101 Mobility, immobility and sainthood So what does this justification of mobility tell about the expectations of the audience (projected by the author) and about the discourses that the hagiographer reacted to? The hagiographer disconnects hesychia from place; but why? Would the audience have expected that hesychia is only to be accomplished at certain places? Considering the discourse presented in the Lives of Gregory and Euthymius this might indeed have been the expectation of the audience. The problem with a connection of hesychia to place, as anticipated by the hagiographer, seems to be mostly related to the potential interaction with people. The absence of a degree of seclusion at particular places might have caused the audience concern. In the Lives of Gregory and Euthymius, seclusion is presented as a requirement for hesychia. Elias is presented as an ascetic saint as well, so the audience might have expected that the saint would also search for seclusion. According to the narrative Elias had spent time together with other monks in monastic establishments and in churches. Those would have provided a degree of seclusion. However, the search for quiet places constructed as wilderness and enclosures is much less a theme in the Life of Elias compared to the Lives of Gregory and Euthymius. Moreover, he spent much time in cities where he interacted with their inhabitants. Also on the road, he met with fellowtravellers and with people of different (and in the eyes of the hagiographer heretical) faiths. This interaction with people, and especially ‘worldly people’ might have been a potential concern for the audience, as the hagiographer stressed that Elias’ and Daniel’s hesychia was not affected ‘while exercising in solitude’ nor ‘while passing time together with worldly people’ (καὶ καταμόνας ἀσκούμενοι καὶ κοσμικοῖς συνδιάγοντες). ‘Exercising in solitude’, καταμόνας ἀσκούμενοι, probably refers to their retreat at the monastic establishment in Salinas, as this passage immediately follows an account of the foundation of the establishment and the verb ἀσκέω refers to practicing ascesis. These might be the circumstances that the audience would expect for finding or practicing hesychia: in solitude, without the disturbance of other (worldly) people. We have already observed the connection between solitude and hesychia, a discourse that the hagiographer of the Life of Elias might be aware of and might here react against: solitude is in fact not necessary, as hesychia can be achieved at all times.328 This also relates to the author’s specific understanding of hesychia: he himself uses it broadly to refer to living a Christian virtuous life – which can be realised anytime anywhere. However, he may also play with the different meanings of hesychia and react against discourses where hesychia is understood in the narrower sense as a contemplative activity (in solitude) or a state of inner rest. In both understandings, the hagiographer aims to communicate that solitude is not a requirement for hesychia. 328 Ιn the examples discussed for the Lives of Euthymius and Gregory, perfect solitude was not considered necessary. However, dependent on the spiritual progress of the monk, the monk was interpreted to be more or less easily disturbed by other people, and a degree of social isolation was considered desirable. In the Life of Elias, on the other hand, the hagiographer seems to reject the idea completely that social isolation is connected to hesychia. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw