International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Toni Filiposki
University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius”, Faculty of Philosophy, 
Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; 
[e-mail] 
The Dispute between Theophylact, the Archbishop of Ohrid, 
and the Paroikos Lazar: An Example of “State Interventionism” during 
Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos’ Reign (1081‒1118)
Alexios I Komnenos is one of the greatest Byzantine emperors. His reign was marked by highly 
tumultuous events and challenges as much from a military and political as from a social and economic 
point of view. In order to cope with the numerous and serious military challenges, the Byzantine 
emperor was forced to carry out military and fiscal reforms. In that context, he strengthened and 
centralized fiscal powers and institutions and, to help his army recover, put into effect a new system 
called pronoia. As a result, state taxes were notably raised; the powers of tax officers (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 Lazar 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 

---

538
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 Lazar’s grudge was in fact 
spurred and fully taken advantage of by the state’s tax officers. Through the case of Lazar, 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.