| Egypt introduced a third form of monasticism besides the anchoritic (eremitic) and coenobitic (communal) archetypes. This third form, probably the earliest, comprised “solitaries” living within the villages and participating in liturgical and communal functions, while still remaining “alone ones.” This too resonates with what is seen in the Syrian Book of Steps, which exhibits evidence of a class of Christians (the “Perfect”) that lived on the outskirts of villages and which the “Upright” Christians supported. The work of E. A. Judge (1977) on an early 4th-century papyrus from Karanis highlights a petition from a certain Isodorus to a local official concerning an offense at the hands of two thieves. What is significant in this text is Isodorus’ recounting that he had been saved by two people, the deacon Antoninus and the monk Isaac. This “monk” may be an instance of the “third form of monasticism” – the village monk. St. Jerome offers further evidence of this type of monasticism when he complained that “there are monks (‘solitaries’) living in small household communities, who exercise too much independence of clerical authority” (Pearson 2007: 108). Further evidence of this Coptic “village monasti- cism” is suggested by recent studies pertaining to the origins of Pachomian monasticism (Goehring 1996). According to the Life of Pachomius in the Bohairic Coptic version which has been interpreted by Joest (1994), St. Pachomius was imprisoned in Thebes, Egypt, after refusing to serve in the military around 312. In such times prisoners had to depend on the goodness of others to provide them food and clothing while in prison. The Life narrates that the Coptic Christians so impressed Pachomius with their hospitality and care for prisoners that he was so convinced of this “new” and true religion and its compassionate God that he prayed that night and committed his life completely to this same God. When he was finally released from prison, Pachomius sought out the nearby Christians in the town of Chenoboskion and was received into the church there. |
| The other important term that helps us understand native Syrian monasticism is the phrase Bnay Qyama. The word Qyama refers primarily to the idea of “covenant,” though it also connotes “station” and possibly “resurrection”; it was even used by Aphrahat to denote the whole church. Accordingly, the Bnay Qyama (Sons of the Covenant) refers to a group of celibates who took upon themselves a special “station” in the life of the community. They assumed this station by individual covenant, or solemn pledge, at their baptism, at which time they assumed the obligation of celibacy and became ihidaye (solitary ascetics). They also accepted to follow Christ’s lifestyle in a uniquely uncompromising way, and in so doing they were deliberately trying to manifest the form of life that would be lived in the “age to come,” the life to which all the baptized are finally called. Through their celibacy and uncompromising pursuit of holiness, they stood among their community as anticipatory images of the resurrection to come. It is difficult to say very much more about this movement. We can surmise that it was carried out neither in a strictly eremitic, nor in a coenobitic form, although there may have been a proto-rule that the Bnay Qyama followed. They seem to have existed as communities close to the churches and were an integral part of Syrian church life. But by the 5th century this ascetic tradition, whatever its characteristics, quickly became displaced by the Egyptian variety of monas- ticism. However, the Syrians did not simply import Egyptian monasticism; they incorporated it into their region in a creative way that reflected their own idiosyncrasies. We find that these idiosyncrasies were expressed in a range of behavior that might strike the modern reader as deeply disturbing, even inhuman. In Syria and Mesopotamia asceticism occasionally took bizarre forms. The majority of the monks were simple Syriac-speaking people, ignorant of Greek. Violent forms of asceticism were common. A heavy iron chain as a belt was a frequently practiced austerity. A few adopted the life of animals and fed on grass, living in the open air without shade from the sun and with the minimum of clothing, and justifying their method of defying society by claiming to be “fools for Christ’s sake» Some Syrian ascetics manifested special feats of penance, such as going without sleep for long periods, being walled up, or spending a lifetime on exposed pillars (Stylites), among whom St. Simeon the Stylite (ca. 390–459) was the most famous. Syrian monasticism should therefore not be seen simply as a more extreme form of monasticism stemming from either a greater degree of dualism or intellectual simplicity, but rather as a form of monasti- cism stemming from a different theological emphasis. |
| Basil died, worn out with his labors, in 379. His letters are major sources of information about the life of the church in the 4th century. His Hexaemeron, or interpretation of the creation through the Genesis account, is a masterpiece of early Christian scriptural theology, and shows him as a moderate Origenist, with a fine feel for the moral power of scripture. His treatise Against Eunomius was a major force revitalizing the Nicene resistance, and he did much in his time to persuade the Homoiousians that their position was in substance reconcilable with that of the Homoousians, something that historically speaking was a key element for the long-term success of the Nicene cause. His work in his church as teacher and public defender of his town, as well as his learned canonical writings (setting wise rules of governance that the Eastern Church formally endorsed as universal authorities at the Quinisext Council of 692), made Basil a model for future eastern bishops, and in Byzantine times he was designated along with Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom as one of the “Three Holy Hierarchs,” the most important bishop theologians of the ancient period. His reputation as one of the most important early monastic theorists also gave him a reputation among the eastern ascetics akin to the greatest of the monastic theorists, Antony, and Theodore the Studite. SEE ALSO: Cappadocian Fathers; Monasti- cism; St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Gregory the Theologian) (329–390) REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Clarke, W. K. L. (1913) St. Basil the Great: A Study in Monasticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holman, S. R. (2001) The Hungry Are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, B. (1989) St. Basil: Letters and Select Works. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Rousseau, P. (1994) Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley: University of California Press. St. Constantine the Emperor (ca. 271–337) JULIA KONSTANTINOVSKY Constantine I was an enigmatic figure yet a unique saint in the Orthodox Church: the first Christian emperor (discounting the possible candidacy of Philip the Arab), Constantine abolished the persecution of Christians, making Christianity a favored state religion. |
| Shenoute of Atripe (334–450) was abbot of the famous White Monastery at Sohag in Upper Egypt. He governed his coenobitic monastery with somewhat harsher rules than those of Pachomius. He was heavily involved in the wider community of Upper Egypt and struck out violently against the remnants of Egyptian pagan culture, using his monks as a missionary force. His participation in the Council of Ephesus (431) underscores the growing monastic influence in the church at large. As an author, Shenoute marks the highest development of Coptic literature. But because he wrote at a time when Coptic Christianity was becoming increasingly isolated from most of wider Christianity, his works were never translated into Greek, and as a result his history and significance have been largely forgotten outside of Egypt. Today, he is increasingly being recognized as one of the preeminent figures in Coptic Christianity. Shenoute was the first monastic leader to require a written profession from his monastics. Egyptian monasticism spread to all areas of Christianity through personal acquaintance and literary testimonies such as Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca, Athanasius’ Vita Antonii, and other compendium texts such as The Lives of the Desert Fathers, the Apophthegmata Patrum, and the Rule of Pachomius. In Egypt a variation, something halfway between eremitical and common life monasticism, also appeared. The great centers of this semi-eremitic life were Nitria and Scetis, colonies just south of Alexandria; which by the end of the 4th century had produced many outstanding monks – Ammon the founder of Nitria, saints Macarius of Egypt and Macarius of Alexandria, Evagrius of Pontus, and Arsenius the Great. Nitria was the nearer of the two to Alexandria and formed a natural gateway to Scetis. It was a meeting place between the world and the desert where visitors, like John Cassian, could make first contact with the traditions of the desert. Here, a more Greek-influenced type of monasti- cism evolved around an educated minority, of whom Evagrius Ponticus is an outstanding example. This lifestyle would grow to influence the Lavriotism we find in Palestine. Not all early monasticism, however, was an offshoot of Egypt’s traditions, and other parts of the early Eastern Christian world show significant variations on a common theme of ascetical endeavor. |
| McGuckin, J. A. (1996a) “St. Symeon the New Theologian and Byzantine Monasticism,” in A. Bryer (ed.) Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasti- cism. London: Variorum Press, pp. 17–35. McGuckin, J. A. (1996b) “St. Symeon the New Theologian (d. 1022): Byzantine Theological Renewal in Search of a Precedent.” In R. N. Swanson (ed.) The Church Retrospective: Studies in Church History, vol. 33. Oxford: Boydell Press. McGuckin, J. A. (1996c) “The Notion of Luminous Vision in 11th C Byzantium: Interpreting the Biblical and Theological Paradigms of St. Symeon the New Theologian.” In Acts of the Belfast Byzantine Colloquium – Portaferry 1995 (The Evergetis Project). Belfast: Queen’s University Press. McGuckin, P. (1994) Symeon the New Theologian: Chapters and Discourses. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications. Maloney, G. (1975) The Hymns of Divine Love. New Jersey: Dimension Press. Maloney, G. (1975) The Mystic of Fire and Light. Denville, NJ: Denville Books. Palmer, G., Sherrard, P., and Ware, K. (1995) Philokalia, vol. 4. London: Faber and Faber, pp. 11–75. Turner, H. J. M. (1990) St. Symeon the New Theologian and Spiritual Fatherhood. Leiden: E. J. Brill. St. Theodore the Studite (759–826) JOHN A. MCGUCKIN Theodore was the aristocratic abbot (higumen) first of the Sakkudion Monastery (founded with his uncle Platon on family estates in Bithynia) and then, in 798, of the large and important Stoudium Monastery at Constantinople (by the patronage of Empress Irene). His monastic reforms (refining and systematizing the ascetic corpus of St. Basil the Great) led to his Studite Typikon becoming a “standard” model for the majority of Eastern Orthodox monasteries in the Byzantine era. He encouraged the many hundreds of monks of his cenobitic establishment to engage in literary, as well as liturgical, activities; and scholars have surmized that it was in the scriptoria of the Stoudium that the minuscule script was invented. He was a vigorous defender of the rights of the monastics against both the imperial and patriarchal throne when he felt canonical limits had been transgressed; and was particularly noted as a strong advocate of the Iconodule cause in the second phase of the Iconoclastic crisis, beginning in 814. After the Triumph of Orthodoxy, in 843, his memory was elevated along with that of St. John of Damascus as among the chief of the Iconodule saints, and his treatise On the Holy Images has been an influential text. |
| This semi-eremitic model could also be found in Jerusalem, which became a great monastic center later in the 5th century. In the Judean wilderness, and especially around the desert of Gaza, there were great spiritual fathers of the Egyptian tradition. Indeed, in the 5th and 6th centuries, leadership in the monastic movement shifted to Palestine through the influence of such figures as St. Euthymius the Great (d. 473) and his disciple St. Sabas (d. 532). Judea especially became the home of the Lavra. This style of monasticism preserved a greater level of solitude than was common in a coenobium. Another difference between the semi-eremitic and the coenobitic models was that the semi-eremitic arrangement often functioned as a preparatory phase for the anchoritic life, and seemed tacitly to presume that the anchoritic life was the superior. RUSSIA AND THE BALKANS With the coming of Christianity, monasti- cism also entered the Slavic Balkans and Russia. The coenobitic cave monastery at Kiev came into being in about 1050 under the influence of Athos. The Mongol hoard destroyed most Russian monasteries in the 13th century. The flight of many monks and the restoration in the 14th century led to new monastic regions in the wilder parts of northern Russia and the area around Moscow. Here we find coenobitic, eremitic, and mixed forms alongside one another. Among the great Russian monastic founders and heroes are St. Sergius of Radonezh (Sergei Posad near Moscow); St. Daniel the Hermit (Danilovsky Monastery at Moscow); St. Joseph of Volokolamsk (d. 1515) who strongly represented the coenobitic form; and St. Nil Sorskii (d. 1508) who defended the eremitic life. Secularization in the 18th century reduced the number of Russian monasteries considerably. The 19th century, however, brought a new upsurge. St. Seraphim of Sarov and the Optina monastic elders represent a flowering of the monastic life comparable to the ancients. The 1917 Revolution left only a few monasteries intact, which were put under strict state control. |
| 61) Л. 75 об. Cap. V. Coenobiarchae s. laurae Alexandro-Newscensis. Глава V. Настоятели св. Александро-Невской лавры. 62) Л. 76. Cap. VI. Coenobiarchae monasterii Wladimer-scensis. Глава VI. Настоятели Владимирского монастыря. 62) Л. – об. Сар. VII. Archimandritae Tschudowscensis monasterii. Глава VII. Архимандриты Чудова монастыря. 63) Л. 77 об. Сар. VIII. Archimandritae Neo-Spascensis mo nasterii. Глава VIII. Архимандриты Ново-Саасского монастыря. 64) Л. 79. Cap. IX. Archimandritae monasterii Simonowscensis. Глава IX. Архимандриты Симонова монастыря. 65) Л. 80 об. Cap. X. Coenobiarchae monasterii Solowezscensis. Глава X. Настоятели Соловецкого монастыря. 66) Л. 81 об. Supplementum. De Rossorum academiis, universitatibus, gymnasiis, collegiis, seminariis, scholisque tam privatis, quam publicis. Дополнение. О русских академиях, университетах, гимназиях, коллегиях, семинариях и школах как частных, так и публичных. 67) Л. 83 об. Cap. I. De academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae praesidibus, consiliariis, professoribus et adjunctis. Глава I. О председателях, советниках, профессорах и адюнктах санкт-петербургской академии Наук. 68) Л. 87 об. Cap. II. Series rectorum et praefectorum academiae Mogilo-Saborowscianae Kiewiae. Глава II. Реестр ректоров и префектов киевской Могило-Заборовской академии. 69) Л. 88 об. Cap. III. Series protectorum, rectorum et praefectorum academiae Mosquensis. Глава III. Реестр протекторов, ректоров и префектов Московской академии. 70) Л. 90. Cap. IV. Series rectorum et praefectorum collegii Charkowiensis. Глава IV. Реестр ректоров и префектов Харьковского коллегиума. 71) Л. 90 об. Cap. V. Rectores collegii s. Antonii. Глава V. Ректоры коллегиума св. Антония (в Новгороде). 72) Л. 91. Liber quintus. Hagiologion Rossicae ecclesiae. Cap. I. De sanctis Rossorum domesticis primariis. Книга пятая. Агиологион российской церкви. Глава I. О главных российских святых домашних. 73) Л. 94 об. Cap. II. De sanctis Rossorum domesticis secundariis. О российских святых домашних второстепенных. |
| Будучи столь различным с Иринеем по месту происхождения, по первоначальным годам воспитания и по образованию, Тертуллиан не только разделял с ним взгляд на гностицизм, но совпал с ним и в методах борьбы с ним, согласился и относительно тех пунктов, которые наиболее должны быть защищаемы против гностиков: это те же – regula fidei, апостольская традиция, свящ. писание, отстаиваемые догматико-полемическим способом 2261 . Конечно, гений Тертуллиана наложил свой неизгладимый отпечаток оригинальности на его борьбу с гностицизмом, однако это коснулось больше стороны внешней, формальной, а не – т. ск.– принципиально-материальной. Если св. Ириней в противовес гностицизму выражает некоторые симпатии монтанизму – в признании прор. харисмы и 1000-летнего царства, то Тертуллиан в даннном случае и вовсе перешагнул должные границы, ставши монтанистом или полумонтанистом. Кроме борьбы с гностицизмом, его к этому роковому шагу привел его ригоризм,– как и Ипполита – к расколу в римской церкви,– его недовольство церковной дисциплиной, общий упадок в религиозно-нравственной жизни вообще. Его противоположность по отношению к гностицизму была главным образом теоретико-богословскою, а его позднейшее разногласие с церковью произошло почти исключительно на почве этической, практической. Вследствие этого Тертуллиан не только не был еретиком, и в схизму-то он не погружался глубоко: защита regula fidei и не против одних только гностиков была девизом всей его жизни. «Поэтому,– замечает один английский изследователь (Fuller),– церковь никогда не отказывала в своей благодарности тому, ортодоксия котораго доставила ей ответы гностикам, тринитариям и – вообще по трудным вопросам того времени – христологическим, антропологическим и эсхатологическим“. 03. Тертуллиан написал весьма много сочинений, очень разнообразных по своему содержанию – апологетических, догматико-полемических против еретиков, касающихся канонической стороны в жизни церкви, дисциплины и нравственно-практических. Из его сочинений видно, что это был человек широко образованный и с горячим темпераментом. |
