The systematic use of the census under the principate permitted a large-scale transformation in Roman taxation. No longer did Rome regularly rely exclusively on private corporations of tax collectors, whose desire to make a profit on their investment led to rampant abuses, both of the system by which they won their contracts and particularly of provincial populations (Badian 1972, with Brunt in A. H. M. Jones 1974: 180-3; Brunt 1990: 354-432 for the continued use of corporations under the principate). Rather, in theory provincials now paid two direct taxes: a poll-tax and a tax on land (the tributum capitis and tributum soli), where the tax on land was, notionally, a tax on its produce or productive capacity (Ulpian ‘‘On the Census’’ bk. 3 = D. 50.15.4.1). Census data allowed Roman officials to assess liability as a fixed proportion of a province’s aggregate assessed property and total population: the burden was certainly computed province by province (Suet. Yes. 16.1; Appian pr. 61; Hyginus On Establishing Boundaries 160.27-162.2 Campbell), assize by assize (I. Ephesus 13), and city by city (Ulpian ‘‘On the Census’’ bk. 3 = D. 50.15.4.2). Primary responsibility for its collection seems to have devolved on civic magistrates who possessed considerable latitude in performing this duty (see esp. IG 5.1, 1432), and who are occasionally attested visiting their city’s subordinate villages to collect their share (Jos. BJ 17.405; Rostovtzeff 1957: 388-92, as well as Millar 1977: 426, on SIG 837; A. H. M. Jones 1974: 165-6; and Corbier 1991b. On Egypt see Sharp 1999; on the function of the conventus of Asia in organizing the finances of the imperial cult, on analogy, presumably, with its role in collecting taxes, see Habicht 1975).
World History
