onno van nijf the social world of roman taxfarmers 2008

The Customs Lawof Asia

Edited by

M. COTTIER, M. H. CRAWFORD,

C. V. CROWTHER, J.-L. FERRARY, B. M. LEVICK,

O. SALOMIES, M. WORRLE

and with paper by

M. CORBIER, S. MITCHELL, O. VAN NIJF,

D. RATHBONE, G. D. ROWE

1

Cottier et al / The Customs Law of Asia 0-Cottier et al-Prelims Page Proof page iii 28.7.2008 1:51pm

Contents

Illustrations xiiAbbreviations xiiiMap xxii

Introduction 1Monumentum Ephesenum 14

TEXT AND TRANSLATION 23

COMMENTARY 87

Geography, Politics and Imperialism in the Asian Customs Law 165s. mitchell

The Lex Portorii Asiae and Financial Administration 202m. corbier

The Elaboration and Diffusion of the Text of theMonumentum Ephesenum 236

g. d. rowe

Nero’s Reforms of Vectigalia and the Inscription of theLex Portorii Asiae 251

d. rathbone

The Social World of Tax Farmers and their Personnel 279o. van nijf

Bibliography 312Greek Index 329Index of Persons 000Index of Places 000Index of Words 000Latin Index 000General Index 000

Cottier et al / The Customs Law of Asia 0-Cottier et al-Prelims Page Proof page xi 28.7.2008 1:51pm

The Social World of Tax Farmersand their Personnel

O. van Nijf

1. INTRODUCTION

One day, the sage and miracle worker Apollonius of Tyana and hisparty were about to cross the border of the Roman Empire on theirway to the Far East:1

When they were about to cross to Mesopotamia, the telones stationedat Zeugma took them to the tariV (pinakion) and asked what he wastaking with him. Apollonius said, I take with me Prudence, Justice, Virtue,Temperance, Courage and Perseverance, stringing together a lot of nouns allin the feminine gender. Immediately the oYcial, with an eye to his ownproWt, said: ‘Well then, make me a list of those slave girls of yours’. ‘I cannot’,retorted Apollonius, ‘I am not taking them as my slave girls, but as mymistresses.’

I owe a debt to the late Keith Hopkins who discussed this paper with me at an earlystage. I am also grateful to Thomas Corsten for discussion and for making materialavailable to me ahead of publication, and to Maaike Leemreize for checking the dataat a very late stage.1 Phil. VA 1. 20 (tr. C. P. Jones): !Ææ"#$%Æ& 'b ÆP%#f& K& %c$ ()*Å$ %H$ !#%Æ(H$ ›

%+º,$Å& › K!Ø-+-ºÅ()$#& %fiH ˘+.ª(Æ%Ø !æe& %e !Ø$/ŒØ#$ qª+ ŒÆd Mæ,%Æ; ‹ %Ø I!/ª#Ø+$;› 'b 0!#ºº,$Ø#&· I!/ªø; 1çÅ; *øçæ#*.$Å$ 'ØŒÆØ#*.$Å$ Iæ+%c$ KªŒæ/%+ØÆ$ I$'æ+"Æ$2*ŒÅ*Ø$; !#ººa ŒÆd #o%ø 34º+Æ +YæÆ& O$5(Æ%Æ: › '6 X'Å -º)!ø$ %e 7Æı%#F Œ)æ'#&I!5ªæÆ8ÆØ #s$, 1çÅ; %/& '#.ºÆ&: › 'b #PŒ 19+*%Ø$; +r!+$; #P ªaæ '#.ºÆ& I!/ªø %Æ.%Æ&;Iººa '+*!#"$Æ&.

Cottier et al / The Customs Law of Asia 5-Cottier et al-chap5 Final Proof page 279 21.11.2008 9:02pm

The episode must have struck a chord with many of the readers ofthis travel story, particularly with those who had travelled themselves.The anecdote allowed the reader—from the comfort of his home—tohave a laugh at the expense of an unpopular, but ubiquitousWgure: thepetty customs oYcial. To many provincials the face of the RomanEmpire must have been that of the tax farmer, but we are surprisinglyill informed about the social world in which he operated. Modernstudies of Roman tax collection or of the bureaucracy in general oftenfocus on the legal or institutional aspects of these organizations; thehuman element is often neglected. This is not surprising as manyancient documents are virtually silent on this point as well. Even theEphesian Customs Law, which supplements our knowledge of Romancustoms duties at so many points, shows little interest in the lowerranks of the system.It is the aim of this chapter to shed some light on the social world

of Roman tax collection. I shall have little to say of the top levels ofthe organization, the societates of publicani in Rome, and little of thehigher echelons of imperial administration. I shall try to focus asmuch as I can on the lower ranks, the grass-roots, and try to bring tolife the petty oYcials who patrolled the roads and harbours, mannedthe customs houses, and toiled over the endless paperwork. Theymade a crucial contribution to the establishment and maintenance ofthe Roman Empire, but we shall see that literary sources, with theirelite bias, would not seem to reXect this. The precise nature of theirduties is usually ignored in these texts, and when tax farmers arementioned they are usually treated with the contempt that the upperclasses felt for the working population. Information on the minutiaeof the enormous task that was tax farming must be gleaned from legaltexts, papyri, and inscriptions from various parts of the Empire.These are discussed in the second part of this paper. However,inscriptions can fruitfully be approached as a form of self-represen-tation of their authors. In the last part of the paper we shall see whatimage the tax farmers and their personnel chose to present of them-selves. A list of known individuals with a connection to the portoriumAsiae is given in the Appendix.


280 O. van Nijf

2. PUBLICANS AND SINNERS

Roman literary authors generally maintain a digniWed silence regard-ing the thousands of men who were responsible for collecting therevenues of empire. Although people were taught at school thatcustoms duties were a fundamental instrument of empire,2 thisinterest does not seem to have been extended to the individualsconcerned. Customs oYcials rarely make an individual appearancein literary texts, and when they do, they are not often named, andthey appear as two-dimensional characters. They were seen as irrele-vances, who occasionally proved an irritant during a journey. Plu-tarch, setting himself up as the voice of the cultivated gentlemen ofhis age, formulates it as follows:3

Busybodies search out these very matters and others still worse, not to cure,but merely to expose them. For this reason, we are annoyed and displeasedwith customs oYcials, not when they pick up those articles that we areimporting openly, but when in the search for concealed goods they pry intobaggage and merchandise which are another’s property. And yet the lawallows them to do this.

The idea that members of the lower classes, even if they werespecial oYcials called scrutatores,4 were rummaging through one’spossessions was clearly too much. The educated traveller may wellhave turned to the dictionary of Pollux to Wnd a convenient list ofwords to abuse a tax farmer if he went too far:5

2 As is clear from [Quint.] 341. 6, which defends the customs duties by pointingout that they paid i.a. for the army and for festivals.3 Plut. De Curios. (Mor. 518E): #ƒ 'b !#ºı!æ/ª(#$+& ÆP%a %ÆF%Æ ŒÆd %a %#.%ø$ 1%Ø

å+"æ#$Æ ÇÅ%#F*Ø$; #P 3+æÆ!+.#$%+& Iººa (5$#$ I$ÆŒÆº.!%#$%+&: ‹3+$ (Ø*#F$%ÆØ'ØŒÆ"ø&: ŒÆd ªaæ %#f& %+º,$Æ& -Ææı$5(+3Æ ŒÆd 'ı*å+æÆ"$#(+$; #På ‹%Æ$ %a K(çÆ$B%H$ +N*Æª#()$ø$ KŒº)ªø*Ø$; Iºº 6 ‹%Æ$ %a Œ+Œæı(()$Æ ÇÅ%#F$%+& K$ Iºº#%æ"#Ø& *Œ+.+*ØŒÆd ç#æ%"#Ø& I$Æ*%æ)çø$%ÆØ: ŒÆ"%#Ø %#F%# !#Ø+E$ › $5(#& '"'ø*Ø$ ÆP%#E&.4 See below, n. 34.5 Poll. Onom. 9. 30 f.: ŒÆd ŒÆŒ"Çø$ (b$ %+º,$Å$ +Y!#Ø& 2$· -Ææ.&; ç#æ%ØŒ5&;

2ªåø$; ºfi Å*%+.ø$, ºÅØÇ#()$#&; !Ææ+Œº)ªø$; 3Æº/%%Å& IªæØ,%+æ#&; å+Ø(H$#&-ØÆØ5%+æ#&; ŒÆ%Æ'.ø$ %#f& ŒÆ%Æå3)$%Æ&; I!/$3æø!#&; K!Æå34&; 2!ºÅ*%#&;2(+%æ#&; ÆN*åæ#Œ)æ'Å&; -"ÆØ#&; I!#!$"ªø$; !Ø)Çø$; ºø!#'ı%H$; I!#'.ø$; ±æ!/Çø$;IçÆØæ#.(+$#&; !Ææ+Ø*!æ/%%ø$; N%Æ(5&; I$Æ"*åı$%#&, I!Åæı3æØÆŒ,&; 'ı*å+æ4&;I$4(+æ#&; 2ªæØ#&; 29+$#&; 3ÅæØ,'Å&; :æ(Æ; !æ5-#º#& !)%æÆ; $Æı/ªØ#$; 3Åæ"#$ 2(ØŒ%#$;


Social World of Tax Farmers 281

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

Or praise him, when the man showed proper respect:

Should you want to praise a tax farmer, you might say: law-abiding, hospit-able, just, not overstepping the law, not over-zealous, better than life,knowing your place, palliator of the journey’s discomfort, someone youmight want to interrupt your journey for; sweet harbour.

The concern with the right vocabulary, and the choice of words,convey a distinct upper-class perspective: to the readers of Pollux, agood tax farmer was someone who knew his place.Tax farming was evidently not a proper occupation for members of

the Roman elite—even though they might not despise its proWts, solong as they could be reaped discreetly. Elite objections to tax collect-ing seem to have focused on moral issues that were connected withthe ‘banausic status’ of the tax farmers.6 As Cicero put it:7 ‘Firstthose employments are condemned which arouse people’s dislike,for example tax farmers and money lenders.’A variant of this view stresses the morally suspect character of the

tax collector by putting them on a par with pimps and procurers. Theassociation must have been eVective. Dio Chrysostom raises the issuein a dialogue about freedom:8

ŒÆd ‹*Æ K$ %ÆE& X3#ı& º#Ø'#!#æ"ÆØ& 1å+Ø&: +N '6 K!ÆØ$+E& %+º,$Å$; +Y!#Ø& 2$: 1$$#(#&;+h9+$#&; '"ŒÆØ#&; K$'#%)æø %#F $5(#ı; !æÆ5%+æ#& %#F º"Æ$ IŒæØ-#F&; Œæ+"%%ø$ %#F-"#ı; +N'g& ÆN'+E*3ÆØ; !ÆæÆ(ı3#.(+$#& %c$ %#F !º#F 'ı*å)æ+ØÆ$; +N& n$ 2$ %Ø&I$Æ!Æ.*ÆØ%#; fiz %Ø& 2$ ;')ø& !æ#*#æ("*ÆØ%#.

6 Tax farming was classiWed as a banausic occupation according to the Souda s.v.‘banausos’ (!B, entry 93).7 De OV. I. 62. 150 : ‘Primum improbantur ii quaestus, qui in odia hominum

incurrunt, ut portitorum, ut faeneratorum’.8 Dio Chrys. 14. 14: <" '); #Y+Ø *#Ø K9+E$ÆØ; ‹*Æ (c I!+"æÅ%ÆØ (b$ =!e %H$ $5(ø$

Kªªæ/çø&; ÆN*åæa 'b 2ººø& '#Œ+E %#E& I$3æ,!#Ø& ŒÆd 2%#!Æ: º)ªø 'b #x#$ %+ºø$+E$ j!#æ$#-#*Œ+E$ j 2ººÆ ‹(#ØÆ !æ/%%+Ø$.


282 O. van Nijf

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

Other sources agree: Artemidorus calls tax collecting an ‘unblush-ing profession’, which could signify prostitution, when it appears in adream.9 The emperor Julian also classes together people of the basersort: ‘tax collectors, dancers and adulterers.’10These texts may reXect mere upper-class prejudices, or result from

the rhetorical device of invective that relied on blackening the mor-ality of one’s opponents, but the charge may not have been totallybaseless. Tax farmers were famously classed with sinners in theNew Testament, which suggests that in the society of Wrst-centuryPalestine the association between tax farmers and prostitution couldbe presented as plausible.11 A papyrus from the Zeno archive showsthat the association was not always imaginary. The text mentions apair of crooks who dealt in female prostitutes. They had kidnappeda girl, provided her with an outWt, and handed her over to a customsoYcial who was to act as her pimp—the rationale apparently beingthat there would be frequent traYc, and plenty of customers.12It is more diYcult to get an idea of the attitude of ‘ordinary’

Romans and Greeks towards tax farmers. Badian suggests that wecan easily empathize with their feelings, when he refers to ‘the naturaldislike that all working and earning men and women rightly feel forthe tax collector’, but it may not be so easy to get a grip on theperspective of the ancient ‘working man’—(let alone of the ‘workingwoman’).13 We shall see below that they may have been particularlyvulnerable to extortion at the hands of tax collectors, but there arefew Wrst-hand accounts to present their views. We hear of the pro-verbial rapacity of tax gatherers, but we have no way of establishing

9 Art.Oneir. 4. 42: q$ ªaæ ; KæªÆ*"Æ 2åæø(#& (but see 3. 58 for dreams where a taxfarmer could signify something positive for people who were in business).10 Julian, Adv. Gal. 283E. He lists telonai, orchestai, and hetairotrophoi. The charge

had a long history anyway: Theophrastus, Char. 6, puts tax farming on a par with inn-keeping and brothel keeping.11 Cf. Youtie 1973.12 PSI 4, 406, cf. Pomeroy 1984, 163.13 Badian 1983, 11.



how widespread such proverbs were.14 There are hardly any texts thataim to give a more measured image. Only one source purports to givethe opinion of a tax collector, and he takes a defensive stance.15‘Diomedon the tax farmer said: if it is not shameful for you to sellthe taxes, it is not shameful for us to buy them.’ Plutarch, thoughhardly a spokesman for the working classes, exposes the hypocrisy ofthe upper classes in this respect:16

And they think it is a disgrace to be a tax collector, which the law allows; butthey themselves lend money contrary to law, collecting taxes from theirdebtors, or rather, if the truth is to be told, cheating them in the act of lending.

The commonman may well have agreed. However, the elites had nomonopoly on double standards. Lucian defends the view that povertywouldmake it excusable for aman to defraud a fellow citizen, to ask forgifts, to beg and steal, and even to be a tax collector.17 But in the end thenegative view prevails also here: in his imagination of Hell, Lucian putsthem all, tax collectors and upper class faeneratores, together:18

As it happened [Minos] himself was sitting on a lofty throne, while beside himstood the Tormentors, the Furies, and the Avengers. From one side a greatnumber of men were being led up in line, bound together with a long chain;they were said to be adulterers, procurers, tax collectors, toadies, informers,

14 e.g. Plut. Aquane an ignis sit utilior (Mor. 958 D 6): ‘Man has been granted butlittle time to live and, as Ariston says, Sleep, like a tax farmer, takes away half of that’(ŒÆd (c$ Oº"ª#ı åæ5$#ı ŒÆd -"#ı %#E& I$3æ,!#Ø& '+'#()$#ı › (b$ 0æ"*%ø$ çÅ*d$ ‹%Ø ›o!$#& #x#$ %+º,$Å& %e l(Ø*ı IçÆØæ+E %#.%#ı). Another example can be found inIamb., Bab. 93: ‘The tax collector gave the necklace to the merchant. Will not wolvesset down lambs from their jaws and lions release fawns from their teeth back to theirmothers when a tax collector acually parts with so great a prize? (1'øŒ+ %e$ ‹æ(#$ ›%+º,$Å& %fiH K(!5æfiø: #PŒ X'Å ŒÆd º.Œ#Ø 34*#ı*Ø$ 2æ$Æ& KŒ %H$ *%#(/%ø$ ŒÆd º)#$%+&I!e %H$ O'5$%ø$ I!#º.*#ı*Ø $+-æ#f& %ÆE& (Å%æ/*Ø$; ›!5%+ ŒÆd %+º,$Å& IçBŒ+$ 2ªæÆ$%ÅºØŒÆ.%Å$).15 Dion. Hal. Ad Amm. 1, 12 f.: › %+º,$Å& › ˜Ø#()'ø$: +N ªaæ (Å'6 =(E$ ÆN*åæe$ %e

!øº+E$; #P'b ;(E$ %e T$+E*3ÆØ.16 Plut. De vitando aere alieno [829 C 9]: ÆP%#d ªaæ !ÆæÆ$5(ø& 'Æ$+"Ç#ı*Ø

%+ºø$#F$%+&; (Aºº#$ '6 ; +N '+E %IºÅ3b& +N!+E$; K$ %fiH 'Æ$+"Ç+Ø$ åæ+øŒ#!#F$%+&.17 Luc. Pseudolog. 30.18 Luc. Menippus sive de Nekyiomanteia 11: K%.ªåÆ$+ 'b › (b$ K!d 3æ5$#ı %Ø$e&

=8Åº#F ŒÆ34(+$#&; !Ææ+Ø*%4Œ+*Æ$ 'b ÆP%fiH —#Ø$Æd ŒÆd 6¯æØ$.+& ŒÆd 0º/*%#æ+&:7%)æø3+$ 'b !æ#*4ª#$%# !#ºº#" %Ø$+& Kç+9B&; ±º.*+Ø (ÆŒæfi A '+'+()$#Ø: Kº)ª#$%# 'b+r$ÆØ (#Øå#d ŒÆd !#æ$#-#*Œ#d ŒÆd %+ºH$ÆØ ŒÆd Œ5ºÆŒ+& ŒÆd *ıŒ#ç/$%ÆØ ŒÆd %#Ø#F%#&‹(Øº#& %H$ !/$%Æ ŒıŒ,$%ø$ K$ %fiH -" fiø: åøæd& 'b #¥ %+ !º#.*Ø#Ø ŒÆd %#Œ#ªº.ç#Ø!æ#*fi 4+*Æ$ Tåæ#d ŒÆd !æ#ª/*%#æ+& ŒÆd !#'Æªæ#" ; Œº#Øe$ :ŒÆ*%#& ÆP%H$ ŒÆd Œ5æÆŒÆ'Ø%/ºÆ$%#$ K!ØŒ+"(+$#&.


284 O. van Nijf

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

It is diYcult, therefore, to get an image of the customs farmer thatis not coloured by ideology or prejudice. The tax farmer, when heappears in literature, is represented in a negative light as someonewho is marked by excessive greed and lack of morality. However, suchtexts are not very helpful on the precise duties of individual taxcollectors, or on their position in the organization. They have evenless to say on the question of how those men saw their own lives andtheir own roles as servants of the Roman Empire.

3 . THE BUREAUCRACY

We are only beginning to appreciate the complexities and detaileddivision of labour that went into the collection of the many taxes thatsupported the Imperium Romanum.19 The Ephesian Customs Lawprovides us with some detailed lists of the places where the customsduties were to be levied (ll. 7–11, §§1–2), it mentions possible exemp-tions (ll. 58–67, §§25–7), and it even goes into some detail about theconstruction of stations and guard-posts (ll. 35–6, §13), but it does notgive much thought to the individuals concerned. The terminology canbe loose and imprecise. The tax farmer is usually called telones ordemosiones, but for the lower ranks a blanket term such as epitroposis deemed suYcient. From the perspective of the lawgivers in Rome,the individuals who at a local level were running the organization ona day-to-day basis were apparently of little interest.This was of course the result of the way that tax collection had been

arranged. Tax farming was a convenient way of compensating for theabsence of an adequate bureaucratic structure in the Republic. Itprovided the state with money upfront, leaving the trouble of actu-ally collecting the money conveniently to wealthy entrepreneurs. Theelite business men themselves relied heavily on authorized agents

19 The standard work is of course still De Laet 1949, but see now Brunt 1990b. Theposition of uilici is discussed in Aubert 1994, esp. ch. 5, and Carlsen 1995, esp. 43–55.



(usually slaves or freedmen) to carry out economic and menialactivities, that ‘their life-style, political and economic engagement,and social prejudices prevented them from carrying out personally’,while still being able to reap the Wnancial beneWts of their eVorts.20 Itis this double distancing that must account for the relative lack ofinterest in the law among the people on the ground.It is well known that from the onset of the Principate private

enterprise was gradually phased out from tax collecting, even thoughwe do not know in detail how this process evolved. Direct taxationwas taken out of the hands of the publicani, and left to the towncouncils, thus implicating local elites in the exploitation of theprovinces. This was not, however, deemed necessary or practical forthe collection of indirect taxes such as customs duties. Publicaniremained active here at least until the end of the second century,even though there is evidence that local elites could sometimes beinvolved, as we shall see below. The traditional view (advocated byDe Laet) is that the companies who farmed the customs duties werereplaced sometime under Trajan by individual conductores. In animportant article Brunt has pointed out that there is not enoughevidence for this view, and he insists that companies must havecontinued until the Severan age at least. Recently, Aubert has arguedthat Brunt may have gone too far in the other direction: ‘there is noreason why [conductores] should be discarded altogether from thehistory of tax collection: both companies and individual tax farmerscould have lived side by side.’21Important though they were from an institutional point of view,

these changes would have had a limited eVect on the daily operations,which may well be connected to the existence of slave agents. Theslave personnel of the individual tax farmers or of tax farmingcompanies could without any diYculty be transferred from onecompany to another, or to an individual conductor, if necessary.The Customs Law does not make an explicit statement about thetransfer of slaves, but as the tax farmers had to use the same buildingsand staging-posts as had been used previously under King Attalos, wemay assume that slaves and other property were also transferred

20 Aubert 1994, 322.21 Aubert 1994, 330 with references to the earlier debate.


286 O. van Nijf

(§28, l. 68). The text also states that they had to hand these over toincoming publicani, and the same must have applied to slave per-sonnel in districts that had Wrst been taxed by the Romans them-selves. Where and when imperial agents took over, the tax personnelwould simply be incorporated into the familia Caesaris and do theirjobs as before.22 The data do not allow me to diVerentiate muchbetween the various categories of tax oYcial, and I amwell aware thatthe situation on the ground may have been more varied than wouldappear at Wrst sight. The Romans adopted local practices, and willhave made innovations where necessary. However, if we start fromthe Customs Law, and use additional information from inscriptionsand other material from Asia and elsewhere, we should still be able todraw up a reliable and coherent picture of the daily chores of Romantax collecting.

4. CUSTOMS HOUSES AND STAFF

The Customs Law shows that the system relied on a dense network ofcustoms oYcials spread over a relatively wide geographical area.Customs posts, described simply as epoikia (buildings), or telonia(customs houses) were set up in the major harbours of the taxdistrict, and along major land roads into the district (ll. 22–6, §9).Smaller collection points, paraphylakai (guard-posts), were to befound along minor roads and around the territories of free cities(l. 32, §12). In addition to the places mentioned in the text we Wndstations in places such as Laodicea and Amorium.23 One inscriptioninforms us that a customs station was located in Cibyra.24 Perhaps weshould also reckon with temporary posts, which were closed part ofthe year, as seems to have happened in Illyria.25Although the Romans were willing to take over pre-existing cus-

toms houses that had been used by the Attalids, there was a tendencyto impose some order. The names of the tax farmer and of hisrepresentative were to be advertised clearly (ll. 27–8, §10). It would

22 Cf. Weaver 1972, passim. 23 See Appendix nos. 4b and 3.24 I.Kibyra 107; see Appendix nos. 8a–8b. 25 Carlsen 1995, 51.



have been practical to post a tariV listing the current rates andexceptions as well. These may have taken the shape of a woodenpinakion, such as the onementioned by Philostratus in the Apolloniusepisode quoted above, but it would probably have been suYcientto have a copy on papyrus.26 No parallel for the inscribed tariV ofPalmyra has been found in Asia.27 The Customs Law further givessome precise directions for when a new customs building or guard-post had to be constructed:28

If he wishes, he is to have up to one building [in all these cities and places]for the sake of [declaration (?)] or registration or habitation, provided that[it is] not in a temple or temenos, or [sacred place; and at (?) - - -] they are tohave [???] guard-posts, and (in any case) one guard-post on the RiverRhyndacus. Whatever place of this province [there is, wherever it is neces-sary to declare, if in] these [places] a harbour lies by the sea, [they are tohave] by each harbour in these (places) up to one guard-post in sequence, if[they wish, for the sake of exaction of telos]; and also on the coast by the sea;and around the boundaries of the province, where it is lawful to go or drive(animals), if they wish; [provided that] they have (a building) within [???feet of wherever it is necessary to declare], built or fenced, one in each place,thirty feet from front to back, <thirty feet from side to side>, and providedthat it is not [built in a temple or temenos] or sacred place or with (another)building nearer than ninety feet.

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

26 See below in the section on procedures.27 IGR 3, 1056 ! OGIS 629. See Matthews 1984 and Teixidor 1984.28 ll. 30–6, §§12–13. All English translations of the Customs Law are from the

version in this volume by M. H. Crawford.29 Aubert 1994, 333–42. The Egyptian material is presented in Sijpesteijn 1987.


288 O. van Nijf

tive. Such men were known as uicarii, if the uilicus was himself aslave, or as pragmateutai and actores.30 Among the more specializedoccupations we Wnd portitores (collectors), hoi pros tei pulei (gate-keepers), scrutatores, and ereunetai (search oYcers). Accounting andbook keeping were handled by Wnancial specialists: tabularii, arkarii,librarii, commentarienses, dispensatores, or cheiristai (Wnancial clerks)and grammateis. In some cases there may have been one or morearmed men: at least in Egypt we Wnd arabotoxotai (policemen, whoused a type of bow that was called ‘Arabic’). In addition we wouldexpect, particularly in the larger houses, personal slaves (serui,and boethoi) and in some cases wives and children of the membersof staV.31 Such customs houses were real outposts of empire: self-contained microcosms inhabited by servants of the Roman state.

5 . PROCEDURES

It is easy to underestimate the sheer amount of work—and paper-work—that must have gone into the collection of customs duties.Inscriptions, literary sources, and legal sources give only a limitedimpression. The Customs Law clearly states that the process involvedtwo stages: an (oral) declaration, and a written registration.32 A taxlaw from Egypt gives us some idea of how these procedures may haveworked in practice. A tax farmer could accept the valuation placed bythe merchant on his cargo as a basis for paying duty,33

30 Weaver 1972, 200–6 on uicarii.31 See Carlsen 1995, 51 for the suggestion that they would work nearby lands to

produce the necessary provisions. For the family relations of uilici and other customsoYcials, see below in the section on funerary practices. It is perfectly clear thatcustoms oYcials owned personal slaves; cf. Dig. 39. 4. 1. 5. For a 5-year-old slavegirl who belonged to a group of tax farmers in Apollonia (Cyrenaica), see Robert1968, 436–9 [! OMS 6, 112–16].32 Cf. l, 4, §13: !æ#*çø$+"%ø ŒÆd I!#ªæÆç)*3ø.33 P.Oxy. 1. 36, 6 V.: K"a$# 'b j <›> %+º,$Å& KŒç#æ"%Ø*3#Bj$ÆØ %e !º#E#$ K!ØÇÅ%4*fi Å; j

› 1(!#æ#& KŒç#æ%ØÇ)"%#ø; j ŒÆd Ka$ (b$ +=æ+3fi B %"Ø# :%+jæ#$ j n I!+ªæ/8Æ%#; *%+æ4j*Ø(#$1*%ø; Ka$ 'b (c +=jæ+3fi B; › %+º,$Å& %"c#$ 'Æj!/$Å$ %fiH K(!5"æ#fiø %#F j KŒç#æ%Ø*(#FI!#'"5%#ø: j ŒÆd !Ææa %H$ K"ªºÆ-5$%ø$# j %a %)ºÅ, å+Øæ#ªæÆç""Æ$ ºÆ(-#Æj$)%ø*Æ$ ¥ $Æ+N& %e ()ºjº#$ I*ıŒ#ç/$%Å%#Ø j z*Ø$.



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

In some cases specialized search oYcers, scrutatores or ereunetai,would unload the cargo or handle a metal siromastes (probe) tosearch through loads of grain or other bulk goods.34The paperwork must have taken up a lot of time as well. We may

form some impression of what must have been contained in thearchives of Asia if we turn to the situation in Egypt.35 Transportersreceived upon payment a receipt, the size of a credit card, with amore or less standardized text stating the place where the customswas paid, and the name of the duty. Normally they also recorded thename of the transporters, the products over which taxes were paid,their quantity, and the means of transportation, and, Wnally, the date.Most receipts would have clay seals attached to them, stamped with aportrait of the emperor. Large numbers of customs receipts havesurvived in the Egyptian deserts; the following text is a typicalexample:36

Ounophris who exports a donkey with two (2) artabae of dates has paid thecustoms duty of 1% through the gate of Philadelphia. Year 14 of ImperatorCaesar Trajan Hadrian Our Lord, Phaophi 24.

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

34 Scrutatores: AE 1899, 180; 1933, 160; 1974, 485. See Aubert 1994, 339. For theereunetai, see Sijpesteijn 1987, 96–7. The siromastes is mentioned in the Suda (> entry478): >Øæ#(/*%Å&: *Œ+F5& %Ø *Ø'Åæ#F$; ºÆ-c$ 9ıº"$Å$ 1å#$ !Ææa %#E& %+º,$ÆØ& +N&1æ+ı$Æ$.35 Sijpesteijn 1987, esp. 85–90. Cf. Hopkins 1991, 133–4.36 Sijpesteijn 1987, 147, no. 137. Cf. Vindob. G inv. 39850: %+%+º$,$Å%ÆØ% 'Øa !.ºÅ&

?ØºÆ'+ºç"Æ& j !æ & P& $,çæØ#& K9/& ª$ø$% Z$#$$% ç#"&"$#Ø&Œ& #&& j Iæ%/-Æ& '.# !-& : 1%#ı& Ø'

& "P#%#jŒæ/%#æ#& ˚Æ"*Ææ#& <æÆØÆ&$& #&F jj @ & 'æØÆ$#F %#F Œıæ"#ı ?& Æ&H& çØ j !Œ!'.

37 Appendix, no. 5c.


290 O. van Nijf

At all the customs stations these payments were registered one byone into large ledgers, recording all imports and exports by tabulariiand other specialists.38 At regular intervals these ledgers were sent toresponsible oYcials in regional centres for checking, creating work inthe province for hundreds (thousands?) of administrators. The set-up may have diVered in detail from customs house to customs house,but we may assume that the daily chores of tax collection in thedistrict of Asia will have been roughly comparable. The loads ofpaperwork, and the demands in terms of manpower must havebeen similar.Apart from the major customs houses, a network of guard-posts

(phylakai) and ‘minor guard-posts’ was set up throughout the prov-ince. The trader was supposed to register with the nearest oYcial (ll.42–5, §17), but the Law also provided for places where no customsoYcial was to be found:39

If there is neither a collector nor a procurator there according to this lex, towhom one may declare [and with whom one may register before importing,whenever] this is the case, whatever city may be nearest to that place, theyare to register with the person holding the highest oYce in it [as is appro-priate according to the lex].

Other texts also give the impression that the involvement of localelites in the collection of customs duties was not rare.40Finally, the staV on a customs post may have included a ‘Xying

squad’ that patrolled the minor roads in the countryside. In westernprovinces we Wnd ‘circitores’; in Egypt eremophylakes would patrolthe deserts.41 There is no clear evidence that they were also active inAsia, but a customs oYcial from Apollonia, who died in Laodicea,where he was buried by his uicarii, was perhaps on patrol.42Still, it must have been relatively easy to escape the spying eye of

the customs oYcial. A passage in a novel illustrates what mighthappen. Merchants would try to avoid customs as a matter of course,

38 Sijpesteijn 1987, 85–90.39 ll. 40–2, §16.40 AE 1947–1948, 179 is an honoriWc inscription for a tax farmer (tetartones) of the

customs duties, who was also a councillor in Palmyra (c.ad 160 ) and a councillorwho acted as phorologos is on record in Thrace (SEG 32, 676, ad 3).41 Circitores: AE 1938, 91; 1985, 714; 1989, 334. For Egypt, see Sijpesteijn 1987, 93.42 See Appendix, nos. 4b and 4c.



and many customers would happily collude.43 ‘A merchant who hada beautiful woman for sale approached me. Because of the customsoYcial he had anchored his boat outside the city near your property.’The Customs Law tried to deal with such scams:44

[Whatever anyone may import by sea,] he is [not] to divert the ship orindeed to divert whatever he may unload or discharge onto land to otherplaces for the sake of [evasion of telos; and if] anyone acts [in contraventionof these provisions] the lex is to be valid on the same basis as if he wascarrying something unregistered.

The customs oYcials, however, had to catch the perpetrator Wrst,and many travellers would simply have taken their chances.The customs oYcers for their part may well have decided that it

was easier (and more proWtable) to concentrate on the traders whodid register, and see how much they could squeeze out of themwithin—or just beyond—the limits set by the law. There were variouspoints that oVered the tax oYcials some leeway. The trader had tosupply an estimate of the value of his cargo, but it was the tax farmerwho ultimately put a value on all goods (ll. 45–6, §18), and he wouldnot have been likely to settle on too low a level.Another strategy might have been to levy a tax on goods for which

customs had already been paid. The Customs Law prohibits this(ll. 16–20, §6), but the traveller would have had to be able to provethat he had paid his taxes Wrst. It is easy to imagine what would havehappened if a trader lost his symbolon, or when the customs oYcialaccused him of carrying more goods than he had declared.Disagreement could, of course, also arise on the interpretation of

exemptions. The very length of the section on exemptions in theCustoms Law suggests that this was a major source of contention(ll. 58–68, §§25–7). A school text provides uswith an amusing dilemmathat could arise in such circumstances. What to do with a Romanmatrona, who had a string of pearls hidden on her bosom? Tax farmerswere not allowed to search Roman women, but the temptation toinvestigate nonetheless must have been strong.45 Other exemptions

43 Char. Chaer. and Call. 2. 1. 3 (cf. 1. 13): !æ#*Bº3) (#" %Ø& 1(!#æ#& !Ø!æ/*Œø$ªı$ÆEŒÆ ŒÆºº"*%Å$; 'Øa 'b %#f& %+º,$Æ& 19ø %B& !5º+ø& uæ(Ø*+ %c$ $ÆF$ !ºÅ*"#$ %H$*H$ åøæ"ø$.44 ll. 15–16, §5. 45 [Quint.] Decl. 359.


292 O. van Nijf

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

6 . CONTROL AND COLLUSION

The eager tax collector may, of course, have been driven by a sense ofduty, or civic-mindedness, but, as he was working on a percentagebasis, we cannot exclude that he will have kept his own Wnancialinterest Wrmly in mind. Personal corruption may thus easily havecrept in. A text from Egypt shows that traders in a hurry wereoccasionally willing to pay baksheesh in order to speed up theprocedures.46

[So-and-so] prefect of Egypt says: I am informed that the tax farmers haveemployed exceedingly clever devices against those who are passing thoughthe country and that they are, in addition, demanding what is not owing tothem and are detaining those who are in urgent haste, in order that somemay buy from them a more speedy departure. I, therefore, command themto desist from such greediness . . .

The tax system was clearly open to abuse, which to the individualsinvolved may well have been one of the attractions of buying the leasein the Wrst place. The state oVered some protection against the worstabuses, but limited itself mainly to granting exemption to thosecategories of people who really mattered. Others may have expectedto have to fend for themselves. A well-timed backhander may havedone the trick.

46 P.Princ. 2, 20 with Reinmuth 1936: 1!Ææå#&# j`Nª.!%#ı º)ª+Ø: j ŒÆ%Åå#F(ÆØ %#f&%+º,$Æ& j '+Ø$H& *#&ç"&*&Æ*3ÆØ %#E& 'Ø+&æjå#&(& )&$#Ø& ŒÆd I!ÆØ%+E$ %&a j (& c& Oç+Øº5(+$Æ ÆP%#E&K!d !º+Ej"#$# Œ& Æ&d& ŒæÆ%+E$ %#f& K!+Øª#()$#ı& j "¥ $Æ# ŒÆd %e %/åØ#$ I!#åøæ+E$ %Øj$b&K&9ø$4*ø$%ÆØ: !ÆæÆªª)ºjºø "'b# #s$ ÆP%#E& !Æ.*Æ*3ÆØ %B& j "%#ØÆ.#%Å& !º"+##$+9"Æ&!& Æ&$& %& "Æåfi B#.



It should be recognized, however, that traders and other travellerswere not the only ones to suVer from corruption of tax oYcials. Aninscription from Aphrodisias shows that free cities were sometimessubject to illegal customs duties, which could only be removed byappeal to the emperor.47 A second-century text from Egypt showsthat the Roman state could itself fall victim to the malpractices of itsfunctionaries. The papyrus is a letter by a whistle-blower, who hadworked as a guard in a customs house, and who had discovered thatthe tax farmer had falsiWed the oYcial records.48

To his highness the epistrategos Julius Petronianus from Pabous son ofStotoetis son of Panomieus, a priest of the village of Soknopaiou Nesos inthe division of Herakleides of the Arsinoıte nome, Arab archer at thecustoms house of the said Soknopaiou Nesos. While not seeking an occasionof accusation, but because I saw the treasury being defrauded by Polydeukes,who contrary to the prohibition has now for four years been in charge of theaforesaid customs-house, and by Harpagathes, son of Er . . . , I presented tothe overseers of the nomarchy a copy of Harpagathes’ autograph returns inmy possession of the imports and exports passing through the customs-house, requesting that an examination of them should be held in order todetermine whether the taxes upon these had been added to the treasuryaccount. Polydeukes having discovered this attacked me with other persons,whose names I do not know and belaboured me with many blows, and notsatisWed with this set upon me Heraklas, one of the guards of the domains,and taking me up by force they together carried me to the counting-house ofthe superintendent of the domains and caused me to be scourged in order tomake me give up the register of Harpagathes.

47 Reynolds, Aphrodisias no. 15.48 P.Amh. 2, 77: 6 A#ıº"øØ —+%æø$ØÆ$fiH %HØ ŒæÆ%""#*%fiø K!Ø*%æÆ%4ªfiø j !Ææa

—Æ-#F%"##& %#F >%#%#4%+ø& —Æ$#(Ø)ø& j ƒ+æ)ø& I!e Œ,(Å& ">##Œ$#!Æ"#ı ˝4*#ı%B& j @˙æÆŒº+"'#ı (+æ"'#& "%#F 0#æ*"Ø#$#"%#ı $#(#F 0æÆ-#j%#95%#ı !.ºÅ"&# %#& ÆP%B&>#Œ$#!Æ"#ı ˝4*#ı: j [.].[. . . . ]$& ŒÆ%Åª#æ:". . . I#ººa ›æH$ %e$ ç"*Œ#$ j !+æØªæÆç5(+$#$=!e —#ºı'+.Œ#ı& %+%æÆ+%+E j X'Å åæ5$øØ !Ææa %a I!+ØæÅ()$Æ K!Ø%Åæ#F$j%#& %c$!æ#Œ+Ø()$Å$ !.ºÅ$ ŒÆd =!e j "@`æ!Æª#/3"#ı %##F& ¯æ#& "::#%&Æ&Œ#& K!)'øŒÆ j %"##E& %B&"$#(Ææå"Æ& K!Ø#%ÅæÅ%Æ"E#& I$%""ªæÆ#jç#$ z$ +rå"##$ %#F @`æ!Æª/3#ı N'Ø"#ª#æ/çø$ jI$ÆªæÆç"ø$ %H$ 'Øa %B& !.ºÅ& +N*Æå3)$%ø$ j "Œ#Æd K9Æå3")$%ø$; I#9Ø&H& $& %c$ K9)%Æ*Ø$ÆP& "%#H$ j ª"+#$& )*& "3ÆØ +N&# %e K&!& "Øª#$& H$ÆØ +N !æ#*+%&)& "3Å# j ÆP%H$ %/ %)ºÅ %fiH ŒıæØÆŒHØº5ªøØ: ŒÆd j K!Øª$#f& › —#ºı'+".Œ#Å& K!+º3,$ (#Ø j (+36 7%)æø$ z$ %a O$5(Æ%Æ Iª$#H!º+"*& "%#Æ"Ø#&& j !ºÅªÆE& (+fi MŒ"*Æ%#; ŒÆd (c IæŒ+*3+"d#& j K!4"$#+ªŒ) (#Ø @˙æÆ"Œº#A$ %Ø$Æ(ÆåÆØæ#jç5æø$ #P*ØÆŒH$ ŒÆd I(ç5%+æ#Ø -"fi Æ j -Æ*"%#/9Æ$%)& (+ +N*4$+ªŒÆ$ +N& %eº#ª"Ø#*%4æØ#$ j %#F K!Ø%æ5!#ı %H$ #P*ØH$ ŒÆd K!#"Å*/$ (+ j:":#Œ":#:Æ&Ø&#$ Z$%Æ(Æ*%Øª#F*3ÆØ +N& %e I$Æ'Hj"$Æ"# (& + Æ"P%#E&# %e %#F "<æ!#Æª/3#ı I$Æªæ/çØ#$.


294 O. van Nijf

Fortunately for Pabous, the matter came to the attention of hissuperiors, and he was allowed to make a formal complaint. It maybe doubted, however, that under similar circumstances many of hiscolleagues would have shown the same disinterested courage.There was clearly some need to supervise the customs oYcials.

Developments in the way that the taxes were leased out will havemade this more urgent. From the reign of Augustus the payment of alump sum up-front was apparently replaced by a percentage system,presumably because the contractors would have found it diYcult tomake secure estimates of the levels of traYc, and of potential income.49However, as this would increase the number of opportunities to de-fraud the state, imperial procurators (with their ownuilici and uicarii)were made responsible for supervising the tax collectors. Gradually animperial ‘bureaucracy’ seems to have grownup alongside the tax systemproper, but it is not always easy to distinguish between the two, as thejob titles were the same, and as their responsibilities partly overlapped.The situation got even more complex in those provinces, where be-tween the reigns of Commodus and Severus, the same procuratorsbegan to be responsible for collection and for supervision.50 Such closecoexistence would not seem the best recipe for a strict and impartialsupervision of the tax collectors’ practices.It is interesting to see that tax collectors also seem to have main-

tained excellent relations with those other representatives of Romanpower: the military. In some cases customs oYcials and soldiersappear to have been close friends, as in Moguntiacum (Mainz),where a uilicus and a beneWciarius consularis (a member of themilitary police) set up a joint dedication.51 The seating inscriptionsfrom the amphitheatre of Aquincum (Budapest) show a uilicus with areserved place between a karcerarius legionis (military prison oYcer)and a veteran.52 They may have been part of the Roman equivalent ofan ‘expat community’, but to the other spectators they may well haverepresented the ugly face of Roman imperial power.The evidence for soldiers abusing their position is even stronger

than that for tax collectors. Apuleius tells the tale of a centurion whobrutally knocks a market gardener oV his ass.53 A number of recently

49 Aubert 1994, 329–30 and Brunt 1990, 381–3. 50 Brunt 1990, 407–20.51 CIL 13, 18118. 52 CIL 3, 10493d. 53 Met. 9. 39.



published inscriptions conWrm that the picture was realistic.54 Forus it is sometimes hard to see what is going on, and who exactlywas involved. A fragmentary document from Cibyra, concernedwith illegal and violent exactions from peasants, may have involvedsoldiers. A recent interpretation, however, identiWes a number oftabularii in the text, which may point the Wnger rather in thedirection of customs oYcers.55TheDigest recognizes that the tax systemwas corrupt, but taking the

approach of most large organizations, the Roman state would seem tohave put the blame squarely on relatively low-ranking individualoYcials.56

Nobody is unaware of the extent of the audacity and insolence of cliques oftax farmers. This is the reason why the praetor promulgated this edict tocontrol their audacity. Where a tax farmer’s familia is alleged to havecommitted theft or has caused wrongful injury, if the persons whom thematter in hand will concern are not brought before me, I will grant aiudicium without possibility of noxal surrender against the owner. It shouldbe understood that in this context, the title ‘familia’ covers the tax farmer’sslaves. However, if somebody else’s slave is serving as a slave of a tax farmerin good faith he is included as well.

The oYcial line, then, was that such practices were to stop, butthey may have been unavoidable. The creativity of the tax farmerswas probably inWnite, and the more audacious among them musthave been able to amass considerable personal fortunes. I suspect thatthe corrupt tax collector is rather representative of how the systemworked in practice. Peculation may well have outstripped peculium

54 See for example SEG 38, 1244: a letter of Pertinax concerning molestation ofcivilians from Tabala, and 37, 1186, from Takina: a letter by Caracalla concerning thebad behaviour of soldiers.55 Milner 1998, no. 112. Recently new readings of the text were suggested by

Professor G. Souris of the University of Thessaloniki at a seminar in Cambridge,and by Dr T. Corsten (pers. comm.), who identiWed a ‘tabul[arius]’ and his adiutoresin the text. The term ‘tabularius’makes it possible, but by no means proves that theexactions were made by customs oYcials.56 Dig. 39. 4. 12: Quantae audaciae, quantae temeritatis sint publicanorum fac-

tiones, nemo est, qui nesciat. idcirco praetor ad compescendam eorum audaciam hocedictum proposuit: ‘Quod familia publicanorum furtum fecisse dicetur, item si damnuminiuria fecerit et id ad quos ea res pertinet non exhibetur: in dominum sine noxaededitione iudicium dabo. Familiae autem appellatione hic seruilem familiam continerisciendum est. Sed et si bona Wde publicano alienus seruus seruit, aeque continebitur.’


296 O. van Nijf

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

7 . THE SELF-PRESENTATION OF THE TAX FARMERS

At this point we should perhaps shift our perspective, and investigatewhether we can say anything on the self-perception of the tax farm-ers, particularly of those in the lower ranks. The epigraphic docu-ments set up by these men, mainly epitaphs and other inscriptions,were naturally also driven by ideology. Funerary and honoriWc in-scriptions are best seen as (joint) projects of self-representation,involving usually two parties: the deceased or honorands and thededicants of the inscription. Messages sent out by mortuary displaywere varied, but frequently they referred to social status, wealth, andidentity. An inscribed epitaph was a deliberate and enduring com-memoration of whatever features were seen as the dead person’s mostsigniWcant characteristics, the features that deWned his social identity.We should be careful, though: epitaphs may not provide an unprob-lematic guide to the actual status of individuals during life, but weremore likely a reXection of how people chose to represent themselves.What those inscriptions do is not just to identify a particular indi-vidual, but to place this person in a particular social context. Thesemonuments, then, oVer a useful perspective on the collective self-perception and social aspirations of a particular class of men.57

8. THE DEATH OF A TAX FARMER

A few of the inscriptions commemorating the Asian tax farmers aresimple epitaphs. It is worth considering what such monuments have

57 I have discussed these issues in van Nijf 1997, 27 and 34–8.



to tell us beyond the identiWcation of the deceased. In the Wrst place itshould be remembered that setting up a funerary inscription, even amodest one, was staking out a claim to moderate wealth and respect-ability. The very poor never received an individually marked grave.The epitaphs of Roman tax collectors contributed to establishingthem as a relatively prosperous group.58Moreover, it is clear that most funerary inscriptions identiWed cus-

toms oYcials primarily on the basis of their occupation. In this respectthey resembled other so-called banausic occupations, such as those ofcraftsmen and traders. It is important to realize the social implicationsof this practice, as identiWcation by job-title represents a break withearlier Greek practice. I have argued elsewhere that this practice gavecraftsmen and traders a chance to exploit their occupational titles asemblems of distinction that they could not acquire by political activ-ities.59 Low-ranking customs oYcials may well have employed similarsocial strategies in their epigraphic self-representation. Often slaves orfreedmen, theymay have derived a sense of status, or importance, fromtheir connection with the customs service in a way that seems to gobeyond simple pride in one’s job. It may be suggested that they valuedparticularly highly the link it provided with the ultimate source ofprestige, the Roman state. It is striking, for example, that some oYcialschose to use Latin (or Latin and Greek) for their epitaph, even thoughthey might have been more familiar with Greek. Among the examplesfromAsia weWnd: Isochrysus and Bellicus in Amorium,60 Felix and theanonymous uilicus fromMiletus,61 Leo from Apollonia,62 Agathonicusand Amerimnus from Cibyra,63 and Ias and Quintus in Ephesus (thelatter even coined a new Latin word, ‘teloniarius’, to make his point).64Even though the use of Latin was not exceptional in Roman Asia, aLatin epitaph would have stood out suYciently to mark the Romanidentity of the deceased.65

58 Patterson 1992, 17. Cf. Gordon et al. 1993, 155: ‘Every funerary epitaph makesreference, among other things, to the fact that other men could not aVord one.’59 Van Nijf 1997, 31–69.60 Appendix no. 3.61 Appendix nos. 9a–d.62 Appendix no. 4b.63 Appendix nos. 8a and 8b.64 Appendix nos. 5d and 5f.65 For a convenient survey of bilingual inscriptions from Asia Minor see now

Kearsley and Evans 2001.


298 O. van Nijf

A second social context to which funerary inscriptions draw at-tention is the family proper. There might be a potential conXict, as afew tax oYcials may have privileged their relations with the familiaover those with their blood relatives, and chose to be buried in acollective tomb belonging to the familia of a societas or individualconductor. An example of a locus sepulturae of oYcials has been foundin Italy.66 A number of Asian customs oYcials were likewise buriedby their colleagues.67 We cannot exclude that this was often a con-scious choice, as it was in the case of professional associations, morethan necessity.However, more often than not, epitaphs of tax collectors focused

on their family relations. The Ephesian teloniariusQuintus buried hisown wife,68 and a scrutator of the statio Bilachensis and his wifeburied their daughter.69 Another uilicus, Bargathus, was buried byhis wife, Hilara.70 Sentimental reasons may not have been the onlyones to play a part here. As we saw above, many of the uilici and otheremployees of the customs service were slaves. In their case the veryidea of maintaining family connections was not unproblematic, asthe family ties of slaves did not enjoy the same legal status as those offree persons. Contubernium took the place of marriage, and oYciallyslaves could not appoint their children as heirs (or at least notwithout the permission of their master). It is not surprising, then,that the elite among the slaves would choose family life as an areaparticularly suited for negotiating and demonstrating their superiorstatus.71 Imperial slaves for example would often be ‘upwardly nu-bile’. Slaves in the customs’ service were no exception. Quite a fewslave oYcials seem to have had freed or freeborn wives of whom theywere deservedly proud.72

66 ILS 1870 from Verona, which was a locus sepulturae of a familia involved in thecollection of the uicesima libertatis.67 Appendix nos. 3, 4b, perhaps 9a. The father and son team from Cibyra managed

to have it both ways, nos. 8a and 8b.68 Appendix no. 5g.69 AE 1974, 485.70 AE 1975, 202.71 Weaver 1972, 170–95.72 Cf. ILS 1566, an epitaph set up by Pedia Epictesis for her husband Placidus, an

imperial slave who worked as a customs oYcial in Gaul.



A similar eVect of self-promotion was achieved by usurping an-other right of free citizens that slaves formally lacked: to make alegally valid will. This is what seems to have happened with a slaveuilicus in Miletus who mentions ‘heirs’ in his epitaph, if PeterHerrmann’s reconstruction of the inscription, of which only frag-ments survive, is correct.73 We are here clearly dealing with a slavewhose (self-)perceived utility in the customs service was a source forhis social ambitions. The families of such slaves also stood to beneWt:a daughter of a uilicus was proud enough of her father’s connectionswith the tax system for her to record his occupation on her ownepitaph. It is indicative of the kind of social world in which she wasmoving that she was married to a kapelos, a trader.74As we saw above, the collection of customs duties gave rise to a

considerable bureaucratic organization, which naturally produced aneed for increasing diVerentiation among the diVerent grades of theposts.75We cannot reconstruct a precise career path for the ambitioustax collector: but we know that several tax-collecting slaves wereproud enough to have their pseudo-cursus recorded on stone.Eutyches, a uicarius in Noricum, became a contrascriptor at a diVerentstation.76 An imperial slave called Felix was a uilicus in one station,but he reminded the reader that he had been promoted from the jobof uicarius at another station.77 Such behaviour should be seen as aclear case of ‘imitatio domini ’, and was typical of a socially mobile andincreasingly self-conWdent class of people, who were fully aware of theimpact of their daily activities on life in the provinces.78The funerary record of the Roman customs oYcials, then, presents

a somewhat diVerent picture from that arising from the literarysources: we seem to be confronted with a prosperous and proudgroup who were willing to exploit their institutional links (the sourceof their success) as well as their rise in the world and their familyconnections in their epigraphic self-fashioning.

73 Milet 6. 2, 667. Herrmann suggests that the heredes may have inherited from apossibly freeborn wife, whom he suspects in l. 4. For my purposes this does notmatter much. See appendix no. 9d.74 Naour 1976, no. 29.75 As also happened among the members of the Familia Caesaris, cf. Weaver 1972,

18, which of course partly overlapped with the customs service.76 ILS 1857. 77 ILS 1860. 78 Pleket 1971, 245.


300 O. van Nijf

9. AN HONOURABLE JOB

The crux in dealing with the (presumed) ambitions as expressedthrough funerary inscriptions is of course to Wnd out how suchaspirations were received by society. Was it possible for the taxcollectors, slaves and freedmen included, to achieve some sort ofsocial respectability? It has been suggested that tax collectors were notnatural candidates for laudatory decrees and honoriWc statues, butthe situation may not have been so simple.79 Tax collectors must havehad an ambiguous social status. On the one hand their legal status asslaves or freedmen classiWed them in theory below ordinary Romancitizens; on the other hand, their function in the tax system gavethem power and this must have aVected their standing in society. Theresulting ‘status dissonance’ has been identiWed as a major forcebehind the incessant epigraphic self-representation of other slavesand freedmen in imperial service.80 Roman senators could well aVordto look down upon these attempts at achieving social respectability.From the perspective of the ordinary provincial, however, the situ-ation may well have seemed diVerent. Tax collection was an import-ant mediating institution between the provincials and the centre inRome. I would rather expect that, just as with other mediators andpower brokers, tax collectors and tax oYcials were natural candidatesfor receiving honoriWc inscriptions.It is a diVerent matter that not all inscriptions discussed explicitly

the exact nature of benefactions granted by the tax collector. ThehonoriWc language of inscriptions often served to present certainrelationships in socially acceptable terms. Inscriptions were not al-ways designed to be speciWc: euphemism and double-speak were partand parcel of the honoriWc vocabulary.81 This does not make our jobany easier, however: inscriptions that mention tax collectors are notthat uncommon, as we shall see, but they do not always refer to whatexactly the collectors had done. A series of inscriptions from Chios is

79 Brunt 1990, 388: ‘We can well understand that they were not often the subjectsof laudatory decrees. The collection of taxes did not win men’s hearts. Nor was itanything to boast of.’80 Weaver 1972.81 See van Nijf 1997, ch. 2 for a fuller discussion.



illustrative of the style. Here we Wnd honoriWc monuments set up bygroups of ferrymen who operated between Chios and Erythrae forxenophylakes—customs oYcials—on the island. Most inscriptionsran something like this:82

The ferrymen to Erythrae award a crown to the customs oYcials who werein oYce in the year of Decimus: Aphrodisius, son of Serapion, Dionysius,son of Seleucus, Parasius, son of Heraiscus, for their virtuous attitude (arete)towards them.

It would seem that each team of oYcials received a fresh inscription.Other similar inscriptions for other oYcials: archontes, agoranomoi,and so on, suggest that it was impossible to do business on Chioswithout the erection of an honoriWc monument. Some tax oYcialsof the Roman Empire seem to have followed the same route. Aninscription for Iulius Capito, conductor publici portorii Illyrici et ripaeThraciae, records an impressive range of honours from many of thecities in his tax district. These included honoriWc decrees, ornamentadecurionalia, honorary councillorships, appointments of patronage,and honoriWc statues. The honours were a reward for unspeciWedmerita, the nature of which may only be surmised. Had he taxed onlywhat was legal? Had he bent the rules a bit, and turned a blind eye?Or perhaps he had behaved very badly indeed, and were the honoursdesigned to prevent worse?83 Public honoriWc inscriptions may wellhave presented the respectable face of private corruption.If we turn our attention to the district of Asia, we Wnd a number of

tax collectors who may Wt this mould. The most famous one isperhaps T. Flavius Sabinus, the father of Vespasian, who was a taxfarmer in the province of Asia. Suetonius records that he had receiveda dedication ŒÆºH& %+ºø$4*Æ$%Ø: for having been a good taxfarmer.84 Another example from Asia is the Ephesian M. AureliusMindius Mattidianus Pollio, who was the recipient of two honoriWcinscriptions (by the look of it two versions of the same honours) in

82 IK 1, 74. #ƒ !#æ3(+.#$%+& j +N& 6¯æ.3æÆ& *%+çÆj$#F*Ø %#f& 9+$#ç.jºÆŒÆ& %#f&2æ9Æ$%Æ& j K$ %HØ K!d ˜)Œ(#ı K$ØjÆı%HØ 0çæ#'"*Ø#$ >ÆæÆj!"ø$#&; ˜Ø#$.*Ø#$>+jº+.Œ#ı; —Ææ/*Ø#$ @˙æÆj"*Œ#ı; Iæ+%B& :$+Œ+$ j %&B& +N& 7Æ%#.&. The title is unique.These oYcials were ‘in charge of foreigners’. I suppose that this means that they weresome sort of customs oYcials. See also van Nijf 1997, 92–3 for discussion and furtherreferences.83 ILS 1465. 84 On this man, see Levick 1999, 4–7.


302 O. van Nijf

his home town. The honours were apparently in recognition of asplendid career; his tax farming is mentioned only in passing.85L. Boionius Pansa is another case: his is not formally an honoriWcinscription, but a so-called agoranomos inscription which referred toother activities.86 As the agoranomia was not a particularly high-ranking function, he may well have chosen to be commemorated forhis higher status as tax oYcial. With the case of Crispinus we reachanother aspect: the tax collector as civic benefactor. In his case wehave two (incomplete) honoriWc inscriptions.87One other text showsthat he had presented himself as a (moderate) benefactor of Ephesus,by the dedication of a statue of Daidalos and Ikaros to Artemis andTrajan in the gymnasium near the harbour (an obvious location for acustoms oYcial to work out).It is perhaps not so surprising that relatively high-ranking oYcials

would seek and get this type of social recognition, but it is anindication of the importance of their function, and of the proWts oftax collecting, that individuals lower down in the bureaucracy wereable to do the same. I have suggested above that the idea of being asmall cog in a large institution may have fostered a sense of self-importance and pride in belonging to the tax-gathering machine. Italso seems to have provided some with the ambition and the funds todo more. A striking illustration of the scale of the ambitions of alower-ranking tax farmer is perhaps the case of Potens, who wasactive in Iasos during the reign of Claudius. I write ‘perhaps’, becausehis association with the tax farming business is not certain.88 Mostscholars seem to accept that he was a well-to-do slave involved in taxcollection in the city. He must have done very well, however, as hereceived public praise for his role as a euergetes tes poleos (benefactorof the city). Various inscriptions record his acts of generosity: in-cluding building activities, a gift of 100,000 denarii, an expensivesilver phiale oVered to Isis and Sarapis, and the remittance of intereston a loan. Moreover, he seems to have been the founder of a local‘dynasty’, as honoriWc and funerary texts refer to several members of

85 Appendix no. 5b.86 Appendix no. 5c. See Garnsey and van Nijf 1998, for a discussion of the

agoranomos inscriptions.87 Appendix no. 5a. 88 Appendix no. 7d.



his family, who seem to have been absorbed into the local elite. Suchsocial mobility is rare, however. Most uilici and other tax oYcialswere less ambitious: the euergetism of the customs oYcial wasusually directed towards more limited contexts such as cult associ-ations, or their own organization.Kalokairos and Eutyches, slave agents of Mindius Pollio, were

probably more representative of their kind.89 They were responsiblefor restoration works to the customs house, the telonion, and for thegilding of an Aphrodite statue. This act of allegiance to their organ-ization is not unparalleled in the world of the tax farmers, and severallow-ranking oYcials are on record who chose the customs house asthe focus of small-scale euergetism. An imperial slave, who was auilicus in Aquileia, had restored and embellished the stationes(oYces) on either side of the emporium.90 And an African inscrip-tion records that a slave uicarius involved in tax collection restoredand enlarged the telonion, thus displaying his loyalty to the system.91It should be noted that the pragmateutai of Mindius, who were the

benefactors of the telonion, felt it necessary to state their allegiance totheir principal, whose career was recorded in some detail, focusingon functions that were relevant to his tax connections. Their ownstatus was apparently enhanced by reference to their boss, and theirown self-representation was bound up with the representation of hisstatus. This logic also lies behind honoriWc inscriptions or dedica-tions that were set up by low-ranking tax oYcials to their superiors.92The eVect would be even more pronounced when the dedicant wasable to appeal to a higher authority still. Several inscriptions set up bytax farmers were directly or obliquely dedicated to the emperor. Aninscription from Africa manages to maximize the number of claimsto be loyal to the system. A uilicus records that he had restored adedication to Venus Augusta that had originally been set up by thepromagistri of his portorium.93 It is clear that monuments such asthese could be read from two perspectives. On the one hand they area declaration of individual loyalty to the system. This might havebeen a useful move to obtain promotion, but it also brought status tothe individuals concerned.

89 Appendix nos. 6a and 6b. 90 AE 1934, 234.91 ILS 1654. 92 AE 1981, 24. 93 AE 1923, 22.


304 O. van Nijf

However, there was another eVect: these monuments and theirinscriptions were also a reminder—to the provincials—that thepresence of tax men (like that of soldiers) was somehow sanctionedby the emperor. Customs oYcials, who were on a daily basis handlingdocuments in the emperor’s name, and who were wielding stampswith the imperial image as a symbol of their petty power, may haveused the monuments as a more ostentatious symbolic reference tothe larger structures of power of which they were part. These inscrip-tions, then, have the same eVect as the funerary texts mentionedearlier, as they located the honorand clearly in the context of theultimate source of status: the Roman state.

10. CONCLUSION

I began this paper with the negative image of tax farmers and theirpersonnel that arises from the literary sources. It is clear that mem-bers of the elite were at pains to dissociate themselves as much aspossible from such embarrassing activities. From their perspectivethe men who stopped the carts, searched the ships, and collected themoney were of little or no account. Yet the Roman state clearlydepended on the revenues that these men generated, and they arewell worth our attention. I have tried to make their activities a bitmore visible, using a selection of epigraphical and papyrologicalsources, which represent, however, only a tip of the iceberg. Wehave gained, I hope, a small taste of the complexities of the organ-ization, and of the daily activities, of the collectors and adminis-trators. We have also seen that tax farmers may have made theirpresence felt locally: traders and travellers without suYcient protec-tion were squeezed hard, which would have raised the prices ofconsumer goods, and made travelling a nuisance. The state mayhave tried to stop sharp practices, but the Wnancial rewards for thetax farmers may have simply been too great.The evidence suggests that exercise of petty power, and the proWts

resulting from it, were major factors in their self-esteem. In theirfunerary epigraphy tax farmers represented themselves as worthy



members of society, as family men and reliable oYcials. The imagearising from their honoriWc inscriptions works over very similarthemes, and manages to make even more of their loyalty to thesystem. Despite the prejudices of their elite bosses, and the grudgesof their ‘customers’ in the provinces, tax farmers seem to have beena clearly identiWable, articulate, and self-conWdent group: notafraid to use their position as a source of status and socialmobility. The collection of taxes and customs dues was part of theday-to-day reality of life in the Roman provinces. The individualswho carried out these tasks clearly stood out in their own eyes and,judging by the honoriWc monuments they received, in the eyes oftheir contemporaries. In this light they were not only instrumentalto the success of the Roman empire, but they were also among itsmain beneWciaries.

AppendixList of the known individuals connected with

tax farming in the Province of Asia

General

1. P. Terentius (1 bc)Job title: promagister of the portoria in Asia.Source: Cic. ad Att. 11. 10. 1.

2. T. Flavius Sabinus (father of Vespasian)Job title: publicanus / %+º,$Å&Source: Suet. Vesp. 1. 2. publicum quadragesimae in Asia egit manebantqueimagines a ciuitatibus ei positae sub hoc titulo ŒÆºH& %+ºø$4*Æ$%Ø.

Amorium

3. IsochrysusJob title: (seruus) uilicus.Source: AE 1988, 1031.His name seems to suggest that he was a slave; the job title ‘seruus uilicus’ isvery common.


306 O. van Nijf

Apollonia (Pisidia)

4a. T. Flavius Asclepas (1/2 ad)Job title: (procurator) / K!"%æ#!#&.Source: MAMA 4, 113.He was based in Apollonia. He is apparently a freedman, as he does not list acareer, but Brunt 1990, 408 suggests that he may have been a knight ofFlavian or any later date.

4b. Leo (imp.)Job title: (seruus) uilicus.Source: IK 49, 102.The inscription does not state that he was a slave, but this is implied in thefact that the inscription was set up by his uicarii. The inscription was foundin Laodicea on the Lycus.

4c. Anonymi (imp.)Job title: uicarii.Source: IK 49, 102.See previous item.

Ephesus

5a. Aulus .[..]cius Auli f. Palatina Crispinus (1/2 ad, Trajanic)Job title: promagister duum publicorum XXXX portuum Asiae IIII / Iæå,$Å&%+**ÆæÆŒ#*%B& ºØ()$ø$ 0*"Æ& '".Source: IK 17.1, 3045; IK 12, 517 ' 517a (cf. IK 59, 158).This individual cannot be named with certainty. The editors of IKpropose A. A[ni]cius Crispinus, whereas W. Eck (Eck 1997, 113–14) suggestsA. L[ar]cius A. f. Pal. Crispinus. He was archones/promagister, whichimplies that he was the acting representative of a consortium that hadcontracted the portorium in Asia, and the uicesima libertatis in a rangeof provinces.

5b. M. Aurelius Mindius Mattidianos PollioJob title: (promagister) / Iæå,$Å& (0 ºØ()$ø$ 0*"Æ&Source: IK 13, 627; IK 17.1, 3056; OGIS 525.He is usually seen as a promagister, but Brunt 1990, 407, suggests thatMindius Pollio could not have been a promagister of a societas, because hewas too busy with his other—oYcial—jobs. Brunt may underestimate,however, the potential of the dependent labour force. Mindius will have



handled his business interests through his trusted business agents, such asKalokairos and Eutyches (see below 6a, b).

5c. Lucius Boionius Pansa FlavianusJob title: (procurator) / K!"%æ#!#& ºØ()$ø$ 0*"Æ&.Source: IK 13, 924.This man appears with this title in a so-called ‘agoranomos inscription’attached to the South Gate of the agora. This suggests that he was a localman, or at least that he undertook a local career. Agoranomos was not a veryhigh-ranking local function; he may have preferred to be commemorated forhis ‘imperial’ function. (See Garnsey and van Nijf 1998, 1 on the agoranomosinscriptions.)

5d. Ias (3 ad?)Job title: Seruus symbolarius.Source: AE 1988, 1019.The edd. pr., Knibbe and Iplikcioglu, give the name as ‘Hadis’, andsuggested that it was a suitable name for a slave tax farmer ‘in the sameway that we might name a nasty dog Satan’. Unfortunately, thiscolourful name has to be struck oV: Engelmann 1999, 167 has argued thatwe should read ‘Iadis’ as a genitive of the name Ias. The name refers to thethe fact that the slave had been bought on one of Ionia’s many slavemarkets. It was apparently fairly common to derive a slave’s name fromhis previous owner, or from the place where he was bought. Varro De Ling.Lat. 8. 21 mentions the names Ion and Ephesius as examples. The titlesymbolarius is new: a *.(-#º#$ is a small sum (surcharge) to be paid fora receipt (De Laet 1949, 317); a symbolarius was responsible for issuing thesereceipts.

5e. Ianuarius (3 ad?)Job title: procurator publici XXXX p. Asiae.Source: AE 1988, 1019.The procurator of the symbolarius in the previous item. If the identiWcationwith PIR2 I 8 is right, he should be dated to the third century.

5f. Quintus?Job title: teloniarius.Source: IK 16, 2296.The connection with the portorium Asiae is uncertain. Note the use of thecalque ‘teloniarius’.

5g. C. Furius Sabinius Aquila Timesitheus (3 ad)Job title: uice-procurator of the portorium in Asia.Source: ILS 1330.


308 O. van Nijf

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

Halicarnassus

6a. Kalokairos (2 ad)Job title: actor (!æÆª(Æ%+ı%4&).Source: OGIS 525.Actor of M. Aurelius Mindius Mattidianos Pollio (see above). He restoredthe telonion with his colleague Eutyches (cf. next item). Their names suggestthat they were Pollio’s slaves.

6b. Eutyches (2 ad)Job title: actor (!æÆª(Æ%+ı%4&).Source: OGIS 525.See previous item.

Iasus

7a. Anonymus (1 ad, 26)Job title: seruus uilicus.Source: IK 28, 415.A fragmented inscription, but the title is clear.

7b. AnonymusJob title: (seruus) uilicus / #NŒ#$5(#&.Source: IK 28.2, 417.The text does not state that he was a slave, but the inscription is damaged,and it is very likely that we have to supply this title here also.

7c. Pulcher (1/2 ad)Job title: (uilicus) #NŒ#$5(#&.Source: IK 28.2, 416.Pulcher was the #NŒ#$5(#& (uilicus) of the koinonoi in Asia. Note his Latintransliterated name. The text does not state that he was a slave.

7d. Potens (1 ad Claudius)Job title: unknown, probably slave oYcial (uilicus ?) (perhaps a publicanus).Source: SEG 43, 717; IK 28.2, 253; cf. IK 28.2, 407.There is some discussion concerning the connection of Potens withthe portorium Asiae. The ed. pr. suggests that he was a publicanus ofItalian descent, but most scholars think that he was a slave-uilicus



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

Cibyra

8a. AmerimnusJob title: seruus uilicus.Source: IK 60.1, 107.Amerimnus soc(iorum) p(ublici) / (quadragesimae) p(ortuum) A(siae) ser-(uus) uil(icus) / Cibyrae / Agathonico soc(iorum) / p(ublici?) (quadragesimae)/ port(uum) Asiae uilico Ciby/rae [vac] Wlio suo / memoriae causaThe inscription mentions a father and son, who were both seruus uilicus at

the statio at Cibyra. This is the father. It is unclear whether they were activesimultaneously, or whether the son ‘inherited’ the job.This text is the Wrst to attest a statio at Cibyra, which was between

40 bc and ad 250 part of Asia. As it was located just on the borderwith Lycia, a station there made perfect sense (cf. Nicolet 1993), even thoughthe place is not mentioned in the Customs Law. The date of this inscriptionis uncertain: Corsten suggests late Republican–Trajanic on the basis ofthe double hypothesis that by then Asia and Bithynia were joined in onedistrict (not the case: see Nicolet 1993) and that by then individual con-ductores had taken over from societates (which is not certain if we believeBrunt).

8b. AgathonicusJob title: (seruus?) uilicus.Source: IK 60.1, 107.See the previous entry; this is the son. It would seem very likely that the sonwas a slave like his father, but the text does not mention this; I wonderwhether the word seruus may have stood in the gap. If so, we should have aparallel for the awkward formulation in Milet 6.2, 563; see below.

Miletus

9a. FelixJob title: uicarius uilici (or perhaps seruus uilicus).Source: Milet 6.2, 563 (cf. IK 59, 40).Felici Primioni<s> XXXX j port. Asiae uilic. Mil. se<r> j ?4ºØŒØ —æ+Ø("ø$#&Œ#Ø$: j (" ºØ(+$: 0*"Æ& #NŒ#$: B+ØjºÅ%: '#.ºfiø. There is some debate as to theexact nature of his position. The text as presented by Herrmann leaves open


310 O. van Nijf

two possibilities. Herrmann suggests that Felix was a seruus uilicus, whose(former) owner, Primio, was one of the partners in the societas: FeliciPrimioni(s), XXXX j port(uum) Asiae uilic(o) Milet(i) ser(uo) j ?4ºØŒØ,—æ+Ø("ø$#&; Œ#Ø$$ø$H$% j (0 ºØ()$$ø$%; j 0*"Æ& #NŒ#$$5(fiø% B+Øjº4%$fiø%,'#.ºfiø). This is, however, epigraphically awkward. Most scholars prefer tofollow the older reading: uilic(i)Milet(i) ser(uo) and #NŒ#$$5(#ı%B+Øº4%$fiø%'#.ºfiø (cf. CIL 3, 447 and ILS 1862). This would make Felix the uicarius ofthe slave uilicus Primio.

9b. Primio?Job title: (seruus) uilicus (or perhaps socius).Source: Milet 6.2, 563.On the accepted reading of the inscription, Primio was the (slave) uilicus atMiletus. If we were to follow Herrmann, Primio, as the owner of Felix, mayhave been a socius.

9c. Tyranius?Job title: unknown connection (or perhaps a uicarius).Source: Milet 6.2, 563.Very dubious case: If Felix was a seruus uicarius, Tyranius may have been hisown slave-uicarius. However, as it is more likely that Felix was a uicariushimself, Tyranius’s connection with the portorium remains uncertain. Herr-mann restores Turanios, which was the reading by Fredrich on which CIL 3,447 was based. Other editions prefer the female name Tyrannis (cf. CIL 3,Suppl. 7149 and ILS 1862).

9d. Anonymus?Job title: seruus uilicus ?Source: Milet 6.2, 667.A fragment of a funerary inscription that was, in the interpretation ofHerrmann, set up by an unknown [ser(uus) uil(icus) ? Milet]i. The readingis not certain, however. Herrmann suggests a dating from Hadrian onwards.



onno van nijf the social world of roman taxfarmers 2008

Documents