The Impact of Wars on Roman Legislation Regarding vicesima hereditatis and caducum

The article refers to matters related to vicesima hereditatis and caducum, by means of which a Roman legislator sought financial resources for waging wars. The territorial expansion of Rome, the wars waged, and, in particular, the need to raise funds for their financing affected not only the norms of public law but also individual regulations of Roman private law, including those considering both tax and inheritance law.

cession and testamentary legacy. Presumably, it was a way being used by Octavian and Antony to obtain funds for the ongoing civil war with Brutus and Cassius. This one-off tax was probably supposed to serve the end of the Perusine war, but the exact date of its introduction raises some disputes in the literature 3 , although the context of its adoption in reference to wars is seemingly up-to-date. Additionally, the introduction of taxation of inheritance and legate performed by Octavian and Antony in 40 B.C., was supposed to obtain funds for wars by utilizing the increasing significance of testamentary inheritance. It is also the case that in the same year Lex Falcidia 4 was enacted, encouraging heirs to testaments to accept inheritances even overly burdened with legacy. Therefore, it seems logical, that the imposition of tax over inheritances and legacy would bring measurable funds to the treasury. Also, social dissatisfaction described by Appian was a vivid reaction of the Roman society to the fact that the state started reaching for inheritance property. It seems that until the end of the republic, the inheritance tax was an exceptional solution, occurring sporadically due to financial needs related to waging wars.
The proceeds obtained from the inheritance and registration tax from Augustus were allocated to the aeritarium militare 12 , i.e. a special treasure intended for the needs of the army. This special fund for the financing of veterans, in addition to the initial contribution of 70 million sesters from the estate of Augustus 13 , was to be covered by the proceeds from two new taxes in the future, i.e. on public sales of 1% 9 G. Blicharz of the value of items sold (centesima rerum venalium) and inheritance tax (vicesima hereditatum). This treasury was entrusted to the management of praefecti aerarii militaris, who were often elected from the group of former praerores aerarii 14 .
The introduction of inheritance tax always required justification and was a solution that caused political conflict. Earlier Republican taxes were one-off and were treated as loans granted by citizens of the state. As a rule, Roman citizens were free from taxes and their imposition was treated as a violation of their position. However, with the emergence of the Empire, fixed taxes for citizens appeared, including inheritance tax. Moreover, it was supposed to execute no matter where the Romans were at each particular moment. During the imperial period, the effectiveness and usefulness of a given legal solution for the state became more important. Perhaps due to the growing costs of maintaining imperium, it was the most equitable instrument ensuring stable income to the military treasury.
A detailed analysis of the inheritance tax is difficult due to the fact that in Justinian times, the tax did not exist and only a small number of sources related to this matter were included in the Justinian codification 15 . In particular, Pliny the Younger mentions inheritance tax in Panegyricus (fragments 37-40) 16  Thus, the inheritance tax was one-twentieth (or 5%) of the value of assets inherited or received through a legate. In addition, the lex Julia de vicesima hereditatum did not provide for a tax-free amount, but the decrease in its insignificant value was excluded from its operation: In the first passage, Pliny mentions inheritance between parents and children, but it seems that this is not a precise term. In the next passage, he adds that inheritance tax was limited not only to the first degree of kinship but also second-degree relatives, i.e. brother, sister, grandfather and grandmother as well as grandchild and grandson, were excluded from the vicesima hereditatum. The closest cognitive relatives (so-called decem personae) were probably released from the obligation to pay vicesima hereditatum 18 .
Initially, this tax was charged only to Roman citizens living in Rome as well as in Italy and the provinces. In the Principate period, the scope of entities obliged to pay vicesima hereditatum was broadened as a result of obtaining Roman citizenship by new groups of Empire residents. Additionally, these exemptions did not apply to kinship, since the calculation of kinship degrees was only applied to former Roman citizens: For the occurrence of this tax, it did not matter whether the inheritance (the legate) was acquired by way of testamentary inheritance or non-testamentary inheritance. With legates that were encumbered with vicesima hereditatum, regardless of the inheritance, the testator sometimes pointed out that the entry was included with or without tax. Probably every heir (co-heir) and each employee paid the tax separately. The fact that the heir also deducted the costs of the funeral and the average tombstone (et si ita gratus heres volet, tota sepulcro, tota funeri serviet) from the value of the estate, which indirectly could influence the amount of legates, also taking into account the Falcidia quarrel 19 .
In addition, by virtue of edict of Hadrian to accelerate the payment of inheritance tax, the heir was brought into possession of inheritance property (in possessionem mitti) if the will was valid, even if it was later questioned in the intestate succession proceeding 20 . Hadrian considers inheritance tax as a useful instrument to ensure stable and high inflows to the State Treasury. Therefore, the person constituted as an heir could have acquired possessio after the payment of the tax.
Paulus states that the fiscus enjoys a privilege (privilegium fisci), under which its claims have priority in enforcement proceedings before other creditors 21 . 19  Emperor Caracalla raised the amount of inheritance tax and legates up to 10% of the value of inherited property, additionally, by issuing Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 A.D., he granted all free citizens of the Empire Roman citizenship and increased the scope of entities burdened with vicesima hereditatum 22 . This emperor is known for his efforts to gain new income and changes in the monetary system. In addition, the interest in this tax at the beginning of the crisis, that took place in the Empire in the 3 rd century confirms its budgetary usefulness. The tax returns to the previous level (5%) and earlier exclusions during the reign of Macrinus 23 .
In Justinian law, the inheritance tax was abolished, while the provisions regarding the opening of wills concerning private wills were retained by Justinian: C. 6,33,3: Imperator Justinianus: […]

quia et vicesima hereditatis a nostra recessit re publica […].
In his constitution, Justinian writes about vicesima hereditatum as an already non-binding tax. Probably this tax was abolished by the emperors Diocletian and Constantine as part of the financial reforms carried out 24 .

III.
The next legal regulation of the Roman inheritance system, but also the tax system in connection with securing the proceeds to the state's estate, among others for the needs of wars, were the provisions regarding the caducum 25 . As I mentioned, during the times of Augustus, there was a change concerning the taxation system of citizens, as taxes began to be collected on a permanent basis, and a special treasure for aerarium militarae was created for the needs of veterans and the army, and the institution of caducum was to increase the revenue to this estate.
The concept of caducum is combined with the person of the first princeps in the doctrine of Roman law. August introduced the institutions in the so-called marriage laws (otherwise lex Iulia et Papia, lex caducaria or lex Iulia caducaria) 26 , i.e. lex Iulia de maritandis oridinibus, in 9 A.D. and lex Papia Poppea in 9 A.D. On the U M C S grounds of these acts, August introduced restrictions on the acquisition of inheritances by unmarried or childless people, using the concept of capacitas, which means inherence ability. In the preserved source material, the oldest messages referring to the said regulation are texts from the Gaius Institutes: G. 2,111: Caelibes quoque, qui lege Iulia hereditates legataque capere uetantur, item orbi, id est qui liberos non habent, quos lex [. . . . . fol. deperd., vv. 21  In the first of the analyzed passages, Gaius writes about the caduca when discussing the inheritance abilities of the unmarried and childless in the context of a soldier's will. The next two parts deal with fiduciary records and their comparison with the provisions of civil law. Although Gaius does not use the word aerarium populi romani in the quoted passus (G. 2,266a), he only writes ad populum, the researchers emphasize that the term should be understood as the state treasury, which is then referred to as the fiscus term 27 .
According to the source messages, the inheritance left for unmarried people, who lost their capacitas, on the basis of lex Iulia, was transferred (translata sunt), or other called in the will, who had children or ad populum, unless they married within 100 days. If all those appointed in the will were caelibes, then the inheritance as caducum was received by the legatees who met the requirement of having children. In the event that none of the heirs and legatees meet the requirement of having offspring, then the inheritance is granted to the state treasury. However, punishment for celibacy excluded only a valid marriage iure civili (iustae nuptiae) and one being in accordance with the principles contained in lex Iuliae et Papiae Poppaeae. Equally to marriage, there was engagement (sponsalia), provided that the marriage was concluded within two years. Women were free from penalties for celibacy during vacationis, i.e. according to lex Iulia after the death of the husband for one year, after the dissolution of the marriage for six months, and according to lex Papia in the first case for two years, in the second for one year and six months. The childless (orbi) and women during vacatio, according to lex Papia, had the ability to inherit only half of the inheritance, unless they had received a relevant number of children within 100 days. One child would be enough for a man, while a woman should have at least three of them, and a liberated woman one should have at least four children. Children should result from marriage, from an unbanned marriage lege Iulia et Papia Poppaea. Originally, men were free from punishment for being childless through adoptio, but this resolution was overturned by the senatus consultum Memmianum from the times of Nero. The rest of such an inheritance belonged to the state in accordance with the law of the caducum, unless others appointed in the will did not meet the requirement of having children.
The doctrine connected with the ius caducum has already introduced the categories of inheritances and legates that were ex causa caduca during the time of Augustus. There can be include spouses in a mutual relationship because their capacitas were differently defined. At the time of death of one spouse, the other one became caelebs, but only in relation to the inheritance of a third person, but he was eligible for limited inheritance after the deceased spouse, in particular, a childless spouse could receive a tenth of the total estate of the deceased spouse due to marriage, and had the right to use one-third.
In addition, there was a category of people who were completely excluded from the provisions of the above-mentioned acts for various reasons, as solidi capacitas could acquire entirely what the deceased had left, despite being married or childless. This group of people included, among others, persons due to their age 28 or physical disability (spadones). In addition, the cognitive relatives to the sixth degree of the deceased, and from the seventh natus vel nata ex sobrino sobrinave, as well as the heir appointed to the insolvent inheritance, because he actually received nothing. For the same reason, anyone who was required to give inheritance to a third party as a fidei-commissum.
The key matter in the analysis of the caducum matter is the decision whether these provisions were applicable only in the testamentary succession, or whether it included a reference to inheritance under the law. The constitution of Justinian from 534 may be helpful here, although the institution itself does not apply in Justinian law: 28 Because of their age, they were released from punishments for celibacy and childlessness: a man under 25 and over 60, a woman under 20 and over 50. Later, however, Senatus Pernicianum decided that the persons under 60 should be taken out from this act, a woman up to 50 years of age would neither enter into marriage nor have children. This changed Senatus Claudianum because it freed from celibacy for a 60-year-old man who married a woman in his late 50s. On the contrary, a woman over 50 who married a man under 60 years of age did not acquire capacitatem. It seems that the provisions referring to the caducum were applicable in both testamentary and non-testamentary inheritance.
An entire system was established -the so-called delatores 29 , meaning informants who, being notified of the caducum, received half of the value of the claimed property as a reward. This was to reduce the administrative costs associated with the enforcement of such inheritances and to increase the effectiveness of the regulation. Of course, such a solution caused great social opposition. For example, Tacitus wrote about it in his Annals: In addition, attempts were made to limit abuse by delatores: D. 49,14,15,3 (Mauricius): Senatus hadriani temporibus censuit, cum quis se ad aerarium detulerit, quod capere non potuerit, ut totum in aerarium colligatur et ex eo pars dimidia sibi secundum beneficium divi Traiani restituatur.
Emperor Trajan established a privilege for heirs or legatees who did not meet the conditions for the acquisition of the inheritance, so that they could report it themselves and thus keep half of the reported inheritance. This privilege was also confirmed by Hadrian. In addition, as reported by Suetonius, Nero reduced the prize for reporting the caducum to one-fourth of the value of the property. Because from the times of Trajan and Hadrian, more attention was paid to informing about incapacitas instead of the performance of informers 30 . Anyway, delatores regulations became the subject of the imperial constitutions, because they wanted to limit the abuse of informers willing to enrich themselves on someone else's loss.
The law of the caducum, just like the inheritance tax, was abolished by Justinian: In the analyzed constitution, Justinian clearly indicates that the law of the caducum, which appeared in the period of intensified wars, is now pointless in times of peace. He argues that lex Papia has already been changed by earlier emperors and is being repealed by the lack of application. Therefore, the connection between the emergence of regulations concerning the caducum and the wars comes to the fore. The Roman state is more and more interested in taking over the inheritance estate more quickly, when funds for the army and waging wars are needed. According to the discussed constitution, civil wars contributed to the more frequent takeover of inheritances by the state. On the other hand, in the time of Justinian, the issue of financing soldiers was not the most important problem of the Empire, which is why the need for existing regulations regarding the caducum was eliminated. Justinian clearly opposes the republican wars and the caducum to the time of peace and restrictions on the part of the tax office during his time 31 .
Obviously, among the reasons for the enactment of matrimonial laws performed by Augustus (lex Iulia de maritandis oridinibus from 9 A.D. and lex Papia Poppea from 9 A.D.), the incentive to remain in marriage and to have children should be raised in the first place, which was very beneficial to the state economy, but searching for ways to increase treasury revenues cannot be forgotten at the same time. It seems that the basic purpose of these laws were fiscal matters. The limitation of the inheritance capacity meant that the inheritance could be granted to other people appointed in the will, who met the statutory requirements, but it could also become the property of the state, which could have acquired inheritance sooner than ever before in Roman law.

IV.
Briefly summarizing, it can be stated that Octavian Augustus, introducing both the inheritance tax and the institution of the caducum, pursued a broader legal policy in which the state is being called to privileged participation in inheritance. On the one hand, the caducum regime was a strong motivation for getting married and having children, on the other hand, the emperor expected revenues for the state treasury. The revenues that were supposed to supply the aerarium militarae and be used for the needs of veterans and the army, were influenced first of all by the enactment vicesima hereditatis in 6 A.D., and finally the law of the caducum, which was finally settled three years later. This way, the Roman state, beginning 31 C. Tanta of 533 A.D.
Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 28/03/2021 06:16:31 U M C S with Octavian Augustus, gained participation in inheritance after each person, either through heirs in the form of tax or directly through the acceptance of inheritance.
In these solutions, one can see the republican approach of the state's participation in the property of its citizens. The state's entitlement to taxes, public levies or inheritance takeovers was allowed only in emergency situations, for a specific purpose, first of all for waging wars.