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