Izuzimanje (isključivanje) iz nasleđa i pitanje namene Dušanove kodifikacije

Abstract

Pri redakciji Skraćene Sintagme - za koju Solovjev smatra da je izvršena za potrebe carskih sudova - ustanovi izuzimanja iz nasleđa je posvećeno dosta pažnje. Međutim, kako autor primećuje, nije logično da bi ovaj institut bio relevantan za sudije u Dušanovo vreme, budući da je izuzeće sprovodio sam testator, dok je sastavljanje zaveštanja bilo u nadležnosti crkve. Autor ukratko analizira ostatak teksta Skraćene Sintagme, sa ciljem da otkrije da li je navedeni (već opšteprihvaćeni) kriterijum dosledno primenjen, tj. da li su sve izbačene odredbe nepotrebne carskim sudijama, kao i da li ima još zadržanih koje im nisu korisne. Kao konačni zaključak se nameće stav da su odredbe o izuzeću morale biti namenjene upravo testato rima, što otvara pitanje namene čitave Dušanove kodifikacije. Autor iznosi još nekoliko argumenata u prilog toga da je ona bila namenjena, između ostalog, i carevim podanicima, ali priznaje da bi dodatna istraživanja bila neophodna da bi se taj stav mogao smatrati naučno dokazanim.

According to A. Solovyev, the redaction of the Syntagma of Matthew Blastares which pays considerable attention to the rules on exheredation, was carried out for the needs of the imperial courts. However, the creation of will (testament) was under the jurisdiction of the Church, and the act of exheredation could have been executed solely by the testator. Thus, the author infers that there is no logic in claiming that the institution of exheredation was relevant to the judges of Tsar Dushan's time. The author briefly analyses the remainder of the Abbreviated Syntagma, in order to verify whether the aforementioned (and already commonly accepted) criterion of redaction was consistently applied or not. In other words, the author checks if it is true that all the articles, not necessary for the imperial judges, were removed from the Syntagma, and that none of the articles unnecessary for the judges was kept. The idea that the provisions on exheredation must have been intended for the testators imposes itself as the final conclusion, which opens up the question of purpose of the Dushan's codification. The author makes several more arguments to support the opinion that the Codification was intended to be accessible, amongst others, to the Tsar's subjects, but acknowledges that additional research would be necessary for this idea to be considered scientifically proven.