Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:41:53.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fiscus in the First Two Centuries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Fergus Millar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The early Principate tends to be interpreted in terms of the constitutional forms in which it was clothed and the administrative innovations which it brought, to the neglect of those, largely unchanged, social and economic factors which shaped the actual working of Roman politics. In no area has this tendency been more obvious than in works dealing with the Fiscus, which has thus been seen as an alternative ‘state treasury’ created at a given moment, by Augustus, perhaps in 21 or 20 B.C., by Tiberius, or by Claudius, which absorbed the revenues of the imperial provinces, and some indirect taxes. It is also seen as an administrative unit (like a Treasury, or a University Chest) concerned with the handling of an area of public finance.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 1-2 , November 1963 , pp. 29 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Fergus Millar 1963. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bolla, S., Die Entwicklung des Fiskus zum Privatrechtssubjekt mit Beiträgen zur Lehre vom Aerarium (Prague, 1938), 19–20.Google Scholar

2 de Laet, S. J., Portorium (Bruges, 1949), 364–5.Google Scholar

3 CAH X, 687 esp.; Last, H., ‘The Fiscus: a Note,’ JRS XXXIV (1944), 51, on p. 59Google Scholar; Garzetti, A., ‘Aerarium e Fiscus sotto Augusto; storia di una questione in parte di nomi,’ Athenaeum XXXI (1953), 298, esp. p. 327.Google Scholar

4 e.g. Last, o.c. 52; Berger, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, (Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 43, 2 (1953), 472–3)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jolowicz, H. F., An Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law 2 (Cambridge, 1952), 339.Google Scholar

5 e.g. Hirschfeld, O., Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten 2 (Berlin, 1905), 82.Google Scholar de Laet, l.c. (n. 2).

6 Last, o.c. (n. 3), 51; Jones, A. H. M., ‘The Aerarium and the Fiscus’ JRS XL (1950), 22, esp. on p. 25.Google Scholar

7 Sutherland, C. H. V., ‘Aerarium and Fiscus during the early Empire,’ AJPh LXVI (1945), 151Google Scholar, gives the full emphasis to the role of the Emperor's private wealth in the early Principate, but then relates the theme too closely to the separate subject of the Emperor’s control of the Aerarium—and claims that the latter had been reduced to insignificance by the reign of Trajan.

8 de benef. VII, 6, 3.

9 e.g. Last, o.c. (n. 3), 55–6.

10 See e.g. CIL VI, 772, 8450, 8450a. This point was made by Jones, o.c. (n. 6), 26. It is not necessary to assume that all the various ‘fisci’ were subdivisions of ‘the Fiscus’.

11 Suet., Div. Vesp. 23, I.

12 CIL VI, 10876. This is the earliest Roman inscription (from the reign of Hadrian or soon after) in which the word ‘fiscus’, unqualified and in the singular, occurs.

13 Fragmenta de iure fisci (FIRA 2 II, 627 f.), I, 6 ad. fin. II, 10, 11, 12, 13 (?).

14 Frontinus, de aquae ductu urbis Romae, 116 ff.

15 ILS 5920. For related inscriptions see Macmullen, R., ‘Roman Imperial Building in the Provinces,’ Harv. Stud. Class. Phil. LXIV (1959), 207, n. 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 CIL VI, 10233.

17 Pliny, NH XVIII, 114.Google Scholar

18 Pliny, NH XII, 113, 123.Google Scholar

19 Jos., BJ I, 361Google Scholar, not mentioned in AJ XV, 95. See Buchheim, H., Die Orientpolitik des Triumvirn M. Antonius (Heidelberg, 1960), 68 f.Google Scholar

20 It is possible, though it is not stated, that the balsam plantations were among the territories returned by Octavian to Herod in 30 B.C., Jos., BJ I, 396Google Scholar = AJ XV 217. In that case the plantations will have come to the Fiscus when the property of Archelaus was confiscated in A.D.6 (see n. 113).

21 Jos., AJ XVI, 128.Google Scholar Cyprus was now (12 B.C.) a public province.

22 Galen (ed. Kühn), XIV, 7.

23 Bona, F., ‘Sul concetto di “Manubiae” e sulla responsibilità del magistrato in ordine alla preda,’ Stud. et Doc. Hist. et Iur. XXVI (1960), 105.Google Scholar

24 See Wilcken, U., ‘Zu den Impensae der Res Gestae divi Augusti,’ S-B Deutsche Ak. Wiss. XXVII (1931), 772.Google Scholar

25 Dio LI, 17, 7–8.

26 There are of course difficulties here in that real property did not normally form a part of booty, or manubiae The properties concerned are ones of which Antonius was able to dispose freely, and it was perhaps in the practice of the Triumviral period that the origins of Augustus' rights to the properties lay.

27 Tac., Hist. IV, 72.Google Scholar

28 Gellius, Aulus, NA XIII, 25.Google Scholar

29 CIL III 1312, ‘M. Ulpio Aug./lib. Hermiae proc./aurariarum.’.

30 ILS 6870.

31 CIL IX 2438; FIRA 2 I, 61. See Passerini, A., Le coorti pretorie (Rome, 1939), 251 f.Google Scholar

32 P. Ryl. 157. Compare the fragmentary BGU 1576, a letter from an official to a procurator dating to 133–5 or 147–8, with mentions of (1. 10) τῶι κυριακῶι λόγωι, (1. 16) τ]ῶν προσόδων τῶν κτήματων and (1. 23) καὶ τῶι φίσκωι.

33 Dig 22. 1. 16. 1; 39. 4. 9. 8; 49. 45. 13–14; 49. 14. 47. 1; 49. 14. 50; 50. 6. 6. 10–11; Paulus, Sent. I. 6a. 5, v. 12. 23.

34 Pliny, NH XXXIV, 2–4Google Scholar.

35 See Hirschfeld, O., ‘Der Grundbesitz der römischen Kaiser,’ Kleine Sckriften (Berlin, 1913), 529.Google Scholar

36 Tac., Ann. VI, 19.Google Scholar See below (p. 37).

37 CIL XIII 1550 (Aquitania, Ruteni) has ‘Zmaragdo vilico … familiae Ti. Cae[sa]ris quae est in me///lis’. Strabo 191 mentions silver mines among the Ruteni. See Davies, O., Roman Mines in Europe (Oxford, 1935), 80 f.Google Scholar

38 CIL II 1179. Compare CIL XIV, 52 (Ostia), Dorotheus Aug. lib. proc. massae Marian(ae).

39 FIRA 2 I, 104, 105.

40 de benef. 4, 39, 3. The passage probably reflects a situation in which a man being sued for an indefinite amount (‘in incertum’) by the Fiscus asks a friend to act as sponsor.

41 Or XLVI, 8 … ἤ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἐποίησα κινδυνεῦσαί τινα, ὡς Καίσαρι προσηκούσης…;

42 Tac., Ann. II, 47, 3.Google Scholar

43 Jos., AJ XVI, 2, 2 (26).Google Scholar

44 Philos., VS II, 29.Google Scholar

45 Cic., Ad Att. V, 21, 10.Google Scholar

46 Syll.3 800. The new date is demonstrated by Gossage, A. J., ‘The Date of IG v (2), 516 (SIG 3 800),’ PBSA XLIX (1954), 51.Google Scholar Gossage notes (p. 55, n. 2) a letter from Professor A. H. M. Jones suggesting that φίσκος here may refer to ‘the emperor's financial department, including his private revenue’, and mentioning as a parallel Jos., AJ XVI, 2Google Scholar, 2 (26). I owe this reference to Mr. G. W. Bowersock. For Imperial (private) procurators attested in Achaea in Augustus' reign see Pflaum, H. G., Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire remain (Paris, 1960–1961), 1070–1.Google Scholar

47 SHA, vita Had. 7, 6.Google Scholar

48 LXIX, 8, 12. Compare Dio's reference, LXXI, 32, 2 (272), to the remission of debts by Marcus Aurelius—τοῖς ὀφείλουαί τι τῷ βασιλικῷ καὶ τῷ δημοσίῳ πᾶσι πάντα τὰ ὀφειλόμενα ἀφῆκεν.

49 ILS 309.

50 On provincial fisci (the funds held by governors) and their relation to the Aerarium, see Jones, o.c. (n. 6), 22–3.

51 OGIS 669 and the revised text by Evelyn-White, H. G. and Oliver, J. H., The Temple of Hibis in El Khārgeh Oasis: Part II, Greek Inscriptions (New York, 1938), no. 4, 11. 20–1.Google Scholar

52 See Macmullen, R., ‘The Anabolicae Species,’ Aegyptus XXXVIII (1958), 184, on p. 192–3.Google Scholar

53 Zilliacus, H., Vierzehn berliner griechische Papyri, Soc. Sc. Fenn. Com. Hum. Lit. XI, 4 (Helsingfors, 1941), no. 3, 1. 13Google Scholar …ὅτι ἐὰν ἐν/[τὸς] μηνῶν ἓξ μὴ ἀποδοθῇ τὸ ὀφιλό/[με]νον τῷ φόσ[κῳ πρ]αθήσεται τὰ γε/[νημ]ατογραφ[ούμεν]α…

54 Ann. IV, 6.

55 LVII, 23, 5.

56 Josephus, , AJ XVIII, 6Google Scholar, 3 (158). Agrippa had been in Rome a few years earlier, had been a friend of Tiberius' son Drusus and had exhausted his fortune (AJ XVIII, 6, 1). H. G. Pflaum, Carrières Procuratoriennes, no. 9, argues that Capito was acting as φόρων ἐκλογεὺς (Philo, Leg. 199) and pursuing arrears of tribute. But Josephus' wording makes this view untenable.

57 Pan. 36, 3–4.

58 Pan. 80, I.

59 Dig. 28. 4. 3.

60 Dig. 1. 2. 2. 32.

61 SHA, vita Had. 20, 6.Google Scholar

62 Dig. 3. 1. 10; Frag. de iure fisci II. 16–17.

63 e.g. EE V, 1203.

64 e.g. AE 1908, 18.

65 e.g. CIL IX 2565, [adv]o[c]ato fisc (i) stat(ionis) hereditati (um).

66 Dig. 49. 14. 3. 9 (a rescript of Hadrian); 49. 14. 7

67 See P. Strasb. 56 (II/III A.D.), Text A. 2, 1. 10 P Strab. 34 (Antinoopolis, A.D. 180–192), 1.25 [….] BGU 1573 (Arsinoite nome, 141/2), 1. 15 … πρωτο[π]ραξί[ας οὔ]τῷ φίσ[κῳ]; PSI XII, 1237, recto 1.6 (A.D. 162) […πρωτο]–πραξίας οὕσης τῷ φίσκῳ. Also P. Leips. I, 9, 1. 34, as given in Preisigke, Wörterbuch s.v. φίσκος. The legal character of πρωτοπραξία and the Fiscus' rights ‘velut ius pignoris’ or ‘pignoris vice’ are discussed by Wieacker, F., ‘Protopraxie und “ius pignoris” im klassischen Fiskalrecht’, Festschrift P. Koschaker I (Weimar, 1939), 218.Google Scholar

68 Paulus, , Sent. V, 12, 10.Google Scholar

69 See the rather muddled list in Bolla, o.c. (n. 1), 78 f.

70 e.g. Dig. 40. 9. 16. 3; 40. 1. 10; Frag. de iure fisci II, 19.

71 Dig. 22. 1. 17. 5.

72 Dig. 22. 1. 17. 6; 49. 14. 6.

73 Dig. 49. 14. 5.

74 Dig. 27. 9. 2. This passage raises further legal problems which are not relevant to the present argument.

75 Dig. 16. 2. 12; 49. 14. 46. 4.

76 Dig. 16. 2. 12; 49. 14. 3. 7; 49. 14. 6.

77 Dig. 40. 15. 1 praef.

78 Dig. 49. 14. 25.

79 49. 14. 3. 5.

80 Dig. 49. 14. 22 praef.

8l Dig. I. 16. 9 (Ulpian, de officio proconsulis).

