The volume collects an introduction and nine papers, which are in part the product of a seminar held in Helsinki on 12–13 September 2019. In the introduction, the editors point out how the divide between the study of legal rules and principles in themselves (internal history) and analysis of how the law interacts with society (external history) has affected the historiography of the relationship between Roman law and maritime commerce. Written by legal historians, archaeologists and historians tout court, the papers collected in this volume seek to investigate the interface between Roman law and maritime trade from a holistic perspective.

Building on both literary and archaeological evidence (including traditions regarding the resources of the Tiber delta, the Roman attempt to colonise Corsica, discoveries of Etrusco-Corinthian vases, and the first treaty between Carthage and Rome), Gabriele Cifani highlights the role of fishing, salt production, shipbuilding, maritime trade and piracy in archaic Rome. Reacting against ancient and modern clichés that describe its economy as merely pastoralist, Cifani argues that archaic Rome was, in cultural terms, already a maritime society. Peter Campbell focuses on contingency as a hallmark of seafaring, which he sees as ‘a negotiation with the marine environment subject to chance and changing circumstances’ (25) and a ‘series of decisions made instance-to-instance’ (28) based on the conditions of the sea. The case is compellingly illustrated with the troubled voyages of St Paul and Synesius. However, we should not underestimate the efforts by experts in maritime commerce (merchants, shipowners and captains) to document the characteristics of each sea route (periploi and diaploi are based on experience) in order to manage the risks of the sea voyage. Piracy is the focus of Anna Tarwacka's chapter, specifically how Romans came early to classify piracy as a form of lawlessness, denying that a free person became a slave after being captured and sold by pirates. Drawing from the second treaty between Rome and Carthage, Plautus’ comedies, Pseudo-Quintilian's declamations and other sources, Tarwacka reviews the legal procedures through which pirates’ captives could be recovered to freedom and emphasises the different fate of captives who were kept for ransom.

Annalisa Marzano argues that, in the Roman world, successful trade relied heavily on a complex network of social interactions and personal contacts, which she labels the ‘personal infrastructure of maritime trade’. The point is extensively and persuasively argued by discussing epigraphical evidence from Italy, Baetica, Lugdunensis and Asia. Developments in the formulae of tituli picti on Dressel 20 amphoras are interpreted by Emilia Mataix Ferrándiz as reflecting changes in how the supply was circulated. She also appeals to the Saepinum inscription (following, however, Corbier's questionable interpretation) and Claudius Iulianus’ letter to the navicularii from Arelate in order to give examples of the protection extended by the imperial administration to the individuals working for the annona. Gianfranco Purpura deals with problems arising from the bulk transport of cargoes that were to be sold in several ports and belonged to multiple merchants. He cites the deigmata (samples sealed in little amphorae, little sacks, and small flasks) as an expedient that would have enabled transactions in different ports without unloading and reloading commodities at each port. Drawing on Dig. 19.2.31, Purpura then goes on to spell out the obligations of the carrier (nauta) towards the merchants (vectores).

After a far-reaching review of the evidence related to maritime loan contracts (gathered from Athenian forensic oratory, papyri and Roman jurisprudence), Éva Jakab concentrates her attention on two sets of Murecine tablets (TPSulp 51, 52, 45 and 53, 46, 79), each involving a quantity of Alexandrian wheat (13,000 and 7,000 modii, respectively) stored in Puteolan magazines in order to secure a loan. A proper review of this dense study would require more space, so I will make just two observations. First, pace Jakab, the deadline for repaying a maritime loan is contingent on the day on which the ship reaches its destination. Neither Dem. 35.10 nor Dig. 45.1.122.1 require the borrower to repay his loan before a calendrically specified date. They just prescribe new conditions if the borrower does not start his return voyage by a certain date. If the return voyage starts before that date, the lender assumes the risk both of a cargo loss and of a late arrival at the destination port. Second, it is possible, as Jakab suggests, that the Alexandrian wheat mentioned in the Murecine tablets was bought in Alexandria with pecunia traiecticia and shipped to Puteoli, but another possibility is perhaps more likely. The stored Alexandrian wheat may originally have been public wheat paid to the Alexandrian carriers for their service and then sold to Puteolan traders. In the fourth century, the compensation for the Alexandrian carriers established by Constantine comprised four per cent of the wheat transported to Constantinople and a solidus per thousand modii (C.Th. 13.5.7).

According to Peter Candy the naulotike mentioned in TPSulp 78 would have been an ‘interlinked contract’ in which a credit agreement and freight contract are rolled into one: Menelaos (a naukleros) would receive 1,000 denarii as a loan and offer his services partly or wholly rather than paying a yield in money. Yet, if this were correct, the contract would concern first and foremost a two-way maritime loan, and only marginally a freight: would it be appropriate to characterise it as a naulotike? The pairing with POxy. XLV 3250 does not seem apt: while Menelaos gets a loan that will be repaid, Anubas receives two partial payments, one at the start and one after the completion of the service. Moreover, St Paul's voyage shows that Alexandrine ships arriving in Puteoli at the start of the sailing season was not an unusual event. Despite Candy's opinion, the idea that Menelaos was an emporos just arrived in Puteoli on 11 April a.d. 38 is as plausible as Jakab's assumption that the 13,000 modii of Alexandrian wheat stored in the horrea Barbatiana 13 March a.d. 40 (TPSulp 46) had just come from Alexandria.

The paper by Roberto Fiori explores how Roman jurists struggled to integrate the pre-existing commercial customs of Mediterranean trade into the broader category of locatio conductio contract. In particular, he considers how they interpreted cases where the risk allocation could be deemed problematic: whether the freight is due when a slave dies during the voyage (Dig. 14.2.10 pr.); whether the freight depends on the capacity of the hired vessel or on the number of loaded jars (Dig. 14.2.10.2); whether a carrier that transferred the goods onto a less worthy ship (Dig. 14.2.10.1) or, because unable to reach the upstream destination, onto a riverine ship should be held responsible for the loss of cargo (Dig. 19.2.13.1); whether the freight is due when the ship has been detained and the cargo confiscated (Dig.19.2.61.1); and whether a freight paid in advance should be returned if the ship sinks (Dig. 19.2.15.6).

The papers in this volume take a wide range of perspectives that will interest a broad audience. A few essays imperfectly reproduce some Latin and Greek words, but the volume is on the whole an engaging and productive read.