51 A reconsideration of the ideal of stability in Byzantine monasticism city. Those who practise monasticism in each city and territory are to be subject to the bishop, and are to embrace silence and devote themselves to fasting and prayer alone, persevering in the places where they renounced the world; they are not to cause annoyance in either ecclesiastical or secular affairs, or take part in them, leaving their own monasteries, unless indeed for some compelling need they be permitted to do so by the bishop of the city. No slave is to be accepted into a monastery as a monk contrary to the will of his master; we have decreed that the infringer of this our regulation is excommunicate, lest the name of God be brought into disrepute. The due care of the monasteries must be exercised by the bishop of the city.176 This canon has often been seen as the Byzantine regulation of stabilitas loci.177 The phrase on which this is based, ἐν οἷς τόποις ἀπετάξαντο προσκαρτεροῦντας (‘persevering in the places where they renounced [the world]’), is only a small part of the canon, and, as I will argue, does not seem to be the main concern of the canon. When carefully reading the canon, the canon in my view, seems not primarily concerned with keeping monks in monasteries. The main incentive for the canon seems to be the yet undefined and unregulated position of monks in Byzantine society, especially their relation to church hierarchy and civil affairs. The two main issues that the canon decrees are, on the one hand, a delineation of monastic life by excluding them from church and civil affairs, and, on the other hand, placing monks under episcopal control. The first issue is addressed at the start of the canon: it starts with identifying a perceived problem. It recognises the honourability of some monks (‘who truly and sincerely enter on the solitary life’), but others – who by contrast are not perceived as sincerely choosing monastic life – are considered problematic. The problem, as indicated, is that these ‘insincere’ monks ‘disrupt’ church and civil affairs (τάς τε ἐκκλησίας καὶ τὰ πολιτικὰ διαταράττουσι πράγματα). Therefore, the canon prescribes what monastic life should consist of, namely a life only of prayer and fasting. In addition to circumscribing the activities of monks, which in itself already implies a segregation from other spheres of influence, the canon specifically emphasises that monks should not mingle in ecclesiastical or secular affairs.178 Here, the mobility of monks is addressed in the canon: it is specified that leaving the monastery to engage with ecclesiastical or civil affairs is prohibited, although the canon leaves room for exceptions. These exceptions are allowed when the bishop gives permission, which relates to the next point. The second issue that the canon deals with is placing monks under episcopal control. Whereas in the third and fourth century, gradually various forms of monasticism were 176 Translated by Price and Gaddis (2007c), pp. 95–96. 177 Herman (1955), pp. 116–117; Nicol (1985), p. 194; Auzépy (2009), par. 4; Stammler (2014), p.135; Talbot (2019), p. 157. 178 μήτε δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς μήτε βιωτικοῖς παρενοχλεῖν πράγμασιν ἢ ἐπικοινωνεῖν (they are not to cause annoyance in either ecclesiastical or secular affairs, or take part in them). 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw