12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
The struggle which the Byzantine government had to wage in the tenth century to protect small freeholders against the landed aristocracy represents a most interesting and important phase in the internal development of the Byzantine State. It can be said without exaggeration that the issue of the struggle determined the very fate of the Empire. The history of this stubborn, dramatic conflict has been outlined more than once. My intention is not to narrate it again, but to illustrate by a few concrete examples the causes which prevented the Byzantine government from effectively safeguarding the smallholder.
The system of land tenure by free peasant proprietors and stratiotai—soldiers settled in the themes—formed the mainstay of the Byzantine Empire from the time of its recovery in the seventh century, as well as its principal source of both internal strength and external power. Naturally, the imperial government intervened in favour of the smallholder when it became clear that peasant and stratiote property was being rapidly absorbed by big landholders, with their former owners becoming serfs on the estates of lay landowners and monasteries. In protecting the smallholder against the encroachments of the feudal landed aristocracy, the State endeavoured to safeguard its soldiers and its best taxpayers, as well as its actual existence; for the development of the centrifugal forces of feudalism constituted a menace to the centralized and autocratic power of the Byzantine emperors.
1 Cf. the classical study of Vasilievsky, V. G., ‘Materials for the Internal History of the Byzantine State’ (in Russian), Trudy IV (1930), 250, 331Google Scholar, and among more recent publications, Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire,’ The Cambridge Economic History I (1942), 204 ff.Google Scholar, and Geschichte des byzantimschen Staates (1940), 102 ff.
2 J. and Zepos, P., Jus Graecoromanum I, 198 ffGoogle Scholar.
3 Ibid., 205 ff.
4 Ibid., 214 ff., 222 ff., 239.
5 Ibid., 240 ff., 243 ff.
6 Ibid., 262 ff.
7 Cf. V. G. Vasilievsky, op. cit.; G. Ostrogorsky, op. cit.
8 Rouillard, G. et Collomp, P., Actes de Laura I (897–1178)Google Scholar, avec un album de 30 planches (Paris, 1937). (Further cited as Laura.)
9 Lake, K., The Early Days of Monasticism on Mount Athos (Oxford, 1909), 49 ff., 53 ff.Google Scholar; Uspensky, P., A History of Athos (in Russian) III (Kiev, 1877), 32Google Scholar. From the point of view of archaeology the church of Peristerae was studied by the Dane, Kinch, K. F., Festskrift til J. L. Ussing (Copenhagen, 1900), 144 ff. CfGoogle Scholar. Byz. Zeitschr. II (1902), 273, 663 ffGoogle Scholar.
10 Meyer, Ph., Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster (Leipzig, 1894), 119–121Google Scholar; Dölger, Reg. 704 and 744.
11 Laura, No. 6.
12 Dölger, Reg. 704.
13 Cf. Schlumberger, G., Nicéphore Phocas (Paris, 1923). 340 ffGoogle Scholar.
14 Ph. Meyer, op. cit., 120, 15 ff.; K. Lake, op. cit., 53.
15 Dölger, Reg. 704. Later, in the chrysobull of Alexis Comnenus of 1109, (Laura, No. 53), Peristerae is mentioned as an estate (προάστειον) belonging to the Laura, and curiously enough it is again mentioned in connection with Tsekhlianae: τῶν δύο προαστείων τῶν Περιστερῶν καὶ τῶν Τξεχλιάνων.
16 Laura, No. 1.
17 Laura, No. 2.
18 Laura, p. 5.
19 Cf. editors' notes, pp. XXVII and 5.
20 Dölger, F., ‘Zur Textgestaltung der Laura-Urkunden and zu ihrer geschichtlichen Auswertung’, Byz. Zeitschr. XXXIX (1939), 31 ffGoogle Scholar.
21 Moreover, since the novel of Nicephorus Phocas enacted in September, 967 (Zepos 1, 253 ff.; cf. Dölger, Reg. 712) decreed that peasants should buy from peasants and landowners from landowners, the judge needed no longer have taken into consideration the right of preferential purchase in its former meaning; for this right was restored only with the. promulgation of the 996 novel of Basil II (Jus I, 262 ff.).
22 It is preferable to read γειτονούτων instead of γειτονούσης since it appear s that not only the building but also the plots which it serviced were near the sea coast. Cf. Viz. Vrem. v (1898), 483Google Scholar.
23 Laura, No. 2, 21–5: ἐπεὶ οὐν ἐκ τριῶν πλευρῶν τινες ἐδείκνυντο τῶν δυνατῶν προσκαθήμενοι, δίκαιον δὲ προτιμήσεως οὐδέτερος πένης εὕρισκεν πρὸς τὸ δηλωθὲν κεραμεῖον μόνον ἐξαγοράσαι, μετὰ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ὰναγραφομένων δωρεᾶς ἐκρίθη νομίμως καὶ τὴν τούτου [for τούτων] ἐξώνησιν τὸν μοναχὸν ποιήσασθαι Στέφανον.
24 Instead of τετραμεροῦς one should read τετραμηνοῦς, as pointed out by Dölger, op. cit., 32, whose emendations are also accepted elsewhere.
25 Laura, No. 2, 26–30.
26 Cambr. Economic Hist. I, 207. It may be noted that our judge Samonas belonged to the ‘powerful’ by his official position as well as by birth. He was undoubtedly—the rarity of the name justifies this presumption—a descendant, perhaps a grandson of the famous patrician Samonas, protovestiarius, then parakoimomenus of the Emperor Leo VI. For him, cf. Kougeas, , Byz.-Neugr. Jahrb. v (1927), 202 fGoogle Scholar.
27 Jus I, 215.
28 Cf. map in K. Lake, op. cit.
29 Dölger, F., op. cit., Byz. Zeitschr. XXXIX (1939), 32Google Scholar.
30 Or ἰδιόστατον more frequently in other sources. Cf. provisions regarding such estates in Treatise on Taxation, ed. by Ashburner, W., JHS XXXV (1915Google Scholar), sections 1, 5, 6 = ed. F. Dölger, Beiträge zur Gesch. der byz. Finanzverwaltung (1927), 114, 27; 116, 1, 19, 37; 117, 1, 17. Commentary: F. Dölger, op. cit., 138; Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Die ländliche Steuergemeinde des byz. Reiches im X Jh.’, Vierteljahrschr. f. Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgesch. XX (1927), 21 ffGoogle Scholar.
31 Jus I, 217. A comparison of Samonas's argumentation and this provision in the 947 novel of Constantine VII shows that Samonas was acquainted with the novel of 947, as stated above.
32 Dölger, F., op. cit., Byz. Zeitschr. XXXIX (1939), 33Google Scholar.
33 Jus I, 203.
34 Actually, this was in flagrant contradiction with another law, namely a provision of the 934 novel of Romanus I, which reads (Jus I, 213): ‘We do not wish that the good measures that we have decided upon should suffer any infringement under the pretext of donations and endowments made to holy monasteries by those who have entered or intend to enter them as monks. Monasteries will derive sufficient benefit if they receive an equitable moneyprice in lieu of the land or real estate in every case where the bestowal is really made for the salvation of the soul and not fraudulently to conceal a sale. We consider that by granting the right of preemption also in the case of endowments made to monasteries, we enact a rule beneficial not only to the poor but also to the sacred houses, because their inhabitants will thus be free from disputes, lawsuits and discords, from ignoble and improper cupidity, and it becomes them, being after all creatures of the flesh, to avoid and not to seek occasions of falling.’ Cf. V. G. Vasilievsky, op. cit., 279. Cf. also the novel of Constantine VII of 947, Jus I, 216.
35 Jus I, 208.
36 Nov. Romani II; Jus I, 242.
37 Jus I, 203.
38 Laura, No. 3, 2–8; No. 4, 2–6.
39 In particular, sections 5 and 13, ed. Ashburner = Dölger, Beiträge 116 and 118 f.
40 Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Die ländliche Steuergemeinde des byzantinischen Reiches im X Jahrh.’, Vierteljahrschr. f. Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgesch. XX (1927), 76 ffGoogle Scholar.
41 In both documents, apart from the sum paid for the land bought, the buyer is required to pay καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ τῆς τοιαύτης γῆς δημόσιον εἰς τὴν καταβολὴν τῶν δώδεκα νομισμάτων, κατὰ τὸ ἀνῆκόν σοι καὶ ἀναλογοῦν (Laura, No. 3, 24–6; No.4, 13–14). The meaning of this sentence becomes clearer when it is compared to the Treatise on Taxation, edited by Ashburner, and very appropriately quoted by the editors of the Laura acts (Laura 9). It is stated there (ed. Ashburner, section 15 = ed. Dölger, 120, 12 ff.), that upon buying or receiving in gift escheated land the new owner was required to pay, for the drafting of the deed of sale or donation, a special tax, equivalent to 
th of the amount levied on the property before it became escheat: ἐὰν τὸ κλάσμα διεπράθη ἤ ἐδωρήθη, τὸ μὲν παλαιὸν ψηφίον ἀπώλετο … προσεγράφετο δὲ ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου νομίσματος τοῦ παλαιοῦ δημοσίου ῾λιβελλικὸν δημόσιον νόμισμα δωδέκατον. Cf. also Ashburner, section 29 = Dölger 123, 15 ff. A similar meaning is implied, by the way, in the testimony of Theophanes in his famous narrative on the ten ‘plagues’ of the Emperor Nicephorus I: he says, among others, that Nicephorus ordered a new census of taxpayers to be taken, tax rates to be increased, and a duty of 2 keratia levied on every entry in the taxpayers' roll: χαρτιατικῶν ἕνεκα ἀνὰ κερατίων β΄ (Theoph. 486, 28, ed. De Boor). Undoubtedly the 2 keratia were levied not on every taxpayer without discrimination as Bury, Eastern Rom. Emp. 214, n. 1, and Bratianu, , Études byz. d'hist. économique et sociale (Paris, 1938), 202Google Scholar, seem to have understood: the 2 keratia was the rate of increase on every nomisma of the basic tax, which also works out at th. We have already put forward this conjecture (Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates 130); now on the basis of the above comparison we can assert it with confidence.
42 Uspensky, F. I., ‘Byzantine Surveyors’ (in Russian), Trudy VI, Archaeol. Congress of Odessa (1888) II, 278 and 304 ffGoogle Scholar.
43 Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Löhne und Preise in Byzanz,’ Byz. Zeitschr. XXXII (1932), 312 ffGoogle Scholar.
44 e.g., cf. data collected by us about prices for livestock, op. cit., 326 ff., and wheat, op. cit., 319 ff.
45 Miklosich, and Miller, , Acta graeca IV, 15Google Scholar.
46 Uspensky, P., A History of Athos III (Kiev, 1877, in Russian), 318–320Google Scholar. Reprinted in K. Lake, op. cit., 80–2.
47 P. Uspensky, op. cit 315–18; K. Lake, op. cit., 76–9.
48 Lauriotes, Alexander, ‘Athos Acts,’ Viz. Vrem. V (1898), 485–6Google Scholar; K. Lake, op. cit., 82–4; Laura, No. 5.
49 Rouillard, G., in her ‘Note prosopographique et chronologique’, Byzantion VIII (1933), 107 ff.Google Scholar, has come to the same conclusion and so corrected the chronology given by K. Lake, op. cit., who dated the second document 881–2, and the third 882: Dölger, Reg. 504, too, had dated the third document 883. The correct chronology—although worked out in an unnecessarily complicated way and established on somewhat disputable foundations—had been given already by P. Uspensky, op. cit., 58 ff., who was wrong only in his calculation of the indiction, and dated the first and second documents 943 (instead of 942). Apparently the statement in K. Lake, op. cit., 66, that Uspensky dates them 934 is a misprint.
50 According to P. Uspensky, op. cit., 58 and 315, Thomas's report was drawn up under these Emperors, i.e. under Romanus I Lecapenus, Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus, and Stephen and Constantine Lecapeni. Apparently—although P. Uspensky unfortunately gives no precise indication—this is stated in the initial part of the document not quoted by Uspensky, who had not succeeded in deciphering it satisfactorily. It seems that both G. Rouillard and K. Lake failed to notice this important remark, which would have simplified Rouillard's argument and preserved Lake from his erroneous chronological conclusions.
51 G. Rouillard, op. cit., 112, identifies this Euthymius with the abbot Euthymius mentioned in 897 in deed No. 1 of the Laura acts edited by her. It seems to us more natural to admit the existence of two other abbots of Peristerae called Euthymius besides St. Euthymius, its founder; for it does not appear likely that the same person could have been the abbot in 897 as well as in 943.
52 G. Rouillard, op. cit., 110.
53 Uspensky, F. I., ‘Byzantine Surveyors’ (in Russian), Trudy VI, Archaeolog. Congress in Odessa (1888) II, 306Google Scholar.
