43 A reconsideration of the ideal of stability in Byzantine monasticism The creation of the text: Basil’s ‘Rule’ was not a rule Looking at the context of the creation of Basil’s prescriptions it soon becomes clear that the text has a complex history. From scholia made by a sixth-century compiler we learn that there were several early manuscript traditions with already great variations between them.140 Several phases of the history of the text have been reconstructed on the basis of these scholia and on the basis of overlap and variations between an early Latin translation by Rufinus (c. 400) and the Greek Short Rules and Long Rules.141 There were multiple phases in the development of the corpus, first in Pontus – were Basil resided in the 350s - subsequently at Caesarea – where Basil lived since 365 and became bishop in 370.142 The translation by Rufinus represents an earlier stage of the development, but Basil reworked and added to the collection of questions and answers. These reworkings eventually resulted in the tradition of two versions, now called the Short Rules and Long Rules. The sections in these versions that have no equivalent in Rufinus’ Latin translation are therefore thought to represent later additions to an earlier core. These later additions concern question 24 onwards of the Long Rules, so including question 36.143 The most important conclusions of the analysis of the relation between the scholia and the different versions are twofold. Firstly, Basil never called his prescriptions ‘Rules’ by which they became known later. Secondly, the texts reflects questions from multiple individuals and groups at different places – mostly in the region of Pontus and at Caesarea.144 The ‘rules’ were therefore not targeted at a single community. Additionally, it is even doubtful whether Basil had a specifically monastic audience in mind. The latter point requires some elaboration. It has been argued that Basil envisioned an ascetical life as the ideal life for any Christian, not just for monks.145 Evidence for this is reflected in his homilies, which are meant for a wider audience of church congregants and which equally promote ascetic ideals.146 It is therefore doubtful whether Basil considered people who took up an ascetic lifestyle of renunciation as a separate group from other Christians.147 This might not surprise us, as, after all, monasticism was still in its formative period: Pachomius, who is regarded as the founder of organised communal monastic life (cenobitism), just died in 346 or 347 and it is not clear how far the Pachomian monastic movement had already spread beyond its origins in Egypt by the 360s and 370s (at the 140 See Silvas (2005), pp. 4–8. 141 Rousseau (1998), pp. 354–359. 142 Ibid., pp. 354–359; Dunn (2003), p. 35. 143 These thus represent a later stage of addition and revision to an earlier core text, as Basil gradually expanded and revised the text. Rousseau (1998), p. 358. This later stage also includes questions 38, 39 and 44 which will also be discussed below: they are not cited by Herman, but they illustrate that Basil expected a degree of travel in the day-to-day operations of religious communities. 144 Ibid., p. 357. 145 Ibid., p. 191. 146 Ibid., p. 199. 147 See Ibid., pp. 196–201; Sterk (2004), p. 49. 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw