prr Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I have always heard that farm workers fled to rural landowners from, say, 200s AD onward, in an effort to avoid tax collectors. Even Salvian (book 5) wrote about this phenomenon. Salvian even said that these rural landowners forced the peasants to sign over any land that they owned. My question is--since I've also read that taxes had to be paid on land, if they were in arrears, when it was bought or sold--how could the rural landowners have avoided the exactions that plagued everyone else? Did they use legal methods (and if so, what) or was this simply a matter of brute force? Or is there some other factor I'm overlooking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryaxis Hecatee Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Up to a certain point a larger exploitation brings economies of scale. It also meant that they could go to a monetary exchange level, which might well have become difficult or impossible for small farmers who'd have used exchanges in nature rather than commerce by cash. Since what interested the state the most was cash those small farmers were hit harder by tax collectors. Thus the move to the protector who became responsible for the cash taxes. Also the large landowners were also the local autorities and could illegaly influe on the tax collector (bribes, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prr Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 OK, so it looks like a few different factors--illegal (bribery), as well as economies of scale, ability to pay in gold... Well that gives some perspective on it. Are there any classic passages that document this going on? Or is it just a matter of looking at legislation, as documenting that they must have been doing it (or else why pass a law against it)? Up to a certain point a larger exploitation brings economies of scale. It also meant that they could go to a monetary exchange level, which might well have become difficult or impossible for small farmers who'd have used exchanges in nature rather than commerce by cash. Since what interested the state the most was cash those small farmers were hit harder by tax collectors. Thus the move to the protector who became responsible for the cash taxes. Also the large landowners were also the local autorities and could illegaly influe on the tax collector (bribes, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryaxis Hecatee Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I have no precise sources on had, but you may want to look at Giusto Traiana's book "428 : an ordinary day at the end of the Roman Empire". I don't know of Jean Noel Robert's book "La vie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prr Posted February 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 OK the 428 book is on request via library loan. Looks pretty interesting, from a preview on amazon (or was that google books?). Thanks for the reference. I have no precise sources on had, but you may want to look at Giusto Traiana's book "428 : an ordinary day at the end of the Roman Empire". I don't know of Jean Noel Robert's book "La vie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryaxis Hecatee Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Also of interest, and probably much more thant Robert's book, is "La terre dans le monde romain : anthropologie, droit, g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prr Posted February 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 English is pretty much the only language I can read at length. I just got Rostovsteff's (sp?) book on social/economic conditions in the Roman empire, and I'm sure somewhere that would be of some help as well. I'll have to look through the index/TOC. Also of interest, and probably much more thant Robert's book, is "La terre dans le monde romain : anthropologie, droit, g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prr Posted February 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Found a nice passage in A.H.M. Jones' Later Roman Empire that deals directly with this. I'll post a transcript of the pages I'm reading in a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prr Posted March 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 It will be a while before I can get through all of this, but for those who are interested, there is a short (4 pages or so) section from AHM Jones' Later Roman Empire that deals with this question. You can see a pdf of it here: http://paulrittman.com/AHMJones.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prr Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 A short summary of Jones' comments: Jones made a few points in volume 2 of his magnum opus. One was that it was most likely not the pressure of regular burdens that might chase a poor farmer off his land, so much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prr Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 So it appears that this protection was both legal and extra-legal institution. Occasionally it was a matter of bribing people who were powerful enough to ward off the tax collectors; other times it would involve selling one's land to someone who was more wealthy and powerful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prr Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Michael Rostovtzeff (SEHRE) wrote of the methods that drove the coloni into a downward spiral: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.