Charistic

Charistic ( Greek χαριστικός - gift, granted ) - transfer to a secular person for a certain period of time ^[1] in the administration of church property. This primarily applies to monasteries , their land holdings and other income. Thus, charismatic - conditional ownership, rent . This institute has been known since the end of the 10th century and was introduced to increase the efficiency of church economy ^{[2] [3]} . The most widespread in Byzantium in the XI-XII centuries. The initiator of the transfer of the monastery to the charisma was not only secular authorities, but also patriarchs , bishops and abbots . Benefit was an analogue of charisma in the West ^[4] .

The charistikar (the recipient of charisma, Greek χαριστικάριος ) ran a monastery farm with the right to appropriate part of the income. His rights and obligations in relation to the monastery were similar to the rights and obligations of the clerk ^[5] . According to the secular authorities themselves, charisma did considerable harm to the monastery economy ^[6] . There are known cases of alienation of the land ownership of the monastery by charisma in their favor ^[7] . Moreover, the charistikar received the opportunity to intervene in the internal life of the monastery, to influence the admission of new monasticists to the monastery, to intervene in disciplinary matters ^[8] . In the 11th – 12th centuries, the church made attempts to limit and streamline the distribution of the charists, but these measures did not reach their goal. One such attempt was made by Patriarch Sisinius II (995–998), but neither the church nor the emperor supported him in this ^[9] . The decree of the Council of 1027 prohibits the sale or transfer of charisma to another person. The distribution of the charists was limited to a council decision of 1071 . The council decided to allow the transfer of auturgies ^[10] (τα αυτουργια) only to clergy and peasants ^[11] . However, soon (under Patriarch Nicholas III ), documents again appear to complain about the actions of the charists. The Cathedral of 1107 decided to expel worthless charistikarians from church lands, but to give them the opportunity to fulfill the requirements imposed on them when concluding the contract. In this case, the charistikar can remain on church land. The Cathedral insists on a short-term lease and decides to terminate transactions concluded for more than 20 years with the right to extend the contract or for 27 years ^[12] . The cathedral, which took place under the patriarch Luke Chryserger in 1163, confirmed the limitations of the cathedral in 1107.

By decree of Emperor Manuel I , it was determined that if the recipient of the charisma did not belong to the senatorial or military estate, that is, to persons serving the state ^[13], then the charismatic can be taken to the treasury ^[14] .

According to Gennady Litavrin , the initiative to transfer the monastery to charisma from the side of bishops and abbots is explained by an attempt to protect the monastery property from plunder, giving it to a reliable person for protection ^[15] . So, the typical of the monastery of St. Mamant directly reports that the monastery suffered "from the patriarch and other wolves." Desiring to rebuild the monastery, a certain George Kappodakiyets made efforts to return the stolen lands and obtained the patriarch’s recognition of the monastery as independent ^[16] .

On the other hand, there are cases when, wanting to protect “their” economy from church authorities, monasteries insisted on the lack of accountability of the patriarchate in their economic activities. In 1096, Emperor Alexei I received a complaint from the great sacellaria of the church of St. Sophia. The emperor’s decree following the complaint prohibited the patriarchy’s officials from visiting such monasteries ^[17] .

The Institute of Charisma had both its defenders and opponents. Eustathius of Solunsky , insisted on the need for subordination of monasteries to secular authorities. According to the saint, since the ideal of monastic life is non-covetousness , and worries about material support distract the monk from his immediate activities, the best way would be to transfer these worries to the archon . The saint writes about the secularization of monasticism, about the love of money of monks. Against the distribution of monastic lands, the patriarch of Antioch, John Ochit , spoke out, who claimed that such practice destroys monasticism, and secular concerns come to the monastery. The charistikar appropriates not only land, but also temples, and turns monks into slaves, says the Patriarch of Antioch ^[18] .