WOMEN IN LEGAL LIFE

I have selected five tablets from the rich material of the Archive of the Sulpicii, comparing them with a few fragments from the works of Roman jurists as legal background. It is widely accepted that the Sulpicii should be considered predominantly faeneratores.^[415] Let us start with a fragmentary document in which the banker acts - without any doubt - as moneylender (TPSulp.

prae[t]er HS viginti millia | nummum in rationem | Priscil[l]ae d[o]minae meae;

| eaque HS quatuor millia, | (5) quae su[p]ra s[cr]ipta [s]unt, | proba recte dari fide rogavit | C(aius) Sulpicius F[a]ustus fide promisi | Pyramus Caesiae Priscillae ser(vus)

... except the 20,000 sestertii for the account of my domina Priscilla; that the 4,000 sestertii, written above, be given properly and in good coin, asked for faith by Caius Sulpicius Faustus, promised for faith by Pyramus, the slave of Caesia Priscilla.

The document was part of a triptychon (a document which consisted origi­nally of three waxed tablets), but only one tablet is preserved with a piece of the interior side. It shows the ending of a contract (the beginning of the text is lost) with the impression of seals of witnesses on the verso. The deed was drawn up in Puteoli (as confirmed in line 9). It is a stipulatio concluded between Caius Sulpicius Faustus and Pyramus, one of the slaves of a certain Caesia Priscilla (line 8). The stipulatio counts as one of the oldest and most useful Roman contracts: it was an oral request and promise. Gaius called it an obligation verbis - a contract concluded simply by words (Inst.Gai.3.92): ‘An obligation is verbally contracted by question and answer, as for instance: “Do you solemnly agree to give it to me?” “I do solemnly agree.” “Will you give it?” “I will give it.” “Do you promise?” “I do promise”...’ The mutual conversation (question and response) becomes the very contract; writing or witnesses were in no way necessary, though a written record might be the best way of keeping evidence of it.^[416]

Obviously the banker, Faustus paid out 4,000 sestertii in cash to Pyramus, and called for a stipulation of its repayment.^[417] It seems very likely that the agreement was a loan, a mutuum.

A mutuum was called in ancient Rome a ‘real contract’: the handing over of money for the return of its equivalent. Theoretically, one could not charge for the loan. If somebody wanted to contract for interest, it had to be done by a separate stipulation. This explains why the two formulas are usually mixed in the Archive of the Sulpicii.

Unfortunately, almost the whole text is lacking in TPSulp. 58; nonethe­less, the tablet remains important for us, being a transaction involving a woman. Therefore we need a similar record for reconstructing its main legal terms. TPSulp. 50 seems to be suited to our purposes. (TPSulp. 50, 9 November 35 CE):

M(arcus) An[tonius M(arci) f(ilii)] M[a]ximus [scripsi] me accce=|pi[sse et deber] e C(aio) Sul[pi]cio Fau[sto HS] '' n(ummum), | (5) [quae ab eo mutua] et n[umerata a]cc[epi] [e]aq[ue HS and promising payment, were accepted as contractually in force (Inst.Gai.3.134):

Praeterea litterarum obligatio fieri videtur chirographis et syngraphis, id est, si quis debere se aut daturum se scribat, ita scilicet, ut, si eo nomine stipulatio non fiat. Quod genus obligationis proprium peregrinorum est.

Furthermore, literal obligation appears to be created by chirographa and syngrapha, that is to say documents acknowledging a debt or promising a payment, of course on the assumption that a stipulation is not made in the matter. This form of obligation is special to peregrines.

A chirographum (cheirographon) was a very common type of document, written in the first person singular (it means subjectively styled), and mostly by the debtor’s own hand, without witnesses.^[418] The debtor acknowledged owing somebody something (for example, a certain amount of money). On the contrary, a testatio was drawn up always in the third person (objectively styled), mostly by a scribe, and was consequently sealed by witnesses.

The first part of our text records a receipt of Marcus Antonius, written in his own hand. It was an acknowledgment of handing over 2,000 sestertii from Cinnamus as a loan (cash payment, from hand to hand, through a numeratio). It was followed - as usual - by a stipulation (testatio with wit­nesses). It is remarkable that the stipulation also was formulated in the first person singular in our tablet.

It is commonly considered as a threefold document producing two legal actions: receipt, acknowledgement of a debt and stipulation of repayment. In my opinion, in accordance with Gaius (3.134), there might be three dif­ferent causae obligationis: the cash payment among the parties concluded a loan (mutuum), the mutual conversation of repayment of an obligation verbis (stipulatio) and the chirographum, this special type of constitutive legal document according to Hellenistic legal practice an obligatio litteris (a con­tract by writing) with an additional third possibility of claim before court.^[419]

Let us summarise in brief. TPSulp. 50 presents a well preserved deed recording a loan contract carried out by one of the Sulpicii. The banker paid out hard currency at the cash desk of his bank house and insisted upon a legal document (business as usual). Most deeds about loans were drawn up following the same formula. Furthermore, it can be assumed that a scribe or an employee of the Sulpicii usually prepared the exterior side of the tabulae (as mentioned above, this side was only a summary of the agreement without procedural relevance). The debtor took it as a model and drew up the inte­rior side mostly in his own hand.^[420] This partly automatic way of drafting legal documents is a strong argument that the loan of Caesia Priscilla might have followed a similar structure.

Armed with this knowledge, we can return to the first document (TPSulp. 58). It can be assumed that this deed also contained all three legal foundations (causae obligationis) observed above - with three different possible actions for the creditor to choose from.

As we have noticed, in our first document (TPSulp. 58), a slave called Pyramus concluded the loan contract with Caius Sulpicius Faustus, although he mentioned the name of his owner, Caesia Priscilla. It was a useful feature of Roman law that slaves could act without any difficulties as contracting parties. However, the possibilities of a lawsuit were slightly different in business involving slaves.

It is worth looking briefly at a further document showing how it worked (TPSulp. 56, 7 March 52 CE):

Niceros colonorum coloniae | Puteolanae servus arcarius | scripsi me accep[i] sse mutu«os» et | debere C(aio) Sulpicio [Ci]nnamo HS [leading jurist of the third century, specifies its meaning as follows: ‘a ratio is a transaction involving two aspects, giving and receiving, credit and debit, incurring and discharging an obligation on one’s own account...’^[426] In the case at issue, it must have been the bank account of Priscilla regarding her credit and debit with the Sulpicii. In my opinion, the phrase ascertains that the 4,000 sestertii (as the former 20,000) were charged to her account. Taking this into account, the obligation (loan contract) needs to be considered as concluded between Faustus and Priscilla - and not Pyramus, who acted merely as the receiver of the money.^[427]

At this point it is necessary to risk some remarks on the social back­ground. Although we do not know anything about the social status of Caesia Priscilla, the large sum of money suggests that she might have been rather wealthy. However, the domina involved in the business seems to have been careful to avoid any public appearance at a bank to withdraw money. Instead, she sent her slave to pick up the cash credited for her. Her reserved manner is typical of female behaviour in ancient society, where ladies of a certain standing and property were not accustomed or expected to act almost publicly.^[428]

However, the banker must have insisted upon drawing up the loan con­tract properly, according to usual business practice.

In the tablets we have examined thus far, the Sulpicii acted as money­lenders. However, there are several tabulae that record money transactions without mentioning the name of a Sulpicius. It can be supposed that the bank took part in these transactions as well. Before continuing our pano­rama of businesswomen, let us survey briefly the usual operations of bankers in ancient Rome. A short survey can be useful for a better understanding of the legal and economical context.

Ulpian, one of the best known classical Roman lawyers, summed up the main operations of small bankers dealing with problems of insolvency - related of course to a concrete trial (D.16.3.7.2):

Quotiens foro cedunt nummularii, solet primo loco ratio haberi depositariorum, hoc est eorum qui depositas pecunias habuerunt, non quas faenere apud nummu­larios vel cum nummulariis vel per ipsos exercebant.

Whenever moneylenders become insolvent, it is customary for account of the depositors to be taken first, that is, of those who had money on deposit, not money at interest with the moneylenders, or invested in conjunction with the moneylenders, or left with them to make use of it.^[430]

The case deals with nummularii - these were small-style bankers occupied mostly with money exchange, although they also sometimes engaged in interest-bearing investment. During their usual business transactions, they repeatedly accepted deposits from their clients. Ulpian found it important to distinguish between two main types of agreements: the banker might have paid interest on the capital or he might not have.^[431] In the latter case, the customer was interested first of all in safe custody (safekeeping), and in the former case, in profit (interest-bearing).

According to the regular rules of deposit in Roman law, the depositary was not entitled to use the object deposited, and to do so was a breach of contract.^[432] In general, however, bankers wished to make use of the money. In this case, the depositary was not obliged to return the identical coins left in his custody but the equivalent value (eiusdem generis).^[433] With some hesi­tation, Papinian confirmed that agreements of such type were widely used and, without any doubt, in force, according to the opinion of a vast majority (D.16.3.24): ‘for if it was agreed that the equivalent sum be repaid, then the matter exceeds the very well-known limits of a deposit’. In this special type of deposit, the depositary was able to use the coins kept by him, and in this case he came under an obligation to pay interest.

Nevertheless, Ulpian analysed not only two, but three types of possible agreements among bankers and their clients. The legally relevant differences among these three types emerged most clearly if the bank failed. Those whose money had not been touched and who could identify it as theirs could simply claim their property back. Those whose money had been used but who had not received any interest had a preferential claim in case of insolvency. Those receiving interest ranked together with the usually long line of ordinary creditors of the banker. Ulpian’s decision seems to suggest that there was really a range of possibilities open to a Roman who had cash to spare, and which option he chose would have depended on the risk he was prepared to accept.

However, this is not the place for a long discussion about banking in ancient Rome. For our sources, the wooden tablets from the Archive of the Sulpicii, it is only relevant that a regular client might have invested money ‘at’ the banker, ‘with’ the banker or ‘through’ the banker. In the first case, the bank acted as paying agent, while in the second the bank, so to speak, borrowed the money from the client against interest (and all risk remained with the bank). In the third case, the customer transferred the money to a bank and authorised the banker to invest it at a good rate of interest (here the bank acted as an agent and the risk remained with the customer).

Let us scrutinise in the next tabulae, concerning transactions by women, if Ulpian’s model of banking meets the transactions of the Sulpicii. There is, for example TPSulp. 71 (26 March 46 CE), again a fragmentary preserved financial transaction with Caesia Priscilla, the lady already presented above:

C(aius) lulius Amarantus scripsi | [me] accepisse ab Py[ramo] | [Caesiae] Priscillae servo s[e]stertia tria millia | nummum ex epistula

... I, Caius Iulius Amarantus have written that I have received from Pyramus, the slave of Caesia Priscilla, 3,000 sestertii in accordance with the epistula.

As we see, almost all the protagonists count as old acquaintances: Pyramus was also introduced above, in our first tabula. In the waxed tablet at hand, he might have revisited the bank on the order of his female proprietor, Caesia Priscilla. It is very likely that he acted here vicariously for his wealthy domina. The document contains a chirographum of a certain Caius Iulius Amarantus about a cash payment, hand to hand. The last line gives a hint of the existence of a certain epistula, a private or business letter. It seems likely that this very letter laid down the causa of the payment, the detailed agreement between the parties.

Lucio Bove argued that the legal content must have been a loan contract (mutuum): Priscilla could have played the role of the creditor and Amarantus the role of the debtor.^[434] Camodeca refused this interpretation and noticed that there was neither a stipulation nor any other promise of repayment, therefore the parties must have changed their roles in the business: Priscilla might have been the debtor and Amarantus the creditor receiving the repayment from her.^[435]

As the fragmentary text is short, it could provide some further possible interpretations - relying on the role of an epistula in legal transactions. Reading the decisions of the Roman jurists, it seems very likely that epistulae were special types of documents, and not mere synonyms of chirographum (as considered earlier, for example, by Leopold Wenger).^[436] An epistula could have been especially useful in credit transactions between more than two parties who contracted merely on confidential terms. There is plenty of evidence for this special function of epistula; and it leads also in the above quoted tablet of Caesia Priscilla to a possible new concept of the facts. It seems to me that the following aspects should be especially considered: the tabula was preserved in the archive of a bank; the epistula mentioned at the end must have been of legal relevance; legal transactions were usually recorded in more than a single document; furthermore it was not rare that more than two parties were involved in money transactions.

In summary, I see two further possibilities for reconstructing the legal relations among the parties. In the first case, Priscilla might have deposited a larger amount of money with the Sulpicii. Pyramus, her slave, could raise and pay out the 3,000 sestertii, recorded here, in cash directly at the cash desk of the bank, from the account of Priscilla, to Amarantus. We can better understand the legal structure supposed above if we use the next text as a possible model for it (D.16.3.28):

Caecilius Candidus Paccio Rogatiano suo salutem. viginti quinque nummorum quos apud me esse voluisti, notum tibi ista hac epistula facio ad ratiunculam meam ea pervenisse: quibus ut primum prospiciam, ne vacua tibi sint: id est ut usuras eorum accipias, curae habebo.

Caecilius Candidas to Paccius Rogatianus, greetings. As to the 25 sestertii, which you wished to be lodged with me, I inform you by this letter that they have been entered on my account. I shall attend to this sum as soon as possible, to see that you do not have it lying idle [producing no return]. That is, I shall take care of it that you get interest on it.

A certain Caecilius Candidus (probably a banker) wrote a short memoran­dum (a surprisingly informal business letter) to his client. He assured him that a certain amount of money arrived on his account and that he would do his best to invest it with good profit. Assuming the same model, it can be supposed that Amarantus wrote the epistula mentioned and he might have received the cash payment. However, he also issued a chirographum (pre­served in TPSulp. 71) as a receipt. But can it be reasonably supposed that two different records were made about the same payment? In my opinion, it does not need to be a contradiction. It was very common in everyday legal life to issue separate documents about each stage of a transaction. The present chirographum (TPSulp. 71) recorded the act of carrying out the cash payment between Pyramus and Amarantus (the slave paid out the money entrusted to him). Independent of that, Amarantus could have issued another document (called an epistula) summing up the terms of the agreement and acknowledg­ing the receipt of the money for Priscilla (who was his real contracting party in this case). Nevertheless, it is not clear what type of contract was concluded between the parties; it was probably a loan or a deposit. In a future lawsuit, the chirographum would have entitled Priscilla to sue for repayment only of the equivalent of the sum paid out (this denotes exactly 3,000 sestertii without any interest). The aforementioned epistula, with the exact terms of their contractual relations, might have contained a different type of contractual obligation with better terms for Priscilla: for example, a money deposit which would have entitled her to also sue for interests and remedy. Accepting this hypothesis, we would have new evidence for the occupation of the Sulpicii as paying agents, and probably Amarantus as a private agent for money investments.

However, there is also another possible solution for TPSulp. 71. The epis­tula (mentioned in line 7) might have been written by Priscilla, as well. Here we can use a different legal structure depicted by Marcellus, deciding a rather complicated case (D.46.1.24):

Lucius Titius cum pro Seio fratre suo apud Septicium intervenire vellet, epistulam ita emisit: Si petierit a te frater meus, peto des ei nummos fide et periculo meo.

When Lucius Titius wished to stand surety for his brother, Seius to Septicius, he sent a letter in these terms: ‘If my brother seeks an advance from you, I ask you to give him the money, relying on my honour and at my risk'.

There is a business letter again: the short note of a certain Lucius Titius (a typical name in a blank form) showing how informally and effectively epistulae might have been used in complicated legal structures. According to this model, the facts behind the fragmentary receipt of Amarantus might have been as follows: Priscilla would have asked and authorised her slave, Pyramus, to give Amarantus a helping hand (paying out 3,000 sestertii to him), from his (Pyramus’) peculium but at her (Priscilla’s) risk. She may have wanted to avoid acting openly as a creditor, being a lady of distinguished birth or delicate social status. Possibly Amarantus belonged to a lower social class, and she was reluctant to publicly cast herself as being involved in busi­ness with him. The Sulpicii would have acted here again as paying agents and discrete intermediaries at the same time. The legal relation, produced by an agreement and a mandatory payment, is close to a personal surety (Priscilla would be a guarantor for Amarantus at Pyramus). However, there can be no valid legal obligations between a domina and her slave.

Let us move forward, leaving Caesia Priscilla for the present to examine some further money transactions of female ‘managers’ in ancient Puteoli. There was a certain Gaia Primigenia who obviously also preferred discreet business through bankers (TPSulp. 105, 9 March 56 CE):

si[· ·]++++[—]+um | [· ']S++[· ']+++stipula[tus]s [e]s[t] | C(aius) Sulpicius Cinn[amu]s, qui se | procuratorem G[· · ']ae Primigeni=|ae esse [di]cebat, spopon­dit | C(aius) lulius Atimetus.

... [promise has been called] by Caius Sulpicius Cinnamus, who declared that he is the procurator of Gaia Primigenia, promised by Caius lulius Atimetus.

In this tablet, the bank of the Sulpicii acted finally as a contracting party. Cinnamus (one of the members of the younger generation of the Sulpicii) concluded a stipulatio with a certain Caius lulius Atimetus. The document is heavily damaged. Camodeca set it under the title Negotia incerta et fragmenta, among texts of no consequence. Despite its condition, it can yet deliver some useful information. It is evident from line 4 that a certain Gaia Primigenia was the contracting party (liberta or domina, it is not clear). Cinnamus acted here simply as her procurator (private agent) as mentioned explicitly in line 4. Gaia Primigenia might have deposited a certain amount of money with the Sulpicii and authorised Cinnamus to invest it on short-term interest-bearing terms. It seems very likely that Cinnamus (and not Gaia Primigenia) con­cluded the present loan contract with Atimetus - and it could have fitted as a very reasonable solution for a lady in ancient Puteoli. However, the banker might have charged the interest (paid by Atimetus as debtor) immediately to the account (ratio) of Gaia Primigenia.

Let us take another look at Ulpian’s sophisticated model of usual banking activities in ancient Rome. Of all the possible models, Gaia Primigenia’s business (TPSulp. 105) seems to adhere to this structure: Cinnamus, the banker might have acted as a careful agent, investing money for his client (money deposited with him) for a good profit. The usual risk (which is the possible insolvency of the debtor) remained in this case always with the client, thus in our case with Gaia Primigenia.

There is a further tablet (TPSulp. 99, 28 February 44 CE) with a rather fragmentary textual record of the financial transactions of a certain Marcia. Camodeca suggested completing her name for Marcia Fausta; she might have been a liberta, a freedwoman. The text is heavily damaged, yet Camodeca reconstructed it ingeniously using similar formulas. It looks very likely that Marcia was the debtor in a loan contract, concluded with M. Octavius Fortunatus. The bank of the Sulpicii might have been involved in the busi­ness again as a simple paying agency. It is remarkable that Marcia acted with her guardian (tutor), a certain Epichares (line 10).

It will have come to our attention that all our businesswomen have acted without a guardian. Thinking in terms of modern Roman law textbooks, there must have been guardians also in TPSulp. 58, 71 and 105. We shall return to this problem later in the summary, where I will try to offer a reasonable explanation for the missing guardians.

Returning to Marcia, we see that she received here a relatively small sum of 2,000 sestertii. She was obliged to repay it in three instalments: the first one between 15 March and 5 April, the second one on an unknown date, and the third one on 1 May. The document was drawn up on 28 February 44 CE. The legal transaction between the parties can be reconstructed as follows: M. Octavius Fortunatus (probably a freedman) might have deposited a certain amount of money with the bank of the Sulpicii (as a kind of current account). Later, he concluded a loan contract with Marcia, crediting her 2,000 ses­tertii for a short term of two months with repayment in three instalments. The money was withdrawn by Marcia (and her guardian) at the bank of the Sulpicii. The Sulpicii were involved in the business again as a simple paying agency.

Finally, we must look at some money transactions between ladies of inter­est in Puteoli: a certain Titinia Antracis and Euplia. The wooden tablet was titled by the scribe as Tabellae Titiniae A[ntracidis]:^[437]

Exp(ensos)| Eupliae Theodori f(iliae) [HS ~ DC] | Meiliacae tutore aucto[re] | Epichare Aphrodisi f(ilio) Athe[niensi]; | petiit et numeratos acce[pit] | domo ex r[i]sco | Acceptos | Risco (vac.) [HS ~ DC]; | Eos HS ~ DC nu[mmos, qui s(upra) s(cripti) s(unt)], | interrogant[e Titinia Antracide], | fide sua esse ius[sit Epichares Aphrodisi] | f(ilius) Athenensis p[ro Euplia Theodori f(ilia)] | Meliacae Ti[tiniae Antracidi] | Act[um Puteolis...

The Tablets of Titinia Antracis | paid out | to Euplia, daughter of Theodorus, 1,600 sestertii | from Melos, with authorization of her guardian | Epichares, son of Aphrodisius, from Athens, | she asked and received in cash | from home, out of the cash desk. | Received | to the cash desk, 1,600 sestertii | and those 1.600 sestertii written above | questioned by Titinia Antracis | for his faith promised Epichares Aphrodisius’ | son from Athens for Euplia the daughter of Theodorus | from Melos to Titinia Antracis | acted in Puteoli.

The present triptychon is well preserved, but difficult to explain. It is of some interest that there are two further texts concerning loans of Euplia in the Archive.^[438] The remarkable title ‘Tabellae of Titinia Antracis’ and further typical phrases in accounting (such as exceptos, acceptos) give some hints as to its explanation. It looks rather like an unusual, almost unknown type of evidence, an extract from an account book (rationes). There were three persons involved in the money transaction: Titinia, Euplia and Epichares. The ladies formed the parties concluding a contract while the only man, Epichares, acted as the guardian and guarantor for Euplia. Euplia was very likely a woman of Hellenistic-Greek origin; her guardian might have been her husband but could also be a third person.^[439]

Modern scholars have argued for the interpretation of the legal content being a simple loan between the ladies: Titinia was the creditor and Euplia the debtor.^[440] However, this interpretation offers no possible solution for the role played by the Sulpicii in the matter. It is also very strange that the parties chose this unusual formula instead of a regular loan (as cited above, for example, with Caesia Priscilla). For a more satisfactory explanation, Peter Groschler suggested that it must have been a transaction not between two, but rather three parties.^[441] The payment might have been carried out at the cash desk of a bank. In this case, the first lines would record simply a payment with the usual terminology of accounting. Euplia, a freeborn per­egrine woman from Asia Minor (Melos), might have acted as the receiver of the cash money and the debtor named for its repayment. She acted properly with her guardian, Epichares - who is also of Greek nationality (and prob­ably her husband as already mentioned above).^[442] Jane Gardner supposed that the document appears ‘to be written by a man, also a Greek, Epichares of Athens’. This seems too speculative - I do not see any evidence in the text for Epichares’ writing the deed. Accepting the thesis that the document is an extract from the account book of the bank, it might have been written rather by a scribe of the very bank.

Epichares acted also as guarantor (personal surety) for Euplia. Gardner assumed that ‘the addition of a guarantor usually indicates either that the creditor is not satisfied that the borrower’s credit is good, or that the debt is otherwise unsecured’.^[443] For a similar situation, she quoted TPSulp. 64 and argued that N. Castricius Agathopus should have been Faecia’s tutor. For a better understanding, I should print here the heavily damaged text: ‘... sunt, interrogante [T]itinia | Basilide, fide sua esse iussit | N(umerius) Castricius Agathopus pro Fa[e]cia...’ As we see, the short fragment preserved does not give any hint of the legal or personal connections between the parties. As for the gender-specific importance of guarantors for loans received by women, Gardner combined here guardianship and guarantee in a confusing manner: ‘Moreover, for women with tutors, there is at least a presumption of good credit, since... a woman could not take on obligations without the consent of her tutor...’^[444] From the legal point of view, both personal and real surety seems to have been equally used and broadly accepted in the Roman world. However, personal surety was rather typical for Roman deals while Greeks preferred pledges. Considering this, I do not see any gender­specific or socially shaped phenomenon in the fact that Epichares acted as guarantor for Euplia in TPSulp. 60.

Furthermore, there is a financial transaction involving a woman drawn up following the same formula - without mentioning any tutor. In TPSulp. 63 (also a nomen arcanum), a certain Magia Pulchra borrowed the remarka­bly large sum of 30,000 sestertii from Caius Sulpicius Cinnamus. Camodeca suggested that Magia might have earlier given birth to at least three chil­dren, therefore she enjoyed the Augustan ius liberorum.^[445] Unfortunately, the text is seriously damaged from line 14; the letters preserved seem to introduce the usual stipulation of a guarantor: Idem spo[pondit]... We do not know anything about the life and pains of Magia Pulchra. However, the mere evidence of acting here without tutor seems to me not conclusive for the assumption that she must have been the mother of at least three children.

But let us return to Titinia Antracis, Euplia and Epichares in TPSulp. 60. The two entries (exp. - acp.) cannot stand for the same money transaction, in my opinion. Neither legally nor economically would it have made good sense. On the contrary, I argue that the relatively small sum of 1,600 sestertii was paid out in cash from the cash desk of the bank - and immediately taken in to the same cash desk.^[446]

All tabellae documents show a formula that is rare in ancient Italy. However, there are some Greek papyri from Roman Egypt with a similar structure. Double entries in the account books of banks were usual, if the party was an old client of the same bank, carrying out the whole transaction. It might have worked well in everyday life, assuming that the debtor immedi­ately deposited the money, just received on his account, with the same bank.

There is a fitting example of this structure in a papyrus document, an extract from an account book of a bank:^[447]

To Apollonios, son of Hestiodoros, which to Ariston,

son of Antipatros (paid out) 700 from Ariston, son of Antipatros (received) 700.

It is remarkable that there are five further documents of the same type, as the text just explained (TPSulp. 60) in the Archive of the Sulpicii and two further deeds in waxed tablets from Herculaneum.^[448] Six of these eight documents record money transactions by women. Until now, nobody has taken notice of this surprising fact. The phenomena can be reasonably explained by the desire of women for discretion, as pointed out already above. Female partici­pants in business tried to avoid personal appearances at public places. Acting through a bank could offer a discreet and useful alternative to this problem.

To summarise: as mentioned in the introduction above, in ancient Rome women had to have guardians for the entire duration of their lives (tutores). The acts needing a guardian’s authorisation were alienation of res mancipi (mainly land and slaves); making a will; and any contract that put the woman under an obligation. This was the law as taught and learned in several textbooks.

However, we have just surveyed several tabulae from Puteoli containing contracts, receipts and other financial transactions by women from different segments of population - and only a few of them include the authorisation of a guardian. How was this possible?

It is well known that Augustus’ legislation had already released women from the requirement of a guardian’s authorisation to encourage having a big family (three children for a freeborn and four for a freedwoman). Are we obliged to assume that every woman in Puteoli, acting without a guardian, must have had at least three (or four) children? This does not seem to me to be an elegant solution.^[449]

As we have seen above, neither Domitia Lepida nor Lollia Saturnina appeared in person for business; only their freedmen and their slaves did so. In general, persons from the elite lent and borrowed money through their dependants as intermediaries. Without any doubt, it cannot be considered as a gender-specific phenomenon. However, acting through intermediaries seems to be useful for all the businesswomen, from each segment of popula­tion. It appears very likely that the widely accepted practice of contracting through slaves and freedmen released women (in fact) from a guardian’s authorisation. A woman of some property, owning slaves or having freed­men, could take part in all business without any restriction - through her dependants, acting for her as intermediaries. There was no need to ask her guardian or to be present at the bank at all. Using the advantages of a good fortune, women could participate in everyday business life on the same terms as male Romans. However, other women, who did not have the luxury of owning skilled slaves, were forced to appear personally at a bank in the company of a guardian.

There is one further question remaining: were the Sulpicii just money­lenders (feneratores) or rather argentarli, bankers with extended financial operations? Andreau argued that they were neither professional bankers nor wholesalers, therefore they must have specialised in moneylending: they must have been faeneratores.^[450] Here is not the proper place for a detailed treatment of banking in the Roman Empire. With that said, a thorough examination of some writing tablets has demonstrated that a new definition might be possible. Considering the role of the Sulpicii in tablets which do not mention their names and in others with more than two parties I rather believe that they were occupied in several types of financial transactions, not only in moneylending.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andreau, J., Banking and Business in the Roman World (1999).

Berry, J., The Complete Pompeii (2007).

Bogaert, R., Les origines antiques de la banque de depot (1968).

Bove, L., Documenti di operazioni finanziarie dall’archivio dei Sulpicii. Tabulae

Pompeianae di Murecine (1984).

Buckland, W. W., A Manual of Roman Private Law (1939).

Camodeca, G., ‘Archivi privati e storia sociale delle città Campane: Puteoli ed

Herculaneum, in W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte (1993), p. 339.

Camodeca, G., Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum. Edizione critica dell’archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii (1999).

Camodeca, G., ‘Per un primo aggiornamento all’edizione dell’archivio dei Sulpicii (TPSulp.)’, CCG, 11 (2000), p. 173.

Cancik, H., and Schneider, H. (eds), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopaedie der Antike (1996). Crook, J. A., Law and Life of Rome: 90 B.C. - A.D. 212 (1967).

Crook, J. A., ‘Working notes on some of the new Pompeii tablets’, in ZPE, 29 (1978), p. 229.

Dernburg, H., Pandecten I. Allgemeiner Teil und Sachenrecht, 5th edn (1896).

Duncan-Jones, R., The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies, 2nd edn (1982).

Finkenauer, Th., Vererblichkeit und Drittwirkung der Stipulation im klassischen romischen Recht (2010).

Friedman, L. M., ‘Some thoughts on comparative legal culture’, in D. S. Clark (ed.), Comparative Law and Private International Law (1990), p. 53.

Gardner, J. F., Women in Roman Law and Society (1995).

Gardner, J. F., ‘Women in business life. Some evidence from Puteoli’, in P. Setälä and L. Savunen (eds), Female Networks and the Public Sphere in Roman Society, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, 22 (1999), p. 11.

Garnsey, P., ‘Independent freedmen and the economy of Roman Italy under the prin- cipate’, Klio, 63 (1981), p. 359.

Groschler, P., Die tabellae-Urkunden aus den pompeianischen und herkulanensischen Urkundenfunden (1997).

Jakab E., ‘Bankurkunden und Buchführung (TPSulp.60 und die graeco-ägyptischen Papyri)’, in G. Thür and F. J. Nieto, Symposion 1999 (Veroffentlichungen der Gesellschaft für Griechische und Hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 14) (2003) p. 493.

Jakab E., ‘Vectura pro mutua: Überlegungen zu Tab. Pomp. 13 und Ulp. D. 19.2.15.6’, ZSS (rom. Abt.) 117 (2000), p. 244.

Jakab, E., Risikomanagement beim Weinkauf. Periculum und Praxis im Imperium Romanum (2009).

Jakab, E., ‘Chirographie in Theorie und Praxis’, in K. Muscheler (ed.), Romische Jurisprudenz - Dogmatik, Überlieferung, Rezeption (2011), p. 275.

Jhering, R. von, Qeist des romischen Rechts auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwicklung II, 4th edn (1850).

Kaser, M., Das romische Privatrecht (1971).

Kaser, M., and Knütel, R., Romisches Privatrecht, 18th edn (2005).

Lemosse, M., ‘La procedure contre l’esclave debiteur: une nouvelle revelation romanistique’, RHD, 62 (1984), p. 225.

Legrand, P., Fragments on Law-as-Culture (1999).

Metzger, E., ‘The Case of Petronia Iusta’, RIDA, 47 (2000), p. 151.

Meyer, E. A., Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World. Tabulae in Roman Belief and Practice (2004).

Rowe, G., ‘Trimalchio’s world’, Scripta Classica Israelica, 20 (2001), p. 225.

Wenger, L., Die Quellen des romischen Rechts (1953).

Wolf, J. G., Neue Rechtsurkunden aus Puteoli. Tabulae Pompeianae Nuovae. Lateinisch und Deutsch (2010).

Wolf J. G., and Crook J. A., Rechtsurkunden in Vulgärlatein aus den Jahren 37-39 n. Chr., in Abh. Der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl. (1989).

Zweigert K., and Kotz H., Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts (1996).