1
Amicitia
KOENRAAD S. VERBOVEN
Roman friendship (amicitia) was a voluntary
relation between two persons ideally based on
affection but strongly regulated by ethical
norms and social expectations. Closely related
concepts stressing intimacy and social obliga-
tions were familiaritas and necessitudo. Most
scholars see amicitia as predominantly an
instrumental relationship based on mutual
interest and obligation (Saller 1982; Verboven
2002; Burton 2004), although some stress
affection as the basis of “true” amicitia (Brunt
1988; Konstan 1997).
The formation and practice of amicitia were
much debated (see FRIENDSHIP). It was generally
agreed that amicitia required the exchange of
gifts and favors signifying the bond of friend-
ship. Fronto (Aur. 1.3.5) distinguished amor
from amicitia because the latter existed only
through the exchange of officia, whereas the
former arose rather from impulse than from
calculation. Ulterior motives were rejected as
contrary to the essence of friendship, but were
acknowledged as common (Pub. Sent. B37;
Plin. Ep. 9.30). Cicero defined friendship in his
essay De Amicitia as an “agreement [consensio]
with goodwill [benevolentia] and affection
[caritas] on all things divine and human”
(Amic. 20). The source of goodwill was amor
(love), from which the word amicitia derived
(Cic. Amic. 26). True and perfect friendship
(vera et perfecta, Cic. Amic. 22) could exist
only between “good men” (boni viri,
Cic. Amic. 18) and was rare. Common friend-
ship (vulgaris et mediocris, Cic. Amic. 22),
although pleasant and profitable, was mostly
based on personal benefit (Cic. Amic. 79).
The social norms regulating amicitia rested
on the ideal inner dispositions which – if
reciprocal – served as the foundations of the
friendship bond : benignitas (goodwill), gratia
(gratitude), fides (trust and loyalty), and amor
(affection) (Verboven 2002: 35–48). Benignitas
had to be shown through acts of kindness
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,
and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 362–364.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20009
(beneficia), which had to kindle gratitude in
the receiver. Gratia had to be expressed
through return gifts and favors. Because the
inner bond of friendship had to be realized
through the exchange of gifts and favors,
every beneficium was also an officium (“obliga-
tion”) (Sen. Ben. 3.18.1). Fides denoted the
faith and solidarity guaranteeing that obliga-
tions were upheld. Amor was inextricably
linked to benignitas, gratia, and fides. Seneca
believed that love in response to favors was
part of the natural order of things (Ben. 1.2.5;
see also Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 8.34.1). In
practice friendly affection was often shallow
(“liking” rather than “loving”) and sometimes
feigned, but – as with (instrumental) friend-
ship in other cultures – the norm of affection
in friendship was absolute. Moreover, although
amici could become estranged in practice,
amicitia was (ideally) open ended and strongly
committed one’s reputation and honor
(existimatio). Friends’ behavior was openly
scrutinized and public opinion sharply cen-
sured breach of faith, ingratitude, or indiffer-
ence. This gave stability even to emotionally
shallow friendships.
Ideologically, amicitia relied on an equality
in principle that overruled possible factual
inequalities between friends related to wealth,
power, or status. When factual inequality was
too large, however, the exchange of beneficia
could become imbalanced and amicitia shade
off into a patron–client relation. Mutual
support, characteristic of amicitia, changed
into the protection and deference characteris-
tic of clientela. The borderline, however, was
not sharp. Amici minores could reject being
labeled clientes and refuse to comply with the
customary symbols and rituals associated with
clientela (Cic. Off. 2.69; cf. Sen. Ben. 2.23.1–3).
The language of amicitia was generally
preferred to indicate even the strongest and
clearest patron–client relation.
Amicitia played a crucial role in Roman
society. It allowed the formation of non-
kinship based relations of trust and solidarity,
making up for weakly developed impersonal
2
institutions (Saller 1982: 14). In politics and
administration, both under the republic and
the empire, networks of family and friends
provided the most effective way to influence
decision-making and to obtain official posi-
tions, although they remained inherently unsta-
ble alliances and provided no substitute for
political parties, as once thought by Syme and
Taylor (Saller 1982; Yakobsen 1999: 65–123).
In private affairs amicitia provided crucial
services and support (Verboven 2002). Most
gifts and services were purely symbolic, but
amici were expected to provide substantial sup-
port in bad times. They were expected also to
include each other in their wills. Towards the
end of his life, Cicero claimed to have received
20 million sesterces in legacies and inheritances
(Phil. 2.40). Legacies to friends were usually
small if the testator had close living family,
but when he was childless close friends stood
to receive the bulk of the inheritance. The
obsession with captatio testamenti (inheritance
hunting) illustrates the strength of the custom
and the fear for ulterior motives behind expres-
sions of friendship (Champlin 1991: 131–54).
Amici played a major part also in obtaining
loans and upholding each other’s solvency
(fides). Cato, for instance, used an inheritance
from a cousin to extend loans to his friends
(Plut. Cat. Min. 6. 4; see also Cic. Att. 10.11.2;
Mart. 2. 30). More important than free or cheap
loans were personal securities. The close link
between creditworthiness (fides) and honor
meant that to sustain a friend’s fides was an
imperative duty (see Cic. Att. 12.52.1).
Friends played a role also in the manage-
ment of property and business interests as
agents, representatives, and supervisors. The
jurist Paulus asserted that “there is no
mandatum unless it is unremunerated, because
it springs from personal duty [officium] and
friendship” (Dig. 17.1.1.4). T. POMPONIUS ATTICUS
was procurator for both Cicerones, M. Cato,
Q. Hortensius, and A. Torquatus, as well as for
numerous Roman knights (Nep. Att. 15.1–3).
As in politics, amicitia was useful in private
affairs to exert influence. Approximately 25–30
percent of Cicero’s recommendations concern
businessmen, who received introductions, help
in enforcing contracts, official positions, and
so forth (Deniaux 1993).
The language of amicitia was commonly
used metaphorically in the political discourse
of international relations. Allied kings and
nations received the title amicus sociusque. As
an ideological construct, amicitia in interna-
tional relations expressed sovereignty and
theoretical equality, but also goodwill, trust,
and solidarity beyond the explicit obligations
of formal treaties.
SEE ALSO: Clientela, Roman Republic; Fides;
Guest-friendship (hospitium); Honor–shame
culture; Patron, patronage, Roman.
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Brunt, P. A. (1988) “Amicitia in the Late Roman
Republic.” In The fall of the Roman Republic and
related essays: 352–81. Oxford.
Burton, P. J. (2004) “Amicitia in Plautus: a study
of Roman friendship processes.” American
Journal of Philology 125: 209–43.
Champlin, E. (1991) Final judgments: duty and
emotion in Roman wills, 200 BC–AD 250.
Berkeley.
Deniaux, E. (1993) Clientèles et pouvoir à l’époque
de Cicéron. Rome.
Konstan, D. (1997) Friendship in the Classical
world. Cambridge.
Saller, R. P. (1982) Personal patronage under the
Early Empire. Cambridge.
Verboven, K. (2002) The economy of friends:
economic aspects of amicitia and patronage in the
Late Republic. Brussels.
Verboven, K. (2011) “Friendship among the
Romans.” In M. Peachin, ed., The Oxford
handbook of social relations in the Roman world:
404–21. Oxford.
Yakobsen, A. (1999) Elections and electioneering
in Rome. Stuttgart.