fatherless children, or the wreathmaker, mentioned by Aristophanes.[131]
But such was the case only with women of the lower classes; the lady of
high birth acted through her agents.[132]

[Sidenote: The right of women to sue.]

When so many women were engaged in business, occasions for lawsuits
would naturally arise; we shall see next what power the woman had to
sue. It was a standing maxim of the law that a woman by herself could
not conduct a case in court.[133] She had to act through her agent, if
she was independent, otherwise through her guardian. The supreme judge
at Rome and the governor in a province assigned an attorney to those who
had no agent or guardian.[134] But in this case again custom and the law
were at variance. Various considerations will make it clear that women
who sued had, in practice, complete disposal of the matter. I.--A woman
who was still under the power of her father must, according to law, sue
with him as her agent or appoint an agent to act with him. Nevertheless,
a father could do nothing without the consent of his daughter.[135]
Obviously, then, so far as the power of the father was concerned, a
woman had practically the management of her suit. II.--The husband had
no power. If he tried to browbeat her as to what to do, she could send
him a divorce, a privilege which she had at her beck and call, as we
have seen; and then she could force him to give her any guardian she
wanted.[136] III.--That the authority of other guardians was in practice
a mere formality, I have already proved (pp. 7 and 8).

From these considerations it is clear that the woman's wishes were
supreme in the conduct of any suit. Moreover, the law expressly states
that women may appoint whatever attorneys or agents they desire, without
asking the consent of their legal guardians[137]; and thus they were at