Conclusion
To the question ‘was Roman business law designed for traders?’ we can propose a qualified answer: looking at the time of its development during the republic and principate, there is no doubt that edictal law and jurisprudence jointly produced legal institutions of unprecedented efficiency, offering pragmatic solutions to practical problems, occasionally borrowed from subject communities.
This is true of private law. As for public law, it was concerned with social stability and fiscal necessity, not economic growth, and should be viewed as a permanent hindrance.To the question ‘was Roman business law inspired by traders?’ the answer is less clear-cut. Roman magistrates and jurists invariably belonged to the elite. The dominant ideology would have liked us to think of it as a landed aristocracy, but the evidence suggests that senatorial, equestrian, and curial families were heavily — for senators, perhaps indirectly — involved in commercial activities, in spite of legal prohibitions and social pressures. The pragmatic nature of edictal law and the flexibility in its application attested in juristic writings make it difficult to rule out close and recurring contacts between the business community and lawmakers (and this is suggested by Cicero’s occasional indiscretion). The sheer volume of legal opinions preserved in the Digest cannot be allowed to blur the fact that Roman business law is mostly edictal law, explained and extended by the jurists.
To the question ‘was Roman business law enforced by traders or, at least, in special courts reserved for traders?’ the answer can only be a negative one: there is not much evidence for a Roman equivalent to the Greek emporikai dikai.144 Roman courts were composed either of recuperatores or a single judge or arbiter, who were selected from a list of respected people, some of whom could have been businessmen (negotiatores).145 In the imperial period, jurisdiction passed to civil servants (praefecti, praesides, iudices) whose interests scarcely coincided with those of traders, and whose technical competence rested less on their personal legal expertise and practical experience than on the services of their staff.
The evident worsening of the condition of traders in late antiquity does not point towards their receiving judicial privileges.Notes
1. As suggested by the New Institutional Economics school of thought: see D. North and R. P. Thomas, The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History (Cambridge, 1973); D. North, Structureand ChangeinEconomicHistory (NewYork — London, 1981); D. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge, 1991); and P. Malanima, ‘Progresso o stabilità? Il mercato nelle economie preindustriali’, Studi storici 50 (2009): 7—8.
2. E. Lo Cascio, ‘The early Roman empire: the state and the economy’, in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Saller (Cambridge, 2007), 619 and 626 (quotation); W.V. Harris, ‘Roman governments and commerce, 300 BC—AD 300’, in Mercanti e politica nel mondo antico, ed. C. Zaccagnini (Rome, 2003), 282, 285; M. Silver, ‘Roman economic growth and living standards: perceptions versus evidence’, Ancient Society 37 (2007): 192 (quoting A. Wacke and H.W. Pleket), 210-11, 217-20; T. Terpstra, ‘Roman law, transaction costs and the Roman economy: evidence from the Sulpicii archive’, in Pistoi dia tèn technèn. Bankers, Loans and Archives in the Ancient World. Studies in Honour of Raymond Bogaert, ed. K. Verboven, K. Vandorpe, and V. Chankowski (Leuven, 2008), 345-69.
class=22>3. M. Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht, 2nd edn. (Munich, 1971), 474 (‘The Romans did not develop a specific, autonomous commercial law.’)4. See, most recently, P. Cerami andA. Petrucci, Diritto commerciale romano. Profilo storico, 3rd edn. (Turin, 2010). Cf. also A. di Porto, ‘Il diritto commerciale romano.
Una “zona d’ombra” nella storiografia romanistica e nelle riflessioni storico-comparative dei commercialisti’, Nozione, formazione e interpretazione del diritto dall’età romana alle esperienze moderne. Ricerche dedicate al Prof. Filippo Gallo, ed. M. Marrone (Naples, 1997), vol. 3, 413—52, citing G. Carnazza, Il diritto commerciale dei Romani (Catania, 1891); M. Bianchini, ‘Diritto commerciale nel diritto romano’, in Digesto delle Discipline privatistiche. Sezione commerciale IV (Turin, 1989), 320-33; M. Bianchini, ‘Attività commerciali fra privato e pubblico in età imperiale’, in Fides, Humanitas, Ius. Studi in onore di Luigi Labruna, ed. C. Cascione and C. Masi Doria (Naples, 2007), 423-38 (with some reservations). L. Labruna, ‘Il diritto mercantile dei Romani e l’espansionismo’, in Le strade del potere, ed. A. Corbino (Catania, 1994), 115—37, coins the term ‘diritto mercantile’. Others speak only of ‘istituti commerciali del/ nel diritto romano’: cf. C. Fadda, Istituti commerciali del diritto romano. Lezioni dettate nella R. Università di Napoli nell’anno scolastico 1902—1903 (Naples, 1903 ; repr. with note by L. Bove, 1987); P. Cogliolo, Gli istituti commerciali nel diritto romano. Corso compilato dall’Avv. E. Finzi e dallo studente G.G. Traverso, Anno accademico 1921—1922 (Genova, 1922); and A. Földi, ‘Eine alternative Annäherungsweise: Gedanken zum Problem des Handelsrechts in der römischen Welt’, RIDA 48 (2001): 85.5. The debate started anew in Italy in the late 1980s: cf. Bianchini (n. 4) and di Porto (n. 4). It was subsequently carried on at various conferences: see, e.g., J.-F. Gerkens, reporting on the SIHDA conference of 2001 in RIDA 50 (2003): 489516; Circolo Toscano ‘Ugo Coli’ at the Certosa di Pontignano (12—14 Jan. 2006); and the Fourth OxREP conference, 1—4 October 2009, including A.J.B. Sirks, ‘Law, commerce and finance in the Roman empire’, in Trade, Commerce and the State in the Roman World, ed.
A.I. Wilson and A.K. Bowman (Oxford, forthcoming).6. ForsurveysinEnglish, cf.J.A. Crook, LawandLifeofRome, 90 B.C.—A.D. 212 (Ithaca NY, 1967), ch. 7, 206—49; D. Johnston, Roman Law in Context (Cambridge, 1999), ch. 5, 77—111.
7. J. H. Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition. An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Western Europe and Latin America, 2nd edn. (Stanford, 1985), 12—13, 98—100, 146—7.
8. R. Goode, Commercial Law, 3rd edn. (London, 2004), 3—6.
9. Goode (n. 8).
10. C. Champaud, Le droit des affaires, 5th edn. (Paris, 1994); D. Legeais, Droitcommercial et des affaires, 15th edn. (Paris, 2003); F.-X. Lucas, Le droit des affaires (Paris, 2005); D. Kelly, A. Holmes, and R. Hayward, Business Law, 5th edn. (Abingdon — New York, 2005). Forthe combination ofprivate andpubliclaws, cf. Goode (n. 8), 10; and Lucas, 8.
11. P. Meylan ‘Permutatio rerum, in lus et lex. Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von M. Gutzwiller (Basel, 1959), 45—64. F. Kudlien, "Mutator und permutatio als finanz- und handelstechnische Termini’, MBAH20 (2001): 48—54 rightly points out that the word permutatio has various meanings.
12. N. Morley, Trade in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, 2007), 59: contrast sale, where the seller has the advantage of knowing the quality of the goods on sale.
13. Strabo 3.3.7 (on Lusitanian mountain-dwellers, trading through exchange/amoibe or bullion); 7.5.5 (on Dalmatians). Cf. J. de Churruca, ‘Le commerce comme element de civilisation dans la Geographie de Strabon’, RIDA 48 (2001): 41—56.
14. Paul D.
18.1.1.1.15. Gaius 3.141.
color=black face=Garamond>16. Iliad 7.472—75.
17. D. 19.4.1.3 andD. 19.4.2.
18. D. 19.4.1—2; cf. D. 18.1.1 pr.-1; and Ulp. D. 21.1.19.5, possibly interpolated. Cf. R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations. Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford, 1990), 250—2; 532—7; Johnston (n. 6), 78—9.
19. C. 4.64.1—8.
20. Cf. J.-J. Aubert ‘L'economie romaine et le droit de la representation indirecte sous la Republique romaine', in Cascione and Masi Doria (n. 4), 215—30 on the situation in fourth-century Athens.
21. Polyb. 3.22—27.
22. cf. Livy 7.27.
23. Polyb. 3.24.
24. Livy 9.43.
25. Polyb. 3.26; E. Ferenczy, ‘Die römisch-punischen Verträge und die Protohistorie des commercium’, RIDA 16 (1969): 259—82; B.
Scardigli, I trattati Romano-Cartaginesi (Pisa, 1991); D. Nörr, ‘Osservazioni in tema di terminologia giuridica predecemvirale e di ius mercatorum mediterraneo: il primo trattato cartaginese-romano’, in Le Dodici Tavole. Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti, ed. M. Humbert (Pavia, 2005), 147—89, esp. 171—7, who sees in Polyb. 3.22.8 a reference to two common forms of sales (auction and written contract) and suggests a possible interpretation for the term telos (auctoritas) as the effect of the contract.26. 6.95.
27. Nörr (n. 25), 183—4, with reference to H.-J. Wolff, Das Problem der Konkurrenz von Rechtsordnungen in der Antike (Heidelberg, 1979).
28. UE 19.5.
29. T. Mayer-Maly, ‘Commercium', TR 71 (2003): 1—6; Nörr (n. 25); and G. Minaud, Les gens de commerce et le droit à Rome (Aix-en-Provence, 2011), ch. 1 (§§ 19—70, esp. 35-36).
30. Livy 8.14.10.
31. L. Capogrossi Colognesi, ‘Ius commercii, conubium, civitas sine suffragio. Le origini del diritto internazionale privato e la romanizzazione delle comunità latinocampane', in Corbino (n. 4), 3—64; D. Kremer, ‘Trattato internazionale e legge delle Dodici Tavole', in Humbert (n. 25), 191—207.
32. M. Kaser, ‘Vom Begriff des commercium', in Studi in onore di V. Arangio-Ruiz (Naples, 1953), vol. 2, 131—67, suggesting that mancipatio rather than in iure cessio was made available to foreigners as a formal means of conveying property.
33. cf.Cic. Off. 1.37.
34. Kremer (n. 31), 197—203.
35. UE 19.4.
36. Pace Kremer (n. 31), 203—6; andM. Humbert, ‘Il valore semantico e giuridico di vsvs nelle Dodici Tavole', in Humbert (n. 25), 393—7. References to the XII Tables are given according to the numbering in Roman Statutes.
37. Varro LL 7.105.
38. J.-J. Aubert, ‘The Republican economy and Roman law: regulation, promotion, or refllang=EN-US>ection?' in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, ed. H. I. Flower (Cambridge, 2004), 164—5. As W.V. Harris suggested to me, the archaic rules may have been superseded by the time the law found its way into the extant literary sources.
39. For details, see the chapter by Metzger, 283—4; Gaius 4.11—30; A. Borkowski and P. du Plessis, Textbook on Roman law, 3rd edn. (Oxford, 2005), 63—83.
40. Gaius 4.23.
41. For details, see the chapter by Metzger, 284; Gaius 4.30—47; J. Gaudemet, Institutions de l’Antiquité, 2nd edn. (Paris, 1982), 615—20.
42. E.g. Cic. 2 Verr. 1.119. The evidence is more telling for a later period: cf. Nov. 136 (AD 535); Nov. 106 (540); Nov.110 (541); Ed.Just. 7 (542) and 9 (date unknown) for the influence of moneylenders on imperial legislation. Cf. A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284—602. A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey (London, 1964), 350, 1139 n. 63.
43. Pap. D. 1.1.7 and Marci. D. 1.1.8.
44. The question of the imperium of the curule aediles is debated: see G. Impallomeni, L’editto degli edili curuli (Padua, 1955), 109—21; F. Reduzzi Merola, ‘Ventes d'esclaves sur les marches de Campanie', in Routes et marchés d’esclaves. 26e colloque du GIREA, ed. M. Garrido-Hory (Besan^on, 2001), 325 n. 18.
45. See FIRA I 66.
46. NA 4.2.1. See Impallomeni (n. 44), 90—136; D. Pugsley, ‘The Aedilician edict', in Daube Noster. Essays in Legal History for David Daube, ed. A. Watson (Edinburgh — London, 1974), 253—64.
47. Gai. D. 21.1.28; Ulp. D. 21.1.19.6 andD. 21.1.38 pr. (about iumenta). Cf.J.-J. Aubert, ‘Vitia animi: tares mentales, psychologiques, caracterielles et intellectuelles des esclaves en droit romain', in I diritti degli altri in Grecia e a Roma, ed. A. Maffi and L. Gagliardi (Sankt Augustin, 2011), 236—48.
48. Reduzzi-Merola (n. 44), based on TPSulp 43 (21 Aug. 38) (possibly also TPSulp 42 and 44); TH 59—62 (betweenAD 47 and 63); and Petr. Sat. 53.9—10. Cf. J. de la Hoz Montoya, ‘Neron y el impuesto sobre la venta de esclavos', SDHI 74 (2008): 376—80.
49. Ulpian D. 21.1.1.7·
50. Ulpian D. 21.1.10.1.
51. D. 21.1.12.4; Apuleius Apol. 6.
52. D. 2I.1.14.4, cited with approval by Ulpian.
53. D. 21.1.65 pr.
54. D. 21.1.38, 40, and 41.
55. Ulp. D. 21.1.38.1, 14; Paul D. 21.1.39.
56. D. 21.1.38 pr. and 13.
57. Gai. (1 ad ed. aed. cur.) D. 21.1.18 (false advertisement); Ulp. D. 21.1.19.6 (deadlines: six months for actio redhibitoria; one year for actio quanti minoris); D. 21.1.31.5, 31.10 (joint purchase), 31.16 (successive claims by buyer); Pomp. D. 21.1.36 (bulk price); Paul D. 21.1.43.6 (complementary remedies); Paul D. 21.1.47 pr. (extinction of buyer’s claim after slave’s manumission); Ulp. D. 21.1.61 (undeclared servitude).
58. Paul D. 21.1.44.1.
59. Ulp. D. 9.2.27.28.
60. Paul D. 50.16.74.
61. C. 4.58.4.
62. lang=EN-US>D. 21.1.63.
63. Cf. FIRA 3.87-88 (AD 139 and 142, Dacia); FIRA 3.133 (AD 151, Side in Pamphilia) and 132 (Seleucia in Pieria, AD 166).
64. Dio 53.2.2 and 54.2.3. Cf. C. Giachi, Studi su Sesto Pedio. La tradizione, l’editto (Milan, 2005), 65-70, esp. 67 n. 147.
65. T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic (Oxford, 2000). On the peregrine praetor, cf. D. Daube, ‘The peregrine praetor’,JRS 41 (1951): 66—70; F. Serrao, La ‘iurisdictio’ del pretore peregrino (Milano, 1954).
66. Dio 36.40.1—2; Asc. Corn. 59.8—9 (Clark) = 48 (Stangl); and Cic. 2 Verr. 1.46.119 on Verres deciding contrary to his own edict. Cf. G. Rotondi, Legespublicaepopuli romani (Milan, 1912), 371; M. Griffin, ‘The tribune C. Cornelius’, JRS 63 (1973): 209; P. Pinna Parpaglia, Per una interpretazione della ‘ex Cornelia de edictis praetorum’ del 67 A.C (Sassari, 1987), and P. Pinna Parpaglia, ‘Lex Cornelia de edictis, mutui feneratizi, certezza del diritto’, Labeo 38 (1992): 372—8; and N. Palazzolo, ‘Sulla lex Cornelia de edictis’, Labeo 37 (1991): 242—5.
67. See the chapter by Ibbetson, 34. A. Guarino, ‘La formazione dell’editto perpetuo’, ANRW II.13 (1980), 62—102, esp. 68—76 for the distinction between edictum perpetuum (promulgated at the beginning to the year of office) and edictum repentinum (promulgated during the year of office), as opposed to denegatio actionis (denial of a remedy); D. Mantovani ‘L’édit comme code’, in La codification des lois dans l’Antiquité. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 27—29 novembre 1997, ed. E. Lévy (Paris, 2000), 257—72.
68.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> FIRA I 65.
69. C. Giachi, ‘Storia dell’editto e struttura del processo in età pre-adrianea. Un’ipotesi di lavoro’, in Rivista di diritto romano, http://www.ledonline.it/rivistadirittoromano/ attipontignano.html, 14 n. 23 on the transfer of EP §§ 101—5 (Quod cum magistro navis, institore eove qui in aliena potestate est, negotium gestum erit) from their theoretical original place just after § 78 (De his quae cuiusque in bonis sunt — Infactum adversus nautas caupones stabularios) to a place between §§ 95—100 (De rebus creditis) and EP §§ 106—12 (De bonae fidei iudiciis).
70. EP § 9 (De edendo — argentariae mensae exercitores); EP §§ 49—50 (De receptis); EP § 78 (De his quae cuiusque in bonis sunt — In factum adversus nautas caupones stabularios); EP §§ 95—100 (De rebus creditis); EP §§ 101—5 (Quod cum magistro navis, institore eove qui in aliena potestate est, negotium gestum erit); EP §§ 106—12 (De bonae fidei iudiciis); EP §§ 183—5 (Depublicanis); EP §§ 218—23 (Quemadmodum a bonorum emptore vel contra eum agatur); EP §§ 269—79 (De exceptionibus).
71. Gaius 2.60.
72. See TPSulp 42 (Puteoli, AD 26), 43 (Puteoli, AD 38), 44 (Volturnum, first century AD); FIRA III 132—42 (all documents of early and late imperial date). On sale, cf. Gaius 3.139-41; D. 18.1-19.1; Crook (n. 6), 215-21; Johnston (n. 6), 79-84; Zimmermann (n. 18), 230-337.
73. With the possible exception of the sale of wine, cf. B. W. Frier, ‘Roman law and the wine trade: the problem of “vinegar” sold as wine’, ZSS 100 (1983): 257-95, 292.
74. lang=EN-US>Ulp. D. 47.5.1.6.
75. D. 47.5.1.3.
76. D. 47.5.1.4. See EP § 49 (De receptis) and § 78 (In factum adversus nautas caupones stabularios) A. Petrucci kindly points out that Gaius D. 4.9.2 includes the innkeeper’s liability for theft committed by travellers (viatores) in case of receptum. Ulpian follows suit for passengers in a similar position D. 4.9.1.8. On locatio conductio, see now P. du Plessis, Letting and Hiring in Roman Legal Thought: 27 BCE-284 CE (Leiden, 2012).
77. D. 4.9.1.1.
78. D. 4.9.1.2-3, 5.
79. Labeo D. 4.9.1.4.
80. Vivianus, Pomp. D. 4.9.1.6-8.
81. Ulp. D. 4.9.3.1.
82. Ulp. D. 4.9.3.1, Paul D. 4.9.6.
83. Ulp. D. 4.9.7.3.
84. Labeo cited by Ulp. D. 4.9.3.1.
85. P. Huvelin, Etudes d'histoire du droit commercial romain (Histoire externe — Droit maritime) (Paris, 1929), 115-59; Zimmermann (n. 18), 514-26 (receptum nautarum cauponum stabulariorum); P. Gröschler, Actiones in factum. Eine Untersuchung zur KlageNeuschöpfung im nichtvertraglichen Bereich (Berlin, 2002), 70-9.
86. Lenel EP § 50.
87. D. 13.5 and C. 4.18 (De pecunia constituta). Cf. Crook (n. 6), 232-3, 243; Zimmermann (n. 18), 511-14; J. Andreau, La vie financière dans le monde romain. Les métiers de manieurs d’argent (IV siècle av. J.-C.—III siècle ap.J.-C.) (Rome, 1987), 597-602; J. Andreau, Banking and Business in the Roman World (Cambridge, 1999), 43-4, 58 with reference to TP 151 (= FIRA 3.131e, AD 62) as a possible example from practice; A. Petrucci, Mensam exercere. Studi sull’impresa finanziaria romana (II secolo a.C.—metà del III secolo d.C.) (Naples, 1991), 378-83; A. Petrucci, Profili giuridici delle attività e dell’organizzazione delle banche romane (Turin, 2002), 57-65; A. Petrucci, in Cerami and Petrucci (n. 4), 143-9.
88. D. 2.13.4 pr.-1.
89. D. 2.13.6.8-9. See EP § 9 (De edendo — argentariae mensae exercitores); cf. Andreau (n. 87, 1987), 551; Andreau (n. 87, 1999), 30-49, esp. 46; Petrucci (n. 87, 1991), 141-71; Petrucci (n. 87, 2002), 23-27, 140-53; Petrucci in Cerami and Petrucci (n. 4), 191-203.
90. D. 2.13.10.i. See Petrucci (n. 87, 2002), 18 and 123, n. 30. On causa as a ground for legal action, cf. Borkowski and du Plessis (n. 39), 258—9, with reference to Ulp. D. 2.14.7.4.
91. Opera virilis: Call. D. 2.13.12. Cf. Andreau (n. 87, 1987), 497. The nature of the edictum monitorium is uncertain.
92. Sirks (n. 5), with reference to Ulp. D. 12.1.9.8; Celsus D. 12.1.32; and Ulp. D. 16.3.7.2 (insolvency of nummularii).
93. Cf. above, with Giachi (n. 69).
94. F. Serrao, Impresa e responsabilità a Roma nell’età commerciale:formegiuridiche di un’economia- mondo (Ospedaletto, 1989); Zimmermann (n. 18), 34—67, esp. 45—58; J.-J. Aubert, Business Managers in AncientRome. A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 BC—AD 250 (Leiden — New York lang=EN-US style='font-family: "Arial",sans-serif'>— Cologne, 1994); Cerami, in Cerami and Petrucci (n. 4), 36-67.
95. Cf. above, XII Tables 8.2 and 12.2 (as per order in Roman Statutes'); Ulp. D. 4.9.3.3; D. 4.9.7.4.
96. Cic. Off. 1.150-51.
97. Ulp. D. 14.3.1. The blurring of criminal and civil liability is touched upon in Ulp. D. 21.1.23.4-5.
98. EP §§ 100—5 (Quod cum magistro navis institore eove qui in aliena potestate est negotium gestum erit). The latest work on this part of the edict (formulae) is M. Miceli, Sulla struttura formulare delle actiones adiecticiae qualitatis (Turin, 2001), esp. 185—228; and M. Miceli, Studi sulla ‘rappresentanza’ nel diritto romano (Milan, 2008).
99. D. 15.1.1 pr.
100. Gaius 4.70—71.
101. Földi (n. 4), 78—84.
102. Aubert (n. 94), 117—200.
103. Gaius 4.71; D. 14.1, 14.3; C. 4.25.
104. D. 14.1.1 pr.
105. D. 14.1.1.5.
106. Ulp. D. 14.1.1.17—18 (extra ordinem) to be compared with Ulp. D. 14.3.1, citing the late second-century jurist Marcellus; and Gai. D. 14.3.2. Cf. B. Sirks, ‘Sailing in the off-season with reduced financial risk’, in Speculum iuris. Roman Law as a Reflection of Social and Economic Life in Antiquity, ed. J.-J. Aubert and B. Sirks (Ann Arbor, 2002), 139.
class=22 style='line-height:105%'>107. J.-J. Aubert, ‘Les institores et le commerce maritime dans l’empire romain’, Topoi 9 (1999): 145—64. On the actio exercitoria, cf. D. Gaurier, Le droit maritime romain (Rennes, 2004), 79—95, and M. Zimmermann, ‘Die Haftung des Reeders mit der actio exercitoria: Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Analyse des römischen Rechts’, ZSS 129 (2012): 554—70.108. Ulp. D. 14.1.1.21 and 14.3.7.1; Gai. D. 14.3.8. Cf. Aubert (n. 94), 43, 56, 140—1, 193, 372, 224—6, 292—3, 419—20. The impact of the SC Velleianum (c. AD 46) (EP § 105; D. 16.1; C. 4.29) on the ability of women to act as agents is unclear.
109. Ulp. D. 14.3.5.1—15 and 14.3.13 pr.; Paul D. 14.3.16 and D. 14.3.17 pr.
110. For lex praepositionis as a kind of lex contractus, cf. J.-J. Aubert, ‘En guise d’introduction: contrats publics et cahiers des charges’, in Laches publiques et entreprise privée, ed. J.-J. Aubert (Neuchatel — Geneva, 2003), 1—25; J.-J. Aubert, ‘Corpse disposal in the Roman colony of Puteoli: public concern and private enterprise’, in Noctes Campanae. Studi di storia antica ed archeologia dell’Italia preromana e romana in memoria di Martin W. Frederiksen, ed. W.V. Harris and E. Lo Cascio (Naples, 2005), 141—57; J.-J. Aubert, ‘L’estampillage desbriques et des tuiles: une explicationjuridique fondée sur une approche globale’, in Interpretare i bolli laterizi di Roma e della Valle del Tevere: Produzione, storia economica e topografia, ed. C. Bruun (Rome, 2005), 53—9; J.-J. Aubert, ‘Dealing with the abyss: the nature and purpose of the Rhodian sea-law on jettison (Lex Rhodia de iactu, D. 14.2) and the making of Justinian’s Digest’, in Beyond Dogmatics. Law and Society in the Roman World, ed. J. W. Cairns and P. du Plessis (Edinburgh, 2007), 157—72; J.-J. Aubert and G. Raepsaet, ‘Un mandat inscrit sur une sigillée argonnaise à Liberchies-Geminiacum’, in L’Antiquité classique 80 (2011): 139-56.
111. Ulp. D. 14.1.1.12 (certa lex); D. 14.3.11.2—6 (proscriptio); D. 14.3.13 pr. (double appointment); Gai. D. 14.5.1 (iussum). Cf. J.-J. Aubert, ‘Workshop managers’, in The Inscribed Economy. Production and Distribution in the Roman Empire in the Light of instrumentum domesticum., ed. W. V. Harris (Ann Arbor, 1993), 171-89; Aubert (n. 94), 6-14, 50-2, 335; Aubert (n. 110, 2003, 2005, 2005, 2007); E. Jakab, ‘Vertragspraxis und Bankgeschäfte im antiken Puteoli: TPSulp 48 neu interpretiert’, in Verboven et al. (n. 2), 321—44; Aubert and Raepsaet (n. 110), (mandate).
112. D. 14.1.1.5; D. 14.1.1.13—14 and 14.3.11.5; D. 14.3.13.2.
113. A. di Porto, Impresa collettiva e schiavo "manager’ in Roma antica (IIsec. a.C. — II sec. d.C.) (Milan, 1984), 169—204; Aubert (n. 94), 54—7 and 62—3, with references; see also Paul D. 14.3.14. For Roman company law, cf. Crook (n. 6), 229—36.
114. Aubert (n. 94), 325—47; J.-J. Aubert, ‘La gestion des collegia: aspects juridiques, économiques et sociaux’, CCG 10 (1999): 49—69. On publicans, cf. EP §§ 183—5;
D. 39.4, with Gaius’ commentary ad edictum praetoris titulo de publicanis; and L. Maganzani, Pubblicani e debitori d'imposta. Ricerche sul titolo edittale de publicanis (Turin, 2002).
115. Ulp. D. 15.1.1.1.
116. Actio quod iussu: A.M.M. Schleppinghoff, Actio quodiussu. Die Geheissklage (und ihre Bedeutungfür die Entwicklung des Stellvertretungsgedanken im ig.Jahrhundert (Diss, Cologne University, 1996); G. Coppola Bisazza, Lo iussum domini e la sostituzione negoziale nell'esperienza romana (Milan, 2003). Actio de peculio: J.-J. Aubert, ‘Productive investment in agriculture: instrumentum fundi and peculium in the later Roman Republic’, in Agricoltura e scambi nell'Italia tardo-repubblicana, ed. J. Carlsen and E. Lo Cascio (Bari, 2010), 167—85; J.-J. Aubert, ‘Dumtaxat de peculio: What’s in a peculium or the extent of the principal’s liabilityface=Arial>’, in New Frontiers: Law and Society in the Roman World, ed. P. du Plessis (Edinburgh, 2013), 192—206 with earlier bibliography. Actio de in rem verso: T. Chiusi, Die actio de in rem verso im römischen Recht (Munich, 2001).
117. Actio tributoria: T. Chiusi, Contributo allo studio dell'editto ‘de tributoria actione’ (Rome, 1993).
118. D. 14.5.1.
119. Paul D. 14.5.8.
120. R. Martini, Ricerche in tema di editto provinciale (Milan, 1969), 103—28; B. Santalucia, L'opera di Gaio ‘ad edictum praetoris urbani’ (Milan, 1975).
121. Cic. Att. 5.21.10.
122. Cic. Att. 6.1.15—16.
123. Cic. Att. 5.21.10—13 (13 Feb. 50); 6.1.15—16 (22 Feb. 50); 6.2.7—10 (early May 50). Rotondi (n. 66), 373—4 (lex Gabinia). Cf. G. Pugliese, ‘Riflessioni sull’editto di Cicerone in Cilicia’, in Synteleia V. Arangio-Ruiz, ed. A. Guarino and L. Labruna (Naples, 1964), vol. 2, 972-96; Martini (n. 120), 11-102; L. Peppe, ‘Note sull’editto di Cicerone in Cilicia’, Labeo 37 (1991): 14—93; and L. Maganzani, ‘L’editto provinciale alla luce delle Verrine: profili strutturali, criteri applicativi’, in La Sicile de Cicéron. Lectures des Verrines, ed. J. Dubouloz and S. Pittia (Besan^on, 2007), 127—46.
124."Times New Roman"'> Ulp. D. 25.4.1.15, admittedly in a different context.
125. Gaius 3.134; E.A. Meyer, Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World. Tabulae in Roman Belief and Practice (Cambridge, 2004), 12—19, 125—68.
126. Crook (n. 6), 223—5. Cf. in general Huvelin (n. 85), 184—218; J. Rougé, Recherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l’empire romain (Paris, 1966); Gaurier (n. 107), 97—133. On the Greek daneion nautikon, cf. S. Schuster, Das Seedarlehen in den Gerichtsreden des Demosthenes: mit einem Ausblick auf die weitere historische Entwicklung des Rechtsinstitutes: daneion nautikón, fenus nauticum und Bodmerei (Berlin, 2005).
127. Plut. Cato Maior 21.6. Cf. D. 22.2 and C. 4.33, with W. Litewski, ‘Römisches Seedarlehen’, Iura 24 (1973): 112—83; A. Biscardi, Actio pecuniae traiecticiae. Contributo alla dottrina delle clausole penali, 2nd ed. (Turin, 1974); L. Casson ‘New light on maritime loans: P. Vindob. G. 19792 (= SB VI 9571)’, in Studies in Roman Law in Memory ofA. Arthur Schiller, ed. R. S. Bagnall and W. V. Harris (Leiden — New York, 1986), 11—17; L. Casson, ‘New light on maritime loans: P. Vindob. G 40822’, ZPE 84 (1990): 195—206; Zimmermann (n. 18), 181—6; H. Ankum, ‘Some aspects of maritime loans in old-Greek and in Roman law’, in Mélanges I. Triantaphyllopoulos, ed. I. Velissaropoulou-Karakosta et al. (Komotini, 2000), 293—306). This type of loan occasionally appears in the papyri, e.g. SB III 7169 (with Berichtigungsliste = BL, second cent. BC) for a trip to the Somali coast (with Roman names: ll. 12, 19, 21); SB III 7170 (id.); SB XIV 11850 (BL, Theadelphia? Feb. 13, AD 149); and SB XVIII 13167 (BL, so-called Muziris papyrus, mid-second cent. AD) for a trip from Alexandria to India and back.
128. Scaev. D. 45.1.122.1; Johnston (n. 6), 95—6; and Sirks (n. 106), 142—9.
129. Rotondi (n. 66), 99.
130. Moneylenders had influence on legislation in a later period, cf. Nov. 106 (540) and 110 (541); cf. Jones (n. 42), 350.
131.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> Acts 27:14—20.
132. In the 7th century Isid. Etym. 5.17 speaks of Rhodian laws of maritime commerce as ‘antiquitus mercatorum usus’.
133. PS 2.7.
134. Paul D. 14.2.2.3.
135. Zimmermann (n. 18), 406—12; E. Chevreau, ‘La lex Rhodia de iactu: un exemple de la réception d’une institution étrangère dans le droit romain’, TR 73 (2005): 67—80; Aubert (n. 110, 2007); and N. Badoud, La lex Rhodia de iactu (forthcoming).
136. D. 14.2.9.
137. Rotondi (n. 66), 92—100.
138. Livy 21.63; Cic. 2 Verr. 5.17.44—18.45; and PS (Leiden fragment publishedin 1956) 3 (p. 5), ll. 7—11; Aubert (n. 38), 166—8 and 178, n. 17; A. Tchernia, ‘Le plebiscitum Claudianum’, in Vocabulaire et expression de l’economie dans le monde antique, ed. J. Andreau and V. Chankowski (Bordeaux, 2007), 253—78, with a telling calculation of the capacity of the ship.
139. Cf. the chapter by Sirks, 340—1; B. Sirks, Food for Rome (Amsterdam, 1991); L. de Salvo, I corpora naviculariorum: economia privata e pubblici servizi nell’impero romano (Messina, 1992).
140. Pistores, suarii, pecuarii, boarii, vinarii, etc. Cf. the chapter by Sirks, 341—2; C. book 11; C.Th. books 10 and 14; Sirks (n. 139, 1991), 307-413; Foldi (n. 4), 85-7.
141. J. France, Quadragesima Galliarum. L'organisation douaniere des provinces alpestres, gauloises et germaniques de l'empire romain (Rome, 2001) for Gaul; M. Cottier et al., The Customs Law of Asia (Oxford, 2008) for Asia Minor; and R. Delmaire, Largesses sacrees et res privata. L'aerarium imperial et son administration du IV au VI siecle (Rome, 1989), 275-312 for late antiquity.
142. C.Th. 13.1; C. 11.1 (abolitionin theEast);Jones (n. 42), 351, 431-2; Delmaire (n. 80), 254—74, esp. 367 n. 41, with reference (for registration) to C.Th. 16.2.15.1 (359 or 360); andP. Oxy. L 3577 (28 Jan. 342). Cf. also Minaud (n. 29), § 298. Othertaxes on trade are attested: siliquaticum, canon telonei and transmarinorum, on which see Jones (n. 42).
143. Edictum Diocletiani et collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium, ed. M. Giacchero (Genoa, 1974), 1: 134-7, esp. ll. 64-136; Lact. Mort. 7.6-7. Cf. S. Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government, AD 284—324, revd. edn. (Oxford, 2000), 205-33.
144. E. E. Cohen, Ancient Athenian Maritime Courts (Princeton, 1973); E. E. Cohen, ‘Commercial law’, in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, ed. M. Gagarin and D. Cohen (Cambridge, 2005), 300-2; and A. Lanni, Law and Justice in the Courts of Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2006), ch. 6 (‘Maritime Cases’), 149-74. The Roman evidence collected by Minaud (n. 18), § 365 (Cic. 2 Verr. 2.13.34; CIL XIV 2630; SHA, Alexander Severus 33.2; C.Th. 14.7.1 (397); C. 3.13.7 pr. (502); Isid. Etym. 5.17) is inconclusive, with the possible exception of the passage from the Historia Augusta.
145. Cic. II Verr. 2.13.32-34.