1. Twitchett, D.C., Financial Administration under the T’ang Dynasty (Cambridge ² 1970) 1–48 Google Scholar.

2. Bosworth, C.E., ‘Abu ’Abdallah al-Khwarazami on the Technical Terms of the Secretary’s Art: A Contribution to the Administrative History of Mediaeval Islam’, Journal of the Economic and social history of the Orient 12.2 (1969) 113–164 Google Scholar; 120-121. Lewis, B., ‘Daftar’, in Encyclopedia of Islam, CD-ROM Edition (Leiden 1999) II 77 Google Scholar. Cahen, C. ‘Kanun’, in Encyclopedia of Islam, IV 556 Google Scholar.

3. That wealth extraction by the state in the form of taxation continued to outweigh private extraction in the form of rent or tribute, is pivotal for Haldon’s analysis of Byzantine society: ‘until the eleventh century at least, the transformed structures of the ancient state provided the dominant structures of the Byzantine social formation’. Haldon, J., Byzantium in the seventh century (Cambridge ² 1997) 455–458 Google Scholar. The importance of this continuity for the empire is succinctly explained by Whittow, M., The making of Byzantium 600-1025 (Berkeley 1996) 104-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more general description of Byzantine society as characterized and formed by formal state structures see Jacoby, David, ‘The encounter of two societies: western conquerors and Byzantines in the Peloponnesus after the fourth crusade’, American Historical Review 78 (1973) 875–880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted as Recherches sur la Méditerranée orientale du XIIe au XVe siècle (London 1979).

4. Kazhdan, A., ‘Taxation’, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. Kazhdan, A. et.al. (Oxford 1992) 2015-17Google Scholar. In the Marcian Treatise on taxation the official registering land is called the epoptes and the one collecting the taxes is the dioiketes. See Dölger, F., Beiträge zue Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung (Leipzig-Berlin 1927) 116 Google Scholar, 122 (hereafter Dölger, Beiträge). On Byzantine fiscal history see Oikonomidès, N., Fiscalité et exemption fiscale à Byzance (IXe-XIe s.) (Athens 1996) 24–41 Google Scholar (hereafter Oikonomidès, Fiscalité.

5. On tax relief, sympatheia, see the Marcián Treatise, ed. Dölger, Beiträge, 118-20; Kaplan, M., Les hommes et la terre à Byzance due VIe au XIe siècle (Paris 1992) 339–408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Both salaried officials and tax farmers ‘are attested throughout Byzantine history, but tax farming became very frequent after the middle of the eleventh century, when the generic term praktor (or energon, “manager”) came to designate the tax collector’ — N. Oikonomidès, ‘Tax Collectors’, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 2017-18. The state’s interest lay in extracting the maximum amount of revenue possible without damaging the tax base. This would lead the government to avoid tax farming whenever possible. That tax farmers are attested at times shows that the fiscal bureau was not always able to function with maximum efficiency.

7. The documents are late seventh- and eighth-century household registers from Tunhuang and Turfan discovered at the turn of the 20th century. The household registers, recording all members of each family and all lands in their possession, were the basis of the census and the ‘chün-t’ien’ (or ‘fair-field’) land-tenure system: Twitchett, Financial Administration under the T’ang Dynasty, 5-7.

8. Sympatheia tax reductions are recorded in a number of documents including document 30 in Actes d’Iviron I, ed. Lefort, J., Oikonomidès, N., Papachryssanthou, D., Kravari, V., Métrévéli, H. (Paris 1985) 262–270 Google Scholar, hereafter Iviron 30; and the Cadaster of Thebes: Svoronos, Nicholas, Recherches sur le cadastre byzantin et la fiscalité aux XIe et XIIe siècles: le cadastre de Thèbes (Athens 1959)Google Scholar (also in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 83 (1959) 1-166; reprinted in Svoronos, N., Etudes sur l’organisation intérieure la société et l’économie de l’Empire Byzantin [London 1973])Google Scholar, (hereafter Svoronos, Recherches). The text of the Cadaster is on pages 11-19. In referring to it, I use the numbers Svoronos established for each section entry.

9. The document does not reflect the reforms instituted by Alexios Komnenos in the early twelfth century known as the Palaia kai nea logariki. Titulature and prosopography date it to the eleventh century: Svoronos, Recherches, 66-77. On the Palaia kai nea logariki, see Hendy, M., Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire (Washington, D.C. 1969) 50–64 Google Scholar.

10. Oikonomidès describes the major sources in Fiscalité, 42-46; Svoronos, Recherches, 57-63; Oikonomidès, , ‘L’évolution de l’organisation administrative de l’Empire byzantin au XIe siècle’, TM 6 (1976) 125-52Google Scholar. Much of our understanding of the fiscal system comes from the Marcián Treatise that describes a system of taxation in which all land was registered in geographic order. Edition and commentary in Dölger, Beiträge; English translation and commentary Neville, L., ‘Local provincial elites in eleventh-century Hellas and Péloponnèse’ (PhD dissertation, Princeton University 1998) 118–160 Google Scholar. Brand, C. ‘Two Byzantine Treatises on Taxation’, Traditio 25 (1969) 35–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. M. Bartusis, ‘Kodix’, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 1135. Svoronos, Recherches, 57-63. Oikonomidès, Fiscalité, 31-34. The term cadaster seems to owe its popularity to the work of Franz Dölger, who in analyzing the Marcian Treatise associated the Byzantine land registers with that term: Beiträge, 97 note 1.

12. The two documents closest in form to the Cadaster of Thebes are Iviron 30, called a ‘μετεγράφη’, and document 48 also from Actes of Iviron 183-188 (hereafter Iviron 48). Other documents containing shorter examples of work done by fiscal administrators include document 39 of Actes de Lavra, ed. Lemerle, P., Guillou, A., Svoronos, N., Papachryssanthou, D. (Paris 1970) 219–223 Google Scholar (hereafter Lavra 39) and document 5 from Actes d’Esphigménou, ed. Lefort, J. (Paris 1973) 54–58 Google Scholar. Iviron 48 is especially valuable because the village Radolibos passed into the privte ownership of the Pakourianos family who in turn gave it to Iviron. There is a total of five documents pertaining to this area that together provide a fairly detailed view of the fiscal history of one district: Lefort, J., ‘Le Cadastre de Radolibos’, TM 8 (1981) 269–313 Google Scholar.

13. See note 10 above.

14. Svoronos, Recherches, 46-48.

15. Svoronos, Recherches, heading Vb: Ύδρόμυλ(ος) Κορυφάλτ(η) κείμενο(ς) πλη(σίον) ε’κ τ(ον) Άγ(ίον) Λουκάν.

16. Svoronos, Recherches, section Ic. This follows the standard formula of a boundary description, periorismos. Boundary descriptions are common in various types of documents surviving in monastic archives. For a typical example see document 2 lines 30-35 in Actes d’Esphigménou, ed. Lefort, J. (Paris 1973) 43–46 Google Scholar. A. Harvey interprets all areas which do not open with a detailed boundary description as related to the ‘preceding fiscal unit’, but having become detached from it as klasma and re-enrolled. This would mean that nearly everything in our text had been detached and subsequently re-entered cultivation: Harvey, A., Economic expansion in the Byzantine empire, 900-1200 (Cambridge 1989) 59 Google Scholar.

17. Svoronos, Recherches, section IId: Ύδρόμυλ(ος) κτησθ(έις) ε’ις τ(ο) χω(ρίον) Κεράμια άποστασθ(ε\ς) συν κηπ(ω) καθώς περιορίσθ(η) διακρατιθής διά σχολλ(α)ρ(ίου) (?) διακατόχου σύν τόπ(ου) λεγομενου Γραδία ανω άπο τ(οΰ) ποτ(αμοβ) του μεγάλ(ου) μέχρι της Κεραυνίτζ(ας). Heading IIIa also appears to contain incomplete remnants of boundary descriptions.

18. Iviron 30.3

19. Iviron 48.2-12. Lavra 39 contains an excerpt of one entry from the fiscal register. It does not record a full boundary description but defines the property taxed: ‘Ev т[ѓј θεί]α δθοι)κή(σει) Θεσσαλον(ίκη) ένορία Έρισου κεφάλαιον δεΰτερον μετόχ(ιον) топ Σ(ωτη)ρ(ο)ς της μονής τοθ Καλιουργ(ου)• ύπέρ γης σπορίμίικ) χερσαία[ς κ]ε νομαδιαί(ας) και ορειν(ης) συν και τών εσωθ(εν) топ κ(ά)στρ(ου) ούδαμινών άκινήτων όσπητίων.

20. The section on Tache opens with a statement of tax relief for the village: Σ[υμ]π(ά)6(εια) (νομ.) (ήμίσεως) v” iß” μη”• Χω(ρίον) τοΰ αύτοΰ συνόλ(ου) λεγομένου τοί Ταχη. Διά τ(ών) ύποτ(ε)τ(αγμένων). This is restated in the summary: Σϋμπ(ά)θ(εια) (νομίσματα) α’ (ημισυ) γ” μη”. Και (όμοϋ) ύπερ δημοσίου (νομίσματα) ς” (ημισυ) б ко” . Χ(αράγμα)τ(ος) (νομ’ισματα) δ: section Vf lines 25 and 71.

21. Iviron 30.13.

22. Iviron 48.11-12.

23. Iviron 48.15

24. Iviron 30.14: ‘For John son of Ivan, Theodora his wife from 43/48, sympatheia inspector Thomas’. Prior to the sympatheia tax relief given by Thomas, John would have paid 43/48ths of a nomisma in tax.

25. document 29 of Actes d’Iviron, 251-261. See, for example line 40: Τόπ(ος) ό λεγόμε(νος) той MccpravIoű], κείμε(νοίΓ) ύπο τ(ον) Χάλι(κα), [συν τ]ώ(ν) χωραφίων (και) άμπ(ελίων)• δ(ιά) ftļC μο(νής) τών Ίβήρων, (νομίσματος) tß”.

26. Svoronos, Recherches, entry Ia3 ‘For Philippos son of Agallianos. On part of the holding of the heirs of Komes Theodore; that is John Nicholas children of Melitinos. ¼ nomisma’. For analysis of the abbreviations and paleography see Svoronos, Recherches, 3-7.

27. Svoronos, Recherches, entry Va1: ‘For Widow Politiane from village of Pholetos, mother-in-law of George Rhoslinos. On part of the holding of Niketas son of Augoustinos, that is of basilikos kouratoros Leobachos, spatharokandidatos Theodoras Leobachos and protospatharios Leo Baklikos; that is daughter of protospatharios John, Nicholas brother of Theodore Leobachos, protokagkellarios Symeon, archontos Thomas; On Platonos Arkopode and Kyriakos from village of Petra, Ireneos Zyliske, protospatharios John Leobachos, protospatharios Theoktistos Bakleka. On holding of Leobachos: 1/8 + 1/48 of a nomisma’.

28. Neville, L., ‘The Marcián Treatise and the Nature of Bureaucracy in Byzantium’, BF 26 (2000), 55–57 Google Scholar.

29. Lefort, J. et.al., Actes d’Iviron II, 184 Google Scholar.

30. Svoronos, Recherches, 7-10.

31. Bartusis, M., ‘Praktikon’, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 1171. Oikonomidès, Fiscalité 61–66 Google Scholar; Laiou, A., Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire (Princeton 1977)Google Scholar.

32. On the paroikoi, see Kaplan, M., Les Hommes et la terre à Byzance du VIe au XIe siècle: Propriété et exploitation du sol (Paris 1992) 264–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. The dossier and the fiscal history of Radolibos is described by Lefort, J., ‘Le Cadastre de Radolibos (1103), les géomètres et leurs mathématiques’, TM 9 (1981) 269–313 Google Scholar. Document 53 in Actes d’Iviron II, 248-283 (hereafter Iviron 53). At the time this document was created, all of the land recorded had passed from the hands of the nun Maria, formerly Kale Pakourianos, to the monastery of Iviron. The document seems to have been copied from the state’s fiscal register in order to give Iviron accurate and authoritative documentation of what it had acquired.

34. J. Lefort, ‘Le Cadastre de Radolibos (1103), les géomètres et leurs mathématiques, 273.

35. Iviron 53; lines 103-108: ‘Holding of Stephen Katadotou: farmland near Nicholas Zoros, length 3 schoinia, width 2, 3 modioi five liters. Farmland near the same, length 5 schoinia, width 2, six modioi five liters. Farmland near Symeon, length 3 schoinia 8 orguia, width 1, eight orguia, 3 modioi, 17 liters. Farmland near the lordly plantation, length 2 schoinia, width 1, 8 orguia, 1 modios 32 liters. Farmland near the same, length 2 schoinia 5 orguia, width 6 orguia, 1 modios 6 liters. Farmland in the Chersampela near John, length 3 schoinia, width 1, 8 orguia, 2 modioi 35 liters. Farmland near the brother of Kometos in Vrychota, length 2 schoinia 2 orguia, width 1, 4 orguia, 1 modioi, 26 liters. Farmland near the same, Eusothyrin, length 2 schoinia 4 orguia, width 1, 4 orguia, 29 liters. Farmland in Brimitzan near the monk Basil, length 2 schoini, width 1, 1 modioi 5 liters. Altogether 23 modioi’.

36. Not ‘[taxes] for Stephen’ but ‘holding of Stephen’.

37. The manner of recording lengths and widths of fields is similar to the Praktikon of Athens ed. Granstrem, E., Medvedev, I. and Papachryssanthou, D., ‘Fragment d’un praktikon de la région d’Athènes (avant 1204)’, REB 34 (1976) 5–44 Google Scholar. For example “Ετ(ε)ρ(ον), άνατ(ο)λ(ήν) τήν όδόν, όργ(υίας) 0” (ήμισείαν), [δυ(σιν)] τ(ον) Πεπων(αν), όργ(υίας) ε’, αρκτ(ον) τήν μον(ήν) τον άγθου) Θεοδ(ώ)ρ(ου), με(σημβ)ρ(ίαν) τάΐδ(ια), άνά όργ(υίας) κ’, λ(ιτρών) ιθ’, έλ(αΤαι) ή (line 15-16). Like the Cadaster of Thebes, this document seems to have been preserved accidentally. It was used as bookbinding material.

38. Svoronos, Recherches, entry Ia3.

39. Iviron 30.14.

40. Iviron 30.28.

41. Iviron 30.

42. Svoronos, Recherches, Vb2: Διά Ε’ιρηνέ(ου) σπα6(αρο)κανδιδάτου• ήτ(οι) τών κληρονόμ(ων) Είρ(ην)έ(ου) σπαθ(αρο)κα(νδιδάτου), τελ(ουμενον) (νομ). Iv” 1 ιβ” Ml”. Λέοντ(ος) Καθαριομανδ(ΰ)λ(η), Λέοντ(ος) γαμβροϋ топ Φιλάγρη, τελ(οΰμενον) (νομ). ς” κδ” (νομ). δ” κδ” μη”.

43. Svoronos, Recherches, IIcI: Διά τών κληρονόμ(ων) Στρατηγ(ίου) κόμιτ(ος) τ(ής) κόρτ(ης). [‘Τπερ μέρους στάσεως] τών κλ(ηρ)(ον)(όμων) Δημοχ(ά)ρ(0’ ητ(οι) Θ(εο)δώ(ρου) (πρωτοΧσπαΧθ(α)ρ(ίου) του Καρμα(λίκΧη), Ίωάννου του Πακουδάτ(ου), Στεφά(νου) (πρωτοΧσπαΧΧα)ρ(ίου) (και) Στρατην(ίου) Ικόμιτος κόρτηςΐ, Συμε(ών) υ’ιου Πόθ(ου) σπαθ(αρο)κο(νδιδάτου)’ ο’ι κλ(ηρΧονΧόμοι) του [Λΐαν(οΟ) ‘Ρενδ(ακίου)• (πρωτοΧσπαΧΧά)ρ(ιο) ó Εύριπ(ιώ)τ(ης).

Vfl2: Διά τών κληρονόμ(ων) Στρατ(η)ν(ίου) ΙκόμητοςΙ τ(ης) κόρτ(ης). Ύπερ μυ’ρ(ας) Ίωάννου дато στάσει>κ όμ(οίως)• ήτ(οι) Θ(εο)δώ(ρου) (πρωτο) (σπα)θ(ούρ(ίου) τοϋ Καρμα(λίκΧη), Ίωάννου τοϋ Πάρδ(οο), Στεφά(νου) (πρωτο)(σπα)θ(α)ρ(ίου), Στρατηγ(ίου) [κόμιτος κόρτης, Συ]με(ών) υ’ιου Πόθ(ου) σπαθ(αρο)κα(νδιδάτου)• και ο’ι κληρονόμ(οι) του Λαγοί ‘Ρενδακίοιτ (Πρωτο)(σπα)θ(ά)ριος ό Εύριπιώτ(ης). (νομ). (ήμισυ) γ”.

Svoronos supplied ‘komitos kortes’ in entry IIc1 to make it match the parallel list in Vf12. For his explanation of the textual corrections see Svoronos, Recherches, 37 note 2. If Strategios’ heir was also named Strategios and also achieved the same rank, then we could not determine that change in generations.

44. I take it as more likely that he was the current payer in both cases, but the reading is of course ambiguous. Svoronos, Recherches, IVa1: Διά Λέοντος [тоС] λεγομέν(ου) Χουλίου dorò χω(ρίου) Άνύσου τοϋ λεγομένου MojpoXéovr(oç)• ητ(οι) Κυρι(ακοϋ) топ Λαλουμάρι. ύπερ στάσεως πατρικής αύτ(οϋ).

Vf10: Διά Λέοντ(ος) έπιλεγομένορ Κουνούτ(ου) του Μωρ(ο)λέοντ(ος) άπο χω(ρίου) Άνΰσου. Ύπερ μΰρ(ας) άπο στάσεως όμοίως• ή’τ(οι) Συμε(ών) έγγόνου Γ(έ)ρ(ον)(τα) (πρωτο)(σπα)θ(α)ρ(ίου) και Καλονα σπαθ(α)ρ(ίου) (και) Κων(σταντίοο), Ίωάννου τοΰ καστενιάΐνουΐΐ. ‘Τπερ στά(σεως) τοΰ Καστενιάνου, τελ(ούμενον) (νομ.) δ” ή’τ(οι) Νι(κολάου) υ’ιου Στεφά(νου) πρ(οέ)δρ(ου) τ(οΟ Κ[αστενιάν]ου. ‘Τπέρ στά(σεως) Ίδί(ας) ούτ(ου). (νομ.) [ς” кб” μη”.] •

45. Svoronos, Recherches, Ia2: Διά Θ(εο)δώ(ρας) χ(ηρας) γυ(ν)(αικ)ο(ς) Πάρδου AéovTOC’ ητοι όμ(οίως). (‘Τπέρ) μέρ(ους) στά(σεως) τών κλ(ηρ)(ον)(όμων) Θ(εο)δώ(ρου•) κ(όμη)τ(ος)• ή’τ(οι) Νικολ(άου), Ίω(άννου) τ(ών) παιδ(ών) στράτ(ο)ρ(ος) τοϋ Μελητ(ινΧοΰ), διοικ(η)τ(ου) τοϋ Μενδ(ακίου). Km ή’τ(οι) όμοί(ως) ύπέρ οτά(σεως) Φιλίππ(ου). (airo) δ” κδ” μη” (νου.) ς μη”.

46. Svoronos divides the list into four groups which had owned land jointly and whose holdings had been gathered together by Sisinos Leobachos. Sisinos Leobachos’ conglomerate was then divided up among the payers in the various entries recorded in our document: Svoronos, Recherches, 41-43.

47. Svoronos, Recherches, Va1, Vf3, Vf5, Vf6, Vfl3.

48. ed. Dölger, Beiträge, 121.28-33; see L. Neville, ‘Local provincial elites’, 153-154.

49. Svoronos, Recherches, Ia1, IA6, IId4, IIf5, Vf8, Vf12, Vf11, Vf9.

50. Svoronos, Recherches, for example IVa1 ‘ύπερ στάσεως πατρικης αύτοΰ’. Also IA4, Vb1, Vf7.

51. Fo example, in four of the five entries in section IIf people are explicitly described as having inherited land from Baanos the notary. The fifth entry lists Διά Πόθ(ου) (μοναχου) durò [τ]ών Νάωνα, ο’ι(κεί) ε’ις T(òv) Ευριπ(ον). (ύπερ) μέρ(ους) б” στά(σεως) όμ(οίως). Here it can be assumed that the ‘similarly’ refers to a quarter of Baanos’ land: Svoronos, Recherches, Vf5.

52. Svoronos was ware of Iviron 30 from Dölger, F., Aus den Schutzkammern des heiligen Berges (Munich 1948)Google Scholar in which it was no. 65.

53. The descriptions and definitions of these forms of entry are explained in Svoronos’ discussion of the technique of transferral: Svoronos, Recherches, 26-32. An entry made in a codex for the first time would take the form of type A1 or A2:

A1: téléstès: Διά N. télos: tant

A2: (toujours après une description ou signalement des fonds), téléstès: Διά Ν.; matière imposable: ύπερ στάσεως (ou partie d’une stase) ‘ібіас ou ύπερ στάσεως d’un tel quand il s’agissait d’un locataire).

In type Al the description of the land is followed by the payer introduced by бш. In type A2 the land has already been described for the group and the entry starts with the payer introduced by διά followed by a definition of the property taxed in the form of ‘ύπερ στάσεως Ίδίας’ or ‘ύπερ στάσεως’ of someone.

If in the course of revising a register, the inspector noted the new payer for an entry, the notation would take the form of type B:

B1: Διά N. ó N1 (ou ητοι N1 ou vßv διά N1).

B2: Διά N. ύπέρ στάσεωζ Ίδίας (ou d’un tel). Télos: nom. tant; ό N1 (ou ήτοι N1).

B3: Διά Ν, ήτοι N1. ό N2 (ou ή’τοι N1 ήτοι N2).

In these entries, just as in the Iviron document, the person introduced by ήτοι is the heir of the original taxpayer, type B3 shows an entry of type B that has been through two or more revisions or changes in ownership. There are no examples of B3 in the text. How is the ‘Διά N.: ύπερ στάσεακ; of someone’ in B2 different from A2? In A2 the ‘ύπέρ στάσεως of someone’ refers to a tenant. But how are we to know when A2 refers to a tenant? Regarding this problem Svoronos acknowledged that ‘on ne peut pas savoir avec certitude’ (29, note 3).

Category C arises when the order of annotation changed as the entries were re-copied into a new codex:

C1: téléstès: Διά X. matière imposable: ύπερ στάσεως (ou partie d’une stase) de N., etc.

C2: Διά X. ύπερ στάσεως (ou partie d’une stase) de N. ήτοι N1.

C3: Διά X. ύπερ στάσεως (ou partie d’une stase) de N. ή’τοι N1; ή’τοι N2, etc.

C4: Διά X’ ó (ou ήτοι Τ). ύπερ στόσεως (ou partie d’une stase) de N. ή’τοι N1’ ήτοι N2.

C5: Διά X’ ó (ou ήτοι ϊ). ητοι Z (ou ό Z). ύπέρ στάσεως (ou partie d’une stase) de N. ή’τοι Ν1• ή’τοι N2.

C6: Διά X. ύπερ στάσεως de N. ήτοι N1• ητοι N2 ó γ …

When it came time for the inspector to rewrite the entries into a new codex, he would have put the current payer after the δà and moved all of the previous payers into the place for the definition of the property taxed. So the name at the end of the old entry would go to the beginning of the new entry. In form, type C2 is indistinguishable from type B2. The A2 form ‘ύπερ στάσεως of someone’ is in practice indistinguishable from Type C1. The common element in type C centries is that the payer is introduced by Διά and the person from whom he or she got the land is listed after the ύπέρ στασεοχ. There is no difference between these entries and the form of an A2 type. Categories C4-6 are imagined to explain what would happen if the newly revised codex was also subject to annotations as lands continued to be transferred with the passage of time. But the example given for types C4-5 have the same form as type C3 and no examples are listed for type C6.

In practice the formal conclusions of this classification scheme is that the oldest possessor is the one listed first in the description of the taxed property, followed sequentially by all the others listed in that part, followed by the first person listed as the taxpayer, followed sequentially by the others in that list. In the final analysis the taxpayer is the person after διά in all but a few cases.

54. This is consistent with the results of studies of names in the later Praktika. See Lefort, J., ‘Anthroponymie et société villageoise Xe-XIVe siècles’, in Hommes et richesses dans l’empire byzantine. II., ed. Kravari, V., Lefort, J., Morrisson, C. (Paris 1991) 63–82 Google Scholar.

55. Svoronos, Recherches, IId3: Zesleka; Va1: Xyliske; Vf3: Zesme; Vf6: Zesli; Vf8: Zekleka; Vf13: Liniska. In Vf5 the reading is unclear and Svoronos supplies Zeslika. In entry Vf6 the final letters are lost and he supplies the final kappa alpha: ΖήσλιΙκαΙΙ. It is clear that the recorder intended to indicate the same person because he is one in a long list of names that is repeated in these entries.

56. Svoronos, Recherches, IIf3: Σαμουήλ δρουγναρ(ίου) Γέροντ(α), ο’ικεϊ ε’ις Θήβ(ας).

57. Svoronos, Recherches, Ia1, 12f3, IIf3.

58. Chrepou is an alternative name for Euripos: Koder, J. and Hild, F., Hellas und Thessalia (Vienna 1976) 62 Google Scholar.

59. Svoronos, Recherches, IIa1, IIf5: Πόθ(ου) (μοναχοίί) άπο [τ]ών Νάωνα, ο’ι(κεΐ) ε’ις τ(ον) Εύ’ριπ(ον).

60. Svoronos, Recherches: Helen, the widow of Rendakios (IId4), was an Athenian as was Stavrakios, son of the spatharios Theodore (IIf2). In Tache the widow of Photios (Vf1), Leo Gerontas (Vf4) and Theophylact son of Constantine (Vf7), were described as Athenians. Of course, this could just be a description.

61. Svoronos, Recherches, Vf12, IIc.

62. We have some suggestions of this process in the Marcián Treatise, ed. Dölger, Beiträge, 122-3.

63. The total tax due for the thirty-nine surviving entries is 15 nomismata and 132 folles.

64. Oikonomidès, Fiscalité, 33-4.

65. A cycle for re-editing the books is mentioned in the Marcian Treatise. As other fiscal events take place in 30-year periods, it is possible that the re-editing theoretically took place on a 30-year cycle: see Dölger, Beiträge, 116, 120; Svoronos, Recherches, 63-67.

66. Oikonomidès, N., Les listes de préséance byzantines du IXe et Xe siècle (Paris 1972)Google Scholar; Vogt, A., Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des cérémonies, 4 vols. (Paris 1935-40)Google Scholar; Cameron, Av., ‘The Construction of court ritual: the Byzantine book of Cermonies’, in Rituals of royalty: power and ceremonial in traditional societies, ed. Cannadine, D., Price, S. (Cambridge 1987) 106–136 Google Scholar.

67. Oikonomidès, N., ‘Title and income at the Byzantine court’, in Byzantine court culture from 829-1204, ed. Maguire, H. (Washington, D.C. 1997) 199–214 Google Scholar. Lower level officials received their salaries from a subordinate: ibid. 201; Lemerle, P., ‘Roga and rente d’état’, REB 25 (1967) 77–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68. See Kazhdan, A., Epstein, A. Wharton, Change in Byzantine culture in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Berkeley 1985)Google Scholar.