62 Chapter 1 understood as a monastic ideal and as a rule stipulating that monks should not leave their monastery once they entered it. There is no consensus on how often monks actually travelled. However, more often than not it is assumed that – in light of stabilitas loci – they should not have. This chapter has argued that it is unhelpful to use the term and concept of stabilitas loci as a reference point for Eastern Roman monastic mobility. Two main arguments have been introduced. The first has to do with the term and the context for which it was originally used. Stabilitas loci is a Latin term that is not found in Byzantine sources, nor is there a medieval Greek equivalent. It is an etic term, originally based on a modern scholarly interpretation of Benedictine monasticism. Without the model of Western monasticism in mind, it likely would never have been used as a concept applied to an Eastern Roman context. As this chapter has suggested, there are more disadvantages than advantages in imposing a Western concept and term on Eastern Roman monasticism, because of the danger of not fully appreciating phenomena and texts on their own terms in their own context. The second argument concerns the Eastern Roman sources and contexts themselves. The late-antique sources discussed illustrate that various authorities were indeed thinking about monastic mobility and found some aspects of it problematic under certain circumstances. However, these texts do not forbid monastic mobility as strongly and unambiguously as has been put forward in the current scholarly discourse. Moreover, these sources reflect different concerns and do not paint a unified picture. It is therefore unhelpful, in my view, to use a single term and concept, such as stabilitas loci, as a shorthand to refer to these concerns. The current scholarly discourse, in using such terms as stabilitas loci or an ideal of monastic stability, implies that such concept was an ideal throughout the temporal and geographic span of the Eastern Roman Empire, while in fact the concerns with monastic mobility were highly dependent on the particular contexts of these sources. Case studies This chapter has elaborated on just a few selected sources. There are certainly similarities between the texts, but they also voice different ideas, as products of their different authors and contexts. The Rules of Basil, the canons of the council of Chalcedon and the Novels of Justinian illustrate that different contexts lead to different outcomes. This contextdependency demonstrates that it is problematic to speak about a pan-Byzantine equivalent to stabilitas loci that could serve as a reference point for all Eastern Roman monastic travel throughout space and time. Basil’s Long Rules As argued above, question 36 of Basil’s Long Rules is an example of advice concerned with the preservation of a pious community. In the passage, Basil gives advice on whether a brother can leave the community. In principle, brothers cannot just leave the community,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw