¹ Ostrogorsky, George, ‘Pour l'histoire de l'immunité à Byzance,’ Byzantion 28 (1958) 179. The translation is mine.Google Scholar

² The latter is quoted from Ostrogorsky, George, History of the Byzantine State, trans. Joan Hussey from the 2nd German ed. (Oxford 1956) 192 (see also 167 n. 3). Older works, and the bibliographies in the Cambridge Medieval History 4.2 (2nd ed., Cambridge 1967) 409, 422, still use ‘Ashburner Tract (so-called),’ while Karayannopulos, J., ‘Fragmente aus den Vademecum eines byzantinischen Finanzbeamten,’ Polychronion: Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag , ed. Wirth, Peter (Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit, Reihe D, Band 1; Heidelberg 1966) 319ff., calls it ‘Traktat Dölger.’ In view of the newly discovered second treatise, designation by the manuscript's library seems appropriate.Google Scholar

³ The Marcian Treatise was first published by Ashburner, W., ‘A Byzantine Treatise on Taxation,’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 35 (1915) 76–84. The definitive edition, cited throughout this article, is Franz Dölger, Beiträge zur byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung, besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts (Byzantinisches Archiv 9; Leipzig and Berlin 1927; reprinted with additions, Hildesheim 1960) 113–123. There is a German translation (from Ashburner's defective ed.) in Ostrogorsky, George, ‘Die ländliche Steuergemeinde des byzantinischen Reiches im X. Jahrhundert,’ Vierteljahrsschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 20 (1927) 91–103, and Ostrogorsky, , ‘Immunité’ (cit. supra n. 1) 179 n. 1, refers to a Russian translation by E. Lipšic in Sbornik dokumentov po socialno-ekonomičeskoj istorii Vizantii (Moscow 1951) 147–154, which I have not seen. On the date and nature of the Marcian Treatise, see Dölger, , Beiträge 3–8, 161; Lemerle, Paul, ‘Esquisse pour une histoire agraire de Byzance: Les sources et les problèmes,’ Revue historique 219 (1958) 257–259 [Lemerle's article appeared in three parts in two volumes of the Revue: 219, 220]; George Ostrogorsky ‘La commune rurale byzantine: Loi agraire — Traité fiscal — Cadastre de Thèbes,’ Byzantion 32 (1962) 148 n. 1; for the “standing logisimon,” see Treatise, Marcian, ed. Dölger, , 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ The Zavorda Treatise was published in Karayannopulos, , ‘Fragmente’ 321–324 (on the manuscript, 318–321); on the monastery at Zavorda and its manuscripts, see Politis, Linos, ‘Die Handschriftensammlung des Klosters Zavorda und die neuaufgefundene Photioshandschrift,’ Philologus 105 (1961) 137–140; Richard, M., Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs (2nd ed., Paris 1958) 242 (Zaborda), with Suppl. 1 (Paris 1964) 63 (no. 874d). On the 11th-century pronoia, see Ostrogorsky, George, Pour l'histoire de la féodalité byzantine, trans. Henri Grégoire (Corpus bruxellense historiae byzantinae: Subsidia 1; Brussels 1954) 20–25.Google Scholar

⁵ The ‘Παλαιà ϰαὶ Nέα Λoγαϱιϰή’ is reprinted from Zachariae, K. E. von Lingenthal's edition in J. and Zepos, P., ed., Jus graecoromanum I (Athens 1931) 326–340. The fragment of tax register was published with full annotations by Svoronos, Nicolas G., ‘Recherches sur le cadastre byzantin et la fiscalité aux xi^e et xii^e siècles: Le cadastre de Thèbes,’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 83 (1959) 1–145, 805–825; see the harsh review by J. Karayannopulos in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 56 (1963) 361–370. The monastic documents are extremely scattered: some of the most valuable collections are ‘Actes de l'Athos’ I-VI, published as supplements to Vizantiťskiť Vremennik 10 (1903), 12 (1906), 13 (1906/7), 17 (1910/11), 19 (1912/13), 20 (1913/14); Miklosich, Franz and Müller, Joseph, ed., Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana 4–6 (Vienna 1871–1890); Rouillard, Germaine and Collomp, Paul, ed., Actes de Lavra 1 (Archives de l'Athos 1; Paris 1937).Google Scholar

⁶ Outlines of the history of the Byzantine peasantry will be found in Ostrogorsky, George, ‘Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages,’ Cambridge Economic History of Europe From the Decline of the Roman Empire 1 (Cambridge 1941) 194–223, reproduced without alteration in the 2nd ed. (1966) 205–234; Setton, Kenneth M., ‘On the Importance of Land Tenure and Agrarian Taxation in the Byzantine Empire, From the Fourth Century to the Fourth Crusade,’ American Journal of Philology 74 (1953) 225–259; Dölger, Franz, ‘Die Frage des Grundeigentums in Byzanz,’ Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (Ettal 1953) 217–231; Lemerle, , ‘Esquisse’ (cit. supra n. 3) Vol. 219 (1958) 32–74, 254–284, and Vol. 220 (1958) 43–94; Kazhdan, A., ‘Visantiǐskaιȃ derevnιȃ VII–XV vv. v osveshchenii zapadnoevropeĭskoĭ i amerikanskoĭ istoroiografii (1917–1960),’ Vizantiĭskiιȃ Vremennik 22 (1963) 127–198. On the free peasant in Byzantine Egypt, see Rouillard, Germaine, L'administration civile de l'Égypte byzantine (2nd ed. Paris 1928) 173–221; the same author's La vie rurale dans l'Empire byzantin (Paris 1953) 36–61; Karayannopulos, J., ‘Die kollektive Steuerverantwortung in der frühbyzantinischen Zeit,’ Vierteljahrsschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 43 (1956) 307–314, who seems to exaggerate the prosperity and numbers of the early Byzantine free villages. The Farmer's Law was edited and translated by Ashburner, Walter, ‘The Farmer's Law,’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 30 (1910) 85–108, 32 (1912) 68–95. The Macedonian legislation is in Zepos, , Jus (cit. supra n. 5) I 198–272; see the translation of the most important laws in my book, Icon and Minaret: Sources of Byzantine and Islamic Civilization (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1969); see, further, the summary in Bach, Erik, ‘Les lois agraires byzantines du x^e siècle,’ Classica et Mediaevalia 5 (1942) 70–91. On the later fate of the peasants, see Ostrogorsky, George, Quelques problèmes d'histoire de la paysannerie byzantine (Corpus bruxellense historiae byzantinae; Subsidia 2; Brussels 1956); Kazhdan, A., Agrarnye otnosheniιȃ v Vizantii XIII-XIV vv. (Moscow 1952); Lemerle, Paul, ‘Recherches sur le régime agraire à Byzance: La terre militaire à l'époque des Comnènes,’ Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, X ^e–XII ^e siècles 2 (1959) 265–281. On the great landowners, see Charanis, Peter, ‘The Monastic Properties and the State,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4 (1948) 51–118; Vryonis, Speros Jr., ‘Byzantium: The Social Basis of Decline in the Eleventh Century,’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 2 (1959) 157–175; the same author's ‘The Will of a Provincial Magnate, Eustathius Boilas (1059),’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 11 (1957) 263–277.Google Scholar

⁷ Marcian Treatise 115; Dölger, , Beiträge 65–67; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ (cit. supra n. 3) 10–27, 42–43; Lemerle, , ‘Esquisse’ Vol 219, 259–260; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Commune rurale’ (cit. supra n. 3) 147–149.Google Scholar

⁸ Marcian Treatise 115–116, 118–119, 121–123; Zavorda Treatise 322; Romanus I's law of 922 regarding acceptable categories of purchasers, in Zepos, , Jus I 198–204 (translated in my Icon and Minaret 78–81); the best-known example of an enriched peasant who had devoured his fellow-villagers' lands and erected great mansions for himself is Philokales, who appears in Basil II's law, Zepos, , Jus I 265 (see Icon and Minaret 93). Dölger, , Beiträge 66–67; his ‘Frage des Grundeigentums,’ (cit. supra n. 6) 222–229; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 33–40.Google Scholar

⁹ The fundamental works on medieval Western agriculture are Cambridge Economic History 1; Duby, Georges, L'économie rurale et la vie des campagnes dans l'Occident médiéval (France, Angleterre, Empire, IX ^e–XV ^e siècles): Essai de synthèse et perspectives de recherches 2 vols. (Paris 1962); White, Lynn Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change (Oxford 1962) 39–76.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ashburner, , ‘Farmer's Law’ 30.107–108: ‘ἡ τoῡ χωϱov ϰoυóτη;ς.’ Lemerle, , ‘Esquisse’ Vol. 219, 60 and n. 1, thinks this phrase should be rendered ‘collectivity of the commune.’ Google Scholar

¹¹ Marcian Treatise 115–116, 119; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 23–25, 41–46; Lemerle, , ‘Esquisse’ Vol. 219, 57–61, 261–263; Svoronos, , ‘Cadastre de Thèbes’ (cit. supra n. 5) 119–121; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Commune rurale’ 147–158.Google Scholar

¹² On the types of Byzantine taxes, see Dölger, , Beiträge 48–62, the best survey; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 48–61; the same author's ‘Das Steuersystem in byzantinischen Altertum und Mittelalter,’ Byzantion 6 (1931) 231–240; Bréhier, Louis, Le monde byzantin II (L'évolution de l'humanité 32^bis; Paris 1949) 258–263.Google Scholar

¹³ Marcian Treatise 122–123. The clearest statement regarding the kanon, the annexed taxes, and the charagma is in Svoronos, , ‘Cadastre de Thèbes’ 80–86; see also Ostrogorsky, ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 48, 61–62; Dölger, , Beiträge 54–57, 59–60.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Marcian Treatise 113–114, 121–122; as stated, both treatises are intended for the use of inspectors. Dölger, , Beiträge 55–56, 79–85, 128–134; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 82–85; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Steuersystem’ 231–232, 235–239; Karayannopulos, , ‘Kollektive Steuerverantwortung’ (cit. supra n. 6) 289–292, 302, 319–322.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Marcian Treatise 115.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. 114–115. Dölger, , Beiträge 79–83, 132–134; Lemerle, , ‘Esquisse’ Vol. 219, 262 n. 1; Svoronos, , ‘Cadastre de Thèbes’ 124–125.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Marcian Treatise 121–122, 123; Dölger, , Beiträge 76–78; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 85–86; Svoronos, , ‘Cadastre de Thèbes’ 141.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Martian Treatise 117–118; Dölger, , Beiträge 144–147; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 71–73; Danstrup, John, ‘The State and Landed Property in Byzantium to c. 1250,’ Classica et Mediaevalia 8 (1946) 227–229; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Immunité’ (cit. supra n. 1) 179–182; Lemerle, , ‘Esquisse’ Vol. 219, 263–265.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Marcian Treatise 120–121; Zavorda Treatise 324, the incomplete beginning of a description of these types.Google Scholar

²⁰ Marcian Treatise 119; Dölger, , Beiträge 148–149.Google Scholar

²¹ Marcian Treatise 116, 118; Zavorda Treatise 321, 323; Svoronos, , ‘Cadastre de Thèbes’ 11, 120–121; Dölger, , Beiträge 132, 141; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 74–75.Google Scholar

²² Marcian Treatise 116, 119–120; Zavorda Treatise 321–323; Basil II's law in Zepos, Jus I 267. As Karayannopulos, , ‘Fragmente’ 320, 328–329, shows, the term ‘back taxation’ was used in the 9th century by Theophanes in connection with a special levy raised by Nicephorus I from the aristocracy for his ill-fated campaign against Krum, but it does not seem to be an institution, nor is anything said about a connection with sympatheiai. The complete silence of the otherwise exhaustive Marcian Treatise suggests that back taxation as a regular demand was an 11th-century innovation.Google Scholar

²³ Marcian Treatise 116, 118–119, 120, 121, 123; Zavorda Treatise 321–323, 324; Dölger, , Beiträge 139–140; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 75–77.Google Scholar

²⁴ Marcian Treatise 116–117; Dölger, , Beiträge 138–139.Google Scholar

²⁵ Marcian Treatise 121–123; the Boeotian survey in Svoronos, , ‘Cadastre de Thèbes,’ 11–19; Dölger, , Beiträge 97–112; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Ländliche Steuergemeinde’ 87–91; Svoronos, , ‘Cadastre de Thèbes’ 21–26, 118 (Svoronos' work is the best available introduction to the subject).Google Scholar

²⁶ Zavorda Treatise 322–323; Lemerle, , ‘Esquisse’ Vol. 219, 263; Ostrogorsky, , ‘Commune rurale’ (cit. supra n. 3) 150–158.Google Scholar

²⁷ Marcian Treatise 114–123. My translation is very literal; the author, it should be noted, was careless in his sequence of tenses. Dölger's page numbers have been inserted.Google Scholar

²⁸ Marcian Treatise 113–114.Google Scholar

²⁹ Zavorda Treatise 321–324; Karayannopulos' page numbers have been inserted.Google Scholar

³⁰ Read oὐϰ for oὖυ. That oὐϰ is correct is shown by Karayannopulos' transcription of the text, ‘Fragmente’ (cit. supra n. 2) 329.Google Scholar

³¹ This definition differs from that in the Marcian Treatise 120.Google Scholar

³² Meaning and translation uncertain; see Karayannopulos, , ‘Fragmente’ 331 and n. 62.Google Scholar

³³ This paragraph is not clear, and does not agree with Marcian Treatise 119.Google Scholar

³⁴ The meaning of this textually damaged clause is uncertain. Klasma sold by the government was taxed at a twelfth of the old rate.Google Scholar

³⁵ Here the text breaks off. On reconstitution, see Marcian Treatise 120–121.Google Scholar