Ktetor’s law in the Byzantine Еmpire

Keywords: ktetor, ktetor’s Law, bishop, typikon, system of rights and privileges, possession, basileus foundation of a monastery, legal status of monasteries, epitrope, successor.


Ukraine, modernizing state institutions, needs an active study of world experience. The logic of administrative reforms involves the analysis of foreign experience of similar transformations. The granting of the Tomos to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the role of the President of Ukraine in this led to increased attention to the regulation of state-church relations. It is no coincidence that we are interested in the legal heritage of Byzantium as an organic component of the global heritage.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the features of the institution of the ktetor in the Byzantine Empire.

The scientific novelty lies in the study and identification of the features of the legal status of patronage in the Byzantine Empire, determining the directions of its development.

The rights and duties of the ktetors were regulated by canons of church councils and Iaw acts, including monasteries typikons, edicts and emperors novellaes.

Justinian continued to develop legal regulation of ktetor’s activity. If in pre-Justinian times these relations were regulated by the Marcian and Valentinian III edict from AD 455  about wills for churches and Zeno edict from AD 470 about wills  for saints, martyrs and angels, in Justinian times only for the period from 530 to 554 there were issued 2 edicts and 5 Novellaes, directly devoted to fundraising, as well as 6 Novellaes, which in some articles commented  Ktetor’s Law.

The legislation established the next ktetor’s rights:

- to carry the honorary title of ktetor;

- to present his clerics to the bishop for dedication to the church or to the monks in the monastery, while the recommendation of the ktetor was optional for the bishop;

- to manage the established institution indirectly, being represented by an administrator.

The ktetor was a plaintiff in the name of established institution and conducted its cases in courts. He received various property and non-property donations, without any right to alienate property. The ktetor regulated the contribution issues in the process of monastery entering, and he was responsible for the admission of new members to the monastery.

Basileus strived to limit the rights of the ktetor as much as possible in favor of the bishop, who had jurisdiction over the monastery. Introduction to the Justinian's 7th Novellae Constitutiones declared the will to stop the attack of private individuals on monasteries property and to restrict the ktetor’s rights on the property of the monasteries they founded. The emergence of the ktetor’s right was associated with the transfer of the thing – after the formal transfer of the ktetor's property for the construction (restoration) and maintenance of the church institution.

Ktetor’s rights were significantly limited by the 67th Justinian's Novellae, having restricted them to the custody of the monastery he founded. The ktetor title was also assigned to those who due to the impossibility to build a new institution, restored the old one. According to Zeno's law, the management of property which was given by will for church needs carried out due to the will of the testator, but in the way prescribed by law. The bishop looked after the ktetor and his successor to ensure the nature of the donation immutability. In case of their attempt to change it he could even remove an administrator or the ktetor. According to Justinian's law, the ktetor stopped managing the donated property by appointment of a manager, who was accountable to the bishop. Justinian imposed episcopal jurisdiction over all consecrated property. According to 67th Justinian’s Novellae, all donated property required an inventory, which was kept by the bishop.

The ktetor determined the heir in his Will and he appointed the administrator of the donated property. In this case, the bishop did not rule, but only monitored the proper management. If the heir delayed the governor appointment according to the will of the testator, the bishop took over the management of the donated property by himself and appointed oikonomos (property manager), afterwards ktetor could not appoint even an abbot without the bishop’s consent. The ktetor’s heir – the epitrope – was obliged to maintain the inherited monastery in accordance with the donor instructions and current legislation. The epitrops could make additions to the monastery typikon only if they were given the right of testamentary dispositions.

The ktetors could bequeath the founded monastery to their children and others. The land ownership assigned to the monastery was also transferred with it. Custody of the monastery stayed after the ktetor until his death. After that it passed to his heir. After the end of the ktetor’s house, the monastery gained independence. Ktetor could transfer a cell or a small monastery to a cleric, monk or large monastery reserving the right to receive certain income. After the ktetor’s death the recipient acquired the right of full ownership and possession of the object.

Conclusions. Development of the ktetor institute in Byzantium has to be noted as an important instrument for protection of monasteries and their founders rights.

Ktetor’s Law is a system of rights and privileges endowed to individuals or legal entities (ktetor) after the foundation (construction) of a monastery. According to some scholars, they were similar to jus patronatus, as they were endowed as a special privilege to the ktetor or founder of an ecclesiastical institution. However, the patronage was mainly not a right but an obligation of the monastery founder in the interests of the Church.


1. Мищак І. М. Трансформація міжнародно-правових норм у сфері свободи совісті та віросповідання в конституційне законодавство України. Конституційні засади модернізації України. К. : Інститут законодавства Верховної Ради України, 2012. С. 303–311.
2. Мищак І. М. Удосконалення конституційного законодавства України у сфері свободи совісті та віросповідання відповідно до міжнародно-правових норм та стандартів. Наукові записки Інституту законодавства Верховної Ради України. 2012. № 4. С. 37–40.
3. Мищак І. М. Дипломатична діяльність УНР щодо визнання автокефалії Української церкви у 1919–1920 роках. Наукові записки Інституту законодавства Верховної Ради України. 2019. № 4. С. 23–30.
4. Morris Rosemary. Symeon the Sanctified and the re-foundation of Xenophon BMGS. Vol. 33. Issue 2 (1 September 2009). P. 133–147.
5. Galariotou Catia. Byzantine ktetorika typika: a comparative study RÉВ. № 45. 1987. Р. 77–138.
6. Каждан А. П. Деревня и город в Византии ІХ – Х вв. Очерки по истории византийского феодализма. М. : Изд-во АН СССР, 1960. 431 с.
7. Сюзюмов М. Я. Город. История Византии. В 3 т. Т. 2 / отв. ред. А. П. Каждан. М. : Наука, 1967. С. 23–33.
8. Морозов М. А. Монастыри средневековой Византии: Хозяйство, социальный и правовой статусы. СПб. : Изд-во СПбГУ, 2005. 174 с.
9. Морозов М. А. Реформа ктиторского права в период правления Юстиниана. Власть, политика, право в античности и средневековье: сб. ст. / отв. ред. Е. П. Глушанин. Барнаул : Изд-во Алт. Ун-та, 2003. С. 84–94.
10. Морозов М. А. Церковная собственность и ктиторство в Византии при императоре Юстиниане. Труды ист. фак. СПбГУ. 2010. № 2. C. 77–87.
11. Троицкиj С. Ктиторскоjе право у Византиjи и у неманичкой Србиjи. Глас Српской Академиjи Наук. 1935. Т. 169. С. 5–54.
12. Ивановић М. «Заборављени» ктитори у средњовековној Србији Иницијал. Часопис за средњовековне студије. № 6 (2018). С. 47–72.
13. Ивановић М. Развој институције имунитета у српској средњовековној држави до краја владавине краља Милутина. Иcторијски часопис. Kњ. LXVI (2017). С. 49–83.
14. Јањић Драгана. Црквена имовина и ктиторска делатност српских владара до друге половине ХVІ века. Црквене студиje, Ниш / Church Studies, Nis. № 11. 2014. С. 334–344.
15. Омельчук В. В. Церква як інструмент правового захисту та соціального забезпечення у Візантійській імперії. Юридична наука. 2014. № 2. С. 67–77.
16. Омельчук В. В. Нормативно-правове забезпечення державно-церковних взаємин у Візантійській імперії. К. : Золоті ворота, 2014. 576 с.
17. Сметанин B. А. О специфике перманентной войны в Византии в 1282–1453 гг. АДСВ. Свердловск, 1973. Вып. 9. С. 89–101.
18. Каждан А. П. Источники История Византии. В 3 т. Т. 3 / отв. ред. Г. Г. Литаврин. М. : Наука, 1967. С. 5–14.
19. Безобразов П. В. Материалы для истории Византийской империи. ЖМНП. Шестое десятилетие. Ч. ССLIV. Ноябрь. 1887. С. 65–78.
20. Арутюнова В. А. К вопросу об «ἄνυρωποι» в «Типике» Григория Пакуриана. ВВ. Т. XХІХ. 1968. С. 63–76.
21. Коноводов И. В. Монастырский флот в системе материального обеспечения византийских монастырей Х–ХІІ вв. Известия Волгогр. гос. пед. ун-та. 2013. № 3 (78). С. 54–58.
22. Соколов И. Атталиат Михаил. ПБЭ. Т. 2. 1901. Стлп. 143–148.
23. Каждан А. П. Византийский монастырь ХІ – ХІІ вв. как социальная группа. ВВ. Т. 31. 1971. С. 48–70.
24. Пентковский А. М. Евергетидский монастырь и императорские монастыри в Константинополе в конце ХІ–ХІІ века. ВВ. Т. 63 (88). М., 2004. С. 76–88.
25. Ath. Typikon: Typikon of Athanasios the Athonite for the Lavra Monastery / trans. George Dennis. DOS. – XXXV: Byzantine monastic foundation Documents. Vol. 1 / ed. by J. Thomas and A. C. Hero. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1998. P. 245–270.
26. Успенский Ф. И. Типик монастыря св. Маманта в Константинополе. Летопись Ист.-филол. общества при Имп. Новороссийском ун-те. 1892. T. 2. Визант. отд. Ч. 1. С. 25–84.
27. Арутюнова-Фиданян В. А. «Повестование о делах армянских» (VІІ в.) и «Типик Григория Пакуриана» (ХІ в.): греческий язык армяно-халкидонитских памятников. Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия ІІІ: Филология. 2014. Вып. 5 (40). С. 9–21.
28. Heliou Bomon: Typikon of Nikephoros Mystikos for the Monastery of the Mother of God ton Heliou Bomon or Elegmon [trans. A. Bandy] DOS. – XXXV: Byzantine monastic foundation Documents. Vol. 1 / ed. by J. Thomas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1998. P. 1042–1092.
29. Ванькова А. Б. «То, что я заповедал, сохраняйте невредимым»: основатель монастыря и сохранение / передача традиции в ранневизантийских монастырях V – VІ вв. Восточная Европа в Древности и Средневековье: мат. конф. (отв. ред. Е. А. Мельникова). М., 2010. C. 39–43.
30. Герд Л. А. «Тактикон» Никона Черногорца как источник по истории харистикариата в Византии. ВВ. Т. 55 (80). Ч. 1. 1994. С. 111–115.
31. Морозов М. А. Мировоззрение пограничной военной знати Византийской империи в ХІ в. на примере Катакалона Кекавмена и Григория Пакуриана История: Мир прошлого в современном освещении: сб. науч. ст. / под ред. А. Ю. Дворниченко. СПб. : Изд-во СПбГУ, 2008. C. 385–397.
32. Бердниковъ И. Канон по его церковно-юридическому смыслу и фактическому составу. Синопсис церковных канонов; их издания; каноны в Западной церкви; практическое значение канонов Вселенской Церкви. ПБЭ. Т. VІІІ. 1907. Стлп. 315–388.
33. Хвостова К. В. Спорные вопросы византийской земельной собственности. ВВ. Т. 64 (89). 2005. С. 3–22.
34. Каждан А. П. Государство и церковь во второй половине ІХ–Х вв. История Византии. В 3 т. Т. 2 / отв. ред. А. П. Каждан. М. : Наука, 1967. С. 155–171.
35. Пентковский А. М. Типикон патриарха Алексия Студита в Византии и на Руси. М. : Изд-во Моск. Патриархии, 2001. 432 с.
36. Принцинг Г. Автокефалната византийска църковна провинция България / Охрид. Доколко независимы били нейните архиепископы. Исторически преглед. 2011. Г. LXVII. Кн. 5–6. С. 75–102.
37. Соколовъ И. Грузинский монастырь в Византии. Христианское чтение. 1906. № 10. С. 570–583.
38. Карпов С. П. История Трапезундской империи. СПб. : Алетейя, 2007. 624 с.
39. Крсмановић Бojaнa. Значаj Атона и Охридске Архиепископиjе у политици Василиjа ІІ на Балкану. ЗРВИ. № XLIX. 2012. С. 87–112.
40. Белякова Т. А. Сербская царица Елена и Карейская келья св. Саввы: к интерпретации источников. Славянский альманах. 2015. Вып. 1/2. С. 13–24.
41. Дмитриевский А. А. Пандократорский константинопольский монастырь XII в. и его Типик, данный Императором Иоанном Комненом. Труды КДА. 1895. Т. 8. С. 537–585.

