The Customs Law of Asia - PDF Free Download

OXF O R D S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T D O C U M E N T S General Editors Alan Bowman Alison Cooley OXFORD STUDIES ...

161 downloads 1543 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

OXF O R D S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T D O C U M E N T S General Editors Alan Bowman Alison Cooley

OXFORD STUDIES IN ANCIENT DOCUMENTS This innovative new series offers unique perspectives on the political, cultural, social, and economic history of the ancient world. Exploiting the latest technological advances in imaging, decipherment, and interpretation, the volumes cover a wide range of documentary sources, including inscriptions, papyri, and wooden tablets.

ALREADY PUBLISHED IN THE SERIES Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions Concepts of Record-Keeping in the Ancient World Edited by Maria Brosius Spirits of the Dead Roman Funerary Commemoration in Western Europe Maureen Carroll Image to Interpretation An Intelligent System to Aid Historians in Reading the Vindolanda Texts Melissa M. Terras The Greek Theatre and Festivals Documentary Studies Edited by Peter Wilson

The Customs Law of Asia Edited by M . C OT T I E R , M . H . C R AW F O R D, C . V. C ROW T H E R , J. - L . F E R R A RY, B. M . L EV I C K , ¨ RRLE O. SA LOM IE S, M . WO and with papers by M . C O R B I E R , S . M I TC H E L L , O. VAN N I J F, D. R ATH B O N E, G. D. ROW E

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Oxford University Press 2008 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk ISBN 978–0–19–955151–4 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Preface The stone bearing the inscription that embodies the Customs Law of Asia—a stone ‘covered in writing—just like a newspaper’, as the workman reported it to Professor Dieter Knibbe—was found at Ephesus in August 1976, and has become known as the ‘Monumentum Ephesenum’ (‘the Monument from Ephesus’). The use of this inauthentic Latin title has justifiably been criticized by M. Wo¨rrle (1999),1 though it will do for the physical object. The text of the ‘newspaper’ reported measures concerned with the customs dues of the Roman province of Asia from 75 bc to ad 62, and, on the basis of the wording of l. 7,2 it has been assigned various Latin designations,3 equivalent to ‘Asian harbour law’4 or ‘law of the Asian harbour toll’5 and referred to in English as a ‘customs law’, the title that has been adopted for this book. After discussions at colloquia in Vienna, Munich, and Cologne, a preliminary notice of the inscription was published in EA 8 (1986) 19-32, followed in 1989 by full publication by H. Engelmann and D. Knibbe as EA 14 (1989), with introduction, maiuscule and minuscule texts, German translation, commentary, and fourteen plates, including photographs of stone and squeeze. The introduction to the present volume is much indebted to that of the editio princeps. The work produced a rich crop of published responses, as the editors foresaw, many of them emendations of the text proposed by 1 M. Wo¨rrle (note for 1999 colloquium): ‘Den pseudoantiken und pseudomajesta¨tischen Begriff ‘‘Monumentum Ephesenum’’ sollte die Edition konsequent vermeiden, unter allen Umsta¨nden im Titel. Mit Lex portorii Asiae ist ja ein korrekter antiker Terminus technicus zur Hand.’ 2 ‘The lex for the telos of Asia on import and export by land and sea’ ( ºı Æ N ÆªøªB ŒÆd K ÆªøªB ŒÆ ªB ŒÆd ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ). 3 McGing 1995. The Law/lex has sometimes been referred to in English as the ‘Tax Law of Asia’, but its focus is narrower: it is concerned with the regulation of customs dues. 4 Lex portus Asiae: Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996; Merola 2001; France 2001, esp. 311 and 405–7; portus is narrow for the scope of the lex, which includes posts at inland crossings. 5 Lex portorii Asiae : Eck 1990; Scha¨fer 1991; Dreher 1996; Knibbe 2000.

vi

Preface

the editors or of their interpretations, others exploiting the text to gain new insights into the geography and government of the province of Asia, of the Roman tax system, or of the Roman Empire at large. Besides these publications (for which see the Bibliography), work has also gone on in seminars, notably in Paris. The inscription was an obvious subject for study at the Oxford University Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents, and on 1–2 October 1999, under the auspices of the Centre, a colloquium was organized at Christ Church, by A. K. Bowman, M. H. Crawford, and B. M. Levick. Six scholars presented sections of the text of the inscription, with commentary, and six offered papers on the Customs Law itself, its context and implications, five of which have been revised for the present publication (that of R. P. Duncan-Jones was published separately in Latomus 65 (2006) 3-16). The contributors to the colloquium are listed in the contents page of this volume; the division of the text by lines for that meeting has been retained in the present publication and is as follows: M. Cottier, ll.1-26, §§1-9; M. H. Crawford, ll. 27-53, §§10-21; J.-L. Ferrary, ll. 53-81, §§22-33; O. Salomies, ll. 81-107, §§34-45; M. Wo¨rrle (in absentia), ll. 108-34, §§46-57; B. Levick, ll. 135-55, §§58-63. In addition to these participants, a number of other scholars were present and made valuable contributions to the discussion and to the points of agreement that were reached: E. Famerie, M. T. Griffin, C. J. Howgego, C. Katsari, A. W. Lintott, B. C. McGing, G. D. Merola, F. G. B. Millar, S. R. F. Price, N. Purcell, and G. Williamson. D. Knibbe, though unable to attend the colloquium, contributed his Latin version of the document, which he has since published,6 and has provided support throughout. Professor Bowman has not made a formal contribution to the volume, but he not only engineered the original colloquium but has facilitated the work with help and advice at every stage. It is also a pleasure to recognize the input and encouragement of the Joint Editor of the Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents series, Dr A. E. Cooley. 6 Edd. pr. 6 comment on the ‘word for word’ Greek translation of the Latin enactment; but the original Latin would have been very intractable; and M. H. Crawford thinks more highly of the work. For Professor Knibbe’s version see Bibliography, Knibbe 2000. Dr G. D. Merola also very kindly sent her work on taxation in the Asian provinces (see Bibliography, Merola 2001).

Preface

vii

Needless to say, a large quantity of paperwork and mutually incompatible floppy disks was generated. C. V. Crowther has shouldered the translation of disks from one mode into another, and the transmission of information between members of an international group over a period of time has been extraordinarily smoothly achieved by Ms M. Sasanow of the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents, to whom we are greatly indebted. A particular debt of gratitude is also owed by B. Levick to the IT Managers at St Hilda’s College, Ms A. Wilson and Mr E. Glynn. ¨ sterThe colloquium was greatly helped by the generosity of the O reichisches Archa¨ologisches Institut, which sent us the latex squeeze of the inscription well before the meeting, and allowed us to keep it afterwards for two further months. With the permission of the Institut, C. V. Crowther was able to make a digital image of the inscription, so making the testimony of the squeeze available to students at the Institut and the Centre and elsewhere, as well as to readers of this volume. At the end of the Colloquium it was agreed that M. Cottier should draw up a fresh text of the document, based on the work of the colloquium, and that M. H. Crawford should provide a translation and that the revised texts should then be submitted to the original contributors for their comment and for the addition of the Commentary. The final work would be submitted to all the contributors and any irreducible differences of view noted in their place. A further meeting of those involved in the establishment of the text was hosted by C. V. Crowther and M. Sasanow at the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents on 1-2 June 2002. The purpose of the present publication is to take account of the work that has been done on the text and interpretation since the foundation was laid by Engelmann and Knibbe, taking advantage of re-readings of the squeeze and the stone, and to make an inscription that is of first-rate importance to students of the Roman Empire readily available to English-speaking students. The paragraphing adopted by the original editors has been subject to scrutiny, but although the views of the present editors differ from theirs at several points, as the Commentary indicates, we have retained the original numeration to avoid confusion, but have made the line number the main basis for reference.

viii

Preface

In the summer of 2000, M. Cottier and C. V. Crowther, the former with the help of a grant from the Oxford University Craven Committee, the latter with support from the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents and Wolfson College, revisited, photographed, and took a new set of paper squeezes of the Monumentum in its place in the Ephesus Archaeological Museum in Selc¸uk; this work on the stone provided the basis of the final text by Cottier and Crowther made available to the contributors for further discussion, and, with the digitized latex squeeze, it is also the basis of the photographic illustrations in this volume.7 Individual passages were twice further checked by M. H. Crawford and J. M. Reynolds. The text and Commentary were scrutinized throughout in 2005 by M. H. Crawford and these final changes reviewed and entered by C. V. Crowther and B. Levick. Since then C. V. Crowther has monitored all the adjustments that have been made to text, translations, and essays, managed the disposition of the Greek, Latin, and English versions on the page, compiled the Plates, drawn up the Greek index, and with B. Levick taken charge of the work in its final stages. B. Levick has compiled the indexes of Persons, Places and Peoples, and the General Index. The Map has been drawn by S. Mitchell. M. H. Crawford acknowledges an additional debt to the late P. A. Brunt for his advice, particularly in details of the translations. Details of the history of the Monumentum, its dimensions and lettering, will be found in the introduction to the text. The editors are indebted to the Turkish Ministry of Culture and the Directorate of the Ephesus Archaeological Museum for facilitating the close reexamination of the stone, and to the valuable advice and assistance of Gina Coulthard and Yaprak Eran and Gu¨lgu¨n Kazan of, respectively, the London and Ankara offices of the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, in obtaining the necessary permissions. For the final version we owe helpful suggestions as to presentation, notably in the Introduction, to the Oxford University Press reader. We are also greatly indebted to Hilary O’Shea, Kathleen Fearn, and Dorothy McCarthy of OUP, who have seen the work through to publication. 7 Full-resolution versions of the illustrations are published on the website of the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents at: http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/lexportorii/

For Claude Nicolet

The Customs Law of Asia Inscription in Ephesus Archaeological Museum

Contents Illustrations Abbreviations Map

xii xiii xxii

Introduction

1

TEXT AND TRANSLATIONS

15

COMMENTARY

87

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism in the Asian Customs Law s. mitchell The Lex Portorii Asiae and Financial Administration m. corbier The Elaboration and Diffusion of the Text of the Monumentum Ephesenum g. d. rowe Nero’s Reforms of Vectigalia and the Inscription of the Lex Portorii Asiae d. rathbone The Social World of Tax Farmers and their Personnel o. van nijf General Bibliography Greek Index Index Locorum Epigraphical and Papyrological Index Index of Persons Index of Peoples and Places General Index

165 202

236

251 279

312 328 348 351 355 361 365

Illustrations Frontispiece: The Customs Law of Asia Inscription in Ephesus Archaeological Museum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 1–20, left side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 1–19, right side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 1–26, left side (latex squeeze) Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 1–26, right side (latex squeeze) Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 19–42, left side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 19–42, right side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 42–74, left side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 43–74, right side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 73–99, left side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 73–99, right side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 99–125, left side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 99–125, right side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 120–155, left side Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 120–155, right side

24 25 24 25 42 43 42 43 64 65 64 65 86 86

Abbreviations (see also General Bibliography)

1. Works of Reference and Ancient Texts ABSA AC AE´

Annual of the British School at Athens L’Antiquite´ classique L’Anne´e e´pigraphique (Paris, 1888– )

AJAH

American Journal of Ancient History

ANRW

H. Temporini et al., eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt (Berlin and New York, 1972– )

Apokrimata

W. L. Westermann and A. A. Schiller, eds., Apokrimata: Decisions of Septimius Severus on Legal Matters (Columbia, NY, 1954)

AS

Anatolian Studies

ASGP

Annali del Seminario Giuridico della Universita` di Palermo

Ath.

Athenaeum

BAR

British Archaeological Reports

BCH BE´FAR

Bulletin de Correspondance Helle´nique Bibliothe`que des E´coles franc¸aises d’Athe`nes et de Rome

BGU

Berliner griechische Urkunden

BIAA

British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara

BICS

Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies

Bruns, Font.

C. G. Bruns et al., eds., Fontes iuris Romani (7th edn., by O. Gradenwitz, Tu¨bingen, 1909; repr. Aalen, 1958) Bulletin de la Socie´te´ arche´ologique d’Alexandrie Bulletin e´pigraphique, publ. annually in RE´G

BSAA Bull. e´pigr.

xiv

Abbreviations

CAH

Cambridge Ancient History (edn. 1, Cambridge, 13 vols., 1936–54; 2nd edn., 1961– )

CCG CE´FR

Cahiers du Centre Gustave-Glotz Collection de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome

CGL

G. Goetz, ed., Corpus glossariorum Latinorum a G. Loewe incohatum (7 vols., Leipzig, etc., 1888–1927; repr. Amsterdam, 1965)

Chrest.Wilck.

L. Mitteis and U. Wilcken, Grundzu¨ge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (Leipzig, 1912)

CIL

Th. Mommsen et al., eds., Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1863– )

CJ

P. Krueger, ed., Codex Iustinianus. Corpus Iuris Civilis 2 (Berlin, 1877; repr. 12th edn., 1959)

Corbier, Aerarium

Corbier, Aerarium militare

M. Corbier, L’aerarium Saturni et l’aerarium militare, Administration et Prosopographie se´natoriale. CE´FR 24 (Rome, 1974) M. Corbier, ‘L’aerarium militare’, in Arme´es et fiscalite´ dans le monde antique. Paris, 14–16 octobre 1976. Colloques nationaux du CNRS 936 (Paris, 1977) 97–234

CP

Classical Philology

C. Pap. Lat.

R. Cavenaille, ed., Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum (4 vols., Wiesbaden, 1956–8) Comptes rendus de l’Acade´mie des inscriptions et belles-lettres

CRAI Crawford, RS

M. H. Crawford, ed., Roman Statutes, BICS Suppl. 64 (2 vols., London, 1996)

CTh

T. Mommsen and P. M. Meyer, eds., Theodosiani Libri XVI; cum Const. Sirmonianis, etc. (Berlin, 1905)

EA

Epigraphica Anatolica

Edelstein–Kidd

L. Edelstein and I. G. Kidd, eds., Posidonius. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 13–14, 36 (3 vols., Cambridge, 1972–99)

Abbreviations EJ2

Ephesos

xv

V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, eds., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (2nd edn., rev. by D. L. Stockton, Oxford, 1976) ¨ sterreichisches archa¨ologisches Institut: O Forschungen in Ephesos vero¨ffentlicht vom ¨ sterreichischen archa¨ologischen Institute O (Vienna, 1906– )

ESAR

T. Frank et al., Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (4 vols., Baltimore and London, 1933– 40; repr. Paterson, NJ, 1959)

FGH

F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (4 parts, Leiden, 1923–63)

FHG

K. Mu¨ller and V. Langlois, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (5 vols., Paris, 1878–85)

GRBS

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies

Greenidge and Clay, Sources A. H. J. Greenidge and A. M. Clay, eds., Sources for Roman History 133–70 B.C. (2nd edn., rev. E. W. Gray, Oxford, 1966, corr. repr. 1986) HA

Historia Augusta

I.Alexandreia

M. Ricl, ed., The Inscriptions of Alexandreia Troas (¼ IK 53, Bonn, 1997)

I.Apameia

T. Corsten, ed., Die Inschriften von Apameia/ Pylae (Bithynien) (¼ IK 32, Bonn, 1987)

I.Cret.

M. Guarducci and F. Halbherr, eds., Inscriptiones Creticae (4 vols., Rome, 1935–50)

I.Ephesos

H. Wankel et al., eds., Die Inschriften von Ephesos (¼ IK 11–17, Bonn, 1979– )

IG

A. Kirchhoff et al., eds., Inscriptiones Graecae. Deutsche Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin (Berlin, 1873– )

IGBulg.

G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae Arkh. Inst. Bulg. Akad. na Naukite. Epigr. Poreditsa 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 (5 vols., Sofia, 1958–97)

xvi

Abbreviations

IGR

R. Cagnat et al., eds., Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (vols. 1, 3, 4, Paris, 1906–27; repr. Chicago, 1975)

IK

Inschriften griechischer Sta¨dte aus Kleinasien (Bonn, 1972– )

I.Kalchedon

R. Merkelbach et al., eds., Die Inschriften von Kalchedon (¼ IK 20, Bonn, 1980)

I.Kaunos

C. Marek, Die Inschriften von Kaunos. Vestigia 55 (Munich, 2006)

I.Kibyra

T. Corsten, ed., Die Inschriften von Kibyra. I. Die Inschriften der Stadt und ihrer na¨heren Umgebung (¼ IK 60, Bonn, 2002)

I.Knidos

W. Blu¨mel, ed., Die Inschriften von Knidos. I (¼ IK 41, Bonn, 1992)

ILA

R. Cagnat and A. Merlin, eds., Inscriptions latines d’Afrique (Tripolitaine, Tunisie et Maroc) (Paris, 1923) Inscriptions latines d’Alge´rie, ed. S. Gsell et al. (2 vols., Paris and Algiers, 1922– )

ILAlg. I.Laodikeia

T. Corsten, ed., Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos (¼ IK 49, Bonn, 1997)

ILLRP

A. Degrassi, ed., Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, 2 vols. (Florence, vol. i, 2nd edn., 1965; vol. ii, 2nd edn., 1963)

ILS

H. Dessau, ed., Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (3 vols., Berlin, 1892–1916, repr. 1954–5)

I.Myl.

W. Blu¨mel, ed., Die Inschriften von Mylasa (¼ IK 34–35, Bonn, 1987–8)

I.Oropos

V. Ch. Petrakos, ed., ˇƒ ¯ØªæÆçb F æøF (Athens, 1997)

I. Sal. Chypre

I.Th. Sy.

J. Pouilloux, P. Roesch, and J. MarcilletJaubert, Salamine de Chypre, 13. Testimonia Salaminia 2. Corpus e´pigraphique (Paris, 1987) A. Bernand, De The`bes a` Sye`ne (Paris, 1989)

JEA

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

Abbreviations JESHO ¨ AI JO

xvii

Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient ¨ sterreichischen archa¨oloJahreshefte des O gischen Instituts in Wien

JRA

Journal of Roman Archaeology

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

JS

Journal des Savants

Libitina e dintorni

S. Panciera and A. Vauchez (eds.), Libitina e dintorni. Libitina e i luci sepolcrali, le Leges Libitinariae Campane Iura Sepulcrorum: vecchie e nuove iscrizioni. Atti del’XI Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’e´pigraphie. Rome, 2004

LSJ

H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek Lexicon (9th edn., rev. H. S. Jones, Oxford, 1940); A Supplement, ed. E. A. Barber (1968); A Revised Supplement, ed. P. G. W. Glare and A. A. Thompson (1996)

MAMA

Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (10 vols., Manchester and London, 1925–93)

Mason, GT

H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis, Amer. Stud. in Papyr. 13 (Toronto, 1974)

MDAI (I)

Mitteilungen des Deutsches Arch. Inst., Abteilung Istanbul

ME ME´FRA

Monumentum Ephesenum Me´langes de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome (Antiquite´)

Milet

Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, ed. T. Wiegand et al. (Leipzig, 1903–5; Berlin, etc., 1906– )

MRR

T. R. S. Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Amer. Phil. Assoc. Monogr. 15 (3 vols., New York and Atlanta, 1951–86) Me´langes de science religieuse

MSR MW

M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead, eds., Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian

xviii

Nicolet, Censeurs ¨ AW O

Abbreviations Emperors including the Year of Revolution A.D. 68–96 (Cambridge, 1961) C. Nicolet, Censeurs et publicains: e´conomie et fiscalite´ dans la Rome antique (Paris, 2000) ¨ sterreichische Akademie der WissenschafO ten

OCD3

S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd edn., Oxford and New York, 1996)

OGIS

W. Dittenberger, ed., Orientis graecae inscriptiones selectae: Supplementum SIG (2 vols., Leipzig, 1903–5; repr. Hildesheim, 1960)

OLD

P. G. W. Glare, ed., The Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1968–82)

Oliver, Gk. Const.

J. H. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri. Mem. Amer. Phil. Soc. 178 (Philadelphia, 1989)

OS

Ostkirchliche Studien (Wu¨rzburg)

P.Amh.

B. P. Grenfell and A. D. Hunt, eds., The Amherst Papyri, being an Account of the Greek Papyri in the Collection of Lord Amherst of Hackney (London, 1900–1)

PE

R. Stilgoe, ed., The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton, 1976)

PIR

E. Klebs et al., eds., Prosopographia Imperii Romani (3 vols., Berlin, 1897–8; 2nd edn. by E. Groag et al., eds., Berlin and Leipzig, 1933– )

P.Oxy.

B. P. Grenfell et al., eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London, 1898– )

PP

La Parola del Passato

P.Princ.

A. C. Johnson, H. B. Van Hoesen, et al., eds., Papyri in the Princeton University Collection (Baltimore, 1931– )

PSI

G. Vitelli, M. Norsa, et al., eds., Papiri greci e latini. Pubbl. della Soc. ital. per la ricerca dei Papiri greci e latini in Egitto (Florence, 1912–79)

Abbreviations P.Tebt.

RD RE

RE´G

xix

B. Grenfell et al., eds., The Tebtunis Papyri. Univ. of Calif. Publ., Graeco-Roman Memoirs 64. Graeco-Roman Arch. 1–4 (15 vols., London and New York, 1902–76) Revue historique de droit franc¸ais et e´tranger G. Wissowa et al., eds., Paulys Realencyclopa¨die der class. Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart and Munich, 1894–1980) Revue des e´tudes grecques

Reynolds, Aphrodisias

J. M. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavation of the Theatre at Aphrodisias conducted by Professor K. T. Erim, with some related texts. JRS Monographs No. 1 (London, 1982)

RG

Res Gestae Divi Augusti

RIC

E. H. Mattingly et al., eds., Roman Imperial Coinage (London, 1923– ); C. H. V. Sutherland and R. A. G. Carson, I2 (1984)

Riccobono, FIRA

S. Riccobono et al., Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani (2nd edn., Florence, 1940–3)

RIN

Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini Revue de philologie, de litte´rature et d’histoire anciennes J. and L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’e´pigraphie de numismatique et d’antiquite´s grecques (13 vols., Limoges and Paris, 1940–65) L. Robert, Opera Minora Selecta: ´epigraphie et antiquite´s grecques (7 vols., Amsterdam, 1969–90)

RPhil Robert, Hell.

Robert, OMS

Rotondi, LPPR

G. Rotondi, Leges publicae Populi Romani. Elenco cronologico con una introduzione sull’attivita` legislativa dei comiti romani, estr. dalla Enciclopedia Giuridica Italiana (Milan, 1912; repr. Darmstadt, 1962)

RPC

A. Burnett, J. Amandry, et al., eds., Roman Provincial Coinage I– (London and Paris, 1992– )

xx

Abbreviations

SB

F. Preisigke et al., eds., Sammelbuch ¨ gypten (Strasgrieschischer Urkunden aus A burg, etc., 1913– )

SCI

Scripta classica Israelica

SEG

J. J. E. Hondius et al., eds., Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden, 1923– )

Sherk, RDGE

R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents of the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae down to the Age of Augustus (Baltimore, 1969)

SIG 3

W. Dittenberger et al., eds., Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (3rd edn., Leipzig, 1915–24)

Smallwood, G-N

E. M. Smallwood, Documents illustrating the Principates of Gaius Claudius and Nero (Cambridge, 1967)

Smallwood, N-H

E. M. Smallwood, Documents illustrating the Principates of Nerva Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1966)

Sel. Pap.

A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, eds., Select Papyri: 2. Non-Literary Papyri (Cambridge, Mass., 1934)

SO

Symbolae Osloenses

Syme, RP

R. Syme, Roman Papers, ed. E. Badian (1–2), A. R. Birley (3–7) (7 vols., Oxford, 1979–91) Travaux et Me´moires du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation byzantines

T&MByz TAM

R. Heberdey et al., Tituli Asiae Minoris Antiqua (Vienna, 1901– )

TG

Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis

TLL

Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. ed. auctoritate et consilio acad. quinque (Leipzig, 1900– )

WS

Wiener Studien

ZPE

Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik

ZSS

Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung (romanist. Abteilung)

Abbreviations 2. General h.

height, high

l(l).

line(s)

lth

length, long

th.

thickness, thick

w.

width, wide

All measurements are in metres.

xxi

Hieron (mentioned in Customs Law) [Smyrna] (restored in Customs Law) Cius Other places

Boundary of the Asian province, excluding Pamphylia and the Bosporus Contours at 1000m and 2000m intervals

Byzantium

Hieron Calchedon

Nicomedia

Pylae

Parium Cyzicus

B

Cius

Dascylion

I

T

H

Y

N

I A

Apamea Myrlea

Apollonia

Ga A

Pripaus Lampsacus [Abydus] [Dardanus] [Sigeum] Colonia Augusta Troas rus rus ga and [Hamaxitus] r nt Astyria Assus Adramyttium Poroselene

LES B O S

[Pergamum] Atarneus Elaea Pitane [Cyme] Myrine [Phocaea]

Amorium

P [Erythrae]

R

O

V

I

N

C

I A

[Smyrna]

A S

I A

Synnada

Teos Colophon

Apollonia

Ephesus

S AM O S

Apamea

Priene

Laodicea

Miletus

[Myndus] CO S

Iasus Bargylia [Halicarnassus] Ceramus [Physcus]

[Cnidus]

Caunus

PAMPHYLIA Perge [Aspendus] [Attalea] Magydus Telmessus L Y C I A Side

Xanthus R HO D ES

Patara

0

Phaselis

Myra

100

200 km

Introduction The inscription edited, translated, and discussed in the present volume is of immense historical value. It was set up in Ephesus, the principal city of the Roman province of Asia, in ad 62, and presents a series of regulations governing the administration and exaction of the customs dues in the province. It is a key document for our understanding of a crucial element of the administration of the Roman Empire, the collection of taxes in all forms, which was vital for the survival of the Empire from beginning to end. The document as a whole comprises information spread over an extended period of time and its signiWcance can be viewed against two separate time scales. On the one hand, it embodies regulations on the administration of customs dues in the province of Asia that date back to the earliest years of the Roman province, and beyond, to the time of the Attalid kingdom; consequently, it throws important light on the period of the transition from hellenistic kingdom to Roman province. On the other hand, the regulations were subject to a series of modiWcations over time, and the inscription presents these in the deWnitive form that they had reached by ad 62. The text was composed at a time during the Principate of Nero when the Emperor and members of the Senate had already, in ad 58, been concerned with the working of the tax system and the failings that had been brought to their attention by popular complaints against publicani (tax-collectors) and the advantage that they were taking of obscurity in existing regulations to make excessive, even illegal, demands. The document invites us to consider how, if at all, the publication of the customs law of Asia in ad 62, when three special commissioners were in charge of the Aerarium Saturni (the public treasury), is related to

2

Introduction

the discussions and subsequent reform of 58, as related by the historian Tacitus (Ann. 13. 50–1). A clause towards the end of the document (l. 147) also raises the issue, noticed by Tacitus in his Claudian narrative in ad 53 (Ann. 12. 60), of procuratorial jurisdiction and its encroachment on the prerogatives of senatorial oYcials. As an aggregate of regulations developed over time, the Customs Law is the most substantial and signiWcant of a corpus of surviving documents (listed on pp. 11–12 below) that oVer information both about imperial and local customs dues and their development in the Late Republic and the Empire, and about the relations between the publicani who exacted the taxes and Roman oYcials and the Aerarium Saturni. The composite and aggregated character of the document raises the question of the nature of this ‘law’ (as it refers to itself) and its authorship; this issue is explored later in the introduction (pp. 5–8 below). The document is full of detailed insights. From its opening lines we learn about the ways in which information stored in the archives at Rome was retrieved and communicated, in Latin or in an authorized translation, to enquirers. In the main body of the text, the variety and scope of the regulations, ranging from the size of customs houses to rates of duty on diVerent items, oVer sharp insights into two disparate perspectives on the tax system, that of the Roman authorities and that of the subjects of the Empire. The Wrst perspective is reXected, for example, in Roman concern for the smooth working of the system of taxation through the employment of publicani, whose obligations—the take-up of their contracts, provision of sureties, and the timing of payments—are carefully regulated, and for the integrity of military arrangements—for the free passage of war materials, soldiers, and their equipment. As to the second point of view, restrictions on the conduct of publicani, mentioned long after the original establishment of the system, may well be responses to complaints from subjects; indeed, the existence of the entire document may be seen in that light. That is not all. The document speciWes methods of payment and penalties for evasion, illuminating the practical working of the Roman tax-system, and it lists places where customs dues are to be paid, requiring the involvement of local authorities when the publicanus is not available. This evidence, with its geographical terminology, provides the opportunity to clarify the political geography of the province of Asia and, critically, its transition from hellenistic kingdom to Roman

Introduction

3

province, as well as the later development of the province of Cilicia. It also throws indirect light on politics at Rome, not only those of the early period of Nero’s reign, but also in the aftermath of Sulla’s Dictatorship, which, it has sometimes been argued, saw a vindictive attack on the order of knights in the shape of the abolition of the right of companies of publicani to farm the taxes of Asia.1 Finally, there is a wealth of information to be gained on other matters: most prominently, the rates of tax and exemptions, and their motivation, details of the relationship between customs-dues and other forms of taxation, and, more generally, the intrusive economic imperialism of the Roman state, and the concessions that could be wrung from it. Historians of law, economics, and the ancient world in general, then, should all Wnd much material of interest in the critical and commented text of the Customs Law of Asia and the essays that follow it in the present volume. That is not to say that all the old problems that are touched on, or the new ones raised, have been resolved. The inscribed text of the law is both complex and, at times, intractable. The present edition is the product of close scrutiny of the inscription and discussions of its content that have dwelt on important questions raised in and since the editio princeps. These are treated in detail in the Commentary and essays. In preparation for the close engagement with the text oVered in those sections, in the pages that follow the preliminary and over-arching issues of the proper title of the document, of its legal character, and of its internal chronology will be considered. It will be convenient if discussion of the character of the lex is preceded by a summary of its contents.2 The document opens by telling us that on 9 July, ad 62, records in the oYce of the curators of public records in the Basilica Julia at Rome were copied so that they might be translated, and eventually inscribed on a stone set up in the city of Ephesus, the principal port of the province of Asia and, with Pergamum, one of its two leading cities.3 These items constituted the 1 Edd. pr. 160, n. 2, in noting that the lex is the earliest evidence for the activity of publicani in Asia after Sulla’s dictatorship, cite but do not follow Brunt 1956, who argued convincingly that Sulla did not remove the publicani. 2 The following discussion is the work of M. Cottier, who has beneWted from suggestions oVered by C. Ando, J.-J. Aubert, and D. Rathbone. 3 It is sometimes described as the ‘capital’, but the governor was often on circuit: see Millar 1993, 94; Haensch 1997, 312 V.; cf. Bowersock 2000, 501.

4

Introduction

law for the dues on imports and exports into and out of the province of Asia by land and sea. The consuls of 75 bc, C. Octavius and C. Aurelius Cotta, are the earliest magistrates who are referred to, as leasing out the collection of the tax (ll. 73 and 75, §§31 and 33), in the text; they were working on the basis of existing regulations (see below, on the legal basis of the lex). The regulations concern the siting of customs posts, the items subject to tax and the rate to be imposed, the timing of the publicanus’ taking up of his lease and the security he must provide. The Wrst magistrates whose modiWcations are listed in the text (l. 84, §37), are the consuls of 72 bc and censors of 70 bc, L. Gellius and Cn. Lentulus. The regulations of the previous paragraphs are undated. Some of them refer to King Attalus III of Pergamum, whose death in 133 bc and bequest of his kingdom to Rome led to the establishment of the system embodied in the law. They even refer, as in ll. 67–9, §28, to the adaptation and use of buildings and to the employment of slaves that had belonged to the royal house.4 No more modiWcations are listed until 17 bc, when there is a heavy crop (ll. 88–103, §§39–43). A gap during the period of civil war and revolution is not to be wondered at: consuls were preoccupied by domestic politics. But by 17 bc, the year of the Secular Games and ten years after the normal disposition of the provinces had been established,5 Augustus had his house in order, and it was only to be expected that there would be tidying up and Wnalizing of details. That there was already concern over the conduct of publicani is shown by the fact that in 19 bc a strong-minded consul, C. Sentius Saturninus, won praise for rigour in exposing their acts of fraudulence, penalizing their greed, and recovering public funds for the Aerarium.6 It is noteworthy too that the next modiWcations followed in 12 bc (ll. 103–9, §§44–5) and again in 7 bc (ll. 109–12, §§46–7) and 2 bc (ll. 113–15, §§48–9): the intervals of Wve years coincide with the period of time allowed for a publicanus’ tenure of the lease: the regulations would be modiWed when the leases were sold, whether 4 M. H. Crawford notes that the order of the clauses in ll. 9–69 excludes the possibility that we have to do simply with an Attalid nucleus and a Republican supplement. 5 Dio 53. 12–18. 6 Vell. Pat. 2. 92. 2.

Introduction

5

at the instance of the publicani or that of the magistrates (perhaps after representations from tax-payers).7 But this regularity is not maintained and, not surprisingly, the need for modiWcations seems to have lessened with time; the last consuls whose names may be restored are those of 37. There were two other interventions before those of the curators of the public revenues re-established by Nero in 62 (ll. 138–43, §§60–1). One of the last intelligible lines (147) seems to envisage disputes between the publicanus and (presumably) travellers subject to his demands being heard before the imperial procurator, a possibility that had been made legitimate by Claudius in 53 but which may have ended when Nero came to power.8 The document is not a lex in the sense of a statute introduced in the form of a question which, aiming at answering one problem or a set of related problems, was formulated by a magistrate in a given year, debated (or not) and voted by one of the Roman assemblies on a speciWed date, then published in a slightly revised form before Wnally being placed in the archives. But it is nonetheless a lex because this Latin term and concept was also used to encompass diVerent types of documents, notably sets of regulations devised by the censors and other magistrates when farming out the collection of state revenues and the construction of public buildings, or when selling or leasing public property.9 This second deWnition aptly describes our text. So the lex portorii Asiae presents itself as the result of an accumulation and aggregation of decisions taken and issued at diVerent periods of time by diVerent magistrates.10 Its compositional history is therefore close to that of such documents as, for instance: . at Rome, the edict of the urban praetor by which this magistrate promulgated a catalogue of actions open to litigants during his annual tenure of oYce—a catalogue that was largely based on legal formulae selected by previous praetors, with sometimes a few personal additions made by the current holder of the position, and that became Wxed by the time of Hadrian;11 7 The question of initiative is dealt with in G. D. Rowe’s paper below. 8 Tac. Ann. 12. 60. 9 Cf. Crawford, ‘Lex (1)’ in OCD3 848 f., and Bre´laz 2003, 27–56, esp. 43–8. 10 This tralatician and cumulative character of Roman legislation is also well attested in statutes, as noted by Ferrary 2000b, 69–93. 11 Cf. Kelly 1966; Watson 1970; Guarino 1980; and Brennan 2000, 2. 462–5.

6

Introduction .

in the context of a municipium or a colony, texts such as the Tabula Heracleensis, an assemblage of clauses drawn from diVerent statutes and regulations that seems generally more applicable to the city of Rome but appears nonetheless to have been extended to Heraclea; or the lex libitinaria from Puteoli, which regulated the funerary profession in that Roman colony;12 . at the provincial level, the governor’s edict certainly presented similar characteristics with, in particular, the repetition of regulations followed by predecessors of the magistrate, sometimes supplemented by commands (mandata) delivered to him by the Senate or the emperor and covering speciWc issues;13 . perhaps also the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, ‘the code of regulations that the deiWed Augustus established for the administration of the Special Account and of additions made to it from time to time either by the emperors or the senate or the various prefects or idiologi (oYcials in charge of the special account in which were collected revenues other than taxes) . . .’.14 Technically the lex can be described as a lex locationis, a private or public leasing contract.15 But we can place it more precisely in the category of regulations imposed by the censors, leges censoriae, since, as we know from Roman public law, to sell or to lease at auction and to establish the terms for contracting out public properties and revenues of the Roman state were traditionally the duties of the censors.16 However, if we look at the list of magistrates responsible for the amendments made to our text (from l. 72, §31 to the end of the document), we discover that, with the possible exception of ll. 84–8, §§ 37–8,17 all the additional clauses are due either to consuls or to the three Neronian curators. How are we to explain the complete absence 12 Tabula Heracleensis: Crawford, RS no. 24. Lex libitinaria: Bodel, 1994, 72–80; a parallel between this latter document and the lex portorii Asiae is correctly drawn by Bre´laz 2003, 45–6. 13 See for instance KatzoV 1980, esp. 825–33, and for the mandata the brief point made by Ando 2000, 113 and n. 177. 14 P.Berl. 1220 ¼ Sel. Pap. 2, 43–53, no. 206, with tr.; tr. N. Lewis and M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization 2 (New York, 1966) 379–83, no. 99. 15 On leges locationum see Biscardi 1964, 1429–48. On leges generally, see Crawford, RS 1, p. 1, with bibliography. 16 Cf. Suolahti 1963, 57–66. 17 See Nicolet 1993, 951 n. 49, and below, commentary on l. 84, p. 135.

Introduction

7

of censors in our text and can we still apply the designation lex censoria to it? We know that during the Wrst century bc there were gaps in the appointment of censors, notably before 70 bc and after Caesar’s coup of 49, and that from the reign of Augustus either the emperor undertook this magistracy himself or it was entrusted to individuals chosen directly by him; the last censors regularly elected by an assembly of the Roman People were those of 22 bc. Under Domitian the title of censor made its appearance in the imperial titulature and, although his successors avoided taking it, they nevertheless continued to assume the censor’s duties and powers.18 A series of documents conWrms that in the Wrst century bc other magistrates—praetors, aediles, quaestors, and notably the consuls—undertook the farming out of taxes, state revenues, and properties as well as all sorts of public procurements. Thus, the consuls of 80 bc auctioned to the highest bidder the contract for the upkeep of the temple of Castor;19 those of 75 not only made the contracts for temple maintenance but were also charged by the senate to farm out the right to collect the Sicilian tithes and, Wnally, as we learn from our text, also granted the concession for the collection of the Asian customs dues.20 In 19 bc it was the consul C. Sentius Saturninus who took steps against the exactions of the publicans,21 and it would be easy to Wnd other examples. From all this one might infer that consuls and other magistrates replaced the censors only during the periods of interruption known for this magistracy, as a form of palliative measure. The information provided by our lex, however, rather gives the impression that in the last years of the Republic Wnancial responsibilities traditionally linked with the censorship progressively fell into the hands of the consuls, thus leaving the censors free to concentrate on their main activity, the organization and running of the census—an activity which by that time, with the territorial and subsequent demographic increase of the Roman state, may well have occupied the greatest part of their mandate. Can we still speak of a lex censoria in this context? We believe that it remains possible to answer such a question in the aYrmative. First, 18 Cf. Suolahti 1963, 457 and 495–515. 19 Cic., Verr. 2. 1. 130. 20 Cic., Verr. 2. 1. 130; 2. 3. 18 and ll. 72–84, §§31–6. 21 Above, n. 6.

8

Introduction

it is a designation that can still be found in our text, in which an amendment of 17 bc refers to the Ø ıÅØŒe , i.e. the lex censoria (l. 98, §41). Secondly, it is important to note that a document such as our lex has a strongly marked tralatician character, which means that this set of regulations has been passed on from one magistrate in charge of the farming out of the customs dues to another without modiWcation made to the structure of the text itself beyond possible amendments that the magistrate responsible could choose to add or not. This tralatician character is attested by the repeated use at the end of several additional clauses of formulae such as a ºØa ŒÆa e ðÆPeÞ (‘the rest according to the (same) lex’, ll. 105 and 139, §§ 44 and 60) and, more complete, a ºØa ŒÆa e ÆPe Œ ı ı (‘the rest according to the same lex every year’, ll. 108–9, §45; 112, §47; 126, §55; 128, §56; 133, §57; 135, §58 and 143, §61). This traditionalist aspect, which reXects the conservative Roman mind, may also have been manifest in the persistent use of a designation which as time went by tended to become obsolete. The question of the internal chronology of the document is a diYcult problem which has given rise to a brisk debate among scholars. If we examine the structure of the text, we can note that it is composed, besides its praescriptum (ll. 1–7), of two parts: a series of clauses which forms the regulation itself (ll. 7–72, §§1–30), followed by a succession of amendments due to the diVerent magistrates in charge of farming out the customs dues of the province of Asia, from the consuls of 75 bc to the curators of ad 62. If the second part does not cause any real trouble, such is not the case with the Wrst. One can summarize the debate by distinguishing two main theories. First of all, that of the edd. pr. and G. D. Merola,22 who suggest a drafting in three stages going back in its origin to the Sempronian law on the leasing out by the censors of the uectigalia of the province of Asia (lex Sempronia de censoria locatione uectigalium prouinciae Asiae) of C. Gracchus (123 or 122 bc). According to them, this lex, which transferred the responsibility for the sale of all the Asian tax contracts from the hands of the governor of the province to those of the censors in Rome, was applied for the Wrst time by the newly elected 22 Edd. pr. 1989, 41; 96; 100; 160; Knibbe 1988, 131 f.; Merola 1996, 281.

Introduction

9

censors in 120 bc. From 120 to 75 bc the set of regulations was regularly amended, leading the consuls of 75 bc, L. Octavius and C. Aurelius Cotta, to publish a new lex portorii Asiae which probably only restated existing rights and duties—oVering, as it were, an update of the document. During the Claudian era the quaestor of the aerarium, T. Domitius Decidianus, produced his pascua perpetua, a compilation of regulations concerning tax-farming. Finally, the work of the Neronian curators consisted of updating the text of 75 bc on the basis of the work of Decidianus and including all the consular amendments produced between 72 bc and ad 37 or 42 together with the additions made by the curators themselves. This chronology for the text has been contested by C. Nicolet, who Wnds it surprising that the curators of ad 62 did not expressly recognize their debt to the consuls of 75 bc, the presumed authors of a new set of customs regulations for the province of Asia. He therefore suggests another scenario to explain the genesis of the lex.23 We know that among the diVerent tasks assigned to the consuls of 75 bc by the people and the senate was the farming out in Rome of the Sicilian minor tithes. In that case they faithfully respected the clauses of a previous lex locationis, the lex Hieronica, imposed by King Hiero of Syracuse.24 There is therefore a strong presumption that in the case of our customs regulation the consuls did exactly the same, by using and updating the lex Sempronia of Gaius Gracchus.25 Following another path, S. Mitchell (below, pp. 198–201) reaches the same conclusion, adding however the possibility that the Wrst version of our lex may go back to the origins of the province itself and be the work of M’. Aquilius, the Wrst proconsul of Asia between 129 and 126 bc. G. D. Merola has suggested an extremely satisfying solution to this problem.26 According to her, there is no diYculty in admitting that the date suggested for the Wrst version of the law (i.e. 75 bc) could be correct. If it is true that the curators of ad 62 did not clearly attribute the previous regulations to the consuls of 75 bc, one should also notice that there is similarly no speciWc reference in the text to the lex Sempronia. In this sense, it is quite possible to propose, as the edd. pr. 23 Nicolet 1993, 957. 24 See Cic., Verr. 2. 3. 18 f. 25 Cic., Verr. 2. 3. 12; Schol. Bob. 157 [Stangl]; Diod. Sic. 34/5. 25; Fronto, Ep. 125 [Naber]; Vell. Pat. 2. 6. 3. 26 Merola 1996, 281 (see also 2001, 201 f.).

10

Introduction

do, that the consuls of 75 bc published a new lex portorii Asiae, but that this was based in large part on the previous regulations. A series of indications tends to conWrm this last hypothesis. First, the clauses which can be attributed to the consuls of 75 bc (ll. 72–84, §§31–6) are on formal grounds clearly distinguished from the amendments of other consuls. In each case the Wrst clause due to a new consular pair is introduced by the formula › EÆ › EÆ oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ, ‘the consuls so-and-so have added’. This is completely diVerent from the wording of the two Wrst clauses in which the consuls of 75 are mentioned. In these two cases (ll. 72–4 and 74–8, §§31–3) the text reminds us that the two amendments are in accordance with the procedure that they have followed for their farming out of the customs tax. Although their names do not reappear afterwards, we are entitled to attribute to them responsibility for the three other clauses (ll. 78–81, 81–3 and 83–4, §§34–6) which precede those of their colleagues of 72. But again a singularity should be noted: the last two amendments attributable to the consular pair of 75 (ll. 81–3 and 83–4, §§35–6) do not concern speciWcally the province of Asia, but are applicable to any provincial customs district; a borrowing from a more general set of customs regulations seems therefore patent. Such a borrowing could only have been made by the consuls of 75 during a general revision of the leasing conditions of the Asian customs dues. Lines 72 to 84 of our text should, therefore, be clauses added by the consuls of 75 to the original text of a former lex, going back to the lex Sempronia of 123/122 or to the work of M’. Aquilius between 129 and 126. What the consuls of 75 undertook was, as indicated above, only a superWcial revision, consisting of adding a series of amendments to a document probably adopted as it stood. It is one of the principal characteristics of this text that the revision of this set of regulations was achieved by addition of new clauses without correction or suppression of the old ones. As work on the inscription has proceeded, solutions to a number of problems of text and interpretation have been proposed, but not necessarily agreed, and they will certainly be discussed further. The potential contribution of the document to historical knowledge is clear, but it remains to a large extent enigmatic. This is not simply because of the state of the text; partly it has to do with the fact that the problems that the text raises, of political geography, military, political,

Introduction

11

social, and economic history, and law, intermesh with each other. In this connection and to put the present regulations in another context, readers may Wnd it convenient to have a list of other documents from Asia Minor which are concerned with (partly local) customs dues, some of them treated by contributors to this volume: 1. Ephesus, Ionia. Trajanic republication of three SCC of the triumviral period concerning exemptions from customs dues and involving teachers, sophists, and physicians. Knibbe 1981; Bringmann 1983; H. Pleket, SEG 31, 952. Taken by Bringmann and Pleket as part of an archival dossier established by Ephesian Museum members in the period when their privileges were being Wnalized. See Rathbone below, p. 272, n. 60. 2. Caunus, Caria. Hadrianictext inscribed in at least three columns on the exterior wall of the fountain house. Customs duties at Caunus, as mitigated by a benefaction of 66,000 denarii, which the inscription celebrates. Bean 1954, 97–105, no. 38; SEG 14, 639; Pleket 1958; Ve´lissaropoulos 1980, 223–31 (translation and discussion); Purpura 1985; Brandt 1987; France 1999, 103–5. See Rowe below, pp. 245–6, Rathbone below, p. 272, n. 60. New fragments brought to light in the course of the complete anastylosis of the whole building undertaken by Turkish archaeologists in 1969 have rendered previous editions obsolete: Mellink 1970, 170; Mellink 1972, ¨ gu¨n 1978, 423; I¸sik 1994, xiii. A new edition of the whole 180–1; O text, including the additional fragments, has now been published in C. Marek’s Corpus of Kaunos (I.Kaunos 35), which appeared too late to be taken fully into account in the present volume. 3. Myra, Lycia. From the theatre. Regulation of customs questions involving the city of Myra and the koinon of Lycia by an unknown Roman authority of the second century ad. Wo¨rrle 1975, 286–300; Brandt 1987; Schwarz 2001a (cf. Lehmler and Wo¨rrle 2002, 562, n. 60); Marek, I.Kaunos pp. 200–15. 4. Calynda, Lycia. Eight fragments from the mid-second century ad concerning a dispute between Calynda and Caunus, and involving Iº ØÆ (B, l. 13). Balland 1981, 260–6, no. 86; Marek, I.Kaunos, pp. 75–8 [Test. 174]. 5. Termessus, Pisidia. The lex Antonia de Termessibus, ll. 31–6, 68(?) bc. Authorization for the city to levy customs dues at its discretion,

12

Introduction

provided that Roman publicani are exempt. Crawford, RS 1, 331–40, no. 19, with bibliography. Many of the questions raised by the text of the lex are dealt with in the Commentary and the essays. For S. Mitchell the geographical content of the document is inextricably bound up with the question of the date of the earliest phases of the lex; M. Corbier’s paper on the Roman end of the lex is very much concerned with the changes of ad 44, 58, and 62, as well as with the content of the Praescriptum, methods and timing of leasing and problems of posting, while D. Rathbone’s, dealing with the policies that lay behind the issuing of the lex in 62 (with conclusions comparatively favourable to Nero), makes a direct connection between Nero’s edict of 58 designed to counter the immoderate demands of the publicani and including the publication of the regulations of each tax leased out, and the appearance of the lex in Ephesus; G. D. Rowe’s essay deals precisely with the dissemination of such enactments. Finally, the paper of O. van Nijf sets the lex in a wider context. He assigns the agents a dissonant position in provincial society, in which their self-regard was out of kilter with the dislike felt by tax-payers for their oppressors. It will be clear that, although each contributor is aware of his or her colleagues’ views, we cannot agree on each and every point, even on textual matters. There are consequently diVerences of view between the editors of the text and between the authors of the individual essays; on the text, we have attempted to reconcile the diVerences by negotiation; diVerences between the essays have been allowed to stand for the most part, with the reader’s attention drawn to them when they are particularly signiWcant. In the Commentary, when scholars have concurred on a related point, their remarks have been sent to a single site. Work on the inscription will go on long after the publication of this volume. As Professor Knibbe has remarked,27 no matter how many times the comb is passed through the animal’s fur, there will always be something remaining to be caught. There are also other large animals to be pursued: in 1999 an 87-line inscription was found at Andriake in Lycia. It belongs to the same period as our inscription 27 In a letter to B. Levick, Jan. 2002.

Introduction

13

and provides further evidence for the customs law of the Lycian koinon.28 The inscription was presented by Bay Burak Takmer at the Wrst Greek-Turkish Epigraphic Colloquium, held at Athens in January 2005; he has been working on the document for his doctoral thesis. When this work is published it will certainly supplement, and may modify, what follows.29 28 Noted also by Marek, I.Kaunos p. 73 [Test. 168], quoting ll. 22, 31. 29 Dr Takmer submitted his thesis in 2006 and is currently working on the Wnal edition of the Andriake inscription, which he intends to see published in two years’ time (letter to M. Cottier, May 2008). In the meantime, a general overview of the inscription, of its context and content, together with a presentation and discussion of some of its most important passages, can be found in Takmer 2007.

This page intentionally left blank

Text and Translations

Monumentum Ephesenum P H YS I C A L D E S C R I P T I O N 1 The stone on which the text of the lex portorii was inscribed was found during work in the Church of St John in Selc¸uk in August 1976 and is now displayed in the courtyard of the Ephesus Archaeological Museum, where it was restudied by M. Cottier and C. Crowther in September 2000. The stone had been taken to the church in the Wrst instance to serve as an ambo plate,2 for which purpose the left-hand side was cut back to form a curved edge. Later, when the ambo was demolished, the stone was laid face down in the central aisle of the church in front of the southern entrance to the narthex. The stone is of white crystalline marble with light beige to blue-grey shading and some inconspicuous veins of quartz; there is a patina of encrustation across much of its surface and the lower part of the stone is somewhat corroded. Its present maximum measurements are 2.82 h., 1.44 w., 0.305 th.; there is an uninscribed vacat of 0.125 above the Wrst line of text.3 The uninscribed rear was originally roughly chiselled, but has been smoothed somewhat by the passage of time and feet; it has two clamp-holes and six dowel-holes, which have all been enlarged with chisels for the removal of metal. The (probably) central section of the ambo plate was semicircular in shape, and there was a short concave section on either side of it; the curved edge of the ambo plate was given a decorative proWle (along the left edge of the inscription). 1 The description of the stone is derived from that in the ed. pr., supplemented by the observations of Cottier and Crowther (MC&CC). 2 Ephesos 4, 3, 176–7 with Abb. 50. 3 These measurements were recorded by MC&CC in September 2000, and conWrmed by Crawford and Reynolds (MHC&JMR) in August 2003; edd. pr. give 2.96, 1.46, and 0.30.

Monumentum Ephesenum

17

If the ambo plate was symmetrical, the original height of the stone, according to the calculation of the Wrst editors, would have been 3.15 (1.575 m. on either side of the maximum preserved width in 1. 89). The upper and right-hand borders have been preserved and show signs of the original working; the upper surface has an anathyrosis and a grappling-hole, which has also served as a grooved dowel-hole; if we assume that the position of this grappling-hole was approximately central, the width of the stone in its original function can be estimated at c. 1.47 (0.66 þ 0.15 þ 0.66), yielding an inscribed surface of 1.47 by 3.15. The rough-dressing of the reverse side indicates that the stone was not intended to be seen set up as a free-standing stele; while the shape precludes its being an integral part of a wall. The stone seems therefore to have been cut to Wt the inscription, and the Wrst editors’ conclusion that it was either part of a pillar set against a wall or part of a basis seems well justiWed. The lettering of the inscription is uniform, clear, and for the most part simple. Light serifs seem to have been applied consistently to the free ends of letter strokes (most noticeably in the case of , E, I, A, ), although surface erosion has in many cases now reduced or removed their traces. A is cut with a broken crossbar; Z has a diagonal rather than a vertical central stroke; the verticals of — are of equal length. , M, K, H are sometimes allowed unusual width, while the branches of tend to spread extravagantly. Letter heights, with the exception of the Wrst line, which is cut larger (c. 0.02 m.), fall normally within the range 0.01-0.015, with interlinear spacing of 0.007. and are consistently taller than other letters, ranging between 0.018 and 0.02 m. ˆ and T are also frequently taller than other letters, with their horizontal hastae extending above adjacent letters—allowing both letters to be ligatured with a following H, and T to be combined with a preceding N. Ligatures, often multiple, are favoured in the Wrst 100 lines of the text, but become less frequent in the remainder of the inscription.4 Their even distribution across the width of the inscription suggests that they were not used solely for spacing, although occasional concentrations of ligatures in the second half of lines (e.g. l. 71) may indicate that the stonecutter was attempting 4 MC&CC in 2000 recorded ligatures as follows: ˝˙ (42 times); ˙˝ (38), ˙ (35), ¯ (25), ˝¯ (21), ˙ (18), ˝ (15), ˙ (8), ˆ˙ (4), ˙¯ (3), (2), ˙ (2), ¯ (2), ˙˚; `; ˝´; ˝—; ˝; ˇ ; `; —¯; ´; ˙˙; ˇ (once each); the three-letter ligatures ˙˝˙; ˙; ˝˙˝ and ˙˝ occur once each, and the fourletter ligatures ˙¯ three times and ˝˙˝¯ once.

18

Monumentum Ephesenum

in these cases to reach an appropriate syllabic or word division to end the line. More generally, the stonecutter regularly leaves blank spaces at the ends of lines after reaching an appropriate word break. The number of letters per line varies considerably. The Wrst editors chose twelve lines for which they were conWdent of the restoration (100–111) and found a maximum variance of twelve letters (107 in line 108, 118 in line 101; both have spaces at the end of the line).5 Our estimate of line lengths is a little higher than theirs; lines 88–93 have an average length of 121 letters. On this basis line lengths over the whole document are likely to have varied between 107 and 126 letters. Breaks in the sense of the document are marked by small areas left uninscribed, often, but not always, marked with a heavy triangular punctuation mark, and the initial letter of the following paragraph is frequently written large. In the Prescript, spaces, besides being used to distinguish sections one from another (ll. 3 and 7), serve to highlight speciWc words or concepts: the word !Æ F in the imperial titulature (l. 4), the words KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB ºH ` Æ (l. 5). The extent of the damage to the stone, stressed by Mitchell (pp. 165–6 below), is considerable; Mitchell estimates that, aside from the lines lost at the end of the inscription (although the stone may not have been inscribed to the very bottom), as much as a quarter has been lost from the remainder of the text: about 40 letters from each of the Wrst twenty four lines, with the number rising until l. 32 is reached, falling to as little as ten at ll. 84–95, then rising again. It is important for the purpose of restoration that the lapicide appears to have been an accurate copyist (the original editors draw attention to slips in §§20, l. 49, and 57, l. 129). The stonecutter’s proneness to insert redundant iota adscript reXects a general tendency in the Wrst century AD.6

5 Edd. pr. 3 f.

6 Bull. e´pigr. 1971, 668, p. 523.

Text and Translations

19

THE TEXT OF THE INSCRIPTION Editio princeps: H. Engelmann and D. Knibbe, Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia. Eine neue Inschrift aus Ephesos, EA 14 (1989) x, 206 pp.; xiv pl. (text, commentary, and translation). Cf. Engelmann and Knibbe 1986 (announcement and preview of ed. pr.); C. Nicolet, AE´ 1989 [1992] 681, pp. 214–22 (text and commentary); H. W. Pleket, SEG 39 (1989 [1992]) 1180, pp. 367–87 (text and commentary); J.-L. Ferrary, AE´ 1991 [1994] 1501, pp. 411–14 (useful summary); Knibbe 2000 (reconstruction of the original Latin version); Merola 2001, App. IV, pp. 221–31 (revised text incorporating new readings from a preliminary version of the present re-edition). See also on individual lines and passages: Eck 1990 (ll. 109, 135–6); Nicolet 1990 (ll. 3, 4, 6); Heil 1991 (ll. 9, 107); Nicolet 1991 (ll. 59, 71, 73, 74); Salomies 1991 (ll. 64, 65, 135–6); Solin, 1991 (ll. 10, 11, 42, 55, 121). Wankel 1991 (l. 8); Nicolet 1993 (l. 8); Lewis 1995 (ll. 8, 61); Carrelli 1996 (ll. 8, 18); Dreher 1996 (l. 11); Merola 1996 (l. 9); Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996 (ll. 2, 3, 68); Nicolet 1999 (ll. 73, 83); Mileta 2002 (l. 27).

Abbreviated references to editorial contributors MC ¼ Michel Cottier (commentary on ll. 1–26) MHC ¼ Michael Crawford (commentary on ll. 26–53; and passim) MirCo ¼ Mireille Corbier (‘The Lex Portorii Asiae and Financial Administration’ below) JLF ¼ Jean-Louis Ferrary (commentary on ll. 53–81) BL ¼ Barbara Levick (commentary on ll. 133–end) SM ¼ Stephen Mitchell (‘Geography, politics and imperialism in the Asian customs law’ below) DR ¼ Dominic Rathbone (‘Nero’s Reforms of Vectigalia and the Lex Portorii Asiae’ below) OS ¼ Olli Salomies (commentary on ll. 81–108) MW ¼ Michael Wo¨rrle (commentary on ll. 109–33) MC&CC ¼ Michel Cottier and Charles Crowther: full collation of the stone in Ephesus MHC&JMR ¼ Michael Crawford and Joyce Reynolds: readings from the stone in Ephesus

20

Text and Translations

Editorial conventions In editing the text, we have used the sigla of the Leiden Convention as follows: [ ]

( ) < > { } º ø Æ ˝"¸¯`

....

---

vac

enclose letters supplemented by the editors, where the surface of the stone has been lost, to represent the sense, words, or letters of missing text enclose letters completing words abbreviated on the stone enclose letters mistakenly omitted or incompletely inscribed by the stonecutter enclose superXuous letters inscribed by the stonecutter dots placed under letters indicate incomplete letter traces in the inscription compatible with the letters printed, but not entailing them capitals indicate letters whose reading is or seems clear but for which the editors have been unable to oVer a secure interpretation single or sequences of dots represent lost or illegible letters equal in number to the number of dots sequences of dashes represent approximate numbers of lost letters; estimates of the length of lacunae are indicated with followed by a number represents a short sequence of empty letterspaces

The reader’s attention is also drawn to the following points: . in the restorations proposed in the main text, we have generally given priority to those suggested and agreed by the participants in the Oxford colloquium and a subsequent review meeting in June 2002, relegating other possibilities to the apparatus criticus;

Text and Translations . . .

. .

21

the punctuation, unless otherwise indicated, is mainly that of the editio princeps; punctuation marks on the stone are indicated by the symbol: .; ligatured letters are indicated by a circumXex sign placed over each letter joined with a following letter, following the recommendations of Krummrey and Panciera 1980. numerals are indicated on the stone by a supralinear line and are marked as such in the text; minor changes in punctuation and reading from the ed. pr. are not signalled separately in the apparatus.

N OT E S TO T H E E N G L I S H A N D L AT I N V E R S I O N S These translations have been made independently of the work of Professor D. Knibbe published in 2000. They are based on the text established for the present edition, and textual footnotes giving alternative suggestions are conWned to those of the contributors to the colloquium of 1999 and to later discussions. MHC is grateful to Dominic Rathbone for comments on the translations. An attempt has been made to be consistent over the translation of technical terms; and sometimes the gist of a supplement is indicated in English without a Greek or a Latin version being oVered. Throughout, except once each in ll. 72–4, 74–8, º has been transliterated as telos and Latinized as portorium; and conducere has been preferred to redimere (see the index to Crawford, RS). The meaning and translation of Å ØøÆ have been much discussed (see Commentary on ll. 4 and 7, pp. 95, 98–100 below). The translation publicum has been rejected here: it is counterintuitive to suppose that the translator should have invented this particular abstract Greek noun to convey publicum; more importantly the juridical language of the Republican period uses publicum only in the sense of ‘public property’: see lex agraria 25; lex coloniae Genetiuae LXXI, 26. It is accordingly translated in ll. 4, 7, 125 as uectigal, in ll. 111 and 125 as uectigal (exigendum), while in ll. 127–8, 136, 140, 144–5, and 149, where it is the object of Greek Ø ŁF ŁÆØ, as uectigal conductum habebit, since there is abundant evidence that a portorium was a kind of uectigal.1 The translator also diVers from the view of the text required by S. Mitchell’s interpretation of ll. 7–11 (pp. 178–83 below). The restoration of æ in l. 9 causes diYculties; Mitchell argues that the territory of Byzantium on the Asian side of the Bosporus was part of the province of Asia, although Byzantium was a free city; and that Calchedon was part of the province of Asia, although it too was a free city. However, the point of being a free city was that it was not part of a province, even though the Romans might locate a customs station there to control what went beyond into the province. Whether or not 1 Separately, although º#Å ¼ portitor is a publicanus, the two terminologies have not been elided, in the interests of those who approach the text via the English and Latin translations.

Text and Translations

23

Calchedon and (part of) Byzantium were part of the province of Asia is in any case surely irrelevant: if they had been, they would have been straightforwardly subject to the nomos; they must have Wgured because of the exaction of customs dues on those sailing into and out of the Black Sea, in which they collaborated with the Romans, as no doubt with the Attalids before. MHC therefore proposes to translate Ke H [ÆPH ‹æø º#ØÆ åı Ø ºı åæØ F B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ÆªøªB, abandoning an earlier suggestion of some term involving control. As to the quality of the Greek translation of intractable Latin material, it is not as bad as edd. pr. 6 hold. There are places where the translator(s) made mistakes, as in writing dative for ablative absolutes (ll. 3–4) or misplacing åæØ (ll. 15–16) or taking a nominative as an ablative (l. 74); and æe H is an eccentric rendering of antehac (l. 27). However, if the translator’s intepretation is correct, there is only one breakdown: æd f Kº ıŁæı ‹æı (l. 34). Otherwise, engraver’s slips aside, the syntax is impeccable and translation sometimes stylish, as with lØ ÆæÆÆ ’` Æ K (l. 8), and inventive, in the present translator’s view (ØØŒÆ ø (ll. 102, 104)). If MHC is right on ducere (Commentary, l. 56), the translator has seen that ¼ª Ø would not convey the force of the Latin and created a technical term by using an abstract noun. Transliteration is used only as a last resort, as with æÆØ (l. 102) and ıŒØ (l. 117), and a remarkable eVort is made to be consistent over the whole complex terminology of partnership and surety. This means that the appropriate Latin formula is often fairly obvious: genitive or pro þ ablative correspond to the transmitted genitive or $æ þ genitive. The English present indicative is often used, rather than the future indicative or the present subjunctive, in keeping with contemporary English usage. There is often no way of deciding whether imperatives are middle, with shift from plural to singular (very common: see Crawford RS 1, 19), or passive. There are a number of places where an appropriate Latin word has not been found, though this does not aVect the general sense.

24

Text and Translations

Figure 1 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 1–20, left side

Figure 3 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 1–26, left side (latex squeeze)

Text and Translations

Figure 2 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 1–19, right side

Figure 4 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 1–26, right side (latex squeeze)

25

26

Text and Translations, ll. 1–5

Praescriptum: ll. 1–7. 9 July, ad 62 1 ½˚%øØ ÆºøØ ÆæŒıØøØ Æ æ øØ — æøøØ ˝ªæøØ $Ø æe Ç NH &ıºø,

—ºøØ

Æ æ øØ, MC&CC; Ææ øØ, edd. pr.

2 ½KŒª ªæÆ ŒÆd IØ! !ºÅ K ' #ÅØ - - - 12 - - - B &ıºÆ !Æ ØºØŒB K ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ KØ ºÅH H Å^ ø æ ø, KŒ ºø ½KŒª ªæÆ ŒÆd IØ! !ºÅ K ' #ÅØ - - - 12 - - - B , following Spagnuolo Vigorita ([1996] 122–3); [ - - - (NN) - - - ÆÆØ, ' #Å , edd. pr. jj K ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ KØ ºÅH, MC; K ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ, KØ ºÅH, edd. pr.

3 ½KØ ºÅH H Å ø æ ø, K Æx Kªª ªæÆ e $ª ªæÆ . `hºøØ —Å%øØ —Æıºº øØ, ¸ıŒøØ ˚ÆºıæøØ — øØ, `hºøØ ˜ıŒØøØ ½KØ ºÅH H Å ø æ ø, K Æx Kªª ªæÆ e $ª ªæÆ, MHC; ½ÆØ ıØŒH ÆNÅ ø (or ½Œ º ı ø or ½ÆæøÞ KŒª ªæÆ ŒÆd IØ! !ºÅ, edd. pr.; jj ½ Ø ıÅØŒH Œº: or ½æ ØŒH Œº:, Nicolet (1990) 682.

4 ½ˆ øØ KØ ºÅÆE H Å ø æ ø, KŒ ø ð?Þ Ø Ł# ø, ı Æ, Å ØøÆ Æ, ŒÅæHØ Æ, ŒÆ KØ! !Æø Ø ˝æø ˚ºÆıı ˚Æ Ææ . !Æ F ½KŒ ø ð?Þ Ø Ł# ø, DR; ½ Ø ıÅØŒB Ø Ł# ø, edd. pr. jj Ø Ł# ø, MC&CC; Ø Ł# ø, edd. pr.; KŒØ Ł# ø, Nicolet (1990) 686 jj there is no trace on the stone of the ˆ½ æ- read by the edd. pr. at the end of the line: MC&CC.

5 ½ˆ æÆØŒF, IæåØ æø ª ı, $ı e , ÅÆæåØŒB Ææe Ææ ŒÆd ŒÆa K ı Æ e Å, ÆPŒææ <e> Ł, . ªÆ ıªŒº)ı KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB ºH ` Æ . K MHC, supK ı Æ, MC&CC; K ı Æ, edd. pr. jj ÆPŒææ <e> Ł, plying the lapicide’s omission of for consistency jj there is no space left after K at the end of the line and the must be dotted, MC&CC.

Translations

27

Preface: ll. 1–7. 9 July, ad 62 1 When [Q. Manlius Tarquitius Sat]urninus and P. Petronius Niger were consuls, on the seventh day before the Ides of July, [copied and checked, at Rome, on the Wrst Xoor (?)] of the Basilica Julia, in record oYce of curatores of the public revenues, from records [of curatores of the public revenues, in which there was written] what is written below; 3 when A. Postumius Paulinus, L. Calpurnius Piso and A. Ducinius [Geminus were curatores of the public revenues, from leges (?)] of the locatio, year one, uectigal one, in tablet one, under the auctoritas of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus [Germanicus, chief priest, consul for the fourth time, with tribunician power] for the eighth time, imperator for the ninth time, father of the fatherland, and by senatorial decree, the regular pascua of the tele of Asia were Praescriptum: ll. 1–7. 9 July, ad 62 1 [Q. Manlio Tarquitio Sat]urnino P. Petronio Nigro cos., a.d. vii Id. Iul., [descriptum atque recognitum, Romae, - - -] Basilicae Iuliae, in tabulario curatorum uectigalium publicorum, de tabulis [curatorum uectigalium publicorum, in quibus scriptum fuit] id quod infra scriptum est; 3 A. Postumio Paulino L. Calpurnio Pisone A. Ducinio [Gemino curatoribus uectigalium publicorum, e legibus (?)] locationis, primi anni, uectigalis primi, (in) prima tabula, ex auctoritate Neronis Claudi Caesaris Augusti [Germanici, pont.max., cos. iv, tr.pot.] viii, imp. ix, p.p., exque senatus consulto, pascua perpetua portorii <prouinciae> Asiae

28

Text and Translations, ll. 6–9

6 [ + 46 ].¯& H ÆPH KØ ºÅH æe Ø Å ˚ÆºÆH Æ%ø . K KØø ØÅ ŒH ı ˜Øı ˜ ŒØØÆF

ll. 5–6: K j [ + 46 ]. ¯& H ÆPH KØ ºÅH , MC&CC; [ + 39 KØŒæ Ø (?), MC; ] ¯& . , MHC&JMR; K ½ ØjºÅÆ IØ! !ºÅÆ æ Æ ªŒø BØ ıªŒº)øØ H ÆPH KØ ºÅH, edd. pr.; K ½ 2 j 39 ŒÆŁØ ø or ØÆÆ ø H ÆPH KØ ºÅH, Nicolet (1990) 679; 684–5 and 698 jj ˜ ŒØØÆF , MC&CC; ˜ ŒØØÆ½F, edd. pr.

7 ½Æı ÆNæÆæı ŒÆ B Å ØøÆ Æ ŒÆd Å B ª, , . . Å ØøÆ !,

½Æı ÆNæÆæı ŒÆ B Å ØøÆ Æ ŒÆd Å B Å ØøÆ !, MC&CC; perhaps ½Æı MHC; ½Æı ÆNæÆæı 29 Å ØøÆ !, MirCo; ½Æı ÆNæÆæı æd F ˚æı ÆNæÆæı 20 Å ØøÆ !, Å ØøÆ Æ KÆæå Æ ` Æ ŒÆ d Å ØøÆ !or ½Æı ÆNæÆæı F

ıªªæłÆ ºı ` Æ ŒÆ d Å ØøÆ !, edd. pr.

ll. 7–11, §§ 1–2 7 ºı ` Æ N ÆªøªB ŒÆd K ÆªøªB ŒÆ ªB ŒÆd ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ, vac 8 ½lØ ÆæÆÆ ` Æ K , ¥Ø ‹æØ ˚ ÆÆŒÆ, ˆÆºÆÆ, ´ ØŁıÆ `

Æ vac Çø*ı Ø, Æ¥Ø åHæÆØ ˚ÆºåÆø ´ıÇÆø K^e H ½lØ ÆæÆÆ ` Æ K , ¥Ø ‹æØ, MHC; ½K E B KÆæå Æ ºØ Ø ŒÆd E ‹æØ, SM; ½E ŒÆÆºı Ø ŒÆd E Iªı Ø ŒÆd E KŒ, edd. pr.; ½E B KÆæå Æ ºØ Ø ŒÆd E Ø KŒ, Wankel (1991) 40; ½Æ¥Ø º Ø —ÆçıºÆ, ¸ıŒÆÆ, ˚ØºØŒÆ, Nicolet (1993) 948–55; also possible ½¥Ø Ø Œº:, as suggested by Lewis (1995) 248, who accepts the restoration of Nicolet jj comma after Çø*ı Ø instead of the full stop suggested by the edd. pr., MC.

9 ½ÆPH ‹æø º#ØÆ åı Ø ºı åæØ F B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ÆªøªB ŒÆd K ÆªøªB K ÆØ —ı, K x Ø ŒÆa ªÆ ıªŒº)ı j ŒÆa K^e H j½ÆPH ‹æø º#ØÆ åı Ø ºı åæØ F B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ÆªøªB, MHC; ½B KÆæå Æ ` Æ ‹æø N d - - - 12 - - - B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ, MC, partly following SM’s suggestion: ½B KÆæå Æ ` Æ ‹æø N d Æ , æe B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ; ½‹æø F Æ —ı N d Œº:, edd. pr.; ½‹æø ` Æ N d Œº:, Heil (1991) 14; Merola (1996) 290.

Translations

29

6 ex[tracted and checked according to the arbitratus] of the same curatores, on the eighteenth day before the Kalends of May, from the regular pascua of T. Domitius Decidianus, [quaestor of the aerarium, in respect of year one of the uectigal and years] two, three, four, Wve of the uectigal. ll. 7–11, §1–2 7 The lex for the telos of Asia on import and export by land and sea, [where it lies beside the coast of Asia and where the boundaries] of Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia girdle Asia, 8 and where the lands of the Calchedonians or Byzantians within the [same boundaries have customs stations for the sake of the telos on] import or export by sea at the mouth of the Black Sea; 9 in whatever places by senatorial decree or by lex 6 ex[cepta atque recognita arbitratu] eorundem curatorum a.d. xviii Kal. Mai., ex pascuis perpetuis T. Domitii Decidiani [quaestoris aerarii, anni uectigalis primi annorumque] uectigalis secundi, tertii, quarti, quinti. ll. 7–11, §1–2 7 lex portorii Asiae earum rerum quae terra marique importabuntur exportabuntur, [quae ora maritima Asiae est quique Wnes] Cappadociae Galatiae Bithyniae Asiam cingunt, 8 quaeque territoria Calchedoniorum Byzantiorum intra [Wnes qui supra scripti sunt telonea habebunt portorii causa] earum rerum quae mari importabuntur exportabuntur ad fauces Ponti; 9 quibus locis senatusconsulto lege

30

Text and Translations, ll. 10–15

10 ½j ŒÆa )ı Œ*æø Ø 22 ` ˇ˝ ½ º ø Æ KŒØ ŁH ÆØ, K *Ø E Ø, L i ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ^ªÅÆØ, K ªÅÆØ ŒÆa æÆ ` ˇ˝½:¯ ¸ ˝¯&` ˝, MC&CC: ½j ŒÆa )ı Œ*æø Ø 22 ` ˇ˝ ½ º ø Æ , MC; MHC suggests ½ E Ø ıc j oÆ ½ º ø Æ KŒØ ŁH ÆØ; ½j ŒÆa )ı Œ*æø Ø ıªŒ å#æÅÆØ KØæÆÆ º ø Æ, edd. pr. jj K ªÅÆØ ŒÆa æÆ, Solin (1991) 183; K ªÅÆØ, ŒÆa æÆ, edd. pr.

11 ½ŒÆd L i ŒÆa ªB N ŒÇÅÆØ, N ºÆ*ÅÆØ ŒÆd L i: ŒÆa ªB^ KŒŒÇÅÆØ; K ºÆ*^ÅÆØ, K ªÅÆØ, e

ÆæÆŒ e æ HØ º#^ÅØ ØøfØg. vac. ½ŒÆd L i ŒÆa ªB N ŒÇÅÆØ, N ºÆ*ÅÆØ ŒÆd, MC, following Dreher (1996) 117 n. 29; ½ 17 L i 11 ‰ Æ*ø b ŒÆd L i or ½L i ¼ªÅÆØ Œº: or ½F Æ —ı L i ¼ªÅÆØ Œº:, edd. pr.; Solin (1991) 183, suggests adding F Æ —ı in the lacuna jj vac., MC&CC; there is no trace on the stone of the $ ½bæ read by edd. pr.

l. 12, §3 12 ½$bæ øø Iæ ø j ŁÅº ø KŒe øø ÆØÆæø ŒæÆ ø ^) Ø º E ºı Œ Å Œ çÆºB ÅÆæø ØÆØ Oç ØºøfØg. vac ½$bæ øø Iæ ø j ŁÅº ø KŒe øø, MHC; $ ½bæ j

øø ÆØÆæø Iæ ø $æ øø, edd. pr.

ll. 13–15, §4 13 ½– æ ¼ Ø N — K ª ŁÆØ ººﬁ Å, æe F ºØ ˚ÆºåÆ ÆæÆº F ÆØ HØ º#^ÅØ j KØæøØ ÆPF æ çø øfØg ŒÆd IªæÆç ŁøfØg. æe F, MC&CC; æe F, edd. pr.

14 ½– æ ¼ Ø K —ı 13 N ª ŁÆØ ººﬁ Å, æe F ºØ ˚ÆºåÆ ÆæÆº E HØ º#^ÅØ j KØæøØ ÆPF æ çø ø ŒÆd I½– æ ¼ Ø K —ı N c KÆæå Æ N ª ŁÆØ, MC; [– æ ¼ Ø K —ı N ŒÇ ŁÆØ, N ª ŁÆØ, MHC; [–ð æÞ ¼ Ø K —ı N c + æÆ +ª Æ N ª ŁÆØ, edd. pr. jj ]ª ŁÆØ, MC&CC; ] ŁÆØ, edd. pr. jj æ çø ø, MC&CC; æ çø øfØg, edd. pr.

15 ½ªæÆç Łø:

Translations

31

10 [or by plebiscite it is obligatory for a censor or consul] to lease out the portorium, in those places, whatever is imported by sea or exported overseas, [whatever is conveyed in or driven in by land], and whatever is conveyed out, driven out, or exported by land, is to give the fortieth part to the collector. l. 12, §3 12 [For male or female slaves except] male and female child [slaves] one is not to be obliged to pay as telos more than Wve denarii a head. ll. 13–15, §4 13 [Whatever anyone may intend to export to the Black Sea, before] sailing past the city of Calchedon one is to declare to and register with the collector or his procurator; [whatever anyone] may intend [to convey in ( N ŒÇ ŁÆØ) or import from the Black Sea], before sailing past the city of Calchedon one is to declare to and [register] with the collector or his procurator. 10 [plebiscito censori consuli oportebit] portorium locare, eis locis si quid mari importabitur trans mare exportabitur, [si quid terra inuehetur, adigetur (?),] et si quid terra euehetur, exigetur (?), exportabitur, portitori quadragesimam dato. l. 12, §3 12 [seruorum seruarum, nisi] puerorum puellarum, plus quam denarios quinque pro capite portorii causa dare ne debeto. ll. 13–15, §4 13 [quod quis in Pontum exportare uolet, ante]quam urbem Calchedonem praeternauigabit, apud portitorem procuratoremue proWtemino inque tabulas referto, [quodque quis e Ponto inuehere importare] uolet, antequam urbem Calchedonem praeternauigabit, apud portitorem procuratoremue eius proWtemino inque tabulas referto.

32

Text and Translations, ll. 15–20

ll. 15–16, §5 15 ½L ¼ Ø ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ªﬁ Å, c e ºE I æ çø ) ), L i ŒÆa ªB KŒçæﬁ Å j KŒ!ººﬁ Å, N æı ı I æ çø åæØ ½L ¼ Ø ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ªﬁ Å, c e ºE, MC, following a suggestion by MHC; ½L ¼ Ø ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ªﬁ Å j K ªﬁ Å, c e ºE or ½E æª ªæÆØ Ø ) Ø e ºE, edd. pr.; e ºE, MC&CC; e ºE, edd. pr. jj KŒçæﬁ Å, MC&CC; K çæﬁ Å, edd. pr.

16 ½I æ) ø ºı· Ka $ Æ *Ø Ø Ø) ﬁ Å, K Y Å › N åıø ‰ Æ d IÆªæÆç ç æ . . ½I æ) ø ºı, MC&CC; ½I æ ø ºı, edd. pr. jj *Ø, MC&CC; *Ø, edd. pr.

ll. 16–20, §6 16 $bæ y ¼ Ø æªÆ –Æ vac
Æ j ªB N ªﬁÅ, B N ÆªøªB º Øø:> $bæ y Œº., edd. pr., rejected by MC.

17 ½º HØ º#ÅØ j KØæøØ ÆPF ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ j ªB N ŒØÇı HØ, › ÆPe ¼Łæø $bæ F ÆPF æªÆ KŒ ıæı HØ ÆPHØ Ø ﬁH ÆPHØ 18 ½ º#ÅØ N ÆªøªB º c ØÆØ Oç Øºø Ka ^c KŒ —^ı ºÅØ: . Ka ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ j ªB K ^ ªﬁ Å, B K Æªø^ªB º Øø: $bæ y b ¼ vac ½ º#ÅØ N ÆªøªB º Œº:, MC; ½ º#ÅØ 9 º Œº: or ½ º#ÅØ K ÆªøªB º Œº: or ½ º#ÅØ N ÆªøªB º Œº:, edd. pr.; ½ º#ÅØ K ÆªøªB º Œº:, Pleket (1989 [1992]) 370; Carrelli (1996) 184–5.

19 ½Ø æªÆ –Æ º HØ º#ÅØ KŒŒØÇı ﬁH, › ÆPe ¼Łæø $bæ F ÆPF æªÆ KŒ ıæı K ÆªøªB HØ ÆPHØ º#^ÅØ HØ ÆPHØ Ø vac ½Ø æªÆ –Æ º HØ º#ÅØ KŒŒØÇı ﬁH, MHC; ½Ø æªÆ –Æ ﬁH º#ﬁ Å B 9 º ﬁH, edd. pr. jj KŒ ıæı, MC&CC; Œ ıæı, edd. pr.

20 ½º c ØÆØ Oç Øºø, Ka c N — ºÅ Ø . . ºÅ Ø . ., MC&CC; ºﬁ Å. vac, edd. pr.

Translations

33

ll. 15–16, §5 15 [Whatever anyone may import by sea,] he is [not] to divert the ship or indeed to divert whatever he may unload or discharge onto land to other places for the sake of [evasion of telos; and if] anyone acts [in contravention of these provisions] the lex is to be valid on the same basis as if he was carrying something unregistered. ll. 16–20, §6 16 For whatever goods being conveyed in [by sea or land] anyone may once pay [the telos to the collector or to his procurator], the same man for the same goods a second time in the same year to the same [collector is not to be obliged to pay the telos for import] unless he is sailing out of the Black Sea. 18 If anyone exports by sea or land, he is to pay the telos for export; and for whatever [goods being exported anyone may once pay telos to the collector], the same man for the same goods a second time for export to the same collector in the same year [is not to be obliged to pay telos unless he is sailing into the Black Sea.] ll. 15–16, §5 15 [quod quis mari importabit, neue] nauem neue quod in terram elatum (?) eiectumue (?) erit in alia loca auertito, [portorii fraudandi (?)] causa; [si] quis [aduersus ea] fecerit, siremps lex esto quasi si quid in tabulas non relatum importasset. ll. 16–20, §6 16 cuius rei quae [terra mariue] importabitur quis [portorium portitori procuratoriue eius] semel dederit, idem eiusdem rei iterum eodem anno eidem [portitori portorium inuectionis dare ne debeto,] nisi ex Ponto nauigabit. 18 quod quis terra marique exportabit, portorium exportationis dare debeto; cuiusque [rei quae exportabitur quis portorium portitori semel dederit,] idem eiusdem rei iterum exportationis eidem portitori eodem anno [portorium dare ne debeto, nisi in Pontum nauigabit.]

34

Text and Translations, ll. 20–25

l. 20, §7 20 › NåŁ*Ø ŒªåıºøØ ŁÆºÆ

øØ ÆæHØ åæ# e NŒ e æ ºı Øø. vac ll. 20–22, §8 20 þØ KŒ º½ı 21 ½) Ø ºøØ ÅæHØ IÆªæÆç IçÆØæ ø ) KŒ ıø ºı æ ø åæØ· Ka Ø $ Æ *Ø Ø) ﬁ Å, e þØ ŒÆd e æAªÆ F ½) Ø ºøØ ÅæHØ IÆªæÆç IçÆØæ ø ) KŒ ıø, MHC; ½) Ø ºﬁø ÅæﬁH IçÆØæ ø ) IÆªæÆç KŒ ıø, edd. pr. jj KŒ ıø, MC&CC; KŒ ıø, edd. pr.

22 ½ º#ı ø· 31 Æ N Æªø ŒÆd K Æªø.

½ º#ı ø· 31 Æ , MHC; ½ º#ı ø· ŒÆd $çÆØæ Ł F ºı › Iªæ Æ, edd. pr. jj Æ , MC&CC; › Iªæ Æ, edd. pr.

ll. 22–26, §9 22 K Ø N ªﬁ Å j K ªﬁ Å ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ; æe e º#Å IªæÆç Łø K^ E 23 ½Ø A Ø E $ª ªæÆØ· ' & æHØ æe HØ —øØ, ˚Æºå)Ø, ˜Æ Œıº øØ, ººøÆØ æe HØ ' ıŒı ^ ø,

ÆØ, ˚ıÇŒøØ, —æØﬁø, —Ææﬁø, ¸ÆłŒﬁ 24 ½ !*ﬁø, ˜Ææﬁø, Øª ﬁø, º Ææ ﬁ Æ, <Æ ØHØ; @ øØ, ˆÆæªæøØ, —æ º)^^ÅØ, ^æøØ, ıæØ, æÆ ^ ı øØ, ^ Ææ^ﬁ Æ, —Ø^ÅØ, ¯ºÆﬁ Æ, ıæ ^ÅØ, ^ﬁ B ºÆØ @ øØ, MC&CC; @ øØ, edd. pr.

25 ½ 21, ˚*ﬁÅ, øŒÆﬁ Æ, ¯æıŁæÆE, *æﬁ Å, ˚ºçHØ, øØ, ¯ç øØ, —æØ)^ÅØ æe HØ ÆØæı ÆØ, Øº)ﬁø, & øØ, ´ÆæªıºØ, ˚ æøØ, ½ 21, ˚*ﬁ Å Œº:, SM; ½b ˚*ﬁ Å, F b ˚ÆØ Ææ ﬁ Æ ˚*ﬁ Å Œº:, edd. pr.

Translations

35

l. 20, §7 20 The worker of fresh purple Wsh from the sea is to pay the twentieth part as telos. ll. 20–22, §8 20 [No-one is to take out or] abstract [with wrongful deceit unregistered] merchandise from the ship for the sake of evasion of telos; and if anyone acts in contravention of these provisions, the merchandise and the goods [are to belong to the collector; - - -] is to import and export. ll. 22–26, §9 22 If anyone imports or exports anything by sea, he is to register (it) with the collector in [all] the [following places: the temple at the mouth of] the Black Sea, Calchedon, Dascyleum, Apollonia at the mouth of the Rhyndacus, Cyzicus, Priapus, Parium, Lampsacus, [Abydus, Dardanus, Sigeum, Alexandria, Hamaxitus, A]ssus, Gargarus, Poroselene, Antandrus, Asturia, Adramyteum, Atarneus, Pitane, Elaea, Myrine, former [- - -, Cyme, Phocaea, Erythrae, Smyrna, C]olophon, Teos, Ephesus, Priene at the mouth of the Maeander, Miletus, Iasus, Bargylia, Ceramus. l. 20, §7 20 qui piscem nouum muricem maritimum quaeret, uicesimam partem portorii causa dato. ll. 20–22, §8 20 [ne quis] merces (?) [quae in tabulas relatae non erunt] a naue [dolo malo] portorii fraudandi (?) causa [auferto neue] amoueto; si quis aduersus ea fecerit, merces (?) resue [portitoris esto; - - -] importato exportato. ll. 22–26, §9 22 si quis quid mari importabit exportabit, apud portitorem [omnibus locis qui infra scripti sunt] in tabulas referto: [aede ad] Pontum, Calchedone, Dascyleo, Apollonia ad Rhyndacum, Cyzico, Priapo, Pario, Lampsaco, [Abydo, Dardano, Sigeo, Alexandria, Hamaxito, A]sso, Gargaro, Poroselene, Antandro, Asturiis, Adramyteo, Atarnea, Pitane, Elaea, Myrine, [- - -] quae fuit, [Cyme, Phocaea, Erythris, Smyrna, C]olophone, Teo, Epheso, Priene ad Maeandrum, Mileto, Iaso, Bargyliis, Ceramo,

36

Text and Translations, ll. 26–32

26 ½<ºØŒÆæ

øØ, *øØ, ˚øØ, * ŒøØ, Æº ÆØ, øØ, —æªÅØ, Æª*øØ, Æ ÅºØ, ÅØ ˚æıçBØ. * ŒøØ, ˚Æ*øØ, Æº ÆØ, edd. pr.; the restoration of Caunus, however, is rejected by Marek, I. Kaunos pp. 73 [Test. 166], 200–201, 215 jj —æªÅØ, MC&CC; — æªÅØ, edd. pr.

ll. 26–28, §10 26 › ŒÆa ª^ Å N ªø K *Ø E Ø æ çø27 ½ ø ŒÆd IªæÆç Łø K x i º#Ø K E ‹æØ B å#æÆ æe H !Æ Øº Æ j Kº ıŁæø º ø j KŁH j )ø $æåﬁ Å, Kd F º#ı j KØ- vac æe, MC&CC jj K x i º#Ø K E ‹æØ B å#æÆ, Mileta (2002) 161 n. 30; a shorter alternative would be Ke B å#æÆ B , MHC; K x i º#Ø æe B å#æÆ B, edd. pr.; ‹ı i º#Ø K E ‹æØ B å#æÆ B, SM.

28 ½æı ÆPF, n i ÆPH çÆ æH Kd F ºøı KŒ ı åøæd ºı ^ÅæF æª ªæÆﬁ q. ½æı ÆPF, n i ÆPH çÆ æH Kd F ºøı KŒ ı, MHC; ½æı, n i ºı N æ ø åæØ Kd F ºøı KŒ ı, edd. pr.

ll. 28–29, §11 28 ‹ æ ŒÆa F e Iªæç ŁÆØ 29 ½ ) Ø, F › N ªø Iªæç ŁÆØ Oç Øºø ŒÆd a e Iªæç ŁÆØ N ÆªÆª E. . ll. 29–32, §12 29 › e º K ÅªæÆŒg K Æx i º Ø ŒÆd Ø K^ HØ ^B KŒØ Ł#30 ½ ø øØ 8 ØÆ Æª qØ, çæØÇø ‹ø › ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ ŒÆd › ŒÆa ªc^ N ªø j K ªø HØ º#^ÅØ æ çø^BØ ŒÆd IªæçÅ^ÆØ: Ka^ !*ºÅ^ÆØ, ½ ø øØ 8 ØÆ Æª qØ, çæØÇø ‹ø › ŒÆa, MHC; ½ ø øØ 18 ØÆ Æª qØ, ‹ø › ŒÆa, edd. pr. jj MHC inserts a period after IªæçÅÆØ instead of the comma in ed. pr. and adds a comma after !*ºÅÆØ.

Translations

37

26 [Halicarnassus, Myndus, Cnidus, Physcus, Attaleia, Aspendus,] Perge, Magydus, Phaselis, Side Coryphe. ll. 26–28, §10 26 The person importing by land [is to] declare [and register], in those places [in which] there is [a customs station on the boundaries of the land] formerly of monarchy or of free cities or of peoples or of communities, with the collector or [his procurator, whoever of them] may be [clearly] displayed without wrongful deceit [on] that [customs station.] ll. 28–29, §11 28 Whatever [it shall be necessary] to register according to this lex, [the person importing it is to be obliged to register (it) and] not to import it [before] registration. ll. 29–32, §12 29 Whoever has accepted the contract for the (exaction of the) telos, in whatever cities and places [it is written (?) and laid down] in the [lex] of the locatio, [is to see that whoever] imports or exports by sea or land declares to and registers with the collector. If he wishes, 26 [Halicarnasso, Myndo, Cnido, Physco, Attaleia, Aspendo,] Perge, Magydo, Phaselide, Side Coryphe. ll. 26–28, §10 26 si quis terra importabit, eis locis proWt[emino inque tabulas referto [in quibus teloneum] erit [in Wnibus agri siue] qui antehac regius erat siue ciuitatium liberarum siue tribuum siue uicorum, apud portitorem [procuratoremue eius, qui eorum in] eo [teloneo ita uti de plano recte legi possit (?)] sine dolo malo propositus erit. ll. 28–29, §11 28 quod ex hac lege in tabulas referre [oportebit, qui importabit id in tabulas referre postque] relatum importare [debeto.] ll. 29–32, §12 29 quiportoriumredemerit,quibusoppidislocis[lege]locationis[scriptum(?) cautumue erit, facito uti qui] terra mariue importabit exportabit apud portitorem proWteatur inque tabulas referat. si uolet,

38

Text and Translations, ll. 31–36

31 ½K Æ*ÆØ ÆE º Ø ÆØ ŒÆd Ø æ çø) ø ð?Þ j IªæÆçB j NŒ) ø åæØ Ia £ KŒØ Kåø, Kç zØ h K ƒ æHØ h K ^ Ø h K vac æ çø) ø (?), MHC; ÆæÆçıºÆŒB, edd. pr. jj ø, MC&CC; Å, edd. pr.

32 ½øØ IøØ ÆØ 27 Æ æÆçıºÆŒa Kåø Æ^, Ææa ÆHØ b ' ıŒøØ Æ ÆæÆçıºÆŒ)^. ½øØ IøØ ÆØ 27 Æ æÆçıºÆŒa, MHC; ½øØ IøØ, Iºº K Å øØ øØ ÆØ, ŒÆd KŒ E b ÆæÆçıºÆŒa, edd. pr.

ll. 32–36, §13 32 n i ^B KÆ½æå Æ Æ*Å½ KÆ½æå Æ, MC&CC; KÆ ½æå Æ, edd. pr.

33 ½$æåﬁ Å, ‹ı i ﬁ Å æ çøB ÆØ, N K E Ø *Ø ŁÆº

ÅØ ºØ^ c æ Œ ØÆØ, *ø K Œ øØ ºØ ^ Ø Ia Æ ^ ÆæÆçıºÆŒc KŒ æØ½ı Ka Or ½$æåﬁ Å, ‹ı ¼ Ø IªæłÅÆØ, N K E Ø *Ø, edd. pr. jj æØ½ı, MC&CC; æØ½ı, edd. pr.

34 ½!*ºøÆØ Kåø Æ ºı N æ ø åæØ, ŒÆd Kd B IªåØŁÆº

ı b ÆæÆ^Æ, ŒÆd æd f Kº ıŁæı ‹æı ^B KÆæå Æ, Ka !*ºø !*ºø -, MC&CC; !*ºø-, edd. pr.

35 ½ÆØ, Kç ﬁz KŒØ ‹ı i æ çø E ﬁ Å 5 Kªª*^ æ, d e ı, ^BŒ H æØŒ^Æ, <º H æØŒÆ>, ﬁTŒ ^ Å^^ j æ<Ø> çæÆª ^ åø Ø ŒÆd Kç ﬁz ^) Ka !*ºøj½ÆØ, Kç ﬁz KŒØ ‹ı i æ çø E ﬁ Å 5 Kªª*^ æ, MHC; !*ºøj½ÆØ, Kç ﬁz ,ŒÆ KŒØ c 15 Kªª* æ, edd. pr. jj —¯ —¯ `ˆ¯˝ˇ˝ lapis, MC&CC; æØ çæÆª, edd. pr.

36 ½ﬁTŒÅﬁ q K ƒ æHØ ) K Ø ) K øØ I^øØ ^ ) KªªıæøØ KØŒøØ H K^ )ŒÆ.

Translations

39

31 he is to have up to one building [in all these cities and places] for the sake of [declaration (?)] or registration or habitation, provided that [it is] not in a temple or temenos or [sacred place; and at (?) - - -] they are to have [???] guard-posts, and (in any case) one guard-post on the River Rhyndacus. ll. 32–36, §13 32 Whatever place of this province [there is, wherever it is necessary to declare, if in] these [places] a harbour lies by the sea, [they are to have] by each harbour in these (places) up to one guard-post in sequence, if [they wish, for the sake of exaction of telos]; 34 and also on the coast by the sea; and around the boundaries of the province, where it is lawful to go or drive (animals), if they wish; 35 [provided that] they have (a building) within [??? (feet) of wherever it is necessary to declare], built or fenced, one in each place, thirty feet from front to back, , and provided that it is not [built in a temple or temenos] or sacred place or with (another) building nearer than ninety feet. 31 [omnibus eis oppidis locis professionis] relationisue habitationisue causa aediWcium dum unum habeto, dumque neue in aede neue in templo (?) neue in [loco sacro habeat; inque (?) - - - ???] custodias habento, unamque ad Rhyndacum. ll. 32–36, §13 32 qui locus eius prouinciae [erit quo proWteri oportebit, si in] eo [loco] portus ad mare erit, ibi ad eum portum custodiam dum unam in ordine [habento, si uolent, portorii exigendi causa,] 34 adque oram maritimam; circumque Wnes prouinciae quo ire agere licet, si uolent; 35 [dum (aediWcium)] propius [eo quo proWteri oportebit (pedes) ???] aediWcatum saeptumue habeant, unum uno loco, pedes triginta in fronte, , dumque neue [in aede neue in templo (?)] neue in loco sacro aediWcatum sit neue aediWcio alio propius pedes nonaginta.

40

Text and Translations, II. 36–38

ll. 36–38, §14 36 n KŒØ æ æ^ $æåﬁ Å ﬁTŒ ^ Å^ ^ , n KNŒØ, MHC; n KŒØ, lapis and edd. pr., but indeWnite after n is omitted nowhere else in the inscription.

37 ½*øØ åæ) Łø Æ· Ka b NŒH Ø, ) ^c KªªıæøØ å Ø H ŒÆe ﬁTŒ ^ Å Kåø Æ ^ ) K Œ øØ sic H ÆæÆçıºÆŒH *ø ) ^ c, MC&CC; ) c, edd. pr. jj K Œ øØ, MC&CC; K Œ ÅØ, edd. pr.

38 ½º ı 33:˝ ˝ Kåø Æ, Kç ﬁz H ÆæÆçıºÆŒH *ø e Æ f Ø ^ÅÆ Oª)^ŒÆ Æø ÆØ. :˝ ˝ Kåø Æ, MC&CC; . . . ø Kåø Æ, edd. pr.

ll. 38–40, §15 38 KŒe H 39 ½æª ªæÆø ø ) Ø ÆæÆçıºÆŒc ø ) ^c lø ÆæÆçıºÆŒc Ie ÆæÆçıºÆŒB ^ Ç

ÆæŒÆ

Æø Åb Iæø H^ ^B KÆæå Æ 40 ½Kº ıŁæø ‹æø Œ Å ÆæÆçıºÆŒc

æø Æø Ø ÅŒø. .

æø , MC&CC; æø, edd. pr.

ll. 40–42, §16 40 Ka ^) º#^Å ^) Kæ ŒÆa F e ﬁ q ÆP ŁØ, zØ Ø æ çø^) ﬁ Å ÆP ŁØ, MC&CC; Æ P ŁØ, edd. pr.

41 ½ŒÆd IªæłÅÆØ æe F N ª Ø, ‹Æ F $æåﬁ Å, lØ i ºØ ªªØ Æ KŒ øØ HØ øØ, Ææa HØ K ÆPﬁ B c^ ^ ª Å^ Iæåc^ å^Ø IªæÆç Łø Æ ‹Æ F, MHC; Ka F, edd. pr. jj F, MC&CC; F, edd. pr. jj øØ, Ææa, MC&CC; øØﬁ q, Ææa, edd. pr.

42 ½‰ ŒÆa e E.

Translations

41

ll. 36–38. §14 36 Whatever building exists built beforehand, [they are to use it; but if they build a new one, they are not] indeed to have one built with a wall nearer than a hundred feet nor in each of these guard-posts are they to have [more than ??? men (?)], provided that the distance between these guard-posts is of eighty stades. ll. 38–40. §15 38 Apart from at the [above places there is to be no guard-post] nor is a minor guard-post to be distant from a major guard-post (more than) forty stades nor [any guard-post] from the [boundaries] of the province [where it is lawful to go or drive (animals) (more than) four (?)] stades. ll. 40–42. §16 40 If there is neither a collector nor a procurator there according to this lex, to whom someone may declare [and with whom one may register before importing, whenever] this is the case, whatever city is nearest to that place, they are to register with the person holding the highest office in it [as is appropriate according to the lex.] ll. 36–38. §14 36 quod aediWcium antea aediWcatum erit, [eo utunto; siue nouum aediWcabunt, neue] cum muro (?) propius pedes centum aediWcatum habento neue in qua custodia [plus quam ??? homines (?)] habento, dum ne inter eas custodias amplius octoginta stadia sint. ll. 38–40. §15 38 nisi eis [locis qui supra scripti sunt custodia ne esto,] neue custodia minor a maiore custodia (plus quam) quadraginta stadia abesto, neue [quae custodia a Wnibus] prouinciae [quo ire agere licet (plus quam) quattuor (?)] stadia. ll. 40–42. §16 40 si neque portitor neque procurator ex hac lege ibi erit, cui proWteatur [apudue quem in tabulas referat antequam importabit,] tum quae urbs eo loco propius erit, qui ibi maximam potestatem habebit, apud eum proWtentor, [ita uti ex hac lege oportebit.]

42

Text and Translations

Figure 5 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 19–42, left side

Figure 7 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 42–74, left side

Text and Translations

Figure 6 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 19–42, right side

Figure 8 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 43–74, right side

43

44

Text and Translations, ll. 42–47

ll. 42–45, §17 42 ½Ka ŒÆa e B KŒ Ø Ł# ø cﬁ q ØÆ Æª^ Ææa Ø E E ŁÆØ a IªæÆç, K Ø^ ÆæÆçıºÆŒÆd vac KŒ Ø Ł# ø, MC&CC; KŒØ Ł# ø, edd. pr. jj Ææa Ø, Solin (1991) 183; Ææ ØØ, edd. pr. jj E, MC&CC; E, MHC&JMR; ﬁ Å, edd. pr. jj E ŁÆØ, lapis.

43 ½j K ºØØ j æd f Kº ıŁæı ‹^æı B KÆæå ^Æ t Ø, Æ¥Ø^ i *ø ÆæÆçıºÆŒÆd * ªªØ Æ ÆPE $æåø Ø KŒ øØ HØ øØ Ø y ½j K ºØØ j æd f Kº ıŁæı, MHC; ½º æd f Kº ıŁæı , edd. pr. jj ı ‹^æı, MC&CC; ı ‹ æı, edd. pr.

44 ½Ø 9 ºº Ø K ª Ø N ª Ø j ^ ºº) Ø, Kd ›æÆ s *ø H ÆæÆçıºÆŒH Ł º) ﬁ Å; æe F K ª Ø j N ª Ø, æ çø ø ŒÆd I-

½Ø 9 ºº Ø K ª Ø N ª Ø, MHC&JMR, MC&CC; ½Ø K ª Ø j N ª Ø N c KÆæå Æ, edd. pr. jj MHC adds a comma between N ª Ø and æ çø ø.

45 ½ªæÆç Łø. ll. 45–47, §18 45 ½L b ¼ Ø !*ºÅÆØ K º ŁÆØ j N ÆªÆª E j K ÆªÆª E ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ, – i ŒÆa ªc^ N ªﬁ Å j N ºÆ*^ﬁ Å j N ŒÇﬁ Å, j^ K ªﬁ Å j^ K ºÆ*^ﬁ Å, 46 ½H æÆªø *ø c Å Ø Ø ŁøfØg· vac ½n ^b i ¥ Æ ŁÆØ ﬁ Å, *ı e ÆŁ, n i IæØŁ^ ÅŁc^ÆØ ﬁ Å, *ı e IæØŁe OæŁH º ªø: Ka Ø ŁøfØg· vac ½n ^ b, MC&CC; Ø ŁøfØg· n vac b, edd. pr.

47 ½ $ Æ Ø *Ø ªÅÆØ, e æAªÆ KŒ E ŒÆd e þØ F º#ı ø.

Translations

45

ll. 42–45, §17 42 [If] it is not laid down [according to the] lex of [the] locatio with whom it is necessary to carry out the registrations, if there are any guard-posts [either by a harbour or around the] boundaries of the province [where it is lawful to go or drive (animals),] whichever two guard-posts of these are nearest for them to that place through which [anyone - - - intends] or shall intend [to export or im]port, he is therefore to declare and [register] at whichever of these guard-posts he wishes before exporting or importing. ll. 45–47, §18 45 [Whatever anyone may wish] to take out or import or export by sea, and whatever he may import or drive in or convey in or export or drive out by land, he is to estimate [the value of those goods;] whatever it may be necessary to weigh, he is correctly to state its weight, whatever to count, its quantity; [and] if [anything happens in contravention of these provisions], those [goods] and merchandise are to belong to the collector. ll. 42–45, §17 42 [si ex] lege locationis apud quem in tabulas referre oportebit cautum non erit, si quae custodiae [ad portum circumue] Wnes prouinciae [quo ire agere licet] erunt, quae earum custodiarum duae eis propiores erunt eo loco per quem [quis - - - exportaturus im]portaturus erit, ita apud quam earum custodiam uolet antequam exportabit importabit proWtemino [inque tabulas referto.] ll. 45–47, §18 45 [quod quis] mari auferre importare exportare uolet, quodque quis terra importabit adiget (?) inuehet exportabit exiget (?), [quanti ea res erit] aestimato, quodque pendere oportebit eius pondus, quodque numerare eius numerum recte denuntiato; si [quid aduersus ea Wet,] ea [res] mercesue (?) portitoris esto.

46

Text and Translations, ll. 47–53

ll. 47–48, §19 47 ŒÆŁºı K Ø ø F º# ı , Ka !*ºÅÆØ, e þØ MªæÆ ^ å Ø MHC adds a comma after Ka !*ºÅÆØ.

48 ½e N ªÆ K ª Kç ﬁz e Iæª*æØ Ke ı E +^ æH Pºı) Ø $çÆØæ Ł F ºı. vac ½e N ªÆ K ª Kç ﬁz, MHC; ½‹ Ø i e þØ IªæÇ Ø Łºﬁ Å; e Iæª*æØ, edd. pr. jj [ + 27 ] e Iæª*æØ, MC&CC jj ı E, MC&CC; ı E , edd. pr.

ll. 48–50, §20 48 n ¼^ ½Ø ŒÆa F e ﬁ Å æ çøB ÆØ

n ¼^ ½Ø, MC&CC; n ¼ Ø, edd. pr.; see Commentary ad loc.

49 ½ŒÆd IªæłÆ ŁÆØ æe ÆPB B N ÆªøªB j K ÆªøªB, y K y i ı K!º<º>ÅÆØ vac j K ÆØæBÆØ j N ªﬁ Å, n i ªªØ Æ KŒ øØ $æåﬁ Å, ‹ı i ¯´`¸˙`&, lapis, corrected here, following edd. pr., in the light of 53–54.

50 ½ﬁ Å æ çøB ÆØ ŒÆa F e , KŒ E æ çø^ ø. ll. 50–53, §21 50 y b ¼ Ø IªæłÅÆØ ŒÆd ØÇÅÆØ N Æªøª)^, KŒ E –Æ IªæÆç Łø, F N ª Ø vac j vac 51 ½ N çæ Ø !*ºÅÆØ ) ¼øŁ F ı KŒ ı, n IªæłÅÆØ, ÆŒæ æ H ^ÆŒ ø K ÆØæ Łø ^ ) K!Æºº Łø ^ ) K Æªø 52 ½) ¼ººŁ j y i æ çø^) ﬁ Å j IªæłÅÆØ !*º ŁÆØ Æıe K!Æº ŁÆØ j K º ŁÆØ: n b i $ Æ *Ø ª^ÅÆØ, e æAªÆ KŒ E æ çø^) ﬁ Å, MC&CC; æ çø) ﬁ Å, edd. pr.

53 ½ŒÆd e þØ F º# ı ø. vac º# ı , MC&CC; º#ı, edd. pr.

Translations

47

ll. 47–48, §19 47 There is to be a right for the collector to grant in integrum restitutio, if he wishes, for [the importer or exporter] to have the merchandise redeemed, [on condition] that he discharges within two days the amount of the telos that has been diverted. ll. 48–50, §20 48 Whatever anyone must according to this lex declare [and register before the actual] import or export, at whatever place he lands (?) or takes out or imports, whatever place is nearest to it, wherever [it is necessary to declare according to this] lex, he is to declare there. ll. 50–53, §21 50 Wherever anyone may register and value an import, he is to register there and only there, where [he wishes] to import or [take in, and] he is [not] to take out or land (?) or export further away from that place in which he registers than Wve hundred feet [or elsewhere than where] he declares or registers that he wishes to land (?) or take out. Whatever happens in contravention of these provisions, the goods [and the merchandise] are to belong [to the collector.] ll. 47–48, §19 47 portitori, si uolet, ius in integrum restituendi esto, ita uti [is qui importauerit exportauerit] merces redemptas habeat, [dum] diebus proximis duabus summam portorii auersi soluerit. ll. 48–50, §20 48 quod [quis antequam] importabitur exportabitur ex hac lege proWteri [inque tabulas referre] debebit, is quo ablaturus est (?) importabit, qui locus eo propius erit, in quo loco [ex hac] lege [proWteri oportebit,] ibi proWtemino. ll. 50–53, §21 50 quo loco cui importationem proWteri aestimari liceat, ne quis alio loco proWtemino, nisi ubi importare [inferre uolet, neue] longius ab eo loco ubi proWtebitur pedes quingentos auferto neue ??? neue exportato, [neue alio loco nisi ubi] se ??? auferre uelle proWteatur in tabulas referat; si quid aduersus ea Wet, res [mercesue (?) portitoris] esto.

48

Text and Translations, ll. 53–58

ll. 53–56, §22 53 IÆªæÆç Å d K!Æºº Łø Å b K ÆØæ Łø Åb K Æªø ) c ıŒe K!Æºº Łø ^Åb K!Æºº Łø Å b, MC&CC; K!Æºº Łø Åb, edd. pr.

54 ½K Æªø, ) KŒe H æª ªæÆø ø <ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ> K!Æºº Łø Åb K ÆØæ Łø Åb K Æªø ^ Åb ŒÆa ^ ªB N !Æººø ^Åb KŒ!Æººø Åb ½K Æªø, ) KŒe, JLF; ½+æÆ, ) KŒe, edd. pr. jj KŒe H, MC&CC; KŒe H, edd. pr. jj <ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ> add. JLF.

55 ½K ÆØæ Łø Åb K Æªø: Ka $^ Æ^ Ø *Ø ª^ÅÆØ, e æ ½AªÆ KŒ E ŒÆd e þØ F º#ı ø. vac ½Ka ^c F $æåﬁ Å, › æ i › º#½K ÆØæ Łø Åb K Æªø, JLF; [ + 16 ].) ø, edd. pr.; [ + 15 ]Æªø, MC&CC jj $^ Æ^, MC&CC; $ Æ, edd. pr. jj æ ½AªÆ, MC&CC; ½æAªÆ, edd. pr. jj ½Ka ^ c F, JLF; ½‹Æ, edd. pr.

56 ½Å Łºﬁ Å, Iªøªc j K å*æı ºBłØ ø. vac ½Łºﬁ Å, Iªøªc j or Iªøªc ŒÆd, JLF, adapting Solin [(1991) 183]; ½Łºﬁ Å,

æÅ Ø j, edd. pr.

ll. 56–58, §23–24 56 K x i Ø ŒÆ a F e º#Ø Å Ø#ı $æåﬁ Å, K E Ø *Ø º j^ Ø Łe K x i, MC&CC; K x i , edd. pr. jj ŒÆ a F , MC&CC; ŒÆ a ½F, edd. pr.

57 ½Å Ø#Å j K ½ ½æ ºÆ ^ !Æ^ø: n i $ Æ Ø *Ø º!ﬁ Å, j Ø) ﬁ Å Kç ﬁz Ø º!ﬁ Å fjg, ‹ ı i ﬁ q e $ Æ *Ø ª ª, N æAªK ½ ½æ , MC&CC; K æ , edd. pr. jj n i $ Æ Ø *Ø º!ﬁ Å, j Ø) ﬁ Å Kç ﬁz Ø º!ﬁ Å fjg ‹ ı iﬁ q e $ Æ *Ø ª ª, JLF; n i $ Æ Ø *Ø º!ﬁ Å j Ø) ﬁ Å, Kç ﬁz Ø º!ﬁ Å j ‹ ı iﬁ q e $ Æ *Ø ª ª, edd. pr.

58 ½Æ KŒ E ŒÆd e þØ ½ØÆŒ Œæ Łø, ŒÆd F åæ)^Æ *ı K^ å*æı ºBłØ ø. vac þØ ½ØÆŒ Œæ Łø, MC&CC; þØ ØÆŒ Œæ Łø, edd. pr.

Translations

49

ll. 53–56, §22 53 No-one is to land (?) or take out or export anything unregistered, or land (?) or [export] by night, [or] land (?) or take out or export , or bring in or bring out or [take out or ex]port by land, [except (in both cases) at] the places listed above. And if anything happens in contravention of these provisions, the goods and the merchandise are to belong to the collector. Otherwise, whichever the collector [wishes], there is to be [ductio or] the right to seizure of a pledge. ll. 56–58, §23–24 56 In whatever places there is a customs-oYce of a publicanus according to this lex, in those places the [publicanus or] procurator is to collect the telos or fee. 57 Whoever may collect anything in contravention of these provisions, or act so that someone else may collect, whatever may be the value of what is done in contravention of these provisions, there is to be judgment in relation to [those] goods [and merchandise] and there is to be the right to seizure of a pledge in this case. ll. 53–56, §22 53 neue quid ??? neue auferto neue exportato quod professus non erit, neue noctu ??? neue [exportato, neue nisi] eis locis qui supra scripti sunt <mari> ??? neue auferto neue exportato, neue terra ??? neue ??? neue [auferto neue ex]portato; si quid aduersus ea Wet, res mercesue portitoris esto; quod nisi Wet, [ducere] pignus[ue] capere, utrum uolet, portitori liceto. ll. 56–58, §23–24 56 in quibus locis ex hac lege publicano teloneum erit, in eis locis [publicanus] procuratorue portorium accipito. 57 si quis quid aduersus haec acceperit feceritue, quo quis acceperit, quanti erit id quod factum erit, de [ea] re [eisque mercibus] iudicium esto pignorisque capio in ea causa (?) esto.

50

Text and Translations, ll. 58–64

ll. 58–67, §§25–27 58 *Ø H æÆªø *ø º ^ c ø ^ ) Ø ØÆØ Oç Øºø· vac ^ 59 ½‹ æ ¼ Ø Å Ø )ı ' øÆø çæø Ø, ŒÆd n i Ł ı ,^ Œ æªÆ j Å ø åæØ æÆªø )^ı ' øÆø Øb ŒÇø Ø j ¼ªø Ø, vac )ı, MC&CC, supplemented by JLF as ½‹ æ ¼ Ø Å Ø , in preference to ½‹ æ ¼ Ø , Œ of edd. pr.; ½‹ æ i æAªÆ Å Ø, Nicolet (1991) 470 and (1999) 198 n. 19 jj æªÆ , MC&CC; æªÆ , edd. pr.

60 ½ŒÆd n i æe c NÆ åæB Ø ¼ªø Ø^ j ç æ ø Ø, ŒÆd n i N ØÆæçc^ åø Ø KŒ Å , Œ B æ Æ åøæd ºı ^ÅæF, K Ø H Å ø vac

½ŒÆd n i, MHC; ½‹ æ i, edd. pr. jj ¼ªø Ø^ j ç æ ø Ø, MC&CC; ¼ªø Ø ½ø Ø, edd. pr.

^ 61 ½æÆªø , Œ F )ı ' øÆø Å ÆØ çæÅÆØ, $æ åÆºŒF ŒÆd Iæª*æı Œ åÆæÆªı, Æ MæØŁ^ Å^ ^ ı, $æ ^ g ŒÆd Œ ıH

^ ½æÆªø , Œ F )ı ' øÆø, JLF, adapting Lewis (1995) 248 and n. 4: ½åæØ or , Œ æÆªø F ÆPF or simply F )ı ' øÆø; ½ 18 ı )ı ' øÆø, edd. pr.

62 ½ g L ¼ Ø øº) ^ ﬁ Å j Øæ Œﬁ Å, º ^ c Øø· $bæ

øø ŒÆd ŒÅ^H, – æ i YŒŁ ¼ªø Ø j ÆæÆø Ø æe c^ NÆ åæB Ø Æ*Å B

øº) ﬁ Å j, edd. pr.; T) ﬁ Å, MW jj ^ c Øø, MC&CC; c Øø, edd. pr.

63 ½æ Æ åæØ, $bæ !ı!ºø, ºø, ªæÆø Kªæçø, $æ $Å^ø ŒÆd ÆŒıºø x åæB ŁÆØ N#ŁÆ Ø K BØ IÅ^ÆØ Æ*ÅØ åÆ

ªæÆø Kªæçø, MHC; ªæÆø, Kªæçø, edd. pr. jj åÆ , MC&CC; å Æ , edd. pr.

64 ½ºı ÅæF, x i ØÆæçøÆØ· æÆØ#Å j Æ*Å j IØ æÆØ#Å j IØÆ*Å, n iﬁ q <æ ı > æÆªø , Œ )ı ' øÆø, vac ‹ i vac

½ºı ÅæF, x i ØÆæçøÆØ, æÆØ#Å, MHC; [ + 14 ], x i ØÆæçøÆØ æÆØ#Å, edd. pr. jj n i ﬁ q <æ ı > æÆªø, Salomies (1991) 184; n iﬁ q æÆªø, edd. pr. jj ‹ i, MHC; ‹ i, edd. pr.

Translations

51

ll. 58–67, §25–27 58 There is to be no telos for these men or on these things nor is anyone to be obliged to pay: [whatever public property] of the Roman people [anyone] may be carrying, and whatever anyone may be conveying or driving (¼ animals for sacriWce) for the religious purposes or for the public purposes (in both cases) of the Roman people, [and whatever they] may then (¼ on that journey) be driving or carrying [for private] use, and whatever they may have for maintenance for that journey, (in both cases) without wrongful deceit; 60 and if anyone is publicly (as opposed to delivering what they owe) carrying anything for the public [purposes] of the Roman people; 61 and on struck bronze or silver, or on coin that has been tallied, or on a ship, and the equipment [of a ship which anyone may sell] or have sold (?) (i.e., to the ship-owner), one is not to pay telos; 62 on slaves and animals, which they bring or send for (?) from home for private use [for] that [journey], on books, tablets, letters, records, or on shoes and rings, which they are accustomed to use during that absence, (in both cases) without [wrongful deceit], and on things by which they are maintained; 64 a soldier or a sailor, or a substitute soldier or a substitute sailor, who is <journeying> for the purposes of the Roman people, and whoever ll. 58–67, §25–27 58 eis hominibus earumue rerum quae infra scriptae sunt portorium ne esto neue quis dare debeto: [quod quis publicum] populi Romani feret, quodue quis rerum sacrarum publicarumue populi Romani causa uehet aget, [quodue] tum usus [priuati causa] agent ferent, quodue uictus causa in eo itinere sine dolo malo habebunt; 60 siue quis quid [rerum] publicarum [causa] populi Romani publice feret; 61 proque aere argentoue signato, pecuniaue numerata, nauiue siue [quod quis nauis] ornandae causa uendet uendiderit, portorium dare ne debeto; 62 pro seruis animalibusue (?), quae domo usus priuati [in] eo [itinere] causa secum ducent arcessentue (?), pro libris, tabulis, quibus scriptum expressum erit, calceisue anulis quibus dum aberunt uti solebunt, sine [dolo malo], quaeque uictus causa habebunt; 64 miles nauta, quiue pro milite pro nauta erit, qui rerum populi Romani causa erit, quiue

52

Text and Translations, ll. 67–70

65 ½ 13 Oł#Ø ºÆ!^ﬁ Å, ‹ æ i æe c^ NÆ åæB Ø Œ Çﬁ Å, ﬁz i åæBÆØ K^ KŒ øØ HØ æÆ *ÆØ N n i æ *ÅÆØ, º ½*½ 13 Oł#Ø, Salomies (1991) 185; ½ 15 øØ, edd. pr. jj åæBÆØ , MC&CC; åæB Æ Ø , edd. pr.

66 ½ø c Øø· ŒÆd n i ç!ı º ø åæØ N Åª ^ j K Åª^ $æåﬁ Å, n i ^ ÅŒØ ½åæ) Ø $æåﬁ Å, ºŁ^ j c^ æÆ, L i åæı F, Iæª*æı, vac

½Øø· ŒÆd n i , MHC; ½Ø Łø: n i, edd. pr.; ½n i , MC&CC. jj ºŁ^ j c^, MC&CC; ºŁ j c , edd. pr.

67 ½ 6 Ø)æ ı, º*!ı, åæı åºŒı ,^ Œ qØ Tæıª^ Æ, *ø ‹Ø i ç æÅÆØ º ^ c Øø· ^ Åb ^ c oÆ º Ø Oç Øºø. vac

½ 6 Ø)æ ı, MHC&JMR; ½ 10 ::ˇ, edd. pr. jj ½çæÅÆØ, JLF, conWrmed by MC&CC who read ç æÅÆØ; ½Æƒæ B ^ Åb, ÆØ, edd. pr. jj MC&CC; Å b, edd. pr.

ll. 67–72, §§28–30 67 KŒØÆ 68 ½ŒÆd ÆŁf !Æ ØºØŒf R !Æ Øº f @Æº ¯Pı ıƒe ºøÆ åæØ å ½ › ½Å^½ Ø#Å o½ø ŒÆæ ı Łø· ÆF ›EÆ i ÆæÆº!ﬁ Å ½ŒÆd ÆŁf !Æ ØºØŒf, JLF, following Spagnuolo Vigorita (1996) 61 n. 191; ½ŒÆd *ºı or ½ŒÆd ÆŁf !Æ ØºØŒf, edd. pr. jj åæØ å ½ › ½Å^½ Ø#Å, JLF, MC&CC; o½ø, MHC; åæØ K ½) Æ Å::ºº::º .., edd. pr.

69 ½HØ K øØ Å Ø#^ﬁ Å j^ Iæe IªÆŁF KØŒæ Ø ÆæÆØøfØg. vac Æ¥Ø^ º Ø ŁÅ $e !Æ Øº E º ½øØ ¯P ^ ı ıƒHØ PŒ Kª, K x Ø j j^ ŁÅ $e !Æ Øº E º ½øØ ¯P^ı, MC&CC; j ŁÅ $ e ! Æ Øº E º ½øØ ¯P ı, edd. pr.

70 ½ æ Ø ð?Þ B Æ º#ÅØ ŒÆa e ^B Ø Ł# ø IªæłÆ ŁÆØ æ çø^B ÆØ ) Ø, *ø K Œ ÅØ º Ø æe ŁÆº

ÅØ, N e æ - vac ½ æ Ø ð?Þ B Æ, JLF; ½º Ø B Æ, edd. pr. jj æ çø^B ÆØ ) Ø, MC&CC; æ çøB ÆØ ) Ø, edd. pr. jj Œ ÅØ, MC&CC; Œ ÅØ, edd. pr.

Translations

53

65 [- - -] is in receipt of a uiaticum, whatever he may then be conveying for private use, and whatever he may then use in that army to which he is journeying, [he is not to pay] telos [on these things;] 66 [whatever] has been imported or exported to deal with threats from enemies, whatever is no longer serviceable, in respect of stone or rock, that has been mined in order to extract gold, silver, [copper], iron, lead, orichalcum, whatever anyone may carry of these, he is not to pay telos; nor is anyone to owe telos on water. ll. 67–72, §28–30 67 With respect to the buildings and royal [staging posts] which king Attalus the son of Eumenes had for the purposes of exaction of telos, [the publicanus] is to use (them) [as he (the king) did]; and he is to hand over uiri boni arbitratu to [the incoming] publicanus whatever of these he may take over. 69 Whatever cities and peoples were not under King Attalus the son of Eumenes, in whatever places or [regions (?) of Asia] it is necessary to register with or declare to a collector according to the lex of the locatio, in each city by the sea there, 65 [- - -] uiaticum accipiet, quodcumque tum usus priuati causa uehet quoque cumque tum utetur in eo exercitu quo iter faciet, [pro eis rebus] portorium [ne dato;] 66 [si quid] metus hostilis causa importatum exportatum erit, siue quid inutile factum erit, siue quis lapis saxumue auri, argenti, [cypri,] ferri, plumbi, orichalci causa eVossum erit, quod eorum feretur, portorium ne dato; neue quis pro aqua portorium debeto. ll. 67–72, §28–30 67 quae aediWcia quas [stationes] regias rex Attalus Eumenis f. portorii exigendi causa habuit, [publicanus (eis) ita] frui debeto; quaeque eorum acceperit [ei qui post eum] publicanus [erit] uiri boni arbitratu transdato. 69 Quae ciuitates tribus regis Attali Eumenis f. non erant, quibuscumque in locis [regionibus (?) Asiae] apud portitorem ex lege locationis in tabulas referre [proWteri] oportebit, in eis omnibus in omni urbe ad mare

54

Text and Translations, ll. 71–74

71 ½çøB ÆØ j Iªæç ŁÆØ ,ŒÆ , KŒØ, ^ BŒ H

ÆæŒÆ, º H

ÆæŒÆ, K Å^ øØ øØ ^ K ƒ æHØ ½ ø ^) ^ ) K^ ^ ^ Ø ^ ) ll. 70–71: æ j½çøB ÆØ j Iªæç ŁÆ Ø ,ŒÆ , KŒØ Œº., Nicolet (1991) 469 n. 14; æ j ½ 8 Iªæç ŁÆ Ø ,ŒÆ KŒØ Œº., edd. pr. jj l. 71: ªæç ŁÆØ, MC&CC; ªæç ŁÆ Ø , edd. pr. jj K Å^ øØ, MC&CC; K Å øØ, edd. pr.

72 ½K øØ IøE ŒÆd HØ º#^ÅØ NŒ^B ÆØ K ø. . ll. 72–74, §§31–32. 75 bc

72 y æªÆ ŒÆ ŒÆæH IææøØ æØÇø j Yı ŒÆd KºÆı HØ Å^ Ø#^ﬁ Å ŁÆ½Ø IææøØ, MC&CC; IæBæ Ø, edd. pr. jj Yı, MC&CC; Ø0 æ Yı, edd. pr. jj ŁÆ½Ø, MC&CC; ŁÆØ, edd. pr.

73 ½ E 8 :ø ,^ Œ , F < e> Å^ Ø#^Å ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ e º ‰ K Łø Æ ¸*ŒØ ˇŒıØ, ˆœ `Pæ)ºØ ˚ Æ oÆØ, K Æ N Æ

½ E 8 :ø, MC&CC jj ½ E or Ø çıºÆŒ ø, Øøø, Ø!ºø or ØçıºÆŒø Œº., Nicolet (1991) 479; ½i ﬁ B or , æÆ IæØH or

Ø ø, Nicolet (1999) 194–5; 209–10; ½ E )ı ' øÆø, edd. pr. jj F < e> Å^ Ø#^Å, JLF; ˇˇ˝, lapis, MC&CC; *ø Å Ø#Å, edd. pr.; F <e> Å Ø#Å, Nicolet (1991) 466 n. 7 and (1999) 191 n. 2; 193 jj ˚ Æ, MC&CC; ˚Æ, edd. pr. jj comma instead of period between oÆØ and K Æ, Nicolet (1991) 469–71; id. (1999) 192.

74 ½n i N ªÅÆØ K ªÅÆØ, Kç ﬁz c Kd I æ) Ø Aºº F ºı *ı ª^ÅÆØ BØ ^ ÆŒØBØ j Ø ÆPe e æAªÆ, $bæ *ı º ^c Ø ŁøfØg. vac N ªÅÆØ K ªÅÆØ, JLF; K ªÅÆØ, N ªÅÆØ, edd. pr. jj BØ ÆŒØBØ j Ø ÆPe e æAªÆ, Nicolet (1991) 471 and (1999) 191 n. 2; 192; 195 and n. 11; 199 n. 20; 200 n. 22; 201–2; MC&CC; BØ ÆŒØﬁ B ﬁ B +º ØÆæø e æAªÆ, edd. pr.

Translations

55

71 for the purpose of [declaration or] registration by everyone, there is to be a building forty feet from front to back and forty feet from side to side, in a public place and not in a temple or temenos or [sacred place;] and it is to be lawful for the collector to build (it). ll. 72–74, §31–32. 75 bc 72 On whatever [it is necessary] for the purposes of [the public revenues (?)] to give a tithe of the crops produced by the plough or a Wfth of the wine or the oil to the publicanus, and for that publicanus to exploit the telos (tax), according to the locatio made by the consuls L. Octavius and C. Aurelius Cotta, [whatever from Asia into Asia [is imported or ex]ported, provided that the transport is not undertaken rather for evasion of the telos (portorium) than for that very purpose, on this he is not to pay telos (portorium). 71 quo quis proWteatur in tabulas referat aediWcium in loco publico esto, pedes quadraginta in fronte, pedes quadraginta in agro, nisi in aede templo (?) [loco sacro,] portitorique aediWcare liceto. ll. 72–74, §31–32. 75 bc 72 pro qua re decimas fructuum aratro quaesitarum quintamue partem uini olei [???] causa publicano dare [oportebit], eique publicano uectigali frui, ita uti locationem fecerunt L. Octauius C. Aurelius Cotta cos., [si quid] ex Asia in Asiam [im]portabitur [exportabitur], dum ne portorii fraudandi (?) magis causa uectura Wat quam eius rei ergo, pro eo portorium ne dato.

56

Text and Translations, ll. 74–80

ll. 74–78, §33. 75 bc 74 R 75 ½i ŒÆd – æ i Å Ø#^Å K Æ N Æ N Æªªﬁ Å j K Æªªﬁ Å, y º ¸*ŒØ ˇŒıØ, ˆœ `Pæ)ºØ oÆØ K Łø Æ, $bæ *ø º c Å Ø#^Å, MC&CC; Å Ø#Å, edd. pr. jj oÆØ, MC&CC; o Æ Ø, edd. pr. jj $bæ *ø, MC&CC; $bæ *ı, edd. pr.

76 ½Ø Łø· ŒÆd $bæ ºı ŒÆd H F ºı Œ ıH ŒÆd $bæ *ºø ŒÆd z ±ø, R i j L i YŒŁ ¼ªø Ø j ÆæÆø Ø, $bæ !ı!ºø ,

½Ø Łø· ŒÆd, MHC; ½Ø Łø·, edd. pr. jj $bæ, MC&CC; $bæ, edd. pr. jj !ı!ºø , MC&CC; !ı!ºø, edd. pr.

77 ½ºø ø , x i ªæÆÆ ª ªæÆÆﬁ q, ŒÆd $ç y i ØÆæçøÆØ, $æ ŒÅ^H – æ ¼ Ø YŒŁ ¼ªﬁ Å Æ*Å åæØ B æ Æ, $bæ *ø vac

½ºø ø , x , MC&CC, MHC; ø, x , edd. pr. jj YŒŁ ¼ªﬁ Å, MC&CC; YŒŁ ¼ªﬁ Å, edd. pr.

78 ½H æÆªø º c Ø Łø. . ll. 78–81, §34. 75 bc

78 lØ i ªB K Æ N ' #Å^ ŒÆa e ª øæıåØŒe K ªÅÆØ, $bæ B ªB Æ*Å Œ ıH , K x i ÆP^c $æåﬁ Å, $bæ B ªB, MC&CC; $bæ ½B ªB, edd. pr. jj ÆP^c, MC&CC; ÆP c , edd. pr.

79 ½HØ º#ÅØ Øø ŒÆe º æø I

æØÆ

ÆæÆ: º E $bæ H æÆªø *ø º c Oç Øº Łø: K Ø $ Æ *Ø ŒÆÆØø, MC&CC; Ø ø, edd. pr. jj

ÆæÆ: º E, Ferrary (1999) 10;

ÆæÆ· º E, edd. pr.

^ c 80 ½ åﬁB ÆFÆ a Œ *Å ºøØ ^ÅæHØ u c^ ªB ^ Ææ åŁBÆØ, ‹ i qØ ŒÆ åÅ , *ı › º# ^ ^Å HØ ÆæÆŒÇØ ØºF vac å ø, ½ÆFÆ a Œ *Å, JLF; ½ÆFÆ a ºEÆ, edd. pr.

Translations

57

ll. 74–78, §33. 75 bc 74 Whatever persons [or whatever things] a publicanus from Asia into Asia imports or exports (i.e., within Asia), in relation to anything on which the consuls L. Octavius and C. Aurelius leased out the telos (tax), on this [he is] not [to pay] telos (portorium), on a ship and the equipment of a ship and on slaves and on everyone male or female, whom they bring from home or send for, on books, [tablets and everything] on which there is writing, and on anything by which they are maintained, and on animals which anyone brings from home for the sake of this journey, on these [things] he is not to pay telos (portorium). ll. 78–81, §34. 75 bc 78 Whatever ore is exported from Asia to Rome according to the lex on mining, on this ore and on the vessels in which it is contained, they are to [give the collector] four asses per hundred pounds; more in telos is not to be owed on these things. If anyone in contravention of these provisions [holds up these vessels] with wrongful deceit, so that the ore is not transported, then the collector is to be liable to the shipper for double the amount which has been held up; ll. 74–78, §33. 75 bc 74 quos [quaeque] publicanus ex Asia in Asiam importabit exportabit, eius uectigalis causa quod L. Octauius C. Aurelius cos. locauerunt, pro eis portorium ne [dato,] pro naue siue quid nauis ornandae causa factum erit (?), proue seruis eo eaue quem quam domo secum ducent arcessent (?), pro libris, [tabulis], quibusue scriptum expressum erit, proue uictu, proue animalibus (?) quae domo eius itineris causa secum ducent, pro eis [rebus] portorium ne dato. ll. 78–81, §34. 75 bc 78 si quid metallum ex Asia Romam ex lege metallis dicta exportabitur, pro eo metallo proque vasculis quibus continebitur, [portitori] pro centum libris quattuor asses [danto;] neue amplius pro eis rebus debitum esto; si quis aduersus ea [haec uascula] dolo malo [retinebit,] quo minus metallum transportetur, portitor ei qui id transportabit duplum eius quod retentum erit dare debeto,

58

Text and Translations, ll. 81–85

81 ½ŒÆd F åæ)Æ *ı K^ å*æı ºBłØ ø ŒØøE E a ª øæ*åØÆ MæªºÆ!ÅŒ Ø. . ½ŒÆd F åæ)Æ, JLF; ½ŒÆd F æªÆ, edd. pr.

ll. 81–83, §35. 75 bc 81 lØ i å#æÆ $e ª#^ ÅØ j K ı ÆØ F ' øÆø )ı $æåﬁ Å, ª#^ÅØ, MC&CC; ª#ﬁ Å, edd. pr.

82 ½R i j L ¼ Ø KŒ B å#æÆ Æ*Å j NŒÆ æe c^ NÆ åæB Ø, N å#æÆ <Æ*Å> j NŒÆ æe c^ NÆ åæB Ø K ªﬁ Å j N ªﬁ Å, $bæ *ı º N ÆªøªB ŒÆd vac å#æÆ, MC&CC; å#æÆ, edd. pr. jj N å#æÆ <Æ*Å> j NŒÆ Œº., MHC; N å#æÆ j NŒÆ Œº., edd. pr.

83 ½K ÆªøªB c Ø Łø. . ½K ÆªøªB c Ø Łø, Nicolet (1999) 196; ½K ÆªøªB c Øø, edd. pr.

ll. 83–84, §36. 75 bc 83 R KŒ ıŁ)ŒÅ ª ^ Å ^ a ' øÆø º K ÆªøªB j N ÆªøªB Øø æÆªø ØÆØ P E, yØ *ø H æÆª ø

P E, MC&CC; P E, edd. pr. jj æÆª ø , MC&CC; æ Æ ª ½ø, edd. pr.

84 ½HØ Å Ø#ÅØ º c Øø Æ. . ll. 84–87, §37. 72 bc

84 ¸*ŒØ ˆººØ, ˆÆE ¸º oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ· n ¼ Ø æe c^ NÆ åæB Ø N Æ*Å^ c^ å#æÆ j c ºØ w vac w, MC&CC; w½, edd. pr.

85 ½º Ø Æ ÆPe ÆØ N ªﬁ Å ŒıŒº *ø N ŒÇﬁ Å, $bæ *ı º c Øø: ‹ i K KŒ ^Å B å#æÆ j B º ø, w º Ø Æ ÆPe PŒ ÆØ, vac

Translations

59

81 [and] there is to be the right to seizure of a pledge in this [matter] to the partners who have accepted the contract for the mines. ll. 81–83, §35. 75 bc 81 Whatever land is under the dicio or potestas of the Roman people, [whomsoever or whatsoever anyone] exports [from] this land from home for private use, or imports to land to home for private use, [he is not to pay] telos on this on import and [export.] ll. 83–84, §36. 75 bc 83 Whoever according to a treaty made with the Romans is not obliged to pay telos on export and import on certain things, they are [not] to pay [telos to the publicanus] on these things. ll. 84–87, §37. 72 bc 84 The consuls L. Gellius and Cn. Lentulus added: whatever anyone imports for private use into the land or the city [to which he belongs] or conveys in in the course of transit, he is not to pay telos on it; and whatever [imports or] conveys in from a land or a city to which he does not belong, 81 eius[que rei] sociis qui operas in metallis dederunt pignoris capio esto. ll. 81–83, §35. 75 bc 81 quicumque ager in dicione potestate populi Romani erit, [quos quaeue quis ex] eo agro domo usus priuati causa exportabit, in <eum> agrum domum usus priuati causa importabit, pro ea re portorium importationis [exportationisue ne dato.] ll. 83–84, §36. 75 bc 83 pro quibus rebus quis ex foedere cum populo Romano facto portorium exportationis importationisue dare non debebit, pro eis rebus [portorium publicano ne danto.] ll. 84–87, §37. 72 bc 84 L. Gellius Cn. Lentulus cos. addiderunt: quodcumque quis usus priuati causa in eum agrum inue eam ciuitatem [cuius ciuitatis erit] importauerit circumuectionisue causa inuexerit, pro ea re portorium ne dato; quodque cumque ex eo agro exue ea ciuitate cuius ciuitatis non erit

60

Text and Translations, ll. 86–91

86 ½ Y N ªﬁ Å Y N ŒÇﬁ Å, IªæÆç Łø ŒÆd $bæ *ı º ØÆØ Oç Øºø· ŒÆd *ı F æªÆ u æ H ºØH æÆªø Iªøªc ŒÆd K å*½ Y N ªﬁ Å Y N ŒÇﬁ Å, MHC, MC&CC; ½ŒıŒº *ø N ªﬁ Å N ŒÇﬁ Å, edd. pr.

87 ½æı ºBłØ ø . . ll. 87–88, §38. 72 bc 87 n ¼ Ø ŒÆa F e IªæłÅÆØ, ŒÆa c^ ^Å Ø F æªÆ *ı HØ º#^ÅØ º Pºı øfØg: Ka oø c Ø) ﬁ Å, ﬁH ØºﬁH Pºı øfØg, MC&CC; Pºı øfØg, edd. pr.

88 ½º Ø ø, ŒÆd F æªÆ *ı HØ º#^ÅØ IªøªcfØg ŒÆd K^ å*æı ºBłØ ø. . Ø ø, MC&CC; Øø, edd. pr. jj º#^ÅØ, MC&CC; º#ﬁ Å, edd. pr.

ll. 88–96, §39. 17 bc 88 ˆœ *æØ, ˆœ ØºÆe oÆØ æ ŁÅ^ŒÆ· Æ¥Ø^ º Ø EÆØ 89 ½ŒÆd –ØÆ Ł^Å ŒÆd ¥Ø ½B N Ø ø ØØŒ) ø<> ¯ ç Æ ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø ØºÅ Æ ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø <ºØŒÆæÆ

Æ ŒÆd ø ØØŒ)- vac ØØŒ) ø ¯ ç Æ, lapis, edd. pr.

90 ½ ø ıæÆÆ ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø — æªÆÅ^B ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø æÆıØŒB ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø ' ¯ ººÅ Æ ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø ÆæØÆ^B 91 ½ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø ˚Ø!ıæÆØŒB ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø ÆÅ^B ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø ıÆØŒB ŒÆd ø ØØŒ) ø ¸ıŒÆØŒB, N ^ c ÆPÆd IªæÆ N Ø

ØØŒ) ø ˚Ø!ıæÆØŒB, MC&CC; ØØŒ) ø ˚Ø!ıæÆ Ø ŒB, edd. pr. jj ØØŒ) ø ıÆØŒB, MC&CC; ØØŒ) ø½ ıÆØŒB, edd. pr. jj N ^ c ÆPÆd, MC&CC; N <ŒÆd> ÆyÆØ, MHC&JMR; ½N ÆPÆd, edd. pr.

Translations

61

86 he is to register it and is to be obliged to pay telos on it; and [there is to be] ductio and [the right to seizure] of a pledge in this case as in other cases.

ll. 87–88, §38. 72 bc 87 Whatever anyone registers according to this lex, he is to discharge the telos to the collector according to the valuation of it; if he does not act in this way, [he is to pay telos] on double the amount, and the collector is to have ductio and the right to seizure of a pledge in this matter. ll. 88–96, §39. 17 bc 88 The consuls C. Furnius and C. Silanus added: whichever politeiai and [whichever peoples] and whichever communities there are outside the formula of the diocese of Ephesus and outside the formula of the diocese of Miletus and outside the formula of the diocese of Halicarnassus and outside the formula of the diocese [of Smyrna] and outside the formula of the diocese of Pergamum and outside the formula of the diocese of Adramytium and outside the formula of the diocese of the Hellespont and outside the formula of the diocese of Sardis [and outside the formula of the diocese] of Cibyra and outside the formula of the diocese of Apamea and outside the formula of the diocese of Synnada and outside the formula of the diocese of Lycaonia, if they are fora [for jurisdiction; 86

[importauerit siue] inuexerit, proWtemino proque ea re portorium dare debeto; deque ea re ducere pignusque [capere] ita uti aliis de rebus [liceto.]

ll. 87–88, §38. 72 bc 87 quodcumque quis ex hac lege in tabulas referet, portorium ex aestimatione eius rei portitori soluito; qui secus minusue fecerit, dupli [portorium dato] portitorique ducere pignusque capere de ea re liceto. ll. 88–96, §39. 17 bc 88 C. Furnius C. Silanus cos. addiderunt: quaecumque ciuitates [quaeque cumque tribus] quique cumque uici extra formulam conuentus Ephesi extraque formulam conuentus Mileti extraque formulam conuentus Halicarnassi extraque formulam conuentus [Smyrnae] extraque formulam conuentus Pergami extraque formulam conuentus Adramytii extraque formulam conuentus Hellesponti extraque formulam conuentus Sardis [extraque formulam conuentus] Cibyrae extraque formulam conuentus Apameae extraque formulam conuentus Synnadae extraque formulam conuentus Lycaoniae, <et> si fora [iuri dicundo] sunt;

62

Text and Translations, ll. 92–98

92 ½ØŒH, Y *ø H ØØŒ) ø º Ø, Ł^Å, BØ øØ j )ı Œıæ# Ø j ıªŒº)ı ªÆØ j åæØ<Ø> `PŒææ ˚Æ Ææ !Æ F ÅÆæ½ØŒH, Y , MHC; ½ØŒH, N KŒe, edd. pr. jj åæØ<Ø> corr. OS; åæØ, lapis.

93 ½åØŒB K ı Æ, ¥ Æ ^) ½ K^e H Nø ‹æø º ØH Ø ) Ke H Nø ‹æø ææ# æ Æø OŒg ÆæÆçıºÆŒc åø Ø, $ ^ æÅ^ÆØ, K ı Æ, ¥ Æ ^ ) ½ K^e, MC&CC; K ı Æ, ¥ Æ ½) Ke, edd. pr. jj $ ^ æÅ^ÆØ, MC&CC; $ æ ÅÆØ, edd. pr.

94 ½ Y ØØŒ) ø K ½ ﬁ Æ H æª ªæÆ^ø æÆØ N d KÆæå ÆØ æ ^ <> ^ ÅÆØ, ÆyÆØ Æƒ º Ø EÆØ ŒÆd ÆFÆ a ŁÅ ŒÆd yØ ƒ B^Ø º vac ½ Y ØØŒ) ø, MHC; ½ N KŒe ØØŒ) ø, edd. pr. jj ø, MC&CC; ^ ø, edd. pr. jj K ½ ﬁ Æ, MC&CC; K ½ ÆØ, edd. pr. jj — ˇ ˝¯¯ ^ ˙¯˝`&, lapis.

95 ½Ke H Nø ‹æø ½P # ı Ø h ÆæÆçıºÆŒc^ ÆŒææøfØg Æø OŒg KØ ÆØ· E ‹æØ, ¥Ø ›æF Ø E oø $ ﬁ ÅæÅ^Ø, 96 ½› Å Ø#Å ŒÆŁa ½K KÆæå ÆØ ÆØ ºı N æ ø åæØ ÆæÆçıºÆŒa ŒÆŁØ ø ŒÆd ºÅ N æÆ

ø ‰ ŒÆa F e E. vac ll. 96–98 (§ 40). 17 bc 96 ƒ 97 ½ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· z æÆªø ˇPÅøØ —øººøØ

ıªŒº)ı ªÆØ I^º ØÆ ÆØ, ‹^ ﬁø i º E ÅÆæø ıæø, *ø H æÆªø e æ ŁÅŒÆ, MC&CC; æ ŁÅŒÆ, edd. pr.

98 ½

ÆæÆŒ e æ HØ Å Ø#^ÅØ Ł) ÆØ. .

Translations

63

92 and whichever] cities, peoples, or communities of these dioceses have been excepted by lex or plebiscite or decree of the senate or by the favour of Imperator Caesar Augustus, possessed of tribunician power, so that they should not pay telos [within] their own boundaries or have a guard-post further within their own boundaries than eight stades; 94 [and (whichever cities etc.) of the dioceses] in [Asia] listed above have been assigned to another province, these politeiai and these peoples and these communities will [not] pay telos or receive a guard-post further in than eight stades [within their own] boundaries; and in the territories which border on those thus excepted, [the publicanus] is to establish guard-posts for the exaction of telos as [in] the province of Asia and is to exact tele as is necessary according to this lex. ll. 96–98, §40. 17 bc 96 [The same (consuls) added]: for whichever things immunity has been granted to Vedius Pollio by decree of the senate, on the amount they are worth more than 10,000 denarii, the [fortieth] part on these things will be given to the publicanus. 92 [quaeque cumque] eorum conuentuum ciuitates tribus uici lege plebeiue scito senatusue consulto indulgentiaue Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti, tribunicia potestate, ne [in]tra Wnes suos portorium dent neue intra Wnes suos plus quam mille passus custodiam habeant, excepti erunt; 94 eorum[que conuentuum] in [Asia] qui supra scripti sunt [si quae] alterae prouinciae attributae erunt, eae ciuitates eaeque tribus eique uici [intra] Wnes [suos] portorium [non] dabunt neque custodiam longius quam mille passus accipient, inque eis Wnibus qui conWnes (?) erunt eis qui ita excepti erunt, [publicanus] ita uti [in] prouincia Asia portorii exigendi causa custodias habeto portoriumque exigito ita uti ex hac lege oportebit. ll. 96–98, §40. 17 bc 96 [iidem addiderunt:] quarum rerum immunitas senatus consulto Vedio Pollioni data est, quanto plus quam decem milia denarium erunt, pro his rebus [quadrigesima] publicano dabitur.

64

Text and Translations

Figure 9 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 73–99, left side

Figure 11 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 99–125, left side

Text and Translations

Figure 10 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 73–99, right side

Figure 12 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 99–125, right side

65

66

Text and Translations, ll. 98–103

ll. 98–99, § 41. 17 bc 98 ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· $bæ øø Œ ^Å Œ çÆºB º E F K HØ Ø ıÅØŒHØ øØ vac 99 ½ºı ª ªæÆı M çÆºØ ^ı N ÆªøªB ^b Å^æØÆ * lØ ı . K ÆªøªB b Å^æØ £ › Å Ø#^Å ºÆ!Æ^ø. . › Å Ø#Å ºÆ!Æø, MHC; › Å Ø#Å ºÆ!Æø, edd. pr.

ll. 99–101, §42. 17 bc 99 ƒ ÆPd 100 ½æ ŁÅŒÆ· › Å Ø#^Å › Ææa F )ı c H ºH IæÆ Ø KæªºÆ!) Æ, zØ i Ø ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ ÅÆØ, NE ˇŒø!æÆØ ıæÆØ Å Ø#^Å, MC&CC; Å Ø#Å, edd. pr. jj ÅÆØ, MC&CC; ÅÆØ, edd. pr.

101 ½æe HØ ÆNæÆæ øØ Ø ıºı E Oç Øºø, ŒÆd E ºØE Ø ›ø NE ˇŒø!æÆØ ŒÆŁ ,ŒÆ . . ½æe HØ ÆNæÆæ øØ, MHC; ½HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæøØ, edd. pr. jj ÆNæÆæ øØ, MC&CC; ÆNæÆæøØ, edd. pr.

ll. 101–103, §43. 17 bc 101 ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· Å Ø#102 ½Å › c H º H Y æÆ Ø KæªºÆ!) Æ æÆØ d ŒÆd KªÆØ Å ﬁ Æ ØØŒ Æ ø KØŒæ Ø ˆÆ%ı ıæı, ˆÆ%ı ØºÆF $ø j H º H, MC&CC; ºH, edd. pr.

103 ½æ #ø F ÆNæÆæı æÆÅªH: + æŁ Æ F åæ)Æ Nd &ÆıæØÆØ æHÆØ. .

Translations

67

ll. 98–99, §41. 17 bc 98 The same (consuls) added: for slaves the publicanus is <not> to receive more [telos] for each head than is [recorded] and prescribed in the lex censoria, two and a half denarii for import and one denarius for export. ll. 99–101, §42. 17 bc 99 The same (consuls) [added: the] publicanus who has accepted the contract from the people for the exaction of the tele, in whatever year he accepts the exploitation, he is to be obliged to discharge (his obligation) [at the aerarium] on the next but one Ides of October and likewise in the following years on the Ides of October in each year. ll. 101–103, §43. 17 bc 101 The same (consuls) added: the publicanus [who] has accepted the contract for [the] exaction [of the tele] is publicly to give security with praedes and praedia at the discretion of the consuls C. Furnius and C. Silanus, or of the praetors [in charge of the] aerarium; the appointed day for the aVair is the next Ides of January. ll. 98–99, §41. 17 bc 98 iidem addiderunt: pro seruis pro capite uno plus [portorii] quam quod in lege censoria [scriptum] cautumque est ne accipito, importationis sestertios decem, exportationis sestertios quattuor. ll. 99–101, §42. 17 bc 99 iidem [addiderunt:] qui publicanus operas in portoriis exigendis apud populum dederit, quo anno ea fruenda acceperit, [apud aerarium] Id. Oct. secundis itemque annis sequentibus quotannis Id. Oct. soluere debeto. ll. 101–103, §43. 17 bc 101 iidem addiderunt: [qui] publicanus operas in [portoriis] exigendis dederit, praedibus praediis arbitratu C. Furni C. Silani cos. populo satis dato, praetorumue qui aerario [praerunt,] eiusque rei Id. Ian. proximae constitutae (?) sunto.

68

Text and Translations, ll. 103–109

ll. 103–105, §44. 12 bc 103 —ºØ ıºŒØ ˚ıØæ E, ¸*ŒØ ˇPºªØ vac ˚ıØæ E, lapis: error of the redactor for ˚ıØæ Ø, OS jj ¸*ŒØ ˇPºªØ, lapis: error of the redactor for ˆœ ˇPºªØ, OS.

104 ½' Fç oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ· º ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ ŒÆd ŒÆa ªB N ÆªøªB ŒÆd K ÆªøªB Ke ‹æø ŒÆd ºØ^ø ØŒÆ !Æ B æø $ ½ 105 ½ﬁ )æÅÆØ, ¥ Æ Å + I ØŒÆ ÆoÅ ŒÆæ *ÅÆØ· a ºØa ŒÆa e . . I ØŒÆ, MC&CC; IØŒÆ, edd. pr.

ll. 105–109, §45. 12 bc 105 n i Ææa F )ı c ºøÆ Ø Ł# ÅÆØ, *øØ æªı K^ æØ d æªı, MC&CC; æªªı, edd. pr.

106 ½+æÆØ ÆE ªªØ Æ Æx i Ø Ł# ÅÆØ Kç +H Iºº ÆØ K ÆØ, ) › æªªı c^ Å ØøÆ Æ*Å ŒÆæ ı Łø æd j KªÆØ ŒÆd 107 ½ÆPŁÅØ HØ )øØ æd KªªÆø I çÆº Æ ŁÆØ KØŒæ Ø —ºı ıºØŒı ˚ıØæ ı, ˆÆ%ı ˇPÆºªı ' *çı $ø ŒÆd H æ #ø

½ÆPŁÅØ HØ )øØ, MHC; ½IÆåØ ﬁH )øØ, edd. pr.; OS, cf. Heil (1991) 17. jj )øØ æd, MC&CC; )øØ æd, edd. pr. jj ˚ıØæ ı, lapis: error of the redactor for ˚ıØæ Øı, OS jj æ #ø , MC&CC; æ #ø, edd. pr. jj $ø ŒÆd H æ #ø, error of the redactor for $ø j H æ #ø, OS.

108 ½F ÆNæÆæı æÆÅªH· ŒÆd › K ÅªæÆŒg Ie NH &ÆıÆæø æ#ø Kd Å B ŒÆæ ı Łø· a ºØa ŒÆa e ÆPe ŒÆæ ı Łø, MC&CC; ŒÆ æ ı Łø, edd. pr.

109 ½Œ ı ı.

Translations

69

ll. 103–105, §44. 12 bc 103 [The consuls] P. Sulpicius Quirinus and Valgius [Rufus] added: the telos on import and export by sea and land within the boundaries and harbours of Colonia Augusta Troas [has been excepted, in order that the] colony itself [alone] may exploit (it); the rest (is to be) according to the lex. ll. 105–109, §45. 12 bc 105 Whoever accepts the contract for the exaction of telos from the people, he will be able to change his magister in our presence in the three [days following] that on which he accepts, and the magister is not to exploit this uectigal before providing security with praedia and [a cognitor] in relation to the praedia [to the people,] at the discretion of the consuls P. Sulpicius Quirinus and C. Valgius Rufus, or of [the praetors] in charge of [the aerarium;] and the person who has accepted the contract is to exploit for Wve years in succession from the next Ides of January; the rest (is to be) according to the same lex [in each year.] ll. 103–105, §44. 12 bc 103 P. Sulpicius Quirinus Valgius [Rufus cos.] addiderunt: portorium importationis exportationisque terra marique intra Wnes portusque Coloniae Augustae Troadis [exceptum est, quo magis] colonia ipsa [sola] fruatur; cetera ex lege. ll. 105–109, §45. 12 bc 105 quicumque portorium conductum a populo habebit, ei apud nos magistrum suYcere in [diebus proximis] tribus a quo die conduxerit licebit, eique magistro ei uectigali frui ne liceto, antequam praediis [cognitoreque] de praediis [populo] cauerit, arbitratu P. Sulpici Quirini C. Valgi RuW cos. [praetorumue] qui [aerario] praerunt; isque qui redemerit per quinque annos continuos ab Id. Ian. proximis frui debeto; cetera [quotannis] ex eadem lege.

70

Text and Translations, ll. 109–114

ll. 109–110, §46. 7 bc ¸ *ŒØ ˚Æº*æØ — ø 109 ½Ø!æØ ˚ºÆ*Ø ˝æø e !, oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ· K +æÆØ YŒ Ø ÆE ªªØ Æ e ÆPŁ^Å½ ¸ *ŒØ ˚Æº*æØ — ø: our text has replaced the praenomen Gnaeus with the praenomen Lucius after the condemnation of Piso in AD 20, cf. Eck (1990) 139.

110 ½Iºº ÆØ K ø. ½Iºº ÆØ K ø, MW; ½Iºº ÆØ K ÆØ, edd. pr.

ll. 110–112, §47. 7 bc 110 ½› Å Ø#Å › c ºø Æ Ø Łø IÆåØ ŒÆd KªÆØ HØ )øØ I çÆºØÇ Łø KØŒæ Ø Ø! æı ˚ºÆıı ½› Å Ø#Å, edd. pr.; MW; ½› b Å Ø#Å (?), MHC.

¸ ıŒı ˚Æºıæı — ø $ø ŒÆd 111 ½˝æø e !, H æ #ø F ÆNæÆæı ¼åæØ F ÆºF ‹ ı i c Å ØøÆ KæªºÆ- vac ˚ Æºıæı, MC&CC; ˚Æºıæı, edd. pr. jj $ø ŒÆd H æ #ø, error of the redactor for $ø j H æ #ø, OS jj ¼åæØ F ÆºF, MC&CC; ¼å æØ F Æ º F , edd. pr.

112 ½!) ﬁ Å Œ ı ı ŒÆd Ie NH &ÆıÆæø æ#ø E B Ø ŒÆæ ı Łø· a ºØa ŒÆa e ÆPe Œ ı ı. vac Œ ı ı, MW; ŒÆŁ ,ŒÆ , edd. pr. jj ŒÆ is now lost on the stone, but was read by edd. pr. and is visible on the latex squeeze (MC&CC) jj a ºØa ŒÆa e, MC&CC; a ºØa Œ Æ a e, edd. pr.

ll. 113–114, §48. 2 bc 113 ½¸ *ŒØ ˚ÆØ ˆºº, ˚œ Æ!æŒØ oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ· K Ø æd H ºH *ø æe Å Ø#Å j K½æ ıŁBÆØ, vac *ø æe Å Ø#Å j K½æ, MC&CC; * ø æ e Å Ø#Å j K ½æ, edd. pr.

114 ½F ŒÆØ ŒÆd Ø øfØg. .

½F ŒÆØ ŒÆd, MHC; ½n i KŒ ø IªÆŁB ªÅÆØ, edd. pr.

Translations

71

ll. 109–110, §46. 7 bc 109 The consuls Ti. Claudius Nero, for the second time, and Calpurnius Piso added: [it is to be possible to change] the cognitor in the twenty days following. ll. 110–112, §47. 7 bc 110 [The] publicanus who has accepted the contract for the exaction of telos is to provide security to the people with praedes and praedia at the discretion of the consuls Ti. Claudius [Nero, for the second time, and ] Calpurnius Piso, or of those in charge of the aerarium, up to Wve times the amount for which he has accepted the contract for the uectigal [for any one year;] and he is to exploit for Wve years in succession from the next Ides of January; the rest (is to be) according to the same lex in each year. ll. 113–114, §48. 2 bc 113 The consuls [L. Caninius Ga]llus and Q. Fabricius added: if anyone makes a pactio concerning these tele with the publicanus or the [procurator,] it is to be [binding and] lawful. ll. 109–110, §46. 7 bc 109 Ti. Claudius Nero II Calpurnius Piso cos. addiderunt: cognitorem in diebus proximis uiginti [suYcere liceto.] ll. 110–112, §47. 7 bc 110 [qui] publicanus portorium conductum habebit, quanti operas in uectigali (exigendo) dederit, quinquies usque tanti (?) praedibus praediis populo caueto, arbitratu Ti. Claudi [Neronis II ] Calpurnii Pisonis cos., quiue aerario praerunt, perque quinque annos continuos ab Id. Ian. proximis frui debeto; cetera quotannis ex eadem lege. ll. 113–114, §48. 2 bc 113 [L. Caninius Ga]llus Q. Fabricius cos. addiderunt: si quis pactionem de eis portoriis cum publicano procuratoreue fecerit, [id ius] ratumque esto.

72

Text and Translations, ll. 114–119

ll. 114–115, §49. 2 bc 114 ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· n i ŒÆa F e K^½åıæ ½ºÅçŁﬁ ÅÐ F K + ½æÆØ æØŒÆ K½åıæ ½ºÅçŁﬁ ÅÐ , MC&CC; ½ºÅçŁﬁB K ½ å*æ Ø , edd. pr.

115 ½ÆE ªªØ Æ Æx i ºÅçŁﬁB Ka c KØºıŁﬁB, F K åıæ Æ ø. . ½ÆE ªªØ Æ Æx i ºÅçŁBØ, MW; ½ÆE ªªØ Æ KØºıŁ)ø, ŒÆd, edd. pr.

ll. 115–117, §50. ad 5 115 ¸ *ŒØ ˇPÆºæØ ˇPº , ˆÆE ˚ Æ ª oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ· 116 ½Ka 12 KŒ F ı *ı IçØ !)Å Ø ªÅÆØ, $bæ Æ*Å æÆÅªF F ØŒÆØF Æ f ' øÆø ŒÆd Iºº Ł½H ½Ka 12 KŒ F ı, MW, who also suggests ½K Ø Å Ø#ÅØ KŒ F ð?Þ ı or ½K Ø æe Å Ø#Å KŒ F ð?Þ ı; ½›Æ 7 æd F ı, edd. pr. jj ØŒÆØF Æ f, MC&CC; ØŒÆØF Æ f, edd. pr.

117 ½ØŒÆ F ŒæØH ð?Þ Ø ø. .

½ØŒÆ F ŒæØH (?), MHC; or perhaps ½ØŒÆØ Æ, ŒæØF ØŒÆ H; ½Øªø Ø IªøªB, edd. pr.

ll. 117–122, §§51–52. ad 5 117 ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· n i ıŒØ Fº j *ºÅ N KÆæå Æ Æ N ªﬁ Å j K ªﬁ Å, æe ½

*ºÅ N KÆæå Æ, MC&CC; *º Å N KÆæå Æ, edd. pr. jj K ªﬁ Å, æe ½, MC&CC; K ªﬁ Å, æ ½e, edd. pr.

118 ½e Å Ø#Å j e Kæ ÆPF IªæÆç Łø, Ææa *øØ, n i çÆ æH K HØ ºøø Øﬁ q æª ªæÆ, K x i Ø Å Kæ , MC&CC; Kæ, edd. pr. jj ºøø Ø, MC&CC; ºø ø Ø , edd. pr. jj Å -, MC&CC; Å-, edd. pr.

119 ½ Ø#ﬁ Å KŒØ åæØ ºøÆ $æåﬁ Å, ŒÆd e HÆ F BØ H ŒØøH çæÆª EØ çæ ÆªØ Łb K Æªø ŒÆ d N Æªø: Ka K HØ ºø ºøÆ, MC&CC; ºøÆ, edd. pr. jj $bæ ºøÆ, MHC jj çæÆª EØ

çæ ÆªØ Łb K Æªø ŒÆ d, MC&CC; çæÆª EØ çæ Æ ªØ Łb K Æªø Œ Æd, edd. pr.

Translations

73

ll. 114–115, §49. 2 bc 114

The same (consuls) added: whatever may be seized as a pledge according to this lex, if it is not redeemed in the thirty days [following its seizure,] it is to belong to the person who seized it.

ll. 115–117, §50. ad 5 115

The consuls L. Valerius Volesus and Cn. Cinna Magnus added: [if - - -] there is a dispute [arising out of] this lex, the right to grant [iudex or recuperatores] concerning it is to belong to the praetor inter peregrinos.

ll. 117–122, §51–52. ad 5 117

The same (consuls) added: whoever imports a new male or female slave into the province of Asia, or exports him or her, is to register (him or her) with [the publicanus or] his [procurator,] with the person whose name is clearly displayed on the customs-oYce, in whatever places the publicanus has [a building for the sake of] exaction of telos, and he is to export or import this slave branded with the brand of the socii; if [neither the publicanus nor] the procurator is in the customs-oYce, then he is to register (the slave) in the nearest city, with the person who holds the highest oYce.

ll. 114–115, §49. 2 bc 114

iidem addiderunt: quodcumque ex hac lege pignoris nomine captum erit, si diebus [proximis] triginta [a quo die captum erit] redemptum non erit, eius qui ceperit esto.

ll. 115–117, §50. ad 5 115

L. Valerius Volesus Cn. Cinna Magnus cos. addiderunt: [si - - -] ex hace lege controuersia erit, [iudicis recuperatorumue] de ea re praetori qui inter peregrinos ius dicet datio esto.

ll. 117–122, §51–52. ad 5 117

iidem addiderunt: qui seruum seruam nouicium nouiciam in prouinciam Asiam importabit, exportabit, eum eam apud [publicanum procuratoremue] eius in tabulas referto, apud eum qui in teloneo ita uti de plano recte legi possit (?) propositus erit, quibus locis publicanus [aediWcium] portorii exigendi [causa] habebit, eumque seruum sociorum stigmate inscriptum exportato importato; si [neque publicanus neque] procurator in teloneo erit, tum quae urbs propius erit, qui ibi maximam potestatem habebit, apud eum in tabulas referto.

74

Text and Translations, ll. 120–125

120 ½øØ ) Å Ø#Å ) K æ $æåﬁ Å, K BØ ªªØ Æ º Ø, n i c ª Å Iæ åc åﬁ Å, Ææa *øØ IªæÆç Łø: . ƒ vac K æ, MC&CC; Kæ, edd. pr. jj Iæ åc åﬁ Å, Ææa *øØ, MC&CC; Iæåc åﬁ Å, Æ æa * øØ, edd. pr.

121 ½ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· n i ı ŒØ Fº j *ºÅ ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N Æªªﬁ Å ŒÆd K Æªªﬁ Å, K Y Å ø ‰ Æ d ŒÆa ªB N )ªÆª

ı ŒØ, MC&CC; ıŒ Ø, edd. pr. jj n i ıŒ Ø, MW; ‹Æ Ø ıŒ Ø, edd. pr.; K Ø ıŒ Ø, Solin (1991) 183 jj K Y Å, MC&CC; K Y Å , edd. pr.

122 ½ŒÆd K )ªÆª , ¥Æ ŒÆd › ÆPe –Æ e N Æª#ªØ ﬁH. vac

½ŒÆd K )ªÆª , ¥Æ ŒÆd › ÆPe, MHC; ½ŒÆd F ıØŒı *ºı j *ºÅ, edd. pr.

ll. 122–123, §53. ad 5 122 ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· › ŒªåıºøØ O æøØ NåŁ*Ø ŁÆºÆ

øØ ÆæHØ åæ# e 123 ½ 15 æ ºı Øø. . ½ 25 Øø, MW; ½ 15 æ ºı Øø, edd. pr.

ll. 123–124, §54. ad 5 123 ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ, e ÆPŁÅ Kd H Œ ı ı K ø æÆÅªH K EÆØ IººŒ ı ı , MC&CC; Œ ı ı, edd. pr.

124 ½ ÆØ.

ll. 124–126, §55. ad 5 124 ½ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· › c ºøÆ K Æªæ Æ IÆåØ ŒÆd KªÆØ HØ )^øØ ØØŒÆ ø KØŒæ Ø ¸ ıŒı ˇPÆº æı ˇPº ı, vac ½ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· › c ºøÆ, MHC; ½› Å Ø#Å › c ºøÆ, edd. pr.

125 ½ˆÆı ˚Æ ªı $ø j H æÆÅªH H æ #ø F ÆNæÆæı ¼åæØ F ÆºF ‹ ı i c^ Å ØøÆ ŒÆæ ıŁÅ ^ Å^ K Æªæ ½ ﬁ Å

æÆÅªH, MC&CC; æÆÅªH, edd. pr. jj ŒÆd H æÆÅªH, edd. pr. jj K Æªæ ½ ﬁ Å, MC&CC; K Æªæ -, edd. pr.

Translations

75

120 The [same (consuls) added: whoever] imports or exports a new male or female slave by sea, it is to be exactly as if he imported [or exported (the slave)] by land, [in order that the same person] may pay the import duty once and for all. ll. 122–123, §53. ad 5 122 The same (consuls) added: the worker of fresh purple shell Wsh from the sea is to pay the [??? part as telos.] ll. 123–124, §54. ad 5 123 The same (consuls) added, that it was to be possible to change the cognitor in the presence of whoever were to be praetors in each year. ll. 124–126, §55. ad 5 124 [The same (consuls) added: whoever] has accepted the contract for [the exaction of telos,] is to provide security to the people with praedes and praedia at the discretion of [the consuls] L. Valerius Volesus and [Cn. Cinna Magnus, or] of the praetors in charge of the aerarium, up to Wve times the amount for which he has accepted the contract for the exploitation of the uectigal 120 [iidem addiderunt: qui] seruum seruam nouicium nouiciam mari importabit exportabit, siremps lex esto quasi terra importasset [exportasset, ita uti idem] dum semel portorium soluat. ll. 122–123, §53. ad 5 122 iidem addiderunt: qui piscem nouum conchylium muricem maritimum quaeret, [??? partem portorii causa] dato. ll. 123–124, §54. ad 5 123 iidem addiderunt, quicumque quotannis praetores essent, apud eos cognitorem suYcere licere. ll. 124–126, §55. ad 5 124 [iidem addiderunt: qui id portorium] conductum habebit, quanti uectigal fruendum [in annum] conduxerit, quinquies usque tanti (?) praedibus praediis populo satis dato, arbitratu L. Valeri Volesi [Cn. Cinnae Magni cos.,] praetorum[ue] qui aerario praerunt,

76

Text and Translations, ll. 126–132

126 ½ŒÆŁ ,ŒÆ · ŒÆd Ie NH &ÆıÆæø H ªªØ Æ K ^ ø Ø B ŒÆæ ı Łø· vac a ºØa ŒÆa e ÆPe Œ ı ı. vac ll. 125–6: K Æªæ ½ ﬁ Å j ŒÆŁ ,ŒÆ Œº., MC&CC; K Æªæ j½ ﬁ Å ŒÆŁ ,ŒÆ Œº., edd. pr.

ll. 127–128, §56. ad 8 or 14 127 ½ 32 oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ· n i c^ Å^ ØøÆ Æ*Å^ Ø Ł# ÅÆØ, Ie NH &ÆıÆæø æ#ø Kd ÅfØg B vac ½ 32 oÆØ, MW, MC&CC; ½ 33 oÆØ, edd. pr. jj B, MC&CC; B, edd. pr.

128 ½ ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ Oç Øºø· a ºØa ŒÆa e ÆPe Œ ı ı. vac ll. 128–133, §57. ad 8 or 14 128 ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ· æd z `PŒæøæ ˚ÆE Ææ !Æ e KŒæ Ø , 129 ½— æªÆÅH 24 HØ ŒØHØ B< > Æ OÆØ Ææ ÆPF ÆNÅ Æø, IBŒ j IªæÆł , ‹ø HØ, MC&CC; HØ, edd. pr. jj ½— æªÆÅH 23 HØ, MW; ½æ ! ıH Iº ØÆ ' øÆø !Æ H HØ, edd. pr. jj ˙&` lapis.

130 ½ 25 ŒÆa ÅæÆ Iº ØÆ $æåﬁ Å + æH æØŒÆ, z KŒæ Ø E æ ! ıÆE IBŒ j IªæÆł , vac

ÅæÆ, MC&CC; ÅæÆ, edd. pr. jj ½ 25 ŒÆa ÅæÆ, MW; ½— æªﬁø ŒÆa c H ' øÆø !Æ H ÅæÆ, edd. pr. jj æØŒÆ, z KŒæ Ø , MC&CC; æØŒÆ, ½y KŒæ Ø , edd. pr.

131 ½‹ø 27 ` I º ﬁ Æ F ºØ *ı $ ÆØæBÆØ, ) Ø $bæ F N ÆåŁ j N åŁ ºı OÆ½‹ø K KŒ ÆØ ÆE +æÆØ ŒÆd ¯ºÆÆ or ½‹ø ŒÆa c ÅæÆ ŒÆd ¯ºÆÆ, edd. pr.; ½‹ø - - - a N Æª Æ –Æ Æ, MHC, exempli gratia jj `, MC&CC; ¯ºÆÆ, edd. pr jj $ ÆØæBÆØ, MC&CC; $ ÆØæB Æ Ø , edd. pr.

132 ½Ø 26 ) KŒ E, y ŒÆa e B Å ØøÆ + Iªøªc ÆØ, $bæ F K KŒ ÆØ ÆE +æÆØ N ÆåŁ

½Ø 26 ) KŒ E, MW; ½Ø j ¼ººı Øe ØÆØ Oç Øºø ) KŒ E, edd. pr.

Translations

77

126 [for any one year; and] he is to exploit for Wve years in succession [from] the next [Ides of January;] the rest (is to be) according to the same lex in each year. ll. 127–128, §56. ad 8 or 14 127 The consuls [??? ???] added: whoever accepts the contract for this uectigal, [he is to be obliged to exploit] for [Wve] years in succession from the next Ides of January; [the rest] (is to be) according to the same lex in each year. ll. 128–133, §57. ad 8 or 14 128 The same (consuls) added: concerning what Imperator Caesar Augustus decided, when [the Pergamenes] requested [immunity for the Romaia Sebasta] from him in the common name of Asia, and conceded or replied, in order that [at Pergamum on the occasion of the] Wve yearly festival [of the Romaia Sebasta] there should be immunity for thirty days, (and concerning) what he decided and conceded or replied to the ambassadors, [in order that everything imported or carried in (?)] should be excepted (from this lex) by means of the immunity of that harbour, neither is anyone [to be obliged to pay anything on those days (?)] by way of telos on what is imported or carried in [nor] is the person who has the contract for the uectigal according to the lex to exact [anything as telos] on what is imported on those days 126 per[que] quinque annos continuos [ab Id. Ian.] proximis frui debeto; cetera quotannis ex eadem lege. ll. 127–128, §56. ad 8 or 14 127 [??? ???] cos. addiderunt: quicumque id vectigal conductum habebit, per [quinque] annos continuos ab Id. Ian. proximis [frui debeto; cetera] quotannis ex eadem lege. ll. 128–133, §57. ad 8 or 14 128 iidem addiderunt: quae Imperator Caesar Augustus decreuit, [Pergamenis ludis Romanis Augustis immunitatem] ab eo communi nomine Asiae petentibus, concesssit rescripsit, uti [Pergami] ludis quinquennalibus [Romanis Augustis] per dies triginta immunitas esset, quae(que) legatis decreuit concessit rescripsit, [ita uti quae importata illata essent (?)] immunitate eius portus exciperentur, neue quis [quid per eos dies (?)] pro eo quod importabitur illatum erit portorii nomine [dare debeto neue] is cui e lege vectigalis (exigendi (?)) conductio erit [portorium] pro eo quod eis diebus importabitur

78

Text and Translations, ll. 133–138

133 ½j N åŁ 20 º N æÆ

ø· a ºØa ŒÆa e ÆPe Œ ı ı. . ½j N åŁ 20 º, MW; ½j N åŁ 18 º c, edd. pr. jj ÆPe, MC&CC; ÆP e, edd. pr.

ll. 133–135, §58. ad 19 133 AæŒ ØºÆ, ¸ *ŒØ ˝øæ!A ˝øæ!A , MC&CC; ˝øæ!A, edd. pr.

134 ½oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ· › c ºø Æ Ø Łø Ie NH &ÆıÆæø æ#ø Kd Å B ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ Oç Øºø· ŒÆd K +æÆØ ÆPHØ ŒÆ › c ºø Æ Ø Łø MC&CC; › c Å ØøÆ Ø Łø edd. pr. jj ] Ie, MC&CC; I e, edd. pr.

135 ½ÆE ªªØ Æ Æx i Ø Ł# ÅÆØ Kd H æÆÅªH e æªı Iºº ÆØ K ø· a ºØa ŒÆa e ÆPe Œ ı ı. .

æÆÅªH e æªı, MC&CC; æÆÅªH e æªªı, edd. pr. jj Œ ı, MC&CC; Œ ı, edd. pr.

ll. 135–138, §59. Date unknown (ad 37?) 135 ˆœ½ 136 ½—Ø — æ#Ø ˝ØªæE, ˆÆE Œ ææ#Ø —æŒº oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ· › Ø Łø Ø E B c Å ØøÆ ½F

Œ ææ#Ø —æŒº, MC&CC; Œ ææ#Ø — æŒº, edd. pr. jj B c Å ØøÆ ½F, MC&CC; B c Å ØøÆ F, edd. pr.

137 ½ºı B Æ, u æ ÆPc ŒÆa F e ^ Ø Łø ^ Å q, oø ŒÆæ ı Łø Kç ﬁz + Iæåc B Ø Ł# ø Æ Ø' Nd &ÆıæØÆØ Æƒ ªªØ Æ

^ Ø Łø^ Å, MC&CC; Ø ŁøÅ, edd. pr. jj ªªØ Æ , MC&CC; ªªØ ½Æ, edd. pr.

138 ½ ÆØ: MHC adds ÆØ after ªªØ Æ; § 59 should then include ll. 135–138 instead of ll. 135–137 in the editio princeps.

Translations

79

133 [or carried in or - - -]; the rest (is to be) according to the same lex in each year. ll. 133–135, §58. ad 19 133 [The consuls] M. Silanus and L. Norbanus [added: the person who has accepted the contract for the exaction of telos] is to be obliged to exploit for Wve years in succession from the next Ides of January; and it is to be possible for him to change the magister [in the presence of the praetors] in the ten days [following that on which he has accepted the contract;] the rest (is to be) according to the same lex in each year. ll. 135–138, §59. Date unknown (ad 37?) 135 The consuls C. [Pontius Petronius Nigrinus and Cn. Acerronius] Proclus added: the person who has accepted the contract for the uectigal of the [telos of Asia] for the next Wve years, [as it] has been accepted [according to this lex], so is he to exploit, in such a way that the beginning of the acceptance [shall be] the next Ides of January. 133 [inferetur - - -] exigito; cetera quotannis ex eadem lege. ll. 133–135, §58. ad 19 133 M. Silanus L. Norbanus [cos. addiderunt: qui portorium conductum habebit,] per quinque annos continuos ab Id. Ian. proximis frui debeto; eique [apud praetores] magistrum suYcere in diebus [proximis] decem [a quo die conduxerit] liceto; cetera quotannis ex eadem lege. ll. 135–138, §59. Date unknown (ad 37?) 135 C. [Pontius Petronius Nigrinus Cn. Acerronius] Proclus cos. addiderunt: qui vectigal [portorii Asiae] per quinque annos proximos conductum habebit, [uti ex hac lege] conductum erit, ita frui debeto, ita uti ab Id. Ian. principium locationi sit (?).

80

Text and Translations, ll. 138–143

ll. 138–139, §60. ad 42 or 43(?) 138 ½ 30 !Æ e oÆ æ ŁÅŒ · n i Æ*Å^ c Å ØøÆ Ø Ł# ÅÆØ, y *øØ HØ øØ vac !Æ e, DR; , MC&CC; :Ø, æØ or , edd. pr. jj y, MC&CC; ﬄı, edd. pr. _

139 ½ŒÆd *Ø E Œ çÆºÆØ (?) åæ# ÆPc c^ Ø Łø^Å^^ Ø B ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ Oç Øºø· a ºØa ŒÆa e ÆPe . . vac

c^, MC&CC; c, edd. pr. jj ½ŒÆd *Ø E Œ çÆºÆØ åæ# c Å ØøÆ c, Pleket (1989 [1992]) n 1180, 386; [ + 16 åæ# c Å ØøÆ c, MHC.

ll. 140–143, §61. Date unknown (ad 42 or 47?) 140 ½ 37 oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ· › c^ Å ØøÆ F ºı B Æ Ø Łø HØ ÆPHØ øØ ŒÆd Œ çÆºÆ- vac oÆØ, edd. pr.; MC&CC.

141 ½Ø E ÆPE åæ# 15 c Ø Łø^Å^ ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ Oç Øºø oø Kç ﬁz + Iæåc B Ø Ł# ø Æ*Å ÆæÆÅæÅŁﬁB Ie NH vac ll. 140–141: Œ çÆºÆj½Ø E ÆPE åæ# 15 c Ø Łø^Å^, MC&CC, following BL; Œ çÆºÆj½Ø E ÆPE åæ# ‰ › æe ÆPF ÆPc c Ø ŁøÅ, edd. pr.; Œ çÆºÆj½Ø E ÆPE åæ# c Å ØøÆ c Ø ŁøÅ, Ferrary (1991) 414.

142 ½ &ÆıÆæø H ªªØ Æ K ø Kd Å B · ŒÆd *øØ e æªªı K +æÆØ æØŒÆ ÆE ªªØ Æ, K Æx i › N e ÆNææØ B, MC&CC; B, edd. pr. jj æØŒÆ, MC&CC; æ Ø ŒÆ, edd. pr.

143 ½e æªªı Ææa E æÆÅªE $Ł Ł ÆØ Œ º ½* ÅØ, æe HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæøØ Iºº ÆØ K ÆØ· a ºØa ŒÆa e ÆPe ı Œ ı. .

½e æªªı Ææa E æÆÅªE $Ł ŁÆØ Œ º ½ı ÅØ, MC&CC; [ - - - + 35 - - - I Æº ½d jfØg (?), MHC; ½e æªªı Œ º *ﬁ Å $Ł ŁÆØ E I d æÆÅª E , edd. pr. jj K ÆØ, MC&CC; Ø, edd. pr.

Translations

81

ll. 138–139, §60. ad 42 or 43(?) 138 The consul [Ti. Claudius Caesar Augu]stus added: whoever has accepted the contract for this uectigal, he is to be obliged to exploit [it] once it has been accepted for Wve years in succession [obeying] this lex [and these chapters(?);] the rest (is to be) according to the same lex. ll. 140–143, §61. Date unknown (ad 42 or 47?) 140 [The consuls ??? ???] added: the person who has accepted the contract for the uectigal of the telos of Asia is to be obliged to exploit [the uectigal (?) that] has been leased, [obeying] the same lex and [the same] chapters, in such a way that the beginning of this acceptance is observed as [the next] Ides [of January, for] Wve [years in succession;] and it will be possible for him to change the magister at the aerarium Saturni, in the thirty days following that on which the lex [orders the (name of the) magister to be deposited in the presence of the quaestors;] the rest (is to be) according to the same lex in each year. ll. 138–139, §60. ad 42 or 43(?) 138 [Ti. Claudius Caesar Augu]stus cos. addidit: quicumque id uectigal conductum habebit, is per quinque annos proximos [eo] conducto frui debeto, [ita uti] huic legi [hisque capitibus (?) pareat;] cetera ex eadem lege. ll. 140–143, §61. Date unknown (ad 42 or 47?) 140 [??? ??? cos.] addiderunt: qui uectigal portorii Asiae conductum habebit, is [eo] conducto frui debeto, ita uti eidem legi [eisdemque] capitibus [pareat,] principiumque huius locationi ab Id. [Ian. proximis perque annos] quinque [proximos] sit (?); eique magistrum, in diebus proximis triginta a quo die lex apud aerarium [magistrum apud quaestores referre (?) iusserit,] apud aerarium Saturni suYcere licebit; cetera quotannis ex eadem lege.

82

Text and Translations, ll. 138–143

ll. 144–147, §62. ad 62 144 ½¸*ŒØ ˚Æº*æØ — ø, `sº ˜ıŒØ ˆØ, `sº —œ —Æıºº E KØ ºÅÆd H Å ø æ ø æ ŁÅŒÆ· › Ø Łø I½e ½¸ *ŒØ ˚Æº*æØ — ø, OS jj `sº —œ, MC&CC; `sº — E, edd. pr. jj —Æıºfºg E, MC.

145 ½F )ı Æ*Å c Å ØøÆ æe 9 H &ÆıÆæø Œø ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ Oç Øºø ‰ › æe ÆPF æªªı j x e æAªÆ F ½ ll. 144–145: or I½e j F )ı Æ*Å c Kªª*Å Ø æe 12 H, following in both cases the suggestions of the edd. pr. jj H &ÆıÆæø, MC&CC; æe ˚ÆºÆH &ÆıÆæø or æe NH &ÆıÆæø, edd. pr.

146 ½º Ø 11 ŒÆd ¼åæØ F ÆºF KŒ ı F Œ çÆºÆı y ŒÆŁ ,ŒÆ KØÆıe KØ Ł# Æ ŒÆa c ˝æø !Æ F ˆ æ ½ÆØŒF

ll. 145–146: e æAªÆ F ½ jº Ø 11 ŒÆd ¼åæØ F ÆºF KŒ ı, MC&CC, following BL, MHC; e æAªÆ F ½Kªjªı Æ ŁÆØ ŒØ· ŒÆd ¼åæØ F ÆºF KŒ ı, edd. pr. jj ˆ æ ½ÆØŒF, MC&CC; ˆ æ½ÆØŒF, edd. pr.

147 ½ 9 KŒæØ Ø ŒÆd KØ ºÅH H æ ø Å ø $Ł ŁÆØ Oç Øºø. æ ø , MC&CC; æ ø, edd. pr.

ll. 147–149, §63. ad 62 147 K Ø IçØ !)Å Ø ªÅÆØ Æ f F ` ½- - - 148 ½ 42 KØæøØ ˝æø !Æ F HØ B KÆæå Æ IçÅªıøØ — ˇ&˝`& ˇ ½- - -

ll. 147–148: perhaps something like Æ* ½Å c ºøjÆ Ø Łø Æı ŒÆ Ø c KÆæå Æ KØŒF, edd. pr. jj — ˇ&˝`& ˇ ½- - -, MC&CC, MHC&JMR; æ Å Æ [ - - - ] or æe m i .[ - - - ], edd. pr.

149 ½ 44 ÆØ. .

Translations

83

ll. 144–147, §62. ad 62 144 [L. Calpurnius Piso, A. Ducinius Geminus, A.] Pompeius Paulinus, curatores of the public revenues, added: the person who has accepted the contract from [the people for this uectigal] is to be obliged to exploit [- - -] from the eleventh [day before the Kalends (?)] of January, as on his behalf the magister or those to whom [this] aVair [has been entrusted decide (?)]; and he is to be obliged to give security for [up to Wve times] the sum for which he has accepted the contract for any one year, at the [discretion] of Nero Augustus Germanicus [and of the curatores] of the public [revenues.] ll. 147–149, §63. ad 62 147 If any dispute arises between the person [- - -, before the] procurator of Nero Augustus who is in charge of the province, to which (?) [- - -]

ll. 144–147, §62. ad 62 144 [L. Calpurnius Piso, A. Ducinius Geminus, A.] Pompeius Paullinus, curatores publicorum uectigalium, addiderunt: qui [id uectigal a populo] conductum habebit, is eo frui debeto [a.d.] xi [Kal. (?)] Ian., ita uti pro eo magister quibusue haec res [mandata erit uolent (?);] quantique in annum conduxerit, quinquies usque tanti (?) cauere debeto, [arbitratu] Neronis Augusti Germanici [curatorumque] publicorum [uectigalium.] ll. 147–149, §63. ad 62 147 si quae controuersia erit inter eum [- - -, apud] procuratorem Neronis Augusti qui ei prouinciae praerit quo (?) [- - -]

84

Text and Translations, ll. 149–155

ll. 149–154, §64. ad 62 149 › c Å ØøÆ Æ*Å^ Ø Łø y ‹ åæ½ - - - 150 ½ 41 Å Ø#Å ŒÆ) Å <j> ŒÆÆ) Ø j Y Ø ºøØ ÅæHØ F KØ ½æı - - -

½ 41 Å Ø#Å MC&CC; ½ 45 Ø#Å, edd. pr. jj ŒÆ) Å <j> ŒÆÆ) Ø j, MC&CC; ŒÆ Å Å Œ Æ Æ Å ØÅ, edd. pr. jj F KØ ½æı - - - , MC&CC, following MHC.

151 ½ 47 ı › Å Ø#^Å º)ł ÆØ Ka Ææa e Kø Å ½ - - - Perhaps a comma or a full stop before Ka, BL jj Å ½ - - - , MC&CC; Å:½ - - - , edd. pr.; perhaps Å ½ Ø#Å - - - , BL.

152 ½ 48 KØ ºÅH H Å ø æ ø + Øªø Ø ½ ø ð?Þ - - - KØ ºÅH, MC&CC; KØ º Å H , edd. pr. jj + (or jÞ Øªø Ø ½ ø ð?Þ - - - , MC&CC; ØÆ . . . [ - - - ], edd. pr.

153 ½ 58 ::¯ ˝ `& j ºøØ ÅæHØ Ø ÆPH ½ - - - ½ 58 ¯ ˝ `& j, MC&CC; [ + 61 ]IH, edd. pr. jj ÆPH ½, MHC; ÆP ½ - - , MC&CC; ÆP ½ - - - , edd. pr.

154 ½ 62 ` ı ‰ ˇ..[ - - - ]

½ 62 ` ı ‰ ::½ - - - , MC&CC; [ + 65 ] ø Ø ı½ - - - , edd. pr.

155 [ - - - ] . . . . . . [ - - - ]

Translations

85

l. 149–154, §64. ad 62 149 The person who has accepted the contract for this uectigal, for as long as [- - -] 150 [- - -] shall sue or shall have sued the publicanus, or if anything by the wrongful deceit of the procurator [- - -] 151 [- - -] the publicanus shall take (?) if contrary to (?) the previous publicanus [- - -] 152 [- - -] of the curatores of the public revenues the adjudication [- - -] 153 [- - -] or if by the wrongful deceit of any of them [- - -] 154 [- - -] of the lex [- - -] 155 [- - -] l. 149–154, §64. ad 62 149 qui id uectigal conductum habebit, quantum tempus [- - -] 150 [- - -] publicanum conueniet conuenerit, siue quid dolo malo procuratoris [- - -] 151 [- - -] publicanus capiet (?) si aduersus publicanum priorem [- - -] 152 [- - -] curatorum publicorum uectigalium iudicatio (?) [- - -] 153 [- - -] siue dolo malo cuius eorum [- - -] 154 [- - -] legis [- - -] 155 [- - -]

86

Text and Translations

Figure 13 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 120–155, left side

Figure 14 Monumentum Ephesenum, ll. 120–155, right side

Commentary

This page intentionally left blank

Commentary Praescriptum 1–7 The lex portorii Asiae is introduced by seven lines which form its praescriptum. This prescript may be divided into two parts. From 1 to the punctuation mark in the middle of 3 are indicated when, where, and from which documents a copy of the lex was established, probably in Latin, to be sent at a later stage to Ephesus, where a Greek translation was produced and then inscribed on stone. From the middle of 3 to 7 the praescriptum provides us with the archive reference of the original document copied, that is the lex portorii Asiae itself, of which the text starts immediately after this introduction. For the whole procedure, see the commentary on the praescriptum, M. Corbier below, pp. 212–16, and D. Rathbone below, p. 268, n. 49. 1 Despite Nicolet’s suggestion, 1990, 681–3, 9 July ad 62 is neither the date of the publication of this document nor that of its sending to the province of Asia, but the date when a Latin copy of it was received in the record oYce of the curatores of the public revenues (cf. Rathbone loc. cit.). The subsequent translation of this Latin copy into Greek was probably done at Ephesus. Although our text does not indicate precisely when the Latin copy left Rome, it is reasonable to think that this happened not long after 9 July. At the time of copying, the suVect consuls Q. Manlius Tarquitius Saturninus and P. Petronius Niger had already assumed oYce. We know that the consules ordinarii of ad 62, P. Marius and L. AWnius Gallus, were in oYce until 22 March, but they could still have been functioning in April (Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 127 n. 32). 2–3 Several points need discussion before a possible way of restoring the text lost at the beginning of 2–3 can be suggested.

90

Commentary to ll. 2–3

2 For the lacuna here edd. pr. 39 suggest the restoration: [ - - - (NN) - - - ÆÆØ; ' #ﬁ Å. However, since ad 56 quaestors had no longer been at the head of the aerarium, having been replaced by ex-praetors bearing the title of praefecti (Tac. Ann. 13. 28. 2; Suet. Claud. 24; Dio 60. 24. 1f.; cf. Corbier, Aerarium 18; 648–50), and Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 123 n. 21, concludes that such a restoration, incorporating the names and the titles of quaestors, is impossible. The editors do not oVer any explanation for their restoration ' #Å and it is not clear how the mention of the city of Rome can Wt in this position; the restoration B &ıºÆ !Æ ØºØŒB is preferable (so also M. Corbier below, p. 214). 3 Edd. pr. restore the formula KŒª ªæÆ ŒÆd IØ! !ºÅ (descriptum et recognitum, referring to a ‘certiWed copy’). Their restoration is based (35–6) on Riccobono, FIRA 1, 47, 1–5 (ad 138); 3, 113, 4–6 (ad 113–14) and IGBulg. 4, 2236, 2–5 (ad 238). For a parallel in Greek they refer to Nolle´ 1982, no. 1, 20–2 (ad 209); see his commentary, pp. 32–8 and, for further references to Greek documents, 34 n. 48. Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 123 n. 21, points out that such an expression is normally found between the date and the mention of the archive from which the copy has been established; he adds several references to those proposed by edd. pr. 35 f.; as, for instance, Riccobono, FIRA I, 59, 2–4 (ad 69): ‘descriptum et recognitum ex codice ansato L. Helui Agrippae procons(ulis), quem protulit Cn. Egnatius j Fuscus scriba quaestorius, in quo scriptum fuit id quod infra scriptum est tabula V c(apitibus) VIII j et VIIII et X’; 3, 2, 7–12 (ad 62): ‘descriptum et recognitum ex tabulla professionum quibus j liberi nati sunt, quae tabula j proposita erat in Atrio Magno, j in qua scriptum erat id quod injfra scriptum est’; or 3. 3, 5–8 (ad 144): ‘descriptum et recognitum ex tabula albi j professionum, quibus liberi nati sunt, j quae proposita erat in Atrio Magno, in qua j scriptum fuit id quod infra scripum est’; see M. Corbier below, pp. 212–13, nn. 23–5, for other examples. This leads him to place this expression in the lacuna of 2 instead of that of 3, as previously proposed. According to Spagnuolo Vigorita the Latin original may have run as follows: (2) [descriptum et recognitum in atrio (? or in cella or in porticu, cf. Nicolet 1990, 683; Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 122)] Basilicae Iuliae in

Commentary to ll. 2–3

91

tabulario curatorum publicorum uectigalium ex tabulis (3) [censoriis (?) in quibus scriptum erat (or fuit)] quod infra scriptum est. The suggestion of starting the lacuna of 2 with [KŒª ªæÆ ŒÆd IØ! !ºÅ] is inviting, and is adopted here as the basis of the restoration of 2–3. 3 [ Ø ıÅØŒH Œº. or [æ ØŒH Œº.: Nicolet 1990, 682, and n. 22; [ÆØ ıØŒH Œº., edd. pr. 39, followed by Spagnuolo Vigorita (122 n. 20). For edd. pr. 35 the ªæÆÆçıºŒØ (tabularium) of the curators of the public revenues where these records were kept must have been in the Aerarium Saturni. Therefore, even though we are in fact dealing with ºØ Ø ıÅØŒÆ (tabulae censoriae; cf. Pliny, HN 18.3. [3]. 11), these records could have been called ºØ ÆØ ıØŒÆ (tabulae quaestoriae) (edd. pr. 35 and 40). According to Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 122, n. 20, the term could have survived even though, in ad 62, the Aerarium was no longer administered by the quaestors. In order to strengthen his argument, Spagnuolo Vigorita surprisingly refers to the ÆØÆŒÆd ºØ of the SC de Aphrodisiensibus, 2 (¼ Reynolds, Aphrodisias 57, no. 8). However, since this document probably dates from 39 bc (see Reynolds 63–5) and since, at that time, the quaestors were still at the head of the Aerarium (their Wrst replacement by ex-praetors bearing the title praefecti dates only to 28 bc: Tac. Ann. 13. 29. 2; Suet. Aug. 36; Dio 53. 2. 1; cf. Corbier, Aerarium 17), the document has nothing to contribute to the discussion. On the other hand, Nicolet 1990, 682–3, has clearly demonstrated that the tabularium of the curators of ad 62 must be located somewhere (in atrio, in cella or in porticu) within the Basilica Iulia. That means that the documents kept in it were obviously ºØ Ø ıÅØŒÆ (tabulae censoriae), as in Pliny, HN 18. 3. [3]. 11, and not ºØ ÆØ ıØŒÆ (tabulae quaestoriae). Nicolet 1990, 682 n. 22, also referring to the SC de Aphrodisiensibus, 31 (¼ Aphrodisias 58, no. 8), suggests another possible restoration: ºØ æ ØŒÆ (tabulae uectigalium). However, as he notes himself, this expression is a hapax, and [ Ø ıÅØŒH is the preferable restoration. [( . . . ) ÆNÅ ø is put forward by edd. pr. 35 and 39, in the sense of postulantibus, but they also propose (40) Œ º ı ø (iubentibus) or Ææø (praesentibus) as alternatives, suggesting a genitive absolute construction of which the subject would be KØ ºÅH

92

Commentary to ll. 2–4

H Å ø æ ø in 2. This is clearly wrong, because that phrase qualiWes K ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ and what the Greek translator of this text actually had in mind was K <HØ> ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ <HØ> KØ ºÅH H Å ø æ ø; on this question, see M. Corbier below, pp. 214–15. The original document was Wled in the tabularium (record oYce) of the curatores of the public revenues where a copy of it was authenticated. There is therefore no need to separate the words ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ and KØ ºÅH by a comma nor to Wll the lacuna of 3 with a genitive absolute construction as was done by edd. pr. Taking this into account, 2–3 might be restored and understood as follows: (2) ½KŒª ªæÆ ŒÆd IØ! !ºÅ K ' #ÅØ - - - c. 12 - - - ﬁ B &ıºÆ !Æ ØºØŒB K ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ KØ ºÅH H Å ø æ ø KŒ ºø (3) ½ Ø ıÅØŒH - - - - - - K Æx Kªª ªæÆ e $ª ªæÆ. 2 Perhaps ½ð. . .Þ K ' #ÅØ K HØ ÆNŁæøØ (?) B &ıºÆ !Æ ØºØŒB: a suggestion made by Nicolet 1990, 683, and followed by Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 122. The precise location of the tabularium of the curators in the Basilica Iulia must have been indicated somewhere in the text and the lacuna of 2 seems the place to Wnd such an indication. For a good parallel for these topographical details, indicating where a document could be found, see Camodeca’s re-reading of TH 89 (¼ FIRA 3. 5 bis, b, 1–6; 22 March ad 62) in Camodeca 1996, 172–3 (on the same text see also: Carnabuci 1996, 66–70): descriptum e [t recognitum ex] j edicto L. Seru[eni Galli] pr(aetoris) quo[d propo]jsitum erat R[omae in f]oro Aug[usto] sub j porticu Iulia a[d colum]nam [ - - - ante] j tribunal eius [in quo s]criptum e[rat id] j quod infra sc[riptum] est. In this context ½ð. . .Þ K HØ ÆNŁæøØ Wts the lacuna nicely, but there seems to be no attestation of an atrium in a basilica. The two other suggestions made by Nicolet 1990, 683, in cella (K HØ ÆHØ) and in porticu (K BØ ﬁ A) are too short for the lacuna. There is another Greek synonym for porticus, which is Æ (cf. Ginouve`s 1998, 74 and n. 6; 76 n. 38 and 158 and nn. 89 f.), and a formula such as K BØ Æ Ø would Wll the gap. There are, however, other possibilities such as, for instance, the mention of an upper Xoor ($ æﬁHØ or ªÅ), a feature that was one of the most conspicuous of this particular building (I owe this suggestion to MHC): see

Commentary to ll. 2–4

93

Platner and Ashby 1929, 79; Giuliani and Verduchi 1993, 178; Ginouve`s 1998, 7. 3 Kªª ªæÆ e $ª ªæÆ: The normal ending of such a sentence in Latin would be in quo scriptum erat/fuit id quod infra scriptum est; in that context Kªª ªæÆ is a reasonable guess. What could have preceded this expression is more diYcult to establish. We should expect a reference to the content of the censorial records, namely a reference to the work produced by the commission of three curatores appointed by Nero and the senate (cf. 3–5). As their work is clearly indicated in 5 (KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB ºH Æ), a restoration, following Nicolet, such as KŒ ºø j ½ Ø ıÅØŒH H KØø ØÅ ŒH ºH Æ K Æx Kªª ªæÆ e $ª ªæÆ, ‘from the records j [of the censors concerning the regular revenues of the dues of Asia] the text that follows [was written]’ seems plausible (for the suggested meaning of the KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB ºH Æ, see below on 5), but is unfortunately too long for the lacuna. In the text we have adopted an alternative formula suggested by MHC, KŒ ºø j ½KØ ºÅH H Å ø æ ø K Æx Kªª ªæÆ e $ª ªæÆ, which repeats the oYcial title of the three commissioners from 2, but otherwise Wts lacuna and context closely. 3–4 `hºøØ —ÅøØ —Æıºº øØ; ¸ıŒøØ ˚ÆºıæøØ — øØ; `hºøØ ˜ıŒØøØ j ½ˆ øØ KØ ºÅÆE H Å ø æ ø, edd. pr. 36 and 39: The names and function of the three ex-consuls appointed and commissioned by Nero in ad 62 to regulate the uectigalia of the Roman state: Tac. Ann. 15. 18. 3. Their names reappear once (144, §62), but on that occasion are only partially preserved. Their function is mentioned several times: it is fully preserved in 144, partially in 147 and 152, §§62 and 64. In 6 they are referred to only as H ÆPH KØ ºÅH. For their origin and careers, see Be´renger 1993, 82–100. The three commissioners are mentioned in a diVerent order in 4 and in Tac. Ann. 15. 18. 3 (L. Pisonem, Ducenium Geminum, Pompeium Paulinum; perhaps Tacitus brought forward the name of the man whose execution he had recounted in Hist. 4. 48, the best known of the three). According to Eck 1981, 227, followed by Be´renger 1993, 81 and n. 34, in an oYcial document such as our inscription, the order of names cannot

94

Commentary to ll. 4–5

be arbitrary. Therefore, the order of names of our three commissioners must correspond, as they are all ex-consuls, to their order of seniority in this function. As the second, L. Calpurnius Piso (PIR2 C294), was consul ordinarius with Nero himself in ad 57 (Degrassi 1952, 16), the consulship of the Wrst commissioner mentioned, A. Pompeius Paulinus (PIR2 P 633), must be prior to ad 57; and that of A. Ducenius Geminus (PIR2 D 201; spelt ˜ıŒØ in the lex, while Tacitus and Latin inscriptions have Ducenius) must be later than ad 57 (Eck 1981, 228); Eck 1981, 229, followed by Syme 1982, 478 ¼ 1988, 134, and Be´renger 1993, 82, proposes either ad 60 or 61. The date of the consulship of A. Pompeius Paulinus cannot be placed more precisely than before ad 55, as he was legate of the Lower German army between ad 55 and 57 (Tac. Ann. 13. 53. 1f.; cf. Eck 1981, 228 f.; Be´renger 1993, 82; 91; 98 f.); maybe ad 50, 53, or 54, according to Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 121 n. 12. However, as is shown by 144, §62, where the name of A. Pompeius Paulinus appears last (the names of the two others are lost in the lacuna), even in an oYcial document the order of names might not be as accurate as could be expected. Be´renger’s enquiry into the origin and careers of the commissioners and their family and political connections, concludes (100 f.) that the commissioners were not chosen by Nero because they were Wnancial experts, but most probably as members of his entourage; the criteria for their appointment were not all ‘subjective’; the presence of noui such as Paulinus and Ducenius shows desire for competence. However, depending on how long the curatorship lasted, it might hold up a man’s career (for consulars progress to a prestigious imperial province), and so be unwelcome; noui would be more amenable. See the cautious position of D. Rathbone below, pp. 269–70. 4 ½KØ ºÅÆE H Å ø æ ø, curatoribus uectigalium publicorum, ‘curators of the public revenues’: Be´renger (1993) 76–8, and M. Corbier below, pp. 209–10. ½KŒ ø(?) Ø Ł# ø: edd. pr. 37 restore ½ Ø ıÅØŒB Ø Ł# ø (or, according to Nicolet 1990, 685 f., ½ Ø ıÅØŒB KŒØ Ł# ø as in 29 and 42, §§12 and 17, in both cases partially restored), Latin [censoriae] locationis, citing Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 12 (aut censoria locatio constituta est, ut Asiae lege Sempronia). But DR notes

Commentary to ll. 4–5

95

that this is excluded since the locatio in this case was undertaken by the curatores: see the discussion at p. 268, n. 49 below. There should instead be a Wle reference to the lex locationis of the curatores, for which the restoration tentatively oVered here would render Latin e legibus locationis. Å ØøÆ Æ: The meaning of this word has given rise to more discussion than anything else in the text of the praescriptum. The only agreement among commentators is that this word has the same meaning in 7: edd. pr. 37 and 39; Nicolet 1990, 690; Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 124. See the note on 7 below. ŒÆ KØ! !Æø Ø: secundum approbationem according to edd. pr. 37; ex auctoritate or conWrmatum ab or ex conWrmatione for Nicolet 1990, 684 and n. 28; 698; Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 126 and n. 30, tentatively suggests ex permissu Neronis and notes that the solutions conWrmatum ab or ex conWrmatione Neronis are in the end very close to the secundum approbationem of edd. pr. As pointed out by Nicolet 1990, 684, the decision to create a commission of three curatores, as well as the choice of its members, was taken by the Emperor, a decision which was subsequently backed by the senate through a senatus consultum (5: ŒÆa ªÆ ıŒº)ı). 5 KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB ºH Æ: pascua perpetua uectigalium Asiae, edd. pr. 36 and 38. For pascua in the sense of ‘revenues’ they refer (38) to Pliny, HN 18. 3. [3.] 11 and Cic. Leg. agr. 1. 1. 3. We have here the title of the document resulting from the work of the commissioners of ad 62 (cf. 6: H ÆPH KØ ºÅH): edd. pr. 38. That this work was partly or largely based on a similar report made by T. Domitius Decidianus, quaestor of the Aerarium in the reign of Claudius, is clearly indicated in 6: K KØø ØÅ ŒH ı ˜Øı ˜ ŒØØÆF : edd. pr. 39; Nicolet 1990, 689; Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 128. These KØØÆ (pascua, ‘revenues’) are qualiWed as ØÅ ŒB, (perpetua, ‘permanent’). For edd. pr. 38 and Nicolet 1990, 687, these regulations (‘Bestimmungen’, ‘re`glements’) concerning the taxes of the province of Asia would have had a tralatician character, in the sense that they were regularly renewed without modiWcation. According to Nicolet 1990, 688f., this feature would explain why, after the previous KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB/pascua perpetua of Decidianus, quaestor of the Aerarium from ad 44 to 46 or more probably 47 (see

96

Commentary to ll. 5–6

M. Corbier, below, pp. 205–7), there would have been no supplementary consular amendments and additions to our lex until the complete revision of ad 62. Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 128–30, does not believe in the tralatician character of the KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB/pascua perpetua and contests the translation of the terms KØØÆ/pascua by ‘regulations’. According to him (129 f.), in the texts of Pliny (HN 18. 3. 3. 11) and Cicero (Leg. agr. 1. 1. 3) the term pascua is a quasisynonym of uectigalia, and so we have to translate it as ‘revenues’ or ‘income’ (‘rendite’). Those revenues are ‘permanent’ (ØÅ ŒB/perpetua) in the sense that they are ‘regular’ as opposed to occasional or extraordinary revenues. Therefore, he convincingly suggests translating the expression KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB ºH Æ/pascua perpetua uectigalium Asiae by ‘rendite permanenti dei uectigalia d’Asia’ (130). Note, however, that S. Mitchell (below, p. 167) and D. Rathbone (p. 273 n. 62) both translate KØØÆ as ‘regulations’, although for diVerent reasons and with diVerent nuances. 5–6 K j [+46].EI H ÆPH KØ ºÅH æe Ø Å ˚ÆºÆH ÆØH K KØø ØÅ ŒH ı ˜Øı ˜ ŒØØÆF , MC&CC. The new readings made from the stone for the end of 5 (where there is no space left after K for an [ Ø] suggested by edd. pr. 40), and for the beginning of 6 (where we can read either ].EI with MC&CC or ] EI. with MHC&JMR) have excluded the restoration proposed by edd. pr. for the lacuna of 6. It is nonetheless worth summarizing their argument here, as well as the debate to which it has given rise, since it has had important consequences for the interpretation not only of the praescriptum but also of the whole text. K ½ ØjºÅÆ IØ! !ºÅÆ æ Æ ªŒø HØ (clearly BØ, as suggested by Pleket 1992, 369) ıªŒº)øØ H ÆPH KØ ºÅH æe Ø Å ˚ÆºÆH ÆØH K KØø ØÅ ŒH ı ˜Øı ˜ ŒØØÆ½F, edd. pr. 40. The restoration proposed by edd. pr. could be translated as ‘[copied abstracts having been reported to the senate] by the same curators, based on the regular revenues of Titus Domitius Decidianus’. Filling the gap in 6 in this way, edd. pr. obviously understand that on 14 April, ad 62 (6: æ ØÅ ˚ÆºÆH ÆØH), the three curatores would have made a relatio of their work to the senate (6: æ Æ ªŒø BØ ıªŒº)øØ, referentibus ad senatum, edd. pr. 40). The document produced would have been an .

Commentary to ll. 5–6

97

abstract (5–6: K ½ ØºÅÆ), based on an earlier work on the same topic published by T. Domitius Decidianus (6: K KØø ØÅ ŒH ı ˜Øı ˜ ŒØØÆF , edd. pr. 39). Finally, on July 9 (1: æe Ç NH &ıºø), this document would have been approved by the Emperor and the senate (4–5: ŒÆ KØ! !Æø Ø ˝æø ( . . . ) ŒÆa ªÆ ıªŒº)ı; edd. pr. 160). This reconstruction of events has been rebutted by Nicolet 1990, 679–85, though with arguments of unequal value. He starts by suggesting that the beginning of the restoration proposed by the editors for 5–6, K ½ ØºÅÆ IØ! !ºÅÆ , should be rejected: Wrst, the restoration K ½ ØºÅÆ is arbitrary, KŒºÆ! Ø meaning ‘to receive’ and not ‘to extract’; secondly, it is inconceivable that the curators submitted only an ‘abstract’ of their work to the senate (1990, 679 n. 15). According to Nicolet, 681 n. 19, if the text presented to the senate on 14 April had been a relatio (6: [æ Æ ªŒø BØ ıªŒº)øØ]), the decision of the senate would have been taken on the same day in the same session and not on 9 July, nearly two months later. Such relationes are normally the work of emperors, consuls, praetors, or tribunes, and as we do not know if the curators commissioned by Nero were considered to be magistrates, we cannot know either if they had the right to make a relatio (1990, 684 and n. 26). Moreover, the ŒÆ KØ! !Æø Ø ˝æø of 4 and the ŒÆa ªÆ ıªŒº)ı of 5 do not refer to the work presented by the curators, but concern their nomination as members of the commission: ‘Ne´ron a pris la de´cision de de´signer ces curateurs ( . . . ) il a soumis l’aVaire au Se´nat, qui a vote´ un se´natusconsulte cre´ant cette commission et de´Wnissant ses attributions’ (1990, 684). Therefore, what the curators did was to create a lex dicta concerning the revenues of the taxes of the province of Asia, an action which was performed on 14 April, ad 62 (1990, 684–5 and n. 29). Consequently, the restoration ½æ Æ ªŒø BØ ıªŒº)øØ of 6 must be rejected; one would rather expect something like ŒÆŁØ ø or ØÆÆ ø (1990, 685). How to Wll the lacuna in 6 has become even more problematic because of the new readings suggested for the beginning of that line. If ].EI is correct, one might suggest [ + 41 KØŒæ Ø H ÆPH KØ ºÅH as a possible restoration, although it is unclear what this ‘decision’ of the curatores could refer to. Consequently no convincing

98

Commentary to ll. 6–7

restoration can be oVered, but Nicolet 1990, 684 n. 25, is certainly right to reject K j ½KØø ØÅ ŒH ( . . . )] H ÆPH KØ ºÅH. æe Ø Å ˚ÆºÆH ÆØH: As pointed out by Nicolet 1990, 684 f. (see also D. Rathbone below, p. 268 and n. 49), 14 April is the date on which the curatores Wnished their work on the uectigalia of Asia. 6–7 K KØø ØÅ ŒH ı ˜Øı ˜ ŒØØÆF : The work of the curators was partly based on the previous pascua perpetua of T. Domitius Decidianus (see above on 5). In 5, these ‘regular revenues’ are deWned as being indirect taxes of the province of Asia ( ºH Æ/uectigalium Asiae). This is in contrast with the present passage, where the ‘regular revenues’ of Decidianus are not described more precisely. Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 131 n. 44 suggests that Decidianus’ work could have covered the ‘regular revenues’ of the whole Empire or, more probably, only of the parts of the Empire still in the hands of the senate (i.e. the public provinces); on this point, see also M. Corbier below, pp. 211–12. 7 ½Æı ÆNæÆæı: Edd. pr. 40 are right to hold that the title of T. Domitius Decidianus must be concealed in the lacuna. M. Corbier below, pp. 206–7, accepts the idea of such a restoration but suggests the more complete ½Æı F ˚æı ÆNæÆæı. She also considers that the name of a colleague of Domitius Decidianus might well be hidden in the same lacuna (perhaps that of L. Coiedius Candidus). + 29] Å ØøÆ !; ª; ; . . MC&CC. The new reading made from the stone for the beginning of 7 (a sigma instead of the diphthong alpha-iota read by edd. pr.) has not been of great help in solving the irritating problem raised both by the meaning to be attributed to the word Å ØøÆ here and in 4 and, by extension, the sense to adopt for the whole sentence lost in the lacuna of 7. As will be shown, the solution Wnally chosen here remains partly unsatisfactory. With their restoration [ æd Å ØøÆ ÆKÆæå Æ Æ ŒÆ d Å ØøÆ !; ª; ; , edd. pr. 37 and 39 understand Å ØøÆ as having the general meaning of publicum (‘revenue’). In this sense, they consider that the text in 7 mentions Wve diVerent revenues (numbered Æ to ): the publicum primum would be the portorium Asiae and the others the decuma, the metalla, the scriptura, and Wnally the uicesima libertatis (this hypothesis is largely based on a faulty reading and understanding of 72–4, §§31–2; for these lines, see

Commentary to ll. 6–7

99

pp. 127–31 below). In their restoration edd. pr. suggest considering Å ØøÆ as a genitive singular and therefore understand this part of 7 as ‘[about the Wrst revenue of the province of Asia] and about the second revenue, the third, the fourth, the Wfth’. For Nicolet 1990, 691–5, Å ØøÆ does not mean publicum (‘revenue’) in our text, but can have only the speciWc sense of conductio or redemptio (‘contract’ or ‘lease’). So in 7, there can be no question of Wve diVerent revenues, as assumed by edd. pr., but rather of the Wrst lease, the second, etc., of the portorium Asiae (695–8). On this view, the publication of the KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB of Decidianus (understood as ‘re`glements permanents’) introduced a ‘continuity’ in the allocations of public contracts. Accordingly we have to understand that, from then on, the regulations (he suggests restoring in the lacuna of 7) would be valid for the Wrst lease as well as for the four following leases (695–7). So Nicolet proposes to translate the end of 7 as follows: ‘[en vue de (?) la premie`re mise a` ferme] et des mises a` ferme deux, trois, quatre, cinq’ (698), Å ØøÆ being understood as an accusative plural (697). Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 128 f., who does not believe that Decidianus could have produced ‘permanent regulations’ with his KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB, rejects this idea of a cycle of twenty-Wve years during which allocations of public contracts would have been managed without modiWcations. He believes, probably rightly, that these allocations were regulated for Wve years and were never included in a larger period of time (1996, 129). As for the meaning of Å ØøÆ in 4 and 7, he rejects Nicolet’s idea that this word could be the Greek translation of conductio or redemptio and proposes, like edd. pr., the term publicum, ‘revenue’. For 4 he suggests that Å ØøÆ Æ, ŒÅæHØ Æ, is equivalent to publici primi, cera prima and he understands publicum either in the sense of tabula (‘registro’ / ‘register’; maybe originally publici tabula / ‘register of the revenue’) or as an indication referring to the archives where the text was preserved (125). As for the Å ØøÆØ ! to of 7, he interprets them either as the numbers of the registers containing the KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB of Decidianus or as an internal indication passively reproduced by the copyist (1996, 132 and n. 47), both interpretations that he Wnds rather weak (‘ma sono ipotesi assai tenui’, n. 47); one may agree with him on this point.

100

Commentary to l. 7

Following edd. pr. and Spagnuolo Vigorita, D. Rathbone below, p. 268, n. 49, points out that, when the word Å ØøÆ occurs in other parts of our text, it always has its usual meaning (of ‘farmed revenue’, ‘tax’), cf. 106 §45; 111, §47; 125, §55; 132, §57; 136, §59; 138, §59; 140, §61; and 149, §64. In support of this argument, one might add that it would be strange to Wnd in the translation of an oYcial document the same technical term with two diVerent meanings, one of which is not attested elsewhere in the epigraphic tradition. According to Rathbone, the Å ØøÆ Æ (i.e. the primum uectigal) of 4 would have been the portorium and the Å ØøÆØ ! to of 7 the four other uectigalia of the province of Asia, the work of the curators being concerned, as is clearly shown in 5 (KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB ºH Æ), with all the uectigalia of Asia, not solely with the portorium. Rightly considering that we are dealing in 3–7 with an archive reference, he suggests understanding 6–7 as indicating that the curatores have appended the regulations for uectigalia 2–5, drawn from the pascua perpetua of Domitius Decidianus, without any amendment. Although Rathbone’s equation of Å ØøÆ/uectigal is acceptable, there are at least two diYculties for this reconstruction of 6–7: (a) as already pointed out by Nicolet 1990, 690 f. and 698, nothing except this text permits the view that only Wve uectigalia were levied in the province of Asia, and (b), as we know that the curatores emended the perpetua pascua of Decidianus for the portorium (from 144, §62 to the end of the text), there is no reason why they should not have done the same with the other farmed revenues of the province. The meaning of 6 f. is still elusive, making it diYcult to suggest any possible restorations for the lacuna at the beginning of 7. A possible way of resolving this deadlock might be to accept a restoration suggested by MHC: ŒÆ B Å ØøÆ Æ ŒÆd Å B Å ØøÆ !; ª; ; : ‘in respect of year one of the uectigal and years] two, three, four, Wve of the uectigal’, thus going back to the idea of the usual Wve years for a public contract. The text of the lex portorii Asiae itself starts after the praescriptum. 7–11, §§1–2 Scope of the lex. Nicolet’s suggestion, 1993, 946–52, that the Wrst two paragraphs of edd. pr. must be considered as forming a unit (7–11) is followed here,

Commentary to ll. 7–11

101

and needs full discussion. (The collection of tolls does not show that Asia was a ‘geschlossener Binnenmarkt’, contra edd. pr. 164.) 8–11, §2, is interpreted by edd. pr. as a kind of Bithynian preface (‘bithynische Vorspann’), which they consider as a territorial extension of the signiWcance of the lex portorii Asiae, since the publicani in charge of controlling and taxing the traYc in this region are the same as in the province of Asia. According to them (161), these additional regulations extend from 8, §2, to 22, §8. This idea of a Bithynian preface allows Heil 1991, 9–14, to develop his theory that the customs law was not restricted to the province of Asia, but included a much wider space. His argument is based on the fact that the text mentions places and cities forming part of the provinces of Bithynia (Byzantium, Calchedon, the region called Æ —ı, Hieron on the Pontus, and Dascylium: 8–11, §2; 13–15, §4; 18, §6, and 23, §9) and Cilicia-Pamphylia (Attalea, Aspendus [both restored], Perge, Magydus, Phaselis, and Side: 26, §9), and in this sense separate from the province of Asia. Moreover, in his opinion the term prouincia does not have only a territorial meaning, but can also refer to the area of competence of a magistrate (1991, 11–14). He suggests, then, that we should understand the end of 8, §1, ˚ ÆÆŒÆ, ˆÆºÆÆ, ´ ØŁıØ Æ Çø*ı Ø as a territorial deWnition by Wlling the lacuna with words such as åHæÆØ or æÅ (1991, 13 f.). A similar idea is considered by Wankel 1991, 40, who proposes Wlling the lacuna of 8 with something like ½E B KÆæå Æ ºØ Ø ŒÆd E Ø KŒ ˚ÆÆŒÆ, ˆÆºÆÆ, ´ ØŁıØ Æ Çø*ı Ø (¼ et portibus prouinciae et locis Asiam e/a Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia cingentibus; ‘and for the harbours of the province and for the places of Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia surrounding Asia’), if Çø*ı Ø is a plural participle in the dative, or with words such as Ø or º Ø as subject of Çø*ı Ø, if this word is an indicative present placed in a relative clause. These parallel ideas are contested by Nicolet, 1993, 929–59, who tries to show that this lex deals only with the territory of the province of Asia and not with a much wider area. He does not accept the idea, notably expressed by De Laet 1949, 273–7, and followed by Merkelbach 1990, 98 and Heil 1991, 11, that the limits of the Wnancial district would seldom have coincided with the geographical borders of provinces. For him, this is a conXation of two diVerent things: the

102

Commentary to ll. 7–11

territorial deWnition of a Wscal revenue, and, on the other hand, the societas publicanorum that has taken this revenue on lease or the staV that controls it (1993, 930–2). Re-examining all the documents used by Heil to support his theory, Nicolet draws the conclusion that neither the evidence of Cicero nor that of contemporary and later epigraphic documents explicitly proves that under the name portus Asiae we have to understand a tax-district (‘Zollbezirk’) including not only the province of Asia but also a part or the whole of the provinces of Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Galatia (l993, 932–41). For Nicolet (946 f.), the mention of places which were not part of the province of Asia indicates that the tax-district would have only slightly exceeded the boundaries of the province. According to Nicolet, 7–8, §1, and 8–11, §2, should not be separated, but rather form a single unit. Moreover, restoring the lacuna of 8 with ½Æ¥Ø º Ø —ÆçıºÆ, ¸ıŒÆÆ, ˚ØºØŒÆ Œº., he understands the whole passage from 8–11, §2, as an exhaustive description of the borders of the sole province of Asia (1993, 946–51). On this point Nicolet is followed by Lewis 1995, 248, who suggests that the lacuna in l. 8 might be Wlled with ¥Ø Ø instead of Æ¥Ø º Ø. Lewis 1995, 248 and n. 3, regards the restoration Æ¥Ø åHæÆØ as impossible, ‘because in ( . . . ) this inscription the import and export dues were collected only in º Ø and Ø of the provinces and the following Æ¥Ø åHæÆØ relates not to provinces but to the territorium of cities’. In Nicolet’s view (1993, 952), this reuniWed paragraph probably described the political and geographical situation of ad 62. Merola 1996, 285–90, supports and strengthens the arguments of Nicolet. She suggests that in the case of Byzantium and Calchedon, both places must be distinguished from the territory of Bithynia, and that until 75 bc at least they were considered by the Romans as free cities. However, from this date until ad 62 they were probably without this privileged status, and during this time belonged to the province of Asia. Another argument along the same lines has been added by McGing 1995, 284, who notices that the harbours of the kingdom of Bithynia are absent from 22–6, §9, which provide the list of harbours subject to the portorium Asiae. Such an absence would have been inexplicable if the lex portorii Asiae had applied to the whole province of Bithynia as well. According to Merola 1996, 291–7, the same problem of the organization of the newly conquered terri-

Commentary to ll. 7–8

103

tories and the speciWc history of the cities appears in the inscription with the mention of customs stations in Perge, Magydus, Phaselis, and Side. In her conclusion, she argues, 1996, 297, that if we accept the suggestion of Nicolet that this lex deals only with the province of Asia, and if we also agree with the idea that the customs exploitation of a territory is impossible before its provincialization, we are compelled to accept that all the territories and cities mentioned in our text as liable to the portorium of Asia must be part of the same province. (For the ideas to which the above interpretation is largely indebted, see S. Mitchell, below, pp. 167–9.) 7 ºı Æ N ÆªøªB ŒÆd K ÆªøªB ŒÆ ªB ŒÆd ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ: The title of the lex, placed in this position, constituted the heading of the whole following text. For Nicolet 1993, 949 f., the nominal sentence used as the title for the regulation stops at the end of 7 after ŁºÆ

Æ, but in the text and translation 7 has been taken with the deWning clauses in the following line, as argued persuasively by Mitchell, below, pp. 169–72. As a Latin equivalent, Nicolet, 949 n. 47, suggests lex portus (or portuum) Asiae rebus exportandis importandisque terra marique. Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 133 and n. 49 proposes the less attractive lex uectigalis Asiae rerum terra marique inferendarum et eVerendarum. The term lex, translated by in our text, does not technically designate a law here, but a set of regulations: cf. Barbieri and Tibiletti 1957, 706 and 775, and Crawford 1996, 849. What we have are ‘the regulations of the dues of Asia on import and export by land and sea’. Æ must be understood as the province of Asia, otherwise referred to in the document as KÆæå Æ Æ (96, §39, and 117, §51) or simply as KÆæå Æ (32 and 34, §13): edd. pr. 41. 8 [lØ ÆæÆÆ Æ K , ¥Ø ‹æØ ˚ ÆÆŒÆ, ˆÆºÆÆ, ´ ØŁıÆ Æ vac Çø*ı Ø, MHC. The deWnition of the speciWc geographical area concerned by the lex was probably more general than that suggested in S. Mitchell’s paper, pp. 167–93 below, and in this sense must have indicated not only the independent territories surrounding the province of Asia, but also its coastland. The adjective ÆæÆØ, used here as a substantive, reappears in 34, §13. Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia were still independent at the time of the drafting of this clause: see Mitchell, below, pp. 167 and 171;

104

Commentary to ll. 9–11

Lycia, Pamphylia, and Lycaonia should not be restored in the lacuna: see Carrelli 1996, 177–9 and Mitchell, below, pp. 167–8 and 172–8. See Merola 1996, 239 n. 153, for a statio at Amorium, near the border with Galatia. Çø*ı Ø is to be understood as the third person plural present indicative (cf. Nicolet 1993, 948), not as a dative plural of the present participle, a suggestion made by Wankel 1990, 40 and followed by S. Mitchell, below, pp. 169–71. As suggested by edd. pr. 40, cingere was the verb used in the Latin original: see Nicolet 1993, 948 f. and Mitchell, below, p. 172. 9 [B KÆæå Æ Æ ‹æø N d - - - + 12- - - B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ÆªøªB ŒÆd K ÆªøªB K ÆØ —ı. MC accepts here the Wrst part of S. Mitchell’s suggestion (below, p. 181), but rejects the second part, [ Æ , æe B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ Œº.; such a supplementary geographical indication looks rather odd and does not seem necessary in the context. A suggestion by MHC, [Œ*æØÆ N d B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ÆªøªB ŒÆd K ÆªøªB K

ÆØ —ı (‘and control the] import and export by sea at the mouth of the Black Sea’), now appears more attractive. In the text and translations, however, MHC’s preferred solution, Ke H j ½ÆPH ‹æø º#ØÆ åı Ø ºı åæØ F B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ÆªøªB, has been adopted. The words K x Ø refer to the geographical entities mentioned in 8–9 and anticipate K *Ø E Ø in 10: Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 137 n. 69. A comma has been added between K ÆØ —ı and K x Ø in the Greek text, although in the translations the transition has been marked more strongly by a semicolon. 10 [j ŒÆa )ı Œ*æø Ø, edd. pr. According to Mason, GT 32, one would expect )ı ª#Å as an equivalent for plebiscitum, but the expression )ı Œ*æø Ø is separately attested in 92, §39. The restoration ıªŒ å#æÅÆØ KØæÆÆ proposed by edd. pr. 43 and based on the Latin concessum permissumue, although coherent, now clashes with the new readings from the stone for the beginning of this line; a satisfactory solution to Wll the lacuna remains to be found, but the general meaning should be close to that proposed by edd. pr. However, as the restoration ½ º ø Æ now seems secure, it is tempting to follow a suggestion made by MHC and

Commentary to ll. 9–11

105

to restore in the lacuna in 10 ½j ŒÆa )ı Œ*æø Ø, E Ø ıc j oÆ ½ º ø Æ KŒØ ŁH ÆØ ([9] ‘in which places where, according to a decree of the senate or a law) [(10) or a plebiscite, a censor or a consul is obliged] to lease out the collection of taxes’. It should nonetheless be noted that this would be the Wrst and only mention in our text of the traditional role played by the censors in connection with the farming out of the public revenues, a role in which they are conspicuously absent throughout the whole document. 10–11 ŒÆa æÆ: By adding a comma after K ªÅÆØ edd. pr. 42 and 136 have separated ŒÆa æÆ from what precedes, considering that a new clause is introduced at this point. For the meaning to attribute to the phrase, see Mitchell, below, p. 181. Edd. pr. have proposed in their commentary (44) two possible restorations for the beginning of 11 which did not appear in their general restoration of the text: ŒÆa æÆ ½L i ¼ªÅÆØ (‘whatever could be brought to the other side’) or ŒÆa æÆ ½F Æ —ı L i ¼ªÅÆØ (‘whatever could be brought across the mouth of the Black Sea’). The second option is impossible since the clause introduced by K *Ø E Ø refers also to the territories mentioned in 8. The Wrst must also be rejected, since Solin 1991, 183, has shown that the comma before ŒÆa æÆ must be deleted and that the expression must be related to the preceding sentence. 11 At the end of the lacuna edd. pr., 42 and 136, restore ‰ Æ*ø b ŒÆd L i ŒÆa ªB KŒŒÇÅÆØ Œº. Dreher 1996, 117 n. 29, rightly points out that it would be strange if, in the case of transport by land, only exports were liable to customs duties. Imports must also have been mentioned in the lacuna of 11, and something like ½ŒÆd L i ŒÆa ªB N ŒÇÅÆØ, N ºÆ*ÅÆØ, ŒÆd L i ŒÆa ªB KŒŒÇÅÆØ Œº. might be suggested. e

ÆæÆŒ e æ: The tax levied on goods transported was Wxed at the standard rate of 2.5% of the value of the goods (46, §18, and 87, §38). The total value of the declared goods was related to their weight and to the number of separate items (45–47, §18). However, certain categories of goods had a lump sum imposed: slaves in general (98–9, §41), and slave children in particular (11–12, §3), and ore exported from the province of Asia by the farmers who leased the working of the mines (78–81, §34). Other categories were liable

106

Commentary to ll. 12–16

to special rates, such as the 5% levy on the purple shells imported by sea into the province (20, §7; 122–3, §53). 12, §3 Tax on slaves. ½$bæ øø Iæ ø j ŁÅº ø KŒe øø ÆØÆæø ŒæÆ ø: MHC has suggested that the clause speciWes a basic rate and an exception (cf. 98–9). For edd. pr. 45, citing Ulpian in Dig. 50. 15. 4. 5 f., payment of a lump sum for slaves was a practice which avoided problems for the owner, because estimating the value of such goods was extremely diYcult; but if the same dues are speciWed for all slaves, there is no point in listing categories of slaves. In addition, ÆØæØ and Œæ Ø are attested only as substantives; and ÆØæØ, except in Attic, means ‘young male slave’: young and attractive slaves could be substantially more expensive than others; 98–9 will then in part replace this clause, as also 117–22. 13–15, §4 Trade with the Black Sea. The customs control on the trade between the Black Sea and the province of Asia was concentrated in the city of Calchedon, see Mitchell, below, pp. 180–3. The clause does not have anything to do with the kingdom of Bithynia and the presence of publicani there (so edd. pr. 161). 13 Kæ: The term may express the Latin actor (so edd. pr. 85), but Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 171 f., rightly prefers the term procurator. (For the use of these terms, see Levick 1967, 224 f.) æ çø ø ŒÆd IªæÆç Łø: Declaration occurred before the customs were passed (28–9, §11). It was made at two points: the merchant Wrst announced orally (æ çø E) to the customs collector ( º#Å) or to his representative (Kæ) the goods he wanted to import or export, and then declared them in writing (ŒÆd Iªæç ŁÆØ): 22–6, §9; 28–9, §11; 30, §12; 32–6, §13; 40–2, §16; 42–5, §17; 48–50, §20; 52, §21; 70, §29; 86, §37; 117–20, §51; cf. IªæÆçø in the Myra regulations, 3 f., Wo¨rrle 1975, especially 289 n. 727. From 86, §37, onwards the verb Iªæç ŁÆØ appears alone for the declaration; according to edd. pr., 48, it corresponds to the Latin proWteri, which includes both elements of the customs declaration. The merchant had to declare the value, the

Commentary to ll. 12–16

107

number of items, and the weight of the goods transported (45–7, §18). 14 The restoration of edd. pr. 48, ½–ð æÞ ¼ Ø K —ı N c + æÆ +ª Æ N ª ŁÆØ, is too long. MC suggests – æ ¼ Ø K —ı N B KÆæå Æ N ª ŁÆØ, which Wts the size of the lacuna closely. MHC, however, rejects N B KÆæå Æ and prefers, if the lacuna of c.13–15 letters has to be Wlled, to supplement a neutral doublet ( N ŒÇ ŁÆØ, N ª ŁÆØ). 15–16, §5 Attempts at evasion of dues. This clause must concern only import by sea (contra edd. pr., 49 and 137). Every attempt by merchant ships to circumvent customs stations by sea and every unloading of a cargo in a place where taxcollectors are not represented will be considered an act of smuggling. For other regulations concerning smuggling, see 50–3, §21; 53–6, §22; 57–82, §24. 15 ½L ¼ Ø ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ªﬁ Å c e ºE, MC following a suggestion by MHC. The restoration of edd. pr. 49 (½L ¼ Ø ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N ªﬁ Å j K ªﬁ Å, c e ºE) was both faulty and too long for the lacuna. Their alternative restoration (½E æª ªæÆØ Ø ) Ø e ºE I æ çø, ‘one is [not] to divert the ship [from the places above mentioned]’) is unconvincing and ungrammatical. For I æç Ø representing the Latin auertere, edd. pr. 49 quote Tert. Adv. Marc. 5. 1. 15–16 åæØ j ½I æ) ø ºı]: Edd. pr. base their restoration on 21, §8, and 74, §32. 16 Ka $ Æ *Ø: For the restoration edd. pr. suggest as parallels 21, §8; 52, §21; and 55, §22. IÆªæÆç reappears in 53, §22 and probably also in the lacuna in 21, §8. For IÆªæÆç see Poll. 9. 31; for contraband, cf. 53, §22. 16–20, §6 Immunity of unsold goods re-exported or re-imported. As noticed by Carrelli (1996, 184 f.), the best parallel for our paragraph is provided by the tariV of Caunus, where similar clauses can be found; cf. now Marek, I.Kaunos 35, C8–D5, E1–14, with pp. 198–9. This immunity is not granted to products coming from

108

Commentary to ll. 16–21

and going to the Black Sea. Merola (1996, 265 n. 10) suggests two possible explanations for this exception. The transit of goods through the Bosporus could have been considered more as a toll than as a customs duty, or, more simply, the trade with the Black Sea has been excluded from immunity for economic reasons in order not to deprive the state of considerable revenue. On this clause see Mitchell, below, pp. 181–2. 16
Æ j ªB N ªﬁ Å, B N ÆªøªB º Øø:> $bæ y ¼ Ø æªÆ Œº., edd. pr. 49 and 137. Edd. pr. 50 restore this sentence, which they consider as missing, for the sake of parallelism with the sentence Ka ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ j ªB K ªﬁ Å, B K Æª#ªÅ º Øø of 18. However, since the two clauses contained in this paragraph are not constructed in the same way, the addition is unnecessary. If we accept the restoration proposed in ed. pr. for l. 17: ½º ﬁH º#ﬁ Å j KØæﬁH ÆPF ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ j ªB, we have all the details we need to understand the Wrst clause. It concerns the cargo imported ([16] æªÆ . . . [17] N ŒØÇı) by sea or land (17: ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ j ªB). The addition should accordingly be deleted. 18 ½ º#ÅØ . . . : : . . . : º c ØÆØ Oç Øºø Ka c KŒ —ı ºÅØ, ed. pr. 49 and 137. To Wll the gap between º#ÅØ and º, edd. pr. 51 suggested two possibilities: K ÆªøªB or N ÆªøªB; neither appears in their Wnal restoration of the text. If we accept the restoration K ÆªøªB, we have to understand that once the merchant has paid the import tax on the goods he has introduced into the province of Asia, he will not, under certain conditions, have to pay the export tax when taking out his unsold goods. However, if we restore N ÆªøªB, this time the merchant must pay both import and export taxes and it is only if he tries to reintroduce his unsold cargo into the province of Asia that, under the same conditions, a tax exemption will be granted to him. Edd. pr. Wnd both assumptions possible, but they favour the Wrst, an opinion shared by Pleket 1989 [1992] 370, no. 1180. Although the parallel regulations contained in the tariV of Caunus (I.Kaunos 35, C 9–17 and E 7–11; see Carrelli 1996, 184 f.) tend to conWrm the Wrst assumption (K ÆªøªB), MHC has rightly pointed out that the Wrst part of this clause deals only with the problem of importation, exportation being dealt with in the

Commentary to ll. 16–21

109

second part of the clause. We have therefore restored N ÆªøªB in the lacuna of 18 and have accepted his suggested restoration for 19. 20, §7 Tax on purple. For edd. pr. 53, we have here a speciWc tax on the murex paid by the user of the purple-juice. However, Heil 1991, 14, and Nicolet 1991, 468 f., argue that this tax concerns Wshermen when unloading the purple shells; this º is in fact almost a portorium. The percentage of this tax was probably increased in ad 5 (122–3, §53, but unfortunately the new amount is lost in the lacuna of 123). Therefore §53 must be considered as an updated clause, which makes the prescriptions of §7 obsolete; on the whole clause, see Carrelli 1997, 135–7. 20–2, §8 Penalties for smuggling and inaccurate declaration. These regulations come into play when someone tries to evade the customs stations, makes a false statement on the merchandise he is transporting, or even makes a mistake in his declaration (15–16, §5; 50–3, §21; 53–6, §22; 57–8, §24). In this case, the law leaves the taxcollector free either to Wne the oVenders (56–7, §23; and the Wne is Wxed at double the amount of the customs dues: 87–8, §38), seize a pledge on the goods (55–6, §22; 87–8, §38; pledges could be released within thirty days, otherwise they became property of the collector: 114–15, §49), or, as is the case here, conWscate them (46–7, §18; the clause that follows is obscure). 21 ½) Ø ºﬁø ÅæﬁH IÆªæÆç IçÆØæ ø ) KŒ ıø, MHC. The diVerent elements composing the restoration of edd. pr., ½) Ø ºﬁø ÅæﬁH IçÆØæ ø ) IÆªæÆç KŒ ıø, clearly needed to be reorganized. KŒ ıø, edd. pr. 138; in their view (54), the verb stands for the Latin deuertere/euertere. 21–2 e þØ ŒÆd e æAªÆ F j ½ º#ı ø· + 31 Æ N Æªø ŒÆd K Æªø, MHC. Edd. pr. 54 f. and 138 based their restoration, e þØ ŒÆd e æAªÆ F j ½ º#ı ø· ŒÆd $çÆØæ Ł F ºı › Iªæ Æ N Æªø ŒÆd K Æªø, on Dig. 39. 4. 11. 2 (Paul) and on 47–8, §19, but they are not relevant to the passage. In the absence of a more plausible supplement it is preferable to leave this part of the lacuna empty.

110

Commentary to ll. 22–26

The distinction between þØ and æAªÆ reappears, in full or partly restored, four times in the text (47, §18; 52–3, §21; 55, §22; 57– 8, §24). In each case edd. pr. have opted for the translation ‘betreffende Ware und Sache’ and Knibbe 2000 suggests the equivalents þØ/merx and æAªÆ/res. As indicated by Carrelli 1996, 184, in the opposition þØ - æAªÆ a distinction is established between goods which are for sale (and Carrelli prefers the Latin equivalent uenalis res to translate þØ) and those which are not, that is personal property (æAªÆ/res). As shown by Dig. 4. 9. 6, this concept of res (‘personal property’) when opposed to merx (‘merchandise’, ‘goods for sale’) could be quite extensive, excluding nonetheless the actual means of transport. For conWscation as a penalty for misconduct, see also 80, 86–7, and the Caunus document I.Kaunos 35, B 16 ( æ Ø); Brunt 1990, 359, suggests that the right to impound was one source of the extortions that Nero tried to check (Tac. Ann. 13. 50. 1). F j ½ º#ı ø: Perhaps, as J.-L. Ferrary suggests, the Latin was commissum j portitori esto, cf. the lex metalli Vipascensis (FIRA 12 no.105. 39) and [Quint.] Decl 341. 22–6, §9 Maritime customs stations. This clause gives the list of the cities of the province of Asia and elsewhere disposing of harbours where customs stations were set up and dues exacted. We have mainly accepted the restorations and commentaries of edd. pr. and deal in the commentary only with the few points of disagreement or where new developments can add to their conclusions. One should nevertheless keep in mind that, although generally plausible, the restorations of edd. pr. here remain conjectural, because, (a) although this list of cities and harbours of the coast of Asia runs more or less from north to south, this is not always the case, and the remaining parts of the text show that the geographical sequence could be quite erratic; and (b) for many places mentioned in the text these lines constitute the Wrst and only conWrmation of the presence of a customs station at their harbours (this is true both of the preserved and the restored parts of this clause). S. Mitchell has dealt extensively with this part of the text in his contribution to this volume, to which readers may refer (see also Merola 2001, 209–19). A main point of Mitchell’s argument, however,

Commentary to ll. 22–26

111

needs to be stressed from the start: this list of harbours belongs to the original period of the drafting of the lex in the 120s bc and was not subsequently revised (‘as the procedure for revising the text was to add new sections, not edit old ones’, p. 199 n. 122). This fact notably explains why certain cities (e.g. the Pamphylian ones in 26), although at a later period they formed part of other provinces, were attached to the Asian customs zone. 23 [ºØ instead of [Ø in ed. pr.; cf. Mitchell, below, pp. 169– 71, with n. 17. ' & æHØ æe HØ —øØ: See Mitchell, below, p. 180. The geographical qualiWcation is necessary, as ' & æ is a very frequent toponym (see Nolle´ 1991, 335). ººøÆØ æe HØ ' ıŒı ÆØ: See Nolle´ 1991, 339, and Mitchell, below, p. 180. 24 ıæ ÅØ: according to Nolle´ 1991, 399 f., the text here is not suYciently precise for it to be determined in which of Myrina’s harbours a customs station was set up. 24–5 ﬁB ºÆØ j [+21, ˚*ﬁ Å], SM: As Mitchell notes, below p. 199 with n. 122, the restoration in ed. pr., ﬁB ºÆØ j ½˚*ﬁ Å, F b ˚ÆØ Ææ ﬁ Æ ˚*ﬁ Å, is extremely unlikely, as it would refer to the nomenclature of the Neronian period; on this point, see also Nolle´ 1991, 334 and n. 22 and 340 f. n. 49. 25 —æØ)ÅØ æe HØ ÆØæı ÆØ: According to Nolle´ 1991, 336–8, the geographical indication æe HØ ÆØæı ÆØ is a clear proof that we are not dealing with one of the two harbours in the city of Priene itself, but with a third harbour located in its territory but situated by the sea. 26 Æº ÆØ, øØ, —æªÅØ, Æª*øØ, Æ ÅºØ, ÅØ ˚æıçBØ: See Mitchell, below, pp. 188–92. The restoration of ˚Æ*øØ by the edd. pr. between * ŒøØ and Æº ÆØ is now rejected by Marek, I.Kaunos pp. 73 [Test. 166], 200–1, 215. ÅØ ˚æıçBØ: According to Nolle´ 1991, 335 f. and 341–4, the indication ˚æıçBØ was necessary in order to distinguish this harbour from the roadstead at Manava. Another explanation might be that the qualiWcation avoids any confusion between Pamphylian Side

112

Commentary to ll. 26–31

and another Side or Sibde in Caria mentioned by Pliny, NH 5. 29. 107, and Steph. Byz. s.v. !Æ. 26–8, §10 Declaration of goods travelling by land. This is the only general statement about customs stations on land, and it presumably needs to say either that they may also be on formerly royal land, etc. or that they may not. 27 º#Ø: The word for customs house, ‘in which the customs oYcer is established’, is found in the Suda, 4. 521 Adler: K ﬁz ŒÆŁÇ ÆØ › º#Å. At Ephesus the guild of Wshermen established their own º#Ø between 54 and 59: I.Ephesos 1a, 20, with Horsley 1989. See also OGIS 525, 10 (Halicarnassus); IG XII 5, 1, 9 (Poeessa, Ceos); I.Ephesos 1503 (for Wsh). A customs station may be located in a free city, though not to make the citizens of the free city pay; compare the position of jurisdiction by a governor taking place in a free city, though not aVecting its citizens. For the Latin term statio, see Brunt 1990, 425 f. Archaeological testimonies: see, for buildings used by publicani, M. Bell 2005; id., ‘Una banca pubblica sull’agora di Morgantina?’ (forthcoming). Egyptian parallel: Piacentini 1994, esp. 46 f.; 49 and 67; Piacentini 1996, esp. 60. MHC has adopted in the translation the substance of the suggestion of Mileta 2002, 171 n. 31: ‘The following sentence ‘‘æe B å#æÆ B’’ is surely right in gist, but is too short. Judging from the photographs of the squeezes provided with the editio princeps, the lines in question have 4 to 5 letters more than calculated by Engelmann and Knibbe. Thus there is no obstacle to restoring ‘‘K E ‹æØ B å#æÆ . . . !Æ Øº Æ’’ vel sim.’ As MHC points out, edd. pr. did not oVer an explanation for their restoration æe B å#æÆ B. !Æ Øº Æ: ‘of monarchy’, rendered regius in Latin, ‘royal’. Kº ıŁæø º ø j KŁH j )ø: For other lists and the Latin originals, see 89, 92, and 94 nn.; cf. 69–72. The categories of community are more diYcult to interpret because of the preceding lacuna: most recently Merola 2001, 183–93, especially at 191–3, has discussed the view put forward at the 1999 colloquium by S. Mitchell (and see the apparatus criticus for 27) that the four categories that might carry customs posts were not mutually exclusive; that cities might be free (and so listed) or subject and subsumed in the royal land; tribes and demes might be subject (and subsumed) or independent (and so

Commentary to ll. 26–31

113

listed), but not called ‘free’ since their freedom was not the result of an agreement with Rome. In Merola’s view the list exhausts the four categories of occupation in the province. The passage is also discussed by Mitchell, below, pp. 184–7. The ŁÅ are tribes such as Lydians, Mysians, Phrygians, not organized along city lines, BØ are pre-urban communities: Merola 2001, 186 and 191, suggesting (n. 50) the translations ager regius, ciuitates liberae, tribus, vici. 28 Compare 118. The çÆ æH in the restoration is based on a standard Latin formula and seems required, although the supplement is a few letters shorter than those in the preceding and following lines: for parallels see Crawford, RS 1, 72, no. 1, 65 f., apud forum palam ubei de plano recte legi possitur. 28–9, §11 Registering to precede importation. Cf. 118; and for the question of when the tax was actually paid, see M. Corbier, below, pp. 219–23. 29–32, §12 Siting and numbers of customs houses. 29 › e º K ÅªæÆŒg K Æx i º Ø Œº.: Festus 137L deWnes the manceps (a word that can be synonymous with redemptor) as one who ‘emit conducitue’, ‘buys or leases’ something from the People; the other members of the societas simply contributed their funds. Festus’ second verb indicates, as Brunt 1990, 360 f., remarks, that the right he purchased did not give him ownership but merely enjoyment for the period stated in the contract; he could be regarded as the lessee rather than the purchaser (the language of leasing became more common in the Principate). K HØ B KŒØ Ł#j½ ø øØ: For the lex locationis, cf. the lex de insula Delo, Crawford, RS 1, 345–51, no. 22, 21 f. (58 bc); BonWglioli’s deWnition, 1996, 301, is ‘leges dictae emanate dai censori nell’esercizio di una discrezionalita` assoluta’. 30 [øØ + 8 ØÆ Æª qØ, çæØÇø ‹ø › ŒÆ: For çæØÇø ‹ø MHC suggests as parallel the use of curato ut(i) in e.g. Crawford, RS 1, 363, no. 24, 21; this is a standard Greek formula, e.g. ibid. 240, no. 12, Delphi Block B, 16. 31 æ çø) ø: As a parallel MHC suggests the æ çøBØ of 30.

114

Commentary to ll. 31–40

31–2 h K ƒ æHØ h K Ø h K j ½øØ I HØ ÆØ: Cf. 36 and 71–2, §§13 and 30; land set aside for sacred purposes is exempted from use by the customs men (¼ means ‘set free’, especially of men, animals, and land dedicated to a god). Edd. pr. cite the ‘edictum perpetuum’, Lenel 1927, 236, and Gaius, Inst. 2. 2–7 (provincial land can be ‘pro religioso’) for the restriction; see Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 61 and Carrelli 1996, 180, for the phrase as an attempt to render in loco sacro sancto religioso. 32 Ææa ÆHØ b ' ıŒøØ Æ ÆæÆçıºÆŒ): For the role of the River Rhyndacus as a customs boundary, cf. S. Mitchell, below, p. 180. Here the location of a customs post is speciWed: there must be at least one guard-post on the river; it is not a restriction. The relationship of this clause to 32–6, §13, which seems to contain the general regulations on guard-posts, is obscure: perhaps there is room in the lacuna to say that there must be two at Calchedon and Byzantium. 32–6, §13 Siting of guard-posts. These are presumably places additional to those mentioned in 29–32. The translation is paragraphed to indicate that the middle clause is an afterthought to the clause on harbours. The proposed restoration of this and the subsequent clauses is intended to avoid both contradiction and repetition. In particular, the restoration proposed by edd. pr. for the beginning of 32 seemed over-imaginative, and such a formula does not appear elsewhere in the text. It also seems unlikely that 35 speciWed either distance between customs-posts (edd. pr.: see 38–40, where this is laid down) or from other buildings (see l. 36). The interpretation thus avoids mixing positive and negative prescriptions. 33 Edd. pr. oVered a text close to the present text (citing the phrasing of 49 as a parallel) and an alternative (IªæłÅÆØ, see apparatus) more speciWc. ﬁ Å þ inWnitive is preferred on the grounds that the clause in the lacuna should express an obligation. 34 æd f Kº ıŁæı ‹æı B KÆæå Æ: ‘The free boundaries’ occur with certainty only here, but are plausibly restored in 40 and 43. It is hard to make sense of this phrase, and the interpretation of edd. pr., ‘die oVene Grenzen im Landesinnern im Gegensatz zu den

Commentary to ll. 31–40

115

Hafenorten und der Ku¨stenlinie’, is weak. At the 1999 colloquium O. van Nijf referred the phrase to the boundaries of free cities, N. Purcell to tracts of land unassigned to the province, while JLF suggested that a few words might accidentally have been omitted. However, the Latin phrase quo ire agere licet (‘where it is lawful to go and to transact business’) is a common formula to indicate a right of way that might have given rise to an error on the part of the Greek translator. 34–5 MHC’s supplement for the lacuna at the beginning of 35, although the referent of Kªª*^ æ remains conjectural. 35–6 ) j ½ﬁTŒÅﬁ q K ƒ æHØ ) K Ø ) K øØ I HØ: cf. 31–2 and 71–72. We assume, with edd. pr., that the stonecutter omitted the prescribed width for the KŒØ and supply the omission from the parallel speciWcation in 71. 35 d e ı: appears to be an intensive form of the accusative ,, rather than a dative, to be taken with the participles ﬁTŒÅ j æ<Ø> çæÆª in the same line. 36–8, §14 Use of existing buildings; distance between guard-posts. 36 The supplement for the lacuna at the beginning of the line seems a little short. 37 H ŒÆe ﬁTŒ^ Å: It is not clear how the 100 feet are related to the 90 of 36; perhaps the translator here missed the X of XC. 38–40, §15 No guard-post to be constructed outside designated places, more than 40 stades apart, nor more than four from the provincial boundaries. For further regulations on the siting of posts, see 92–6, §39. 38–9 KŒe H j ½æª ªæÆø ø: Cf. 54, §22. 40–2, §16 In the absence of the customs oYcer, declaration to be made to the senior magistrate of the nearest city. For this clause (cf. 88–96) see Merola 2001, 109–13.

116

Commentary to ll. 40–50

40 [Kº ıŁæø ‹æø]: See above, 34. 41 ‹Æ F, MHC; Ka F, edd. pr. The phrase printed in the text corresponds to tum in the Latin version (cf. OLD s.v. tum 5, citing CIL 1 584, 27). Ææa HØ . . . c ª Å Iæåc åØ: That the phrase, which is repeated in 120, designated the highest local magistrate and not, as edd. pr. supposed, a ‘leading customs oYce’ in the hands of another publicanus, was observed by Solin 1991, 183 and Nicolet, AE´ 1989, p. 222, and conWrmed by Merola 2001, 110. For other roles played by city authorities in the raising of revenue, see e.g. IG V 1, 1432 (?ad 35–44). 42–5, §17 When the guard-post is not speciWed, declaration to be made at a post of the traveller’s choice. 42 [Ka ŒÆa e B KŒ Ø Ł# ø : For guard-posts and the lex, cf. 96 and for the lex locationis 29. 43 [j K ºØØ j æd f Kº ıŁæı ‹æı B KÆæå Æ: This restoration has been preferred to [º æd f Kº ıŁæı (edd. pr.) because of the sea and land boundaries already mentioned (7). For [f Kº ıŁæı ‹æı, convincingly restored here, see on 34. 44 [Ø + 9 ºº Ø K ª Ø N ª Ø: The new reading at the beginning of the line excludes the restoration [Ø K ª Ø j N ª Ø N c KÆæå Æ in ed. pr. æe F K ª Ø j N ª Ø, æ çø ø: The addition of a comma between N ª Ø and æ çø ø is suggested by MHC; the traveller must make his choice and register before crossing the boundary. 45–7, 47–8, §§18–19 Value, weight, and quantity of goods to be estimated; penalty for omission. 45 – i ŒÆa ªB N ªﬁ Å j N ºÆ*ﬁ Å j N ŒÇﬁ Å j K ªﬁ Å j K ºÆ*ﬁ Å: Cf. the declaration of Xocks at Palmyra: Matthews 1984, 180 (on P. 145–7). 47 e æAªÆ KŒ E ŒÆd e þØ Œº.: See note on 21–2.

Commentary to ll. 40–50

117

47–8, §19 Recovery of conWscated goods. ŒÆŁºı K Ø: LSJ Suppl. (1996) translates K Ø ‘remission of dues’. Here it is in integrum restitutio, a return to the original state of aVairs (Ulp. in Dig. 4. 1. 6, and OLD s.v. integer 3b) that is in question. The original purchaser may, by paying the tax due within two days, take possession of the goods; cf. 87, §38, where discharge is made to the collector. The comma proposed in the text before Ka !*ºÅÆØ makes it clear that this procedure is at the discretion of the customs oYcer. Edd. pr. understood the clause diVerently, referring to 114–15, §49, and interpreting K Ø as licentia: ‘KonWszierte Ware wurde bis zu einer Frist von dreißig Tagen im Lager des Zollamtes verwahrt; wa¨hrend dieser Zeit konnte der alte Eigentu¨mer seine Ware auslo¨sen. Nach Ablauf dieser Frist war der Zo¨llner berechtigt, die konWszierte Ware zu vera¨ußern, welche der fru¨here Besitzer nicht ausgelo¨st hatte.’ 48 [e N ªÆ K ª Kç ﬁz e Iæª*æØ is preferred to [‹ Ø i e þØ IªæÇ Ø Łºﬁ Å, e Iæª*æØ (edd. pr.). This is a matter of common sense (MHC): because of the two-day time limit it is more probable that we are dealing here with the importer and exporter. Moreover, the earlier restoration is over-complicated. Lines 47–8 (§19) go well with 42–5 (§17), while the seizure is the subject of 45–7 (§18). 48–50, §20 Declaration of goods to be made at the nearest appropriate place to the point of transit. Cf. 122. It is important to note that this clause defends the rights of the publicanus. n ¼^ ½Ø: The surface of the stone is now damaged at this point; edd. pr. read n ¼ Ø in full, but there is suYcient space only for a ligatured nu and tau. Note the anacoluthon from n ¼^ ½Ø to [ﬁ Å] in 49–50. 50–3, §21 Goods not to pass the border at any point more than 500 feet from the station at which they have been registered; penalty for infringement. 50 ØÇÅÆØ: hapax in this text. The action alluded to, [e N ªÆ K ª Kç ﬁz e Iæª*æØ . . . (48), speciWed in 46 as [c Å Ø Ø Łø: cf. ŒÆa c Å Ø in 87.

118

Commentary to ll. 51–55

51 ÆŒæ æ H ^ÆŒ ø: it is a question why 500 feet are speciWed; it may be because it was less than a stadion, 600 feet, or because it was half-a-mile. 53–6, §22 Summary of prohibitions; penalties for infringement. The clause recapitulates or sums up bans on the fraudulent importing or exporting of goods, involving their conWscation. It raises problems concerning the nature of the oVences and the options open to the publicanus. For edd. pr., the Wrst oVence envisaged failure to declare goods, night or day, then their import or export away from places previously listed. Lines 15–16, §5, had already provided that diverting goods in order to evade payment would be subject to the same penalty as non-declaration. Considering the two clauses together is inevitable, as edd. pr. realized, though other points in their analysis may be questioned. 53–5 ) c ıŒe K!Æºº Łø, Œº.: the rationale of a prohibition on importing, etc., ‘by day or night’, envisaged in the restoration of edd. pr., is hard to understand. It is preferable to assume a ban on movement in or out of goods at night, aimed at preventing evasion. On the other hand it is impossible that Åb ŒÆa ªB should introduce a fresh ban limited to importing or exporting by land. The words are immediately followed by a series of imperatives which must form the end of the phrase including the lacuna at the beginning of 55: just after that lacuna the letters ]Æªø are clearly the end of a Wnal imperative. The ban on importing or exporting by land must be accompanied by a qualiWcation of some kind, which has its place at the head (as is the case with IÆªæÆç, ıŒ, and KŒe H æª ªæÆø ø), not among the imperatives. The words that begin with Åb ŒÆa ªB must therefore depend on [) KŒe H æª ªæÆø ø, but that means that the expression ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ was omitted by the lapicide after ø (he let his eye jump from one N to another), for the verbs K!Æºº Łø, K ÆØæ Łø, K Æªø do not themselves imply sea transport. The text proposed here may seem particularly redundant, with two series of imperatives, unequal in number, after ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ and ŒÆa ªB, but 45 seems to provide a satisfying parallel. 55–6 Ka $ Æ Ø *Ø ªÅÆØ, Œº.: The penalty for contravening this regulation is plain conWscation (cf. 47 and 52–3), but the presence of › æ in 55 led edd. pr. to suppose that the

Commentary to ll. 51–55

119

publicanus had the choice between two possibilities spelt out immediately afterwards: the lacuna at the beginning of 56 hides the Wrst and the coordinating X; the text resumes with the second possibility, seizure of the surety (pignoris capio, allowed to publicani by censorial law: Gaius, Inst. 4, 38 and 32). For reasons leading the customs oYcial to prefer other solutions to conWscation, see Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 64 n. 211: if the goods were untraceable, damaged, unsaleable or at any rate unattractive. This general interpretation has been accepted, with diVerent opinions focusing only on the word preceding X in 56; edd. pr. 85 cautiously suggested æÅ Ø, which appears elsewhere in the lex in a completely diVerent context (ºı æ ø åæØ: 21). Solin 1991 (followed by Dreher 1997, 91) has suggested Iªøª), referring to 86–7 and 88, §38, although Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 64, n. 211, objected that these two examples have Iªøªc ŒÆd (and not j) K å*æı ºBłØ. The problem of the restoration of the lacuna at the beginning of the line cannot be separated from that of the exact meaning and Latin original of Iªøª). Spagnuolo Vigorita loc. cit. sees it as a translation of actio, but the text cited for that sense (Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 27) does not seem decisive, and the translation would be clumsy. In Greek, Iªøª) implies the action of seizing something and carrying it oV. One would be tempted to see in it a translation of the Latin ductio, but JLF notes that the noun does not seem to appear in normative or juridical texts, and ducere is attested only in connection with a person: ducere aliquem in the sense of ‘seize someone’, in connection with a debtor addictus to his creditor (XII Tab. ap. Gell. 20. 1. 45; lex de Gallia Cisalpina 19, 20, 46, and 51; Cic. Pro Flacc. 48 and De Or. 2. 255). He considers two possibilities. The Wrst is that Iªøª) signiWes the action of carrying oV the goods seized (the sense that edd. pr. 85 give the word they propose, æÅ Ø; Klingenberg 1977, 43 and 53, considers æ) Ø ø (P.Oxy. 1. 36. ll. 10–12, 289 n. 33 below) as equivalent to commissum esto); this might be abductio in Latin, cf. abducere in Dig. 47. 8. 2. 20. In that case there would have been alternatives between that procedure and the seizure of the security. Admittedly, in 86 and 88, led astray by understandable confusion between -ue and -que, the translator wrote ŒÆ where X was required. The idea would be that the conWscation that was the penalty for a certain number of oVences could, at the discretion of

120

Commentary to ll. 56–58

the customs oYcial, be represented by his carrying oV the conWscated goods or proceeding to seize the surety. The second possibility is that although in 58 and 81 there is only K å*æı ºBłØ, it is the whole phrase Iªøªc ŒÆd K å*æı ºBłØ (in that case involving a hysteronproteron) that translates the Latin pignoris capio esto. Then the coordinating ŒÆ of 86 and 88 is justiWed, but it must also be introduced into the the lacuna in 56, and › æ refers to two solutions of which one, conWscation, was mentioned earlier, and the other, seizure of the security, is mentioned afterwards. MHC, however, believes that there is no objection to regarding ducere as referring to procedural ‘seizure’ of a person, which in the lex de Gallia Cisalpina is a low-level sanction (cf. RS 1, 461 no. 28, Col. II, ll. 19 f.; 46; 51); see p. 23 above. 56–8, §§23–4 The publicanus to collect dues only at the speciWed stations; penalties for infringement. Edd. pr. distinguish two clauses, the Wrst stopping at ºÆ!Æø, although there is no vacat. Rather there is a single clause, which on this occasion imposes a duty on the publicanus and envisages the possibility of taking action against him if he contravenes it. From the point of view of the person who has to make a declaration the obligations concerning the place have already been laid down and their neglect penalized in the preceding clause. The Wrst part of the clause seems to imply that the publicanus could not claim to take the tax anywhere he chose, but only in places designated for the purpose (on collection of dues, see also M. Corbier, below, p. 220). As for the second part (with a structure analogous to that of the preceding clause: cf. Ka $ Æ Ø *Ø ªÅÆØ Œº., 55, and n i $ Æ Ø *Ø º!ﬁ Å j Ø) ﬁ Å Œº., 57), the verb ºÆ! E clearly shows that it penalizes misconduct on the part of the publicanus (as edd. pr. saw; see also Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 63, already envisaging in his n. 210 that 56–8 constitute a single clause, and Dreher 1997, 92); one might have expected these lines after the exemptions from tax in the following paragraphs. The formulation adopted allowed the penalization of wrongful tolls exacted by a publicanus outside his area of competence or by anyone other than the publicanus himself or by his procurator; this seems to take account of the indeterminate n i . . . º!ﬁ Å and then Kç ﬁz Ø º!ﬁ Å.

Commentary to ll. 56–58

121

56 Å Ø#ı: Previous paragraphs consistently use the word º#Å, and Å Ø#Å appears here for the Wrst time; for a deWnition of publicanus, see Dig. 39. 4. 1. 1, and for his familia 1 pr.; the ½K ½ ½æ of 57 is his procurator (for private procurators, see Levick 1967, 225). Brunt 1990, 364, notes that the plural publicani is normally used to denote the collectors, because revenues were usually farmed by societates, but that the praetorian edict, like the lex agraria of 111 bc (Crawford, RS 1, 143, no. 2, 19 f.), refers to the publicanus. º j Ø Ł: The word Ø Ł appears only here in the text. Edd. pr. think that º j Ø Ł translates portorium mercedemue, and that merces should be understood in the sense of ‘penalty’ (so Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 63 and 65), but that seems improbable. They refer to TLL s.v., col. 797 ll. 26–35: a limited number of texts, literary and all except Livy 39. 55. 3 (temeritatis mercedem) late; they are evidence of rare and metaphorical usage. The present translation, ‘dues or fee’, implies that the customs oYcial might receive, beyond the dues, some recompense for the tasks linked to his calling (for contractors’ percentages see Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 116 and Rab. Post. 30). Carrelli 1997, 125 f. and 128 n. 25, notes that in Egyptian papyri, beyond the dues on export and import properly speaking, there are some additional fees for inspection, money-changing, costs of administration and protection (see also Rathbone below, pp. 265–6 and n. 42), and that these additional expenses also appear in Sicily in Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 181: ‘pro spectatione, pro collybo, pro cerario’, although Cicero denounces them as illegal. 57 j Ø) ﬁ Å Kç ﬁz Ø º!ﬁ Å: Edd. pr. punctuated after Ø) ﬁ Å and interpreted ‘Was einer widerrechtlich nimmt oder tut, u¨ber diese [Sache oder Ware] soll gerichtlich entschieden werden’; cf. Knibbe 2000, 162: si quis (portitor) aduersus ea aliquid accipit uel facit, quomodo quis acceperit uel quantum aduersus ea fecerit . . . But in JLF’s view, followed here in the text, what should be understood is si quis quid . . . exegerit feceritue quo quis exigat, with punctuation after º!ﬁ Å. In that case one might suspect the H that follows the second º!ﬁ Å to be a slip of the engraver (through dittography). 58 F åæ)Æ *ı: the genitive of respect before K å*æı ºBłØ ø is a possible Greek rendering of the Latin phrase in ea causa (in the translation).

122

Commentary to ll. 58–61

58–67, §§25–7 Grants of exemptions from tax. A Wrst series of exemptions seems to go as far as Øæ Œﬁ Å (62): (a) goods belonging to the Roman People (59; the interpretation of Nicolet is conWrmed by the re-reading of the stone); (b) goods transported for the religious purposes, or in the service of the res publica populi Romani (Lewis 1995) without necessarily being property of the Roman People (59); (c) goods, including food, transported for their personal use by the persons who are carriers of the Wrst two categories of goods (60); as M. Wo¨rrle has stressed, the link between (c) and (a–b) is brought into relief by the words and KŒ Å; (d) still in the category of a movement of goods made for the res publica p. R. (60–1), aes argentumue signatum, pecuniaue numerata, see below, and (e) the cargo vessel and the items of equipment that might be acquired to repair it (61–2). A point common to the items on this Wrst list is that they involve exemptions connected with service to the Roman Republic, and the clause K . . . çæÅÆØ (60–1) should probably be interpreted as limiting in that respect the exemptions that follow, $æ . . . $æ . Nothing in 59–62, then, seems to imply the least exemption in favour of a private individual, merchant or traveller. A second series of exemptions deals once again with goods (including slaves) reserved for the personal use of their owners, in the course of those movements previously mentioned (62: Æ*Å B ½æ Æ åæØ; 63: K BØ IÅÆØ Æ*ÅØ). It recalls and reWnes point (c) in the Wrst list, but no restriction linked to the service of the Republic is explicitly reaYrmed in it (62–64). A third series concerns soldiers and marines on service for the Roman people (64–66). The recurrence of this speciWcation conWrms the fact that the second ought still to deal with movements made in the service of the Roman People, but one cannot exclude a modiWcation or rearrangement of the basic text made at the moment when it was decided to extend to all travellers the range of privileges originally granted to persons in the service of the Roman state. A last, fourth, series does not have the coherence of its predecessors: it deals with goods transported to fend oV a threat from an enemy, with goods not in use, products related to the exploitation of mines, and Wnally water (66–7).

Commentary to ll. 58–61

123

59 Ł ı , Œ æªÆ : Edd. pr. saw in the adjective an allusion to the emperor, but this part of the text belongs to the Republican period and there is no reason to suspect an interpolation: see Heil 1991 and Salomies 1991. It remains a question whether the goods transported for religious puposes are res sacrae in general or, in a more restricted sense, res sacrae . . . populi Romani. 60, 62 ½æe c NÆ åæB Ø, æe c^ NÆ åæB Ø: Cf. åæ) ø , Œ in the Caunus document, I.Kaunos 35, B 9, and see Dig. 50. 16. 203 (suo usu in the lex censoria portus Siciliae cited by Alfenus Varus and usus sui causa in the commentary of Varus); 39. 4. 4. 1 (usus sui causa in a rescript of Hadrian cited by Paul); 39. 4. 16. 9 (usus causa in a rescript of Antoninus Pius cited by Marcian); for KŒ Å , Œ B æ Æ or Æ*Å B j ½æ Æ åæØ, 60 and 63, cf. [Quint.] Decl. 359: ‘praeter instrumenta itineris omnes res quadragesimam publicano debeant’. 61 $æ åÆºŒF ŒÆd Iæª*æı Œ åÆæÆªı, Æ MæØŁÅı: The absence of gold here need not have anything to do with the bans on the export of gold attested by Cic. Pro Flacco 67. No mainstream Roman gold was struck between the Second Punic War and Sulla, though gold staters of Ephesus were struck in 133/2 and 122/1 bc. There is no problem with the Latin translation, pro aere argentoue signato pecuniaue numerata, but what does it mean? There is little doubt that aes or argentum signatum means ‘struck bronze or silver’, i.e. coinage: see OLD, s.v., §7; add the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Crawford, RS 1, no. 28, chs. XXI–XXII. It is worth emphasizing that signare ¼ ‘to strike coinage’ is the absolutely consistent usage of Pliny the Elder, and that the term aes signatum to mean ‘currency bar’ or ‘ingot’ is a modern invention. It is probably best to suppose that pecunia numerata is for all practical purposes redundant; MHC wondered at one stage whether the term referred to money (counted and) in bags, but there is no evidence for this; with great hesitation he now wonders whether, given the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina and Cicero, de legibus III, 6, aes argentumue signatum might not have been understood as Wrst and foremost Roman coinage and pecunia numerata more widely; and with even greater hesitation whether the Latin had signato forma p.p.R. and the translator omitted forma p.p.R.

124

Commentary to ll. 62–67

62 Edd. pr. restore ½øº) ﬁ Å j Øæ Œﬁ Å, but they translate ‘kauft oder verkauft’, ‘buy or sell’, while the two verbs both signify ‘sell’: the solution seemed to be the restoration T) ﬁ Å suggested by M. Wo¨rrle. But the coordination of an aorist subjunctive and a present subjunctive suggests a translation of Latin quod quis uendet uendiderit rather than quod quis emet uendet, and the restoration of edd. pr. must be reinterpreted rather than corrected. In any case, it is presumably a question of exempting from duty the cargo ship and what has had to be bought to keep it in good condition.

øø: Cf. Dig. 50. 16. 203 (seruos quos domum quis ducet usu suo in the lex portus Siciliae, with the responsum of Alfenus Varus on a disputed point of law). Not all the slaves that are transported without the purpose of being sold are exempted, but, in a more restricted sense, only those attached to the person of the traveller; in our text, however, here as in 76, §33, one has YŒŁ (¼ domo). ÆæÆø Ø: cf. 76, §33, and edd. pr.’s supplement in 60; are these attempts to convey ‘send for’ (arcesso)? 64 IØ æÆØ#Å j IØÆ*Å: IØ- translates pro, but there can be no question of veterans being intended here, as edd. pr. supposed, and IØ æÅª and IŁ*Æ cannot be cited in support of the hypothesis: an IØ æÅª is not a former praetor but someone (legate, quaestor, privatus) who performs the functions of a praetor; and an IŁ*Æ is not a former consul, but someone (prorogued magistrate, praetor at the head of an army, privatus) who performs the functions of a consul. Further, as edd. pr. remark, it is a question of personnel who are leaving on a mission, not of those who are demobilized. Edd. pr. were unaware of the presence of æÆØ#Å ŒÆd IØ æÆØ#Å in Reynolds, Aphrodisias 93, no. 9, 3 (¼ 58 no. 8, 33 f., restored on the basis of the previous inscription), and of the study of this last word by Linderski 1984 ¼ 1995, 147–53, with addenda (642–4), discussing the Ephesus text. For the exemption of soldiers, see Tac. Ann. 13. 51. 1. A pro milite (cf. Sall. Hist., fr. inc. 8 M ¼ 44 McGushin, who did not know Linderski’s article) is one who serves without having been recruited in a dilectus or having taken the sacramentum, in particular in consequence of an evocatio or a coniuratio. The formulation of the lex does not seem to imply that this privilege of

Commentary to ll. 62–67

125

immunity should be reserved for Roman citizens and was not valid for peregrine auxiliaries. 66–7 n i ç!ı º ø åæØ, Œº.: Whatever is transported to safety from fear of war and its consequences is exempt from duty; for the conception, see edd. pr. 89 f., citing Dig. 50. 16. 118 for insistence that the fear be objective. åæı F . . . åæı Œºåı . . . ç æÅÆØ (the orichalcum must be chalcopyrite): We presumably have either copper or tin, and then iron. These items must be brought into relation with those in 78–81: in the Wrst case there is total exemption for what is covered by the term ºŁ or æÆ; in the second (with the destination, Rome, being speciWed), there is taxation, even if it is probably lightened, for what is characterized as ªB. For edd. pr., the total exemption concerned samples, a hypothesis that seems to have prompted their restoration in 67 ½ÆƒæBÆØ (‘was immer [einer ausw]a¨hlt’, ‘whatever a person selects’, and, in the Commentary (‘who takes part in tests based on such prospecting’); this is still the argument cited by Dreher 1997, 84 n. 19. After *ø which should refer back to everything that precedes after n i ç!ı, Œº., however, a verb such as çæÅÆØ is required; this is now conWrmed by MC&CC’s reading ç æÅÆØ. With the collapse of the ‘samples’ hypothesis, it must be admitted that the produce of mines could be exported in an unworked state before being submitted to processing, and in that state was exempt from tax. That was the hypothesis of Carrelli 1996, 185, and of Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 55 n. 168 (giving the example of the cinnabar of Baetica, of which Vitr. 7. 9. 4 and Pliny, NH 33. 118 tell us that it was forbidden to reWne it on the spot and that it was entirely processed at Rome); but the same text of Vitruvius says that Rome on that account had entirely supplanted Ephesus in the processing of cinnabar; for the period to which we attribute this part of the lex, cinnabar must be one of the ‘earths’ of which the exportation to Rome, probably after they had been processed on the spot, was subject to a special tax (78–81). 67 oÆ: It is unnecessary to see in this ban a measure that would still be connected with the exploitation of mines (so Carrelli 1996, 187 f.).

126

Commentary to ll. 67–74

67–72, §§28–30 Attalid customs posts to continue in use and to be transmitted from one publicanus to the next; building of customs posts in territory not Attalid. It remains possible that 69–72 are a post-Sullan supplement to a clause whose opening manifestly goes back to the creation of the province. In any case, 67–72 have not lost all their relevance. Publicani were still obliged to hand over to their successors the customs posts in the state in which they had received them (68–9, an obligation that was implicitly valid also for structures later than the end of the kingdom). See Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 46 and n. 135. 68 ½ŒÆd ÆŁf !Æ ØºØŒ*, Œº.: The noun coordinated with KŒØÆ (67) remains unclear. A reference to slaves (considered by edd. pr.) does not seem likely, and it seems preferable to supplement something reasonably permanent, though nothing masculine has yet appeared in the text; ŒÆæ ı Łø could stand for fruemino, the verb applied to the activities of publicani in Dig. 39. 4. 1. 1. 69 Iæe IªÆŁF KØŒæ Ø: ¼ uiri boni arbitratu, according to the judgement of a worthy man, as in Cato De Agr. 145. 3, and Proculus in Dig. 17. 2. 76; cf. Grosso 1966, 97–143. º Ø j ŁÅ: for the collocation see note to 27. 70 ½ æ Ø (?) B Æ: It is unlikely that the lacuna contains the º Ø suggested by edd. pr., a word found already in 69 and later in 70; there may rather be an allusion to the parts of the province of Asia that had not belonged to the Attalid kingdom. 71 K Å øØ øØ: If this were taken as a version of in agro publico populi Romani, it would imply that the Roman authorities committed themselves to providing the publicanus with the ground space necessary for the construction of the customs post (statio). This point cannot be separated from the problem of accepting that there were, from the beginning, customs posts in free cities (cf. Carrelli 1996, 180, arguing that the declaration that only public land might be built on conWrms the exemption of free cities; and see Mitchell, pp. 163–6 below). 71 ,ŒÆ , KŒØ: ,ŒÆ with KŒØ (edd. pr.) would be strange.

Commentary to ll. 67–74

127

71–2 ) K ƒ æHØ ) K Ø ) j ½K ﬁø I ﬁH: See on ll. 31–2. 72–4, §§31–2 Taxes on grain, wine, and oil. y æªÆ . . . Ø ÆPe e æAªÆ, $bæ *ı º c Ø ŁøfØg: These lines are diYcult and controversial. First, the present state of the question and the solutions proposed. (a) Edd. pr. had distinguished two clauses, dealing with decuma (ll. 72–3, as far as oÆØ), then with scriptura (73–4). The work of Nicolet (esp. 1991) has rebutted that interpretation. The correction of their reading of 74 eliminates the hypothesis of a reference to scriptura, and the establishment of the fact that the law concerns only the portorium, and makes no reference to other uectigalia (decuma, mines) or to other publicani, except insofar as the farmers of these uectigalia enjoyed exemption total or partial, may be taken as a deWnitive advance in the understanding of the text. Another advance owed to Nicolet 1991 is the understanding that 72–4 constitute a single paragraph and a single clause. Since the exemption clause cannot be formulated on the basis of an inWnitive by itself, it could be supposed that in 73, after oÆØ, the lapicide omitted an imperative ( ¼ ) rather than a present indicative (<æ )Œ Ø>, O. Salomies). But the introduction of a strong mark of punctuation into 73 does not make it possible, even with that correction, to give a satisfactory sense to 73–4: ‘cuius rei decumas frugum aratro quaesitarum quintamue partem uini oleique publicano dari [oportebit . . . ] causa, publicano eo uectigali frui , ita uti locationem fecerunt L. Octauius C. Aurelius Cotta consules’. That practically comes down to saying that the publicani of the decuma have the right to do what the locatio of 75 bc permits them to do: if the lex portorii had been intended to do that, it would probably have been in another way, one close to that of the clauses of leges rogatae: quominus . . . , E(x) H(ac) L(ege) N(ihil) R(ogatur). But above all it is hard to see in what way such a clause would concern the publicani dealing with customs: the publicanus of 72 seems obviously to be in charge of the decuma, and there is nothing to prevent the publicanus of 73 being the same. The basic principle that in 72–4 we have a single phrase must be the starting point, with

128

Commentary to ll. 72–4

the overall construction y æªÆ . . . Ø ÆPe e æAªÆ, $bæ *ı º c Ø Łø{Ø}: (b) In 1991 Nicolet thought that the Å Ø#Å of 72–3 was the farmer of the customs, authorized to charge ‘security dues’ or ‘warehouse dues’ on products of the decuma, ½çıºÆŒø (or, more precisely, Øøø, Ø!ºø, ØçıºÆŒøÞ , Œ (1991, 479). This hypothesis depends in part on the assumption that elsewhere throughout the law, except perhaps in 75, Å Ø#Å designates the publicanus of the portorium (469 f., 479). But even if it is inevitable that in a law on the portorium the word should generally designate the customs oYcial, it does not follow that it will never be used for other categories of publicani. When there is a question of the publicanus to whom the tithe on the produce of arable land and the 20% tax on wine and oil are owed (72), the person involved is normally the one who had taken on the farming of the tax on crops. And that probably goes for the publicanus of the following line, especially with the demonstrative F, which refers to the Å Ø#Å of the preceding line. So with the word º. In the second part of 74, which prescribes an exemption, customs dues are clearly in question, but in 73, if the publicanus is indeed that of the decuma, it is the decuma that must be in question. In 1999, Nicolet abandoned his previous hypothesis. To explain at once [ . . . ]ø , Œ , for which he suggests ½Iæø or ½ Øø , Œ and ‰ K Łø Æ (understood in the sense of ‘in the same way as’ and not ‘as well as’), Nicolet developed a hypothesis sketched in 1993, 955–8. He considers that the Å Ø#Å is certainly the farmer of the decuma, but that an arrangement later than the locatio of 75 bc is involved: a clause of the lex Terentia Cassia of 73 bc, or a regulation consequent on it, which imposed on Asia as on Sicily a second decuma ½Iæø or ½ Øø , Œ , propter annonae rationem (Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 227), which means that in the lacuna at the beginning of 73 it would accordingly be necessary to restore or , æÆ ¼ alterae decumae: it is this second tithe that would be exempted from customs dues, ‘on condition that it really was the product of the decuma, and nothing more, that was involved’ (194 f.; 210). In that case one should understand something like: ‘(Since it is necessary) that the decuma on cereals and the 20% tax on oil or wine should be delivered to the publicanus (and that,) for the needs of (the

Commentary to ll. 72–4

129

annona), the publicanus should take a second uectigal in the same way as it had been awarded by the consuls L. Octavius and C. Aurelius Cotta (that is to say, of the same proportions as the Wrst decuma awarded in 75 bc) . . .’ An objection had already been brought by Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 26–8, to the hypothesis of 1993: the most ancient core of the law dates from 75 bc, and if there had been two Wrst supplements in 73 they ought also to have been introduced by a formula of the type › EÆ › EÆ oÆØ æ ŁÅŒÆ and be put just before the supplements of 72 bc, 84–8. This argument is valuable, but not decisive. It is true that the compilation of 72–84 ought to go back to the lex locationis of 75 bc just before the supplements which date to 72 bc, or perhaps to 70 bc (see note on 84). Equally, the formulation of 73 and 75 is compatible with a date in 75 bc (supposing that the lex locationis of the decuma was drafted before that of the portorium, or that in 75 K Łø Æ translates locauerunt locauerint (perfect and future perfect) or a simple perfect subjunctive locauerint). On the other hand, we cannot be sure that the compilation of 75 bc has come down unmodiWed after having been taken up in various earlier compilations: the Neronian compilation of the inscription must have been preceded by a Claudian compilation (6) and perhaps even by an Augustan compilation of 17 bc (Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 47). On these occasions there could have been suppressions of the compilation of 75 bc; nor can it be excluded that on those occasions regulations were found and added to the dossier without detailing their provenance. But Nicolet’s second interpretation seems to founder on another, decisive, objection: the formulation K Æ N Æ j ½‹ i K ªÅÆØ N ªÅÆØ (73–4) would not Wt a clause of which the aim was to guarantee the provisioning of Rome by devoting the produce of a second decuma to it and exempting that from customs dues. In that case one would have had K Æ N ' #Å K ªÅÆØ (78). (c) Import and export are both being dealt with, and if one continues to follow the principle that the clause allows a conditional immunity to the publicanus himself, one could look for a clue in the idea that what was involved was encouraging the commercialization of the products of the tithe within the Empire, from one province to another (Nicolet 1991, 479 f.). But is that really the sense of K Æ N Æ N ª Ø K ª Ø (the order of 75, which there is no reason

130

Commentary to ll. 72–74

not to restore in the lacuna at the beginning of 74, this formulation appearing only in two places in the text)? It is rather a question of transporting from one place to another within the province, implying the passage of merchandise through customs posts, notably maritime posts. In 16–20, it had only been provided that a product should not be taxed twice (or more than twice: see note on 18) in the same year, unless it passed through the Bosporus. It is only in a supplement of 72 or 70 bc (84–7) that a new (but still limited) franchise was introduced, in the course of transit and in the case of transport of merchandise for personal uses from one point of the province to another. In any case, goods leaving from one port and entering another port (or twice crossing a post established on a single route) are at best taxed only once. If the present interpretation is correct, 73 and 75 go much further, for they exempt from all tax on passing a customs post certain goods moving from one point to another in Asia, within the category of transport which is linked with the activity of the publicani. 74–6 grant exactly the same privilege to the publicani, but in a general sense and unconditionally. Should it be concluded from this that 72–4, although strictly contemporary, constituted a pointless repetition? But if the exemption of 72–4 were allowed to collectors of the tithe and to publicani concerned with wine and oil, why not simply designate them as such (as with the publicani of the mines, 78 and 81), and take the trouble to speak of the necessity of allowing, or the conditions which should allow, the decuma or the 20% tax to be rendered to them and for them to beneWt from the tax that they had undertaken to farm? And why add the immunity to a condition, Kç ﬁz ), which is not to be found in the following clause? The clause of 72–4 recovers its speciWcity if it grants immunity, not to transport of goods by the publicani themselves within the province, which is the object of 74–6, but to journeys of which the aim is to permit them to enter into possession of the decuma and the 20%, that is a uectura made by those who were liable to the tax to a place Wxed by the publicani. We know little of the way in which the farmers of the decuma of Asia, after having tendered for the tax and advanced the total to the State, proceeded to collect it. If the interpretation proposed here is correct, it proves that initially and perhaps until 75 the tax on these products of the soil was still delivered in kind and that those liable had to transport them to a certain number of places Wxed

Commentary to ll. 72–74

131

by the societies of publicani, who set up warehouses there. Later, this grain, oil, or wine, as property of the publicani, had to be put on sale by them. This general interpretation (re´sume´ in Ferrary 2003) takes account of 72–4, but three diYculties in particular remain in these lines. 72 y æªÆ at the opening of the clause. The construction is less simple and clear than in the only other phrase beginning in a similar way (97, §40). Heil 1991, 16, n. 10 and Nicolet 1999, 192 thought of an attraction of the relative (y æªÆ ¼ n æAªÆ: ‘that which [must] be delivered to the publicanus under the heading of decuma or 20% etc.’), but it is hard to admit that the case of the antecedent relative at the opening of the clause could undergo attraction to the case of the pronoun which, two lines further on, picks up that antecedent. A genitive of respect is a less improbable explanation. 73 :ø , Œ : No solution is oVered for the completion of this lacuna in the text. MHC&JMR read at the beginning of the line, before &˝, what could have been the upper bar of , and one might suggest the restoration ½çæø Å ø. It may, however, be better to return to the hypothesis of edd. pr., )ı ' øÆø, although Nicolet 1999, 193, judges it unhelpful and tautologous. 74 According to Nicolet 1999, 200–202, Aºº þ genitive (F ºı) ¼ amplius quam; cf. Dig. 39. 4. 4. 1: si quid amplius quam mandatum est transferet. But consistently elsewhere in the text of the law plus or amplius (quam) is expressed by º E followed eventually by the genitive (12, §3; 79, §34; 97–8, §40), and not by Aºº. The dative BØ ÆŒØBØ creates practically insurmountable diYculties, and the hypothesis of M. Wo¨rrle and MHC, that the Greek translator took the nominative uectura for an ablative, is most probable. Nicolet 1999, 202, speaks of a well-attested sense of ÆŒØ), admittedly for a later period, of ‘transport for the Roman annona’; the references given in 1991, 478, n. 44, show clearly that the word always has the general sense of transport, and that a particular reference to the transport of grain and annona demands further speciWcation: Athan. Alex. Aposec. 9. 3; Suda s.v. I#ø ÆŒØ).

132

Commentary to ll. 74–78

74–8, §33 Exemptions for the equipment of publicani. Contrast the lex Antonia de Termessibus, RS 1, 334, 34–6 (very loosely drafted). (a) We begin with an exemption concerning publicani. One can imagine with Nicolet 1999, 197–9 and 202, that it is still the publicanus of the decuma that is in question, and that the lines constitute a single section with 72–4. Nonetheless, another solution seems more probable, that 74–8 are valid for all publicani. It grants them immunity, but only for transport ‘from Asia into Asia’, in the interior of the province. This immunity does not concern the export of merchandise to Italy (see the following clause, where the dispatch of minerals to Rome is taxed) or to other provinces, with the result that the farmers of the decuma have an interest in selling the part of the tax collected in kind within the province. (b) There is no further explicit mention of publicani in 76–8, but there is no reason to doubt that these lines too refer speciWcally to them. Both exemptions are quite diVerent and complementary: the Wrst one (74–6) concerns all persons and goods, but is restricted to transport from Asia to Asia; the second one (76–8) is limited to precise items (ships and their Wttings, slaves brought from home, books and tablets, objects and victuals intended for personal use while travelling), but concerns journeys from home (YŒŁ , 76 and 77) to Asia and return. The second exemption is in fact the same that had been granted to persons on service of the Roman people in 61 and 62–4, and publicani could themselves be considered as providing a public service. We are conWrmed in the idea that, originally, such exemptions dealing with personal goods and slaves beneWted only precise categories of persons; it was during a later period that some of them could be generalized, as they are in the text of the Digest. More surprisingly, the exemptions granted in these lines, compared with those for every traveller in 62–4 and for owners or captains of ships in 62–3, display sometimes identical formulations, sometimes variants, but no really new privilege. The paradox of 76–8 is that if it is still publicani who are in question, they do not seem to confer on them the least speciWc privilege; they rather give the impression of restricting the general privilege of 74–6. Moreover, the repetition of YŒŁ in 76–7 seems surprising in a clause devoted to publicani.

Commentary to ll. 74–78

133

This would lead to the conclusion that 74–6 and 76–8 form two chapters and to the hypothesis that the second does not refer speciWcally to the publicani but in fact constitutes a doublet of 61–4 (76–8 belonging to the clauses of the lex locationis of 75 bc, while 61–4 go back to an older text). If this working hypothesis is accepted, it conWrms that 78–84 are a Wrst compilation, repeated with a series of supplements (this time clearly distinguished) in that of ad 62. That explains the fact that the latest chronological indication is the double reference to the locationes of 75 bc in 73 and 75, but that there are also to be found forms of words that go back to the creation of the province of Asia, and which are more important than originally realized. MHC observes that 75 bc was the Wrst year after Sulla for which one might have expected censors to be elected; it is unsurprising that in their absence the consuls engage in a burst of activity. 74–6 We are agreed that the exemption relates only to goods transferred from one part of Asia to another; it might have been simpler to express this in Latin as ex Asia in Asiam importabitur, on the analogy of 78; but the legislator has in mind the need to secure exemption from dues at exit and at entry, and has generated ambiguity as a result. 75 y: Until the correction of *ı into *ø by MC&CC, it was possible to consider this word as a neuter, taking it as looking forward to *ı. Nicolet takes it as a masculine genitive, with Å Ø#Å as antecedent. 78–81, §34 Dues on ores exported. This is a third clause linked with the activities of the publicani, but this time dealing with the farmers of mines. 78 lØ i ªB: The phrase comprises every mineral, all the substances that were exploited in conformity with the law on mining (Domergue 1994, 80, n. 49), or, more precisely, in contrast to ºŁ and æÆ in 66 (¼ lapis and saxum, cf. Pliny, NH 36. 136 and 169), certain more friable products, in particular pigments (Carrelli 1996, 186 f. and 1997, 134). In any case what must be in question, rather than a raw mineral taxed by weight because its value was uncertain (edd. pr.; Merola 2001, 207 n. 20), is a product already processed and beneWting from a customs rating lower than the norm (Carrelli 1996, 186 f.;

134

Commentary to ll. 80–84

Dreher 1997, 83 f.). The tax rate is expressed in assaria; for their place in the system after the retariYng of the denarius (Pliny, NH 33. 45), see Crawford 1985, 144–5.

Œ ıH: Containers in general, not ships, as Wrst thought: see Domergue 1994, 891 n. 50, followed by Carrelli 1996, 187, and Dreher 1997, 83. 80 ØºF: Cf. the clause of the praetor’s edict known from Dig. 39. 4. 1 pr.: ‘quod publicanus eius publici nomine ui ademerit quodue familia publicanorum, si id restitutum non erit in duplum aut, si post annum agetur, in simplum iudicium dabo’; see on this text Klingenberg 1977, 131–4, and on the rights and duties of collectors of revenues in connection with the praetor’s edict and with edicts of provincial governors, Brunt 1990, 358. Here it is a question of ui adimere, not of dolo malo retinere, but a responsum of Labeo implies that an absence of dolus meant that an action ui bonorum raptorum against the publicani could not be entertained (Ulp. 56 ad edictum, Dig. 47. 8. 2. 20: ‘si publicanus pecus meum abduxerit, dum putat contra legem uectigalis aliquid a me factum, quamuis errauerit, agi tamen cum eo ui bonorum raptorum non posse Labeo ait: sane dolo caret’; on this text see Klingenberg 1977, 95 f.). 81 K å*æı ºBłØ ø: On pignoris capio against the customs oYcer, see 57–8. On the possible sense of the preceding genitive (without Iªøª)), see on 58. 81–4, §§35–6 The section of the law dating to 75 bc is concluded by two general statements (of unclear origin) establishing that dues are not to be paid on goods carried along for private use (81–3, §35; modiWed in 84–7, §37) and noting that exemption from dues, to be observed by the tax collectors, may have been granted to some in a treaty with the Roman people. 81–3, §35 On Roman territory goods transported for private use to or from home are exempt from dues. 81 $e ª#ÅØ: Nicolet 1999, 197 n. 16, queries sub dicione (sub ditione Knibbe 2000, 165) as the correct rendering, claiming that the eVect of an arbitration decision is in question, but he does not furnish an alternative.

Commentary to ll. 80–84

135

82 ½R i j L ¼ Ø, Œº.: The addition of o Œº. (edd. pr.) is justiWed from 74–5. KŒ B å#æÆ Æ*Å j NŒÆ . . . N å#æÆ <Æ*Å> (a necessary addition by MHC) j NŒÆ: Since å#æÆ and NŒÆ obviously complement each other, X must be a mistake, no doubt due to the fact that in the Latin original domo and domum would have been used without conjunctions. Cf. ŒÆ or X in 107 (but here the error must be due to failure to observe the diVerence between –que and –ue). As observed ad loc. in the SEG text, this section implies that those living outside the land under the dicio or potestas of the Roman people had to pay toll even for goods (including slaves) meant for private use. K ªﬁÅ j N ªﬁÅ: See on 84–7. $bæ *ı: The singular, referring to o and –, is to be understood as collective. 83–4, §36 Persons exempted on certain items by treaty with the Roman people are exempt from dues on those items. 83 KŒ ıŁ)ŒÅ ª Å a ' øÆø: A loose rendering of ex foedere cum populo Romano facto: the translator may not have understood p. in the abbreviation p. R. 84–8, §37 First of the dated supplements (72 bc?); modiWcation of exemptions from dues. The regulations of 81–3, §35, are modiWed, ‘home’ now being deWned as a å#æÆ or a city of which one is a citizen, and exemption being limited to importing into that å#æÆ or city. Moreover, a provision about conveying in the course of transit (ŒıŒº *ø) is added. 84 ¸*ŒØ ˆººØ, ˆÆE ¸º oÆØ: The consuls are those of 72 bc, but Nicolet (1993, 951 n. 49; 1999, 207 n. 39), observing that L. Gellius (not ‘Poplicola’) and Cn. Lentulus were censors in 70 bc, thinks that oÆØ may be an error, and that in fact the censorship in 70, not the consulate in 72, was referred to in the original, the translator having misunderstood the abbreviation ce(n)s. 84–5 æe c NÆ åæB Ø, Œº.: It is a question whether this condition should be interpreted to extend both to N ªﬁ Å and to ŒıŒº *ø N ŒÇﬁ Å, or whether it should be referred only to N ªﬁÅ. Knibbe’s translation (2000, 165) seems to favour the Wrst

136

Commentary to ll. 85–88

view, and the translation here separates importing for private use from conveying in ( N ŒÇ Ø) in the course of transit, and this seems the best solution. Æ*Å: The pronoun, corresponding to KŒ Å in 85, depends on the following relative w. Both å#æÆ and ºØ are mentioned here because one might be a citizen of a place not equipped with the status of a ºØ. 85 ŒıŒº *ø : The exact meaning of the verb is uncertain. Edd. pr. translated it as ‘Herumziehender’ (‘travelling’) and think of merchants and the like; the same is implied by ‘berufsma¨ßig herumziehende Personen’ (‘persons travelling on business’) in the heading of §37 in Knibbe 2000, 165. ‘In the course of transit’ is preferable, as a vague word such as ŒıŒº *ø should be translated with a general expression which may refer to merchants without excluding others. Two kinds of people arriving at a city are envisaged, those who intend to stay and those on their way to some other place. For dues on goods in transit entering and leaving, see Cagnat 1882, 151 f.; De Laet 1949, 482; Bean 1954, 101; Marek, I.Kaunos, pp. 195–7 (on Caunus); Wo¨rrle 1975, 289, n. 728 (Myra, on ÆæÆª#ªØÆ çæÆ). That a portorium circumvectionis was not due in Asia in 59 bc emerges from Cic. Ad Att. 2. 16. 4 (but his brother had referred the matter to the senate) and this provision seems to have been general. The particle stands for Latin –ue, as an alternative is introduced here; we have here, then, another mistake the translator made in translating particles. 85–7 ‹ i K KŒ Å B å#æÆ j B º ø, Œº. (perhaps one should add Ø after ¼: cf. 84 and 87): This problematic clause is introduced as a continuation of that in 84–5, and there is now talk of cities, etc., of which one is not a citizen; but here the phrase æe c NÆ åæB Ø is omitted and whereas the verbs expressing the direction of the movement of the goods are still those denoting importation, the preposition now used is K , not N. It is hard to see what to expect at this point, as all possible scenarios seem to be covered by the regulation in 84–5 and its implications, the bottom line of which seems to be that dues had to be paid on everything except what was taken for personal use to the traveller’s own city. There seems little point in introducing here, for example, the possibility that one

Commentary to ll. 85–88

137

person being a citizen of more than one city is referred to or that the subject of ŒıŒº * is being elaborated. 86–7 ½ Y N ªﬁ Å Y N ŒÇﬁ Å: Edd. pr. restored ½ŒıŒº *ø N ªﬁ Å. The fundamental problem is that, if we do that, we then have two provisions about conveying in the course of transit, which cannot both be general in signiWcance, since they would then be contradictory: one (or in theory both) would have to be qualiWed by the Wrst half of the clause. Cic. Att. 2, 16, 4, claims to have established re consulta et explorata that in Asia portorium circumuectionis was not due; it can be inferred from that, that the provision about conveying in the course of transit at 84–5 was general; it did not stand in 85–7; and the publicani had tried to maintain that in 84– 5 it was qualiWed by the provision about private use. Hence the phrases æe c NÆ åæB Ø and N Æ*Å c å#æÆ refer only to people about to enter their own city, not also to the ŒıŒº * , who belong to a diVerent category. To sum up: the Wrst clause clariWes the notion of domicilium of 81– 3 in terms of citizenship and amends the rule of 81–3 by limiting the requirement of domicile to the destination of the goods, and it adds a provision about conveying in the course of transit; the second clause, consistently with this, expresses diVerently the provision of 81–3 which stood in the Latin and was mistranslated by the insertion of X between K ªﬁ Å and N ªﬁ Å, namely that to be exempt goods had to go to a domicile. 87–8, §38 Another supplement of 72 bc? Penalties for failing to register. For this provision, see on 20–6, §8, 45–7, §18, and esp. 53–6, §22. It seems possible that the translator or engraver has omitted ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ at the beginning (cf. 105). Note the use of the aorist (IªæłÅÆØ, Ø) ﬁ Å) here. 88–96, §39 First supplement made by C. Furnius and C. Silanus, consuls 17 bc. Communities exempted from dues. In this section, discussed most recently by Merola 2001, 159–71, we Wnd classes of communities (deWned in 88–9 and again in 94 as º Ø EÆØ, ŁÅ, BØ, in 92 as º Ø, ŁÅ, BØ) having a special status as regards the collection of dues, and apparently provision being made for another class. Lines 88–91 refer to places outside the

138

Commentary to ll. 88–92

formula of each conuentus, i.e. ‘free’. Similarly exempt would then be places granted the privilege in the future (92–3), and places transferred elsewhere from prouincia Asia, something of which the Romans had much experience (94), places which might of course then become subject to another portorium. As for the three kinds of communities, they may be a rendering of ciuitates nationes populi in Latin. Nationes is questionable (Knibbe 2000, 166, translates gentes), and no suitable parallel passage where the three expressions are used together can be produced; in the passage of the Wrst-century bc jurist Aelius Gallus, quoted by Festus p. 342 L, ‘reciperatio est, ut ait Gallus Aelius, cum inter populum et reges nationesque et ciuitates peregrinas lex conuenit’, etc., populus and the other expressions appear as opposed to each other. 88–92 The Wrst group consists of the three kinds of communities speciWed which were situated outside ( ø) the twelve conuentus mentioned by name (as observed by S. Mitchell, below, p. 194, Alabanda may have been omitted by mistake). 89 ø ØØŒ) ø: In a political sense, referring to communities not included in the formula of a diocese, that is mainly, if not exclusively, free cities, included within the diocese only from a geographical point of view; possibly the original phrasing was simply ‘extra conuentum’. For the introduction of dioceses into Asia, see Merola 2001, 172–81, who concludes that in Asia as elsewhere they were not the creation of an individual but the institutionalized result of a process of evolution, and born of the need to administer justice (180 f.) 91 N ^Å ÆPÆd IªæÆ N Ø: This adds a restriction: whatever is said on communities outside the twelve conuentus does not apply to the IªæÆ. The translation should accordingly be on the lines of ‘unless they themselves are’. It is however strange that assize centres (see next note) should be less privileged than other communities. As to the reading, MHC&JMR remain inclined to believe that what is in the text is a sloping, backwards N, because the engraver could not cope with a particularly hard bit of stone; they (and JLF) think that he intended to write ŒÆ, and MHC translates so. The stone has been

Commentary to ll. 88–92

139

rechecked by MC&CC, however, who still prefer ligatured MH, while acknowledging the diYculties of interpretation entailed by it. 92 [ØŒH]: Edd. pr.’s restoration has been generally accepted. It is based on the assumption that the IªæÆ here must be the sites of assizes held by the governor (the expression Iªæ ØŒH is attested in Modestinus, Dig. 27. 1. 6. 2, and in Lucian, Bis acc. 12). But it is not clear which kind of place would be referred to, and why these places should have a special status in instructions concerning the collection of dues. It is conceivable that a diVerent sort of place is meant, one where markets are held, fora nundinaria (Pliny, NH 8. 208). This would explain the special provision for the collection of dues; Iªæ is well attested in this sense (note e.g. Plut. Coriol. 19, 1 Iªæa b ØF Ø ' øÆEØ Ø +æÆ KÅ, ıÆ ŒÆºF ; and TAM 5. 1, 230, 11). That would exclude the restoration ØŒH. It is true that one possibility could be Tø, restored by Keil (and accepted by Herrmann) in TAM 5. 1, 230, 12 (cf. Nolle´ 1982, 79) where a short word ending in - is needed, the source for this restoration perhaps being the expresssion Iªæa ð+Þ H Tø which appears twice as a translation of nundina(e) in the CGL 2, 216; 3, 267. However, this is not to be expected here, and an adjective describing the nature of the Iªæ (as suggested by M. Kajava) might be preferable. The real diYculty with taking the reference to be to periodic markets is that there does not seem to be any evidence that they were a recognized category in Asia in 17 bc. In any case, all diVerent sorts of communities situated outside the named Asian conuentus (but apparently included in the sphere of activity of the publicani) are, unless they are places with periodic IªæÆ, included in the provisions enumerated in 94–6. 92 Y ]: Another set of communities is included in the provisions of 94–6, this time located within the conuentus mentioned in 89–92. So the section must be introduced either with Y (for reasons of space), Æ¥Ø (suggested by MHC, quoted in SEG), or perhaps Æ¥Ø , taking its gender from the Wrst word in the enumeration of the types of communities, º Ø. In the case of Æ¥Ø , one has to assume that the genitive *ø H ØØŒ) ø is a kind of possessive genitive, ‘º Ø, ŁÅ, BØ belonging to these conuentus’.

140

Commentary to ll. 92–94

)ı Œıæ# Ø: Cf. for Œ*æø Ø=ŒıæF RS 1, 260, no. 12 on the lex de prouinciis praetoriis, III 4 f. åæØ<Ø>: The rest of 92 is clear until the reference to the emperor. Edd. pr. correctly read åæØ from the stone, but that must represent an incorrect representation of the original Latin, for the preposition åæØ cannot come into question here. The problem is not only its position (but cf. its use in 15–16) but also the fact that after øØ . . . Œıæ# Ø . . . ªÆØ a further noun in the dative, not a preposition, must follow. Further, logic and sense require something better. åæØ would have to be connected with ÅÆæ½åØŒB K ı Æ, and although this connection has been made (thus Knibbe 2000, 166, gratia Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti tribuniciae potestatis), it is still not satisfactory. First, the nuances of the meaning of the preposition do not commend its use in this place, and it is in any case not a term belonging to this kind of legal diction (although one could always blame the translator). Secondly, it is not the tribunicia potestas that is the source of law or other regulations, but someone equipped with it (cf. below). What is needed is a noun in the dative, the equivalent of beneWcio or the like, and åæØØ yields exactly the sense that is needed. With åæØ<Ø> ¼ beneWcio (or, as in the translation in the present volume, indulgentia) the deWning genitive is of course `PŒææ ˚Æ Ææ !Æ F, this producing a Latin original ‘beneWcio j indulgentia Imp. Caesaris Augusti’; ÅÆæ½åØŒB K ı Æ again deWnes `PŒææ, etc., and reproduces ‘tribunicia potestate’ (the ablative being the normal case during the Early Empire, the genitive taking over only later). The reference to the trib. pot. is meant to deWne Augustus’ legal position when granting the beneWcium; we are in 17 bc, a few years from the ‘settlement’ of 23 bc, after which Augustus’ power was based on the imperium proconsulare maius and the tribunicia potestas. (The material on beneWcium in TLL s.v. 1878 V., esp. 1887, 74 V. makes it clear that it is normally a person or in any case something concrete—e.g. the senate—who or which grants a beneWcium; the type beneWcio legis Iuliae—ibid. 1885, 65 V.—cannot be used to support the view that beneWcio could be connected with trib. pot., as the leges referred to in this connection have a speciWc content and aim.) Admittedly, ‘Imperator Caesar Augustus tribunicia potestate’ is perhaps not a familiar form of reference to the Wrst emperor, but this type is found on coins dating soon

Commentary to ll. 92–94

141

after 23 bc, in which we Wnd formulations such as Caesar Aug. tribunic. potest., Augustus tribunic. potest., Caesar Augustus tr. pot., Imp. August. tr. pot. (see RIC I2 e.g. pp. 41 f., 65 f., 66 f., 67 f., 83 f., 86); note also that tribunic. potestate is the only title given to Augustus and Agrippa in the SC de ludis saec. of 17 bc (CIL 6, 32323, 53). 93 ¥Æ Å ½ Ke H Nø ‹æø º ØH Ø Œº.: The particulars of the ‘exception’ are mentioned in more or less the same terms as the particulars in 95, where, however, Ke H Nø ‹æø is not repeated and ææ# æ is replaced by ÆŒææø, åø by KØåÆØ. In the case of communities where dues are not to be paid within the boundaries the publicani can have their guard-posts inside the territory, but not more than 8 stades (c.1.5 km.) from the border. (The Latin of Knibbe 2000, 166 indicates another interpretation.) In the Latin original, the distance is unlikely to have been indicated in stades; the eight stades represent 1000 passus, a Roman mile. The extra guard-posts, which might be deep in the territory of the province of Asia, are to be sited as in the provisions in 38–40, §15. ‹æø: For Wnes ¼ territories, see the lex Irnitana, Col. 3C, §29, 21, Gonza´lez 1986, 157. 94 ½ Y ØØŒ) ø K ½ ﬁ Æ H æª ªæÆø æÆØ N d KÆæå ÆØ, Œº:: K ½ ﬁ Æ is ‘a typical piece of obsessive drafting’ (MHC). Since it seems clear that a third group of communities (cf. 88–92 and 92–3) is introduced here, it might be a good idea to formulate the passage on the same lines as for the two previous groups. But from this it would follow that æÆØ . . . KÆæå ÆØ must be a dative, not a nominative, depending on æ <> ÅÆØ. Furthermore, KÆæå Æ cannot in this case be viewed as an expression for conuentus (for which ØŒÅ Ø is the regular Greek term), but rather something contrasted with Asia (apparently deWned as an entity consisting of the dioceses mentioned in 89–91; referred to as KÆæå Æ in 96), perhaps even prouincia, although one does not necessarily have to think of a speciWc technical term, but of an area not identical with Asia. §39 thus lists three kinds of communities within the borders of which dues are not to be collected by the publicani, namely (a)

142

Commentary to ll. 94–101

communities situated outside the dioceses mentioned in 89–91; (b) communities situated within the same group of dioceses but which have been granted a special privilege; and (c) communities originally situated within the same group of dioceses but which have been assigned to another ‘province’ (thus joining group (a) as being outside the dioceses, which are identiWed with ‘Asia’ in 94). 94–6 The instructions concerning the groups of communities with special rights, enumerated in 88–94, are spelt out, 94–6 reproducing, with some variation, 93. The future perfect has been translated once by an aorist, once by a perfect (for such variations, see the introductory note to the translations). 96–8, §40 Second supplement made by the consuls of 17 bc: Immunity of P. Vedius Pollio. Immunity from dues was granted at some unspeciWed point by decree of the senate to the equestrian friend of Augustus known to have been active in Asia (cf. Keil 1955; Syme, RP 2, suggesting 519 that he may be identical with RE no. 1; Scherrer 1990; RPC 1, 2364 f., with n. p. 439; note the illustration of Pollio’s position provided by the decree and the informal style used to refer to him). That immunity is restricted to 10,000 denarii (per shipment, apparently). S. R. F. Price suggests (colloquium of 1999, and see Price 1984, 69, with n. 63; Dignas 2002, 142, with n. 204) that Pollio was a quasi-governor of Asia, acting for Augustus and serving as a model for others. 97 ‹ ﬁø ¼: One should perhaps think of adding a verb (e.g. t Ø). 98–9, §41 Third supplement by the consuls of 17 bc: Dues that are to be collected on slaves. In the course of the text there are several provisions on slaves, mentioning children, tiros, and special exemptions (62, §§25–7; 117–20, §51), but this is the second of two general regulations. The maximum mentioned in 12, §3, was 5 denarii (apparently for both import and export), which is here superseded, being lowered to two and a half denarii for import and one for export. (Without the addition of ) in 99, as suggested by MHC, it would be surprising to Wnd the consuls referring to this as an increase of the due.) If the

Commentary to ll. 94–101

143

convincing restoration by MHC at the beginning of 12 is correct, child slaves were mentioned as an exception in §3 (without, however, instructions being given as to how to deal with them), whereas here there is talk simply of #ÆÆ, which must include children. 99–101, §42 Fourth supplement made by the consuls of 17 BC: The publicanus’ discharge of his obligation. This is the Wrst time the subject of the publicanus’ obligations is raised in the lex; pre-existing practice may have grown slack. A date is Wxed for the publicanus’ payment: NE ˇŒø!æÆØ ıæÆØ ¼ Idibus Octobribus secundis, to be counted from the day when the contract started. In the case of a contract which started in 17 bc before October, this would take place on 15 October, 16 bc, as suggested by edd. pr. and maintained by Knibbe 2000, 167; see also M. Corbier, below, p. 219; the possibility of 15 bc was raised at the 1999 Colloquium, but not pursued. Brunt 1990, 370, 377, and 431, on the basis of Dig. 39. 4. 12 pr., insists on the continuance of leasing at Rome under the Principate. 101 ½æe HØ ÆNæÆæ øØ Ø ıºı E Oç Øºø: Edd. pr. restore ½HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæøØ, no doubt borrowing ˚æı from 143 (in a passage possibly to be dated to ad 42). The problem with this restoration is that the Aerarium (populi Romani), called simply ÆNææØ in 103, was known as ‘Saturni’ only after the time of Augustus (cf. Corbier, Aerarium 709); moreover, a preposition is needed here. Reasons of space, and the phrase æe HØ . . . ÆNæÆæøØ in 143 suggest the restoration adopted here. 101–3, §43 Fifth and Wnal supplement made by the consuls of 17 BC: Sureties to be supplied by the publicanus. For praedes praediaque see Brunt 1990, 361, who notes that those who provided sureties would in practice commonly be partners in the societas as well, and BonWglioli 1996, 313 n. 21, citing Cic. In Verr. 2. 1. 54. 142; Varro, Ling. Lat. 5. 40 and 6. 74; Fest. 249L. It is remarkable that they appear here for the Wrst time; perhaps practice embedded in the original regulations had survived unchanged over the decades.

144

Commentary to ll. 102–103

102 ½H º H Y æÆ Ø: This is now the term used to render exactio (portoriorum); IæÆ Ø was used in 100, §42. ØØŒ Æ ø: satis dare (or cauere, as MHC suggests), beside the more usual I çÆºÇ ŁÆØ: see Crawford, RS 1, 267, on the hapax K½ªªÆ<Ø> Ø or K½ªªı Ø in the lex de prouinciis praetoriis, RS 1, no. 12, IV, 36. KØŒæ Ø: This is to happen at the discretion of the same consuls of 17 bc, or, in the following years (the consuls now being omitted from this business), of the praetors in charge of the Aerarium. The concept of KŒæØ Ø in the lex, except at 69, §28, always crops up in connection with the problem of security, Wrst here in 17 bc. Here KŒæØ Ø should have proceeded alternatively (this is overlooked in ed. pr.) from the consuls or from the praetors of the Aerarium. Its content is unclear; that the security had to consist of praedes and praedia was hardly expressly to be insisted on: it was conventional and selfevident, and again later on (110, §47), an innovation can hardly be situated in the varying of Å with ºø Æ, rather perhaps in the limit set on that occasion at the Ides of January; KŒæØ Ø was directed at the value of the security, which certainly could have varied with the value of the expected revenue from one Wve-year period to another. In 7 bc (110, §47) the previous alternative authority of the KŒæØ Ø through the collaboration of consuls and praetors appears to be replaced and for the Wrst time the security, with the extension of Wve-fold the annual value, is uniformly and globally deWned as one for the entire period of the contract. That is repeated in ad 5 (125, §55) and ad 62 (146, §62), on that occasion, admittedly in part a supplement, with reference to the KŒæØ Ø of the Emperor; this is probably best explained if the changing value of the security in the three cases was the particular motivating point of the KŒæØ Ø; similarly in 12 bc (107, §45) the consuls and praetors were engaged in an KŒæØ Ø involving the responsibility of the æªªı. With the exception of §62 (Emperor Nero) the consuls who take part in the KŒæØ Ø are always those in oYce at the time who are authors of the whole supplement; there is thus no backward reference. The Latin term rendered KŒæØ Ø cannot be probatio (the alternative to inquisitio suggested by edd. pr.), because this appears to have been a test of eYcacy connected with Wnal completion (cf. ILLRP 518; Cic. Font. 17; 2 Verr. 2. 1, 142 f.). There is no room in the context of a disposal

Commentary to ll. 102–103

145

of a lease for a judgment by arbitration, which KØŒæ Ø and KŒæØ Ø can indicate (e.g. I.Ephesos 4, 6), and that means that properly only decretum remains. For this KŒæØ Ø seems not to have been attested previously, but in view of the evidence for KØŒæ Ø in the sense of decernere it might not be problematical (evidence and references in Herrmann 1989, 141, n. 32, as well as for the frequently attested IŒæ Ø as equivalent of decernere; cf. KŒæ Ø below, 128, §57, of Augustus). Nonetheless, arbitratu, in a less formal sense than in ‘judgment by arbitration’, seems appropriate here. 103–6, §44 Supplement by the consuls of 12 BC: Privileges of Alexandria Troas. A colony was founded at Alexandria Troas, probably in the Triumviral period, and was reinforced with new colonists (and called colonia Augusta Troadensis) by Augustus between 27 and 12 bc (Ricl, I.Alexandreia, pp. 20 f.). Its northern neighbour Ilium, ancestral home of the Romans, received repeated privileges (App. Mithr. 61; Strabo 13. 1. 26 f., pp. 593 and 595; Tac. Ann. 12. 58. 1; Suet. Claud. 25. 3, with the nn. of Mottershead 1986 and Hurley 2001). But Alexandria, as a Roman colony, also had claims. It is granted immunity from import and export dues, or rather, the collection of dues is removed from the publicani to city oYcials, this no doubt being meant to strengthen the colony (Ricl, I.Alexandreia, pp. 21, 225; for other city customs dues, see RS 1, 19 (Termessus) and Schwarz 2001a (Myra)). Note that more than one harbour is referred to (only the main harbour is mentioned in I.Alexandreia 153). 103 ıºŒØ ˚ıØæ <Ø>: the cognomen Quirinius (in fact a nomen, perhaps that of the consul’s maternal family, used as cognomen) is misspelt (the same mistake is found in 107, §45); it was an easy mistake for a non-Roman, and the correction to ˚ıØæ Ø seems well justiWed. ¸*ŒØ ˇPºªØ: Valgius Rufus’s praenomen is rendered erroneously: it was Gaius (so in 107). This seems to be the last time the translator transcribes the praenomen Lucius as ¸*ŒØ (normal in Greek inscriptions since the early Empire), previously used in 3, Pr., 73, §31, 75, §33. 84, §37; from 109 onwards he changes to the ‘Republican’ form ¸ *ŒØ (also in 115, §49, 124, §55, and 133,

146

Commentary to ll. 105–109

§58; accordingly, the form ¸ *ŒØ is correctly restored in 111 and 113, §48, and should perhaps replace the restoration ¸*ŒØ in 144, §62). 105 a ºØa ŒÆa e : This is the Wrst appearance of the phrase, which occurs, but—excepting 139, §60—with the addition of Œ ı ı (or ı Œ ı 143, §61), at 108–9, 112, 128, 133, 135, at the end of §§ 45, 47, 56–8. 105–9, §45 Second supplement made by the consuls of 12 bc: Change of proenguos and security to be provided. Perhaps <ƒ ÆPd æ ŁÅŒÆ> should be added at the beginning; cf. 87, §38. 105 æªı (so 135; æªªı, - 142–3 and 145): MHC suggests that the term may be a rendering of magister. The purchaser of a contract was the manceps (for references see BonWglioli 1996, 313 n. 16, citing C. G. Bruns, ed., Frag. tab. censualis 347; CIL 1. 808; Cic. Pro Flacc. 32; Nep. Att. 6, 3; Fest. 137L; see also Brunt 1990, 360–2), his subordinate the magister, for whom see Brunt 366, with n. 44 on his relation to manceps and auctor (Cic. Pro Planc. 32); why this word should be translated as æªı is mysterious, unless there is some notion of the magister having secondary responsibility. 106 Kç +H: It is notable that in the instructions concerning the change of the æªªı the consuls say, in a rather untechnical style, that the change should take place before them, with no instructions for future cases. 106–7 ½ÆPŁﬁ Å ﬁH )øØ : MHC’s restoration for ½IÆåØ ﬁH )øØ of ed. pr. (the dative depends on I çÆº Æ ŁÆØ), ÆPŁÅ being a rendering of cognitor. He adduces the lex municipii Malacitani (FIRA2 1, 215), ch. 64, where a person in relation to praedia is referred to as cognitor. M. Wo¨rrle made the same suggestion (colloquium 1999) with auctor as an alternative; they have a similar role, excluding magister; some support for this suggestion might have been given by the fact that the word auctor does occur in connection with the purchase of tax contracts: Festus 137L uses ‘auctorem emptionis’, but of the manceps, who might be changed once he had made the purchase that deWnes his role: Brunt 1990, 373, argues that

Commentary to ll. 105–109

147

the manceps was no more than the agent of the socii, otherwise his death would have made it necessary to draw up a fresh contract. See further below, on 109. 107–8 $ø ŒÆd H æ #ø j ½. . . æÆÅªH: ŒÆ instead of X (X correctly in 102) must be an error of the translator; cf. ŒÆ for X at 111, §47, 125, §55 (supplement). 108 Ie NH &ÆıÆæø æ#ø Kd Å B ŒÆæ ı Łø: For this phraseology, cf. 126, ŒÆd Ie NH &ÆıÆæø H ªªØ Æ K ø Ø B ŒÆæ ı Łø; 127–8, Ie NH &ÆıÆæø æ#ø Kd ÅfØg B j ½ ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ Oç Øºø; and 134, Ie NH &ÆıÆæø æ#ø Kd Å B ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ Oç Øºø. For the Wve-year contract and its continuance into the Principate, see Brunt 1990, 377; he argues (369) that the great companies were able to renew their leases again and again after the expiry of the original term: rival Wrms might have been unable to operate eYciently without the experienced slave staV in the service of their predecessor. 109–10, §46 þ 123, §54 Supplements by the consuls of 7 bc: Changing the authentes; provision of securities by the publicanus. 109 ½Ø!æØ ˚ºÆ*Ø ˝æø e !, ¸ *ŒØ ˚Æº*æØ — ø oÆØ: Eck 1990, 139–45, cf. Eck et al. 1996, 214 f., recognized these men as the consuls of 7 bc (the later Emperor Tiberius and the Cn. Calpurnius Piso condemned in ad 20, the use of whose praenomen was banned for his son by the senate at that time and is here replaced with Lucius: Tac. Ann. 3. 17. 8; SC de Cn. Pisone patre 99 f., with Eck et al. loc. cit.) and vindicated the strictly chronological ordering of all supplements to the lex. So there is a distinct development, not the identity of content postulated in ed. pr. After 7 bc the ÆPŁÅ might be changed in the Wrst 20 days after the agreement, before that perhaps not at all. In ad 5 exchange was apparently allowed quite freely (with his ‘20 days’ now ‘a whole year’, H. W. Pleket, SEG 39, 1180 ad loc., may not have understood the innovation correctly), only with the stipulation that it had to take place with the collaboration of the praetors of the Aerarium. (They were two in number and replaced the praefecti aerarii from 23 bc to ad 44: Corbier, Aerarium 639–43.)

148

Commentary to ll. 110–115

For an earlier occurrence of ÆPŁÅ in the text (restored), see above 106. Edd. pr. translate it as ‘Zeichnungsberechtigter’, authorized signatory, and conjectured magister as their Wrst choice for the Latin equivalent, while MHC (Wrst in SEG ad loc.) thinks of cognitor. The function of cognitores, whatever it was, appears to have been to act in the sphere of the guarantors, at any rate somehow subordinate to that of the actual praedes (cf. lex Malacitana 63–5 with Spitzl 1984, 86. In 106–7, §45 there is talk of security, KªÆØ ŒÆd j ½. . . æd KªªÆø; is the series praedes-praedia-praediorum cognitores of the lex Malacitana, in a diVerent order, to be reconstructed here?) and not to have included the idea of administrative independence implicit in the Greek word. Possibly one should rather think here of the manceps (but see above, on 106; cf. Uro¨gdi 1968, 1205; Kunkel and Wittmann 1995, 2, 453 f.; Badian 1997, 85 f. is right repeatedly to draw attention to our lack of information on the internal organization of societates publicanorum). Or, with C. Nicolet (AE´ 1989, p. 222, followed by Lewis 1996, 210), should one think of the auctor societatis? His position, in what may be thought of as the sphere of the managerial magistri, and in general the whole internal structure of the societates are admittedly too little known to allow a decisive judgement here, certainly not on a possible change in structure which brought the manceps into the position of one of the agents who might be replaced or removed by the socii (cf. Steinwenter 1928, 990 f.) and which might perhaps account for the modiWcation of ad 5. 110–12, §47 þ 124–6, §55 Securities to be exacted from the publicanus at the discretion of the consuls. 110 Ø Łø : Variants such as Ø Łø (110)/ K Æªæ Æ (124), I çÆº Æ ŁÆØ (107)/ ØØŒÆ ø (124), KæªºÆ!) ﬁ Å (ll. 111– 12)/ ŒÆæ ıŁÅ Å K ÆªæÆ½ ﬁ Å (125), æÆØ (102)/ IÆåØ (110) raise the question whether verbal variants in the Latin original or the activity of diVerent translators is to be assumed as their basis (so Eck 1990, 145). KØŒæ Ø: See on 102. 111 ¼åæØ F ÆºF: Verres had taken Wve times as much as the law allowed him (Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 97. 225).

Commentary to ll. 110–115

149

113–14, §48 First supplement made by the consuls of 2 bc: Pactiones made with the publicanus to be valid. Of the two supplements of 2 bc the Wrst refers, according to the interpretation of edd. pr., to pactiones with the publicani (on these see Greenidge 1901, 125 f., and more recently Merola 2001, 101–7). The restoration proposed by edd. pr. for the beginning of 114, with 25 letters (instead of about 16), is unacceptably long. One could with the same sense, though less verbal elegance, formulate it more shortly with ½ Ø IªÆŁﬁB, F. If the supplement is really so general, it lays down only a banal principle of private law. Perhaps in the gap (but not in the place of the *ø, which was read as uncertain in ed. pr., but which has now been conWrmed) a concrete item belonging to the pactio has gone missing. MHC points out that reference to bona Wdes (edd. pr. 119) is inappropriate in a contract of this kind and that we need the equivalent of ius ratumque. 114–15, §49 Second supplement of the consuls of 2 bc: Dealing with conWscated goods. 114 K½åıæ ½ºÅçŁﬁ B: There is no doubt that this section is con cerned with how conWscated goods were dealt with. It was diYcult to reconcile the supplement ½ºÅçŁﬁB K å*æØ, proposed in ed. pr., with the traces recognizable in the photo; renewed scrutiny of the original by MC&CC has altered the order of words but conWrmed the sense. 115 ½ÆE ªªØ Æ Æx i ºÅçŁBØ: This alternative to the supplement in ed. pr. is proposed on factual grounds and for reasons of space. The supplement has nothing to do with the commissum resulting from cheating the customs of items illegally transported over the border (ed. pr. 82 is wrong to make this connection here), but speciWes the pignoris capio . . . aduersus eos, qui aliqua lege uectigalia deberent (Gaius, Inst. 4, 28), generally provided to the publicanus lege censoria through enforcement of tax requirements. Without touching on the question of further proceedings, perhaps of a sale, the consuls arrange the forfeiture of the pledge after a period of 30 days, in which the person who has suVered distraint can redeem the property by fulWlling the required conditions (Klingenberg 1977, 94 f.; 1992, 360 f.; Kaser and Hackl 1997, 146–8). The previous legal position, modiWed by the supplement, is unknown; whether the decision

150

Commentary to ll. 115–119

improved the position of the publicani or of the person subject to the tax is impossible to say. 115–17, §50 The Wrst of four supplements made by the consuls of ad 5: Jurisdiction of the praetor. It is remarkable that the question of jurisdiction appears only here for the Wrst time, but the supplement conWrms the jurisdiction of the praetor peregrinus and so also the venue at Rome for legal confrontations with the publicani. In his account of Claudius’s grant of extended jurisdiction to procurators, Tac. Ann. 12. 60. 3 speaks of equites taking over areas previously reserved for praetors, ‘quae olim a praetoribus noscebantur’; the regular jurisdiction of praetors in cases concerning publicani, along with that of censors and consuls, is discussed by Brunt 1990, 360, n. 18 (on the absence of censors from this document, see above, 10 n.). The function of the praetor in the formulary process consisted in iuris dictio, iudicii datio and iudicis, at that time properly only recuperatorum, datio. (On the formulary process, see Kaser and Hackl 1997, 151 f., on the formulation for the praetor’s jurisdiction 183 f., on proceedings involving publicani 199.) The background that gave rise to the supplement (an earlier attempt, or intervention by the governor) is unknown. Edd. pr. trace it to a decision intended to favour the publicani; but the opposite might be the case, as perhaps with 147–9, §63 (see note there). 116 ½Ka 12 KŒ F ı *ı IçØ !)Å Ø ªÅÆØ: The formulation lends itself only to tentative reconstruction: ½K Ø Å Ø#ÅØ KŒ F (?) ı or, rather long, ½K Ø æe Å Ø#Å KŒ F (?); contrast 147.

æÆÅªF F ØŒÆØF Æ f ' øÆø ŒÆd Iºº Ł½H: The praetor peregrinus: see Brennan 2000, 85–9 (origin); Mommsen, Staatsrecht 2. 13, 196 f.; naturally he had a role under the lex repetundarum and in the Tarentum Fragment: RS 1, 66 and 212, nos. 1, 12 and 8, 12 (restored). 117 ½ØŒÆ F ð?Þ ŒæØH: What stood in the gap of about 20 letters at the beginning of the line and in what Greek terms cannot be said with any certainty. The supplement of ed. pr. is too short; perhaps ½ØŒÆØ Æ, ŒæØF ØŒÆ H or the like might be conjectured.

Commentary to ll. 115–119

151

117–20, §51 þ 120–2, §52 Second and third supplements made by the consuls of ad 5: Duty on untrained slaves. See Jones 1987 and compare 50. The Wrst of the supplements, which are closely linked in their subject matter, focuses, for the special case of the nouicii serui (see Plaut. Capt. 718), on the basic regulation which in 75 bc already belonged to the core of the lex portorii (40–2, §16), that only the publicanus or his business manager was authorized to receive a customs declaration and that only the

çæÆª of the societas established top-grade immunity. (Scha¨fer 1991 has shown it to be probable that this çæÆª meant not a brand or tattoo, but a neckband bearing a lead seal or something similar.) Only if the customs oYcer was away might and should the holder of the supreme magistracy in the neighbouring town (who at that time as a rule would not be a Roman citizen) legitimately take on this function as a substitute. The problem that prompted the supplement appears here to have lain in the fact that the basic rate of duty for nouicii serui was not in dispute, in contrast to the ueterani who had already been a longer time in the possession of their itinerant masters. (Marcian in Dig. 39. 4. 16. 3 makes the distinction between the two categories of slave through service in slavery in the city for one year, anno continuo in urbe; the question of its transference to the customs law of Asia can only be posed.) The opposite view resurfaces during the Severan age in Marcian’s opinion. According to this, undeclared introduction leads to sequestration in the case of nouicia mancipia, not however in that of ueterana. For Marcian the liability to customs depended probably on the utilization of the new slaves as uenalia siue usualia (see with reference to scholarly discussion Klingenberg 1977, 65–70, where the ruling of ad 5 obviously has no role to play). The FºÆ #ÆÆ whom the itinerants brought with them YŒŁ must be assigned to the category of these ueterani whose exemption from customs dues already belonged to the core of the lex portorii of 75 bc (62, 76, §§25 and 33). Apparently not all travellers were granted these exemptions, but only state transport agents in the Wrst place and publicani in the second. 119 ½åæØ ºøÆ $æåﬁ Å: The restoration is not wholly satisfactory: see above on 92, §39. An alternative suggested by MHC is $bæ ºøÆ.

152

Commentary to ll. 120–129

120 K BØ ªªØ Æ º Ø, n i c ª Å Iæ åc åﬁ Å: Cf. 41 above. Merola 2001, 113, notes that the repetition suggests that the practice was frequent. 121 ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ: Why the otherwise consistently unquestioned equivalence of land and sea boundaries (cf. esp. 45, §18) had to be insisted on at this point in particular is hard to determine, and the idea that the special collection of customs dues for new slaves in contrast to the general system of Roman customs policy, which provided for exaction on each occasion a boundary was crossed, was intended to lighten the burdens of transit trade (so edd. pr.) is questionable. 122–3, §53 Fourth supplement of the consuls of ad 5: tax on purple. See Herrmann 1975. The supplement picks up once again a topic that had already formed part of the original core of the lex (20, §7). Damage to the text prevents our discovering whether and how it was modiWed. The æçıæØŒ) (monopoly of purple) is one of the Ptolemaic sources of income from Lycia, likewise managed through farming out (P.Tebt. 8, 29–31, of 202–1 bc; cf. Bagnall 1975; 1976, 108 f.), and the Roman º on the murex emerges as an inheritance from the hellenistic period, even if we have as yet no evidence of it from the Attalid kingdom. (Conversely, on the question whether the Lycian purple (c ŒÆa ¸ıŒÆ æçıæØŒ)) was liable to a tax or was a monopoly, the lex can probably provide an argument for the Wrst.) It is, as Nicolet has shown (1991, 468 f.), the only levy in the sphere of activity of the portorium Asiae which is not a customs due. Why it is leased out along with the customs dues we do not know. Ed. pr., with the heading ‘Erho¨hte Abgaben, erho¨hter Steuersatz’ (‘Rise in levies, rise in tax-rate’), presupposes a misleading amalgamation with the portorium. Nicolet’s interpretation, ‘Ce telos est presque un portorium’ (‘This telos is virtually a portorium’), points in a similar direction. 123–4, §54 þ 124–6, §55 Fifth and sixth supplements of the consuls of ad 5: changing the authentes; Wve-fold security to be produced; the lease to last for Wve years. Cf. 109–12, §§46–7. 127–8, §56 First supplement of consuls of an uncertain year: the lease is to last for Wve years.

Commentary to ll. 120–129

153

The clause virtually repeats what is said in 126. The consuls whose names are lost belong to the period ad 6–18, 5 and 19 being the dates of the preceding and following supplements; 6–14 if one assumes with edd. pr. 128 that the death of Augustus in ad 14 is the terminus ante quem for the following section (128: Augustus is not deiWed; but see below). Edd. pr. also argued from the years in which the Romaia Sebasta were held at Pergamum (128– 30, §57) that the consuls belonged to those years: hence 8 or 12. But the space available (about 32 letters, followed by , the Wrst preserved letter of 127) evidently restricts the choice to the suVects of 8, Lucius Apronius and Aulus Vibius Habitus (33 letters), and the ordinarii of 14, Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius (31). 127–8 Kd ÅfØg B j ½ ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ Oç Øºø: ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ and Oç Øºø (frui, debeto) are something of an oxymoron, and the repetition of the phrase henceforward (134, §58; 139, §60; 141, §61; 145, §62) is also striking; admittedly at 73, §31, ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ occurs, but the governing verb is missing. The phrase takes the place of the simple ŒÆæ ı Łø used previously, and once later (106 and 108, §45; 112, §47; 126, §55; 137, §59 ). It is tempting to ask if someone who had leased the tax in the period before 12 bc had tried to renegotiate it, as the publicani of Asia had done in 61 bc (Cic. Ad Att. 1, 17, 9; 18, 7; 2, 1, 8; 16, 2; Suet. Div. Iul. 20, 3; App. BC 2, 13, 47 f.; cf. Spagnuolo Vigorita 1999b, 194, on Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 7. 18, changes requested in 75 bc, when, however, there is no evidence for major reform, as edd. pr. 160 claimed); the consuls would then be forestalling this manoeuvre or responding to it. 128–33, §57 Second supplement of consuls of an uncertain year: Immunity for the Romaia Sebasta. Edd. pr. argue that this supplement refers to the exemption from dues for the imperial festival of the ' øÆEÆ !Æ held every four years at Pergamum. Their reconstruction is problematic in other ways (130, for example, is too long) and is best abandoned. 129 [— æªÆÅH + 23]: One might rather expect — æªÆÅH in the introduction to the procedure than æ ! ıH (ed. pr.). The tax immunity on commercial transactions that featured in religious festivals of the Greek east was clearly of interest to the rulers of

154

Commentary to ll. 130–134

Rome; see Wo¨rrle 1989, 209–15, with bibliography 210, n. 158. The question, basic for 127–33, §§56–7, is, then, whether the request of the Pergamenes and Augustus’ reply belong to the original organization of the festival, which was consequently free of dues from the beginning, or whether the Iº ØÆ was granted to the festival in the aftermath, in ad 8 or 14 (see above on §56) as a speciWc privilege, and correspondingly gave rise to the modiWcation of the lex portorii that we have in §57, while in the other case one must reckon that a later dispute about the old privilege was cleared up by means of the supplement. In that case one must also reckon with the possibility that the supplement could date to the period after the death of Augustus. 130 [ + 25 ŒÆa ÅæÆ: When the supplement was drafted the festival was not annual but pentaeteric (the restoration of ½æØ ÅæÆ might be a theoretical possibility in a ƒ æe Iª#). Nothing follows from this for the old controversy about its original periodicity (cf. Habicht 1969, 165; Fayer 1976, 113 f.; more recently Herrmann 1994, 217 f.; 1996, 179). That problem did not necessarily arise from IGR 4, 454, because the person honoured there can have held his three periods of oYce one after another, the last-named gymnasiarchy during the twelfth Romaia Sebasta, and so in ad 16. In that year Pergamum had Wve gymnasia; as there were six, it was to another gymnasiarch that the inscription IGR 4, 316/473, re-edited and discussed by Habicht, loc. cit., was erected. It begins with a retrospective on public functions which fell in the lifetime of Augustus. But that does not date the six gymnasia in or before ad 14, and thus does not compel us to adopt a date before ad 14 for the twelfth Romaia Sebasta of IGR 4, 454, with its Wve gymnasia. The festival was founded as a ƒ æe Iª# (Dio 51, 20, 9) and probably had the usual pentaeteric rhythm right from the beginning. 131 [‹ø + 27 ] `: Here edd. pr. reckon with the mention of Elaia, which is immediately taken up again with F ºØ *ı (‘that Elaia . . . shall be exempted, with freedom from duty for its harbour’). It is easier to explain *ı if ºØ) is conceived of here as a proxy for portorium and F ºØ *ı could then be understood simply as an objective genitive of Iº ØÆ.

Commentary to ll. 130–134

155

132 ½Ø + 32 KŒ E: MHC&JMR read the upper two horizontal hastae of an ¯, &, ˝, ˇ and ; the apparent cross-bar between & and ˝ is not, they think, intended. It is possible that F ðe Þ has dropped out. + Iªøªc ÆØ: If this noun was deployed as a translation to convey ducere earlier, in 56, it is used for a diVerent purpose here. 133–5, §58 Supplement made by the consuls of ad 19: Duration of the lease and exchange of the proenguos. 133 AæŒ ØºA, ¸ *ŒØ ˝øæ!A: M. Silanus and L. Norbanus together held oYce 1 January–30 June ad 19, Silanus continuing in oYce throughout the year. 134 [› c ºø Æ Ø Łø ] MC&CC; Å ØøÆ edd. pr. For the meanings of this word see above on 4. Praescr.; Å ØøÆ is an object of Ø Łø in 127, §56, 136, §59 (F ºı), 138 and 139, §60 (passive), 140 (F ºı) and 141, §61 (passive), 149, §64; ºøð ÞÆ is found in 105 and 110, §§45 and 47 (after Å Ø#Å); Å ØøÆ makes a permissible 122-letter line. The next Ides of January are appointed for production of praedes and praedia in 103, §43 (17 bc), and for the starting point of exploitation they are repeated from 108, §45 (12 bc) onwards (112, §47; 126, §55; 127, §56; 137, §59; 141–2, §61). Here presumably the period is 15 January ad 20–14 January 25, or rather until the contractor discharges his Wnal obligation on the Ides of October (cf. 100, §42 (17 bc)): the explicit provision for Wve years’ exploitation appears from 108, §45 (12 bc) onwards (112, §47; 126, §55; 127–8, §56; 134, §58; 136, §59; 139, §60; 142, §61). The publicanus may change the æªªı (for the meaning of this word, see above on 105, §45) within ten days following that on which he leases; this is an advance on the three days allowed in 12 bc (105–6, §45). Later consuls raised the limit to thirty days (142–3, §61). The ten-day stay of execution provided for condemned criminals by the senate in ad 21 was also later extended to thirty days: Tac. Ann. 3. 51. 3; Suet. Tib. 75; Dio. 57. 20. 4; [Quint.] Decl. 318 arg. In ad 56 the cos. des. L. Piso, joining in an attack on tribunes of the plebs, proposed that Wnes imposed by them should not be registered

156

Commentary to ll. 135–138

in the public records until four months were up (Tac. Ann. 13. 28. 3); appeal was to be allowed to the consuls. 135 ½Kd H æÆÅªH: There were up to Wfteen praetors annually by the end of Augustus’ reign; Tiberius pegged the number at twelve (Tac. Ann. 1. 14. 6; cf. 2. 32. 1; 2. 36. 1), but it sometimes rose to eighteen (Dio 58. 20. 5). Presumably only those two assigned by lot to the Aerarium (cf. Tac. Ann. 1. 75. 4; 13. 29. 2; Dio 53. 32. 2) are intended. The praetor peregrinus is stipulated in 116–17, §50 (ad 5) for disputes between publicani and tax-payers; 123, §54, on changing the ÆPŁÅ, is unspeciWc. 135–8, §59 Supplement made by the consuls either of ad 37 or of an unknown date: the lease is to commence on the Ides of January after it is agreed. This clause insists on the date for the take-up of the lease; cf. 134. 135–6 ˆœ½ j —Ø — æ#Ø ˝ØªæE, ˆÆE Œ ææ#Ø —æŒº oÆØ: The restoration of the consuls’ names by edd. pr. was reaYrmed by Eck 1990, but Salomies 1991, 86, points out that another, as yet unknown, pair of consuls may have been mentioned here. Again there is to be no deviation from the terms of the law during the Wve-year term of the lease, which is now to come into operation on the next Ides of January after the agreement is made. 138–9, §60 Supplement made by a consul of an uncertain year: The publicanus to keep to the provisions of the lex for the entire Wve-year period of the lease. 138 [ + 30 !Æ e oÆ æ ŁÅŒ : The consul’s year lies between 37, if the names of Cn. Acerronius and C. Petronius are rightly restored, and another pair who precede the curatores of 62. Quinquennial allocations between these dates would fall in 42, 47, 52, and 57, but Wve-year periodicity visibly impinges in modiWcations of the lex only between 17 and 2 bc, with 2 bc–ad 5 a six-year interval (when Spagnuolo Vigorita 1999b, 193, suggests a delay due to mourning for C. Caesar, and notes the 25-year interval between the additions made by the consuls of (?) 37 and those of the curatores of 62). The traces read by MC&CC are compatible with a number of common cognomina, such as Iustus, Venustus, and Faustus (a name

Commentary to ll. 135–138

157

used by the descendants of Sulla the Dictator (MRR 2, 557), including the cos. suV. of 31 and his son, the ord. of 52, but as a praenomen). But, as D. Rathbone has pointed out, the name is very long, and the traces are also consistent with the imperial titulature. If this is an emperor acting alone Rathbone suggests that it is probably Claudius. Gaius to be sure held the consulship alone for twelve days in 40, but the Emperor may have had a colleague who was not involved in the addition to the lex; his other periods in oYce were two months from 1 July 37, for 30 days in 39, and 6 days in 41, both from 1 January. For Claudius the possible years are 42, 43, 47 (two-month periods), or 51 (the entire year), with 42 or 43 the most likely, just before Domitius Decidianus began his work. Claudius’ title, Ti. Claudius Caesar Augustus (omitting Germanicus), makes 30 letters in Greek and would Wll the gap satisfactorily. The question is why an emperor engaged himself with the lex, and why he should have acted alone. Claudius was a hands-on emperor, sometimes hasty, and this clause is very simple. He may have been prompted to intervene by an abuse that had come to his attention: the abandonment by publicani of the work they had contracted for, or an attempt to vary its terms (see above on 127–8). If the restoration is rejected, the question why only one consul (a man whose name was about thirty-eight letters in length!) is named is more pressing. Cn. Papirius Carbo had acted alone in 113 bc (lex Agraria 89, RS 1, 122), but in the past both consuls had routinely dealt with the present regulations. The colleague might be away on oYcial business, ill or dead, or have suVered penalties from the ‘damnatio memoriae’ menu, if he was not an emperor or member of the imperial family who, unlike Tiberius in 7 bc (109, §46), left the work to his colleague. Absence is unlikely: consuls were expected to attend to business in Rome during their term of oYce (Syme, RP 1, 379), and neither Gaius nor Claudius is known to have taken a consul with him when he travelled. Illness or death is possible; note the gap left at the end of 12 bc after the deaths of M. Messalla Appianus and C. Valgius Rufus; but there would be candidates ready and for the emperor a chance of satisfying ambitions (cf. Suet. Iul. 76. 2, consulship of 45 bc; Tac. Ann. 2. 51, competition for a suVect praetorship of 17; Suet. Cal. 26. 3, election of suVect consuls in 39, three days after the deposition of their predecessors). ‘Damnatio’ seems out of court when Cn. Piso cos.

158

Commentary to ll. 139–144

7 bc survived on the record (Tac. Ann. 3. 18. 1) and is mentioned in the lex, 109, §46. The preferable solution, then, is to attribute this supplement to Claudius, acting alone in 42 or 43. 139 [ŒÆd *Ø E Œ çÆºÆØ]: The phrase, derived from the following lines, is a restoration doubted by MHC, though it is admitted to the translations. These ‘chapters’, ‘capita’ (OLD s.v. 18) seem to involve redundant language, but the author may be distinguishing the original enactment from the supplements. 140–3, §61 Supplement made by consuls of an uncertain year: The publicanus to keep to the provisions of the lex for the entire Wve-year period of the lease; arrangements for changing the proenguos. The same regulation, this time specifying regulations for changing the æªªı. 140–1 HØ ÆPHØ øØ ŒÆd Œ çÆºÆj½Ø E ÆPE åæ# 15 c Ø ŁøÅ ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ Oç Øºø oø Œº.: Edd. pr., supplementing ‰ › æe ÆPF ÆP), render: ‘Wer die Zollpacht . . . gepachtet hat, der soll dasselbe Gesetz und [dieselben] Kapit[el gebrauchen wie der (Pa¨chter) vor ihm, und er soll den Zoll], den er gepachtet hat, in der Art nutzen, dass sein Pachtamt erhalten bliebt vom [kommenden] 15. [Januar an . . . ]’. They take ‰ › æe ÆPF in a chronological sense from 145, §62, but that is problematical. For the passing down of regulations they compare Cicero’s inclusion of predecessors’ measures in his own edict: ‘Romae composui edictum: nihil addidi nisi quod publicani me rogarunt’. Only a single chapter introduces novelties: ‘Diligentissime scriptum caput est, quod pertinet ad minuendos sumptus ciuitatium: quo in capite quaedam noua salutaria ciuitatibus, quibus ego magno opere delector.’ Otherwise his edict corresponds, even in the part censured, to the usual in being tralatician: ‘Hoc uero, ex quo suspicio nata et me exquisisse aliquid in quo te oVenderem, tralaticium est’. So Cic. Ad Fam. 3, 8, to Ap. Pulcher, cf. Pliny, NH 10. 139: ‘quo deinde caput translatum per omnes leges ambulauit’. MHC has rejected E ÆPE and ‰ . . . ÆPc, and the insistence on following precedents set merely by earlier contractors is implausible. 142–3 e æªªı K +æÆØ æØŒÆ ÆE ªªØ Æ, K Æx i › N e ÆNææØ j ½e æªªı Ææa E æÆÅªE

Commentary to ll. 139–144

159

$Ł ŁÆØ Œ º ½* ÅØ, æe HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæøØ Iºº ÆØ K ÆØ: Previously, in 105–6 and 134–5, §§45 and 58, the period of grace fell immediately after the conclusion of the contract. The period of thirty days now laid down for the change would be the most favourable yet: the æªªı can be changed before the Aerarium of Saturn, in the thirty days after that on which the law [is deposited (?)] in the Aerarium (MHC) or, with the present text, ‘The æªªı may be changed within thirty days of the day on which the lex requires the deposit of the name of the magister in the Aerarium’. 143 The text as read and restored in ed. pr. brings in the incumbent praetors, ½E I d æÆÅª E . The reference is retained in MC&CC’s revised reading and supplement. Praetors in oYce were in charge of the Aerarium between 23 bc and ad 44 (Tac. Ann. 13. 29; Dio 53. 32. 2; 60. 24. 1, with Corbier, Aerarium 642), which would impose a date earlier than 44 for this section (there is no reason to suppose that the word would refer inaccurately to the ‘praetura perfunctos’ chosen by Nero from 56 onwards (Tac. Ann. 13. 29. 3; cf. Hist. 4. 9. 1)). However, as D. Rathbone points out, praetors in the restoration oVer no Wrm indication of the date of this supplement; and ÆÆØ or ÆØ ıÆE would Wt the space equally as well. æe HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæøØ: For the addition of ‘Saturni’ to the name of the state treasury, see Corbier, Aerarium 709, arguing that Claudius, who had deWned the domains of Aerarium and Fiscus, insisted that he was leaving the guardianship of the former to Saturn: ‘La pre´cision se re´fe`re au dieu et non au temple’. 144–7, §62 Supplement of the curators appointed in ad 62: Date from which the lease is to be worked; Wve-fold security to be produced. The publicanus is to work the tax contract from 21 December (?) as his æªªı on his behalf or others in charge of the aVair [have provided (?)] and to oVer up to Wve-fold the annual sum for which he has leased the tax contract at the discretion of Nero or the curators of the public revenues. 144 ½¸*ŒØ ˚Æº*æØ — ø, `sº ˜ıŒØ ˆØ, `sº —œ —Æıºº E: For the Wrst time not the consuls but oYcials holding a post outside the cursus honorum, the curatores uectigalium publicorum (Tac. Ann. 15.18. 2–4) regulate the lex. For nomenclature,

160

Commentary to ll. 145–147

order of names, and the criteria for their appointment, see above on 3–4 Praescr., and for a wide scope for the curators’ work see Be´renger 1993, 75 f., who notes that they deal with æ Ø; in her view (perhaps too dramatic) their creation was a response to crisis, and part of a centralization already seen in the change from quaestors to prefects of praetorian rank at the Aerarium (Corbier, Aerarium 17 f., and see Corbier, below, pp. 203–4). 145 ½æe + 9] H &ÆıÆæø Œø: ½æe ˚ÆºÆH &ÆıÆæø or ½æe NH &ÆıÆæø Œø, ed. pr.; but what has happened to the Nones? The translator seems to have misunderstood a. d. undecimum Kal. Ian. ProWt-sharing began immediately the securities were registered in the Aerarium; cf. 108, §45 (12 bc). 145–6 ‰ › æe ÆPF æªªı j x e æAªÆ F ½ jº Ø + 11 ŒÆ Œº.: Edd. pr. have e æAªÆ F ½Kªjªı Æ ŁÆØ ŒØ· ŒÆd, translating: ‘Wer vom [ . . . Volke diese Pacht] gepachtet hat, soll sie [vom 21. 12 (oder 3. 1)] an nutzen wie der Bu¨rge vor ihm oder die Leute, welche das [Bu¨rgen gemeinschaftlich (u¨bernahmen)]’; they explain that the sureties are part of the organization of the societas, and cite Pol. 6. 17. 4: ƒ b ªaæ IªæÇı Ø Ææa H ØÅH ÆPd a KŒ Ø, ƒ b ŒØøF Ø *Ø, ƒ b KªªıHÆØ f MªæÆŒÆ, ƒ b a P Æ ØÆ Ø $bæ *ø N e Å Ø. MHC has convincingly rejected KªªıÆ ŁÆØ ŒØ (see his translations): why should the publicanus work the contract in the same way as the ‘surety’ before him? 146 ½º Ø + 11 ŒÆd ¼åæØ F ÆºF KŒ ı F Œ çÆºÆı: Edd. pr.’s supplement has a Wve-fold deposit, coming from 111, §47, and 125, §55. 147 [KŒæØ Ø]: See on 102, §43. 147–9, §63 Disputes between ?the publicanus and ?travellers to be brought to the procurator of the province. The curators introduce a provision that may be relevant to Nero’s reforming edict of 58: ‘Romae praetor, per prouincias qui pro praetore aut consule essent iura aduersus publicanos extra ordinem referrent’, Tac. Ann. 13. 51. 1. That almost on-the-spot jurisdiction, which Brunt 1990, 360, suggests may have involved cognitio, personal

Commentary to ll. 145–147

161

or through legates, was good for provincials, who previously had recourse only to the distant praetor peregrinus (cf. 115–17, §50; Nicolet 1993, 945 n. 35, notes the application to Augustus by the koinon of Asia, 128–33, §57). Cases were now to be heard by governors on the spot out of the regular order, extra ordinem, as requiring urgent treatment; Tacitus also uses extra ordinem of the holding of magistracies in a career that should not be retarded, Ann. 13, 29, 2, where commentators cite Sen. Ep. 106. 2 (metaphorical) and Cic. Ad fam. 8. 8. 1. No radical change seems to have been intended in the civil process in question in ad 58. At Rome the same authority, the praetor, heard the case; it is a question of speed and convenience (cf. ÞA in the Fifth Cyrene Edict, Sherk, RDGE 174, no. 31, 91). In the lex as it stands nothing in ad 62 is ‘extra ordinem’; the governor of Asia is not referred to at any point in the lex. 147–9 K Ø IçØ !)Å Ø ªÅÆØ Æ f F ` ½- - - j 42 KØæøØ ˝æø !Æ F HØ B KÆæå Æ IçÅªıøØ — ˇ&˝`& ˇ ½- - -: The text is too fragmentary for much to be gleaned from it, but it looks as if the dispute was envisaged as being between the publicanus and travellers. Edd. pr. conjecture: Æ* ½Å c ºøÆ Ø Łø Æı ŒÆ Ø c KÆæå Æ KØŒF, and jurisdiction is assigned to the provincial procurator. (On the scope of the new procedure, see Klingenberg 1977 and 1979, 66–70.) The interpretation is attractive, but the person involved in a dispute might not always be an inhabitant of the province; the point is whether they were entering/leaving it with goods. S. Mitchell oVered the attractive suggestion at the colloquium Æ f F Æ ½ı, i.e. the quaestor oYciating in Asia and liable to come into conXict with publicani; but the reading of the stone made by MC&CC seems to exclude it. If the supplement of edd. pr. is accepted, or even otherwise, the clause may illustrate the development of procuratorial jurisdiction (but see on 150). The authority of the emperor’s procurator in Asia, in ad 15 speciWcally restricted (in theory: the rule had been infringed) to ‘seruitia et pecunias familiares’ of the emperor (Tac. Ann. 4. 15. 3), was now being formally permitted judgment in disputes over a tax. In 53 Claudius had awarded procurators Wscal jurisdiction, without appeal to himself: ‘omne ius tradidit’ (Tac. Ann.

162

Commentary to ll. 148–151

12. 60. 4), although, as Brunt notes, 1990, 166, the change was only an extension of what ‘they, or some of them, were already recognized as possessing’ (‘plenius quam antea et uberius’, 12. 60. 2); he shows (168) that the jurisdiction was not conWned to imperial domains. At the beginning of Nero’s reign the jurisdiction awarded by Claudius in 53 was very likely clawed back (Brunt 1990, 177, discussing Suet. Nero 17; cf. Tac. Ann. 13. 51. 1), but in 62 the procurators may have recovered at least some of their powers, either as part of a general measure (but Tacitus should have noticed that) or speciWcally for the administration of the present lex. In 115–17, §50, of ad 5, the disputants æd F ı *ı are not speciWed but the judge is the praetor peregrinus. In both cases the dispute will lie between the publicanus and tax-payers. But now there may have been a change: the ‘procurator in charge of the province’ is now speciWed, in the dative case. There is little room before mention of the procurator for anything to be said of other, higher judges, but the context remains uncertain: see note on 148 — ˇ& ˝`& ˇ below. Edd. pr. entitle this section ‘Cognitio extra ordinem’. Heil 1991, 17 f., objects that it should be the function of proconsul or propraetor. Nonetheless, he would not rule out cognitio extra ordinem (that phrase is modern; for extra ordinem, see above) from the lex: the end is lost (see note on 155 below), ‘ ein betra¨chtliches Stu¨ck’, ‘Wohl die Hauptmasse der Neuregelungen Neros’. That is possible, but the evidence for it is not clear. In cognitio on the part of magistrate or senate activities outside the provisions and procedures laid down by law might be dealt with, as in Pliny the Younger’s ‘cognitio de Christianis’, Ep. 10, 96, and in cases taken by the Senate. For imperial cognitiones and their freedom from procedural rules, see Millar 1977, 236–40; Crook 1967, 272. Misconceptions of ‘cognitio extra ordinem’ are dealt with in D. Rathbone’s paper, p. 262 n. 34 below. 148 KØæøØ ˝æø !Æ F HØ B KÆæå Æ IçÅªıøØ — ˇ&˝`& ˇ : Edd. pr. interpret the last letters as æe :m ¼ . MHC wonders about ‘. . . the province, to which [something has been transported (?)].’ B KÆæå Æ: The phrase raises the question whether, as edd. pr. assumed, the province of Asia as subject to the senatorial governor coincided with the Wscal area of which the procurator was ‘leader’, or

Commentary to ll. 148–151

163

whether ‘Asia’, a larger area organized for Wscal administration and including Bithynia, was worked by a single societas, as argued by Heil 1991; but for the identity of the administrative and Wscal areas, see Nicolet 1993. 149–54, §64 The beginning of a new paragraph is signalled by the interpunct, the last visible in the text. 149 y ‹ åæ½ - - - : This phrase suggests a coming instruction to the publicanus for the duration of his lease. 150 Å Ø#Å ŒÆ) Å <j> ŒÆÆ) Ø j Y Ø ºøØ ÅæHØ F KØ ½æı --- : The verbs read by MC&CC, with the reference to dolus malus, imply an ‘encounter’, past or future, presumably with the publicanus, and disagreements requiring resolution. If we accept that at the end of the line KØ½- is the beginning of KØæı, and if this is the procurator of Asia, it is hard to reconcile that with any idea of enhanced jurisdiction. If the curators are thinking of such misconduct, perhaps to be remedied by the governor or by the praetor at Rome, it should be noted that the advice that the governor should abstain from all Wscal cases involving the procurator (CJ 2. 46. 1: ‘Sane si Wscalis pecuniaria causa sit, quae ad procuratorem principis respicit, melius fecerit si abstineat’) belongs only to the reign of Caracalla; Nerva had reinstated the praetor’s jurisdiction, Dig. 1. 1. 2. 32; Pliny, Pan. 36. It is just possible that the procurator/ actor of the publicanus is meant, as in 13–15, §4; 17, §6; 27–8, §10; 57, §23; cf. 27–8, §10, where the name of the publicanus or his procurator is to be displayed without dolus malus; another form of dolus malus on the part of the publicanus: 80, §34, with the note on p. 134 above. 151 º)ł ÆØ: This verb is used of the publicanus or his procurator, ‘taking’ º j Ø Ł, 56, §23, cf. 99, §41, a Wxed sum; of the traveller who ‘collects’ or does something in contravention of the lex, 57–8, §24, or who is ‘taking’ [Zł]øØ (uiaticum), which he then conveys for his own use (65, §26); and in the passive of an Kåıæ, restored in 114, §49. ‘He shall take’ suggests action imposed on the publicanus, and the occurrence of the phrase K å*æı ºBłØ in 56, §22; 58, §24; 81, §34; and 88, §38, also suggests this context.

164

Commentary to ll. 152–155

Ka Ææa e Kø Å ½ - - - : The punctuation is uncertain, but it would be permissible to insert a comma or full stop before K. The word opens clauses without a particle; where there is a strong adversative sense may but need not follow it (21, §8, cf. 79, §34). Ææa e Kø Å½-: Contrary to the ‘previous’ publicanus, Å Ø#Å (LSJ Kø IV), or to the one ‘mentioned above’ (LSJ II)? 152 ½ 48 KØ ºÅH H Å ø æ ø + ØÆª# Ø ½- - - : The last word, not previously recognized, but read by MC&CC, means ‘deciding’; perhaps two alternative means of coming to a decision over disputes are envisaged: one by the curators, the other by some other authority. ØÆª# Ø is used for cognitio (though Mason, GT s.v., mentions one instance of rogatio), usually in connection with the oYce a cognitionibus (Dio 78 (79), 13. 4; IG XIV, 1072), but also for an individual case, as in Acts 25. 21 and in the bilingual record of the trial of 216 (SEG 17 (1960) 759: ÆªBÆØ KŒº ı c Øªø Ø); Philo, Flacc. 100 looks less formal. We cannot however be quite sure that we have + and not X. 155 There is probably not much missing beyond the end of the preserved text, assuming that the block was not shortened before being shaped (a possibility not mentioned in ed. pr. 19). In the text as it is preserved, we have reached the curatores, and edd. pr. note room for only a few lines more. The photograph suggests another line on the surviving face. At the top, 25 lines come before the arc cut on the left-hand side, which ends after 134; there might have been 25 more lines, 159 in all, if the cutting was symmetrical.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism in the Asian Customs Law S. Mitchell

All discussions of the lex portorii Asiae should be introduced with a stern warning to readers. Since its Wrst publication in 1989, numerous studies have been devoted to the text and its interpretation, but it has been hard to Wnd a consensus of opinion among scholars on many of the major problems and issues which it has raised. The reasons for this are simple. The inscription, despite its size and length, is only partially preserved. The text evidently continued for longer than the 154 surviving lines. More seriously, the entire lefthand side of the inscription was cut away when the stone was reshaped to serve as part of the socle of the ambo in the Basilica of St John at Ephesus, and this process has removed the beginnings of all the lines. Around 40 letters have been lost from each of the Wrst twenty-four lines, and rather more from ll. 25–32. Thereafter the number of missing letters decreases to a minimum of around ten

The Wrst version of this paper was written in August 1999, during a spell as visiting fellow in the supportive and stimulating environment of the University of New England, New South Wales, Australia. I am grateful to Professors Greg Horsley and Greg Stanton and their colleagues for helping to make my stay both proWtable and enjoyable. That draft has beneWted immensely from the scrutiny of participants at the Oxford colloquium on the lex portorii. Subsequent detailed comment from Barbara Levick, Jean-Louis Ferrary, and in particular from Giovanna Merola, Mattha¨us Heil, and Christian Mileta have led me to recast and develop many of the arguments. I am extremely grateful to them.

166

S. Mitchell

between ll. 84 and 95, but increases gradually thereafter. The original line length appears to have varied between about 107 and 125 letters.1 These Wgures indicate that about 25% of the total text is missing, to say nothing of what may have been lost altogether at the end. Many of the gaps occur at points which are critical to a general understanding of the document. Furthermore, the surviving text is an original and unparalleled document, which cannot be reconstructed by analogy with other inscriptions. To be sure, numerous familiar Latin formulae, recognizable from other Roman laws, can be detected behind the Greek version. Moreover, the preserved text itself contains many repetitive expressions, which enable several lacunae to be restored with conWdence. Nevertheless, the structure of the document as a whole is unpredictable, and the phraseology of individual clauses is idiosyncratic. The drafters of the Greek version chose vocabulary and expressions which they thought best corresponded to the Latin original, without being constrained by identiWable parallels and precedents. In the discussion that follows, almost all the arguments and proposed conclusions depend on decisions about how the text should be restored. By what criteria can we assess supplements for an inscription which are usually not based on close parallels found in other texts? The restorations must obviously be fully compatible with the surviving letter traces and conform to the size of the gaps to be Wlled. They should supply the sense which is demanded by the immediate context and use language which is of a piece with the surviving parts of the text. An accurate restoration will lead to a text which is coherent and internally consistent. Also, and more decisively, it should cohere with and throw new light on the wider historical context to which the inscription belongs. Proposed restorations which satisfy all these conditions are likely to come close to the original intentions of the drafters of the document. Although the exact words of the original may remain beyond reach, the intended meaning may be attainable.

1 See edd. pr. 3–4, who restore line lengths ranging between 107 and 119 letters for ll. 100–11. Dr Chr. Mileta points out to me that ll. 88–93 have an average length of 122 letters.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

167

1 . T H E S C O P E O F T H E L AW A N D T H E P ROV I N C E O F A S I A It is important to begin by establishing, as far as possible, the administrative region with which the law is concerned. The prescript, drafted and inscribed in ad 62, refers to the document as the KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB ºH Æ (l. 5). Although it is uncertain what Latin phrase this translates, it can reasonably be translated as the permanent regulations for the taxes of Asia,2 and another restored phrase of the prescript doubtless mentioned the public contract for Asia (l. 7). The Wrst clause of the original document reiterates the same information in the heading of the text, ºı Æ, the law for the tax from Asia (l. 7). The following line, however it should be restored, further clariWes the issue by showing that Asia was a deWnable geographical entity, which bordered on three other regions of Asia Minor, Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia (l. 8). The two clauses which relate to regulations introduced by the consuls of 75 bc refer to the export and import of goods K Æ N Æ, from and to Asia (ll. 73 and 75, §§32–3), and the following clause refers to the export of ore K Æ N ' #Å, from Asia to Rome (l. 78, §34). §39 concerning the assize districts, dated to 17 bc, refers to communities attached to another province, æÆØ . . . KÆæå ÆØ (l. 94, §39) and indicates that a publicanus was entitled to set up guard-posts and levy tolls in border territories ŒÆŁa ½K KÆæå ﬁ Æ ÆØ, as in the province Asia (l. 96; see discussion below, pp. 195–7). Lines 117–22, §§51–2, of ad 5 refer to the export and import of slaves N KÆæå Æ Æ (l. 117), while ll. 128–33, §57, of the late Augustan period refer to concessions made to requests HØ ŒØHØ B< > Æ OÆØ, in the name of the Asian provincial organization (l. 129).3 These passages leave little doubt that the area with which the law was concerned was quite simply the province of Asia. As Strabo observed, 2 I prefer to see the enigmatic term KØØÆ as derived from , law, not , right of pasturage, and am not persuaded by the arguments of edd. pr. 36 and 38 that it corresponds to the Latin pascua, that is pasture rights metaphorically interpreted as state revenues. Apart from any other arguments, the document that follows the prescript, where the phrase occurs twice, does not contain an account of revenues, but regulations for the collection of tax revenue. 3 Other references to Asia have been restored in ll. 70 and 94, §§29 and 39.

168

S. Mitchell

this was a new term coined to denote the territory which the Roman people had inherited from the Attalids. The Asian province was designated by a name that was previously applied to an entire continent, ƒ KÆæå Æ I Ø Æ c å#æÆ; Æ æ Æªæ * ; ›#ı ﬁB M æﬁø.4 The term KÆæå Æ (provincia) occurs in the early section of the law. §13 begins with the phrase n i B KÆ ½æå Æ Æ*Å½ (l. 32) and includes a reference to the Kº ıŁæı ‹æı B KÆæå Æ (l. 34). The latter expression is also plausibly restored in ll. 39–40, §15, and l. 43, §17.5 The references to Kº ıŁæØ ‹æØ, ‘free boundaries’ also only make sense if we understand the term eparcheia to have a deWned territorial sense (see below, section 3). On the other hand, the document makes no explicit reference to any other named province, either in its early paragraphs or in the subsequent additions. As will be argued in the following sections, the allusions to Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia in l. 7 are to independent regions of Asia Minor, not to Roman provinces. Only ll. 89–96, §39, drafted in 17 bc, seem to envisage a situation which involved other provinces beyond Asia. It is important to establish the point that the law was concerned with the province of Asia, deWned in a full territorial sense, since two of its sections, the clauses concerning traYc to and from the Pontus in ll. 8–20, §§2–6 (and the list of Pamphylian harbours (l. 26, §9)), have been taken by almost all commentators to refer to territory that lay outside the province. Engelmann and Knibbe inferred from the early paragraphs that the publicani who exacted customs dues were thereby given authority to extend their business to the kingdom of Bithynia.6 Mattha¨us Heil argued that the customs zone covered by the law extended beyond the boundaries of Asia to include the Bosporan section of Bithynia and Pamphylia, and that both the terms Asia and eparcheia should be understood not as references to the territorial province, but to the supposed wider area over which the customs regulations extended.7 Nicolet and Merola have both argued strongly against this interpretation,8 and no internal evidence 4 Strabo 13. 4. 2, p. 624. See Mitchell 2000, 121f. 5 The provincial procurator is also identiWed as KØæﬁø ˝æø !Æ F HØ B KÆæå Æ IçÅªıøØ in l. 148, §63, of ad 62. 6 Edd. pr. 43, 161. 7 Heil 1991, 11–14. 8 Nicolet 1993; Merola 1996; see also Dreher 1996.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

169

in the text itself provides any reason to support the hypothesis. In particular the title of the law (ll. 7–8) expressly distinguished Asia from Bithynia, to which the Bosporus is supposed to have belonged.9 The passages cited above referring to ‘Asia’, ‘the Asia province’, or ‘the province’ are wholly consistent with the use of these terms to denote exactly the provincial territory as it came under Roman control after the death of Attalus III and as it remained, with some alterations, into the imperial period.10 The problematic paragraphs relating to the Bosporus and Pamphylia are in themselves important new evidence for the extent of this new province.

2 . T H E B O U N DA R I E S O F A S I A — R E S TO R I N G THE PRESCRIPT (ll. 7–8) It hardly needs to be emphasized that a Roman law concerned with levying tolls on goods exported from and imported to a speciWc geographical area, should be concerned with deWning its limits as clearly and unambiguously as possible. Not surprisingly, therefore, its Wrst substantive clause attempts to achieve this deWnition. The relevant sentence, which begins in the middle of l. 7 of the inscription and is interrupted by a lacuna of about 39 letters in the Wrst half of l. 8, reads as follows: (7) ºı Æ N ÆªøªB ŒÆd K ÆªøªB ŒÆ ªB ŒÆd ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ (8) [ - c. 39 - ] ˚ÆÆŒÆ ˆÆºÆÆ ´ ØŁıÆ Æ Çø*ı Ø. Engelmann and Knibbe suggested that these two lines should be taken together and constituted the heading for the law. This was contested by Nicolet, who argued that only l. 7 constituted the heading, and that l. 8 should be taken with the following section. 9 See below section 2. See also Dreher 1996, 117. 10 Heil supported his argument that the collection of dues from Asia and Bithynia was the responsibility of a single company of publicani with evidence from Cicero and from inscriptions of the imperial period. Against this see Nicolet 1993.

170

S. Mitchell

He proposed restoring an indeWnite relative clause in l. 8, ending at Çø*ı Ø, which he took to be the third-person plural of the present indicative of the verb, to balance the relative clause which continues the line. As a possible restoration he suggested: ½Æ¥ Ø å#æÆØ ˚ØºØŒÆ ¸ıŒÆÆ —ÆçıºÆ ˚ÆÆŒÆ ˆÆºÆÆ ´ ØŁıÆ Æ Çø*ı Ø; Æ¥ Ø å#æÆØ ˚ÆºåÆø ´ıÇÆø Œº.11 Napthali Lewis suggested a similar restoration and construction at this point, proposing [Æ¥Ø º Ø . . . ] or, his preferred suggestion, [¥Ø Ø . . . ] at the beginning of the lacuna.12 H. Wankel also canvassed the reading Ø or º Ø at the beginning of l. 8, but preferred to treat Çø*ı Ø as the dative plural of the present participle, although he did not attempt to explain how the sentence should be construed as a whole.13 However, the Wrst editors’ interpretation is surely correct. It is impossible to take the Wrst half of l. 8 with what follows, rather than with what precedes it, since two of the three regions which it mentions, Cappadocia and Galatia (to say nothing of the more distant parts of Asia Minor proposed in Nicolet’s restoration), could have no conceivable connection with the subject matter of the following section, the matter of imports and exports through the Bosporus. Line 8 therefore should be linked to l. 7. However, this leaves the problem of what to restore in the lacuna. Wankel suggested ½K E B KÆæå Æ ºØ Ø ŒÆd E Ø E KŒ ˚ÆÆŒÆ ˆÆºÆÆ ´ ØŁıÆ Æ Çø*ı Ø.14 The preposition KŒ should in any case be omitted since it makes no sense to speak of ‘places out of Cappadocia . . . encircling Asia’, but this does not remove a further diYculty, which Dreher identiWed: How could a law for Asia regulate places in Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia, which were outside the province?15 The law’s 11 Nicolet 1993, 948 (¼ 2000, 380). 12 Lewis 1995, 248. Lewis also prints the reading ½. . . ˚ØºØŒÆ ˚ÆÆŒÆ at the beginning of the preserved section of this line, but there is no authority for Æ on the stone. 13 Wankel 1991, 40. 14 Wankel 1991. 15 Dreher 1996, 115 puts the point well: ‘Die inhaltliche Konsequenz daraus wa¨re, daß auch in diesem Fall der Zollbezirk auf die benachbarten Provinzen ausgedehnt wa¨re, allerdings nur auf die direkt an der Grenze zu Asia liegenden Orte, und das scheint in der Sache wenig sinnvoll zu sein, zumal das Gesetz an mehreren anderen Stellen (§§10, 15, 28) voraussetzt, daß die Zollstationen an den Landgrenzen auf dem territorium der Provinz angelegt wurden.’ Dreher’s 116 n. 22 also addresses Nicolet 1993, 949 f., whose suggestion does not surmount the same objection.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

171

concern was precisely with the province of Asia, not with other regions of Asia Minor. An alternative restoration, however, resolves this diYculty. The problem disappears if we here supply a reference to Asia’s land borders: ½K E B KÆæå Æ ºØ Ø ŒÆd E ‹æØ ˚ÆÆŒÆ ˆÆºÆÆ ´ ØŁıÆ Æ Çø*ı Ø, ‘at the harbours of the province and the boundaries of Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia surrounding Asia’. This restoration of the Wrst half of the line has 38 letters, which Wts the gap available very well.16 The boundaries, by their nature, can be construed logically as belonging either to Asia or to the regions from which it was separated, and in this case should be understood as part of the former. Thus we avoid the contradiction of a law for Asia imposing conditions on neighbouring regions. The proposed restoration also reconciles the heading with the contents of ll. 26–8, §10, and ll. 38–40, §15, which imply that customs stations, as one would expect, were situated on the territory of the province. The phrasing of this proposed supplement is echoed in ll. 104–5, §44, which granted toll-free status to the colony of Alexandria Troas in 12 bc: º ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ ŒÆd ŒÆa ªB N Æª#ªÅ ŒÆd K Æª#ªÅ Ke ‹æø ŒÆd ºØø IØŒÆ !Æ B æø $ ½ ﬁ)æÅÆØ. In fact the drafters of this exemption clause might well have had their eye on the heading of the law when they chose this wording. The proposed new restoration has a further advantage in that it anticipates the later paragraphs which speciWed in detail the points of entry into the province. A reference to harbours in l. 8 anticipates the list of harbours provided in ll. 22–6, §9. Indeed it is preferable to restore the noun ºØ Ø instead of the less speciWc Ø at the beginning of l. 23.17 The boundaries of l. 8 also preWgure the sections relating to land boundaries in the interior of the province, ll. 26–8, §10 (where a reference to ‹æØ might also be restored, see below), and l. 34, §13.

16 Alternatively, we could take the verb Çø*ı Ø at the end of the clause as the third person plural of the present tense and treat it as part of a relative clause, for instance ½K E ºØ Ø ŒÆd Ø; Q K Kº ıŁæØ ‹æØ ˚ÆÆŒÆ ˆÆºÆÆ ´ ØŁıÆ ` Æ Çø*ı Ø. This conveys a very similar sense to the version proposed above in the text, but is less neatly formulated. 17 The customs law often uses the term for a location at which a customs’ station should be set up or where a declaration should be made. However, these passages are best understood as referring to inland rather than coastal locations.

172

S. Mitchell

The use of the preposition K following the nouns N Æª#ªÅ and K Æª#ªÅ might initially appear problematic, but is precisely paralleled by the phrase N Æª#ªÅ ŒÆd K Æª#ªÅ K ÆØ —ı in l. 9. While no other examples have been found for the use of the Greek Çø*ø to describe the borders of a region, commentators have rightly drawn attention to the use of its Latin equivalent, cingo, in very similar contexts. Cicero, Flacc. 64 uses the phrase haec cuncta Graecia . . . Asiae maritimam oram bello superatam cinxit urbibus to describe the Greek cities which surrounded the coasts of Asia. In Prov. Cons. 31, the clause ut Asia, quae imperium antea nostrum terminabat, nunc tribus novis provinciis ipsa cingatur supplies an even closer parallel. In 56 bc, the date of this speech, the three new provinces of Bithynia, Pontus, and Cilicia bordered Asia and had superseded the regions referred to in the customs law. The Cicero passages establish for certain that the verb cingo stood in the Latin original of the Greek text. If the Wrst half of l. 8 contained a reference to harbours and boundaries, there would not have been enough space on the stone to list several other regions bordering Asia in the lacuna ahead of Cappadocia, as proposed by Nicolet. From the evidence and arguments set out later in section 6, it emerges that Pamphylia and Lycaonia would not have occurred in the text here, as they belonged to the province of Asia in any case. There is a remote theoretical possibility that either Cilicia or Lycia, or even both, preceded Cappadocia in the list. However, if the following discussion concerning the eastern boundary of Asia in the early years of the province’s history is along the right lines, this is extremely unlikely.

3. THE NEIGHBOURS OF ASIA How does the geographical relationship between Asia and the adjoining regions of Asia Minor, as envisaged by the drafters of the law, Wt with other contemporary evidence? Nicolet suggested that the formula . . . ˚ÆÆŒÆ ˆÆºÆÆ ´ ØŁıÆ Æ Çø*ı Ø dated to the period when the law was published in its revised form, i.e. ad 62, since this geographical deWnition supposedly corresponded to the

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

173

arrangement of provinces on Asia’s eastern border at that period.18 However, in the customs law the areas are not designated as provinces at all and should not be understood as such. A later detail reXects this situation clearly. Lines 32–6, §13, contain rules for the positioning and frequency of customs stations. There should not be more than one for each harbour, and these might be set up Kd B IªåØŁÆº

ı b ÆæÆÆ ŒÆd æd f Kº ıŁæı ‹æı B KÆæå Æ (l. 34), on the foreshore next to the sea and around the free boundaries of the province. The latter were clearly the inland boundaries. The meaning of Kº *Ł æ in this context cannot have anything to do with free cities, and can hardly mean anything as vague as ‘in open country’. The ‘free boundaries’ of the province are best interpreted as boundaries with independent territories, to be distinguished from boundaries with other Roman provinces. Furthermore, the formula is at odds with the provincial arrangements of ad 62 in three critical respects. It ignores the province of Lycia, Asia’s southern neighbour. It fails to use correct provincial nomenclature in the case of Pontus et Bithynia. Finally, it ignores the fact that the province of Galatia in the Neronian period interposed a complete buVer between Asia and Cappadocia, which accordingly cannot have been said to ‘surround Asia’.19 On the contrary, the prescript appears to cohere well with the scanty evidence available from other sources for the political and geographical situation of Asia Minor in the late second and early Wrst centuries bc. In analysing the geographical information which it contains, it is important to bear in mind that the text is a composite from several periods. The version of ad 62 combines clauses which were originally drafted during the early years of the province’s history up to 72 bc with others dating between 17 bc and the time of Nero. Changes to the original legislation were registered not by revising the primary text, but by adding to it. Thus many clauses were left in their original form, even though they were superseded or even contradicted by the later supplements. So information relating to the political geography of Asia Minor was not systematically revised to conform with the 18 See Nicolet 1993. 19 For a brief statement of provincial boundaries in Asia Minor at this period, see Mitchell 1993, 2, 153–5.

174

S. Mitchell

provincial arrangements of the Neronian age. Rather, the clauses reXected the geopolitical realities of the time in which they were drafted. This has important consequences for the way in which they should be interpreted. The best evidence we have for how the Romans conceived the eastern boundary of Asia in the republican period comes from Appian, Mithr. 3, 17–20. This describes the measures taken by the Romans to invade Pontus and later to defend Asia against the advance of Mithridates in 89 bc. The Romans raised troops from Bithynia, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and Galatia to support their own army in Asia under the command of Lucius Cassius. Their forces were deployed in four contingents: 1. ˚

Ø b K ﬁø ´ØŁıÆ ŒÆd ˆÆºÆÆ 2. Ø (i.e. M’. Aquillius) b ﬁ w ØÆ!Æe q N ´ØŁıÆ ﬁH ØŁæØﬁ Å (he was joined by Nicomedes of Bithynia) 3. …Ø b , æ æÆÅªe Kd H ‹æø B ˚ÆÆŒÆ 4. q b ŒÆd H º ÆPE y æd ´ıÇØ Ø*ŒØ ' Fç ŒÆd ˆØ —ºØ +ªF; e Æ F —ı çıº

. Manius Aquillius and Nicomedes were stationed in the northern approaches. Appian relates that Nicomedes advanced to meet Mithridates, was defeated in the plain of the river Amnias (in Paphlagonia), and joined Manius Aquillius in Bithynia. Meanwhile Mithridates ascended Mt. Skorobas, a commanding position on the border of his Pontic domain and that of the Bithynian kingdom.20 The Amnias is to be identiWed with the Go¨kırmak of eastern Paphlagonia, the location of the later city of Pompeiopolis, while Skorobas is most plausibly identiWed as the mountain range of Mahmut Dag (highest point Sarıc¸ic¸ek Tepe, 1726 m.), which overlooked the territories of the coastal cities of Amastris and Tieum,21 dominated Bithynia, and threatened the Roman position. Nicomedes withdrew further to join L. Cassius.

20 Appian, Mithr. 19. 21 See Strobel 1994, 61f., and Belke 1996, 61, 126, 271. Marek 1993, 40 f., 100 less plausibly identiWes Skorobas with the rather higher peak of Keltepe (1999 m.), which lies SSW of Sarıc¸ic¸ek Tepe.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

175

Manius’s camp was taken and he Xed to the Sangarius and then to Pergamum. Lucius Cassius operated in the middle of Anatolia, ‘between Bithynia and Galatia’. This phrase probably indicates a position south of Ko¨roglu Dag around Beypazarı, which marked the boundary between Bithynia and Galatia in Appian’s day.22 Cassius, joined by Nicomedes, then withdrew to the Phrygian stronghold of Leonton Kephale, described as a åøæ Oåıæ#Æ, a very strong position, where they vainly tried to recruit some rustic Phrygian reinforcements. This was surely the fortress of Afyon Karahisar, which marks the boundary between the steppic central plateau and the hillier country of central Phrygia.23 Cassius then withdrew further south to Apamea (modern Dinar) and Nicomedes to Pergamum, while Manius Aquillius, who had particular and well grounded reasons for evading capture by Mithridates, evacuated from Pergamum to Rhodes. The commanders at the Bosporus, hearing the news that Asia was being abandoned, handed over their ships and ‘the keys to Pontus’ to Mithridates. Mithridates then entered ‘Phrygia, Mysia and Asia’, thus attacking the northern and central regions of the province which Manius and Cassius had sought to protect. Then, sending his troops into the surrounding country, he subdued Lycia, Pamphylia, and the territory as far as Ionia. It remained the responsibility of Quintus Oppius to protect the southern approaches to Asia. According to Appian he withdrew from the boundaries of Cappadocia to Laodicea on the Lycus, where he was besieged, a detail which has been conWrmed by an inscription from Aphrodisias relating to this episode.24 He may not have been acting as legate to Cassius, who was proconsul of Asia, but as an independent proconsul, perhaps of the province of Cilicia.25 22 The Peutinger Table marks the provincial boundary between Juliopolis, the last city of Bithynia, and Lagania, which was in Galatia. See French 1981, 33–48 for a very detailed consideration of the evidence. Strobel 1994, 61 suggests that Cassius may have been stationed in the region of Gerede, but this is unlikely. That region was in any case supposed to have been protected by Manius Aquillius’s and Nicomedes’ positions, and Cassius’s subsequent withdrawal into Phrygia is hard to understand if he had been positioned so far north. 23 See Plutarch, Them. 30; Syme 1995, 17 n. 56. 24 Reynolds, Aphrodisias nos. 2 and 3. 25 Livy per. 78. A fragment of Posidonius calls him æÆÅªe . . . —ÆçıºÆ (Edelstein and Kidd 1972, Fr. 253, l. 78).

176

S. Mitchell

The strategic conception of Asia’s defence at this critical time is clear. There were, to extend and adapt Appian’s metaphor, four keys to Asia: the Bosporus, through which any Xeet had to pass; the main highway from Pontus and Paphlagonia through Bithynia; the routes through Galatia; and the approaches from Cappadocia. Two of the three land routes were tightly deWned by topographical and logistic considerations. The Bithynian road was the western part of the socalled Anatolian ‘Northern Highway’, which ran from the Bosporus and Nicomedia through the valleys of eastern Bithynia and into that of the Amnias in Paphlagonia.26 It was later marked by a string of cities founded by Pompeius in 63 bc and by the Roman imperial highway to Pontus and to Satala. Meanwhile the southern road was known to Strabo and before him to Artemidorus, writing around 100 bc, as the ŒØc ›, which ran from Ephesus along the Maeander and Lycus valleys to the emporium Apamea,27 and then skirted between Phrygia and Pisidia (Apollonia, Antioch) to Iconium, where there were options to go a little north of east to the heart of Cappadocia, or south-east to the Cilician gates.28 Oppius would have had his eye on the Cappadocian branch, as the problems on this occasion were coming from Pontus and Cappadocia, not from Syria. All Oppius’s movements would have been along this axis. It is signiWcant that the customs law makes no mention of a land region in Asia Minor called Pontus. Modern scholars without exception have referred to Rome’s opponent in Asia Minor at this period as Mithridates VI of Pontus, the mightiest king of a dynasty which extended back to the third century bc. After Mithridates’ Wnal defeat by Pompeius in 63 bc the Anatolian parts of his former kingdom were indeed annexed to the Roman empire as a new province of Pontus. However, no contemporary source refers to his domain as the kingdom of Pontus, and in so far as Mithridates and his followers were identiWed at all by their ethnic origin, they were called Cappadocians. The ‘kingdom of Pontus’ is a modern construction.29 26 27 28 29

See WinWeld 1976. Strabo 12. 8. 15, p. 577; Dio Chrys. 35. 14. Strabo 14. 2. 29, p. 663. See Syme 1995, 16–23; Levick 1967, 7–20. See Mitchell 2002, 50–52.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

177

There was some room for uncertainty about the central routes through Galatia, where the more open terrain allowed a range of options. Asia could essentially be approached either through Dorylaeum and Cotiaeum in north Phrygia, leading to the Hermus valley and Lydia, or through Amorium in central Phrygia, joining the main Roman road system of the Asian province at Synnada.30 Cassius’s reported change of position, initially from a point on the border of Bithynia and Galatia (thus perhaps near the later Juliopolis) to the fortress of Leonton Kephale (Afyon lies south-west of Amorium and directly north of Synnada), probably reXects his own doubt about which approach to defend, as well as being a despairing retreat in the face of superior forces. The meagre epigraphic evidence from the imperial period relating to toll stations on the internal boundary of Asia comes from two points which Wt well with this conception of Asia’s eastern boundaries. A Latin funerary inscription on an ostotheke from Laodicea on the Lycus identiWes a slave oYcal who had been stationed at Apollonia, the Wrst city in the province of Galatia beyond Apamea on the southern route,31 and this is conWrmed by a text relating to another oYcial at the toll station from Apollonia itself.32 The frontier between Asia and Galatia is precisely located by a boundary stone discovered close to the Roman road which linked Apamea and Apollonia.33 Amorium, on the Asian side of the main route from Galatia leading to Afyon, Synnada, and central Phrygia, has also yielded the gravestone of another slave oYcial of the customs’ service.34 Two other documents concerning road traYc illustrate the importance of overland traYc through this region, although they do not allude directly to the levying of customs dues at the provincial border. The well known angareia dossier from Su¨lu¨menli explicitly refers to traYc from Phrygia through Amorium to Ancyra,35 and the Constantinian inscription relating to the city status of nearby 30 The point is illustrated by the maps in Mitchell 1993, 1, 120 map 7, and 1999, 21. Both were compiled without giving any particular attention to Appian’s account. 31 Keil 1908, 167–8 no. 11; I. Laodikeia no. 102; PXaum 1975, 13. 32 MAMA 4, 113. 33 Christol and Drew-Bear 1987 discuss the geography and road connections of this whole region. 34 Harrison 1988, 180 f. 35 Frend 1956, ll. 5 f. of the inscription.

178

S. Mitchell

Orcistus identiWes it as a mansio and nodal point of roads leading to Amorium, Midaeum, and Pessinus.36 Two main conclusions can be drawn from this discussion. The original republican draft of the law naturally referred to the province’s eastern neighbours as Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia. In 89 bc when Asia had to be defended, its land boundaries to the east were still conceived in this way, and the organization of Rome’s land forces against Mithridates reXected the same perception of geopolitical relationships in Asia Minor. Furthermore, customs stations which were set up on those land boundaries in the early years of the province remained in use during the second and third centuries ad, probably at or near their original locations.

4 . T H E R E L AT I O N O F T H E B O S P O RU S TO A S I A Appian’s account of the events of 89 bc underlines that control of the Bosporus was essential to the security of Asia. The strategic importance of the area must have become apparent to Rome during the Macedonian Wars. As a result, the via Egnatia had been extended from Perinthus to Byzantium during the mid-2nd century,37 and both Byzantium and Calchedon were given the status of free cities, the latter after it was freed from Philip V in 196 bc.38 Byzantium raised troops to resist Aristonicus.39 Rome, therefore, had a strong interest in securing the Bosporus at the time of the creation of the province of Asia. In what sense can it have been part of the province itself, as the law suggests? The Wrst words of l. 8, §2, Æ¥Ø åHæÆØ ˚ÆºåÆø ´ıÇÆø, are an important clue. This section concerns part or all of the territories

36 MAMA 7, 305; 1, 23; 2, 27–34. For a useful map of this region see Harrison 1988, 177 Wg. 1. 37 Walbank 1983, 131–47; Walbank 1986. Further bibliography in Mitchell 1999, 18 n. 4. 38 Polybius 18. 2. 3 f., cf. I.Kalchedon p. 130; note Calchedon’s support for Rome against Perseus in 171, Livy 42. 56. It was listed as a free city by Pliny, NH 5. 149. 39 Tac. Ann. 12. 62. 2.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

179

of these cities. There is extensive evidence to show that Byzantium possessed considerable territories on the Anatolian mainland. The best-documented segment is around the port of Yalova, ancient Pylae, on the south side of the Astacene gulf. Several inscriptions show that this was controlled by Byzantium in the imperial period,40 and the pattern remained the same throughout the Byzantine age, as is clear from a number of literary sources.41 However, Strabo also indicates that there was Byzantine territory in Asian Mysia adjacent to Cyzicene territory: B ˜Æ ŒıºØ ºÅ a b åı Ø KŒ EØ (sc. the Cyzicenes), a b ´ıÇØØ. Th. Corsten has argued that Strabo has confused the two places named Dascylium in this region, namely the Persian satrapal seat which was situated inland on the shore of lake Dascylitis, and the harbour town of the same name, which had once been a tribute-paying member of the Delian league. Both, as it happens, were adjacent to Cyzicene territory. An isolated enclave of Byzantine territory near the satrapal palace is politically and geographically incomprehensible, whereas this would make perfect sense for the seaport.42 Moreover, an inscription in the Doric dialect has been recorded in the nearby settlement at Triglia, a strong further indication that this coastal strip, west of Bithynian Apamea, at one time belonged to Byzantium, where Doric was widely retained for inscriptions.43 Corsten concludes from this evidence that at least until the late hellenistic period and the time of Strabo (or Strabo’s sources), the port of Dascylium, like that at Pylae, belonged to Byzantium. It was apparently transferred to the province of Bithynia by the early empire, and came under the control of the newly founded Bithynian city of Caesarea Germanice.44 Dascylium is duly mentioned in l. 23 of the law as one of the harbours of Asia. The north-east extremity of the province of Asia extended east of the river Rhyndacus to include the territory of Apollonia, which comprised not only the river mouth, but also land on the east side 40 Robert 1939; Hell. 1949, 30–44; see also on the territory of Byzantium Robert, Hell. 1946, 56, 63–4, 154–5; Hell. 1955, 17–24, 33–45; 1964; Bull. ´epigr. 1958, pp. 273–6. 41 Collected by T. Corsten, I.Apameia 101–7 (‘Der Ort wird meistens als Hafen fu¨r ¨ berfahrt von oder nach Konstantinopel genannt’), and Foss 1997. See further die U Robert 1979 and Mango 1994. 42 Corsten 1988, 66–9. 43 Robert, Hell. 1949, 53 f. 44 Pliny, NH 5. 143; Corsten 1990.

180

S. Mitchell

of the river Rhyndacus, since the city itself lay at the north-east corner of the lake through which the river Xowed.45 It also included the coastal enclave of Byzantine territory at Dascylium and Triglia, west of the Wrst Bithynian city, Apamea. We may reasonably assume that the Byzantine enclave at Pylae was also reckoned part of Asia, but it was not singled out as a customs station in the law.46 Line 23, §9 lists Apollonia at the mouth of the Rhyndacus as one of the coastal toll stations of Asia. Line 32, §12 further prescribes that there should be only one watch-post on the Rhyndacus.47 The reason for this note of clariWcation is that the mouth of the Rhyndacus marked both a land boundary, for road traYc from Asia to Bithynia, and a sea-port of entry to the province. The regulation ensured that one customs post served both purposes. It was probably located at Lopadium (Uluabad), at the north-west corner of Lake Apollonia, on the line of a modern and almost certainly ancient east–west road, and was easily accessible by ships entering the lower reach of the Rhyndacus.48 If Dascylium was reckoned to be part of Asia, so too was the free city of Calchedon and its dependent sanctuary and harbour of ' & æe æe ﬁH —ﬁø, ‘the sanctuary towards the Pontus’ (most likely located at modern Anadolu Kavagı), which was almost certainly mentioned in l. 23 of the text.49 Calchedon in the late hellenistic period was always a free city, and not part of the kingdom of Bithynia.50 The writ of the kings of Bithynia thus did not extend beyond the territories of Nicomedia, and of the royal Bithynian city foundations of Prusias ad Mare, otherwise Cius, which was rebuilt by 45 Pliny, NH 5. 123; Robert 1980, 89–97. 46 See Merola 1996, 272–4 for the same interpretation, reached independently. 47 This rule refutes the interpretation of the list of ports in section 9 advanced by Dreher 1996, 118 f. He argues that this regulation was intended to set a minimum number of customs stations along the coast necessary to meet the convenience of importers and exporters. Additional stations might be constructed, provided that they were not closer than a prescribed distance (the Wgure for the distance is missing) to an existing post (ll. 34–6). Nothing else in the document supports this interpretation of this fragmentary section of the law, and it seems likely that the supposition derives from a misunderstanding of it. Furthermore, ll. 32–4, §13 indicate that there should not be more than one toll station for each harbour. 48 Robert 1980, 93 makes the essential points, that the river was navigable and that an important medieval bridge carried the land route. 49 For the sources for this sanctuary of Zeus Ourios, see I.Kalchedon 98. 50 Vitucci 1953, 48 n. 2, 122; Merola 1996, 287 f.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

181

and named after Prusias I after it was recovered from Philip V,51 and Apamea, formerly Myrleia, named after Apame, daughter of Prusias II and mother of Nicomedes II.52 The evidence that both Byzantium and Calchedon possessed territories which lay within the province of Asia has a direct bearing on the question of the restoration at the beginning of l. 9 of the text. Engelmann and Knibbe restored the phrase Ke H ½‹æø F

Æ —ı Œº. ], but, as Heil argued, the mouth of the Pontus is not a clearly deWned land boundary (‘kein klar abgrenzbares Landterritorium’), and the formula was hardly precise enough to regulate a boundary, especially if it was in dispute. Heil and Merola argue for a supplement Ke H ½‹æø Æ, which supplies exactly the required meaning, namely that tolls could be levied on those parts of Byzantine or Calchedonian territory which lay within the boundaries of Asia.53 Their proposal in itself is a little too short for the space, but Ke H ½B KÆæå Æ Æ ‹æø N d Æ ; æe B ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ N Æª#ªÅ; Œº. supplies 42 letters in the gap, exactly the same number as in the original restoration of Engelmann and Knibbe. The details of the rest of this section imply that tolls would be levied in the Asian ports of Calchedon on three types of traYc: goods transported from or to Asia through the Bosporus; goods carried from these Asian ports and Byzantium across the Bosporus (this must be the sense of the clause beginning ŒÆa æÆ); and goods which were exported by land from these stations, obviously into the interior of Bithynia. At a later period Pylae (Yalova) was the starting point for Byzantine expeditionary forces into the interior of Anatolia, which had set out from Constantinople.54 Perhaps, as Dreher observes, the lacuna in the last case (l. 11) should be restored to refer also to overland imports, although little space is available on the stone.55 Lines 13–15, §4, also make clear that all traYc going to or coming from the Pontus was liable to pay tolls before it sailed past Calchedon, and ll. 16–20, §6 state that re-importing or re-exporting the same goods to and from Asia during the same year would not be 51 Strabo 12. 4. 3, p. 564; Robert 1980, 77 n. 469. 52 See I.Apameia, p. 10 on the conXicting testimonia. 53 Heil 1991, 14; Merola 1996, 290. (Note that in the text and translation a diVerent interpretation proposed by MHC, pp. 22–3 above, has been followed.) 54 Foss 1997. 55 Dreher 1996, 117 n. 29.

182

S. Mitchell

liable to pay tax a second time, unless they were being carried into or out of Pontus. Thus all Pontic traYc, whatever the conditions and circumstances of its carriage, was liable to customs dues, which were to be payable within the Asian customs zone. It is clear that this levy on all Black Sea trade was one of the primary motives for including the Asian side of the Bosporus within the province of Asia. Indeed, the fact that the entire Wrst section of the law after the heading is almost exclusively concerned with tolls levied on traYc with the Pontus suggests that this was the main Wscal priority of the whole document. As Merola points out, the Athenians had set up a station at Chrysopolis, Calchedon’s immediate neighbour, in the Wfth century bc to collect duty from ships sailing into the Pontus.56 No other location in the Mediterranean world was better suited for the levying of tolls on sea-borne traYc. We may conclude from this that the province of Asia in its early years included territories and harbours on the south side of the Bosporus and of the Propontis which were later to become part of the province of Bithynia. By the time of Augustus the area around Dascylium had been attached to Bithynia, and Byzantium was deWnitively part of the province of Pontus and Bithynia during the governorship of the younger Pliny in the time of Trajan.57 It is economical to assume that their transfer from Asia had occurred at the time when Rome inherited the kingdom of Nicomedes IV and created the Bithynian province in 75 or 74 bc.58 It would have been profoundly impractical and inconvenient not to have transferred the coastal territory hitherto assigned to Asia to the new province at this time. This hypothesis is extremely important for the dating of the early part of the customs law. It implies that §§2–6 were drafted before Bithynia was made a province, and strengthens the case, which is developed below in section 9, that the early part of the document dates back to the early years of the Asian province, not to the period around 75 bc. In its early years the territory of Asia was more extensive than later, after new Roman provinces had been created 56 Merola 1996, 287 citing Polybius 4. 44. 3–4. 57 Merola 1996, 288; Pliny, Ep. 10. 43 f., 78. 58 The discovery of the customs law has re-awakened interest in the question of the date of Nicomedes’ death and the creation of the new province. See Merkelbach 1990; Heil 1991, 9–11; McGing 1995; Merola 1996, 276–90.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

183

in Asia Minor. The north-eastern arm around the Bosporus was to be ceded to Bithynia, just as the southern extension including Pamphylia would pass after a generation to Cilicia (see section 6).

5 . T H E I N T E R I O R B O U N DA R I E S O F T H E P ROV I N C E Whereas the law named harbours on the coast at which goods had to be declared in ll. 22–6, §9, there was no corresponding list for the interior of the province. Nevertheless the inscription contains important information about the Roman arrangements for the interior of their new province. The Wrst editors restored ll. 26–8, §10 to read: › ŒÆa ªB N ªø K *Ø E Ø æ çø½ ø ŒÆd IªæÆç Łø K x i º#Ø æe B å#æÆ B æe H !Æ Øº Æ j Kº ıŁæø º ø j KŁH j )ø $æåﬁ Å. The translation of this supplement is problematic: ‘Let anyone who imports by land declare and list at these places in which a customs station exists in front of (i.e. before entering) the territory which previously belonged to the king, or belonged to the free cities or to the tribes or to the demes.’ In fact the restoration is extremely dubious. It involves repetition of the preposition æ in very diVerent senses. The original editors’ ground for restoring the preposition æ seems to have been that customs stations could not be set up directly on the territory of free cities, and this wording conveyed the sense that tolls were levied outside or ‘in front of ’ them. However, not only Calchedon, as we have seen in the previous section, but also several of the harbour cities listed in §9, including Cyzicus,59 Lampsacus,60 Colophon,61 and Bargylia,62 were certainly free at the time of the creation of the Asian province. Dreher even brieXy suggested that the comprehensive list of harbours in §9 might have been compiled to make the point that all these harbours were to contain customs stations, even though some belonged to free cities, which, by implication, would normally be absolved from this impos59 IGR 4, 134 l. 18. 60 Livy 43. 6. 8–10; Cic. 2 Verr. 1. 81. 61 The Menippos inscription from Colophon, SEG 39, 1244, ll. 23–31; 37–50. 62 See Bernhardt 1971, 127, 189 n. 487.

184

S. Mitchell

ition. However, he reverted to the better explanation, that freedom as such guaranteed no exemption from customs dues.63 That is, Rome could place customs stations on any of the cities of Asia, regardless of their free status. Exemptions, as in the case of Alexandria Troas (ll. 104–5, §44), were unusual. It is therefore not necessary to argue that the inland customs stations would have to be situated in front of the various types of territory, including that of free cities, into which the province was divided. An alternative would simply be to restore K, with the meaning that tolls would be levied on, not outside these territories. However, as Mattha¨us Heil points out to me, the text usually uses the preposition K to indicate location, and K itself recurs later in l. 27 with a diVerent meaning (translating the Latin (proWteri) apud).64 A better suggestion, made to me by both Dr Heil and Christian Mileta, is to supply another reference here to the boundaries of the province. The restoration æ çø½ ø ŒÆd IªæÆç Łø ‹ı i º#Ø K E ‹æØ B å#æÆ æe H !Æ Øº Æ j Kº ıŁ æø º ø j KŁH j )ø $æåﬁ Å gives excellent sense.65 Whoever imports goods by land should declare and register them in those places wherever a customs post exists on the boundaries of the former royal land or of free cities, or of tribes or of peoples. This formula suggests that the territory of Asia was divided into four categories: previous royal land, and the land respectively of free cities, tribes, and demoi. This is extremely valuable for our understanding of the formal organization of the province at this period. The cities, tribes, and peoples correspond to the scheme of communities in Asia known to us from about ten documents of the Wrst century bc and the Augustan period. A decree of the koinon of Asia dating between 85 and 48, and probably before 71 bc, was set up by ƒ K ﬁB ﬁ Æ BØ ŒÆd a ŁÅ to honour two citizens of Aphrodisias.66 63 Dreher 1996, 123: ‘Vielmehr muß das Privileg der Zollfreiheit a¨hnlich wie das der Steuerfreiheit gerade in der Anfangzeit der Provinz Asia als eigensta¨ndiges Instrument der ro¨mischen Politik gegenu¨ber den kleinasiatichen Sta¨dten angesehen werden’. 64 Compare also its use in l. 44, §17. 65 The restoration has 51 letters in the lacuna, compared to 45 in the version of edd. pr. However, l. 27 of the text comes at precisely the point where the stone was cut back furthest when it was re-used, and there is space for several more letters than in the preceding and following lines. 66 Drew-Bear 1972, 443; Reynolds, Aphrodisias, no. 5, ll. 23, 27, and 28.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

185

Identical terminology was used to denote the honouring body which erected statues for Q. Mucius Scaevola, proconsul of Asia c.98 bc, at Olympia,67 for Herostratos son of Dorkalion at Poemanenon in Mysia,68 and for Agenor son of Demetrios at Pergamum,69 the last two dating to the Wrst half of the Wrst century bc. It occurs also on two other fragmentary texts from Ephesus.70 In a letter which dealt with a dispute between Ephesus and Sardis, Mucius Scaevola himself referred to the communities of Asia as ½H K BØ çØºÆØ ŒæØŁ½ø )ø ŒÆd ½Łø . . ..71 Another Ephesian fragment probably contained the more extended formula ½Æƒ K BØ ÆØ ½º Ø ŒÆd ƒ B½Ø ŒÆd a ŁÅ,72 and this phrasing was certainly used on a statue base set up for Julius Caesar in 48 bc by Æƒ º Ø Æƒ K ﬁB ﬁ Æ ŒÆd ƒ ½BØ ŒÆd a ŁÅ.73 In his discussion of the Aphrodisias inscription Thomas DrewBear showed that these various usages reXect the creation of the koinon of Asia: ‘dans les inscriptions honoriWques qu’il autorisait, le koinon se de´signait par l’e´numeration de ses e´le´ments constituants’.74 It seems that the drafters of the customs law followed a similar practice in describing the Asian province by enumerating its constituent parts. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that they did so, conscious of the existence of the Asian koinon,75 whose origins should accordingly be traced back at least as early as the date when the customs law was drafted, most probably to the foundation of the Asian province.76 The tribes or ethne were evidently the main indigenous groups of western Asia Minor, identiWable as the Mysians, Phrygians, Lydians, and Carians both from Strabo’s account of the region,77 and from Cicero’s observations in the Pro Flacco.78 Demoi was no doubt a term that could cover all the organized communities of the region smaller than these tribes.79 The two-fold division of Asian communities 67 OGIS 439. For the date of Scaevola’s term of oYce, see Ferrary 2000a. 68 OGIS 438. 69 IGR 4, 291. 70 I.Ephesos 204 and 205. 71 OGIS 437 ¼ I.Ephesos 7. 72 I.Ephesos 206. 73 SIG 3 760 ¼ I.Ephesos 251. 74 Drew-Bear 1972, 63–6. 75 Edd. pr. 73–4 assume that the koinon had Attalid origins. 76 See now Wo¨rrle 2000. 77 See Strabo 13. 4. 12, pp. 628 f., with Mitchell 2000, 121–2. 78 Cic. Flacc. 65. 79 The category of poleis may have been subsumed within the demoi, as suggested by Drew-Bear 1972, 448.

186

S. Mitchell

into demoi and ethne, the commonest formula in the inscriptions summarized in the previous paragraph, might be traced back to an original Latin classiWcation of the communities of the province into populi et gentes. That would be an additional argument for the view that the Asian koinon was a Roman creation. However, the modest term demos would not have satisWed the aspirations of hellenizing Asia Minor communities, still less the older Greek cities of the coastal regions, and it is not surprising to Wnd the formula broadened to include a speciWc reference to poleis in some of the inscriptions, including the customs law. In any case, the customs law oVers a view of the internal social organization of the province which is fully consistent with other evidence from the republican period. Engelmann and Knibbe took the speciWc mention of free cities in this paragraph as conWrmation of the epitome of Livy book 59, which reported that Asia, after it had been bequeathed to the Roman people by the will of Attalus, should now be free.80 The question of the freedom of the cities of Asia at this and other periods is intractable and controversial. It is as diYcult to produce a full list of Asian free cities as it is to identify those which were deWnitely not free under the Roman province. Even more controversial is the question of what freedom actually meant in this context. Two points are worth emphasis in the context of the customs law. First, it contains nothing to conXict with Engelmann and Knibbe’s inference that most of the Greek cities of Asia were considered Kº ıŁæÆØ º Ø by the Romans. Secondly, freedom certainly did not entail exemption from customs dues (see above, p. 184), or, by analogy, from other forms of taxation. The main substantive privilege of freedom by this dispensation was the right of a city to maintain its own courts.81 Some communities evidently traced their freedom back to the time of the Attalid kingdom. This is recognized in ll. 67–71, §§28–30 of the customs law which distinguished customs buildings which had formerly been administered by Attalus III (ll. 67–8) from the situation in 80 Livy per. 59: Aristonicus Asiam occupavit cum testamento regis legata populo Romano libera esse deberet. 81 This is particularly clear from the two recently published inscriptions from Colophon, SEG 39, 1243 and 1244. However, for the importance of juridical independence in other cases (Chios, Cyzicus, Rhodes), see Magie 1950, 2, 1052 n. 9.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

187

cities or tribes which had not been under his direct rule (ll. 69–70). The clause Æ¥Ø º Ø j ŁÅ $e !Æ Øº E º½øØ ¯Pı ıƒHØ PŒ Kª, which denotes the latter situation, is compatible with the scheme discussed in the previous paragraph. At least some cities and some sections of the ethne were not considered to be ruled by the king, presumably not because they lay outside the notional geographical boundaries of the Attalid kingdom (in which case they would not have been part of the province of Asia), but because they enjoyed their own form of political freedom, eleutheria.82 The identiWcation of ‘former royal land’,83 ½B å#æÆ æe H !Æ Øº Æ (l. 27, §10), has also led to discussion.84 The clearest parallel to the expression comes from Cicero’s reference in the De lege agraria to agros Bithyniae regios quibus nunc publicani fruuntur; deinde Attalicos agros in Cherroneso, in Macedonia qui regis Philippi sive Persae fuerunt, ‘royal lands of Bithynia, which the publicani now exploit; then Attalid lands in the Chersonesus, and the lands in Macedonia which were the possession of king Philip or Perseus’.85 Both the Cicero passage and the customs law imply that a distinction could be drawn between particular possessions of the kings and the totality of their kingdoms. ´Æ Øº Æ å#æÆ should thus not be understood to mean the Attalid kingdom as a whole. The most natural interpretation of the phrase is that these royal lands were estates and their attached communities, which had no independent representative existence, but had been directly controlled by the kings. This is preferable to understanding the royal land as territory which included cities or other organized communities which were not formally free and autonomous, for these would surely be included in the category of demoi, which the customs law listed separately. 82 Engelmann and Knibbe 1989, 92 suggested that this clause might refer to communities which had been situated beyond the boundaries of the Attalid kingdom altogether. However, this would be a strange way to refer to cities or tribes which were only Wrst attached to the province nearly Wfty years after it had been created, as may be the case with the cities of Caria (see Marek 1988). Why should their status be described in relation to conditions which had not been current for nearly two generations? 83 The Wrst editors suggested a Latin antecedent, ager antea regius, but perhaps ager antehac regius would be preferable. 84 For the earlier bibliography, see Magie 1950, 2, 1015–16 n. 60; 1047–8 n. 37. 85 De lege agr. 2. 50, cited by edd. pr. 73.

188

S. Mitchell 6 . PA M P H Y L I A

Line 26, §9 lists four Pamphylian ports among the customs stations of Asia covered by the law: Perge, Magydus, Phaselis, and Side ‘Koryphe’. The last anchorage named in the previous line was Ceramus of Caria, and the Wrst editors Wlled the lacuna with Halicarnassus, Myndus, Cnidus, Physcus, Caunus,86 Attalea, and Aspendus. Obviously the ports of Lycia were excluded as belonging to an independent free zone. Indeed the exemption of Lycia from customs dues provides a useful criterion by which to distinguish its freedom, as an independent federation, from the freedom of Greek cities in Asia, which were part of a province. The restoration of Attalea and Aspendus is purely conjectural. We cannot be sure of the order in which Pamphylian ports would have been listed since the surviving four names are not placed in geographical sequence. Perge, Magydus, and Phaselis run from east to west, but the list then jumps back to Side, which is further east than any of them.87 These Pamphylian cities were attached to the Asian customs zone. Commentators have doubted or denied that they were in any other sense attached to Asia.88 Merola argues that Pamphylia was only under Roman control and part of the province after P. Servilius Vatia’s successful campaigns against the pirates between 78 and 75.89 However, a milestone of 129–126 bc was set up by M’ Aquillius, the Wrst proconsul of Asia, only Wve kilometres from Side, and it is evident that the road system of the new province of Asia extended this far. Four further milestones have been recorded on the same branch of this road, which ran south-east from Laodicea ad Lycum along a route which can still largely be traced on the ground, most notably at the Do¨s¸ eme Bogazı pass which runs down from south 86 The restoration of Caunus is now rejected by Marek, I.Kaunos pp. 73 [Test. 166], 200–1, 215. 87 In fact, geographical order is not always observed along the Aegean coasts. Poroselene is placed after Gargarus and before Antandrus, Astyria and Adramyttium in the interior of the Adramyttene gulf; Colophon is placed before Teos, and Ceramus before Myndus and Halicarnassus according to the plausible restoration of edd. pr. 88 Heil 1991, 13; Dreher 1996, 117; Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 23. 89 Merola 1996, 294–6.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

189

Pisidia into Pamphylia. All the republican milestones on this stretch of road have distances recorded from the caput viae Pergamum.90 The road system is an essential key to understanding the organization of Roman administration in southern Asia Minor (as it is elsewhere in the empire). Laodicea ad Lycum was the crucial intersection. The Pamphylian road branched here to the south-east, while another equally important road ran east to Apamea, Synnada, and Philomelium, then to Iconium and to Cappadocia or to the Cilician Gates (see the discussion above, p. 176). This latter is best termed the Lycaonian road. Lycaonia can either be understood as a reference to the south-east section of the province of Asia around Philomelium, centre of the Lycaonian conventus, or to the region beyond, around Iconium. Communication along either of these routes was easy, but connections between them, crossing the grain of the Taurus, were extremely diYcult. Orosius, who presumably derived his information from Livy, suggests that Servilius Vatia constructed a road around 75 bc across the mountains, perhaps from Side towards Iconium.91 Even this was certainly not suitable, as the other two roads were, for wheeled traYc. In practical terms, therefore, it was not easy for a Roman proconsul operating for his term of service in a region reached by one route, also to pay attention to the other. There has been extensive discussion of the evidence for Roman commands in southern Asia Minor between c.100 and 50 bc, both before and after the publication of the new fragments of the lex de prouinciis praetoriis (the ‘piracy law’) from Cnidus. Most of the debate has addressed the question of when or whether a province or a separate provincial command of Cilicia was created. It would serve no useful purpose to review the argument in detail at this point. It is, however, helpful in this context to specify the geographical areas of activity attested for putative or certain governors of Cilicia in this period.92 90 See French 1991a, 53–4. For the link from Laodicea to Pamphylia see Mitchell 1994, 132 and 133 Wg. 2; and for the road system built by M’ Aquillius in Asia, Mitchell 1999, 17–21. 91 Orosius 5. 23: Tauri quoqe montis latera in Ciliciam uergentia perscrutatus Isauros in dicionem redegit; primus Romanorum per Taurum eduxit exercitum ac limitem itineris fecit. 92 I have beneWted from the observations of J.-L. Ferrary, who discusses the implications of new evidence from Claros for the proconsuls of Asia in the 90s in Ferrary 2000a.

190

S. Mitchell

102

M. Antonius

Proconsul in Ciliciam proWciscens (Cic., de Or. 82; praetor in Ciliciam (Liv. Per. 68); in Cilicia (Cic. Br. 168)

Feb. 100

Not speciWed

c.96

L. Cornelius Sulla

) ˚ØºØŒÆ . . . KÆæå Æ æÆÅªØŒc ØÅŒÆØ (I.Knidos I, 31, III, 35–7) Praetor Ciliciam prouinciam habuit (De uir ill. 75)

89

Q. Oppius

80

Cornelius Dolabella

78–75

P. Servilius Vatia

74 73

L. Octavius L. Lucullus

67

Q. Marcius Rex

æÆÅªe —ÆçıºÆ (Posidonius fr. 78);

æÆÅª, App, Mithr. 17; procos, Liv. Per. 78;

æÆÅªe IŁ*Æ (Aphrodisias nos. 2–3) Cn. Dolabellae prouincia Cilicia constituta est (Cic. 2 Verr. 1. 44)

Ad Ciliciam et Pamphyliam missus . . . ex consule (Eutropius 6. 3)

To Asia to conduct the war against Mithridates, while M. Aur. Cotta is assigned to Bithynia (Memnon 27; Cic. Mur. 33) Per Lycaoniam . . . in Ciliciam (Sallust, Hist. 5. 14 M)

Pamphylia. ILLRP I. 342 (Corinth) indicates that M. Ant. travelled overland to Side. Liv. Per. 68 has him Wghting ‘maritimos praedones, id est piratas’. Triumph. Not Lycaonia, which was explicitly part of Asia, see I.Knidos I, 31, III, 22–7 Restores Ariobarzanes to Cappadocia (Liv. Per. 70; App. Mithr. 57); keeps eye on Mithridates; meets Parthian legates on Euphrates (Plut. Sulla 5). To Cilicia; besieged by Mithridates at Laodicea ad Lycum.

Verres, his proquaestor, caused trouble in the Milyas, Lycia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Phrygia (2 Verr. 1. 95). Activities along the ‘Pamphylian road’. Active at Olympus, Phaselis, Corycus; Attalea; built Taurus road (Oros. 5. 23); euocatio inscr. at Isaura. Triumph (Cic. Verr. 1. 21). Died on arrival. Mithridatic forces in Pisidia encounter no Roman commander.

With three legions; not in Pamphylia.

The information relating to these commands suggests that Pamphylia may have been an integral part of the province of Asia until the decision to create a new southern Anatolian command for Antonius in 102 bc. The literary texts, which tend to be late, refer to this

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

191

province as Cilicia, and this is conWrmed by two contemporary inscriptions, namely the Cnidus copy of the lex de prouinciis praetoriis,93 and an inscription set up in Rhodes to honour a local navarch who had fought as an ally of Antonius and Aulus Gabinius.94 Despite the province’s name, however, the Wrst holders of the new command were mainly active in Pamphylia, where pirate activity was concentrated.95 The emphasis shifted during the 90s when Sulla was designated to Cilicia.96 He clearly operated along the eastern axis through Lycaonia to Cappadocia. Business in Pamphylia at this time could have been conducted by the Roman governor of Asia again, but there is no evidence that any was. Oppius’s activities in 89/8, whatever the title of his command, took him along the same routes as Sulla. However, Posidonius’s reference to him as a ‘general of Pamphylia’ supports the notion that Pamphylia, at least in theory, was part of his purview. The next certain governor of Cilicia, Cn. Cornelius Dolabella, in the company of his notorious quaestor Verres, was clearly preoccupied with the area towards Pamphylia. Although his command was again designated as Cilicia,97 Cicero refers on six occasions to Verres’ depredations in Asia (through which the governing party had travelled overland) and in Pamphylia.98 With sweeping rhetorical exaggeration Cicero suggested that Verres had devastated all the regions that lay along the road running from Laodicea to Side: Pro quaestore uero quo modo iste commune Milyadum uexarit, quo modo Lyciam, Pamphyliam, Pisidiam, Phrygiamque totam (!) frumento imperando, aestimando . . . 99 The Roman road ran directly past the sanctuary which the Milyadeis later created to honour the cult of Augustus,100 and through the heart of Pisidia; Lycian territory lay to the west of the route, and Phaselis itself might be reckoned part of Lycia, while the northern stretch of the route from Laodicea to the Milyas could be assigned to southern Phrygia. 93 I.Knidos 31. III, 35–7. 94 IGR 4, 1116. 95 So Syme 1939, 300 (¼ RP 1, 120): ‘Pamphylia would have been a more correct designation’. 96 Brennan 1992 argues that his command extended from 96 to 92 bc. 97 Cic. 2 Verr. 1. 43 Cn. Dolabellae prouincia Cilicia constituta Cilicia. 98 Caec. 6 (where Cilicia is added), Verr. 1. 2 and 11; 2 Verr. 1. 60 and 96; 2 Verr. 3. 6. 99 2 Verr. 1. 60. 100 Hall 1986, 137–40.

192

S. Mitchell

So at this date and throughout the command of P. Servilius, Pamphylia was certainly detached from Asia. Servilius’s apparently successful attempt to establish overland communication from Side to Isauria, and thus to Lycaonia in the north, may have encouraged the notion that Pamphylia and Lycaonia could be managed under a single command, whatever the impracticalities, although the emphasis in all accounts of proconsular activity between 75 and 45 is on the northern regions.101 The old pattern, however, whereby Pamphylia and Asia were administered by the same governor, re-emerged in 43 bc, when P. Lentulus Spinther, quaestor of Trebonius and acting as propraetor of Asia, referred in a letter to Cicero, to Side, quae extrema regio est prouinciae Asiae.102 This was after the eVective disintegration of the administrative territory of Cilicia, when control of the northern part of the province had at least nominally passed to the governor of Syria. The evidence indicates that Pamphylia was naturally seen as part of the Asian province down to 102 bc. From then until 43 bc it was demonstrably or probably regarded as part of Cilicia, although for much of this time the Roman presence there was little more than nominal. One conclusion that can be drawn for the customs law is that the list of harbours which includes Pamphylia belongs to the original period of the law’s drafting, in the 120s bc, not to the revision and codiWcation of 75 bc.103

7. THE ISLANDS No island state was listed among the harbours of the customs zone in §9, and there is no general reference to the islands in any paragraph of the law, except to the customs post at Poroselene (l. 24), which was not strictly an island at all, but a peninsula. Engelmann and Knibbe made the assumption that none of the oVshore Aegean islands belonged to Asia before 75 bc.104 On the other hand it is clear that in the Flavian period Cos belonged to the Halicarnassus conventus, Samus to Miletus, Chios and Mytilene to Pergamum.105 The activities 101 See Syme 1939 (¼ RP 1, 120–42). 102 Ad fam. 12. 15. 5. 103 Contra Merola 1996, 291–6. 104 Edd. pr. 62. 105 I.Ephesos 13 I, 36; II, 8, 9, 16.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

193

of various proconsuls of Asia are recorded also in the islands.106 Dreher points out that the evidence that the islands did not belong to Asia before 75 bc is very weak. Moreover, at the time of the creation of the province, Cos, Samus, Chios, Methymna, Mytilene, and Tenedus were all free cities. He deduces that customs stations were not located on the islands because their free status gave them immunity from customs duty.107 However, as is clear from other sections of the law (above, sections 4 and 5), free status by no means guaranteed such immunity. In addition, M. Wo¨rrle points out, in support of the view of the Wrst editors, that none of the islands was originally part of the Attalid Kingdom, and therefore they cannot have been part of the province of Asia in 133 bc. As Dr Heil points out to me, there may have been practical reasons why the islands formed a tariV-free zone. If customs dues were already payable on the islands, it would have been easy for ships sailing in and out of the mainland ports to claim that they had already paid their dues, or, when leaving, to claim that they were sailing no further than the oVshore islands and not leaving the customs zone. Policing this traYc would have required a major bureaucratic eVort. Instead, it may have been more economical simply to disregard the islands for customs purposes. The publicani would have collected no tolls on the islands themselves, but they would have compensated for this by imposing dues on all goods carried from the islands to the mainland, even though transport of goods from one part of the province to another would not have been taxable in other circumstances.108

8. THE ASSIZES OF ASIA Lines 89–91, §39 of the law contains a list of twelve Asian assize districts. The evidence for the organization of assizes in Asia has been 106 As, for instance, Domitius Corbulo at Cos, Burton 1976. 107 Dreher 1996, 118–27. 108 In any case the major islands of the eastern Aegean all had territories on the Asian mainland, which would have been subject to tariVs at all events. Their case was analogous to that of Byzantium, whose Asian possessions were included within the provisions of the tax law.

194

S. Mitchell

much discussed, especially since the discovery and publication of the Flavian inscription from Ephesus, which lists several of the assize centres and the cities that belonged to them, in the context of a Wnancial transaction whose nature is still obscure.109 The two most recent detailed treatments have taken account of the new evidence provided by the customs law, but have not attempted to explain its signiWcance.110 The diYculties in interpreting this section derive from the problems of restoring the text convincingly. The twelve assize cities listed in 17 bc correspond to the thirteen assize cities, which L. Robert identiWed in his analysis of I.Didyma 140 of ad 40, with the exception of Alabanda.111 Alabanda, however, features among the assize cities of Asia named by Pliny, who certainly drew on an Augustan source, and by a Milesian inscription which identiWes nine Asian assize centres between 56 and 50 bc.112 It may have been omitted from the customs law by an oversight, although it was to be removed again by the time of the Flavian inscription from Ephesus.113 The diocese at Cyzicus, here called the ØŒÅ Ø ' ¯ ººÅ Æ, makes its earliest appearance, three years after Augustus had restored the city to liberty under otherwise unknown circumstances.114 These paragraphs of 17 bc were the Wrst to have been added to the original draft of the law since 72 bc. They must, in some sense, have taken account of major changes in the provincial arrangements for Asia Minor which had occurred during this period: the creation of the province of Pontus and Bithynia in 63; various alterations to the status of Asia and Cilicia during the 50s and 40s; and the annexation of Galatia in 25 bc. In particular the creation of the composite province of Galatia along Asia’s eastern boundary should have had an impact on customs arrangements for goods transported overland between the two provinces. The toll stations at Amorium and Apollonia were located along this border (see above, p. 177). It is striking that in promulgating their revisions the consuls of 17 bc chose to deWne provincial territory compendiously, by listing its constituent assize districts. The procedure is exactly analogous to 109 Habicht 1975. 110 Haensch 1997, 748–51; Mitchell 1999, 22–9. 111 Robert, Hell. 1949, 206–38. 112 Pliny, NH 5. 109; Sherk, RDGE 52 (56–50 bc). 113 SEG 37, 884. 114 Dio 54. 23. 7; see Robert, Hell. 1949, 231–2. Haensch 1997, 748 draws attention to Cicero, Ad Fam. 13. 53. 2, which may allude to assizes at Cyzicus in 51 bc.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

195

that followed by the drafters of §10, who deWned the province by listing its constituent communities. However, whereas the earlier clause itemized the pre-existing royal land and the ethne, the demoi, and the free cities which made up the Asian koinon, the Augustan clause subordinated the classiWcation of cities, tribes, and peoples to the Roman dioceses. The two contrasting organizational systems were precisely those which Strabo had in mind, when he wrote that in their organization of Asia the Romans deliberately overrode previous divisions: e f øÆı c ŒÆa çFºÆ Ø º E ÆP*; Iººa , æ æ ØÆ Æ a ØØŒ) Ø K Æx a IªæÆÆ ØFÆØ ŒÆd a ØŒÆØ Æ.115 The new formula illustrates how the new internal organization of the province related to the older categories of settlement, which were still preserved by the constitution of the Asian koinon. Before a general interpretation is attempted, three points may be made. First, the drafters adopted a pedantically legalistic approach to their task. All twelve assize districts were listed by name, when it should have been suYcient simply to refer to them generally as the assize districts of Asia. Similarly the various types of constitutional enactment by which communities might have obtained immunity from their dues were also punctiliously itemized in ll. 92–3. Secondly, the legislation was in some way concerned with communities which were assigned to another province, æÆØ N d KÆæå ÆØ æ ÅÆØ (l. 94).116 Thirdly, there was a reference to the boundaries (or boundary regions) which adjoined exempted communities, E ‹æØ; ¥Ø ›æF Ø E oø $ ﬁ ÅæÅØ (l. 95). With this in mind, I suggest the following (abbreviated) reconstruction of the paragraph. The interpretation depends on the restoration of ll. 91 and 94. Alternative readings have been suggested for the relatively small gaps in the preserved text, but none has led to an intelligible reconstruction of the sense of the paragraph as a whole. The proposed reconstruction also has the virtue of focusing on the border areas of the province, where we would expect disputes about customs dues to have been frequent. Æ¥Ø º Ø EÆØ . . . N Ø ø ðØØŒ) ø ÆÞ; N ^ c ÆPÆd IªæÆ N Ø ½ØŒH; Æ¥Ø *ø H ØØŒ) ø º Ø. . . øØ 115 Strabo 13. 4. 12, p. 628. 116 This was virtually a technical meaning of the verb æ ø, see LSJ s.v.

196

S. Mitchell

. . . ; ¥ Æ ) Ke H Nø ‹æø º ø Ø ) Ke H Nø ‹æø ææ# æ Æø OŒg ÆæÆçıºÆŒc åø Ø; $ æÅÆØ; ½Æ¥Ø KŒe H ØØŒ) ø K ½ ÆØ H æª ªæÆø æÆØ N Ø KÆæå ÆØ æ ÅÆØ; ÆyÆØ Æƒ º Ø EÆØ . . . º ½Ke H Nø ‹æø ½P # ı Ø h ÆæÆçıºÆŒc ÆŒææø Æø OŒg KØ ÆØ: E ‹æØ ¥ Ø ›æF Ø E oø $ ﬁ ÅæÅØ ½› Å Ø#Å ŒÆŁa ½K KÆæå ÆØ ØØ ºı N æ ø åæØ ÆæÆçıºÆŒa ŒÆŁØ ø ŒÆd ºÅ N æÆ

ø ŒÆa F e E. (ll. 88–96, §39) I would translate as follows: Whichever cities are outside the dioceses of Asia, unless they themselves are assize centres, and whichever cities of these dioceses are exempted by law so that they do not pay tax inside their own boundaries and do not receive guard-posts further than eight stades inside their own boundaries, and whichever (cities) outside the previously listed dioceses in Asia have been assigned to another province, these shall not pay tax inside their own boundaries nor receive a guard-post further than eight stades (inside them). On the boundaries which adjoin the communities which have thus been exempted, let the publicani set up guard-posts as in the province of Asia for the purpose of exacting tax and let them exact taxes in accordance with this law.

This paragraph allowed three types of exemption from the Asian customs dues: to communities which, for whatever reasons, lay outside the assize districts of Asia; to those which had already been removed from their obligation by a previous legal dispensation; and to communities which had been assigned to another province. Behind the ponderous legalities we need to assess the real situation which this decision regulated. Communities outside the Asian dioceses are best interpreted as communities beyond the borders of the province of Asia, which for practical reasons had a good deal to do with the province. Their inhabitants might, for instance, regularly attend Asian markets, or they might even be liable to Roman government impositions such as transport liturgies which were normally placed on Asian communities.117 However, for the purposes of the 117 For these see Mitchell 1999, 28 and 32 n. 70 (referring to Sagalassus in Galatia, which may have been liable to pay for road construction on a part of the Via Sebaste in Asia).

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

197

customs law the consuls ruled that belonging to one of the dioceses was the test of whether they were technically an Asian community or not. Those that did not belong were exempt. The saving clause N ^ c ÆPÆd IªæÆ N Ø ½ØŒH is presumably an example of legal pedantry. The drafters wanted to avoid the possibility that any of the Asian assize centres themselves should try to exploit potential ambiguity in the formula, by claiming that they themselves were exempt, since they lay outside the other dioceses. The next clause covered the small number of communities in Asia which could claim immunity from the customs law by virtue of speciWc legal enactments in their favour. One thinks naturally in this context of the special status of Aphrodisias, although to date none of the documents from there mentions immunity from customs dues. It is worth repeating here that the mere fact of being a free city was not an entitlement to such immunity. The third category of exemptions applied to communities outside the Asian dioceses which had been assigned to another province. These would have been located on the Asian side of provincial boundaries, but would have conducted judicial business in the nearest dioceses of neighbouring provinces, doubtless for practical reasons.118 I take the Wnal sentence to refer only to the third category of exempt cities, E oø $ ﬁ ÅæÅØ. Customs stations were not to be placed on their territories but on the boundaries of their nearest neighbours on the Asian side, where levies were to be made as they were for the Asian province. This regulation would have been of considerable local signiWcance, since we would expect there to have been a fair amount of traYc between these border communities and the extra-provincial assize centre to which they belonged, and it would have been a severe disadvantage to their inhabitants to have had to pay tolls on every occasion that they made these journeys. The principle followed in this clause is the same as that adopted in the Wrst one: the obligation of a community to submit to customs dues was determined by the assize district to which it belonged. 118 We have no evidence for speciWc examples. However, it would not be unexpected if Asian communities in Mysia or northern Phrygia were granted leave to attend assizes in Bithynia or Galatia, to avoid long journeys to the nearest Asian assize centres.

198

S. Mitchell

9 . W H E N WA S T H E C U S TO M S L AW F I R S T D R A F T E D ? The communis opinio since the Wrst edition is that the main body of the law dates to 75 bc, although it contains elements which must already have been present in earlier regulations for customs in Asia.119 The basis for this precise date are the two references to the consular pair, L. Octavius and C. Aurelius Cotta, who were responsible among other things for leasing new public contracts during that year. Lines 72–4, §31 appear to refer to exemptions concerning the tithes due on cereal crops and the Wfths levied on wine and olive harvests, which were imported to or exported from Asia as part of the activity of the publicani.120 Lines 74–8, §33 indicate that the same consuls also awarded toll exemptions on ships, ships’ equipment, slaves, pack animals, and accounting materials which the publicani brought in and out of Asia in connection with their business. This paragraph substantially conWrmed and reiterated similar provisions which were spelled out in ll. 58–66, §§25–6, but extended them explicitly to the publicani who held new contracts. Heil pointed out that these sections only serve as a terminus post quem, since they presuppose the contracts leased out in 75 bc but were not necessarily drafted at the same time. On the other hand they must pre-date 72 bc, when ll. 84–7, §37 were added by the consuls L. Gellius and C. Lentulus. He conjectured that both these paragraphs and the whole early section of the law should have been drafted around 74 bc, in connection with the recent annexation of the province of Bithynia.121 It is an argument in favour of this proposal that the consuls of 75 bc are not mentioned in the same way as the later consular pairs, who are always speciWed as having added (æ ŁÅŒÆ) provisions to an existing text. However, this does not imply that the oYcials of 75 bc were in fact responsible for the whole of ll. 7–84, §§1–36. Indeed, 119 Edd. pr. 160; 162. 120 For the problems of restoring and interpreting these lines, see the commentary of JLF (pp. 127–31 above). Cicero, Verr. 3. 7 reveals that under the same consuls the senate had allowed those who collected tithes in Sicily to sell them in Rome. Doubtless, the Asian regulation was connected to the same legal enactment. 121 Heil 1991, 9–11.

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

199

according to Heil’s own reconstruction, they themselves had no direct part to play in the drafting of the customs law. Rather, §§31 and 33 were a response to new conditions created by their leasing of public contracts. If they had been largely responsible for compiling the early paragraphs of the text, it would have been natural for them to have been named at the beginning of the law. It is more logical to take the allusions to the consuls of 75 bc only as evidence for the date of the paragraphs to which they belong. Other, more reliable, indications suggest that most of the law up to this point was drafted much earlier. Four sections of the text refer explicitly to arrangements that had existed under the kings: l. 27, §10 refers to ½B å#æÆ B æe H !Æ Øº Æ, ager antehac regius, or terra antehac regia. l. 36, §14 mentions pre-existing customs buildings: n KŒØ æ æ $æåﬁ Å ﬁtŒ) . l. 68, §28, uses the same terminology to specify buildings and slaves or stables (?), which previously belonged to the king: KŒØÆ ½ŒÆd *ºı or ÆŁf !Æ ØºØŒf R !Æ Øº f ` . Æº ¯Pı ıƒe ºøÆ åæØ å½ . . . l. 69, §29 refers to cities and tribes which were not subject to Attalus: Æ¥Ø º Ø j ŁÅ $e !Æ Øº E º½øØ ¯Pı ıƒHØ PŒ Kª. All these clauses are most reasonably dated to the period immediately after the bequest to Rome of Attalus’s kingdom, a period which should be taken as extending up to 123, the date of C. Gracchus’s Lex Sempronia relating to the publicans and Asian taxes. The second and third clauses in the above list in particular make sense in the immediate context of Attalus’s bequest, since speciWc buildings were more likely than not to have undergone substantial alteration and reconstruction over the sixty-year period between 133 and c. 74 bc. The previous discussion of the status of Pamphylia (see section 6) indicates that ll. 22–5, §9 of the inscription must have been drafted between 129 and 102 bc, also most plausibly at the time of the creation of the province. The full list of harbours was surely compiled at one time, and there is no evidence for later editorial intervention.122 122 It is extremely unlikely that edd. pr. 65 are right to restore ﬁB ºÆØ ½b ˚*ﬁ Å; F b ˚ÆØ Ææ ﬁ Æ ˚*ﬁ Å in l. 25, thus reXecting the nomenclature of the Neronian period. As we can see from the document as a whole, the procedure for revising the text was to add new sections, not edit existing ones.

200

S. Mitchell

The situation regarding the Bosporus points to the same conclusion. Analysis of ll. 8–20, §§2–6, has shown that this area was included because it was part of the original province of Asia (above, section 4). It was most probably transferred to Bithynia precisely at the new province’s creation in 74 bc. This section must therefore have been drafted at an early date. Another indication of an early date for the drafting of most of ll. 7–84, §§1–36, is the fact that the surviving text names no other Roman provinces in Asia or elsewhere in the East. Given the overall content of the law and its concern to deWne a customs zone, it is likely that the main clauses would have referred to other provinces, in particular to Cilicia and to Bithynia, had they been in existence. In fact the Wrst reference to other provinces in the whole text is the phrase ½ Y ØØŒ) ø K ½ ÆØ H æª ªæÆø æÆØ N d KÆæå ÆØ æ ÅÆØ in l. 94, §39, which dates to 17 bc, when the political organization of Asia Minor had changed radically. On this basis it seems reasonable to argue that the whole of the law up to §30 dates to the period before 75 bc. It is of course theoretically possible that the numerous separate paragraphs of this early part of the law were introduced piecemeal at diVerent times, and then edited into a single document in the 70s bc. However, there are strong arguments to the contrary. First, none of these early paragraphs is explicitly dated or was demonstrably introduced later than any of the others. They form a uniWed section of the text. Secondly, in themselves ll. 7–72, §§1–30, make up a substantial body of law, regulating the customs of Asia as a whole. We might reasonably expect an original customs law to have taken this form. Thirdly, paragraphs which almost certainly date to the earliest years of the province, including ll. 68–71, §§28–9, come at the end of this section. They are not likely to have been preceded by clauses of later origin. Fourthly, the organic incorporation of material of earlier origin into a law drafted in the 70s bc would be completely at odds with the additive principle of composition shown by the document’s later dated sections. These show that whenever the law was revised new sections were added and the earlier paragraphs were left unaltered. In conclusion, there are compelling reasons to date the composition of ll. 11–71, §§1–30 to the early years after the creation of the Asian province, perhaps between 129 and 126 bc, when the Wrst

Geography, Politics, and Imperialism

201

proconsul M’. Aquillius was responsible for constructing the province’s original road system,123 or to 123 bc when the Lex Sempronia of Gaius Gracchus farmed out Asian tax contracts to the publicani. The Wrst additions to the law, comprising ll. 72–8, §§31–3, were made soon after 75 bc, as a result of the new leasing arrangements for publicani laid down by the consuls Octavius and Aurelius Cotta. Lines 78–84, §§34–6 were probably added at the same time, and at least before 72 bc, the certain date for §37. It is important to emphasize that, contrary to previous claims, the annexation of Bithynia in these years made no impact on the drafting of the law. The original clauses relating to the Bosporus, like the section relating to Pamphylia, were left untouched, although they had been superseded by the new provincial arrangements. They became irrelevant to the situation in Asia as inevitably as the references to the former property of king Attalus. New regulations regarding the tolls in the Bosporus and Pamphylia doubtless came into force, but they would have been included in the regulations for the new provinces to which these regions belonged, not in those for Asia. Thus the early part of the customs law can be claimed as a document of critical importance for understanding the Roman annexation of Asia. The Romans embraced the legacy of the Attalids in the widest sense, extending from the Bosporus to Pamphylia, excluding only the free zone of Lycia. The Bosporus, the most lucrative source of tolls, was identiWed as the most important area for the collection of customs dues, which were exacted more strenuously there than in any other part of the province. All communities, free cities included, were liable to the portorium, and no signiWcant exemptions were allowed before the Wrst Augustan revision of 17 bc, except for oYcials, soldiers, or publicani acting on Roman oYcial business. These conclusions need to be set in the wider picture of Roman foreign policy at this time. They are indisputable evidence for a highly intrusive act of economic imperialism. 123 Mitchell 1999, 17–20.

The Lex Portorii Asiae and Financial Administration M. Corbier

The document that we know through the inscription of Ephesus1 allows many comments on a variety of questions. I shall try to examine both the additional information provided by this text and the problems it presents in relation to what we already knew about Wnancial administration. I shall begin with the issue that is best known—the management of the aerarium populi Romani—before approaching that which is at once the most problematical and the most interesting: what the document tells us of the practical working details of a leasing contract, for which we have no parallel, and of the way in which it had an impact on public Wnance. I shall add some remarks in connection with topics in which I have had a long-standing interest: taxation, the posting of documents,2 etc. Finally, I shall try to assign this document a place in the history of Wnancial policy in the Wrst century. The table at the end of the chapter, which updates my earlier work,3 and which was distributed I oVer warm thanks to Miche`le Ducos, Simone Follet, and Bernadette Puech for the detailed guidance that they have kindly given me on the interpretation of certain texts, and to Magali Cullin, who has helped me draw up the table. B. Puech, it may be noted, writes the notices on the Roman province of Asia for AE´. I would like warmly to thank Barbara Levick who kindly translated the paper I presented at Oxford in 1999. 1 This is the term that I shall use for the so-called lex portorii Asiae in this paper. 2 My book, Donner a` voir, donner a` lire: Me´moire et communication dans la Rome ancienne, was in press at the time of translation. (Now published as Corbier 2006.) 3 Corbier, Aerarium and Aerarium militare.

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

203

to the participants during the Oxford colloquium, will support the analysis: measures identiWable from literary and epigraphic sources have been simultaneously listed and classiWed under four headings, in an order that satisWes both logic and chronology. The Ephesus inscription gives us the possibility of linking the chronology of several imperial initiatives in the public revenues, which are listed in the table, to years when the tax-farming leases were renewed (42, 47, 62); this coincidence illuminates the reasons for the creation of a number of senatorial commissions.

1. THE A E R A R I U M P O P UL I RO M A N I In 62, the year of the compilation of the document, the public treasury was currently designated as aerarium Saturni. To my knowledge it was not designated that way in the titulature of its controllers before the reign of Claudius, even though the temple itself was of course known as aedes Saturni.4 On this point the texts that have been published since the appearance of my book (in 1974) have not contributed any material that would lead me to modify the observation that I had made at that time: so the SC de Cn. Pisone patre of 10 December, 20, in which one sees the Senate demanding the intervention of the praetors of the treasury in connection with the conWscation of the property of Piso Senior, names those responsible as the pr(aetores) qui aerario praeessent and the treasury itself as aerarium without any further qualiWcation (in aerarium redigi).5 So it will be better to avoid restoring ½HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæ øØ at l. 101, since the paragraph to which it belongs is a supplement going back to the year 17 bc. To justify such a restoration, it would be necessary to admit that the curators of 62 added the title usual in their time in their citation of a fragment which did not bear it before. But, in that case, why would they not have done the same elsewhere? Now, the lex always talks of H ½æ #ø F ÆNæÆæı æÆÅªH (ll. 102–3; supplement of 17 bc); of H æ #ø ½F ÆNæÆæı æÆÅªH (ll. 107–8; supplement of 12 bc); of H æ #ø F ÆNæÆæı 4 Corbier, Aerarium 646 f.

5 AE´ 1996, 885, ll. 122 f.

204

M. Corbier

without any lacuna preceding or following (l. 111; supplement of 7 bc); of H æÆÅªH H æ #ø F ÆNæÆæı without any subsequent lacuna (l. 125; supplement of ad 5). In the text, the reference to the aerarium Saturni (æe HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæøØ, l. 143) appears only in the supplement which immediately precedes that of the curators of 62, and whose date is uncertain. The document has nothing conXicting with the data previously available on the aerarium; but it suddenly confers on those responsible for the treasury an importance previously not envisaged for them. The historian obviously may be glad that the lists of titleholders’ names that have been reconstructed from the mention of their oYce among others in the cursus known to us from honoriWc or funerary inscriptions suddenly come to life and that the activity of the persons involved is visibly endowed with a content that is not only real but signiWcant.

A. The chronology of the reforms The praescriptum apparently refers to a document established by the three ‘curators of the public revenues’ of 62 on the basis of an earlier document—this is certain—drawn up by T. Domitius Decidianus, whose name is preserved, but without his title, which has been lost in the lacuna in l. 7. The establishment by Nero in 62 of a commission composed of three consulars put in charge of the uectigalia publica is attested by Tacitus (Ann. 15. 8. 3), who gives the names of the three oYcials, but uses for their nomination by the emperor the verb praeposuit. The actual title, curator uectigalium public(orum), appears in an honoriWc inscription from Narona, cut as a tribute to one of them, A. Ducenius Geminus, who subsequently became governor of Dalmatia.6 We can thus be sure that the title of KØ ºÅÆd H Å ø æ ø (ll. 2 and 144) is the Greek version of curatores uectigalium publicorum. And the very choice of the Greek term æ Ø (and not of the word ºÅ) tells us the sense to be recognized in uectigalia in this context: ‘the revenues’ and not merely the taxes. I have already had occasion to state my views 6 ILS 9484.

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

205

on the terminology of Roman taxation.7 I shall return to this below. It is to be noted that the Ephesus inscription renders the three names of the curators (Aulus Pompeius Paulinus, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, Aulus Ducenius Geminus) in a Greek transcription that follows the practice of its age. It is no surprise to see Paulinus rendered as —Æıºº E (the doubling of the liquid or nasal consonant is very common), and Ducenius referred to as ˜ıŒØ (the iota taking the place of the Latin e). In our French or English translations there is thus no reason to transcribe the Greek as Paullinus or Ducinius, as commentators often do. There is no reason either for the suppression of a lambda in Paulleinos as superXuous in the Greek text.8 But the inscription gives above all an idea of the content of the actual activity of these persons, which it was diYcult to envisage reading only the equivalent passage of Tacitus. Iulius Agricola and his wife, Domitia Decidiana, were the parentsin-law of Tacitus (Agr. 6. 1). The quaestor of the aerarium T. Domitius Decidianus is the father-in-law of Agricola, and so the maternal grandfather of Tacitus’s wife. It is now evident that his daughter bore the name that the document of 62 gives him, and this validates the form of the cognomen transmitted by the Ephesus inscription. This senator was already known from a Roman inscription transmitted by manuscript tradition, but a faulty transcription had given him the cognomen Decidius in place of Decidianus. This same Roman inscription makes him appear as the Wrst quaestor aerarii to whom the Emperor Claudius had entrusted for three years the responsibility for the treasury, an administrative reform that Cassius Dio (60. 24. 1–3) assigns to 44. Hence the dates proposed by scholars for the activity of Domitius Decidianus: sometimes 44–46,9 sometimes 44–47.10 The 7 See Corbier 1991, 637 [Eng. edn. 217]. 8 So the Latin gentilicium Asinius is rendered in Greek as Ø: see AE´ 1993, 1506; the cognomen Sospes, Sospitis, is rendered in Greek as H Ø; -Ø: see AE´ 1997, 1481. On Latin Paulus written with double lambda in Greek dedications for a Roman bearing this name, see Threatte 1980, 1. 533. 9 So Corbier, Aerarium 67–9, no. 20. The same name (T.? Domitius Decidius) and the same date are still kept in the commentary on the inscription put forward in the supplement to CIL 6, published in 2000. The note that complements CIL 6, 1405 (CIL 6. 8. 3, p. 4692) does not take account of the presence of the person on the inscription from Ephesus, which was not apparently considered by the joint editors of the volume, G. Alfo¨ldy and S. Panciera. 10 PIR2 D 174.

206

M. Corbier

need to restore the title of ÆÆ ÆNæÆæı in l. 7 of the Ephesus inscription is not contested by anyone. But the restoration could as well be Æı F ˚æı ÆNæÆæı, if there were enough space, since the inscriptions that deal with the only two known quaestors of the Aerarium (T. Domitius Decidianus and L. Coiedius Candidus) certainly designate the treasury as aerarium Saturni.11 Without longer explanations, some commentators on the Ephesus inscription date T. Domitius Decidianus’s quaestorship of the Aerarium from 44 to 47, or present T. Domitius Decidianus as the quaestor of the Aerarium for 47. One can well see why: if one allows regular interventions at Wve-year intervals, on the occasion of the leasing out of the uectigalia, Decidianus’s document would have been drawn up in 47, exactly Wfteen years before that of the three consular curators of 62. The link with the censorship of Claudius, which historians think of as having begun in April 47,12 cannot be explained otherwise; but even though it does not seem to be suggested by recent commentators on the Ephesus inscription, it appears to me to be very interesting to consider. The chronology of the reform of the Aerarium suggested by the passage of Cassius Dio within 44 remains unknown. The praetors took up their duties on 1 January and the quaestors on 5 December. In 44, were the quaestores aerarii substituted for praetores aerarii on 1 January or in the course of the year? Or should one connect that reform mentioned by Cassius Dio with the entry into oYce of the new quaestors on 5 December 44, which would have taken the Wrst pair of quaestors to continue to fulWl their functions up to 4 December 47? The Ephesus inscription invites us to consider a new factor, the possibility that T. Domitius Decidianus was in charge of the treasury at the time when the award of 47 was made. It therefore appears reasonable to keep, for T. Domitius Decidianus’s years in oYce, the period from 5 December 44 to 4 December 47, which includes the years 44–46, the dating I had adopted in my thesis. The preservation of T. Domitius Decidianus’s name alone prompts a second observation. For reasons of collegiality, attested for Claudius’s quaestors of the Aerarium by Cassius Dio (60. 24. 1–3), one would have expected to Wnd two names. Should we, then, restore the name of a 11 Corbier, Aerarium 67 and 70.

12 See e.g. Levick 1990, 99.

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

207

colleague in the lacuna, which is of great importance? In that case, it is worth recalling that this colleague could be L. Coiedius Candidus, of whom we do not know if he was one of the Wrst pair of quaestors of the treasury or of the second.13 Or should we admit that T. Domitius Decidianus had completely sole charge of this work or, at any rate, of its promulgation? Amongst the possible explanations one might think of the following: at the time of Pliny the Younger, the two prefects of the treasury of Saturn were carrying out their duties by monthly alternation, as a letter of Pliny himself informs us (Ep. 10. 8. 3–6). The question remains open. There seems to be enough space to restore the name of a colleague in the lacuna, followed by the mention of quaestores aerarii, or quaestores aerarii Saturni. Beginning with the supplement of the year 17 bc, ‘those in charge of the Aerarium’ are mentioned, throughout the text immediately after the consuls, in relation to the examination (KŒæØ Ø) of the validity of the guarantors and securities provided by the successful contractor. In 17, the KŒæØ Ø is ascribed to the two consuls quoted by name or (in Greek X) in general terms, without any mention of their names, to the praetors in charge of the Aerarium (H æ #ø F ÆNæÆæı æÆÅªH). It is the same in 12 bc, where their title was restored by the editors in the form in which it is preserved for the year 7 bc (H æ #ø F ÆNæÆæı). In the supplement of ad 5, the title is completely preserved (H æÆÅªH H æ #ø F ÆNæÆæı). After 23 bc and up till the reform of Claudius in 44, the Aerarium was certainly controlled by two praetors, who, in Latin inscriptions, bore the title of praetor aerarii, or sometimes that of praetor ad aerarium, and, in the senatorial decrees of 11 bc and of ad 20, praetores aerarii or praetores qui aerario praesint or praeessent.14 The Greek expression ƒ æ H F ÆNæÆæı translates the Latin, qui aerario praesunt, very precisely.

13 The choice I made of the second solution in Aerarium, 70–8, no. 21, was justiWed by the absence of the determining ‘qui primus . . .’; it is not absolutely inevitable. E. Groag, on the other hand, in PIR 2 C 1257, but particularly in WS 54 (1936) 192–5, had considered that it could be the Wrst pair of quaestors of the treasury that was in question. A Wrm answer could be given only by identifying the campaign in the course of which L. Coiedius Candidus obtained his dona militaria. 14 Front. De Aq. 100. 3 and 4, and SC de Cn. Pisone patre ll. 122 f.

208

M. Corbier

The only noticeable diVerence between the supplements of 17, 12, and 7 bc is the passage from the conjunction X (the consuls or those in charge of the Aerarium) to the conjunction ŒÆ (the consuls and those in charge of the Aerarium). It is unclear if this change has any purpose, or if it is due only to an oversight on the part of the translator or stonecutter. The senatorial decree of 11 bc, which deWnes the status of the curators of the aqueducts (Front. De Aq. 100), entrusts contracting for necessary equipment (wooden tablets, papyrus rolls, etc.) to both consuls, or to one of them, as they choose, with the assistance of the praetors in charge of the treasury: adhibitis praetoribus qui aerario praesint. Already at that date auction came within the competence of the consuls and the praetors of the treasury. If the same was true for the farming out of taxes, the praetors of the treasury took on the role of associates of the consuls in the proceedings. The last undated supplement before that of the curators of 62 locates the deposit of a document æe HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæøØ (l. 143). As I recalled at the outset, the identiWcation of the aerarium populi Romani as aerarium Saturni, by referring to the ‘Temple of Saturn’ which sheltered it, does not seem to appear in the titulature of the men in charge of the treasury before the reign of Claudius—at any rate, I have found no examples of it. However, mentions of the Aerarium are not lacking in documents that are contemporary (such as the senatorial decree of 11 bc, just mentioned, the Fasti of the Aerarium,15 and now the senatorial decree concerning the elder Piso of 10 December 20) or later (which, incidentally, like the Flavian municipal law,16 may omit the speciWcation ‘of Saturn’). If this dating criterion is correct, the mention of the aerarium Saturni alone would situate the fragment, at its earliest, in 42. If the Wrst letters preserved in l. 143 had really been ˆ ˇ &, as the edd. pr. indicated, the known chronology of the reforms of the Aerarium could have helped to date the fragment. But the check made after the Oxford colloquium has directed M. Cottier and C. V. Crowther towards a diVerent reading of the stone, and this element has lost its signiWcance. To review the data: 15 CIL 6, 1436 ¼ 32270 ¼ Inscr. Ital. 13.1, no. 27; Corbier, Aerarium 32–5. 16 AE´ 1986, 333, ch. 66: aput eos qui Romae aerario praeessent; eos qui Romae aerario praeerunt. On the lex Irnitana, see also Lamberti 1993.

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration . . .

209

the title prefect, used from ad 56, is equivalent to Ææå ÆNæÆæı F ˚æı; from 44 to 56, the Aerarium was run by two quaestors—in Greek, ÆÆØ; before the reform of 44, those in charge of the Aerarium were two praetors—in Greek, æÆÅª. If the reading of the Wnal -ª E , and consequently the restoration of the title of æÆÅª, had been correct, we should have found ourselves at the latest in 43/44— and so in 42, if the preceding supplement really dated from 37.17

From the fact that the curators of 62 expressly claim to follow the synthesis prepared Wfteen years previously by T. Domitius Decidianus as the source of the draft of their own document, some commentators have concluded that it is not necessary to restore supplements introduced in the intervening period, that is to say in the years 47 to 62. The last supplement ought to emanate either from consuls who preceded Decidianus or from consuls who proceeded to the award of the contract when he was himself quaestor of the treasury, bringing at that time a modiWcation to the lex locationis. The last addition before that of the curators of 62 would thus be plausibly placed in the range 42 to 47, that is, if the quinquennial rhythm was maintained, either in 42 or in 47 (but a later date is not completely excluded). A Wnal question is relevant to the chronology. Does the fact that, in the praescriptum and again in the supplement that is attributed to them in 62, the ‘curators of the public revenues’ are alone mentioned, mean that at that date there were no praefecti aerarii Saturni (the title borne by those in charge of the Aerarium since 56)? Or, put more plainly still, were the curators mentioned also in charge of the treasury?

17 Even if the remains of the last name are compatible with that of one of the consules ordinarii of the year 37, I share the caution of O. Salomies on this point; one has so many surprises when the discovery of the fragment of an inscription brings to light the actual names of people that were believed to have been restored with complete certainty for a century past; we should think for instance of the so-called Testament ‘of Dasumius’. The discovery of a new fragment (AE´ 1976, 77) has shown recently for instance that the legatee Cornelius [- - -] was not Tacitus, as has been believed since Mommsen, but Cornelius Pusio.

210

M. Corbier

The text itself provides no means of solving this question. However, the high rank—consular—of the members of the commission of 62, their title of curatores and even their number—three—hardly seem to be compatible with running the Aerarium. Always two in number, the men in charge of the treasury never had, at the time of their nomination, a rank superior to that of ex-praetor. But above all, as A. Be´renger has already noted,18 L. Calpurnius Piso seems to have combined the duties of curator aquarum (Frontinus, De aq. 102) and of curator uectigalium publicorum, a combination which was repeated in 97 for Frontinus, nominated for the commission of Wve consulars, when he was already curator of the aqueducts. Highly lacunose as it is, the supplement of 62, due to the curators, alludes only to the three curators and the Emperor Nero (ll. 146–7). If there is no mention of those in charge of the Aerarium, the consuls are not mentioned either. And nobody doubts the existence of consuls.

B. The activities of ‘those in charge of the treasury’ The attested activities of those in charge of the treasury have been listed by Mommsen in Staatsrecht (2. 556 ¼ [Le Droit public 4, 257 f.]). In Mommsen’s list the contracting for wax tablets, papyrus rolls, etc., necessary to the service of the curator aquarum, attested in the senatorial decree of 11 bc reported by Frontinus (De aq. 100), does not Wgure among the responsibilities recorded; this activity is certainly mentioned in Staatsrecht (2. 428 [¼ Le Droit public 4, 112 n. 1]), which, if one reads it at face value, ‘classiWes’ those in charge of the Aerarium among the second-rank functionaries. It is true that contracting for public revenues should concern more important transactions than the supply of writing materials. On the basis of two inscriptions of Ventimiglia, I had already established links between those in charge of the treasury and the Wrms of publicani. A prefect of the treasury of Saturn whose name is lost19 is 18 Be´renger 1993, 90. 19 AE´ 1961, 282 ¼ 1964, 239 ¼ 1966, 123; see Supplementa Italica NS 10 (1992) 113 f., no. 3, photo (¼ AE´ 1992, 661). CIL 5, 7812, probably concerns the same person; Corbier, Aerarium 152–6, no. 34. Two other fragmentary inscriptions relevant to this unnamed senator have since been published: AE´ 1998, 544, and 2000, 587. Mennella 2000 has suggested attributing AE´ 1992, 682, to the same senator, and with

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

211

honoured with a statue by the socii uicesimae libertatis, who term him patronus. It was tempting to believe that these publicani were leasing a tax of which the yield should be, at least nominally (in the public accounts), allocated to the Aerarium. The suggested date (end of the Wrst–beginning of the second century) was deduced from the possible transfer of the raising of the uicesima to conductores under Trajan, according to the suggestion made by De Laet,20 and from the responsibility of the curator uiae faciendae usque Puteolos. It was conWrmed by the publication of an inscription dedicated to Domitian which precisely dated the end of this work between 95 and 96 by Domitian’s Wfteenth year of tribunician power.21 Thirty years ago, the two inscriptions of Ventimiglia were, along with the Flavian municipal law, the only documents showing the links between the Aerarium (and its prefects) and the publicani who were in charge of the collection of taxes, and therefore supporting the hypothesis that the 5% tax on the freeing of slaves went to the Aerarium, a supposition contrary to what had sometimes previously been stated. The Ephesus inscription conWrms the validity of the hypothesis published at that time in respect of the uicesima libertatis. It shows above all that the men in charge of the Aerarium, who are mentioned as such from the supplement of 17 bc onwards, played, along with the consuls, but in a subordinate capacity, a genuine part in the decision process of accepting or not the guarantees provided by the successful contractors. Even better, T. Domitius Decidianus, the only person in charge of the Aerarium to have the honour of appearing by name in the Ephesus inscription, seems to have drawn up a document that I shall call a summary or a synthesis. Under the Greek words KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB there are no other Latin words than pascua perpetua to identify. Perpetua signiWes that the arrangements are renewable from one year to another. With regard to the intervention of Decidianus, the speciWcation uectigalium Asiae is not repeated. In fact, it is probable that the quaestor of the treasury (and his colleague) proceeded to a compilation of all the leges (the ‘registers of liabilities’) in existence for all the uectigalia of proper caution considered his possible identity with Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus, praefectus aerarii Saturni in 96–7. 20 De Laet 1949, 370. 21 AE´ 1973, 137; see also Cassius Dio 67. 14. 1, and Statius, Siluae 4. 4.

212

M. Corbier

the Roman people exacted in his (or their) time, without restriction to the province of Asia. It is tempting in any case to tie the drafting of this summary document to a prolongation in the years 44–47 of the activity of the commission which was to recover debts to the treasury and was set up, according to Cassius Dio (60. 10. 4), by the Emperor Claudius in 42—perhaps in connection with the award made in the same year. One member of this commission, C. Caetronius Miccio, is known. The senator of praetorian rank, who had just been prefect of the aerarium militare, bore the explicit title of praefectus reliquorum exigendorum populi Romani.22 What arrears (reliqua) could interest the State more than those of the societies of tax farmers? According to Suetonius (Aug. 101. 6f.: quantum pecuniae in aerario et Wscis et uectigaliorum residuis), the breuiarium imperii left by Augustus at his death distinguished, in the State reserves, three groups: amounts present in the public treasury (aerarium) and in the various chests (Wsci),23 as well as the arrears (residua) due to the State under the heading of uectigalia. Nothing makes it necessary to tie the drafting by Decidianus of the synthesis on the uectigalia only to the award of the year 47. The drafting of a document of this kind could take some time (Decidianus and his colleague were in charge for three years). Its publication might be contemporary with the award of 47 and the beginning of Claudius’s censorship.

C. The question of public posting and Wling The Ephesus inscription was not found in situ; the stone was reused in the basilica of St John. The praescriptum is unfortunately very lacunose. The end of the inscription is also lost. We have no indication of the presence of the signatores (seven as a rule), who authenticated the text when a copy of an oYcial document was made for a private purpose.24 On whose initiative—and therefore where—was the document set up at Ephesus? Was it an ‘oYcial’ copy sent from Rome or a copy 22 AE´ 1966, 186; Corbier, Aerarium 64–7, no. 19. 23 From the SC de Cn. Pisone patre (AE´ 1996, 885, l. 55), we know that in ad 20 the chest of the province of Syria was called Wscus principis nostri. 24 The rescript of Gordian III cut at the end of the inscription of Scaptopara (see below, n. 27) is followed by the note Signa VI[I].

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

213

made at Rome at the request of interested persons? This question was keenly debated at the Oxford meeting. From what type of document was it copied? Certainly from an item Wled in a tabularium, since the Greek text carries the phrase K ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ (l. 2). The remaining words give no reason to believe that the document copied was already the copy, displayed under the supervision of the curatores, of such a section of the archive. The suggestion made by T. Spagnuolo Vigorita, that the Greek translation of the formula descriptum et recognitum should be restored at the beginning of l. 2 rather than in l. 3, is that which approaches existing parallels most closely: a tablet from Herculaneum, which has the advantage of being contemporary, since it concerns an edict of the urban praetor of 62;25 the military diplomas, of which the Wrst to be known date from the reign of Claudius;26 the distinctly later inscription from Scaptopara,27 etc. There are numerous Roman documents which bear ‘spatial references’.28 . Every senatorial decree begins by indicating the place where the senate was in session when the vote was taken.29 25 AE´ 1996, 407 (rereading by G. Camodeca of the Wrst eight lines of TH 89, p. 5 ¼ Riccobono, FIRA2 3, 5 bis, b): descriptum e[t recognitum ex] edicto L. Seru[eni Galli] pr(aetoris) quo[d propo]situm erat R[omae in f]oro Aug[usto sub] porticu Iulia a[d colum]nam [?ante] tribunal eius. This text tells us that the north-eastern portico of the forum of Augustus, where the statues of the ancestors of the gens Iulia were erected, was the site of the praetor’s tribunal. The praetor caused his edict to be displayed in the porticus, facing his tribunal on a column marked out by a number which has been lost in the lacuna. 26 CIL 16, 1–3. 27 For the new edition of the inscription of Scaptopara (CIL 3, 12336 ¼ IGBulg. 4, 2236) which Hallof has given (1994, 405–41), following the squeeze and documents preserved in the archives of IG, see AE´ 1994, 1552 (with a French translation by Michel Se`ve); it may be corrected and completed by the remarks of Hauken 1995, 82–94, summed up in AE´ 1995, 1373 (I give the text restored by the editor): Fuluio Pio et Pontio Proculo cons. XVII kal. Ian. descriptum et recognitum factum ex libro libellorum rescriptorum a domino n. Imp. Caes. M. Antonio Gordiano Pio Felice Aug. et (propositorum Romae in porticu thermarum Traianarum in uerba quae i(nfra) s(cripta) s(unt). Read now Hauken 1998, 74 –137, no. 5. 28 A theme to which I have returned in several publications, now in Corbier 2006. 29 In Palatio in porticu quae est ad Apollinis for the senatorial decree of June, 19, found at Larinum (AE´ 1978, 145) and for the SC de Cn. Pisone patre of 10 December, 20, numerous fragments of which belonging to several copies have come to light in Andalusia (AE´ 1996, 885).

214

M. Corbier

.

Imperial edicts bear an indication of the place in which they were issued.30 . Certain documents indicate a place of posting31 or the instructions given for posting.32 But for our purpose, the most interesting texts are those that indicate the place of conservation (in the archives) of the original or the posting place of the copy from which the copy was made. The majority of known parallels feature the indication of the exact place in order of increasing precision. The Wrst lines of the Latin text of the lex portorii posted at Ephesus ought also to bear the following indications: ‘At Rome (Romae), in such and such a part of the basilica Julia, in the archives (tabularium) of the curators . . .’. What are we to think of the ending -Å , which can be read on the stone? As the locative genitive no longer existed in Greek at this period, one has the choice between a latinism (the genitive in -Å of ' #Å standing for the Latin locative Romae) or, more likely, the restoration in the lacuna of K ' #ÅØ followed by the indication of a constituent part of the basilica (the termination -Å belonging in that case to the article in the genitive case, B, preceding & ıºÆ !Æ ØºØŒB), and Wnally K ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ. In one form or another and most plausibly in the form K ' #ÅØ, the speciWcation ‘at Rome’ must be included in the lacuna. A diYculty remains. Does the mention of the ‘curators of the public revenues’ in the genitive case deWne the nature of the tabularium, as the majority of commentators (notably C. Nicolet and T. Spagnuolo Vigorita) have taken it? Or does it introduce a genitive absolute? I am inclined rather to accept the Wrst solution. The short side of the Basilica Julia faces the temple of Saturn. Now grammatophylakion translates not aerarium but tabularium. There cannot be 30 So the edict of Claudius in favour of the Anauni was issued and posted (propositum) Bais in praetorio (CIL 5, 5050 ¼ ILS 206). 31 On the posting of decisions in favour of soldiers released from service, see Corbier 1994b, 147–60 and Corbier 2006, ch. 4. 32 The problem of the posting of the senatorial decrees in honour of Pallas is studied in Corbier 1997, 11–40; and the instructions given for the display of the senatorial decree on the posthumous honours of Germanicus (in Palatio in porticu quae est ad Apollinis in templo quo senatus haberetur) in Corbier 1994a, 39–85, esp. 47–52, and Corbier 2006, ch. 5.

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

215

any question here of the building called tabularium publicum which stood at the top of the Capitol and on which several imperial constitutions in favour of veterans were posted under Domitian. If the tabularium in question is situated in the Basilica Julia, it is in a speciWc part of it allocated to the curators. Was the display of the document at Ephesus a direct consequence of the decision, taken by Nero, to post the regulations of all the uectigalia (leges cuiusque publici)?33 In plain terms, of an order for general publication from the emperor? Such has been the spontaneous interpretation of the majority of commentators.34 In the judgement of G. Rowe, on the other hand, the dispatch to the province concerned of the lex portorii on the basis of a decision of the central authority is unconvincing. However, it seems reasonable to think of an indirect consequence of this imperial decision. The demand for the publicizing of Wscal dues was under debate at this time and is witnessed by the conXict that set Caligula at loggerheads with the Roman plebs (Suet. Cal. 41. 1). The emperor had decided on a series of new taxes, ‘proclaimed, but not posted’ (uectigalibus indictis neque propositis), to multiply the numbers of those who breached them. Under pressure from public opinion, he had to have recourse to posting the law (proposuit quidem legem), ‘but in quite tiny letters and in a very out of the way place, so that nobody was able to make a copy of it’. In the opinion of Suetonius himself, one of the functions of posting was thus the possibility of copying the document that it oVered users. With the same intent, the double instruction given to the consuls by the senate in December 19, on the one hand to post the senatorial decree relating to the honours paid to the memory of Germanicus sub edicto suo, and on the other to order the magistrates and representatives of the cities of Italy and of the colonies in the provinces present in the capital to make the text known abroad, clearly had as its purpose to set in process a posting which would allow interested parties to make copies.35 A temporary posting of this type must be distinguished from the permanent display of texts engraved with commemorative aims on bronze tables. 33 Tac. Ann. 13. 51. 34 So, shortly after publication, Nicolet 1990, 689, and 1991, 480, followed by Be´renger 1993, 80. 35 AE´ 1984, 508. I discussed this question at the Lausanne colloquium in 1998: Corbier 2001, 309–20, esp. 316 f. On the Tabula Siarensis, see now also Sa´nchez-Ostiz Guttie´rrez 1999.

216

M. Corbier

Among the various imitations of metropolitan practices that one can discover in the cities of Italy36 there is certainly the obligation of posting placed on successful contractors. So the lex libitinaria of Pozzuoli— which is not precisely dated—provides that the manceps (the contractor) should be responsible for posting the municipal regulation relating to contracting for funerals and the execution of those condemned to death in his office or his shop.37 Should one imagine for the Ephesus inscription an original posting of this kind—a location relating to the customs of Asia at Ephesus? Or think of a more ‘political’ posting, on the initiative of the magistrates of Ephesus or of the provincial koinon, which would have caused a copy of the lex to be taken at Rome? From the fact that chapter 63 of the Flavian municipal law orders the posting of leges locationum relative to municipal revenues on the responsibility of municipal magistrates ‘in a manner which makes it possible for them to be read accurately from ground level’, in a place chosen by the decurions,38 I am still tempted to link the Ephesus inscription to the practice of publishing these regulations that was encouraged by the central authority throughout the Empire. A supplementary argument would be that chapter 64 of the Flavian law refers twice to the model oVered to municipal administration by the Roman Aerarium and those in charge of it. If we may wonder what exact repercussions the decision taken by Nero in 58 to post the regulations of each farmed tax might have had in the provinces, for Rome itself a posting for which the curators of the public revenues of 62 were responsible had been a direct consequence of the decision.

2. NEW I NSIGHTS INTO TA X FARMING TECHNIQUES OFFERED BY THE DOCUMENT Presenting as it does the technique of leasing the portorium of Asia at least from 75 bc, perhaps from 123, until ad 62, the document oVers a 36 So the adoption of the title of curator aquae cited in Corbier 1984. 37 AE´ 1971, 88, III, ll. 20 f. J. Bodel, AJAH 11 (1986 [1994]) 73–80. See now the new edition by F. Hinard and J.-C. Dumont, 2003. A text involving similar arrangements has been unearthed at Cumae; unfortunately it is very lacunose (AE´ 1971, 89); see now also Libitina e dintorni, pp. 47–54. 38 On the lex Irnitana, see above, n. 16.

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

217

diachronic perspective on one practice of taxation, on which it provides items of hard information which were not otherwise available. It is this diachronic character that makes it particularly interesting. First, the document shows an ‘inherited’ tax structure. This is the term that seems to be the most appropriate, if one thinks of the reference to King Attalus, son of Eumenes (Attalus III). A certain number of the arrangements must have been continuing those that were already Xourishing in the Pergamene kingdom. From one lease to another, the publicani were going to receive an infrastructure: certainly buildings. At the end of their quinquennium, they had to hand it over as they found it, on the basis of an expert estimate. It was something that one would nowadays call an ‘inventory and statement of state and repair’. It is much less sure that there was any additional question about slaves. It depends on the word to be restored in the lacuna at l. 68. Indeed, if the Wrst editors thought also of *ºı; ÆŁ* (¼stationes) has since been considered, with some plausibility, and has been adopted in the present edition (see above, pp. 52, 126). As to personnel who style themselves slaves of the socii or of the uectigal, we have plentiful documentation in Africa for the quattuor publica,39 in Illyricum for the publicum portorii Illyrici. For the inscriptions of Asia (see below, the paper of O. Van Nijf) I shall cite, for instance, a funerary inscription of Amorium40 whose author, Isochrysus, indicates Wrst of all his status (he was a slave of the socii: sociorum p(ublici) (quadragesimae) p(ortuum) A(siae), with (seruus) understood), then his function (he was uilic(us) Amuri(i), that is to say in charge of the statio of Amorium), according to the manner in which the personnel of the portorium present themselves in the various provinces of the Empire, but which is not always understood by the editors of the relevant inscriptions. Is the presence of arrangements that certain commentators deem obsolete to be interpreted as clumsiness in the compilation by the curators of 62, and previously in that of T. Domitius Decidianus, which inspired their work? For T. Spagnuolo Vigorita, the extract 39 Recently enriched by the work of X. Dupuis: see AE´ 2000, 1773 and 1802, as well as ILAlg. 2. 2. 7753 and 7921. 40 AE´ 1988, 1031.

218

M. Corbier

relating to the partial immunity granted to Vedius Pollio, recorded in a supplement of 17 bc (ll. 96–8, §40), would be a simple reference of an archival nature, Pollio having died in 15 bc. It would be fair to consider, on the contrary, that this reference deserved to be kept in, for it established a norm. The exemption that had been accorded to Pollio, with an upper limit of only 10,000 denarii, could serve at a later date as a precedent and a limit for new concessions. Several supplements going back to the age of Augustus only purposed to list exempted persons and reasons for exemption (the cities and peoples exempted); the beneWciaries of favours, such as Vedius Pollio and the city of Alexandria Troas (which is explicitly conceded the right to levy the portorium for its own advantage); the special case of the publicani who contracted for the exploitation of the metalla or the collection of the tithe on agricultural produce that they would export from the province, etc. The fact that a reference to the tithe has been preserved in a document of 62 conWrms the persistence in Asia Minor at this period of the levying of a tax bearing this name. This passage should be compared41 with other documents of the imperial age which likewise bear witness to the levying in Asia Minor of taxes so designated. The

ØØŒc ŒÅ is still attested in ad 138 or a little later,42 and the tithe of the Bithynians is mentioned by Dio of Prusa in his Discourse 38, addressed to Nicomedia.43 For our purposes, there are quite new items of information that the text proVers about the Wnancial year, which would be extremely interesting if we could be sure that we understood them properly. Curiously enough, they have attracted no adequate comment until now. The contract takes eVect on 13 January in the year that follows the taking on of the lease. ‘The purchaser is to have the beneWt of it beginning from the Ides of next January for Wve consecutive years’ (l. 112). 41 There is no mention of these documents in the study of Nicolet 1999, devoted to the tithe of Asia. 42 In the great inscription of Dereko¨y published by Wo¨rrle and Wurster 1997 (see AE´ 1997, 1498c). The editors of this text have not failed to cite the parallel provided by the Ephesus inscription. 43 For which one would have to give up the hypothesis of Jones 1978, 185 n. 29, according to whom the use of this word has no basis other than allowing repetition of the word ‘tribute’ (çæ), already used in the preceding phrase, to be avoided. I had taken note of this suggestion, while qualifying it as ‘unveriWable’ in Corbier 1991 (cited 637, n. 8 [Eng. edn. 217]).

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

219

The only mention of payment features in ll. 100–1 and concerns the revision of the year 17 bc. But this was probably not an innovation. The handing over of the money is due to be made by the publicani to the Aerarium on the second Ides of October (¼15 October) and likewise in the sequel on the Ides of October in each year. There remains an ambiguity as to the year of the Wrst payment: 16 bc as envisaged by the Wrst editors44 or 15 bc as suggested by some participants in the colloquium.45 This second interpretation would imply that the Aerarium, instead of being paid at the end of the Wrst year of lease, would be paid only at the end of the second, and that the publicani would beneWt from nine months’ credit in relation to the end of their Wrst term as leaseholders (13 January, 15 bc), instead of paying three months in advance for this due date, on 15 October, 16. The Wrst interpretation must be preferred:46 the publicani, who had provided sureties but had not delivered any advance to the Aerarium, must pay by mid-October 16. But this solution is also implied by the subordinate proposition zØ i Ø ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ ÅÆØ (l. 100), which has a bearing on what follows, that is to say on the verb, in the imperative mood, Oç Øºø.47 The publicanus (I am returning to the singular maintained in the text), who has contracted (KæªºÆ!) Æ), must carry out the Wrst delivery ‘the (very) year for which he will have agreed48 to raise the tax’ (zØ i Ø . . . ÅÆØ), that is to say, in that case, 16 bc, the Wrst year of tenure. In a document drawn up in 17 bc, before the Ides of October, the 15 October, 16 bc is necessarily referred to as the second Ides. We should remember that, in ad 62, the new regulations were ready in April. The payment was thus due to take place on 15 October, the date on which the publicani had to meet their obligations to the State,49 that is to say, when the greater part of the movement of goods, which 44 This date is still maintained by Knibbe 2000, 167 f. 45 But not in the end accepted; see above, p. 143. 46 I am most grateful to Simone Follet for the enlightening comments that she has been kind enough to make for me on the understanding of this passage which support the interpretation I proposed at the Oxford Colloquium. 47 The translation proposed above (p. 67), ‘in whatever year he accepts the exploitation’, rests on a diVerent interpretation of the phrase, where the construction of ¼ with the subjunctive carries a sense of generality and repetition. 48 The Greek subjunctive must be rendered here as a future perfect and be restored in the same way in the original Latin text. 49 I shall return to this question in a forthcoming article.

220

M. Corbier

takes place in spring or summer, had been completed. At that date, the publicani had the maximum returns of cash, even if they continued to have returns during the winter, since cabotage is not interrupted. The date of 15 October deserves in any case to be linked with the approach of the mare clausum.50 The mention ad octobrem which Wgures on ostraca from the end of the fourth century found at Carthage and attesting deliveries of oil should be interpreted in the same way.51 If we consider the obligations that were imposed on merchant travellers, it is important to underline that it was an obligation to make an oral declaration and to have this declaration be registered. The question of payment arises only in ll. 56–7. ‘In whatever places there is a customs-oYce of a publicanus according to this lex, in those places the [publicanus or his] procurator is to collect the dues’ (the verb is ºÆ! Ø). The tax is thus payable precisely in those places. But that does not imply that it was really paid on the spot. Everything depends on the relations of conWdence, and so of credit that could be established between the publicani, the merchants, proprietors of the cargoes, and the carriers themselves. The most important merchants and carriers could make agreements with the publicani (see ll. 113–14: K Ø . . . ıŁBÆØ), planning real payment in a diVerent place and at a diVerent date. Such agreements ( ıŁBŒÆØ ¼ pactiones) were legally recognized. But they did not dispense (l. 99) the publicanus from his obligation to pay that same year to the State, which had no active part in these private agreements. The carriers (by ship or caravan) of a kind of wares are not necessarily the merchants. A merchant, if he accompanies the merchandise, does not necessarily carry a sum corresponding to the value of one-fortieth of it. Quite clearly, deferred payment would not have been available to an unknown person who is in transit and whom there is no means of Wnding again. An ordinary traveller had to pay on the spot. 50 See C Th. 13. 9. 3. 3 (ad 380): reply of the Emperor Gratian to African shippers who claim a higher percentage on the grounds of the winter season. The emperor reminds them that the transport of the annona has to take place in the period when sailing is normal, and speciWes the extent of this period: loading from the Kalends of April to the Kalends of October (Wrst of April and Wrst of October), but sailing from and up to the Ides of these months, that is to say, 13 April and 15 October. 51 Pen˜a 1998, 117–338, esp. 206; see AE´ 1998, 1550–68, notably the commentary on 1555a.

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

221

Based on the reading of the lex portorii, this hypothesis, which does not seem to have been put forward previously, is supported by a rescript of Septimius Severus and Caracalla, in which the possibility for the publicanus to grant a deferred payment for merchandise properly declared is presented as routine (ut solent facere).52 What about the relation between the farmers of the customs tax and the treasury of the Roman people? We are experiencing at Wrst hand, even if the document is not really explicit on this point, an area of the Roman economy that is ill explored, that of credit relations. For credit dealings between individuals in that case, I shall draw attention to the re-reading and commentary by G. Camodeca of a tablet from Herculaneum,53 which cites a purchase of the produce of the vintage, which took place in mid-October, and a commitment by contract (stipulatio) on the part of the purchaser to discharge his debt on 1 March of the following year, at the time when he would have been able to sell his wine. The important thing is that the Ephesus text mentions one payment on 15 October. This type of one-oV payment may cause surprise, since it implies that the State could wait practically for the expiry of a year to dispose of the accumulated taxes, and that the publicani would have to get the whole sum together at the same moment. Other periods and other contracts have accustomed us to payment in instalments (three- or four-monthly) and to orders to be paid directly by the tax collectors. There, too, as with the use of the word ºÆ! Ø, the text recalls the rule, which is imposed on all, but remains silent on actual practices. It is an aspect of these practices that C. Nicolet tried to pin down:54 ‘The treasury, in a certain sense, is paid in advance, since it has ‘‘cleared’’ sureties. One might even wonder (but I have no direct proof of it) if the publicani were not freeing themselves from their annual mercedes (or misthoi) by a simple trick of writing, making the 52 Marcian, Dig. 39. 4. 16. 12: Si quis professus apud publicanum fuerit, non tamen uectigal soluerit, hoc concedente publicano, ut solent facere, diui Seuerus et Antoninus rescripserunt res in commissum non cadere: cum enim, inquiunt, professiones recitantur (recipiantur?), commissum cessat, cum poterit satisWeri Wsco ex bonis publicanorum uel Wdeiussorum. On this text, see Brunt 1990, 430. 53 The text is reprinted in AE´ 1999, 449. 54 1994a ¼ 2000, 287.

222

M. Corbier

sureties pass to the deWnitive credit of the treasury, if they are in the form of specie, which of course was not always the case.’ But this hypothesis is anything but plausible. There would be no diVerence between a cash deposit that the Roman state could use immediately, and an anticipated payment by the publicani, and their guarantors would only be their creditors and backers. Sureties in the form of praedia imply an auction sale, legal delays, and therefore long formalities, which are put into eVect only in cases of non-payment. Parallels to these formalities are provided in Latin by chapters 63 to 65 of the Flavian municipal law, where praedes, mortgaged praedia, and praediorum cognitores are mentioned, and in Greek by the decree of the Council of the Areopagus, from the Severan age, brought to light in the agora at Athens, which provides very precise details on the sale of mortgaged goods.55 In the hypothesis of C. Nicolet, the publicani could not have arrears. However, the sources tell us the reverse, at any case for the conductores, the ‘farmers’ who succeeded them as time went on. At the end of the third century the jurisconsult Hermogenian56 makes it clear that, in default of payment, the tax farmers could see their contract terminated even if it had not reached its end or have interest payments imposed on them for the delay. Even if the text is much later than the Ephesus inscription, we have no reason to think that the rules have changed. The farmer is a tenant who must be evicted if he does not pay his rent in time. The weight of the sureties required—for the Wve years of the contract, not one year alone (ll. 110–12)—presents other problems, which it will be worth drawing attention to here, admittedly without being able to solve them. It implies that the publicani can assemble Wxed assets that belong to them or that belong to other people. If they belong to others, these assets will have to become the basis of returns of interest, not only for the risk incurred, but also because they have made the contract possible: they practically amounted to the locking up of capital, total for Wnancial assets, partial for landed property, which will continue to be available for exploitation but cannot be 55 Woodhead 1997, no. 339, a reference that I owe to Simone Follet. 56 Hermogenian, Dig. 39. 4. 10. 1: Non solutis uectigalium pensionibus pellere conductores necdum etiam tempore conductionis completo uel ab his usuras ex mora exigere permittitur.

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

223

sold. Hence the question arises whether the publicani themselves were in possession of the necessary capital assets or whether they would have recourse to others, of whom they were in fact the front men, or whose assets they were making proWtable. The Ephesus text, in so far as it is restricted to the formal aspects of the system, does not allow us to answer. But it draws our attention to the vastness of the sums thus realized. It also suggests that in case of non-payment, partial or total, at the end of one year, the contract could be maintained to its expiry, and conWrms, too, that the date of 15 October had every chance of not being rigorously observed.

3 . T H R E E O B S E RVAT I O N S O N T H E T E XT Among the many observations that it would be possible to add on the text itself, I would pursue here only three. The Wrst remark concerns the Greek vocabulary relative to the Wnances and taxes in use in the Roman period,57 which had a long history.58 In Greek one Wnds, both here and in other texts, the juxtaposition of the terms æ Ø (revenues) and ºÅ (taxes) in the sense that the second were only a constituent part of the Wrst: so in the third century, in Herodian (3. 1. 5), in connection with Byzantium, which drew revenues from customs dues and from dues on Wshing—æ Ø ÆE Ie ŁÆº

Å ºH ŒÆd ±º Æ. In the same way, in Dio, for example in the passages 53. 30. 2, belonging to the year 23 bc, and 56. 33. 2, relating to the document left by Augustus at his death, for which Suetonius (Aug. 101. 6 f.) has his own name of breuiarium imperii, the public revenues are always rendered by the Greek word æ Ø. In the Ephesus inscription the word º in the singular translates precisely portorium, not uectigal. The second remark is that, according to the Ephesus inscription, the mass of the tolls seems to have been looked for from the sea. An interesting description of cabotage along the coasts of Asia Minor can indirectly be made out. Some anticipation of the spot at which loading or unloading was going to take place seems to have been necessary. 57 On this vocabulary, Corbier 1991, 637 [Eng. edn. 217]. 58 See Gauthier 1976.

224

M. Corbier

The third remark is linked to the two passages (of the years 7 bc and ad 5) concerning the murex. The arrangements made tell us that the shellWsh from which purple is extracted are considered as a product of the sea (in the same category as a mineral), and an imported commodity, which Wsh are not. The murex is an expensive product. There is always a tendency to impose a heavy tax on luxury commodities wherever one Wnds them; here at double the normal tariV, i.e. at 5% instead of the normal 2.5%, since the portorium of Asia is a quadragesima.

4 . T H E D O C U M E N T O F 6 2 A N D T H E F I NA N C I A L P O L I C Y O F T H E RO M A N S TATE On account of its reference to the ‘curators of the public revenues’ instituted by Nero in 62 and to Claudius’s quaestor T. Domitius Decidianus, the document belongs to a very particular moment in the management of public Wnances. It must therefore be placed in the context of two well-known reforms, those of Claudius and Nero (see ‘Documents: Aerarium and Public Finances’, pp. 228–35 below). Beyond this context, the document gains by being considered more broadly in the long series of witnesses which from Augustus to Nerva give evidence of two concerns: . concern for the proper condition of the state archives (tabulae publicae) and, amongst those, for the archive that involved state Wnances; . concern for alertness to the balancing of State revenues and expenses. I have attempted to bring together the many documents involved in a table but above all to classify them. Modern scholars sometimes rely on incomplete data. The identiWcation of the four categories employed for this table is worth explaining. I have distinguished data related to the Wnancial reforms, whether actually carried out or merely contemplated (these are recorded in the right-hand column), from those that concern the oYcials of senatorial rank who were charged with putting the measures into eVect. For these

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

225

senators, I have allowed three columns. The Wrst concerns men who performed regular duties at the head of a permanent institution, the Aerarium. The second brings together persons with duties that are less transparent, known as curatores tabularum publicarum, as well as the activity of two commissions which, in 16 and 70, seem to have played the same role as they did.59 The third column is reserved for senatorial commissions (we know of Wve of them; there may have been others) which were given the task of restoring order to State Wnances, whether by recovering arrears or by reducing expenditure. For the whole period of the Wrst century ad in epigraphic documents and even outside them, since we meet it in Tacitus, the expression tabulae publicae, translated into Greek as a Å ØÆ ªæÆÆ,60 is linked with the Aerarium: it may be translated ‘the public records’. This expression is applied to the reference archives in at least two spheres: on the one hand, the preservation of senatorial decrees—the SC de Cn. Pisone patre ends precisely with the instruction given by Tiberius to register the document in the form in which it had been inscribed by his quaestor on fourteen tablets (tabellae) in the archives (in tabulis publicis);61 on the other, that of various Wnancial documents: in Tacitus (Ann. 13. 28. 3) the cura tabularum publicarum is clearly associated with the management of public accounts and in that case is concerned with the management of the Aerarium (even if some of the commentators have failed to notice it). The places in which these documents were preserved—the temple of Saturn itself, or adjoining sites—are not speciWed. The Ephesus inscription proves at least that the contracts made with the publicani had to be included in these tabulae publicae and stored in the Aerarium departments. The table shows up several important episodes of reform. Under Augustus, the years ad 6 and 7 saw the creation of the aerarium militare, that of the cohorts of the uigiles, as well as the creation of 59 On these see Corbier, Aerarium 686 f., and Hammond 1938, 124–6. Note that the dedication of the college of three curatores of Claudius is very precisely dated by the emperor’s Wfth tribunician power; and that C. Calpetanus Rantius Sedatus is now known as suV. consul in 47 (AE´ 1991, 474, and 1999, 450). 60 See e.g. Cassius Dio 57. 16. 2, of ad 16. 61 AE´ 1996, 885, end of the inscription.

226

M. Corbier

new forms of income, or the modiWcation of existing forms of revenue to meet these new needs.62 The reigns of Claudius and Nero, the accession of Vespasian and, later, that of Nerva were marked by the repetition of initiatives in the Wnancial Weld. Some explicit references to the need to balance expenses with receipts appear here and there. Tacitus attributes them sometimes to senators, sometimes to the emperor himself: the two passages here concern the reign of Nero. To accept the view of it taken by senators, who, in 58, refused the proposal to abolish the customs dues which the young emperor suggested, the adjustment of uectigalia since their institution under the Republic would have aimed only at ensuring ‘that the total of receipts and the amount of necessary expenses should coincide’ (ut ratio quaestuum et necessitas erogationum inter se congruerent). In 62, Nero created the commission of three consulars ‘not without criticizing earlier emperors for having, through their massive expenditure, exceeded the income that might properly be expected’ (grauitate sumptuum iustos reditus anteissent). This preoccupation was not new. One can very distinctly see the same concern to provide for expenses by regular receipts in the way in which Suetonius presents the creation of the aerarium militare by Augustus cum uectigalibus nouis. This concern to have regular revenues available and an eVort to make expenses and receipts match are very clear from the age of Augustus through the practice of earmarking receipts, which prevailed for the aerarium militare, but also for the maintenance of the uigiles, which justiWed the introduction in ad 7 of a new tax (on the sale of slaves). The motive for which Tiberius refused abolition of the centesima rerum uenalium was precisely that this tax on sales was a necessary source of income to the military treasury.63 But at least it must be necessary to clarify the notion of balancing the budget. If one were sticking to a strict contemporary legal deWnition— that of ‘a projected situation of the expenses and receipts of the State, voted by Parliament, which controls its putting into eVect’, the notion 62 These procedures are examined in Corbier, Aerarium militare, unpubl. 1975, which is the source of the communication to the colloquium ‘Arme´es et Wscalite´’ of 1976 ¼ Corbier, Aerarium militare 1977. 63 This question is discussed in detail in Corbier, Aerarium militare 1977.

Lex Portorii and Financial Administration

227

of a budget, on which I had chosen to conclude my paper at Oxford, certainly has no place in Roman history, no more under the Republic than under the Empire. But if one thinks of a broader sense of the word ‘budget’—of the sources of income and expenditure of a family or a group, ‘with the idea of forecasting and checking’—, the balance of accounts at which individuals just as much as the emperor aimed looks like an attempt at budgetary equilibrium. But there is another dimension that cannot be left out. Even if he made clear his interest in regular revenues, the emperor did not hesitate to acquire resources of a special character. In the course of the same year of 62, the freedman Pallas, whose wealth was a byword,64 was to be put to death by Nero, precisely on account of it; the ancient authors who make it known65 do not go into the detail of whether Nero was only expecting his part of Pallas’s inheritance or preparing conWscation of his patrimony. We should be wrong, with our modern outlook, to limit our observation to tax revenue.66 The practice of accumulating booty in time of war had its counterpart in time of peace, at least under some emperors: the conWscation of the property of those condemned for maiestas or of wealthy propertyowners who had had the misfortune to displease the prince. 64 See Pliny, NH 33. 134 and Juv. 1. 109. 65 Tac. Ann. 14. 65 and Cassius Dio 62. 14. 3. 66 This theme is taken further in Corbier 1987.

Documents: Aerarium and Public Finances

ad

Emperor

6

Augustus

7

13 15

Tiberius

Officials in Charge of the Aerarium praetores aerarii or praetores ad aerarium (after 23 bc) in inscriptions.

Tabulae publicae: their cura

Senatorial Commissions concerned with public finance Commission of 3 consulars responsible for reducing expenditure (Dio 55. 25. 6).

Financial Initiatives Establishment of aerarium militare cum uectigalibus nouis (Suet. Aug. 49. 4). Creation of the 5% tax on inheritances (Dio 55. 25. 5). Creation of the 2% tax on sale of slaves as revenue earmarked for the Vigiles; suppression of the State subvention to praetors responsible for organizing gladiatorial games (Dio 55. 31. 4). Confirmation of the 5% tax on inheritances (Dio 56. 28. 46). Refusal to abolish the 1% sales tax on the grounds that it is necessary to the military treasury (Tac. Ann. 1. 78: Centesimam rerum uenalium . . . deprecante populo, edixit Tiberius militare aerarium eo subsidio niti).

16

Commission of 3 senators responsible for making new copies of faulty public documents and recovering those that are missing (Dio 57. 16. 2).

18

C. UMMIDIUS DURMIUS QUADRATUS, pr. aer. (CIL 10, 5182; Corbier, Aerarium no. 10). IDEM

19 ?

38

Caligula

Neque tam paruum quicquam neque tam magnum publici priuatique negotii fuit, de quo non ad patres conscriptos referretur: de uectigalibus ac monopoliis . . . (Suet. Tib. 30; see also Tib. 71).

C. UMMIDIUS DURMIUS QUADRATUS, curator tabular. publicar. (CIL 10, 5181–2). Abolition of the tax on sales in Italy (Suet. Cal. 16: Ducentesimam auctionum Italiae remisit). For the vicissitudes of this tax, see Corbier, Aerarium militare 223–7. Creation of a series of new taxes, indictis neque propositis, then their posting, ‘but in quite tiny letters and in an out of the way spot, so that nobody could take a copy’ (Suet. Cal. 41. 1).

(continued )

Documents: (Continued )

ad

Emperor

42

Claudius

44

Officials in Charge of the Aerarium

Tabulae publicae: their cura

Senatorial Commissions concerned with public finance Commission of 3 ex-praetors responsible for recovering debts to the public treasury, with lictors and appropriate staff (Dio 60. 10. 4). C. CAETRONIUS MICCIO, praefectus reliquorum exigendorum populi Romani, previously prefect of the aerarium militare (AE´ 1966, 186; Corbier, Aerarium no. 19).

Administration of the Aerarium by two quaestors continuing in office for 3 years (Tac. Ann. 13. 29. 1f.; Suet. Claud. 24. 4; Dio 60. 24. 13).

Financial Initiatives

44–7

T. DOMITIUS DECIDIANUS, qui primu[s quaes]tor per triennium citra [sorte]m praeesset aerario Saturni (CIL 6, 1403; see 6, 8, 3, p. 4692 ¼ ILS 966; Corbier, Aerarium no. 20; lex portorii Asiae).

45/6

44–7 or 47– 50 ?

(25 Jan. 45–24 Jan. 46) C. CALPETANUS RANTIUS SEDATUS [COS. 47], M. PETRONIUS LURCO, T. SATRIUS DECIANUS, curatores tabularum publicarum or tabulariorum publicorum (CIL 6, 916 ¼ 31201; see 6, 8, 2, p. 4306). L. COIEDIUS CANDIDUS, quaest. aer. Satur.; eund. cum ha[be]r. inter suos q., eod. ann[o e]t a[e]r. Sat. q. esse ius. (CIL 11, 6163; Corbier, Aerarium no. 21). IDEM

L. COIEDIUS CANDIDUS, cur. tab. p.

(continued )

Documents: (Continued )

ad

Emperor

56

Nero

57 58

Officials in Charge of the Aerarium Addidit L. Piso designatus consul . . . neue multam ab eis [sc. tribunis plebis] dictam quaestores aerarii in publicas tabulas ante quattuor menses referrent (Tac. Ann. 13. 28. 2). Dein princeps curam tabularum publicarum a quaestoribus ad praefectos transtulit ( . . . ). Igitur Nero praetura perfunctos et experientia probatos delegit (Tac. Ann. 13. 28. 3; 29. 2; Suet. Claud. 24. 4; Dio 43. 48. 2). Designated praefecti aerarii in inscriptions.

Tabulae publicae: their cura

Senatorial Commissions concerned with public finance

Financial Initiatives

Dein princeps curam tabularum publicarum a quaestoribus ad praefectos transtulit.

Transfer of the tax on the sale of slaves from the vendor to the purchaser (Tac. Ann. 13. 31). . . . dubitauit Nero an cuncta uectigalia omitti iuberet idque pulcherrimum donum generi mortalium daret. Sed impetus

eius . . . attinuere senatores, dissolutionem imperii dicendo, si fructus, quibus res publica sustineretur, deminuerentur . . . reliqua mox ita prouisa ut ratio quaestuum et necessitas erogationum inter se congruerent (Tac. Ann. 13. 50. 13) . . . edixit princeps ut leges cuiusque publici, occultae ad id tempus, proscriberentur (Tac. Ann. 13. 51. 1 f.). 62

Commission of 3 curatores publicorum uectigalium of consular rank (Tac. Ann. 15. 18. 3: uectigalibus publicis praeposuit; and lex portorii Asiae). A. POMPEIUS PAULINUS, L. CALPURNIUS PISO, A. DUCENIUS GEMINUS, curator uectigalium public. (ILS 9484). All 3 mentioned in lex portorii Asiae.

(continued )

Documents: (Continued)

ad

Emperor

69

Vespasian

70

Officials in Charge of the Aerarium

Tabulae publicae: their cura

Senatorial Commissions concerned with public finance

Temporary return to praetores aerarii (Tac. Hist. 4. 9).

Financial Initiatives Debate in the senate after a report by the praetores aerarii: Praetores aerarii (nam tum a praetoribus tractabatur aerarium) publicam paupertatem questi modum impensis postulauerant (Tac. Hist. 4. 9).

Commission of senators, quique aera legum uetustate delapsa noscerent Wgerentque, et fastos adulatione temporum foedatos exonerarent (Tac. Hist. 4. 40).

Restoration of the 3,000 bronze tablets destroyed in the fire on the Capitol

Two other commissions which had as their task (Tac. Hist. 4. 40): to restore confiscated goods: per quos referentur bello rapta (see also Suet. Vesp. 10); and lower State expenditure: modumque publicis impensis facerent (Tac. Hist. 4. 40).

in 69, a collection of ‘SCC and plebiscites, relating to alliances, treaties, and privileges granted to individuals’, defined as instrumentum imperii (Suet. Vesp. 8. 9). 97

Nerva

L. PUBLICIUS CERTUS, C. IULIUS CORNUTUS TERTULLUS, praefecti aerarii Saturni (Corbier, Aerarium nos. 29 and 31), at least until Spring 97.

Sources: Corbier, Aerarium and Aerarium militare

Commission of 5 Restrictions imposed on civil consulars sumptus and religious festivals at publicos minuendos / Rome (Dio 68. 2. 3). minuendis publicis sumptibus (Pliny, Ep. 2. 1. 9 and Pan. 62. 2), including FRONTINUS, curator aquarum in 97; VERGINIUS RUFUS (excused; died 97).

The Elaboration and DiVusion of the Text of the Monumentum Ephesenum G. D. Rowe

This chapter treats three themes. The Wrst is the elaboration of the text of the Monumentum—how it was written and by whom. The second theme is diVusion—how the text was transformed into the physical inscription. It has been universally accepted that Nero’s ad 58 edict to publish the laws for each uectigal led directly to the inscribing of the Monumentum (at an unknown date after ad 62), and the Monumentum has therefore been taken as concrete evidence for an active, reforming state. But is the link between the edict and the Monumentum secure? The third theme is the text itself—how it compares to the rest of the heterogeneous sources of Roman laws, and how its terminology and legal forms evolved over the perhaps nearly two centuries of its elaboration. These three themes can be approached by posing a series of elementary questions. What were the origins of the customs law for Asia? How did the law develop—how was it modiWed and extended? What was the nature of the compilations made under Claudius and Nero? How were the compilations related to the text of the Monumentum? How was the customs law diVused? This chapter remains largely as I delivered it at the Colloquium in December 1999, when I had beneWted from previous discussion with J.-J. Aubert, M. Cottier, F. Millar, Ch.-A. Morand, D. Potter, and Ch. Terrettaz. It has since been modiWed in response to corrections and suggestions kindly oVered by M. Crawford and M. Wo¨rrle. My profound thanks to all, and especially to B. Levick for seeing the whole project through.

Elaboration and DiVusion

237

1. ORIGINS Let us assume as a working hypothesis that the Wrst half of the text of the Monumentum, from the Wrst normative clause at ll. 7–11 to the end of §30 l. 72, where the consuls’ additions begin, is the oldest part.1 This assumption will serve as a basis for the following remarks on structure, chronology, and the constitution of societates publicanorum. The Wrst half has an evident structure, beginning with a single clause setting out the customs-zone and the basic rate, §§9–24 treating declarations and customs stations, §§25–7 treating exemptions. This structure may have been the result of historical accretion. O. Lenel showed that the apparent structure of the praetor’s edict resulted from praetors tacking on new clauses under the Wrst relevant title that came to hand.2 Or the structure of the lex portorii Asiae may have been the result of conscious design. The idea of giving Roman laws intelligible structures was current in the late Republic. The jurist Q. Mucius Scaevola edited the civil law generatim, the jurist Ser. Sulpicius Rufus edited the civil law in partes, and Cicero drafted his provincial edict in three parts.3 The Wrst half has a practical simplicity and brevity. The simplicity of the lex contrasts with the complexity of local tariVs from Palmyra and Zarai and goes some way towards explaining why the Roman system worked.4 The brevity of the text of the Monumentum—even counting the redundant additions in the second half—is such that something over 150 lines suYced to state the law for a populous and prosperous province, and makes the lex a minimal benchmark for the scale of Roman legislation in general. The Wrst half also appears to have diVerent chronological strata, going back to three clauses from when Romans began collecting customsduties in the former kingdom of Attalus III (§§10, 28, and 29).5 These Attalid clauses must support the idea that Rome began farming Asian 1 Compare the tax law from Palmyra, where the new tariV comes before the old tariV: Matthews 1984. 2 See Lenel apud Bruns, Font. 65. 3 Rawson 1985, 201–14; Moatti 1997, 230–43. 4 The tariV from Zarai: CIL 8, 4508. 5 Carrelli 1996, 179–81.

238

G. D. Rowe

taxes immediately in 133 bc. That year, the senate issued a hasty decree instructing the praetor governing Asia to uphold all Attalid decisions.6 In similar circumstances the lex de prouinciis praetoriis would instruct the praetor governing Macedonia to Wx customs-frontiers for the newlyannexed Chersonese.7 In the SC of 129 bc regarding Pergamene land publicans are seen already to be at work in Asia.8 On this interpretation the lex Sempronia of 123 bc would have been principally important for transferring auctions to Rome. The reasoning sketched here entails the minor corollary that the Wrst half of the text of the Monumentum is essentially the lex Sempronia, and the major conclusion that, as in Sicily and Egypt, Rome inherited the taxation system in Asia from hellenistic predecessors. But, as Fergus Millar points out to me, the whole transition from Attalid kingdom to Roman province must now be re-examined in the light not only of the lex portorii Asiae, but of the decrees from Claros published by the Roberts, with their indirect testimony to the war against Aristonicus and their unparalleled depiction of a Greek city coming into the Roman fold.9 The Wrst half of the text contains no clause constituting partnerships of publicans, societates publicanorum. Tacitus (if we interpret his rhetoric correctly) would have led us to believe that statutes like the lex Sempronia contained clauses constituting partnerships.10 According to M. R. Cimma, the Roman state moved from contracting with individuals who sometimes formed private partnerships under the Republic, to contracting with individuals as representatives of a new form of public partnerships under the Principate.11 Cimma’s analysis meshes perfectly with the provisions inscribed on the Monumentum, which show the state contracting with individuals and guarantors while acknowledging the existence of partnerships, and with the lex Irnitana, another document unavailable to her.12 In order to explain Tacitus, Cimma suggested that the Roman state always kept a register of partners, an idea that has raised doubts.13 I do not propose to settle the controversy, but only to introduce into 6 Sherk, RDGE 11. 7 Crawford, RS 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. 4. 8 Sherk, RDGE 12. 9 Robert and Robert 1989. 10 Tac. Ann. 13. 50. 3: ‘plerasque uectigalium societates a consulibus et tribunis plebis constitutas, acri etiam tum populi Romani libertate’. 11 Cimma 1981. 12 Gonza´lez 1986, §63. 13 Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 168–70.

Elaboration and DiVusion

239

the discussion an example of a clause constituting partnerships and ordering registration of partners. This clause comes from one of the two long inscriptions from the imperial mining-settlement at Vipasca.14 The Wrst sentence concerns constitution of partnerships: otori puteorum socios quos uolet habere liceto, ita ut, pro ea parte, qua quis socius erit, impensas conferat. It is permitted that the occupier of mines shall have such partners as he wishes, provided that each one shall undertake the expense in proportion to the amount of his share.

The next sentences concern procedure in case of default by a partner and the right to take legal actions against partners; the Wnal sentence concerns registration of new partners: colonis inter se eas quoque partes puteorum, quas a Wsco emerint et pretium soluerint, uendere quanti quis potuerit liceto. qui uendere suam partem quiue emere uolet apud proc(uratorem) qui metallis praerit professionem dato; aliter emere aut uendere ne liceto. ei qui debito Wsci erit donare partem suam ne liceto. The coloni may sell among themselves, at as great a price as each is able, those shares of mines which they have bought from the Wscus and for which they have paid the full price. He who wishes to sell his share, or who wishes to purchase, shall make a declaration before the procurator who is in charge of the mines. In no other way may purchase and sale be eVected. It is not permitted him who is indebted to the Wscus to give away his share.

Certainly Cimma was wrong to dismiss this clause as concerning purchase, not hire; the terminology of purchase and hire is used interchangeably, as in the lex portorii Asiae and so often elsewhere.15 But once more the whole subject needs reconsideration.

2. DEVELOPMENT The concern here is with the second half of the text of the Monumentum and the series of additions by the oYcials who let out the contracts, the 14 FIRA 1, 104 §4; tr. Van Nostrand in ESAR 3, 171f. 15 Cimma 1981, 227 n. 193.

240

G. D. Rowe

consuls and the curatores of public revenues. The topics to be considered are initiative for change, the legislative instances involved, the role of the oYcials, and the way changes appear in the lex. Initiative for substantive change to the customs law came from below, from provincials, publicans, or the Roman people. Under Augustus initiative to exempt the Asian harbour came from the Asian koinon (ll. 128–33, §57). Under Nero initiative to publish the laws for each uectigal came from the populus.16 Particular quantities could be learned from Roman oYcials. In the lex de prouinciis praetoriis, the state learns how much grain to contract for from provincial governors.17 This push-and-pull between diVerent parties explains how a passive Roman state could formulate policy. Since the opinions of both provincials and publicans are registered in documents of a rare drama like the Oropus dossier, and since the settlements of the state are now registered in the text of the Monumentum, taxation in particular is a privileged domain for studying Roman policy-making.18 During the Republic substantive changes—such as where and from whom to collect customs-duties—were enacted by the senate and the people. This holds true not only for §2 of the lex portorii Asiae, which states that customs frontiers may be altered by SC or by statute (plebiscite is restored). It also holds true for a series of seemingly disparate late Republican and Triumviral documents: . the Oropus dossier, where exemption is granted by the senate or by Sulla with subsequent senatorial approval; . the document published by D. Knibbe as a Triumviral edict and republished by K. Bringmann as an SC, where exemptions are granted by the senate, may be conWrmed in case of intercession by the demos or the plethos (populus Romanus or plebs), and are to be communicated by the Triumviri through edicts;19 . the SC from Aphrodisias, where exemption is granted by the senate and will be ratiWed by the people;20 16 17 18 19 20

Tac. Ann. 13. 50. 1: ‘crebris populi Xagitationibus’. Crawford, RS 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. 2, ll. 13–31. Oropus dossier: Sherk, RDGE 23 (I.Oropos 308). Bringmann 1983. Reynolds, Aphrodisias, Doc. 8.

Elaboration and DiVusion

241

.

the lex Fonteia, where exemption is granted by M. Antonius, approved by the senate, and then ratiWed as a statute by the people;21 . letter 2 from the dossier concerning Seleucus of Rhosus, where Roman citizenship and tax-exemption are granted by Imp. Caesar under a lex Munatia Aemilia.22 Did this pattern change under the Principate? Or did substantive changes continue to be enacted by the senate and people? At §57, concerning immunity for the [Pergamene] harbour, the lex is modiWed in light of what Augustus ‘decided and conceded or replied to the ambassadors’. But at §39, from 17 bc, communities may be exempted by ‘lex or plebiscite or by the favour of Imperator Caesar Augustus, possessed of tribunician power’. It is extraordinary that a formal statement of the power to grant exemptions explicitly couples the old legislative instances—the people and the senate—with the emperor and his ‘favour’. How did the emperor exercise his favour? It may be that the emperor’s favour was simple Wat, and that he had only to speak for the communities to be exempted. But it may also be that the emperor exercised his favour by using the tribunician power to propose legislation, and that, in this passage, the tribunician power was understood to be an operative power. The year of the passage, 17 bc, was also the second year of Augustus’s historic legislation, the leges Iuliae on marriage, adultery, electioneering, and the courts. As Seneca says, Augustus himself proposed the lex de adulteriis from the Rostra in the Forum.23 As Augustus says, he did so by virtue of the tribunician power:24 L b Ø KF + *ŒºÅ NŒ E ŁÆØ K!*º B ÅÆæåØŒB K ½ı Æ J Kº ½ Æ. What the senate wished to achieve through me I accomplished with the tribunician power.

So it may be that, at this date, Augustus’s favour was still followed by formal legislation. 21 Crawford, RS 36. 22 Sherk, RDGE 58; now re-edited and discussed in detail by Raggi 2006. 23 Seneca Ben. 6, 32: ‘. . . forum ipsum ac rostra, ex quibus pater legem de adulteriis tulerat’. 24 RG 6, 2.

242

G. D. Rowe

Having been enacted, substantive changes were proclaimed by magistrates. ‘Proclaim’ is the root meaning of edicere. The magistrate’s role was not legislative so much as executive. Thus Cicero says that Verres should have proclaimed changes by edict before he introduced them into censorial contracts and should not have changed the rights of the Sicilians without an order from the people or the authority of the senate.25 In the text of the Monumentum the oYcials letting out the contracts are consuls and then curatores of public revenues. In 75 bc a statute had to be passed allowing consuls to let out contracts.26 But by the Principate Velleius Paterculus could praise the consul of 19 bc for rigour in letting out contracts and Ovid could assume that the consuls of ad 15 and 16 would be letting out contracts.27 For this reason it must not be assumed that the oYcials let out contracts for the Asian portoria at a regular Wve-year lustral rhythm. In the text of the Monumentum, where stated, additions are made in the Wrst year of contracts; where stated, contractors provide quintuple sureties, and the Wve-year rhythm is maintained for the years 17, 12, 7, and 2 bc (§§39–48). But we cannot work backward by increments of Wve to 75 bc, or forward to ad 5, 19, and 62 (§§49–55, 58, 62–4). Furthermore, the dates of contracts have nothing to do with the dates of censuses under Augustus—18, 13, and 8 bc—while the consuls, it appears from Velleius and Ovid, were letting out contracts each year. In the lex portorii Asiae the magistrates as a rule do not attribute changes to the legislative instances. While numerous SCC and statutes modifying Wnancial documents are known—the SC from Aphrodisias, for example, specifying that the city is to be removed from ‘revenue documents’, ºØ æ ØŒÆ—the lex portorii Asiae traces only a single charge—immunity for Vedius Pollio (§40)—back to an SC. The same pattern of apparently arbitrary non-attribution appears in the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, an important parallel for the lex portorii Asiae which professes to contain a series of additions by Roman oYcials, but where only four of the 121 extant clauses are attributed (nos. 18, 23, 24, and 36). 25 Cic. Verr. 2. 1. 55. 143; 56. 148; 2. 3. 7. 17: ‘tua sponte, iniussu populi, sine senatus auctoritate, iura prouinciae Siciliae mutaueris’. 26 Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 8. 19. 27 Vell. Pat. 2. 92. 2; Ovid, Pont. 4. 5. ll. 15–24; 4. 9. ll. 41–57.

Elaboration and DiVusion

243

3 . T H E COM P IL ATI O NS AND TH E MONUMENTUM Under Claudius and Nero were made two compilations of revenue laws entitled KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB/pascua perpetua, complete or permanent public revenues, a title that may, depending on how ØÅ ŒB/ perpetua is interpreted, explain why they amassed disused clauses and seem to have been archival or historical in character.28 These compilations may be compared to attested works on imperial revenues: . a De uectigalium Asiae constitutione by Messalla Corvinus, cos. 31 bc;29 . biblia on funding the newly-created Aerarium Militare in ad 6. About these Cassius Dio writes:30 [A]s there was need of some permanent supply, Augustus ordered each one of the senators to seek out sources of revenue, each independently of the others, to write them in books (!Ø!ºÆ), and to give them to him to consider . . . When diVerent men had proposed diVerent schemes, he approved none of them, but established the tax of Wve per cent on inheritances and bequests . . . representing that he had found this tax set down in Caesar’s memoranda . . . In this way, then, he increased the revenues; as for the expenditures, he employed three ex-consuls, chosen by lot, by whose help he reduced some of them and altogether abolished others.

With the appointment of the consular commission, the citation of precedent from Caesar, the creation of new revenue sources, and the atmosphere of Wnancial crisis and reform, this episode preWgures ad 62, when Nero appointed the curatores, criticized previous emperors, and promised HS 60 million to the Aerarium. As texts describing revenue sources written by senators, the Augustan biblia may be seen as forerunners of the Neronian KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB. In fact there survive many diverse compilations of Roman legislation, which may be viewed as parallels for the KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB and which provide some insight into the rationale behind the compilation: 28 Despite much interesting discussion during the Colloquium, KØØÆ is still best understood as a rendering of the technical term pascua; cf. Pliny, NH 18. 11. 29 Charisius, Gramm. 146, 34. 30 Dio 55. 25. 4–6 (Loeb tr.).

244

G. D. Rowe

.

as a collection of rules, like the Gnomon of the Idios Logos;31 as a historical account, like the commentarium of the Secular Games of 17 bc, a composite that set out SCC, edicts and decrees of the XVviri, and a letter of Augustus to form a chronicle of the festival;32 . as a collection of precedents, like the edict of the Sardinian proconsul from ad 69 that mobilizes precedents in order to settle a dispute;33 . as a part of a learned discussion, like Frontinus’s De aquae ductu, the writings of the agrimensores, or the numerous works de oYcio, which combined history, etymology, and collections of legislation. Frontinus 103, 1: ‘Now I shall append the relevant statute and the SCC that the curator aquarum should follow in setting about his work’; . as a Greek archive wall that assembled documents (SCC, imperial letters) to testify to local glory and privileges. One may even speak of a compilation style in the elaboration of Roman law, spanning the continuum from individual statutes, which were assembled from tralatician clauses, to the great repositories of civil law put together under the Tetrarchs, Theodosius, and Justinian, and straddling the divide between public and private. A perfect example of the merging of public and private comes from Ephesus, where an archive wall exhibited a proconsul’s letter that cited the De oYciis of Oulpianos (Ulpian) as containing a compilation of Roman statutes, imperial pronouncements, and SCC attesting to the city’s pre-eminence.34 .

31 Sel. Pap. 206 (Loeb tr.): ½F ª#½; k › Ł e !Æ e ﬁB F Nı ºªı KØæﬁB ½Ææ ) Æ; ŒÆd H $e å EæÆ ÆPﬁH ½æ ª ª½ø XØ $e ÆPŒæÆæø j ıŒº)½ı j H ½ŒÆa ŒÆØæe Kæåø j Nø ºªø a b ½ ﬁø ½Œ çºÆØÆ ı g $Æ ½ Ø; ‹ø ﬁB ½B IÆªæÆçB OºØª æﬁ Æ c )Å KØ )½ Æ På æ½H H æÆªø æØŒ½æÆﬁB. ‘Of the list of directions which Divus Augustus delivered to the administration of the Idios Logos, with the additions made to it from time to time either by emperors or senate or the prefects or idiologi of the day, I have appended for you a summary of the articles in common use, in order that applying your memory to the simpliWed form of exposition you may easily master the questions.’ 32 CIL 6, 32323; see now Schnegg-Ko¨hler 2002. 33 FIRA 1, 59. 34 I.Ephesos 2, 217.

Elaboration and DiVusion

245

The text of the Monumentum is also an extract from a larger whole: the censorial archives. Epitomes and other shortened forms were often produced, generally for practical reasons; one might even speak of a condensation style as a sub-phenomenon of the compilation style. Thus, . the tariV from Coptus is an extract for public display;35 . the Gnomon is ‘a summary of the articles in common use’ and ‘a simpliWed form’ for memorization (see the preface quoted above); . the album of formulas—derived from the praetor’s edict and cited throughout Book 4 of Gaius’s Institutiones—was posted each year for litigants;36 . in Aphrodisias, the two inscribed so-called Y Æ (‘clauses’) set out privileges from emperors, senate and people and a treaty with the Roman people in summary, imperative form;37 . in Ephesus itself (I suggest) there is once more a similar case, in the document published by Bringmann as an SC, which has an abrupt, imperative form and cannot therefore be a strict SC.

4 . DI F F U S I O N Was the text of the Monumentum issued by the Roman central state or acquired and inscribed by Ephesians? Until now it has been assumed that Nero’s reforming edict of ad 58 caused the lex to be issued. A valuable article by W. Eck sets out the dilemma.38 Most of the inscriptions that we call administrative documents were published by subjects as declarative or memorial inscriptions. So for example the customs document from Caunus is in fact an honoriWc decree.39 If the lex was issued then it would be the only example of an administrative document issued and published by the central state. 35 OGIS 674. 36 Cf. e.g. Gaius, Inst. 4. 46: ‘innumerabiles eius modi aliae formulae in albo proponuntur.’ 37 Reynolds, Aphrodisias, Doc. 9. 38 Eck 1998. 39 Purpura 1985; Marek, I.Kaunos 35, p. 188.

246

G. D. Rowe

But we ought not to assume that the edict was causally linked to the inscribing of the Monumentum. The contents of Nero’s edict are not reproduced in the surviving text of the lex.40 Items from the edict either do not appear in the text of the Monumentum, appear diVerently there, or appear in modiWcations dating from before ad 58: the edict prohibited recovery of lapsed claims (‘omissas petitiones non ultra annum resumerent’), the lex portorii Asiae does not mention lapsed claims; the edict established praetorian jurisdiction at Rome (‘Romae praetor’), the lex had already established praetorian jurisdiction at Rome in ad 5 (ll. 115–17, §50); the edict established jurisdiction by the governor in provinces (‘per provincias qui pro praetore aut consule essent iura aduersus publicanos extra ordinem redderent’), the lex portorii Asiae seems to establish procuratorial jurisdiction (ll. 147–9, §63; the lines are fragmentary and unclear); the edict granted immunity to soldiers except when engaging in commerce (‘militibus immunitas seruaretur, nisi in iis quae ueno exercerent’), the lex had already done so in the Wrst half (ll. 64–6, §26); the edict abolished illegal exactions by name (‘abolitio quadragesimae quinquagesimaeque et quae alia exactionibus inlicitis nomina publicani invenerant’), the lex does not mention illegal exactions (contrast the document from Caunus (I.Kaunos 35, E 10–11), which speciWes: ‘no so-called philanthropic donations, neither in the name of Aphrodite, nor on any pretext in any way’); the edict lightened the tax on grain (‘temperata apud prouincias frumenti subuectio’), the lex seems already to have done so in the Wrst half (ll. 72–4, §§31–2); the edict exempted ships of negotiatores (‘et, ne censibus negotiatorum naues adscriberentur tributumque pro illis penderet, constitutum’), the lex seems already to have done so in the Wrst half (ll. 58–66, §§25–7; ll. 74–8, §33). If the contents of the edict do not match the contents of the lex portorii Asiae, so the reforming spirit behind the edict—recall that Nero had contemplated abolishing all indirect taxes—does not appear in the lex, where one might have expected at least a rhetorical preamble advertising the lex as the ‘most beautiful gift to the race of mortals’.41 Lastly, the edict itself was acquired, in that Nero issued the edict in response to petitioners. 40 Nero’s edict: Tac. Ann. 13. 51; for the opposite view see the paper of D. W. Rathbone in this volume. 41 Tac. Ann. 13. 50. 1: ‘pulcherrimum donum generi mortalium’.

Elaboration and DiVusion

247

Internal evidence suggests that the Monumentum was acquired by the Ephesians. For the text of the Monumentum is a transcription of a sealed document. The fact that the text was taken from an archive and the phrase infra scriptum (e $ª ªæÆ, l. 3) should guarantee the following process. The text will have been copied and checked from the archive (descriptum et recognitum, l. 2). A scribe will have certiWed the copy (recognoui, at the end). The document will have been folded and Roman citizens will have sealed it with their signatures (signauerunt). Then the sealed document will have been transmitted to Ephesus, opened, translated into Greek, and inscribed. (Note in passing that the form of sealed documents was suYciently important to have been the subject of an SC under Nero.42) In most cases we do not know whether sealed documents were issued or acquired. We do not know whether the surviving military diplomas, which were sealed copies of originals from Rome, were issued or acquired. But where we do know, sealed documents were acquired and inscribed by subjects. Thus the Scaptopara inscription was acquired by a soldier, and the edict of the Asian proconsul from Magnesia published by Johannes Nolle´ was acquired by the Magnesian envoy.43 It happens that we now have for comparison a sealed copy of an edict from Rome that, by purest chance, was made only a few months before the inscribing of the Monumentum, on 22 March ad 62. Thanks to a splendid re-reading by G. Camodeca, one of the waxed tablets from Herculaneum now allows us to glimpse the actual praetor’s edict, as it was displayed before the praetor’s tribunal in the Forum Augustum:44 descriptum e[t recognitum ex] edicto L. Seru[eni Gall]i pr(aetoris) quo[d propo]situm erat R[omae in f]oro Aug[usto sub] porticu Iulia a[d colum]nam [.. ante] tribunal eius [in quo sc]riptum e[rat id] quod infra sc[riptum] est: L. Seruenius Gallu[s pr(aetor) dicit:] M. OWllius Macro [et Ti. C]rassus Firm[us IIuiri] . . . Copied and checked from the edict of L. Servenius Gallus, praetor, which was posted at Rome in the Forum Augustum under the Porticus Iulia on column . . . before his tribunal, in which was written that which is written below: L. Servenius Gallus, praetor, says: M. OWllius Macro and Ti. Crassius Firmus, duovirs . . . 42 Camodeca 1995. 43 IGBulg. 4, 2236, l, 6; SEG 32, 1149, ll. 37–8. 44 Camodeca 1996 (AE´ 1996, 407).

248

G. D. Rowe

Though the two documents combine to suggest that the diVusion of Roman law was a matter of subjects’ initiatives, we should recall their diVerences: the tablet was taken from a text on public display, the text of the Monumentum from an archive; the tablet is a direct copy, the Monumentum exhibits a copy of a copy; the tablet was a private document on perishable support, the Monumentum oVers an inscription for permanent, public display. On balance it may be preferable to suppose that the text of the Monumentum was both issued by Rome and acquired by Ephesians, according to a pattern like the one described in the Tabula Siarensis, where the senate asks the consuls to order local delegates already present at Rome to copy the decree and to send the copies home, a pattern of diVusion I propose to call a mixed reception.45 item senatum uelle atque aequm censere . . . uti co(n)s(ules) hoc s(enatus) c(onsultum) sub edicto suo proponerent iuberentque mag(istratus) et legatos municipiorum et coloniarum descriptum mittere in municipia et colonias Italiae et in eas colonias quae essent in
rouinciis . . . Likewise the senate wishes and thinks it right . . . that the consuls order the magistrates and delegates from the municipia and the colonies to send a copy (descriptum) . . . to the municipia and the colonies of Italy and the colonies in the provinces . . .

5. CONCLU SION In following the elaboration and diVusion of the lex portorii Asiae, we follow a trajectory from Asia to Rome and back to Asia—from Attalid precedents, through two centuries of extension, modiWcation, and compilation at Rome, and then back to Ephesus. How we read the lex depends on what stage of its elaboration and diVusion we are looking at. If we are looking at the physical inscription, then we must read it not as an anomalous Roman document, but as a local Ephesian inscription put up for local reasons—perhaps because the lex names Ephesus as the centre of a tax-district, perhaps because the presence of the Monumentum accorded with Ephesus’s pretensions as the port of entry into Asia. 45 Crawford, RS 37 b, Col. 2, ll. 21–6.

Elaboration and DiVusion

249

In closing I turn from the physical inscription and Ephesus to the text and two questions concerning the Roman people and forms of Roman legislation. The text of the Monumentum is Wlled with reminders of the real and symbolic role of the populus Romanus: immunities for Roman citizens and goods shipped in the interest of the Roman people; oYcials named curatores of public revenues; duty-collectors who buy contracts from the people, give security to the people, and do so in public; the terms Å Ø#Å and Å ØøÆ. The underlying conception of the Aerarium as the people’s treasury spans the period of the lex portorii Asiae, running from the early Wrst-century ad record of public works on a Via Caecilia at Rome, which repeats the formula ‘the funds have been assigned; the cost to the people is so much’,46 to the lex Irnitana, where security must be pledged to the common account of municipal citizens ‘as it would be pledged to the Roman people at Rome’.47 In the lex portorii Asiae, however, expressions of the people’s role tend to congregate in the second half of the document. Why? Is this a reXection of what was and was not allowable discourse under the Sullan constitution? In the lex, as in other Roman legal texts, verbal forms vary, and this raises problems both for the restoration of lost text and for the analysis of surviving text. The method of legal analysis called form criticism is especially associated with the lamented David Daube and rests on the proposition that verbal forms in Roman legislation were conservative and can illuminate the genesis of legal documents and the mentalite´s of their authors.48 Daube argued, for example, that conditional clauses (‘if someone does something’) were more ancient than relative clauses (‘whoever does something’), and that the shift reveals archaic strata of legislation. Daube also argued that the alternatives of stating the rule before the sanction (‘let something be done; whoever does the opposite shall be punished’) or embedding the rule in the sanction (‘whoever does not do something shall 46 ILLRP 465: ‘pecunia adtributa est, populo const(at)’. 47 Gonza´lez 1986, §64: ‘in commune municipum eius municipi item obligati obligataque sunto et ii eaue populo R(omano) obligati obligatae essent, si aput eos, qui Romae aerario praessent, ii praedes iique cognitores facti eaque praedia subdita subsignata obligataue essent.’ 48 Daube 1956.

250

G. D. Rowe

be punished’) obey a principle of economy—‘lawyers do not usually state that which goes without saying’—and reveal documents composed by trained jurists. Yet a glance at the sanctions clauses of the lex portorii Asiae will show that neither pattern holds; conditionals and relatives, rules before sanctions and rules embedded in sanctions are used interchangeably: (a) ll. 21–2, §8: rule before sanction, conditional (personal subject) Ka Ø $ Æ *Ø Ø) ﬁ Å; e þØ ŒÆd e æAªÆ F ½ º#ı ø. (b) ll. 52–3, §21: rule before sanction, relative (impersonal subject) n b i $ Æ *Ø ªÅÆØ; e æ½AªÆ KŒ E ½ŒÆd e þØ F º#ı ø. (c) l. 55, §22: rule before sanction, conditional (impersonal subject) K $ Æ Ø *Ø ªÅÆØ; e æ½AªÆ ŒÆd e þØ F º#ı ø. (d) ll. 57–8, §24: rule embedded in sanction, relative (personal subject) n i $ Æ Ø *Ø º!ﬁ Å j Ø) ﬁ Å; Kç ﬁz Ø º!ﬁ Å j ‹ ı iﬁ q e $ Æ *Ø ª ª; N æAª½Æ KŒ E ŒÆd e þØ Ø ÆŒæ Œæ Łø; ŒÆd F åæ)Æ *ı K å*æı ºBłØ ø. (e) ll. 79–81, §34: rule embedded in sanction, conditional (personal subject) K Ø $ Æ *Ø ŒÆÆ½ åﬁB ÆFÆ a Œ ıc ºøØ ÅæHØ u c ªB c Ææ åŁBÆØ; ‹ i qØ ŒÆ åÅ; *ı › º#Å HØ ÆæÆŒÇØ ØºF å ø; ½ŒÆd F æªÆ *ı K å*æı ºBłØ ø ŒØøE E a ª øæ*åØÆ MæªºÆ!ÅŒ Ø. (f ) ll. 87–8, §38: rule before sanction, conditional (personal subject) Ka oø c Ø) ﬁ Å; ﬁH ØºﬁH ½º Ø ø; ŒÆd F æªÆ *ı HØ º#ﬁ Å IªøªcfØg ŒÆd K å*æı ºBłØ ø. So can form criticism tell us anything? If not, what method would be appropriate for analysing legal texts?

Nero’s Reforms of Vectigalia and the Inscription of the Lex Portorii Asiae D. Rathbone

1 . I NTRO D U CTI O N The aim of this paper is to locate the (re)publication of the lex portorii Asiae in ad 62 among Nero’s reforms to the collection of indirect taxes (uectigalia) and Wnes and other public charges. I also discuss the nature and purpose of these reforms, and argue that they were not, as has been variously proposed, responses to Wnancial crisis or elements in a populist macro-economic plan, nor did they involve increased centralization of Wnancial control in the hands of the emperor. Instead I suggest that the reforms were part of a traditional, even conservative, propaganda and policy of Wscal probity, primarily to the beneWt of the e´lite, in tune with Nero’s accession promise of good and open government with proper involvement of the senate. Hence much of this paper is about the rhetoric of taxation. I suggest that Wscal ‘policy’, or approach, varied from emperor to emperor. Nero and Trajan, for example, took a taxpayer-friendly approach in deliberate contrast to the revenue-friendly approach of Claudius and Vespasian. There is not space here for a full reassessment of Neronian

I am grateful to the participants in the 1999 colloquium for their comments, and to the Leverhulme Trust for a Personal Research Professorship which gave me time to research this topic.

252

D. Rathbone

Wnances, let alone history and historiography, but because they inXuence my approach to the reforms of uectigalia, I outline my background ideas. Nero’s failings have been exaggerated in the Roman historical tradition to justify the coups d’e´tat of Galba and Vespasian. At least into the second century ad a memory of good aspects to the reign survived, evident in Suetonius’s mixed picture of Nero but best known through Tacitus’s version of the pro-Senecan tradition in which government was ‘good’ until ad 62 because of the inXuence of Seneca and Burrus. The anti-Senecan tradition, in which government was ‘bad’ from the start, with Seneca a corrupt accomplice, is represented by Dio, inXuenced by his own experience of Commodus and Caracalla. In my view, to seek a watershed in 62, or any other year, does not help. Nero was as much responsible for the ‘good’ government of his reign as for the ‘bad’ actions, and elements of good government were still strong through to ad 66 and evident to the end of the reign. Nero was ‘big on projects and big on presents’, says Dio, and so always needed more money. This formulaic charge of ‘badness’, in the fuller and blander version that heavy expenditure drove Nero to public extortion and conWscation of private wealth, is repeated frequently by Dio, and remains the standard view today.1 Similar views, though less extreme, about Nero’s extravagance are expressed by Tacitus and Suetonius. Most emperors were big spenders; it went with the job. Nero was exceptionally generous to friends and associates. However, these gifts, often property rather than cash, were elements, if imperially exaggerated, of the Roman patronage system: most of them came out of the patrimonium, and returned to it on the deaths of the beneWciaries. Building projects were modest before the Wre of ad 64, public entertainments were moderate, there was only one congiarium to the people (in 57) and two donatives to the guard (in 59 and 65). The Wre at Rome was a disaster requiring emergency measures, such as using temple treasures and appeals to other communities, easy to twist against Nero later. Military expenditure was probably much higher than most would imagine for Nero, for the Armenian campaigns and eastern plans, the restabilization of Britain after Boudicca, and the Jewish revolt. 1 Dio 63. 17. 1: ªÆºæªø ŒÆd ªÆºøæ; cf. GriYn 1984, 197–207.

Nero’s Reforms

253

Nonetheless, it is unlikely that on a yearly average Nero outspent Claudius, for instance, or Trajan. Roman governments, unlike medieval monarchs or modern states, were almost never able to borrow against future revenues. They could ‘overspend’ only by delaying payments, by using up reserves (if any), by debasing the coinage, by inventing new indirect taxes, or by conWscating private wealth. Normally they just spent what they received.2 Leaving aside the Wre of ad 64 and the panic of 68, there is no hard evidence for any Wnancial crisis in Nero’s reign. Dio has Nero raising ‘novel’ taxes in ad 54 because Dio’s Nero was bad from the start, but there is no other evidence for any new tax, at least until 68.3 The reduction of the precious metal content of the gold and silver coins minted at Rome from ad 64 onwards was only one aspect of Nero’s empire-wide coinage reforms. Perhaps it was another emergency response to the great Wre, but its eVect on public Wnances will have been slow and limited. Nero’s public announcements that he had transferred HS 40 million from the patrimonium to the Aerarium in ad 57 ‘to maintain the public credit’, and had been transferring HS 60 million annually for a number of years to ad 62, have no meaning for the overall health of the imperial Wnances, which often bypassed the Aerarium altogether and whose annual turnover has been cautiously estimated at some HS 800–1,000 million. These transfers were gestures, deliberately reviving Augustan precedents, with the propaganda message that it was the Princeps who subsidized the res publica, not the reverse.4 As I will argue below, Nero’s reforms of uectigalia were attempts not to increase Wscal revenues to meet a budgetary deWcit but to reduce abuses inherent in their collection by private enterprise; if anything, they suggest budgetary stability. Vespasian’s claims of a great Wnancial crisis in ad 70 followed on over a year of civil wars and were exaggerated anyway.5 2 See Rathbone 1996. 3 Dio 61. 5. 5; Gaius was probably the model for this accusation (see below). Urban levy (loan?) in 68: Suet. Nero 44. 2. 4 Tac. Ann. 13. 31 (57), 15. 18 (62), probably to pay for his congiarium and games respectively. Turnover c.ad 150: Duncan-Jones 1994, 45. Augustus’s transfers: RG 15–18, esp. 17. Note that when Nero freed Achaea of tribute in ad 67, he ‘compensated’ the Aerarium with the revenues of Sardinia (Paus. 7. 17. 3). 5 Suet. Vesp. 16. 3: HS 40,000 million needed (incredible, so often amended to HS 4,000 million to make it more plausible!); Tac. Hist. 4. 47: SC to borrow HS 60 million, not implemented, perhaps unnecessary (‘simulatio’).

254

D. Rathbone

Lastly, a word about terminology. The change from Republic to Principate had led to more standardization of provincial taxation. Tributum now denoted taxation of the basic wealth or income of provincial subjects through the tax on land and the poll-tax (tributum soli and tributum capitis). Vectigalia now denoted all other taxes and charges levied on expenditure or movements of assets, such as customs dues, the citizen inheritance tax, leases of state property, which were mostly farmed out to private contractors (publicani, conductores). Thus in the Principate the terms tributum and uectigalia, in Greek çæ and ºÅ, broadly correspond to our ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ taxes, although uectigalia was still sometimes still used in its Republican sense of revenues in general.6

2. EARLY REFORMS, ad 55 TO 57 Suetonius claims that Nero ‘abolished or reduced the more oppressive indirect taxes (uectigalia)’ as part of his liberalitas and clementia in implementing his accession promise to the senate ‘to rule on the pattern of Augustus’, and, Tacitus adds, to shun the bad practices of Claudius.7 Suetonius often generalizes from a single instance: is this his, or Nero’s, hype? As we will see, Nero did not abolish any of the main public indirect taxes but made reforms to their collection. However, despite the generally Ximsy evidence we have for Wscal matters, there is a possible explanation for Suetonius’s claim. Seeking popularity at the start of his reign, Gaius had abolished the 0.5% or 1% tax on sales at auction in Italy, but later he introduced ‘new and unheard of uectigalia’ in Rome: a Wxed duty on imported foodstuVs (edulia), a 2.5% charge 6 The new usage is evident from computerized searching of, for instance, Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio, and the Digest (Neesen 1980, 25–9 is not much help). Few passages clearly contrast the terms (e.g. Tac. Ann. 1. 11; 13. 50; Suet. Vesp. 16. 1; Dig. 39. 4. 1. 1), but their speciWc meaning is apparent in most separate uses. Unambiguously Republican usage of uectigalia is rare (e.g. Tac. Ann. 11. 22, referring to the Republic; Hist. 3. 8). Despite Eck 1998, 132 n. 94 [¼ 2000, 282 n. 66], ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ refer primarily to the assessment or incidence of taxes on wealth or income; the method of collection often follows suit, but may not (e.g. under the Republic provincial tithes, a direct tax on landed wealth, were often collected indirectly by publicani). 7 Suet. Nero 10. 1; Tac. Ann. 13. 4 f.

Nero’s Reforms

255

on the sum at issue in (private?) lawsuits, and occupational levies on craftsmen, retailers, prostitutes, and the like.8 These taxes were remunerative and hated, especially the duty on foodstuVs which, says the elder Pliny, caused ‘shouting by the angry plebs at all the principes until it was abolished’. Claudius had revoked some of Gaius’s new taxes but not all. Nero abolished the charge to litigants made by the Aerarium for subsellia, that is benches (and probably space in a public building) for trials, which must be Gaius’s charge on lawsuits, and Nero is a more plausible candidate than the tax-increasing Vespasian for abolition of the duty on foodstuVs which Pliny implies occurred more than one reign after Gaius but before ad 79.9 These charges could be called ‘more oppressive’ because they were levied and loathed in Rome. In any case, Suetonius is right to align Nero’s Wscal reforms with his contemporary political and legal reforms in a propaganda, and reality, of good and open government, and the contrast with Gaius was probably deliberate and overt. The earliest dated action with Wscal implications is of ad 55. A notorious Paetus, who unearthed forgotten arrears in the records (tabulae) of the Aerarium and prosecuted the debtors, threatening auction of their property, was exiled by Nero for other reasons, and the records he had used (excluding recent arrears?) were burned.10 Nero’s dramatic liberality, probably a bonWre in the forum, recalled the precedent of Octavian, and was followed by Vespasian and perhaps Trajan, then Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius.11 8 Sales tax: Dio 59. 9. 6 (ad 38); Suet. Gaius 16. 3; Smallwood, G-N 35. New taxes: Suet. Gaius 40; Dio 59. 28. 8 (ad 40); Pliny, NH 19. 56 (the ‘uectigal macelli’ or ‘portorium’, on which see De Laet 1949, 346–7); Jos. AJ 19. 24–9 (implicitly ad 40). 9 Claudius: Dio 60. 4. 1. Trials: Suet. Nero 17 (undated); cf. Tac. Dial. 9. 3 and Juv. 7. 40–7 for the private hire of rooms and subsellia for literary recitations. Nero’s abolition of the foodstuVs duty may have prompted his later old-fashioned regulation of dinners and taverns (Suet. Nero 16. 2; Dio 62. 14. 2, ad 62); a duty at the gates of Rome had been reintroduced by the second century: see Le Gall 1979, 120–6. 10 Tac. Ann. 13. 23 (reading ‘nomina’, ‘entries’); Paetus had taken the ultimate gamble of accusing Pallas and Burrus of treason. There had been and were other practitioners of Paetus’s speciality: this was, for instance, how the great-grandfather of the emperor Vitellius had made his fortune in the later Wrst century bc (Suet. Vit. 2. 1). 11 Octavian, 28 bc: Dio 53. 2. 3 (arrears from before Actium); Suet. Aug. 32. 2. Vespasian: Dio 66. 10. 2a (‘old entries’ to Aerarium). Trajan: Chron. Pasc., a. 106; the Anaglypha/Plutei Traiani (Hadrian?). Hadrian, ad 118: ILS 309 ¼ Smallwood, N-H 64a (the ‘Wrst and only emperor’ to remit HS 900 million due to the Wsci); Smallwood, N-H 64b; Dio 69. 8. 1; HA Hadr. 7. 6. Marcus Aurelius, ad 178: Dio 71. 32. 2. Cf. Kloft 1970, 120–5.

256

D. Rathbone

More reforms arose in ad 56 from disputes between magistrates in the senate, a sign, as Tacitus grudgingly admits, of its restored ‘Augustan’ libertas.12 A senatus consultum curtailed the judicial powers of tribunes, and L. Calpurnius Piso, the consul designate, added a rider ‘that Wnes imposed by them should not be entered in the public records (publicae tabulae) before four months (i.e. within three months) by the quaestors of the Aerarium, during which time appeals would be permissible which would be judged by the consuls’. Similarly, limits were imposed on the caution money which aediles could demand in court and the Wnes they could impose. When Helvidius Priscus, then tribune of the plebs, for personal reasons accused a quaestor in charge of the Aerarium of ‘excessive and unmerciful use of the power to auction (‘ius hastae’) against men without means’, Nero transferred the ‘care of the tabulae publicae’ to a pair of former praetors, called ‘prefects of the Aerarium’ (praefecti aerarii), who were chosen by the emperor and served for three years, a reform which lasted into the fourth century.13 Some have seen this as ‘centralization’ under imperial control.14 However, it was a return to the early Augustan arrangement of 28–23 bc, except for imperial appointment, which had already been introduced by Claudius in ad 44 when he replaced praetors with quaestors. It was also accompanied, or possibly followed, by a check to the judicial powers of the prefects, recorded without date by Suetonius, that ‘in proceedings brought by the Aerarium, the cases should be transferred to the forum and recuperatores’.15 Recuperatores were small panels of judges, chosen by lot and challenge, instructed by the urban or peregrine praetor, or a consul, to settle quickly certain cases, often those involving recovery of property or money (including Wnes) in dispute between private persons and public 12 Tac. Ann. 13. 28; cf. Ann. 4. 32 for such ‘discordiae’ as Republican. 13 Tac. Ann. 13. 29 gives a brief history of changes since the Republic, which other evidence supplements: see Corbier, Aerarium 17 f. and 631–64; Millar 1964. Corbier, Aerarium 74–8, 675–8 argues from Tacitus’s phrasing that Nero had recombined with supervision of the treasury the care of all ‘public records’, which she thinks had been managed separately since 28 bc. 14 Be´renger 1993, 80; cf. Corbier, Aerarium 652, 663 f. 15 Suet. Nero 17. Suetonius continues, ‘and that all appeals from iudices should go to the senate’. Since he stresses ‘all’, this ruling, though relevant here, was probably part of the limitation of the judicial powers of tribunes and aediles, or perhaps of Nero’s edict of ad 60 that appellants to the senate from privati iudices should deposit the same caution money as appellants to the emperor (Tac. Ann. 14. 28).

Nero’s Reforms

257

authorities or their agents.16 It is not clear what independent jurisdiction the magistrates in charge of the treasury had previously had (or from when), or how Nero altered this. In addition to executing conWscations of property, they seem, like the quaestor of ad 56, to have been able to judge accusations of arrears brought by informers, and to rule on private claims, though possibly their decisions could be appealed against to the senate.17 It is implausible that Nero put more senior men in control and then removed their jurisdiction entirely, and in the late Wrst and second centuries prefects were certainly still judging cases brought by delatores, which were perhaps the majority of all cases.18 Suetonius implies that only cases initiated by the Aerarium were aVected; of course specialist delatores must have often worked closely with the Aerarium, and could have been primed to act for it, but the rule may have been enough to deter the prefects from pursuing personal grudges. Nero’s extension here of the use of recuperatores was in Republican tradition but novel. In turn it was extended by Nerva to cases between individuals and the Wscus (i.e. patrimonium) and its agents, and Trajan’s adherence to this was praised as respecting libertas.19 Two other similar measures are attested, undated but probably of 54 to 57. The rewards payable to successful delatores under the lex Papia Poppaea were reduced to a quarter of the Augustan amount, apparently the Wrst reform to this hated Augustan legislation since the simpliWcation and ‘moderation’ of it carried out in ad 20 by a senatorial commission appointed by Tiberius.20 Nero’s reform actually beneWted 16 Lintott 1990; Frier 1985: 197–234. Recuperatores are attested from the early second century bc; their original function may have been to settle claims by peregrini against Roman oYcials, but by 111 bc, if not before, they were used for disputes involving Roman citizens (cf. n. 37 below). I am grateful to Andrew Lintott for advice on this. 17 e.g. Tac. Ann. 1. 75 (ad 15): refusal of claim, followed by appeal (or complaint?) to the senate by a senator; Suet. Claud. 9. 2 (under Gaius): judgment against Claudius. Cf. Pliny, Ep. 4. 12. 2–4: when a quaestor consulted Trajan about a disputed payment, Trajan passed the case to the senate, but the self-advertising initiative of the quaestor distorted normal procedure (note that the Aerarium was represented by an advocatus in the senate, as it must have been before recuperatores). 18 Pliny, Ep. 1. 10. 9–10 (late 90s); Dig. 49. 14. 15. 1–6, and elsewhere. 19 Dig. 1. 2. 2. 32: Nerva added a praetor ‘to provide justice between the Wscus and private persons’; perhaps he took over cases involving the Aerarium too. Pliny, Pan. 36. 3–5: Trajan makes his agents (actores) and even procurators go to the praetor’s tribunal, where the judges are selected by lot and challenge. HA Hadr. 20. 6 claims that Hadrian Wrst appointed an advocatus for the Wscus (i.e. made it a standing post?). 20 Suet. Nero 10. 1, mentioned before the congiarium of ad 57. AD 20: Tac. Ann. 3. 25–8 (see further below); meanwhile Claudius had revoked one Tiberian concession (Suet. Claud. 23. 1).

258

D. Rathbone

the Aerarium, but the propaganda point was the discouragement of delation. Calpurnius Siculus trills that the digger and ploughman no longer fear to turn up gold, which implies some discouragement of delation of ‘treasure trove’, maybe again by reducing the rewards.21 Lastly, in ad 57, the 4% tax (uectigal) on sales at auction of slaves, a revenue earmarked for the Aerarium militare, was ‘remitted’, or rather transferred from purchasers to vendors, a change which lasted into the third century.22 The setting may have been the senate, with Nero and Piso presiding as consuls, perhaps even the occasion on which Nero announced his Wrst subsidy of the Aerarium. ‘Remission’ describes the change from the viewpoint of the e´lite: when they bought slaves the publicani would not pursue them for the tax but the socially inferior dealers and bankers who transacted auctions. This measure, which did not aVect the Wnances of the Aerarium, was nonetheless meant to rival Gaius’s abolition of the sales tax. All these measures were enactments of Nero’s accession promise to the senate to rule well like Augustus, not badly like Claudius. Claudius had always taken a keen interest in the revenues of the Aerarium: he personally intervened in judgments and the auctioning of property and contracts, in ad 42 he appointed a special senatorial commission to collect arrears owing to the Aerarium, and in ad 44, when he put quaestors back in charge, he promised them priority in future appointments ‘so they would not take a half-hearted approach through fear of giving oVence’, that is to men of inXuence who might try to block their promotion.23 The quaestor of ad 56 had been acting vigorously as Claudius had wished, perhaps to impress Nero; unfortunately Nero’s attitude was diVerent. Delation was discouraged, the powers of junior magistrates to Wne were restricted, the Aerarium was put under more senior supervisors and cases brought by or against its agents were heard by recuperatores. Who beneWted? ChieXy the e´lite of Rome and Italy, who were those most likely to owe the Aerarium for Wnes imposed by magistrates, judgments of intestacy, payments for 21 Calp. Sic. 4. 117–21 (early in reign). 22 Tac. Ann. 13. 31; cf. Ulpian, Dig. 21. 1. 27: in invalid sales, if the purchaser paid the vendor separately for the tax in addition to the price, he can reclaim that too. 23 Interference: Dio 60. 4. 4 (general, under ad 41), 60. 10. 3 (ad 42); perhaps lex port. ll. 138–9, if he was the consul. Commission: Dio 60. 10. 4; cf. Corbier, Aerarium 64 and 641 f. Quaestors: Tac. Ann. 13. 29; Dio 60. 24. 1–3.

Nero’s Reforms

259

tax-farming contracts, fees for priesthoods, and so on. The ‘inopes’ whom Helvidius Priscus aVected to champion as tribune were not ‘the poor’ but members of this primarily landowning e´lite who lacked, or claimed to lack, the ready cash to pay their dues.24 Senators might recognize that the Aerarium needed its revenues, and even that delatores, rewarded by law for convictions, were vital to the running of the Roman state in general, but they hated it when the result was state auctions of property which directly attacked the Wnancial foundation (census) of rank and dignitas. Tacitus and Pliny provide striking illustrations of the mentality, a generation after Nero but consciously in a continuing rhetorical and political tradition. Tacitus presents the lex Papia Poppaea as the tyrannical culmination of all Roman law-making because it had been designed ‘to enrich the Aerarium’ as much as to promote marriage, and had disastrously encouraged delation. When in ad 21 a former praetor, irate at the supinity of the magistrates, himself prosecuted contractors who failed to maintain roads, Tacitus sniVs that the consequent auctions of property ruined many but did not improve the roads.25 In ad 100 Pliny went purple in lauding Trajan for not encouraging delation as Domitian had: ‘How pleasant to see the Aerarium silent and quiet as it was before delation began! Now again it is a temple, a true seat of the god (Saturn), not a place for stripping citizens like dead gladiators (spoliarium) and savagely stashing away the bloodstained plunder.’26 As an outgoing treasury prefect, Pliny hastens to add that Trajan’s liberalitas does not deprive the Aerarium of Wnes from proper enforcement of the laws. We may suspect that the real diVerence from the unjust, inhuman, Domitian was slight, but it mattered enormously for the propaganda and perception of their re´gimes. Nero’s liberalitas too was more spin than substance. The Aerarium had lost little, but the important message was that state Wnances were under control, and Nero himself would subvent any ‘deWcit’ rather than resorting to previous unjust ways of raising revenue. 24 Such as Claudius himself, under Gaius, when he could not scrape together the HS 8 million entrance dues to Gaius’s new priesthood (Suet. Claud. 9. 2). For the longstanding problem of liquidity at Rome, and unwillingness of e´lite debtors to sell property, see e.g. Cic. In Cat. 2. 18 (63 bc), Caes. BC 3. 20. 3 (48 bc), Tac. Ann. 6. 16 f. (ad 33). 25 Tac. Ann. 3. 25–8 (cf. n. 20 above), 31. 26 Pliny, Pan. 36. 1 f.; cf. 34 f.; 42. Similar metaphorical use of spoliarium, with reference to the Sullan proscriptions, was made under Nero by Seneca, Dial. 1. 3. 7.

260

D. Rathbone 3 . T H E R E F O R M S O F ad 5 8

In ad 58 the scope of action broadened: ‘In the face of frequent outcries by the people criticizing the excesses of the tax-farmers (publicani), Nero wondered whether to order the cancellation of all indirect taxes (uectigalia), and so give the human race a really splendid gift. The senators loudly praised his generous nature, then stalled his initiative. They explained that the empire would collapse if the proceeds which sustained the state were reduced, and that if customs duties (portoria) were lifted, demands to abolish direct taxation (tributa) would follow. Many of the associations for collecting indirect taxes had been established by consuls and tribunes of the plebs when Rome was still a genuinely free state; the other indirect taxes had been introduced since to make the account of revenues balance the needs of expenditure. Clearly the greed of the publicani had to be restrained, so that taxes tolerated for so many years without complaint were not made hateful by new grievances. In the end, the princeps issued an edict . . .’.27 The ‘frequent outcries of the populus’ must mean chanting at public events in Rome, especially in the circus or theatre, a common way in which the people of Rome communicated their feelings to the emperor.28 In this case, as in others, spontaneity is suspect. Nero’s previous reforms had raised hopes, and he had a dramatic response ready. The abolition of uectigalia is often taken as a Neronian lunacy, patiently quashed by his senior advisers, and the ‘senatores’ of the sole manuscript is summarily emended to ‘seniores’.29 I prefer to see it as a staged masterpiece of political propaganda. Responding to the prompted cries of the populus, Nero publicly mooted abolishing 27 Tac. Ann. 13. 50 f. 28 About taxes: to the senate in 60 bc (Cic. Ad Q. fr. 1. 1. 33; see further below); to Tiberius in ad 15 (Tac. Ann. 1. 78); to Gaius in ad 40, with execution of the leaders (Jos. AJ 19. 24–6; Suet. Gaius 41. 1; Dio 59. 28. 11); to, probably, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero (Pliny, NH 19. 56). 29 Tac. Ann. 13. 12. and 14. 54 do label Seneca and Burrus as Nero’s ‘seniores amici’, but not just as ‘seniores’, and Tacitus uses ‘senatores’ as well as ‘senatus’ (Hist. 4. 6; Ann. 3. 65). Cf. Tiberius consulting the senate about uectigalia and monopolia (Suet. Tib. 30).

Nero’s Reforms

261

uectigalia. The language Tacitus uses is genuinely Neronian, recycled when he freed the Greeks of tribute in ad 67, and presumably derives from the acta senatus.30 As expected, the senate spluttered, and Nero respectfully deferred to their advice. The argument, incidentally, that uectigalia collected by societates should be kept as relics of Republican libertas may mask a more sordid worry about the loss of so lucrative a contribution to the wealth of the Italian e´lite who farmed these taxes, but it was part of political libertas to respect Republican traditions; we may compare the very ‘Republican’ Xavour of the lex portorii itself, which lists amendments to the original law made through the consuls from 75 bc to the ad 40s, including only one imperial ruling, itself presented by the consuls.31 At the end of the show the senate had enjoyed the libertas of discussing the empire’s Wnances, while Nero had enhanced his popular image as the emperor who would have abolished uectigalia but for the timidity of the senate, and he issued an edict, his own beneWcium, to restrict abuses, which is probably all he and his advisers had intended to do anyway. Unusually, Tacitus deigns to list Wve of the measures Nero took, implicitly the most long-lasting, for he notes that there were others ‘wholly just, which were brieXy observed then became ineVective’. Some omissions, however, may be serious: for instance, the appointment of imperial procurators to supervise particular uectigalia, though not attested until Vespasian, may have started with Nero in 58.32 The Wve measures Tacitus does list are the following. First, ‘that the regulations (leges) for each farmed tax (publicum), which had been hidden until then, should be published’. In my view the publication of the lex portorii Asiae in ad 62 was one of the results of this ruling, so I leave discussion of it to the next section. Again, we will 30 ILS 8794 ¼ SIG3 814 ¼ Smallwood, G-N 64: ‘The gift which I give you, men of Greece, is unexpected—although, of course, there is nothing which might not be hoped for from my generous nature ( ªÆºçæ *Å). I wish I were making this gift when Hellas was in its prime so that more people would have enjoyed my muniWcence’, echo ‘idque pulcherrimum donum generi mortalium daret’ and ‘magnitudo animi’. Tac. Ann. 14. 54 also has Seneca refer to Nero’s ‘magnitudo’ in ad 62. 31 Lex port. ll. 128–33 (Augustus’s reply to an embassy). Cf. Tac. Ann. 3. 60 on the senate in ad 22 reviewing rights of asylum granted under the Republic. 32 Eck 1998, 71 f. [¼ 2000, 284–85]. Brunt 1990, 381–4 suggests that procurators were needed to supervise a new system of percentage payments, but this is speculation; lex port. ll. 144–7 (ad 62) envisages bids.

262

D. Rathbone

see, Nero was acting in speciWc contrast to Gaius, and pleasing the Roman and Italian e´lite without harming the treasury, but this time, as the lex illustrates, the provinces beneWted too. Second, ‘that lapsed accusations could not be revived more than one year later’. In context, this must mean delations of arrears to the Aerarium. Similar rulings by Augustus and Domitian are attested, and in more detail.33 Augustus cancelled the ‘entries of those long under accusation’; Domitian ruled that accusations left hanging at the Aerarium for over Wve years should lapse. Both allowed revival of the charge within one year, but, respectively, with ‘an equal risk of punishment (i.e. Wne?)’ or exile for an unsuccessful prosecutor. The rulings of Augustus and Domitian look identical, except that the penalty for failed delation was perhaps increased. Tacitus’s condensed report probably indicates that Nero had revived Augustus’s rule, and perhaps increased the penalty. Romans cited as defendants normally went into mourning, and Augustus had judged that these long-pending cases served no purpose except ‘the pleasure of personal enemies’; delatores could use them too for blackmail. Nero’s measure carried on from his exile of Paetus and burning of old records in ad 55, and had the same aim and propaganda message as his earlier actions. Third, ‘that at Rome the praetor, and in the provinces the propraetorian or proconsular governors, should provide justice against publicani ahead of the queue’, that is deal with pleas against them before other pending cases.34 In the lex portorii Asiae an amendment of ad 5 rules that disputes arising from the lex should be heard by the peregrine praetor at Rome (ll. 115–17), and a very lacunose amendment of ad 62 probably refers to disputes which should go to ‘the procurator of Nero Augustus in charge of the province’, that is the 33 Suet. Aug. 32. 2; Dom. 9. 2. Cf. Riccobono, FIRA II 627, §18 (Ulpian?); CJ 4. 61. 2 (Septimius Severus): publicani have Wve years in which to take action about undeclared items (for portoria; and scriptura?). 34 The same use of ‘extra ordinem’, nothing to do with the often muddled modern concept of cognitio extra ordinem, is found in Dig. 14. 1. 1.18, where Ulpian notes that it is normal practice for the prefects of the annona and provincial governors to take cases brought by annonal shippers against captains ‘ahead of the queue’ (another Neronian rule?). Cf. the promotion ‘ahead of the queue’ which Claudius promised quaestors in charge of the treasury (Tac. Ann. 13. 29, ‘honores extra ordinem’), and the precedence granted to Rhodian embassies in 100 bc (Crawford, RS I no. 12, Delphi B.17–19: KŒe B ı ø).

Nero’s Reforms

263

patrimonial procurator of Asia (ll. 147–9). Presumably the governor of Asia had been hearing these cases from the 120s bc, as the governor of Sicily certainly was by the 70s bc, and it was dealing with them which tested Quintus Cicero’s ability, as proconsul of Asia in 61–59 bc, to keep both publicani and provincials happy.35 In ad 5, it seems, jurisdiction was given to the peregrine praetor as well, probably to help taxpayers resident in Italy rather than the provinces, while the jurisdiction apparently granted to the procurator in ad 62 may well have been limited to cases between publicani and provincial agents of the patrimonium.36 A lacunose clause in the lex agraria of 111 bc forbids magistrates from impeding collection of scriptura or uectigal for use of public pastures, and instructs consuls, proconsuls, praetors, and propraetors to appoint recuperatores within ten days of any complaint by a publicanus about non-payment, and to ensure that their verdict is clear and prompt. This was aimed at the type of obstruction practised in 57–54 bc by A. Gabinius as governor of Syria: ‘he decided at the start, and stuck to it, not to grant hearings to publicani’.37 Although the lex appears to succour the publicani but Nero the taxpayers, in both cases the beneWts were more even. Tacitus again elides, and adopts the taxpayer’s viewpoint of cases ‘against’ rather than ‘involving’ publicani. A publicanus collecting a tax such as a portorium (customs duty) or scriptura who detected an undeclared item was entitled to a Wne of double the sum due, and could seize the item there and then (‘ipso iure’) as a pledge, which could be sold if the Wne were not paid within thirty days; the taxpayer could refuse to pay and contest the seizure in court.38 Nero, in the tradition of the lex 35 Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 32–5: in his provincial edict (73 bc) Verres, doubtless following established practice, said he would appoint recuperatores at the request of either side to settle disputes between the tithe-contractors (decumani) and the taxpaying farmers. Cic. Ad Q. fr. 1. 1. 33; cf. A. Gabinius in Syria (see n. 37 below). Still in ad 200 Septimius Severus routinely passed a complaint against a º#Å to the governor of Egypt (Oliver, Gk. Const. 236 ¼ Apokrimata, l. 11 f.). 36 Following Claudius’s extension of their jurisdiction in ad 53 (Tac. Ann. 12. 60; Suet. Claud. 12. 1), but still essentially ‘patrimonial’, as under Tiberius (Tac. Ann. 4. 15). 37 Crawford, RS I no. 2, ll. 36–9. Cic. De prov. cons. 10. 38 See Klingenberg 1977. Evidence includes Dig. 39. 4; lex port. ll. 20–2; 45–58; 87–8; 114–15; [Quint.] Decl. 341 (an imaginary case). If the publicanus discovered evasion later, within Wve years, he could still try to seize the goods (n. 33 above), or go to court ([Quint.] Decl. 359 imagines a scenario).

264

D. Rathbone

of 111 bc, was providing speedy judgment, probably again through recuperatores, for disputed seizures which was to the advantage of both sides, not least because it reduced the risk of damage or loss to the conWscated goods. The main beneWciaries will have been those who had suYcient wealth to have frequent involvement in maritime commerce. Fourth, ‘that the exemption for soldiers should be maintained, except on items they were handling for sale’. It was a Republican practice to exempt soldiers and others on public business from certain Wscal and legal obligations, but developments are ill documented. As the public sales tax in Italy had been abolished by Gaius, this ruling must concern customs dues. The original lex portorii Asiae of the 120s bc has the earliest attested exemption from customs dues for soldiers and others on public business, restricted to items for personal use (public property, including military supplies, was in itself exempt), precisely what Tacitus negatively deWnes here as ‘except on items for sale’. In 30 bc Octavian granted his veterans ‘exemption from all things’, although only tributa (meaning what?) and munera (liturgies) are speciWed in the lacunose text. In ad 89 Domitian conWrmed (or possibly introduced) the exemption of veterans and their families from ‘all public uectigalia and customs dues’. Septimius Severus, after ruling that goods not declared by soldiers could not be seized by publicani, presumably to stop them impounding military supplies, reaYrmed the liability of soldiers to portoria.39 If serving soldiers, unlike veterans, were only exempt on items for personal use, this raises the question of what was special about their exemption when, as the lex portorii Asiae conWrms, it was enjoyed by all citizens and subjects of Rome. The answer lies in the deWnition of personal use, as tricky an issue then as it is today: travel necessities which one was importing to or exporting from one’s home (domus). The special concession to soldiers, and to others on public business, was, it seems, to deem the army, or post, where they were serving to be their domus, so that they would enjoy the exemption on journeys which were not also to their proper home. We may 39 Soldiers (and oYcials): lex port. ll. 64–6 (120s bc); CJ 4. 61. 2 (Severus). Public property: ll. 59; 60–1; Dig. 39. 4. 9. 7 (military supplies). Veterans: EJ2 302 (Octavian); Chrest.Wilck. 463.12–15 (Domitian); cf. CTh 11. 12. 3 (ad 365).

Nero’s Reforms

265

suspect that this clause of Nero’s edict said more than Tacitus’s laconic summary relates. Probably its main point was to reassert the normal liability of soldiers to portoria in order to counter the common abuse of them passing oV their own goods as oYcial supplies; perhaps Tacitus’s focus on ‘exemption’ means it also conWrmed the exemption from customs dues for veterans.40 It is likely that Nero’s ruling beneWted the publicani as much as the soldiers, and also showed concern for military disciplina. Fifth, although other just rulings of ad 58 had ceased to be observed, ‘there remains’, says Tacitus, writing around ad 110–20, ‘the abolition of the 2.5% and 2% dues and the other titles which the publicani had invented for illegal exactions’. This was nothing to do with the oYcial 2.5% customs duty (quadragesima) levied on imports to and exports from the Wscal zones of Asia, the Gauls, and the Spains, or the earlier 2% duty in the Spains.41 Illegal surcharges were the problem. Among the references to tricks and abuses by publicani in the Roman empire, few match this speciWcally.42 A close case is the ‘Muziris’ papyrus of the mid-second century ad, which shows that the collectors of the 25% levy ( æÅ) on goods imported from the east into the Roman empire, used, for goods which were valued by weight rather than number, an equivalence between the local talent and the Roman pound which gave them a

40 General exemption: Dig. 50. 16. 203 (Ulpian), citing the ‘lex portus Siciliae’, originally of the late III bc; lex port. Asiae ll. 60, 62–4 (120s bc); 81–3 (75 bc), 84–7 (72 bc). Soldiers: l. 65, ‘in the army to which he is travelling’; cf. 74–8 (75 bc), clarifying the similar exemption of publicani. Abuses: Dig. 39. 4. 4. 1: Hadrian instructed governors to inform publicani of all authorized supplies; cf. AE´ 1976, 653. 21–3, 47–9 ¼ SEG 26, 1392, with JRS 66 (1976) 106–31: c.ad 15 the governor of Galatia forbade oYcials and soldiers to commandeer transport ‘for grain or the like for their own proWt or use’. De Laet 1949, 427–35, not having the lex portorii Asiae, suggested that civilians were exempt only on travel necessities, but soldiers also on items for domestic use. 41 De Laet 1949, chs. 8; 11; 12; add France 2001, and the lex port., esp. ll. 7–11. 42 Direct taxes: Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 181–4 alleges improper deductions under Verres from the cash payments to Sicilian cities for requisitioned grain for ‘testing and exchanging (coins)’ and ‘oYce expenses’, and the ‘4%’ for the scribae; CTh 12. 6. 21 (ad 386) bans tax-collectors from using larger than oYcial measures, but allows them supplements of 2% on wheat, 2.5% on barley, and 5% on wine and bacon. Indirect taxes: P.Princ. II 20(a) ¼ SB 5, 8072 (II ad), attests ‘fees’ paid by transient shippers to avoid being detained.

266

D. Rathbone

surplus take of around 2.5% over the 25% due.43 Tacitus’s idea that such practices had not been resumed may come from his own governorship of Asia in 112/13, and seems oddly optimistic. However, abuses of a particularly common type may have been eliminated by Nero’s reform of the Roman silver coinage to the standard of 96 denarii to the Roman pound, and of the ‘Attic’ drachma-weight, used in the Greek-speaking provinces, to the same standard of 96 to the pound. The topic requires proper study, but one aim may have been to simplify calculation of duty, and eliminate any invented ‘conversion fees’, for taxpayers using Greek units of weight and value facing tax farmers working in Roman units.44 The way Tacitus introduces this Wfth item implies that it is the last on his list of reforms to uectigalia. The next two reforms he mentions concern direct taxation, and are syntactically separate, probably indicating a separate decision of the same year. They merit a brief word because they illustrate Nero’s wider Wscal interests. First, ‘the delivery (subuectio) of grain in overseas provinces was made milder’. ‘Subuectio’ means the obligation on provincial taxpayers to transport tax-grain from its local point of payment to the state’s point of need in the province, whether port, city, or army camp. The system in Egypt is especially well documented, but a nice case of abuse is known from Britain in the late 70s, where deliveries were ordered to unnecessarily distant points, presumably to extort bribes to cancel the orders.45 This sort of local corruption was chronic, and emperors and governors could only hope that frequent fulmination would keep a lid on it. Second, ‘it was decided that merchants’ ships should not be reckoned in their census-ratings, and they should not pay direct tax (tributum) for them’. This is almost the only evidence that ships could count as property liable to tributum, but need not be doubted. Again, Tacitus 43 SB 18, 13167, with Rathbone 2000. I had not then seen De Romanis 1998; I accept his re-reading of the numerals in verso ii. 10, 15, 26 (which reduce the slight arithmetic error of the conversion), but not his interpretation of the text. Cf. lex port. l. 46 for the distinction between goods valued by number and goods valued by weight. 44 Hultsch 1882, 251–2 (cf. MSR I no. 29) summarizes the supposed changes. De Romanis 1998, 39, 42 also suggests a link between the ad 58 reform and retariYng weights, but his general argument that emperors often retariVed weights to adjust tax levels is impractical and implausible. 45 Egypt: Wallace 1938, 42–6; cf. Sicily: Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 36–7. Britain: Tac. Agr. 19; cf. Dig. 1. 18. 6 pr.

Nero’s Reforms

267

compresses drastically, for this must be an extension to provincials of Claudius’s inducements to Romans and Latin shipowners who committed a certain tonnage to the annona, the wheat supply of Rome.46 The Wve problems and abuses which we know were dealt with by the main edict of ad 58 were all chronic to the Roman tax-farming system. The edict, and the extra measures about grain transport, were not emergency responses to a budgetary crisis. Elimination of abuses might have made collection of uectigalia more eYcient, but not to the Wnancial beneWt of the government, which still received the Xat sum bid by the publicani. In fact, despite Tacitus’s unsympathetic viewpoint, some support for the publicani is evident in Nero’s measures. However, the main aim of the edict was to convince the public that Nero was a ‘good’ emperor keen to eliminate unfair taxation. We can ignore the hype: it was not ‘the whole human race’ whose Wnances and dignity were of imperial concern, but the wealthier sections of Roman and provincial society, who had the conWdence, wherewithal, and clout to squeal eVectively about abuses.47

4 . T H E CURATORES OF ad 62, A ND P U B L I C AT I O N OF TH E LEX PORTO RII The next, and last known, intervention by Nero in indirect taxation came in ad 62: ‘He put three former consuls, L. (Calpurnius) Piso, (A.) 46 Tribute: Neesen 1980, 59 n. 2. Claudius: Suet. Claud. 18. 2–19; Gaius 1. 32c; Ulp. Epit. 3.6. See Sirks 1991, 40–75. Nero may have made a greater concession later. An unattributed ruling in Dig. 50. 6. 6. 3, clariWed by Hadrian (Dig. 50. 6. 6. 5. 8) and other second-century emperors and jurists, grants annonal shippers exemption from public munera (liturgies) in their home town, both on the person and on property. It must postdate Claudius, whose rewards it approvingly extends, and pre-date Hadrian, who clariWed its applicability; some, as Sirks 1991, 73–5, attribute it to the ‘good’ Trajan, but Trajan’s ruling in Dig. 27. 1. 17. 6 that shipowners ‘seem’ not to have exemption from guardianship (a legal munus) implies that the general exemption was earlier. Nero is a better contender, probably in ad 62 when the sudden loss of 300 grain ships made it urgent to encourage old and new shippers (Tac. Ann. 15. 18). 47 In the Principate, it seems, there were no public customs dues for Italy as a zone (despite Brunt 1990, 428–32), or municipal port dues, but residents of Italy, and even the populus of Rome, will have been interested in portoria because duties were payable for imports into and exports out of adjacent customs zones, and these had collecting agents in Italian ports such as Ostia (CIL 14, 4708) and Brundisium (Suet. De gramm. rhet. 25. 4 [Kaster]; cf. [Quint.] Decl. 340, a case noted by France 2001).

268

D. Rathbone

Ducenius Geminus and (A.) Pompeius Paulinus, in charge of uectigalia publica, and he slated previous principes whose heavy expenditure had outstripped just revenues; he was making an annual present to the state of sixty million sesterces.’48 Tacitus puts the appointment of the commission towards the end of his account of ad 62, but the lex portorii shows the commissioners already Wling the revised Asian regulations on 14 April 62. The lex portorii and a dedication give the oYcial title of the commissioners: ‘curatores uectigalium publicorum ex auctoritate Neronis (with full name and titles) et ex senatus consulto’.49 They were a special commission, supplementary to the regular prefects of the treasury, with their own record oYce in the Basilica Julia, separate from the Aerarium and tabularium. Tacitus says that Nero ‘put them in charge’ (‘praeposuit’), and the emperor usually did nominate curatores. Boards of curatores, however, and special remits for normal magistrates, traditionally had been set up by senatus consultum; Claudius perhaps broke with this tradition, to which Nero now returned.50 Apparently there 48 Tac. Ann. 15. 18. 49 My interpretation of the prescript (ll. 1–7) is based on comparison of the procedure for taking sworn copies of citizen birth declarations made to the Prefect of Egypt (C. Pap. Lat. 148–57). Lines 1–2 record the date (9 July) and place of the taking of the copy, presumably in Latin (its subsequent translation into Greek is nowhere mentioned) and ending ‘. . . quod infra scriptum est’. Lines 3–7 should specify the document(s) copied, typically by the archive reference consisting of the magistrate’s name and title and the date, the type of business, and the page reference, or sometimes by the date on which the magistrate had displayed the text. Lines 3–5 have these elements, although some muddle has occurred in the copying, translation, or inscribing: most clearly, the ‘Wle’ reference in l. 4 (Ø Ł# ø . . . ŒÅæHØ Æ) has been interpolated in the full title of the curatores, for which cf. lex port. ll. 2; 144; 147; 152; Smallwood, G-N 241 ¼ ILS 9484 (dedication to Ducenius Geminus). I think the Wle reference in this case was: ‘These curatores; the pascua perpetua of the uectigalia of Asia; year 1 of the leasing (by these curatores), uectigal 1 (i.e. the portorium), tablet/ page 1’. 14 April is probably the date on which the curatores Wnished and Wled (and published) their revised version of the Wrst uectigal of Asia, and ll. 6–7 indicate that they had appended the regulations for uectigalia 2 to 5, drawn from the pascua perpetua of Domitius Decidianus, which they had not needed to amend at all. Despite Nicolet 1990, 691–3, uectigal (‘farmed revenue’, ‘tax’) is the easiest and best translation of Å ØøÆ here and elsewhere in the lex port. (ll. 106–49), and in every other text. The title of the Wle of the curatores given in l. 5 (KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB ºH Æ) must refer to all the uectigalia of Asia, not just the portorium. See further n. 62 below. 50 Special commission: lex port. l. 2; Be´renger 1993, 78. Setting up curatores, etc.: e.g. Frontin. Aq. 100 (¼ EJ2 278A), SC of 11 bc; cf. EJ2 196; 212; 298, ‘ex s.c.’ under Augustus and Tiberius; Smallwood, G-N 227, 307b, ‘ex auctoritate Ti. Claudi’ under Claudius. Nero: cf. I.Cret. I 26. 2 (also 26. 3, 28. 9): a proconsul of Crete and Cyrene in 64/5 with a special remit ‘ex auctoritate Neronis (full name and titles) et ex s.c.’ to recover the public lands of Gortyn.

Nero’s Reforms

269

had been a debate about state Wnances in the senate early in ad 62, probably picking up from debates in previous years, at which Nero spoke, and which had led to the passing of a senatus consultum, supported by Nero, setting up this commission. Taking her cue from Nero’s comments about previous emperors, and comparing ‘Wnancial’ commissions in other reigns, Be´renger argues that this commission was to investigate all state revenues, with the aim of increasing them.51 However, despite the revolt in Britain, there is no reason to suppose there was a Wnancial crisis in ad 62, let alone Be´renger’s ‘de´sordre budge´taire’ of ad 58–62. Nero’s attack on previous principes was to highlight the Wnancial rectitude of his own re´gime, not to announce a cumulative crisis. Be´renger’s comparison with other commissions is specious, and her view that they represent centralization of government is odd.52 Nor should ‘uectigalia publica’ here have anything but its standard meaning in the Principate of ‘the indirect taxes of the Roman people’.53 The task of the curatores was simply to continue Nero’s reforms in the collection of indirect taxes. Be´renger’s useful prosopography of the commissioners concludes that they were a mixed bag, not close cronies of Nero (though Pompeius Paulinus was Seneca’s brother-in-law) nor obvious Wnancial experts. Expertise, however, is diYcult to assess when we know so little about them or their job. Doubtless they were thought to have some competence for the task, and to be in tune with Nero’s Wscal propaganda and policies. As consul 51 Be´renger 1993, 76–81. News of the Wasco in Armenia probably came after the commission was appointed, and the 300 grain ships lost that winter were private, so not a charge to the state. 52 Be´renger, following Corbier, Aerarium 686 f., compares: ad 6, to reduce public spending (Dio 55. 25. 6); ad 42, ‘to recover arrears due to the Roman people’ (Dio 60. 10. 4; CIL 2, 2423); ad 70, to restore public records, return conWscated property and ‘to limit public expenditure’ (Tac. Hist. 4. 40, cf. 4. 9; Suet. Vesp. 8. 5); ad 97, ‘to reduce public spending’ (Pliny, Pan. 62. 2; Ep. 2. 1. 9; cf. Dio 68. 2. 3). I conclude that if the ad 62 commission had had a similar function, it would have had a similar title. A fuller list of special commissions, including standing ones like that for aqueducts, would show a great variety of remits, many with Wnancial responsibilities. Commissions like this were a Republican feature used by emperors to involve senators other than magistrates in the government of Italy and the empire (cf. Suet. Aug. 37). 53 See section 1 above. For ‘of the Roman people (populus)’ as the proper meaning of ‘publicus’, which should not be used of civic ownership, see Dig. 50. 16. 15 f. (Ulpian, Gaius); as both admit and elsewhere exemplify, from the start of the Principate actual usage was less fussy.

270

D. Rathbone

designate in 56 and consul in 57 Piso had been directly involved in earlier reforms. In his edict of ad 58, Nero had ordered ‘that the regulations (leges) for each farmed tax (publicum), which had been hidden until then, should be published’. Tacitus’s description of the regulations as ‘hidden’ (‘occultae’) again gives the taxpayer’s view. In the Republic, a uectigal publicum was established by a law (lex) passed by the people; this law might specify some points, but the detailed regulations for collection under which the publicani operated (lex censoria, sc. locationis; or just lex locationis) were drawn up by the censors who auctioned the tax, and would automatically be re-used by their successors, with occasional amendments.54 Publication of these regulations presumably followed the normal practice of the Roman state.55 A master copy was deposited in a public record oYce at Rome. Another copy was displayed publicly, sometimes permanently on bronze, often for a limited period on a whitened board, from which anyone could take a copy or have an ‘authenticated’ copy made; hence a Roman law often contains the abbreviated formula that it should be published in a public place ‘from which it can be read clearly from the ground’, as in the lex agraria (Crawford, RS 1, 1, ll. 66 f.). In special cases the Roman government might order its oYcials to distribute copies of laws or other documents, sometimes with speciWc instructions to local communities about publication. The only alleged case of deliberate concealment by the Roman government concerns the new uectigalia levied by Gaius in Rome: ‘because these indirect taxes had been announced but not published, many seizures of goods were made through ignorance of the written regulations, until Wnally, by popular demand, he did publish the lex, 54 e.g. Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 12: the lex Sempronia established ‘censoria locatio’ for Asia; Dig. 50. 16. 203, citing the ‘lex censoria portus Siciliae’. In my view ll. 7–72 of the lex port. represent the original ‘lex censoria portus Asiae’ of the 120s bc, though the text of ad 62 is better called the lex locationis because the administration of publica had since passed from censors to consuls. ‘Standing regulations’: see n. 62 below. Amendments: e.g. Cic. Verr. 2. 1. 143: ‘So what? Censorial regulations get corrected. In many old regulations I read ‘‘Cn. Domitius and L. Metellus censors (115 bc) added’’, ‘‘L. Cassius and Cn. Servilius censors (125 bc) added’’.’ See Brunt 1990, 357–8; Klingenberg 1979, 61 n. 41. 55 Discussed concisely in Crawford, RS I pp. 19–20 and 25–8; cf. Ando 2000, 80–90, 101–4, taking a very rosy view of Roman intentions and eYcacy.

Nero’s Reforms

271

but in tiny letters and in an inaccessible place so that no-one could take a copy’. The anecdote, perhaps used by Nero to enhance his benevolence, parodies the standard formula for publication, and its historicity is doubtful.56 However, while the Roman state did take responsibility for keeping authoritative copies of its laws and other documents, and made it possible for authenticated copies to be taken, it normally accepted no further responsibility for facilitating or maintaining local knowledge of those texts, or for publicizing amendments. Inaccessible or impenetrable tax regulations bolster the power of the collectors and encourage overcharging, all the more so when the collectors are taxfarmers with a structural need to maximize takings in order to proWt on their contract.57 In juggling support for publicani, so they would bid again and bid high (the state did not gain directly from overcharging by publicani), and protection for taxpayers, to avoid disaVection or disturbances, the Roman state tended to favour the publicani on this matter. The simple solution adopted by the town council of Puteoli for its privatized service for funerals and punishing slaves, a clause in the regulations that ‘the contractor (manceps) is to keep this lex published in the place rented or established for the operation of his service so that it can be read clearly from the ground’, is without known parallel in the Roman empire.58 Instead, Hadrian ruled that ignorance of the regulations for an indirect tax was no defence against the penalties, and Marcus Aurelius and Commodus that a publicanus was not obliged to give guidance when declarations were not made properly, but should not mislead those willing to declare everything.59 Publication by provincial governors of the regulations for public indirect taxes, as for other taxes and levies, was very rare, and their permanent publication by inscription on stone even rarer (and, oddly, many of the known cases come from Egypt); slightly more cases of civic inscriptions concerning local 56 Suet. Gaius 41. 1 (cf. section 2 above); for Gaius rather than the publicani to beneWt from the trick, he also had to collect these taxes directly, which the story claims he did through the praetorian guard! 57 The privatized management of public parking in London has produced nice examples, such as regulations for zones advertised only on their perimeter. 58 AE´ 1971, 88. iii. 20–1; cf. Bodel 1994. The Flavian municipal law for Spain (ch. 63) made duoviri responsible for publication. 59 Dig. 39. 4. 16. 5 f.; cf. 14. 3. 11. 3 (Ulpian): illiteracy is no excuse.

272

D. Rathbone

taxes are known.60 Inscriptions were expensive, and had to be reinscribed when regulations were amended, as is illustrated by the lex portorii itself and the other inscribed texts just cited. Publication, especially in monumental form, was a political act, the result of special circumstances. We might suppose that communities and individuals especially aVected by imperial uectigalia kept copies of the regulations, but on perishable materials such as wooden boards or papyrus, and we have one (incomplete) example of a private copy on papyrus of the charges and regulations for an imperial customs tax within Egypt.61 However, the complaints to which Nero responded in ad 58 imply that accurate and up-to-date copies of these regulations were not easy to obtain. Nero’s ruling of ad 58 was presumably intended to facilitate the acquisition of copies by requiring the prefects of the Aerarium, now again responsible for public records in general, to prepare and display in Rome an up-to-date copy of each set of regulations. The appointment of special curatores in ad 62, who did exactly this, implies that progress had been slower than desired. One possible problem was disorganization in 60 Public uectigalia: I can Wnd only two certain cases, both from Upper Egypt under Mettius Rufus, perhaps an exponent of Domitianic just government (cf. Suet. Dom. 8. 2): ad 89 revised regulations for trade taxes in the Theban nome (SB 18, 13315); ad 90 charges for convoys through the eastern desert (MW 459 ¼ I.Portes 67). Inscribed edicts by governors about other Wscal abuses include the c.ad 15 rules for transport provision in Galatia (n. 40 above), the ad 48 edict against illegal exactions by soldiers in Egypt (Smallwood, G-N 382, cf. SEG 42, 1500), the ad 68 edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander in Egypt (Smallwood, G-N 391 ¼ MW 328, cf. SEG 24, 1214), the Domitianic (?) edict about tax-farmers and taxes in Upper Egypt (I. Th. Sy. 191 cf. SEG 26, 1799, etc.), the letter from Domitian to a procurator of Syria about transport requisition (MW 466 ¼ SEG 17, 755), and the Trajanic republication at Ephesus of SCC of the 40s–30s bc exempting doctors and others from customs dues (SEG 31, 952). Imperial or civic dues: I ad edict (?) about exports by land and sea (?) at Salamis of Cyprus (I. Sal. Chypre 22, cf. SEG 29, 1580); II ad duty (on bulky goods like ore? Cf. lex port. ll. 78–81) at Soada, Arabia (IGR 3, 1283); II ad ‘lex portorii’ at Lambaesis (AE´ 1914, 234); ad 202 ‘lex portus’ at Zarai, Numidia (CIL 8, 4508, cf. AE´ 1966, 547). Civic charges: late I bc fees for record oYce at Ephesus (I.Ephesos 1a, 14); I ad customs duties at Caunus, as reduced by a benefaction which the inscription celebrates (I.Kaunos 35); I ad republications of funeral charges at Puteoli and Cumae (AE´ 1971, 88 and 89, with Bodel 1994); Hadrianic(?) rescript on exchange monopoly at Pergamum (Smallwood, N-H 451 ¼ Oliver, Gk. Const. 84); ad 137 republication of customs dues at Palmyra (IGR 3, 1056, with Matthews 1984); c.ad 209–11 rules about infringements of the exchange monopoly at Mylasa (I.Myl. 1, 605). Michel Cottier gave me much help with this list. 61 Chrest.Wilck. 273, for the Memphis harbour tax; cf. Wallace 1938, 266–7.

Nero’s Reforms

273

the records, and the diYculty of tracing amendments to the original regulations. For example, since its original promulgation in the 120s bc, the Asian lex portorii had been amended by the consuls twelve times from 75 bc to the ad 40s. Admittedly the preface to the lex shows that the curatores had based their ‘standing regulations for the uectigalia of Asia’ on the ‘standing regulations’ of T. Domitius Decidianus, who had been one of the quaestors Wrst put back in charge of the treasury in ad 44–7. In the case of the portorium they found one, or at most two, amendments of the 40s or 50s to add, although they made some additions of their own, and they republished Domitius’ regulations for the other four uectigalia without making any changes at all.62 If Domitius and his colleague had produced updated regulations for all the uectigalia of all the indirect tax zones of the empire, the task of revision in ad 58/62 should not have been great. However, Domitius’ work may have been conWned to Asia, a vocal and privileged zone, and the curatores of ad 62 may have dealt with Asia early on because it was a straightforward case.63 Furthermore, the lex portorii shows that the curatores had other functions. Whereas previous amendments to the lex portorii had all been made by consuls, perhaps after debate in the senate, the lex portorii ends with a number of amendments made by the curatores themselves, which seem also to foresee further action by them. I suspect that attempts to implement the edict of 58 had revealed that some regulations for uectigalia needed updating, and had stimulated petitions for other amendments from publicani and taxpayers. Taking all this to the consuls in the traditional way was impeding progress, so in ad 62 the senate, prompted by Nero, appointed special curatores with the delegated right to issue amendments themselves, and, probably, the job of re-auctioning the uectigalia to ensure that the 62 Lex port. ll. 5–6: ‘KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB’ represents the Latin ‘pascua perpetua’, literally ‘standing pasture-dues’. For ‘pascua’ meaning all uectigalia see Pliny, NH 18. 11, and hence ‘records/regulations of uectigalia’ see Cic. De leg. agr. 1. 3; cf. Nicolet 1990, 686–9. They were ‘standing’ in that they automatically continued to apply each time the contract to farm the tax was renewed; cf. lex port. ll. 140–1: the next contractor will ‘use the same lex and clauses’. Decidianus: Smallwood, G-N 233 ¼ CIL 6, 1403. In my view the two amendments of ll. 138–43 probably date to 42/43 and 44–7. 63 Domitius in turn may have drawn on the ‘De uectigalium Asiae constitutione’ of M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus, cos. ord. 31 bc (Charisius, Ars gram. p. 146 K), which was surely not an attack on Mark Antony; Messalla was honoured in Ephesus as ‘patron and benefactor of the temple of Artemis and of the city’ (SEG 43, 775). His homonymous great-grandson was cos. ord. with Nero in 58 (pure coincidence?).

274

D. Rathbone

revised regulations were implemented.64 Their amendments to this lex, though lacunose, seem to concern the date of takeover and provision of security by new contractors, disputes with the patrimonium, and perhaps disputed seizures. Thus the lex portorii Asiae, which is our only hard evidence for what the commission of ad 62 actually did, has no hint of any attempt to increase revenues, but implies that its task was to complete the updating, publication and implementation of the regulations for indirect taxes which Nero had initiated in ad 58. We cannot tell how successful this process was. The lex portorii Asiae is the only known case of regulations being inscribed as a direct result, but the vagaries of survival and modern discovery limit the signiWcance of this.65 The translation into Greek and inscription of the lex portorii Asiae at Ephesus, one of the main ports of Asia and its Roman administrative capital, may be attributed to the city council or the provincial council of the province (koinon); the former is more likely since Ephesus was particularly keen on inscribing public documents.66 Although the surviving slab of stone held only the regulations for the portorium, the preface implies that the regulations for the other four uectigalia of Asia had been copied in Rome at the same time, and so may also have been translated and inscribed. Many other cities doubtless contented themselves with less permanent copies of the leges, or just copies of the leges which most concerned them, or 64 Lex port. ll. 4 (Wling by ‘year 1 of the leasing’); 146–7 (new contracts); 152 (investigation?); cf. the similar role of the consuls in 12 bc (ll. 105–8). Note that intervention by Nero himself is mentioned as possible in l. 146, presumably reXecting his personal interest in the process. 65 The funerary regulations at Puteoli, (re)made a colony by Nero in ad 60 (Tac. Ann. 14. 27), and of Cumae (n. 60 above), may have been municipal imitations of the policy. In Egypt regulations for trades taxes in the Theban nome were revised in 59/60 (SB 18, 13315.7). The ad 68 edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander (n. 60 above), which was published to beneWt Galba, echoes Neronian rhetoric: e.g. ‘burden of new and unjust taxes’ (l. 5), Galba shines out ‘as the saviour of the whole human race’ (l. 7). Possibly it was originally composed to herald Nero’s planned visit to Egypt: Mourgues 1995. 66 Koinon: cf. lex port. ll. 128–33: an embassy of the koinon successfully petitioned Augustus for an exemption from the portorium; the koinon, probably, honoured Vespasian’s father for farming the Asian portorium fairly (Suet. Vesp. 1. 2). Ephesus, with Wscal implications, e.g.: I.Ephesos 1a, 14: late I bc, by decree of the people, charges of the record oYce; I.Ephesos 1a, 17–19 ¼ Smallwood, G-N 380: c.44, by order of the proconsul, management of temple funds; cf. I.Ephesos 1a, 20: c.54–9, erection of new building for collecting the Wsh-tax, by subscription of the Wshermen and Wshmongers. Note that in 61/2 the entrance to Ephesus’s harbour was dredged with help from the proconsul (Tac. Ann. 16. 23).

Nero’s Reforms

275

did not bother at all. It was their choice. Acquiring the latest regulations would not end disputes. The lex of a uectigal, as exempliWed by the lex portorii, was a mixture of general rules and local details, probably not complete in either respect. For example, the lex portorii seems not to include the general rule that ‘Searching a lady is not allowed’, nor had the curatores added Nero’s ad 58 ruling that magistrates should give priority to cases involving publicani.67 Regulations were liable to further amendment. Their eVectiveness depended on the readiness of the Roman authorities to enforce them. Nonetheless, Nero’s eVorts to have them updated and published, and the existence of the lex portorii Asiae, imply that this was thought to be an important practical beneWt to taxpayers.

5. VECTIGALIA , POLITICS, AND RHETORIC As the Roman Republic acquired an empire, it replaced taxing its own citizens progressively with taxing its provincial subjects regressively. Wealthy Romans and Italians gained both from exemption and from contracting to collect provincial taxes. Tributum, the direct tax on (richer) citizen wealth, ceased to be levied in 167 bc, and in 60 bc the customs dues of Italy were abolished in response to citizen outcries, ‘not so much about the portorium as the not uncommon abuses by its collectors’, said Cicero in a letter to his brother Quintus, 67 Search rule: [Quint.] Decl. 359; perhaps omitted because it derived from separate legislation such as the lex Julia de ui publica, which also banned the unauthorized imposition of new municipal uectigalia (Dig. 48. 6. 12, cf. 49. 4. 10), or the praetorian and provincial edicts (to which Nero’s ad 58 ruling was perhaps added); cf. Brunt 1990, 358–60; Klingenberg 1979, 62 n. 47; 67 n. 85. Also missing are the senatus consulta of the 40s–30s bc exempting doctors, teachers, and orators from customs dues, which were inscribed at Ephesus separately around ad 100 (SEG 31, 952), but possibly because they had lapsed meanwhile. Most imperial indirect taxes were straight percentage levies, avoiding the need to list individual dues which forced Palmyra to draw up and inscribe a fuller tariV in ad 137 (n. 60 above, ll. 4–12). However, many practical details of assessment and payment must have been left to custom, allowing the collectors to invent the sort of surcharges which Nero banned: cf. Dig. 39. 4. 4. 2 (Paulus); from Egypt, the phrase ‘according to the regulations (ª#ø) and custom’ in Chrest.Wilck. 251 ¼ P.Tebt. II 287 (c.ad 165/6), and Chrest. Wilck. 276 ¼ BGU 4, 1062 (236/7), also found in the preface to the Palmyrene law.

276

D. Rathbone

then governor of Asia.68 Cicero was aware of the similar abuses by the publicani in Asia, especially after their overbid in 61 bc, but was not overly sympathetic: Quintus needs his ‘godlike abilities’ to satisfy publicani while protecting provincials, but the Greeks must recognize that taxation is inevitable, that they had been taxed by their own ruling powers, and that Roman publicani are quite nice really. But recognition was growing that stable rule required some moderation of Wscal exploitation of the provinces, even at the expense of the Italian e´lite. Through Aulus Gabinius and Julius Caesar, the collection of direct taxes in most provinces was transferred from publicani to local councils.69 To raise extra revenues, Julius Caesar and the triumvirs reintroduced customs dues in Italy and other levies; the customs duty then disappears, but Augustus instituted new indirect taxes on sales by auction and on citizen inheritances to fund the standing army, and his marriage and other legislation increased the scope for delation to the treasury. Subsequent emperors with Wnancial problems found it easier to levy new indirect taxes (the only straightforward way to tax Roman citizens) than to increase direct taxation in the provinces. Nevertheless, the Wscal system favoured Roman citizens, and now, to some extent, the provincial e´lite, for the direct land-tax and poll-tax were regressive, and collected by them. For the imperial e´lite, then, indirect taxes were the main bugbear. Traditions about Nero are so exuberant that almost anything seems credible to someone. The standard line on Wnance is that Nero spent wildly, extorted and did not care. The extreme alternative, that he anticipated Keynes and Roosevelt in supply-side economics, is hardly an improvement. What both downplay or ignore is the consistent and continuing propaganda and policy of ‘justice’ in imperial taxation, especially in the collection of indirect taxes, in which Nero exploited the rhetorical tradition to maximize the political impact of his limited reforms. The political problem was that emperors were meant to spend generously and tax sparingly. It was crabby to point 68 Cic. Ad Q. fr. 1. 1. 33 (cf. n. 35 above); Dio 37. 51. 3 f. (a ‘benefaction’ to the senate). Some senators may also have seen this as punishing the publicani for their 61 bc attempt to renegotiate their overbid for the Asian taxes, but patently this was not the main point (cf. n. 47 above). 69 Brunt 1990, 388–93. Note the retrospectively harsh comments of Augustan writers on the damaging lawlessness of Republican publicani: e.g. Livy 45. 18. 4 (under 167 bc); Diod. Sic. 34. 25 (under 123 bc).

Nero’s Reforms

277

out the consequences. In 58 Nero adroitly left it to the senate to argue the case for taxation in order to balance the budget, a case rarely put in extant Latin literature. Cicero’s brief comments to Quintus preWgure the defence Tacitus scripts for Cerealis in ad 70: direct taxes pay for the armies which bring peace to the provincials.70 Quintilian(?) gives the only defence in the mouth of a publicanus, a customs collector, and it is much more realistic: don’t blame us if you think customs dues ‘unfair’, complain to the senate; the reply will be that indirect taxes pay for the armies which defend our natural frontiers, and also for temples, ceremonies, and shows; would you think a tax on inheritance (i.e. landowning) ‘more just’ than a tax on ‘future proWt’ (i.e. trade)?71 In ad 100 Pliny told Trajan that ‘emperors are never short of men with long faces and stern looks to press the needs of the treasury’, just after he had rhetorically asked how Trajan could spend so generously, restrain indirect taxation and delation, and still balance the budget.72 The answer was careful spending (‘frugalitas principis’), exactly Nero’s boast in ad 62, contrasting his predecessors’ extravagance. Nero’s reforms were administrative and sensible rather than Wnancial and radical. There was no Caesar-like attempt to replace publicani with local collection of indirect taxes. The only uectigalia actually abolished were Gaius’s innovations. Many of the reforms lasted right through the Principate, as did Nero’s changes to the coinage. The senate was involved in the discussion and implementation. No more could be expected. It was the necessary imperial myth that taxes were tolerable if abuses were repressed, although everyone knew that Roman taxation was hated in itself.73 ‘Keeping expenditure within budget is mean and stingy; to waste and squander takes real taste and genius’, said Nero, allegedly.74 It was 70 Cic. Ad Q. fr. 1. 1. 33 (see above); Tac. Hist. 4. 74. 71 [Quint.] Decl. 341. 5–8 (unaware of the modern view that Romans did not think in terms of linear frontiers). 72 Pliny, Pan. 41. 1–3. 73 Cic. Ad Q. fr. 1. 1. 33 (taxation ‘acerbissimum’, but less so without abuses); Tac. Ann. 4. 6 and 13. 50 (taxation tolerable without ‘acerbitates’); Tac. Agr. 19 (fair taxation tolerable), but 15. 1–3; 31. 1 f. (all hated). Note that Nero’s speech freeing Greece (n. 30 above), which draws on the rhetoric of ad 58, echoes Cicero’s letter to Quintus (whether because it had become a well-known text, or because both tap the same tradition): dealing with Greeks requires someone very special; they have never been completely free; they want no taxation. 74 Suet. Nero 30. 1.

278

D. Rathbone

a joke. For most of his reign, he managed to run a balanced budget while appearing to reduce the impact of taxes and to spend generously, so successfully that he gained the reputation of prodigality. The policy was ‘populist’ in a sense, particularly the abolition of Gaius’s taxes in Rome, but in so far as there were real beneWciaries, they were those most aVected by the collection of imperial indirect taxes and charges, that is the e´lite of Rome, Italy, and the Greek-speaking provinces, and in this respect the policy was traditional and ‘conservative’.75 Later, after Vespasian had reverted to the Claudian approach to state revenues, Trajan, allegedly an admirer of Nero’s Wrst Wve years, revived Nero’s Wnancial policy and propaganda. Perhaps that is why Tacitus, despite his generally negative view of Nero’s reign and lack of interest in Wnancial matters, gives some details in the Annals, written under Trajan, of Nero’s reforms of uectigalia, and even some praise. 75 Cf. Gatti 1975.

The Social World of Tax Farmers and their Personnel O. van Nijf

1 . I NTRO D U CTI O N One day, the sage and miracle worker Apollonius of Tyana and his party were about to cross the border of the Roman Empire on their way to the Far East:1 When they were about to cross to Mesopotamia, the telones stationed at Zeugma took them to the tariV (pinakion) and asked what he was taking with him. Apollonius said, I take with me Prudence, Justice, Virtue, Temperance, Courage and Perseverance, stringing together a lot of nouns all in the feminine gender. Immediately the oYcial, with an eye to his own proWt, said: ‘Well then, make me a list of those slave girls of yours’. ‘I cannot’, retorted Apollonius, ‘I am not taking them as my slave girls, but as my mistresses.’

I owe a debt to the late Keith Hopkins who discussed this paper with me at an early stage. I am also grateful to Thomas Corsten for discussion and for making material available to me ahead of publication, and to Maaike Leemreize for checking the data at a very late stage. 1 Phil. VA 1. 20 (tr. C. P. Jones): ÆæÆ b ÆPf K c Å H ÆH › º#Å › KØ! !ºÅ ﬁH ˘ *ªÆØ æe e ØŒØ qª ŒÆd Mæ#Æ; ‹ Ø IªØ ; › b ºº#Ø· Iªø; çÅ; øçæ *Å ØŒÆØ *Å Iæ c KªŒæ ØÆ Iæ Æ ¼ ŒÅ Ø; ººa ŒÆd oø Ł)º Æ YæÆ OÆÆ: › XÅ !ºø e ÆıF Œæ IªæÆłÆØ s, çÅ; *ºÆ: › b PŒ Ø; r ; P ªaæ *ºÆ Iªø Æ*Æ; Iººa Æ.

280

O. van Nijf

The episode must have struck a chord with many of the readers of this travel story, particularly with those who had travelled themselves. The anecdote allowed the reader—from the comfort of his home—to have a laugh at the expense of an unpopular, but ubiquitous Wgure: the petty customs oYcial. To many provincials the face of the Roman Empire must have been that of the tax farmer, but we are surprisingly ill informed about the social world in which he operated. Modern studies of Roman tax collection or of the bureaucracy in general often focus on the legal or institutional aspects of these organizations; the human element is often neglected. This is not surprising as many ancient documents are virtually silent on this point as well. Even the Ephesian Customs Law, which supplements our knowledge of Roman customs duties at so many points, shows little interest in the lower ranks of the system. It is the aim of this chapter to shed some light on the social world of Roman tax collection. I shall have little to say of the top levels of the organization, the societates of publicani in Rome, and little of the higher echelons of imperial administration. I shall try to focus as much as I can on the lower ranks, the grass-roots, and try to bring to life the petty oYcials who patrolled the roads and harbours, manned the customs houses, and toiled over the endless paperwork. They made a crucial contribution to the establishment and maintenance of the Roman Empire, but we shall see that literary sources, with their e´lite bias, would not seem to reXect this. The precise nature of their duties is usually ignored in these texts, and when tax farmers are mentioned they are usually treated with the contempt that the upper classes felt for the working population. Information on the minutiae of the enormous task that was tax farming must be gleaned from legal texts, papyri, and inscriptions from various parts of the Empire. These are discussed in the second part of this paper. However, inscriptions can fruitfully be approached as a form of self-representation of their authors. In the last part of the paper we shall see what image the tax farmers and their personnel chose to present of themselves. A list of known individuals with a connection to the portorium Asiae is given in the Appendix.

Social World of Tax Farmers

281

2. PUBLICANS AND SINNERS Roman literary authors generally maintain a digniWed silence regarding the thousands of men who were responsible for collecting the revenues of empire. Although people were taught at school that customs duties were a fundamental instrument of empire,2 this interest does not seem to have been extended to the individuals concerned. Customs oYcials rarely make an individual appearance in literary texts, and when they do, they are not often named, and they appear as two-dimensional characters. They were seen as irrelevances, who occasionally proved an irritant during a journey. Plutarch, setting himself up as the voice of the cultivated gentlemen of his age, formulates it as follows:3 Busybodies search out these very matters and others still worse, not to cure, but merely to expose them. For this reason, we are annoyed and displeased with customs oYcials, not when they pick up those articles that we are importing openly, but when in the search for concealed goods they pry into baggage and merchandise which are another’s property. And yet the law allows them to do this.

The idea that members of the lower classes, even if they were special oYcials called scrutatores,4 were rummaging through one’s possessions was clearly too much. The educated traveller may well have turned to the dictionary of Pollux to Wnd a convenient list of words to abuse a tax farmer if he went too far:5 2 As is clear from [Quint.] 341. 6, which defends the customs duties by pointing out that they paid i.a. for the army and for festivals. 3 Plut. De Curios. (Mor. 518E): ƒ b ºıæª ÆPa ÆFÆ ŒÆd a *ø Ø å æÆ ÇÅF Ø; P Ł æÆ * Iººa IÆŒÆº* : ‹Ł Ø FÆØ ØŒÆø: ŒÆd ªaæ f º#Æ !Ææı ŁÆ ŒÆd ı å æÆ ; På ‹Æ a KçÆB H N Æªø KŒºªø Ø; Iºº ‹Æ a Œ ŒæıÆ ÇÅF K IººæØ Œ * Ø ŒÆd çæØ IÆ æçøÆØ: ŒÆØ F Ø E › ø Ø ÆPE. 4 See below, n. 34. 5 Poll. Onom. 9. 30 f.: ŒÆd ŒÆŒÇø b º#Å YØ ¼· !Ææ*; çæØŒ; ¼ªåø; ºﬁ Å *ø, ºÅØÇ; Ææ Œºªø; ŁÆºÅ IªæØ# æ; å ØH !ØÆØ æ; ŒÆÆ*ø f ŒÆÆåŁÆ; IŁæø; KÆåŁ); ¼ºÅ ; ¼ æ; ÆN åæŒæÅ; !ÆØ; Iªø; ØÇø; ºøıH; I*ø; ±æÇø; IçÆØæ* ; Ææ Ø æø; NÆ; IÆ åı, IÅæıŁæØÆŒ#; ı å æ); I) æ; ¼ªæØ; ¼ ; ŁÅæØ#Å; ,æÆ; æ!º æÆ; ÆıªØ; ŁÅæ ¼ØŒ;

282

O. van Nijf

Should you want to abuse a tax farmer, you might try saying: burden, packanimal, garotter, sneak-thief, shark, hurricane, oppressor of the downtrodden, inhuman, nail in my coYn, insatiable, immoderate, Shylock, violator, strangler, crusher, highwayman, strip-Jack-naked, snatcher, thief, overcharger, reckless, shameless, unblushing, pain in the neck, savage, wild, inhospitable, brute, dead weight, obstacle, heart of stone, Xotsam, pariah, and all the other vile terms you can Wnd to apply to someone’s character . . .

Or praise him, when the man showed proper respect: Should you want to praise a tax farmer, you might say: law-abiding, hospitable, just, not overstepping the law, not over-zealous, better than life, knowing your place, palliator of the journey’s discomfort, someone you might want to interrupt your journey for; sweet harbour.

The concern with the right vocabulary, and the choice of words, convey a distinct upper-class perspective: to the readers of Pollux, a good tax farmer was someone who knew his place. Tax farming was evidently not a proper occupation for members of the Roman e´lite—even though they might not despise its proWts, so long as they could be reaped discreetly. E´lite objections to tax collecting seem to have focused on moral issues that were connected with the ‘banausic status’ of the tax farmers.6 As Cicero put it:7 ‘First those employments are condemned which arouse people’s dislike, for example tax farmers and money lenders.’ A variant of this view stresses the morally suspect character of the tax collector by putting them on a par with pimps and procurers. The association must have been eVective. Dio Chrysostom raises the issue in a dialogue about freedom:8

ŒÆd ‹ Æ K ÆE XŁı ºØæÆØ å Ø: N KÆØ E º#Å; YØ ¼: ; h ; ŒÆØ; Kæø F ı; æÆ æ F ºÆ IŒæØ!F; Œæ ø F !ı; Ng ÆN E ŁÆØ; ÆæÆıŁ* c F ºF ı åæ ØÆ; N n ¼ Ø IÆÆ* ÆØ; ﬁz Ø ¼ +ø æ æ ÆØ. 6 Tax farming was classiWed as a banausic occupation according to the Souda s.v. ‘banausos’ (¼ B, entry 93). 7 De OV. I. 62. 150 : ‘Primum improbantur ii quaestus, qui in odia hominum incurrunt, ut portitorum, ut faeneratorum’. 8 Dio Chrys. 14. 14: ; Y Ø Ø K EÆØ; ‹ Æ c I æÅÆØ b $e H ø Kªªæçø; ÆN åæa b ¼ººø Œ E E IŁæ#Ø ŒÆd ¼Æ: ºªø b x ºø E j æ! Œ E j ¼ººÆ ‹ØÆ æ Ø.

Social World of Tax Farmers

283

Well then, do you think that it is permitted to you to do all things, which, while they are not forbidden by the laws, yet are regarded as base and unseemly by mankind? I mean for example collecting taxes, or keeping a brothel, or doing other such things.

Other sources agree: Artemidorus calls tax collecting an ‘unblushing profession’, which could signify prostitution, when it appears in a dream.9 The emperor Julian also classes together people of the baser sort: ‘tax collectors, dancers and adulterers.’10 These texts may reXect mere upper-class prejudices, or result from the rhetorical device of invective that relied on blackening the morality of one’s opponents, but the charge may not have been totally baseless. Tax farmers were famously classed with sinners in the New Testament, which suggests that in the society of Wrst-century Palestine the association between tax farmers and prostitution could be presented as plausible.11 A papyrus from the Zeno archive shows that the association was not always imaginary. The text mentions a pair of crooks who dealt in female prostitutes. They had kidnapped a girl, provided her with an outWt, and handed her over to a customs oYcial who was to act as her pimp—the rationale apparently being that there would be frequent traYc, and plenty of customers.12 It is more diYcult to get an idea of the attitude of ‘ordinary’ Romans and Greeks towards tax farmers. Badian suggests that we can easily empathize with their feelings, when he refers to ‘the natural dislike that all working and earning men and women rightly feel for the tax collector’, but it may not be so easy to get a grip on the perspective of the ancient ‘working man’—(let alone of the ‘working woman’).13 We shall see below that they may have been particularly vulnerable to extortion at the hands of tax collectors, but there are few Wrst-hand accounts to present their views. We hear of the proverbial rapacity of tax gatherers, but we have no way of establishing 9 Art. Oneir. 4. 42: q ªaæ + KæªÆ Æ ¼åæø (but see 3. 58 for dreams where a tax farmer could signify something positive for people who were in business). 10 Julian, Adv. Gal. 283E. He lists teloˆnai, orcheˆstai, and hetairotrophoi. The charge had a long history anyway: Theophrastus, Char. 6, puts tax farming on a par with innkeeping and brothel keeping. 11 Cf. Youtie 1973. 12 PSI 4, 406, cf. Pomeroy 1984, 163. 13 Badian 1983, 11.

284

O. van Nijf

how widespread such proverbs were.14 There are hardly any texts that aim to give a more measured image. Only one source purports to give the opinion of a tax collector, and he takes a defensive stance.15 ‘Diomedon the tax farmer said: if it is not shameful for you to sell the taxes, it is not shameful for us to buy them.’ Plutarch, though hardly a spokesman for the working classes, exposes the hypocrisy of the upper classes in this respect:16 And they think it is a disgrace to be a tax collector, which the law allows; but they themselves lend money contrary to law, collecting taxes from their debtors, or rather, if the truth is to be told, cheating them in the act of lending.

The common man may well have agreed. However, the e´lites had no monopoly on double standards. Lucian defends the view that poverty would make it excusable for a man to defraud a fellow citizen, to ask for gifts, to beg and steal, and even to be a tax collector.17 But in the end the negative view prevails also here: in his imagination of Hell, Lucian puts them all, tax collectors and upper class faeneratores, together:18 As it happened [Minos] himself was sitting on a lofty throne, while beside him stood the Tormentors, the Furies, and the Avengers. From one side a great number of men were being led up in line, bound together with a long chain; they were said to be adulterers, procurers, tax collectors, toadies, informers, 14 e.g. Plut. Aquane an ignis sit utilior (Mor. 958 D 6): ‘Man has been granted but little time to live and, as Ariston says, Sleep, like a tax farmer, takes away half of that’ (ŒÆd c Oºªı åæı ŒÆd !ı E IŁæ#Ø ı › b æ ø çÅ d ‹Ø › o x º#Å e lØ ı IçÆØæ E *ı). Another example can be found in Iamb., Bab. 93: ‘The tax collector gave the necklace to the merchant. Will not wolves set down lambs from their jaws and lions release fawns from their teeth back to their mothers when a tax collector acually parts with so great a prize? (øŒ e ‹æ › º#Å ﬁH Kæﬁø: PŒ XÅ ŒÆd º*ŒØ Ł) ı Ø ¼æÆ KŒ H ø ŒÆd º Ie H Oø Iº* ı Ø !æf ÆE Åæ Ø; › ŒÆd º#Å IçBŒ ¼ªæÆ ÅºØŒÆ*Å). 15 Dion. Hal. Ad Amm. 1, 12 f.: › º#Å › ˜Øø: N ªaæ Å $E ÆN åæe e øº E; Pb +E e T E ŁÆØ. 16 Plut. De vitando aere alieno [829 C 9]: ÆPd ªaæ ÆæÆø Æ Çı Ø ºøF ; Aºº ; N E IºÅŁb N E; K ﬁH Æ Ç Ø åæ øŒF . 17 Luc. Pseudolog. 30. 18 Luc. Menippus sive de Nekyiomanteia 11: K*ªåÆ b › b Kd Łæı Øe $łÅºF ŒÆŁ) ; Ææ Ø )Œ Æ b ÆPﬁH —ØÆd ŒÆd ¯ æØ* ŒÆd º æ : æøŁ b æ )ª ºº Ø Kç B; ±º* Ø ÆŒæﬁ A Ø: Kºª b r ÆØ Øåd ŒÆd æ! Œd ŒÆd ºHÆØ ŒÆd ŒºÆŒ ŒÆd ıŒçÆØ ŒÆd ØF ‹Øº H Æ ŒıŒ#ø K ﬁH !ﬁø: åøæd b ¥ º* ØØ ŒÆd Œªº*çØ æ ﬁ) Æ Tåæd ŒÆd æª æ ŒÆd Æªæ; ŒºØe ,ŒÆ ÆPH ŒÆd ŒæÆŒÆ ØºÆ KØŒ .

Social World of Tax Farmers

285

and all that crowd of people who created such confusion in life. In a separate company then millionaires and the moneylenders, potbellied and gouty, each of them with a neck iron and a hundred pound ‘crow’ upon him.

It is diYcult, therefore, to get an image of the customs farmer that is not coloured by ideology or prejudice. The tax farmer, when he appears in literature, is represented in a negative light as someone who is marked by excessive greed and lack of morality. However, such texts are not very helpful on the precise duties of individual tax collectors, or on their position in the organization. They have even less to say on the question of how those men saw their own lives and their own roles as servants of the Roman Empire.

3. THE BUREAUCRACY We are only beginning to appreciate the complexities and detailed division of labour that went into the collection of the many taxes that supported the Imperium Romanum.19 The Ephesian Customs Law provides us with some detailed lists of the places where the customs duties were to be levied (ll. 7–11, §§1–2), it mentions possible exemptions (ll. 58–67, §§25–7), and it even goes into some detail about the construction of stations and guard-posts (ll. 35–6, §13), but it does not give much thought to the individuals concerned. The terminology can be loose and imprecise. The tax farmer is usually called teloˆneˆs or deˆmosioˆneˆs, but for the lower ranks a blanket term such as epitropos is deemed suYcient. From the perspective of the lawgivers in Rome, the individuals who at a local level were running the organization on a day-to-day basis were apparently of little interest. This was of course the result of the way that tax collection had been arranged. Tax farming was a convenient way of compensating for the absence of an adequate bureaucratic structure in the Republic. It provided the state with money upfront, leaving the trouble of actually collecting the money conveniently to wealthy entrepreneurs. The e´lite business men themselves relied heavily on authorized agents 19 The standard work is of course still De Laet 1949, but see now Brunt 1990b. The position of uilici is discussed in Aubert 1994, esp. ch. 5, and Carlsen 1995, esp. 43–55.

286

O. van Nijf

(usually slaves or freedmen) to carry out economic and menial activities, that ‘their life-style, political and economic engagement, and social prejudices prevented them from carrying out personally’, while still being able to reap the Wnancial beneWts of their eVorts.20 It is this double distancing that must account for the relative lack of interest in the law among the people on the ground. It is well known that from the onset of the Principate private enterprise was gradually phased out from tax collecting, even though we do not know in detail how this process evolved. Direct taxation was taken out of the hands of the publicani, and left to the town councils, thus implicating local e´lites in the exploitation of the provinces. This was not, however, deemed necessary or practical for the collection of indirect taxes such as customs duties. Publicani remained active here at least until the end of the second century, even though there is evidence that local e´lites could sometimes be involved, as we shall see below. The traditional view (advocated by De Laet) is that the companies who farmed the customs duties were replaced sometime under Trajan by individual conductores. In an important article Brunt has pointed out that there is not enough evidence for this view, and he insists that companies must have continued until the Severan age at least. Recently, Aubert has argued that Brunt may have gone too far in the other direction: ‘there is no reason why [conductores] should be discarded altogether from the history of tax collection: both companies and individual tax farmers could have lived side by side.’21 Important though they were from an institutional point of view, these changes would have had a limited eVect on the daily operations, which may well be connected to the existence of slave agents. The slave personnel of the individual tax farmers or of tax farming companies could without any diYculty be transferred from one company to another, or to an individual conductor, if necessary. The Customs Law does not make an explicit statement about the transfer of slaves, but as the tax farmers had to use the same buildings and staging-posts as had been used previously under King Attalos, we may assume that slaves and other property were also transferred 20 Aubert 1994, 322. 21 Aubert 1994, 330 with references to the earlier debate.

Social World of Tax Farmers

287

(§28, l. 68). The text also states that they had to hand these over to incoming publicani, and the same must have applied to slave personnel in districts that had Wrst been taxed by the Romans themselves. Where and when imperial agents took over, the tax personnel would simply be incorporated into the familia Caesaris and do their jobs as before.22 The data do not allow me to diVerentiate much between the various categories of tax oYcial, and I am well aware that the situation on the ground may have been more varied than would appear at Wrst sight. The Romans adopted local practices, and will have made innovations where necessary. However, if we start from the Customs Law, and use additional information from inscriptions and other material from Asia and elsewhere, we should still be able to draw up a reliable and coherent picture of the daily chores of Roman tax collecting.

4 . C US TO M S H O U SE S AND S TA FF The Customs Law shows that the system relied on a dense network of customs oYcials spread over a relatively wide geographical area. Customs posts, described simply as epoikia (buildings), or telonia (customs houses) were set up in the major harbours of the tax district, and along major land roads into the district (ll. 22–6, §9). Smaller collection points, paraphylakai (guard-posts), were to be found along minor roads and around the territories of free cities (l. 32, §12). In addition to the places mentioned in the text we Wnd stations in places such as Laodicea and Amorium.23 One inscription informs us that a customs station was located in Cibyra.24 Perhaps we should also reckon with temporary posts, which were closed part of the year, as seems to have happened in Illyria.25 Although the Romans were willing to take over pre-existing customs houses that had been used by the Attalids, there was a tendency to impose some order. The names of the tax farmer and of his representative were to be advertised clearly (ll. 27–8, §10). It would 22 Cf. Weaver 1972, passim. 23 See Appendix nos. 4b and 3. 24 I.Kibyra 107; see Appendix nos. 8a–8b. 25 Carlsen 1995, 51.

288

O. van Nijf

have been practical to post a tariV listing the current rates and exceptions as well. These may have taken the shape of a wooden pinakion, such as the one mentioned by Philostratus in the Apollonius episode quoted above, but it would probably have been suYcient to have a copy on papyrus.26 No parallel for the inscribed tariV of Palmyra has been found in Asia.27 The Customs Law further gives some precise directions for when a new customs building or guardpost had to be constructed:28 If he wishes, he is to have up to one building [in all these cities and places] for the sake of [declaration (?)] or registration or habitation, provided that [it is] not in a temple or temenos, or [sacred place; and at (?) - - -] they are to have [???] guard-posts, and (in any case) one guard-post on the River Rhyndacus. Whatever place of this province [there is, wherever it is necessary to declare, if in] these [places] a harbour lies by the sea, [they are to have] by each harbour in these (places) up to one guard-post in sequence, if [they wish, for the sake of exaction of telos]; and also on the coast by the sea; and around the boundaries of the province, where it is lawful to go or drive (animals), if they wish; [provided that] they have (a building) within [??? feet of wherever it is necessary to declare], built or fenced, one in each place, thirty feet from front to back, , and provided that it is not [built in a temple or temenos] or sacred place or with (another) building nearer than ninety feet.

It was not only a place where the transactions took place, or where documents were kept, but it would seem that the customs oYcials also lived there. The head of a customs house was a uilicus, or in Greek oikonomos—in some cases we Wnd a praepositus, who was normally a freedman. He was in charge of a familia of slaves, who performed a variety of specialist jobs, either collecting the taxes, or handling the administrative side.29 The staV of a uilicus could be large. Epigraphical and papyrological sources yield a wide variety of job-titles, whose precise functions are not always clear. A uilicus would have one or more assistants, who could act as his representa-

26 See below in the section on procedures. 27 IGR 3, 1056 ¼ OGIS 629. See Matthews 1984 and Teixidor 1984. 28 ll. 30–6, §§12–13. All English translations of the Customs Law are from the version in this volume by M. H. Crawford. 29 Aubert 1994, 333–42. The Egyptian material is presented in Sijpesteijn 1987.

Social World of Tax Farmers

289

tive. Such men were known as uicarii, if the uilicus was himself a slave, or as pragmateutai and actores.30 Among the more specialized occupations we Wnd portitores (collectors), hoi pros teˆi puleˆi (gatekeepers), scrutatores, and ereuneˆtai (search oYcers). Accounting and book keeping were handled by Wnancial specialists: tabularii, arkarii, librarii, commentarienses, dispensatores, or cheiristai (Wnancial clerks) and grammateis. In some cases there may have been one or more armed men: at least in Egypt we Wnd arabotoxotai (policemen, who used a type of bow that was called ‘Arabic’). In addition we would expect, particularly in the larger houses, personal slaves (serui, and boeˆthoi) and in some cases wives and children of the members of staV.31 Such customs houses were real outposts of empire: selfcontained microcosms inhabited by servants of the Roman state.

5 . P RO C E D U R E S It is easy to underestimate the sheer amount of work—and paperwork—that must have gone into the collection of customs duties. Inscriptions, literary sources, and legal sources give only a limited impression. The Customs Law clearly states that the process involved two stages: an (oral) declaration, and a written registration.32 A tax law from Egypt gives us some idea of how these procedures may have worked in practice. A tax farmer could accept the valuation placed by the merchant on his cargo as a basis for paying duty,33 30 Weaver 1972, 200–6 on uicarii. 31 See Carlsen 1995, 51 for the suggestion that they would work nearby lands to produce the necessary provisions. For the family relations of uilici and other customs oYcials, see below in the section on funerary practices. It is perfectly clear that customs oYcials owned personal slaves; cf. Dig. 39. 4. 1. 5. For a 5-year-old slave girl who belonged to a group of tax farmers in Apollonia (Cyrenaica), see Robert 1968, 436–9 [¼ OMS 6, 112–16]. 32 Cf. l, 4, §13: æ çø ø ŒÆd IªæÆç Łø. 33 P.Oxy. 1. 36, 6 V.: K½a b j <›> º#Å KŒçæ½Ø ŁBjÆØ e ºE KØÇÅ) ﬁ Å; j › æ KŒçæØÇ½ø; j ŒÆd Ka b $æ ŁﬁB ½Ø , jæ j n I ªæłÆ; æ)j Ø ø; Ka b c $jæ ŁﬁB; › º#Å ½c ÆjÅ ﬁH K½æﬁø F j KŒçæØ F I½ø: j ŒÆd Ææa H K½ªºÆ!ø j a ºÅ, å ØæªæÆç½Æ ºÆ!Æjø Æ ¥ Æ N e ºjº I ıŒçÅØ j z Ø.

290

O. van Nijf

but if the tax farmer desire that the ship should be unloaded, the merchant shall unload the cargo, and if anything be discovered other than what he had declared, it shall be liable to conWscation. But if nothing else is discovered, the tax farmer shall repay to the merchant the cost of unloading. And they shall receive from those who farm the taxes a written declaration, in order that they may not be liable to false accusations subsequently.

In some cases specialized search oYcers, scrutatores or ereuneˆtai, would unload the cargo or handle a metal siromasteˆs (probe) to search through loads of grain or other bulk goods.34 The paperwork must have taken up a lot of time as well. We may form some impression of what must have been contained in the archives of Asia if we turn to the situation in Egypt.35 Transporters received upon payment a receipt, the size of a credit card, with a more or less standardized text stating the place where the customs was paid, and the name of the duty. Normally they also recorded the name of the transporters, the products over which taxes were paid, their quantity, and the means of transportation, and, Wnally, the date. Most receipts would have clay seals attached to them, stamped with a portrait of the emperor. Large numbers of customs receipts have survived in the Egyptian deserts; the following text is a typical example:36 Ounophris who exports a donkey with two (2) artabae of dates has paid the customs duty of 1% through the gate of Philadelphia. Year 14 of Imperator Caesar Trajan Hadrian Our Lord, Phaophi 24.

It was the job of a symbolarius, a specialist oYcial, to dispense such declarations, for which the trader would have to pay a small surcharge (symbolon). This type of oYcial was only attested in Egypt, but a symbolarius recently turned up in an epitaph from Ephesus.37

34 Scrutatores: AE´ 1899, 180; 1933, 160; 1974, 485. See Aubert 1994, 339. For the ereuneˆtai, see Sijpesteijn 1987, 96–7. The siromasteˆs is mentioned in the Suda ( entry 478): Øæ Å: Œ F Ø ØÅæF; ºÆ!c ıºÅ å Ææa E º#ÆØ N æ ıÆ. 35 Sijpesteijn 1987, esp. 85–90. Cf. Hopkins 1991, 133–4. 36 Sijpesteijn 1987, 147, no. 137. Cf. Vindob. G inv. 39850: ºð#ÅÆØÞ Øa *ºÅ ØºÆ ºçÆ j æ ˇ P #çæØ K ªðøÞ ZðÞ ç ½Ø Œ j Iæ!Æ * !: ı Ø ` Æ H çØ j Œ. ½PjŒææ ˚Æ Ææ æÆØÆ F jj ' ` æØÆF F Œıæı 37 Appendix, no. 5c.

Social World of Tax Farmers

291

At all the customs stations these payments were registered one by one into large ledgers, recording all imports and exports by tabularii and other specialists.38 At regular intervals these ledgers were sent to responsible oYcials in regional centres for checking, creating work in the province for hundreds (thousands?) of administrators. The setup may have diVered in detail from customs house to customs house, but we may assume that the daily chores of tax collection in the district of Asia will have been roughly comparable. The loads of paperwork, and the demands in terms of manpower must have been similar. Apart from the major customs houses, a network of guard-posts (phylakai) and ‘minor guard-posts’ was set up throughout the province. The trader was supposed to register with the nearest oYcial (ll. 42–5, §17), but the Law also provided for places where no customs oYcial was to be found:39 If there is neither a collector nor a procurator there according to this lex, to whom one may declare [and with whom one may register before importing, whenever] this is the case, whatever city may be nearest to that place, they are to register with the person holding the highest oYce in it [as is appropriate according to the lex].

Other texts also give the impression that the involvement of local e´lites in the collection of customs duties was not rare.40 Finally, the staV on a customs post may have included a ‘Xying squad’ that patrolled the minor roads in the countryside. In western provinces we Wnd ‘circitores’; in Egypt eremophylakes would patrol the deserts.41 There is no clear evidence that they were also active in Asia, but a customs oYcial from Apollonia, who died in Laodicea, where he was buried by his uicarii, was perhaps on patrol.42 Still, it must have been relatively easy to escape the spying eye of the customs oYcial. A passage in a novel illustrates what might happen. Merchants would try to avoid customs as a matter of course, 38 Sijpesteijn 1987, 85–90. 39 ll. 40–2, §16. 40 AE´ 1947–1948, 179 is an honoriWc inscription for a tax farmer (tetartones) of the customs duties, who was also a councillor in Palmyra (c.ad 160 ) and a councillor who acted as phorologos is on record in Thrace (SEG 32, 676, ad 3). 41 Circitores: AE´ 1938, 91; 1985, 714; 1989, 334. For Egypt, see Sijpesteijn 1987, 93. 42 See Appendix, nos. 4b and 4c.

292

O. van Nijf

and many customers would happily collude.43 ‘A merchant who had a beautiful woman for sale approached me. Because of the customs oYcial he had anchored his boat outside the city near your property.’ The Customs Law tried to deal with such scams:44 [Whatever anyone may import by sea,] he is [not] to divert the ship or indeed to divert whatever he may unload or discharge onto land to other places for the sake of [evasion of telos; and if] anyone acts [in contravention of these provisions] the lex is to be valid on the same basis as if he was carrying something unregistered.

The customs oYcials, however, had to catch the perpetrator Wrst, and many travellers would simply have taken their chances. The customs oYcers for their part may well have decided that it was easier (and more proWtable) to concentrate on the traders who did register, and see how much they could squeeze out of them within—or just beyond—the limits set by the law. There were various points that oVered the tax oYcials some leeway. The trader had to supply an estimate of the value of his cargo, but it was the tax farmer who ultimately put a value on all goods (ll. 45–6, §18), and he would not have been likely to settle on too low a level. Another strategy might have been to levy a tax on goods for which customs had already been paid. The Customs Law prohibits this (ll. 16–20, §6), but the traveller would have had to be able to prove that he had paid his taxes Wrst. It is easy to imagine what would have happened if a trader lost his symbolon, or when the customs oYcial accused him of carrying more goods than he had declared. Disagreement could, of course, also arise on the interpretation of exemptions. The very length of the section on exemptions in the Customs Law suggests that this was a major source of contention (ll. 58–68, §§25–7). A school text provides us with an amusing dilemma that could arise in such circumstances. What to do with a Roman matrona, who had a string of pearls hidden on her bosom? Tax farmers were not allowed to search Roman women, but the temptation to investigate nonetheless must have been strong.45 Other exemptions 43 Char. Chaer. and Call. 2. 1. 3 (cf. 1. 13): æ BºŁ Ø æ Øæ Œø ªıÆEŒÆ ŒÆºº Å; Øa b f º#Æ ø B º ø uæØ c ÆF ºÅ H

H åøæø. 44 ll. 15–16, §5. 45 [Quint.] Decl. 359.

Social World of Tax Farmers

293

could also give rise to conXicts. How many of the slaves or other goods of a traveller were really for private use? Who was to say what was imported to deal with threats from enemies? How far did the exemption for goods brought to the Sebasteia at Pergamon extend (ll. 128–33, §57)? Many uncertainties or ambiguities of this kind had to be confronted on a daily basis. It may be doubted that all cases were solved in a manner favourable to the traders or travellers.

6. CONTROL AND COLLUSION The eager tax collector may, of course, have been driven by a sense of duty, or civic-mindedness, but, as he was working on a percentage basis, we cannot exclude that he will have kept his own Wnancial interest Wrmly in mind. Personal corruption may thus easily have crept in. A text from Egypt shows that traders in a hurry were occasionally willing to pay baksheesh in order to speed up the procedures.46 [So-and-so] prefect of Egypt says: I am informed that the tax farmers have employed exceedingly clever devices against those who are passing though the country and that they are, in addition, demanding what is not owing to them and are detaining those who are in urgent haste, in order that some may buy from them a more speedy departure. I, therefore, command them to desist from such greediness . . .

The tax system was clearly open to abuse, which to the individuals involved may well have been one of the attractions of buying the lease in the Wrst place. The state oVered some protection against the worst abuses, but limited itself mainly to granting exemption to those categories of people who really mattered. Others may have expected to have to fend for themselves. A well-timed backhander may have done the trick. 46 P.Princ. 2, 20 with Reinmuth 1936: Ææå j `Nª*ı ºª Ø: j ŒÆÅåFÆØ f º#Æ j ØH ç Æ ŁÆØ E Ø æjå Ø ŒÆd IÆØ E a j c Oç Øº Æ ÆPE Kd º Ej½ Œ Æ d ŒæÆ E f K Øªı j ½¥ Æ ŒÆd e åØ Iåøæ E Øjb K ø) øÆØ: ÆæÆªªºjºø ½b s ÆPE Æ* Æ ŁÆØ B j ½ØÆ*Å º½ Æ Æ ½ÆåﬁB.

294

O. van Nijf

It should be recognized, however, that traders and other travellers were not the only ones to suVer from corruption of tax oYcials. An inscription from Aphrodisias shows that free cities were sometimes subject to illegal customs duties, which could only be removed by appeal to the emperor.47 A second-century text from Egypt shows that the Roman state could itself fall victim to the malpractices of its functionaries. The papyrus is a letter by a whistle-blower, who had worked as a guard in a customs house, and who had discovered that the tax farmer had falsiWed the oYcial records.48 To his highness the epistrategos Julius Petronianus from Pabous son of Stotoe¨tis son of Panomieus, a priest of the village of Soknopaiou Nesos in the division of Herakleides of the Arsinoı¨te nome, Arab archer at the customs house of the said Soknopaiou Nesos. While not seeking an occasion of accusation, but because I saw the treasury being defrauded by Polydeukes, who contrary to the prohibition has now for four years been in charge of the aforesaid customs-house, and by Harpagathes, son of Er . . . , I presented to the overseers of the nomarchy a copy of Harpagathes’ autograph returns in my possession of the imports and exports passing through the customshouse, requesting that an examination of them should be held in order to determine whether the taxes upon these had been added to the treasury account. Polydeukes having discovered this attacked me with other persons, whose names I do not know and belaboured me with many blows, and not satisWed with this set upon me Heraklas, one of the guards of the domains, and taking me up by force they together carried me to the counting-house of the superintendent of the domains and caused me to be scourged in order to make me give up the register of Harpagathes. 47 Reynolds, Aphrodisias no. 15. 48 P.Amh. 2, 77: &ıºøØ — æøØÆﬁH HØ ŒæÆ½ ﬁø KØ æÆ)ªﬁø j Ææa —Æ!F½ F ) ø —ÆØø j ƒ æø Ie Œ#Å ½ŒÆı ˝) ı B j ' ˙æÆŒº ı æ ½F æ ½Øı F æÆ!j ı *ºÅ½ ÆPB ŒÆı ˝) ı: j [.].[. . . . ] ŒÆÅªæ:½. . . Iººa ›æH e ç Œ j æØªæÆç $e —ºı *Œı æÆ E j XÅ åæøØ Ææa a I ØæÅÆ KØÅæFj c æŒ ØÅ *ºÅ ŒÆd $e j ½'`æÆªŁ½ı F ¯æ ½:: Æ Œ KøŒÆ j ½E B ½ÆæåÆ KØÅæÅÆ½E I½ªæÆjç z r å½ F '`æÆªŁı NØ½ªæçø j IÆªæÆçø H Øa B *ºÅ N ÆåŁø j ½ŒÆd K ÆåŁ½ø; I Ø H c K Æ Ø ÆP ½H j ª½ ½ŁÆØ N e K ½Øª HÆØ N æ ½ŁÅ j ÆPH ºÅ ﬁH ŒıæØÆŒHØ ºªøØ: ŒÆd j KØªf › —ºı ½*ŒÅ K ºŁ# Ø j Ł æø z a OÆÆ IªH º ½Æ½Ø j ºÅªÆE ﬁ MŒ Æ; ŒÆd c IæŒ Ł ½d j K)½ ªŒ Ø ' ˙ æÆ½ŒºA ØÆ ÆåÆØæjçæø P ØÆŒH ŒÆd Iç æØ !ﬁ Æ j !Æ ½ Æ N ) ªŒÆ N e ºª½Ø )æØ j F KØæı H P ØH ŒÆd KÅ j:½:Œ½::Æ Ø ZÆ Æ ØªF ŁÆØ N e IÆHj½Æ Æ½PE e F ½<æÆªŁı IÆªæçØ.

Social World of Tax Farmers

295

Fortunately for Pabous, the matter came to the attention of his superiors, and he was allowed to make a formal complaint. It may be doubted, however, that under similar circumstances many of his colleagues would have shown the same disinterested courage. There was clearly some need to supervise the customs oYcials. Developments in the way that the taxes were leased out will have made this more urgent. From the reign of Augustus the payment of a lump sum up-front was apparently replaced by a percentage system, presumably because the contractors would have found it diYcult to make secure estimates of the levels of traYc, and of potential income.49 However, as this would increase the number of opportunities to defraud the state, imperial procurators (with their own uilici and uicarii) were made responsible for supervising the tax collectors. Gradually an imperial ‘bureaucracy’ seems to have grown up alongside the tax system proper, but it is not always easy to distinguish between the two, as the job titles were the same, and as their responsibilities partly overlapped. The situation got even more complex in those provinces, where between the reigns of Commodus and Severus, the same procurators began to be responsible for collection and for supervision.50 Such close coexistence would not seem the best recipe for a strict and impartial supervision of the tax collectors’ practices. It is interesting to see that tax collectors also seem to have maintained excellent relations with those other representatives of Roman power: the military. In some cases customs oYcials and soldiers appear to have been close friends, as in Moguntiacum (Mainz), where a uilicus and a beneWciarius consularis (a member of the military police) set up a joint dedication.51 The seating inscriptions from the amphitheatre of Aquincum (Budapest) show a uilicus with a reserved place between a karcerarius legionis (military prison oYcer) and a veteran.52 They may have been part of the Roman equivalent of an ‘expat community’, but to the other spectators they may well have represented the ugly face of Roman imperial power. The evidence for soldiers abusing their position is even stronger than that for tax collectors. Apuleius tells the tale of a centurion who brutally knocks a market gardener oV his ass.53 A number of recently 49 Aubert 1994, 329–30 and Brunt 1990, 381–3. 50 Brunt 1990, 407–20. 51 CIL 13, 18118. 52 CIL 3, 10493d. 53 Met. 9. 39.

296

O. van Nijf

published inscriptions conWrm that the picture was realistic.54 For us it is sometimes hard to see what is going on, and who exactly was involved. A fragmentary document from Cibyra, concerned with illegal and violent exactions from peasants, may have involved soldiers. A recent interpretation, however, identiWes a number of tabularii in the text, which may point the Wnger rather in the direction of customs oYcers.55 The Digest recognizes that the tax system was corrupt, but taking the approach of most large organizations, the Roman state would seem to have put the blame squarely on relatively low-ranking individual oYcials.56 Nobody is unaware of the extent of the audacity and insolence of cliques of tax farmers. This is the reason why the praetor promulgated this edict to control their audacity. Where a tax farmer’s familia is alleged to have committed theft or has caused wrongful injury, if the persons whom the matter in hand will concern are not brought before me, I will grant a iudicium without possibility of noxal surrender against the owner. It should be understood that in this context, the title ‘familia’ covers the tax farmer’s slaves. However, if somebody else’s slave is serving as a slave of a tax farmer in good faith he is included as well.

The oYcial line, then, was that such practices were to stop, but they may have been unavoidable. The creativity of the tax farmers was probably inWnite, and the more audacious among them must have been able to amass considerable personal fortunes. I suspect that the corrupt tax collector is rather representative of how the system worked in practice. Peculation may well have outstripped peculium 54 See for example SEG 38, 1244: a letter of Pertinax concerning molestation of civilians from Tabala, and 37, 1186, from Takina: a letter by Caracalla concerning the bad behaviour of soldiers. 55 Milner 1998, no. 112. Recently new readings of the text were suggested by Professor G. Souris of the University of Thessaloniki at a seminar in Cambridge, and by Dr T. Corsten (pers. comm.), who identiWed a ‘tabul[arius]’ and his adiutores in the text. The term ‘tabularius’ makes it possible, but by no means proves that the exactions were made by customs oYcials. 56 Dig. 39. 4. 12: Quantae audaciae, quantae temeritatis sint publicanorum factiones, nemo est, qui nesciat. idcirco praetor ad compescendam eorum audaciam hoc edictum proposuit: ‘Quod familia publicanorum furtum fecisse dicetur, item si damnum iniuria fecerit et id ad quos ea res pertinet non exhibetur: in dominum sine noxae deditione iudicium dabo. Familiae autem appellatione hic seruilem familiam contineri sciendum est. Sed et si bona Wde publicano alienus seruus seruit, aeque continebitur.’

Social World of Tax Farmers

297

as a source of income and power of the uilici and uicarii involved in tax collection. But even when they were not personally corrupt, the fact that the tax farmers worked on commission can only have increased their zeal to tax whatever they could lay their hands on, thus raising state revenue. This may well have dampened oYcial willingness to investigate anything but the worst excesses too deeply.

7 . T H E S E L F- P R E S E N TAT I O N O F T H E TAX FA R M E R S At this point we should perhaps shift our perspective, and investigate whether we can say anything on the self-perception of the tax farmers, particularly of those in the lower ranks. The epigraphic documents set up by these men, mainly epitaphs and other inscriptions, were naturally also driven by ideology. Funerary and honoriWc inscriptions are best seen as (joint) projects of self-representation, involving usually two parties: the deceased or honorands and the dedicants of the inscription. Messages sent out by mortuary display were varied, but frequently they referred to social status, wealth, and identity. An inscribed epitaph was a deliberate and enduring commemoration of whatever features were seen as the dead person’s most signiWcant characteristics, the features that deWned his social identity. We should be careful, though: epitaphs may not provide an unproblematic guide to the actual status of individuals during life, but were more likely a reXection of how people chose to represent themselves. What those inscriptions do is not just to identify a particular individual, but to place this person in a particular social context. These monuments, then, oVer a useful perspective on the collective selfperception and social aspirations of a particular class of men.57

8 . T H E D E AT H O F A TA X FAR M E R A few of the inscriptions commemorating the Asian tax farmers are simple epitaphs. It is worth considering what such monuments have 57 I have discussed these issues in van Nijf 1997, 27 and 34–8.

298

O. van Nijf

to tell us beyond the identiWcation of the deceased. In the Wrst place it should be remembered that setting up a funerary inscription, even a modest one, was staking out a claim to moderate wealth and respectability. The very poor never received an individually marked grave. The epitaphs of Roman tax collectors contributed to establishing them as a relatively prosperous group.58 Moreover, it is clear that most funerary inscriptions identiWed customs oYcials primarily on the basis of their occupation. In this respect they resembled other so-called banausic occupations, such as those of craftsmen and traders. It is important to realize the social implications of this practice, as identiWcation by job-title represents a break with earlier Greek practice. I have argued elsewhere that this practice gave craftsmen and traders a chance to exploit their occupational titles as emblems of distinction that they could not acquire by political activities.59 Low-ranking customs oYcials may well have employed similar social strategies in their epigraphic self-representation. Often slaves or freedmen, they may have derived a sense of status, or importance, from their connection with the customs service in a way that seems to go beyond simple pride in one’s job. It may be suggested that they valued particularly highly the link it provided with the ultimate source of prestige, the Roman state. It is striking, for example, that some oYcials chose to use Latin (or Latin and Greek) for their epitaph, even though they might have been more familiar with Greek. Among the examples from Asia we Wnd: Isochrysus and Bellicus in Amorium,60 Felix and the anonymous uilicus from Miletus,61 Leo from Apollonia,62 Agathonicus and Amerimnus from Cibyra,63 and Ias and Quintus in Ephesus (the latter even coined a new Latin word, ‘teloniarius’, to make his point).64 Even though the use of Latin was not exceptional in Roman Asia, a Latin epitaph would have stood out suYciently to mark the Roman identity of the deceased.65 58 Patterson 1992, 17. Cf. Gordon et al. 1993, 155: ‘Every funerary epitaph makes reference, among other things, to the fact that other men could not aVord one.’ 59 Van Nijf 1997, 31–69. 60 Appendix no. 3. 61 Appendix nos. 9a–d. 62 Appendix no. 4b. 63 Appendix nos. 8a and 8b. 64 Appendix nos. 5d and 5f. 65 For a convenient survey of bilingual inscriptions from Asia Minor see now Kearsley and Evans 2001.

Social World of Tax Farmers

299

A second social context to which funerary inscriptions draw attention is the family proper. There might be a potential conXict, as a few tax oYcials may have privileged their relations with the familia over those with their blood relatives, and chose to be buried in a collective tomb belonging to the familia of a societas or individual conductor. An example of a locus sepulturae of oYcials has been found in Italy.66 A number of Asian customs oYcials were likewise buried by their colleagues.67 We cannot exclude that this was often a conscious choice, as it was in the case of professional associations, more than necessity. However, more often than not, epitaphs of tax collectors focused on their family relations. The Ephesian teloniarius Quintus buried his own wife,68 and a scrutator of the statio Bilachensis and his wife buried their daughter.69 Another uilicus, Bargathus, was buried by his wife, Hilara.70 Sentimental reasons may not have been the only ones to play a part here. As we saw above, many of the uilici and other employees of the customs service were slaves. In their case the very idea of maintaining family connections was not unproblematic, as the family ties of slaves did not enjoy the same legal status as those of free persons. Contubernium took the place of marriage, and oYcially slaves could not appoint their children as heirs (or at least not without the permission of their master). It is not surprising, then, that the e´lite among the slaves would choose family life as an area particularly suited for negotiating and demonstrating their superior status.71 Imperial slaves for example would often be ‘upwardly nubile’. Slaves in the customs’ service were no exception. Quite a few slave oYcials seem to have had freed or freeborn wives of whom they were deservedly proud.72

66 ILS 1870 from Verona, which was a locus sepulturae of a familia involved in the collection of the uicesima libertatis. 67 Appendix nos. 3, 4b, perhaps 9a. The father and son team from Cibyra managed to have it both ways, nos. 8a and 8b. 68 Appendix no. 5g. 69 AE´ 1974, 485. 70 AE´ 1975, 202. 71 Weaver 1972, 170–95. 72 Cf. ILS 1566, an epitaph set up by Pedia Epictesis for her husband Placidus, an imperial slave who worked as a customs oYcial in Gaul.

300

O. van Nijf

A similar eVect of self-promotion was achieved by usurping another right of free citizens that slaves formally lacked: to make a legally valid will. This is what seems to have happened with a slave uilicus in Miletus who mentions ‘heirs’ in his epitaph, if Peter Herrmann’s reconstruction of the inscription, of which only fragments survive, is correct.73 We are here clearly dealing with a slave whose (self-)perceived utility in the customs service was a source for his social ambitions. The families of such slaves also stood to beneWt: a daughter of a uilicus was proud enough of her father’s connections with the tax system for her to record his occupation on her own epitaph. It is indicative of the kind of social world in which she was moving that she was married to a kapelos, a trader.74 As we saw above, the collection of customs duties gave rise to a considerable bureaucratic organization, which naturally produced a need for increasing diVerentiation among the diVerent grades of the posts.75 We cannot reconstruct a precise career path for the ambitious tax collector: but we know that several tax-collecting slaves were proud enough to have their pseudo-cursus recorded on stone. Eutyches, a uicarius in Noricum, became a contrascriptor at a diVerent station.76 An imperial slave called Felix was a uilicus in one station, but he reminded the reader that he had been promoted from the job of uicarius at another station.77 Such behaviour should be seen as a clear case of ‘imitatio domini’, and was typical of a socially mobile and increasingly self-conWdent class of people, who were fully aware of the impact of their daily activities on life in the provinces.78 The funerary record of the Roman customs oYcials, then, presents a somewhat diVerent picture from that arising from the literary sources: we seem to be confronted with a prosperous and proud group who were willing to exploit their institutional links (the source of their success) as well as their rise in the world and their family connections in their epigraphic self-fashioning. 73 Milet 6. 2, 667. Herrmann suggests that the heredes may have inherited from a possibly freeborn wife, whom he suspects in l. 4. For my purposes this does not matter much. See appendix no. 9d. 74 Naour 1976, no. 29. 75 As also happened among the members of the Familia Caesaris, cf. Weaver 1972, 18, which of course partly overlapped with the customs service. 76 ILS 1857. 77 ILS 1860. 78 Pleket 1971, 245.

Social World of Tax Farmers

301

9 . A N H ON O U RA B L E J O B The crux in dealing with the (presumed) ambitions as expressed through funerary inscriptions is of course to Wnd out how such aspirations were received by society. Was it possible for the tax collectors, slaves and freedmen included, to achieve some sort of social respectability? It has been suggested that tax collectors were not natural candidates for laudatory decrees and honoriWc statues, but the situation may not have been so simple.79 Tax collectors must have had an ambiguous social status. On the one hand their legal status as slaves or freedmen classiWed them in theory below ordinary Roman citizens; on the other hand, their function in the tax system gave them power and this must have aVected their standing in society. The resulting ‘status dissonance’ has been identiWed as a major force behind the incessant epigraphic self-representation of other slaves and freedmen in imperial service.80 Roman senators could well aVord to look down upon these attempts at achieving social respectability. From the perspective of the ordinary provincial, however, the situation may well have seemed diVerent. Tax collection was an important mediating institution between the provincials and the centre in Rome. I would rather expect that, just as with other mediators and power brokers, tax collectors and tax oYcials were natural candidates for receiving honoriWc inscriptions. It is a diVerent matter that not all inscriptions discussed explicitly the exact nature of benefactions granted by the tax collector. The honoriWc language of inscriptions often served to present certain relationships in socially acceptable terms. Inscriptions were not always designed to be speciWc: euphemism and double-speak were part and parcel of the honoriWc vocabulary.81 This does not make our job any easier, however: inscriptions that mention tax collectors are not that uncommon, as we shall see, but they do not always refer to what exactly the collectors had done. A series of inscriptions from Chios is 79 Brunt 1990, 388: ‘We can well understand that they were not often the subjects of laudatory decrees. The collection of taxes did not win men’s hearts. Nor was it anything to boast of.’ 80 Weaver 1972. 81 See van Nijf 1997, ch. 2 for a fuller discussion.

302

O. van Nijf

illustrative of the style. Here we Wnd honoriWc monuments set up by groups of ferrymen who operated between Chios and Erythrae for xenophylakes—customs oYcials—on the island. Most inscriptions ran something like this:82 The ferrymen to Erythrae award a crown to the customs oYcials who were in oYce in the year of Decimus: Aphrodisius, son of Serapion, Dionysius, son of Seleucus, Parasius, son of Heraiscus, for their virtuous attitude (arete) towards them.

It would seem that each team of oYcials received a fresh inscription. Other similar inscriptions for other oYcials: archontes, agoranomoi, and so on, suggest that it was impossible to do business on Chios without the erection of an honoriWc monument. Some tax oYcials of the Roman Empire seem to have followed the same route. An inscription for Iulius Capito, conductor publici portorii Illyrici et ripae Thraciae, records an impressive range of honours from many of the cities in his tax district. These included honoriWc decrees, ornamenta decurionalia, honorary councillorships, appointments of patronage, and honoriWc statues. The honours were a reward for unspeciWed merita, the nature of which may only be surmised. Had he taxed only what was legal? Had he bent the rules a bit, and turned a blind eye? Or perhaps he had behaved very badly indeed, and were the honours designed to prevent worse?83 Public honoriWc inscriptions may well have presented the respectable face of private corruption. If we turn our attention to the district of Asia, we Wnd a number of tax collectors who may Wt this mould. The most famous one is perhaps T. Flavius Sabinus, the father of Vespasian, who was a tax farmer in the province of Asia. Suetonius records that he had received a dedication ŒÆºH ºø) ÆØ: for having been a good tax farmer.84 Another example from Asia is the Ephesian M. Aurelius Mindius Mattidianus Pollio, who was the recipient of two honoriWc inscriptions (by the look of it two versions of the same honours) in 82 IK 1, 74. ƒ æŁ * j N ¯ æ*ŁæÆ çÆjF Ø f ç*jºÆŒÆ f ¼æ ÆÆ j K HØ Kd ˜Œı KØjÆıHØ çæ Ø ÆæÆjø; ˜Ø* Ø jº *Œı; —Ææ Ø ' ˙æÆj Œı; Iæ B , Œ j B N Æ*. The title is unique. These oYcials were ‘in charge of foreigners’. I suppose that this means that they were some sort of customs oYcials. See also van Nijf 1997, 92–3 for discussion and further references. 83 ILS 1465. 84 On this man, see Levick 1999, 4–7.

Social World of Tax Farmers

303

his home town. The honours were apparently in recognition of a splendid career; his tax farming is mentioned only in passing.85 L. Boionius Pansa is another case: his is not formally an honoriWc inscription, but a so-called agoranomos inscription which referred to other activities.86 As the agoranomia was not a particularly highranking function, he may well have chosen to be commemorated for his higher status as tax oYcial. With the case of Crispinus we reach another aspect: the tax collector as civic benefactor. In his case we have two (incomplete) honoriWc inscriptions.87 One other text shows that he had presented himself as a (moderate) benefactor of Ephesus, by the dedication of a statue of Daidalos and Ikaros to Artemis and Trajan in the gymnasium near the harbour (an obvious location for a customs oYcial to work out). It is perhaps not so surprising that relatively high-ranking oYcials would seek and get this type of social recognition, but it is an indication of the importance of their function, and of the proWts of tax collecting, that individuals lower down in the bureaucracy were able to do the same. I have suggested above that the idea of being a small cog in a large institution may have fostered a sense of selfimportance and pride in belonging to the tax-gathering machine. It also seems to have provided some with the ambition and the funds to do more. A striking illustration of the scale of the ambitions of a lower-ranking tax farmer is perhaps the case of Potens, who was active in Iasos during the reign of Claudius. I write ‘perhaps’, because his association with the tax farming business is not certain.88 Most scholars seem to accept that he was a well-to-do slave involved in tax collection in the city. He must have done very well, however, as he received public praise for his role as a euergeteˆs teˆs poleoˆs (benefactor of the city). Various inscriptions record his acts of generosity: including building activities, a gift of 100,000 denarii, an expensive silver phiale oVered to Isis and Sarapis, and the remittance of interest on a loan. Moreover, he seems to have been the founder of a local ‘dynasty’, as honoriWc and funerary texts refer to several members of 85 Appendix no. 5b. 86 Appendix no. 5c. See Garnsey and van Nijf 1998, for a discussion of the agoranomos inscriptions. 87 Appendix no. 5a. 88 Appendix no. 7d.

304

O. van Nijf

his family, who seem to have been absorbed into the local e´lite. Such social mobility is rare, however. Most uilici and other tax oYcials were less ambitious: the euergetism of the customs oYcial was usually directed towards more limited contexts such as cult associations, or their own organization. Kalokairos and Eutyches, slave agents of Mindius Pollio, were probably more representative of their kind.89 They were responsible for restoration works to the customs house, the telonion, and for the gilding of an Aphrodite statue. This act of allegiance to their organization is not unparalleled in the world of the tax farmers, and several low-ranking oYcials are on record who chose the customs house as the focus of small-scale euergetism. An imperial slave, who was a uilicus in Aquileia, had restored and embellished the stationes (oYces) on either side of the emporium.90 And an African inscription records that a slave uicarius involved in tax collection restored and enlarged the telonion, thus displaying his loyalty to the system.91 It should be noted that the pragmateutai of Mindius, who were the benefactors of the telonion, felt it necessary to state their allegiance to their principal, whose career was recorded in some detail, focusing on functions that were relevant to his tax connections. Their own status was apparently enhanced by reference to their boss, and their own self-representation was bound up with the representation of his status. This logic also lies behind honoriWc inscriptions or dedications that were set up by low-ranking tax oYcials to their superiors.92 The eVect would be even more pronounced when the dedicant was able to appeal to a higher authority still. Several inscriptions set up by tax farmers were directly or obliquely dedicated to the emperor. An inscription from Africa manages to maximize the number of claims to be loyal to the system. A uilicus records that he had restored a dedication to Venus Augusta that had originally been set up by the promagistri of his portorium.93 It is clear that monuments such as these could be read from two perspectives. On the one hand they are a declaration of individual loyalty to the system. This might have been a useful move to obtain promotion, but it also brought status to the individuals concerned. 89 Appendix nos. 6a and 6b. 90 AE´ 1934, 234. 91 ILS 1654. 92 AE´ 1981, 24. 93 AE´ 1923, 22.

Social World of Tax Farmers

305

However, there was another eVect: these monuments and their inscriptions were also a reminder—to the provincials—that the presence of tax men (like that of soldiers) was somehow sanctioned by the emperor. Customs oYcials, who were on a daily basis handling documents in the emperor’s name, and who were wielding stamps with the imperial image as a symbol of their petty power, may have used the monuments as a more ostentatious symbolic reference to the larger structures of power of which they were part. These inscriptions, then, have the same eVect as the funerary texts mentioned earlier, as they located the honorand clearly in the context of the ultimate source of status: the Roman state.

1 0 . C O NC LU S I O N I began this paper with the negative image of tax farmers and their personnel that arises from the literary sources. It is clear that members of the e´lite were at pains to dissociate themselves as much as possible from such embarrassing activities. From their perspective the men who stopped the carts, searched the ships, and collected the money were of little or no account. Yet the Roman state clearly depended on the revenues that these men generated, and they are well worth our attention. I have tried to make their activities a bit more visible, using a selection of epigraphical and papyrological sources, which represent, however, only a tip of the iceberg. We have gained, I hope, a small taste of the complexities of the organization, and of the daily activities, of the collectors and administrators. We have also seen that tax farmers may have made their presence felt locally: traders and travellers without suYcient protection were squeezed hard, which would have raised the prices of consumer goods, and made travelling a nuisance. The state may have tried to stop sharp practices, but the Wnancial rewards for the tax farmers may have simply been too great. The evidence suggests that exercise of petty power, and the proWts resulting from it, were major factors in their self-esteem. In their funerary epigraphy tax farmers represented themselves as worthy

306

O. van Nijf

members of society, as family men and reliable oYcials. The image arising from their honoriWc inscriptions works over very similar themes, and manages to make even more of their loyalty to the system. Despite the prejudices of their e´lite bosses, and the grudges of their ‘customers’ in the provinces, tax farmers seem to have been a clearly identiWable, articulate, and self-conWdent group: not afraid to use their position as a source of status and social mobility. The collection of taxes and customs dues was part of the day-to-day reality of life in the Roman provinces. The individuals who carried out these tasks clearly stood out in their own eyes and, judging by the honoriWc monuments they received, in the eyes of their contemporaries. In this light they were not only instrumental to the success of the Roman empire, but they were also among its main beneWciaries.

Appendix List of the known individuals connected with tax farming in the Province of Asia General 1. P. Terentius (1 bc) Job title: promagister of the portoria in Asia. Source: Cic. ad Att. 11. 10. 1. 2. T. Flavius Sabinus (father of Vespasian) Job title: publicanus / º#Å Source: Suet. Vesp. 1. 2. publicum quadragesimae in Asia egit manebantque imagines a ciuitatibus ei positae sub hoc titulo ŒÆºH ºø) ÆØ.

Amorium 3. Isochrysus Job title: (seruus) uilicus. Source: AE´ 1988, 1031. His name seems to suggest that he was a slave; the job title ‘seruus uilicus’ is very common.

Social World of Tax Farmers

307

Apollonia (Pisidia) 4a. T. Flavius Asclepas (1/2 ad) Job title: (procurator) / Kæ. Source: MAMA 4, 113. He was based in Apollonia. He is apparently a freedman, as he does not list a career, but Brunt 1990, 408 suggests that he may have been a knight of Flavian or any later date. 4b. Leo (imp.) Job title: (seruus) uilicus. Source: IK 49, 102. The inscription does not state that he was a slave, but this is implied in the fact that the inscription was set up by his uicarii. The inscription was found in Laodicea on the Lycus. 4c. Anonymi (imp.) Job title: uicarii. Source: IK 49, 102. See previous item.

Ephesus 5a. Aulus .[..]cius Auli f. Palatina Crispinus (1/2 ad, Trajanic) Job title: promagister duum publicorum XXXX portuum Asiae IIII / Iæå#Å

ÆæÆŒ B ºØø Æ . Source: IK 17.1, 3045; IK 12, 517 þ 517a (cf. IK 59, 158). This individual cannot be named with certainty. The editors of IK propose A. A[ni]cius Crispinus, whereas W. Eck (Eck 1997, 113–14) suggests A. L[ar]cius A. f. Pal. Crispinus. He was archoˆnes/promagister, which implies that he was the acting representative of a consortium that had contracted the portorium in Asia, and the uicesima libertatis in a range of provinces. 5b. M. Aurelius Mindius Mattidianos Pollio Job title: (promagister) / Iæå#Å 0 ºØø Æ Source: IK 13, 627; IK 17.1, 3056; OGIS 525. He is usually seen as a promagister, but Brunt 1990, 407, suggests that Mindius Pollio could not have been a promagister of a societas, because he was too busy with his other—oYcial—jobs. Brunt may underestimate, however, the potential of the dependent labour force. Mindius will have

308

O. van Nijf

handled his business interests through his trusted business agents, such as Kalokairos and Eutyches (see below 6a, b). 5c. Lucius Boionius Pansa Flavianus Job title: (procurator) / Kæ ºØø Æ. Source: IK 13, 924. This man appears with this title in a so-called ‘agoranomos inscription’ attached to the South Gate of the agora. This suggests that he was a local man, or at least that he undertook a local career. Agoranomos was not a very high-ranking local function; he may have preferred to be commemorated for his ‘imperial’ function. (See Garnsey and van Nijf 1998, 1 on the agoranomos inscriptions.) 5d. Ias (3 ad?) Job title: Seruus symbolarius. Source: AE´ 1988, 1019. The edd. pr., Knibbe and Iplikc¸ioglu, give the name as ‘Hadis’, and suggested that it was a suitable name for a slave tax farmer ‘in the same way that we might name a nasty dog Satan’. Unfortunately, this colourful name has to be struck oV: Engelmann 1999, 167 has argued that we should read ‘Iadis’ as a genitive of the name Ias. The name refers to the the fact that the slave had been bought on one of Ionia’s many slave markets. It was apparently fairly common to derive a slave’s name from his previous owner, or from the place where he was bought. Varro De Ling. Lat. 8. 21 mentions the names Ion and Ephesius as examples. The title symbolarius is new: a *!º is a small sum (surcharge) to be paid for a receipt (De Laet 1949, 317); a symbolarius was responsible for issuing these receipts. 5e. Ianuarius (3 ad?) Job title: procurator publici XXXX p. Asiae. Source: AE´ 1988, 1019. The procurator of the symbolarius in the previous item. If the identiWcation with PIR 2 I 8 is right, he should be dated to the third century. 5f. Quintus? Job title: teloniarius. Source: IK 16, 2296. The connection with the portorium Asiae is uncertain. Note the use of the calque ‘teloniarius’. 5g. C. Furius Sabinius Aquila Timesitheus (3 ad) Job title: uice-procurator of the portorium in Asia. Source: ILS 1330.

Social World of Tax Farmers

309

An inscription from Lyon (ad 235) honours him as procurator prouinciarum Lugdunensis and Aquitaniae; it also shows that he had served as procurator of Asia and also as the uice-procurator of the uicesima (hereditatium), and of the portorium in Asia. He would later become praetorian prefect (and father-in-law) of Gordian III.

Halicarnassus 6a. Kalokairos (2 ad) Job title: actor (æÆªÆ ı)). Source: OGIS 525. Actor of M. Aurelius Mindius Mattidianos Pollio (see above). He restored the teloˆnion with his colleague Eutyches (cf. next item). Their names suggest that they were Pollio’s slaves. 6b. Eutyches (2 ad) Job title: actor (æÆªÆ ı)). Source: OGIS 525. See previous item.

Iasus 7a. Anonymus (1 ad, 26) Job title: seruus uilicus. Source: IK 28, 415. A fragmented inscription, but the title is clear. 7b. Anonymus Job title: (seruus) uilicus / NŒ. Source: IK 28.2, 417. The text does not state that he was a slave, but the inscription is damaged, and it is very likely that we have to supply this title here also. 7c. Pulcher (1/2 ad) Job title: (uilicus) NŒ. Source: IK 28.2, 416. Pulcher was the NŒ (uilicus) of the koinonoi in Asia. Note his Latin transliterated name. The text does not state that he was a slave. 7d. Potens (1 ad Claudius) Job title: unknown, probably slave oYcial (uilicus ?) (perhaps a publicanus). Source: SEG 43, 717; IK 28.2, 253; cf. IK 28.2, 407. There is some discussion concerning the connection of Potens with the portorium Asiae. The ed. pr. suggests that he was a publicanus of Italian descent, but most scholars think that he was a slave-uilicus

310

O. van Nijf

(cf. SEG ad loc. and AE´ 1993, 1531). The inscriptions from Iasos show that he acted as a benefactor to the city, and that he seems to have been the founder of a kind of ‘dynasty.’ His position in tax farming (and the wealth thus acquired) may have been instrumental in his social mobility and that of his children.

Cibyra 8a. Amerimnus Job title: seruus uilicus. Source: IK 60.1, 107. Amerimnus soc(iorum) p(ublici) / (quadragesimae) p(ortuum) A(siae) ser(uus) uil(icus) / Cibyrae / Agathonico soc(iorum) / p(ublici?) (quadragesimae) / port(uum) Asiae uilico Ciby/rae [vac] Wlio suo / memoriae causa The inscription mentions a father and son, who were both seruus uilicus at the statio at Cibyra. This is the father. It is unclear whether they were active simultaneously, or whether the son ‘inherited’ the job. This text is the Wrst to attest a statio at Cibyra, which was between 40 bc and ad 250 part of Asia. As it was located just on the border with Lycia, a station there made perfect sense (cf. Nicolet 1993), even though the place is not mentioned in the Customs Law. The date of this inscription is uncertain: Corsten suggests late Republican–Trajanic on the basis of the double hypothesis that by then Asia and Bithynia were joined in one district (not the case: see Nicolet 1993) and that by then individual conductores had taken over from societates (which is not certain if we believe Brunt). 8b. Agathonicus Job title: (seruus?) uilicus. Source: IK 60.1, 107. See the previous entry; this is the son. It would seem very likely that the son was a slave like his father, but the text does not mention this; I wonder whether the word seruus may have stood in the gap. If so, we should have a parallel for the awkward formulation in Milet 6.2, 563; see below.

Miletus 9a. Felix Job title: uicarius uilici (or perhaps seruus uilicus). Source: Milet 6.2, 563 (cf. IK 59, 40). Felici Primioni<s> XXXX j port. Asiae uilic. Mil. se j )ºØŒØ —æ Øø ŒØ: j ºØ : Æ NŒ: ØjºÅ: *ºﬁø. There is some debate as to the exact nature of his position. The text as presented by Herrmann leaves open

Social World of Tax Farmers

311

two possibilities. Herrmann suggests that Felix was a seruus uilicus, whose (former) owner, Primio, was one of the partners in the societas: Felici Primioni(s), XXXX j port(uum) Asiae uilic(o) Milet(i) ser(uo) j )ºØŒØ, —æ Øø; ŒØðøHÞ j 0 ºØðøÞ; j Æ NŒðﬁøÞ Øjº)ðﬁøÞ, *ºﬁø). This is, however, epigraphically awkward. Most scholars prefer to follow the older reading: uilic(i) Milet(i) ser(uo) and NŒðıÞ Øº)ðﬁøÞ *ºﬁø (cf. CIL 3, 447 and ILS 1862). This would make Felix the uicarius of the slave uilicus Primio. 9b. Primio? Job title: (seruus) uilicus (or perhaps socius). Source: Milet 6.2, 563. On the accepted reading of the inscription, Primio was the (slave) uilicus at Miletus. If we were to follow Herrmann, Primio, as the owner of Felix, may have been a socius. 9c. Tyranius? Job title: unknown connection (or perhaps a uicarius). Source: Milet 6.2, 563. Very dubious case: If Felix was a seruus uicarius, Tyranius may have been his own slave-uicarius. However, as it is more likely that Felix was a uicarius himself, Tyranius’s connection with the portorium remains uncertain. Herrmann restores Turanios, which was the reading by Fredrich on which CIL 3, 447 was based. Other editions prefer the female name Tyrannis (cf. CIL 3, Suppl. 7149 and ILS 1862). 9d. Anonymus? Job title: seruus uilicus ? Source: Milet 6.2, 667. A fragment of a funerary inscription that was, in the interpretation of Herrmann, set up by an unknown [ser(uus) uil(icus) ? Milet]i. The reading is not certain, however. Herrmann suggests a dating from Hadrian onwards.

General Bibliography Ando, C. (2000). Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley. Andreau, J. (1987). La vie financie`re dans le monde romain. Les me´tiers de manieurs d’argent (IV e sie`cle av. J.-C.–III e sie`cle ap. J.-C. BE´FAR 265. Rome, 1987. —— (1999). Banking and Business in the Roman World, tr. J. Lloyd. Cambridge. Aubert, J.-J. (1994). Business Managers in Ancient Rome: A Social and Economic Study of Institores 200 B.C.–A.D. 250. Columbia Stud. in the Class. Trad. 21. Leiden. —— (ed.) (2003). Taˆches publiques et enterprise prive´e dans le monde romain. Univ. de Neuchaˆtel. Recueil de travaux publ. par la Faculte´ des Lettres et Sciences hum. 52. Geneva. Badian, E. (1983). Publicans and Sinners. Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. Ithaca and London. —— (1997). Zo¨llner und Su¨ndner. Unternehmer im Dienst der ro¨mischen Republik. Darmstadt. Bagnall, R. S. (1975). ‘Ptolemaic Foreign Correspondence in P.Tebt. 8’, JEA 61: 168–80. —— (1976). The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. Columbia Stud. in the Class. Trad. 4. Leiden. Balland, A. (1981). Fouilles de Xanthos VII. Inscriptions de l’e´poque impe´riale du Le´toˆon. Inst. fr. d’E´tudes anat. d’Istanbul. Paris. Banaji, J. (2001). Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance. Oxford. Barbieri, G. and Tibiletti, G. (1957). ‘Lex’ in E. de Ruggiero (ed.), Dizionario epigrafico di antichita` romana 4. Rome, 702–93. Bean, G. E. (1954). ‘Notes and Inscriptions from Caunus’, JHS 74: 85–105. Belke, K. (1996). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9. Paphlagonien und Honorias. Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9. Vienna. Bell, M. (2005). ‘Bankers’ Houses in Soluntum and Agrigentum’, in S. Mols and E. Moormann (eds.), Omni pede stare. Saggi architettonici e circumvesuviani in memoriam Jos de Waele. Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 9. Naples, 93–100.

General Bibliography

313

Be´renger, A. (1993). ‘La commission financie`re extraordinaire de 62 ap. J.-C.’, ME´FRA 105: 75–101. Bernhardt, R. (1971). Imperium und Eleutheria. Die ro¨mische Politik gegenu¨ber den freien Sta¨dten des griechischen Ostens. Hamburg. Biscardi, A. (1964). ‘Locatio’ in Diz. Epigr. 4: 1429–48. Bodel, J. (1994). Graveyards and Groves: A Study of the Lex Lucerina. Cambridge, Mass. Bona, F. (1992). ‘Le ‘‘societates publicanorum’’ e le societa` questuarie nella tarda Reppublica’, Imprenditorialita` e diritto nell’ esperienza storica (Erice, 22–25 novembre 1988). Palermo, 13–62. Bonfiglioli, B. (1996). ‘A proposito della ‘‘lex locationis’’ di Pozzuoli e del supplizio della croce’, Index 14: 301–19. Boon, C. (1988). ‘Counterfeit coins in Roman Britain’, in R. Reece and J.-P. Casey (eds.), Coins and the Archaeologist. 2nd edn., London, 102–88. Borchhardt, J. (1975). Myra: eine Lykische Metropole in antiker und byzantinischer Zeit. Ist. Forsch. 30. Berlin. Boswinkel, E. (ed.) (1942). Einiger Wiener Papyri. Papyri lupiensia 2. Leiden. Bounegru, O. (1999). ‘Das ‘‘Monumenum Ephesenum’’ und die Abgrenzung des histrianischen Zollgebietes. Versuch einer Parallele’, in H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger (eds.), 100 Jahre o¨sterreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Akten ¨ AW Phil.-hist. Kl., Denkschr. 260. Vienna, des Symposions Wien 1995, 1. O 87–91. Bowersock, G. W. (2000). Review of Haensch (1997), ZSS rom. Abt. 117: 501–4. Brandt, H. (1987). ‘Die Zollinschriften von Myra und Kaunos und ein neues Zeugnis aus Xanthos’, EA 10: 91–5. Braudel, F. (1972–3). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. 2 vols., London. Bre´laz, C. (2003). ‘Publicite´, archives et se´quence documentaire du contract public a` Rome’, in Aubert 2003, 27–56. Brennan, T. C. (1992). ‘Sulla’s Career in the Nineties: Some Reconsiderations’, Chiron 22: 103–58. —— (2000). The Praetorship in the Roman Republic. 2 vols., Oxford. Bringmann, K. (1983). ‘Edikt der Triumvirn oder Senatsbeschluss? Zu einem Neufund aus Ephesos’, EA 2: 47–75. Brunt, P. A. (1956). ‘Sulla and the Asian Publicans’, Latomus 15: 17–25 [¼Brunt (1990a) 1–8]. —— (1966). ‘Procuratorial Jurisdiction’, Latomus 25: 461–87 [¼Brunt (1990a) 163–87]. —— (1990a). Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford. —— (1990b). ‘Publicans in the Principate’, in Brunt (1990a) 354–432. Burton, G. P. (1976). ‘The Issuing of mandata to Proconsuls and a New Inscription from Cos’, ZPE 21: 63–8.

314

General Bibliography

Cagnat, R. (1882). Les impoˆts indirects chez les Romains. Paris. Camodeca, G. (1995). ‘Nuovi dati sulla struttura e funzione documentale delle tabule cerate nella prassi campana’, in H. Solin et al. (eds.), Acta Colloquii Epigraphici Latini: Helsingiae 3.–6. sept. 1991 habiti. Commentationes human. litt. 104. Helsinki, 59–77. —— (1996). ‘La ricostruzione dell’e´lite municipale ercolanese degli anni 50–70: problemi di metodo e risultati preliminari’, CCG 7: 167–78. Cancelli, F. (1960). Studi sui censores e sull’arbitratus della Lex contractus. Pubbl. dell’Ist. di dirritto rom. e dei diritti dell’Oriente mediterraneo 34. Milan. Carlsen, J. (1995). Vilici and Roman Estate Managers until AD 284. Anal. Rom. Inst. Danici. Suppl. 24. Rome. Carnabuci, E. (1996). I luoghi dell’administrazione della giustizia nel Foro di Augusto. Ist. Adriatico per la storia del principato fra Adriano e Diocleziano, 2. Naples. Carrelli, S. (1996). ‘Alcune osservazioni sul Portorium Asiae’, in B. Vergilio (ed.), Studi ellenistici 8. Pisa, 175–89. —— (1997). ‘Dogane, merci e prezzi nella nuova iscrizione di Efeso’, RIN 98: 123–37. Christol, M. and Drew-Bear, Th. (1987). Un castellum romain pre`s d’Apame´e ¨ AW, phil. hist. Kl. Denkschr. Erga¨nzungsband zu den Tituli de Phrygie. O Asiae Minoris 12. Vienna. Cimma, M. R. (1981). Ricerche sulle societa` di publicani. Pubbl. dell’Ist. di dirritto rom. e dei diritti dell’Oriente mediterraneo 59. Milan. Corbier, M. A. (1974). L’Aerarium Saturni et l’aerarium militare. Administration et prosopographie se´natoriale. CE´FR 24. Rome. [¼Corbier, Aerarium]. —— (1975). L’Aerarium militare. Me´moire de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome (unpublished) [¼Corbier, Aerarium militare, unpubl. 1975]. —— (1977). ‘L’Aerarium militare’, in Arme´es et fiscalite´ dans le monde antique. Paris, 14 –16 octobre 1976. Colloques nationaux du CNRS 936. Paris, 97–234 [¼Corbier, Aerarium militare]. —— (1984). ‘De Volsinii a` Sestinum: cura aquae et e´verge´tisme municipal de l’eau en Italie’, RE´L 62: 236–74. —— (1987). ‘Pre´le`vement, redistribution et circulation mone´taire dans l’Empire romain (Ier–IIIe sie`cles)’, in J.-Ph. Genet and M. Le Me´ne´ (eds.), Gene`se de l’E´tat moderne. Pre´le`vement et redistribution. Actes du coll. de Fontevraud, 15–16 novembre 1984. Paris, 15–29. —— (1991). ‘Cite´, territoire et fiscalite´’, in Epigrafia. Actes du coll. intern. en me´moire de Attilio Degrassi. Rome, 27–28 mai 1988. Rome, 637 [¼‘City, Territory and Fiscality’, in J. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Town and

General Bibliography

315

Country. Leicester–Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 2. London, 1991, 216–17]. —— (1994a). ‘A propos de la Tabula Siarensis: le Se´nat, Germanicus et la domus Augusta’, in J. Gonza´lez (ed.), Roma y las provincias: realidad administrativa e ideologica imperial (siglos I a. C.–I d.C ). Actes du colloque de Se´ville, 23–26 novembre 1992. Madrid, 39–85. —— (1994b). ‘L’aerarium militare sur le Capitole’, in Cahiers du groupe de recherches sur l’arme´e romaine et les provinces, 3. Paris, 147–60. —— (1997). ‘Pallas et la statue de Ce´sar. Affichage et espace public a` Rome’, RN 152 (Hommage a` Andre´ Chastagnol): 11–40. —— (2001). ‘Le ‘‘Principatus’’ de Jean Be´ranger a` la lumie`re des de´couvertes e´pigraphiques re´centes’, in Recherches re´centes sur le monde helle´nistique. Colloque scientifique intern. organise´ a` l’occasion du 60e`me anniversaire de Pierre Ducrey, 20–21 novembre 1998. Lausanne, 309–20. —— (2006). Donner a` voir, donner a` lire. Me´moire et communication dans la Rome ancienne. Paris. Corsten, Th. (1988). ‘Daskyleion am Meer. Ein Corpusculum der Inschriften und Nachrichten u¨ber die Stadt’. EA 12: 52–77. —— (1990). ‘Caesarea Germanice’, EA 15: 19–42. —— (2002). Die Inschriften von Kibyra. I. Die Inschriften der Stadt und ihrer na¨heren Umgebung. Inschriften griechischer Sta¨dte aus Kleinasien 60. Bonn [¼I.Kibyra]. Crawford, M. H. (1985). Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic: Italy and the Mediterranean Economy. London. —— (ed.) (1996). Roman Statutes. BICS Suppl. 64. 2 vols., London [¼Crawford, RS]. —— (1996). ‘Lex’ (1) in OCD3 848–9. Crook, J. (1967). The Law and Life of Rome. London and New York. Daube, D. (1956). Forms of Roman Legislation. Oxford. Degrassi, A. (1952). I Fasti consolari dell’Impero Romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo Cristo. Sussidi eruditi 3. Rome. De Laet, S. J. (1949). Portorium. E´tude sur l’organisation douanie`re chez les Romains, surtout a` l’e´poque du Haut-Empire. Werken uitgegeven door de Faculteit van de Letteren en Wijsbegeerte 105. Bruges. Delplace, C. (1977). ‘Publicains, trafiquants et financiers dans les provinces d’Asie Mineure sous la Re´publique, Kte`ma 2: 233–52. De Romanis, F. (1998). ‘Commercio, metrologia, fiscalita`. Su P. Vindob. G 40.822 verso’, ME´FRA 110: 11–60. Dignas, B. (2002). The Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford.

316

General Bibliography

Domergue, C. (1994). ‘Production et commerce des me´taux dans le monde romain: l’exemple des me´taux hispaniques d’apre`s l’e´pigraphie des lingots’, in Epigrafia della produzione e della distribuzione. Actes de la VIIIe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’e´pigraphie du monde romain. CE´FR, 193. Rome, 61–91. Dreher, M. (1996). ‘Die lex portorii Asiae und der Zollbezirk Asia’, EA 26: 111–27. —— (1997). ‘Das Monumentum Ephesenum und das ro¨mische Zollwesen’, MBAH 16.2: 79–96. Drew-Bear, Th. (1972). ‘Deux de´crets helle´nistiques d’Asie Mineure’, BCH 96: 435–72. Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1982). The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies. 2nd edn., Cambridge. —— (1990). Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy. Cambridge. —— (1994). Money and Government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge. Eck, W. (1981). ‘Miscellanea prosopographica’, ZPE 42: 227–56. —— (1990). ‘Cn. Calpurnius Piso, Cos. Ord. 7 v. Chr. und die lex portorii provinciae Asiae’, EA 15: 139–46. —— (1997). ‘Zu kleinasiatischen Inschriften (Ephesos; Museum Bursa)’, ZPE 117: 107–16. —— (1998a). ‘Der Kaiser, die Fu¨hrungsschichten und die Administration des Reiches’ in R. Frei-Stolba and M. A. Speidel (eds.), Die Verwaltung des ro¨mischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit: ausgewa¨hlte und erweitete Beitra¨ge. Arbeiten zur ro¨mischen Epigraphik und Altertumskunde. 2 vols., Basel, 2, 3–145 [tr. as ‘Government and civil administration’, CAH2 11 (Cambridge, 2000) 195–292]. —— (1998b). ‘Administrative dokumente: Publikation und Mittel der Selbstdarstellung’, in R. Frei-Stolba and M. A. Speidel (eds.), Die Verwaltung des ro¨mischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit: ausgewa¨hlte und erweitete Beitra¨ge. Arbeiten zur ro¨mischen Epigraphik und Altertumskunde. 2 vols., Basel, 2, 359–81. —— , Caballos, A., and Ferna´ndez, F. (1996). Das senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre. Vestigia 48. Munich. —— and Mu¨ller-Luckner, E. (eds.) (1999). Lokale Autonomie und ro¨mische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert. Munich. Edelstein, L. and Kidd, I. G. (1972–89). Posidonius 1: The Fragments. Cambridge Texts and Commentaries 13. 2 vols., Cambridge. Engelmann, H. (1985). ‘Die Zollinschrift von Myra’, ZPE 59: 116–27. —— (1999). ‘Notizen zu ephesischen Inschriften’, ZPE 126: 163–8.

General Bibliography

317

Engelmann, H. and Knibbe, D. (1986). ‘Das Monumentum Ephesenum. Ein Vorbericht’, EA 8: 19–32. —— and —— (1989). Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia. Eine neue Inschrift aus Ephesos, EA 14: 1–206. Fayer, C. (1976). Il culto della dea Roma. Origine e diffusione nell’impero. Collana di saggi e ricerche 9. Rome. Ferrary, J.-L. (2000a). ‘Les gouverneurs des provinces romaines d’Asie Mineure (Asie et Cilicie) depuis l’ organisation de la province d’Asie jusqu’a` la premie`re guerre de Mithridate (126–88 av. J.-C.)’, Chiron 30: 161–93. —— (2000b). ‘Chapitres tralatices et re´fe´rences a` des lois ante´rieures dans les lois romaines’, in A. Fraschetti (ed.), La commemorazione di Germanico nella documentazione epigrafica. Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Cassino 21–24 ottobre 1991. Saggi di storia antica, 14. Roma, 69–93. —— (2003). ‘Re´flexions re´centes sur la loi du portorium d’Asie’ (communication a` la SFER du 18 janvier 2003), Cahiers du Centre Glotz 14: 314–15. Foss, C. (1997). ‘Strobilos and Pylae: Two Ports of Bithynia’, EA 28: 85–95. France, J. (1999). ‘Les revenus douaniers des communaute´s municipales dans le monde romain (Re´publique et Haut-Empire)’, in Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in Occidente ed in Oriente, Actes de la Xe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’e´pigraphie du monde romain, Rome, 27–29 mai 1996. CE´FR 25. Rome, 95–113. —— (2001). Quadragesima Galliarum. L’organisation douanie`re des provinces alpestres, gauloises et germaniques de l’Empire romain (Ier sie`cle avant J.-C.–IIIe sie`cle apre`s J.-C.). CE´FR 278. Rome. French, D. (1981). Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor I: The Pilgrim’s Road. BAR Intern. Ser. 105. Oxford. —— (1991a). ‘Sites and Inscriptions from Phrygia, Pisidia and Pamphylia’, EA 17: 51–68. —— (1991b). ‘C. Atinius C.f. on a Coin of Ephesus’, in C. S. Lightfoot (ed.), Recent Turkish Coin Hoards and Numismatic Studies. BIAA Monograph 12; Oxbow Monograph 7. Oxford, 201–3. Frend, W. H. C. (1956). ‘A Third-Century Inscription relating to angareia in Phrygia’, JRS 46: 46–57. Frier, B. W. (1985). The Rise of the Roman Jurists: Studies in Cicero’s pro Caecina. Princeton. Garnsey, P. and van Nijf, O. (1998). ‘Controˆle des prix du grain a` Rome et dans les cite´s de l’Empire. Les archives perdues’, in C. Moatti (ed.), La me´moire perdue. Recherches sur l’administration romaine. CE´FR 243. Rome, 303–15.

318

General Bibliography

Gatti, G. (1975). ‘Nerone e il progetto di riforma tributaria del 58 d.C.’, PP 30: 41–7. Gauthier, Ph. (1976). Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xenophon. Paris. Ginouve`s, R. et al. (1998). Dictionnaire me´thodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine, III. Espaces architecturaux, baˆtiments et ensembles. CE´FR 84. Rome. Giuliani, C. F. and Verduchi, P. (1993). ‘Basilica Iulia’, in E. M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 1. Rome, 177–9. Gonza´lez, J. (1986). ‘The lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law’, JRS 76: 47–243. Gordon, R., Beard, M., et al. (1993). ‘Roman inscriptions 1986–90’, JRS 83: 131–58. Greenidge, A. H. J. (1901). The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time. London. Griffin, M. T. (1984). Nero: The End of a Dynasty. London. Groag, E. (1936). ‘Prosopographische Bemerkungen IV’, WS 54: 192–7. Grosso, G. (1966). Obbligazioni: contenuto e requisiti della prestazione, obbligazioni alternative e generiche. 3rd edn., Turin. Guarino, A. (1980). ‘La formazione dell’editto perpetuo’, in ANRW II.13. Berlin and New York, 62–102. Habicht, Ch. (1969). Altertu¨mer von Pergamon VIII 3. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Berlin. —— (1975). ‘New Evidence on the Province of Asia’, JRS 65: 64–91. Haensch, R. (1997). Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und Provinialzverwaltung in der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit. Ko¨lner Forschung 7. Mainz am Rhein. Hall, A. S. (1986). ‘The Milyadeis and their Territory’, AS 36: 137–57. Hallof, K. (1994). ‘Die Inschrift von Skaptopara. Neue Dokumente und neue Lesungen’, Chiron 24: 405–41. Hammond, M. (1938). ‘Curatores tabularum publicarum’, in Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of E. K. Rand. New York, 124–6. Harrison, R. M. (1988). ‘Amorium’, AS 38: 175–84. Hauken, T. (1995). ‘Reflections on New Readings in the Skaptopara Inscription (IGBulg. IV, 2236)’, SO 70: 82–94. —— (1998). Petition and Response: An Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors 181–249. Bergen. Heil, M. (1991). ‘Einige Bemerkungen zum Zollgesetz aus Ephesos’, EA 17: 9–18. Herrmann, P. (1975). ‘Milesischer Purpur’, MDAI(I) 25: 141–7. —— (1989). ‘Rom und die Asylie griechischer Heiligtu¨mer: eine Urkunde des Dictators Caesar und Sardeis’, Chiron 19: 127–64.

General Bibliography

319

Herrmann, P. (1994). ‘Milet unter Augustus: C. Iulius Epikrates und die Anfa¨nge des Kaiserkults’, MDAI(I) 44: 203–36. —— (1996). ‘Neues vom Sklavenmarkt in Sardeis’, Arkeoloji Dergisi 4: 175–87. Hinard, F. and Dumont, J.-C. (2003). Libitina. Pompes fune`bres et supplices en Campanie a` l’e´poque d’Auguste. E´dition, traduction et commentaire de la Lex Libitinae Puteolana. Paris. Hopkins, K. (1991). ‘Conquest by Book’, in M. Beard et al., Literacy in the Roman World. Ann Arbor, 133–58. Horsley, G. H. R. (1989). A Fishing Cartel in First-Century Ephesos. New Docs. Illustrating Early Christianity 5, The Anc. Hist. Documentary Centre, Macquarie University. Sydney, 95–114. Hultsch, F. (1982). Griechische und ro¨mische Metrologie. 2nd edn., Berlin. Hurley, D. W. (ed.) (2001). Divus Claudius. Cambridge. I¸sik, C. (1994). Das Brunnenhaus an der Hafenagora. Kaunische Forschungen 2.2. Ankara. Ivanov, V. (1910). De societatibus vectigalium publicanorum populi Romani. St Petersburg. Jones, A. H. M. (1964). The Later Roman Empire 284–602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey. 3 vols., Oxford. Jones, C. P. (1987). ‘Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity’ JRS 77: 139–55. Kaser, M. and Hackl, K. (1997). Das ro¨mische Zivilprozeßrecht. 2nd edn., Handb. d. Altertumswiss. X, 3. 4. Munich. Katzoff, R. (1980). ‘Sources of Law in Roman Egypt: The Role of the Prefect’, in ANRW II.13. Berlin and New York, 807–44. Kearsley, R. and Evans, T. V. (2001). Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia: Mixed Language Inscriptions and Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Interaction until the End of AD III. Bonn [¼IK 59]. Keil, J. (1908). ‘Zur Topographie des ionischen Ku¨ste su¨dlich von Ephesos’, ¨ AI 11: Beibl. 135–68. JO —— (1955). ‘P. Vedius Pollio’, RE 8A: 568–70. Kelly, J. M. (1966). ‘The Growth Pattern of the Praetor’s Edict’, The Irish Jurist 1: 341–55. Klingenberg, G. (1977). Commissum. Der Verfall nichtdeklarierter Sachen im ro¨mischen Zollrecht. Grazer rechts- u. staatswiss. Studien 35. Graz. —— (1979). ‘Das abgabenrechtliche Reformedikt des Jahres 58 n. Chr.’, in B. Sutter (ed.), Reformen des Rechts. Festschrift zur 200-Jahr-Feier der Rechtswissenschaftlichen Fakulta¨t der Universita¨t Graz. Graz, 57–74. —— (1992). ‘Die venditio ob tributorum cessationem facta’, ZSS 109: 350–410.

320

General Bibliography

Kloft, H. (1970). Liberalitas Principis. Herkunft and Bedeutung: Studien zur Prinzipatsideologie. Ko¨lner hist. Abhandlungen 18. Cologne. Knibbe, D. (1981). ‘Quandocumque quis trium virorum rei publicae constituendae . . . Ein neuer Text aus Ephesos’, ZPE 44: 1–10. —— (1987). ‘Zeigt das Fragment IvE 13 das Steuertechnische Inventar des fiscus Asiaticus?’, Tyche 2: 75–93. —— (1988). ‘Legum dicendarum in locandis uectigalibus omnis potestas’, ¨ AI 58: 129–34. JO —— (2000). ‘Lex Portorii Asiae. Versuch einer Wiedergewinnung des lateinischen Originaltextes des Zollgesetzes der ro¨mischen Provinz Asia ¨ AI 69: 147–73. (˝ˇˇ ¯¸ˇ `&`)’, JO Kniep, F. (1896). Societas publicanorum. Jena. Krummrey, H. and Panciera, S. (1980). ‘Criteria di edizione e segni diacritici’, Miscellanea. Rome. Kunkel, W. and Wittmann, R. (1995). Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der ro¨mischen Republik. Handb. d. Altertumswiss. X, 3. 2. Munich. Lamberti, F. (1993). Tabulae Irnitanae. Municipalita` e ‘ius Romanorum’. Naples. Le Gall, J. (1979). ‘Les habitants de Rome et la fiscalite´ sous le Haut-Empire’, in H. van Effenterre (ed.), Points de vue sur la fiscalite´ antique. Paris, 113–26. Lehmler, C. and Wo¨rrle, M. (2002). ‘Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi III: Aizanitica Minora I’, Chiron 32: 571–646. Lenel, O. (1927). Edictum perpetuum: ein Versuch seiner Wiederherstellung. 3rd edn., Leipzig. Leuregans, P. (1977). ‘L’origine administrative du terme ‘‘locatio’’ dans la ‘‘locatio-conductio’’ romaine’, Eos 65: 303–22. Levick, B. (1967). Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford. —— (1990). Claudius. London. —— (1999). Vespasian. London. Lewis, N. (1995). ‘Three Textual Notes on the New Monumentum Ephesenum’, ZPE 107: 248. —— (1996). ‘On Roman Imperial Promulgations’, SCI 15: 208–11. Linderski, J. (1984). ‘Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: The genera militiae and the Status of Octavian’, JRS 74: 74–80 [repr. in Roman Questions (Stuttgart, 1995) 147–53, with addenda 642–4]. Lintott, A. W. (1990). ‘Le proce`s devant les recuperatores d’apre`s les donne´es e´pigraphiques jusqu’au re`gne d’Auguste’, RD 68: 1–11. —— (1992). Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic: A New Edition, with Translation and Commentary, of the Laws from Urbino. Cambridge.

General Bibliography

321

McGing, B. C. (1995). ‘The Ephesian Customs Law and the Third Mithradatic War’, ZPE 109: 283–8. Magie, D. (1950). Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. 2 vols., Princeton. Mango, C. (1994). ‘The Empress Helena, Helenopolis and Pylae’, T&MByz 12: 143–58. Marek, Ch. (1988). ‘Karien im Ersten Mithradatischen Krieg’, in P. Kneissl and V. Losemann (eds.), Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift fu¨r Karl Christ zum 65. Geburtstag. Darmstadt, 285–308. ¨ ra und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord Gal—— (1993). Stadt A atia. Istanbuler Forschungen 39. Tu¨bingen. —— (2006). Die Inschriften von Kaunos. Vestigia 55. Munich [¼Marek, I.Kaunos]. Mason, H. J. (1974). Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis. Amer. Stud. in Papyr. 13. Toronto [¼Mason, GT]. Matthews, J. F. (1984). ‘The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East’, JRS 74: 157–80. Mellink, M. J. (1970). ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’, AJA 74: 157–78. —— (1972). ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’, AJA 76: 165–88. Mennella, G. (2000). ‘Q. Bittius Proculus curator viae novae faciendae usque Puteolos?’, Rivista di Studi Liguri 66: 155–67. Merkelbach, R. (1990). ‘Hat der Bithynische Erbfolgekrieg im Jahr 74 oder 73 begonnen?’, ZPE 81: 97–100. Merola, G. D. (1996). ‘Il Monumentum Ephesenum e l’organizzazione territoriale delle regioni asiane’, ME´FRA 108: 263–97. —— (2001). Autonomia locale. Governo imperiale: Fiscalita` e amministrazione nelle province asiane. Pragmateiai 5. Bari. Mileta, Ch. (2002). ‘The King and his Land: Some Remarks on the Royal Area (basilike chora) of Hellenistic Asia Minor’, in D. Ogden (ed.), The Hellenistic World: New Perspectives. Swansea, 157–75. Millar, F. G. B. (1964). ‘The Aerarium and its Officials under the Empire’, JRS 54: 33–40. —— (1977). The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC–AD 337 ). London. —— (1993). The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337. Cambridge, Mass. Milner, N. P. (1998). An Epigraphical Survey in the Kibyra-Olbasa Region Conducted by A. S. Hall. Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor 3; BIAA Monograph 24. London. Mitchell, S. (1993). Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols., Oxford. —— (1994). ‘Three Cities in Pisidia’, AS 44: 129–48. —— (1999). ‘The Administration of Roman Asia, 133 BC to AD 250’, in Eck and Mu¨ller-Luckner (1999), 17–46.

322

General Bibliography

Mitchell, S. (2000). ‘Ethnicity, Acculturation and Empire in Roman and Late Roman Asia’, in Mitchell and Greatrex (2000) 117–50. —— (2002). ‘In search of the Pontic community in antiquity’, in A. K. Bowman et al., Representations of Empire. Rome and the Mediterranean World. Proceedings of the British Academy 114. Oxford, 35–64. —— and Greatrex, G. (eds.) (2000). Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity. London and Swansea. Moatti, C. (1997). La raison de Rome. Naissance de l’esprit critique a` la fin de la Re´publique (II e–I er sie`cle avant Je´sus-Christ). Paris. Mommsen, Th. (1887–8). Ro¨misches Staatsrecht. 3rd edn., 3 vols., Leipzig. —— (1889–96). Le Droit public romain, tr. P. F. Girard, Manuel des Antiquite´s romaines 1–7. Paris. Mottershead, J. (ed.) (1986). Suetonius, Claudius. Bristol. Mourgues, J. J.-L. (1995). ‘Le pre´ambule de l’e´dit de Tiberius Julius Alexander, te´moin des e´tapes de son e´laboration’, BCH 119: 415–35. Naour, C. (1976). ‘Inscriptions et reliefs de Kibyratide et de Cabalide’, ZPE 21: 133–5. Neesen, L. (1980). Untersuchungen zu den direkten Staatsabgaben der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit (27 v.Chr.–284 n.Chr.). Antiquitas Reihe I, Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte 32. Bonn. Nicolet, C. (1979). ‘Deux remarques sur l’organisation des socie´te´s de publicains a` la fin de la Re´publique romaine’, in H. van Effenterre (ed.), Points de vue sur la fiscalite´ antique. Publication de la Sorbonne. Se´rie ‘E´tudes’ 14. Paris, 69–95 [¼Censeurs 297–319]. —— (1984). ‘Pline, Paul et la the´orie de la monnaie’, Ath. NS 62: 105–35 [¼Censeurs 123–45]. —— (1990). ‘A propos du re`glement douanier d’Asie: de`mosioˆnia et les pre´tendus quinque publica Asiae’, CRAI: 675–98 [¼Censeurs 335–52]. —— (1991). ‘Le Monumentum Ephesenum et les dıˆmes d’Asie’, BCH 115: 465–80 [¼Censeurs 353–65]. —— (1993). ‘Le Monumentum Ephesenum et la de´limitation du portorium d’Asie’, ME´FRA 105: 929–59 [¼Censeurs 367–84]. —— (1994a). ‘Dıˆmes de Sicile, d’Asie et d’ailleurs’ in Le ravitaillement en ble´ de Rome et des centres urbains des de´buts de la Re´publique jusqu’au HautEmpire. Actes du colloque international de Naples, 14–16 fe´vrier 1991. Collection du Centre Jean Be´rard 11; CE´FR 196. Rome, 215–29 [¼Censeurs 277–93]. —— (1994b). ‘L’Italie comme cadre juridique sous le Haut-Empire’, in L’Italie d’Auguste a` Diocle´tien, Actes du Colloque de Rome, 25–28 mars 1992. Rome, 377–98 [¼Censeurs 105–19]. —— (1999). ‘Le Monumentum Ephesenum, la loi Terentia-Cassia et les dıˆmes d’Asie’, ME´FRA 105: 191–215.

General Bibliography

323

—— (2000). Censeurs et publicains: E´conomie et fiscalite´ dans la Rome antique. Paris [¼Censeurs]. van Nijf, O. M. (1997). The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 17. Amsterdam. Nolle´, J. (1982). Nundinas instituere et habere. Epigraphische Zeugnisse zur Einrichtung und Gestaltung von la¨ndlichen Ma¨rkten in Afrika und in der Provinz Asia. Subsidia epigraphica 9. Hildesheim, Zu¨rich, and New York. —— (1991). ‘Pamphylische Studien 11 and 12’, Chiron 21: 331–44. ¨ gu¨n, B. (1978). ‘Excavations of Caunus’, in E. Akurgal (ed.), The ProceedO ings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara– Izmir 23–30/IX/1973, I. Ankara, 421–26. Oliver, J. H. (1963). ‘Texts A and B of the Horothesia Dossier at Istros’, GRBS 6: 143–56. —— (1989). Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 178. Philadelphia [¼Gk. Const.]. Ørsted, P. (1985). Roman Imperial Economy and Romanization: A Study in Roman Imperial Administration and the Public Lease System in the Danubian Provinces from the First to the Third Century A.D. Copenhagen. Panciera, S. and Vauchez, A. (eds.) (2004). Libitina e dintorni. Libitina e i luci sepolcrali, le Leges Libitinariae Campane Iura Sepulcrorum: vecchie e nuove iscrizioni. Atti del ’XI Rencontre franco-italienne sur l ’e´pigraphie. Rome [¼Libitina e dintorni]. Patterson, J. (1992). ‘Patronage, collegia and Burial in Imperial Rome’, in S. Bassett (ed.), Death in Towns: Urban Response to the Dying and the Dead, 100–1600. Leicester, 15–27. Pen˜a, J. T. (1998). ‘The Mobilization of State Olive Oil in Roman Africa: The Evidence of Late 4th-c. ostraca from Carthage’, in J. T. Pen˜a, J. J. Rossiter, and A. Wilson (eds.), Carthage Papers: The Early Colony’s Economy, Water Supply, a Public Bath, and the Mobilization of State Olive Oil. JRA Suppl. 28. Portsmouth, RI, 117–238. Pflaum, H.-G. (1975). ‘Le bureau de la Quadragesima Portuum Asiae a` Apollonia de Pisidie’, ZPE 18: 13. Piacentini, P. (1994). ‘Lo Scavo 1993. Relazione preliminare’, in S. Pernigotti and M. Capasso (eds.), Bakchias I. Rapporto preliminare della campagna di scavo del 1993. Monogr. di SEAP, Ser. Maior 1. Pisa, 39–70. —— (1996). ‘Excavating Bakchias’, in D. M. Bailey (ed.), Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Classical Colloquium of the Dept. of Gr. And Rom. Ant., British Museum, 1–4 Dec., 1993. JRA suppl. 19. Ann Arbor, 57–60. Platner, S. B. and Ashby, T. (1929). A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Oxford and London.

324

General Bibliography

Pleket, H. W. (1958). ‘Note on a Customs Law from Caunus’, Mnemosyne Ser. 4, vol. 11: 128–35. —— (1971). ‘Sociale stratificatie en sociale mobiliteit in de Romeinse keizertijd’, TG 84: 215–51. Pleket, H. W. (1989). Lemma, Text and Notes in SEG 39, 367–97, no. 1180. Pomeroy, S. B. (1984). Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra. New York. Price, S. R. F. (1984). Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge. Purpura, G. (1985). ‘Il regolamento doganale di Cauno e la lex Rhodia in D. 14, 2, 9’, ASGP 38: 273–331. Raggi, A. (2006). Seleuco di Rhosos. Cittadinanza e privilegi nell’Oriente greco in eta` tardo-repubblicana. Studi Ellenistici XVIII. Pisa. Rathbone, D. W. (1996). ‘The Imperial Finances’, CAH2 X, 309–23. —— (2000). ‘The ‘‘Muziris’’ Papyrus (SB XVIII 13167): Financing Roman Trade with India’, in Alexandrian Studies II in Honour of Mostafa el-Abbadi. BSAA 46: 39–50. Rawson, E. (1985). Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. London. Reinmuth, O. W. (1936). ‘Two Prefectural Edicts concerning the publicani’, CP 31: 146–62. Reynolds, J. M. (1982). Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavation of the Theatre at Aphrodisias conducted by Professor Kenan T. Erim, Together with Some Related Texts. JRS Monographs 1. London [¼Reynolds, Aphrodisias]. Ricl, M. (1997). The Inscriptions of Alexandreia Troas. Inschr. griech. Sta¨dte aus Kleinasien 53. Bonn [¼I.Alexandreia]. Robert, J. and Robert, L. (1940–1965). Hellenica. Recueil d’e´pigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquite´s grecques. 13 vols., Limoges and Paris [¼Hell.]. —— and —— (1989). Claros I. De´crets helle´nistiques. Fasc. 1. Paris. Robert, L. (1939). ‘Hellenica’, RPhil 13: 97–217. —— (1964). ‘L’e´dition et l’index commente´ des epitaphes’, in N. Firatli, Les Ste`les fune´raires de Byzance gre´co-romaine. Bibliothe`que arch. et hist. de l’Inst. franc¸ais d’Istanbul 15. Paris. —— (1968). ‘Enterrements et e´pitaphes’, AC: 406–48 [¼OMS 6 (1989) 81–124]. —— (1979). ‘Un voyage d’Antiphilos de Byzance. Anthologie Palatine, X, 17. Ge´ographie antique et byzantine’, JdS: 257–94 [¼OMS 7 (1990) 427–64]. —— (1980). A travers l’Asie Mineure. Poe`tes et prosateurs, monnaies grecques, voyageurs et ge´ographie. BE´FAR 239. Paris. Rostovtzeff, M. I. (1902). Geschichte der Staatspacht in der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit bis Diokletian. Philol. Suppl. 9. Leipzig.

General Bibliography

325

Salomies, O. (1991). ‘Zu einigen Stellen im Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia’, ZPE 86: 184–6. Sa´nchez-Ostiz Guttie´rrez, A. (1999). Tabula siarensis: Edicio´n, Traduccio´n y Comentario. EUNSA. Pamplona. Scha¨fer, C. (1991). ‘Zur `ˆ& von Sklaven in der lex portorii provinciae Asiae’, ZPE 86: 193–8. Scherrer, P. (1990). ‘Augustus, die Mission des Vedius Pollio und die Artemis ¨ AI 60: 87–101. Ephesia’, JO Schnegg-Ko¨hler, B. 2002. Die augusteischen Sa¨kularspiele. Archiv fu¨r Religionsgeschichte 4. Munich. Schwarz, H. (2001a). ‘Anmerkungen zu der Zollinschrift aus Myra’, EA 33: 15–38. —— (2001b). Soll oder Haben? Die Finanzwirtschaft kleinasiatischer Sta¨dte in der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit am Beispiel von Bithynien, Lykien und Ephesos (29 v. Chr.–284 n. Chr.). Bonn [¼Finanzwirtschaft]. Schwertheim, E. (ed.) (1994). Forschungen in Galatien. Asia Minor Studien 12. Bonn. Sherk, R. K. (1969). Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore. Sijpesteijn, P. J. (1987). Customs Duties in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 17. Zutphen. Sirks, B. (1991). Food for Rome: The Legal Structure of the Transportation and Processing of Supplies for the Imperial Distributions in Rome and Constantinople. Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 34. Amsterdam. Solin, H. (1991). ‘Zum Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia’, ZPE 86: 183. Spagnuolo Vigorita, T. (1996). ‘Lex portus Asiae : un nuovo documento sull’appalto delle imposte’, in I rapporti contrattuali con la pubblica amministrazione nell’ esperienza storico-giuridica, Torino, 17–19 ottobre 1994. Naples, 115–90 [pagination of the offprint, 3–74]. —— (1999a). ‘La giuridizione fiscale tra Augusto e Adriano’, in F. Milazzo (ed.), Gli ordinamenti giudiziari di Roma imperiale. Princeps e procedure dalle Leggi Giulie ad Adriano. Atti del Convegno internazionale di diritto romano e del III Premio romanistico ‘G. Boulvert’, Copanello, 5–8 giugno 1996. Naples. —— (1999b). ‘Il Monumentum Ephesenum e l’appalto del dazio asiatico. Con qualche osservazione sulle citta` privilegiate’, Ciudades Privilegiadas en el Occidente Romano. Disputacio´n de Sevilla. Seville, 187–206. —— and Mercogliano, F. (1992). ‘Tributi (diritto romano)’, Enciclopedia del Diritto 27, 45. Varese, 85–105.

326

General Bibliography

Spitzl, Th. (1984). Lex Municipii Malacitani. Vestigia 36. Munich. Steinwenter, A. (1928). ‘Manceps’, RE 14.1: 987–97. Strobel, K. (1994). ‘Galatien und seine Grenzregionen. Zu Fragen der historischen Geographie Galatiens’, in Schwertheim (1994) 29–64. Suolahti, J. (1963). The Roman Censors: A Study on Social Structures. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 117. Helsinki. Syme, R. (1939). ‘Observations on the Province of Cilicia’, in W. M. Calder (ed.), Anatolian Studies presented to William Hepburn Buckler. Publications of the University of Manchester 265. Manchester, 299–332 [¼RP 1 (Oxford, 1979), 120–48]. —— (1948). ‘Consulates in Absence’, JRS 48: 1–9 [¼RP 1 (Oxford, 1979) 378–99]. —— (1979–91). Roman Papers, ed. E. Badian (1–2), A. R. Birley (3–7). 7 vols., Oxford [¼RP]. —— (1961). ‘Who was Vedius Pollio?’, JRS 51: 23–30 [¼RP 2 (Oxford, 1979) 518–29]. —— (1982). ‘Partisans of Galba’, Hist. 31: 460–83 [¼RP 4 (1988) 115–39]. —— (1995). Anatolica: Studies in Strabo, ed. A. R. Birley Oxford. Takmer, B. (2007). ‘Lex portorii provinciae Lyciae. Ein Vorbericht u¨ber die Zollinschrift aus Andriake von neronischer Zeit’, Gephyra 4. Teixidor, J. (1984). Un port romain du de´sert. Palmyre et son commerce d’Auguste a` Caracalla. Semitica 34. Paris. Threatte, L. (1980). The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions 1. Phonology. Berlin and New York. Tortoriello, A. (2004). I fasti consolari degli anni di Claudio. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche: Memorie, Serie 9, Vol. 17, Fasc. 3. Rome. Uro¨gdi, G. (1968). ‘Publicani’, RE Suppl. 11: 1184–1208. Ve´lissaropoulos, J. (1980). Les Naucle`res grecs. Recherches sur les institutions maritimes en Gre`ce et dans l’Orient helle´nique. Hautes E´tudes du monde gre´co-romain 9. Geneva and Paris. Vittinghoff, F. (1953). ‘Portorium’, RE 22.1: 346–99. Vitucci, G. (1953). Il Regno di Bitinia. Studi pubblicati dall’Ist. italiano per la storia antica. Rome. Walbank, F. W. (1983). ‘Via illa nostra militaris: Some Thoughts on the Via Egnatia’, in H. Heinen et al. (eds.), Althistorische Studien Hermann Bengtson zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von Kollegen und Schu¨lern. Historia Einzelschriften 40. Wiesbaden, 131–47. —— (1986). ‘The Via Egnatia: Some Outstanding Problems’, Ancient Macedonia. IV: Papers read at the Fourth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki (21–25 September 1983). Thessalonica, 673–80.

General Bibliography

327

Wallace, S. L. (1938). Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Princeton University Studies in Papyrology 2. Princeton. Wankel, H. (1991). ‘Zum Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia §1’, ZPE 85: 40. Watson, A. (1970). ‘The Development of the Praetor’s Edict’, JRS 60: 105–19. Weaver, P. R. C. (1972). Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves. Cambridge. Winfield, D. (1976). ‘Northern Routes across Anatolia’, AS 26: 151–66. Woodhead, A. G. (1997). The Athenian Agora. XVI. Inscriptions: The Decrees. Princeton. Wo¨rrle, M. (1975). ‘Zwei neue griechische Inschriften aus Myra zur Verwaltung Lykiens in der Kaiserzeit’, in Borchhardt (1975) 286–300. —— (1989). Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oenoanda. Vestigia 39. Munich. —— (2000). ‘Pergamon um 133 v. Chr.’, Chiron 30: 543–76. —— and Wurster, W. W. (1997). ‘Dereko¨y: eine befestigte Siedlung im nordwestlichen Lykien und die Reform ihres do¨rflichen Zeuskultes’, Chiron 27: 393–469. Youtie, H. C. (1973). ‘Publicans and Sinners’, in Scriptiunculae I. Amsterdam, 554–78.

Greek Index This is an index to the Greek text of the Customs Law inscription, rather than to Greek words cited elsewhere in the volume. The index takes the form of a normalized word list, differentiating under subheadings inflected and variant forms and some patterns of usage. No attempt has been made to produce a comprehensive guide to usage at a phrase level. References are to line numbers; where a word occurs more than once in a singe line, only one reference is given, although restored instances are noted separately. Square and angled brackets enclosing numbers indicate, respectively, that the word has been restored or inserted by the editors. Where a word not included in the present text of the inscription has been suggested as a reading or restoration by previous editors or commentators and is noted in the apparatus criticus, a line number reference preceded by ‘app.’ is given. a

Æ 4, app. 7 Æapp. 7 @budor !*ﬁø [24] Icah¸r IªÆŁF 69 IªÆŁB app. 114 Icoq› IªæÆ 91 Icoq›fy IªæÇ Ø app. 48 › Iªæ Æ app. 22 MªæÆ 47 Icwih›kassor IªåØŁÆº

ı 34 ±cy ¼ªﬁ Å 77 ¼ªÅÆØ app. 11 ¼ªø Ø 59, 60, 62, 76 IcycÞ Iªøª) [56], 86, 132 Iªøª){Ø} 88 IªøªB app. 117

A ‘ dqaluteiom ´ æÆı øØ 24 A ‘ dqalutij¸r æÆıØŒB 90 aNq›qiom ÆNææØ 142 ÆNæÆæı [7], 103, [108], 111, 125 ÆNæÆæøØ [101] HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæøØ 143 ai“qe†y ÆƒæBÆØ app. 67 aNte†y ÆNÅ ø app. 3 ÆNÅ Æø 129 A ‘ jeqqþmior ˆÆE Œ ææ#Ø —æŒº [136] A ‘ ken›mdqeia º Ææ ﬁ Æ [24]
Æ 89
HØ [26]

Greek Index Ikk› Iºº app. 32 Ikk›ssy Iºº ÆØ 106, [110], 123, 135, 143 IkkoehmÞr Iºº ŁH 116 ±kkohe [52] ±kkor ¼ººı app. 132 , 41, 43, [45], 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, [52], 52, 55, 56, 57, [59], 59, [60], 60, [62], 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, [74], [75], 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, [82], 84, 85, 87, 97, 100, 105, 106, 111, 114, [115], 117, 118, 120, [121], 125, 127, [135], 138, 142 Im› 31, 33 Im›cy E Iªı Ø app. 8 Im›dowom IÆåØ app. 107, 110, 124 Imap¸cqavom 16, [21], 53 Im›pqanir IæÆ Ø 100 ImdqeEor Iæ ø [12] ±metor K øØ IøØ [32], 36, [72] ImÞq Iæ 69 ±mhqypor ¼Łæø 17, 19 Imßgli IBŒ 129, 130 @mtamdqor æøØ 24 Imtib›kky IØ! !ºÅ [2], app. 3 IØ! !ºÅÆ app. 6 Imticq›vy IªæÆł 129, 130 Imtimautgr ´ IØÆ*Å 64

329

Imtistqatiþtgr IØ æÆØ#Å 64 A ‘ palgm¸r ÆÅB 91 a”pan 16, [19], 50, 122 a”par ±ø 76 Ip¸ 39, 108, 112, [126], 127, 134, 141, 144 IpocqavÞ IªæÆç 42 IªæÆçB 31 Ipocq›vy Iªæç ŁÆØ 28, [29], 29, 71 IªæÆç Łø 13, [14], 22, [27], [45], 50, 86, 118, 120 IªæÆç Łø Æ 41 IªæçÅÆØ 30 IªæłÆ ŁÆØ [49], 70 IªæłÅÆØ app. 33, [41], 50, 51, 52, 87 Ipodglßa IÅÆØ 63 Ipoijßa IØŒÆ 105 A ‘ poijßa Sebastc Tqþar ØŒÆ !Æ B æø 104 A ‘ pokkymßa ººøÆØ æe HØ ' ıŒı

ÆØ 23 Ipoqßa IæØH app. 73 Iposte† kky I Æº app. 143 Iposte† qgsir I æ ø [16] I æ) Ø 74 Ipostqe† vy I æ çø 15 Ipote† qy 39 ±pyhem 51 Iqcuqiom ´ Iæª*æØ 48 ±qcuqor Iæª*æı 61, 66 Iqihle† y IæØŁÅŁBÆØ 46 MæØŁÅı 61

330

Greek Index

Iqihl¸r IæØŁ 46 IqotBq IæBæ Ø app. 72 ±qotqom IææøØ 72 IqwÞ Iæå) 137, 141 Iæå) 41, 120 Iqwieqeur ´ IæåØ æø ª ı [5] A ‘ sßa Æ 8, 117 Æ 5, 7, [8], [9], [70], 73, 75, 129, [137], 140 ÆØ 96 ﬁ Æ [94] K Æ N Æ 73, 75 K Æ N ' #Å 78 @spemdor øØ [26] Iss›qiom I

æØÆ 79 @ssor @

øØ 24 A ‘ stuqia ´ ıæØ 24 Isvakßfy I çÆºØÇ Łø 110 I çÆº Æ ŁÆØ 107 M çÆºØ ı 99 A ‘ t›qmea Ææﬁ Æ 24 Ite† keia Iº ØÆ 97, 130 Iº ØÆ app. 129 I º ﬁ Æ 131 A ‘ tt›keia Æº ﬁ Æ [26] @ttakor @Æº 68 ºøØ 69 aPhe† mtgr ÆPŁÅ 109, 123 ÆPŁÅØ [107] Askor `sº [144] `hºøØ 3

APqÞkior ˆœ `Pæ)ºØ 75 ˆœ `Pæ)ºØ ˚Æ 73 aPt¸hi 40 aPtojq›tyq `PŒæøæ 128 `PŒææ 92 ÆPŒææ 5 aPt¸r ÆP 17, 19, [85], 85, [122] ÆP) 78, [137] ÆP 74 ÆP 108, 112, 126, 128, 133, 135, 139, 143 ÆP) [139] ÆPF 13, 14, [17], 17, 19, [28], 118, 129, app. 141, 145 ÆPB [49] ÆPHØ 17, 19, 134, 140 ÆPﬁB 41 ÆP [97], 98, 99, 101, 114, 117, [121], 122, 123, [124], 128 ÆPH [28], 153 H ÆPH 6 ÆPE 43, [141] Ivaiqe† y IçÆØæ ø [21] Ivgce† olai IçÅªıøØ 148 ±wqi 111, 125, [146] b

! 7 e ! 109, [111] Baqcukia ´ ´ÆæªıºØ 25 basikeßa !Æ Øº Æ 27 basikeur ´ !Æ Øº * 68 !Æ Øº E 69 basikij¸r !Æ ØºØŒB 2 !Æ ØºØŒ* 68 Beihumßa ´ ØŁıÆ 8 boukolai ´ !*º ŁÆØ 52

Greek Index !*ºÅÆØ 30, [45], 47, [51] !*ºøÆØ [34], 34 bubkßom !ı!ºø 63, 76 Buf›mtioi ´ıÇÆø 8 c 7 C›zor ˆœ 73, 75, 88, 135 ˆÆ%ı 102, 107 Cakatßa ˆÆºÆÆ 8 C›kkor ˆºº [113] C›qcaqor ˆÆæªæøØ 24 Ce† kkior ¸*ŒØ ˆººØ 84 Ce† limor ˆØ [144] ˆ øØ [4] Ceqlamij¸r ˆ æÆØŒF [5], 146 ceyquwij¸r ª øæıåØŒ 78 ceyquwiom ´ ª øæ*åØÆ 81 cB ªB 78 ªB app. 16, [17], 18, 80 ŒÆa ªB 7, [11], 11, 15, 26, 30, 45, 54, 104, 121 ªB 78 cßcmolai Kª 69 ªÅÆØ [47], 52, 55, 74, app. 114, 116, 147 ª Å 83 ª ª 57 CmaEor ˆÆE 84, 115, 136 ˆÆı [125] cmþlg ª#ÅØ 81 cq›lla ªæÆÆ 77 ªæÆø 63

331

cqallatovuk›jiom ªæÆÆçıºÆŒøØ 2 cq›vy ª ªæÆÆ 77 ª ªæÆı [99] d [5], 7 dajtukiom ´ ÆŒıºø 63 ˜›qdamor ˜Ææﬁø [24] ˜asjukeiom ´ ˜Æ Œıº øØ 23 de† [16], 46, [47], 55 18, 21, 32, 34, [37], 50, 52, 99 de† ja 134 dej›tg ŒÆ 72 ˜ejidiam¸r ˜ ŒØØÆF 6 de† ktor ºø 2, 63, [77] deuteqor ´ KŒ ıæı 17, 19 ıæÆØ 100 de† wolai ÅÆØ 100 de† y E [42], 42, [73], app. 73, 83, 96 ﬁ Å [33], [35], 46, 48, [50] ) Ø [29], 70 dglaqwij¸r ÅÆæåØŒB K ı Æ [5], 92 dBlor )ı [10], 59, 61, 64, app. 73, 81, 92, 100, 105, [145] )øØ [107], 110, 124 BØ 89, 92, 94 )ø 27 dgl¸sior Å Ø [59] Å øØ app. 32, 71 Å ÆØ 61 Å ﬁ Æ 102 Å ø 2, [3], [4], 59, 60, 144, 147, 152

332

Greek Index

dglosiþmgr Å Ø#Å [57], 68, 75, [96], 99, 100, 101, 110, [120], 151 Å Ø#Å 73, 113, app. 116, [118], 150, app. 151 Å Ø#ı 56 Å Ø#ÅØ [84], 98, app. 116 Å Ø#ﬁ Å 69, 72, [119] dglosiymßa Å ØøÆ 106, 111, 125, 127, app. 134, 136, 138, 140, app. 141, [145], 149 Å ØøÆ 4, 7, app. 7, 132 dgm›qiom ÅæØ 99 ÅæØÆ 99 ÅÆæø 12, 97 di› Ø 74 Ø s 43 di›cmysir Øªø Ø app. 117, 152 diajqßmy ØÆŒ Œæ Łø 58 di›stgla Ø ÅÆ 38 diat›ssy ØÆ Æª [30], 42 diatqe† vy ØÆæçøÆØ 64, 77 diatqovÞ ØÆæç) 60 dßdyli ØH Ø 93 ØÆØ 12, [18], [20], 58, 83, 86, app. 132 ŁÆØ 72 Øø app. 16, 18, 20, 62, [66], 67, app. 83, 85, [88], 123 Øø{Ø} 11 Øø [79] Øø Æ 84 Ø Łø app. 66, [76], 78, [83] Ø ŁøfØg 74 # ı Ø 95 Ł) ÆØ 98 HØ 17 ﬁH [19], 122 ÆØ 97

dieukute† y Ø ıºı E 101 digmejÞr ØÅ ŒB 5 ØÅ ŒH 6 diijamodote† y ØØŒÆ ø 102, 124 di%stgli Ø ÅŒø 40 dijaiodosßa app. 117 dßjaior ŒÆØ [114] dijaiodote† y ØŒÆØF 116 dijastÞr ØŒÆ F [117] ØŒÆ H app. 117 dßjg ØŒH [92] dioßjgsir ØØŒ) ø 89, 90, [91], 91 ØØŒ) ø 92, [94] dipkoFr ØºF 80 ﬁH ØºﬁH 87 dßr app. 73 dßwa 63 d¸cla ªÆ ıªŒº)ı 5 ŒÆa ªÆ ıªŒº)ı 9

ıªŒº)ı ªÆØ 92, 97 d¸kor ºı ÅæF 28, 60, [64] ºøØ ÅæHØ [21], 80, 150, 153 Dolßtior ı ˜Øı ˜ ŒØØÆF 6 d¸sir 117 Doujßmior `sº ˜ıŒØ ˆØ [144] `hºøØ ˜ıŒØøØ ˆ øØ 3 doukg ´ *ºÅ 117, 121 *ºÅ app. 122 doFkor Fº 117, 121 *ºı app. 122 *ºı app. 68 *ºø 76

Greek Index duo ´ * 43, 99 ı E 48 e 7 K›m [16], app. 16, [18], 18, [20], 21, 22, 30, 33, 34, [37], 40, app. 41, [42], 42, 46, 47, 55, [55], 60, 79, 87, 113, 115, [116], 119, app. 121, 147, 151 e“aut¸r Æı 52 ’ccaia KªªÆø 107 KªÆØ 102, 106, 110, 124 ’ccistor ªªØ Æ 41, 43, 49, [106], 109, [115], 120, 126, [135], 137, [142], 142 ’ccqavor Kªæçø 63 Kccq›vy Kªª ªæÆ [3] Kccu›y Kªªı Æ ŁÆØ app. 146 Kccugsir ´ Kªª*Å Ø app. 145 Kccuteqor ´ Kªª* æ 35 KªªıæøØ 36, 37 Khe† ky Łºﬁ Å app. 48, [56] Ł º) ﬁ Å 44 ’hmor ŁÅ 69, [89], 92, 94 KŁH 27 eN [33], 91, [92], [94], 150 eNdoß N &ÆıæØÆØ 103, 137 NH &ÆıÆæø 108, 112, [126], 127, 134, 141, app. 145 NH &ıºø 1 NE ˇŒø!æÆØ 100, 101 eYjosi 109 eNjost¸r NŒ 20 eNlß K Ø [8] N Ø [9], 89, 91, 94

333

ø [22], [39], 47, 53, 55, 56, 58, 71, 80, 81, [87], 88, 115, 117, 121, [152] ø{Ø} 114 qØ [30], 67, 80, app. 143 ﬁ q 28, [36], 40, 42, 57, 64, 77, 118 t Ø 43 ÆØ [32], 38, [85], 85, 132 ÆØ app. 9, [138] K øØ [69] K ø 123, 126, [142] q 137 eNr [13], app. 14, 15, [20], app. 44, 57, 60, 65, 70, 73, 75, 78, 82, 84, 117, 142 ex r , 31, 99 Æ 32, 33 35 35 eNs›cy N ª Ø [41], [44], 44, 50 N ª ŁÆØ [14] N Æªø 22, 119 N ªﬁ Å [15], app. 16, 22, 45, 49, 82, 85, [86], 117 N ªÅÆØ 10, [74] N ªø 26, 30 › N ªø [29] e N ªÆ [48] a N Æª Æ app. 131 N )ªÆª 121 N ÆªÆª E 29, 45 N Æªªﬁ Å 75, 121 N ÆåŁ 131, 132 N Åª 66 eNsacycÞ N Æªøª) 50 N ÆªøªB 7, 9, app. 16, [18], 49, 82, 83, 99, 104 eNsacþciom 122 eNsb›kky N !Æººø 54 eNsekaumy ´ N ºÆ*ﬁ Å 45 N ºÆ*ÅÆØ [11] eNsjolßfy N ŒÇ ŁÆØ app. 14 N ŒÇﬁ Å 45, 85, 86

334

Greek Index

N ŒÇÅÆØ [11] N ŒØÇı 17 eYspqanir Y æÆ Ø 102 N æ ø åæØ [34], 96 åæØ N æ ø app. 28 eNspq›ssy N æÆ

ø 96, 133 eNsve† qy N çæ Ø [51] N åŁ 131, [133] eYte [86] eYyha N#ŁÆ Ø 63 Kj KŒ 2, [4], 17, 18, 19, 20, 33, [82], 83, [116] K 5, 6, [14], 49, 73, 75, 78, 85 e”jastor Œ Å [40] ,ŒÆ 71, 101, [126], 146 Œ ı [109], [112], 112, 123, 126, 128, 133, 135, 143 Œ Å 12, 98 Œ øØ 33, 37 Œ ÅØ app. 37, 70 e“jat¸m 37, 79 Kjb›kky KŒ!Æººø 54 KŒ!ººﬁ Å 15 Kjcq›vy KŒª ªæÆ [2], app. 3 KjeE app. 32, 50 KjeEmor KŒ E 132 KŒ E 47, 52, 55, [58] KŒ ı 28, 51, 146 KŒ Å 60, 85 KŒ øØ 41, 43, 49, 65 KŒ ÆØ app. 131, 132 Kjjolßfy KŒŒÇÅÆØ 11 KŒŒØÇı [19] Kjkalb›my K ØºÅÆ app. 6 Kjlish¸y K Łø Æ 73, 75 KŒØ ŁH ÆØ 10

Kjlßshysir KŒØ Ł# ø 29, 42 Kjmeuy ´ KŒ ıø [21] Kjt¸r [12], 38, [54], app. 94 Kjve† qy KŒçæﬁ Å 15 ‘ E kaßa ¯ ºÆÆ app. 131 ¯ ºÆﬁ Æ 24 ’kaiom KºÆı 72 Kkeuheqor ´ Kº ıŁæı 34, [43] Kº ıŁæø 27, [40] ' E kkgsp¸mtior ' ¯ ººÅ Æ 90 Klb›kky K!Æºº Łø 51, 53, 54 K!Æº ŁÆØ 52 K!ºÅÆØ 49 Km [2], 2, [3], app. 8, 9, 10, 22, 26, [27], 29, [31], 31, app. 32, [33], 33, [36], 36, 37, 41, [43], 56, 63, 65, 69, 70, 71, [72], 78, 94, 95, [96], 98, 105, 109, 114, 118, 119, 120, 132, 134, 142 e“ mde† jator Œø 145 e” mejem 59, app. 59, 60, [61], 64, 67, 73 KmemÞjomta 36 Kmewuq›fy K åıæ Æ 115 Kmewuqiom ´ app. 114 Kme†wuqom Kåıæ 114 K å*æı 56, 58, 81, 86, 88 Kmiaut¸r ŒÆŁ ,ŒÆ KØÆı 146 Kmoije† y KØŒF app. 148 ’mowor 80 Kmt¸r 8, app. 27, 48, 93, [95], 104 Knacoq›fy K Æªæ ﬁ Å 125 › c ºøÆ K Æªæ Æ 124 › K ÅªæÆŒ# 108 › e º K ÅªæÆŒ# 29

Greek Index Kn›cy K ª Ø [44], 44 K ª ŁÆØ [13] K Æªø 22, 51, 53, [54], 54, 55, 119 K ªﬁ Å app. 15, 18, 22, 45, 82, 117 K ªÅÆØ 10, 11, [74], 78 K ªø 30 K ªÆ [48] K )ªÆª [122] K ÆªÆª E 45 K Æªªﬁ Å 75, 121 K Åª 66 KnacycÞ K ÆªøªB 7, 9, 18, 19, 49, [83], 83, 99, 104 Knaiqe† y K ÆØæ Łø 51, 53, 54, [55] K ÆØæBÆØ 49 K º ŁÆØ 45, 52 Knekaumy ´ K ºÆ*ﬁ Å 45 K ºÆ*ÅÆØ 11 ’nesti Ø app. 73, app. 143 K EÆØ 123 K ø 72, [110], 135 K ÆØ 106, app. 110, 143 e“nBr 108, 112, 126, 127, 134, 136, 139, [142] Knousßa K ı Æ [5], 93 K ı ÆØ 81 ’ny 89, 90, [91], 91 Kp›mesir K Ø 47 Kp›my 151 Kpaqweßa KÆæå Æ app. 14, app. 44, 117, app. 148 KÆæå Æ app. 7, app. 8, [9], 32, 34, 39, 43, 148 KÆæå ÆØ 94, 96 Kpß K 121 K 16, 27, [28], 34, 44, 74, 108, 123, 127, 134, [135], [142] Kç 106 Kç zØ 31

335

Kç ﬁz [35], 35, 38, [48], 57, 74, 137, 141 Kpibebaßysir ŒÆ KØ! !Æø Ø 4 Kpide† wolai KØ ÆØ 95 Kpijqßmy KŒæ Ø 128, 130 Kpßjqisir KŒæØ Ø [147] KØŒæ Ø app. 6, 69, 102, 107, 110, 124 Kpikuy ´ KØºıŁ)ø app. 115 KØºıŁﬁB 115 KpilekgtÞr KØ ºÅÆ H Å ø æ ø 144 KØ ºÅH 6 KØ ºÅH H Å ø æ ø 2, [3], 152 H KØ ºÅH H æ ø Å ø [147] KØ ºÅÆE H Å ø æ ø [4] Kpim¸lia KØØÆ ØÅ ŒB 5 KØø ØÅ ŒH 6 Kpitqe† py KØæÆÆØ app. 10 Kpßtqopor Kæ 40, 57, 120 Kæ 113, [118] KØæı 27, [150] KØæøØ 13, 14, [17], 148 Kpoßjiom KŒØ 31, [35], 36, 71, [119] KØŒøØ 36 KŒØÆ 67 Kqcokabe† y KæªºÆ!) ﬁ Å 111 KæªºÆ!) Æ 100, 102 MæªºÆ!ÅŒ Ø 81 ‘ Equhqaß ¯æıŁæÆE [25] e” teqor , æÆ app. 73 æÆØ 94 æı 15

336

Greek Index

’tor ŒÆŁ ,ŒÆ 101, app. 112, [126] ŒÆ app. 7 ı 4, [109], [112], 112, 123, 126, 128, 133, 135, 143, app. 154 Ø 100 HØ ÆPHØ Ø 17, 19 Å app. 7, 108, 134, [142] Å{Ø} 127 Ø 136 Ø 101, 112, 126, 139 ePkute†y Pºı ø{Ø} 87 Pºı) Ø 48 EPle†mgr ¯Pı 68, 69 ‘ Eve†sior ¯ç Æ 89 ‘ Evesor ¯ç øØ 25 ’wy å Ø 47 Kåø 31 Kåø Æ 32, [34], 37, 38 åﬁ Å 120 åø Ø 35, 60, 93 åØ 41 å 68 f 1 fþmmuli Çø*ı Ø 8 X 9, [10], [12], 13, 14, 15, app. 16, [17], 18, 22, [27], 27, 30, 31, 35, [43], 44, 45, 49, 50, [52], 52, 56, [57], 57, {57}, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 69, [71], 72, 74, 75, 76, 81, [82], 82, 83, 84, 85, 92, 102, 106, 113, [117], 117, [118], 121, [125], 129, 130, 131, [133], 145, <150>, 150, 152, 153 g 5 g“celomßa N c + æÆ +ª Æ app. 14 g“ki›qior +ºØÆæﬁø app. 74

g“leEr +H 106 g“le†qa +æÆ app. 54 + æH 48, 130 +æÆØ [106], 109, [114], app. 131, 132, 134, 142 g“le†teqor + æÆ app. 14 g”lisur lØ ı 99 g”ttym 39 h 5 h›kassa ŒÆa ŁºÆ

Æ 7, 9, 10, [15], app. 16, [17], 18, 22, 30, 45, <54>, 104, 121 ŁÆº

ÅØ 70 ŁÆº

ﬁ Å 33 hak›ssior ŁÆºÆ

øØ 20, 122 heEor Ł ı 59 hBkur ŁÅº ø [12] ‘ Iamou›qior & ÆıæØÆØ 103, 137 & ÆıÆæø 108, 112, [126], 127, 134, [142], 145 . Iasor & øØ 25 Ydior NÆ [60], 62, 65, 82, 84 Nø 93, [95] i“eq¸m ƒ æHØ 31, [36], 71 ' Ieqem pqer tHi P¸mtyi [23] ig 6 i” ma 93, [105], [122] ‘ Ioukior ´ &ıºÆ 2 Ysor K Y Å 16, 121 i” stgli K ) Æ app. 68 ¥ Æ ŁÆØ 46

Greek Index Nswuy ´ N åıø 16 Nwhur ´ NåŁ*Ø 20, 122 jah› 96 jahßstgli ŒÆŁØ ø 96 jah¸kou 47 jaß [2], 5, 7, 9, [11], 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, [27], [29], 29, 30, [31], 34, 35, [41], 44, 47, [49], 50, [53], 55, [56], [58], 58, 59, [60], 60, 61, 62, 63, [66], [68], 72, [75], [76], 76, 77, [81], 82, 86, 88, [89], 89, 90, [91], 91, 94, 96, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, [114], 116, 119, 121, [122], 124, [126], app. 131, 134, [139], 140, 142, [146], [147] JaEsaq ˚ÆE Ææ 128 ˚Æ Ææ 4, 92 Jais›qeia ˚ÆØ Ææ ﬁ Æ ˚*ﬁ Å app. 25 Jak›mdai ˚ÆºÆH app. 145 ˚ÆºÆH Æ%ø 6 Jakpouqmior ´ ¸ *ŒØ ˚Æº*æØ — ø 109 ¸*ŒØ ˚Æº*æØ — ø [144] ¸ ıŒı ˚Æºıæı — ø 111 ¸ıŒøØ ˚ÆºıæøØ — øØ 3 Jakwgd¸mioi ˚ÆºåÆø 8 JakwÞdym ˚ÆºåÆ 13, 14 ˚Æºå)Ø 23 Jamßmior ¸ *ŒØ ˚ÆØ ˆºº [113] Jappadojßa 8 jaqpeuy ´ ŒÆæ * ŁÆØ 73, 100, [128], 134, 139, 141, 145 ŒÆæ ı Łø 68, 106, 108, 112, 126, 137 ŒÆæ *ÅÆØ 105 ŒÆæ ıŁÅ Å 125

337

jaqp¸r ŒÆæH 72 jat› ŒÆŁ 101, [126], 146 ŒÆ 4, 5, 7, 9, [10], 10, [11], 11, [15], 15, app. 16, [17], 18, 22, 26, 28, 30, 40, [42], 45, 48, [50], <54>, 54, 56, 70, 78, 87, 96, 104, 105, 108, 112, 114, 121, 126, 128, [130], 132, 133, 135, [137], 139, 143, 146 jatamt›y ŒÆÆ) Ø 150 ŒÆ)Å 150 jatapke† y E ŒÆÆºı Ø app. 8 jate† wy ŒÆÆ åﬁB [80] ŒÆ åÅ 80 Jaumor ´ ˚Æ*øØ app. 26 jekeuy ´ Œ º * ÅØ [143] Œ º ı ø app. 3 Je†qalor ˚ æøØ 25 jev›kaiom Œ çÆºÆı 146 Œ çÆºÆØ [139], 140 jevakÞ Œ çÆºB 12, 98 jgq¸r ŒÅæHØ 4 Jibuqatij¸r ˚Ø!ıæÆØŒB 91 Jikijßa app. 8 Jßmmar ˆÆE ˚Æ ª 115 ˆÆı ˚Æ ªı [125] Jkaudior ´ Ø!æØ ˚ºÆ*Ø ˝æø 109 ˚ºÆıı 4 Ø! æı ˚ºÆıı ˝æø 110 Jmßdor ˚øØ [26] jocwukiom ´ ŒªåıºøØ 20, 122 joim¸r ŒØ app. 146

338

Greek Index

e ŒØ HØ ŒØHØ B Æ 129 J¸zmtor ˚œ 113 ˚%øØ [1] joimym¸r ŒØøH 119 ŒØøE 81 Jokovþm ˚ºçHØ 25 jolßfy ŒÇﬁ Å 65 ŒÇø Ø 59 joq›siom ŒæÆ ø 12 JoquvÞ ˚æıçBØ 26 J¸ttar 73 Jouiqeßmior ˚ıØæ Ø app. 103 ˚ıØæ E 103 ˚ıØæ Øı app. 107 ˚ıØæ ı 107 jqßtgr ŒæØF app. 117 Jq¸mor ˚æı app. 7, 143 HØ F ˚æı ÆNæÆæøØ app. 101 jtBmor ŒÅH 62, 77 Jufijor ´ ˚ıÇŒøØ 23 jujkeuy ´ ŒıŒº *ø 85, app. 86 Julg ´ ˚*ﬁ Å [25] juqysir ´ ŒÆa )ı Œ*æø Ø [10] )ı Œıæ# Ø 92 kalb›my ºÆ!Æø 57, 99 ºÆ!ﬁ Å 65 º)ł ÆØ 151 º!ﬁ Å 57 ºÅçŁﬁB 114, [115] K›lxajor ¸ÆłŒﬁø 23

ke† cy º ªø 46 Ke† mtkor ˆÆE ¸º 84 Keujior ´ ¸ *ŒØ 109, [113], 115, 133, app. 144 ¸ ıŒı [111], 124 kBxir ºBłØ 56, 58, 81, [87], 88 kßhor ºŁ 66 kilÞm ºØ) 33 ºØ 131 ºØØ 33, [43] ºØø 104 ºØ Ø app. 8 kßtqa º æø 79 koip¸r a ºØ 105, 108, 112, 126, [128], 133, 135, 139, 143 ºØH 86 ºØE 101 Koujior ´ ¸*ŒØ 73, 75, 84, 103, [144] ¸ıŒøØ 3 Kujaomßa app. 8 Kujaomij¸r ¸ıŒÆØŒB 91 L›cmor ª 115 ªı [125] L›cudor Æª*øØ 26 Laßamdqor ÆØæı 25 L›zor Æ%ø 6 lajq¸teqor ÆŒæ æ 51 ÆŒææøfØg 95 lAkkom 74 L›mkior ˚%øØ ÆºøØ ÆæŒıØøØ Ææ øØ [1]

Greek Index LAqjor AæŒ 133 le†cistor ª Å 41, 120 ª ı [5] leßfym Ç 39 le†kky ºº Ø [44], [145] ººﬁ Å [13], 14 ºº) Ø 44 le†m app. 32, [45], 46, 99 leqßr æ Ø [70] le†qor æ app. 72, [123] e NŒ e æ 20 e

ÆæÆŒ e æ 11, 98 let› [29], 83 letajolidÞ ÆŒØBØ 74 letanu´ 38, 116, 147 lÞ 12, [15], [18], 18, [20], [21], app. 35, [39], 42, 55, 58, 62, [66], 67, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, [83], [84], 85, 87, 91, <99>, 115, app. 133 lgde† 39, 53, 54, [55], 67 lgdeßr Å 53 lgje†ti 66 lBjor 35, 71 lÞm 15, 37, 39, 53, 67 lÞte 15, [21], 35, [36], 36, [36], [37], 37, [39], 40, [51], 51, [52], 53, [54], 58, 71, 93, 106, [120], 131, [132] LikÞsior ØºÅ Æ 89 Lßkgtor Øº)ﬁø 25 lish¸r Ø Ł 56 lish¸y KØ Ł# Æ 146 Ø Ł# ÅÆØ 105, 106, 127, [135], 138 Ø Łø 140 › Ø Łø 110, 136, 144

339

› c Å ØøÆ Æ*Å Ø Łø 149 › c ºø Æ Ø Łø [134] Ø Łø Æı app. 148 Ø ŁøÅ 137 Ø ŁøÅ 139, 141 lßshysir Ø Ł# ø 4, 70, 137, 141 l¸kubor º*!ı 67 l¸mor Å [105] L umdor ´ *øØ [26] Luqeßmg ıæ ÅØ 24 luqioi ´ ıæø 97 maFr # 61, [62] mautgr ´ Æ*Å 64 meaq¸r ÆæHØ 20, 122 me† or [37] Me†qym ˝æø 109 ˝æø 4, 111, 146, 148 MicqEmor ˝ØªæE [136] MEcqor ˝ªæøØ 1 m¸lilor Ø 114 m¸lisla Æ 61 m¸lor 16, 142 ºı Æ N ÆªøªB ŒÆd K ÆªøªB 7 ºı Æ app. 7 ŒÆa 9 ŒÆa e [42], 105 ŒÆa e ÆPe 139 ŒÆa e ÆPe Œ ı ı 108, 112, 126, 128, 133, 135

340

Greek Index

ŒÆa e ÆPe ı KŒ ı 143 ŒÆa e B Å ØøÆ 132 ŒÆa e B KŒØ Ł# ø 42 ŒÆa e B Ø Ł# ø 70 ŒÆa F e 28, 40, 48, 50, 56, 87, 96, 114, [137] ŒÆa ª øæıåØŒe 78 ı 154 KŒ F ı *ı 116 æd F ı *ı app. 116 KŒ ø ð?Þ Ø Ł# ø [4] øØ 92, app. 154 *øØ HØ øØ 138 HØ ÆPHØ øØ 140 K HØ Ø ıÅØŒHØ øØ 98 K HØ B KŒØ Ł# ø øØ [30] mooußjior ıŒØ 117, 121 ıØŒı app. 122 mFm app. 25 mun ´ ıŒ 53 MyqbAmor ¸ *ŒØ ˝øæ!A 133 nemojqßtgr

ŒæØH [117] ˙ › 16, 17, 19, 20, 26, [29], 29, [30], 30, 55, 68, 80, [96], 99, [100], 100, [102], 106, 108, [110], 110, [122], 122, [124], [134], 136, 140, 142, 144, 145, 149, 151 + 103, [105], 132, 137, 141, app. 152 3, [5], 5, [5], 11, [15], 20, 21, [29], 29, 38, [47], 47, 48, 52, [53], 55, 57, [58], 70, 73, 74, 97, 109, [111], 119, 122, 142, 145 22, 28, 40, [42], 46, [48], 48, 50, 56, 70, <73>, 78, 87, 96, 105, 108, 109, 112, 114, [118], 123, 126, 128, 132, 133, 135, [137], 139, 142, [143], 143, 151 ) 41, [46], [60], 62, 65, 66, 80, 82, 84, 87, 100, [102], 105, 106, 110, 111, 120, [124], 125, 127, app. 130, app. 131, [134], 136,

138, 139, 140, [141], [145], 146, 149 F 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, app. 22, 27, [28], [41], 44, 47, 48, 51, [53], 55, 58, 61, 74, 76, [81], 81, 86, 87, 88, 98, 100, [103], 103, 105, [108], 111, 115, [116], 116, 125, 131, 132, 136, 140, 143, [145], [146], 146, 147, 150 B 2, [9], 18, [27], 29, 32, 34, 39, [42], 43, [49], 60, 62, [70], 70, 77, 78, [82], 85, 129, 132, [137], 137, 140, 141, 148 HØ 11, 13, 14, [17], 17, [19], 19, [23], 23, 25, 29, 30, 41, 43, 65, [69], 72, [79], 80, [84], 87, 88, 98, [101], [107], 110, 118, 119, 124, 129, 138, 140, 143, 148 ﬁH 17, 87 BØ app. 6, 63, 74, 119, 120 ﬁB 24 ƒ 94, 96, 98, 99, 101, 114, 117, 120, 122, 123, [124], 128 Æƒ 94, 137 [80], 81, 94, 105, 108, 112, 126, [128], 133, 135, 139, 143 * 34, [43] 42 H 2, [3], [4], 6, 8, 27, 37, 38, 39, 44, [46], 54, 58, 60, 76, [78], 79, 83, 86, 92, 93, 94, [95], 97, 100, [102], 102, 107, 111, 119, 123, [125], 125, 126, [135], [142], 144, [147], 152 E 10, 22, [23], 26, [33], 56, 81, 95, 101, 112, 130, 136, [139], [141], [143] ÆE [31], [106], 109, [115], app. 131, 132, [135], 142 OcdoÞjomta 38 oYjgsir NŒ) ø 31 oNjßa NŒÆ 82 NŒÆ 82 oNjodole† y NŒH Ø [37] NŒB ÆØ 72 ﬁTŒÅ 35, [36], 36, 37

Greek Index oYjohem 62, 76, 77 or mor Yı 72 ‘ Ojt›ouior ¸*ŒØ ˇŒıØ 73, 75 Ojtþ 93, 95 ‘ Ojtþbqior ˇŒø!æÆØ 100, 101 ˆloior ›ø 101 ˙loqe† y ›æF Ø 95 ﬂmola OÆØ 129, 131 ˙poEor ›EÆ 68 ˙p¸tam app. 116 ˙p¸teqor › æ 55 ›æÆ 44 ˆpou app. 27, [33], [35], 49 ˆpyr [30], 129, [131] Oqh¸r OæŁH 46 ˆqor ‹æØ [8] ‹æı 34, 43 ‹æø [9], [40], 93, 95, 104 ‹æø Æ app. 9 ‹æØ app. 8, [27], 95 Oqussy ´ TæıªÆ 67 ˆr ‹ [28], 32, 49, 57, 64, 105, 117, 118, 120, [121], 127, 138 ‹ 36, [46], 46, 48, 52, 59, [60], 60, 65, [66], 66, [74], 84, 85, 87, 114 ‹ 51 l app. 148 y 16, 18, 43, 49, 50, [52], 72, 75, 77, 132, 146 w 84, 85 zØ 31, 40, 100 ﬁz [35], 35, 38, 48, 57, 65, 74, 137, 141 – 10, [11], 11, [15], 15, [45], 45, [62], 66, [82] o 68, 74, 76, [82], 83 – 76 z 76, 97, 128, 130

341

x 9, [27], 56, 63, 69, 77, 78, 118, 145 Æx [3], 29, 106, [115], [135], 142 ˆsor ‹ 80, 149 ‹ ı 57, 111, 125 ‹ ﬁø 97 ˆspeq ‹ æ 28, [59], app. 60, 65 – æ [13], [14], 62, [75], 77 ˆste ‹ 64 x 64 ˆstir ‹ Ø app. 48 lØ [8], 41, 78, 81 ‹Ø 67 ¥Ø [8], app. 8, 89, 95 Æ¥Ø 8, app. 8, 43, 69, 88 –ØÆ [89] ﬂstqiom O æøØ 122 ˆtam [41], app. 55, app. 121 oP P 83, [95] PŒ 69, 85 OP›kcior ˆœ ˇPºªØ ' Fç app. 103 ¸*ŒØ ˇPºªØ ' Fç 103 ˆÆı ˇPÆºªı ' *çı 107 OPake†qior ¸ *ŒØ ˇPÆºæØ ˇPº 115 ¸ ıŒı ˇPÆº æı ˇPº ı 124 OPÞdior ˇPÅøØ 97 osm 44 OP¸kesor ˇPº 115 ˇPº ı 124 ohte 31, 95 oytor y 49, 138, 149 ÆoÅ 105 F [29], 41, 55, [114], 114, 119, 145 F 28, 40, 48, [50], 56, 73, 87, 96, 114, [137] Æ*Å <82>, 84, 106, 127, 138, [145], 149

342

Greek Index

*ı 46, 58, 74, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 116, 131 Æ*Å 32, 62, 77, 78, 82, 116, 141 *øØ [37], 105, 118, 120, 138, 142 Æ*ÅØ 63 yØ 83, 94 ÆyÆØ 91, 94 ÆFÆ 68, [80], 94 *Ø 10, [16], 21, 26, 33, [47], 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 79, [139] *ø 33, 37, 38, 43, 44, [46], 58, 65, 67, 70, 75, 77, 79, 83, 92, 97, 113 Æ*ÆØ [31] ootyr [68], 87, 95, 137, 141 Oveßky Oç Øºø 12, [18], [20], [29], 58, 67, 86, 101, [128], app. 132, 134, 139, 141, 145, 147 Oç Øº Łø 79 Oxþmiom [65] paid›qiom ÆØÆæø 12 p›kai 24 Palvukßa app. 8 paq› Ææ 129 Ææ 32, 41, 42, 100, 105, 118, 120, [143], 151 paqadßdyli ÆæÆØøfØg 69 paqajolßfy ÆæÆŒÇØ 80 paqakalb›my ÆæÆº!ﬁ Å 68 paqape†lpy ÆæÆø Ø 62, 76 paqapke†y ÆæÆº E 14 ÆæÆº F ÆØ 13 paqap¸mtior ÆæÆÆ [8] ÆæÆÆ 34 paqatgqe† y ÆæÆÅæÅŁﬁB 141 paqave†qy Ææ åŁBÆØ 80

paqavukajÞ ÆæÆçıºÆŒ) [39], 39, [40] ÆæÆçıºÆŒ) 32, 33, 93, 95 ÆæÆçıºÆŒB app. 31, 39 ÆæÆçıºÆŒÆ 42, 43 ÆæÆçıºÆŒ 32, 96 ÆæÆçıºÆŒH 37, 38, 44 P›qiom —Ææﬁø 23 paqþm Ææø app. 3 pAr ø [77] A Ø [23] patÞq Ææe Ææ 5 patqßr Ææ 5 PaukeEmor —Æıºº E 144 —Æıºº øØ 3 Peßsym — ø 109, [144] — ø 111 — øØ 3 pe† lptor 72 pe† lpy ø Ø app. 60 pemtaj¸sioi ÆŒ ø 51 pemtapkoFr ¼åæØ F ÆºF 111, 125, [146] pe† mte 12, 108, 112, 126, [128], 134, 136, 139, 142 pemtetgqßr ŒÆa ÅæÆ 130 ŒÆa c ÅæÆ app. 131 pe† qam ŒÆa æÆ 10 Peqcalgm¸r — æªÆÅB 90 — æªÆÅH [129] Pe†qcalom — æªﬁø 130 Pe†qcg —æªÅØ 26 peqß 34, [43], 107, 113, 128

Greek Index peqßodor æØı 33 peqivq›ssy æØ çæÆª 35 pe†tqa æÆ 66 Petqþmior — æ#Ø [136] — æøøØ 1 pipq›sjy Øæ Œﬁ Å 62 pßstir KŒ ø IªÆŁB app. 114 Pit›mg —ØÅØ 24 pk›tor º <35>, 71 pkeßym º E 12, 79, 97, 98 º app. 43 º ı [38] pke† y ºÅØ 18, [20] pkoEom ºE 15 ºı 20, 76 ºEÆ app. 80 poie† y E ŁÆØ 42 Ø) ﬁ Å 16, 21, 57, 87 poke† lior º ø 66 p¸kir ºØ 41 ºØ 13, 14, 84 º ø 85 º Ø 70, 120 º Ø app. 8, 69, 92 º ø 27 º Ø 29, [31], app. 70 pokiteßa º Ø EÆØ 88, 94 º Ø Æ [85], 85 PolpÞzor `sº —œ —Æıºº E 144 `hºøØ —Å%øØ —Æıºº øØ 3 pomgq¸r ÅæF 28, 60, [64] ÅæHØ [21], 80, 150, 153

343

P¸mtior ˆœ —Ø — æ#Ø ˝ØªæE [136] P¸mtor — [13], [20] —ı 9, [14], 18 —øØ 23 P¸pkior —ºØ 103 —ºı 107 —ºøØ 1 poqeßa æ Æ 60, [63], 77 poqeuolai ´ æ *ÅÆØ 65 æ ı <64> poqßfy æØÇø 72 PoqosekÞmg —æ º)ÅØ 24 poqqþteqor ææ# æ 93 potal¸r ÆHØ 32 poF 50 pour ´ H 35, <35>, 36, 37, 51, 71 pqAclÆ æAªÆ 21, [47], 52, 55, 57, app. 59, 74, 145 æªÆ 16, 17, [19], 19, 59, 72, app. 81, 86, 87, 88 æÆªø [46], 58, 59, [61], 64, [78], 79, 83, 86, 97 pqaEr æÆØ 102 pqesbeutÞr æ ! ıH app. 129 æ ! ıÆE 130 Pqßapor —æØﬁø 23 PqiÞmg —æØ)ÅØ æe HØ ÆØæı

ÆØ 25 pqßm 106 pq¸ 1, 6, app. 9, [13], 14, 27, [41], 44, [49], app. 141, [145], 145

344

Greek Index

pqocq›vy æª ªæÆ 28, 118 æª ªæÆø [39], 54, 94 æª ªæÆØ app. 15 pqoe† ccuor æªªı 106, 145 æªªı app. 105, 142, [143] æªı 105, 135 pqoheslßa æŁ Æ 103 pqoiŒ stgli H æ #ø [103], 107, 111, 125 Pq¸jkor ˆÆE Œ ææ#Ø —æŒº 136 pq¸r 22, [23], 23, 25, [60], 62, 65, 70, 82, 84, [101], 113, 117, 143, app. 148 pq¸sjeilai æ Œ ØÆØ 33 pqosme† ly æ ÅÆØ 94 pqosodij¸r æ ØŒH app. 3 pq¸sodor æ ø 2, [3], [4], 144, [147], 152 pqostßhgli æ ŁÅŒ 138 æ ŁÅŒÆ 84, 88, [97], 98, [100], 101, 104, 109, 113, 114, 115, 117, [121], 122, 123, [124], 127, 128, [134], 136, 140, 144 pqosve† qy æ Æ ªŒø app. 6 pqosvyme† y æ çø E [35] æ çø ø 13, 14, 26, 44, 50 æ çøBØ 30 æ çøB ÆØ [33], 48, [50], 70, [71] æ çø) ﬁ Å 40, 52 pqosvþmgsir æ çø) ø [31] pq¸teqom 36 pqHtor æHÆØ 103 æ#ø 108, 112, 127, 134 pyke†y øº) ﬁ Å [62] Pykkßym ˇPÅøØ —øººøØ 97

' QoFvor ' Fç [104] ' *çı 107 ' Qumdajor ´ ' ıŒı 23 ' ıŒøØ 32 ' QylaEoi ' øÆø 59, 61, 64, app. 73, 81, 83, 116, app. 129, app. 130 ' Qþlg ' #Å 78 ' #ÅØ [2] Saqdiam¸r ÆæØÆB 90 Sat¸qmeimor Ææ øØ 1 sebast¸r !Æ 128, [138] !Æ F 4, 92, 146, 148 !Æ B 104 !Æ H app. 129, app. 130 Seikam¸r ˆœ ØºÆ 88 AæŒ ØºÆ 133 ˆÆı ØºÆF 102 Sßceiom Øª ﬁø [24] Sßdg ÅØ ˚æıçBØ 26 sßdgqor

Ø)æı [67] sitob¸kiom

Ø!ºø app. 73 sitodeßa

Ø ø app. 73 sitovuk›jiom

ØçıºÆŒø app. 73 sitþmiom

Øøø app. 73 sjeFor

Œ *Å [80]

Œ ıH 61, 76, 78 Sluqma ´ *æﬁ Å [25] SluqmaEor ıæÆÆ [90] Soukpßjior —ºØ ıºŒØ ˚ıØæ E 103

Greek Index —ºı ıºØŒı ˚ıØæ ı 107 st›diom

Æø 38, 39, 40, 93, 95 stahl¸r

ÆŁ 46

ÆŁ* [68] ste†qgsir

æÅ Ø app. 56

æ ø 21 st¸la

Æ app. 9, app. 11

ÆØ 9, 23, 25 stq›teula

æÆ *ÆØ 65 stqatgc¸r

æÆÅªF F ØŒÆØF 116

æÆÅªH 103, 108, 123, 125, [135]

æÆÅªE [143] stqatiþtgr

æÆØ#Å 64 succq›vy

ıªªæłÆ app. 7 sucjkgtor ´

ıªŒº)ı 5, 9, 92, 97 BØ ıªŒº)øØ app. 6 sucwyqe† y

ıªŒ å#æÅÆØ app. 10 sumhÞjg

ıŁ)ŒÅ 83 Summadij¸r ıÆØŒB 91 sumtßhgli

ıŁBÆØ 113 svqacßfy

çæÆªØ Ł 119 svqacßr

çæÆª EØ 119 sHla

HÆ 119

øø 62, 98

øø Iæ ø j ŁÅº ø [12]

øø ÆØÆæø ŒæÆ ø [12] talßar Æı ÆNæÆæı [7] ÆÆØ app. 2 talieutij¸r ÆØ ıØŒH app. 3 Taqjoußtior ÆæŒıØøØ [1]

345

te 7, [8], 8, app. 12, 45, [48], 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 68, <73>, 77, [77], 78, 85, [92], [94], 95, 117, 129, 130 teileutÞr Ø ı) app. 10 teileutgtij¸r Ø ıÅØŒHØ 98 Ø ıÅØŒB Ø Ł# ø app. 4 Ø ıÅØŒH app. 3 teilßfy ØÇÅÆØ 50 teEwor å Ø 37 te† kor º app. 16, [17], [18], 18, [19], [20], 29, 56, 58, 62, 65, 67, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 82, 83, [84], 85, 86, 87, [88], 93, 94, 104, [133] ºı 7, 12, [16], 20, 21, app. 22, app. 28, [34], 48, 74, 96, [99], [123], 131, [137], 140 ºÅ 96 ºH 5, 100, 102, 113 tekþmgr º#Å 40, 55, 80 º#Å 22 º#ı [22], 27, 47, [53], 55 º#ÅØ 11, 13, 14, [17], [18], [19], 19, 30, 70, 72, [79], 87, 88 tekymßa ºøÆ 105, [124], app. 148 ºø Æ 10, 110, [134] ºøÆ åæØ 68 åæØ ºøÆ [119] tekþmiom º#Ø [27], 56 ºøı [28] ºøøØ 118, 119 te† lemor Ø 31, [36], 71 Te† or øØ 25 tessaq›jomta 39, 71 tessaqajost¸r

ÆæÆŒ 11, [98] te† ssaqer

ÆæÆ 79

æø [40] æø app. 40

346

Greek Index

Tibe† qior Ø!æØ 109 Ø! æı 110 til›y Ø Łø{Ø} 46 tßlgsir Å Ø [46], 87 tir Ø [13], [14], [15], 16, [19], [21], 21, 22, [39], 40, [44], [45], [48], 50, 57, 58, [62], 67, 77, 79, [82], 84, 87, 113, app. 116, 131, 147 Ø 12, 22, [47], 55, 57, 60, 150 Ø app. 132, 153 Ø 42, [59], 59 Øø 83 tßr Ø 42 TEtor ı 6 t¸por 32, 49 ı 35, 49, 51 øØ [32], app. 32, 36, 41, 43, 71, [72] Ø app. 8 ı 15 ø [39], 54 Ø app. 8, 9, 10, app. 15, [23], 26, 29, [31], [33], 56, 69, 118 t¸te 60, 65, 80, 120 tqeEr æØ 105 tqi›jomta 35, <35>, 114, 130, 142 Tqy›r æø 104 odyq oÆ 67 ui“¸r ıƒ 68 ıƒHØ 69 u“p›qwy $æåﬁ Å 27, [33], 36, 41, 49, 55, 56, 66, 78, 81, 119, 120, 130 $æåø Ø 43 opator oÆ 138 oÆ app. 10 $ı [5]

oÆØ 73, 75, 84, 88, [104], 109, 113, 115, 127, [134], 136, [140] $ø 102, 107, 111, [125] $Ø 1 u“pemamtßor $ Æ [16], 21, [47], 52, 55, 57, 79 u“penaiqe† y $ ÆØæBÆØ 131 $ ﬁ)æÅÆØ 104 $ æÅÆØ 93 $ ﬁÅæÅØ 95 u“pe†q app. 11, [12], 16, 17, 18, 19, 61, 62, 63, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 85, 86, 98, 116, 131, 132 u“p¸ $ (with dative) 69, 81 $ç 77 u“pocq›vy $ª ªæÆ 3 $ª ªæÆØ [23] u“p¸dgla $Åø 63 u“potßhgli $Ł ŁÆØ [143], 147 u“vaiqe† y $çÆØæ Ł app. 22, 48 Vabqßjior ˚œ Æ!æŒØ 113 vameq¸r çÆ æH [28], 118 VasBkir Æ ÅºØ 26 ve† qy ç æ 16 çæø Ø 59, 60 çæÅÆØ 61, 67 v¸bor ç!ı 66 Vouqmior ´ ˆœ *æØ 88 ˆÆ%ı ıæı 102 vqomtßfy çæØÇø [30] vukajeEom çıºÆŒ ø app. 73 Vusjor ´ * ŒøØ [26]

Greek Index Vþjaia øŒÆﬁ Æ [25] wakj¸r åÆºŒF 61 waq›ssy Œ åÆæÆªı 61 w›qir åæØ 15, 21, app. 28, 31, [34], 59, app. 61, [63], 66, 68, 77, app. 92, 96, [119] åæØ<Ø> 92 wq›olai åæB ŁÆØ 63 åæ) Łø Æ [37] åæBÆØ 65 åæ# 20, 122, [139], [141] wqBla åæ)Æ 58, [81], 103 wqÞsilor åæ) Ø 66 wqBsir æe c NÆ åæB Ø 60, 62, 65, 82, 84

wq¸mor åæ [149] wqus¸r åæı F 66 wqus¸wakjor åæı åºŒı 67 wþqa å#æÆ 81 å#æÆ 82, 84 å#æÆ [27], 82, 85 åHæÆØ 8 wyqßr 28, 60 y‘me†olai T) ﬁ Å app. 62 y‘´ miom þØ 20, 21, 47, app. 48, [53], 55, [58] ½r [42], 73, 96, 145, 154 ½sameß 16, 121 ½sautyr ´ app. 11 uspeq 86, [137] uste 80

347

Index Locorum This list contains references to literary and legal passages discussed or quoted in the text. Appian Mithridatica 3. 17–20: 174–6 Apuleius Metamorphoses 9. 39: 295 Artemidorus Oneirocritica 4. 42: 282–3 Athanasius of Alexandria. Aposec. 9. 3: 131 Cassius Dio, Roman History 53. 2. 1: 91 53. 30. 2: 223 55. 25. 4–6: 243 56. 33. 2: 223 57. 16. 2: 225 60. 10. 4: 212 60. 24. 1 f.: 90 61. 5. 5: 253 63. 17. 1: 252 Charisius Ars gram.p. 146 K: 273 Chariton Chaer. and Call. 2. 1. 3: 292 Cicero Letters Att. 2. 16. 4: 136–7 Fam. 3. 8: 158 Fam. 12. 15. 5: 192 Fam. 13. 53. 2: 194 Q. fr. 1. 1. 33: 276–7 Speeches Flacc. 64: 172 Flacc. 65: 185 Leg. agr. 1. 1. 3: 96 Leg. agr. 1. 3: 273 Leg. agr. 2. 50: 187

Planc. 32: 146 Prov. Cons. 31: 172 Verr. 2. 1. 55: 143, 242 Verr. 2. 1. 60: 191 Verr. 2. 1. 130: 7 Verr. 2. 1. 143: 270 Verr. 2. 3. 12: 94 Verr. 2. 3. 17: 242 Verr. 2. 3. 18: 7, 153 Verr. 2. 3. 19: 242 Verr. 2. 3. 32–5: 263 Verr. 2. 3. 181: 121 Verr. 2. 3. 227: 128 Philosophical works Offic. 1. 62. 150: 282 Codex Theodosianus 2. 46. 1: 163 13. 9. 9. 3: 220 Digest 1. 2. 2. 32: 257 4. 1. 6: 117 4. 9. 6: 110 14. 1. 1. 18: 262 27. 1. 17. 6: 267 39. 4. 1. 1: 254 39. 4. 4. 1: 123 39. 4. 10. 1: 222 39. 4. 12: 296 39. 4. 16. 3: 151 39. 4. 16. 9: 123 39. 4. 16. 12: 221 47. 8. 2. 20: 134 50. 6. 6. 3: 267 50. 6. 6. 5. 8: 26 50. 15. 4. 5–6: 106 50. 16. 15–16: 269 50. 16. 203: 124

Index Locorum Dio Chrysostom, Speeches 14. 14: 282

Lives Coriol. 19. 1: 139

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ad Amm. 1. 12–13: 284

Pollux, Onomasticon 6. 17. 4: 160 9. 30–1: 281–2

Festus, Breviarium 137L: 146 342L: 138

Polybius, History 18. 2. 3–4: 178

Frontinus, Aqueducts 100: 208, 210 103: 244

[Quintilian] Declamations 341. 5–8: 277 359: 123, 292

Gaius, Institutes 4. 28: 149 4. 46: 245

Strabo, Geography 12. 3. 2. p. 564: 180 12. 8. 15. p. 577: 176 13. 4. 2 p. 624: 168 13. 4. 12. p. 628: 185, 195 14. 2. 29. p. 663: 176

Herodian, Roman History 3. 1. 5: 223 Iamblichus, Babyloniaca 93: 284 Livy, Roman History 42. 56: 178 Per. 59: 186 Lucian, Menippus 11: 284–5 Orosius, Hist. against the Pagans 5. 23: 189 Philo, Flacc. 100: 164 Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1. 20: 279, 288 Pliny the Elder, Natural History 5. 109: 194 5. 123: 179 5. 143: 179 8. 208: 139 10. 139: 158 18. 11: 91, 96, 273 19. 56: 255 Pliny the Younger Ep. 10. 8. 3–6: 207 Ep. 4. 12, 2–4: 257 Pan. 36. 1–21: 259 Plutarch De Curios. (Mor. 518 E): 281 De vit. Aere alieno (Mor. 829 C): 284 Aquane an ignis (Mor. 956 D): 284

Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars Aug. 36: 91 Gaius (Cal.) 41. 1: 215, 271 Claud. 24: 90 Nero 10. 1: 254, 257 Nero 17: 162, 256 Vesp. 1. 2: 306 Vesp. 16. 1: 254 Vesp. 16. 3: 253 Tacitus Annals 1. 11: 254 1. 50. 1: 246 11. 22: 254 12. 50. 3: 238 12. 60. 2: 162 12. 60. 3: 150 12. 62. 2: 178 13. 4–5: 254 13. 12: 260 13. 23: 255 13. 28: 256 13. 28. 2: 90 13. 28. 3: 225 13. 29: 256 13. 29. 2: 91 13. 31: 253, 258 13. 50: 254 13. 50–51: 260

349

350 13. 51: 246 13. 51. 1: 160–2 14. 54: 260 15. 8. 3: 204–5 15. 18: 253

Index Locorum 15. 18. 3: 93–4 Histories 4. 47: 253 Velleius Paterculus, Roman History 2. 92. 2: 4

Epigraphical and Papyrological Index This index lists epigraphical and papyrological documents materially cited, discussed, or translated in the text. AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´

AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´

1899, 180: 290 n. 34 1914, 234: 272 n. 60 1923, 22: 304 1933, 160: 290 n. 34 1934, 234: 304 1938, 91: 291 1947–48, 179: 291 1961, 282 (1964, 239; AE´ 1992, 661): 210–11 1966, 186: 212, 230 1971, 88 (Hinard and Dumont 2003): 6, 216 (iii, 20–1), 271 (iii, 20–1), 272 n. 60 1973, 137: 211 1974, 485: 290 n. 34, 299 1975, 202: 299 1976, 77: 209 n. 17 1976, 653, 21–3, 47–9 (SEG 26, 1392): 265 n. 40 1978, 145: 213 n. 29 1981, 24: 304 1984, 508: 215 1985, 714: 291 1986, 333 (Gonza´lez 1986): 93 (Col. 3C, §29, 21), 141 (Col. 3C, §29, 21), 208 (§66), 216, 249 (§64), 271 n. 58 (§63) 1988, 1019: 298, 308 1988, 1031: 177, 217, 298, 299, 306 1989, 334: 291 1991, 474: 225 1992, 682: 210–11 n. 19 1993, 1506: 205 n. 8 1994, 1552 (CIL 3, 12336; IGBulg. 4, 2236): 90 (2–5), 213, 247 1996, 407: 92, 213, 247 1996, 885: 147, 203 (122 f.), 207 (122 f.), 212 n. 23, 213 n. 29, 214 n. 32, 225,

AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´ AE´

1997, 1481: 205 n. 8 1997, 1498c: 218 1998, 544: 210 n. 19 1998, 1550–68: 220 n. 51 1999, 449: 221 1999, 450: 225 2000, 587: 210 n. 19 2000, 1773: 217 2000, 1802: 217

Balland, Xanthos VII, 260–6, no. 86: 11 BGU 4, 1062 (Chrest. Wilck. 276): 275 n. 67 C.Pap.Lat. 148–57: 268 n. 49 Chrest.Wilck. 251 (P.Tebt. II 287): 275 n. 67 Chrest.Wilck. 273: 272 Chrest.Wilck. 276 (BGU 4, 1062): 275 n. 67 Chrest.Wilck. 463, 12–15: 264 n. 39 CIL 2, 2423: 269 n. 52 CIL 3, 10493d: 295 CIL 5, 5050 (ILS 206): 214 n. 30 CIL 5, 7812: 210 n. 19 CIL 6, 916 ¼ 3120: 231 CIL 6, 1403 (ILS 966): 231, 273 n. 62 CIL 6, 1405: 205 n. 9 CIL 6, 1436 ¼ 32270: 208 CIL 6, 32323: 141 (53), 244 CIL 8, 4508: 237, 272 n. 60 CIL 10, 5181: 229 CIL 10, 5182: 229 CIL 13, 18118: 295 CIL 14, 4708: 267 n. 47 CIL 16, 1–3: 213 Crawford, RS 1, no. 1: 113 (65f.), 150 (12)

352

Epigraphical and Papyrological Index

Crawford, RS 1, no. 2: 121 (19 f.), 157 (89), 263 (36–9) Crawford, RS 1, no. 8: 150 (12) Crawford, RS 1, no. 12: 113 (Delphi Block B, 16), 140 (Cnidos Copy, III, 4 f.), 144 (Cnidos Copy, IV, 36), 238 (Cnidos Copy, IV), 240 (Cnidos Copy, II, 13–31), 262 n. 34 (Delphi B.17–19) Crawford, RS 1, no. 19: 11–12, 132 (Col. II, 34–6), 145 Crawford, RS 1, no. 22, 21 f: 113 Crawford, RS 1, no. 24: 6, 113 (21) Crawford, RS 1, no. 28, Col. II, §§ xxi– xxii: 119–20, 123 Crawford, RS 1, no. 36: 241 Crawford, RS 1, no. 37 b, Col. 2, ll. 21–6: 248 EJ2 302 (BGU 2, 628; C. Pap. Lat. 103): 264 n. 39 Frend, JRS 46, 1956, 46 –57, ll. 5 f.: 177 Gnomon of Idios Logos: see Sel. Pap. 206 Habicht, JRS 65, 1975, 64–91: 194 I.Alexandreia 153: 145 I.Cret. I 26. 2: 268 n. 50 I.Cret. I 26. 3: 268 n. 50 I.Cret. I 28. 9: 268 n. 50 I.Didyma 140: 194 I.Ephesos 4, 6: 145 I.Ephesos 7 (OGIS 437): 185 I.Ephesos 13, I 36; II 8, 9, 16: 192 I.Ephesos 14: 272 n. 60 I.Ephesos 17–19 (Smallwood, G-N 380): 274 n. 66 I.Ephesos 20: 112, 274 n. 66 I.Ephesos 204: 185 I.Ephesos 205: 185 I.Ephesos 206: 185 I.Ephesos 217: 244 I.Ephesos 251 (SIG3 760): 185 I.Ephesos 517 and 517a: 303, 307 I.Ephesos 627: 302–3, 307–8 I.Ephesos 924: 290, 303, 308

I.Ephesos 1503: 112 I.Ephesos 2296: 298, 308 I.Ephesos 3045: 303, 307 I.Ephesos 3056: 302–3, 307–8 I.Erythrai 74: 302 I.Iasos 253: 303, 309–10 I.Iasos 415: 309 I.Iasos 416: 309 I.Iasos 417: 309 I.Kaunos 35: 11, 107 (C8–D5, E1–14), 108 (C 9–17, E 7–11), 110 (B 16), 123 (B 9), 136, 245, 246 (E 10–11), 272 n. 60 I.Kaunos p. 73 [Test. 168] (Andriake): 12–13 I.Kibyra 107: 287, 298, 299 n. 66, 310 I.Knidos I, 31, III, 22–7; 35–7: 190, 191 I.Laodikeia 102: 177, 291, 298, 299, 307 I.Myl. 605: 272 n. 60 I.Portes du De´sert 67 (MW 459): 272 n. 60 I.Sal.Chypre 22: 272 n. 60 I.Th.Sy. 191: 272 n. 60 IG V 1, 1432: 116 IG XII 5, 1, 9: 112 IGR 3, 1056 (OGIS 629; Matthews 1984, 174–80): 116, 237, 272 n. 60, 288 IGR 3, 1283: 272 n. 60 IGR 4, 291: 185 IGR 4, 316/473 (Habicht, Pergamon VIII.3, pp. 164–5): 154 IGR 4, 454: 154 IGR 4, 1116: 191 ILAlg. 2. 2. 7753: 217 ILAlg. 2. 2. 7921: 217 ILLRP 342: 190 ILLRP 465: 249 ILLRP 518 : 144 ILS 206 (CIL 5, 5050): 214 n. 30 ILS 309 (Smallwood, N-H 64a): 255 n. 11 ILS 966 (CIL 6, 1403): 231, 273 n.62

Epigraphical and Papyrological Index ILS ILS ILS ILS ILS ILS ILS ILS

1330: 299, 308–9 1465: 302 1566: 299 n. 72 1654: 304 1857: 300 1860: 300 1870: 299 8794 (SIG3 814; Smallwood, G-N 64): 261, 277 n. 73 ILS 9484: 204, 233

lex libitinae Puteolana: see AE´ 1971, 88 lex Irnitana: see AE´ 1986, 333 MAMA 4, 113: 177, 307 MAMA 7, 305, 1, 23; 2, 27–34: 177–8 Milet 6.2, 563: 298, 299, 310–11 Milet 6.2, 667: 298, 300, 311 OGIS 438: 185 OGIS 439: 185 OGIS 525: 112 (l. 10), 302–3, 304, 307–8, 309 OGIS 674: 245 Oliver, Gk. Const. 84 (Smallwood, N-H 451): 272 n. 60 Oliver, Gk. Const. 236 (Apokrimata, l. 11 f.): 263 n. 35 Palmyra Customs Law: see IGR 3, 1056 P.Amh. 2, 77: 294 P.Berl. 1220 (Sel. Pap. 206) Gnomon of Idios Logos: 6, 242, 244, 245 P.Oxy. 1, 36: 119 (10–12), 289 n. 33 (10–12), 289–90 P.Princ. 2, 20 (SB 5, 8072): 265 n. 42, 293 P.Tebt. 8, 29–31: 152 P.Tebt. II 287 (Chrest.Wilck. 251): 275 n. 67 PSI 4, 406: 283 Reynolds, Aphrodisias nos. 2 and 3: 175 n. 24 Reynolds, Aphrodisias no. 5, ll. 23, 27, and 28: 184

353

Reynolds, Aphrodisias, no. 8: 91 (2, 31), 124 (33f.), 240 Reynolds, Aphrodisias, no. 9: 124 (3), 245 Reynolds, Aphrodisias, no. 15: 294 RG: 241 (6, 2), 253 (15–18) Riccobono, FIRA2 1, 24, §64: 146, 148 (63–5) Riccobono, FIRA2 1, 59: 90 (2–4) Riccobono, FIRA2 1, 104 §4: 239 Riccobono, FIRA2 1, 105, 39: 110 Riccobono, FIRA2 3, 2, 7–12: 90 Riccobono, FIRA2 3, 3, 5–8: 90 Riccobono, FIRA2 3, 113, 4–6: 90 Robert, Hell. 1949, 53 f: 179 Robert, OMS 6, 112–16: 289 n. 31 SB 18, 13167: 265–6 SB 18, 13315: 272 n. 60, 274 n. 65 (7) Scaptopara inscription: see AE´ 1994, 1552 SC de Cn. Pisone patre: see AE´ 1996, 855 SC de ludis saecularibus: see CIL 6, 32323 SEG 17, 755 (MW 466): 272 n. 60 SEG 17, 759: 164 SEG 26, 1392, 21–3, 47–9 (AE´ 1976, 653): 265 n. 40 SEG 31, 952 (Bringmann 1983): 11, 240, 245, 272 n. 60, 275 n. 67 SEG 32, 676: 291 SEG 32, 1149 (Nolle´ 1982, no.1): 90 (20–2), 247 (37–8) SEG 35, 1439 (Wo¨rrle 1975): 11, 106 (3 f.), 145 SEG 37, 884: 194 SEG 37, 1186: 296 n. 54 SEG 38, 1244: 296 n. 54 SEG 39, 1243 (Robert and Robert, Claros I, 1): 186 n. 81, 238 SEG 39, 1244 (Robert and Robert, Claros I, 2): 186 n. 81, 238 SEG 43, 717: 303, 309–10 SEG 43, 775: 273 n. 63 SEG 48, 1583 (Milner 1998, no. 112): 296

354

Epigraphical and Papyrological Index

Sel. Pap. 206 (P.Berl. 1220): 6, 242, 244, 245 Sherk, RDGE 11: 238 Sherk, RDGE 12: 238 Sherk, RDGE 23 (I.Oropos 308): 240 Sherk, RDGE 31, 91: 161 Sherk, RDGE 52: 194 Sherk, RDGE 58 (Raggi 2006): 241

Sijpesteijn 1987, 147, no. 137: 290 Smallwood, G-N 382: 272 n. 60 Smallwood, G-N 391 (MW 328): 272 n. 60 TAM 5.1, 230, 12: 139 Woodhead, Agora 16, 339: 222

Index of Persons Roman citizens, except emperors, are listed under gentilicia, where known. Abbreviations: cos., consul; suV., suVect consul.; f., father; s., son; d., daughter; w., wife. Acerronius Proculus, Cn., cos. ad 37: 78–9, 156 Aelius Gallus, jurist, 138 Aelius Marcianus (Marcian), jurist, on taxation 151 AWnius Gallus, P., cos. ad 62: 89 Afranius Burrus, Sex., Guard prefect Neronian adviser 260 n. 29 accused of conspiracy 255 n. 10 in Tacitus 252 Agathonicus, uilicus 310 using Latin, 298 Agenor s. of Demetrios 185 Alfenus Varus, P., suV. 39 bc, jurist 123 Amerimnus, seruus uilicus 310 using Latin, 298 Annaeus Seneca, L., suV. ad 56, philosopher Neronian adviser 260 n. 29 relation of A. Pompeius Paulinus 269 accused of conspiracy 255 n. 10 on Sullan proscriptions 259 n. 26 on Augustus 243 in Tacitus and Dio 252 Antistius Labeo, M., jurist, responsum 134 Antoninus Pius, emperor, rescript 123 Antonius, M., cos. 99 bc, governor of Cilicia 190–1 Antonius, M., triumvir 273 n. 63 and lex Fonteia 241 Antonius Pallas, M., freedman decree honouring 214 n. 32 execution 227 Apame, d. of Prusias II 181 Aphrodisius s. of Serapion, customs oYcer, honoured 302 Apollonius of Tyana, sage, encounter with customs oYcial 279–80 Appian, historian 175–6

on Mithridatic war 174–5, 178 Apronius, L., suV. ad 8: 153 Sex. Appuleius, cos. ad 14, 153 Apuleius, orator and writer, on misconduct of the military 295 Aquillius, M’., cos. 129 bc, proconsul of Asia 9, 10, 174–5, 188, 200 Ariobarzanes I of Cappadocia 190 Aristonicus, pretender 178 Artemidorus, dream interpreter, on tax collectors 283 Artemidorus, geographer 176 Attalus III of Pergamum 4, 52–3, 169, 186, 187, 199–200, 217, 286 Augustus (Imp. Caesar), emperor 4 titulature 140–141 legislation 241 and Gnomon of Idios Logos 6, 244 n. 31 reforms 225–6, 243, 295 cancellation of charges 262 cancellation of debt 255 management of Aerarium 257 new taxes 276 letter on Secular Games 244 appointment of administrators 268 n. 50 colonial foundation 145 grants of privileges and exemptions 62–3, 140, 241, 264 to Pergamum 76–7, 153–4 breviarium 223 cult 191 Aurelius Cotta, C., cos. 75 bc 4, 9, 10, 56–7, 127, 129, 198 Aurelius Cotta, M., cos. 74 bc, governor of Bithynia 190 Aurelius Mindius Mattidianus Pollio, M., promagister 307

356

Index of Persons

Bargathus, uilicus 299 Bellicus, tax oYcer, using Latin 298 Boionius Pansa Flavianus, L., procurator 307 Boudicca, queen of Iceni, 252 Caecilius Metellus Diadematus, L., cos, 117 bc, censor 115: 270 n. 54 Caetronius Miccio, C., Wnancial posts 212, 230 Calpetanus Rantius Sedatus, C., suV. ad 47: 225 n. 59 curator 231 Calpurnius Piso, Cn., cos. 7 bc 70–1, 147 property conWscated 203 praenomen banned 147 memory survived 157–8 Calpurnius Piso, L., cos. ad 57 attack on tribunes 155–6, 232, 256 curator 82–3, 93–4, 159–60, 205, 233, 267–8, 270 combined employment 210 Calpurnius Siculus, poet, on delation 258 Caninius Gallus, L., cos. 2 bc 70–1 Caracalla (M. Aurelius Antoninus), emperor and jurisdiction 163 curbs misconduct of the military 295 n. 54, see also Septimius Severus Cassius Dio, cos. II ad 229, historian 252 on taxation 223 on military treasury 243 on Nero 252–3 Cassius, C., proconsul of Asia 89 bc 174–5, 177 Cassius Longinus Ravilla, L., cos. 127 bc, censor 125: 270 n. 54 Claudius, emperor 80–1, 224 misfortunes under Gaius 257 n. 17, 259 n. 24 character of government 157, 258 Wnancial initiatives 226, 242, 257 n. 20 and Aerarium 159, 206–07, 256–7 recovers treasury debts 212

abolishes tax 255 modiWes lex portorii? 156–8 and procurators, 5, 263 n. 36 choice of administrators 268 on jurisdiction 150, 161–2 and populace 260 n. 28 privileges to shippers 267 edict on Anauni 214 n. 30 Claudius Nero, Ti., see Tiberius Coiedius Candidus, L., quaestor aerarii, curator 98, 206–07, 231 Commodus, emperor, and publicani 271 see also Marcus Aurelius Cornelius Cinna Magnus, Cn., cos. ad 5: 72–5 Cornelius Dolabella, Cn., governor of Cilicia 190–1 Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, Cn., cos. 72 bc 4, 58–9, 135, 198 Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, P., acting governor of Asia 43 bc, 192 Cornelius Pusio Annius Messalla, L., suV. ad 90, legatee of Dasumius 209 n. 17 Cornelius Sulla, L., Dictator 81 bc, governor of Cilicia 190–1 alleged attack on equites 3 grants of exemptions 240 Cornelius Tacitus, suV. ad 97, historian and will of Dasumius 209 on jurisdiction 150, 162 on taxation 277 on partnerships 238–9 on Nero’s reforms 252, 254, 261–2, 265, 266, 267 use of acta senatus 261 outlook 259, 263, 270 Crassus Firmus, Ti., duouir 247 Crispinus, A., promagister 307 Dasumius (?Hadrianus, L., suV. ad 93), will 209 n. 17 Dekmos, eponymous oYcial 302 Dio Cocceianus of Prusa (Chrysostom), sophist, on taxation 217, 282–3 Diomedon, tax farmer 284

Index of Persons Dionysius s. of Seleucus, customs oYcer, honoured 302 Domitia Decidiana, d. of T. Domitius Decidianus 205 Domitian, emperor, as censor 7 cancellation of charges 262 on transport requisition 272 n.60 and soldiers’ privileges 264 Domitius Ahenobarbus, Cn., cos. 122 bc, censor 115: 270 n. 54 Domitius Decidianus, T., quaestor aerarii ad 44-?47: 224, 231, 268 n. 49 name and family 205 date of oYce 206 regulations 9, 95–6, 98, 99, 100, 204, 206, 207, 273 clumsy drafting 217 Domitius Ulpianus (Ulpian), praetorian prefect, jurist, De OYciis 244 Ducenius Geminus, A., suV. c. ad 60, curator 82–3, 93–4, 159–60, 204–5. 211, 233, 267–8 spelling of name 94, 205 Egnatius Fuscus, Cn., clerk 90 Eutyches, uicarius in Noricum 300 Fabius Quintilianus, M. (Quintilian), rhetorician, purported defence of publicani 277 Fabricius, Q., cos. 2 bc 70–1 Felix, uicarius uilici? 310–11 using Latin, 298 Felix, uilicus 300 Flavius Asclepas, T., procurator 307 Flavius Philostratus, L., sophist, on customs oYcials 279–80 Flavius Sabinus, T., f. of Vespasian, publicanus, honoured 302, 306 Furius Sabinius Aquila Timesitheus, C., vice-procurator 308–9 Furnius, C., cos. 17 bc 60–61, 66–7, 137 Gabinius, A., cos. 58 bc, governor of Syria 191 and publicani 263, 275–6 Gaius (Caligula), emperor 157 and taxation 215, 254–5, 264, 270–1

357

and populace 260 n. 28, 278 Galba, emperor, contrast with Nero 252, 274 Gellius, L., cos. 72 bc 4: 58–9, 135, 198 correct name 135 Gordian III, emperor, rescript 212 n. 24, 213 Gratian, emperor, reply to shippers 220 n. 50 Hadrian, emperor 11 and praetor’s edict 5 jurisdiction 257 rescript 123 on exchange monopoly 272 n. 60 cancellation of debt 255 and publicani 265 n.40, 271 and shippers 267 n. 46 Harpagathes, customs oYcer 294 Helvidius Priscus, C., tribune ad 56: 259 attack on quaestor 256 Helvius Agrippa, L., governor of Sardinia 90, 244 Heraklas, security guard 294 Hermogenian, jurist 222 Herodian, historian, on taxation 223 Herostratos s. of Dorkalion 185 Hiero II, king of Syracuse 9 Hilara, w. of Bargathus 299 honoured 302–303, 304 Iamblichus, novelist, on tax collectors 284 n. 14 Ianuarius, procurator 308 Ias, slave tax oYcer 307 using Latin, 298 Isochrysus, uilicus, 306 using Latin, 298 Julian, emperor, on tax collecting 283 Julius Agricola, Cn., suV. ad 76: 205 Julius Alexander, Ti., governor of Egypt, edict 272 n. 60, 274 n. 65 Julius Caesar, C., Dictator coup 7 and publicani 276, 277 memoranda 243 honoured 185

358

Index of Persons

Julius Caesar, C., cos. ad 1, mourned 156 Julius Caesar, Germanicus cos. ad 12, honoured 214 n. 32, 215 Julius Capito, customs oYcer in Ilyricum, honoured 302 Julius Frontinus, Sex., suV. ad 72 or 73, curator of water supply 210, 235 On Aqueducts 244 Julius Petronianus, epistrategos 294 Junius Silanus, C., cos. 17 bc 60–1, 66–7, 137 Junius Silanus, M., cos. ad 19: 78–9, 155 Justinian, emperor, and civil law 24 Kalokairos, actor of Aur. Mindius 309 Keynes, J. M. 276 Leo, uilicus 307 using Latin, 298 Licinius Lucullus, L., cos. 74 bc, commander against Mithridates 73, 190 Livius, T. (Livy), historian, account of Asia 186 Lucian, satirist, on tax collecting 284–5 Manlius Tarquitius Saturninus, Q., suV. ad 62: 89 Marcius Rex., Q., cos. 68 bc, governor of Cilicia 67 Marcus Aurelius, emperor cancellation of debt 255 and publicani 271, see also Commodus Menippos of Colophon 183 n.61 Mestrius Plutarchus, L., (Plutarch) on customs oYcials 281, 284 Mettius Rufus, M., prefect of Egypt, reforms 272 n.60 Minucius Rufus, commander against Mithridates 174 Mithridates VI Eupator 174–5, 190 ruler of Cappadocia 176–7 Mucius Scaevola, Q., cos. 95 bc, governor of Asia 183 Nero, emperor 1, 5, 9, 10, 82–3, 294 character of government 12, 243, 252, 258–9, 261 n. 30, 267, 277

reputation for extravagance 252–3, 276–8, 90 jurisdiction 162–3, 257, 262 cancellation of charges 262 and populace 260 n. 28 colonization of Puteoli, 274 n. 65 planned visit to Egypt 274 n. 65 appointment of administrators 94–5, 98, 224, 226, 256, 267–9, 273 and procurators 5, 261, 262–4 Wnancial initiatives 226, 243, 253, 255 abolition of tax 255 n. 11 reform of Aerarium 232–3, 256–7 proposal to abolish uectigalia 226, 232, 246, 260–1 edict reforming uectigalia 12, 110, 215, 233, 245–6, 251–78, 255, 261–7, 270 272 reform of coinage 266, 277 Nerva, emperor, Wnancial initiatives 226 Nicomedes II of Bithynia 181 Nicomedes IV of Bithynia 174–5, 182 Norbanus, L., cos. ad 19: 78–9, 155 Octavius, C., cos. 75 bc 4, 9, 10, 56–7, 127, 129, 198, 200 Octavius, L., governor of Cilicia 190 OWllius Macro, M., duouir, 247 Oppius, Q., 174–6 post 175, 190–1 Ounophrios, Egyptian exporter 290 Ovidius Naso, P. (Ovid), poet, on tax contracts 242 Pabous s. of Stotoe¨tis, archer 294–5 Paetus, prosecutor, 255 Papirius Carbo, Cn., cos. 113 bc 157 Parasius s. of Heraiscus, customs oYcer, honoured 302 Pedia Epictesis, w. of Placidus 299 n. 72 Perseus, king of Macedon 187 Pertinax, emperor, curbs misconduct of the military 295 n. 54 Petillius Cerealis, Q., suV. II ad 74: 277 Petronius Lurco, M., curator 231 Petronius Niger, P., suV. ad 62: 89 Philip V of Macedon 178, 181, 187 Placidus, customs oYcer in Gaul 299 n. 72

Index of Persons Plinius Caecilius Secundus, C. (Pliny the Younger), suV. ad 100 prefect of Aerarium, 11 governor of Bithynia 182 on taxation 277 outlook 259 Plinius Secundus, C. (Pliny the Elder), polymath on Asia 194 on cinnabar 125 on tax 255 usage 123 Polydeukes, customs oYcer 294 Pompeius Paul(l)inus, A., suV. before ad 55 spelling of name 205 marriage connexion with Seneca 269 curator 82–3, 93–4, 159–60, 205, 233, 268 Pompeius, Cn., cos. 70 bc (Pompey the Great), defeat of Mithridates 176 Pompeius, Sex., cos. ad 14, 153 Pontius Petronius Nigrinus, C., cos. ad 37: 78–9, 156 Popil(l)ius, C., prefect of the Xeet 174 Posidonius, philosopher and historian 191 Potens, uilicus? 309 benefactor 303 Primio, uilicus? 311 Prusias I of Bithynia 181 Publicius Certus, prefect of Aerarium 235 Pulcher, uilicus 309 Quintus, tax oYcer 308 using Latin, 298 Roosevelt, F.D. 276 Satrius Decianus, T., curator 231 Seleucus of Rhosus, naval oYcer 241 Sempronius Gracchus, C., tribune 123–2 bc, law on uectigalia 8, 9, 199–200 Sentius Saturninus, C., cos. 19 bc, rigour 4, 7, 242 Septimius Severus, emperor,

359

on soldiers’ exemptions 264 joint rescript with Caracalla, 221 Servenius Gallus, L., praetor, 92, 213, 247 Servilius Caepio, Cn., cos. 141 bc, censor 125: 270 n. 54 Servilius Vatia, P., cos. 79 bc, governor of Cilicia 188, 190, 192 Strabo, geographer 167–8, 176, 179, 185, 195 Suetonius Tranquillus, C., biographer on Aerarium 256–7 on Augustus’ breviarium 223 on Nero 252, 254 Sulpicius Quirinius, P., cos. 12 bc 68–9, 145 spelling of name 145 Terentius, P., promagister 306 Theodosius, emperor, and civil law 244 Theophrastus, moralist, on tax farming 283 n. 10 Tiberius, emperor, cos. II 7 bc 70–1,147, 157 and populace 260 n. 28 and procurators 263 refusal to abolish tax 226 senatorial commission 257 appointment of administrators 268 n. 50 Trajan, emperor 11 admirer of Nero? 278 lauded by Pliny 259, 277 jurisdiction 257 privileges of shipowners 267 n.46 cancellation of debt 255 tax reform 211 Trebonius, C., suV. 45 bc 192 Tullius Cicero, M., cos. 63 bc, orator and statesman provincial edict 158 on Asia 185, 123 on royal land 187 on taxation 136–137, 198 n. 120, 275–6, 277 on tax farmers 282 on C. Verres 191, 242, 265 n. 42 correspondence with P. Lentulus Spinther 192 usage 102, 172

360

Index of Persons

Tullius Cicero, Q., diYculties as governor of Asia 263, 275 Tyranius, uicarius? 311 Ummidius Durmius Quadratus, C., suV. ?ad 40, Wnancial posts 229 Valerius Messalla Appianus, M., cos. 12 bc 157 Valerius Messalla Corvinus, M., cos. 31 bc, ruling on uectigalia 243, 273 Valerius Messalla Volesus, L., cos. ad 5: 72–5 Valgius Rufus, C., suV. 12 bc 68–9, 145, 157 correct praenomen 145 Vedius Pollio, P., agent of Augustus 142 privileges 62–3, 218, 242

Velleius Paterculus, historian, on tax contracts 242 Verginius Rufus, L., suV. ad 63, curator 235 Verres, C., governor of Sicily, quaestor in Cilicia edict 263 n. 35 exactions 148, 190–1, 265 n, 42 Vespasian, emperor follower of Claudius 278 contrast with Nero 252 alleged Wnancial crisis 253 tax increases 255 Wnancial initiatives 226 cancellation of debt 255 use of procurators 261 Vibius Habitus, A., suV. ad 8: 153 Vitruvius, architect, on cinnabar 125

Index of Peoples and Places Abydus 34–5 Achaea, freed 253, 261 Adramyteum, Adramyttium 34–5, 188 n. 87 diocese of 60–1 Aedes Saturni, Rome 214, and see Aerarium (Saturni) Aegean islands 192–193 Aerarium (Saturni), Rome 80–1, 91, 159–60, 203–4, 208, 225, 250, 268 Africa, province publicani in 217, 304 shippers 220 n. 50 Alabanda, assize city 138, 194 Alexandria Troas 145 Colonia Alexandria Troadensis 34–5, 145 privileges 68–9, 171, 184, 218 Amastris 174 Amnias River 174, 176 Amorium 104, 177, 178, 194, 217, 287, 298 Anauni 214 n. 30 Ancyra 177 Antandrus 34–5, 188 n. 87 Antioch towards Pisidia 176 Apamea (Phrygia) 175, 176, 177, 189 diocese of 60–1 Apamea (Bithynia) 179, 180 Aphrodisias 175, 196, 294 senatorial decree from 240, 241 treaty 245 Aphrodisians 183, 185 Apollonia at the mouth of the Rhyndacus 34–5, 111, 179, 180, 298 Apollonia (Pisidia) 176, 177, 194, 291, 307 Apollonia (Cyrenaica) 289 n. 31 Apollonia, Lake 180 Aquincum 295 Aquitania, province 309

Armenia, campaigns in 252, 269 n. 51 Asia, see General Index Aspendus 36–37, 101, 111, 188 Assus 34–5 Asturia, Astyria 34–5, 188 n. 87 Atarneus 34–5 Athens, agora 222 Atrium Magnum 90 Attale(i)a (Pamphylia) 36–37, 101, 111, 188 Baetica, province 125 Baiae 214 n. 30 Bargylia 34–5 free 183 Basilica Julia, Rome 3, 26–27, 90–23, 214, 268 Bithynia 175, 180 region in Lex 101, 163, 167 kingdom 102–3, 106, 168, 170–1, 174, 177, 178, 180 royal lands 187 province 28–29, 101–2, 172, 179, 190, 200 routes 176 Bithynians, tithe on 218 Black Sea 8–9, 32–3, 34–5, 106, 107–8, 168, 182, 230–1 Bosporus 108, 130, 169–70, 175, 176, 178–83, 200, 201 Britain, stabilization 252, extortion 266 n. 45 Brundisium 267 n. 47 Byzantium 101, 114, 174, 177 in Pontus and Bithynia 182 as free city 102, 178 territories 179–81, 193 n. 108 Byzantians 28–29, 170, 178 Caesarea Germanice 179 Calchedon 20, 106, 178, 182 in Bithynia 101 free 101, 180, 183

362

Index of Peoples and Places

Calchedon (cont.) territories 181 number of customs posts 35–6 Calchedonians 28–29, 170, 178 Calynda 11 Capitol, Rome 234 Cappadocia 28–29, 101–2, 167, 170–2, 175, 176, 189, 190, 191 independent 103, 168, 174, 178 Cappadocians 176–177 Caria 187 Carians 185 Caunus 11, 111, 188 tariV 11, 107, 108, 110, 123, 138, 245, 246, 272 n. 60 Ceramus 34–5, 188 n. 87 Chersonese, 238 royal lands 187 Chios, 192–193, 301–2 free 186 Chrysopolis 182 Cibyra 296, 298, 299 n. 67, 310 diocese of 60–1, 287 Cilicia, province (with Pamphylia) 101, 102, 170, 172, 175, 189, 190, 191, 194, 200 part assigned to Syria 192 governors 189–92 Cilician Gates 176, 127, 189 Claros, decrees from 189 n. 92, 238 Cnidus 36–37 and lex de prouinciis praetoriis 188, 189, 191, 240 Colophon 34–5, 183, 186 n. 81, 188 n. 87 Constantinople 181 Coptus, tariV 245 Corycus 190 Cos 192–193 Cotiaeum 177 Crete and Cyrene, province 268 n. 50 Cumae 216 n. 37, 272 n. 60, 274 n. 65 Cyme (Caesarea) 34–5, 111, 199 n. 122 Cyrene, edicts relating to, 161 Cyzicus 34–5 free 183, 186 n. 81 assize city 194 territory 179

Dardanus 34–5 Dascylitis, Lake 179 Dascylium 34–5, 101, 180 site 179 Delos, lex on 113 Dorylaeum 177 Egypt 121, 238, 263, 266, 272, 273 n. 63, 274 n.65, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294 Elaea 34–5, 154 Ephesus 34–5 diocese of 60–1 copy of Lex sent to 89 publicani at 307–9 Wshermen at 112, 274 n. 66 gold coinage 123 processing cinnabar 125 roads from 176 harbour 274 n. 66 port of entry into Asia 248, 274 senatorial decrees from 11, 245, 272, 275 dispute with Sardis 185 epitaphs from 290, 298–9 benefactor 303 Erythrae 34–5, 302 Euphrates River 190 Forum Augustum, Rome 213 n. 25, 247 Galatia 28–29, 101–2, 167, 170–1, 175, 177, 178 independent 103, 168, 174 province 177, 194, 265 n. 40 Gallia Cisalpina, lex on 120, 123 Gargarus 34–5, 188 n. 87 Gaul 265, 299 n. 72 Gortyn 268 n. 50 Halicarnassus 36–57, 112, 188, 309 diocese of 60–1, 192 Hamaxitus 34–5 Hellespont, diocese of 60–61, 194 Heraclea 6 Herculaneum, tablets from 213, 221, 247 Hermus River 177 Hieron on the Pontus 101, 111, 180 highway through Asia, northern 176 southern (‘koine hodos’) 176

Index of Peoples and Places Iasus 34–5, 309–10 Iconium 176 Ilium 145 Illyria 287 Illyricum, publicani in 217, 302 Ionia 175 Irni, constitution 249 Isaura 190 Isauria 192 Italy 36, 267 municipia and coloniae 248 tax remitted 229, 263, 275 epitaphs 299

Miletus 34–5, 298, 300, 310–11 diocese of 60–61, 192 Milyadeis, shrine 191 Milyas 190, 191 Moguntiacum 295 Morgantina 112 Mylasa 272 n. 60 Myndus 36–37, 188 Myra 11, 106, 136, 145 Myrina, Myrine 34–5, 111 Mysia 175, 179 Mysians 113, 185, 197 n. 118 Mytilene 192–193

Jews, revolt of ad 66: 252 Juliopolis 175 n. 22, 177

Narona, 204 Nicomedia 176, 180, 218 Noricum 300

363

Koine Hodos, see highway Lagania 175 n. 22 Lambaesis 272 n. 60 Lampsacus 34–5, 183 Laodicea on the Lycus 175, 177, 188, 189, 190, 191, 287, 291, 307 Larinum 213 n. 29 Leonton Kephale 175, 177 Lopadium 180 Lugdunensis, province 309 Lycaonia 102, 104, 170, 172, 189, 190, 191, 192 diocese of 60–1 Lycia 104, 172, 190, 191, 310 free 188, 201 province 173 Lycus River 175, 176 Lydia 177 Lydians 113, 185 Macedonia royal lands 187 province 238 Maeander River 34–5, 176 Magnesia on Maeander, edict from 247 Magydus 36–37, 101, 103, 111, 188 Malaca, constitution 146, 148 Memphis 272 n. 61 Mesopotamia 279 Methymna 193 Midaeum 178

Olympia 185 Orcistus 178 Oropus, dossier from 240 Ostia 267 n. 47 Palatium, Rome 213 n. 29, 214 n.32 Palmyra 116 tariV of 237, 272 n. 60, 275 n. 67, 288 Pamphylia 111, 169, 170, 172, 175, 188–192,199, 201 harbours 168 province (with Cilicia) 101, 102, 104, 183 Paphlagonia 174, 176 Parium 34–5 Pergamum 175, 183 diocese of 60–61, 192 rescript from 272 n. 60 caput uiae 189 harbour 241 games 153–4 Pergamenes 76–7, 153–4 Perge 36–37, 101, 103, 111, 188 Perinthus 178 Pessinus 178 Phaselis 36–37, 101, 103, 111, 188, 190 Philomelium 189 Phocaea 34–5 Phrygia 175, 176, 190, 191 Phrygians 113, 175, 185, 197 n. 118 Physcus 36–37, 111, 188

364

Index of Peoples and Places

Pisidia 176, 189, 190, 191 Pitane 34–5 Poemanenon 185 Poeessa, Ceos 112 Pompeiopolis 174 Pontus, region 176 kingdom 176–7 province 172, 176, 182, 194 title 173, see also Black Sea Poroselene 34–5, 188 n. 87, 192 Porticus Julia, Rome 213 n. 25, 247 of Apollo’s temple 213 n. 29, 214 n. 32 of Trajan’s Baths 213 n. 27 Priapus 34–5 Priene on the mouth of the Maeander 34–5, 111 Propontis 182 Prusias ad mare (Cius) 180 Puteoli 6, 211 lex libitinaria from 216, 272, 274 n. 65 Pylae (Yalova) 179, 180, 181 Rhodes 175 free 186 Rhosus, dossier from 241 Rhyndacus River 34–5, 38–9, 114, 179–80, 180 Rome 5 exports to 167 processing of materials at 125 Wre of ad 64: 252 Rostra, Roman 241 Sagalassus 196 n. 117 Salamis, Cyprus 272 n. 60 Samus 193 Sangarius River 175 Sardinia 244 revenues from 253 n. 4 Sardis dispute with Ephesus 185 diocese of 60–1

Satala 176 Scaptopara, inscription 211 n. 24, 213, 247 Sibde, Side 112 Sicily 7, 9, 121, 198 n. 120, 238, 242 n. 25, 263, 265 n. 42, 266 n. 45, 270 n. 54 Side (Coryphe) 36–37, 101, 103, 111–2, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192 Sigeum 34–5 Smyrna 34–5 diocese of 60–1 Soada 272 n.60 Soknopaiou Nesos 294 Spain 265, 271 n. 58 Stoma Pontou 101, 104, 105, 172, 174, 181 Synnada 177, 189 diocese of 60–61 Syria 176, 263, 272 n. 60 Tabala 296 n. 54 Tabularium, Rome 91, 9, 213, 214–5, 268 Takina 296 Tarentum, inscription 150 Taurus Mountains 189, 190 Tenedus 193 Teos 34–5, 188 n. 87 Termessus 11, 145 Theban nome 274 n. 65 Thrace 320 Tieum 174 Tribunal of praetor, Rome 247 Triglia 179, 180 Troas, see Alexandria Verona 299 n. 66 Via Caecilia 249 Egnatia 178 Sebaste 196 n. 117 Vipasca, leges from, 239 Zarai, tariV of 237, 272 n. 60 Zeugma 279

General Index In this Index ‘Lex’ refers to the document studied in this work, ‘lex’ to other sets of regulations. abductio equivalent of agoge 119–20 actio equivalent of agoge 119 actor 289, 309 equivalent of epitropos 106 advocatus Wsci 257 n. 19 Aerarium (Saturni), 90 titulature 143, 159, 203, 208 changes of management 90–1, 147, 159, 205–9, 228–35, 256–7, 258, and see praetors, prefects, quaestors duties of managers 210–12, 257 emperors’ gifts 253 imposes charges for benches 255 payment to be made at 55–7 revenue oYcers to be changed at 80–1, 158–9 Aerarium militare 225–6, 228, 243, and see prefects agoge 119 agora 139 anadochoi, see praedes animals, exemptions for 50–1, 56–7 annona 131, 220 n.50, 262 n, 34 arabotoxotai 289 arbitratus 70–1, 82–3, 126, 145 archones 307 Areopagus, council of 222 arkarii 289 army requirements 2, 50–1, 52–3 Asia, province of 1, 103 political geography 2, 167–97 categories of land in 184–5 boundaries 2, 28–9, 38–9, 40–41, 44–5, 125, 167–8, 169–72 extent 20, 101–3, 162–3, 168, 178–83, early 182 Pamphylia and Asian province 188–92, 201 interior boundaries 183–7

border crossings speciWed 33–6, 17–8, additions 126 cessions to other provinces 62–3, 138, 182–3, 185, 194–5, 197 neighbours 172–8 Wnancial boundaries 101–3, 162–3, 168–9, 188 Aegean islands and 192–3 equivalence of land and sea traYc 152 goods moving both in and out of 128–30, 181–2 assize centres 138–9, 193–7 Attalid kingdom, 1, 152, 187, 193, 217 bequest of 4, 186, 201, 32 domains 36–7, 184, 187, 199 buildings 52–3, 115, 126, 186–7, 199, 286–7 regulations 238 auctor 146 auctoritas 26–7 authentes 148, and see cognitor and magister changing 147, 152–3, 156 books, exemptions for 50–1, 56–7 breviarium of Augustus 212 budget, Roman 227 building projects, Neronian 252 cabotage 220, 223 campaigns of 89 bc 174–8 Neronian 252, 38 censor, Claudius as 206, 212 censors, functions 6–7, 30–1 in Lex 105, 133, 135 centesima rerum uenalium 226 cera 99, 41 chalcopyrite 125

366

General Index

cheiristai 289 cingo 172 cinnabar 125 circitores 291 ciuitates, see politeiai cognitio 160–2, 262 n. 34 cognitor 68–9, 70–1, 74–5, 146, 148, 222 coin, exemptions for 50–1, 122–3 coinage retariYng 134 Neronian reform 253, 266 commentarienses 289 commissioners’ functions 268 n. 52 debt recovery 212, 230, 234–5 reduction of public expenditure 228, 234, 243 conductio 99 conductores 211, 222, 286, 301–3 conWscation, source of revenue 227 congiarium 252 ‘Constitutio uectigalium Asiae’ 243, 27 n. 63 consuls and Lex 6–7, 30–1, 54–63, 66–79, 105, 133, 135, 144, 145–7, 149–58, 198–201, 209, 242, 273 contrascriptor 300 contubernium 299 conuentus, see diocese copper 125 crops 54–5 curators of public revenues 5, 6, 9, 26–7, 28–29, 82–3, 91, 93, 95–8, 100, 204, 209–10, 213, 216, 226, 233, 267–73 title 268 qualiWcations 93–4, 269–70 method of appointment 268–9 supplementing Lex 159–60 of tabulae publicae 229, 231–2, 234–5, 256 aquarum 208, 210, 244 uiae faciendae 211 custodia see paraphylake customs dues documented 11–12 methods of declaration 106–07, 116 deferred payments 220–1, and see pactio

buildings 334–7, 38–41, 52–3, 54–5, 72–3, 112, 115, 217 maritime 38–9, 110–11, 288 landward 112 Customs Law of Asia, correct title, v ‘damnatio memoriae’ 157–8 debt remission 255 decuma 98, 128–32 delatores rewards reduced 257–8 punished 255, 262 demoi 112–13, 137, 183–5, 195 demosiones 128, 133, 285, andseepublicani distinction from telones 121 demosionia 19, 98–100, 155, 243 ‘descriptum et recognitum’ 90–92 diagnosis 164 dicio equivalent of gnome 134 of Roman People 135 diikanodoteo 144 diocese 60–3, 138, 141, 192 diplomas, military 247 dispensatores 289 dolus malus 50–1, 56–7, 84–5, 109, 134, 163 domicile 135–7 donatives 252 ducere 48–9 ductio 60–1, equivalent of agoge 119–20 edict of praetor 5, 134, 236, 247 of governor 6, 134, 244, 263 n.35, 272 n. 60, 274 n. 65 imperial 214, 272 n. 60 of Nero on uectigalia 160–1, 246, 251–78 eparcheia 141, 168–9 epikrisis 144–5, 207 and see arbitratus epinomia, derivation, 167 n. 2 epitomes of documents 245 epitropos 285, 307, 308, and see procurator epoikia, see customs buildings equipment, personal exemptions for 50–1, 56–7, 132, 123, 134–7

General Index equites Sulla’s attack on 3 encroachments under Principate 150 eremophylakes 291 ereunetai 289–90 ethnos 138, and see tribus exactio 144 exemptions 50–1, 54–63, 122, 198, 264 granted by imperial favour 242 of individuals 62–3 of Vedius Pollio 142, 218 of doctors 272 n. 60 of communities 137–8, 141–2, 195–7 of Colonia Alexandria Troas 68–9, 171, 218 for Romaia Sebasta 76–7, 153 on goods re-exported or reimported 107–09, 132, 133, 193 extra ordinem 160–62, 262 n. 34 faeneratores 284 Wnancial policy at Rome 224–227 Wnes as territories 141 Wsci 212 Xocks, declaration of 116 food, exemptions 254–5 fora (juridical) 60–1 formula 60–1 formulary procedure 150 ‘free’ meaning 20, 112–3, 116, 184 free communities 36–7, 52–3, 102–3, 112–3, 126, 138, 168, 178 n.38, 180, 183, 184, 186–7, 193, 195, 201, 251 ‘free borders’ 20, 93, 114–6, 168, 173 Gnomon of Idios Logos 6, 242, 244–5 gold 125 grain tax 127 idiologi 6 imperialism, economic 3 inopes 259 iron 125 iudex 72–3 jurisdiction of praetor 150, 160, 163, 257, 262–3

367

of governors 160, 262–3 procuratorial 2, 150, 160–2, 262–3 kephalaia, see Lex, chapters koinon of Asia 183–5, 216, 240, 274 koinonoi, see socii kukleuo 136–7 leasing of tax collection 4, 12, 30–1, 99, 113, 133, 141 under the Principate 143 date for taking up lease 156 lex, 28–29, 140, 215 types of 5 locationis 5, 9, 26–7, 36–7, 44–5, 52–3, 54–5, 56–7, 94, 113, 129, 133, 216, see also leasing censoria 5, 7–8, 67, 119, 149 rogata 127 dicta 97 libitinaria 5, 216, 274 n. 65 portorii at Lambaesis 272 n.60 Hieronica 9 Sempronia de provincia Asia, 9, 94, 199, 201, 238 agraria of 111 bc 263–4 de prouinciis praetoriis 140, 144, 189, 238, 244 Terentia Cassia 128 de Gallia Cisalpina 120, 123 Munatia Aemilia 241 Fonteia 241 leges Juliae of 18–17 bc 241 Julia de ui publica 275 n. 67 Papia Poppaea 257 Irnitana 141, 238 Malacitana 146, 148 metallis dicta 239 publication 240, 270–2 Lex, publication 1, 261, 271–3 nature 2, 5, 6–8, 166, 248 scope 100–03, 167–9 title 28–9 refers to itself as lex 48–9, 60–1, 68–71, 76–9, 146, 167 prescript 89–100, 169–72, 268 n. 49 ‘Bithynian preface’ 101–3 chapters 80–1

368

General Index

Lex (cont.) genesis and chronology 8–10, 198–201, 236 tralatician 8, 95, 143, 173–4 early phases 12, 111, 129, 133, 151–2, 182–3, 192, 199–201, 217, 237–9 Wnalization 4 publication date 89 transmission and translation 3–4, 12, 89, 212–6, 245–8, 268, 274 language 249–50 Greek version vi, 20–21, 166 Latin version 19–21, 89 particles, problem for translator, 134, 176 variants in language 148 clumsiness 217–8 regulations incomplete 275 references to Roman People 249 parallels 213–4, 242 librarii 289 magister 68–9, 78–83, 145, 148 magistrate, city, to collect dues 40–1, 72–3, 116, 151–2, 291 manceps, 146–8, 216, 271 mandata 6 mare clausum 220 merx 110, 116 metalla 98 milestones 188–9 mines 58–9, 105, 122, 133–4 misthos 121 ‘Monumentum Ephesenum’ title 1 description of stone 14–15, 165 lettering 15–16, 165–6 munera 264, 267 n. 46 murex 34–5, 74–5, 106, 109, 152 nature of tax 152, 224 nationes 138 noui homines 94 nundinae 139 oikonomos 309, 311, and see uilicus oil 54–5, 127–8, 130 ˆ nion 110, 139 O ores 56–7, 105, 133–4 exemptions for 52–3, 125

orichalcum 125 pactiones 70–1,149, 220–1 paraphylakai 38–45, 62–3, 114–6, 141, 286, pascua perpetua 9, 26–7, 28–9, 93 nature of 95–6, 98–100, 167, 211, 243, 273 n. 62 pecunia numerata 123 personal equipment, exemptions for 50–1, 56–7, 123, 132, 134–7 for repairs 122, 124 phorologos 291 n. 40 phylakai 291 pignus capere 48–9, 58–61, 72–3, 109, 120, 134, 149, 263 pinakion 288 pirates 188 plebiscite 30–31 Greek rendering 104, 140 pledge, see pignus ; praedes ; praedia politeiai 60–3, 137 populi 138, 185 portitor 30–7, 289 conWscation of goods 30–5, 44–5, 46–9, 109, 118–9, 149–50 recovery from 46–7, 117, 149–50, 263–4 absent 40–41, 72–3, 115 portorium 19, 223 of Asia 26–7 praedes 66–7, 74–5, 143–5, 148, 155, 222 praedia 66–9, 74–5, 143–5, 155, 222 praepositus 288 praetor inter peregrinos 72–3, 150, 156, 161–2, 263 praetors in charge of Aerarium 66–9, 74–5, 78–9, 144, 146–7, 156, 158–9, 203–4, 207–9, 228–9, 234 pragma equivalent of res 110 pragmateutae 289, 304 prefects of Aerarium 210–11, 232, 235, 256 duties 272 abolished 209–10 of Aerarium militare 212 of annona 26 n. 34 private use, exemptions on goods for 50–51, 58–9 procurator

General Index of publicanus 30–3, 36–7, 48–9, 70–1, 163 absent 40–1, 72–3 of quadragesima 308 of Nero, misdemeanours 82–3, 295 proenguos 144, 155, 158–60, and see cognitor and magister promagister 304, 306, 307–8 prosodoi equivalent to uectigalia 204, 223 prostitution 283 public property, exemptions for 50–1 publicani 48–9 status 12, 121 societates 72–3, 102, 113, 131, 143, 147–8, 217, 238–9, 285–7, 310, 311, 228 contract for customs dues 36–7 quinquennial tenure 4–5. 68–9, 70–1, 76–81, 99, 100, 144, 147, 152–3, 156, 158, 209, 242 and Wnancial year 218–23 dates for completion 66–7 rights 117–9 exemptions 56–7, 127, 130 duties 36–41, 48–9, 54–5, 66–71, 74–85, 120, 134, 143, 163 procedures 289–93 relations with military 295–6 disputes with travellers 5, 48–9, 72–3, 160–1, 163, 262–3, 132 obstruction of 263, 198 misdemeanours 1, 2, 4, 7, 12, 48–9, 56–7, 110, 120–1, 148, 276, 293–7 illegal surcharges 265–6 deprived of uectigalia 276, 286 ill repute 276, 280–5 terms of abuse 281 self-perception 297–300 inscriptions honouring 301–4 collective tombs 299 dedications to superiors 304 use of Latin 298 publicum 19, 98–9, 215 portorii Illyrici 217 quadragesimae portuum Asiae 217 quattuor publica of Africa 217 purple, see murex quadragesima 265, 307, 308, 310, 311

369

quaestors 28–9, 80–1, 95, 98 of Aerarium 205–7, 230–2, 258 of emperor 225 in Asia 161 rates of duty 30–33, 56–7, 62–3, 105–6, 109, 125, 130–1, 142–3 on murex 224 for securities 70–1, 74–5, 82–3, 144, 152–3, 159, 222–3 receipts 290, 292 record oYce, see tabularium recuperatores 72–3, 256–8, 263 redemptio 99 relatio 96–7 religious purposes, exemptions on goods carried for 50–1, 123, 153–4 republication 271 n. 60, 143 res, meaning of in Lex 110, 116, 154 restitutio in integrum 46–7, 117 road construction 196 n. 117 Romaia Sebasta, games, exemption for 76–7 dating 153 Roman territory 58–9 Rome, service of, exemptions for 122 routes 176–7, 188–9 sailors, exemptions for 50–1, 122 sales tax remitted for Italy 229, 254 scriptura 98, 127, 263 scrutatores 281, 289–90, 299 28–9, 95, 97, 140, 213, 240 in Greek archives 244 de agro Pergameno 238 de Oropiorum et publicanorum controversiis 240 on doctors’ privileges 272 n. 60, 275 n. 67 de Aphrodisiensibus 240, 242 de ludis saecularibus 141, 244 of Larinum 213 n. 29 honouring Germanicus 214, 248 de Cn. Pisone patre 203, 213 n. 29, 225 honouring Pallas 214 n. 32 setting up curators 269 ships liable to tributum 266–7 exemptions for 50–1, 56–7l signatores 212

370

General Index

siromastes 290 skeue, meaning 134 slaves 126 types of 151 new 72–3, 151 child 105–06, 142–3 marked 72–3, 151 duty on 30–31, 66–7, 74–5, 105–06, 142, 151, 279 exemptions 50–1, 56–7, 122, 124 tax on sale 228, 232, 258 in service of publicani 217, 286, 289, 295, 306–11 families 299 wills 300, 227 smuggling see tax evasion soldiers exemption 50–1, 122, 264–5 misconduct 295–6 pro milite 124–4, 229 sphragis 72–3, 151 statio 112 subuectio 266 sureties, payment of 221–2, and see praedes and praedia symbolarius 290, 308 tabulae censoriae 90 publicae 225 tabularii 289, 295 tabularium of curators, 26–7, 213–4 site 91–2 tax evasion 2, 32–5, 46–7, 54–5, 107, 118–9, 292 penalties 60–1, 109, 118–9, 137, 263 taxation defended 277 direct and indirect 254 n. 6, 266, 276 on inheritances 228 exemptions 50–1 tax collectors, see publicani telonea 28–9, 36–7 telones 285 distinction from demosiones 121 teloniarius 298–9, 308 telonion, restored by tax-farmers 304

telos, meaning 19 of Asia 28–9, 223 temenos and temple, not allowed for customs station 38–9, 54–5, 114–5 tetartones 291 n. 40 tetrarchs and civil law 244 tin 125 tithes 54–5, 218, 254 n. 6 of Sicily 7 topos, in Lex 171 n. 17 treaty providing for exemptions 58–9, 135 tribunes’ judicial power curtailed 155–6, 256 tribunician power 62–3, 140–1, 241 tribus 36–7, 60–3, 112–3, 137, 183–5, 195 tributum, 254, 264, 266–7, 275 uectigalia 19, 26–9, 254, 269 set up by lex 270 Tiberius consults senate on 229 abolition mooted 232–3, 260–1 of Asia 274 uectura 131 uiaticum 52–3 uicarii 291, 300, 304, 306, 310, 311 uice-procurator 308 uicesima libertatis 98, 211 uici 36–7, 60–3 uigiles 225–6 uilici 217, 285 n. 19, 288, 299, 304, 306, 307, 309–11 staV of 288–9 valuation of goods 44–5, 48–9, 60–1, 106, 116–7, 292 at speciWc site 46–7 war, impending, 125 water, exempted 122, 125 wine 54–5, 127–8, 130 women not to be searched 275, 292 xenophylakes 302 ‘Zollbezirk’, see Asian province, Wnancial boundaries

Culture and Customs of Laos (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Korea (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Indonesia (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Vietnam (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Mongolia (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Australia (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Australia (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Read more

Culture and Customs of the Central Asian Republics (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Read more

Insolvency Law in East Asia

Read more

Culture and Customs of Senegal (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Read more

Cinema, Law, and the State in Asia

Read more

Culture and Customs of France (Culture and Customs of Europe)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Rwanda (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Ukraine (Culture and Customs of Europe)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Kenya (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Uganda (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Read more

Cinema, Law, and the State in Asia

Read more

Culture and Customs of Zambia (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Sudan (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Hungary (Culture and Customs of Europe)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Liberia (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Morocco (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Italy (Culture and Customs of Europe)

Read more

Culture and Customs of Botswana (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Read more

Law of the Sea in East Asia: Issues and prospects

Read more

Culture and Customs of the Baltic States

Read more

Tales and Customs of the Ancient Hebrews

Read more

Culture and Customs of Taiwan

Read more

Culture and Customs of Sweden

Read more

Culture and Customs of Zimbabwe:

Read more

Recommend Documents

Culture and Customs of Laos (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Culture and Customs of Laos Laos. Courtesy of Bookcomp, Inc. Culture and Customs of Laos ARNE KISLENKO Culture an...

Culture and Customs of Korea (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Culture and Customs of Korea Recent Titles in Culture and Customs of Asia Culture and Customs of Taiwan Gary Marvin D...

Culture and Customs of Indonesia (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Culture and Customs of Indonesia Jill Forshee Greenwood Press CULTURE AND CUSTOMS OF INDONESIA Indonesia. Cartogra...

Culture and Customs of Vietnam (Culture and Customs of Asia)

...

Culture and Customs of Mongolia (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Culture and Customs of Mongolia Mongolia. Cartography by Bookcomp, Inc. Culture and Customs of Mongolia TIMOTHY MI...

Culture and Customs of Australia (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Culture and Customs of Australia LAURIE CLANCY GREENWOOD PRESS Culture and Customs of Australia Culture and Custom...

Culture and Customs of Australia (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Culture and Customs of Australia LAURIE CLANCY GREENWOOD PRESS Culture and Customs of Australia Culture and Custom...

Culture and Customs of the Central Asian Republics (Culture and Customs of Asia)

Culture and Customs of the Central Asian Republics Rafis Abazov Greenwood Press CULTURE AND CUSTOMS OF THE CENTRAL A...

Insolvency Law in East Asia

INSOLVENCY LAW IN EAST ASIA This page intentionally left blank Insolvency Law in East Asia Edited by ROMAN TOMASIC...

Culture and Customs of Senegal (Culture and Customs of Africa)

Culture and Customs of Senegal Administrative Regions. ii Culture and Customs of Senegal Eric S. Ross Culture ...