1 See in particular Kazhdan, A. and Ronchey, S., L’aristocrazia bizantina, dal principio dell’XI alla fine del XII secolo (Palermo 1997) 177-85Google Scholar and Kazhdan, A., ‘State, feudal, and private economy in Byzantium’, DOP 47 (1993) esp. 95-8Google Scholar.

2 Kazhdan, ‘State, feudal, and private economy in Byzantium’, 96; Kazhdan, A., ‘Do we need a new history of Byzantine law?’, JOB 39 (1989) 15 Google Scholar.

3 See in particular Litavrin, G., ‘Le problème de la propriété d’État en Byzance aux Xe-XIe siècles’, Byzantiaka 9 (1989) esp. 17-21Google Scholar. See also Beck, H.-G., Res publica Romana:Vom Staatsdenken der Byzantiner (Munich 1970) 38-41Google Scholar and Oikonomidès, N., Fiscalité et exemption fiscale à Byzance (IXe-Xle s.) (Athens 1996) 46-7Google Scholar. For a bibliography of the different views on this issue, see Kazhdan, ‘State, feudal, and private economy’, 84-5 nn. 4, 9.

4 These acts, issued by the Byzantine authorities, have survived in copies kept in Italian archives, sometimes in both Greek and Latin version, sometimes only in Latin. For the Venetians: Pozza, M. and Ravegnani, G., I trattati con Bisanzio: 992-1198 (Venice 1993), nos. 2-11Google Scholar. For the Pisans: Miklosich, F. and Müller, I., Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi, 6 vols. (Vienna 1860-1890; hereafter MM) III, 3-23Google Scholar. For the Genoese: Sanguineti, A. and Bertolotto, G., ‘Nuova serie sulle relazioni di Genova coll’Impero bizantino’, Atti della Società ligure di storia patria 28 (1896-1898) 364-6Google Scholar, 413-44, 475-99.

5 On these circumstances, see Lilie, R.-J., Handel und Politik zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den italienischen Kommunen Yenedig, Pisa und Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen und der Angeloi: 1081-1204 (Amsterdam 1984)Google Scholar passim.

6 Almost all chrysobulls present the concessions as being freely awarded by the emperor in remuneration of the services offered or promised by the beneficiaries. Venice: Pozza, and Ravegnani, , I trattati, nos. 2 (1082), 3 Google Scholar (1126), 4 (1147), 5 (1148), 6, 7 (1187), 9 (1189); Pisa: MM III, 9-13 (1111), 13-5 (1170), 3-23 (1192); Genoa: Sanguineti and Bertolotto, Nuova serie, 421-3, 432-3 (1170), 413-33 (1192). However, the chrysobulls awarded to Venice in 1189 and to Pisa and Genoa in 1192 bear clear marks of the pressure the Italians exerted on the Byzantine emperor in order to gain the donations. On the form (unilateral) and substance (bilateral) of these chrysobulls, see the remarks in Laiou, A., ‘The emperor’s word: chrysobulls, oaths and synallagmatic relations in Byzantium (llth-12th c.)’, TM 14 (2002) esp. 356-7Google Scholar. Two late chrysobulls in favour of Venice acquire a distinctly different form; although keeping the external characteristics of a chrysobull, these acts are in fact treaties agreed between states and detailing the obligations of each party: Pozza, and Ravegnani, , I trattati, nos. 8 (1187), 11 Google Scholar (1198).

7 These are sometimes included in the relevant chrysobulls or are preserved as separate documents. Inside chrysobulls: Pozza and Ravegnani, 7 trattati, 72-4 (1148); MM III, 18-23 (1192). As separate documents: Sanguineti and Bertolotto, Nuova serie, 364-6 (1170), 434-44 (1192), 475-99 (1202).

8 See Magdalino, P., Constantinople médiévale (Paris 1996)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Maritime neighborhoods of Constantinople: commercial and residential functions, sixth to twelfth centuries’, DOP 54 (2000) 209-226; idem, ‘Medieval Constantinople: built environment and urban development’, in A. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium, 3 vols. (Washington 2002; hereafter EHB) 529-37. These data have also been used extensively by Janin, Raymond in Constantinople byzantine, 2nd edn (Paris 1964)Google Scholar and in La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin. Première partie: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique, Tome Ш: Les églises et les monastères, 2nd edn (Paris 1969). See also Berger, A., ‘Zur Topographie der Ufergegend am Goldenen Horn in der byzantinischen Zeit’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 45 (1995) 149-65Google Scholar; Jacoby, D., ‘The Venetian quarter of Constantinople from 1082 to 1261: topographical considerations’, in Sode, C. and Takács, S. (eds.) Novum Millennium. Studies on Byzantine history and culture dedicated to Paul Speck (Aldershot 2001) 153-70Google Scholar.

9 The act has survived in two slightly different Latin versions: Pozza, and Ravegnani, , I trattati, no. 2 Google Scholar.

10 Pozza and Ravegnani, I trattati, 43: nec secretum Petriu vel Mireleu, nec etiam privatus quisque, sed nec monasterium vel templum sanctum. It is noteworthy that where the first Latin version has ‘privatus quisque’ the second has ‘familiarium aliquis’. It is hard to imagine a Greek expression that could be translated in both of the above ways, the first corresponding best to a phrase including the word prosopon, the second to an expression containing the term oikeios (someone close to the emperor). It is more likely that the original gave prosopon rather than oikeios, since the latter is normally accompanied by the expression τη βασιλεία μου.

11 The contemporary source is Attaleiates, who says that the skalai belonged for the most part to pious houses and monasteries: Attaleiates, Michael, Historia, ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1853) 278 Google Scholar; ed. Martín, I. Pérez (Madrid 2002) 199–200 Google Scholar. On the ownership pattern of the area as seen in the later acts concerning the Italian concessions, see Magdalino, Constantinople medievale, 78-83.

12 Pozza and Ravegnani, I trattati, 42-3.

13 According to Lilie (Handel und Politik, 13), the chrysobull must have included a now missing part where the Venetians’ obligations towards the emperor were related.

14 Pozza, and Ravegnani, , I trattati, nos. 3, 4 Google Scholar.

15 Pozza and Ravegnani, no. 5.

16 Pozza and Ravegnani, 71, 74.

17 Pozza and Ravegnani, 74: cuiuscumque iuris sint, sive ecclesiastici iuris sive rei publice sive privati sive sanete domus vel monastici, nulla actione locum excercendi habente contra eos gratia horum.

18 See Magdalino, P., The empire of Manuel I Komnenos: 1143-1180 (Cambridge 1993) 93-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Pozza and Ravegnani, I trattati, 109.

20 Ibid., 79.

21 The chrysobulls issued by Alexios I, John II, and Manuel I are also confirmed by two other chrysobulls Isaac II issued in the same year (1187): Pozza, and Ravegnani, , I trattati, nos. 6, 7 Google Scholar.

22 Pozza and Ravegnani, no. 8.

23 Ibid., no. 9.

24 Ibid., 108: omnem introitum eorum accipere, nequaquam a fisco vel ab aliqua personarum, quibus hec attinent et quibus hec ablata ipsis dantur, infestationem aliquam manifestis Veneticis subire debentibus, quamquam monasteria sint sive sanete domus aut imperio nostro propinque vel alie.

25 During the reign of Manuel I, according to Jacoby, ‘The Venetian quarter’ (as in n. 8), 158-9.

26 Pozza and Ravegnani, I trattati, 109.

27 Ibid., no. 11.

28 MM III, 9-13. The chrysobull issued by Manuel I in 1170 states that the Pisans had acquired, thanks to chrysobulls of his grandfather and father, an embolos, a skala and a church (MM III, 13). The church and the embolos, if this last is not identical to the katatopion with houses, were either given by a paradosis already in 1111, in accordance to the chrysobull of that date, or were added later by Alexios I or John II.

29 The chrysobull of 1136 does not survive but is mentioned in the chrysobull of 1170 (MM III, 13); on its date, see Lilie, R.-J., Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaaten. Studien zur Politik des byzantinischen Reiches gegenüber den Staaten der Kreuzfahrer in Syrien und Palästina bis zum vierten Kreuzzug: 1096-1204 (Munich 1981) 106-7Google Scholar.

30 The Pisans promised in 1170 to have the same faith and fulfil the same obligations as they did towards the predecessors of Manuel. The emperor, on his part, confirmed the earlier chrysobulls concerning the donation of the real estate. Their provisions would remain unchanged as long as Pisa respected its agreements with Byzantium: MM III, 13-5. On the date of the forced transfer, probably done in reaction to Pisa’s alliance with the German emperor, see Lilie, , Handel und Politik (as in n. 5), p. 457-9Google Scholar.

31 Cf. the information about the properties given to the Genoese, probably in the same area: Sanguineti and Bertolotto, Nuova serie, 366-7.

32 On these events, see Lilie, Handel und Politik, 539-41.

33 MM III, 3-23.

34 Ibid., 17: εφθασαν τά τοιαυτα πάντα παραδοθήνοα τοΐς μοναστηρίοις κοα τοΐς προσώποις, έξ ών άφοαρεθέντοί τοΐς Πισσαίοις παρεδόθησαν.

35 MM III, 18-23. It is worth noting that Pisa apparently owned, obviously already before 1182, four skalai instead of one skala mentioned in the chrysobulls of 1111 and 1170: MM III, 21-2. On the number of skalai owned by the Pisans in 1192, cf.Magdalino, , Constantinople médiévale (as in n. 8), 86 Google Scholar.

36 Cf. MM III, 16.

37 MM III, 4, 8-9, 17-8.

38 MM III, 16-7, 23.

39 Ibid., 18.

40 Ibid., 18, 19, 20, 22.

41 Magdalino, , Constantinople médiévale (as in n. 8), 86 Google Scholar.

42 This was done in implementation of an agreement with Byzantium dating from 1155: Sanguineti and Bertolotto, Nuova serie, 343-5; cf.Balard, M., La Romanie génoise (xIIe - début du XVe siècle), 2 vols, (Rome 1978) 22-5Google Scholar, 106-8; Lilie, , Handel und Politik (as in n. 5), 456 Google Scholar.

43 Sanguineti and Bertolotto, Nuova serie, 366-7; cf. Balard, La Romanie génoise, 108.

44 Sanguineti and Bertolotto, Nuova serie, 421-3.

45 Sanguineti and Bertolotto, Nuova serie, 364–6.

46 Ibid., 413-33.

47 Ibid., 434-44.

48 In particular, ibid., 420.

49 Ibid., 420: ούδε ή κατοχή κοα νομή τών άνοίγεγραμμένων παραλίων σκαλών κα\ των οίκημάτων κοΛ τοΰ έμβόλου και θίύτοΰ τοΰ οϊκου τοδ Βοτανειάτου άφαιρεθήσονται έξ αύτών, ώς τής βασιλείας μου κατά τήν δοθεΐσαν αύτή εννομον έξουσίαν άφοαρουμένης τα τοιαϋτα πάντα άπο τών κατεχόντων αύτά και δωρουμένης τφ κοινφ τής Γενούας διά το συμφέρον ксх\ χρήσιμον τή Ρωμανία.

50 Sanguineti and Bertolotto, Nuova serie, 420: τών άφαιρεθέντων ταϋτα το ΐκανον σχεΐν μελλόντων άπο τοΰ δημοσίου, καν μή σχώσι δέ, μή κατά τών Γενουϊτων όφειλόντων ένάγειν, άλλά κατά τοδ δημοσίου αύτου έντος τοΰ νενομισμένου καιροΰ’ κάν μεν τύχωσιν άντισηκώσεως, εχειν το ίκανον διά τοδ δοθέντος, καν μή τύχωσι δέ, στέργειν ώς τής βασιλείας μου έπ’ άδείας έκ τών νόμων έχούσης έν είδήσει δωρεΐσθοα κοά τά άλλότρια κοΛ οϋτω δωρουμένης τά τοιαΰτα τω τής Γενούας πληρώματι. Cf. MM III, 18.

51 Cf.Smyrlis, K., ‘The state, the land and private property. Confiscating monastic and church properties in the Palaiologan period’, in Angelov, D. (ed.), Church and society in late Byzantium (Kalamazoo 2009) 58-99Google Scholar.

52 Triantaphyllopoulos, K., ‘Die Novelle 56 Leos des Weisen und ein Streit über das Meeresufer im 11. Jahrhundert’, in Festschrift Paul Koschaker (Weimar 1939; repr. Leipzig 1977) 323 Google Scholar; Cf.Diomedes, A., ‘Πηγή KOU εκτασις τής αύτοκρατορικής έξουσίας είς то Βυζάντιον’, Byzantina-Metabyzantina 1/2 (1949) 57 Google Scholar.

53 Basilicorum libri LX, ed. Scheltema, H. J. and Van der Wal, N. (Groningen 1953-1988), B. 50 Google Scholar. 13. 2: #μηδε δύνασθαι κατά τών άγοραστών τών εΐρημένων πραγμόίτων ... ή κατ’ έκείνων, οίστισι περΐ τών τοιούτων πραγμάτων φιλοτιμία ήμετερα κατηνέχθη ... άγωγάς έπ\ έκδικήσει δεσποτείας ... κινεΐσθοα’ παρεχομενης τοίς βουλομένοις άδείας εϊσω τεσσάρων ένιαυτών κατάτών θείων θησαυρών ... άγωγάς ... έκγυμνοίζειν.

54 This was not the first time a Byzantine emperor misinterpreted ancient law in order to seize private properties. According to Attaleiates (277-8), the emperor Michael VII (1071-1078) confiscated the skalai of Constantinople and its surroundings by presenting old and obsolete pretexts. It has been suggested that these ‘pretexts’ referred to the novels of Justinian concerning the seashore, which Michael VII used, both correctly and wrongly, to achieve his aims (Triantaphyllopoulos, op. cit., esp. 318).

55 Sanguineti and Bertolotto, Nuova serie, 475-99.

56 This phenomenon clearly reflects the property pattern of the particular area. It was not only the dispossessed owners that were predominantly monastic. The neighbours too of the Italian concessions were for the most part monasteries or churches; cf.Magdalino, , Constantinople médiévale (as in n. 8), 83 Google Scholar.

57 Magdalino, ‘Maritime neighborhoods’ (as in n. 8), 222-3.

58 See Smyrlis, ‘The state, the land and private property’ (as in. n. 51), esp. 76-77.

59 The inclusion of a clause of guaranty in the chrysobull of 1189, which stipulated the transfer of the German and French quarters to the Venetians, may also be seen as in indication that the owners dispossessed in favour of the Germans and the French had not been compensated.

60 Cf. Smyrlis, ‘The state, the land and private property’, 65.

61 Skylitzes, Ioannes, Synopsis historiarum, ed. Thurn, H. (Berlin 1973) 340 Google Scholar.

62 Oikonomides, N., ‘The role of the Byzantine state in the economy’, in EHB, 992, 1006 Google Scholar.

63 Attaleiates, ed. Bekker, 60-1; ed. Pérez Martín, 47-8; cf.Psellos, Michel, Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976-1077), ed. Renauld, E. (Paris 1926), II, 120 Google Scholar.

64 These confiscations are documented by the archives of several Athonite monasteries and by the letters of Theophylact of Ochrid; see Actes d’lviron II, ed. Lefort, J., Oikonomidès, N., Papachryssanthou, D. (Paris 1990), 28-9Google Scholar; J. Lefort, ‘The rural economy, seventh-twelfth centuries’, in EHB, 288; Harvey, A., ‘The land and taxation in the reign of Alexios I Komnenos: The evidence of Theophylact of Ochrid’, REB 51 (1993) 150-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On epibole, see most recently Oikonomidès, Fiscalité (as in n. 3), 56-61.

65 Actes d’lviron II, 29.

66 Oikonomidès, ‘The role of the Byzantine state’, 1039 ff. Alexios I was not the first emperor to grant land to state servants, soldiers in particular. Cf. the remarks of Nikos Oikonomidès concerning Leon Kephalas (ibidem, 1041) and of Paul Magdalino on foreign mercenaries in the 11th c: ‘The Byzantine army and the land: From stratiotikon ktema to military pronoia’, in Byzantium at War: 9th - 12th c. (Athens 1997) 26-32. Cf. also the case of the land grants to Armenian princes in eastern and central Anatolia during the 10th and 11th c: Howard-Johnston, J. D., ‘Crown lands and the defence of imperial authority in the tenth and eleventh centuries’, BF 21 (1995) 94-7Google Scholar.

67 When the documents mention the properties’ revenue they speak of rent (two types of rent are mentioned: enoikion and emphyteuma); they also use the generic term ‘income’ (eisodos) which clearly refers to rent. It is probable that not all properties were rented out, especially the skalai from which the beneficiaries would collect dues paid on transactions taking place there; on the revenues of these establishments, see Magdalino, P., ‘The grain supply of Constantinople, ninth-twelfth centuries’, in Mango, C. and Dagron, G. (eds.) Constantinople Continue and its Hinterland (Cambridge 1995) 42-3Google Scholar. Interestingly none of our documents mentions any fiscal exemption in relation to the properties ceded to the Italians, which means that the taxes would continue to be paid.

68 According to Oikonomides, land grants were initially perpetual, as in the case of the donations to Leon Kephalas; by the 12th c. however the grants — pronoiai — had been limited to the life-time of the beneficiaries: ‘The role of the Byzantine state’, 1039-43.

69 Smyrlis, ‘The state, the land and private property’, 64.

70 Laiou, ‘The emperor’s word’ (as in n. 6).

71 There is, however, a case of a monastic estate that was seized by the state, possibly in order to be given to a soldier: Actes de Lavra I, ed. Lemerle, P., Guillou, A., Svoronos, N. (Paris 1970) no. 56 Google Scholar (1104), apparatus; cf. Oikonomides, ‘The role of the Byzantine state’, 1043.