The Economic History of Byzantium From

428 GILBERT DAGRON

estates on the one hand, and, on the other, urban centers of administration, consumption, and redistribution: the oi«ko".178 The term applied to establishments whose importance and character differed vastly but that shared a common structure. Most often, at the center of the oikos lay an aristocratic dwelling, organized under the status of a semipublic, semiprivate foundation, that included not only members of the household or of the community, but a good number of dependents and poor people grouped into a little society of consumers. By virtue of their social importance, certain “houses” were directly administered by palace bureaus, and many enjoyed imperial privileges, or, as we have seen, fiscal grants. In effect, little by little, they took over the functions of the state and the institutional church with respect to the provisioning of the cities and the organization of charitable works. Whether large or small, these economic entities concurrently ensured the wealth of the “powerful” who made use of them and the regulation of the urban economy, a troublesome affair. Quite naturally, they owned wharves and shops, sometimes clustered in courtyards (aujlai´), which they might lease to others, and whose taxes they collected, or which they might exploit directly.

The competition between the monastic community and the aristocracy undoubtedly made the position of the guilds precarious. From the sixth century on, guild leaders complained that a good number of the ergasteria of Constantinople had become the property, or enjoyed the protection, of imperial dignitaries, imperial foundations, churches, hospices, or monasteries, thus escaping the shared obligations of the guilds. Thus these ergasteria, “given” to Hagia Sophia or to charitable institutions—and the oikoi in general—introduced disparities in the fiscal status of artisans and merchants that hurt the recognized guilds during the sixth to the tenth century.

But did they create a true parallel economy? It is doubtful, just as it is doubtful that, in the realm of agriculture, the difference in status between the large estates cultivated by paroikoi and small, independent properties created two distinct modes of exploitation. The studies of Paul Magdalino are illuminating in this regard.179 They suggest two models: that of autarky—more literary than truly economic—and that of the oikos, whose operations were complex. The pursuit of autarky, counseled in the eleventh century by Kekaumenos, might impel the aristocrat who lived on his own lands sufficiently to diversify his activities—both rural (cultivation and livestock farming) and artisanal (mills or rudimentary ergasteria)—so that he would depend on no one and have as little recourse as necessary to monetary exchange.180 It might also encourage a rich landowner, settled in town, to bring in products from his lands for his own consumption and to market the surplus. But this direct form of provisioning would

178Regarding the oikos, see, with respect to the early period, J. Gascou, “Les grands domaines, la cite´ et l’e´tat,” TM 9 (1985): 1–90; P. Magdalino, “The Byzantine Aristocratic Oikos,” in The Byzantine Aristocracy, ed. Angold (as above, note 129), 92–111; see the good explication in Harvey, Economic Expansion, 229–33.

179See P. Magdalino, “The Grain Supply of Constantinople, Ninth–Twelfth Centuries,” in Constantinople and Its Hinterland, ed. C. Mango and G. Dagron (Aldershot, 1995), 35–47, esp. 37–39.

180Kekaumenos, above, note 10; on the subject of “autarky,” see Hendy, Studies, 565–68; M. Kaplan,

Les hommes et la terre `a Byzance du VIe au XIe sie`cle: Proprie´te´ et exploitation du sol (Paris, 1992), 493ff.

have been a limited phenomenon, since it imposed constraints of transport and storage that would have been quite incompatible with urban life; we have little evidence of it. In the majority of cases, it is likely that the economic system of the oikoi followed normal procedure: on-site sale of regional production, the participation of intermediaries who marketed the products (as we see in the case of livestock intended for slaughter),181 numerous duties paid at every stage (and in particular at the skalai of Constantinople). The monasteries and pious foundations that owned a good number of wooden wharves in the eleventh century probably did not limit their use to the transportation of their own products: they would have drawn a profit from them. A Constantinopolitan monastery such as Pantokrator, which had emporia or aulai in certain cities or large villages on the Sea of Marmara and in Asia Minor (Panion, Rhaidestos, Koila, Madytos, Smyrna) probably would not have used these resources to dispose of its own products, but rather to collect duties and rents.182 The same would have held true for large landowners who were members of the laity.183 In short, the economies of pious or aristocratic “houses” and the “guild” economy had recourse to the same practices, just as, in the rural world, large estates and free villages had recourse to the same mode of exploitation. The differences between them were, above all, a matter of their fiscal status.

The Imperial Workshops Special mention must be made of products whose manufacture, storage, and distribution constituted a restricted sector, even a state monopoly: armaments and materiel (including the “Greek fire” whose formulation was in principle held secret), at least a portion of the equipment for the armies, certain categories of cloth, clothing and embroideries, goldwork for palace use, a fair number of copied or illuminated books, products of the mines, and, of course, coins.184 However, whereas documentation from the early period gives precise data regarding the workshops or arsenals that were scattered among the principal cities of the empire (Thessalonike, Adrianople, Nikomedeia, Caesarea of Cappadocia, Sardis, etc.), medieval sources devote little discussion thereto, giving the impression that nearly all the provincial installations vanished in the torrent of the invasions. Unless we view the kommerkiarioi of the seventh to ninth centuries as a new kind of official whose task it was to collect, store, distribute, and possibly market the state’s production through entrepoˆts (ajpoqh'kai)— above all, goods intended for the arming and provisioning of soldiers—a position that remains only a hypothesis,185 it should be recognized that this once important economic sector endured only in Constantinople, under the shadow of the palace.

181See below, 448–49.

182See above, note 158.

183See above, note 158, regarding Pakourianos, who owned a metochion at Mosynopolis, an aule at Peritheorion, and several kastra.

184See, in particular, the study by Kazhdan, “Tsekhi,” 150–53.

185It is that of several historians who stress the role of the state in maintaining economic activity during the Dark Ages: Hendy, Studies, 626–40, 654–62; the argument is adopted, with refinements, by J. F. Haldon, “Military Service, Military Lands, and the Status of Soldiers: Current Problems and

430 GILBERT DAGRON

Let us simply take stock of our meager knowledge. The new administrative structures made the archontes of the imperial workshops (ejrgodo´sia) and their assistants or foremen (meizo´teroi) dependent on the logothete of the eidikon.186 This structure undoubtedly included the archon of the Armamenton (a“rcwn tou' Armamej´ntou), an important figure attested as of the mid-ninth century, who bore the dignity of spatharios and, subsequently, of protospatharios.187 Seconded by a kartoularios, he directed the arsenal or several arsenals (fabricae) mentioned allusively in the sources, in the Magnaura or at the Golden Horn (under Maurice),188 adjacent to the Magnaura (under Nikephoros II Phokas),189 and in the deconsecrated buildings of St. Euphemia near the hippodrome (under Constantine V).190 Precedence lists and seals mention a factory and a store of arms intended specifically for the fleet, to` ka´ tw ajrmame´nton,191 but it seems quite likely that these state arsenals did not have the same importance as they did when their workers, the fabrikh´sioi, held a special place in the adventus procession of Justinian I, after the merchants and alongside the magistrianoi.192 A number of texts, among them the two chapters on the Cretan campaigns incorporated in the Book of Ceremonies, show that the equipping of the army was thereafter ensured in part by the eidikon and in part by dues and corve´es imposed on civilians by the strategoi of the themes acting as intermediaries. It is worth recalling that the Constantinopolitan saddlers’ guild, no doubt like several others, was answerable to the eparch under normal circumstances, but came under the orders of the protostrator with respect to “public service” and was paid out of the imperial treasury for these services.193

While the equipping of the army now rested only in part on centralized manufacture, this was not the case with respect to the luxury industry, which supplied the demand for clothing, fabrics, and embroideries intended for the emperor, the court, and foreigners whom the court sought to honor. The Book of the Eparch, and a contemporaneous text regarding the emperor’s “supply train” on his military campaigns, make a clear distinction between the cloth and clothing for which the palace maintained a manufacturing monopoly and what was purchasable on the open market (ejx ajgora'" ajpo` tou' fo´rou).194 It is certain that the clothing and various insignia conferred on dignitaries as symbols of their rank—the loroi, chlamydes, or skaramangia worn in

Interpretations,” DOP 47 (1993): 15–17, and A. Dunn, “The Kommerkiarios, the Apotheke, the Dromos, the Vardarios, and the West,” BMGS 17 (1993): 3–24. On the role of the kommerkiarioi, see Oikonomides, “Role of the State,” 984ff.

186Oikonomides, Listes, 123, 317; see also V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’Empire byzantin, 2 vols. (Paris, 1963–81), 2:325–46.

187Oikonomides, Listes, 57, 61, 155, 233; regarding the Armamenton, see Haldon’s discussion in

Byzantine Praetorians, 318–23.

188Georgius Cedrenus, ed. I. Bekker, 2 vols. (Bonn, 1838–39), 1:698 (hereafter Kedrenos); Patria, 3:155, ed. Th. Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum (Leipzig, 1901; repr. New York, 1975), 265; R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine (Paris, 1964), 455.

189Kedrenos, 1:709; Patria, 2:34, ed. Preger, 168; cf. Janin, Constantinople byzantine, 314.

190Theophanes, 1:440; Patria, 3:9, ed. Preger, 217.

191Oikonomides, Listes, 317 and n. 174.

192Haldon, Three Treatises, 138–41.

193EB, 14.1.

194EB, 4.1; 8.1; Haldon, Three Treatises, 112 (text), 230 (commentary).

ceremonies and often stored in churches or in the palace vestiaries—were manufactured in imperial workshops dedicated to the weaving or embroidering of precious fabrics, such as the one established in the Palace of Marina195 or another that was partially burned by lightning on 25 December 792.196 These workshops supplied the court of Constantinople, but also foreign courts (see Figs. 1–4): a letter of Romanos I mentions 100 skaramangia given to Symeon of Bulgaria, undoubtedly in fulfillment of the terms of a treaty of Leo VI.197 We also know that there existed “soap makers of the imperial wardrobe” (sapwnistai` tou' Bestiari´ou).198

The workshop of the imperial goldsmith is also well attested. Under Michael III, it produced a chalice decorated with precious stones and pearls, which the emperor had carried up to the altar of Hagia Sophia during the Festival of Lights by the spatharios who crafted it (spaqa´ rio" kai` crusoeyhth´") before making the formal offering himself.199 That individual, mentioned under the same title in the Kletorologion of Philotheos,200 is known in other sources as a“rcwn tou' crusocei´ou.201 The crowns ordered by the emperors for their personal use,202 as votive offerings in one church or another, or for diplomatic gifts, came from this same workshop.

One would like to know more about the organization of these state factories, which at this point, oriented more toward the needs of the palace and products of high luxury, played a smaller role in the city’s economic life than they had in the past. Undoubtedly, as at other times, the factories made use of significant numbers of slaves: During the persecutions of the second iconoclastic period, a Stoudite monk named Arkadios became a slave in a workshop that wove imperial cloth;203 the basilikoi` oijke´tai constituted a special category, and a novel of Leo VI sought to improve their lot.204 Did they

195Ch. Ange´lidi, “Un texte patriographique et ´edifiant: Le Discours narratif sur les Hode`goi,” REB 52 (1994): 144–45 (text and translation), 119–20 (commentary): Constantine V grants the monk Hypatios, in recompense for a service, the church of the Hodegoi, located near the Palace of Marina, where the imperial garments (basilikh` iJstourgikh` u”fansi") were woven.

196Theophanes, 1:469: more specifically, a workshop for gold embroidery: Basiliko`n ejrgodo´sion tw'n crusoklabari´wn kata` to`n crusi´wna. Regarding this type of gold embroidery, see A. Chatzemichale, “Ta` crusoklabarika` -surmate´i¨na-surmake´sika kenth´mata,” in Me´langes offerts `a Octave et Melpo Merlier `a l’occasion du 25e anniversaire de leur arrive´e en Gre`ce (Athens, 1956), 2:447–98.

197Theodore Daphnopates, Correspondance, ed. J. Darrouze`s and L. G. Westerink (Paris, 1978), ep. 6 (dated 924/925), 78–79.

198De cer., 2:15 (p. 578, line 17).

199De cer., 2:31 (p. 631).

200Oikonomides, Listes, 155.

201Theophanes Continuatus, 400; Leo Grammaticus, Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1842), 305; Georgius Monachus Continuatus, Vitae recentiorum imperatorum, in Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838), 892: Romanos Lekapenos was warned of a plot hatched by Anastasios, sakellarios and archon of the imperial gold workshop.

202Thus the three crowns that Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos “ordered to be manufactured” (De cer., 2:15 [p. 582]); the chapter describes the use of goldwork in general for the adornment of the palace.

203Theodore of Stoudios, ep. 390 (2:541).

204Novel 38 allows them to dispose of their property both during their lifetime and at the moment of their death: Novelles de Le´on VI, 150–53. On the importance of slavery in the imperial workshops, cf. Hadjinicolaou-Marava, Recherches, 25, 35, 45, 47; Kazhdan, “Tsekhi,” 152.

432 GILBERT DAGRON

depend on the guilds? It would seem doubtful. In an episode reported by Leo the Deacon, a similar term, su´sthma, is used with respect to the workers in the imperial textile workshops,205 but undoubtedly under the broader meaning of “group” or “body,” and not in the specialized sense of “corporation” (“guild”).

The Trades

There can be no question here of studying all the trades in this context, or of inventorying them. I have thus passed over those that need to be approached through archaeological analysis and that are treated separately in this book (construction, glass, metallurgy, etc.) and those that the sources mention only in passing. The remainder are grouped into three principal subheadings: money, the discussion of which supplements and details the treatment of the financing of the urban economy and serves as an introduction to the chapter regarding loans at interest;206 clothing, the focus being mainly on silk, without encroaching on the technical study devoted to this prestige material in this volume; and, finally, the important topic of provisioning. It is essential to stress again that Constantinople overshadows the rest of the empire with respect to the documentation available to us, but that it represents almost single-handedly the urban phenomenon in its pure state, until the awakening of the cities and the enrichment of a middle class during the eleventh and twelfth centuries multiplied the centers of consumption and appreciably enlarged demand.

The Handling of Money

Money Changers Money changers held a central position in the urban economy and in the construction of the town in the popular imagination. In Rome, numerous images and texts show the nummularii (trapezitae or mensarii) working at their tables with a coin scale and accounting registers, performing their money-changing and assaying activities, that is, the verification of the fineness and weight of the coins used in transactions; with the coins’ authenticity and soundness of their alloy assured, they were placed by the money changers in sealed sacks.207 In the large Byzantine cities, sources,

205Leonis Diaconi Caloe¨nsis historiae, ed. C. B. Hase (Bonn, 1828), 145–47; the passage is studied in A. Christophilopoulou, “Su´sthma basilikw'n iJstourgw'nÚ”Ena swmatei'o kratikw'n uJfantourgw'n`n toI

aijw'na,” in Buza´ ntionÚ Afiej´rwma sto`n Andrej´a Stra´ ton (Athens, 1986), 1:65–72. In the course of a plot in favor of the kouropalates Leo Phokas in 971, one of the plotters goes to find a friend, who is head of the basilikh` iJstourgi´a, and asks him to support the revolt meta` tou' `thn iJstourgikh`n aujtourgou'nto" susth´mato". One should interpret this to mean, I believe, “together with all of the staff ” of the factory. It should be noted again that there was no guild of laborers.

206See D. Gofas, “The Byzantine Law of Interest,” EHB.

207The bibliography, sparse for the Byzantine period, is rich and detailed for the Roman period. Of particular note is J. Andreau, La vie financie`re dans le monde romain: Les me´tiers de manieurs d’argent `a Rome entre le 1er sie`cle avant et le 3e sie`cle apre`s J.-C. (Rome, 1987); with respect to the Byzantine period, see the work of A. Laiou on lending at interest, especially “God and Mammon: Credit, Trade, Profit and the Canonists,” in To` Buza´ ntio kata` to`n 12o aijw'na,ed. N. Oikonomides (Athens, 1991), 261–300. A succinct discussion of the trades appears in Hendy, Studies, 242–53.

albeit less numerous, describe the same activities and the same individuals, designated by a variety of synonyms (trapezi´th", katalla´ kth", crusokatalla´ kth", kermatisth´", kollubisth´", zugosta´ th"). They operated their shops or set up their iron tables in commercial zones, in particular on the Mese where they disturbed the visit of Kilidj Arslan in 1161 by hammering on their iron change tables;208 their piles of money aroused the cupidity of rulers;209 they were folkloric figures, and the popular imagination accused them of working with loaded scales,210 or, in the case of Michael IV Paphlagon (who practiced the trade before becoming emperor), of coining false money.211 They filled a relatively simple role in an economy in which there was no coexistence of different monetary systems that would have necessitated currency conversions.212 However, they were extremely important in daily life, given the wide margins between the gold nomisma, the silver miliaresion, and the copper follis. Their presence in the city’s economy placed small change at the disposal of private individuals for use in purchases or gifts. Thus we are told that St. Markianos was in the habit of waking a trapezites in the middle of the night to convert a nomisma into folleis for distribution to the poor; the trapezites took advantage of the fact to demand an unduly high commission.213 Conversely, they alone were entitled to exchange for gold pieces the copper coins that shopkeepers accumulated, and they were barred from hoarding for fear of creating shortages, that is, for fear that they would engage in currency speculation based on denominational equivalencies.214 Because these activities were tied to coinage and to the circulation of money, the money changer, while engaged in private commercial activity, was also a public individual, subject more intensively than others to the supervision of the authorities,215 and required to answer to summons or requisitions concerning the minting of money or the gathering of older issues for replacement by newer ones.216

It should come as no surprise that the prefectural regulatory scheme emphasized the honesty required of money changers and expected them to produce unassailable witnesses to their moral character prior to their enrollment in the guild. It was expected that they not indulge in felonious practices (clipping or paring the gold of the

208Choniates, 120: here again they are called ajrguroko´poi ajgorai'oi.See also Robert de Clari’s description of the money changers, La conqueˆte de Constantinople, ed. Ph. Lauer (Paris, 1924), 91, pp. 88–89.

209That of Gainas as early as ca. 400: Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 8.4, PG 67:1524–25.

210Parastaseis 37, Patria, 3:89, ed. Preger 40–41, 247–48.

211Skylitzes, 390.

212Although in Constantinople the currency of the Islamic East may have circulated and, later, that of the Latin West.

213Life of Saint Markianos, para. 18, PG 114:449–52.

214EB, 9.5; 10.4; cf. C. Morrisson, “Manier l’argent `a Constantinople au Xe sie`cle,” in Eupsychia: Me´langes offerts `a He´le`ne Ahrweiler, 2 vols. (Paris, 1997).

215In particular to that of the eparch: Dig. 1.12.9; Bas. 6.4.2, § 9; Eisagoge, 4.6, Zepos, Jus, 2:243.

216The Book of the Eparch requires that he answer summons: EB, 3.1. In the early period, one of the functions of the money changer consisted in retiring from circulation the nomismata of usurpers or of emperors who had suffered the damnatio memoriae (Symmachus, Relationes, 29, MGH AA 6.1, 303–4).

434 GILBERT DAGRON

nomismata or the silver of the miliaresia, making counterfeit pieces), that they inform the eparch of counterfeiters or those trading in illicit coins,217 and that they respect standard rates of exchange, in particular for silver coins, which were worth 24 folleis and were not to be undervalued if intact and bearing the portrait of the emperor.218 To avoid the dilution of responsibility and the illicit practice of the trade, the Book of the Eparch stresses the personal responsibility of the money changers and lays emphasis on fixed locations for their activities: money changers could not, in the event of their absence, turn over the care of their trapezai (a bench or a simple table) to a slave, an action that might have given rise to embezzlement.219 They were limited to no more than two assistants, for whom they stood surety, to tally the coins.220 They were prohibited from sending their people into public squares or into the streets—that is, from putting them in contact with clients—and from conducting money-changing activities from which they might profit.221 Finally, they were required to expose individuals fraudulently making change “on the run” (the sakoullarioi).222 Nothing is said with respect to the commission earned on each currency transaction, which must nonetheless have been fixed.

Given that money changing borders on banking, it is likely that the activity of the trapezitai often extended toward deposit and credit activities—at the very least, shortterm loans provided on the spot to buyers at auctions and fairs.223 In the seventh century, John Moschos, speaking of a trapezites who is also an argyroprates,224 makes a distinction that was scarcely pertinent several centuries later, when the two specialties were considered complementary and when money speculators, having become wealthy and powerful, were uniformly treated as “money changers” (an allusion to their trade of origin) in order to be discredited more effectively.225

217EB, 3.1, 5.

218EB, 3.3.

219EB, 3.1.

220EB, 3.4.

221EB, 3. 6. The text specifies that the money changer may not give his subordinates whom he has sent forth as canvassers loga´ rion ei“te noumi´on, a phrase that is difficult to understand: “livres de compte et argent” (Nicole, Livre du pre´fet); “Geld in [Edelmetall-] oder [Kupfer-] Mu¨nze” (Koder, Eparchenbuch, with some hesitation); “monnaie en sacs scelle´s et monnaies en vrac” (Morrisson, “Manier l’argent”; see note 214).

222Regarding these “unlicensed” money changers, see Andreau, La vie financie`re, 249–51; the saccularii engaged in money changing by walking about the squares and carrying the coins in a bag, rather than exhibiting them on a stationary table; they took advantage of the fact to rob those who spoke to them. Ulpian characterizes them as “qui vetitas in sacculis artes exercentes, partem subducunt, partem subtrahunt” (Dig., 47.11.7).

223Regarding deposit services, see the zugosta´ th" of the apophthegma “Nau 48,” ROC 2 (1907): 176–77, who denies having received a sealed deposit of 500 nomismata on which his client seeks to borrow. Regarding short-term credit at auctions, cf. Andreau, La vie financie`re, 115, 137, 152; regarding credit at fairs, which undoubtedly would also have allowed buyers to move about without carrying excessive amounts of cash, cf. Symeon the New Theologian, Traite´s the´ologiques et ethiques, ed. J. Darrouze`s, vol. 2, 12.43–48 (p. 386), in which the loan is accidental; in this case, the products purchased are used to reimburse creditors in advance of other claimants: Peira, 26.1, Zepos, Jus, 4:113.

224Pratum spirituale, para. 185, PG 87:3057–61.

225See below, note 248.

With the expansion and the liberalization of the urban economy, the trade continued to develop, and even clerics became involved, provoking reaction from both the emperor and the patriarch. In a prostagma of 1151 or 1161, Manuel I Komnenos, stressing the incompatibility between the dignity of clerics and the corporal punishment meted out to money changers who contravened the prefectural regulations, ruled that clerics who had purchased “money-changing stalls” (katallaktika` trapezoto´pia) would be obligated to resell them to a “Roman” layman of good repute, whom they would present to the eparch as a substitute; he would receive the eparch’s seal without any payment for the prerogative.226 A little later, Patriarch Mark of Alexandria sought the opinion of the synod of Constantinople as to whether it was dangerous for a priest or a deacon to lend at interest or to become a money changer (katalla´ kth").227

Goldsmiths and/or Bankers The ambiguity of the term ajrguropra´ th"/argentarius has often been noted: the term refers to goldsmiths in some cases, bankers in others. Quite recently, Jean Andreau undertook to show that the ambiguity is removed by taking the chronology into consideration, and that the argentarii, prior to the fourth century, were never goldsmiths, but genuine bankers engaging in short-term credit at auctions, deposit services, certain forms of cashiering services, loans at interest, and often—in competition with the trapezitae—assaying coins and money changing.228

At the same time, however, in the Book of the Eparch (in which the argyropratai appear immediately after notaries, just before money changers, and ahead of artisans and merchants strictly speaking, a placement that corresponds with their place in the ceremonial)229 the description of their trade gives no glimpse of any activity other than goldsmithing and jewelry making. The argyropratai worked gold, silver, pearls, and gemstones exclusively;230 they not only manufactured and sold their own products, but also purchased objects from private individuals, for which purpose they kept ready sums of miliaresia on their counters on market days.231 They conducted appraisals and were requested, in the event of contradictory valuations, to refrain from arguing with each other.232 The prohibitions or controls are in keeping with the handling of precious

226Rhalles and Potles, Su´ntagma, 4:469; Zepos, Jus, 1:416–17, a prostagma of Manuel I, which simply repeats the text given by Balsamon; Do¨lger, Regesten, no. 1384; see Laiou, “God and Mammon.”

227Questions 5 and 27, Rhalles and Potles, Su´ntagma, 4:451–52, 468–70. Commenting on Canon 76 regarding the trades forbidden inside the courtyards of churches, Balsamon and Zonaras cite the kollubistai´ (in addition to the ka´ phloi), allude to the episode of Jesus driving the “merchants” from the Temple, and enumerate the measures taken by the patriarchs to expel the money changers from the environs of Hagia Sophia: Rhalles and Potles, Su´ntagma, 2:480–82.

228Andreau, La vie financie`re, 44 and n. 94, 62, 83, 137, 538–48.

229See, for example, the account of the triumph of Justinian in 559, during which the ajrguropra´ tai line the streets behind the office of the eparch and precede the pa´ nte" pragmateutai` kai` pa'n su´sthma (Haldon, Three Treatises, 140–41); De cer., 1.1 (pp. 12–13). The first are cited by name and distinguished from the guilds as a whole.

230EB, 2.1.

231EB, 2.2–3.

232EB, 2.2, 11.

436 GILBERT DAGRON

materials whose export was prohibited and which were frequently subject to theft and thus became stolen goods: without special authorization, goldsmiths or smelters233 were prohibited from purchasing more than a pound (324 g) of gold or silver at one time; they could not exercise their trade at home—that is, without supervision—but only in the workshops of the Mese.234 Any alteration of metals entailed severe punishment; the eparch was to be notified of objects or jewels whose provenance or destination was suspect, or of consecrated articles improperly deconsecrated, or of objects offered for sale by women or by foreigners suspected of seeking to export them.235 As with money changers, the regulations stress the requisite presence of the goldsmith at his shop, the surety required to open a shop, and the responsibilities of the head of the corporation, in a trade that seems to have included many slaves, perhaps because of the technical skill of certain foreigners, but also because wealthy investors took an interest in the profitable profession and assigned to it an individual who was wholly dependent on them.

Should we conclude that the argyropratai of the early tenth century had no activity other than goldsmithing and see in this a retrenchment in the economic life of Byzantium relative to that of Rome? Certainly not. In the Byzantine sources, the argyropratai appear as either simple goldsmiths or as goldsmiths of such wealth that they quite naturally extended their activities toward lending at interest, or, finally, as genuine money handlers operating at a notch above money changers. Anastasios the Persian was hired as an apprentice with true goldsmiths/jewelers in Hierapolis/Mabbug and subsequently in Jerusalem.236 However, in the account of John Moschos, noted above, we see a money changer who negotiates the purchase of a precious stone as would a goldsmith and financier;237 the Miracles of Saint Artemios present a reader of the church of St. John Prodromos in the Oxeia of Constantinople, whose parents live dia` tou' crusokatallaktikou' kai` shmadarikou' po´rou—concomitantly money changers and lenders; they try, in vain, to have their son learn the trade: weighing coins to within a margin of 1⁄6 of an ounce, using loaded scales, offering usurious lending rates, and making unlimited profit on pawned or pledged objects.238 There is no ambiguous semantic distinction here, but rather a continuity in practice between goldsmithing and banking. Whether goldsmiths or not, the argyropratai of the exemplary tales and of the chronicles were very wealthy individuals, who had significant assets at hand and knew how to make them grow.239

233It is difficult to say whether these are synonymous or represent two different guilds.

234Regarding this localization see Chronicon Paschale, 1:623, on the fire of 532.

235EB, 2.4–8, 10. The theme of the fraudulent resale of a sacred vessel is often treated in the hagiographic literature.

236Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse, 1:48–51 (Actes anciens, 8, 10), 310–13 (Passion me´taphrase´e, 3).

237Pratum spirituale, para. 185, PG 87:3057–61.

238Miracle 38, ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Varia Graeca Sacra, 62. In Vie de Jean de Chypre, chap. 40, pp. 392, 502, the trapezi´th" whose business fares badly for as long as he neglects to give to the poor is probably also a money changer/usurer.

239See, for example, Vie et re´cits de l’abbe´ Daniel de Sce´te´, 10, ed. L. Clugnet, ROC 5 (1900): 370–84; Sophronios, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Encomium of Saints Kyros and John, Miracle 32, ed. N. Fernandez Marcos, Los Thaumata de Sofronio: Contribucion al estudio de la incubatio cristiana (Madrid, 1975),

It is worth noting that the goldsmiths of the Book of the Eparch conducted valuations that may correspond to loans on collateral and tallied their silver coins just as the money changers tallied their copper change. The precious materials and the luxury objects that they handled constituted a portion of their fortune and undoubtedly were often resold. Worked gold and silver, like gems or pearls, represented forms of savings or exchange in Byzantium, as much as they constituted works of art: inventories appraised them according to weight. In his testament (1090), Symbatios Pakourianos notes that he used his wife’s dowry of 50 pounds of gold in specie to purchase various silver objects to which she holds title, and we find gold and silver objects in her own assets several years later (1098).240 Silk cloth, dyed silks, and silk garments had a somewhat similar character. Nor is it surprising to find among the novels of Leo VI four measures that can be linked to one another, outlining a policy of reflation and economic “liberalization”: (1) the lifting of a ban on the sale of scraps of purple cloth;241

(2) the lifting of restrictions on the manufacture and sale of gold and precious objects “whose use is not reserved to the emperors alone”;242 (3) the confirmation of the legality of lending at interest;243 and, finally, (4) the authorization to allow coins from prior reigns to circulate (on condition that they be genuine and unaltered) to avoid a shortage in legal tender that would have been harmful to commerce.244

If the Book of the Eparch describes only the goldsmiths, it is because it takes sole interest in those aspects of the activity of their corporation that fell under the direct jurisdiction of the prefecture. It leaves aside those activities governed by imperial legislation or by specific canonical texts regarding lending at interest.245 In these sources, the argyropratai are portrayed above all as specialists in credit activities, well organized as a guild, considered to hold a public function,246 with accounting books that can attest to their good faith,247 ranked above money changers both socially and hierarchically,248

308–12. In the account De sacerdotio Christi (BHG 810–811), the very wealthy Jew who refuses to convert is an ajrguropra´ th"Ú ed. A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon (Leipzig, 1928), 2:620–25, s.v. “ Ihsouj`" Cristo´".”

240Iviron, 2: no. 44 (line 5) and no. 47 (line 52). See also the daughter of Michael Psellos, whose dowry totals 50 pounds of gold: 10 in specie, 20 in objects of value, and 20 pounds being the value of the dignity of protospatharios: Sathas, MB, 5:205, lines 8–24.

241Novelles de Le´on VI, 80 (pp. 272–75).

242Novelles de Le´on VI, 81 (pp. 275–77). This law is explicitly linked to the preceding one.

243Novelles de Le´on VI, 83 (pp. 280–83).

244Novelles de Le´on VI, 52 (pp. 198–201), which simply reproduces CI 11.11.1, and 3.

245See Gofas, “Interest,” and Laiou, “Exchange and Trade,” 732–35.

246Dig. 2.13.10.2 Bas. 7.18.10. It bears recalling that CI 12.57.12 (of 436) barred those who devoted themselves to commerce, including the trapezitai and sellers of precious stones, silver, or garments, from taking any public office, so that the militia would avoid any dishonor; CI 12.34.1–4 (of 528–529), however, carved out an exception for the argenti distractores of Constantinople, who were allowed to keep their position on condition of abandoning trade of any sort. One is reminded, with respect to this period, of the ajrguramoibo´" Peter Barsymes, who became praefectus praetorio per Orientem after the fall of John the Cappadocian: Prokopios, Historia arcana, 22.3).

247CI 4.21.22 Bas. 22.1.80, § 5 and scholion 8.

248In the rankings, the trapezitai always follow the argyropratai. This is the case in John of Ephesos’ description of the extravagances of the emperor Tiberius II with respect to the scholastici, the physicians necnon et argentarios et trapezitas (Ioannis Ephesini Historiae ecclesiasticae pars tertia, trans. E. W.