Abbot in Dušan’s Code in the Light of Previous Considerations

Abstract

When it comes to Dušan’s Code, abbots are mentioned in this legal document in eight articles—13, 14, 15, 24, 28, 33, 35, and 36. Most of the provisions of these articles have their origins in the Byzantine Vasilikos. In our scientific work, we discussed the election of an abbot, their dismissal, rights, and obligations. Through a comparative analysis of previous research, we explained the similarities and differences that historians and lawyers have identified while studying this issue. By interpreting the aforementioned arti cles of the Code, we pointed out that the abbot was the elder of the monastery, in whose election the patriarch and the emperor participated, along with the monastery brotherhood. During his election, care was taken not only of the candidate’s reputation but also of his ability to supervise the spiritual life of the brothers and to manage the monastery’s property effectively. Furthermore, the appointment of an abbot by bribery was prohibited; anyone who engaged in this practice, or who was appointed in such a manner, should be cursed and deprived not only of his ecclesiastical dignity but also of his entire property. T he abbot’s dignity could also be revoked if he refused to feed poor people in front of his church, as mandated by the church’s founder, who had the right to appoint abbots in charge of their endowments. The abbot’s mandate was for life, and he could be dismissed if he caused damage to the monastery commu nity. More precisely, if the abbot committed a transgression that disqualified him from continuing his duties, and if his guilt was proven, he could be dis missed, a decision made by the monks of the monastery. Conversely, the abbot could also resign but retained the right to continue living in the monastery, to eat at the common table, and to participate in other gatherings. Additionally, abbots could not impose their will in the monastery but were obliged to adhere to the communal life (common table) and agreements with the elders (monks). T hey were also required to respect the strict “Kinovian” way of life, prescribing a routine for each monastery adapted to various peculiarities such as status, size, and number of the brotherhood, and to ensure its proper application. An other obligation of the abbot was to judge his people, i.e., the settlers of church properties, in disputes or lawsuits; however, if the people of two archbishops were tried, then both were tried together. As the elders of the monastery, ab bots had the right to manage and dispose of all monastery property, indicating that they had broad economic powers, which would later be limited according to what was prescribed by the founding charter.