45 A reconsideration of the ideal of stability in Byzantine monasticism and devotion (Q7). Many other questions, especially from question 24 onwards – part of the later additions (probably) made in Caesarea – do not necessarily advocate for communal life, but already assume a religious community as the audience. In these answers, Basil provides prescriptions on how to organise the communal life. Question 36 is such a question that already presupposes an organised religious community: question 36 concerns ‘those who leave the brotherhood’.153 Basil starts his answer with saying that those who promised to live together should in principle not leave the community, except under certain circumstances. These circumstances are either ‘harm suffered in living the common life’ or ‘unsteadiness of resolution in him who is changing his course’. What exactly this ‘harm’ (βλάβη) could entail is not specified, but it seems to refer to sin and to refer to ‘harm’ done by another brother, as the advice indicates that the one being injured should ‘expose the harm’ and should follow Christ’s command, citing Matthew 18:15: ‘if your brother sins against you, go, and reprove him between you and him alone’.154 The question is thus mainly concerned with practical and spiritual difficulties that may arise in a community: discord and irresolution.155 Discord could threaten the continuing existence of the community, while irresolution of one member could threaten the unity of common purpose, which Basil advocated for earlier (Q7).156 In addressing these difficulties, the aim of Basil’s advice, I belief, was not so much to keep all members within a community, but to establish and maintain a righteous community. The latter is reflected in Basil’s emphasis on each member’s responsibility for the righteousness of the community by means of mutual control and individual responsibility. In addressing the first difficulty, discord, Basil prescribes to first address the injury suffered to the one who caused the harm. In other words, the one who is harmed should take the responsibility to correct his fellow community-member(s) (mutual control). If the desired correction is accomplished, according to Basil, then ‘he has gained his brothers’ and ‘he did not dishonour their communion (τὴν κοινωνίαν αὐτῶν)’ – the righteousness of the offender(s) is restored and that of the community maintained.157 If however, they ‘persist in evil’ (ἐπιμένοντας αὐτοὺς τῷ κακῷ) and they do not accept the correction, then after reporting to people who are ‘qualified to judge such things’ and having the testimony 153 Περὶ τῶν ἀναχωρούντων ἀπὸ ἀδελφότητος, Basil, Regulae fusius tractatae 36; translation by Wagner (1950), p. 305. Edition for the Long Rules: Migne (1857) = PG 31, pp. 901-1052. 154 Basil, Regulae fusius tractatae 36 (PG 31, p. 1008). 155 Basil in general has been perceived to have much concerns on dissent and perceived heresy in the church, such as his condemnations of fighting between bishops and his judgement that only few people were fit for the episcopate. Sterk (2004), pp. 43–48. Andrea Sterk saw focus on unity and harmony as characteristic of his ascetical writings (including the Long Rule). Ibid., pp. 50–51. 156 According to Basil, it would be harmful to live among ‘those who are fearless and disdainful in their attitude toward an exact observance of the commandments’ (Q6) and therefore it is necessary to live in seclusion, but in the company of those who ‘have set before themselves the same goal of piety’ (Q7). (Translation by Wagner (1950), slightly altered by the present author). Basil, Regulae fusius tractatae 6-7 (PG 31, pp. 925; 928). 157 Note the change to plural (τούς τε ἀδελφοὺς ἐκέρδησε): either Basil included the possibility of multiple wrongdoers, or the harm done by one brother is reflected on the others as well, so that multiple or all brothers are ‘gained’, that is back on the right (pious) track, when the fault is restored. Basil, Regulae fusius tractatae 36 (PG 31, p. 1008). 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw