We're going to take a look at Syrian monasticism. In the last couple of weeks we've been looking at Qumran. And I think now we're sort of prepared to take a look at this particular phenomena of monasticism. And this is based on two volumes by an author, Arthur Bogus. He's written The History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. Volume 1, The Origin of Asceticism and Early Monasticism in Persia, and then Volume 2, Early Monasticism in Mesopotamia and Syria. And he's really the authority on Syrian Christianity and Syrian monasticism. I think this is an important area to look at because it's something we saw often neglect. So I think it's going to give us a deeper insight. And another thing that we've seen is the pluralism of monasticism, and I think right away we're going to get into another form which proves the pluralism. One of the reasons you look at this particular form is because it's what Wobus calls an autochthonous form, which means self-growing.

[01:25]

It didn't have its origins in Egypt, and we'll see why the problem of that origin in Egypt came up. And it also antedates monasticism in Egypt. It's then an independent phenomena, as against the Coptic monasticism of Egypt, both Antonian and Baconian monasticism, and also the Greek monasticism in Egypt and in Palestine and Asia Minor. It engendered its own spiritual genius and it possesses, as we will see, its own exotic features. And then we will see at the end its social contribution, because this is the amazing thing that this particular monasticism made such an impact on society. We're talking about Syrian monasticism today. So let's take a look, first of all, at the origins of asceticism among the Syrians, and also its role or its identity. Bogu says that all indications point to a Palestinian Aramaic origin for Syrian Christianity.

[02:36]

Now, when we talk about Syria, it's north of present-day Palestine and northeast of Palestine. If that makes any sense to you. But that's in the general area that he's talking about. Almost over into Mesopotamia, into Persia, into that area. It was a very ascetically oriented Christianity, and it had a strong covenant consciousness. The Christian faith was called the New Covenant. And this consciousness of covenant was the decisive factor in the Christian religion in Syria. Its theology, its ethics, its organizations were all molded according to covenant mentality. In fact, the Christians were called sons and daughters of the covenant. Now, Mike, right away, I'm always talking about Qumran. See, right away that rings a bell, because the people at Qumran also called themselves the sons of the covenant. This covenant consciousness was expressed in a very negative estimate of the world and resulted then in their extreme asceticism.

[03:44]

So they forsook all possessions, all marriage, all links with the world because of the covenant. And also we find in their theology, military terminology expressing the Christian life. For instance, words like struggle, battle, fight, war, which all think again of Qumran and the document on the holy war. All Christians were called to a radical way of life. Now, Vobu says this Christianity and its ascetical orientation can be connected with the ascetically oriented movement in Christianity in Palestine, which he then ties up with John the Baptist, James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and with Jesus himself, who are, he says, the models of this kind of observance. And he links this Christianity in Syria with the Qumran sect of the manual of discipline. It is the same type of fasting, the reduction in sleep in order to study sacred scripture.

[04:50]

You remember in Qumran one-third of the nights are spent in vigil and so here you have the same type of vigil mentality. The neglect of bodily care and especially the concept of covenant, holy war in military terminology. He says that the features of this Syrian Christianity, this early Syrian Christianity, and the covenant tears in the Judean desert are so strikingly similar as to suggest a causal relationship between the two. So he goes so far as to say that there is a causal relationship between these two forms of asceticism. And he explains this by saying that in early Christianity, already we see a pluralism. Now, it's true that the New Testament doesn't mention anything about the Essenes. Now, why doesn't it? And mentions the pluralism of the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Zealots, other different groups within Christianity. many of Judaism who had been converted.

[05:50]

Because we see Pharisees were converted, Sadducees. So why not also the Essenes having been converted? And the reason the New Testament may not speak of the Essenes in Judaism, because the whole group of them were converted. And so there was no polemic against them, as there was against the unconverted Pharisees or Sadducees. In early Christianity, besides that kind of pluralism, we also note, for instance, a difference in theology of the Jerusalem resurrection stories and the Galilean resurrection stories. There was sort of a pluralism even in the mystery of Christ's resurrection. And so, in Palestine, we have a pluralism. Now, he says one element of that Christian pluralism, the Essene Christianity, was transplanted to Syria, and that's where the causal relationship comes up. And this was transplanted to the lands of the Euphrates and Tigris, or to the Syrian Orient, possibly because of the destruction of Jerusalem.

[06:52]

And many of the early fathers of the Church, I think it's Eusebius and others who mention that When Jerusalem was destroyed, the Christians fled to Pella, which is a little bit southeast rather than northeast. But it may indicate this fleeing of the Christian community into other lands. So that's where he says the origin comes from of the Syrian Christianity. Then he takes a look at some of the factors of this earliest Christianity in Syria. Virginity was the ideal for all of the Christians. No one could be baptized in Syrian Christianity unless they promised to live a celibate life. So it's a radical Christianity. All of the available sources are unanimous in their testimony that the Christian life was unthinkable outside the bounds of virginity.

[07:53]

So if you wanted to be baptized, you had to live a celibate life. And so the oath or covenant of baptism demanded of everyone a celibate life. Now this rigid approach was to change as Syrian Christianity developed and as it got in contact with other Christian churches throughout the world. But in the origins, it had this rigidity. According to these early Christians, Jesus came into the world to live and preach an ascetic way of life. And only those who would imitate his radical way of life could be said to belong to the church. And so what we call the sacraments were the privileges of the ascetics. Only the people who lived this ascetic life could enjoy the sacraments. So, for instance, baptism was the prerogative of an elite. It was this sign of radical decision to leave the world. And if you didn't decide to do that, you weren't baptized.

[08:54]

And the Eucharist was in service only to these ascetic Christians. The Church was then for an ascetic aristocracy. This church also had terminology, which is very important, which I've mentioned already, the covenant, and in Syriac it's kiyama. This term is used to render the notion of God's covenant with men, so the covenant relationship between God and man. It's also used to indicate the oath or the vow made upon entering into the church, and later on, in monastic texts, into monasticism. Besides that, it refers to the company of the people whom the covenant has brought together. It also indicates the demands that the covenant places upon people. So it's used in various ways, but it means covenant. Other terms which are used, for instance, you don't find the term monk, because it's not found in Syriac, but you find terms like betula, which means a virgin, a masculine virgin, and betual, which is a feminine virgin.

[10:06]

So you already have the concept of virginity and decision to live the celibate life. Other words which are used are Kaddisa and Kaddisuta, which means holy and holiness. And these words refer to sexual purity. And they are the terms which are used when somebody was married and entered into Christianity. They weren't virgins, but they lived a life of holiness. So you wouldn't use the term for virgin for them, but just life for holiness. But they were technical terms which were used for these people. And another word, and this is a word that Aylred Baker, who writes a bit on Syriac Christianity in Downside Review, occasionally you see things by him in various periodicals, and that's I-H-I-D-A-I-H. Ayodhya, I suppose. And that's a word that people suspect is the same thing as Greek monokos, or monk.

[11:07]

And it means simply to live singly or solitarily. And some people suggest, then, that that's really the Syrian equivalent for monk, and it's found in these texts. Now let's take a look and see how is it that this monasticism in Syria and Mesopotamia is not dependent on any other monasticism, but is what we call octochthonous, self-growing. It began of itself and it grew of itself. The ancient sources give us no direct information about the origin of monasticism in Syria. Now, the traditional thesis has been that monasticism in Mesopotamia is... a branch of Egyptian monasticism. See, the traditional thesis is that Christian monasticism began in Egypt, and from Egypt it spread out. It spread out to the East, into Syria and Palestine, and we'll see how the tradition says that, and into the West through Athanasius, because Athanasius took the life of Anthony into the West when he was on exile.

[12:16]

But Egypt is the hotbed of monasticism. So this traditional thesis says that Egypt is the mother place of all monastic movements, and then it's just merely transplanted. And so, for instance, in Syrian tradition, there's the story of Mar Algen, who in 325 founded a monastery at Mesibis. And according to tradition, he was a pupil of Poconius, so right away he was taken back to Egypt. And after he was with Poconius, he brought his companions into Syria. But, that story of Malkin is not earlier than the 11th century. It's a very late tradition, the 11th century. And here, it's talking about somebody in the 4th century. Also, Jerome tells us about Hilarion, and Jerome wrote The Life of Hilarion, and Hilarion was supposed to have lived from ... the life was written between 386 and 392, so the 4th century again.

[13:21]

And he says Hilarion was a pupil of Anthony, and Hilarion introduced monasticism into Palestine and Syria. So see, there are various traditions, all going back to Egypt. But this information refers rather to the development rather than to the origin of monasticism in Syria. So we can't base it just on Hilarion's life, because it doesn't say Hilarion originated, but he was an impetus within it. Another man by the name of Theodoret, who wrote the Religious History, and he was bishop between 423 and 457, doesn't know anything about the Egyptian origins of monasticism in Mesopotamia. So let's see, we're getting back very early. And Theodora in the 5th century, early 5th century, doesn't say anything specifically about Egyptian origin. He does say something about a man named Jacob of Mesibas. And he says this, Jacob was a bishop of Mesibas about 300. Try to remember your dates.

[14:23]

250 is Anthony. And Anthony dies in 356. Poconius dies in 347. So you've got this Jacob of Mesibas back as a bishop around the time Anthony is really coming to the front. And this man, this Jacob of Mesibas, had been a famous monk before he became a bishop, according to Theodoric. But the sources do not say that he was the first monk. Rather, it seems to be assumed that there were monks before Jacob. So, already you've thrown this thing back before 300. Thus, Goebbels suggests that about 280, if not earlier, there was an anchoritic form of monasticism in Syria, related to the church, the Christians around Mesibas. 280, that's the time Anthony is starting, the time he goes to the outer mountain. Now, such was the fame of Anthony in Egypt, between 280 and 290, who appears at that time, that later the Syrians tied their origin to him.

[15:36]

You see, originally there was no contact with him. But the earliest sources don't show any connection between monasticism in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Thus, on this basis of our information about Jacob, we can infer that Syrian monasticism was in origin independent of Egypt. Now, the question is, why these later traditions? For instance, in the 11th century, why did they say Morgon came from Syria? This throws us immediately into the problem of Syrian monasticism and Manichaeism. That's where the real problem lies. Now, I don't know if you know much about Manichaeism. Mike, would you like to say what you know about Manichaeism? Well, it's a dualistic heresy. It follows two principles, one kind of a God of good and a God of evil. God of good was God of the New Testament, God of evil was generally associated with the Old Testament God.

