Alan Harvey

The land and taxation in the reign of Alexios I Komnenos: the

evidence of Theophylakt of Ochrid
In: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 51, 1993. pp. 139-154.

Abstract
REB 51 1993 France p. 139-154
A. Harvey, The land and luxation in the reign of Alexios I Komnenos : the evidence of Theophylakt's of Ochrid. Theophylakt's
evidence has to be interpreted in comparison with the more detailed information provided by the archives of the Athonite
monasteries. The fiscal reassessments ordered by Alexios Komnenos were intended to increase tax revenues and only a very
few, highly privileged landowners like Lavni could escape the impact of these measures. In spite of Theophylakt's impressive
range of contacts, he had great difficulty in restraining fiscal officials, because he was not confronting isolated abuses by
individual 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 des
tudes 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 evi
dence
illustrating the general outline of this period of crisis, evidence
of the impact of the financial pressure in specific regions is very limi
ted. The archives of the monasteries of Mount Athos give valuable
detail of the activities of the state's fiscal officials in eastern Macedon
ia,
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 survi
val
of several letters of its archbishop, Theophylakt, relating his diff
iculties
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. Gaut
ier, 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 Mittela
ller, 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 Nor
man ruler Robert Guiscard launched an attack on the empire, captu
ringDyrrachion 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 over
whelmingly
agrarian and any intensification in production was neces
sarily 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 culti
vation.
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 weake
nedby 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 dis
loyalty
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 indivi
duals and institutions to bolster their vulnerable position. The gene
rous grants, which were made to some landowners at a time of finan
cialcrisis, 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. Kazhdan, 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 Byzant
ine
empire 900-1200, Cambridge 1990.

THE LAND AND TAXATION

141

undermining its own financial position when its situation was des
perate,
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 land
owners
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 accompan
ied
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 reve
nues from state properties and their effect was, naturally, to reduce
the revenues available to the state. Alexios Komnenos faced the addi
tional 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 paroi
koiand 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 numb
erof 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 Byzant
ine
empire. For the increase in the quantity of money in circulation during the el
eventh
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 econo
micreappraisal, 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 sup
porters
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 posi
tions 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 powerf
ul
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 recei
ved 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 conces
sionsof 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 settl
ement of members of the imperial family and other aristocrats in the European pro
vinces
after the Turkish occupation of much of Asia Minor is discussed by J.-C. Cheynet, 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 obli
gation.
Although this situation clearly had its origins in the disloca
tion
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 Docheiariou 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 pre
viously
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. Morr
isson,
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-collec
tors
was that they often ignored privileges which the church's propert
ies
had been granted by the state. These fiscal privileges were gene
rally 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, Un
published
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 ori
gins 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 condi
tions 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 contro
versy had collaborated with the praktor and succeeded in nullifying
the effect of an imperial prostaxis, possibly a document he had obtai
nedthrough 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 Bryenn
ios, which gives Theophylakt's most detailed account of the
machinations of the fiscal officials. The main feature of the contro
versy surrounding the paroikos Lazaros is that it was essentially a

10. H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistmsverzeichnisse der orienta

lischen Kirche. II, BZ 2, 1893, p. 42-46. For the sense of the term klerikos: N. Svoronos, 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 chrysob
ull
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 mal
contents
included heretics who had been condemned by the arch
bishop,
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 Theophylakt'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 all
egations
cannot be dismissed automatically as rhetorical exaggerat
ions,
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 proce
dure 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 taxregister 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 pea
sants
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 land
owner,
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 stan
dard 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 paroikoi 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 zeugar
atoiusually had to make significantly higher payments due to their
greater wealth. According to the archbishop not only were the pay
ments
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 possi
blyreferring 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 Theo
phylakt'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 expan
sionin 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 ins
tance
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 pr

esumably
Ekklesiai, although it is not mentioned by name in this let
ter 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 pos
sible that they did act in concert. The only connection that is specifi
callymade concerns Iasites's activities in the unnamed village near
the Vardar. As the properties of the archbishopric were clearly scatte
red
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 identifica
tion
a possibility, but the fiscal pressure imposed by the administrat
ion
would certainly have affected all the church's properties and
created comparable situations elsewhere.
There is evidence of similar occurrences on other of the arch
bishop'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 imper
ialofficials were ignoring the content of the privilege and he appeal
ed
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 pitta
kion 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 identifica
tion
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. Pre
viously
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 landholdings21.
Another incident gives a good indication of the way the taxation
system was operating in the 1090s. An unnamed chorion which Theo
phylakt
claimed the church had held for many years was appropria
ted
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 Staalenwell, 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 obliga
tionwas 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 Theophylakt's letters the priests of Pologoi are described as being liable only for the zeugolo
gion
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 rou
tine revision of the tax-register. The operation was carried out on
imperial instructions and, although the technical detail of the proce
dureis 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 instruc
tions. As a result of this change landowners found that the taxpayments 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 over
whelmingly
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 pro
perty 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 Straboro
manos,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: Thophylacte 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 reve
nues could only come from an increase in the number of direct produc
ers.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 pres
sure 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 inter
vention
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 oppo
nents exploited their access to the emperor in their attempts to nul
lify 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 archbischopric 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 un
certain.
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 offi
cials 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 taxofficial 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. Galatariotoii, 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. Galatariotou 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 taxofficials 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.