Ships and crew. Historical profile

Journal of Modern Science tom 3/38/2018 Abstract The organization of the ship was connected to the organization of the board, according to the type of ship. It concerned the crew’s composition, the division of roles and responsibilities, the recruitments procedures and orders. The employment relationship was peculiar, governed by a specific regulation. There was a separation of duties and therefore there were different contracts of recruitment for the crew members. As to the ship, the roles of magister navis were different from the one of the crew, since the former signed a contract comparable to modern self-employment contracts and the latter signed a contract of subordinate employment similar to modern contracts. The paper examines, through the analysis of sources and of literature, the organization of the merchant ship and the recruitments procedures.


Introduction
The present essay moves from the observation of the renewed attention of the doctrine on the theme of the regulation and the organization of the navigation of ships 12 .
It is therefore natural that the dangers of the sea drew the attention of jurists, who, to make sailing safer, laid down some rules which were mostly accepted by Giustiniano in his code.
As a matter of fact, the employment relationship with the crew was the object of a particular discipline which differed from the general scheme of employment and was adapted to the sailors' needs (according to the modern terminology of employment relationship).
As to the idea of work the Romans had, it is significant that there is the lack of an expression which expresses the meaning inherent in our word "lavoro": labour, in which there is the sense of toil; opus and opera, in which there is the idea of the result , negotium (nec otium) which recalls every aspect of human activity, they do not answer adequately to the concept of today's work, in which together with the sense of toil and pain, there is strength and pride, which exalt individual value and social consideration (so, see De Robertis, 1946, pp. 13 ff.; De Roberti 1963, pp. 9 ff. and 47 ff.).
As to the ship, the roles of magister navis were different from the one of the crew, since the former signed a contract comparable to modern selfemployment contracts and, the latter, signed a contract of subordinate employment similar to modern contracts.
Both roles were governed within the locatio.In the classical Age, the locatio conductio represents the legal institution, in whose scheme, the Roman Jurists included most conventions concerning employment.A convention in which someone committed himself to work for others for payment (merces).Therefore, the locator was the one who provided the thing the conductor was the person who recruited the worker or the job, respectively in the two assumptions of locatio operarum and locatio operis (De Robertis, 1946, pp. 122 ff.).

The organization both of the ships and of crew
This applies, in particular, to the recruitment of the crew.It was for the magister navis, mostly a contract of locatio operis, while for the rest of the crew there was a contract of locatio operarum.However the role and the tasks of the magister navis could also be governed by a mandatum.
In order to better understand a ship's operation, it is important to remember that navigation was part of the enterprising activities implemented by an esercitor navis (the shipowner), who took over the management of the whole organization and of all the resulting risks.
The shipowner with an act of preapositio, designated a captain (magister navis), to whom he gave the powers and the weight of navigation.The function of prepositio of a magister was often underlined by the jurists, in D. 14.1.1.7,Ulp. l. 28 ad ed and D.14.1.3,Ulp. l. 28 ad ed., in order to determine the powers and the responsibilities of the shipowner (cfr.Cerami, Di Porto, Petrucci, 2004, Parte III, chapter I and chapter II).
Consequently, the exercitor was directly liable for what the magister navis had done under the powers he had been granted by the act of preposition towards the third parties (cfr.Wacke, 1994, pp. 295 ff.;1997, pp. 596 ff.; Miceli, 2001, pp. 193 ff.).
From the excerpts from the Severian jurists, it is evident that, as to navigation and vessels, the guidelines of the subordinates' work were included in the general scheme regarding the provision of operae, which, until the III Century crisis, was part of private law relationships and involved the servi alieni or homines liberi (Casola, 2015, pp. 3 ff.).
Such a scheme was based on the practice of private autonomy and governed by a type of lease contract or consensual contract, which is a contract based on a mutual commitment, even to accept or to refuse the working conditions proposed by the "employers".
All this was a consequence of the "family's" crisis and revolution, since the latter was no longer able to run working activities alone, because of the social changes and of the ever-growing development of enterprising activities.It is well known (Tafaro, 2009, pp. 62 ff., ivi bibliography) that, in the classical age, the familia was more responsible for production activities than strangers.
Actually, until agriculture was the only source of wealth, and until the commercial exchanges were limited in the city, where necessary, pater familias provided to the family's needs.As a consequence everything was done inside the family and it was the patres' duty to provide anything necessary for the family.It was thanks to the familiae activities that the economy of the Civitas flourished.The fathers took care of the production and coordinated the work of the subordinates and of the liberti in a relationship of dependency.Indeed, the edictum praetoris used the term familia to indicate the productive organization, made thanks to the pater.
The familiae were made up of several people, mostly of the servant branch (D. 50.16.195,Ulp. l. 46 ad ed.) among the latter there were also the mercenarii who could be equated slaved labourers, but could never be chosen for executive and supervisory functions (De Robertis, 1963, pp. 117 ff.).
According to the historical sources the supervisors of menial condition (vilici) were entrusted (domino concedente) with the power of organizing and leading (imperium) all the member of the familiae, company staff, including free workers (De Robertis, 1963, pp. 147 ff.).
Between the end of the Republic and of the Principality there were so many business activities both in the fields of commerce and of maritime transport that the role of the pater familias changed.
He was no longer the only point of reference of the patriarchal family but the head of a mercantile-business oriented family (Cerami, P., 2004, p. 26); it was the task of the pater familias to recruit people for a shipping company.On this basis, the praetores modified their edicta and allocated responsibilities for the contracts signed by the subordinates to an authorized person.These amendments did not imply the transfer of responsibilities from the contracting party to the dominus negotii, but the latter's' responsibilities were added to the direct (material or civil) responsibilities of the contractor.Therefore measures concerning the nautae complied with the new family group where the role of the pater was no longer the same, since shipping companies were continuously evolving.In this respect there was the edictum pratoris concerning the receptum which might be placed in a general context of the several dispositions of the 2 nd -1 th centuries B.C.: de exercitoria actione and de institoria actione.In addition to the actio recepticia, the praetor had granted several other actiones to the nautae: actio furti adversus nautas caupones stabularios and an actio in factum against the naute themselves due to the damnum iniuria datum.At that point it was necessary to find a more complex legislation which should not discourage maritime service but should correct the failures of civil law.Such a transaction was due to the praetores and to the iurisprudentiae.See Stolfi, (2009, p. 34, nt. 52, 35 nt 55), which considers the jurisprudence of the 2nd century AC as real "ethics of merchants" (36 nt.57).
Besides the needs the family had previously faced, now it was necessary for the family to be supported by special associations, which were very important in maritime business.
As a consequence there was a rise in the collegia naviculariorum 3 , which assumed the responsibilities to provide for general interests, such as the supplying of food for the city and the army as well as of maritime connection within the imperium 4 .
Indeed, there was a great interest in encouraging shipping companies because of the need of supplying both the armed forces at that time overseas and urban areas and Rome in particular (De Robertis, 1965, pp. 94-95).
As a consequence of this, the fitting-out of the ships and navigation became more and more professional and were regulated by agreements between private partners, but often, under the higher control of the Civitas and the Empire.
On this basis, the praefectus annonae, the praefectus urbi and other minor officials were a control bodies of the associations (cfr.Pavis D 'Escurac, 1976;Chastagnol, 1960, De Salvo, 1992, pp. 552 ff. See, De Robertis, F.M., 1971, p. 181).According to the author, the constitutions contained in C.Th. 1.6.5 and 1.6.7 show a willingness to keep their respective competences distinct.The officials who were often in conflict, with reference to the issues that arose at the arrival of the provisions in Rome, were in fact the praefectus annonae and the praefectus urbi, jurisdiction of the praefectus praetorio for overseas transport.According to Pavis D' escurac (1976, p 286), the revocation of the praefectus annonae of the function of superintendent for marine transport, to the advantage of the praefectus praetorio, seems to date back to the tetrarchy age . De Salvo (1992, p. 554), argues that the subordination of the former to the second official is also evidenced by CIL xIV 185, containing a dedication of the codicarii navicularii infra pontem Sublicium to the praefectus praetorio of Italy.According to the scholar, this source is certainly after the renewal of the land registry offices by Constantine, when the skills of the prefect of the annona were gradually absorbed.
Regarding the question of the conflict of competences between the praefectus annonae and praefectus urbi, part of the doctrine proposed two different solutions: according to Chastagnol (1960, p. 299 ff.), starting from 331/333 d.C., there would have been the subordination of the first official to the second, since his autonomy up to 328 would be proven by the confirmation of some constitutions addressed to him.Therefore, at the beginning of the 4th century, the praefectus urbi was entitled, among other things, to financial responsibility, jurisdiction over the members of the corpora as well as the adoption of exceptional measures in case of famine.
This thesis has been questioned however by Giardina (1977, pp. 65-74), which, on the basis of the epigraph of Pancharius praefectus annonae in 357 (cfr.Mazzarino, 1969Mazzarino, -1970, pp. 604 ss.) , pp. 604 ss.) and of the testimony of Simmaco (Symm., 9, 58), hypothesizes the autonomy of the praefectus annonae still at the end of the fourth century.According to the scholar, in fact, it is clear that if the administration of the oil canon was dependent exclusively on the praefectus urbi, Simmaco would certainly have turned to that official, who by that time was his friend Florentinus.
However, the question that concerns us is knowing that the general organization of the ships and navigation were regulated by free negotiation, as shown by D. 50.6.6.3-12, Call. l. 1 de cognit. (cfr. De Robertis, 1938, pp. 403-409;De Salvo, 1992, pp. 518 ff.), and, only in exceptional circumstances (during wars), could be integrated and regulated by legally binding conditions, such as the requisition or the compulsory destination to see transport (De Robertis, 1937, p. 7 and ivi ntt 3-4).
Such a situation went on until the late Roman Empire, since from the second half of the III Century and on a permanent basis in the IV Century, the collegia naviculariorum were converted into closed, compulsory and hereditary corporations.The latter were more similar to military organizations (De Robertis, 1938, pp. 418 ff. e pp.457 ff. and ivi bibliography) than to the commercial ones.
With this transformation there was, also, the semantic evolution of the original meaning of collegium, which had been established with purposes of private cultural and economic nature.Towards the end of the 2nd Century the word collegium meant a professional and economically important association in its complex and not with the single members.There was now a conceptual similarity between collegium and corpus.Collegium was not important as an association but as a category able to fulfil a public function (cfr.Rostovtzev, M., 1976, p. 185;Cracco Ruggini, 1976, pp. 92-94).
Consequently all members were bound (obnoxius) to the collegium, with their assets, their families and themselves such ties with the collegium were compulsory and the members could not withdraw from the contract.
The evolution must have been gradual.At the beginning (De Robertis, 1963, 257 f.;pp. 263 ntt. 26 e 27, pp. 289-290) public service was based on the decisions of the single member.Later on when the service became heavier and the gain lower, firstly, the assets and then the people were confiscated and declare obnoxia functioni (De Robertis, 1963, pp. 288 ff.Of different opinion was Waltzing, 1895Waltzing, -1900, pp. 329-330), pp. 329-330), in order to ensure public service in the name of the long-standing antiquitas.
As to the navicularii it was a question of the whole patrimony (integra patrimonia) allocated to the public services which were by then compulsory (C.Th. 13.5.5;14.4.7).This is a plausible assumption: such obligations were necessary since there were both fewer and fewer shipowners and a lack of people recruited, but at the same time there were also a few assumptions according to which there might be the chance, even for the obnoxii to carry out their business activities freely.
One of the reasons to justify the existence of free navicularii, vacui, vacantes (see De Salvo, 1984, pp. 1645-1657), was that they owned ships of such a low tonnage level that they could not be taken into consideration for the annonarium service; the navicularii instead of building large ships, built a large number of ships with low tonnage since they could be free from annonian taxes.In that regard, on constitution of Onorius (C.Th 13.5.28)states that all the obnoxii to the functio navicularia are forced to build ships with the capacity expected to fulfill their obligation.
It was thanks to the institution of professional armies that there was, above all, the division between labour and it's specialisation in a specific sector.As far as Quintilian says the milites became one of the genera hominium, together with the genus of the ex-slaves (liberti).In the late Roman Republic, Sallustio used the term homo militaris since previously civis and miles were considered synonyms: the solder was actually a citizen by definition, and citizen was a potential solder.(so, Giuffrè, 1983, pp. 13 and 23).The problems concerning the acquisition and distribution of the annona that is the ones linked to the retrieval of young people to recruit, in the IV and V centuries, led to a change in the nature of the military organism, coming to the heredity of the militia and therefore people were directly recruited in a hereditary way.Such a terminology did not only reflect the professional nature of the military's service or the divisions among the solders, but the beginning of an authentic caste, castrensis stirps and militaris prosapia.
In fact, in this period, however, the relationship of the crew on board during navigation underwent a fundamental transformation.The latter was affected by the amendments in the working relationships in every field, and above all in the military field.
It was thanks to the institution of professional armies that there was, above all, the division between labour and it's specialisation in a specific sector.As far as Quintilian says the milites became one of the genera hominium, together with the genus of the ex-slaves (liberti).In the late Roman Republic, Sallust used the term homo militaris since previously civis and miles were considered synonyms: the solder was actually a citizen by definition, and citizen was a potential solder.(so, Giuffrè, 1983, pp. 13 and 23).The problems concerning the acquisition and distribution of the annona that is the ones linked to the retrieval of young people to recruit, in the IV and V centuries, led to a change in the nature of the military organism, coming to the heredity of the militia and therefore people were directly recruited in a hereditary way.Such a terminology did not only reflect the professional nature of the military's service or the divisions among the solders, but the beginning of an authentic caste, castrensis stirps and militaris prosapia.
There was no longer the free recruitment of the crew since people became members of the collegium automatically and for legacy reasons (De Robertis, 1963, pp. 319 ff.).

The equipping of ships
If we consider the phases of the maritime organization, and its terminology, we can say that, in ancient Rome, the economical and legal activities of shipowners were characterized by the organization res ET homines, allocated by the shipowners to the transport of cargoes and passengers by sea.This is a peculiar feature of the shipping business which was, actually, been dealt with marginally by the Roman historical doctrine exercitio navis (cfr.Rougé, 1966, pp. 11 ff. Ligios, 2013;Giomaro, 2011, pp. 45-104;Cerami, 2004, pp. 8 and 27;Campanella, 2009, pp. 1-25).
Consequently the goods necessary for commercial activities were destined to the service of the ship and so they were part of the instrumentum navis (Richichi, 2001, p. 23;Giomaro, 2011, pp. 114;Ligios, 1996, p. 5).
In that regard the sources speak of instrumentum navis e/o of a ship cum instrumento: D. 14.It is important to consider the relationship between instrumentum and negotiatio, in order to understand better the meaning of the terms used by the sources and to grasp the difference between functionality and the object of negotiatio at sea.
We might say that the use of the means and of the people making up the instrumentum (Giomaro, 2011, pp. 105 ff. and ivi nt 1) should aim at facilitating navigation.In this way it was possible firstly to pursue maritime and commercial activities and secondly to get good financial profits; exercere could produce all this, thanks to a permanent organization of men and things.
The passage, according to Lenel, was part of the actio institoria to which the last part of the 28th book of Ulpiano's commentaries ad edictum should be dedicated.At this point perhaps we may find the presence of the expression taberna instructa in the expression actio institoria and consequently set its origin when the praetor introduced the important instrument of protection (Mantovani, 1999 pp. 79 ff.;Miceli, 2001, pp. 354 ff.;Miceli, 2008, p. 344, nt 29).
The Severian jurist underlined the meaning of the adjective instructa referring to things and men ad negotiationes paratis.
In particular, to the category homines, Ulpiano states that the latter, toghether with res should be useful for negotiation.As we will say later on, it will be possible to include not only people with leading positions such as the magister navis, but also other people regardless of their jobs and their positions within the organization hierarchy of the specific negotiatio.What is important is that these people were obliged to perform their ministerium in favour of a specific business activity, as we can desume from Ulpiano's words in D. 39.4.1.5(Ulp.55 ad ed.):Familiae nomen non tantum ad servos publicanorum referemus, verum et qui in numero familiarum sunt pubblicani: sive igitur liberi sint sive servi alieni, qui pubblicani in eo vectigali ministrant, hoc edicto continebuntur.
The staff might be made up of free men as well as of serfs (sive igitur liberi sint sive servi alieni), as we can desume from another of Ulpiano's texts in D.14.1.14(Ulp.28 ad ed).
Both Pedio and Ulpiano in the concept res also included the word merces.In Ulpiano's fragment D.14.4.1.1 (Ulp.29 ad ed.), it is evident that the word res was used for commercial activities.
In conclusion, Ulpiano stressed a close relation between taberna instructa and negotiator.Ulpiano must have been aware of the concept navis instructa corresponding to the organisational structure of a shipping company.
Roman jurists must have adopted a functional criterion of navis instructa including both the armamenta (Richichi, 2001, pp. 21 ff.) and the instrumenta, referred both to the outfitting of the ship and to all the activities on board which implied the use of the nautae (cfr.D. 33.7.13 pr., Paul.l. 4 ad Sab.).
Consequently it is important to examine the organizational structure of the shipping activities.

The recruitment of the crew
the management of a shipping company, regarded as a complex of res et homines ad negotiationem parati required a constant commitment not only in the purchase and in the use of the equipment of the ship but above all in the recruitment of the staff suited to specific working tasks, necessary for the different navigation phases.
To this end, it is worth remembering that the organization of a shipping company (societas exercitorum) could, actually, take three important forms.
The first was the one in which the exercitor (the shipowner) was not replaced by another person but took command of the operations of the ship assuming the roles of magister and of gubernator, probably helped by his own slaves (see, De Robertis, 1952, p. 49).
The second form was related to important companies dealing exclusively with the loading and unloading of a certain type of cargoes (D. 14.1.1.12,Ulp.l. 28 ad ed.See De Robertis, 1952, p. 71 nt 3), taken into consideration according to their weight and size; in such a situation the exercitor did not board the ship but entrusted the task of taking and delivering the goods to a substitute in the dual role of gubernator (helmsman) and magister (Cerami, Di Porto, Petrucci, 2004, pp. 54 ff.;Di Porto, 1984, p. 169 ff.;Coppola Bisazza, 2006, p. 189 f.).
Both the magister and the gubernator were helped by employees such as the nautae (sailors), the mesonautae (the sailors working below deck), the nautaepibatai (passengers who paid for their voyage by working on board), the custodes navium (surveillance staffs), the diaetarii (accountants for commercial transactions), the naupegi (carpenters), the proreta or ducator (lookouts signaling dangers, spotting cliffs or obstacles), the urinatores, divers, (Moschetti, 1977, pp. 565 ff. and ivi bibl.).
It is not difficult to understand that the performance of the working activities on board involved several people.
As a consequence the more complex the organization of working time and supervision was, the more numerous the nautae were.So there was a separation of duties (De Robertis, 1946, pp. 130 ff.) and therefore there were different contracts of recruitment for the crew members.The supervisors played a great role and were named according to their role: exercitor or magister navis.
The magister navis therefore presided over the life of the ship (according to Moschetti, 1964, p. 90;Moschetti, 1966, p. 65 and ivi nt 168).He was in charge of supplies and passengers; he had the task of arming and outfitting the ship (D. 14.1.1.3,Ulp.l. 28 ad ed.), through a right/duty to command during the voyage and supervise the crew.
The gubernator's engagement like the magister's was signed through a locatio operis faciendi (Moschetti, 1966, pp. 58 ff.) or through a mandatum, depending on whether he worked against payment or for free.
The request of recruitment should be made by a dominus navis or exercitor and more often by Augustus himself, by the corpora naviculariorum that met the increasing needs of the public annona since it was not easy to perform such business in an individually (De Robertis, 1937, pp. 189 ff.).
If other people's slaves were recruited, it was the case of a locatio conductio rei.
The recruitment of other people's slaves was not a rare case according to what emerges from D.4.96.1 (… si servo meo in nave utaris …) and from D.4.9.7.4 (… cum alienos adhibet …).In both cases the exercitor or the magister supervised the operae of the free sailors and in this case of the slaves recruited as nauta.
The passage dealt with the matters relating to the shipowner's responsibilities.The jurist underlined that the exercitor, once got his position, was responsible for the contracts signed by the magister navis but was not responsible for the contracts signed by other crew members (sailors) who were not authorized by the shipowner himself.The latter, anyway, was responsible for the former's behaviour in case of loss, theft or breakdowns.
The sailors' positions were completely different since they depended both on the exercitor and on the magister navis.The latter, during the voyage, had several powers.He could use either fraudulent means or to take disciplinary measures.The sailors, so, were in a situation of dependence until the expiry date of the contract (as a rule contracts were signed ad certum tempus usually a year).
All scholars agree (See De Robertis, 1946, pp. 132 ff.) that the main object of the locatio operarum was the worker himself, at least in the early Classical age.Consequently, the duty to work was not related to the contract itself but to the state of dependence in which the employees were mercedes conductus.D. 7.1.23.1 (Ulp.l. 17 ad Sab.): Quoniam autem diximus quod ex operis adquiritur ad fructuarium pertinere, sciendum est etiam cogendum eum operari: etenim modicam quoque castigationem fructuario competere Sabinus respondit et Cassius libro octavo iuris civilis scripsit, ut neque flagellis caedat.
All this was balanced by a clause for the supply of food and clothes which was frequently needed in their contracts.In the recruitment contract remuneration (merces) was normally fixed in a single amount and could be received at the end of the voyage (De Robertis, 1946, p. 263).
From the information received on this discipline in the following years and in particular from the statutes concerning the maritime sector, it is evident that sailors could be hired with a fixed amount (ire, navigare o vadere ad marinaritium) according to the recruitment contracts.The salary was calculated according to the sea routes to be sailed and to the duration of the working relationship.
Such a discipline was constant and lasted even when the shipping industry became compulsory (munus navicularium) in the IV century.In this way the navicularii and their colleges, from free and independent, became bound by a condition of subjection (De Salvo, 1988, pp. 333-334;Herz, 1988, p. 153) As we have already said, navigation, during the IV century, was no longer free but became a compulsory service towards the Empire and/or the civitates.
Also, we wonder if all the navicularii of the Empire were in the conditions above mentioned or if there were some of them who could be free from the functio.There were some members of the corporation who were not subject to the functio (Rougé, 1966, pp. 263 ff., 482 ff.;Cracco Ruggini, 1976, p. 80;De Martino,1979, pp. 426 ff.;otherwise Waltzing, 1895-1900, pp. 54 s. In particular, De Robertis (1937, pp. 196 ff.;De Robertis, 1971, pp. 2, 187 ff., 205 ff., 216-223) had stressed the existence of navicularii vacui o privati together with those defined obnoxii, in legal texts dated between the IV and the V centuries.
He had deducted that there were no absolute restrictions in those years; during the V century every free shipowner was subject to restrictions; in the end, between the V and the VI centuries, these restrictions gradually disappeared until a complete independence was achieved.

Conclusions
In the fight of this finding, as a consequence, a condition of subjection was often balanced by an exemption granted to the navicularii by the onera and munera: C. Th. 13.5.De proprietate etiam vel hereditate vel qualibet alia civili causa pulsati ne ex rescripto quidem nostro ad extraordinarium iudicium evocentur, sed agentibus in suo foro respondeant.Et ad exemplum Alexandrini stoli quaternas in frumento centesimas consequantur ac praeterea per singula milia singulos solidos, ut his omnibus animati et nihil paene de suis facultatibus expendentes cura sua frequentent maritimos commeatus.In particular, this text constitutes a true catalog of the types of exemptions recognized as well as of the guaranteed economic measures: in the first part of the lex, in fact, the exemption from the discharge of the public munera to the shipowners who provided the public service was ordered; in the second part, moreover, it is established that the shipowners, this time of the East, will obtain quaternas in frumento centesima as well as a solidus every thousand measures of loading, in accordance with the precedent established for the case of the Alexandrian fleet.
The measures linked to this exemption were directed to the navicularii.At this point we wonder who its true beneficiaries were.As far as we know the navicularii were the people who organized navigation, which is the shipowners.So the exemption de quo might only have involved shipowners.
In reality, such a question is not answered by the sources that is why there might be some speculation: either, in this case, the word navicularius was extended to all the crew members or the onera and munera were above all economical and so the crew members could not be charged for the payment since they were not rich.
The Sailors were, however, disadvantaged, which is stressed by the fact they had no guarantees and in particular they had no lien over the ship in case of non-payment of the salary 7 on board (Gandolfo,1883, pp. 288 ff.).
Journal of Modern Science tom 3/38/2018 This discrimination was an object of attention in the following ages.There were, actually, some improvements in the Byzantine period.In Nómos Podíon Nautikós (Ashburner, 1909;Biscardi, 1983, p. 13;Marcou, 1995, p. 609) which were a series of Laws probably collected during the reign of Leone III The Wise.There were some instructions concerning the legal and economic position of the nautae during the voyage.In cc.46 it was written that a sailor, hired for a year, in case of partial or total deterioration of the ship, did not lose his entitlement to payment and if he died in a shipwreck, his salary was donated to his heirs for the whole year.Deriving from the Roman Law there was the figure of the sailor recruited only for a specific period of time and consequently with a fixed salary, a figure we find in the Nómos Podíon Nautikós (cc. 5 and 64: μιστòς).The salary was determined and equally distributed among all the crew members according to the hierarchy on board.
In the Nómos all the technical functions of the ancient magister navis were assumed by the naukleros since the latter's duty was to verify the efficiency and the equipment of the ship before a voyage (cc 34/ III).
The nautai made up the crew and were subject to the authority of the naukleros and as a result of this subordinate relationship, the naukleros were liable for the damages caused by the sailors during the loading of the goods.
In the collections following the Nómos the sailor's economic and legal position was safer.
It is not possible here to explain the instructions contained in the Italian Statutes for maritime transport.
The main topic of interest is now the sailors' treatment, testified by chapter 33 of the Consolato del mare: Se la nave, o altro vasello doppo che habbia fatto alcun viaggio, sarà venduta a instatia delli creditori, del pretio habbuto per il tal vaso sono pagati prima li servitori, et marinari del detto vaso della lor mercede, et questo senza fidejussione de restitutione, et sono anziani ad ogni altra sorta di credito.In such a collection the sailor's condition was given a leading role.
The Consolato, established in the second half of the IV century in Barcelona (cfr above all Pardessus, 1828-1845, rist., II, Torino, 1959, pp. 1 ff.), unified the maritime law of the Mediterranean peoples and influenced the legislation of the countries and of the cities on the sea as it is evident in its own incipit: "açi comencen les bones costumes de la mar".Aquests son los bonos stabliments ò los bones costumes que son de fet de mar, que los savis homens qui van perlomon ne començaren à donar als nostres antecessors (chapter 46).On the privileges in favor of the sailors, see chapter 135: Padrone di nave è tenuto a' marinari, che del nolo che li sarà pagato, lui debba pagare a' detti marinari, et se il nolo non basta, lui se ne debbi fare imprestare, et se non troverà chi ne gli presti la nave si debba vendere, et che si paghino li marinari inanzi che persona vi sia, né prestatore, né altra persona.Perché il marinaro non ci fusse se non un chiodo di che si potesse pagare, si debba pagare.
Cracco Ruggini, 1971, pp. 140 ff.;Cracco Ruggini, 1976, pp. 63-94), involved the concepts of collegium and corpus used to indicate an association (see Waltzing, 1895-1900, II, pp. 236-242;De Robertis, 1971, pp. 10 ff. and ntt 34-35).Th eir interchange-Their interchangeability was recognized, starting from the II century, based both on epigraphic sources and on the ones evidences of Digesto and of the Codex Theodosianus.According to De Robertis, (1981;De Robertis, 1971 nt 21) there was only a diff erence of techni-there was only a difference of technical nature.The first term referred to voluntary associations, free from the State, the second term referred to associations in the service of the state and under the latter's control.Even according Cracco Ruggini, "Collegium e corpus", pp.63-94, and in particular for references to the Digesto, cfr.p. 91 and nt 81. 4 On frequent recourse to shipowners and merchants for public transport, among the authors who have dealt with this topic, cfr.: G. Rickman, 1971;Rickman, 1980, p. 269;271;Rickman, The corn Supply, 1980;Tёngstrom, 1974;Garnsey, 1983, pp. 118-130;201-203.On the aspects that are not strictly legal in the supply of annona: Cracco Ruggini, 1985, pp.224-236; Lo Cascio, 1990, pp. 229-248; Herz, 1988; Sirks,  B.,1991, p.13.   5 Th e opinions of Pegasus and Ulpiano are logical.Since the commander was respon-The opinions of Pegasus and Ulpiano are logical.Since the commander was responsible for the organization of the ship, it goes without saying that he had the capabilities needed for his mandate.The latter would fail to be fulfilled if the magister navies was not allowed to have the means to meet the urgent needs of the ship.As to the conditions according to which the privilegium on the credits during the voyage were recognized we make reference to Gandolfo, 1883, pp. 264 ff.It must be pointed out that the loan was directly granted either to the shipowner or to the magister navis for the needs of the ship; in this way the lender acquired a privilegium on the ship in the event if insolvency.The role of the dominus navis or of the magister navis in the outfitting of the ship was stressed by the regulations concerning both maritime credits and the people who should be privileged.Such privileges were recognized either for the lenders of money or for the people, who armed, outfitted, repaired the ship or provided supplies for the crew.D. 42.