And what I want to do this afternoon is share with you an article by a French monk, Julien Leroy, and it's an investigation of the so-called prefaces of the writings of John Cashin, because in the institutes and the conferences, there are these prefaces, and he thinks that from analyzing these prefaces, we can come up with a very good insight through The Doctrine of John Cashin. This is a very important article, I think, because it shows us the structure and the division of the two works of John Cashin, as will come clear as we go along. We already know that John Cashin is very influential in Western monasticism. For instance, the rule of Benedict seems certainly to have been influenced by John Cashin. And so as we study the sources, and look at their doctrine, we have to turn to John Cashin.

[01:03]

But at the same time, and what this article I think will point out, is that we must be very careful of our use of John Cashin. Certainly, Cashin is one of the main sources of the rule. And according to some scholars, he alone is... besides Basel, is explicitly cited in the rule. I may have mentioned to you before in chapter 42 of the rule of Benedict in the chapter on No One Speak After Compline. It says, let them all sit together in one place and let a brother read that conferences of Cassian are the lives of the fathers. Now that's the translation of Dom Justin McCann and in the Latin text it doesn't say Cassian. It merely says the Corlacionae. The conferences. We've seen that one of the works of John Cashion is called the Colationes. And then again in chapter 73, he talks about other writings which are valuable for our progress in monastic life.

[02:09]

And he says, then the conferences of Cashion and his institutes and the lives of the fathers as also the rule of our Holy Father Basil, And we should also read those. Now, again, in the Latin text, it doesn't specifically mention cation. It merely says collationes et institutes. And I think I've mentioned to you before that these terms, collatio and instituta, are sort of generic terms for monastic documents. For instance, Gennadius, who writes in the fourth century about early Christian writers, says that Severus wrote colaciones, that is, of the conversatio of monks, and especially the life of Martin. See, Severus wrote the life of Martin at Tours. But he calls these writings about the conversatio of monks, their way of life, his colaciones.

[03:11]

So you see it's a generic term. In the same way the rule of Basil, when it was translated into Latin by Rufinus, was called the Instituta. And thus, there's no reason to require that when Benedict talks about the Colazione and Instituta, that he necessarily is referring only to John Cashin. And the only person Benedict actually mentions by name is our Holy Father Basil, the rule of our Holy Father Basil. Now, this may tell us something, mainly that... Basil might deserve more attention than John Cashin with regard to trying to understand the rule of Benedict. Very little work has really been done in that area, but this is something that Jean Griblemont has highly recommended, that we should go to Basil to try to fill out the theology and the understanding of the doctrine of the rule of Benedict. Now, some scholars have gone exclusively to John Cashin to explain the rule of Benedict.

[04:16]

In some ways, Adelbert de Bourguet falls into this category. He frequently goes to John Cashin to explain ideas. For instance, he has an article on contemplation in the rule of Benedict, and pretty much he depends on John Cashin to substantiate the theory of contemplation in the rule of Benedict. Now, Julien de Roy... I get the impression is in opposition to Adelbert de Boguay on this approach. Whatever we do, though, we ought to go cautiously to Cashin as we will see why. See, the rule of Benedict belongs to the centipedic tradition. Now, when the rule of Benedict does use John Cashin, This does not imply that he considers all of Cassian's ideas valid for Cenobites. And what we're going to see is that Cassian has a different doctrine for Anchorites and for Cenobites and in Cassian's own doctrine.

[05:18]

And the whole point of Leroy's article is to show that Cassian treats of both Cenobitic and Anchoritic monasticism and not as a unit. Now, I'd like to also mention that as we go through this, this is Leroy's approach to John Cashin and, for instance, a man by the name of Picharin who wrote the introduction to the Sources Chrétiennes, the conferences that are in the French and Latin edition. He maintains that there is a basic unity between the institutes and the conferences and that they're all really one work. Now that's, as you're going to see, is just not quite what Leroy is saying at all. Part of the problem then is how did The rule used John Cashin, but before this question can be answered, there's another question that we have to ask, and that is, can we consider the works of John Cashin, the whole collection, as the expression of a unified thought?

[06:20]

Is there really a unity in all of his work? Is it sort of a synthetic fruit of a long consideration in which he gets just one basic picture of monastic life? And that's the question that this article of Leroy is trying to deal with. The problem then is to know whether John Cashin presents and elaborates what we would call a monolithic monastic doctrine. In other words, a unified monastic doctrine that is applicable to any monk. Or whether we can recognize in his works various currents of diverse spirituality. which are really and normally incompatible. And what he's suggesting is that the Cenobitic spirituality and the Anchoritic spirituality are two separate spiritualities and are incompatible. Now, if such is the case, then one should not apply the Cenobitic themes to the Anchoritic life, nor the Anchoritic themes or spirituality to the Cenobitic life.

[07:25]

We also see that John Cashin seems to be a witness of diverse traditions and not to a unified monastic synthesis. I mean, you just get that impression from reading him. So there are two facts which confront us. First of all, Cashin pretends to report what others have said. So, for instance, his conferences are by efforts that he says that he heard speak in Egypt. And then, secondly, his works are diverse. and have their own proper orientation, as we're going to see. Now these two aspects come clear from an analysis of the prefaces of each of the volumes, which we're going to take a look at. First of all, Cashin as a reporter. In general, John Cashin doesn't pretend to express his own ideas, but rather he tries to tell about the lessons that he's learned from the fathers in the desert. But he inserts in these instructions from these fathers his own ideas.

[08:31]

And these instructions are presented in the framework of a long sojourn in Egypt between 380 and 400. Now, there's no doubt that he seems to be a bad reporter, but it's not a question of him actually lying when he's reporting a tradition. For instance, it's really questionable whether Cashin ever went to the Pachomian monasteries in the Tebead. And yet, for instance, in the Institute's chapter, book two, where he talks about the universal tradition of the monastic divine office, morning and evening, he says it's all over Egypt, including Pachomian monasticism. but it's really questionable whether he ever went down into the Tebiot. Now, we saw that same problem with Palladius. See, Palladius reports something about Picomius, but it's a little questionable whether he actually went to Picomian monasteries or not.

[09:32]

Gashen, then, is not a liar, but maybe many of his errors can be explained by the many years that separate his writings from the events he reports, because he left Egypt in 400, And he didn't begin writing the institutes until about 424. So you've got 20 years in between. And it's pretty hard to remember, and the conferences are later, pretty hard to remember word to word what somebody said. You know, one thought comes to mind. I was just wondering if some of these ideals are John Cashin's and he attributed them to Egyptian fathers to kind of lend importance and weight to what he wants done. Pretty much so, Mike. That's one of the reasons, as I think we'll see, is that he insists that the anchoritic life is superior to the centipedic life and that it is a perfection of the centipedic life. Well, look at his own life. He had left to Cenobium in Bethlehem and he'd gone to Egypt.

[10:37]

He and Germanus had promised to go back to Bethlehem. They didn't want to go back to Bethlehem. They wanted to stay in Egypt. And so their conscience bothered them. How could they stay in Egypt with the Anchoritic life when they had made a promise in Bethlehem in the Cenobitic life? And so then he develops his theory that the Anchoritic life is more perfect. And therefore you can pass from the Cenobitic life to the Anchoritic life. So much of what he says is an argument for his own position. And I think we have to remember that when we read him. For instance, one of the things that's noticeable in his writings is that he's forgotten the great distances in the desert of Egypt. And he just mentions it's a short distance away, and it may be quite some distance away. So it's obvious that his memory is not too good. One thing is certain, that in Egypt at the end of the fourth century, there were monks of various types.

[11:39]

For instance, there were anchorites such as Moses and Paphnutius. whom we meet in Conference 1 and 2 and Conference 3. There were Cenobites such as John and Penufius. And we mentioned this Penufius before. He's the one who gives the allocution to the young monk on the day of his profession in Book 4 of the Institutes. And we also come across these Cenobites in Conference 19 and Conference 20. Thus, primitive monasticism knew of two forms of the monastic life. the Aramidic life and the Cenobitic, and it didn't confuse these two types of lives. Not only because the boundaries of the two lives were different, but also because there were irreconcilable differences in the two forms of monastic life. We have, for instance, the formal testimony of Pocomius and Basil for these differences. Pocomius doesn't consider the Cenobium as a prep school for the Aramidic life. You don't get that feeling at all in Pocomian literature.

[12:41]

In fact, he seems to consider the Cenobitic life superior to the Anchoritic life. He advises certain candidates that come to him to live the Cenobitic life to go live the Anchoritic life because he says they can't live the Cenobitic life. It's not the life for them. And Basil is even more categorical than Pocomius. He condemns Anchoritic life because he says it doesn't permit the monk to perform or to realize all of the commandments of the Lord. A hermit can at the same time wash somebody's feet and also serve at table. He's got to do one or the other. Whereas if you live in a Cenobium, you can be doing one thing and I can be doing another, and we all enjoy the same realization of the Lord's commandments. With Cashion, however, when he speaks of Cenobitic life, It is a Cenobitic life that is made to conform to the Anchoritic tradition, at least when Cashin is speaking.

[13:46]

So he's already confused the two. Now for this reason, considering Cashin's personal point of view, and as the analysis of the text will show us, the historian of spirituality must take into consideration the attitude that Cashin imposes on his reports. And so one must be aware of a unified synthesis of of what is really diversified types of spirituality, which are not necessarily reconcilable. Now we go into the diversity of the works of John Cashin to see how this diversification is present, even in his works, even though John Cashin tries to unify him. And that's one of the confusing things about John Cashin. So you get the Cenobitic theory of monasticism from the Cenobites whom he talks to. You get the Anchoritic theory from the Anchorites, And then you get John Cashin's theory. So what Leroy is trying to do is separate these things out and see what belongs to each doctrine.

[14:48]

When we read John Cashin, we have to right away distinguish the material contents. Now frequently in the editions of John Cashin, this isn't noticeable. For instance, in this text from a translation in the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers, you have the institutes and the conferences all in the same book. And so it doesn't seem that there's much difference. In some of the critical editions, it's the same way. It might be in two volumes, the institutes and then the conferences. The Sources Create the End has it in four volumes. It has one volume of institutes and three volumes of the conferences. So one gets the impression that there's really one book with two titles. There's one unified work, the institutes and the conferences. But really, they're the one and the same doctrine. And as I mentioned, Pichery, that's his main point in his introduction to the sources creatine. But the analysis of the works of John Cashin show that there are really separate works.

[15:50]

Even the chronology, when they were actually written, suggests this. The works of John Cashin, the monastic works, were written over a period of ten years. And so some evolution of thought can be suspected here, too. And the works are presented as separate entities to different people. And that's why we'll now take a look at the prefaces. Because at the beginning of each of the so-called volumes that Leroy is talking about, there's a preface which indicates what's going to take place in the following books and to whom it is dedicated. And so we can distinguish these works of John Cashin into five volumes. What that is is that the Institutes is in two volumes and the conferences are in three volumes. Now we want to take a look at that more closely. First of all, volume one, which would be the book of the Institutes, books one to four. About 417 or 418, the work which we know of as the Institutes appeared.

[16:57]

It was one work, but it was made up of two separate volumes as cashing himself states in the preference to the conferences. For instance, in the book of the conferences, so his later work, he says, the obligation which was promised to the blessed pope caster, well, that's a bishop caster he calls in pope, in the preference to those volumes, in other words, his earlier volumes, which with God's help I composed in 12 books on the institutes of the synope and the remedies for the eight principal faults has now been, as far as my feeble ability permitted, satisfied. So he wrote two volumes in 12 books. There are 12 books to these two volumes, the institutes and then divisives. So the work is composed of 12 books under one purpose, but it is really two volumes with their own proper contents and title. the Institutes of the Cenobium, and then the remedies for the eight principal vices.

[18:03]

The existence of these two volumes is confirmed by an allusion to Caching in Conference 20. It says, I pass over in silence the praise of Penufius's humility, which I touched on in a brief discourse in the fourth book of the Institutes, which was entitled of the rules to be observed by renunciants, especially as many who have knowledge of that work may happen to read this. So he calls that first four volumes of the Institute a work. And he mentioned that he talked about Penufius in volume, or book four. This work is, the work referred to then isn't all 12 books, but rather just the first four books in this text. Now, Cashin wrote this volume at the insistence of Castor. In a province where there was yet no monastery, And he wanted to found one, that is, Castor wanted to found one, after the manner of the Orientals and the Egyptians. So that's why he wrote the Institutes. And it says in the preface to the Institutes, You are anxious that the institutions of the East and especially of Egypt should be established in your province, which is at present without monasteries.

[19:17]

And you charge me to declare, although with inexpert pen, the customs of the monasteries which we have seen observed throughout Egypt and Palestine, as they were delivered to us by the fathers. So that's what the first four books are, the customs of the Oriental monks. Castro wants to put this into effect in his own monastery. Thus we see that volume one is Cenobitic in character. Cashion does not give his own ideas, but the interpretation of the fathers of the Orient. But Cashion knows very little, really, of Cenobitic monasteries in Egypt. The only Cenobites he mentions in the Institutes in Book 1 to 4 are Petermucius, whom he mentions in Book 4, and Penufius, whom he mentions also in Book 4. And in Palestine, he had known only the Cenobium at Bethlehem, where he had lived for two years, and that was many years ago. Thus, Cashin, who is himself not much of a Cenobite, is obliged to write a treatise on Cenobitic life,

[20:27]

Now, his memory will be much better when he writes on Anchoritic life, but when he's writing on Cenobitic life, he's not too sure of what he's writing about. Also, showing that this volume concerns the Cenobites, that is, book one to four of the Institutes, is a statement in the preface again. To this it must be added that on this very subject, men who were noble in life and eminent for speech and knowledge have already put forth several little books. I mean, Basil and Jerome and some others. So he's referring to the centivitic rule of Basil. He's probably referring to the translation by Jerome of the rule of Poconius, which is all with regard to centivitic life. So he says, not only what I'm saying, but go to the people who are really centivites and find out what the centivitic life is all about. The preface does pretend to be a preface for the whole work.

[21:31]

And so then he also mentions the contents of what we would call volume two, that is the eight principal vices. But volume two is really a separate edition. See, Castor had asked for an exhibition of the Cenobitic life. Nothing in the preface suggests that Castor also wanted a treatise on the eight vices. And he just wanted something about how to put into effect monastic life, synopedic life. But since Cashin knew synopedic life rather poorly, and since he knew anchoritic life quite well, he decided, well, I'll just go ahead and write a lot about the anchoritic life, the spirituality of the anchoritic life. So Cashin was not content to furnish Castor with a description of synopedic customs, which Castor had asked for. And so he added to this a treatise on the remedies for the principal vices. And this would give him the basis for an ascetic treatise on contemplative life and contemplative prayer.

[22:36]

And so the word contemplation, for instance, is used rather frequently in this volume, in the last eight books of the Institute, not so much in the first four books. And so Cashion joins this treatise with his first volume, without explaining whether the principles are primarily Cenobitic or Anchoritic. And this gives him a chance to present some of his personal ideas, the doctrine of the desert, and especially the doctrine of Evagrius. So now he can wax strong on his spirituality, even though Castor Riddle didn't ask for this. Thus we see with regard to the Institutes, the first volume, book one to four, is properly Cenobitic. The second is not characterized as Cenobity. And there's nothing in the preface that indicates that it was precisely two Cenobites. And the greater part of the examples contained in this book 5 to 12, the volume 2, are drawn from monks who live in solitude.

[23:41]

So some of the important Anchorites who are mentioned are Anthony, Arsabius, John, Macarius, Macateens, Moses... Paceus, Paul, Simeon, Theodore. And only one centibite is mentioned in that volume. That's John in the Institute's book five. He also mentions Bishop Basil. Thus, one cannot say that this volume contains typically centipidic doctrine because everybody he refers to is anchoritic. Nor are the themes that one finds those that are habitually found in centipidic literature. So see, in the Institute itself, you've got two volumes. The first volume is Centipity. The second volume is Anchority. Now let's take a look at the conferences. And the conferences are divided up into three sections according to the prefaces that John Cashin has in the conferences and to whom he dedicates sections of the conferences. So around 420, Cashin composed a new work.

[24:45]

This volume 3 reports the encounters he had with the monks of Egypt. And this volume is obviously for Anchorites and only indirectly interests Cenobites. And this is underlined in the preface. Actually, volume 3 that we're talking about is Conferences 1 to 10. That's the first volume of the Conferences, written about 420. Amen. Castor had asked for a picture of the centipedic life and the observances of the centipedic life. But this same man, Castor, had his interest stimulated by the treatment of anchoritism in volume two, that is, in the last books of the Institutes. And so in the preface of the conferences one to ten, Cashin says, but now as the aforesaid bishop says, Castor, has left us and departed to Christ.

[25:49]

He's died. Meanwhile, these ten conferences of the grandest fathers, that is, the Anchorites, who dwelt in the desert of the Scepe, which he, Castor, fired with an incomparable desire for saintliness, had bitten me to write in the same style. So, after Castor had written the Institutes, which was Cenobitic and Anchoritic, then Castor got inspired by the Anchoritic ideal. and said, okay, now write me some conferences on Babakti Anchorites. Now, all of the monks that Cashin speaks about in this section are Anchorites. For instance, Moses is the speaker of Conference 1 and 2, and Moses is one of the wonderful flowers of holiness that flourishes in the desert of the Skeet. Conference 3 brings Paphnutius on this soon, who was a priest in the desert of the Skeet. Daniel, who speaks in Conference 4, was a deacon of Paphnutius, but also resided in the desert of the Skeet.

[26:51]

In Conference 5, Serapion speaks of the eight principal vices. Notice it's an anchorite talking about the eight principal vices, which refers back to the final books of the Institutes. And he belongs to the Assembly or Senate of Elders in the Skeet, the desert monks, hermits, had sort of a senate of elders to take care of certain things, but they weren't Cenobites. Theodore of Conference 6 did not live in Esquite, but he was an anchorite who lived in the Desert of the Cells, which is another Egyptian desert, five miles from the monastery of Mithria, and separated from the steep by 80 miles of desert and of solitude. Serenus, who gives Conference 7 and 8, without a question is an anchorite. and Cashin speaks of going to his solitary cell. Then there's Isaac in conference 9 and 10, who belongs to the group in the Skeet, for he obviously knows Serapion.

[27:53]

Thus, you see, Cashin in this first volume of the conferences, all of them are from Anchorites. And so he's setting forth the sublime teaching of the Anchorites. The anchoritic character of this volume is also manifest in the person to whom it is dedicating. It is dedicated to a Laontius, who is united to Castor by ties of blood. But this Laontius is also, well, no, there's also another person to whom it's dedicated, and that is Haledius. So it's dedicated to Laontius, who is Castor's relative. So it's sort of a tie-up with Castor who wanted to know about anchoritism, but it's specifically dedicated also to a man named Heladius, who is a hermit. So it's dedicated to a hermit. Cashion begs for prayers that he will be aided in the difficult and serious task of explaining the anchoritic life, which he says is far superior to the centipidic life.

[29:00]

He does say... Literally, it's very... Oh, yeah. And this is one of his basic theses. You see, his preface says, For the bark of my slender abilities will be exposed to the dangers of a longer voyage on the deep in proportion as the anchor its light is grander than that of the synovium, and the contemplation of God to which those inestimable men ever devoted themselves more sublime than ordinary practical life. Notice right away he's saying, see, the Anchoritic life, the goal is contemplative life, and the Cenobitic life is the practical life. So there's a different goal right away. Thus, it is not a question of speaking of the Cenobitic life, but of the special form of the Anchoritic life, which is more difficult to speak about because it is more sublime. And he asks special prayers when he begins to speak about it. So this volume three... on the Anchoritic life parallels volume one.

[30:06]

See, volume one, or the institutes book one to four, are the institutes of the Cenobium. Now we could say volume, or book one to ten of the conferences, which is volume three, are the institutes of the Anchoritic life. For instance, he says in the preface of his conferences, one to ten, In the preference to those volumes, which with God's help I composed in twelve books on the institutes of the synovium and the remedies of the eight principal vaults, notice he always mentions these volumes have two different aspects to them, I must venture down to hand down for posterity some of the institutes and teaching of these great men. He's talking about his present volume, the institutes now of the anchorites. May now, by the reception of the institutes which are now not mine, but the Father's, let us proceed at once to their conferences and institutes.

[31:07]

Notice what he's doing. You see, he's calling the institutes of the Cenobium, what he did in volume one. What he's doing in volume three is the institute of the Anchoritic life. Works of Caching are then conferences 18 to 24. So a little later, Cashion prepares a new series of conferences. These constitute volume five, which is also preceded by a preface. And they are destined to a diverse group. First of all, to a Cenobite, Theodore, who had founded in Gaul the holy and excellent Cenobitic discipline with all the rigors of the ancient virtues. So it's dedicated, first of all, to a Cenobite. And then to three others. Jovinianus, Minervius and Leontius, who had by their teaching stirred up the monks to the Cenobitic profession and were also inclined to the sublime life of the Anchorite.

[32:09]

So they were sort of both Cenobitic and Anchoritic inclined. In the two preceding volumes, one of the two destinaries had been an Anchorite. In these volumes, however, all of the destinaries are Cenobites. See, all of them are really Cenobites, even though they're attracted to this Anchoritic life. Thus, there is a certain Cenobitic orientation to this volume. Cashin intends to take his place in the Cenobitic tradition, and so these conferences are not uniquely aimed at making known Anchoritic doctrine. The volume is addressed not solely to Anchorites, but equally and at the same time to Cenobites and Anchorites. Now, all of the preceding conferences in the other two volumes were spoken by Anchorites, but this volume is different. There are seven conferences, five of which are from Cenobites and two from Anchorites.

[33:15]

And the Cenobitic life is spoken of in terms that are rather different than the other volumes. So, for instance, Conference 18, puts on the stage an Anchorite named Piamin, who lives near Dioclos, near the mouth of the Nile. Nearby there are many Cenobiums, but Piamin is a singer of the Anchorites and a priest. Now, it's without a doubt that this proximity to the Cenobiums and interchange with them accounts for a rather different judgment of the Anchorites with regard to the Cenobiticlius. So Piamin is going to have a little different judgment with regard to what Cenobitic life is and some of the Anchorites in the street and in the desert. Another Anchorite, Abraham, explains mortification in Conference 24. And here there is nothing which is not valuable for both Cenobites and Anchorites. But Conferences 19 to 23, so the central section of this final volume, have for the authors authentic Cenobites.

[34:19]

In Conference 19, there's an Abbot John, who had lived for 30 years as a Cenobite, then lived for 20 years as a hermit, and then he returned to the Cenobian. So he did both of them, but he changed back and forth. You said authentic? Authentic Cenobites. They're really Cenobites. We know that they are, and this is Cashion. No, no. As far as we know, well, Cashion is reporting it. You see, that's one of the things that seems to say that He's reporting authentically because some of the Cenobitic doctrine that he reports doesn't agree with his own doctrine. So it must indicate that it's not his. It's the same way with the Anchoritic tradition. See, there are three separate doctrines in John Cashion. The Cenobitic doctrine, the Anchorite doctrine, and John Cashion's doctrine. And so when the Cenobitic doctrine doesn't sort of agree with John Cashion, you say, well, that must be sort of authentic.

[35:24]

He really was putting down what he read or what he'd heard. Abbot Penufius is the hero of Conference 20, and he's the superior and priest of a very large monastery near Panathesis. He was a man very attached to the centipidic life. Desiring to practice the most excellent centipidic virtue of subjection or obedience, he entered a monastery of the Tabanisi. and lived there three years unrecognized. Discovered by his monks, he fled anew to the monastery of Bethlehem, where Cashin and Germanius got to know him. Remember, this is the fellow who went to Bethlehem, and he wanted to live, especially the sin of any virtue of subjection. And I guess as Abin, he thought that he couldn't do this too well, so he wanted to go be under obedience. His sanctity had so edified Cassian and Germanus that they themselves desired to go to Egypt. Penufius was very attached to the centipedic life and understood it quite well.

[36:27]

And he had no desire for the so-called sublime vocation of the anchoritic life. And that's why his allocution to a young monk on the day of profession is so important because it's a centipedic theology or doctrine. Finally, conferences 21, 22, and 23 are their encounter with a certain Thetianus, or Theonos, who appears to be a monk and deacon of the monastery of Abbot John, and he's certainly a Cenobite. So notice what you have in the final volume. The first conference is Angloritic, and the last conference is Angloritic, and the ones in between are Cenobitic. So volume 5 is a combination of Anglorite and Cenobite. This volume will then be for the greater part an expression of centipidic doctrine. Even the conferences which come from the Anchorites treat of general monastic subjects so that Cashion can say that they pertain to one or the other profession. So now what have we seen? See, there are successively five separate works written over a dozen years.

[37:35]

The prefaces, the personages, and the destinaries underline the proper character of each one of these volumes. So we have around 417, volume one, institutes one to four, which presents traditional cenobity doctrine. In the same year, 417, we have volume two, which is institutes book five to 12, which treats of asceticism in general, but in an anchority context and climate. Then around 420, we have volume three, conferences one to 10, which presents the Anchoritic doctrine. Around 426, Volume 4, Conferences 11 to 17, which completes the Anchoritic doctrine of Volume 3. And then around 427, Volume 5, Conferences 18 to 24, which presents the Cenobitic doctrine in Conferences 19 to 23, and reports also Anchoritic teaching, especially in 18 and 24,

[38:42]

as it agrees with that of the Cenobites. So you see the distinction that has to be made in reading John Cashin. See, Leroy maintains it's not a unified work, as I said, against what Pichery would say. Consequently, if one wishes to study in Cashin the two types of monastic light, the Cenobitic and the Anchoritic light, he must analyze volumes 1 and 5, so the first book, of the Institutes, the last conferences, for the Cenobitism because these are probably centipedic books. If he wants to understand the Anchoritic life and how they understood their vocation, then he analyzes volumes two, three, and four, the last part of the Institutes and the first two-thirds of the conferences. Now this distinction admits exceptions. Sometimes the doctrine is neither typically Cenobitic nor Anchoritic, but common to all of monasticism.

