Editing Roman commerce (section)

== The elite and a dual mentality on trade ==
While [[Livy]] makes reference to the [[Lex Claudia]] (218 BC) restricting senators and sons of senators from owning a ship with greater than 300 amphorae capacity (about seven tons), they were still undoubtedly partaking in trade as [[Cicero]] mentions this law when attacking [[Verres]], although he makes no move to charge him.<ref>II Verr.V18</ref>

Senators were still allowed to own and make use of ships under the size restriction, Cato when advising where to build a farm specifically mentions to have it built near an accessible river, road or port to allow transport of goods<ref>Cato De.Agr 1.3</ref> which is in direct conflict to Livy's assertion that all profit made through trade by a senator was dishonorable.<ref>21.63.3-4</ref> Senators often utilized free and enslaved agents as a loophole to legal restrictions, thereby allowing themselves to diversify their sources of income.<ref>John H. D’Arms, Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome, Harvard University Press, 1981, chapter 3</ref>

That is not to say that the acquisition of wealth was not to be desired, Pliny notes that a Roman man should by honorable means acquire a large fortune<ref>Pliny NH 7.140</ref> and Polybius draws a comparison between the attitudes of Carthage and Rome towards profit from trade.<ref>6.56.1-3)</ref>  Thus starts the confusion in the role of the elite in trade as Terence writes that there is nothing wrong with large scale trade; it is in fact completely honorable and legitimate to import large quantities of product from around the world especially if it happens to lead to a successful trader buying land and investing in Roman agriculture; what is dishonorable is trade on a small scale.<ref>Terrence 151</ref> Small trade is again shown as vulgar by [[Tacitus]] as he describes the involvement of [[Sempronius Gracchus]] in petty trade.<ref>Tacitus annas 4.13.2</ref>

Cato himself was involved with trade, although he himself cautioned against it as it was a risky occupation,<ref>de.Agr. Praefatio</ref> perhaps this was part of the reasoning to keep senators excluded from the trade business, as if they had a severe misfortune with trading they could fall below the financial threshold of being a senator, whereas comparatively land owning  was a far safer investment. Plutarch describes Cato's involvement in trade in great detail, depicting how he would use a proxy (a freedman by the name of Quintio) to run his business through a group of fifty other men.<ref>Plutarch Cato the Elder 21.5ff</ref>

The restriction on senators trading was itself passed initially through the tribune of the plebeians, a class of people who the restrictions would not apply to. It is suspected that this reform could have been the equites and other wealthy merchants trying to muscle the senators out from the rapidly expanding trade business.{{Citation needed|date=August 2021}}