13 Introduction 4) Discourses on mobility and immobility reflect societal concerns. It is my contention that this complexity and multivocality in the present should also be expected in the past. The past that takes centre stage in this study is the ninth- and early tenth-century Eastern Roman Empire.2 Discourses on mobility in the Eastern Roman Empire after late antiquity so far have been little studied.3 The few studies on the topic represent attitudes to mobility as singular, rather than stressing diversity and complexity. The present study aims to re-assess perceptions of travel in the ninth- and tenth-century Eastern Roman Empire, by studying perceptions of particular societal groups (hagiographers and their audiences) on mobility by a particular type of travellers (monks). In doing so, the lessons from contemporary discourses will be taken into account, and thus the study aims to: 1) Assess whether mobility and immobility were perceived as neutral, or whether people had value judgements (and which ones) 2) Be attuned to the possibility of a plurality of discourses, rather than trying to construct a single pervasive discourse 3) Ask which factors contribute to particular views on mobility and immobility (did it matter who moved, why they moved, where they moved to or where they came from) 4) Ask whether discourses on mobility and immobility reveal deeper societal concerns Asking these questions presents us an opportunity to nuance our understanding of the thought world of the ninth- and early tenth-century Eastern Roman Empire, particularly in 2 In this thesis Eastern Roman and Byzantine will be used interchangeably, as there are merits and cons for each term. ‘Eastern Roman’ recognises the direct continuity of the ancient Roman Empire, after its division between an Eastern and a Western part (a continuation that has historically been played down). Moreover, using the term ‘Roman’ recognises the Roman identity that the citizens of the Empire themselves expressed and the political entity that they themselves considered to be Roman (‘Romania’ ). Using the qualifier ‘Eastern’ has disadvantages as well, as it suggests an opposition to a ‘Western’ part, but by the ninth and tenth centuries, the Western Roman Empire did not exist anymore. The term ‘Byzantine Empire’, if used to mean the Empire from the foundation of Constantinople by Constantine until the eventual fall of the Empire in 1453, has been considered a neutral (albeit modern) term. This term, however, was introduced in the context of politically charged relations between ‘Western’ powers and the emerging modern nation state of Greece, and was used to serve nineteenth-century political ideological aims. Nonetheless, ‘Byzantium’ could serve as a useful term that makes clear which political entity we are talking about. Moreover, the self-defined field of ‘Byzantine Studies’ has claimed this term and standard periodisations are based on it. For a discussion of the emergence of the term ‘Byzantium’, a history of ‘denialism’ of the Empire’s Roman identity in Latin-speaking Europe from the ninth century onwards, and a plea for recognising this identity, see Kaldellis (2019). 3 I use the term ‘late antiquity’ to refer to the period from approximately the fourth until the mid-seventh century. If referring to literature produced within the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, late antiquity essentially equals the ‘early Byzantine period’ in the periodisation that is standard in Byzantine Studies. In the development of Greek-language Christian literature, which is the focus of this thesis, it made sense to distinguish from later periods the period since the official recognition of Christianity by the state in the early fourth century up to the mid-seventh century. The period from c. 650 to 800 has been characterised by a relatively low (surviving) literary output, sometimes called the ‘Byzantine Dark Age’, and thus is taken as a transition period in our modern period categorisation. See e.g., Efthymiadis (2011a). I
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw