-
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
in such purchases. These were profitable for several reasons, provided
transportation was ensured by Genoese ships sailing directly to Genoa. First,
grain was cheaper when bought from producers rather than from intermedia-
ries in Constantinople. Secondly, the transit of Genoese ships through
Constantinople, which in that case would have merely served as port of call,
avoided transshipment in the city and thus reduced transportation costs.
Finally, bypassing Constantinople by direct shipment of the Black Sea grain to
Genoa also saved the payment of the ten percent kommerkion on the re-
export of unsold goods from the Empire, to which the Genoese were liable
from 1169 to 1192.106
It should be noted that the first imperial charter delivered to Genoa, in
1155, does not refer to the sailing of Genoese ships to Rhosia and Matracha.
The prohibition of 1169 implies some developments in the intermediate period.
Increasing grain demands in Genoa presumably induced the Genoese to
undertake direct shipments from the western and northern Black Sea region to
their city. The preference they displayed for that region, rather than for grain
producing areas of northern Asia Minor, may be related to the purchase of
other goods in addition to grain.107 Their activity prompted the imposition of
the imperial ban upon these operations. In 1169 Manuel I took advantage of
Byzantine control, if not effective rule over grain outlets along the western and
northern shore of the Black Sea to prevent Genoese ships from bypassing
Constantinople. The ban he imposed compelled the Genoese merchants, who
Muslim world. Washington, D. C. 2001, 216 218, repr. in: Jacoby, Commercial exchange
(as note 18 above) no. IX.
106
Jacoby, Italian privileges (as note 1 above) 359 360.
107
On earlier grain exports from northern Asia Minor, see S. Vryonis Jr., The decline of
medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the process of islamization from the eleventh
through the fifteenth century. Berkeley 1971, 14, 17; Cheynet, Un aspect du ravitaille-
ment de Constantinople (as note 95 above) 9 11, 13 14. On the Black Sea regions
producing and exporting grain in the first half of the fourteenth century, see Francesco
Balducci Pegolotti, La pratica della mercatura, ed. A. Evans. Cambridge, Mass. 1936, 42,
54 55. One may safely assume continuity through the eleventh and twelfth centuries in
that respect.
698 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 100/2, 2007: I. Abteilung
were allowed to operate along that stretch of coast, to convey the Black Sea
grain on Byzantine or other foreign vessels to Constantinople and to transship
it there before proceeding to Genoa, or else to buy that grain from
intermediaries in the capital. As a result the imperial authorities could better
supervise the outflow of Black Sea grain, ensure supplies and price stability in
Constantinople in case of shortage, and collect taxes from the Genoese. As
noted above, the clause regarding Rhosia and Matracha appearing in the treaty
of 1169 between Manuel I and Genoa was repeated in the agreement between
Isaac II and the Italian maritime city in 1192. By that time Byzantium had not
yet lost control over Bulgarian grain outlets, despite the Bulgarian revolt of
1185.108 It is unclear whether the Genoese merchants lost their interest in Black
Sea grain in 1192, once they had obtained a substantial tax reduction on their
trade in the Byzantine provinces, although they remained liable to a ten
percent kommerkion on exports, like the Pisans.109 The improvement in their
trading conditions may have furthered the purchase of grain in Mediterranean
ports, as carried out by their Venetian and Pisan counterparts.
To sum up. Before 1204 Byzantium prohibited, limited or controlled at
various times trade in specific commodities, such as timber, gold, a number of
foodstuffs, and high-grade silk textiles.110 On the other hand, it did not exclude
Italian merchants or carriers from any specific region until 1169, when Manuel
I imposed his ban upon Genoese ships. Moreover, there is no direct or indirect
evidence of a closure of the Black Sea preventing the access of the Italians to
that region. However, it would seem that the volume and variety of Black Sea
goods they wished to acquire did not warrant the expense and risks involved in
frequent sailings beyond Constantinople. Rather, the Italian merchants appear
to have been mostly content to purchase these goods from intermediaries in
Constantinople, although they were more expensive than if bought around the
Black Sea. As a result, they displayed only marginal interest in trade and
transportation in that region, and at best operated there on a limited scale
before 1204. This explanation is more convincing than the lack of resources
due to heavy commercial investments in the Mediterranean.
The Genoese appear to have been the only Italians engaging in the purchase
of graininthe Black Sea and inits direct shipment to their home city between [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] - zanotowane.pl
- doc.pisz.pl
- pdf.pisz.pl
- zambezia2013.opx.pl