University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 1-1-2019 Exercising Obedience: John Cassian and the Creation of Early Monastic Subjectivity Joshua Daniel Schachterle University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the History of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Schachterle, Joshua Daniel, "Exercising Obedience: John Cassian and the Creation of Early Monastic Subjectivity" (2019). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1615. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1615 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Exercising Obedience: John Cassian and the Creation of Early Monastic Subjectivity A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the University of Denver and the Iliff School of Theology Joint PhD Program In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Joshua Daniel Schachterle June 2019 Advisor: Gregory Robbins PhD © by Joshua Daniel Schachterle All Rights Reserved Author: Joshua Daniel Schachterle Title: Exercising Obedience: John Cassian and the Creation of Early Monastic Subjectivity Advisor: Gregory Robbins PhD Date: June 2019 Abstract John Cassian (360-435 CE) started his monastic career in Bethlehem. He later traveled to the Egyptian desert, living there as a monk, meeting the venerated Desert Fathers, and learning from them for about fifteen years. Much later, he would go to the region of Gaul to help establish a monastery there by writing monastic manuals, the Institutes and the Conferences. These seminal writings represent the first known attempt to bring the idealized monastic traditions from Egypt, long understood to be the cradle of monasticism, to the West. In his Institutes, Cassian comments that “a monk ought by all means to flee from women and bishops” (Inst. 11.18). This is indeed an odd comment from a monk, apparently casting bishops as adversaries rather than models for the Christian life. In this paper, therefore, I argue that Cassian, in both the Institutes and the Conferences, is advocating for a distinct separation between monastics and the institutional Church. In Cassian’s writings and the larger corpus of monastic writings from his era, monks never referred to early Church fathers such as Irenaeus or Tertullian as authorities; instead they cited quotes and stories exclusively from earlier, venerated monks. In that sense, monastic discourse such as Cassian’s formed a closed discursive system, consciously excluding the hierarchical institutional Church. Furthermore, Cassian ii i argues for a separate monastic authority based not on apostolic succession but rather on what I term apostolic praxis, the notion that monastic practices such as prayer and asceticism can be traced back to the primitive church. I supplement my study of Cassian’s writings with Michel Foucault’s analysis of the creation of subjects in order to examine what I believe to be Cassian’s formation of a specifically Egyptian form of monastic subjectivity for his audience, the monks of Gaul. In addition, I employ Foucault’s concepts of disciplinary power and pastoral power to demonstrate the effect Cassian’s rhetoric would have upon his direct audience, as well as many other monks throughout history. iii Acknowledgements I am indebted to many people, without whom I could never have completed this dissertation. I would first like to thank my advisory committee composed of Thomas Nail, Pamela Eisenbaum, and chair Gregory Robbins. Their advice was greatly appreciated. Next I would like to thank my fellow student and the sole other member of my writing group, Rob Heaton. Without his invaluable help, this dissertation would not only have remained unfinished but would only have been half as good. Finally, I reserve my greatest thanks for my family. My wife Lisa is responsible for encouraging me to start this doctoral program. Thereafter, she kept me afloat more times than I can count with her love and support. This is her PhD, too. In addition, my sons, Ben and Aidan, have been endlessly patient as I spent long hours away from them in libraries and my office rather than spending time with them. You both have my heartfelt gratitude. iv Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction 1 The Journey of John Cassian 1 A Brief Survey of Cassian Studies 8 Outline of Chapters 12 Chapter Two: Cassian’s Context and Asceticism as Basis for Valid Authority 16 Cassian in Egypt and the Origins of Monasticism 17 Cassian’s Sources: Origen of Alexandria and Evagrius Ponticus 24 Cassian’s Context: Fifth-Century Gaul 30 Asceticism as Mark of Authority 35 Rhetorical Authority of the Desert Fathers 48 Conclusion 51 Chapter Three: Foucault, Cassian, and the Creation of Subjects 53 Foucault and the Formation of Subjects 54 Foucault’s Three Methods for the Creation of Subjects 56 Cassian and Foucault’s Three Methods for Creating Subjects 58 Disciplinary Power 60 Cassian and Disciplinary Power 64 Pastoral Power 72 Cassian and Pastoral Power 75 Biopower 77 Cassian and Biopower 78 Conclusion 80 Chapter Four: Conflicts Between Monasticism and the Church 82 Subordination of Clergy to Monks 84 Attempts at Forced Ordination of Monks 86 Hagiography as Rhetorical Weapon 90 The Origenist Controversy 96 Conclusion 100 Chapter Five: Cassian’s Rhetorical Attempts to Separate Monasticism from the Church 103 Cassian and Castor 107 Monastic Exemplars: Prophets and Apostles 109 Appeals to Distinct Monastic Traditions 117 Subtle Denigration of Church Hierarchs or their Theological Heroes 128 The Eucharist: A Case Study for a Closed Monastic System 135 Conclusion 137 v Chapter Six: Conclusion 141 Synthesis 141 Implications for Further Study 155 Bibliography 161 vi Chapter One: Introduction The Journey of John Cassian At the end of the fourth century CE, a war had been ignited between two factions of Egyptian monks. The alleged subject of the dispute was the corporeality (or incorporeality) of God. According to the fifth century Church History written by Socrates Scholasticus, the less educated monks all posited that God had a body, that in fact this body was the divine image in which humans had been created (Gen. 1:26). Socrates also notes that the more educated monks believed the opposite: God, as an unlimited being, could not be circumscribed by a body or subject to the passions unfailingly associated with bodies.1 In fact, the controversy had been stirred up not by the monks themselves but by Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria. Socrates notes that Theophilus had originally been “expressly teaching that the Divine Being is wholly incorporeal.”2 This apparently enraged a sizable group of uneducated monks who then essentially rioted outside Theophilus’s home, even threatening to put him to death.3 Theophilus, fearing for his life, approached the monks 1Socrates, translated by Henri de Valois, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates: Comprising a History of the Church in Seven Books, from the Accession of Constantine, A.D. 305, to the 38th Year of Theodosius II, Incl. a Period of 140 Years, (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1914), 6.7. 2 Ibid., EH, 6.7. 3 Ibid., EH, 6.7. 1 and contritely offered to change his mind on the matter. The monks then demanded that Theophilus explicitly condemn not only his previous position on the issue, but also the works of Origen, the third-century scholar and theologian these monks viewed as the source of the notion of a disembodied divinity. Indeed, Socrates quotes Theophilus as saying “'I will readily do what you require: and be not angry with me, for I myself also disapprove of Origen's works, and consider those who countenance them deserving of censure.'”4 Theophilus’s life was saved and the monks were appeased. However, this was not the end of the controversy. There were, during Theophilus’s time as bishop, four monks, known collectively as the Tall Brothers, who were well-respected in and around Alexandria. Theophilus himself admired them, both for their holiness and their learning. This resulted in his forcibly ordaining one of them, Dioscorus, as bishop of Hermopolis against his will (as this dissertation will discuss later, this was a common practice among Egyptian bishops).5 Theophilus also asked two of the other monks to work in the church with Dioscorus, which the brothers reluctantly agreed to do. However, Socrates writes that the monks “were dissatisfied because they were unable to follow philosophical pursuits and ascetic exercises” and that in addition, “they thought they were being spiritually injured, observing [Theophilus] to be devoted to gain, and greedily intent on the acquisition of wealth.”6 Eventually, the monks were sufficiently frustrated with this 4 Socrates, EH, 6.7. 5 Ibid., EH, 6.7. 6 Ibid., EH, 6.7. 2 behavior and returned to their cells in the desert. In retaliation for their abandonment of him, Theophilus sent out a letter to the surrounding monasteries, telling them that the Tall Brothers, in direct conflict with his official decree, believed God to be incorporeal and that therefore no monk should listen to or credit any doctrines they espoused.7 The result, according to Socrates, was that “the more ignorant [of the monks] who greatly exceeded the others in number, inflamed by an ardent zeal and without knowledge, immediately 8 raised an outcry against their brethren.” The end to this conflict came when Theophilus, having armed the uneducated monks for use as his henchmen, marched with them out to Nitria, the monastic settlement of the Tall Brothers and their faction in the Egyptian desert, and forcibly evicted them from the area. A division being thus made, both parties branded each other as impious; and some listening to Theophilus called their brethren 'Origenists,' and 'impious' and the others termed those who were convinced by Theophilus 'Anthropomorphitæ.' On this account a violent altercation arose, and an inextinguishable war between the monks.