52 Chapter 1 developing, by the fifth century, monks of various modes of life – in monasteries in the city or as hermits on mountains – would have been a familiar and more established social group in the Christian world. At the same time, the hierarchy and organisation of the church started to consolidate. However, during these processes of transformation, there was not yet a (formalised) demarcation of the relation between monks and the organisation of the church, nor for the place of monks in society at large. Monks already yielded much influence as spiritual advisors in the fifth century, being able to attract many visitors seeking council, and sometimes having a great influence on people in power.179 While some monks enjoyed such spiritual authority, they were not yet officially embedded in the church hierarchy. The Council of Chalcedon has been seen in the context of a conflict on religious leadership and spiritual authority between monks and bishops, and could be seen as an attempt to define the relation between monks, church hierarchy and broader society.180 In this view, the first issue of the council, delineating the activities of monks, aims to curb the influence of monks. The second issue is to place monks under the control of bishops. When Emperor Marcian proposed the canon to the council (consisting, primarily, of bishops), he could thus expect to find a willing audience. The canon aims to grant bishops the authority to define where a monastery is allowed to be established, monks are to be subordinate to the bishop of the respective city or area and, lastly, the bishop is to control the movement of monks to some degree. Depriving monks of the right to interact with ecclesiastical and secular affairs, and prescribing a life of prayer and fasting, the canon, at least in theory, also deprives monks of their economic autonomy and self-sufficiency and limits their possibility for obtaining (imperial) patronage. Perhaps in order to take away the stimulus to solicit wealthy and powerful elite for acquiring resources (which simultaneously would leave room for monastic influence), bishop Anatolius added to the proposal of Marcian that bishops are responsible for the care of monasteries. While subordinate to these broader issues on the relation between monks and church hierarchy, the canon also addresses the movement of monks. However, moving itself does not seem to be a problem, according to the canon, but moving in cities and ‘indiscriminately’ (περιιόντες ἀδιαφόρως ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν). The unregulated nature as well as the urban context for movement seem to be considered problematic. The decree prescribes that monks should not found a monastery or prayer house without the permission of the bishop: the canon therefore imposes episcopal control and authority over the yet unregulated and autonomous monks. The phrase ‘while they move around the cities indiscriminately and even try to set up monasteries for themselves’ is one of the additions in the canon 179 Such as the example of Eutyches (c.380 – c.456) shows, who led a monastic community at the edges of Constantinople and who was a spiritual advisor of Emperor Theodosius II (r.402-450), but who later was considered to be heretical for his Christological views (as opponents perceived him as denying the humanity of Christ; he was condemned in the ‘Home Synod’ at Constantinople in 448, redeemed at the Council of Ephesus II in 449 and condemned again, after Theodosius’ death, at the Council of Chalcedon). See Price and Gaddis (2007a), pp. 25-29. 180 See e.g., Price and Gaddis (2007a), pp. 47-48.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw