Home
Nursing Answers
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Nursing Answers

Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

February 21st, 2022 Thesis

Page 1 of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

Subject: Classical Studies, Greek and Roman Law, Social and Economic History, Numismatics Online Publication Date: Apr 2016 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.013.38

Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Princi pate

Abstract and Keywords

The article deals with the different taxes that were exacted in the Roman Principate. It analyzes not only the different concepts of taxation with a differentiation betweentributa, vectigalia, andportoriabut also the complex system of tax collection, the cooperation be tween private tax farmers and state officials, and the flow of income into the various trea suries (aerarium Saturni, aerarium militare, fiscus Caesaris). Furthermore, the close con nection of Roman taxes with power politics of the Roman emperors as well as the interde pendences with developments in society, economy, and law are revealed. Various ques tions and directions for possible future research are proposed.

Keywords: Taxation, tributa vectigalia, portoria, publicani, societates publicanorum, procurators, aerarium Saturni, aerarium militare, fiscus Caesaris

τό τε σύμπαν εἰπεῖν, χρηματοποιὸς ἀνὴρ ἐγένετο, δύο τε εἶναι λέγων τὰ τὰς δυναστείας παρασκευάζοντα καὶ φυλάσσοντα καὶ ἐπαύξοντα, στρατιώτας καὶ χρήματα, καὶ ταῦτα δι᾽ ἀλλήλων συνεστηκέναι: τῇ τε γὰρ τροφῇ τὰ στρατεύματα συνέχεσθαι, καὶ ἐκείνην ἐκ τῶν ὅπλων συλλέγεσθαι: κἂν θάτερον ὁποτερονοῦν αὐτῶν ἐνδεὲς ᾖ, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον συγκαταλυθήσεσθαι.

“In short, he [sc. Caesar] showed himself a money-getter, declaring that there were two things which created, protected, and increased sovereignties,—soldiers and money,—and that these two were dependent upon each other. For it was by proper maintenance, he said, that armies were kept together, and this maintenance was secured by arms; and in case either one of them were lacking, the other also would be overthrown at the same time.” (D.C. 42.49.4sq., transl. E. Cary, 1916, Dio’s Roman History, Vol. 4 [LCL], London and New York.)

This almost prophetic sentence of C. Julius Caesar in 47 BC after the battle of Zela against Pharnaces II and the (financial) measures undertaken by him in the east is per haps not as famous as his “veni, vidi, vici” but may be more striking when one looks at the fundamentals of the future Principate. In fact, it was the troops in the imperial provinces as well as the funds of the fiscus Caesaris that allowed the princeps Augustus to establish and keep control over the res publica (restituta)—besides his outstanding auc

Sven Günther

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=Taxation
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=tributa vectigalia
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=portoria
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=publicani
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=societates publicanorum
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=procurators
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=aerarium Saturni
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=aerarium Saturni
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=aerarium militare
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=fiscus Caesaris
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 2 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

toritas (Monum. Ancyr. 34.3) and the other official potestates. This was also true for his successors, for which reason studies on military power as well as on financial potential are essential to reveal the origin and status of the Roman emperor and his principate.

There is still an imbalance between the rich amount of research done in the military field and the rather scattered studies on the financial sector. This is primarily due to the lack of broad evidence, which causes a fragmentation into several research fields that cannot be easily combined, especially in the field of Roman taxation, where the exiguous literary evidence has to be compared with epigraphical, papyrological, and numismatic sources using the full range of methods of analysis. This contribution, therefore, tries to show some possible approaches to a study of Roman taxes and to add them as one of the more important tesserae to the mosaic of the Roman Empire.

Terminology Every study of (Greek and) Roman taxation has, at first, to deal with terminology (cf. Gün ther 2008: 14–21). In fact, Roman terminology, deriving from the Roman Republic, is quite clear. For example, tributa / stipendia are distinguished from vectigalia and in most cases portoria, especially tributa from vectigalia. So Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 1.11.3 sq.; cf. Suet. Aug. 101.4) differentiates clearly between the two in Augustus’ report after his death in 14 AD, brought and read to the senate by order of Tiberius: … cum proferri libellum recitarique iussit. Opes publicae continebantur, quantum civium sociorumque in armis, quot classes regna provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones “ … when he ordered a booklet to be produced and read out. Its contents were the public re sources, what numbers of citizens and allies under arms, how many fleets, kingdoms and provinces, taxes and revenues, and also necessary expenses and lavishments” (transl. A. J. Woodman, 2004, Tacitus, The Annals, Indianapolis and Cambridge).

By tributa / stipendia are always meant taxes raised on the basis of a census or tax list. Because of their exclusive status (this is largely true for all citizens of a state in antiqui ty), these tributa were not levied on Roman citizens, but only in exceptional circum stances, as in war. After 167 BC, there were no longer such tributa (Plin. HN 33.56), only in rare emergency situations (cf. esp. Nicolet 1976; Wolters 2007: 410–412, with further literature). The term was finally transferred to describe the status of the inhabitants of the provinces, who were liable, for example, to a tributum capitis (poll tax) or tributum soli (land tax), calculated on basis of a (census) list. In most cases, the Romans tied the tax levy to the tradition of the territory and the former regime. The term stipendium / provincia stipendiaria was also common to show that the territory had been acquired by a Roman conquest with a military guerdon (stipendium) to be paid by the inhabitants.

In contrast, vectigal, etymologically deriving from vehere (to convey or transport), first designated the cartloads of crops from ager publicus (public land) that had to be given to the state as landlord by the leaseholder. As a consequence, only the ratio could be de fined in advance, but not the exact amount, which depended on the harvest, and this con cept later defined also the taxes called vectigalia: they were not raised on the basis of

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 3 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

(census) lists but on occasion. In this framework, the portoria (customs) were not a spe cial case, so vectigalia and portoria were often interchangeable terms, as in the definition in the Digests of Justinian, deriving from the jurist Ulpian (Dig. 50.16.17.1): “Publica” vectigalia intellegere debemus, ex quibus vectigal fiscus capit: quale est vectigal portus vel venalium rerum, item salinarum et metallorum et picariarum “We have to understand public taxes as those from which the Treasury captures revenue: for instance, the tax of the harbor or the tax on selling products, likewise on salt-pits and mines and bitumen- fabrics” (transl. Günther 2015).

However, the distinction is not kept up in every source. Sometimes vectigal is used to de scribe tributa or stipendia as a generic term. The use can often be linked to the intentions of the ancient authors, for instance to undermine the authority of an emperor. Thus, Sue tonius describes the tax levied by the “bad” ruler Caligula (37–41 AD) by mixing vectigalia, which were possible and even common for Roman citizens, with the term tributum, call ing this an outrageous and improper measure for the status of Roman citizenship (Suet. Calig. 40): Vectigalia nova atque inaudita primum per publicanos, deinde, quia lucrum ex uberabat, per centuriones tribunosque praetorianos exercuit, nullo rerum aut hominum genere omisso, cui non tributi aliquid imponeret “He levied new [so-called indirect] taxes, and such as were never before known, at first by the publicans, but afterwards, because their profit was enormous, by centurions and tribunes of the pretorian guards; no de scription of property or persons was exempted from some kind of [so-called direct] tax” (transl. J. Eugene Reed and Alexander Thomson, 1889, Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Philadelphia).

What is crucial is how to translate tributum and vectigal. Until the twentieth century, trib utum was translated by “direct tax” and vectigal by “indirect tax,” in an attempt at ade quate differentiation. But this does not fit modern economic tax theory, notably the idea that indirect taxes, such as purchase tax, can be turned over to third parties. Therefore, some researchers tend to consider nearly all vectigalia (except the tax on sales) direct taxes in this sense, because they had to be paid directly by the person liable to the tax (e.g. Eck 1979: 132 no. 92; Neesen 1980: 200s no. 18,5). But this is not the concept of (Roman) antiquity, where the classification of tributa or vectigalia depended on the tax be ing levied with or without a (census) list. Therefore a better translation nowadays would be “so-called direct tax” for tributum and “so-called indirect tax” for vectigal.

tributa (so-called direct taxes)

With the end of tributa on Roman citizens in 167 BC—with some exceptions in times of crises during the Late Roman Republic—the term was increasingly used for describing the tribute status of the Roman provinces, interchangeably with the term stipendium, de pending on author and view (see above). A main characteristic of Roman rule in the provinces was letting traditional systems continue as long as they worked and were adaptable to Roman necessities. It is no wonder that alongside tributum and stipendium

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 4 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

terms like decuma (pars) “the tenth (part)” were used to describe the tributes of provin cial inhabitants according to the traditional rate.

In the Republic and Principate, the main tributa were the tributum soli (land tax) and the tributum capitis (poll tax) (cf. the essential study Neesen 1980; discussion and corrections in Brunt 1981 / 1990). Like all tributa, they were calculated on the basis of a census list. Details concerning the measurement are unclear, due to the various and fragmentary evi dence; what is clear is that there were different treatments of provincial lands: besides the “normal” provincial land liable to the tributum soli there were also privileges for Ro man colonies (ager privatus ex iure Quiritium “private land according to Roman right”) or civitates foederatae (confederated commonwealths) or civitates liberae (free common wealths), with certain immunitates (immunities). But what had to be declared besides the land is not entirely clear (cf. the discussion in Brunt 1981 / 1990: 166–168 / 335–339), for example property except land or moveables (under the tributum capitis?). This is true for the tributum capitis, which had different rates in the various provinces (cf. for explana tions Neesen 1980: 120 sqq.; Brunt 1981 / 1990: 167 sq. / 338 sq.).

These important questions—whether one is discussing a systematization of Roman taxa tion or only situational changes—cannot be solved, because of the diverse evidence from the provinces. The main evidence comes from Egypt. For a long time, it was treated as a special case because of its different status in the administration structure of the Roman Empire (Wallace 1938; Neesen 1980; Brunt 1981 / 1990). But in recent research there is considerable discussion on this issue, and Egypt is now often seen as a normal case in the Empire, with certain peculiarities as in other provinces (clearly against such a special role of Egypt: Jördens 2009, esp. for customs chap. I–IX; Jördens 2012; for customs, see also Vandorpe 2015; cautious: Eich 2007). Studies of other provinces analyzing systemati cally the material and new findings could perhaps reveal more details (cf. for Gallic and German provinces France 2001b; for Iudaea, Udoh 2005).

Smaller tributa as well as other dues (e.g., aurum coronarium “gold wreaths, crowns”) are treated in Neesen (1980). Greater attention has been devoted to the fiscus Iudaicus (Jewish treasury), which was the treasury for the τιμὴ δηναρίων δύο Ἰουδαίων (tax of two denarii of the Jews) exacted from the Jews after the Roman-Jewish War of 66–70 AD (cf. Günther 2013 with further literature).

All these tributa (and the other dues) were at first collected by publicans in Republican times. The change to direct collection by state officials can be attributed to Caesar (cf. the broad discussion in Brunt 1990: esp. 355 sq., 380 sq.).

Several studies have been devoted to the question of tax flow into the different treasuries of the Roman Principate (cf. Alpers 1995 with older literature; his model is modified by Wolters 1999; 174–202; Wolters 2007: 422–424; for the administration offices, cf. now Schmall 2011). It now seems clear that there were provincial fisci which balanced their yearly accounts either with the aerarium Saturni (treasury of Saturn), in the case of sena torial provinces, or with the fiscus Caesaris (treasury of the Emperor), in the case of im perial provinces. This fiscus Caesaris can probably be distinguished from the patrimonium

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 5 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

Caesaris (patrimony of the Emperor), and later the res privata (private treasure) of cer tain emperors, when the patrimonium also became public. Here the main problem lies in the intention of many authors to create a “good” or “bad” emperor. But tributa (as well as the other taxes and duties) had to be paid to both, so the effect on and interest for “nor mal” citizens of this subtlety was, perhaps, limited.

vectigalia (so-called indirect taxes)

Vectigalia in its proper sense (without portoria, see below) can be divided into empire- wide vectigalia, to which all Roman citizens were liable, and local vectigalia, for citizens of city-states in the Roman East, among others. While the latter have not been systemati cally studied (cf. Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in occidente ed in ori ente 2009), the vectigalia for Roman citizens have been the object of research since the Renaissance, especially during the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth cen tury in Germany and France (for an overview, cf. Günther 2008: 8–14). These studies did not arise solely out of antiquarian interest; the scholars also wanted to compare the Ro man tax system with their own, established as a consequence of the formation of nations and the rise of nationalism, which searched for roots in history. Hence studies like those of J. J. Bachofen (1848), M. R. Cagnat (1966 [1882]), or G. Schanz (1900) not only collect ed the scattered material (in ancient literature and law, inscriptions, papyri, numismatics) but tried to develop a systematic structure of taxation as well. On this basis, further re search could be done concerning special questions like tax collectors, state treasuries, imperial administration, and the budget—questions which were important for research mainly concentrating on the state as an entity. G. Wesener´s articles concerning the vices ima hereditatium and vicesima libertatis in the RE (1958) were fundamental for further studies in this field. With the emergence of new paradigms in research, especially after World War II, special studies on the social, socioeconomic, and legal connections of vecti galia followed (cf. Günther 2008: 8–14). In his PhD thesis, the present author tried to show the synergisms between the different vectigalia and imperial policy, administration, society, and law (Günther 2008).

Of the four important and long-lived vectigalia, the most prominent (and studied) is the vicesima hereditatium, a 5 percent tax on inheritances and legacies (cf. Günther 2008: 23–94). Although some scholars have claimed that the inheritance tax was introduced with the lex Voconia 169 BC, this is certainly not true. Also, Julius Caesar had only a vague, if any, plan for a tax on heritages. A first, but short-lived, tribute on heritages and legacies in 40 BC (App. BC 5.67.282; cf. D.C. 55.25.6) during the Civil Wars after the death of Caesar was intended to finance the war against Sextus Pompeius as well as to disturb the old aristocratic networks (see Günther 2015a). The lex Falcidia, often regard ed as a subsidiary measure, was enacted not in that year but in the previous year (D.C. 48.33.4 sq.), so that such a connection is not possible. But from the failure of this mea sure (App. BC 5.130.540), Augustus could later draw lessons for his establishment of the vicesima hereditatium in 6 AD.

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 6 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

Thus, the main purpose of Augustus’ introduction of the inheritance tax was not, as often suggested, an equalization of burdens between provincial inhabitants, who were not li able to vectigal but to tributa, and Roman citizens, but to provide security for his rule. A main factor for this security was the loyalty of the army, and among the measures that led to a professional standing army the possibly dangerous veterans could not be forgotten, as shown by the allotment of land to them in the first century BC, especially during the Civil Wars (cf., e.g., Monum. Ancyr. 3.3). Therefore Augustus erected the aerarium mil itare (military treasury [for veterans]) in 5 AD (for the history of this treasury, see Corbier 1974) to pay praemia militiae (veteran soldiers’ bonus) to his veterans instead of having to confiscate land as a reward for them. A main source of revenue for this new treasury, besides the centesima rerum venalium (see below) and some deposits from the patrimony of Augustus as well as from other private persons, was the vicesima hereditatium established shortly afterward. Resistance to this new vectigal from the rich classes (sena torial and equestrian orders) most liable to it in 6 and 13 AD was cleverly broken by Au gustus by threatening the aristocracy with reinstitution of the tributum soli (land tax), which would have been the first permanent one since 167 BC.

The regulatory framework of the inheritance tax was laid down in the lex vicesima hereditatium. In the main, it aimed to improve the flow of revenue into the aer arium militare. Regulations concerning the opening of a testament accelerated the en forcement of the last will of the decedent, and the payment of the tax as well; the require ment to open the testament before an official, the short deadlines for the opening of the last will, and the decentralization of the administration offices promised legal certainty for the heirs, especially in terms of possible legal cases. However, the procedure had the main purpose of recording these wills for the tax-collectors present in the bureaus. So the traditional possibility of private testaments as well as of inheritance without a written will would be gradually ended.

In the same way, the exemption for small heritages [perhaps up to 1,000 sestertii (HS)] was a beneficence of the emperor to “normal” citizens only secondarily; the estimation of the transaction costs for measuring the tax for these wills was probably the primary rea son for the exemption. The second exemption, for second-degree relatives, was not only a matter of cost but also served the purposes of quieting resistance as well as strengthen ing the traditional family, in accordance with Augustan family laws, and inhibiting the tra ditional networking in the upper classes through inheritances and legacies (see Günther 2015a).

Later modifications of the Augustan lex were mainly caused by the change of conditions in the Roman Empire. Most prominent are the reforms undertaken by the emperors Ner va (96–98 AD) and Trajan (98–117 AD) to include new citizens in the regulation frame work. Although they were also granted tax exemption, the assurance of revenue was the background of these measures, especially the registration of huge inheritances and the avoidance of high administration costs for difficult legal cases.

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 7 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

For the latter, the Roman state at first leased the collection of this vectigal (and others as well) to private companies (for their structure see Cimma 1981; Malmendier 2002; esp. concerning taxes: Brunt 1990). As with the inheritance tax, we have evidence for it in Tra janic times (through Pliny the Younger) as well as from Egypt in papyri under the reign of Antoninus Pius (138–160 AD) (cf. Eck 1995). Although there has been considerable dis cussion on the status of Egypt as a special case in the Roman Empire (see above), both types of evidence disprove the old opinion that there was a direct replacement of the pri vate collectors by public procuratores XX hereditatium or a three-step process from pri vate companies to single tax collectors and then to public officials (Günther 2008: esp. 59–69, see also the discussion for the portoria, below). Even though a precise date cannot be found in existing sources, it is likely that there is a connection between the establish ment of these administrative boards and the broad reforms under the emperor Nero (54– 68 AD) to control the publicans more strictly in 58 AD (see Rathbone 2008; Günther 2013). But if, when, and how these procuratores undertook the tax collection instead of private tax farmers remains an open question. It was a more gradual and situation-specific process that led to a tax collection by imperial officials instead of private persons (or sometimes together with them? AE 1996: 1702; cf. Günther 2008: 68 sq.; see also below for the portoria).

Concerning these officials, we have a rather broad range of evidence which allows us to reconstruct the administrative structure. In all places where a substantial number of Ro man citizens lived, as in Rome, Italy, and in some provinces (especially the Spanish and Gaulish ones), we find a carefully built administration (cf. Günther 2008: 69–81; esp. also Eck 1979: 132–139; esp. for the equestrian procuratores: Pflaum 1960; 1982; for imperial freedmen and slaves: Wachtel 1966; see now Schmall 2011 for the finance administration staff). At the top there were procuratores XX hereditatium. Procurators outside of the equestrian order existed immediately before the reign of emperor Hadrian (117–138 AD), who was formerly thought to have replaced freedmen as officials with them, so it is more probable that there was a hierarchical structure from equestrians down to imperial freed men and then to imperial slaves. Under these procuratores we have supprocuratores and an extensive staff, especially for the administration in Rome, where the Roman senators had their patria and all revenues of the inheritance tax may have been registered. For provinces with a smaller percentage of Roman citizens, larger administration districts were built, for example in Asia Minor. According to the distribution of possible subjects of the tax, the salaries for the procurators were measured as well: procurators for certain regions or districts earned 60,000 HS, while the procurator for Rome received 100,000 HS, or at most 200,000 HS.

The eldest vectigal was the vicesima libertatis vel manumissionum, a 5 percent tax payable when manumitting a slave to become a libertus/liberta according to Roman law (cf. Günther 2008: 95–126; also Bradley 1984; Albana 1987). Established in 357 BC (Liv. 7.16.7sq.), it probably lasted as the vicesima hereditatium up to reforms of Diocletian, and the revenues went into the aerarium Saturni populi Romani, and in Republican times into a special reserve fund, the aerarium sanctius. The fiscus libertatis et peculiorum (treasury of liberty and separate property) in the Roman Empire (with evidence from

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 8 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

Claudian times on), which some have suggested was the fund of the tax on manumissions, was probably a special fund for imperial slaves and freedmen (Günther 2008: 101 sq.). Al though the concrete reasons for establishing the tax are not entirely clear—financial need or a patrician measure against the plebeians—an increase of revenue due to the inflow of slaves in the third and second centuries BC (and, therefore, more manumissions) is likely.

Two factors led to an increase of tax revenue in the Roman Empire even though there was no great increase in the number of new slaves. On the one hand, the different legal regu lations concerning manumission (e.g. Gai. Inst. 1.16–24; cf. Günther 2008: 118–120) “forced” the manumittor to undertake this act in public before a Roman magistrate to gain Roman citizenship for his freedman instead of the debased ius Latinum Iunianum. This requirement was even increased by the Augustan legislation concerning the manu mitting of slaves (lex Aelia Sentia, lex Fufia Caninia, lex Iunia Norbana); with this public process, registration and tax collection were easy for the leaseholders (or, later on, the public tax officials). On the other hand, the slaves’ owners were geared to economic inter ests: not only the motivation of slaves to receive the status of freedman, which caused a gain of efficiency that compensated for the purchase price, but also the tradition that most slaves bought their freedom while paying the manumitting fees and taxes with their peculium (separate property) were strong push-factors. Furthermore, the new freedmen were in legal, social, and economic ways closely connected to the former owners and their families through the patron-client relationship, so that the profits for the manumit ting family continued over more than one generation.

The vicesima libertatis vel manumissionum (5 percent tax on liberty or manumissions) was also exacted by private tax collectors, who interacted with a gradually growing num ber of public officials. Except for the vicesima hereditatium, we have insights into the world of the private tax farmer due to literary notices, inscriptions, and papyrological evi dence. Not only single persons related to one or another hierarchical level but also soci etates publicanorum (companies of publicans) are attested in inscriptions. However, nei ther the reconstruction of regional tax districts nor the distribution of duties, nor a di achronic development of both, is possible due to the limits of evidence (differently from the public officials for the inheritance tax).

As for the inheritance tax, former hypotheses of a change from societates publicanorum to single tax collectors cannot be substantiated, nor can the idea that public officials re placed the private tax collection process immediately after the institution of the new tax. Private tax collectors are mentioned up to Hadrianic times, possibly up to the third centu ry AD (AE 2001: 1707; cf. Günther 2008: 109 sq.). As for other vectigalia, the Neronian re forms of 58 AD might have established the procuratores XX libertatis to control the publi cani instead of the magistrates of the aerarium populi Romani. With the first attested procurator XX libertatis in Pompeii before the eruption of Vesuvius, the hypothesis of a development from freedman to equestrian procurators also fails. Details about this sexa genary office, involving the staff or the regional administration, are difficult to estimate in

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 9 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

the absence of evidence, but a parallel development to the (higher-paid) procurators for the vicesima hereditatium seems likely.

The details of the taxing process, as well as of the cooperation between private tax collec tors and public officials, were laid down in a lex, but the concrete regulations are un known. Thanks to papyri from Roman Egypt, we can deduce some details. In case of pub lic manumissions as well as testamentary releases, the public administration gave notice to the tax collectors; based on a measure of value of the slave, the tax was calculated and had to be paid directly. In case of greater numbers of manumissions, for example as a re sult of a testament, there could also be an agreement about a flat rate. How the measure ment was made is unclear. Documents concerning the purchase price or the sum paid by the slave for manumission or the current market price may have been the basis. Possibly, the attested combined lease of the vicesima liberatis together with the sale tax on slaves (quinta et vicesima venalium mancipiorum, ILS 203 = CIL VI 915, see below) was also an efficient instrument for the core of the tax collecting process. That the reduction of trans action costs, to speak in the terms of New Institutional Economics, and the increase of ef ficient tax collection were not unknown to the Romans is also clearly shown by the tax collecting station for both taxes, the statio vicesimae hereditatium et manumissionum (collection station for the 5 percent tax on inheritances and manumissions), in Egypt (cf. Eck 1995) and the probable lease and administration of four vectigalia under the name quattuor publica Africae (four public [taxes] for Africa) (cf. Günther 2008: e.g. 63 sq.).

The centesima rerum venalium and the quinta et vicesima venalium mancipiorum formed the so-called sales taxes but were probably not closely connected with each other.

The 1 percent sales tax (centesima rerum venalium) was established at an unknown date after the Civil Wars between Octavian and Marc Antony (Tac. Ann. 1.78.2) (see Günther 2008: 127–147). All proposals for an exact date fail due to the attempt to connect the tax with other events, which provides an insight into the mindset of modern scholars. It is a fact that under the reign of Tiberius (14–37 AD) the tax was a factor in financing the aer arium militare; therefore, Tiberius refused to abolish it in 15 AD (Tac. Ann. 1.78.2). In 17 AD, after the creation of the province Cappadocia, the tax was reduced to 0.5 percent (Tac. Ann. 2.42.4). Later on, in 31 AD, Cassius Dio tells us that the tax was exacted again at 1 percent (D.C. 58.16.2). Under the reign of Caligula, the tax, now again under the de nomination of a ducentesima (0.5 percent), was cancelled in 38 AD (Suet. Calig. 16.3; cf. also D.C. 59.9.6, who writes in Greek about the centesima). This event was also celebrat ed propagandistically with the issue of coins, namely quadrantes (RIC I Caligula 111 [Nr. 39, 45, 52]; cf. Wolters 2005: 511 sq.). Because these quadrantes circulated mainly in Italy, one has to doubt older paradigms that the sales tax had a long afterlife, for example in the merces (charge) of the receipt tablet of L. Caecilius Iucundus in Pompeii in the 50s (CIL IV 3340 tab. X; tab. LVIII) or as the centesima argentariae stipulationis (1 percent on bank stipulations) in the lex metalli Vipascensis (FIRA I no. 105, ll. 1–9) from the middle of the second century AD. In fact, the tax was exacted at public sales auctions, the only way for tax collectors to control either seller or purchaser efficiently. But both, merces and centesima, were more probably charges or the lease of exacting charges than what

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 10 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

we would call a sales tax (Günther 2008: 134–140). There is also no direct connection with other customs duties on sales in later times (Günther 2008: 146 sq.; see now Woj ciech 2015).

The 4 percent tax on the sale of slaves (quinta et vicesima venalium mancipiorum) was es tablished in 7 AD (D.C. 55.31.4) to finance the campaign in Pannonia as well as the newly arranged cohortes vigilum (fire service cohorts) (cf. Günther 2008: 149–154). At first, the tax was, according to the Greek term τὸ τέλος τὸ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς in Cassius Dio (see above), a 2 percent tax, but at an unknown date before Claudian times (ILS 203 = CIL VI 915), the rate was changed to 4 percent. The revenues flowed into the aerarium Saturni, for which reason the tax is called a publicum vectigal (ILS 203 = CIL VI 915; CIL XV 7255). Under Nero, in 57 AD, there was a change in the charging process (Tac. Ann. 13.31.2): henceforth, the seller of slaves rather than the purchaser had to pay the tax, making it easier to control. Nothing is known about the further development of the tax; perhaps it was part of the quattuor publica Africae, and it was probably collected up to the third century AD.

Connections and analogies with the centesima rerum venalium have often been proposed but cannot be proved, due to the lack of evidence. Instead, the tax was exacted by private tax collector companies (CIL XV 7255 and the following), together with the manumission tax (ILS 203 = CIL VI 915), which also went into the aerarium Saturni rather than the aer arium militare, unlike the centesima rerum venalium. Thus it is more likely that the manu mission tax and the sales tax on slaves were (sometimes? often?) leased together for effi cient collection.

There has also been discussion of the minor and usually only temporarily levied vectigalia (cf. Günther 2008: 155–161), the measures of the emperor Gaius (Caligula) and the proverbial “urine tax” (pecunia non olet “money does not stink,” deriving from Suet. Vesp. 23.3; cf. D.C. 66.14.5) of Vespasian (69–79 AD). The latter may have been a vectigal that fullers and/or tanners had to pay when they used urine for their work, not a universal tax.

The tax measures of Caligula have gained more attention in academic research. They are mentioned in Suet. Calig. 40 sq., and can be dated, according to D.C. 59.28.8, to the year 40 AD. In detail, these were (Suet. Calig. 40): 1. tax on edibles; 2. tax of 2.5 percent on lit igation and trials; 3. tax of 12.5 percent on the daily income of load carriers; and 4. pros titution tax on active and retired prostitutes, panderers, and even married persons in the amount of the price for one cohabitation. Cassius Dio (see above) adds taxes for taverns, craftsmen, and wage-labor slaves. Nearly all details of these taxes are discussed in acade mic research, but these are mostly hypotheses without evidence in the sources (cf. Gün ther 2008: 155–160). The tax on edibles was certainly a portorium, a custom duty for the toll district Rome (cf. Günther 2008: 143–146; not in Wojciech 2015). For the prostitution tax, a long existence has been proposed by some researchers (e.g., McGinn 1989), com bining evidence for local prostitution taxes and rather dubious references in late antiqui ty. It has even been described as a tributum because of the mixture of the terms vectigal and tributum of Suetonius here (cf. above). But Suetonius structures his whole chapter to

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 11 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

undermine the authority of the “bad” emperor Caligula. The burden of Roman citizens with “tributa” (which were, in fact, all vectigalia due to the lack of a census list), the ref erence to socially disdained groups liable to the new taxes, and, last but not least, the grouping of the prostitution business together with the “sacred” and eminent matrimoni um (Roman legal matrimony) as the core of the Roman family and society as a whole are more revealing of the rhetorical strategy of Suetonius than of historical facts. So these taxes existed—shortly after the murder of Caligula, they were abolished by Claudius (D.C. 60.4.1; Suet. Claud. 11.3), who even propagated the abolition of the tax on edibles by is suing quadrantes (RIC I Claudius 126 [Nr. 85, 87, 89, 91]; cf. Wolters 2005: 513–516)— but details cannot be deduced from the biased evidence.

portoria (custom duties)

Customs were omnipresent in the Roman Empire. Under the designation of portorium, later often vectigal in its narrow sense (cf. Kritzinger 2015: 12), a lot of inhabitants of the Roman Empire and Roman citizens were involved in paying customs duties or in adminis tration—either as taxpayers (mostly tradesmen) or within the administration process as tax collectors or state authorities. But the source material for this important factor in the Roman Empire is scattered; only a few texts concern portoria, while the main evidence comes from inscriptions and papyri, and a small amount from numismatics. What is need ed, therefore, is a combination of different source methods as well as intense knowledge of the often difficult questions in these so-called auxiliary fields (this is also true for vecti galia in general), and it is understandable that there is no current monograph to replace the monumental study of De Laet 1949. His three-step development of the administration process of portoria—from private custom collection consortia (societates publicanorum) up to Trajanic times to single private custom collectors up to Septimius Severus to public collection afterwards—as well as his strict differentiation between border customs, mu nicipal taxes, and road charges are now challenged by new findings (especially the lex portorii Asiae) and recent, deeper research for some regions of the Empire, e.g. the quadragesima Galliarum (2.5 percent custom duty for the Gaulish provinces) or the porto rium Illyricum (Illyrian custom duty) (cf. Ørsted P. 1985; France 2001a; Froehlich 2014; general new model by Kritzinger 2015). Many new questions have also been raised, for example concerning the concrete custom collection process or the epigraphic habits of the collectors of customs; here the article collection Das Zollwesen im Imperium Ro manum (2015) gives a good overview of current research.

In principle, customs were an easy matter. At the customs stations in certain districts within the Imperium Romanum or at the outer borders, goods had to be declared, and the tax collectors fixed the customs to be paid in cash at once. But the details were tricky. There was no unified tariff in the Roman Empire. The tariff depended on the customs dis trict or on the goods to be declared: at the outer borders (in the East), the tariff was high, at 12.5 percent or even 25 percent, while internal tariffs fluctuated from 1 to 5 percent, often 2.5 percent. Some goods were measured on their value, while for others, such as slaves, there was a fixed payment tariff due to the difficulties of measurement in a short time (cf. Günther 2015c: 229–233). Basic consumer durables were not liable to customs

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 12 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

(cf., e.g., Monum. Ephes. ll. 81–83 = §35; ll. 84–87 = § 37; Ps.-Quint. Decl. Min. 359; fur ther sources cf. Kritzinger 2015: 19 no. 61). From the custom inscriptions discovered, for example, in Ephesos, Kaunos, Andriake, Zarai, Myra, and Palmyra we can derive many other details concerning the collection process (cf. in detail Kritizinger 2015: 19–26, with the different editions), from the declaration to the payment at the toll stations (stationes) (cf. now France and Nelis-Clément 2014; also Matz 2015). Here we see an effective as well as efficient administration in action. So for example the issuing of receipts (for a fee?) had not only the purpose of keeping the taxpayer from having to pay double for goods he had not sold at the local market (Monum. Ephes. ll. 16–20 = §6; cf. also Kritzinger 2015: 20sq.) but also of accelerating the customs measuring procedure, of sup porting controls by circitores (circulators) (cf. Günther 2015c: 234–236), and, last but not least, of having a legal document for both parties in case of a legal action. These litiga tions were often a matter of dispute between collectors and payers of taxes. Up to the re form of Nero in 58 AD, there was only the possibility of laying a claim against the tax col lectors directly in Rome before the praetor peregrinus (praetor administering justice among foreigners and between citizens and noncitizens); then a cognitio extra ordinem (extraordinary law suit by official investigation process) in the provinces was allowed. Even the tariff regulations had to be published at every tax station (Tac. Ann. 13,50 sq.; cf. Kritzinger 2015: 45 with further evidence). As for the other vectigalia, special agree ments between frequent merchants and the tax collectors seem likely, so there was per haps no permanent conflict between them.

The staff for the collection process, such as actores (administrator), arcarii (cash caretak ers), circitores, contrascriptores (countersigners), scrutatores (scrutinizers), vilici (estate manager), etc., mostly freedmen and slaves, was hierarchically organized, differentiated, and specialized according to their duties and responsibilities. The epigraphical evidence reveals a great number of job titles, careers, “religious” activities, and networks within these familiae publicanorum ([slave] families of the publicans), but no systematic study has been done so far except for certain local districts or regions, or posts (cf. e.g. Aubert 1994; Van Nijf 2008; Froehlich 2014; Günther 2015c: 233–238, all with further literature).

But before customs duties could be levied, there was the leasing procedure. Whereas in the Roman Republic (cf. Badian 1972) the censors leased these (and other public con tracts) for a five-year period (lustrum), in the Principate this was undertaken by the prae tores aerarii Saturni (praetorians of the Treasury of Saturn) in the end (cf. Corbier 1974). The lease took place after a public auction of the license for certain districts, and was laid down in a contract (pactio) between the state and the leaseholder. Furthermore, the main tariff regulations were published in Rome in a lex portoria (custom duty law), and ideally in the tax districts as well, although Nero had to mandate it with his reform edict in 58 AD. This lex portoria as well as the pactiones (contracts) were not written new in and for every new lease period but were updated, as is clearly seen, for example, in the tax law of Asia. The same is true for the staff at the stations; when there was a change in the tax leaseholder, most of the personnel was not replaced but transferred.

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 13 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

An unsolved problem is the question of how the custom concessions were structured re gionally and systematically. The “old” model of De Laet (1949; cf. also Vittinghoff 1953), with a strict differentiation between border customs, municipal taxes, and road charges and between publicans as collectors for border customs and road charges and cities (civi tates) responsible for the municipal taxes, has now been challenged (cf. Kritzinger 2015: esp. 30–44; for the publicum portorium Illyirici cf. also Ørsted 1985; Froehlich 2014: 77– 83). It is now proposed that the civitates were, in fact, part of the publicum portorium system. Ever since Republican times, Rome had granted the right and privilege of raising taxes to certain civitates. These cities could exact it for themselves but usually did it via publicans. The “new” model thus integrates the civitates (and certain confederacies of cities in the Greek East; cf. Kritzinger 2015: 37 sq.; also Edelmann-Singer 2012) into the system, which was not characterized by borders between publicans and cities with differ ent areas of responsibility (customs vs. municipal taxes) but by districts between two enti ties (e.g., a civitas or a koinon).

The balance of the lease amount was cleared between bureaus of the tax collectors and the administration in Rome every year, first with the aerarium Saturni, then, after an un certain date in the second half of the first century AD, with the fiscus Caesaris with the a rationibus (secretary of finance) and his familia Caesaris ([slave] family of the emperor) (cf. Kritzinger 2015: 27sq.). Also with the institution of special procuratores, as for the other vectigalia (see above), probably with the reform of Nero, the control of the tax col lection process and the collectors shifted to an even more specialized administration. This was the precondition for a step-by-step change concerning the tax collection in the sec ond and third centuries AD. Although there was certainly no reform edict by which pri vate tax collectors were replaced by imperial procuratores and their staff, one finds impe rial officials responsible, among other things, for the collection of the publicum portorium Illyrici, perhaps as a preparation for or result of the Marcomannic Wars of Marcus Aure lius (cf. Kritzinger 2015: 46–48; esp. Ørsted 1985: 349 ss.). As for the other vectigalia, these changes were dependent on certain contexts and situations.

Conclusions and further research directions Although much has been achieved in revealing Roman taxation policy and organization, there are some fields which can be developed deeper and further. Up to now, researchers have often treated the different taxes and customs individually rather than together. With the new findings, especially the customs laws in the Greek East, questions can be ad dressed about the collection process for portoria but also—assuming there are analogies and parallel structures in other vectigalia, e.g. efficient structures around the stationes— about the hierarchical structure of the staff, the context-specific but not general replace ment of private tax collectors by imperial officials, and even the cooperation between them.

It should, for instance, be possible to solve the interesting question of why the Roman state gave up its basic principle (not only concerning taxes) never to change running sys

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 14 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

tems and shifted the risk of tax collection to private companies by integrating modern theoretical approaches into the study of the Roman tax system. Even though the use of the New Institutional Economics is now being broadly discussed in the Ancient Economy Studies (see Droß-Krüpe et al. 2015), there has been no current application of the basic principles of institutions forming (economic) decisions of people, transactions costs, and principal-agent theory. The establishment of procuratores for the various vectigalia and their step-by-step involvement in the tax collecting process, as well as the replacement of private tax collectors for the tributa, could be explained by the reduction of transaction costs, mainly imbalances in information between the state and private companies, high costs for a new administrative apparatus, etc. The organization of the staff at toll stations and the exchange between them (and with other stations) could be investigated using the principal-agent theory. Last but not least, the “new” model of the organization of portoria in districts, based on the region around a civitas (see above), should be seen as an institu tional framework, affecting, channeling, and perhaps controlling the flow of commodity and trade routes.

This framing and forming of trade circles connects portoria directly with the Roman econ omy. Bearing in mind the tax-and-trade model of K. Hopkins (e.g. 1980; 1995/1996; 2000), questions can be asked about the economic development of certain regions and, with an economic-geographical approach, the development of economic areas (cf. Ruffing 2009), as well as the establishment of so-called Special Economic Zones (cf. Günther forthcom ing 2015b) with special rules for economic stimulation, not only concerning taxes and charges.

Furthermore, the effects of taxes on other structural parts of the Roman Empire should be questioned again, and more deeply. If you understand taxes as an open “system” in N. Luhmann’s sense, it could influence the environmental surroundings as well as other “systems” like society and law, and vice versa. So the influence of the inheritance tax on the Roman family (cf. esp. Gardner 2001) could be investigated again by taking into ac count the effects on the Augustan family laws, or the interdependence between the inher itance tax and legacies as alimenta for life (Dig. 35.2.68) could be investigated with the focus on private donators of alimenta. Finally, the presentation of tax measurements in various media (cf. for the coins Wolters 2005), especially in literary texts, should be ana lyzed systematically with a keen eye for the “construction” of “good” and “bad” emper ors. Because it was they who were, in fact, the beginning and the end of taxes in the Ro man Principate.

Bibliography

Albana, M. (1987.) “La vicesima libertatis in età imperiale.” QC 9: 41–76.

Alpers, M. (1995.) Das nachrepublikanische Finanzsystem: Fiscus und Fisci in der frühen Kaiserzeit. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.

Aubert, J.-J. (1994.) Business Managers in Ancient Rome: A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B.C.–A.D. 250. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill.

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 15 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

Bachofen, J. J. (1848.) “Die Erbschaftssteuer, ihre Geschichte, ihr Einfluß auf das Priva trecht.” In Ausgewählte Lehren des römischen Civilrechts, pp. 322–395. Bonn.

Badian, E. (1972.) Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Boulvert, G. (1964.) Les esclaves et les afranchis impériaux sous le Haut-Empire Romain I–II. Diss. Aix-en-Provence.

Bradley, K. R. (1984.) “The vicesima libertatis: Its History and Significance.” Klio 66: 175– 182.

Brunt, P. A. (1990.) “Publicans in the Principate.” In Roman Imperial Themes, edited by P. A. Brunt, pp. 354–432. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Brunt, P. A. 1981 / 1990. “The Revenues of Rome.” JRS 71: 161–172.

Cagnat, M. R. ([1882] 1966.) Étude historique sur les impôts indirects chez les Romains jusqu’aux invasions des barbares, d’après les documents littéraires et épigraphiques. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

Cimma, M. R. (1981.) Ricerche sulla società di publicani. Milan: Giuffré.

Corbier, M. (1974.) L’aerarium Saturni et l’aerarium militare: Administration et proso pographie sénatoriale. Rome: École française de Rome.

Cottier, M., et al., eds. (2008.) The Customs Law in Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Laet, S. J. (1949.) Portorium: Étude sur l’organisation douanière chez les Romains, surtout à l´époque du Haut-Empire. Bruges: De Tempel.

Dobo, A. (1940.) Publicum portorium Illyrici: Documenti e commentario. Diss. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetem Érem- és Régiségtani Intézete.

Droß-Krüpe, K., S. Föllinger, and K. Ruffing, eds. (2015.) Antike Wirtschaft und ihre kul turelle Prägung (2000 v. Chr.–500 n. Chr.). Forthcoming. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Eck, W. (1979.) Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Eck, W. (1995.) “Zur Erhebung der Erbschafts- und Freilassungssteuer in Ägypten im 2. Jh. n. Chr.” In Die Verwaltung des Römischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Aus gewählte und erweiterte Beiträge I, pp. 341–348. Basel: F. Reinhardt.

Eich, P. (2007.) “Die Administratoren des römischen Ägyptens.” In Herrschen und Verwal ten: Der Alltag der römischen Administration in der Hohen Kaiserzeit, edited by R. Haen sch and J. Heinrichs, pp. 378–399. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 16 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

Edelmann-Singer, B. (2012.) “Die finanzielle und wirtschaftliche Dimension der Prov inziallandtage in der Römischen Kaiserzeit.” In Ordnungsrahmen antiker Ökonomien: Ordnungskonzepte und Steuerungsmechanismen antiker Wirtschaftssysteme im Vergle ich, edited by S. Günther, pp. 165–179. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

France, J. (2001a.) Quadragesima Galliarum: L’organisation douanière des provinces alpestres, gauloises et germaniques de l’Empire Romain. Rome: École française de Rome.

France, J. (2001b.) “Remarques sur les tributa dans les provinces nord-occidentales du Haut Empire romain (Bretagne, Gaules, Germanies).” Latomus 60,2: 359–379.

France, J., and J. Nelis-Clément, eds. (2014.) La statio: Archéologie d’un lieu de pouvoir dans l’empire romain. Bordeaux: Ausonius.

Froehlich, S. (2014.) “Das Zollpersonal an den römischen Alpenstraßen nach Aguntum und Virunum.” Klio 96,1: 67–92.

Gardner, J. (2001.) “Nearest and Dearest: Liability to Inheritance Tax in Roman Families.” In Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World, edited by S. Dixon, pp. 205–220. London and New York: Routledge.

Günther, S. (2008.) Vectigalia nervos esse rei publicae: Die indirekten Steuern in der Römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis Diokletian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Günther, S. (2013.) “Res publica oder res popularis: Die steuerpolitischen Maßnahmen des “schlechten” Kaisers Nero zwischen Haushaltsraison und Volksfreundlichkeit.” In Neros Wirklichkeiten: Zur Rezeption einer umstrittenen Gestalt, edited by Chr. Walde, pp. 105–128. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Günther, S. (2014.) “Der fiscus Iudaicus als Forschungskonstrukt.” JASCA 2: 123–136.

Günther, S. (2015a.) “Financing the Civil Wars—The Case of Duties and Taxes.” In Journal of Ancient Civilizations (JAC) 30: X–Y. Forthcoming.

Günther, S. (2015b.) “Sonderwirtschaftszonen—Antike Konzeptionen und Konstruktionen am Beispiel des athenischen Piräus.” In Antike Wirtschaft und ihre kulturelle Prägung (2000 v. Chr.—500 n. Chr.), edited by K. Droß-Krüpe, S. Föllinger, and K. Ruffing. Wies baden: Harrassowitz. Forthcoming.

Günther, S. (2015c.) “Sklaven im römischen Zollwesen.” In Studien zum römischen Zoll wesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 229–241. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.

Hirschfeld, O. (1905.) Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian. 2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmann.

Hopkins, K. (1980.) “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.—A.D. 400).” JRS 70: 101–125.

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 17 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

Hopkins, K. (1995/1996.) “Rome, Taxes, Rents and Trade.” Kodai 6/7: 41–75.

Hopkins, K. (2000.) “Rents, Taxes, Trade and the City of Rome.” In Mercati permanenti e mercati periodici nel mondo romano. Atti degli Incontri capresi di storia dell’economia an tica (Capri 13–15 ottobre 1997), edited by E. Lo Cascio, pp. 253–267. Bari: Edipuglia.

Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in occidente ed in oriente: Actes de la X rencontre franco-italienne sur l´épigraphie du monde romain. Rome, 27–29 mai 1996. (1999.) Rome: École française de Rome.

Ivanov, V. (1971.) De societatibus vectigalium publicorum populi Romani. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Jördens, A. (2012.) “Government, Taxation, and Law.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt, edited by C. Riggs, pp. 56–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jördens, A. (2009.) Statthalterliche Verwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit: Studien zum praefectus Aegypti. Stuttgart.

Kniep, F. (1896.) Societas publicanorum. Jena: G. Fischer.

Kritzinger, P. (2015.) “Das römische Zollsystem bis in das 3. Jh. n.Chr.” In Studien zum römischen Zollwesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 11–55. Duisburg.

Kritzinger, P., F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, eds. (2015.) Studien zum römischen Zollwesen. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.

Malmendier, U. (2002.) Societas publicanorum: Staatliche Wirtschaftsaktivitäten in den Händen privater Unternehmer. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau Verlag.

Marek, Chr. (2006.) Die Inschriften von Kaunos. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Matthews, J. F. (1984.) “The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East.” JRS 74: 157–180.

Matz, St. (2015.) “Die stationes des gallischen Zollbezirkes aus archäologischer Sicht: Im Westen nichts Neues?—Eine kurze Bestandsaufnahme.” In Studien zum römischen Zoll wesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 245–251. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.

McGinn, Th. A. J. (1989.) “The Taxation of Roman Prostitutes.” Helios 16: 79–110.

Neesen, L. (1980.) Untersuchungen zu den direkten Staatsabgaben in der römischen Kaiserzeit (27 v.Chr.—284 n. Chr.). Bonn: Habelt.

Nicolet, Cl. (1976.) Tributum. Bonn: Habelt.

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 18 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

Ørsted P. (1985.) Roman Imperial Economy and Romanization: A Study in Roman Imperial Administration and the Public Lease in the Danubian Provinces from the First to the Third Century AD. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Pflaum, H.-G. (1960.) Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire Ro main, vols. I–IV. Paris: P. Geuthner.

Pflaum, H.-G. (1982.) Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire Ro main: Supplément. Paris: P. Geuthner.

Rathbone, D. (2008.) “Nero’s Reforms of Vectigalia and the Inscription of the Lex Portorii Asiae.” In The Customs Law of Asia, edited by M. Cottier et al., pp. 251–278. Oxford: Ox ford University Press.

Rostovtzeff, M. (1902.) Geschichte der Staatspacht in der Römischen Kaiserzeit bis Diok letian. Leipzig: L’Erma di Bretschneide.

Ruffing, K. (2009.) “Das Imperium Romanum als Wirtschaftsraum.” MBAH 27: 63–94.

Schanz, G. (1900.) “Studien zur Geschichte und Theorie der Erbschaftssteuer.” Finan zarchiv 17: 1–62.

Schmall, S. (2011.) Patrimonium und Fiscus: Studien zur kaiserlichen Domänen- und Fi nanzverwaltung von Augustus bis Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Diss. Bonn: Unver sität Bonn.

Takmer B. (2007.) “Lex Portorii Provinciae Lyciae: Ein Vorbericht über die Zollinschrift aus Andriake aus neronischer Zeit.” Gephyra 4: 165–188.

Udoh, F. E. (2005.) To Caesar What Is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administra tion in Early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E.–70 C.E.). Providence, Rhode Island: Brown Uni versity.

Vandorpe, K. (2015.) “Roman Egypt and the Organisation of Customs Duties.” In Studien zum römischen Zollwesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 89– 110. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.

Van Nijf, O. (2008.) “Social World of Tax Farmers.” In The Customs Law of Asia, edited by M. Cottier et al., pp. 279–311. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vittinghoff, F. (1953.) “Portorium.” RE XXII.1: 346–399.

Wachtel, K. (1966.) Freigelassene und Sklaven in der staatlichen Finanzverwaltung der römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis Diokletian. Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wis senschaften, Institut für Griechisch-Römische Altertumskunde.

Wallace, S. L. (1938.) Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Page 19 of 19

Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022

Wesener, G. (1958.) “Vicesima hereditatium.” RE VIII A.2: 2471–2477.

Wesener, G. (1958.) “Vicesima manumissionum.” RE VIII A.2: 2477–2479.

Wojciech, K. (2015.) “Stadtrömische Zollstationen im Kontext der Fleischversorgung Roms unter den Severern.” In Studien zum römischen Zollwesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 155–178. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.

Wolters, R. (1999.) Nummi signati: Untersuchungen zur römischen Münzprägung und Geldwirtschaft. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Wolters, R. (2005.) “Remissio: Die Ankündigung von Steueraufhebungen in der Römis chen Kaiserzeit.” In „Eine ganz normale Inschrift” … Vnd ähnLiches zVm GebVrtstag von E. Weber: Festschrift zum 30. April 2005, edited by Fr. Beutler and W. Hameter, pp. 507– 520. Wien: Eigenverl. der Österr. Ges. für Archäologie.

Wolters, R. (2007.) “Vectigal, Tributum und Stipendium—Abgabeformen in Römischer Re publik und Kaiserzeit.” In Geschenke und Steuern, Zölle und Tribute: Antike Abgabefor men in Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, edited by H. Klinkott, S. Kubisch, and R. Müller- Wollermann, pp. 407–430. Leiden: Brill.

Sven Günther

Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations (IHAC) Northeast Normal University

https://global.oup.com/privacy
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/page/legal-notice
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Abstract and Keywords
Sven Günther Sven GüntherClassics, Northeast Normal UniversityClose
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Terminology
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
tributa (so-called direct taxes)
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
vectigalia (so-called indirect taxes)
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
portoria (custom duties)
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Conclusions and further research directions
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Bibliography
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate

Published by

Thesis

View all posts

Peplau’s Nurse-Patient Relationship

Part One: Peplau’s Nurse-Patient Relationship Assignment help – Discussion Question: In nursing practice, there is a constant need to align our actions with established nursing theories to provide the best possible care to patients. Dorothea Orem’s Self-Care Deficit Theory emphasizes the importance of patients’ ability to care for themselves and the role of nurses in […]

NHS-FPX 5004 Assessment 3 Self-Assessment of Leadership,

NHS-FPX 5004 Assessment 3 Self-Assessment of Leadership, Collaboration, and Ethics Assessment 3 Instructions: Self-Assessment of Leadership, Collaboration, and Ethics Homework help – Write a 3-4 page response to an employment questionnaire requiring a self-evaluation of your leadership and ethical experiences. Introduction An understanding of one’s own approaches to leadership, motivation, collaboration, and ethical situations is […]

NHS-FPX 5004 Assessment 1 Leadership and Group Collaboration Paper

NHS-FPX 5004 Assessment 1 Leadership and Group Collaboration Paper References Do, A., Li, L., Heller, D. R., Abou Ziki, M. D., Glaser, D. H., Kumar, S. P., & Huot, S. J. (2020). Collaborative leadership: organizational structure and institutional investment to multiply innovative educational efforts among trainees. BMJ Leader, leader-2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-000233 Elhanafi, E. (2019). Transformational Leadership: […]

Get affordable writing help - for this paper or similar assignments; by simply placing an order with us!

Place an order | Check Price