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 to 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. 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 Basil, 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 Compton, it says, Let them all sit together in one place, and let a brother read the conferences of Cassian, or 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 collationes, the conferences. But we've seen that one of the works of John Cassian is called the collationes. 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 Cassian 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 Cassian. 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 collationes, that is, of the conversatio of monks. and especially the life of Martin, the Severus, Cletius Severus wrote the life of Martin of Tours. But he calls these writings about the conversatio of monks, their way of life, is collationes.

[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 collationes and institutes, that he necessarily is referring only to John Cashion. 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 Cashion with regard to trying to understand the rule of Benedict. And very little work has really been done in that area. But this is something that Jean Gribblemont has highly recommended, that we should go to Basel 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, Adalbert de Beauguet 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 it depends on John Cashin to substantiate the theory of contemplation in the rule of Benedict. Now, Julien Leroy, I get the impression, is in opposition to John Cashin, to Adelbert de Beauguet on this approach. Whatever we do, though, we ought to go cautiously to Cassian, as you will see why. See, the rule of Benedict belongs to the Senebitic tradition. Now, when the rule of Benedict does use John Cassian, 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 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 Chrétien, 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, that's just not quite what Leroy is saying at all. Part of the problem, then, is how did the rule use 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 gives 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 abbots that he says that he heard speak in Egypt. And then his 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, Cassian as a reporter. In general, John Cassian 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.

[08:30]

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 Cassian ever went to the Pocomian monasteries in the Teviad. And yet, for instance, in the Institute's chapter, book two, where he talks about the universal tradition of the monastic divine office of morning and evening. He says it's all over Egypt, including Pocomian monasticism. But it's really questionable whether he ever went down into the Teviad. Now, we saw that same problem with Palladius. See, Pellanius reports something about Pecumius, but it's a little questionable whether he actually went to Pecumian monasteries or not.

[09:32]

Gashin, 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 he's got 20 years in the tomb, and it's pretty hard to remember, in the provinces or later, pretty hard to remember word for 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 some to Egyptian fathers to kind of lend... importance and weight to what he once 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 cenobitic life, and that it is a perfection of the cenobitic life. Well, look at his own life. He had left a cenobium in Bethlehem.

[10:35]

and he'd gone to Egypt. 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. He just mentions it's a short distance away and maybe 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 4th century, there were monks of various types.

[11:38]

For instance, there were anchorites such as Moses and Papnusius, whom we meet in Conference 1 and 2 and Conference 3. There were cenobites such as John and Penubius, and we mentioned this Penubius 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. Now, Pocomius doesn't consider the synogium as a prep school for the eremitic life. You don't get that feeling at all in Pocomian literature.

[12:41]

In fact, he seemed to consider the centipedic 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 Pecomius. 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 a table. He's got to do one or the other. Whereas if you live in a synodium, 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 Cassian, however, when he speaks of cenobitic life, it is a cenobitic life that is made to conform to the anchoritic tradition.

[13:44]

That is, when Cassian is speaking. So he's already confused the two. Now, for this reason, considering Cassian'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 Cassian imposes on his reports. And so one must be aware of a unified synthesis 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 them. And that's one of the confusing things about John Cashin. So you get the Senate-bidden 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.

[14:46]

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, or it might be in two volumes, the Institutes and then the Conferences. The Sources Create Yen 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, Pichari, that's his main point in his introduction to the Sources Create Yen. 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 10 years. And so some evolution of thought can be suspected here, too. And the works are presented as separate entities to different peoples. 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.

[16:51]

It was one work, but it was made up of two separate volumes, as Cachey himself states in the preface 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 him Pope, in the preface to those volumes, in other words, his earlier volumes, which, with God's help, I composed in twelve books on the Institutes of the Sanobian 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 the core, these two volumes, the Institutes and then the Vices. So the work is composed of 12 books under one preface, but it is really two volumes with their own proper contents and title, the Institutes of the Synobium and then the Remedies for the Eight Principal Vices.

[18:03]

The existence of these two volumes is confirmed by an allusion to Cassian in Conference 20. He says, I pass over in silence the praise of Penufius' 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 Institutes a work. And then he mentions that he talked about Penufius in volume, or book four. This work, the work referred to then, isn't all 12 books, but rather just the first four books in this text. Now, Cashion 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. Then he 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 an expert 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. Cassian does not give his own ideas, but the interpretation of the fathers of the Orient. But Cassian knows very little, really, of Cenobitic monasteries in Egypt. The only Cenobites he mentions in the Institutes in Book I to IV are Patramusius, whom he mentions in Book IV, and Tanufius, whom he mentions also in Book IV. 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, Cassian knows, 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 1 to 4 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 might and eminent for speech and knowledge have already put forth several little books, I mean Basil and Jerome and some others. So he seems referring to the Cenobitic plural of Basil. He's probably referring to the translation by Jerome of the rule of Poconius, which is all with regard to Senefitic life, which is not only what I'm saying, but go to the people who are really Senefites and find out what the Senefitic life is all about. The preface does pretend to be a preface for the whole work, and so then he also mentions the contents of what we would call Volume 2, that is, the Eight Principle Vices.

[21:38]

But Volume 2 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. He just wanted something about how to put in to effect monastic life, cenobitic life. But since Cassian knew cenobitic life rather poorly, and since he knew anchorite 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, Cassian was not content to furnish Castor with a description of cenobitic 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. And so the word contemplation, for instance, is used rather frequently in this volume, in the last eight books of

[22:44]

in the Institutes, not so much in the first four books. And so Cassian 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 really 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 Cenobite, 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 five to twelve, the volume two, are drawn from monks who live in solitude. So, some of the important anchorites who are mentioned are Anthony, Arsadius, John, Macarius, Maccathenes, Moses, Hasius, Paul, Simeon, Theodore.

[23:52]

And only one cenobite 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 cenobitic doctrine, because everybody he refers to is anchoritic. nor are the themes that one finds those that are habitually found in cenobitic literature. So, see, in the Institute itself, you've got two volumes. The first volume is cenobitic. The second volume is anchoritic. Now let's take a look at the conferences. And the conferences are divided up into three sections, according to the prefaces that John Cashing has in the conferences, and to whom he dedicates sections of the conferences. So around 420, Cashing composed a new work, 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.

[24:59]

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. Caster had asked for a picture of the cenobitic life and the observances of the cenobitic life. But this same man, Caster, had his interest stimulated by the treatment of anchoritism in Volume 2, that is, in the last books of the Institutes. And so, in the preface of the Conferences 1 to 10, Cassian says, But now, as the aforesaid bishop, Castor, has left us and departed to Christ and has died, meanwhile, these ten conferences of the grandest fathers, That is, the Anchorites, who dwelt in the desert of the Scythe, which he, Castor, fired with an incomparable desire for saintliness, had bitten me to write in the same style.

[26:06]

So, after Castor had written the Institutes, which was Cenobitic and Anchorite, Then Castor got inspired by the anchoritic ideal and said, okay, now write me some conferences about the anchorites. Now, all of the monks that Cassian 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 Ischete. Conference 3 brings Pathnusius on the scene, who was a priest in the desert of the Scythe. Daniel, who speaks in Conference 4, was a deacon of Pathnusius, but also resided in the desert of the Scythe. In Conference 5, Serapion speaks of the Eight Principal Vices. Notice it's in Anchorite, talking about the Eight Principal Vices, which refers back to the final books of the Institutes. And it belonged to this Assembly or Senate of Elders in this keep.

[27:08]

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 the skeet, but he was an anchorite who lived in the Desert of the Cells, which is another Egyptian desert, five miles from the monastery of Mitreya, and separated from the skeet by 80 miles of desert and of solitude. Serenus, who gives Conference 7 and 8, without a question is an anchorite, and Cassian speaks of going to his solitary cell. Then there's Isaac, in Conferences 9 and 10, who belongs to the group in the Scythe, for he obviously knows Serapion. Thus you see Cassian 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 dedicated.

[28:12]

It is dedicated to a Leontius, who is united to Castor by ties of blood. But this Leontius There's also another person to whom it's dedicated, and that is Heladius. So it's dedicated to Leontius, who is Castor's relative. So it's sort of a tie-up with Castor, who wanted to know about Anchoratism. But it's specifically dedicated also to a man named Heladius, who is a hermit. So it's dedicated to a hermit. Tashin 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 cenobitic life. You guys say literally it's superior? 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 anchorite's life 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."

[29:32]

Notice right away he's saying, see, the anchoritic life, the goal is contemplative life, and the synovitic 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 3 on the anchoritic life parallels Volume 1. See, Volume 1, or the Institutes Book 1 to 4, are the institutes of the synobium. Now, we could say Book 1 to 10 of the conferences, which is Volume 3, are the institutes of the anchoritic life. For instance, he says in the Preface to these Conferences, 1 to 10, in the Preface to those volumes which, with God's help, I composed in 12 books on the Institutes of the Synovium and the Remedies of the Eight Principal Faults, notice he always mentions these volumes have two different aspects to them.

[30:41]

I must venture down to hand down for posterity some of the institutes and teaching of these great men." It's nothing 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. Notice what he's doing. You see, he's calling the institutes of the synobium what he did in volume one. What he's doing in volume three is the institutes of the anchoritic life. Works of Cashion are then conferences 18 to 24. So, a little later, Cashion prepares a new series of conferences. These constitute Volume 5, 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.

[31:48]

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. 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

[32:52]

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. 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 Helaman, who lives near Diocles, near the mouth of the Nile. Nearby there are many Cenobians, but Helaman is a senior of the anchorites and a priest. Now, it's without a doubt that this proximity to the synoviums and interchange with them accounts for a rather different judgment of the Anchorites with regard to the Senebitic life. So, PMM is going to have a little different judgment with regard to what Senebitic life is than some of the Anchorites in Mesquite and in the desert.

[33:59]

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. 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 Cenobite. He did both of them, but he changed back and forth. You said authentic? Authentic Senebite. They're really Senebite. We know that they are. I mean, this is Kashin of... No, no. As far as we know, well, Kashin is reporting it. But see, that's one of the things that seems to say that he's reporting authentically, because some of the centipede doctrine that he reports doesn't agree with his own doctrine.

[35:01]

Oh. So it must indicate that it's not his. It's the same way with the anchoritic traditions. There are three separate doctrines in John Gasham. The Cenobitic Doctrine, the Anchoritic Doctrine, and John Gasham's Doctrine. And so when the Cenobitic Doctrine doesn't sort of agree with John Gasham, you say, well, that must be sort of authentic. He really was putting down what he read, or what he heard. Abbot Penuthius 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 Senefidic life. Designed to practice the most excellent Senefidic 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 Cassian and Germanus got to know him. Remember, this is the fellow who went to Bethlehem, and he wanted to live especially of synodal virtue of subjection.

[36:09]

And, I guess, as Abbot, he felt that he couldn't do this too well, so he wanted to go do under obedience. His sanctity had so edified Cassian and Germanus that they themselves desired to go to Egypt. But Muthias was very attached to the cenobitic life and understood it quite well. 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 cenobitic theology or doctrine. Finally, Conferences 21, 22, and 23 are the encounter with a certain Theonis, 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 anchoritic, and the last conference is anchoritic, and the ones in between are cenotitic. So Volume 5 is a combination of anchorite and Cenobite.

[37:10]

This volume will then be, for the greater part, an expression of cenobitic doctrine. Even the conferences which come from the anchorites treated general monastic subjects so that Gashin 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. The prefaces, the personages, and the destinaries underline the proper character of each one of these volumes. So we have, around 417, Volume 1, Institutes 1 to 4, which presents traditional cenobitic doctrine. In the same year, 417, we have Volume 2, which is Institutes Book 5 to 12, which treats of asceticism in general, but in an anchoritic context and climate. Then around 420, we have Volume 3, Conferences 1 to 10, which presents the anchoritic doctrine.

[38:14]

Around 426, Volume 4, Conferences 11 to 17, which completes the Antaritic 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 Antaritic teaching, especially in 18 and 24, as it agrees with that of the Cenobites. So you see the distinction that has to be made in reading John Cassin. See, Leroy maintains it's not a unified work, as I said, against what Picherin would say. Consequently, if one wishes to study in Cassian the two types of monastic life, the Cenobitic and the Anchoritic life, he must analyze volumes 1 and 5 for the first books of the Institutes, the last conferences, for the Cenobitism, because these are probably Cenobitic books.

[39:19]

If he wants to understand the anchoritic life and how they understood their vocation, then he analyzes volumes 2, 3, and 4, 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. 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 anchor in life. It certainly finds its place in Pacomian synobotism. Remember the whole concept of meditatio on scripture. And Cassian says in Volume 1 of the Institute, Book 2, 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.

[40:26]

So notice in the section which is about synovitic life, Institute's book two, he says, in the conferences we're going to complement this, because in book two he talks about the hours of office, you're going to complement that with the doctrine of continual prayer. So right away he's throwing the cenophyte into this anchoritic volume. And at the beginning of Conference 9, 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 in tendo, which is the way the Cenobites always began their divine office, as we see from the Rule of Benedict.

[41:36]

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. 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 1, in Institutes Book 1 to 4, Anthony is not mentioned at all. because it's not centralized. 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, 3 times, in conference 3, conference 8, 3 times, and in conference 9. Notice how heavy he is in volume 3. Now what does this give us? It's telling you Anthony is called upon and mentioned in the text.

[42:42]

See, Anthony is the hermit. Now notice he wasn't mentioned in volume 1. which is a Sanhedrin tradition. The anthem doesn't belong to the Sanhedrin tradition. Well, what did you call this section, the authorities? The authorities that are invoked by Cassian. To prove his point. Well, when Cassian is talking and presenting doctrine, he always, for instance, in his conference, he says, Abbot, they on us 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, the way he mentions Anthony, He mentions them very heavily in Volume 3, which we call the Institutes of the Anchoratic Life. In Volume 4 he's only mentioned once again, and in Volume 5 he's mentioned in Conference 18 and 24, the two conferences which are by anchorites, 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 1 and the composite character of Volume 5, where the citations of Anthony are found in Conferences 18 and 24, which are specifically the works of Anchorites.

[44:05]

Anthony is not mentioned in Volume 1. He's only mentioned in Volume 5 and 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 Conference's Book 1 to 10, because that's the Institute of the Anchorites. You see the point he's making? Also, the list of holy monks cited by Cassian leads one to the same conclusion. Cassian mentions 37 holy monks, and of those 37, 30 are Anchorites and 7 are Cenobites. The disproportion of these two numbers underlines the particular interest Cassian has in the Anchoritic ideal. Now, note the disposition of these men. For instance, in volume one, One anchorite is mentioned, John.

[45:08]

Now that's the cenobitic volume. Volume two, there are ten anchorites mentioned. That's the thing on the eight vices. Anthony, Arsabius, John of Scythia, Macarius, Macetes, Moses of Scythia, Paul of Porphyryon, Pathenusius, 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 Calamas, Moses of Scythia, Taphnutius, Serapion, Serenus, 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. Abraham the Simple, Anthony, Arsabius, Cherubim, Joseph, Nestorus, Papnusius, and Serenus. Volume 5, there are

[46:12]

Eleven anchorites, of whom eight are in Conferences 18 and 24." Notice those are the conferences that are on anchorites. So eight of these are in Conferences 18 to 24. Abraham, Anthony, Apollo, Isidore, John, Thapnusius, Paul I, Hermit, and Serapion. And in the other conferences of the same volume, one finds mention of only four anchorites, namely in the ones—it's 12 altogether. The four anchorites in the volumes are on Cenobites. Moses of Calamus, Papnusius in 19, Helios 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. Also in Volume 2 and 4, and in that section of Volume 5, which is anchoritic. In the properly cenobitic works, the mention of anchorites seems to be exceptional. This conclusion is in agreement with what we've already seen from our other analysis."

[47:21]

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 at some places it's a little limpid at times. But I think he's got a good insight here. What are the consequences, then, of this division of John Cassian into 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. Besides that, of course, you're going to get what John Cashin thinks about them, so you're really going to get three. But, I mean, in the text themselves you see there are two, what the Cenobites think about themselves and what the Anchorites think about the Cenobites. We can also find,

[48:24]

John Cashin's own personal conception, which will legitimize his passage from centipedic 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 Anchorating 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 Abbot 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. 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 life, and so we conclude that what Moses says about the goal of a monk applies to Anchorites.

[49:43]

Now, that's a very important conclusion, I think, when you're reading John Thatcher. 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. The immediate goal is purity of heart. The final goal is heaven. But, he's talking about financial life. Also, he says, the immediate goal is purity of heart. Having your immediate goal in purity of heart, 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.

[50:47]

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. 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.

[51:49]

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 questions into that. John Cashin says, or Moses says, that's the goal of the anchoritic life. So be careful of taking that goal from the anchoritic life and applying it to the centipedeic life. 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, 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.

[52:51]

Because John Cashin is talking to anchorites, not to cenobites. And we are professing to live the cenobitic life And actually what happens in John Gashin 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 their 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, or what the anchorites are presenting and the Cenobites are presenting in John Cashin, the Cenobites do not see contemplation as the goal of their life. That is specifically an anchoritic goal. We'll see what the centipede 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.

[54:00]

Now, one of the things, and this is why 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 Wilfred Tunick and Roland Roloff, or Ronald Roloff, I'm not sure. on the goal of monastic life as purity of heart. And Wilfred 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. Now, I don't want to say that's wrong, but I'm saying now we begin to see do 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 than a theory scenario. It is precisely the same formula which is used in Conference 19 to define the anchoritic vocation and to define it in contrast to the cenobitic life.

[55:13]

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 Cashin defines contemplation. Freedom from all earthly things, a unity with Christ. But the goal of the Cenobite is expressed different. 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. 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 desires according to the command of evangelical perfection, and to have no thought of the moral.

[56:19]

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 Meloy is going to try to do in his next article, but there are still some weak spots in that. I'll clue you in when we get to it. So, don't just absorb this uncritical, 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. And this union is to be tenaciously held to. The hermit tends toward union in contemplation, and it is this characteristic that distinguishes the Cenobitic and Anchoritic writings in John Cassin. Remember I mentioned to you that contemplation, the word is used more in Volume 2, and I don't know how much it is in Volume 1, but at least not very much. Volume 2 is the Anchoritic volume.

[57:22]

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 Amphorites. 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. Now, what seems to me is characteristic here is solitude. See, that would not be the same emphasis in the Senecritic 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.

[58:35]

Withdrawal from the world is specifically an anchorite theme. in John Cashin. It is not a theme in the centipede 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 call upon us, 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.

[59:37]

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, anachloresis, 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. Think of the instruments of the spiritual art in the Rule of Benedict. Solitude is not merely leaving the world, it is anachorosis. And there's no anachorosis, really, in the Rule of Benedict. There's a certain... 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.

[60:40]

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 steep. 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. Now, in a further article, which we'll take a look at next time we meet, Leroy is going to analyze the cenobitic doctrine transmitted by Cassian and the use of Cassian by the rule of Benedict. See, in this article, the point is that Cassian does not present a monastic doctrine of universal value, but sometimes presents cenobitic doctrine and another times anchoritic doctrine.

[61:45]

And in order to interpret his affirmations, one must understand the context in which it is made. Namely, if we want to understand Cassian, we've got to understand what volume this statement is made in. This is very good textual criticism. Note the context in which a statement is made, which helps us avoid fundamentalism. It's basically a scriptural technique of analysis and criticism of exegesis of a text. So I think that this gives us a critical viewpoint, or approach, 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 Semitidic tradition accept that, because John Cashin may be talking about the Antimidic 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.

[62:49]

You know, I had never given any thought to that. And, you know, as Fr. Dominick 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_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