Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

756 25. monasticism
remained, even after his departure, surprisingly restless. 33 Theodoret came
to regard him as an unwelcome competitor in the exercise of public and
spiritual authority. He unhesitatingly used his subordinates to counter that
influence, and was grudging in his regard for the stylite, quick to hint that
many others might share his disapproval. If we take Theodoret as a guide,
therefore, we have to believe that in Syria, too, the communal life was
gaining some ascendancy, under the increasing watchfulness of episcopal
authority, even while the old loyalties of master and disciple, as in Palestine,
were far from fading.
Taking Palestine and Syria together, therefore, it becomes clear that, by
the middle of the fifth century, a principle espoused by the Council of
Chalcedon was already on its way to acceptance over a wide area of the
eastern empire (and, as we shall see, much the same could be said of the
west). Monasteries – whatever the word might imply in this or that situation
– were to be subject to bishops, at least at their foundation and in their
external relations. Ascetics were not to wander from place to place, at the
risk of their reputation, but to stay in one community, devoting themselves
to fasting and prayer. 34 That monastic preoccupation had gradually eclipsed
(largely because it had absorbed) an older world of virgins and widows,
independent enthusiasts, and the urban households of a pious élite. The
prescriptions of Chalcedon were also drawn up in the context of religious
controversy; and we have to note the extent to which, by that time, ascetics
of various sorts had been drawn into the conflicts surrounding
Nestorius and Dioscorus. Such involvement contributed in no small degree
to making the monasteries an integral part of the episcopal world. In
Palestine, the conduct of Euthymius, Saba and their associates had been
closely controlled by their attitude to Chalcedon and to the religious policies
of the emperors Zeno and Anastasius. In addition, however, to disturbances
in Jerusalem, there was widespread monastic unrest in Antioch
(particularly during the time of Severus, appointed patriarch in 512), and
even more in Alexandria, where alliance between desert and city dated back
to the days of Theophilus and Cyril.
All that helps to explain how we pass from the world of Pachomius and
Basil to that of Theodoret and Sabas. The great fourth-century pioneers of
ascetic discipline might maintain their influence as writers of ‘rules’, not
least as translated into Latin by Jerome and Rufinus; but territorially the
centre of ascetic gravity had shifted away from the Nile and from Pontus
and Cappadocia. The rise of Jerusalem was one factor, already noted; the
other was the corresponding importance of Constantinople – not only a
33 For this and what follows, see Theod. HR xxvi, esp. 12, 14f., 23.
34 Council of Chalcedon, canon 4, Hefele and Leclercq (1907– )ii.2: 779. The council’s stipulations
marked a climax in a longer process: bishops were held responsible for ascetics, in the Theodosian
Code, as early as a.d. 398: C.Th. ix.40.16.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008