TRADE GUILDS OF THE LATTER ROMAN EMPIRE
by Freda Utley (MA Thesis at the London School of Economics, 1925)
(Retyped from old manuscript--footnotes deleted after first section)
TRADE GUILDS OF THE LATTER ROMAN EMPIRE
Chapters 4,5
CHAPTER IV
THE NAVICULARII
Of all the collegia attached to the
service of the annona, those of the navicularii seem to have been the richest and most
important. There even seems reason to believe that people might still become shippers
voluntarily even in the 4th century. Codex Theodosianus XIII. 5, 15 of 371 a.d. provides
for the enrolment of members of the senatorial order in the corporations of shippers
("that those who wish it and who think themselves rich enough be admitted to the
assembly of the shippers.")
There are 38 laws in the Codex Theodosianus dealing with the
navicularii and 10 dealing with their possessions, besides those dealing with shipwrecks -
a far larger number than those dealing with the members of any other collegium.
Obviously in this, as in all ages, the owners of sea-going ships were
men of some substance, and therefore regarded by the government as worthy of more
consideration than others.
An additional reason for many laws concerning them is the fact that
they were resident all over the Empire and so subject to the burdens of the provincials,
whereas the other collegiati resident at Rome and Constantinople, did not require to be
exempted from payments, burdens and vexations to which the residents in municipalities
were subject.
Before returning to the recruitment of "navicularii" dealt
with in some detail in this and other laws, the previous history of this collegium will be
considered.
Ever since Rome ceased to be fed by Italy, and received her food
supplies first from Sicily and Sardinia and subsequently from Egypt and Africa, she had to
arrange for the transportation of the grain she required. In Republican days the
"publicani" who collected the tithes in the provinces also saw to their
transport overseas to Rome either in their own ships, or in the ships hired for the
purpose. Under the Empire the wasteful and oppressive system of tax collection by
publicani was done away with, first in the imperial provinces, and subsequently also in
the senatorial. Still the State, whose officials, susceptores, now collected the taxes had
to provide for their transport to Rome, and furthermore, had to make sure that a
sufficient quantity of food supplies, other than taxes, was brought to Rome to supply the
general market. Augustus instituted a praefectus annonae at Rome who, although chosen from
members of the equestrian order, became one of the highest dignitaries in the Empire. This
official looked after the provisionment of Rome. The State did not, however, itself build
a fleet of ships for the transport of the taxes in kind and of purchased supplies. It
contracted with shipowners, either individually or in companies, and seems to have paid
them for their transport service by indemnities, presumably freedom from custom duties.
But it was also necessary to encourage the building of ships in every possible way, in
order that the Roman market might be supplied, and we find Claudius allowing privileges,
such as exemption from the Lax Pappia Poppaea for citizens, and Roman citizenship to
Latins, to all shipowners and further giving bonuses and subsidies to those who
transported the State cargoes.
Into the vexed question of exactly what changes were made by Trajan it
is not necessary to enter, but he appears to have made contracts with private individuals
or companies, whose aid he secured by the grant of special privileges to all who should
undertake the transport service, be they citizens or provincials. In these circumstances,
regular Collegia of navicularii, or Shipping Companies, as we should say today, soon
formed. These negotiated with the State, and information about them is found in the reigns
of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. At this time the members of such collegia of
navicularii were not always those who did work for which they were awarded privileges.
"They sold corn and oil in the Roman market, but did not sail ships, and did not
consacrate the greater part of their fortune to navigation and commerce. This is, of
course, the golden age of the collegia, the time when the law favoured their formation and
granted them privileges without in any way interfering with their freedom of action. By
Septimus Severus the first signs of ominous change are apparent, for now, although
immunity for taxation is the privilege of each member of a collegium of navicularii, yet
the transport of the annona is referred to as a munus publicum. Thus inperceptibly the
transport service, once a voluntary undertaking, by the time of Diocletian becomes an
obligation incumbent on all the members of the collegia of navicularii. From the time of
Constantine we can trace out pretty clearly the exact position of the collegia of
navicularii as reflected in the long series of laws in Book XIII of the Theodosian Code.
It will be well to bear in mind that many of the navicularii must even
at this stage have been rich men with large properties, and it is probable that many
senators invested their money in shipping companies without ever setting foot on a boat,
or having anything to do with the actual transport and commerce. As some of the laws
obviously refer to people of this type, and others to the actual captains of ships, there
is some confusion in view of the fact that both types are called navicularii, and
evidently were counted equally as members of the collegia of navicularii. Occasionally a
magister navalis is referred to who may be the captain of a ship, or fleet of ships, hired
by the owner or owners, and himself ranking as a nauta rather than a navicularius. I will
return to this question after the laws relating to navicularii have been examined in
detail. In the reign of Constantine we have arrived at the time when the collegia of
navicularii have become collectively charged with a munus publicum and when the members
have become, together with their property, hereditarily liable to this munus. The
navicularii appear, however, to have been the most favoured of all the collegia.
Gothfredus has pointed out (Vol. V. P.65) that of the 38 constitutions relating to the
navicularii, 13 speak of their privileges. This number is partly explained by their
peculiar position see p. 53. Firstly Constantine in 329 a.d. exempted all navicularii from
the special taxes in the following words: "We ordain that all shippers in the realm
shall for all time be exempt and secure and immune from all burdens and duties (onera et
numera) wheresoever they may dwell and to whatever rank they may belong; whether they are
decurions or plebeians or people of any higher rank, in order that free from
"collectiones" and all "oblationes" they may perform their duties as
"navicularii" with undiminished possessions. This law in its wide exemption from
all oblationes and collationes meant for senators exemption from the collatio globalis,
the aurum oblatitium and the oblatio votorum i.e. from all taxation of any importance
except the indicto on their lands. For the decuriones it meant escape from all the heavy
duties and burdens, such as responsibility for the taxes of the municipality and the
provision of the autum coronarium, duties and burdens which, as is well known, were
gradually exterminating the middleclass landowners who composed the municipal curiae.
Honorius in 395 a.d. amended Constantine's Law of 329 by decreeing that decuriones who
acquired praedia navicularis were to remain members of the curia and should only be held
liable to the functio navicularia as regards that particular part of their estate. The law
of Constantine quoted above also secured to all navicularii exemption from the lustralis
collatio or chrysargyrum to which they would otherwise have been liable as merchants; this
exemption would be the principal privilege acceded by this law to navicularii who were
only plebeians i.e. who were neither senators nor members of the local curiae.
In 334 Constantine organised the navicularii of the Kaat when providing
for the food supply of Constantinople. He granted to these navicularii some of the same
privileges as to their brethren in Africa and Egypt. In C. Th. XIII 5.7. addressed to the
navicularii of the East he says: "For the good of the city to which we have given its
eternal name by command of God, we have thought to give you these privileges, that all
navicularii are to be held immune from civil duties and burdens and services (nuneribus et
oneribus et obsequiis) and are not to be compelled to accept civic honours by which they
may be incommoded in any way . . . . . ."
The exemption from all munera and onera, collationes and oblationes for
all shippers, for all time, wherever resident, is repeated in Valentinian's law of 386,
and would seem to imply that the navicularii of the East were treated in exactly the same
way as the other navicularii, although the collationes and oblationes are not mentioned in
C. Th. XIII 5.7 quoted above.
The exemptions granted in C. Th. XIII 5.5 and 17 imply exemption from
all munera sordida et extraordinaria, that is, from all and sundry "corvees"
special labour imposed arbitrarily by municipality or governors. It seems, however, to
have been found necessary to provide specially for the immunity of navicularii from sudden
requisitions or forced service. The same law of 329 forbids the ships of navicularii being
retained for any duty against their will to whatever coast they may have come. In 324 A.D.
Constantine addressed Helpidius prefect of the city of Rome and commands that "from
whatever coast of Spain a ship of a navicularius shall enter the harbour of Rome and
whatever fiscal cargo it may have transported thither, it is to depart without hindrance
and without being constrained to any extraordinary burden". (extraordinario oneri).
The reason given for this care for the convenience of the navicularius is naturally
"that it may the more easily fulfil the obligations laid upon it."
In 336 A.D. Constantine finds it necessary to tell the Comes
Hispaniarum that the navicularii of Spain are not to be made to perform any extraordinaria
munera or to be delayed or worried en route.
The language of the law of Valentinian of 370 makes it seem that worse
things than a little delay or worry might befall the navicularii, for he tells the
praefectus urbi at Rome that the navicularii told off to carry the annona ought to sustain
no violence, nor suffer extortion or any kind of inconvenience. He further commands that
they are to enjoy complete security coming with the annona and returning, and he threatens
with a fine of 10 lbs. of gold anyone who attempts to molest them.
It would obviously be the simple plebeian navicularii who sailed in
their ships who would benefit most by these provisions, together with such members of
decurion rank who captained their own ships.
Taking together all four constitutions forbidding the imposition of
munera extraordinaris (C. Th. XIII. 5.4, 5, 8, 9) it would seem that the privilege is
awarded irrespective of whether the ships were actually engaged at the time in
transporting the annona or not. As practically all ships at this period were liable to the
functio navicularis at some time or other, the question hardly arises as to whether ships
not so employed were exempted.
The question which necessarily arises now is whether the navicularii
were exempt themselves from the indictio or annona i.e. did they who served to transport
the taxes in kind, which were the principal source of revenue for the Empire, themselves
have to pay such taxes from the produce of their lands? The three main things which had to
be supplied by all landowners (possessores) in proportion to the size of their estates and
the number of capita on them, were the food supplies for the annona, the equorum collatio
and the vestis militaris.
It has already been shown that all the corporati urbis Romae were
exempt from the provision of horses and clothes for the army, though Gothofredus shows
that these privileges were not always observed. We do not know the position of the
navicularii in the provinces generally, but we do know that Valens expressly states that
those of the Kast are not to refuse the vestis and horses.
It may be, however, that the navicularii of the East were not so
favorably treated as those of Africa, Egypt and Spain, as they had not got so much work to
do for the State.
We are slightly better informed on the question of the "prestatio
annona". The possessions of the navicularii were partially exempt in proportion to
the share taken by each navicularius in the public transport service. Valens in 371
expressly states that for each 10,000 modii which they handle, the navicularii are to be
exempt from the payment of annona on the produce of 500 jugera of land. It is true that
this law of Valena refers only to the navicularii of the East, but as he has previously
stated that the body of navicularii is to be filled throughout the provinces of the East,
so that the numbers "shall be shown as great in the East as in Egypt to fulfil the
present indictio", it would appear legitimate to conclude that he is applying the
same conditions to the navicularii of the East as to those of Egypt, and presumably also
Africa. Further on he expressly grants the African privileges to these navicularii of the
East. It should be remarked that Valens also expects the navicularii to provide for the
expenses of repairs on their ships from --- the exemption granted them. New ships,
however, are to be built from materials supplied by the provincials for the occasion.
The collegia of navicularii were exempted from the payment of custom
duties (portoria) when carrying on their own business, but special precautions were taken
to ensure that merchants should not put their merchandise on the ships of the navicularii
in order to escape the payment of custom duties. Navicularii are only exempt when proved
to be carrying on their own business (cum sibi rem gerere probebuntur).
We have already seen that the navicularii were exempt from all the
onerous municipal duties and payments, and could not be forced to become members of the
local senates. This meant in effect that the navicularii, wherever resident, became
servants of the central government, and ceased to perform any duties of local government,
or to be of any assistance to their native towns.
This completes the list of their privileges, in so far as purely fiscal
burdens are concerned. To summarise they were exempt from the following taxes and
services: munera civilia, aurum coronarium, lustralis collatia (chrysargyrum), collatio,
glebalis, surum oblatitium, oblatio votorum, vestis militaris and equorum collatio (this
latter exemption not given to all navicularii - see above), from part of the anona
payments and from all custom dues.
Besides these, there are certain legal privileges guaranteed to the
navicularii which were well worth having.
In 334 Constantine provided that the navicularii of the East were not
to be summoned to special judgment, even by imperial rescript, in cases of litigation
about property or heredity or any other civil suits, but were to be allowed to answer the
charges in their own forum. This was a not inconsiderable privilege; it saved them costly
journeys and long delays, since not only the Emperor, but governors and other magistrates
having jurisdiction could appoint a judge anywhere to try a case. It was in many ways of
great advantage to be judged by the tribunal of one's native town, rather than by a
specially appointed judge.
Although Constantine, moved no doubt by his sympathy with the
Christians and their ascetic ideals, had in 320 A.D. abolished most of the disabilities
imposed by the Lex Julia et Pappia Poppaea on celibates and childless people, it was still
forbidden for them to receive by will more than one tenth of the patrimony of a deceased
person. In 334 A.D. in the law about the navicularii of the East cited above Constantine
abolishes even this restriction in the case of the navicularii. At the same time he
exempts them from the tutels, either legitimate (i.e. tutela of a relative) or that
imposed arbitrarily by a magistrate, or by the judges (rectores) of the province. However,
in 400 A.D. this privilege was restricted by Honorius, who decread that they must
undertake the guardianship of the minors of their corpus.
In addition to these fiscal and legal privileges the navicularii were
granted the dignity of equestrian rank. Some idea of the advantages to be derived
therefrom is given by this law of Gratian which says that this privilege having been
given, anyone who dares to do injury to them shall pay for his daring by being put to
death, and having his property confiscated. This provision will, it says, by a timely
suggestion, hinder from illegality the judges who perchance have been incensed by a false
indignation, i.e. being members of the equestrian order, the navicularii cannot be
submitted to torture when the judge gets into a passion. This privilege, of course only
applies to higher ranks of seafarers, the ordinary sailors were not navicularii, and in
cases of shipwreck they were tortured at the subsequent inquiry, although the Captain
(magister navis) was exempt from this efficacious means of discovering the true cause of
the shipwreck.
It remains to consider exactly what duties had to be performed by the
navicularii, under what conditions and threatened by what penalties. Secondly, what
payment and protection was allowed to them. Thirdly, how they were recruited, how far they
were personally hereditarily bound to their condition and how far their possessions were
bound to the functio navicularia. Lastly, what do we know of their status and prosperity.
A. The duties. It has been stated above that the main
function of the navicularii, from the point of view of the Government, was the
transportation of the annona to Rome and Constantinople, and of the military supplies to
different parts of the Empire. The objects transportable were:-
i) Grain, principally from Egypt and Africa, but also from the Black
Sea region.
ii) Oil, especially from Spain.
iii) The supplies of vestes militares levied from the provincials
all over the
Empire as part of the indictio or annona.
iv) The wood required for the baths of the capital cities.
The grain, oil and other products of the indictio were brought by the
possessores (landowners) to the storehouses in the cities: From here they were transported
as far as possible along the rivers to the ports of embarkation. Then they were taken
aboard the ships of the navicularii and transported by them to Rome and Constantinople and
to the "portus expeditionales" i.e. to the harbours whence military expeditions
were sent out and where, therefore, the stores for the armies were brought.
Thus the function of the navicularii was twofold. First the transport
of the annona to Rome and Constantinople, secondly, the transport of the military supplies
to whatever port they were required.
The state cargoes had to be taken direct to Rome and Constantinople,
and severe punishments were inflicted on those who lingered on route. In 409 Theodonius II
decreed capital punishment on any navicularius who, having collected up the taxes due to
the fix in order to transport them, should retail them, turning aside from his course to
coast along devious shores. The following year Honorius at Ravonna tells the praetorian
prefect that judges who have allowed laden ships to linger in the harbours of their
diocese under pretext of winter, when a favourable wind made navigation possible, are to
be punished by the loss of their fortunes, and the same penalty is threatened on both the
curiales and the corporati of the harbour. The navicularii are threatened with exile, --
if they are found to have committed any fraud.
The latter decree was issued in a year of famine after the sack of Rome
by Alaric, and both it and that of 409 (which Waltzing takes as issued in 410 also) relate
perhaps only to exceptional times. But in more normal times also it seems that the
navicularii would sometimes take advantage of a scarcity, either widespread or local, to
trade with the cargoes of the State. They would sell the products they were carrying at
the high prices current in a particular locality which they passed on their voyage, and
wait until the following season to buy food stuffs sufficient to make up the cargo again;
as they would count on being able to buy cheaper in the ensuing year in or in
another part of the Empire, they were almost sure of a substantial profit. In such
circumstances, the tendency to -- cheat the State must have been very strong. In 395
Honorius tried to stop such "conversion of the taxes in kind into the assets of
business" by ensuring the delivery of the taxes in the same year as they were
collected. The captains of vessels were evidently provided with some sort of voucher for
the goods they collected. In 356 Constantine had told the Comes Hispaniarum that the
navicularii of Spain were never to be delayed en route, but were to be provided within ten
days by the collectors of taxes with "relatoriae" of the goods they had
transported and when they arrived at any islands, harbours, shores or stations, were not
to be molested once they had shown their relateriae. Gothofredus takes relatoriae to mean
quittance sheets, and would therefore relate this law to the voyage home or on private
business after the transport of the state cargoes had been affected. Waltzing, however,
thinks that relatoriae signify "lettres de voiture," and would therefore relate
to the voyage to Rome on state business. In view of the reference to susceptores in this
law as the providers of the relatoriae, and in view of the fact that the government was
concerned far more with the delivery of the annona at Rome than with the convenience of
the shippers, Waltzing's interpretation seems by far the most probable. Thus the shipper
charged with the transportation of so much grain or oil from one or more Spanish ports to
Ostia would be given vouchers of the amount he had collected by the susceptores
(collectore of taxes) at those ports. In 392 Theodosius states that every shipper knows
that his " securitas" for the burden he has conveyed must be shown in the course
of two years, or the amount will be made good out of his property. This law is addressed
to the praetorian prefect of Illyricum and Africa, and Waltzing takes it to mean that the
quittances had to be handed to the governor of the province to which the shipper belonged.
The law of Honorius of December 395 designed to prevent the private trafficking in the
taxes makes the position clearer: the decrees that, although the law of Constantine
(unknown) which allows navicularii to report their receipts (securitates) at the end of
two years from the date on which they embarked the taxes, is to remain in force, the
navicularii are henceforth to deliver the taxes in the same year in which they embark
them, and in order to prove that they have done so they are to hand in the quittances
(securitates) of the same consular year as the year _____ when they embarked the cargo,
thus proving that the delivery was made in the same year. The concluding words of the
decree make this abundantly clear. "However we do not forbid 2 years (lapse) in the
reporting of the receipts, (a lapse) due to inclement weather or chance misfortune so long
as it is proved that they have faithfully performed their duty during the time specified
above. This we wish to come to the notice of all, that they may know that the transmission
or delivery must be completed in the same year as the collection.
These regulations prove incidentally that the navicularii were not
occupied in the service of the state every year. At the most they can only have been
employed on the state transport service every other year. The law issued in 334 by
Constantine to Felix the praetorian prefect, shows indeed that the navicularii performed
their voyages by "duly observed rotation and not promiscuously". The Emperor
piously hopes that thus "by means of alternate light assistance the fortunes of all,
poor and rich, shall be preserved, nor shall it be necessary for any, always to be
traversing the sea and be liable to many dangers --- the work is to be laid equally and
justly on all and help is to be given by an equal rule, nor are the poor to be involved in
complaints of fruitless appeals.
This law shows incidentally that there was a tendency on the part of the richer
navicularii to force their poorer brethen to take an unduly large share in the public
transport service and it will be referred to later in the Chapter. Thus the navicularii
were left with a fair proportion of the next one, unless exceptionally delayed on state
duty by contrary winds. The navigation season was from April 1st to October 16th and 1/5
of the cargo of the city of Rome had to be transported at the beginning of the season.
Waltzing states that at Alexandria the cargo had to be loaded by the end of August but he
does not state his grounds for believing this. In any case the navicularii of Africa were
better off than those of Egypt as the voyage to Rome from Africa was shorter than that
from Egypt to Constantinople.
Some of the African shipowners transported wood for the use of the baths at Rome in lieu
of food supplies. Their privileges were confirmed in 364 by Valantinian and Valeus.
Perhaps it was they who put up an inscription at Ostis in the name of the Navicularii
liguarii.
The navicularii were compelled to build new ships whenever necessary
and to see to the repairing of the old ones. Occasionally the government helped them with
supplies of wood for the building of new ships as for example in the case of the new body
of Eastern shipowners. But normally the navicularii had themselves to build the ships
necessary and they were strictly supervised to see that they built such as were of the
decreed kind and capacity.
Damages and repairs due to age and neglect had to be made good from
their private means though evidently here again the officials of the state took care to
see that they did their duty.
The money they saved as the result of the immunity from taxation
granted to their lands was regarded as the fund from which the expenses of repairs could
be made good.
The most severe laws related to cases of shipwreck. From them it would
appear that it was a common means of defrauding the government to dispose of the state
cargo by illegal sales and then to hide or destroy the ship and report a shipwreck.
Drastic measures were therefore necessary to stop such frauds and whilst the wretched
navicularii are threatened on the one hand with penalties for delaying in port under the
excuse of inclement weather in cases of shipwreck they are subjected to a terrible enquiry
and forced to make good the losses -----, unless they are proved innocent.
Six laws of the Codex Theodosianus relate to shipwrecks (naufragiis)
i.e. the whole of Section VIII of Book XIII.
The captain of a ship was bound to deliver his state cargo; if for any
reason he did not do so an enquiry had to be instituted; if he did not report his
shipwreck and get himself proved innocent by an enquiry the loss had to be made good to
the Treasury. When a shipwreck occurred the navicularius had to hasten to the judge of the
province in which the matter occurred and to prove his statement by means of witnessess.
The latter if satisfied of the truth and must send a report to the praetorian prefect who
alone had the right to remit a debt due to the fiscus. This law of 372 A.D. states that if
the appeal to the prov. governor is not made within a year it will not be heard.
The next law at the end of that year tells the prefect of the African annona that in the cases of misfortunes occurring to a ship which sailed direct to Rome the case must be brought before the judges within the space of a year. But in the case of ships sailing with provisions for the army to harbours at a greater distance, or sailing to Constantinople, two years are allowed in which to make an examination of the prescribed number of sailers and so to ascertain the truth. The same law states that in such cases of shipwreck or damage from the elements, a certain number of the sailors on the ship are to be submitted to the torture, remarking pleasantly "quoeorum torrentis plenior veritas possit inquiri." The number of sailors who are thus to be persuaded to reveal the truth will depend on the size of the ship.
The next law in 380 lays down further
particulars as to the procedure of the enquiry and provides for cases in which the whole
crew has been lost in a storm. "In order that truth may not be hidden" enquiry
is to be made of the relations of the navicularii. The law also shows that in cases of
need the navicularii had to sail during the bad season i.e. after 15th October and before
1st April. They had evidently asked for compensation for damage occurring on these
dangerous voyages in the form of a coimetrom of 3% (semis per 200) but this is refused to
them.
Theodosius law of 391 shows that sometimes part of
the cargo was thrown overboard in rough weather in order to save the ship, and it is
recognised that such casting away is well done and avoids greater loss. But the Treasury
is not to share the loss with the possessores whether they be senators or private persons.
It is not clear whether the law means that the state refuses to bear any of the loss
incurred. It goes on to say that when there is no witness of the danger the losses of the
storm are to be restored and the expenses paid for by the "prosecutor". Who this
"prosecutor" is, is very obscure. Gebhardt says a prosecutor was charged with
the duty of accompanying the cargo and overseeing the delivery to the competent authority.
His name does not however occur elsewhere in the laws relating to ships and shipowners.
The law ends up as follows "ut ad acrum injurism retorquoantur, qui minus idoneos
nominsrunt, non ad eos redeant, quos cenpl constitorit uisse devotos." It is probable
that those who have already paid are the tax paying landowners and these are not to
produce the supplies over again. Whoever nominated the prosecutor has evidently got to
make good the losses; was he nominated by the collegium of Navicularii?
Another law of 327 says that the prefect of the
annona (at Rome) and the vicar of the city are to compel the shippers to prove the good
faith of their actions by a legal trial in cases of shipwreck when they have drowned their
cargo or lost it or whenever they have incurred losses. Delay and neglect to do so are to
be punished. In 412 Honorius in addressing the African navicularii is more explicit.
Cases about sunken ships are to be tried in open court (levato velo). If anyone is found
to have accepted a bribe in connection with the proceedings, the judge who tries the case
shall, when those who are being robbed complain, have power to fine or remove or prescribe
according to the rank of the culprit. If the cognitor (before whom the report of the
occurence was first made) of such cases affected by a petition, or by being spoken to
before he mounts the Tribunal, shall neglect to hear such cases within the prescribed time
limit - that is within 2 years for the cases dealt with in the old law - he shall suffer
as follows for his premature judgment: the navicularios being released on account of the
venality of the judge, the judge himself shall be compelled to bear half of the cost of
the goods about the loss of which recognition was sought within the prescribed time, the
judge's office is to pay the other half.
All this shows that only in cases where the shipwreck is
quickly reported and clearly proved with the Treasury bear the loss of the cargo. In all
doubtful cases either the naviculari or the magistrates are held responsible and are
forced to make good the losses to the Treasury from their own pockets.
The captains of the ships being of equestrian rank were not
subjected to torture, but the ordinary sailors who were not navicularii and are referred
to simply as nantae, were like all the plebs, liable to be tortured. One cannot help
conjuring up a sad picture of these wretched seamen saved from the violence of the
elements only to be subjected to the violence of mankind, in order that by being tortured
"truth might be revealed". St Augustine saw the cruelty of the laws in their
regard when he refused to accept a legacy of 'navicularean' property left to the church.
Payments Compensation and Protection.
We have already seen that the navicularii were
exempted from the payment of the annona at the rate of 500 jugera per every 10,000 modii
transported. In addition they received gold solidus for each 1000 modii of grain
transported. Further those of the East received 4% of the grain and those of Africa 1%,
but these latter percentages were really an epimetron i.e. a percentage calculated to
cover losses (diametron) normally incurred in the transit of perishable goods. Presumably
a similar epimetron was allowed for the transport of oil or other state supplies; we know
that 2-1/2% was allowed to the collectors of oil and wine. The fact that the percentage
was given to cover losses in transit is proved by a decree of 414 which says that if at
anytime a naviculariius incurs loss beyond that covered by his percentage the prefect of
the city of Rome is to select three men of "illustrious" rank and is to
institute an enquiry within five days of the arrival of the ship at Portus. The prefect of
the annona is to be present at the enquiry. The amount of the loss is to be ascertained
and whoever is found guilty of the fraud is to be led quickly under a warrant to Africa
accompanied by an "executor". Arrived in Africa he is to be judged by the
prefect of the annona there, and the latter is to take care to make him pay up at once
what he owes. If the authorities allow the naviculariies to delay beyond the prescribed
time they themselves are punished. the prefect of the annona in Africa together with his
officium is to pay a fine of 6 lbs. of gold to the Treasury. The apparitic of the urban
prefecture of Rome is to pay a fine of 3 lbs. of gold. The prefect of the annona at Rome
is to pay 2 lbs. of gold to the stored largesses unless he has expressly immediately
hurried on the cognitio within the prescribed time. Enquiry into those affairs is to be
made even on holidays and holy days.
It seems that the authorities are often lax in the
execution of the decrees relating to the navicularii for this law says at the commencement
that it contemplates well considered remedies for the dissimulation and corruption of the
offices of the urban prospecture and the prefect of the annona. This slackness was
obviously due to bribery as we can gather from the strict regulations against any money
transactions between navicularii and officials. C.Th.XIII. threatens with a fine of ten
pounds of gold the navicularii and judges, the proconsul and the vicar and the men of
'spectobile' rank, --- the prefect of the annona and the bureaus of all those officials of
the navicularii pay over their percentage to any of these officials or give any of them a
tip (sportula) from their own private property either voluntarily breaking the law or
being compelled thereto. All these people are to know they are liable to be fined. The
next law decrees that any apparitio with the duty of looking after the grain supply is to
be punished if he is proved in court to have received anything from a navicularius or from
the captain of a ship. Obviously it often paid a shipowner or ships captain to bribe the
officials who were supposed to supervise him and his cargo and this is only one example of
the prevalent corruption in the civil service at the time. From the reference to bribes
being compulsorily paid we can also see that the navicularius who neglected to tip the
officials might find himself worried and even prosecuted by those officials, although
innocent of any offence. The efforts of the Emperors to stop intimidation and corruption
were perpetual attempts to solve the problem of "quis oustodiet custodes ipeos".
We can conjecture from the many decrees, which are aimed at enforcing observance of the
provileges conceded to the navicularii that the latter must often have found it necessary
to tip the officials merely to obtain their legal rights and hence these regulations can
be taken as measure mainly designed to protect the navicularius.
Others beside officials might rob the shippers. Honorius in
400 decreed that where frauds were discovered the "solidi" which the praefectus
urbi has been efficient enough to take from those who stole the gains of the shippers,
were to be used for the needs of the shipper, i.e. handed over to the navicularii not
taken by the fine. A severe (quadruple) punishment is to be inflicted on the thief.
THE HEREDITARY LIEN ON PERSON & PROPERTY
Like the members of the other collegia the
navicularii were compelled to remain navicularii but only so long as they retained their
hereditary possessions. But they were somewhat more fortunate than members of the less
wealthy 'corpora' for it would seem that their possessions, and not, their persona were
bound to the functio navicularia. In 375 Valentinian tells the vicar of Africa that when
the navicularii sell their property the buyer must perform the duty of a navicularius in
proportion to the portion he has bought "for the thing itself is burdoned not the
person of the seller". Further the buyer is not to be made a navicularius himself,
but the property which he has bought is to be burdoned in proportion to its size.
Furthermore Theodosius in 392 allows navicularii to enter the army and rise to enjoy
privileges "so long as there is no danger of the shipowners being disquieted, if they
neither remain in the corporation of shipowners nor retain possession of the property
which is liable to the functio navicularia."
On the other hand other laws lay down that all whose descent shows them
to be liable to the duties of a navicularius are to perform the duties of one. Such
persons and their heirs and lands are to be mindful of their duties so that the corn
tribute of the sacred city (Rome) and the needs of the harbours whence military
expeditions are sent out, may be met. All who are made shippers 'pro merita', i.e. on
account of their property qualifications are to be shippers for all time. Any man
belonging to the corporation of shippers who has fled from his accustomed duties and come
to undeserved honour (officium) is to be returned to the corporation of navicularii to
which he belonged i.e. shippers are not to enter the civil service.
It will be seen that there is some confusion in the laws but it seems fairly obvious that
the general intention is that no one who holds "navicularian" property is to
avoid the duties of a nvaiculariae. The confusion tends to disappear when one remembers
that the "functio navicularia" did not necessarily mean going to sea, as already
observed many wealthy people invested money in shipping companies in the prosperous days
of the Roman Empire without having anything to do with the sailing of the ships. A
navicularium therefore might be merely a man whose property, having once been invested in
shipping, was now in the 4th century for ever bound to the function navicularia. This
latter duty meant (a) being responsible for the transport of a certain quantity of
Government supplies, (b) being responsible for the building and upkeep of a ship or ships.
Others could be hired to do the work but payment must be made from the produce of the
lands held by the navicularii. If they cared to give up their property or could induce
someone else to buy it they became free personally. The state did not suffer since the
purchaser took over the responsibility and burden from the buyer. The laws referred to
below in the section on the "praedia navicularia" make this quite clear. But
immunity from the functio navicularii was never to be given if he who desired it retained
his hereditary property. Not even the highest officials can escape or be excused no
privileges of office are to relieve them from performing their duty of navicularii if they
possess a patrimony liable to the functio navicularia. They must be held liable for the
whole or for a portion. "For", states Constantine, "it is not fair that
anyone's patrimony should be excused, all must bear the common burden according to their
capability. Naturally anyone excused cast a heavier burden on those still liable. No one
is to escape his duties by obtaining an imperial rescript by any means whatsoever.
Pradia Navicularia
A series of ten laws deal especially with the possession of the navicularii.
First Constantine in 326 tells the navicularii that
they must not themselves pass judgment in cases of possessions alienated by navicularii
who wish to escape their duties. However the purchasers of such possessions are to be
compelled by the prefect of the annona to perform the service to which they have thus
rendered themselves liable.
The next law seems to make it
clear that the hereditary estates of the navicularii are under the control and ownership
of this corporation and are to be returned to such control and ownership in whatever way
they have passed into the ownership of outsiders. This
cannot refer to the properties of the whole collegium, i.e. lands, etc., which have been
left to the collegium in part or have been acquired by the collegium itself in other ways
for the words patrimonia used implies that the possessions referred to are those of
individual navicularii. Thus the private
property of the individual navicuarii is held to be under the control of the whole
collegium and it is inalienably under that control. Such
a property can be sold to others, but the purchaser then becomes burdened with the
performances of the functio navicularia and the property thus remains under the control of
the whole corporation. If the purchasers do
not wish to performs the duties due by law from the share of the property they have
bought, the said property has to be given back to the corporation. Presumably the latter then found another purchaser
or the original navicularlaria who had wished to sell out had to take back his property
and go on performing his duties. But it is
quite possible the property was simply taken over by the whole corporation of navicularii
The same rules applied to gifts or transfers to sons, or neighbours or
outsiders. It is expressly stated by Valentinian in 372 that unless the receiver is ready
to shoulder the burdens originally performed by the seller, the property is to be handed
back to the seller i.e. the original owner, by an "actio in rem". Honorius ' law
of 399 repeats the same regulations.
It is --------
abundantly clear from the whole series of laws that the buyer or inheritor, or receiver of
any sort, of property originally belonging to a navicularius, is only liable to the
functio navicularia in proportion to the amount of property received. His whole patrimony
is not to be concerned with these burdans, the part which did not originally belong to a
navicularius "is free from the chain, idle and free from serving."
It is also specially arranged that the houses, the care of which rather
adds to the beauty of the city than brings in profit, are alienated by navicularii, the
recipients are only to be made to pay ---- in so far as such houses bring in a profit i.e.
when they are let. If not let the price of purchase was taken as the amount involved,
improvements since ---- are not to be considered.
Even members of the imperial household are not to escape the services
due from any possessions they have which are liable to the functio naviculari.
Special arrangements are made to preclude the lapsing owing to time or
claims by navicularii to their property. Two laws state briefly, one in 370 and one in 365
that lapse of ------ not to preclude law suits in cases of navicularii claiming ----
property. Then in 317 Honorius decreed that possessions sold by navicularii and ----- from
the functio navicularis on account of a public contract were to be held liable to that
functio if it were proved within 20 years that they were at -----. It is expressly stated
that the object of the law in the preservation of the transport service.
In 403 Honorius extends the limit for reclaiming property belonging to
navicularii to 30 years, provided that no lawsuits had been instituted for this purpose in
the meantime. This must mean that if such law suits had been ------ before the end of the
30 years claims can still be heard after the 50 years.
RECRUITMENT OF NAVICULARII
We have seen that the navicularii were primarily the descendents of
those who had voluntarily invested their property in shipping companies in the days of the
prosperity of the Empire and those who possessed ships themselves directly either sailing
them themselves or hiring others to do so. Both classes were members of the collegia of
navicularii. But it was not enough to tie down those whose descent and hereditary property
showed to be navicularii; others must from time to time be enrolled in the collegia and
------- we have seen that it was apparently sometimes possible for landowners to
voluntarily become members of the shipping corporations.
It would appear that when Constantine founded his new imperial city he
had to arrange for additional ships to carry its annona from Egypt; evidently the
navicularii who had formerly performed the state transport service from Egypt to Rome were
not sufficient in numbers.
There is no law of Constantine's
extant on this subject but Valens addressed a decree to Modestus the praetarian prefect in
371 in which he refers to the intention of the divine Constantine subsequently confirmed
by practice, in accordance with which he commands the body of shippers to be fitted
throughout the provinces of the East so that the number of naviculari should be shown as
great in the East as in Egypt. This "in order that the present indictio might be
dealt with", it seems therefore that a new body of navicularii had been created by
Constantine, partly to carry supplies from Egypt in conjunction with the navicularii from
Alexandria, and partly to bring supplies from the Black Sea regions. They would presumably
also be employed on any necessary transfers of supplies from one province of the Eastern
profecture to another.
There were henceforth four groups of navicularii the Spanish, the
African, the Egyptian and the Eastern. There were probably collegia of navicularii in many
towns but they were told, for service on one of the four routes i.e. Spain to Rome, Africa
to Rome, Alexandria to Constantinople, the Black Sea to Constantinople, any of them might
be employed instead to transport military supplies to the ports near the armies. There was
an old established body of the navicularii at Rome who took part in the transport of
supplies from Africa. It is to be noted that the corporation of the Eastern navicularii
being a more artificial foundation than the old established ones of Spain, Africa, Egypt,
appears to have been difficult to keep going. In 409 Theodosim says that the bodies of
navicularii in the Eastern provinces are tottering owing to the dearth of ships and
strictly forbids the owners of ships to hide them in the islands until the navigation
season passed.
The C. Th. distinguishes the navicularii of Spain, Africa, Egypt an the
Orient and likewise those of Rome who evidently helped to transport the supplies from
Africa. Separate lists of th emembers of all four bodies seem to have been drdawn up. In
the case of those of the East Valens decrees that the homes, place of reisdence and
property of these navicularii are to be reported written in a duplicate list. In the list
information is to be given as to how many there are of long standing and what sort of
persons have been recently associated with them by choice. To these privileges are
assigned but they themselves and their property are to be liable to the functio
navicularia together with their descentants who inherit after them.
There are corporations of navicularii whose members are to be recruited
in the following manner; from 'Administratores' and other men in office, except those who
are employed in the sacred palace, from the assembly of curiales and from retired
shippers, from the order principilares, and from the senatorial rank those who wish it and
who think themselves rich enough. The intention of the law is not quite clear but it seems
fairly obvious that apart from the senators, members of the classes mentioned are to be
compulsorily enrolled.
Clearly there was difficulty in getting new members seeing that time expired navicularii who had held every office in the collegium and had retired duly discharged are to be called up again. It is remarkable that voluntary enrollment should be provided for in the case of senators but this only seems to prove that the latter class was so much richer then any other that it would not feel the burdens of the function navicularii to be too heavy and would consider the compensations worthwhile. All the same those enrolled by force in the corporation of navicularii were always men of substance. For example Theodosius in 390 expressly states that the corporation of Jews and Samaritans is not called by law to the functio navicularia; for whatever seems to be decreed for a whole corporation can compel no one person specially.
On the one hand those who are needy and those who are engaged in petty commerce, are not compelled to undertake the duty of coasting transport but those who have sufficient means are to be chosen from that body to perform the said duty. The words "Naviculariae translation is ------" used in this decree may mean the duty of conveying passengers for the government and cargoes whort distances along the coast ----. The term is not found in the other decrees where the general transport service is usually referred to as the functio naviculaira.
However as it is not known where this corporation of Jews and Samaritans was resident, it is impossible to say whether the general transport service is referred to or not. The main point is that this decree shows us that the navicularii were not to be chosen among poor men who might own little boats which they used in petty commerce at no great distance along the coast. Obviously there must have been plenty of little boatmen and owners of very small craft who were of no use to the annona but would, like all other persons of lower rank be liable to be called out on various "corvees" for the government.
Nevertheless some of these
boatmen were members of the collegium of navicularii. Such were the levementarii referred
to in the first of the decree about the navicularii. A levementarius was the owner of a
small boat attached to a large one for the object of discharging goods from the latter.
The decree of Constantine referred to says that a navicularius who is by origin a
levementarius is to remain attached to those to whom his parents were attached.
It is probable that the owners of other small craft such as the
lenuncularii and scapharii were included under the title of levementarii.
It seems surprising that the curiales were allowed to become
navicularii thus ceasing to be ---- responsible for the duties and payments incumbent on
the members of the municipal senates. It was indeed the only collegium into which the
curiales could enter and even this right was finally taken away from them. In 371 in the
decree of Valene already dealt with this Emperor gives the curiales as one of the classes
from which he suggests the new navicularii of the East are to be chosen. Cratien in 380
goes still further when he tells the navicularii that in accordance with ancient
constitutions there is the custom which allows the navicularii to co-opt decurions into
their corportion (et plerumque et ordinarios curiales naviculariorim sibi secessitas
bindioaret).
Theodosius modified the former
decrees in 390 when he decided that one of the sons of a navicularius must remain in the
curia when the praetorian prefect enrolled curiales amongst the navicularia. This is the
sense in which Waltzing takes the decree but it does not seem clear that this is
necessarily the meaning. The wording is as follows "Quae de naviculariis et
curialibus ordinasti, maneant inlibite adque perpetua sint perpetua navicularii, quia, qui
merito esse debeant, providisti". Could not this mean equally well that the
praetorian prefect had been enrolling men in the corpus of navicularii and laying down
regulations for the curiales at the same time.
It seems extraordinary that curiales should not only have been allowed
but sometimes compelled, to become navicularii and cease to be curiales. It would prove
that the position of the navicularii was not so favourable as one might have imagined
otherwise, this question is however discussed in the section on the economic and social
position of the navicularii.
Towards the end of the 4th century at any rate Honorius saw what evil
the previous regulations might do to the municipal senates for it forbade curiales to
become navicularii even if they had become owners of res naviculariae. In such cases they
were to remain curiales but were also to perform the duties of a navicularius "ut et
ordines curiam nostrarum reddantur indemnaes et patrimonia naviculariorum non pereant sed
functionis uteanue et atus habeatur incolumis". They became in fact, like the other
possessors of res naviculari dealt with in the section on "de praedie
navicularis," sleeping partners in shipping companies, or rather shareholders who had
no say in the business of the navicularii but who provided most of their funds. For
generally speaking a man could not follow two callings at the same time though he could
hold properties which paid towards the expenses of various collegia at the same time.
There is one
exception in the case of the navicularii but this may be due to the fact that it occurs in
an early law of Constantine. Navicularii who are held by the law of heredity to belong to
the body of millers, are to give up the property by which they are so bound, to relatives
of the deceased on to the corporation of bakers, or, if they keep their inheritance, they
must take upon themselves the munera of the pistores and at the same time defray the onera
of shippers from their own resources; i.e. they are to be liable to the duties both of
navicularii and pistores.
An interesting sidelight on methods of recruitment is provided by the
case of the navicularii who supplied wood for the heating of the baths. Apparently the
navicularii of Africa conveyed wood for this and other purposes but in 369 Valentinian
told the prefect of the City of Rome that sixty of the navicularii and of the linen
weavers were to be held for the service of the baths. It is laid down that these sixty
individuals are to be suitable and to have sufficient means. If a fatal accident or sudden
poverty, or any misfortune, shall effect one of them, a suitable man is to be chosen to
take his place from among the trades liable. Not more is to be demanded from these
individuals than the needs of the baths warrant or than is customary.
Symmachus shows clearly that these 60 navicularii become mancipes
thermarum and were not merely shipowners who transported wood.
The actual enrollment of new members and the apportioning of the
burdens was in the hands of the corporation, but under government supervision. We have
already seen this in the case of the curiales compelled to become navicularii by Gratian,
that the navicularii themselves could do the choosing.
The choice is however
always subject to the approval of the prefect as -- people with sufficient property must
be chosen, the navicularii can choose anyone who is free of all state charges, such
individuals are vacui and can be compelled to join a collegium only the navicularii are to
take care not to choose an individual who is serving the municipality. "et quia
ordinum vestrum supliari et iamnominum adjectione audemus quoscumoue vacuos publica
invenerit officio, in complexum vestri ordinis adplicate, dummode is, qui in municipalibus
manet causis, nominatiuone ordinis son teneatur". This nomination of the ordo was
sufficient so long as it did not try to enroll members of collegia of importance in the
local government (see Part III).
The position at the end of the 4th century seems to have been that if
anyone possessed a boat or a large ship he could be roped into the corporation of
navicularii and either employed on the transport service or have to pay a stated sum
toward the expenses of that service. There is one decree of 364 which states the case
quite plainly for the boats on the Tiber. "Whosoever shall be found to possess a
Tiber boat shall know the necessary burdens, in such a manner that no one's privilege or
dignity shall exempt him from this duty".
By this time there were probably no owners of ships who if they did not
already defray the expenses of, or take part in, the imperial transport service were not
liable at any moment to be called upon to do so. Their ships once forced to take part in
the transport service their owners probably became navicularii and so liable with all
their property to the functio navicularii. This is in effect what Valden supposes when he
says "on ne devrait pas etre surpris qu'en plus d'un cas, non pas seulement un barque
ou le navire, mais tous les biens des proprietaires se fusent trouves graves des charges
de cette corporation."
PATRONAGE
As amongst other classes of the population the
navicularii sometimes tried to avoid their duties by placing themselves under the
patronage of powerful men. The extent to which patronage was prevalent in the case of
farmers and peasants has been exhaustively studied by Zuleuta and it is interesting to
find even such relatively well to do citizens as the navicularii also putting themselves
under the protection of patrons to avoid taxation, exactions and duties. The two laws
relating to such patronage are however very late 399 and 406 A.D. It was probably a late
abuse which did not occur extensively during most of the period dealt with in this study.
The first warns all
in Egypt that a fine of 20 lbs. of gold will be imposed on those who try to excuse their
ships from the public transport duties in their own name or in the name of a defensio,
further the public losses are to be borne by the masters who shall have tried to be
excused by the patronage of powerful men. "Qui. . . potiorum voluerant patroiniis
excusari." Thus the "powerful" tried to excuse their own ships, and th ose
of their dependants, from their duties and responsibilities.
the next law is more drastic. If anyone tries to avoid performing his
public duty by putting forward the title of a powerful person the Treasury will confiscate
his ship. Honorius here goes on to say that as he does not forbid private individuals to
have ships, there is to be no fraud, since it behoves all in common, if necessary to
attend to the public weal and attend to the transport without privilege of rank. This
decree confirms the supposition that anyone could be forced to join the navicularii if he
had a boat. It ends with a threat of confiscation within 30 days of all ships which have
absconded as exceptions.
However, in spite of all decrees
it must have been extremely difficult for local officials to force great landowners or
important dignitaries to perform their duties and even harder for the corporations of
navicularii to force such great men to perform their share of the duties. There must have
been a good deal of unfairness between the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor.
The Corporations themselves assigned the cargoes and routes and the
Government tried to assure that the richer members should not oppress the poorer and that
they should perform the voyages in rotation,
STATUS & PROSPERITY OF THE NAVICULARII
All the laws on the subject which have just been dealt with show that
rich men were required for the transport service. How otherwise could losses from
shipwreck fraud and negligence be made up to the Government. Relatively speaking the
navicularii were personally free, being often fairly rich they could hire others to do
their work for them. We have already distinguished the navicularii who owned their own
ships from those who had so to speak, shares in shipping companies.
The latter were navicularii;
they not only paid for the expenses of the government transport and for building and
repairs, out of the produce on their lands but they also shared in the profits of the
navicularii gained in commerce. Thus although they might not actually own a whole ship or
ships they had a share in the profits made in commerce by those ships. They are to be
distinguished from the individuals who owned lands subject to the munera of navicularii
but who were not navicularii; these latter had no share in the profits of the navicularii.
Many navicularii owned a ship or ships of their own; perhaps companies
who shared profit and loss were rare, although it would appear that they must have been
fairly frequent in view of the type of men enrolled as navicularii; senators and retired
officials who probably knew nothing of seafaring could not easily have carried on the
business of a shipper unaided; obviously they must have preferred to leave all the
management, the building of ships and the business to skilled shippers with experience.
The actual business of sailing
the boats was performed by the magister navalis who might himself be a navicularius who
owned his own boat, or a navicularius with shares in a shipping company, or merely an
employee of a shipping company. On the whole however it would appear from the laws that
most of the Captains of ships were themselves navicularii seeing that these laws are
constantly forbidding molestation of the navicularii en route and decreeing that they are
not to be hindered or inconvenienced by the officials in their ports of call and at their
journeys end.
As regards the commercial side probably here again some concerns were
purely individual the owner of the ship himself doing his buying and selling en route.
Often however, at any rate in the larger cities, they must have received orders for a
definite quantity of goods to be sent and companies of shippers would undertake to convey
them, sharing the expenses and the profits. One must bear in mind the fact that in the
ancient world shipowners were always merchants and the business of buying and selling was
carried on by the same people who transported the merchandise overseas.
Naturally much of all the above is mere conjecture, but it appears to
be borne out by the evidence at our disposal.
Comparatively few inscriptions relating to the navicularii have been
found. This is possibly due to the fact that they rarely formed collegia of the old
intimate kind which had grown up among artisans, before the law favoured their formation.
The corporation of navicularii were business concerns, companies rather than collegia and
since their active members spent most of their time on the sea or in foreign parts there
was little opportunity for social life and little regard was paid to the death of members.
The senators and officials and wealthy people generally who provided
much of the capital for these corporations of merchant shipowners, found their social
amenities elsewhere then amongst the mixed crowd of their associated shipowners and sea
captains.
That there were great inequalities of wealth among the navicularii is
shown in the laws. There must also have been a wide social gulf between the wealthy
senator or knight, owner of many ships or with many shares in shipping companies, and the
humble owner of one ship who sailed it himself and spent his life trafficking on the high
seas.
As regards the
ordinary sailors, (nautae) who sailed the boats captained by the Magistrie navales or the
shipowners himself, we know practically nothing. It has been seen that they were subjected
to torture in cases of shipwreck but we hear nothing of their hereditary liability. Some
no doubt were slaves; possibly they could rise to be part owners or owners of ships, and
become navicularii, witness certain inscriptions of navicularii who were freedmen.
The nautee of the great rivers who took such an important part in the
commerce of the empire formed numerous associations and have left many inscriptions (Their
case is more fitly a subject for Part III although they transported the annona to the
ports of embarkation their service was only part of the ordinary duty of a provincial and
carried no special privileges). Possibly some of the collegia of Nautae which do not
expressly call themselves Nautae Marina were collegia of sea going Nautae.
It seems also possible that several men together may have owned a ship
and have sailed it together with little or no hired or slave help. Such owners would all
be classed as navicularii and would account for the large numbers of shipowners at places
like Arles "Communal" ownership of this sort can be found today among the
fishermen of Devonshire and Cornwall.
It should be noted that women were also members of the corporations of
navicularii. There is actual mention of the wives of navicularii who are to meet their
obligations as navicularii in the district where they are "adscripti" but when
involved in private lawsuits they are to appear in the Count district of their husbands.
Thus women become members of the municipality where their husbands reside for litigation
and private suits, but they remain members of their birth place in so far as their duties
as navicularii are concerned. However this law must refer to women who are daughters of
navicularii and have inherited property from them. It is unlikely that they often, if
ever, took part in commerce overseas on their own.
The seeming inconsistency of the laws relating to curiales not being
allowed to become navicularii and being forced to become navicularii is perhaps explained
by differences in the relative prosperity of the two classes in different cities and in
different times under successive Emperors. Generally speaking the navicularii were
personally freer and economically better off than the members of any other collegium dealt
with in this study.
C H A P T E R V
Lesser collegia connected with the annona
S E C T I O N I
Caudicarii, Lemuncularii and Mensores
S E C T I O N II
Saccaria and Bajuli - Portera
C H A P T E R V
S E C T I O N I
The large ships of the navicularii which brought the annona to the
mouth of the Tiber not being able to mount that river had to disembark their cargo at
Ostis.
The provisions were taken up the Tiber from there to Rome on rafts made
of planks of roughly hewn wood. (naves caudicarii) drawn by oxen following the via
Ostiensis. Such rafts could easily mount the river in spite of the tide and the men who
owned them were naturally called caudicarii (sometimes written codicarii) with or without
the word navicularii adjoined. An inscription from Tibur shows that some at any rate, were
merchants as well as boatmen as might be expected on the analogy of other ancient
shipowners.
The capacity of their boats was prescribed by law in 439 i.e. 2000
modii.
The corn was measured at Ostis when it was delivered by the navicularii
and either sent up to Rome at once or deposited in the store houses at that port. In the
latter case it was again weighed when it was taken out of the store houses and sent up the
Tiber to Rome. It was also measured on its arrival at Rome, and lastly when taken out of
the barns at Rome and delivered to the bakers.
The measuring was done at Ostis
by the mensores frumentarii under the eyes of the tabularii of the prefect of the unions
who gave out quittances and discharges. Inscriptions mention a corpus mensorum
frumentariorum ostansium but they all date from the 2nd Century A.D. Later in the period
dealt with in this study, i.e. in 389, the measurers of the harbour are called mensores
portuenses. This inscription is very interesting for it deals with a dispute between the
mensores and the caudicarii. This dispute, whatever it was about, was finally settled in
that year by Hagonius Vincentius Cela, who, "whilst holding the appointment of
prefect of the annona of the Eternal city behaved so well that all those who went to him
to have their cases judged found him to be more like a parent than a judge". He seems
to have settled the dispute so fairly that both sides felt themselves to be victorious and
went away perfectly satisfied.
The close connection between the service performed by the mensores at
Ostis and the caudicarii is not only shown by their disputes but by the law which deals
with their mutual defrauding of the Government. This law was issued by Honorius in 417
A.D. and addressed to the praetorian prefect. It is decreed that "in order to stop
the frauds of the patrons of the caudicarii and the thefts of the mensores at the
port" one out of all the patrons is to be chosen by agreement of all the corpus to be
in charge of the stores at Ostia. He is to be in charge for five years and is to send a
specimen (of the grain stored) secretly to his colleagues in order that bad quality grain
cannot be put into the store houses in place of the good quality originally put in.
Thus evidently the mensores and
candicarii had sometimes schemed together and replaced good grain by bad in the store
houses at Ostia. The law goes on to say that if the man put in charge fulfils his trust he
shall have the title of Gomes of the 3rd order bestowed upon him automatically after his
release, i.e. after five years in this position of responsibility. If on the other hand he
is found defrauding the government he is to lose his patrimony and be put to the lowest
kind of work in a bakehouse.
The prefect of the annona is not to have the right of inflicting
corporal punishment on the three senior patrons of each corpus.
This law might give one to understand that the caudicarii and mensores
belonged to one and the same collegium but the inscriptions show this was not so. The
mensores indeed formed more than one corpora themselves. The mensores at Rome itself
formed a distinct collegium of their own. They are sometimes called mensores machinarii.
This name seems to be explained by a figure on a IV or Vth century cup. This shows an
official of the annona presiding at the weighing of the grain; in front of him is a large
scale mounted on a prop (machine). It is the same cup on which some caudicarii are shown
bringing the grain in wagons.
Waltzing quotes the Digest to show that the immunities given to the
mensores of Ostis and of Rome by M. Aurelius and Commodus were not given to those of the
provinces.
Although the candicarii are the only boatmen who are mentioned in the
C.Th as forming a collegium definitely organised for state service the inscriptions show
that there were other collegia of Tiber boatmen such as the Lenuncularii, scapharii,
lintrarii.
Lenunculi were little boats propelled by a large number of oars and
very pointed at the stern.
The scaphae were another type of small boat and the lintrae some sort
of canoe. Probably all these little boats did duty in discouraging the oarsmen of seagoing
ships to enable them to enter the harbour or mount the Tiber to Rome. Their owners were
therefore in all probability included under the title of levamentarii. They may also have
helped to transport the "annona' from Ostia to Rome.
It will be more convenient to deal with these river boatmen together
with the fishermen and divers (pisoatores minatores) under the section in Part III dealing
with the "Nautae".
S E C T I O N 2
SACCARII AND BAJULI - PORTERS
Obviously large numbers of porters were needed to convey the government
provisions from the ships of the navicularii to the storehouses at Ostia, and from these
on to the rafts of the caudicarii. This work was performed by the saccarii (carriers of
sacks) and there is actually a painting extant which shows them at their work at Ostis.
The following description is translated from G. Roissier's Promenades archeologiques. This
painting shows one of those boats which were used to navigate the Tiber and which were
called naves caudicarii. Each of them had its name, like boats in our own day, to call it
by; this name was written in black or red on some prominent part of the boat. This
particular boat had been named after a divinity but the name of the owner was also written
to avoid confusion. It was called the Isis Geminiane.
On the roof above a little cabin the pilot Pharnaces stands with his hand on the rudder.
Towards the middle the Captain Abascantus oversees the workmen. Porters bent under the
weight of a sack of corn are coming from the river bank towards a small plank connecting
the boat and the land. One has already boarded the boat and is pouring out the contents of
his sack into a big measuring apparatus (modius) whilst a mensor frumentarius charged with
the duty of safeguarding the interests of the administration, is watching to make sure
that the measure is quite full; he holds the edges of the sack so that none of its
contents shall be wasted. A little further off another porter, whose sack is empty, is
sitting down resting and his whole expression shows the satisfaction explained by the
words written below by the painter: "I have finished, feci".
In 364 A.D. these saccarii of the "Port of Rome" were given a
monopoly of the work of disembarking the cargoes of all boats arriving at Ostis. All goods
of any description which have been brought to Ostis by private persons are to be carried
by the saccarii themselves or by those who join their collegium. Fixed payments
proportionate to the amount of time needed for the work are to be paid to them. If any
private individual has the goods which have arrived for him carried by means of his slaves
1/5th of such goods is to be claimed for the benefit of the Treasury.
Gothofredus shows that this monopoly was given to the saccarii in order
to afford them subsistence and enable to be available for their duties in connection with
the annona.
It is a particularly interesting decree as it deals with the only case
extant of a monopoly held by a trade guild. It is probably quite exceptional and was
necessary for the sake of the annona.
It is also interesting to find a scale of payment fixed.
The saccarii must, however, naturally have been very poor people, who
had to work extremely hard for the state, and whose only reward seems to have been this
kind privilege of being allowed to do all the rest of the heavy dockers' work at Ostis in
order to earn enough to keep themselves fit for their government service. We hear nothing
about their receiving any actual payment from the government. Desseu thinks the
"susceptores of Ostis or Portus recreated for the use of the city of Rome in the 4th
are the same as the saccarii.
Another collegium which it will be convenient to mention here is that
of the Subarrerii. These were stevedores who carried balast into the ships; an
illuminating illustration of the state of industry in Italy when products could not be
bought at Rome or Ostis to fill the ships on the return voyage to Africa or Spain.
There suburrerii are only found on two inscriptions.
The cataboleuses - wagoners and muleteers who transported the corn at
Rome itself, are dealt with in the section under pistores.
There are also porters at Rome called frugis et olei bajuli mentioned
by Symmachus and these must have carried the corn as well as the oil discharged at the
quays at Rome.
Perhaps they carried them from the naves caudicarii to the wagons of
the cataboleuses.
The division of labour in the ancient world had gone far enough for us
to believe this, and would also suggest that it may well be that one cataboleunses looked
after several wagons drawn by horses or mules and could not himself load these all up
unaided.
The bajuli are shown by Symmachus to have transported the oil from the
store houses to the place of distribution.
Please continue by returning to homepage of to next link
Chapters 6-8
http://www.fredautley.com/thesis6.htm
Part 2 chapters 1-5
http://www.fredautley.com/thesis7.htm