize his teaching, that is, the ability of the
discipline to bring its methodology into practice. That this is a consistent concern for Columella
is suggested in the very form of the treatise and its reference system which directs the reader to
subjects of interest within the text. Both the form of the De Re Rustica and the referential system
utilized by Columella separate him from his predecessors who wrote about agriculture. The form
of the work tends toward the encyclopedic. It participates in the drive to universalizing
knowledge characteristic of the imperial period, such as Strabo’s Geographica and Seneca’s
Naturales Quaestiones
86
. Columella’s attempts to integrate different bodies of thought into a
single system in order to explain the discipline of agriculture: astronomy, philosophy, politics,
and mathematics. All these disciplines are subordinated to the task of describing the art of
agronomy and its application. I will say more about the text and its drive to accumulate
knowledge below. My aim here is to argue that the form and technology developed in the De Re
Rustica aids in its ability to bring theory into practice. First, I will treat Columella’s use of the
technological development of the table of contents.
The De Re Rustica’s table of contents make it, as John Henderson has stated, the most
consultable of classical texts to have come down to us (Henderson 2002:112). This table of
86
Totalizing/universal knowledge as a feature of the imperial period is discussed by König and Whitmarsh 2007:26
and Rimell 2007:110.
99
contents is attached to the end of Book Eleven as a postscript
87
. Its inclusion is rare in Latin
writing
88
. According to Andrew Riggsby, a table of contents is “a summary of the contents of a
work by means of listing its contents in abbreviated form and in the order of the text” (Riggsby
2007:88). I would add that it should be seen as a technological development that aids in one’s
ability to quickly absorb the subject matter of a particular text. Typically, the table of contents
functions in two ways (although Riggsby admits these two ways do not exhaust the possibilities):
1) by providing a reference point which allows the reader to skip directly to the chosen topic; 2)
by segmenting the work and giving shape to it through the use of signals, that is, “setting up the
intended context for individual observations” (Riggsby 2007:90). Columella’s table of contents
features Varro’s outline of the discipline and includes more practical content. From his own
words, it is clear how Columella envisioned the use of his table of contents:
Quoniam tamen plerumque evenit, ut eorum, quae didicerimus, memoria nos deficiat eaque saepius ex
commentariis renovanda sint, omnium librorum meorum argumenta subieci, ut cum res exegisset, facile
reperiri possit, quid in quoque quaerendum et qualiter quidque faciendum sit. Rust. 11.3.65
Nevertheless since it often happens that our memory of the things we have learned fails, and it must be
frequently revived from notes, I have added an outline of all my volumes, and when necessary, it will be
easy to find what is to be sought in each one and how each thing must be done.
Interestingly, Columella casts his table of contents as a solution to the failings of memory. Of
those authors who utilize the table of contents, only Columella explicitly ties use of this
technology with a deficiency in the human capacity for memorizing information. Memory played
a significant role in the education of individuals in the Roman empire, especially in rhetorical
87
I use the term “table of contents” out of convenience. As Doody points out, the term is anachronistic, and, as
Riggsby adds, there is no Latin word with classical authority that denotes a general term for the kind of lists found in
Scribonius, Columella, Pliny, and Gellius (Riggsby 2007:89).
88
Riggsby identifies only a few authors who make use of a table of contents: Columella, Pliny the Elder, Aulus
Gellius, Scribonius Largus, and some manuscript traditions of Seutonius, although most scholars believe the table of
contents in his biographies of grammarians and rhetoricians to not be Suetonian (Riggsby 2007:90). Pliny the Elder
identifies Q. Valerius Soranus as the originator of the table of contents (HN pr. 33).
100
texts where alongside invention, arrangement, style and performance, it was part of the
subdivisions of the curriculum of rhetorical training (Rhet. Her. 1.2.3). Columella’s prefatory
remarks on his table of contents detail his view of this technology as an alternative to one’s
dependence on memory. Presumably, the argumenta (outline) which Columella refers to offered
a great number of potential benefits for the reader: it could be for the purpose of instruction,
allowing for a quick grasp of the scope of the field and the content of the work. In this way, the
emphasis on mastery which I discussed in the previous chapter is now aided by the technological
development of the table of contents. That Columella is so open about the use of the table of
contents also speaks to a concern for the time commitment required for mastering the discipline
of agriculture. He voices this concern earlier in the text when he places limits on the knowledge
required for the formation of the ideal farmer out of fear of scaring off the prospective student
(Rust. 1 pref. 28). Practically speaking, this feature would have also saved the prospective
student of agriculture a great deal of time and effort, by giving him the ability to focus in on
areas of interest and manage immense scrolls, volumina, which had to be unrolled for reading
(Moatti 1997:233). The technology can also be linked to a desire within Columella to extend the
practice of agriculture to a greater number of people. Indeed, the expression of this desire is
found in Columella’s claim to remedy the situation whereby elite Romans have ceased to
practice agronomy because they consider it impossible for the earth to achieve the productivity
of former times, choosing instead to leave agricultural pursuits to slaves: “qui rem rusticam
pessimo cuique servorum velut carnifici noxae dedimus, quam maiorum nostrorum optimus
quisque et optime tractaverat” (‘for the rustic pursuit, which all the best of our ancestors had
treated with the utmost care, we have delivered over to all the worst of our slaves, as if to the
hangman for punishment’) (Rust. 1 pref. 3). This ‘democratization’ of the practice of agronomy
is focused upon elites (civitatis nostrae principes) but extended to all involved within the
101
enterprise of farming: the table of contents ensures that the master is able to offer guidance to his
subordinates, instilling in the entire process of the farming enterprise a consistent level of
competency by means of offering a thorough and systematic way in which to delegate to the
vilicus the demands of agriculture. Additionally, the table of contents gave the master an
additional level of control over the daily activities of his subordinates, as he had a more precise
and comprehensive understanding of the discipline what needed to be accomplished on the farm.
Columella’s Predecessors and the Form of their Texts
This aspect of control over the dependents of an estate through explicit instruction was
present in the work of Columella’s predecessors. Cato’s De Agricultura, a precursor to the
systematic treatises of Varro and Columella, offers an example. At one point in the treatise, Cato
speaks directly to the reader/potential pater familias, urging him to supply his vilicus with
instructions: “quae opera fieri velit et quae locari velit, uti imperet et ea scripta relinquat” (‘Let
him order those works which he wants to be done and the ones he wants to be hired out, and let
him leave these behind in writing’) (Cato, Agr. 2.6). The meaning of the term scripta here covers
a broad range of options available in the Roman world to communicate information, the precise
character of which is difficult to determine. For example, the scripta could refer to commentarii
made by Cato, various notes about how to run the farm. Or, the scripta could refer to a kind of
contractual agreement between Cato and the various dependents he places in charge of executing
tasks on his estate which outline the specific tasks dependents are to perform, how the tasks are
to be performed, and the specific time. That the instructions Cato provides are seemingly outside
the treatise signals that he envisioned his treatise as a whole to be of a different order than the
instructions provided. To put it in another way, such scripta or commentarii may have formed
102
the sources through which Cato compiled the De Agricultura. Astin has suggested as much
(Astin 1978:194).
Varro also advises a similar practice, but he also uses scripta to refer to the various
sources he consults in the making of his own treatise, a figure which, at the end of a long list,
balloons to over 50 authors
89
. The emphasis on sources in Varro speaks to a higher level of
formality in his work and a growing concern for reference. It is this drive to reference and
compile sources which characterizes Varro’s work: “In quis quae non inerunt et quaeres,
indicabo a quibus scriptoribus repetas et Graecis et nostris” (‘Should the things which you seek
not be in our discussions, I will indicate from which written works, both Greek and Roman, you
might find them’) (Varro, Rust. 1.1.7). According to Nelsestuen, the authors mentioned by Varro
can be placed into five categories: 1) former rulers, Attalus of Philometor and Hiero of Sicily; 2)
philosophers, including Democritus, the natural scientist, Xenophon the Socratic, Peripatetics
Aristotle and Theophrastus, and the Pythagorean Archytas of Tarentum; 3) a list of ill-attested
figures, their patria known; 4) another list of figures whose patria is unknown; 5) the poetic
authors Hesiod of Ascra and Menecrates of Ephesus. At the end of Varro’s list, special attention
is given to Mago:
Hos nobilitate Mago Carthaginiensis praeteriit, poenica lingua qui res dispersas comprendit libris XXIIX,
quos Cassius Dionysius Uticensis vertit libris XX ac Graeca lingua Sextilio praetori misit; in quae
volumina de Graecis libris eorum quos dixi adiecit non pauca et de Magonis dempsit instar librorum VIII.
Hosce ipsos utiliter ad VI libros redegit Diophanes in Bithynia et misit Deiotaro regi. Varro, Rust. 1.1.10-
11
Mago of Carthage surpassed all these people in reputation, he who gathered into twenty-eight books,
written in the Punic tongue, subjects diverse in matter. These Cassius Dionysius of Utica translated into
Greek and published in twenty books, and sent them to the praetor Sextilius. In these volumes he added a
substantial amount from the Greek books which I mentioned, and he took from Mago’s writings the
89
Varro’s version of posting instructions for the vilicus: “Quae dixi scripta et proposita habere in villa oportet,
maxime ut vilicus norit” (‘You should keep the rules I have laid down written and posted in the farmstead, in order
that the overseer particularly may know them’) (Rust. 1.36.1).
103
equivalent of eight books. Diophanes of Bithynia usefully reduced these very volumes into six books and
dedicated them to King Deiotarus.
Varro’s homage to Mago singles out his ability as a compiler (comprendit) able to synthesize a
significant amount of material from a variety of different authors and specializations into one
work. The effect of Varro’s reference establishes how his task is parallel to Mago’s. Varro too
takes scattered material (res dispersas) and systematically organizes it into an ars. Varro is most
explicit about this task in the delimitation of pastio villatica in Book Three of the Res Rusticae:
Duo enim genera cum sint pastionum, unum agreste, in quo pecuariae sunt, alterum villaticum, in quo sunt
gallinae ac columbae et apes et cetera, quae in villa solent pasci, de quibus et Poenus Mago et Cassius
Dionysius et alii quaedam separatim ac dispersim in libris reliquerunt. Rust. 3.2.13
For there are two kinds of pasturage: one of the field, in which cattle-raising is included, and the other
around the farmstead, which includes chickens, pigeons, bees, and the other creatures which are typically
fed about the steading; about these types, the Carthaginian Mago, Cassius Dionysius, and other writers
have left certain remarks in their books, but they are scattered and unsystematic.
While they are both compilers, Varro upholds the importance of brevity in his construction of the
history of agronomical treatises prior to his own. This quality is what allows Varro to come out
on top in his friendly rivalry with Mago:
Quo brevius de ea re conor tribus libris exponere, uno de agri cultura, altero de re pecuaria, tertio de
villaticis pastionibus, hoc libro circumcisis rebus, quae non arbitror pertinere ad agri culturam. Itaque prius
ostendam, quae secerni oporteat ab ea, tum de his rebus dicam sequens naturales divisiones. Varro, Rust.
1.1.11.
I attempt to set forth even more briefly than him the subject in three books, one on agriculture, another on
animal husbandry, the third on the pasturage of the steading, with all matters which I do not think pertain to
agriculture cut out from this book. And so, I will first show what should be omitted from the subject, then I
will speak about these matters, following the natural divisions.
The reduction of books, from Mago’s twenty-eight, to Cassius Dionysius’ twenty, and then
finally the eight books of Diophanes, reaches its final number in Varro’s three books. While the
reduction in books may have been enacted for the sake of brevity, a quality central to the Roman
value of practicality, Varro himself champions his ability to divide the subject according to its
natural divisions (naturales divisiones), thus revealing the major structuring principle of the Res
Rusticae and providing an account of its form—the three books of the treatise correspond to the
104
three fields which comprise res rusticae: agri cultura, pastio, and pastio villatica. Furthermore,
the philosophical authors which Varro mentions in his list also have the effect, as Nelsestuen has
remarked, of holding up the Res Rusticae as an object worthy of philosophico-technical inquiry.
Indeed, the treatise is cast as the retelling of conversations (sermones) of a dialogue had between
preeminent agronomists, politicians, and Roman knights. Thus, Varro’s Res Rusticae can be
characterized by its obsession with citation of sources, the major structuring principal based upon
the theoretical division of the rural economy, and the incorporation of the dialogue form. In one
way or another, Columella responds to all these features of Varro’s Res Rusticae.
Mastery and the Author of the De Re Rustica
Unlike Varro’s Res Rusticae, Columella’s work is not cast as the product of
conversations between a group of preeminent Romans. It is the product of an authorial persona—
this quality of the work is important to the pose of mastery and the application of experience.
The work displays a greater degree of cohesion, especially in the relationship between the
prefaces and the body of the work, between dedicatee, P. Silvinus and Columella, and between
Columella and the reader. And, as shown in the author’s frequent interventions, there is a
consistent effort to demonstrate that the work is the product of an individual authorial persona.
Columella’s own experience as a farmer, for example, comes into play on numerous occasions in
the treatise, aided in part by his uncle, Marcus Columella. I will discuss more on this feature of
the work below. Yet there are additionally portions of the work which are without a doubt the
product of a literary tradition. Thus, the De Re Rustica seems to straddle the line between the
notions of ‘text’ and ‘work’ developed by Roland Barthes
90
. The De Re Rustica is both a ‘work’,
90
For more on this distinction, see Barthes 1986 and Konig and Whitmarsh 2007:28.
105
that is, an apparatus of signs viewed principally as the manifestation of the author’s privileged
intelligence; and a ‘text’, a resource made available to the reader. The mastery of the authorial
persona is evident in the various subjects which he treats, some of which happen to be tangential
to the main subject of his work
91
. One reason that the description of work is especially apt for
Columella’s treatise is its very emphasis upon the authorial performance of mastery. The strong
authorial persona in the work is parallel to its discussion of mastery in the field of agriculture,
with its description of the agricola perfectus. The authority of Columella’s work, however, does
not come from a single person’s experience of the world. By his own admission, Columella’s
work operates on the level of tradition yet preserves a critical stance towards adoption of ancient
precepts
92
:
Itaque diligens pater familliae, cui cordi est ex agri cultu certam sequi rationem rei familiaris augendae,
maxime curabit ut et aetatis suae prudentissimos agricolas de quaque re consulat et commentarios
antiquorum sedulo scrutetur atque aestimet, quid eorum quisque senserit, quid praeceperit, an universa,
quae maiores prodiderunt, huius temporis culturae respondeant an aliqua dissonent. Rust. 1.1.3
And so, an industrious head of a household, whose concern it is to follow a fixed system of augmenting his
household through agriculture, will painstakingly see to it that he consult on each subject the most prudent
farmers of his own age; and he should scrutinize constantly the notebooks of the ancients and pass
judgement as to what each of them thinks, what each of them advises, whether all the things which the
ancestors handed down accord with the cultivation of this time, or whether they disagree in some way.
It is the adoption of this critical stance, which juggles reverence for agronomic predecessors with
personal experience, that in part accounts for the expanded form of the De Re Rustica. Yet the
comprehensiveness of the De Re Rustica is markedly different from Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis
Historia, which is one of the key examples of encyclopedism in the ancient world. A comparison
of the two texts should demonstrate the uniqueness of the De Re Rustica.
91
One example is found in Columella’s discussion of geometry for the purpose of measuring land at the beginning
of Book Five, which he says is more the provenance of agrimensores and geometricians than farmers. Nevertheless,
he explains in detail some of the fundamental principles behind his discussion (Rust. 5.1.3-4).
92
Cf. Rust. 1.4.4: “Nec contenti tamen auctoritate vel priorum vel praesentium colonorum nostra prompserimus
exempla novaque temptaverimus experimenta” (‘And yet, not content with the authority of either former or present-
day farmers, we must bring forth our own experiences and attempt new experiments’).
106
Columella’s Encyclopedism and Comparison with Pliny’s Naturalis Historia
The encyclopedism of the Naturalis Historia, as Trevor Murphy has described, is very
particular. Pliny’s text differs from modern notions of encyclopedism in its approach to
organization, taxonomies, and referential scope (Murphy 2004:11). Instead of the modern notion
of encyclopedism, Murphy offers his own definition: “a self-contained book that encapsulates a
total or universal body of knowledge, organizing it in order to preserve it and make it accessible
to a large audience” (Murphy 2004:11). The organizational system of Pliny’s encyclopedia
imposes a kind of system of knowledge on its subject matter, but does not define the fields in
relation to each other to the degree that a modern encyclopedia does. Instead, Murphy notes that
Pliny’s text is more like a “series of lists of facts than a reasoned synthesis of the branches of
knowledge” (Murphy 2004:12). Additionally, Murphy observes that all encyclopedias operate
“somewhere on a continuum between cataloguing the particularities of individual subjects, on
the one hand, and on the other, subordinating those particularities to the absolutism of an
overarching classificatory system” (Murphy 2004:12). According to Pliny, the Greeks did not
write encyclopedic texts (HN 1 pref. 14). That distinction goes to the Romans, with the first
encyclopedia possibly written by Cato the Elder in the second century BC. Varro’s Disciplinae,
from the end of the Republic is more securely attested, followed by Celsus’ Artes in the first
century. That the encyclopedia is quintessentially Roman is articulated by Murphy:
There is something peculiarly Roman about encyclopedias. We may note first the authoritarian relationship
between the encyclopedia and the knowledge it contains. This can be perceived in the encyclopedia’s
aspirations toward rounded perfection, that is, its ambition to describe everything about a subject, to
circumscribe and parcel it into useful categories and subcategories. Murphy 2004:13-14
There is a significant amount of overlap between Columella and Pliny. It can easily be said that
Columella’s text also aspires to the same ambitions as Pliny’s Naturalis Historia through the
parceling into useful categories and subcategories the entirety of the subject matter which forms
107
the basis of the De Re Rustica. For one, there is in both the impulse towards totalization. After
noting the incredible amount of knowledge required for the ideal farmer, described as knowledge
of “tam multarum tamque multiplicum rerum” (‘subjects so many and so varied’) and “tam
variae tamque vastae scientiae” (‘so varied and so vast a science’) (Rust. 1 pref. 33)
93
, Columella
expresses his intention to cover the entirety of the subject: “De cuius universitate nihil attinet
plura nunc disserere, quoniam quidem cunctae partes eius destinatis aliquot voluminibus
explicandae sunt, quas ordine suo tunc demum persequar, cum praefatus fuero quae reor ad
universam disciplinam maxime pertinere” (‘It is of no consequence at this moment to say much
about the entirety of the subject, since all parts of it must be set forth in several designated books,
which I shall thoroughly treat at length, each in its own order, after I introduce what I think to be
especially pertinent to the whole discipline’) (Rust. 1 pref. 33). However, in no way is
Columella’s treatment of totalizing knowledge as ambitious or as textual as Pliny’s.
Pliny almost seems to boast about the extent to which his work is rooted in textualism.
He claims that the thirty six books of the Naturalis Historia are the product of reading
approximately 2,000 volumes, written by 100 authorities, with over 20,000 subjects worthy of
consideration (HN pref. 17). As the title to the work indicates, the subject matter of this work is
extremely broad. The title, which can be translated as “inquiry into nature”, does little to narrow
the scope of Pliny’s goal: “rerum natura, hoc est vita, narratur” (‘nature, by which I mean life,
is to be discussed’) (HN pref. 13). According to Trevor Murphy, this drive to textualize the
subjects which constitute life has the effect of creating an authorized version of knowledge:
“Consider in particular the way in which the encyclopedia objectifies knowledge by removing it
93
Elsewhere Columella voices fear one might have before they are able to learn all of agronomy, “universam
disciplinam” (Rust. 1 pref. 20).
108
from the uncertain sphere of play and speculation, and rendering it stable and quantified. The
tacit promise of the encyclopedia is completeness, reliability, and authority: that is, the
authorized version of knowledge” (Murphy 2004:14). Through this feature of Pliny’s text, we
can draw a clear distinction between the type of encyclopedic knowledge of the Naturalis
Historia and the De Re Rustica—Columella does not adopt the same stance as Pliny does
towards the material in his text. Columella’s text is, without a doubt, meant only to act as a guide
rather than to act as the final word on agriculture. Columella understands that there are a
multitude of factors which prevent a complete retreat into textualism, as he states when
describing the limitation of the agricultural manuals as being only able to instruct but not form
the ideal farmer (Rust. 1.1.15)
94
. The assertion underlines Columella’s emphasis on practice and
experience.
Marcus Columella and the Emphasis on Practice
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the dominant mode of the De Re Rustica is its
emphasis on practice. One point of emphasis that substantiates this claim is the repeated
reference by Columella to his uncle, Marcus Columella. Contrary to what one would expect,
reference to a person whose identity seems to be defined by his expertise in farming is
surprisingly rare in the agricultural texts. The word agricola is used only once in the preface to
Cato’s De Agricultura (Agr. pref. 2-3), and eleven times in Varro. But while there are plenty of
experts in Varro’s Res Rusticae, none of them are identified solely as farmers. Instead, they are
94
“Hos igitur, P. Silvine, priusquam cum agricolatione contrahas, advocato in consilium, nec tamen sic mente
dispositus velut summam totius rei sententiis eorum consecuturus, quippe eiusmodi scriptorum monumenta magis
instruunt quam faciunt artificem” (‘You are to summon these men into consultation, Publius Silvinus, before you
associate with agriculture, yet not with the mindset that you will obtain completion of the whole subject through
their maxims. Of course, treatises of this sort instruct more than make the artifex’) (Rust. 1.1.15).
109
specialist representatives of their respective branches of agronomy. Scrofa comes the closest,
speaking prominently in Book One, on agriculture, and in Book Two, on pasturage. He is
described as one “qui de agri cultura Romanus peritissimus existimatur” (‘who is esteemed as
the Roman most skilled in agriculture’) (Varro, Rust. 1.2.10. But for the most part, the figures in
Varro’s dialogue are mostly elites from the senatorial class or wealthy knights who also happen
to farm. Columella’s uncle, Marcus Columella, offers a counterpoint to these historical and
quasi-historical characters. He is explicitly called a farmer on three separate occasions: “Marcum
Columellam patruum meum, doctissimum et diligentissimum agricolam” (‘Marcus Columella,
my uncle, a very learned and most diligent farmer’) (Rust. 2.15.4); at Rust. 5.4.15, “M. quidem
Columella patruus meus, vir illustribus disciplinis eruditus, ac diligentissimus agricola Baeticae
provinciae” (‘Indeed, my uncle Marcus Columella, a man learned in the noble sciences, and a
most diligent farmer of the province of Baetica’); and finally, at Rust. 7.2.4-5, “M. Columella
patruus meus acris vir ingenii, atque illustris agricola” (‘my uncle, Marcus Columella, a man of
keen intelligence, and a distinguished farmer). Aside from these references, Marcus Columella is
mentioned for his method of making after-wine, a drink for laborers, and for his storage
practices
95
. Yet another noteworthy piece of information in Columella’s citation of his uncle’s
agronomic practices, is the fact that he is identified by his province, giving his knowledge and
practice a local flavor.
95
On the making of after-wine: “hanc ipsam loram Marcus Columella ex aqua uetere faciebat et nonnumquam plus
biennio innoxiam seruabat” (‘this after-wine Marcus Columella used to make from old water and he used to
preserve it, free from spoiling, sometimes for more than two years’) (Rust. 12.40.1); On storage: “Marcus Columella
patruus meus ex ea creta, qua fiunt amphorae, lata uasa in modum patinarum fieri iubebat eaque intrinsecus et
exterius crasse picari” (‘Marcus Columella, my uncle, used to order that broad vessels, similar to dishes, be made
from the clay with which wine-jars are made and they be covered thickly with pitch inside and outside’) (Rust.
12.44.5.).
110
Thus, considering the emphasis on practice and experience, there is no impression on
Columella’s part that the knowledge transmitted in the De Re Rustica is to remain fixed or
removed from the sphere of speculation. Instead, Columella adopts a more critical spirit, refusing
to believe that knowledge can exist apart from human experience. It is practice and experience
which aid in the formation of the ideal farmer. Understanding agriculture as an art allows the
ideal farmer to explore and confirm his understanding of the world, and allows for the use of
correct methods which aid in in the management of the estate for the sake of profit. So, while
Columella recognizes the benefits of the accumulation of knowledge representative of the
imperial age, he emphasizes the importance of delimiting it in an organized and systematic way
and appealing to the personal experience and the experience of others. Part of this entails
recognition of his place within the accumulation of knowledge and the literary traditions of
which he is a part.
Columella and Monumenta Scriptorum
An indication of how Columella conceptualizes the relationship between himself and his
predecessors is found in the language he uses to refer to both. Clarification of this relationship is
clarification of the nature of Columella’s project. As mentioned above, one of the primary
characteristics of this relationship is Columella’s encouragement of a wide-reading in the work
of his literary predecessors, while still limiting the influence of these experts through adoption of
a critical stance toward their teachings (Rust. 1.1.3)
96
. He summarizes the value of aiming for
96
On the importance of being well-read: “…ut aetatis suae prudentissimos agricolas de quaque re consulat, et
commentarios antiquorum sedulo scrutetur, atque aestimet quid eorum quisque senserit, quid praeceperit; an
universa, quae maiores prodiderunt, huius temporis culturae respondeant, an aliqua dissonent” (‘[he should see to
it]… that he consult on each subject the most prudent farmers of his own age; and he should scrutinize constantly
the notebooks of the ancients and pass judgement as to what each of them thinks, what each of them advises,
whether all the things which the ancestors handed down accord with the cultivation of this time, or whether they
disagree in some way’).
111
such an ambitious level of knowledge in a rhetorical statement: “Summum enim columen
adfectantes satis honeste vel in secundo fastigio conspiciemur” (‘Striving for the highest point,
we will be seen in a sufficiently honorific manner even if on the second summit’) (Rust. 1 pref.
29). The image conjured up by this pithy statement is that of someone climbing a peak to reach
the highest point possible. In Cicero’s Orator, which Columella specifically cites for the sense of
his passage, the context of this sentiment is craftsmen who are not put off by their more
illustrious predecessors
97
. Although this gesture of polite rivalry (aemulatio) is a common one in
Latin literature, pursuit of the way in which Columella expresses his connection to his
predecessors reveals how Columella perceives his own work:
Verum cum complurimis monumentis scriptorum admonear apud antiquos nostros fuisse gloriae curam
rusticationis, ex qua Quinctius Cincinnatus, obsessi consulis et exercitus liberator, ab aratro vocatus ad
dictaturam venerit ac rursus fascibus depositis, quos festinantius victor reddiderat quam sumpserat
imperator, ad eosdem iuvencos et quattuor iugerum avitum herediolum redierit. Rust. 1 pref. 13
But indeed, when I am reminded by the many monuments of writings, that care for agriculture was a source
of glory among our forefathers, from which practice Quinctius Cincinnatus, summoned from his plough to
the dictatorship, came as liberator of a besieged consul and his army, and with the power set aside, which
he returned more quickly than he had assumed it, as a victor, he returned to those same bullocks and
ancestral plot of four iugera.
The phrase used here to refer to the works of ancient authors is monumentis scriptorum,
monuments of writings, or treatise. Later in the treatise, in the prose preface to the poem in Book
Ten, Columella refers to his own writings in a similar manner: “Quare quidquid est istud, quod
elucubravimus, adeo propriam sibi laudem non vindicat, ut boni consulat, si non sit dedecori
prius editis a me scriptorum monumentis” (‘Therefore, whatever it is, which I have labored over
throughout the night, to such an extent does it not lay claim to a particular praise for itself, that it
should be interpreted favorably, if it is not a source of disgrace to the monuments of writings
97
“Quorum tanta multitudo fuit, tanta in suo cuiusque genere laus, ut cum summa miraremur, inferiora tamen
probaremus” (‘So great was their multitude and so great the praise of each in his own class, that although we admire
the best we nevertheless should approve the less excellent’) (Cic. Orat. 6).
112
previously published by me’) (Rust. 10 pref. 5). Columella’s use of the phrase monumenta
scriptorum refers to the prose portions of his treatise (Books One through Book Nine), which
come before the garden poem in Book Ten, and pending approval of the reader, will include the
remaining portions of the treatise. It is worth uncovering what use of this phrase means for
Columella. The word monumentum refers to 1) an object intended to commemorate a person or
an event, 2) a monument, tomb, or commemorative public building, 3) a memorial or token, 4) a
written memorial, document, or recorded tradition and 5) a literary work or book
98
. His use of
the phrase monumenta scriptorum in reference to previous agronomists, as well as in reference to
himself, suggests that Columella conceives of his work as taking its rightful place within the
Roman agricultural tradition. The gesture also draws attention to the seriousness with which
Columella treats his task of producing an agricultural treatise for the benefit of humanity
99
.
Furthermore, the comprehensive, “monumental” scope of the prose treatise contrasts with the
characterization of the poem in Book Ten, where Columella describes the disquisition on
gardening as poetic (poeticis numeris), meagre (exilis), and “totius operis… particular” (‘small
part of the whole work) (Rust. 10 pref. 4). Why did Columella see fit to include a poetic book
(Book Ten), which is then treated again in the next book of his treatise (Book Eleven)? In order
to answer this question, we must understand the role of Roman imperialism and citizenship in the
De Re Rustica. But before we turn to this, it is important to understand to what degree Columella
shares in the conception of agriculture held by his predecessors.
98
OLD s.v. monumenta
99
“Par est eos qui generi humano res utilissimas conquirere et perpensas exploratasque memoriae tradere
concupierint cuncta temptare” (‘it is proper that those who desire to investigate the most useful subjects for the
benefit of the human race, and commit to memory their considerations, carefully thought out and investigated, to try
everything’) (Rust. 1 pref. 29).
113
Structure of the De Re Rustica and the Varronian Divisions of the Rural Economy
Columella’s treatment of Varro’s division of the rural economy, res rusticae, is an
indication of how strongly he adheres to an emphasis on textualism; conversely, the degree to
which he sees it necessary to depart from Varro’s delimitation of the field, is a tacit recognition
of its limitations (though there are also times when Columella is openly critical of his
predecessors). As mentioned above, Columella does not stick to the three book structure
indicative of Varro’s threefold division of res rusticae. Instead, he increases the number of
books, a gesture which may hint at an aspiration to go beyond the tidy and highly circumscribed
boundaries of Varronian agriculture. Additionally, the increase in the number of books may
signal that Columella enacts a revolt in form from the succinctness of Varro’s Res Rusticae. By
expanding the number of books, Columella turns towards other agricultural writers for ideas on
how to structure his treatise. For example, one of the authors on the subject of agriculture cited
by Columella is Cornelius Celsus, who reportedly wrote five books on the subject (Rust. 1.1.14).
Yet even in the sequence of Columella’s twelve book structure, it is evident that
Columella respects the major divisions of the Res Rusticae. In the preface to the first book,
Columella accepts the Varronian division between agri cultura and pastio: “…in pecoribus
parandis conservandisque, quoniam et hanc adscivimus quasi agri culturae partem, cum
separata sit ab agricolatione pastoralis scientia?” (‘[he should know the method] to acquire and
to keep cattle, since we have understood this as a part of agriculture, although the knowledge of
the herdsman is distinguished from agriculture) (Rust. 1 pref. 25-26). Columella uses agri
cultura in its broader, coordinating sense, as it is here used interchangeably with agricolatio. The
division between agri cultura and pastio is again reiterated in Book Six, where Columella covers
livestock: “Itaque sicut veteres Romani praeceperunt, ipse quoque censeo tam pecorum quam
114
agrorum cultum pernoscere” (‘therefore, just as the ancient Romans advised, I myself also think
that we should learn thoroughly animal husbandry as much as the cultivation of the fields’).
(Rust. 6 pref. 4). Columella here ranks Varro as belonging to the status of the ancient Romans
(veteres Romani) and uses his authority as an ancient to bolster his own position. Nevertheless,
the division within the art of agriculture seems to be one which is contested, as Columella says
there still remain intelligent farmers who refuse the care of the flock, viewing it as a detriment to
their profession (Rust. 6 pref. 1). So the first part of the treatise (Book One to Book Five) covers
issues which pertain to the most conservative notions of agri cultura, while Book Six to Book
Seven treat animal husbandry
100
. The divisions within these books are as follows: “Igitur cum
sint duo genera quadrupedum, quorum alterum paramus in consortium operum, sicut bovem,
mulam, equum, asinum; alterum voluptatis ac reditus et custodiae causa, ut ovem, capellam,
suem, canem” (‘There are, then, two classes of quadrupeds, one of which we acquire in the
partaking of our labors in common, such as the ox, the mule, the horse and the ass; and the other
sort we acquire for the sake of pleasure, and revenue, and also for keeping watch—animals such
as the sheep, the goat, the pig and the dog’) (Rust. 6 pref. 6). In Book Eight, Columella again
retains the Varronian division between pastio and pastio villatica, as he indicates at the end of
Book Seven, following a convention which holds up throughout most of the treatise whereby
Columella signposts the topic of the next book at the end of the preceding book
101
:
Quippe villaticae pastiones, sicut pecuariae, non minimam colono stipem conferunt, cum et avium stercore
macerrimis vineis et omni surculo atque arvo medeantur; et eisdem familiarem focum mensamque
pretiosis dapibus opulentent; postremo venditorum animalium pretio villae reditum augeant. Quare de hoc
quoque genere pastionis dicendum censui. Est autem id fere vel in villa, vel circa villam. Rust. 8.1.2
100
Referred to in Book Five as “curam pecoris” (‘care of cattle’) (Rust. 5.12.5).
101
The end of Book Seven states: “Hactenus de minore pecore. Mox de villaticis pastionibus, quae continent
volucrum pisciumque et silvestrium quadrupedum curam, sequenti volumine praecipiemus” (‘So much for the lesser
domestic animals. Next, in the following book, we will give advice about the pasturage of the farm, which includes
the care of birds, fish, and wild quadrupeds’) (Rust. 7.13.3).
115
Of course, the keeping of animals at the farm, just as animal husbandry, brings significant profit to the
farmer, since, with the dung of fowl, they remedy the leanest vines and every type of young tree and soil;
and with the animals themselves, they enrich the home and table of the household with costly feasts; and
finally, with the price from selling animals, they increase the return of the farm. Therefore, I have thought
that I should also speak about this type of pasturage.
In his division of this sphere of the rural economy, pastio villatica, Columella outlines the
discussion as first beginning with poultry-houses, dovecotes, and fish-ponds, which are followed
by treatment of apiaries, aviaries (water-fowl), and vivaria (wild creatures) (Rust. 8.1.3-4). The
last three subjects form the bulk of the discussion of Book Nine. Thus, Varronian divisions are
present in the first nine books of Columella’s treatise: 1) Book One - Book Five, the books on
agriculture proper; 2) Book Six - Book Seven, on animal husbandry; 3) Book Eight - Book Nine,
on the pasturage of the homestead.
But while Columella retains these divisions, he also expands upon them. The first five
books should be seen as connected to the Varronian divisions, with some expansions: the first
book, for example, while definitely part of agri cultura, only contains information on the
location of the farm, its equipment, and other miscellany. The table of contents labels the next
book, “LIBER SECVNDVS REI RUSTICAE SEMENTIVVUS” (‘The Second Book of Country
Life on Sowing’), while the third book, entitled “LIBER TERTIUS RES RUSTICAE
SURCULARIS PRIOR” (‘The Third Book of Country Life: Scions Part One’), begins a sequence
of four books (spanning from Book Two to Book Five) which culminate in the fifth book:
“LIBER QUINTUS RES RUSTICAE SURCULARIS TERTIUS” (‘The Fifth Book of Country
Life: Scions Part Three’). Thus, Columella’s first five books respect the Varronian division of
agri cultura.
Columella’s innovation is the incorporation of two books on the managers of the
household, Books Eleven and Twelve on the duties of the vilicus and the vilica. John Henderson
has commented that within the very structure of the work there is an outline of an estate, which
116
progressively directs the reader inside the farmhouse, with Book Ten on gardening acting as a
culmination of the work, marking the boundary between the outside of the farm and the inside of
the farm. Finally, the staff bring closure to the treatise. It is important to note that this treatment
of the household staff differs from Varro’s, who locates his treatment of the subject in the first
book of the treatise, the subject of which is agri cultura. The placement signals that Varro
conceives of the managers as little more than the equipment of the household. Columella, on the
other hand, places more importance on these figures and gives them their own books.
Knowledge, Citizenship, and Roman Imperialism
In order to understand how knowledge and Roman imperialism work in the De Re
Rustica, I turn again to Pliny’s Naturalis Historia. That Columella proposes a comprehensive,
quasi-encyclopedic reference work based on practice anticipates Pliny’s Naturalis Historia. But
the contrast between the two texts reveals another salient features of the De Re Rustica. Trevor
Murphy has argued for an explicit connection between Roman imperialism and Pliny’s version
of encyclopedic knowledge:
If the world was the encyclopedia’s subject, it is the military, political, and commercial power of Rome that
made the world available as material for the book. In turn, the raw data that the world provided were
assimilated by the encyclopedia and integrated into the ideological order of the Roman empire, the shared
symbolic system of Roman culture. Murphy 2004:24
For Columella, the process which led to the creation of the De Re Rustica would not have been
possible without Roman power. According to Pliny, after the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC,
the Roman senate gave the libraries of the city of Carthage to the kings of Africa. But the senate
ordered, in the case of Mago alone, that his twenty-eight book treatise should be translated into
the Latin language by D. Silanus, a member of one of the most illustrious families of Rome (HN
18.22). Pliny notes that this was done even though Cato had already composed his treatise on
117
agriculture. As mentioned earlier, Varro recognizes the Carthaginian Mago as a prototypical
doctus agricola, responsible for compiling into twenty-eight books subjects scattered and diverse
in matter, a task parallel to Varro’s own. But while Pliny’s text, an “ordered redaction of the
world’s natural phenomena” looked out into the world, especially the margins of the empire, in
order to demarcate the very limits of knowledge
102
, Columella took this energy and looked
inwards at the discipline of agriculture itself. The way in which he sought to renovate the
discipline of agriculture (agricolatio) was by metaphorically granting it Roman citizenship:
Et ut agricolationem Romana tandem civitate donemus, (nam adhuc istis auctoribus Graecae gentis fuit)
iam nunc M. Catonem censorium illum memoremus, qui ea Latine loqui primus instituit. Post hunc duos
Sasernas, patrem et filium, qui eam diligentius erudierunt; ac deinde Scrofam Tremellium, qui etiam
eloquentem reddidit, et M. Terentium, qui expolivit; mox Virgilium, qui carminum quoque potentem fecit.
Nec postremo quasi paedagogi eius meminisse dedignemur Iulii Hygini: verumtamen ut Carthaginiensem
Magonem rusticationis parentem maxime veneremur. Nam huius octo et viginti memorabilis illa volumina
ex senatus consulto in Latinum sermonem conversa sunt. Non minorem tamen laudem meruerunt
nostrorum temporum viri, Cornelius Celsus et Iulius Atticus. Quippe Cornelius totum corpus disciplinae
quinque libris complexus est. Hic de una specie culturae pertinentis ad vites singularem librum edidit.
Cuius velut discipulus duo volumina similium praeceptorum de vineis Iulius Graecinus composita facetius
et eruditius posteritati tradenda curavit. Rust. 1.1.12-14
And that we may grant agriculture at last with Roman citizenship (for up to this point it belonged to authors
of the Greek race), let us now recall Marcus Cato the Censor, who first taught her to speak in Latin; after
him the two Sasernas, father and son, who educated her rather carefully; then Tremelius Scrofa, who
rendered her eloquent, and Marcus Terentius, who polished her; and soon after Vergil, who made her
capable of song as well. And finally, let us not disdain to recollect her, shall we say, tutor, Julius
Hyginus—though indeed, let us venerate especially the Carthaginian Mago, the father of husbandry. For
those twenty-eight memorable volumes of his were translated into the Latin language by decree of the
senate. The men of our own time, Cornelius Celsus and Julius Atticus, deserve no less praise; for Cornelius
has embraced the whole substance of the discipline in five books, while the latter has published a single
book on one type of agriculture, that which pertains to the vines. Just so did his pupil, Julius Graecinus,
take care that two volumes of similar instructions on vineyards, composed more elegantly and learnedly,
should be handed down to posterity. Rust. 1.1.12-14
Reitz has claimed that here “The development of Roman agricultural writing is described
metaphorically as the education of a pupil gradually attaining Roman citizenship” (Reitz 2013:
281). I would add that the metaphor of citizenship is important because, if we follow Moatti,
who has suggested that Roman citizenship could be considered as a “genus that unified human
102
Murphy argues that this is how Pliny figures mastery in the Naturalis Historia (Murphy 2004:18); ibid. 49ff.
118
diversity and history (language, religions, laws) without effacing all distinctions”, it becomes
clear that Columella’s use of the metaphor posits his conception of agriculture (agricolatio) as a
genus which could be divided into various species, the variety of forms which comprise
agricultural literature. These forms include Greek authors, then the first treatise in the Latin
language, followed by more advanced learning and various stages of refinement (eloquentem
reddidit; expolivit), poetry, and finally, contemporary and specialist versions of agricultural
writing. In another sense, the totalizing nature of Columella’s work replicates the full range of
literary forms which had comprised the agricultural tradition: prose writing, rhetorically polished
prose, poetry, dialogue, contemporary and specialist approaches. In any case, Roman
imperialism, citizenship, and knowledge all intersect in the De Re Rustica. As a Greek form of
knowledge now endowed with the Roman citizenship and pragmatism, Columella lays claim to
agriculture as a worthy pursuit. I will say more about this transformation in Chapter Six—how
Columella’s agriculture anticipates Flavian self-fashioning and Roman cultural trends.
The Absence of the Emperor
Although the De Re Rustica participates in the universalizing form of knowledge typical
of the early empire, it is careful to acknowledge its place within a network of other authorities,
philosophers, literary figures, and practitioners. The one figure who is conspicuously absent in
the treatise is the emperor. Instead of participating in the imperial myth of the emperors as
arbiters of knowledge through the dedication of a treatise in Latin to the emperor, Columella’s
dedicatees are of considerably less repute
103
. He nevertheless is careful not to offend in his
project of presenting the world of agronomy organized around the intelligence of a single
103
For the imperial myth of the emperor as arbiter of knowledge see Murphy 2004:203-209.
119
individual. Deference to previous authors, self-effacement, minimization of his project in the
face of the enormity of his subject are all features of the text which point to a strained effort to
avoid the appearance of an arrogant mastery. It is also possible that the omission of the emperor
touches upon a subtle critique of the Nero, who would not considering reading such a topic
because he was famously obsessed with expertise in performance and Greek musical
competition
104
. Given that the “image of imperial omniscience was grounded in administrative
reality”, the omission is even more glaring
105
. Even more so if, as I shall argue in Chapter Five,
the structure of the administration is a key interest to Columella. It is also possible that the
omission is due to Columella’s targeting of a specific audience for his work—creating distance
between himself and representatives of imperial authority. This may be at least a small part of
the picture presented by Pliny when, in the preface to his Naturalis Historia, he attempts to
appeal to the emperor Titus by emphatically praising him (followed by praise of his family) for
the power of his inborn talent (ingenii fascibus) and his poetic tastes (HN 1 pref. 4). For this
reason, Pliny assumes that the emperor’s time would be better spent reading complex texts rather
than those written for the common people:
Neque enim similis est condicio publicantium et nominatim tibi dicantium. Tum possem dicere: “quid ista
legis, Imperator? Humili vulgo scripta sunt, agricolarum, opificum turbae, denique studiorum otiosis. Quid
te iudicem facis?” HN pref. 6-7
For the condition of those who publish their works and of those who dedicate them to you by name is not at
all similar. In this instance I could say, “Why do you read these things, Emperor? They were written for the
lowly common people, the crowd of farmers and craftsmen, and then for those full of leisure for studies.
Why do you make yourself a judge of them?”.
Pliny here could be suggesting that an emperor did in fact read a work like Columella’s
agricultural treatise, even though he was not prompted to do so by a dedication in his name, or
that it was possible for the emperor to read such a work, but that it was beneath him because of
104
Suet. Ner. 20-25; 41-3.
105
The image of imperial omniscience is discussed in König and Whitmarsh 2007:17
120
its low subject matter. Clarity on this question is difficult to achieve, but Columella’s neglect of
the emperor may have been a subtle criticism of the imperial system. I will speak more about this
possibility in Chapter Five.
The Garden Poem
Book Ten is Columella’s disquisition on gardening. The poem has enjoyed more critical
attention relative to the rest of the treatise
106
. It is under discussion in the current chapter because
it represents a drastic change in the form of the De Re Rustica, from a prose agricultural treatise
to a carefully-wrought garden poem. Columella’s use of poetry is significant because of its
associations in the Roman context. Tacitus’ Dialogus will later show a clear association between
the poet and the countryside, the orator with the city. Vergil, Horace, and Tibullus wrote
positively in verse about rustic life
107
. Columella’s use of poetry masks one of his unique
innovations to the field of agronomy, the disquisition on horticulture, by circumscribing it within
a poetic tradition. In this way, the garden poem—composed with a view to continuing the
tradition left by Vergil himself to his successors—establishes its own innovative character.
Poetry allows Columella to use the Mantuan poet’s words to bolster his own position within
Roman literary circles. Additionally, Columella makes use of a gesture consistent with other
technical writers, especially agronomists, of purporting that they are the first to describe a new
field within the discipline of agriculture. It is my contention that Columella’s inclusion of a poem
in dactylic hexameters on a seemingly insignificant topic is more than just authorial strategy or
poetic flourish. The poem should be placed in the context of Columella’s vision of agriculture—
106
Gowers 2000, Henderson 2002, Boldrer , Diederich 2007 etc.
107
See Thibodeau 2007: 202-244 for the reception of the Georgics.
121
which is tied to his vision of how humans ought to interact with nature—in order to reveal how it
touches upon the major themes embedded within the De Re Rustica.
Columella, conscious about the enormity of his work and its potential to discourage new
practitioners, plays with the level of importance he ascribes to Book Ten. The poem is both
structurally important to the entirety of the work and declared by Columella to be separate—
described as a small part (particula) of his work and limited (terminata) by its own boundaries
(finibus) (Rust. 10. pref. 4)
108
. I argue that Columella’s entry into poetry is an invitation for his
readers to follow—an accessible form of activity on a small scale that invites readers to engage
in gardening through a short book of poetry on horticulture and prepares them to later pursue the
emphasis of the rest of his work, farming and farm management, with confidence. Thus, the
poetic book acts as a protreptic to agronomy in its focus upon a smaller, more accessible form of
activity—the garden—a pleasure and delight for the reader to enjoy. Such a message fits in with
the didactic positioning of the text, especially the mission to rectify the lack of education in
agriculture. The poem simultaneously prepares the way for and acts as a poetic climax of a much
grander work, the entirety of the De Re Rustica
109
. The effect of this protreptic is to extend to the
urban target audiences an interest in agriculture. I will demonstrate that the poem operates in this
way by detailing: 1) that Columella’s poetics of gardening, intricate and refined, represent the
poem’s position in relation to the agricultural treatise and condition the reader—especially
members of elite literary circles—for Columella’s protreptic by couching the innovation of the
poem in established poetic conventions; 2) that he manipulates desire in the poem (consistent
with how he does in the treatise) in order to give country life an urban appeal; 3) that Columella
108
As Henderson notes, the gardening sections (all of Book Ten, the end of Book Eleven) are excluded from the
index attached to the end of Book Eleven. Book Ten’s preface considers horticulture a modern preoccupation
(Henderson 2004: 5-11).
109
For Book Ten as a culmination of the work, with the staff bringing closure, see Henderson 2004:5-11; 2002: 111-
116.
122
appropriates Latin authors, especially Vergil, in a way that emphasizes his conception of
agriculture and his unique outlook on the position of agriculture under the empire; 4) that the
poetic persona expands the protreptic to horticulture towards a broader audience than urban
elites.
The Poetics of the Garden
In a brief catalogue of the important figures in the agricultural literary tradition, it is
Vergil who Columella says gave agricolatio the power of song, carminum potentem (Rust. 1.
1.7). Columella himself continues in this tradition—the tenth book of the De Re Rustica pays
homage to the poetic roots of the agricultural literary tradition. In doing so, Columella takes up a
famous mandate from Vergil, creating for himself a definite relationship between himself and his
poetic predecessor. The context of Vergil’s mandate is the end of a description of the Corycian
senex. The Corycian is described as engaged in gardening. Some of his activities include dining
luxuriously on the products of his garden, picking roses, fruits, collecting bees, enjoying honey
from the honey comb and his luxuriant trees, including elms, pears, plums, which serve as shade
for drinking parties (G. 4.127-148). The rich image conjured up by Vergil is placed right before
the description of the bees. The themes of the self-sufficiency of the old man, and his
contentment, “regum aequabat opes animis” (‘he equaled the wealth of kings in spirit’),
foreshadow some of the values which Columella will emphasize later in his poem. One of the
defining characteristics of the garden is the enclosure which sections off the garden space from
the rest of the villa and farm. Virgil plays with this definition in the episode of the Corycian
senex, teasing the reader with inclusion of this episode, however brief: “uerum haec ipse
equidem spatiis exclusus iniquis/ praetereo atque aliis post me memoranda relinquo” (‘Indeed, I
123
myself pass over these [gardening] details, having been prevented by an inadequate amount of
space, and besides, I leave them behind for others after me to recount) (G. 4.147-8).
Columella’s garden poem takes up this task and conceives of his work as filling a gap in
the discipline of agronomy left by Vergil. As Columella tells his addressee, Silvinus:
isque, sicut institueram, prosa oratione prioribus subnecteretur exordiis, nisi propositum meum expugnasset
frequens postulatio tua, quae praecepit, ut poeticis numeris explerem Georgici carminis omissas partes,
quas tamen et ipse Vergilius significaverat, posteris se memorandas relinquere. Rust. 10 pref. 3
To those earlier books in prose, as I had undertaken, the [cultivation of gardens] should be added, if your
frequent demand had not overturned my plan, which has directed me to finish in poetic verse those parts of
the Georgic poem which were omitted and which Vergil himself had made known, he left them to be
related by later writers.
The language Columella uses to voice the inclusion of the poem within his broader treatise gives
the sense that the garden poem was ‘tacked on’: “subnecteretur” (‘attached’). Additionally,
Columella fills (explerem) those parts of the Georgics which Vergil omitted. He uses some of the
same language as Vergil to describe his task:
Hortorum quoque te cultus, Silvine, docebo,
Atque ea, quae quondam spatiis exclusus iniquis,
Cum caneret laetas segetes et munera Bacchi,
Et te, magna Pales, necnon caelestia mella,
Vergilius nobis post se memoranda reliquit. Rust. 10.1-5
The cultivation of gardens I will also teach, Silvinus, and those themes, which Vergil left behind, to be
recounted by us, after he shut them out because of insufficient space, when he sang of joyous crops and the
gifts of Bacchus, and you, great Pales, and likewise, about heavenly honey.
Thus Columella’s garden poem is both an after-thought in the grand scheme of the treatise, and
in terms of it postdating the Georgics. This quality of belatedness defines Columella’s
relationship to his predecessors and becomes a defining feature of his own work. Thus, while the
poem fulfills a gap in Latin literature in that it is a poetic work on the garden, it utilizes its
literary predecessors and their poetic styles in order to mask its uniqueness.
Columella’s garden is a poetic construct. It is a highly stylized creation which takes as its
model the kitchen-garden. As Gowers makes clear, there were two extreme conceptions of the
124
Roman garden from which Columella could draw as a model for his garden poem. The first is
associated more closely with the ancient ideal of the small plot, referred to by her as a ‘cabbage
patch’—what is essentially a kitchen garden—versus the larger “pleasure-parks style of garden
demonized by the imperial moralists, parks which, unlike enclosed-kitchen gardens, specialised
in illusions of unbounded space” (Gowers 2001:135). Columella is aware of both types of garden
and incorporates them into his poem. Yet he does so in a highly stylized manner. In the preface
to the poem, Columella offers some hints as to what kind of poetic styling he will use in his
garden poem:
Aggressi sumus tenuem admodum et paene viduatam corpore materiam, quae tam exilis est, ut in
consummatione quidem totius operis annumerari veluti particula possit laboris nostri, per se vero et quasi suis
finibus terminata nullo modo conspici. Nam etsi multa sunt eius quasi membra, de quibus aliquid possumus
effari, tamen eadem tam exigua sunt, ut, quod aiunt Graeci, ex incomprehensibili parvitate arenae funis effici
non possit. Rust. 10 pref. 4
We have come upon material which is very slight and almost deprived of substance, which is so meagre, that
in a summation of my work as a whole, it can only be reckoned as a small part of my labor, and in no way to
be seen by itself and, so to speak, bound by its own limits. For, although there are many parts of the subject
(just as limbs), about which we can say something, these parts are, nevertheless, so slight, that, as the Greeks
say, a rope cannot be made from the imperceptible slightness of sand.
As Columella makes clear here, the poem is defined in relation to the rest of the treatise. An
ensemble of words communicate this relationship: the poem is meagre (tenuem), devoid of
substance (viduatam corpore), and slight (exilis), a small part (particula) of the entirety of the
treatise (consummatione totius operis). The defining characteristic of the garden poem, its
insubstantial nature in comparison with the rest of the treatise, is justified through appeal to
Columella’s poetic predecessor, Vergil. Columella says that he writes the poem because it was as
if Vergil’s divine spirt was urging him (quasi numine instigante) to write it (Rust. 10 pref. 3).
Later in the poem sand reappears, but in this instance as a description of the soil which makes up
the plot where the garden is to be located: “Principio sedem numeroso praebeat horto/ Pinguis
ager, putres glebas resolutaque terga/ Qui gerit, et fossus graciles imitatur arenas” (‘In the first
125
place, let a rich plot of land offer a home for your verse-filled garden, one which bears a
crumbling clod and loosened surface, and, after it has been dug, imitates thin sand’) (Rust. 10.6-
8). The advice has at least two levels of meaning: numeroso…horto refers to the nature of the
garden, manifold in its abundance and fertility, and it also captures the rhythmic quality of the
garden, full of poetic verse. The phrase also recalls mention in the preface of Columella’s desire
to complete the omitted parts of the Georgics in poetic verse (poeticis numeris) (White 2013:
109). The system of references which Columella makes here suggests that there is a strong
connection between the scale of his topic and the poetics of the garden poem. The connection is
made more explicit when Columella introduces further allusions to his poetic sources of
inspiration:
Ergo age nunc cultus et tempora quaeque serendis
Seminibus, quae cura satis, quo sidere primum
Nascantur flores, Paestique rosaria gemment,
Quo Bacchi genus, aut aliena stirpe gravata
Mitis adoptatis curvetur frugibus arbos,
Pierides tenui deducite carmine Musae. Rust. 10. 35-40
So come now, Pierian Muses, spin in slender verse the cultivation [of the garden] and each of the seasons
for the sowing of seeds; the care which is sufficient for them, under what star the flowers first are born, and
the rose-beds of Paestum bud, or the vine of Bacchus, or how the gentle tree, burdened with an alien stock,
is bent by borrowed fruits.
Columella is explicit that he is adopting a highly stylized poetics as the medium through which
he will express the cultivation of the garden and a litany of other pertinent activities which
surround the horticultural enterprise. Instead of the monumental style (monumenta scriptorum)
which characterized the prose treatise, Columella invokes the Muses and adopts a poetics more
appropriate to the smaller-scale of the garden. The ‘slender verse’ (tenui carmine) provides the
means for him to communicate his disquisition on gardening. There is an integration of poetic
flourish and technical content. It is likely that Columella takes as a model for the poetics of his
126
garden Vergil’s Eclogues
110
. Reitz comments that “deducere” could be interpreted as a term for
the writing of refined poetry, and adds that “stress on tenue carmen as the stylistic model hints at
Horace (Ep. 2.1.225) and Ovid (Met. 1.4)” (Reitz 2017:223). The aesthetic choice is referenced
once again at 10.225-229:
Me mea Calliope cura leviore vagantem
iam revocat parvoque iubet decurrere gyro
et secum gracili conectere carmina filo
quae canat inter opus Musa modulante putator
pendulus arbustis, holitor viridantibus hortis. Rust. 10.225-229
My Calliope now recalls me, as I was roaming about with a lighter care, and bids me to run down in a
narrow course, and to weave together with her verses of a thin thread, which the pruner, hanging down
from the trees, might tunefully sing in between his work, or the gardener, working in his verdant plot.
With the invocation of Calliope, who Vergil had also invoked at Aen. 9.525, Columella summons
the epic genre with its narratives of war and conquest
111
. But in the lines that follow, he enters
into more of a mock-heroic genre: “Quare age, quod sequitur, parvo discrimine sulci/
Spargantur caecis nasturcia dira colubris,/ Indomito male sana cibo quas educat alvus” (‘So go
forth to what follows; let cress, deadly to the blind snakes, which the sick stomach produces from
undigested food, be scattered in a thin line of furrows.’) (Rust. 10. 230-232). Instead of the
martial language one would expect in an epic, Columella uses this language to tell of themes
more suitable to the gardening context
112
. The move is one familiar from Vergil, who utilizes
martial language in the Georgics. The mock-heroic portions of the poem, which mix epic style
with diminutive themes, are complimented by the finer Callimachean aspiration in the poem,
110
For the ‘slender song”: “Cum canerem reges et proelia, Cynthius aurem/ vellit, et admonuit: “Pastorem, Tityre,
pinguis/ pascere oportet ovis, deductum dicere carmen” (‘When I was singing of kings and battles, the Cynthian god
pulled at my ear and warned me: “Tityrus, a shepherd ought to feed fat sheep, but sing a fine song.” ’) (E. 6.3-6; cf.
1.2; 6.8).
111
Vos, O Calliope, precor, adspirate canenti,/ quas ibi tum ferro strages, quae funera Turnus/ ediderit, quem
quisque virum demiserit Orco;/ et mecum ingentis oras evolvite belli,/ et meministis enim, divae, et memorare
potestis” (‘O Calliope, I pray, inspire the one singing of what carnage and deaths Turnus dealt with his sword, and
what man each sent down to the underworld; and narrate with me the edges of a great war for you, goddesses, for
you both remember and have the power to recount it’) (Aen. 9.525-529).
112
The martial language here is dira (deadly), indomito (unconquered), and parvo discrimine (close rank).
127
expressed as weaving together verse with “gracili filo” (‘slender thread’). Other episodes in the
poem also operate on a diminutive scale. Some examples are found in the description of the
enemies of the garden, such as heat, the flea, the ant, the snail, the caterpillar, and the worm
(Rust. 320-336). These episodes recall Vergil’s description of the pests which plague the farm G.
1.181ff
113
. Thus, there appears to be an isomorphic relationship between the aesthetic of the
poem, “tenui carmine” (‘thin verse’), “gracili filo” (‘slender thread’), and the content.
The De Re Rustica, the Garden and Desire
Columella employs a consistent textual strategy which appears throughout the entirety of
the treatise. He plays with the treatises’ capacity to accommodate more and more knowledge by
delimiting the amount of knowledge required for running the farm, only to then expand the
boundaries of what it can accommodate. In one iteration of this strategy, Columella habitually
employs sign-posting in his text, typically at the end and beginning of books. These tags outline
the topics that have been discussed thus far in the book and look forward to those that are to be
covered, providing some hint as to where the book in question fits in the grand scheme of the
agricultural treatise. At a couple of points within the text, Columella provides commentary which
acts as a clausula, only to expand in the next section the scope of the treatise. John Henderson
refers to this feature of the treatise as “an exercise in approximating ‘completeness’
(consummatio)” (Henderson 2002:119). For example, at the end of Book Nine, Columella
indicates that he has completed his explication of pastio villatica as conceived of traditionally in
Varro’s Res Rusticae, which should signal the end of his explication of the discipline of
agriculture:
113
Reitz says the passage also recalls the organization of the bees as described by Vergil in G. 4.176ff (Reitz 2017:
228).
128
Sed iam consummata disputatione de uillaticis pecudibus atque pastionibus, quae reliqua
nobis rusticarum rerum pars subest, de cultu hortorum, Publi Siluine, deinceps ita ut et tibi et Gallioni
nostro complacuerat, in carmen conferemus. Rust. 9.16.2
But now, with the discussion of the farmhouse animals and their feeding complete, we will next transfer
into verse the part of those sections of husbandry which remain for us, about the cultivation of the garden,
as had pleased both you and our Gallio, Publius Silvinus.
Columella nevertheless presses on, continuing the explication of the discipline with three more
books, the garden poem, and the two books on the vilicus and vilica. As Henderson notes, there
are no indications in the earlier books that Columella was planning to place a book on
horticulture in verse (Henderson 2002:122). What Columella does do, however, is provide a
statement which allows for the incorporation of other subjects as he sees fit:
De cuius uniuersitate nihil attinet plura nunc disserere, quoniam quidem cunctae partes eius
destinatis aliquot uoluminibus explicandae sunt, quas ordine suo tunc demum persequar,
cum praefatus fuero quae reor ad uniuersam disciplinam maxime perti. Rust. 1 pref. 33
It is of no consequence at this moment to say much about the entirety of the subject, since all parts of it
must be set forth in several designated books, which I shall thoroughly treat at length, each in its own order,
after I introduce what I think to be especially pertinent to the whole discipline.
Other examples of this strategy include Columella’s decision to critique the request of M.
Trebellius of including an explication on knowledge of geometry in the treatise for the purpose
of measuring land, the rationale being that the two subjects are closely related. Columella
initially says that the skill belongs more to a surveyor than a farmer (Rust. 5.1.1-3). Upon the
urging of Silvinus, however, Columella includes in Book Five a long section on geometry:
“Obsequar voluntati tuae, cum eo, ne dubites id opus geometrarum magis esse quam rusticorum,
desque veniam, si quid in eo fuerit erratum, cuius scientiam mihi non vindico” (‘I will yield to
your wish under the condition that you know that it is the work of geometricians more than of
country-folk, and that you grant me pardon if there is any error in an area where I do not claim
knowledge’) (Rust. 5.1.4). To Henderson, the inclusion of this material “certainly wakes up the
long, long parade of vine-rows”, and “stokes up the dramatization of Columella's project still
129
further” (Henderson 2002:119). This consistent feature of the treatise, in my view, is also
operative in the garden poem. It operates by fulfilling expressions of desire in the work—the
request from Vergil for another person to take up a poem about gardening, for example, or from
literary patrons—in order to obtain a sense of completeness. This universalizing aspect of the
work reappears throughout the treatise in a number of ways.
In the poem itself, as in the treatise, this eagerness to satiate desire is tightly controlled.
That is, it does not operate in such a way that it uncritically encompasses everything. There is a
discriminating aspect to this tendency as well, since total incorporation would obscure the
boundaries of the discipline. Columella’s words above in regard to geometry express this
concern. The stakes of this game are the boundaries which define the discipline of agriculture. In
the poem, this obsession with delimitation and the drawing of distinct boundaries continues.
How does the totalizing form reappear in the discussion of Columella’s garden? The question
leads us to an examination of the mechanics of desire in the poem. I suggest that the desire to
fulfill the consummatio of the agricultural discipline dominates the prose treatise, and it is also at
work in the disquisition of the garden:
Superest ergo cultus hortorum segnis ac neglectus quondam veteribus agricolis, nunc vel celeberrimus.
Siquidem cum parcior apud priscos esset frugalitas, largior tamen pauperibus fuit usus epularum, lactis
copia ferinaque ac domesticarum pecudum carne, velut aqua frumentoque, summis atque humillimis
victum tolerantibus. Mox cum sequens et praecipue nostra aetas dapibus libidinosa pretia constituerit,
cenaeque non naturalibus desideriis, sed censibus aestimentur, plebeia paupertas submota a pretiosioribus
cibis ad vulgares compellitur. Quare cultus hortorum, quoniam fructus magis in usu est, diligentius nobis,
quam tradiderunt maiores, praecipiendus est. Rust. 10 pref. 1-5
Therefore, the subject of horticulture remains, which was formerly left idle and neglected by the famers of
old, but which now even we celebrate. Although indeed, among the ancients there was a stricter parsimony,
nevertheless the poor enjoyed more extravagant meals, since highest and lowest alike maintained their
nourishment on an abundance of milk and the meat of wild and domestic animals, as though on water and
grain. Soon, when the following age, and especially our own, established extravagant prices for dinning, and
meals were judged not according to natural desires but by wealth, the poverty of the common people, forced
away from the more pricey foods, was compelled to turn to common foodstuff. Therefore, since produce is
now in greater use, we ought to treat the cultivation of gardens more accurately than our forefathers have
handed down.
130
Columella provides a persuasive rationale for his decision to treat horticulture, contrary to earlier
husbandmen, as a separate, distinct subject. Neglect from previous farmers and its growing
popularity require careful treatment and inclusion in the De Re Rustica. Additionally, the culture
of consumption prevalent in the Principate has made it seem as if the products of the garden are
just a means of indulging in luxury. Columella is careful to historicize this specialization and
reclaim it for inclusion in his treatise. He contrasts the notion of the past in the poem with the
present, playing the role of moralizer which is so familiar to us from the preface to Book One.
Here, however, Columella brings up the past not to censure the present, but to tell of the
productivity available to the ancients, which allowed them to draw upon an expanded palette
which is now inaccessible due to the rising price of foodstuffs. There is a social dimension to this
gesture which I will discuss more below.
Aside from the preface, the emphasis on boundaries and the unique treatment of desire
converge towards the beginning of the poem:
Talis humus vel parietibus, vel saepibus hirtis
Claudatur, ne sit pecori, neu pervia furi.
Neu tibi Daedaliae quaerantur munera dextrae,
Nec Polyclitea nec Phradmonis, aut Ageladae
Arte laboretur: sed truncum forte dolatum
Arboris antiquae numen venerare Priapi
Terribilis membri, medio qui semper in horto
Inguinibus puero, praedoni falce minetur. Rust. 10.27-34
May such a plot be enclosed by walls or thick hedges, impenetrable to cattle and thief. May the works of
Daedalus’ right hand not be sought, nor those worked over by the skill of Polyclitus or Phradmon, or
Ageladas, but venerate a mighty trunk, hewn accidently from an ancient tree, as the numen of Priapus, who,
with his terrible member, in the midst of the garden, always threatens the boy with his groin, and the thief
with his sickle.
In this passage Columella stresses the importance of walls or hedges to enclose the garden,
thereby defining the garden space. Further delimitation occurs in Columella’s decision about
what to exclude from the garden space. He recommends that ornamentation of the garden not be
through the works of famous artists—as typical of the luxurious pleasure parks notorious in
131
Neronian Rome—but the stump of an old tree which Columella says should be venerated like the
numen of Priapus (Rust. 10.27ff). The censure of luxury, here in the form of statues, accords with
what Columella says in the preface of the poem about luxury ruining the garden experience.
Thus, the figure of Priapus wards off not only the traditional enemies of the garden, the thief and
the boy, but also the luxury that has devasted contemporary forms of gardening and made the
products of the garden luxury commodities. In other words, Columella is attempting to elevate
the modest ideal of the garden more commonly found earlier in Roman history than in the large
estates of his own time. Given Columella’s concern to refute elite claims that the earth was no
longer as fertile as it once was (Rust. 1 pref. 1-3), it is noteworthy that he counters the
pretentious landscape gardens fashionable in the culture of consumption of Neronian Rome with
an ideal that is extravagant only in terms of its fertility and abundance.
Other portions of the poem demonstrate similar attempts to enliven the gardening
experience. Desire in the poem is redirected towards describing activities centered around the
garden plot, descriptions of plants, the relationship between plants and the earth, and mythical
accounts of how the physical world operates. In one example, Columella references a
mythological imperative to respect the earth-as-parent, left over from other mythographers, only
to overrule it with an origin story for the earth which traces the origin of the human race to the
postdiluvian Deucalion and Pyrrha. The episode operates through reference to the prohibition of
ploughing the earth and then how, through another myth, this prohibition ought to be broken:
“Nescia plebs generis matri ne parcite falsae/ Ista Prometheae genetrix fuit altera cretae/ Altera
nos enixa parens…” (‘Common folk, ignorant about your race, do not spare your false mother!
That one was the creator of the human race from Promethean clay, another mother bore us…’)
132
(Rust. 10.58-60). The story of the other mother (altera parens) is embraced in order to encourage
ploughing of the earth:
Nos fecunda manus viduo mortalibus orbe
Progenerat, nos abruptae tum montibus altis
Deucalioneae cautes peperere – sed ecce.
durior aeternusque vocat labor: heia age segnis
pellite nunc somnos, et curvi vomere dentis
iam viridis lacerate comas, iam scindite amictus.
Tu gravibus rastris cunctantia perfode terga. Rust. 10.65-71
A fruitful hand produced us when the world was bereft of mortals, the rocks of Deucalion, snatched away
from high mountains at that time brought us forth. But behold! A harder and continual labor calls. Come!
See! Drive away dull sleep and now, with the curving tooth of the plough, tear the green hairs, now rend
the covering, you, with heavy rakes, dig through the hesitating surface.
The views of the nescia plebs are overruled with the picture of the working of the earth. The use
of language here suggests an image of the earth anthropomorphized as a woman. The language
of preparing the earth for the plough is loaded with double entendres: in the description of
ploughing, the phrase “viridis comas” (‘green hairs’) is used of the earth’s grass; “amictus”,
typically a cloak, refers to the weed that cover the ground; finally, the phrase “cunctantia terga”
describes both the surface of the earth, which resists the rake, and the back of the
anthropomorphized earth. The scene has been recognized as an uncomfortable mixture of sex
and violence
114
. My focus is that the manifestation of desire here is tied explicitly to the working
of the earth, figured as a violent expression of eroticism.
Yet another example of the very specific way in which Columella indulges desire is in his
description of the eroticism of springtime:
Tuque tuis, Paphie, Paphien iam pange calendis;
Dum cupit, et cupidae quaerit se iungere matri,
Et mater facili mollissima subiacet arvo,
Ingenera; nunc sunt genitalia tempora mundi:
Nunc amor ad coitus properat, nunc spiritus orbis
Bacchatur Veneri, stimulisque cupidinis actus
114
Gowers is the most direct, describing the scene as rape (Gowers 2000:137). Others are less so: Henderson refers
to a love-hate matrix, while Reitz refers to an “erotic subtext” (Henderson 2002:127; Reitz 2017:224) .
133
Ipse suos adamat partus, et fetibus implet. Rust. 10.193-199
And you, Paphian, plant the Paphian variety on the first of April. While it longs after and seeks to join itself
to its desirous mother, and the mother earth lies very gently over a yielding field, plant it. Now are the
generative seasons of the world, now love hastens toward unions, and now the spirit of the world revels for
Venus, and, having been driven by pricks of desire, he himself desires his own offspring and fills with
them.
The explosion of desire in this passage arrests. It boasts an impressive array of various linguistic
expressions for the consummation of sexual desire. Underlying the erotic emphasis in this
passage is a conception of the world as an animating principle, unifying creation into acts of
generative pleasure. The passage recalls Vergil’s emphasis on the destructive power of love in
Book Three of the Georgics
115
. Columella, however, places a positive spin on this principle,
foregrounding the productive powers of love over its destructive force.
Why Columella reserves the most erotically charged portions of the poem for matters of
fertility and abundance is an important question. I offer two reflections: in the first place, doing
so highlights his prescription of how humans should interact with the earth. One of the clearest
expressions of his view in this regard is in the preface to Book One. After restating the opinion
of the leading men on the state of agriculture, who complain that the earth has become worn out
and exhausted from over-production, Columella challenges their view:
Quas ego causas, Silvine, procul a veritate abesse certum habeo, quod neque fas est existimare rerum
Naturam, quam primus ille mundi genitor perpetua fecunditate donavit, quasi quodam morbo sterilitate
adfectam; neque prudentis est credere Tellurem, quae divinam et aeternam iuventam sortita communis
omnium parens dicta sit, quia et cuncta peperit semper et deinceps paritura sit, velut hominem consenuisse.
Rust. 1 pref. 2-3.
Publius Silvinus, I am certain that such reasons are far from the truth, because it is a sin to judge that
nature, whom that most eminent creator of the universe endowed with perpetual fertility, is affected with
sterility as if with some disease; nor does it belong to a prudent man to believe that the earth, who was
allotted divine and everlasting youth, and is called the common mother of all, because she has always
brought forth all things and will bring them forth continuously, has grown old just as a mortal.
115
“Omne adeo genus in terris hominumque ferarumque,/ et genus aequoreum, pecudes pictaeque volucres,/ in
furias ignemque ruunt: amor omnibus idem” (‘Ever species on earth, man and beast alike, the creatures of the sea,
cattle and brightly-colored birds, fall into passions of fire: for all, love is the same’) (G. 3.242-244).
134
Thus in a poem which is concerned with driving away notions of luxury, especially because of
how destructive they have been to the practice of horticulture, Columella shows the possibilities
for abundance in the context of the garden and, in the context of the treatise as a whole,
encourages continual working of the land. Columella’s solution to the problem of the declining
fertility of the earth, which he diagnoses as the result of agriculture being handed over to slaves
(Rust. 1 pref. 3), is a pedagogical program to combat this neglect. Just as this pedagogical
program encourages the landowner to become more active on the land, so too does the poem
operate in a similar way, by encouraging participation in horticulture.
In the second place, the response to why Columella charges sections of the poem about
abundance and fertility with eroticism is that he wishes to project a level of mastery and control
over his subject. This control is exercised over the very boundaries of the discipline—integrating
horticulture within the broader category of agriculture. This control is expressed in the structure
of the treatise, with the garden poem enclosing the books on household management (Books
Eleven and Twelve) and separating them from the books on agriculture, viticulture, and animal
husbandry (Books One to Nine). In this way, the description of the garden as an enclosed space
is extended not only to the poetic garden, it also refers to a theoretical understanding of what
constitutes Columella’s conception of the garden. This understanding is grounded in Roman
pragmatism: Columella’s garden is a garden with a purpose, and that purpose is explicitly
mentioned in Book Eleven, the prose version of Book Ten:
Et quoniam percensuimus opera, quae suis quibusque temporibus anni villicum exequi oporteret, memores
polliciti nostri subiungemus cultus hortorum, quorum aeque curam suscipere debebit, ut et quotidiani victus
sui levet sumptum, et advenienti domino praebeat, quod ait poëta, inemptas ruris dapes. Rust. 11.3.1
And since we have surveyed the tasks which the bailiff ought to perform for each season, mindful of our
promise we will next subjoin the cultivation of gardens, the care of which he will likewise be bound to
assume, in order to that he may alleviate the expense of his daily provisions and provide for his master,
when he visits the farm, that which the poet calls “the unbought feasts of the country”.
135
Thus, an abundant garden is practical, even lucrative, and a worthy reason to extend the bounds
of agriculture.
Columella’s Garden and Vergil’s Georgics
In the passage above, Columella openly acknowledges why he feels it is necessary to
include in his treatise a section on gardening: so that he might lessen the expenses required for
food, and so that the bailiff might serve the master with “inemptas ruris dapes” (‘unbought
feasts’). The reference at Rust. 11.3.1 clearly signals that the poet to whom Columella refers with
the phrase “inemptas dapes” is Vergil. The context of this reference is Vergil’s Corycian senex,
who is described in the poem as “revertens/ nocte domum dapibus mensas onerabat inemptis”
(‘…returning home at night, he was accustomed to loading his table with unbought feasts’) (G.
4.132-133). The significance of this figure for Columella’s garden poem cannot be understated.
According to Boyle, the Corycian senex is the final appearance of the labor-fructus ideal in the
Georgics, conceived of at the level of the individual (as opposed to the episode of the bees,
which is a more social ideal) (Boyle 1987:67). This suggests that Columella’s decision to
rehabilitate the image of the Corycian senex is a renewal of the conception of the labor-fructus
ideal in the private realm. The subject of gardening is particularly appropriate for communicating
this idea because of its very private nature—the activities required for maintaining the garden do
not require the same level of manpower required for an estate. Columella stresses the
relationship to Vergil by bookending the poem with references to the Georgics
116
.
In the passage quoted above, Columella recounts an origin of the human race tied to
Pyrrha and Deucalion (Rust. 10.65-71). The passage is a brief detour into the mythological
116
The beginning of the poem (10.1-5) recalls G. 1.1ff, and the end of the poem (10.433-435), recalls G. 2.173-176.
136
themes of Ovid (Met. 1.313-347). Following this detour, Columella summons the reader to what
can be described as the true purpose of the poem, a “durior aeternusque labor vocat” (‘a more
hardy and eternal labor calls’) (Rust. 10.68). In the immediate context of the text, this likely
means the completion of the activities required of the gardener up to the end of the year (White
2013:37). Although the passage resonates with similar phrasings from Vergil’s Georgics,
Columella seems to be more interested in fulfilling one of his key insights about agriculture—
how it has fallen into neglect and therefore needs the engagement of free Roman citizens
117
.
Such is the sense in the lines that follow the summons: “heia age segnis/ pellite nunc somnos”
(‘Come! See! Now, drive away dull sleep’) (Rust. 10.68-69). These lines are followed by a
sexually charged description of ploughing the earth. The sentiment here, aided by the use of
imperatives, directs readers of the poem to drive away inaction and to work the earth themselves.
In this way, the grander, epic style of Vergil is here redeployed in order to articulate a message
more peculiar to Columella, one which gets to the very heart of the treatise and why he writes—
the exhortation to gardening, and more broadly, to agriculture.
The use of Vergil in the poem signals how Columella views the position of humans
within the world and the effectiveness of their efforts in enacting change. After the poem’s
penultimate closing remark, Columella concludes with an allusion to a passage of the Georgics:
Hactenus hortorum cultus, Silvine, docebam
Siderei vatis referens praecepta Maronis,
Qui primus veteres ausus recludere fontes
Ascraeum cecinit Romana per oppida carmen. Rust. 10.433-436
Thus far, Silvinus, I was teaching the cultivation of gardens, recalling the precepts of the poet Maro, who
first dared to reveal the ancient springs, and sang the Ascraean song throughout Roman towns.
117
For how farming has been left to slaves: “qui rem rusticam pessimo cuique servorum velut carnifici noxae
dedimus, quam maiorum nostrorum optimus quisque et optime tractaverat” (‘we who have given the care of the
field over to each and every one of the worst of our slaves, as if to a hangman for punishment’) (Rust. 1 pref. 3). The
discussion of labor calls to mind Vergil’s “Labor omnia vicit/ improbus et duris urgens in rebus egestas” (‘labor
conquers all things, and wicked lack, pressing in hard circumstances’) (G. 1.145-146).
137
The passage is a reworking of the Georgics:
Salve, magna parens frugum, Saturnia tellus,
magna virum; tibi res antiquae laudis et artem
ingredior, sanctos ausus recludere fontis,
Ascraeumque cano Romana per oppida carmen. G. 2.173-176
Hail, Saturnian land, great mother of crops, great mother of men. For you I enter upon a subject of ancient
praise and skill, I have dared to reveal the sacred springs, and sing an Ascraean song through the Roman
towns.
The selection of this passage of the Georgics, which Columella redeploys, opens up a dialogue
with his predecessors, from Hesiod’s Works and Days, to Vergil’s Georgics. The citation of
these works is significant: both didactic poems contained aspirations higher than the ostensible
agricultural treatise frame given to them by their respective authors, aspirations which consider
the relationship of humankind to its moral and physical world. The phrase “Ascraeum carmen”
also channels the old Ascraean “Ascraeo seni” of Vergil’s Eclogues, who had received from the
Muses the reed-pipes prior to Gallus’ receiving them (E. 6.71). The passage has been read by
Boyle as a “paradigm of poetic efficacy” (Boyle 1979:69)
118
. The particular moment in which
Vergil’s Georgics echoes the Ascraean passage of the Eclogues, at the end of a catalogue of
political and military figures, renews hope “not only to the possibility of poetry’s efficacy, but to
the political world itself…” (Boyle 1979:69). The passage is particularly fitting for a poem
couched in a treatise that attempts to refute claims of the leading figures of a pessimistic view
that the earth is no longer as productive as she once was. Columella’s use of the Vergilian
passage renews the same message, which takes on a new meaning under Neronian Rome—hope
for a future free from the constraints of a repressive regime, or a glimpse at the solutions offered
by Columella’s agricultural treatise overshadow imperial politics. Columella’s technical
instruction is inextricable from his understanding of the physical world. He refutes the notion
118
The music of the old Ascraean had the power to draw the ash trees from the hill.
138
that the earth grows old in mortal fashion and upholds the belief that through rational principles
of labor management (removing or limiting unskilled and inexperienced slaves from the
agricultural enterprise), Roman landowners, tenants, farmers and skilled slaves can tap into the
productive potential of the earth.
Columella’s Poetic Persona
Columella is quite explicit about the class dimension of the gardening poem. In the
preface, the class dimension is openly discussed. The preface is worth quoting again:
Siquidem cum parcior apud priscos esset frugalitas, largior tamen pauperibus fuit usus epularum lactis
copia ferinaque ac domesticarum pecudum carne, velut aqua frumentoque, summis atque humillimis
victum tolerantibus. Mox cum sequens et praecipue nostra aetas dapibus libidinosa pretia constituerit,
cenaeque non naturalibus desideriis, sed censibus aestimentur, plebeia paupertas submota a pretiosioribus
cibis ad vulgares compellitur. Rust. 10 pref. 2
Although indeed, among the ancients there was a stricter parsimony, nevertheless the poor enjoyed more
extravagant meals, since highest and lowest alike maintained their nourishment on an abundance of milk and
the meat of wild and domestic animals, as though on water and grain. Soon, when the following age, and
especially our own, established extravagant prices for dinning, and meals were judged not according to natural
desires but by wealth, the poverty of the common people, forced away from the more pricey foods, was
compelled to turn to common stuff.
The critique here is that the desire for consumption in contemporary Roman society is so
ravenous (dapibus libidinosa pretia) that it has priced out the country people and changed the
nature of the Roman diet. The purpose of meals has been geared more towards the display of
wealth than the satisfaction of natural desires. In the past, although strict values such as
frugalitas (parsimony) thrived, there was nevertheless a more extravagant diet available to the
poor because they practiced horticulture. The thrust of the message is that Columella aims to
restore the richness of the ancient diet to the modern Roman, with a special concern for the
“plebeias paupertas” (‘poverty of the common people’). Horticulture is a pursuit which can
provide a rich alternative to participation in food-markets, and steer its practitioners away from a
consumption-based society obsessed with the display of wealth. The practice of horticulture and
139
independence from food-markets are inextricably linked. The concern for the plebs here is
interesting because in Book One of the De Re Rustica, Columella stressed the necessity of
financial resources for expenditure on the farm. Farming has a barrier to entrance that gardening
does not and did not have historically. It is even compared to others forms of investment, such as
lending money at interest
119
. There is no mention of a similar requirement for financial resources
for working the garden.
In fact, it may be in the garden poem that Columella is the most direct about encouraging
participation in the different levels of the agricultural enterprise, a nod to the reality that
management and staff may at times assume similar roles. Columella’s poetic persona, for
example, assumes different roles throughout the poem. At times, Columella even expands the
notion of how his audience should interact with the text. At one point, he distances himself from
the imagined audience of country-dwellers and farmers, assuming the role of a didactic poet:
Haec ne ruricolae paterentur monstra, salutis
Ipsa novas artes varia experientia rerum
Et labor ostendit miseris, ususque magister
Tradidit agricolis, ventos sedare furentes,
Et tempestatem Tuscis avertere sacris. Rust. 10.338-342
Lest the country-inhabitants suffer these omens, varied experience of things itself, and also labor, have
shown new arts of security to wretched farmers; and practice, as teacher, has handed down to them the
knowledge to settle the raging winds and to turn away stormy weather by Etruscan rites.
At another point, Columella expands his target audience in the garden poem to include a number
of different statuses, including slave and specialized worker in addition to landowner. That
Columella has in mind this range of people as the target of his protreptic is demonstrated in the
poem’s emphasis upon practice. I requote the following example to show how the poem
transcends mere instruction and encourages action:
Me mea Calliope cura leviore vagantem
119
See Chapter Four and the defense of viticulture in Book Three (Rust. 3.3.1ff).
140
iam revocat parvoque iubet decurrere gyro
et secum gracili conectere carmina filo
quae canat inter opus Musa modulante putator
pendulus arbustis, holitor viridantibus hortis. Rust.10.225-229
My Calliope now recalls me, as I was roaming about with a lighter care, and bids me to run down in a
narrow course, and to weave together with her verses of a thin thread, which the pruner, hanging down
from the trees, might tunefully sing in between his work, or the gardener, working in his verdant plot.
Action here is not just a description of the demands of horticulture upon the gardener, it is
expressed by the poem’s identification with a work song. The claim grounds the poem in practice
and reveals its connection to the world of doing. Through activity, one can become acquainted
with the world of horticultural production and liberated from participation in a society dominated
by consumption.
Gowers is skeptical. In her view, the poem’s claim to being a work song is unwarranted:
“This conflicts with the hardened rhetoric of the preface. Financial images were often used to
describe the land’s yield (Columella himself speaks of the merx or dividend from his plot), but in
that context they are unashamedly used of a poetic transaction. Even the picturesque labourers of
the poem supplement their unbought feasts with a bit of marketing on the side…” (Gowers 2001:
136). We likely cannot be sure that Columella’s garden poem was ever performed as a work
song. The claim is not, however, out of the realm of possibility. The poem is flexible. It goes
through a range of genres: commentators have observed epic in the use of epic similes and
catalogues, erotic-elegiac discourse in the portrayal of the earth being ploughed, descriptions of
plants which mirror those of the addressees of love poetry, didactic strains on the powerful force
of nature, hymns to Bacchus and Apollo, Callimachean poetics in the poem’s aetiologies and
allusions to mythology (Reitz 2017:226). Inclusion of these poetic discourses demonstrate the
virtuosity of a poet fluent in each of these different genres. The reference to a work is possible
and is certainly in alignment with the practical grounding of the poem. Moreover, financial
metaphors for the products of the field and the garden, as well as in the exchange of literary
141
pieces, are not unheard of in Roman literary culture. And placed within the context of the
treatise, discussing the garden as a possible source of revenue is entirely appropriate, as is the
ability to manage capital
120
.
Additionally, Gowers is skeptical about the sincerity of Columella’s mission: “Columella,
like so many other Roman moralists, turns his back on luxury by promoting a nostalgic return to
farming. He thinks he is offering practical solutions for the poor, but this is really the ‘let them
eat kale’ attitude revived periodically by paternalistic politicians who propose giving allotments
to the unemployed (Gowers 2001:136)”. But in my view, this is a misreading of the situation.
For one, Columella may play the part of the moralist, but even if he does propose a ‘return to
farming’, he is in no way unaware that the practice of agriculture is conducted through a well-
established system of absentee management. And Columella is quite clear on the realities of how
this system functions, as well as both the profits and expenses necessary for entering into
agricultural enterprise
121
. It is for this reason that he provides agronomy with a pedagogical
program whose explicit goal is a form of mastery analogous to Vitruvius’ ideal architect and
120
I discuss the management of capital as one of the defining features of Columella’s agriculture in Chapter Four.
121
On resources required for farming: “Qui studium agricolationi dederit, antiquissima sciat haec sibi
aduocanda: prudentiam rei, facultatem inpendendi, uoluntatem agendi” (He who has devoted himself to agriculture
should know that these most fundamental resources must be called to his assistance: knowledge of the subject, the
ability to cover the costs, and the will to perform the work) (Rust. 1.1.1). On losses and economic interests of
landowners: “Cuius praecepta si uel temere ab indoctis, dum tamen agrorum possessoribus, antiquo more
administrarentur, minus iacturae paterentur res rusticae; nam industria dominorum cum ignorantiae detrimentis
multa pensaret, nec quorum commodum ageretur, tota uita uellent inprudentes negotii sui conspici, eoque discendi
cupidiores agricolationem pernoscerent” (‘if the precepts of agriculture were executed in the ancient manner, even
if done recklessly by the unlearned—provided that, however, they are landowners—the agricultural business would
suffer a smaller loss; for the owners’ diligence would compensate greatly for losses due to ignorance; and that there
be no risk to their profit, as landowners would not wish to be seen as ignorant of their own business for their whole
life, and for that reason, being more eager to learn, they would gain a thorough knowledge of agriculture.’) (Rust. 1
pref. 11). On the role of profit in managing the farm: “sic uere industrii patris familiae est quicquid aut emerit aut
acceperit facere fructuosum atque utile” (‘thus, truly, it belongs to the industry of the master to make fruitful and
useful whatever land he has bought or received’) (Rust. 1.4.3).
142
Cicero’s ideal orator. Thus while Columella may be nostalgic for a past, he tempers this
nostalgia through a focus on action and plans for management.
As a final example of Columella’s varied treatment of the poetic persona, I turn to the
end of the poem. The closing of the activities in the garden mean that the poem nears its end:
Sed iam maturis nos flagitat anxius uuis
Euhios excultosque iubet claudamus ut hortos.
Claudimus imperioque tuo paremus agrestes,
ac metimus laeti tua munera, dulcis Iacche,
inter lasciuos Satyros Panasque biformes,
bracchia iactantes uetulo marcentia uino. Rust. 10.424-428
But Bacchus, distressed for his ripe grapes, requires and bids us to close up our cultivated gardens. We
rustics obey your command and close them; and happily, we harvest your gift, sweet Iacchus, among lewd
Satyrs and double-formed Pans, throwing our arms, droopy from old wine.
These closing lines recall the beginning of Vergil’s Georgics, especially since it is begins with a
prayer invoking the various gods necessary for the practice of agriculture: Bacchus, Satyrs, Pan,
and Maenalus all appear in the first twenty-three lines of Book One of the Georgics.
Additionally, Columella’s decision to use the word “agrestes” recalls a subsequent passage from
the same book: “da facilem cursum atque audacibus adnue coeptis/ ignarosque viae mecum
miseratus agrestis/ ingredere et votis iam nunc adsuesce vocari” (‘Grant an easy course, and
assent to bold beginnings; and having pitied with me the rustics, ignorant of the way, enter and
now be accustomed to being called with prayer’) (G. 1.40-42). This request of Vergil’s comes
right after a direct address to Caesar, who appears last in the list of gods who are to aid in the
agricultural enterprise. Although he is the culmination of this list, Vergil is unable to pin down
with determinacy the exact nature of Caesar. In any case, he is summoned to bless Vergil’s
poetic work. It seems significant that Columella has chosen to model the end of his poem after
the Georgics, and rewrites it in a way that omits mention of any such Caesar-figure. The gesture
143
hints at an ambivalence towards imperial power and suggests that the self-sufficiency and
independence of the garden are of more concern to Columella than the political sphere.
Also noteworthy is the fact that Columella implicates himself as a member of the country-folk.
With the switch to the first person plural, Columella sheds the identity of the omniscient didactic
poet. Instead, his poetic persona identifies itself with the rustics (agrestes) who have been the
target audience for the poet-agronomist’s advice. The author’s shifting identity suggests that
Columella is content with assuming a role as one of the agrestes, noteworthy because of the less
positive view in which Vergil presents them. The gesture speaks to a flexibility in the assignment
of the various roles necessary for the management of the farm. He transforms into a member of
the target audience at which the treatise and poem have aimed. The gesture also supports
something which has been observed by other scholars, that the conception of labor here, the
material basis of which is the organization of labor in terms of absentee management, allows the
master to imagine that he, as in past social formations, is the person performing the labor on the
farm. Dependents such as slaves are conceived of as being an extension of the master’s body,
acting as prostheses of the master. There is then no distinction between the labor of the
slave/dependent and that of the master. In this way, Columella’s assumption of the role of the
country-folk is a fantasy rooted in the social relations of production. The ability to indulge in this
fantasy appears alongside a desire to initiate others into the cult of the garden, and at a broader
level, acts as a protreptic to agronomy.
144
Chapter Four: Agronomy and the Management of Capital
The fourth chapter analyzes the differences in Varro and Columella’s approach to market
relations and identifies the management of capital as one of the driving forces in the organization
of agriculture into an ars. Columella’s readiness to recognize the role of capital and to
incorporate it into his conception of what it means to be a farmer who engages in agricultural
activities differentiates him from Varro and speaks to the connection between capital,
knowledge, and the Roman empire.
Market Dependence in Columella’s Predecessors
It is important to begin this chapter by outlining how the profit motive colored the way in
which early agronomists conceived of agriculture. It is clear that there was an awareness of the
importance of economic rationality in Columella’s agronomic predecessors. In the preface to
Cato’s De Agricultura, Cato praised agriculture for its ability to provide a stable, secure form of
income. In his view, agriculture was an inherently moral form of wealth extraction in contrast to
other forms of acquisition, such as shipping and plundering. Cicero reports that Cato says as
much in his response to a series of questions about the most lucrative activities on an estate:
A quo cum quaereretur, quid maxime in re familiari expediret, respondit: “Bene pascere”; quid secundum:
“Satis bene pascere”; quid tertium: “Male pascere”; quid quartum: “Arare”; et cum ille, qui quaesierat,
dixisset: “Quid faenerari?”, tum Cato: “Quid hominem,” inquit, “occidere?”. Cicero, De Officiis 2.89
When he was asked by someone what was the most profitable part of an estate, he replied: “Raising cattle
well.” What second after that? “Raising cattle moderately well.” And third? “Raising cattle poorly.” What
fourth? “Ploughing.” And when that one who had questioned him had said, “What about money-lending?”
then Cato replied: “How about murder?”.
Cato also enumerates the various concerns involved in the situation of the farm, all of which are
directed at securing pain-free income. He notes that one should look for a farm in an area with
145
good climate, strong soil, access to watering place for cattle, availability of laborers, proximity to
a town center, the sea, streams, and roads. The farm should also be next to farm equipment,
(Agr. 1.1-3). The recommendations are followed by Cato’s ranking of the best type of farms:
“vinea est prima, si vino bono et multo est, secundo loco hortus inriguus, tertio salictum, quarto
oletum, quinto pratum, sexto campus frumentarius, septimo silva caedua, octavo arbustum, nono
glandaria silva” (‘the vineyard is first, if it produces large amounts of good wine; second is an
irrigated garden; third, an osier-bed; fourth, an olive-yard; fifth, a meadow; sixth, a field for
grain; seventh, woodland for cutting; eighth, an orchard; ninth, an acorn grove’) (Agr. 1.7).
According to Smith, the list reflects the changing conditions of Italian farming in the second
century. That grain farming is sixth on Cato’s list is significant because of the dependence upon
Sicily and Africa for grain (Smith 1933:230). This dependence on the market is more explicitly
addressed in Varro.
In Varro’s Res Rusticae, capital is one of the factors that leads to the differentiations
within the rural economy. Varro states in the second book of his Res Rusticae that the
differentiation within the rural economy occurred on account of the greed (propter avaritiam) of
the descendants of the city founders: “Itaque in qua terra culturam agri docuerunt pastores
progeniem suam, qui condiderunt urbem, ibi contra progenies eorum propter avaritiam contra
leges ex segetibus fecit prata, ignorantes non idem esse agri culturam et pastionem” (‘Thus, in
that land where shepherds who founded the city taught their offspring the cultivation of the earth,
there, on the contrary, their descendants, on account of greed and contrary to the laws, have
made pastures out of grain lands, unmindful that agriculture and grazing are not the same thing.’)
(Rust. 2.1.4). The description highlights the role of capital in the process of differentiation of the
rural economy. In the third book of the Res Rusticae, Varro argues that country life antedates city
146
life. He singles out the founding of Thebes as the terminus ante quem for the origin of
agriculture, an idea he attributes to tradition. He points out that while the founding of this ancient
city was 2100 years before his time, there was never a time when there were not fields on earth
that could be tilled (Rust. 3.1.1-5). Under this framework, Varro explains that agri cultura was at
first practiced indiscriminately due to poverty (propter paupertatem), with the descendants of
shepherds planting and grazing on the same land. Differentiation of the rural economy occurred
due to the growth of wealth/flocks (peculia): “quae postea creverunt peculia diviserunt, ac
factum ut dicerentur alii agricolae, alii pastores” (‘afterwards, as these flocks grew, they made a
division, and it happened that some were called farmers, and others herdsmen.’) (Rust. 3.1.7).
This view of capital and its influence upon society is mostly descriptive. Nelsestuen has argued
recently that Varro, in the third book of the Res Rusticae, theorizes urban life through this
historico-anthropological narrative from a morally ambivalent perspective (Nelsestuen 2017:21-
33). But even if the passages in question are ambivalent, there are tensions within the Res
Rusticae that view the drive towards a market-dominated society with suspicion. This is
demonstrated in Varro’s defense of the origo and dignitas of pastio and pastio villatica in the
2nd and 3rd book of his work. Varro’s argument for the origo of agriculture implies that it is an
activity essential to human life, and in its origins and as an abstract concept, it is free of the
negative connotations associated with other forms of acquisition. The dignitas of the subject
marks it as a form of activity worthy for elites. Moreover, the third book of the Res Rusticae, on
pastio villatica, is intimately connected to the market and based upon the consumption habits of
the elites, as told in a narrative that features characters likened to birds, the very object of elite
consumption in pastio villatica
122
. Varro is more explicit about this message in the preface to the
122
As argued by Green 1997:427-448; See also Kronenberg 2011:91-116.
147
second book of the Res Rusticae. Adopting the role of a moralizer, he explains what he views as
the degeneracy of his current age. The ancient Romans placed those from the country ahead of
those from the city because they were more active and did not require the same luxurious
splurges enjoyed by contemporary Romans. This luxury was manifested in the proliferation of
Greek architectural structures: the procoetion (ante-room), palaestra (exercise-room),
apodyterion (dressing-room), peristylon (colonnade), ornithon (aviary), peripteros (pergola),
oporotheca (fruit-room) (Rust. 2 pref. 2). The agronomist reserves his harshest remarks for the
character of the people of his age, essentially calling them spectators:
Igitur quod nunc intra murum fere patres familiae correpserunt relictis falce et aratro et manus movere
maluerunt in theatro ac circo, quam in segetibus ac vinetis, frumentum locamus qui nobis advehat, qui
saturi fiamus ex Africa et Sardinia, et navibus vindemiam condimus ex insula Coa et Chia. Varro, Rust. 2
pref. 3
Therefore, the fact is that now nearly all the heads of families have crept within the walls; and they have
abandoned the sickle and the plough, and they prefer to move their hands in the theater and in the circus,
rather than in the grain-fields and the vineyards. We let out contracts for grain so that a man might bring it
to us from Africa and Sardinia so that we might be satiated, and because of ships arriving from Cos and
Chios, we store our vintage.
The passage here shows how the critique of market dependency is inextricably connected to the
critique of elite inactivity. Instead of performing the tasks necessary for self-sufficiency, Varro
says that his contemporaries would rather concern themselves with popular spectacles of
entertainment. The passage also highlights the culture of consumption in Varro’s Rome, where
food and entertainment take precedence over agricultural work. Additionally, there is a critique
of the inefficiencies of market dependence—instead of local products, there is a reliance upon
products from throughout the empire. I have argued in the first chapter that the moralizing
prefaces of Varro’s treatise act as a warning against the dangers of market dependence.
148
Columella and Market Dependence
In Columella’s De Re Rustica, although some of the suspicions about market activity
persist, there is much less tension surrounding the market’s importance to farming. In my view
this speaks to an increasing level of market integration during Columella’s time. Market
integration is a term that refers to the extent to which the market was able to connect supply and
demand in space and in time. The various considerations that must be taken into an account for
market integration include the commodity in question, the level of security in a given region, the
prevalence of bandits, proximity to trade networks and established markets, cost of
transportation, the limitations of communication and the unequal development of commercial
networks
123
. That the De Re Rustica is much less hostile towards the marketing of the products
of the farm is demonstrated in its consideration of these issues.
We have already seen how the garden poem of the De Re Rustica stressed the idea that
the poetic garden was a rehabilitation of the knowledge that had allowed the poor country-folk to
have rather lavish diets (largior… usus epularum), a luxury now restricted to wealthy Romans
who purchase their food in the markets in elaborate displays of wealth. The garden poem was the
means by which Columella offered the promise of a rich diet, free from dependence on the
market and available to both rich and poor (Rust. 10 pref. 2). This history of the garden can be
extended. According to Pliny the Elder, the hortus and heredium are conceptually linked: “In XII
tabulis legum nostrarum nusquam nominatur villa, semper in significatione ea hortus, in horti
vero heredium” (‘In the Twelve Tables of our laws, the ‘villa’ is never named, in the
signification of that concept ‘hortus’ is always used, while in the signification of ‘hortus’,
heredium is used’) (HN 19.50). Stackelberg has recognized the connection between the two
123
On these considerations see Erdkamp 2005:10-11; 143-205.
149
words and argued that the heredium was the original garden space, and as such it was
“essentially a productive and civic space” (Stackelberg 2009:10). The size of the heredium was
two iugera, the amount of land that could be ploughed by one man in a day. According to Varro,
this plot was the original land grant assigned to each Roman citizen by Romulus (Varro, Rust.
1.10.1). As such, it “symbolized the continuity between one generation of citizens and the next,
since it was the inalienable portion of an estate and could not be broken up or bequeathed outside
the family” (Stackelberg 2009:10). For my purposes, the poetic explication of horticulture in the
De Re Rustica, with the civic and productive associations of the hortus/heredium, underline the
extent to which Columella taps into a deep cultural heritage in order to form a persuasive
protreptic to horticulture which looks forward to a broader engagement with agriculture. The
power of Columella’s presentation lies in how horticulture and all of its attendant associations
are set against consumption, luxury, and market dependence. The inalienable property of the
hortus was one of the features of early Rome’s agrarian communism (Love 1986:154). Thus
Columella’s precepts are designed to provide landowners a means of accessing the productive
self-sufficiency which had characterized their Roman past. The full thrust of this program
included the demonstration that the garden is not simply for display. Rather, it is a productive
space which can not only restore the rich dietary habits of the past to the present, but also instruct
the reader on how to utilize the productivity of the garden for personal gain. Such is the sense in
line 317 and 327 of the garden poem: “mercibus exactis hilaresque recurrite in hortos” (‘with
your products all sold, cheerfully run back to the garden’) (Rust. 10. 317); “mercibus atque
holitor gaudet securus adultis” (‘and the gardener, worry-free, rejoices in his ripe merchandise)
(Rust. 10.327). The sense of these passages is amplified in the preface to Book One, where
Columella is quite explicit about the role of capital in agriculture.
150
Agricolatio and the Management of Capital
Columella’s more positive view of the market should be connected to his statement about
the requirements for agricolatio: “Qui studium agricolationi dederit, antiquissima sciat haec sibi
advocanda: prudentiam rei, facultatem impendendi, voluntatem agendi” (‘One who has given his
zeal to the pursuit of agriculture should understand that these most ancient resources ought to be
summoned for his benefit: knowledge of the subject, a means of covering the costs, and the will
to do the work’) (Rust. 1.1.1). Columella here provides the view that the pursuit of agriculture is
a form of management—the ability to coordinate between knowledge (prudentiam rei), capital
(facultatem impendendi), and the will to execute (voluntatem agendi). This gives a very specific
notion to the claim of mastery for prospective students of Columella’s conception of agriculture
(agricolatio). The view is substantiated throughout the treatise in Columella’s recommendations
for how to situate the farm, the description of specialization for segments within the villa,
calculations to determine the viability of participation in viticulture, and the specialization of
farm operations for slaves and recommendations on how to manage them. The political
dimension behind this discussion is the ability of the De Re Rustica to demonstrate the
connection between capital, knowledge and the state. The treatise centralizes knowledge,
harnessing the collective powers of individuals for the benefit of the state by providing explicit
instruction on sound agricultural practices and how to produce sizeable yields.
In his description of ancient Roman morals Columella presents what might be described
as a warning against the impact of a market driven society. He discusses the practices and
characteristics which distinguished “vera illa Romuli proles” (‘the true offspring of Romulus’)
from his contemporaries, namely constant hunting and toiling in the fields, great physical
strength, military preparation, and the esteeming of country peoples (rusticam plebem) more
151
highly than the peoples of the city (Rust. 1 pref. 18)
124
. He further divides the distinction between
country and city peoples—those who work in the farm house and those who work outside of it.
With this division, there is a clear hierarchy which emerges, where the country people are
esteemed over the people of the city, and those within the home considered to be more sluggish
(ignaviores) than those who work outside or who supervise the work of those outside. Alongside
this hierarchy there is a clear expectation for time spent in the city and on the farm:
“Nundinarum etiam conventus manifestum est propterea usurpatos, ut nonis tantummodo diebus
urbanae res agerentur, reliquis administrarentur rusticae” (‘It is also clear, moreover, that
market-day gathering were used so that the affairs of the city might be performed only on the
ninth day, and those of the country might be managed on the other days’) (Rust. 1 pref. 18). The
description suggests that the Romans of Columella’s time had stopped strictly observing this
custom and had instead engaged in business at a greater frequency. These market days were set
aside for buying and selling. They may have also been important for the observation of public
and religious affairs in the city
125
. The neglect of these observances suggests that Columella is
censuring his contemporaries for failing to respect traditional observances which had acted as
checks on market dependence. The rise of dependence on markets results in a breakdown of the
traditional forms of organization mentioned above. It is important to emphasize that Columella
does not offer emptying posturing here—instead, his treatise goes against the predominant
cultural values described in this passage by reasserting the importance of agriculture. While it is
presumptuous to say that his goal is to fully restore the ancient values and ideals within this
passage, it is clear that he means for prospective students of agriculture to be aware of the
traditions to which they belong in their pursuit of knowledge. Additionally, he advocates for a
124
Mention of this custom is also in Varr. Rust. 2 pref. 1.
125
Macrob. Sat. 1.16.21ff; 1.18.34.
152
more pragmatic understanding of the discipline—one which values personal experience and
managerial competency. And while managerial competency may seem to clash with the
moralizing preface of the first book, it becomes clear throughout the treatise that ignorance,
abstraction, mismanagement, and alienation are the real targets of Columella’s diatribe. This is
hinted at in the preface when Columella explains the importance of ownership in the farmer’s
relationship to the earth:
Cuius praecepta si uel temere ab indoctis, dum tamen agrorum possessoribus, antiquo more
administrarentur, minus iacturae paterentur res rusticae; nam industria dominorum cum ignorantiae
detrimentis multa pensaret, nec quorum commodum ageretur, tota uita uellent inprudentes negotii sui
conspici, eoque discendi cupidiores agricolationem pernoscerent. Rust. 1 pref. 11-12
If the precepts of agriculture were executed in the ancient manner, even if done recklessly by the
unlearned—provided that, however, they are landowners—the agricultural business would suffer a smaller
loss; for the owners’ diligence would compensate greatly for losses due to ignorance; and that there be no
risk to their profit, as landowners would not wish to be seen as ignorant of their own business for their
whole life, and for that reason, being more eager to learn, they would gain a thorough knowledge of
agriculture.
As Columella points out, ownership of a plot of land instills in the agriculturalist a greater level
of concern for the land (industria). The idea is that those who own land are more likely to direct
their attention to cultivating it, whether this means through the learning of agricultural precepts
or the investment of capital. Furthermore, Columella presents the scenario that although many
Romans may own plots of land, they remain ignorant of the methods of production utilized on
these plots. It is Columella’s hope that a desire to become more familiar with their business
(negotium) can translate into a more formal interest in his specific type of agriculture
(agricolatio). At this point, we can say that Columella’s conception of agriculture is where
formal study, practice, managerial competency, and financial competency intersect; Columella
uses the moralizing preface to make the claim that through his conception of agriculture, his
contemporaries are able to tap into cultural values which resonate with past Roman ideals, those
153
of the “vera illa Romuli proles” (‘the true offspring of Romulus’). Columella says as much when
he presents the disparity between the distant past and his own time:
Intellego luxuriae et deliciis nostris pristinum morem virilemque vitam displicuisse. Omnes enim, sicut M.
Varro iam temporibus avorum conquestus est, patres familiae falce et aratro relictis intra murum
correpsimus et in circis potius ac theatris quam in segetibus ac vinetis manus movemus. Rust. 1 pref. 14-15.
I understand that our former morals and vigorous style of living do not sit well with our present luxury and
pleasures. For just as Marcus Varro complained in the days of our grandfathers, that all of us who are heads
of households, with the sickle and plough left behind, have crept within the city-walls; and move our hands
in the circuses and theatres rather than in the grain fields and vineyards.
Columella’s solution, then, is the mastery of which we spoke above. Here, it is clear that part of
this mastery is knowledge of how to use the market.
Locating the Estate
One of the first examples of this thinking is Columella’s consideration of choosing the
best location for an estate. In a passage closely modeled after Varro’s Res Rusticae (Varr. Rust.
1.16.1-6), Columella ranks the most desirable features for situating the farm. He cites Cato
(though he is much closer to Varro) in ranking the wholesomeness of the climate and fruitfulness
of the region as the two most desirable features in picking a spot for the farm (Cat. Agr. 1.2-3).
After his citation of Cato, Columella’s expresses his take on the matter:
Post haec duo principalia subiungebat illa non minus intuenda: viam, aquam, vicinum. Multum conferre
agris iter commodum: primum, quod est maximum, ipsam praesentiam domini, qui libentius commeaturus
sit, si vexationem viae non reformidet; deinde ad invehenda et exportanda utensilia, quae res frugibus
conditis auget pretium et minuit impensas rerum invectarum, quia minoris adportentur eo, quo facili nisu
perveniatur; nec non nihil esse etiam parvo vehi, si conductis iumentis iter facias, quod magis expedit quam
tueri propria; servos quoque, qui secuturi patrem familiae sint, non aegre iter pedibus ingredi. Rust. 1.3.3
After these two important considerations, he added the following things which should be considered no
less: the road, the water, and the neighboring region. A road brings much profit to the land: the first thing,
and that which is the most important, is the presence of the master, who will pass through more cheerfully
if he does not fear the discomfort of the journey; the next thing is its ability to bring in and carry out
equipment—a condition which increases the price of stored crops and lessens the expenses of
bringing things in, because they are transported at lower cost to a place where they might arrive without
great effort; and likewise, transportation is not an insignificant feature if you make the journey with hired
beasts of burden, which is more expedient than looking after your own; also, the slaves who follow after
the head of the household do not reluctantly make the journey by foot.
154
Columella’s list of considerations here begins with Cato, creating the appearance of close
adherence to agricultural tradition. Thereafter there seems to be a nod to Varro’s list of concerns
on the conditions surrounding the farm, which include the safety of the neighborhood, its
location (proximity to roads, markets, equipment), the adequacy of the roads or streams for
transport, and the condition of the neighboring farms (Varro, Rust. 1.16.1). The considerations
which Columella voices here, in keeping with his predecessors, are strategic for increasing profit,
minimizing costs, and reducing dependence upon the market. The thoroughness with which
Columella addresses these considerations speaks to increased levels of market integration in his
time. This thoroughness is manifested in Columella’s own ranking—in the form of a list—of the
things to be considered in the situating of the farm, a reworking of the items put forth by Cato
and Varro. Both Cato and Varro mention the necessity of roads, but in the assessment of their
importance, only Columella adds the consideration that good roads allow for frequent visits from
the master. The addition is significant, especially for Columella’s conception of agriculture. It
locates in the figure of the master the notion that his presence is a benefit for the daily operations
of the farm. Columella believes this to such an extent that he even qualifies the master’s presence
as the most important (primum, quod est maximum) method by which a road can bring profit to
the land. The list also reflects that Columella considers visitation of the farm by the
dominus/pater familias to be an important part of owning a farm. Additionally, in Columella
there is a fuller expression of economic-directed thought processes, notable in the reasons he
gives for the importance of the farm’s location and proximity to markets and equipment.
Erdkamp further explains Columella’s reasoning: “good roads lower the cost of transportation;
thus on the one hand, it is cheaper to bring in supplies, and on the other, the crops may be sold at
a higher price, because the crops may be conveyed at lesser cost by the purchaser” (Erdkamp
155
2005:113). The capacity to store crops (frugibus conditis) also allowed the dominus to take
strategic advantage of the market’s dynamics. The idea is that the products of the farm would not
need to be taken immediately to harvest, when there was a glut of product on the market. Instead,
the farmer could wait until the supply was down in order to fetch a higher price for his product.
Columella’s Villa and its Parts
Columella’s description of the villa is one point where Columella negotiates between
luxury and utility. The agronomists unanimously state that the size of farmhouse should be
proportioned to the size of the farm (Varro, Rust. 1.11.1-2; 1.13.6). Cato exemplifies this piece of
advice in a general statement about the plot of land (ager), which takes the form of a neat
aphorism: “Scito idem agrum quod hominem, quamvis quaestuosus siet, si sumptuosus erit,
relinqui non multum” (‘Know that the farm and a man are alike, though there may be much
profit, if there are many expenses, not much is left over’) (Agr. 1.6)
126
. According to Cato,
building on the farm comes after the pater familias has become acquainted with planting:
Prima adulescentia patrem familiae agrum conserere studere oportet. Aedificare diu cogitare oportet,
conserere cogitare non oportet, sed facere oportet. Ubi aetas accessit ad annos XXXVI, tum aedificare
oportet, si agrum consitum habeas. Ita aedifices, ne villa fundum quaerat neve fundus villam. Agr. 3.1
First, the pater familias ought to study planting the field in his youth. He ought to think a long time about
building; he ought not think about planting, instead he ought to do it. When one’s age has reached 36 years,
then one ought to build, if you have your land planted. You should build in such a way that the villa does
not require the farm, nor farm the villa.
Cato’s words here suggest that building a structure on the farm is analogous to a rite of passage.
Whereas one’s youth should be spent becoming acquainted with sowing, building is an activity
reserved for adults. The age 36, in fact, corresponds to the traditional age for the eligibility for
the position of aedile, the official responsible for overseeing public works, temples and markets.
126
Compare also Agr. 4.1, where Cato says to build the dwelling house according to your means.
156
This suggests that symbolically, at least, the building on the farm was an important part of the
maturation of a pater familias. Later, Cato describes the other structures on his farm: the
dwelling house (villa urbana), a barn (villa rustica) and a store-room (cella) for oil and wine
(Agr. 4.1; 3.2).
In Varro, there is more systematic discussion of the parts of the villa, but there remains an
attachment to the two units featured in Cato’s farm, the villa urbana and the villa rustica. There
is, however, a fuller discussion about the intrusion of luxuria and its effects upon Roman
building habits. The following passage outlines Varro’s thinking:
Fundanius, Fructuosior, inquit, est certe fundus propter aedificia, si potius ad anticorum diligentiam quam
ad horum luxuriam derigas aedificationem. Illi enim faciebant ad fructum rationem, hi faciunt ad libidines
indomitas. Itaque illorum villae rusticae erant maioris preti quam urbanae, quae nunc sunt pleraque contra.
Illic laudabatur villa, si habebat culinam rusticam bonam, praesepis laxas, cellam vinariam et oleariam ad
modum agri aptam et pavimento proclivi in lacum, quod saepe, ubi conditum novum vinum, orcae in
Hispania fervore musti ruptae neque non dolea in Italia. Item cetera ut essent in villa huiusce modi, quae
cultura quaereret, providebant. Nunc contra villam urbanam quam maximam ac politissimam habeant dant
operam ac cum Metelli ac Luculli villis pessimo publico aedificatis certant. Quo hi laborant ut spectent sua
aestiva triclinaria ad frigus orientis, hiberna ad solem occidentem, potius quam, ut antiqui, in quam partem
cella vinaria aut olearia fenestras haberet, cum fructus in ea vinarius quaerat ad dolia aera frigidiorem, item
olearia calidiorem. Rust. 1.13.6-7.
Fundanius said “A farm is certainly more profitable, as far as buildings are concerned, if you direct
construction more towards the diligence of the ancients than the luxury of the present; for the former were
accustomed to building according to an accounting of their produce, while the latter build according to
unbridled desires. Hence the villae rusticae of the former were more costly than their villae urbanae; now,
for the most part, things are the opposite. In those days the villa was praised if it had a good, rustic kitchen,
roomy stables, a store-room for wine and oil suitable for the size of the farm, if it was equipped with a floor
that sloped down into a reservoir, because often, when new wine is stored, the large vessels from Spain,
and likewise the jars which are used in Italy, burst by the fermentation of the must. Similarly, they provided
that there be in a villa of this sort everything else which cultivation required; while nowadays, on the
contrary, they direct their efforts to having as large and refined a villa urbana as possible; and they vie with
the villas of Metellus and Lucullus, which have been built to the injury of the state. The men of our day
labor in such a way that their summer dining-rooms face the coolness of the east and their winter dining-
rooms face the rising sun, rather than, as with the ancients did, face onto what side the wine and oil cellars
have their windows, since in them, the product of the vine needs cooler air for the jars, while oil needs
warmer air.”
The mark of a luxurious villa, according to Fundanius’ discussion in Varro’s Res Rusticae, is the
size, which appears to be a function of the “libidines indomitas” (‘unbridled desires’) of Varro’s
contemporaries. The villas which receive praise in this passage are built according to the
157
specifications of the antiqui (ancients), the overwhelming character of which seems to be a
respect for proper proportion to the farm and practicality. The description here occurs in the first
book of the Res Rusticae. Varro’s presentation of Fundanius’ speech is unchallenged in the first
book. But in Book Three of the Res Rusticae, there is a debate on the definition of the villa. The
debate begins with a discussion between Appius and Axius (Rust. 3.2.2ff). Appius remarks that
the simplicity of the Villa Publica is better than Axius’ elaborate villa in Reate. Axius responds
by saying that his villa is in fact quite productive in comparison with the Villa Publica, which,
though useful for the common people and transacting public business, is not productive (Rust.
3.2.5). In the exchange between the two, another character in the dialogue, Merula, gets Axius to
agree with him: “Cum significasset nutu nihilo minus esse villam eam quae esset simplex
rustica, quam eam quae esset utrumque, et ea et urbana…” (‘When [Axius] had indicated with a
nod that a villa which was only for farm use was no less a villa than that which was outfitted for
both purposes, that of farm-house and city residence…’) (Rust. 3.2.10). Eventually, the
interlocutors begin discussing how the point of the villa is to secure income: “Quid enim refert,
utrum propter oves, an propter aves fructus capias? Anne dulcior est fructus apud te ex bubulo
pecore, unde apes nascuntur, quam ex apibus, quae ad villam Sei in alvariis opus faciunt?” (‘For
what difference does it make, whether you get income because of sheep, or birds? Whether the
profit is more lucrative at your farm from the herd of oxen, from where bees are born, than it is
from the bees, who do their work in the hives at Seius’ villa?’) (Rust. 3.2.11). Ultimately, as the
passage here shows, the discussion about the villa is directed at defending the merits of pastio
villatica as a viable and particularly lucrative form of specialization within the rural economy.
The defense involves resolving the tensions centered around the infusion of luxury within the
rural economy by showing that both forms of pastio, res pecuaria (which is in the fields and
158
involves raising livestock) and pastio villatica (pasturage centered about the homestead) allow
for the realization of the acquisitive capabilities of res rusticae (Rust. 3.2.13). But for all the
positive discussion in Book Three about the acquisitive capabilities of pastio villatica, it remains
at odds with the discussion of the villa of Book One quoted above. The difference between the
two treatments creates a kind of ambivalence in the Res Rusticae about whether to censure
luxury, or to use it as a source of income. While the tension is somewhat resolved in Book Three
in favor of the latter, Varro presents the reader with enough terms to pick where they might fall
along the ideological spectrum.
In Columella, the question of the influence of luxury in reference to the character of the
villa is far less pronounced than in Varro. While Columella’s recommendations for the size of
the farmhouse remain that same as his predecessors, his discussion is more systematic: “Modus
autem membrorumque numerus aptetur universo consaepto et dividatur in tres partes, urbanam,
rusticam, fructuariam” (‘The extent of the villa and the number of its parts should be in
proportion to the whole enclosure, and it should be divided into three parts: the villa urbana
(manor house), the villa rustica (farmhouse), and the villa fructuaria (storehouse)’) (Rust. 1.6.1).
Columella elaborates on the units of the villa by including his own innovation not found in the
other agronomists, the villa fructuaria. There are further divisions within each of the three units.
In the villa urbana, Columella includes summer and winter apartments, complete with summer
and winter bedrooms and dining-rooms (Rust. 1.6.1-2). He recommends that the villa urbana
include its own baths and promenades. For the villa rustica, on the other hand, Columella
recommends a spacious area with a high ceiling (Rust. 1.6.3). Additionally, he advises there be
cubicles for unfettered slaves, and a prison for slaves in chains. The villa rustica also features
stables for livestock, with a set of summer stalls and a set of winter stalls, both spaces covered
159
and open to the sky for animals, and with high walls to prevent wild animals from coming in and
attacking (Rust. 1.6.4). Columella also recommends that the quarters for the bailiff (vilicus) be
near the entrance of the unit as well as those of the steward (procurator). Furthermore, he
recommends there be a storehouse (horreum) nearby, with a closet inside for storing equipment.
There should be cells (cellae) for herdsmen next to the animals over which they are in charge
(Rust. 1.6.7-8). For the villa fructuaria, Columella recommends the unit be divided into rooms
(cella) for oil (oleariam), presses (torculariam), wine (vinariam), boiling down wine
(defrutariam/cortinale), loft spaces (tabulatis) for dry goods such as hay and chaff, and floor
storage (in plano) spaces for wet goods, storerooms (apothecas) and granaries (horrea);
granaries (granaria) should also be high up, accessible by ladders (Rust. 1.6.9-10). Columella
also describes the importance of granaries with a vaulted ceilings (camara contectum) and
earthen floor with Signian work
127
. Furthermore, these granaries can be divided by bins (lacibus)
for storage of different types of legumes (Rust. 1.6.12-13). The walls are plastered with amurca
(olive lees), clay, and then dried leaves. Finally, Columella says that the smoke room (fumaria)
for seasoning wood should be next to the baths for the rural folk (rusticis balneis) (Rust. 1.6.19).
The interesting aspect about the thoroughness of the discussion of the villa and the layout
of each of its constituent parts is the omission of any comments on the extravagance in
Columella’s villa. The closest Columella comes to addressing this aspect of his villa is the
statement at the beginning of his discussion, that the villa should be proportioned (apetur) to the
farm. The description of Columella’s villa urbana, however, contains some features considered
luxurious by Varro. Columella mentions that the winter dining room should face the sunset at
equinox (due west), and the summer dining rooms should face the rising sun at winter (south-
127
A floor type which consists of broken tiles mixed with mortar (Ash 1941:70).
160
east) (Rust. 1.6.2). Recall in the quote above that Varro says that his contemporaries labor over
making sure that their summer dining-rooms face the cool east, while the winter dining-rooms
face the west. The remark is contrasted with the customs of the antiqui, who had preferred to
place the summer dining-rooms towards the side where wine cellars have their windows, and
winter-dining rooms where the oil store-room had its windows (Varro, Rust. 1.13.6-7). That
Columella includes such details in his villa urbana suggests a couple of things: firstly, that
Columella is concerned with the creation of a comfortable place for the dominus/pater familias
to stay, and thus increase the frequency of his visitation; secondly, that the tension within the
Varronian account has been partially resolved; and thirdly, that this resolution entails a more
positive, expedient stance towards the market—a trend which was nascent in Varro is now more
developed in Columella. After all, Columella explicitly mentions in the discussion of his villa
locating store-rooms on the ground floor so that wet goods such as oil and wine can be readied
for selling (Rust. 1.6.9).
Viticulture and Economic Calculations
One of the strongest proofs that Columella’s conception of agricultural is deeply
concerned with the management of resources and capital is found in Book Three. After
describing the benefits of different grape varietals, the agronomist launches into an assessment of
the economics behind keeping vineyards. First, Columella explains that the best use of vineyards
is for wine: “Vitis autem vel ad escam vel ad defusionem deponitur. Ad escam non expedit
instituere vineta, nisi cum tam suburbanus est ager, ut ratio postulet inconditum fructum
mercantibus velut pomum vendere” (‘Moreover, the vine is planted either for food or pouring out
into vessels. It is not profitable to establish vineyards for food unless the land is so close to the
161
city that reason demands that we sell the raw fruit to merchants, as we sell other fruit’) (Rust.
3.2.1). The admission sets the tone for the information that follows
128
. Moreover, Columella is
quite explicit about the didactic intent behind Book Three: “Propositum est enim docere qua
ratione vineae pariter feraces et pretiosae fluxurae possint constitui” (‘For it is my plan to teach
by what system vineyards can be set up to be as fruitful as they are valuable for their wine.’)
(Rust. 3.2.32). But before Columella gets into the details of his methods, he issues some
prefatory remarks:
Nunc prius quam de satione vitium disseram, non alienum puto velut quoddam fundamentum iacere
disputationi futurae, ut ante perpensum et exploratum habeamus an locupletet patrem familiae vinearum
cultus. Est enim paene adhuc supervacuum de his conserendis praecipere, dum quod prius est, nondum
concedatur an omnino sint habendae. Idque adeo plurimi dubitent, ut multi refugiant et reformident talem
positionem ruris, atque optabiliorem pratorum possessionem pascuorumque vel silvae caeduae iudicent.
Rust. 3.3.1-2
Now before I speak about the planting of vines, I do not think it a foreign concept to lay down a kind of
foundation for our future discussion, that we should have weighed and investigated beforehand whether the
cultivation of the vine will enrich the head of household. For at this point it is almost useless to give
instruction about these plantings, as long as that very question has not yet been given precedence—whether
they should be kept at all. And about that point, most people would be doubtful to such an extent that many
would shun and fear such an arrangement of their land, and judge the possession of meadows and pastures or
woodlands for cutting to be more desirable.
The importance of the economic factor goes into an assessment of whether the prospective farmer
should cultivate vineyards or not. This question, which Columella plainly states, is one which is
unique in agricultural literature. The level of forethought which goes into this question makes clear
the importance of managing capital in the agricultural enterprise. As one of Columella’s chief
concerns, it is directed here towards ensuring that the outlay of the farm is in alignment with the
economic interests of the farmer. The passage launches Columella’s methodology for calculating
the profitability of having a vineyard. It has drawn a significant amount of interest from economic
128
Elsewhere, Columella says “At ubi vino consulimus, vitis eligitur, quae et in fructu valet et in materia, quod
alterum ad reditus coloni, alterum ad diuturnitatem stirpis plurimum confert” (‘But when are concerned with wine,
a vine is chosen which is strong in yield and substance, because the one contributes much to the return of the farmer,
and the other to the durability of the stock” (Rust. 3.2.3).
162
historians because it has been used as the basis for understanding profit ratios in ancient agriculture
(Love 1991:65).
Columella sets up the calculations by surveying a range of successful Roman vineyards.
Among them he cites figures found in Cato and Varro, who report that regions in Faventia and the
Ager Gallicus obtained yields of 600 urnae per iugerum
129
. He also reports that Seneca the
Younger’s vineyard in Nomentum reached yields of 8 cullei per iugerum. At his estate in
Ceretanum, Columella claims that some vines produced 100 amphorae to the iugerum (Rust.
3.3.2-3). But despite the fantastical (prodigialiter) success of these examples, Columella asks the
question why viticulture is in disrepute. One of the answers he provides, through Graecinus, faults
human error: “Non quidem suo sed hominum inquit vitio” (‘Not indeed because of its own fault,
but because of the fault of humans’) (Rust. 3.3.4). Columella points to the use of poor cuttings, the
fact that they do not properly nourish their vines once planted, carelessness in cultivation, poor
selection of lands for planting, ignorance of how to set the vines, lack of equipment, all due to
greed (avaritiam), ignorance (inscientiam), or neglect (neglegentiam) (Rust. 3.3.7). With
Columella’s help, he claims that the farmer can outdo the ancestral estates, because “quippe ut
diligens ratiocinator calculo posito videt id genus agricolationis maxime rei familiari conducere”
(‘naturally, as a careful accountant observes after his calculations have been made, this kind of
agriculture is especially profitable for the household’) (Rust. 3.3.8). Columella then provides a
great deal of technical calculations in order to determine if the profit made from viticulture is
more valuable than lending money out at interest. He imagines that he is working with a plot of
land of seven iugera, the cost of which is 7,000 sesterces. He also adds the cost of a good
vinedresser, 8,000 sesterces. The cost of setup (including stakes, props and willows) he reckons to
129
Varro, Rust. 1.2.7, quoting Cato, Origines.
163
be 2,000 sesterces per iugerum, 14,000 sesterces total. The sum of all these expenses is 29,000
sesterces. He also counts as an expense interest at 6% for the first 2 years that the vines do not
produce, 3,480 sesterces total. The total overall startup cost, then, is 32,480 sesterces. Columella
then reasons that in a worst case scenario (operating under the assumption that the vineyards are of
the poorest quality), the yield would be one culleus per iugerum. Assuming that the lowest market
price for one culleus would be 300 sesterces, he arrives at the figure of 2,100 sesterces profit for 7
iugera of land. This value is greater than the figure of 1,950 sesterces, which is what the landowner
would get if he lent the sum of 32,480 sesterces out at 6% interest. So even in the worst case
scenario, Columella advises that the income derived from viticulture is greater than that of lending
money out at 6% interest. The actual figures for a prospective landowner would be even more in
favor of viticulture when the worst case scenario yields are exchanged for yields which Columella
identifies as more typical (3 cullei per iugerum instead of the 1 culleus per iugerum used above).
The profit for establishing vines on the farm would then be at least 19.3 percent greater than that
derived from lending the money out at interest (Love 1991:65).
Although the calculations here seem sophisticated, many scholars find fault with them.
Finley, for example, criticizes Columella’s calculations for not taking into account important
expenses such as farm buildings, equipment, ancillary land, the maintenance costs of slaves,
depreciation and amortization (Finley 1973:117). But, as Love points out, seven iugera seems to be
not a self-supporting unit, but rather is probably part of an existing unit—the reasoning is that
Columella would not need to account for the expenses he omitted from his calculations (farm
building and other equipment). Furthermore, Love believes that costs for maintenance of the vine
dresser and other laborers could be paid in kind, leaving little reason for Columella to include them
in his calculations (Love 1991:66). From my point of view, what is significant here is the way in
164
which Columella makes his argument. His proof appeals to the logic of finance and accounting.
Specifically, in the listing of the items which represent the outlay of including viticulture on an
estate, Columella includes interest for the two years when the vines are not able to produce
product. The gesture suggests that, as Love has argued, “it was a routine matter to treat savings as
capital, that is, as an investment fund always potentially capable of bearing a monetary yield
(interest or profit); at least this seems true for the more wealthy estate owners” (Love 1991:97).
That Columella conceives of the estate in financial terms—and that he uses such reasoning to make
his argument about viticulture (one which is especially persuasive)—reveals a dimension to
Columella’s specific version of agriculture, agricolatio, that embraces the management of capital
as an essential part of the agricultural enterprise.
The Management of Dependents
Slaves played a huge role in the rural economy. Because of the widespread use of
absentee management, slaves were especially important to large agricultural estates. Through
their labor, the productive processes on the farm was made possible. As evident in the
description of slave quarters, located in the villa rustica, Columella divided them into two parts:
1) unfettered slaves, for whom there were cubicles (cellae) which were to overlook the midday
sun at equinox; 2) for fettered slaves there was an underground ergastulum, which was supposed
to be as wholesome as possible (saluberrimum) (Rust. 1.6.3). The two divisions indicate the level
of control which could be levied against the master’s dependents. Additionally, agricultural
literature contains a number of techniques for disciplining slaves and enacting controlling
measures over them. Columella’s forms of control are both direct, through the use of force (as
evident in the population of fettered slaves) and indirect, the forms of which vary from
165
compulsory and contractual obligations to psychologically manipulative practices, although it
should be stated that the exact character of the indirect practices is difficult to define. For
example, Columella recommends that the master exercise special care (praecipua cura) in the
treatment of his dependents, free or slave. He should treat his dependents civilly (comiter agat)
and present himself as courteous (facilem). He should demand work from them more greedily
than payments, for the reason that it is less likely to offend “tamen in universum magis prodest”
(‘yet generally it is more profitable’) (Rust. 1.7.1). Furthermore, Columella recommends that the
dominus exercise leniency in matters of seeking rent and other services from his dependents:
Sed nec dominus in unaquaque re, cui colonum obligaverit, tenax esse iuris sui debet, sicut in diebus
pecuniarum vel lignis et ceteris parvis accessionibus exigendis, quarum cura maiorem molestiam quam
impensam rusticis adfert; nec sane est vindicandum nobis quicquid licet, nam summum ius antiqui
summam putabant crucem. Rust. 1.7.2
But the master should not be stubborn as to his rights in every single particular to which he has bound his
tenant, such as the day for payment, or in requiring firewood and other small, insignificant additions, care
over which brings more annoyance than expense for the country-folk; in fact, we should not lay claim to
whatever the law allows, for the ancients used to think that the extreme of the law was a form of extreme
misery.
The logic of exploitation here is to form a good relationship with one’s dependents in order to
benefit the dominus in the task of securing profit. The advantage is mutual, with the dependents
also experiencing the goodwill of the master. Ultimately, the end of the relationship is, however,
profit, as Columella describes through the saying of one Alfius the usurer “vel optima nomina
non apellando fieri mala” (‘even the best debts, by not being called in, become bad’) (Rust.
1.7.2-3). Additionally, Columella follows Publius Volusius in advising that estates should be let
out to native groups (colonos indigenas) for the reason that they treat the estate as if it had been
their fathers. The selection of the tenants is especially important for the success of the farm:
Ita certe mea fert opinio rem malam esse frequentem locationem fundi, peiorem tamen urbanum colonum,
qui per familiam mavult agrum quam per se colere. Saserna dicebat ab eius modi homine fere pro mercede
litem reddi, propter quod operam dandam esse ut et rusticos et eosdem assiduos colonos retineamus, cum
aut nobismet ipsis non licuerit aut per domesticos colere non expedierit. Rust. 1.7.3-4
166
So, without a doubt, I think that the repeated leasing of an estate is a bad thing, but an even worse is the
city tenant who prefers to cultivate the land through his slaves rather than by himself. Saserna was in the
habit of saying that instead of revenue, a lawsuit was usually the return from this sort of man, and because
of this, we should direct our efforts to retaining tenants who are both country-folk and also attentive
farmers, when we are prevented from tilling the land ourselves, or it is not expedient to cultivate it with our
own servants.
What seems to be a generous policy is instituted not to preserve the local character of a
community, but rather to generate profit for the master. At least that is the stated objective, the
two outcomes happen to coincide in this instance. Absentee management is censured here for the
gross negligence it encourages in the owner, but allowances are granted for the dominus who is
unable to control his land himself or through his slaves. Nevertheless, Columella is clear that the
presence of the master is the most important tool of control. Columella claims that the returns are
the best when the master is able to surveil the work: “Ceterum cum mediocris adest et salubritas
et terrae bonitas, numquam non ex agro plus sua cuique cura reddidit quam coloni, numquam
non etiam vilici, nisi si maxima vel neglegentia servi vel rapacitas intervenit” (‘On the other
hand, when the wholesomeness [of the climate] is moderate and excellence is present in the soil,
the owner’s personal attention always yields larger return from his land than does that of a
tenant—always more than even an overseer, unless the greatest negligence or greed on the part
of the slave interferes’) (Rust. 1.7.5). The surveillance carried out under the presence of the
master is supposed to discourage the negligence of the slave because he has the power to remove
such people from their positions. When it is not possible for the master to frequent the farm,
Columella recommends that it be let out to free tenants (liberis colonis) rather than slave
overseers (vilicis servis), especially for grain land. Slaves are, in Columella’s view, negligent to
the point where they cause significant damage to the farm. The varied offenses slaves commit
include letting out oxen for hire and keeping the animals poorly fed; ploughing the ground
carelessly; making false notes about how much grain has been sown and neglecting the seeds
167
that have been sown; stealing the grain when it is brought to the threshing floor (Rust. 1.7.6-7).
In effect, Columella views a full-blown failure on the part of the workers and management: “Ita
fit, ut et actor et familia peccent et ager saepius infametur” (‘Thus it happens that the manager
and the slaves commit faults, and very frequently the land is brought into disrepute’) (Rust.
1.7.7). The reasoning forms the basis for Columella’s advocacy of leasing land out to free
tenants.
Managing the Overseer and his Staff
Columella is more selective about the appointing of an overseer (vilicus) than his
predecessors. For this position and for the rest of the slave staff, Columella institutes pacifying
techniques and regulations designed to secure profit and smooth over master-slave relations. The
techniques are multiple and display a tremendous amount of forethought, as evident in the litany
of traits which make up his ideal overseer. Slave-types which are anathema to good managerial
practices are also included as a kind of negative definition of the ideal overseer—the overseer
should not be an attractive slave, he should not be acquainted with urbane luxury. This type of
slave (genus… mancipiorum) is lazy (socors), sleepy (somniculosum), and is accustomed to
idling at the Campus Martius, the Circus, theaters, cook-shops, and brothels. When he gambles,
the master’s estate suffers loss. Instead of this type of slave, Columella recommends a man with
much experience in farm work: “Eligendus est rusticis operibus ab infante duratus et inspectus
experimentis” (‘A man hardened by farm work from the time of his infancy and tested with
experience should be chosen’) (Rust. 1.8.2). He should be beyond his youth, but not too old, the
reason being that those with excessive youth are generally not authoritative in their command,
especially since older men do not often listen to them (Rust. 1.8.3-4). The vilicus should also be
168
“peritus rerum rusticarum aut certe maximae curae, quo celerius addiscat” (‘skilled in rustic
matters or truly a man of the greatest attention, so that he might learn more quickly’) (Rust.
1.8.4). There should be a willingness on his part to engage in each task “Nam non est nostri
negotii alterum imperare et alterum docere; neque enim recte opus exigere valet, qui quid aut
qualiter faciendam sit ab subiecto discit” (‘For it is not part of our business that one man give
orders and another man instruct; nor is it a good thing that a man, who learns from his underling
in what way something should be done, demand work’) (Rust. 1.8.4). The comment here is an
effective illustration of Columella’s sustained interest in rectifying the arrangement where
thinking has been separated from doing in agricultural tasks. The ideal is held for the pater
familias and flows down a chain of command where it is just as vital for the vilicus to follow as it
is for the pater familias. Columella also details the desired level of intelligence of the overseer,
who he says can be illiterate as long as he possesses a good memory. This kind of overseer is
more likely to benefit his master than himself because he cannot falsify the estate’s accounts and
would be less likely to do it with another’s aid because another would be aware of his deception
(Rust. 1.8.5).
Aside from the above prescriptions, Columella advances a number of psychological
manipulations to elicit desired behavior from his overseer and staff in order to create a culture of
compliance and engagement. Female companionship, for example, is cited as a motivation to
keep the vilicus inside the villa urbana and to help him with carrying out tasks inside the
household. At the same time, intimacy with other members of the household or even outside the
household is discouraged. The extent of the psychological manipulation can also be observed in
Columella urging his readers to reward the vilicus by recognizing him for his being “assidue
sedulum” (‘constantly industrious’) and “fortem in operibus administrandis” (‘capable in
169
managing operations’) (Rust. 1.8.5). The reward for the vilicus’ exemplary behavior is also a
chance to become more acquainted with the master: “…honoris causa mensae suae die festo
dignetur adhibere” (‘…for his public honor he should be deemed worthy to invite to your table
on a feast day’) (Rust. 1.8.5). The gesture ensures goodwill on the part of the master, while the
public recognition allows the vilicus to develop a good reputation among the staff. At the same
time, secure profit underlies the relationship. Similar techniques are used on other types of slaves
(in ceteribus servis). Columella claims that he always talks in a more familiar (familiarius) way
with his country slaves (rusticos) than with the city slaves (urbanos). As a means of reducing the
burden of the household staff’s work, Columella tells how he is in the habit of joking with them
and granting them more license to joke. One of the more seemingly modern devices used by
Columella is the practice of incorporating his staff’s input in carrying out certain tasks:
Iam illud saepe facio, ut quasi cum peritioribus de aliquibus operibus novis deliberem et per hoc
cognoscam cuiusque ingenium, quale quamque sit prudens. Tum etiam libentius eos id opus adgredi video,
de quo secum deliberatum et consilio ipsorum susceptum putant. Rust. 1.8.15-16
Now I often make it a habit to deliberate with them about any new work as if they were more experienced,
and through this I come to know the innate ability of each man and how intelligent he is. Then, I see that
they are more willing to set about that work on which they have been consulted and they think that it has
been undertaken by their advice.
The passage shows Columella’s grasp of some of the factors which make up the productivity of
human labor power. As Braverman explains, the purchase of labor power by a firm is the
purchase of potential. The realization of this potential is “limited by the subjective state of the
workers, by their previous history, by the general social conditions under which they work as
well as the particular conditions of the enterprise, and by the technical setting of their labor”
(Braverman 1998:39). In my view, the passage from De Re Rustica above represents an attempt
to tap into the subjective potential of the slave workforce. Columella’s advice resonates with
modern management styles which advise that management seek the input of its workers for its
170
operations in an effort to ‘humanize’ the work process, which has been fragmented. The insight
is Braverman’s and the context is a scenario where workers have been forced to sell their labor
power to a firm. Braverman views this as the worker surrendering interest in the labor process,
which is now the interest of the firm. Under these antagonistic conditions, “the problem of
realizing ‘the full usefulness’ of the labor he has bought becomes exacerbated by the opposing
interests of those for whose purpose the labor process is carried on, and those who, on the other
side, carry it on” (Braverman 1998:39). Columella’s advice thus gives the appearance of being
interested in the slaves’ input, but only to prepare his subjective state for the illusion that the
interest of the master is the interest of the slave—the position of the slave relative to the master
remains unaltered. The resonance of Columella’s recommendations above with modern
management styles can be further explained by Braverman’s statement that these forms of
management “are characterized by a studied pretense of worker ‘participation,’ a gracious
liberality in allowing a worker to adjust a machine, replace a lightbulb, move from one fractional
job to another, and to have the illusion of making decisions by choosing among fixed and limited
alternatives designed by a management which deliberately leaves insignificant matters open to
choice” (Braverman 1998:27). Thus, Columella’s advice in the passage above is a master-class
in worker manipulation. The effectiveness of Columella’s advice hinges on the desire for
recognition in the labor process. But this recognition on the part of the master is ultimately
illusory, and used for his interest. It is telling that evaluation accompanies the recognition
process which is so integral to the master-slave relationship.
Constant recognition, however, could create a scenario in which the household staff,
especially the vilicus, become increasingly independent and imagine themselves to be as
important as the master. In order to avoid such a situation, Columella recommends that the
171
dominus check the independence of the vilicus through certain measures. For example, the
dominus is told to disallow the vilicus from making his own sacrifices or inviting haruspices
(soothsayers) or sagae (witches) to the house, especially since they incite the household to
undertake unnecessary expenses and shameful deeds (Rust. 11.1.22). Furthermore, the extent of
the relationship between the vilicus and the city is limited to making purchases and sales which
pertain to his duties. Otherwise, he should not leave the farm except to learn something about
farming, provided that the place is nearby. Nor should he receive guests or friends, unless they
are a friend or relative of the master (Rust. 1.8.6-7). Columella also requires that the estate be
equipped with double the necessary tools and iron equipment. He explicitly supplies a reason for
this recommendation: “quia plus in operis servorum quam in pretio rerum eius
modi consumitur” (‘because more is wasted in the work of the slaves than in the cost of the items
of this sort’) (Rust. 1.8.8). The economic reasoning implies that it is important to have slaves at
home ready to work. The other general rules provided by Columella ensure that the overseer
does not take advantage of his position for personal gain. Employment of a fellow-slave by the
overseer is discouraged unless specified by the master, as is the strict control of the consumption
of food. The overseer must take his meal in the view of the household (in conspectu familiae)
and eat the same food (Rust. 1.8.12). The advice seems aimed at making the overseer appear to
not have any special treatment despite the prominence of his position, communicating to the
overseer that his position does not make him the better of his fellow-slaves and thereby
confirming that view for the other slaves. The limitation of the overseer’s independence is also
seen in specific instructions prohibiting him from carrying out business on his own account and
investing the master’s funds in livestock or other goods. Such behavior is deemed a distraction
and will prevent the availability of cash and the estate from settling its accounts (Rust. 1.8.13). In
172
this instance, the preference for having cash over goods and investments suggests that Columella
views the overseer’s purpose as securing income and running the estate, rather than making any
business decisions or dealings which might detract from this primary goal.
Competency in the slave staff, especially in the vilicus, takes on a number of forms. One
manifestation of this concern mirrors the discussion about the various competencies necessary
for the perfectus agricola in the preface to the first book of the treatise, where the knowledge
necessary to become a perfectus agricola is limited. For the vilicus, as for the perfectus agricola,
Columella emphasizes experience: “in universum tamen hoc maxime obtinendum ab eo est,
nequid se putet scire quod nesciat, quaeratque semper addiscere quod ignorat” (‘nevertheless, in
general this one thing especially should be demonstrated by him, he should not think that he
knows something which he does not know, and he should always seek to learn what he does not
know’) (Rust. 1.8.13). Such a character in an overseer is aimed at safeguarding the master’s
investment by placing in charge a vilicus with the drive to perform tasks correctly. The emphasis
on acquisition of skill is further rationalized when Columella stresses the benefits offered by
knowledge of the practice of agriculture:
Unum enim ac solum dominatur in rusticatione, quicquid exigit ratio culturae, semel facere, quippe cum
emendatur vel imprudentia vel neglegentia, iam res ipsa decoxit nec in tantum postmodo exuberat, ut et se
amissam restituat et quaestum temporum praeteritorum resarciat. Rust. 1.8.14
For there is one and only one thing which dominates in agriculture, that is to do a single time whatever the
method of cultivation requires, since, when either ignorance or negligence is corrected, already the matter
of importance has wasted away, and it does not improve afterwards to the degree that it restores itself after
the loss has been suffered and restore the profit of the time that has past.
Columella establishes a good starting point for selecting a vilicus based on skill or the drive to
acquire skill by learning from others. It is extremely difficult, however, to gauge what kind of skill
is necessary, let alone to what degree an individual possesses the drive to acquire skill. This
realization may be why Columella is so emphatic about the importance of the master’s presence.
173
His attitude provides an additional level of safeguarding measures in order to protect the master
and his investment in his estate.
Surveillance and Management
Monitoring slaves is a practice also reported in Cato, who recommends that the first thing
the master does upon visiting his estate (after paying respect to the household god) is to perform an
inspection
130
. But in Columella, the concept receives an intense refocusing in the context of his
instructions on the management of slaves. Columella continues Cato’s concern in the following
passage:
Nam illa sollemnia sunt omnibus circumspectis, ut ergastuli mancipia recognoscant, ut explorent an diligenter
vincti sint, an ipsae sedes custodiae satis tutae munitaeque sint, num vilicus aut alligaverit quempiam domino
nesciente aut revinxerit. Rust. 1.8.16
For following practices are customary for all men who exercise caution, to examine the slaves of the
workhouse, to investigate whether they have been chained carefully, whether the spaces of confinement
themselves are adequately safe and secure, whether the overseer has placed anyone in chains or unbound them
with the master unaware.
In one sense surveillance is aimed at establishing a basic sense of accountability, both in the
context of the relationship between the master and the rest of his staff as well as between the
overseer and the staff. The surveillance on the master’s part ensures that his authority is maintained
in the household through the vilicus’ compliance with the master’s orders. It is also a means of
checking on the living conditions and treatment of the slaves, specifically, the extent to which these
are in compliance with the master’s wishes. Furthermore, the custom of inspection is aimed at
ensuring that the household is run with some notion of justice, as Columella states:
130
“Pater familias ubi ad villam venit, ubi larem familiarem salutavit, fundum eodem die, si potest, circumeat; si
non eodem die, at postridie” (‘When the master arrives at the villa, after paying his respects to the god of the
household, let him go over the whole farm, if possible, on the same day; if not on that day, at least on the next’)
(Cato, Agr. 2.1).
174
Tantoque curiosior inquisitio patris familiae debet esse pro tali genere servorum, ne aut in vestiariis aut in
ceteris praebitis iniuriose tractentur, quanto et pluribus subiecti, ut vilicis, ut operum magistris, ut ergastulariis,
magis obnoxii perpetiendis iniuriis, et rursus saevitia atque avaritia laesi magis timendi sunt. Rust. 1.8.16
The inquiry of the head of the household, on behalf of such a type of slave, ought to be more careful—so that
that either they are not treated unjustly in the case of clothing or in other offerings—by as much as they are
subject to a greater number of people, such as overseers, managers of workers, jailers; the more they are liable
to enduring insults, and repeatedly injured by cruelty and greed, the more they should be feared.
Concern for just treatment extended to both fettered and unfettered slaves. That this is a vital part
of the management of an estate and its work force demonstrates the dual nature of the slave. The
slave is both a subject, a worker over whom care is directed, and an object, a form of property
which must be maintained enough to continue to perform his required functions. The logic is
evident in the recommendation that the master test slaves’ food and drink and examine their
clothing (Rust. 1.8.18). Intense surveillance also means that the system of rewards and
punishments are justly distributed by a diligent master (diligens dominus) in an attempt to create
order within the household. Hierarchy is maintained even in this facet of estate management, with
the word of unfettered slaves carrying more weight than those who are fettered. Surveillance is
extended to include not only what is visible to the master himself, but also the account of slaves.
Slaves are given the opportunity to make frequent complaints about those who treat them cruelly or
dishonestly. In response to these accounts, Columella claims “Nos quidem aliquando iuste dolentes
tam vindicamus, quam animadvertimus in eos, qui seditionibus familiam concitant, qui
calumniantur magistros suos; ac rursus praemio prosequimur eos, qui strenue atque industrie se
gerunt” (‘Indeed, we sometimes compensate those who rightly feel aggrieved as much as we inflict
punishment against those who incite the household with seditions, or those who bring false
accusations against their taskmasters; and again we present with a reward those who conduct
themselves energetically and diligently’) (Rust. 1.8.18). Along these lines, Columella grants
exemption from work for women who have given birth to three sons and freedom for those who
birth more than three. The rationale given for the treatment of slaves in this way is that it
175
contributes greatly to the increase of the estate: “Haec et iustitia et cura patris familiae
multum confert augendo patrimonio” (‘This justice and concern of the master brings much to the
increase of the estate’) (Rust. 1.8.19).
A similar articulation of the benefits of surveillance are found in Columella’s statement
about the character of the vilicus:
Nec tantum operis agrestis sit artifex, sed et animi, quantum servile patitur ingenium, virtutibus instructus, ut
neque remisse neque crudeliter imperet semperque aliquos ex melioribus foveat, parcat tamen etiam minus
bonis, ita ut potius timeant eius severitatem, quam crudelitatem detestentur. Rust. 1.8.10
Not only should he be skilled in the work of the farm, but also, as much as his servile nature allows, instructed
in the virtues of the mind, so that he does not give orders gently or cruelly, and always favors some of the
better slaves, and yet he should also be sparing of even the less good, in such a way that they fear his
harshness rather than detest his cruelty.
The qualification that Columella is discussing a slave with a servile ingenium (servile nature) limits
the extent to which Columella views a similarity between the tasks of the master and the vilicus,
but the advice here is close to the sections about how the dominus should treat his dependents.
There is also a reassertion of the importance of presence: “Nulla est autem maior vel nequissimi
hominis custodia quam operis exactio, ut iusta reddantur, ut vilicus semper se repraesentet”
(‘there is no better guard against even the most worthless man than the demand of labor, that the
proper tasks are rendered, that the overseer always makes himself present’) (Rust. 1.8.11). The
presence of the vilicus causes the foremen (magistri) to carry out their duties more vigorously, an
effect which in turn influences the performance of the other workers. One of the benefits of
Columella’s recommendation of constant surveillance is to create order and stability in the
household, brought about by an increase in worker productivity. Harsh labor is cited as having an
exhausting effect upon workers, who, because they are tired, are supposed to direct their attention
to rest and sleep rather than to luxuries (deliciis) (Rust. 1.8.11).
176
Specialization
As we saw in the discussion on the different types of villa and the subsequent division of
their various parts above, there is another movement towards specialization in Columella’s
instructions on slave occupations. That specialization of the various positions of slaves is an
explicit goal in Columella is evident by his remarks on its incorporation into labor management. At
one point in the treatise, Columella censures the form of labor organization where slaves take part
in every task:
Nam id minime conducit agricolae, seu quia nemo suum proprium aliquod esse opus credit, seu quia cum
enisus est, non suo sed communi officio proficit ideoque labori multum se subtrahit nec tamen viritim
malefactum deprehenditur, quod fit a multis. Rust. 1.9.6
For this is in no way useful for the farmer, either because no one believes that any particular task is his own,
or because when he has exerted himself, he accomplishes it not for his own sake, but as a common duty, and
for this reason he withdraws himself from working hard, yet the poorly accomplished task is not attributed to
each man separately because it was done by many.
It is for this reason that Columella is an advocate for ploughmen (aratores) to be distinguished
from vinedressers (vinitores), and each of these men from the common servants (mediastinis) on
the farm. The reasons given for adhering to the principle of specialization are multiplie—here, a
mix of the various concerns above are surveyed. Specialization allows for the master’s surveillance
of individual slaves and the tasks which were assigned to him. This gives managers of operations
on the farm a system of accountability as well as opportunities for psychological manipulation of
slaves. The system of surveillance allows individual slaves to be praised for their work and instills
in them a sense of ownership and pride. All of these occur in the service of the master.
The specificity of Columella’s principles of specialization is further seen in his assigning of
ideal body and mind types (habitum corporis aut animi) for specific occupations. The manager of
flocks is ideally diligent (sedulos) and extremely frugal (frugalissimos). The concern for frugality
is one carried over from Cato and it feeds into a larger discourse about competency, especially
177
for the vilicus. Columella advocates for a general frugality in most matters. An illustration of this
feature of slave management has to do with the dress of the slaves: “Cultam vestitamque
familiam magis utiliter quam delicate habeat” (‘He should consider care and clothing for the
household more in terms of utility than in terms of pleasure’) (Rust. 1.8.9). In terms of
usefulness, the agronomist promotes long-sleeved leather tunics, garments of patchwork, or
hooded cloaks; all of which ward against wind, cold, and rain (Rust. 1.8.9). In any case, diligence
and frugality are more important for the magister pecoris than stature and strength: “quoniam id
ministerium custodiae diligentis et artis officium est” (‘because that is an occupancy of careful
watching and a service of skill’) (Rust. 1.9.2). For the ploughman (Bubulcus), although strength
and intelligence are a plus, a big voice (vastitas vocis) and a demeanor of being more terrifying
(terribilior) than cruel are most important. The combination is aimed at ensuring oxen obey the
ploughman’s commands and are worn out by the hardship of the work (vexatione operum) rather
than the lash (Rust. 1.9.3). Moreover, Columella argues that taller men should be ploughmen:
“quod in re rustica nullo minus opere fatigatur prolixior, quia in arando stivae paene rectus
innititur” (‘because the taller man is fatigued less by no other job in agriculture, because while
almost upright during ploughing he leans on the handle’) (Rust. 1.9.3). Meanwhile, Columella
explains that the common worker (mediastinus) can be any height as long as he is enduring of hard
work: “Mediastinus qualiscumque status potest esse, dummodo perpetiendo labori sit idoneus”
(‘The common worker can be of whatever height, as long as he his capable of enduring labor’).
And the vineyards require men who are broad-shouldered and brawny (latos et lacertosos viros):
“nam hic habitus fossuris et putationibus ceterisque earum culturis magis aptus” (‘for this type of
physique is better suited for digging and pruning and other forms of cultivation’) (Rust. 1.9.4).
Vinedressers are not required to be possessed of self-restraint (frugalitatem) since they work in a
178
crowd (in turba) and under supervision (sub monitore). Columella notes that dishonest men have a
tendency to gravitate toward this work since it requires a sharper mind: “Minus in hoc officio quam
in ceteris agricolatio frugalitatem requirit, quia et in turba et sub monitore vinitor opus facere
debet ac plerumque velocior animus est improborum hominum, quem desiderat huius operis
conditio” (‘Agriculture is less demanding of self-restraint in this department than others, since the
vinedresser ought to do his work in a crowd and under supervision, and for the most part, the mind
of wicked men is more quick-witted, which the nature of this work demands’) (Rust. 1.9.4). Thus,
it is a widespread custom that vineyards are tilled by slaves in fetters (alligatos). At this point,
Columella corrects this tendency with some moralizing so as to reassert proper values: “Nihil
tamen eiusdem agilitatis homo frugi non melius quam nequam faciet”, (‘Nevertheless an honest
man of such quickness will do nothing worse than a wicked man’) (Rust. 1.9.5).
After clarifying the benefits of specialization as well as the assignment of duties based on
ideal mind and body types, Columella specifies further details on the organization of slave labor in
the estate. These detailed recommendations lay out the ideal size of a crew so as to efficiently
extract labor power from the slave staff. Columella rationalizes his specifications by drawing upon
the past. The ancients approvingly used groups of ten called decuriae “quod is numeri modus in
opere commodissime custodiretur nec praeeuntis monitoris diligentiam multitudo confunderet”
(‘because this restriction in number of people at work was monitored most easily, and the size of
people did not perplex the industriousness of the overseer leading the way’) (Rust. 1.9.7).
Columella adds that groups of two should not be used in big fields because scattered groups are
more difficult to watch. He also warns against groups bigger than ten because “ubi nimia turba sit,
id opus ad se pertinere singuli non existiment” (‘when the crowd of workers is excessive,
individuals may judge that the work does not pertain to them’) (Rust. 1.9.8). Columella possesses
179
the belief that this arrangement (ordinatio) stimulates rivalry (aemulationem) and discloses the
slothful (ignavos): “nam cum certamine opus excitetur, tum in cessantes animadversio iusta et sine
querela videtur adhiberi” (‘for when work is stimulated with competitive rivalry, then the
punishment of the loiterers seems to be applied justly and without complaint’) (Rust. 1.9.8). Thus,
within the hierarchy of the familia, competition becomes a tool through which control is exercised
over the work force. And in the context of competition, praise and blame are naturalized.
Thus far I have argued that the tensions surrounding market dependence which had
characterized Columella’s predecessors have been partially resolved through Columella’s explicit
instruction on the management of capital and a movement away from market dependence
(through both strategic market engagement and the principle of autarky). These are some of the
features which define Columella’s conception of agriculture (agricolatio). The management of
capital includes not only an open acknowledgment of the knowledge and expenses required to
run a farm, but also practical instruction on the best practices and techniques for managing
workers. Columella shows a willingness to recognize the role of capital and to incorporate it into
his conception of agriculture. In the next chapter I explore how the management of the estate’s
dependents taps into a broader discourse on the administration of the empire. This is the basis for
a political reading of the De Re Rustica.
180
Chapter Five: Politics of the Household and the State
In the previous chapter I argued that the management of capital was an important
feature distinguishing Columella’s version of agriculture (agricolatio) and that of his
predecessors. The task of this chapter is to show how Columella’s disquisition on household
management looks beyond its immediate subject. I aim to examine Columella’s precepts of labor
management
131
, as well as the various literary allusions contained within them, in order to argue
that Columella’s presentation of household provides the conditions for the possibility of a
political reading of the De Re Rustica. I stress that I am not arguing that this is Columella’s
intention, but rather that it is a potential reading of his text, and a feature of Roman imperial
ideology.
The Household, the State, and the Cosmos: Different Forms of Ruling
Cicero’s De Re Publica is an important text for understanding the intellectual and
political background out of which Columella’s De Re Rustica arises. It is Cicero’s
exhortation to participation in public life (a rejection of the Aristotelian and Platonic view
about the superiority of contemplation over action) which seems to inform Columella’s
approach to encouraging elite action. We have already seen how Cicero’s figure of the
complete orator reappeared in Columella’s theorization of the agricola perfectus. For our
current purposes, my specific interest in the De Re Publica is in examining its treatment
of estate management and its view on the connection between the household and the
state. As mentioned above, these elements in Cicero’s text are re-examined in the De Re
131
Especially how they are shaped by the unique conception of labor detailed in Aristotle’s Politics (Pol. 1.2
1253b5-10).
181
Rustica. But before I outline how these elements reappear in the De Re Rustica, I discuss
their appearance in the De Re Publica. My discussion is in three parts. Firstly, I address
how the relationship between the cosmos, the state, and the household is framed as one of
scale. Then, how the invocation of scale aids in the application of aspects of household
management to the administration of the state. Finally, how Cicero locates these elements
in the figures who run the state and provides a configuration of philosophical learning
that combines theory with practice and is adopted by Columella.
It does not take long for these interests to arise within the De Re Publica. The
dialogue in Book One begins at the estate of Publius Scipio Africanus, who is joined by
his nephew, Tubero. They set about finding a way to spend their leisure, with Scipio
voicing the goal that they devote their attention to studies of erudition (Rep. 1.14).
Tubero brings up the topic of the parhelion, a meteorological phenomenon witnessed by
the senate in 129 BC. The topic generates a discussion about the connection between
philosophy and the administration of the state. Scipio questions the usefulness of thinking
about such matters, citing Socrates’ hesitation to engage with such topics (by pointing out
that they are either beyond human understanding or far removed from human existence)
as a reason for his own neglect of such matters. Tubero counters by saying that Plato’s
Socrates often connected morals, virtues and public life with numbers, geometry, and
harmony (Rep. 1.16). Later, after Publius Rutilius and Philus enter, followed closely by
Laelius thereafter, the topic of the parhelion comes up again, to which Laelius responds
“iam explorata nobis sunt ea, quae ad domos nostras quaeque ad rem publicam
pertineant? siquidem, quid agatur in caelo, quaerimus?” (‘have we already explored
182
those things which pertain to our households and to the commonwealth? If so, are we
now seeking what is happening in the sky?’). Philus explains:
An tu ad domos nostras non censes pertinere scire, quid agatur et quid fiat domi? quae non ea est,
quam parietes nostri cingunt, sed mundus hic totus, quod domicilium quamque patriam di nobis
communem secum dederunt, cum praesertim, si haec ignoremus, multa nobis et magna ignoranda
sint. Rep. 1.19
Do you not think that it pertains to our homes to know what is happening at home and why it
happens? [Our home] is not what our walls surround, but this whole universe, which the gods have
given to us as a home and a kind of fatherland in common with them, and if we ignore these things
particularly, we must be ignoring things many and great.
The exchange here is a debate about the merits of philosophical studies over concern for the
household and the state. Laelius’ position questions the value of things outside the household and
the state, while Philus’ position, although it embraces the merits of philosophical study, does not
wholly negate concern for the household and the state. In fact, Philus’ remarks signal a move
towards a broader understanding of the household’s relationship to the outside world. The effect
of Philus’ point is an extension of the concern for the household and the state to matters outside
of one’s immediate position. This conceptual interlinking creates a dialectic where the concern
with one area enriches the understanding of another. Thus, one can locate the political in natural
philosophy and the household. At the same time, the concept of order within the household is
seen as an important part of both the cosmos and the state.
Elsewhere, Cicero’s text explains how the cosmos can be used to understand certain
features of the state. In the course of the argument against injustice on behalf of justice, Laelius
touches upon the topic of empire, the just war, and the conditions of its undertaking (safety and
good faith) (De civ. D. 22.6). Augustine, a major source for some of the De Re Publica’s
fragments, tells us that in the text there is a comparison made between how death can free an
individual from punishment, while for a state, death means something altogether different. In
order to make this point, Cicero notes the importance of scale: “Civitas autem cum tollitur,
183
deletur, extinguitur, simile est quodam modo, ut parva magnis conferamus, ac si omnis hic
mundus intereat et concidat” (‘But when a state is razed, destroyed, extinguished, in a certain
way it is like, to compare small things to great things, if this entire cosmos should perish and
fall’) (Rep. 3.34b). There is an explicitness about the methodology of comparison. The sense
here is similar to that expressed earlier by Philus at 1.19, where he argues that the sense of home
should be extended to include the cosmos. But in this passage, the destruction of a state is
likened to a cosmic event as significant as ekpyrosis, the destruction of the cosmos in fire. The
tactic by Cicero here underlines the importance of maintaining the commonwealth in order to
avoid a catastrophe as serious as the destruction of the cosmos: the res publica has the potential
to be eternal (perpetua) if maintained by ancestral laws and customs (Rep. 3.41).
The invocation of different scales of organization offers a kind of privileged insight into
an object under discussion. In one example, scale is used to clarify differences of hierarchy
between different forms of organization.
Sed et imperandi et serviendi sunt dissimilitudines cognoscendae. Nam ut animus corpori dicitur
imperare, dicitur etiam libidini, sed corpori ut rex civibus suis aut parens liberis, libidini autem ut
servis dominus, quod eam coercet et frangit, sic regum, sic imperatorum, sic magistratuum, sic
patrum, sic populorum imperia civibus sociisque praesunt ut corporibus animus, domini autem
servos ita fatigant, ut optima pars animi, id est sapientia, eiusdem animi vitiosas imbecillasque
partes, ut libidines, ut iracundias, ut perturbationes ceteras. Rep. 3.37a
But the differences of ruling and slavery ought to be recognized. For the mind is said to rule over
the body, and is even said to rule over desire, but the mind rules over the body as a king rules over
his subjects, or a parent over his children; on the other hand, it rules over desire as a master rules
over his servants, because he controls and subdues it. The rights of command—of kings, generals,
magistrates, parents, and nations—are placed over citizens and allies, just as the mind rules over
the body. But masters out tire their slaves in the way that the best part of the mind, which is
wisdom, tires the faulty and weak parts of the mind, such as desire, anger, and other disturbances.
The differences in forms of ruling and subjugation clarify the nature of the relationship
between ruler and his subjects through the invocation of different scales of organization
and their arrangements. The language in this passage which aids in distinguishing
between the different forms of domination in these various relationships is expressed by
184
the phrase “coercet et frangit” (‘controlling and subduing’) and “fatigant” (‘tiring out’).
This more absolute form of control describes the power of the mind over its desires, or a
master over his servants. The language recalls the context of pasturage through the
metaphor of the breaking of a horse. In any case, these words indicate a relationship
whose fundamental character is one of struggle. The other forms of rule are primarily
rooted in a wide array of institutions and organizations which operate by a set of
established hierarchical procedures. The monarchic form of government, the military,
civic officials, political and familial institutions—all constitute individuals as subjects.
The nature of power exercised in these relationships is more indirect and based upon a
more consensual form of rule. The difference between the master-slave relationship and
other forms of rule is made especially clear in Book One of the De Re Publica, where
Scipio, in a fragmentary reply to Laelius about which form of government is the best,
argues that monarchy is the best form of simple government because the name of the king
is fatherly (patrium), he looks after his subjects as if they were his children (ut ex se
natis), and eagerly takes care of (consulentis) and protects (conservantis) his citizens. He
concludes by saying the citizens benefit by “sustentari unius optimi et summi viri
diligentia” (‘being sustained by the diligence of one man, the best and greatest” (Rep.
1.54). Despite its fragmentary character, this passage illustrates the grouping together of
the monarchic form of government and the relationship of the father to his household.
Discussions about these different forms of rule are necessarily tied to individual
figures and a description of their powers over their subjects and dependents. The
monarchic form of government, for example, is championed not by appeal to the paternal
relationship, but because of the benefit provided by one person being in charge. Scipio
185
makes this point to Laelius after noting the importance of Jupiter’s singular rule (Rep.
1.56). But Laelius dismisses this point as being distant, leading to Scipio’s review of the
regal period in Roman history. Laelius again dismisses Scipio’s example on the grounds
that the kings were proud or the people were barbarians (Rep. 1.58). Scipio turns from
history to philosophy, with both men agreeing that anger should never be allowed to rule
their minds. But Scipio uses this agreement to argue for the benefit of the monarchic
government for ruling the res publica because in his view, rule divided into many parts
results in there being no power at all (Rep. 1.60). Laelius is still resistant, believing there
is little difference between forms of government if justice is involved. Scipio then turns
to Laelius’ own practices to argue that Laelius himself put one man in charge of his
estate:
Quia animum adverti nuper, cum essemus in Formiano, te familiae valde interdicere, ut uni dicto audiens
esset. L. Quippe vilico. S. Quid? domi pluresne praesunt negotiis tuis? L. Immo vero unus, inquit. S. Quid?
totam domum num quis alter praeter te regit? L. Minime vero. S. Quin tu igitur concedis idem in re publica,
singulorum dominatus, si modo iusti sint, esse optimos? L. Adducor, inquit, ut prope modum adsentiar.
Rep. 1.61.
Because recently I observed, when we were at Formiae, that you firmly ordered your slaves to listen to the
one appointed person. Laelius: my overseer, of course. Scipio: What about the city? Are there many people
in charge of your affairs at Rome? Laelius: On the contrary, there is only one. Scipio: What about your
household? Does another person rule your whole household aside from yourself? Laelius: Not at all.
Scipio: Then why do you not therefore concede that it is similar in the res publica, that the rule of a single
person, if he is just, is the best? Laelius: I am being persuaded, he said, to nearly agree with you.
As a contrast to the stability of singular rule, Cicero’s description civil discord at Rep. 1.67
highlights the breakdown of hierarchical relations: citizens are deemed slaves and the distinction
between citizen and magistrate is erased. An excess of liberty leads to the destruction of social
relationships in the household, effectively destroying any notion of hierarchy (dominatione).
There is a complete removal of any kind of master (dominus). The gravity of the situation is used
to advocate for participation in public life. Laelius explains the knowledge capable of preventing
this situation: “Eas artis, quae efficiant, ut usui civitati simus; id enim esse praeclarissimum
186
sapientiae munus maximumque virtutis vel documentum vel officium puto” (‘those skills which
make it so that we are useful to the state; for that, I think, is the most outstanding duty of wisdom
and the greatest evidence and function of virtue’) (Rep. 1.33).
It is in Book Five where the development of these various skills becomes a more
prominent discussion in the De Re Publica. Cicero explicitly draws upon the organization of the
household as a model for his articulation of the character required for the people who should be
in charge of the state:
…sed tamen ut bono patri familias colendi, aedificandi, ratiocinandi quidam usus opus est.
…radicum seminumque cognoscere num te offendet?
M. Nihil, si modo opus extabit.
S. Num id studium censes esse vilici?
M. Minime; quippe cum agri culturam saepissime opera deficiat.
S. Ergo, ut vilicus naturam agri novit, dispensator litteras scit, uterque autem se a scientiae delectatione ad
efficiendi utilitatem refert, sic noster hic rector studuerit sane iuri et legibus cognoscendis, fontis quidem
earum utique perspexerit, sed se responsitando et lectitando et scriptitando ne impediat, ut quasi dispensare
rem publicam et in ea quodam modo vilicare possit, summi iuris peritissimus, sine quo iustus esse nemo
potest, civilis non inperitus, sed ita, ut astrorum gubernator, physicorum medicus; uterque enim illis ad
artem suam utitur, sed se a suo munere non inpedit. Rep. 5.4-5
Manilius?: But just as for a good head of household there is some need for experience in agriculture,
building, and accounting.
Scipio?: But surely it will not offend you that he knows of roots and seeds?
Manilius: Not at all, if the need arises.
Scipio: Surely, you do not believe that is the learning of the overseer?
Manilius: In no way, since this concern would very frequently remove him from agriculture.
Scipio: Therefore, just as the overseer knows the nature of the field, and the managers know how to read
and write, each of the two brings himself from the pleasure of knowledge back to the utility of executing. In
this way, this director of ours will have been eager for justice and learning the laws, and assuredly he will
have looked at the source of each of them, but may he not impede himself by giving legal opinions and
reading and writing, so that he can, so to speak, manage the commonwealth and, in a way, act over it as an
overseer. He will be most experienced in the utmost rigor of the law, without which no one can be just, and
not inexperienced in civil law, but experienced in the way that a helmsman knows of the stars, and a doctor
of physics; for each uses this knowledge for his art, but he does not distract himself from his own function.
Cicero provides the for his ideal stateman the principle which helps define his work and
life, the notion that here is expressed through the figures of the vilicus and the
dispensator. Scipio tells how, although both of these figures have their respective
specialities, they know to subordinate the learning of these specialities for the sake of
practical application: “uterque autem se a scientiae delectatione ad efficiendi utilitatem
187
refert” (‘each of them brings himself back from the pleasure of knowledge to the utility
of executing’). He recognizes in both of these figures not only a capacity for learning and
thinking, but also doing. This subordination of learning to doing encapsulates the
managerial aspect valued in the De Re Publica and provides for its director (rector) a
model for the running of the res publica: “ut quasi dispensare rem publicam et in ea
quodam modo vilicare possit” (‘so that he can, so to speak, manage the commonwealth
and, in a way, act over it as an overseer’). Later, the linking together of concepts from
different fields also helps in the articulation of the ideal stateman who is to act as the
leader of the res publica. This conceptual linkage allows for the articulation of a goal for
the manager (moderator) of the res publica: “…ut enim gubernatori cursus secundus,
medico salus, imperatori victoria, sic huic moderatori rei publicae beata civium vita
proposita est” (‘…for just as a favorable voyage is the intention of the helmsman, health
the intention of the doctor, and victory of the general, in this way a blessed life for the
citizens is the intention of this manager of the commonwealth’) (Rep. 5.8). The reflection
that the ruler of the res publica acts as an overseer and that political rule is a form of
management makes Cicero’s De Republica an important subtext for the De Re Rustica
and its engagement with political theory.
Columella and Political Rule
Columella continues Cicero’s task of using estate management as a basis for thinking
about the administration of the household and the state
132
. In the next section, I will show that
132
The point is important even if it is rejected in the De Republica by Scipio in a debate over what form a text
concerned with explaining the res publica should take. Models handed down from authors like Aristotle and
Polybius, which discuss first principles (elementa) are rejected (Aristotle, Politics 1.1 1252a25-30; 1.2 1253b1-8;
Polybius 6.6.2.) because Scipio places more weight on the experiences of his interlocutors (Rep. 1.38).
188
Columella draws upon a methodology similar to Cicero’s—using difference of scale to address
political rule. The political content of his work is embedded in the disquisition of household
management. In the process he outlines idealized versions of the vilicus and the vilica. These
figures help in outlining the ideal relationships within the household and between the ruler and
subject. The perfectus vilicus (ideal overseer) is parallel to the agricola perfectus (ideal farmer),
while the vilica is parallel to the Roman matrona (mistress of the household). These figures are
grounded in the Roman past and act as substitutes for the farmer-statesman of old and his wife.
Columella openly acknowledges this substitution and its legal and ideological basis. Although
Columella’s treatment of household management challenges the structure of Roman social
relations, especially given the work’s omission of an imperial addressee, I show how allusions to
Seneca’s De Clementia round out the De Re Rustica’s politics
133
.
Columella, Household Management, and the Empire
That the De Re Rustica is interested in engaging in political theory is indicated by an
allusion Columella uses in the description of his precepts on labor management contained in the
first part of the dyad on labor management. Columella advises that the vilicus should follow
specific principles found in a different context:
Iam illa, quae etiam in maioribus imperiis difficulter custodiuntur, considerare debebit, ne aut crudelius aut
remissius agat cum subiectis; semperque foveat bonos et sedulos, parcat etiam minus probis, et ita
temperet, ut magis eius vereantur severitatem, quam ut saevitiam detestentur. Rust. 11.1. 25
He will have to be consider those principles which are observed with difficulty in larger spheres of ruling,
that is, to not treat either too cruelly or too leniently those placed under him; he should always favor the
good and diligent, and be sparing even more of those who are not good, and manage in such a way that they
respect his strictness rather than hate his cruelty.
133
The importance of Columella’s idealized figures, especially that of the ideal farmer and landowner, could be
behind Petronius’ portrait of Trimalchio. This comparison is the basis for an interesting article by Jesús Rodríguez
Morales (Morales 1997: 247-256).
189
With the phrase “maioribus imperiis”, Columella draws a connection between his
immediate subject, the management of the estate, and another, higher order of control, the
administration of the empire. In so doing, Columella participates in a broader discourse
about the ordering of the state.
The conceptual structure of the De Re Rustica features a progressive sense of
inward movement, first starting from outside of the farm, past its enclosure, the garden
(Book Ten), until the inside of the farm house is reached. The books on the household
start with a disquisition on the duties of the vilicus (Book Eleven), followed by those of
the vilica (Book Twelve). In a move that differs from his agricultural predecessors,
Columella dedicates two whole books to the vilicus and the vilica. Their importance must
not be understated. As a means of signalling their central role within the De Re Rustica,
Columella explicitly acknowledges his debt to Xenophon’s Oeconomicus and Cicero’s
Latin translation of the same work:
Xenophon Atheniensis eo libro, P. Silvine, qui Oeconomicus inscribitur, prodidit maritale coniugium sic
comparatum esse natura, ut non solum iucundissima, verum, etiam utilissima vitae societas iniretur: nam
primum, quod etiam Cicero ait, ne genus humanum temporis longinquitate occideret, propter hoc marem
cum femina esse coniunctum: deinde ut ex hac eadem societate mortalibus adiutoria senectutis, nec minus
propugnacula, praeparentur. Tum etiam, cum victus et cultus humanus non uti feris in propatulo ac
silvestribus locis, sed domi sub tecto accurandus erat, necessarium fuit alterutrum foris et sub dio esse, qui
labore et industria compararet, quae tectis reconderentur. Siquidem vel rusticari, vel navigare, vel etiam
genere alio negotiari necesse erat, ut aliquas facultates acquireremus. Cum vero paratae res sub tectum
essent congestae, alium esse oportuit, qui et illatas custodiret, et ea conficeret opera, quae domi deberent
administrari. Rust. 12 pref. 1-2
Xenophon the Athenian, in that book of his which was entitled the Oeconomicus, Publius Silvinus, wrote
that the marital union was joined together by nature in such a way that not only the most pleasing, but
indeed, also the most beneficial partnership of life would be entered into. For in the first place, as Cicero
also says, for the reason that the human race not perish in the passage of time, the male sex was joined with
the female sex; secondly, in order that from this partnership, help would be provided for mortals in their old
age no less than protection. Then, since human food and dress should also be taken care of, not in the open
air and in wooded places, as for wild animals, but in the home and under a roof, it was necessary that one of
the two be outdoors and under the open sky to obtain through labor and diligence the things which are to be
stored indoors, since it was necessary either to practice agriculture, or to sail, or even to engage in some
other form of business in order to acquire some resources. When the things prepared under a roof had been
collected inside, it was necessary for someone else to guard these stored items and to complete the tasks
which ought to be managed at home.
190
The passage is a tidy summary of the discussion had between Ischomachus and his wife (7.22ff),
meant to describe the differences between the sexes as fundamental to determining the sexual
division of labor within the household. The passage describes the relationship between the sexes as
a mutually beneficial partnership (societas). Later, Columella explains how this partnership is
rooted in sexual difference:
Itaque viro calores et frigora perpetienda, tum etiam itinera et labores pacis ac belli, id est rusticationis et
militarium stipendiorum deus tribuit: mulieri deinceps, quod omnibus his rebus eam fecerat inhabilem,
domestica negotia curanda tradidit. Et quoniam hunc sexum custodiae et diligentiae assignaverat, idcirco
timidiorem reddidit quam virilem. Nam metus plurimum confert ad diligentiam custodiendi. Quod autem
necesse erat foris et in aperto victum quaerentibus nonnumquam iniuriam propulsare, idcirco virum quam
mulierem fecit audaciorem. Quia vero partis opibus aeque fuit opus memoria et diligentia, non minorem
feminae quam viro earum rerum tribuit possessionem. Tum etiam quod simplex natura non omnes res
commodas amplecti volebat, idcirco alterum alterius indigere voluit: quoniam quod alteri deest, praesto
plerumque est alteri. Rust. 12 pref. 4-6.
And in this way God has assigned to men that hot and cold extremes should be endured, and also travels
and the labors of peace and war, namely, of agriculture and military service. Next, for women, because he
made her unfit in all these matters, he assigned the business which should be taken care of at home. And
since he had assigned guardianship and attentiveness to this sex, he rendered her more fearful than the
masculine sex. For fear lends much to the carefulness of guarding. Since it was necessary for those
searching for food in the open to sometimes ward off attack, for that reason he made the man more daring
than the woman. Since in the acquisition of resources there was need of memory and diligence equally, he
assigned no less to the female than to the male possession of these things. Then, because nature, being
simple, did not wish every advantage to surround them, for this reason she wanted that one should stand in
need of the other: since what is lacking in one is, for the most part, present in the other.
He casts the difference between the sexes as a function of the capacity for the endurance of
extreme temperatures, human labor, fear, and boldness. In highlighting the differences between the
sexes, Columella shows how when placed together in a relationship of benefit, these two members
of the familia complement one another and complete the order of the household. In explicitly tying
his discussion of household management to the concept of sexual difference, Columella follows in
the tradition of political theorists who begin their discussions of the state from first principles
(elementa)
134
.
134
In this instance, first principles refers to the union of man and woman within the household (Aristotle, Politics
1.1 1252a25-30; 1.2 1253b1-8; Polybius 6.6.2). The methodology is acknowledges in Cicero’s De Republica, but
dismissed (Rep. 1.38). Even still, the topic is discussed throughout the dialogue.
191
Yet it is an oddity that Columella uses the concept of sexual difference to explain not the
ideal relationship between man and wife, but for the servile members of the household. In fact,
Columella will eventually address this point. In Book Eleven, he explains the ideal training of the
vilicus, and then follows up this ideal with an admission about what is more likely to happen:
Itaque in Oeconomico Xenophontis, quem Marcus Cicero Latino sermoni tradidit, egregius ille
Ischomachus Atheniensis, rogatus a Socrate, utrumne, si res familiaris desiderasset, mercari vilicum
tamquam fabrum an a se instituere consueverit: Ego vero, inquit, ipse instituo. Etenim qui me absente in
meum locum substituitur et vicarius meae diligentiae succedit, is ea quae ego scire debet. Sed haec
nimium prisca et eius quidem temporis sunt, quo idem Ischomachus negabat quemquam rusticari nescire.
Nos autem memores ignorantiae nostrae vigentis sensus adulescentulos corporisque robusti peritissimis
agricolis commendemus, quorum monitionibus vel unus ex multis (nam est difficile erudire) non solum
rusticationis, sed imperandi consequatur scientiam. Rust. 11.1.5-6
Therefore, in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, which Marcus Cicero translated into the Latin language, that
excellent man Ischomachus the Athenian, after he was asked by Socrates whether, if his domestic affairs
had called for it, he was accustomed to purchasing an overseer as he would a craftsman, or educating one
himself, answered: “I educate him myself. For he who is set in my place when I am absent and follows as a
proxy for my attentiveness, ought to know the things which I know”. But these customs are very ancient
and indeed of a time when that same Ischomachus denied that anyone was ignorant of farming. But let us,
mindful of our ignorance, entrust young men who are of strong mind and sturdy bodies to our most
experienced farmers, by whose advice either one out of the many (for it is difficult to learn) may obtain not
only knowledge of farming but also of commanding.
The admission about the realities of training the vilicus—that the master is typically unable or
unqualified to do so—is a remarkable admission because it threatens to undermine Columella’s
goal in the preface to Book One of encouraging elite participation in the practice of agriculture.
But Columella does not dwell on this admission and instead continues with his project. Thus the
statement about the present is both an admission about how the ideal is achievable, but in reality
inconvenient or impractical. The solution to the problem is an emphasis on management, as is
especially visible in the next portion of the text:
Quidam enim quamvis operum probatissimi artifices, imperitandi parum prudentes aut saevius aut etiam
lenius agendo rem dominorum corrumpunt. Quare, sicut dixi, docendus, et a pueritia rusticis operibus
edurandus, multisque prius experimentis inspiciendus erit futurus villicus, nec solum an perdidicerit
disciplinam ruris, sed an etiam domino fidem ac benevolentiam exhibeat, sine quibus nihil prodest villici
summa scientia. Rust. 11.1.6-7.
For although some craftsmen are highly esteemed for their work, they are not knowledgeable in
commanding others and they spoil the affairs of their masters by acting either too cruelly or even too
192
leniently. Therefore, as I have said, your future bailiff must be instructed and hardened from boyhood in the
tasks of the farm, and first, through many tests, he must be examined not only as to whether he has
thoroughly learned the discipline of farming, but also whether he exhibits trust and goodwill to his master,
without which all the knowledge of the overseer is of no profit.
In order to aid in the management of the household, Columella concerns himself with the
articulating the ideal version of the overseer, the perfectus vilicus (Rust. 11.1.12). This figure is
parallel to that of his own perfectus agricola (Rust. 1 pref. 32). The perfectus vilicus is also
described in a way similar to the perfectus agricola. He represents a way of compensating for the
immensity of the subject of agricultural knowledge. Columella is especially practical in detailing
how to train him:
Et ego intelligo difficillimum esse ab uno velut auctore cuncta rusticationis consequi praecepta.
Verumtamen ut universae disciplinae vix aliquem consultum, sic plurimos partium eius invenies magistros,
per quos efficere queas perfectum villicum. Nam et arator reperiatur aliquis bonus, et optimus fossor, aut
faeni sector, nec minus arborator et vinitor, tum etiam veterinarius et probus pastor, qui singuli rationem
scientiae suae desideranti non subtrahant. Rust. 11.1.12
I also understand that it is very difficult to obtain the knowledge of all the precepts of agriculture from, so
to speak, a single authority; nevertheless, though you will scarcely come upon anyone experienced with the
art as a whole, you will find very many experts of its individual parts, through whose help you can form the
ideal bailiff. For someone could be found to be a good ploughman, and an excellent digger or haycutter
could be found, and likewise a tree pruner and vinedresser, also a veterinarian and a good shepherd,
individuals who would not turn away one who desired to learn his system of knowledge.
Recall that Columella’s preface to Book One advanced a pedagogical program for agriculture
that, if implemented on a large scale, would play a significant role in disciplining masters and
influencing the structure and organization of Roman business: the outcome would be the creation
of a host of diligent landowners engaged in the labor required for their farms. Yet we see here
that Columella’s books on household management are essentially an admission that certain
procedures must be taken due to the unlikely expectation that the master be an expert of
agricultural knowledge able to attend to all of his estates. In order to make this reality more
palatable to his Roman audience, Columella grounds his discussion of the household staff in a
cultural program tied to the customs of the Roman past. Ancient conceptions of labor illuminate
the mechanics of this process.
193
Labor and Ideology
One of the defining features of Columella’s De Re Rustica is his treatment of labor.
Columella’s solution to the problem of the bareness of the earth is essentially a call to labor—a
view contrary to the leading Epicurean views at the time and directed at Roman elites
135
. Roman
agricultural writers have previously made such exhortations—Varro, for example, wished the
Romans would use their hands in agricultural fields rather than for clapping in the theater—but I
argue that Columella’s unique response is a developed conception of the principles of household
management (Rust. 11.1.6)
136
. The reason Columella’s response is not completely contradictory
is tied to functioning of labor ideology in the Ancient World.
The equation between elite activity and the labor of the vilicus and the vilica is dependent
upon a conception of master and slave relations prevalent in the ancient world, the idea that the
slave is an extension of the master. The conception is found as a developed theory as early as
Aristotle’s Politics, where Aristotle discusses the master-slave relationship as being among the
the smallest and most important units of the household (Pol. 1.2 1253b5-10). He describes the
relationship as a partnership which aims at some good. The master-slave relationship is one
based on dependency—one is unable to exist without the other (Pol. 1.1 1252a25-30). The slave
is necessary so that the master can perform his masterly duties, and also see to the completion of
the necessary chores around the household. Household management, according to Aristotle, can
be broken down into three constituent parts: the master-slave relationship (δεσποτικὴ), the
135
Columella expresses this problem of elite activity at Rust. 1 pref. 1-3. The basis for the Epicurean view can be
found in the De Rerum Natura, where Lucretius describes the earth in a way similar to that of a mother, who
previously had given birth to large beasts, but now bears only small creatures such as worms (DRN 2. 1147-52).
Later Lucretius tells how the plough has overworked the soil to such an extent that it has weakened the earth’s
capacity for producing crops and how farmers lament their current situation and recall a past time where their more
pious forefathers received higher yields with less land (DRN 2. 1157-1174).
136
Varro, for example, had claimed that the Roman prefer to utilize their hands in the theater and circus rather than
in the grain fields and vineyards (Rust. 2 pref. 3).
194
husband-wife relationship (γαµική), and the father-children relationship (τεκνοποιητική) (Pol.
1.2 1253b5-10). Another component of household management, one of the most important, is the
art of earning wealth (χρηµατιστική). In the description of this component of household
management, Aristotle says property is part of the household, while the act of acquiring property
is part of household management. He then explains that just as the arts require tools, so too does
the art of acquiring property require its own unique tools which can be subdivided into the
categories of living and lifeless. Property, under which slaves are categorized, are described as
living tools essential for life (Pol. 1.2 1253b30-35). In fact, this idea is so deeply ingrained in
Aristotle that he imagines replacing slaves by positing a mythical world where objects move
themselves at their master’s command (Pol. 1.2 1253b35)
137
.
Brendon Reay has taken the dependency on slaves in the ancient world even further: in
analyzing representations of labor in Cato’s De Agricultura, he has found evidence of a similar
reliance on slave labor and the Romans’ unique conception of labor. He argues for a theory
which he calls “masterly extensibility”, the idea that slaves can act as a kind of prosthesis of the
master. This theory allows for the possibility that the master could conceive of the labor
performed by a slave as his own, and by claiming the labor of the slave as his own, the master
would be able to see himself as similar to the great exempla of the glorious Roman past such as
Cincinnatus, a figure who epitomized the Roman farmer-statesman by working the land himself
(Reay 2005:335). This conception of labor is not unique to Cato and it can be found in other
works of ancient literature. Varro and Cato each have passages in their agronomical works that
137
He gives the image of the self-moving statues of Daedalus, which were thought to be so realistic they were
chained to prevent them from running away (Plat. Meno 97d) and the self-moving tripods of Hephaestus (Il.
18.369ff).
195
indicate this type of thinking
138
. In Columella, there is an explicitness about the cultural heritage
that this conception of labor allows the master-as-reader to lay claim over:
Verum cum complurimis monumentis scriptorum admonear apud antiquos nostros fuisse gloriae curam
rusticationis, ex qua Quinctius Cincinnatus, obsessi consulis et exercitus liberator, ab aratro vocatus ad
dictaturam venerit ac rursus fascibus depositis, quos festinantius victor reddiderat quam sumpserat
imperator, ad eosdem iuvencos et quattuor iugerum avitum herediolum redierit, itemque C. Fabricius et
Curius Dentatus, alter Pyrrho finibus Italiae pulso, domitis alter Sabinis, accepta, quae viritim dividebantur,
captivi agri septem iugera non minus industrie coluerit, quam fortiter armis quaesierat; Rust. 1 pref. 12-13
But indeed, when I am reminded by the many monuments of writings that care for agriculture was a source
of glory among our forefathers, from which practice Quinctius Cincinnatus, summoned from his plough to
the dictatorship, came as liberator of a besieged consul and his army, and with the power set aside, which
he returned more quickly than he had assumed it, as a victor, he returned to those same bullocks and
ancestral plot of four iugera, and likewise Gaius Fabricius and Curius Dentatus—one after Pyrrhus was
routed from the confines of Italy, the other after the Sabines were subdued—each tilled the seven iugera of
captive land which was received and divided to a man no less industriously than he had bravely obtained it
with arms.
Columella inherits and solidifies this tradition of citing exempla of illustrious statesmen who
worked their own plots of land and returned to their plots after securing glory. He locates and
centralizes these exempla, with all their achievements, into his treatise. It is this conception of
labor which allows Columella to express, on the one hand, the need for the Roman elite to
engage in agriculture, and on the other hand, to present two comprehensive books on the
management of the household staff.
Finally, there is a material basis for this ideological view of labor. The structure of labor
from the second century B.C. was transformed by the creation of indirect agency. This legal
innovation allowed for absentee landowners to run their farms through the labor of slaves and
agents. I treat this below.
Columella, Xenophon, and Labor Management: Book Eleven
In the first chapter of his introduction to the duties of the vilicus, Columella identifies as
138
Reay 1998 has explored this conception of labor in Cato and Vergil, with Reay 2005 focusing on Vergil.
196
part of the various arts which one must learn in order to run the farm, the science of management
(scientam imperandi) (Rust. 11.1.6). He draws a sharp distinction between this skill and the art of
farming (scientam rusticationis). Management of the farm is more than just the knowledge of
farming matters, it necessarily involves the ability to oversee a large staff of laborers. The nature
of this relationship is made clear in Book Eleven, where immediately after prefatory statements,
Columella writes “Vilicum fundo familiaeque praeponi convenit aetatis nec primae nec ultimate”
(‘It is fitting that a bailiff should be put in charge of your farm and household who is neither in
the first or in the last part of his life’) (Rust. 11.1.3). The Latin verb here refers to a specific kind
of business arrangement recognized in Roman law. The verb “praeponi” refers to the practice of
a master placing a slave (or his son, or a third party) in charge of a business and running it on his
behalf
139
. Thus, when Columella refers to elite action in the preface to Book One, there is the
possibility that he refers to action on the part of the familia—the master can participate in this
elite action through the labor of the members of the household, who act on his behalf. A fuller
picture of Columella’s ideological commitments is visible when, at a later part in the discussion
about the vilicus, he writes “Etenim qui me absente in meum locum substituitur et vicarius meae
diligentiae succedit, is ea quae ego scire debet” (‘for he who is set in my place in my absence
and follows as a proxy of my attentiveness, ought to know what I know’) (Rust. 11.1.5). This is
most likely a reference to the capacity of the vilicus to act as the master’s business agent
140
. The
point also helps to establish a basis for the relationship between the perfectus vilicus and the
perfectus agricola. In this way, Columella can both repudiate the elite Romans for turning their
139
For example, the practice is attested in Gaius’ Institutes, in a description of the legal actions one can bring
against the master when business is conducted through the slave under the master’s command: “ideo autem
institoria appellatur, quia qui negotiationibus praeponuntur institores vocantur” (‘Similarly, it is called the actio
institoria, because those who are put in charge of businesses are called institores’) (Gai. Inst. 4.71).
140
On this point, Aubert agrees (Aubert 1995:169).
197
farms over to slaves, as he does in the preface to Book One (Rust. 1 pref. 1-3), as well as
consider the labor of the vilicus to be his own.
As hinted at above, Columella is not shy of admitting the form which the social relations
of production take. He uses other agricultural writers to describe these relations. For example, he
often cites Xenophon’s Oeconomicus in the last two books of the De Re Rustica. Columella’s
citation practices reveal a complex relationship to his sources material. In one instance,
Columella, after describing the importance of hiring a middle-aged bailiff, cites Cato’s warning
about the danger of the master learning from his slaves:
Quisquis autem destinabitur huic negotio, sit oportet idem scientissimus robustissimusque, ut et doceat
subiectos, et ipse commode faciat quae praecipit. Siquidem nihil recte sine exemplo docetur, aut discitur
praestatque villicum magistrum esse operariorum, non discipulum, cum etiam de patrefamiliae prisci moris
exemplum Cato dixerit: “Male agitur cum domino, quem vilicus docet”. Rust. 11.1.4-5
But whoever will be devoted for this work, it is necessary that he be most knowledgeable and likewise most
hardy, so that he might teach his underlings, and so that he himself might suitably carry out what he
recommends. Since indeed, nothing is taught correctly or learned without an example, and it is better that
the overseer be the teacher of his workers, not the student, since even Cato, a model of ancient morals said
about the head of the household: “it turns out badly for the master whom the overseer instructs”.
The way that Columella uses Cato’s saying demonstrates the importance he places on the
substitution: what had been applicable to the ancient idea of the paterfamilias is now more
appropriate for the overseer. Even though Columella offers this advice directly to the overseer,
the advice still applies to the master. This kind of strategy is prevalent throughout the manual.
Columella adapts the text of others in order to suit his own needs, directing prescriptions meant
for the master at the overseer yet still operating under the impression that the master can learn
and follow his advice. Consider the next section, previously quoted above, and consider
Columella’s framing:
Itaque in Oeconomico Xenophontis, quem Marcus Cicero Latino sermoni tradidit, egregius ille
Ischomachus Atheniensis, rogatus a Socrate, utrumne, si res familiaris desiderasset, mercari vilicum
tamquam fabrum an a se instituere consueverit: Ego vero, inquit, ipse instituo. Etenim qui me absente in
meum locum substituitur et vicarius meae diligentiae succedit, is ea quae ego scire debet. ed et haec
198
nimium prisca et eius quidem temporis sunt, quo idem Ischomachus negabat quemquam rusticari nescire.
Nos autem memores ignorantiae nostrae vigentis sensus adulescentulos corporisque robusti peritissimis
agricolis conmendemus, quorum monitionibus vel unus ex multis (nam est difficile erudire) non solum
rusticationis, sed imperandi consequatur scientiam. Rust. 11.1. 5-6
Therefore, in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, which Marcus Cicero translated into the Latin language, that
excellent man Ischomachus the Athenian, after he was asked by Socrates whether, if his domestic affairs
had called for it, he was accustomed to purchasing an overseer as he would a craftsman, or educating one
himself, answered: “I educate him myself. For he who is set in my place when I am absent and follows as a
proxy for my attentiveness, ought to know the things which I know”. But these customs are very ancient
and indeed of a time when that same Ischomachus denied that anyone was ignorant of farming. But let us,
mindful of our ignorance, entrust young men who are of strong mind and sturdy bodies to our most
experienced farmers, by whose advice either one out of the many (for it is difficult to learn) may obtain not
only knowledge of farming but also of commanding.
Columella recommends that under ideal circumstances, the master himself would train the
bailiff. The justification for this practice is that in the relationship between the master and the
slave, the master’s knowledge is greater, and he is thus able to lord his knowledge over his
dependents in the relationship. He offers this advice in the form of a literary citation framed as a
response to Cato’s warning. But Columella also addresses the fact that this ideal is out of touch
with his current reality. Thus, while Columella acknowledges Cato’s quote, he recognizes by
reference to Xenophon that he no longer lives in this ideal time. His explicit citation emphasizes
the remoteness of the customs in Xenophon. We must also be conscious of the fact that when
Columella cites Xenophon, he does so by way of Cicero, whose importance as a Republican
statesmen should not be overlooked for understanding Columella’s relationship to the cited
material. Mention of Cicero adds to the treatise an additional layer of complexity and suggests a
continuous attempt on the part of Columella to thoroughly Romanize his material. Columella’s
prescriptions are thus aimed at application in the present, as well as a lament for an idealized
past. Taken more broadly, the invocation of the orator on the part of Columella suggests that this
lament could extend to all the changes that have taken place under the Principate.
199
The dialogic form of the Oeconomicus certainly lends itself to broader interpretation
141
.
In his citation of the Oeconomicus Columella sometimes acknowledges its literary format. There
are two dominant narrative frames within the Oeconomicus. The first is the discussion between
Socrates and Critoboulos, and the second, Socrates’ conversation with Ischomachus. Columella’s
citation above glosses over the first exchange and cites the second. The vestiges of the dialogic
literary form further complicate the De Re Rustica. By retaining traces of the dialogic format of
his intertext within his all-encompassing work, Columella tacitly acknowledges and preserves
the plurality of meanings from Xenophon’s Socratic text. On the one hand, Socratic phrasing
meant to encourage the reader towards the acquisition of wisdom and virtue is in Columella
directed towards the acquisition of agricultural knowledge and justification for the vilicus’
training methods: estate owners, the readers of the De Re Rustica, should be “memores
ignorantiae” (‘mindful of their ignorance’) (Rust. 11.1.6). The sentiment is repeated later in
Book Eleven, where Columella says that the vilicus should be aware of what he does not know
(Rust. 11.1.27-28). Thus, the quasi-Socratic exhortation to wisdom is appropriated not for the
sake of wisdom alone, but also for the acquisition of agricultural knowledge, production and
profit
142
.
141
Recent scholars, following a reading espoused by Leo Strauss, have held as mainstream the view that
Xenophon’s
works are deeply ironic. Higgins’ 1977 book has spearheaded this view, which Leah Kronenberg has recently
termed “Straussian”, defined by her as a kind of reading which holds the belief that philosophical texts can have
both an exoteric and an esoteric meaning. The relevance of such a reading for literature from the imperial period is
evident when one reads Strauss’ comments on the conditions under which certain literature is produced:
“Persecution, then, gives rise to a peculiar technique of writing, and therewith to a peculiar type of literature, in
which the truth about all crucial things is presented exclusively between the lines. That literature is addressed, not to
all readers, but to trustworthy and intelligent readers only” (Strauss 1952:25).
142
The involvement of profit and production does not necessarily diminish the thrust of Columella’s Socratic
reference. Columella says, in the preface to Book One, that agriculture is the most closely related to, and sister of,
wisdom (Rust. 1 pref. 5).
200
Columella, Labor Management, and Xenophon: Book Twelve
Further citation of Xenophon’s Oeconomicus occurs in the preface to Book Twelve of the
De Re Rustica, which focuses upon the duties of the bailiff’s wife or vilica. As stated earlier, it is
important to note that Columella does not actually begin Book Twelve with the vilica. Instead,
he begins the book with a narrative that tells of the origins of the partnership of the sexes and the
sexual division of labor. Columella does not again stress the dialogic format, choosing rather to
simply state that the aforementioned narrative is from Xenophon. And then immediately after
this, he glosses Cicero as the mouthpiece for the material that follows (Rust. 12 pref. 1-2). He
omits that the content which Columella quotes is originally voiced by Ischomachus, who is
reporting to Socrates a conversation that he had with his wife. From him we learn of three
principles: 1) that marriage between man and woman served the purpose of preventing the
extinction of the human race; 2) that the union provided help and defense for each partner well
into old age; and finally, 3) that because humans need shelter yet must also work outside to
secure provisions, there is need for someone to work inside to maintain the storage of these
provisions, as well as to take care of the matters of the house (Oec. 7.18-20; Rust. 12 pref. 1-2).
But the even more interesting aspect of Columella’s adoption of Xenophon is the function which
it serves. Again, he appropriates Xenophon (and Cicero’s translation of Xenophon) for his own
purpose. The subject of his treatise progresses from being about an Athenian wife and her
relationship with her husband, to that of a Roman wife, or matrona: “Nam et apud Graecos, et
mox apud Romanos usque in patrum nostrorum memoriam fere domesticus labor matronalis fuit,
tamquam ad requiem forensium exercitationum omni cura deposita patribusfamilias intra
domesticos penates se recipientibus” (‘For both amongst the Greeks, and then amongst the
Romans, up to the memory of our fathers, domestic labor was for the most part the province of
201
the wife, since the heads of the households were accustomed to retreat within the household,
their cares put aside, for rest from conducting the business of the forum’) (Rust. 12 pref. 7).
Columella then tells how amongst the Greeks and the Romans, it was typical for a Roman
paterfamilias to command reverence from all members of the household, and that it had a
remarkable effect upon his partner:
Flagrabatque mulier pulcherrima diligentiae aemulatione studens negotia viri cura sua maiora atque meliora
reddere. Nihil conspiciebatur in domo dividuum, nihil, quod aut maritus aut femina proprium esse iuris sui
diceret, sed in commune conspirabatur ab utroque, ut cum forensibus negotiis matronalis industria rationem
parem faceret. Rust. 12 pref. 7-9
And the most beautiful woman blazed with emulation, being eager, through her own industry, to make the
business of her husband greater and better. Nothing was perceived as divided up in the home, nothing
which either the husband or wife claimed ownership over by right, but both united together in common, so
that the industry of the wife at home balanced with the husband’s public activities.
The passage conjures upon an image of a kind of golden age. But Columella’s formulation of
it is applied to the household rather than to a larger form of organization. The basis for this
remark is that the relationships within the household are described as being mediated by mutual
respect, common interests, and most importantly, a lack of private property (in commune). But
just as the discussion above depended upon a distant, glorious Roman past and its disconnect
with the present, here Columella narrates its fall. The purpose of Book Twelve is not to describe
the duties of the Roman matrona, rather, its focus is to give instruction on the duties of the vilica.
Columella does not let the incongruity between the vilica and the matrona go unacknowledged.
He describes, in a repudiation of the matrona of his time, the customs of old and the effect of
luxuria and inertia upon these customs and his contemporary generation:
Nunc vero, cum pleraeque sic luxuria et inertia diffluant, ut ne lanificii quidem curam suscipere dignentur,
sed domi confectae vestes fastidio sint, perversaque cupidine maxime placeant, quae grandi pecunia et
paene totis censibus redimuntur, nihil mirum est easdem ruris et instrumentorum agrestium cura gravari
sordidissimumque negotium ducere paucorum dierum in villa moram. Quam ob causam, cum in totum non
solum exoleverit sed etiam occiderit vetus ille matrum familiarum mos Sabinarum atque Romanarum,
necessaria inrepsit vilicae cura, quae tueretur officia matronae, quoniam et vilici quoque successerunt in
locum dominorum, qui quondam, prisca consuetudine, non solum coluerant sed habitaverant rura. Verum
ne videar intempestive censorium opus obiurgandis moribus nostrorum temporum suscepisse, iam nunc
202
officia vilicae persequar. Rust. 12 pref. 9-10
At present, however, since most women give themselves over to luxury and idleness in such a way that
they do not even think it worthy to undertake a concern for wool-making, and clothing made at home is a
source of disgust, and because of their perverse desire, they very much delight in what is purchased at the
price of great sums of money and almost all of the household income, so it is no wonder that these same
women are burdened by concern for the countryside and the equipment of the farm and consider a stay of a
few days in the country home a most sordid affair. For which reason, since the ancient custom of the Sabine
and Roman mistresses of households has not only become obsolete but fallen to ruin, the necessary
management of the bailiff’s wife has crept in, which looks after the duties of the mistress of the household,
bailiffs too have taken the place of masters who, formerly, in ancient custom, not only had cultivated their
estates but made them their homes. Indeed, so that I may not seem to have inopportunely taken on the work
of the censor in reproaching the morals of our own times, I will now treat the duties of a bailiff’s wife.
Columella narrates that cultural decline has changed the nature of Roman social relations and by
virtue of this, their relationship to labor. The same admonition that Vergil had used to warn
Octavian about the corrupting force of empire, “dira cupido” (G. 1.37), operates here as a
symptom of the cultural decline already in effect: the Roman matrona has such a perverse desire
“perversaque cupidine” for commodities made outside the home that she is no longer interested
in the activities and values that created the austere Roman past
143
. With this narration, Columella
highlights the results of the new relations of labor that characterize the Roman household: the
supervision of the house by the vilica (and not the matrona) is the new normal, as is the bailiff
taking over the affairs of the master. Again, we have an instance of Columella voicing a lament
over the degenerate state of the new arrangement, but at the same time, resigning himself over to
it. The passage is an example of the interconnectedness of morality, labor, and knowledge.
Explication of the new labor relations and the principles behind them are distilled into a branch
of ruling knowledge known as the scientiam imperandi and involves an assessment of morality.
Columella repurposes for a Roman context a section from Xenophon’s Oeconomicus that
explicates the duties of Ischomachus’ wife and redirects it toward the bailiff’s wife. Again, the
143
A similar phrase, “dira cupido” and its variants are found at G. 1.37; A. 6.373; 6.721; and 9. 185. The phrases
expresses a singular focus, the fulfillment of which often results in disastrous consequences.
203
effect of the passage is that Columella smooths over the contradiction between the preface’s call
for elite activity and the more realistic dependence upon the labor of others in Book Twelve.
But however much Columella shows himself to be a realist, he also presents himself as
challenging the very contradictions which he attempts to smooth over. He describes the
management of provisions and storehouses as a duty particular to the vilica, noting the
importance of every item within the household having its proper place with the rationale that it is
a form of poverty to be in need of something and not have it. Then he extols the beauty of
arrangement and order: “Quis enim dubitet nihil esse pulchrius in omni ratione vitae dispositione
atque ordine?” (‘for who could doubt that there is nothing more beautiful in all of the system of
life than arrangement and order”) (Rust. 12.2.4). Much of his discussion on the management of
provisions and the places where each provision is stored (Rust. 12.2.1ff) is firmly based in
Ischomachus’ remarks upon the beauty of order (τάξις) in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus (Oec.
7.4ff). Although Columella borrows heavily from this section of the Oeconomicus, he delays
acknowledgment of Xenophon until the end of his discussion, preferring instead to cite this
material as an ancient proverb (Rust. 12.2.3). In the Oeconomicus, there is a prominent
discussion on the beauty of order which begins with Ischomachus telling Socrates that he spends
his time away from home because his wife looks after the household, a remark which begins a
conversation about Ischomachus’ household management. Throughout this section, Ischomachus
recalls a number of previous conversations had with his wife, who, as part of her training for her
role within the household, is repeatedly tested by Ischomachus in order to verify that she has
successfully internalized Ischomachus’ principles of household management. One such trial
undergone by Ischomachus’ wife occurs when he asks her to retrieve a tool from its storage place
(Oec. 8.2). When Ischomachus’ wife is unable to retrieve the tool, she, blushing, expresses
204
embarrassment. Ischomachus uses the event as a starting point for a lecture on the beauty of
order (Oec. 8.3-20)
144
. Just as in the Oeconomicus, Columella emphasizes the ease of retrieval as
a worthy ideal for the bailiff’s wife (Rust. 12.2.1;12.2.3). Each article should be arranged in its
place according to its kind, with special attention paid to qualities such as intuitive placement
and accessibility. In order to clarify his point, Columella draws upon a series of literary topoi
which embody the importance and beauty of arrangement, all of which are found in the
Oeconomicus (8.3-17): first, Columella praises the synchronization and harmony achieved by a
chorus in a public performance (Rust. 12.2.4); then, the ability of an army to execute coordinated
tactical maneuvers (Rust. 12.2.5), and finally, he marvels at the boatswains’ ability to meet the
demands of the helmsman by retrieving the tools necessary for navigating a storm (Rust. 12.2.5).
Although Columella’s adoption of this material to the De Re Rustica seems banal, it is his
concluding remarks that leave a puzzling tone to his discussion of order: “De quibus omnibus
Marcus Cicero, auctoritatem Xenophontis secutus in Oeconomico, sic inducit Ischomachum
sciscitanti Socrati narrantem” (‘All these are details which Marcus Cicero, having followed the
authority of Xenophon in his Oeconomicus, introduces Ischomachus as reporting to Socrates
while he is interrogating him’) (Rust. 12.2.6). The prefacing of the material as being a response
to Socrates uncovers a number of potential readings. For Columella to say that the cited material
is in response to Socrates could effectively be a negation of all the points mentioned. A reader
must understand that the original context of the discussion is the result of the Socratic elenchus,
and that typically such discussions do not present Socrates’ interlocutors and their views in the
best light. This, of course, is not the only interpretation possible. On opposite ends of the
144
One of the key points in this lecture is the following: “ἔστι δ᾽ οὐδὲν οὕτως, ὦ γύναι, οὔτ᾽ εὔχρηστον οὔτε καλὸν
ἀνθρώποις ὡς τάξις” (‘My wife, there is nothing so convenient or so good for human beings as order’) (Oec. 8.3).
205
interpretative spectrum, one could either receive the reference as a complete negation of the cited
content, and conclude that the beauty of management has no meaning, or hold the view that
Columella simply engages in an uncritical lifting of Xenophon’s material. The attribution of
Xenophon’s Socrates, however, seems to suggest that Columella recognized both the baggage
and the value of quoting Socrates. As a figure who constantly questions and evaluates the subject
under discussion—in this case the benefits of order and arrangement and the degeneration of
Republican ideals—Socrates stands as a critique of empire. Yet as a lover of wisdom, he
represents a figure who promotes the subject under discussion and points to the benefits of the
new administrative focus under the Principate. That Columella may have had the latter in mind is
demonstrated by his final citation of Xenophon and Ischomachus:
Postremo, his rebus omnibus constitutis, nihil hanc arbitror distributionem profuturam, nisi, ut iam dixi,
vilicus saepius et aliquando tamen dominus aut matrona consideraverit animadverteritque, ut ordinatio
instituta conservetur. Quod etiam in bene moratis civitatibus semper est observatum, quarum primoribus
atque optimatibus non satis visum est bonas leges habere, nisi custodes earum diligentissimos cives
creassent, quos Graeci nomophylakas appellant. Horum erat officium eos, qui legibus parerent, laudibus
prosequi nec minus honoribus, eos autem qui non parerent poena multare, quod nunc scilicet faciunt
magistratus adsidua iurisdictione uim legum custodientes. Sed haec in universum administranda tradidisse
abunde sit. Rust. 12.3.10-11
At last, when all these arrangements have been put in order, I do not think this distribution of goods will be
profitable, unless, as I have already said, the bailiff very often, and the master or mistress at least from time
to time, carefully examine and observe that the established order is maintained, a practice which was also
observed in well-regulated cities, for the chief and best of which it did not seem sufficient to have good
laws, unless they had elected the most diligent citizens as guardians of those laws, whom the Greeks call
nomophylakas. The duty of these men was to furnish those who obeyed the laws with praise and likewise,
with distinctions, and to inflict a penalty on those who did not obey them; which, at the present moment, of
course, is the function of the magistrates, who guard the power of the laws through the constant
administration of justice. Let it be enough to have related that generally these precepts should be managed
as such.
In this passage, Columella again cites Xenophon above but he does not provide any reference to
the author or work as he had previously done
145
. After transitioning his focus in this passage
from the vilica back to the matrona, just as at the beginning of Book Twelve, Columella re-
145
The missing citation here is Xenophon’s Oeconomicus 9.14: “ἐδίδασκον δὲ αὐτὴν ὅτι καὶ ἐν ταῖς εὐνοµουµέναις
πόλεσιν οὐκ ἀρκεῖν δοκεῖ τοῖς πολίταις, ἂν νόµους καλοὺς γράψωνται, ἀλλὰ καὶ νοµοφύλακας προσαιροῦνται,
206
presents the Greek material for a Roman audience. He explains that the surveillance duties of the
dominus or matrona are analogous to those city officials responsible for preserving and
enforcing the laws. But for Columella, this function is no longer located in the νοµοφύλαξ, but
rather in the magistrates (magistratus)
146
. Although the meaning of this translation is ambivalent
(does mention of a uniquely Roman office signal Columella’s alignment with a Republican
version of the res publica—and closer to Greek democracy—over an imperial one?), it is likely a
nod to the institutions which still survive under the Empire and its administrative capabilities.
In any case, the fact that the manual lacks an imperial addressee provokes the question:
why is mention of the emperor—as imperial addressee or otherwise—omitted? I suggest here
that this omission allows for some ambivalence in Columella’s position, a strategy which allows
him to cause the least offense to his readers yet still maintain the semblance of a critique.
Columella and the Critique of Empire: Libertas and Dissimulatio
In an attempt to understand the literary peculiarities in the De Re Rustica, it is necessary
to understand the changes undergone by Roman society at the end of the Republic and the rise of
the Principate. I examine in this next section the social and political conditions for the possibility
of free speech under the Principate, the common strategies for textual expression which authors
οἵτινες ἐπισκοποῦντες τὸν µὲν ποιοῦντα τὰ νόµιµα ἐπαινοῦσιν, ἂν δέ τις παρὰ τοὺς νόµους ποιῇ, ζηµιοῦσι” (‘I
taught her that in those cities which are well-ordered, it does not seem sufficient to the citizens if they should write
down good laws; rather, they choose guardians of the laws, who act as inspectors, they praise the people who act in
accordance with the law, and should someone act outside the law, they punish him’).
146
Regarding the inclusion of the term νοµοφύλακες , Pomeroy states that there is a high probability that this was
an
actual office. According to Philochorus, the only source for the office, the νοµοφύλακες were established at the time
of Ephialtes’ reforms in 462/1 (Pomeroy 1994:302). Pomeroy also says that the function of the office, to ensure that
the existing laws should be enforced, preserved, and guarded, is essentially a conservative and aristocratic view
pervasive in Plato’s Laws (Pomeroy 1994:302).
207
employed under these conditions, and how these conditions of textual production could have
informed Columella’s politics and influenced his decision to omit mention of the emperor.
One of the major changes in the transition from the Republic to the Empire happened in
the area of elite competition and the nature of libertas. Under the Republic, Florence Dupont
claims that the essence of libertas was the ability to use language (oratio) to confirm one’s status
within the socio-political order of the state and thereby gain access to high honors (Dupont 1997:
44)
147
. Under the Principate, however, this scheme no longer functioned in the same way.
According to Dupont, following Augustus’ seizure of power meant that the previous avenues
where power was exercised had changed. Instead of in public spaces, power was exercised in the
palace by the princeps. This change in the exercise of power meant that oratorical discourse was
no longer upheld as a means of demonstrating libertas. Instead, restraints upon speech and
textual production came to characterize the era, leading to the rise of literary styles performed
mainly through recitatio, private readings.
Vasily Rudich provides an understanding of how the transition from Republic to
Principate effected Roman social relations and politics. He writes that although Augustus sought
to preserve all the traditional institutions of the Republic, he transformed them into channels of
personal power. Thus, what was an essentially an autocratic government claimed to be its
opposite, a “restored Republic” (Rudich 1993:xvii). According to Vasily Rudich, this state of
affairs led to a host of complexities, including what he describes as a gap between verba and
acta, words and deeds, in collective as well as individual behavior. Rudich tracks how these
changes influenced the forms of expression and patterns of thought for dissident sentiment. He
147
Public spaces such as the forum and the senate are tied to the collective memory of the city. Public discourse
enacted in these spaces reactivates the collective memory inscribed upon the topography of the city. It is also
possible to receive high honors by acting on behalf of the state. To perform such deeds, then, has the effect of
enshrining one in the collective memory of the Romans.
208
claims that under the new dispensation, a crisis of values ensued. Because the Romans made no
sharp distinctions between ethics and politics, there was a continuum between morality and
politics. Military success from conquests, especially in the Hellenistic east, increased
opportunities for the pursuit of self-interest which could not be restrained through the exercise of
senatorial or popular authority. The increasing focus on individualism and self-aggrandizement
would eventually clash with the traditional set of values known as mos maiorum, the “customs of
our ancestors”. With the Julio-Claudians, the traditional ideal became more difficult to maintain,
especially under the rule of a tyrannical emperor. Attitudes were affected by self-contradictory
moral imperatives, as Rudich explains:
Pietas, as expressed in one’s dedication to the commonwealth, played against one’s dignitas, that is, self-
respect, and the other way around—since compliance with the tyrant meant complicity with the perpetuator
of injustice and was considered tantamount to servitium, slavery. The very opposite of the original libertas
through which one reconciled one’s own interests with the interests of the state. Rudich 1993:xix
This predicament conditioned the minds of dissidents in the empire. It also meant that benefits
and privileges were tied to the person of the emperor, changing the system of patronage that had
dominated in the Republic. Although patronage persisted, the emperor could promote the careers
of members of the elite and bestow upon them rewards and benefits in the form of ranks, offices,
decorations, or financial assistance (Rudich 1993:xx). The concentration of power was also
evident in the reservation of traditional and highly valued honors such as the triumph and
military acclimation for the emperor and his family, a change which further reduced
opportunities for the pursuit of glory. Although senators continued to fill elected offices and
imperial appointments, advancement was dependent upon the emperor’s approval and could be
derailed at any moment through his intervention, resulting in loss of status, wealth, or even life.
Still, the senatorial rank attracted outsiders able to enter through fiat of the emperor (Rudich
1993:xxi). Nevertheless, fear, anxiety, and even danger were said to follow a political career
209
(Sen. Rhet. Contr. 2 pref. 3ff). As Rudich describes, senators found themselves oscillating
between the extremes of dangerous secessio and abject adulatio (Rudich 1993:xxi). The period,
then, was marked by inconsistent behavior and contradictory attitudes, as well as a pronounced
gap between the former and the latter. This gap is defined by Rudich as dissimulatio, the
concealment of one’s true feelings by a display of feigned sentiments (Rudich 1993: xxii).
Rudich elaborates: “Dissimulatio was a complex and contradictory state of mind within one and
the same person, a resultant of conflicting forces—intellectual, emotional, and instinctive”
(Rudich 1993:xxii). In the Julio-Claudian context, the practice of dissimulatio was a means both
of success and survival. Yet the effects of the prevalence of this practice could lead to serious
problems within Roman society: “Individual dissimulatio and public existimatio could exercise
contradictory demands on one and the same person, resulting in an uneasy balance between
anxiety and inertia that could lead to a paralysis of will” (Rudich 1993:xxiii)
148
.
The pressures exerted by this feature of Roman social relations even penetrated into
politics and increased the stakes for everyone involved. Rudich reads in Tacitus a split in the
curia on the grounds of moral and political orientation: the multi bonique, (‘many and good’),
and the pauci et validi (‘the few and the strong’) (Hist. 4.43). The former adhered closely to the
traditional moral system of mos maiorum; the latter, on the other hand, were often associated
with the delatores, political informers who made a career out of bringing political charges
against the opponents of the emperor. The extreme outcomes of the aristocratic in-fighting at this
time is a direct result of the exploitation of the crimen maiestatis, the charge of treason. The
Republican law against the diminution of the majesty of the Roman people was reinterpreted
148
The dynamics mentioned here apply primarily to senators and are the result of a public career. For the effects on
the equites and others, see Rudich 1993:xxv.
210
under the Principate to allow for an indictment on the allegation of a lack of respect for the
emperor, the outcome of which could result in loss of status, financial ruin, or even death in a
trial decided by the emperor (Rudich 1993:xxv). Rudich claims that the multi bonique tended to
avoid using the capital charge of treason against their opponents, especially since it ran counter
to the mos maiorum. The delatores, on the other hand, resorted to this charge for personal gain,
as successful informers received a sizeable portion of the property of the condemned (Rudich
1993:xxv).
Aside from the political context, Rudich places the practice of dissimulatio within a
broader context of a pervasive ‘rhetoricized mentality’, which he says is a basic cultural
condition of Roman society
149
. The features of this mentality are characterized by an emphasis
on manner over form, and form over content. He explains the specific conditions of Julio-
Claudian Rome as a “deliberately developed capacity for narrowing the gap between words and
deeds by a skillful employment of formal devices effecting both expression in and perception of
a text or speech” (Rudich 1993:xxxi). Such a view allows Rudich to separate dissident
sentiments and patterns of thought along a spectrum which at one extreme was based upon
interpretatio prava, a prejudiced interpretation; and at another extreme, animus nocendi, an
intention to do harm
150
. The first phrase derives from Maternus in Tacitus’ Dialogus De
Oratoribus, who is working on a rendition of a Cato. After a recitation of his work-in-progress,
he is said to have caused a lot of buzz for eagerly throwing himself into the role of Cato with the
149
This mentality is continuous with the overall character of the Julio-Claudian age, which has been described as
spectacular, even histrionic age of fourth-style Roman painting, the baroque in Roman architecture and sculpture,
and the declamatory style in poetry, and the focus on declamatio in the Roman educative system (Boyle 1997:19-
31).
150
The phrase is from Tacitus’ Dialogus 3.2: “An ideo librum istum adprehendisti ut diligentius retractares et,
sublatis si qua pravae interpretationi materiam dederunt, emitteres Catonem non quidem meliorem, sed tamen
securiorem?” (‘Or did you pick up that work of yours in order to more carefully withdraw certain items, and once
retracted, if in any way they provided material for a disingenuous interpretation, you could publish not only a better
version of your Cato, but a safer one?’).
211
intention of expressing criticism of the regime (Dial. 2.1). After Secundus asks Maternus if the
reason for giving such a bold recitation was for the purpose of editing the work, Maternus says
he has no plans for making alterations (Dial. 3.2). Rudich identifies in this exchange two distinct
levels of mental operation: a rhetorical one that functioned through the exploitation of an
historical exemplum that elaborated on the theme of freedom versus tyranny; and a non-rhetorical
attempt to condemn the tyrannical practices of the day. Interpretations, in turn, could emphasize
either the former or the latter, or in my view, even hold both in dissonant tension.
The dialogue has a complex view about the role of oratory under both the Republic and
the Empire. There are two parts from this dialogue which I consider. The first deals with the
timeliness of expressing provocative views. When Marcus Aper responds to Maternus’ wish to
compose a Cato negatively, his objection is that Maternus chooses to be provocative not for the
benefit of a friend or a client, but for the sake of obtaining for his poetry short-lived glory,
compliments, satisfaction, and applause (Dial. 9.1-6; 10.6). He measuredly addresses the
importance of when it is necessary to speak out against a higher authority: “Nobis satis sit
privatas et nostri saeculi controversias tueri, in quibus si quando necesse sit pro periclitante
amico potentiorum aures offendere, et probata sit fides et libertas excusata” (‘For us, let it be
sufficient to put our gaze upon private and present day controversies, in which, if, whenever it is
necessary to offend the ears of the more powerful on behalf of a friend being put to trial, may our
loyalty be commended and our liberty absolved) (Dial. 10.8). The second point of interest is a
reflection offered by Maternus near the end of the dialogue:
Sed, ut subinde admoneo, quaestionis meminerimus sciamusque nos de ea re loqui quae facilius turbidis et
inquietis temporibus exsistit. Quis ignorat utilius ac melius esse frui pace quam bello vexari? plures tamen
bonos proeliatores bella quam pax ferunt. Similis eloquentiae condicio. Dial. 37.6-8
But, as I am presently reminding you, let us remember our investigation, and let us be aware that we are
speaking about that subject which is foregrounded more readily in times of trouble and unrest. Who does
212
not know that it is more profitable and better to enjoy peace than to be harassed by war? Nevertheless, wars
produce a greater number of fighters than does peace. It is the same with eloquence.
The direct connection which Maternus makes between eloquence in oratory and turbulent
political circumstances reinforces the idea that the Empire marked a change in the habits of
expressing direct criticism of imperial power. Both of these excerpts help to establish what an
author might consider in a decision to express such criticisms.
Maintaining a Sense of Libertas
Latin literary figures, recognizing the limitation and even the danger of direct speech, set
about finding innovative ways to express themselves
151
. The rhetorician Quintilian explains one
such figure, which he terms emphasis (Inst. 9.2.64). Quintilian tells us of the work required on
the part of the reader in interpreting such a figure and the conditions under which it is commonly
used:
Iam enim ad id genus quod et frequentissimum est et expectari maxime credo veniendum est,
in quo per quandam suspicionem quod non dicimus accipi volumus, non utique contrarium, ut in eironeiai,
sed aliud latens et auditori quasi inveniendum. Quod, ut supra ostendi, iam fere solum schema a nostris
vocatur, et unde controversiae figuratae dicuntur. Eius triplex usus est: unus si dicere palam parum tutum
est, alter si non decet, tertius qui venustatis modo gratia adhibetur et ipsa novitate ac varietate magis quam
si relatio sit recta delectat. Quint. Inst. 9.2.65-66
For now we must come to that class of device which I believe is both very common and greatly anticipated,
in which, on account of some suspicion, we do not say what we want to be received—not necessarily
something especially opposite [to what we express], as in irony, but something hidden and which must be
discovered by the hearer. Because, as I showed above, it is nearly the only device which is called a figure
by our contemporaries, and from it ‘figured controversies’ are derived. Three uses belong to this figure: the
first is if it is not safe to speak openly; the second is if it is not fitting; and the third, which is applied only
for the sake of elegance and which gives more pleasure by its novelty and variety than if it were a
straightforward description.
These conditions characterize the changed nature of speech in the Empire and provide a sample
of the diverse language developed in order to maintain a semblance of libertas in speech. As
151
Ovid, for example, explicitly tells his reader: “sed tu ingenio uerbis concipe plura meis” (“but
imagine in your mind more than my words”) (Rem . 359-60).
213
Quintilian points out, this specific device is due to feelings of mistrust or suspicion. Quintilian is
clear about the conditions under which the use of figured language itself is necessary when he
says: “Quid enim minus figuratum quam vera libertas?” (‘for what is less figured than true
liberty?’) (Inst. 9.2.27). The first two uses of the figure of emphasis which Quintilian identifies
all resonate with Columella’s situation: it would not be safe to openly criticize the lack of liberty
under the changed conditions of the Empire and doing so would fall outside of the decorum of
the Roman agricultural tradition. For this reason, I place the most weight on Quintilian’s charge
that the meaning must be investigated by the reader. All of this suggests that the peculiarities of
Columella’s De Re Rustica, especially its neglect of imperial addressee, may be explained by this
environment of textual production.
Columella begins his preface to the De Re Rustica with an immediate attention to the
state (civitatis) and the influential body of people that constitute the state (principes). The
beginning seems to hold ambitions similar to other literary works. Lucan begins his Bellum
Civile, for example, with the idea of collectivity
152
. Furthermore, he imbues his work with the
spirit of discordia through a ‘doubling’ of epic conventions
153
. I suggest that a similar, but less
antagonistic strategy may be behind the structure of the De Re Rustica’s twin books on labor
management at the end of the manual. At the very least, the structural emphasis on these
two concluding books is peculiar, while at best, the dualism in household management, no matter
how asymmetrical the distribution of power (Henderson 2004:9), confronts the monism of
empire. To be sure, there is a practical advantage to giving the vilicus and the vilica their own
152
In the first 7 lines of Book 1, Lucan invokes the idea of collectivity to indicate his work’s focal point: bella
civilia; canimus; populum, cognatasque acies; orbis; commune; obvia; pares (BC. 1.1-7).
153
“The business of civil war is dissection and antithesis – Rome is divided, and each half fights against the other.
So, analogously, Lucan’s poem of civil war features the antithetical doubling of epic topoi and epic characteristics as
its device par excellence” (Masters 1992:91).
214
books. Such a feature adds to the text’s capacity to act as a reference work and strengthens the
emphasis on labor management.
A typical feature of technical manuals seems to be the inclusion of the princeps as an
addressee. Technical authors of no less authority than Vitruvius, the elder Pliny, and Fronto, all
feature explicit reference to their respective emperors. The De Re Rustica, however, contains no
such feature. Thorsten Fögen recognized this peculiarity of the De Re Rustica and rightly
concluded as speculation any reason that could be provided for this discontinuity (Fögen 2012:
155). Fögen, nevertheless, reasons that after Claudius’ passing, the ridicule by Seneca in his
Apocolocyntosis could have prevented Columella from including an imperial addressee. Fögen
adds that reference to Nero, on the other hand, might have been overlooked due to the emperor’s
exalted literary aspirations, it being perhaps unlikely that he would have cared much for a
technical manual on agriculture (Fögen 2012:155). Might the reason behind Columella’s refusal
to put the emperor as an addressee in the De Re Rustica be a covert slight to the imperial court,
or at least an invitation to his readers to probe his text more deeply?
154
This silence about the
emperor can signify a plurality of meanings: a condition of existence, a point of departure, a
methodical beginning, an essential foundation, ideal culmination, absolute origin, and so forth
(Macherey 1978:85). And it would constitute a particularly effective means of not causing
offense, especially since the use of a figure should not be obvious—easily seeing through a
figure causes it to lose value (Inst. 9.2.69). For this reason, in the use of figure Quintilian
discourages use of words of doubtful or double meaning (non ex verbis dubiis et quasi
154
My views here are influenced by Pierre Macherey. He claims that we should understand that the silence of a text
is not a lack in need of remedy (Macherey 1978:84). In fact, silence plays a valuable role in construction of
meaning, it “informs us of the precise conditions for the appearance of an utterance, and thus its limits, giving its
real significance, without, for all that, speaking in its place. The latent is an intermediate means: this does not
amount to pushing it into the background; it simply means that the latent is not another meaning which ultimately
and miraculously dispels the first (manifest) meaning” (Macherey 1978:86-87).
215
duplicibus) (Inst. 9.2.69). He goes on to say “adfectus iuvant et interrupta silentio dictio et
cunctationes” (‘emotions are helpful as well as moments of interspersed silence and hesitations’)
(Inst. 9.2.72). I am suggesting that Columella’s silence provokes reflection on the ostensible
theme of Columella’s De Re Rustica and the silences manifested within it—silence regarding the
emperor, about why Socratic citation exists alongside precepts of management, the inclusion of
Republican farmer-statemen as exempla, and the contradictory elements about the realities of the
social relations of production. The coherence and unity of this critique is difficult to determine.
At the very least, all of these textual features point to a critical stance towards the Empire. And
though it is critical, it still plays a significant role in perpetuating the social relations of
production—both within the household unit and those which contribute to the administration of
the empire. Columella employs principles acceptable to a Republican past and uses them in the
service of his agricultural manual. The unique way that Columella re-contextualizes this material
contributes to his critique.
To develop the nature of this critique, it is necessary to return to Book One of the De Re
Rustica. There is a political dimension to Columella’s exhortations to the elite in the preface to
Book One, the tone of which encourages elites to return to the practice of farming, as once their
ancestors had practiced, and to mind the principles of agriculture. The message is more than an
uncritical privileging of Republicanism. In the course of Columella’s advocacy for the
importance of the agricultural arts, he mobilizes a number of arguments for his support. He
offers agriculture as a solution to the symptoms of cultural decline, as a means of preserving
libertas and autonomy, and a promotion of traditional Roman values. Through the creation of a
pedagogy focused on the art of farming, the acquisition of virtue is possible (Rust. 1 pref. 4).
Mankind cannot subsist without knowledge of agriculture—it is unique among the arts because it
216
offers subsistence. The theatrical arts (ludicris artis) and case pleaders (causidicis), in contrast,
are identified as the source of unhappiness of cities (Rust. 1 pref. 6). Agriculture is the most
ethical way of acquiring livelihood and increasing the assets of an estate without offence
(crimine), free of both bloodshed and disaster to others; other methods of acquisition are at odds
with justice. Soldiers, for example, rely on bloodshed and slaughter of others (sanguine et
cladibus alienis) (Rust. 1 pref. 7). Agriculture is safer than maritime trade, respects the laws of
nature, and is more honorable than usury (Rust. 1 pref. 8). At the same time, it does not have the
negative valuation as ‘legal banditry’ (causidici), nor the servility of the sycophants. The passage
is worth seeing in full:
Sed ne caninum quidem, sicut dixere veteres, studium praestantius locupletissimum quemque adlatrandi et
contra innocentes ac pro nocentibus neglectum a maioribus, a nobis etiam concessum intra moenia et in
ipso foro latrocinium. An honestius duxerim mercenarii salutatoris mendacissimum aucupium
circumvolitantis limina potentiorum somnumque regis sui rumoribus augurantis? Neque enim roganti, quid
agatur intus, respondere servi dignantur. An putem fortunatius a catenato repulsum ianitore saepe nocte
sera foribus ingratis adiacere miserrimoque famulatu per dedecus fascium decus et imperium, profuso
tamen patrimonio, mercari? Nam nec gratuita servitute, sed donis rependitur honor. Rust. 1 pref. 9-10.
But surely no more commendable is the canine pursuit—as the ancients called it—of barking at any man
who is exceedingly wealthy, a fraud against the innocent and on behalf of the guilty, disdained by our
ancestors, but allowed by us even within the walls of the city and in the forum itself. Or should I consider
as more respectable the very deceptive hovering of a hired greeter, who flys about the doors of the more
powerful and predicts the sleep of his lord through rumors? For the slaves do not think it worthy to respond
to the person asking what is going on inside. Or should I think it is more fortunate that a man, driven back
by a chained door-keeper, camps next to those unpleasant doors, often until late at night, and in the most
wretched servitude purchases through disgrace the glory and power of the fasces, though with the his own
inheritance squandered? For honor is bought not with gratuitous servitude, but with gifts.
The passage is remarkable because of the extent to which it targets quintessentially Roman
practices. In addition to cultural decline, which is a rhetorical trope among ancient authors,
Columella critiques Republican practices which can be categorized as instances where libertas
appears to be severely compromised. The first example finds fault with the litigiousness of
Roman society, particularly with a class of men whose predatory practices and shouts of abuse
lead to their association with dogs, “canina eloquentia” as Quintilian informs us (Inst. 12.9.9-
217
10). The practice is likened to a form of banditry (latrocinum) which has penetrated into the city
and is contrary to the tenants of a just society as well as the result of cultural decline. The
criticisms of the participants in the salutatio ritual, an essential part of the patronage system by
which networks were created and benefits conferred, speak to the tremendous amount of social
pressure surrounding an individual with the aspiration of climbing the social ladder in order to
increase his status. The process is cast as fundamentally humiliating. The passage also displays
an idea of exceptionalism, operating on the assumption that one should not have to resort to
activities which compromise one’s libertas—hovering around the threshold of one’s lord (the
term used by Columella, ‘regis’, draws attention to the difference in status) and being forced to
show deference to a slave, with the situation all the more degrading by the slave being in chains.
Finally, Columella is quite transparent about the obscene nature of politics, citing the role of
bribery, gifts, and personal wealth in determining who holds political office.
As an antidote to the dire situation and the degradation of justice and libertas, Columella
proposes agriculture. In his words, it is the only way of enriching one’s station that is befitting of
a free born (genus liberale ) and noble (ingenuum) person (Rust. 1 pref. 10); losses sustained in
poor farming practice can be offset by the diligence involved in ownership (Rust. 1 pref. 11).
Columella’s recommendations urge his target audience to abstain from shameful activities and to
attempt to restore prestige to the agricultural arts. Both of these sentiments are united in
Columella’s exempla. Semi-legendary figures occupy the dual positions of both farmer and
military general. But this common thread among the three referenced exempla should not
overshadow the extended description which Quinctius Cincinnatus receives. Columella reflects
not only on his qualities of being an independent farmer and successful military man, but he also
218
highlights Cincinnatus’ assumption of the dictatorship and its subsequent relinquishing
155
. The
appeal to moral and ethical qualities which thrived in Republican times clashes with Columella’s
contemporary, degenerate imperial society. Inextricably bound up in this message is also a
political critique: return to the morals and values of the Republican era implies a return to the
Republican system. But as Columella’s critique of the patronage system shows, even
Republicanism is not completely embraced. Framed within his message of an exhortation to
agriculture is the dominant impulse of Columella’s message: a reform of the morals and behavior
of the elite. This message contains an implicit political critique: agriculture, an activity which is
performed in the service of the state, and which requires active engagement, has become
neglected. This neglect has alienated Romans from their land, their morals, values, and degraded
the character of their social relations.
Columella’s books on household management, however, reveal both the limitations of
this message and a way forward. In the preface to Book One, Columella embeds an implicit
political critique within the codes of bodily submission which he esteems. The passage is a
highly rhetoricized borrowing from Varro
156
, but the sentiment is prevalent throughout the De Re
Rustica. Columella repudiates his generation’s inclination to use their hands in the circuses and
theaters rather than grain-fields and vineyards (Rust. 1 pref. 15). These preferences, Columella
warns, result in poor health and flabby and enervated bodies which contrast with the hardy
bodies of the true stock of Romulus (vera Romuli proles) (Rust. 1 pref. 17). In straying from the
codes of bodily submission that defined their ancestors, the Romans have essentially forgotten
155
In the context of agricultural manuals, Columella is the first to cite Cincinnatus. The famer-soldier also appears
in
Pliny the Elder (HN 18. 4).
156
Varro, Rust. 2 pref. 3.
219
who they are
157
. The remedy to this situation should also be seen as present in the sections on
labor management Book One, Eleven and Twelve of Columella’s Res Rustica. It is the goal of
Columella’s last two books to articulate how sound management is the means by which the
Romans can return to their former glory and compensate for the master’s absence.
Columella, Seneca and the De Clementia
So far we have discussed how Columella has established the De Re Rustica as a political
text and that its silences contribute to an understanding of the ways in which it critiques empire.
But the emphasis on individual action and reform of morals is not the full extent of Columella’s
message. We must now examine what Columella tells us directly about the principles which are
integral to the management of the household. That the solution to the problems described in the
preface of Book One is essentially a more complete articulation of management techniques is the
starting point for reforms aimed at a broader level. Recall Columella’s exhortation to the reader
to look towards the res publica as a exemplum for sound principles of management. These
principles are based upon the use of idealized models to describe the relationship between ruler
and subject, the principle of leniency, or clementia, and the implementation of a system of
rewards and benefits. As first mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the exhortation borrows
heavily from the leading imperial ideology of governance, encouraging a direct comparison to
another figure who advocated for leniency in matters of government, Seneca the Younger.
Thus in this section I am concerned with explaining how the principles which Columella draws
upon are part of a discourse on management and administration and how the incorporation of this
157
Sciarrino makes a similar argument regarding Cato the Elder: “the imperatives that structure the De Agricultura
have the performative force of creating the slave-powered farm as the setting in which (would-be) dominus/patres
familias can learn the skill of extending their bodies through the bodies of others” (Sciarrino 2011: 146).
220
discourse contributes to understanding the politics of the De Re Rustica.
It is highly likely that there was significant contact between Columella and Seneca
158
, or
at least a shared intellectual environment. It is perhaps this environment that generated the
similarity in both authors’ ideas about how a person in a position of power should govern his
subordinates. This problem has been treated extensively in Roman literature, especially in the
works of Cicero, which are strongly influenced by a Greek philosophical tradition that includes
authors such as Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon. Seneca utilizes arguments and ideas from these
various traditions in order to compose his own political work promoting the ideology of the new
regime.
An especially important part of the De Clementia is the way it acquiesces to Empire at
the same time that it pushes for its agenda. According to Miriam Griffin, Seneca regarded the
end of the Republic as irrevocable. Along with the collapse of the Republic also fell interest in
the mixed constitution for practical men (Griffin 1979:202). With these changed conditions,
Seneca articulated a view of the Principate that drew upon extant Stoic doctrines which regarded
the monarchy as the best form of government. But he avoids making explicit connections
between the regnum and the most agreeable form of the res publica (laetissima forma re publica)
and also chooses not to proclaim the superiority of the monarchic constitution over others
(Griffin 1992:206).
158
M. Junius Moderatus Columella was born in Gades, a Roman municipium in the province of Hispania Baetica.
From his burial inscription we learn that he served under Tiberius in Syria in the early first century (ILS 2923).
During this time both men have a connection to one M. Trebellius Maximus, who was likely Columella’s
commander in Syria, and whose father (if not the man himself) most likely served as consul alongside Seneca.
Seneca receives a rather flattering treatment by Columella in a section (Rust. 3.3.3) of the Res Rusticae, where he is
described as a “vir excellentis ingenii atque doctrinae”, (“a man of outstanding genius and learning”) . Several
scholars (Spurr 1999:20; Griffin 1992:290-291) think that Seneca was in fact a patron of Columella. Seneca’s
brother, Gallio, is referred to in Book Nine (along with Publius Silvinus) as commissioning Book Ten of the De Re
Rustica. Griffin suggests that Seneca recommended Columella to the army as an expert in agricultural matters
(Griffin 1992:291). Eraldo Noe believes that Seneca and Columella were part of the same Spanish literary circle
(Noe 2000:399-444).
221
Alone amongst political writers, as far as we know, was the decision to write an entire
essay upon one virtue (Griffin 1992:149). Seneca’s focus on the sole concept of clementia
signals a rupture with the political writers’ interest in the various forms of government and
instead suggests that Seneca concentrated on the newly established order of things. As Griffin
tells us: “Everything turned not on constitutional forms and legal limitations, but on the character
of the ruler. The power of Caesar was absolute (1.1.2; 1.8.5); it was how he exercised that power
that made the difference between good government and bad” (Griffin 1992:148). In describing
this particular order, Seneca aims to elicit inspiration in Nero, but also to educate the public
about the new regime and to ensure its acceptance. Part of this education is a declaration of the
new form of politics in the Julio-Claudian era, which were more focused on the administration of
the Empire than constitutional forms and procedures. Seneca achieves the fulfillment of this task
by crafting a work centered around clementia, a virtue meant to improve the character of the
ruler. That the treatise has been characterized as exhibiting a mixture of both eulogy and
admonishment further speaks to the importance of the individual ruler’s character (Griffin 1992:
149).
Seneca is quite explicit about the methodology he uses to describe the nature of the
relationship between the princeps and his subjects: “In magna imperia ex minoribus petamus
exemplum. Non unum est imperandi genus; imperat princeps civibus suis, pater liberis,
praeceptor discentibus, tribunus vel centurio militibus” (‘From the forms of lesser power let us
seek a model for great power. There is not one form of power; the princeps has command over
his citizens, a father over his children, a teacher over his pupils, a tribune or a centurion over his
soldiers’) (Clem. 1.16.2). In this passage Seneca establishes the notion of different principles of
rule (imperandi genus). The various relationships discussed in the De Clementia give us a more
222
precise idea of the character that Seneca envisions for the relationship between the princeps and
subjects, a character that is clarified through various interpersonal relationships. For example,
Seneca highlights in the paternalistic relationship how the father would be of the worst sort
(pessimus pater) if he were to beat his children for the most trifling of offenses (ex levissimis
causis). Or how a successful teacher uses warnings (monitionibus) and a sense of shame
(verecundia) over physical abuse in order to encourage the memory of the student. And finally,
Seneca explains that an excessively harsh tribune or centurion causes his soldiers to become
deserters (Clem. 1.16.3). However, in some instances, Seneca draws upon more controversial
relationships. The boldness with which Seneca uses these relationships suggests that the
theoretical measures he developed were oriented towards practical application. Among the most
controversial is Seneca’s invocation of the master-slave relationship, with its glaringly unequal
power relations. Slave imagery is used throughout Book One: at Clem. 1.18.1-2, Seneca claims
that because it is praiseworthy to treat slaves with leniency, the same courtesy should be
extended to free persons; at Clem 1.21.2, he reasons that while it is possible for a slave to kill a
king, it is typically a person with a greater nature who saves the lesser person; Seneca recalls at
Clem. 1.24.1 that in the Senate there was a motion requiring slaves to wear special clothing. The
senate decided against the policy because it would have emphasized the disparity in the number
of slaves versus masters. Ultimately, the senate recognized the danger in such a policy and its
potential for encouraging revolt. Seneca warns that in the absence of an effective policy of
pardon, the same danger could potentially arise among the emperor’s subjects. While the above
examples feature instances where explicit comparison to slavery is used to describe the princeps’
relationship to his subjects, Seneca also utilizes indirect references to slavery that are based on
the form of Roman legal representation. Already, we have seen how Columella describes the
223
relationship between the master and the vilicus through Ischomachus’ advice on how to select a
bailiff: the master should select someone skilled and knowledgeable enough to take his place
when he is away from the farm. Nero similarly fulfills the role of taking the place of the gods on
earth while they are away in heaven just as the vilicus does in his master’s absence. Seneca
highlights this quality at the beginning of his work, where he ventriloquizes Nero and has him
proclaim that his position as emperor derives from the decision of the gods: “Egone ex omnibus
mortalibus placui electusque sum, qui in terris deorum vice fungerer?” (‘Of all mortals, have I
found favor and been elected to serve as the representative of the gods?’) (Clem. 1.1.2). A similar
expression occurs at Clem. 1.5.7: Seneca explains that the ability to spare a life, as opposed to
taking one, is the special privilege of an exalted person, and a form of behavior which is shared
with the divine. For this reason, the princeps should look to the behavior of the gods as an
exemplum. And additionally, Seneca follows this idea of representation with the idea of
reciprocity—Nero should treat his subjects as he would want the gods to treat himself
(Clem.1.7.1).
Seneca demonstrates a keen understanding of psychology in attempting to persuade the
princeps to exercise his commands with mercy. Already in theory, Aristotle had recognized that
praise poetry could influence one’s behavior (Rhet.1.9.65ff). That the praise of the princeps in
the De Clementia aspires to this goal is explicitly stated a number of times. Seneca first tells us
that he aims to delight Nero by holding up a mirror for him to see his own virtues (Clem. 1.1.1).
Then, Seneca states that these virtues themselves have created for Nero a burden of
responsibility: he must continue to maintain the goodness he has heretofore displayed in his rule
(Clem. 1.1. 6-7). More explicitly, in Book Two Seneca declares that he repeats the praises of the
emperor so that not only will Nero become familiar with them, but so that what is a natural
224
impulse might become a principle of governance (Clem. 2.2.2). Finally, another example occurs
in Book One, where Seneca proclaims that the title pater patriae is an honor which mandates
that Nero exercise the same kind of clemency that a father would grant towards his son (Clem.
1.14.2). This example especially clarifies the ideal character of the relationship between the
princeps and his subjects by positioning Nero in the place of a pater familias over the state.
Similarly, a system of praise and rewards underlies Columella’s philosophy of estate
management. An especially diligent worker is rewarded, as is a woman who has given birth to
many offspring. These rewards include exemption from work, a seat at the master’s table (Rust.
1.8.5), and even freedom (Rust. 1.8.18-19). Interestingly, Columella avoids directly using the
word clementia in reference to the interactions between the master and the slave
159
. Instead, we
find in the books concerned with the management of slaves (Book One, Eleven, and Twelve) that
Columella opts for expressing sentiments similar to clementia, but not necessary the same
160
. For
example, in regard to land and labor arrangements between the master and tenant farmers,
Columella advises interactions based upon the spirit of clementia yet expresses his advice using
different terms:
Comiter agat cum colonis, facilemque se praebeat. Avarius opus exigat quam pensiones, quoniam et minus
id offendit, et tamen in universum magis prodest. Nam ubi sedulo colitur ager, plerumque compendium,
numquam, nisi si caeli maior vis aut praedonis incessit, detrimentum adfert, eoque remissionem colonus
petere non audet. Sed nec dominus in unaquaque re cui colonum obligauerit tenax esse iuris sui debet, sicut
in diebus pecuniarum aut lignis et ceteris paruis accessionibus exigendis, quarum cura maiorem molestiam
quam inpensam rusticis adfert. Rust. 1.7.1-2
He should act kindly with his tenants and he should present himself as good-natured. He should eagerly
demand work rather than payments, since this both gives less offence, and yet is generally more profitable.
For when land is diligently tilled it mostly brings a profit and never a loss, unless especially violent weather
or banditry attacks it, and it brings loss. For that reason the tenant does not undertake to ask for remission
159
Columella uses the virtue of clementia, however, to refer to the interaction between the ploughman and his oxen,
which is the closest parallel to how Seneca uses the term (Rust. 1.9.2); Elsewhere, Columella uses the term to refer
to how the kinder weather of spring allows longer working hours (Rust. 11.2.1) , as well as to communicate the
willingness of the spring time to receive seedlings (Rust. 11.3.9).
160
Other places where Columella advises for the principle: Rust. 11.1.25, where he uses “ne aut crudelius aut
remissius agat” (‘he should act neither too cruelly or too lenientely’); In matters that demonstrate concern for the
slaves health (Rust. 11.1.18); clothes (Rust. 11.1.20); of the bailiff’s wife in regard to sick slaves (Rust. 12.1.6).
225
of his rent. But the master should not be stubborn as to his rights in every single particular to which he has
bound his tenant, such as the day for payment, or in requiring firewood and other small, insignificant
additions, care over which brings more annoyance than expense for the country-folk.
He says that the master should act affably (agat comiter) and present himself as easy going
(faciliem se praebeat). Later in the passage, Columella is particularly clear on what his version
of clementia entails “Nec sane est vindicandum nobis quidquid licet. Nam summum ius antiqui
summam putabant crucem” (‘In fact, we should not lay claim to whatever the law allows, for the
ancients used to think that the extreme of the law was a form of extreme misery’). The phrase is
similar to the sentiment in Cicero’s De Officiis, where Cicero discusses how when the letter of
the law is too closely adhered to, the result is extreme oppression
161
. Columella’s prescription
here especially resonates with Seneca’s concept of clementia. In the context of tenants who are
unable to pay their rent, Columella recommends the remission of rents as an appropriate
response by the landowner to aid in stable relations between the landowner and his tenants,
suggesting that he prioritizes the careful cultivation of the land over the payment of rent or
rending of other services
162
. For this reason, Columella recommends renting out land: “et
rusticos et eosdem assiduous colonus retineamus” (‘we should keep tenants who are both
country-born and likewise diligent workers’) (Rust. 1.7.4). Columella prefers this option rather
than renting to a colonus who lives in the city and cultivates the land through slaves, citing
Saserna as an authority who says the likely return is a law suit instead of revenue. However,
Columella also notes the importance of claiming what is one’s under the law: “Nec rursus in
161
“Exsistunt etiam saepe iniuriae calumnia quadam et nimis callida, sed malitiosa iuris interpretatione. Ex quo
illud ‘Summum ius summa iniuria’ factum est iam tritum sermone proverbium” (‘Injustices arise often through a
kind of chicanery and over-subtle but fraudulent interpretation of the law. From which that proverb, well-worn in
speech, came about, ‘the extreme of the law is the extreme of injustice’ ’) (Off. 1.33). cf. Terence, Haut. 796.
162
As Dennis Kehoe observes, the relationship is not one which is purely transactional—it was in the interest of both
parties to maintain good relations through an ongoing and mutually beneficial relationship (Kehoe 2007:106). For
the most part, this meant avoiding formal avenues to conflict resolution: “careful stewardship on the part of the
landowner meant avoiding being placed in a position of having to go to court to enforce lease terms” (Kehoe
2007:106).
226
totum remittendum” (‘On the other hand, we should not relax our rights completely’) (Rust.
1.7.2). The recommendation follows the idea of striking a balance, similar to the principle of the
mean described elsewhere: “Modus ergo, qui in omnibus rebus, etiam parandis agris habebitur”
(‘Therefore moderation, as in all matters, will even be held to in the acquisition of lands’) (Rust.
1 pref. 12). That the agronomist did not express his sentiments using the same imperial
vocabulary suggests a number of potential readings. The decision could signal a rejection of the
dominant discourse preferred by the representative of the new imperial ideology, or less
forcefully, it could mean that Columella felt the need to create distance between himself and the
new imperial ideology. Or perhaps he felt clementia a term more appropriate for the relationship
between the ruler of a state and his subjects. In the text of the De Clementia itself, the usage of
the word “clementia” differs between Book One and Book Two. As Griffin observes, in Book
One “misericordia, venia, and ignoscere occur as respectable synonyms for clementia” (Griffin
1992:152)
163
. Yet in Book Two, Seneca carefully distinguishes clementia from each of these
terms (Griffin 1992:152)
164
. Griffin sees no fundamental difference of doctrine between Book
One and Book Two. Instead she sees Book One as exhibiting rhetorical impetus and Book Two
as more concerned with stoic subtilitas (Griffin 1992:152). Additionally, Griffin draws a
distinction between Seneca’s clementia and its relation to the law versus the beliefs which
traditional Stoics had held. Some Stoics had believed exercising leniency to be an act of open
defiance of the law. Seneca, on the contrary, understood the inflexibility of this stance. Griffin
summarizes Seneca’s unique approach to the concept:
Seneca’s originality in defining clementia, like his provocativeness in using rex, had its source in political
realism which led him to reject both philosophical rigidity and political hypocrisy. The character of those
who governed, not the law, now determined how men were ruled. Griffin 1992:170
163
misericordia: Clem. 1.1.4; venia: Clem. 1.6.2; ignoscere: Clem. 1.2.2, 1.9.6, 1.10.1, 1.10.4, 1.24.1.
164
misericordia: Clem. 2.4.4; venia: Clem. 2.5-6; ignoscere: Clem. 2.7; For a full discussion of Seneca’s definition
and its precise relation to philosophical thought see Griffin 1992:152-170.
227
It is this principle of flexibility before the law, especially in light of a political organization
dependent upon its ruler for its character, that resonates with Columella’s notion of leniency
before the law. In Columella’s description of the ideal disposition of the vilicus, a similar spirit
for principles of ruling emerges:
Nec tantum operis agrestis sit artifex, sed et animi, quantum servile patitur ingenium, virtutibus instructus,
ut neque remisse neque crudeliter imperet; semperque aliquos ex melioribus foveat, parcat tamen etiam
minus bonis; ita ut potius timeant eius severitatem, quam crudelitatem detestentur. Rust. 1.8.10
Not only should he be skilled in the work of the farm, but also, as much as his servile nature allows, instructed
in the virtues of the mind, so that he does not give orders gently or cruelly, and always favors some of the
better slaves, and yet he should also be sparing of even the less good, in such a way that they fear his
harshness rather than detest his cruelty.
In describing the scientia imperandi, Columella says that the vilicus should be instructed in the
virtues of the soul to the extent possible for a slave. The stance towards the exercise of authority
(neque remisse neque crudeliter) here resonates with the passage above on the remission of
rents; the assessment of punishment at the end of the passage speaks to the importance of the
character of the person giving commands, while striking balance between severitas and
crudelitas. Columella’s style of management favors the use of severitas, a more rational
application of punishment as a means of behavioral correction over the arbitrary exercise of
power embodied in crudelitas. The distinction is one which, when respected in the household,
results in a style of management free from the tyrannical associations of crudelitas. The overall
effect is one which attempts to humanize the slave and aids in the creation of good faith
relationships, despite the brutality of direct domination. The passage resonates with a letter in
Seneca’s Epistulae Morales, where Seneca advises masters to treat there slaves with respect
165
.
165
Seneca imagines an objection to the notion that love and respect must underlie the relationship between the
master and slave: “colant tamquam clientes, tamquam salutatores?” (‘they should pay respect as if they are clients,
as if they are morning visitors?’) (Ep. 47.16). The sense is that it is offensive for a master to be brought down to the
level of the slave. But Seneca clarifies that just as respect is sufficient for gods, so too should it be sufficient for a
master. Furthermore, he makes the point that love and fear cannot mix.
228
While Columella offers a much less radical view on the treatment of slaves, his choice to use the
word severitas captures something of the spirit of Seneca’s letter.
The importance of the character of the person issuing commands on the farm is also a
concern found amongst Columella’s agronomic predecessors. The preoccupation with each of
these writers is to use positive treatment to extract the best work from his labor force. Cato, for
example, speaks of the demonstration by the vilicus of gratitude for good work (pro beneficio) so
that he might encourage others to do the same (Agr. 5.2). The use of incentive to influence
behavior is also in Varro, who maintains that the vilicus should be gifted with rewards in order to
arouse an eagerness for labor. He should have his own property, a mate, and he should make it a
practice of consulting his labor force in order to make them think that their opinions are valued,
the result being that they are more zealous for work (studiosiores ad opus) (Varr. Rust. 1.17.4-7).
These agricultural authors heavily influenced both Seneca and Columella. We see in Book One
of the De Re Rustica that Columella, after claiming to know the effectiveness of his praecepta
from his own personal experience, incorporates various techniques from each of these
agricultural authors into his own scientia imperandi:
In ceteris servis haec fere praecepta servanda sunt, quae me custodisse non paenitet, ut rusticos, qui modo
non incommode se gessissent, saepius quam urbanos familiariusque alloquerer; et cum hac comitate domini
levari perpetuum laborem eorum intelligerem, nonnumquam etiam iocarer, et plus ipsis iocari permitterem.
Iam illud saepe facio, ut quasi cum peritioribus de aliquibus operibus novis deliberem, et per hoc
cognoscam cuiusque ingenium, quale quamque sit prudens. Tum etiam libentius eos id opus aggredi video,
de quo secum deliberatum et consilium ipsorum susceptum putant. Rust. 1.8.15
As for the other slaves, these precepts, for the most part, ought to be observed—which I am not sorry to
have maintained: that I talk more intimately to the country slaves who have not conducted themselves
disagreeably more frequently than I talk with the city slaves; and when I understood that their perpetual
labor was relieved by this kindness of the master, I would even joke with them a few times and allow them
to joke more. Now I often make it a habit to deliberate with them about any new work as if they were more
experienced, and through this I come to know the innate ability of each man and how intelligent he is.
Then, I see that they are more willing to set about that work on which they have been consulted and they
think that it has been undertaken by their advice.
Columella makes it a point to describe the practical reason behind his friendliness. His displays
229
of intimacy (familiarius) in speaking with the country slaves is aimed at eliciting a positive
response from his workforce for the purpose of productivity. Although this advice is clearly
aimed at establishing a good rapport with the rustic slaves in the interest of the master, there is
also the sense that Columella is advising behavior which may be seen by some as unbecoming of
a master in the sense that he associates with slaves on intimate terms—he recommends utilizing
friendliness (comitate) to lighten their perpetual toil. The agronomist expresses no regret (non
paenitet) at the advice which he recommends and even admits to using it himself. That
Columella’s aim is the productivity of his workforce is reinforced when he discusses the greater
yields to be gained from the master overseeing the slaves (Rust. 1.7.5). In another section, he
tells us that supervision has a preemptive function: the slave cannot commit an offense under
supervision. The benefit is clear: “nulla est autem vel nequissimi hominis amplior custodia quam
quotidiana operis exactio” (‘for there is no better guard against even the most wicked man than
the daily exaction of his work’) (Rust. 11.1.25). Concern for the estate is founded in the assertion
that justice and consideration on the part of the master can result in the increase of the estate:
“haec et iustitia et cura patris familiae multum confert augendo patrimonio” (‘this justice and
care from the master contributes much to the increase of the estate’) (Rust. 1.8.20).
The concern with just and fair treatment is also found in a number of other
recommendations from Columella. Most are found alongside statements about the importance of
productivity. One instance of rational management and justice going hand in hand is found in
Columella’s insistence on the delegation of command: “Potissimum autem est in eo magisterio
scire et aestimare, quale officium et qualis labor sit cuique iniungendus. Nam nec valentissimus
possit exequi quod imperatur, si nesciat quid agat; nec peritissimus, si sit invalidus” (‘But the
chief concern for that type of superintendence is to know and to judge what sort of duty and what
230
sort of labor should be imposed upon each person. For the strongest man is not able to carry out
what has been ordered if he does not know what he should do; nor the most experienced, if he is
weak’) (Rust. 11.1.7). The proper placement of laborers fits in with the emphasis on order and
aesthetic pleasure found throughout Book Eleven and Twelve and amounts to a kind of justice in
the sense that the slave’s capability is matched according to the task to be performed.
Columella’s style of management means that the strong and the weak are given roles appropriate
to their capabilities. Again, another instance of the pairing of management and justice occurs in
the apportioning of field work, where Columella recommends a precise number of workers based
on the characteristics of the land. For example, in a large field, groups of slave laborers should
never work in small groups because of the difficulty of supervising them when scattered over a
large area. The number of people in groups should also not exceed ten because doing so might
cause each individual to think that the work does not concern him. Columella explains that these
precautions stimulate rivalry and reveal the slothful: “haec ordinatio non solum concitat
aemulationem, sed et deprehendit ignavos; nam cum certamine opus excitetur, tum in cessantes
animadversio iusta et sine querela videtur adhiberi” (‘this system of order not only stimulates
rivalry, but it also the reveals the slothful; for when work is stimulated with competitive rivalry,
then the punishment of the loiterers seems to be applied justly and without complaint’) (Rust.
1.9.8). The morality of the farm dictates that each worker adhere to a specific code of behavior.
Competition has the benefit of increasing each worker’s productivity while at the same time
deflecting censure for poor performance away from the manager. This technique aids in the
maintenance of a stable relationship between the person issuing commands and his subjects.
Columella’s emphasis upon stability and safety is unique among agricultural writers
(Griffin 1992:264). This is another point of similarity with Seneca. He recommends that slaves
231
be treated justly so that those who are unfairly punished do not retaliate against the master (Rust.
1.8.17-18). Seneca also makes the concern for safety one of the key benefits provided by the
princeps in the De Clementia. At one point in the text, Seneca describes how it is in the interest
of safety that legions rush into battle to protect the princeps. In making this argument, Seneca
develops an analogy between the princeps and his subjects and the body and its soul (Clem.
1.3.5-1.4.1; 1.5.1). The soul issues forth commands that define the character of the body and
orders its various parts. So too does the princeps affect the collectivity that make up his subjects,
who could be harmed if not sustained by the princeps’ wisdom (consilio). Later, Seneca explains
the nature of the princeps’ relationship to the collectivity:
Suam itaque incolumitatem amant, cum pro uno homine denas legiones in aciem deducunt, cum in primam
frontem procurrunt et adversa volneribus pectora ferunt, ne imperatoris sui signa vertantur. Ille est enim
vinculum, per quod res publica cohaeret, ille spiritus vitalis, quem haec tot milia trahunt nihil ipsa per se
futura nisi onus et praeda, si mens illa imperii subtrahatur.
Rege incolumi mens omnibus una;
amisso rupere fidem. Clem. 1.4.1
And so, men love their own safety, when on behalf of one man they lead ten legions each into battle, when
they charge at the frontline and bear their breasts against wounds so that the standards of their emperor are
not destroyed. For that one is the bond by which the commonwealth clings together, that breath of life
which these so many thousands draw—they would be nothing by themselves, except a burden and prey for
another, if that mind of the empire should be removed:
With the king safe, there is one mind to all;
When he is lost, they break faith.
The princeps is the bond (vinculum) by which the res publica is held together (Clem. 1.4.1). The
comparison shows the relationship between ruler and subject to be one of mutual benefit, with
the primary reason for its existence being the safety of each party. As further clarification of the
nature of this relationship, Seneca cites Vergil’s Georgics 4.212, a passage in which Vergil
discusses the life of bees as an ideal model for collective association. Here fides plays an
important role in cementing together the members of the collective. The safety of the king bee
ensures the safety of the hive and the continuance of fides between the two, thereby maintaining
232
the bee-state. A similar concern for fides is shared by Columella and expressed in his comments
on its role in the selection of the vilicus:
Quare, sicut dixi, docendus et a pueritia rusticis operibus edurandus multisque prius experimentis
inspiciendus erit futurus vilicus, nec solum an perdidicerit disciplinam ruris, sed an etiam domino fidem ac
benevolentiam exhibeat, sine quibus nihil prodest vilici summa scientia. Rust. 11.1.7
Therefore, as I have said, your future bailiff must be instructed and hardened from boyhood in the tasks of
the farm, and first, through many tests, he must be examined not only as to whether he has thoroughly
learned the discipline of farming, but also whether he exhibits trust and goodwill to his master, without
which all the knowledge of the overseer is of no profit.
The value of fides is so great that without it, the knowledge of the bailiff is negated. Columella
reiterates this point at Rust. 8.4.6, where he explains that the most important quality in the
keeping of animals is the “fides pastoris” (‘the trustworthiness of the keeper’). To set
Columella’s concern for safety within the historical context of the early Principate explains this
emphasis. As Griffin explains, dramatic slave revolts and brigandage were serious problems in
the late Republic (Griffin 1992: 264). Clemency was a solution offered by many of the leading
intellectuals of the Principate which aimed at securing the safety and stability of the domus and
the state. No matter how much weight Columella put behind a relationship based on fides, it
should be noted that he encouraged the master’s frequent visitation to his estate and the direct
supervision of his slaves. When this was not possible, Columella warns that the slaves might
become corrupt and intent on committing crimes (Rust. 1.1.20). For this reason, trustworthiness
is all the more important for an absentee landlord’s running an estate. The role that fides plays in
government, as demonstrated by Vergilian citation above, continues the parallel between the two
spheres of home and state.
The collocation of an emphasis on fides and leniency in both the De Re Rustica and
Seneca’s De Clementia suggests that both texts engaged in a shared discourse of management
and administration. Both Seneca and Columella referred explicitly to models of varying scale as
233
providing particularly illuminating practices of management and administration. Thus, at Clem.
1.19.1 Seneca notes that the beauty of the exercise of clemency is proportional to the scale on
which it is exercised. Nature, he explains, is full of examples which serve as models for the
relationship between ruler and subject: bees have a king who is placed in the roomiest cell in the
safest and central-most spot. Seneca is quite explicit about the reason for addressing scale:
“Exemplar hoc magnis regibus ingens; est enim illi mos exercere se in parvis et ingentium
rerum documenta minima largiri. Pudeat ab exiguis animalibus non trahere mores, cum tanto
hominum moderatior esse animus debeat, quanto vehementius nocet” (‘Great kings have this
powerful model; for it is customary for [nature] to exercise herself in small things and to provide
the tiniest proofs of great matters. It would be shameful not to draw upon the customs of these
slight creatures, since the mind of men ought to be more restrained by how much more seriously
it inflicts harm’) (Clem. 1.19.4). Columella applies a similar methodology, but uses larger
structures as examples for obtaining principles of management and administration. As referenced
above, Columella explicitly claims to look “in maioribus imperiis” (‘in larger forms of ruling’).
The question must be asked—why does Columella reverse Seneca’s methodology and what does
he hope to gain from doing so? The idea that the management of the farm ought to be informed
by principles derived from the governance of the state suggests that Columella viewed the
household as a significant feature of the agricultural landscape. Additionally, it reveals how
deeply ingrained in Columella were the ideas espoused by Seneca in the De Clementia and
earlier by Roman agronomists. While Seneca’s De Clementia is about a new ruling ideology
specific to the head of the state, Columella borrows from Seneca’s treatise and applies it
generally to those who are in positions of power, namely, the pater familias and the vilicus.
Seneca’s exhortation to strive for and imitate the behavior of the gods suggests the broader
234
applicability of his message: “Quid autem? non proximum illis locum tenet is, qui se ex deorum
natura gerit, beneficus ac largus et in melius potens? Hoc adfectare, hoc imitari decet, maximum
ita haberi, ut optimus simul habeare” (‘What then? Does he who conducts himself according to
the nature of the gods, who is good and generous, and exercises his power for the better, does he
not hold place closest to the gods? It is fitting that one strive for this, imitate this, to be
considered the greatest, as if at the same time you are considered the best’) (Clem. 1.19.9). That
Columella may have recognized the broader applicability of Seneca’s advice, or even imagined it
as an important aspect of a discourse of management and administration in the Principate, is
implicit in the way in which he lays claim to these principles. Columella’s reversal of Seneca is
an affirmation of a shared discourse of management and administration.
Why Columella neglects citing Seneca as the specific source for his advice is unclear, but
the effect is a reorientation of perspective and emphasis. Where Seneca’s focus is the ruler of the
state with the individual as a secondary concern, Columella’s is the household estate, with the
state as a secondary, but still important, concern. The reorientation reaffirms the methods by
which the state is run—to the point of reduplicating the governing structures of the state at the
level of the household—and accepts its practices as important for conceptualizing good
management and administration. Seneca provides an illustrative example of this connection and
the extent to which it is ingrained in Roman culture:
Ne illud quidem videtis, quam omnem invidiam maiores nostri dominis, omnem contumeliam servis
detraxerint? Dominum patrem familiae appellaverunt, servos, quod etiam in mimis adhuc durat, familiares.
Instituerunt diem festum, non quo solo cum servis domini vescerentur, sed quo utique; honores illis in
domo gerere, ius dicere permiserunt et domum pusillam rem publicam esse iudicaverunt. Sen. Ep. 47.14
Do you not see even that—how our ancestors withdrew from masters everything which was an object of ill-
will, and from slaves everything insulting? They addressed the master as the “father of the household,” and
the slaves they called “members of the household,” a custom which even endures up to this point in mime.
They instituted a holiday, not the only one on which masters should eat together with slaves, but on that
day, at any rate. They permitted them to hold offices in the household and to give judgement, and they
judged that the home was a miniature commonwealth.
235
The picture of the household as a pusillam rem publicam is filled out by the replication of
Roman administrative structures within the household—we are told that slaves are given the
ability to hold office (honores) within the household and act as the praetors by dispensing justice
(ius dicere). While there is quite a bit of carryover from this example, especially with the vilica
functioning as a kind of guardian, Columella’s focus is oriented more towards the edification of
the master through a well-run estate. Although he affirms the principles of imperial governance
in a way he also encourages a retreat away from public life and towards a sphere over which the
master could exert his absolute control. Here lies the importance of the parallel between the
household and the state: the absence of the master’s power in the public sphere, where it had
once been productive, was reaffirmed in the household.
Columella’s message was especially provocative in the context of the emperor and his
ability to dominate social relations, especially in relation to elites and aspiring elites. An
anecdote from Epictetus is illustrative. The context of the passage is how even if a slave receives
emancipation, different forms of domination persist at every step in his life. At one point,
Epictetus imagines a scenario in which someone was admitted into the inner-circle of the
emperor:
ἄκουσον αὐτοῦ καὶ περὶ τούτων τί λέγει: ὅτι, ἂν µὲν µὴ κληθῇ, ὀδυνᾶται, ἂν δὲ κληθῇ, ὡς δοῦλος παρὰ
κυρίῳ δειπνεῖ µεταξὺ προσέχων, µή τι µωρὸν εἴπῃ ἢ ποιήσῃ. καὶ τί δοκεῖς φοβεῖται; µὴ µαστιγωθῇ ὡς
δοῦλος; πόθεν αὐτῷ οὕτως καλῶς; ἀλλ᾽ ὡς πρέπει τηλικοῦτον ἄνδρα, Καίσαρος φίλον, µὴ ἀπολέσῃ τὸν
τράχηλον. Epict. Diss. 4.48
Hear also what he says about these things: that if he is not called upon, he suffers pain; and if he is called
upon, he dines as a slave next to his master, meanwhile being on guard that he not say or do anything
foolish. And why do you think he is afraid? That he be beaten as a slave? How could it turn out so well for
him? Rather, as is fitting for so great a man, a friend of Caesar, he fears he may lose his neck.
This imagined scenario provides a stunning look at the psychological effects of the power
discrepancies and social pressures of association with the emperor under the Principate. While
the thrust of Epictetus’ response to this scenario is to declare the lack of freedom in people by
236
decoupling freedom from the concept of the greatest good
166
, Columella directs his readers
towards household management. The way he focuses on the household is a reclamation and
expression of the ruling ideology that was supposed to ensure the proper functioning of the
state’s administrative apparatus. This focus, under a political environment dominated by Nero
and his neglect of Seneca’s advice, could have supplied Columella’s readers with a sense of
security and stability. His treatment of household management is both a repackaging of the
dominant political ideology, and at the same time, a kind of anti-politics in the sense that it is
aimed at the household. But Columella’s focus cannot be dismissed as a retreat from public life.
The next chapter will explicitly outline the way in which agriculture is intertwined with the well-
being of the state.
I have attempted to situate Columella’s De Re Rustica into the thriving literary system of
Imperial Rome and a historical context characterized by restrictions on libertas. I began by
reading Cicero’s De Re Publica as an influential text for the De Re Rustica, especially in
establishing the De Re Rustica’s political concerns. Columella borrows from the De Re Publica a
methodology for communicating his ideas about how the household and state should function.
Then I identified what I consider the structural emphasis of the De Re Rustica, with its focus
upon labor in the last two books, by drawing a connection between the theme of elite activity and
the focus on labor and its organization within the household. This meant identifying a connection
between the preface to Book One, with its exhortation of elite activity, and the explicit
instructions for the household staff. I argued that this connection is seen through a conception of
166
“ἀγαθόν σοι δοκεῖ ἡ ἐλευθερία; — τὸ µέγιστον. — δύναται οὖν τις τοῦ µεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ τυγχάνων κακοδαιµονεῖν
ἢ κακῶς πράσσειν; — οὔ. — ὅσους οὖν ἂν ἴδῃς κακοδαιµονοῦντας, δυσροοῦντας, πενθοῦντας, ἀποφαίνου θαρρῶν
µὴ εἶναι ἐλευθέρους. — ἀποφαίνοµαι” (‘Does freedom seem to you a good thing? The greatest good. Is it possible,
therefore, that someone who obtains the greatest good is unhappy or experiences ill fortune? No. Therefore, as many
men as you see unhappy, unfortunate, lamenting, boldly declare that they are not free. I declare it’) (Diss. 4.52).
237
labor which effaces the distinction between the work of dependents and that of the master—that
ideologically, slaves function as prostheses of the master. This conception of labor allows the
master to establish a connection between himself and quasi-mythological figures of the glorious
Roman past such as Cincinnatus and Dentatus, who had both served as statesmen and worked
their own fields. I followed this up by examining how the connection appeared in prescriptions
of labor management from Book Eleven and Twelve, and attempted to show that Columella
repurposed other authors, especially Xenophon and Seneca, for his own ends. The way in which
Columella used these sources—through the use of figured language and silences—revealed a
critique of the organization of labor and the administration of the Empire. Finally, I argued that
this critique is, however, not one which seeks to overturn existing political structures or relations
of labor, rather it relies on imperial ideology. According to Griffin, the parallel of the domus as a
miniature res publica in Seneca emphasized a view that upheld the rights of slaves and the
opportunities in the household for “self-government, responsibility, dignity, and even power”
and emphasized the fact that the imperial res publica provided a closer parallel to the household
than the Republican res publica (Griffin 1992:265). Columella shares this view but in his
reorientation of perspective he projects through his books on household management an image of
an ideal state, even if, as with Seneca, this image was dependent upon the forbearance of the
figure of authority. It is the specter of this analogy that constantly haunts Columella’s
presentation of management, and it forms the basis of a reading of his text as advocating for the
domus an autonomous entity that one could rule over, a notion that becomes increasingly
important under a regime in which traditional modes of social distinction had collapsed, giving
elites fewer avenues to access the dignitas that had existed in Republican times.
238
Chapter Six: The Flavians and the Cultivation of a New Imperial Subject
The sixth chapter of my dissertation argues that the De Re Rustica anticipates some of the
attributes that will come to define the new aristocracy of Flavian Rome, with its emphasis on
creating a class of administrative and military expertise from areas all over the empire. I suggest
that one of the major reasons for this quality of the De Re Rustica is based on the fact that
Columella taps into a discourse on management and administration. As I argued in the last
chapter, Columella pushes a critique of the imperial system which was for the most part based
upon reiterating his own version of clementia. This key principle of rule, which had been part of
the publicity of the Neronian regime since its inception
167
, would become a popular rallying
point for anti-Neronian sentiment. Additionally, a cluster of features which comprise the sound
principles of management in the De Re Rustica (in its unique version of agriculture, agricolatio),
reappear in the ideology and administrative practices of the Flavians. In my view, the
reappearance of these features can be described as an appropriation of the discourse on
management and administration. The Flavians adopted this discourse—kernels of which belong
to Neronian ideology itself (but not exclusively)—as a political strategy for post-Neronian rule.
In the adoption of this strategy, the ideology and administrative practices of the Flavians
contrasted with the extravagance and ineptitude of the later portions of Nero’s rule. In this
chapter, I suggest that this shared discourse of management and administration is visible in the
following characteristics of the Flavian dynasty: Vespasian’s rustic sensibilities and modes of
self-fashioning; a willingness to assimilate subjects from throughout the empire and integrate
them into its administrative structures; the observance of financial competency and frugality; a
167
Griffin 1976:135.
239
mode of architecture directed towards surveillance; an emphasis on management and military
command; and sexual control. Although these attributes not unique to Columella, the intersection
of them all within his work positions the De Re Rustica as an important point in our
understanding of the construction of the new Flavian elite. Finally, I show how some of the
salient features of Columella’s work, which come to define Flavian culture, reappear and are
appropriated in the poetic works of Martial.
Citizenship and Agriculture
At the conclusion of the preface to the De Re Rustica, Columella provides to his readers
an imagined form of ‘emancipation’ from the demands of living in a tightly controlled,
repressive society under imperial rule. The character of this rule was described in the previous
chapter. Additionally, Columella offers up the activity of managing an agricultural estate as a
means of escaping the pressures of Roman society. At Rust. 1 pref. 7-11, Columella highlights
the ability of agricultural pursuits to bestow freedom from disreputable forms of acquisition, the
dangers of war, the dependent nature of the Roman patron-client system, the demands of the
market, and the hazards of the sea. Furthermore, Columella makes it clear that it also offers the
ability to reclaim the glorious Roman past embodied by such figures as Curius Dentatus,
Quinctius Cincinnatus, and Gaius Fabricius (Rust. 1 pref. 13-14). Thus the management of an
agricultural estate offers access to a system of benefits and privileges—as well as a cultural
heritage—which would otherwise be extremely difficult or otherwise impossible to obtain. The
emblematic image of this arrangement is the metaphor which Columella employs in Book One,
where agricolatio is granted Roman citizenship:
Et ut agricolationem Romana tandem civitate donemus (nam adhuc istis auctoribus Graecae gentis fuit) iam
nunc M. Catonem Censorium illum memoremus, qui eam latine loqui primus instituit, post hunc duos
240
Sasernas, patrem et filium, qui eam diligentius erudiverunt, ac deinde Scrofam Tremelium, qui etiam
eloquentem reddidit, et M. Terentium qui expolivit, mox Vergilium, qui carminum quoque potentem fecit.
Nec postremo quasi paedagogi eius meminisse dedignemur Iuli Hygini, verum tamen ut Carthaginiensem
Magonem rusticationis parentem maxime veneremur; nam huius octo et viginti memorabilia illa volumina
ex senatus consulto in Latinum sermonem conversa sunt. Non minorem tamen laudem meruerunt
nostrorum temporum viri Cornelius Celsus et Iulius Atticus, quippe Cornelius totum corpus disciplinae
quinque libris complexus est, hic de una specie culturae pertinentis ad vitis singularem librum edidit. Cuius
velut discipulus duo volumina similium praeceptorum de vineis Iulius Graecinus composita facetius et
eruditius posteritati tradenda curavit.
And that we may grant agriculture at last with Roman citizenship (for up to this point it belonged to authors
of the Greek race), let us now recall Marcus Cato the Censor, who first taught her to speak in Latin; after
him the two Sasernas, father and son, who educated her rather carefully; then Tremelius Scrofa, who
rendered her eloquent, and Marcus Terentius, who polished her; and soon after Vergil, who made her
capable of song as well. And finally, let us not disdain to recollect her, shall we say, tutor, Julius
Hyginus—though indeed, let us venerate especially the Carthaginian Mago, the father of husbandry. For
those twenty-eight memorable volumes of his were translated into the Latin language by decree of the
senate. The men of our own time, Cornelius Celsus and Julius Atticus, deserve no less praise; for Cornelius
has embraced the whole substance of the discipline in five books, while the latter has published a single
book on one type of agriculture, that which pertains to the vines. Just so did his pupil, Julius Graecinus,
take care that two volumes of similar instructions on vineyards, composed more elegantly and learnedly,
should be handed down to posterity. Rust. 1.1.12-14
The metaphor is quite striking. It highlights the intersection of knowledge and citizenship in the
De Re Rustica. The connection is not arbitrary. Finley highlights a connection between land
ownership and citizenship
168
, which became the basis for the celebration of agriculture in Roman
literature
169
. The image here affirms the importance of this connection and serves as a means of
overviewing the entirety of the Latin tradition of agricultural writing. Columella imagines the
granting of citizenship to agricolatio after its depiction as a pupil who progresses through
various levels of coursework. Behind this metaphor lies the Roman imperial project of
colonizing knowledge, highlighting the assimilation of distinct versions of agricultural
168
He describes how under the Republic, at least after 300 BC, Roman imperial expansion shifted the burden of
taxation onto provincials. Under the empire, the situation was reversed, with the tax on land passed on to the poor
and middle class. He explains about this change: “This is a correlate of the distinction commonly formulated in
political terms, between the liberty of the classical citizen in the city-state and the lack of freedom, relative or total,
under the empires (and under the earlier, archaic regimes)” (Finley 1973:96).
169
Both Finley and Heitland had previously noted the importance of citizenship to the celebration of agriculture in
Roman literature. Heitland says “The glorification of unyielding toil as the true secret of success was (and is) a
congenial topic to preachers of the gospel of 'back to the land'” (Heitland 1921:226); Elsewhere he says “the ever-
repeated praises of country life are unreal. Even when sincere, they are the voice of town-bred men, weary of the
fuss and follies of urban life, to which nevertheless they would presently come back refreshed but bored with their
rural holiday” (Heitland 1921:200-2001).
241
knowledge in the process. It is not merely an overview of the literary history of agriculture. It is
also a disciplinary history which outlines how these varied forms of knowledge contribute to the
construction of a Roman subject whose identity is centered upon a thorough education in the art
of agriculture. The expression of the final form of agricultural writing as endowed with
citizenship seems to declare that agricultural knowledge had reached its limit. It also affirms the
capacity of the Roman empire to assimilate a wide range of subjects under its purview, while at
the same time Romanizing them. In this sense the inclusion of Mago is especially important:
with the consent of a senatorial decree, the Carthaginian is given an honorific title (rusticationis
parentem) that rivals that of Cato the Elder. But this capacity to assimilate and acculturate
subjects is not restricted to the distant past. As much as it refers to Mago, so too does it refer to
Columella.
In the first century CE, Roman power extended over Europe, North Africa, Western Asia,
and the Middle East. It was not uncommon for some authors to call the provinces their original
homes. Columella, for example, just as the Senecas, was originally from Hispania. He makes
reference to Gades, modern day Cadiz in Spain, at different points in the De Re Rustica
170
. At
one point in his career, we know from an inscription (CIL IX 234) that Columella was a military
tribune to the sixth legion (Ferrata), which was stationed in Syria. And, as may be inferred from
the language and structure of his work, he probably received a thorough education in rhetoric.
Thus, Columella was part of the various acculturation apparatuses of the empire. All this
suggests that Columella presents the granting of citizenship to agricolatio as more than just a
metaphor for the various stages of progression of the Roman agricultural tradition. Perhaps it is
170
In a catalogue of the various cabbages from around the empire, Columella refers to those from Gades as his own
(Rust. 10.185). Elsewhere he mentions the fish (Rust. 8.16.9). Gades is also mentioned in reference to his uncle,
Marcus Columella (Rust. 7.2.4).
242
also a narrative imbued with some biographical detail. At the very least, the metaphor is
especially suggestive of the power of the empire to encompass broad swaths of people. There is,
additionally, a significant aspect of this metaphor which further elucidates Columella’s
conception of agriculture. In order for the art of agriculture to function as a tool for acculturation,
as rhetoric did, it must be actively pursued and its principles of management actively employed.
This sense of active employment is pervasive in the De Re Rustica in particular, and Roman
culture in general. It not only determined membership within the state through citizenship, but
also membership within elite segments of society. For Columella, the principle was so pervasive
that it also played a huge role in the dynamics of gender. In order to understand how Columella
links together agriculture, the active life, and citizenship, I return to another figure who linked
together the two concepts.
Cicero’s De Re Publica, Citizenship, and the Active Life
The active life occupies much of Book One of Cicero’s De Re Publica. Here he
outlines the importance of the obligation to one’s country through a list of illustrious
men. What distinguishes these men from others is their preferment of military virtue
(rather than pleasure), which played an important role in compelling them to defend their
country and participate in public life
171
. These exempla include military figures and
statesmen such as Gaius Duilius, Aulus Atilius, Lucius Metullus, the two Scipios,
Quintus Fabius Maximus, Marcus Marcellus, and Marcus Cato (Rep. 1.1). Nature is
identified for its important role in guiding the human race: “tantam esse necessitatem
171
Here the concept of virtue is related to its primary meaning of manliness and steadfastness, especially as
displayed in war. But Cicero is extending the meaning of this word from its military context and using it show how
individual excellence can contribute to the res publica. Columella makes a similar move.
243
virtutis generi hominum a natura tantumque amorem ad communem salutem
defendendam datum, ut ea vis omnia blandimenta voluptatis otiique vicerit” (‘so great
was the necessity of virtue given to the human race by nature and so great a love for
defending the common safety, that this force overcame the charms of pleasure and
leisure’) (Rep. 1.1). The passage demonstrates how deeply embedded the notion of virtue
was to Roman social and political life. Placed in humans by nature, the achievement of
virtue allowed humans to overcome the baser impulses of pleasure and desire. To further
demonstrate this point, Cicero makes an analogy between the acquisition of virtue and
knowledge of an art. The distinction between these two scenarios hinges on the necessity
of virtue’s active employment:
Nec vero habere virtutem satis est quasi artem aliquam, nisi utare; etsi ars quidem, cum ea non
utare, scientia tamen ipsa teneri potest, virtus in usu sui tota posita est; usus autem eius est
maximus civitatis gubernatio et earum ipsarum rerum, quas isti in angulis personant, reapse, non
oratione perfectio. Rep. 1.2
Indeed, it is not enough to possess virtue as if it were some art, unless you use it; even an art,
though you do not use it, is nevertheless itself able to be possessed as knowledge, while virtue
wholly depends upon its use; and the greatest use of it is the government of the state and the
fulfilment (not in speech) of those very matters which those [philosophers] always discuss in their
corners.
Cicero explains the major difference between the possession of knowledge and virtue.
While knowledge can be possessed, virtue depends on use (usus). And the greatest use
(usus maximus) of virtue is clearly identified as the government of the state (civitatis
gubernatio). Thus the form of public life Cicero had in mind takes a specific shape.
This distinction between theoretical learning and practical service occupies one of
the major themes of Book One. Closely following Cicero’s refutation of arguments
against taking part in public life, he describes a turning away from philosophy towards a
method of living which seeks to directly influence public life. Again, Cicero draws upon
244
the arts, but this time he does so in order to develop how to place oneself in the best
position to participate in public life. At Rep. 1.35, he has Scipio reference the habits of
the craftsman to describe the development of administrative competency (procuratio
atque administratio rei publicae) necessary for participation in public life:
Non possum equidem dicere me ulla in cogitatione acrius aut diligentius solere versari quam in
ista ipsa, quae mihi, Laeli, a te proponitur. Etenim cum in suo quemque opere artificem, qui
quidem excellat, nihil aliud cogitare, meditari, curare videam, nisi quo sit in illo genere melior,
ego, cum mihi sit unum opus hoc a parentibus maioribusque meis relictum, procuratio atque
administratio rei publicae, non me inertiorem esse confitear quam opificem quemquam, si minus
in maxima arte, quam illi in minimis, operae consumpserim? Sed neque his contentus sum, quae
de ista consultatione scripta nobis summi ex Graecia sapientissimique homines reliquerunt, neque
ea, quae mihi videntur, anteferre illis audeo. Quam ob rem peto a vobis, ut me sic audiatis, neque
ut omnino expertem Graecarum rerum neque ut eas nostris in hoc praesertim genere
anteponentem, sed ut unum e togatis patris diligentia non inliberaliter institutum studioque
discendi a pueritia incensum, usu tamen et domesticis praeceptis multo magis eruditum quam
litteris. Rep. 1.35-36.
I am unable, indeed, to say that I am in the habit of reflecting upon any other topic more shrewdly
and carefully, Laelius, than the very one which is proposed to me by you. Furthermore, since I see
that each craftsman who excels in his own craft thinks and meditates and cares for nothing else
except how he might become better at it, should not I, since this one task was left behind to me
from my parents and my ancestors—that is, the guardianship and administration of the res
publica—confess that I am more idle than some craftsman, if I have spent less effort on the
greatest craft than those craftsmen do on the least? But I am not content with the writings which
the greatest and wisest men of Greece have left behind for us about this inquiry, nor am I bold so
as to place before them the things which I have seen myself. For this reason I ask from you all,
that you listen to me in this way—not as someone devoid of Greek learning, nor as one who put
their views before our own, especially on this topic—but singularly as a Roman citizen, instructed
quite liberally by the industry of his father, and inflamed with enthusiasm for learning from his
boyhood, yet trained by experience and precepts at home much more than by literary works.
The invocation of citizenship in the passage is interesting. Placed in opposition to Greek
learning and literature, it gives a very specific formulation for what it means to be a
citizen engaged in the administration of the state (procuratio atque administratio rei
publicae). Scipio does not embrace anti-intellectualism here, but rather he groups being a
citizen together with a host of terms: the notion of being instructed by one’s father (patris
diligentia), the possession of an enthusiasm for learning (studioque discendi), and most
importantly, experience (usu) and domestic instruction (domesticis praeceptis). This
245
suggests that, as previously mentioned, the idea of citizenship was dependent upon a
sense of action grounded in these principles
172
. Cicero draws upon this sense of action in
the application of skill in the administration of the state. He goes on to explain that the
citizen, through the authority of command (imperio) and punishment from the laws
(legumque poena), is able to compel everyone to act as philosophers can only persuade a
few to do (Rep. 1.3).
This sense of action also forms an important part in the relationship between the
citizen and the res publica. The character of this relationship is based on reciprocity. It
can be observed when Cicero provides a vigorous account about the importance of
participation in public life, first reviewing the arguments provided against participation in
public life (Rep. 1.4-6), and then telling about how the honor and glory received from his
actions were enough to recompense him for his worries and the burden of his injuries
(Rep. 1.7). He figures the relationship between the state and its citizens as reciprocal,
with the state providing for its citizens with the understanding that “ut plurimas et
maximas nostri animi, ingenii, consilii partis ipsa sibi ad utilitatem suam pigneraretur
tantumque nobis in nostrum privatum usum, quantum ipsi superesse posset, remitteret”
(‘so that she herself may appropriate for her own benefit the largest and best part of our
mind, talent, and judgement, and leave for us in our private use as much as she is able of
what remains’) (Rep. 1.8). The formulation leads to Cicero giving an account of how
those who enjoy leisure and philosophy fit into the administration of the state. He claims
that for such men there could be no greater reason to participate in public life than to
172
Claudia Moatti has argued for a conception of the res publica not as a predefined entity, but as the result of
citizen interaction. Under this view, she suggests that early citizenship had a performative quality, with a sense of
action behind it (Moatti 2017:36-37). The argument is made with reference to notions of the res publica before its
formalization and abstraction through the concept of the mixed constitution.
246
prevent wicked people from corrupting the state. He then refutes the idea that the wise
man should take no part in public affairs unless a crisis compels him (Rep. 1.6), explicitly
stating that his work is a discussion about the res publica (Rep. 1.7). Towards the end of
the preface, Cicero makes the connection between virtue and the administration of the
state especially clear: virtue approaches its most divine application when it is used for the
foundation of states or their preservation (Rep. 1.7). Cicero argues that he is especially
suited to speak on such a topic because of what he has achieved in his career and because
of his facility for explaining the principles of political life (rationibus rerum civilium)
(Rep. 1.8).
Columella’s Agriculture as a form of Action
Columella’s version of agriculture (agricolatio) is based upon a sense of action
grounded in Cicero. At the outset of the preface to Book One, he makes inactivity the key
reason behind the production of his treatise:
Saepenumero civitatis nostrae principes audio culpantes modo agrorum infecunditatem, modo caeli per
multa iam tempora noxiam frugibus intemperiem, quosdam etiam praedictas querimonias velut ratione
certa mitigantes, quod existiment ubertate nimia prioris aevi defatigatum et effetum solum nequire pristina
benignitate praebere mortalibus alimenta. Quas ego causas, Publi Silvine, procul a veritate abesse certum
habeo, quod neque fas sit existimare rerum naturam, quam primus ille mundi genitor perpetua fecunditate
donavit, quasi quodam morbo sterilitate affectam; neque prudentis credere tellurem, quae divinam et
aeternam iuventam sortita, communis omnium parens dicta sit, velut hominem consenuisse. Nec post haec
reor intemperantia caeli nobis ista, sed nostro potius accidere vitio, qui rem rusticam pessimo cuique
servorum, velut carnifici, noxae dedimus, quam maiorum nostrorum optimus quisque et optime
tractaverit. Rust. 1 pref. 1-3
On many occasions I hear the leading men of our state reproaching now the barrenness of the fields, now
the intemperateness of the weather through many seasons hitherto, as harmful to crops; I also hear certain
men mitigating the aforementioned complaints, as if based on sure reasoning, that the soil, which they
evaluate as fatigued and worn out by the excessive productiveness of a prior age, can no longer offer
nourishment to mortals with its former benevolence. Publius Silvinus, I am certain that such reasons are far
from the truth, because it is a sin to judge that nature, whom that most eminent creator of the universe
endowed with perpetual fertility, is affected with sterility as if with some disease; nor does it belong to a
prudent man to believe that the earth, who was allotted divine and everlasting youth, and is called the
common mother of all, because she has always brought forth all things and will bring them forth
continuously, has grown old just as a mortal. Furthermore, I do not think that these circumstances occur
247
because of extreme weather, but rather because of our own fault; for the rustic pursuit, which all the best of
our ancestors had treated with the utmost care, we have delivered over to all the worst of our slaves, as if to
the hangman for punishment.
After censuring the leading men of the state, Columella faults their inactivity as the reason for
the lack of fertility. He specifies that the duties previously under the control of the elites are now
performed by slaves. This state of affairs has, in Columella’s view, crippled the productivity of
the earth. As a solution, Columella proposes his pedagogical program and a newfound emphasis
on the principles of rational labor management. There is additionally a further indication that the
sense of action informs much of Columella’s thought. One of the reasons the agronomist
proposes a return to agriculture on the part of the elites is because of the exempla established by
the ancestors: “cum tot alios Romani generis intuear memorabiles duces hoc semper duplici
studio floruisse vel defendendi vel colendi patrios quaesitosve fines, intellego luxuriae et deliciis
nostris pristinum morem virilemque vitam displicuisse” (‘when I observe that so many other
memorable leaders of Roman stock always flourished in the twofold endeavor of either
protecting or cultivating our ancestral or newly obtained estates, I understand that our former
morals and vigorous manner of living do not sit well with our present luxury and pleasures.)
(Rust. 1 pref. 14). Instead, Columella finds fault with his contemporary generation: “Omnes
enim, sicut M. Varro iam temporibus avorum conquestus est, patres familiae falce et aratro
relictis intra murum correpsimus et in circis potius ac theatris quam in segetibus ac vinetis
manus movemus” (‘For all of us who are the head of the household, as M. Varro has complained
of already in the days of our grandfathers, have left behind the plough and we have crept within
the city-walls and we move our hands in the circuses and theaters rather than in the grain fields
and vineyards’) (Rust. 1 pref. 15).
The effects of this inactivity are far reaching. In addition to harming the fertility of the
earth and aiding in the degeneration of culture, Columella describes the Romans’ alienation from
248
the land. In Columella’s eyes, this alienation had a direct effect on the notion of gender:
“attonitique miramur gestus effeminatorum, quod a natura sexum viris denegatum muliebri motu
mentiantur decipiantque oculos spectantium” (‘and astonished, we marvel at the gestures of
effeminate males, because with feminine movements they feign the sex denied to men by nature
and deceive the eyes of the spectators’) (Rust. 1 pref. 15-16). And finally, Columella explains the
effects of this alienation on the physical constitution of the body. The practices he views are out
of touch with nature and the mos maiorum: he censures the practice of a culture that encourages
its members to, prior to attendance at glutinous feasts, frequent the baths in order to sweat out
indigestion. The habits of Columella’s contemporaries are an inversion of the natural order. He
says they spend their nights in drunkenness and licentiousness, while during the day they sleep,
beholding neither the rising of the sun nor its setting. He concludes: “Itaque istam vitam
socordem persequitur valetudo. Nam sic iuvenum corpora fluxa et resoluta sunt, ut nihil mors
mutatura videatur” (‘Therefore, sickness follows after that negligent lifestyle. For our youth’s
bodies are so loose and enfeebled that death seems to make no change’) (Rust. 1 pref. 17). The
connection between citizenship and the land is an especially important notion which informs
Columella’s logic: “We must therefore rest content with the vague but sure proposition that most
people in the ancient world lived off the land, in one fashion or another, and that they themselves
recognized the land to be the fountainhead of all good, material and moral” (Finley 1973:97).
Thus Columella proposes the life of agricolatio as a means of restoring the Romans’
connection to the land and securing their relationship to the illustrious Romans of the past.
Additionally, reviving the connection to the land allows for the possibility of the Romans
reclaiming their cultural values and practices – along with the physical traits which accompany
them. Columella tells us that “vera illa Romuli proles assiduis venatibus nec minus agrestibus
249
operibus exercitata firmissimis praevaluit corporibus ac militiam belli, cum res postulavit, facile
sustinuit durata pacis laboribus semperque rusticam plebem praeposuit urbanae” (‘that true
stock of Romulus, trained in continual hunting as much as in the tasks of agriculture, prevailed
by their very powerful bodies, and when the matter demanded, they easily withstood military
service during wartime, made hard by the labors of peace, and they always preferred the country-
folk over those from the city’) (Rust. 1 pref. 17). Columella describes the extent to which the
leading men engaged in agriculture:
Illis enim temporibus, ut ante iam diximus, proceres civitatis in agris morabantur et, cum consilium
publicum desiderabatur, a villis arcessebantur in senatum; ex quo, qui eos evocabant, viatores nominati
sunt. Isque mos dum servatus est, perseverantissimo colendorum agrorum studio veteres illi Sabini Quirites
atavique Romani, quamquam inter ferrum et ignes hosticisque incursionibus vastatas fruges largius tamen
condidere quam nos, quibus diuturna permittente pace prolatare licuit rem rusticam. Rust. 1 pref. 18-19
For as we said before, in those times, the leading men of the state used to remain on the fields, and, when
advice on public matters was desired, they were sent for from their farms into the senate; for that reason
those who used to send for them were called ‘highwaymen’. So long as this custom was kept, those old
Sabine Quirites and our Roman ancestors, with a most persisting enthusiasm for cultivating their fields,
although caught between the sword and fire, and their crops ravaged by hostile incursions, nevertheless
stored up a greater amount than we do, even though we, with our long lasting peace, have been permitted to
broaden the practice of agriculture.
So far we have seen how the metaphor of granting agricolatio its citizenship is dependent upon
a sense of action: just as the sense of action underlies the notion of citizenship, so too is it
important in agriculture. Here there is a conjoining of the two concepts, where the practice of
agriculture is as privileged as the practice of the leading men of the state of giving advice on
public matters. Columella aims to mend the contemporary divergence of these two activities and
return to this arrangement, which is in Columella’s view representative of mos maiorum.
