Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

monasticism 767
his Italian predecessors). Yet Romanus was fully aware of the rich tradition
within which he had begun to work. Although there is little sign that he
wrote or had access to a rule, 72 details of organization familiar in the east
were taken for granted: individual cells, a place of prayer, a hostel for visitors;
attention to fasting and watching; a distinction between the regular
prayer and reading of the solitary and the manual labour of the coenobite;
but, under Romanus, a combination of the two. 73 He, like Cassian, was
chary of subservience to clerics, and was anxious to adapt the practices of
the east to the needs and abilities of his associates. 74 There are hints that
his regime was deliberately more lenient than that of Lupicinus, who had
already begun to make an independent mark in a satellite community. 75
With Lupicinus, we enter a more ordered world. There is specific reference
to a monastic liturgy – the vespertina synaxis of the east. The monastery
possessed an œconomus: its relations with visitors and dependants were
becoming more controlled. Lupicinus enjoyed a growing reputation among
secular associates, and could be seen as a threatening critic of civil authority,
undermined as it was by sin. Most important, growing attention was
paid to the place of obedience in the community. Custom, the example of
others, and the advice of the abbot were combined to call into question
personal judgement, even when it aimed at more rigorous observance. The
governing principles, however, were the need for balance and the schooling
of inner motive, not the regimentation of behaviour. 76
Eugendus, finally, offered a contrast, not only in his more detailed
government but also in his settled life: he exemplified a stabilitas loci absent
in the careers of his predecessors – the assumption (reinforced by
Chalcedon) that ascetics would remain in one institution for the whole of
their lives. That sprang in his case, perhaps, from a personal inclination to
study; and, in spite of his reputation as a legislator, Eugendus displayed
other signs of eccentricity. After fire had destroyed the old buildings at
Condat, dating back perhaps even to Romanus’ day, he set the monastery
on a new path, insisting on a single dormitory for all (‘setting aside the
custom of eastern archimandrites’), and on rigorous adherence to a
common life. The author comments on his attachment to Cassian, in preference
to Basil, Pachomius and even Lérins itself, because of that master’s
ability to adapt his recommendations to the conditions of the west. The
actual ‘rule’ of Eugendus is not described: reference is made instead to
72 Note the vagueness of V. Rom. 4, 11, 36; see Martine (1968). Precision was to come with
Eugendus, 59; and Romanus was chary of setting too precise a standard, 32f. But custom was distinct
from the authority of the master himself. 36. 73 V. Rom. 28, 15 and 10 respectively.
74 V. Rom. 18f., 28, 33. Hilary of Arles is specifically criticized. 75 V. Rom. 17, 24.
76 Eastern observances: V. Lup. 64f. Organization: 68. External relations: 92f. (Compare the judicial
influence of the Gallic recluse Eparchius: Greg. Tur. Hist. vi.8.) Obedience: 75f. Gregory’s rather
different account of Lupicinus and Romanus, V. pat i, reveals not only his different interests but the
shifting values of monastic Gaul in the sixth century.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008