IF 0.1 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES
Toni Filiposki
{"title":"The dispute between Theophylact, the archbishop of Ohrid, and the Paroikos Lazarus: An example of “state interventionism” during Byzantine emperor Alexios i Komnenos’s reign (1081-1118)","authors":"Toni Filiposki","doi":"10.2298/ZRVI1855097F","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Alexios I Komnenos, one of the greatest Byzantine emperors, was forced to carry out military and fiscal reforms. As a result, state taxes were notably raised; the powers of tax officials (praktors) were enhanced; and cases of confiscating Church land and other real estate appeared. These general tendencies during Alexios I’s reign are fully confirmed by the data laid out in several letters that Theophylact, the Archbishop of Ohrid, wrote. We learn from them, among other things, that a paroikos (peasant) named Lazarus launched a dispute before the emperor himself, accusing the archbishop of setting fire to his property and then of expelling him from the village. Theophylact was also accused of generating excessive income and possessing a costly estate, as well as of usurping a village near Ohrid. Over the course of the long-standing legal case, by sending letters to influential state officials, he tried to diminish and rebut the accusations. In his defence, he pointed out that attempts were being made to spread hostility against him both among the residents of Ohrid and across Macedonia. Also, he complained that state taxes were raised enormously. Although at a first glance it appears unusual that an archbishop should become entangled in a serious and prolonged dispute with a paroikos, the situation becomes clearer on learning that Lazarus’s grudge was in fact spurred and fully taken advantage of by the state’s tax officials. Through the case of Lazarus, who was used as their mouthpiece, they, in fact, undermined the ownership and immunity rights and privileges of the Archbishopric. All of that worked in favour of raising the income of the state at the expense of that of the Church. In other words, it appears that through the said dispute some sort of “interventionism” in favour of the state and at the Church’s expense was at work.","PeriodicalId":53859,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","volume":"1 1","pages":"97-106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/ZRVI1855097F","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

拜占庭最伟大的皇帝之一阿历克修斯一世被迫进行军事和财政改革。结果,州税明显提高;加强了税务官员(代理人)的权力;出现了没收教会土地和其他不动产的案件。这些在阿历克修斯一世统治时期的普遍趋势,在奥赫里德大主教Theophylact写的几封信中得到了充分的证实。我们从中得知,一个名叫拉撒路的农民在皇帝面前挑起了一场争端,指控大主教放火烧了他的财产,然后把他赶出了村庄。Theophylact还被指控产生过多的收入,拥有昂贵的庄园,以及篡夺奥赫里德附近的一个村庄。在这场旷日持久的诉讼过程中,他通过写信给有影响力的州官员,试图淡化和反驳这些指控。他在为自己辩护时指出,有人企图在奥赫里德居民和马其顿全境传播对他的敌意。此外,他还抱怨州税大幅提高。虽然乍一看,大主教与教区牧师纠缠在一场严重而旷日持久的纠纷中似乎很不寻常,但当我们了解到拉撒路的怨恨实际上是由国家税务官员激发和充分利用的时候,情况就变得清晰起来。通过拉撒路一案,作为他们的代言人,他们实际上破坏了大主教的所有权、豁免权和特权。所有这些都有利于以牺牲教会收入为代价来提高国家收入。换句话说,通过上述争议,似乎某种“干预主义”以国家和教会为代价在起作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The dispute between Theophylact, the archbishop of Ohrid, and the Paroikos Lazarus: An example of “state interventionism” during Byzantine emperor Alexios i Komnenos’s reign (1081-1118)
Alexios I Komnenos, one of the greatest Byzantine emperors, was forced to carry out military and fiscal reforms. As a result, state taxes were notably raised; the powers of tax officials (praktors) were enhanced; and cases of confiscating Church land and other real estate appeared. These general tendencies during Alexios I’s reign are fully confirmed by the data laid out in several letters that Theophylact, the Archbishop of Ohrid, wrote. We learn from them, among other things, that a paroikos (peasant) named Lazarus launched a dispute before the emperor himself, accusing the archbishop of setting fire to his property and then of expelling him from the village. Theophylact was also accused of generating excessive income and possessing a costly estate, as well as of usurping a village near Ohrid. Over the course of the long-standing legal case, by sending letters to influential state officials, he tried to diminish and rebut the accusations. In his defence, he pointed out that attempts were being made to spread hostility against him both among the residents of Ohrid and across Macedonia. Also, he complained that state taxes were raised enormously. Although at a first glance it appears unusual that an archbishop should become entangled in a serious and prolonged dispute with a paroikos, the situation becomes clearer on learning that Lazarus’s grudge was in fact spurred and fully taken advantage of by the state’s tax officials. Through the case of Lazarus, who was used as their mouthpiece, they, in fact, undermined the ownership and immunity rights and privileges of the Archbishopric. All of that worked in favour of raising the income of the state at the expense of that of the Church. In other words, it appears that through the said dispute some sort of “interventionism” in favour of the state and at the Church’s expense was at work.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta
Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信