48 Chapter 1 to not disrupt the daily routine.164 In addition, mutual control is an argument to stay in one place rather than travel to faraway markets for Basil. In these passages Basil does not forbid travel per se, and he gives advice to counter possible dangers in case people do need to travel. Namely, they should travel in groups, as mutual control will prevent them from missing any prayers, and a group will provide some protection from violence and extortion. While travel is seen as potentially disrupting the spiritual way of life, and therefore endangering the spiritual integrity of the individual brother, brothers might still travel, but in groups. In question 44, Basil more explicitly addresses the spiritual danger of travel due to interactions with other people in society.165 In case a brother should make a journey, Basil writes, this should only be undertaken by a ‘spiritually fit’ brother, who at his return should be examined to determine whether no harm to his soul was done, or whether he went astray from the monastic life. In conclusion, the preceding discussion has problematised Herman’s claim on multiple grounds. First of all, the so-called Long Rules should not be seen as a monastic rule, but rather as a compilation of various manuscript traditions that contained Basil’s written (revised) versions of advice given to multiple communities over a longer period of time. Moreover, it is doubtful whether Basil directed his advice specifically or exclusively to existing monasteries. Secondly, Herman’s claim has been problematised on the ground that Basil’s answer to question 36 should be seen as instructions aimed at the preservation of a righteous religious community. Basil did not introduce an ideal of stability of place, but rather an ideal of communal ascetic living. So according to Basil, some scenarios of brothers leaving the brotherhood are advisable and others are not, but Basil’s concern does not seem to be so much the movement away from a place. Furthermore, other questions imply that journeys were to be expected in the day-to-day operations of religious communities. Although Basil expressed some concerns with these journeys, these again are not related to the movement (or staying) itself, but to the (spiritual dangers in) leaving the community.166 Instead of reflecting stabilitas loci, these prescriptions should be seen as advocacy for the communal ascetic life, and as one voice in the late-antique debate on how to best organise Christian religious (ascetic) life in a formative period of monasticism. 164 Probably especially concerning prayer, as later in the passage Basil indicates that monks on the road should not miss any prayers. Basil of Caesarea, Regulae fusius tractatae 39 (PG 31, p. 1020). 165 Basil of Caesarea, Regulae fusius tractatae 44 (PG 31, pp. 1029-1032). 166 E.g., danger of occupation with worldly affairs, of distraction, and of the lack of social control. See questions 38 (avoid too much travel as to not to cause distraction), 39 (preferably not distant journeys, staying in one place beneficial for mutual edification and for keeping to the daily routine), question 44 (only ‘spiritually fit’ brothers should go on a journey, fear of interaction with the world, lack of social control), question 45 (implies occasional journeys of superiors of the community are to be expected).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw