Even if the use of slave labor was quite frequent in Late Antiquity, we do not have numerous proofs, regarding this age, of the functioning, in the Roman Empire, of companies between slave traders, which were widely spread at least up until the end of the second century AD (arg. ex Gai 3.148). It is likely that a reduction of venaliciarii’s negotiationes in the forms of a company happened in coincidence with the economical crisis of the Severian age, accentuated with the passing of time. The sources regarding juridical characters of the societates venaliciariae are Gai. 3.148 and, in the Justinian compilation, I. 3.25 pr., D. 17.2.60.1, D. 17.2.65.5; D. 21.1.44.1. The latter of these (D. 21.1.44.1) is part of the Paulinian commentary of the aediles’ edict de mancipiis vendundis. In this edict, in a heading dedicated specifically to companies between venaliciarii, there is an explicit reference to the need to contrast the wiles and improprieties usually played by slave traders that worked by a societas venaliciaria, whose structure could allow to get around the previous aedilician regulations, at the expense of slave buyers. For the chance that the latter may have concluded a company contract with the agreement of ‘reciprocal representation’, for any trade made by each partner, the majority shareholder or the partners that owned a share that was not lower than that of the others were jointly and severally liable for aedilician actions. This regime gave partial external relevance to the relationship between partners. The reading of the text by Paul leads to the question if the societas venaliciaria can be considered as any societas alicuius negotiationis or if, vice versa, it has ‘special’ characteristics, as the current most relevant opinion is oriented. For that matter, we need to make two observations. For what concerns the external relevance of the company relationship between venaliciarii (D. 21.1.44.1), we argue that it was only partial (because if was limited to the jointly and severally liability of the majority shareholder in aedilician actions) and possible (because the application of the regime of jointly and severally liability of the partner was conditioned by the insertion, in the corporate contract, of a factum of ‘reciprocal representation’ between partners). We do not see any more typical characteristics regarding venaliciariae companies. Even the examination of other sources in which we see, as a mere example, a reference to companies between slave traders, put in the Digests under the title Pro socio (D. 17.2.60.1, in the topic of the controversial use of the action pro socio for the refund of expensed taken by the venaliciarius partner, and D. 17.2.65.5, regarding the consequences of the untimely withdrawal of the partner) does not hughlight any element of ‘specialty’ of the discipline of societates venaliciariae. It is scarcely justified the attempt, made by some scholars, to match the company between slave traders with societates vectigalium, exercitorum, argentariorum, on the base of a specialty of regime connected to public interest, deriving from the impact of these four companies for the Roman economy. The interest protected by curule aediles with the heading so called adversus venaliciarios (in D. 21.1.44.1) is that of the slave buyer, as ‘weak contractual party’, exposed to the wiles and improprieties of venaliciarii organized in specific companies. Nevertheless, the study of companies between slave traders is a great viewpoint for some problems, still unsolved, regarding quaestus’ companies: their dualistic or pluralistic origin, the resistance of the contractual prototype to practical evolutions, the establishment of business risk, the liability of the partner for untimely withdrawal, the purpose and consequences of the actio pro socio.

Vendite di schiavi e societates venaliciariae in età imperiale

Laura Solidoro
2020-01-01

Abstract

Even if the use of slave labor was quite frequent in Late Antiquity, we do not have numerous proofs, regarding this age, of the functioning, in the Roman Empire, of companies between slave traders, which were widely spread at least up until the end of the second century AD (arg. ex Gai 3.148). It is likely that a reduction of venaliciarii’s negotiationes in the forms of a company happened in coincidence with the economical crisis of the Severian age, accentuated with the passing of time. The sources regarding juridical characters of the societates venaliciariae are Gai. 3.148 and, in the Justinian compilation, I. 3.25 pr., D. 17.2.60.1, D. 17.2.65.5; D. 21.1.44.1. The latter of these (D. 21.1.44.1) is part of the Paulinian commentary of the aediles’ edict de mancipiis vendundis. In this edict, in a heading dedicated specifically to companies between venaliciarii, there is an explicit reference to the need to contrast the wiles and improprieties usually played by slave traders that worked by a societas venaliciaria, whose structure could allow to get around the previous aedilician regulations, at the expense of slave buyers. For the chance that the latter may have concluded a company contract with the agreement of ‘reciprocal representation’, for any trade made by each partner, the majority shareholder or the partners that owned a share that was not lower than that of the others were jointly and severally liable for aedilician actions. This regime gave partial external relevance to the relationship between partners. The reading of the text by Paul leads to the question if the societas venaliciaria can be considered as any societas alicuius negotiationis or if, vice versa, it has ‘special’ characteristics, as the current most relevant opinion is oriented. For that matter, we need to make two observations. For what concerns the external relevance of the company relationship between venaliciarii (D. 21.1.44.1), we argue that it was only partial (because if was limited to the jointly and severally liability of the majority shareholder in aedilician actions) and possible (because the application of the regime of jointly and severally liability of the partner was conditioned by the insertion, in the corporate contract, of a factum of ‘reciprocal representation’ between partners). We do not see any more typical characteristics regarding venaliciariae companies. Even the examination of other sources in which we see, as a mere example, a reference to companies between slave traders, put in the Digests under the title Pro socio (D. 17.2.60.1, in the topic of the controversial use of the action pro socio for the refund of expensed taken by the venaliciarius partner, and D. 17.2.65.5, regarding the consequences of the untimely withdrawal of the partner) does not hughlight any element of ‘specialty’ of the discipline of societates venaliciariae. It is scarcely justified the attempt, made by some scholars, to match the company between slave traders with societates vectigalium, exercitorum, argentariorum, on the base of a specialty of regime connected to public interest, deriving from the impact of these four companies for the Roman economy. The interest protected by curule aediles with the heading so called adversus venaliciarios (in D. 21.1.44.1) is that of the slave buyer, as ‘weak contractual party’, exposed to the wiles and improprieties of venaliciarii organized in specific companies. Nevertheless, the study of companies between slave traders is a great viewpoint for some problems, still unsolved, regarding quaestus’ companies: their dualistic or pluralistic origin, the resistance of the contractual prototype to practical evolutions, the establishment of business risk, the liability of the partner for untimely withdrawal, the purpose and consequences of the actio pro socio.
2020
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11386/4766048
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact