The Economic History of Byzantium - Dumbarton Oaks

More documents

Recommendations

Info

986 NICOLAS OIKONOMIDES ascribed, without doubt, to Leo III the Isaurian, who conducted a systematic campaign of restoring state control over activities that in the period of his predecessors had been largely controlled by private interests. 32 One general kommerkiarios remained after 730/31; he was based in Constantinople, since he was often also archon tou blattiou, “lord of the purple.” There were also general kommerkiarioi in certain cities: Mesembria (until the second half of the 8th century) and Thessalonike (after 712/13). Both these cities were important harbors and were close to the Bulgarian border, in locations convenient for the import-export trade. Luxury goods, especially purple-colored leather, formed an important part of this trade. 33 The latest surviving seal of imperial kommerkia to bear a depiction of the emperor and the indiction is dated 832/3. During the decade that followed, we find some seals with the indiction but without the imperial depictions. By this time, however, the kommerkiarioi have reappeared, as “imperial” kommerkiarioi (after 831/2): in other words, they were civil servants, with jurisdiction over one, two, orthree themes but especially over harbor cities located on the seacoast and on rivers. It seems clear that the sphere of responsibility of the kommerkia and the kommerkiarioi had changed by this time. In the meantime, we have the first appearance of a new form of state revenue, the kommerkion, whichwas undoubtedly connected with trade. In 785, the chronicler Theophanes records that Emperor Constantine VI exempted (ejkoúfise) thechurch of St. John the Divine in Ephesos from the kommerkion on its fair, amounting to 100 litrai (7,200 nomismata) of gold. 34 Here the kommerkion is clearly a tax on the fair—that is, on the sales of merchandise that took place during it—which the state collected from the “owner” of the fair (the church), on whose ground the merchants gathered and to whom they paid the charges of all kinds required for participation in the fair. We do not know whether the sum mentioned by Theophanes was calculated by approximation on the transactions that actually took place or whether it was a lump-sum levy. Nor do we know to what percentage of the merchandise the kommerkion corresponded at that time. However, later sources tell us that the kommerkion was still levied on fairs and that it usually corresponded to 10% of the value of the transactions that took place. All those sailing through the straits toward Constantinople, either from Abydos at the Dardanelles end or from Hieron on the Bosphoros, paid the legómena kommérkia, the “so-called kommerkia”; Empress Irene suspended collection of this levy, and it was restored byher successor. Early in the ninth century, Emperor Nikephoros imposed a compulsory loan on the shipowners of Constantinople, who were still subject to payment of the “usual kommerkia.” 35 In both these cases, the kommerkion was a duty on the circulation of commodities, and it clearly served as a continuation of the duty imposed by Justinian I in the sixth century when he set up the customs houses at Abydos and 32 Ecloga, 166. 33 See N. Oikonomides, “Tribute or Trade? The Byzantine-Bulgarian Treaty of 716,” Studia Slavicobyzantina et Medievalia Europensia 1 (1988): 29–31. 34 Theophanes, 1:469–70. 35 Ibid., 475, 487.
The Role of the Byzantine State in the Economy 987 Hieron to control the goods being imported into the economic region of Constantinople. 36 The kommerkiarioi were involved in the collection of tax even inearlier times. As far back as the seventh and eighth centuries, we find kommerkiarioi who were simultaneously dioiketai or genikoi logothetai, that is, tax collectors. There are also seals belonging to imperial kommerkia whose geographical jurisdiction was defined by the boundaries of a dioikesis, which wasatax unit. These combinations of titles allow us to hypothesize that at a relatively early date the kommerkiarioi were involved in the collection of taxes on behalf of the state. In the late Roman period, the tax on the circulation and sale of goods was called the octava and it corresponded to 12.5% of their value. We can assume that this tax, or one similar to it, continued to be collected through the Dark Ages, the only difference being that now the whole process passed through the hands of the kommerkiarioi, those to whom the commercial activities of one ormore provinces were farmed out for one or two years. The process was “privatized,” and new methods and terms were introduced ipso facto. What, along general lines, was the role of the state in trade at a time of economic shrinkage whose features included increased self-sufficiency on the local level? There is ascenario that we can propose. In the seventh century, when the economy of the cities entered a period of decay, the kommerkiarioi—traditionally dealers in silk—undertook to represent the interests of the state in the provinces in which they already held a monopoly on the production and marketing of silk and in which they also engaged in other commercial activities. They managed the apotheke and its subdivisions, trading directly and also supervising (and taxing) other merchants (to whom they may have conceded certain rights). This was undoubtedly a profitable undertaking, since it involved at least one entire province, and it was leased by the state to the highest bidder for aset period of time. After the auction, the enterprise was taken over by private citizens of great wealth, who sometimes formed partnerships for the purpose; competition was fierce, and political support played an important part in securing the auction and concentrating a number of provinces in the hands of a single individual or partnership. In other words, there was a tendency forfavored citizens to monopolize the enterprises. The system functioned primarily in Asia Minor. Under the Isaurian emperors, the picture changed. Private kommerkiarioi all but disappeared and were replaced by the civil servants of the imperial kommerkia, whose activities, we can assume, were similar to those of their predecessors, which is why they continued to imprint a depiction of the emperor and the date on their seals: so as to facilitate control over the silk trade. The imperial kommerkia drew back from the zone in which war was being waged against the Arabs, congregating in western Asia Minor 36 For the Constantinople area in the middle Byzantine period and its unique fiscal features, see N. Oikonomides, “The Economic Region of Constantinople: From Directed Economy to Free Economy, and the Role of the Italians,” in Europa medievale e mondo bizantino, ed. G. Arnaldi and G. Cavallo (Rome, 1995).
Page 1 and 2: This is an extract from: The Econom
Page 3 and 4: 974 NICOLAS OIKONOMIDES of many par
Page 5 and 6: 976 NICOLAS OIKONOMIDES duced by Em
Page 7 and 8: 978 NICOLAS OIKONOMIDES ment and di
Page 9 and 10: The Role of the Byzantine State in
Page 13 and 14: words, they were compelled to buy o
Page 15: The Role of the Byzantine State in
Page 21 and 22: pal remuneration paid by the state
Page 25 and 26: erty and seems to have replaced the
Page 35 and 36: The State as Landowner The Role of
Page 37 and 38: were also set up in the lands conqu
Page 67 and 68:
The Role of the Byzantine State in
Page 69 and 70:
To conclude, let us note one unusua
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
number of western European merchant
Page 87 and 88:
show all

The Economic History of Byzantium - Dumbarton Oaks

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?