- claimed under pretence of lapse of ownership or questionable
right of inheritance, and their release had to be negotiated for the payment of a sufficient ransom;[1] even special grants from the Imperial treasury for reinstatement of fortifications or other purposes were sometimes embezzled without apprehension of more serious trouble, if detected, than disgorgement.[2] In all these cases the excess extorted was appropriated by the rapacious officials. Such were the hardships inflicted systematically on the small proprietors who, if unable to pay or considered to be recalcitrant, were not seldom subjected to bodily tortures. For hours together they were suspended by the thumbs,[3] or had to undergo the application of finger-crushers or foot-racks,[4] or were beaten on the nape of the neck with cords loaded with lead.[5] Nevertheless, remainders accumulated constantly, and a remission of hopeless arrears for a decade or more was often made the instance of Imperial indulgence. But the old vouchers were habitually secreted and preserved by the collectors so that the ignorant rustics might be harassed persistently for*
- ↑ Cod. Theod., X, ix, 1, and Godefroy ad loc.; cf. ibid., i, 2; Novel. xvii, 15; Agathias, v, 4. They even attempted to invalidate Imperial grants. Notices on purple cloth were suspended to denote confiscation of estates to the crown.
- ↑ Cassiodorus, Var. Epist., v, 34; ix, 14, etc.
- ↑ Palladius, Vit. Paphnutii; Hist. Lausiaca, 63 (not by Jerome, as Godefroy ad Cod. Theod., III, iii).
- ↑ Synesius, Epist., 79, 96, etc. These may have been isolated devices of Andronicus at Ptolemais. One of his subordinates used to seize objects of art à la Verres. Yet these men were only reached by the happy thought of excommunicating them. In this the great Athanasius had set the example.
- ↑ Cod. Theod., IX, xxxv, and Godefroy. This was the regular method of scourging, but illegal as a means of enforcing payment of taxes; ibid., XI, vii, 7. The Egyptians were particularly obstinate, and even
