In addition to raising their own food, the monks engaged in various handicrafts, the products of which were sent down to Alexandria to be sold. With the money thus obtained, other things such as cloth for clothing would be purchased. Eventually the community came to own a number of boats for this purpose. The monks also cared, when necessary, for people in the surrounding area. They took in old people and orphans. In time of plague they would care for the sick, feed the hungry and bury the dead.
Before long the number of monks grew too large for one location, so Pachomius formed another community a few miles away at the deserted village of Pbow. We are told that two groups of monks at Chenoboskeia and Monchosis asked to be admitted to the koinōnia. Pachomius imposed on them the regulations he had made for his own monasteries and appointed some of his own monks as supervisors (Vita prima 54). About A.D. 337, Pachomius moved his own residence from Tabennesi to Pbow and appointed Theodore as the head of Tabennesi. Pachomius himself remained the spiritual father of the whole congregation and spent much time traveling back and forth among the communities, giving instruction and encouragement.
When Pachomius died in 346 from the plague endemic to the area, there were already eleven monasteries in the “holy koinōnia,” of which two were for women. The letter of Ammon says there were about six hundred monks at Pbow in A.D. 352 (Ammon. epist. 2).80 The other monasteries were smaller, with a few hundred each. Palladius says that in his time (end of the fourth century), there were seven thousand monks living under the Pachomian rule. Most of these were in southern Egypt in the Thebaid, but there was later at least one monastery in the north at Canopus, near Alexandria, known as the Metanoia, which Jerome knew about and may have visited when he was in northern Egypt (Pachom. reg. praef.). Later on he made a Latin translation of the Pachomian materials, from a Greek version, for the benefit of Latin-speaking recruits. These materials must have been translated into Greek by that time.
After the death of Pachomius, there occurred the kind of crisis in the congregation that is not uncommon after the death of a founder. Pachomius had appointed as his successor Petronius, a well-to-do landowner, who had brought his wealth to the community some time earlier and who had been head of several monasteries in the area of Tismenae, even though he did not belong to the first generation of Pachomius’ disciples. However, Petronius survived Pachomius by only a few months. He in turn designated Horsiesius, the superior of the monastery at Chenoboskeia, to be his successor. Apparently Horsiesius was unable to control the independent spirit of the other superiors who, led by a certain Apollonius, were threatening to break up the congregation. Horsiesius then called upon Theodore, one of Pachomius’ earliest disciples, to act as coadjutor. Theodore had earlier been deposed from a position of authority because of factions that had developed. At any rate, he now took over the active administration of the congregation with a firm hand, disciplined the rebellious superiors, expelled unruly elements and established or re-established rules and regulations for the sake of order in the whole congregation (Vita bo 165-67; Vita sa6). One of those rules was that superiors of monasteries must be transferred to other monasteries every year at the annual general chapter. Theodore continued to govern the koinōnia until his death in A.D. 368. Thereupon Horsiesius, who had remained the titular head of the congregation, returned to its active leadership, in which he continued for many years (Vita prima 149).81
The rule of the Pachomian monasteries has survived in the Latin translation of St. Jerome and in a number of Coptic and Greek fragments.82 In fact, the material that Jerome translated comprises several collections of rules and regulations, which are divided under these Latin headings: Praecepta, Praecepta et Instituta, Praecepta atque Indicia, and Praecepta ac Leges. There seems to be little doubt that the regulations which suppose earlier stages of development go back to Pachomius himself, while those relating to the fully developed congregation probably owe much to Theodore.83 In general, these are compilations of regulations made as the situations requiring them arose. Most of them relate to the good order to be preserved in everyday affairs, such as food, drink, use of books, care of the sick, coming late to prayer, etc., matters that would also be dealt with in the Rule of St. Benedict. There is, however, none of the more theoretical treatment of the monastic life such as is to be found in the Prologue and first seven chapters of the Rule of St. Benedict.
Because the rule of the Pachomian monasteries is a compilation of regulations, it is necessary to read the Lives of Pachomius and the Catecheses to get a more complete picture of Pachomian monasticism. In these works we can discover the theoretical basis of the life, a basis to be found above all, as noted above, in the term koinōnia, which is constantly used in the Coptic lives of Pachomius and his successors to describe the whole congregation. There is also the frequent suggestion that this form of monastic life is an imitation of that of the apostles. Theodore describes the work Pachomius accomplished as that of “making this multitude become one spirit and one body” (Vita bo 194). The homilies of Pachomius, Theodore and Horsiesius recorded in the Pachomian literature bear eloquent testimony to the central role of Scripture in the lives of these monks.84.
The Pachomian monks always maintained cordial relations with Antony and others in the anchoritic tradition, but it is not surprising that, considering their way of life to be an imitation of that of the apostles as they did, unfavorable comparisons were eventually made with the eremitic style of life. A story about an encounter between some of Pachomius’ disciples and the great Antony illustrates this. Antony is pictured consoling some of the brothers after the death of Pachomius and is made to say, “the work he did in gathering souls about him to present them holy to the Lord reveals him to be superior to us and the path of the apostles in which he walked is the koinōnia.” Apa Zachaeus, a Pachomian monk, then asks Antony why, if the koinōnia is the superior way of the apostles, he had not lived this way himself. Antony then explains that when he became a monk, there was as yet no koinōnia but only a few anchorites who lived a little way from the villages. This is what he did. “Then when the path of the apostles was revealed on the earth, which is the work our able Apa Pachomius undertook, he became the entrance way for everyone who is in danger from the one who has done evil from the beginning.” Antony goes on to explain that he was then too old to take up the cenobitic life (Vita sa5). This and other passages leave no doubt that the Pachomian monks came to consider their form of monastic life preferable to the eremitic ideal.
7. ST. BASIL AND MONASTICISM IN ASIA MINOR 85
Our knowledge of monasticism in Asia Minor before the time of St. Basil (330–379) is very limited and consists chiefly of what we can deduce from the acts of a regional council held at Gangres about A.D. 340.86 This council, which did not retain its moral authority later on because many of the bishops involved were Arians, was directed against various errors being propagated in the ascetic movement. The acts of the council condemned those who rejected marriage and who taught that married persons could not achieve beatitude. The council claimed that these people alienated slaves from their masters, made up their own fasting calendar, held married priests in contempt, and that the sacraments administered by married priests were invalid. Apparently they also preached radical renunciation of possessions. The council condemned all these positions as strange to the Church and also censured the use of special ascetic clothing. If the acts of the council are reliable, it is clear that we have here not simply a monastic movement alongside the Church, as in Egypt, but an attempt at reform of the Church as such. A central, though more moderate, figure in this movement was Eustathius of Sebaste, who, according to the historian Sozomen, was the founder of monasticism in Armenia, Paphlagonia and Pontus (Soz. hist.eccles. 3,14).87 Eustathius was himself a priest, the son of a bishop, and eventually became a bishop himself. Basil was to be strongly influenced by Eustathius, although he later broke with him over doctrinal questions.
Basil was born into a wealthy Christian family at Caesarea in Ca
ppadocia about 330. His grandmother, Macrina the Elder, had been a convert of Gregory Thaumaturgus, who had been a pupil of Origen. Basil received an excellent classical education at Caesarea, Constantinople and finally for several years at Athens. About 358 he decided, along with his friend Gregory Nazianzen, to abandon secular studies in favor of a “philosophic” way of life, as fourth-century writers often refer to an ascetic sty le of life. He returned home to Caesarea and received baptism. This conversion was due in part at least to the influence of Eustathius, who had already influenced Basil’s grandmother Macrina to adopt the ascetic way of life. Seeking to join Eustathius, who had left Caesarea on a tour of the monastic East, Basil set out on a lengthy journey that gave him firsthand knowledge of ascetic and monastic practices in Syria, Palestine and northern Egypt.88
When he returned home, Basil withdrew from the ordinary affairs of society, took up the ascetic life and devoted himself to an intensive study of Scripture, apparently with the aim of establishing a sound theological basis for the practice of the ascetic life. He wished to avoid the extremist tendencies such as had been manifested in those groups condemned by the Council of Gangres as well as, perhaps, some of the aberrations he had observed in his travels. The result of his study was his first work, The Moral Rules, which he composed about 360. This work consists of principles for living the Christian life, which are then supported by quotations from the New Testament (1542 verses, in fact). The basic orientation found in Basil’s later ascetical works can be found already in The Moral Rules.89 For Basil, the monastic life is essentially the Christian life, lived as fully as it should be rather than a particular institution in the Church.90
Basil, despite his withdrawal from the life of society, remained involved in the life of the Church at Caesarea and before long was ordained a priest. In 370 he became bishop of Caesarea. With his excellent education, wide experience of the world and the Church, as well as his intimate knowledge of Scripture and other Christian writings (he and Gregory Nazianzen had produced an anthology of the writings of Origen, known as the Philocalia), he was well qualified to give the monastic movement in the Greek-speaking world a sound theological foundation. This he did in a series of responses to questions put to him concerning various aspects of the ascetic and Christian life. The collection of these became known as the Asceticon. An earlier edition was translated into Latin by Rufinus and is now known as the small Asceticon, and a later, enlarged edition is known as the large Asceticon. These works have also become known mistakenly as the Long and Short Rules.91 They are not in fact rules at all, at least not in the sense of the Pachomian rules or the other later collections of rules and regulations. For Basil, the only possible rule or norm for Christian conduct was Scripture.
Basil saw clearly that the Christian life can be understood only in terms of response to the double commandment of love. Therefore, he begins his treatment of the principles of the ascetic life with an exposition of the love of God and neighbor (Basil. reg. 1-2; reg.fus. 1-6). He then goes on to point out the necessity of avoiding distraction in the pursuit of this goal and concludes that it is better to live in retirement, withdrawn from a society that does not share the same goals. The corollary to this is that it is necessary to live in the company of those who are striving for the same goal.
Basil is severely critical of the eremitical life. He points out that a person who lives alone does not come to recognize his own defects, does not develop humility, is self-centered, and lacks the opportunity to practice charity. The solitary cannot really fulfill the exhortations of St. Paul to live as members of the body of Christ. On the other hand, he says, “community life offers more blessings than can be fully and easily enumerated.” It helps to develop all the virtues, and it is really in accord with the teachings of the New Testament (to support his position Basil cites 1 Cor 12; Rom 12:6; Matt 18:16; John 13:5 and others). In a concluding peroration on the common life, he says, “it is an arena for combat, a good path of progress, continual discipline, and a practicing of the Lord’s commandments, when brethren dwell together in community. ... It maintains also the practice characteristic of the saints, of whom it is recorded in the Acts: ‘And all they that believed were together and had all things in common’” (Basil. reg. fus. 7).
The monastic life is, then, for Basil as for Pachomius, an imitation of the life of the earliest Christian community as idealized by Luke. There is no reason to believe that Basil derived this idea from any contact with Pachomian monasteries or literature;92 rather, he seems to have derived it from his own meditation upon the Scripture. In practice, however, Basil does not seem to have been as rigidly opposed to the solitary life as the passage quoted above might lead us to believe. In a passage from his funeral oration for Basil, Gregory Nazianzen tells us that Basil had found a way to reconcile these forms of life. When Basil started out, he explains, the eremitic and cenobitic forms of life were in conflict, and neither possessed all the advantages. “Basil reconciled and united the two in the most excellent way. He had hermitages and monasteries built not far from his cenobites and his communities of ascetics. He did not divide and separate them by an intervening wall, as it were. He brought them close together, yet kept them distinct, that the life of contemplation might not be divorced from community life or the active life from contemplation. . . .” (Greg.Naz. orat. 43,62).93 To what extent this represents the views of Gregory as distinct from those of Basil is difficult to tell.
Basil certainly insisted, following St. Paul (1 Thess 5:17 and 2 Thess 3:8) on the necessity of both prayer and work. He counseled that those trades should be chosen that allow the tranquil and undisturbed pursuit of the Christian life. Necessity must of course be taken into account, but in the manufacture of articles, simplicity and frugality rather than luxury should be sought. He seems to envisage quite a wide range of trades and arts as well as farming being carried out in the monastic community.
In the large Asceticon (Basil. reg.fus. 22), Basil discusses the type of clothing fitting for a Christian. It is significant that he does not say “for a monk.” As we have noted above, the original impulse of the ascetic movement surrounding Eustathius was not to found distinct communities but to reform the Church. This was Basil’s spiritual inheritance as well. However, Basil’s program for living the Christian life, basically a program for the reform of the Church, ended up by becoming the rule for particular societies within the Church, cenobitic monastic communities.94 This tendency is more pronounced in the later edition of the Asceticon, which treats many questions that would arise only in the context of a monastic community. These include: how and at what age applicants are to be received, what to do with regard to those who leave the brotherhood, how superiors should behave, how guests are to be received, how to deal with the disobedient, on silence and laughter. In fact, many if not most of the topics that will be treated in the Rule of Benedict are touched on in one way or another by Basil. And this is no mere codification of regulations, such as the Pachomian rule, but provides a well-thought-out rationale for all aspects of monastic life.
8. ORIGEN AND THE SPIRITUALITY OF NORTHERN EGYPTIAN MONASTICISM AT THE END OF THE FOURTH CENTURY 95
In the last decades of the fourth century, a controversy developed over the use of the works of Origen (c. A.D. 186–255) by the monks of Palestine and Egypt, which was to have far-reaching consequences for the whole history of Christian spirituality. The primary reading matter for the monks had always been Scripture. It was inevitable, however, that they would become interested in other literature, particularly that which would be useful in the interpretation of Scripture. For those who could read Greek, there was nothing in this area to compare with the works of Origen, the greatest Christian theologian and Scripture scholar up to that time, the first to attempt a synthesis of Greek ideas with Christian revelation on an extensive scale and the first to plot out the development of the spiritual life in a detailed way. It has often been remarked that the direct and indirect influence of Origen on later Chr
istian theology has been pervasive.96
It is Origen’s theory of the spiritual life that is of particular interest in this development. For Origen, the spiritual life begins when a person comes to realize that he is made in the image of God and that the true world is the world inside him. This is the initial conversion. Origen thus brought together the biblical notion of man’s creation in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:25) and the Platonic notion that the true essence of the soul is divine. Sin has distorted this divine likeness and made man like the devil. The spiritual life is, then, essentially the recovery of the divine image in man.97
This recovery is plotted out by Origen through his exegesis of the Exodus from Egypt and the journey of the Israelites through the desert to the promised land. The idea that the departure from Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea represented man’s deliverance from the devil through baptism was already traditional, and indeed was grounded in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor 10:6; 1 Pet 1:13–2:10). And Israel itself was of course seen as a figure of the Church. When the Old Testament is interpreted to refer to the Church, we have what is later called allegorical exegesis. A different type of exegesis of the Old Testament, however, can be found in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jew of the first century A.D., who had interpreted certain details of the Exodus story to refer to the spiritual life of the individual person. This type of exegesis is later called tropology. Origen united these two types of exegesis and developed a whole theory of the spiritual life from its beginning in baptism, as represented by the crossing of the Red Sea, until its full development, as represented by the arrival in the promised land.98
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 7