Closing Note
In the reign of Tzimiskes, which existed between that of Nikephoros and Basileios, no novel was issued to regulate the “development of large estate”, which former emperors had been concerned about.
However, it seems that this “lack”, which Ostrogorsky pointed out, was compensated for in a different sense by a consistent administrative measure found in the two documents (Ostrogorsky, Paysennerie , p.15-16; Lemerle, Agrarian History, p.154-155; Watanabe, “Some Observations on Byzantine Peasants,” p. 326-7). However, the history of the Polygyros and its assets, which were transferred into the Iviron property, suggests the fate of the monasteries, which expanded in Byzantine society after the tenth century. It could be assumed this was an example of donation by a mid-sized asset owner, who could not be categorized as a small landowner. However, these lands were not small, so therefore, they were left as continual and perpetual donations in the future. The question is that of the possibility of people’s philanthropic behavior, of which no record was left. These behaviors should not be considered as donations according to the novels issued in 964 and 996. It would not be surprising that they were charged by state officials.
How did large monasteries such as the Iviron increase their assets? What were the motivations for establishing the Byzantine monasteries, which were generally established by ordinary people? Moreover, what fate did the mid-sized religious facilities and noble people’s assets meet that may have been contrary to the principles of their proprietors? The cases and the facts described above are still providing interesting information about the Byzantine tax and financial system beyond the specific social category of the monastery.
