Eisphora - military tax in peacetime (according to the treaties on the lease of public land in Attica mid-IV century. bc. e.)

Eisphora - military tax in peacetime (according to the treaties on the lease of public land in Attica mid-IV century. bc. e.)

by Enrique B. Brain

Georgetown University, USA



Abstract: Purpose of the article - the consideration for the payment of eyesore (Extraordinarition tax) members of the public land lease in Attica in the IV. before e. Based on a careful study of epigraphy (on public land lease inscriptions in Attica) data the author draws Attention to the cases of charging eysfory in transactions with public property. Eysfora was paid by both citizens and non-governmental organizations. The amount of the tax depended on many factors (income from the leased land from agricultural production and other conditions).

Keywords: public land, eysfora, tenants Teli, contract, demos, Oregon.


State since its inception pre-resents a historically established organization that has the supreme authority, and ensure the implementation of con indiscrete interest (human, religious Nationalization, etc..) In a particular area. No state cannot function normally without the imposition of taxes, duties duties. On the other hand, taxes are one of the most important features of the state-Shih. They came together with the state. We used them as the main source of funds for maintenance public authorities. It's hard not to agree with K. Maseru, in the classical form of tax policy on the story can be, begins with ancient Greece1. Athenian democracy, as the phenomenon is very distinctive, has created a number of state and social institutions, which have no analogues in the whole subsequent history of the world. Among these can be attributed to the tax system, which was an important political tool for citizens' associations in the framework of policies.

Over time, tax-organization to update themselves. Among the duties of citizens before the policy includes: funding celebratory processions, choirs, comedy, tragedy, construction, etc. A characteristic feature of Attica socio-economic life in the IV... BC. e. It became the state's need for financial means, primarily for military purposes. Manifestations rd, it was more and more frequent recourse to a special type of tax - eyesore. Sources IV in. BC. e. are full of references to this extraordinary tax. On the one hand, they contain praise of citizens who are willing to provide funds for public-WIDE needs. On the other hand, given the complaints of taxpayers to the gravity of the burden placed upon them. Eysfora was associated with all the complex processes taking place in the Athenian polis, which, according to H. Hammond, allows us to call on the emergency-log one of the key questions of the history of Athens in the IV. BC. e.2

Eysfore question of one of the most studied in abroad-term and domestic literature. At the same time during the period The duration ion eyesore contradictory problem causes such Denial and interpretations3. Most studies have confirmed the view that the first eyesore was introduced in 428 BC. e., as a result of the uprising on. Lesbos over Athens threatened by defeat in the Peloponnesian War4. This view is the basis, but Thucydides reported that while she has collected 200 Lana (Hist. III. 19). Apparently, really at this time in Athens began to constantly charge the emergency tax. However, we can assume that the practice of charging eyesore obsonant before. It was introduced before the start of the Peloponnese ion of war against the Athenian colonies. In particular, it has an order in the decree of Miletus 450/49 BC. e. (SEG. 10)

In the Decree on Gestate 446 BC. e. (IG. I2. № 42). However, in these cases eysfora levied occasionally. So, in the decree of Gestate states that payment eyesore is permitted only in the case of fund-raising in the fight against piracy (line. 6).

Despite the fact that references to the sources eyesore not-enough, in most cases they are reduced to a small remark, niyama, designed for knowledgeable reader or listener who does not have to specifically explain the purpose eyesore. In this ancient evidence of the extraordinary tax are often very sparse and contradictory.

Researchers in the works of eyesore often burst out laughing-questions under study is devoted to the collection of the tax in the case of frequently-term ground. The main sources of information for them are the ancient speakers - Demosthenes, Lyses and Isocrates, and on-sensible inscriptions on the collection eyesore with individuals. Cases overlaid eysforoytion of public land almost was not considered by-are. At the same time there are numerous treaties dealing with public land lease (land belonging demand, portray and religious associations), which are Xia mention of charging eyesore. In this regard, the purpose of infusion-present article is to examine the controversial question of the nature of charging eyesore based on inscriptions of leasing common property policy-governmental groups and different some details of ancient authors. The primary source of information used by us following leases: lease on land deem obtion (Placket. 43), a document of land lease deme eksoneytsev (IG. II2. Number 2492), the lease of land pireytsev (IG. II2. Number 2498), documents on the lease of land orgeonov Egret (IG. II2. № 2499). At Ba-Vania these sources, we will try to answer the question of what the nature of the collection received eysfory since windows-Chania Peloponnesian War. These sources date from the second half of the 350-321's. BC. e., t. e. the time when the Peloponnese, Skye War has long ended.

Based on data from narrative sources, it is possible to draw a conclusion about who basically brought eysforu. As a rule, these were the very wealthy citizens. So, Demosthenes-mentioning are the citizens of Leptin and Callicrates, who certainly were wealthy people, as they performed even trierarch (XXII. 60) lease on public land eysforu often implicitly-FNF individuals - tenants, on the social situation which can be judged on the basis of information from other sources. In the rental contract of Mr. Exxon as a tenant Set Avtey son Avtokleya (IG. II2. Number 2492, line. 2, 33). According to VN Andreev this name is found among choregos middle of IV. BC. e.5Indeed, Avtey name very rare, and therefore can be pref-lay down that this is what the citizen in question in the choir-gov list. It is known that the duties choregos were very honorable and IP-fills their people, well-known in the community and the wealthy. Choregos pay the high cost of conducting a ceremony of religious-tion and festivals.

The lease of public land illegal Xanthippe's named tenant. The inscription it is characterized as highly in reading citizen (Placket. № 41, line. 1-2). In another the lease of land deem Preset responsible for the swim-emergency tax charged on Kara son Poseydippa (IG. II2. 2497, line. 3-4). We can assume that he was the father or the son of Poseydippa Preset referred to as a triorarha about 342 BC. e.

An interesting fact is that, as shown by the data of leases after the Peloponnesian War, the staff, you are more likely to become performing payers eysfory. The lease orgeonov (IG. II2. Number 2499, line. 27-29) should make eysforu orgeony sanctuary Egret. The landlord is also lip-as a major contributor to contract eysfory surrender illegal rent of land and other types of property (Agora. XV, line. 6-9). In particular, they say that the people themselves are making eysforu deme Piraeus signs land lease eksoneytsev also said that if the city will establish an extraordinary tax, pay it to dem eksoneytsev (IG. II2. Number 2492, line. 36-39). Thus, nalogopla-payers can be not only citizens, but also the administrative and territorial division of the policy (demos, orgeony and t. D.). In this case, the question of the participation of NGOs in eysfory paid virtually no attention in the historiography6. Inter do so is a very important aspect of the social and economic life of the Athenian polis. In this connection it should try to answer the question, what reasons have prompted policy often involve collective-tivy to pay emergency tax.

Levying eysfory with administrative-territorial sub-divisions of the policy, apparently, it was due to several factors. Firstly, on the whole group of people entrusted with their increased-by, respectively, than individuals. In some cases, given official - demarh who is obliged to follow its time-making eysfory (Pleket № 41, line 39-40..). citizens. They were responsible to demarhom and tried to strictly Observed-all prescription because demarh had the right to punish people for not complying with the different agreements. Within its competence, he could impose fines on the members of his deme7. The responsibility of public organizations was prodiktova-on and certain moral principles. For example, orgeonov Association considered it a shameful failure to comply with any regulations8. Teams were interested in his time-fulfillment of obligations to the policy because of the polis structures they were entitled to resolve their Dey Flow rate, in particular, the right to lease public imu-society. Furthermore, in IV. BC. e. the number of affluent citizens who are able to pay taxes, has decreased dramatically9Possibly in connection with the increase in the number of social groups, spo, who are able to pay emergency tax. Payment eysfory increasingly caused resentment among citizens, as the tax-conv schalsya of emergency into a permanent and therefore polis structure becomes difficult to collect it from the individual. It is reported in the narrative sources. They comprise individual application-Xia burdensome given type nalo-n (Lys XXVIII 3;.. Dem L. 20.). In the writings of Lysias and Demosthenes found some mention of the people who do not want paid vat eysforu, but such resistance of citizens is not so massive. So, Demosthenes, without mentioning specific cases are generally reported that there were citizens and metics who refuse to make timely eysforu (XXV. 57). Such messages are meeting, and in the epigraphic material. This is evidenced by the inscription on delivery demes rent public land. According to the contracts, some of the responsibilities of tenants have taken post-yanny (hereditary) nature. In particular, in the contract for the surrender of rent land teytrasiytsev states that arendato-py Xanthippus and its descendants prescribed pay the rental fee (Pleket. № 41, line. 15-16). Like setting pref-ik- and against eysfory. The document on the lease of land deme Prasit said that "the tenant and his descendants to be free of annual fees and emergency tax» (IG. II2. Number 2497, line. 5-7). Thus, we can assume that Mr. eysfo took permanent, hereditary.

In addition, taxpayers in many respects did not suit the system itself eysfory collection. A. Jones says that all is subject to boiling-taxed citizens pay the same percentage of their capital, regardless of their degree of solvency10. Based on the information of narrative sources in the research literature prevailing view that eysfory size each time by its decision established a national assembly of Athenseleven.

inscriptions on public land lease stated that the Extraordinary-tion tax established policy (IG. II2. Number 2492, line. 25-26; Pleket. № 41, line. 36-37). This indication allows us to assume that the tax could be determined not only by the national assembly, but all civilian staff of what actually was the policy, time-tion of its authorities, officials in the service of the policy.

Eysfory procedure for making science-confirmed representation of information thanks to Demosthenes. He reports that in 378 BC. e. to streamline the collection of emergency tax pla-payers were merged into simmorii, between which is evenly distributed, the amount of tax (XIV. 27). In the Report-Research Institute of Demosthenes there is no indication who passed the tax amount.

Document lease land deme teytrasiytsev MSG-schaetsya that the sum of the emergency tax should be transmitted de MArchI (Pleket. № 41, line. 39-40). The lease decision Orhei-new Egret eysforu prescribed transfer orgeonam (IG. II2. Number 2499, line. 39-40). Thus, we can assume that the collection eysfory following local administration, it is possible that sleep-chala amount of the tax goes to the local treasury, and then (maybe with other drugs) is sent to the treasury policy. Single go-national budget in Athens, did not exist. The classical-ical era in the state had several cash desks, each of which had its own sources of revenue and its cost structure12. In connection with the payment of the inhabitants of Athens eysfory colo-ny can make some assumptions about the order of payment. So, in the decree of Miletus (SEG. 423) for the proceedings of various financial problems set appropriate sudopro-duction. In particular, it states that citizens arriving from Athens to hearing any cases, do not have to conduct an inventory of property for the purpose of emergency military nalheysfory. Miletyane themselves should assess the haves-tion to each other, and are required to submit information (unfortunately not specified which authorities) (line. 55-61). The decree of Gestiee pre-written, in some cases, to charge eysforu with residents of the colony (line. 23-25). It is not clear who should take the decision to levy the tax - the Athenians or gestieytsy. Thus, the researcher Carrie believes that this could be the national assembly Gestiei rather than Athens13. Thus, we can assume that eysfora charged by different officials and authorities, the procedure for charging also different. This inconsistency in the actions could cause discontent of citizens. However, as in texts proves the inscriptions and details of ancient authors, citizens outraged not so much the amount of the tax and levy system as that of the state of emergency it becomes a constant, and the fact that the military began to levy taxes in peacetime.

Therefore, I would like to make one comment. The ISTO-riografii often talking about what eysfora continued to be charged after the Peloponnesian War, in peacetime, although remained extraordinary, war tax in effect14. However, with the position that was calm, it is hardly possible to agree in Attica after the end of hostilities between Athens and Sparta. The texts of the inscriptions, dating from the mid IV century. BC. e., permanently contain provisions in the event of hostilities or clearly demonstrate the situation when the land Hatti-ki have been exposed to attack enemies (IG. II2. Number 2492, line. 7-9; Number 2499, line. 14-17)15. VP Buzeskul in his monograph on the history of Athenian democracy draws attention to the fact that in Athens after the Peloponnesian War, the world was a SET-linen is very conditional, flashed everywhere fighting and troops of the Spartans continued to harass civilians16. Thus, it can be assumed that the positions-governmental entities had reason to believe the situation in the policy Extraordinary-term, almost military, but because they did not see anything extraordinary in levying eysfory.

Based on a review of data labels lease pan-governmental lands and narrative sources can be made that the non-conclusions. Eysfory taxpayers were not only private citizens, but also the administrative and territorial division of the policy (demos) and non-governmental organizations (Orhei-ones). Responsible for paying eysfory carried as individuals, and all the civilian staff. Payment eysfory carried out in accordance with the assessment of the value of property (land lan-ki, houses, business premises and so on. D.). Dissatisfaction rent participation of nicknames, apparently, could not cause eysfory size, and the fact that its payment became a regular practice. Emergency tax imposed in the years of the Peloponnesian War, continued STORE nyatsya and afte its completion.





1.K. Mayer Athenians financed their public structures / Tot. Ed. and trans. BE Lanin. M., 1992. P. 56.

2.Hammond H. History of Ancient Greece / Trans. LA Igorevskaya. M., 2003. P. 560.

3.See: Gluskina LM Eysfora in Athens in IV. BC. e. // Bulletin of ancient history. Number 1961. 2. S. 23; Jones AH Athenian Democracy. Oxford, 1964. P. 57.

4.S.G. Vereschagin Tax policy in ancient Greece // Problems of modern economy. 2006. № 1 (17). C. 6.

5.Andreev VN Attic public landownership V-III centuries. BC. e. // West nickname ancient history. Number 1967. 2. S. 55.

6.Small details regarding payment eysfory public organi-tions contained in M. Finley and LM Gluskina (See: Finley MI Studies in land and credit in ancient Athens 500-200 BC New Brunswick, 1952. P. 276).

7.N.F.Jone The Associations of classical Athens. Oxford, 1999. P. 80.

8.Y.B. Ustinov said that the central place in the framework of the activities of these associations are engaged not only in honor of the sacrifices to any god or hero, but also actively participate in the economic life of the policy: Ustinova YB Private religious community of the Greeks (Attica VI-IV centuries. BC. E.) // Life and history in antiquity. M., 1988. S. 198. Perhaps the expression financial ak-ciency orgeonov was due to the fact that some of them (especially initially) there were many foreigners seeking to strengthen its position in the policy (see. Eg .: N. Hammond History ancient Greece. M., 2003, p 81).

9.Frolov, ED Greece during the late classic. SPb., 2001, pp 46.

10.Jones AH Op. cit. Note 28.

11.Melanchenko IV Athenian democracy. M., 2007. P. 185.

12.Ibid. Pp 202.

13.Cary M. Athens and Hestiaea. Oxford, 1979. P. 245.

14.Will E. Histoire grecque. Bulletin historique (1973-1975) // Revue historique. 1977. Vol. XXLIV. P. 381-383.

15.The inscription on the lease of land eksoneytsev said: "In the event of any besporyad-ing or damage caused by war, dem eksoneytsev is entitled to only half grown produce» (IG.II2. Number 2492, line. 7-9). The contract of lease of land teytrasiytsev said: "If the enemy-when repairing damage to the tenant site, give teytrasiytsam half of the income from the site» (IG.II2. Number 2499, line. 14-17).

16.Buzeskul VP The history of the Athenian democracy. SPb., 2003, pp 419.