The Economic History of Byzantium From

408 GILBERT DAGRON

The Functioning of the Guilds While there were no distinctions of status among the guilds,57 there were, nonetheless, great disparities. The names of the guilds varied, as did the titles of their officials, the terms of admission, and the entry fees ceded to the eparch, to the guild itself, or to other members. The wish to codify practice did not manage to erase professional particularities, rooted, undoubtedly, in ancient tradition. The guilds are in the first instance presented as communities (su´llogo", koino´th" tou' susth´mato").58 Sometimes it is specified that they were organized as professional training entities, conducting that function either through qualified instruction59 or through simple apprenticeships,60 and that they admitted new members or at least proposed and defended their candidacy.61 They managed funds (supplied in particular by annual assessments or by entry fees levied on new members),62 which financed the performance of certain corve´es, or the ceremonies, processions, and celebrations attendant upon the feast of a patron saint, the initiation of a new member, or the funeral of a deceased associate.63 Numerous provisions have to do with rules of mutual courtesy and of moral obligation, as well as the arbitration functions of the head of the guild in the event of infractions, be it a lapse of manners on the part of a notary failing to salute his colleague, a quarrel between goldsmiths regarding an appraisal,64 or unfair competition.65 These communities were thus quite lively and active, even if the system of prefectural regulation viewed them above all as instruments of control, economic regulation, and fiscal apportionment.

The terms of admission appear to have been extremely varied. One exceptional case—the admission of a new notary into a syllogos limited to twenty-four members— entailed statements by witnesses and guarantors, an examination of the candidate’s knowledge and competence, deliberation and vote by the notaries and professors of law, nomination by the eparch, and finally an oath by the candidate, who subsequently paid 3 nomismata to the primikerios, one to each of his colleagues, and six “for the pot,”

57The expression politika` swmatei'asimply means “guilds of the City” ( of Constantinople), and there are no grounds for making a distinction between “public” guilds and “independent” guilds, for which there is no evidence. Schreiner, “Organisation,” 50, 52, 56.

58EB, 5.3; 6.8; 9.3.

59EB, 1.13–14, with respect to notaries.

60See below, 411–12 and notes 138–40.

61EB, 1.1, 3; 4.5.

62EB, 21.9; 6.6; 7.3; 8.10.

63EB, 1.3, 9, 26; 21.9. It is certain that festivals, about which the Book of the Eparch speaks only allusively, occurred regularly and were specific to each trade; one in particular was the Feast of the Notaries on 25 October, which included not only a procession, but also entertainment deemed reprehensible by Patriarch Loukas Chrysoberges (1157–70); cf. Balsamon’s commentary on Canon 62 of the Council in Trullo, Rhalles and Potles, Su´ntagma, 2:449–52; see also A. E. Laiou, “The Festival of Agathe: Comments on the Life of Constantinopolitan Women,” in Buza´ ntionÚ Afiej´rwma sto`n Andrej´a Stra´ ton, ed. N. Stratou (Athens, 1986), 1:111–22.

64EB, 1.6–11, 20; 2.12.

65For example, bidding up rents, or hiring a competitor’s worker while he is still under contract; see below, 404.

that is, for the celebrations that followed.66 The chapters regarding the other guilds scarcely permit us to draw so precise a picture. Membership was granted not to paid workers or to the possible proprietors of the premises, but rather to those who used and were responsible for the ergasteria. They were enrolled in this capacity in the eparch’s register and received his “seal,” which granted the right to practice and, at the same time, denoted administrative dependency.67 The Book of the Eparch envisions the admission of slaves into guilds with the guarantee of their master; it provides so explicitly for goldsmiths, raw silk merchants (the metaxopratai), silk garment makers, and soapmakers,68 that is, (and the reasoning will become apparent) for noble and lucrative trades. There is one exception: the guild of silk dressers, from which nonfreemen and the poor were excluded in order to avoid the dissipation of raw material and the participation of individuals lacking the social stature and the means sufficient to participate in large-scale business.69 The text is silent on the subject with respect to the more humble professions, regarding which the distinction is undoubtedly unimportant. It is difficult to ascertain whether women were admitted to the guilds; legislation prohibited their entry into that of goldsmiths/bankers,70 and the Book of the Eparch makes passing reference to women only as among the indigent workers involved in the preparation of silk outside any tie to the guilds.71

While the Book of the Eparch enunciates procedures to verify qualification and admission solely with respect to notaries, testimony as to the candidate’s integrity or the moral and financial surety of five “honorable persons” or “members of the guild” is required for goldsmiths, money changers, silk cloth merchants, raw silk merchants, silk cloth manufacturers, soapmakers, and swinemongers.72 A new member certainly would have paid the guild an entrance fee, but it is explicitly mentioned only for silk cloth merchants, raw silk merchants, and silk cloth manufacturers.73 Soapmakers, more tightly controlled because of the materials they used and bound to specific requirements, were required to pay 6 nomismata to the state and six also to the imperial vestiarion, possibly in lieu of, or in addition to, the entry fee.74 The presentation to the eparch and his consent were evidently mandatory for the enrollment of a new member and in some cases are specifically mentioned.75

It is with respect to the nomination or election of the guilds’ leadership that the

66EB, 1.1, 3, 13, 14; cf. E. Papagianni, “Byzantine Legislation on Economic Activity Relative to Social Class,” EHB.

67This “seal” was held to be incompatible, as a matter of principle, with the status of clerics; see below, 418–19.

68EB, 2.8–10; 4.2; 6.7; 8.10; 12.9.

69EB, 7.5–6.

70CIC, Dig. 2.13.12 Bas. 7.18.12.

71EB, 7.2.

72EB, 2.10; 3.1; 4.5; 6.6; 7.3; 8.10; 12.2; 16.1.

73EB, 4.5–6 (6 nomismata); 6.6; 7.3 (2 nomismata); 8.10 (3 nomismata).

74EB, 12.2.

75EB, 4.6; 7.3; 12.2.

410 GILBERT DAGRON

ambiguity of the Book of the Eparch—and perhaps of the institutions themselves—is most pronounced. The procedure is described only with respect to the primikerios, “promoted” by the eparch following the advice and consent of the notaries, following a hierarchical order that must reflect seniority;76 but it is difficult to be certain whether this represents a model or an exception. It is necessary to distinguish in the first instance the prosta´ tai, prwtosta´ tai, or prostateu´onte",77 leaders and representatives selected by the members of the guild and undoubtedly approved or confirmed by the eparch, and the e“xarcoi, prefectural officers assigned to supervise one guild or another, in particular those relating to the silk trade.78 It is possible that the guilds that fell under the guardianship of an “exarch” did not have their own representatives: such would seem to be the case for the silk garment merchants, for whom an exarch (who seems to have been paid through sportulae) was “designated” by the eparch to distribute the shipments of Syrian imports.

It should come as no surprise that representation would have been more diffuse for merchants dealing in essential goods: fishmongers had several prostateu´onte" and tavern keepers had several proestw'te"79; neither grocers nor bakers seem to have had formally recognized representatives, and they are spoken of collectively, perhaps because the former had shops scattered throughout Constantinople,80 and the latter were not subject to any liturgia; the allocation of contributions would thus not have been an issue for the prefecture.81 Leatherworkers, for precisely the opposite reason, were strictly regulated and the chapter devoted to their trade grants them, exceptionally, a special status by reason of the weight of multiple obligations that they bear: it is the eparch who names their representatives. Saddlers fell under the direct and personal authority of the eparch by virtue of their obligations to the treasury (undoubtedly the supplying of the army) and under the authority of the protostrator with respect to their obligations to the emperor (that is, supplies for the palace).82

The City and the Tradespeople

The Economic Role of the Eparch and the Prefecture Between a quasi-freedom of association and a partial dependence on the eparch, there thus existed a wide variety of individual situations, all the more difficult to place in a broad context in that the Book of the Eparch gives precious little information regarding the organization of the eparch’s office itself. It devotes a brief chapter to a “delegate” (legata´ rio"), an individual of no

76EB, 1.22. In the event that the notaries judged the candidate to be unfit, the second on the list was chosen.

77EB, 11.1; 14.1–2; 16.3; 17.3–4; 21.9.

78EB, 5.1, 3; 6.4. See N. Oikonomides, Les listes de pre´se´ance byzantines des IXe et Xe sie`cles (Paris, 1972), 112–13, 321.

79EB, 17.1, 3; 19.1.

80EB, 13.1.

81EB, 18.2.

82EB, 14.1–2.

doubt some importance, since he was appointed by the emperor upon the nomination of the eparch and was entrusted with regulating the trade activities of foreigners.83 It makes several mentions of a single “assistant” (su´mpono"),84 alludes to “exarchs” only, as we have seen, in relation to sellers of Syrian manufactured goods, and notes in passing, with respect to manufacturers of silk stuffs, employees charged with the task of affixing the prefectural seals (boullwth´") or with inspecting the quality of the yarn (mitwth´").85 The Kletorologion of Philotheos, which predates the Book of the Eparch by a dozen or so years, gives a more detailed description in which appear not only the office of the eparch, strictly speaking, in its double policing and economic role, but also the heads of the trades (prosta´ tai), who derived their authority from the eparch and whom court ceremony placed next to prefectural functionaries.86 This remains, however, but a rough sketch. John Tzetzes, in the twelfth century, is undoubtedly nearer the mark, when, to show the various constraints and the levies to which fishmongers are subject, he details a long list of prefectural agents who inspect, register, oversee, and demand their cut.87

Despite the absence of any systematic account, the Book of the Eparch is explicit on the role of the prefecture in the economy. Certain provisions correspond simply to policing and urban administrative functions. (1) The prefecture ensured the application of the prefectural seal on all units and instruments of measure: containers, weights, “Roman” scales, assaying scales;88 this quantitative control was also directed at the length and diameter of candles sold by the chandlers.89 (2) Other directives seek to prevent fraud in product quality, in unminted gold or silver, candles, soap, and silk fabric, for example.90 (3) Either directly or by means of the “money changers,” the prefecture pursued individuals circulating counterfeit or clipped coins, as well as those speculating on monetary exchange (charging higher rates than normal for the changing of a silver miliaresion, hoarding and selling bronze noummia at profit), or those refusing to accept the nomisma tetarteron, and the “two quarters” that bore the stamp of authenticity.91 (4) The prefecture used the guilds to watch over the provenance of precious objects or livestock offered for sale and to check the theft of goods or their resale.92 (5) With respect to retail sales of beverages, it set the hours of opening and

83EB, 20.1–3. The title does not appear in the Kletorologion of Philotheos, which may indicate that it was created between 899 and 912.

84EB, 14.2; 18.1, 4; 19.1. In chapter 14.2, kai` ejn eJni` suntelou'si tv' sumpo´nv may indicate that the pelters and the tanners “collectively fall under the jurisdiction of the assessor” and not that they “share the same assessor” (emphasis added). In the Kletorologion of Philotheos, the su´mpono" is certainly a single functionary (see below, note 93).

85EB, 8.3.

86Oikonomides, Listes, 113, commentary at pp. 319–21.

87Ioannis Tzetzae Epistulae, ed. P. A. M. Leone (Leipzig, 1972), ep. 57, pp. 81–82 (hereafter Tzetzes):

ejpo´ptai, ejpithrhtai´ prwtokagkella´ rioi, manda´ tore", dome´stikoi, etc.

88EB, 6.4; 10.5; 11.9; 12.9; 13.2, 5; 16.6; 19.4.

89EB, 11.6.

90EB, 2.5; 8.3; 11.4; 12.4–5, 8.

91EB, 3.1, 3, 5; 3.3; 9.5; 10.4; 11.9.

92EB, 2.6–7; 21.3.

412 GILBERT DAGRON

closing.93 (6) Finally, the prefecture arbitrated disagreements that the guilds found themselves unable to resolve94 and implemented basic rules to discourage unfair competition: hiring a laborer working for a colleague prior to the end of the month for which he has already been paid by the latter,95 bidding up the rent of a competitor whom one would see evicted in order to obtain the location,96 and disregard for commitments made under an agreement.97 The tacking-on to the Book of the Eparch of a concluding and somewhat extraneous chapter concerning the building trades can be attributed to the fact that this sector was wracked by a particularly large number of disagreements regarding, we are told, the competence of the workers, guarantees as to the stability of construction, the payment of deposits on the conclusion of an agreement, possible delays in supplying a work site with materials or the abandonment of the work site by specialized artisans, and the revision of an initial estimate.98 Nonetheless, the stated rules do not, by a wide margin, cover or explicate the totality of normal practices. Thus on several occasions the Book of the Eparch mentions deposits or partial payments made by the purchaser at the time an order is placed, or at the conclusion of a negotiation, but it is a letter of Ignatios the Deacon (in the first half of the 9th century) that details the conventional rate: 25% of the total price.99

The corporative organization allowed the city eparch to impose a number of obligations (or cash redemption thereof), without having to concern himself with their apportionment, which would have been ensured by the man responsible for each guild; on this issue as well, however, the Book of the Eparch is far from exhaustive, alluding only briefly to a requisitioning of the saddlers on behalf of the court or the army,100 to the obligation that devolved on horse dealers to maintain a sewer,101 to public offices entrusted on occasion to money changers,102 and to mandatory attendance at imperial ceremonies, a requirement that applied to notaries in particular, but which we know held true for nearly all the guild representatives.103 Thanks to other texts, we can suppose that the list of required services was much more extensive (guard duty at the ramparts of the city;104 providing equipment, horses, or money for the military campaigns; lighting, cleaning, and decorating the city or the palace).

93EB, 19.3.

94EB, 1.10–11.

95EB, 6.3; 8.10.

96EB, 4.9; 9.4; 10.3; 11.7; 13.6; 18.5; 19.2.

97EB, 18.5.

98EB, 23.1–4.

99EB, 6.11; 9.2; 10.5; 11.5; 23.1; see A. P. Kazhdan, “Ignatios the Deacon’s Letters on the Byzantine Economy,” BSl 53 (1992): 197–201.

100EB, 14.1.

101EB, 21.9; the meaning is uncertain.

102EB, 3.6.

103EB, 1.4.

104When the emperor went on campaign, he tallied the number of men remaining to defend the city—soldiers of the tagmata, organized groups answerable to the eparch (among them, the members of the guilds)—and made certain that each of these groups knew its precise post on the ramparts: ejn poi´v me´rei e”kaston tou´twn tw'n susthma´ twn fula´ xei th`n po´lin ejn kairv' ejpidhmi´a" ejcqrw'n…J. F. Haldon,

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions (Vienna, 1990), 86–87, 162;

Ensuring the most regular provisioning possible and avoiding excessive price fluctuations were always elements of the role assigned to the officials of large cities, where shortages could easily provoke riots, and where the eparch served as a shield to deflect malcontents from taking their demands to the emperor himself. The Book of the Eparch reflects this tradition in prohibiting various merchants from stockpiling products in order to sell them more dearly in times of shortage.105 Hoarding and speculation were severely punished, and the prices of products that were sensitive to fluctuations (bread, fish, meat, wine) were established by consultation between the guilds and the prefecture.106

The rules applicable to large-scale commerce are the subject of another chapter.107 Mention should be made here, however, of the careful supervision carried out by the prefecture (and, in particular, of the “delegate” appointed for this purpose) over foreigners who had come to Constantinople to engage in commerce, the disposition of their merchandise, and its control of certain valued luxury products whose export was prohibited. Most of these limitations, moreover, targeted not only Bulgarians, Arabs, or other foreigners, but also non-Constantinopolitans, to such an extent that Constantinople, from an economic perspective, seems less the capital of an empire than an imperial city operating under a special status.

Beyond these activities of control—all of them quite ordinary—there emerge several principles that define an economic policy: first of all, the concern to distinguish to the extent possible between producers and sellers, to prohibit the simultaneous exercise of more than one trade and membership in two different guilds,108 and to check the growth of multifunctional businesses. A precept of Callistratus, repeated in the Digest and in the Basilics, had already sought to discourage fishermen and peasants from bringing their products to town in order to sell them there themselves.109 The Book of the Eparch follows the same intent in explicitly or implicitly condemning itinerant sales or illicit street peddling (the existence of which is nonetheless amply attested; see Fig. 5),110 in requiring artisans-shopkeepers to exercise their trade in suitable locations rather than in their place of residence, and in grouping trades to the extent possible

idem, Byzantine Praetorians: An Administrative, Institutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and Tagmata (Bonn, 1984), 256–75, esp. 258–59, 266–70. In this text, the susth´mata may designate not only the guilds but also, under a common meaning, all organized groups.

105EB, 10.2; 11.3; 13.4; 16.5; 20.3.

106EB, 15.1–2; 17.1, 4; 18.1, 4; 19.1. Regarding the terms and conditions, see below, 447, 448–49,

451.

107See, Laiou, “Exchange and Trade,” 723ff.

108EB, 4.7; 5.1; 8.6; 10.1, 6; 11.2; 21.7. On this issue, see B. Malich, “Wer Handwerker ist, soll nicht Kaufmann sein—ein Grundsatz des byzantinischen Wirtschaftsleben im 8/9 Jahrhundert,” in Studien zum 8. und 9. Jahrhundert in Byzanz, ed. H. Ko¨pstein and F. Winkelmann (Berlin, 1983), 47–59.

109CIC, Dig. 50.11.2 Bas. 53.6, 7. Callistratus is referring to Plato.

110See in particular EB, 2.2, 6 (money changers); 11.1 (chandlers); 21.3 (horse traders). Itinerant selling was a common practice with respect to food products (fish, fresh vegetables, fruits, clotted milk), as well as inexpensive manufactured goods: cf. Poe`mes prodromiques en grec vulgaire, ed. D. C. Hesseling and H. Pernot (Amsterdam, 1910), 77–78 (IV, lines 93–96, 109–13, 121–29); Tzetzes, ep. 57, p. 81 (lines 16–30); cf. Ph. Koukoules, Buzantinw'n bi´o" kai` politismo´", vol. 2.1 (Athens, 1948), 239–41; idem, Qessaloni´kh" Eujstaqi´ou Ta` Laografika´ (Athens, 1950), 1:400–402.

414 GILBERT DAGRON

in specialized streets or quarters, which have left their mark on the place names of Thessalonike as well as Constantinople. Thus a true urban economy is outlined: the state’s function was less to control than to ensure a level of specialization and qualification, which was hardly compatible with the common practice of small-scale regional trade. To combat this tendency toward disintegration, the Book of the Eparch very clearly expresses a desire that sales not be conducted immoderately on a retail basis (katakermati´zesqai) and provides for the collective purchase of certain consignments by the members of the guilds, with redistribution proportional to the respective level of investment,111 thus avoiding competing encumbrances—under this system, direct sale and the proliferation of intermediaries, on the one hand, and, on the other, an excessive fragmentation of trade. It was hoped that the shopkeepers would have had sufficient funds to participate in large transactions, but it was intended that they retain their solidarity and that the wealthiest of them not band together to form a great financial power.

Underlying the policing and control functions with which the prefecture was vested, it is thus likely that there existed a concern not so much to “plan” the urban economy as to maintain it at a high level and ensure the survival of a class of merchants and specialized artisans threatened by the excessive dispersal of production and commercialization, the existence of parallel networks, and the power of money handlers.

The Political and Social Importance of “Trades” During the ninth and tenth centuries, in seeking to give the impression that the entire capital or the whole empire is participating in a particular event or a ceremony, the chroniclers rarely fail to name—to- gether with the archontes and dignitaries or “senators” (a“rconte", sugklhtikoi´)—the citizens, the “demotes,” and the artisans-merchants (poli´tai, dhmo´tai, ejrgasthriakoi´).112 These represent the people of the city from three principle perspectives: the citizenry as a whole, the factions, and the “trades,” all coexisting under a peaceable complementarity. Thereafter, social representation changes completely, and the sources that describe the riots of the eleventh to twelfth century note the rise in power of a social category ambiguously designated as oiJ ajgorai'oi113. One can perceive in this expression a contempt from on high for “street people”—the manual workers and the small tradesmen, characterized, as were the “demotes” in other times, as agitators.114 It is not a matter solely of the ergasteriakoi registered in the guilds, but also of their laborers,

111EB, 5.2; 6.8; 7.5; 9.1, 3, 6; 16.3; 17.3; 18.3.

112See the sources cited above, 397–99; with respect to ceremonial occasions, cf. De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J. J. Reiske, 2 vols. (Bonn, 1829–30), 1:1; 2:15, 21 (pp. 11–14, 579); see also the triumphal procession of Justinian in 559, Haldon, Three Treatises, 140–41.

113Other designations are to` ajgorai'on, pa'n` toth'" ajgora'",”son dhmw'de" kai` ajgorai'on,and o”soi th'" ajgora'" ´turbh" kai` tw'n banau´swn… Michel Psellos, Chronographie, ed. E. Renauld, 2 vols. (Paris, 1926–28), 1:96, 102–16; 2:83; Michaelis Attaliotae Historia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1853), 12–13, 70–71, 270 (hereafter Attaleiates); Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed. I. Thurn (Berlin–New York, 1973), 498 (hereafter Skylitzes).

114See the analyses of S. Vryonis, Jr., “Byzantine Dhmokrati´a and the Guilds in the Eleventh Century,” DOP 17 (1959): 289–314.

and thus of a world of diverse and organized labor, recognized as having leaders, and in which Kekaumenos suggests keeping spies to discover what is afoot in the city.115 Just as Prokopios in the sixth century held the “colors” of the hippodrome responsible for the divisions in the empire, so too Niketas Choniates, at the end of the twelfth century, blames the diversity of trades and the existence of quarters differentiated by ethnicity for the fickleness of public opinion and the unpredictability of political reactions in Constantinople.116 At a distance of six centuries, the same language applies to two radically different realities.

While the title of “senator” had long since ceased to confer real political power, the opening of the senate to tradesmen in the second half of the eleventh century simultaneously reflected an urban economy undergoing a strong expansion, the demand of tradesmen and artisans who sought to add social privileges to the advantages of wealth, and an imperial policy anxious, until the accession of the Komnenoi, to gain the support of a new social class, as distant from the “little people” or the shopkeepers of the “agora” as it was from the landed aristocracy.117 If one is to believe Psellos, this new policy was, if not put into play, then at least systematized by Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–55), accused of upsetting the social equilibrium by opening the senate to “nearly all the people of the market and vagabonds,” and subsequently followed by Constantine X Doukas (1059–67), who is said to have dismantled the divide that separated senators from ordinary citizens by admitting to the senate “all sorts of manual laborers.”118 Looking beyond the hyperbole, we can see that it was an e´lite of merchants or representatives of the trades that received the title of senator, perhaps at a lower rank, since they did not receive silver crosses or silk cloth in conjunction with certain official ceremonies, as did senators of high birth.119 A little later, under Michael VII Doukas (1071–78) and subsequently Nikephoros III Botaneiates (1078–81), the dignities and the concomitant senatorial title may have been bestowed by skipping over intermediate ranks. Thus the number of senators is said to have grown to “myriads” and titles to have been devalued at the same pace as the currency.120

The advent of the Komnenian emperors may have marked a turning point. In any

115Ed. Wassiliewsky and Jernstedt, 5 (§ 10), and ed. Litavrin, 124 (§ 3) (as above, note 10). He may be describing the guilds, although the expression su´sthma could apply to any group or association, and in particular, in the early period, to the curiae of the cities (CI 10.19.9; John Lydos, De magistratibus, ed. A. C. Bandy [Philadelphia, 1983], 3.46 [p. 204]).

116Choniates, 233–34 (concerning the riot of 1171).

117P. Lemerle, Cinq ´etudes sur le XIe sie`cle byzantin (Paris, 1977), 287–93, 309–10; Hendy, Studies, 570–80.

118Psellos, Chronographie, 2:132, 145. Psellos also declares in his funeral oration on John VIII Xiphilinos (K. N. Sathas, Mesaiwnikh` Biblio h´kh, 7 vols. [Venice, 1872–94; repr. Hildesheim, 1972], 4:430–31) (hereafter Sathas, MB) that Constantine Doukas felt that there was no need to consider birth alone, nor to recruit senators solely from senatorial families, since doing so might have limited membership in the Senate to imbeciles.

119They are termed a“stauroi and a“blattoiÚ see Lemerle, Cinq ´etudes, 290.

120Attaleiates, 275; Constantini Manassis Breviarium historiae metricum, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1837), 285; Nicephori Bryennii Historiarum libri quattuor, ed. P. Gautier (Brussels, 1975), 4:1 (pp. 256–59) (hereafter Bryennios).

416 GILBERT DAGRON

event, a novel of Alexios I, the date of which is uncertain, settles restrictively a specific case with broad application, putting into question the status of merchants who have become senators: the emperor limits the right to swear an oath at their place of residence (rather than before the tribunal) to senators “who are not enrolled in a guild subject to the eparch and who have preserved the grandeur of their dignity,” as distinguished from susthmatikoi´ and those who, attracted by the lure of profits, have chosen to engage in commerce.121 It would be an exaggeration to seek the expression of a new policy in this particular response of Alexios Komnenos; more plausibly, it is the atavistic response of an aristocrat who gives pride of place to birth over wealth and distinguishes between the revenues of a landed aristocracy, on the one hand, and commercial profit on the other. The emperor may also have been shocked, as were the historians of the period, by a muddling of customary social criteria, which had always distinguished rank that attached to office and dignities attendant on the emperor from the position of clerics and monks (subject to the church’s supervision) and the position of tradespeople (subject to the eparch’s). Access to the senate by guild members, or, more specifically, the pursuit of a trade by a “tradesman” turned senator, was seen as the transgression of social order.

What may we then conclude regarding the social rank of artisans and merchants? First of all, it is essential to avoid confusing social rank with the scale of social values. The often-cited episode of Emperor Theophilos burning the merchant vessel of his wife, Empress Theodora, and reproaching her with having turned him into a naukleros when God had made him an emperor, signifies only that what was appropriate for a private individual was not appropriate for the holder of the basileia.122 It would be stretching to draw from this episode the idea that Byzantium held commerce in contempt. While, by tradition, commerce and artisanal activity continued to rank low in the social hierarchy,123 it is nonetheless essential to note the important position of artisans-merchants throughout the hagiography of the seventh century,124 in the letters of Theodore of Stoudios and even of some of his correspondents,125 in the Lives of

121Zepos, Jus, 1:645–46; F. Do¨lger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostro¨mischen Reiches, vol. 1.2 Regesten von 1025–1204 (Munich, 1925), no. 1091; Lemerle, Cinq ´etudes, 291–92: a merchant’s wife was involved in a lawsuit against her uncles—also merchants—who, arguing the privilege of their senatorial dignity, refused to come to the tribunal of the city eparch to swear an oath. Cf. Laiou, “Exchange and Trade,” 753–54, and Papagianni, “Byzantine Legislation.”

122Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838), 88–89; Iosephi Genesii, Regum libri quattuor, ed. L. Lesmu¨ller-Werner and I. Thurn (Berlin, 1978), 53; Ioannis Zonarae Epitome historiarum, ed. M. Pinder and T. Bu¨ttner-Wobst, 3 vols. (Bonn, 1841–97), 3:357–58.

123See the analyses of A. Giardina, “Modi di scambio e valori sociali nel mondo bizantino (IV–XII secolo),” in Mercati e mercanti nell’alto medioevo: L’area euroasiatica e l’area mediterranea (Spoleto, 1993), 523–84, esp. 530–36. Cf. Laiou, “Exchange and Trade,” 752–54.

124Leontios of Neapolis, Vie de Jean de Chypre, ed. A.-J. Festugie`re (Paris, 1974), § 14 (taverners or shopkeepers), § 40 (a money changer), § 51 (shoemakers), (pp. 362–63, 392, 401–2), Miracles of St. Artemios, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Varia Graeca Sacra (St. Petersburg, 1909; repr. Leipzig, 1975; and New York, 1997), miracles 21 (a chandler), 25 (a butcher), 26 (a blacksmith), (pp. 25–28, 35–39).

125Theodori Studitae Epistulae, ed. G. Fatouros, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1992), eps. 93 (a chandler), 94 (a perfumer), 260 and 261 (two linen merchants), (2:213–15, 389–90) (hereafter Theodore of Stoudios).

Basil the Younger and Andrew the Fool in the tenth century,126 and in the satirical or historical literature of the twelfth century. While cities recognized that their wealth depended on the skill of their tradespeople, artisans and merchants were forever subject to conflicting judgments: if poor, they were held up as examples of humility; if rich, they were tagged, following the age-old Roman tradition, as ludicrous or brazen upstarts.127

In fact, we are not dealing with a homogeneous social category. The members of the “guilds” comprised only a narrow layer of merchants; they did not in themselves come close to representing the entirety of the urban economy. Not only was there a world of highly diversified labor that participated in this economy, but also an aristocracy that knew how to make its capital—or its influence—yield profits. What characterizes the eleventh and twelfth centuries was the growing difference between small street merchants (they were quick to riot, we are told) and the powerful merchants and financiers such as Kalomodios, who treated the archontes as equals, or the money changers and merchants of manufactured goods who had themselves granted the dignity of sebastos during the reign of Alexios III Angelos.128 Conjoining them in the category of ajgorai'oi was merely a device of literary polemic. Impoverished writers such as John Tzetzes and Theodore Prodromos were simultaneously contemptuous of the little shopkeepers and dazzled by the higher-level artisans, whose technical mastery inspired their admiration and whose social success excited their envy.129

Beyond Constantinople, Post-Tenth Century In the absence of explicit sources, it is difficult to substantiate the existence of a system of guilds outside Constantinople, at least in fairly sizable towns or to prove that the system continued past the eleventh century, during the period in which the opening of the markets rang the death-knell of any and all state “direction” of the economy. We have only clues, which nonetheless tend to accord with one another. When travelers such as Benjamin of Tudela and al-Idrisi note the existence of significant artisanal presence in a city, one should not necessarily draw the conclusion that an organized guild is at issue; this, however, seems almost certain with respect to towns for which we have prefectural seals, such as Thessalonike and possibly Nicaea in the eighth or ninth century,130 or for those cities in which the state assigned corve´es or dues according to profession. When the De administrando impe-

126For the Life of St. Basil the Younger, see below, note 147.

127See Giardina, “Modi di scambio,” 579–84.

128Choniates, 483–84, 523–24. See also the individual named Mavrix in Bryennios, 197. This progressive social differentiation might account for the Peira (51.7 Zepos, Jus, vol. 4) distinguishing, in the 11th century, between swmatei'aand susth´mata, a distinction that would not have made sense in the 10th century; see Laiou, “The Festival,” 117.

129Poe`mes prodromiques, 73–79, 82–83 (IV, lines 1–142, 227–57); John Tzetzes seems to have obtained

a promise of revenues (perhaps a fiscal transfer) from three perfume shops: Tzetzes, ep. 83, lines 124–25 (a partially corrupt text). See P. Magdalino, “Byzantine Snobbery,” in The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Century, ed. M. Angold (Oxford, 1984), 57–78, esp. 66–68.

130 G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, 2 vols. in 6 fasc. (Basel, 1972), 1.1: no. 957 (Thessalonike); 1.2: no. 1436 (Thessalonike); 1.3: no. 3156 (Nicaea; the interpretation of this seal is somewhat uncertain).