1Byzantine monks of the mid-Byzantine period (8^th-11^th c.) travelled quite often within and without the empire, regardless of the ideal of stabilitas loci1. That goal was counterbalanced by another ideal; namely xeniteia, which means both hardship of travel and self-promotion by pursuing asceticism in celebrated monastic centres situated afar from either home or civilization2.

2Very often these monks visited pilgrimage sites during their travels which led several scholars to coin them as ordinary pilgrims. I would like to argue that this interpretation is based on a miscomprehension of the objectives of these monks which were fundamentally different from other pilgrims, be they lay or clerical. This becomes apparent when studying both Byzantine pilgrims of the period beforehand (4^th-7^th c.) and the Latin-speaking pilgrims from the west of the period which concerns us here (8^th-11^th c.). Unfortunately, this is exactly the period of which almost no evidence from Byzantine lay pilgrims survived. This is most probably due to the non-existence of the itinerary genre in Greek before the Komnenian period3, but also because Byzantines in that time took no pride in distant travel, instead underlining the superiority of staying and living in Constantinople4. Nevertheless, there must have been thousands every year, for instance in Jerusalem, judging by the cursory mentions of them in Arabic and Persian sources5. Based on this evidence, Gil assumed that the share of Latin pilgrims in all Christian pilgrims in Muslim-controlled Jerusalem before 1095 was around 10%6. McCormick’s study revealed that around 14% of the monks in Jerusalem used Latin as language of prayer in ca. 8107. Monks and pilgrims from within the empire and Syro-Palestine should have been in the majority in Palestine, consequently. Therefore, the data of the Latin pilgrims’ travels can only be a proxy for Byzantine lay pilgrims of the same time, of whom genuine information is lacking8.

3Before going into the subject, it is worthwhile to define the term of pilgrim more exactly. It is common knowledge that there was no defined image and nomenclature for pilgrims in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. In Byzantium, pilgrims could be grasped by three lexemes, each related to one of their main features. The ξένος is the stranger; the ὁδοιπόρος is somebody travelling long distances; the προσκυνητής is somebody who takes a lot of effort venerating a place or object. All three terms do not necessarily point to pilgrimage, but depending on the mention’s context, they can have the meaning of a pilgrim. In Latin the same observation can be made, but the term peregrinus became already the dominant relevant term in Late Antiquity and therefore it is easier to assemble the evidences of Latin pilgrimage9. Most scholars take it for granted what a pilgrim is, although the category was foreign in medieval languages, and its definition is even not clear for a pilgrim of nowadays.

4Using Elsner’s and Rutherford’s theorem as a point of departure10, I would like to give it more precision when it comes to our period. A traveller has to fulfil three main prerequisites to be coined as a pilgrim: first, his main motivation to travel must have laid in his belief or religion and the journey must be a physical one. His destination was a sacred site outside of his everyday life but at the same time accepted as a common site. Secondly, he started the journey on his own initiative11 and without a clear professional obligation12. Finally, he performed no rituals during the travel but he was exactly doing so at the destination.

5As a result, this theorem allows us to regard Byzantine monks as pilgrims, putting only those aside who were sent from the empire to Palestinian monasteries to deliver letters. All the others were going for religious purposes on their own initiative. But can we treat them like the lay pilgrims coming from the Western Mediterranean, or like lay pilgrims travelling from the Byzantine empire?

Contrasting monastic travellers and pilgrims

6It is no easy task to set monastic against lay and clerical pilgrims in the Byzantine period because monks completely dominate spiritual travelling in the sources especially in the mid-Byzantine period. In order to tackle this issue, we have to rely on Latin itineraries of the same period and compare their destinations with Byzantine monastic travels.

7Why do I pursue such a method? I assume that Latin pilgrims visiting or passing the Byzantine empire in the 8^th to 11^th centuries had no sufficient knowledge of the Near East and especially of the day-to-day events with their strong impact on travel routes and they had to therefore rely on Byzantine sources of information. The information given resembled more or less what Byzantine pilgrims were doing at the same time, but their travelogues are either lost or were never compiled while their Latin counterparts took pride in their distant travels, safeguarded them to be written down and continued the Latin literary tradition of itineraries.

8Only by this venture can the supposed lay and clerical pilgrimage of the Byzantine empire be vaguely reconstructed and set against those monastic travels which also encompassed pilgrimage sites. For analytical purposes I regard them as two distinctive groups, while being aware that this is somehow artificial to separate them by assuming that their objectives were so much different. It is absolutely clear that the Byzantine clergy of the time was more and more recruited from monks, especially in the Muslim controlled territories; nevertheless, both groups can be discerned quite clearly, as Michel Kaplan has recently underlined: "Mis à part quelques rares spécialistes, comme Hilarion d’Ibèrie ou Élie de Sicile, nos saints ne sont pas des pèlerins impénitents. Le pèlerinage est par trop contraire à l’idéal de stabilité du moine et les Vies des saints sont ici un mauvais témoin"13.

9First, I want to outline the travels of the Byzantine monks, and secondly those of the Latin pilgrims in the same period, in order to finally conclude how Byzantine lay pilgrimage may have looked like.

10Élisabeth Malamut argued that mid-Byzantine monks and those seeking the monastic habit sought to experience Palestinian asceticism and to explore the coenobitic life of the region in order to take it as a paragon back to the core of the empire14. The monks’ main motivation lied in living in renowned monastic centres outside the empire for a longer time period, and in most cases to return thereafter in order to establish their own foundations in the empire. The objectives of monastic travellers in that time period were fundamentally different from the lay pilgrims, as she has underlined correctly15; the further goals of these monks were self-imposed exile, alienation from family, and detachment from their social relations. Their main destination constituted the Judean desert around Jerusalem which was dotted with hundreds of monasteries at that time16. The region combined two factors of attractiveness for monks: a desert inviting to seclusion; and many monastic centres representing the origins of an important monastic tradition.

11Of course, important monastic centres had developed in the meantime also within the empire. Consequently, monastic pilgrims could also choose to travel other regions, what they were actually doing. A significant number of monastic travellers went to Bithynia (Mt. Olympus region, Kyminas), Rome and Mt. Athos in the mid-Byzantine period instead17. Some of these monasteries had the further advantage of being politico-religious powerbases18, where these monks could come into contact with leading figures of their time. Another objective of some monastic travellers was to safeguard contact and communication between their home monastery and other monastic communities within or without the empire19, as means of messengers of letters or even ambassadors. This target was often met in occurrence with the aforementioned one, so that the respective monks were taking impressions from the visited communities with them. It comes as no surprise therefore that monks came to Constantinople quite frequently, as meeting a χρεία of their monastery20.

12Needless to say, lay pilgrims had very different objectives and were visiting different destinations accordingly. In order to define the differences and to find divergent patterns of travel, I would like to assemble the evidence on both Byzantine sacred travel and pilgrimages coming from the Latin west (see table 1).

13The analysis starts with a view at the itineraries of the Byzantine monastic travels to the eastern confines of the empire or Palestine. From the 8^th century till the First Crusade I examined reports of 34 travellers or travel groups, with only two of them being of a lay background. The remaining travellers were either monks or became monks during their stay in the Near East.

14First of all, the monk Stephen of Chenolakkon travelled in the period between 700 and 720 to Jerusalem, the Jordan river and the monasteries of the Judean desert21. He returned to Constantinople. The so-called sixty-three martyrs of Jerusalem have allegedly emerged from 70 lay Jerusalem pilgrims from the Byzantine empire. Their 8^th-century Passio reports their arrest close to Jerusalem at the outbreak of a war between Byzantium and the Caliphate in 723/2422. Albeit the text relies heavily on the Passio of the Sixty martyrs of Gaza martyred in 63923 – therefore considered to be largely ahistorical24 – it mirrors pilgrimage activity of the 8^th century, as Talbot and Hoyland have pointed out in a persuasively25. John, later bishop of Gothia on the Crimea, visited Jerusalem where he stayed for three years in monasteries before returning via Iberian Mcʻḫetʻa (755-58)26. Gregory Acritas (ca. 780-812), after his departure from Crete to Seleucia Pieria, stayed for about 12 years in Palestine as a monk, going to Constantinople later on27. Transmitted only in Karamanlıca from the Antalya region is the Vita of Leontius who undertook a Jerusalem pilgrimage from Athens and lived for five years as a monk in the Theodosius monastery (ca. 810). Due to misgivings of the Unbelievers he is said to have fled together with a certain Barnabas by sea to Patara [Parassam]28. He founded his own monastic community on Mt. Kontobakion near Attaleia29. Ioannikios (807 and 815), a deserter who wanted to become a monk, accomplished two journeys according to his Vita30. These led him from Thrace to Ephesus, and allegedly even further via Myra to Cilicia. The monk Peter of Atroa went from Lydia to Bithynia, later via Pergamum to Ephesus and Chonai (ca. 820)31; he always confined himself to the limits of the empire. The monk Gregory Dekapolites (829-31) moved from his hometown in Cilicia to Ephesus and via Ainos to Christoupolis and Thessalonica. Going west from Corinth, he came back from Otranto to Thessalonica and Constantinople32. Constantine the Jew’s travel is fictious, but nevertheless gives hints on travel for a monk during his supposed lifetime in ca. 850. Going from Phrygian Synada to Bithynian monasteries, he turned to Attaleia, then Myra, to take a ship to Cyprus and landed in Isaurian Seleucia thereafter. He abstained from going to Palestine, instead turning back to Bithynia33. Hilarion the Iberian, from Kakheti, travelled twice (ca. 850). His first journey led him via Syria to Palestine, and back; his second sojourn to the core of the empire and Rome34. Euthymius the Younger did not leave the empire, but visited only monastic centres in Bithynia, Constantinople, Thessalonica, and at Mt. Athos (ca. 860)35. There is Peter the Miracle-Worker from Galatia. Having been an officer under Emperor Theophilus, he settled as a monk on the Bithynian Olympus after his retirement and decided to go to Jerusalem in the early 880s. According to his Vita, his pilgrimage included various destinations in Palestine which are not explicitly mentioned. He is said to have suffered from Muslim maltreatment. After his stay, he returned via Cyprus and Attaleia to Constantinople36. A further Byzantine pilgrim of the period was Germanus of Kosinitza in Macedonia. From his unknown place of origin within the empire, he had accomplished a pilgrimage to Palestine and the monasteries in the Judean desert and the John the Baptist monastery at the Jordan river; the latter he had entered as a monk. Due to a vision, as the Vita states, he returned to Christopolis37 where he pursued his further monastic career, founding a monastic community at Mount Matikia, called Kosinitza/Kušnica (in East Macedonia, near Drama) in the last third of the 9^th century. Conclusively, his pilgrimage must have taken place sometime in the early second half of the 9^th century. Elias Speliotes from Calabria made a pilgrimage to Rome and wanted to visit the East but did not go further than Patras (ca. 890)38.

15The so-called itinerary of Epiphanius Hagiopolites addresses Jerusalem pilgrims who enter from the Ῥωμανία39 via Cyprus and Tyre to Palestine40. Most likely, Epiphanius had the same background, receiving the cognomen after his settling in Jerusalem. The text includes Galilean and many Egyptian pilgrimage sites but only few Syrian ones. This points to Alexandria as point of entry resp. exit which in turn makes it likely that the text fits to the Ṭūlūnid era of Egypt, most likely the very end of the 9^th c.41. Elias of Enna (also called the Younger) went from Sicily via Tunis to Egypt and Palestine, took the monastic habit, and came back to his home island by a sea voyage from Northern Syria (2^nd half of 9^th c.); later he also visited Epirus, Rome and Thessalonica42. According to his Vita, Lucas Steiriotes met two Greek-speaking monks travelling from Rome in his native Phocis, accompanied them to Athens where they continued their voyage by an unspecified route to Jerusalem (ca. 900)43.

16A monk Theodore is protagonist of a story about the miraculous icon of the Melkite convent Ṣaydnāyā close to Damascus. A nun, Maria, instructed this Byzantine traveler on his way to Jerusalem to purchase an icon of the Mother of God there. After having accomplished this in 900/01, he wanted to take the icon with him to Byzantium because he had discovered its miraculous power nearby Nazareth yet the ship he had embarked in Acre ran into a storm. Persuaded by this supposed sign of God, Theodore gave the icon to Ṣaydnāyā44. The monk Blasius of Amorium did not go to Palestine and travelled to Constantinople and Rome instead (ca. 900)45. Athanasius Athonites undertook the endeavor to go to Jerusalem but was forced to abandon his plans on Cyprus when he heard about the anti-Melkite uproar of May 966 during which Patriarch John VII of Jerusalem was killed46. Yet his contemporary Phantinus the Younger from Calabria confined himself more or less to the borders of the empire and visited only Monte Gargano and mainland Greece with Mt. Athos (ca. 970)47. The Byzantine monk Paul who travelled to Palestine via Cyprus most likely belongs also to the 10^th century48. At the very end of the 10^th century, Parasceue of Epibatai visited not only Jerusalem during her pilgrimage but also Bethlehem, the Jordan river and Jericho. Her Vita from the 11^th-13^th century relates her return from Jaffa to Thrace by sea49. Another traveler was the Athonite monk Gerasimus who went to Jerusalem at the end of the 10^th century50. During this period of intense pilgrimage activity, Cosmas the Presbyter admonishes fellow monks to pertain to their local duties instead of travelling to either Rome or Jerusalem in his treatise against the Bogomil heresy (ca. 967-72)51. Lazarus Galesiotes travelled as a young monk from his home region Ionia first on the land route via Attaleia to Antioch and Jerusalem (ca. 990-93) and entered the Mar Saba monastery. He left Palestine in 1009 passing Antioch again and circulating extensively through Asia Minor until he settled in Ionia again52. Simon of Syracuse (also called of Trier) travelled to Jerusalem by an unspecific route via Constantinople (1016) and lived in Palestinian monastic communities53 before he met the pilgrimage group around Guillaume d’Angoulême on their return journey in Antioch in 1026, accompanied them via Belgrade, finally settling north of the Alps. The Siculo-Greek nun Marina of Scanion traveled by sea to Tripoli for a visit of Jerusalem. She stayed in Palestine for about five years in the first half of the 11^th c.54. Nikon of the Black mountain left his native Bithynia for Palestine but decided to settle in monasteries within the borders of the empire, at its confines in the Antiochene (1050-60)55. The Iberian monk George Hagioretes went after passing the monasteries of the Antiochene to Palestine and Mt. Sinai, later traversing Asia Minor for Mt. Athos and Constantinople (mid-11^th c.)56. Mariam, widow of King George I of Georgia, wanted to go to Jerusalem from her residence in Constantinople, but was refrained to do so when she arrived in Antioch on the advice of Patriarch Peter III of Antioch in 1056/5757. The later Abbot Christodoulos of Patmos went from the Bithynian monasteries to Palestine (ca. 1070)58. After his return he decided to settle in the Mt. Latros area. The later Abbot Meletius of Myopolis (Attica) travelled to Jerusalem by ship (ca. 1070-80). Before his return to Boeotia, he also visited Rome59.

17The prevalent objective of all these journeys is visiting important monastic centres of their respective period. While in the earlier time (8^th-9^th c.) the Judean desert was the primary destination, some monks were compelled to stay within the empire due to security issues in the border area. Those restricted themselves on the monastic centres of Bithynia or travelled to the west instead, like Gregory Dekapolites, in order to visit the monasteries of Rome or Calabria. In the 9^th c., Mt. Athos became an important monastic destination for travelling Byzantine monks. In the later 10^th and 11^th centuries, the destinations are still the same, but now the Byzantine monks took the land route to reach Palestine which was under Fāṭimid control at that time. The previous uncertainties had diminished and Palestine became again the most important destination for Byzantine monks on travel.

18Are these patterns also to be observed for lay pilgrims of the same period? In order to tackle this question, we need to contrast the Byzantine travelogues with the Latin pilgrims of the same time. I present 38 documented pilgrimages which touched the Byzantine empire on their way to Jerusalem. Although a large share of the Latin pilgrims were monks or abbots (ca. 17), even more a had clerical (11) or lay background (10)60. Going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem articulated piety for all upper echelons of Medieval Western society, but perhaps due to Benedictine influence, the share of ordinary monks going on Jerusalem pilgrimages was tangibly smaller than in Byzantium61.

19The monk Willibald (later bishop of Eichstätt) made an extensive journey in the east, staying there for nine years (721-29). He made his entry in the Byzantine empire at Rome, from where he travelled to Sicily in order to reach Palestine. He was doing so by a long sea voyage within the confines of the empire stopping on the Peloponnese and on East Aegean islands. After visiting Ionian coastal towns, the merchant vessel he embarked sailed along the Lycian coast to Cyprus (being inter Grecis et Sarracenis) and he landed finally in Antarados62. From there he took the land route to Jerusalem. Only on his return journey he visited Constantinople and took a similar way back from there to Sicily and Rome. At around 725, the later Bishop Silvinus of Toulouse undertook extensive travels reaching Jerusalem by sea [transmare] and the Jordan river by an unknown route63. Maldeveus/Magdalveus (later bishop of Verdun) accessed the empire in Rome (772-73) but took the land route via Monte Gargano to one of the Apulian seaports in order to take a vessel to Constantinople. From there, he was travelling by sea via Ephesus to Jaffa in order to reach Jerusalem64.

20Dicuil relates information in his geographic opus he had received by the Jerusalem pilgrim and Irish monk Fidelis about the Near East. The latter had travelled via Italy and Egypt to Mt. Sinai and Jerusalem in around 80065. The translation report on St. Marcus’ relics mentions a Jerusalem pilgrim Domenicus who was waiting in Alexandria for a merchant vessel for his return. When the Venetian vessels took the relics in 827/28, he embarked one of them and returned home66. The later Bishop Frodomund of Coutance, originating from Lorraine, apparently did not enter the Byzantine orbit during his pilgrimage. He came to Rome, travelled by an unspecific sea voyage to Alexandria, visited the Palestinian pilgrimage shrines including Mt. Sinai and even some parts of Armenia before he returned to France (855-60)67. Bernard the Monk had more in common with his Byzantine counterparts regarding his monastic objectives which are also showed by his itinerary (867). From Rome he used the same route like his compatriot Maldeveus one hundred years before (Monte Gargano, Apulia), but this time the Apulian ports were under Muslim control. Therefore, he sailed to Alexandria for visiting Palestine. After accomplishing this, he took a ship from Jaffa to Rome in order to reach France68. The Mozarab Dunale from Cadiz travelled with an entourage to Rome, then Constantinople, and reached Jerusalem apparently by sea (945-50). He did also visit Galilee and Egypt where he died in arrest69.

21Count Guillermus of Vienne and his companion Joscelin received on their maritime return journey in Constantinople relics of St. Antony by an unidentified emperor (ca. 960)70. Abbot Adso of Montier-en-Der went from the Champagne to Jerusalem by a sea voyage to Egypt and returned through the empire by embarking on a vessel which also stopped at the Sporadic islet Astypalea [Astilia insula] (ca. 985-87)71. The later Abbot Bononius of Lucedio went from Northern Italy by a sea voyage to Alexandria in order to reach Jerusalem, Mt. Sinai and Constantinople (ca. 980-90)72. The monk John from Montecassino – who later was elected abbot of that monastery as John III – paid a visit to Jerusalem (987-88) and stayed thereafter for six years on Mt. Sinai. On his way back, he visited Constantinople and Mt. Athos73.

22At around the year 1000 Archdeacon Alderald of Troyes undertook a pilgrimage via Rome to Salerno where he embarked a vessel to Palestine. After being captured by Saracen pirates he eventually reached Jerusalem and Bethlehem74 (related to this report is the legend of the forty Norman lay pilgrims to Jerusalem who happened to be in Salerno on their return when the city was under Saracen attack75). At roughly the same time, the nobleman Hugo from Aquitaine travelled via Rome and Monte Gargano to Jerusalem, apparently following the same paths76. Count Fulco III Nerra d’Anjou took the route via Rome to Bari to reach Constantinople and from there went to Jerusalem with a Byzantine escort (1003-04). During a second pilgrimage, this time by sea, he is supposed to have visited Myra (1008-10)77. Only little later, Giraud of Thouars, abbot of Saumur, came to Constantinople and continued eastwards to Jerusalem (ca. 1010-20)78. It is related that he got robbed in Byzantine Lycaonia, consequently he must have taken the Cilician road to Antioch. The Abbot Adalgerius of Conques also crossed the Byzantine empire in order to reach Jerusalem – passing by Ephesus on his way where he met Peter from Le Puy (ca. 1019)79. Bishop Ulric of Orléans headed an embassy of King Robert II of France to Emperor Constantine VIII (1025-28). After conclusion of his mission, he received a Byzantine escort for his pilgrimage to Jerusalem80. Count Guillaume d’Angoulême81 together with Abbot Richard de Vannes82 took a route via Hungary through the Byzantine empire to Antioch and arrived in Jerusalem and Bethlehem safe and sound (1026-27). A similar route was taken by the Priest Othmar from Hainburg nearby Vienna83. His journey was misdated several times84, passing Hungary, Belgrade to Constantinople and Nicaea (between ca. 1025-65). In Syria, he visited Antioch and the Mons admirablis, crossing to Fatimid territory at Tripoli. He saw Ramla, Jericho, the Jordan river, and Bethlehem. Count Robert I of Normandy likely followed the same road to Jerusalem, and presumably even travelled along that very route on his way back (1034-35), but dying on it in Nicaea85. The Magdeburgian Burggrave Meginfred of Waldeck had already passed through Byzantium when he was prevented to cross the border at Laodicea. Consequently, he boarded a ship which brought him to Jerusalem via Jaffa in 104086. Bishop Yves III de Bellême of Séez from the Champagne chose the alternative route via one of the Apulian seaports to reach Jerusalem but was received by Emperor Constantine IX in Constantinople on his way back to France (ca. 1050)87. The monk Egelwinus from Canterbury undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and returned via Constantinople (where he bought a pallium), Apulia, Rome and Lombardy (ca. 1050)88. Bishop Lietbert of Cambrai reached Constantinople, took the southern route to Antioch and the Byzantine outpost at Laodicea, but then chose to continue by ship to Jaffa (1054)89. He was shipwrecked on Cyprus, though. Abbot Egbert of Fulda arrived by sea at Portus St. Symeonis, visiting Antioch and Jerusalem in 1056-5790. Abbot Thierry de Mathonville of St.-Évroult travelled in a larger group via Hungary and Byzantium to Antioch (1057-58). Although he died on Cyprus some of his companions arrived in Jerusalem91. Around the year 1062, Count Gisulf II of Salerno went to Constantinople together with the city’s Archbishop Alfanus I to beg the emperor for support. During the prolonged negotiations, the archbishop traveled to Jerusalem92.

23The large group of pilgrims headed by Bishop Gunther of Bamberg took the same route but continued on land from Antioch to Laodicea, Tripoli and Caesarea, visited Palestine (1064-65) and took a ship back to Germany thereafter93. This very land route was perhaps also chosen by Bonfilius Donucius from Catalonia who died in Antioch in 1067 after accomplishing his pilgrimage to Jerusalem94. His compatriot Isarn, custos of Urgell, died one year later in Cyprus on his return trip from Jerusalem95. This might indicate that he wanted to use the sea route through the Aegean Sea for his return. Archbishop John of Amalfi most obviously went by an Amalfitan merchant vessel to reach Jaffa in order to visit Jerusalem (1080-81)96. On his way back, he died in Damietta. Bishop Pibo of Toul, accompanied by Count Conrad of Lützelburg and Abbot Henry I of St.-Maximin, first visited Constantinople and Nicaea and later Jerusalem (1085-86), apparently travelling by the land route97. On the return journey, Henry died in Myra98 and Conrad in Italy. Count Robert of Frisia took the land route to Constantinople to reach Jerusalem but chose to travel back by a sea voyage to an Apulian port (1087-89)99. The next one was the monk Joseph from Canterbury, visiting Constantinople on his way to Jerusalem in ca. 1090 without disclosing his travel route100. The monk Guillermus Ludovicus from Cormery (Touraine) allegedly undertook a pilgrimage via Constantinople to Jerusalem where he purchased relics in around 1090101.

24The last documented pilgrim before the First Crusade who concerns us here seems to be the layman Bernard Saniofred from Catalonia, who reached Jerusalem via Monte Gargano (ca. 1090-92)102. Although further information is lacking, his stop signals that he chose the Apulian route. Comparing the two groups, we can discern certain peculiarities. First, some apparent observations regarding the routes have to be considered.

Travel routes

25Land and sea routes each had their advantages and disadvantages which were perceived even in Byzantine times, as can be seen in the Vita of Stephen the Younger written between 807-09:

… et de même que ceux qui ont coutume de traverser la surface des mers et font de lointains voyages [ἀποδημία] – puisque, par nature, les eaux n’ont pas de routes tracées car, molles et visqueuses par essence, elles ne gardent ni les marques de pas ni les traces de véhicules – en se guidant sur la position des astres, suivent la route qu’ils se sont fixée et, conjecturant avec science à partir des routes d’en haut la direction du chemin d’en bas, font sans erreur le voyage [πορεία] sans chemin; de même encore que ceux qui aiment les voyages sur la terre ferme, toutes les fois qu’ils veulent se rendre visite les uns aux autres, ne se confient pas aux sentiers inconnus par peur de se perdre et par crainte des embuscades des brigands [λῃσταί], mais, en prenant les grandes routes [λεωφόροι], mènent en sécurité et à bonne fin le voyage prévu; de la même manière, notre très bienheureux père Étienne lui aussi, – puisque, de fait, il voulait traverser l’océan d’une vie pénible et s’évertuait à faire route [ὁδεύω] vers la cité de la Jérusalem céleste –, observant, comme autant d’astres le guidant d’en haut, les cinq pères, interprètes de la vie agréable à Dieu et habitants successifs de la sainte grotte d’Auxence à Jean, choisissant pour chemin de l’esprit, comme une route impériale et une grand’ route [ὁδὸς βασιλικὴ καὶ λεωφόρος]...103 (trans. by Auzépy)

26For a monk, hardship of travel was a main objective which could be more easily achieved by a land route. In general, though, the main consideration when deciding on a travel route on either land or sea has always been concerns about security104. Insofar, economic concerns only came into play when the security issues were regarded as even for the different travel routes considered. There is an utter dependency between the pilgrim’s travel routes and common routes of communication, because pilgrims were using the mercantile and military-political infrastructure on land (due to best and secure roads) and the mercantile on sea (due to travelling on trading ships). Because all travellers shared the same basic needs, namely supply by basic goods (food and water) and information on their next stops, roads in good shape, and accommodation, travel routes were the same for all of them. Only in regard to the traveller’s specific motivations, travel routes parted from each other intermediately concerning divergent destinations like markets (for traders), fortifications (soldiers and officials), and pilgrimage sites, to cite examples.

27What can we say about the routes taken by both groups of travellers, i.e. Byzantine monks and Western pilgrims? First, in the period under investigation (8^th-11^th c.) land routes in combination with short sea passages at crossing points predominate over open sea voyages for all kinds of travellers (see fig. 1). The most prominent of these crossings had been the Otranto passage which had been taken in Late Antiquity from Brindisi to Dyrrhachium, Avlona or Butrint105. Due to the Slavic intrusion it became expanded southwards in the 7^th century106, and was used in the 8^th as well107. After that, the situation changed again. Due to the gradual Arab conquest of Crete starting in 822/27 and the related expansion of Arab fleets into the South Aegean Sea, the previous sea voyage from Italy to Constantinople became too risky108 and was substituted by a set of passages: first from Otranto to Naupactus or Corinth, and then along the Thessalian coast on either land or sea109.

28Regarding the route of travel from the core of the empire to Palestine, the majority of people used four major highways to the east110. In the north, there was the ὁδὸς Ἀρμενιακῶν111; in the centre, two parted in Ancyra; either the ὀξὺς δρόμος to Melitene112 or the so-called «pilgrim’s road» via Coloneia to the Cilician Gates113 in order to cross the border to the Caliphate on land. The latter’s western alternative led via Dorylaium and Iconium to the Cilician Gates (Ottoman’s uluyol, Byzantine name unknown)114. For pilgrims in particular, there was also an alternative route of significance via Sozopolis to Attaleia, enabling a passage from Pamphylia to Cyprus and directing to one of the Lebanese sea ports. The mode of travel by a long sea voyage via Rhodes along the Lycian coast which had been popular in Late Antiquity was no longer taken in the 9^th c. In both examples given, land routes in combination with short passageways were given preference over sea voyages.

29We can differentiate between three basic routes from the west to Palestine. The "Apulian course" is first to come to Rome and to travel on the Via Traiana115 via Monte Gargano116 through one of the Apulian seaports to Constantinople either directly circumnavigating the Peloponnese or indirectly by a passage to Epirus. After an eventual visit of the Byzantine capital, the western pilgrims continued going to Palestine. This route was the dominant one and was used by pilgrims of all centuries from the 8^th to the 11^th117.

30Why was it so popular for western pilgrims to travel via Constantinople? In fact, testimonies allowing to pin Constantinople as a pilgrimage destination for Westerners in herself in the period are extremely scarce118. Instead – like Jacoby remarked in a recent article considering the 11^th century – most of the western pilgrims first wanted to reach Constantinople only in order to get to Palestine119. But contrary to what he stated, this was not only grounded in the prevalent sea and land communications of that time which fostered to travel through Byzantium, but there is another aspect, namely that the Byzantines had the best knowledge of the current situation in the Near east due to their own pilgrimage activities and regular exchanges and were exceeding pilgrimage protection over the Fāṭimid territories. After reaching Constantinople they usually went to Antioch (under Byzantine control till 1084) and then crossed the Byzantine-Fāṭimid border.

31The second possible way was to start from another seaport in the Tyrrhenian, Ionian or Adriatic Seas and to bypass Byzantium on a sea voyage directing to Alexandria or Jaffa. This "Lybian course" did not mean that these pilgrims wanted to detour Byzantium – half of them visited Constantinople on their way back120. They apparently chose this route because they wanted either first to meet their main objective in Palestine, and set the secondary target to a later time; or they already had sufficient information about or contacts in Palestine so they could go there immediately without much consideration.

32The third route is the "Balkans course" (Via Imperialis or Militaris, the Ottoman Orta Kol) via Constantinople through Anatolia to Antioch. This route was only established at around AD 1010 but became the most frequented one in the 11^th century121. The obvious reason for the prevalence of this way in the 11^th century was its easiness after the conversion of the Hungarian kings to Christianity and the integration of both the Bulgarian territories and North Syria into the Byzantine empire122.

33As has been become clear, both lay and monastic travellers used the same means and the same routes for their travels. This is no surprise, considering that they both had to take the same security precautions, had to consider speed and costs; and most importantly, had to rely on the same mercantile routes on the sea because they had to use merchant vessels for their passages. I can detect one significant route divergence, however. Astonishing is that most Byzantine monks of the 8^th and 9^th centuries used a route to reach Palestine which not even one of the Latin pilgrims seems to have used: the "Pamphylian course" – that is a sea passage from Attaleia via Cyprus to a Syro-Palestinian port123. The Cypriot port in question is Paphus, of course, even if it is almost never specified. This very divergent route via Cyprus cannot be plausibly explained by the difference between lay and monastic travellers. It seems to me that this route was not feasible for Latin pilgrims traversing the empire before the 11^th c., because only then we have testimonies for this route: Thierry of St.-Évroult (1057), Isarn of Urgell (1068), Henry of St.-Maximin (1086). It is a detail meriting investigation. As it seems, Cyprus was a major hub for Byzantine seaborne trade between South Asia Minor and Egypt and the Levantine coast even before, while Latin merchants only rarely stopped there in the same time124. All in all, we can discern significant differences in the route choices between both groups. Can we observe the same regarding the destinations?

Destinations

34All the Latin pilgrims coming to the eastern Mediterranean in the period under investigation wanted to primarily visit Jerusalem. Usually the accounts have many shortcomings so we can only be certain in some cases that the respective pilgrim also visited Bethlehem, the Jordan valley, Mt. Sinai, and sites in Galilee. Because of the limited data it seems to me like as if those regions did not compete or lost or gained favour in relation to each other but were instead visited altogether or none at all – depending on the funds and time available. This I tend to believe because in the mentioned cases, those destinations are enumerated side by side, while in most cases the account is so brief that the only site explicitly mentioned is Jerusalem. Insofar, Graboïs’ hypothesis that Mt. Sinai, Galilee and further Palestinian sites were secluded from pilgrimage activity from the 7^th to the 14^th century seems to be inconclusive125.

35Regarding destinations within the empire, some visited Ephesus but only because it laid along the sea voyage route to Palestine. Most did pass by in Constantinople for the same reason. Not a single report relates that a Latin pilgrim of the 8^th to 11^th centuries went to Constantinople for religious purposes.

36On the other side, the Byzantine monastic travellers did almost always visit Jerusalem during their Palestinian pilgrimage but this was not perceived as sufficient. Instead, as far as the sources tell us, they extended their travel to Bethlehem, the Jordan valley, the Judean desert monasteries in general, and in some cases also Galilee and Mt. Sinai. As it seems, Byzantine monastic pilgrims spent more time at different Palestinian locations than Latin pilgrims. Regarding the empire itself, the destinations chosen by Byzantine pilgrims are generally more diverse within the empire; the Holy mountains, and sometimes Ephesus.

Concluding remarks

37To sum up, while Latin pilgrims going to the East always directed towards Jerusalem, this was not the only destination chosen by Byzantine monastic pilgrims of the same time, although it was the most popular single pilgrimage site. This pattern had much to do with the Judean desert monasteries in the Jerusalem area which were apparently the destination for these travellers. In contrast to the Latin pilgrims, therefore, the Byzantine monks also visited much more often also the secondary pilgrimage sites of Palestine, namely Bethlehem, Jordan valley, the Galilean sites, and Mt. Sinai. The only Latin pilgrims certainly visiting these areas were those Latin pilgrims deeply interested also in monasticism but they joined these communities less frequently. We can infer from this pattern that lay pilgrimage from the Latin west restricted itself on Jerusalem and instead of prolonging the journey in Palestine those pilgrims were more interested in cities of the empire, especially Constantinople, which was visited by almost all of them.

38Byzantine lay and clerical pilgrimage should have looked alike in the same period, although no reports were written or transmitted of these travels. Our perception of mid-Byzantine sacred travel is completely biased because it is based on monastic travelogues alone. In fact, Byzantine lay pilgrims may have taken sometimes different routes than their Latin counterparts (cf. the "Pamphylian course" via Cyprus), but their focus should have been Jerusalem, as well, discounting the other Palestinian sites just as often as we observe for the Latins in the period of the 8^th to the 11^th centuries.

Fig. 1 – Topographical map with markers indicating maritime courses and land routes which were favored by Chalcedonian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem in the 8^th to 11^th centuries, 2018, drawn by author