La législation de Zénon et Anastase concernant l’église et les monastères

Abstract

After the granting of permission for Christian worship, it appeared essential to take legislative measures concerning this worship and its clergy. The same thing happened when hermitages and monasteries began to multiply. Zeno and Anastasios are therefore part of a long tradition and their production is comparatively small. The legislation of these two emperors is in line with the Council of Chalcedon (451), which is above all a disciplinary council, and subsequent legislation is concerned with its observance. It constitutes above all the decrees for the application of the conciliar canons. In general, imperial legislation is not hostile to monks, who benefit from a number of protections granted to members of the clergy. However, most monks are not clerics, and therefore not subject ex officio to the bishops. And their activity must be regulated. Zeno or Anastasios ordered that no one should be in charge of two monasteries. It is up to the bishop of the territory where they are located to take care of them. Each monastery shall have its own higoumen; the bishop shall be responsible for the appointment and acts of the higoumen, the latter for the acts of the monks. Zeno was concerned to keep control of the ecclesiastical circumscriptions and to maintain the principle that there is one bishop per city and one city per bishop. The problem of money and wealth is underlying in many cases and the holders of ecclesiastical positions tend to force the faithful to continually provide offerings. A Zeno or Anastasios law attempts to limit this abuse. Our two emperors deal with ecclesiastical wealth, which is constantly increasing and remains inalienable, which does not facilitate management. The ecclesiastical property is not limited to that of the cathedral church; there are also the pious foundations, for which we have a law of Zeno or more probably of Anastasos, in application of canon 8 of Chalcedon. The law confirms what concerns the Great Church in the capital, but looks at charitable institutions, and is valid for the entire Empire. Many ecclesiastical institutions preferred to dispose of real estate rather than to spend their movable property. In fact, it is the general situation, and in particular the multiplication of uncultivated and nevertheless imposed goods, that makes these procedures of alienation unavoidable ; ecclesiastical establishments do not escape the general economic conditions, marked in particular by oliganthropy that makes it difficult to maintain the rural workforce, even if it is made up of registered settlers.