Introduction

In 1915 the editors of P.Ryl. II 213, a Mendesian tax-account dated to the end of the second century AD, thought they recognised the existence of an independent fiscal department, which supposedly administered taxes called εἴδη, at least in the Mendesian nome. In this particular document three taxes are listed under εἴδη ἐννόμιον, a tax per head on sheep and goats ὑική, a tax to do with pigs and τοκαδεία, a tax on fowls, attested in the Mendesian nome only¹. All three taxes are nominally connected with animals. In 1938 a second meaning for εἴδη was proposed by Wallace, according to whom εἴδη were taxes which in the Ptolemaic period had been paid in kind². In this article I re-examine the papyrological evidence for εἴδη in the first three centuries of Roman rule. I will argue that the εἴδη did not indicate a fiscal department separate from the central διοίκηcιc, and that the taxes which fell under this denomination did not form an independent class.

The evidence

The term εἴδη, attested in the genitive singular and pluralεἴδουc, εἰδῶνoccurs mostly in documents from the Arsinoite and the Oxyrhynchite nomes which date from the first to the third century AD. The term also occurs in some documents from the Mendesian nome which date to the end of the second and the beginning of the third century AD. From the Hermopolite and the Herakleopolite nomes we have a few attestations which date to the second and third centuries. I begin with the Mendesian cases. The above-mentioned P.Ryl. II 213 (from the reign of Antoninus Pius or Commodus) contains an account of arrears which gives the annual total of different types of taxes, listed first by village then by toparchy³. The editors identified two categories of taxes on the one hand taxes managed by the πρακτορία, on the other hand the ἀριθμητικόν φυλακιτῶν, which supposedly was not collected by the πράκτορεc⁴. The taxes of the πρακτορία were administered by specific fiscal departments, as follows first, the διοίκηcιc, the central fiscal department second, the ἱερατικά, the department of temple income and third, the εἴδη. The διοίκηcιc, in their view, was further subdivided into four categories διοίκηcιc, in the sense of sub-department λιμνιτικά, which most probably administered taxes upon the γῆ λιμνιτική, a type of land attested in the Delta only λαογραφία, the main capitation tax and χωματικόν, the dyke tax⁵. Under the supervision of the central διοίκηcιc, we find mainly taxes on private and public land such as the ἐλαική, ἐπαρούριον, and ναύβιον, and those for the maintenance of fiscal officials. The ἱερατικά administered taxes connected with the temples and the priests, for instance the ἀπόμοιρα and εἰκcτή. By analogy, the fiscal department of εἴδη would have been responsible for the proceeds of the three taxes above mentionedthe ἐννόμιον, ὑική, and τοκαδεία.

While the fiscal divisions of the διοίκηcιc and ἱερατικά are well known from many other fiscal documents from Roman Egypt, the existence of an independent fiscal department called the εἴδη, at least for the Mendesian nome, remains a hypothesis based on little and uncertain evidence⁶.

A similar supposed division of fiscal departments into διοίκηcιc, ἱερατικά and εἴδη was found in P.Strasb. IV 299, a fragment of an account whose provenance is not as yet certainthe Mendesian or Oxyrhynchite nomedated to the second century. In this case the item εἴδη only gives the annual amount per village, and there is no breakdown into other taxes under this denomination.

References to εἴδη in other tax documents from the Mendesian nome are found in P.Thmouis I and P.Oxy. XXIV 2414 (both end of II AD). In P.Thmouis I only τοκαδεία, the fowl tax, is classed under εἴδη. P.Oxy. XXIV 2414 gives a list of thirteen taxes called εἴδη, which include, among others, the ἐννόμιον, ὑική and τοκαδεία. Although this document was found at Oxyrhynchus, it has been attributed to the Mendesian nome on the basis of its typological similarity to P.Ryl. II 213. In addition, one of the taxes listed here, the τοκαδεία, so far has been attested in the Mendesian nome only. It is worth noting that three of the taxes in this listthe ἀγορανομία (notary-tax), the πελωχικόν (flour milling tax), and the μνημονείου καὶ γραφείου (register-office tax)also appear among the εἴδη in two documents dated to the end of the first century AD P.Bour. 13, from Memphis, and P.Lond. III 856 (p. 91), of unknown provenance. So already in the first century certain taxes were listed as εἴδη⁷.

It is from the Arsinoite nome that most of the occurrences of εἴδη come. In the first-century evidence the term εἴδη exhibits two slightly different meanings taxes and types (of taxes). The first meaning is illustrated by a document belonging to the archive of the γραφεῖον of Tebtunis, a petition to an ἐξηγητήc dated to AD 36 where we read δημοcίων εἰδῶν, that is public taxes⁸. In the fourth-century tax documents taxes, both in money and in kind, is the only sense in which the term εἴδη is used⁹. As for the second meaning, the evidence, far more copious, is made up of receipts in which the payments of taxes in money are followed by the phrase καὶ παντὸc εἴδουc and of every type (of taxes)¹⁰.

Taxes registered as εἴδη appear in four accounts dated to the second century BGU IX 1894 P.Fay. I 42(a) BGU II 485 SB XVI 12834 fr. B. In BGU IX 1894 and in SB XVI 12834 fr. B, only ὑική falls within the category of εἴδη. In P.Fay. 42(a), the ἐννόμιον and the ὑική are grouped as εἴδη. In BGU II 485 in particular, the list of εἴδη comprised, apart from the ἐννόμιον, an uncertain number of taxes lost in a lacuna. Other texts suggest what taxes might have been included.

A considerable number of receipts, dated to the second and third century, group several taxes with the εἴδη. The μονοδεcμία χόρτου, a land-tax assessed on the aroura, is commonly attested payments were made ὑπὲρ μονοδεσμίαc χόρτου καὶ ἄλλων εἰδῶν¹¹. In a few cases the ζυτηρὰ κατ’ ἄνδρα, the beer capitation tax, was named as one of these εἴδη¹². In some receipts payments are made ὑπὲρ εἰδῶν, where εἰδῶν refers to unspecified taxes in money¹³. Finally, certain taxes on garden-land are sometimes classified as εἴδη the ἀπόμοιρα, ναύβιον, ἐπαρούριον and παραγωγὴ ἐλαίαc (charge for transport of olives)¹⁴. Curiously, however, the ναύβιον was often not included with the εἴδη.

Three accounts complete the picture of the Arsinoite evidence P.Köln IV 195 and P.Tebt. II 337 (both II AD) and BGU XIII 2279 (AD 226). In P.Köln IV 195, 20 the term εἴδουc with no further specificationγίνονται εἴδουcrefers to payments (in money). In P.Tebt. II 337 payments are grouped by type (of taxes) (κατ’ εἴδοc) and per capita (κατ’ ἄνδρα). Finally, BGU XIII 2279 makes a distinction between payments under εἰδῶν and payments under cτεφανικῶν, in both cases in money.

In the Oxyrhynchite nome the first-and second-century evidence shows the term εἴδη with two meanings type of land and payments in money¹⁵. In the third century εἴδη carries only the meaning of payments¹⁶. The meaning of εἴδη as a category of land is also attested in a Herakleopolite document dated to the first century, P.Brem. 68. In the second-and third-century Herakleopolite evidence, εἴδη refers to payments both in money and in kind, as in BGU III 942. In the Hermopolite nome, lastly, the term εἴδη is attested in SB VIII 9732, a fiscal account dated to AD 127/128, and in SB I 5674, a receipt for crop taxes dated to AD 150/151. Also in SB VIII 9732, we have a simple reference to εἴδη, followed by a total annual sum in drachmae for the toparchy Περὶ πόλιν κάτω, with no specification of what the taxes were. However, in this case the εἴδη specifically do not include the ἐννόμιον, contrary to the practice in the Arsinoite and Mendesian nomes.

Conclusion

What emerges from the evidence so far available is that the term εἴδη in tax documents from Roman Egypt never refers to a definite class or group of taxes. The list of taxes called εἴδη differs from one document to another. For example, the ναύβιον is classed among the εἴδη in some Arsinoite receipts but not most, while the ἐννόμιον counts as an εἴδοc in the Mendesian and Arsinoite texts, but not in those from the Hermopolite and Oxyrhynchite nomes. The εἴδη therefore cannot indicate an independent fiscal department responsible for the ἐννόμιον, ὑική and τοκαδεία, as was suggested by the editors of P.Ryl. II 213. Indeed, a Mendesian account of the same periodP.Oxy. XXIX 2414shows that the denomination of εἴδη included not only the ἐννόμιον, ὑική and τοκαδεία, but also taxes such the ὀθονιηρά (flax tax) and ἑξαδραχμία ὄνων (tax of 6 drachmae on donkeys). Furthermore, in P.Ryl. II 213 the individual sums for each category of taxes are all included in the single total for the πρακτορία, so there was no effective distinction in collecting them. Also, the Arsinoite documents clearly show that the εἴδη were taxes due to and managed by the διοίκηcιc. In other words, the διοίκηcιc was responsible both for the proceeds of the main taxes, such as the λαογραφία, and for other special types of taxes, such as the ἐννόμιον and the ὑική, both attested within the εἴδη from the first half of the second century. The ὑική, nominally a tax on pigs, probably became a capitation tax in the first half of the first century. In the Arsinoite and Oxyrhynchite nomes it was indeed collected with the λαογραφία and χωματικόν, at least until the first half of the second century. From the second half of the second century payments for ὑική were listed as εἴδη, and kept separate from payments for both λαογραφία and χωματικόν.

The εἴδη were minor taxes in the sense that they were assessed at a relatively low annual rate for example, the annual rate of the ὑική was 1 dr. 1 ob. Major capitation taxes such as the λαογραφία and the χωματικόν are never indicated as εἴδη. In my opinion, the meaning that best fits the term εἴδη in tax documents from Roman Egypt is that of items or miscellaneous, denoting certain types of minor taxes, mostly payable in money and in effect often meaning payments.

The use of εἴδη to indicate general payments of particular taxes in money seems to have developed during the second century, and can be attributed to the scribes. The huge number of copies required to be drawn up for administrative purposes most certainly encouraged the scribes to simplify the overall format of the various tax documents. The use of εἴδη can therefore be considered as one of these simplifications.