THE DISHONEST SOLDIER CONSTANTINE PLANITES AND HIS NEIGHBOURS

Author(s): Constantine Zuckerman

Source: Byzantion , 1986, Vol. 56 (1986), pp. 314-331
Published by: Peeters Publishers

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44160999

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Peeters Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Byzantion

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE DISHONEST SOLDIER
CONSTANTINE PLANITES AND HIS NEIGHBOURS

The soldier Constantine Planites caused trouble to many. It to

time and effort for the monks of Our Lady of Lembos (Lembiotis
to fend off his groundless financial claims. More recently, the interpr
tation of his case presented the students of Byzantine social hist
with a difficult challenge.
Constantine Planites claimed from the monastery an epiteleia of tw
hyperpyra for a certain plot of land which was owned, according to
own testimony, by his uncle Basileios Planites and the latte
son-in-law Constantine Rentakes ('). This latter statement of Constan
tine was to become the main stumbling block in the interpretation o
his case. The epiteleia, at least in its most common function, wa
considered to be a compensation paid by a buyer of land to its origin
owner for the land-tax the latter continued to pay to the treasury un
the change of ownership was officially registered at the next cadastr
revisioni2). Since, however, Constantine Planites did not inclu
himself among the owners of the land in question, his right to epite
seemed to require a different explanation.
The explanation given was quite a radical one. Although the sour
make no mention of it, Constantine Planites was promoted t
"pronoiaire" whose pronoia encompassed the lands of his relativ
For the land they ceded to Lembiotissa, the monastery owed Constan
tine an epiteleia. But since a pronoia-holder assumedly paid no ta
to the state for which he would need a compensation, this epiteleia w

(1) F. Miklosich-J. Muller, Acta et Diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra e

profana, vol. IV (hereafter MM IV), Vienna, 1871, p. 89.
(2) F. Dölger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltun
besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts, in Byzantinischen Archiv, 9, Leipzig, 19
p. 55 ; Idem, B.Z., 49 (1956), pp. 501-502, cf. B Z., 51 (1958), p. 209; H.
Glykatzi (-Ahrweiler), L epitéleia dans le cartulaire de la Lembiotissa, in By-
zantion, 24 (1954) (reprinted in H. Ahrweiler, Études sur les structures administra-
tives et sociales de Byzance, London, 1971), pp. 73-76.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONST ANTTNE PLANITES AND HIS NEIGHBOURS 3 1 5

considered to be of a new type : a payment to the profit of a private

person intended to maintain, in this case, the holder's income from
his pronoia in spite of changes of the property rights over the lands it
embraced (3). So in a recent study, the Planites case was presented as
one of the "excellent examples of the flexibility that the epiteleia (of
this new type, C.Z.) gave to the pronoia system" (4). Following this
line of reasoning, George Ostrogorsky went as far as to conclude that
Constantine Planites held as paroikoi his own uncle Basileios and his
"cousin-in-law" Constantine Rentakes, soldier and vestiaritēs (5). Yet
even for Byzantine "feudalism" famous for its Besonderheiten , a case
of a "feudalist" holding as serfs his relatives and peers appears to be
rather far-fetched.
A reconsideration of the entire dossier concerning the Planites
family presents, indeed, a very different picture. It will also serve us
as a point of departure for some additional remarks on the nature of
the epiteleia and related questions.
The whole story began in 1242, when Constantine's father entered
the monastery of Lembiotissa under the name Máximos and, for his
wordly maintenance and the salvation of his soul, donated to it the
entire hereditary plot of his family. Máximos' brother Basileios and
their mother Anysia consented, under certain conditions, to this
donation of their common property. They were to retain half of the
plot to the end of their lives, to enjoy the protection of the monastery
from fiscal and other authorities and not to be bothered by any
demands from the monks themselves. The fiscal responsibilities were
arranged accordingly. The monastery took over the payment of the
land-tax for the entire plot which amounted to three hyperpyra ; for
their half, Basileios and Anysia pledged themselves to repay it a yearly
compensation ( epitelesmon ) of one and a half hyperpyra (6).
Shortly before his death, in 1255, Máximos confirmed this arran-
gement in his testament, heaping elaborate curses upon his relatives
should they dare to challenge the rights of the monastery over the

(3) H. Glykatzi (-Ahrweiler), L epiteleia, pp. 84-88.

(4) M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society
under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204-1261), Oxford, 1975, p. 230.
(5) G. Ostrogorsky, Quelques problèmes d'histoire de la paysannerie byzantine,
Brussels, 1956, pp. 58-60.
(6) MM IV, pp. 66-69.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 316 C. ZUCKERMAN

donated property. He defined precise

two sons : fifteen hyperpyra and s
valuables and the property of his l
Then he died.
In Mai 1256, the monastery obtained a special horismos from
Theodore II Lascaris which expressly included among its possessions
the "recently created metokhion" donated by Máximos Planites (8). As
if this were not enough, the monks secured in 1257 a ratification of
late Máximos' donation by Basileios and Anysia. Both attested anew
to the validity of their original commitment and confirmed that after
their death the donation was to become unconditional (9). The acquisi-
tion appeared to be sealed by a chrysobull issued by John IV Ducas
in September 1258. Not only the fields and olive trees of the Planites
family were listed among the possessions of the monastery, but also
Basileios Planites himself whose personal independence was so strictly
stipulated in the document of 1242 (10).
Yet this repeated need of confirmations forshadowed the troubles
to come. The property rights over the Planites' land were never
properly transferred to the monastery, and the entire arrangement
turns out to have been always dependent on the goodwill of the
members of the family. With the new generation coming into its own,
it started falling apart. In 1259, Basileios' son-in-law Constantine
Rentakes demanded half of the plot back. He claimed that since the
initial transfer was performed "in his absence", it could not be
considered valid as far as it concerned his (future) inheritance. This
was not a bona fide argument. Máximos, Basileios and Anysia jointly
signed the donation of their entire plot to Lembiotissa no doubt long
before Constantine Rentakes married into the family ; in any case, he
was not absent for seventeen years. Nevertheless, his rights were
confirmed by the Emperor Michael VIII and, in the subsequent
settlement, recognized by the monks ("). In recovering his (that is,

(7) MM IV, pp. 74-75.

(s) MM IV, pp. 220-221. For the dating of the Lembiotissa documents, see F.
Dölger, Chronologisches und Prosopographisches zur byzantinischen Geschichte des
13. Jahrhunderts , in B.Z., 27 (1927), pp. 291-320.
(9) MM IV, pp. 86-88.
(10) MM IV, p. 25.
(11) MM IV, pp. 79-80.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONSTANTTNE PLANITES AND HIS NEIGHBOURS 3 1 7

Basileios') part of the land, Constantine Rentakes drew upon his head
the curse of all 318 Fathers of Nicaea, but that seems to have been the
only obstacle.
In his settlement with the monastery, Constantine Rentakes let it
retain the other half of the plot unconditionally, in accordance with the
ancient donation of Máximos Planites. However, he should have
spoken only for himself. The appearance on the scene of Máximos'
son Constantine Planites gave a different turn to the situation. An
infant in 1242 and apparently still a minor in 1255, Constantine
became a soldier and by 1268 he had spent long ago the fifteen
hyperpyra bequeathed him by his father. So together with his uncle
Basileios - the property rights over the entire family estate still
remained undivided - he sold piece by piece all of that part of his
father's donation which remained with the monastery in 1259. The
monks did not even attempt to stop Constantine Planites or to contest
his right to dispose of his property. How could they ? The entire time
they enjoyed the usufruct of the last half of Máximos' donation, they
duly paid Constantine an epiteleia of one and a half hyperpyra, thus
recognizing his ownership over the land and compensating him for the
land-tax he owed to the treasury. Yet when Constantine tried to have
it both ways and to exact the epiteleia after having sold the land, the
monks naturally rebelled. They appealed to John Tornikes, Duke of
Thrakesion, who ruled that since they held nothing more from the
original donation of Máximos Planites, they owed nothing to his
heir (12).
The cautious monks required from Constantine Planites a written
commitment to abide by this decision. It is the statement he then
issued that obscured the entire affaire. For Constantine Planites
explained his shameless extortion of the epiteleia - it turned out, by
the way, that he requested two hyperpyra instead of the original one
and a half - by alleging that he was not aware of the sale of the land
performed by Basileios Planites and Constantine Rentakes in his
absence (13). This statement, however, contradicts the findings of John

(12) MM IV, pp. 73-74 ; the date of this document, March 1268, was established
by H. Glykatzi (-Ahrweiler), L epiteleia, p. 88. Tornikes admitted that the
monastery retained the building and the yard of Máximos' metokhion, yet he
considered it too insignificant to justify any claims on Constantine's side.
(13) MM IV, p. 89, of October 1268.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 318 C. ZUCKERMAN

Tornikes. The latter, citing numer

ruling that the land was sold by Ba
Constantine, Máximos' son, and so
to Constantine Planites' version, we m
trying to put a good face on the mat
one expect from a dissolute soldier w
for the repose of his soul and was w
the traitor, all in order to realize a
property ?
Constantine Planites was thus neither a pronoia-holder, nor "a
member of a prominent Smyrniot family". His father and uncle were
well-to-do peasants, and the tax of three hyperpyra they jointly paid for
the family plot was only slightly above the contemporary average (14).
Having inherited his father's share, Constantine Planites did not rush
to dispossess the monks who actually held the land. Instead, he had
it registered in his praktiko n together with the compensation (epite-
leia) repaid by the monks for the land-tax he owed to the treasury.
This arrangement which can be defined as passive ownership, lasted
for almost ten years, and it coud have continued had Constantine
Planites not acted as he did.
Another case which also involves epiteleia can be considered here
as an epilog to Planites' story. That very year when this unworthy son
was selling "to anybody and everybody" the last acres and olive trees
of his father's donation, the monastery of Lembiotissa was approached
by a soldier's widow, Anna Angelina, who decided to "eternize the
memory" of her husband by a pious oifering. Whatever Anna's original
intentions, the monks insisted upon paying her and her children "a
token of grace and love" which amounted to fourteen hyperpyra for the
plot of forty modioi. Anna considered it a "small grace" and stressed
that the determination of the price was left entirely to the discretion
of the. monks ; if the land in question was better than the third
category, for which the price would have been only fair, the monastery
may have received it at a certain discount. Yet as it was, Anna
Angelina had actually sold the field and so in a pious gesture, "for the

(14) K. Khvostova, Rassloenie pozdnevizantijskikh krestjan, in Vizantijskij

Vremennik, 41 (1980), pp. 3-20, esp. p. 10, estimates the average tax for a single
household at one nomisma ; the Planites plot supported two households, Máximos'
and Basileios'.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONSTANTINE PLANITES AND MS NEIGHBOURS 3 1 9

salvation of the soul of my blissful husband", she waived the epiteleia,

thus confirming the transfer of the property rights over the plot to the
monastery. As for the monks, they made the contract state as emphati-
cally as possible that none of Anna's heirs could ever challenge their
rights over the land for which they had rightfully paid (15). They had
burned their fingers enough on gratuitous donations.
*
* *

More cases can be cited in which the paym

beneficiary of a grant indicated that the o
property transferred actually remained w
metropolitans of Smyrna, while granting plot
of Lembiotissa in 1237 or to the old monk Kallinikos Skullatos in
1274 (16), made clear that their gifts, ostensibly irrevocable, may well
be reconsidered by their successors unless the epiteleia were paid as
stipulated.
However, most of the contracts which contained an epiteleia-clmse
were contracts of sale. The land transferred was paid for in full ; why
then was the fiscal responsibility still the seller's ? According to the
already cited explanation, this situation was temporary, pending the
general revision of the cadasters and the praktika which would
officially fix the transfer of ownership. Yet this is not the way the
sources present it. In all the contracts in question, the payment of the
epiteleia was stipulated as a permanent liability of the buyer towards
the seller to be discharged every year, with no reference ever to its
eventual termination by a cadastral revision. On the other hand,
numerous contracts of sale in the Lembiotissa files do not mention the
epiteleia at all ; in the documents of other archives, this term is barely
found. One cannot claim that all the contracts without the epiteleiar
clause were concluded just on the eve of a cadastral revision or by
landowners exempt from taxes. In short, the institution of epiteleia
needs a further elucidation.
A clue to the emergence of the epiteleia- clause in the contracts of
sale can be found in the status of the sellers, who were almost without
exception paroikoi.

(15) MM IV, pp. 169-170.

(16) MM IV, pp. 52-54 and 84-85; cf. 131-132.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
320 C. ZUCKERMAN

The paroikoi as they figure in the

represent a much wider stratum o
tenants defined as paroikoi in the
peasant who did not hold a personal t
the land he tilled, and yet paid taxe
considered a paroikos on this lan
hereditary possession of a peasant f
from its plot as long as it paid the ta
land held by paroikoi belonged, for
territory ( perioros ) of their village.
other hand, enjoyed the status of "se
ton). It seems to have been possible f
status for its plot only in exception
its members joined the army or en

(17) The basic works for the period cons

ground data : P. Charanis, On the Social S
the Byzantine Empire in the Thirteenth Cen
(1951) (reprinted in Social, Economic and P
London, 1973), pp. 94-153 ; G. Ostrogorsk
nopulos, Ein Problem der spatbyzantinisch
österreichischen Byzantinistik , 30 (1981),
kaja sobstvennosť v VizantiU in Izvestija R
9 (1904), pp. 1-234, still merits attention f
(18) J. Karayannopulos, Ein Problem , es
only the peasants paying a morte as paroikoi ,
telesmata) as " Kleingrundbesitzer" . Howev
chrysobull of Michael VIII of 1262 now
eyypaęa rfjç Movfjç īlktļiov. A '. Avroxp
in fact a different conclusion. The emperor
on Patmos the plot Petake Gonia, previousl
Malachion. The peasants from Malachion, e
claimed that they held this plot, like the res
and paid on it the state taxes. The emperor c
it from them unless that particular plot wa
temporary basis, for a rent and not for tax
as well as in other contemporary cases in
whatsoever to the land and used it only by
was not the case with the paroikal plots. B
admit that in manty cases the paroikoi are e
his solution that they paid both the taxes
confirmation in the sources he cites.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONST ANTINE PLANITES AND HIS NEIGHBOURS 32 1

imperial service (19). The vast majority of peasants appear in the

sources as paroikoi, for their land legally belonged to the state or to
the private landowners.
Paroikoi families, which kept their plots for generations, invested
in their improvement, planted vineyards and olive trees and, as to be
expected, also sold them. However, their right to the land was assured
solely by the taxes they paid for it. Thus when ceding their land to
others, they were not entitled to rid themselves of the fiscal burden
they bore as its holders. Nor did the official transfer of the fiscal
liabilities to the buyer, necessary to finalize the transaction, follow
automatically, as in the case of privately owned land ; it could be
delayed and, in exceptional cases, also denied.
One way to deal with the problem was to obtain the official
authorization in advance. So in 1193, when two peasants from the
village Sillamos on Crete decided to sell their vineyards, they "gave
notice" beforehand to the representative of the fisc, "their lord" the
logaristēs Michael Chrysoberges, who then issued a writ to the local
priest and clerc authorizing him to register the deal. In the contract
drawn up by the latter, it was stipulated that the responsibility for the
tax imposed on the vineyards was to be assumed by the buyer (20).
However, this procedure seems to be rather awkward and it is not
recorded elsewhere. Under the Nicaean emperors, an easier solution
was found in the institution of the epiteleia.
A short epiteleia- clause in a contract would not usually disclose
much about its social fonction. There are, however, several cases in
which an epiteleia, passing in a series of documents, acquires an
history of its own. These are more instructive.
In 1232, the peasant Michael Kakabas, together with a bunch of
relatives, sold to the monastery of Lembiotissa twenty seven olive trees
having stipulated an epiteleia of one nomisma (21). For some reason
Kakabas' land turned out to be so attractive for the monks that in a
few years they acquired his entire plot (hypostatikon) (22). In the

(19) Constantine Planites is a good example. Even more interesting is the

struggle of Pothos, Manteianos and the others, amply recorded in the Lembiotissa
archive, for the recognition of their ownership rights on their plots, situated on the
territory of the village Bare.
(20) MM VI, pp. 124-127.
(21) MM IV, pp. 77-79.
(22) MM IV, p. 85.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
322 C. ZUCKERMAN

second half of 1235 or in 1236, this t

Angelos, Duke of Thrakesion (23),
epiteleia to be paid by the monk
previously paid by Kakabas. Kakabas
elsewhere, paying taxes on it and r
the state land. Thus the epiteleia
supposed to be paid directly to the fi
tax. Why then was it presented as
others ? The reason is clear. Towar
biotissa obtained a complete exemptio
tion of Kakabas' land and trees in it
exemption for this plot as well. That
to avoid. In vain, however. After co
simply refused to pay the epiteleia un
new acquisition was "worthless and pr
epiteleia was, indeed, remitted by the
Kostomoires (24).
In another case in 1274, two paroik
and Theotokos Koskinas, sold forty
ring estate-owner Theodore Komne
himself the obligation to pay them ev
a third hyperpyra (2S). In 1281, Ko
to Lembiotissa ; the obligation to
monastery (26). Finally in 1284, the
chrysobull of Andronicus II confirm
all its possessions. And again, the emp
the yearly epiteleia to Tzykapites a
not that time in such a pious mood as
due for its new acquisition as his pr
sions.

(23) On the person and the date, see H. A

de la région de Smyrně entre les deux occu
et mémoires, 1 (1965) (reprinted in Byzanc
1976), pp. 142-143.
(24) MM IV, pp. 85-86.
(25) MM IV, pp. 115-117.
(26) MM IV, pp. 98-99.
(27) MM IV, p. 31.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONSTANTINE PLANITES AND fflS NEIGHBOURS 323

The practice of perpetuating the epiteleia as a means of preserving

the fiscal status of the land was not restricted to the acquisitions of the
Lembiotissa monastery. Towards 1315, the monks of Docheiariou
amassed, partly by purchase partly by donations, 330 modioi of
paroikal land (apo diaphorõn paroikikõn hypostaseõn) in the village of
St. Elija. Then, according to the apographeus Kontenos, the monks
requested him to fix officially their rights to this land, expressing their
readiness to pay the tax ( kephalaion ) which he duly imposed (28). The
monks, on the other hand, presented Kontenos' action in a later
document as "cutting oiF' the land in question from their lawful
domain (29). And indeed, the land, though left in the possession of the
monastery, retained its "paroikal" status, for the land-tax, as in the
case of Kakabas, was presented as an epiteleia. The monks were
ordered to pay it to a certain Komnenoutzikos and after his death they
continued - or at least were supposed to continue - to pay it to the
treasury, until they obtained an imperial prostagma abolishing the
epiteleia.
In the cases considered, the epiteleia, whether stipulated in private
contracts or imposed by the state officials, provided the treasury with
an efficient means of control over the transfer of state lands into
private hands (30). The documents preserved contain, as to be expec-
ted, mostly records of the accomplished transactions. It can also be
assumed that the state did not usually infringe upon the traditional
liberty of the paroikoi to dispose of their plots, especially since most
buyers, unlike the monasteries, had to pay the land-tax in any case.
However, the sale of a plot by a paroikos could be also denied the
approval and annulled. An example of such a procedure is the case of
the Gounaropouloi and the heirs of Blateros.

(28) Actes de Docheiariou, ed. N. Oikonomides, Paris, 1984, no. 15. This
mutilated document was convincingly dated by the editor to 1315-1316 and
attributed to the agrographeus Kontenos.
(29) Actes de Docheiariou, no. 22, 11. 9-11, cf. no. 20, 11. 58-59.
(30) So efficient that the state applied it even when transferring lands of its own
accord. In 1321, the Lavra monks petitioned the emperor to cede to them the
pasture lands of the imperial estate tou Makrigenou, for which they tactfully
proposed to pay the tax. Their request was granted, yet instead of the tax they were
ordered to pay an epiteleia to the estate, which thus remained the owner of the land ;
see Actes de Lavra II, de 1204 à 1328, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos,
D. Papachryssanthou, Paris, 1977, no. 110.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
324 C. ZUCKERMAN

This case is rather well known (31)

sition to the most essential details. I
Gounaropouloi sold a fourth of t
Blateros who held as a pronoia their
stipulated ; since it was Blateros w
paroikoi of his pronoia C3), it woul
required an epiteleia from him only
However, Blateros died a few months
bought from one of the Gounaro
remaining plot, she was duly obl
seller (34). In the years to come, Anna
to her daughter ; the other part she
after 1227 when the village Bare w
Vatatzes to the monastery of Lemb
do what she should have done lon
acquisitions from the territory ( perio
them as a separate estate (35). She an
John Rabdokanakes, almost succeed
land. The two imperial prostagmata
their claims were not in themselves
managed to convince the emperor
without any joint owners, and so in t
against Blateros' heirs. The final
highest official of the state, the m
makes his argumentation all the more
the sale of the land by the Gounaro

(31) See esp. P. Charanis, The Monastic

Byzantine Empire , in Dumbarton Oaks P
Economic and Political Life), pp. 103-106.
(32) MM IV, pp. 185-187.
(33) See n. 52 below.
(34) MM IV, pp. 183-184. There are indic
land from the other members of the fam
contracts are preserved.
(35) Ileipcûfiêvrj (sc. Anna) ànoanáaai anò
yfjv, fjv àvaxalsirai wç eĶ áyopaaíaç nepi
napoíxwv, and cf. fxtj ßovAojuevrj (sc. rj ß
roiovrov x^píov õâcoç ánoanaadfjvaí n, M
(36) MM IV, pp. 218-220.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONSTANTTNE PLANITES AND fflS NEIGHBOURS 325

did not own what they sold : The fields which they held as paroikoi
constituted an inalienable property of the state (37). On the same legal
grounds, the state could block any sale of land by any "state" paroikos,
though, as said, it does not seem to have exercised this option very
often.
This legal status of the paroikal holdings explains the appearance
of the epiteleia-cimse in the contracts which established their sale. As
long as the buyer did not insist on changing the status of the land, he
could continue to exploit it while compensating the seller for his fiscal
liabilities. On the other hand, the imposition of the epiteleia enabled
the seller to cede to the buyer the actual possession of the property
without prejudicing the fiiture determination of its status, which
remained the prerogative of the state.
*
* *

In the cases considered so far, the ultim

epiteleia was the treasury. It remains to exa
other variety of epiteleia mentioned at the
buyer to assume the liabilities of the selle
a pronoia- holder or a tax-exempt landown
The payment of epiteleia to pronoia- holde
than one case. A laconic postscript to an e
Blateros was entitled to an epiteleia from
paroikoi Xenos Legas and his son-in-law N
the sale of olive trees to Lembiotissa in 1
epiteleia the monastery had to pay to the
a pronoia-holÛQT (39). Several other cases
ments. In all these instances, the epiteleia w
pronoia- holder.
This interpretation rests on the assumption
by George Ostrogorsky, that "immunity is
of the pronoia" (40). The main rationa
connection is the observation that a pron

(37) MM IV, p. 199.

(38) MM IV, p. 185.
(39) MM IV, pp. 61 and 135.
(40) G. Ostrogorskij, Pour l'histoire de l'immuni
(1958), p. 195, cf. p. 206.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 326 C. ZUCKERMAN

given amount of revenue, a posotēs (

an imperial grant, whether of a p
bestowal, comprised all the source
actually available or potential, to be
bestowed properties. So except for so
cases of emergency, the posotēs wa
overall association of pronoia with a
inexact.
The word "amount" ( posotēs ) mos
documents the amount of officially m
especially conspicuous in the second
tury (43). Such measurements were n
purposes of taxation, yet every piec
established bore a potential fiscal value
tion of the term posotēs which grad
Palaeologus.
In 1261, the apographeus John Athybolos was given the task of
alloting portions of waste land ( exaleimmata ) in the region of Plataia
to a large group of archontopouloi ; each of them was to receive a plot
of an "appropriate" nomismatikē posotēs (44). The specification no-
mismatikē, not used in later documents, was needed to distinguish the
posotēs expressing the fiscal value of land, evidently a novel concept
at that time, from the posotēs stating its area. Such distributions, often
to the soldiers, of waste lands evaluated by a posotēs of so many
hyperpyra gained considerable momentum under the Palaeologi.
However, the fiscal revenue bestowed was purely nominal. Since no
taxes were actually paid on abandoned lands, their real income was
entirely dependent on the industry and the enterprising spirit of each
recipient.

(41) E.g., A. Kazdan, Formen des bedingten Eigentums in Byzanz des X-XII
Jahrhund (a paper read at the XXVth International Congress of Orientalists),
Moscow, 1960 ; N. Oikonomides, Contribution à letude de la pronoia au xiiř siècle,
in Rente des études byzantines, 22 (1964), esp. pp. 170-174, and many others.
(42) Cf. K. Khvostova, Osobennosti agrarnopravovykh otnoshemj v pozdnej
Vizantii, Moscow, 1968, pp. 208-214.
(43) Cf. MM IV, pp. 146-150 ; E. Vranoussi, BvÇavrtvà eyypaęa ... īlatļiov.
A ; no. 14, 1. 47 ; M. Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, BvÇavnvà eyypaęa rfjç fiovtjç
īlhTļiov. B ' Arjuo ai wv ÀEtrovpyœv, Athens, 1980, no. 69, 11. 30-33.
(44) M. Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, BvÇavriva eyypaęa rfjç fiovfjç uarfiov.
B ', no. 66, 11. 1-4.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONSTANTINE PLANITES AND HIS NEIGHBOURS 327

Yet the posotēs was applied not only to fictive fiscal revenues. Early
in the seventies, the apographeus Demetrios Iatropoulos, acting on the
orders of Michael VIII's brother, the despot John, transferred to the
monastery of Xeropotamou an oikonomia estimated at 300 hyperpyra.
The meticulous description of all the taxes and imposts due to the
monastery from the lands transferred anticipates similar listings in the
fourteenth century praktika. What is most remarkable, however, is that
in Michael VIII's chrysobull of 1275 which confirms this donation as
well as the other possessions of the monastery, only the newly
bestowed oikonomia was defined by a posotēs. All the estates held by
Xeropotamou "from old" and also summarily exempt from taxes were
described in traditional terms as villages, fields, vineyards, etc.,
without their precise income value (45).
Our examples which can be easily multiplied (46) indicate that the
posotēs was mostly applied to the newly distributed lands and estates.
A notable exception is the case of the military settlers on the Anatolian
frontier. According to Pachymeres, these akrits who enjoyed under the
Nicaean emperors a complete exemption from taxes were subjected in
the years that followed the reconquest of Constantinople to a partial
taxation : The tax exemption of each wąs restricted to the posotēs of
forty nomismata. Though rather generous by contemporary rates - in
a prostagma of 1272 Michael VIII established for the landed holdings
to be granted to the soldiers the maximal posotēs of thirty six nomis-
mata (47) - the newly imposed posotēs is reported to have presented
the akrits with a considerable hardship (48).

(45) Actes de Xeropotamou, ed. J. Bompaire, Paris, 1964, no. 10.

(46) So during the seventies, the protovestiarites Demetrios Mounnos gathered
numerous lands situated in different parts of the empire. All his estates except the
last two, already granted but not yet transferred to Mourinos, were evaluated by a
posotēs , Actes de Docheiariou , no. 9. In 1271, Michael VIII authorized the donation
of the village Kastrin to the monastery of Chilandar. The posotēs of the village was
not apparently then yet established for it is first given in the confirmation of this
donation by the same emperor in 1277 ; Actes de Chilandar : Actes grecs , ed. L. Petit
(Suppl. to Viz. Fr., 17 (1911)), nos. 7 and 8.
(47) A. Heisenberg, Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologenzeit, in
Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften , Abh. 10, Munich,
1920, pp. 40-41. In the context of the prostagma , both posotēs- rates cited, twenty
four and thirty six nomismata , must refer to the grants of land.
(48) Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques , ed. A. Fauler, Pans, 1984,
pp. 31-33.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
328 C. ZUCKERMAN

The evaluation of landed holdings

gradually introduced under Michael VIII
the pronoiai of no stated posotēs, in th
device was not known or not yet appli
aside the small soldiers' pronoiai which
answer is simple. Bigger pronoiai wh
(proasteion ) or of one or several villa
analogous unconditional imperial best
for life and essentially inalienable. And
estates, they were subjected to the taxat
The clearest evidence in this regar
chrysobull of 1272 concerning the restit
Constantinople. The emperor's grant t
other properties, numerous estates in th
the pronoiai situated in the vicinity r
donated, yet the church was entitled to e
from those pronoiai, namely tön plõim
The last two seem to be the main tax
period (50). Even the monastery of Lemb
with manifold privileges by the Empero
obliged by its benefactor to pay ag
treasury" (51). And this indication
Blateros. The newly bestowed domain of
most part of the village Bare which w
twenty years before and the liabilities o
master were kept "as under Blateros"
believe that the liabilities of the landl
ment of Lembiotissa and that Blateros,
was exempt from taxes which are kno
pronoiai in the later period.
Similar considerations apply also i
closest neighbour, the pronoia- holde
statement of his paroikoi from the v
consisted of the "paroikal and the pu

(49) J. and P. Zepos, lus Graecoromanum, A

(50) M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in
(51) MM IV, p. 4.
(52) MM IV, p. 182.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONSTANTTNE PLANITES AND fflS NEIGHBOURS 329

dēmosiaka zētēmata)" (53). To the latter category belonged the various

special duties exacted in addition to the main taxes (54). It comes as
no surprise that Syrgares' paroikoi were not exempt from them. Such
exemption was so exceptional that when the Emperor John Vatatzes
granted it to the monastery of Lembiotissa, he had a hard time
convincing his officials to observe its terms (55). Thus the overall
"immunity" often bestowed by the scholars upon Syrgares' estate
proves to be fictitious. On the other hand, the "paroikal imposts"
which included the land tax or its equivalent in the form of an epiteleia
were paid by the peasants to Syrgares, and the question remains
whether he was entitled to enjoy this income in full or owed, in his
turn, taxes to the state. We will probably never know the exact answer
in this particular case, yet in a period when the exemption from taxes
admittedly constituted an exception, it would be methodologically
wrong to attribute it either to Syrgares or to any other landholder or
-owner without direct evidence.
With the introduction of the /josotës-system, each imperial grant was
devised, at least nominally, as to provide its beneficiary with exactly
the amount of income determined by the posotēs awarded. The
payments designated by the verb epitelein which occasionally figure in
the fourteenth century praktika are quite diverse and do not always
follow the usage of the Lembiotissa documents (56) ; however, all these
"epiteleias" were taken into account - if not directly imposed - by
the fisc and incorporated in the posotēs along with other taxes and
imposts. Thus whatever the fiscal status of a pronoia- holder in the
different periods and circumstances, all he exacted, whether in the
form of tax or of epiteleia, he exacted by authorization and under the
supervision of the state. In this respect, the epiteleia paid to a pro-
noia- holder did not differ from the epiteleia destined for the treasury.
On the other hand, there is nothing in the sources to support the
assumption that tax-exempt landowners, when selling their privileged
property, imposed an epiteleia equivalent to the land-tax on the buyers,

(53) MM IV, pp. 37-38.

(54) See the list in MM IV, pp. 224-225.
(55) The Lembiotissa archive preserved quite a number of imperial reprimands,
some quite terse in tone, of the officials who did not cease to claim various duties
from the monastery in spite of the exemption it enjoyed ; see, e.g., MM IV,
pp. 251-253.
(56) See the observations of N. Oikonomides, Actes de Uocheiariou, p. 14 1.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
330 C. ZUCKERMAN

thus turning their state-awarded exem

rent(57). In fact, the documents
independent landowner, a certain B
under the stipulation of an epitele
chose not to transfer to the buyer
Patmos, the legal ownership of t
monastery accepted this arrangement
constituted the dowry of Gabalas' wif
there is no evidence that the seller
it is all the more surprising to find v
epiteleia with the process of converti
... into private ones") (59) or even of
To conclude, the epiteleia, whethe
landowner or by a paroikos, indicated
of a plot of land to other hands, the
responsible for the taxes due on it
holder. This arrangement could hav
sons and for varying periods of time
ted by a cadastral revision. Except for
the grantor chose to retain the cont
epiteleia- clauses are almost entirely a
transactions performed by independ
alienate their land and would normally
property rights at the same time.
whose right to the land was only secu
were neither entitled to rid themselv
to transfer to the buyer the property
not legally own. Therefore in the v
paroikoi who exacted the epiteleia

(57) So H. Glykatzi (-Ahrweiler), L'ép

(58) MM VI, pp. 174-176. Each of the plots
/ispida áóeÁq)ixr¡v) of each respective field
Kale in her father's estate. Possible comp
explain the statement in the contract that t
formal recognition of Kale's ownership right
monks its actual possession.
(59) So M. Angold, A Byzantine Governm
(60) So A. Kazdan, Agrarnye otnoshen
1952, p. 159.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONSTANTINE PLANITES AND HIS NEIGHBOURS 3 3 1

actual possession of a plot without any formal change in its status.

Though mostly a private arrangement, the epiteleia was supervised or
even directly imposed by the state when state interests were involved.
Under its watchfiil eye, the sellers of land stood little chance of
converting the epiteleia into a form of private rent, though some may
have tried as we learn from the case of the dishonest soldier
Constantine Planites.

Constantine Zuckerman.

This content downloaded from

141.135.118.55 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:28:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms