Daniel Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity. The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 33. University of California Press: Berkeley, 2002. Pp. xv + 325. Cloth, $65.00
Robert A.
Kitchen
Knox-Metropolitan United Church
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2003
Vol. 6, No. 2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv6n2prkitchen
Robert A. KITCHEN
Daniel Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity. The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 33. University of California Press: Berkeley, 2002. Pp. xv + 325. Cloth, $65.00
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol6/HV6N2PRKitchen.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2003
vol 6
issue 2
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Monasticism
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
[1] The
choice of topic for Daniel Caner's doctoral dissertation was an
ingenuous and fortunate one. Working under Susanna Elm at the
University of California at Berkeley, Caner approaches the
social and religious history of all those wandering, begging
monks and ascetics in Late Antiquity that everyone knows about,
yet always manages to consign to simple condemnation or
glorification - or push further out from investigation to the
margins of ambiguity and neglect.
[2] Towards
these famous and infamous ascetics Caner's perspective is
positive and sympathetic, without ignoring historical witnesses
on either side of the controversies. He prefers to see the
peripatetic ascetics as presenting another option to the form
fourth- and fifth-century monasticism and asceticism took, to
which there was considerable opposition as well as popular
enthusiasm. Absorbing the rhetoric, Caner discerns not only the
genuine historical cause and effect, but also the voices of
religious and social authority and standing of the various
authors. The benefit for the reader is to be able listen, for
once unfettered, to the tales and controversies of monks who
neither stayed still nor worked.
[3] The
historical narratives oscillate between several dichotomies
(perhaps similar to the function of Walter Brueggemann's
bipolar themes for Old Testament theology):
Wandering, begging are understood by many as the
consequences of the abandonment of stillness,
labor;
Akribeia (strict, scrupulous ascetic discipline)
is fueled by desire for the imitation of Christ, while
argia (idleness) is the consequence of no
discipline;
Caner emphasizes that the real assessment of wandering
ascetics was due to behavioral criteria, rather than
the doctrinal criteria used by church leaders to
condemn these same groups and individuals;
The apostolic mandate for engaging in this
particular form of asceticism is presented as a neglected
motive by Caner, in contrast to the assumption that most
heretics modeled their behavior after that of a heretical
mentor.
[4] The
critical mass of this study resides in the Messalian
controversy with Alexander the Sleepless (fl. 420s) as the
object lesson and exemplar of how the issues were handled and
interpreted. Caner includes as an appendix the first English
translation of the Life of Alexander Akoimētos from
a solitary manuscript.
[5] Caner
takes a fresh look at a number of significant texts dealing
with wandering, begging monks. From the perspective of this
journal, it is gratifying to see that Syriac texts and history
are being included as primary sources by non-Syriac specialists
in cross-cultural studies of Late Antiquity.
[6] In
particular, Caner analyzes the Book of Steps (Liber
Graduum) for its outlook on wandering, begging ascetics, a
source he sees providing an alternative window through which to
interpret primarily Greek ascetic phenomena.
[7] In the
Introduction and first chapter, "Wandering in the Desert and
the Virtues of Manual Labor," Caner sets the stage before us of
the historical attitudes towards wandering, begging ascetics.
The Coptic Life of Phif, a fourth century wandering
Egyptian monk, goes against the grain of Athanasius' Life of
Antony which established the agenda for most of fourth- and
fifth-century monasticism, that of
xeniteia—voluntary (and settled in one place)
alienation from material and social means of support. Wandering
monks were variously suspected of avoiding manual labor or
being possessed by demons.
[8] Evagrius
Ponticus added theory to the attitudes, warning that monks who
wander will "practice false sayings" and create social
disturbances. Moreover, such unsettled monks were particularly
susceptible to akēdia, or a desperate kind of bored
depression and despondency.
[9] Other
characters, such as Abba Bessarion, would concoct an edifying
tale to win the admiration and charity of his hosts, and then
move on. Eventually, many came to perceive that the propensity
to wander from place to place also suggested a refusal to
submit to an elder's authority.
[10]
Chapter 2, "Apostolic Wanderers of Third-Century Syria,"
primarily treats Syriac materials, although Caner begins with
the observations of Greek historian Sozomen. The latter
identifies the first Syrian monks as boskoi or
"grazers," homeless people who ceaselessly praised God as they
wandered the mountain regions, consuming neither bread nor meat
nor wine.
[11]
Aphrahat and Ephrem, mid-fourth-century Syriac writers, witness
to the establishment of communities of ascetics who patterned
their life after Jesus, the Ihīdāyā or
"Only Begotten/Solitary One." These male and female clusters
were known as the Bnay/Bnāt Qyāmā,
Sons/Daughters of the Covenant, "a living icon of Paradise
restored" in the phrase of Sidney Griffith. These ascetics
based their lifestyle on apostolic precedent rather than on the
example of Antony, and that meant active engagement with the
world they had renounced rather than permanent social
withdrawal. To exhibit "demonstrative piety" (Fergus Millar)
was considered an apostolic imperative.
[12]
Several texts provide evidence of this strategy, especially
The Acts of Thomas, in which Thomas is depicted in
homeless poverty adopted in imitation of Jesus. Repeatedly,
Thomas is called a "stranger" (xenos in Greek;
aksnāyā in Syriac). After a while, it is
difficult to distinguish the character of Thomas from Jesus,
spurring the readers of the Acts to imitate Thomas and
Christ in the apostolic way of life.
[13]
Parrhēsia, the bold self-confidence needed to
confront people of higher social station or office with freedom
of speech, was a gift of the Hebrew prophets that was available
to all Christians and especially ascetics if they imitated
Jesus. Thomas, who challenged kings and nobility with his
Christian ascetic agenda, is the model of
parrhēsia-filled speech and actions.
[14] A
different witness is the third century Pseudo-Clementine
Letters to Virgins, extant in Syriac, which has little
to do with virgins. Instead, it is a manual written to instruct
wandering Christian ascetics how to conduct themselves
appropriately and effectively in the towns and villages along
their itinerary. The Letters proscribe that only a few
in the traveling company should be allowed to speak publicly
and then "with Jesus' gentleness and humility." Already, the
author of the Letters was observing that many want to
talk for their own gain, "trafficking in iniquity in the name
of Christ."
[15]
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles or Didache
offered caution from the other side of the highway, enabling
Christians in these towns, villages, and churches to
distinguish the true charismatic wandering figures from the
false ones. Begging for money or wanting to stay longer than
two days were the negative red lights. Such persons who refused
to work the Didache labeled "Christmongers."
[16]
Chapter Three, "In Support of "'People Who Pray': Apostolic
Monasticism and the Messalian Controversy," as well as Chapter
Four, treat the historical moments of controversy that brought
the issues of wandering, begging monks to center stage.
[17]
During this period the nebulous group of Messalians (Syriac -
People Who Pray) were classified as heretics with specific
doctrines attributed to them by church authorities and
councils. Caner understands this activity as the result of an
ecclesiastical process aimed at defining, consolidating, and
homogenizing different forms of Christian life, marginalizing
along the way any disturbing or competing "other." But since
the alleged Messalian practices were derived from the Gospels
rather than particular Messalian leaders, what was supposed to
be uniquely Messalian could be found all over the empire
wherever Christian ascetics turned to the Gospels for direction
as they developed new forms of monasticism and asceticism.
[18]
Epiphanius of Salamis included Messalians in his catalogue of
heresies, the Panarion, and his profile would provide
the general definition of Messalianism from the 370s onward.
Wandering, cohabitation of males and females, total
renunciation of material possessions, irregular prayer and
fasting, literal identification with spiritual exemplars and
argia—refusal to work and consequent
begging—were the primary sins.
[19] The
ecumenical council at Ephesus in 431 condemned all Messalians,
Euchites or Enthusiasts, and anathematized an Asceticon,
reputedly the Messalian manual. There have long been questions
whether such a book existed. John of Damascus (eighth century)
cited 18 sections from the so-called Asceticon in his
On Heresies, but these citations have been shown to be
excerpted from the spiritual homilies of Pseudo-Macarius.
[20] Into
the fray Caner introduces the Syriac Book of Steps, a
collection of 30 homilies written anonymously, most likely in
northern Mesopotamia in the mid-fourth-century. Caner
underlines the work's stark vision of ascetic poverty and frank
discussion of what this means in actual practice. It is a book
that presses the apostolic imperatives, at times echoes
so-called Messalian traits, yet does not fit or accept the
heretical patterns.
[21] The
spiritual elite of the Book of Steps, the Perfect Ones,
were "apostolic vagrants." The author urges them to imitate the
deranged "fools of the world" who treat themselves with
contempt by moving around in rags, without any home or
possessions, eating whatever comes their way. They must not
work if they intend to recapture the angelic freedom that had
characterized Adam before his Fall—before he had to
work.
[22] Once
the Perfect can completely emulate the apostles, they are able
to receive the Paraclete and be perfected, and then undertake
an apostolic mission back towards the society they had
renounced. According to the author of the Book of Steps,
these ministries entitled the Perfect to material support from
the Upright.
[23]
Caner enlists Augustine's On the Work of Monks (written
401) to show that while the label Messalian was not used, the
assumption that dedication to an ascetic life strictly
evangelical and apostolic in character includes a dependence
upon and entitlement to material support from other Christians
had spread to diverse regions.
[24]
Chapter Four, "Apostle and Heretic: The Controversial Career of
Alexander the Sleepless," investigates the person who along
with Adelphius of Edessa was identified as one of the
arch-Messalian heretics. Caner resorts to the condemnations of
the council at Antioch in 426, Ephesus in 431, and the treatise
On Voluntary Poverty by Nilus of Ancyra; along with the
naturally sympathetic Life of Alexander
Akoimētos
[25]
Alexander led a band of a hundred or so monks from place to
place, where they would engage themselves seemingly in
continual—even combative—prayer and psalm-singing
in the public venues. Well-organized around the clock singing
evoked the "sleepless" epithet. The band refused to work
(interpreted as argia by detractors) and would
aggressively assert their right to support from the churches
and populace. Alexander's prayers and psalms would frequently
be diatribes against the legitimacy and authority of church and
civil leaders. Consequently, Alexander and company were
attacked and then evicted by government and ecclesiastical
forces from Antioch and later Constantinople. The doctrinal
heresies by which Alexander would be indicted were irrelevant,
tacked on later as intellectual justification for the
condemnation of his behavior.
[26]
Alexander's biographer presents a quite different picture,
though never denying his hero's rough treatment in the big
cities. The authorities were genuinely corrupt and insincere,
so Alexander's challenges were appropriate. The prime concern
of Alexander was akribeia, which meant for him truly
living by the letter of the Scriptures. The biographer
emphasizes that Alexander is best characterized not by his
sleepless regimen of prayer, but by his uncompromising standard
of ascetic poverty.
[27]
Caner inserts observations from the Book of Steps, for
he sees that the Book of Steps "provides the most
striking parallels for Alexander's way of life." Both expressed
concern that monks were being held back from Perfection by
being lured into performing "righteous labor"—work that
is meant for the Upright ones. The author of the Book of
Steps indicates that the Evil One is the source of this
distraction, attempting to make the Perfect fall from Jesus'
major commandment, "Do not be anxious even about yourself."
[28]
There is a difference in manner between Alexander and the
Book of Steps in how one publicly addresses people of
authority. Alexander was full of parrhēsia, that
bold self-confidence handy in speaking to social superiors, and
he used it liberally, if not caustically. The author, however,
advises his charges to use caution and to assess how they
should address each person. "If we owe honor [to someone]
greater than us, let us not give him teaching so he might find
fault and say, 'Are you teaching me?'"
[29] The
author did not allow his Perfect to work, but felt that part of
their duty was to teach other Christians to "see" the afflicted
and give to those in need. Alexander too was inclined to
admonish the rich to relieve the poor and gave whatever surplus
his band received to the destitute poor.
[30] The
author of the Book of Steps is on the same page with
Alexander in the assumption that the problems of the Perfect
issued largely from the envy of other clergy. The author
believes that his wandering Perfect transcend geographical and
institutional boundaries, and should be able to conduct their
ministry everywhere with no intention of undermining local
clergy. Still, many local clergy were challenged and were vocal
and sometimes violent in their opposition to the Perfect.
[31]
Chapter Five, "Hypocrites and Pseudomonks: Beggars, Bishops,
and Ascetic Teachers in Cities of the Early Fifth Century,"
turns about face toward the less attractive aspects of
wandering, begging monks and the manner in which their behavior
challenged established ecclesiastical authorities. The focus
shifts to the dichotomy of begging/labor, more precisely, to
the means of physical support.
[32]
Again the problem is argia, but now the microscope is
aimed as much upon the regular clergy and hierarchy, whether
the nature of their vocation and sources of their funding were
legitimate, as on the irregular monks. The opposition of John
Chrysostom and Nilus of Ancyra to these "ascetic idlers" is
tempered by their efforts to defend their own spiritual
labors—particularly teaching and writing—and their
own support from wealthy aristocrats. John Chrysostom's
campaign for financial integrity in the churches, clergy, and
nascent monastic communities of Constantinople stepped on the
toes of popular holy men, especially a certain Isaac, who
relied upon alliances with wealthy benefactors for ongoing
support. John's own support for his spiritual labors was not
above criticism.
[33] From
these ambiguities developed the notion that manual labor
provided a source of income for monks that encouraged
self-sufficiency and honesty, a notion that helped distinguish
Christian monasticism from other ancient philosophies.
[34]
Chapter Six, "Monastic Patronage and the Two Churches of
Constantinople," examines the conflicted politics of spiritual
authority in fifth-century Constantinople.
[35] The
fourth canon of the Council of Chalcedon responded to the
battles between bishop and charismatic monks by not only
forbidding monks to wander or establish monasteries in cities,
but by placing their vocations clearly under the authority of
the bishop. Motivation for this canon had come the hard way:
the power play exerted by the archimandrite Dalmatius ended in
the deposition of the bishop Nestorius, similar to the scenario
thirty years previously with Isaac and John Chrysostom; and not
quite twenty years later, Dalmatius' successor, Eutyches, was
accused of heresy and then excommunicated, but was able to
exert considerable patronal leverage in temporarily reversing
his condemnation at the infamous Robber Council at Ephesus in
449. Once again, the current bishop of Constantinople, Flavian,
was the loser of his see and of his life. With the death of the
emperor Theodosius, the tide turned against Eutyches who was
re-condemned at Chalcedon. The Council did not provide a
conflict-free solution, but the church and the monasteries were
now united, and never again did an Isaac, Dalmatius, or
Eutyches arise to wreak havoc.
[36]
Caner concludes with an appropriate "Epilogue," looking at the
retrospectives of writers in the sixth century and beyond. John
Climacus does not talk about work very much, but no wandering
is allowed. The legislation of the council of Persian bishops
at Seleucia-Ctesiphon took a dim view of pretend-ascetics
wandering into urban areas, and encouraged them if they were
authentic to return to properly isolated locations.
[37] The
apostolic impulse, Caner observes, could not be legislated out
of existence, and later would thrive in orthodox traditions
with the saloi or "Fools for Christ." The Syriac
Legend of the Man of God of Edessa provides the extreme
of anonymity to the imitation of Christ among the poor, while
Theodoret of Cyrrhus' biography of Simeon Stylites points us
literally skyward to the consummate holy man, perfectly stable,
yet totally dependent on his admirers below.
[38]
Caner has written in an entertaining and engaging style and
packed this monograph fully and comprehensively with the
details and impressions of what was the dilemma of Christian
asceticism in the third-fifth centuries. Caner takes the reader
a lot of places, and it is gratifying to see the significant
role of Syriac-speaking asceticism being given its proper and
measured place in the history.
[39] The
translation of Alexander the Sleepless flows easily and is well
annotated. The bibliography and index are more than ample and
useful. The footnotes throughout the monograph are
comprehensive. Full Greek and Latin citations are provided. If
there is a second edition, hopefully full Syriac citations will
be included!