82 The evidence is given in full by Rogers, R. S., ‘The Roman Emperors as Heirs and Legatees,’ TAPhA LXXVIII (1947), 140Google Scholar, and intelligently discussed by Gaudemet, J., ‘“Testamenta ingrata et pietas Augusti”: contribution à l'étude du sentiment impérial,’ Studi Arangio-Ruiz III (Naples, 1953), 115.Google Scholar

83 Suet., Nero 32, 2.Google Scholar

84 Pliny, Pan. 43, 1.Google Scholar

85 See e.g. O. Hirschfeld, o.c. (n. 33), 518–19.

86 Pliny, Pan. 42, 1.Google Scholar

87 On the difficulties surrounding the exact provisions of this lex see P-W XII, 2418–2430, and Biondi, B., Successione testamentaria e donazione 2 (Milan, 1955), 134–5.Google Scholar Moreover, the reference to the lex Voconia is a puzzle in itself, since its provisions ought to have been superseded by those of the lex Falcidia of 40 B.C.

88 Tac., Ann. II, 48, 1.Google Scholar

89 Artemidorus, , Oneirocritica IV, 59.Google Scholar

90 See the edition by Riccobono, S., Il Gnomon dell' Idios Logos (Palermo, 1950)Google Scholar, text (pp. 31 f.) paras. 4, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 45, 50, 112 and commentary (pp. 95 f.), and also Besnier, R., ‘L'application des lois caducaires d'Auguste d'après le gnomon de l'idiologue,’, RIDA (Mèlanges de Visscher I) 11 (1949), 93.Google Scholar

91 Strabo 797. This is confirmed by P. Oxy. 1188 (A.D. 13), e.g. II. 4, 10, 15–16.

92 See Préaux, C., L'économie royale des Lagides (Brussels, 1939), 409.Google Scholar

93 See the ‘Extract from the Registry Law of Succession’ on a Dura parchment, Welles, C. B., Fink, R. O., Gilliam, J. F., The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report v. I: The Parchments and Papyri (New Haven, 1959), no. 12 (pp. 76–9).Google Scholar

94 The operation of the principle in Egypt is illustrated by the edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander (see n. 48 above), 11. 38 f., on abuses concerned with delation of properties due to the idios logos. Note also P. Cattoui V, 17 (Archiv für Papyrusforschung III, 61), a judgement by the Idiologos given on 22nd Nov., 136, in which bona vacantia are taken [ε]ἰς τ̣ὸ̣ν̣ κυριακὸν λόγον.

95 Tac., Ann. III, 25 and 28.Google Scholar

96 See e.g. Dig. 49. 14. 13 (from Paulus, liber primus ad legem Iuliam et Papiam) on two edicts by Trajan, and further second-century regulations; and also 49. 14, 15, 42, 49.

97 Dig. 5. 3. 20. 6 f. See Biondi, o.c. (n. 87), 145.

98 Note for example Gaius, , Inst. II, 285Google Scholar, an S.C., following on an oratio of Hadrian, by which fideicommissa for the benefit of peregrini were claimed for the Fiscus, and Dig. 49. 14. 1. 2–3, a rescript of Antoninus Pius, referring back to a constitution by Titus.

99 Ulp., reg. 17, 2: ‘Hodie ex constitutione imp. Antonini omnia caduca fisco vindicantur, sed servato iure antiquo liberis et parentibus’.

100 Preaux, o.c. (n. 86), 406 and 409.

101 Corpus agrimensorum rom., Teubner ed., P. 41 (Agennius Urbicus, de controversiis agrorum), ‘non enim exiguum pecuniae fisco contulit venditis subsicivis’ and pp. 96–7 (Hyginus, de generibus controversiarum) ‘divus Vespasianus subsiciva omnia … sibi vindicasset’. cf. also Vespasian's claim to land confiscated in Judaea after the revolt of 66–70, Jos., BJ VII, 216–17.Google Scholar

102 See Hill, G. F., ‘Treasure-Trove: the Law and Practice of Antiquity,’ Proc. Brit. Acad. XIX (1933), 219Google Scholar, where the passages I mention, except that from Juvenal, are fully discussed.

103 Calp. Sic., Eclogae IV, 117–121: ‘lam neque damnatos iactare ligones / fossor et, invento, si fors dedit, utitur auro; / nec timet, ut nuper, dum iugera versat arator / ne sonet offenso contraria vomere massa. …’

104 Philos., VS II, 1.Google Scholar

105 Juv., Sat. IV. 54–6.Google Scholar

106 See SHA, Had. 18. 6Google Scholar; Inst. 2. I. 39, Dig. 49. 14. I, praef, 3. 10–11, and Hill, o.c. (n. 96), 243 f.

107 See Pliny, NH VII, 74–5Google Scholar, X, 84, XIX, 39; Sen., Ep. Mor. XCV, 42.

108 Preaux, o.c. (n. 86), 407 and 409–410. Note also that under the Seleucids the property of men convicted of treason was confiscated: Bikerman, E., Institutions des Séleucides (Paris, 1938), 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

109 Para. 36. Compare Dio XLVII, 14, 1, on similar provisions made by the Triumvirs for the proscriptions of 43–2 B.C.

110 L. 25. Dittenberger (OGIS 669, commentary) takes it that the reference is to damnati It is possible that debtors to the Fiscus are meant—so Schubart, W., Archiv f. Papyrusforschung XIV (1941), 37–8.Google Scholar

111 Tac., Ann. IV, 20.Google Scholar

112 Dio LIII, 23, 7, … ἁλῶναί τε αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις καὶ φυγεῖν τῆς οὐσίας στερηθέντα, καὶ ταύτην τε τῷ Αὐγούστῳ δοθῆναι.

113 Jos., BJ II, 7, 3Google Scholar (III), ἡ οὐσία δ’ αὐτοῦ τοῖς Καίσαρος θησαυροῖς ἐγκαταστάσσεται (cf. AJ XVII, 344). At the death of Herod in 4 B.C. the procurator of Syria had come to Jerusalem ἐπὶ φυλακῇ τῶν Ἡρώδου χρημάτων. See Jos., BJ II, 16–19, 41–54Google Scholar, AJ XVII, 221–3.

114 Tac., Ann. VI, 2.Google Scholar

115 Tac., Ann. VI, 19.Google Scholar See above (p. 31). It is worth noting that Dio LVIII, 22, 2, states that Marius was a friend of Tiberius and had thus become rich. This might therefore be another case in which imperial gifts were being recovered.

116 Tac., Ann. VI, 17.Google Scholar ‘tot damnatis bonisque eorum divenditis signatum argentum fisco vel aerario attinebatur.’

117 Philo, In Flaccum 150.

118 Jos., BJ VII, 446Google Scholar, καὶ ταῦτα πράττειν ἐνόμιζεν ἀσφαλῶς, ὅτι οὐσίας αὐτῶν ἐς τοὺς τοῦ Καίσαρος προσόδους ἀναλάμβανεν.

119 The Athenian inscription is given by Abbot and Johnson, Municipal Administration no. 90, and re-edited by Oliver, J. H., The Ruling Power, Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 43, 4 (Philadelphia, 1953), 960–1.Google Scholar See 11. 3–5, … οἱ τὰ/Ἱππάρχου χωρία τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ φίσκου/πραθέντα κεκτήμενοι, and 30–1 . . ἢ ὑπὲρ χωρίου, [εἴ τις πα]ρὰ φίσκου ἐπρίατο μὴ Ἱππάρχ[ου γενομέ]/νον.

120 Dig. 48. 22. 1.

121 Dig. 48. 20. 6.

122 SHA, Had. 7. 7.Google Scholar

123 See e.g. Dig. 48. 2. 20; 48, 20. 7–10 passim; 49. 14. 22. praef.; 45. 2; 45. 11; Frag. de iure fisci II. 20. Compare the casual reference in Plut., Mor. 484a—a condemned man ἀπώλεσε τὴν οὐσίαν, εἰς τὸ Καίσαρος ταμιεῖον ἀναληφθεῖσαν, and Euseb., HE VI, 2, 12, referring to the condemnation of Origen's father in 203—τῆς γε μὴν τοῦ πατρὸς περιουσίας τοῖς βασιλικοῖς ταμιείοις ἀναληφθείσης.

124 Paras. 43 and 44. Compare para. 105—confiscation of half property for lending money at over 12 per cent.

125 Dig. 47. 12. 3. 5, a rescript of Hadrian laying down a fine payable by those ‘qui in civitate sepeliunt’ see Paul, , Sent. I, 21.Google Scholar 2—this was punished ‘extra ordinem’ 49. 14. I praef. —occasions of nuntiatio ad fiscum— ‘domum destructam esse’. The S.C. de aedificiis non diruendis of A.D. 44 and 56 (FIRA 2 I, 45) had laid down a fine payable to the Aerarium. Frag. de iure fisci I, 8, gives a fine payable to the Fiscus by a man ‘qui contra edictum divi Augusti rem litigiosam a non possidente comparaverit’ and 1, 9, gives a fine—‘quae hodie fisco vindicatur’—for selling or acquiring fugitivi. Compare also the curious inscription from Cilicia, IGR III 864 = OGIS 579, Ἔδοξεν· ἐάν τις/εὑρεθῇ Κιλικίῳ μέ/τρῳ μετρῶν ἀπ/οδώσει ἰς τὸν φίσκ/ον δηνάρια εἴκοσι/πέντε·μετρεῖν δὲ/μέτροις οἷς ἡ πόλι/ς νομιτεύετ(αι) and a decree of Mylasa in 209/211 (OGIS 515 = Abbott and Johnson 133) which lays down (ll. 25–7) a fine for illegal exchange—τὸν [μὲν ἐλεύθερον ἀπο/τίνει]ν ἰς τὸ ἱερώτατον ταμεῖον τῶν κυρίων [ἡμῶν θειοτά/των] αὐτοκρατόρων…

126 Preaux, o.c. (n. 86), 408. See Berger, A., Die Strafklauseln in den Papyrusurkunden (Leipzig-Berlin, 1911), 31.Google Scholar

127 Dura Final Report V, I, no. 19 (1. 17), 20 (1. 21). The formula is restored in nos. 21, 22, 24.

128 ibid. no. 31. Upper text, 11. 19–20, lower text, 11. 47–8 (καὶ/εἰς φύσκον τὰς εἴσας).

129 ibid. no. 32, 1. 17.

130 Berger, o.c. (n. 118), 32 f.

131 CIL XII 4393, 11. 15 f.

132 See the discussion by Wesenberg, G., Verträge zugunsten Dritter: Forschungen zum römischen Recht, Bd. I, Abh. II (Weimar, 1949), 70 f.Google Scholar

133 IBM 481, partially reprinted in Laum, B., Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike (Berlin, 1914), II, no. 74Google Scholar, and Abbott and Johnson, no. 71. The reading of these lines can be confirmed by comparison with 11. 220–1. Further examples of endowments with penalties to the Fiscus are given by Laum, o.c. II, nos. 19b (Eleusis, second century A.D.), 72 (Attaleia, second century), 124 (Iasos). See also Atkinson, K. M. T., ‘The “Constitutio” of Vedius Pollio at Ephesus,’ RIDA Ser. 3, IX (1962), 262Google Scholar, on p. 287 (where the legal complexities are not appreciated).

134 Dig. 4. 8. 42.

135 Dig. 49. 14. 1. praef.

136 Wesenberg, o.c. (n. 132), 75–8.

137 See, for example, the indices of IGR (s.v. multae sepulchrales) and FIRA 2 III, 257 f.

138 A Berlin papyrus first published by Parthey, G., Nuove Memorie d. Instituto Arch. II, 455Google Scholar, no. 21, and restored by Wilcken, U., Griechische Ostraka, I (Leipzig-Berlin, 1899), 300Google Scholar, which has the expression Στεφάνου τοῦ ἔνπρ [οσ]θεν βα [σιλικοῦ, νυνὶ δὲ ἐς] τὸν φίσκον ἀν[αλα]μβ(ανομένου). Aurum coronarium may be the payment referred to in the Opramoas inscription, IGR III, 739, 11, 59 f.; τὴν πρὸς τὸν φί[σ]κον ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους ε[ὐ]σέβειαν ἐκπληρ [ῶ]ν–εὐσέβεια suggests a payment which was not formally an obligation (compare the same inscription, III, 88–9, his payment of tribute). Similarly, P. Giss. 61 (Heptakomia, A.D. 119), shows a λογία (special collection) being made for the benefit of the Fiscus not long after an emperor's accession.

139 Klauser, Th., ‘Aurum Coronarium,’ Röm. Mitt. LIX (1944), 129.Google Scholar

140 See e.g. Cic., in Pisonem 90, de leg. ag. II, 59; Res Gestae 21, 3; Pliny, NH XXXIII, 54.Google Scholar

141 See Wallace, S. L., Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (Princeton, 1938), 281–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

142 Suet., Calig. 40.

143 CJL III 13750 = Latyschev, IOSPE I2 404. See 1. 39 (41 in CIL), ‘….] pridem et dixerit et proposuerit et omnibus annis fisco pariaverit…’.

144 SHA, vita Sev. Alex. 24, 3Google Scholar, ‘lenonum vectigal et meretricum et exsoletorum in sacrum aerarium inferri vetuit, sed sumptibus publicis ad instaurationem theatri, Circi, Amphitheatri, Stadii deputavit.’ The terminology of the Historia Augusta is variable, but the use of ‘sacer’, commonly employed for things pertaining to the emperor, makes it probable that the Fiscus is being referred to.

145 Suet., Nero 44, 2Google Scholar. cf. Dio LXI, 5, 5 . . ταχὺ μὲν τοὺς ἐν τῷ βασιλικῷ θησαυροὺς ἐξήντλησε, ταχὺ δὲ πόρων καινῶν ἐδεήθη, καὶ τέλη τε οὐκ εἰθισμένα ἐξελέγετο….

146 Tac., Hist. I, 65.Google Scholar

147 FIRA I2, 49, republished, with commentary and translation, by Oliver, J. H. and Palmer, R. E. A., ‘Minutes of an Act of the Roman Senate,’ Hesperia XXIV (1955). 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

148 Ges. Schr. VIII, 499 f., esp. p. 527.

149 Tac., Hist. I, 46, 58.Google Scholar

150 Tac., Hist. I, 90.Google Scholar

151 Tac., Hist. I, 20.Google Scholar

152 Suet., Div. Vesp. 18, 1.Google Scholar ‘Primus e fisco Latinis Graecisque rhetoribus annua centena constituit.’ See Hieronymus, ad Ol. CCXVI. 4Google Scholar (A.D. 88) ‘Quintilianus … salarium e fisco accepit’. Dio (as in Zonaras) 66, 12, Ia, has διδασκάλους . . κατέστησε, μισθὸν ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου φέροντας. Suetonius' wording is clearly to be preferred.

153 Dio LXVIII, 2, 1–2.

154 AE 1933, 268 ad fin.

155 See CIL XI 3309 (Forum Clodi). Compare, for example, the Imperial building inscriptions: ILS 218, 245 (impensa sua), 280 (sua pecunia), 290, 293 (pecunia sua).

156 Cornelius Fronto (ed. Van Den Hout), p. 128. Compare Vell. Pat. II. 130. 2, where ‘patrimonium’ is used in connection with an Imperial benefaction.

157 Dio LXXIII, 5, 4 (310). Compare the occasion (Dio, ed. Boissevain, III, p. 280, Fr. I, and SHA, Marc. Ant. 17, 4–5Google Scholar) on which Marcus Aurelius sold off palace treasures to raise cash for a war.

158 Pliny, Pan. 29, 5.Google Scholar

159 Augustus, , Res Gestae 5, 2Google Scholar; 15, I; 18; Suet., Div. Aug. 41, 3.Google Scholar On Pius, Antonius, Vita 8, 11Google Scholar, ‘vini, olei et tritici penuriam per aerarii sui damnum emendo et gratis populo dando sedavit.’ Severus Alexander, Vita 21, 9.

160 Tac., Ann, II, 87.Google Scholar

161 Suet., Div. Aug. 40, 6.Google Scholar

162 Dio LIV, 30, 3. I owe the suggestion of the interpretation offered here to Mrs. M. Griffin of St. Anne's College, Oxford.

163 Pliny, NH VI, 84.Google Scholar

164 Wallace, o.c. (n. 141), 257, de Laet, o.c. (n. 2), 306 f., Meredith, D., ‘Annius Plocamus: Two Inscriptions from the Berenice Road,’ JRS XLIII (1953), 38.Google Scholar

165 See P-W XIV, 1687–8. Pliny, NH IX, 106Google Scholar, gives the location of the pearl fisheries as ‘circa Arabiam in Persico sinu maris Rubri’.

166 Statius, , Silv. III, 3, 92.Google Scholar

167 See P-W XVI, 159 f., 194 f.

168 ibid, XVI, 191.

169 P. Amh. 77 = Wilcken, Chrestomathie, no. 277 = Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, no. 282.

170 So Wallace, o.c. (n. 141), 260–1. I thought earlier that the mention of the Fiscus might be connected with the fact that the guard's superior, Polydenus, is reported in the papyrus (1. 20 f.) to have enlisted the aid of Heraclas τινα μαχαιροφόρων οὐσιακῶν in order to have him taken εἰς τὸ λογ[ι] στήριον τοῦἐπιτρόπου τῶν οὐσιῶν to be beaten. But Professor H. C. Youtie, who has very kindly discussed the papyrus with me by letter, points out that Heraclas might have been brought in simply as an armed thug and the office of the local procurator of Imperial estates used as a convenient place for the beating. I am also very grateful to Professor Youtie for providing me with some other papyrus uses of φίσκος, discussed in this paper.

171 See above, nn. 48, 145, 153, and cf. Dio LXXI, 33, 2 (273), and LXXIX 12, 22 (463). Though see n. 152. For the survival of the distinction in the third century see also Dig. 3. 6. I. 3 = Cod. Just. 7. 49. 1; Dig. 39. 4. 9. 3 = Paulus, Sent. 5. Ia. 4; CIL VIII, 17639 = Abbott and Johnson no. 152 ‘…]uam populi vel fisci debiti’ and cf. Cyprian, de opere et eleemosynis 19 ‘patrimonium Deo creditum nec respublica eripit nec fiscus invadit.’

172 LIII, 23, 3–4, …

173 Otho taking over Nero's slaves, Dio LXIV, 8, 3–9, 1, and holding a dinner in the Palatium: Tac. Hist. I, 80 f.Google Scholar, Dio LXIV, 9, 2 f. On Vitellius' enjoyment of Imperial luxuries, Dio LXV, 2–4.

174 Dio LXV, 8, 4.

175 Pliny, Pan. 50.

176 This is perhaps the explanation of the story in SHA, vita Ant. Pii 4, 8Google Scholar—his wife scolded him for parsimony and he replied ‘Stulta, posteaquam ad imperium transivimus, et illud quod habuimus ante perdidimus’. By contrast, Pertinax, coming to the throne after the murder of Commodus, divested himself deliberately of his property and gave it to his son and daughter, whom he sent off to live with their grandfather. Dio LXXIII, 7, 3 (311–12). See Herodian II, 4, 9; SHA, vita Pert. 13, 4.Google Scholar I suspect that we have an example of a property which became, and remained, part of the patrimonium, when its owner came to the throne, in the Horrea Galbae. See Platner-Ashby, Topographical Dictionary 261. Another example is the figlinae Domitianae—see Bloch, H., I Bolle laterizi e la storia edilizia romane (Rome, 1938), 336–9.Google Scholar

177 Herodian II, 4, 7,

178 Dig. 43. 8. 2. 4.

179 For example, Dig. 49. 14. 3. 10; 18. 1. 72. 1; cf. 30. 39. 8–10. The distinction was still maintained, however; AE 1945, 80, shows a man who was proc(urator) oper(um) publ(icorum et fiscal(ium) Urb(is) sacrae early in the reign of Severus. See also Herodian II, 4, 6—Pertinax announced that uncultivated land could be freely occupied εἰ καὶ βασιλέως κτῆμα εἴη.

180 de lege agraria I, 21, II, 101.