the middle of the tenth century can hardly be considered well founded.87 The rank of eparch or prefect of Constantinople was applied in the Byzantine Empire to the governor of the capital; he was intrusted with almost unlimited authority, and stood, so to say, on the highest step of the Byzantine bureaucratic ladder. It was his duty, first of all, to maintain public order and safety in the capital, and for this purpose a large body of employees was placed at his disposal. The latter constituted a bureau known in Byzantium as the secretum of the eparch. Besides these duties, the eparch had also jurisdiction over the corporations and guilds of craftsmen and traders in the capital. The Book of the Eparch throws much light on this side of Constantinopolitan life, scarcely touched upon by earlier sources. It lists the various ranks of craftsmen and traders, and gives an account of the internal organization of their guilds, of the government's attitude to them, etc. The list of corporations of this document is headed by an organization which in our modern conception would not fall into the general class of craft or trade associations, namely, by the corporation of notaries (oi raßovλλápioi, tabularii). Then follow the guilds of jewelers, silk-producers, silkweavers, linen-makers, makers of wax, soap, leather, bakers. The list of traders found in the Book of the Eparch speaks of moneychangers, traders in silk goods and dresses, dealers in raw silk, sellers of perfumes, wax, soap; grocers, butchers, sellers of pigs, fish, horses, and bread, and tavernkeepers. Each corporation enjoyed a monopoly, and severe penalty was provided for anyone who attempted to pursue two trades, even if they were very similar. The internal life of the guilds, their organization and work, the grant of markets, the regulation of prices and profit, export and import from and to the capital, and many other problems were regulated under very strict government supervision. Free trade and free production were unknown in the Byzantine Empire. The eparch of Constantinople was the only high official who had the right to intervene perBT See, for example, A. Stöckle, Spätrömische und byzantinische Zünfte (Leipzig, 1911), pp. 147-48. Cf. P. V. Bezobrazov, in the Viz. Vrem., XVIII (1911), "Critics," pp. 33-36 (in Russian); C. Macri, L'organisation de l'économie urbaine dans Byzance sous la dynastie de Macédoine (Paris, 1925), p. 9. sonally, or through his representatives, in the life of the guilds and regulate their production or trade. The account of the Byzantine guilds found in this source provides data for an interesting comparison with the medieval guilds of Western Europe. The legislative works of Basil I and Leo VI in the ninth and tenth centuries brought about a temporary revival in the field of juridical literature which expressed itself, on the one hand, in the appearance of numerous commentaries and interpretations of the Basilics (such commentaries were usually known as scholia), and, on the other hand, in the publication of various abridged collections and manuals. The tenth century was marked also by an exceedingly interesting tendency in the legislative work of the Byzantine emperors, who were compelled to express through a number of Novels their reaction to one of the most acute questions in the social and economic life of that period, namely, the problem of the excessive development of large landownership, highly detrimental to small peasant landholding and the free peasant community. In the time of the Macedonian dynasty the class of the "powerful" (dvvatoi), or magnates, had again grown very prominent. At the other extreme stood the class of the "poor" people (TÉTES), who may be compared with the poor people (pauperes) of medieval Western Europe, and the orphans (siroti) of the Moscow period in Russian history. The poor people of the Byzantine Empire of the tenth century were those small peasant owners and members of organized communes whom heavy taxes and various duties forced to appeal for protection to the powerful magnates and pay for that protection the price of their freedom and independence. The rise of the powerful in the tenth century, seemingly sudden at first glance, may be partly explained by the after-effects of the insurrection of Thomas in the third decade of the ninth century. This was especially true of Asia Minor, where the number of large landowners grew to enormous proportions in the tenth century. The severe and lasting nature of this insurrection caused the ruin of a vast number of small landholders, forcing them to transfer their property to their wealthy neighbors. But this was only one of the many causes of the development of large estates. On the whole, the problem of the growth of large landownership in the Byzantine Empire during the ninth and tenth centuries has not been sufficiently elucidated. The rulers of the Macedonian dynasty, at least those from Romanus Lecapenus (919-44) to Basil II, who died in 1025, energetically defended the cause of the small landowners and the peasant communes against the infringements of the powerful. The reasons for this offensive policy against large landholdings must be sought precisely in the excessive growth of the latter. The powerful, who disposed of a vast number of serfs and immense landed estates, could easily organize and subsidize armies composed of their dependents, and were thus enabled to conspire against the central government. By their efforts to crush the strength of the powerful and uphold the interests of the small peasantry and the peasant commune, the emperors were at the same time defending their own power and throne, seriously threatened in the tenth century, especially by Asia Minor. The emperors were also compelled to defend the so-called "military holdings." Even in the time of the Roman Empire it had been customary to assign land to soldiers on the border lines of the Empire, and sometimes even within the Empire, on the condition that they should continue to serve in the army. These allotments survived until the tenth century, although they were in a state of decline. They, too, were threatened in the ninth and tenth centuries by the powerful, who strove to buy up these military estates just as they did the small peasant holdings. The emperors of this period also made attempts to defend these military fiefs. The measures taken by the rulers of the Macedonian dynasty in defense of peasant and military landholding were in reality very simple and uniform. They were expressed mainly in prohibiting the powerful to buy their way into peasant communities or acquire peasant and military allotments. The government's campaign in this direction was initiated by the publication of a Novel in the year 922 by Romanus I Lecapenus, the co-regent of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. This Novel proposes three regulations: (1) in any sale and temporary or hered itary lease of real estate, i.e., land, houses, vineyards, etc., the preferential right belongs to the peasants and their free commune; (2) the powerful are forbidden to acquire the property of the poor in any manner, whether it be by donation, will, patronage, purchase, rent, or exchange; (3) the military allotments alienated in any manner during the last thirty years, and also those which were about to be alienated, were returned to their original owners without any compensation. The terrible disasters which occurred in the Empire soon after the publication of this Novel put these measures of Romanus to a difficult trial. The untimely frosts, dearth, terrible famine, and pestilence made the lot of the peasants very hard. The powerful took advantage of the desperate position of the peasants and bought up their holdings at very low prices, or for mere trifling amounts of bread. This shocking open practice of the powerful forced Romanus to publish a second Novel in which he harshly reproved the cruel avidity of the wealthy class, stating that they were "to the unhappy villages like a plague or gangrene, which had eaten its way into the body of the village, bringing it closer to final peril." This Novel provided that the peasants from whom the powerful had bought land against the law during or after the year of famine could redeem their holdings at the price at which they had sold it; the new owners were to be removed immediately after payment was made by the peasant. After a brief remark about the successful operations of the Byzantine army, the Novel makes the following concluding statement: "If we have attained such success in our struggle with our external enemies, then how can we fail to crush our domestic and internal enemies of nature, men, and good order, through our rightful desire of freedom and the sharpness of the present law?"90 But this decree of Romanus failed to halt the development of large landownership and the dissolution of small peasant households and communities. In a subsequent Novel of Constantine 89 Jus graeco-romanum, III, 247. Ibid., p. 252; V. G. Vasilievsky, "Materials on the Internal History of Byzantium," Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, CCII (March, 1879), 188 (in Russian). Porphyrogenitus it was officially stated that the older laws were not observed. The restrictions placed upon the rich in Constantine's reign surpassed those of Romanus. Nicephorus Phocas, who rose to the throne through his marriage to the widow of Romanus II, was a member of the powerful class, and, quite naturally, understood and favored the interests of that class more than any of his predecessors. In the words of V. G. Vasilievsky, the Novel of Nicephorus Phocas "unquestionably indicates a certain reaction in the field of legislation in favor of the powerful class, even though it speaks only of an equally just treatment of both sides."91 This Novel states that "ancient legislators considered all rulers as champions of justice, calling them a general and equal benefit to all," and indicates that the predecessors of Nicephorus Phocas have deviated from this original ideal. "They completely neglected to care for the prosperity of the powerful, and did not even permit them to remain in possession of what they had already acquired."92 By the abrogation of previous rulings, Nicephorus Phocas gave new freedom to the lawlessness and growth of the powerful class. The sternest foe of the powerful class was Basil II Bulgaroctonus. Two leaders of the powerful families of Asia Minor, Bardas Phocas and Bardas Sclerus, rebelled against the emperor and nearly deprived him of the throne. Only the intervention of the Russian auxiliary corps sent by Prince Vladimir prevented the fall of the Emperor. It is not surprising, therefore, that Basil II viewed the large landowners as his most dangerous enemies, and was very harsh and unscrupulous in his treatment of them. Once, in passing through Cappadocia, Basil and his entire army were lavishly entertained in the enormous estate of Eustathius Maleinus. Suspecting that his host might be a possible rival, and fearing that he might attempt to follow in the footsteps of Phocas and Sclerus, the Emperor took him to the capital and forced him to remain there to the end of his days. After the death of Maleinus, his vast estates were confiscated. A similar incident is related in the Novel itself. The story states that when the Emperor heard that a certain Philocales of Asia Minor, a poor peasant by birth, having become famous and 1 Vasilievsky, Materials, p. 206 (in Russian). |