As discussed in the previous chapter, the repurposing of precepts which are explicitly
cited as being used for the governance of empire suggests that Columella imagines agriculture
and the management of the household to be connected to virtue (Rust. 1 pref. 4). There is also the
sense that this virtue is available to those who manage the household (Rust. 1.8.10): management
250
of the household by the paterfamilias and his staff is analogous to a general exercising his
command over the army. The militarization of the agricultural estate through the utilization of
military language, analogies between the farmer and the soldiers, and structures of military
organization, act as a means of compensating lost opportunities for virtue on the battlefield under
the Principate (Spanier 2012: 253)
173
. Knowledge, imperialism, militarism, the importance of the
land, and a sense of action all converge in the image of agricolatio granted the Roman
citizenship. Columella aims at a version of agriculture which results in personal and cultural
transformation, brought about by its relationship to tradition, political affiliation, gender identity,
and an embrace of hierarchical relations. As a tool for acculturation, Columella’s agriculture
aided in outlining a new kind of Roman, a forerunner for the kind that would become promoted
during the Flavian period.
The Flavian Period
The precise character of this Roman is visible in the features of the Flavian period and in
many ways it is a reaction to Nero’s reign. Although there are a significant number of
continuities with the Julio-Claudians—the Flavian dynasty maintained the tradition of co-
operation between the emperor and the senate—there are some important differences which
aided in the creation of the remarkable period of stability that would characterize the age
174
.
Let us begin with the self-representation practices and habits of the Flavian dynasty:
many of the values amplified in the sources are representative of Roman cultural ideals dominant
173
For this concern with the traditional concept of Roman virtus, present in the portions of the De Re Rustica which
treat the agricultural landscape as a substitute for military exercise and glory, see Spanier 2012:253-260.
174
As evident in the Lex de Imperio Vespasiani, which attempts to ground Vespasian’s powers in those traditionally
granted to the Julio-Claudians (Brunt 1977:95-116).
251
in the De Re Rustica. And these values reappear in the sources’ presentation of the emperor
Vespasian. Suetonius, for example, tells us that Vespasian came from humble origins. On his
father’s side, he could claim a rustic Italian background from the Sabine region of Italy. Born
near Reate in 9 CE, Mellor tells us that Vespasian “brought to the throne those Sabine qualities
of frugality and caution, honesty and courage” (Mellor 2003:71). Tacitus describes him as a
follower of the old school: “praecipuus adstricti moris auctor Vespasianus fuit, antiquo ipse
cultu victuque” (‘Vespasian was a chief promoter of strict customs, himself a man of ancient
culture and lifestyle’) (Tac. Ann. 3.55.2-5). Elsewhere, his lifestyle was described as “simple,
frugal, quintessentially ‘Roman’”, providing what would be “a paradigm for the new age” (Boyle
2003:8). He reportedly had a great love for his homeland and often returned to the country about
Reate every year. Notably, he stayed there in order to recover from an illness which eventually
claimed his life (Suet. Vesp. 24). The values and background discussed here are firmly grounded
in the rustic life extolled by Columella. Yet this carefully presented image of being a self-reliant
Sabine is complicated by Vespasian’s own ambitions. He reportedly sought Caligula’s approval
by proposing games in his honor, advocated harsh punishment for conspirators, and made a
public show of thanking the emperor for his invitation to dinner (Suet. Vesp. 2.3). In any case,
there is a close connection between the values emphasized in the De Re Rustica and Vespasian’s
self-fashioning, as Suetonius tells us: “Ceteris in rebus statim ab initio principatus usque ad
exitum ciuilis et clemens, mediocritatem pristinam neque dissimulauit umquam ac frequenter
etiam prae se tulit” (‘In other affairs, immediately from the beginning of his Principate to the
end, he was civil and lenient, and not ever did he conceal his former humble station, and in fact,
he even frequently put it on display’) (Suet. Vesp. 12). The description of Vespasian as clemens
is especially important. I will say more about it below. Paired with this comment on Vespasian’s
252
pristinam medocritatem is mention of his physique: “Statura fuit quadrata, compactis firmisque
membris, uultu ueluti nitentis” (‘his physique was well-proportioned, with strong and firm limbs,
with an appearance like one who was straining’) (Suet. Vesp. 20). We should imagine that the
description of Vespasian’s physique is connected to his rustic origins and military background.
As mentioned above, in the De Re Rustica there was a concern for the body, its degradation
expressed as a symptom of alienation from the land. The current generation does not have the
hardy physique of the ancestors (Rust. 1 pref. 17). As a solution, Columella offers that one
practiced in agriculture could obtain physical strength and be well-prepared for the duties of
military life and state obligations, two ideas manifest in Vespasian’s rustic nature and especially
strong military career. This military background was especially important in the context of an
important reality well understood by Augustus and Tiberius, as Mellor tells us, that “emperors
ultimately derived their authority from control of the armies” (Mellor 2003:70).
Popular among his own troops in Judaea, his military connections helped him to win the
eventual support of all nine eastern legions against Vitellius. The Danubian troops soon followed
suit after Vitellius murdered their centurions. The neutrality of the western legions was secured
by Vespasian’s popular reputation with his troops, his successful service in Britain, and the
promise to respect the promotions made by Vitellius (Mellor 2003:76-77). His promises were
especially credible because in the letters sent to all the armies, he promised modest promotions
and bonuses (Tac. Hist. 2.82; Mellor 2003:77). Although Vespasian had little in support in Italy,
the sailors of the fleets at Ravenna and Misenum fought for him and, after the war, members of
the Ravenna fleet were granted citizenship only two months after the Flavian victory (Roxan
1996:247-57; Mellor 2003:77). For a year after the sack of Cremona Vespasian remained in the
East to secure Egypt. Upon his journey to Rome, we are told by Cassius Dio that he treated
253
everyone he met as though he were a private citizen rather than an emperor (οὐχ ὡς αὐτοκράτωρ
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἰδιώτης) (65.10.1). Flavian propagandists, in turn, praised him for being civilis due to his
good nature and common sense (Mellor 2003:79).
All these attributes resonate with the precepts and values of the De Re Rustica and point
to Vespasian’s capacity as an administrator. And it is clear that as an administrator, Vespasian
was especially talented. He was aided by the fact that his inner circle was not based upon familial
connections and was somewhat small: “there was one senior advisor, one experienced son, few
other relatives, and no empress with an inconvenient collection of in-laws” (Mellor 2003:80).
The effect of this relatively small circle was that Vespasian was able to select his government
from among “the loyal and gifted” (Mellor 2003:80). That this selection process was more rooted
in meritocracy certainly resonates with Columella’s emphasis on the implementation of rational
principles of labor management
175
. This focus on sound management is shared in the character of
the Flavian administration. As Ronald Mellor has argued, “The Flavians most lasting
contribution was the creation of a new aristocracy of power that determined the shape and
direction of political and cultural life until the death of Commodus in 193 CE” (Mellor 2003:
69). This revitalized elite would aid in the administration of the empire. Vespasian’s mercy and
unpretentiousness must have played no small part in the success of the era—Tacitus tells us that
Vespasian was the only emperor to have changed for the better after taking power (Hist. 1.50).
Aside from his treatment of Helvidius Priscus, which Mellor identifies as an exceptional case
(Mellor 2003:81), Vespasian’s adoption of the role of the merciful ruler was both a reaction to
Nero’s rule and a function of his participation in what I identified in the previous chapter as a
175
Restriction on the size of Vespasian’s inner circle resonates with Columella’s restrictions on the number of
laborers in the field (Rust. 1.9.8). Additionally, that jobs were assigned to slaves according to their fitness
contributes to the nature of management in Columella.
254
discourse on management and administration which wholly embraced the concept of clementia
and similar attitudes. Mellor provides an overview of the many remarkable achievements of
Vespasian: he consolidated the imperial frontiers after the turmoil of the civil war, settled the
discharged veterans, reformed the army to prevent further insurrections, rebuilt the solvency of
the treasury, and developed an effective political and administrative elite (Mellor 2003:81).
The financial competency of Vespasian deserves special comment. The amount of money
needed for the state to stand upright again after extravagance on both Nero and Vitellius’ part, as
well as the losses from the civil war, would take somewhere between forty thousand million
sestertii and four thousand million (Suet. Vesp. 16.3; Boyle 2003:8). Vespasian was especially
effective in setting the financial affairs of the state in order. He set about implementing a number
of financial policies aimed at improving public infrastructure: the restoration of cities, roads,
bridges, aqueducts, and even the restoration and development of the city of Rome itself. To
implement these plans, Vespasian debased the coinage, increased taxes, generated new ones, and
created three new imperial treasuries. As Boyle explains, “What resulted from Vespasian’s
policies was not only a public works program to rival that of Augustus but the financial
reinvigoration of the empire itself” (Boyle 2003:8). This financial security went a long way
towards providing political stability. Similarly, financial competency was one of the defining
features of Columella’s De Re Rustica (Rust. 1.1.1): alongside agricultural knowledge and the
will to farm Columella placed the resources necessary to purchase and maintain the farm. As
previously mentioned, the importance of this principle is either deemphasized or neglected in the
other agronomists before (and after) Columella. Although Vespasian’s talent for financial
matters was without a doubt aided by the fact that his father was a financier, his stinginess which
255
repeatedly appears in the sources was a value with agrarian roots (Cato, Agr. 2.7): the principle
essential for the management of the estate and as we see here, the empire.
In addition to the financial stability of the empire, Vespasian oversaw the creation of a
new elite. And like Augustus before him, this new elite would form an administrative class to
provide Vespasian with the manpower necessary to run the empire. Unlike Nero, who, in the
later years of his reign surrounded himself with sycophants, Vespasian surrounded himself with a
group of talented men. This was not only a shrewd move on Vespasian’s part, but also a
necessity: the old Republican aristocracy was greatly diminished. Vespasian needed to expand
both the equestrian and senatorial orders. So he brought in Italians, western provincials, and even
easterners at higher rate than his imperial predecessors. By the end of the first century, 23% of
senators were of provincial origin (Hammond 1957:71). The concern for the composition of the
aristocracy was one Vespasian shared with Augustus. There is a reflection of this concern in
Columella as well: just as Augustus had granted rewards to aristocrats with three children
176
, so
too did Columella offer rewards to his slave women. Exemption of work was rewarded to a
mother of three children, and for a mother of more than three, emancipation (Rust. 1.8.19). The
similarity in both scenarios speaks to a shared concern for maintaining the segments of the
household (or state) which allow for its maintenance and continued production. Such a view is
further strengthened by the analogy Columella draws between the state and the household. In any
case, it may not be unrealistic to suggest that Columella’s recommendations may have played a
role in creating the culture that made Vespasian more willing to seek out administrative talent
from the provinces. Additionally, the author himself and people like him provided an implicit
example for Vespasian’s ambitions. Columella fit the pattern of being a leading provincial who
176
Hopkins says that this number of children was probably regarded by aristocrats as an upper limit or unreachable
(Hopkins 1965:24).
256
eventually made his way to Rome and found success. As mentioned above, Vespasian himself
came from humble origins. His background must have made him more willing to rely on the
talents of men outside the aristocracy. Making use of only a small number of his extended
family, Vespasian relied more on his early supporters and his strong connections in the east. This
meant that the new aristocracy had far greater military expertise than that of the Neronian era,
resulting in a significant benefit for the state: “the army correspondingly became more efficient
and secured the empire and the throne for more than a century” (Mellor 2003:85).
The Discourse of Management in the Flavian Age
As mentioned above, the De Re Rustica anticipated a number of policies and practices
which came to characterize the Flavian dynasty. Before going into detail on this point, it is
necessary to ask why this was the case. As stated in the previous chapter, there was a discourse
on management and administration which can be traced back from the Republic to the Empire.
The focus here is on the form it took during the reign of Nero and thereafter. One of the most
important aspects of this discourse was the principle of clementia, around which a whole cluster
of values are rooted. Notably, clementia was the focus of the imperial policy which Seneca
pushed upon Nero. The value forms an important part in organizing the relationship between the
master and his dependents and the vilicus and the rest of the household staff. But the discourse
consisted of other values and practices intended to ensure order within the household and the
state. In the remainder of this chapter, I discuss the dynamics of such values and policies under
the Flavians and a potential theory for their reappearance. Then I will cover practices related to
this discourse, including the surveillance practices of the emperor and the control exercised over
sexual relations.
257
I have already discussed how the De Re Rustica played a role in the self-fashioning of
Vespasian and his emphasis on sound administration. Although a humble, rustic persona of self-
reliance and managerial skill is not exclusive to the De Re Rustica, there is located within
Columella’s text the confluence of these ideas, each of which is tied to Roman tradition and
forcefully reasserted by Columella. Moreover, the author’s engagement with the discourse of
management and administration contributed significantly to its reappearance under the Flavians.
And there is a complex relationship between this discourse, the figure of Nero, and the Flavian
dynasty’s self-fashioning. In the first place, the dynamics of this discourse were influenced
heavily by the figure of Nero, around whom there was a great deal of ambivalence. Rebeggiani
has detailed the nature of this ambivalence
177
. Although his aim in doing so is to describe the
cultural world of Statius’ Thebaid, his observations are useful for our purposes. On the one hand,
Nero offered a powerful negative model around which the Flavian dynasty could consolidate
their image. On the other hand, there was a revival of political thinking and panegyric from the
time of Nero and through the Flavians (Rebeggiani 2018: 39). Thus, the varied reception of Nero
by the Flavians forms a hermeneutic key to understanding some of the dynamics of the discourse
of management and administration.
At the beginning of the De Clementia, Seneca explicitly states why he writes: “Scribere
de clementia, Nero Caesar, institui, ut quodam modo speculi vice fungerer et te tibi ostenderem
perventurum ad voluptatem maximam omnium” (‘I undertake to write about mercy, Nero Caesar,
in order to act, in a way, as mirror and to show you to yourself, as one about to arrive at the
177
Important to Rebeggiani’s discussion about the ambivalence surrounding Nero is the response to his death.
Suetonius tells us that this response included rejoicing from the public, the donning of freedmen caps, and running
about the city. Others decorated his tomb, produced statues of him in the rostra and edicts as if he were still alive.
There was even a counterfeit Nero who gained favor with the Parthians (Nero. 57. 1; see also Tac. Hist. 1.4;
Champlin 2003:6–9; Rebeggiani 2018:39) . Two other false Neros were to follow.
258
greatest pleasure of all’) (Clem. 1.1.1). Seneca shows the young prince his very nature at the
same time that he encourages him in the value which will be the most important for his reign.
Schofield says that “Nero is in effect being told—in no uncertain terms, and in a work
presumably intended for general circulation—that he must make mercy his first and last priority”
(Schofield 2015:68). Griffin, on the other hands, adds that clementia must have been a part of the
new regime’s messaging from the start, as shown by the frequent speeches on clementia written
for Nero by Seneca and delivered before the senate (Tac. Ann. 13.11.2; Griffin 1976:135). In this
view clementia would have been an important part of the self-image of the new emperor, and one
which played against the cruelty and arbitrariness of Claudius. Thus the early character of Nero’s
rule appeared to offer an image of progress. It is this image that would come to be appropriated
later by the Flavians.
Another factor in the dynamics of the discourse of management and administration was
the general character of the emperor’s relationship to the elite. Domitian’s initial relationship
with the elite, for example, was characterized as positive because of a policy of clementia
towards the survivors of the Neronian regime, and by the reappearance of Neronian panegyric
and Senecan models of kingship. The gradual deterioration of this relationship resulted in the
eventual demonization of Domitian as a second Nero under the next imperial dynasty
(Rebeggiani 2018:40). We should imagine, then, that all these factors come into play when
assessing the De Re Rustica as a text which anticipated the type of Roman identity centered
under the Flavian dynasty. The dynamics of Roman culture itself also contributed to the shape of
this discourse of management and administration.
259
Tacitus, Tiberius, and the Relationship between the Household and the State
These dynamics come under discussion in Book Three of Tacitus’ Annales. Tacitus
describes a letter from the emperor Tiberius to the senate which is a response to the growing
influence of luxury (especially upon dining habits). Tacitus says that this luxury had extended to
every object on which money was wasted (Ann. 3.52). Tiberius’ response in the letter is
concerned with striking a balance between the desire to curb the influence of luxury while also
maintaining the dignity and freedom of his subjects. As part of this balance, Tiberius refuses
direct intervention because he fears that stopping the luxury which had taken hold of the Roman
state would require forceful measures, thereby diminishing the dignity of the Roman people
(Ann. 3.54). In the course of explaining his position, Tiberius explains the difference between the
current age and the past, where frugality (parsimonia) flourished:
Cur ergo olim parsimonia pollebat? quia sibi quisque moderabatur, quia unius urbis cives eramus; ne
inritamenta quidem eadem intra Italiam dominantibus. externis victoriis aliena, civilibus etiam nostra
consumere didicimus. Tac. Ann. 3.54
Why then did frugality once flourish? Because each man practiced moderation in relation to himself;
because we were all citizens of one city. Not even when we ruled within Italy did we have the same
allurements. We learned to consume the possessions of others through victories abroad, through victories at
home, to waste our own.
Tiberius’ diagnosis of the attachment to luxury is given more serious consideration. After
drawing upon moralizing tropes, he proceeds to give a very particular reason for his concern with
the effects of luxury:
At hercule nemo refert quod Italia externae opis indiget, quod vita populi Romani per incerta maris et
tempestatum cotidie volvitur. ac nisi provinciarum copiae et dominis et servitiis et agris subvenerint, nostra
nos scilicet nemora nostraeque villae tuebuntur. hanc, patres conscripti, curam sustinet princeps; haec
omissa funditus rem publicam trahet. Ann. 3.54
But, by Hercules, no one reports the fact that Italy depends on external supplies, and that the life of the
Roman people is tossed about, day after day, by the uncertainty of the sea and the weather. And if the
resources of the provinces ever do not come to the aid of masters, and slaves, and farms, our parks and
villas will necessarily support us! This, Conscript Fathers, is a worry that the princeps bears; if this worry is
neglected it will utterly destroy the state.
260
Tiberius identifies his specific domain as concerned with preventing luxury from taking effect at
the level of the state. For all other concerns about luxury’s effect, his response calls for a hands-
off approach, centered on the action of the individual: “reliquis intra animum medendum est: nos
pudor, pauperes necessitas, divites satias in melius mutet” (‘for we must remedy the remaining
ills within our mind: may shame change us for the better, may necessity change the poor, and
satiety the rich” (Ann. 3.54). The remarkable effects of this letter are described by Tacitus. He
tells how extravagant spending between 31 B.C. to 68 A.D. gradually went out of vogue. He
further explains that once it was customary for wealthy aristocratic families to engage in
extravagant display—a convention of the patronage system—but when great reputations could
lead to cruel slaughter, survivors turned to “wiser paths” (Ann. 3.55). He adds that further
changes in the morality of senators occurred when an influx of new men entered:
Simul novi homines e municipiis et coloniis atque etiam provinciis in senatum crebro adsumpti domesticam
parsimoniam intulerunt, et quamquam fortuna vel industria plerique pecuniosam ad senectam pervenirent,
mansit tamen prior animus. Tac. Ann. 3.55
At the same time, new men from the municipalities and colonies and even from the provinces frequently
were added to the senate and they brought along the frugality of their household, and although, by fortune
and diligence, many acquired wealth in their old age, their prior state of mind remained.
Tacitus adds that it was Vespasian himself, “praecipuus adstricti moris auctor” (‘the chief
promoter of strict custom’), who was most instrumental in influencing the culture of luxury (Ann.
3.55). He claims it was respect (obsequium) towards the emperor and a love of emulation
(aemulandi amor) which had a greater effect on the Romans than any fear or threat of
punishment from the law (Ann. 3.55). Tacitus’ analysis at this point suggests that Roman culture
was the product of the individual character of its members’ households: the practices of men
from outside Rome, with their adherence to moderation, are said to have changed the dominant
culture of the senate.
261
Tacitus, however, is skeptical of locating change in any one phenomenon. Even though
he cited reasons for change tied to individual action, he also entertains the notion of cyclical
change:
Forte rebus cunctis inest quidam velut orbis, ut quem ad modum temporum vices ita morum vertantur; nec
omnia apud priores meliora, sed nostra quoque aetas multa laudis et artium imitanda posteris tulit. Verum
haec nobis in maiores certamina ex honesto maneant.
Or perhaps there is in all things a kind of cycle, that changes of the seasons occur just as do changes in
morals; Nor were all things better in the time of our ancestors, but our own age too has brought about many
things worthy of praise and in the arts, much which posterity should imitate. But indeed, may these
competitions of ours, fought over honor with our ancestors, remain.
The passage is ambivalent in the processes of historical change. Tacitus praises the Flavians,
especially Vespasian, as upholding a form of morality that matches and even contends with the
standards set by the ancestors. In the process of describing cultural transformation, Tacitus
centers the new men who entered into the senate by establishing a connection to them based
upon the notion of a common age (aetas), emphasizing their individual capacity to rival and
surpass the customs set by the ancestors. The explicit mention of domestica parsimonia
emphasizes the agency of individuals and suggests that there was a notion, expressed in Tiberius’
concern for the effects of luxury, that the household could enact a cultural transformation which
could impact the well-being of the state. But the emphasis on a cycle of morals also suggests that
cultural transformation was pre-determined and would occur no matter what happened at the
level of the individual. That Tacitus does not settle on either reason for cultural transformation
suggests his belief in multiple causes.
The relevance to the current argument lies in gauging the degree to which a text like the
De Re Rustica could be said to have influenced the character of Roman identity under the
Flavians. If we take seriously Tacitus’ theorizing and report of Tiberius’ letter, we have an
account of the power of the principles of household management to effect change at the level of
262
the state. It is here where Columella’s work, then, could have staged its intervention. The
commitment of new senators’ individual households to the kinds of principles espoused in the De
Re Rustica changed the character of the senate. Even if the De Re Rustica can be placed in the
context of broader cultural transformation, its applicability speaks to its ability to effect change
in the external world. And this pretension of applicability brings household management in
alignment with other texts whose purpose was to influence policy at the level of the state. But its
specific mode of intervention differs from other texts. The De Re Rustica is not panegyric—it
does not celebrate the ascension and inauguration of a new reign, nor does it welcome the new
emperor with an articulation of his self-representation
178
. Rather, it uses the predominantly
inward-facing topic of household management to rearticulate Roman values. Thus, there is a
notion of authority behind Columella’s text which Tacitus’ comments and historical analysis
illuminated and implicitly acknowledge, and this authority is predicated upon keeping in touch
with specific Roman values, like economy, frugality, and moderation, and understanding the
dynamic between the household and the state.
Surveillance and Sexual Control
A further nod to the impact of the De Re Rustica is its ability to anticipate the emphasis
on surveillance and social control that would come to characterize the Flavian dynasty,
especially with regard to what Fredrick identifies as the imperial court’s architecture of
surveillance. Again, the interconnection between household and state is operative in these
aspects of imperial control. In the preface to the De Re Rustica, Columella laments the fact that
agriculture has been handed over to slaves in the arrangement known as absentee management.
178
Such are the features of Seneca’s De Clementia as described by Braund 1998:73.
263
One of Columella’s solutions to the prevalence of absentee management, aside from his
emphasis on principles of labor management and a pedagogical program of agricultural learning,
is the implementation of a robust surveillance apparatus. Columella is explicit about the
importance of the master’s presence in Book One:
Ac ne ista quidem praesidia, ut diximus, non adsiduus labor et experientia vilici, non facultates ac voluntas
impendendi tantum pollent quantum vel una praesentia domini; quae nisi frequens operibus intervenerit, ut
in exercitu cum abest imperator, cuncta cessant officia. Rust. 1.1.18
And as we have stated, not even those protections, nor the overseer’s continual labor and experience, nor
the resources and the willingness to spend it, profit as much as the master’s presence alone; which, if not
frequently involved in the work, just as when a general in the army is absent, all duties cease.
The degree of emphasis on the master’s presence is unique to the De Re Rustica. The ancient
maxim that originated in Cato—that the forehead is better than the back of the head—is
intensified here (Cato, Agr. 4). And in Columella’s rewriting of Varro’s list of the most
important reasons for building the farmhouse close to the road, he ranks as number one the
“ipsam praesentiam domini” (‘the very presence of the master’), who could more easily frequent
the farm if the road were nearby (Rust. 1.3.3). He also recommends leasing out a plot of land to
tenants when the master cannot frequent the property due to distance (Rust. 1.7.7). Columella
even arrays the structure of the farmhouse (villa rustica) in a way that allows for surveillance:
“Vilico iuxta ianuam fiat habitatio, ut intrantium exeuntiumque conspectum habeat, procuratori
supra ianuam ob easdem causas; et is tamen vilicum observet ex vicino” (‘Next to the door of
the house should be the dwelling of the vilicus, so that he may have sight of those who enter and
exit the home; and the dwelling of the procurator should be above the door for the same reasons,
so that he may observe the vilicus from nearby’) (Rust. 1.6.7). In this arrangement, a system of
surveillance is built into the very structure of the farmhouse, with the procurator able to oversee
the vilicus, and the vilicus the rest of the household staff. The emphasis in Columella’s
description of the villa rustica is on seeing, rather than being seen.
264
And again, if we consider the way that the household became a model for the way that
the empire was run, surveillance became a necessary part of imperial life just as it was in the
household. Under the Flavians, the capacity for surveillance was amplified. David Fredrick has
documented the difficulties of reading the architecture of Flavian Rome. Reading the Flavian city
requires “digging it out” from scholarship driven by the “aura of good government associated
with Augustus, and partly by the concept of a Roman political or cultural revolution beginning
with the Gracchi and ending with Augustus” (Fredrick 2003:206). Nero, in this view, represented
the climax of Julio-Claudian architectural achievement. As Boyle comments, “Flavian Rome
seemed adjacent to that tradition: set apart, uprooted, arbitrary, multiplicatory, erasory,
replaceable” (Boyle 2003:32). Flavian buildings, just as their Neronian counterparts, no longer
adhered to compositional forms and spatial limits. A big part of this was the impossibility of
pretending that the princeps was still a first among equals (Fredrick 2003:208). With the desire to
maintain stability and to enact administrative policies came a corresponding emphasis on
surveillance. As we saw above with Columella’s rationale for the placement of the vilicus’
quarters, surveillance was a way to manage and control. The novelty under the empire was that
the very presence of the emperor was extended conceptually: for what were the delatores if not
extensions of the emperor’s eyes and ears, continually watching and policing the behavior of the
elite. A quote from Tacitus’ Agricola is illustrative of the environment:
Praecipua sub Domitiano miseriarum pars erat videre et aspici, cum suspiria nostra subscriberentur, cum
denotandis tot hominum palloribus sufficeret saevus ille vultus et rubor, quo se contra pudorem muniebat.
Tac. Agr. 45.2
A particular part of our miseries under the rule of Domitian was seeing and being seen—when our breath
was documented, when that savage expression of his and ruddy complexion were sufficient for indicating
the terrors of so many men, with which he defended himself against shame.
As Boyle cautions, we must be wary of the topos of the damnatio writing—including both the
proliferation of the delatores and the controlling gaze of the emperor—which followed the
265
Flavian dynasty. Nevertheless, as Fredrick shows, following Foucault, surveillance was a spatial
practice, and in Flavian Rome, it resulted in the creation of an architecture of surveillance. This
had implications for the imperial subject. Surveillance is a form of management and we see that
already in Seneca the ability to be managed was a mark of civilization:
Deinde omnes istae feritate liberae gentes leonum luporumque ritu ut servire non possunt, ita nec imperare;
non enim humani vim ingenii, sed feri et intractabilis habent; nemo autem regere potest nisi qui et regi. De
Ira 2.15.4-5
Moreover, all those nations which are free because of their fierceness, just as lions or wolves, they are
unable to be slaves as much as they are unable to command; for they do not have the strength of human
intellect, but of an unmanageable and wild beast: but no one is able to rule unless he is also able to be ruled.
But Fredrick theorizes the encroachment of imperial surveillance into the social and emotional
space of the elite went further, the ability to “invade the supposedly impenetrable elite male body
through surveillance and violence” (Fredrick 2003:201). The Iovis Cenatio of Domitian’s
Palatine palace, for example, was an immense space described by the poet Statius upon being
invited to a dinner. Statius tells us about the presence of the emperor in this vast space : “ille
penatis/ implet et ingenti genio gravat” (‘that one fills up the inner parts and weighs it down with
his large genius’) (Silvae 4.2.25-56). Although Domitian’s triclinium still contained many
features typical of those in private homes, with the positioning of an apse at the rear wall, the
gaze of the Roman triclinia was fundamentally reoriented. The apse became the visual indication
of the emperor and the focus of the entire room. Fredrick analyzes this change:
Rather than sharing a hierarchically structured view out of the triclinium, in Domitian’s Iovis Cenatio the
guests are subordinated to a view with the emperor at its apex. As it displays the majesty and authority of
the emperor, this reorientation also subjects the guests to a supervisory gaze, not just that of the emperor
before them, but one arising from the very awareness that their behavior has become ‘a performance to be
staged’. Fredrick 2003:218
We see then how surveillance and its spatial aspect were in Columella’s De Re Rustica a means
of control that continued on through to the Flavian dynasty and underwent a significant
266
intensification—specific to the palace of Domitian. This was not the only aspect of social control
anticipated by the De Re Rustica.
Sexual and Moral Control
There is a varied presentation of sex, fertility, and reproduction in Columella’s De Re
Rustica. The agronomist covers the following topics: the barrenness of the earth, descriptions of
its productivity, the nature of masculinity, the sexual degeneracy of the present age, the sexual
division of labor, sex within the household, and within the garden. One of the common threads
that unites these different topics is the aspect of control. In the De Re Rustica sex is tied to
productivity, and agriculture is about the control of the earth’s productivity. Although excessive
productivity was the mark of a previous age, Columella’s agriculture aimed at recovering this
former capacity for productivity. And importantly, as I mentioned earlier in this chapter,
Columella shows how productivity, sexual and agricultural, could be managed and directed
towards profit: the ability to control the productivity of the earth was intertwined with
Columella’s exhortation to the elite to engage in farming, a means of attempting to control the
elite and direct them towards a notion of labor and productivity that had become alien to them. In
this section, I develop this idea of sexual control within the De Re Rustica in the area of
Columella’s treatment of sexual relations in the garden; notions of masculinity; the sexual
division of labor; and his description of the duties of the vilicus and the vilica. Then, I argue that
sexual control is both in alignment with and anticipates imperial ideas about sexual control.
Sex in Columella’s world is tightly controlled and directed towards the profit of the
landowner. The most provocative portions of the work are in Book Ten. But here, the aspect of
control is visible in the fact that sex and productivity are inextricably linked. Sexual language
267
and imagery in Columella’s garden only appear in the context of productivity. For example,
Columella describes the use of a hewn tree trunk to serve as a menacing phallus in the garden
to ward off thieves and enforce the garden’s boundaries, ensuring the protection of its
productivity (Rust. 10.34); Bacchus’ passion for Ariadne is associated with the winter season
and the life-giving properties of rain (Rust. 10.52); erotic undertones are used to describe the
ploughing of the earth (Rust. 10.70-72); springtime flowers (Hyacinth) and herbs (rocket) are
cited as able to arouse love (Rust. 10.105-109)
179
; and the beginning of spring is celebrated for
its generative capacity (Rust. 10.194-214)
180
. Columella’s treatment of sexuality in the garden
suggest that it was a concept strictly controlled, and this is carried through in the presentation of
masculinity and the sexual division of labor.
As mentioned above, the notion of masculinity in the De Re Rustica was tied to the land
and the idea of working the land. Columella problematizes what he views as his degenerate
contemporaries due to their alienation from the land and activities surrounding it. His
comments on the effects of the alienation of humans from working the land, as well as his
notion of citizenship, reveal the importance of a sense of action in both of these areas. Just as a
sense of action defines the Roman citizen, it also helped to define the Roman male. This active
notion contributes to Columella’s definition of the masculine and feminine sex. The moralizer
in Columella attempted to move elite Romans away from an Epicurean style of hedonism—
failure to properly work the land—towards a more active lifestyle which involves working and
managing their estates.
179
White 2013 adds that Columella follows Ovid in viewing hyacinths as having erotic connotations (Rem. am. 797-
798, on the foods that should be avoided when trying to fall out of love).
180
Although not erotic, Columella describes the earth’s children as pignora, pledges of love (Rust. 10.163-164).
268
This sense of action is elaborated in Columella’s account of the sexual division of labor,
where he describes that it is through the union of the two sexes—a relationship described as a
mutually beneficial partnership of life (utilissima vitae societas) instituted by nature—that the
members of the household are able to achieve the best possible outcomes for the household:
Xenophon Atheniensis eo libro, P. Silvine, qui Oeconomicus inscribitur, prodidit maritale coniugium sic
comparatum esse natura, ut non solum iucundissima, verum, etiam utilissima vitae societas iniretur: nam
primum, quod etiam Cicero ait, ne genus humanum temporis longinquitate occideret, propter hoc marem
cum femina esse coniunctum: deinde ut ex hac eadem societate mortalibus adiutoria senectutis, nec minus
propugnacula, praeparentur. Tum etiam, cum victus et cultus humanus non uti feris in propatulo ac
silvestribus locis, sed domi sub tecto accurandus erat, necessarium fuit alterutrum foris et sub dio esse, qui
labore et industria compararet, quae tectis reconderentur. Siquidem vel rusticari, vel navigare, vel etiam
genere alio negotiari necesse erat, ut aliquas facultates acquireremus. Cum vero paratae res sub tectum
essent congestae, alium esse oportuit, qui et illatas custodiret, et ea conficeret opera, quae domi deberent
administrari. Rust. 12 pref. 1-2
Xenophon the Athenian, in that book of his which was entitled the Oeconomicus, Publius Silvinus, wrote
that the marital union was joined together by nature in such a way that not only the most pleasing, but
indeed, also the most beneficial partnership of life would be entered into. For in the first place, as Cicero
also says, for the reason that the human race not perish in the passage of time, the male sex was joined with
the female sex; secondly, in order that from this partnership, help would be provided for mortals in their old
age no less than protection. Then, since human food and dress should also be taken care of, not in the open
air and in wooded places, as for wild animals, but in the home and under a roof, it was necessary that one of
the two be outdoors and under the open sky to obtain through labor and diligence the things which are to be
stored indoors, since it was necessary either to practice agriculture, or to sail, or even to engage in some
other form of business in order to acquire some resources. When the things prepared under a roof had been
collected inside, it was necessary for someone else to guard these stored items and to complete the tasks
which ought to be managed at home.
The practical reasons for the partnership include the continued maintenance and protection of the
household. This was especially important in the context of an elite whose numbers were
continually in decline. The household was also considered to have a lifespan that extended to the
successive generations of the family, making the production of children who could care for the
matriarch and patriarch well into their old age through children an important part of the
partnership. The differences between the sexes are presented as fundamental to determining the
sexual division of labor within the household:
Itaque viro calores et frigora perpetienda, tum etiam itinera et labores pacis ac belli, id est rusticationis et
militarium stipendiorum deus tribuit: mulieri deinceps, quod omnibus his rebus eam fecerat inhabilem,
domestica negotia curanda tradidit. Et quoniam hunc sexum custodiae et diligentiae assignaverat, idcirco
269
timidiorem reddidit quam virilem. Nam metus plurimum confert ad diligentiam custodiendi. Quod autem
necesse erat foris et in aperto victum quaerentibus nonnumquam iniuriam propulsare, idcirco virum quam
mulierem fecit audaciorem. Rust. 12 pref. 5-6
And in this way God has assigned to men that hot and cold extremes should be endured, and also travels
and the labors of peace and war, namely, of agriculture and military service. Next, for women, because he
made her unfit in all these matters, he assigned the business which should be taken care of at home. And
since he had assigned guardianship and attentiveness to this sex, he rendered her more fearful than the
masculine sex. For fear lends much to the carefulness of guarding. Since it was necessary for those
searching for food in the open to sometimes ward off attack, for that reason he made the man more daring
than the woman.
Each sex is partly defined according to the ability to carry out specific activities, which in turn
contribute to sexual differentiation. But Columella claims that each sex was endowed with the
same capacity for memory and diligence to be employed in the acquisition of resources for the
household:
Quia vero partis opibus aeque fuit opus memoria et diligentia, non minorem feminae quam viro earum
rerum tribuit possessionem. Tum etiam quod simplex natura non omnes res commodas amplecti volebat,
idcirco alterum alterius indigere voluit: quoniam quod alteri deest, praesto plerumque est alteri. Rust. 12
pref. 6
Since in the acquisition of resources there was need of memory and diligence equally, he assigned no less
to the female than to the male possession of these things. Then, because nature, being simple, did not wish
every advantage to surround them, for this reason she wanted that one should stand in need of the other:
since what is lacking in one is, for the most part, present in the other.
The idea of mutual dependence, handed down from nature, is articulated as being beneficial for
the home. This account, derived from Xenophon’s Oeconomicus and translated into Latin by
Cicero, is an ideal. Columella’s more Roman framing of the nature of the relationship between
the paterfamilias and the matrona tells how the paterfamilias’ zeal for public activities was
matched by his wife’s diligence in the household. The arrangement created a specific
environment intended to ensure the cohesiveness of the household: “Erat enim summa reverentia
cum concordia et diligentia mixta, flagrabatque mulier pulcherrima aemulatione, studens
negotia viri cura sua maiora atque meliora reddere” (‘They possessed the highest degree of
reverence and it was mixed with harmony and industry, and the most beautiful woman blazed
with emulation, being eager, through her own industry, to make the business of her husband
270
greater and better’) (Rust. 12 pref. 7-8). But Columella claims that the current age has overturned
this ideal. The destructive practices of the contemporary Roman matrona include: separate
ownership, a lack of duties for the bailiff and his wife, neglect of the superintendence of wool-
making, a distaste for homemade garments, a desire for expensive clothing, a feeling of
oppression caused by the countryside and agricultural implements, as well as an aversion to
staying at the country house for more than a few days (Rust. 12 pref. 9). With the habits of
contemporary culture, the sense of action extolled in the preface to the De Re Rustica is under
threat: the idealized household, described as mutual dependence of the sexes for the benefit of
the household, is not possible when the paterfamilias no longer works the land and the matrona
neglects taking care of the household. Additionally, Columella’s account of household
management is expressed through a translation of Xenophon, a fact which exposes the gap
between an idealized Greek account of the sexual division of labor within the household and its
transposition into a very different Roman context, where the partnership of the vilicus and vilica
run the estate. Columella acknowledges this gap (Rust. 12 pref. 7-10) and explains that the duties
of the heads of household are turned over to the household staff, the bailiff and his wife:
Quam ob causam cum in totum non solum exoleverit, sed etiam occiderit vetus ille matrumfamiliarum mos
Sabinarum atque Romanarum, necessaria irrepsit villicae cura, quae tueretur officia matronae: quoniam et
villici quoque successerunt in locum dominorum, qui quondam prisca consuetudine non solum coluerant,
sed habitaverant rura. Rust. 12 pref. 10
For which reason, since the ancient practice of the Sabine and Roman mistresses of households has not
only become obsolete but has even died out, the necessary management of the bailiff’s wife has crept in to
keep the duties of the mistress of the household, just as bailiffs too have taken the place of masters who, in
ancient custom, not only had cultivated their estates but made them their homes.
Following this acknowledgment of the changed character of the Roman household, Columella
proceeds to explain the measures of control that should be exacted upon the household staff.
Although the relationship between the vilicus and vilica is encouraged, it is also regulated
and controlled in a way reminiscent of how the emperor used the law to regulate sexual
271
relationships under the Empire. The regulations are far-reaching. For one, both the vilicus and
the vilica are supposed to be young (iuvenis), but not too young or old. In the case of the vilicus,
Columella specifies that he ought to be middle-aged, with the explicit reason is that it is more
difficult for the staff to take orders from a younger person, while it is difficult for someone older
to perform the necessary labor. The same applies to the vilica. Columella gives explicit
recommendations that the vilica should be of sound health and neither too ugly nor too beautiful,
“Nam illibatum robur et vigiliis et aliis sufficiet laboribus, foeditas fastidiosum, nimia species
desidiosum faciet eius contubernalem” (‘for a solid amount of strength will be sufficient for her
watches and other labors; ugliness will make her mate disagreeable, but excessive beauty will
make him lazy’) (Rust. 12.1.1-2). Another set of recommendations aimed at controlling the
household specify that the vilica should not be addicted to wine, superstition, excessive sleep, or
men; that she have sufficient power of memory, avoid evil, hope for reward for good work, and
be diligent enough inside the house so that the bailiff can attend to his duties and not hers (Rust.
12.1.3). The nature of the partnership is further specified: “sed laborem eius adiutrice data
levamus” (‘we ease his labor by granting him a helper’) (Rust. 12.1.4). The vilica must remain
indoors, send those who must work outside, retain those who must work inside, ward off
inactivity, inspect and receive items brought within the house to check for damage, keep track of
things to be consumed and things to be stored, oversee the treatment of sick slaves—explicitly
cited by Columella as instilling goodwill and obedience in the staff: “Quinetiam fidelius quam
prius servire student, qui convaluerint, cum est aegris adhibita diligentia” (‘In fact, when care
has been administered to the sick, those who get well are eager to render services more faithfully
than before’) (Rust. 12.1.6). She is to oversee the storage of products within the household
according to principles based on the beauty of order and arrangement (dispositione atque ordine)
272
(Rust. 12.2.4), as well as the storage of utensils and furniture (Rust. 12.3.1-5). Wool is to be
prepared and combed out in case a rainy day or extreme weather keeps the vilica and the staff
indoors, so that she can carry out spinning or demand it of others (Rust. 12.3.6). The vilica should
be frequently on the move in an advisory role, and if she is not imparting her superior knowledge
to the staff, she should be learning it from others (Rust. 12.3.8). She will have to see to the
cleaning of the kitchen, the cowsheds, the mangers, as well as the sick-wards; she must
participate when there is weighing of products, be present for the milking of the ewes, feeding of
the young lambs, shearing of the sheep, ensuring that the number of fleeces is in accordance with
the number of sheep; and she must see to it that the servants put out the furniture and keep bronze
utensils free of rust and polished, and if anything needs repairing, that it is repaired (Rust. 12.3.8-
9).
The vilicus must be someone who is middle aged, capable of performing the duties of an
active farmer. He must also be very learned and robust, so that he can both teach and carry out
the orders he gives—he ought to be a teacher rather than a pupil of the workers (Rust. 11.1.4).
He must know the art of command (imperandi consequatur scientiam) (Rust. 11.1.6). He must
show fidelity and attachment to the master (fidem ac benevolentiam), without which even the
most perfect bailiff is of no use to the master (Rust. 11.1.7). He ought to know what duties and
tasks should be enjoined on each person. Acquaintance with the skills of several husbandmen
(complurium agrestium) will ensure that he is a competent manager, such as the skills of the
ploughman, digger, mower, forester, vinedresser, blacksmith and shepherd (Rust. 11.1.12-13).
Columella expounds upon the possession of the value of diligence (diligentia), which requires
that the vilicus abstain from wine, sleep, and sexual indulgence:
Nam et ebrioso cura officii pariter cum memoria subtrahitur; et somniculosum plurima effugiunt. Quid
enim possit aut ipse agere aut cuiquam dormiens imperare? Tum etiam sit a venereis amoribus aversus;
273
quibus si se dediderit, non aliud quidquam possit cogitare quam illud quod diligit. Nam vitiis eiusmodi
pellectus animus nec praemium iucundius quam fructum libidinis nec supplicium gravius quam
frustrationem cupiditatis existimat. Rust. 11.1.13-14
For the drunkard’s concern for duty gives way in the same manner as his memory; and very many things
are forgotten by one who is inclined to sleep. For what can the man who is sleeping do, or order someone
else to do? Furthermore, he should turn away from sexual desire; for if he should give himself over to it, he
would not be able to think of anything else than that which he desires. For when the mind has been enticed
by vices of this kind it thinks that no reward is more pleasing than the gratification of lust, and no
punishment more serious than the frustration of desire.
Diligence in the vilicus entails: being the first to wake up, marching the rest of the household
out for work; occasionally taking part in the work to relieve others; making sure that the
workers go home when the sun is down; once indoors, attend to those injured; celebrating
holidays; inviting the workers to his table and conferring honors upon them when necessary;
inspecting tools and making sure there are duplicates; clothing the staff so that they can work in
the cold weather; keep a list of those chained in prison and see to its security; not offer sacrifice
except at his master’s command; have no acquaintance with a soothsayer or fortune teller; he
should not go to town or leave the estate; only receive visitors who are the master’s friends; not
make use of the slaves for himself; nor should he purchase cattle or other things bought or sold;
treat his staff moderately; check that a full day’s work is exacted from the staff and be present
for the work; he must recognize the limits of his knowledge and seek to learn what he does not
know; maintain a pro-active mindset with regard to work; and finally, be able to plan work
according to the weather of each month (Rust. 11.1.14-32). Thus we see that through
emphasizing the value of diligentia and the duties which are to be performed on the estate,
Columella enacts a program of management that extends to control over the actions of the
vilica and the vilicus, including age, character, habits, and sexual control.
Columella’s attempts to control the sexual expression of the household staff anticipated
the imperial policies put into place, revived, or continued by the Flavians. In a way, the
presentation of Roman sexuality in the De Re Rustica is a reflection of that under the Flavians.
274
As Boyle states, the sexual ideology of the upper class Roman male was that of a penetrator
and dominator. The elite Roman male dominated and penetrated his partner and “asserted his
social and sexual superiority” (Boyle 2003:24). This kind of ideology permitted bisexual
behavior in men, provided they assume the role of the penetrator. Active pederasty was
appropriate, but pathic homosexuality and prostitution were unseemly (Boyle 2003:24).
Although the presentation of Roman sexuality is not as varied as its presentation in the poetry
of Martial, the focus on action in Columella’s definition of masculinity aligns with this basic
outline of dominant Roman sexual ideology under the Flavians. Additionally, the disapproval
of female sexual power (an expression of female power and a threat to elite masculinity)
181
accords with Columella’s criticism of the contemporary matrona. Boyle explains that these
social and sexual boundaries were rooted in a rigid social/sexual ideology based upon gender
and class. That ideology reappeared in the legislation enacted under the empire. According to
Boyle, women’s sexual practices were constantly regulated in the empire, and the Flavian
principates were among the most regulatory (Boyle 2003:25). Vespasian’s re-enactment of the
senatus consultum of 52 CE was a means of controlling women, reducing to slave status any
woman who co-habited with a slave. The ius trium liberorum (‘The Right of Three Children’)
granted to women who produced three or more children release from the requirement of having
a tutor and the right to inherit property. To men, it granted exemption from public obligations
(munera). Although the law was intended to replenish the upper class, it forced women into the
role of producing children. The Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis (of 18 BCE) and the Lex
Voconia (of 169 BCE) were aimed at the restriction of upper class Roman women (Boyle 2003:
25). The Lex Voconia of 169 BCE imposed restrictions to the effect that a woman could not be
181
As shown in the disapproval of the love-enslavement ideology of Augustan elegy and the practice of sodomy on
women other than prostitutes, an exclusively male privilege. See Martial Epig. 11.43, 12.96; Boyle 2003: 25.
275
heir to someone of the first census class. The restrictions in the law appear to have been evaded
and do not seem to have had any effect under Augustus until Domitian’s revival (Johnstone
2012:40)
182
. Domitian’s revival of the law suggests that there was a growing anxiety over the
power of women, whose rights to inheritance were close to those of men. The frequency of
marriage sine manu, where the wife remained in the familia of her father and was therefore
under his potestas, contributed to this anxiety. Under this arrangement, the wife retained
ownership of the dotal property; otherwise, marriage itself had no effect on the spouses’
property (Johnstone 2012:36). The same anxiety over the fact that Roman law provided women
with rights remarkably similar to those of men appears in Columella. In the preface to Book
Twelve, Columella explains an idealized Roman past where the property of the household was
held in common: “Nihil conspiciebatur in domo dividuum, nihil quod aut maritus, aut femina
proprium esse iuris sui diceret: sed in commune conspirabatur ab utroque, ut cum forensibus
negotiis, matronalis industria rationem parem faceret” (‘Nothing was perceived as divided up
in the home, nothing which either the husband or wife claimed ownership over by right, but
both united together in common, so that the industry of the wife at home balanced with the
husband’s public activities’) (Rust. 12 pref. 8). The reassertion of ancient morality through an
idealized configuration of the household attempted to restore power to the husband. According
to Suetonius, Domitian’s reenactment of past laws was done in order to reform the public’s
morals (Suet. Dom. 8.3)
183
. Fredrick notes that while the laws on sexual control of Roman elites
were about the health of the state, they were also about power: “By reclaiming for the emperor
the supervision of elite sexual behavior, Domitian reclaimed a powerful pretext—in addition to
treason—on which to prosecute the elite” (Fredrick 2013:221).
182
For the revival of the Lex Voconia see Suet. Dom. 8.3; See Cic., de finibus 2.55 for evasion of the law.
183
Suetonius uses the phrase: “suscepta correctione morum” (‘with the correction of morals undertaken’).
276
Columella and Flavian Poetry
As we saw above, Columella’s recommendations in the De Re Rustica were aimed at
maintaining order within the household, improving its moral character, preventing distractions,
ensuring continued work, the reproduction of the household staff, and a general productivity.
So too were the mechanisms of control placed over the Roman subjects of the empire. Under
the Flavians, it seems that one of the more salient aspects of Columella’s work was his focus on
morality, which resurfaced in Vespasian’s self-fashioning and the focus on administration. This
reception of Columella was also visible in poetic responses to his work. Although the degree to
which Columella came to represent a reform of morality is difficult to quantify, he does appear
to have provoked some strong responses for the values which he represented.
In an article from 1954, Steiner speculates what kind of correspondences and differences
would have been had in a dinner party between Columella and the poet Martial. Aside from
both being from Spain, there is a great deal of similarity in how both authors conceive of the
value of the countryside. For one, Martial viewed the countryside as “a place of refuge from the
city with its noise, expense, complex social pressures, and other disadvantages” (Steiner
1954:85). The view is bolstered by a series of remarks: “Non rumpet altum pallidus somnum
reus,/ Sed mane totum dormies” (‘the pale defendant will not break your deep sleep, but you
will sleep whole till the morning’) (Epigr. 1.49.34-5). Martial’s commentary here plays on the
importance of the master’s presence in the countryside, something which Columella had hit
upon hard throughout his work. And Columella too made the argument about agriculture being
a way to escape the bustle of the forum (Rust. 1 pref. 9-11) . But Martial does not go beyond
selling the countryside as a means of escaping the rigors of public life; his escapism is not
oriented towards agricultural production, the main goal of Columella’s designs for living in the
277
countryside. And overseeing the household staff is not a high priority on Martial’s agenda, as it
was for Columella. Instead, he embraced seclusion, peace, beauty, and simplicity.
