4 héritage Variorum

ARISTOCRACY AND INHERITANCE(11th-13th CENTURIES)*

The Byzantine aristocrat differed from othersubjects of the emperor in wealth, links toimperial power and birth. The Senate’s greatfortunes during the proto-byzantine period hadall but vanished during the upheaval of the 7th

*s_ Sources and works quoted in abridged form:– Archives de l'Athos: Docheiariou = N. Oikonomidès,

Actes de Docheiariou, Archives de l’Athos XIII (Paris,1984); Iviron = J. Lefort, N. Oikonomidès, D.Papachryssantou, V. Kravari and H. Métrévéli, Actesd’Iviron, I-IV, Archives de l’Athos (Paris, 1985-1995);Lavra = P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, D.Papachryssantou, Actes de Lavra, I-IV, Archives del’Athos (Paris, 1970-1982); Xéropotamou = J. Bompaire,Actes de Xéropotamou, Archives de l’Athos III (Paris,1964); Zôgraphou = W. Regel, E. Kurtz, B. Korablev,Actes de Zôgraphou, Vizantijski Vremennik 13, suppl. 1 (1907,republished Amsterdam 1969).

– Barzos, Genealogiva= K. Barzos, ÔH Genealogiva tw'nKomnhnw'n I-II (Thessaloniki, 1984).

– Chomatianos = Demetrios Chomatianos, Sullogh;krivsewn ejpi; zhthmavtwn kanonikou' dikaivou, J. B. Pitra(ed.), Analecta sacra et classica spicilegio Solesmensi parata, VI(Rome, 1891).

– Leo VI, Nov. = Les Novelles de Léon VI le Sage, ed. andtransl. by P. Noailles and A. Dain (Paris, 1944).

– Peira = Pei'ra Eujstaqivou tou' ÔRwmaivou, in Zepos (seebelow), IV, 9-260.

– Zepos = J. and P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum, I-VIII(Athens, 1931).

2ARISTOCRACY AND INHERITANCE

and 9th centuries. Thanks to economic expansionand the concentration of estates in the handsof the powerful, the richest citizens ofByzantium, if indeed they had not regainedtheir ancestors’ wealth, could rate theirproperty in the hundreds of pounds of gold.1

The safeguarding of family inheritance andits transmission were therefore the parents’primary concern. Kekaumenos, who representedthese circumspect and conservative provincialnotables, for instance implored his children tonot jeopardize the wealth inherited from theirparents and advised them against borrowing: tothe shame of not being able to repay debtswould be added the loss of goods whosetransmission, much more than a simple economicissue, was in his view a matter of honourdetermining one’s rank in society.2

Transmission took place at two key moments:at the children’s marriage3 and the parents’

1 See among other references M. Hendy, Studies inthe Byzantine Monetary Economy ca 300-1450 (Cambridge,1985), 201-220; J.-Cl. Cheynet, “Fortune et puissancede l’aristocratie (Xe-XIIe siècle) in Hommes et richessesdans l’empire byzantin, I : VIIIe-XVe siècle, V. Kravari, J.Lefort and C. Morrisson (eds) (Paris, 1991), 199-213[reprinted in this book, no. V].

2 G. G. Litavrin, Sovety i rasskazy Kekavmena(Cecaumeni consilia et narrationes) (Moscow, 1972), 192:ajpopoihvsh/ pra'gmav sou goniko;n h] o{per su; meta;pollou' tou' kovpou kai; kauvmato" ejkthvsw.Kekaumenos adds that even after his death, the debtorcan be taken to court.


death. In order to know the conditions of thesetransactions, we have at our disposal bothlegislation and legal practice. Normativetexts, mainly Leo VI’s Basilika and the Novels, doenable one to know about the rules, which hadhardly changed since Justinian’s days.Moreover, we are fortunate that the Peira hasbeen preserved: this is a compendium ofsentences, legal rulings and opinions belongingto the most famous lawmaker of the11th century, Eustathios Romaios. Some of theseopinions only recall existing legislation, yetas they had been issued for practical cases, weshall refer to Eusthatios’ works rather than tothe body of laws, as the former probablyrepresent a contemporary application of thelaw. It is also true that, as the Peira itselftestifies, Eusthatios’ opinion did not meetwith the judges’ unanimous approval.4 The Peirapresents us with a number of legal proceedingsconcerning inheritance; the Byzantines wouldwaste a great deal of their time and money in

3 On the importance of the marriage contract,see D. Simon’s works, especially “Erbvertrag undTestament”, Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta 24-25(1986), 291-306. For the 11th century, cf. J.Beaucamp, “Au XIe siècle, Byzance: le jeu des normeset des comportements”, in Familles et biens en Grèce et àChypre, C. Piault (ed.) (Paris, 1985), 197-210.

4 ? On Eustathios’ position, cf. N. Oikonomides,”The ‘Peira’ of Eustathios Romaios: an AbortiveAttempt to Innovate in Byzantine Law”, in Fontes MinoresVII (Frankfurt, 1986), 169-192.


legal claims of property: inheritance disputes,quarrels based on marital donations, sale ofproperty whose payment had not been made infull, etc…5 The sums fought for are disclosed(generally in pounds of gold), together withthe plaintiff’s names (Komnenos, Skleros,Dermokaïtes as well as others). This provesthat we are dealing with the upper strata ofsociety, and most often with Constantinople’saristocracy. To this compendium, one should addthe later and more provincial corpus of legalrulings of Bulgaria’s archbishop, DemetriosChomatianos, who had been in charge of thesynod’s tribunal at Achrida. During his youthin Constantinople, before the Latin occupation,Chomatianos had acquired a sound legaltraining. Unlike Eusthatios, he had to considercases by plaintiffs of very varied socialextraction.

Preserved deeds of legal practice are scarce.No marriage contract has survived, only wills:6

in chronological order, those of EusthatiosBoilas, Michael Attaliates, Gregory

5 The three quarters of the cases involvingwomen in the Peira concern disputes about goods: A.Laiou, “The Role of Women in Byzantine Society”,Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/1 (1981), 234,table I.

6 The only marriage contract preserved from the11th century was not written for the aristocracy, butfor a relatively modest Jewish family living in thePhrygian town of Mastaura; Th. Reinach, “Un contratde mariage du temps de Basile le Bulgaroctone”, inMélanges G. Schlumberger (Paris, 1924), 118-132.


Pakourianos, Symbatios Pakourianos and of hiswife Kale.7 These texts are not entirelyrepresentative, given that the last three werewritten by individuals without any offspringand who passed on their property to monasteries(these peculiar circumstances explain theirpreservation). Moreover, the Pakourianoi areethnikoi (foreigners) still subject to “Roman”law.8 To these few wills one can add sales,donations and a chrysobull,9 which are revealing

7 For an economic analysis of wills anddowries, cf. Hendy, op. cit. (n. 1), 209-220.

8 The Peira contains two allusions (XIV, 16 andLIV, 6) to legal acts that differed from Roman lawbecause their authors were ethnikoi. According toEustathios, when foreigners have been granted greatdignities and responsibilities within the empire,they have integrated and are expected to abide by therules, even though they made need to have themexplained. However, in one of his rulings, Eustathiosdoes not apply strictly the law and takes an“economical” decision, while taking into account thatthe individual concerned is a foreigner. On theseissues, cf. A. Laiou, “L’étranger de passage etl’étranger privilégié à Byzance, XIe-XIIe siècles”, inIdentité et Droit de l’Autre (Berkeley, 1995), 69-88.

9 Chrysobull in favour of the protoasekretisEpiphanios (Philaretos), written by Psellos in thereign of Constantine Doukas, an emperor who hadgranted real estate to Epiphanios. The document notesprecisely the origin of the goods confiscated fromNicholas (Cheilas). The latter had acquired a numberof these from his wife (P. Gautier, “Un chrysobullede confirmation rédigé par Michel Psellos”, Revue desétudes byzantines 34 [1976], 79-99).


in that they show how purchased or donatedproperty became part of a family’s inheritance.In addition, many people in Byzantium, somefrom the aristocracy, died without leaving awill. We shall speak later of EudokimosMaleinos, who passed away suddenly withouthaving made his last arrangements. Officers whowere living for long periods away from theirhomes were surprised by death were no doubt asubstantial group. The law had of courseprovided for this eventuality.

An exceptional document, the Thebes Cadaster,might have been a crucial text for the study ofthe transfer of property by inheritance withinthe provincial aristocracy, since it recordstaxpayers’ names from one particular regionduring the entire 11th century.10 However thereare several impediments to a clear view ofinheritance procedures. The transmission ofpieces of land and estates was not onlyhereditary and procedures such as ekdosis wouldhave interfered with rules of inheritance. Theidentification of taxpayers would have beenenough for tax collectors, but it does notoften reveal to us family links between thesuccessive property owners. Finally, unlike theupper levels of the aristocracy, family names

10 Translation and commentary: N. Svoronos,“Recherches sur le cadastre byzantin et la fiscalitéaux XIe-XIIe siècles : le cadastre de Thèbes”, Bulletinde correspondance hellénique 83 (1959), 1-166, reprintedin Études sur l’organisation intérieure de l’Empire byzantin,Variorum Reprints (London, 1973).


were not codified in a definitive manner, andconsequently a son did not always bear the samesurname as his father; this is indeed quiteconfusing and blurs any clear-cut conclusions.Demetrios Phalakros, the son of ConstantineRendakios, is a good example of thisphenomenon. Nevertheless one can see that asmall nucleus of interrelated families didcontrol a high percentage of estates during theentire period in which inheritances arerecorded, and this happens without any externalelement interfering with the regular procedure.

The only clear and rather predictableconclusion derived from the study of thiscadaster is that women inherited estates andlikewise could pass them on. These femaletaxpayers only appear in the cadaster aswidows, and not as the heirs of a deceasedfather.11 What happened when an unmarrieddaughter without brothers inherited propertyfrom her parents? This occurrence was in alllikelihood quite rare, since it supposed bothparents’ disappearance and the late marriage ofthe daughters. The latter would have been

11 In the 9th century, Danelis owned hugeestates in the Peloponnesus region; one does not knowif she possessed them thanks to a donation made byher husband or because she had inherited them fromher parents. Apparently she was free to dispose ofthem at will, since she made her legitimate grandsoninherit only a fraction of these properties andcaused the emperor Leo VI to benefit from the rest ofthem (Theophanes Continuatus, ed. Bekker [CSHB,Bonn,1838], 316-319).


personally named in the census, but this is notthe case. Did publicans($$ J. Shepard prefers“public officials”) and tax collectors vouchingfor the payment of taxes place the daughters’property with the share given to the epitropoi,who were in charge of overseeing full adherenceto the clauses of a will?

“Normal” Transmission

Rules differed according to whether therewere or were not any descendants. One shouldalways bear in mind certain general aspects ofmediaeval demographics. It is impossible toestablish precise statistics for thearistocracy, but what is astonishing is theuncertainty and variety of their biographies.An analysis of the Peira reveals many coupleswithout children,12 a number of potential heirspassing away in youth (before reachingadulthood), and finally many monastic vocationsat an age when marriage would have been alikely prospect. In contrast, large familiesdid raise almost all of their offspring toadulthood and then managed to increase theirwealth and influence thanks to a judiciousmarriage strategy. For several generations theKomnenian family was a good example of thisstrategy, but not the only one.13 One shouldalso take into account divorces, which of

12 Such failure did reflect badly on the couple,especially on the wife, as Kale, wife of SymbatiosPakourianos bitterly recalls (Iviron II, no. 475).


course were not as frequent as whatjurisprudence appears to suggest: happymarriages did not end up in the courtroom.Finally, illicit unions have to be mentioned,such as that of Maria Skleraina with theemperor Monomachos. It is therefore easy tounderstand why the transmission and inheritanceof property was not a smooth process in thehigher levels of Byzantine aristocracy.

The fundamental principle governing propertydevolution consisted in keeping it within thesame family: this is not unique to Byzantium.From this rule derive all the precautions takenin order to respect the period prescribedbefore remarriage14 and the ferociouscondemnation of adultery. These were bothsituations that could alienate family propertyby placing it beyond the reach of legitimaterelatives. No doubt whatsoever had to interferewith a father’s identity. A second logicalconsequence of this principle was that theremarriage of a widowed relative resulted inher loss of the main share of the propertyattributed to the survivors before the decease

13 The rise to power and the will to stay on thethrone was also in part the result and the aim ofsuch a strategy in the case of the Lakapenoi, theArgyroi and the Diogenai.

14 Inversely the spouse who does not remarrydoes not inherit a share equal to that of a child(Leo VI, Nov. 22). When he/she dies, the childreneffectively will inherit and the share held will notleave the family, except in the case of a bequest inthe will specifying otherwise.


of its owner, as these could only be allowed tobenefit from the property’s usufruct.

The case of eunuchs was quite specific. Inprinciple, they could not inherit from theirparents, undoubtedly because they themselvescould not have any direct offspring inheritingtheir property. This excuse however seems to acertain extent unjustified, as nephews ornieces would gladly have accepted to inherit.Moreover, the emperor Leo VI had authorizedeunuchs to adopt children, an edict whichshould have lifted the old ban.15 Neverthelessthis ban was still in effect in the days ofEustathios, because such had been the decisionof the basileus (Basil II).16 Some decades before,Symeon the New Theologian, a eunuch, if one isto consider his dignity, that ofspatharokoubikoularios, was an heir.17 The emperor’sopinions therefore did vary on the matter.

15 Leo VI, Nov. 26.16 Peira XXXI, 1.17 Symeon was from a rich family and had been

introduced to the imperial court by his uncle, akoitonites. He had acquired the dignity ofspatharokoubikoularios, a title reserved for eunuchs andnot for bearded men, at a time (the second half ofthe 10th century) when this distinction wasmaintained. The young Symeon left his father who hadbeseeched him to wait for his death before answeringthe irresistible call of God. Symeon refused, andinstead signed a document (ejggravfw) by which herenounced his inheritance: Nicétas Stéthatos, Vie deSyméon le Nouveau Théologien (949-1022), I. Haussher (ed.),Orientalia Christiana XII (Rome, 1928) 16.


It should be emphasised that the mostpowerful families were able to manage their ownfinancial and social inheritance, since forgenerations they had exercised authority intheir provinces, this in itself being anindication that they had preserved their realestate. But the various methods through whichthey could do so still remain unknown to alarge extent. The securing and transmission ofwealth in farmland was anyway unrelated to theway dowries were given to women. Even ifdaughters were dowered with the same amount ofestate as their brothers (something which wouldhave diminished the family patrimony), thisloss must have been compensated for by thedowries of women from outside the family,provided the exchange of wives was respected.In normal times, marriage alliances were notsupposed to alter hierarchies in wealth.

Marriage and DowryThe setting up of the future couple’s

patrimony was arranged and planned during theirengagement. Two sources were called upon: thespouse’s dowry and the future husband’sproperty, from which the hypobolon and thetheoretron were drawn. The latter were meant toguarantee a certain living standard to the wifeif the man passed away before she did.18 Once

18 On the hypobolon or donatio propter nuptias, cf. J.Beaucamp, ”Proikou>povbolon-uJpovbolon-uJpobavllw”,in Afievrwma sto;n Nivko Sborw'no∆ , I (Rethymno, 1986),153-161.


married, the husband administered the entirepatrimony, but he was not entitled to alienatehis wife’s property. Taking into account theyoung age of engaged couples (engagement islegally a formal promise to marry), both thedowry and the husband’s contribution were onlypromised by the families involved. It issometimes rather difficult to estimate thevarious contributions during marriage. Thepractice apparently implied a certain paritybetween the dowry’s worth and the husband’sgifts, a custom ratified and confirmed byEusthatios Romaios, who on several occasionsestimates that the appropriate value of thehypobolon should represent half of the dowry andthat the theoretron one twelfth.19

One can observe that a bachelor from a modestfamily could not hope to marry the daughter ofa powerful notable, since he would have beenincapable of offering a hypobolon or a theoretronproportional to a large dowry. The opposite wasnot true, because in the absence of a maiden’sdowry her future husband was not obliged tocontribute part of his own property.20 The case

19 Eustathios nevertheless records that thekatotikoi, i.e. the inhabitants of peninsular Greece andof the Peloponnesus, contributed a more modesthypobolon and a more substantial theoretron (Peira XVII,14). On the meaning of this custom, cf. Beaucamp, op.cit. (n. 3), 207.

20 Some young girls became the beneficiaries ofthe ruling empress. We thus learn that the wife of acertain Kamateros received a dowry from the empressTheophano, mother of Basil II and of


was anticipated in Byzantine legislation: adestitute spouse inherited, upon her husband’spremature death, the equivalent of one of thechildren’s entitlement, unless the offspringwere numerous, in which case she obtained atleast one quarter of the inheritance (up to theamount of a hundred pounds of gold). All theseprecisions suggest that such situations werenot frequent. Although the Peira occasionallymentions some infrequent cases of women with nodowry, there is little doubt that mostmarriages involved people belonging to the samesocial class, since the engaged maiden’spoverty authorizes severance of the marriageagreement.21 This first contribution to the

Constantine VIII. This was in fact an exoproix thatcould be reclaimed by the donor, if indeed this wasanticipated in a written convention. This couldhappen if the beneficiary died without children.Kamateros’ wife, in her will, had left her dowry to abeneficiary who was perhaps her husband. Eustathiosconsidered that, had there been a convention, the taxauthorities would have inherited the dowry (no doubtacting as a substitute for Theophano, who by then wasprobably dead or whose property had beenconfiscated). If not (in the absence of aconvention), the will would have been valid (PeiraXXV, 28)

21 The Peira (XLIX, 26) provides a goodillustration of this: a mother holding the title ofpatrician had engaged her nine year old son to ayoung girl, who had then become very poor. Accordingto Eustathios, this change of social conditionjustified the engagement’s dissolution, because in


family's wealth could be later completed byinheritances and other bequests.

We still are not in a position to answer thequestions concerning dowry. Did the parentstake advantage of their children’s marriage totransmit real estates to their sons? When wasthe dowry effectively paid by the parents? Didits amount tally with a share of theinheritance; if not, did dowered daughters alsoget a share of it? Were sons dowered on thefather’s property, and daughters on themother’s?

When fate had favoured a person materially,the children’s economic future had to beprovided for at the appropriate time. Psellostried to marry his adopted daughter at a periodwhen he was still an advisor to the emperor. Heensured that his son-in-law did inherit titlesand responsibilities that would rebound on hiswife. It is during Psellos’ life that JohnKomnenos, the brother of the late emperorIsaac, concluded rewarding unions for his elderdaughters.22 In truth, the hurry to marrydaughters initially seems frequent. John

his opinion rich families would have otherwise beenexposed to great misfortunes. This defence of richengaged people can also be seen in a law of thebasileus John Komnenos of Trebizond (cf. infra).

22 The eldest daughter, Mary, was given toMichael Taronites and his second daughter Eudokiamarried Nikephoros Melissenos sometime around 1066(Barzos, Genealogiva, I, nos. 11 and 13).


Komnenos died before the wedding of his eldestson Manuel I, who was older than his sisters.The untimely death of a father would have lefta family devoid of prostasia and would alwayshave restricted the children’s possibilities ofmarriage. The time lapse between an engagementat a very early age and a wedding taking placeduring puberty was long enough for a change inthe fortunes of one of the parties involved. Wehave just seen that an engagement could becancelled if this indeed happened; no fineswere then due for abusive breach of contract.

On the contrary, if the daughter’s dowrieswere mainly made up of movable property thiswould strongly hint at the boys’ privilegedinheritance of a family’s estates.23 One willrecall with some caution the marriage describedin Digenis Akritas: this epic does not exactlyreflect the situation of the Anatolian nobilityduring the 10th century, but represents anideal, that of the “good” marriage as seen inConstantinople during the 11th or12th centuries.24 The description of the dowry

23 The matter was quite different when itaffected the urban elite, apart from civil servants.The fortune of the city elite consisted to a largerextent of movable property: a Jewish merchant fromSeleucia had given to his son-in-law a dowry worth524 hyperpera – 324 in coins and the rest in variousobjects, cf. Hendy, op. cit. (n. 1).

24 N. Oikonomidès, “L’épopée de Digénis et lafrontière de Byzance aux Xe et XIe siècles”, Travaux et


of the girl, who is not a single child becausebrothers are also mentioned, is quite typical:twenty kentenaria in well minted coins (144 000nomismata), splendid jewellery, an impressivewardrobe, thirty-six estates, livestock and aconsiderable number of servants. To thisfortune one can add all the gifts brought bythe emir’s relatives, himself the father ofDigenis.25 If one puts aside the quantitiesenumerated (excessive figures due to the epic’sgenre), it is likely that this dowry wascharacteristic of girls belonging to thearistocracy. Worthy of note is the fact thatunmovable property became part of the dowry;however, its proportion was minimal, eventhough it is impossible to determine itsrelative importance.26

Michael Psellos bestowed upon his only(adopted) daughter a dowry of fifty pounds ingold, including ten pounds in coins, twentyunder the title of protospatharios and anothertwenty pounds in various objects, a formulathat does not seem to have included land and

mémoires du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance7 (1979), 375-397.

25 Digenes Akrites, J. Mavrogordato (ed.) (Oxford,1956), Song IV, v. 706-719 and 824-825.

26 If the proportions of movable and unmovablegoods are somewhat credible, the former were in muchhigher quantity, as the thirty-six estatesnecessarily are worth less than the twentycentenaries of coinage: the price of an estate or avillage appears to have been somewhere between 10 and30 pounds in gold.


buildings.27 The dowry therefore was made upalmost exclusively of movable property.28

Nicholas Cheilas, the official in charge ofpetitions, married a widow who had contributeda dowry of forty pounds in gold, to which sheadded unmovable goods of – one later learns– little value.29 We shall see that Kale,Basilakios’ daughter, also received movableproperty only, which would confirm that femaleoffspring received less land than their malesiblings. One should not draw too many sweepingconclusions from this particular example,because Kale belonged to a family that hadrebelled a few years before and whose propertyhad been confiscated.30 The Basilakioi had

27 K. N. Sathas, Mesaiwnikh; Biblioqhvkh V(Venice,1876), 205 (ei[desi diafovroi").

28 The composition of Psellos’ fortune islargely unknown. He was a lifelong leaseholder of hisproperty, including charisticariates which are knownto us thanks to his correspondence. Nevertheless thelack of any mention of property purchased by thisbrilliant servant of the State is indeed strange,especially in comparison to Michael Attaliates, whohad invested part of his fortune in real estate. Weare dealing here with a conscious desire on Psellos’behalf to not cause the alienation of any part of hisreal estate.

29 Gautier, op. cit. (n. 9), 85.30 That she was the daughter of Nikephoros (the

rebellion’s leader) is by no means certain, but therest of the family remained firmly in support of therebel, as shown by the part played in the events byManuel, Nikephoros’ brother (Nikephoros Bryennios,


managed to salvage the fortunes previouslyowned by each family of a certain rank, andthese movable goods were easier to hide thanbuildings. However, even this scenario is stillhypothetical, as after their revolt a new coupd’État had changed the ruling elite once more:the Basilakioi might have given back theproperty belonging to enemies of those oustedby the coup.

When in 1158 Manuel Komnenos married hisniece Theodora to Baldwin III, king ofJerusalem, he bestowed upon her a substantialamount of coinage, pearls, jewellery andprecious fabrics.31 Nonetheless one should notconclude too swiftly that, within the narrowcircle of Byzantine imperial aristocracy,noblewomen did not receive land when they hadbrothers. The dowry’s composition is to beexplained by the emperor’s wish to assistBaldwin. Moreover, properties located withinthe empire’s borders would not have been soeasily administered from such a distant land,in addition to the fact that Manuel did notwish ownership by a foreign prince of largetracts of Anatolia. Indeed, Mary, calledTzousmene, a sister of the basileus, was theowner of substantial estates in Macedonia, partof which she transferred to her grandson the

Historiarum libri quattuor: Nicéphore Bryennios, Histoire, ed.and transl. by P. Gautier ( Brussels, 1975).

31 Hendy, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 270, according toGuillaume de Tyr.


sebastokrator Nikephoros Petraliphas or gave awayto monasteries on Mount Athos.32

A number of provincial aristocrats alsoobtained a large part of their dowry incoinage, such as one Helena wife of GeorgeEuripiotes, who received as dowry orinheritance from her father, grandfather ordeceased sister several hundreds hyperpera.33

More generally, the upper aristocracy and thehigh society of Constantinople, which alsoincluded rich merchants, appears to have had apreference for including movable goods in thedowry.34

32 Xeropotamou, no. 8; Zographou no. 5.33 Chomatianos, no. 25. The sum invested and the

name of the characters (Euripiotes, Plytos andPediadites) suggest a high social standing, as civilservants or clergymen with that name are to be foundin other sources. On the matter, cf. infra.

34 We would like to add another indication infavor of this hypothesis: a debate on the moment whenit was convenient for a shaven woman to receive herdowry had once opposed the lawmakers Peter andEustathios. The latter defended that a woman had toreceive her dowry before joining a monastery and gavean example. If a woman willed the various objects ofher dowry (worth 10 pounds) and if her husbandreturned others, the bequests would be lost. The sameline of reasoning is true for real estate, butEustathios does not even take in consideration thishypothesis (Peira XXIV, 5). Nevertheless the Peira alsogives examples of dowries constituted of unmovableproperty: XXV, 62.


The dowry was usually bestowed during thewedding, but could be assembled as from the dayof engagement. Kale Pakouriane had at herdisposal 50 pounds, which she converted intojewellery and precious objects. One can askwhat happened to parents who only haddaughters, (J shep = delete “after successivemarriages$$ when all the various dowries hadbeen paid in successive marriages. If thesecomprised shares in the inheritance, nothingwould have been left for the parents. In lessillustrious families, sons in law sometimeslived with their wife’s family, and theByzantines would refer to them under the termesogambros.35

Michael Psellos did not share these fearswhen he engaged his adopted daughter, as 50pounds of the dowry represented only a fractionof his fortune. The husband-to-be, ElpidiosKenchres, from a good family, personally and atonce received the title of protospatharios and waspaid the roga. It should be emphasized that theconsul of philosophers lost a great deal in theprocess when he broke the engagement contractand was obliged to pay the corresponding fine;he nonetheless had the means to compensate forthis misfortune. One can easily understand why

35 D. Simon, “Das Ehegüterrecht der Pira, Einsystematischer Versuch”, Fontes Minores VII (Frankfurt,1986), 203, and particularly, on theesogambros,“Byzantinischen Hausgemeinschaftverträge”,in Beiträge zur europäischen Rechtsgeschichte und zum geltendenZivilrecht, Festgabe für Johannes Sontis (Munich, 1977), 91-128.


parents in the lower echelons of thearistocracy would have delayed payment.

Eustathios Boilas had not given the entireamount of the dowries to his married daughterswhen he started writing his will. One of themhad received one third of the total in movablegoods, the other had preferred to seize forherself, in a “hidden manner”, what wasrightfully hers.36 Unmovable property hadremained in Boilas’ possession. It seems thatBoilas’ daughters and their husbands lived inhis oikos; if indeed they did not own theirdowries in full, they seem to have received atleast a fraction of the revenue from estatesthat formed a part of these dowries.

Specific cases are far from explicit and donot allow us to know if a woman without a dowrydid inherit part of her parents’ property.37

36 P. Lemerle, Cinq études sur le XIe siècle byzantin(Paris, 1977), 22.

37 A lawsuit presented to Chomatianos (no. 100)by a member of an illustrious, albeit impoverished,family now belonging to the local aristocracy (GeorgeAlyates), clearly shows that in this case marriedchildren had obtained their share of the inheritance.A father of seven children had wed his four daughtersand had given them their share of the paternalinheritance. The three other children, sons, hadreceived their share at a later stage (which waswithdrawn from what was left of the father’sfortune). What remained to be handed over to all thechildren was the mother’s inheritance, regardless ofthe fact that, in her will, she had forgotten her


Undoubtedly, a novel attributed to the basileusJohn the Great Komnenos took the pretext ofreestablishing an ancient tradition when heruled that an dowered daughter would have to besatisfied with her dowry and was to be excludedfrom the inheritance owed to her brothers andsisters still under paternal authority.38 Yetthis ruling does not state clearly whatproportion of the parents’ fortune was to gointo the dowry. This was not really($$ ameasure decided for discrimination purposes J.Shep propose de remplacer par “matter ofgender”), as daughters who remained underparental authority were placed on a footingequal to their brothers. Moreover, one cannotbe sure of the identity of the man bearing thetitle Great Komnenos, even though thisdenomination referred to the empire ofTrebizond: the measure would have only beenapplied on a regional basis, to the area aroundthe Pontos.39

offspring and had left everything to people outsidethe family. As Chomatianos points out, this had beendone illegally.

38 Zepos, I, 364-365. On this novel, see thecontribution of J. Beaucamp in the same volume, Latransmission du patrimoine, 12-34.

39 It seems unlikely that the title “GreatKomnenos” was in use before 1204. This excludesJohn II (1118-1143). The new edition of the regestesdismisses any attribution of the title to thisemperor (F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden desoströmischen Reiches von 565-1453, I, 2, Zweite, erweiterteund verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von P. Wirth


In novel 32, which speaks of adulterouswomen, Leo VI leaves the dowry in the husband’shands, but makes arrangements for the sharingof the women’s fortune between various rightfulheirs. A wife did effectively acquire, apartfrom her dowry, personal property throughinheritance: this would have constituted theejxvwvproika. Nevertheless this inheritance couldalso have been bestowed by uncles and aunts,brothers and sisters, and even by more distantrelatives. A specific and curious affair inThessalonica seems to suggest that a dowereddaughter was excluded from inheritance.Eudokia, the daughter of the deceased patrikiosBourion was authorized to sell propertybelonging to her dowry because of her extremepoverty. This story shows that she was inpossession of nothing more than her dowry, whenshe should have inherited from her deceasedfather.40 This case is however not conclusive.Her father could have died before he decided tomarry her and the dowry would in fact have beenher share of the inheritance; anotherpossibility is that Eudokia was excluded in thewill from any inheritance rights.

[Munich, 1995], no. 1325). Worthy of note is the factthat the emperor of Trebizond reuses an argumentalready invoked by Eustathios to dissolve anengagement procedure, this in order to justifyradical changes in many powerful families.

40 Docheiariou, no. 3.


The law required that a dowry be paid outfrom the personal fortune of the parent (fatheror mother) responsible for engaging a daughter.In 952, a clergyman named David had sold abrick factory, fields and a house to thehigoumen of Peristerai. He had inherited thisproperty from his mother, who herself hadreceived it as dowry from her own adoptivemother.41 The dowry of Eudokia, Bourion’sdaughter, had been bestowed on her by hermother’s family.42 We shall see that the bequestthat Kale, Basilakios’ daughter gave to LeoDiabatenos, her cousin on her mother’s side,suggests that this lady was returning propertyto her mother’s family (this is nothing morethan a hypothesis). Signs indicating a maternalorigin of dowries in the case of girls and apaternal one in the case of boys arenevertheless too slight to warrant firmconclusions. Moreover when the survivors of afamily were exclusively of one sex, such a rulecould not be applied.

Parental SuccessionParents could not completely disinherit their

children (the converse was also true).43 Thestrict application of such a rule was notwithout inconvenience: when for instance a

41 Lavra I, no. 4.42 Cf. analysis by M. Kaplan, “L’aristocrate et

sa fortune” (forthcoming).43 If a written will does state this, it is

worthless (Peira XIV, 10).


member of the Bourtzes family rebelled, hisproperty was confiscated in accordance with thelaw; his father, however, was not able to robhim of his inheritance to the rebel’s brothers’benefit, and the unruly son was replaced by taxrevenue officials, who seized his share of thepaternal inheritance.44 The parents could atmost exclude one of their offspring because ofingratitude shown towards them. Reciprocally,when a child was “forgotten” in a will, theother heirs were obliged to keep a share forhim.

If a child was the only heir, all the fortuneof both his parents was rightfully his, apartfrom bequests that could legally amount to twothirds of the inheritance. Michael Attaliates,at the end of a long career as a judge whichallowed him to accumulate a substantialfortune, set up a private pious foundation andwrote a document (the diataxis) which accuratelystated the distribution of his property, themain part of which was devoted to a monasteryand an alms-house.45 He married twice, and oneof his wives bore him his only son Theodore.The latter, no doubt upon his father’srecommendation, became a mystograph $$mystographos (specialist in law) and imperialsolicitor, and was to be the pronoetes (manager)

44 Peira LX, 1.45 P. Gautier, “La diataxis de Michel

Attaliate”, Revue des Études byzantines 39 (1981), 17-130.Cf. also the commentary by P. Lemerle, op. cit. (n.36), 94-112.


and only beneficiary of the religiousfoundation. Additionally, provision was made sothat one of his own heirs would eventuallysucceed him. Theodore had to respect all of hisfather’s wishes; had he deviated from them hewould not have been stripped of his rights, ashe remained the perpetual manager of the piousinstitution.

Most often inheritance was divided betweenseveral children; if they were of the same sex,their parts were equal, but if brothers andsisters all took a share of the family fortune,one can ask whether this parity was a rule orwhether the males in the family were at anadvantage.

Eustathios Boilas, an officer fromCappadocia, had obtained the dignities ofprotospatharios and hypatos; in those days, thesewere quite honourable ($$ J Shepard prefers“senior”) and were the mark of a successfulcareer. He had got three children, but had losthis only son during the latter’s infancy. Hehad dowered his two daughters in identicalfashion, offering each thirty pounds of gold.He also gave an estate worth five pounds to oneof his sons in law, but the will had notclearly established whether this property wascounted or not in the dowry rightfully owned bythe son-in-law. Boilas took good care to freeand endow all of his slaves, something thatsimultaneously diminished his capital andwarranted important spending for bequests in


the form of land and currency. He gave away therest of his fortune to the church of the Virginwhich he had founded and which he cherishedmore than anything. His two daughters were thejoint proprietors, provided that thisfoundation was to be administered according totheir father’s instructions.

In 1110 in Thessalonica, three brothersamicably split their patrimonial property.46

Part of it remained under joint ownership, butthe rest was equally distributed: seven fieldswere shared in front of witnesses, each dividedinto three equal parts; as for the workshop,which remained under joint ownership, eachbrother was to collect a third of the annuallease. There are absolutely no traces of a lawof primogeniture. Contrasting with thisinterpretation is a legal disposition includedin the Michael Attaliates’ diataxis, stipulatingthat the foundation will always be transferredto the eldest descendant, except in the case ofa disgrace. In this case, the management is tobe entrusted to the hands of a younger heir.Such a clause was meant to designate thepronoetes, who could only be one person; this,however, did not preclude the equal division ofthe foundation’s profits between the variousheirs, and therefore cannot be invoked as anindication of a preferential treatment of theeldest son.

46 Lavra I, no. 59.


When daughters and sons did inherit, it isquite difficult to determine the part that eachreceived. In 1117 in Thessalonica a proedros,Nikephoros son of Samuel Bourtzes, exchangedland with the monastery of Docheiariou: in hisown words, such a decision was made because hecould not take care of this distant estate. Hereceived in return the convent’s shops in thecity.47 Bourtzes owned only half of thisproperty, the proasteion of Rosaion; the otherhalf belonged to his sister Eudokia. She haddied and her share of the estate had beenpassed on to her daughter. Upon the death oftheir father Samuel, the children had decidedto own jointly a property which had beenequally parcelled into two: this suggests thatSamuel only had two children alive when hepassed away and that he had divided his fortuneinto two equal parts. This is nonetheless notcertain, since Samuel could have given otherproperty to Nikephoros and could have favouredhim. Yet we also know that Samuel, expelled bythe Turks from Asia Minor, was not a biglandowner and owed this estate to thefriendship of a distant relative, the caesarNikephoros Melissenos. In all probability theestate of Rosaion represented Samuel Bourtzes’entire property and had been divided by himinto two parts.48

47 Docheiariou, no. 4.48 At the same time, a brother and a sister of

humble condition had sold a vineyard and land for 45devalued nomismata (Lavra I, no. 53). There is little


In the 10th century the Maleinoi possessedone of the greatest fortunes (($$ J Shepardprefers “landowners”) of the empire. EudokimosMaleinos and his wife Anastaso had threechildren: the eldest, Manuel, became a monk andtook the name Michael later becoming a famoussaint; the middle child, Constantine, followedfamily tradition and became an officer,remaining for many years the strategos ofCappadocia and acquiring the high dignity ofpatrikios; finally a daughter whose name has notsurvived married Bardas, a young and promisingofficer, the son of the most famous general ofthe time, Nikephoros Phocas the Elder.Eudokimos died suddenly. Michael’s Life describesthe “admirable” sharing between brothers.49

Michael of course freed his slaves by givingthem bequests and handed over to the poor allhis movable property, including his flocks.However he relinquished all of his unmovablefortune to his brother Constantine for half ofits price and gave this sum to his spiritualmaster with instructions to distribute themoney to the poor who depended on him.50 It isinteresting to record that the family’s landremained intact in the hands of only one heir.

doubt that they had kept these properties undivided. 49 The son who became a monk did not always

inherit, as previously seen with Symeon the NewTheologist’s renouncement.

50 L. Petit, “Vie de saint Michel Maléïnos,suivie du traité ascétique de Basile le Maléïnote”,Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 7 (1902), 557-558.


To the best of our understanding, Constantinemanaged to purchase back his share of the realestate by paying in specie, maybe – a not veryplausible hypothesis – securing a substantialloan to do so.51 This implies that estates didnot even represent half of Eudokimos’ fortuneat the moment of his death. Another noteworthypoint: in this hagiographic account, no mentionis made of the sister whose husband (BardasPhocas) was able to ensure that his rights wererespected. This omission can be interpreted intwo ways, depending on the value of the dowrygiven to the sister. Either she had received adowry equivalent to a third of her father’sfortune: she therefore would have been inpossession of a share of the inheritance equalto that of her brothers, even though, if oneaccepts this hypothesis, she would have not

51 A second instance of purchase by the otherheirs is known. In the 10th century the protospathariosDemetrios Pteleotes founded the monastery ofPolygyros in Chalcidice and prescribed that the firsthigoumenos would be the priest John Pteleotes(probably his son). The protospatharios endowed themonastery with an immense estate of 50 000 modioi, ofwhich only a small fraction could be sowed. DemetriosPteleotes had inherited one third of the land and,with his own funds, purchased the other two thirdsfrom the other heirs. From whom Pteleotes hadinherited is unknown, but it is likely that it wasfrom his parents. If this hypothesis is correct, wewill suppose that the family had three children, butwe are unable to establish the gender of these three(Iviron I, no. 10 and introduction on p. 28)


benefited from the probable increase in herfather’s revenue between the moment she was wedand Eudokimos’ death; or, once dowered,whatever the amount paid as dowry, she had beenexcluded from the inheritance.52 One is temptedto ask, if this hypothesis is true, whetherthis practice was a general phenomenon in 10thcentury Byzantium or whether it was restrictedto ($$ J Shepard prefers add “great”) Anatolianfamilies. The idea of a personal decision byEudokimos is to be dismissed, since the latterdied without writing a will. One cannot expectfrom a saint’s life the precise details thatone can gather from a juridical document; inthe absence of a contract stipulating a dowry,one cannot decide between the vague hypothesessuggested so far.

The law clearly seems in favour of equalsharing of the inheritance between children,regardless of gender. A novel of Leo VIreaffirms this principle and corrects a legaldisposition of the CJC. The latter authorized afather, in the name of the freedom to test hisoffspring, to revoke his promise of equalsharing between children formulated in amarriage contract. The emperor emphasizes thatpeople did not abide by this disposition duringhis reign and that his novella confirmed theprinciple of equality between siblings.53 The

52 Moreover, as we have already seen, her dowrycould be made up of (in part or in toto) of goods fromthe mother’s side of the family.

53 Leo VI, Nov. 19.


Peira provides very little information on thematter but nevertheless are quite explicit: aperson died intestate leaving two sisters andeight nephews and nieces (these were theoffspring of three brothers); Eustathios ruledthat the inheritance should be divided intofive parts, since the nephews and niecesrepresented the dead parents, and requestedthat brothers and sisters be treated in anidentical manner.54 Another more complex examplecorroborates the absence of any discriminationtowards women: a man who went to the gravebefore writing a will left two close cousins onhis father’s side and two on his mother’s; thejudge decided to divide the inheritance intofour parts, therefore placing on an equalfooting the paternal and maternal lineages.55 Inan inheritance pact, a man named Moroleon hadgiven a third of his fortune to certain piousfoundations, another third to his second wifeand a last third to his daughter, to her onlychild, his grand-daughter, and to the futurechildren his daughter would bear in the future.The grand-daughter attempted to invoke a laterwill of Moroleon, which was to her advantage,but the courts would not accept this. Thequestion of the sharing of the last thirdbetween the rightful heirs then arose. Thegrand-daughter’s attorneys suggested a divisionin halves of the inheritance, but the judgerefused and stipulated that equal shares be

54 Peira XLVIII, 10.55 Peira XLVIII, 11.


awarded to the grand-daughter, to the daughterand to seven other children (hence all in all,nine parts). Once more this is a case in point,a conclusive proof that brothers and sisterswere treated equally.56

To conclude, the law established clearly theequal sharing of a fortune between all theoffspring in the absence of a will statingotherwise, and the Peira does conform to thisrule. Documents discussing legal practice donot allow for crystal-clear conclusions in theabsence of all elements. However, they suggestthat children of the same sex received an equalshare, even if it was legally possible tofavour one child in particular, provided thatthe clause putting aside the others’ reservedshare was preserved.57 There is therefore no lawof primogeniture.58 When the descendants includeboth boys and girls, there is no formal proof

56 That the eight children would have all beenof the same gender is most improbable. Cf. Peira XLV,11.

57 We shall not describe the far too unusualexample of widow Danelis’ inheritance. She had a son,yet adopted the future emperor Basil. When she died,her two sons had been already buried and each hadleft an heir. The law did not prevent an adoptive sonfrom inheriting, provided a will detailed the wishesof the deceased. What is certain is that Basil’s sonLeo VI obtained the largest share. It is likely thatany story relating to Danelis was invented in order,on the one hand, to justify Basil’s quick enrichmentduring his youth and, on the other, the quasi-confiscation of Danelis’ property.


of a difference in treatment according togender,59 especially since one can neverestablish whether the dowry was equivalent orinferior to a child’s share.60 It has beenpossible to discover a double tendency offamilies: a propensity to dower girls withmovable property61 and another aiming at drawing

58 In the case of the Phocas dynasty, it wasalways the eldest son who obtained the mostinfluential position: Leo before Bardas in the timesof Zoe, Nikephoros before Leo, who was at anadvantage in relation to Constantine in the days ofConstantine VII. The despair of Eudokimos, father ofMichael Maleinos, is understandable, because Michaelwas the eldest and because it was to favor him thathis father had given initial leverage to his careerby sending him to the imperial court. The fact thatAlexios Komnenos had overtaken Isaac is not in itselfan exception, since tactical considerations and hismarriage with Irene Doukaina were more decisive thanwhat appeared then to be both natural and logical:Anne Comnene, Alexiade, B. Leib (ed. with Frenchtrans.) (Paris, 1937-1976) I, 84-86.

59 We would like to stress that the empressIrene Doukaina favored her female offspring. That shehad given the ephoria of her foundation (the TheotokosKecharitomene) to the “family’s most illustrious woman”was normal, as this was a women’s monastery. However,she offered magnificent homes, which bore no relationwhatsoever to the monastery, to her third daughterEudokia; then, when Eudokia died, she gave them toAnna, her eldest daughter, who would in turn transferthem to Irene, also her eldest daughter (P. Gautier,“Le typikon de la Théotokos Kécharitôménè”, Revue des


the dowry from the mother’s property; but onecannot speak of an established custom.

The Transmission of Wealth in the Absence of DescendantsOnce more two situations are to be

distinguished in accordance with the survivalor not of the deceased’s spouse. The law allowsfor the spouse’s recovery of, first of all,his/her personal contribution and then of whathad been given to him/her by the deceased: thissecond aspect effectively means for a widow thereturn of the hypobolon and the theoretron, and forthe widower the recuperation of the dowry.

Symbatios Pakourianos’ will presents a singleconcrete example. Symbatios, a man of Georgianorigin, had served the empire and acquiredsubstantial wealth while still in his youth. Hehad married Kale, the daughter of Basilakiosthe curopalates, who had contributed a dowry of50 pounds, which the couple had readilyconverted into jewellery and precious goods.Symbatios only mentions one member of hisnuclear family: his brother Sergios. In hiswill, after freeing his slaves (as wasétudes byzantines 43 (1985), 137-139). It is neverthelessimpossible to appreciate objectively the advantagegranted by Irene to her daughters and grand-daughter,because one cannot know how much more was given incomparison to the others.

60 In Epirus during the 13th century, thingswere different; see Angeliki Laiou’s contribution,this volume, p. 129-160.

61 A. Laiou reaches the same conclusion afteranalyzing the Chomatianos file; op. cit.


customary) he divided his inheritance, whichconsisted of four estates. He granted his half-brother of the Pakourianos family, Sergios,whom he held in high esteem, the title ofepitropos (executor - held jointly with his wife)and gave him some farmland and half of theflocks he owned. His half-brother Niketasreceived a saddle with gold reins, a gift ofreal sentimental but of little intrinsic value.The monastery of Iviron, where he was to beburied and which would commemorate his name anddeeds, got a few pounds in gold. The trueheiress was therefore his wife Kale: sheretrieved, in accordance with the law, herpersonal property, her dowry and thecontributions offered to her during hermarriage; moreover, she became the rightfulowner of three of the four estates of Symbatiosand everything that was left of his realestate, after distribution of the variousbequests and of the psychika (a proportiondifficult to assess). When Symbatios died,property owned by his branch of the family waspassed on to his wife’s family. It isnoteworthy that Symbatios had thought it wiseto offer four Hungarian horses to the emperorAlexios, a proof of his friendship to thebasileus or a precaution against the seizure ofproperty granted through a chrysobull.62

Did the surviving husband/wife have anyobligations towards his/her deceased spouse’s

62 The gift was still symbolic, in comparison tothe total fortune owned by Symbatios.


family? Once again a unique will does shed somelight on the matter: that of Kale, Symbatios’wife. Kale belonged to a large family, as hertestament informs us about three sisters (oneof them a nun, the two others wed to proedroi, inall probability high officials) and threebrothers as well as a certain Leo Diabatenos,probably a first cousin on her mother’s side(her name being Zoe Diabatene). Kale started byfreeing her slaves and endowing themmagnanimously, a decision which resulted in theexpenditure of some pounds in gold. Of thethree estates inherited from Symbatios, shegave one of them, Radolibos, undoubtedly thenicest, to the monastery of Iviron, for thesalvation of her soul and that of her husband.Another estate, Soudaga, went to her cousinLeo, not to mention her studs, mares and mules,which were most expensive animals. The reasonbehind this bequest should be sought, as thecousin was at an advantage in comparison toKale’s brothers63 and to her family-in-law,which had previously owned the estate. Leo wasalso counted amongst the epitropoi. There ishardly any doubt that he held the highestposition in the family after Basilakios’revolt: if such a hypothesis is correct, itwould have been seen as a thoughtful decisionto comfort his elevated status and prestige,which would later fall upon the family. One can

63 Niketas without any doubt was then dead, butprobably had left a son, the nephew quoted in thewill.


also imagine Kale’s dowry as extracted from ZoeDiabatene’s property and Kale’s bequest as adecision enabling the Diabatenoi to recoverpart or the entirety of their fortune. Thethird estate bequeathed by Symbatios is notmentioned, but maybe it should be counted amongthe various properties making up the remainderof the fortune, which was to be handed over tothe poor.

As for the considerable movable fortune ownedby Kale – she left more than 119 pounds in goldin various bequests, not to mention the 100pounds left as trachea for her commemoration(moreover, she specified that this would notjeopardize her resources) – it disappearedafter various donations, from which herbrothers and sisters benefited but little.Basilakios, a nephew, received the famoussaddle previously owned by Symbatios: theobject had not been bequeathed as planned, nodoubt because of the death of the first of itsheirs. Two individuals were favoured: Sergiosthe brother-in-law, who inherited 54 pounds incharagma (decent currency) and thus retrievedpart of the Pakourianos inheritance, a partonly, since land is completely absent; and anun, Helen Diaxene who obtained, apart from abracelet and clothing, 30 pounds as tetartera (aconsiderable sum, a donation exclusivelyoffered because it was Kale’s pleasure). Helenwas not a relative, because this was somethingKale would have not omitted to specify (as she


otherwise does), and in addition this persondid not belong to an illustrious family.

As a consequence of these two wills and ofthe sudden and unexpected death of the youngcouple, part of the property of Pakourianos(especially land) finally changed hands; thiswas mainly to the family-in-law and themonastery of Iviron’s mutual advantage.

The situation of hardened bachelors is amatter of interest, warranting discussion. Tothis category belongs Gregory Pakourianos,whose relation to Symbatios remains a mystery.He had followed a long career in Romania; hehad chosen the right side during AlexiosKomnenos’ revolt in 1081, had been granted thetitle of megas domestikos of the West and hadbecome extremely wealthy. He does not seem tohave married anyone and did not have anychildren, yet he does appear to have had afamily since, in his typikon, he names a brothercalled Apasios, an unspecified number ofsisters with whom he does not seem to havemaintained a close relationship,64 a first

64 Pakourianos only says of his sisters that hismother had advantaged them at his own expense, andthat this had been the result of “very femininebehaviour”. She had given them all of the father andmother’s fortune as dowry (P. Gautier, “Le typikon dusébaste Grégoire Pakourianos”, Revue des Études Byzantines42 [1982], 93). Apart from the exaggerations in theaccusation, this testimony cannot be invoked whenstudying Byzantine society, since at that timePakourianos still lived in the Caucasus. We note once


cousin (Pakourianos) and a “gambros”, maybe thehusband of one of his sisters. At the time whenGregory was writing his typikon, Apasios hadpassed away but before his untimely death hehad made a will which included several of thefollowing clauses. Firstly his brother, themegas domestikos, was to receive an estate inorder to make his memory live for ever in thevery church that he himself was to found. Hethen willed to hand over a kastron and a village.Finally, Apasios had requested that an amountof his movable property be used for his ownsalvation. Financial relations between the twobrothers were complex. Apasios had taken asdeposit from Gregory, who had been sent formany years on a mission to the Orient, a largeamount of gold coins in old currency (of thebest standard, according to him). He hadcollected the revenue from his brother’sestates during the latter’s absence. Gregory,returning home after his brother’s death, hadretrieved nothing, neither his deposit nor therevenue of his own property or any part of

more that Michael Attaliates had gained nothing fromhis provincial inheritance, but had in factdeliberately given it up for his sisters: Gautier,op. cit. (n. 45), 19. Was this a reflection of hiskindness – as Attaliates loved his sisters to theextent of adding to their fortune goods which he hadpersonally acquired – or the sign of a social customwhich implied that boys had to survive withoutmaterial assistance? If this second hypothesis isindeed correct, one shall see nevertheless that theusage was not universal.


Apasios’ movable goods. In this tale, one is tounderstand that Gregory was his brother’s onlyheir, and that Apasios had died childless andhad left part of his fortune for the psychika.Gregory does not furnish any clarification asto the people involved in the seizure of hismovable property.

He himself did not take into considerationany member of his family and gave away all hisproperty to his own foundation, the monasteryof Backovo. Nevertheless, he made arrangementsin order to commemorate a large proportion ofhis close relatives who had died in the serviceof Romania. Moreover the foundation was toreceive in priority the relatives of the megasdomestikos (no doubt distant ones).65

When a deceased person without descendantsdid not leave a will, it appears that the rulewas to grant a share of the inheritance to eachof the nephews or nieces. We have seen thatEustathios described a case where aninheritance was to be distributed between twosisters and eight children born of threebrothers (surely dead), and was to be splitinto five legal shares.66 When a will had beenwritten, the freedom to act according to one’swish was total, as demonstrated by the wills ofSymbatios and Kale.

When a man died childless and made his wifeinherit his property, the brothers and sisterswere eager to complain. At Verria a certain

65 Gautier, op. cit. (n. 64), pp. 105-107, 117.66 Peira XLVIII, 10.


George Euripiotes thus left the entirety of hisfortune to his wife Helen. He had at least twobrothers and four sisters. His brother Basil,his sister’s husband George Pediadites (actingon behalf of the nephews of the deceased) andJohn Plytos, who had married a niece (thedaughter of Eudokia), all showed up in thecourt of Chomatianos. In his will, George hadleft nothing for his sisters, while one of hisbrothers (Basil) had inherited something whichremains elusive due to the manuscript’s badstate of preservation. Another sibling,Artemios, had inherited a butcher’s shop. Thelatter had not filed a complaint andundoubtedly had not felt wronged. The conflictwas based on whether such a will – written whenGeorge Euripiotes was still alive – was a legaldocument.67

Towards the Reconstitution of Family Inheritance?When units of production – such as a workshop

or a farm, or even an estate – were threatenedby division, the economic consequences could beharmful and impede good management. But when afortune was constituted of villages or greatsurfaces of farmland (see the abovementionedwills), the implications of sharing did nothave a major economic impact and onlyinfluenced social standing.

67 Chomatianos, no. 25, col. 105-110; cf Simon,op. cit. (n. 3), 299-302.


Mortality eliminated many young children anddrove many families to extinction:68 this factorreduced the number of heirs and led toregroupings. In contrast, joining a monasticorder did not prevent one from getting a shareof the inheritance. Finally, we have seen thatboys appeared to inherit estates and landedproperty more often than girls; these were thecornerstone of a family’s local influence.

The re-composition of inheritances wasfavoured by imperial policy, as testified inRomanos Lakapenios’ Novella, which deals withpre-emption. The author also comments on thematter in Parisinus gr. 1355.69 Parents were thefirst named among those to whom a piece ofproperty should be proposed.

We have seen already that the firstgeneration of heirs could keep property in anundivided state: this was the case of threebrothers mentioned in a document from Lavra.70

It is remarkable that ownership of the khathedra(manor house) and of the workshop remainedcollective even after the sharing of

68 Cf. Thoughts on the number of those dyingwithout offspring in the Novella of Alexios Komnenos(Zepos, I, 297).

69 Cf. finally see A. Laiou, Mariage, amour etparenté à Byzance aux XIe-XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1992), p. 149-151, text p. 178-181. This Novella only makeslegislation prior to Leo VI relevant once more, andcancels this emperor’s rulings.

70 Collective ownership by brothers was common,since an entire chapter of the Peira (XXI) is dedicatedto it with implications of patrimonial division.


inheritance, for obvious reasons of effectivemanagement. Similarly Nikephoros Bourtzes andhis sister Eudokia had not split amongthemselves the estate they owned, the latterbeing undoubtedly the entirety of theirinheritance; even after Eudokia’s deathdivision had not been requested by her daughterand heiress. The estate was still owned jointlyby an uncle and his niece.

Two of the abovementioned instances –Constantine Maleinos and Demetrios Pteleotes –lead to similar conclusions. The former unitedland property, and thus managed to withhold itentirely from the church; the latter partiallydid the same, acting in favour of a familymember who was to the best of our knowledge hisson.

If one observes the way in which MichaelAttaliates accumulated capital in land, one cannote that he purchased several properties fromhis parents. His aunt by marriage, EuphrosyneBobaina, maybe a childless lady who hadretreated to a monastery, sold him a house atRaidestos and another in Constantinople, at thevery time when he was inheriting an estate fromher. He had purchased a house in the capitalfrom his sister-in-law Anastaso, after thetribunal’s authorization of such a transaction.We shall recall that the aunt’s house and thatof the sister-in-law shared the same courtyardand that these two homes could have been partof an inheritance which had been previously


split between heirs. Attaliates therefore wouldhave partially re-assembled divided property.

The Transfer of Social Influence Rich parents passed not only goods and

property to their children, but also a networkof relations. This was the source of manyadvantages. Children and nephews followed thesame career as their elders and wereapprentices of the latter. Future officerswould accompany their highly-establishedrelatives. Thus Alexios Komnenos, before hisaccession, had battled for the first time whileassisting his brother Isaac. When the latterwas captured by the Turks, he logically tookcommand of the army. This practice is in itselfan explanation for the creation of thedynasties of high officers (known since the9th century) and for the frequent occurrence ofthe same family name in the centraladministration.

Psellos made use of his great influence onConstantine Monomachos in order to promote hisfuture son-in-law Elpidios, who thereby becamejudge of the Velum, thesmographos, mystographos andfinally exaktor. The young man even acquired thedignity of patrikios. This was a way for Psellosto ensure his daughter’s comfortable andluxurious lifestyle.71

71 Psellos, op. cit. (n. 27), 203-212; translationand comments by R. Guilland, “À propos d’un texte deMichel Psellos”, Byzantinoslavica 20 (1959), 205-230; 21(1960), 1-37, republished in Recherches sur les institutions


The Many Hazards of transferring a patrimony

The basic principle of Byzantine society’sworkings was simple: to seize the otherfamily’s property (generally the part given asdowry), even though it was generally well-guarded by the law. It could not be alienatedby the husband, even with his wife’s consent.Moreover, its restitution was a priority in thecase of a nuptial dissolution resulting fromdeath or divorce.

Attacks on DowriesForceful methods were applied at times by

some provincial notables who thought, sometimesmistakenly, that they were beyond the reach ofConstantinople’s justice. In 1199 thepatriarchate received two very differentreports on the activities of a certain AlexiosKapandrites, the archon of Colonia. This man wasa widower but had remarried Eudokia, a widowherself. She was the sister of the pansebastosConstantine Boioannes. The fact is that hisbrother-in-law had invited and then capturedhim and had wed his wife to another.Kapandrites demanded Eudokia’s return, but foradditional security presented an affidavit writtenby the bishop of Deabolis which stated that themarriage had been consumated without violence.For good measure, Kapandrites also got animperial prostagma that certified the same

byzantines, I (Amsterdam, 1967), 84-143.


version of events. ( add$$$ “the family ofEudokia told a very different story )”Eudokia had taken refuge in Colonia and hadseen her husband appear all of a sudden,assisted by an armed escort. He had abductedher, together with all of her property and hadforced her to marry.72 Eudokia’s familyunderlined that this marriage was against thelaw because she was the cousin twice removed ofKapandrites’ first wife (sixth degree ofaffinity). It is certain, as explicitlymentioned by both parties, that Eudokia’sproperty was the central issue of this dispute.The patriarch, before reaching a decision,requested that the truth be found through anenquiry.

As well as violence, guile and deceit couldbe used. The husband had the right to keep forhimself the dowry of his adulterous wife.73 YetEustathios Romaios did not accept the legalityof this ruling, because numerous were the menwho accused their spouses of adultery: theyonly needed to bring into their homes one oftheir friends.74

72 PG 119, col. 892. Comment on the question ofconsanguinity and forbidden marriages, cf. K. G.Pitsakis, To; kwvluma gavmou lovgw/ suggeneiva" eJbdovmoubaqmou' ejx ai{mato" sto; Buzantino; divkaio (Athens-Komotene1985), 355-358.

73 Leo VI, Nov. 32.74 Peira XXV, 23. Concerning the comments, cf.

Laiou op. cit. (n. 69), 117-118.


Another more subtle method was to use thepossibilities offered by the law in order toalienate a dowry. The sale was licit if,indeed, the family was subjected to the mostextreme form of poverty. This is how in 1112Eudokia, the daughter of Gregory Bourion, alower notable from Thessalonica, obtained fromjudicial authorities the permission to sell asmall piece of land. The decision rested onwitnesses who had emphasized that the coupledid not even have enough to eat and waswandering from place to place to beg. This isexactly the argument which would have made theclause of exception in the law apply. Theproasteion was sold for 28 hyperpera.75 Everythingseemed lawful and the purchaser, the monasteryof Docheiariou, did not fear a legal claim onthe property and the suing of the wife for thedowry’s alienation. The case was much lessclear than at first glimpse. Eudokia’s husband,Stephen Rasopoles, possessed the dignity ofprotospatharios: even though this title had to alarge extent lost its worth, he could haveobtained a roga for it, unless Alexios Komnenoshad decided beforehand to suppress the rogai ofthe lowest dignities. In any case Eudokia’sdowry included shops and buildings inThessalonica, and it is unthinkable that shecould not have collected rent from these.Consequently there are doubts as to thecouple’s extreme state of poverty.76

75 Docheiariou, no. 3.


Bequests under ConstraintEustathios Boilas openly vents his anger

towards the Apokapai, to whom he had given twoestates. These people had obliged him to sell athird piece of property and he had obtained nopayment for it, something that had notsurprised him in the least. In addition theyhad forced him to lend them 25 pounds in gold,which he never saw again.77 This sum wascomparable to the 30 pounds given as dowry toeach of Boilas’ daughters. The Apokapaitherefore had extorted more than the amounteach of his daughters had obtained. What istruly remarkable is that Boilas did not thinkof litigating and trying to solve this disputein court. One can also question the spontaneouscharacter of several donations made toemperors. We shall recall that influentialindividuals who acted as middlemen between theemperor and their own dependants expectedbeneficiaries to pay for their intervention by

76 Another legal document from Docheiariou(no. 4) mentions another agreement made at a wife’sexpense. Nikephoros Bourtzes, of whom we have spokenbeforehand, had decided to exchange property with amonastery and had given the Rosaion proasteion, whichhe had inherited. This piece of property, however,was unalienable, because it was a donation made antenuptias to his wife Anne. The monks tried to dissuadethis woman from stating her rights, no matter thepretext.

77 Lemerle, op. cit. (n. 36), 22.


handing over part of their patrimonialproperty.78

Some did not even take the trouble ofjustifying their extortion procedures or evenhiding them under a legal mantle. We have seenthat part of Gregory Pakourianos’ fortune hadbeen taken from him in his absence. The brotherof Nikephoros Ouranos was also prey tounscrupulous administrators and implacableenemies who stripped him of his property incircumstances which Nikephoros’ letter does notallow us to identify, but which may bear somerelation to a fall from grace. In any case,this was in no way a form of confiscation ($$J. Shepard adds “by the state”). When heirs(even those of noble extraction) were minorsand lived in the capital, the inheritance offamily property located in the provincesappears to have been threatened when epitropoiwere not careful enough: this is shown by thefact that Psellos tried to get into contactwith a judge of the Kibyrraiotai in order toprotect the property of a deceased friend,Theodore Alopos.79

Predators from Outside: The Church and the State

78 J.-Cl. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance(963-1210) [Paris, 1990], 293-295.

79 Psellos, Scripta minora magnam partem adhuc inedita,E. Kurtz, F. Drexl (eds.), II (Milan, 1941) letterno. 50, p. 82-85: peasant neighbours of Alopos haveseized all or part of his estate’s produce.


Clergymen also benefited lavishly frombequests and donations written in wills, aswell as from sanctions punishing conjugaloffences. First of all were the psychika, whichrepresented considerable sums of money. KaleBasilake had left no less than 100 pounds ingold, even though these were in newly mintedhyperpera (of a value therefore amounting to onlyone third of the older gold coins): in anycase, this was still a considerable amount withwhich one could buy, for instance, an oikos or alarge estate.80

It is of no use dwelling upon monasticfoundations, because it is well known thatproperty belonging to families on the edge ofextinction was frequently passed on toreligious institutions: this is evident in thechoices of the various members of thePakourianos family or that of MichaelAttaliates. Numerous other instances of thiscan be listed.81

Monasteries were also involved with cases ofadultery. Once a woman was acknowledged asadulterous, she would lose her property. Leo VIdecided to leave the dowry in the husband’s

80 Iviron II, no. 4751.81 See an additional example in the Kephalas

file: the greater part of the fortune of LeoKephalas, victor over the fearsome Norman Bohemond,had been transferred to his son Nikephoros butfinally reached Lavra. This was easy, since thehigoumenos at that time was a member of the Kephalasfamily.


possession in order to console him, but he madelegal arrangements to enable sharing of thegoods between the monastery and the children(or the parents if the couple had nooffspring). But Eustathios adopted anotherpoint of view: if the woman had children, theywould inherit two-thirds of the dowry, and thelast third was given to the monastery where itwas to be where she was imprisonned; if she waschildless, the two-thirds of her possessionwould go to the convent and the last thirdwould be offered to her parents, if indeedthese were not accomplices to her misconduct.Michael Keroularios settled for the same legaldispositions when judging the case of a priestwhose wife had sinned and whose child was tokeep two thirds of the mother’s dowry.82

Some judges did react against the shareallotted to monasteries. A father without anypersonal capital had the fortune of hisdaughter and of his deceased wife at hisdisposal. He gave the higoumenos of themonastery of Nea Kome the title of epitropos andplaced his daughter’s fortune in thisinstitution. The magistros Xeros disallowed thewill and named as epitropoi the grandparents onthe mother’s side.83

82 Vizantijskij Vremennik 12 (1905), 517-518. V.Grumel, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople,I : Les Actes des patriarches, fasc. II-III : Les Regestes de715 à 1206, second edition revised and corrected by J.Darrouzès (Paris, 1989), no. 883.

83 Peira XIV, 22.


The emperor was certainly not indifferent tothe fate of the greatest fortunes and inprinciple he had two forms of leverage. Hecould control devolution of property byintervening in the union of couples belongingto the high aristocracy;84 alternatively hecould order measures of confiscation. The Peiramentions two cases of marriages in which theimperial will interfered: the engagement of the“son of Komnenos”85 and the insolent remarks ofHimerios Solomon, two characters who belongedto the empire’s greatest families. Who was the“son of Komnenos?” According to K. Barzos, hewas probably Manuel, son of the future emperorIsaac: he attributes this event to the year1050, basing his evidence on the fact thatManuel was born around 1030 and that during thetrial he was twenty years old.86 This hypothesisseems untenable, since Eustathios Romaios wasnot acting as judge at the time, if indeed hewas still alive.87 It is moreoever most unlikelythat Isaac, the father of Manuel and one of themost important of the State’s generals, did not

84 It is obvious that the emperors arrangedmarriages in their own family. Cf. A. Laiou,“Imperial Marriages and their Critics in the EleventhCentury: The Case of Skylitzes”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers46 (1992), 165-176.

85 Peira XVII, 5, 14; translation by G. Weiss,“Hohe Richter in Konstantinopel”, Jahrbuch derösterreichischen Byzantinistik 22 (1973), 133-135.

86 Barzos, Genealogiva I, 58.87 Oikonomides, op. cit. (n. 4), 175-176.


have his say in his only son’s marriage. Whatinformation is at our disposal? EustathiosRomaios is called “the magistros”, but this is nochronological indication: the composer of thePeira would have described him in this waywithout necessarily taking into account thetrial’s dates. The name “son of Komnenos”suggests that one of the members of this familywas sufficiently illustrious to be identifiedas the Komnenos par excellence. Moreover the younghusband-to-be was under the authority of abaioulos and had apparently lost his parents. Itshould also be noted that an emperor had died,when he was eighteen years old.

All these events can be related to what weknow of Isaac Komnenos himself, the son ofManuel Erotikos-Komnenos, who was the first tomake his family illustrious by defending Nicaeaagainst a rebel. This he had done for Basil II.This Isaac, born in 1007, lost his parents at avery early age, around 1020.88 His father hadentrusted him and his brother John to thebasileus (therefore Basil II) prior to his suddendeath. The latter took care of their educationas future officers. Isaac would have beeneighteen years old around 1025 and would havebreached his engagement, which had beenorganized by his baioulos on Basil II’s orders(the emperor was responsible for the youngman). Isaac’s refusal to marry would haveprovoked the basileus’ anger, but the latter diedin December of this year. Isaac managed to be

88 Barzos, Genealogiva I, 39.


freed of his initial promise, since he latermarried the daughter of the Bulgarian princeJohn Vladislav (no doubt before 1030, thelikely date for Manuel’s birth). The emperor’sworries about Isaac’s wedding were linked tothe fact that he was indirectly the young man’stutor and were not the product of anauthoritarian personality. The desired resulthad moreover not been reached.89

The Solomon affair took place before 1028,since Romanos Argyros, the future emperor, wasstill among the judges. The protospathariosHimerios son of Solomon, still a minor,secretly and without his master knowing it,entered the house of another protospatharios’daughter. The girl’s father held the positionof teicheiotes.90 The woman became pregnant.91 Theyoung couple fled to Haghia Sophia; whileHimerios agreed to the marriage, his fatheropposed it. Yet the latter died and at thisvery moment his son Himerios in turn refused totake the girl as his wife. The emperorintervened and ordered Himerios to marry the

89 In this case, one fact only remainsproblematic: the dowry’s amount (six pounds), moreappropriate for a member of Constantinople’s lowermiddle class. As recorded by G. Weiss (see n. 85),this amount is not proportional to the sum expectedin case of breach of contract, i.e. twenty-five pounds,and then thirty pounds: it therefore should becorrected and replaced by 90 pounds.

90 A servant of the State who is responsible forthe maintenance of the city walls of Constantinople.

91 Peira XLIX, 4.


daughter of Gregory Solomon the protospatharios.The trial deals with the nature and the cost ofthe offence committed against the young woman.Imperial interference can be explained byBasil II’s or Constantine’s intention tomoderate the punishment inflicted uponHimerios, an adolescent who had lost hisfather. The motive that had made the basileus wedthe young man with someone from his own familyremains elusive. Eustathios Romaios was incharge of finding a compromise solution and ofmoderating the effects of a strict law, thisbecause of the emperor’s desire to not striketoo hard a member of Constantinople’s highsociety. Himerios was to be released afterpayment of five pounds in gold.

To end the topic of imperial interference, weshould stress that children of the Bulgariantsar’s family were wed by Basil II and hissuccessors to offspring of the aristocrats ofAsia Minor. However, once again, the emperorssaw themselves as responsible for these foreignprinces, as these adolescents had been educatedat the Byzantine court and were to a certainextent hostages. In the 12th century, theemperor Andronikos forced into convents anumber of his adversaries’ wives, even thoughsuch behaviour contributed to accusations oftyranny. A few decades later, during the mid-13th century, Theodore Laskaris II obliged richheiresses to marry his favourites of lowerextraction: he thus rewarded these men withoutopening his purse. This authoritarianism


resulted in the fall of his young son John IV,since it provoked a lasting resentment amongthe victims, who then took advantage ofTheodore’s untimely death. These cases ofimperial interference seem to be exceptionaland contrary to tradition. They do not speak infavour of a supposed active role of the emperorin matrimonial contracts involving members ofthe higher aristocracy.

The law gave the State some prerogatives overinheritances, which enabled it to profit fromthem. The State inherited property fromdeceased and childless people who had notwritten a will and who were without knownheirs. A Novella of Alexios Komnenos remindedcivil servants administrating the themes (‘$$delete “of the empire”) that they had to beinformed of the occurrence of such people intheir circumscription. The theme’s employeeshad to write a precise inventory to prevent anyprofiting at the expense of the empire’staxation services (in this case the imperialvestiarion).92 The Novella dates to 1082, adifficult year for an empire attacked from allcorners and desperately seeking new financialresources. Some people, whom the Novella does notmention, took advantage of the unrest to seizevacant property – not a cause of surprise, asmany similar cases of usurpation of propertyare attested during the period after 1204. Theinformer who denounced the swindles received a

92 Zepos, I, 297 (lepth; ajpografhv).


tenth of the recovered property. Theconsequence of this law was to enable the fiscto recover the dowry of an adulterous woman whohad married her ($$ J. Shepard prefers “lover”)accomplice and who had made him her heir: thedowry was therefore not passed on to hersiblings.93

Another possibility for tampering withinheritances was confiscations linked toconvictions, which ended in the possession ofthe imperial taxation authorities theseprevented natural devolution of inheritance andappear to have been quite frequent. Fiscalservices were a source of considerable profit,but were also risky business, as shown by thefate of Maios, Kekaumenos’ cousin. He lost allhis fortune and became a debtor of sixty poundsin gold. Demetrios Kamateros was also deprivedof his oikos because he had not managed tocollect enough taxes from Thrace.94 Otherresponsibilities at the State’s service impliedbeing held accountable and a possibility ofseizure by the tax office of sums which itconsidered its own. In his typikon, GregoryPakourianos stresses that he had followed theregulations in the various positions of commandwhich he had held. He thus protected his heir,the future monastery of Backovo, from anyclaims made by the taxation services. The Peiraalludes to several cases of confiscation by thefisc: these led to specific problems, notably

93 Peira XXV, 43.94 Zepos I, 334.


those facing property given as dowryadministered by the husband. Irene Doukainaattempted to guard her religious foundationagainst all forms of confiscation, even whenthe heir of the monastery came to be accused ofhigh treason.95

In addition, emperors did confiscate propertyfor political reasons: they often seized thefortunes of people who exercised too muchinfluence. The property of the parakoimomenosBasil Lakapenos and that of Eustathios Maleinoswere taken away by Basil II, Alexios Axouch’sassets were retained by the basileus Manuel andthe fortune of Manuel Kamytzes was seized byAlexios III Angelos. During troubled times (the11th century and the onset of the FourthCrusade), a successful contender for powerwould deal aggressively with property belongingto his opponents. Nikephoros Botaneiates triedin vain to put an end to this habit by passinga law which, in his mind, would be applied byhis successors.96

These confiscations were perhaps not asarbitrary as they might seem, since fortunesseized had mainly been collected beforehand atthe expense of public revenue (through

95 Gautier, op. cit. (n. 59), 141-143.96 On the matter, see lastly L. Burgmann, “A law

for emperors: on a chrysobull of NikephorosBotaneiates”, in New Constantines, The Rhythm of ImperialRenewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries, P. Magdalino (ed.)[Aldershot, 1994], 247-257.


fraudulent embezzlement or, legally, thanks toimperial donations). Basil Lakapenos was aperfect example of the greedy officials who hadtaken advantage of their very high positions togather whatever they could. He had usurped, atthe emperor’s expense, a large proportion ofCilician lands which had been retaken from theMoslems.97 He had only been saved, at least fora while, by the sudden death of John Tzimiskes.

Among the beneficiaries of the doreai were theimperial family. We do not have to hand aspecific example from the Macedonian dynasty,98

but the Komnenoi did in fact attribute state97 Skylitzes, I. Thurn (ed.), 311-312.

Tzimiskes, meanwhile, upon his accession had shown avery different and generous attitude: he had thoughtit preferable to distribute his immense personalfortune to the peasantry of the Armeniakoi and thesick of Constantinople. His wealth partly came fromgifts made by previous emperors (Leo Diacon, Bonn,99).

98 However, to persuade Helena (the wife of thefuture Romanos III) to accept divorce,Constantine VIII had endowed her with a woman’smonastery making ($$better J. Shepard “havingrevenues worth”) three annual kentenaria (Yahya, L.Cheikho (ed.) [Beirut, 1909], 251). The sum seemsconsiderable, but should be related to the threesekreta yielding huge quantities of revenue in“talents” offered to Eudokia Makrembolitissa byNikephoros Botaneiates (Attaliates, Bonn, 304).Finally, we recall that the tax authorities, for areason which remains elusive, had taken the propertyof empress Theophano, the mother of Basil II. One ofthe possible reasons could be a conditional donation.


property to family members, i.e. the wholearistocracy associated with the dynasty throughmarriage relations. As from the reign of thedynasty’s founder, Adrian and Isaac Komnenoi(the brothers of Alexios I), NikephorosMelissenos (his brother-in-law) and NikephorosBryennios (his son-in-law), all obtained landand tax revenue in Macedonia.99 The daughtersand wives of the Komnenoi and Angeloi rulersseem to have been quite frequently therecipients of income from tax authorities.100

According to a Genovese document, anunidentified sister of Manuel Komnenos was theowner of the island of Chios.101 She hadprofited from inland revenue, but we do notknow if this advantage had been acquiredthrough inheritance or, as is more likely,thanks to her brother’s benevolence andgenerosity. Alexios III Angelos’ wife and hisdaughters are mentioned in the 1198 chrysobull(which gave the Venetians a few commercialadvantages); the princesses’ property includedmany episkepseis (for instance estates belongingto the tax authorities like those in Epirus,which were prosperous enough to attract Italian

99 Lavra I, nos. 46, 51; Iviron II, 28.100 Empress Irene, daughter of the king of

Hungary, did not make her children inherit all thecoinage she had received from her husband John II orfrom the State (Kinnamos, Bonn, 10).

101 Codice Diplomatico della Repubblica de Genova dal MCLIIIal MCLXXXX, a cura di C. Imperiale di Sant’Angelo(Rome, 1938), 217: Soror domini imperatoris domina Sii.


merchants).102 These possessions were probablylife-long leaseholds and were meant to ensureliving standards in accordance with theprincesses’ high rank. It is likely thatdescendants would not have inherited them.Mourtzouphlos’ coup in February 1204 causedmassive confiscations at the expense of theAngeloi dynasty (at least in Constantinople).103

The issue was definitively resolved by theCrusader conquest of 1204. Had a substantialproportion of these donations not been returnedto the State, the emperors would have beendevoid of any means to endow their relatives.

Servants of the State also benefited largelyfrom imperial generosity. The freehold of anestate ensured that the beneficiary had theright in principle to choose his heir: this isshown in Attaliates and Symbatios Pakourianos’wills or by the chrysobull favouring theprotoasekretes Epiphanios. Signs do suggesthowever that the authorities considered theseproperties as belonging originally to the Stateand as liable to be claimed by the previousowner. A typical example is that of LeoKephalas. This officer in NikephorosBotaneiates’ service had obtained an estatefrom the emperor, but then had thought it wiseto receive confirmation of ownership from hissuccessor Alexios Komnenos. The new basileus

102 I trattati con Bisanzio (992-1198), a cura di M. Pozzae G. Ravegnani, Pacta Veneta 4 (Venice, 1993), 130.

103 Niketas Choniates, Historia, I. A. Van Dieten(ed.), [Berlin-New York, 1975], 566.


granted him a new estate (that of Mesolimnia),and subsequently added the village of Chostianoto Leo’s properties, as the noble brilliantlydefended Larissa against the Franks. Kephalas’good relations with the emperor did not preventhim from requesting once more a confirmation ofproperty ownership and of his children’sinheritance rights, by means of a chrysobull.104

One can understand Kephalas’ fears, sincewithin a few short years the estate ofMesolimnia had been handed over by StephenMaleinos to Otto, then to Baasprakanites andfinally to tax authorities.105 We recall thatBasil II invalidated all the chrysobulls issued bythe parakoimomenos Basil Lakapenos, who hadruled the empire in his name for ten years.106

We also emphasize that Isaac Komnenos alsocancelled a certain number of donations thathad been considered as excessive.107

This leads one to question the very notion ofa donation, which does not automatically entaila permanent transfer of property and whichseems to be conditional – i.e. something akin toleasehold: the charisticariate and the pronoia108

104 Lavra I, no. 49.105 Ibid., no. 45.106 Zepos, I, 270.107 Psellos, Chronographia, E. Renauld (ed.) II,

120.108 The “donation of a fortress” of the late

11th century was limited in time and lasted only ageneration; cf. Oikonomides, “The Donations ofCastles in the last Quarter of the 11th Century”, inPolychronion: Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburstag


were designed in the same way. This wouldexplain why some palaces in Constantinopleoften changed hands.109 Psellos boasted that theemperor Monomachos usually listened to him. Theemperor had granted him a more sumptuous houseand he had prompted the emperor to favor hisfriend Constantine Doukas with the same gift,replacing his oikos by another more magnificentone.110 This episode confirms that highofficials of the State did not fully own theirproperties, and that the latter would bereturned to their previous freeholders afterthe death or fall from grace of the beneficiaryat the emperor’s service.111

Conclusion

(Heidelberg, 1966), 413-417, reprinted in Documents etétudes sur les institutions de Byzance VIIe-XIVe s., VariorumReprints (London, 1976), no. XIV.

109 Cf. Justin II and Sophia’s palace: P.Magdalino, Constantinople médiévale, Études sur l’évolution desstructures urbaines (Paris, 1996), 47. For the Barbarospalace, see J.-Cl. Cheynet, op. cit. (n. 1), 210.

110 Psellos, Chronographia, E. Renauld (ed.), II,142.

111 I do not think it is necessary to apply thenotion of eminent State property on all, includingprivate land, as proposed by A.Kazhdan in “State,Feudal, and Private Economy in Byzantium”, DumbartonOaks Papers 47 (1993), 83-100. A divergent opinion isto be found in G. G. Litavrin, “Le problème de lapropriété à Byzance aux Xe-XIe siècles”, Byzantiaka 9(1989), 9-46.


Legal transmission of aristocraticinheritances is but only one aspect of theissue under discussion. Egalitarian patrimonialsplitting between heirs (despite demographicconditions which limited their number), and theshare handed over to pious foundations,naturally led to a piecemeal parcelling ofproperty and to the impoverishment of families(despite dowry contributions). The survival ofthe same families during several generations orcenturies and at the higher echelons of theState, shows that compensating mechanisms didexist. Daughters appear to have benefited fromtheir share of the inheritance, the latterbeing transmitted preferentially as movablegoods. If this hypothesis is confirmed, thesystem allowed the landed base of families tosurvive. But aristocrats did hand over to theiroffspring something even more substantial: aknow-how and a network of relations which weremuch more precious than estates, as these couldone day be alienated by tax authorities, bysiblings or more distant relatives, or even byreligious institutions, etc. Young aristocratswere shown into court life, would accompanytheir fathers or uncles on military service orin the State’s offices. A successful career inthe service of the State offered an incomesufficient to assemble a large amount ofcapital: this was true even for a provinciallandowner without any inheritance, something


Michael Attaliates would boast about.112 Thechysobull of Constantine X Doukas, written byPsellos, describes such a social climb inexcellent fashion: “Nicholas was at this timeamong the humble, as he was still ahypogrammateuon and, one could say, quite farfrom being wealthy. But, thanks to a profoundchange in circumstances, as if under a magicspell, he was shown into the palace and endedinside sacred ground. All of a suddenlyeverything was completely transformed for him.His house (oikos) shone anew, his fortuneincreased and his lifestyle changed completely:he bought real estate and exchanged ($$ j.Shepard prefers “in exchange for”) otherproperties”.113 Personal success therefore waspossible, and long-lasting for some:Attaliates, the Pakourianoi and Leo Kephalasall made their children inherit recentlyacquired property which had been given away inthe form of imperial grants or had beenpurchased with income gained in the State’sservice.

In the provinces, beyond the emperor’simmediate reach, inheritance or successfulmatrimonial unions were matters of considerableimportance and did explain behaviour that canbe described as excessive (such as that shownby the Kapandrites family). Yet even without

112 Gautier, op. cit. (n. 45), 21. Towards the endof his life, Attaliates had accumulated a fortune ofabout a hundred pounds in gold.

113 Gautier, op. cit. (n. 9), 85.


visiting the capital, provincial noblemensometimes indirectly took advantage of theemperor’s liberality. We shall mention SamuelBourtzes, who, thanks to the grant of arelative, owned the estate later inherited byhis children, and the caesar NikephorosMelissenos, brother-in-law of the basileus.Likewise, Boilas had received land fordevelopment from his authentai – the Apokapai,who were well-connected and had immediateaccess to the Byzantine emperor. Socialpractice therefore had an influence on dowry-provision and inheritance that was moreeffective than the application of an arcanelegislation.

4 héritage Variorum

Documents

Transcript of 4 héritage Variorum