No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2013
Nearly thirty years ago, John Crook's well-known book Law and life of Rome provided what remains the most sustained and wide-ranging survey of the place of Roman law in Roman society. Chapter 7, ‘Commerce’, begins with the observation that in Roman times trade and business were relatively insignificant compared with land. No doubt few would disagree. But in recent years historians have done much to illuminate such questions of economic history as patterns of trade and consumption. Certain other matters, however, remain comparatively obscure. The non-legal sources are sufficiently unhelpful that it becomes important to have regard to the messages contained in the legal sources; and in them there is sufficient material to allow us to consider how the law shaped or was shaped by commercial life. The particular questions on which this paper touches are the type of labour – free or slave, dependent or independent – which was employed in commerce; and the manner in which commercial businesses were organized during the principate.
2 Crook, J.A., Law and life of Rome (1967)Google Scholar.
3 For a general account of the Roman economy, see Garnsey, P. and Saller, R., The Roman empire (1987) 43 ff.Google Scholar
4 We do hear a certain amount about societies of publicani and of bankers, but we are not well informed about the ways in which other businesses were organized. Kirschenbaum, A., Sons, slaves and freemen in Roman commerce (1987)Google Scholar does not deal with the questions with which this paper is concerned.
5 Petronius, , Satyricon 76Google Scholar.
6 See e.g. the various risk-avoiding strategies outlined in Plutarch, Cato maior 21.6–7 (I am grateful to Dr Duncan-Jones for this reference).
7 Kaser, , RZ 306ff.Google Scholar
8 Kaser, , RZ 315–16, 514ff.Google Scholar
9 Kaser, , RP I 482Google Scholar; RZ 316–17; Pakter, W., ‘The mystery of cessio bonorum’ Index 22 (1994) 323–42Google Scholar.
10 D. 50.17.133.
11 Buckland 510.
12 In general, see Buckland 533–6; Kaser, , RP I 287, 605ff.Google Scholar; Zimmermann, R., The law of obligations (1990) 45ff.Google Scholar; also Gordon, W.M., ‘Agency and Roman law’ Studi in onore di C. Sanfilippo (1983) III 341–9Google Scholar.
13 In general, Buckland 434; Kaser, , RP I 538ff.Google Scholar
14 See e.g. the reference to transmarinae negotiationes in Gaius, D. 40.9.10 (although he refers there to freedmen as well as slaves).
15 See e.g. Pap. D. 14.3.19.1; Scaev. D. 26.7.58; Gai. D. 40.9.10.
16 Nerat. D. 41.3.41.
17 Gaius, Inst. 2.95.
18 Pap. D. 3.5.30 pr.; 14.3.19 pr.; 17.1.10.5; 19.1.13.25. See also Ulp. D. 14.1.1.18; 14.3.1; Gai. D. 14.3.2.
19 Obviously not, when one thinks of Cicero and Atticus.
20 In general, see D. 15.1; Buckland 533–4; Kaser, , RP I 605–7Google Scholar.
21 See D. 14.4.1 pr.; 5.15 etc; Buckland 534; Kaser, , RP I 609Google Scholar; most recently, Chiusi, T., Contributo allo studio dell'actio tributoria (1993)Google Scholar. For other actions available against the paterfamilias, see part (ii) of this section.
22 In general, see D. 14.1 and 14.3; Buckland 535–6; Kaser, , RP I 608–9Google Scholar; Pugliese, G., ‘In tema di actio exercitoria’ Labeo 3 (1957) 308–43Google Scholar; diPorto, A., Impresa collettiva e schiavo manager in Roma antica (1984)Google Scholar; Aubert, J.-J., Business managers in ancient Rome: a social and economic study of institores 200 B. C.– A.D. 250 (1994)Google Scholar; Wacke, A., ‘Die adjektizisichen Klagen im Überblick. Erster Teil: von der Reederund Betriebsleiterklagen zur direkten Stellvertretung’ SZ 111 (1994) 280–362Google Scholar. (The order in which the various praetorian remedies was introduced is unclear, although the question is not of the greatest moment for the high classical period of law considered here: for discussion see di Porto 31ff.; Aubert 115ff., 417.)
23 D. 14.1.1.17.
24 See e.g. D. 14.1.6 pr.; 15.1.47.
25 D. 14.1.1 pr.; 14.1.6; 14.3.1 pr.
26 D. 14.3.5.11.
27 E.g. D. 14.1.1.7 and 12.
28 D. 14.3.11.2.
29 D. 14.3.11.3–4.
30 D. 14.1.7.
31 Cf. also D. 14.3.13 pr.
32 D. 14.1.1 pr.
33 D. 14.4.1.3.
34 Tac. Ann. 14.43.
35 Petronius, , Satyricon 53Google Scholar.
36 See perhaps D. 14.4.1 pr.
37 D. 14.1.1.19.
38 D. 14.1.1.20–2; see also D. 14.1.6 pr.; 14.3.11.8 and 12; 14.4.5 pr.–1.
39 See e.g. D. 9.4.19.2; 14.1.1.22; 14.1.5; 14.3.11.8 and 12; 14.4.5.1; 15.1.17 and 19 pr.; 15.1.38.2; 15.3.17.1; 33.8.16.1. (This is no more than a selection of relevant texts.)
40 As, for example, nowadays banks regularly require of the directors of limited companies when lending to the company.
41 See Whitaker, C.R., ‘Trade and the aristocracy in the Roman empire’, repr. in his Land, city and trade in the Roman empire (1993) 49–65 at 58Google Scholar.