169 Representations of travel motivation that this positive representation also reflected positive attitudes towards these types of mobility by the hagiographers. The beneficial effects of the particular types of mobility, for the monks themselves and the society around them, do not imply, however, that the hagiographers thought that only these types of mobility were desirable and other types undesirable: such value judgements, on behalf of the hagiographers themselves, cannot be deduced from the texts. Could we perhaps, instead, suggest that mobility is presented to reflect positively on the saints’ identities in an attempt to counter critical sounds from the audiences? Or was such criticism not at all expected by the hagiographers? The representations of travel motivations do not directly engage with potential critique on monastic mobility. Despite the complexities involved in representation we can conjecture two diverse expectations of the audiences’ positions on monastic mobility. The first position is one in which the author did not expect that the audience found high mobility of monks to be problematic. With this expectation in mind the hagiographer did not need to tailor his representations of monastic travels as a necessary justification for this mobility. The second position is one in which the author did expect that the audience might find the mobility of monks potentially problematic. With this expectation in mind the hagiographer employed the representation of monastic mobility in an attempt to counter this (potential) criticism. We can see the first position reflected in the Life of Gregory: the hagiographer, Ignatius, did not feel the need to directly precede every journey with a justification. He made the silence work to his advantage by suggesting that Gregory’s mobility was the result of the divine instruction early in the narrative. However, there is also a danger in silence. It means that the hagiographer left more room for interpretation by the audiences themselves. While there is a general motivation for these journeys, the author did not feel the need to refer back to this motivation when narrating the journeys that follow and thereby unambiguously steer the interpretatio1n of the monk’s mobility. We may therefore conclude that the hagiographer did not expect that the high mobility of the monk was problematic for the audiences. We can see the second position reflected in the Life of Elias: the hagiographer may have expected an audience that was critical about the high mobility of the saint. In addition to the general defences of mobility that we have seen in the previous chapter (statements on pilgrimage and hesychia), the narrative emphasis on divine revelations as travel motivation may be part of a strategy to legitimate Elias’ high mobility in order to counter criticism. In Elias’ Life, journeys are represented as involuntary mobility, as journeys in search of solitude, or as journeys preceded by a divine revelation. Audiences could hardly be expected to be critical about involuntary mobility and journeys in search of solitude aside, considering the turbulent reality in the Mediterranean and prevailing ideals on how to advance spiritually.568 568 Cf. Chapter 2 on hesychia. 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw