The Economic History of Byzantium - Dumbarton Oaks

1002 NICOLAS OIKONOMIDES
than the pakton (for he was partially protected against a poor harvest and did not need
to find cash to pay the rent in money); at the same time, the morte system must have
yielded more to the landlord than did cash rents. In what follows, I consider that for
the middle Byzantine period it is probable that the average yield was 4–5 parts of crop
for each part of seed on high-quality land. 75
Given the above particulars, one can propose the following distribution of the landowner’s
income: on the basis of the Miletos praktikon of 1073, the pakton that the landowner
collected from his tenants corresponded to one-tenth ( 12 ⁄120) ofthe value of the
land he rented to them. This sum was broken down as follows:
2 ⁄120 (approx.): management costs
5 ⁄120: landtax( 1 ⁄24 of the value)
1 ⁄120 (approx.): accretions
4 ⁄120 (approx.): the landowner’s income after tax
It must have been a similar distribution of income that Eustathios Boilas had in mind
when herecorded inhis will (1059) the value of the land he was leaving to his two
daughters and the income that each could expect after the payment of tax: (1) Estate
A—value, 2,160 nomismata (plus grazing ground of unknown value); income, 80 nomismata.
Bearing in mind the form of calculation proposed above, the pakton would have
been 216 nomismata, broken down as follows: 36 nomismata management costs, 90 nomismata
land tax, 13 1 ⁄3 1 ⁄24 nomismata accretions, in accordance with the Palaia Logarike.
This leaves a net pakton of 76 15 ⁄24 nomismata, to which we have to add 3 9 ⁄24 nomismata
from theennomion of the grazing land (not included in our calculation because
the figures are deficient), to reach the 80 nomismata referred to by Boilas. (2) Estate
B—value, 1,440 nomismata; income, 50 nomismata. Using the same formula, the pakton
would have been 144 nomismata, broken down as follows: 24 nomismata management
costs, 60 nomismata land tax, and 10 1 ⁄4 nomismata accretions under the Palaia
Logarike, leaving 49 3 ⁄4 nomismata, which Boilas presumably rounded up to 50. 76
In order to make clear the consequences of land taxation for the average taxpayer,
take the imaginary example of an estate consisting of 360 modioi of first-class land in
western Asia Minor, on which wheat was the sole crop. Such monocultures may not
have existed at that time, but an approach of this kind facilitates the calculations by
eliminating the incalculable income from intensive crops. In any case, the calculations
proposed below are of statistical interest only.
75 This estimate is based on certain data that, although not absolutely certain, seem to offer considerable
verisimilitude. For example, I believe that since the vita of St. Nicholas of Sion relates that by
the intervention of the saint the harvest on a piece of land was five times the seed sown, then a yield
of 1:5 must have been considered high. However, there are other accounts that refer to higher yields
in other areas, leading Lefort (“Rural Economy,” 301) to give a grain yield of 1:5.6. Since we lack any
extensive references in the sources, we are compelled to rely on estimates; there is no way of proving
what the real yield of even one planting of wheat in Byzantium may have been, far less what the
average yield (of interest to us here) was. However, all the calculations we propose are based on assessments
of productivity that may differ, and those differences will have a corresponding effect on
our estimates of the standards of living of villagers.
76 Cf. Oikonomides, Fiscalité, 126–27.