The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire
Peter Charanis Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 4. (1948), pp.
51+53-118.Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-7546%281948%294%3C51%3ATMPATS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
Dumbarton Oaks Papers is currently published by Dumbarton Oaks,
Trustees for Harvard University.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of
JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions
of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior
permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or
multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR
archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact
the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher
contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/doaks.html. Each copy of any part of
a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that
appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for
long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and
scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is
supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and
foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit
organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org Thu Apr 3 14:16:06 2008
THE MONASTIC PROPERTIES
AND THE STATE IN THE
BYZANTINE EMPIRE
ROM the little that is known about the social structure of the
Byzantine empire in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries it has
been possible to conclude that the characteristic feature of the
rural society of the empire was the free village community,
inhabited by peasants who owned their own land and in the most part
cultivated it themselves.' Large estates continued to exist,
however, and their owners constituted the aristocracy whose members
occupied the important court and military positions of the empire.
But besides this court and military aristocracy there was also a
provincial aristocracy. Its existence is well attested by a number
of references in the sources. When the city of Patras was besieged
by Slavs and Saracens at the beginning of the ninth century those
who undertook its and the O ~ K ~ T E P E S ,i.e., the rich and
most promidefence were the Z p x o v r ~ s nent members among its
citizens,' who doubtless constituted the aristocracy of the region.
To this aristocracy belonged the wealthy widow, Danelis, called by
the chronicles "noble and most wealthy woman," who showered Basil
the Macedonian with valuable gifts at the time of his visit to
Patras because she had foreseen his future grandeur. Among the
gifts which she , gave to him there were thirty slaves ( & v 6
p c i ~ o 6 a )and this alone gives a good indication of her vast r
i ~ h n e s s .To the provincial nobility, to which the ~
hagiographical literature of the ninth century frequently refers,'
belonged also Philaretos of the town of Amnia in Paphlagonia,
although his nobility ' Peter Charanis, "On the social structure of
the later Roman empire," Byzantion, 17 (Boston, 1945), 39-57.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio (Bonn, 1840),
217. A French scholar has remarked in this connection: "Comment
croire en effet, que le sort de la ville la plus riche et la plus
importante de la pkninsule hellknique au moyen-Age, fGt, en de si
graves circonstances, abandonnk B la decision d'insignifiants
personnages? C'est cependant ce qu'il faut dire, si on refuse en
bloc B tous les archontes municipaux une place parmi les Svvarol."
G. Testaud, Des rapports des puissants et des petits proprietaires
ruraux duns l'empire byzantin au xe sidcle (Bordeaux, 1898), p. 18,
n. 4. More authoritative is the view of the Russian scholar, V. G.
Vasilievsky, who points out not only the existence but also the
importance of the provincial aristocracy. V. G . Vasilievsky,
"Materials for the study of the Byzantine state," Journal of the
Ministry of Public Instructions, 202 (St. Petersburg, 1879), 163
(in Russian). My knowledge of Russian is very elementary, but I
have been able to consult the work of Vasilievsky and those of
other Russian scholars with the aid of Mrs. Nathalie Scheffer who
very generously read them with me. Theophanes Continuatus,
Chronographia (Bonn, 1838), 227-8. In most secondary accounts the
name of this wealthy widow is spelled Danielis. See, for instance,
Charles Diehl, Figures byzantines, 1 (Paris, 1930), 160. 'Louis
Brkhier, "Les populations rurales au ixe sihcle." Byzantion, 1
(Brussels, 1924), 175-190.
F
54
P E T E R CHARANIS
must have been of recent o r i g i n . V h i s provincial
aristocracy sought to blend itself with that of the court either by
buying the necessary titles or by entering the bureaucracy. Some of
its members were of peasant origin; they obtained their titles
after they had become exhemely wealthy. The best known among these
are Philocales ' and Symeon Ampelas,' both of the second half of
the tenth century. The provincial aristocracy which blended itself
with that of the court and the military organization constituted
the class known in the legislative monuments of the tenth century
as the powerful or 8 u v a ~ o t .To the same class also belonged
the high ecclesiastical and monastic officers. In the social and
economic structure of the Byzantine empire the monastic and church
properties and those who administered them were of the utmost
importance. I t has been estimated by a competent authority on the
internal history of Byzantium that at the end of the seventh
century about one third of the usable land of the empire was in the
possession of the church and the monasteries.' The iconoclastic
movement had checked the expansion of n~onasticismand confiscated
much of the property of the monasteries, but this was only
temporary. Monasticism was deeply rooted in Byzantine society and
the members of the various monastic houses exerted considerable
influence in the society of Byzantium, a fact which contributed
greatly in the final defeat of iconoclasm. With the defeat of
iconoclasm the monastic establishments began to multiply and their
property, acquired through gifts and purchases, to increase so that
by the tenth century their landed possessions were perhaps no less
than they had been in the seventh century. It is well known how the
emperors of the tenth century tried to check and thereby the growth
of the large estates, the properties of the ~owerful, protect the
free peasant holdings and those of the soldiers. Every major
emperor from Romanus Lecapenus to and including Basil 11, with the
exception of John Tzirneskes, issued more than one novel for this
purpose. Most of these novels have been preserved and constitute
the principal sources for " hl. H. Fourmy and hl. Leroy, "La vie de
S. PhilarBte," Bysantion, 9 (Brussels, 1934),113. '1-111'rts
~~,Opwrros Xc;PP c'vrrdv'rovT&V
IIa+haydvo,v ro3vopa @ihLpcros ~ a 6l Zvdpwrros Gv E;ycv+s
r&v
K ~ r a h a ~ l ~ iX&pas,vihs 6rrdpXov I'cwpylov roc
@pwkPou. L /s
Tachariae von Lingenthal, Jtis Graeco-Romanunt, 3 (Leipzig,
1857), 310: ~ a Yl h p ~ i ; ~ o p c v rhv + i h o ~ a ' h
~ycvdpevov ,u& K U T C L ~ ~ & STCV cArch&v ~ a X w P ~
r & ~ $ U T E ~ O V T&V r c P ~ 8 6 ~ w va l v l &a, 82
~ xhoutrlov. 8s 201s phv i:rri/pX~ TGV K ~ T O I , U U V E ~ E I ~
E L , rois ta~roiru u v Y X w p l r a ~ s~ a l 6 8 2 ~aAro;s 0 r 19
J &v+/fv h ~ 8 0 p a 8 a p l o , i ~ a ~ v o r d p c(i$' 0; 62
T O ~ ~ O ~ T L P ~ V6 @hs v E Z T ~ ~ol'rwvlrov,Ka? pcTE57~11u i.
~ ~ t a ?T~OO~CTTELOV Z ~ L O V i ~ o l ~ a c v .
~pwraflccrrapiov,K L L ~76 ilhov K C L T ~ X E p l o ~ ~ 2\
Leo Diaconos, Historiae (Bonn, 1828), 113. Ampelas had the title
of patrician. Cedrenus, flistoriarz~m Compendium, 2 (Bonn, 1839),
388: a a ~ ~ l . .~ .oBvpcAv 6 'APrrcX6s. The more ~ s prosperous
peasants often took advantage of the distress of their fellow
villagers to absorb their property. Zachariae von Lingenthal, op.
cit., 3:248. "'asilievsky, op. cit., 222.
MONASTIC PROPERTIES AND T H E STATE
55
p6rr r&v rrpi+avcjv paylurpwv 4 r a r p i ~ l w v ,
p4.r~rcjv cipXais 4~ O A L T 4K O ~ ~ dtL&/.La~l E T L ~ ~ ~ ~
~ p+VV ZAws T&V is U V Y K A ~ T O U T p$ V W , povA+v d ? r ?
7 P i 8 ~ 7 1p~ j r~ r&v , 8 ~ p a ~ i K i ) V ? k ~~ ~
dPX6vrwv 4 d ~ a ~ ~ d v r w v , T&V 6 r o ~ ~ h r u r d r w 1
~ pqrporoA~rcjv 4 & p x i c r ~ a ~ d r w v i m a ~ d r w v4
Ijyovpkvwv 4 ~ K K , ~ ~ ] U L ~ U p X 6 v ~V~ vT&V 4 d
TLK& 4 r p o a ~ a a ~ a va ilr i ~ p d r c ~ a v d a y & 4
p a a i h l ~ & vo r ~ w v ~ r&v