18 God’s protection. At the same time, the prayer also leaves room for the exploration of other responses and views on mobility in the Eastern Roman Empire. From prayers such as these we also learn that the potential prospect of danger did not withhold people from setting sail, for otherwise there would be no need to include this prayer in a prayer book, nor do we find any principle or ideological objections towards mobility reflected in this prayer. Moreover, the prayer expresses hopes that travel may result in acquiring ‘good things’, both earthly and heavenly.27 While many people may have uttered prayers such as these to ward off dangers on the road, and while people may have felt genuine fear for all possible dangers that could come along with travel, fear surely was not the only reaction to mobility that people would have had, and indeed not the only response that we can find in the sources. In order to examine discourses on mobility and immobility, this thesis will focus on a particular type of mobility: male monastic mobility. Monks are one of the social groups whom we know were among the ‘movers’ in the Eastern Roman Empire. Monasticism in the Eastern Roman Empire has often been characterised by its diversity and flexibility of forms.28 Scholars generally divide monastic practice between cenobitism and eremitism.29 Cenobitic monasteries are communal monasteries, headed by an abbot and with its own rules.30 Hermits are monks who lived a solitary life. An in-between form is recognised in lavrae: monastic communities consisting of monks who lived alone and at some distance from each other in their own individual cells for most of the time, but came together in the weekends to celebrate the liturgy an dine together, etc.31 The distinction between these three forms was not strict, as monks could change from one form to another. Moreover, there were forms in between as well and monastic expressions that did not fit into these categories at all.32 Some of the monastic ways of life included expressions of extreme immobility – most notably stylites who sat on top of a column, sometimes for years – while there were also monks who were known to be continuously on the move.33 Monks could alternate between 27 From the prayer: πλήρης τῶν βιωτικῶν καὶ ἐπουρανίων σου ἀγαθῶν. 28 See e.g., Talbot (2019), p. 2. 29 As is well known, but worth repeating in case of any doubt, there were no orders in orthodox monasticism like those arising in the Latin tradition (e.g. Benedictine monasticism, or much later Franciscans or Dominicans). Rather, each monastic community could have its own set of rules, laid down in typika. For an introduction on Byzantine monasticism, see e.g., Morris (1995); Hatlie (2007); Talbot (2019); Oltean (2020). 30 On how to enter a communal monastic foundation (including a discussion of varying practices in the Eastern Roman Empire), see Oltean (2020). 31 Talbot (2019), p. 3. 32 E.g., ‘domestic’ monastic expressions, particularly attested for female monasticism, who were considered to live a monastic life in their own homes, or wandering monks. An expression in between eremitism and cenobitism are recluses within communal monasteries. For a discussion of the various monastic expressions, see Talbot (2019). 33 Individual wandering monks, such as the fifth-century Syrian monk Barsauma, and the phenomenon of wandering monks so far have been mostly studied for the early centuries of the Eastern Roman Empire, although – as this thesis also illustrates – in later periods, including the ninth and tenth centuries, we continue to find examples of frequent travelling monks. See Hahn and Menze (2020); Caner (2002).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw