1 The Book of the Eparch (Έπαρχικόν Βιβλίον) (hereafter BE), promulgated in 911 or 912, although there is no unanimity on the exact date, codified earlier decrees concerning the activities of private guilds located in the capital. The most recent critical edition of the Greek text with a German translation is by Koder, J., Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen (Vienna 1991)Google Scholar. The Book of the Eparch is the main source of information on the Byzantine guild system.

2 Basilika (hereafter B), eds. Scheltema, H. J., Holwerda, D., van der Wal, N., Basilicorum libri LX (Groningen 1988)Google Scholar. B 60. 32. 1; BE 18. 5.

3 BE 11.1; 12.1, 4, 6; Christophilopoulos, A. P., To Έπαρχικόν Βιβλίον Λέοντος τοϋ Σοφοϋ καί al Συντεχνίαι έν Βυζαντίφ (Athens 1935) 4, 36, 50Google Scholar; Mickwitz, G., ‘Die Organisationsformen zweier byzantinischer Gewerbe im X. Jahrhundert,’ BZ 36 (1936) 72-4Google Scholar; Sideris, A. D., Ίστορία τοϋ Οίκονομικοϋ Βίου (Athens 1950) 264 Google Scholar; Mendl, B., ‘Les corporations byzantines’, BS 22 (1961) 301-2, 312-8Google Scholar; Schreiner, P., ‘Die Organisation byzantinischer Kaufleute und Handwerker’, in Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor-und frühgeschictlichen Zeit in Mittel-und Nordeuropa (Göttingen 1989), VI, 54 Google Scholar; Litavrin, G. G., Vizantijskoe obščestvo i gosudarstvo v X-XI vv (Moscow 1977) 151 Google Scholar.

4 Stöckle, A., Spätrömische und byzantinische Zünfte (Leipzig 1911) 8 Google Scholar; Boak, A.E. R., ‘The Book of the Prefect’, Journal of Economics and Business History 1 (1929) 608 n. 5 Google Scholar; Zoras, G., Le Corporazioni bizantine (Rome 1931) 172 Google Scholar; Runciman, S., ‘Byzantine Trade and Industry’, in Cambridge Economic History of Europe (Cambridge 1987), II, 154 n. 12, 156Google Scholar; Kazhdan, A., ‘Tsekhi i gosudarstvennye masterskie v Konstantinopole v IX-X vv’, VV 6 (1953) 138-9, 144, 146-7, 15Google Scholar; Idem, Derevnja i gorod v Vizantii 1X-X vv (Moscow 1960) 312; Lopez, R. S., ‘Silk industry in the Byzantine empire’, Speculum 20 (1945)15–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simon, D., ‘Die byzantinischen Seidenzünfte’, BZ 68 (1975) 36-9Google Scholar; Angold, M., The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204 (London 1997) 94 Google Scholar.

5 See n. 7 below.

6 Mickwitz, G., Die Kartellfunktionen der Zünfte und ihre Bedeutung bei der Enstehung des Zunftwesens (Helsinki 1936) 229 Google Scholar; Macri, C. M., L’ organisation de l’ économie urbaine dans byzance sous la dynastie de Macédoine (Paris 1925) 73-4Google Scholar; Andreadès, A., ‘Byzance, paradis du monopole et du privilège’, B 9 (1934) 172-3Google Scholar; Kazhdan, ‘Tsekhi’, 144; Idem, Derevnya, 344; Lopez, ‘Silk industry’, 16, 18, 20, 23; Browning, R., The Byzantine Empire (London 1980) 79 Google Scholar; and ODB s.v. Guilds, maintain that the guild system served the interests of their members. Christophilopoulos, Συντεχνίαι, 38, 48; Boak, ‘The Book of the Prefect,’ 597-8; Francès, E., ‘La disparition des corporations byzantines’, in Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’ études byzantines, 1961 (Belgrade 1964) II, 97 Google Scholar; Idem, ‘L’ état et les métiers à Byzance’, BS 23 (1962) 248; Oikonomides, N., ‘Entrepreneurs’, in The Byzantines, ed. Cavallo, G. (Chicago 1997), 154–6Google Scholar; Runciman, ‘Byzantine Trade’, 154; and Litavrin, Vizantijskoe obščestvo, 134, 140-1, 147-8, 151, argue that the guild system served the interests of the state. Charanis, P., ‘On the social structure of the Later Roman Empire’, B 17 (1946) 50 Google Scholar; Sjuzjumov, M. J., ‘Remeslo i torgovlja v Konstaninopole nacale X v’, VV 4 (1951) 24-5Google Scholar; Mendl, ‘Corporations byzantines’, 318; and Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State (Oxford 1968) 254 Google Scholar, maintain that the state regulations had in view not only the interests of the state, but those of the public at large and the crafts as well.

7 For a detailed discussion of the statutory guild monopolies, prevailing market structures and operative conditions, and the guilds’ pricing behaviour, see Maniatis, G. C., ‘Price formation in the Byzantine economy tenth to fifteenth centuries’, B 73 (2003) 424-28Google Scholar.

8 Stöckle, Byzantinische Zünfte, 62-4.

9 BE 2. 12; 3. 5.

10 BE 5. 1; 14. 2: έχέτωσαν ... προστάτην έπαρχικΑ βουλη προχειριζόμενον. Stöckle, Byzantinische Zünfte, 84; Christophilopoulos, Συντεχνίαι, 47-8, 49 and n. 1; Boak, ‘Book of the Prefect,’ 599; Runciman, S., Byzantine Civilisation (London 1933) 175 Google Scholar; Sjuzjumov, ‘Remeslo,’ 39; Oikonomides, ‘Entrepreneurs,’ 155; Rice, T.Talbot, Everyday Life in Byzantium (London 1967) 122 Google Scholar; and Dagron, G., ‘The urban economy, seventh-twelfth centuries’, in The Economic History of Byzantium (hereafter EHB), ed. Laiou, A. E. (Washington DC 2002) II, 410 Google Scholar, maintain that the chiefs of the guilds, though functionaries of the state, were chosen from among their members. However, this is true only for the society (σύλλογος) of the notaries (not a guild proper) who, because of their legal training, distinct quasi-judicial function, and high ethical standards were subject to a different set of rules including a numerus clausus (BE 1. 1-3, 13, 22, 23). In dealing with the guilds proper (συστήματα), the Book of the Eparch nowhere indicates that the chiefs were elected from among guild members nor alludes to the process of their selection. This is understandable, as the authorities could not trust active guild members to perform their duties impartially because of their vested interest. See also pp. 157-8 below.

11 Christophilopoulos, Συντεχνίαι, 38.

12 BE 1.10, 11; 22.1-3; B 6.4.2, 3, 13; Synopsis Basilicorum, in Jus Graecoromanum (hereafter JGR), eds. I and P. Zepos (Athens 1931) V, 1. 66, 32; Ecloga Basilicorum, ed. Burgmann, L. (Frankfurt 1988) 7. 3. 23. 2Google Scholar; Peira, JGR IV, 51. 29.

13 The organization, modus operandi, regulatory mechanism, pro-competitive institutional arrangements, degree of market and pricing power of the Byzantine guilds, as well as the singular differences between the guilds in Byzantium and the West, are detailed in Maniatis, G. C., ‘The guild system in Byzantium and medieval western Europe. A comparative analysis of organizational structures, regulatory mechanisms and behavioral patterns’, B 76 (2007) 463–570 Google Scholar. The scholarship is divided on the issue whether the guild system was extended to the provinces and whether it disappeared after the twelfth century. For a critical review of the views propounded and further evidence suggesting that guilds did not exist in the provinces, and that the guild system actually had disintegrated even before the Latin conquest (1204), see Maniatis, G. C., ‘The domain of private guilds in the Byzantine economy, tenth to twelfth centuries’, DOP 55 (2001) 351-66Google Scholar.

14 Harvey, A., Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire 900-1200 (Cambridge 1989) 59–62, 213-24, 244–7, 257-8, 261-2Google Scholar; Hendy, M. F., ‘Byzantium, 1081-1204: an economic reappraisal’, in Hendy, , ‘The Economy, Fiscal Administration and Coinage of Byzantium (Northampton 1989) study II, 46–48, 50-52Google Scholar; Idem, “Byzantium, 1081-1204’; the economy revisited, twenty years on’, study III, 9-27; Hendy, , ‘The economy: a brief summary’, in Vryonis, S. Jr., Byzantine Studies (New Rochelle, New York 1992) 141-44Google Scholar; Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 81-8, 280-3; Runciman, ‘Byzantine trade’, 151-2; Kazhdan, A. P. and Epstein, A. Wharton, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley 1985) 31–46 Google Scholar; Laiou, A. E. and Morrisson, C., The Byzantine Economy (Cambridge 2007) 89, 91, 96, 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Haldon, J. F., ‘Some aspects of Byzantine military technology from the sixth to the tenth centuries’, BMGS 1 (1975) 11–12, 30-44Google Scholar; ODB s.v. Horses, Kataphraktos. The cursus publicus also used horses and mules for the ‘fast’ transport of materials. Haldon, J., ‘The army and the economy: the allocation and redistribution of surplus wealth in the Byzantine state’, Mediterranean Historical Review 72 (1992) 142 Google Scholar. The greater dependence on cavalry horses and the increased use of pack and draft animals created the need to update current knowledge of horse care and pharmacology in order to better maintain their health and raise their productivity, thereby giving rise to hippiatric writings and collections in the Middle Byzantine period. New recensions were made of the original Hippiatrica veterinary compilation (5th or 6th century): Corpus Hippiatricorum Graecorum, eds. Oder, E. and Hoppe, C. (Leipzig 1924, repr. Stuttgart 1971Google Scholar) (hereafter CHG); Geoponica, ed. Beckh, H. (Leipzig 1895 Google Scholar) (Late Antique, revised in the 10th century), which dealt with an array of horse ailments and their treatment (Book 16, 451-68); Doyen-Higuet, A. M., L’ Épitomé de la collection d’ hippiatrie grecque (Louvain-la-Neuve 2006) I Google Scholar; McCabe, A. E., A Byzantine Encyclopedia of Horse Medicine. The Sources, Compilation, and Transmission of the Hippiatrica (Oxford 2007)Google Scholar; ODB s.v. Hippiatrica, Horses. There is also material about breeding and the care of mare and foal: Geoponica, 16, 451-4; CHG II, 140-6. Still, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which veterinary science was learned and practiced by using textbooks rather than hands-on experience. The social status of the horse doctors was low, while horse-medicine was viewed as a base discipline. The classicizing style of the texts made them difficult to understand and impractical, while it is questionable whether the average horse doctor could read or write. There are doubts whether the compilation under the auspices of emperor Constantine VII was circulated far outside the imperial scriptorium. McCabe, Byzantine Encyclopedia, 298-301. It is noteworthy that it was very common for blacksmiths (πεταλουργοί), aside from making and fitting horseshoes, to treat diseases of pack animals, being liable for their injury or death due to mistreatment. Sathas, K. N., Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη (Paris 1877) VI, 180-1Google Scholar. Reference is made in Recension L to a peasant (χωρικός) to whom a remedy is attributed (CHG, II, 188) and farm lore and folk medicine were prominent in hippiatric literature. ODB s.v. Hippiatrica. These occurrences suggest that the practitioners of veterinary medicine, particularly in the vast rural areas of the empire, were for the most part empiricists.

16 Noëttes, R. Levebvre des, ‘Le système d’ attelage du cheval et du boeuf à Byzance et les conséquences de son emploi’, in Mélanges Charles Diehl (Paris 1930) I, 183-4, 186-9; ODB s.v. CartGoogle Scholar.

17 Lampros, S., Μιχαήλ Ακομινάτου τοϋ Χωνιάτου τά Σωζόμενα (Athens 1880) II, 83 Google Scholar.

18 Harvey, Economic expansion, 208; Hendy, M. F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450 (Cambridge 1985) 558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Vinson, M. P., The Correspondence of Leo, Metropolitan of Synada and Syncellus (Washington DC 1985) no. 54, p. 86 Google Scholar.

20 Haldon, J., Byzantium: A History (Stroud 2005) 75-6Google Scholar.

21 The most extensive grazing regions for horses, mules and donkeys were the Anatolian plateau, the high plateau of the Rhodope mountain range, and the extensive mountain pastures of Macedonia. The provincial landed aristocracy in Paphlagonia, Phrygia and Cappadocia, as well as monasteries, owned large numbers of horses and pack animals, and many were involved in stock breeding. The state bred horses and draft animals for the army on its Anatolian estates. Hendy, Studies, 54–5, 611; Haldon, ‘The army and the economy’, 141; Harvey, Economic Expansion, 104, 152-3; Lefort, J., ‘The rural economy, seventh-twelfth centuries’, in EHB I, 234, 252, 263-65Google Scholar.

22 BE 21.1-9. Βόθρος, etymologically: a pit dug in the ground and, by extension, sewer — an odd denotation of an occupation charged with important and responsible tasks (see pp. 149, 151-2 below). Apparently, the members of this guild were commonly known by the people as bothroi — a reflection of their lowly social standing. Still, branding the occupation on the basis of the responsibility of the guild to clean up the marketplace and dispose of the manure, a downright housekeeping matter, seems infelicitous. Kolias, T. and Chroni-Vakalopoulou, M., ‘To έπάγγελμα καί ή όνομασία τών Βόθρων στό Έπαρχικόν Βιβλίον Λέοντος ς’ ‘, EEBS 52 (2004–2006) 385-90Google Scholar, entertain the view that the term bothros refers to the corps’ task of checking the form of the recesses or cups (κοιλώματα, βόθροι, βοθρίον) in the horses’ teeth in order to ascertain their physical condition, health and age. Though intriguing, the alleged association is not entirely convincing.

23 BE 21. 4.

24 BE 21, 3, 8. On conjectures regarding the etymology of the name Eorum Amastrianum and its reputation, see Georgius Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium, ed. Niebuhr, B. G. (Bonn 1838) 566 Google Scholar; Janin, R., Constantinople byzantine, développement urbain et répertoire topographique (Paris 1930) 72-4Google Scholar. On the probable location of the Forum Amastrianum, see the city plans of Constantinople in Mango, M. Mundell, ‘The commercial map of Constantinople,’ DOP 54 (2000) fig. 4, 20, 22, 32 after p. 192Google Scholar; ODB s.v. Mese.

25 BE 21. 3.

26 BE 21. 4, 9.

27 This is inferred from the thrust of provision BE 21. 5 whereby deferred payments on consummated sales for cause had to be made in the next market day (εΐ μή μέχρι φόρου ένός) implying not the day just after the market was held. The nature of the trade, expediency and practicality were also determining factors. Fixed market days were favoured because of the regional character of the trade; the benefit to be derived from a sizable marketable stock of animals; and the convenience afforded travelling sellers and buyers by increasing the number of participants in the marketplace and enhancing the opportunity for closing a deal promptly and at a fair price. Fixed market days for the conduct of trade were common and existed for other imported goods: dealers in raw silk (BE 6. 8); linen merchants (BE 9. 3); spice and perfume dealers (BE 10. 2).

28 BE 21. 8.

29 BE 21. 1. The fact that the bothroi were not allowed to take an active part in horse deals during the market day has been attributed to the authorities’ aim to avoid raising the price of the animals as a result of their intermediation. Zoras, Corporazioni bizantine, 201-2; Litavrin, Vizantijskoe obščestvo, 147. However, for this to have happened, it would have necessitated the obligatory mediation of the bothroi in such deals, a requirement which would have been contrary to the general principle of non-interference of the guilds in private business deals. What is more, the services of the bothroi were provided only upon request. Besides, it is not certain that the mediation of a bothros would necessarily raise the negotiated price of an animal. A prospective buyer who suspected hidden defects could seek testimony to an animal’s condition as a condition for the purchase, demanding that the seller pay the fee. Alternatively, the seller might well agree to obtain the testimony of a bothros in order to allay the buyer’s fears and thereby ensure the completion of the transaction.

30 BE 21.1. The following incoherent and undecipherable sentence: μετασκευάζουσι γοφ το ένδεχόμενον προς то μή öv ([the task of the bothroi is] to prevent potentially unseemly practices in commercial transactions?) purporting to clarify the nature of the occupation of the bothroi remains an unsolved enigma: Stöckle, Byzantinische Zünfte, 51; Koder, J., ‘Die Bezeichnung βόθρος im ‘Eparchikon Biblion”, in Prinzing, G. and Simon, D., eds. Fest und Alltag in Byzanz (Munich 1990) 72-3Google Scholar; Nicole, J., Le Livre du Préfet ou l’ édit de l’ empereur Léon le Sage sur les corporations de Constantinople (Geneva 1893) 76 Google Scholar; Christophilopoulos, Σνντεχνίω, 89; Freshfield, E. H., Roman Law in the Later Roman Empire: Byzantine Guilds Professional and Commercial (Cambridge 1938) 46 Google Scholar; Boak, ‘Book of the Prefect,’ 617-8.

31 Nicole, Livre du Préfet, 76; Macri, Organisation, 59.

32 Stöckle, Byzantinische Zünfte, 51; Mickwitz, Kartellfunktionen, 225.

33 Christophilopoulos, Συντεχνίαι, 89–90; Litavrin, Vizantijskoe obščestvo, 147.

34 Freshfield, Byzantine Guilds, 46.

35 K. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Review of Nicole’s, J. Le Livre du Préfet, in BZ 2 (1893), 134 Google Scholar.

36 Sjuzjumov, M. J., Vizantijskaja Kniga Eparcha (Moscow 1962) 252 Google Scholar.

37 Zoras, Corporazioni bizantine, 201.

38 Sjuzjumov, ‘Remeslo,’ 39.

39 Boak, ‘Book of the Prefect,’ 617.

40 Koder, ‘Bezeichnung,’ 71-4, 194-7.

41 BE 2. 11; 3. 1; 4. 5; 6. 6; 7. 3; 12. 2; 16. 1; Stöckle, Byzantinische Zünfte, 56; Zoras, Corporazioni bizantine, 83; Christophilopoulos, Συντεχνίαι, 50 and n. 4.

42 See n. 10 above.

43 See n. 49 below.

44 BE 2. 8, 9; 4. 2; 6. 7; 8. 13.

45 Slaves were explicitly excluded from the occupations of banker and dealer in raw silk: BE 3. 1; 7.3.

46 J. Nicole, ‘Le Livre du Préfet’, Revue générale du droit (1893) 11; n. 22 above.

47 BE 21.7; 18.5; B 60.32.1; Stöckle, Byzantinische Zünfte, 97-9; Zoras, Corporazioni bizantine, 76-8; Macri, Organisation, 57-8.

48 BE 21. 7.

49 BE 21. 7; ODB s.v. Bothros; Nicole, Livre du Préfet, 78; Boak, ‘Book of the Prefect’, 618; Freshfield, Byzantine Guilds, 47; Kolias and Chroni-Vakalopoulou, ‘‘Ονομασία των βόθρων’, 383. Koder, Eparchenbuch, 137, interprets the provision BE, 21. 7 as meaning that there was a fixed number of appointed bothroi. But if this were the case it would certainly have been stipulated, as it was in the case of the notaries (BE 1. 23).

50 BE 21. 9.

51 BE 21. 1. According to hippiatric treatises the signs of a good horse were upright stature, proud bearing, elevated, thick and solid neck, perked-up ears, teeth with no recesses, broad chest, snub or hooked nose, blue eyes, tight abdomen and drawn together at the level of the flanks, muscular thighs, visible and bulging veins all over the body, quick reflexes, black or reddish brown coat (although not exclusively). Also, good horses stir, stamp on the ground, and are eager to run. Geoponica, 16, 1, 2 (pp. 454-5); CHG II, 120-1; Georgoudi, S., Des chevaux et des boeufs dans le monde grec (Paris and Athens 1990) 98–99 Google Scholar. The stock and features of horses from various regions are discussed in CHG II, 121–24, and the signs of a good colt are set forth in Geoponica, 16.1 (p. 453); Georgoudi, Des chevaux, 97.

52 The Byzantine currency and its denominated subdivisions were: 1 nomisma = 12 miliaresia = 24 keratia = 288 folleis.

53 BE 21. 1.

54 Litavrin, Vizantijskoe obščestvo, 147, maintains without supporting evidence that the purchaser was obligated to pay the fee.

55 BE 21. 2.

56 BE 21. 4.

57 BE 21. 9. Christophilopoulos, Συντεχνίαι, 90, and Kazhdan, ‘Tsekhi’, 322, Derevnja, 143, incorrectly assume that the fee amounted to 2½% of the assessed price of the animal.

58 BE 21. 9.

59 BE 21. 9. Nicole, Livre du Préfet, 78-9 and n.1, and Koder, Eparchenbuch, 139, render λιτη as referring to contributions for religious processions along the central avenue of the capital (μέση) which was contiguous to the Forum Amastrianum. Kolias and Chroni-Vakalopoulou, ‘‘Ονομασία των βόθρων’, 383, interpret the term as πομπή (procession) = άποπομπή (άπομάκρυνσις)= removal of the unsold animals and of the dung. Boak, ‘Book of the Prefect’, 618, renders the term as a contribution for the upkeep of the fence surrounding the marketplace. Freshfield, Byzantine Guilds, xxi, interprets the term as market, whereas Stöckle, Byzantinische Zünfte, 54, and Christophilopoulos, Συντεχνίαι, 90, as square (πλατεΐα). A more plausible interpretation of the term is marketplace: λιτη χθών = plain surface of land (ground) =open space=marketplace. Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R., Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford 1996 Google Scholar) s.v. λιτός (ή, óv) referring to γαια (land) as a modifier, and s.v. χθών (earth, soil). Incidentally, maintenance of the marketplace encompasses the notions of square and outlays for the upkeep of the fence.

60 BE 21. 5; B 19.10.34; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1. 12. 7; Attaleiates, Ponema, JGR VII, 11.3; Procheiron Auctum, JGR VII, 5. 32; Harmenopoulos, K., ‘Εξάβφλος (hereafter Hexabiblos ), ed. Pitsakis, K.G. (Athens 1971) 3.3. 61Google Scholar.

61 BE 21. 6; B 19. 10. 34; Attaleiates, Ponema, 11. 3; Synopsis Minor, JGR VI, 16. 19; Procheiron Auctum, 15. 32. Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 57, 59, 61. Apparently the Forum Amastrianum was the place to procure horses for the military as well. The exception for soldiers was added by Emperor Leo VI. Τιπούκειτος, 19. 10. 27, ed. Dölger, F., in Studi e Testi 51 (1929) 132 Google Scholar. It would appear that soldiers could seek remedial action within three years in line with the statute of limitations for movables, a period which could be extended to ten or twenty years for just cause (e.g., captivity). Synopsis Minor, 1. 41; Hexabiblos, 1. 3. 3, 6, 13.

62 B 19. 10. 18; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1.12.7 (q); Peira, 38. 33; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 58.

63 Stöckle, Byzantinische Zünfte, 53.

64 In the 10th century, the cost of a draft horse was 12 nomismata whereas that of a mule was 15 nomismata. Morrisson, C. and Cheynet, J.-C., ‘Prices and wages in the Byzantine world’, in EHB II, 840, Table 11Google Scholar. A combat horse probably cost much more. Litavrin, Vizantijskoe obščestvo, 147.

65 Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 61; Christophilopoulos, Συντεχνίω, 90-1.

66 BE 21. 5; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 62.

67 Meditatio de nudis pactis, in JGR VII, 7. 21; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 62; Christophilopoulos, Συντεχνίαι, 91. Bothroi may also have served as sequestratore. Kolias and Chroni-Vakalopoulou, ‘‘Ονομασία τών βόθρων’, 381-2.

68 ‘It is only natural that goods of higher market value be purchased at a lower price, and goods of lower market value be sold at a higher price’: B 20. 1. 22; further, ‘agreements reached in any manner by those engaging in lawful transactions are enforceable’: B 11.1.7. In fact, ‘in buying and selling, the contracting parties are allowed to outmanoeuvre one another on the price’: B 20. 1. 22; B. 19. 10, 70, 71, 72; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1.3.21; 12.95. See also B 19. 1. 93, 94; B 53.7.1; Epitome, JGR IV, 16. 30; Synopsis Basilicorum, 20.7.5; 12.19; Synopsis Minor, 16. 42, 93; Attaleiates, Ponema, 11. 2; Peira, 38. 5; Prochiron Auctum, VII, 15. 34, 37; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 101; 3. 3. 69, 70 and scholium; 3. 3. 72. The flexibility permitted in business conduct and aggressive bargaining indicates that one bought at one’s own risk (caveat emptor): ‘It behoves the buyer to investigate and ascertain the facts before consummating a deal’ (Δεΐ γάρ τον άγοραστην προ τοΰ συναλλάγματος δι’ έρεύνης γενέσθαι καΐ οϋτω συναλλάσσειν). Ecloga Legum, JGR II, 9. 1; Ecloga Privata Aucta, JGR VI, 10. 2, 4; Prochiron Auctum, 15. 52. It should be emphasized that profit margins were set only for certain necessities marketed in the capital and only at the retail level (BE 13. 5; 15. 2; 17. 1; 18. 1; 19. 1). The implication is that the wholesale price structure of these consumer goods — the bedrock for retail price formation — was allowed to reflect the prevailing demand and supply conditions, and hence their retail price also mirrored existing market conditions as any change in the wholesale price was passed on to the consumer. Fixing profit margins is not tantamount to fixing prices. On the capping of profit margins and their implications, see Maniatis, ‘Price formation’, 432-40.

69 BE 6. 11; 9. 2; 10.5; 11. 5; B 22. 1. 76; B 19. 10. 76; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1. 3. 2b; 1. 45; Epanagoge, JGR II, 23. 2; Epitome, 16. 3; Prochiros Nomos, JGR II, 14. 1; Prochiron Auctum, 15. 3; Petra, 44. 3; Epanagoge Aucta, JGR VI, 21. 3; Synopsis Minor, 1. 27; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 1, 3.

70 B 19. 1. 88, 90, 93; Peira, 45. 1; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 42.

71 B 19. 8. 1; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1. 10. 1; Epitome, 16. 54; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 52.

72 Ecloga Legum, 9. 1; Ecloga ad Prochiron Mutata, JGR VI, 11. 16; Ecloga Privata Aucta, JGR VI, 10. 2.

73 B 19. 11.1, 6, 50; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1,13. 11, 13; Epitome, 16. 64; peira, 38. 85; Attaleiates, Ponema, 11. 4; Prochiron Auctum, 15. 33; Synopsis Minor, 16. 20.

74 BE 18. 5; Hexabiblos, 6. 14. 12.

75 B 19. 10. 4; Epanagoge Aucta, 21. 35.

76 B 19.10.1; B 19. 10. 48; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1. 12. 2; Peira, 38. 22, 33, 34; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 63. The buyer of an animal (ύποζύγιον) that lashed out could seek the reduction of the price. The vendor was not liable for an animal that could not be harnessed; but he was legally bound if the animal could not be harnessed with another. B 19. 10. 4; Peira, 38. 23.

77 ‘О πωλών τινί τι έν είδήσει έπίψογον, ού μόνον είς τί> τίμημα, άλλα καΐ είς πδσαν την έκ τούτου ζημίαν κατέχεται (vendors knowingly misinforming buyers are liable not only for the price of the article but for any resulting damage as well). Ecloga ad Prochiron Mutata, 11. 14; B 19. 10. 1; Epitome, 16. 11 n. 18; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1. 10. 3; 12. 1.

78 B 19.10. 1; B 19.10. 35, 70; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1. 12. 1; Epitome, 16. 29, 48; Peira, 38. 54; Attaleiates, Ponema, 11. 3; Prochiron Auctum, 15. 32; Synopsis Minor, 16. 19; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 61.

79. B 19. 10. 1,4; Peira, 38. 21, 25; Ecloga Privata Aucta, 10. 3; Synopsis Minor, 1. 92; Epanagoge Aucta, 21. 35.

80 B 19. 10. 18; B 10. 3. 37; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1. 3. 11, 20; Peira, 38. 30; Synopsis Minor, 1. 92; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 19, 66.

81 B 19. 10. 23: Καλως συμφωνεΐ ό άγοραστης ε’ίσω προθεσμίας ή καΐ διηνεκως άναδοΰναι το άγορασθεν άπαρέσκον αύτω. εί δε μτ\ λεχθ|) χρόνος, έχει άγωγην είς το άναδοϋναι έντος 60 ήμερών συναπτων, κου μετα τς 60 ήμέρας έξ εύλόγου αίτίας; Epitome, 16. 26; Peira, 38. 39; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 60.

82 Ού δεΐ γίγνεσθαί τινα πλουσιώτερον έκ της έτέρου ζημίας (no one should profit from someone else’s loss). B 2. 3. 206; Epitome, 2. 10; Synopsis Minor, 6. 2; Hexabiblos, Appendix B, 30; Novel 8 (945-959) of emperor Constantine Porphyrogennetos, in JGR I, 225.

83 B 19. 10. 72; Synopsis Basilicorum, 1. 12. 19 (u); Epitome, 16. 30; Peira, 38. 5, 12, 52; Attaleiates, Ponema, 11. 2; Procheiron Auctum, 15. 34, 37, 42; Synopsis Minor, 16. 93; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 69, 70, 71 and scholium.

84 On the origin, legal and economic foundation, and practical application of the just price in Byzantium, see Maniatis, G. C., ‘Operationalization of the concept of just price in the Byzantine legal, economic and political system’, B 71 (2001) 131-76Google Scholar.

85 Mickwitz, G., ‘Die Organisationsformen zweier byzantinischer Gewerbe im X. Jahrhundert’, BZ 36 (1936) 72-3, 75-6Google Scholar; Lopez, ‘Silk industry’ 18, 19 and notes 1, 20; Jacoby, D., ‘The Jews and the silk industry in Constantinople’, in Jacoby, Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean (Aldershot 2001) study XI, 3–17 Google Scholar; Jacoby, , ‘Silk economics and cross-cultural artistic interaction: Byzantium, the Muslim world, and the Christian west’, DOP 58 (2004) 206 n. 43, n. 46Google Scholar; Simon, D., ‘Die byzantinische Seidenzünfte’, BZ 68 (1975) 26–34, 44-6Google Scholar; Mendl, ‘Corporations byzantines’, 306 and n. 6, and Loo’s comments in Mendl, n. 17 (pp. 309-311); Runciman, ‘Byzantine trade’, 155; Muthesius, A., ‘The Byzantine silk industry: Lopez and beyond’, Journal of Medieval History 19 (1993) 33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 B 19. 18. 2.

87 See n. 10 above.

88 See pp. 145, 152, 157 above.

89 B 7. 1. 14; B 7. 2. 1, 7, 13, 17, 19-21, 27, 34; Hexabiblos, 1. 4. 47-66.

90 B 11. 2. 1, 9, 37; Synopsis Basilicorum, 4. 27. 7; Epitome, 11. 34; Epanagoge, 26. 1; 27. 3; Epanagoge Aucta, 45. 2, 6; Prochiron Auctum, 21. 2, 25, 44, 47; Ecloga Privata Aucta, 16. 4; Hexabiblos, 1. 9. 2; 1. 10. 1, 2, 4, 5, 11-16.