MONASTICISM

MONASTICISM. The origins of Christian monasticism are much debated, but early one may point with authority to the life of Jesus, as well as that of Joh n the Baptist and the Virgin Mary (q.v.). It is clear that ascesis (q.v.) formed a component of Christian life from the start, and that from its beginnings as a mass movement in 4th c. Egypt (q.v.), monasticism has been an essential and vital expression of Christian life. It is surely not accidental that its great popularity and the rapid spread of monasteries were simultaneous with the new status of the Church following the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (q.v.).

With the disappearance of the martyr (q.v.) as a model of Christian witness, a new set of heroes emerged and were seized upon by the faithful: the ascetics of the desert. Antony of Egypt (q.v.) was the first, a hermit whose austere rule of life and extraordinary personal charismata caught the imagination of late antiquity. He was followed by Macarius of Scete (q.v.) and by Pachomius of the Thebaid (southern Egypt), whose communal organization of monks provided the first standing model of common-life (cenobitic) monasticism, indeed of monasteries in the usual sense. The elders (gerontes, startzi) of Scete gave Christianity the term, Desert Fathers (q.v.), and a median way of life between Pachomius’s strict communalism and Antony’s solitary life. All three forms of monastic life continue in force in the Orthodox oikoumene, most notably on Mt. Athos (qq.v.).

Also, in the 4th c., Basil the Great (q.v.) organized the ascetics of his metropolitanate in Asia Minor (q.v.). His rule, communicated via letters addressed to specific questions on ascetic life, emphasized communal life, obedience to the abbot, and service. It was to play a significant, though not dominant, role in the later monasticism of Byzantium (q.v.). Asceticism in Syria (q.v.) remained for some time an individual effort, the “sons” or “daughters of the covenant” being attached to the local churches and active in their affairs. This form of ascetic life seems to have had roots in the Syriac Church (q.v.) well before the 4th c. A later period saw a rise in extreme-even eccentric-forms of asceticism, perhaps best known by the early 5th-c. phenomenon of the stylite saints, for example, Symeon Stylites, who subsequently appeared in Byzantium itself.

From the earliest period of Christian monasticism, both men and women enjoyed the same title, monk (monachos in the masculine, monache in the feminine), and were characterized by a distinctive dress or “habit,” and a shaving of part of the hair, “tonsure.” Neither the assumption of the habit nor the tonsure were, however, formalized by a priestly ceremony until the late 5th c. Dionysius the Areopagite (q.v.) is the earliest witness to the treatment of monastic tonsure and vows as sacramental, though the idea caught on and was advocated with great enthusiasm by monks then and now.

The vows, or promises, appear to have been formalized by very early times, and included promises of poverty (literally, “non-possession,” aktemonsyne), obedience to the abbot or spiritual father (q.v.), and chastity or celibacy. Some rules, notably that of Benedict of Nursia in the West along with later canonical legislation in the East, added the promise of stability, that is, never to depart from the community where the vows were taken. These promises have always been regarded as permanently binding. They are administered after the candidate has passed an indeterminate period, usually not more than three years, as “novice” (Greek, dokimos, “one who is testing,” and Slavic, poslysh-nik, “one who obeys”). The tonsure today is generally to the rank of “little habit” (microschema) or “crossbearer” (stavrophore), though the “great habit” (megaloschema) is still given at tonsure by many Athonite houses. (The Russians and other Slavs prefer to reserve this last grade of monasticism for monks of the highest achievements, and to require of them a personal prayer rule of daunting asceticism.)

Developments in the Byzantine era (q.v.) saw the flourishing of monasticism in Palestine in the 5th c. and 6th c., and in Asia Minor in the monastic concentration at Mt. Olympus in Bithynia from the 8th to 10th c. Mt. Athos (q.v.), however, rose to special prominence in the Empire’s waning centuries and has remained the primary center of Orthodox monasticism to the present. The Holy Mountain did give birth to a corrupted form of monastic life in the last Byzantine century, which predominated throughout the period of the Ottoman Empire (q.v.), idiorhythmia. The latter “individual way” meant the effective elimination of the office of abbot in favor of a committee of elders and permission to hold private property. The measure initially seems to have been taken in several communities to allow for increased personal asceticism. Economic factors might also have played a role in following centuries, particularly under the Turks. Whatever the reason, it worked to lower the overall quality of monastic life; but it encouraged one beneficial side effect, the rebirth of scetes patterned after the original Scete of Macarius. Here, among its scetes and hermitages, Athos gave birth to the kollyvades movement in the 18th c. crowned by the labors of Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (qq.v.).

In Russia the Spiritual Regulation (q.v.) of Peter I (1721) contained legislation on monasticism and monasteries. Peter’s opinion of it may be summarized in his own words: “At the very outset (of Russian history) this gangrene became widespread among us.” He prohibited monks from studying books and engaging in writing. This included: 1) no writing in monks’ cells, either books or letters, without specific permission, nor may letters be received-subject to severe corporal punishment; and 2) no ink or paper could be owned by monks.

Otherwise monasteries were to be converted into workhouses, foundling homes, or veterans homes. Monks were to become hospital attendants and nuns were to be spinners and lacemakers. Peter’s educated “new monk” was of the Latin Kievan type, drilled in Scholasticism (q.v.), who might eventually be enlightened so as to serve as a capable translator of books. The end of the 18th c. saw a revival of monasticism and concern with the spiritual life, which continued until the Russian Revolution. Metropolitan Gavriil Petrov (1730–1801) encouraged the revival and supervised Paisii Velichkovsky’s translation of the Philokalia (qq.v.). Peter’s reform did less to dismantle monasteries and monasticism than it did the hierarchical leadership over subsequent centuries.

In sum, it is difficult to overstate the importance of monasticism for the life, Christian standards, spirituality, liturgy, and theology (qq.v.) of the Orthodox Church. One special note of importance is the fact that this movement has remained throughout its history in the East fundamentally lay in origin and character. The monks are, in the main, not clergy. It is still exceptional in most monasteries for there to be more priests than the minimum required to preside at the daily services. Unlike the West, it is understood as a separate vocation from that of sacramental ministry or the pastorate.

In a nutshell, since their appearance the monks have provided a type of second “apostolic succession” (q.v.) beside and supplementary to that of the official ranks of bishop and clergy. They have been, or at least have been perceived, as the primary carriers of the freedom of the Holy Spirit (q.v.). The monks themselves have been conscious of this prophetic and charismatic role since the Desert Fathers of the 4th c. At various times in the life of the Church, for example in 8th-c. iconoclasm, 14th-c. hesychasm, or the renewal led by Nicodemus and Paisii Velichkovsky (qq.v.), it was the monks who raised important banners of protest, or renewal, or points of dogma (q.v.), and who were supported by the conscience of the Orthodox people-often against the prevailing policies of both civil and ecclesiastical authorities.