[Authors and titles listed at the end of the review]
This volume is part of the series ‘Bibliotheca Aperta. Studi di storia antica,’ directed by Cristina Soraci. It consists of six essays plus an introduction by Michaël Girardin and Soraci and brief conclusions by Sven Günther.
In the Introduction, a concise discussion elucidates the rationale of the perspective adopted for the analysis of the Roman fiscal system. Girardin and Soraci observe that papyrological abundance has marginalized epigraphic sources. Nevertheless, as they note, inscriptions remain essential for reconstructing the ancient economic “ecosystem,” even in provinces where Roman taxation was grafted onto much older and well developed systems.
Girardin’s chapter, “César était-il généreux avec les Juifs? Retour sur quelques documents cités par Flavius Josèphe (AJ XIV, 190-210)”, examines a passage from the Antiquitates Judaicae to reconstruct an otherwise unknown epigraphic text. Girardin believes that Caesar’s specific fiscal measures mentioned by Josephus—interpreted by some historians as evidence of special amicitia/φιλία towards the Jews—more accurately reflect political expedience dissimulating a relationship of dependence. The challenge lies in extracting the verba ipsissima from Josephus’s narrative framework in order to ascertain whether Caesar genuinely acted, at least for fiscal matters, as a “benefactor” of the Jewish People. According to the proposed reconstruction, Josephus’s narration serves his broader “projet rédactionnel” of embellishing the relations between Jews and the Emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty through assembled texts of varying provenance. Caesar’s measures mentioned in Josephus (AJ 14.201) facilitated tax collection through procedures that, in certain cases, enhanced its “indirect” character. The essay ends with the analysis of Josephus AJ 14.203 and with two more general remarks: 1) parallels between taxation in Caesar’s time and the subsequent Augustan reform, according to Girardin, support the substantial authenticity of the acta Caesaris and Josephus’s reliability; 2) the documents’ limited temporal scope—from Caesar’s victory over Pompey to the Parthian conquest—precludes broader conclusions about Judean taxation history, serving instead to provide evidence that the Romans would have in any case wished in some way to favour the Jewish People.
Günther, in “Some reflections on publicum in inscriptions and papyri relating to the vicesima libertatis”, examines the lemma ‘publicum’ in vectigal-related sources, where it might have been employed as a neuter noun denoting “the public right/revenue,” or as an adjective referring to a specific noun or as an abbreviation of publicanus. This variability of usages has led scholars not only to different interpretations of specific sources, but also to various conclusions regarding the Roman tax system more generally. Against Alföldy’s reading in CIL, interpreting publici as referring to servi, Günther adduces several additional proofs through which it would be possible to demonstrate how the collection would have been carried out, between the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, by private collectors. The essay thus takes into consideration several instances of the use of the adjective publicus/a/um in relation to vicesima libertatis. Günther believes (37) he can find in CIL XI 7487 (EDCS-21000453—a second-century AD inscription from Faleria) a case of use of the neuter noun publicum to indicate “the analogous 5% inheritance tax.” On the other hand, in CIL XIII 7215 (= ILS 1866, EDCS-11001303[1]), reference is made to a person who would “serve a private tax farming company to administer tax collecting activities” in the area. Also uncertain is the reading of CIL XII 2396 (EDCS-09200807), which, moreover, cannot be dated.[2] Günther, therefore, concludes his study by stating, “publici, public, pub(l)-, p– in inscriptions relating to the vicesima libertatis is usually to be interpreted as referring to the neuter substantive publicum […], to indicate the character of the manumission tax, namely, to be a public revenue,” since “an interpretation as adjective indicating public administrative office or functions is doubtful (41).”
Marianne Béraud’s chapter, “Comment on devient douanier dans l’empire romain: esclavage et formation fiscale le long du Danube”, examines training for tax-farming personnel. Despite the important testimonies found on the walls of the Pedagogium, the lemmas paedagogianus, paedagogium, and paedagogius are absent from sources concerning customs slaves, know only fragmentarily through inscriptions. Béraud groups the inscriptions in two dossiers.[3] The first comprises three inscriptions from Poetovio, dating between 138 and 162 AD.[4] They provide an overview of the composition of the familia vectigalia employed by the conductor for the collection of the portorium made up, in this case, of vilici subordinate to the conductor, who, as Béraud observes, used vicarii: Festus, Prudens (subsequently vilicus himself, likely thanks to Primus’s training) and Felix. She argues that a vicarius’s career prospects depended on the capacity of the vilicus to impart genuine expertise. The second dossier includes the case of Eutyches, former vicarius (rectius, vicarianus) of the vilicus Benignus, who later become contrascriptor at Boiodurum customs.[5] The analysis concludes that the vicariate constituted an “école de la douane”; thatin the corporation formed for the collection of vectigalia, the customs administration operated through hierarchical stratification of lower-ranking slaves, with vilici andservi peculiosi, possessing one or more vicarii; that the vicariate functioned as a learning system, as the vilici would have shared their specialised knowledge with the vicarii; and that the customs system’s considerable complexity necessitated suitable training.
Soraci, in “Il frumentum mancipale”, highlights, first, how the expression “frumentum mancipale” appears exclusively in eleven inscriptions: one from Rome, and the remaining ten from Asia (the highest number), Macedonia, and Baetica. Of these inscriptions, however, eight (found in Ephesus, and all dating to 104 AD) bear a text that is entirely similar, always referring to a certain Caius Vibius Salutaris, who held (in Sicily) the position of promagister frumenti mancipalis (ἀρχώνης σείτου δήμου Ῥωμαίων).[6] Soraci identifies three roles connected to the frumentum mancipalis: 1) the dispensator, held by imperial slaves;[7] 2) the praefectus, which could be held together (and at the same time) with that of praefectura fabrum;[8] and 3) the promagister (ἀρχώνης), who could have been a private individual but in the service of the state administration. She further addresses the Greek translation of the title of Caius Vibius Salutaris, potentially illuminating his appointment as responsible for the grain owned by the populus romanus. Precisely in this regard, it is noted how in the Greek sources the reference to the frumentum mancipale was condensed in the expression “σείτος δήμου Ῥωμαίων,” while the wheat coming from Egypt is called “δημόσος πυρός.”Moreover, in bureaucratic language the terminological stratification appears much more complex (attestation about the existence of the frumentum decumanum, emptum, aestimatum). In any case, Soraci believes that the use of the expression “frumentum mancipale” can be placed at the beginning of the imperial age: all the sources in which it appears, in fact, date back to between the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Subsequent developments remain obscure, as the term vanishes in reference to the administrative positions. The essay ends with a brief analysis of Sicily in the light of its role in the Annona and whit a concise paragraph of conclusions.
In “Il ruolo dell’ἀρχώνης/pro magistro nell’organizzazione tributaria romana: le testimonianze epigrafiche”, Giovanna Daniela Merola deals with the figure of the official attested especially in inscriptions concerning the collection of the portorium, designated as ἀρχώνης in Greek epigraphic documentation. This figure should be identified as the “capo degli appaltatori di imposta” (79), as indicated by the etymology linked to the verbs ἄρχω and ὠνέωμαι. The testimonies of the lemma—apart from the case of Andocides, in the oration de mysteriis, where Agirrius (ἀρχώνης τῆς πεντηκοστῆς) is the head of those who were responsible for collecting a specific tax on the products exported and imported from Piraeus—all come from epigraphic and papyrological sources. Among the epigraphic sources considered, the lemma ἀρχώνης is also attested in MDAI(A) X, 1885, 204-207 n. 30[9] related to I.Parion 5,[10] particularly relevant in the sense of the existence of a group of individuals led by an ἀρχώνης.[11].According to Merola, however, the most important information can be drawn from some bilingual inscriptions of the imperial age. In these inscriptions, in fact, the Greek ἀρχώνης is rendered in Latin as “pro magistro.” In addition to the case of C. Vibius Salutaris, particularly interesting is I.Ephesos II, 517. In fact, there is a reference to A. A[ni?]cius Crispinus, [pr]omag. du[u]m [p(ublicorum) XXXX] p(ortuum) A(siae) IIII et XX lib(ertatis) III, which in Greek is rendered “ἀρχώνης τεσ[σα]ρακοστῆς λιμένων Ἀσίας [δ΄] καὶ εἰκοστῆς ἐλευθερίων γ΄.”. Merola then focuses on the problem concerning the exact identification of the role played by the pro magistro in the Republican period, especially considering Cic. Fam. 13.65.1, Att. 11.10.1, and Verr. II 2.70. The author concludes that it will be necessary to look at the pro magistro/ἀρχώνης from two different perspectives, i.e., both Roman and the Greek, observing how these perspectives cannot be considered superimposable (86). The essay concludes with a short appendix concerning the lemmas ἀρχιτελώνης and τελωνάρχης.
Giulia Vettori’s chapter, “Contribuenti straordinarie? Donne e vicesima hereditatium”, intends to demonstrate the non-extraordinary nature of the female tax contribution regarding the vicesima. The first examined case is recalled by Pliny the Younger, who mentions (Ep. 7.14), with respect to the purchase of a land operated by Corellia, the payment by the buyer of the vicesima. One can deduce, for the tax collectors, the right to address the buyer directly. Epigraphic sources, though scarce, yield two examples of women taxpayers. The first is that of Fisia S[—]. who did not deduct from the legatum arranged by his son the amount necessary for the payment of the vicesima, supplementing what was necessary on his behalf.[12] The second source recalls how Statia Fida, mother of the deceased, had taken the responsibility of paying the vicesima.[13] Vettori then considers cases where women appear as testators. The first is that of [Vib]ia L(uci) f(ilia) Rusticana.[14] Vibia’s heirs would not have deducted the sum for the payment of the vicesima from the deceased’s legatum. The same conduct, moreover, is identified in CIL II2/5 1166 (CILA Se 696).[15] From the examination of the sources, the author derives some general considerations, concluding that the history of women and the history of taxation, in the ancient world, may be more fruitful than previously realized.
The book ends with brief series of conclusions by Günther (“Conclusioni: Epigraphy and Roman Fiscality: Future Perspectives”).
The volume is a good starting point for further investigations that consider, as a whole, all of the implications of the tax system as integrated (and influenced) by the social system of reference.
Authors and Titles
Introduzione di Michaël Girardin e Cristina Soraci
Michaël Girardin, César était-il généreux avec les Juifs? Retour sur quelques documents cités par Flavius Josèphe (AJ XIV, 190-210)
Sven Günther, Some reflections on publicum in inscriptions and papyri relating to the vicesima libertatis
Marianne Béraud, Comment on devient douanier dans l’empire romain: esclavage et formation fiscale le long du Danube
Cristina Soraci, Il frumentum mancipale
Giovanna Daniela Merola, Il ruolo dell’ἀρχώνης / pro magistro nell’organizzazione tributaria romana: le testimonianze epigrafiche
Giulia Vettori, Contribuenti straordinarie? Donne e vicesima hereditatium
Conclusioni di Sven Günther
Notes
[1] From Moguntiacum, dating between the 2nd and 3rd century AD.
[2] Ambiguous is also EDCS-32001628, which is read in relation to IK (Ephesus) 17/1, 3045 = AE 1924, 80.
[3] For criteria used for grouping purposes cfr. p. 43 f. of the essay.
[4] CIL III 14354, 25 (= ILS 4242) = CIMRM II, 1488 = AE 1899, 74; CIL III 14354, 29 (= ILS 4245) = AIJ 293 = CIMRM II, 1493 = AE 1899, 77; CIL III, 14354, 30 (= ILS 4244) = AIJ 294 = CIMRM II, 1490 = AE 1899, 75.
[5] CIL III 5121 (ILS = 1857) = RINMS 105 = ILLPRON 1928 = CIMRM II, 1484 (from Atrans and datable between AD 160 and 169).
[6] Cfr. I.Ephesos 29.
[7] Cfr. CIL VI 8853 = ILS 1536 = EDCS 18800041 and CIL II 1197 = CILA II 1.97 = ECDS 05501200 = HEpOL 1165.
[8] Cfr. Philippi 718 = CIPh II 1.56 = AE 1952, 225 = AE 2010, 1472 = ECDS 13900443.
[9] Perhaps 1st century BC, from Cyzicus.
[10] 1st/2nd century AD.
[11] The same verb being found (precisely, τελωναρχεῖν) in another relevant inscription: I.Parion 6.
[12] CIL IX 1169 = EDR 11649 (middle of the 2nd century AD, from Nola).
[13] CIL III 1717 (2nd century AD or, probably, to the second half of the 1st century AD, from Dalmatia).
[14] CIL II 1952 (2nd century AD, from Cartima).
[15] From Écija, dating back to the beginning of the 2nd century AD. The author also examines the interesting inscription in IRT 607 = AE 1950, 155 (which concerns P. Septimius Geta, executor of the last will of Septimia Polla).