No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Basil of Caesarea and the Problem of the Wealth of Monasteries
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
The work of Basil of Caesarea (c.330–79; Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia from 370) as an organizer and theologian of the monastic life has long been recognized as an important part of his activity as a bishop, and has been extensively studied. The principal authentic ascetic works of Basil which have formed the basis of this study are traditionally known as his monastic rules, though this description is not strictly accurate, since the rules are in fact composed of a series of questions and answers about the organization and administration of monasteries, about the theological principles of the monastic life, and about the interpretation of particular texts of Scripture. Basil’s answers almost always refer to Scripture, and show his asceticism to have been based firmly on obedience to the commandments of Christ as he interpreted them, particularly to the commandments of love of God and love of neighbour, which are discussed at the beginning of LR. Basil believed that obedience to the commandments could best be practised in the context of the common life, rather than that of the solitary monk.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1987
References
1 The most useful work in English on Basil’s monasticism remains, despite its age, Clarke, W. K. L., St Basil the Great: a Study in Monasticism (Cambridge, 1913)Google Scholar. See also Morison, E. F., St Basil and his Rule (Oxford, 1912)Google Scholar; Anand de Mendiera, E. A., L’Ascèse monastique de saint Basile: essai historique (Maredsous, 1949)Google Scholar; Humbertclaude, P., La doctrine ascétique de saint Basile de Cesaree (Paris, 1932)Google Scholar.
2 The Longer Rules (LR) in PG 31, cols 890–1052, and the Shorter Rules (SR) in PG 31, cols 1051–1306. On the composition of the rules see Clarke, pp. 69–74. At this point must be mentioned the work of J. Gribomont, who has argued (Histoire du texte des ascétiques de saint Basile, Bibliothèque du Muséon, 32 [Louvain 1953]) that LR and SR (which together he calls the Grand Ascéticon) are a revision of Basil’s original work, which survives only in the Latin translation of Rufinus (the Petit Ascéticon, PL 103, cols 483–554). Gribomont’s view is that Basil originally addressed his work not to a monastic environment but to all Christians. Only in the revised work (still genuinely Basilian) does the properly monastic character emerge. A full discussion of these ideas is not possible in this paper, though other work by Gribomont will be cited below.
3 LR 2–3 (cols 908–17). Clarke, p. 106. E. A Amand de Mendieta, ‘Le système cénobitique basilien comparé au système cénobitique pachômien’, RHR 152 (1957), pp. 34–7, 44–5. For accounts of the theological basis of Basil’s asceticism see also A Meredith, ‘Asceticism-Christian and Greek’, JTS ns 27 (1976), pp. 313–32 and Osborn, E., Ethical Patterns in Early Christian Thought (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 84–113 Google Scholar.
4 LR 7 (928–33). Clarke, pp. 85–6, 119–20. On Basil and the common life see Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43.62 (PG 36, col. 577A-B), and the discussion of this passage in Clarke, pp. 111–13.
5 The evidence of Basil’s sermons is summarized by M. M. Fox, The Life and Times of St Basil the Great as Revealed in his Works = Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, 57 (Washington, 1939), pp. 24–43.
6 Basil, Homily on Luke 12.18, PG 31, cols 261–77, esp. 276B-77A. This passage is translated and discussed by Avila, C., Ownership: Early Christian Teaching (London and New York, 1983), pp. 49–56 Google Scholar.
7 Responsible use of wealth had been described by Clement of Alexandria in The Rich Man’s Salvation, PG 9, cols 603–52. Basil’s ideas on responsible use of wealth are examined by S. Giet, Les idées et l’action sociales de saint Basile (Paris, 1941), pp. 96–142 and see now J. A. McGuckin, ‘The Vine and the Elm Tree’, above pp. 1–14. For a wider discussion see Ioannes Karayannopoulos, ‘St Basil’s Social Activity: Principles and Praxis’, in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, ed. P.J. Fedwick, 2 vols (Toronto, 1981) 1, pp. 375–91.
8 SR 155 and 286 (1184B-C, 1284B) mention hospitals; SR 292 (1288B) discusses the education of secular children (paidiõn biõtikõn). Remarkably little is known about these activities however see Clarke, pp. 99–102 and Amand, ‘Le système cénobitique’, pp. 44, 64–5.
9 If Gribomont is correct this assertion will apply only to Basil’s later work. Gribomont regards Basil’s teaching on wealth as an example of his insistence on ascetic standards for the whole Christian community. SR 85 (1144A) after quoting Acts 4.32 comments, ‘anyone who regards anything as his private property is a stranger to the Church of God’. Basil certainly seems to be addressing the whole Church here, rather than a monastic community: Gribomont regards this avoidance of specifically monastic terminology as characteristic of Basil’s early work. For a good summary of Gribomont’s views, with references to other work, see ‘Le monachisme au sein de l’église en Syrie et en Cappadoce’, SMon 7 (1965), pp. 19–24.
10 LR 8 (933–41).
11 Ibid., 936C, quoting II Corinthians 1.9.
12 Ibid., 940B. ‘Denial of self and the ideas about renouncing all worldly contacts are found in Basil’s very early Letter 2, PG 32, cols 224–33: see especially 224B and 225B. In this letter Basil perhaps gives more weight to solitude than in the rules, which insist emphatically on the common life. The necessity of withdrawal from the worldly contacts in order to avoid distraction and obey the commandments is also discussed in LR 5, 6 (920B-28B). For another appeal for renunciation of possessions see SR 89 (1144D-45A).
13 SR 92(1148C-1148A).
14 Luke 11.41; 12.32.
15 Compare SR 271 (1269B-C).
16 This tendency is associated with the Eustathians, whose views were condemned at the synod of Gangra (341). The Eustathians ‘declared the rich to be entirely without a share in the Kingdom of God’, according to Sozomen, HE III.14.33 (ed.J.Bidez, GCS 50, p. 123). The conclusion to the synod of Gangra’s decrees comments: ‘wealth, if accompanied by righteousness and good deeds, we do not denounce’ (HL 1, pt ii, p. 1043). On the Eustathians and their influence on Basil see Gribomont, ‘Le monachisme au IVe siècle en Asie Mineur: du Gangres au Messalianisme’, Studia Patristica, 3, ed. K. Aland and F. L. Cross, TU 64 (Berlin, 1957), pp.400–15.
17 Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1968), pp. 940a–41a Google Scholar.
18 LR 9 (941A-944B).
19 Jeremiah 48.10.
20 Clarke, p. 45, discusses Basil’s own retention of the income from part of his property and remarks (p. 83 n. 5): ‘We can easily imagine cases where a man enjoyed a share of the family estate which it was impossible to realise on joining a convent.’
21 SR 187 (1208B-C).
22 SR 107 (1156B). Basil discusses contact with relatives in general in LR 32 (993D-907A).
23 This does not mean that Basil thought legal responsibilities should be evaded. If a monk is liable for taxes, then he must render to Caesar, though if his property has been made over to his relatives they are responsible (SR 94, 1148B-C). Basil appealed for the exemption of monks from taxation, as their wealth was used entirely for charity: Letter 284, PG 32, cols 1020B-C.
24 I Corinthians 11.22.
25 SR 86 (1144A-B).
26 SR 304 (1300A-B).
27 SR 308 (1301C). Clarke, p. 82, thinks that the question concerns possible preferential treatment within the monastery for monks who provided wealth. Had such a gross breach of the principle of the common life been suggested, I do not think Basil would have allowed what latitude he does.
28 Clarke, p. 83, concludes his brief survey of these passes with the opinion that Basil did allow a monk to receive an allowance from his relatives, and that in general Basil’s position on personal wealth within the monastery was a moderate one. 1 do not think, however, that Basil was prepared to allow any compromise in his view of the monastic life.
29 That manual work was incompatible with prayer is a view associated with the Messalians or Euchites. See Guillaumont, A., ‘Le travail manuel dans le monachisme ancien: contestation et valorisation’, in Aux origines du monachisme chrétien (Bégrolles en Mauges, 1979), pp. 117–25 Google Scholar.
30 LR 37 (1009C-16D). The following discussion is based on the first part of this answer. In the second part, Basil discusses the correct times of formal prayers.
31 Ibid. (1009C), quoting Matthew 10.10 and Ephesians 4.28.
32 Ephesians 4.28 is quoted again, along with Acts 20.35.
33 II Thessalonians 3.8, 10; Proverbs 31.27, and others.
34 This would seem to imply chat Basil has strenuous manual labour in mind, to which the terms ponos and kopiän which he uses are appropriate.
35 LR 37(1013A), quoting I Thessalonians 5.17 and II Thessalonians 3.8.
36 SR 201–2 (1216C-D): attention in everything is gained by thanksgiving and confession. Attention and its consequences, intense love of God and desire to please him, are also described in SR 157 (1185A-B). On the importance of attention in Basil’s ascetic theology T. Spidlik, ‘L’Idéal du monachisme basilien’, in Basil of Caesarea, ed. Fedwick, 1, pp. 361–74.
37 LR 38 (1016D-17C).
38 LR 39(1017C-20B).
39 LR 40(1020B-21A).
40 LR 42(1024D-28A).
41 SR 206 (1220A-B), Matthew 6.25.
42 SR 272 (1269D-72B), Matthew 6.34.
43 SR 207 (1220B-21A), John 6.27.
44 John 4–34.
45 SR 252(1252A-B).
46 See also SR 93, 131 (1148A-B, 1169C).
47 Basil usually tries to reconcile apparently conflicting texts without the use of allegory. ‘The worker is worthy of his hire’ and the petition for daily bread really refer, in Basil’s view, to material and not spiritual sustenance. To reconcile them with command forbidding concern about food it is not necessary to allegorize them, as other Fathers, finding prayer for material blessings unpalatable, were tempted to do.