The New Pompeian Documents
On 24 and 25 July 1959, in the middle of the three dining rooms at the front of the courtyard, archaeologists found a wicker basket which was full to the brim with documents, namely the legal records of a bank. The bank was based not at Pompeii but at Puteoli (the present-day Pozzuoli) on the north coast of the gulf to the west of Naples. The formal elements of these documents include the place and date of their execution; insofar as the place of execution is preserved and legible, it is with few exceptions101 Puteoli.
There was scarcely a better location for a banking business. With the growth of the Roman economy after the Carthaginian wars Puteoli swiftly became one of the leading trading places of the ancient world.
So began a period of particular wealth for the town. This is reflected in the new documents in ways that are striking as well as unexpected. The many public buildings which are mentioned and whose existence we discover here for the first time were, to judge from their names, without exception foundations and thus notable evidence not just for the history of architecture but also of the wealth of the citizens of the town.According to a report by Olga Elia,102 an archaeologist, the tablets were found in excellent condition, with the wood well-preserved. The then superintendent of antiquities for the provinces of Naples and Caserta had never experienced a find in such remarkable condition. What they did was the best they could possibly have done: they documented the find and recorded it in 302 excellent photographs.103 This documentation was, however, incomplete: even their photographs show that not all of the tablets were systematically photographed on both sides.104
Olga Elia reported the total number of tablets in 1960 as 300; the conservator Selim Augusti reported in 1966 that it was 200. According to Camodeca the documents preserved in whole or in part in the find must originally have been around 350, of which barely more than half survived the catastrophe and the centuries in their wicker basket and can be referred to today.105
The documents come, as already mentioned, from a banker’s archive. They are evidently a selection. Few of the selected documents are complete and most are preserved only in part, so the diptychs and triptychs must have been taken apart in Puteoli or Pompeii — being by then no longer required for purposes of proof - and many disposed of before the remainder were carefully stored in the wicker basket. The selection may have depended on factors such as the size of the basket, although there may have been other criteria.
The edition of the new documents took some time.
It was entrusted to Oscar Onorato, who wanted to publish the documents not in instalments but as a whole, but he died in 1965 before he had completed his work. Owing to these unfortunate circumstances editing began in 1967 and was completed in 1980. The editors were Carlo Giordano, one of the directors of the Pompeii excavations, and Francesco Sbordone, professor of classical philology at the University of Naples. They published most of the tablets in nine instalments in the Rendiconti dell’Accademia di Archeologia Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli.106 Addolarata Landi published a supplement in the Atti dell’Accademia Pontaniana.107 The first edition comprised 148 documents and parts of documents. Camodeca has described its deficiencies in minute detail.10 His own Edizione critica dell’archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii appeared in 1999, contains 127 documents, and meets the highest standards.109 My recent edition, Neue Rechtsurkunden aus Pompeji. Tabulae Pompeianae Novae, of 2010 contains 117 documents.110In 55 of the 117 documents the date is preserved with year, month, and the consular year. Three can be only roughly dated as the consular year is unclear.111 In six other cases the date of execution is not preserved, but the consular year allows the year and period within which the document was executed to be identified. 112 And for a further five at least the year is preserved. 113
The documents fall into three decades: the last, TPN 74, was executed on 22 February 61; the earliest on 14 July 29.114 The bulk, consisting of 34 dated documents, was executed in the 40s. This shows us that the majority of the dated documents come from the 20 years between AD 35 and 55, in the reigns of the emperors Caligula and Claudius, and so they were 25 to 45 years old when they were submerged in mud and preserved until the present day.
The precise dates on the documents are important for the chronology of the time; and, precisely because of the increasing number ofsuffect consulships in this period, they are no less important for political history, in making possible confirmation, correction, and amplification of the consular Fasti for these years.
The protagonists of the events attested in the documents are members of the Caii Sulpicii: Faustus Maior, Faustus, Cinnamus, and Onirus.
C. Sulpicius Faustus Maior appears in the earliest documents and makes his final appearance in January or February 35; C. Sulpicius Faustus appears from March 34.115 The third, who appears the most often, is Cinnamus, who enters the scene in March 42.116 We see Faustus in the business for 17 years and Cinnamus for 14, while Onirus appears only briefllang=EN-US>y. Faustus appears for the last time in May 52,117 Cinnamus in March 56, and Onirus first appears — for the only time — in February 61.118These Sulpicii were freedmen.119 As Cinnamus stated himself, he was a freedman of Faustus. Faustus was probably freeborn but the son of a freedman called C. Sulpicius Heraclida. These bankers could, given their status and their business, have sat at the table of Trimalchio, their contemporary and fellow citizen - although their business certainly did not allow them to accumulate the great riches that he did.
The representatives of the bank are typical of the society that we encounter in the documents. It is largely a society of freedmen. Admittedly, of the well over 100 Roman citizens who appear in the documents, few are expressly described as freedmen. But often the cognomen is an indication of status which is just as reliable: Attimetus, Agathopus or Epaphroditus, Isochrysus, Onesimus or Plistus, Anthus, Thallus, Agathemer or Hermeros - only a freedman could have a name such as this. They were, it seems, the middle, often unobserved stratum of Roman society, or perhaps its foundation. Even the imperial household (familia Caesaris) is repeatedly attested and the style of names of its slaves and freedmen allows us to draw conclusions about its inner structure.
The internal texts of these chirographs show the prevalence of literacy: of the 30 chirographs among these documents, only 4 are not written in the hand of the person against whom they were intended to serve as proof.
Of these, one was written for a woman: L. Patulcius Epaphroditus wrote it ‘on the request and on the instruction’ of his freedwoman, Patulcia Erotis, and in her presence.120 Women generally made use of someone else to write their chirographs.Almost without exception, the documents follow established formulae and so are generally written in proper standard Latin. Departures from that are rare. Nonetheless we do read ‘Putolis’ in the chirographs of C. Novius Eunus. Eunus121 and Diognetus, 122 the first a freedman and the second a slave of C. Novius Cypaerus, wrote as they spoke: a robust vulgar Latin. Their chirographs date from 28 June and 2 July 37, 29 August
38, and 15 September 39. They provide new and detailed indications of vulgar Latin word formation. Only the inner text of a document had to be written in one’s own hand since, as already mentioned, only it had probative value. In three instances the external texts of the chirographs are preserved, and they are indeed not in the hand of Novius Eunus or Diognetus; nor are they written in vulgar, but in standard, Latin. These three chirographs, with their internal and external texts,123 just like inscriptions written in two languages, record the same text in two contemporary versions, one vulgar and one standard. There is no parallel to this in surviving Latin literature.
Antiqua">Almost 40 of the documents are concerned with procedure in court or before an arbiter: there are numerous promises to appear in Puteoli or in Rome for citation before the magistrate;124 various testationes dealing with appearing there in time; administering and swearing oaths,125 as well as examination before the magistrate in relation to institution as heir or the power of a master over his slave. The highlights are documents dealing with an agreement on the appointment of a judge,126 a draft court decree,127 and the settlement of a dispute.12
Most of these documents deal with contracts and other commercial acts of legal significance.
The commonest is loan. This is often accompanied by security, whether in the form of surety or a pledge.129 Pledges are accompanied by contracts for letting storage rooms, where the goods pledged (grain and pulses) are stored.130 Alongside these contracts of loan, sureties, pledges, and letting of storage, are acknowledgments of obligations and of outstanding balances,131 receipts, and guarantees. Thirteen documents are concerned with auctioning securities that have become forfeit: these relate to pledges or conveyances in security of purple material, land, and slaves.The bank of the Sulpicii was not a large one. In AD 48, apart from C. Sulpicius Faustus and C. Sulpicius Cinnamus, there were four slaves at work. The penalties provided in the vadimonia for the event that a person bound to appear did not do so amount to a few hundred or a few thousand132 (in three cases133 it was admittedly 50,000 sesterces, which perhaps corresponded to the sum sued for). For 25 loans, acknowledgments of debt, and receipts we know the sums that were lent, acknowledged, or received: only rarely do they exceed 20,000 sesterces; mostly they are concerned with appreciably smaller sums.
In the documents, Faustus and Cinnamus each lend 20,000 sesterces on one occasion: Faustus on 13 March 40 to L. Marius Iucundus,134 and Cinnamus on 3 October 45 to M. Lollius Philippus;135 on 1 May 46 one or other of them lent 30,000 sesterces in cash to Magia Pulchra.136 On 28 June 37 C. Novius Eunus acknowledged receipt of a loan of 10,000 sesterces from Evenus Primianus, a freedman of the emperor Tiberius, through his slave Hesychus. On 3 March 49 P. Vergilius Ampliatus acknowledged 5,000 sesterces, likewise by way of loan, from Sex. Granius Numenius. On 31 December 44 Cinnamus issued a receipt that on 4 December 44 he had received from Alcimus, a slave of C. Eprius Valgus, 30,000 sesterces against a claim by his patron Faustus of 50,000 sesterces.137 On 14 October 51 six slaves whom M. Egnatius Suavis had conveyed to Cinnamus in security of a claim for 27,000 sesterces were to be auctioned. A chirograph of 11 January 49 deals with 120,000 sesterces:138 if we interpret it correctly, Purgias, a foreigner, had requested and mandated Cinnamus to convey, no doubt in security, a slave named Aprilis to Cerinthus, who was a slave of the emperor. This was in security against a claim of 120,000 sesterces. In 51 we find the bank on the debtor side: on 2 May 51 Cinnamus declared that he owed 94,000 sesterces to Phosphorus Lepidianus, a slave of the emperor Claudius, and promised to repay it by 13 June.139
As this sketch shows, the main business of the bank of the Sulpicii was the provision of credit. The bank, of course, did not lend money interest-free. For loans (mutua) interest had to be promised in a separate stipulatio, although no documents of this kind were found in the wicker basket. They evidently did not survive the selection process, since there can be no doubt that they must have existed. The amount of the loans was not always modest, but the return on them will not have made the Sulpicii rich. The maximum rate of interest was fixed at 12 per cent per annum, and it is not likely that they would have been able regularly to exceed this 140
maximum.
Notes
1. See the chapter by Kaiser, 119, 128.
2. See H.J. Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens, vol. 1 (Munich, 2002), 1—8, 15, 2I3ff.
3. There is a selection in FIR 283-422 and FIRA vol. 3.
4. T. Mommsen in CIL III 921—59; III Suppl.; and T. Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica
II 467; IV 187.
5. H. F. Massmann, Libellus aurarius (Leipzig, 1840).
6. D. 33.64: ‘a chest containing documents and debtors’ undertakings’ (arca in qua instrumenta et cautiones debitorum erant).
7. G. de Petra, Le tavolette cerate di Pompei (Naples, 1876); C. Zangemeister, ‘Tabulae ceratae Pompeis repertae annis MDCCCLXXV et MDCCCLXXXVII’, in CIL IV Suppl. I (1898), no. 3340 I—CLIII (including a detailed introduction at 275—80);
T. Mommsen, ‘Die pompeianischen Quittungstafeln des L. Caecilius Iucundus’, in T. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1907, repr. 1965), vol. 3, 221—74.
class=22 style='line-height:normal'>8. V. Arangio-Ruiz and G. Pugliese Carratelli, ‘Tabulae Herculanenses’, instalments I-VI in La Parola del Passato I (1946): 379-85; 3 (1948): 165-84; 8 (1953): 455-63; 9 (i954): 54-74; 10 (1955): 448-77; 16 (1961): 66-73.9. See, e.g., G. Camodeca, ‘Riedizione del trittico ercolanense TH 77+78 + 80+53+92 del 26 gennaio 69’, Cronache Ercolanensi 24 (1994): 137-46; J. G. Wolf, Aus dem neuen pompeianischen Urkundenfund: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Berlin, 2010), 209.
10. RAAN41 (1966): 107-21; 45 (1970): 211-25; 46 (1971): 183-95; 47 (1972): 311-16.
11. RAAN 46 (1971): 173-82; 47 (1972): 307-10; 51 (1976): 145-67; 53 (1978): 248-69,
as well as F. Sbordone and C. Giordano, RAAN 43 (1968): 3-12; A. Landi, ‘Ricerche sull’onomastica delle tabelle dell’agro Murecine’, Atti dell'Accademia Pontaniana 29 (1980): 193-97.
12. Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum: Edizione critica dell'archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii, 2 vols. (1999); J.G. Wolf, Neue Rechtsurkunden aus Pompeji: Tabulae Pompeianae Novae (Darmstadt, 2010).
13. The material in the new Pompeian tablets was in fact not wax but shellac: S. Augusti, RAAN 37 (1962): 127; cf. also R. Büll and E. Moser, ‘Wachs’, in RE Suppl. 13 (1973), cols. 1366-72.
14. This is a key criterion for placing the sides of the tablets in the correct order.
15."Times New Roman"'> Suet. Ner. 17; PS 5.25.6.
16. Denying one’s own seal was punishable.
17. Its base was in Apulum, a defensive centre and junction of the Dacian road network.
18. FIR nos. 131, 130, 133, 132.
19. This was drafted in terms ofamale slave, which is howBruns accounts in FIR no. 131 line 9 for the use of the male pronoun.
20. FIR no. 130 line 14; 331 no. 132 line 14.
21. Most of the names point towards peregrine status: they have one name, to which is added the name of the father in the genitive (e.g., Alexander Antipatri). See W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen, 2nd edn. (Berlin, 1966) on Bellicus Alexandri (FIR no. 130) at 42 n. 4, 292 n. 1, 428; on Maximus Batonis and Anduena Batonis (FIR nos. 131 and 133) at 31 n. 3; on Dasius Verzonis (FIR no. 131) at 39 n. 3; on Vibius Longus (FIR no. 130) at 102, 425; and on Dasius Breucus (FIR no. 130) at 19 n. 1, 39 n. 1, 44 n. 5.
22. Gaius 3.93.
23. P. Krüger, Geschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des römischen Rechts, 2nd edn. (Munich - Leipzig, 1912), 269, states that documents such as chirographs were written by the debtors themselves.
24. FIR no. 153, 1; FIRA 3 no. 123.
25. FIR no. 153, 2; FIRA 3 no. 122.
26. Cf. J. G. Wolf, ‘Die Naulotike des Menelaos - Seedarlehen oder Seefrachtvertrag?’ in Iuris Vincula: Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca (Naples, 2001): 456 (repr. in Wolf (n. 9), 181).
27. Possibly also the surety in the second document, if the name Primitius is a mistake for Primitivus: cf. FIRA 3.394 n. 5.
28. FIR no. 155; FIRA 3 no. 120.
29. Iulius Alexander is the debtor in the first loan document, the creditor in the second, and one of the partners in the partnership agreement. It seems likely that this is one and the same person. The form of stipulatio in the partnership agreement suggests that he was a Roman citizen.
30. Bruns no. 165, 1—lang=EN-US>3; different and clearly better readings in FIRA 3 no. 150.
31. On the state properties in Dacia, see C. Brandis, ‘Dacia’, in RE IV (1901) cols. 1973-74.
32. FIR no. 171; FIRA 3 no. 157.
33. The document was therefore executed after the event, shortly before the termination of the contract.
34. Brandis (n. 31), cols. 1967ff.
35. Eutropius 8.6.2.
36. In the case of the sale of the slave-girl (FIR no. 131), the seller Dasius Verzonis was a Pirusta ex Kavieretio. Another triptych (FIR no. 133) attests the sale of half of a house in Alburnio maiori vico Pirustarum. Cf. also O. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten, 4th edn. (Berlin, 1975), 154-55. Breucus, the name of the seller in FIR no. 130, is evidently Illyrian: C. Patsch, ‘Breuci’, in RE III (1897), col. 831.
37. For 153 documents: Zangemeister (n. 7), no. 3340 1-CLIII; also Krüger (n. 23), 279; FIRA 3.401. For 127 documents: Mommsen (n. 7), 222; FIR 354; B. Kübler, Geschichte des römischen Rechts (2nd ed., 1925), 302; for 132 documents: O. Karlowa, Römische Rechtsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1885), vol. 1, 132.
38. See the very detailed edition by Zangemeister with illustrations (n. 7). According to Mommsen (n. 7), 222, the 127 documents are legible wholly or in part.
39. 137 documents, according to Zangemeister.
40. In the document of 28 May 15 the auctioneer is Lucius Caecilius Felix, probably a relative of Iucundus and possibly his father: FIR no. 157; FIRA 3.4 n. 5 and no. 128a.
