Authority in Byzantine Provincial Society, 950–1100 by Leonora Neville (review)

Abstract

413 Ab Imperio, 4/2005 Archimandrite Pavel STEFANOV Leonora Neville, Authority in Byzantine Provincial Society, 9501100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). xi+210 pp. Appendix, Guide to the Sources, Bibliography, Index. ISBN: 0-52183865 -7. What makes an empire? What are the driving forces and mechanisms that sustain it as a system and, when the level of internal pressure becomes critical, cause its dissipation ? Do all empires subscribe to an identical developmental model or do they follow separate paths? Byzantium, which is the archetypal Christian state, serves as a case study in the present monograph by Leonora Neville, lecturer at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Its temporal scope covers a period of 150 years during the 10th and 11th centuries, a period that witnessed enormous changes. After the acknowledgments, a list of abbreviations and a map, the author sets the scene in a very succinct introduction. One would expect to read here a full-blown discussion of previous historiography, but Neville prefers to deal with it in the course of her narrative, an unusual approach, to say the least. Her sources include treatises, charters, lives of saints, seal inscriptions, etc. She aims to disprove the prevailing view among scholars that Byzantium was a hermetic, inflexible, and overtly sophisticated society steeped in bureaucracy and strongly dominated by central authority. Her opinion is that expressions of political culture should be separated from administrative phenomena in order to understand the problem. Neville contends that the period in question was “a turning point in the administrative history of the Byzantine Empire , in which government through (Рр. 147-150, 157-161). Такой ме- тод, конечно, делает изложение живым и увлекательным для ши- рокого круга читателей. Итак, если относиться к ре- цензируемому изданию не как к монографии, а как к добротному научно-популярному нарративу, то отмеченные недостатки не вли- яют на его просветительское зна- чение. В целом же работа Кинга получилась достаточно типичной для западной историографии и западной манеры писания книги научно-популярного жанра, унас- ледовав все характерные черты последнего, его достоинства и недостатки. 414 Рецензии/Reviews a pseudo-meritocracy of officials gave way to government through the personal relationships of aristocratic kin” (P. 6). Imperial authority was exercised very loosely or was absent altogether in the Byzantine provinces except through military presence and taxation. At the same time emperors prevented ambitious figures from becoming rivals, but when they appeared and tried to win power usually by revolt, no effort was spared to crush the budding opposition. Society was formed and governed by households possessing considerable autonomy. Chapter 1 explores changes in the government administration of Byzantium during the 10th and 11th centuries. Initially they included recovery of territory in the East and its partial conversion into imperial estates, and monetization of the economy accompanied by devaluation of the coinage and increase of the population, but in the second half of the 11th century the situation worsened. Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) implemented reforms that abolished the traditional salaries paid to title-holders, gave them land to subsist on, introduced stricter taxation, and defended the frontiers by largely relying on the loyalty of local potentates. Neville presents the numerous titles, offices , and gifts that were provided to nobles and tied them to the throne. When the political culture of the Komnenoi changed, it became closer to the culture of medieval Western Europe.Alexios bestowed new titles and honors, mainly to the members of his family. This change from a ceremonial culture to a political one did not mean a shift in the manner of government or the number of officials . It is impossible to distinguish closely between Byzantine civil and military aristocracy either. In Chapter 2, Neville poses the question about the preoccupations of imperial authority. In contrast to some attempts to dismiss it as weak and ineffective, Neville argues that this was hardly the case in Byzantium. The empire set itself limited goals that were largely achieved: preservation of territorial integrity, building and refurbishing fortifications, and resettling conquered populations. In exchange, the administration extracted taxes which the population naturally and in many cases successfully resisted. In the early 11th century revenue increased by direct exploitation of imperial estates . But Eastern Anatolia was lost to the Seljuks in the 1070s. Chapter 3 begins by stating that Byzantine terms to describe people and things were not fixed but depended on relationships. Neville posits the literal or metaphorical prevalence of the oikos (household) as a dominant unit in all aspects of Byzantine society. Dynamics of life comprised competition and 415 Ab Imperio, 4/2005 alliances between households. This model, as the author admits, calls “for a change...