Library › W. K. L. Clarke › The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil: Author’s Preface and Introduction

The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil: Author’s Preface and Introduction

W. K. L. Clarke

I. Authenticity of the Ascetica

(a) Praevia Institutio Ascetica

Garnier accepts this as Basilian; nothing in the style is unworthy of Basil. Modern writers are inclined to reject it. Morison (p. 15) says it ‘can hardly be attributed to Basil.” To Batiffol (La littérature grecque, p. 256) it is an homélie banale et apocryphe.” External evidence is lacking. Three tests can be applied as regards internal evidence.

(a) Biblical Quotations.—These are too few to base conclusions upon. See the table on p. 26.

(b) Vocabulary.—61 non-N.T. words are used in three pages (199a—2024), an average of 20 a page. This is about 50 per cent. more than the average in the undisputed treatises De Iudicio and De Fide, but much below that of the certainly unauthentic Sermones Ascetici. See the table on p. 18.

(c) Resemblances in Style and Matter to undisputed Works of Basil.—These are remarkable, seeing that the tract is so short. See the notes for proof. The description of the soldier’s life, the teaching about spiritual marriage and Invocation of Saints, and the references to recent persecutions and the reception of children into monasteries, are thoroughly Basilian. Previous writers do not seem to have noticed these parallels, which are therefore new evidence outweighing subjective impressions.

(d) The Rule of St. Benedict begins with a reference to the monk as a soldier of Christ the King ( Domino Christo vero Regi militaturus”’), to which, as to later references to ‘militia,” “militare,” Dom Butler offers no parallels in his notes. The Rule is partly based on Basil (see p. 31 f.). The present treatise may have been known to Benedict as an introduction to Basil’s ‘Ascetica, and have influenced his opening.

(b) Sermo de Renuntiatione Saeculi

Garnier accepts this as by Basil, relying upon his impressions and one or two characteristic phrases. ‘Legi et relegi,” he says of this and the two accompanying treatises, ‘“has lucubratiunculas, in quibus nihil omnino inveni, quod indignum esset nostro Basilio.” Morison also accepts. There is no external evidence; using the same tests as before for internal evidence, we get the following results.

(a) Biblical Quotations.—Out of 16 formal quotations from the N.T. give a text not found in von Soden’s edition. See the table on p. 26. Such inaccuracy in quoting is inconceivable in Basil.

(b) Vocabulary—In 9½ pages (202B–211E) 335 words are used which are not found in the N.T., an average of over 35 a page. The proportion is more than double that found in the genuine treatises De Iudicio and De Fide, and almost exactly that of the unauthentic Sermones Ascetici. See the table on p. 18.

“(c) Resemblances in Style and Matter to undisputed Works of Basil.—Garnier argues from the use of πληροφορεῖσθαι and εἶδον, both being tricks of Basil’s style; also from the use of ὁμοούσιος. Against these we put the occurrence of technical terms not found in the unchallenged writings (κέλλη, ἣ σύγχλητος, spiritual father), the apparent power of the monk to choose his own director and times of travelling, and the doctrine that one escaped the devil by entering a monastery. See the notes. These considerations would not be of much weight if it were not for (a) and (b). But as an additional argument they are decisive. The treatise is not by Basil, though it hails from a Basilian monastery of early date. The hospital of 210c and the general agreement with the Rules show this, and the early attestation of the next treatise is probably evidence for this also.

(c) Sermo de Ascetica Disciplina

A Latin version of this homily was known in the West in the fifth century; see Revue Bén. xxvii. (1910) 226-233. It does not seem to be referred to by later writers. We might expect some references if Basil had written it and copies had reached the West As regards internal evidence, it is difficult to speak with confidence about so short a work, but the presumption is against its genuineness.

(a) Biblical Quotations.—A number of allusions to the N.T. are woven into the texture, but there is only one formal quotation, whereas Basil in the undisputed works quotes freely and accurately.

(b) Vocabulary.—In 1+ pages (2118-213p) non-N.T. words occur. The proportion, about 25 a page, is slightly more than one would expect. See the table on p. 18.

(e) If my interpretation of 212c is correct, another form of doxology than that which Basil is known to have used is presupposed. See the notes.

(d) Sermones Ascetict

It will prove convenient to discuss these two homilies before the undisputed works of Basil. The voice of criticism is uniformly unfavourable. There is no external attestation.

(a) Biblical Quotations.—These are virtually non-existent, the few Scriptural passages used being woven into the text in a way unlike Basil’s. See the table on p. 26.

(b) Vocabulary.—171 non-N.T. words occur on the 5 pages (318p-323D) of Serm. Asc. I, an average of 84 a page; on the 3 pages (3238-3274) of Serm. Asc. II, an average of 32 a page. The proportion is almost identical with that found in the unauthentic De Ren. See the table on p. 18.

(c) Differences in Style and Contents from undisputed Works of Basil.—The words used to denote the convent and the Superior are un-Basilian. The arrangement of the Hours is irreconcilable with the Rules. The recommendation of twelve as the number of brethren, and the ordering of confession before all the brethren, are suspicious. See the notes.

(e) De Iudicio Dei: De Fide: Moralia: Regulae Fusius

Tractatae: Regulae Brevius Tractatae

It will be convenient to treat these five documents together, since their authenticity has never been seriously challenged.l

External Evidence.—Basil in Ep. xxii speaks of a writing he has in hand dealing with the monks’ questions and based on Scripture. Gregory Nazianzen refers to the “written rules and canons” in the preparation of which Basil and he had collaborated (Ep. vi). He praises Basil’s “legislation written and unwritten for the monastic life’ and his¹ written regulations” (Or. xiii. 84, 62). Jerome, writing in 392, speaks of Basil’s 10 ἀσκητικόν (De Var. Illus. 116). Rufinus returned to Italy from the East in 397, and translated hoc opus of Basil into Latin for Urseius, abbot of Pinetum. The “work” is the Longer and Shorter Rules, abbreviated and adapted by Rufinus to form one book of 203 Rules. Cassian (Inst. Praef.) refers to Basil’s answers to the monks, “rich in testimonies from Holy Scripture.” Further evidence is provided by Sozomen (H.E. iii. 14), Justinian, and Benedict. The evidence so far refers definitely to Rules; it also lays stress on the basing of the regulations upon Scripture. Photius (Cod. 144; Migne, P.G. ciii. 422), Patriarch of Constantinople in the latter half of the ninth century, describes Basil’s Ascetica. It consisted of one book (very short) containing the De Iudicio and De Fide, and a second book containing the ‘Morals and both sets of Rules, arranged as we have them now.

“Internal Evidence

(a) Biblical Quotations.—The books of the present series agree with one another in their manner of quoting the Bible, as against the doubtful books. See the table on p. 26.

(b) Vocabulary.—The impression left upon scholars has always been favourable to the Basilian authorship. Investigations such as those instituted for the doubtful treatises (see above) have been made for De Iudicio and De Fide only. In nearly 10 pages of De Tudicio (2138-223c) there are 140 words which do not occur in the New Testament, and in 61 pages of De Fide (2230-2304) 90 words. The affinity between Basil and the New Testament is, as one would expect, much closer than in the suspected documents. See the table on p. 18.

(c) Subject-Matter—The correspondences with Basil’s other works, especially the Letters, are marked (see below). The vivid autobiographical touches carry conviction. De Iudicio refers to De Fide and the Morals, and De Fide also refers to the Morals. The Shorter Rules refer to the Longer; see B. 74, 103, 220.²

Previous · Contents · Next