A Note on the Oppii from Velia and Cicero’s Divorce

Koenraad Verboven

In Cicero’s letters to Atticus of the year 49 we find a number of passages related to a further unknown transaction between Terentia and the ‘Oppii from Velia’. The passages are usually assumed to refer to a debt Terentia would have owed to the Oppii. She is thought to have been unable to repay the debt and Cicero would have commissioned Atticus to come to an agreement with the creditors. Three months later Cicero would have turned to the Oppii for a new loan to enable him to leave Italy to join Pompey’s army (see below for the references). The Oppii Velienses are mostly considered to have been wealthy bankers or faeneratores who lent money to Terentia and who tried to recover the debt in January 49. In the midst of the financial turmoil following the outbreak of the Civil War they would have belonged to the small group of ultra-rich financiers desperately trying to recover their outstanding debts and hoarding their cash fortunes, thus further aggravating the general financial crisis (1). Although nothing is known of the Oppii from Velia apart from what can be inferred from what Cicero has to say about them in connection with their controversy with Terentia, they are usually situated in the family circles of the Oppii who are attested as negotiatores in the East. Caesar’s procurator C. Oppius as well is often linked to both the Oppii negotiatores and the Oppii Velienses. Some scholars go so far as to identify Caesar’s procurator with one of the Oppii fromVelia (2).

(1) C. T. BARLOW, Bankers, Moneylenders, and Interest Rates in the Roman Republic, Michigan University Microfilms International, 1978, p. 255; G. MASELLI, Argentaria. Banche e banchieri nella Roma republicana, Bari, 1986, p. 57 ; F. MUNZER, Oppius. 12 in : RE 35 Hb., 1939, col. 738 ; E. DENIAUX, Clienteles et pouvoir a l’ epoque de Cicéron, Rome, 1993, p. 533 ; for the financial crisis see M. W. FREDERIKSEN, Caesar, Cicero and the Problem of Debt in JRS 56, 1966 ; K. VERBOVEN, Caritas nummorum. Deflation in the Late Roman Republic? in MBAHG 16, 1997, p. 48-50 ; for the problem of hoarding see DIO 61,38,1.
(2) Thus O. PERLWITZ, Titus Pomponius Atticus. Untersuchungen zur Person eines einflussreichen Ritters in der ausgehenden romischen Republik, Stuttgart, 1992, p. 108. F. MUNZER, Oppius [no 1], p. 738 prefers to link them with L. Oppius M. f., who was a negotiator in Philomelium in Bithynia. On L. Oppius M. f. from Philomelium see E. DENIAUX, Clienteles et pouvoir [no 1], p. 532-533. Oppii are attested on Delos: ILLRP 748 ; J. HATZFELD, Les Italiens residant a Delos in BCH 36, 1912, p. 60. We also know an Oppia, married to M. Mindius qui Eli{de} negotiatus est (CICERO, Fam. 13,26; 28). Since M. Mindius was the frater of the senator L. Mescinius Rufus and Mindii and Mescinii were both active on Delos, Oppia as well may have belonged to the Delian Oppii (cf. J. HATZFELD, O.C., p. 51-52). See also M. Oppius Nepos initiated in the mysteries of the Cabiroi in Samothrace (1. HATZFELD, Les trafiquants italiens dans l’Orient hellenistique, Paris, 1919, p. 59, n. 2 (CIL 3,721». On Caesar’s procurator see C. NICOLET, L’ordre equestre a l’epoque republicaine (312-43 avo f.-C.), Vol. 2, Paris, 1974, p. 964; F. MUNZER, Oppius. 9 in RE 35 Hb., 1939, col. 729-736.

This article proposes to analyse in detail the ambiguous evidence we have on the Oppii from Velia. It will be shown that their identification as bankers or financiers, related to Caesar’s procurator C. Oppius, has no serious foundation. However, the case of the Oppii from Velia may shed some light on Cicero’s alienation and subsequent divorce from Terentia. Let us start by looking at the texts. We are dealing with parts of seven letters to Atticus written between January 23 and April 22 of 49 BCE:

Aenigma [sacconum (succonum ?) de Velia] (3) plane non intellexi; est
enim numero Platonis obscurius (4). (Cicero, Att. 7,13,5, Mintumae,
23/1/49)
lam intellexi tuum aenigma; Oppios enim de (5) Velia saccones
(succones ?) dices. In eo aestuavi diu. Quo aperto reliqua patebant et cum
Terentiae summa congruebant. (Cicero, Att. 7,13a,1, Mintumae, 24
Jan. 49)
De Oppiis egeo consili. Quod optimum factu videbitur facies. Cum
Philotimo loquere, atque adeo Terentiam habebis Idibus. (Cicero, Att.
7,22,2, Formiae, 9 Feb. 49)
De HS XX (milibus) Terentia tibi rescripsit. (Cicero, Att. 7,26,3, Formiae,
13 Feb. 49 ?)
Ad Philotimum scripsi de viatico sive a Moneta (nemo enim solvit) sive ab
Oppiis, tuis contubernalibus. (Cicero, Att. 8,7,3, Formiae, 21 Feb. 49)

(3) Probably a gloss taken from the next letter, cf. R. Y. TYRELL & L. C. PURSER (rev., comm. & intr.), The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero. IV, London & Dublin, 1918, p. 28, no. 308; D. R. SHACKLETON BAILEY, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. IV, Cambridge, 1968, p. 306, and J. BAYET (texte etabli et traduit), Ciceron. Correspondance. Tome V, Paris, 1964,p. 111.
(4) Plato’s famous (and mysterious) ‘nuptial number’, crucial to his theory of eugenetics in Rep. 8,546 (see J. M. A. ADAM (ed., not., comm.), The Republic of Plato. Vol. 2, Cambridge, 1902, p. 264-312), in this letter obviously referring to Terentia. When Cicero wrote down these words he didn’t realise yet that Atticus was writing about Terentia’s nomen Oppianum. Atticus must in some way have referred to the numerus Platonis in his letter to Cicero, thus hinting to the solution of the aenigma.
(5) The manuscripts read ex Velia, but the gloss in the previous letter reads de Velia. D. R. SHACKLETON BAILEY, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus In. 3], p. 306-307) prefers de Velia as the lectio difficilior.

Tu ↑optimus↑ (= ab Oppiis ? (6)) Terentiae dabis. lam enim urbis nullum
periculum est. (Cicero, Att. 10,4,12, Cumae, 14 Apr. 49)

De Oppiis Veliensibus quid placeat cum Philotimo videbis. (Cicero, Att.
10,7,3, Cumae, 22 Apr. 49).

First of all we should note that whichever explanation we may accept, there is nothing to prove that the debt in question resulted from a loan. Although this is certainly possible, we may also be dealing with a legatum or with a nomen transcripticium a re in personam owed on account of something sold between the Oppii and Terentia (7). But let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that we are dealing with a loan. Reading these passages it becomes clear that they may be interpreted in two different ways: either the Oppii were creditors, Terentia was a debtor and Cicero was looking for a loan, or the Oppii were Terentia’s debtors and Cicero counted on their repayment for money to leave Italy. The traditional interpretation is based largely on the reading of saccones in the manuscripts, which would be a scornful ad hoc derivation from saccus, ‘moneybag’, formed by analogy with e.g. bucco, ‘fool’. The saccones de Velia are then the ‘moneybags from Velia’, which would obviously refer to the banking business the Oppii would have conducted. Bosius and Schütz however proposed the alternative reading succones, derived from su(c)cus, ‘juice’ (8). The argument is that sucus in Greek is οπος (pr. opos) which would make succones a pun on the name of the Oppii of the kind of which we find numerous examples in Cicero’s letters (9). In Petronius, we encounter the adjective sucos(s)us in the sense of wealthy (10). Maselli translates the term as ‘the suckers’ (‘succhioni’), interpreting it as a metaphor for usurers who suck other people’s juice, i.e. their money (11). This is also the explanation of Lewis and Short, who derive the word from sugo – to suck (12). However, this seems unlikely to be correct. Both sugo and sucosus are derived from sucus, while

(6) See D. R. SHACKLETON BAILEY, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus [no 3], p. 405.
(7) For a nomen transcripticium a re in personam see e.g. CICERO, Fam. 7,23,1-3 ; cf. R. M. THILO, Der Codex accepti et expensi im Romischen Recht, Gottingen, 1980, p. 304; for a legatum owed to Terentia cf. CICERO, Att. 13,46,3.
(8) See D. R. SHACKLETON BAILEY, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus [no 3], p. 306-307; J. BAYET, Ciceron. Correspondance [no 3], p. 111 ; contra R. Y. TYRELL & L. C. PURSER, The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero, [no 3], p. 28-29, no. 308,1.
(9) See e.g. Att. 6,2,3 (a pun on Dicearchus the geographer and Dicearchus ‘someone from Dicearchia’, the Greek name for Puteoli). Cf. D.R. SHACKLETON BAILEY, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus [no 3], p. 306-307 for other examples.
(10) PETRONIUS 38,6.
(11) G. MASELLI, Argentaria [n.1], p.57, n. 43.
(12) Ch. T. LEWIS & Ch. SHORT, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford, 1966, p. 1789: ‘[once] sûco (succ-), ônis, m. [sugo], a sucker; of a usurer’.

succo would be very atypical as nomen agentis of sugo. Succo is most likely an ad hoc derivation from sucus, signifying something in the nature of ‘a juicy’ , someone possessing much ‘juice’, i.e. money. However, even if we accept the meaning of ‘suckers’ for succones it is highly unlikely that Atticus would have used this notion to denote faeneratores, since he was on a very good basis with many of their most prominent representatives and seems to have practised faeneratio himself. He would undoubtedly have found the term more appropriate to denote a fraudulent debtor who sucked other people’s ‘juice’ / money (13). Maselli adduces two more reasons to consider the Oppii from Velia as argentarii (14). Firstly, he regards Velia not as the town in Lucania but as the hill by the same name in Rome (15), which he claims to have been a centre of the banking community in the city. To substantiate his point he refers to three inscriptions mentioning argentarii on the Velia hill. However, none of these three inscriptions actually mentions argentarii de Velia. Two inscriptions refer to argentarii on the forum vinarium, which is usually situated in the vicinity of the portus vinarius at the Emporium (16). The third inscription refers to an argentarius de Velabro active on the Velabrum – the stretch of land reaching from the forum to the Pons Sublicius – at least half a mile from the Velia hill, which lay on the other end of the forum (17). Maselli’s second argument is based on Att. 8,7,3 where Cicero mentions the Oppii as an alternative to the Moneta to get the money from that he needed to leave Italy. It is not clear what is meant by the Moneta. We are certainly dealing with the temple of Juno Moneta where the Republican Mint was situated, but on what basis did Cicero hope to get money here ? The passage is often seen as proof that private citizens could bring their silver to the Mint to have it struck

(13) cf. e.g. CICERO, Att. 4,15,7 . Note also that Atticus was pressing hard on Q. Cicero to make him repay an outstanding debt of 20,000 HS (Att. 7,18,4 ; 10,15,4 ; 11,2). Cf. also Off. 2,84 for Cicero’s sympathies with the faeneratores.
(14) G. MASELLI, Argentaria In. 1], p. 57.
(15) Also F. MUNZER, Oppius In. 1], col. 738. D. R. SHACKLETON BAILEY, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus In. 3], p. 306-307 rejects the identification because Cicero calls the Oppii Atticus’ conturbernales in Att. 8,7,3 and Atticus lived on the Quirinal, but either possibility should be left open.
(16) CIL 6,9181-9182. cf. S.B. PLATNER & Th. ASHBY, A topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, London, 1929, p. 245 ; J. MOREAU, La vie financiere dans le monde romain. Les metiers de manieurs d’argent. (IV siecle av. J.-C. – III siecle ap. J.-C.), Rome, 1986, p. 116 (see here for the argentarii de foro vinario in general). Note that we are dealing with inscriptions from the late first century CE, more than a hundred years after Cicero’s death (cf. J. ANDREAU, O.C., p. 286-287).
(17) CIL 6, 9183 ; cf. J. ANOREAU, La vie financiere In. 15], p. 110 ; S.B. PLATNER & Th. ASHBY, A Topographical Dictionary In. 14], p. 549-550. The inscription dates from between 59 CE and 120 CE (J. ANDREAU, O.C., p. 287).

into coins or to sell it in exchange for new coins. But nothing indicates that Philotimus (who was sent to collect the money) had any silver with him (18). Shackleton Bailey suggests that the temple of Juno Moneta -like so many other temples – functioned as a deposit bank (19). However, even so Masselli’s argument carries little weight because the Oppii are not compared to the Mint functionally, but are merely mentioned together pragmatically as a possible source of money. There are two ways for Cicero to get the money needed to leave Italy: the Moneta or the Oppii. Nothing is implied about any financial activities the Oppii might have had. The text does show that Cicero considered the Oppii as a possible source of money. This, however, does not necessarily imply that Cicero expected a (new) loan from the Oppii. It would be strange indeed if the Oppii would be prepared to give a new loan to Cicero after all the difficulties they had had recovering their former loan from Terentia. The fact that the civil war was still raging undecided and that the credit market had totally collapsed makes the assumption even more unlikely (20). In fact, Cicero considered turning to the mint to raise the cash he needed because no one repaid his debts any more. Why would the Oppii have been prepared to lend more money under these conditions? The only argument left to assume that the Oppii were Terentia’s creditors rather than vice versa is that they were rich (succones). However, this does not necessarily mean they had cash ready at hand. We hear of numerous senators and knights encountering financial difficulties at the outbreak of the civil war without actually being poor. L. Egnatius Rufus e.g. owed money to Q. Cicero that he could not repay despite his willingness and the fact that he was nec parum locuples (21). Moreover, succones was presumably a pun on the name of the Oppii. If the Oppii were in financial straits, the pun would be even more biting because it would be ironical. Everything falls into place if we assume that it was not Terentia who owed money to the Oppii, but the Oppii who owed money to Terentia and that Cicero counted on the Oppii repaying their debt to get the money he needed to leave the country.

(18) cf. M. H. CRAWFORD, Le probleme des liquidites dans I’Antiquité classique in Ann. (ESC) 26, 1971, p. 12311232; C. HOWGEGO, The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World (200 B.C.-A.D. 300) in JRS 82,1992, p. 18-19 ; F. BEYER, Geldpolitik in der romischen Kaiserzeit: von der Wiihrungsreform des Augustus bis Septimius Severus, Wiesbaden, 1995, p. 52-53. Note however that Cicero was at this time a proconsul with a military assignment in Campania and not a simple private citizen. This may have given him the right (or the pretext !) to tum to the Mint for money.
(19) D. R. SHACKLETON BAILEY, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus [no 3], p. 334.
(20) On the credit crisis see M. W. FREDERIKSEN, The Problem of Debt [no 1]; K. VERBOVEN, Caritas [no 1], p. 48-54. Cf. e.g. CAESAR, B.C. 3,1,2: cum fides tota Italia esset angustior.
(21) CICERO, Au. 7,18,4.

This alternative reading is reinforced by Att. 10,4,12 where we read: Tu ↑optimus↑ Terentiae dabis. Unfortunately, the crucial word here is corrupted, but the correction ab Oppiis – proposed among others by Shackleton Bailey – seems plausible. The reading implies that Atticus had received the money the Oppii owed, but was not sure what to do with it until Cicero wrote him to give it to Terentia in Rome. Why didn’t the Oppii hand over the money directly to Terentia? In the first place perhaps because they paid up only because Atticus had pressed them. The term contubemales in Att. 8,7,3 indicates that Atticus had some influence over them. Secondly, perhaps because Atticus had handled the affair since the very beginning. Thirdly, perhaps because Cicero had long planned to use the money for his travel expenses. If it had to be brought or transferred to him, Atticus had better contacts to arrange the matter safely than Terentia. Cicero’s explanatory words iam enim urbis nullum periculum est after his commission to Atticus to hand over the money to Terentia, indicates that safety precautions were his main motivation. Pleading against this interpretation is the strict separation according to Roman law between husband’s and wife’s patrimony. The Oppii owed money to Terentia, not to Cicero. Strictly speaking, Cicero had no right to this money. Suzanne Dixon, however, showed, using the very example of Cicero and his family, that the separation of property was not so strict in reality. We may note in this connection that Atticus wrote to Cicero about the nomen Oppianum and not to Terentia or Philotimus. Given the exceptionally grave political and military situation it should not surprise us that Cicero appropriated money owed de iure to Terentia (22). Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that the Oppii were bankers, faeneratores or businessmen. All we know of them is that they probably owed money to Terentia and that they were probably rich, but the source of their wealth or the origin of their debt to Terentia cannot possibly be identified. Consequently, there is nothing to link the Oppii Velienses with any of the Oppii negotiatores in the east or with Caesar’s procurator C. Oppius. The Oppii Velienses become just one of the many Oppii known from the Late Republic. However, the question remains whether Cicero finally did get the money from the Oppii. When he divorced Terentia three years later, Plutarch claims that Cicero justified his divorce by claiming that she had refused to provide him with the money he needed to leave Italy in 49. Plutarch’s words only make sense if the money was Terentia’s. If it had been Cicero’s own money, Terentia’s fault would have been much more serious, since technically she would have been guilty of theft. Apparently, this is not what Cicero accused her of. However, if Terentia had any money in 49, then why was she unable to repay the Oppii,

(22) S. DIXON, Family Finances: Terentia and Tullia in B. RAWSON (ed.), The Family in Ancient Rome, London & Sydney, 1986, p. 93-120.

assuming that she owed money to the Oppii and not vice versa ? Conversely, if Terentia did not have any money in 49, then how could Cicero blame her for not providing him with viaticum? Significantly the only reference we have in the letters of 49 to Cicero’s need for money to cover travel expenses is Att. 8,7,3 where Cicero says that he sent Philotimus to the Mint and to the Oppii Velienses to raise the money he needed. We may therefore venture to believe that when the Oppii eventually paid back their debt to Terentia via Atticus (recorded in Aft. 10,4,12) Terentia refused to hand the money over to Cicero as planned. This would then explain the allegation made against Terentia and the justification used for the divorce in 46 (23).

Ghent University (Belgium). 2001  Koen VERBOVEN.

(23) PLUTARCHUS, Cic. 41,2: