No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Inscribed meaning: the vilica and the villa economy*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British School at Rome 2004
Footnotes
*
I wish to thank Michael Crawford, Henrik Mouritsen, Dominic Rathbone, Joyce Reynolds, James Roy and Benet Salway for discussing the evidence and the argument of this article with me. Thanks also to the anonymous readers of the Papers of the British School at Rome for their very helpful comments. Last, but by no means least, thanks to Marco Buonocore, for discussion of the epigraphic material at the Twelfth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy in Barcelona in 2002, where I first presented it — and for encouraging publication, as well as for suggesting the Papers. Any errors are mine, of course. Texts and translations are taken from the Loeb Classical Library unless stated otherwise. Texts and translations of the Digest are taken from The Digest of Justinian, Latin text edited by T. Mommsen with the aid of Paul Kriiger, English translation edited by A. Watson, 4 vols (Philadelphia, 1985), unless stated otherwise.
References
1 See, for a modern synopsis of the vilicus's work duties, Aubert, J.-J., Business Managers in Ancient Rome. A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 BC–AD 250 (Leiden, 1994), 169–75Google Scholar, and Carlsen, J., Vilici and Roman Estate Managers until AD 284 (Rome, 1995), 70–80Google Scholar.
2 Cato, De agricultura 10; 11; 143.
3 Varro, , De re rustica 1.18Google Scholar.
4 Columella, De re rustica 12.
5 For studies on the vilicus's role see n. 1, above; for a study on the vilica see Carlsen, J., ‘The vilica and Roman estate management’, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (ed.), De Agricultura: in Memoriam Pieter Willem de Neeve (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 10) (Amsterdam, 1993), 197–205Google Scholar, at pp. 198–201.
6 This point also has been made by Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 197, n. 2 (with earlier bibliography).
7 A legally accepted marriage obviously could not have existed amongst slaves, but this issue is irrelevant for the point to be made here. Equally, I do not want to enter here the debate about freed or free-born vilici, for which see H.C. Teitler, ‘Free-born estate managers’, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), De Agricultura (above, n. 5), 206–13.
8 Fraschetti, A. (ed.), Roman Women (Chicago/London, 2001), IGoogle Scholar (originally published under the title Roma al femminile (Rome/Bari, 1994Google Scholar)). This also is stated categorically in the most recent studies on Roman estate management without giving specific source references: Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 177, n. 204: ‘The concubine of the vilicus is called vilica in agricultural treatises …’; and Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 197: ‘It is clear from the use of the term vilica in the legal and literary sources that the title normally indicated the bailiff's wife’.
9 Bradley, K.R., Slavery and Society at Rome (Cambridge, 1994), 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 For example, Varro, De re rustica 1.2.21 ff.; Columella, , De re rustica 12.1.5Google Scholar; 12.3.
11 Discussion of non-agricultural production at villa estates has been particularly fruitful in cases where the literary evidence is virtually absent, and study consequently relies on archaeological material, as for instance in Roman Britain: Branigan, K. and Miles, D. (eds), The Economies of Romano-British Villas (Sheffield, 1989)Google Scholar, esp. the contributions by K. Branigan, ‘Specialisation in villa economies’, pp. 42–50, and M. Todd, ‘Villa and fundus’, pp. 14–20.
12 For example, Gummerus, H., Der Römische Gutsbetrieb nach den Schriften des Cato, Varro und Columella (Leipzig, 1906Google Scholar); Heitland, W.E., Agricola: a Study of Agriculture and Rustic Life in the Greco-Roman World from the Point of View of Labour (Cambridge, 1921Google Scholar); Maróti, E., ‘The vilicus and the villa system in ancient Italy’, Oikumene 1 (1976), 109–24Google Scholar; Kaltenstadler, W., Arbeitsorganisation und Führungssystem bei den Römischen Agrarschriftstellern (Stuttgart, 1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Rathbone, D.W., ‘The development of agriculture in the ‘Ager Cosanus’ in the Republican period: problems of evidence and interpretation’, Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981), 10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The slave mode of production in Italy’, Journal of Roman Studies 73 (1983), 160–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reviewing Giardina, A. and Schiavone, A. (eds), Società romana e produzione schiavistica, 3 vols (Rome/Bari, 1981Google Scholar): White, K.D., ‘The productivity of labour in Roman agriculture’, Antiquity 39 (1983), 102–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spurr, M.S., Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy 200 BC–AD 100 (London, 1986Google Scholar); Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1); Carlsen, Vilici (above, n. 1); Schäfer, C., Sklaven und Freigelassene in Wirtschaftlichen Führungspositionen (MainzGoogle Scholar, forthcoming).
13 For example, Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5); R. Günther, ‘Matrona, vilica und ornatrix. Frauenarbeit in Rom zwischen Topos und Alltagswirklichkeit’, in Späth, T. and Wagner-Hasel, B. (eds), Frauenwelten in der Antike. Geschlechterordnung und Weibliche Lebenspraxis (Stuttgart/Weimar, 2000), 350–76, at pp. 362–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 177, concludes his epigraphic discussion of female farm managers and their description as ‘wives’ of vilici by referring readers to Martin, R., ‘Familia rustica: les esclaves chez les agronomes latins’, in Actes du colloque 1972 sur l'esclavage (Paris, 1974), 267–97Google Scholar (my emphasis), despite having available to him 201 (male) vilici, four sub-vilici and five vilicae attested epigraphically.
15 For example, Helen, T., Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries A.D. An Interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps (Helsinki, 1975), 112–13Google Scholar, and more recently Setälä, P., ‘Women and brick production — some new aspects’, n Setälä, P., Berg, R., Halikka, R., Keltanen, M., Polonen, J. and Vuolanto, V. (eds). Women, Wealth and Power in the Roman Empire (Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 25) (Rome, 2002), 181–201Google Scholar.
16 A continuum between agricultural and industrial production is evident elsewhere in the Roman world: Garnsey, P., ‘Non-slave labour in the Roman world’, in Garnsey, P. (ed.), Non-Slave Labour in the Greco-Roman World (Cambridge, 1980), 34–47Google Scholar. See also Columella, , De re rustica 12.1.5Google Scholar and 12.3.7 for the use of agricultural surplus labour in productive activities carried out under the supervision of the vilica.
17 For seasonal compatibility see Digest 33.7.25.1 and Vitruvius, , De architectura 2.3.2Google Scholar. For managerial double allocations see Digest 14.3.13.pr.
18 Columella, , De re rustica 12.3.8–9Google Scholar (see also De re rustica 12.46.1 and 12.50.1 for seasonally caused changes in the vilica's, workload), and De re rustica 11.2.72.
19 Cf. n. 11, above.
20 An almost complete list of these inscriptions from Roman Italy and Sicily can be found in Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 442–62, who counts a total of 201 vilici and five vilicae identified clearly in the inscriptions known to him. The only addition that needs to be made is an inscription from Corfinio that mentions both a vilica and a vilicus: Buonocore, M., ‘Nuovi testi dall'Abruzzo e dal Molise (Regiones II et IV)’, Epigraphica 58 (1997), 231–65, at pp. 241–4Google Scholar.
21 Buonocore, ‘Nuovi testi’ (above, n. 20), 241–4: Dis Man(ibus) / Veneriae / Attiaes Gallaes / vilicae et Firmo / filio eius Felix vilic(us) / coniugi cum Phaedimo / et Felice filis posit.
22 Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 461, believes the only Republican vilica inscription we have to be possible evidence for the activity of a vilica outside the proper agricultural sphere, but even so, this would not exclude her occupation at a villa estate. The inscription is a graffito on a terracotta lamp that came from the Esquiline cemetery: CIL I2504 (Rome): Statia vilic(a) nostra. His point is made more explicit in ‘Workshop managers’, in Harris, W.V. (ed.), The Inscribed Economy. Production and Distribution in the Roman Empire in the Light of ‘instrumentum domesticum’ (Ann Arbor, 1993), 171–81, at p. 178Google Scholar, n. 50.
23 Cf. also CIL III 5611 (Noricum: Mattighofen).
24 I would remain doubtful about the interpretation of the epitaph as evidence for a family tradition in estate management and the implication of ascriptive status inherent in the profession of vilici as suggested by Buonocore, ‘Nuovi testi’ (above, n. 20), 243–4. On the notion that slave personal relationships were not restricted to estate boundaries per se see also n. 81, below.
25 CIL X 5081 (Atina): C(aius) Obinius C(aii) l(ibertus) / Epicadus / Trebia C(aiae) l(iberta) Aprodisia / hic vilicarunt / annos XIIII. Cf. Carlsen, Vilici (above, n. 1), 97–8, n. 320.
26 Cf. the same use of the verb in this context in AE 1906, 100.
27 Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 150, is hesitant in accepting the personal relationship between the two, but leaves the possibility open.
28 On the practice of freedmen and colliberti commemorating their working relationships on stone, see Flory, M.B., ‘Family in familia: kinship and community in slavery’, American Journal of Ancient History 3 (1978), 78–95, at pp. 80–7Google Scholar, and Joshel, S., Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome. A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions (Norman/London, 1992), 134ffGoogle Scholar.
29 We may wish to speculate that their masters were a couple themselves, but I do not understand why Carlsen, Vilici (above, n. 1), 97–8, changes the reading and hence translation of the inscription, which is perfectly legible (cf. the picture in Carlsen, Vilici, fig. 27). According to his reading, Obinius Epicadus and Trebia Aprodisia were freedman and freedwoman of one and the same person, that is Gaius Obinius. Of course, Obinius Epicadus was the freedman of Gaius, but Trebia Aprodisia was freed by a woman, which is indicated by the reversed letter C after her name on the inscription.
30 Treggiari, S., ‘Contubernales in CIL 6’ Phoenix 35 (1981), 42–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 47.
3l Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 198.
32 See the Appendix, ‘The sex ratio in vilici inscriptions from Roman Italy’.
33 CIL I2504 (Rome); CIL V 7348 (Forum Vibii); CIL X 5081 (Atina); CIL XI 356 (Ariminum); CIL XI 871 (Mutina); Epigraphica 58 (1997), 241 ffGoogle Scholar. (Corfinium).
34 CIL XI 871 (Mutina): Vivit / v(ivus) / Dama Statulli / Nicini vilicae / vicariae suae / et suisque / p(edes) q(uadrati) XII.
35 If Nice was simply Dama's vicaria (and not his partner), a possible rendering of the text, it would represent an unusually emphatic notification of a master's (that is, an ordinarius's) obligation (if that is what it was) to ensure his slave's burial, even if she was a vilica.
36 The latter has been suggested by Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 202.
37 On the possibility of a female at the head of a managerial unit, see the considerations by Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 140–1. Cf. also the examples given by Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 204, with regard to two inscriptions from Regio VIII and Regio IX respectively, which may be evidence for female farm manageresses at the head of a managerial unit.
38 Columella, De re rustica 1.8.5: ‘Sed qualicumque vilico contubernalis mulier assignanda est, quae contineat eum, et in quibusdam rebus tamen adiuvet’.
39 Columella, De re rustica 12.
40 On Xenophon's influence on Columella, see Pomeroy, S.B., Xenophon Oeconomicus: a Social and Historical Commentary, with a New English Translation (Oxford, 1994Google Scholar), ch. 6. It is notable that Xenophon does not envisage a ‘husband’-and-‘wife’ slave management team in the Oeconomicus.
41 Columella, De re rustica 12.pref. 8 and 10.
42 Columella, De re rustica 12.pref. 10: ‘quoniam et vilici quoque successerunt in locum dominorum …’.
43 Columella, , De re rustica 12.1.1Google Scholar (referring to 1.8.3): ‘… propter easdem causas, quas de aetate vilici retulimus …’ (for the same reasons as we mentioned when speaking of the age of a bailiff).
44 Columella, , De re rustica 12.1.1–2Google Scholar: ‘Nam illibatum robur et vigiliis et aliis sufficiet laboribus: foeditas fastidiosum, nimia species desidiosum faciet eius contubernalem. Itaque curandum est, ut nec vagum vilicum et aversum a contubernio suo habeamus, nec rursus intra tecta desidem, et complexibus adiacentem feminae’. The Loeb Classical Library translates itaque as ‘so’, which does not convey the force of the Latin.
45 Incidentally, the vilica, just like the vilicus, can rely on her partner ‘in quibusdam rebus tamen adiuvet’; Columella, De re rustica 12.3.7: ‘Illud vero etiam in perpetuum custodiendum habebit, ut eos, qui foris rusticari debebunt, cum iam e villa familia processerit, requirat, ac siquis, ut evenit, curam contubernalis eius intra tectum tergiversans fefellerit, causam desidiae sciscitetur, exploretque utrum adversa valetudine inhibitus restiterit, an pigritia delituerit’ (She will also have to be perpetually on the watch, when the slaves have left the villa, and seek out those who ought to be doing agricultural work outside, and if anyone, as sometimes happens, has managed to skulk indoors and escape the vigilance of her mate, she must inquire the reason for his laziness and find out whether he has stayed behind because bad health has prevented him from working or whether he has hidden himself through idleness).
46 Cato, , De agricultura 143.1Google Scholar: ‘Si eam tibi dederit dominus uxorem …’. See already White, K.D., Roman Farming (London, 1970), 354Google Scholar. Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 197, agrees with White, but writes in his more recent study that ‘… Cato … mention(s) the vilica as the wife of the bailiff …’: Vilici (above, n. 1), 92.
47 Varro, , De re rustica 1.17.5Google Scholar. On the subordination of praefecti under vilici see Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 180.
48 Juvenal, , Saturae 11.65Google Scholar; Martial, , Epigrammata 1.55.11Google Scholar; 4.66.11; 9.60.1; 10.48.7; 12.18.19.
49 Martial, , Epigrammata 4.66.11–12Google Scholar.
50 Cf. Ribbeck, O., Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta II; Comicorum Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1873 2), 163Google Scholar: ‘Pater vilicatur tuus an mater vilica est?’ (my translation). But see also Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 197–8, who sees the fragment as supporting a ‘husband’-and-‘wife’ relationship between vilicus and vilica.
51 Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 203, is of a different opinion. He sees the future role of Casina as vilica confirmed in the allusions to her future child-bearing. There is to my knowledge no evidence that justifies any qualification and hence identification of the vilica as a ‘breeding machine’.
52 I do not want to exclude the possibility that, depending on size and production type, not every farmstead needed both a vilicus and a vilica. But Olympio was undoubtedly looking for a (sexual) partner, not a new member of staff.
53 Apuleius, Metamorphoses 8: ‘Servus quidam, cui cunctam familiae tutelam dominus permiserat suus, quique possessionem maximam illam in quam deverteramus villicabat, habens ex eodem famulitio conservam coniugem, liberae cuiusdam extrariaeque mulieris flagrabat cupidine’ (There was a servant whose master had entrusted him with the stewardship of his entire household and who acted as overseer of that extensive holding where we had stopped for the night. He was married to another servant in the same household, but was passionately in love with a free woman who lived outside the estate).
54 Digest 32.41.5: ‘Concubinae inter cetera his uerbis legauerat: fundum in Appia cum vilico suo et contubernali eius et filiis dari volo: quaesitum est, an nepotes quoque vilici et contubernalis eius testator ad concubinam pertinere voluit. respondit nihil proponi, cur non deberentur’ (A testator had left a legacy among others to his concubine in these words: ‘I wish her to be given my farm in Appia with its manager and his partner and their children.’ The question was whether the testator had wished the grandson of the manager and his partner to belong to the concubine also. He replied that there was no reason given why they should not).
Digest 50.16.220.1: ‘Sed et Papirius Fronto libro tertio responsorum ait praedio cum uilico et contubernali eius et filiis legato nepotes quoque ex filiis contineri, nisi uoluntas testatoris aliter habeat: filii enim appellatione saepe et nepotes accipi multifariam placere’ (But Papirius Fronto says in the third book of his Replies that if an estate with a vilicus and his contubernalis and their sons is legated, grandsons born from these sons are also included unless the intention of the testator was otherwise; for there are all sorts of reasons for grandsons often being included in the designation ‘son’ (correcting the translation in the Watson edition)).
55 Digest 40.5.41.15: ‘Herede filio suo ex asse instituto libertatem dedit in haec uerba: ‘December dispensator meus, Seuerus uilicus et Uictorina uilica Seueri contubernalis in annos octo liberi sunto …’ (A man instituted his son as sole heir and made a grant of freedom in these terms: ‘My clerk of accounts, December, my bailiff, Severus, and Victorina, my housekeeper and Severus’ contubernalis, are to be free after eight years …’).
56 See the survey of modern approaches by John, U., Die Auslegung des Legats von Sachgesamtheiten im Römischen Recht bis Labeo (Karlsruhe, 1970), 1–7Google Scholar.
57 Digest 33.7.12.5: ‘Trebatius amplius etiam pistorem et tonsorem, qui familiae rusticae causa parati sunt, putat contineri, item fabrum, qui uillae reficiendae causa paratus sit, et mulieres quae panem coquant quaeque uillam seruent: item molitores, si ad usum rusticum parati sunt: item focariam et uilicam, si modo aliquo officio uirum adiuuet: item lanificas quae familiam rusticam uestiunt, et quae pulmentaria rusticis coquant’ (Trebatius further thinks that a baker and barber, intended to serve the needs of the rural household, are included; likewise, the mason, who is intended to repair the villa, and the women who cook bread and look after the villa; likewise, the millers, if they are intended for use on the estate; likewise, the kitchen maid and the steward's wife, provided she assists her husband in some duty; likewise, the woolmakers who make clothes for the rural household and those women who cook relishes for the rural slaves).
58 Bradley, Slavery and Society (above, n. 9), 59.
59 Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 197.
60 Solazzi, S., ‘Il rispetto per la famiglia dello schiavo’, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 15 (1949), 187–92, at pp. 190–1Google Scholar (also published in Scritti di diritto romano VI (Naples, 1972), 576–81, at p. 579Google Scholar): ‘La preoccupazione di non separare la donna dal suo uomo Trebazio non la sentiva di certo, quando esigeva che anche la focaria del vilicus prestasse un lavoro utile al suo contubernalis e perciò indirettamente al fondo cui il vilicus sopraintende … Perchè sia compresa nel legato non fa mestieri che la focaria copra un officium speciale e distinto da quello che è insito nella sua qualità di focaria. Nel loro buon senso pratico i giuristi romani riconoscevano che il servo, vilicus o no, ha bisogno per motivi naturali e sociali di una compagna; il servo è necessario al fondo, la focaria al servo; di conseguenza la focaria è instrumentum instrumenti’.
61 Cato, , De agricultura 10.1–2Google Scholar; 11.1 ff; Varro, , De re rustica 1.17.1Google Scholar.
62 Steinwenter, A., Fundus cum Instrumento. Eine Agrar- und Rechtsgeschichtiiche Studie (Vienna/Leipzig, 1942), 26Google Scholar, advocates a narrow interpretation of the Republican concept of instrumentum, which excludes the (slave) labourers from it on the basis of Cato's use of the verb instruere instead of the noun instrumentum. I follow, however, the argument by John, Die Auslegung des Legats (above, n. 56), 8–12, who regards the verb as sufficiently strong to include in, and define the instrumentum fundi by, the items listed thereafter, including the human resources.
63 Steinwenter, Fundus cum Instrumento (above, n. 62), 9.
64 This is most pronounced in Digest 33.7.8: ‘In instrumento fundi ea esse, quae fructus quaerendi cogendi conseruandi gratia parata sunt, Sabinus libris ad Uitellium euidenter enumerat. quaerendi, ueluti homines qui agrum colunt, et qui eos exercent praepositiue sunt is, quorum in numero sunt uilici et monitores: praeterea boues domiti, et pecora stercorandi causa parata, uasaque utilia culturae, quae sunt aratra ligones sarculi falces putatoriae bidentes et si qua similia dici possunt. cogendi, quemadmodum torcularia corbes falcesque messoriae falces fenariae quali uindemiatorii exceptoriique, in quibus uuae comportantur. Conservandi, quasi dolia, licet defossa non sint, et cuppae’ (Sabinus states plainly in his books on Vitellius that those things are included in the instrumentum of a farm which are provided for the producing, gathering, and preserving of the fruits. Thus, for producing, the men who till the soil and those who direct them or are placed in cliarge of them, including stewards and overseers, also domesticated oxen and beasts kept for producing manure, and implements useful in farming, such as plows, mattocks, hoes, pruning hooks, forks, and similar items. For gathering, such things as presses, baskets, sickles, scythes, grape-pickers' baskets in which grapes are carried. For preserving, such things as casks, even if not set in the ground, and tuns).
65 So Cato, De agricultura 143 and Columella, De re rustica 12.
66 An interpretation of the title vilica as the term for a professional female weaver or textile worker, as offered by Schtajerman, E.M., Die Krise der Sklavenhalterordnung im Westen des Römischen Reiches (Berlin, 1964), 32Google Scholar, lacks support in the sources.
67 Cf. same use of the title in Digest 33.7.15pr.; 33.7.12.6; Paulus, , Sententiae 3.6.37Google Scholar. Solazzi, ‘Il rispetto per la famiglia dello schiavo’ (above, n. 60), actually describes the focaria as the general term for a (male) slave's concubine, because of its confusion with the usage of the term for a soldier's concubine in Imperial times (for which, see Meyer, P., ‘Die focariae militum’, Hermes 32 (1897), 484–7Google Scholar).
68 Kuebler, B. and Helm, R., Vocabularium Iurisprudentiae Romanae vol. I, fasc. II (Berlin, 1898), 225Google Scholar, and Levy, E. and Rabel, E., Index Interpolationum quae in Iustiniani Digestis inesse Dicuntur II (Weimar, 1929), 286Google Scholar. The gloss was also suspected by Solazzi, ‘Il rispetto per la famiglia dello schiavo’ (above, n. 60), who, however, concludes with an equation of vilica and focaria, which has been criticized heavily: John, Die Auslegung des Legats (above, n. 56), 23, n. 55.
69 On the development of ‘interpolation hunting’ within Roman law studies, and for a critical assessment of its decline in recent years, see Johnston, D., ‘Justinian's Digest: the interpretation of interpolation’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 9 (1989), 149–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
70 Cato, De agricultura 5.
71 Columella, , De re nistica 1.8Google Scholar; 11.1.3–29.
72 Bradley, Slavery and Society (above, n. 9), 68.
73 Columella, , De re rustica 11.1.12Google Scholar.
74 Columella, , De re rustica 1.7.6–7Google Scholar; 1.8.4. See also Cicero, Pro Plancio 62.
75 Columella, , De re rustica 12.1.1–3Google Scholar.
76 CIL XI 871 (Mutina): Vivit / v(ivus) / Dama Statulli / Nicini vilicae / vicariae suae / et suisque / p(edes) q(uadrati) XII (cf. also n. 34, above).
77 Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 202.
78 Treggiari, ‘Contubernales in CIL 6’ (above, n. 30), 61–2. This view is further developed in Treggiari, S. and Dorken, S., ‘Women with two living husbands in CIL 6’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 6 (10) (1981), 269–72Google Scholar.
79 Varro, , De re rustica 1.17.5Google Scholar; 2.1.26; 2.10.6. Columella, , De re rustica 1.8.5Google Scholar.
80 Digest 33.7.12.7: ‘Uxores quoque et infantes eorum, qui supra enumerati sunt, credendum est in eadem uilla agentes uoluisse testatorem legato contineri: neque enim duram separationem iniunxisse credendus est’ (It should also be held that the testator wanted the wives and children too of those enumerated above, if they live in the same villa, to be included in the legacy; for it is not credible that he would have imposed a harsh separation).
81 I do not want to exclude that geographical separation between slave partners may have occurred in individual cases upon a partner's professional promotion. But again, there is no strong reason to propose that any such (long-)distance relationships were necessarily doomed to termination. Evidence from the New World is full of material documenting long-distance relationships between slaves from different plantations (and different masters). It also vouches for the masters' efforts to restrict their slaves' (sexual) relationships to amongst the slaves on the same estate. The latter may be the modern parallel to Varro's recommendation to provide his foremen with partners specifically from amongst their fellow-slaves: Varro, , De re rustica 1.17.5Google Scholar. On the modern evidence, see White, D.G., Ar'n't I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South (New York/London, 1985), 76 and 153ffGoogle Scholar. On the same phenomenon amongst urban slaves in ancient Rome, see Flory, M.B., ‘Family in familia: kinship and community in slavery’, American Journal of Ancient History 3 (1978), 78–95Google Scholar, at p. 82. Columella, too, knows of slaves wandering off the estate for reasons other than their masters’ business: De re rustica 1.8.7; 1.8.12–13; 11.1.23–4.
82 See CIL IX 3571 : L(ibero) p(atri) Festus Cati Frontinis vil(icus), and CIL IX 3579: Caesiae / Ursillae / vixit a(nnos) XXII / Secundo / Ti. Caesi Fronto / nis arcar(io) / Caesia Nympe / et Festus act(or) / filiae piissimae et gene / ro posterisque suis / et sibi / p(osuerunt).
83 This promotion is also suspected by Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 454 and 469, and was indeed assumed by Mommsen, in CIL IXGoogle Scholar. On the duties of the actor, see Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 186–96.
84 CIL III 5616 (Noricum: Rothof): D(is) M(anibus) / Flora vilica / Urso actori / marito caris / simo o(bito) an(norum) XLV / et Iucundo / socro e(t) Succ / ess(a)e socr(a)epie / ntissimis et / sibi viva fecit / et Successus f(ilius) parentib(us) pientissimis. Cf. Carlsen, ‘The vilica’ (above, n. 5), 203–4.
85 Cato, De agricultura 56: ‘Familiae cibaria. Qui opus facient per hiemem tritici modios IIII, per aestatem modios IIII S, vilico, vilicae, epistatae, opilioni modios III’ (Grain rations for the hands: four modii of wheat in winter, and in summer four and a half for the field hands. The vilicus, the vilica, the foreman, and the shepherd should receive three (my translation)). The issue of food rations and family relationships between agricultural slaves is elaborated in detail in Roth, U., ‘Food rations in Cato's De agricultura and female slave labour’, Ostraka 11 (1) (2002), 195–213Google Scholar.
86 Cicero, , In Verrem 2.5.52Google Scholar. See also Polybius 6.39.13.
87 See Dionysius of Halicarnassus 4.24.5 and Suetonius, Augustus 42.2.
88 The concept of grain rations as a sign of a slave's professional role is discussed at length by A. Bürge, ‘Cibaria: Indiz für die soziale Stellung des römischen Arbeitnehmers?’, in Schermaier, M.J. and Végh, Z. (eds), Ars Boni et Aequi. Festschrift für Wolfgang Waldstein zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart, 1993), 63–78Google Scholar.
89 Playing on Henderson's contention that ‘Vilicus and Vilica make a pair — an asymmetrical pair, but still a dyad’: Henderson, J., ‘Columella's living hedge: the Roman gardening book’, Journal of Roman Studies 92 (2002), 110–33, at p. 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
90 See Joshel, Work, Identity, and Legal Status (above, n. 28), 16ff.
91 For a list of the fields in which vilici were employed according to the epigraphic evidence see Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 173ff.
92 I follow the identifications in Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 173–4 and 445–61. The abundance of non-Italian evidence given by him supports even further the wider employment of the term. The vilicus known through the Corfinio inscription is included in the ‘rustic’ section for reasons made explicit above, p. 106.
93 Aubert, Business Managers (above, n. 1), 443.
94 CIL VI 586, 615, 619, 662, 664, 666, 679, 696, 31010, 36823 (all Rome); CIL IX 3517 (Furfo); CIL IX 4664 (Aquae Cutiliae); CIL IX 4877 (Trebula Mutuesca); CIL XI 6947 (Luna).
95 Dorcey, P.F., The Cult of Silvanus. A Study in Roman Folk Religion (Leiden, 1992Google Scholar).
96 Dorcey, Cult of Silvanus (above, n. 95), 119, goes as far as stating that ‘Silvanus ranks as the most popular deity among vilici, but most of these are from Rome or other Italian cities, and may never have lived on a farm’.
97 For a discussion of rural sanctuaries that held agricultural land under the management of vilici rustici see Carlsen, J., ‘CIL X 8217 and the question of temple land in Roman Italy’, in Carlsen, J., Ørsted, P. and Skydsgaard, J.E. (eds), Landuse in the Roman Empire (Rome, 1994), 9–15Google Scholar.