This text also shows how Pachomius shared the burden of spiritual fatherhood with other experienced monks in the community. His institute grew so rapidly that he had to divide the community into “houses,” which consisted of smaller groupings of monks under a subordinate superior the ancestor of the deaneries of St. Benedict. Later he established other monasteries both up and down the Nile, which were not independent but formed a single koinōnia; nevertheless, these monasteries at a distance naturally had to be governed by other monks dependent on Pachomius. In choosing these superiors, he was guided solely by the consideration that they be spiritual men, capable of leading others to growth: “He appointed certain ones, among qualified brothers, to help him in what pertained to the salvation of their souls” (Vita bo 26). Horsiesius later told the monks: “Brothers, hearing what is written, ‘He who exalts himself shall be humbled,’ let us watch over ourselves. It is not for everyone to govern souls, but only for perfect men. There is a parable that an unbaked brick laid in a foundation near a river will not last for a single day, but a baked one lasts like a rock” (Vita prima 126).
The role of these superiors was, then, not merely disciplinary and administrative; they were regarded as true spiritual fathers, though in subordination to Pachomius and his successor. They and the men who took his place as father of the entire koinōnia after his death were, in a certain sense, identified with Pachomius, so that it was his fatherhood they exercised. They made his pastoral concern present and operative when and where he could not exercise it directly. Thus Horsiesius, upon the death of Theodore, cried out that Pachomius had been taken from them (Vita bo 207); and when he was himself installed in Theodore’s place, the brothers rejoiced “as if they saw our father Pachomius and Theodore in their midst” (Vita bo 208). The basis for this quasi-identification was the conviction that his collaborators shared in the charism of Pachomius himself.
The appointment of monks to be superiors seems to have been regarded as the choice of God himself: the designation by Pachomius or another, or even the consensus of the brotherhood, was only the recognition of the will of God. Thus when Horsiesius succeeded Theodore, the Coptic author wrote: “The God of our father Pachomius, of Apa Petronius and of Apa Theodore, he who is merciful, compassionate, and of abundant pity, placed his blessing on Apa Horsiesius, and the angels put their hands upon him; and all the brothers as well as the elders of the monasteries received him and confirmed him as their father. . . . After this, the holy archbishop Apa Athanasius heard it reported that the holy father Apa Theodore had died and that God had put Apa Horsiesius in his place to nourish the souls of the brothers” (Vita sa 3b). The source of the father’s authority, then, is purely charismatic. We are told, indeed, that the bishop of Tentyra, in whose diocese the first Pachomian monasteries were located, asked St. Athanasius to ordain Pachomius, “a father and man of God,” to be “father and priest of all the monks of the region” (Vita prima 30). No doubt the bishop was worried about the sudden growth of the monastic movement and saw the need for hierarchical control. Pachomius escaped ordination by hiding, however, and always remained a layman, as was the case with the majority of the desert elders.
The fatherhood of Pachomius and his successors and subordinates was exercised in the way that was traditional in the desert: teaching by both word and example. Pachomius frequently instructed his monks by means of the catechesis or conference. In each monastery there were three such instructions weekly, given by the father, and two others given in the “houses” by the subordinate superiors. A number of examples of these catecheses have survived in both Greek and Coptic.37 Their chief characteristic is their intensely biblical interest; sometimes they are little more than chains of scriptural texts or are entirely devoted to interpreting passages of Scripture. One of the charisms of a Man of God was the understanding of the Scriptures. The Bible was seen, however, as a practical rule of life, and therefore the understanding of it was revealed in the exemplary conduct of the Man of God. Pachomius, although he was “abbot general” of the whole koinônia, lived as a simple monk in one of the houses and was subject to its “dean.” He showed his monks how to live by serving as a visible model of the monastic life, and especially of the patience and compassion of Christ. He is accordingly firmly in the tradition of a father’s formation of his sons by word and example.
The superior in other cenobitic traditions
Some notable differences distinguish the monastic movement of Cappadocia from that of Egypt. It seems to have originated with groups of Christians who banded together to live the ascetic life. Basil himself began in this way with members of his own family, after the completion of his studies and of a journey to visit the monastic establishments of the East (see Introduction, pp. 31-32). It was an independent movement, no doubt connected with the ascetical currents of Syria, but without dependence upon the monastic developments in Egypt. Basil never uses the Egyptian terminology (e.g., monk, abbot) and declares himself opposed to the solitary life. It was an entirely different situation from that of the desert, where individuals went to an elder to seek guidance. Basil came to occupy a position of leadership among the groups of ascetics after he became a priest and a bishop. He wished to encourage and strengthen the movement, to provide it with a solid theological foundation, and to purge it of error and deviation. His so-called Rules are simply a collection of his answers to the questions and problems submitted by ascetics.38
In these circumstances, it is obvious that Basil’s relationship to his followers was different from that of the elders of Nitria or the Pachomian apas to their respective disciples. The communities did not grow up around a renowned abba, as in Egypt; the communities existed first and then sought an appropriate organization and government. Consequently, the process is inverted: the superior is a product of the community rather than vice versa. As a result, the concept of spiritual fatherhood does not have the same fundamental importance that it assumed in Egypt; and the community itself, based upon the New Testament idea of Christian fellowship, assumes greater prominence. The community, moreover, was the ordinary Christian community, at least at first, for the movement was originally more of an attempt to reform the whole Church than to create a special way of life within it for a minority. Gradually, however, it developed more and more into what we today would call a religious community.
In the first edition of his Asceticon, which was known to St. Benedict in the translation of Rufinus, Basil speaks twice of the “one in charge.” He emphasizes, on the one hand, his duty to God, namely, to be faithful to the divine will and to the Scriptures in everything he commands; and, on the other, his duty to the members of his community, to be “like a nurse caring for her children,” prepared to give not only the Gospel but even his life for their sake (Basil. reg. 15). When it is necessary to correct them, he must have the concern of a father and a doctor for a son who is sick (Basil. reg. 24). His brother, Gregory of Nyssa, who continued Basil’s work in furthering the ascetic movement in Asia Minor, uses similar language in his ascetical works. In the treatise On Virginity, he emphasizes the need for the young and immature to find a “good guide and teacher” to advise them in regard to undertaking the ascetic life (Greg.Nys. virg. 23). In his later treatise On the Christian Mode of Life, he specifies the obligations of the “one in charge”: above all he must have humility, serve the brothers in a self-effacing manner, and make his own life an example for them. He is to “provide instruction according to the need of each,” but in this he is compared, not to a father, but to a paedagogōs, the slave to whom the father entrusts his children to see that they are taught. He is to adapt himself carefully to the individual needs of each (Greg.Nys. inst.christ: Jaeger, p. 69; FC, p. 146).
These profoundly evangelical ideas coincide in many respects with the views of the Egyptians. Indeed, the Cappadocians have a different point of departure: the charismatic elder and his role in the formation of spiritual sons does not stand at the center of their preoccupations. Nevertheless, they ar
e concerned that the superior teach both by word and by example and, like Pachomius, insist that he be the first to give an example of humility and diakonia. Despite the diversity of situation and approach, in practice the difference between the functioning of a Basilian proesōts and that of a Pachomian apa was perhaps not very marked, simply because both had independently drunk from the pure source of the Gospel.
Augustine too, despite his respect for the monastic heroes of Egypt, acted quite independently of them in formulating his own concept of monastic life. For him it was a matter of fashioning his own version of the ascetical ideal that he had come to know at Milan and Rome, and that was sweeping all through the West at the end of the fourth century (see Introduction, “Monasticism in Roman Africa,” pp. 59f.). His inspiration was the ideal of fraternal unity that he found so impressive in the Acts of the Apostles; hence for him the point of departure was the community. After the rather leisurely ventures of Cassiciacum and Tagaste, he fully implemented his ideal of the common life, common ownership and unanimitas at the garden monastery of Hippo in 391. The superior of the group was not called abbas, but simply praepositus, the ‘one placed over.’
Only at the end of the Regula ad servos Dei does Augustine speak ex professo of the praepositus. He says that obedience is to be shown to him “as to a father.” He is looked upon as representing God to the brothers, for Augustine says that dishonor shown to him would be an offense against God. He is to be outstanding in humility, motivated by charity and not by the wish to dominate others. He is to console, correct or come to the aid of the brothers, as the needs of each determine. He must maintain discipline, but seek to be loved more than feared. His own good example should be the principal means of exercising an influence upon others. He should always remember that he will have to give an accounting to God for the way in which he has fulfilled the duty entrusted to him (Aug. reg.serv. 7,1-4).
We do not know how the superior was chosen, but his authority was not supreme, for he was to refer serious matters to the presbyter, apparently a priest appointed by the bishop as overseer of the community (Aug. reg.serv. 7,2). As in Cappadocia, this Augustinian form of the common life was more integrated into the local church and under hierarchical authority than was generally the case in Egypt. Nothing is said of the charismatic gifts of the praepositus, even if he is thought to represent God and to act as a father. Nevertheless, the qualities and the service required of him, precisely because of their intensely biblical inspiration, are scarcely different from what we find in the Pachomian literature. St. Benedict was profoundly influenced by Augustine’s assimilation of evangelical values, and we find some of the great Doctor’s memorable phrases echoed in the Rule.
Benedict’s understanding of the abbot
St. Benedict devotes two entire chapters to the abbot: chapter 2 deals with the nature of his task and the manner of its exercise, and chapter 64 treats of the selection and installation of the abbot, adding further observations on the personal qualities of the man chosen for the role, which complete but do not alter what is said in chapter 2.
The text of St. Benedict’s chapter 2 is almost certainly derived from the corresponding chapter (also chapter 2) of the Régula Magistri. While some details might be interpreted in such a way as to make a case for the priority of the RB, it has been shown that the order of material in the chapter constitutes an overwhelming argument for its dependence upon the RM.39 The latter displays a structure that has been very carefully worked out, employing the techniques of repetition, inclusio and chiasm. It is divided into four sections of approximately equal length,40 of which the first and fourth correspond to each other, treating the same subjects in nearly the same order. These introductory and concluding sections deal with the nature of the abbot’s role and answer the question “What is an abbot?” The second and third sections also correspond to each other, for each treats, in identical order, of the same two themes: the twofold character of the abbot’s teaching and the equality of treatment he should extend to all without prejudice. The first of these themes is embellished, in both sections, though in different locations, with a subtheme developing the idea that each of the two kinds of teaching suits a particular kind of disciple.
The entire structure, therefore, forms a great chiasm, within which a series of elements forms inclusions or marks off development of thought by carefully placed repetitions. Thus the solemn intonation of the word abbas introduces each of the four sections:
“An abbot who is worthy to be in charge. ... (1)
Therefore when anyone takes on the name of abbot. . . . (11)
In his teaching, the abbot should always observe. . . . (23)
The abbot should remember always what he is. . . .” (30)
It is obvious that such a carefully structured literary’ development must be the work of a single mind, and indeed of a mind that operates with exceptional logic and clarity.
On the other hand, the corresponding chapter of the RB displays a portion of the same clear structure, but in a mutilated form. While the first section is almost identical to that of the RM and the second differs only slightly, the third has disappeared except for the sub-theme and is partially replaced by an exhortation to eliminate evils promptly. The concluding section lacks one of the elements that in the RM forms an inclusion with the introduction, and contains a passage that has no correspondence elsewhere. It is easy enough to see how the text of the RM could have been altered into the present chapter 2 of the RB by someone who either did not perceive the clear structure or else was not concerned to preserve it. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to imagine how a redactor, confronting the text of the RB, could have transformed it into the precise architecture of the RM. Indeed, commentators have never been able to discern a clear outline of the material in RB 2;41 it is only when it is compared with the RM that the structure emerges and the redactional process can be reconstructed. By omitting three passages of the RM and adding three new ones in adjacent places, St. Benedict has profoundly disturbed the original order, though he has improved the content. This can best be seen in the following outline:42
RM RB
INTRODUCTION (1-10)
INTRODUCTION (1-10)
1. Name ABBOT = one who takes Christ’s place (1-3)
1. Name ABBOT = one who takes Christ’s place (1-3)
2. Teaching must conform to divine precepts (4-5)
2. Teaching must conform to divine precepts (4-5)
3. Responsible for his teaching and for monks’ obedience (6)
3. Responsible for his teaching and for monks’ obedience (6)
4. Must account at Judgment for disciples’ souls (7-10)
4. Must account at Judgment for disciples’ souls (7-10)
FIRST SECTION (11-22)
FIRST SECTION (11-22)
1st theme: Twofold teaching: word and deed (11-15)
1st theme: Twofold teaching: word and deed (11-15)
Sub-theme: Different types of teaching for different types of person (12b)
Sub-theme: Different types of teaching for different types of person (12b)
2nd theme: Equal Charity to all (16-22)
2nd theme: Equal Charity to all (16-22)
[1st addition: Rank of monks (RB 18b-19)]
[1st omission: RM 21]
SECOND SECTION (23-31)
SECOND SECTION (23-29)
1st theme: Twofold teaching word and deed (23-29)
__________
Sub-theme: Different types of teaching for different types of person (23-25)
Sub-theme: Different types of teaching for different types of person (23-25)
2nd theme: Equal charity to all (30-31)
___________
[2nd omission: RM 26-31]
[2nd addition: Eliminate evils promptly (RB 26-29)]
CONCLUSION (32-40)
CONCLUSION (30-40)
1. Name ABBOT = more is required of him (32)
1. Name ABBOT = more is required of him (30)
[3rd addition: Temporal concerns secondary (31-36)]
2. Must account at Judgment for disciples’ souls (33-36)
2. Must account at Judgment for disciples’ souls (37-38)
[3rd omission: RM 35-38]
3. Teaching must conform to divine precepts (37-38)
4. Will also have to account for his own soul (39-40)
4. Will also have to account for his own soul (39-40)
As a matter of methodology, therefore, the teaching of the RM on the abbot must first be examined; its author sets forth his doctrine with completeness and clarity. St. Benedict is much more brief and trenchant. For him, mere allusion often replaces detailed exposition. His disagreement with the Master can sometimes be discerned in what he omits or alters, his own concerns in what he adds. Fundamentally, however, except where differences are stated or can reasonably be inferred, it can be assumed that he accepts the Master’s teaching. The agreements are more extensive and more important than the differences. Thus it appears that Benedict accepts the Master s theology of the abbatial office, even though he omits a significant passage in which this theology is expounded (RM 1.82-92). This occurs at the end of chapter 1 and forms a link with the chapter on the abbot that follows. Such logical connections between chapters are frequent in the RM and often omitted by the RB in its concern to abbreviate.
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 50