Greece, the Hidden Centuries: Turkish Rule From the Fall of Constantinople to Greek Independence by David Brewer Page A
Authors: David Brewer
Tags: History; Ancient
Ads: Link
guild’s activities. First, nothing could be sold above a price fixed by the government, which was designed to allow a modest profit of about ten per cent. Naturally this maximum became standard: to charge less would be to throw away profit, and would undercut and damage other guild members. Second, the guild could sell only the goods allowed to it. This meant that no guild could compete with another guild, but also that diversification was impossible. Third, strict quality control meant that the goods produced could never vary. In Constantinople even the sale of shoes with pointed toes was forbidden as being ‘against the ancient mode’.
The guild system was not unique to the Ottomans. It was inherited from the Byzantines, whose rules for the guilds of Constantinople were set down in the tenth century Book of the Prefect , and guilds operated throughout Europe, as described by Iris Origo in her account of the fourteenth- century merchant of Prato. 3 The guild system had advantages both for the rulers, whether domestic or foreign, and for the ruled. It enabled the rulers to keep control of economic activity and sometimes to encourage it. The Ottomans have often been accused of taking no interest in trade, and of leaving it in the hands of others – Greeks, Jews, Armenians and foreign concessionaires. A more persuasive view is that the Ottomans were well aware of the importance of trade and of the cities where it flourished, and of course of taxing it. As one historian, Halil Inalcik, puts it: ‘The Ottoman economic mind was closely related to the basic concept of state and society in the Middle East. It professed that the ultimate goal of a state was consolidation and extension of the ruler’s power, and the only way to reach it was to get rich sources of revenues. This in turn depended on the conditions making the productive classes prosperous.’ 4
For the ruled, the guild system meant stability – of raw material supply, of quality and of price – and protection from competition. The guild control of commercial activity was not total. Some entrepreneurs operated outside it, in particular the merchants engaged in empire-wide export and import, and some operated illegally within it, acquiring against the regulations a number of shops. Nevertheless, stability was the main purpose of the guild system and its chief characteristic, though ultimately this stability spelt stagnation.
The guild system was a contributor to economic stagnation in Greece but was not its sole cause. The guild system flourished in other countries that were far from being stagnant, and guilds were long lived: in France until the French Revolution (in spite of an attempt by Turgot, Louis XVI’s reforming comptroller-general, to abolish them in 1776) andin England their privileges were not formally abolished until 1835. But Greece lacked opportunities that these and other countries exploited, principally trading by sea. The Ottoman Empire lost its main avenue of maritime trade – through the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean – to Vasco da Gama and the Portuguese in 1498, and thereafter largely left overseas trade to foreigners by the agreements known as capitulations. Greece itself had no substantial ships or the opportunity to use them until the second half of the eighteenth century. Furthermore Greece lacked a banking and market system, let alone a sophisticated one such as the Dutch, which as early as 1688 operated what we may think of as modern inventions: futures contracts, put and call options, and even investment related to a share index. Finally, Greece lacked education, without which development in any sphere was impossible.
The Turkish officials with whom the Greek townspeople had to deal were remarkably few, but given the extent of the Ottoman Empire that is hardly surprising. Towards the end of the seventeenth century the empire was divided into 39 major provinces, of which four were predominantly Greek: Roumeli, which extended well
The guild system was not unique to the Ottomans. It was inherited from the Byzantines, whose rules for the guilds of Constantinople were set down in the tenth century Book of the Prefect , and guilds operated throughout Europe, as described by Iris Origo in her account of the fourteenth- century merchant of Prato. 3 The guild system had advantages both for the rulers, whether domestic or foreign, and for the ruled. It enabled the rulers to keep control of economic activity and sometimes to encourage it. The Ottomans have often been accused of taking no interest in trade, and of leaving it in the hands of others – Greeks, Jews, Armenians and foreign concessionaires. A more persuasive view is that the Ottomans were well aware of the importance of trade and of the cities where it flourished, and of course of taxing it. As one historian, Halil Inalcik, puts it: ‘The Ottoman economic mind was closely related to the basic concept of state and society in the Middle East. It professed that the ultimate goal of a state was consolidation and extension of the ruler’s power, and the only way to reach it was to get rich sources of revenues. This in turn depended on the conditions making the productive classes prosperous.’ 4
For the ruled, the guild system meant stability – of raw material supply, of quality and of price – and protection from competition. The guild control of commercial activity was not total. Some entrepreneurs operated outside it, in particular the merchants engaged in empire-wide export and import, and some operated illegally within it, acquiring against the regulations a number of shops. Nevertheless, stability was the main purpose of the guild system and its chief characteristic, though ultimately this stability spelt stagnation.
The guild system was a contributor to economic stagnation in Greece but was not its sole cause. The guild system flourished in other countries that were far from being stagnant, and guilds were long lived: in France until the French Revolution (in spite of an attempt by Turgot, Louis XVI’s reforming comptroller-general, to abolish them in 1776) andin England their privileges were not formally abolished until 1835. But Greece lacked opportunities that these and other countries exploited, principally trading by sea. The Ottoman Empire lost its main avenue of maritime trade – through the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean – to Vasco da Gama and the Portuguese in 1498, and thereafter largely left overseas trade to foreigners by the agreements known as capitulations. Greece itself had no substantial ships or the opportunity to use them until the second half of the eighteenth century. Furthermore Greece lacked a banking and market system, let alone a sophisticated one such as the Dutch, which as early as 1688 operated what we may think of as modern inventions: futures contracts, put and call options, and even investment related to a share index. Finally, Greece lacked education, without which development in any sphere was impossible.
The Turkish officials with whom the Greek townspeople had to deal were remarkably few, but given the extent of the Ottoman Empire that is hardly surprising. Towards the end of the seventeenth century the empire was divided into 39 major provinces, of which four were predominantly Greek: Roumeli, which extended well
Similar Books
