3. The tradition of kinds of monks
The oldest literary evidence for the development of the theme of different kinds of monks is found in the Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii, an anonymous work attributed by some to Firmicus Maternus and dated about A.D. 381.29 The author distinguishes three styles of life in which monks live. First, there are the hermits or anchorites, said to be the highest grade, who live in deserted places or in caves and follow the most severe ascetical practices in regard to food, clothing, sleep, hours spent in prayer, etc. Then there are those who live apart from society but come together for prayer. Finally, there are those who lead a chaste and religious life but one not otherwise distinct from that of the rest of Christians. This author’s distinctions are based on the degree of asceticism pursued and the degree of separation from the rest of the society. The only technical term used to describe these various ways of life is monachus; it appears to be applied to these different forms precisely because what they have in common is the practice of the celibate life.30
The next literary classification of monks to appear is in St. Jerome’s famous letter to Eustochium. This piece is actually a treatise on the ascetic life; it is usually dated to the year 384, when Jerome was living in Rome and seeking to advance the cause of the ascetic life there. Jerome distinguishes three kinds (genera) of monks (Hier. epist. 22,34). While the author of the Consultationes did not locate the kinds of monks he was describing, Jerome is quite specific in naming Egypt as the place where these three kinds are to be found. This may be the first literary instance, apart from the Life of Antony, where the institution of monasticism in Egypt has come to be regarded as normative.
The first category of monks Jerome describes are called cenobites. He says they are called sauhes in “their foreign tongue,” and he defines them as “those who live in a community.”31
The second category Jerome mentions are the anchorites, who, he says, are called by this name “because they have withdrawn from society.”32 The founder of this manner of life was Paul (the hermit), but Antony was the one who made it illustrious. Actually, Jerome adds, John the Baptist was the first. These survive on bread and salt (Hier. epist. 22,36).
The third type of monks are called remnuoth.33 These, Jerome says, are a very inferior (deterrimum; cf. RB 1.6) and despised kind but are the only ones or the principal kind to be found in “our province.” That, presumably, means Rome or Italy. They are characterized as living together by twos or threes according to their own will and independently. In a satirical passage foreshadowing the more lengthy one devoted to the gyrovagues in RM 1, Jerome describes the remnuoth: “Among them everything is done for effect. They wear loose sleeves, flapping boots, clumsy clothing. They sigh a great deal, pay visits to virgins, belittle the clergy and, whenever a feast day comes round, eat themselves sick” (Hier. epist. 22,34).
Dismissing these as “a plague,” Jerome then devotes a lengthy passage to describing the way of life of the cenobites. The first mark of the cenobites is that they live under a superior (maior) and are obedient. He goes on to describe how they are divided into tens and hundreds under deans (called decani and praepositi), how they meet for prayer, their ascetic diet, their edifying discourse, their practice of silence, and their work.
It is clear that Jerome is describing the Pachomian monks of Upper Egypt. We do not know where he obtained his information; at this point in his monastic career he had not yet visited Egypt. Two years after he wrote this, Jerome did visit Egypt in the company of Paula, but he never did travel up the Nile to the principal Pachomian centers. However, he had spent some time in Syria, where he had become acquainted with Eastern monasticism and had many monastic contacts. He may have had access to some Pachomian literature in a Greek version, or he may have received his information from verbal reports about Pachomian practice. Some of his details may also have been drawn from the descriptions of the Essenes given by Philo and Josephus, for Jerome mentions explicitly that they lived a life similar to that of the cenobites (Hier. epist. 22,35).
Augustine is the next (c. 387–389) to provide a description of these new Christian styles of life. He does not in fact use the term monachus nor any other technical term to describe them. The one factor common to all those he mentions, and in fact the reason why they are invoked at all in a work directed against the Manichaeans, is their practice of celibacy. “Who can be unaware,” writes Augustine, “that the multitude of Christians practicing perfect continence increases and spreads day by day, particularly in Egypt and in the East?” (Aug. mor.eccl. 65). Again we may note that Egypt has come to be regarded as the home and norm of monasticism from the Latin point of view.
Augustine mentions three ways of living the celibate life. The first is that of the solitaries, who live in desolate places and practice rigorous asceticism (Aug. mor.eccl. 66). Next are those who live in common and pass their time in prayer, reading and spiritual conferences (Aug. mor.eccl. 67-68). Many features of this description, including the organization in terms of “deans,” the manual labor, the role of superiors, the diet, the care of the poor, etc., suggest that Augustine already had and was dependent on Jerome’s Letter 22 for his description. However, he does not bother to mention the remnuoth described by Jerome, but goes on to describe another kind he had heard of that might be termed “urban monasticism” (Aug. mor.eccl. 70). He mentions communities at Milan and Rome in which holy men and women live a retired life under a superior. Augustine sees these communities as especially inspired by the injunctions of Paul about manual labor (2 Thess 3:6-12) and about moderation and charity (Rom 14:2-21).
Some thirty years after Augustine, John Cassian took up the theme of the “kinds of monks” and developed it at greater length, adding some new features. It has been suggested that Cassian is dependent for his information on that supplied by Jerome in Letter 22.34 There is every reason to believe that he was acquainted with Jerome’s work, but there are several reasons for thinking that he is also a distinct witness to the same Egyptian tradition on which Jerome’s report is based. In the first place, Cassian had lived in Egypt for many years, and although it seems he never visited the Thebaid, he was certainly well acquainted with the monasticism of Nitria and Scetis.
Cassian states that there are three kinds of monks in Egypt, but he later describes a fourth kind. The first kind of monks are the cenobites, who live together in a congregation under the direction of an elder. They are the most numerous kind and are found throughout Egypt (Cassian. conl. 18,4). According to Cassian, the cenobites were the original kind of monks and can be traced back to the time of the apostles. In fact, he would lead us to believe that they are simply a continuation of that ideal of the Christian life described by Luke (Acts 4:32-35) from which the rest of the Church had fallen away. The more fervent Christians, not content with the careless and lax life of the general body of Christians, gradually separated from them to live a common life apart from the rest. “Because they abstained from marriage and cut themselves off from intercourse with their kinsmen and the life of the world, [they] were termed monks (monachi) or monazontes from the strictness of their lonely and solitary life” (Cassian. conl. 18,5). Although this is historically untrue, Cassian’s definition of the term “monk” primarily in terms of celibacy is in accord with all the evidence previously mentioned.
In another version of the origin of the cenobites, Cassian traces them back to the early Church at Alexandria founded by St. Mark. Here he combines the picture of the early Church provided by Luke with the information supplied by Philo concerning the Therapeutae, who had already been identified by Eusebius as the early Christians.35 Cassian then assumes not only that these were the first Christians in Egypt, as his source had done (Eus. hist.eccles. 2,15) but that cenobitism in Egypt could be traced back to them (Cassian. inst. 2,5).36 Thus, whatever may have been Cassian’s familiarity with Jerome’s description of the kinds of monks, he has modified it considerably by omitting, at least at this point, any reference to the Pachom
ians and by tracing instead the supposed historical origins of the cenobites back to northern Egypt, even to Alexandria.37 This he no doubt did for the didactic purpose of demonstrating the necessity of training in the cenobitic life before one takes up the anchoritic life.
Cassian’s account of anchoritic origins is very similar to that of Jerome, with the exception that he implies that the first hermits, Paul and Antony, had been cenobites originally (Cassian. conl. 18,6). They sought the recesses of the desert out of a desire for the loftier heights of perfection and divine contemplation. As Jerome had done, Cassian invokes the example of John the Baptist and then goes on to mention Elijah and Elisha with quotations from Job, Jeremiah and the Psalms in support of the anchorites. Along with the author of the Consultationes, Jerome and many others, Cassian shared the by now traditional view that the anchoritic life was a higher form of monastic life, not because the anchorites came first historically, nor because the word monachus was originally equivalent to anchorite, but because the anchoritic life was perceived as a higher or more advanced form of asceticism. To Cassian must go credit, however, for the notion that the cenobitic life is a training ground for hermits.38
The third kind of monks mentioned by Cassian are the sarabaites (Cassian. conl. 18,7). These correspond to the remnuoth mentioned by Jerome. The distinct name suggests that Cassian had independent access to the same Egyptian tradition on which Jerome had drawn.39 Cassian regards this kind as a sort of heresy. They have broken away from the congregations of the cenobites, where the authentic monastic tradition is taught, and live an undisciplined life. They shirk the severity of the monastery and live two or three together in their cells, not satisfied to be under the care and governance (imperio) of an abbot (Cassian. conl. 18,7). Cassian describes the sarabaites at considerable length, contrasting them unfavorably with the cenobites. He notes that the two kinds are almost equally numerous in southern Gaul. The reason for his exaltation of the cenobites is clear. Cassian is aiming to establish the idea of an authentic and normative monastic tradition that is transmitted in cenobitic monasteries. Those who seek to become anchorites must first be formed in this authentic tradition.
Finally, Cassian mentions a fourth kind of monk, to whom he gives no name. These are false hermits who have spent some time in a coenobium but not enough to receive a proper formation. They leave and set out on their own before they have learned to deal with their own vices (Cassian. conl. 18,8).
The immediate literary antecedent and source of RB 1 is RM 1. The latter’s description of the kinds of monks is in turn drawn largely from Cassian. The Master states that there are four kinds of monks. The first are the cenobites, defined exactly as by RB 1.1-2. The second are the anchorites, again described as in RB 1. The third are the sarabaites. This passage of RM 1.6-10 is reproduced in RB 1.6-9 in slightly abbreviated form. Cassian’s fourth, unnamed kind seems to be appended to the description of the sarabaites by the Master (RM 1.11-12). Then the Master introduces his fourth kind, the gyrovagues, about whom he digresses in a lengthy, often amusing satire. This is a new variety in the tradition; evidently these wandering, homeless monks had become quite a problem in early sixth-century Italy. The need to regulate them is reflected also in the directions given for receiving visiting monks (RM 78,87 and RB 61).40
This short chapter of the Rule of St. Benedict is, then, the end product of a long and rich literary tradition in which repeated efforts have been made to distinguish the genuine from the false article in monastic life. It is the fruit of a wisdom tradition based on the assumption that monastic life has as a goal, and should be oriented toward, the spiritual progress of the individual person. It reflects the experience that certain forms of monastic life enhance the possibility of progress and certain forms hinder it. In this tradition the cenobitic became the preferred form of monastic life because it was the consensus of the monastic movement that in order to achieve spiritual progress, the person who has chosen voluntary celibacy in imitation of Jesus needs training, a training that aims at absorbing the wisdom and profiting from the experience of many previous generations. This chapter reflects also the traditional idea that this training is best acquired in the company of others under the tutelage of a master, someone who has already combined the spiritual insights of the past with his or her own experience.41 This normative monastic tradition embodied in RB 1 grew up in Egypt, but was enriched by the observations and experience of other writers as it passed into, and was handed on in, the West.42
4. The monastic terminology for women
There is no single term for religious women with the same connotations and widespread use as the word monachos (monk) for men, a term that has remained remarkably constant through many changes of language. Lampe’s lexicon offers only one comparatively late instance of the feminine form monachē.43 More common are other formations on the same root, such as monastria and monazousa (corresponding to the masculine monazōn).44 Far more common for women, however, is the less specifically monastic term parthenos (virgin).45
In Latin the form monacha appears at a relatively early date (A.D. 384; Hier. epist. 22,13) in a context that, surprisingly, suggests common or widespread use. It continues in use for several centuries, appearing in diverse writings, such as those of Augustine, Gregory of Tours, Gregory the Great and the Lives of the Jura fathers.46 Although it has survived as a common term in Italian (monaca), it did not become the usual Latin term for monastic women or even remain in common use. The more common terms in Latin are sanctimonialis and virgo sacrata. Sanctimonialis (from which comes also the later short form monialis) is found already in pre-Christian use. It is an adjectival formation from sanctimonia, designating an existence consecrated to the practice of a holy life.47 In Christian literature it occurs first in Augustine (Aug. epist. 169; retract. 1,2,22; serm. 22,1). A cognate of monialis exists in French and did at one time in English also.48
The most common term in English for monastic women, “nun,” appears to be of Egyptian origin, although its etymology remains obscure.49 This word appears in both masculine and feminine forms in Greek (nonnos-nonna) from the second century A.D. on, and in Latin (nonnus-nonna) from the late fourth century. It was not originally an ecclesiastical or even specifically Christian term but was understood, at least as it came into Latin, as an epithet of respect, especially for older persons. Jerome uses it as such in his famous letter to Eustochium (Hier. epist. 22,16).50 It retains this connotation in RB 63.12, where, interestingly, St. Benedict finds it necessary to explain its meaning as paterna reverentia.
Thereafter the denotations of the word develop in two quite distinct directions. As an epithet of respect, both masculine and feminine Latin forms survive into the Carolingian period, but, due in part to the influence of Boniface, the feminine form begins to acquire its specific reference to religious women in Frankish and Germanic lands. Probably because of the dominance of the term monachus, the masculine Latin form does not develop this kind of reference and drops out of use. In Italian, nonno-nonna come to mean grandfather and grandmother. In German, French and English, the feminine form alone survives and refers properly only to monastic women. Given the fact that in the fourth to sixth centuries the term was still a comparatively generalized term of respect for older persons, it is easy to see how it could have developed these quite distinct meanings.
____________________
1 The most recent and thorough treatment of the evidence on this subject is F. E. Morard “Monachos, Moine. Histoire du terme grec jusqu’au 4e siècle” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 20 (1973) 332–411. A summary presentation of this author’s conclusions may be found in F. E. Morard “Monachos: une importation sémitique en Égypte? Quelques aperçus nouveaux” Studio Patristica, TU 12 (1975) 242–246. The following treatments of one or another aspect of the subject should also be mentioned: A. Adam “Grundbegriffe des Mönchtums in sprachlicher Sicht” ZKG 65 (1953) 209–239; E. Beck “Ein Beitrag zur Terminologie des ältesten syrischen Mönch
tums” Antonius Magnus Eremita, StA 38 (Rome: Herder 1956) pp. 254–267; L. Lorié, Spiritual Terminology in the Latin Translations of the Vita Antonii (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt 1955) pp. 25–34; J. Leclercq, Études sur le vocabulaire monastique du Moyen Age, StA 48 (Rome: Herder 1961) pp. 7–38; A. Baker “Syriac and the Origins of Monasticism” DR 86 (1968) 342–353.
2 The English word “monk” is derived from the Latin monachus, which in turn is simply a transliteration into Latin of the Greek monachos; this occurred in the fourth century, as will be demonstrated further on. There is, curiously, no exact feminine equivalent in English to “monk” or monachus. The now archaic “monial,” based on the Latin monialis, is attested in sixteenth-century English. See The Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. However, “nun” is the more common English equivalent of “monk.” The origin of this term will be discussed later.
3 See The Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. Lorié, Spiritual Terminology, p. 25, ignoring the evidence presented by Adam, states dogmatically: “The original meaning of monachos is a monk living in solitude, which meaning is still clearly preserved in the English ‘a solitary’ as it is in the German ‘Einsiedler.’ As monachism developed more and more from eremitic into cenobitic life, the word monachos gradually widened its meaning and came to designate any monk whether he lived in a hermitage or a monastery.” While showing much greater familiarity with the literature, G. Colombás “El concepto de monje y vida monástica hasta fines del siglo v” SM 1 (1959) 260, opts finally for the rather late evidence of Palladas, Jerome and others that suggests the equivalence of monk-solitary. But it is precisely the reliability of this evidence that must be questioned. (An unfortunately truncated English version of this article may be found in MS 2 [1964] 66–117.) See also C. Peifer, Monastic Spirituality (New York: Sheed and Ward 1966) p. 63.
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 46