[39:47]

For instance, a good example of this is conferences 9 and 10, which is on continual prayer, or just on prayer. This is not merely the unique responsibility of the Anchoritic life. It certainly finds its place in Ocomian Cenobitism. Remember the whole concept of medidatio on scripture. And Cassian says in volume one of the Institutes, book two, of the way in which we can pray as the apostle directs without ceasing, we shall treat as the Lord may enable us in the proper place when we begin to relate the conferences of the elders. So notice in the section, which is about Cenobitic life, Institute, book two, he says in the conferences, we're going to compliment this because in book two he talks about the hours of office, he's going to complement that with the doctrine of continual prayer. So right away he's throwing the Sanofite into this anchorated volume.

[40:49]

And at the beginning of conference nine, where he takes this theme of prayer up, he recalls this promise and says that now it is to be fulfilled. So he says, what was promised in the second book of the Institutes on continual and unceasing perseverance in prayer shall be by the Lord's help fulfilled by the conferences of this elder, whom we will now bring forward, that is, Abbot Isaac. Although these conferences then expose an anchoritic doctrine of prayer, they contain one passage which is certainly directly applicable to the Cenobites, and that is the verse, Deus in auditorium meum entende, which is the way the Cenobites always... began the divine office, as we see from the rule of Benedict. Now let us take a look at the authorities mentioned by John Cashin, because this will also sort of reinforce this position that Leroy is taking.

[41:51]

Anthony is the master par excellence who is mentioned. Now Anthony, as you know, is the hermit par excellence. Notice where he's invoked in these five volumes. In volume one, Now, in Institutes Book 1 to 4, Anthony is not mentioned at all because it's about syllabus. In Volume 2, he's mentioned in Institutes Book 5. So just once in that volume. In Volume 3, he's mentioned in Conference 2 three times, in Conference 3, Conference 8 three times, and in Conference 9. Notice how heavy he is in volume three. Now where does this give us? It's telling you Anthony is called upon or mentioned in the text. Anthony is the hermit. Now notice he wasn't mentioned in volume one, which is a centipede tradition.

[42:51]

Anthony doesn't belong to the centipede tradition. What did you call this section? The authorities? The authorities that are invoked by Cashion. To prove his part. Well, when Cashion is talking and presenting doctrine, he always places his confidence and says, Abbot Theonis said. But see, in the context then, he will revert and say, well, as the Abbot Anthony said, or as the Abbot Anthony did. But see, where he mentions Anthony, he mentions him very heavily in Volume 3, which we call the Institutes of Iancaritic Life. In volume four, he's only mentioned once again. And in volume five, he's mentioned in conference 18 and 24, the two conferences which are by Anchor Acts and not in the conferences which are by Cenobites. And so from the use of the name Anthony by Cashion, we already see a reinforcement of a conclusion that we've noted that the Cenobitic character of volume one and the composite character of volume five

[43:57]

where the citations of Anthony are found in Conference 18 and 24, which are specifically the works of Anchorites. Anthony's not mentioned in Volume 1. He's only mentioned in Volume 5 in the conferences by the Anchorites. On the other hand, in Volume 2, 3, and 4, he is mentioned, and these are of Anchoritic inspiration. And notice how heavily he is mentioned in Volume 3, that is in... The conferences broke one to ten, because that's the institutes of the Anchorites. Do you see the point he's making? Also, the list of holy monks cited by Cashin leads one to the same conclusion. Cashin mentions 37 holy monks, and up those 37, 30 are Anchorites and 7 are Cenobites. The disproportion of these two numbers underlies the lines the particular interest Cashin has in the anchoritic ideal.

[45:00]

Now note the disposition of these men. For instance, in volume one, one anchorite is mentioned, John. Now that's the centipede volume. Volume two, there are ten anchorites mentioned. That's the thing on the eight vicers. Anthony, Arsabius, John of Skeet, Macarius, Macatees, Moses of Skeet, Paul of Porphyrian, Paphnusius, Simeon, and Theodore. The ten Anchorites mentioned. Volume 3, the Institutes of the Anchorites. Fifteen Anchorites are mentioned. Andronicus, Anthony, Apollon, Arsabius, Daniel, Heron, Isaac, Macarius, Moses of Calamus, Moses of Skeet, Paphnucius, Serapion, Seranus, Theodore, and Thaonus. Notice that's the heavy one because, again, it's the Institutes of the Anchorites. In Volume 4, there are eight Anchorites.

[46:01]

Abraham the Simple, Anthony, Arcebius, Cherriman, Joseph, Nestoros, Paphnucius, and Seranus. Volume 5, there are... 11 anchorites, of whom 8 are in conference 18 and 24. Notice those are the conferences around anchorites. So 8 of these are in conferences 18 to 24. Abraham, Anthony, Apollo, Isidore, John, Paphnusius, Paul the First Hermit, and Serapion. And in the other conferences of the same volume, one finds mention of only 4 anchorites, namely in the ones, so it's 12 all together. four Anchorites in the volumes that are on Cenobites. Moses of Calamus, Paphnusius in 19, Helius in 21, and Macarius in 23. Here again, you see the superabundance of Anchoritic witnesses is in volume 3, and that's the Institutes of the Anchorites.

[47:04]

Also in volume 2 and 4, and in that section of volume 5, which is Anchoritic. In the properly centipidic works, the mention of anchorites seems to be exceptional. This conclusion is in agreement with what we've already seen from our other analysis. So I think that Leroy has a good point here. Now, I'm not prepared to be too critical of it, but I've noticed in reading that some places it's a little limpy at times. But I think he's got a good insight here. What are the consequences then of this division of John Cashin in the Cenobitic and Anchoritic traditions. If the analysis is correct, then certain consequences for the understanding of 4th century monasticism result. One finds in John Cashin two conceptions of Cenobitic monasticism, two ideas of what is Cenobitism, namely what the Cenobites think of themselves and then what the Anchorites think of the Cenobites.

[48:09]

Besides that, of course, you're going to get what John Cashin thinks about it. So you're really going to get three. But I mean, in the texts themselves, you see there are two. What the Cenobites think about themselves and what the Anchorites think about the Cenobites. We can also find John Cashin's own personal conception, which will legitimize his passage from centipidic life to that of desert solitude. So he's got his own prejudice working in this. Such a study exceeds the limits of this present article, says Leroy. but it is sufficient to show one particular application. For instance, in Conference 1, so that's the first conference of Volume 3, which is the Anchoriti Institutes, Abbot Moses exposes the goal of the life of the monk. Now, he does not precisely indicate what kind of monk he's speaking about, but in view of this indetermination on the part of Moses, the traditional exegesis of Cassian considers that he speaks of a monk in general, that Moses is just saying, what is the role of a monk, the goal of his life, no matter what kind of a life he leads, whether it's Cenobitic or Anchoritic.

[49:20]

Thus, one concludes that the text could be valid for Cenobites. However, in view of the preceding principles that Leroy has established, since the conference belongs to Volume 3, it is specifically about the Anchoritic lois, And so we conclude that what Moses says about the goal of a monk applies to anchorites. Now, that's a very important conclusion, I think, when you're reading John Cashin. Because how does Moses explain the goal of the monk? He says that the goal of the monk is purity of heart. For instance, in Conference 1, he says, The end of our profession, indeed, as I said, is the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven. But the immediate aim or goal is purity of heart, without which no one can gain that end. So, the immediate goal is purity of heart. The final goal is heaven. But, he's talking about vernacular.

[50:22]

Also, he says, the immediate goal is purity of heart. Having your immediate goal in purity of heart, but the end of life, but the end, life eternal. This purity of heart is not only the liberation of all evil tendencies, but is a positive reality, which is practically the same as charity and is presented as a constant union with God. And from this, says Moses, clearly follows that perfection is arrived at simply not by self-denial and the giving up of all our goods and the casting away of honors unless there is charity. the details of which the apostle describes, which consist in purity of heart alone. And again he says purity of heart is charity. And this is nothing more than contemplation. And so Moses defines the goal of the monk in the following formula. You see then that the Lord makes the cheap good consist in meditation, in divine contemplation.

[51:29]

He says the goal of the monk is contemplation. Now, remember what the principles have said. This is specifically an anchoritic goal. The goal of the anchoritic life is contemplation. Now, I don't want to get into that whole problem, but see what's being suggested. Haven't we been sort of prejudiced by the idea that the end of our monastic life is contemplation? Because we say, well, John Cashin says it this way. Now we're throwing some critical question into that. John Canshee says, or Moses says, that's the goal of the anchoritic light. So be careful of taking that goal from the anchoritic light and applying it to the centipede light. You see the caution that's being presented without getting into the answer of it? You see it, Joel? I think so. In other words,

[52:31]

we have to be careful of saying that the goal of our life is contemplation and basing that position on John Cashin's conference of Abbot Moses. Now, the goal of our life may be contemplation. I don't want to go into that. But you can't base that position on John Cashin because John Cashin is talking to anchorites, not to centipites. And we are professing to live the centipidic life. And Actually, what happens in John Cashin is the Cenobites don't have the goal of contemplation. And we'll see that in the next article that we look at. Cenobites do not have contemplation as a goal. No. See, this is why contemplation is such an explosive term and theme. What do you mean by the term? If you're talking about what John Cashin is presenting, are what the Anchorites are presenting and the Cenobites are presenting in John Cashin.

[53:37]

The Cenobites do not see contemplation as the goal of their life. That is specifically an Anchoritic goal. We'll see what the Cenobitic goal is. But you see how this analysis has really, I think, opened up a lot of critical questions of a lot of traditional monastic theory. Now, one of the things, and this is where I'd like to do more study about this, is this whole concept of purity of heart. You may recall, I don't know if you're familiar with it, but a number of years ago, about 10 or 15, there was a whole dispute in the American Benedictine Review between Wilfrid Tunick and Roland Roloff, or Ronald Roloff, I'm not sure, on the goal of monastic life as purity of heart. Now, Wilfrid Tunick is a member of our Federation. And his whole thesis was, through John Cashin, that the goal of our monastic way of life is purity of heart.

[54:40]

I don't want to say that's wrong, but I'm saying now we begin to see that we have to be more critical. What is this purity of heart in John Cashin? Does it apply equally to the Cenobite as to the Anchorite? You see how we can be more critical then of theories here. It is precisely a same formula which is used in Conference 19 to define the Anchoritic vocation and to define it in contrast to the Cenobitic life. And so, Conference 19 says, the perfection for a hermit is to have his mind freed from all earthly things and to unite it as far as human frailty allows with Christ. That is the way sort of John Cashman defines contemplation. Freedom from all earthly things a unity with Christ. But the goal of the Cenobite is expressed differently. The aim of the Cenobite, this is conference 19, is to mortify and crucify all his desires and according to that solitary command of evangelical perfection to take no thought of the moral.

[55:53]

And it is perfectly clear that this perfection cannot be attained by any except the Cenobite. Notice it's a little bit different Now, hopefully, we would like to do all of these things. But you see, when it comes to specifying the goal, see, the goal is to crucify all one's designers according to the command of evangelical perfection and to have no thought of the moral. And this can only be attained, this perfection can only be attained by the Cenobite. Now, it would be very interesting to work with these things, go into John Cash and see how substantial they are. Now, that's what Leroy is going to try to do in his next article, but there's still some weak spots in that I clue you in when we get to it. So don't just absorb this uncritically, but I do think it gives us some good insights. What is characteristic of the anchorite, then, is purity of heart, which unites him with the divine things, with God, with Christ.

[56:56]

And this union is to be tenaciously held to, The hermit tends toward union in contemplation, and it is this characteristic that distinguishes the synoptic and anchoritic writings in John Cashin. Remember, I mentioned to you that contemplation, the word is used more in volume two, and I don't know how much it is in volume one, but at least not very much. Volume two is the anchoritic volume. An attentive study to the text... confirms that Abbot Moses has no intention of speaking of Cenobites. And so three times he enumerates the instruments of monastic perfection. Now, many of these things are similar to Cenobites. That's true. But there are some things which are not. Notice he says in Conference 1, We must seek for solitude. He's talking to anthrax. For this we know that we ought to submit to fastings, vigils, toils, bodily nakedness, reading, and all the other virtues, that through them we may be enabled to prepare our heart and keep it unharmed by all evil passions, and resting on these steps to mount to the perfection of charity.

[58:06]

Now, what seems to me is characteristic here is solitude. See, that would not be the same emphasis in the centipedic life. The vigils, the fasting, all of this, I think, is the same. But notice another one. Those things which are of secondary importance, such as fasting, vigils, withdrawal from the world, meditation on scripture, we ought to practice with a view to our main object, purity of heart, which is charity. Now, withdrawal from the world is specifically an anchor-ridic theme in John Cashin. It is not a theme in the synagogue tradition. Again, our profession, too, has its own goal and end for which we undergo all sorts of toils, not merely without weariness, but actually with delight, on account of which the want of food and fasting is no trial to us. The weariness of our vigils becomes a delight. Reading and constant meditation on the Scripture does not pall upon us.

[59:08]

And further, incessant toil and self-denial, and the privation of all things, and the horrors also of the vast desert, have no terrors for us. Now, the unique thing there is the horrors of the vast desert. We have here, then, his exemplar of the instruments of good works for the anchoritic perfection. This same enumeration is found in the second part of the Institutes, another anchoritic volume. Notice, though, however, what the elements are constant. The common elements which we find indispensable for our profession, that is, for the anchoritic life, are a total flight from the world, solitude, anachoresis, which is withdrawal, and horror of this vast desert. This belongs to the anchoritic perfection. There's no question here that these are instruments of cenobitic perfection.

[60:10]

Think of the instruments of the spiritual art in the rule of Benedict. Solitude is not merely leaving the world. It is anachoresis. And there's no... anarcho-racist, really, in the rule of Benedict. There's a certain, what, a seculo alienum facere, to be different from the world. But I don't see that as a flight from the world. It can be developed into that. But there's no concept in Benedict of withdrawal. Neither do we find the horror of the vast solitude of the desert, where the Abbot Moses lives in the scheme. The word anachorasis, from which anchorite comes from, is not found in Cenobitic authors. It just doesn't appear in Cenobitic authors. Basil never uses it. It is particularly an anchoritic term. And so one must practice anachorasis to realize the anachoritic idea, but not the ideal of the Cenobite.

[61:21]

Now, in a further article, which we'll take at a look at next time we meet. Leroy is going to analyze the Cenobitic doctrine transmitted by Cashion and the use of Cashion by the rule of Benedict. See, in this article, the point is that Cashion does not present a monastic doctrine of universal value, but sometimes presents Cenobitic doctrine and in other times Anchoritic doctrine. And in order to interpret his affirmations, one must understand the context in which it is made. Namely, if we want to understand Cashion, we've got to understand what volume this statement is making. This is very good textual criticism. Note the context in which a statement is made, which helps us avoid fundamentalism. It's a basically scriptural technique of analysis and criticism of exegesis of a text. So I think that this gives us a critical viewpoint or approach to

[62:22]

to the writings of John Cashin and makes us a little hesitant then to say, well, just because John Cashin says it, there's no sign that we in the Cenobitic tradition accept that because John Cashin may be talking about the Ancleritic tradition. Does this make any sense to you? What do you think, Mike, since you've been studying Cashin, does it help in any way to... Yeah, you know, I become aware of that as we go through it. You know, I had never given any thought to that. And, you know, as Father Dominic and I go through and look at it in comparison with the rule of Benedict, well, that's something now to keep in mind. That's something I would like to do, too, with regard to the rule of Benedict. See where Benedict

[63:09]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_96.05