41. Zangemeister (n. 7), no. 3340, 138-53.
42. See, e.g., FIRA 3 no. 129.
43. FIRA 3 no. 128.
44. FIRA 3 no. 130.
45. Zangemeister (n. 7), no. 3340 XL; Mommsen (n. 7), 267 n. 34; FIRA 3 no. 129b.
46. Mommsen (n. 7), 240.
size=1 color=black face=Garamond>47. Mommsen (n. 7), 241ff. therefore took the testatio to record an acceptilatio. Karlowa (n. 37) 799 followed him and also sought to counter the successful contrary arguments advanced against Mommsen by C. G. Bruns, Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte 13 (1878): 360ff. cf. FIRA 3.404.
48. Mommsen (n. 7), 238f.
49. Zangemeister (n. 7), no. 3340 L, LXII, and XCVII; FIR.357.
50. Zangemeister (n. 7), no. 3340 XXI; FIR.356; FIRA 3 no. 130b.
51. Zangemeister (n. 7), no. 3340 XLV; FIR.356. P. Alfenus Pollio was the principal in whose name the auction took place.
52. Zangemeister (n. 7), no. 3340 XXIV.
53. Mommsen (n. 7), 270-71, nos. 118 and 119; FIR.359; FIRA 3 no. 131c.
54. Mommsen (n. 7), 274 no. 125; FIR.360; FIRA 3 no. 131a.
55. Whether he had to seal the document twice in order to give it probative value is an open question.
56. C. 11.40 (AD 222-35).
57. Mommsen (n. 7), 273f., nos. 124-25; cf. no. 123.
58. Mommsen (n. 7), 272 no. 121.
59. Mommsen (n. 7), 270 no. 117.
60. Mommsen (n. 7), 251-52.
61. Mommsen (n. 7), 270 no. 117: the text (followedby seals) runs: Sex Pompeio Proculo/ C Cornelio Macro IIvir i d/Xi k Mart/Privatus coloniae ser/scripsi me accepisse ab/L Caecilio Iucundo sest/ertios mille sescentos/quinquaginta duo num/mos obfullonicam/ex reliquis anni unius/Act Pom/Nerone Aug III/ M Mesalla cos.
62. Mommsen (n. 7), no. 118. Payment was made on 14 July: cf. also no. 124, where payment was made on 6 June and the receipt prepared on 18 June 59.
63. Mommsen (n. 7), 119.
64.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> Mommsen (n. 7), 120.
65. Karlowa (n. 37), 805; Mommsen (n. 7), 255. For farming of taxes due in relation to a public pasture, see the document of 18 June 59, no. 124 in Mommsen.
66. The chirograph of 18 June 59 notes that on 6 June 1,000 sesterces had already been paid towards the sum of 1,675 sesterces evidenced by the document.
67. Mommsen (n. 7), nos. 121, 122, 124; Zangemeister (n. 7), no. 3340 CXLV, CXLVI, CXLVII; FIRA 3 no. 131d.
68. Mommsen (n. 7), nos. 125, 126; Zangemeister (n. 7), no. 3340 CXXXVIII, CXL; FIRA 3 no. 131a.
69. Mommsen (n. 7), 256ff.
70. See V. Arangio-Ruiz, ‘Lo “status” di Venidio Ennico ercolanense’, in Droits de l’antiquité et sociologie juridique. Mélanges Lévy-Bruhl (Paris, 1959), 9-24; G. Camodeca, ‘Per una reedizione dell’archivio ercolanense di L. Venidius Ennychus’, Cronache ercolanensi 32 (2002): 257—80 and 36 (2006): 189—211.
71. See Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), III no. 44; I no. 1; IV no. 71.
72. See Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), III no. 43; V no. 87; II nos. 13—15; possibly also VI no. 88 (from AD 77).
73. Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), V, 451ff. VI, 70; III, 462; Camodeca (n. 9); J.A. Crook, ‘Three Hundred and Six Stakes’, in Quaestiones iuris, ed.
U. Manthe and C. Krampe (Berlin, 2000), 77—81; J.G. Wolf, ‘Eine Empfangserklarung aus Herculaneum’, in Studi in onore di Antonio Metro (2010), 491—501 (repr. in Wolf (n. 9), 209—217).
74. Camodeca (n. 70), 266; G. Camodeca, ‘Per una riedizione delle Tabulae Herculanenses’, Rivista di antichità II — n. 2 (1993); G. Camodeca, ‘Per una riedizione delle Tabulae Herculanenses I’, Cronache ercolanensi 23 (1993): 115—16.
75. For TH 89 see G. Camodeca, ‘La ricostruzione dell’élite municipale ercolanese degli anni 50 — 70’, CCG 7 (1996): 172; G. Camodeca, ‘Per una riedizione dell’archivio Ercolanese diL.VenidiusEnnychus II’, Cronache ercolanensi 36 (2006): 191—93;forTH 85 see G. Camodeca, ‘Nuovi dati dalla riedizione delle Tabulae ceratae della Campania’, Atti del XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina (Rome, 1999), 530—31.
76. Because they were written in ink on the wood of side 4.
77. Camodeca (n. 75, CCG), 167—78.
78. TH 8: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), I, 383 (sealed twice by Venustus).
79. TH 43: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), III, 459 (sealed twice by Felix).
80. TH 39: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), III, 457: so the external text on side 4; whereas on side 1 an index notes that the sum was the sale price paid by L. Catulus Sabinus for wine.
81. A. Degrassi, I fasti consolari dell’impero romano (Rome, 1952), 18; V. Arangio-Ruiz BIDR 61 (1958): 297.
82. TH 35: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), III, 456—57 (sealed twice by Cominus).
83. TH 42: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), III, 459 (sealed twice by Laelius; additionally he promised repayment of the sum in a stipulation). According to Camodeca (n. 74, Cronache 23), 115—16, the document was executed on 4 November 67.
84. TH 90: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), VI, 68-69.
85. TH 65: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), IV, 64.
86. TH 70 + 71: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), IV, 68; Camodeca (n. 74, Rivista), 201—2.
87. TH 76: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), V, 449; cf. Wolf (n. 73).
88. TH 87: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), V, 91—92, with discussion.
89. TH 5: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), I, 382—83; Camodeca (n. 75, Cronache), 206—9.
90. Camodeca (n. 70, 2002), 262.
91. TH 82: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8),V, 459. The reading seems to me to be wrong.
92. TH 5.
93. See V. Arangio-Ruiz, ‘Il processo di Iusta’, La Parola del Passato 3 (1948): 129—51;
V. Arangio-Ruiz, ‘Nuove osservazioni sul processo di Giusta’, La Parola del Passato (1951) 116—23; V. Arangio-Ruiz, ‘Nuovi aspetti del processo romano in un “fascicolo” ercolanense’, in Atti del Congresso Internazionale del Diritto Processuale Civile (1953): 166—204. These discussions are vitiated by an understanding of vadimonium that has since been superseded.
94. TH 13 and TH 14: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), II, 168—70.
95. TH 15: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), II, 170—71.
96. TH 16, 17, 19, 20: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), II, 171—76.
97. TH 23, 24: Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), II, 177lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>—80.
98. TH 70 + 71 Arangio-Ruiz and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), II, 68; Camodeca (n. 74, Rivista), 203.
99. M. Pagano, ‘L’edificio dell’agro Murecine a Pompeii’, RAAN 58 (1983): 325—61 (with plans and further bibliography); G. Camodeca, ‘Per un primo aggiornamento all’edizione dell’archivio dei Sulpicii’, CCG 11 (2000): 175—79; Camodeca (n. 12), 12, 14; G. Camodeca, ‘Altri considerazioni sull’archivio dei Sulpicii e sull’edificio pompeiano di Moregine’, in Moregine, ed. V. Scarano Ussani (Naples, 2005), 23—41; O. Elia, ‘La domus marittima delle tabulae ceratae nel suburbio di Pompei’, Bolletino d'Arte 46 (1961): 200—11; K. Schauenburg, ‘Zur ‘ “Porticus der Triklinen” am Pagus maritimus bei Pompeji’, Gymnasium 69 (1962): 521—29.
100. Pagano (n. 98), 347—52. On the basis of the themes in the frescoes, M. Mastroroberto considered it possible that the villa was a lodging (taberna deversoria) of the emperor Nero; Camodeca (n. 98, Moregine), 35#., disagrees.
101. TPN 12 and 27 were executed in Capua; TPN 85 in Volturnum.
102. Elia (n. 99), 211 n. 5.
103. The negatives are numbered A. 13510—13726 and 14670—14754 and are now under the charge of the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompeii, where a new inventory has been prepared. Camodeca (n. 12) provides a concordance of the numbers.
104. Camodeca (n. 12), vol. 1, 31—36, and tables at 41—43; reviewed by J.G. Wolf, ZSS 118 (2010): 77—78.
105. Camodeca (n. 12), 19-lang=EN-US>20.
106. TP 1-12 in RAAN41 (1966): 107-21 (Giordano); TP 13 in RAAN43 (1968): 3-12 (Sbordone); TP 14-22 in RAAN45 (1970): 211-25 (Giordano); TP 23-28 in RAAN 46 (1971): 173-82 (Sbordone); TP 29-44 in RAAN 46 (1971): 183-95 (Giordano); TP 45 in RAAN47 (1972): 307-10 (Sbordone); TP 46-54 in RAAN47 (1972): 31116 (Giordano); TP 55-69 in RAAN 51 (1976): 145-67 (Sbordone); TP 70-134 in RAAN 53 (1978): 249-69 (Sbordone).
107. Landi (n. 11).
108. Camodeca (n. 12), 17, and in discussion of the individual documents.
109. Reviewed by Wolf (n. 104); U. Manthe, Gnomon 76 (2004): 685-90. Camodeca also examines the re-editions of various documents which have appeared in recent years.
110. Wolf (n. 12).
111. TPN 12 and 27, dated 27 and 29 August and under the previously unknown consuls T. Axius and T. Mussidius Pollianus. AD 38 is a possible year (41,42, and probably 44 are not). TPN 82, dated 5 December and under the also previously unknown consuls P. Fabius Fyrmanus and L. Tampius Flavianus.
112. TPN 16: November/December 51; TPN 23: January/March 49; TPN 28: 14 January/13 February 35; TPN 111:June/July 44; TPN 118: July/December 48.
113. TPN 52, 75, 87, 88, 108, 113.
114. Camodeca (n. 12), vol. 1, 116 believes the sale document TPN 83 to have been executed on 18 March 26 (cf Wolf (n. 104), 79).
115. TPN 103.
116. TPN 50.
117. TPN 65.
118. TPN 73, 74, 75.
119. J. H. D'Arms, Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 121-48.
class=22>120. The slave Pyramus did not write TPN 48 for his owner, Caesia Priscilla; rather, he concluded a contract of loan with C. Sulpicius Faustus in his own name.121. TPN 43, 44, 58, 59.
122. TPN 86.
123. TPN 43, 39, 86.
124. J. G. Wolf, ‘Das sogenannte Ladungsvadimonium', Satura Roberto Feenstra oblata, ed. J. A. Ankum et al. (Fribourg, 1985), 59-69.
125. TPN 22, 23; see J. G. Wolf, ‘Eine Eidesdelation und eine Eidesleistung', Festschrift für Rolf Knütel, ed. H. Altmeppen et al. (Heidelberg, 2010), 1459-68.
126. TPN 28.
127. TPN 29; see J. G. Wolf, ‘Die Kondiktionen des C. Sulpicius Cinnamus', SDHI 45 (1979): 142-77.
128. TPN 32; see J. G. Wolf, ‘Die Streitbeilegung zwischen L. Faenius Eumenes und C. Sulpicius Faustus', Studi in onore di Cesare Sanfilippo (Milan, 1985), vol. 6, 769-88.
129. E.g. TPN 43, 44; see J. G. Wolf and J. A. Crook, Rechtsurkunden in Vulgärlatein (Heidelberg, 1989), 17-19.
130. TPN 86; Wolf and Crook (n. 129), 20-21.
131. TPN 58; Wolf and Crook (n. 129), 21-22.
132. Amounts in sesterces: TPN 4: 840 and 660; TPN 15: 1,000; TPN 3: 1,200; TPN 12: 2,000; TPN 13: 3,000; TPN 9: 3,333.
133. TPN 2, 5, 10.
134. TPN 45.
135. TPN 39.
class=22 style='margin-left:0cm;text-indent:0cm;line-height:normal'>136. TPN 52.137. TPN 62.
138. TPN 101.
139. TPN 60; cf. M. Rostovtzeff, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft im römischen Kaiserreich (1929, repr. Aalen, 1985), vol. 1, 150.
140. The limit did not apply to interest due foriate payment. In TPN 59 the promise is of a daily penalty of 20 sesterces foriate payment; on a debt of 1,250 sesterces this amounts to an interest rate of 600%; cf. Wolf and Crook (n. 129), 23.
6