45

3
Communication and Roman
Long-​Distance Trade
Taco Terpstra

The “Tyranny of Distance”

October 3rd, 1837, marked a momentous event in the development of com-
munication technology.1 On that day, papers describing a new machine were
submitted to the U.S. Patent Office in Washington, D.C. The invention to be
patented used electricity for conveying messages, a revolutionary step that
would divide the world into a before and an after.2 The birth of the “electro-
magnetic telegraph,” as the apparatus was christened by the applicant, Samuel
Morse, was to change long-​distance communication dramatically. A miracle
machine, it allowed messages to travel at nearly the speed of light. People
marveled at the novel technology that to many seemed almost like magic.
Implementation of the telegraph spread quickly. Attempts at laying a trans-
atlantic cable were successful in 1866, allowing communication between the
Old and New Worlds that was all but instantaneous.3 Thus the stage was set for
the interconnected world of large-​scale, earth-​spanning commerce, to become
known as the “first global economy.” Already established by the 1870s, this
economy was to last until the outbreak of the First World War, which would

1.  I thank Roger Bagnall, Willem Jongman, Joel Mokyr, Edward Muir, and Robert Wallace for
reading and commenting on earlier versions of this chapter.
2.  See Morris (2013), 218–​237, on the change in speed and reach of communication with the
advent of electronic media.
3.  On the history of the telegraph and its impact on contemporary society, see Coe (1993);
Lubrano (1997).
46

46 Networks

bring it to a sudden halt. But the Great War, the Great Depression, and then
the Second World War were to slow economic globalization only temporarily.
Picking up again after 1950, it would continue to develop hand in hand with
ever-​improving information technology.4
But the world that existed before, the preindustrial world, had to make
do with altogether less efficient modes of communication. Light or smoke
signals were a fast means of sending simple messages, which could be a use-
ful way of raising the alarm in times of war. However, messages of any length
or complexity had to be either committed to writing or painstakingly memo-
rized by a courier. The human or inanimate medium in which the message
was contained then had to be physically conveyed to the intended recipient.
Communication within walking distance in the confined area of a village or city
was easy, but beyond that scale, problems arose quickly. In the absence of not
only electricity but also internal combustion engines, travel was cumbersome,
slow, and costly. To describe the debilitating effect that these constraints had
on human contact between geographically remote areas, the Australian histo-
rian Geoffrey Blainey coined the evocative phrase “the tyranny of distance.”5
Just how much this “tyranny” affected the speed of information in the
Roman Empire is evident from Egyptian documents dated by the reigns of
emperors. In a masterful study of the data, Richard Duncan-​Jones calculated
the mean “cognition time,” the time necessary for the various parts of Egypt
to realize that a new ruler had assumed the purple in Rome. During the first
two centuries ce, this took no fewer than fifty-​seven days on average.6 The
Theodosian Code, published in 438 ce, suggests even slower transmission
times in the Late Empire. The Code contains double-​dated edicts, providing
us with firm data on how much time elapsed before an edict reached its desti-
nation from its starting-​point. Here the median number of days is a surprising
134, considerably more than the Egyptian “cognition time,” despite the fact
that the listed distances are generally shorter than the one between Rome and
Egypt.7
What effects such slow information could have is illustrated forcefully by a
story told by Flavius Josephus.8 The emperor Gaius, desiring to be worshipped

4.  Eckes (2011), 25–​38.

5.  Blainey (1966). On the battle against distance, see also Braudel (1972), 355–​394; Bairoch
(1988), 11–​12.
6.  Duncan-​Jones (1990), 9.
7. Duncan-​
Jones (1990), 21. For a comparable endeavor for the seventeenth-​
century
Mediterranean, see Braudel (1972), 360–​363.
8. Joseph. BJ 2.203; AJ 18.304–​309.
  47

Communication and Roman Long-Distance Trade 47

as a god towards the end of his reign, ordered a statue of himself placed in
the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. However, Publius Petronius, the governor
of Syria, knowing that this step would lead to popular unrest, begged the
emperor to revoke the order. Enraged at the perceived insubordination, Gaius
sent a letter to Antioch ordering Petronius to commit suicide. But the ship
carrying the letter was held up at sea for three months. By the time it reached
Antioch, Petronius had already received news twenty-​seven days earlier that
Gaius had been assassinated. Josephus may have embellished or even fabri-
cated this story (the two versions he tells are not entirely congruent) to demon-
strate how God would protect those who sided with the Jewish people. But the
element of letters being waylaid, and news being delivered that had long since
been rendered outdated, sounds completely believable. With communication
relying on human carriers, draft animals, and sailing ships, information trans-
fer was subject to unpredictable events like gales, shipwreck, and ill-​fortune
on the road, to name but a few frequently reported ones.9 A three-​month delay
was doubtless exceptional, but it was “an ‘exception’ frequently repeated.”10
Nor was that all. From the time of Augustus, Roman government officials
could count on a public communication infrastructure.11 But private citizens
never had recourse to such a system, whether under the Republic or the
Empire. In the correspondence that Cicero and Atticus maintained between
Rome and Greece, letters were entrusted to mutual friends, or at least to peo-
ple both men thought to be reliable intermediaries. But from Cicero’s frequent
remarks about sending and receiving mail, it is clear that such couriers were
not always available, a problem that led to delays and gaps in communication.
In a letter from 61 bce, for instance, Cicero apologized: “Three letters from you
have now come to hand … . In them you challenged a reply, but I have been
rather slow in making one because I can’t find a trustworthy carrier.”12 The dif-
ference between large, important cities and places of lesser significance also
played a role, the latter being disadvantaged by their more peripheral position.
In 67 bce, Cicero wrote to Atticus reproachfully: “Letters from you reach me
all too seldom, though travelers to Rome are much easier for you to come by
than travelers to Athens for me… .”13

9.  For example, Paul in Acts 27; Petron. Sat. 76; Suet. Iul. 4; Luke 10.29–​37; P.Fayum 108;
Apul. Met. 4.23; CIL 3.2544.
10.  Braudel (1972), 357.
11.  Kolb (2000).
12. Cic. Att. 13.1 trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey.
13. Cic. Att. 5.1, trans. Shackleton Bailey.
48

48 Networks

Roman merchants involved in long-​distance trade had it easier if they dealt

with shippers, captains, and itinerant traders on a daily basis as part of their
profession. But there can be no doubt that they found it hard to relay mes-
sages for the same reasons that Cicero and (post mortem) the emperor Gaius
encountered. And yet they managed, if only because they had to. Without
information, business could not function. Merchants needed to know at least
the basic facts about economic opportunities overseas, or no market would
emerge. But for developed markets, even the basic facts were not enough.
There was, first of all, the problem of “information asymmetry,” the phenom-
enon that one party in a deal was likely to know more than the other; the
seller of goods versus the buyer, for instance.14 This is a problem even when
communication is frictionless, but it becomes paralyzing if the less-​informed
party judges that no balanced decision is possible because the distance is too
great and information too scarce. Furthermore, to transact a deal across any
space spanning more than one day’s travel required planning. Decisions had
to be postponed until information came in, or they had to be made in a way
that allowed for contingencies and multiple outcomes. The less information
was available, the more contingencies had to be allowed for, and the more
unknowns taken into account. Too many unknowns, and the market would
collapse.

Written Communication
The nature of long-​distance business required regular communication, at
least part of which must have taken a written form. Yet Roman evidence of
this is scant. Loss of evidence rather than nonexistence in antiquity surely
explains this rarity. Medieval trade has left us large amounts of commercial
correspondence. To operate long-​distance Mediterranean trade routes, Roman
merchants needed to send written messages just as much as their medi-
eval successors did. Since the physical constraints on communication in the
Middle Ages were the same as under the Roman Empire, medieval letters
can provide us with a sense of what we have lost in the Roman sources. An
example will clarify the point.
Early in the fourteenth century, John Trape, a furrier in London, sent a
letter to Giacomino di Recco, a merchant in Genoa.15 Trape renewed an offer

14.  Akerlof (1970). On information asymmetry, see also Kessler and Temin (2007), 319–​321.
15.  Lopez and Raymond (2001), no. 186.
  49

Communication and Roman Long-Distance Trade 49

to sell his wares, one that had been turned down before because di Recco
lacked funds:

Dear friend: I beg you, as well as I rely upon you, in regard to the 800
furs of powdered miniver and to the 1,000 furs of black budge which
you were to have ordered from me on the thirtieth now past –​and at
that time you did not want to do so because your money was not avail-
able as you wished –​that you please order them from me now through
the bearer of this letter. And the same bearer will make out a good
receipt for the money above mentioned.

For all its brevity, this letter gives us much information on medieval com-
merce. It shows where a particular long-​distance trade route ran, what was
exchanged on it, and when it was in operation. It also allows us insight into the
mechanism of everyday business. The letter alludes not just to the seller and
his prospective buyer but also to a nameless third party, apparently sent over
from England to Genoa. This person evidently served as more than a mes-
senger, having the authority to accept the hoped-​for order of furs and to write
an exonerating receipt for payment. Trape’s letter thus had considerable legal
force, informal though it may appear. This aspect is underscored by the fact
that two identical copies exist, one of which was found in the London Public
Record Office.16 Duplication of business correspondence served the same pur-
pose as notarization, meaning that personal letters like this one could be used
as legal proof.
While we have a sizeable body of letters from members of the Roman
élite—​men like Cicero, Fronto, and Pliny the Younger—​Roman letters com-
parable to Trape’s are almost nonexistent. There is certainly evidence for non-​
élite, long-​distance information transfer. The tablets from the military camp at
Vindolanda in northern England attest to communication within a medium-​
to-​large geographical range. They show how writing was central to supply-
ing and running an army unit on the frontier.17 In addition, papyri contain
soldiers’ letters sent to Egypt from places a considerable distance away like
Misenum, Portus, Rome, and Bostra (in the province of Arabia).18 Papyri also
provide evidence for civilian correspondence over long distances, such as a

16.  Lopez and Raymond (2001), 378, n. 3; Lopez (1950).

17.  Bowman (2003), 40–​42.
18.  White (1986), nos. 103–​105.
50

50 Networks

letter sent from Rome by a sailor in the imperial grain fleet to his brother in
Egypt.19 But letters from professional traders are extremely rare.
Indirect evidence for business communication over long distances is pres-
ent in our sources, but is easily overlooked. Take a well-​known description
of an overseas transaction, a case discussed by the second-​century ce jurist
Scaevola.20 In Berytus, Syria, the merchant Callimachus took out a bottomry
loan in order to transport goods he had bought locally to Brundisium in Italy.
His counterpart in the contract, a slave called Stichus (acting on behalf of his
master Lucius Titius), stipulated that, on reaching Brundisium, Callimachus
was to act within a narrow timeframe. After selling the cargo, he was either to
purchase a new load and return to Berytus no later than September 13th or, on
missing that deadline, was to repay the loan immediately. The reason behind
the leave-​by clause is not made explicit, but we can be all but certain that it was
intended to force Callimachus to avoid the dangerous winter sailing season.
The legal import of the deadline was risk apportionment: if Callimachus set
sail before September 13th, the risk of loss of cargo was borne by his lender, but if
he left after that date, the risk would be his own. Division of risk thus hinged on a
precise deadline being met or missed. This arrangement presupposes that there
was a way for Stichus in Berytus to know the exact date by which the ship and
its cargo would leave Brundisium. But how? The “tyranny of distance” prevented
easy verification. The obvious way would be for Stichus to send someone along
to check up on what Callimachus might be doing. And, sure enough, the Digest
passage mentions that the return cargo was accompanied by a fellow slave of
Stichus, named Eros; he sailed from Brundisium to Berytus, where he was pre-
sumably to report on what had happened during the voyage. But Eros would be
useless as a conveyer of information in precisely the event for which the leave-​by
clause was most relevant, namely shipwreck. If the ship went to the bottom, Eros
would go down with it, and so would the evidence on when the ship had left port.
Yet the outcome that the ship would be lost, and that borrower and lender would
contest the departure date but would be unable to substantiate their rival claims,
does not seem to have been a concern for the contracting parties.
There are several ways to explain their lack of concern. They may have
worked within a network that was acknowledged as a reliable conduit for pri-
vate business letters. Another possibility is that they could obtain excerpts of
a customs log showing the dates of ships leaving Brundisium. It is also imag-
inable that the captain prior to setting sail drafted a statement that was filed

19.  Hunt and Edgar (1932), no. 113.

20.  Dig. 45.1.122.1, with Sirks (2002), 142–​149.
  51

Communication and Roman Long-Distance Trade 51

in the archive of a business associate, to be consulted when needed. We can

further imagine a statement that was not left behind at the place of departure,
but sent to Berytus on a separate vessel. It is impossible to say which expedient
Callimachus and Stichus relied upon. But deciding on a solution is not what
matters here. What does is the realization that traders engaged in information
transfer that was fundamental to their business.
Evidence for such information transfer can be glimpsed sporadically. An
important but rarely cited letter written on a wax tablet concerns the transport
of goods by ship.21 Though found in a villa outside Pompeii, the tablet prob-
ably refers to a shipment destined for Puteoli, the major harbor on the other
side of the Bay of Naples:

Theophilus to brother Aphrodisius, blessing. From the ship the Octa

you will receive six medium-​sized amphorae of wine, and seventy-​
seven of vinegar; sixteen Sicilian jars of honey, and ten of m(… ?), one
amphora of grape syrup, one amphora of s(… ?), …

Because the tablet is heavily damaged, crucial information is missing, an

unfortunate loss given the document’s value as evidence for Roman maritime
trade and transport. Even if it is a reasonable assumption that Aphrodisius
was to receive the cargo in Puteoli, we still have no clue about the harbor from
which the shipment was made. The status of the two men is also unclear
(slaves? free non-​citizens?), as is the exact date of the transaction (pre-​79 ce
of course). But damage notwithstanding, the tablet provides valuable evidence
on the communication practices used in Roman shipping.
The tablet resembles what would later be known as a “bill of lading,” a
type of document serving several functions. It certified what quantity of goods
went on board in what condition, and it identified the intended recipient to
the ship’s captain. Bills of lading were in widespread use from the fourteenth
century onward.22 Here is an example drafted in Valencia on March 17th, 1396,
for a shipment to Genoa:23

Gentlemen:  I  am transmitting to you, in the name of God and of

salvation, by the ship captained by En Lois Frexinet, who is the bearer
of the present, 27 large sacks of wool, of which 23 are white and 3 black,
and one of which is one part white and two parts black; and they are
marked with my mark… .

21.  TPSulp. 80, with Terpstra (2013), 90–​92.

22.  Aikens et al. (2006), 1–​12; Bensa (1925).
23.  Lopez and Raymond (2001), no. 125.
52

52 Networks

If the Roman tablet quoted above was similar to this medieval bill, it would
have been carried by the captain of the vessel and presented to Aphrodisius
as the rightful recipient of the goods.24 But its language rather suggests that it
was sent ahead of time, intended to reach Aphrodisius before the cargo did. In
that event, we can also imagine that the letter was one of two copies, one car-
ried aboard, the other sent separately, a common enough practice with medi-
eval bills of lading.25 Roman evidence, too, shows the copying of receipts to
ensure that goods were not tampered with en route.26 The practice of sending
out messages in advance to announce the dispatch of maritime cargo can be
found in the ancient sources as well. Writing around 64 ce, Seneca describes
the expected arrival of the Alexandrian grain fleet in Puteoli: “Suddenly there
came into view today the ‘Alexandrian’ ships—​I mean those which are usually
sent ahead to announce the coming of the fleet; they are called ‘mail-​boats’
(tabellarias).”27 Although the organization of the imperial grain fleet was a
special case, Theophilus’ letter to Aphrodisius suggests that announcing the
arrival of goods in writing occurred outside that setting, too.
Letters discussing business affairs are also found on papyri, although most
relate to the management of agricultural estates upcountry in Egypt.28 There are
exceptions, however, like the one quoted below, dating to August 4th, 41 ce.29
It has attained some notoriety because of a warning against “the Jews,” which
probably refers to recent political clashes between Alexandrian Jews and Greeks
rather than to any Jewish usurious practices. Much of what is alluded to in the
letter remains obscure, but a few points are reasonably certain. Sarapion, a mer-
chant, wrote to Herakleides, an agent of his who was operating in the Alexandrian
markets. The latter had apparently run into financial trouble and had written to
his principal, asking for advice. Sarapion replied:

I sent two other letters to you, one through Nedymos, one through
Kronios the swordsman. Finally, then, I received your letter from the
Arab and was upset upon reading it. Follow Ptollarion all the time;

24.  Rougé (1966), 368, already posited the existence of Roman bills of lading, but offered
little evidence.
25.  Bensa (1925), 7; Aikens et al. (2006), 1–​2.
26.  See the papyrus text quoted by Kessler and Temin (2007), 324.
27. Sen. Ep. 77.1, trans. R. M. Gummere. On (naves) tabellariae, see Kolb (2000), 200–​201;
Rougé (1966), 266.
28.  For example, Hunt and Edgar (1932), nos. 139–​141; Olsson (1925), nos. 1–​6.
29.  White (1986), no. 87, with extensive commentary by Olsson (1925), 93–​95.
  53

Communication and Roman Long-Distance Trade 53

perhaps he can resolve your difficulty. Tell him “It is one thing for
everyone else, another for me; I am (only) a slave; I have sold my mer-
chandise to you for a talent too little; I know not what my patron will
do to me; we have many creditors; do not drive us out (of business).”
Ask him daily. Perhaps he may take pity on you. If not, like everyone
else, see to it that you too (keep) yourself away from the Jews. It would
be better, if you are able, through following him to make friends with
him. Or, see whether it is possible by Diodoros to get the tablet signed
through the wife of the commander. If you should do your part, you
are not to be blamed… . Deliver to Alexandria, at the marketplace of
Augustus… .

We can only guess at the scale and nature of the business conducted by
Sarapion and Herakleides. Were they petty merchants engaged in modest
retail, or were they running a substantial enterprise involving long-​distance
shipping into and out of the massive harbor at Alexandria? Apart from Greeks,
their world was populated by Arabs (Nabataeans?) and Jews.30 The fact that
they operated within the cosmopolitan environment of Alexandria with its var-
ious ethnic communities would suggest that their affairs were fairly sizeable.
But whatever the scale of their business, the role of written communication
for their mercantile activities is abundantly clear. Letters went back and forth
between principal and agent, and there were related documents, too, ones that
needed signing.
Other evidence for business correspondence is provided by an inscription
from Puteoli, dating to 174 ce. It contains the text of a letter written by the
members of a trading colony from the Syrian city of Tyre, and sent to Tyre’s
city council. The letter-​writers, who were permanently resident in Puteoli, had
been leasing a communal building for which they could apparently no longer
afford to pay the rent. They requested that the city council restore the pre-​
existing situation in which a second Tyrian trading colony in Rome had paid
them a subsidy for the purpose. The pertinent lines of this long inscription
read:31

To the chief magistrates, council, and people of their sovereign native

city, from the Tyrians resident in Puteoli, greeting … . There is many
a (trading) station in Puteoli, as most of you know, and ours excels the

30.  On Nabataeans operating in Egypt, see Terpstra (2015).

31.  OGI 595, trans. (with modifications) Lewis and Reinhold (1990), 110. See further Terpstra
(2013), 70–​84.
54

54 Networks

others both in adornment and in size. In the past this was cared for by
the Tyrians resident in Puteoli, who were numerous and wealthy; but
now this care has devolved on us, who are few in number, and … we
do not have the means to pay the station’s annual rent … . We therefore
beg you to provide for the station’s continued existence … . And we
remind you that the station here—​unlike the one in the capital, Rome—​
derives no income either from shipowners or from merchants… .

Given that this letter was permanently inscribed in stone, it must have
been an unusual piece of writing prompted by unusual events. Nonetheless, it
shows us that the Tyrian trading colony stayed in regular touch with its mother
city. The Tyrians overseas took it for granted that, back home, their city council
was aware of the previous financial arrangement with the Roman station, as
well as of the fact that there were many competing foreign stations in Puteoli.
More generally, the mere existence in Italy of trading colonies of people from a
Syrian city shows a remarkable degree of coordination of mercantile activities
over long distances. The letter makes clear how Tyre and its two Italian trading
colonies were interconnected, and how the overseas stations had a financial
relationship that was in part controlled by their mother city. Apparently the
financial relationship needed adjustment on occasion, a dynamic that invited
negotiation and internal powerplay. These intricate mercantile and political
ties can only have been maintained through regular correspondence.
There is another reason why this inscription is informative about Roman
business communication. It goes on to mention how a letter (possibly the one
cited, possibly an accompanying one) was read before the Tyrian city council.
The Greek word used for this letter is pittakion, a writing tablet. This choice
of word shows that tablets were employed as a medium for business letters,
a fact confirmed by the wax tablet resembling a bill of lading discussed previ-
ously. Seneca’s reference to (naves) tabellariae further suggests that wax tablets
were regularly used in long-​distance shipping. There were other writing mate-
rials, too, of course. Papyrus was important in Roman Egypt, but was more
widely available in the Roman world; the depictions of scrolls in Pompeian
wall paintings show as much, as does the find of scrolls from the Villa of
the Papyri in Herculaneum. But a tablet is also mentioned in the letter from
Sarapion to Herakleides (Greek tabla, derived from the Latin tabula), show-
ing how papyrus was not the exclusive medium used in business, even in the
province where it was produced.
Use of tablets provides at least a partial explanation for why we have so few
merchants’ letters from Roman times, while we have relatively many from the
Middle Ages. Obviously, the ravages of time are the main culprit in the Roman
  55

Communication and Roman Long-Distance Trade 55

case. The centuries separating us from antiquity have obliterated the major-
ity of Rome’s written memory; medieval sources have been exposed to the
destructive forces of time for a millennium less. But the chances of the ancient
evidence surviving were made even slimmer by the peculiarly Greco-​Roman
medium of wax tablets, intended for reuse and turned into blank slates again
when their messages became obsolete.32 Such tablets were in use still in the
Middle Ages, but were not entrusted with personal correspondence or sealed
documentation. Such writing was done on paper, once this new medium of
writing was introduced into Europe in the eleventh century.33 While many
medieval documents were deliberately destroyed, a sizeable number were dis-
carded or stored and forgotten, for later centuries to find. Most Roman letters
written on wax tablets were erased in the course of daily business and did not
survive at all.

Oral Communication
It might seem odd to include a section on oral communication in this chapter.
The nature of such communication would suggest that it produced no tangi-
ble evidence, leaving historians empty-​handed. However, oral communication
has produced evidence, albeit of an indirect nature. It is worth discussing here
because news spread orally was doubtless an important source of informa-
tion for Roman traders, perhaps as important for daily business as whatever
was written down. We can think of couriers relaying memorized messages,
although to transmit information in that way was expensive and no doubt
practiced on any regular basis only by the Roman government and military.
Rather, we should be thinking here of rumor and gossip.
When uncertainty increases, the number of rumors tends to increase,
too, an effect well known to modern psychology and sociology. In much of
the earlier scholarship on the subject, rumoring was seen as a damaging and
“irrational” process, spreading or perpetuating misinformation and distorted
truths. In the more current approach, rumoring is seen quite differently and is
defined as “a recurrent form of communication through which people attempt
to construct a meaningful or working interpretation of a threatening or
ambiguous situation by pooling their intellectual resources.”34 This definition
emphasizes that, in human behavioral practice, rumoring is a collective act of

32.  On “everyday writing,” see Bagnall (2011); for the role of wax tablets, Terpstra (2014a).
33.  Lalou (1992).
34.  Miller (2005), 508.
56

56 Networks

social groups or interaction networks, within which only what is considered to

be important to the community is passed along. Empirical studies show that
when rumors are not repeated in a one-​on-​one linear fashion (as was done in
older experiments) but communally, they tend to be reproduced with remark-
able accuracy.35 In part, this accuracy results from social anxiety: people are
unlikely to pass on a rumor if they do not have reasonable confidence in its
veracity. They know that, if they raise false hope or cause unjustified fear, they
face the prospect of repercussions within their social group once full informa-
tion becomes available.36
The phenomenon of the number of rumors increasing in the absence of
easily verifiable data implies that, in the world of Roman long-​distance trade—​
with its many uncertainties and its slow information flows—​rumor was an
important aspect of daily communication. Not only will rumors have been
ubiquitous, they will likely also have been fast-​spreading. Passed on by word
of mouth, they almost certainly outpaced official edicts, which took 134 days
on average to reach their destination in Late Antiquity. Indeed, in Latin litera-
ture Fama (Rumor) can be found personified, described as a terrifying winged
giant and most of all a swift-​footed creature, as in Aeneid Book Four: “Rumor
did not take long to go through the great cities of Libya. Of all the ills there
are, Rumor is the swiftest. She thrives on movement and gathers strength as
she goes.”37 Note, incidentally, how Fama is called an ill here, not because she
spread a false rumor, but because she ensured that the shameful truth (Dido
had succumbed to her love for Aeneas) could not be hidden.
Virgil was not alone in emphasizing Fama’s speed. In a real-​world setting,
Cicero made several instructive observations about how the speed of rumors
compared favorably to the transmission time of written messages. When his
brother Quintus was appointed governor of the province of Asia in 61 bce,
Cicero in Rome wrote proudly to Atticus in Epirus: “You will have heard that
Asia has fallen to my dearest of brothers—​I don’t doubt that rumor brought
you the news faster than any of us could do by letter.”38 Two years later, on
hearing that his brother’s governorship had been prolonged, he made a simi-
lar remark to him in Asia: “I don’t doubt that this letter will be outpaced by
many messengers, indeed by Rumor herself with her well-​known speed, and

35.  Miller (2005), 512–​515.

36.  DiFonzo and Bordia (2002), 4.
37. Virg. Aen. 4.173–​175, trans. D. West.
38. Cic. Att. 15.1, trans. Shackleton Bailey.
  57

Communication and Roman Long-Distance Trade 57

that you will hear from others beforehand that our loss and your labor have
been extended for a third year.”39
Communication of this kind was not just quick, but also tenacious. In 56
bce, Cicero wrote to Quintus, by then stationed in Sardinia as Pompey’s leg-
ate: “I am waiting for a letter from you with the greatest impatience. I know
that the sea has been closed to shipping up till now, but they say that certain
persons arrived in Ostia bringing glowing accounts of you and your great rep-
utation in the province.”40 This remark shows how talk about Quintus’ actions
somehow managed to reach the Italian mainland, even outside the regular
summer sailing season.
The news that Cicero received through hearsay gave an indication of how
his brother was doing professionally, information that was of obvious interest
to him. In the context of trading, we may infer that oral reports were likely
in large part to concern people’s business standing. That kind of rumor was
important to trading groups and was thus the kind that would have been
passed on. Such information could be extremely useful. Someone looking to
sell would be ill-​advised to do business with a potential buyer overseas who,
according to rumor, was always shirking his debt obligations. On balance,
such information was more likely to be accurate than not, forming a better
guide in business than we might perhaps think. The realization that rumors
about business standing, creditworthiness, and honesty circulated within trad-
ing communities also helped counter corrupt or negligent behavior. It made
all individuals in any given group aware of the value of a good reputation, thus
providing a powerful incentive to behave honestly and honor obligations. The
self-​regulating effect of this mechanism has been convincingly demonstrated
by Avner Greif in a study of the “Maghribi” traders, a group of Jewish mer-
chants operating in the medieval Mediterranean and Levant. Greif’s analysis
of the Maghribis’ business correspondence shows how members of their trad-
ing coalition were preoccupied with reputation—​both their own and others’—​
and how reputational damage could lead to ostracism from the group, which
constituted the ultimate punishment for misbehavior.41
The importance of a solid reputation in Roman business can be seen
in legal documents containing information on a banking venture run by
three generations of freedmen, the Sulpicii, in the harbor of Puteoli. Just like
the Sulpicii themselves, their clientele belonged to a freedman milieu, and

39.  QFr. 1.1, trans. Shackleton Bailey.

40.  QFr. 9.5, trans. Shackleton Bailey.
41.  Greif (2006), 58–​90. On the Maghribis, see also Terpstra (2013), 95–​100.
58

58 Networks

many seem to have been involved in trade and shipping.42 In 49 ce, a certain
Julius Patulcius Fortunatus sued his creditors for making incorrect state-
ments about him. Fortunatus’ grievance concerned conflicting claims about
debt; from the extant texts, it appears that the Sulpicii had been claiming that
a loan was still outstanding, while Fortunatus was of the opinion that the
money had been paid. Such talk of unpaid debt was obviously detrimental
to Fortunatus’ credit standing. Challenging the Sulpicii bankers directly, he
demanded that they swear under oath that their statements were truthful, in
the apparent hope (unsuccessful, it seems) of forcing them to cease making
the claim.43
The physical environment in which traders chose to operate could increase
the chances of information being passed on verbally. Whether intentionally
or not, the effect of traders clustering together in the same building or urban
space was that oral information could spread more easily. The best known
example of such clustering is the “Piazzale delle Corporazioni” at Ostia.44 This
“piazzale” is an unroofed space enclosed by a colonnade on three sides and by
a wall on the fourth, which separates it from Ostia’s theater (Figure 3.1). The
colonnade is divided into sixty-​one small rooms, many of which have mosa-
ics surviving in front of them (see Figure 1.1, Chapter 1). These mosaics show
depictions of maritime scenes—​ships and lighthouses appear frequently—​
while their texts refer to groups of traders and shippers from various parts
of the Roman Empire, most of all from Africa. Although the images do not
depict how the “piazzale” was used by its occupants, we can be confident that
the foreign shippers and merchants who congregated there did so in a profes-
sional capacity. Both the physical structure and the social setting of the “piaz-
zale” were conducive to informal communication. It was frequented by people
in similar or complementary professions and trades, many of them coming
from the same geographical area. In addition, the Ostian public would not
have wandered in and out; the architecture dissuaded such visits. Finally, the
“piazzale” had an intimate atmosphere:  inward looking, on a human scale,
and closed off from the outside world. “Such a space lent itself to the casual
communication between merchants.”45

42.  Terpstra (2013), 15–​23, 63–​64.

43.  TPsulp. 28, 29, with discussion by Wolf (2001), 102–​107; Terpstra (2013), 24–​25.
44.  On the “piazzale,” see Terpstra (2013), 100–​117; (2014b).
45.  Temin (2013), 112. On the “piazzale” as a space facilitating information-​sharing, see also
Terpstra (2013), 114; Kessler and Temin (2007), 329.
  59
Figure 3.1  Plan of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni, Ostia, Italy.
(Courtesy of Ancient World Mapping Center)
60

60 Networks

The mosaics make the “piazzale” at Ostia unique; to date, no structure quite
like it has been discovered anywhere in the Roman world.46 But the phenom-
enon of groups of foreign merchants clustering together in the cities where
they took up residence did occur elsewhere. As we have seen, the inscrip-
tion from Puteoli about the Tyrian trading station demonstrates how there,
traders organized along ethnic lines and occupied communal structures, a
situation similar to that in the “piazzale” at Ostia. Although we do not know
if the Puteolan trading stations were found together in the same urban quar-
ter, we do have evidence from other cities where this was indeed the case. In
Rome, for instance, the Sacra Via was populated by trading stations of foreign
merchants from Asia Minor, grouped together along a stretch of road about
60 meters in length.47 Outside Italy, a similar phenomenon can be observed
in Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul, situated at the confluence of the Rhône and
Saône rivers. Inscriptions found there refer to the “canabae,” an urban quar-
ter where foreign merchants dealing in wine had settled and did business.48
Such clustering of trading communities in cities important for trade ensured
that oral messages, rumors, and gossip could spread easily along the nodes of
mercantile networks, facilitating what Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell
have labelled “connectivity.”49

Conclusion
Scholarship on Roman long-​distance trade has debated primarily the ques-
tion of its scale and importance for the overall economy. This macroeconomic
focus has been fruitful, but its dominance has left microeconomic questions
unanswered or even unformulated. Such questions deal with practical mat-
ters that are fundamental for understanding the Roman economy, no matter
where one stands in the macroeconomic debate. The role of communication
in long-​distance trade is an example of a question that has suffered from
neglect. To a degree, the neglect is understandable. Evidence is scant, making
a treatment of the subject difficult. But a dearth of evidence does not mean
that we are exonerated from incorporating this important topic into our think-
ing. The sources that we do have, comparative evidence, and indeed common

46.  The closest parallel is the “quadriporticus” in Pompeii: Terpstra (2014b).

47.  Terpstra (2013), 137–​147.
48.  Waltzing vol. 2 (1896), 178–​182; Christol (2000).
49.  Horden and Purcell (2000), esp. 123–​172. On port networks and Mediterranean “con-
nectivity,” see also Wilson et al. (2012).
  61

Communication and Roman Long-Distance Trade 61

sense all suggest that communication was a crucial aspect of Roman long-​
distance commerce.
Altogether, we possess enough data to construct an idea of what such com-
munication might have looked like, and what sources of information were
available to merchants. Written communication was vital for much of daily
business, certainly for the more complex transactions that traders engaged in.
Despite its obvious drawbacks, oral communication also will have played an
important role because of its speed and general usefulness. The “tyranny of
distance” caused by the absence of modern information technology will have
been a powerful force to contend with, but still it was sufficiently overcome for
long-​distance trade to function.
As a final note, because of the limitations of our sources, we must be wary
of myopia. Loss of evidence, most of all everyday business letters, means
that scholarship often turns to the literary sources, but at the risk of elevat-
ing the unusual, the anecdotal, or the colorful to the norm. An example is
the passage from Apuleius’ Golden Ass where a small cheese-​trader hears of
good-​quality cheese being available at an attractive price in a neighboring
marketplace. He bolts over, only to find that all this cheese has been snapped
up by a larger competitor. The story has been taken to show that “[w]‌ith slow,
irregular and periodically discontinuous transport and communication it
was simply very difficult, on a regional basis, on the continental scale of the
Roman Empire quite impossible, to match demand and supply across indi-
vidual marketplaces in an even, steady and predictable way.”50 Apart from the
fact that premodern communication and transportation were not the main
issue in Apuleius’ story (it could well take place today), the reality is that “[m]
ost participants in most markets simply do today what they did yesterday.”51 I
suspect that if we could study a body of ordinary Roman business letters on
long-​distance trade, we would see a mercantile world characterized by con-
sistency and regularity, despite premodern problems of transportation and
information transfer.

50.  Bang (2008), 137 discussing Apuleius, Met. 1.5.

51.  Temin (2013), 37.