Kathleen Hay Impact of St Sabas: The Legacy of PalestinianMonasticism Palestinian monasticism is a subject that has attracted much interest, above all from religious historians, archaeologists, and textual experts. 1 The centrality of Byzantine religion to any critical historiography of Byzantium has contributed to this interest, but another reason is the abundance of hagiographical documents, ecclesiastical records and the profusion of archaeological remains of the religious communities. My particular focus is the kernel of principle that exists, recognized or not, inside the attitudes, events, actions and policies of Byzantine society. Such an approach has led me inevitably to the phenomenon of power, which is to be found working in the foundations of every society in every age, and not least in monasticism. My report thus involves a preliminary demonstration and analysis of this characteristic. A variety of religious, social and economic reasons has been advanced for the almost simultaneous development of monasteries in the Roman Empire in the late third and fourth centuries. Scholars, however, are in agreement that unusual forces were in action in the Roman Empire in this period. The devotion to an apostolic Christian ideal and an imperative for personal holiness in late antiquity contributed to the upsurge of a powerful ascetic movement. This drove men and women to brave the elements and ferocious beasts of the deserts of Egypt, Syria, Cappadocia and Palestine in a search for spiritual perfection. It is the life and legacy of one such ascetic, Sabas, that I would like to examine, providing as it does a case study for the workings of power in monasticism. My main primary source is Cyril of Scythopolis' Life of Sabas,2 a hagiographical work by the sixth-century Sabaite monk which displays the accepted topoi of this literary form but has the advantage of a surprising respect for historical detail. In fact, Cyril writes: 1 The long list of distinguishedscholars who have contributedto this field include D.J. Chitty, The Desert a City: an introduction to Egyptian and Palestinian monasticism (Oxford 1966), which is still the classic study of early Christian monasticism;L. Perrone, La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche (Brescia 1980); J. Binns, Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ: the monasteries of Palestine 314-631 (Oxford 1994); Y. Hirschfield, The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period (New Haven, Conn. 1992) and J. Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism (Washington 1995), both of whom provide historical and archaeologicalevidence for the monasteries of the period. For insightful studies of the basic texts see B. Flusin, Miracle et histoire dans ['oeuvre de Cyrille de Scythopolis (Paris 1983) and C.J. Stallman-Pacitti,Cyril of Scythopolis: a study in hagiography as apology (Massachusetts1991). 2 Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, ed. E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis, TU 49.2 (Leipzig 1939), 85-200 at 86.22-24 (hereafter referencesto the Greek text are to this ed.). Cf. the French trans. of A.-J. Festugiere, Les moines d'Orient 3.2 (Paris 1962), 13-133. Quotationsused in this paper are from the English trans. of R.M. Price, Cyril of Scythopolis: the lives of the monks of Palestine (Kalamazoo 1991), 93-219. The Sixth Century - End or Beginning? ed. P. Allen and E.M. Jeffreys, Byzantina Australiensia 10 (Brisbane 1996), 118-125. Impact of St Sabas: The Legacy of PalestinianMonasticism 119 •1t is on this account that I have noted precise details of time and place, of persons and names, so as to make close investigation of the truth in these matters•. 3 The text, in effect, convincingly marries an important historical account of the period with the author's stated agenda of praise and justification for his saint and, his unstated agenda, Cyril's own apologetic considerations. Born in 439 at Mutalasca in Cappadocia to influential Christian parents, Sabas was placed under the care of his maternal uncle on the appointment of his father, John, to the !saurian regiment at Alexandria c. 444. Family disagreements and tensions led to his flight at the age of eight to the nearby monastery of Flavianae, where he spent years under coenobitic rule resisting all the desperate efforts of his family to retrieve their only heir. These qualities of independence and determination were to reappear frequently throughout his long and eventful life and, as we shall see, were to have a tremendous impact on the direction of Palestinian monasticism in succeeding centuries. In 456 the young monk travelled to Jerusalem on pilgrimage and spent the winter at the monastery of Passarion in the city. Seeking isolation in the desert, it was not long before he made his way to the monastery of the famous monk Euthymius, who advised a period of training at the cenobium of Theoctistus further east. At the age of thirty, he graduated to a cave near the monastery and ten years later, after a stint in the far reaches of the desert overcoming temptations and occasional attacks by marauders, Sabas took up residence in a cave on the east side of the Wadi-en-Nar in the Kidron Valley. Such was his reputation that, over a period of five years, a reported seventy anchorites joined him in the nearby natural caves of the gorge. Eventually in 483 Sabas established his Great Lavra, or lavritic community, across the wadi, consisting of a tower and a small oratory for the weekly service and an increasing number of cave cells, so that the community quickly grew to one hundred and fifty monks. From this humble beginning till his death in 532, Sabas went on to organize the foundation and appointment of six coenobia,4 four other lavras5 and six hospices at Jericho, Jerusalem and the Great Lavra for pilgrims and his travelling monks. The establishment of such a huge network of monasteries by Sabas had the effect of confirming his position as the leader of the anchoritic movement in Palestine in this period. This was acknowledged by his selection in 493 by his fellow monks as the archimandrite of all the lavritic monks, alongside Theodosius, archimandrite of the coenobitic monks. What this meant in real terms for both monks was a close co-operation and working relationship with successive patriarchs and the possession of a surprising authority that surfaced on a number of occasions. Developments were afoot in the Church and the empire that were to give ample demonstrations of this authority. Serious divisions in the Church were apparent in the lead up to and the aftermath of both the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, 6 fuelled by the obvious rivalry between the patriarchal sees for 3 Schwartz, 86.21-24 (trans. 96). 4 Between 492 and 514, coenobia were established at Micron, Castellion, Nicopolis, Spelaion (the Cave), the Tower and Zannus. 5 Lavras organized in the region by Sabas or his appointees were those of Heptastomas, Firminus and Jeremiah. The New Lavra, formed in 508 by rebellious monks from the Great Lavra, was later in the same year returned to Sabas' authority. 6 See W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the MonophysiteMovement (Cambridge 1972; hereafter, Frend 1972) for a comprehensive analysis of the circumstances and events surrounding these two councils. .