TRADE GUILDS OF THE LATTER ROMAN EMPIRE
by Freda Utley (MA Thesis at the London School of Economics, 1925)
(Retyped from old manuscript--footnotes deleted after first section)
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
"COLLEGIA' FROM CONSTANTINE TO THEODOSIUS II
INTRODUCTION
PART I
Collegia connected with the "annona"
and the "public needs" of Rome
and Constantinople
Chapter I Taxation in the .... Empire
Chapter II Taxation in the
.... Empire Chrysergyrum
Chapter III The annona
Chapter IV The Revicularii
Chapter V Lesser collegia connected with the
annona: Menscrae,
Caudioarii, Lenuncularii
Chapter VI The pistores
Chapter VII Collegia connected with the meat
supply and the wine supply
Chapter VIII Collegia connected with the other
public needs of Rome
Section 1. Hanciper Thermarum etc.
Section 2. Limeburners and Wagonners
PART II
Workers in the State mines, workshops, mints,
weaving and dyeing
establishments
Chapter I General condition of sub members of
the Collegia employed
by the State
Chapter II Miners and quarrymen
Chapter III Workers in the Mint
Chapter IV The Armourers
Chapter V Gynaecia, baphia, barbaricaria, etc.
(weaving & dyeing)
PART III
Collegia in the municipalities, and in Rome and
Constantinople considered
as municipalities (i.e., Collegia not connected
with the annona)
Chapter I The internal organisation of the
Collegia , their aims and
their place in the local administration accompanied by some
remarks on the general conditions of labour of their members
Chapter II Fabri, centorarli, cendrophori
CONCLUSION
The economic decline of the Roman Empire; some
causes connected with
the position of the Collegiati, Causes and
effects.
PREFACE
The work is divided up into three parts following a necessary division
of the subject.
The members of the great "corpora" serving the annona, the
workers in the State Mines and manufacturers, and the remaining collegia of ..... and
artisanna throughout the Empire all need separate treatment.
No attempt has been made to deal with the military collegia and the
purely funerary and religious collegia are merely mentioned. Nor have I dealt with the
laws or literary evidence concerning the professors, philosophers and doctors. These
collegia are in no ..... industrial and the object of this study is to give some account
of the industrial and commercial classes in the period from Constantina to Theodosius II.
Where information slightly earlier, or slightly later in .... is available, it has been
used.
Part III is no more than an attempt to state some of the general
characterisations of the collegia and to specify a few of the problems which await
solution. I have not even, as yet, been able to --- and ----- of all the inscriptions
which I have collected for this purpose.
Generally speaking I have done no more at present than touch the
fringes of a vast subject, for although the subject is the social and economic conditions
of the "collegiati" it has been impossible to draw a picture of the working
conditions and day to day life of the artisan and merchant.
As yet I have done little more than furnish a statement of the position
of the "collegiati" in the eyes of the law. My main source has been the
Theodosian Code which gives very full information about the collegia dealt with in Part I.
I have carefully perused the church histories of Socrates and Sozomen
and the Histories of Zosimus and Aemismus Marcellinus. I have also consulted Lvagrius
Nusehius Kunapius. John Chrysoatom's Homilies have afforded many illustrations and these
homilies together with the Edict of Diocletian could, I believe, be made to furnish a good
deal of information about the thoughts, the human needs, the working conditions and the
payment of the artisans and merchants. The edict although ineffective must be held as
stating what were regarded as the normal relation between wages and the cost of living.
I hope to continue my study of the industrial classes in the Roman
Empire in the future.
The other original sources used together with the modern authorities
consulted are given in the Bibliography.
FREDA UTLEY
King's College
INTRODUCTION
The collegia were associations of people, usually of one trade or
calling, with a definite organisation and intended to be permanent. It would be convenient
to use the term guild or trade union to designate such associations, but both these words
imply functions and ends very different from those for which collegia existed. It is true
that like the medieval were guilds the collegium was concerned with religion, and that,
like the modern trade union its members were mainly artisans; similarly also it had
elected officials. The controversial question of further liknesses will be dealt with in
Part III. For the moment two different types of collegia must be distinguished:
Those of men following the same craft or profession, and those which
were merely burial clubs.
The latter were called "collegia tenuiorum" and were formed
amongst the poorest of the population, frequently even amongst slaves, as burial insurance
societies.
The member paid so much a year to the collegium and in return the
collegium saw to it that he had a decent burial when he died and in some cases an
inscription to perpetrate his memory. This would be inscribed on an urn or column or over
the niche in the column-barium where his ashes rested. Most collegia had a
"ustrin" (crematorium) and a burial ground or a columbarium, i.e., a
subterranean sepulchre in the walls of which were niches for urns of ashes. The members
also worshipped a special patron god and met together for such religious purposes. They
even had their days of revel and feasting. Once or twice a year there would be a general
remembrance festival of the dead brother. These were called the days of the rose and the
days of the violet (dios rosae and dios violae).
Members who attended the funeral of a brother sometimes received a
small sum of money from the common fund, no doubt just enough to compensate for their loss
of a day’s, or a half-day’s labour. The wish to avoid the horror of the common
pit after death and to secure a little remembrance, together with the desire for
association with others in some semblance of social life were sufficient reasons for the
formation of such collegia. That slaves were often members, and that such funerary
collegia were formed amongst the 'families' of slaves of great households is not
remarkable. The most wretched slave must have found some slight solace in association with
others who experienced misfortunes similar to his own; the lowest workman must have felt
some faint touch of human dignity and importance in the knowledge that he would not be
entirely forgotten after death.
The collegia of craftsmen were in a somewhat different case. Their
objects were also in part funerary but they had others besides. A discussion of their
possible functions, and of the ends the workers had in view, is attempted in Part III, Ch.
I, but it is generally recognised that they existed particularly for social and religious
purposes. They, like the purely funerary collegia, saw to the burial of their members, and
the members subscribed during their lifetime for this purpose. But these collegia also
existed to make life more joyous, amenible and interesting. the members frequently held
feasts together and many of the ordinances which have come down to us concern regulations
for such feasts and for the amount of food and wine to be distributed. Frequently the
collegia had their own halls of reunion, temples or "scholae" and they, like the
purely funerary collegia, had a patron god that was to perform religious rites.
Indeed the distinction between the "collegia tenviorum" and
the others, is difficult to maintain unless it is admitted that the latter associated for
economic ends; for regulation of labour conditions, for monopolies and so forth (see Part
III, Ch.I) otherwise, the difference is not much more than one of degree: the collegia
tenuiorum were primarily funerary and religious, but also met for festivals if they were
rich enough; the craftsman and merchant collegia were primarily social and had more funds
to spend on festivities and reunions. the collegia tenuiorum did in fact sometimes consist
of men of one craft, for men of one craft were apt to worship the same god and to know
each other. The collegia tenuiorum must have declined in numbers with the spread of
Christianity so the function was taken over by the Ohuro. Finally in 415 A.D. their funds
were confiscated by the State. The funerary and religious side of the collegia has already
been fully investigated and is dealt with in great detail in Waltzing, and other writers.
There seems no doubt also that all collegia were in origin, if not
purely religious, primarily associations of a social nature. The collegia created a sort
of communal life for their members who felt themselves lost in the immensity of the
Empire; they did in fact provide, in some sort, just those amenities, and that necessary
intercourse with one's fellows which was provided, in the Greek view, by the polis.
The fact that such collegia as the late drinkers (seribibi) and the
comrades in death (commorientes) existed tends to show that collegia were in some sense
like modern clubs or similar associations which satisfy the individual's desire for a
group life now that the state is too immense to satisfy that craving. Man does in fact
seem to be a "political animal". With the end of the City state other forms of
association came into being within the big state. But since in the Eastern provinces the
"polis" in its attenuated form still satisfied the social needs of men, it is
not there, but in the West, that the collegia flourished.
It is difficult to trace the early history of the collegia and the
subject does not come within the scope of this work. A brief resume of that history, so
far as it is known, seems all that is necessary.
There was a legend at Tome that King Numa had formed various kinds of
craftsmen into "collegia" and this shows their great antiquity. Down to 64 B.C.
no hindrance was put on the formation of such associations and in the troubled days of the
1st century B.C. many associations seem to have been formed, ostensibly for innocent
purposes such as burial insurance or to perform religious rites, but in reality as
political clubs, to support by organised hooliganism either the Conservative or the
Popular party (Optimates and Pupulares). The same --- to stop disorder accordingly ordered
the dissolution of all collegia of recent creation. Glodius the Tribune, idol and leader
of many such pseudo-collegia, reestablished full freedom of association in 58B.C. but
Julius Caesar later suppressed all collegia not specifically allowed by the law. After his
time only certain important and old-established collegia were recognised as legal, though
many others were formed, and flourished without hindrance. Only in times of disorder, or
suspected political disaffection, was action taken against them. For example the Emperor
Trojan told Pliny to publish an edict in Bythnia ordering the dissolution of all private
collegia in his province for Pliny had been specially sent by the Emperor to deal with
that disordered province.
Pliny was indeed forced while there to persecute some Christians whose
associations were counted as collegia and therefore came under the ban of the law.1/
It is well known that Trajan refused to allow a fire brigade to be
formed at --icomedia in case the association should develop into a seditious one.
Still in the ordinary way "collegia" which were not licita
i.e. legally recognised, were not interfered with. There were "illicita" in the
sense of not being recognised rather than in the sense of being illegal. If there were
disorders or riots anywhere or any suspicion of sedition amongst members of a collegium
the "collegia illicita" were liable to be suppressed.2/
When the Government felt very ----- and the Empire had settled down to
peace and prosperity in the 2nd century "collegia" of every description are
found flourishing all over the Western Empire.3/ Evidently there was no longer any
_____________
1/ The Christians met for a common meal and for the worship of a god and they
had elected officials - all --- of a collegium. On the whole subject of
the persecution of the Christians as members of forbidden
associations see Mr. H.T. Merrill's book "Essays in Early
Christian History".
2/ For example after the massacre occasioned by the jealousy between Pompeii
and Ruceria in 59A.D. the collegia concerned were suppressed. See
Reid.Ch.15.
p.523.
3/ The epigraphic evidence is abundant. Most inscriptions relating to collegia
date from the 2nd century.
question of ambition or suppression. The 2nd century was indeed the golden age of the
collegia as it was the golden age of trade and industry.
The 3rd century is the intermediate period during which many of the
collegia declined in wealth and independence and the state services they undertook came to
be called "munera" - a word of ominous import.
In the 4th century the collegia or corpora are entirely in the hands of
the state which does as it pleases with them. Just as the State had incorporated, and was
in the East to subject, its late enemy the Christian church, so it had incorporated and
now used for its own purposes the collegia - those lesser imports in ----- which it had
once suppressed.
But from another point of view the collegia in the 4th century are
merely one form of the groups into which all the inhabitants of the Empire were collected.
The order of curiales and the corpus of navicularli in a city can be referred to in one
sentence as two groups to be treated in the same way. The ordo equester, the ordo
senatoria and the ordo of principalares are other groups.
All classes of people, civil servants of various kinds, soldiers, local
senators, cultivators of the soil, artisans, all are classified and grouped in crates. All have their appointed task, all are
hereditarily bound to their calling. The son
of a senator becomes a senator and holds high office; the son of a Knight also follows his
father’s profession or holds the same position in the state service, the son of a
curial becomes a curial, the son of an artisan or a shipowner must follow his
father’s trade or calling.
We are only concerned with the collegia of artisans and merchants but it must be remembered that their type of was only one of many. The collegia were from the point of view of the government merely convention groups who could be made collectively responsible for taxation, for the performances of work by their members’, for the succession of the to his father’s place and of his property to its service. Where no collegia existed artificial groupings were probably allowed and this would be especially the case in the eastern provinces where few collegia seem to have existed.
It is noticeable that
UNINTELLIGIBLE
Corpora seems to be the usual name used for the great
associations of navicularii, mensores , suarii, pistores etc. i.e. those groups which were
concerned with the annona and who are dealt with in Part I, collegia on the other hand
seems to be the general name for all the local
UNINTELLIGIBLE
CHAPTER I
TAXATION IN THE LATER EMPIRE
Before Diocletian the old Republican taxation - that of individual
municipalities at a fixed rate, but varying according to the original settlement with the
various States - had become almost valueless owing to the depreciation of the currency.
Furthermore, the new system of administration, established by him and developed by his
successors, entailed the employment and payment of a much larger administration than in
the past. The reorganisation of the army, the setting up of more than one imperial court -
all this, combined with the failure in the 3rd century to raise enough by the old system
of taxation, induced Diocletion to transform into a regular tax what had hitherto been
only a temporary and exceptional expedient for raising funds or obtaining provisions. He
transformed the special 'indictio' into a regular yearly land tax. (1)
It had always been recognised that the government could demand supplies
of food, wood etc. from the provincials for the needs of the army, for new buildings or
repairs and so on. The governors had often abused these powers in Republican times and the
Emperors had taken away from them the right to requisition supplies in their province. But
the principle that the government had the power to requisition supplies upon occasion or
to demand 'corvees' from the inhabitants remained and
_____________
(1) See Geshichte des Unt.des Antik. Welt. BL II Ch.6.
occasionally such demands were made. Pliny the younger speeches of requisitions under the
name "indictio" in his panegyric of Trajan. (1)
There were also certain provinces such as Africa and Egypt, which
instead of a money tax paid a percentage of their produce, the canon frumentarius.
In the troubled days of the 3rd century the Emperors became more and
more frequent in their imposition of "indictiones" that is to say they issued
decrees at short intervals demanding a certain quantity of corn, oil, wine, military
garments and so forth from each landholder in the Empire, or from the landholders of
certain provinces only. Nevertheless until Diocletian, these "indictiones"
though very frequent, were still regarded as Special levies of taxation, they were not
systematic or uniform and were indeed for that reason particularly grievous. Diocletian
reduced all the provinces, including Italy, to the same level and transformed the
"indictio" into a regular yearly land tax. He had a Census taken every five
years from which it was calculated exactly how many "units" there were in the
Empire.
Each year so much natural produce was demanded from each
"unit" (2) and the collection was made by the Curiales of each municipia from
the "units" in their territory. The term used for each unit was a
"caput" or head, but the calculation of the "capita" was not merely
one of population as may be gathered from the fact that the 'indictio' was a land tax. The
units or "caputs" were calculated in the following manner: Each individual
cultivator of the soil, whether he here a farmer farming his own land, or a tenant farmer,
or a hired labourer, or a slave, was one Caput. Any woman, wife, daughter or slave counted
as half a Caput. In addition, so much land counted as a Caput, the amount varying
according to whether it was plain or hilly.(1)
__________
(1) For the above account see Seeck.B.II Ch.6. whose views on this subject I have
adopted here.
Each year so much natural produce was demanded from each
"unit" (2) and the collection was made by the Curiales of such municipia from
the "units" in their territory. The term used for each unit was a
"caput" or head, but the calculation of the "capita" was not merely
one of population as may be gathered from the fact that the 'indictio' was a land tax. The
units or "caputs" were calculated in the following
______________
(1) Paneg. of Trajan 29.4. He refers to the supression of extraordinaria indictiones by
that Emperor who, when the "canon" was insufficient arranged matters with
private persons.
(2) The financial year was from Sept. 1 - April 31 and the taxes took the name of
indictio from the notice sent out by the Emperor before Sept. 1.
Goth:Parat.ad.C.Th.XI 1.5.
manner: Each individual cultivator of the soil, whether he were a farmer farming his own
land, or a tenant farmer, or a hired labourer, or a slave, was one Caput. Any woman, wife,
daughter or slave counted as half a Caput. In addition, so much land counted as a Caput,
the amount varying according to whether it was plain or hilly.(1)
_____________
(1) For the above account see Seeck.B.II Ch.6. whose views on this subject I have
adopted here.
Each year a definite quantity
of grain, oil or wine or other food stuffs was demanded from each Caput, but although the
demand might vary from year to year, there was a normal rate established in course of
time. The members of the municipal senates,
i.e. the curiales, were responsible for the collection from each “Caput” in the
territory of the municipality and each year they chose a certain number from their midst
to do the collection, these collectors were responsible for any deficit and had to make it
up from their own property. They could call
in the soldiers and executioners of the government to assist them in dealing with
recalcitrant peasants, but it is obvious that it would be the big landowners who could and
would refuse to pay. These latter could not
be tortured, and might often be too powerful and too close to the Emperor’s ear or to
the ear of some high official for the curiales or the governors to dare to press them for
what was due. Hence it was the poor and
powerless who had to be forced to make good themselves.
Hence “tot curiales tot tyranni” became a true saying. Such curiales who disliked this task of becoming
extortioners and torturers, or those who in spite of such measures were unable to raise
the necessary amount, often attempted to run away from their native towns to escape being
curiales. They are even found to have gone
into the country and become tenant farmers (coloni) themselves.1/
The reassessment of the number of "Capita" per district being
only made every five years(2) no account was taken of land left waste in the interval by
the flight or
__________________
(1) C.Th.XII.18. etc.
(2) Later on it seems to have only been made every 15 years C.Th.XII.12 and
Goth commentary.
death of the inhabitants; the curiales had to make good the deficit; the Treasury demanded
the same amount. When at the end of the five years the reassessment was made; the
officials responsible were unwilling to report a smaller number of "Capita" than
at the last indiction for fear of incurring the Emperor's displeasure. Furthermore, it
would again be the rich and powerful who by bribes and intimidation would lessen the
number of Capita at which their lands and slaves were assessed.
It is to be noted that it was only the actual cultivators of the soil
who paid the tax. The owner of the land who resided in a city whether he let it out to
smallholders (coloni) or cultivated it by means of slave labour was not himself
assessed.(1)
The landowner indeed paid for his slaves but the peasant and Colonus
paid for themselves.
How very much more heavily the tax weighed on the tenant farmer and the
small holder than on the great landowner is clearly shown by Seeck. "Let us take, for
example, a married peasant with 20 acres of arable land of first quality, this land would
count as one Caput, he himself as another and his wife as 1/2 a Caput. He had therefore to
pay at the rate of 2-1/2 caputs for his little farm i.e. 1/6 Caput per acre. On the other
hand he who cultivated 2000 acres with 50 slaves counted as 150 units i.e. only 3/40 per
acre. Thus in this case the burden of the peasant compared with the burden of the great
landowner was in the proportion of 5 to 3".(2)
_____________
(1) Seeck op.cit. p.267.
(2) Ibid. Ck.II.Ch.6. p. 270 and 71.
The main sufferers, apart from the coloni, were the curiales who had to
make good from their own property deficiencies in the amount of taxation: the middle class
in the provinces were not powerful enough to escape their burdens and who found those
burdens becoming ever more onerous as the produce and man-power of the Empire declined.
________________
(1) Seeck op.cit. p.267.
(2) Ibid. ik.II.Ch. 6. p. 270 and 71.
It has been necessary to go into some detail about the
"indictio" both in order to understand how supplies in kind were obtained in
other countries than Egypt and Africa and to make clear how great a privilege was
exemption from the curia for the members of the special collegia to whom it was granted.
A distinction must be made between the provinces whose taxes in kind
were sent to Rome and Constantinople, and those whose supplies were used for the payment
and nourishment of the officials and soldiers in the province or sent further away for the
supply of military expeditions. The former will be dealt with specially under the chapter
entitled Annona.
As regards the ordinary provinces which were not productive enough to
do much more than supply the needs of the military forces and of the officials in the
province the taxes were brought to the municipia and there some were stored and some
handed over to the 'susceptores' of the central government. There was beyond the supply of
so much foodstuff per capita a demand for so many horses(1) and so many "militares
vestes" from every so many "capita". A colonus might therefore find himself
taxed with part of the cost of a horse and 1/8 of the cost of a woollen garment in
addition to his contribution of corn or wine or oil. We know that in the case of Thrace
one vestris had to be ........
Note: Page H7 is coming
or mend a road, to restore a public building. He could not refuse to do any bodily service
demanded of him anymore than he could refuse the taxes. But whereas in the case of the
"indictio" no cultivator of the soil was excused from payment, in the case of
the munera sordida et extraordinaria certain privileged classes were excused. All senators
were held to the payment of the indictio on their lands, though they themselves were not
reckoned as capita. They paid for their land and their slaves and could not be excused.
But they were exempt from all "munera civilia" including bodily service in
corvees which one might otherwise have concluded would have been performed by their
slaves. From the other form of personal service e.g. as members of local curiae and so as
tax collectors or as holders of other posts in the local government they were equally
exempt.
There was, however, a special extra tax placed on senators only. It was
a money tax on land instituted first by Constantine according to Zosimus(1) and called
variously: follis senatorius, gleba senatoria, glebalis pensio, canon senatorius.
_____________
(1) Zosimus, Bk.II.
The revenue from this tax came straight to the Treasury, that is, it
was an extra source of revenue for the central government and did not in any way benefit
the municipia in whose territory lay the lands so taxed. In fact the special treatment of
the senators meant that they became a class apart who took no part in the local
government, bore no direct share in local taxation and so gave no help in the provinces
where they lived; they were so to speak lifted out of the provinces to form a class of
citizens of the Empire having no connection with the individual units of the Empire; they
were directly under the Emperor instead of approaching him via the municipality or local
governing bodies. There was another tax which only concerned Senators; the aurum
oblatitium. This was a yearly money payment levied at a varying rate according to the
wealth of the senators, there being three, and then four classes in which they were
grouped. It was in theory a voluntary offering, but in fact a tax. On special occasions
such as the coronation of an Emperor on his five yearly jubilees, or celebrations of
victories, it was levied at a specially high rate.(1) To correspond with the aurum
oblatitium for senators there was the aurum coronarium for the curiales. This was an old
tax which had persisted since the early Empire as in theory a voluntary offering of gold
crowns by the curiae of the municipalities. It had for long been a tax which could not be
refused, and it was levied on special occasions such as coronations, jubilees and
celebrations of victories. Julian tried to make it only a voluntary gift and decreed that
it was not to be exacted (indici) from other classes any more than from senators (who were
never liable). He distinguishes it carefully from the indiction which is a regular lawful
tax.(2)
______________
(2) C.Th.XII. 13.1.
However it was soon exacted again for in 364 Valentinian decreed that
all "possessores” except senators and those specially exempted were to be made
to pay it.(1)
It is quite clear that the tax was only paid by the curiales, for
senators the glebalis payment took its place.(2) No one but curiales were to be made to
pay.(3) The pretence that it was a voluntary offering was still sometimes kept up for in
379 it is decreed that such ordines of the various curiae as "moved by pride, or the
joy of giving, or by success in business, have made an offering in golden crowns" are
not to be told to pay in some other specie; whatever material their offering is made in is
to be accepted.
It would appear that the native rulers of Eastern provinces under the
protectorate of the RF. Empire were also called upon to pay this aurum coronarium(4) but
this point does not concern us.
Apart from the custom duties which had long existed there is only one
other important tax which has not been mentioned. This is the CHRYSARGYRUM ORLUSTRALIS
COLLATIO collected every five years from all who lived by industry or trade of any sort.
It specially concerns the subject of this thesis and needs separate treatment.
______________
(1) XII.13.2.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid.
(4) C.Th.XII.13.6. "All satraps on account of the devotion which is owed to the R.
dominion should make a solemn offering to our serenity from their own property”.