| Гораздо труднее для объяснения слова Василия Великого . Скорее всего в них должно видеть указание на так называемые «правила веры» (regula fidei). «Они были образцом для учительной деятельности и, как таковые, – не были публикуемы, хотя и были источником, из которого вытекала миссионерская проповедь, оглашение, церковная проповедь и Символ», 288 – говорит Пробст, в чем с ним согласен и Цецшвитц. 289 Так получалось, что правила веры (regula fidei) в одно и то же время были и тайною, и – догматами (δογματα), – когда они хранились в тайне, – и «проповеданиями» (χηρυγματα), – поскольку содержание их возвещалось всем. Кроме этих свидетельств, да еще разве слов Евлогия Александрийского, писавшего с точки зрения Александрийского гносиса («Тайного богословия» – Theologia arcana), 290 не нашедшего приема в остальной Церкви, – нельзя более найти указаний, чтобы догматы входили когда-либо в состав «Тайноводственного учения». 291 Можно указать только один догмат, который, по-видимому, относился к «Тайноводственному учению». Это был догмат о Пресвятой Троице. О нем Св. Кирилл Иерусалимский писал: «Язычнику мы не раскрываем тайн об Отце, Сыне и Св. Духе». 292 Но историческое исследование не оставляет сомнения в том, что не самая догматическая истина о троичности Лиц в Боге обрекалась на тайну, а лишь та формула, в какой она была изложена в крещальном Символе, сама же по себе она часто и подробно излагалась с церковной кафедры. 293 А крещальный Символ в свою очередь относился к «Тайноводственному учению» только по богослужебному своему употреблению – в таинстве Крещения. «Тайноводственное учение» относилось только к богослужебным обрядам и, в особенности – к таинствам Церкви. Но и относительно таинств можно было говорить с двух сторон: или излагать догматическое учение о них, об их сущности и о божественной благодати, подаваемой в каждом таинстве, или же – излагать внешний обряд и богослужебную обстановку таинств. Не одинаково было отношение «Тайноводственного учения» к этим двум сторонам, с которых можно было говорить о таинствах. Оно совершенно не касалось догматической стороны таинств, и потому в святоотеческих творениях можно встретить весьма много рассуждений относительно последней. Но совсем иное наблюдалось относительно обрядовой стороны таинств: она была обречена на полную тайну. «С каким трудом можно собрать рассеянные там и здесь заметки в древне-отеческих писаниях, чтобы получить образ раздаяния таинств»! – замечает по этому поводу Пробст. 294 |
| Тертуллиан не развивает этой мысли, может быть, потому, что она для гностиков был бы пустым звуком. Тертуллиан вообще предпочитает вести полемику не на богословской почве, а на историко-философской 794 . Во всяком случае, можно думать, что мысль св. Иринея о charisma veritatis не совсем чужда и Тертуллиану . Однако и в этом пункте мед св. Иринеем и Тертуллианом заметно довольно значительное различие. Св. Ириней certum charisma veritatis связал с епископатом, непрерывно ведущим преемство от апостолов, и таким образом епископат поставлен в экклезиологической системе св. Иринея в самое ближайшее отношение к церковному учительству. У Тертуллиана этого нет. Как мы уже видели, по учению Тертуллиана , Дух Святой руководит всей Церковью, и charisma veritatis не принадлежит только епископату. Тертуллиан высоко ставит епископов как пастырей Церкви, называет их praesides 795 , pastores 796 , antistites 797 , praepositi 798 , укоряет еретиков за их непочтение к своим епископам 799 , приписывает епископам jus docendi, чего прочие не имеют 800 . Но наряду с этим у Тертуллиана мы видели слишком высокую оценку самого «Правила веры». Символ у Тертуллиана обращается в правило для веры , как бы в юридический кодекс, которой он называет «законом» 801 – Regula а Christo instituta 802 . «Правило веры» Церковь получила от апостолов, апостолы – от Христа, Христос – от Бога 803 ; оно дошло с самого начала Евангелия 804 . А потому для более точного определения догматов места как бы не остается. Regula fidei – как бы мертвый капитал 805 . Crede quod traditum est 806 ! Но в таком случае учительная деятельность епископата, очевидно, сводится только к двум отдельные видам: научать «Правилу веры» и сохранять его. Для догматических вероопределений Церкви через епископат у Тертуллиана места нет, и его экклезиологическая система менее благоприятствует этому учению, чем система св. Иринея 807 . «Если бы возник спор о каком-нибудь неважном (modica) вопросе, то не надлежало ли бы обратиться (recurrere) к древнейшим Церквам, в которых обращались апостолы, и от них получить, что есть достоверного и ясного (certum et liquidum) относительно настоящего вопроса» 818 . |
|
|