[16:38]

What was its stance towards material things? I saw material things as completely, totally evil. And so what did a person who wanted to be purified have to do? Well, it would have to be to get rid of everything material. A radical dispossession of all material things to purify the inner spiritual man. Now, there's some truth to it, or there's some, in many different attitudes towards material and religion, you find the same attitude. But Mani, it's quite extreme. Now, Mani began preaching his new religion on the 20th of March, 242. We've already thrown him back before Anthony, but he's in the area of Persia. And he's preaching a rigorous and ascetic way of life based on the theology of matter as evil, and so the need for the liberation from matter. And he greatly emphasizes virginity and poverty, because sexuality is bad and all material things are bad, therefore virginity and poverty are necessary.

[17:42]

He borrowed an awful lot in his, what they call a heresy, from Christianity, also from Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. So it's sort of a syncretic religion. It gathers things from various places. And there were a group of people in his religion which we would call monks, but they were called elect. And they had a whole monastic regime, just as we understand monasticism. Now, this being the case, note how early Syrian Christianity, with its emphasis on poverty and virginity, is ripe for this kind of theology. It's very similar to what we saw in early Christianity. And so Syrian monasticism was probably greatly influenced by Manichaeism, because there was so much similarity between the two. So if we compare the Syrian monasticism of this early period, and even later periods, with Manichaeism, we see many factors which are similar.

[18:47]

In both of them there's a rigid asceticism, there's a core of elite or the elect, Worship is reduced to prayer alone, and so there's no real cultic worship as such. And there are esoteric and bizarre forms of asceticism, both forms. For instance, there's ceaseless vagrancy, people just moving around all the time, what Benedict's going to call gyro-vague later on, but just constantly moving. People dressing in rags, if they dress at all, but otherwise just running around naked. Dirtiness, savage hairdressers, and even self-destruction. Now, at a time when Manichaeism was not recognized for what it was, as a pernicious heresy, it is not surprising that it would influence Orthodox Christianity. This is when you see what heresies develop. People don't always recognize the danger of a heresy. I think in our own context, we don't know how heretical we are compared to what people are saying a thousand years from now.

[19:50]

You know, they may classify our own brand of Christianity as heretical, because of intuition or insight into this. So when Manichaeism is on the scene, and it seems to be a good thing, why not adopt it? Now, when Syrian monasticism realized how wrong Manichaeism was, then it wanted to completely disassociate itself from it. Now, it didn't do this in an overreaction by changing its own ascetic principles. And that's one of the things I think is the beauty of Syrian monasticism. It didn't react as frequently we react, just go to the other extreme. But instead, it worked with the tradition. It said, we didn't get our origin from man. We got our origin from Egypt. So it validates its ascetic style. Does everybody see that point? Why they would have done this? Gone to another tradition to validate themselves. Now, the connection between Manichaeism and Orthodox Christian monasticism, I suppose, might distress us a little bit, because frequently people condemn Christian monks of being Manichaeists.

[21:05]

And so we say, well, no, and so all our defenses go up. But it really shouldn't distress us, because heresies always contain some truth, and there's some common ground between heresy and orthodoxy. And I think that the glory of Syrian monasticism is that in the face of this threat of being absorbed by manichaeism, when identified with it, it was able to develop in an orthodox manner and remain truly Christian, even though we have to admit it was rather bizarre at times, as we will see. Anybody have any questions up to this point? Let's take a look, then, at the earliest monasticism. We've seen that Christianity in Syria is this very rigid, austere Christianity. Now we begin to see what we could pinpoint and say, well, that's monastic. First of all, the eremitic life, or anchoritism. The earliest information we have about monasticism in Syria is that it was an anchoritic form.

[22:06]

And this was centered in caverns, caves, cliffs, crevices, hollows, and rocks. We love to go in the desert areas. But on the other hand, besides going into these areas, there were also the traveling monks. It's another person just walking around all the time. And this is something which is famous in the Orient, and I think in Buddhism and Hinduism, the holy men who just move around all the time. We also know of anchorites who seem to have grouped together somehow. But the ideal was to live in isolation and loneliness. And this beautiful phrase, sort of defining a monk or an anchorite, is one who, when he dies, has no one to close his eyes. I think that's a very thought-provoking thing. die without anybody around, complete loneliness. In this life of isolation, the Anchorite rejected anything that marked of civilization. So this whole Hugamundi concept and rejection of the world, also you reject all civilization.

[23:13]

And that's why you get into a rejection of dwellings, you don't build yourself a house, you live in a crevice somewhere or a hollow somewhere. You don't close yourself, you just let your hair grow all over your place or you cover yourself with some sort of bushes or something, but there's no culture, there's no civilization really. And even no use of fire. So frequently these men are eating grass or whatever they can find, but raw, uncooked. Their life was very similar to that of animals in the world. The result, of course, was individualism, very strong individualism. Now, from this earliest anchoritism, we develop into cenobitism. And you know that in Egypt there's also this thesis that first of all you have Antony as anchorite and then you develop with Pacomius into Cenobitism. I don't think that this is a right way of seeing Egyptian development. I don't see Pacomian monasticism growing out of Antonian

[24:18]

But, in Syria, it seems to be the case, historically, that the Cenobites grew, developed, out of the anchoritic mentality. Because isolated hermits were often subjected to persecution by pagan mobs, and so they began banding together for protection. Now, we don't know for sure when the cenobitic life began to play an important role. For instance, in 373, at the death of Ephraim, we know that cenobitic life was still not very well developed, because Ephraim, who has written an awful lot, addresses himself only to Hermans, describing their way of life and their spiritual world. However, there is archaeological evidence of what we would call a synodium, a monastery in a city named Huron, which dates from 354. Remember, Anthony's date, 356, so still putting the things together. The development of Cenobitism in Syria was probably greatly influenced from the outside.

[25:22]

So that may have also been a factor which helped develop Cenobitism in Syria, because from the east you had the influence of Mani, or the Manichaeists, which had been influenced by Buddhism. Now, I think this is a very interesting point. We're often wondering today what is the connection between Christian monasticism and pagan Oriental monasticism. It made the connecting link, historically, maybe through money, through Manichaeism, through the Syrians. Buddha, or Buddhism, affected Manichaeism. Manichaeism had an influence on Syrian monasticism. And Syrian monasticism, in turn, though it was influenced from the West, also influenced the West. That may be the way we could trace back some sort of connecting link to Buddhism in our own traditions. Besides being influenced from the East, this development of Cenobitism was influenced from the West, namely from Egypt. And that's where Hilarion comes on the scene again, that Jerome talked about.

[26:24]

So there is an infiltration from Egypt, which sort of forms a catalyst for the development of Cenobitism. Also, monasteries probably came into being as disciples gathered around a chosen master. And then, as they gathered together, they worshiped together in the evening and in the morning, but there was still a lot of room left for freedom and individualism. They were really hermits living in community. The sources tell us that the transition from the eremitic life to synovatism was not very smooth. and not too spontaneous, but there was a lot of problems there. For instance, the Antarites, who thought that they were the real monks, set up a great deal of opposition to the Cenobites. They said, what are these people doing? Look at that, they're lax. They're just destroying all of the values, all of the ideals, because they said that how could you live radical poverty if you had to live together? Because if you live together, you're going to have to share things, and there's going to have to be some sort of common decency among you.

[27:30]

So right away, you see, they say, you can't live together and preserve the monastic ideal. I find this point very fascinating in light of the opposition between various monastic groups about who's ideal and who's lax and who's rigorous. Here you find it in the fourth century already. You know, these anchorites just couldn't see what these young people are trying to do. I mean, they're ruining everything. They're ruining the tradition. By the 4th century synobiums were being built in large numbers because bishops were founding monasteries either as places where they could go for a periodic retreat or as their own burial sites where somebody would pray for them after they were dead. Also they were being founded, monasteries were being founded, at sanctuaries of the tomb of either a martyr or a holy man. So for instance, suppose there was an anchorite who lived in the desert and he was martyred by the pagans. then a group of men would probably come around him as a holy place and keep his memorial. With the development of these monasteries, then we begin the handing down of traditions, oral and written, so the whole evolution of monastic rules.

[28:38]

So instructions were given by the abbots to their communities, and these rules and norms frequently go back then to the founder of the monastery, and they concern poverty, worship, psalmody, how people are to live together. Let's take a closer look at the asceticism of Syrian monasticism. Monastic life, in essence, was a life of loneliness and depression. I mean, this is what they call it. It's sort of far from what we would like to see monastic life to be, but it's supposed to be a life of loneliness and depression, which called for a great deal of self-control and stamina. And the term athlete was a favorite expression. A monk is an athlete, and this is an ancient Christian concept, the athlete of Christ, and even you find it in the New Testament with the Apostle Paul. And this demanded a very methodical training. Some of the elements of the ascetic life, of course, were virginity, and it was interesting that in the text it says men who couldn't grow beards could not enter the monastery.

[29:46]

because they would look too much like women, unless they might tempt the other people in the monastery. So if you couldn't grow a beard, you just didn't have any luck. With regard to poverty, This was usually the fundamental basis for community, and very strict. Fasting, no meat, only vegetables, and only water to drink. This whole theme of no wine for monks probably comes from Syria, more than from Egypt, because in Egypt we see monks drank wine. There was an emphasis on vigils. And then, with regard to movement, there were two extremes. I've mentioned these to you before. The first is continuous roaming. The second is immobility. So the first extreme is you just never spend the same night, two nights in the same place, which is the basis of gyropaging. You just constantly roam around. The second extreme is you stand in one place for 35 years, so you get Simon Stylites, and there were many of these stylites in those days, the Astonites, or stylites.

[30:55]

We also have what you call tree men, people who lived in trees, they were called the Dungites, and they would hollow out a tree and they would just ... or they would dig a hole in the ground and just stick their head out of it, staying in that hole in the ground for years. Many of these peculiar things that went on. There was a phrase of dirtiness and filthiness, and because washing the body polluted the soul, so you didn't wash your body. I'm going to turn this over. And their favorite themes for meditation were death, tool, and decay. They said, well, if you think of this one else, it's really rather morbid. So this whole thing set up a mood of dread, fear, and anguish. And that, of course, then you talk about the gifted tears, because they were crying all the time. And they were very much against joking and laughter. And this, I think, is interesting, because this may be one of the reasons, in the rule of Benedict,

[31:57]

You find this hesitancy about laughter, and it goes back to a very ancient tradition. Now, you find this tradition also in Egypt, but it seems to be a pretty constant tradition in monastic traditions, which you just don't like. But you see where it fits into the Syrian mentality, that monasticism is a very serious thing. In fact, it's so serious that the monks had another name. They were called mourners, and that was the name for these people. They were particularly fond of the Psalms. And the recitation of the Psalms was regarded as the best defense and protection against passion and demons. So the whole of monastic life was also designated as psalmody. Another name for monastic life was simply psalmody. They were also... One thing which was very popular with them was prostrations. And that's one of the things I say about Simon Stiles. The people used to come, thousands of people would come to watch Simon's Diaries on top of this pillar where he was for 35 years or whatever it was.

[33:04]

And while they were standing there, sort of as a holiday, to come see the holy man, in order to while away the time because there was nothing to do, they would count how many times he prostrated a day, just to check on him. I forget what the highest number was in the day, how many prostrations involved. They also did holy reading. They daily read the canonical books. And Scripture, as we've seen elsewhere, is the norm by which the monks live. They examined their conscience and controlled their thoughts according to Scripture. Reading of Scripture was a discipline designed then to control thoughts and to aid in concentration. Now, with this picture of Syrian monasticism, which I suppose is not too appealing to us, let's take a look at what effect this monasticism had on society. First of all, with regard to the Church, the society of the Christians. Because of their rude and bizarre manners,

[34:07]

The monks emphasized the passing character of life here below, and so they protested against the laxity of contemporary habits and the low standards of morality. Now, remember, Mike, I've often brought up that monastic life is not a protest movement as such, and I don't see these people as primarily being protesters, but their way of life by its very nature is a protest. And that's quite different when you say protest is a consequence of what you're doing than when it is the motivation for what you're doing. And I do see that constantly monasticism is a type of protest, but not in motivation, necessarily. but in consequence. And that's why the sociologists whom I have a big fight with about the meaning of monasticism can say that they would characterize monasticism as a protest movement. Does that make sense to you, Mike, the point that I'm making? You say, I don't think it in motivation, it's protest. But by the very nature or in consequence, it will protest against laxity.

[35:12]

Also, by means of its religious seriousness, monasticism inspired the masses to look beyond the immediate and seek comfort in spiritual realities. And so, the monks became the confidants and the consolers of men who were in misery and anguish and in suffering. their own want, their own suffering, their own experience of anxiety, established a bond of solidarity with all men, and the masses recognized this." I think this is an extremely important point. See, these men, in a strange way of life, had become sympathetic. with the masses. And the masses understood this. Now, the critical question I would ask, shouldn't monks somehow be this same sort of sympathetic nerve in our society today? But do people, the people who are in misery in our society, come to us for consolation, for understanding? They wouldn't even think of coming to us.

[36:15]

That's just a critical question I throw out. But see, they came to these men, these bizarre people. The monks became the spiritual fathers of many and so exercised pastoral concern over them. Monks were seen as intercessors and mediators even in political problems within the church and in society. The monks became bishops. They served as wardens in the chapels of martyrs. They served as deacons and priests in villages where there were no clergy. And frequently, they went to a place where nobody else would want to go. And so one of the things that happens in Syrian monasticism is that it begins to have a missionary aspect to it. Now this is from a number of reasons. The monks who were fighting the devil said, all right, let's go to where the devil is. So that's why they would go to the desert or to the tombs. But they'd also go to a pagan temple or to a pagan area, because that's the devil's domain. So in going to a pagan area to show the victory of Christ, they in fact became missionaries.

[37:19]

And so there's a whole missionary movement in this monasticism. They often sought out, then, a pagan area for their residence, or they went to a place where nobody else wanted to go. You have a bad place in the diocese, none of the diocesan priests wants to go. A monk says, well, I'll go to that lonely, God-forsaken place and serve these people. Once they were in these areas, they were often persecuted and mistreated, especially by the pagans. But their patience and their humility won the pagans over to Christianity. Also, as objects of curiosity, they were able to speak a language that everyone understood. And then they didn't have to preach about anything, just their very life said something. Eventually, they became expressly missionaries, evangelizing pagan areas and volunteering for places of special difficulty. Now, I really find that fact very important and helpful in the whole meaning of monasticism.

[38:22]

You don't have to wait to Boniface in the 8th and 9th century to say, well, this is where monasticism becomes missionary in attitude. We see in this particular monasticism, in Syrian monasticism, very early, 4th, 5th century, a missionary impetus. And they didn't think that this was compromising on what they were doing. In fact, it flowed out of their way of life. With regard to their social concern, The simplest and primitive means of concern was the tradition of hospitality. And this was an ironclad rule among the anchorites. They always suspected that it was Jesus Christ in the pilgrim whom they were entertaining. And so, with this ideal of hospitality and openness to Christ Jesus, they developed into hostelries and guest houses. So they then did hotels. Some monasteries were built with the intention of being hotels. Hotels in the sense of the 5th century, places where people could rest for the night, where pilgrims could come.

[39:28]

The monks were especially concerned with the poor. They fed them, consoled them, and clothed them. They were concerned with the sick. They visited the sick, and they even built hospitals. They took care of prisoners by ransoming them. And so, Vobus has these statements to make. It is indeed true that the monks, in principle, did not act socially when they decided to leave society." So they weren't social reformers in leaving society. "...they felt that the question of their salvation was at stake. But it is an interesting paradox that many who left the world had more understanding of the wounds of society than did many who remained in the world." Then he continues, In the ocean of human need and suffering, and apparently the 4th and 5th century was a period of great suffering for the masses of people because of the imbalance of wealth, they prepared their monasteries, cells and huts as islands in which the afflicted could find understanding and consolation, bread and clothing, care and rescue.

[40:40]

In the disorderly conditions of the Orient, tending toward the growing impoverishment of the masses, the responsible part of Syrian monasticism appeared as a rescue squad which seriously tried to save what could be saved." And so, Hobbes, in his conclusion, is saying that these men were the men who really gave some sort of meaning to existence for the majority. They were really people who were doing social work, but not in principle. They didn't decide to be social workers, but their very way of life geared them and prepared them and even gave them the impetus to go into this kind of work. With regard to intellectual culture, In rejecting the world and living a life of poverty, the monks usually had one possession, and that was a book, a copy of sacred scripture, so that in their loneliness that book was their only companion.

[41:41]

Now, as they began to gather together, then they needed books for one another. Everybody wanted to have a copy, or some hermit would want a copy, and they would come to the monastery and ask for one. So they began to produce these books for themselves, for the community, and for other people. So the monasteries became centers of manuscript production, and their most valuable possession was their library. And they would lend these books out to other people for reading and for copying. Monks carried on extensive correspondence with clerics, lay people, giving advice and instruction, and often these were collected and circulated. So you write down what somebody told you and give it to the person who comes to you and says, has the same problem. So, well, this is what the monk told me. And so, for instance, Ifrah is a giant in Syrian literary art. He seldom wrote in prose. He wrote in what they called the memoir, which is the metrical structure for recitation. It's called poetic. He wrote exegetical works, or things explaining the sacred scripture.

[42:46]

He wrote religious and homiletic works, ethical and ascetic works, polemic and dogmatic works. I mean, he has quite a library attributed to him. Monks also wrote on the interior light. And they even translated the Greek theological literature into Syriac. They also developed schools. Now, in the primitive form, this was the necessary education just of the novice, in reading and writing and in scripture studies. But these Levitiate classes developed into centers of learning, and they became a teaching ministry, because the monks wanted to share their learning experience with others outside of the community. So great schools were established, and one of the famous schools is the school of Edessa, where Ephraim was, and this is the 5th century. This school met the needs of beginners and of advanced students. It was really a university. The curriculum consisted of preparatory studies, biblical exegesis,

[43:52]

With regard to that, literary, philological, lexical, and historical critical studies on the Bible. They also studied the philosophy of the peripatetics, that is, Aristotle. The works of Aristotle, the philosopher, were translated and commented on by monks in the second quarter of the 5th century. And they also had profane history, Greek science, geography, and rhetoric. It sounds like a big university. And it was, you know, for that time. Now, the thing is that the students who came to this school were subjected to a semi-monastic routine during their attendance at school, which is not too foreign to some of us because we who went through the old seminary regime were really living the monastic life, just in sort of analogy to what the monks were doing. So, in conclusion, it is paradoxical that Syrian monasticism, which overtly professed and stressed separation from the world, showed and made such a contribution to society.

[45:01]

In the Church's mission and apostolate, in social concerns and in intellectual culture, now, I think, from this fact, we ought to reappraise our notion of separation and social influence. One does not militate against the other. In fact, separation may be radically in service to the other, which I really think changes our perspective a little bit. So with that, I would ask you to have any observations or questions or any reflections that this brings to mind. Mike, how does this Well, you know, what interests me is the very beginning was the other connection between those and Qumran. Qumran and Syria. And then, you know, just in that history book you gave me to read, the mentioning that it came up of that particular school of Hades, you know, and that whole movement that the missionary influx that started in that area that moved up into Russia and towards India.

[46:08]

Does this give you a new perspective of monastic pluralism, though? Yeah. When you mentioned that, I was just thinking of that story we talked about Sunday at table. Paisnius and Isaiah? Of the difference in the ways of life. Are you all familiar with the story of Paisnius and Isaiah? It comes up in the Mause Act history? Paisios and Isaias were two Spanish brothers, and when their father died, they received a lot of overlord property. And they both decided to be monks. One of them decided to give everything away and live a very radical life of simplicity and poverty. The other decided to use his money, build a monastery and a hospice, and take care of people's other social concerns. And as they, of course, lived, they had disciples around them. And then they died. And then the disciples went into a polemic, an argument. Which one was the more perfect? Which one was the better? And both of them were arguing with one another.

