MONASTICISM. — From the verb μονάζω (“I live in solitude”) comes the word μονάζων; the more common μόναχος derives from the perfect μενόναχος. “Monks” were called ascetics who withdrew from human commerce to devote themselves in prayer to the service of God. In this sense, the word was applied especially to anchorites (v.); but in the 4th century (St. Jerome, *Ep.*, 14, 6; to Heliodorus: PL 22, 350) it no longer denoted strict solitude but became synonymous with “cenobite,” that is, one who has consecrated himself to God in a life of community. Other terms for the monk include, for example, “calogero,” κανονικός (one who lives according to a rule, canon), etc.
I. EASTERN MONASTICISM.
OUTLINE:
I. History
II. Characteristics of Monastic Life.I. HISTORY
1. Institution and Development
The institution of the eremitical and monastic life dates from the 3rd and 4th centuries, but the pursuit of Christian perfection began in the Church from its earliest years. The characteristic of those who wished to apply the evangelical counsels was virginity: men were called “continents,” women “virgins.” This is already mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, but they became numerous in later times (Acts 21:8–9; 1 Cor 7:3; Rev 14:4; Eusebius, *Hist. Eccl.*, III, 3; PG 21, 279; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, II, 18; PG 8, 1040). Later they were called “ascetics,” from the comparison proposed by Clement of Alexandria between the Christian life and the arduous preparation of athletes (*Paedagogus*, I, 8; PG 8, 318; Origen, *Homily on Jeremiah*, 19, 7; PG 13, 518). This name therefore indicates a state of life and not merely exercises of austerity.The ascetics lived in the world, though they already had some special relations among themselves; later a tendency toward communal life manifested itself. St. Athanasius (*Life of Antony*, 3: PG 26, 843) indicates the existence of παροξενώσεις for virgins, but for men as well an attempt was made at a more regulated way of life.
The life of the ascetics consisted of continual renunciation in poverty—though some were rich and did not divest themselves of their wealth—in fasting and abstinence, especially from meat and wine, but above all in virginity. There was no proper vow, but a kind of consecration was made (infidelity was considered adultery: Cyprian, *Epistle*, 62, 4: PL 4, 370), which, for virgins, was public in the time of Tertullian (*De virgin. veland.*, 14: PL 2, 98). Later, in the 4th century, some excesses of zeal and certain abuses were denounced and condemned by the Council of Gangra (342).
To asceticism in the indicated sense succeeded anchoritism (v. ANACHORET), that is, a life of perfection segregated from human commerce, and this constitutes a second step toward properly religious life. Such was the life led and taught by St. Antony (v.) to his disciples, and this form never disappeared in the East; it would, however, enjoy less favor in later centuries. St. Antony gave no rule, neither written nor oral: Holy Scripture was to suffice; yet the examples of the elders constituted a practical way of living, and spiritual fathers would gather the monks for their spiritual instruction. The so-called Rule of St. Antony is attributed to him and was composed according to the saint’s letters, the Life written by St. Athanasius, and other writings. Only in the 5th century did St. Sabas (v.) promulgate a true rule for hermits. In anchoritism two degrees can be distinguished: some led a completely solitary life; others, while dwelling in a separate cell, formed a kind of colony around a church, where they gathered for common prayer. This form of monastic colony is called a “laura.”
With St. Pachomius (v.) religious life made another step forward in its development. After having experienced the eremitical life as a disciple of St. Palemon in Upper Thebaid, he understood the advantages that a more common life would bring. Thus, around 320, he built a monastery at Tabennis on the Nile where his disciples would live under one roof with a single superior. Soon he had to multiply his foundations. In all, there were nine monasteries for men. His Rule was also applied to women, who had two monasteries. All of Pachomius’ monasteries remained under the obedience of a single general superior, who visited his houses every year. Moreover, twice a year, at Easter and in August, all the local superiors with a great number of monks from the various communities gathered to discuss common interests and celebrate the feasts.
Pachomius gave a rule, called the “rule of the angel” because, according to legend, he had received it from on high (Palladius, Hist. Laus., 38: PG 34, 1101); in fact, this rule was not the work of a single day and was later perfected according to experience. Several recensions of it remain, differing greatly in length (cf. P. Ladeuze [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 259 ff.; M. Heimbucher [V. BIBLICA.], I, p. 79 and n. 2). Candidates for the monastic life were first subjected by Pachomius to a brief probation of a few days or weeks and then, without formal profession, admitted to the community. The very clothing signified dedication to God. Such cenobitism is characterized by common life, that is, common dwelling, food, acts of piety, work, and goods under the same superior. However, this principle could be—and in fact was—applied differently by Pachomius’ many imitators. The spread of cenobitism was rapid even in the West. Perhaps St. Anastasius, but certainly Cassian, made Pachomius’ Rule known in Gaul; it had a Latin translation by Dionysius Exiguus (d. 540), but it was above all St. Jerome who made it widely known.
For the history of Eastern monasticism, mention must be made of
Monachism — Wadi Monastery (cf. Laboratorio zincografico Terra Santa) with al-Qelt — Valley above Jericho.
In Palestine, monastic life began with anchoritism under Hilarion (291/92–371), then passed to the laura form (St. Chariton), and finally to Pachomian cenobitism, without, however, the latter suppressing the two earlier forms. There were monasteries in Judea, near Eleutheropolis, founded around 335 by St. Epiphanius; near Jerusalem and Bethlehem, visited by Cassian and Palladius. St. Jerome gave the Pachomian Rule to the convents where he and St. Paula were superiors.
In Syria, various forms of monastic life flourished. The “Sons of the Covenant” are very well known, though it is not entirely clear what their manner of life was. Some considered their institution similar to that of the “ascetics”; it seems, however, that they were true monks. Indeed, until the time of Rabbula (5th century), there was no special word to designate monks; from then on, the “Sons of the Covenant” rather designated ascetics outside the monastery. Among the best-known monks were St. James, bishop of Nisibis, who founded the Ark Monastery at Kardue, and especially St. Ephrem (d. 375–78), who lived near Edessa. Another illustrious monk of this region was St. Nilus (d. 430). Syrian monasticism seems independent of that of Egypt and was a step toward anchoritism.
In Persia, the monastery of St. Matthew (Mār Mattai) east of Mosul became famous during the Nestorian period. In Armenia, monastic life was introduced, after various eremitical forms, probably in the second half of the 4th century; it may have originated in Syria, but its principal source was St. Basil (G. Amaduni, Disciplina armena, Venice 1940, pp. XII ff.). He has been called the great inspirer of Byzantine monasticism, which brought a renewal of the monastic spirit by emphasizing not so much the details of separation from the world and bodily mortifications as the very principles of spiritual life. St. Basil codified religious life especially in two works: the 55 Regulae fusius tractatae (“Opoi xatà platos”), which draw the outlines of monastic life from Holy Scripture, and the Regulae brevius tractatae (“Opoi xatà epitomēn”), 333 chapters that are rather applications and complements to the former (cf. Garnier, II, 1, 2, Paris 1829; same edition in PG 31; on authenticity, see P. Allard, Basile (Saint), in DThC, II, cols. 446 ff.). In St. Basil’s monastic doctrine, obedience constitutes the essence of religious life; other fundamental points are poverty, chastity, and fraternal charity. All this forms a more doctrinal than dispositively ascetical treatise. Therefore, these rules alone were not sufficient for the organization of monastic life in all its details; they had to be supplemented by tradition and moral precepts. Alongside properly contemplative life, St. Basil placed great importance on works of charity: orphanages, schools, assistance to the poor and the sick. He also prescribed manual labor and the cultivation of the land.
St. Basil’s Rule spread rapidly throughout the East: from Cappadocia, where it came into force everywhere during the founder’s lifetime, it penetrated neighboring and more distant lands, and among both Orthodox and dissidents such as the Jacobites, where the number of convents was perhaps higher. But it also had a great influence in the West, even on St. Benedict, whose Rule, however, prevailed to the point of almost completely replacing that of St. Basil. Yet after the Latin compilation of it made by Rufinus (PL 103, 483 ff.), some monasteries were erected according to this Rule in southern Italy and Sicily; their number increased when iconoclasm (8th century) and the advance of Islam brought many fleeing monks to the West. Even today, St. Basil’s Rule remains the foundation of monastic life for all the separated East and for a good number of Eastern Catholics.
After St. Basil, St. Theodore the Studite (v. d. 825) had a special influence on Eastern monasticism as a reformer and integrator of the monastic institution. St. Theodore is quite strict; he insists especially on obedience and charity toward one’s neighbor; a characteristic of his is respect for human dignity. His method had PATMOS (v.) and from there passed into Russia, the Balkans, and southern Italy.
The Greek canonist Petrakakos expresses the relationship among the three great organizers of monastic life: “Pachomius was the founder of the cenobium; Basil the Great its ideal organizer; Theodore the Studite the interpreter of St. Basil. These three constitute the Olympus of the Orthodox monastic institution.” St. Theodore is called “the Studite” from the famous monastery founded at Constantinople by the consul Studius (cf. Anal. Boll., 52 [1934], p. 64). Other monasteries have had, and still have, great renown. In Russia, mention must be made of the Kievan Caves Lavra, the “monastery of the caves,” founded after 1050 by a monk from Athos. It was the cradle of monastic life in Russia, where later the number of monasteries amounted to more than 500; in 1914 there were still more than 20,000 monks and more than 70,000 religious.
In Greece PATMOS (v.), the Holy Mountain, situated on a peninsula of the Thracian Chersonese. In Thessaly are the monasteries of the Meteora, so called because they seemed to be in the air, that is, built on high rocks and accessible only by rope ladders. Another very well-known monastic center was that of Olympus. But all the countries of the East had their monasteries.
2. Various forms
Alongside this cenobitic life codified by St Basil, St Theodore the Studite and others, there were numerous forms of religious life that differed widely from one another, some closer to anchoritism, others to cenobitism.The most famous are the Acemetes (v.), who, “without ceasing,” continued divine praise, and the Stylites (v.), whose initiator was the Syrian St Simeon (the Great), called the Stylite (c. 390–459), who spent 37 years on a pillar. He had many imitators; the pillars ranged from 3 to 18 metres in height. They made a kind of vow to remain atop them. Among the Stylites some were priests; one was even ordained on his pillar; one is known as a writer. Monasteries were built around the stylite for his disciples, and hostels for pilgrims. Few women followed this way of life.
Other forms are also remembered, such as the Recluses (ἐγκλειστοί), men and women who had themselves walled up in a cell to dedicate themselves undisturbed to contemplation, reading and manual work. The Council in Trullo decreed (can. 41) that no one could adopt this way of life unless they had first lived for three years in a monastery; but once enclosed, they could no longer leave the cell. The Pabullatores (βασχόλ) had neither bed nor floor or other furnishings, lived in the mountains, occupied with divine praise; at mealtime they would go, each on their own, into the woods with a sickle to gather herbs to eat (Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiastical History, IX, 40: PG 146, 711 ff.; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, VI, 33: PG 67, 1391 ff.). Finally, others were called, according to the characteristic of their life, Subdivals, Stationaries, Shepherds, Demented, Eusebians, etc.
Amid so many original forms, abuses could not fail to appear. The Sarabaites are especially well known: clinging to the burden of religious life, they lived in twos or threes together, without discipline or enclosure, without obedience, without a spirit of poverty. Another plague consisted of the Eastern confrères of the wandering monks, well known to St Benedict, called *kabiōtai*, i.e. intruders or expelled monks, who lived outside any monastery and without any dependence, wandering from place to place. It became necessary for civil authority to intervene.
3. Legal regulation of monastic life
The Rules of St Pachomius, St Basil and others were internal, i.e. they had the authority of the founder; yet, with the spread of monastic life and after the experience of various abuses, more official norms were needed to regulate certain fundamental points of discipline. This task was carried out by various councils and even by civil authority. There are canons on religious life in the Councils of Chalcedon, the so-called “in Trullo,” the Second of Nicaea and in the particular councils of Gangra, Laodicea (347–379?), Carthage (419) and in the first and second councils held by Photius in the church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (861). The writings of some Fathers (of St Basil [to Amphilochius], St Nicephorus of Constantinople, St Cyril of Alexandria) provided texts for some canons to regulate monastic life. Besides these provisions of ecclesiastical authority, there is also a good number of civil laws concerning religious life.Already in the Theodosian Code there are norms for monks, but it was Justinian who most regulated religious life. “From a strictly juridical point of view,” says T. Schafer, “it is clear that in this monastic legislation Justinian’s work is not only not incomplete but indeed perfect” (Iustinianus et vita monastica, in Acta Congr. Iurid. Intern., I, Rome 1935, p. 187). Justinian’s norms on the subject are found in his Code and in the Novels, 5, 22, 57, 76, 79, 123, 131, 133. After Justinian, legislation for monks is found especially in the Basilica and in the Novels of Leo VI the Wise (Nov., 5, 6, 7, 10, 36, 38).
Yet the discipline thus established remains fairly general. To complete it, more particular norms were needed that would give the monastery a more distinctive character. These are found in the typica. *Typicon* means norm, rule, ordinance. There are typica both in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres, and here too different kinds are distinguished, among which are monastic typica. Especially from the 10th century, it became customary that when a new monastery was founded by an emperor, patriarch, bishop, civil or ecclesiastical official, or a wealthy person, they would establish their own regulation.
These are foundation typica. Other typica refer to already existing monasteries or are made by testament. The subject matter, however, is roughly the same as that of foundation typica. They generally include an ascetic introduction and some details about the founder and the foundation; then come the fundamental provisions (dependence of the monastery), liturgical (degree of feasts, order of ceremonies) – not to be confused with the so-called liturgical typica that regulate the entire liturgy –, disciplinary (election of the superior and minor officials, admission, common life, habit, etc.), economic (description of property, administration, etc.), though the latter are not always present. Some more general typica can be applied to various monasteries; these do not contain economic provisions.
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF MONASTIC LIFE
I. General remarks
In ancient Eastern canon law, all religious are monks; other forms, such as mendicant orders, regular clergy, etc., were introduced later. All monks belong to the same category: there is no distinction between choir monks and lay brothers. It is true that not all sing the entire Office; part of it is performed by the cantors alone, but these do not constitute a special grade, and the requirement for belonging to their group is a good voice, not scholarly attainments. There are no monastic orders composed solely of clerics: in antiquity priests were ordained according to the needs of the monastery. Justinian grants four or five (Nov., 133, 2) and wants them chosen from among monks who have overcome the ascetic struggle and deserve priestly or diaconal ordination (ibid.). In fact, the number varies according to the typicon. Monk-priests are called *hieromonks*, deacons *hierodeacons*; between them and simple monks there is no distinction as regards monastic life.In ancient Eastern canon law there are no congregations or orders in the Latin sense, i.e. with a superior general and a central organization. Each monastery has its own constitutions and its own authority. Nevertheless, among certain monasteries there sometimes exists a bond either of a shared typicon or of a common authority, which, however, does not entirely suppress the autonomy of each. The monastic association of Mount Athos is a characteristic example of such a union.
Among Catholics today there exists only one institution that preserves, as far as possible in present circumstances and given the development of canon law in the Catholic Church, the Eastern monastic life in its entirety. These are the Studites, founded at the beginning of the 20th century by the metropolitan of Lviv in Galicia, Andrew Sheptytsky. They received their first typicon in 1906, which was later completed and submitted for approval to the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church (1913). In 1932 they numbered 117 members, of whom 51 were professed. The war destroyed their principal foundation in Galicia. Few remain abroad, but they continue to show constant vitality. Other monastic institutions among Catholics have taken over many prescriptions from Latin canon law or were created with an apostolic purpose (such as the Salvatorians).
Currently Antoniani (v.)—namely, among the Maronites the Lebanese monks, the Antoniani of St. Isaiah and those of Aleppo; among the Chaldeans the Antonian monks of St. Hormizd. The Byzantines have various groups of Basilians (v.), though not all of them share a common origin or a relationship of dependence upon one another. In Italy there are the Basilians of Grottaferrata; in Galicia and elsewhere (including foundations in America) the Basilians of St. Josaphat; in Lebanon and Syria those called Basilians include the Melkite Salvatorians, the Suwajrites and the Aleppines, the latter two having a common origin. Finally, there are the Armenian Mekhitarist monks, divided into two branches: those of Venice and those of Vienna.
4. Stages of Monastic Life
The postulancy is not known in ancient Eastern canon law. St. Pachomius had newcomers remain for a few days near the gate to test their constancy; after this they were immediately admitted as monks. In the recent law of Catholics, the postulancy was introduced in imitation of Latin discipline. The novitiate, however, is of ancient tradition, although neither Pachomius nor Shenoute knew II. It exists in the Rule of St. Basil, and civil law regulated it inasmuch as Justinian prescribed three years (Nov., 5, 2), which superiors could in certain cases reduce (Nov., 123, 35); most typika also require three years. Current law prescribes a distinctive habit for the novice.5. Vows
St. Pachomius did not yet know an explicit profession with vows, while Shenoute had his monks compose a written promise to observe the rules. This, however, was not a vow made to God but a simple promise or bond to the monastery. Profession does exist in the Rule of St. Basil (Reg. fus., 14: PG 31, 950-951); likewise in Syria (St. John Chrysostom, Exhort. II ad Theodos.: PG 47, 309-21). The Council of Chalcedon (can. 6) declares unlawful the marriage of a monk, while St. Theodore the Studite speaks of a promise and covenant (I, 20: cf. II, Ep., 88, 165, 172: PG 99, 970, 1334, 1523, 1539). It cannot be said that the content of these vows was identical to the present profession, although the three vows of chastity, poverty and obedience were from the beginning presupposed in a life consecrated to God. Indeed, chastity was always regarded as one of the fundamental points of monastic life; yet it does not appear that it rendered marriage invalid. Spiritual fathers strongly recommend poverty, though it does not seem that the monk was incapable of possessing property. Obedience was certainly a requirement already for Pachomius and forms the foundation of religious life for St. Basil and St. Theodore the Studite. But besides these virtues, others were considered equally necessary to monastic life, such as abstinence, prayer, etc., and the three virtues that form the object of our three vows were not singled out as more essential. Therefore, monastic profession was a solemn declaration or promise made to God to fulfill all the obligations and to bear all that was imposed by monastic life.
As for the formula of profession, at the beginning of monastic life it was implicitly contained in the ceremony of clothing with the tonsure, the changing of name and the handing over of monastic garments. All of this symbolizes a new life begun with religious profession, which was considered a new Baptism. Once it became more explicit, profession was not, however, made by reciting some formula: such formulas do exist, but not for profession, rather for the renunciation of an apostate. The Byzantine monk makes profession through questions and answers that are already found in manuscripts from the 9th and 10th centuries, identical to those in the Euchologion (Euchol. Byzant., Rome 1873, p. 227).
Monastic vows have always been perpetual and solemn in ancient Eastern canon law. Other kinds of vows, temporary and simple, were recently introduced by Latin canon law. A characteristic of monastic profession, however, is the distinction of various grades. It is true that profession remains always unique, inasmuch as all monks are bound forever to observe all the precepts of monastic life. In the first centuries of monasticism, i.e., in its golden age, no mention is yet made of grades; this distinction was introduced later for various reasons, such as the relaxation and even the spread of monastic life. Spiritual fathers, such as St. Theodore the Studite, fought against what they considered an abuse (Testamentum, 12: PG 99, 1819). Today, however, monastic practice has admitted them.
With his first profession, i.e., after the novitiate, the monk enters the category of the “rasophores,” that is, those who wear the rasson, a black habit with wide sleeves. Much has been disputed about the profession of the rasophores, whether they make a true profession or are rather to be considered as novices. It must be said, however, that although this profession is not expressed in questions and answers, the entire ceremony has the meaning of a true profession.
Usually, after several years (from three to ten), the rasophore may ask to be admitted to the second grade, that of the “staurophores” (i.e., “those who bear a cross”), also called the small angelic habit (“microschima”). The monk of this grade is considered on the way to perfection. Most remain at this stage in their spiritual ascent. There remains, however, a further grade: that of the great angelic habit (“megaloschima”) or of perfection. Those who, after many years in the staurophorate, ask to be admitted to this grade are rather rare. The megaloschima has more numerous and more severe ascetical obligations; he must perform a greater number of prostrations (deep bows to the ground) daily and observe a stricter abstinence. Just as one may remain in a determined grade without aspiring to another higher one, so there is no absolute necessity to pass through the lower grades in order to reach the higher ones.
Among Catholics the grades exist, but they are not infrequently assimilated more or less to the Latin institution, e.g., simple profession to the rasophorate, solemn profession to the microschima (Basilian, Melkite, Constantinopolitan typika, nn. 31-32), or the two professions are compared to the small and great schima (Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians, Basilians of Grottaferrata).
6. Superiors
At the head of the monastery is the superior, designated by various titles; only the most common are listed here.Anciently the words “elder” (γέροντας, πρεσβύτερος) or even “abbot” (αββάς, αββάς, etc.) were used, though at first this meant simply “monk,” later only “superior.” Common too is the term “prepositus” (προεστώς, nastoiatel) and derivatives, as well as εξαρχός, άρχων or even “hegumen,” and one can distinguish, as in Byzantine law, the superior without sacred orders: the “hegumen” from the priestly or diaconal superior: the “kategoumenos.” An honorary title borne especially by the superiors of great monasteries is that of “archimandrite.” There are also various titles for minor superiors.
7. Cloister
Justinian decreed that the monastery be surrounded by a high wall, with a single door guarded by elderly and prudent doorkeepers (Nov., 133, 1). No woman may enter a monastery of men, nor vice versa, and this prohibition is extended in male monasteries to boys, beardless youths and married men. Often it is explicitly forbidden to introduce female animals into the monastery. Monks may not leave the monastery without the superior’s permission, a rule that is even stricter for nuns. It must be added, however, that departure is not absolutely forbidden as in the strict papal cloister of Latin canon law; the bishop permits it for grave reasons.8. Departure
A monk must remain in his own monastery of his own accord. However, if there are reasons for it, he may transfer to another monastery with the permission of his superiors. A monk may be expelled from his monastery for certain crimes; he nevertheless remains subject to the obligations of his state. If he abandons the monastic state, he is excommunicated and compelled to return to the monastery, where he is subjected to various penalties. Only from the beginning of the 19th century has it begun in some particular Churches to grant laicization, but the practice is contrary to the entire Eastern tradition.9. Ministries
Although their life was contemplative, monks have had a great influence on the public life of the Church. Alongside the very attraction of their virtue, which drew men to the desert or to Christian and pagan monasteries, and alongside the numerous houses for hospices, hospitals, orphanages, and schools, the activity of monks extended further still. Thus, in the field of theology, monks were often the most ardent defenders of orthodoxy. St. Anthony went to Alexandria to bear witness to his faith, and his example drew the great majority of hermits, who with their zeal effectively defended the faith of Nicaea (St. Athanasius, *Vita Antonii*, 68–70) and were allies of St. Athanasius, who even in the monasteries of Tabennis found help and defense in the struggle against Arianism. For this reason, monks suffered persecution at the hands of intruding bishops and the Emperor Valens.St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Amphilochius fought against the same heresy and against Macedonianism and Manichaeism. Almost all the great names among monks are distinguished in the defense of the faith, such as St. Nilus, St. Serapion of Thmuis, St. Meletius, St. Aphraates, St. Sophronius, St. Sabas, St. Maximus the Confessor and his disciples, the two Athanases, who suffered martyrdom for the faith. St. Isidore of Pelusium fought against Nestorianism, St. Marcellus the Acoemete and his monks against Monophysitism, St. John Damascene against the Iconoclasts, St. Theodore the Studite and many others were champions of the faith. On the other hand, it is also true that many heresies had fanatical defenders and sometimes even originated among monks: Eutychianism arose in a monastery and found many followers in the monasteries of Constantinople, Egypt, and Thebaid. Origenism likewise found most of its adherents among the monastic class. Monks were among the most bitter opponents of the Council of Florence (1439).
Among the ascetical writers are well known, among others: St. Serapion (d. after 362), Evagrius Ponticus (d. after 400), St. Nilus the Elder (d. c. 430), St. Arsenius the Hermit (d. 449), and St. John Climacus (d. c. 649). In the interpretation of Holy Scripture, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Isidore of Pelusium, Eutychius, St. Ephrem, St. Sophronius, and others distinguished themselves. Monks are also found in the fields of literature and the profane sciences.
10. Dependence and Exemption
As a general rule, Eastern monks depend on the bishop. However, from the 8th century, or perhaps even earlier, the custom arose that the patriarch could exempt monasteries, churches, and houses from episcopal jurisdiction and place them directly under himself, either at the time of their foundation or later. This exemption was effected by fixing a cross blessed by the patriarch in the exempted place. From that moment, all the rights of the local bishop pass to the patriarch himself. Such an exemption is called patriarchal *stauropēgia*. Metropolitans have vainly risen against this right, which at present has been greatly reduced, so that in some dissident patriarchal churches it no longer exists or exists only in a very limited way. Among Catholics, it is restricted to existing stauropegial monasteries and to new convents.In antiquity, until the end of the Byzantine Empire, there existed other monasteries called imperial, which were directly subject to the Emperor and at least partially exempt from ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as well as those independent of any secular or ecclesiastical authority, called “free and self-governing.”
Among Catholics, monks depend, according to ancient law, on the local bishop; the patriarch exercises a mediated jurisdiction over them, except in stauropegial monasteries and where special law grants greater authority, as among the Maronites, Syrians, and Copts. There also exists the privilege of papal exemption among the Mechitarists of Venice and the Basilians of St. Josaphat; others also appeal to it, but the concession is not certain (Basilians, Melkites, Antonines), although they possess certain rights proper to the exempt (such as their own jurisdiction).
11. Idiorrhythmy
Among the Byzantines, probably as a consequence of the unbridled independence of some monasteries and perhaps also due to some relaxation introduced by imperial legislation (Leo VI, Nov. 5), a new, freer form of life seems to have formed toward the end of the 14th century, which is called “idiorrhythmy.”An idiorrhythmic monastery is composed of a certain number of religious families (10 or more). At the head of each family stands a superior, who must take care of his monks (ordinarily 6 or 7), whom he has gathered in the monastery or accepted as novices. Idiorrhythmic monks may possess goods, acquire them, sell them, and bequeath them; they live on the work and goods of the family, where discipline is very relaxed. They have in common a council that governs the entire monastery; they assemble in church for the office and only a few times a year (3 or 4) do they gather in the same refectory. The monastery provides the families with bread, wine, firewood, and other necessities; the rest each procures for himself. This abuse has spread widely. On Mount Athos, there are 9 idiorrhythmic monasteries. All protests have failed to suppress the numerous abuses.
12. Nuns
The institutions for nuns are more or less the same as those for monks, according to the principle, often repeated in Byzantine legislation, that the prescriptions for monks are applied to them as far as possible.13. Statistics
Until the beginning of the 20th century, Russia had the largest number of monks. Some figures for 1914 have already been cited. At present, it is not possible to complete these statistics. Mount Athos comes next with several thousand monks; Greece itself has nearly 2,000 (men and women). The other dissident countries have only a few hundred religious, for a fairly large number of monasteries. Many of these are practically deserted; only one or two monks reside there for the administration of property.Among Catholics, the Studites numbered more than 100 monks in 1932; among the other Eastern Catholics, there are about 2,000 monks, not counting nuns.
II. WESTERN MONASTICISM.
The common ascetic life, or cenobitic life, which originated in the East in the 4th century, spread almost simultaneously to the West in various forms, often poorly and inadequately organized. The Rule of St. Benedict (d. c. 547), an incomparable monument of monastic life, rapidly imposed itself over almost all other rules, uniting Western monasticism and contributing to its powerful development, so much so that for centuries it became an institution of primary importance in the life of the Church.
The complex history of Western monasticism is expounded in the Enciclopedia Cattolica in many detailed entries; the present article has a general and coordinating character and is limited to monasticism in the strict sense, excluding all other forms of associated ascetic life that arose and developed from the Middle Ages onward (Canons Regular, mendicant orders, religious congregations), which, however, are fully illustrated under their respective headings.
SUMMARY:
I. Pre-Benedictine Monasticism
II. St. Benedict and the Spread of Benedictine Monasticism. —III. Benedictine Reforms
IV. The Infusion of Monasticism into the Western Christian World
V. Present State of Western Monasticism.I. PRE-BENEDICTINE MONASTICISM
As to its origins, Christian monasticism arises from the Gospel, specifically from the fact that Christ proposes counsels for more easily attaining Christian perfection (Mt 16:21). The various hypotheses advanced to assign a non-Christian origin to monasticism, especially since E. Weingarten (Der Ursprung des Mönchtums, Gotha 1877) fundamentally attacked the traditional thesis, are one-sided and untenable (cf. U. Berlière, Les origines du monachisme et la critique monadale, in Rev. bénéd., 8 [1891], pp. 1-19, 49-69). As for its evolution, monasticism represents the final stage of Christian asceticism, which, though to varying degrees, developed in the West as in the East in three successive phases: asceticism within the Christian community, asceticism in solitude or anchoritism (v. ANACHORE, and finally common ascetic life, i.e., cenobitic life or monasticism. This last phase took root in the West in the second half of the 4th century, largely under the influence of Eastern monasticism.14. In Italy
The best comprehensive monograph on pre-Benedictine monasticism in Italy remains that of Ernesto Spreitzenhofer, Die Entwicklung des alten Mönchtums in Italien von seinen ersten Anfängen bis zum tretten des hl. Benedikt, Vienna 1894. Rome is perhaps the oldest center. Common ascetic life, if it did not begin there, certainly received a strong impetus in Rome when St. Athanasius arrived (341), accompanied by two Egyptian monks, Isidore and Ammonius. — Among the noble Roman women, none at that time knew the purpose of monks, affirms St. Jerome (Ep., 127, ch. 5: PL 22, 1080). The noble Marcella was the first to adhere to that ideal (ibid., 1089) and made her palace on the Aventine into a female asceterium. St. Augustine, during his stay in Rome from 387-88, visited several diversoria sanctorum, both male and female, true monasteries, governed by a monk or a nun who presided over everything (De mor. eccl. cath., 1, I, ch. 33: PL 32, 1340). In the 5th and 6th centuries, there was a wide flourishing of monastic life in Rome, so much so that before the 7th century, 16 monasteries could be counted, 7 female and 9, it seems, male. These monks, even before St. Gregory the Great, were entrusted with the official service of the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul; shortly afterward, they were also found in the basilicas of St. John and St. Mary Major.Meanwhile, monastic life had spread throughout Italy. St. Eusebius of Vercelli (d. 371), already a lector in Rome, elected bishop of Vercelli in 345, introduced common life among his clergy (v. CANONS REGULAR OF ST. AUGUSTINE). At Aquileia, around 370, there already existed the monastery where Rufinus and Jerome stayed before going to the East (cf. Vallarsi, Vita Rufini: PL 21, 80). In Milan, St. Ambrose (d. 397) founded a monastery near the city walls, and "full of good brothers," says St. Augustine (Conf., VIII, ch. 6: PL 33, 735), "with one very good and learned priest presiding over them" (De mor. eccl. cath., 1, I, ch. 33: PL 32, 1340).
During the 5th and 6th centuries, monasteries arose everywhere: in Ravenna, Naples, and Sicily. For central Italy alone, St. Gregory in his Dialogues recalls about twenty outside Rome, almost all pre-Benedictine (cf. F. Antonelli, De re monastica in Dialogis s. Gregorii Magni, in Antonianum, 2 [1927], pp. 401-36).
15. In Gaul
In Gaul, monasticism took root with St. Tours (v.). Ordained a priest in 360, he lived as a hermit at Ligugé near Poitiers; consecrated bishop of Tours in 371, without changing his way of life, he fixed his residence in a cell near the city, where, due to the influx of numerous disciples, the famous Marmoutier (maius monasterium) arose, one of the most celebrated centers of monastic life in the West. Another influential monastic center was begun by St. Honoratus at the beginning of the 5th century on the island of Lérins, off Cannes, a true school of holiness and culture; it suffices to think of St. Lérins (v.) and St. Arles (v.), who was also educated in this monastery. Of great importance for monasticism in Gaul, indeed in all the West, was the towering figure of John Cassian (v.), who founded two monasteries in Marseille: one for monks (415), St. Victor’s, and another for nuns. He also authored various works on monastic asceticism, widely circulated throughout the Middle Ages. During the 5th and 6th centuries, monasticism spread widely in Gaul, and there was no city that did not have one or more monasteries.16. In Africa
In proconsular Africa, the monastic idea found a strong protector and promoter in St. Augustine. Having returned to Tagaste after his baptism (388), he sold his goods, keeping the house, where with his friends he began the monastic life. Consecrated bishop of Hippo, he introduced common life among his clergy and promoted monastic life among the faithful of both sexes. His Letter 211 (PL 33, 606), written in 423 for the Hippo monastery over which his sister presided, enjoyed wide circulation and served as the basis for the constitutions of numerous religious congregations, which justly venerate the holy Doctor as their spiritual father. In the 5th and 6th centuries, monastic life flourished throughout Christian Africa, as can also be seen from the Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae tempore Vandalorum (PL 58, 179-260) by Victor of Vita, written around 488, and it had authoritative representatives, such as St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (d. 533), who even in exile founded a monastery in Cagliari. The Vandal persecution first, then the Saracen invasion, put an end to every Christian institution.17. In the British Isles
From Gaul the monastic life passed into England, specifically among the Britons who had taken refuge in the west of the island following the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons (428). St. Germanus of Auxerre, on his second journey to Britain (447), ordained Iltut, who founded the monastery of Llantwit. In the 6th century, St. David, bishop of Menevia, spread the monastic life in Wales. At the beginning of the 7th century, the most famous monastery in Britain was Bangor Iscoed, near Chester, divided, according to Bede (Hist. eccl., I, II, c. 2: PL 95, 83 sg.), into seven sections, each with at least 300 monks.Even more significant was the monastic life in Ireland, where the very ecclesiastical organization became almost monastic in character. St. Patrick, apostle of Ireland (d. 461), had visited Marmoutier and Lérins, and several Irish monasteries trace their origins back to him; but the great monastic development occurred in the 6th century. Some of the more important monasteries are: Killeany, on the main island of Aran, in Galway Bay, founded by St. Enda (d. 542); Clonard in Meath, founded around 520 by St. Finnian (v.), who is said to have had up to 3,000 disciples; Moville in Ulster, founded by another St. Finnian, who came from the monastery of Killeany (d. 590); Clonmacnois, on the left bank of the Shannon, a great center of learning, founded by St. Ciaran around 544; and finally the famous Bangor, north of Moville, on the southern coast of Belfast Lough, founded around 588 by St. Comgall (d. 601), from which St. Columbanus and St. Gall emerged. The monastic life for women also flourished: St. Brigid (d. 524), founder of the monastery of Kildare, exercised great influence.
One of the most notable characteristics of Irish monasticism was its missionary zeal. The first example is St. Columba (d. 597), educated at Moville and then at Clonard, who around 563 left Ireland and landed, with twelve companions, GIONA (v.), west of Scotland and 115 km north of Ireland, where he founded the famous monastery that became a center of learning and evangelization among the Picts of the north. A monk of Iona, St. Aidan (v.), bishop and abbot (d. 651), founded in 635 Lindisfarne (v.) another famous abbey, which became a center of evangelization in Northumbria and may be considered the Iona of the Anglo-Saxons.
The first to initiate the series of Irish monastic and apostolic migrations to continental Europe, however, was St. Columbanus (v.), who, departing in 590 from Bangor with twelve companions, founded in the Vosges the monastery of Anegray, then the more famous Luxeuil, later moved near Lake Constance, and after leaving St. Gall there, descended into Italy and founded the monastery of Bobbio, where he died in 615.
But at this point another factor of primary importance for monasticism in the British Isles had come into play: the Roman monks. St. Augustine, with forty companions, sent by St. Gregory the Great to convert the Anglo-Saxons, had landed in Kent around Easter 597. Their influence was not confined to the evangelization of the Anglo-Saxons; the subsequent overcoming of the disciplinary and liturgical particularisms of British and Irish monasticism, the Romanization of culture in England, the dissemination of the Rule of St. Benedict, and finally the missionary spirit of Anglo-Saxon monasticism, to which in large measure is owed the evangelization of Germany and the peoples of the north, all ultimately trace back to the influence of the Roman monks.
II. St. Benedict and the Spread of Benedictine Monasticism. In pre-Benedictine Western monasticism, alongside examples of holy life and sometimes great industry and spiritual gifts, there were also abuses and disorders that ecclesiastical and civil authority could not entirely eliminate; suffice it to recall the wandering monks and the sarabaites, and the "most wicked kind of monks," as St. Benedict calls them (Reg., c. 1). Above all, there was a lack of a great common Rule suited to the nature of religious life and the Western spirit. The many Rules in use were essentially collections of spiritual maxims, with lists of prohibitions and penances. Preference was given to the Rules of St. Basil, rich in prescriptions ill-suited to the Western mentality, and to the monastic norms of Cassian; but more than on the basis of a true Rule (sometimes several Rules were combined for use in the same monastery), the various religious houses were governed by the will of the abbot, which easily led to arbitrariness.
The inestimable merit of St. Benedict lies in having given Western monasticism a practical, reasonable, and discreet legislation for religious life, suited to the conditions and character of the Western spirit—a true fixed Rule in which arbitrariness is excluded and the best of monastic tradition is preserved, while new and vital elements are added, such as stability in the monastery and manual labor; this labor, under the influence of Cassiodorus, founder of the famous monastery of Vivarium, also became cultural and scientific work. For the origin and content of the Benedictine Rule, see Benedict: IV. The Rule.
The Rule of St. Benedict spread rapidly and widely, soon prevailing over all other rules. Two factors in particular favored its diffusion: its intrinsic excellence and the support of ecclesiastical authority, especially the popes, beginning with St. Gregory the Great. The incomparable praise he bestows on St. Benedict in his Dialogues, one of the most widely read books of the Middle Ages, was a powerful vehicle for the diffusion of the great Patriarch’s Rule.
In Italy, during the 7th century, the spread of the Benedictines was hindered by the Lombards; where they passed, monasticism was nearly destroyed. They spared only Bobbio, inhabited by Irish and Frankish monks; and it is noteworthy that it was precisely at Bobbio that the Benedictine Rule found acceptance as early as the first half of the 7th century. Outside Lombard domains, in the Roman Duchy and in the Exarchate, the Benedictines expanded during the 7th century, though slowly; while in Sicily and especially in southern Italy, Basilian monasticism (v. BASILIANI D'ITALIA (ITALO-GRECI)) took root, sustained by the migrations of Greek monks fleeing the Persian and Arab invasions, and later by the iconoclastic persecution. In the first half of the 7th century, Greek monks also took refuge in Rome (cf. F. Antonelli, I primi monasteri di monaci orientali a Roma, in Riv. di archeol. cristiana, 5 [1928], 105-21), and their numbers grew substantially in the following century.
The conversion of the Lombards in the last decades of the 7th century ushered in a period of extraordinary flourishing of the Benedictines in Italy. In 705, the abbey of Farfa in Sabina was founded, rising rapidly to extraordinary power; monks from Farfa later founded San Vincenzo al Volturno. From this point onward, Benedictine abbeys multiplied in all Lombard territories, under the protection of the rulers, as in the case of Nonantola, founded in 752 by St. Anselm (v.), brother-in-law of King Aistulf. Around 720, Montecassino also rose from its ruins under Abbot Petronax and became a driving force for Benedictine monasticism, both in Italy and beyond.
In Gaul the Rule of St Benedict took hold during the 7th century. As early as about 620–630 the monastery of Altaripa was founded in the diocese of Albi under the Rule of St Benedict. About the same time a monk of Luxeuil, Donatus, who was elected bishop of Besançon (before 627), established in that city two monasteries, one of St Paul and a women’s monastery of St Mary, governed by his mother. For this prelate he wrote a Rule (PL 87, 273–98) which is largely a literal borrowing from that of St Benedict. But there is a more interesting fact: the principal promoters of the Rule of St Benedict in France were the monks of St Columban. Recognising the gaps in their own Rule, they sought to fill them by borrowing adaptations from the Rule of St Benedict. The centre of the Celtic monasticism in Gaul was Luxeuil; now it was precisely an abbot of Luxeuil, Walbert (629–70), who adapted the usages of Cassino for his abbey and had them accepted by the dependent monasteries. This Columban-Benedictine combination soon gained wide favour and the Rule of St Benedict ended by prevailing. The Merovingians also contributed to this, especially St Balthild (v.), wife of Clovis II, who later retired to the religious life (d. 70). About 660 Lerins, the stronghold of pre-Benedictine Gallic monasticism, also accepted the Rule of St Benedict. Shortly afterwards St Leodegarius, bishop of Autun (663–80), in speaking at a local synod of monastic observances, cites only the Rule of St Benedict (MGH, Concilia, I, Concilia Aevi Merovingici, Hannover 1893, p. 221).
To the north of Gaul, in what is now Belgium, monasticism made great progress through the work of St Amandus (v.), apostle of Belgium, in the first half of the 7th century, and precisely according to the Columban-Benedictine Rule of Luxeuil.
In Frisia and Germany, on the other hand, the promoters of Benedictine monasticism were Anglo-Saxon monks, great apostles of these regions in the second half of the 7th century and during the 8th: suffice it to recall St Willibrord (v.), St Suitbert (v.) and St Boniface (v.).
III. Benedictine reforms. During the 7th century and the early years of the 8th, Benedictine monasticism reached the peak of its diffusion and vitality in all the countries where it had taken root; unfortunately its decline soon manifested itself, first in England and Gaul, a little later in Italy and Germany. The principal cause is to be sought in the so-called right of appropriation, a widespread phenomenon which was not confined to monasteries alone but also affected bishoprics and, in general, ecclesiastical institutions endowed with immovable property, and which could only have disastrous consequences. As regards monasteries, the origin of this right is easily explained. Few were the monasteries founded and endowed by an abbot; ordinarily they were founded and endowed by princes, bishops, or even wealthy and influential laymen, who built a monastery on territory subject to them or of their ownership, and endowed it with the immovable goods necessary for its subsistence—fields, vineyards, forests. It was natural that the lord, founder and donor of the goods, should also be the natural protector of the monastery, which in a certain sense belonged to him. But protection opened the way to ever wider interference in the very life of the monastery; thus there arose a complex of rights of the “proprietor” (as the founder-lord was called), and by the early 8th century these rights were publicly and universally recognised. They concerned above all two things: control over the election of the abbot, and wide interference in the administration of goods. It reached the point of seeing abbeys governed by laymen and monasteries burdened with taxes, or even stripped of their goods, granted as appanages to royal officials or to the creatures of the prince. It was in substance the first example of that secularisation of ecclesiastical goods which, in different forms, has been repeated so many times through the centuries. The system of appropriation, developed to an enormous extent under Charles Martel (v.), unfortunately continued even under Charlemagne, despite the fact that he meditated and desired monastic reform, as appears from his numerous capitularies on the subject. The monastery was considered and had in fact become a landed power, and, by virtue of the right of appropriation, it formed a cog in the political-social machinery, from which it was very difficult to dispense. In such a state of affairs regular Benedictine discipline could not survive; indeed there were few abbeys where regular Benedictine life was still practised: disorder had reached alarming proportions.
How providential at this moment was the reforming action of St Benedict of Aniane (v.), who may not unjustly be called the second father of Benedictine monasticism. He began the reform in 785, with the support of Louis the Pious, then king of Aquitaine, who placed him at the head of the monasteries of his kingdom. With Louis’s accession to the Empire (814), the influence of St Benedict of Aniane extended to all France, and in a short time a great number of monasteries, from the Pyrenees to the Rhine, were brought back by him to regular Benedictine life. Notable was the great assembly of abbots at Aachen in 817, of which Benedict was the guiding spirit and which concluded with that Monastic Capitular (MGH, Legum sect. II, Capitularia regum francorum, I, Hannover 1883, p. 343 ff.), which was to be the basis of the reform and may be considered as the first example in religious law of what later became the Constitutions, i.e. declarations of the Rule. Many of the prescriptions of that Capitular were useful and opportune; there were, however, also elements which departed from the Benedictine tradition, and above all a tendency towards a certain centralisation. In any case, the reforming action of Benedict met with wide success. At the beginning of the 9th century the Benedictine Rule, reformed by Benedict of Aniane, spread from the south of France even into Spain. The revival created by Benedict unfortunately did not last long. Since it was supported by imperial power, when this collapsed the reform of Benedict could not be sustained.
Benedict of Aniane died in 821; the reign of Louis the Pious (d. 840) was very troubled; with the fratricidal wars of his sons the powerful structure of the Carolingian Empire was broken. One of the most disastrous consequences of this weakening was that it opened the way to invasions by the Northmen from the north, the Saracens from the south and the Hungarians from the east. For many years Europe, and above all France, Italy and Germany, were traversed by bands of pirates and plunderers; a very great number of abbeys, bishoprics, churches and towns were sacked and destroyed. Monastic discipline, like the life of the clergy and general morals, sank to a very low level. Lay abbots multiplied and abbeys became feudal lordships. The end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th mark the lowest point of the decline.
But precisely at this moment a salutary reaction began to manifest itself here and there and the period of revival was initiated which was to reach its highest splendour in the 12th century.
The driving Cluny (v.), an abbey founded in 910 and governed by a series of prominent abbots, among whom stand out St. Odo (d. 941), St. Maiolus (d. 994), St. Odilo (d. 1048), St. Hugh (d. 1109), and Peter the Venerable (d. 1156), under whom the Cluniac reform reached its zenith and counted monasteries throughout Europe. Of primary importance for the implementation and spread of the Cluniac reform was the fact that Cluny obtained, as early as 931, the status of being immediately subject to the Pope and was thus freed from any influence of local civil and ecclesiastical authority. With Gregory VII (1073–85), himself a monk of Cluny, the energies of the Cluniac reform were fully placed at the service of the Church. The contributions of the Cluniacs to ecclesiastical reform and to the rebirth of Christian culture and life are incalculable.
In addition to Cluny, and not without its more or less direct influence, many other smaller centers of monastic reform arose from the first half of the 10th century onward: Brogne in Flanders (919); GORAZD (v.) in Lorraine (933); Saint-Bénigne in Dijon (990) and Saint-Vanne in Verdun (1004) in France; Cava (1011) in Italy; and Hirsau (1071) in Germany. Two principal elements characterized these various centers of reform: a certain union among the various abbeys originating from the same center, and the extension of exemption (v.), which freed the monasteries from any external interference.
A century after Cluny, from the old Benedictine stock there arose other particular reforms, generally marked by stricter ascetic criteria and greater poverty, in reaction to the growing economic and political power of the great abbeys. The principal of these reforms are: the Camaldolese, founded in 1012 (v. BENEDETTINI CAMALDOLESI), whose spread in Italy in the 11th and 12th centuries can be compared to that of the Cluniacs in France; the Vallumbrosans, founded in 1036 (v. BENEDETTINI VALLOMBROSANI); the Carthusians (v.), arising in 1084; the Cistercians (v.), founded in 1098; and later the Sylvestrines, dating to 1231 (v. BENEDETTINI SILVESTRINI), and the Olivetans, founded in 1313 (v. BENEDETTINI).
The monks also played a large part in the active conquest of the faith. St. Gregory the Great may be considered the first missionary pope in the modern sense of the term, and the Roman monks he sent to England constituted the first missionary expedition. They brought with them the Gospel and Virgil, Christian and classical culture; the Anglo-Saxons first, then the Germanic peoples, were won over to Christianity and introduced to the world of culture almost exclusively through the work of monks.
Finally, mention must be made of the religious influence exerted by monks through theological and spiritual literature. From the 7th to the 13th century, theological literature—which from the time of Charlemagne onward was quite rich—as well as spiritual literature (lives of the saints, books of prayer, ascetical writings) were for the most part of monastic origin. It goes without saying that the religious influence exerted by the monk, particularly the Benedictine, was also felt through the liturgy.
18. Economic and Social Influence
One of the most important and beautiful chapters in the history of the monk is that concerning the activity of the great medieval abbeys in the agricultural and industrial fields: swamps drained, forests felled, fields tilled; an agricultural cultivation so advanced that it remained substantially unchanged until modern times; consequently, a contribution of primary importance to the Christian civilization of the barbarian peoples, with an improvement in the condition of serfs and peasants, and a charitable and welfare function through the revenues of abbey lands: V. BENEDETTINI. III. The Civilizing Work.19. Cultural Influence
The merits of the monk in the realm of culture are well known. During the Dark Ages, culture survived in the monasteries, where it flourished, first in England, reaching its peak with Bede, and then on the Continent, especially from the time when Charlemagne sought by every means to foster a cultural renaissance, which he was able to bring about with the help of learned monks, in particular Alcuin (v.). At this time many abbeys became true centers of learning, with a literary output then impressive and a correspondingly broad influence: suffice it to mention, for example, Corbie, Fulda, Saint Gall, and Reichenau, to name but a few. Every abbey then had its own library, and in order to maintain the library it was necessary to produce manuscripts. Some of these writings became, so to speak, editorial centers of primary importance, creating types of script with distinctive characteristics recognizable at a glance. It was in these monastic writings that the treasures of ancient literature were preserved, passing from the fragile papyrus to parchment and thus saved from destruction. It is now universally recognized that what has survived of Latin literature was preserved in the libraries of churches and above all in those of the monasteries—a priceless service rendered by the Church and monasticism.The abbeys and monasteries, even with regard to culture, were not closed fortresses; rather, their cultural riches were placed at the service of the public through the school, another sector in which the Benedictine monasticism rendered outstanding service. From the 7th century onward, there is no further mention of the great public schools where, up to the end of the 4th century, classical letters were taught; by necessity, their place was taken by episcopal schools and above all by monastic schools, attached to monasteries, whose functioning was stimulated and better organized under Charlemagne (cf. S. d'Irsay, *Histoire des Universités françaises et étrangères*, I, Paris 1933, pp. 39 ff.).
Finally, mention must be made of the contribution of monasticism to the arts. Romanesque art was sometimes called monastic art. As Berlière writes, if one considers that monk-artists drew the plans for numerous churches, directed their construction, decorated their walls, carved their capitals, and that monks were the illuminators, goldsmiths, and glassmakers most celebrated of the time, one may rightly conclude that Romanesque art is monastic art. This is true of England as well as of Germany and France (U. Berlière, *L'Ordine monastico dalle origini al sec. XII*, Bari 1928, p. 111).
V. PRESENT STATE OF MONASTICISM
In monasticism today three types are distinguished: Benedictine, Cistercian, and Carthusian. The following are some principal data, with reference to the individual entries for further statistical information.a) Benedictines:
I. Benedictine Confederations
The Confederation dates to 1893 and today embraces 15 Congregations, listed below with the year of their foundation: 1) Cassinese (1408); 2) English (1300; restored in the 17th century); 3) Hungarian (1500); 4) Swiss (1868); 5) Bavarian (1684; restored in 1858); 6) of Brazil (1828); 7) French or Solesmes (1837); 8) American-Cassinese (1855); 9) Beuron (1868); 10) Cassinese of the Primitive Observance (1872); 11) Swiss-American (1881); 12) Austrian (1889; reorganized in 1930); 13) of St. Ottilia for foreign missions (1884, approved in 1896); 14) Belgian (1920); 15) Slav (1945). Camaldolese Benedictines (v.) with two Congregations: that of the Camaldolese Hermit Monks, centered at Camaldoli in Tuscany, and that of the Camaldolese Hermits of Monte Corona (1523). Vallumbrosan Benedictines (v.). Sylvestrine Benedictines (v.). Olivetan Benedictines (v.).b) Cistercians (v.): 1. The Order of Cîteaux (1908); 2. Italian Cistercian Congregation (1470); 3. Congregation of Casamari (1152); 4. Reformed Cistercians (v.) or Trappists (1664).
c) Carthusians (v.).
Finally, it should be remembered that the following Eastern monks also live in the West today: 1. Mechitarists (v.), or Armenian Benedictines; 2. Monks of St. Paul the First Hermit (v.); 3. Antonines (v.); 4. Basilians (v.).
VI. MONASTIC MEDICINE
Its natural origin lies in the Benedictine cloistered environment, but even before this was firmly established (it is impossible to determine exactly when this occurred), Cassiodorus, having abandoned his political duties at the court of the Goths and retired to private life in his villa at Vivarium near Squillace in Calabria, had established in that hermitage a small lay community of people like himself, desirous of peace and recollection after so many stormy events. Gathered there, Cassiodorus’s companions devoted themselves to study and philanthropic works, the principal one being the care of the sick. The villa’s library contained many medical books, and Cassiodorus (in *De institutione divin. litter.*, ch. 31: PL 70, 1146) urged his companions to apply themselves to this study in order to bring relief to the sick. This may be called the “prehistory” of monastic medicine; what followed was its proper history.It was written in the Rule of St. Benedict (ch. 36):
“Care of the sick shall come before all else,” with the understanding that the sick referred to were the brethren of the Order. From this arose the necessity of a *monacus infirmarius* with the duties of nurse, pharmacist, and physician; moreover, the need for an infirmary, a *hortus simplicium* for cultivating medicinal plants, an *armarium pigmentarium* (a primitive pharmacy for storing medicines), and some form of school to instruct the new monastic infirmarians. The libraries with which monasteries were furnished, among other things, preserved medical codices, and in the “scriptoria,” another glory of the Order, the scribes multiplied their copies to transmit them to posterity.
Thus, within the cloistered environment, all the necessary prerequisites for the practice of medicine were present, along with excellent conditions for its dignified maintenance and the fulfillment of the charitable mission willed by Christianity. This is all the more valuable when one considers that outside the cloisters, the art of healing, lacking schools and any means of support, led a wretched and undignified existence. However, monastic medicine, precisely because of the scarcity of lay physicians, opportunities for study, and adequately equipped places of care, could not long remain confined within the enclosure. Thus, nurses and hospitals began to be established outside the cloisters to receive the poor sick who knocked at the monastery gates—people whom Christian charity forbade turning away—while, on the other hand, the rich, princes, and powerful summoned the monastic infirmarians to their bedsides, drawn by their proven medical skill and sometimes considerable reputation.
At the same time, lay elements began to infiltrate the monastic medical schools, eager to learn the healing art. Thus, gradually, monastic medicine became laicized both through this infiltration and through the departure of infirmarian monks from the cloister, whose absences sometimes lasted for long periods. This clashed with the principles of monastic life, which could not tolerate such continual violations of the Rule, often even encouraged by abbots for the profit brought to the community by the generous fees the infirmarians earned from their visits. The first oppositions and prohibitions thus began to arise; among the first to speak out was St. Bernard (Epp. 67–68: PL 182, 175–78), who describes the case of an infirmarian who fled the monastery to escape the abbot’s orders, which kept sending him out on visits without allowing him time for divine service. To this first protest, others joined in; then followed councils and synods that forbade the practice of monastic medicine (Reims, 1119; Clermont, 1130; the Second Lateran Council, 1139; Montpellier, 1162; etc.). Thus, monastic medicine gradually disappeared, though by then it had fulfilled its function as a means of union between the declining classical world and the emerging medieval world—preserving and multiplying codices, keeping alive the idea of the school, and nourishing the lay medicine that arose from II. Indeed, from the monastic schools, with the contribution of certain particular conditions, the Schola Medica Salernitana (v. *Salernitana, scuola*) originated.
— See plate LXXXVI.