Aristocrats and landed estates
Palaiologan society was more structured than at any other time in the
history of the Byzantine empire. The aristocracy emerges as a group with
considerable power and a high degree of consciousness of its social position;
at the same time, and continuing until the end of the formal existence of the
state, merchants hold an important economic position and, for a moment,
lay claim to political power. These groups prospered economically, certainly
until the 1340s.22
The development of the Byzantine aristocracy has a long history, in some
ways continuous since the tenth century. When the throne was captured
by two of the most powerful families (the Komnenoi and the Doukai) in
1081, some important features were consolidated, and continued into the
fourteenth century. By then, this was an aristocracy dominated by a few
families, linked by intermarriage: their numbers were fewer than in the
twelfth century, but most could claim descent from the twelfth-century
aristocracy, and those in the highest ranks could name at least one ancestor
of imperial stock. Many aristocrats (and the wealthy generally) had fled
Constantinople for Nicaea upon its capture in 1204. In Nicaea their power
and influence had been somewhat challenged by the policies of John III
Vatatzes and Theodore II Laskaris (1254–8). The first had initiated a policy
which made some of the army independent of imperial (mostly aristocratic)
commanders, and even issued sumptuary laws directed against the aristocracy,
23 while the second had appointed George Mouzalon as regent for his
young son. George and his brothers can appropriately be termed the king’s
men: men from a relatively humble background, who owed their power and
loyalty only to the dynasty.24 The power of the king’s men was brought to
a bloody end when a conspiracy of aristocrats, led by Michael Palaiologos,
murdered them. In the fourteenth century, men who did not initially belong
to the highest aristocracy but became powerful through office, civil or military,
tended to acquire social prestige by marrying high, and only the most
status-conscious person, such as the empress Yolande-Irene of Montferrat,
could find fault with their social origins.25 The most important exception
to this statement is Alexios Apokaukos, who progressed from tax-collector
to megas doux (commander of the fleet). A king’s man in some respects, he
followed a policy which pitted him against the most vocal representative
of the aristocratic class, John Kantakouzenos, and was never considered by
that class to be anything but a parvenu.26
One significant difference between this high aristocracy and that of western
Europe was that the Byzantines did not have a nobility. There were no
official prerogatives, no official rights and derogations, no privileges legally
guaranteed to a specific class and passed from one generation to the next.
Undoubtedly, there were attitudes which could eventually have led to the
creation of a nobility. High birth counted for a great deal: in the twelfth
century, the emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143–80) had legislated against
m´esalliance;27 and while in the fourteenth century there was no such state
control of marriages, nevertheless matrimonial alliances were very carefully
arranged. So much was intermarriage regarded as a feature of the aristocracy
that one text dedicated to social reform, the Dialogue between the rich and
the poor of Alexios Makrembolites, proposed marriages between poor and
rich as a remedy for the ills and inequalities of society.28 This suggestion
also indicates a certain opposition to the stratification of society and to the
place of the high aristocracy in it.
Aristocratic women played an important role in politics and society. They
were the medium through which alliances between aristocratic familieswere
made and since they had property of their own, in the form of both dowry
and patrimonial property, they had considerable economic power. Names,
lineage, property and family connections were transmitted along the female
as well as the male line; and aristocratic women were as acutely conscious
and proud of their lineage as their male relatives. As in the twelfth century,
the administration of the family property seems to have been in the hands of
women; and although literacy may not have reached very low in the social
scale, some women of the high aristocracy were learned indeed, and patrons
of literary men, scholars, theologians and artists. A number of women,
mostly those close to the imperial family, became actively involved in the
political and religious controversies of the period, for example Michael
VIII’s sister and his niece Theodora Raoulaina; the wife and mother of John
Kantakouzenos (respectively Irene and Theodora); and Irene Choumnaina
Palaiologina.29
The aristocracy, both in its highest echelons and at lower levels, was less
of a Constantinopolitan group than it had been in the twelfth century. This
was partly the result of the rise of regional aristocratic foci of power. Thus
the KomnenosDoukas family in Epiros and Thessaly had formed independent
states, as did the Grand Komnenoi in Trebizond. There were other
important regional magnates, such as the Maliasenoi, the Gabrielopouloi,
the Raoul in Epiros and Thessaly, and a number of families in the Morea;
many frequently opposed the authority of the central government. Furthermore,
with the reconquest of the European provinces, the great families
of the reconstituted Byzantine empire acquired lands in Macedonia and
Thrace. Typically, members of these families might also be appointed governors
of one of the areas where they held their properties, so that regional
economic power and political authority were often concomitant. Thus, for
example, in the rich agricultural region of Serres, the Tzamplakon family
had held estates since the days of the Nicaean empire; in 1326, Alexios
Tzamplakon was governor of the city, and in charge of its fiscal administration.
30 The family of John Kantakouzenos, later emperor by rebellion and
usurpation, had large estates near Serres; his relative, Andronikos Kantakouzenos,
became governor of the city, and Andronikos’ successor, Angelos
Metochites, likewise belonged to a family with estates in the area.
The aristocracy remained an urban one, preferring residence in the cities
to residence on their estates. But, especially in the first half of the century,
it was a group whose economic power was based on land.Money was
also made from abuse of imperial office and trade in foodstuffs; but land
remained both an actual source of wealth and ideologically sanctioned.
Despite the fact that the aristocracy was stratified, its members had in common
landownership and a degree of privilege, i.e. fiscal privileges granted
by the government for all or part of their estates.
The other great landlord in this period was the church. The monasteries,
especially those ofMount Athos, acquired very considerable estates, which
were also tax-exempt. Urban monasteries also had property and revenues,
although nothing to approach those of the great monasteries of Mount
Athos. The political power of the church in this period, as well as its moral
authority, went hand in hand with economic power.
The countryside was complex and variegated. Proprietors of mediumsized
holdings with production that could be marketed are known to have
existed. These might hold imperial privileges, and thus qualify for the label
‘gentleman-farmer’, like Theodosios Skaranos in the late thirteenth century.
They could also be city inhabitants with rural holdings but no visible
privileges, such as Theodore Karabas, inhabitant of Thessaloniki, who in
all probability was also a merchant, marketing his own products along with
those of others.31 Independent peasants, who paid taxes to the state, and
cultivated a plot of land primarily to provide for their families, also appear in
our sources, but for the most part when they sell or donate their properties
to monasteries; they are under economic stress, at least in Macedonia. In
Epiros, the small landowner seems to have been more frequent. Nevertheless,
the large estate, held by laymen or clergymen, is the dominant aspect
of the countryside. It was cultivated in indirect exploitation, by tenants,
including dependent peasants.32
World History
