54 Chapter 1 τὰ ἴδια μοναστήρια). So again the issue is the potential interference of monks with ecclesiastical or worldly affairs by going out of their monastery, but mobility as such is not forbidden. Even here, the canon leaves room for exceptions of monastic interaction with non-monastic affairs. When the bishop decides to, he could give permission to monks to leave their monastery for interactions with church or civil affairs in case of pressing need. The conditional and equivocal phrasing of the clauses relating to mobility support the idea that curbing monastic mobility itself was not the main issue of the canon, but that they are to be understood as means to an end, to undermine the autonomy and influence of monks and to segregate them from the rest of society. In the original proposal, mobility was not an issue at all, as all phrases relating to mobility or immobility are added in the canon by the bishops compared to the imperial proposal. At least where the Emperor was concerned, this strengthens the idea that the main concerns had nothing to do with monastic mobility. On the other hand, this also shows that the bishop(s), in drafting the canon, found the formulations by the Emperor unsatisfactory or insufficient and felt that these phrases should be added. If unregulated, clearly mobility could be undesirable in the eyes of the bishops. As discussed above, the circumstances, under which bishops considered mobility undesirable, were when mobility leads to a convergence of monastic life and ecclesiastical or worldly spheres. The bishops may have reasoned that segregating monastic life from other spheres of influence is more easily accomplished when monks are physically constrained and separated from other people. This being said, the canon does not prohibit monastic mobility completely. 1.3.3 Justinian’s Novels (534-565) Nearly a century after the Council of Chalcedon, Emperor Justinian (r. 527- 565) issued several laws that Herman and others cite in support of a Byzantine equivalent of monastic stabilitas loci.184 These new laws, the Novels, present us with a third type of normative texts, reflecting another type of authority than the writings of church father Basil of Caesarea or the canons of the Council of Chalcedon. When canons 3, 4 and 20 were proposed, the Emperor Marcian thought it more fitting that the laws concerning monks and clergy were issued by bishops at a church council. In the next century, however, Justinian apparently considered that the emperor himself could legislate on monks and clergy.185 The Novels of Justinian are the new laws that he 184 Herman (1955); Nicol (1985); Auzépy (2009), par. 4; Booth (2014); Talbot (2019). 185 It is well known that Justinian interfered, sponsored and attempted to reform many aspects of religious life, of which the Novels only represent one (important) example. The interconnectedness and inseparability of Church and State in Byzantium is another truism, so, as Bernard Stolte observed, it should not come much as a surprise that Justinian also legislated on ecclesiastical and monastic affairs. Stolte (2009), p. 87; also Penna and Meijering (2022), p. 191.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw