-
Alan Harvey
The land and taxation in the reign of Alexios I Komnenos:
theevidence of Theophylakt of OchridIn: Revue des tudes byzantines,
tome 51, 1993. pp. 139-154.
AbstractREB 51 1993 France p. 139-154A. Harvey, The land and
luxation in the reign of Alexios I Komnenos : the evidence of
Theophylakt's of Ochrid. Theophylakt'sevidence has to be
interpreted in comparison with the more detailed information
provided by the archives of the Athonitemonasteries. The fiscal
reassessments ordered by Alexios Komnenos were intended to increase
tax revenues and only a veryfew, highly privileged landowners like
Lavni could escape the impact of these measures. In spite of
Theophylakt's impressiverange of contacts, he had great difficulty
in restraining fiscal officials, because he was not confronting
isolated abuses byindividual officials, but a concerted imperial
policy.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Harvey Alan. The land and taxation in the reign of Alexios I
Komnenos: the evidence of Theophylakt of Ochrid. In: Revue destudes
byzantines, tome 51, 1993. pp. 139-154.
doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1993.1873
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1993_num_51_1_1873
-
THE LAND AND TAXATION
IN THE REIGN OF ALEXIOS I KOMNENOS:
THE EVIDENCE OF THEOPHYLAKT OF OCHRID *
Alan HARVEY
Most of the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) was marked
by a considerable amount of confusion in the rural economy with far
reaching inconsistencies in the operation of the Byzantine taxation
system. This was caused by a severe fiscal crisis which affected
the empire from the 1070s. While there is a reasonable amount of
evidence illustrating the general outline of this period of crisis,
evidence of the impact of the financial pressure in specific
regions is very limited. The archives of the monasteries of Mount
Athos give valuable detail of the activities of the state's fiscal
officials in eastern Macedonia, but they perhaps present a
distorted perspective because the most detailed information comes
from the most wealthy and highly privileged monastery, Lavra. There
is also useful information for the lands of the church of Ochrid in
western Macedonia, due to the survival of several letters of its
archbishop, Theophylakt, relating his difficulties with
tax-officials, and the new edition of his letters recently
published by Gautier makes a reassessment of them worthwhile1.
Theophylakt was writing at a time when the conflict between the
fiscal administration and landowners was at its most intense. It
must be emphasised that this financial crisis confronting the
empire was
* I should like to thank Dr. Margaret Mullett for her helpful
comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
1. Thophylade d'Achrida. Lettres. Introduction, texte,
traduction et notes, ed. P. Gautier, Thessalonike 1986. For a
recent assessment of Theophylakt, see D. Obolensky, Six Byzantine
portraits, Oxford 1988, p. 34-82, and for a useful But dated
account, I). A. Xanalatos, Beitrge zur Wirtschafts- und
Sozialgeschichte Makedoniens im Mittelaller, hauptschlich auf Grund
der Briefe des Erzbischofs Theophylaktos von Achrida, Munich
1937.
Revue des Etudes Byzantines 51. 1993, p. 139-154.
-
140 A. HARVEY
not the result of either decline or stagnation in its economy.
It was the product of the state's pressing need for revenues to pay
for its military campaigns and the dislocation inflicted on its
finances by the loss of territory after the Turkish penetration
into Asia Minor in the 1070s. The situation was aggravated by
frequent incursions by the Petchenegs into the eastern Balkan
provinces culminating in an attack on Constantinople itself during
1090-91. In the 1080s the Norman ruler Robert Guiscard launched an
attack on the empire, capturing Dyrrachion and advancing far into
imperial territory. Nothing ever put a greater strain on the
empire's finances than a period of prolonged warfare. The greater
role played by mercenaries in the Byzantine army during the
eleventh century added to the expense. The state's revenues were
too inflexible to cope with any sudden and dramatic increase in
expenditure. The Byzantine economy was overwhelmingly agrarian and
any intensification in production was necessarily piecemeal.
Although landowners could make some gains through spending on
irrigation and also by working the land more intensively if
sufficient labour was available, the most significant increases in
output were achieved by extending the area under cultivation. This
depended on population trends which could make a considerable
impact, but such change in the agrarian economy was a protracted
process and the state's need for revenues was always immediate.
When this need coincided with a sharp reduction in the territory
under the empire's control, the strain on imperial resources became
even more pronounced 2.
At the same time the authority of successive emperors was
weakened by the circumstances in which they gained the throne.
Michael VII Doukas had succeeded Romanos IV, whose defeat by the
Seljuk Turks at Manzikert in 1071 was partly due to the disloyalty
of the Doukas family. Nikephoros Botaneiates and Alexios Komnenos
both came to the throne by military coups. As their rule lacked
legitimacy, they needed to win the support of powerful individuals
and institutions to bolster their vulnerable position. The generous
grants, which were made to some landowners at a time of financial
crisis, might seem superficially to be instances of the state
2. For the general political background to this period, M.
Angold, The Byzantine empire 1025-1204. A political history, London
1984. For the effect of warfare on the imperial budget, M.F. Hendy,
Studies in the Byzantine monetary economy c. 300-1450, Cambridge
1985, p. 221-28. For the evidence of an economic upsurge in the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, M.F. Hendy, Byzantium 1081-1204: an
economic reappraisal, Transactions of the Boyal Historical Society
5th series 20, 1970, p. 31-52; A. P. Kazh- dan, A.W. Epstein,
Change in Byzantine culture in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
University of California 1985, p. 24-73; A. Harvey, Economic
expansion in the Byzantine empire 900-1200, Cambridge 1990.
-
THE LAND AND TAXATION 141
undermining its own financial position when its situation was
desperate, but in fact they were necessary gestures by emperors
seeking legitimacy. Fiscal concessions by the state to prominent
landowners were part of the fabric of Byzantine political life, but
in the 1070s and the 1080s these concessions were more extensive in
scope than those which had occurred in previous decades. Most of
the earlier fiscal grants which survive in the monastic archives
had allowed landowners to install additional peasants on their
estates, provided that they were not already recorded in the
state's tax-registers. Given the comprehensive nature of the
Byzantine system of land taxation, this meant that these peasants
had to be landless. They were obtained as a result of the steady
increase in population which made rural labour more plentiful to
both the state and private landowners. The effect of this was to
increase the resources available to both, a trend accompanied by an
upsurge in the quantity of money which the state was minting and
putting into circulation3. However, this was a gradual process
which did not safeguard the imperial administration from the
consequences of an abrupt increase in military expenditure due to
the crisis of the later eleventh century. Many of the privileges
issued to landowners during the 1070s and 1080s consisted of the
rights to revenues from state properties and their effect was,
naturally, to reduce the revenues available to the state. Alexios
Komnenos faced the additional difficulty that the landed wealth o'f
his own family needed to be increased owing to the loss of
properties following the Turkish
3. For instances of such grants of paroikoi to landowners, P.
Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de
Lavra. I. Des origines 1204, Paris 1970, no. 38. a document which
grants Lavra an exemption for another hundred paroikoi and
douloparoikoi on condition not only that they were not liable to
any fiscal obligation to the state, but that they came from the
descendants of paroikoi already established on its estates. F.
Dlger, Ein Fall slavischer Einsiedlung im Hinterland von
Thessalonike im 10. Jahrhundert, Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse,
Munich 1952, Heft 1, p. 3-28, esp. 6-9. During the tenth and
eleventh centuries the state was quite rigorous in ensuring that
landowners did not violate the terms of these privileges. A
sigillion issued to the monastery, Nea Mone, on Chios recorded the
names of twenty-four paroikoi settled on its property, Kalothekia,
and stipulated that if any were subsequently found owing any
payments to the state, their old obligations would be reimposed
regardless of the monastery's privileges (MM, V, p. 7). Fiscal
officials made regular checks on the number of paroikoi installed
on landowners' properties; see Lemerle et al., Actes de Laura, no.
6; J. Lefort, N. Oikonomids, D. Papachryssanthou, H. Mtrvu, Actes
d'Iuiron. I. Des origines au milieu du xi e sicle, Paris 1985, no.
2. The question of population growth is discussed in detail in
Harvey, Economic expansion in the Byzantine empire. For the
increase in the quantity of money in circulation during the
eleventh century, C. Morrisson, La dvaluation de la monnaie
byzantine au xip sicle : essai d'interprtation, TM 6. 1976, p.
3-48; Hendy, Byzantium 1081-1204: an economic reappraisal, p.
31-52.
-
142 A. HARVEY
occupation of much of Asia Minor. He attempted to restrict the
issue of extensive privileges to a limited circle of his most
important supporters and the effects of these concessions of fiscal
revenues was offset by the confiscation of properties of other
landowners. He was accused by the historian Zonaras of favouring
the members of his own family and other close associates at the
expense of the senatorial aristocracy. Certainly, during Alexios's
reign the most powerful positions were concentrated in the hands of
members of the imperial family and related families, while the
civil aristocracy of the capital played a subordinate role4.
An expedient to which the state resorted increasingly at this
time was the debasement of the coinage. It had begun in the reign
of Michael IV (1034-41), but it was only later in the century that
it assumed serious proportions. By the early years of Alexios's
reign the gold nomisma was worth in real terms only a third of its
full nominal value. This brought great confusion to the taxation
system, as powerful landowners insisted on paying their taxes in
the most heavily debased coinage, effectively paying less in real
terms than their full obligation. It was common for the collection
of taxes to be farmed out to individuals who were obliged to meet
their targets in full. What they could not obtain from one
landowner, they attempted to make up by exacting more from others.
In 1 105-6 the collection of the taxes in the provinces of
Macedonia and Thrace was entrusted to Nikepho-
4. In 1073 a group of state properties with revenues totalling
307 nomismata were given to Andronikos Doukas (M.
Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, . II. , Athens 1980, no. 50). Gregory
Pakourianos received numerous grants of properties from the state
and he was given a pittakion allowing him complete rights to the
fiscal revenues from these estates (P. Gautier, Le typikon du
sbaste Grgoire Pakourianos, BEB 42, 1984, p. 127-31). For the
concession by the state to the monk Christodoulos of the abolition
of the tax-payments firstly on two properties on Kos, then on the
island of Patmos and the estates of Parthenion and Temenia on the
island of Leros and also the small island of Leipso: E. Branouse, .
. , Athens 1980, no. 5. For concessions of extensive fiscal
revenues by Alexios Komnenos to his brothers, Adrian and Isaac:
Lemerle et al., Ades de Lavra, nos. 46, 51 . Leo Kephalas, a much
lesser magnate who was rewarded for his military achievements,
received four properties, but he had to make a tax-payment on only
one and in the other three cases the state relinquished its claims
to the revenues (Lemerle et al., Ades de Lavra, nos. 44, 45, 48,
49). For Zonaras's allegations against Alexios: Zonaras, Epitome
Ilisloriarum, ed. M.Pinder, T. Bttner-Wobst, 3 Vols., Bonn 1841-97,
III, p. 732, 766-67. See also Bendy, Studies in the Byzantine
monetary economy, p. 582-90; Kazhdan, Epstein, Change in Byzantine
culture, p. 69-71. For a detailed summary of Kazhdan's work in
Russian on this issue: I. Sorlin, Publications sovitiques sur le
xi'1 sicle, TM 6, 1976, p. 367-80. The settlement of members of the
imperial family and other aristocrats in the European provinces
after the Turkish occupation of much of Asia Minor is discussed by
J.-C. Chey- net, Pouvoir et contestations Byzance (963-1210), Paris
1990, p. 238-9.
-
THE LAND AND TAXATION 143
ros Artabasdos, who reported that there were great differences
in the payments made by individual villages and these variations
had been established long enough to have become customary. Some
villages had been compelled to pay three or four times their
theoretical obligation. Although this situation clearly had its
origins in the dislocation caused by the debasement of the 1070s
and 1080s, it was above all a reflection of the power of some
landowners and the weakness of others5. This is best shown by
evidence from the archives of the monasteries of Mount Athos. The
imperial administration had reacted to the debasement by making new
tax assessments which had led to a general increase in the amount
owed to the state. Lavra and Docheia- riou were able, nevertheless,
to hold on to all their land without paying any increase in spite
of a succession of fiscal enquiries. Lavra's payments were fixed at
an exceptionally low rate. In contrast several estates belonging to
the monastery of Iviron were confiscated and then handed over to
members of the Komnenoi family. The disorder in the rural economy
persisted after Alexios reformed the coinage in 1092. The problems
were resolved only in 1106-9 when the system of taxation was
reformed and the higher rate of payment, which previously had been
exacted from some tax-payers, was extended to all but the limited
number of landowners who had obtained special privileges6.
In a discussion of these issues the use of letters as evidence
presents some problems. Firstly, as they are very rhetorical and
generally focus on emotions and relationships, factual information
is usually limited. In the case of Theophylakt's letters the
difficulties are compounded by the frequent complexity of his
rhetoric. Nevertheless, his problems with tax-officials were real
and there is useful evidence in several letters where he goes into
some detail mentioning specific fiscal procedures by name even
though that may have detracted from
5. P. Grierson, The debasement of the bezant in the eleventh
century, BZ 47, 1954, p. 379-94; Idem. Notes on the fineness of the
Byzantine solidus, BZ 54, 1961, p. 91-97. Morrisson, La dvaluation
de la monnaie byzantine, p. 3-48. M. F. Hendy, Coinage and money in
the Byzantine empire 1081-1261, Dumbarton Oaks 1969. C. Morrisson,
La logarik: rforme montaire et rforme fiscale sous Alexis Ier
Comnne, M 7, 1979. p. 419-64.
6. Lemrri.e et a!.. Actes de Laora, nos. 50, 52, 58. N.
Oikonomids, Actes de Uocheiariou, Paris 1984, no. 2. N. Svoronos,
L'pibol l'poque des Comnnes, M 3, 1968, p. 375-95. For the
confiscation of some of Iviron 's lands in two stages, first by
1094, secondly by 1101: J. Lefort, N. Oikonomids, D.
Papachryssanthou, Actes d'Iviron. II. Du milieu du xir sicle 1204,
Paris 1990, nos. 45, 50, 52 and the introduction, p. 27-33; also,
J. Lefort, line grande fortune foncire aux '-' sicles: les biens du
monastre d'Iviron, Structures fodales et fodalisrne dans l'Occident
mditerranen ( x'-xiW sicles). Bilan et perspectives de recherches.
Rome 1980. p. 727-42: Hendy. Coinage and money, p. 53-58.
-
144 A. HARVEY
his literary style and these letters provide useful evidence7.
Another consideration is the dating o the letters. Theophylakt's
episcopate began at some time between 1088 and early 1092. Although
its precise duration is unknown, it certainly extended at least
until 1 108. Several of the letters claiming abuses by
tax-officials have been dated to 1092-94 and a group of subsequent
letters detailing more extensively the conflict between the
administration and the archbishop have been placed between 1096 and
1105. As specific dates can be obtained only by reference to the
prosopographical and other indications given in the letters,
precision is in many cases impossible. Although some of the dates
attributed to individual letters might not be absolutely
conclusive, this is not as big a problem as it might seem at first.
The fiscal pressure which the administration imposed on the
provinces was sustained throughout Alexios's reign and culminated
in the reform of 1106-9 when the taxation system was stabilised.
Theophylakt's letters give a very useful insight into economic
conditions during this period of intense fiscal pressure8.
One of the complaints made by Theophylakt against the
tax-collectors was that they often ignored privileges which the
church's properties had been granted by the state. These fiscal
privileges were generally covered by the term exkousseia, which
indicated that the state would not exact certain payments from the
peasants installed on the properties; instead these payments were
transferred to the landowner who could claim them from the
peasants. Not only was the range of obligations covered by the
exkousseia carefully stipulated, but also the number of peasants to
whom it applied. If a landowner had more than the prescribed number
on his properties, the state was entitled to claim payments from
the additional peasants9.
The privileges of the church of Ochrid dated back to 1020 when
Basil's organisation of the church in Bulgaria allowed it to hold
forty klerikoi and thirty paroikoi in Ochrid and the kastra at
Prespa, Mokros and Kitzaba. In several Byzantine texts relating to
church land klerikoi and paroikoi are bracketed together and they
were very
7. M. Mui.lett, The classical tradition in the Byzantine letter,
M. Mullett, R. Scott (ed.), Byzantium and the classical tradition,
Birmingham 1981, p. 75-93; M. Muu.ett, Theophylact through his
letters. The two worlds of an exile bishop, Unpublished Ph. D.
Thesis, University of Birmingham 1981.
8. The dating of Theophylakt's episcopate is discussed in
Thophylacte d'Achrida. Discours, traits, posies, ed. P. Gautier,
Thessalonike 1980, p. 33-37. For the dating of individual letters,
see the introduction to Thophylacte d'Achrida. Lettres.
9. For the exkousseia: P. Lemerle, The agrarian history of
Byzantium from the origins to the twelfth century, Galway 1979, p.
166-75; Kazhdan, Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture, p. 62; G.
Ostrogorsky, Pour l'histoire de l'immunit Byzance, By . 28, 1958,
p. 165-254.
-
THE LAND AND TAXATION 145
much of a similar social status. The klerikoi probably exercised
some lowly function for the church, but they held their land under
conditions very similar to those regulating the settlement of
paroikoi. The sigillion in which the grant to the church of Ochrid
is recorded does not elaborate the precise details of the
privilege10. Although it is clear from Theophylakt's letters that
the church received other documents concerning its privileges later
in the century, none of these survive and our only information
about the fiscal status of the church's lands during Alexios's
reign comes from the letters of Theophylakt. An additional problem
is that he does not always name the property to which he refers.
This is the case with Theophylakt's most bitter and complicated
dispute with the fiscal administration. It involved a paroikos
Lazaros who had denounced the archbishop. The details of the affair
are very murky and we have only Theophylakt's version of the
events, but his letters give some indication of the fiscal status
of the property involved. He refers to the dispute in letters to
both Adrian Komnenos, the emperor's brother, and Nikephoros
Bryennios. In letters to Adrian Komnenos he claimed that Lazaros
and other peasants who had abandoned the village at the centre of
the controversy had collaborated with the praktor and succeeded in
nullifying the effect of an imperial prostaxis, possibly a document
he had obtained through the intervention of Nikephoros Bryennios.
The village at issue and the claims on the paroikoi installed there
were obtained by the church as the result of an exchange in which
it had conceded some mountain pastures to the treasury. The
exchange had been confirmed by a chrysobull and an imperial
semeioma and Theophylakt asserted that the terms of these documents
were being violated11.
The affair is described at length in a letter to Nikephoros
Bryennios, which gives Theophylakt's most detailed account of the
machinations of the fiscal officials. The main feature of the
controversy surrounding the paroikos Lazaros is that it was
essentially a
10. H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte
Bistmsverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche. II, BZ 2, 1893, p.
42-46. For the sense of the term klerikos: N. Svoro- nos, Les
privilges de l'glise l'poque des Comnnes: un rescrit indit de
Manuel Ier Comnne, M 1, 1965, p. 361-62 n. 175.
11. Thophylacte d'Achrida. Lettres, nos. 85, 89, 98. Only no. 98
refers specifically to Lazaros, but the detail contained in the
other letters makes it clear that they all concern the same case.
No. 85 refers to the exchange of properties and to the chrysobull
and semeioma protecting the village which the church had received,
while no. 98 recounts Lazaros's efforts to undermine the chrysobull
and the imperial prostaxis concerning the exchange. No. 89 contains
no significant factual information, but there is a clear allusion
to his previous letter to Adrian Komnenos on this subject. For a
discussion of this dispute: Mui.lett, Theophylact through his
letters. The two worlds of an exile bishop, p. 488-550.
-
146 A. HARVEY
dispute between the archbishop and the tax-official who was
using Lazaros as a means to discredit Theophylakt. Theophylakt
accused Lazaros of seeking out all those who were hostile to him.
These malcontents included heretics who had been condemned by the
archbishop, and those who had made illegal marriages. According to
Theophylakt they claimed that they were from Ochrid and their
fields and vineyards had been seized by the archbishop. Obviously,
it is not possible to assess the justification of these complaints,
which had been reported to the emperor in Constantinople. It is
possible that Theophylakt was over-zealous in exacting the church's
dues from the peasants on its properties and caused some of the
discontent in this way, but we should hardly expect his letters to
reveal this12.
In the letter Theophylakt summarises the fiscal status of his
lands and his relations with the tax-officials. Except for one
property he had never held any land belonging to the state. This
seems to be a reference to the property featured in the exchange
with the treasury mentioned in two letters to Adrian Komnenos. He
then refers to the denunciations of a tax-collector, implying that
Theophylakt was being accused of illegally holding state land.
Given the confusion into which the system of taxation had fallen by
the early part of Alexios's reign, this is not improbable. The
general practice of farming out the taxes put great pressure on the
tax-collector to meet his quota. The penalty for failing to do so
was the sequestration of his property, so he would go to great
lengths to ensure that they exacted the full amount of the payment
if not more. Theophylakt defended himself against the charge that
he was not paying the full amount of the tax on the church's
properties. Firstly he stresses that the klerikoi on his properties
each had an exkousseia for one zeugarion (one pair of oxen). For
any excess amount the tax had to be paid to the state. Secondly, he
claims that previously they had a complete exemption from the
dekalosis on all their animals. This seems to have been an
obligation on all the animals except those used in arable
cultivation. Recently, the extent of this privilege had been
restricted and the state claimed payment on any excess over a
prescribed limit. Thirdly, in practice neither of these exemptions
had been allowed in the case of Theophy- lakt's klerikoi; not only
had payments been imposed on them for obligations from which the
church of Ochrid was exempt, but they were taxed excessively.
Although Theophylakt expresses this in terms of the exkousseia
which the klerikoi should have enjoyed, it was in fact a dispute
between the archbishop and fiscal officials over the revenues from
these direct producers and it is very likely that the
12. Thophylacte d'Achrida. Lettres, no. 96 p. 485.
-
THE LAND AND TAXATION 147
economic conditions of the peasantry suffered adversely as a
result of the competing claims of these two parties13.
Theophylakt asserted that his paroikoi on this property had also
suffered from excessive impositions of other obligations. Again
there is no alternative evidence to corroborate his claims, but
they are consistent with the general confusion in the fiscal system
at this time. According to the archbishop his klerikoi had to pay
the tax on the mills at double the rate that the laity paid. He
made a similar claim over the payment they had to make for their
fishing rights. He also had complaints about the payments exacted
directly from him; taxes were imposed on mills which had long been
out of use and for those which were in use he was charged at double
the rate which the local population had to pay. A fishing place
with a small catch was taxed at thirteen trikephala nomismata and
again he asserted that other tax-payers were charged much less for
similar properties. These allegations cannot be dismissed
automatically as rhetorical exaggerations, because they fit in
neatly with the general pattern of sharp variations in the rate of
taxation imposed on different tax-payers at that time14.
The tax-officials also followed another allegedly incorrect
procedure by not attributing to the church the excess peasants
(perissoi) on the property, even though the church was liable to
pay tax on them according to an imperial prostaxis. When a
tax-official visited a property he compared the existing
landholding with the previous tax- register and, if there were any
additional peasants whose names were not recorded in the register,
he had to assess the obligations for which they were liable. This
was a fairly straightforward process if the peasants were
independent farmers cultivating their own land; in this case they
would be liable to make their payments directly to the state. Where
they were paroikoi installed on the property of a landowner, it
could be more complicated. Then the revenues from the direct
producers could be claimed by the state or instead the state might
concede some or all of the dues to the landowner. The church was
certainly liable to make a tax-payment on these excess paroikoi,
but it is possible that the prostaxis to which Theophylakt refers
did make some concessions to the church allowing it to claim some
dues from the paroikoi found newly installed on the property. The
standard procedure for such a transfer of revenues was for the
tax-official
13. Ibidem, no. 96 p. 487-89. For the farming of taxes at this
time: Zepos, JGR, I, p. 334.
14. Thophylade d'Achrida. Lettres, no. 96 p. 489-91. For the
variations in the rates at which taxes were exacted at this time:
Zepos, JGR, I, p. 334. For the trikephalon nomisma, see Heindy,
Coinage and money, p. 31-33.
-
148 A. HARVEY
to make a new assessment of the estate and to hand over to the
archbishop a praktikon, which consisted of a detailed list of the
paroi- koi living there and the range of payments which they were
obliged to make to the archbishop15.
Theophylakt also claimed that tax-officials were making unfair
assessments of the peasants on the church's property by recording
peasants who were aktemones (peasants without oxen) as zeugaratoi
(peasants with two oxen). This was an important detail because
zeugaratoi usually had to make significantly higher payments due to
their greater wealth. According to the archbishop not only were the
payments of the paroikoi belonging to the church unjustly
increased, but the church was not allowed to exact these payments
itself. Normally the document outlining the privileges would detail
the obligations for which the beneficiary enjoyed an exkousseia,
enabling him to exact these obligations from the paroikoi. Any
other payments which were not covered by the exkousseia would be
exacted by the state16.
It is uncertain how this affair was resolved. Theophylakt was
possibly referring to it in a letter to the secretary of George
Palaiologos, when he appealed for help against the praklor,
Iasites, who in alliance with some of Theophylakt's neighbours had
taken possession of land belonging to one of the church's villages
situated near the Vardar. Theophylakt also appealed for protection
against any epereia imposed on the village and in particular he
wanted to prevent tax-assessors from entering the property.
Subsequently he thanked Palaiologos for his help in bringing some
respite through his intervention with Iasites, but it is by no
means clear that the problem was resolved eventually in the
archbishop's favour17. Although the property at the centre of the
dispute is not specified, Gautier has suggested that it was the
village of Ekklesiai, which is referred to elsewhere in
Theophylakt's correspondence. In one letter to Gregory Kamateros he
refers briefly to problems relating to the assessment of the
village and
15. Thophylade d'Achrida. Lettres, no. 96 p. 491-93. For the
procedure by which the state ensured that landowners were
restricted to holding only those paroikoi to whom they were
entitled by the terms of their privileges, see Harvey, Economic
expansion in the Byzantine empire, p. 48-49.
16. Thophylade d'Achrida. Lettres, no. 96 p. 491. Theophylakt's
concern about new assessments of his church's lands by
tax-officials is expressed in other letters, for instance no.
45.
17. Ibidem, nos. 88, 126. The connection of these letters with
the case of the paroikos Lazaros is possible, but cannot be proved
definitely. Lazaros is not mentioned in these letters, but in no.
88 there is the accusation that Iasites cooperated with
Theophylakt's neighbours to damage the interests of the church.
Lazaros was a disaffected paroikos of the church, not a neighbour,
but according to Theophylakt he did actively seek out others who
had grievances against the archbishop, ibidem, no. 96 p. 485.
-
THE LAND AND TAXATION 149
in another to the possibility that actions concerning the
village presumably Ekklesiai, although it is not mentioned by name
in this letter might be referred to the emperor. In a letter to the
chartophylax Peter it is clear that the church's position in
Ekklesiai was under assault and in another letter to Nicolas
Kallikles he complains of the impositions to which the inhabitants
of this village were subjected18. The similarity in the subject
matter raises the possibility that all the letters so far discussed
relate to the same property. Although this cannot be discounted,
neither can it be assumed automatically. The letters in which the
village of Ekklesiai is named do not describe its location and in
particular make no reference to the Vardar. Neither do they mention
Lazaros or Iasites by name. Similarly, Lazaros and Iasites are
never mentioned specifically in the same letter, although
Theophylakt's description of Iasites's activities suggests that it
is possible that they did act in concert. The only connection that
is specifically made concerns Iasites's activities in the unnamed
village near the Vardar. As the properties of the archbishopric
were clearly scattered over a considerable area and are known to us
through isolated references in Theophylakt's correspondence, the
identification of Ekklesiai with the village near the Vardar has to
be viewed with some caution19. The similarity in subject matter
does make the identification a possibility, but the fiscal pressure
imposed by the administration would certainly have affected all the
church's properties and created comparable situations
elsewhere.
There is evidence of similar occurrences on other of the
archbishop's properties. The emperor had granted the priests of
Pologoi an exkousseia from all obligations except the zeugologion,
which was charged for the imposition of the land-tax on the
zeugarion and for its inscription in the tax registers. Theophylakt
complained that imperial officials were ignoring the content of the
privilege and he appealed to John Komnenos, the governor of
Dyrrachion, for a pittakion confirming this and ordering the
restoration of payments exacted for the aerikon and otrocina. He
also wanted the priests, who were dependent on the archbishop, to
be exempt from being exploited for the personal service of state
officials. His attempt to secure the pittakion from John Komnenos
was successful, but it did not have the desired effect and soon
after he was reporting that the priests of Pologoi were forced to
undertake guard duty and to provide the zomo-
18. Ibidem, nos. 31, 90, 111, refer to Ekklesiai by name, and
no. 38 appears to be a follow-up to the earlier letter (no. 31) to
Gregory Kamateros. For Gautier's identification of Ekklesiai with
the village near the Vardar, ibidem, p. 53, 71, 103.
19. The letters referring specifically to the village near the
Vardar are nos. 88, 118; Iasites, nos. 11, 88; Lazaros, nos. 96.
98.
-
150 A. HARVEY
zemia (a payment in kind) even though they were exempted from
these obligations by chrysobull 20. At about the same time he was
also worried about the state of the church of Diabolis, claiming
that its bishop had been forced to flee due to harassment by
officials. Previously a sigillion issued by the emperor had
entitled the church to some paroikoi, but they had abandoned their
residences around the church. Theophylakt appealed for a sigillion
from John Komnenos guaranteeing that the paroikoi would be free of
vexations from officials in order to give them the confidence to
return to their land- holdings21.
Another incident gives a good indication of the way the taxation
system was operating in the 1090s. An unnamed chorion which
Theophylakt claimed the church had held for many years was
appropriated by the state because it was not recorded in the
state's tax-register as belonging to the church. Although the
church was deprived of the land, it was still forced to pay the
zeugologion. Theophylakt asked why the church had been deprived of
land long regarded as its own, but, as he himself admits, it was in
fact treated no differently than many other landowners. A
comprehensive fiscal survey had been conducted and many archontes
had also had land confiscated by the
20. Ibidem, nos. 12, 19. The aerikon seems to have been a
judicial fine originally, but by the eleventh century there was
already a tendency to commute it into a fiscal payment in cash: F.
Dlger, Das , BZ 30, 1930, p. 450-57. Scylitzes, Synopsis
Historiarum, ed. J. Thurn, Berlin -New York 1973, p. 404. For the
zeugologion, see F. Dlger, Zum Gebhrenwesen der Byzantiner, Byzanz
und die Europische Staalen- well, Ettal 1953, p. 256-58, correcting
Xanalatos, Beitrge, p. 41, who describes it as a tax on
ploughteams. It was unusual for properties to be exempted from it
in the eleventh century, but in the twelfth century this became
more common and the obligation was mentioned more frequently in the
documents: L. Petit, Le monastre de Notre Dame de Piti en Macdoine,
IBAIK 6, 1900, p. 2919, p. 36 17; Zepos, JGR, I, p. 366; C. Astruc,
Un document indit de 1163 sur l'vch thessalien de Stagi, BCH 83,
1959, p. 21534; Branouse, - , I, no. 19. In Theo- phylakt's letters
the priests of Pologoi are described as being liable only for the
zeugologion and exempt from all other dues and he complains about
being charged for the zeugologion on a property which the state's
officials had removed from the church: Thophylacle d'Achrida.
Lettres, nos. 12, 26. These instances are consistent with the
indications from the archive material. In his long letter relating
the dispute with the paroikos, Lazaros, he claims that the praktor
had threatened to allow the church to exact from its paroikoi
nothing but the zeugologion: ibidem, no. 96 p. 493. While the
obligations which landowners might be allowed to exact from the
peasantry could conceivably vary from one property to another, this
particular claim of Theophylakt must be suspect because it is at
variance with the other evidence. The meaning of the otrocina is
very unclear. It has been suggested that it was a tax on
douloparoikoi, but this is by no means certain; see A.
Leroy-Molinghen, Trois mots slaves dans les lettres de Thophylacte
de Bulgarie, Annuaire de l'institut de philologie et d'histoire
orientales et slaves 6, 1938, p. 111-17.
21. Thophylacte d'Achrida. Lettres, no. 22.
-
THE LAND AND TAXATION 151
state. Usually surveys were carried out at regular intervals to
take into account any changes in the exploitation of the land which
had occurred since the previous survey was completed. If a
landowner was found cultivating more than the larid to which he was
entitled either by his tax-payment or by imperial privileges, the
state could either increase the tax-payment or take possession of
the surplus land. This procedure would have coped with any
extension in the area under cultivation resulting from any increase
in population. However, it is clear from the content of
Theophylakt's letter that this was no routine revision of the
tax-register. The operation was carried out on imperial
instructions and, although the technical detail of the procedure is
not described in the letter, it was most likely the same as that of
the fiscal reassessments in the Chalkidike during the 1080s and
1090s. There, a new rate of epibole was imposed on Alexios's
instructions. As a result of this change landowners found that the
tax- payments which they had previously made for their entire
property were now imposed only on part of their property, which
they were allowed to retain, and the remainder was considered as
surplus land and confiscated by the state. Theophylakt is emphatic
that the state's actions affected not only the church but all the
landowners in the region. The most efficient way for the state to
make such extensive confiscations was to alter the rate of taxation
and then to claim the surplus land 22.
The conflict between Theophylakt and the fiscal administration
and the developments in the system of taxation at this time have to
be set in a broader economic context. Byzantine society was
overwhelmingly agrarian and the great bulk of the state's revenues
depen-
22. Ibidem, no. 26. Gautier raised the possibility that the
chorion in question might have been Mogila or Ekklesiai or another
unknown chorion (ibidem, p. 214 n. 3). It is unlikely to have been
Ekklesiai which seems to have remained in the archbishop's
possession, albeit with some difficulty. It could not have been the
chorion referred to in the letters to Adrian Komnenos (nos. 85,
98), because this property had come into the possession of the
church as a result of an exchange of lands with the treasury. It
may have been Mogila. In another letter (no. 17) Theophylakt
complained that this property had been occupied by Romanos
Straboromanos. If this was a straightforward usurpation, as the
letter indicates, it could not be the property referred to in no.
26. It is possible that the property was granted to him by the
state after confiscation by fiscal officials. In this case it could
have been the chorion referred to in no. 26, but if this was so
Theophylakt's account of the seizure of Mogila by Straboromanos
omits significant details. On balance it seems most likely that the
chorion at issue in no. 26 was an otherwise unknown property of the
archbishopric. For the career of Romanos Straboromanos, see P.
Gautier, Le dossier d'un haut fonctionnaire d'Alexis Ier Comnne,
Manuel Straboromanos, REB 23, 1965, p. 171-72. Elsewhere
Theophylakt also hints at the usurpation by Michael Antiochos of
land near to the church's properties: Thophy- lacte d' Achrida.
Discours, traits, posies, p. 365.
-
152 A. HARVEY
ded on agricultural production. Given the static nature of
Byzantine agricultural technology, the most significant increase in
these revenues could only come from an increase in the number of
direct producers. In the European provinces of the empire at least
the population grew steadily during the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, although in Asia Minor the situation was less clear cut
and there may have been a temporary reversal of the upward trend in
the late eleventh and early twelfth century. At the same time the
state was minting and putting into circulation larger quantities of
coinage. The increased demands in taxation make sense only against
this background of economic expansion. Not only was the level of
the basic land-tax raised, but there was a clear tendency in the
eleventh century for some services and obligations in kind to be
commuted into cash payments. The higher levels of cash exacted in
tax-payments reflected the greater quantity of cash in circulation.
Consequently, Alexios was able to institutionalise the higher rates
at which the land-tax was exacted in his reform of the fiscal
system of 1106-9 which brought about a much needed stability. In
Macedonia the succession of fiscal reviews at short intervals came
to an end and it is no coincidence that in the archives of the
monasteries of Mount Athos documents dealing with privileges
granted by the state to landowners are much rarer for the decades
immediately after the reform than they are for the period preceding
it23. During the years of Theophylakt's episcopate the pressure of
fiscal demands affected all but the most highly privileged
landowners. His letters do not give concrete evidence of the
outcome of his disputes with the administration nor any specific
indication of the changes in the tax-payment on the estates of his
church during his episcopate. In one letter he writes of the
respite which the intervention of George Palaiologos had brought,
but we do not know the extent of the benefit which it provided for
the church nor how long it lasted24. In other cases his attempts to
secure powerful support were less successful: for instance, the
tax-officials ignored the pittakion which Theophylakt obtained from
John Komnenos25. Theophylakt used the full range of his contacts,
including members of the imperial family, in his struggle with the
fiscal administration and his opponents exploited their access to
the emperor in their attempts to nullify his efforts. It is
indicative of the strength of the pressure which the administration
was able to impose on landowners that even someone as well
connected as Theophylakt had a great deal of diffi-
23. Harvey, Economic expansion in the Byzantine empire, p.
47-119. 24. Thophylacte d'Achrida. Lettres, no. 126. 25. Ibidem,
no. 19.
-
THE LAND AND TAXATION 153
culty with tax-officials. Although generous fiscal concessions
had been granted in the first part of Alexios's reign to members of
his family and close supporters and also to a few prestigious and
highly favoured monasteries like Lavra and St. John on Patmos, most
landowners suffered from the effects of the stringent fiscal
policy. An archbischo- pric had limited prestige by comparison with
the most illustrious monastic foundations and its welfare depended
to a large degree on the personal influence of the archbishop.
Theophylakt was energetic in exploiting his social contacts, but
the extent of his success is uncertain. That someone with access to
members of the imperial family should have had such difficulty
keeping tax-officials at bay is a strong indication of the pressure
which was placed on landowners by the fiscal administration in its
determination to exact greater revenues. The big problem
confronting Theophylakt was that it was clearly imperial policy to
exact higher levels of taxation from the provinces. Personal
contacts could be very useful in dealing with isolated officials
who abused their position, but faced with the effects of imperial
policy his chances of success were limited. It is striking that the
archbishop of Cyprus, Nicolas Mouzalon, also experienced similar
problems with the fiscal administration around this time. After he
resigned his see in either 1110 or 1111, he wrote an apologetic
poem explaining his action. He described the difficult conditions
which the island's inhabitants had to endure and especially the
exorbitant taxation which was inflicted upon them26. The
significant aspect in Mouzalon's case was that his archiepiscopate
coincided with Alexios's taxation reform (1106-9) when higher rates
of payment were institutionalised. In the documents outlining the
procedures by which the reform was effected, there is a clear
admission by a senior tax- official that large sections of the
rural population found the measures onerous27. Although the
material from the monastic archives does present a somewhat
distorted picture owing to the wealth of detail about such a
privileged institution as Lavra, there are indications that its
case was very much the exception and few landowners were
26. Mouzalon's resignation is dated to 1110 by S.I. Doanidou ( '
. , , 1934. . 109-50) and to 1111 by C. Mango, . J. Hawkins (Report
on Field Work in Istanbul and Cyprus, 1962-63. DOP 18, 1964, p.
319-40). See also C. Galata- riotoii, Neophylos the recluse. A
cultural study of a Byzantine holy man, Unpublished Ph. ). Thesis.
University of Birmingham 1985. p. 330-31. I am grateful to Dr.
Galata- riotou for drawing my attention to Mouzalon's evidence.
27. Zepos. JGR, I. p. 334.
-
154 A. HARVEY
able to avoid the impact of heavy fiscal demands28. That a
landowner as well connected as Theophylakt had so much difficulty
with tax- officials was indicative of the general effectiveness of
imperial fiscal policy, which enabled Alexios to secure his rule
and withstand the external threats to the empire.
Alan Harvey The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek
Studies The University of Birmingham
28. In 1136 the obligation of the monastery Molibotos exceeded
four pounds in hyperpyra and, until the monks of Latros received an
exemption from Manuel, they were paying thirty-six hyperpyra for
one estate; P. Gautier, Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator,
REB 32, 1974, p. 1231550; MM, IV, p. 320.
InformationsAutres contributions de Alan HarveyCet article cite
:Gautier Paul. Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator. In: Revue
des tudes byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 1-145.
Pagination139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154