[47:11]

Well, Isaiah. Isaiah was the best because he gave everything away. And Peter was the best because he took care of people. He fulfilled the law of charity. So they went to Abbot Campbell and asked Abbot Campbell what he thought about it. And Abbot Campbell said, I can't answer that question, it's not a good question. And they kept on insisting, so he said, all right, come back in a few days and I'll give you an answer. So when they came back and asked him, because they were still arguing about which is better, Abbot Campbell said, I saw both of them standing before the throne of God in glory. But the point of the story is that already you have this controversy. What's better? Which is more monastic? Which is more perfect? And Campbell simply says, you can't make this kind of contrast. Another thing that comes to mind is, you know, you hear so much emphasis on, we've got to bear witness, we've got to give witness. And it seems like that can become the end. You know, we're going to go out and we're going to go out and give witness.

[48:12]

And then so much emphasis on just giving witness, your monastic life. that which can give witness starts to die. You know, you go out, you're getting involved, your monastic life is beginning to crumble, whereas, you know, just in those old, the early, the desert fathers and everything, living that monastic life is what brought people to them. You know, you don't have to go out and be the... It is the life itself lived authentically, which is the witness. It's sort of like, philosophically, talking the difference between a symbol and a sign. that the symbol is the reality which only exists when it manifests itself externally. And that monastic life is a symbol and so it is a witness in a reality which is only a true symbol when it is what it is and manifests itself as what it is. But a sign is something arbitrary, you can put up a billboard and point to something.

[49:13]

And I get the impression that people who are all hung up on witness would like to put up a big billboard and say, look, we are witnesses. And there's nothing really there to witness. The life itself in its authenticity will be the witness. And that's, I think, the amazing thing about Syrian menaces. They were the greatest witnesses in their society. But that wasn't their goal. And I think it's the same way for a Christian. Being a bike rider. The Fugamundi actually ended up being sort of a counter-culture. For them or for us? For them. Right, right. In, you know, regarding the question of witness, they were witnessing to something that was very strongly inherent in their whole mentality, which I think is sort of strange accent because I just had these two people read the cleric's sentence in our prayer.

[50:20]

And I think probably when you and I went through that issue, we got the idea that it was something horribly negative. And after reading the cleric's sentence in prayer, I got the impression that it's not negative, it's very positive. Well, there's a lot of studies now, theological studies, on the meaning of asceticism and, you know, taking it away from this negative approach. Because so much, particularly in the Charisenium, you know, that was more sacred than the Holy Rule, was a very negative type of reincarnation of Manichaeism. which we called at that time Janssen et al., and the body was evil, sort of attitude, and anything pleasurable was wrong. It's fine, it must be a sin. It must be a sin. But this concept of Fugamundi, now, I would say, be very careful about transposing the concept of Assyrian Fugamundi to all of Anastasia.

[51:28]

And this is the danger that I've seen frequently with this concept. See, I don't think the concept of fuga mundi is very strong in Benedictine tradition. That's where I would disagree pretty much with John McClure and Beyer and all of these different people who would make of the essence of monasticism separation from the world. It's that same thing that I... It's not the essence, but a consequence. That's part of the problem, Leo, I have with your Renew and Create. It takes that theme of Bhugamundi and uses it almost in working with what is the essence of monasticism. And I would prefer not to do that. Now, I see in Syrian monasticism it was of the essence. That's one of the forms of pluralistic monasticism. But I don't see it of the essence of... Well, it's a medieval concept, really. But even if we worked, even without that problem, suppose we'd say it is a good concept.

[52:32]

All right, I think it has been misinterpreted frequently, because they said, Fugamundi means you can't run a school, you can't be a missionary, you can't have any social apostolate, you go hide in a monastery somewhere, you're separated from all that. Those people who emphasized Fugamundi did just the opposite. And that's what I think is so helpful about Syrian monasticism. And even in the root itself, it seems that Benedict's own monks went out on a journey. Oh yeah. For one reason or another. But you know, there's so many indications historically that monks were traveling around. In the 6th century, you find almost immediate knowledge of documents which have appeared 400 miles away. I'm thinking of Caesarius of Aros and Benedict. So Caesarius of Aros finished his rules about 535. Both of those rules are probably known to the author of the Rule of Benedict. The author of the Rule of Benedict wrote between 527 and 550. Now, how did he know those rules?

[53:34]

People must have been traveling around carrying these documents to monasteries. And there seems to have been a special runner service. And while Jean Leclerc talks about the love of learning and the desire for God, of the mail carriers, that monks would, when somebody died in a monastery, they would write his life and go to the next monastery and just travel around reading the monk's life, so that everybody was familiar, because this is some of the documents that we have. And so there were these monks who were just constantly moving around, communicating, keeping communication going between monasteries. So I think a lot of these historical facts just prove a lot of the the theory of some people wrong. Did you introduce or say who is here with us? No. Sisters, we have the novice master from St. Leo's in Florida, Father Leo, who is prior also, and the two novices from St.

[54:38]

Leo's in Florida, Brother Fidelis and Brother Gregory, and that's why you have to hear some other voices today. But you haven't heard of Brother Fidelis and Brother Gregory, because I think they're like the sisters that you talked about. The microphone scares them to death. Well, unfortunately, I would say neither of them have been able to hear too much about pre-marriage, and I've been asked to sit and do the bible anywhere in the house, being well enough acquainted with One of the things I'm seriously thinking of doing, Leo, is now that I've had this experiment with the sisters and see that it's a very good way of sharing things, is working up a set of takes and putting them on the market, like you would a book. And that monasteries and convents know that they're available, but I see these tapes are sort of, well, as I've told the sisters, they're just, there's no polish to them.

[55:44]

It's just what we do in class, and that's to really work up a good set of tapes that could be reproduced, and then it would be a service, I think, to a lot of communities. So I'm thinking of doing that sometime in the future. Like I heard there a little bit of reading, I have been exposed to some lectures on it that are non-invested workshops, but I have never felt comfortable enough with the topic to even try to, you know, give it to my own eyes. Well, what I usually do is, these aren't original at all, see, I just usually analyze and summarize articles. Very little of what I've done with Mike has been original. Now, some things in Anthony and some of the analysis of some of the texts, that was pretty original. But, for instance, now we're going to go in next to, I think, John Cashin.

[56:47]

I'm going to share with him some French articles which I've translated, and try to get the main points of it out, and that's the way I do it. But as far as the original research, it's just impossible, really. Tell us, what did you think about Syrian monasticism? When was your feeling after you've gotten through it? It's kind of strange. It's sort of morbid. I'm in charge of it. Or at least I would say, I would think that if that's the thing that they want to give us, I don't want to have anything to do with it. Well, that's not the kind of life I want to live. There's one thing that kept us, when you said that their eccentricity and their oddity attracted people, today you're weird when you're not attracting anybody. People would laugh at them and not consider them serious or real and they would be a joke. Do you think that's really the case? Take, for instance, some of the communes.

[57:50]

I think that they're making an impact and saying something to society by some of the strange things they're doing. See, I'm not being defensive, but what I feel the reason we can't do it is because we're just middle class. And we have all the middle class memorials and everything else, and we don't say a thing to nobody. I think the reason they weren't effective is primarily because they were authentic. I think possibly this is why some of the communes are having such an effect on people because I think they are truly convinced and they are authentic in their conviction. But I think it's also very true as you say that all too often present-day monasticism that's sort of hindered by middle class.

[58:52]

Yeah, and we don't want to be different. You know, there's a real fear in a lot of people that monks have to be different. And I think that there's no sense in monasticism unless there's something distinct about it. I don't think we're just other Christians. I think we're Christians But I think that in the Christian community there is a pluralism and there are various manifestations of the Christian message. And if there's nothing specific about monastic, why be a monk? But this pluralism, why couldn't it take into account all of these peoples? For example, these communes that you speak of, they are what monasticism was. So why should all the intellectuals gather together and call a unified thought monasticism? Or a unified way of doing things monasticism? Well, yeah, and I agree that that is not what... That's what pluralism would accept, the outside and the creeks, as you might call it.

[59:53]

See, that's not what in my mind constitutes monasticism, just an intellectual theory I have a problem with. I think that monasticism is a lived way of life, but it's specific. I look at it very sociologically or behaviorally. If there are certain elements that don't exist in this, then let's don't call it monastic. Now, when you get to the Armitic life, that's another thing, because there, behaviorally, there's no real pattern. A hermit is his own man. But when you get to the Cenobitic way of life, you have behavioral patterns, and if you don't have those behavioral patterns, I don't know how you can call it monastic. And that behavioral pattern is based on the tradition that is passed down. See, I don't think just any community is a monastic community. Even taking the pluralism, you still don't think that that would take into account all communities being monastic. There has to be some basic rules.

[60:54]

I think that there is a pluralism in monastic tradition. For instance, I think Benedictinism is one type of monastic expression. I think the Trappists are another. But I think that Syria is another. And for instance, in Egypt, you have North and South Egypt. What you have in monasticism is a wide pluralism. I don't see anybody being able to live everything, because then they can't live anything. And so there are certain limits. For instance, I do have a problem with the people who say that you can have married monastic life. This to me is a contradiction in terms, because of the essence of Christian monasticism to me is a celibate way of life. Now, there are people who are in the habit of maratzu, and this is why he resigned, because he wanted to have married people in the monastic community, and call it a monastic community. Another element I see that is a constant in monastic tradition is the public proclamation of sacred scripture primarily in psalmody.

[61:57]

So, for instance, that's why the Jesuits I would not call monastic. because they do not have that. And the same way with the mendicant orders, where they sort of head between communal prayer and non-communal prayer. I don't know what they're doing now, but see, the Dominicans are semi-monastic, at least in origin, because they kept the psalm. That's one of the... it's not the only element. So, for instance, if a benedictine community today would say, we're no longer going to have the public celebration of the Yolkis Day, all right, they're no longer monastics. So there are certain elements, the arguments always are, well how many of these things do you need? What is of the essence? And that's where the pluralism comes in, because the composite is going to take on a different form in the different traditions. But there can still be a kind of limiting of monasticism, I think. Because as it was with the Fugalundins, it seems to me that each person decided for himself

[63:02]

what monasticism was and then went out and lived it and gathered people who thought as did that one person, right? Then you got to a cause. Why couldn't it be the same nowadays?

[63:15]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