107 Mobility, immobility and sainthood during their life, that in addition to being ‘very special dead’ persons, they also belonged to the very special living.343 Mobility inspired by hesychia is therefore represented as positive: it facilitates spiritual development, it shows the special dedication of these monks, and it shows that the saints were exemplary ascetics who aimed to retreat from society. An exemplary life was not considered enough to be celebrated as saint. Saints were also represented as being of benefit for society, by life (as holy men) and after their death. Especially the representation of the saint’s life creates a challenge for the hagiographers of ascetic saints: that is, how to represent monks as rejecting society while at the same time serving it? In passages discussed in this chapter this tension was resolved in two ways. Firstly, the boundaries between exterior-interior and wilderness-civilisation are permeable. This allows for combining the two modes of sainthood, involving a degree of seclusion, but also a degree of interaction with people. Secondly, mobility facilitates alternating between the two modes: alternating episodes of seclusion with episodes of interaction. Also for this aspect, mobility is thus essential for the representation of sainthood in the Lives of Gregory and Euthymius. The discourse analysis of hesychia has provided a lens to see one of the most difficult tasks of the hagiographer at work, that is, to represent a monk as a holy man who unites in one person two conflicting ideals: to be removed from society while simultaneously serving that very society. The analysis of the Life of Elias the Younger illustrated that within middle-Byzantine hagiographical texts there is a range of possible connections between hesychia, mobility and immobility. In the Lives of Gregory and Euthymius, hesychia is connected to space, and therefore to immobility and mobility. The analysis of the usage of hesychia showed that staying at certain places can lead to a tension to the monastic ideals of hesychia and of withdrawal from society (through distractions). The search for hesychia and mobility therefore propels the narrative forwards. Moreover, hesychia and mobility are instrumental in the representation of sainthood. In the Life of Elias, however, hesychia and space are explicitly disconnected. In this Life the saint does not travel in search of hesychia and hence mobility inspired by hesychia does not play a role in the representation of Elias’ sainthood. Instead, the hagiographer suggests that hesychia can be realised anywhere, and specifically also while travelling. Similar to the other two Lives, hesychia is represented as a monastic ideal and mobility is represented as positive.344 However, mobility and hesychia are not connected according to the hagiographer. In fact, the discussed passage indicates that hesychia is realised despite the mobility of Elias. This suggests that the hagiographer reacts to a discourse in which monastic mobility is perceived negatively and incongruent with hesychia. Another example from the Life of Elias, shows that this is not the only occasion in which he defends monastic mobility against potential criticism: the example of defending 343 For saints, particularly martyrs, as the ‘very special dead’, see Brown (1981), pp. 69–85. 344 The representation of Elias’ sainthood in connection to episodes of mobility is explored further in the next chapter. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw