The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire Peter Charanis Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 4. (1948), pp. 51+53-118.Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-7546%281948%294%3C51%3ATMPATS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X Dumbarton Oaks Papers is currently published by Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/doaks.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org Thu Apr 3 14:16:06 2008

THE MONASTIC PROPERTIES

AND THE STATE IN THE

BYZANTINE EMPIRE

ROM the little that is known about the social structure of the Byzantine empire in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries it has been possible to conclude that the characteristic feature of the rural society of the empire was the free village community, inhabited by peasants who owned their own land and in the most part cultivated it themselves.' Large estates continued to exist, however, and their owners constituted the aristocracy whose members occupied the important court and military positions of the empire. But besides this court and military aristocracy there was also a provincial aristocracy. Its existence is well attested by a number of references in the sources. When the city of Patras was besieged by Slavs and Saracens at the beginning of the ninth century those who undertook its and the O ~ K ~ T E P E S ,i.e., the rich and most promidefence were the Z p x o v r ~ s nent members among its citizens,' who doubtless constituted the aristocracy of the region. To this aristocracy belonged the wealthy widow, Danelis, called by the chronicles "noble and most wealthy woman," who showered Basil the Macedonian with valuable gifts at the time of his visit to Patras because she had foreseen his future grandeur. Among the gifts which she , gave to him there were thirty slaves ( & v 6 p c i ~ o 6 a )and this alone gives a good indication of her vast r i ~ h n e s s .To the provincial nobility, to which the ~ hagiographical literature of the ninth century frequently refers,' belonged also Philaretos of the town of Amnia in Paphlagonia, although his nobility ' Peter Charanis, "On the social structure of the later Roman empire," Byzantion, 17 (Boston, 1945), 39-57. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio (Bonn, 1840), 217. A French scholar has remarked in this connection: "Comment croire en effet, que le sort de la ville la plus riche et la plus importante de la pkninsule hellknique au moyen-Age, fGt, en de si graves circonstances, abandonnk B la decision d'insignifiants personnages? C'est cependant ce qu'il faut dire, si on refuse en bloc B tous les archontes municipaux une place parmi les Svvarol." G. Testaud, Des rapports des puissants et des petits proprietaires ruraux duns l'empire byzantin au xe sidcle (Bordeaux, 1898), p. 18, n. 4. More authoritative is the view of the Russian scholar, V. G. Vasilievsky, who points out not only the existence but also the importance of the provincial aristocracy. V. G . Vasilievsky, "Materials for the study of the Byzantine state," Journal of the Ministry of Public Instructions, 202 (St. Petersburg, 1879), 163 (in Russian). My knowledge of Russian is very elementary, but I have been able to consult the work of Vasilievsky and those of other Russian scholars with the aid of Mrs. Nathalie Scheffer who very generously read them with me. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia (Bonn, 1838), 227-8. In most secondary accounts the name of this wealthy widow is spelled Danielis. See, for instance, Charles Diehl, Figures byzantines, 1 (Paris, 1930), 160. 'Louis Brkhier, "Les populations rurales au ixe sihcle." Byzantion, 1 (Brussels, 1924), 175-190.

F

54

P E T E R CHARANIS

must have been of recent o r i g i n . V h i s provincial aristocracy sought to blend itself with that of the court either by buying the necessary titles or by entering the bureaucracy. Some of its members were of peasant origin; they obtained their titles after they had become exhemely wealthy. The best known among these are Philocales ' and Symeon Ampelas,' both of the second half of the tenth century. The provincial aristocracy which blended itself with that of the court and the military organization constituted the class known in the legislative monuments of the tenth century as the powerful or 8 u v a ~ o t .To the same class also belonged the high ecclesiastical and monastic officers. In the social and economic structure of the Byzantine empire the monastic and church properties and those who administered them were of the utmost importance. I t has been estimated by a competent authority on the internal history of Byzantium that at the end of the seventh century about one third of the usable land of the empire was in the possession of the church and the monasteries.' The iconoclastic movement had checked the expansion of n~onasticismand confiscated much of the property of the monasteries, but this was only temporary. Monasticism was deeply rooted in Byzantine society and the members of the various monastic houses exerted considerable influence in the society of Byzantium, a fact which contributed greatly in the final defeat of iconoclasm. With the defeat of iconoclasm the monastic establishments began to multiply and their property, acquired through gifts and purchases, to increase so that by the tenth century their landed possessions were perhaps no less than they had been in the seventh century. It is well known how the emperors of the tenth century tried to check and thereby the growth of the large estates, the properties of the ~owerful, protect the free peasant holdings and those of the soldiers. Every major emperor from Romanus Lecapenus to and including Basil 11, with the exception of John Tzirneskes, issued more than one novel for this purpose. Most of these novels have been preserved and constitute the principal sources for " hl. H. Fourmy and hl. Leroy, "La vie de S. PhilarBte," Bysantion, 9 (Brussels, 1934),113. '1-111'rts ~~,Opwrros Xc;PP c'vrrdv'rovT&V

IIa+haydvo,v ro3vopa @ihLpcros ~ a 6l Zvdpwrros Gv E;ycv+s r&v

K ~ r a h a ~ l ~ iX&pas,vihs 6rrdpXov I'cwpylov roc @pwkPou. L /s

Tachariae von Lingenthal, Jtis Graeco-Romanunt, 3 (Leipzig, 1857), 310: ~ a Yl h p ~ i ; ~ o p c v rhv + i h o ~ a ' h ~ycvdpevov ,u& K U T C L ~ ~ & STCV cArch&v ~ a X w P ~ r & ~ $ U T E ~ O V T&V r c P ~ 8 6 ~ w va l v l &a, 82 ~ xhoutrlov. 8s 201s phv i:rri/pX~ TGV K ~ T O I , U U V E ~ E I ~ E L , rois ta~roiru u v Y X w p l r a ~ s~ a l 6 8 2 ~aAro;s 0 r 19 J &v+/fv h ~ 8 0 p a 8 a p l o , i ~ a ~ v o r d p c(i$' 0; 62 T O ~ ~ O ~ T L P ~ V6 @hs v E Z T ~ ~ol'rwvlrov,Ka? pcTE57~11u i. ~ ~ t a ?T~OO~CTTELOV Z ~ L O V i ~ o l ~ a c v . ~pwraflccrrapiov,K L L ~76 ilhov K C L T ~ X E p l o ~ ~ 2\

Leo Diaconos, Historiae (Bonn, 1828), 113. Ampelas had the title of patrician. Cedrenus, flistoriarz~m Compendium, 2 (Bonn, 1839), 388: a a ~ ~ l . .~ .oBvpcAv 6 'APrrcX6s. The more ~ s prosperous peasants often took advantage of the distress of their fellow villagers to absorb their property. Zachariae von Lingenthal, op. cit., 3:248. "'asilievsky, op. cit., 222.

MONASTIC PROPERTIES AND T H E STATE

55

p6rr r&v rrpi+avcjv paylurpwv 4 r a r p i ~ l w v , p4.r~rcjv cipXais 4~ O A L T 4K O ~ ~ dtL&/.La~l E T L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p+VV ZAws T&V is U V Y K A ~ T O U T p$ V W , povA+v d ? r ? 7 P i 8 ~ 7 1p~ j r~ r&v , 8 ~ p a ~ i K i ) V ? k ~~ ~ dPX6vrwv 4 d ~ a ~ ~ d v r w v , T&V 6 r o ~ ~ h r u r d r w 1 ~ pqrporoA~rcjv 4 & p x i c r ~ a ~ d r w v i m a ~ d r w v4 Ijyovpkvwv 4 ~ K K , ~ ~ ] U L ~ U p X 6 v ~V~ vT&V 4 d TLK& 4 r p o a ~ a a ~ a va ilr i ~ p d r c ~ a v d a y & 4 p a a i h l ~ & vo r ~ w v ~ r&v