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

II. Dates and Historical Background

Basil returned to Caesarea from Athens at the beginning of 356, aged about twenty-six. The world lay at his feet, but, influenced by his sister, Macrina, he gave up brilliant prospects and dedicated himself to the religious life. Monasticism of an unorganised type already existed in his country but he longed to see the great ascetics for himself. Accordingly he visited Syria, Alexandria, the rest of Egypt, Palestine, Coele-Syria, and Mesopotamia—in this order. He was amazed at what he saw and resolved to imitate it. The evidence of the Rules shows that the Pachomian system was the most potent influence of those with which he came in contact during his travels.

Basil returned to Caesarea in the summer of 358 and called upon his friend Gregory to join him in Pontus, near Annesi, in order to live the ascetic life with him. Gregory came for a brief visit and then for a longer stay. Many ascetics² were to be found in the neighbourhood. They were attracted to Basil, who at once began to organise a coenobium. Letters ii and xiv, to Gregory, describe the daily round of life in the Pontic retreat and the picturesque surroundings. Towards the end of 359 Basil went to the Council of Constantinople. He was a deacon at the time and played no important part. On his return to Caesarea he was distressed because his friend and bishop Dianius signed an Arianising Creed, and accordingly he withdrew from the city. In 362 we find him back in Caesarea. Dianius died in that year and considerable excitement was caused by the election of his successor Eusebius, in which Basil took a prominent part. Eusebius was jealous of his brilliant subordinate, and Basil, to avoid dissension in the Church, withdrew to the monasteries of Pontus. About this time he was ordained priest.

Owing to his personal ascendancy, his aristocratic origin, and the prestige he enjoyed as a result of his visit to the monks of Egypt, Basil was the recognised leader of monasticism in Cappadocia and Pontus. “He presided over the abodes of contemplation there,” says Gregory Nazianzen. Sozomen, Socrates, and Rufinus describe Basil’s missionary tours in the cause of asceticism. This period of his life ended in 365, when the approach of Valens called him back to the post of danger in Caesarea.

The first group of the genuine Ascetica is to be ascribed to these three years (362–365). Towards the beginning of the time Basil wrote Epistle xxii, On the Perfection of the Life of Solitaries. The monks, whose common life he has organised, have asked his advice upon many points. He satisfies them provisionally by a letter, but refers to a document which he proposes to write out in full.:

“Many things,” he begins, “are declared by the inspired Scripture as meet to be observed by those who are anxious to please God. But, for the present, I feel I need only send you a brief memorandum concerning the questions which have recently been raised among you, so far as I have learned from inspired Scripture itself. I shall leave behind me instructions on each point, easily understood, for the information of those with leisure to study them, who in their turn will be able to inform others.”

This proposed document is preserved to us in the Morals, as the summary which follows proves.

“The Christian³ must be so minded as is worthy of his heavenly calling, and his conversation must be worthy of the Gospel of Christ. The Christian must not be of doubtful mind,⁴ nor drawn away by anything from the remembrance of God, and of His purposes and judgments. The Christian must in every way be superior to the righteous acts according to the law,⁵ and neither swear nor lie. He must not speak evil,⁶ do violence, fight,⁷ avenge himself,⁸ return evil for evil, or be angry⁹ ete.”

The heads of Christian life and duty are expressed here in New Testament phrases which recur in the Morals, and not, for the most part, in the Rules. The rest of the letter shows numerous other affinities with the Morals, if not so thickly sown as in the above-quoted passage. Probably Basil had already begun to collect Scriptural passages which bore upon the Christian and ascetic life. Much in the letter finds parallels in the Longer and Shorter Rules. Already in his first retreat he and Gregory had drawn up “‘written rules and canons.” The hints contained in this letter form an intermediate stage between the earliest regulations and the Rules which have come down to us. Here are some of them.

Strangers who enter are not to speak to the brethren without the leave of the overseers.¹⁰ Wine and flesh meat must be eschewed.¹¹ Whatever¹² the Christian”¹³ possesses is given him to be used and not hoarded; he must take care of everything as the Lord’s property.¹⁴ He must never murmur at scarcity of food or excess of labour. He must not change over from one form of work to another, nor wander about the workshops.¹⁵ An obstinate offender must be cut off, as a limb from the body.¹⁶ Immoderate toil is to be avoided.”:

A busy man who promises to write a book is sometimes slow in redeeming his promise. Basil received pressing requests from the Superiors of coenobia,¹⁷ and in deference to their wishes, late though it is,¹⁸ sets to work to fulfil his long-standing engagement.¹⁹ If we may suppose a delay of a year between promise and fulfilment, the date of the three documents under consideration is brought down to 363 or 364, and the only serious difficulty, presently to be mentioned, is removed.

By this time Basil had enlarged his original project. He wrote out with great care (i) a kind of Apologia pro Vita Mea; (ii) a non-controversial exposition of the faith; (iii) an exposition of Christian life and duty in the words of Scripture.

(i) De Iudicio Dei.—Basil begins by describing his early training and travels. When he became a man he was terribly distressed at the anarchy in the Church. The rise of the Anomoeans was a great blow to him. He was puzzled by what he saw and could not account for it, until he realised the cause—the absence of discipline. He then reaches his main subject, God’s judgment on sin. The first of the trilogy, then, introduces the writer to his readers, teaches them that order is heaven’s first law, thus preparing them to receive rules, and appeals to their hearts and consciences. Judged apart from the treatises to which it is attached, this document is most naturally placed within a year or two of the Anomoean Council of Antioch in 861. The Apologia with which it opens is appropriate from the pen of a comparatively young man, as yet without an established position.

(ii) De Fide.—The monks had asked for a written statement of the faith, and Basil accedes to their request. Whereas elsewhere in his writings against heretics he has used controversial (non-Scriptural) phrases, here there is no necessity so to do. The genuineness of this treatise has been doubted by some, who have got into difficulties by assigning to it too early a date. Basil must, one would think, have been a priest at the time of writing (cf. 2284, “thus we baptize”’), and, as the books In Eunomium were his first writings against heretics (see In Eun. 207c), this treatise seemingly refers to them. In Eunomium is dated 363-365, and the dates we have reached for the present series are not disturbed.

(iii) Moralia.—This begins at once without further preface. Basil gave up his original design of using the Old Testament and confined himself to the New. He wrote out the heading and added the number of the section of Scripture which dealt with it. At some later date the passages were written out in full. When Basil wrote the Morals he was clearly a priest; thus Rule Ixx, dealing with the duties of the clergy, has 37 sub-divisions. Rule lxxii. 1, which lays down the regulation that listeners must test what their teachers say and reject what is contrary to Scripture, is appropriate to the years 362-365. It would be less fitting from the pen of the masterful archbishop of 370-379.

There is no evidence enabling us to fix the date of the Longer Rules with certainty. Holl (p. 168) says Basil never forgets he is a bishop living in the world, and in he avoids saying that sanctity is impossible in the secular life. But he suggests that it is practically impossible. However, the passage proves nothing. A modern bishop, addressing an audience of monks, might well use the same language as Basil. A passage which suggests that Basil was a bishop is 3831p ( Woe is me if I preach not the gospel ’), read in the light of Mor. lxx. 1, where those who are entrusted with the preaching of the gospel”’ is a periphrasis for bishops. But the quotation of a familiar passage from Scripture must not be pressed.

In favour of an earlier date, 363-865, are the following considerations:

(a) The Shorter Rules refer to the Longer in places (B. 74-F. 7, B. 103-F. 27, B. 220-F. 33); the latter must therefore have been in circulation and generally accessible by the time the former were given.

(b) The complete retirement and quiet mentioned in 827s suit a Pontic monastery better than the coenobium at Caesarea.

(c) Ep. xxii shows how Basil’s mind was working when the monks asked for guidance, namely, along the lines of the Morals and the Rules. The Morals, helpful as they were devotionally, left much unsaid, and a demand for the other half of Basil’s message must have arisen at once. A date soon after the Morals is therefore most probable.

The Longer Rules are “conferences” or discourses on the ascetic life. They read like extempore addresses, taken down by shorthand.²⁰ In some instances the actual words of the monks’ spokesman are preserved (cf. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 24, 38, 43). The phraseology corresponds with that found in the questions of the Shorter Rules (see B. 74, 103). But most of the headings are later additions, as Garnier points out. The heading to F. 21 is not borne out by the contents (see note). In F. 8, for example, we see both the original question and the added title. Rufinus’ version throws light on the textual history. A good deal of editing has taken place since his time. Thus in F. 22 the monks ask what is the proper clothing for the Christian (i.e. monk). Basil’s answer treated the whole subject, including the girdle, as we see in Rufinus 11. But an editor has made a separate Rule for the girdle, F. 23, introduced by a heading “Concerning the Girdle.”

The Shorter Rules were given during Basil’s episcopate (see 4134, where he refers to his “gift of teaching’ and “ministry of the word ’). He is holding an all-night conference with the monks, or rather with the Superiors of coenobia. The frequent questions relating to the discipline of the women’s side of double monasteries could only have been asked by Superiors. Probably a General Chapter of Superiors²¹ was being held, such as Basil orders in F. 54. The questions and answers seem to have been taken down by shorthand and never edited; hence the inextricable confusion of the present order. The headings are all original, being the actual questions asked. Perhaps Basil died soon after and the notes were transcribed in response to urgent demands, without any attempt at editing. The general picture of monasticism is identical in Longer and Shorter Rules, except for a possible relaxation in B. 74, 178, of the strict regulations for common life laid down in the Longer Rules (see the notes ad loca).

Previous · Contents · Next