AN UNDERDEVELOPED ECONOMY 81barrel was making much of an impact, let alone replacing the jar, by the end
of our period. As with the skeleton technique of ship construction, this was
an innovation that might have come to the Mediterranean much earlier than
it did, apparently the turn of the second century: the barrel was a standard
carrier of wine and other agricultural products in the north- western
provinces throughout the period in question.^19
Adaptations in the law of partnerships and agency have implications for
the history of commerce.^20 In the case of partnership, the key question is
whether a principal who is one of a fi rm of partners ( societas ), in contracting
with a third party, has the standing of an independent agent or whether he
acts for his colleagues. In Roman, as opposed to English, law, he bound
himself only; he could recover from his partners by the action on partnership,
but the partnership would then automatically collapse. The inconvenience
of these rules for commercial intercourse needs no special emphasis. Major
adjustments were made in the late Republican period affecting two kinds of
partnership – and refl ecting their increased importance. An association of
public contractors ( publicani ) was held to possess a quasi- corporate status;
it had common property and a common fund at which a claim could be
directed by a third party. Again, any member of a fi rm of bankers was liable
to be sued over a contract entered into by one of their number. The Principate,
however, saw only minor developments toward the generalization of the
idea that a partner’s contracts bind his co- partners (e.g. Digest 14.3.13.2,
Ulpian).
In the matter of agency, the achievement of the imperial jurists is slightly
more impressive. The institution of agency has a clear economic signifi cance.
There are gains in both the speed and volume of economic exchange where
a class of professional middlemen exists to preside over commercial
operations. But without legal rules that create contractual obligations
between a principal and a third party such a class cannot arise. The strict
civil law position was and remained that no acquisition was possible through
another person who was not in one’s power. But this rule contained an
important qualifi cation; it left open the possibility of the employment of
quasi- agents in the shape of family dependants, in particular slaves and
sons, who had no independent legal capacity. There is ample evidence in the
juristic sources for the use of slaves in particular in business on behalf of
their masters. But the range of commercial operations was widened by the
introduction of additional remedies ( actiones adiecticiae qualitatis ) that
made a principal liable for the debts of his business manager or ship’s
captain, where the representative was acting within the terms of his
commission. The so- called ‘institorial’ and ‘exercitorial’ actions, covering
land- based and maritime business respectively, were probably late
Republican innovations, and may be added to the other indices of commercial
expansion in that period. But imperial jurists extended the concept of
‘indirect’ agency, and therefore removed further restrictions on commercial
operations, by broadening the category of people falling under ‘institorial’