184
In one
poem Martial extols the beauty of a countryside villa at Formiae. He describes a fishpond:
nec seta longo quaerit in mari praedam,
sed a cubili lectuloque iactatam
spectatus alte lineam trahit piscis.
si quando Nereus sentit Aeoli regnum,
ridet procellas tuta de suo mensa:
piscina rhombum prascit et lupos vernas,
natat ad magistrum delicata murena,
nomenculator mugilem citat notum
et adesse iussi prodeunt senes mulli.
frui sed istis quando, Roma, permittis?
quot Formianos imputat dies annus
negotiosis rebus urbis haerenti?
o ianitores vilicique felices!
dominis parantur ista, serviunt vobis. Mart. Epig. 10.30.16-29
A line does not search for prey in a distant part of the sea, but rather a fish, after being seen from above, drags a
thread cast from a bed or dining couch. If ever Nereus feels the kingdom of Aeolus, the table, safe by its own
resources, smiles at the squalls; the fishpond feeds flat-fish and home-bread bass, while the dainty eel swims towards
the master; the nomenclator summons the familiar grey mullet, and the old red mullets, when ordered to be present,
come forth. But when do you, Rome, allow us to enjoy those things? How many days at Formiae does the year
charge to the man who clings to the bustling affairs of the city? O fortunate porters and stewards! Those pleasures are
prepared for your masters, but they serve you!
The enthusiasm expressed for the fishpond here is a glimpse of the extent to which Martial’s
poetry embraces the luxury of the countryside. Columella, on the other hand, viewed the
fishpond as a necessary evil: “Sedquoniam sic mores occalluere, non ut haec usitata, verum ut
maxime laudabilia et honesta iudicarentur, nos quoque ne videamur tot seculorum seri
castigatores, hunc etiam quaestum villaticum patrisfamilias demonstrabimus” (‘But since our
morals have grown so insensible that these [fishponds] are judged not only as ordinary, but
actually, especially worthy of praise and respect, we will, so that we not seem to be out-of-
184
The countryside in Epigr. 2.38 is a way for the poetic persona to escape someone he does not wish to see. For
escaping the pressures of the city of Rome, see Epigr. 12.57. For the beauty of the countryside as an attractive
feature, see Epig. 5.71; 12.31. On the simplicity of country living, Epigr. 1.55.4; 1.49.31-32; 10.96.5-6; 10.96.11-
12.
278
touch critics of the age, demonstrate that this branch of agriculture is a profitable form of
acquisition for the master’) (Rust. 8.16.6). The example of the fishpond in Martial shows that
while some could follow the spirit of Columella’s De Re Rustica in embracing country life, he
adapted its content for his own ends. This instance involves an appropriation of the countryside
for the creation of a specific poetic mode, despite Columella’s preface of his discussion of the
fishpond with a description of moral decline.
Columella’s treatment of morality—especially luxury—reappears in Flavian literature. A
major part of this treatment is the ideal of rustic simplicity, expressed in the recipe section of
Book Twelve, where Columella acknowledges the work of C. Matius, the author of a work on
culinary knowledge (Rust. 12.4.2-3). But Columella distances himself from Matius, explaining
that he was writing for urban dinner parties. Columella says that he believes his own recipes to
be sufficient: “nobis tamen abunde sunt ea, quae facile rusticae simplicitati non magna
impensa possunt contingere” (‘nevertheless, we are more than satisfied that these things are
able to attain rustic simplicity easily and at no great expense’) (Rust. 12.46.1). The context of
this passage is a section of Book Twelve on the storage of provisions—specifically, a
discussion on the placement of autumnal produce—an addendum to the duties of the bailiff’s
wife (Rust. 12.46.1). The ideal reappears throughout the treatise and is given fuller treatment in
another discussion related to foodstuff, the garden poem of Book Ten.
In the preface to Book Ten’s garden poem, Columella explains the former richness of the
rustics’ diet, and adds that in his current age, this diet is consumed only at great cost:
Siquidem cum parcior apud priscos esset frugalitas, largior tamen pauperibus fuit usus epularum lactis copia
ferinaque ac domesticarum pecudum carne, velut aqua frumentoque, summis atque humillimis victum
tolerantibus. Mox cum sequens et praecipue nostra aetas dapibus libidinosa pretia constituerit, cenaeque non
naturalibus desideriis, sed censibus aestimentur, plebeia paupertas submota a pretiosioribus
cibis ad vulgares compellitur. Rust. 10 pref. 2-3
279
Although indeed, among the ancients there was a stricter parsimony, nevertheless the poor enjoyed more
extravagant meals, since highest and lowest alike maintained their nourishment on an abundance of milk and
the meat of wild and domestic animals, as though on water and grain. Soon, when the following age, and
especially our own, established extravagant prices for dinning, and meals were judged not according to natural
desires but by wealth, the poverty of the common people, forced away from the more pricey foods, was
compelled to turn to common foodstuff.
Columella establishes the idea that even in following the principle of rustic simplicity it was
possible for the countryfolk to enjoy extravagant meals. The garden poem and Columella’s
Book Eleven on horticulture, shows how this rustic simplicity, pleasurable and enticing, can be
reclaimed
185
. This indulgence in the luxury of the garden is of a different character than the
treatment of the fishpond. Just as the garden, an area where the shaping of nature occurred in a
highly ordered and controlled manner, was limited—to the extent that it was bound and
enclosed by hedges—so too was the luxury within it. These luxuries are restricted to natural
phenomena which occur about the garden, including the fertility of springtime (Rust. 10.194-
214), the blooming and gathering of flowers (Rust. 10.255-262; 294-310), the harvesting of
lettuce, different varieties of vegetables, gourds and cucumbers (Rust. 10.369-399), and fruits
(Rust. 10.405-412). And the luxury of Columella’s garden is connected to desire, with
ploughing described using erotic language (Rust. 10.68-76), Venus acting as climactic genius
over the garden (Rust. 10.196), cucumbers swollen as if pregnant (Rust. 10.389), and the
inclusion of the menacing figure of Priapus. As a garden fixture, the statue of the god Priapus
enjoys the twin function of both enticing people into the garden—delighting them with its
fertility—and warding off thieves. Columella’s embrace of luxury is surprising given his
opposition to it in the preface to Book Ten, but the very controlled way in which he presents
and even embraces the luxury of the garden dispels contradiction and suggests that he proposes
185
For more play on this emphasis in Columella, see Martial’s Epigr. 4.66 and 10.37.
280
a reevaluation of the contemporary pleasure garden. And to convey the principle of controlled
luxury, Columella recommends a rustic appearance for his statue of Priapus:
Neu tibi Daedaliae quaerantur munera dextrae,
Nec Polyclitea nec Phradmonis, aut Ageladae
Arte laboretur: sed truncum forte dolatum
Arboris antiquae numen venerare Priapi
Terribilis membri, medio qui semper in horto
Inguinibus puero, praedoni falce minetur. Rust. 10.29-34
May the works of Daedalus’ right hand not be sought, nor those worked over by the skill of Polyclitus or
Phradmon, or Ageladas, but venerate a mighty trunk, hewn accidently from an ancient tree, as the numen of
Priapus, who, with his terrible member, in the midst of the garden, always threatens the boy with his groin,
and the thief with his sickle.
The disapproval of famed artistry in favor of utility is an expression of the ideal of rustic
simplicity embraced by Columella. Gowers believes that Columella’s catalogue of artisans
went on too long: “it opens up a window on the cosmopolitan world the garden is meant to shut
out” (Gowers 2000:140). But while lines 29-31 do fixate on luxury, the focus seems to be on
taking this luxury and redirecting it to the garden itself. The ideal of rustic simplicity carries
over to the priapeum, with the instruction of transforming a piece of wood “hewn accidently”
into a statue of Priapus a nod in the direction of utilitarianism and parsimony. In upholding
these values, Columella’s recommendation goes beyond other examples of priapeum
186
.
Later authors responded to Columella’s focus on morality and the ideal of rustic
simplicity. They were drawn to the idea of the garden as an index of broader cultural
tendencies, engaging with this premise to develop their own poetic projects and describe the
role of the garden in their more urban settings. In this environment of poetic production,
Priapus represents an important cultural touchstone. Martial, for example, makes multiple
186
Cf. Horace’s Sat. 1.8.1, where a statue of Priapus narrates his humble origin story, telling how an indecisive
craftsman was deliberating on whether to turn him—a useless lump of wood (inutile lignum)—into a stool or a
Priapus, before finally deciding to make him into an image of the god. And just as the Priapus in Sat. 1.8 acts as a
witness to the topographical changes on the Esquiline—from a plebian graveyard to Maecenas’ pleasure garden—
Columella’s Priapus stands as witness and protector of the luxury within the garden (Uden 2010:198).
281
references to the god Priapus. Poem 16 in Book Ten plays on the threat of the Priapus from
Columella’s garden poem. Like Columella, Martial’s Priapus cautions thieves to stay away
from the garden. But unlike Columella’s poem, Martial’s Priapus welcomes the company of
boys and even adds girls:
Tu qui falce viros terres et pene cinaedos,
iugera sepositi pauca tuere soli.
sic tua non intrent vetuli pomaria fures,
sed puer aut longis pulchra puella comis. Epigr. 10.16
You who terrify men with your sickle and pathics with your member, guard these few iugera of secluded
land. Thus may no elderly thieves, but only a boy, or pretty girl with long hair, enter your fruit gardens.
As O’Connor has pointed out, Martial assumes the Priapic role in Epigr. 3.68, a poem framed
as a “mock-modest warning to a pious matron” (O’Connor 2018:76). Martial announces that
the remainder of his book (which up until poem 68 Martial says was written for the matrona)
would be for himself, citing the book’s inclusion of the gymnasium, the baths, and the stadium,
as well as the removal of clothing and nudity. In this shift of tone, the poet says that a drunk
Terpsichore, with her shame set aside (deposito…pudore) speaks openly about “quam recipit
sexto mense superba Venus, /custodem medio statuit quam vilicus horto, /opposita spectat
quam proba virgo manu” (‘that which Venus proudly receives in the sixth month, which the
vilicus has set up as a guardian in the middle of the garden, and which a girl watches behind her
hand’) (Epigr. 3.68.8-10). According to O’Connor, the Priapus reference in 3.68 has metapoetic
significance: “Like Priapus lying in wait for his ‘victims’ to enter his garden, Martial lurks
behind the screen for the woman to intrude” (O’Connor 2018:76)
187
.
187
A similar point is made by Gowers about Columella in a joking fashion “The middle of the poem would have
been a good place for him as garden-designer to put a reinforcing image of Priapus, a clumsy stump like himself”
(Gowers 2000:140).
282
The connection between Martial and Priapus is also operative in another poem, where
Martial tells of a rapacious thief named Cilix, who wanted to rob a large garden, but found it
empty, except for a marble statue of Priapus inside. So the thief steals the marble statue (Epigr.
6.72). The description of a large, empty garden contrasts with the productivity of Columella’s
garden
188
. We might imagine that Martial thwarts the expectation of a bountiful garden in order
to alert us to the urban nature of his poetry. The material out of which the statue of Priapus is
fashioned in Epigr. 6.72, then, would be a similar self-conscious embrace of the urban
decadence which Columella rails against in the preface to Book One of the De Re Rustica
(Rust. 1 pref. 15). Instead of a statue fashioned out of an old tree trunk, the statue in Epigr. 6.72
is made of marble. This marble statue is a display of wealth which makes Columella’s
description of the habits of contemporary Roman luxury seem restrained (Rust. 10 pref. 2-3). In
the next poem, a statue of Priapus voices his origin story, furthering signaling Martial’s
appropriation of Columella’s garden poetics in order to embrace a measure of luxuria available
only to the wealthy:
Non rudis indocta fecit me falce colonus:
dispensatoris nobile cernis opus.
nam Caeretani cultor ditissimus agri
hos Hilarus colles et iuga laeta tenet.
aspice quam certo videar non ligneus ore
nec devota focis inguinis arma geram,
sed mihi perpetua numquam moritura cupresso
Phidiaca rigeat mentula digna manu.
vicini, moneo, sanctum celebrate Priapum
et bis septenis parcite iugeribus. Epig. 6.73
An uncultured farmer did not make me with his unlearned sickle—you are seeing the high-born work of the
steward. For the wealthiest cultivator of Caere’s land, Hilarus, holds these hills and happy ridges. See how
I, with my defined face, do not seem to be wooden, nor on my groin am I carrying weapons destined for the
188
The connection between between Columella and the preceding poem, 6.71, which tells of a dancer named
Telethusa, “Edere lascivos ad Baetica crusmata gestus/ et Gaditanis ludere docta modis” (‘skilled at playing with
Gadean measures and performing provocative gestures to Baetican tunes’), is interesting. Both Columella and
Telethusa are from Gades and inspire Martial’s priapic poetry. In another poem from the Carmina Priapaea,
Telethusa is identified as a prostitute who arouses Priapus (Priap. 19).
283
hearth, but my prick is immortal and made of the everlasting cypress, worthy of Phidias’ hand. Neighbors, I
warn you, honor holy Priapus and spare the fourteen iugera.
The statue here is eager to distinguish himself from his rustic counterparts. He touts the fact
that he was not carved by the unlearned sickle of an inexperienced farmer, but rather identifies
himself as the handiwork of a dispensator—a kind of account manager who was typically a
member of the familia urbana—so as to elevate his status
189
. The statue openly boasts that he
guards the estate of the wealthiest cultivator in the region and that he is made of cypress,
praised here for its long-lasting properties (Epigr. 6.51). The focus on the craftsmanship of the
statue, described as “Phidiaca…digna manu”, corresponds to a passage in Columella’s garden
poem where Columella tells his reader to shun the artistry of Daedalus, Polyclitus,
Phradmon, or Ageladas in the making of the statue (Rust. 10.29-30)
190
. The embrace of artistry
is also evident in the care given to the material of the statue: whereas the statue of Priapus in
Columella’s garden poem was to be chosen at random, the material for this statue is
deliberately chosen for its elevated associations. Thus the Priapus figure in Martial’s poetry
might suggest the artistry of the poet himself, the high status of his patron, and his ability to
remain fashionable in the realm of Roman cultural memory. And Martial’s open embrace of
artistry through priapic content can be linked to a self-conscious strategy of provocation:
Laudat, amat, cantat nostros mea Roma libellos,
meque sinus omnes, me manus omnis habet.
ecce rubet quidam, pallet, stupet, oscitat, odit.
hoc volo: nunc nobis carmina nostra placent Epigr. 6.60.1-4
My Rome praises my little books, loves them, sings them. Every lap holds me, every hand. Look, someone
turns red, grows pale, is stunned, gapes, hates. I want this. Now my poems please me.
189
Carlsen 1995 has argued against over interpreting the opposition between the town and the country in Latin
literature and this passage in particular, especially because the distinction between vilicus and dispensator is not so
marked in other poems (7.71 and 11.39) (Carlsen 1995:153). But the other features of poem 73 suggest that Martial
is forcing the opposition.
190
The same anti-artistry stance is in Pr. 9, which features another speaking statue of Priapus who explains: “nec
sum Phidiaca manu politus;/ sed lignum rude vilicus dolavit”, (‘I am not finished by the hand of Phidias; but a
bailiff carved me from uncarved wood’) (Pr. 9. 3-4). For more on the date and authorship of the Carmina Priapea,
see Richlin 1992:141-143.
284
O’Connor draws a connection between Martial’s poetic persona and his connection to Priapus,
arguing that “in his desire to seduce others into reading his books, he positions himself at the
center of his epigrams, as the ithyphallic guardian god Priapus places himself at the center of his
garden as an object of sexual enticement” (O’Connor 2018:72). According to Uden, this
phenomenon is part of a broader trend that sees Roman priapic literature as representing the
farcical underside of the “popularity of the decorative urban horti in the Empire”, which
“represented a violation of moral and societal rectitude in their extravagant non-productivity and
focus on leisure” (Uden 2010:191).
In the variety of expressions in this discourse about the garden—whether focused on
urban luxury, productivity, or a ludic combination of both—Columella emerges as an important
figure
191
. Allusions to Vergilian poetics in his garden poetry show that just as those who came
after him, Columella participated in a robust tradition of garden poetry, eager to make his own
mark. In his disquisition on horticulture, Columella favored rustic aesthetics and sensibilities
over unchecked luxury and the urban environment. We saw this in Columella’s preference for a
statue of Priapus made from a tree and his disapproval of marble statuary around the garden. He
also redirected the erotic associations of the garden for his own purposes, as is visible in his
connecting of erotic imagery to instances of horticultural productivity. All of this suggests that
Columella reasserts the moral roots and productive nature of the garden in the service of his De
Re Rustica, with its broader appeal as a text aimed at teaching agricultural practice to elites. In
turn, these features helped to define a Flavian elite that was both interested in Rome’s rustic
cultural roots yet still grappling with an urban reality.
191
As part of this nod in the direction of urban gardens, Uden identifies in the Carmina Priapaea a variation on the
trope of ‘unbought feasts’, where a speaker in poem 21 begs Priapus not to reveal that the apples he dedicated were
purchased on the Sacred Way (Uden 2010:214-15; cf. Verg., G. 4.1.33; Hor., Epod. 2.48; Priap. 23).
285
Conclusion: Columella’s Politics of Reform
Although the anecdote of Gaius Furius Chresimus is from Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis
Historia, it is a story that, just as Pliny the Elder says, one cannot refrain from telling
192
. The
story, set in the second century B.C.E. and placed in Book Eighteen of the Naturalis Historia in
a section on the farming principles of the ancients, it captures many of the important features of
Roman agronomy
193
. In particular, it is a noteworthy example of the valorization of hard work
and the possibility for social mobility in the Roman World:
C. Furius Chresimus e servitute liberatus, cum in parvo admodum agello largiores multo fructus perciperet
quam ex amplissimis vicinitas, in invidia erat magna, ceu fruges alienas perliceret veneficiis. quamobrem
ab Spurio Albino curuli aedile die dicta metuens damnationem, cum in suffragium tribus oporteret ire,
instrumentum rusticum omne in forum attulit et adduxit familiam suam validam atque, ut ait Piso, bene
curatam ac vestitam, ferramenta egregie facta, graves ligones, vomeres ponderosos, boves saturos. postea
dixit: ‘Veneficia mea, Quirites, haec sunt, nec possum vobis ostendere aut in forum adducere lucubrationes
meas vigiliasque et sudores.’ omnium sententiis absolutus itaque est. profecto opera inpensa cultura
constat. et ideo maiores fertilissimum in agro oculum domini esse dixerunt. Plin. HN 18.41-3
A man liberated from servitude named Gaius Furius Chresimus was very unpopular since he got larger
returns on his rather small plot of land than the nearby region received from very large estates, as if by
magic spells he were drawing away other people’s crops. For this reason, he was indicted by the curule
aedile, Spurius Albinus; and, fearing conviction, when it came time for the tribes to vote their verdict, he
brought into the forum all his equipment from the countryside, and he led in his sturdy slaves, and as Piso
says, they were well-dressed and cared-for. He brought in his iron tools (excellently made), heavy
mattocks, weighty ploughshares, and his well-fed oxen. Then he said, “Citizens, these are my magic spells;
I am not, however, able to show you or to lead into the forum my night labors, early risings, and sweats”.
And by the opinion of all, he was thus acquitted. Truly, agriculture depends on the expenditure of labor.
And for this reason, our ancestors said that on the farm, the eye of the master was the best fertilizer.
The story is about the triumph of the underdog: a former slave turned successful freedman,
Chresimus obtains lucrative returns from his estate—through hard and honest work—which are
said to eclipse those of the regions’ larger estates. This hard work is depicted as the antidote to
Chresimus’ legal troubles. In fact, Pliny’s account of Chresimus ends with an especially
192
Pliny cites the story as also being in the lost history of Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi
193
The accusation of witchcraft against Chresimus can be dated to the aedileship of Spurius Postumius Albinus, 191
BC.
286
appropriate sententia: “opera inpensa cultura constat” (‘cultivation depends on the expenditure
of labor’). The success of this expenditure of labor is expressed in Chresimus’ own upward
social trajectory, his prolific crop returns, the physique of his slaves, their well-cared for
clothing, and the appearance of their agricultural implements. Pliny champions industry over
magic and shows the value of hard work could contend with rhetoric and legal expertise: it is
Chresimus’ labor which allows for his success in court. The story highlights the cultural
importance of agriculture in the period after Columella’s De Re Rustica. As we have seen, the
values in the anecdote about Chresimus are expressed throughout the De Re Rustica. I show in
chapter six that this Roman agricultural heritage became instrumentalized for the purpose of
Flavian self-fashioning. The set of preferences outlined in Chresimus’ story outline salient
aspects of the De Re Rustica which were particularly attractive to Romans attempting to distance
themselves from the extravagance of the Neronian period.
The preferences expressed in Chresimus’ story derive from a set of attachments outlined
in the De Re Rustica. Although not overtly political, they reveal how the character of
Columella’s politics are bound up with a well-functioning, efficient estate. The favor expressed
for smaller plots of land (over larger plots) is illustrative:
Nec dubium quin minus reddat laxus ager non recte cultus quam angustus eximie. Ideoque post reges
exactos Liciniana illa septena iugera, quae plebis tribunus viritim diviserat, maiores quaestus antiquis
rettulere, quam nunc nobis praebent amplissima veterata. Rust. 1.3.10
And there is no doubt that a field which is spacious yet improperly cultivated yields less than a small plot
which is exceptionally tilled. For this reason, after the kings were driven out, those seven iugera of
Licinius, which the tribune of the plebs had apportioned to each man, returned greater profits to the
ancients than our extensive fallow-lands now offer us.
The preferences expressed here are tied to the founding of the Republic. Although this notion of
Republicanism is part of a trope about the decline of contemporary culture, these preferences
show the direction in which the De Re Rustica’s politics are oriented, even if this orientation is
287
more about establishing cultural values—the customs of the ancestors—than any overt political
commitments
194
. Yet the politics of the De Re Rustica go beyond references to the Republican
period.
The specter of Nero had an immense effect on the shape of literature in his own time and
thereafter. The absence of any direct mention of Nero signals an ambivalence on Columella’s
part. One the one hand, as I discussed in chapter five, the omission of any mention of the
emperor, as an addressee or otherwise, could be a form of indifference due to the fact that the
emperor was primarily interested in higher forms of literature and would be unconcerned with an
agricultural treatise. On the other hand, this silence could also be a critique of Neronian excess
and of his indifference to the well-being of the Empire. The forms of expression used by
Columella to articulate this critique, however, provide the author with plausible deniability:
Columella’s silence on the emperor was both a critique and a means of survival. Indirect
references to the emperor, such as the critique about men who hoard land and even whole
countries (which may have been an indirect reference to Nero, as the language here is close to
Pliny’s critique of Nero
195
), further qualify Columella’s critique and point to a politics aimed at
transforming the Empire from within, independent of the emperor.
The effects of this land hoarding is discussed through the figure of Gaius Licinius Stolo,
whom Columella censures for violating the terms of his own law, the Licinian Rogations of 367
BC, which limited ownership of land to 500 iugera. Columella qualifies that his main objection
to Licinius is that it seemed “flagitiosius, quos hostis profugiendo desolasset agros, novo more
civem Romanum supra vires patrimonii possidendo deserere” (‘more disgraceful that a Roman
194
Wiseman identifies the seven iugera plots as part of a tradition that symbolizes the community of equals
(Wiseman 2009:44).
195
Pliny discusses Nero’s confiscation of senatorial properties in Africa (HN 18.7.35).
288
citizen—by possessing lands in an uncustomary manner beyond the powers of his inheritance—
leave uncultivated those lands which the enemy had abandoned in flight’) (Rust. 1.3.11).
Columella foresees that eventually, this practice of depriving the use and enjoyment of the land
could be a contributing factor in its wasting away and ravaging by beasts; or in the land being
under the care of citizens enslaved by debt and chain-gangs (Rust. 1.3.12-13). Another point of
interest in Columella’s diagnosis of this wasting away is the inability of the landowner, whether
Nero or someone else, to visit the land. The requirement of the master’s presence on the land is one
of the defining features of Columella’s distinct version of agriculture. The principle here is thus
given a political charge—ownership of land and the ability to frequently visit it are set in
opposition to Neronian extravagance, elite greed, and inactivity. Additionally, the concern for
maintaining cultivated lands is a means of expressing care for the well-being of the Empire.
This sentiment is also echoed in Columella’s own words about his project of teaching
agriculture, which he says is for the flourishing of the res publica and a necessity for mankind
(Rust. 1 pref. 6). The broader thrust of his project is also clear in his expression of the desire,
according to Cicero’s recommendations, to pursue subjects of the greatest utility to the human race
and to transmit this knowledge to posterity (Rust. 1 pref. 29). Although these political sentiments
are located outside the bounds of the household, Columella’s politics show, through an inward
turn, the connection between the estate and the state. That is, Columella shows how the capacity
for acting in the service of the state could be realized through the agricultural landscape and within
the household.
In chapter one I showed how Columella’s predecessors conceived of the pursuit of
agriculture as a division between planning and executing. It is specifically with Varro that this
arrangement is problematized. Varro, however, does not offer the kind of solution envisioned in
289
Columella’s De Re Rustica. In chapter two I showed how Columella had recognized an overly
abstract conception of agriculture in Varro and attempted to correct it through his explication of the
ideal farmer. This notion of the ideal farmer is constituted by the acquisition of knowledge,
practice, and experience. Placed in opposition to the Epicurean belief that the earth had lost its
fertility, the ideal farmer is at the center of Columella’s unique conception of the discipline of
agriculture (agricolatio), which is predicated upon an active engagement with the agricultural
landscape. As we see above, this sense of action was part of Columella’s political commitments. I
discussed in chapter three the De Re Rustica as an encyclopedic text. As a highly consultable
reference work, Columella’s work utilized a form of technology which could account for the
limitations of an individual’s knowledge and establish a blueprint for the ideal farmer and his staff
to follow. The sense of action integral to Columella’s agricolatio in this chapter was presented
through my interpretation of the garden poem, which I read as a protreptic to horticulture and
agronomy. Columella’s Book Ten makes clear that the garden poem could stand on its own as a
literary work, existing independently from the rest of the De Re Rustica. So too could the practice
of horticulture exist and flourish apart from agriculture, especially in an urban setting. But as a
complement to agriculture, horticulture enriches the practice of farming and provides a means of
accessing forms of luxury once enjoyed by rustics, but now typically reserved for wealthy elites.
Similarly, as a complement to the De Re Rustica, the garden poem enriches the treatise and offers a
welcome break from the rigor of the treatise. In the context of wealthy elites hoarding lands, urban
extravagance, and the neglect of agriculture, engaging in horticulture offers a form of resistance
against this dominant culture
196
.
196
A useful analogy of the relationship between the garden and agriculture is the position of urban gardens in the
United States. According to Holt-Giménez, the current food regime of industrialized agriculture in the United States,
where more food is produced than in any other country yet one in seven people are food insecure, has led to the
emergence of food movements promoting agroecology, food justice, food sovereignty, and land justice. In his view,
290
But resistance alone is not the extent of Columella’s politics. One of the distinguishing
factors between horticulture and agronomy is scale and availability of resources. Chapter four
treats the topic of the management of capital as one of the organizing principles of the discipline of
agriculture, and as one of the defining features of Columella’s agricolatio. It is in this chapter that
a clearer vision of Columella’s politics appears, one predicated upon management and
administration—qualities antithetical to Nero’s extravagance. In chapter five I focused on
Columella’s construction of an idealized version of the agricultural household, a construction
which positioned the vilicus and the vilica as parallel to the ideal farmer and landowner (agricola
perfectus and artifex agricola) through the figure of the vilicus perfectus
197
. I show how the
household, a space not typically associated with the political realm, is central to Columella’s
vision of what an overhaul of the Empire would look like. The characteristics of this overhaul
consist in the following: a rearticulation of Republican values and preferences; the importance of
moderation as an agricultural and political principle; an emphasis on the importance of this
principle’s application in the ideal household (with its vison of how to manage the servile staff),
and how this ideal household serves as a model for the administration of the state. Finally, in
chapter six, I show how the values of the De Re Rustica anticipated the cultural trends which
would come to define an effective form of self-fashioning for the Flavian regime.
To what degree is Columella an effective critic of Empire? As an author he displays a
sensitivity to the necessity of not drawing attention to himself. There are no radical propositions
within his work which cannot be explained as being part of tradition. While he does not seek to
change the structure of Roman labor, he problematizes it and offers a vision for how the
the proliferation of urban gardens is part of such food movement–a form of resistance against dominant forms of
agriculture (Holt-Giménez 2017:9).
197
For the agricola perfectus, see chapter 2 and Rust. 1 pref. 22, 35; 2.11.7; 4.8.11; 4.22.5; The concept of the
perfectus vilicus is explained at Rust. 1.8.11 and 11.1.12. See also Chapter Five.
291
alienation which results from a separation in the labor process can be overcome. In doings so, he
forcefully presents himself as aligned with action. Although this call to action is not based solely
on political participation or organization, it is identified as sharing some affinities with Roman
citizenship, from which it derives its force. Set in opposition to Epicurean pessimism about the
fertility of the earth, this sense of action is embedded in Columella’s distinct version of
agriculture, agricolatio. Columella is clear that he does not envision agriculture as a way to
retreat from public life. Just as agriculture is explicitly linked to benefiting the state and the
broader notion of the human race, so too is Columella’s treatment of household management,
which was oriented towards the broader context of imperial administration. The idealized version
of the household acted as a kind of eulogy for imperial administration, aimed at creating an
idealized version of the state. This conservative yet forceful presentation of how household
management and imperial administration should function forms Columella’s politics of reform.
292
Bibliography
Ager, B. 2019. “Magic and Genre in Columella’s Caterpillar Charm,” in Classical Philology
114 (2): 197-217.
Althusser, L. 1971. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” in Lenin and Philosophy and
Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press. 127-157.
Ambler, W. H. 1996. “On the Oeconomicus,” in R. Bartlett (ed.), Xenophon: The Shorter
Socratic Writings; Apology of Socrates to the Jury, Oeconomicus, and Symposium.102-
131.
Ash, H. B. (ed.) 1930. L. Iuni Moderati Columellae Rei Rusticae Liber Decimus: De Cultu
Hortorum: Text, Critical Apparatus, Translation, and Commentary. Westbrook
Publishing Company.
Ash, H.B., Forster, E.S., and Heffner, E. (eds. and trans.) 1955. Lucius Junius Moderatus
Columella on Agriculture, Vol. 1-3. Loeb Classical Library, 361, 407, 408. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Astin, A. E. 1978. Cato the Censor. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aubert, J. 1994. Business Managers in Ancient Rome: A Social and Economic Study of
Institores, 200 BC – AD 250. Leiden/New York: E.J. Brill.
Auerbach, E. 1953. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. (trans. W.R.
Trask; first published in German in 1946). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baldwin, B. 1963. “Columella’s Sources and How He Used Them,” in Latomus 22: 785–791.
Bertoni, D. 2017. “Geometry and Genre in Columella,” in American Journal of Philology. 138
(3): 527-554.
Braverman, H. 1998. Labor and Monopoly and Capital: The Degradation of Work in the
Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press. (Originally printed in 1974).
Barthes, R. 1986. “From work to text,” in The Rustle of Language (trans. R. Howard; first
published in French in 1984), New York: Hill and Wang. 56-64.
Bartlett, R.C. ed. 1996. Xenophon: The Shorter Socratic Writings; Apology of Socrates to the
Jury, Oeconomicus, and Symposium. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Boldrer, F. 1996. L. Juni Moderati Columellae rei rusticae liber Decimus (Carmen de Cultu
Hortorum), ed. F. Boldrer. Pisa: ETS.
293
Boyle, A. J. and Dominik, W.J. 2003. Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Boyle, A. J. 2003. “Introduction: Reading Flavian Rome,” in A.J. Boyle and W. Dominik (eds.),
Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 1-69.
---------------------. Tragic Seneca: An Essay in the Theatrical Tradition. New York: Routledge.
---------------------. Virgil’s Ascraean Song: Ramus Essays on the Georgics. Melbourne:
Hawthorn Press.
Bradley, K. 1994. Slavery and Society at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braund, S. 2009. (ed.) Seneca: De Clementia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
------------.1998. “Praise and Protreptic in Early Imperial Panegyric,” in M. Whitby (ed.), The
Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill. 53-76.
Braverman, H. 1998. Labor and Monopoly and Capital: The Degradation of Work in the
Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press. (Originally printed in 1974).
Brunt, P. 1977. “Lex de Imperio Vespasiani,” in Journal of Roman Studies 67: 95-116.
Buck, R. 1983. “Agriculture and Agricultural Practice in Roman Law,” in Historia 45:
[Einzelschriftt] 7-53.
Carl, G. 1926. “Die Agrarlehre Columellas,” in Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte 19. Bd., H. 1/3: 1-47.
Carlsen, J. 1995. Vilici and Roman Estate Managers Until AD 284. Analecta Romana Instituti
Danici, Suppl. XXIV. Rome : L'Erma di Bretschneider
Champlin, E. J. 2003. Nero. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Conte, G.B. 1994. Latin Literature: A History. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Copley, O. 1969. Latin Literature: From the Beginnings to the Close of the Second Century A.D.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Crawford, M. 2009. Shop Class as Soulcraft. New York: The Penguin Press.
de Neeve, P.W. 1984. Colonus: Private Farm-Tenancy in Roman Italy during the Republic and
the Early Principate. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.
Danzig, G. 2003. “Why Socrates was not a Farmer: Xenophon’s Oeconomicus as a Philosophical
Dialogue,” in Greece and Rome 50: 57-76.
294
Diederich, Silke. 2007. Römische Agrarhandbücher zwischen Fachwissenschaft, Literatur und
Ideologie. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Doody, A. 2007. “Virgil the Farmer? Critiques of the Georgics in Columella and Pliny,” in
Classical Philology, 102 (4):180-197.
Dupont, F. 1997. “Recitatio and the Reorganization of the Space of Public Discourse,” in
Habinek and Schiesaro (eds.), The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 3-22.
Dreyfus, B. and Rabinow, P. (eds). 1983. Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Dyson, S. 1992. Community and Society in Roman Italy. Baltimore/London: John Hopkins
University Press.
Erdkamp, P. 2005. The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: a Social, Political and Economic
Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finley, M. 1980. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. Princeton: Markus Weiner Publishers.
------------.1976. Studies in Roman Property by the Cambridge University Research Seminar in
Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------------.1973. The Ancient Economy. Sather Classical Lectures, v. 43. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Flower, M. (ed.) 2017. The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Foucault, M. 1991. “Governmentality,” trans. Rosi Braidotti and revised by Colin Gordon, in
Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in
Governmentality, pp. 87–104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
---------------. 1983. “The Subject and Power,” in H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow. (eds.) Beyond
Structuralism and Hermeneutics. University of Chicago Press.
Fögen, T. 2016. “All Creatures Great and Small: On the Roles and Functions of Animals in
Columella's De re rustica,” in Hermes 144 (3): 321-351.
Fögen, T. 2009. Wissen, Kommunikation und Selbstdarstellung: zur Struktur und Charakteristik
römischer Fachtexte der frühen Kaiserzeit. Zetemata 134. München
Formisano, M. 2017. Knowledge, Text, and Practice in Ancient Technical Writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
295
-----------------. 2018. “Beyond the Fence: Columella’s Garden,” in S. Finkmann, A. Behrendt &
A. Walter (eds), Antike Erzähl- und Deutungsmuster. Berlin, Boston: 501-514.
Forster, E. S. 1950. “Columella and His Latin Treatise on Agriculture,” in Greece and Rome
19: 123–128.
Fredrick, D. 2003. “Architecture and Surveillance in Flavian Rome,” in A.J. Boyle and W.
Dominik (eds), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Brill. Leiden/Boston. 199-229.
Gale, M. 2004. Virgil on the Nature of Things: The Georgics, Lucretius and the Didactic
Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garnsey, P. and Saller, R.P. 1987. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture.
Oakland: University of California Press.
Geue, T. 2018. “Soft Hands, Hard Power: Sponging Off the Empire of Leisure,” in JRS 108:
115–140.
Giardina, A. and Schiavone, A. 1981. Società romana e produzione schiavistica. Bari : Laterza.
Gowers, E. 2000. “Vegetable Love: Virgil, Columella, and Garden Poetry,” in Ramus Vol. 29,
No. 2: 127-148.
Gray, Vivienne (ed.) 2010. Xenophon: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Green, C.M.C. 1997. “Free as a Bird: Varro De Re Rustica 3,” in American Journal of Philology,
118 (3): 427-228.
Green, S. and Volks, K. (eds). 2011. Forgotten Stars: Rediscovering Manilius' Astronomica.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Griffin, M. 1992. Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Originally
printed in 1976).
Greene, K. 1986. The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. Berkeley/Los Angeles:University of
California Press.
Habinek, T. 2016. “Art and Oikeiosis in Book 2 of Vitruvius de Architectura,” in Arethusa, 49
no. 2: 299-316.
--------------. 2011. “Manilius' Conflicted Stoicism,” in S. Green and K. Volk (eds.), Forgotten
Stars: Rediscovering Manilius’Astronomica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34-47.
296
--------------. 2007. “Probing the entrails of the universe: astrology as bodily knowledge in
Manilus’ Astronomica,” in König, J. and Whitmarsh, T. (eds.), Ordering Knowledge in
the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--------------. 2005. Ancient Rhetoric and Oratory. Blackwell Publishing.
--------------.1998. The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient
Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Habinek, T and Schiesaro, A. (eds.) 1997. The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hammond, M. 1957. “Composition of the Senate A.D. 68-235,” in Journal of Roman Studies 47:
74-81.
Heitland, W.E. 1921. Agricola: A Study of Agriculture and Rustic Life in the Greco-Roman
World from the Point of View of Labour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henderson, J. 2004. Hortus: The Roman Book of Gardening. London/New York: Routledge.
----------------. 2002. “Columella’s Living Hedge: The Roman Gardening Book,” in
Journal of Roman Studies, 92: 110-33.
Hobden, F. 2017. “Xenophon’s Oeconomicus,” in M. Flower (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to Xenophon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holtz-Gimenz, E. and Williams, M. (ed). 2017. Land justice: re-imagining land, food, and the
commons in the United States. Oakland: Food First Books.
Holtz-Gimenz, E. 2017. “Agrarian Questions and the Struggle for Land Justice in the United
States,” in E. Holtz-Gimenz and M. Williams (eds), Land justice: re-imagining land,
food, and the commons in the United States. 1-14.
Hooper, W.D. and Ash, H.B. 1967. Cato and Varro: On Agriculture. Loeb Classical
Library, 283. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hopkins, K. 1965. “Elite Mobility in the Roman Empire,” in Past & Present, No. 32: 12-26.
Hubbell, H.M. and Hendrickson, G.L. 2001. Cicero: Brutus, Orator. Loeb Classical
Library, 342. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Johnstone, D. 1999. Roman Law in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnstone, S. 1994. “Virtuous Toil, Vicious Work: Xenophon on Aristocratic Style,” in Classical
Philology Vol. 89 (3): 219-240.
297
Joshel, S. 1992. Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
Kehoe, D.P. 2007. Law and the Rural Economy in the Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
König, J. and Whitmarsh, T. (eds.) 2007. Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
König, A. 2007. “Knowledge and power in Frontinus’ On aqueducts,” in J. König and T.
Whitmarsh (eds.), Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 177-206.
Kronenberg, L. 2009. Allegories of Farming from Greece and Rome: Philosophical Satire in
Xenophon, Varro and Virgil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, A. A. 2006. From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Love, J. 1991. Antiquity and Capitalism: Max Weber and the sociological foundations of Roman
civilization. London: Routledge.
Maestre, J. M. M., Cueto, A. S., and Brea, L.C., (eds.) 1997. Estudios sobre Columella.
Cádiz, Spain: Ayuntamiento.
Martin, R. 1995. “Ars an quid aliud? La conception Varronienne de l'agriculture,” REL 73:
80-91.
------------. 1985. “Etát présent de études sur Columella,” ANRWU. 32.3: 1963-72.
Berlin.
-------------. 1971. Recherches sur les agronomes latines et leurs conceptions économiques et
sociales. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Macherey, P. 1978. A Theory of Literary Production. London/Boston: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
MacMullen, R. 1974. Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Mankin, D. (ed.) 2011. De Oratore III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marzano, A. 2007. Roman Villas in Central Italy: A Social and Economic History. Columbia
Studies in the Classical Tradition, v. 30. London/Boston: Brill.
298
Masters, J. 1992. Poetry and Civil War in Lucan's Bellum Civile. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mazzarino, A. 1952. Introduzione al De Agri Cultura di Catone. Roma: Atlante.
Mellor, R. 2003. “The New Aristocracy of Power,” in A.J. Boyle and W. Dominik (eds), Flavian
Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 69-103.
Milnor, K. 2005. Gender, Domesticity, and the Age of Augustus: Inventing Private Life. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Moatti, C. 2017. “Res Publica, Forma Rei Publicae, and SPQR,” in Bulletin - Institute of
Classical Studies, 2017-06, Vol.60 (1): 34-48.
------------. 2003. “Experts, mémoire et pouvoir à Rome, à la fin de la République,” in Revue
historique, (2) n° 626: 303- 325.
------------. 1997. La Raison de Rome: Naissance de l'esprit critique à la fin de la République.
Paris: de Seuil. Reprinted as The Birth of Critical Thinking in Republican Rome. (Trans.
J.Lloyd.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morales, J.R. 1997. “Trimalción: un Terrateniente de la Época de Columella,” in J.M.M.
Maestre, A.S. Cueto, and L.C. Brea (eds.), Estudios sobre Columella. Cádiz, Spain:
Ayuntamiento.
Morley, N. 1996. Metropolis and Hinterland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelsestuen, G. 2017. “Varro, Dicaearchus, and the history of Roman Res Rusticae,” in
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. 60 (2): 21-33.
-----------------. 2015. Varro the Agronomist: olitical Philosophy, Satire, and Agriculture in the
Late Republic. Ohio State University Press.
Noe, E. 2002. II progetto di Columella: Profilo sociale, economico, culturale. Como: New
Press.
--------. 2000. “Columella Artifex Agricola,” RAL 11 [9): 399-441.
O’Connor, E. 2018. “Aroused by Laughter: Martial’s Priapic Humor,” in Archimède:
archéologie et histoire ancienne no. 5: 71-82.
Pagan, V. 2006. Rome and the Literature of Gardens. London: London Bloomsbury Publishing.
Panayotakis, C. 1995. Theatrum Arbitri: Theatrical Elements in the Satyrica of
Petronius (Mnemosyne Supplement 146). Leiden: Brill.
299
Papadopoulos, J. and Urton, G. (eds) 2012. The Construction of Value in the Ancient World:
Cotsen Advanced Seminars, 5. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Patterson, O. 1982. Slavery and Social Death. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our
Time. Boston: Beacon Press.
Pomeroy, S. 2010. “Status and gender. Slavery in the Greek domestic economy in the light of
Xenophon’s Oeconomicus,” in V. Gray (ed.), Xenophon: Oxford Readings in Classical
Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 31-40.
---------------.1994. Xenophon Oeconomicus: A social and Historical Commentary. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Porter, J. 2012. “The Value of Aesthetic Value,” in J. Papadopoulos and G. Urton (eds.), The
Construction of Value in the Ancient World. Costen Institute of Archaeology Press. 336-
353.
Postone, M. 1993. Time, Labor, and Social Domination. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Purcell, N. 1995. “The Roman Villa and the Landscape of Production,” in T. Cornell and K.
Lomas (eds.), Urban Society in Roman Italy. London: UCL Press.151-179.
-------------. 1987. “Town in Country and Country in Town,” in E. Macdougall (ed.) Ancient
Roman Villa Gardens. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape
Architecture. Washington, D.C. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 185-
203.
Rawson, E. 1985. Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Reay, B. 2005. “Agriculture, Writing, and Cato's Aristocratic Self-Fashioning,” in Classical
Antiquity. 24(2): 331-361.
-----------.1998. Cultivating Romans: Republican Agricultural Writing and the Invention of the
Agricola. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Rebeggianni, S. 2018. The Fragility of Power: Statius, Domitian and the Politics of the Thebaid.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Reitz, C. 2014. “Columella, De Re Rustica,” in E. Buckley and M. Dinter (eds.), A Companion
to the Neronian Age: Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell Press. 121-127.
300
----------.2017. “Auctoritas in the Garden: Columella’s Poetic Strategy in De re rustica 10,” in
M. Formisano and P. Eijk (eds), Knowledge, Text and Practice in Ancient Technical
Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 217-30.
Richlin, A. 1992. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor.
Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Riggsby, A. 2007. “Guides to the wor(ld),” in J. König and T. Whitmarsh (eds.), Ordering
Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 88-107.
Rimell, V. 2007. “Petronius’ lessons in learning – the hard way,” in J. König and T. Whitmarsh
(eds.), Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 108-132.
Rodgers, R. H. (ed.) 2010. Columella res rustica, incerti auctoris Liber de Arboribus. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Roth, U. 2004. “Inscribed Meaning: The Vilica and the Villa Economy,” in Papers of the British
School at Rome, 72: 101-124.
Sandbach, F.H. 1975. The Stoics. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hacket Publishing.
Schiesaro, A. 2003. The Passions in Play: Thyestes and the Dynamics of Senecan Drama.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schofield, M. 2015. “Seneca on Monarchy and the Political Life,” in S. Bartsch (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to Seneca. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 68-81.
Sciarrino, E. 2011. Cato the Censor and the Beginnings of Latin prose: From Poetic Translation
to Elite Transcription. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Skydsgaard, J.E. 1968. Varro the Scholar: Studies in the First Book of Varro’s De Re Rustica.
Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, 4. Copenhagen, Denmark: E. Munksgaard.
Slater, N. 1990. Reading Petronius. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Spanier, E. 2010. The Good Farmer in Ancient Rome: War, Agriculture and the Elite from the
Republic to Early Empire. Dissertation (Ph. D.), University of Washington.
Spurr, M.S. 1986. “Agriculture and the ‘Georgics’,” in Greece and Rome, Vol. 33, No. 2: 164-
187.
Stackelberg, K. The Roman Garden: Space, Sense, and Society. London/New York: Routledge.
Steiner, G. 1954. “Columella and Martial on Living in the Country,” in The Classical Journal,
Vol. 50, No. 2: 85-90.
301
Sullivan, J.P. 1968. The Satyricon of Petronius: A Literary Study. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Thibodeau, P. 2011: Playing the Farmer: Representations of Rural Life in Vergil’s Georgics.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thomas, R. F. “Vestigia Ruris: Urbane Rusticity in Virgil’s Georgics,” in Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology, Vol. 97: 197-214
-----------------. 1988a: Georgics, I: Books I–II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-----------------. 1988b: Georgics, II: Books II–IV, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
------------------. 1987. “Prose into Poetry: Tradition and Meaning in Virgil's Georgics,” in
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Vol. 91: 229-260.
Toohey, P. 1996. “Gardening with god: Columella,” in Epic Lessons. An Introduction to Ancient
Didactic Poetry. London/New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 176-9.
Uden, J. 2010. “The Vanishing Gardens of Priapus”, in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology,
Vol. 105: 189-219.
Volk, K. 2010. “Allegories of Farming from Greece and Rome: Philosophical Satire in
Xenophon, Varro, and Virgil,” in review of L. Kronenberg “Allegories of Farming from
Greece and Rome: Philosophical Satire in Xenophon, Varro and Virgil” in Vergilius Vol.
56: 77-80.
Watson, A. 1987. Roman Slave Law. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Weber, M. 1897 [1988]. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. London/New York:
Verso.
------------.1891. Die Romische Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutung fur das Staats-und
Privatrecht. Berlin.
White, D. 2013. Columella Res Rustica 10: A Study and Commentary. Dissertation (Ph.D),
University of Florida.
White, K.D. 1970. Roman Farming: Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
--------------.1967. Agricultural Implements and Farming Equipment in the Roman World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
302
Wilcox, A. 2012. The Gift of Correspondence in Classical Rome: Friendship in Cicero’s Ad
Familiares and Seneca’s Moral Epistles. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Wilson, M. 1987. “Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius: A Revaluation,” in Ramus 16, 102-121.
Wiseman, T. P. 2009. Remembering the Roman People: Essays on Late-Republican Politics
and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
At the end of the 2nd century BCE, the Roman state underwent many changes brought about by an influx of wealth from imperial acquisitions. Rome underwent significant changes. There was a widespread reliance upon absentee managementㅡa scenario where agricultural estates are primarily run by slaves. I examine how the agronomist Columella responded to this problem. Labor, power, and politics all intersect in his agricultural treatise, the De Re Rustica. Although it is one of the most comprehensive ancient texts on the subject of agriculture, it has largely been ignored by scholars. Most approaches have dismissed him as a compiler and a synthesizer without analyzing his political commitments. I show how his response to the problem above forms a politics of reform. This response is best understood through description of his distinct version of the agricultural science (agricolatio) and examination of his approach to labor. The approach reveals that Columella creates a vision of labor management more comprehensive than his predecessors, based on action and visible in the explication of a pedagogical program that distilled theoretical and practical knowledge into the figure of the ideal farmer (agricola perfectus). Furthermore, he presents an idealized version of the household that projected an image of sound administrative practices onto the state, forming a critique of the oppressiveness and extravagance of the Neronian regime. This critique anticipated the key attributes that defined the new aristocracy of Flavian Rome, with its emphasis on creating a class of administrative and military expertise.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Martial's monumental Epigrams: the semiotics of Martial's poetry on the urban landscape of Flavian Rome
PDF
Statius' Flavian Achilles
PDF
The end of Augustan literature: Ovid's Epistulae ex Ponto IV
PDF
"ipsum principem cernere in publico": the visibility of the Roman emperor from 27BCE to 40CE
PDF
Cicero's Academica and the foundation of a Roman academy
PDF
The mind of the slave: the limits of knowledge and power in Roman law and society
PDF
Roman civic medicine: the archaeology of practices and practitioners in the Imperial age