Cicero (Off. 1.150–1) famously dismissed small-scale trade, particularly retail, as an occupation to be rejected; middlemen, he claimed, could profit only by lying. Cicero, of course, failed to appreciate the essential service offered by such middlemen in linking producers and consumers, but his attitude was far from unusual. Indeed, as The Reputation of the Roman Merchant ably demonstrates, merchants in the Roman world were constantly fighting against the (elite?) characterisation that they were dishonest, unreliable and untrustworthy; their principal response to this stereotype was to cultivate a reputation that portrayed them as precisely the opposite, presenting themselves as honest, dependable and trustworthy. Despite similar condemnation of opifices as vulgar (sordidi) by Cicero, the pride that artisans showed in their skills has been increasingly recognised in recent years (e.g. N. Tran, Dominus tabernae. Le statut de travail des artisans et des commerçants de l’Occident romain [2013]), and S. reveals a parallel world in which merchants showed pride in their trustworthiness and honesty. The verse epitaph of Lucius Nerusius Mithres (CIL 9.4796), for example, a dealer in goatskins in the Tiber Valley, highlights his ‘rare trustworthiness’ (rara fides), and the fact that he was ‘straightforward in all his dealings’ (in cunctis simplex contractibus), ‘fair to all’ (omnibus aequus), always ‘honourable’ (honorificus) and ‘courteous’ (communis). As the monument was erected by Mithres during his lifetime, his carefully composed epitaph shows exactly how he wished to be remembered, and this tension between the stereotype and the self-representation of merchants lies at the heart of this book. S. draws on a wide range of evidence from across the Roman world, including literature, law, epigraphy and papyrology. She has an eye for the interesting, amusing or unusual anecdote, such as Antony being falsely sold two men as identical twins by an unscrupulous slave-dealer. When his deception was discovered, the slave-dealer managed to convince Antony that the men being unrelated made them even more special (Plin. HN 7.10). Such enlivening details result in a book that is as engaging and entertaining as it is scholarly.

The introduction establishes the importance of reputation and the central role that it played in the smooth running of the Roman economy. S.’s first chapter turns to formal economic institutions, law and the Roman state, assessing their place in overseeing and controlling trade and commerce. Engaging with the New Institutional Economics (NIE) principles that have been so pervasive in studies of the ancient economy in the last two or three decades, she argues that the formal institutions of law and the state are only part of the picture; the more informal social institution of reputation was also crucial to establishing and enforcing norms of behaviour among merchants as well as among those officials charged with overseeing local markets. S. emphasises the importance of consensus and reciprocal behaviour in this system. Merchants not only had to accept the rules of the state but also the rules imposed by their fellow merchants. In this way, trust in the system would be maintained, and (in the language of NIE) the reduction in transaction costs would benefit everybody; conversely, if some opted out, trust would be undermined, and costs would rise for all. It was, then, in the interests of all merchants to police themselves and others, even if this meant not always making the most profitable choices in the short term. Reputation worked as a private-order enforcement system, with merchants (and consumers) using social pressure, the threat of ostracism and damage to public personae to compel good behaviour. A good reputation took time to establish but was a worthwhile investment and represented valuable social capital. As an economic institution, its strength lay in its predictability and the fact that merchants could be relied upon in transactions; fides was its governing principle.

Building on this, the following chapters consider the nature of reputation and explore the strategies by which merchants created and maintained their reputations. While S.’s central contention concerning the importance of reputation is strong and well-argued throughout, the way in which the book is structured means that there is some repetition across the chapters, and it is difficult to recommend specific chapters for readers interested in particular aspects of reputation and its formation. Nevertheless, readers who work through all the chapters are rewarded with a new appreciation of the significance of reputation in the world of the Roman merchant. This is shown to be a ‘flexible and unstable commodity’ (p. 74). It took time to build up and was always fragile. It varied depending on context, be it social, geographical or chronological, changing and evolving across a merchant’s career or as they moved. S. is particularly interesting on the ways and means by which reputations were established, underlining the importance of friends and networks, especially for merchants who travelled. In Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (1.21–2), for instance, when Lucius arrives at Hypata, he carries a letter of introduction for Milo from a mutual acquaintance Demeas, which secures him lodgings and a local connection; such letters of recommendation are discussed in several chapters. For those who remained in one place, S. argues that consistency was the key to developing – and maintaining – a good reputation, and that day-to-day actions mattered much more than the big gestures (p. 104). These were face-to-face communities and information about a merchant’s reputation was easily spread through local networks. To a certain extent, a merchant’s reputation was controlled by those who interacted with him, but he was able to shape that response through his behaviour.

S. establishes at the outset that the term merchant ‘gathers many kinds of work under its domain’ (p. 6) and covers a wide range of social levels. At times, however, the differences in both scale and practice between merchants, retailers and artisans can feel somewhat elided. While reputation was surely important to all, Verecundus, a man who looks to have had a business manufacturing and selling felt items from a workshop on the Via dell’Abbondanza in Pompeii, feels a long way from the merchant importing and exporting goods to and from the town (pp. 87–90). The same might be said for the hawkers with their distinctive sales cries (pp. 128–9). Moreover, the apprenticeship of an artisan seems rather different to the training of a retailer or a merchant, although the two are conflated here (pp. 108–11). Conversely, within the discussion of apprenticeships, the differences between the experiences of the freeborn and the enslaved seem somewhat overstated. S. argues that these did not offer the same benefits of the establishment of a reputation or professional networks to those who were enslaved (pp. 111–12). Yet, as she also notes, enslaved, freed and free workers were often indistinguishable from each other in everyday life (p. 115), and for those who were engaging in transactions with enslaved workers (knowingly or unknowingly), their individual reputations surely still mattered. Furthermore, if they were later freed, these workers likely still relied on the networks that they had built up when apprenticed, whether these consisted of other freed workers or not.

These are, however, minor quibbles. S.’s welcome riposte to Cicero demonstrates clearly and skilfully the importance of reputation not only within the world of Roman merchants but also within the wider Roman economy.