CHAPTER II
THE CHRYSARGYRUN
The chrysargyrun was calculated to rope into the Imperial Treasury a
percentage of the earnings of all who did not live off the land, that is of the
inhabitants of the cities who were not touched by the land tax. It naturally fell on those
who paid the land tax and were both landed proprietors and merchants, as well as on the
poorest who lived from day to day from the produce of their bodily labour. It seems to
have been in part a tax on sales and in part a sort of capital levy on property other than
landed property. It was originally devised by Alexander Severus(1) but Constantine
regularised its collection and enlarged the list of those liable. This seems the most
probable explanation although Zosimus says that Constantine first imposed it.(2) He speaks
of it as a tax of gold and silver on all merchants and tradesmen even to the lowest
classes, not even sparing the poorest prostitute.(3) It is commonly spoken of as a tax on
all those who engaged in any industry which required a capital fund and as falling on
petty tradesmen and artisans of all kinds save simple day laborers.(4) This seems to be an
accurate description of the tax so long as the "capital fund" is strictly
defined as implying the means of production i.e. the tools with which the artisan produced
his goods for sale, as well as the actual possession of articles for sale. The tax quite
certainly touched the very poorest and the inclusion of prostitutes shows that the sale of
almost anything was taxed.
_______________
(1) Lamp.Alex. Sev.24. "Braco-ariorum, linteonum Vitresariarum, pellionum,
plaustrariorum, argentariorum, aurificum et coterarum artium, vectigal
pulcherrimum instituit ex coque jussit tharmas... populi usibus
exhiberi".
(2) Zosimus Bk.II.
(3) ibid. 446.
(4) e.g. W. A. Brown State control of industry in 4th cont. A.D. Political Science
Quarterly II. 494.
Just how far it was a tax on earnings and how far a sort of capital
levy on property, whether the 'property' consisted in tools or goods - it is impossible to
say,. It may be surmised that it was a mixture of the two just as the indictio was half
land tax, half poll tax.
It may again have been a tax on production and sale copies from Egypt,
for Persson has shown that such taxes took the place of royal monopolies as early as the
first century B.C. and were continued by the Romans.(1)
Although unable to show exactly on what principle the assessment for
the tax was made it is possible to define the classes who had to pay it.
The position becomes clearer when it is realised that the word
"negotiatores" as used in the laws means both artisans and merchants.
It is applied both to those who bought raw materials to sell them later
as finished products whether small artisans or owners of large workshops, and to all
merchants who bought finished products to retail.(2)
No one, says Constantius, in 356 and again in 380, who is engaged in
any sort of trade is to be exempt "Negotiatores comes protinus convenit curum
argentomque praebere"(3) and "universi qui negotiandi videntur exercere
sollertiem, ad onus
_______________
(1) Perason "Staat un Manufactur in Rom: Reich.
(2) Ibi tantum ad argentique destinentur oblationum qui merces emendoatque
vadendo commitantes, qui in exercitio tabernarum usuque versantur".
C.PH.XIII. 1.8.
(3) XIII. 1. 1.
opalationis edstringantur"(1) with the exception of peasants and coloni who, living
on the lands of senators, retail locally only such things as they produce from the lands
they cultivate.(2)
If this decree did not include all peasants retailing their own produce
but only those on the lands of senators, the subsequent decrees give exception to all
landowners or coloni who retailed their own produce.(3)
A special distinction is made between the sort of peasants mentioned
above and those who "for gain or because their nature so impells them" are
sellers and retailers.(4) The latter are to pay the tax they must be peasants who but
goods from their fellows and retail them or those who carry on some small retail business
in merchandise procured from the towns; whilst at the same time cultivating their
lands.(5)
The simple village craftsman, such as the potter and the smith, who
with their own hands procured their subsistence are also exempted, but the dealers in the
same articles who are real merchants who have devoted their life to trade are to pay.(6)
_______________
(1) C.Th. XIII. 1.2.
(2) XIII. 1.3 Ad senatum: "Rusticanos colonesque . . . . . . si es bomines vestri ac
rusticeni atians in possessionibus commosantos distrohant, quas in his
terris
quas incolunt aque in codem rure gignuntur".
(3) XIII. 1,6,8,10,12,13.
(4) XIII. 1,3 and 10.
(5) ibid and 13 "emendi vendendive corpendtis ultro citroque quaesitis familiaris
coi .....
(6) XIII. 1.10.
It is obvious that the Emperors try to make a distinction in the country districts between
those who sell the produce of their own labour and those who are buyers and sellers i.e.
real merchants. These latter whether large wholesale dealers or small shopkeepers(1) are
all to pay; those who live off the land and who are already sufficiently taxed by the
"indictio" and likewise simple village craftsmen in the country districts, are
not to pay.
Generally speaking the tax is obviously designed to touch those who did
not pay the indictio. Thus Julian removed the abuse whereby curiales had been forced to
pay the tax in a body and decreed that only those engaged in commerce were to be held
liable (nisi forte decurionem aliquid mercari constiterit)(2) such curiales who were only
landowners were already sufficiently taxed and were in no sense liable.
The number of laws forbidding exemption to any of the classes is liable
to show how many people endeavoured to avoid the tax and also how complicated was the
collection in view of the difficulty of ascertaining just who was and who was not, liable.
It may with confidence be conjectured that the tax gatherers were often not too squeamish
in demanding payment from those whose occupation might or might not bring them within the
category of exemption. It would be extremely difficult to prove whether a man was selling
only the products of his own farm or the pots he had made himself or whether he had bought
them elsewhere to retail them. It would be safer to force him to pay and be done with it.
________________
(1) XIII.1.8. "qui in exercitio tabernarum usuque versantur"
(2) XIII.1.4.
If the exemption of small handicraftsmen such as potters and smiths who
with their own hands worked at their means of subsistence (qui manu victum rimantur aut
tolerant) (1) was ever held to apply to the towns such exeption was not universal or
lasting. The ancient authorities show how the very poorest who possessed nothing but their
tools were compelled to pay. Tortures and scourgings forced the poorest to devise some
means of raising the money and parents sold their children or prostituted their daughters
for this purpose. I quote below two extracts, one from Zosimus and one from Libanius,
which show clearly that no independent artisan however poor was exempt.
"On the return of every 4th year when the tax was to be paid, nothing could be heard
through the whole city but lamentations and complaints. When the time arrived nothing but
whips and tortures, provided for those who on account of their extreme poverty could not
pay the money. Mothers were even forced to part with their children and fathers to
prostitute their daughters for money to satisfy the collectors of this exaction".(2)
"Let us now speak of a vexation which surpasses all others: the tax of gold and
silver, an unbearable tax which makes the whole world tremble when the 5th year
approaches. It is adorned by a special name which conveys the idea of a commercial tax.
But whereas the merchants can indemnify themselves by large speculation, those to whom the
work of their hands hardly provides the means of subsistence, are crushed under the
burden. The meanest of artisans does not escape it. I have seen some who, holding up their
hands to heaven
___________________
(1) XII. 1.10. See above.
(2) Zosimus Bk.II.
and holding their means of livelihood (..... = (knife or chisel) swore that they possessed
nothing else in the world. But their protests did nothing to stop the greed of the cruel
men who chased them with menacing cries and who seemed ready to devour them. It is the
time when slavery increases, when fathers alienate the liberty of their children, not to
enrich themselves by the price of that sale but to hand it over to their
persecutors." (1)
These quotations show conclusively that the tax fell most heavily on
the poor artisan, that is on the real producer of wealth. The merchants who bought and
sold the produce of others, doing business on a great scale with large resources of
capital did not find it so difficult to pay. Furthermore, they could like other rich men
bribe or intimidate the collectors to tax them lightly or to exempt them. The frequent
decrees against the patronage of the great who seem to have 'protected' merchants against
the demands of the treasury(2) show what the rich and powerful could do if they wanted
exemption on their own account. One law refers distinctly
__________________
(1) Libanius contra Florent: p;. 427 ed.Morelli cited by Naudet Vol.II Part 3.
Article I.
(2) XIII.1.15 and 21.
to the attempts of the great to get exemption for themselves or their dependants.
"potiorum quoque homines vel potiores ip sos". (XIII.1.5.) Likewise whereas the
decrees when referring to poor people, like the coloni and peasants, are concerned with
their exemption, the many references to the mercatores and negotiatores all reiterate that
the latter must be made to pay. According to Evagrius(1) even the beggars were not spared
and Cedrenus(2) and Zonarus(3) confirm his statement. Although the inclusion of beggars so
shocked the pious fathers it does not seem so bad as the taxing of poor artisans who
worked for their living - economically at any rate it was much sounder. There is however
no reference to such taxation in the laws and it is difficult to see how beggars could be
treated under the heading of merchants or artisans. Evagrius speaks of the chrysargyrum as
being imposed on all who procured their livelihood by an accumulation of petty gains and
such a description could include beggars as well as traders; the language of the laws is
less ambiguous and shows positively that in intention at any rate the chrysargyrum was a
tax on trade and industry as distinct from the land taxes.
__________________
(1) Evagrius Hist.Eccles.III.39.
(2) Cedrenus Chronicle p.357 cited by Naudet Pt.III.Ch.6.
(3) Zon.Ann.XIV p.54 - cited by Naudet Pt.III. Ch.6.
Moneylenders "who see their money increase every day by
interest"(1) were also taxed.
The term moneylender should not I think only be taken in its modern sense, but should also
be taken to apply to those who invested their money in a trading or other business concern
and lived on the interest derived from it, i.e. shareholders in the modern sense but
shareholders without any say in the business in which they invested. That this type of
"money lending" existed is, I think, attested by John Chrysostom. The latter
observes that rich people borrowed money as capital for business undertakings and did not
pay high interest on it. He speaks of such interest as implying an honourable gain and
says that rich people liked to leave such bonds to their children. "If thou hadst
money lent out and bearing interest and thou hadst a grateful debtor, thou wouldst ten
thousand times rather choose instead of the gold to leave the bond to thy child so that he
should have the large income from it and not be constrained to go about and seek for
others to borrow it".(2)
Chrysostom takes such lending as normal and honest but inveighs against
the lending of small sums at high interest to poor people in their distress; this was
usury and was forbidden by law to senators.(3)
Both classes of money lenders must have been made to pay the chrysargyrum. The existence
of the sort of "respectable" money lending referred to by John Chrosostom throws
some light on the methods of trade and industry at the time. It would be extremely
interesting to know if there were in the 4th and 5th centuries many wealthy people who had
inherited capital which they lent to business men at reasonable rates of interest, and
similarly, whether it was a frequent custom to lend money to poor, but free, artisans at
interest in order to enable them to set up in workshops of their own. This method of
financing free men and living on the interest they paid on the capital borrowed would then
be the system which had suplanted the old custom of setting up freedmen and slaves in
business and taking a percentage of their earnings.
______________
(1) “qui studentes fenori crescentis in dies singulos pecuniae accessione laetantur”. XIII.1.18.
(2) In Math 66.t.VII.660B.
(3) In Math.56.t.VII
I think that this is a suggestion which merits further investigation and as to the truth of which it might be possible to obtain evidence from the sermons of John Chrysostom and from other Christian writers.
The only exemption amongst the petty dealers are ecclesiastics who engaged in petty commerce to gain their livelihood(1) gravediggers.(2) Veterans for a sum of 100 folles(3) and some soldiers by special concession(4). The navicularli were specially exempted (see Ch.IV.
(1) XVI.2.15.
(2) ?XIII.1.1.3.
(3) XIII.1.7
(4) XIII.1.2.See also Goth: ad XIII.1.
As regards the method of collection the burden of this was evidently
placed on the curiales in some places for in 399 the governor of Numidia is told that as
the apportioning of the tax is usually laid on those who have to pay it, the curiales are
not to bear the responsibility. Since it is the 'negotiatores' who have to pay they must
choose contractors (mancipes) from their own body who shall be held responsible with their
property for any deficit in the amount collected.(1)
Elsewhere reference is made to all the corporati paying(2) and it would
seem therefore that the various collegia were collectively liable for the tax. They had to
meet in a sort of trades council, the corollary of the curia for landowners, and elect
members who would collect the tax and bear the responsibility of the deficits. As
practically all the people who paid would be members of collegia it may be presumed that
one of the principal people in each collegium was chosen to collect from the members in
his collegium. We know nothing as to the amount of the tax but it may be concluded, from
the loud complaints, that it was very heavy, and also that the proportion paid by the
ordinary artisan was a much heavier burden than that paid by the rich. The Roman
legislators forgot as so many legislators seem to forget that to demand 1/5th of the
income, or capital, of a poor man is a much more oppressive exaction than the 1/5th
demanded from a wealthy person. Whereas the rich man merely has to curtail his luxuries
the poor man starves or sells his children. The chrysargyrum must have been especially
oppressive since it was
__________________
(1) XIII.1.17.
(2) XIII.1.16.
levied only every five years; it would have been far easier for the small artisan to pay
his contribution monthly or even yearly. This seems to have been eventually recognised by
the imperial legislation, for in 410, it is decreed that the tax shall in future be paid
by fractions.(1)
One very probable effect of the "lustralis collatio" which
has not, I think, been noted is that it must have drastically reduced the numbers of free
craftsmen who made and sold their own products independently as the tax did not fall on
hired laborers, who, neither owned their tools nor themselves bought the raw materials
which they used the poor independent artisan who could not satisfy the tax collectors must
frequently either have mortgaged his tools to raise the necessary amount, or have sold
them and in future hired himself out at a day wage to a richer man who was in a position
to pay the tax. Thus the number of artisans working for a wage must have increased and the
number of independent "small" producers must have diminished.
This process would correspond to the gradual elimination of the small
free cultivator of the soil and would be one more instance of the gradual depression of
the people "of a middle sort" the existence of whom is regarded by Plato as so
vital to a healthy state.
CHAPTER III
THE ANNONA
In this chapter will be considered not only the provisioning of Rome and Constantinople but the source of the supplies for this purpose. An explanation of the various meanings and applications of the word “annona” must first be attempted since it is used loosely and with varying meanings by the ancient authors and in the laws.
The primary meaning of the word annona is the product of the annual harvest: the sum of the means of subsistence stored, particularly cereals. It comes secondly to mean especially the corn stored for the provisioning of Rome and is frequently used in this sense. By transference it came to mean all the direct taxes in kind levied (a) for the suport of the army and the officials in the provinces (annona militaria), (b) for the support of Rome and later Constantinople (annona civica). Since therefore the word “annona” may mean the “indictio” taxes it will occasionally be used in this sense in the following pages.
By a further transference of meaning it was applied to the actual distributions of corn, and then bread, to state employees and soldiers (annona militaria) and to the people of Rome and Constantinople (annona civica). It was also occasionally applied to the price of corn in the public market.
The “annona militaris”, i.e. the taxes in kind levied by the indiction for the supply of the army and the civil service locally has been dealt with in the last chapter.
We have here to consider the Annona Civica. This annona civica
was the part of the taxes in kind set aside for the provisioning of Rome and
Constantinople, in Egypt and Africa mainly, but also in Spain, Sardinia, possibly Sicily,
and in South Italy.
Egypt and Africa which for long had supplied Rome with nearly all her
grain, had always been taxed under a special system. They were subjected to the canon
frumentarius.
Each farmer had to give up one fifth of his yearly produce calculated
on the whole produce without deducting seed corn.(1) We know that, in the time of
Augustus, Egypt transported to Rome twenty million modii a year - supplies sufficient to
last Rome four months. Africa contributed most of what was needed for the rest of the
year; a certain amount was supplied again by Spain and by Sardinia.(2) There are, however,
only two laws in the Theodosian Code concerning
________________
(1) Seeck. Book. II Ch.6.
(2) Dariet Saglio etc.
the navicularii of Spain, and both here and in Sardinia the annona was left to the
administration of the provincial governors (justices)(1) whereas in Africa there was
a special "praefectus annonae africao" and in Egypt a special administration.
Prudentius speaks of a Sardinian grain fleet and the 35th Novella of
Valentinian III deals with the levying of pigs flesh from Sardinia,(2) so it seems pretty
certain that some supplies were obtained from there, although none of the laws dealing
with the navicularii mention the island. Presumably this is because the transport was
easy. The supplies must anyhow have been very small in amount.
In our period Africa was the main source of supply for Rome; Egypt for
Constantinople. Africa may occasionally have sent supplies to Constantinople since the
difference in the length of the voyage from Africa to Rome, and Africa to Constantinople,
is taken into account in the Theodosian Code.(3)
At any rate, Africa was the important source for Rome, since the latter
no longer received any annona from Egypt. The blockading of Africa meant famine for
Rome,(4) and the shipwreck laws all concern transport from Africa.
_____________
(1) Krahauer: Das Verpflegungawesen der stadt Rom in Spateren Kaiserreit p.4.
(2) ibid p.5.
(3) XIII p.21
(4) Sosimus 6.11.
The supplies from Africa were corn and oil. Spain also supplied oil and
some grain. Wine and meat were obtained from Southern Italy, Northern Italy contributing
to the upkeep of the armies.
The laws in the Theodosian Code about the "auorii" and the
"susceptores vini" show us that Campania Samnium Lucania and Bruttium supplied
pork or pigs as part of their "indictio".(1) Lucania and Bruttium, and also
others of the "regiones suburbiaas" of Rome, delivered wine.
No grain was obtained in Italy; she had long been unable to feed even
herself.
Wood for the Baths at Rome was obtained partly from Africa, and partly
from Southern Italy(2)
In a subsequent chapter the transport of the annona from Rome and
Constantinople and the "collegia" involved will be considered in detail. It now
remains to consider the actual distribution made to the people of the Capitals by sale and
gratis.
Free Distribution of Food
It is well known that the doles of corn distributed to the people of
Rome in Republican days(3) were continued by the Emperors, who would not have dared to
deprive the mob of Rome of either its free food or its free spectacles (panem et
circansea). Although the populace of Rome had lost all political power under the
______________
(1) See Ch.VII
(2) See p.
(3) Regular distribution of cheap corn fr.123 B.C. Free distribution from 58 B.C.
Empire, even the best of Emperors were not indifferent to the applause and approval of the
populace, whilst the worst were often, like Nero, beloved of the mob on account of their
largesses. One must not forget that the very fact that the imperial dignity was elective
and not hereditary made the holder of it far more dependent on popular favour than an
hereditary king would have been,(1) and although the power of the Emperor was based on
control of the armies, and the choice of an Emperor was in actual fact often determined by
the soldiers, no Emperor could afford to offend or alienate the city populace. Also the
Emperor was usually resident in the Capital and it would have been exceedingly unpleasant,
if not dangerous, to be disliked by the people.
It is hard to see what else the Emperors could have done. Rome was a
city practically without industries. Her people, except those engaged in luxury trades,
had no work. She was a great city because she had conquered the world, not because she had
natural resources or an industrious population. The error had been made long before in
Republican times when the rich had been allowed to acquire all the land of Italy, whilst
the small peasant farmers who were ruined fighting in the Punic and other wars, flocked to
Rome to live on charity, private or public. Perhaps in the time of Julius Caesar it was
already too late to get these people "back to the land" and anyhow the greed and
selfishness of the aristocracy had made all attempted agrarian laws ineffective.
_______________
(1) c.f. Tacitus Histories. Book I. Ch.16.1.
Whether Augustus could have done anything is doubtful - if he could, it
was unlikely that he would have gone against the interests of the great landed proprietors
by confiscating part of their estates. It was simpler to feed the city populace from the
produce of the provinces, and those who were not already too degenerate to be
reestablished on the land soon became so. When after centurica, Italy lost her preeminent
position, and was reduced by Diocletian to the level of the other provinces, Rome retained
her material privileges. Even Diocletian was not radical enough to reduce "eternal
Rome" to a small provincial city with deserted streets and empty houses, as he would
have done if he had deprived her of her "canon frumontarins".(1) Rome was no
longer even the seat of government of the whole Empire, but her people still subsisted
almost without labour on the produce of the labour of the provinces.
_____________
(1) Anon: Marcellinus Pg.1.17 - Goth ad.C.Th.XIII 5.7.
The Emperors before Diocletian, far from diminishing the free
distributions, had added to them. In 270 under Aurelian,(1) a daily allowance of bread was
substituted for the monthly allowance of corn.
The same Emperor instituted free distributions of pork(2) but it is
impossible to ascertain whether they were made daily. It seems most improbable, as this
would have entailed an unreasonable amount of trouble.
Septimus Severus had distributed oil gratuitously and daily.(3)
Helegabalus had diminished the amount given, but Alexander Severus reestablished the
distributions in their entirety.(4) Vopicus speaks of such distributions under Aurelian(5)
and in the Theodosian Code XIV, 24, we have details given about the oil rations (mensa
olearia)(6). They still took place daily in the 4th century.(7)
______________
(1) Or shortly before between the reigns of Alex.Severus & Aurelian. See Vopiscus
Aurel 35, cited by Valtzing II p.20 & by Dar: et Saglio etc.
(2) Vopisc.Aur.35.48 "Aurelianus et porcinaro carnem Populo Romano distribuit
quao bodio quoque dividitur."
(3) Spart. Sev.18.
(4) Laupoid Alex.Sev.22.
(5) Vita Aurel.48 cited by Waltzing.
(6) C.Th.XIV. 17.16.
(7) Ibid. also Vopiscum lived under Constantine & says: "quae bodie quoque
dividitur" (see above).
As regards wine it is well known that Augustus pointed to his new aqueducts when the
populace complained of scarcity. Later Emperors did not expect the people to be so
temperate. They did not indeed distribute wine free, but Aurelian instituted the practice
of selling wine as one of the functions of the fiscus. It was not apparantly at first sold
below the market price, and the government only undertook the sale in order to ensure an
adequate supply, but in 365 Valentisino began the practice of selling it below the market
price at the demand of the people. This wine was, of course, part of the product of the
"indictio" or "annona."
Free distribution of bread, oil and pork were instituted by Constantine
for the people of his new city of Constantinople.
Such then were the regular free distributions made to the people of
both capitals: bread, oil and pork. Before considering the method adopted for the
distribution, and what we know as to the amount, an attempt must be made to estimate who
were the actual recipients.
As regards numbers, it is impossible to say for our period.
We know that Augustus fixed the number of recipients of the free corn
at 200,000, and that twelve million modii were needed for this. The recipients had to be
citizens "pleno jure" and to be resident in Rome. Dirksen, Rein and Walter think
that the poor alone could be written down on the lists as participants. Mommsen, Marquardt
and Mirschfeld disagree, but agree that in fact only such claimed it. The middle classes
bought cereals in the market provisioned partly by the taxes in kind from the provinces.
The number of poor recipients of the free bread diminished later, but
as the numbers of the Imperial Household and the vigiles and praetorians began to receive
their free rations too, and similarly the "pueri alimentarii" of Trajan, the
amount required must have increased rather than diminished.
In the 4th and 5th centuries free bread was given to various classes of
civil servants as part of their pay, and to the soldiers, such as the special palace
guards, who were resident in the capitals. In Constantinople we can see from the laws in
the Code that bread was given free to three classes of people:
(a) A fixed number of poor citizens, the "annona
popularis."
(b) The "palatinii" i.e. the members of the
Imperial Household.
(c) The "scholares" who formed the imperial
guard "annone militaris'.
Furthermore there was the "panis aedium" the free bread given
to those who built new houses. This institution, which already existed in Rome, was
transplanted to Constantinople where Constantine hoped to encourage people to increase the
size of his new city. It was attached to the houses and went with them when sold or left
by will. It was strictly forbidden for those who sold houses "to which the privilege
of receiving bread was attached" to go on receiving the said free bread. If there
were no heir to the breads, they were to be withdrawn.
To each class of recipient of the free bread it is forbidden to receive
that of any other class. The official of the palace (palatinus) is to demand the
"palatine" bread, the soldier the military bread, the people of the civic bread.
Thus no one by seeking the bread of another class is to be able to mix the privileges of
different classes i.e. receive twice over.
Again, it is specially forbidden that anyone should try to claim both
the ordinary "annona civica" and the special "panis aedificiorum".
This enactment was made when Valentinian restored the free distribution of bread of best
quality after a few years lapse during which, apparently, bread of an inferior quality had
instead been sold at a low price.
Indeed anyone who is already in receipt of some special allowance of
bread like an official or a receiver of a panis aedificiorum, and succeeds in drawing the
ordinary annona civica, is to cease to receive his own allowance and be suitably punished
according to his condition. The annona civica is to be given only to those citizens who
receive no other benefit (quibus non est aliunde solacium) and to their successors. Those
entitled to it are to have their names written down on tables of bronze, no one afterwards
under threat of punishment is to try and get his name inserted as a participant either he
himself or through his slaves.
Senators evidently tried to get a share of the free bread by means of
their slaves; it is specially decreed that if any such slave shall have obtained the
bread, he is to be condemned to work in chains in the bakery which he defrauded if he
himself "acted illegally by his own boldness". If the senator himself ordered
the slave so to act the senator is to have his house confiscated. Poor citizens who take
part illegally in the free distributions are also condemned to work in a pistrinum but not
in chains. Men of substance who have thus tried to defraud the government find themselves
hereafter "tied" with their possessions to the bakehouse in question and forced
to bear a share of the expenses of its upkeep. The official writer (scribe) who allowed
such frauds knowingly is to be tortured.
The recipients of the free bread were given a "tossera" or
metal ticket to prove their title to it. This was passed on from father to son. Sometimes
a holder of such a tossera sold it to another person when he left the city. This was
forbidden by Valena in 372. Henceforth if anyone left the City, the bread and other
articles he received free were stored in the graneries and could only be given to a man of
the same class (ordo) as that of the one who had left. If he came back he received them
again. This must mean that if a member of a collegium ran away or left, he might be
recalled and have his ticket given back to him; if he did not come back, his place in the
collegium would be taken by another who would receive his ticket. No collegiatus can have
had the absolute right to the ticket, it was hereditarily bound to his collegium or ----
like the rest of his possessions.
In the same way the soldiers, i.e. those belonging to a
"corpus" of the army, could only transmit their right to the military bread to
their successors in that corpus; the right could not be transferred to another corpus.
Another law tells us that Constantine gave the right to the
"annona civica" to the "military men" to encourage them to build, and
so increase the size of Constantinople. This law may be calling the "panis
modificiorum", the "annona civica" carelessly, or it may mean that the fact
that Constantine allowed the scholae at Constantinople free bread would encourage them to
reside there, and they would then have to build houses to live in. Yet it is difficult to
see where else they could have resided seeing that they were on duty at the palace.
Perhaps they had quarters at the imperial palace and had to be encouraged to build houses
in Constantinople for their wives.
The whole question of the "panis aedificiorum" and of the
actual title to the "annona civica" is obscure. Valena having decreed that the
latter was inalienable, Theodosius in 392 said that it was given by Constantine to the
merits of particular men, and he allows members of the scholae at any rate to alienate
their right even to strangers by sale or will.
It seems fairly clear that all or most members of Collegia would be
participants unless they were newcomers. Late comers could acquire a free ration by
building a house; at Rome many members of the collegia would be descendants of old
inhabitants, and so would receive the free bread. It is impossible to say whether the
richer "collegiati", who had lands of their own, received the free rations. It
seems extremely probable that they received the panis aedificiorum if not the ordinary
free distributions. The conclusion seems to be that all citizens at both capitals, with
the exception of senators, received bread free, newcomers could obtain it by building
houses, officials received it by a separate distribution, and so likewise did the palace
guards.
With the increasing size of Constantinople, an extra amount of bread
was provided for by Theodosius the Great, but it was evidently only to be given to those
who put up, or had put up new houses, or to those to whom the Emperor awarded it specially
as an extra allowance. If members of the richer collegia received the free distributions,
the members of collegia connected with the annona must have been very much better off than
ordinary collegiati in the province.
The Supplies and their Safeguarding
The government took every conceivable measure to safeguard the supplies
for the capitals. Whatever else failed, whoever also suffered, and under whatever evils of
invasion, famine and disorder the Empire might be suffering, the people of Old Rome and
New Rome must be fed and kept contented.
On no account whatsoever can anything of grain or oil due as tribute to
Rome to be favoured by a remission, any privileges granted i.e. to the tax payers,
"contrary to the public good (the good of Rome or Constantinople) are to be
cancelled." No one is to dare to tamper with supplies of grain destined for Rome,
which have been forced to tarry on the shores of Africa, or to send them elsewhere.
No taxpayer is to be allowed to commute his taxes in kind for a money
payment "to the hurt of the venerable city". Those who ask for permission are to
be made to pay double and a punishment.
Punishments are threatened to those who try to claim anything as a
private possession from the granaries and storehouses of the bakers at Rome. If the vicar
or governor is found to have taken anything from the city's tribute (union) it is to be
repayed fourfold: twice by them and twice by their bureau. If they repeat their offense
they are to be deported, and the "primatae" are to undergo capital punishment.
In the case of Constantinople, Constantine endowed the city with a
"tribute" of grain from Egypt. Socrates says that 80,000 of wheat brought from
Alexandria were bestowed on the citizens by Constantinople. He speaks of the distribution
as a daily one which makes it an impossibly high amount, and it has therefore been
suggested that Socrates meant 80,000 loaves. Socrates is narrating how Constantine
punished the inhabitants of Constantinople by withdrawing from them more than 40,000 of
the daily allowance of 80,000 granted by his father for free distribution amongst them. He
does not mention what the 80,000 allowance consisted of.
Gothefredus shows that annona often means bread itself, but does not
solve the question of the amount distributed. Vosimin gives Constantine as the author of
the free distribution at Constantinople but says nothing about the amount.
If 80,000 loaves is meant by Socrates, he is probably only referring to
the annona popularia, the free distribution to the plebs of the city. Yet since 200,000
people received free corn at Rome under Augustus, the 80,000 people at Constantinople
cannot include the officials and soldiers and special owners of houses who also received
free bread. Of course a man with several children may have received more than one loaf,
but of this we are not informed. In one law a reference is made which implies a variation
in the amount received "in quem et panis modus et percipientis nomen debebit
incidi". Yet Valentinian, in reestablishing the free distributions in 369, decrees
that each citizen was to receive daily by hereditary title one panis silignous (fine
bread) of 3 lbs. weight. In the interval before of cheap sales in lieu of free
distribution, each had received 4-1/6 lbs. This does not warrant the assumption that
citizens received varying amounts.
Theodosius II speaks of his grandfather Theodosius the First increasing
the amount of the tribute prescribed for Constantinople by Constantine. As he is speaking
of the officials in this decree, and refers at the same time to the necessity of handing
over all the grain received as annona to the bakers, "since want will increase if the
grain, which is paid as annona, having been cut off for other uses, they, (the bakers) be
compelled to buy from the public what they (the public) would otherwise have been able to
sell to others." This must surely refer to the buying of grain by the bakers to make
the panis fiscalis, not to the free distributions for which the bakers could not be
expected to buy grain.
If this is admitted, then the 80,000 measures or loaves of Socrates
could include not only the bread given to officials and soldiers, but also the grain the
bakers made into panis fiscalis and sold to the people cheaply. The 80,000 loaves of
Socrates would then hardly be sufficient, and he might mean 80,000 modii a day including
all the supplies of grain, whether for free distribution or sale; but as Socrates says
free distribution, it is hardly possible. The question of the amount of the supplies
cannot be resolved on the evidence available.
Thus, for our purpose, it is only possible to guess at the exact amount
of work required of the shipowners and bakers in connection with the annona. This question
is considered separately in Chapter . . . .
The Actual Distribution
As regards the actual distribution, we have much fuller information. It
was made by the bakers themselves under the superintendence of the employees of the
praefectus annonae at Rome, of the praefectus Uroi at Constantinople.
In the case of the bread made for the officials of the imperial
household, and for those in receipt of the "panis aedifliciorum", the bread had
evidently to be delivered at the recipients' houses. In the case of the ordinary
"annona civica" the distribution by the bakers was made on the flights of steps
which mounted the slopes in various parts of the town and were called
"gradiles". Hence the expression "panis gradilis". Each participant
was enrolled on the list of a particular bakehouse and had to be in possession of his
"------- -------". Each had his apportioned step to stand on to receive his loaf
or loaves. The prefect of the annona is threatened with a severe punishment by Honorius if
he allows anyone to move his position from one step to another. No one is to get his bread
inside the bakehouse; whatever is supplied daily to the people by the bakers is to be
weighed out on the steps and not given to anyone inside the bakeries either as a special
privilege or to anyone's hurt; no one on any account is to be served secretly inside the
bakehouse. These measures are taken to prevent frauds. The bread was weighed out and
handed to the recipients by the bakers. But a "scribe", of the urban praefecture
at Constantinople, of the prefect of the annona at Rome, was present to read out the names
and the amount of bread due and generally to supervise the distribution.
Oil Distribution
It is doubtful who did the actual distributing but since one law about
the free distribution is included under the title "de Annonis Civicis et Pane
Gradili", and since reference is made to whatever things the bakers supply daily for
the needs of the people, "quaesumque illa sunt, quae diurna pistores alimentis
popularibus praebent" it seems just possible that the bakers also distributed the
oil. However, the Curiiocum and the Notitia Urbis Romae speak of 2300 mensae oleariae
dispersed in the different regions of the city. It has been suggested that they were
privileged shops charged with this service by the government, like the wine shops with the
sale of wine. But since wine was not distributed free, and oil was, this is not very
probable. Waltzing says that they were probable tables where the oil was distributed,
brought there from the storehouse by the "bajuli olei" mentioned by Symmachrus.
The mensa olearia certainly means the actual oil ration. The law which refers to these oil
rations shows 80 lbs. of oil as worth one solidus. As I have been unable to make out the
meaning of this law I give it here in full in the original latin. "Dispositionon
magnificantiae tuae de olei mansora firsam manere praecipicus, ut decem et octo per
singulos sextarios sorigulis at cartorum ordinem comaodur noderanis dispositiona tua
retentis ao distributia sextarius olei ad viginsi unam semis unclam redegatur a quam
mensuram certum designatis suggeatiepe corporibus solecium constatutam nulliua posthae
fraude oredimus adtemtandem" Then a recipient died without heirs or otherwise ceased
to draw his ration, is ---------- to the ---- and the prefect of the city was told to
retail it to someone also for 20 folles. Anyone who bought such an oil ration, and then
sold it again for a larger sum was punished by being put in iron chains and sent to
Illyria. The right to the oil ration was transmitted to a man's legal heirs with the rest
of his hereditary possessions.
The implication is that such oil rations could be bought and sold, but
it is not clear whether the actual right to receive it every day could be so disposed of. Twenty folles seems to be too little to have paid
for the perpetual right to a daily allowance of oil. It seems much more likely that the
daily allowance is referred to, but then 20 folles seems too much.
Meat
As regards the distribution of free pork, we know that the saurii were
charged with the collection and preparation of the meat, and so presumably they also
distributed it. If so, they must have been supervised by officials of the urban prefecture
under whose supervision they collected the meat. (See Ch: VII) There are no laws relating
to the actual distribution.
Section II
Other Provisions: Government Control and Sale
Grain: The supplies furnished by the amount taxes were not all needed for free
distribution of bread. In the time of Augustus, for instance, 12 million modii only were
needed to feed the 200,000 recipients, whereas Egypt transported 20 million modii to Rome
and this supply lasted for months. Africa's tax together with Egypt's exceeded the 60
million modii necessary each year.
Of the supplies received by the government and not distributed free,
some were stores, and some sold cheap in the market. It is obvious that by a system of
taxation of a percentage of produce there would in years of bad harvest be an insufficient
amount of grain sent to Rome. Trejan and his successors tried to ensure the provisioning
of Rome for five years in advance by stores in reserve, and by giving privileges or
immunities to private grain merchants and shipowners.
In our period all the grain brought must have been government supplies,
Africa and Egypt would presumably export any surplus supplies they might still have to
other countries where the price was higher, witness the attempts of havicularii to regail
government cargoes in the countries on their route to Italy. (see Chap. 4). Africa and
Egypt were anyhow exhausted, as can be seen from the numerous complaints and remissions of
taxation. Part of the government supplies of grain at Rome were now sold to the bakers at
a low price to make into second quality bread to be sold at a cheap price. This bread was
called "panis fiscalis" or "panis ostiensia".
Evidently the population of Ostia, although
it received no free doles of corn, had bread sold to it below the market price by a
similar arrangement with the bakers. It is stated that the bread at Ostia and the
"fiscal" bread to be retailed at the same price.
Ordinary middle class people at Rome who were not in receipt of the
free doles of bread, and all the people of Ostia, would therefore buy this cheap bread
from the bakers. If they desired something better they would buy the more expensive bread
sold by the bakers on their own account. Rich people probably still had their own slave
bakers and made their own bread.
We have seen that for some period between 306 and 369 no free bread was
distributed, and all citizens had to buy the cheap bread.
When the sale of grain was made in state shops, either at the current
price or below it, it was necessary to have a tessera frumcutaria to be able to purchase
it, and one could only obtain a stated amount. Probably the same was true when bread was
sold cheaply instead of grain. In Constantinople Theodosius was forced in 409 to buy grain
and make it into cheap bread for sale to the people. He consecrated 50 lbs. of gold
"for the prevention of famine" and made provision for these cheap sales to
continue at the expense of the special fund set up for the purpose. In 434 he decrees 611
lbs. of gold to be dedicated in perpetuity for the buying of grain. This grain is to be
sold to the bakers who can apparently be given credit for a time.
The position in Constantinople seems to have been that before 409 there
were free distributions, but no cheap sales; after that date the government undertook to
supply the bakers with grain, but it was probably only sold below the market price in
times of exceptional scarcity. The government was merely seeing to it that there should
always be enough grain in Constantinople to feed the people.
SECTION III
COLLEGIA CONNECTED WITH THE "ANNONA"
It is obvious that a very large number of people were required in
connection with the work of the provisioning of Rome and Constantinople and for the
transport of foodstuffs and other supplies to the armies. The taxes in kind from all over
the Empire had first to be brought from the harbours of the provinces to the harbours of
Rome and Constantinople. (For the moment nothing is being said about the river boatmen who
transported the goods from the various depots in the provinces to the harbours, these
nautae are not referred to in the laws of the Codex Theodosianus and a consideration of
their position will be deferred to in Part III.)
The navicularii were responsible for the sea transport of the taxes,
but their large ships could not sail up the Tiber, although they could of course deliver
their cargo direct in the harbour of Constantinople. In the case of Rome, therefore, the
collegia of oeudicarii and lehimoularii transported the goods from Ostis to Rome on their
barges and in their light shiffs.
The mensopes,---------- and procurers, received and checked the cargo
delivered and the saccarii, porters, carried it to the great storehouses by the harbour,
and from there to the rafts of the caudicarii when provisions were required in Rome.
The pistores (bakers) turned the raw material into bread in the
bakeries of the city of which there were 254 at Rome.
The suerii and pecularii i.e. the pork and beef butchers, were
responsible for the collection, transport and preparation of the meat required for free
distribution and sale. These supplies of meat were, however, collected in Italy, and
therefore require to be considered separately.
It will be seen that although the work of supervision was in part
performed by officials of the cura annonae, all the labour, even to the checking of the
supplies received, was performed by the members of the collegum mentioned above: The
members of these collegia had once been entirely free agents, but their organisations had
not been taken over by the state, and incorporated as an essential cog in the machinery of
administration. In return for their services, they all received varying degrees of
compensation, mainly in the form of immunity from taxation. The Codex Theodosianus gives
useful and fairly extensive information as to the services demanded and the compensation
allowed, while it throws a sidelight on the social and economic position of the members of
the various collegia affected. As the position of the members of the different collegia
varies, it will be well to deal with each in turn, but certain general privileges of all
the corporations of Rome and Constantinople can first be cited:
(a) Exemption from the tutela "immenitatom, quae data est hia, qui
annona
populi domani javent."
(b) exemption from munera aordida et extraordinaria "Nulli sit
liberum,
utili permisom et ---- aliquid urbis insolae in
urbo sustinount".
(c) collatio equorum.
(d) Could not be judged in civil cases or fined or tortured except by
the
praefuctus urbe, even when resident abroad.