59 A reconsideration of the ideal of stability in Byzantine monasticism specific cases. The types of mobility legislated on (moving to a different monastery or leaving to give up the monastic life) are assumed to happen, and these types are not forbidden. Moreover, in these regulations the Novel does not necessarily regulate mobility itself, but concern other issues that result from the monk’s mobility, mainly what to do with property and the consequences of a change of vocation or loyalty to the monastery. These observations suggest that no general norm of physical stability was propagated. Moreover, the fact that the Novel regulates for various circumstances of monastic mobility, supports the idea that the Novels relate to a reality of monastic movement. So, the law does not prohibit mobility, nor does it specify an ideal of staying within the confines of the monastery explicitly, nor problematise monastic mobility in general. Nonetheless, it does suggest that leaving a monastery and entering another was considered undesirable. Clearly such transfers were happening and were expected to continue to happen (otherwise there would be no need to legislate on it). It seems that Justinian thought it more urgent to regulate what was going to happen with property than to prohibit such practices altogether. This seems contradictory to a prescription made in Novel 3.2: there the Novel implies that movement from one monastery to another is forbidden.207 Although in Novel 5.7 monastic mobility from one monastery to another is not banned completely, the Novel does seem to reflect an unease with this type of mobility. Novel 5 seems to reflect an unease on spiritual grounds, instead of reflecting concerns on proper hierarchy and authority (as was reflected in the canons of Chalcedon). A life of wandering, according to the Novel, is characteristic of an ‘unstable soul’ (οὐδὲ σταθερᾶς καὶ μονίμου ψυχῆς). Movement is thus linked to spiritual instability. The soul of the wanderer would be ‘roaming about’ and looking for different aims at different times. It seems that the problem with movement, as communicated by the Novel, has mostly to do with a perceived instability of intent or resolve, which threatens ‘monastic perseverance’ (μοναχικῆς καρτερίας). In part, this might reveal concerns about the possible change of loyalty of monks: when monks resolved to become monks in a particular monastery, they should stay connected to that monastery, rather than entering another. However, in this Novel, a suspicion against monastic mobility itself might also be observed. These reservations especially concern mobility that does not have a clear single purpose, when monks are looking for different things at different times (ἄλλοτε ἄλλα ζητούσης). Perhaps this suspicion is grounded in a fear that monks might engage in activities or thoughts considered inappropriate for monks, such as engaging too much in ‘worldly affairs’ (cf. Chalcedon), which would correspond to Justinian’s concerns elsewhere in the Novels 207 Εἰ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν εὐαγῶν μοναστηρίων κωλύομεν ἐξ ἑτέρου μοναστηρίου πρὸς ἕτερον μεταβαίνειν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον οὐδὲ τοῖς εὐλαβεστάτοις κληρικοῖς τοῦτο ἐφήσομεν; Justinian, Novels 3.2. Translated in Miller and Sarris (2018), p.78: ‘Given that in the case of holy monasteries we forbid [κωλύομεν: hinder, prevent] migration from one monastery to another, we shall a fortiori not permit this to our most reverend clergy, either’. 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw