1. Vassilievsky, V.G., ‘Materialy k vnutrennej istorii vizantiiskogo gosudarstva’, Zurnal ministerstva narpdnogo Prosvescenija 210 (1880) 98–170, 355–400, see p.372 Google Scholar. Cf.Dôlger, F., Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts (Byzantinisches Archiv 9) (Munich 1927/Hildesheim 1960) 9–12 Google Scholar. My thanks to Archie Dunn and Alan Harvey for helpful suggestions and criticism on the following.

2. The best-known works: Bury, J.B., The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century, with a revised text of the Kletorologion of Philotheos (British Academy Supplemental Papers I) (London 1911)Google Scholar; Stein, E., Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Reiches vornehmlich unter den Kaisern Justinus II und Tiberius Konstantinus (Stuttgart 1919)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Untersuchungen zur spätbyzantinischen Verfassungs-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte’, Mitteilungen zur osmanischen Geschichte 2 (1923/5) 1-62; Dôlger, Finanzverwaltung; Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Die ländliche Steuergemeinde des byzantinischen Reiches im X. Jahrhundert’, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 20 (1927) 1–108 Google Scholar; Karayannopoulos, J., Das Finanzwesen des frühbyzan-tinischen Staates (Munich 1958)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Fragmente aus dem Vademecum eines byzantinischen Finanzbeamten’, in: Polychronion. Festschrift Franz Dôlger zum 75. Geburts-tag(= Forschungen zur griechischen Diplomatik und Geschichte 1) (Heidelberg 1966) 318-334; Lemerle, P., The Agrarian History of Byzantium from the Origins to the Twelfth Century. The Sources and Problems (Galway 1979)Google Scholar. Other works discuss fiscal structures in less detail, e.g. Ahrweiler, H., ‘Recherches sur l’administration de l’empire byzantin aux IX^e-XI^e siècles’, BCH 84 (1960) 1–109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Svoronos, N.G., ‘Recherches sur le cadastre byzantin et la fiscalité aux XI^e-XII^e siècles: le cadastre de Thèbes’, BCH 83 (1959) 1–166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hendy, M.F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c.300-1450 (Cambridge 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harvey, A., Economie Expansion in the Byzantine Empire 900-1200 (Cambridge 1989)Google Scholar; Kaplan, M., Les hommes et la terre à Byzance du VI^e au XI^e siècle (Byzantina Sorbonensia 10) (Paris 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. This is Dolger’s view, Finanzverwaltung, 57-59; also in BZ 34 (1934) 369-373; followed implicitly by Lemerle, Agrarian History, 5-7; Harvey, Economic Expansion, 103; accepted with reservations by Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 139-140. See also Kazhdan, A.P. et al., edd., The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New York-Oxford 1991) 3, 1994-1995 Google Scholar, s.v. synone.

4. Ostrogorsky, ‘Steuergemeinde’, 49-51; E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, II. De la disparition de l’empire d’Occident à la mort de Justinien (476-565) (Paris-Bruges 1949/repr. Amsterdam 1968) 199ff., after the useful discussion of Geiβ, H., Geldund naturalwirtschqftliche Erscheinungsformen im staatlichen Aufbau Italiens während der Gotenzeit (Berlin 1931) 11 Google Scholar and notes. This is also the position I followed in my Byzantium in the Seventh century: the Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge 1990) 142, 147-150, but which I will modify in what follows.

5. Oikonomidès, N., ‘Terres du fisc et revenu de la terre aux X^e-XI^e siècles’, in Kravari, V., Lefort, J., Morrisson, C., eds., Hommes et richesses dans l’empire byzantin II. VIII^e-XV^e siècle (Paris 1991) 321–337, at 323, 328 Google Scholar n. 29; Kazhdan, A., ‘Ignatios the Deacon’s Letters on the Byzantine Economy’, BS 53 (1992) 197–201, at 200.Google Scholar

6. See Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire 284-602. A Social Economic and Administrative Survey (Oxford 1964) 460.Google Scholar

7. For embolê as annona, see Preisigke, F., Wôrterbuch der griechischen Papyrussurkunden I (Berlin 1925)Google Scholar, s.v. embolê (3) (col. 473); II (Berlin 1931) p.236; and esp. Bell, H.I., Greek Papyri in the British Museum. Catalogue, with Texts, IV, The Aphrodito Papyri (London 1919) xxv–xxvi, xxxi, p.173f.Google Scholar

8. For the legislation through which the process of expanded commutation can be traced see, e.g. CTh XI, 1, 37 (a. 436) (Theodosiani libri xvi cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis, edd. Th. Mommsen, P. Meyer et al. [Berlin 1905]), and material assembled by Jones, LRE, 460f. and notes. Anastasius’ regulations: Malaias 394 (Dindorf [CSHB], Bonn 1831).

9. CI X, 27.2 (a. 491-505). (Codex Iustinianus, ed. P. Krüger [CIC II. Berlin 1919]). See Jones, LRE, 235.

10. CI X, 27.2/10 (although Kaplan, Les hommes et la terre, 525, understands the text to mean that Thrace was entirely exempted from the synônê).

11. The process is described in detail in CI X, 27.2. For Justinian’s Novel (dealing with troops passing through a province), see Just., Nov. cxxx, 1-5 (a. 545) (Justiniani Novellae [CIC, III, Berlin 1928]).

12. Just., Nov. cxxx, and cf. nov. cxxviii (a. 545), esp. §1-3.

13. Procopius, HA xxiii, 11-14 (Haury); Agathias iv, 22 (Keydell). See Stein, Bas-Empire, II, 440.

14. The Novel is included in the collection of 168 Novels: Just., Nov. clxiii (also in JGR [Zepos], I, Coll. 1, nov. XII); for the papyrus evidence, see P. Oxy. 1907 (The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, edd. B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt et al. [London 1898f.]). See Jones, LRE, 307 with note 9. The arrangement whereby tax-payers received a rebate misled Dölger, Finanzverwaltung, 58, who thought originally that the embolê referred to in this Novel was the synônê, and that the latter was therefore collected on a yearly basis. But — as he later appears to have seen (see Finanzverwaltung, 161 : Corrigenda et Addenda) — this is impossible, since the coemptio was a compulsory purchase of produce (not a state levy), for which the tax-payers were paid as a matter of course (even if at an artificially low rate). There would be no point in offering rebates on produce which was anyway paid for (even if at unfavourable rates to the producers). The part of the annona raised in kind (and cf. Just., Nov. cxxviii, 1), however, would be rebated in just this way. There is no evidence that the synônê /coemptio was a yearly or regular imposition in all provinces of the empire at this time, although it may have occurred fairly regularly in those regions along and behind the frontier in which troops were most often stationed.

15. Just., Nov. cxxx, 3.

16. See Just., Nov. cxxx, 6.

17. See Maurice, Strategikon (Dennis-Gamillscheg), i, 2.16; Just., Nov. cxxx, 1 and 6.

18. Const. Porph., Three Treatises, (B) 101-106 (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, ed. J.F. Haldon [CFHB XXVIII], Vienna 1990) (= De Cer. [Reiske], 451.19).

19. Dölger cites MM VI, 47 (a. 1088) (= Patmos I, no. 6 [Byzantina eggrapha tês monês Patmou I. Autokratorika, ed. E. Vranousi (Athens 1980)]); see also, for example JGR (Zepos) I, 617 (a. 1044); MM V, 137 (a. 1074); 143 (a. 1079); VI, 22 (a. 1079) (= Patmos I, no. 3); Lavra I, 38.37 (a. 1079); 48.35 (a. 1086) (Actes de Lavra, première partie, des origines à 1204, edd. P. Lemerle, N. Svoronos, A. Guillou, D. Papachryssanthou [Archives de l’Athos] Paris 1970).

20. MM VI, 48 (= Patmos I, no. 6) is cited; see also, for example, MMN V, 4 (a. 1045); 9 (a. 1079); JGR I, 617; 630 (a. 1045); 644 (a. 1078); Lavra I, 33.97 (a. 1060); 36.32 (a. 1074); 38.64 (a. 1079); 45.52 (a. 1081); 55.33 (a. 1102); 67.58 (a. 1196).

21. MM VI, 1ff., see p.2.21 and p.15.8 (a. 1073) (= Patmos II, no. 50 [Byzantina eggrapha tês monês Patmou II. Demosiôn leitourgôn diplomatikê ekdosis, ed. M. Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou (Athens 1980)]). The paroikoi of the Nea Monê on Chios were likewise freed from both synônê and kapnikon in the Chrysobull of Constan-tine IX of 1044 — JGR I 617.

22. Finanzverwaltung, 57.

23. De Cer. 695.3-9.

24. Peira (in JGR IV, 9-260) xviii, 2. The text was also discussed by Vassilievsky, ‘Materialy k vnutrennej istorii vizantiiskogo gosudarstva’, Zurnal ministerstva narodnogo Prosvescenija 202 (1879) 16–232; 368–438, see p.400.Google Scholar

25. Bas-Empire II, 200 and note 2.

26. A point made by Dölger himself, Finanzverwaltung 54; see the text of the Fiscal Treatise, ibidem, 116.25, 34; 117.5, 42; 122. 6ff.; 123.2, 7, 30; and see also Dölger’s revisions to his original arguments in BZ 39 (1939) 54.

27. Fiscal Treatise, 122.15f.

28. See Patmos II, no. 50.312ff. (and note 49, p.33), and note 21 above regarding the Nea Monê on Chios.

29. The documents referred to in notes 19ff. above make this principle clear. See also Oikonomidès, ‘Terres du fisc et revenus de la terre’, 323ff. and especially Kaplan, Les hommes et la terre, 205-209.

30. ‘Steuergemeinde’, 51. For the form taken by the assessment, see Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 77-89, 118ff.; Oikonomidès, ‘Terres du fisc et revenu de la terre’, 324ff. with more recent literature; and Kaplan, Les hommes et la terre, 205-218.

31. See esp. JGR I, 617; also MM V, 137, 143-44; Lavra I, 38; 48; and note 52 below.

32. The exact meaning of aerikon is disputed. Ostrogorsky, ‘Steuergemeinde’, 53, thought that it was a tax on doors and windows, but Dölger, ‘Das aerikon’, BZ 30 (1929-30) 450-457, followed by Stein, Bas-Empire II, 444 and note 1, argued that it was rather a fine on infractions of laws dealing with distances to be maintained between buildings in urban contexts. But the derivation from aêr, ‘air’, is probably unnecessarily complicated; it might be more fruitful to examine the possibility that it was dubbed aerikon because it was a specific form of cash adaeration, to be derived from the Latin aes/aeris, copper/bronze, referring to money, rather than from the Greek aêr/aeros (or Latin aer/aeris). See Haldon, J.F., ‘ Aerikon/aerika: a Re-Interpretation’, in Festschrift Hunger (Vienna 1994, forthcoming).Google Scholar

33. For Ignatios’ letters: Ignatios diakonos, Epistolai, ed. Gedeon, M., in Nea Bibliothêkê Ekklêsiastikôn Eggrapheôn I, 1 (Constantinople 1903) 1–64 Google Scholar, see Epp. 7.20-26; 8.10-12. Note that the statement of demand for the synônê was issued in July — corresponding exactly with the sixth-century practice as reflected in the regulations laid down in Justinian’s Novel 128, §1, of 545. As will become apparent in what follows, the interpretation of Ignatios’ letters offered here differs slightly from that proposed in my Byzantine Praetorians (Poikila Byzantina 3, Bonn 1984) 314, 585f.

34. See ep. 7, 1.13.

35. For the tenth century correspondence, see Darrouzès, J., Épistoliers byzantins du X^e siècle (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 6) (Paris 1960)Google Scholar nos. 22, with 23 and 24. The reason for the ecclesiastical non-co-operation is said to be the heavy demands in fees in kind (corn, wine) made by the official, and in addition his extending his stay at the Church’s expense beyond a reasonable length of time (in this context, stated to be three days). He justifies the latter in terms of the extent and complexity of his work on this property. This would strongly suggest that the synônê was at this time assessed according to the productivity and amount of land at the disposal of the landowner — a simple headcount would otherwise suffice were it raised on the basis of a flat-rate.

36. See Const. Porph., Three Treatises 54ff.

37. Ibid., (B) 101-106.

38. Ibid., (C) 347-358.

39. See above, with note 9; and Just., Nov. cxxx, 1-5.

40. For example, Hendy, M.F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c.300-1453 (Cambridge 1985) 640ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar (dramatic reduction in the issue and availability of copper coins, particularly clear in Anatolia, from the late 650s); Cécile Morrisson, Jean-Noël Barrandon, Jacques Poirier, ‘La monnaie d’or byzantine à Constantinople: purification et modes d’altérations (491-1354)’, in: Morrisson, Cécile, Brenot, Cl., Callu, J.-P., Barrandon, J.-N., Poirier, J., Halleux, R., L’or monnayé I (Paris 1985) 113–187, see p.125f.Google Scholar (reduction in gold content of nomisma from the reign of Constantine IV). For an analysis of the implications of these developments in their wider context: Haldon, J.F., Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Hendy, Monetary Economy, 625f.

42. The Novel of Tiberius Constantine on the remission of taxes, together with Justinian’s Novel 130 and Anastasius’ regulations on coemptio (C/X, 27.5ff.), make it quite certain that troops in garrison away from an active front were generally sup plied by cash purchases made from their regular pay (the evidence of the Egyptian papyri is very clear in this respect: see Jones, LRE, 672ff.); those in transit and on an active front (for example, the Persian frontier and hinterland in the 570s — Tiberius’ Novel names Osrhoene and Mesopotamia specifically) were supplied directly in kind from the embolê and from a synônê where the former was insufficient.

43. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 227f., 215f.

44. W. Ashburner, ‘The Farmers’ Law’, JHS 30 (1910) 85-108; 32 (1912) 68-95 (repr. in: JGR [Zepos] II, 63-71), see cap. 19 (JGR II, 66). Lemerle, Agrarian History, 40, 41 note 1, notes the fact that the Farmers’ Law makes no reference at all to synônê/coemptio in the traditional sense. The term extraordinaria might be expected, but that extraordina was the usual Greek form is clear from the papyrological evidence. See H.I. Bell, ed., Greek Papyri in the British Museum, IV, xxvff. A possible objection to the interpretation which follows is that the passage in question in the Farmers’ Law concerns a property which has been abandoned by its proprietor and cultivated in his absence, although s/he has received no income from it, yet for which s/he has been able to pay the extraordina tou dêmosiou; and the question arises as to how these could have been acquitted without a harvest. See Kaplan, Les hommes et la terre, 211. Two possibilities exist: the owner has acquitted his taxes for this particular property from the income from another property; or the tax in question was aderated for cash. Either way, the case is not unique: a similar example is recorded in the Aphrodito papyri, for the same period (c.650s-720s), in Egypt, where tax-payers registered as the holders of unproductive land, or who did not produce corn (or both) were still expected to pay their embolé, but in cash. See Bell, ed., Greek Papyri in the British Museum, IV, xxvi, 172 and 258.

45. See Bell, ed., Greek Papyri in the British Museum, IV, 1356, where the extraordina are clearly differentiated from the aggareiai, i.e. from the supplementary burdens and corvées imposed on the tax-payers; 1338, 5 where the extraordina are distinguished from the chrysika dêmosia and ‘the remaining taxes’, and 1470, where they are distinguished from a number of supplementary taxes. The probability is that extraordina in the Egyptian context of the second half of the seventh century represents an additional imposition in kind, a surcharge, in effect, to the embolê. In 1393, the extraordina appear as extra revenues requested for the maintenance of workmen and sailors, thus having the same result as a synônê. Since there is no evidence that it was raised on the basis of compulsory purchase, however, it was clearly not a coemptio in the late Roman sense.

46. See Bell, ed., Greek Papyri in the British Museum, xxv-xxxii, esp. xxvi, xxix; and Rouillard, G., L’administration civile de l’Egypte byzantine (Paris ² 1928) 79ff.Google Scholar

47. See Eicloga, . Dos Gesetzbuch Leons III. und Konstaninos’ V., ed. Burgmann, L. (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte X) (Frankfurt a. M. 1983) xvi, 4; also xvi, 1 and 2 Google Scholar; see also Simon, D., ‘Byzantinische Hausgemeinschaftsvertràge’, in: Beiträge zur europäischen Rechtsgeschichte undzum geltenden Zivilrecht. Festgabe für J. Sontis (Munich 1977) 91–128 Google Scholar, see 94 (A)2, 7; (B)4 (an eighth-century text probably of Leo III and Constantine V, appended in its older form to manuscripts of the Écloga as article 19). For Constantinople and its hinterland, see Harrison, R.M., ed., Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, I (Princeton 1986) 278–280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (M.F. Hendy).

48. See. Lilie, R.-J., Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber (Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 22, Munich 1976) 57–133, 183ff.Google Scholar

49. See, e.g., Just., Nov. cxxxi, 5 (where, however, a difference is drawn between extraordinaria and other works such as road- and bridge-maintenance and building renovations).

50. The change in terminology suggested here occurred at the same time as the older system of tax-assessment — the so-called capitatio-iugatio system — appears to have been modified. While I cannot go into this here, and while it is clear that the kapnikon, which henceforth made up the other main element in the regular public taxes, was not a capitation or poll-tax in the traditional sense (because soldiers were subject to the kapnikon, and soldiers had always been exempted from the poll-tax; see below, for the kapnikon; and Jones, LRE, 617 for exemption from capitolìo: see Ostrogorsky, ‘Steuergemeinde’, 52; but Dölger, Finanzverwaltung, 51, who holds it for a poll-tax), one of the major factors must have been the much greater proportion of surplus wealth extracted in kind to support the armies in their new situation. See Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (Munich 1968) 115 Google Scholar; Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 141-152.

51. Liber Pontìflcalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 2 vols. (Paris 1884-1892), I, 366.9-10 (and see F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostrômischen Reiches 565-1453 [Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit, Reihe A, Abt. i-iv [Munich-Berlin 1924-1965]; ii, 2nd edn. ed. P. Wirth [Munich 1977], no. 250).

52. This is very clear from CI X, 28.2/8.

53. The fact that officials responsible for imposing and levying a coemptio were exhorted to fix a rate commensurate with the ability of individual households to provide the corn might suggest that officials tended to impose a flat rate (see below). See CI X, 27.2/8-9.

54. Liber Pontificalis, I, 344.2-4 (cf. Dölger, Regesten, no. 234).

55. See the references in note 40 above.

56. See Abû’I-Käsim ^cUbayd Allâh b. ^cAbd Allâh b. Khurradadhbîh, Kitab al-Masâlik wa’l-Mamâlik, in: Bibliotheca Geographorum Araborum, ed. M.-J. De Goeje (Leyden 1870ff.; cont. R. Blachère et al., Leyden 1938ff.) VI, Fr. transi. 76-85, see 83.

57. See, for example, Bell, ed., Greek Papyri in the British Museum, xxv-xxxii.

58. Peira (in JGR [Zepos] IV, 9-260), see §18.2 (p.68).

59. De Cer. 695.3ff.

60. The main texts are discussed in: J.F. Haldon, Recruitment and Conscription in the Byzantine Army c. 550-950: A Study on the Origins of the stratiotika ktemata (Sb Wien 357) (Vienna 1979) 54 note 94; 60 note 104; ‘Military service, military lands and the status of soldiers: current problems and interpretations’, DOP 47(1993) 1-67, see esp. 42f., 54f.; Dagron, G., Mihaescu, H., Le traité sur la Guérilla (De velitatione) de l’empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963-969) (Paris 1986) 264ffGoogle Scholar. Privileges accompanying military service: Jones, LRE, 617, 675; Mommsen, Th., ‘Das römisene Militärwesen seit Diocletian’, Hermes 24 (1889) 195–279, 248f.Google Scholar; Patlagean, E., ‘L’impôt payé par les soldats au Vlème siècle’, in: Armées et fiscalité dans le monde antique (Colloques nationaux CNRS, 936) (Paris 1977) 303–309 Google Scholar. The key texts: CI xii, 35.16 (unspecified military privileges); 36; and Dain, A., ‘Sur le “peculium castrense’“, REB 19 (1961) 253–257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and esp. Dig. L, 5.10 (= Bas. LIV, 5.10) on exemption for soldiers from certain muñera or aggareiai (including billetting); Dig. L, 4.3.

61. Oikonomidès, ‘Terres du fisc et revenu de la terre aux X^e-XI^e siècles’, in Kravari, V., Lefort, J., Morrisson, C., eds., Hommes et richesses dans l’empire byzantin II. VIII^e-XV^e siècle (Paris 1991) 321–337 Google Scholar, see 323, 328 n.29; the praktikon of Doukas: Patmos II, no. 50, 312ff.

62. Kazhdan, , ‘Ignatios the Deacon’s Letters on the Byzantine Economy’, BS 53 (1992) 197–201, see 200.Google Scholar

63. See the comments of Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 139-140, and idem, ‘Remarques sur les structures économiques de l’empire byzantin au XI^e siècle’, TM 6 (1976) 49-67, esp. 55 and n. 24. The grounds for assuming these rates to be standard lie in the fact, noted by the most recent editor of the text, Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, that the official who drew up the document clearly had a formulaic list at his disposal, since he includes details of paroikoi not relevant to the case in point: Patmos II, p.33 and n. 49.

64. See Bell, Greek Papyri in the British Museum, IV, no. 1426, and commentary with other references at xxvi.

65. The numismatic evidence suggests a marked upswing of monetised exchange during the first half of the ninth century, especially during the 830s and 840s. See esp. Ph. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection III: Leo III to Nicephorus III, 717-1081, 2 vols. (Washington D.C. 1973) 1, 412ff., 94ff.; Metcalf, D.M., ‘How Extensive was the Issues of Folles during the Years 775-820?’, B 37 (1967) 270–310 Google Scholar, see 309f.; and idem, Coinage in South-eastern Europe, 920-1396 (London 1979) 17ff. with literature and sources.

66. See discussion below, with notes 90ff.

67. See Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 141-143. In any case, it had never been applied to infants, and not always to women members of households: Jones, LRE, 543f. A range of both upper and lower age-limits on tax-liability, varying according to local tradition from province to province, existed in the third-sixth centuries, for example: cf.Jones, A.H.M., ‘Census Records of the Later Roman Empire’, in The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History, ed. Brunt, P.A. (Oxford 1974) 228–256, see 231.Google Scholar

68. See, for example, Laiou, A., Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire, a Social and Demographic Study (Princeton 1977) 176–181.Google Scholar

69. Harvey, Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 103.

70. The price of corn varies considerably across the period from the mid-eighth century to the twelfth century. See Cheynet, Malamut, Morrisson, ‘Prix et salaires’, table at 356-7, but an average price of 1 modios @ 1/12 nomisma, i.e. 1 miliarêsion per modios, has been estimated as a reasonable price for Constantinople in the tenth century (ibid. 360-361) and for the southern Balkans in the later tenth and early eleventh century (Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 141). Prices in the provinces, and prices for commutation set by the provincial or central fiscal departments, may have fluctuated considerably around this — they were very much lower for a while during the reign of Constantine V, for example, and — of course — they were much higher during periods of shortage. If we accept Ignatios’ figures, and his statement that the tax was imposed on individuals and not households, this gives a rate three times higher than that at which the kapnikon was demanded in cash (unless the price of corn at that particular juncture was extremely low); and since most households can be assumed to consist of several persons, very much higher again than even this. It is obvious, and Oikonomides has noted elsewhere the fact, that flat-rate taxes hit the economically weak extremely hard: see his ‘De l’impôt de distribution à l’impôt de quotité. À propos du premier cadastre byzantin (7^e-9^esiècle)’, ZRVI 26 (1987) 9-19, see 16 and n. 30.

71. I see no reason to doubt that the two letters deal with the same event, and that the synônê of letter 7 is the same imposition as the sitarchia of letter 8.

72. See ep. 7, 24-26 and ep. 8, 10. For their status as tenants, ep. 1, 18ff. (I take the term parochê rendered by the producers to the Church to mean rent).

73. See Just., Nov. cxxviii, 1. The annual harvest varied across Byzantine territory according to local climatic conditions and the cereal grown — wheat or barley, for example — but most communities will have harvested between late June and September. See Kaplan, M., Les hommes et la terre à Byzance du VI^e au XI^e siècle (Paris 1992) 56ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hendy, M.F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c.300-1450 (Cambridge 1985) 142–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74. Finanzverwaltung, 59.

75. Although it might also be the case that Ignatios is confusing synônê with a forced or compulsory levy, the imposition was referred to in eleventh-century documents as sitarkêsis: see, for example, Lavra I, nos. 38.34; 44.28; 48.30.

76. Lavra I, 39.41-2; 48.40; Attaleiates, Diataxis, 1444^15; JGR (Zepos) I, 617; Patmos I, 1.38 and 51 : exônêsis (compulsory purchase) or ekbolê (ex agorasias) (requisition or compulsory purchase) with the possessive of the goods in question (wine, meat, corn etc.).

77. See CI X, 27.8-9.

78. This practice unfortunately does not help to clarify matters for the historian, the more so since regular state taxes — the dêmosia — were normally granted to a landlord by means of a process referred to as logisimon, by which the lands in question and the revenues pertaining to them were noted in the central and thematic cadasters. In contrast, exemption from extraordinary and occasional charges was through an exkousseia, so that one might expect two separate lists. See Dölger, Finanz-verwaltung, 144-145. The fact that all the exempted fiscal obligations appear in one list might suggest that the synônê was indeed an extraordinary burden (which, as we have seen, is the way Dölger preferred to argue); but since the kapnikon, the ennomion and one or two other standard elements of the dêmosia appear in such lists, it clearly cannot be interpreted in this way.

79. For example, Harvey, Economic Expansion, 103; Kaplan, Les hommes et la terre, 555-556.

80. Gautier, P., ‘La diataxis de Michel Attaliate’, REB 39 (1981) 5–143, see 11. 1402–6 (p. 105) and 1437ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81. Gautier, ‘La diataxis de Michel Attaliate’, loc. cit. For detailed discussion, see Dölger, Finanzverwaltung, 144-145; Lavra I, 48, notes (pp.256-8); Lemerle, ‘Le Typikon de Grégoire Pakourianos (Décembre 1083)’, in Cinq études sur le XI^e siècle byzantin (Paris 1977) 113-191, see esp. 182f.; and Svoronos, N., ‘Notes à propos d’un procédé de techniques fiscales: la dochê’, REB 24 (1966) 97–106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (repr. in Études sur l’organisation intérieure, la société et l’économie de l’Empire Byzantin [London 1973] IV).

82 JGR (Zepos) I, 617.

83. That the synônè was certainly included as part of the dêmosia is clear from the praktikon of Doukas discussed already.

84. Lavra I, 44.19 and 31ff. Note also that the synônarioi are not among the officials listed from whom the monastery has protection.

85. See Lavra I, 44.31; other texts list similar impositions as well as the synônê: for example, Lavra I, 39.41-2; 48.40; Attaleiates, Diataxis, 1444-45; JGR (Zepos) I, 617; Pattnos I, 1.38 and 51. The usual terms for these extraordinary impositions are exônêsis (compulsory purchase) or ekbolê (ex agorasias) (requisition or compulsory purchase) with the possessive of the goods in question (wine, meat, corn etc.).

86. This point has been made by others, of course. Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou noted in connection with the Patmos archive that state officials responsible for drawing up such documents appear sometimes to have relied upon formulaic lists for some of the details of their documents. See Patmos II, 33 and n. 49.

87. For example, Lavra I, 33. In some cases, as we can see from the fact that officials responsible for a state imposition not included in the list are later mentioned among those denied access to the property, the list of obligations for which exemption had been granted was incomplete. Thus in a document of 1079 for the monastery of St John on Patmos the synônê is not mentioned, but the synônaríoi figure among those state officials ordered not to enter the properties in question: Patmos I, 2.6-7 and 24.

88. See Patmos II, 50, 312ff. and the discussion of Svoronos, N., ‘Remarques sur les structures économiques de l’empire byzantin au XI^e siècle’, TM 6 (1976) 49–67, 55f.Google Scholar

89. Finanzverwaltung, 58f.; Ostrogorsky, ‘Steuergemeinde’, 50f.; Dunn, A., ‘The Kommerkiarios, the Apotheke, the Dromos, the Vardarios, and The West ’, BMGS 17 (1993) 3–24 Google Scholar, see 11ff., esp. 14 and n. 59; Harvey, Economic Expansion, 86-89.

90. Harvey, Economic expansion, 86ff. with literature: Morrisson, ‘La monnaie d’or byzantine à Constantinople: purification et modes d’altérations (491-1354)’, 128-129; and esp. eadem, ‘Monnaie et finances dans l’empire byzantin X^e-XIV^e siècle’, in Kravari, V., Lefort, J., Morrisson, C., eds., Hommes et richesses dans l’empire byzantin II. VIII^e-XV^e siècle (Paris 1991) 291–315, see 304–308.Google Scholar

91. See the discussion of Ahrweiler, ‘Recherches’, 16ff., 22-24; Lemerle, Agrarian History, 223-226; idem, Cinq études sur le XI^e siècle byzantin (Paris 1977) 267-271; Harvey, Economie Expansion, 111ff.; and my comments in ‘The Army and the Economy: the Allocation and Redistribution of Surplus Wealth in the Byzantine State’, Mediterranean Historical Review 7/2 (1992) 133-153, esp. 146ff.

92. Although it is clear that it could still be demanded in kind, as a document from the Lavra archive for 1104 suggests when the monastery’s ships are exempted from eisagôgê synônês, the transport of the synônê: Lavra I, 55.46; cf. Patmos I, 8.7 (a. 1119) for a similar exemption.

93. Oikonomidès, ‘L’évolution de l’organisation administrative de l’empire byzantin au XP siècle (1025-1118)’, TM6 (1976) 125-152, see p.144; cf. Scylitzes (Thurn) 274, where the frequent demands made of the rural population for the maintenance of the armies of Nicephorus II (963-969), and the hardships this caused, are mentioned. G. Ostrogorsky, ‘Pour l’histoire de l’immunité à Byzance’, B 28 (1958) 165-254 comments on the general increase in the rate of demand for and issue of exemptions from mese burdens at this period; for the nature of the demands, see Harvey, Economic Expansion, 105ff.

94. See the discussion in Haldon, ‘The Army and the Economy’, art. cit., 149-150; and note the remarks of Morrisson, ‘Monnaie et finances’, 294ff.

95. See the points made by Harvey, Economic Expansion, 113-119. The relationship between taxation in kind and taxation in cash seems to be paralleled also by the relationship between the presence of kommerkiarioi in the provinces which were in zones of military activity or policed exchange, and their absence in regions not affected by such developments: see the apposite remarks of A. Dunn, ‘The Kommer-kiarios, the Apotheke, the Dromos, the Vardarios, and The West’, 12-15.1 have not dealt with the kommerkiarioi in this context, but it is clear that their role in the fiscal structures of the middle Byzantine state is crucial, and must be tied in to the central fiscal apparatus at several levels.

96. See the recent important discussion of Dunn, A., ‘The Exploitation and Control of Woodland and Scrubland in the Byzantine World’, BMGS 16 (1992) 235–298, esp. 268ff.Google Scholar

97. See the cogent remarks in this connection of P. Lemerle, ‘Le Typikon de Grégoire Pakourianos’, 182-183.

98. The best recent discussions of these developments are in Harvey, Economic Expansion, loc. cit.; Kaplan, Les hommes et la terre, 564ff. A good example is provided by the Chrysobull of Alexios I of 1086, by which the village of Chostianê with all its fiscal obligations was granted to the proedros and katepanô Leo Kephalas, and in which the synone appears alongside a range of standard and extraordinary obligations as one of many equivalent sources of revenue. See Lavra I, 48.35f.

99. See the references cited by Dölger, Finanzverwaltung, 59, and Ostrogorsky, ‘Steuergemeinde’, 50ff.

100. Goudas, M., ‘Byzantiaka eggrapha tês en Athô hieras monês tou Batopediou’, EEBS 3 (1926) 113–134 Google Scholar, see 125-126 (the antikaniskion imposed on some of the monastery’s lands was higher than the land-tax). Dunn, art. at., 269, notes that commutation of these impositions should not generally be assumed unless it is explicit in the sources, for example, by the addition of the prefixes para- or anti-, as in parag-gareia or antikaniskion, antimitaton and so on, precisely because the state could not afford to generalise and make permanent the fiscalisation of the supply of raw materials.

101. See the discussion of Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 81ff.