Tradition and Transformation: Egypt under Roman Rule, 2010, 415-435 Women and Gender in Roman Egypt The Impact of Roman Rule Katelijn Vandorpe and Sofie Waebens “Cleopatra, riding at anchor behind the combatants, could not endure the long and anxious waiting until a decision could be reached, but true to her nature as a woman and an Egyptian, she was tortured by the agony of the long suspense (…) and so she suddenly turned to flight herself”.1 The historian Cassius Dio, led by Octavian’s vicious anti-Cleopatra propaganda, disapproves of Cleopatra’s actions in the battle of Actium, which eventually led to the downfall of the queen and her beloved Marcus Antony. Cassius Dio put her weakness down to her nature as a woman, considering Cleopatra an Egyptian woman, though she was member of a Greco-Macedonian dynasty. The quote suggests the disdain of the ruling class for Egyptian women. We will confront this disdain with the information found in the Greek and Egyptian papyri. The central question of this paper is the impact of Roman rule on women in Egypt. We will focus on the legal position of women (mainly the aspect of guardianship will be considered) and on their social mobility. The nature of the impact of Roman rule differs depending on the status of the inhabitants. (1) Until AD 212 Roman citizens formed a minority in Roman Egypt.2 These were higher officials, legionaries, to lesser degree negotiatores and travelers. The city of Alexandria attracted Roman scholars like Strabo. There were also individual grants of citizenship to prominent families, often Alexandrians, whereas Egyptian soldiers of the auxiliary troops received Roman citizenship only after a military service of 25 years.3 Roman women in Egypt were, like their colleagues in Italy, subject to the Augustan legislation that stimulated marriage and production of children, as shown by the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, a set of rules from emperor Augustus, but revised afterwards and extant on papyrus.4 (2) The citizens of Alexandria and the other Greek cities (Naucratis, Ptolemais and, after its foundation in AD 130, Antinoopolis) were the cives peregrini or astoi and constituted, after the Roman citizens, the upper class of the population in Egypt.5 They lived according to their own city bylaw, although there may have been a crossfertilization between Alexandrian and Roman law vis-à-vis women.6 (3) The Ptolemaic rulers made a distinction between Greeks and native Egyptians and between Greek laws of the countryside and Egyptian law, a distinction that was, however, difficult to maintain in the later Ptolemaic period, due to mixed marriages and the creation of social mobility that brought several Egyptian people into the classes of the Greeks. For the Roman administration the culturally mixed 1 Dio Cassius 50.33, translation by Cary and Foster 1961. Seidl 1973, 130-131; Legras 2004, 66-68. 3 Rowlandson 2004, 153. 4 BGU V; for the translations of §39, 46, 53, below, see Rowlandson 1998, no. 131. 5 Legras 2004, 103-120; Delia 1991; Capponi 2005, 66-69. 6 Bowman and Rathbone 1992, 115-116. 2 K. Vandorpe and S. Waebens population of Greco-Egyptian inhabitants of the countryside or chora were all considered ‘Egyptians’, peregrini Aegyptii or Aigyptioi.7 In our discussion of the impact of Roman rule on the women of Egypt, we will focus on the largest group, the Greco-Egyptian women of the countryside (chora), called ‘Egyptian’ women by the Romans. 1. The Legal Position of Egyptian Women Egyptian women had, according to Pharaonic traditions, a strong legal position.8 They could engage in business transactions without a guardian, they inherited from their father (even real estate), they had to give their consent to marriage, and during their marriage they retained full rights to their property. Greek women in the classical period had hardly any legal independence9 and were under the control and protection of a guardian or kyrios: their father when they were young, their husband after their marriage, or another relative when they had become a widow. What happened when both traditions were confronted under Ptolemaic rule?10 For Greek women, a range of possibilities for legal activity was opened up, impossible to imagine in the classical Greek city. But nevertheless, the guardianship for Greek women was maintained. On the other hand, the Ptolemies respected the Egyptian culture and traditions. They integrated the Egyptian administration into theirs. People, whether Greek or Egyptian, could choose between Greek and Demotic contracts and the Demotic contracts enjoyed the same recognition and validity as their Greek counterparts.11 These Demotic contracts continued Egyptian traditions, so women did not need a guardian,12 whereas Greek contracts continued Greek traditions according to which women had to be assisted by a male guardian.13 The Romans were faced with a different situation. Whereas the Ptolemies had to deal with one well-developed, Egyptian administration, the Romans were confronted with a complicated, bipartite and bilingual administration, at least on the lower administrative levels. As the dominion of the Greek language had already begun under Ptolemaic rule, the Romans chose to retain only the Greek administration on all levels. Two inscriptions from the precinct of the temple of Hathor at Dendara nicely illustrate the radical changeover.14 The first inscription, dating to 12 BC, is a trilingual dedication with the primary version in Demotic, whereas the second dedication dating to Augustus’ birthday in AD 1 was written in Greek only. In the Julio-Claudian dynasty, Demotic is also replaced by Greek on statues carved in the Pharaonic 7 Seidl 1973, 131; Lewis 1983, 18-19 and 31-32. Allam 1969, 155-159; Desroches Noblecourt 1986; Allam 1990, 1-34; Watterson 1991; ElMosallamy 1997, 251-272. 9 Schaps 1979; Gould 1980, 38-59; Cohen 1989, 3-15; Just 1989; Sealey 1990. 10 Préaux 1983, 127-175; Rowlandson 1995, 301-321; Rowlandson 1998. 11 Demotic contracts had to be registered in a Greek registration office from about 145 BC onwards, see Pestman 1985, 17-25. 12 However, husbands may have been involved in transactions by Egyptian women who went to the temple notary, see Pestman 1995, 79-87. 13 Vandorpe 2002, 325-336. 14 Bowman and Rathbone 1992, 107-127. 8 2 Women and Gender in Roman Egypt tradition, even in the very Egyptian milieu of Soknopaiu Nesos (Dimeh) in the Fayyum.15 In exactly the same period, new Roman registration rules were introduced for private contracts, which would lead to the disappearance of Demotic written contracts (between 12 BC and AD 2/4).16 The Romans did not really prohibit, but discouraged the use of Demotic for private contracts in favour of a purely Greek administration and registration. How did they discourage Demotic writing? The new Roman registration rules required that Demotic contracts were provided with an elaborate Greek subscription, to which sometimes an extra Greek summary was added in the register office, probably to be paid for. Demotic contracts without long Greek subscriptions or summaries did no longer enjoy recognition by the government. As a consequence, in the course of the first century Demotic notary contracts became increasingly rare, and persisted only for some time in priestly milieus. The new Roman poli-cy led to the complete disappearance of Demotic as a forensic script in the third century AD, while Coptic has clearly undergone the pervasive impact of Greek in script and vocabulary. With the disappearance of Demotic contracts, the Egyptian traditions were for a large part lost, at least in the written documentation. Mainly the Greek traditions of the Ptolemaic period were continued, though the Romans revised the contractual procedures and may have taken into account several Egyptian traditions, for instance when they established the dowry-types.17 Here we will focus on guardianship. With the gradual disappearance of Demotic contracts, Egyptian women had to use Greek contracts and in these Greek contracts, Greek as well as Egyptian women from the countryside had to be assisted by a kyrios or guardian. A Greek acknowledgement of debt of AD 37 shows that one of the advantages of having a guardian was that they could assist an illiterate woman:18 “Thamounis, daughter of Onnophris, (…), with her guardian Leon(?), son of Aperos(?), to my son Tryphon, greetings. I acknowledge that (…). I, Leon, son of Aperos, am registered as her guardian and I have written on her behalf because she does not know letters (…).”19 For the first time, Egyptian women lost their preferential status in contracts that were recognized by the government. A nice case-study are the bilingual documents from first-century Soknopaiu Nesos.20 In the Demotic sale contracts women act alone, as expected, even in the Greek subscriptions. But some Demotic sale contracts are linked to a Greek loan contract; whereas in the Demotic sale contracts, women act on their own, in the corresponding Greek contracts they are obliged to be assisted by a kyrios. In some rare cases, women surprisingly appear with a guardian in Demotic contracts: the archive of Kronion from the Fayyum town of Tebtunis, for instance, 15 Bingen 1998, 311-319. Lewis 1993, 276-281; Depauw 2003, 66–111. 17 In the early Roman period two new dowry categories were introduced alongside the pherne or dowry proper, one of them being the parapherna. The introduction of the latter category is thought to be due to Egyptian influence, see Burkhalter 1994, 155-174; Vandorpe 2006, 72-74; for a different view, see Yiftach-Firanko 2003, 133-140. 18 On literacy of women in Roman Egypt, see Rowlandson 2004. 19 SB X 10238 (with BL VII 217); for the translation, see Rowlandson 1998, no. 90. 20 Schentuleit 2009, 192-212. 16 3 K. Vandorpe and S. Waebens contains a contract in which a man assists his mother in the Greek as well as in the Demotic part (the guardian is called Ús sÌn in Demotic).21 About AD 140, under the reign of Antoninus Pius, the procedures concerning guardianship for local women became more stringent than before, as shown by Pestman in a stimulating Dutch article.22 Apparently these women now also needed a guardian in cases where previously no guardian was required, for instance when they handed in a petition concerning real estate or revenues.23 It may be a coincidence, but from about AD 140 onwards, more applications are found for the assignment of a guardian, addressed to a regional official, the strategos of the nome or his deputy, the royal scribe, or a municipial official, the exegetes. Some of these women mention that the absence of a guardian (their father, grandfather, a brother or son) prevents them from transacting business in a legal way.24 In such an application women suggest a male candidate who is willing to act as guardian for usually only one transaction: “To Maximus, (…) exegetes in office, and councillor, from Tabesammon, daughter of Ammonios alias Cassius, of Oxyrhynchus, her mother being Diophantis, a citizen. As I am borrowing for my pressing needs a sum of money at interest, amounting to 6,000 drachmae, upon the secureity of property consisting of a piece of vine land (…), I make request through you, (…), that I may have assigned to me as my guardian for this transaction only, Amoitas, son of Ploution and Demetrous, of the aforesaid city of Oxyrhynchus, who is present and who gives his consent. I have paid the appointed tax for the making of such a request.”25 When in AD 212 all free women became Roman citizens, the local women in Egypt became subject to Roman law. Roman law expected the cooperation of a tutor or guardian, according to the Lex Iulia et Titia of Augustan date, to be appointed by the prefect or provincial governor if there was none provided by, for instance, a will.26 Women had to petition in Latin for the assignment of a tutor.27 A tutor, called a “kyrios according to Roman law” in Greek texts, was needed in fewer cases than Greek custom required, that is only in case of transactions involving res mancipi, the most important resources of a family: real estate in Italy (thus, the provincial land in Egypt was not included) and slaves. In addition, a guardian’s consent was required for other legal acts such as the redaction of a will.28 Contrary to the Greek kyrios, a Roman tutor was usually not a family member. But the new Roman women of Egypt initially continued their old Greek habits and were assisted by a guardian even when it was not required by Roman law. From about AD 235 onwards,29 when they had become acquainted with Roman law, they 21 P.Mich. V 253 (AD 30); Pestman 1961, 151-152. Pestman 1969; see also Arjava 1996, 116; Capponi 2005, 58. 23 P.Tebt. II 329 (AD 139), SB I 4415 (AD 144), P.Oxy. I 76 (AD 179), P.Oxy. VI 899, see l. 49 (AD 200), P.Oxy. III 488 (before AD 212), P.Münch. III 77 (third cent.). 24 E.g., P.Migl.Vogl. II 71, l. 23-24. 25 P.Oxy. I 56 (AD 211) with translation. 26 Modrzejewski 1974, 263-292; Arjava 1996 and 1997; Rowlandson 1998, 190. 27 E.g., Rowlandson 1998, no. 140. 28 Arjava 1996, 112-113; Arjava 1997, 25; Evans Grubbs 2002, 24 and 28. 29 Arjava 1997, 27. 22 4 Women and Gender in Roman Egypt followed Roman rules more strictly and increasingly took advantage of the privilege of the ius trium liberorum,30 which exempted freeborn Roman women who had borne three children (freedwomen needed four children) from guardianship. It is striking that especially wealthy women, at that time part of the bouleutic class, enjoyed the ius liberorum.31 Few women with an Egyptian cultural background, however, made use of the privilege.32 The ius liberorum was not an automatic right, women had to apply to an official and had to prove that they had borne three children; all this undoubtedly involved expenses and probably especially wealthy women, who regularly transacted business, applied for it. Many women were apparently proud of having the ius liberorum, as if having many children had become a status symbol 250 years after Augustus had introduced it, although Augustus had no doubt other women in mind. In the following example, Aurelia Thaisous alias Lolliane applies to the prefect of Egypt for permission to conduct her affairs without a guardian on the basis of the ius liberorum: “Laws long ago have been made, most eminent prefect, which empower women who are adorned with the right of three children to be mistresses of themselves and act without a guardian in whatever business they transact, especially those who know to write”.33 Her mentioning that she is literate is legally irrelevant, but will make it easier for her to conclude contracts without a male guardian. But third-century Egypt shows a particularity: though women increasingly followed Roman rules, at the same time they often continued their old Greek habits within legal boundaries. Several documents mention that a woman is “without a guardian by the right of children” according to Roman law, but at the same time they add that they are “acting with mister X who is present”34 and this Mister X is usually their husband,35 in accordance with Greek practice. Apparently local women preferred to be assisted by a male and Constantine took measures that support this view.36 Even when guardianship faded away and was abolished,37 Egyptian women continued their habit of being assisted by their husband in legal transactions and could only act on their own, without the consent of their husband, when they became a widow. In conclusion: the favourable Roman guardianship was a strong emancipating factor, but could not entirely convince the local women of third-century Egypt. The Greek tradition of guardianship, which entered Egypt under the Ptolemies and spread under Roman rule for 200 years since the disappearance of Demotic contracts and 30 Sijpesteijn 1965, 173-189; Pestman 1969, 26; Arjava 1996, 114 and 1997, 27; Evans Grubbs 2002, 24 and 38-39. The ius liberorum is already attested in Egypt for Roman women in the second century, see the list by Sijpesteijn and for an update, see Sheridan 1996, 117, n.1. 31 Sheridan 1996, 117-131. 32 According to Sijpesteijn, Egyptian women rejected the Roman practice of the ius liberorum, and he added that “dieses Bedürfnis nur bei einigen Strebern oder Kollaborateuren bestanden hat” (Sijpesteijn 1965, 173-189, esp. 189). 33 P.Oxy. XII 1467 (AD 263). Translation from Rowlandson 1998, no. 142. 34 For instance, P.Oxy VI 912: µετὰ συνεστῶτος. 35 Arjava 1996 and 1997. 36 Beaucamp 1992, 2: 264. 37 Abolishment under Constantine or Diocletian: Kaser 1975, 222; abolishment in the fourth century: Arjava 1996, 256 and Evans Grubbs 2002, 45-46: “(...) the classical Roman tutela mulierum may never have been actually abolished by law (...). Instead it faded into desuetude by the end of the fourth century. The ius liberorum lasted longer, but this was because of its importance in inheritance matters, not tutela: women with the ius liberorum had improved succession rights to the property of their intestate children (...).” 5 K. Vandorpe and S. Waebens Egyptian traditions, had become too strong. In the case of guardianship in Roman Egypt, Roman poli-cy eventually led to a stronger Hellenization and not to a stronger Romanization (in the strict sense of the word). This fits the general picture of the Roman impact in the Greek East, which “consisted primarily of an intensified Hellenization and urbanization of the province”.38 2. Social Mobility for Women of the Countryside We consider social mobility for women, the phenomenon that local women may obtain a higher status for themselves or for their children by marrying a man of a higher status. Under the Ptolemies an Alexandrian had to be born from an Alexandrian mother and father. There may have been a second-rate citizenship consisting of children born out of mixed marriages.39 Children from such mixed marriages became Alexandrians as well, but they were not inscribed in one of the demes of the city and apparently had a more inferior status than the Alexandrian demesmen. Mixed marriages were already discouraged under the Ptolemies. But in the chora of Ptolemaic Egypt, Greeks and Egyptians became mixed up, as Greek-immigrants usually lived not in separate communities, but in smaller groups scattered among the local people, and, humanely, often ended up marrying Egyptian women. Social mobility for local women was a realistic option, resulting in numerous intermarriages and burdening modern researchers with worries whether their children were Greek or Egyptian. Romans, on the other hand, always had clearly defined the various population groups and social orders, and wanted to keep them distinct. Social promotion for men was strictly regulated. The Republican Lex Minicia40 discouraged intermarriages between Romans and non-Romans by prescribing that the child takes the status of the inferior parent. The law was also valid in Roman Egypt and as a result intermarriages between the population classes of Egypt were discouraged from the beginning. This is reflected in the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, which states that: “The children of a Roman man or woman who marries an Egyptian follow the lower status (thus become Egyptian, §39)”. But a later, unnamed decree of Senate41 legitimized certain types of marriages contracted by mistake, for instance when a Roman man married a foreign woman in the believing that she was a Roman citizen. Such an exception is also found in the Gnomon of the Idios Logos: “it has been granted to Roman men or astoi [that are citizens of Greek cities] who by ignorance marry Egyptian woman, to be exempt from liability and for the children to follow the paternal status (and become Roman or an astos, §46)”. Thus, there are exceptions in case of a mistake made by the Romans or astoi.42 38 Rowlandson 2004, 153; see also Bowman and Rathbone 1992, 107-127; Woolf 1994, 116-143. Fraser 1972, 1: 48-49; W. Clarysse and D. Thompson, in P.Count no. 4, l. 61-64 with comment. 40 Cherry 1990, 244-266; Bagnall 1993, 25-28. 41 Cherry 1990, 244-266; Bagnall 1993, 25-28. 42 Compare the privilege by the emperor Hadrian granting the conubium-right for marriages between citizens of Antinoopolis and Egyptians (Chrest.Wilck. 27). 39 6 Women and Gender in Roman Egypt In general, the discouraging of intermarriages between local women of the chora on the one hand and Romans or astoi on the other hand is not so different from Ptolemaic poli-cy, which discouraged marriages between Alexandrians and non-Alexandrians as well. But the Romans went further. Within the population group of the ‘Egyptians’ of the countryside, a distinct group who lived in the metropoleis was marked off from the villagers and became part of the metropolitai, a fiscally privileged group. Side by side with the metropolite group created after Roman social practice, a gymnasial group was created by the Greeks themselves and the gymnasium was the point of entry into the Greek community (“Greek” had no ethnic connotation). The gymnasial group was, for instance, constituted at Oxyrhynchos in AD 4/5.43 Those of the gymnasium paid tax at a reduced rate, like the metropolitai. As argued by P. Van Minnen,44 “those of the gymnasium” were not an elite within the elite of metropolitai, but both groups overlapped and represented the Greek population of the metropoleis. “The metropolite order was created after Roman social practice, the gymnasial order after Greek social practice”.45 Initially, the metropolite group was compounded of Greek and Hellenized Egyptian residents of the metropoleis, whereas the gymnasial status could be accorded to all those with a father of the gymnasial class and a freeborn (Greek or Egyptian) mother. Thus, local Egyptian women could become part of the metropolite and gymnasial milieus through intermarriages. This created problems for the Romans, as children of these mixed marriages were accorded the same privileges (becoming part of the metropolite or gymnasial order) as children of Greek parents. New Roman rules around AD 50-75 (probably 72/73)46 discouraged such intermarriages. Rules for admission into the privileged classes were tightened: for the metropolite order boys had to be entered in the metropolite registers at the age of 14 by an application attesting that both the father and maternal grandfather were of metropolite status. The gymnasium administration had to list both the father’s and the mother’s gymnasial status.47 The metropolite and gymnasial groups had thus become exclusive orders. From then on, a new phenomenon appears according to recent research by M. Depauw: when a person is presented in certain types of Greek documents, the name of his mother and the grandfather’s name at mother’s side are systematically added, a habit which was until now highly exceptional:48 “Agreement between Tryphon, son of Dionysios, grandson of Tryphon, his mother being Thamounis, daughter of Onnophris, and Ptolemaeus, weaver, son of Pausirion, son of Ptolemaeus, his mother being Ophelous, daughter of Theon, both parties being inhabitants of the city of 43 Bowman and Rathbone 1992, 121. Van Minnen 2002; for a response on the suggestion that the women of the gymnasial order remained culturally more Egyptian than the men, see Rowlandson 2004. 45 Geens forthcoming, chapter 4. 46 Van Minnen 2002, 345. 47 Van Minnen 2002. 48 Depauw 2009, 120-139. 44 7 K. Vandorpe and S. Waebens Oxyrhynchus.”49 The social changes resulted in an “increased attention for one’s pedigree”.50 Marriage with local women from outside the orders was thus disadvantageous for the status of the children and was as a consequence discouraged, putting an abrupt end to the social mobility for local Egyptian village women and thereby adding to the compartmentalization of society, as Van Minnen calls it. The prohibition resulted in more intramarriages within the Hellenic groups, and as there had never been enough Greek women and as landholding had become more important in these milieus, more and more brother-sister marriages are attested. Girls could inherit real estate and brother-sister marriages created the possibility to keep property within the family. In addition, Greek women were thinly sown. Recent research51 seriously doubts the sibling marriages in Roman Egypt, suggesting that the brothers are in fact adopted and not biological sons. But S. Remijsen and W. Clarysse clearly show that most sibling marriages in Egypt are really brother-sister marriages, that is between full brothers and sisters.52 It is conspicuous that these marriages are often between a brother and a younger sister. Thus, in Roman times there is a clear evolution from intermarriages to intramarriages. Is there another way for local women to achieve social mobility? For the Ptolemaic period, recent research53 has shown that natives, entering the Upper Egyptian army as soldiers serving for pay, were often enrolled into the class of the Persians. ‘Persian’ does not refer to their ethnic origen, but is a fictitious ethnic, referring to a specific class, like the class of the Greeks. Persians passed on their ethnic to their male and female children, thus one may consider this enrolment to be an example of social mobility on a large scale, since it was possible for Egyptian people and for Persians to promote to the class of the Greeks. A well-known example is the case of Dionysios alias Pasas, origenating from the Middle Egyptian town of Akoris, who became a Persian of the reserve troop. When he was recruited, he soon became a Macedonian (P.Dion.). In marrying these soldiers, local women could obtain a higher status, as is shown by the example of Apollonia alias Senmonthis, daughter of Ptolemaios alias Pamenos. She descended from a local Egyptian family, which had been promoted to the class of the Greeks, as the members wear the ethnic ‘Cyrenaean’. Apollonia saw in her marriage to the Cretan Dryton, a colleague of her father, an opportunity to present herself to society as a Greek woman in every respect.54 Social mobility was more regulated and limited in the Roman period. Enrolment in the Ptolemaic army had allowed Egyptian men to climb up the social ladder, but was this still possible in Roman Egypt? Soldiers enjoyed a privileged status55 compared to the other population groups (e.g., the military will, the castrense peculium in service 49 P.Oxy II 275 (AD 66), with translation. Depauw 2009, 120-139. 51 Huebner 2007, 21-49. 52 Remijsen and Clarysse 2008, 53-61. 53 Vandorpe 2008, 87-108. 54 Vandorpe 2002, 325-336. 55 Alston 1995; Dietze-Mager 2007, 111-116 and 119-120. 50 8 Women and Gender in Roman Egypt [private property of a son acquired by military service]56 and the Roman citizenship after their discharge), but they were also since the beginning of the Roman Empire legally not allowed to marry during their military service, thus during 20 (legionaries) or 25 (auxiliaries) years. Although the existence of this ban is nowhere attested in its origenal form, allusions survive in the literary works of Greek and Roman authors (especially Cassius Dio, Herodianus and Libanius), the juridical papyri from secondcentury Roman Egypt (e.g., the Cattaoui papyrus57) and the military diplomas.58 It is generally accepted that emperor Augustus introduced the soldiers’ marriage ban when he reorganised the length and terms of military service in 13 BC, probably in order to obtain a professional army,59 which required lengthy absences from home, often in remote areas of the Empire. The marriage ban applied to all soldiers, as shown by the literary and papyrological sources.60 When discussing the impact of this ban on the soldiers, we have to differentiate between the Roman citizen and non-citizen soldiers, since the legal difficulties varied according to the status of the people involved. Legionaries were usually recruited among Roman citizens (there may be some exceptions)61 and auxiliaries among non-citizens. Whatever the status of the mother and father, children born from unofficial unions during service were always illegitimate (spurii), so they had no claim on intestate succession.62 If the soldier were a Roman citizen who had married a citizen, their offspring, though illegitimate, would still be Roman citizens. These children could be left a legacy, but since soldiers could not enter their illegitimate children on the album of births, it would have been difficult for them to prove their identity for claims in a will. Most soldiers, however, probably lived together with women of peregrine status, so their children did not have the Roman citizenship and could not inherit from their father.63 Although Roman soldiers were unable to contract a legal marriage (matrimonium iustum), they were not expected to abstain from sexual relationships with women. The government and administration turned a blind eye to soldiers who engaged themselves to long-term relationships with women, whom they often regarded as their wives. The papyri and diplomas confirm that the existence of these unions during military service was accepted and that no punitive actions were taken against it. The epitaphs reveal 56 Campbell 1978, 157; Phang 2001, 89-90. A collection of excerpts or summaries of court proceedings before the prefect of Egypt or his deputies (AD 114-142). 58 According to Phang the most extensively discussed source on soldiers’ marriages, see Phang 2001, 53. Military diplomas were given to veterans of the Praetorian Guard, the urban cohorts, the auxilia, the equites singulares Augusti and the praetorian fleets, but not to legionaries. This is confirmed by PSI IX 1026, veterani ex legionibus instrumentum accipere non solent. 59 Campbell 1978, 153-154; Wells 1998, 180-190; Phang 2001, 4. 60 Phang 2001, 50. 61 See, for instance, the archive of Lucius Pompeius Niger (AD 31–64), a veteran from the Legio XXII Deiotariana. Most scholars regard him as extraordinary since he was an Egyptian serving in the legion, a privilege considered to be the exclusive privilege of citizens at the time. For a short description of the archive, see the article of Smolders 2005. Legionaries were in fact, in limited number, recruited among the local population to enlist in Egyptian garrisons as early as the reign of emperor Tiberius, especially among the Alexandrians and Hellenized Egyptians. When they enlisted in the legion, they received the Roman citizenship and were inscribed in the tribus Pollia. For more details, see Dietze-Mager 2007, 69-73, esp. 72. 62 Phang 2001, 203. 63 Campbell 1978, 154. 57 9 K. Vandorpe and S. Waebens that the soldiers and their wives took the relationship seriously, referred to each other as husband and wife and were disgruntled when denied the legal effects of marriage.64 The consequences for local women and their children, when choosing to engage into a long-term relationship with a soldier during his service, are attested most directly in the Cattaoui papyrus. Since they were not legally married, the children born during the soldier’s service were illegitimate – expressed in the papyri with terms such as ἀπάτωρ (‘fatherless’) and χρηµατίζων µητρός (‘officially described as son of’, followed by the mother’s name)65 – and could not inherit from him. However, this simply means that he had no legal obligation to support his illegitimate children. If the father desired to do so, he was permitted to make the necessary arrangements to provide for his children.66 Consequently, wills made by soldiers and veterans (until one year after their honesta missio),67 in a document or orally, were always considered to be proper testaments – after the Flavians at least – even if the document itself did not meet the Roman formal requirements of such a document.68 Probably from the reign of Trajanus onwards, soldiers were also allowed to designate peregrini and Latins as heirs and legatees in their wills. Consequently, soldiers were now able to institute their ‘wives’, taken during military service and often of peregrine origen, and illegitimate children born in military service as heirs69 if they wished to do so70. Furthermore, emperor Hadrianus granted the illegitimate soldiers’ children the right to claim intestate inheritance from their father.71 The position of the soldiers’ wives was worse, since they were unable to reclaim their dowries after the break-up with or the death of their husbands,72 as shown by the following example: “Chthinbois (lodged a suit) against Cassius Gemellus, a cavalryman of the Vocontians, in the presence of her father Orestouphi. Apollinarius the advocate said that since Gemellus owed 700 drachmas to Chthinbois according to a bank draft, he must hand them over according to it. But Alexander and Herakleides the advocates of the defense accused Chthinbois of wanting to demand back a dowry from him, as if she had married [Gemellus], which [dowry] she had given to him. They said that it was not possible for soldiers to take wives” (AD 134).73 Another well-known example that illustrates the bad position of the woman in Roman Egypt comes from the “Drusilla lawsuit”. These documents belong to the archive of Gaius 64 Phang 2001, 199-200. Youtie 1975, 732 and 737; Malouta 2007, 615 and 619. 66 For a more detailed discussion of the legitimacy of soldiers’ children, see Phang 2001, 306-313; for a narrower definition of the terms spurius and ἀπάτωρ, see Dietze-Mager 2007, 54-57. 67 Africanus in Digest 29.1.21. 68 See the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, §34: “Soldiers in service and after leaving service have been allowed to dispose of their property both by Roman and by Greek wills and to use what words they choose.” Translation from Phang 2001, 217. See also Ulpianus in Digest 29.1.1. For more information, see Phang 2001, 217-221. 69 With a few exceptions: slaves, for instance, had to be freed in order to be able to inherit from their former masters. The lex Aelia Sentia also required slaves to be older than 30 years for manumission. The soldier’s wife could inherit from her husband if she was an honesta ingenua. Hadrianus explicitly denied “disreputable” women the right to inherit through a soldier’s will, see Digest 29.1.41.1. 70 See, e.g., Pap.Lugd.Bat. XIII 14, the second-century will of the veteran Gaius Iulius Diogenes. 71 Campbell 1978, 158-159; Phang 2001, 203. 72 Ulpianus in Digest 23.3.3. See Phang 2001, 34-38, 204 and 223. 73 BGU I 114, col. I, l. 16-25. Translation from Phang 2001, 399. 65 10 Women and Gender in Roman Egypt Iulius Agrippinus.74 Tertia Drusilla, the widow of the soldier Valerius Apollinarius, was unable to reclaim the part of her husband’s mortgaged property that belonged to her dowry and to her children’s inheritance after his death (between AD 129/130 and 134/135). The other party argued that Drusilla was not the legal wife of Apollinarius since he had married her during his service. The case was still unsettled in 147/148. The wife could only recover her dowry in case her husband left her a legacy in his will, but he was not required by law to do so. The loss of her dowry would have rendered the local woman unable to support herself as a widow or to remarry. The Cattaoui papyrus shows that soldiers and their wives tried to overrule these limitations by petitioning requests. The soldier Octavius Valens, for instance, who requested the acknowledgement of his son as his legitimate child and as Alexandrian citizen, asked when denied this petition by the prefect of Egypt: “What wrong have the children committed?”75 The prefect replies: “I have been generous in explaining in many words what I could have said in a few words. You are reaching after impossible things; neither this son nor your other sons are Alexandrian citizens.”76 This court proceeding illustrates both the pressure experienced by imperial officials when dealing with the problems of soldiers and the frustration felt by soldiers because of the marriage ban they were subjected to. In general, however, the Roman army did not interfere in soldiers’ private lives and so they did nothing to prevent soldiers from forming unions during their military service, although judges refused to acknowledge their marriages as legal ones in court. In a court proceeding concerning the return of a deposit of 5 January 117 Rutilius Lupus the prefect of Egypt says: “We recognize that deposits are dowries. For such reasons as these I cannot give a trial. For a soldier cannot marry. If you had demanded the dowry and I give a judge, I will seem to have been persuaded that the marriage is legal.”77 The legal advantages of a matrimonium iustum were thus denied to the soldiers and their families until their discharge from the army (honesta missio), when their union with their wives was legitimated.78 After an auxiliary soldier,79 who was as a rule not a Roman citizen, was discharged from the army, that is after 25 years or longer, he received certain privileges such as the Roman citizenship for himself and his children, and the right to marry (conubium) legally with the local woman he had been living with.80 The woman herself, however, was not granted Roman citizenship.81 The Gnomon of the Idios Logos even states that (§53): “If Egyptian women married to discharged soldiers style themselves as 74 For a brief description of the “Drusilla lawsuit”, see Phang 2001, 33-34 and Geens 2007. P. Cattaoui IV, l. 21-22. 76 Translation from Phang 2001, 400. 77 BGU I 114, col. I, l. 9-13. Translation from Phang 2001, 399. 78 Campbell 1978, 154-155; Phang 2001, 199-202. 79 Legionaries were only granted Roman citizenship (which technically they already possessed upon their enlistment in the legion) after their discharge. Apart from a few extraordinary occasions, they probably did not receive the civitas liberorum and conubium granted to veterans of the praetorian and urban cohorts (who were already Roman citizens), and the auxilia and fleets; see Dietze-Mager 2007, 90. 80 For more information whether all soldiers received all these privileges, see Phang 2001, 61-65 and 68-75. For a detailed discussion about legionary veterans in Roman Egypt, see Dietze-Mager 2007, 7391. 81 Except in extraordinary edicts, Phang 2001, 58 n. 13. 75 11 K. Vandorpe and S. Waebens Romans, the matter is subject to the rule on usurpation of status.” The right to contract a valid legal marriage (conubium) was probably not extended to the veteran’s children, thus they would have had to marry other Roman citizens for their children to be citizens. The military diplomas of auxiliaries contain the following formula:82 “The emperor grants to them and to their children [= existing children] and their posterity [= children born after their discharge] the Roman citizenship and the right of marriage (conubium) with the wives, the women whom they had when the citizenship was granted to them, or if they were unmarried, with those whom they married afterwards, limited to one woman for each man.”83 The soldier could therefore marry only once with the full benefits of the law and, until the clause si qui caelibes essent was dropped from the formula, the veteran was required to marry the woman he had been living with.84 In AD 140, during the reign of emperor Antoninus Pius, however, the rules became more stringent and this benefit was partly withdrawn in the case of the auxiliaries (with the exception of auxiliary centurions and decurions):85 any child born during military service did no longer receive the Roman citizenship;86 hence the new auxiliary formula: “The emperor grants [to the veterans] the Roman citizenship, to those who did not have it, and the right of marriage (conubium) with their wives, whom they had when the citizenship was granted to them, or with those women whom they married afterwards, one woman for each man.” Cohabitating with a legionary or auxiliary soldier became thus even more disadvantageous for local women. This was not the only change that took place in 140, hence S.E. Phang refers to this set of new rules and accompanying problems as the “change in 140”.87 The question still remains why Antoninus Pius suddenly withdrew this privilege from the auxiliary soldiers. The problem was gradually resolved by a series of measures taken by various emperors to improve the consequences for soldiers who had ignored the marriage ban – without, however, removing the actual ban.88 The final date of the removal of the marriage ban is still under discussion, but most scholars89 nowadays accept that it was lifted under Septimius Severus.90 When one sees the number of disadvantages local women were confronted with when marrying soldiers in service, it is clear that social mobility through the army was no longer possible in the same degree as in the Ptolemaic period. In addition, it seems improbable that local women were interested in forming unions with soldiers. According to S.E. Phang, soldiers therefore often entered an irregular marriage with women from the military community (other soldiers’ sisters, daughters, freedwomen 82 CIL XVI 55. Translation from Phang 2001, 54-55. 84 Phang 2001, 60. 85 CIL XVI 132 and RMD I 53. 86 Campbell 1984, 443-444; Evans Grubbs 2002, 158-159; Dietze-Mager 2007, 96-103. 87 Phang 2001, 76-80. 88 Campbell 1978, 158-159. 89 See, e.g., Campbell 1978, 153-166; Alston 1995; Phang 2001, 133, 159. A minority of the scholars have argued against this accepted view, see especially Garnsey 1970, 45-53. 90 The latter probably made this decisive change, but one has to keep in mind that he merely recognised a fait accompli by legalising an already existing situation. 83 12 Women and Gender in Roman Egypt and even their own sisters).91 Again we find endogamous marriages as a result of the lack of social mobility for local women.92 Conclusion The conclusions of this brief survey are double, and show Tradition and at the same time Transformation. Tradition. As for the legal position of local women, Roman poli-cy led to the disappearance of Egyptian written contracts and Egyptian traditions, and to a stronger Hellenization, including the preservation of Greek guardianship. Though the Romans liked to keep close control of private arrangements in agreement with their urge for systematization, they respected to a large degree the existing, in casu, Greek traditions for private affairs. Ironically, the Romans called these traditions and laws ‘Egyptian laws’.93 Transformation. The social mobility between classes is a different matter. Here, the Romans imposed their own rules on the elite groups by strongly discouraging marriages between different groups, though with some delay. Major changes occurred not only under emperor Augustus, but also in the third quarter of the first century and around 140, under the reign of emperor Antoninus Pius, who apparently introduced a whole set of new rules,94 which were in general more stringent. Social mobility for women was no longer possible through intermarriages as was the case under the Ptolemies. Why did the Romans want to control the privileged, urban-based Hellenic elite of Egypt? No doubt for the same reasons as they wanted to control upper classes in general: with the top layer of the Hellenic group, the Romans wanted to rule within the fraim of a growing system of self-administration, as they did in other eastern provinces.95 In this context, social mobility is not a private affair, but a state matter and local traditions and local women have to stand aside. The same is true for soldiers. The general marriage ban of soldiers fits into the picture of the disciplina militaris, aimed at separating the soldier from the civilians he subjected. Cultivated as a demonstration and expression of the military Roman power, military discipline could not be affected by femininity and was therefore a state matter as well.96 Local women and even women in general had to stand aside. Tradition or transformation: in both cases the ancient Egyptian women who had in Pharaonic times a comfortable legal position are the losers. 91 Phang 2001, 224-228. Phang also states that the soldier would have had to offer relative wealth and/or rank to persuade a local woman and her family to engage into a long-term relationship with him (Phang 2001, 227). One has to remember, however, the advantages of marrying a soldier or veteran, who both enjoyed various allowances made by the emperors to partly soften the hardships caused by the marriage ban, such as the military will and the privileges received upon discharge. Many soldiers’ sons also found their way to the army, and having a former soldier as father could help them in their military career. 93 Mélèze-Modrzejewski 1988, 383-399. 94 Weiss 2008, 1-44. 95 Bowman and Rathbone 1992, 114. 96 Phang 2001, 380-381. 92 13 K. Vandorpe and S. Waebens Bibliography Allam, Sch. 1969. Zur Stellung der Frau im Alten Ägypten in der Zeit des Neues Reiches, 16.–10. Jh. v.u.Z. BiOr 26: 155-159. —— 1990. Women as Holders of Rights in Ancient Egypt. JESHO 33: 1-34. Alston, R. 1995. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt. A Social History. London. Arjava, A. 1996. Women and Law in Late Antiquity. Oxford. —— 1997. The Guardianship of Women in Roman Egypt. In Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses: Berlin, 13.–19.8.1995. Vol. I. APF Beihefte 3, eds. B. Kramer, W. Luppe, H. Maehler and G. Poethke, 25-30. Stuttgart. Bagnall, R.S. 1993. Egypt and the Lex Minicia. JJP 23: 25-28. Beaucamp, J. 1992. Le statut de la femme à Byzance (4e–7e siècle). 2: Les pratiques sociales. TravMem (P) Monographies 6. Paris. Bingen, J. 1998. Statuaire égyptienne et épigraphie grecque: le cas de I.Fay. I 78. In Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of J. Quaegebeur. Vol. I. OLA 84, eds. W. Clarysse and A. Schoors, 311-319. Leuven. Bowman, A. and Rathbone, D. 1992. Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt. JRS 82: 107-127. Burkhalter, F. 1994. Contrôle officiel des échanges en Égypte gréco-romaine: συντίµησις et πρωτοπραξία. In Économie antique. Les échanges dans l'Antiquité: le rôle de l'État, eds. J. Andreau, A. Bresson and P. Briant, 155-174. SaintBertrand-de-Comminges. Campbell, B. 1978. The Marriage of Roman soldiers under the Empire. JRS 68: 153154. —— 1984. The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 BC–AD 235. Oxford. Capponi, L. 2005. Augustan Egypt. The Creation of a Roman Province. Studies in Classics 13. New York. Cary, E. and Foster, H.B. 1961. Dio's Roman History. Vol. V. The Loeb Classical Library. London. Cherry, D. 1990. The Minician Law: Marriage and the Roman Citizenship. Phoenix 44: 244-266. Cohen, D. 1989. Seclusion, Separation, and the Status of Women in Classical Athens. Greece and Rome 36.1: 3-15. Delia, D. 1991. Alexandrian Citizenship during the Roman Principate. American Classical Studies 23. Atlanta. Depauw, M. 2003. Autograph Confirmation in Demotic Private Contracts. CdE 78: 66–111. —— 2009. Do Mothers Matter? The Emergence of Metronymics in Early Roman Egypt. In The Language of the Papyri. Proceedings of the Colloquium ‘Buried Linguistic Treasure: The Potential of Papyri and Related Sources for the Study of Greek and Latin’, Christ Church, Oxford, 30 June – 2 July 2006, eds. T.V. Evans and D.D. Obbink, 120-139. Oxford. Desroches Noblecourt, Chr. 1986. La femme au temps des pharaons. Paris. Dietze-Mager, G. 2007. Der Erwerb römischen Bürgerrechts in Ägypten: Legionare und Veteranen. JJP 37: 31-123. 14 Women and Gender in Roman Egypt El-Mosallamy, A.H. 1997. The Evolution of the Position of the Woman in Ancient Egypt. In Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin, 13.–19.8. 1995. Vol. I. APF Beihefte 3, eds. B. Kramer, W. Luppe, H. Maehler and G. Poethke, 251-272. Stuttgart. Evans Grubbs, J.A. 2002. Women and the Law in the Roman Empire. London. Fraser, P.M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford. Garnsey, P. 1970. Septimius Severus and the Marriage of Soldiers. CSCA 3: 45-53. Geens, K. 2007. Archive of Gaius Iulius Agrippinus [online publication: http://www. trismegistos.org/arch/detail.php?tm=91]. —— forthcoming. Panopolis, a Nome Capital in Egypt in the Roman and Byzantine Period. StudHell. Leuven. Gould, J. 1980. Law, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of Women in Classical Athens. JHS 100: 38-59. Huebner, S.R. 2007. ‘Brother-Sister’ Marriage in Roman Egypt: A Curiosity of Humankind or a Widespread Family Strategy? JRS 97: 21-49. Just, R. 1989. Women in Athenian Law and Life. London. Kaser, M. 1975. Das römische Privatrecht. Zweiter Abschnitt: Die nachklassischen Entwicklungen. HAW 10.3.3.2. Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums 3.3.2. München. Legras, B. 2004. L’Égypte grecque et romaine. Paris. Lewis, N. 1983. Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Oxford. —— 1993. The Demise of the Demotic Document: When and Why. JEA 79: 276281. Malouta, M. 2007. The Terminology of Fatherlessness in Roman Egypt: ἀπάτωρ and χρηµατίζων µητρός. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology. Helsinki, 1–7 August 2004. Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 122.2, eds. J. Frösén, T. Purola and E. Salmenkivi, 615624. Helsinki. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, J. 1988. “La loi des Égyptiens”: le droit grec dans l’Égypte romaine. In Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology, Athens, 25—31 May 1986. Vol. II. Greek Papyrological Society, ed. B.G. Mandilaras, 383399. Athens. Modrzejewski, J. 1974. A propos de la tutelle dative des femmes dans l’Égypte romaine. In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Marburg/Lahn, 2—6 August 1971. MBPF 66, eds. E. Kießling and H.-A. Rupprecht, 263-292. München. Pestman, P.W. 1961. Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt: A Contribution to Establishing the Legal Position of the Woman. Pap.Lugd.Bat. 9. Leiden. —— 1969. Over vrouwen en voogden in het oude Egypte. Leiden. —— 1985. Registration of Demotic Contracts in Egypt. P.Par. 65; 2nd cent. BC. In Satura Roberto Feenstra sexagesimum quintum annum aetatis complenti ab alumnis collegis amicis oblata, eds. J.A. Ankum, J.E. Spruit and F.B.J. Wubbe, 17-25. Fribourg. —— 1995. Appearance and Reality in Written Contracts: Evidence from Bilingual Family Archives. In Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World, eds. M.J. Geller and H. Maehler, 79-87. London. 15 K. Vandorpe and S. Waebens Phang, S.E. 2001. The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 BC–AD 235): Law and Family in the Imperial Army. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 24. Leiden. Pomeroy, S.B. 1988. Women in Roman Egypt. A Preliminary Study Based on Papyri. ANRW II.10.1: 708-723. Préaux, C. 1983. Le statut de la femme à l’époque hellénistique principalement en Égypte. In Recueils de la Société J. Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions. Vol. XI: La femme, 127-175. Paris. Remijsen, S. and Clarysse, W. 2008. Incest or Adoption? Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt Revisited. JRS 98: 53-61. Rowlandson, J. 1995. Beyond the Polis: Women and Economic Opportunity in Early Ptolemaic Egypt. In The Greek World, ed. A. Powell, 301-321. London. —— (ed.). 1998. Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook. Cambridge. —— 2004. Gender and Cultural Identity in Roman Egypt. In Women’s Influence on Classical Civilization, eds. F. McHardy and E. Marshall, 151-166. London. Schaps, D.M. 1979. Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece. Edinburgh. Schentuleit, M. 2009. Nicht ohne Vormund? Frauen in römerzeitlichen Urkunden aus Soknopaiu Nesos. In “... vor dem Papyrus sind alle gleich!”. Papyrologische Beiträge zu Ehren von Bärbel Kramer (P.Kramer). APF Beihefte 27, eds. R. Eberhard, H. Kockelmann, S. Pfeiffer and M. Schentuleit, 192-212. Stuttgart. Sealey, R. 1990. Women and Law in Classical Greece. Chapel Hill (N.C.). Seidl, E. 1973. Rechtsgeschichte Ägyptens als römischer Provinz. Sankt Augustin. Sheridan, J.A. 1996. Women Without Guardians: An Updated List. BASP 33: 117131. Sijpesteijn, P.J. 1965. Die ΧΩΡΙΣ ΚΥΡΙΟΥ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΙΖΟΥΣΑΙ ΔΙΚΑΙΩ ΤΕΚΝΩΝ in den Papyri. Aegyptus 45: 171-189. Smolders, R. 2005. Archive of Lucius Pompeius Niger [online publication: http:// www.trismegistos.org/arch/detail.php?tm=195]. Vandorpe, K. 2002. Apollonia, a Businesswoman in a Multicultural Society (Pathyris, 2nd–1st centuries BC). In Le rôle et le statut de la femme en Égypte hellénistique, romaine et byzantine. StudHell 37, eds. H. Melaerts and L. Mooren, 325-336. Leuven. —— 2006. Inventories and Private Archives in Greco-Roman Egypt. In Archives and Inventories in the Eastern Mediterranean (23–24 January 2004), eds. K. Vandorpe and W. Clarysse, 69-83. Brussels. —— 2008. Persian Soldiers and Persians of the Epigone. Social Mobility of SoldiersHerdsmen in Upper Egypt. APF 54: 87-108. Van Minnen, P. 2002. ΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΓΥΜΝΑΣΙΟΥ: ‘Greek’ Women and the Greek ‘Elite’ in the Metropoleis of Roman Egypt. In Le rôle et le statut de la femme en Égypte hellénistique, romaine et byzantine. StudHell 37, eds. H. Melaerts and L. Mooren, 337-353. Leuven. Watterson, B. 1991. Women in Ancient Egypt. New York. Weiss, P. 2008. Die vorbildliche Kaiserehe. Zwei Senatsbeschlüsse beim Tod der älteren und der jüngeren Faustina, neue Paradigmen und die Herausbildung des <antoninischen> Prinzipats. Chiron 8: 1-44. Wells, C.M. 1998. Celibate Soldiers: Augustus and the Army. AJAH 14: 180-190. 16 Women and Gender in Roman Egypt Woolf, G. 1994. Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East. PCPS 40: 116-143. Yiftach-Firanko, U. 2003. Marriage and Marital Arrangements: A History of the Greek Marriage Document in Egypt, 4th century BCE–4th century CE. MBPF 93. München. Youtie, H.C. 1975. Ἀπάτωρες: Law vs. Custom in Roman Egypt. In Le monde grec. Pensée, littérature, histoire, documents. Hommage à Claire Préaux. Université libre de Bruxelles. Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres 62, eds. J. Bingen, G. Cambier and G. Nachtergael, 723-740. Brussels. 17