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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁸ de benef. VII, 6, 3.

⁹ e.g. Last, o.c. (n. 3), 55–6.

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

¹¹ Suet., Div. Vesp. 23, I.

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

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

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

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

¹⁶ CIL VI, 10233.

¹⁷ Pliny, NH XVIII, 114.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

²² Galen (ed. Kühn), XIV, 7.

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

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

²⁵ Dio LI, 17, 7–8.

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

²⁷ Tac., Hist. IV, 72.Google Scholar

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

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

³⁰ ILS 6870.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³⁹ FIRA ² I, 104, 105.

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

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

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

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

⁴⁴ Philos., VS II, 29.Google Scholar

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

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

⁴⁷ SHA, vita Had. 7, 6.Google Scholar

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

⁴⁹ ILS 309.

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

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

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

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

⁵⁴ Ann. IV, 6.

⁵⁵ LVII, 23, 5.

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

⁵⁷ Pan. 36, 3–4.

⁵⁸ Pan. 80, I.

⁵⁹ Dig. 28. 4. 3.

⁶⁰ Dig. 1. 2. 2. 32.

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

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

⁶³ e.g. EE V, 1203.

⁶⁴ e.g. AE 1908, 18.

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁷¹ Dig. 22. 1. 17. 5.

⁷² Dig. 22. 1. 17. 6; 49. 14. 6.

⁷³ Dig. 49. 14. 5.

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

⁷⁵ Dig. 16. 2. 12; 49. 14. 46. 4.

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

⁷⁷ Dig. 40. 15. 1 praef.

⁷⁸ Dig. 49. 14. 25.

⁷⁹ 49. 14. 3. 5.

⁸⁰ Dig. 49. 14. 22 praef.

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

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

⁸³ Suet., Nero 32, 2.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Pliny, Pan. 43, 1.Google Scholar

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

⁸⁶ Pliny, Pan. 42, 1.Google Scholar

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

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

⁸⁹ Artemidorus, , Oneirocritica IV, 59.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁰⁴ Philos., VS II, 1.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹¹¹ Tac., Ann. IV, 20.Google Scholar

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

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

¹¹⁴ Tac., Ann. VI, 2.Google Scholar

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

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

¹¹⁷ Philo, In Flaccum 150.

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

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

¹²⁰ Dig. 48. 22. 1.

¹²¹ Dig. 48. 20. 6.

¹²² SHA, Had. 7. 7.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹²⁹ ibid. no. 32, 1. 17.

¹³⁰ Berger, o.c. (n. 118), 32 f.

¹³¹ CIL XII 4393, 11. 15 f.

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

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

¹³⁴ Dig. 4. 8. 42.

¹³⁵ Dig. 49. 14. 1. praef.

¹³⁶ Wesenberg, o.c. (n. 132), 75–8.

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁴² Suet., Calig. 40.

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

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

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

¹⁴⁶ Tac., Hist. I, 65.Google Scholar

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

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

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

¹⁵⁰ Tac., Hist. I, 90.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Tac., Hist. I, 20.Google Scholar

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

¹⁵³ Dio LXVIII, 2, 1–2.

¹⁵⁴ AE 1933, 268 ad fin.

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

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

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

¹⁵⁸ Pliny, Pan. 29, 5.Google Scholar

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

¹⁶⁰ Tac., Ann, II, 87.Google Scholar

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

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

¹⁶³ Pliny, NH VI, 84.Google Scholar

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

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

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

¹⁶⁷ See P-W XVI, 159 f., 194 f.

¹⁶⁸ ibid, XVI, 191.

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

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

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

¹⁷² LIII, 23, 3–4, …

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

¹⁷⁴ Dio LXV, 8, 4.

¹⁷⁵ Pliny, Pan. 50.

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

¹⁷⁷ Herodian II, 4, 7,

¹⁷⁸ Dig. 43. 8. 2. 4.

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

¹⁸⁰ de lege agraria I, 21, II, 101.