Exploration of the Theodosian Codex
Trade Guilds of the Latter Roman Empire: Thesis in Economics, 1925 - Freda Utley (1899-1978)
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

The Social and Economic Conditions of the members of the "Collegia' from Constantine to Theodosius II (c.314 - 450 CE)
Preface
Intoduction
PART I	Collegia connected with the "annona" and the "public needs" of Rome and Constantinople
Chapter 1.1	Taxation in the .... Empire
Chapter 1.2	Taxation in the .... Empire Chrysargyron
Chapter 1.3	The annona
Chapter 1.4	The Revicularii
Chapter 1.5	Lesser collegia connected with the annona: Menscrae, Caudioarii, Lenuncularii
Chapter 1.6	The pistores
Chapter 1.7	Collegia connected with the meat supply and the wine supply
Chapter 1.8	Collegia connected with the other public needs of Rome Section 1. Hanciper Thermarum etc, Section 2. Limeburners and Wagonners
PART II	Workers in the State mines, workshops, mints, weaving and dyeing establishments
Chapter 2.1	General condition of sub members of the Collegia employed by the State
Chapter 2.2	Miners and quarrymen
Chapter 2.3	Workers in the Mint
Chapter 2.4	The Armourers
Chapter 2.5	Gynaecia, baphia, barbaricaria, etc. (weaving & dyeing)
PART III	Collegia in the municipalities, and in Rome and Constantinople considered as municipalities (i.e., Collegia not connected with the annona)
Chapter 3.1	The internal organisation of the Collegia , their aims and their place in the local administration accompanied by some remarks on the general conditions of labour of their members
Chapter 3.2	Role of the collegia in the local government and condition of their members in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Chapter 3.3	Fabri, centorarli, cendrophori
CONCLUSION	The economic decline of the Roman Empire; some causes connected with the position of the Collegiati, Causes and effects.
Web Editorial	Editorial Comments, Sources, Acknowledgements & Notes - P.R.F.Brown

Preface

The work is divided up into three parts following a necessary division of the subject.

The members of the great "corpora" serving the annona, the workers in the State Mines and manufacturers, and the remaining collegia of ..... and artisanna throughout the Empire all need separate treatment.

No attempt has been made to deal with the military collegia and the purely funerary and religious collegia are merely mentioned. Nor have I dealt with the laws or literary evidence concerning the professors, philosophers and doctors. These collegia are in no ..... industrial and the object of this study is to give some account of the industrial and commercial classes in the period from Constantina to Theodosius II. Where information slightly earlier, or slightly later in .... is available, it has been used.

Part III is no more than an attempt to state some of the general characterisations of the collegia and to specify a few of the problems which await solution. I have not even, as yet, been able to --- and ----- of all the inscriptions which I have collected for this purpose.

Generally speaking I have done no more at present than touch the fringes of a vast subject, for although the subject is the social and economic conditions of the "collegiati" it has been impossible to draw a picture of the working conditions and day to day life of the artisan and merchant.

As yet I have done little more than furnish a statement of the position of the "collegiati" in the eyes of the law. My main source has been the Theodosian Code which gives very full information about the collegia dealt with in Part I.

I have carefully perused the church histories of Socrates and Sozomen and the Histories of Zosimus and Aemismus Marcellinus. I have also consulted Lvagrius Nusehius Kunapius. John Chrysoatom's Homilies have afforded many illustrations and these homilies together with the Edict of Diocletian could, I believe, be made to furnish a good deal of information about the thoughts, the human needs, the working conditions and the payment of the artisans and merchants. The edict although ineffective must be held as stating what were regarded as the normal relation between wages and the cost of living.

I hope to continue my study of the industrial classes in the Roman Empire in the future.

The other original sources used together with the modern authorities consulted are given in the Bibliography.

FREDA UTLEY
King's College
MA Thesis at the London School of Economics, 1925
TRADE GUILDS OF THE LATTER ROMAN EMPIRE

[Index]

Introduction

The collegia were associations of people, usually of one trade or calling, with a definite organisation and intended to be permanent. It would be convenient to use the term guild or trade union to designate such associations, but both these words imply functions and ends very different from those for which collegia existed. It is true that like the medieval were guilds the collegium was concerned with religion, and that, like the modern trade union its members were mainly artisans; similarly also it had elected officials. The controversial question of further liknesses will be dealt with in Part III. For the moment two different types of collegia must be distinguished:

Those of men following the same craft or profession, and those which were merely burial clubs.

The latter were called "collegia tenuiorum" and were formed amongst the poorest of the population, frequently even amongst slaves, as burial insurance societies.

The member paid so much a year to the collegium and in return the collegium saw to it that he had a decent burial when he died and in some cases an inscription to perpetrate his memory. This would be inscribed on an urn or column or over the niche in the column-barium where his ashes rested. Most collegia had a "ustrin" (crematorium) and a burial ground or a columbarium, i.e., a subterranean sepulchre in the walls of which were niches for urns of ashes. The members also worshipped a special patron god and met together for such religious purposes. They even had their days of revel and feasting. Once or twice a year there would be a general remembrance festival of the dead brother. These were called the days of the rose and the days of the violet (dios rosae and dios violae).

Members who attended the funeral of a brother sometimes received a small sum of money from the common fund, no doubt just enough to compensate for their loss of a day’s, or a half-day’s labour. The wish to avoid the horror of the common pit after death and to secure a little remembrance, together with the desire for association with others in some semblance of social life were sufficient reasons for the formation of such collegia. That slaves were often members, and that such funerary collegia were formed amongst the 'families' of slaves of great households is not remarkable. The most wretched slave must have found some slight solace in association with others who experienced misfortunes similar to his own; the lowest workman must have felt some faint touch of human dignity and importance in the knowledge that he would not be entirely forgotten after death.

The collegia of craftsmen were in a somewhat different case. Their objects were also in part funerary but they had others besides. A discussion of their possible functions, and of the ends the workers had in view, is attempted in Part III, Ch. I, but it is generally recognised that they existed particularly for social and religious purposes. They, like the purely funerary collegia, saw to the burial of their members, and the members subscribed during their lifetime for this purpose. But these collegia also existed to make life more joyous, amenible and interesting. the members frequently held feasts together and many of the ordinances which have come down to us concern regulations for such feasts and for the amount of food and wine to be distributed. Frequently the collegia had their own halls of reunion, temples or "scholae" and they, like the purely funerary collegia, had a patron god that was to perform religious rites.

Indeed the distinction between the "collegia tenviorum" and the others, is difficult to maintain unless it is admitted that the latter associated for economic ends; for regulation of labour conditions, for monopolies and so forth (see Part III, Ch.I) otherwise, the difference is not much more than one of degree: the collegia tenuiorum were primarily funerary and religious, but also met for festivals if they were rich enough; the craftsman and merchant collegia were primarily social and had more funds to spend on festivities and reunions. the collegia tenuiorum did in fact sometimes consist of men of one craft, for men of one craft were apt to worship the same god and to know each other. The collegia tenuiorum must have declined in numbers with the spread of Christianity so the function was taken over by the Ohuro. Finally in 415 A.D. their funds were confiscated by the State. The funerary and religious side of the collegia has already been fully investigated and is dealt with in great detail in Waltzing, and other writers.

There seems no doubt also that all collegia were in origin, if not purely religious, primarily associations of a social nature. The collegia created a sort of communal life for their members who felt themselves lost in the immensity of the Empire; they did in fact provide, in some sort, just those amenities, and that necessary intercourse with one's fellows which was provided, in the Greek view, by the polis.

The fact that such collegia as the late drinkers (seribibi) and the comrades in death (commorientes) existed tends to show that collegia were in some sense like modern clubs or similar associations which satisfy the individual's desire for a group life now that the state is too immense to satisfy that craving. Man does in fact seem to be a "political animal". With the end of the City state other forms of association came into being within the big state. But since in the Eastern provinces the "polis" in its attenuated form still satisfied the social needs of men, it is not there, but in the West, that the collegia flourished.

It is difficult to trace the early history of the collegia and the subject does not come within the scope of this work. A brief resume of that history, so far as it is known, seems all that is necessary.

There was a legend at Tome that King Numa had formed various kinds of craftsmen into "collegia" and this shows their great antiquity. Down to 64 B.C. no hindrance was put on the formation of such associations and in the troubled days of the 1st century B.C. many associations seem to have been formed, ostensibly for innocent purposes such as burial insurance or to perform religious rites, but in reality as political clubs, to support by organised hooliganism either the Conservative or the Popular party (Optimates and Pupulares). The same --- to stop disorder accordingly ordered the dissolution of all collegia of recent creation. Glodius the Tribune, idol and leader of many such pseudo-collegia, reestablished full freedom of association in 58B.C. but Julius Caesar later suppressed all collegia not specifically allowed by the law. After his time only certain important and old-established collegia were recognised as legal, though many others were formed, and flourished without hindrance. Only in times of disorder, or suspected political disaffection, was action taken against them. For example the Emperor Trojan told Pliny to publish an edict in Bythnia ordering the dissolution of all private collegia in his province for Pliny had been specially sent by the Emperor to deal with that disordered province.

Pliny was indeed forced while there to persecute some Christians whose associations were counted as collegia and therefore came under the ban of the law.1/

It is well known that Trajan refused to allow a fire brigade to be formed at --icomedia in case the association should develop into a seditious one.

Still in the ordinary way "collegia" which were not licita i.e. legally recognised, were not interfered with. There were "illicita" in the sense of not being recognised rather than in the sense of being illegal. If there were disorders or riots anywhere or any suspicion of sedition amongst members of a collegium the "collegia illicita" were liable to be suppressed.2/

When the Government felt very ----- and the Empire had settled down to peace and prosperity in the 2nd century "collegia" of every description are found flourishing all over the Western Empire.3/ Evidently there was no longer any question of ambition or suppression. The 2nd century was indeed the golden age of the collegia as it was the golden age of trade and industry.

The 3rd century is the intermediate period during which many of the collegia declined in wealth and independence and the state services they undertook came to be called "munera" - a word of ominous import.

In the 4th century the collegia or corpora are entirely in the hands of the state which does as it pleases with them. Just as the State had incorporated, and was in the East to subject, its late enemy the Christian church, so it had incorporated and now used for its own purposes the collegia - those lesser imports in ----- which it had once suppressed.

But from another point of view the collegia in the 4th century are merely one form of the groups into which all the inhabitants of the Empire were collected. The order of curiales and the corpus of navicularli in a city can be referred to in one sentence as two groups to be treated in the same way. The ordo equester, the ordo senatoria and the ordo of principalares are other groups. All classes of people, civil servants of various kinds, soldiers, local senators, cultivators of the soil, artisans, all are classified and grouped in crates. All have their appointed task, all are hereditarily bound to their calling. The son of a senator becomes a senator and holds high office; the son of a Knight also follows his father’s profession or holds the same position in the state service, the son of a curial becomes a curial, the son of an artisan or a shipowner must follow his father’s trade or calling.

We are only concerned with the collegia of artisans and merchants but it must be remembered that their type of was only one of many. The collegia were from the point of view of the government merely convention groups who could be made collectively responsible for taxation, for the performances of work by their members’, for the succession of the to his father’s place and of his property to its service. Where no collegia existed artificial groupings were probably allowed and this would be especially the case in the eastern provinces where few collegia seem to have existed.

It is noticeable that

UNINTELLIGIBLE

Corpora seems to be the usual name used for the great associations of navicularii, mensores , suarii, pistores etc. i.e. those groups which were concerned with the annona and who are dealt with in Part I, collegia on the other hand seems to be the general name for all the local

UNINTELLIGIBLE

FNs:

1/  The Christians met for a common meal and for the worship of a god and they
    had elected officials - all --- of a collegium. On the whole subject of the     
    persecution of the Christians as members of forbidden associations 
    see Mr. H.T. Merrill's book "Essays in Early Christian History".

2/  For example after the massacre occasioned by the jealousy between Pompeii
    and Ruceria in 59A.D. the collegia concerned were suppressed. See Reid.Ch.15.
    p.523.

3/  The epigraphic evidence is abundant. Most inscriptions relating to collegia
    date from the 2nd century.

[Index]

CHAPTER 1 - TAXATION IN THE LATER EMPIRE

Before Diocletian the old Republican taxation - that of individual municipalities at a fixed rate, but varying according to the original settlement with the various States - had become almost valueless owing to the depreciation of the currency. Furthermore, the new system of administration, established by him and developed by his successors, entailed the employment and payment of a much larger administration than in the past. The reorganisation of the army, the setting up of more than one imperial court - all this, combined with the failure in the 3rd century to raise enough by the old system of taxation, induced Diocletion to transform into a regular tax what had hitherto been only a temporary and exceptional expedient for raising funds or obtaining provisions. He transformed the special 'indictio' into a regular yearly land tax. (1)

It had always been recognised that the government could demand supplies of food, wood etc. from the provincials for the needs of the army, for new buildings or repairs and so on. The governors had often abused these powers in Republican times and the Emperors had taken away from them the right to requisition supplies in their province. But the principle that the government had the power to requisition supplies upon occasion or to demand 'corvees' from the inhabitants remained and occasionally such demands were made. Pliny the younger speeches of requisitions under the name "indictio" in his panegyric of Trajan. (1)

There were also certain provinces such as Africa and Egypt, which instead of a money tax paid a percentage of their produce, the canon frumentarius.

In the troubled days of the 3rd century the Emperors became more and more frequent in their imposition of "indictiones" that is to say they issued decrees at short intervals demanding a certain quantity of corn, oil, wine, military garments and so forth from each landholder in the Empire, or from the landholders of certain provinces only. Nevertheless until Diocletian, these "indictiones" though very frequent, were still regarded as Special levies of taxation, they were not systematic or uniform and were indeed for that reason particularly grievous. Diocletian reduced all the provinces, including Italy, to the same level and transformed the "indictio" into a regular yearly land tax. He had a Census taken every five years from which it was calculated exactly how many "units" there were in the Empire.

Each year so much natural produce was demanded from each "unit" (2) and the collection was made by the Curiales of each municipia from the "units" in their territory. The term used for each unit was a "caput" or head, but the calculation of the "capita" was not merely one of population as may be gathered from the fact that the 'indictio' was a land tax. The units or "caputs" were calculated in the following manner: Each individual cultivator of the soil, whether he here a farmer farming his own land, or a tenant farmer, or a hired labourer, or a slave, was one Caput. Any woman, wife, daughter or slave counted as half a Caput. In addition, so much land counted as a Caput, the amount varying according to whether it was plain or hilly.(1)

FNs:
(1) For the above account see Seeck.B.II Ch.6. 
    whose views on this subject I have adopted here.

Each year so much natural produce was demanded from each "unit" (2) and the collection was made by the Curiales of such municipia from the "units" in their territory. The term used for each unit was a "caput" or head, but the calculation of the "capita" was not merely one of population as may be gathered from the fact that the 'indictio' was a land tax.

FNs:
(1) Paneg. of Trajan 29.4. He refers to the supression of 
    extraordinaria indictiones by that Emperor who, when the "canon" 
    was insufficient arranged matters with private persons.
(2) The financial year was from Sept. 1 - April 31 and the taxes took 
    the name of indictio from the notice sent out by the Emperor 
    before Sept. 1.       Goth:Parat.ad.C.Th.XI 1.5.

The units or "caputs" were calculated in the following manner: Each individual cultivator of the soil, whether he were a farmer farming his own land, or a tenant farmer, or a hired labourer, or a slave, was one Caput. Any woman, wife, daughter or slave counted as half a Caput. In addition, so much land counted as a Caput, the amount varying according to whether it was plain or hilly.(1)

FNs:
(1) For the above account see Seeck.B.II Ch.6. whose views 
    on this subject I have adopted here.

Each year a definite quantity of grain, oil or wine or other food stuffs was demanded from each Caput, but although the demand might vary from year to year, there was a normal rate established in course of time. The members of the municipal senates, i.e. the curiales, were responsible for the collection from each “Caput” in the territory of the municipality and each year they chose a certain number from their midst to do the collection, these collectors were responsible for any deficit and had to make it up from their own property. They could call in the soldiers and executioners of the government to assist them in dealing with recalcitrant peasants, but it is obvious that it would be the big landowners who could and would refuse to pay. These latter could not be tortured, and might often be too powerful and too close to the Emperor’s ear or to the ear of some high official for the curiales or the governors to dare to press them for what was due. Hence it was the poor and powerless who had to be forced to make good themselves. Hence “tot curiales tot tyranni” became a true saying. Such curiales who disliked this task of becoming extortioners and torturers, or those who in spite of such measures were unable to raise the necessary amount, often attempted to run away from their native towns to escape being curiales. They are even found to have gone into the country and become tenant farmers (coloni) themselves. [1 - C.Th.XII.18. etc.]

The reassessment of the number of "Capita" per district being only made every five years [2 - Later on it seems to have only been made every 15 years C.Th.XII.12 and Goth commentary.] no account was taken of land left waste in the interval by the flight or death of the inhabitants; the curiales had to make good the deficit; the Treasury demanded the same amount. When at the end of the five years the reassessment was made; the officials responsible were unwilling to report a smaller number of "Capita" than at the last indiction for fear of incurring the Emperor's displeasure. Furthermore, it would again be the rich and powerful who by bribes and intimidation would lessen the number of Capita at which their lands and slaves were assessed.

It is to be noted that it was only the actual cultivators of the soil who paid the tax. The owner of the land who resided in a city whether he let it out to smallholders (coloni) or cultivated it by means of slave labour was not himself assessed.[1 - Seeck op.cit. p.267.]

The landowner indeed paid for his slaves but the peasant and Colonus paid for themselves.

How very much more heavily the tax weighed on the tenant farmer and the small holder than on the great landowner is clearly shown by Seeck. "Let us take, for example, a married peasant with 20 acres of arable land of first quality, this land would count as one Caput, he himself as another and his wife as 1/2 a Caput. He had therefore to pay at the rate of 2-1/2 caputs for his little farm i.e. 1/6 Caput per acre. On the other hand he who cultivated 2000 acres with 50 slaves counted as 150 units i.e. only 3/40 per acre. Thus in this case the burden of the peasant compared with the burden of the great landowner was in the proportion of 5 to 3". [2 - Ibid. Ck.II.Ch.6. p. 270 and 71].

The main sufferers, apart from the coloni, were the curiales who had to make good from their own property deficiencies in the amount of taxation: the middle class in the provinces were not powerful enough to escape their burdens and who found those burdens becoming ever more onerous as the produce and man-power of the Empire declined.

It has been necessary to go into some detail about the "indictio" both in order to understand how supplies in kind were obtained in other countries than Egypt and Africa and to make clear how great a privilege was exemption from the curia for the members of the special collegia to whom it was granted.

A distinction must be made between the provinces whose taxes in kind were sent to Rome and Constantinople, and those whose supplies were used for the payment and nourishment of the officials and soldiers in the province or sent further away for the supply of military expeditions. The former will be dealt with specially under the chapter entitled Annona.

As regards the ordinary provinces which were not productive enough to do much more than supply the needs of the military forces and of the officials in the province the taxes were brought to the municipia and there some were stored and some handed over to the 'susceptores' of the central government. There was beyond the supply of so much foodstuff per capita a demand for so many horses(1) and so many "militares vestes" from every so many "capita". A colonus might therefore find himself taxed with part of the cost of a horse and 1/8 of the cost of a woollen garment in addition to his contribution of corn or wine or oil. We know that in the case of Thrace one vestris had to be ........

Note: Page H7 is coming

or mend a road, to restore a public building. He could not refuse to do any bodily service demanded of him anymore than he could refuse the taxes. But whereas in the case of the "indictio" no cultivator of the soil was excused from payment, in the case of the munera sordida et extraordinaria certain privileged classes were excused. All senators were held to the payment of the indictio on their lands, though they themselves were not reckoned as capita. They paid for their land and their slaves and could not be excused. But they were exempt from all "munera civilia" including bodily service in corvees which one might otherwise have concluded would have been performed by their slaves. From the other form of personal service e.g. as members of local curiae and so as tax collectors or as holders of other posts in the local government they were equally exempt.

There was, however, a special extra tax placed on senators only. It was a money tax on land instituted first by Constantine according to Zosimus (1 - Zosimus, Bk.II.) and called variously: follis senatorius, gleba senatoria, glebalis pensio, canon senatorius.

The revenue from this tax came straight to the Treasury, that is, it was an extra source of revenue for the central government and did not in any way benefit the municipia in whose territory lay the lands so taxed. In fact the special treatment of the senators meant that they became a class apart who took no part in the local government, bore no direct share in local taxation and so gave no help in the provinces where they lived; they were so to speak lifted out of the provinces to form a class of citizens of the Empire having no connection with the individual units of the Empire; they were directly under the Emperor instead of approaching him via the municipality or local governing bodies. There was another tax which only concerned Senators; the aurum oblatitium. This was a yearly money payment levied at a varying rate according to the wealth of the senators, there being three, and then four classes in which they were grouped. It was in theory a voluntary offering, but in fact a tax. On special occasions such as the coronation of an Emperor on his five yearly jubilees, or celebrations of victories, it was levied at a specially high rate.(1 - C.Th.XII. 13.1.)

To correspond with the aurum oblatitium for senators there was the aurum coronarium for the curiales. This was an old tax which had persisted since the early Empire as in theory a voluntary offering of gold crowns by the curiae of the municipalities. It had for long been a tax which could not be refused, and it was levied on special occasions such as coronations, jubilees and celebrations of victories. Julian tried to make it only a voluntary gift and decreed that it was not to be exacted (indici) from other classes any more than from senators (who were never liable). He distinguishes it carefully from the indiction which is a regular lawful tax.(2 - C.Th.XII. 13.1)

However it was soon exacted again for in 364 Valentinian decreed that all "possessores” except senators and those specially exempted were to be made to pay it.(1 - XII.13.2)

It is quite clear that the tax was only paid by the curiales, for senators the glebalis payment took its place.(2 - XII.13.2) No one but curiales were to be made to pay.(3 -XII.13.2) The pretence that it was a voluntary offering was still sometimes kept up for in 379 it is decreed that such ordines of the various curiae as "moved by pride, or the joy of giving, or by success in business, have made an offering in golden crowns" are not to be told to pay in some other specie; whatever material their offering is made in is to be accepted.

It would appear that the native rulers of Eastern provinces under the protectorate of the RF. Empire were also called upon to pay this aurum coronarium (4 - C.Th.XII.13.6. "All satraps on account of the devotion which is owed to the R. dominion should make a solemn offering to our serenity from their own property”.) but this point does not concern us.

Apart from the custom duties which had long existed there is only one other important tax which has not been mentioned. This is the CHRYSARGYRUM ORLUSTRALIS COLLATIO collected every five years from all who lived by industry or trade of any sort. It specially concerns the subject of this thesis and needs separate treatment.

[Index]

CHAPTER II - The Chrysargyron

The chrysargyron was calculated to rope into the Imperial Treasury a percentage of the earnings of all who did not live off the land, that is of the inhabitants of the cities who were not touched by the land tax. It naturally fell on those who paid the land tax and were both landed proprietors and merchants, as well as on the poorest who lived from day to day from the produce of their bodily labour. It seems to have been in part a tax on sales and in part a sort of capital levy on property other than landed property. It was originally devised by Alexander Severus(1) but Constantine regularised its collection and enlarged the list of those liable. This seems the most probable explanation although Zosimus says that Constantine first imposed it.(2) He speaks of it as a tax of gold and silver on all merchants and tradesmen even to the lowest classes, not even sparing the poorest prostitute.(3) It is commonly spoken of as a tax on all those who engaged in any industry which required a capital fund and as falling on petty tradesmen and artisans of all kinds save simple day laborers.(4) This seems to be an accurate description of the tax so long as the "capital fund" is strictly defined as implying the means of production i.e. the tools with which the artisan produced his goods for sale, as well as the actual possession of articles for sale. The tax quite certainly touched the very poorest and the inclusion of prostitutes shows that the sale of almost anything was taxed.

FNs:
(1) Lamp.Alex. Sev.24. "Braco-ariorum, linteonum Vitresariarum, pellionum,
    plaustrariorum, argentariorum, aurificum et coterarum artium, vectigal
    pulcherrimum instituit ex coque jussit tharmas... populi usibus exhiberi".
(2) Zosimus Bk.II.
(3) ibid. 446.
(4) e.g. W. A. Brown State control of industry in 4th cont. A.D. Political Science
    Quarterly II. 494.

Just how far it was a tax on earnings and how far a sort of capital levy on property, whether the 'property' consisted in tools or goods - it is impossible to say,. It may be surmised that it was a mixture of the two just as the indictio was half land tax, half poll tax.

It may again have been a tax on production and sale copies from Egypt, for Persson has shown that such taxes took the place of royal monopolies as early as the first century B.C. and were continued by the Romans.(1)

Although unable to show exactly on what principle the assessment for the tax was made it is possible to define the classes who had to pay it.

The position becomes clearer when it is realised that the word "negotiatores" as used in the laws means both artisans and merchants.

It is applied both to those who bought raw materials to sell them later as finished products whether small artisans or owners of large workshops, and to all merchants who bought finished products to retail.(2)

No one, says Constantius, in 356 and again in 380, who is engaged in any sort of trade is to be exempt "Negotiatores comes protinus convenit curum argentomque praebere"(3) and "universi qui negotiandi videntur exercere sollertiem, ad onus

FNs:
(1) Perason "Staat un Manufactur in Rom: Reich.
(2) Ibi tantum ad argentique destinentur oblationum qui merces emendoatque
    vadendo commitantes, qui in exercitio tabernarum usuque versantur".
    C.PH.XIII. 1.8.
(3) XIII. 1. 1.

opalationis edstringantur"(1) with the exception of peasants and coloni who, living on the lands of senators, retail locally only such things as they produce from the lands they cultivate.(2)

If this decree did not include all peasants retailing their own produce but only those on the lands of senators, the subsequent decrees give exception to all landowners or coloni who retailed their own produce.(3)

A special distinction is made between the sort of peasants mentioned above and those who "for gain or because their nature so impells them" are sellers and retailers.(4) The latter are to pay the tax they must be peasants who but goods from their fellows and retail them or those who carry on some small retail business in merchandise procured from the towns; whilst at the same time cultivating their lands.(5)

The simple village craftsman, such as the potter and the smith, who with their own hands procured their subsistence are also exempted, but the dealers in the same articles who are real merchants who have devoted their life to trade are to pay.(6)

FNs:
(1) C.Th. XIII. 1.2.
(2) XIII. 1.3 Ad senatum: "Rusticanos colonesque . . . . . . si es bomines vestri ac
    rusticeni atians in possessionibus commosantos distrohant, quas in his terris 
    quas incolunt aque in codem rure gignuntur".
(3) XIII. 1,6,8,10,12,13.
(4) XIII. 1,3 and 10.
(5) ibid and 13 "emendi vendendive corpendtis ultro citroque quaesitis familiaris
    coi .....
(6) XIII. 1.10.

It is obvious that the Emperors try to make a distinction in the country districts between those who sell the produce of their own labour and those who are buyers and sellers i.e. real merchants. These latter whether large wholesale dealers or small shopkeepers(1) are all to pay; those who live off the land and who are already sufficiently taxed by the "indictio" and likewise simple village craftsmen in the country districts, are not to pay.

Generally speaking the tax is obviously designed to touch those who did not pay the indictio. Thus Julian removed the abuse whereby curiales had been forced to pay the tax in a body and decreed that only those engaged in commerce were to be held liable (nisi forte decurionem aliquid mercari constiterit)(2) such curiales who were only landowners were already sufficiently taxed and were in no sense liable.

The number of laws forbidding exemption to any of the classes is liable to show how many people endeavoured to avoid the tax and also how complicated was the collection in view of the difficulty of ascertaining just who was and who was not, liable. It may with confidence be conjectured that the tax gatherers were often not too squeamish in demanding payment from those whose occupation might or might not bring them within the category of exemption. It would be extremely difficult to prove whether a man was selling only the products of his own farm or the pots he had made himself or whether he had bought them elsewhere to retail them. It would be safer to force him to pay and be done with it.

FNs:
(1) XIII.1.8. "qui in exercitio tabernarum usuque versantur"
(2) XIII.1.4.

If the exemption of small handicraftsmen such as potters and smiths who with their own hands worked at their means of subsistence (qui manu victum rimantur aut tolerant) (1) was ever held to apply to the towns such exeption was not universal or lasting. The ancient authorities show how the very poorest who possessed nothing but their tools were compelled to pay. Tortures and scourgings forced the poorest to devise some means of raising the money and parents sold their children or prostituted their daughters for this purpose. I quote below two extracts, one from Zosimus and one from Libanius, which show clearly that no independent artisan however poor was exempt.

"On the return of every 4th year when the tax was to be paid, nothing could be heard through the whole city but lamentations and complaints. When the time arrived nothing but whips and tortures, provided for those who on account of their extreme poverty could not pay the money. Mothers were even forced to part with their children and fathers to prostitute their daughters for money to satisfy the collectors of this exaction".(2) "Let us now speak of a vexation which surpasses all others: the tax of gold and silver, an unbearable tax which makes the whole world tremble when the 5th year approaches. It is adorned by a special name which conveys the idea of a commercial tax. But whereas the merchants can indemnify themselves by large speculation, those to whom the work of their hands hardly provides the means of subsistence, are crushed under the burden. The meanest of artisans does not escape it. I have seen some who, holding up their hands to heaven

FNs:
(1) XII. 1.10. See above.
(2) Zosimus Bk.II.

and holding their means of livelihood (..... = (knife or chisel) swore that they possessed nothing else in the world. But their protests did nothing to stop the greed of the cruel men who chased them with menacing cries and who seemed ready to devour them. It is the time when slavery increases, when fathers alienate the liberty of their children, not to enrich themselves by the price of that sale but to hand it over to their persecutors." (1)

These quotations show conclusively that the tax fell most heavily on the poor artisan, that is on the real producer of wealth. The merchants who bought and sold the produce of others, doing business on a great scale with large resources of capital did not find it so difficult to pay. Furthermore, they could like other rich men bribe or intimidate the collectors to tax them lightly or to exempt them. The frequent decrees against the patronage of the great who seem to have 'protected' merchants against the demands of the treasury(2) show what the rich and powerful could do if they wanted exemption on their own account. One law refers distinctly

FNs:
(1) Libanius contra Florent: p;. 427 ed.Morelli cited by Naudet Vol.II Part 3.
Article I.
(2) XIII.1.15 and 21.

to the attempts of the great to get exemption for themselves or their dependants. "potiorum quoque homines vel potiores ip sos". (XIII.1.5.) Likewise whereas the decrees when referring to poor people, like the coloni and peasants, are concerned with their exemption, the many references to the mercatores and negotiatores all reiterate that the latter must be made to pay. According to Evagrius(1) even the beggars were not spared and Cedrenus(2) and Zonarus(3) confirm his statement. Although the inclusion of beggars so shocked the pious fathers it does not seem so bad as the taxing of poor artisans who worked for their living - economically at any rate it was much sounder. There is however no reference to such taxation in the laws and it is difficult to see how beggars could be treated under the heading of merchants or artisans. Evagrius speaks of the chrysargyrum as being imposed on all who procured their livelihood by an accumulation of petty gains and such a description could include beggars as well as traders; the language of the laws is less ambiguous and shows positively that in intention at any rate the chrysargyrum was a tax on trade and industry as distinct from the land taxes.

FNs:
(1) Evagrius Hist.Eccles.III.39.
(2) Cedrenus Chronicle p.357 cited by Naudet Pt.III.Ch.6.
(3) Zon.Ann.XIV p.54 - cited by Naudet Pt.III. Ch.6.

Moneylenders "who see their money increase every day by interest"(1) were also taxed. The term moneylender should not I think only be taken in its modern sense, but should also be taken to apply to those who invested their money in a trading or other business concern and lived on the interest derived from it, i.e. shareholders in the modern sense but shareholders without any say in the business in which they invested. That this type of "money lending" existed is, I think, attested by John Chrysostom. The latter observes that rich people borrowed money as capital for business undertakings and did not pay high interest on it. He speaks of such interest as implying an honourable gain and says that rich people liked to leave such bonds to their children. "If thou hadst money lent out and bearing interest and thou hadst a grateful debtor, thou wouldst ten thousand times rather choose instead of the gold to leave the bond to thy child so that he should have the large income from it and not be constrained to go about and seek for others to borrow it".(2)

Chrysostom takes such lending as normal and honest but inveighs against the lending of small sums at high interest to poor people in their distress; this was usury and was forbidden by law to senators.(3)

Both classes of money lenders must have been made to pay the chrysargyrum. The existence of the sort of "respectable" money lending referred to by John Chrosostom throws some light on the methods of trade and industry at the time. It would be extremely interesting to know if there were in the 4th and 5th centuries many wealthy people who had inherited capital which they lent to business men at reasonable rates of interest, and similarly, whether it was a frequent custom to lend money to poor, but free, artisans at interest in order to enable them to set up in workshops of their own. This method of financing free men and living on the interest they paid on the capital borrowed would then be the system which had suplanted the old custom of setting up freedmen and slaves in business and taking a percentage of their earnings.

FNs:
(1)   “qui studentes fenori crescentis in dies singulos pecuniae 
      accessione laetantur”. XIII.1.18.
(2)   In Math 66.t.VII.660B.
(3)   In Math.56.t.VII

I think that this is a suggestion which merits further investigation and as to the truth of which it might be possible to obtain evidence from the sermons of John Chrysostom and from other Christian writers.

The only exemption amongst the petty dealers are ecclesiastics who engaged in petty commerce to gain their livelihood(1) gravediggers.(2) Veterans for a sum of 100 folles(3) and some soldiers by special concession(4). The navicularli were specially exempted (see Ch.IV.

FNs:
(1)   XVI.2.15.
(2)   ?XIII.1.1.3.
(3)   XIII.1.7
(4)   XIII.1.2.See also Goth: ad XIII.1.

As regards the method of collection the burden of this was evidently placed on the curiales in some places for in 399 the governor of Numidia is told that as the apportioning of the tax is usually laid on those who have to pay it, the curiales are not to bear the responsibility. Since it is the 'negotiatores' who have to pay they must choose contractors (mancipes) from their own body who shall be held responsible with their property for any deficit in the amount collected.((1) XIII.1.17.)

Elsewhere reference is made to all the corporati paying((2) XIII.1.16.) and it would seem therefore that the various collegia were collectively liable for the tax. They had to meet in a sort of trades council, the corollary of the curia for landowners, and elect members who would collect the tax and bear the responsibility of the deficits. As practically all the people who paid would be members of collegia it may be presumed that one of the principal people in each collegium was chosen to collect from the members in his collegium. We know nothing as to the amount of the tax but it may be concluded, from the loud complaints, that it was very heavy, and also that the proportion paid by the ordinary artisan was a much heavier burden than that paid by the rich. The Roman legislators forgot as so many legislators seem to forget that to demand 1/5th of the income, or capital, of a poor man is a much more oppressive exaction than the 1/5th demanded from a wealthy person. Whereas the rich man merely has to curtail his luxuries the poor man starves or sells his children. The chrysargyrum must have been especially oppressive since it was levied only every five years; it would have been far easier for the small artisan to pay his contribution monthly or even yearly. This seems to have been eventually recognised by the imperial legislation, for in 410, it is decreed that the tax shall in future be paid by fractions.(1)

One very probable effect of the "lustralis collatio" which has not, I think, been noted is that it must have drastically reduced the numbers of free craftsmen who made and sold their own products independently as the tax did not fall on hired laborers, who, neither owned their tools nor themselves bought the raw materials which they used the poor independent artisan who could not satisfy the tax collectors must frequently either have mortgaged his tools to raise the necessary amount, or have sold them and in future hired himself out at a day wage to a richer man who was in a position to pay the tax. Thus the number of artisans working for a wage must have increased and the number of independent "small" producers must have diminished.

This process would correspond to the gradual elimination of the small free cultivator of the soil and would be one more instance of the gradual depression of the people "of a middle sort" the existence of whom is regarded by Plato as so vital to a healthy state.

[Index]

CHAPTER III - The Annona

In this chapter will be considered not only the provisioning of Rome and Constantinople but the source of the supplies for this purpose. An explanation of the various meanings and applications of the word “annona” must first be attempted since it is used loosely and with varying meanings by the ancient authors and in the laws.

The primary meaning of the word annona is the product of the annual harvest: the sum of the means of subsistence stored, particularly cereals. It comes secondly to mean especially the corn stored for the provisioning of Rome and is frequently used in this sense. By transference it came to mean all the direct taxes in kind levied (a) for the suport of the army and the officials in the provinces (annona militaria), (b) for the support of Rome and later Constantinople (annona civica). Since therefore the word “annona” may mean the “indictio” taxes it will occasionally be used in this sense in the following pages.

By a further transference of meaning it was applied to the actual distributions of corn, and then bread, to state employees and soldiers (annona militaria) and to the people of Rome and Constantinople (annona civica). It was also occasionally applied to the price of corn in the public market.

The “annona militaris”, i.e. the taxes in kind levied by the indiction for the supply of the army and the civil service locally has been dealt with in the last chapter.

We have here to consider the Annona Civica. This annona civica was the part of the taxes in kind set aside for the provisioning of Rome and Constantinople, in Egypt and Africa mainly, but also in Spain, Sardinia, possibly Sicily, and in South Italy.

Egypt and Africa which for long had supplied Rome with nearly all her grain, had always been taxed under a special system. They were subjected to the canon frumentarius.

Each farmer had to give up one fifth of his yearly produce calculated on the whole produce without deducting seed corn.(1) We know that, in the time of Augustus, Egypt transported to Rome twenty million modii a year - supplies sufficient to last Rome four months. Africa contributed most of what was needed for the rest of the year; a certain amount was supplied again by Spain and by Sardinia.(2) There are, however, only two laws in the Theodosian Code concerning

FNs:
(1) Seeck. Book. II Ch.6.
(2) Dariet Saglio etc.

the navicularii of Spain, and both here and in Sardinia the annona was left to the administration of the provincial governors (justices)(1) whereas in Africa there was a special "praefectus annonae africao" and in Egypt a special administration.

Prudentius speaks of a Sardinian grain fleet and the 35th Novella of Valentinian III deals with the levying of pigs flesh from Sardinia,(2) so it seems pretty certain that some supplies were obtained from there, although none of the laws dealing with the navicularii mention the island. Presumably this is because the transport was easy. The supplies must anyhow have been very small in amount.

In our period Africa was the main source of supply for Rome; Egypt for Constantinople. Africa may occasionally have sent supplies to Constantinople since the difference in the length of the voyage from Africa to Rome, and Africa to Constantinople, is taken into account in the Theodosian Code.((3) XIII p.21)

At any rate, Africa was the important source for Rome, since the latter no longer received any annona from Egypt. The blockading of Africa meant famine for Rome,((4) Sosimus 6.11.) and the shipwreck laws all concern transport from Africa.

FNs:
(1) Krahauer: Das Verpflegungawesen der stadt Rom in Spateren Kaiserreit p.4.
(2) ibid p.5.

The supplies from Africa were corn and oil. Spain also supplied oil and some grain. Wine and meat were obtained from Southern Italy, Northern Italy contributing to the upkeep of the armies.

The laws in the Theodosian Code about the "auorii" and the "susceptores vini" show us that Campania Samnium Lucania and Bruttium supplied pork or pigs as part of their "indictio".((1) See Ch.VII) Lucania and Bruttium, and also others of the "regiones suburbiaas" of Rome, delivered wine.

No grain was obtained in Italy; she had long been unable to feed even herself.

Wood for the Baths at Rome was obtained partly from Africa, and partly from Southern Italy(2)

In a subsequent chapter the transport of the annona from Rome and Constantinople and the "collegia" involved will be considered in detail. It now remains to consider the actual distribution made to the people of the Capitals by sale and gratis.

Free Distribution of Food

It is well known that the doles of corn distributed to the people of Rome in Republican days((3) Regular distribution of cheap corn fr.123 B.C. Free distribution from 58 B.C.) were continued by the Emperors, who would not have dared to deprive the mob of Rome of either its free food or its free spectacles (panem et circansea). Although the populace of Rome had lost all political power under the

Empire, even the best of Emperors were not indifferent to the applause and approval of the populace, whilst the worst were often, like Nero, beloved of the mob on account of their largesses. One must not forget that the very fact that the imperial dignity was elective and not hereditary made the holder of it far more dependent on popular favour than an hereditary king would have been,((1) c.f. Tacitus Histories. Book I. Ch.16.1) and although the power of the Emperor was based on control of the armies, and the choice of an Emperor was in actual fact often determined by the soldiers, no Emperor could afford to offend or alienate the city populace. Also the Emperor was usually resident in the Capital and it would have been exceedingly unpleasant, if not dangerous, to be disliked by the people.

It is hard to see what else the Emperors could have done. Rome was a city practically without industries. Her people, except those engaged in luxury trades, had no work. She was a great city because she had conquered the world, not because she had natural resources or an industrious population. The error had been made long before in Republican times when the rich had been allowed to acquire all the land of Italy, whilst the small peasant farmers who were ruined fighting in the Punic and other wars, flocked to Rome to live on charity, private or public. Perhaps in the time of Julius Caesar it was already too late to get these people "back to the land" and anyhow the greed and selfishness of the aristocracy had made all attempted agrarian laws ineffective.

Whether Augustus could have done anything is doubtful - if he could, it was unlikely that he would have gone against the interests of the great landed proprietors by confiscating part of their estates. It was simpler to feed the city populace from the produce of the provinces, and those who were not already too degenerate to be reestablished on the land soon became so. When after centurica, Italy lost her preeminent position, and was reduced by Diocletian to the level of the other provinces, Rome retained her material privileges. Even Diocletian was not radical enough to reduce "eternal Rome" to a small provincial city with deserted streets and empty houses, as he would have done if he had deprived her of her "canon frumontarins".(1) Rome was no longer even the seat of government of the whole Empire, but her people still subsisted almost without labour on the produce of the labour of the provinces.

FNs:
(1) Anon: Marcellinus Pg.1.17 - Goth ad.C.Th.XIII 5.7.

The Emperors before Diocletian, far from diminishing the free distributions, had added to them. In 270 under Aurelian,(1) a daily allowance of bread was substituted for the monthly allowance of corn.

The same Emperor instituted free distributions of pork(2) but it is impossible to ascertain whether they were made daily. It seems most improbable, as this would have entailed an unreasonable amount of trouble.

Septimus Severus had distributed oil gratuitously and daily.(3) Helegabalus had diminished the amount given, but Alexander Severus reestablished the distributions in their entirety.(4) Vopicus speaks of such distributions under Aurelian(5) and in the Theodosian Code XIV, 24, we have details given about the oil rations (mensa olearia)(6). They still took place daily in the 4th century.(7)

FNs:
(1) Or shortly before between the reigns of Alex.Severus & Aurelian. See Vopiscus
    Aurel 35, cited by Valtzing II p.20 & by Dar: et Saglio etc.
(2) Vopisc.Aur.35.48 "Aurelianus et porcinaro carnem Populo Romano distribuit
    quao bodio quoque dividitur."
(3) Spart. Sev.18.
(4) Laupoid Alex.Sev.22.
(5) Vita Aurel.48 cited by Waltzing.
(6) C.Th.XIV. 17.16.
(7) Ibid. also Vopiscum lived under Constantine & says: "quae bodie quoque
    dividitur" (see above).

As regards wine it is well known that Augustus pointed to his new aqueducts when the populace complained of scarcity. Later Emperors did not expect the people to be so temperate. They did not indeed distribute wine free, but Aurelian instituted the practice of selling wine as one of the functions of the fiscus. It was not apparantly at first sold below the market price, and the government only undertook the sale in order to ensure an adequate supply, but in 365 Valentisino began the practice of selling it below the market price at the demand of the people. This wine was, of course, part of the product of the "indictio" or "annona."

Free distribution of bread, oil and pork were instituted by Constantine for the people of his new city of Constantinople.

Such then were the regular free distributions made to the people of both capitals: bread, oil and pork. Before considering the method adopted for the distribution, and what we know as to the amount, an attempt must be made to estimate who were the actual recipients.

As regards numbers, it is impossible to say for our period.

We know that Augustus fixed the number of recipients of the free corn at 200,000, and that twelve million modii were needed for this. The recipients had to be citizens "pleno jure" and to be resident in Rome. Dirksen, Rein and Walter think that the poor alone could be written down on the lists as participants. Mommsen, Marquardt and Mirschfeld disagree, but agree that in fact only such claimed it. The middle classes bought cereals in the market provisioned partly by the taxes in kind from the provinces.

The number of poor recipients of the free bread diminished later, but as the numbers of the Imperial Household and the vigiles and praetorians began to receive their free rations too, and similarly the "pueri alimentarii" of Trajan, the amount required must have increased rather than diminished.

In the 4th and 5th centuries free bread was given to various classes of civil servants as part of their pay, and to the soldiers, such as the special palace guards, who were resident in the capitals. In Constantinople we can see from the laws in the Code that bread was given free to three classes of people:

(a) A fixed number of poor citizens, the "annona popularis."
(b) The "palatinii" i.e. the members of the Imperial Household.
(c) The "scholares" who formed the imperial guard "annone militaris'.

Furthermore there was the "panis aedium" the free bread given to those who built new houses. This institution, which already existed in Rome, was transplanted to Constantinople where Constantine hoped to encourage people to increase the size of his new city. It was attached to the houses and went with them when sold or left by will. It was strictly forbidden for those who sold houses "to which the privilege of receiving bread was attached" to go on receiving the said free bread. If there were no heir to the breads, they were to be withdrawn.

To each class of recipient of the free bread it is forbidden to receive that of any other class. The official of the palace (palatinus) is to demand the "palatine" bread, the soldier the military bread, the people of the civic bread. Thus no one by seeking the bread of another class is to be able to mix the privileges of different classes i.e. receive twice over.

Again, it is specially forbidden that anyone should try to claim both the ordinary "annona civica" and the special "panis aedificiorum". This enactment was made when Valentinian restored the free distribution of bread of best quality after a few years lapse during which, apparently, bread of an inferior quality had instead been sold at a low price.

Indeed anyone who is already in receipt of some special allowance of bread like an official or a receiver of a panis aedificiorum, and succeeds in drawing the ordinary annona civica, is to cease to receive his own allowance and be suitably punished according to his condition. The annona civica is to be given only to those citizens who receive no other benefit (quibus non est aliunde solacium) and to their successors. Those entitled to it are to have their names written down on tables of bronze, no one afterwards under threat of punishment is to try and get his name inserted as a participant either he himself or through his slaves.

Senators evidently tried to get a share of the free bread by means of their slaves; it is specially decreed that if any such slave shall have obtained the bread, he is to be condemned to work in chains in the bakery which he defrauded if he himself "acted illegally by his own boldness". If the senator himself ordered the slave so to act the senator is to have his house confiscated. Poor citizens who take part illegally in the free distributions are also condemned to work in a pistrinum but not in chains. Men of substance who have thus tried to defraud the government find themselves hereafter "tied" with their possessions to the bakehouse in question and forced to bear a share of the expenses of its upkeep. The official writer (scribe) who allowed such frauds knowingly is to be tortured.

The recipients of the free bread were given a "tossera" or metal ticket to prove their title to it. This was passed on from father to son. Sometimes a holder of such a tossera sold it to another person when he left the city. This was forbidden by Valena in 372. Henceforth if anyone left the City, the bread and other articles he received free were stored in the graneries and could only be given to a man of the same class (ordo) as that of the one who had left. If he came back he received them again. This must mean that if a member of a collegium ran away or left, he might be recalled and have his ticket given back to him; if he did not come back, his place in the collegium would be taken by another who would receive his ticket. No collegiatus can have had the absolute right to the ticket, it was hereditarily bound to his collegium or ---- like the rest of his possessions.

In the same way the soldiers, i.e. those belonging to a "corpus" of the army, could only transmit their right to the military bread to their successors in that corpus; the right could not be transferred to another corpus.

Another law tells us that Constantine gave the right to the "annona civica" to the "military men" to encourage them to build, and so increase the size of Constantinople. This law may be calling the "panis modificiorum", the "annona civica" carelessly, or it may mean that the fact that Constantine allowed the scholae at Constantinople free bread would encourage them to reside there, and they would then have to build houses to live in. Yet it is difficult to see where else they could have resided seeing that they were on duty at the palace. Perhaps they had quarters at the imperial palace and had to be encouraged to build houses in Constantinople for their wives.

The whole question of the "panis aedificiorum" and of the actual title to the "annona civica" is obscure. Valena having decreed that the latter was inalienable, Theodosius in 392 said that it was given by Constantine to the merits of particular men, and he allows members of the scholae at any rate to alienate their right even to strangers by sale or will.

It seems fairly clear that all or most members of Collegia would be participants unless they were newcomers. Late comers could acquire a free ration by building a house; at Rome many members of the collegia would be descendants of old inhabitants, and so would receive the free bread. It is impossible to say whether the richer "collegiati", who had lands of their own, received the free rations. It seems extremely probable that they received the panis aedificiorum if not the ordinary free distributions. The conclusion seems to be that all citizens at both capitals, with the exception of senators, received bread free, newcomers could obtain it by building houses, officials received it by a separate distribution, and so likewise did the palace guards.

With the increasing size of Constantinople, an extra amount of bread was provided for by Theodosius the Great, but it was evidently only to be given to those who put up, or had put up new houses, or to those to whom the Emperor awarded it specially as an extra allowance. If members of the richer collegia received the free distributions, the members of collegia connected with the annona must have been very much better off than ordinary collegiati in the province.

The Supplies and their Safeguarding

The government took every conceivable measure to safeguard the supplies for the capitals. Whatever else failed, whoever also suffered, and under whatever evils of invasion, famine and disorder the Empire might be suffering, the people of Old Rome and New Rome must be fed and kept contented.

On no account whatsoever can anything of grain or oil due as tribute to Rome to be favoured by a remission, any privileges granted i.e. to the tax payers, "contrary to the public good (the good of Rome or Constantinople) are to be cancelled." No one is to dare to tamper with supplies of grain destined for Rome, which have been forced to tarry on the shores of Africa, or to send them elsewhere.

No taxpayer is to be allowed to commute his taxes in kind for a money payment "to the hurt of the venerable city". Those who ask for permission are to be made to pay double and a punishment.

Punishments are threatened to those who try to claim anything as a private possession from the granaries and storehouses of the bakers at Rome. If the vicar or governor is found to have taken anything from the city's tribute (union) it is to be repayed fourfold: twice by them and twice by their bureau. If they repeat their offense they are to be deported, and the "primatae" are to undergo capital punishment.

In the case of Constantinople, Constantine endowed the city with a "tribute" of grain from Egypt. Socrates says that 80,000 of wheat brought from Alexandria were bestowed on the citizens by Constantinople. He speaks of the distribution as a daily one which makes it an impossibly high amount, and it has therefore been suggested that Socrates meant 80,000 loaves. Socrates is narrating how Constantine punished the inhabitants of Constantinople by withdrawing from them more than 40,000 of the daily allowance of 80,000 granted by his father for free distribution amongst them. He does not mention what the 80,000 allowance consisted of.

Gothefredus shows that annona often means bread itself, but does not solve the question of the amount distributed. Vosimin gives Constantine as the author of the free distribution at Constantinople but says nothing about the amount.

If 80,000 loaves is meant by Socrates, he is probably only referring to the annona popularia, the free distribution to the plebs of the city. Yet since 200,000 people received free corn at Rome under Augustus, the 80,000 people at Constantinople cannot include the officials and soldiers and special owners of houses who also received free bread. Of course a man with several children may have received more than one loaf, but of this we are not informed. In one law a reference is made which implies a variation in the amount received "in quem et panis modus et percipientis nomen debebit incidi". Yet Valentinian, in reestablishing the free distributions in 369, decrees that each citizen was to receive daily by hereditary title one panis silignous (fine bread) of 3 lbs. weight. In the interval before of cheap sales in lieu of free distribution, each had received 4-1/6 lbs. This does not warrant the assumption that citizens received varying amounts.

Theodosius II speaks of his grandfather Theodosius the First increasing the amount of the tribute prescribed for Constantinople by Constantine. As he is speaking of the officials in this decree, and refers at the same time to the necessity of handing over all the grain received as annona to the bakers, "since want will increase if the grain, which is paid as annona, having been cut off for other uses, they, (the bakers) be compelled to buy from the public what they (the public) would otherwise have been able to sell to others." This must surely refer to the buying of grain by the bakers to make the panis fiscalis, not to the free distributions for which the bakers could not be expected to buy grain.

If this is admitted, then the 80,000 measures or loaves of Socrates could include not only the bread given to officials and soldiers, but also the grain the bakers made into panis fiscalis and sold to the people cheaply. The 80,000 loaves of Socrates would then hardly be sufficient, and he might mean 80,000 modii a day including all the supplies of grain, whether for free distribution or sale; but as Socrates says free distribution, it is hardly possible. The question of the amount of the supplies cannot be resolved on the evidence available.

Thus, for our purpose, it is only possible to guess at the exact amount of work required of the shipowners and bakers in connection with the annona.

The Actual Distribution

As regards the actual distribution, we have much fuller information. It was made by the bakers themselves under the superintendence of the employees of the praefectus annonae at Rome, of the praefectus Uroi at Constantinople.

In the case of the bread made for the officials of the imperial household, and for those in receipt of the "panis aedifliciorum", the bread had evidently to be delivered at the recipients' houses. In the case of the ordinary "annona civica" the distribution by the bakers was made on the flights of steps which mounted the slopes in various parts of the town and were called "gradiles". Hence the expression "panis gradilis". Each participant was enrolled on the list of a particular bakehouse and had to be in possession of his "------- -------". Each had his apportioned step to stand on to receive his loaf or loaves. The prefect of the annona is threatened with a severe punishment by Honorius if he allows anyone to move his position from one step to another. No one is to get his bread inside the bakehouse; whatever is supplied daily to the people by the bakers is to be weighed out on the steps and not given to anyone inside the bakeries either as a special privilege or to anyone's hurt; no one on any account is to be served secretly inside the bakehouse. These measures are taken to prevent frauds. The bread was weighed out and handed to the recipients by the bakers. But a "scribe", of the urban praefecture at Constantinople, of the prefect of the annona at Rome, was present to read out the names and the amount of bread due and generally to supervise the distribution.

Oil Distribution

It is doubtful who did the actual distributing but since one law about the free distribution is included under the title "de Annonis Civicis et Pane Gradili", and since reference is made to whatever things the bakers supply daily for the needs of the people, "quaesumque illa sunt, quae diurna pistores alimentis popularibus praebent" it seems just possible that the bakers also distributed the oil. However, the Curiiocum and the Notitia Urbis Romae speak of 2300 mensae oleariae dispersed in the different regions of the city. It has been suggested that they were privileged shops charged with this service by the government, like the wine shops with the sale of wine. But since wine was not distributed free, and oil was, this is not very probable. Waltzing says that they were probable tables where the oil was distributed, brought there from the storehouse by the "bajuli olei" mentioned by Symmachrus. The mensa olearia certainly means the actual oil ration. The law which refers to these oil rations shows 80 lbs. of oil as worth one solidus. As I have been unable to make out the meaning of this law I give it here in full in the original latin. "Dispositionon magnificantiae tuae de olei mansora firsam manere praecipicus, ut decem et octo per singulos sextarios sorigulis at cartorum ordinem comaodur noderanis dispositiona tua retentis ao distributia sextarius olei ad viginsi unam semis unclam redegatur a quam mensuram certum designatis suggeatiepe corporibus solecium constatutam nulliua posthae fraude oredimus adtemtandem" Then a recipient died without heirs or otherwise ceased to draw his ration, is ---------- to the ---- and the prefect of the city was told to retail it to someone also for 20 folles. Anyone who bought such an oil ration, and then sold it again for a larger sum was punished by being put in iron chains and sent to Illyria. The right to the oil ration was transmitted to a man's legal heirs with the rest of his hereditary possessions.

The implication is that such oil rations could be bought and sold, but it is not clear whether the actual right to receive it every day could be so disposed of. Twenty folles seems to be too little to have paid for the perpetual right to a daily allowance of oil. It seems much more likely that the daily allowance is referred to, but then 20 folles seems too much.

Meat Distribution

As regards the distribution of free pork, we know that the saurii were charged with the collection and preparation of the meat, and so presumably they also distributed it. If so, they must have been supervised by officials of the urban prefecture under whose supervision they collected the meat. (See Ch: VII) There are no laws relating to the actual distribution.

[Index]

CHAPTER 3 - The Annona

Section II - Other Provisions: Government Control and Sale

Grain: The supplies furnished by the amount taxes were not all needed for free distribution of bread. In the time of Augustus, for instance, 12 million modii only were needed to feed the 200,000 recipients, whereas Egypt transported 20 million modii to Rome and this supply lasted for months. Africa's tax together with Egypt's exceeded the 60 million modii necessary each year.

Of the supplies received by the government and not distributed free, some were stores, and some sold cheap in the market. It is obvious that by a system of taxation of a percentage of produce there would in years of bad harvest be an insufficient amount of grain sent to Rome. Trejan and his successors tried to ensure the provisioning of Rome for five years in advance by stores in reserve, and by giving privileges or immunities to private grain merchants and shipowners.

In our period all the grain brought must have been government supplies, Africa and Egypt would presumably export any surplus supplies they might still have to other countries where the price was higher, witness the attempts of havicularii to regail government cargoes in the countries on their route to Italy. (see Chap. 4). Africa and Egypt were anyhow exhausted, as can be seen from the numerous complaints and remissions of taxation. Part of the government supplies of grain at Rome were now sold to the bakers at a low price to make into second quality bread to be sold at a cheap price. This bread was called "panis fiscalis" or "panis ostiensia".

Evidently the population of Ostia, although it received no free doles of corn, had bread sold to it below the market price by a similar arrangement with the bakers. It is stated that the bread at Ostia and the "fiscal" bread to be retailed at the same price.

Ordinary middle class people at Rome who were not in receipt of the free doles of bread, and all the people of Ostia, would therefore buy this cheap bread from the bakers. If they desired something better they would buy the more expensive bread sold by the bakers on their own account. Rich people probably still had their own slave bakers and made their own bread.

We have seen that for some period between 306 and 369 no free bread was distributed, and all citizens had to buy the cheap bread.

When the sale of grain was made in state shops, either at the current price or below it, it was necessary to have a tessera frumcutaria to be able to purchase it, and one could only obtain a stated amount. Probably the same was true when bread was sold cheaply instead of grain. In Constantinople Theodosius was forced in 409 to buy grain and make it into cheap bread for sale to the people. He consecrated 50 lbs. of gold "for the prevention of famine" and made provision for these cheap sales to continue at the expense of the special fund set up for the purpose. In 434 he decrees 611 lbs. of gold to be dedicated in perpetuity for the buying of grain. This grain is to be sold to the bakers who can apparently be given credit for a time.

The position in Constantinople seems to have been that before 409 there were free distributions, but no cheap sales; after that date the government undertook to supply the bakers with grain, but it was probably only sold below the market price in times of exceptional scarcity. The government was merely seeing to it that there should always be enough grain in Constantinople to feed the people.

SECTION 3 - Collegia connected with the "Annona"

It is obvious that a very large number of people were required in connection with the work of the provisioning of Rome and Constantinople and for the transport of foodstuffs and other supplies to the armies. The taxes in kind from all over the Empire had first to be brought from the harbours of the provinces to the harbours of Rome and Constantinople. (For the moment nothing is being said about the river boatmen who transported the goods from the various depots in the provinces to the harbours, these nautae are not referred to in the laws of the Codex Theodosianus and a consideration of their position will be deferred to in Part III.)

The navicularii were responsible for the sea transport of the taxes, but their large ships could not sail up the Tiber, although they could of course deliver their cargo direct in the harbour of Constantinople. In the case of Rome, therefore, the collegia of oeudicarii and lehimoularii transported the goods from Ostis to Rome on their barges and in their light shiffs.

The mensopes,---------- and procurers, received and checked the cargo delivered and the saccarii, porters, carried it to the great storehouses by the harbour, and from there to the rafts of the caudicarii when provisions were required in Rome.

The pistores (bakers) turned the raw material into bread in the bakeries of the city of which there were 254 at Rome.

The suerii and pecularii i.e. the pork and beef butchers, were responsible for the collection, transport and preparation of the meat required for free distribution and sale. These supplies of meat were, however, collected in Italy, and therefore require to be considered separately.

It will be seen that although the work of supervision was in part performed by officials of the cura annonae, all the labour, even to the checking of the supplies received, was performed by the members of the collegum mentioned above: The members of these collegia had once been entirely free agents, but their organisations had not been taken over by the state, and incorporated as an essential cog in the machinery of administration. In return for their services, they all received varying degrees of compensation, mainly in the form of immunity from taxation. The Codex Theodosianus gives useful and fairly extensive information as to the services demanded and the compensation allowed, while it throws a sidelight on the social and economic position of the members of the various collegia affected. As the position of the members of the different collegia varies, it will be well to deal with each in turn, but certain general privileges of all the corporations of Rome and Constantinople can first be cited:

(a) Exemption from the tutela "immenitatom, quae data est hia, qui annona populi domani javent."

(b) exemption from munera aordida et extraordinaria "Nulli sit liberum, utili permisom et ---- aliquid urbis insolae in urbo sustinount".

(c) collatio equorum.

(d) Could not be judged in civil cases or fined or tortured except by the praefuctus urbe, even when resident abroad.

[Index]

CHAPTER IV - THE NAVICULARII

Of all the collegia attached to the service of the annona, those of the navicularii seem to have been the richest and most important. There even seems reason to believe that people might still become shippers voluntarily even in the 4th century. Codex Theodosianus XIII. 5, 15 of 371 a.d. provides for the enrolment of members of the senatorial order in the corporations of shippers ("that those who wish it and who think themselves rich enough be admitted to the assembly of the shippers.")

There are 38 laws in the Codex Theodosianus dealing with the navicularii and 10 dealing with their possessions, besides those dealing with shipwrecks - a far larger number than those dealing with the members of any other collegium.

Obviously in this, as in all ages, the owners of sea-going ships were men of some substance, and therefore regarded by the government as worthy of more consideration than others.

An additional reason for many laws concerning them is the fact that they were resident all over the Empire and so subject to the burdens of the provincials, whereas the other collegiati resident at Rome and Constantinople, did not require to be exempted from payments, burdens and vexations to which the residents in municipalities were subject.

Before returning to the recruitment of "navicularii" dealt with in some detail in this and other laws, the previous history of this collegium will be considered.

Ever since Rome ceased to be fed by Italy, and received her food supplies first from Sicily and Sardinia and subsequently from Egypt and Africa, she had to arrange for the transportation of the grain she required. In Republican days the "publicani" who collected the tithes in the provinces also saw to their transport overseas to Rome either in their own ships, or in the ships hired for the purpose. Under the Empire the wasteful and oppressive system of tax collection by publicani was done away with, first in the imperial provinces, and subsequently also in the senatorial. Still the State, whose officials, susceptores, now collected the taxes had to provide for their transport to Rome, and furthermore, had to make sure that a sufficient quantity of food supplies, other than taxes, was brought to Rome to supply the general market. Augustus instituted a praefectus annonae at Rome who, although chosen from members of the equestrian order, became one of the highest dignitaries in the Empire. This official looked after the provisionment of Rome. The State did not, however, itself build a fleet of ships for the transport of the taxes in kind and of purchased supplies. It contracted with shipowners, either individually or in companies, and seems to have paid them for their transport service by indemnities, presumably freedom from custom duties. But it was also necessary to encourage the building of ships in every possible way, in order that the Roman market might be supplied, and we find Claudius allowing privileges, such as exemption from the Lax Pappia Poppaea for citizens, and Roman citizenship to Latins, to all shipowners and further giving bonuses and subsidies to those who transported the State cargoes.

Into the vexed question of exactly what changes were made by Trajan it is not necessary to enter, but he appears to have made contracts with private individuals or companies, whose aid he secured by the grant of special privileges to all who should undertake the transport service, be they citizens or provincials. In these circumstances, regular Collegia of navicularii, or Shipping Companies, as we should say today, soon formed. These negotiated with the State, and information about them is found in the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. At this time the members of such collegia of navicularii were not always those who did work for which they were awarded privileges. "They sold corn and oil in the Roman market, but did not sail ships, and did not consacrate the greater part of their fortune to navigation and commerce. This is, of course, the golden age of the collegia, the time when the law favoured their formation and granted them privileges without in any way interfering with their freedom of action. By Septimus Severus the first signs of ominous change are apparent, for now, although immunity for taxation is the privilege of each member of a collegium of navicularii, yet the transport of the annona is referred to as a munus publicum. Thus inperceptibly the transport service, once a voluntary undertaking, by the time of Diocletian becomes an obligation incumbent on all the members of the collegia of navicularii. From the time of Constantine we can trace out pretty clearly the exact position of the collegia of navicularii as reflected in the long series of laws in Book XIII of the Theodosian Code.

It will be well to bear in mind that many of the navicularii must even at this stage have been rich men with large properties, and it is probable that many senators invested their money in shipping companies without ever setting foot on a boat, or having anything to do with the actual transport and commerce. As some of the laws obviously refer to people of this type, and others to the actual captains of ships, there is some confusion in view of the fact that both types are called navicularii, and evidently were counted equally as members of the collegia of navicularii. Occasionally a magister navalis is referred to who may be the captain of a ship, or fleet of ships, hired by the owner or owners, and himself ranking as a nauta rather than a navicularius. I will return to this question after the laws relating to navicularii have been examined in detail. In the reign of Constantine we have arrived at the time when the collegia of navicularii have become collectively charged with a munus publicum and when the members have become, together with their property, hereditarily liable to this munus. The navicularii appear, however, to have been the most favoured of all the collegia. Gothfredus has pointed out (Vol. V. P.65) that of the 38 constitutions relating to the navicularii, 13 speak of their privileges. This number is partly explained by their peculiar position see p. 53. Firstly Constantine in 329 a.d. exempted all navicularii from the special taxes in the following words: "We ordain that all shippers in the realm shall for all time be exempt and secure and immune from all burdens and duties (onera et numera) wheresoever they may dwell and to whatever rank they may belong; whether they are decurions or plebeians or people of any higher rank, in order that free from "collectiones" and all "oblationes" they may perform their duties as "navicularii" with undiminished possessions. This law in its wide exemption from all oblationes and collationes meant for senators exemption from the collatio globalis, the aurum oblatitium and the oblatio votorum i.e. from all taxation of any importance except the indicto on their lands. For the decuriones it meant escape from all the heavy duties and burdens, such as responsibility for the taxes of the municipality and the provision of the autum coronarium, duties and burdens which, as is well known, were gradually exterminating the middleclass landowners who composed the municipal curiae. Honorius in 395 a.d. amended Constantine's Law of 329 by decreeing that decuriones who acquired praedia navicularis were to remain members of the curia and should only be held liable to the functio navicularia as regards that particular part of their estate. The law of Constantine quoted above also secured to all navicularii exemption from the lustralis collatio or chrysargyrum to which they would otherwise have been liable as merchants; this exemption would be the principal privilege acceded by this law to navicularii who were only plebeians i.e. who were neither senators nor members of the local curiae.

In 334 Constantine organised the navicularii of the Kaat when providing for the food supply of Constantinople. He granted to these navicularii some of the same privileges as to their brethren in Africa and Egypt. In C. Th. XIII 5.7. addressed to the navicularii of the East he says: "For the good of the city to which we have given its eternal name by command of God, we have thought to give you these privileges, that all navicularii are to be held immune from civil duties and burdens and services (nuneribus et oneribus et obsequiis) and are not to be compelled to accept civic honours by which they may be incommoded in any way . . . . . ."

The exemption from all munera and onera, collationes and oblationes for all shippers, for all time, wherever resident, is repeated in Valentinian's law of 386, and would seem to imply that the navicularii of the East were treated in exactly the same way as the other navicularii, although the collationes and oblationes are not mentioned in C. Th. XIII 5.7 quoted above.

The exemptions granted in C. Th. XIII 5.5 and 17 imply exemption from all munera sordida et extraordinaria, that is, from all and sundry "corvees" special labour imposed arbitrarily by municipality or governors. It seems, however, to have been found necessary to provide specially for the immunity of navicularii from sudden requisitions or forced service. The same law of 329 forbids the ships of navicularii being retained for any duty against their will to whatever coast they may have come. In 324 A.D. Constantine addressed Helpidius prefect of the city of Rome and commands that "from whatever coast of Spain a ship of a navicularius shall enter the harbour of Rome and whatever fiscal cargo it may have transported thither, it is to depart without hindrance and without being constrained to any extraordinary burden". (extraordinario oneri). The reason given for this care for the convenience of the navicularius is naturally "that it may the more easily fulfil the obligations laid upon it."

In 336 A.D. Constantine finds it necessary to tell the Comes Hispaniarum that the navicularii of Spain are not to be made to perform any extraordinaria munera or to be delayed or worried en route.

The language of the law of Valentinian of 370 makes it seem that worse things than a little delay or worry might befall the navicularii, for he tells the praefectus urbi at Rome that the navicularii told off to carry the annona ought to sustain no violence, nor suffer extortion or any kind of inconvenience. He further commands that they are to enjoy complete security coming with the annona and returning, and he threatens with a fine of 10 lbs. of gold anyone who attempts to molest them.

It would obviously be the simple plebeian navicularii who sailed in their ships who would benefit most by these provisions, together with such members of decurion rank who captained their own ships.

Taking together all four constitutions forbidding the imposition of munera extraordinaris (C. Th. XIII. 5.4, 5, 8, 9) it would seem that the privilege is awarded irrespective of whether the ships were actually engaged at the time in transporting the annona or not. As practically all ships at this period were liable to the functio navicularis at some time or other, the question hardly arises as to whether ships not so employed were exempted.

The question which necessarily arises now is whether the navicularii were exempt themselves from the indictio or annona i.e. did they who served to transport the taxes in kind, which were the principal source of revenue for the Empire, themselves have to pay such taxes from the produce of their lands? The three main things which had to be supplied by all landowners (possessores) in proportion to the size of their estates and the number of capita on them, were the food supplies for the annona, the equorum collatio and the vestis militaris.

It has already been shown that all the corporati urbis Romae were exempt from the provision of horses and clothes for the army, though Gothofredus shows that these privileges were not always observed. We do not know the position of the navicularii in the provinces generally, but we do know that Valens expressly states that those of the Kast are not to refuse the vestis and horses.

It may be, however, that the navicularii of the East were not so favorably treated as those of Africa, Egypt and Spain, as they had not got so much work to do for the State.

We are slightly better informed on the question of the "prestatio annona". The possessions of the navicularii were partially exempt in proportion to the share taken by each navicularius in the public transport service. Valens in 371 expressly states that for each 10,000 modii which they handle, the navicularii are to be exempt from the payment of annona on the produce of 500 jugera of land. It is true that this law of Valena refers only to the navicularii of the East, but as he has previously stated that the body of navicularii is to be filled throughout the provinces of the East, so that the numbers "shall be shown as great in the East as in Egypt to fulfil the present indictio", it would appear legitimate to conclude that he is applying the same conditions to the navicularii of the East as to those of Egypt, and presumably also Africa. Further on he expressly grants the African privileges to these navicularii of the East. It should be remarked that Valens also expects the navicularii to provide for the expenses of repairs on their ships from --- the exemption granted them. New ships, however, are to be built from materials supplied by the provincials for the occasion.

The collegia of navicularii were exempted from the payment of custom duties (portoria) when carrying on their own business, but special precautions were taken to ensure that merchants should not put their merchandise on the ships of the navicularii in order to escape the payment of custom duties. Navicularii are only exempt when proved to be carrying on their own business (cum sibi rem gerere probebuntur).

We have already seen that the navicularii were exempt from all the onerous municipal duties and payments, and could not be forced to become members of the local senates. This meant in effect that the navicularii, wherever resident, became servants of the central government, and ceased to perform any duties of local government, or to be of any assistance to their native towns.

This completes the list of their privileges, in so far as purely fiscal burdens are concerned. To summarise they were exempt from the following taxes and services: munera civilia, aurum coronarium, lustralis collatia (chrysargyrum), collatio, glebalis, surum oblatitium, oblatio votorum, vestis militaris and equorum collatio (this latter exemption not given to all navicularii - see above), from part of the anona payments and from all custom dues.

Besides these, there are certain legal privileges guaranteed to the navicularii which were well worth having.

In 334 Constantine provided that the navicularii of the East were not to be summoned to special judgment, even by imperial rescript, in cases of litigation about property or heredity or any other civil suits, but were to be allowed to answer the charges in their own forum. This was a not inconsiderable privilege; it saved them costly journeys and long delays, since not only the Emperor, but governors and other magistrates having jurisdiction could appoint a judge anywhere to try a case. It was in many ways of great advantage to be judged by the tribunal of one's native town, rather than by a specially appointed judge.

Although Constantine, moved no doubt by his sympathy with the Christians and their ascetic ideals, had in 320 A.D. abolished most of the disabilities imposed by the Lex Julia et Pappia Poppaea on celibates and childless people, it was still forbidden for them to receive by will more than one tenth of the patrimony of a deceased person. In 334 A.D. in the law about the navicularii of the East cited above Constantine abolishes even this restriction in the case of the navicularii. At the same time he exempts them from the tutels, either legitimate (i.e. tutela of a relative) or that imposed arbitrarily by a magistrate, or by the judges (rectores) of the province. However, in 400 A.D. this privilege was restricted by Honorius, who decread that they must undertake the guardianship of the minors of their corpus.

In addition to these fiscal and legal privileges the navicularii were granted the dignity of equestrian rank. Some idea of the advantages to be derived therefrom is given by this law of Gratian which says that this privilege having been given, anyone who dares to do injury to them shall pay for his daring by being put to death, and having his property confiscated. This provision will, it says, by a timely suggestion, hinder from illegality the judges who perchance have been incensed by a false indignation, i.e. being members of the equestrian order, the navicularii cannot be submitted to torture when the judge gets into a passion. This privilege, of course only applies to higher ranks of seafarers, the ordinary sailors were not navicularii, and in cases of shipwreck they were tortured at the subsequent inquiry, although the Captain (magister navis) was exempt from this efficacious means of discovering the true cause of the shipwreck.

It remains to consider exactly what duties had to be performed by the navicularii, under what conditions and threatened by what penalties. Secondly, what payment and protection was allowed to them. Thirdly, how they were recruited, how far they were personally hereditarily bound to their condition and how far their possessions were bound to the functio navicularia. Lastly, what do we know of their status and prosperity.

A. The duties. It has been stated above that the main function of the navicularii, from the point of view of the Government, was the transportation of the annona to Rome and Constantinople, and of the military supplies to different parts of the Empire. The objects transportable were:-

    i) Grain, principally from Egypt and Africa, but also from the Black Sea region.
   ii) Oil, especially from Spain.
  iii) The supplies of vestes militares levied from the provincials all over the
       Empire as part of the indictio or annona.
   iv) The wood required for the baths of the capital cities.

The grain, oil and other products of the indictio were brought by the possessores (landowners) to the storehouses in the cities: From here they were transported as far as possible along the rivers to the ports of embarkation. Then they were taken aboard the ships of the navicularii and transported by them to Rome and Constantinople and to the "portus expeditionales" i.e. to the harbours whence military expeditions were sent out and where, therefore, the stores for the armies were brought.

Thus the function of the navicularii was twofold. First the transport of the annona to Rome and Constantinople, secondly, the transport of the military supplies to whatever port they were required.

The state cargoes had to be taken direct to Rome and Constantinople, and severe punishments were inflicted on those who lingered on route. In 409 Theodonius II decreed capital punishment on any navicularius who, having collected up the taxes due to the fix in order to transport them, should retail them, turning aside from his course to coast along devious shores. The following year Honorius at Ravonna tells the praetorian prefect that judges who have allowed laden ships to linger in the harbours of their diocese under pretext of winter, when a favourable wind made navigation possible, are to be punished by the loss of their fortunes, and the same penalty is threatened on both the curiales and the corporati of the harbour. The navicularii are threatened with exile, -- if they are found to have committed any fraud.

The latter decree was issued in a year of famine after the sack of Rome by Alaric, and both it and that of 409 (which Waltzing takes as issued in 410 also) relate perhaps only to exceptional times. But in more normal times also it seems that the navicularii would sometimes take advantage of a scarcity, either widespread or local, to trade with the cargoes of the State. They would sell the products they were carrying at the high prices current in a particular locality which they passed on their voyage, and wait until the following season to buy food stuffs sufficient to make up the cargo again; as they would count on being able to buy cheaper in the ensuing year in or in another part of the Empire, they were almost sure of a substantial profit. In such circumstances, the tendency to -- cheat the State must have been very strong. In 395 Honorius tried to stop such "conversion of the taxes in kind into the assets of business" by ensuring the delivery of the taxes in the same year as they were collected. The captains of vessels were evidently provided with some sort of voucher for the goods they collected. In 356 Constantine had told the Comes Hispaniarum that the navicularii of Spain were never to be delayed en route, but were to be provided within ten days by the collectors of taxes with "relatoriae" of the goods they had transported and when they arrived at any islands, harbours, shores or stations, were not to be molested once they had shown their relateriae. Gothofredus takes relatoriae to mean quittance sheets, and would therefore relate this law to the voyage home or on private business after the transport of the state cargoes had been affected. Waltzing, however, thinks that relatoriae signify "lettres de voiture," and would therefore relate to the voyage to Rome on state business. In view of the reference to susceptores in this law as the providers of the relatoriae, and in view of the fact that the government was concerned far more with the delivery of the annona at Rome than with the convenience of the shippers, Waltzing's interpretation seems by far the most probable. Thus the shipper charged with the transportation of so much grain or oil from one or more Spanish ports to Ostia would be given vouchers of the amount he had collected by the susceptores (collectore of taxes) at those ports. In 392 Theodosius states that every shipper knows that his " securitas" for the burden he has conveyed must be shown in the course of two years, or the amount will be made good out of his property. This law is addressed to the praetorian prefect of Illyricum and Africa, and Waltzing takes it to mean that the quittances had to be handed to the governor of the province to which the shipper belonged. The law of Honorius of December 395 designed to prevent the private trafficking in the taxes makes the position clearer: the decrees that, although the law of Constantine (unknown) which allows navicularii to report their receipts (securitates) at the end of two years from the date on which they embarked the taxes, is to remain in force, the navicularii are henceforth to deliver the taxes in the same year in which they embark them, and in order to prove that they have done so they are to hand in the quittances (securitates) of the same consular year as the year _____ when they embarked the cargo, thus proving that the delivery was made in the same year. The concluding words of the decree make this abundantly clear. "However we do not forbid 2 years (lapse) in the reporting of the receipts, (a lapse) due to inclement weather or chance misfortune so long as it is proved that they have faithfully performed their duty during the time specified above. This we wish to come to the notice of all, that they may know that the transmission or delivery must be completed in the same year as the collection.

These regulations prove incidentally that the navicularii were not occupied in the service of the state every year. At the most they can only have been employed on the state transport service every other year. The law issued in 334 by Constantine to Felix the praetorian prefect, shows indeed that the navicularii performed their voyages by "duly observed rotation and not promiscuously". The Emperor piously hopes that thus "by means of alternate light assistance the fortunes of all, poor and rich, shall be preserved, nor shall it be necessary for any, always to be traversing the sea and be liable to many dangers --- the work is to be laid equally and justly on all and help is to be given by an equal rule, nor are the poor to be involved in complaints of fruitless appeals.

This law shows incidentally that there was a tendency on the part of the richer navicularii to force their poorer brethen to take an unduly large share in the public transport service and it will be referred to later in the Chapter. Thus the navicularii were left with a fair proportion of the next one, unless exceptionally delayed on state duty by contrary winds. The navigation season was from April 1st to October 16th and 1/5 of the cargo of the city of Rome had to be transported at the beginning of the season. Waltzing states that at Alexandria the cargo had to be loaded by the end of August but he does not state his grounds for believing this. In any case the navicularii of Africa were better off than those of Egypt as the voyage to Rome from Africa was shorter than that from Egypt to Constantinople.

Some of the African shipowners transported wood for the use of the baths at Rome in lieu of food supplies. Their privileges were confirmed in 364 by Valantinian and Valeus. Perhaps it was they who put up an inscription at Ostis in the name of the Navicularii liguarii.

The navicularii were compelled to build new ships whenever necessary and to see to the repairing of the old ones. Occasionally the government helped them with supplies of wood for the building of new ships as for example in the case of the new body of Eastern shipowners. But normally the navicularii had themselves to build the ships necessary and they were strictly supervised to see that they built such as were of the decreed kind and capacity.

Damages and repairs due to age and neglect had to be made good from their private means though evidently here again the officials of the state took care to see that they did their duty.

The money they saved as the result of the immunity from taxation granted to their lands was regarded as the fund from which the expenses of repairs could be made good.

The most severe laws related to cases of shipwreck. From them it would appear that it was a common means of defrauding the government to dispose of the state cargo by illegal sales and then to hide or destroy the ship and report a shipwreck. Drastic measures were therefore necessary to stop such frauds and whilst the wretched navicularii are threatened on the one hand with penalties for delaying in port under the excuse of inclement weather in cases of shipwreck they are subjected to a terrible enquiry and forced to make good the losses -----, unless they are proved innocent.

Six laws of the Codex Theodosianus relate to shipwrecks (naufragiis) i.e. the whole of Section VIII of Book XIII.

The captain of a ship was bound to deliver his state cargo; if for any reason he did not do so an enquiry had to be instituted; if he did not report his shipwreck and get himself proved innocent by an enquiry the loss had to be made good to the Treasury. When a shipwreck occurred the navicularius had to hasten to the judge of the province in which the matter occurred and to prove his statement by means of witnessess. The latter if satisfied of the truth and must send a report to the praetorian prefect who alone had the right to remit a debt due to the fiscus. This law of 372 A.D. states that if the appeal to the prov. governor is not made within a year it will not be heard.

The next law at the end of that year tells the prefect of the African annona that in the cases of misfortunes occurring to a ship which sailed direct to Rome the case must be brought before the judges within the space of a year. But in the case of ships sailing with provisions for the army to harbours at a greater distance, or sailing to Constantinople, two years are allowed in which to make an examination of the prescribed number of sailers and so to ascertain the truth. The same law states that in such cases of shipwreck or damage from the elements, a certain number of the sailors on the ship are to be submitted to the torture, remarking pleasantly "quoeorum torrentis plenior veritas possit inquiri." The number of sailors who are thus to be persuaded to reveal the truth will depend on the size of the ship.

The next law in 380 lays down further particulars as to the procedure of the enquiry and provides for cases in which the whole crew has been lost in a storm. "In order that truth may not be hidden" enquiry is to be made of the relations of the navicularii. The law also shows that in cases of need the navicularii had to sail during the bad season i.e. after 15th October and before 1st April. They had evidently asked for compensation for damage occurring on these dangerous voyages in the form of a coimetrom of 3% (semis per 200) but this is refused to them.

Theodosius law of 391 shows that sometimes part of the cargo was thrown overboard in rough weather in order to save the ship, and it is recognised that such casting away is well done and avoids greater loss. But the Treasury is not to share the loss with the possessores whether they be senators or private persons. It is not clear whether the law means that the state refuses to bear any of the loss incurred. It goes on to say that when there is no witness of the danger the losses of the storm are to be restored and the expenses paid for by the "prosecutor". Who this "prosecutor" is, is very obscure. Gebhardt says a prosecutor was charged with the duty of accompanying the cargo and overseeing the delivery to the competent authority. His name does not however occur elsewhere in the laws relating to ships and shipowners. The law ends up as follows "ut ad acrum injurism retorquoantur, qui minus idoneos nominsrunt, non ad eos redeant, quos cenpl constitorit uisse devotos." It is probable that those who have already paid are the tax paying landowners and these are not to produce the supplies over again. Whoever nominated the prosecutor has evidently got to make good the losses; was he nominated by the collegium of Navicularii?

Another law of 327 says that the prefect of the annona (at Rome) and the vicar of the city are to compel the shippers to prove the good faith of their actions by a legal trial in cases of shipwreck when they have drowned their cargo or lost it or whenever they have incurred losses. Delay and neglect to do so are to be punished. In 412 Honorius in addressing the African navicularii is more explicit.

Cases about sunken ships are to be tried in open court (levato velo). If anyone is found to have accepted a bribe in connection with the proceedings, the judge who tries the case shall, when those who are being robbed complain, have power to fine or remove or prescribe according to the rank of the culprit. If the cognitor (before whom the report of the occurence was first made) of such cases affected by a petition, or by being spoken to before he mounts the Tribunal, shall neglect to hear such cases within the prescribed time limit - that is within 2 years for the cases dealt with in the old law - he shall suffer as follows for his premature judgment: the navicularios being released on account of the venality of the judge, the judge himself shall be compelled to bear half of the cost of the goods about the loss of which recognition was sought within the prescribed time, the judge's office is to pay the other half.

All this shows that only in cases where the shipwreck is quickly reported and clearly proved with the Treasury bear the loss of the cargo. In all doubtful cases either the naviculari or the magistrates are held responsible and are forced to make good the losses to the Treasury from their own pockets.

The captains of the ships being of equestrian rank were not subjected to torture, but the ordinary sailors who were not navicularii and are referred to simply as nantae, were like all the plebs, liable to be tortured. One cannot help conjuring up a sad picture of these wretched seamen saved from the violence of the elements only to be subjected to the violence of mankind, in order that by being tortured "truth might be revealed". St Augustine saw the cruelty of the laws in their regard when he refused to accept a legacy of 'navicularean' property left to the church.

Payments Compensation and Protection.

We have already seen that the navicularii were exempted from the payment of the annona at the rate of 500 jugera per every 10,000 modii transported. In addition they received gold solidus for each 1000 modii of grain transported. Further those of the East received 4% of the grain and those of Africa 1%, but these latter percentages were really an epimetron i.e. a percentage calculated to cover losses (diametron) normally incurred in the transit of perishable goods. Presumably a similar epimetron was allowed for the transport of oil or other state supplies; we know that 2-1/2% was allowed to the collectors of oil and wine. The fact that the percentage was given to cover losses in transit is proved by a decree of 414 which says that if at anytime a naviculariius incurs loss beyond that covered by his percentage the prefect of the city of Rome is to select three men of "illustrious" rank and is to institute an enquiry within five days of the arrival of the ship at Portus. The prefect of the annona is to be present at the enquiry. The amount of the loss is to be ascertained and whoever is found guilty of the fraud is to be led quickly under a warrant to Africa accompanied by an "executor". Arrived in Africa he is to be judged by the prefect of the annona there, and the latter is to take care to make him pay up at once what he owes. If the authorities allow the naviculariies to delay beyond the prescribed time they themselves are punished. the prefect of the annona in Africa together with his officium is to pay a fine of 6 lbs. of gold to the Treasury. The apparitic of the urban prefecture of Rome is to pay a fine of 3 lbs. of gold. The prefect of the annona at Rome is to pay 2 lbs. of gold to the stored largesses unless he has expressly immediately hurried on the cognitio within the prescribed time. Enquiry into those affairs is to be made even on holidays and holy days.

It seems that the authorities are often lax in the execution of the decrees relating to the navicularii for this law says at the commencement that it contemplates well considered remedies for the dissimulation and corruption of the offices of the urban prospecture and the prefect of the annona. This slackness was obviously due to bribery as we can gather from the strict regulations against any money transactions between navicularii and officials. C.Th.XIII. threatens with a fine of ten pounds of gold the navicularii and judges, the proconsul and the vicar and the men of 'spectobile' rank, --- the prefect of the annona and the bureaus of all those officials of the navicularii pay over their percentage to any of these officials or give any of them a tip (sportula) from their own private property either voluntarily breaking the law or being compelled thereto. All these people are to know they are liable to be fined. The next law decrees that any apparitio with the duty of looking after the grain supply is to be punished if he is proved in court to have received anything from a navicularius or from the captain of a ship. Obviously it often paid a shipowner or ships captain to bribe the officials who were supposed to supervise him and his cargo and this is only one example of the prevalent corruption in the civil service at the time. From the reference to bribes being compulsorily paid we can also see that the navicularius who neglected to tip the officials might find himself worried and even prosecuted by those officials, although innocent of any offence. The efforts of the Emperors to stop intimidation and corruption were perpetual attempts to solve the problem of "quis oustodiet custodes ipeos". We can conjecture from the many decrees, which are aimed at enforcing observance of the provileges conceded to the navicularii that the latter must often have found it necessary to tip the officials merely to obtain their legal rights and hence these regulations can be taken as measure mainly designed to protect the navicularius.

Others beside officials might rob the shippers. Honorius in 400 decreed that where frauds were discovered the "solidi" which the praefectus urbi has been efficient enough to take from those who stole the gains of the shippers, were to be used for the needs of the shipper, i.e. handed over to the navicularii not taken by the fine. A severe (quadruple) punishment is to be inflicted on the thief.

THE HEREDITARY LIEN ON PERSON & PROPERTY

Like the members of the other collegia the navicularii were compelled to remain navicularii but only so long as they retained their hereditary possessions. But they were somewhat more fortunate than members of the less wealthy 'corpora' for it would seem that their possessions, and not, their persona were bound to the functio navicularia. In 375 Valentinian tells the vicar of Africa that when the navicularii sell their property the buyer must perform the duty of a navicularius in proportion to the portion he has bought "for the thing itself is burdoned not the person of the seller". Further the buyer is not to be made a navicularius himself, but the property which he has bought is to be burdoned in proportion to its size. Furthermore Theodosius in 392 allows navicularii to enter the army and rise to enjoy privileges "so long as there is no danger of the shipowners being disquieted, if they neither remain in the corporation of shipowners nor retain possession of the property which is liable to the functio navicularia."

On the other hand other laws lay down that all whose descent shows them to be liable to the duties of a navicularius are to perform the duties of one. Such persons and their heirs and lands are to be mindful of their duties so that the corn tribute of the sacred city (Rome) and the needs of the harbours whence military expeditions are sent out, may be met. All who are made shippers 'pro merita', i.e. on account of their property qualifications are to be shippers for all time. Any man belonging to the corporation of shippers who has fled from his accustomed duties and come to undeserved honour (officium) is to be returned to the corporation of navicularii to which he belonged i.e. shippers are not to enter the civil service.

It will be seen that there is some confusion in the laws but it seems fairly obvious that the general intention is that no one who holds "navicularian" property is to avoid the duties of a nvaiculariae. The confusion tends to disappear when one remembers that the "functio navicularia" did not necessarily mean going to sea, as already observed many wealthy people invested money in shipping companies in the prosperous days of the Roman Empire without having anything to do with the sailing of the ships. A navicularium therefore might be merely a man whose property, having once been invested in shipping, was now in the 4th century for ever bound to the function navicularia. This latter duty meant (a) being responsible for the transport of a certain quantity of Government supplies, (b) being responsible for the building and upkeep of a ship or ships. Others could be hired to do the work but payment must be made from the produce of the lands held by the navicularii. If they cared to give up their property or could induce someone else to buy it they became free personally. The state did not suffer since the purchaser took over the responsibility and burden from the buyer. The laws referred to below in the section on the "praedia navicularia" make this quite clear. But immunity from the functio navicularii was never to be given if he who desired it retained his hereditary property. Not even the highest officials can escape or be excused no privileges of office are to relieve them from performing their duty of navicularii if they possess a patrimony liable to the functio navicularia. They must be held liable for the whole or for a portion. "For", states Constantine, "it is not fair that anyone's patrimony should be excused, all must bear the common burden according to their capability. Naturally anyone excused cast a heavier burden on those still liable. No one is to escape his duties by obtaining an imperial rescript by any means whatsoever.

Pradia Navicularia

A series of ten laws deal especially with the possession of the navicularii.

First Constantine in 326 tells the navicularii that they must not themselves pass judgment in cases of possessions alienated by navicularii who wish to escape their duties. However the purchasers of such possessions are to be compelled by the prefect of the annona to perform the service to which they have thus rendered themselves liable.

The next law seems to make it clear that the hereditary estates of the navicularii are under the control and ownership of this corporation and are to be returned to such control and ownership in whatever way they have passed into the ownership of outsiders. This cannot refer to the properties of the whole collegium, i.e. lands, etc., which have been left to the collegium in part or have been acquired by the collegium itself in other ways for the words patrimonia used implies that the possessions referred to are those of individual navicularii. Thus the private property of the individual navicuarii is held to be under the control of the whole collegium and it is inalienably under that control. Such a property can be sold to others, but the purchaser then becomes burdened with the performances of the functio navicularia and the property thus remains under the control of the whole corporation. If the purchasers do not wish to performs the duties due by law from the share of the property they have bought, the said property has to be given back to the corporation. Presumably the latter then found another purchaser or the original navicularlaria who had wished to sell out had to take back his property and go on performing his duties. But it is quite possible the property was simply taken over by the whole corporation of navicularii.

The same rules applied to gifts or transfers to sons, or neighbours or outsiders. It is expressly stated by Valentinian in 372 that unless the receiver is ready to shoulder the burdens originally performed by the seller, the property is to be handed back to the seller i.e. the original owner, by an "actio in rem". Honorius ' law of 399 repeats the same regulations.

It is -------- abundantly clear from the whole series of laws that the buyer or inheritor, or receiver of any sort, of property originally belonging to a navicularius, is only liable to the functio navicularia in proportion to the amount of property received. His whole patrimony is not to be concerned with these burdans, the part which did not originally belong to a navicularius "is free from the chain, idle and free from serving."

It is also specially arranged that the houses, the care of which rather adds to the beauty of the city than brings in profit, are alienated by navicularii, the recipients are only to be made to pay ---- in so far as such houses bring in a profit i.e. when they are let. If not let the price of purchase was taken as the amount involved, improvements since ---- are not to be considered.

Even members of the imperial household are not to escape the services due from any possessions they have which are liable to the functio naviculari.

Special arrangements are made to preclude the lapsing owing to time or claims by navicularii to their property. Two laws state briefly, one in 370 and one in 365 that lapse of ------ not to preclude law suits in cases of navicularii claiming ---- property. Then in 317 Honorius decreed that possessions sold by navicularii and ----- from the functio navicularis on account of a public contract were to be held liable to that functio if it were proved within 20 years that they were at -----. It is expressly stated that the object of the law in the preservation of the transport service.

In 403 Honorius extends the limit for reclaiming property belonging to navicularii to 30 years, provided that no lawsuits had been instituted for this purpose in the meantime. This must mean that if such law suits had been ------ before the end of the 30 years claims can still be heard after the 50 years.

RECRUITMENT OF NAVICULARII

We have seen that the navicularii were primarily the descendents of those who had voluntarily invested their property in shipping companies in the days of the prosperity of the Empire and those who possessed ships themselves directly either sailing them themselves or hiring others to do so. Both classes were members of the collegia of navicularii. But it was not enough to tie down those whose descent and hereditary property showed to be navicularii; others must from time to time be enrolled in the collegia and ------- we have seen that it was apparently sometimes possible for landowners to voluntarily become members of the shipping corporations.

It would appear that when Constantine founded his new imperial city he had to arrange for additional ships to carry its annona from Egypt; evidently the navicularii who had formerly performed the state