1. Myshchak, I. M. (2012). Transformatsiia mizhnarodno-pravovykh norm u sferi svobody sovisti ta virospovidannia v konstytutsiine zakonodavstvo Ukrainy. Konstytutsiini zasady modernizatsii Ukrainy. K. : Instytut zakonodavstva Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, 303–311 [in Ukrainian].
2. Myshchak, I. M. (2012). Improvement of the Constitutional Legislation of Ukraine in the Field of Freedom of Conscience and Religion in Accordance with International Legal Norms and Standards. Scientific Papers of the Legislation Institute of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 4, 37–40 [in Ukrainian].
3. Myshchak, I. M. (2019). Diplomatic activity of UNR on the recognition of the autocephalia Ukrainian church in 1919–1920. Scientific Papers of the Legislation Institute of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 4, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.32886/instzak.2019.04.02 [in Ukrainian].
4. Morris, Rosemary (2009). Symeon the Sanctified and the re-foundation of Xenophon BMGS, Vol. 33, Issue 2, 133–147.
5. Galariotou, Catia. (1987). Byzantine ktetorika typika: a comparative study. RÉB, 45, 77–138.
6. Kashdan, A. (1960). Derevnia y horod v Vyzantyy ІХ – Х vv. Ocherky po ystoryy vyzantyiskoho feodalyzma. M. [in Russian].
7. Siuziumov, M. (1967). Horod. Ystoryia Vyzantyy. V 3 t. T. 2 / otv. red. A. Kashdan. M., 23–33 [in Russian].
8. Morozov, M. A. (2005). Monastyry srednevekovoi Vyzantyy: Khoziaistvo, sotsyalnyi y pravovoi statusy. SPb. [in Russian].
9. Morozov, M. A. (2003). Reforma ktytorskoho prava v peryod pravlenyia Yustynyana Vlast, polytyka, pravo v antychnosty y srednevekove: sb. st. / otv. red. E. Hlushanyn. Barnaul, 84–94 [in Russian].
10. Morozov, M. (2010). Tserkovnaia sobstvennost y ktytorstvo v Vyzantyy pry ymperatore Yustynyane Trudy yst. fak. SPbHU, 2, 77–87 [in Russian].
11. Troytskyj, S. (1935). Ktytorskoje pravo u Vyzantyjy y u nemanychkoi Srbyjy Hlas Srpskoi Akademyjy Nauk, T. 169, 5–54 [in Serbian].
12. Yvanovych, M. (2018). «Zaboravleny» ktytory u srednovekovnoј Srbyјy Ynytsyјal. Chasopys za srednovekovne studyјe, 6, 47–72 [in Serbian].
13. Yvanovych, M. (2017). Razvoј ynstytutsyјe ymunyteta u srpskoј srednovekovnoј drzhavy do kraјa vladavyne krala Mylutyna. Yctoryјsky chasopys, Kn. LXVI, 49–83 [in Serbian].
14. Јanych, Drahana. (2014). Tsrkvena ymovyna y ktytorska delatnost srpskykh vladara do druhe polovyne ХVI veka. Church Studies, Nis, 11, 334–344 [in Serbian].
15. Omelchuk, V. V. (2014). Tserkva yak instrument pravovoho zakhystu ta sotsialnoho zabezpechennia u Vizantiiskii imperii. Yurydychna nauka, 2, 67–77 [in Ukrainian].
16. Omelchuk, V. V. (2014). Normatyvno-pravove zabezpechennia derzhavno-tserkovnykh vzaiemyn u Vizantiiskii imperii. K. [in Ukrainian].
17. Smetanyn, V. (1973). O spetsyfyke permanentnoi voiny v Vyzantyy v 1282 – 1453 vv. ADSV, Vyp. 9, 89–101 [in Russian].
18. Kashdan, A. (1967). Ystochnyky. Ystoryia Vyzantyy. V 3 t. T. 3 / otv. red. H. Lytavryn. M., 5–14 [in Russian].
19. Bezobrazov, P. V. (1887). Materyaly dlia ystoryy Vyzantyiskoi ymperyy. ZhMNP, Ch. SSLIV, Noiabr, 65–78 [in Russian].
20. Arutiunova, V. A. (1968). K voprosu ob «ἄνυρωποι» v «Typyke» Hryhoryia Pakuryana. VV, XХІХ, 63–76 [in Russian].
21. Konovodov, Y. V. (2013). Monastyrskyi flot v systeme materyalnoho obespechenyia vyzantyiskykh monastyrei Х–ХII vv. Yzvestyia Volhohr. hos. ped. un-ta, 3 (78), 54–58 [in Russian].
22. Sokolov, Y. (1901) Attalyat Mykhayl. PBE, T. 2, Stlp. 143–148 [in Russian]
23. Kashdan, A. P. (1971). Vyzantyiskyi monastyr XI – XII vv. kak sotsyalnaia hruppa. VV, T. 31, 48–70 [in Russian].
24. Pentkovskyi, A. M. (2004). Everhetydskyi monastyr y ymperatorskye monastyry v Konstantynopole v kontse ХІ – ХІІ veka. VV, 63 (88), 76–88 [in Russian].
25. Ath. Typikon. (1998). Typikon of Athanasios the Athonite for the Lavra Monastery / trans. G. Dennis. DOS. – XXXV: Byzantine monastic foundation Documents, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 245–270.
26. Uspenskyi, F. Y. (1892). Typyk monastyria sv. Mamanta v Konstantynopole. Letopys Yst.-fylol. obshchestva pry Ymp. Novorossyiskom un-te, T. 2. Vyzant. otd. Ch. 1, 25–84 [in Russian].
27. Arutiunova-Fydanian, V. A. (2014). «Povestovanye o delakh armianskykh» (VII v.) y «Typyk Hryhoryia Pakuryana» (XI v.): hrecheskyi yazyk armiano-khalkydonytskykh pamiatnykov. Vestnyk PSTHU, Seryia III: Fylolohyia, 5 (40), 9–21 [in Russian].
28. Heliou, Bomon (1998). Typikon of Nikephoros Mystikos for the Monastery of the Mother of God ton Heliou Bomon or Elegmon / trans. A. Bandy. DOS. – XXXV: Byzantine monastic foundation Documents, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1042–1092.
29. Vankova, A. B. (2010). «To, chto ya zapovedal, sokhraniaite nevredymym»: osnovatel monastyria y sokhranenye / peredacha tradytsyy v rannevyzantyiskykh monastyriakh V – VI vv. Vostochnaia Evropa v Drevnosty y Srednevekove: mat. konf. (otv. red. E. Melnykova). M. Р. 39 – 43 [in Russian].
30. Herd, L. A. (1994). «Taktykon» Nykona Chernohortsa kak ystochnyk po ystoryy kharystykaryata v Vyzantyy. VV, 55 (80), Ch. 1, 111–115 [in Russian].
31. Morozov, M. A. (2008). Myrovozzrenye pohranychnoi voennoi znaty Vyzantyiskoi ymperyy v KhI v. na prymere Katakalona Kekavmena y Hryhoryia Pakuryana. Ystoryia: Myr proshloho v sovremennom osveshchenyy: sb. nauch. st. / pod red. A. Dvornychenko. SPb., 385–397 [in Russian].
32. Berdnykov, Y. (1907). Kanon po eho tserkovno-yurydycheskomu smyslu y faktycheskomu sostavu. Synopsys tserkovnykh kanonov; ykh yzdanyia; kanony v Zapadnoi tserkvy; praktycheskoe znachenye kanonov Vselenskoi Tserkvy. PBE, T. VIII, Stlp. 315–388 [in Russian].
33. Khvostova, K. V. (2005). Spornye voprosy vyzantyiskoi zemelnoi sobstvennosty. VV, 64 (89), 3–22 [in Russian].
34. Kashdan, A. (1967). Hosudarstvo y tserkov vo vtoroi polovyne ІХ – Х vv. Ystoryia Vyzantyy. V 3 t. T. 2 / otv. red. A. Kashdan. M., 155–171 [in Russian].
35. Pentkovskyi, A. M. (2001). Typykon patryarkha Aleksyia Studyta v Vyzantyy y na Rusy. M. [in Russian].
36. Pryntsynh, H. (2011). Avtokefalnata vyzantyiska tsrkovna provyntsyia Blharyia / Okhryd. Dokolko nezavysymy byly neinyte arkhyepyskopy. Ystorychesky prehled, LXVII, Kn. 5–6, 75–102 [in Bulgarian].
37. Sokolov, Y. (1906). Hruzynskyi monastyr v Vyzantyy. Khrystyanskoe chtenye, 10, 570–583 [in Russian].
38. Karpov, S. P. (2007). Ystoryia Trapezundskoi ymperyy. SPb. [in Russian].
39. Krsmanovych, B. (2012). Znachaj Atona y Okhrydske Arkhyepyskopyje u polytytsy Vasylyja II na Balkanu. ZRVY, XLIX, 87–112 [in Serbian].
40. Beliakova, T. A. (2015). Serbskaia tsarytsa Elena y Kareiskaia kelia sv. Savvy: k ynterpretatsyy ystochnykov. Slavianskyi almanakh, Vyp. 1/2, 13–24 [in Russian].
41. Dmytryevskyi, A. A. (1895). Pandokratorskyi konstantynopolskyi monastyr XII v. y eho Typyk, dannyi Ymperatorom Yoannom Komnenom. Trudy KDA, 8, 537–585 [in Russian].

Abstract views: 45
PDF Downloads: 39
How to Cite
Omelchuk,  V. V. (2020). Ktetor’s law in the Byzantine Еmpire . Scientific Papers of the Legislation Institute of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, (4), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.32886/instzak.2020.04.07