102 Chapter 2 A perceived tension between the monastic life and interaction with ‘the world’ has of course a long tradition – late-antique examples of this tradition have been discussed in the previous chapter. Basil, for example, saw a spiritual danger in the interaction with society, which the monastic communities initially set out to segregate from. It would potentially disrupt their ascetic lifestyle, and interaction might harm the soul. Therefore, he advised to travel in groups, to ensure mutual control, and later he advised that only the ‘spiritually fit’ brothers should make journeys.329 Similarly, the passage of the Apophthegmata Patrum cited at the beginning of this chapter illustrates a perceived tension between the monastic life and interaction with ‘worldly people’. The hagiographer probably addresses this discourse of a perceived tension between monastic ascetic life and interaction with the rest of society. The passage thus confirms the persistence of this discourse, but at the same time presents another: at least when it comes to the monastic ideal of hesychia the saint and his disciple are not affected by spending time with ‘worldly people’ (κοσμικοῖς συνδιάγοντες). Finally, by adding that their hesychia is neither affected by ‘changing places’ (τοὺς τόπους ἀμείβοντες) the passage might react to a discourse that we have encountered in Justinian’s Novel: the idea that changing one place for another reveals a lack of purpose. A life of vagrancy, we read in Novel 5.7, is ‘the mark of an unstable, flighty soul, one that roams about pursuing different aims at different times’ and this is incompatible with monastic perseverance.330 We know that Justinian’s Novels were still read, copied and amended in the ninth century, for they are included in the Basilica of Leo VI in 888. The hagiographer might have anticipated a persistent negative discourse on monastic mobility, such as the one reflected in the Novel. Departing from the hagiographer’s understanding of the concept of hesychia and the discourses he might have reacted to, some similarities on the relation between hesychia and mobility in the three hagiographical texts can be observed. All three present hesychia as desirable, perhaps even essential for monks. And in all three cases the mobility of the saints is presented as compatible with hesychia. However, their understanding of hesychia, specifically its relation to place and mobility, is quite different. In the passage of Life of Elias 30 mobility and place are presented as having no effect on hesychia. In the Lives of Gregory and Euthymius, on the other hand, hesychia is to a degree contingent on particular places with a specific set of conditions, characterised by a degree of separation from society, either in enclosed spaces or exterior spaces constructed as wilderness. Moreover, the desire for hesychia is represented as a motivation to travel. In other words, in the hagiographies of Gregory and Euthymius place and mobility to certain places do affect the saints’ hesychia. Certain spaces are more suitable for hesychia than others. The effect of certain places and of solitude is presented as a positive impact on hesychia. On the other hand, this 329 Basil, Long Rules questions 38-39 and 44. PG 31. 330 Ἀλήτης γὰρ ὁ τοιοῦτος βίος, καὶ μοναχικῆς καρτερίας οὐδ’ ὅλως ἐγγύς, οὐδὲ σταθερᾶς καὶ μονίμου ψυχῆς, ἀλλὰ περιφερομένης τε καὶ ἄλλοτε ἄλλα ζητούσης ἀπόδειξιν ἔχων. Justinian, Novel 5.7; in Schöll and Kroll (1959), p.33. Translation by Miller and Sarris (2018), p. 94.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw