Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

746 25. monasticism
appear eccentric, ‘alternative’, even anarchic. Yet they did not merely
abandon, let alone undermine or destroy, traditional society. They were participants
in a wide public debate – about the nature of authority and leadership,
about the appropriate mechanisms of social formation, about the
very tradition to which Christianity was entitled to appeal. Although their
own system was never likely to usurp or absorb all others, the tolerance and
admiration they inspired was proof of the central role they had to play in
the definition of a Christian society.
In describing and explaining, therefore, the structures of the ascetic life,
we have to recognize the influence of ideology – both the theories proper
to the ascetic communities themselves, and the principles that affected their
relations with the outside world. By the early fifth century, of course, precedents
had been established; in particular, a widespread preference for
community life. The earliest archaeological evidence in Egypt, from the
‘Cells’ just south of the Delta, shows how quickly the little brick shelters of
the solitaries made famous in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers were gathered
around common courtyards and buildings within a low perimeter wall, providing
company while preserving independence. 1 It is no surprise to find
that, while more isolated heroes like Antony remained prominent in ascetic
literature, the formal prescriptions of Pachomius and Basil gained increasing
allegiance, in both east and west, and for theoretical reasons. If those
ascetics who could read were still content with anecdote and individual portrait
– and the Greek Sayings themselves, the Pratum Spirituale or Spiritual
Meadow of John Moschus, and a long series of Latin Vitae suggest that that
was the case – they did so amidst a growing crowd of coenobitic colleagues.
It was within that community structure that monks now conducted their
debates as to how they should organize their lives. Should they pursue a
‘contemplative’ or an ‘active’ life? The choice they faced, in the language of
the time, was between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ (θεωρία and πρακτική),
between vision and love, between prayer and reflection on the one hand
and a concern for the ignorant and needy on the other; but, whatever the
option, it was to be embraced in the company of fellow devotees.
If ideology governed structure, we need to arm ourselves from the
outset with a clear understanding of ascetic literature – an understanding
of the varied circumstances, forms and motives that colour the material
upon which we depend. Broadly speaking, we catch in the sources, at
various moments of frozen textuality, what was in fact a developing tradition,
in which ‘rules’ and biographies (not always easily distinguished)
attracted additions, made often undeclared adjustments and abandoned
embarrassing antecedents. Now and again, a writer might look back in a
more ordered and reflective way, and make a calculated statement about
1 Walters (1974) 9f., 102f.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008