41 A reconsideration of the ideal of stability in Byzantine monasticism consider a selection of these sources: it will turn, in chronological order, to the fourthcentury Long Rules of Basil of Caesarea (330-379), the fifth-century canons of the Council of Chalcedon, and lastly to the sixth-century Novels of Justinian (r. 527-565). These sources are three of the most cited texts in support of an ideal or rule of monastic stability, and they are the main sources referred to by Herman in his 1955 article, which, as said, had a great impact on subsequent scholarship and which still serves as a standard reference.132 Since these texts are the scholarly foundation on which the existence of an ideal of stability is built, it is relevant to examine critically what these texts actually say and evaluate if they justify the use of stabilitas loci (if not as a term, then as a comparable concept). This historiographical legacy aside, there are also intrinsic reasons why these texts could serve as interesting case studies for a re-evaluation of the concept of stabilitas loci in an Eastern Roman context: they represent different levels of authority, they enjoyed considerable authority in Byzantium throughout its history and they represent key moments at various stages in the development of Eastern Roman monasticism. Each of these sources has extensive bibliographical traditions, so in the following their relevance in the history of monasticism will just briefly be touched upon.133 Basil of Caesarea (330 – 379) is regarded an important player in the early development of communal monasticism, both when concerning the communities he spiritually guided, but also concerning the legacy of his ideas that he put in writing, especially his Rules.134 At a moment when there was not yet a dominant model for monastic life in Anatolia he came to promote a communal, rather than solitary, model. Some of Basil’s ideas on monasticism as reflected in his Rules have been influential for later Byzantine monasticism, with principles in Basil’s Rules reflected in foundation documents of Byzantine communal monasteries.135 Moreover, Basil’s Rules would be one of the texts that were popular to read at mealtime in communal monasteries.136 The council of Chalcedon (451), the second case study that will be analysed, represents another key moment in the development of Byzantine (and western) monasticism. 132 E.g., still cited by Mitrea (2023a), p. 10, note 11. 133 For an introduction to these texts and their cultural contexts, and for further bibliography, see, for Basil of Caesarea: Rousseau (1998); Rapp (2013); Silvas (2005); Dunn (2003), pp. 34–41; Sterk (2004); Hildebrand (2018). For the Council of Chalcedon: Van Oort and Roldanus (1997); Price (2009); Price and Whitby (2009); Hartmann and Pennington (2012); Amirav (2015); Wagschal (2015); Wipszycka (2018); Graumann (2021). For the Justinian Novels and (the role of the Emperor in) legal culture: Frazee (1982); Lanata (1984); Humfress (2005); Troianos (2017); Chitwood (2017); Stolte (2019). 134 The early history of monasticism is often narrated as a history of successive influential ‘great men’, starting with the ‘first’ known monk, Anthony, then the monk Pachomius as the ‘founder’ of communal monasticism, followed by Basil, as a further promotor of communal monasticism, known as an advocate for a ‘moderate ascetic’ type of monasticism, combining contemplative life with charitable service to society. This narrative is found e.g., in Dunn (2003), pp. 1–41 and Talbot (2008), p. 257; such a narrative is currently being critiqued and revised. See e.g., Diem and Rapp (2020). 135 Although, as stressed above, there was diversity among communal monasteries (and between others forms of monastic practices). For comments on both similarities and differences between Basil’s Rules and later typika, see Thomas and Hero (2000), pp. 21–31. 136 Cf. Introduction, p. 25. 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw