FORGING LINKS BETwEEN REGIONS 71
of Antalcidas in 386 BCE.^20 It is impossible to determine how much revenue
was generated by this tax, but the fact that it was set at an exceptionally high
rate of 10 percent suggests that it was implemented to provide a much-needed
boost to Athenian state finances. Significantly, the motivation underpinning
Athenian interest in commercial taxes/duties appears to have been purely fiscal
as there is no evidence that the Greeks thought in terms of protective customs
barriers.^21 Taken as a whole, this evidence supports the greater emphasis that
Hasebroek, Gernet, and Burke have placed on the acquisition of revenues as a
motivation for Athenian trade policies.^22 Although Gernet goes too far in sug-
gesting that the acquisition of revenue was the Athenians’ chief interest in trade
until the late fourth century, when shortages of grain forced them to prioritize
their food supply, he is nevertheless correct to draw attention to the fact that
they were not ignorant of financial considerations when making policy deci-
sions. Burke, citing two passages from the Poroi that highlight the substantial
revenues generated by interregional trade, concludes that the Athenians were
well aware of the financial implications of their commercial policies (Xen.
Vect. 2.1–7; 3.3–5). This conclusion is strengthened by two passages from the
orations of Demosthenes and Isocrates. In the first, Demosthenes emphasizes
the importance of commercial taxes and duties when he pleads with his fellow
citizens not to rescind the honors and privileges bestowed to the Bosporan
king Leucon on the grounds that they induce further benefactions, which
in turn generates a net gain both in revenues and imported goods (Dem.
20.30–40), whilst in the second, Isocrates (8.20–21) draws an explicit connec-
tion between Athenian economic prosperity (in terms of state revenues) and
commercial taxes by documenting the adverse effect that war has on public
finances – in particular stressing the harm caused by the reluctance of mer-
chants to conduct business in war zones. Although it is clear that Athenian
interest in commercial taxes and duties was primarily motivated by a desire to
increase public revenue, this objective could not be achieved simply by increas-
ing the amount being charged. As has already been noted, foreign traders were,
all other things being equal, likely to conduct their business where transaction
costs were relatively low. Although in the short term a significant increase in
commercial taxes and duties would generate a larger income, in the long term
foreign merchants would be deterred from conducting business in Athens, thus
ultimately reducing the amount of revenue generated. Recognizing that, aside
from periods of crisis or emergency, the introduction of higher commercial
taxes and duties was counterproductive, the Athenians established a system
of taxation that relied on a high volume of transactions occurring in their
markets. Consequently, instead of burdening a smaller number of merchants
with higher levels of taxes and duties, the Athenian system charged moder-
ate fees on an increased number of transactions. The success of such a system
demanded that the Athenians were mindful of the impact that state policy had