Eucherius of Lyons’ De Laude Eremi, Its Date and Nature

by

Sheldon Todd Wilson

Submitted to the Department of History and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

______(Chairman)

______

______

Date submitted: ______

Abstract

The letter of Eucherius of Lyons to Hilary of Arles, De Laude Eremi, although appearing on a cursory reading to be nothing more than eremitic propaganda, on closer inspection proves to be a tract which advocates a modified notion of the semi-Pelagianism once shared with John Cassian. Cassian‘s view, already a theological threat to orthodox theology, was redirected toward providing a new understanding of the role of monastics within the life of the Church, thus providing a finely nuanced political threat to the Roman Catholic West. This threat was based not merely upon the semi-Pelagian notion of the immediate union of the believer with God, but, contra Cassian, directing the activity of the monk toward service within the Church, making the political hierarchy and Christian sacraments of secondary importance. Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Introduction 5

Chapter One: The Late Roman World of Eucherius and His Circle 13

Chapter Two: Political and Doctrinal Conflicts 37

Chapter Three: The Nature of De Laude Eremi 49

Appendix A: English Translation of De Laude Eremi 71

Appendix B: Writings of Eucherius and Textual Tradition 96

Appendix C: The Latin Text of De Laude Eremi 99

Select Bibliography 122

Illustrations

Lérins and Adjacent Coast 4

Island of St-Honorat 4

Map of Southern Gaul 121

4 Introduction

During the early fifth century, the Christian church in the West produced a number of great thinkers and writers whose works are still regarded as classics. Many of them were monks, several from the monastery at Lérins. One of the more prominent members of this group was Eucherius, later bishop of Lyons. Eucherius composed two works in epistolary form that have survived to the present day, De laude eremi and De contemptu mundi. Despite his reputation as a writer and the important role he played in advancing monasticism during his life, neither of these works have received much attention from historians. De contemptu mundi, despite having been translated into English as early as 1654,1 has been little noted, and De laude eremi has never been examined closely or translated into English. It is the intent of this paper to consider the content of De laude eremi within its historical context in order to determine the date of writing. It will then be possible to examine the intent of the work and, to a certain extent, the thought of the author.

1 Eucherius of Lyons, On Contempt for the World, Translated by Henry Vaughan (London: Humphrey Moseley at the Princes Armes, St. Paul‘s Churchyard, 1654).

5 Historians have been hesitant to discuss the date and occasion of De laude eremi and neither are known with certainty. Those historians who have considered the matter have generally held that De contemptu mundi was written in about 430 and preceded De laude eremi.2 There is evidence within De laude eremi that implies that Eucherius and Hilary 3 had been geographically separated for some time. This suggests either that Eucherius was still at Lérins and Hilary already at Arles, necessitating a date between 426 and 434, or that Eucherius had already assumed his position as bishop of Lyons and that Hilary was contemplating a retreat to Lérins, hence making the date of the piece later than 434, when Eucherius was elevated. The view that De contemptu mundi preceded De laude eremi demands that the latter have been written after 434. External evidence for the date and place of De laude eremi within Eucherius‘ career is a matter of some confusion, and sources referring to the life of Hilary4 are generally allusive and lacking in details on this point. The late date seems improbable, however, because Eucherius did not address Hilary as bishop of Arles or refer to himself as the bishop of Lyons, implying a date before Hilary‘s elevation in 430. Under the constraints of purely personal correspondence, this would not be a telling fault, but De laude eremi was meant for a wider audience, and as such, Eucherius would not have omitted a due respect for Hilary‘s dignity in a

2 For example, see Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, Inc., 1991), , vol. 4, p. 252.

3 St. Hilary of Arles (403 -- 449). He was the Archbishop of Arles and the leader of the Semi-Pelagian party. Under the influence of his relative, St. Honoratus, and probably of Eucherius, he entered the monastery at Lérins as a monk but, in late 429 or 430, succeeded to the archbishopric. He presided over the First Council of Orange in 441 and the Council of Vaison (442), the former in concert with Eucherius.

4 De laude eremi is addressed to Hilary, but Hilary‘s career is given two contrasting perspectives, the Ultramontane and the Gallican, both of which are very selective in the material they cite concerning his early life and career. Hence external evidence is not much help in determining a date for De Laude Eremi. Pasquier Quesnel, Opera Leontius (Two Vols., Paris, 1675) and Ballerini, Opera Leontius (Three Vols., Venice, 1757).

6 document that was even semi-public. More importantly, by 434 Eucherius had himself ―abandoned‖ Lérins for Lyons, making the superlatives in which he described the eremitic life somewhat awkward. Although the negative evidence does not provide an insurmountable obstacle, the internal evidence makes the case for the earlier date compelling. Eucherius mentioned that Hilary had accompanied Honoratus when the latter had accepted the archbishopric of Arles. It was certainly not unusual for an archbishop-elect to assemble a group of assistants and supporters when he was about to embark on a new or uncertain situation. One need only remember the later example of Apollinaris Sidonius, who entered Aurillac in the company of his young nephew, Ecdicius, together with a dozen of Ecdicius‘ young friends.5 In a sense, a new bishop may have been expected to enter his new office with an entourage worthy of his position. Under the circumstances of the time, a bishop certainly would have needed a band of personal followers upon whose loyalty and industry he could depend. In this sense, the loyalty of a follower of a new bishop was an important consideration for the follower as well for the bishop. It is surprising then, to learn from Honoratus of Marseilles, that, when the archbishop found himself in a state of decline, he should have had to call upon Hilary ―to return‖ to his side,6 implying that Hilary had been absent.

5 Apollinaris Sidonius, Carmina (Genova: Edizioni S Marco dei Giustiniani, 1982).

6 Honoratus of Marseilles, ―Vita Sancti Hilarii Episcopi Arelatennsis,‖ in Vitae Sanctorum Honorati et Hilarii, Episcoporum Arelatensium. Edited by Samuel Johan Cavallin, (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1952), pp. 81-109. See chapter 9, pp. 87-88.

7 Hilary attempted to return to Lérins on at least one other occasion. Honoratus died in 429 and was interred with great ceremony at Arles. Hilary was present in the city at that time, having returned from his first retreat to Lérins. He was a central figure in the obsequies and delivered the main eulogy, a speech which has been preserved as Sermo Hilarii de vita Sancta Honarati.7 Immediately after the funeral, Hilary hastened to return to Lérins. But, according to Honoratus of Marseilles,8 Cassius, the local army commander, ordered Hilary‘s return and sent his troops to bring him back by force if necessary. The commander then presided over the election of Honoratus‘ successor as archbishop, an election in which Hilary was chosen by popular and universal acclaim as archbishop of Arles. Since De laude eremi was written on the occasion of an intended return to Lérins, one must decide which of these two intended retreats provided the occasion for Eucherius to pen this work.9 It would appear that Hilary had returned to Lérins sometime between 426 and 429. and that he at least attempted to return late in the year 429.The first task is to determine which of these two anticipated returns provided the occasion on which Eucherius wrote De laude eremi. In the first paragraph of his text, Eucherius relates how Hilary had first gone to Lérins in the company of Honoratus as if he were traveling with a kinsman.10 He then describes how others came to Honoratus, and

7 Hilary of Arles, ―Sermo de Vita Sancti Honorati,‖ in Vitae Sanctorum Honorati et Hilarii, Episcoporum Arelatensium. Edited by Samuel Johan Cavallin, (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1952), pp. 49-78.

8 Honoratus of Marseilles, Chapter 9, p. 88.

9 Although De Laude Eremi takes the form of a personal letter from Eucherius to Hilary, it clearly had literary pretensions, and so was likely drafted by dictation, carefully vetted, and written out in fair copy by a scribe.

10 This was, in fact, true. Both Hilary and Honoratus were members of the same family, of consular rank and formerly resident in northern Gaul.

8 how he organized them into a company of spiritual militia,11 of which Hilary had been a comrade in arms. When Honoratus left Lérins to assume the archbishopric of Arles, Hilary decided to follow him into the secular world as a member of his kinsman‘s working entourage. But Eucherius notes that Hilary had returned to Lérins as an individual, having relinquished the company of his kinsman.

11 In fact, Honoratus had instituted the Rule of St. Pachomius with himself as abbot. Note the early use of military terminology which would be carried on through Benedict, and which embodies monastic discipline. Cf. Cassian‘s Institutes and later in Benedict‘s Regula.

9 Finally, and most significantly, Eucherius goes on to discuss Honoratus as a living person in and the present tense. He assures Hilary that, by having left Honoratus‘ company, he had only done what Honoratus, who had always wished the best for him, would himself have counseled. In any event, Eucherius concludes that, by leaving Honoratus, he had not shown too little esteem for his kinsman, but a greater love of God, and had thus fulfilled the whole of the law of which Jesus had spoken.12 From the evidence of chapter 44 of his text, it seems clear that Eucherius was writing in the form of a letter directed to Hilary, who had apparently returned to Lérins. Given the references to Honoratus as still living, Hilary‘s return must have taken place after Honoratus‘ accession as archbishop and before his death, that is, between 426 and late 429. There are numerous aspects of De laude eremi that may serve to fix the date of its writing more specifically. For instance, Eucherius indicates that Hilary had left Honoratus without receiving his permission to do so. Although Eucherius states that the greater power of the wilderness had called Hilary back, he then goes on to expound upon that power at great length. It is unlikely that someone who had abandoned secular honor, opportunity, and his kindred in order to return to the solitary life would have needed any explanation of the power that had drawn him there. Even if the epistolary form of De laude eremi is merely a literary device, a competent author would not have allowed such an internal contradiction to stand.13

12 Matt. 22:36-40

13 It seems highly unlikely that either a mere preference for monasticism or a general disenchantment with court life can fully explain the penning of this epistle. Nor is the reason forthcoming in Honoratus of Marseilles‘ Vita Sancti Hilarii Episcopi Arelatennsis. Indeed, Honoratus seems studiously to avoid any mention of the reason for Hilary‘s return to Lérins and simply refers to De laude eremi to explain that period of Hilary‘s life and career. Whatever the purpose that underlay the writing of De laude eremi, it would seem that it was a matter to be discussed only allusively, on the assumption that the audience to whom it was directed would understand its background sufficiently well to infer its meaning. In either case, one must become acquainted with the assumptions and views of Eucherius and his circle in order to explain this apparent paradox.

10 It must be assumed that Hilary had left the company of Honoratus for some specific reason, which Eucherius failed to explain clearly, but which left Hilary in the position of needing reassurance that he had done the right thing. If the lack of permission from Honoratus was a concern to Hilary, the occasion of his return to Lérins could not so easily be explained as having occurred after the death of Honoratus, unless while he was yet alive he had instructed Hilary that he was to remain in Arles. The purpose of the present work is to provide an explication of De laude eremi. In order to do this, we must first examine the broad outlines of the political and intellectual developments of that era. Only when these have been satisfactorily evaluated will it be possible to explain the currents underlying the complex political and religious situation of the years between 426 and 429. Although it may be impossible to reach a more specific date for the events that led to the writing of De laude eremi, it will be possible to describe the circumstances of its composition. When that is accomplished, one then can proceed to an analysis of Eucherius‘ text within the context of the time. It will be seen to have been a work generated by theological disputes in which church, state, and monastery were all involved and in which the relationship of man to God were placed in question. On the superficial level, at least, this dispute may be seen partly as the result of a new vitality within the Roman empire in the West and a revival of dynamic mutual contacts with the East.

11 Chapter One: The Late Roman World of Eucherius and His Circle

In order to pursue the task of gaining some understanding of the circumstances of the time, it is necessary to draw clear distinctions between what later historians have thought and what the people of the time understood. One of the major areas in which this difference occurs is in the contemporary state of the Roman empire itself. Although it is clear to modern observers that the unity of the Roman empire had been broken and that East and West were now developing in different directions, it was not apparent to Eucherius and his circle, or indeed to many of the other observers of his time. It must be remembered that the empire had been divided de facto in various ways throughout the period of the Thirty Tyrants from about 260 to 284. After its unification by Diocletian in 284, he divided it de iure into an Eastern and Western Empire. In 324, however, Constantine, who had been acclaimed by the Roman garrison in Britain, reunited the empire under his sole rule. With his death in 337 the empire devolved upon his three sons. After the civil wars and the defeat of the usurper, Magnus Magnentius, the empire was reunited in 351 by Constantius (317-361). The empire was again divided in 364 when Valentinian I made his brother, Valens, Augustus in the East and left the West to his son, Gratian, at his death in 375. Valens was defeated and killed at the battle of Adrianople in 378 by Visigothic foederati, and Gratian, the ruler of the Western Empire, appointed Theodosius, son of a British general, as ruler of the East. In 383-387, Magnus Maximus, a usurper from Britain, defeated and killed Gratian and claimed sovereignly over the western empire. Theodosius invaded the West and defeated and killed Maximus in 388, thus reuniting the empire once again. This period of unity endured only until Theodosius‘ death in 395, when the empire was left to his sons, Arcadius reigning in the East and Honorius in the West. Although historians now realize that

12 this was the final and definitive division of the Empire, it probably did not appear so to the people of the time. The sons of Theodosius were regarded as co-rulers, and not as rulers of separate empires. This view was reenforced by the continuation of the traditional consulship, with the consul in Rome continuing until 472, and that in Constantinople officiating as late as 541, well into the reign of Justinian (527-565). Considering the political and economic advantages that a united empire afforded the people of Gaul, it is reasonable to assume that the inhabitants of the region minimized the division of the empire and, given the impermanence of such arrangements in the past, may have hoped for, and anticipated, another reunification.14 Modern historians have not only recognized that the division was final but have seen great differences already emerging between the Eastern and Western Empires. One differentiating factor often cited as an example is the contrast between the continuation of caesaropapism in the East with the slow rise to supreme ecclesiastical power of the bishops of Rome in the West. Certainly the incident in 390, in which Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, forced Theodosius to do public penance, was an example of an aspiration among the western bishops to gain a power independent of the imperial administration commensurate with the governmental responsibilities they were assuming. Despite such aspirations, however, they were more than willing to admit imperial authority in ecclesiastical affairs when it suited their purposes to do so, and they often sought to gain the support of the Emperor in settling their ecclesiastical disputes. No less a figure than St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, appealed to Honorius to override the acceptance of the Pelagian point of view endorsed by Pope Zosimus. Somewhat later Pope Leo I, often regarded as the true

14 One should consider the history of the Empire during this period in a general sense, as many contemporaries may have viewed it: an officially divided empire, 284-324, united; 324-337; divided, 337-351; united, 351-364; divided, 364-387; united 387-395; divided, 395 onward. In the early 400's, it was not yet clear which of the two, unity or division, was the better policy for the empire. Neither unity nor division had lasted long enough to convince contemporaries that a lasting pattern had been established.

13 founder of an independent papacy, had no compunction, in his confrontation with Hilary of Arles, about requesting Valentinian III to lend imperial backing to his reorganization of the dioceses of southern Gaul. Although caesaropapism did not have the widespread institutional force in the West that it had in the East, western churchmen of the time recognized imperial authority over ecclesiastical affairs, even though they might have preferred that it be practiced only at their request. One might think that the Germanic invasions should have awakened Eucherius and his fellows to the fact that the situation in the West was radically different from anything that had preceded it. And by 450 there were a few voices reciting the handwriting on the wall. But the handwriting had not been so clear three decades earlier. For one thing, the frontiers had been crossed by bands of marauding Germans as early as the period of the Thirty Tyrants, most particularly around 265. Archaeological evidence of the devastation that they wrought throughout Gaul, Northern Spain, and Northen Italy can be seen in the ash layers found in many of the villas and villages of that era.15 It may well be that the Roman way of life in the West changed so radically as a result of that tumultuous period that society had already become inured to such events as barbarian incursions. Although Rome had not been sacked in the third century invasions, many other cities of the western empire were transformed. The villas of the suburbs that had surrounded these cities were razed and the rubble used to construct formidable defensive walls enclosing the cities. Land owners farther removed from the cities reconstructed their villas, apparently with defense in mind, equipping them with walled court-yards and towers that presaged the motte and bailey castles of the middle ages. They dotted their lands with watch towers (centeneros) and organized their tenants in militia companies to

15 Particularly in France and northern Spain, numerous excavations have revealed a layer of ash corresponding to those years, forcefully suggesting the widespread nature of the devastation.

14 defend those lands from the roving Germanic bands that would continue to plague the countryside for centuries to come.16 At the level of the imperial administration, Diocletian responded by developing a mobile field army composed largely of German mercenaries. In addition, the manpower needs of the Western Empire were met, at least in part, by admitting groups of non-Romans and settling them on unoccupied imperial lands in exchange for military service.17 Finally, the frontier garrisons had been allowed to decay through loss of salary, equipment, and training. In strategic districts, their place was taken by Germans who entered into a formal alliance with the imperial administration18 and were allowed to occupy frontiers in exchange for providing troops when needed, and undertaking to defend the lands with which they were entrusted. This was the situation into which Eucherius and those of his generation had been born, and except for the dramatic event of the sack of Rome in 410, the immigration and settlement of German peoples within the empire might not have seemed to have been a dramatic change.

16 Orosius states that by 407, the Pyrenean passes had were guarded by garrisons of ―rustici.‖ Pauli Orosii Histora adversos paganos, libri VII, Karl Zangmeister ed. (New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1966), Book 7:8,40. See also Lynn H. Nelson, ―Orosius‘ Commentary on the Fall of Roman Spain,‖ Classical Folia (1977): 85-104; Lynn H Nelson, ―The Place Names of Val Ancha and the Fall of Roman Spain, Locus 2 (1989): 17-33; Ramsay MacMullen, Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire Harvard Monographs, no. 62; (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1963).

17 Such immigrants were called ―laeti.‖

18 The ―foederati.‖

15 Much the same could be said of many of the things now regarded as clear signs of the decline of the Western Empire and the transformation of its society and economy. It must have appeared much different in the year 420, however. In the eyes of Eucherius and his contemporaries, it may have appeared that ―normalcy‖ had at last been restored after a period of great turmoil. The barbarian commander-in-chief, Stilicho, had stripped the provinces of regular troops to support his defense of Italy against the attacks of Alaric and the Visigoths. On Christmas day, 406, bands of Alans, Vandals, and Sueves crossed the frozen Rhine river and plunged Gaul into turmoil. As had been the case so often in the past, the Roman garrisons in Britain undertook to remedy the situation with which the imperial administration seemed incapable of coping. After some confusion they chose a member of their own forces as emperor and acclaimed him Constantine III. 19 Assembling all available troops, Constantine III crossed into Gaul, and through a combination of diplomacy and force, brought a measure of peace and stability to the region. Constantine established himself at Arles, a city in southern Gaul to which the Praefectorial capital had been transferred from Trier in ca. 400. The province of Spain quickly accepted his authority and Constantine offered Honorius the opportunity to recognize him as his co-emperor in the West. It was perhaps under the influence of Stilicho, whose daughter Honorius had married in 398, and who probably had political aspirations of his own, that the offer was rejected.20 In any event, in 410, two years after Stilicho had been assassinated on orders from Honorius, Alaric and the Visigoths broke through the defensive lines that Stilicho had established and sacked Rome. Yet the imperial administration seemed less

19 For whom see Etienne Demougeot, ―Constantin III, l‘empereur d‘Arles,‖ Hommage a Andre Dupont. Etudes medievales languedociennes (Montpelier: Federation Historique du Languedoc et du Rousillon, 1974).

20 The standard reference for the events of this period is still Arnold H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, 3 volumes. (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1964).

16 concerned with the threat of Alaric the barbarian than with that of Constantine III, the usurper. Honorius summoned Constantius from the East and assigned him the task of getting rid of Constantine III. Constantius‘ troops attacked Constantine at Arles in 411. Constantius defeated and killed his opponent, and regained control of the province for the legitimate imperial authorities. Constantius was named Praefect of the Gauls. He immediately set about purging the officials who had been appointed by Constantine III and restoring the peace that the Germanic invasions and the civil war had disrupted. The next problem that he addressed was that of the Visigoths, who had failed in their attempt to cross the Straits of Messina and to establish themselves on the rich and fertile island of Sicily and were now wandering back up the Italian peninsula. The problems presented by this wandering horde were met by establishing a treaty with them in 412, and settling them as foederati in the province of Aquitaine on the strength of their promise to drive the Vandals out of Spain. They undertook this task in the year 415 and their conquests in the Spanish peninsula were recognized by the imperial government in 419. Although part of Spain was now transformed into a barbarian kingdom, allied by treaty with the Western Roman government, the rich portions of the provinces of Tarraconensis and Carthaginensis were returned to Roman control. Thus, by 420, except for the foothold that the Vandals had established in North Africa, the littoral of the Western Mediterranean had been restored to Roman control, the Roman fleet ruled the waters, and any barbarian threat from beyond the borders of the Western Empire could be met not only by the Roman army, but also by the added strength of their Germanic allies. Given this situation, there was ample cause for Eucherius and his contemporaries to suppose that normalcy had finally been restored. In fact, from the point of view of the inhabitants of southern Gaul, the period between 420 and 450 must have seemed something like a return to the golden age of imperial Rome. Certainly there were rebellions, internal bickering within the

17 imperial administration, and the steady advance of the Vandals toward control of the provinces of North Africa and of western Mediterranean waters. But there were many other improved conditions which would have loomed large in the popular mind. Honorius‘ half-sister, Galla Placidia, had married Constantius, and the union had produced the son and imperial heir who had been lacking for so long.21 The turmoil that accompanied the death of Honorius in 423 had been short-lived and had been ended with the aid of military forces dispatched from the East by Theodosius II. It might have seemed to contemporaries that the dissension between the two empires caused by Stilicho had been ended and had been replaced by a spirit of unity and cooperation. At least in some places, if archaeological remains are to be believed, a new economic prosperity had arisen in the West. The expansion of roads and the existence of great commercial villas in the period suggest the growth of a thriving internal market.22 The disappearance of the Roman limes, an expensive defensive line that had long acted to regulate and limit commerce between the Germans and the Romans, had created a continent-wide market in which a more or less free trade prevailed. Manufacturing in what had once been the Roman frontier provinces grew, and so stimulated the flow of goods, services and people within the Western Empire.23 But the most important factor must have been the restoration of free and secure maritime traffic throughout the Mediterranean. Because travel by water was swifter and cheaper than overland travel, southern Gaul was closer to North Africa,

21 Not only was Galla Placidia of the imperial family, but Honorius had made Constantius co-Augustus in 419, the year of Valentinian‘s birth.

22 For which see the discussions of the villas of Chirigan and Montmarin by Paul MacKendrick, Roman France (New York: St. Martin‘s Press, 1972), pp. 131-135.

23 See Steven K. Drummond and Lynn H. Nelson, The Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome (Armonk, NY and London UK: M. E. Sharpe, 1994), pp. 152-169.

18 and even to the Levant, than it was to northern Gaul itself. The West once again enjoyed close contact with the populous, wealthy, and culturally advanced eastern centers of the empire. Travelers reintroduced the residents of the West to the intellectual developments taking place in the East. Visible in the architecture, manufacture, and writings of the period are numerous signs of an increased eastern influence which produced a virtual renaissance in western culture. It may well have seemed to the western intellectuals of the time that the steady exchange of ideas and attitudes was blurring the differences that had arisen over the years between the East and West, and was now producing a convergence. There were, however, basic differences in attitude between the subjects of the eastern and western empires. Although these differences may not have been immediately apparent, they were nevertheless deep and significant, and were perhaps most revealingly expressed in ecclesiastical matters. And although both East and West had suffered through various religious conflicts for a long time, the nature of those conflicts tended to differ geographically. Eastern disputes tended to revolve around matters of definition, and were often of a metaphysical or abstract character, such as the nature of Christ‘s person, and the definition of the relationship of the members of the trinity. The most prominent disputes in the West, by contrast, were concerned with pragmatic notions such as the best means to effect an individual union with God, the proper Christian way of life, and the appropriate organization and function of the Church. It may well have been that the general sense of confidence prevailing in the East relegated such pragmatic concerns to the background, but that frustrations with declining administrative effectiveness led those in the West to consider the degree to which the individual could influence the course of events. In any case, the major heresies in the West were concerned with what might be described as the differences between human will and human willfulness. The orthodox position regarded the human condition as having been corrupted by Adam

19 and Eve‘s willful disobedience of God‘s command. Human volition was merely an aspect of that corruption. An opposing opinion arose from time to time, holding that the individual, by choosing virtue, could not only effect his own salvation, but could improve the circumstances in which he found himself. The first major expression of the latter attitude arose in North Africa in 312. The inhabitants of the region had a particular veneration for the martyrs who had, by embracing death rather than abandoning the faith, secured salvation for themselves and set an example for others. A number of the bishops of the region had cooperated with the authorities in the great Diocletianic persecution of Christians (303-306).24 When, after 312, these bishops attempted to resume their dignity in the newly-legalized Christianity, they were rejected by their congregations as traditores for having betrayed the ideals of martyrdom by seeking to preserve their own lives while endangering others.25 Those same congregations then chose men of evident virtue and zeal to replace the traditores and made such virtues the prerequisites for their future ecclesiastical leaders. This attitude and practice presented a clear danger to the emerging western episcopate, and the schismatic Donatist practice of linking religious leadership with personal virtue in lieu of the accepted Catholic succession, was condemned by the Synod of Arles in 411 as heretical.26

24 Like earlier persecutions, the Diocletianic persecution was not uniformly executed. The Praefect of the Gauls at this time was Constantius, father of Constantine the Great, and he did not enforce the persecutions. So, although the suffering in North Africa was keen, Gaul was left in peace.

25 Traditor is, in this case, a double entendre. The bishops in question were not only ―traitors,‖ but they had become so by ‗turning over‖ (trado) the sacred texts, records, and furniture from their churches to imperial authorities.

26 Despite official opposition, however, the Donatist church remained an important feature of North African Christianity until the Moslem conquests of the seventh century. For an overview of the Donatist movement, see W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church; A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1952).

20 Another movement, fundamentally similar to the Donatist, but deriving its belief and practice from different sources, arose about 470 in Spain with Priscillian. He was an educated layman of ascetic practices who took up the form of Egyptian Gnosticism introduced into Spain by a certain Marcus. In 380 his doctrines were condemned at a synod at Saragossa. Nevertheless, Priscillian became bishop of Avila soon afterward. He and his followers, now described as Manicheans, were exiled in 381 and they went first to southern Gaul and thence to Rome. They failed to gain a hearing from either Pope Damasus or Archbishop Ambrose, but they were able to get the decree of exile annulled by the secular authorities. Soon thereafter, the usurper, Magnus Maximus, seeking the favor of the Catholic bishops, had Priscillian condemned at the Synod of Bordeaux. In 385, Priscillian made his way to the emperor‘s court to appeal his condemnation. The appeal failed and, the pleas of St. Martin of Tours and some others not withstanding, he and several of his followers were condemned to death on charges of magic. After Priscillian‘s execution, the Spanish church split, and a schismatic Priscillianist church persisted for some time. The fact that Donatism was restricted primarily to Africa, while Priscillianism was an almost exclusively Hispanic phenomenon illustrates the organization of the Roman church at the time. Although the bishop of Rome was in the process of gaining preeminence in the West, there were, in fact, several ―national‖ churches, among them the African, Southern Italian, Northern Italian, Illyrian, Spanish, and Gallic.27 It is this fact that makes the spread of Pelagianism so startling. The views of Pelagius, a gifted layman from Britain, proved popular both in the East and in several of the ―national‖ churches of the West, particularly the North African, Gallic, and Southern Italian. Pelagianism, as we shall see, placed great importance on human agency, or free will. If the tendency of the Roman garrisons in Britain to take matters

27 For Priscillianism, see Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).

21 into their own hands during critical periods was a reflection of an underlying attitude of the British generally, it would seem that they placed an unusually great value on human will and the power of decisive action. In any event, Pelagian thought sprang from exactly such an attitude.28 Pelagianism spread quickly because it was based upon a ―common sense‖ view of man. In addition, since it had the added advantage of being comfortably close to some of the basic views of Arianism, it might well have developed into a major challenge to orthodox Christianity. Pelagius was probably present in Rome from ca. 400, and it may have been here that he developed his own particular perversion of Christian thought. According to Pelagius, part of their being created in the image of God lay in humans‘ possession of free will. Far from having corrupted mankind, free will was in itself a divine quality. There was, therefore, no original sin, and the significance of Jesus lay only in his teachings and example, however aided he may have been by divine Grace, and not in a pointless redemption. Humans had both the power and the opportunity to achieve salvation through their own works, although divine Grace might aid anyone bent on the pursuit of virtue. The implications of this approach were extensive in both the theological and the secular spheres. Given that God‘s plan was that of gathering unto Himself the souls of those committed to Him, and given that, as Pelagius held, union with God was in large part the result of human will, it followed that the divine plan for the universe was, in fact, a partnership between God and mankind. This same view could be extrapolated into the secular world, suggesting a society and state that were a partnership of the individuals comprising them. There was little room for hereditary nobility or authority ordained from above in this view. In this sense, the Pelagian view of the nature of things sprang from an Aristotelean

28 The attitudes of the Pelagians may be gathered from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers, edited and translated by B. R. Rees (Woodbridge, Suffolk, and Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 1991).

22 view of nature, and presaged the nominalism of the twelfth century. Carried still further, it might be seen as a forerunner of eighteenth century Deism and even the classic forms of Liberalism. However it might be regarded, Pelagianism bore within itself the seeds of a revolutionary spirit. But the officials at Rome appear to have been too preoccupied with more immediate concerns to realize this danger. The Visigoths had been beating at the gates of Italy for some time. In 410 they broke through, and on their way South they sacked Rome. As a result, Pelagius and some of his followers left Rome and sought refuge in North Africa. In a region where Donatism had many adherents, Pelagius‘ teachings also found a sympathetic audience, and Pelagianism spread swiftly among the common people and lower clergy. The bishops, however, heirs to a tradition of combating Donatists and Manicheans, found Pelagius‘ teaching less attractive. Just as he had led the struggle against both Manicheans and Donatists, Bishop Augustine of Hippo (354-430), one of the most celebrated intellects of the era, took up the challenge of this new threat. Augustine came from a decent but undistinguished family in North Africa. Monica, his mother, was a Christian, but his father was not. Augustine, as a youth, had espoused Manicheism, but he abandoned it as he received the classical education of the time. He passed though Latin Grammar and Latin Rhetoric and reached the position of rhetorician, after which he went to Rome to teach and to pursue advanced studies. Plotinus (ca. 205 – ca. 270) had established himself in Rome during the time from about 245 until just before his death in about 270, and neo-Platonic thought had become highly developed and widely respected in the area. Augustine embraced neo-Platonism to such an extent that it became a fundamental element of his thought for the rest of his life, and was the tool with which he reshaped Christianity in the West. By this time, the imperial capital had been transferred to Milan. Not only were there greater opportunities for teaching in Milan, but it was the city of Archbishop Ambrose, a product of the same classical education as Augustine, who

23 was famous both for his personal character and for his eloquence. Augustine moved to Milan (384 – 386) where he attended Ambrose‘s sermons and read his works. Although he was impressed by the eloquence of Ambrose, he was also captivated by his thought, and in 387, Augustine was baptized into the Christian faith that his mother had, for years, urged upon him. It is important to remember, however, that his conversion was effected, not by his long-suffering mother, nor even by a zealous exponent of ascetic virtue, but at the hands of Ambrose, a highly educated Roman noble who had extended his secular administrative duties into the ecclesiastical world. Returning to North Africa in 388, Augustine joined some of his friends in a community, or sodality, at Tagaste, where they studied still further the rational foundations of Christianity. He was first among a group of sophisticated ascetics. He overcame his difficulty with continence and was ordained as a priest in 391 and appointed to the bishopric of Hippo Regius in 395. It may well be that the fighting spirit he had demonstrated in combating the Manichean beliefs that he himself once had espoused had something to do with the prominence he gained among the bishops of the North African church. For, although he continued an ascetic way of life, he acquired an immense influence in the affairs of the church of North Africa. Augustine quickly took up the challenge of the Donatists and wrote voluminously against them. He achieved such a reputation for reasoning and eloquence that his fame spread beyond the confines of the African church. He was called upon, with the sack of Rome in 410, to refute the claims of pagans that the disaster had been caused by the abandonment of the traditional deities of Rome. His defense of Christianity was embodied in De civitate dei,29 a work to which he returned again and again, and did not complete until 423.

29 Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo De Civitate Dei, edited by Bernhard Dombart (Lipsiae: in adobes B.G. Teubneri, 1863). This work plainly shows Augustine‘s neo-Platonism and his tendency to fatalism.

24 It was during these conflicts with the Donatists and the pagan critics of Christianity that Pelagius and his disciple, Caelestius, arrived in North Africa and began preaching their doctrines. The African bishops, accustomed as they were, to the threats of Donatism, quickly saw the revolutionary nature of Pelagianism. Augustine stepped forward immediately to combat this new threat to the Christian church of Africa. He would spend the rest of his life attacking Pelagianism and its successor, semi-Pelagianism. In the course of this conflict he not only developed his own thoughts on some of the most basic beliefs of Christianity30 but also, as leader of the bishops of Africa, entered into secular and papal politics and tried to raise up personal enemies to Pelagius as a way of combating his influence. In the course of the conflict he centered his argument upon the nature of Grace and salvation. His basic contention was that salvation was of such great value that no human being could earn it through his own works. It must therefore be a gift from God, bearing no relation to those things that human beings might count as meritorious. Moreover, the Grace of God could not be rejected by the individual. This formulation appealed to the Roman nobles, who filled the ranks of both secular and religious leadership, because it was quite akin to the basic tenets of imperial practice. All authority in the empire resided in the person of the emperor and flowed ―downward,‖ as it were, by delegation from him. No conscientious Roman would have thought of rejecting authority or appointment that was thrust upon him.31 Augustine‘s concept was also congenial to those who were imbued with Platonic idealism. For the Platonist, truth exists in a universe beyond the will of man and flows downward to endow the objects and individuals of the physical universe

30 It is no overstatement to say that these issues only became basic because of the attention Augustine lavished upon them.

31 To do so would have made him an outlaw, unless it could be shown that he lacked the requisite financial resources to discharge the obligations of the appointment. Being called to be a bishop, however, did not necessarily require such huge financial sacrifices.

25 with whatever truth and identity they might possess. The individual is unable to refuse the ―higher nature‖ which defines it, or the Grace which sets it apart, since no one can deny his own nature. It is difficult to over-estimate the influence that Augustine exerted upon the educated classes of his time. His thought was not only couched in terms with which they were intimately familiar, but he spoke and wrote in the forms and cadences they had learned in the classical education which for so long had defined their culture, provided them with common ground for communication, and given their thought and speech the character which marked them as wealthy, Roman, and noble. Thus, Augustine‘s words were accepted by leaders of the western Roman world, both ecclesiastical and secular, in a way that the simple reporting of such men as Caelestius, Cassian, and Eucherius could never have been. In this sense, the struggle between Augustine and the Pelagians had something of the character of a social conflict. Augustine was no enemy of piety, but his Platonic view of Christianity necessitated an abstract theology of limited contact with existential concerns. By making human aspirations and behavior irrelevant to Christianity, and the abstract Grace of God its definitive mark, Augustine not only spoke the language of the nobility, but he alienated those whose traditions were defined by choice and deliberate action. The nobility recognized no need for piety, or anything else beyond imperial sanction. They were accustomed to thinking in terms of depersonalized political functions and administrative policy rather than Christian convictions. Augustine‘s Platonic notion of Christianity did not require that they go anywhere special, do anything unusual, or be anything unique. Nor were many of the Roman nobles concerned with the fact that Augustine‘s position led directly to predestination, to a world in which human effort, virtue, and even martyrdom were strictly irrelevant to the final disposition of man and his world. But many others, including Pelagius, were concerned.

26 Pelagius left North Africa long before the weight of Augustine‘s attack could be felt and took up residence in Jerusalem, where he was accused of Heresy by Orosius, Augustine‘s student and his messenger to Jerome in this very matter. Orosius, who did not speak Greek, was given a poor translator and was unable to make a convincing case. Nothing was settled by this diocesan council (convened in July, 415), so the parties agreed to let the Latins pass final judgment on the issue.32 But, in December of the same year, two Gallic bishops, Hero of Arles and Lazarus of Aix, who had been displaced after the fall of Constantine III in 411, accused Pelagius before Eulogius of Caesarea. In December, 415, Eulogius summoned Pelagius before a synod of fourteen bishops in Diospolis. Neither of the complainants, nor even Orosius, were present, and Pelagius, using Greek instead of Latin, explained away the accusations. Grace, he admitted, was necessary to man, but that Grace was only the Grace of creation. In North Africa, however, a synod at Carthage, and another at Mileve in the Autumn of 417, condemned Pelagianism as heretical and excommunicated Pelagius and Caelestius. When Pope Innocent I died in 417, his successor was Zosimus, a Greek (417-418). Patroclus, Archbishop of Arles, apparently another Greek, attended Zosimus‘ consecration on 18 March 417, and, by 22 March of the same year, received a letter from Zosimus making him primate of all bishops in the provinces of Viennensis and Narbonensis I and II. This angered the archbishops of Marseilles, Vienne, and Narbonne, who thought of themselves as each ruling the bishops of their own provinces. They complained to Zosimus without effect. Zosimus seemed to have considered Patroclus something much like an ecclesiastical Prefect of the Gauls, or perhaps even a Caesar to his Augustus. Caelestius appealed his excommunication to Zosimus, who found nothing wrong with the views that Pelagius presented, having

32 Orosius, Liber Apologeticus Contra Pelagius, edited by C. Zangemeister (Vienna: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 1866 ff.) Volume 5.

27 been misled more than a little by the recommendation of Patroclus. Zosimus reversed the previous condemnation, but the African bishops, led by Augustine, sent a delegation to the imperial court at Ravenna to seek imperial support. Honorius stepped in and restated the original excommunication with an imperial edict dated 30 April 418, re-enforced by another dated 9 June 419. So just as the Greeks in the East accepted Pelagianism as orthodox, so also the Greeks Zosimus and Patroclus accepted it in the West. But the emperor Honorius, influenced by the western bishops of Africa, condemned it, causing Zosimus to retract his previous approval and lose prestige as a result. Zosimus died in 418 and the deacons of Rome elected Eulalia, apparently another Greek, as bishop. The bishops of the city elected Boniface, a Roman. Symmachus, another Greek, was Prefect of the City and was opposed to Boniface. He reported the matter, along with his recommendation, to Honorius, who responded by confirming Eulalia and expelling Boniface. But Boniface‘s supporters managed to convince the emperor to refer the matter to a synod (Ravenna, March 419). The synod could not decide the matter quickly and had the prefect send both Eulalia and Boniface outside the city until they were able to do so. They named bishop Achilleus of Ostia, yet another Greek, to hold Easter services in Rome, but Eulalia and his party decided to enter the city and hold the Easter services themselves. The prefect had to use troops to drive him and his friends out of the Lateran (30 March 419). Honorius was furious and, on 3 April, recognized Boniface as pope. Boniface immediately took action against Patroclus of Arles by rescinding his superior status and giving the archbishops of Vienne, Marseilles, and Narbonne power in their own provinces. He also appears to have had as a deacon and administrator, Leo (a Roman), who would later become Pope Leo the Great and who would really overpower the archbishops of Arles. Boniface, consistent with western scruples, also supported Augustine in his fight with the Pelagians of North Africa (and, by extension, Pelagians and

28 semi-Pelagians elsewhere). The entire episode suggests that Constantius, a native of Dalmatia, may have used his influence to introduce personnel of eastern origin into key administrative and ecclesiastical positions, perhaps as a means of retaining his authority in the event of the death of the childless emperor Honorius. If so, he may have withdrawn his support of his eastern adherents‘ plans to gain complete control of the Church in the West in the critical year in which they attempted to perpetuate their hold on the bishopric of Rome. In this year, 419, Constantius was made co-Augustus and saw the birth of his son, the heir to the empire in the West. It is possible that much of the eastern influences penetrating the West had been due to his support and encouragement and that, with his abandonment of this policy and his death in September of 421, his adherents found themselves an embattled minority awaiting the death of Honorius and the regency of Constantius‘ wife to regain the secular support they needed. If so, they were destined to be disappointed. Pope Boniface died in 422 and was succeeded by Celestine (3 November 422-26 July 432), another Roman, probably from Campania. Honorius died in 423, and John, a usurper, seized power in Ravenna and held it from 423 to 425, when the eastern Emperor Theodosius II‘s troops captured and executed John. The new emperor, Valentinian III, was elevated 28 October 425 at the age of six. Theodosius II appointed Galla Placidia as regent. Caelestius, still seeking papal exoneration, immediately requested an audience with Pope Celestine, but was refused, and another order came from Galla Placidia banishing Pelagians, Manicheans, and those of other heterodox notions. That must have been a blow not only to the heretics, but to the Greek bishops in the West in general and to those who had been the heirs to Patroclus of Arles in particular. Nevertheless, it was upon the heels of this defeat that Honoratus, the greatest exponent of eastern asceticism and monasticism in Gaul, was called upon to become archbishop of Arles. When one considers the entire sequence of events, it is clear that Constantius

29 brought a new peace and stability to the West. He put down the usurper Constantine III in 411, and brought Gaul back into the imperial fold. He drew the Visigoths out of Italy in 412 and gained them as foederati by settling them in Aquitaine, always a troubled region. As part of this agreement, the Visigoths drove the Vandals from Spain, beginning in 415. By 419, this process was complete, and Constantius arranged the recognition of the lands taken by the Visigoths as a kingdom, giving the Visigothic King Wallia (416-419) delegated powers to rule the Roman inhabitants of his realms. In exchange, Wallia returned the rich Spanish provinces of Tarraconensis and Carthaginensis to imperial control. He settled the worrisome absence of an imperial heir by fathering Valentinian. Finally, he had ended the hostile relations between the eastern and western empires and replaced it with a new spirit of cooperation and common cause. He had accomplished a great deal in ten years and the inhabitants of the western empire might be excused if they enjoyed a renewed confidence in the Romans‘ ability to restore the empire to its former heights of power, wealth, and security. One might even suppose that Augustine took so long in completing the City of God because the crisis that had precipitated it had been so quickly repaired. But not all parts of the empire in the West had fared so well. Constantius‘ successes had been purchased, accidentally, at the cost of North Africa. The Vandals had not been defeated and subjugated, but had crossed over into Mauritania and were slowly extending their power eastward. North Africa had effectively been abandoned. Although the common folk might have had hopes of the arrival of another champion like Constantius, Augustine and his bishops were too familiar with the framing of imperial polity to entertain such illusions. They must have been aware that their rich and cultured land had been given up to barbarians, while the cold and beleaguered provinces of Gaul had been considered worthy of the utmost efforts of the imperial administration to preserve.

30 It is difficult to believe that the different situations in Gaul and North Africa did not influence the intellectuals of each. Augustine‘s philosophical view of unmerited Grace, its corollary of unmerited damnation, and the inexorable progress of God‘s plan was too accurate a reflection of the political situation in North Africa for the two to be completely independent of each other. In the same fashion, Eucherius and his circle had just lived through a period in which a single champion had rescued the empire from what must have seemed, in 410, to be an irresistible process of decline. It is not surprising that they should have shared a confident and vigorous view of a world in which individuals could, with the aid of God, reach such heights that they could become partners with God in effecting their own salvation and, just as importantly, active participants in the workings of the divine will.

31 Chapter Two: Political and Doctrinal Conflicts

When, in about 400, the northern frontiers of Gaul began to contract and the imperial capital was moved from Trier southward to Arles, there were probably many members of the upper class who followed this shift of power. Honoratus, a young man from a family of consular rank, also moved, but his destination was far beyond Arles. In company with his brother, and led by St. Caparasius, Honoratus embarked upon a Grand Tour of the East that included the centers of Egyptian monasticism, the holy places of Palestine, and centers of learning such as Athens and Alexandria. It was while they were in Greece that his brother died, and Honoratus decided to return to the West, where he would adopt the eremitic life. At the suggestion of Leontius, bishop of Frejus, he settled upon the uninhabited island of Lérins a short distance off the coast from what is now Cannes. It was isolated but, by sea, was not far distant from the great university and commercial city of Marseilles or from the praefectorial capital of Arles. It seems that Honoratus did not persist in his eremitic life for very long. He soon called upon his kinsman, Hilary, to join him. Other young men of the same noble class, one of them being Eucherius, also joined him to form a cenobitic community. We know little about the pattern of life that they pursued at Lérins. Although it is sometimes held that Honoratus had established a school at Lérins, there seems to be no reason to believe that this was the case. Certainly the monks of Lérins were learned, but it must be remembered that they had probably received an excellent education of the sort peculiar to their class, before they had taken up monasticism. We do know that they professed the Rule of St. Pachomius, and we can assume that their existence was not unlike that of the other cenobitic communities springing up throughout the East. It is unknown exactly when Honoratus took up residence on Lérins, but it was surely not much before 410. In any event, life there seems to have

32 proceeded uneventfully until the complex political and ecclesiastical situation in southern Gaul called the monks of Lérins forth from their isolation and thrust them into the middle of the conflicts of the time. One may question why a cenobite such as Honoratus, who had spent the previous years in the relative isolation of an island retreat, should be called forth to assume a position that was, for all intents and purposes, that of the head of the Gallic church. There are a number of elements to be considered when attempting to answer this question. It must be understood that the bishops of the time were often chosen by the entire clergy and population of a city, with the advice and consent of local civil authorities in those cases in which a competent civil authority existed. Since each city, at various times, had its own peculiar needs, each chose a bishop with the character and background best able to meet those needs. The underlying difficulty in this process, particularly in the western provinces, lay in the lack of a sufficient number of able ecclesiastics to meet the needs of the time. This was especially true of southern Gaul. Although Germans who were living in the western empire were foederati and therefore not always viewed as a political or military threat as far as the Roman people were concerned, a threat nevertheless did exist. The Visigoths had taken over a great deal of Roman land and, although they had a mission against the Vandals in Spain, they were also interested in expanding their control in Gaul, especially to establish themselves on the Mediterranean coast. They were not committed to the official provincial borders of the Roman Empire, so Roman cities in their neighborhood had to fear not only a military attack but the disappearance of trade that resulted from their uncertain political future. Such cities, often abandoned by Roman civil authority, sought men of wealth as their bishops rather than men of mere piety. They sought men who could purchase stores for the city, repair their defenses, and retain the services of mercenary troops should such services become necessary. At

33 the same time, they would have wanted bishops who were of aristocratic demeanor and were highly cultured to negotiate with the barbarians when necessary, and perhaps to overawe them with their dignity and station. On the other hand, the Visigoths who were the nearest and clearest threat to the political stability of the region were also Arians, and their bishops and missionaries presented a spiritual threat to the Church officials dedicated to protecting their congregations from the infection of heresy. Such officials would have wished their local bishop to be not only well educated, but to be someone of evident holiness who, by both example and precept, could combat the incursions of Arian clerics. Such spiritual leaders may have lacked the political qualities desired by their congregations, but, in the course of time, the attraction of monastic asceticism began to influence the nobility of the western empire and to produce men of both high birth and elevated spiritual ideals. Granted that such men lacked the wealth that many diocesan cities desperately needed, they nevertheless possessed other qualities that added to their appeal. It must be remembered that corruption was common in the later Roman empire,33 and that in many cities there was conflict among the leading families and between local churchmen and the laity. By having voluntarily divested themselves of their wealth, monastics distanced themselves from any suspicion of personal corruption and, by having abandoned their families and eschewed the possibility of perpetuating their lineage, they had freed themselves from the sources of personal incumbrance and controversy. In these respects, they stood apart from the discords of the local citizenry as impartial judges and incorruptible leaders.

33 F. Priscus, a fifth century historian, accompanied Maximinus on the embassy Theodosius II sent to Attila the Hun in 449, where he was able to observe personally the barbarian court. While at Attila‘s court he met a Roman citizen living with the Huns in order to escape Roman corruption. Cf. Priscus, ―At the Court of Attila‖ (fragment 8) in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, translated by J.B. Bury (URL: http://www.fordham.edu/halsal/priscus1.html).

34 There may have been yet another factor that led to the selection of Honoratus as archbishop. Pelagianism had been ended, to all intents and purposes, with the imperial edict declaring the movement heretical and banishing its leaders and adherents. Almost by accident, however, Augustine‘s argument against the Pelagians – that salvation is given freely by God because it cannot be earned – struck directly at the ascetic ideals of cenobitic movement that had been imported from the East. John Cassian (ca.360 – ca. 435), who had established a double monastery in Marseilles, had emerged as the leader of the movement of cenobitic monasticism in the West. This was at least partly because of his immensely popular book, The Institutes,34 that described how monastic establishments were to be organized and how the spiritual lives of the monks were to be ordered. During the years of the struggle over Pelagianism, he had undertaken a second work, one that was to become even more popular and enduring than The Institutes. In the Collationes, 35 Cassian undertook to narrate the discussions he had initiated in previous years with the outstanding leaders of the cenobitic movement in Egypt. Cassian saw clearly that Augustine‘s formulation of the doctrine of Grace was one that led inevitably to predestinarianism and to the conclusion that monasticism and the spiritual life of the ascetics had no value in the eyes of God, at least so far as salvation is concerned. In the first part of the Collationes (probably finished by ca. 420) there are several indications that Cassian was searching for some compromise that would accommodate both Augustine‘s logical formulation of Grace and the experience of those ascetics whom he believed to have achieved an extraordinary harmony with God. The second part of the work, however, which was

34 John Cassian, De institutis Coenobiorum et de Octo Principalium Vitiorum Remediis libri XII, edited by Michael Petschenig (Vienna: Vindobonae F. Tempsky, 1888).

35 John Cassian, The Conferences Translated by Boniface Ramsey, O.P., in Ancient Christian Writers, Edited by Walter J. Burghardt, John Dillon, and Dennis McManus (New York: Paulist Press, 1997).

35 completed shortly before 426, discloses that he had been unable to reach a satisfactory accommodation and had been led to develop his own view of Grace, one that was apparently much the same as that held by the desert fathers. Far from being an accommodation with Augustinian Grace, Cassian‘s formulation was a modification of Pelagianism, later termed semi-Pelagianism, that appears, in many respects, to have been inspired by his need to justify cenobitic monasticism. Cassian was willing to accept the idea that Grace came entirely from God, and that the recipient could not win Grace through his own efforts. But God, in Cassian‘s view, did not give Grace freely, but only to those who, of their own free will, sought Him out. Thus, Cassian‘s view avoided the issue of predestined salvation and damnation by making partners of God and the individual, although very unequal partners, in the great transaction of salvation. This view, expressed most clearly in Book 13 of the second part of the Collationes, was continued, and stated even more radically in Part III, completed sometime before the death of Honoratus in 429.36 This view was enthusiastically received by many readers, but others recognized it as constituting a direct refutation of Augustine, who by this time had achieved preeminent status among western intellectuals.

36 Cassian refers to ―Archbishop‖ Honoratus in his preface to Part III of the Collationes, using his official title.

36 It was probably no accident that Honoratus, the newly chosen archbishop of Arles, and Eucherius, the most active author of Lérins, should have been the two individuals, the fratri sancti, to whom Cassian had dedicated the crucial second part of the Collationes. Pelagianism, and later semi-Pelagianism, was a movement espoused by the lower clergy and opposed by the bishops. It should be remembered that Eulalia, the Pelagian bishop-elect of Rome, had received the support of the lower clergy, the populace, and of Symmachus, the praefect of the city, while his Italian opponent was chosen and supported by the other bishops resident in Rome.37 One might expect that the lower clergy and the citizenry of Arles, with the support of Cassius, the Praefect of the city, likewise chose the semi-Pelagian Honoratus to be their spiritual leader. Honoratus was of high noble rank and his lack of wealth would have made little difference for the well-defended and wealthy praefectorial capital of the Gauls. One might also ask why Honoratus, so dedicated to the cenobitic life was willing to accept a dignity that would draw him back into the secular world he had abandoned. Perhaps the answer to this question lies in the inability of Roman nobles of that era to refuse such responsibilities when they were thrust upon them. Indeed, capitulation to such demands eventually came to be expressed as nolo episcopari, a common trope in the saints‘ lives and histories of the middle ages. Hilary‘s eulogy for Honoratus, delivered in 429, gives no indication that Honoratus had been dissatisfied with his lot or had displayed any undue grief at abandoning the monastic life he loved. It may have been far different, however, for Hilary in 426, when he had followed Honoratus to his new duties and responsibilities. Hilary had not been called forth from Lérins, as had Honoratus, by an invitation impossible to refuse. He had, instead, followed his kinsman an a matter of personal loyalty and perhaps the deference due his abbot. Surely Hilary had read Cassian‘s

37 It would seem likely that Symmachus had been appointed to this position by Constantius.

37 works thoroughly and was aware of their repeated admonitions that monks should avoid any temptation or occasion to return to the secular world. With these injunctions in mind, yet far from the monastic life he had come to love so well, and finding himself thrust into the middle of the political and intellectual conflicts of the day, Hilary may very well have been seized by an overwhelming urge to return to his life of striving toward God. This factor provides an important element in discovering some of the deeper significance of the words of De laude eremi. It does not, however, provide a completely satisfactory key. Another element is needed and may be found in the intellectual conflicts that had swirled about Hilary. Hilary was, after all, like Honoratus, a member of a consular family and must have received the same classical education as that of other members of his class. It must therefore be assumed that, like so many others of the noble class, he was impressed and perhaps even captivated by the eloquence, rationalism and urbanity of Augustine‘s writings. As long as he was at Lérins it is likely that little precise information concerning Augustine‘s attack on Pelagian thought had reached him. Certainly Honoratus would not have been willing to allow such ideas to gain much currency among his monks. Even if this had not been the case, the words and writings of John Cassian, who was close at hand, would have overwhelmed any Augustinian arguments that might have penetrated Hilary‘s life of communal solitude. It may have come as a shock to him to realize that supporters of Cassian and his views were, of necessity, opponents and critics of Augustine. Hilary no doubt became acquainted with Prosper of Aquitaine‘s attacks upon the views of an unnamed person who was understood by all to be John Cassian. Hilary thus found himself in the difficult position of watching the adherents of two men whom he greatly respected, attacking the life and thought of the other. Cassian‘s position had not been carefully demonstrated and his authorities, relatively unknown and often illiterate old men in the wastes of the Egyptian desert, were scarcely sufficient to

38 compensate for his failure to produce a reasoned argument in support of his position. For his part, Augustine had been a student, teacher and bishop. He had never lived the eremitic life or spent much time in solitude, and he had never experienced that transcendent sense of God‘s presence that was fundamental to the monastics, within reach of common people, and that Cassian‘s writings explained and defended. It may have seemed to Hilary as if this were a conflict between an irrefutable argument and an undeniable experience, as if Augustine had set forth those things that must be, while Cassian had described those things that were. In 428 or 429, someone named ―Hilary‖ 38 wrote to Augustine about the ―difficulty‖ people in Marseilles were having in accepting his doctrines, by which he must have meant the views that were being set forth against John Cassian. ―Hilarius‖ also mentioned that he had asked Tiro Prosper of Aquitaine39 to write a separate letter to Augustine and explain the situation to him because, as ―Hilarius‖ said, he doubted his own ability to describe the ―difficulty‖ adequately. Augustine was at the time attacking Cassian‘s doctrine of free will with a doctrine of Grace that logically culminated in predestination. It was likely Augustine‘s predestinarian version of Grace and the inefficacy of ascetic monasticism implicit in that predestination that produced the ―difficulty‖ mentioned by ―Hilarius.‖ Although it is not possible to prove conclusively, it seems reasonable to assume that the ―Hilarius‖ in question was

38 See Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 Volumes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910). Schaff states that the Hilary who wrote to Augustine is ―not to be confounded with Hilarius, bishop of Arles, in distinction from whom he is called Hilarius Prosperi. Hilary calls himself a layman [(Aug. Ep. 226, para. 9), comp. The Benedictines in tom. X f. 785; Wiggers, ii. 137.]‖ But this argument is invalid, because in 429 Hilary was, in fact, still a layman, and ―Hilarius Prosperi‖ is not a name, but simply a designation, ―Hilary, [the friend of] Prosper.‖ At this early date Hilary had no dignities, offices, or titles by which he might have been addressed.

39 This was the same Tiro Prosper who had already attacked semi-Pelagianism in his writings, and is not to be confused with the author of the Chronicles of Prosper Aquitaine. Prosper was surely not living in Aquitaine, since the qualifier ―of Aquitaine‖ would have been superfluous in Aquitaine. So he was probably in Marseilles.

39 in fact Hilary of Arles. He was only a learned layman, but he possessed the necessary confidence to write the greatest intellectual of his age asking for clarification. He was aware of the conflict but represented himself as a neutral party by stating that the reason for his concern was the difficulty of ―the people‖ of Marseilles. Although he claimed to have been moved by this difficulty, he declared that he is himself unable to explain the situations satisfactorily and had turned for assistance to a well-known opponent of semi-Pelagianism who had little personal difficulty in accepting Augustine‘s position and urging it on others. The deference exhibited by the ―Hilarius‘ of this letter is somewhat paradoxical in that he is concerned by the difficulty of the ―people‖ but claims to be incapable of explaining the nature of that difficulty. This apparent contradiction is resolved if one considers that Hilary himself had the difficulty and felt that a full explanation of this difficulty to Augustine might reveal his own semi-Pelagian leanings. In the same way, his choice of a well known partisan of Augustine to support his request may have been to provide a bona fide of his good intentions should Augustine, in some way, have learned his identity. All things considered, it is highly likely that the author of the letter to Augustine was Hilary of Arles. It would appear, then, that De laude eremi was not simply an exaltation of the cenobitic life, but an argument on behalf of the semi-Pelagian position that justified that life. It was written by Eucherius in 428 or 429 in response to a letter from his comrade, Hilary of Arles, who had apparently returned to Lérins. The question Hilary asked of Eucherius, that necessitated Eucherius‘ long reply, doubtless articulated the same ―difficulty‖ about which he had written to Augustine and Prosper of Aquitaine. It may well be that Hilary had first gone to Marseilles to seek the advice of Cassian but that his inner conflicts had only increased and that he therefore had sought the views of Prosper, and, ultimately, those of Augustine himself. With his inner conflicts still unresolved and with the recollection of the perils that lay

40 before a monk who returned to the secular world, his thoughts may have turned once again to the Island of Lérins. He apparently had decided to return there to restore his inner tranquility by seeking a respite from conflict. Eucherius wrote this letter, couched as a literary Laude, to draw Hilary back into the semi-Pelagian fold and to prepare him to undertake the role for which Honoratus had chosen him. Hilary was, in fact, the heir to the leadership of the Gallic church and could not be lost to either Augustinian rationalism or to self doubt. This, then was the intellectual and political situation in which Eucherius undertook this work, and it is in these terms that its meanings and purposes may best be understood.

41 Chapter Three: The Nature of De Laude Eremi

On closer scrutiny of De laude eremi, we are able not only to theorize more precisely about the occasion of the work, but to ascertain its underlying purpose and rationale. The first three sections of the text yield information which tightly knits the historical context to the work as a whole. The initial key consists of answering one question. Why did Hilary write to Eucherius to answer his question instead of to Honoratus? The simple answer is that Hilary was concerned about how his own behavior might affect, or have affected, Honoratus. He needed the objective opinion of someone close to both parties. Who better than Eucherius? The fact that Cassian had dedicated the second part of his Collations to Honoratus and Eucherius as prime advocates of eastern monasticism made Eucherius the logical choice as both possessing a sympathetic viewpoint, and as being reasonably close to Honoratus. Hilary was obviously concerned about the effect that his return to Lérins would have on Honoratus, for Eucherius assures him that Honoratus ―greatly esteems you,‖ and also notes that, in returning to the island, Hilary had not demonstrated too little love for Honoratus, but simply more for solitude. This love of the wilderness, which had ―drawn‖ him back, was nothing less than the love of God, and Eucherius could assure Hilary that he had indeed done the right thing, because he had followed the ―order of the law of love,‖ in first loving God and then in loving his neighbor.40 His behavior does not reflect badly on Honoratus, who wishes ―no less than you to depart‖ for the desert, because it is the same love of God in Honoratus that seeks the best for Hilary that keeps him in Arles, because the pinnacle of that love ―always tends to service‖ to others. It is clear that Hilary was being prepared to succeed Honoratus as Archbishop of Arles at an early date, perhaps from the very beginning of their arrival there. Eucherius points out that when Hilary ―thought to

40 Matt. 22:34-40.

42 follow‖ Honoratus ―to the high rank of archbishop,‖ love of the wilderness carried him back to Lérins, indicating not only that Hilary had been a member of the retinue of the archbishop, but also that he was aware of his position as the chosen successor to that position. The fact of the nearness of Eucherius to Honoratus would seem to put Eucherius at Arles as a member of Honoratus‘ entourage whence Hilary had recently departed. It is clear from Cassian‘s dedication to the fratri sancti, Honoratus and Eucherius, that they were widely held in high repute. Cassian noted of Eucherius that he was ―anxious to make his way to Egypt to be edified‖ by close contact with the holy men of the desert. But he said that Honoratus‘ desire was that those of his congregation ―may be instructed in the precepts of those fathers.‖ Hence, in the company of Honoratus, Eucherius was actually in as good a position as his love of the desert will ever require him to be. This explains the relationship of the three men. The immediate reason for Hilary‘s departure from Arles may never be known. Perhaps he had been sent to Marseilles on official business, and did not return but instead traveled on to Lérins. Or perhaps he simply fled Arles for Lérins. One can only guess at the events that led to Hilary‘s return to Lérins. In any case, it seems likely that he stopped in Marseilles, the city of Cassian‘s monastery. It seems probable that he spoke with Cassian. It is likely, however, that he had grown depressed by the prospect of succeeding Honoratus as archbishop of Arles and of becoming entangled in the politics and controversies of the time. This frustration was deepened by the fact that, one way or another, he must have become aware that Cassian had included in his Collationes a direct repudiation of the rationalism of Augustine of Hippo. He saw that this had led to dissension between the partisans of Cassian and those of Augustine. He may have read Tiro Prosper of Aquitaine‘s attack upon an unnamed person (who was clearly Cassian) and seen that the controversy was a bitter one. It may have also been, as in the clash between the Pelagians and

43 Augustinians (for want of a better term) that occurred at the death of Pope Zosimus, that the situation was dividing the lower and upper clergy of the region. But quarrels over basic matters of doctrine, particularly quarrels that divided the servants of the Church and put in dispute the value of the eremitic life, were to be resolved if at all possible, and so Hilary sent a message to Augustine asking clarification of his formulation of free will and unmerited grace and had asked Tiro Prosper to add his good offices to the request. Perhaps the complexity and hard feelings involved in this affair convinced Hilary that he belonged back in the quiet and unquestioning adherence of the monastic ideal that he had known at Lérins. Perhaps he sensed that Honoratus was failing, and he was inclined to avoid, if at all possible, his own elevation. In any event, according to Eucherius, Hilary went to Lérins. At some point along the way, or perhaps after arriving at Lérins, he wrote Eucherius. If Eucherius‘ reply is any indication, it would seem that Hilary had written to ask him the simple question of whether he had done the right thing. Hilary may have thought that Eucherius would sympathize with his flight from secular responsibilities. Then, too, he had abandoned Honoratus without word or leave, and this may have contributed a great deal to his anxiety. If this was the case, Eucherius must have found himself in something of a dilemma. He could not, of course, condemn Hilary for fleeing the secular world to embrace ascetic spirituality, nor could he encourage Hilary to reject the archbishopric which seemed to be his lot, and that Eucherius, Honoratus, and perhaps the civil commander of the region, felt it was important for him to fill. But why was it important for Hilary to fill this office? The trip to the desert may seem to be a matter of indifference to those holding Augustine‘s notion of Grace, but they would have viewed the claim of the monastics to have achieved a direct union with God without the mediation of Christ not as an inconsequential matter, but as simply and damnably,

44 wrong. The civil authorities and bishops, who were drawn from the educated classes, and who professed, or could easily have been convinced to profess, Augustine‘s rather mechanical view of Grace, held the power in the West. Pelagianism had made plenty of room for monasticism and the ascetic life, but it had been declared heretical and condemned. Cassian‘s formulation of the relationship of divine grace and human free will would seem to have been a justification of the value of the cenobitic life that would avoid the blanket condemnation that had made pure Pelagianism both a heresy and a criminal act. Cassian could not compete with Augustine‘s rationalism merely by adducing the authority of the dessert fathers, so he attacked it in two additional ways, by describing real men and actual events to counter the abstract reasoning of the Augustinians, and by demonstrating that not every detail of God‘s plan and nature can be deduced from scripture. This led directly to the conclusion that the nature of God is inscrutable and unknowable by rational means. Cassian‘s formulation reveals the conflict that arose between the rationalist nobility and episcopate, who found their position justified in the divine absolutism posited by Augustine, and the empirical interests of the lower clergy and the common people, who were fascinated by the freedom and individual striving of the desert fathers. It was a conflict for power in the Church, particularly the Church in Gaul. The monastics and semi-Pelagians had, almost by accident, gained a position of preeminence within the leadership of the Gallic church. It would seem that Constantius‘ successor as civil governor at Arles may have been appointed by Constantius himself, and so, when Patroclus died, a semi-Pelagian and monastic, Honoratus of Lérins, was given the post of Archbishop of Arles and ruler of the Gallic church. Honoratus was probably elderly at the time and may have known that his episcopacy would be short, and so began to prepare his kinsman, Hilary, to succeed him in the office. He had already begun to lay the foundation with the civil governor and the clergy of Arles to accept Hilary‘s accession. But why Hilary? Why not

45 Eucherius, who apparently had a wide reputation among the semi-Pelagians and monastics? The answer may be quite simple. Hilary was Honoratus‘ kinsman and both were members of a family of consular rank and good education. None of the aristocratic class of leaders could claim that either Honoratus or Hilary were social inferiors or uneducated country bumpkins. Families of consular rank were not common, particularly outside of Italy. For many years the emperors had usually reserved the dignity of consulship for members of the imperial family, or for special friends or associates. Moreover, since the days of Constantine, there had been but a single consulship in the West. It may well be that Hilary was the only candidate possessing a high enough social station to permit him to exercise archepiscopal power over a group of aristocratic Gallic bishops dissatisfied with their position subordinate to Arles and opponents of the theology preached from the archepiscopal see and of the zealous monasticism encouraged by the archbishop. If indeed it was the case that Hilary was the only suitable successor to Honoratus, his elevation to Arles was necessary if Cassian, Eucherius, and their partisans were to hold on to the ecclesiastical power which had fallen to them. The hold of the semi-Pelagians on the archbishopric of Arles was precarious to say the least. Arles had been given primacy by Pope Zosimus in an unprecedented interference by a bishop of Rome in the organization of the Gallic church. That precedent had been set, but what Zosimus had done could be undone by a successor. The defeat of the supporters of bishop-elect Eulalia and the victory of Boniface ensured that future popes would not be sympathetic to a monastic or semi-Pelagian ruling virtually the entire church of Gaul. Zosimus had provided a precedent for the bishop of Rome to extend his power and the tenets of orthodoxy into the provinces, and there was every reason to believe that Celestine would make use of this precedent at the first suitable occasion. Being more important than such political concerns, Hilary may also have

46 sought Eucherius‘ advice about the disquieting theological conflict between the adherents of Cassian and those of Augustine. This new, Augustinian, threat to monasticism, coupled with the need to convince Hilary of his responsibilities, provided Eucherius with the means of solving his own dilemma in answering Hilary. De laude eremi may best be seen as a text with three levels, as is clear from the opening chapters. On the surface, it is a letter from Eucherius to Hilary assuring Hilary that he has made the right decision. Love had led him to choose to seek God rather to serve those nearest to him. Besides, Eucherius suggests, Honoratus‘ own yearning to return to the monastic life would convince him to agree to Hilary‘s departure since it was there that his own love of God had been perfected, and perfect love (amor) leads to perfect and universal love (caritas). Might not Hilary‘s love be perfected there, and his love produce in him this same desire to serve others? Eucherius then embarks upon a long discussion on the eremitic life and upon the ―wilderness.‖ One might ask why Eucherius should feel that he should instruct Hilary, who had resided at Lérins for fifteen years or more, on a subject that Hilary must have known quite well. The reason is found in Eucherius‘ rehearsal of Hilary‘s past. When he had first come to Lérins, Hilary had not really abandoned his kindred, Eucherius writes, because he had followed a kinsman who had led him into the monastic life, and then had become a member of an intimate group (comitatus) gathered around Honoratus. He had continued to follow his kinsman when Honoratus instituted the Rule of St. Pachomius and became his spiritual father. And he had continued to follow Honoratus when Honoratus accepted the archbishopric of Arles. But, when Hilary thought about succeeding him in that dignity, he had yielded to the call of the ―wilderness‖ to return to it. It is only now, Eucherius suggests, that he has entered that life of his own free will and it was time he should understand what effect the ―wilderness‖ has upon those who are drawn to it and choose to answer its call. Eucherius explains that effect by discussing a series of Biblical figures who

47 had retreated to the desert. It was in this solitude that they came into the presence of God and underwent a process of purification. The first stage in this process was that they were filled with the fear of God. This was not a fear of punishment, but a fear of falling short of what one could be and what God expected them to be. God then, out of the love that He bears for the creatures He shaped in His own image, assisted these men striving toward Him to become acceptable to Himself and capable of experiencing His personal presence. In many ways, this process paralleled the preparations of a sacrifice to God outlined in Exodus and Leviticus. The subject of the sacrifice was to be unblemished and even then had to be purified to become acceptable. The subject was then dedicated to God and, as in the sacrifice itself, wholly consecrated to Him and accepted by God. In the case of animal sacrifice, this meant physical death and being burned on the altar, whence the smoke, or essence of the victim symbolically rose to God. In the case of men and women, Eucherius wrote, humans were already without blemish in the eyes of God, and that those who willingly dedicated themselves through their fear of the Lord by answering His call to come for purification, would be consecrated by God‘s grace. Then, symbolically, they would become one with God by sharing His perfect love. When this occurred the individual would be transformed from a servant of God into a son of God. The individual became a voluntary participant in furthering God‘s plan, which is nothing more or less than that all of humankind should willingly become re-united with their Creator, from whom Adam‘s sin had separated them. That process is most clearly and forcefully presented by Eucherius in the stories of the people of Israel in the wilderness and of Jesus‘ rejection of the temptations of Satan. In the former case, Moses answered God‘s call to come into the desert and was purified by his very presence on this holy ground. After this transcendental experience, he took up his sandals and staff and left the presence of the living God. To leave the presence of God was an act of sacrifice, but it came without

48 pain because Moses had been visited with God‘s Grace and had set forth to rescue God‘s people from the land of Egypt. He attempted to make smooth their path to the land in which they themselves would be purified and realize the promise of becoming God‘s chosen people. In this fashion, those reading Eucherius closely would have realized that Moses had been the agent through whom God‘s covenant with Abraham had been renewed, or finalized, after Israel‘s bondage in Egypt. God had sanctified Abraham so that he might prepare the way for Isaac, a lad born without blemish so that he was acceptable to God. Then God confirmed his covenant with Isaac. 41 That covenant promised that Isaac‘s descendants should become God‘s chosen people, as numerous as the stars in the sky, and that they should be the source of a great blessing to mankind. The great blessing, of course, came with the appearance of Jesus. When John the Baptist went into the desert, he came back into the world to make smooth the path for Jesus. He purified Jesus through baptism, and Jesus answered the call of the Spirit dwelling in men and went into the desert. Here he received the fullness of God‘s grace and then went back into the world to consummate his mission.

41 Gen. 26:1-5

49 There is a great deal of significance to these and the other examples that Eucherius set forth. Either explicitly or by inference, they all conformed to a single pattern. Cassian had cautioned monks to persevere in the monastic life once they had taken it up,42 but all the examples cited by Eucherius were men whose asceticism led them to lives of sacrifice and service. In every example Eucherius cites, a man (or a people) who was purified and filled with God‘s Grace, and then gave up the joy of God‘s presence for the task of preparing the way for others. Eucherius intended that Hilary should see his own life up to that point prefigured in these examples. Abraham, Moses, and John the Baptist were figures of Honoratus; and Isaac, the people of Israel, and Jesus were figures of Hilary. On the level of a personal communication, Eucherius solved the dilemma that Hilary‘s retreat to Lérins had posed for him by making it clear to Hilary that, when he was visited by divine grace, as he surely would be because of the nature of the place to which he had fled, the perfection of his love would lead him to assume secular responsibilities much as Jesus had offered himself. As clever as the argument is, it did not seem to have convinced Hilary. When he did resume his secular responsibilities, it was only to deliver the eulogy for his kinsman and former abbot. He left to return to Lérins immediately after performing that obligation and had to be brought back by a company of armed men. This incident, related in Honoratus of Marseilles‘ later Life of St. Hilary, may have been only an example of the trope of ―nolo episcopare‖ so favored by the writers of saint‘s lives throughout the middle ages. Whatever the actual events may have been, public knowledge of the story of Hilary‘s attempted return to Lérins may have lessened the appeal of De laude eremi as an example of hortatory prose. But beneath the surface, there lay yet another level of significance, one that was underscored when Gennadius of Marseilles noted that Eucherius had written books on abandoning the world and praising the desert. It was later readers and

42 Cassian, Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 36.

50 copyists who gave the work its title of In Praise of the Desert, and it was at this level that the work continued to be held in enough regard to have survived to the present day. But the simple praise of the desert cannot be seen as the rational principle or purpose underlying Eucherius‘ work. Nowhere does he address those principles and purposes directly but he alludes to them repeatedly. In fact, his exhortations to Hilary, his glorification of. the desert and of the solitary life, and the people and events he depicts are images of the principles governing his own thought and life. These principles were formulated by John Cassian and have entered history text books as semi-Pelagianism. Since Eucherius did not address this doctrine directly, it is in Cassian‘s Collations that the definition of his thought may be found. Before turning to what appears to be a crucial passage in interpreting Eucherius‘s thought it might be well to consider the precise terms that he chose to employ. Although the term ―eremus‖ was employed as early as Tertullian (ca. 160-ca. 220), it was never a common synonym for the purely Latin form ―deserta.‖ Derived from the Greek e[rhmos, it almost always appears in discussions of monasticism and, with it, the sense of eastern monasticism and the eastern thought upon which coenobitic monasticism was based. One might assume that Eucherius would have been particularly sensitive to the connotations of words derived from Greek. His own name was, after all Greek,43 and it is also likely that Cassian and others of Eucherius‘ circle thought of similar words within an eastern context. This consideration leads one to recognize that the Latin word for ―grace,‖ gratia, meant, among other things, ―favor,‖ but also meant ―love.‖ In much the same way caritas bore the resonance of its Greek cognate and also meant ―love.‖ Therefore, we should not be surprised to find that Cassian‘s enunciation of semi-Pelagian doctrine was cast in the form of a discussion of the degrees of perfection of love.

43 Eucherius = ―Gracious.‖

51 According to Abbot Chaeremon, in his conversation with Cassian and Germanus,44 there are three ―checks‖ on evil: the fear of punishment, the hope of reward, and the love of God (amor dei). Three virtues correspond to these checks. Faith corresponds to the fear of punishment. Hope corresponds to the hope of reward. And love (caritas) corresponds to the love of God (amor dei). Those who have nothing more than faith, and curb evil only through the fear of punishment, are slaves. Those who possess hope, and curb evil by means of the hope of reward, are hired servants. And those imbued with love, who curb evil by means of love, are sons. Although amor dei can be perfected as caritas, it springs from the fear of the Lord. This fear is not the sort of fear that arises from fear of punishment, but from fear of being less than one can be, and so proving a disappointment to God. When one fears God in this manner, however, God‘s own love sustains his efforts to follow the path of virtue. Not all choose to scale the ladder leading to perfect love, however, and remain at the same worthy, but imperfect level. Some continue to strive, in the hope of attaining the presence of God. And those who attain that goal are filled with God‘s Grace, which in this sense means that they are filled with the same sort of love as God Himself. They are transformed, says the Abbot, from the servants of God to the sons of God, and their amor dei is transformed into caritas. Caritas is a divine virtue and consists of God‘s universal love for humankind. It is His desire for all humans to accept His love and His assistance. Those whose love is perfect are filled with that same desire and seek to lead others toward that same end. Through God‘s love, coupled with their desires, they have become one with God in caritas.45 One can see the three stages of this process reiterated throughout De laude

44 Hilary‘s Collationes, Book 11, Chapter 6.

45 Hilary, Collationes, Book 11, Chapter 8.

52 Eremi. Honoratus heard the call of God, which was expressed, as Eucherius notes, in the love of the desert. He chose to answer that call and, in his life at Lérins, his love for God was transformed into that perfect love that was often discussed in terms of the word ―Grace.‖ Having achieved such a level of love it was perfectly natural for him to leave his cherished solitude to answer the call to lead others to that oneness with God which he had achieved. In telling Hilary that Honoratus would endure the loss of his company because of his love, he was reminding Hilary that in his return to Lérins he was embarking upon a path to godliness over which Honoratus had already passed. In this way, Eucherius suggested that Hilary‘s doubts and confusion sprang simply from his own imperfections. By answering the call of the desert, however, he was assured of God‘s assistance in attaining perfect love if he chose to do so. When God‘s Grace filled him, all confusion would vanish, and he would see that the path of this perfect love would lead him back to Arles. In much the same fashion, Eucherius deals with the nature of Jesus as savior. Pelagianism had virtually eliminated Jesus as a redeemer and relegated him to the position of moral teacher and model of virtue. Cassian and the other semi-Pelagians were unwilling to go so far, although they were also unwilling to grant Jesus the same sort of divine status that Augustine did. Eucherius portrays Jesus as a God-man. Called by God‘s love to seek out John the Baptist, the man Jesus was baptized into the first level of love, and God‘s spirit moved him swiftly to the desert where he was tempted by Satan with mastery of all the world had to offer. When Jesus overcame this temptation he achieved perfect love, a love that extended to all mankind. By contrasting Satan‘s triumph in Eden and Adam‘s corruption of the human will with Satan‘s defeat in the desert and Jesus‘ sacrifice of his own life, Eucherius provides an insight into the semi-Pelagian view of Jesus as redeemer. In Jesus‘ sacrifice of himself he was, in fact, a representative of humanity redeeming itself for its previous defeat in the person of Adam.

53 But what then of Jesus‘ divinity? For Eucherius and his fellows, Jesus was most certainly divine, in the same way that any human achieving perfect love becomes one with the Deity from whom that perfect love came. This explains much of the tenacity with which the monks of Lérins and other adherents of semi-Pelagianism fought for their belief, for they believed that they had become one with God in perfect love, and so had become the instruments by which God was leading mankind back to Himself. The world outside their ―desert‖ retreats was the true wilderness through which God‘s people had been wandering aimlessly until a new spirit out of the East had come to provide those who would make smooth the path for them and lead them back to Him. And how did they regard their aristocratic and rationalist opponents? They could not regard them with hatred, since they were inspired with love for all. They regarded them instead merely as slaves and hired servants. For this reason, although De laude eremi was written in a period of political and doctrinal conflict, there is no sign of partisanship or animosity toward those who were challenging the validity of Eucherius‘ beliefs. The semi-Pelagians regarded their opponents as mistaken and in need of guidance. Abbot Chaeremon pointed out that although the path toward sharing God‘s perfect love seemed clear, it was not universally true. Some might strive toward God and never reach the divine level of caritas though they pursued it with vigor, while others, like Simon, could achieve that state in a single blinding flash. It was not possible, said the abbot, to reduce God‘s ways to any clearly defined system of cause and effect. God‘s ways could not be comprehended by the human mind and could not be reduced to a series of logical arguments. Those who believed that they could do so were deluded, because faith and love do not spring from understanding, but understanding springs from faith and love.46 And so De laude eremi is an Aristotlean work in which the philosophic and

46 Hilary‘s Collationes, Book 11, Chapter 6 and following.

54 theological content is so inextricably bound up in its descriptions of people and events that the abstract cannot be divorced from the concrete. In De laude eremi Eucherius does not attempt to explain the nature of God‘s plan, but describes that plan in action. His world is one in which the physical and intellectual cannot be separated. All things, seen and unseen, are merely the workings of divine love. In De laude eremi, Eucherius of Lyons offers the historian a valuable insight into his times and into the development of monasticism in the West. He cannot be discounted as an uninformed interpreter of semi-Pelagianism since he was personally acquainted with John Cassian and was the author of an epitome of Cassian‘s Institutes. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference between Cassian‘s formulation of the nature of Divine Grace and how it was imparted to the individual, and Eucherius‘ application of that doctrine. Cassian discussed Grace in terms of love and described the visitation of Grace as a state in which the individual was united with God by sharing with God the Divine essence of universal love. The cenobitic life was the path that had been made smooth by God so that those who chose to follow it could reach His presence and their own fulfillment. Cassian also avoided dogmatism by suggesting that this was not the only way that God dispensed His Grace. He might give it through sacraments, through martyrdom, to those of conspicuous secular virtue, those who cried out inwardly for His aid, or in any other way or for any other reason that He chose.47 Cassian‘s semi-Pelagianism was not dependent upon the established Church or limited by currently-accepted doctrine, but neither did it actively oppose them. Cassian might suggest that those who attempted to understand God through scripture or reason were doomed to fail in their efforts, but he did not propose that they were to be dissuaded from their concepts or converted to his. For the most part, Cassian envisioned the attainment of Grace and the sharing of God‘s perfect love to be a complete fulfillment of the individual‘s needs and a state in

47 Ibid.

55 which he might rest forever. If semi-Pelagianism had stopped there, it is quite possible that it, and the eastern forms of monasticism in which it was centered, might have been tolerated within the developing Latin Church. Augustine may have regarded the view of Grace held by the semi-Pelagians as wrong, but he did not demand that they be prevented from retiring to a solitary life and pursuing their ―union‖ with God. Their asceticism might do them no good, but neither did it do harm. Some of these monastics might even achieve Grace, but it would be because of God‘s will and not because of their way of life. In the same way, the leaders of the western Church – the bishops, archbishops, and their administrative staffs – could have ignored the revolutionary import of semi-Pelagianism if the semi-Pelagians had rested content in their supposed union with God, since they would pose no threat to the authority of the secular clergy or to the doctrines by which that authority was justified. Although Cassian expressed his doctrine with vigor, that doctrine was fundamentally quietist. The men and women who entered the wilderness in search of God would not return to the secular world but would instead be swallowed up by that wilderness that was the place where God dwelled. In more prosaic terms, those who entered the isolation of the cenobitic life were expected to stay there permanently.48 Whatever the historical circumstances may have been, the fact that the Abbot Honoratus was willing to leave his wilderness to return to the secular world and to take at least some of his congregation with him is sufficient proof that he and at least a few other monks of Lérins were unwilling to accept what they considered the limited nature of Cassian‘s idea of the quality of Grace and God‘s perfect love. If one were to suggest reasons for the difference between Cassian on the one hand, and Honoratus and Eucherius on the other, one might note that Cassian had been traveling through the East during the darkest days in the West and had been speaking with

48 Cassian, Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 36.

56 Egyptian monks, while Constantius was, almost single-handedly, saving the western empire from chaos and collapse. When Cassian returned, in about 415, the worst had already passed. He returned with his thoughts fixed upon the emulation of those spiritual champions he had visited in the eastern deserts. Honoratus, Eucherius and their circle had wanted to join the desert Fathers, but, for one reason or another had remained in the West and were witnesses, even in their island retreat, of what may have seemed to them a miraculous reversal of Rome‘s fortunes, worked , doubtless with God‘s Grace, by a human individual. Cassian‘s old men of the desert might rest in their union with God and their perfection of love because none had ever been called forth to save the men and women of the secular world from disaster. The monks at Lérins had seen that happen and they had seen the champion call upon priests, soldiers, administrators, and even barbarians to join him in his work. With such an example fresh in their minds, Honoratus and Eucherius could not rest with a grace that was an end in itself and that removed the person who received it from a life of positive action. It may well have been that the conflict between Cassian‘s doctrine and Honoratus‘ extension of that doctrine lay at the heart of Hilary‘s unease. Whether that was the case or not, Eucherius‘ reply was not simply an explication of semi-Pelagianism, but an emphatic explanation and justification of why Cassian‘s teachings had been extended in such a manner. In this sense, Eucherius announced his theme when he stated that perfect love always tended to service. The rest of the work is simply a series of historical examples demonstrating that God‘s covenants with, and plans for, mankind are driven by individuals purified by a life of solitude and so filled with God‘s universal love that their fulfillment lies in carrying that love to the world of men and women for their profit, advantage, and – ultimately – their salvation. It was this interpretation of Cassian‘s teachings that led the monks of Lérins to spread their doctrine through writing and action. And it was this same idea that

57 made Lérins, for a time, the home of authors, bishops, and saints. But it was also this same idea that eventually brought the adherents of eastern monasticism and the semi-Pelagians under a cloud of official disapproval and frustrated their hopes of infusing the West with a new sense of spiritual vigor and public service, and, by so doing, gain for the West the gift of God‘s Grace. Driven by such a doctrine and dream, the monks of Lérins could not reach fulfillment in their island wilderness, but had to re-enter the secular world as reformers. By so doing, however, they made themselves and the doctrine that inspired them a danger to established authorities and officially approved doctrine. It took several years, but those authorities finally succeeded in driving back the monk‘s attempt to control and reform the Gallic Church and, finally, in convening a council to declare semi-Pelagianism itself as heretical. It took even longer to develop a form of monasticism that was based thoroughly upon western Roman principles and that could be kept more or less under control. In De laude eremi, Eucherius captured for later generations a decisive moment in the decline of the Roman world. The service of which he speaks was, in a sense, the same ideal of public service and of public works that had motivated the Roman nobility and the curiales in the days of Rome‘s glory. The spread of eastern mysticism and asceticism that had inspired Cassian and Honoratus was the result of the same Roman failure that, at an earlier date had made necessary the elevation of a Jewish reform movement to the official religion of the Roman world, both East and West. Most significantly, however, De laude eremi embodies a vigor and confidence that animated Romans in the days of Rome‘s glory and the disappearance of which led to a fatalism that many later observers considered an essential characteristic of early western Christianity. It is important to realize that, in an era often regarded as the inescapable decay of the Roman Empire in the West, there existed a reservoir of confidence and individuality such as that exemplified by Eucherius and his circle. The potential for positive action that they represented was lost to the Roman West for

58 specific historic reasons, as we have seen, but it is impossible to know whether this dynamic spirit would have prevailed against the other processes of change that were already well under way. What is clear, however, from De laude eremi, is that there was a time at which a world-view centered upon human abilities and individual promise might have prevailed over the impersonal and inexorable processes of the Augustinian view of the universe. When Augustine‘s view came to prevail, a gulf was created between the Roman world of the time and that which had preceded it. In a broad sense, a new era began, one in which De laude eremi was relegated to the status of a literary and historical curiosity.

59 Appendix A: English Translation of De Laude Eremi

1. Some time ago, after you left your home and family and, with great desire had traveled to the furthest reaches of the great sea, because of its greater power, you nevertheless remembered the wilderness. When you had first entered into that wil- derness, you were a mere recruit, but you had a leader guiding your path. He then became the commander of a company of spiritual soldiers. Although you had left your parents, you were still following a kinsman when you followed him. But when you thought to follow him when he reached the high rank of archbishop, love carried you back to the friendly solitude of the wilderness. Consequently, you are now on a nobler and greater path. When you first sought out the desert, you appeared as a member of his company. Now, when you have sought out the desert once again, you have given up that brother. And what sort of person and how great is he? Always so attentive in his loving care for you! How devoted he is to you, with such singular affection! So that you could prefer nothing to his love, except perhaps the love of the wilderness alone. When, after careful weighing of these things, you preferred this love, you demonstrated not that you love him too little, but this wilderness somewhat more. You demonstrated how great in you was that love of solitude to which even the greatest might yield. What, then, is this love of the wilderness that is within you called, unless it be the love of God? You have followed the appointed order of the law of love. First love thy God, then thy neighbor. 2. Whom, nevertheless, only in anticipation of your success, as I conceive in my heart, and not, I think, opposing your departure or design, but in a strange manner among persons devoted to one another, he (whom I judge wishes no less than you to depart) dismissed you. For he in turn also greatly esteems you. Nevertheless, in

60 love of you he seeks your advantage; inasmuch as his love is profoundest and highest toward you, the pinnacle of that love always tends to service. 3. You have already distributed all your fortune in order to be rich only in Christ. You possess the virtue of an old man with youth of years. One finds in you both spirit and eloquence; still I should have admired and prized nothing in you more in the first place than the seat of solitude you desired; whence because you often request me to answer you copiously with most lengthy and articulate letters, it is necessary that, when you would be wise, you endure my foolishness for a little bit, while I cultivate the manifold grace of the Lord toward this very same wilderness you prize. Therefore I should properly call the wilderness the boundless temple of our God; indeed, whoever has resolved to dwell in silence believes he is to rejoice in private. Frequently, seeing them there, He preserved His saints, and by arranging encounters in the place, He is not contemptuous of humanity; in fact, being glorified, Moses saw the glorious face of God in the desert;49 trembling in the desert, Elijah, lest he should see God, hid his face;50 and however often He Himself might return to all his property, and although never being absent anywhere, nevertheless, as one may believe, He is worthy, secretly restricting his appearances to the wilderness and the sky. 4. A certain man, being asked by another why he believed God to be in that place, responded by saying that wherever he should lead him, he should diligently follow. Then following Him to the same place, having become widely separated by the open spaces of the wilderness, and withdrawn to the enormous solitude: "God" he said "is there!" And it is not unwarranted there to be more quickly believed where more easily He is discovered.

49 Exod. III

50 III Reg. XIX, 13 = I Kings 19:13

61 5. For also, in the beginning, when God made all things wisely and particularly, and he determined what their appropriate uses would be, He at least did not abandon this part of the earth as useless and dishonored. For the whole creation is not greater in its present magnificence than the wilderness, that, as I judge, creating in foreknowledge, He prepared for the saints who were to come. I believe that the one being bountiful in fruitfulness, He wished this other one to have a proportionately more favorable character to yield fertility of saints, so that in this way the territories of the desert should prosper and, whenever He brought water down from the "higher of its mountains," they should overflow also, being enclosed by an abundance of fruit. And He made good the lack of these places when He enriched the sterile habitation as an inhabitant. 6. That possessor of paradise and transgressor of the command, when he might have had the place of luxury, was unable to keep the commandment given him by God. Indeed, by as much as that place was more pleasant, by so much that man was more inclined to ruin. Whence He placed him not only under His laws, but death provided that torment all the way down to us. In the same way He cultivated the wilderness with the life He desired. Hence in pleasantness the inhabitant of paradise prepared death. But lately, we may come to God in the wilderness. 7. When Moses had led his flock to the innermost part of the desert, at a distance he saw God in the guise of a glowing fire that did not burn. Nor did he only see; truly he even heard Him speak.51 After He had warned him to take off his shoes, the Lord clearly proclaimed the wilderness to be sacred, when He said "the place on which you stand is sacred ground."52 By this sign He clearly revealed the hidden glory of the place. Indeed, the sanctity of the place is confirmed by God by the

51 Exod. III, 1-3

52 Exod. III, 5

62 inviolability of His testimony, in which, as I believe, He also suggests equally and implicitly that whoever would enter the wilderness of pristine concerns, must proceed after dissolving his previous obligations of life‘s cares, and, so as not to pollute the place, advance, unimpeded by those former bonds. There Moses was first employed as an intimate intermediary of divine conversation; he heard the words and in turn responded. He both inquired and in similar manner was taught what things are to be said and what things are to be done, in mutual conversation, and he conversed with the Lord of Heaven in common speech. There he took up again his staff, mighty in the making of miracles. Entering the wilderness as a shepherd of sheep, he returned from the wilderness as a shepherd of peoples. 8. How would the people of God be liberated from Egypt and be freed from earthly labors if they had not sought the untrodden way and fled to solitude, 53 approaching in the wilderness that God by whom they had been rescued from servitude? Therefore they made their way to a desert of vast and terrible extent, Moses leading. "How great are the multitude of your gifts Lord!"54 Entering the wilderness, Moses saw God; he returned that he might see Him again. Plainly being the leader of the journey, the Lord Himself led his people toward the desert, whether traveling by night or by day, by drawing a column now of reddening flame, then of shining cloud. Thus He gave the deserving a sign out of heaven which He illuminated so that its great length gleamed alternately milky white, or with flames. Guided from afar by this light, Israel followed the reddening light made by the falling fire, because while heading into the solitude of the wilderness, it was appropriate for the Lord, when He would reveal the way, to go before them with a light.

53 Exod. XIV

54 Psa. 31:19 (English).

63 9. But was it not repeatedly made evident by these people, encamped in the desert, being shut in near the impassable sea, when choosing the dusty pathway? Carrying their surging masses away from the red shore between the parted waters,55 the route led between the steep whirlpools. And in this way, viewing in awe the threat of the suspended mountainous mass of the walls of water from the deep valley between, the guardian of the clan crossed the waters of the strait. 10. Neither did the power of the divine works stop with this great thing; for because they continued their journey, the sea, after having been made bare by the operation of the backward rushing waters, returning to its accustomed places, destroyed the road with their enemies. I believe, lest Israel would have returned from the wilderness, He closed the road. He opened a highway between the waters and then He engulfed it with swirling waters. After having laid bare the way to the desert for those fleeing, He closed it.56 11. Therefore that people was granted this courage by grace when they were going toward solitude; nevertheless, He promised more great things when they should inhabit it. For indeed, the Lord renewed them by an unexpected miracle when from a smitten rock, He supplied overflowing waters for the thirsty and fearful by drawing forth from the arid rocks hidden brooks from a living spring. With an invisible hand He imposed an unexpected nature on the hidden veins.57 And not only there did He flood the bowels of dry rock, for truly He even prevented the drawing of bitter waters by superimposing sweetness over bitterness. Those waters He called forth, these He transformed; yet bringing forth waters from the rocks was not a greater miracle than bringing forth waters from other waters. The people were

55 Exod. XIV, 22

56 Exod. XIV, 27

57 Exod. XVII, 6

64 stupefied there by the whole heavenly aid, perceiving powerfully in those waters not less whom they were, than in these whom they had not yet become. 12. There also, when the Lord showered down bread from the clouds like a dry rain, the people gathered the food that lay whitened on the ground. Drifting like snow, Manna fell on the tents and surroundings of the encampments,58 where "man ate the bread of angels." And because "sufficient for the day is its own evil"59 sometimes the divine loving-kindness brought sustenance daily, and at other times for collection in advance, lest Israel might consider the morrow. And so, at various times He ministers heavenly sustenance to those established in the wilderness because they cannot find earthly. 13. Being now an inhabitant of the wilderness, did not this same Hebrew people receive the Law and heavenly edicts, since being brought nearer it was worthy of seeing the words inscribed on the tables by the Divine hand?60 Led from the encampment toward the meeting with the Lord, they took up a position near the base of the mountain. Stricken with fear, they watched in terror as the visible majesty settled upon that peak of Sinai. Astonished, they beheld from afar the smoking mountain, with fire flowing between, which was then completely covered by the densest cloud, so that it was completely covered. Thereupon they grew very frightened, their trembling being made violent by the distinct flashes of lightening and the numerous peals of thunder mixed with the resounding clamor of trumpets. So the sons of Israel, now being in solitude, were worthy of seeing the throne of God and hearing His voice.

58 Exod. XVI, 14

59 Matt. VI, XXXIV. Vulgate has sua, with M, Q(theta), and c has the variant sibi ipsi

60 Exod. XX

65 14. Then this multitude of people was nourished and sustained by such and similar miracles when they were foreign residents of the desert, and when He nurtured them with uncommon food, unexpected drink and imperishable clothing, when even those things which clothe the outer body endured in an imperishable state. Whatever of their necessity the nature of the places did not provide, the visible splendor of God bestowed. Scarcely does one saint attain to these heavenly gifts of grace which, concerning this people it is said, ―the Lord did not deal in such a manner with all nations.61 He bestowed special things, He granted things unheard of, when by divine benefactions He nourished the people in the wilderness. 15. And these acts, if you please, might be handed down as a figure of us, and that appearance should show forth in the hidden mysteries of the thing, and everything in Moses' baptism,62 in the cloud and in the sea, should be referred to as spiritual food to eat, spiritual drink to imbibe;63 yet all these things, in this way, maintain the faith as they would preserve the truth. Yet the praise of the wilderness in this way is indeed not less, especially if the things which were being conveyed there in the height should have reference to the sacraments. Nothing of grace was diminished, (especially if that condition of body and clothes was not then coming to corruption) when they brought down the token of the coming life. For great is the Grace of the place. If the peace of that most blessed age had such as him, the wilderness should soon have such a one in your age. 16. What? Who among the Children of Israel entered that desirable land except by passing through the habitation of the wilderness? And how would the

61 Ps. CXLVII, 20

62 I Cor. X, 1-4

63 I Cor. X, 2

66 same people afterward have possessed that land flowing with milk and honey64 before they had occupied this arid and barren land? Always, the entire journey to the true fatherland is itself thrown open after a stay in the wilderness. He who wishes "to see the goodness of the lord in the land of the living"65 must occupy the uninhabitable land; he who would strive to be a citizen of that land must be a resident of this.

64 Iosue V, 6

65 Ps XXVI,13

67 17. But foregoing further consideration of Israel, David himself, who did not lay an ambush for the hostile king,66 yet while seeking the desert, escaped, while he remained in the Idumaean dryness, was thirsting for the whole heart of the Lord, as one thirsting in a desert both trackless and waterless. Then at last God appeared to the saint, and successively he saw alike both the moral excellence and the holy glory of God. 18. Truly, Elijah, a most unusual husbandman, closed the sky against showers,67 reserved the king’s soldiers for the fires,68 received nourishment from a bird,69 revoked the fixed laws of death,70 crossed the broken stream of the divided Jordan,71 and ascended into heaven, being carried away in a flaming chariot.72

66 I Reg. XXIII

67 III Reg. XVII, 1

68 IV Reg. I, 10

69 Cf. III Reg. XVII, 4-6

70 III Reg. XVII, 21-22

71 III Reg. XVII, 15

72 IV Reg. II, 11

68 19. Thereafter, what of Elisha, the zealous imitator of his life and moral excellence? Did he not make that much clear by similar work of divine miracles, now by the torrents of water being split,73 now by iron floating,74 now by the revival 75 of a dead boy, now by the increase of olive oil the poor family made?76 And finally, as like the other as possible, did this not also confirm in him the moral excellence of the master,77 that the course which that witness having performed, this one having performed, now arouses us to performing?78 20. The sons of the prophets also, abandoning the cities, long for the flowing Jordan, with the twin source, and set up tents in hidden places, being united by the distant torrent. The sacred throng was keeping watch from the solitude of the river banks, as a scattering of refugees for tents and fitting habitations: The singular disposition was that contemplating the paternal spirit.79 21. What? Did not that one, (than whom, of those born of women, a greater has not arisen)80 ―crying in the desert‖ not live in the desert? In the desert baptism was handed down by him; in the desert repentance was proclaimed; in the desert the first mention of the heavenly reign was occasioned; there he first carried these things to public hearing, where everyone seeking them quickly acquired these things. Not

73 IV Reg. II, 13-14

74 IV Reg. VI, 5-6

75 IV Reg. IV, 34-35

76 IV Reg. IV, 2-4

77 IV Reg. II, 9-14

78 IV Reg. II, 4, 6

79 IV Reg. VI, 1-4

80 Matt. XI, 11

69 being undeserving, this upright denizen of the desert was sent as a messenger before the face of the Lord, and disclosed the way into the heavenly kingdom; being worthy both as the precursor and as the witness of Christ, he heard the Father speaking from heaven, attained to baptizing the Son, and saw the Holy Spirit descending. 22. And our Lord and Savior, after being baptized, as the scripture says,81 was quickly led into the desert by the Spirit. Who, then, is this Spirit? Without a doubt He indwells the sanctified. Whom the Holy Spirit draws forth into the desert He doubtless commends and secretly inspires. And with the provision of the Holy Spirit the wilderness becomes a worthy suggestion. Therefore, administering the mysterious rite of (baptism in) living water is nothing in itself before the One leading cleanses, in as much as He draws toward solitude. And notwithstanding He had always sanctified the sacred waters, the mere cleansing [of water baptism] had not rinsed away the sin of mankind. For He neither caused nor altered transgression. Yet the architect of the example was inflamed with the passion of the wilderness and he desired what to Him was in everything salutary, but to us is unworthy. If what is dedicated to God is free from blemish, how much more greatly is what is necessary to man laden with guilt? If our prayers are not lacking, how much more greatly are our longings sinful? 23. Yet there, in the service of the Lord, by being removed from the disturbances of the surrounding din, they succeed to the secret ministries of the divine powers. And being established in the wilderness, being brought back, so to speak, into heaven, he is, by those occurrences, received by the sustaining angels.82 There, He confuted that enemy of ancient times tempting to the cunning ambush of signs; the one who defeated the old Adam the new Adam rejected.. Oh great praise of the

81 Matt. IV, 1

82 Matt IV. 11

70 desert, because the Devil, who had been victorious in paradise, was vanquished in the wilderness. 24. The desert was also that place in which our savior, with five loaves and two ordinary sized fish, fed, satisfied, and filled five thousand men.83 It is always in the desert that Jesus feeds His people with bread; in time past the manna of divine favor had displayed the faith, now the fragments proclaimed it, and by the same miracle of sustenance; as then it descended to the hungry, so now it increased to the filled; by His gift, the feasts of the founder were greater than the food which had been brought by the guests. To the desert, I say, now at last to the desert we impute the causes of such great signs. Can moral excellence exhibit power if the region should possess an abundance?

83 Matt. XIV

71 25. And then the Lord Jesus withdrew to the greater remoteness of a high mountain, with only the three chosen ones being called to Him, and His countenance shown with an unusual brightness; when He might have preferred to be accepted publicly by mankind, He instead entrusted the disclosure of His majesty to manifesta- tions in solitude. There, then, that greatest of the apostles said "it is good for us to be here,"84 26. Also, this same Lord Jesus, as it is written, went into a desert place and there He prayed. Therefore that place now is called the place of prayer, which God the author has both shown and taught to be suitable for prevailing upon God, whence prayer might more easily penetrate the veil of its own humility, being aided in that place because being honored for separation. And He Himself, by praying in that place when He petitioned God, demonstrated where He happened to wish us to pray. 27. Well now, what about John, and the memorable Macarius,85 and so many others, whose conversation, while in the desert, was made in heaven? They approached as closely to the Lord as to that place; as closely as the divine law permitted a man to approach God; and were urged on to the labors of divine matters so far as it was allowed for things surrounded by the flesh to be permitted. In solitary places they engrafted the heavenly frame of mind fixed on supernatural things; hence they engrafted the accompanying grace either for revelations concealed or for signs proclaimed, and while approving of the solitude at every point they were being drawn forward all the way into this state of affairs, in order that, while perhaps touching the earth with the body, truly they should already

84 Matt XVII:4, Mark IX: 5

85 St. Macarius (ca. 300 — ca. 390). Known also as Macarius the Citizen and Macarius the Elder, he was born in upper Egypt and at about the age of thirty, he joined a colony of monks in the desert of Scete, which was then the center of Egyptian monasticism. Known for his piety and miracles, he was ordained a priest in about 340.

72 possess heaven with the spirit. 28. Not without warrant, therefore, I proclaim the dwelling place of this wasteland a certain seat of faith, an ark of virtue, a sanctuary of charity, a treasury of piety, a reservoir of justice. For just as in a mansion the precious things are deposited in a separate place, being concealed in an enclosure, so also that splendor of saints is concealed by the wilderness, which nature preserves with its own barriers. And it is consigned to a certain conclave of the desert, lest by the usage of human contact it should be cheapened. And this palatial ornament of the more precious wealth in that worldly house is not only fittingly hidden from the world by the Lord; just as truly, when being used, it is brought forth from concealment. 29. The solicitude of the divine Providence regarding the wilderness had been highest and greatest in times past, but at present it certainly is not small. For even now the unexpected manner of life divinely comes with an abundance upon the inhabitants of the wilderness. How else than by a descent from heaven, does it flow? They also have such a heavenly plenty in this manna of theirs, and not any less to these does the Lord spread nourishment from concealment by the work of His strong arm. And when, at length, responding to the divine office, by piercing through the stones, the waters flow from the rock, how else than just as being struck a blow with the rod of Moses are they brought forth from stone? Similar are the conditions of the garments in the wastes of the wilderness; nor does He now abandon. Until in such circumstances one freely follows the divine provisions, He certainly waits to be followed. The Lord sustained His own in the desert for a certain time, but now also sustains; and those indeed for only forty years, but these for however many years they will be there. 30. The saint, being inflamed with the divine fire, rightly chooses this home, having abandoned his own home. He rightly prefers neighbors, sons, and parents, and by commerce purchases everything of his own. By deserting the fruitful

73 fatherland, he rightly obtains the fame of a temporary fatherland, from which neither fear, nor desire, nor joy, nor sorrow may summon him. Plainly, this alone rightly should be the prize of the whole disposition. 31. Indeed, who is able accurately to relate the benefits of the wilderness and the full weight of the virtues of those living in it? Being placed in this world, in a certain manner they retire from the world, "in solitude" as the Apostle says "wan- dering in mountains, and in caves and in the caverns of the earth."86 Not unjustly the Apostle denies that the world is worthy of such as these, who are of another disposition than that tumult of common humanity, being the silent ones of reserve and rest, and not more from being away from the inclination to sin than from the opportunity. 32. The illustrious men among the elders of that generation, being fatigued (weary) by the exertions of their occupations, withdrew into their philosophy, as if into their home. By so much greater excellence do they turn aside to this study of the most manifest wisdom, and more nobly do they withdraw to the freedom of isolation and to the solitude of the deserts, so that, being to such a degree void of philosophy, they are kept busy in the agorae of that wilderness and in their own gymnasia as it were. Where, I ask, might the Passover have been observed more freely than in the habitation of the desert? But among the virtues is also continence: Continence, I emphasize, which is, as it were, the wilderness of the heart. For even Moses continued forty days in the wilderness,87 and after him that prophet Elijah gave the same number of days to a fast,88 and each of them, strained beyond the strength of human accomplishment; then the Lord also did the same thing, but he went out into

86 Heb. XI, 38

87 Exod. XXIV, 18

88 III Reg. XIX, 8

74 the desert for a time of abstinence.89 Nor beyond this period did we observe fasting for the exact same interval anywhere, yet as anyone might concede, I also allotted authority to the Lord for that period. 33. Where, I ask, will one happen to find, that the Lord might be any more greatly or sweetly unoccupied? Where will one find the road leading to perfection unfolding more quickly? Where will one find a larger field for moral excellence being made accessible? Where (if it were possible to look around) is the discipline of the mind easier? Where more free the heart than where it might contend to cling to God, pressing forth, to those remote places, as it were, into which it was brought not only to discover, but truly to attend upon God?

89 Matt. IV, 2

75 34. And exceedingly frequently in the wilderness, the fine sand appears; nevertheless nowhere are the foundations of that evangelical house more firmly established 90 . Granted that someone may wish to stand firm on those sands, however, by no means did He build The House on the sands. That edifice, as predicted, is erected nowhere more greatly than there upon the rock which, made firm by an immovable stability, will endure unshaken by siege engine, as at the time of the rushing tempests, neither blown away by the winds nor undermined by the smashing torrents. Accordingly, the inhabitants of the desert build such edifices for them- selves, but in their hearts! Being heedless of height, in humility they seek the exalted. The exalted continually follow after with humility, as the indolent, unmindful of the earth, on account of heavenly hope and devotion, who cast off wealth as long as they prefer to be poor; they hasten not to be poor as long as they yearn to be wealthy; by day and by night, by labor and by vigilance they contend, as they lay hold of the principle of that life of which there is no end. Thus the wilderness, like the maternal breast, most suitably accommodates those covetous of eternity, and well accommodates those prodigal of brevity, those careless of the present time, those certain of the future; and through these things they will comprehend that, in whatever things they persevered to the ends of the ages, by these things they were touching the ages without end. 35. There burn the wholesome laws written on the inner man and the more subtle ordinances of the eternal ages. There men of reproach and precepts of villainy do not reflect His nature, nor do the avenging ordinances of capital offenses extend there. The laws regard the heart, if not most pure of unworthy things, then the culprit; and besides, the inner motion of the mind itself is restrained for all devotion within the limits of justice. And by the same one Himself, indeed, by the Judge of the light burden, the principles of reflection are interwoven. Whereas with others it

90 Matt. VII, 24

76 be bad to have done evil, truly, with Him, it is evil not to have done good. 36. But by what means might I be able to venerate the principles of the wilderness by recalling internal merits? Truly, I cannot now pass over in silence that which, among the inhabitants of that place, is that power of moral excellence, the whole thing being nearly equally revealed as concealed. For when, at any rate, in the remote places they separate themselves from the world, and refusing human companionship they truly and passionately wish to be concealed, nevertheless, they are not able to conceal their merit; as much as the life of these people moves itself inwardly, so much does the glory of God hurry itself abroad. Thus, as I judge, within whatever constraints the inhabitant of His wilderness might remain unknown for a generation, yet he might not remain unknown as an example. This is the lamp that, being placed on the candelabrum of the wilderness, shines throughout the entire world. This most brilliant light diffuses itself throughout the dark parts of the world. This is the city that, being constructed on the mountain, cannot be hidden in the desert, that in its likeness gave the heavenly Jerusalem to the lands. If anyone is likewise in darkness, let him draw near to this light, so he might see. If anyone is subject to danger, let him come to this city, that he may be secure. 37. Oh how pleasant to the ones still thirsting after God are the unfrequented places of those pasture lands of solitude! How lovely to the ones seeking Christ are those secret places, who by nature being watchful, are scattered far and wide! All things are quiet: then by certain stimuli produced by the silence, one's joyful mind is awakened unto God, and quickened by the unutterable loss of self possession, no sound making a disturbance within that place (the voice being nothing if not strong with God) and that only within the spirit, while the crashing silence of the secret outpost interrupts and changes that condition of that gentle rest, the din by a sweeter quiet, and the sacred tumult by the gentlest conversation. Then the heights

77 themselves, boiling over with harmony91 proceed with pleasant resounding hymns, and they are received in heaven no less,92 I may say, with shouts than with prayers. 38. The encompassing adversary,93 then, snarls in vain, like a wolf at the sheepfold enclosing the sheep, and similarly against the holy offices, from the periphery of the wilderness. He drives away his enemies and, not in vain are they vigilant who guard the city; the private property of Christ the Champion is protected, in order that God‘s adopted people might be shut off from their enemies only so far as they might be exposed to the solitary spaces. The chorus of rejoicing angels soberly visits the splendid spaces of the desert, and passing to and fro by means of Jacob's ladder, the multitude of the secret visitation illuminate the wilderness.94 There also the bridegroom reclines at midday, and the inhabitants of the desert marvel at Him of the grievous wound, saying: "We found whom our soul sought; we will hold Him fast and not let Him wander away."95

91 Ps. 113, 4

92 Luc. XV, 7

93 Cf. Job I, 6

94 Gen. XXVIII, 12

95 Cant. III, 4. It appears that the Text of Patrologia Latina has been emended to correspond to the Vulgate vocabulary. See textual notes at Latin text.

78 39. And it is not unfruitful, as it is often believed, nor is such a land as the wilderness sterile nor again are the dry rocks of the desert barren. There, even the manifold native shoot returns a hundredfold of the fruit. There the seeds scattered near the road do not easily find depth of soil, which seeds the birds take. And they do not spread easily in rocky land, which not having depth of earth they become hot and dry when first they come up. And they do not easily escape among thorn hedges, which now being grown are overwhelmed by the thorns. There the husbandman reaps a harvest with an increase.96 Among these stones that crop is brought forth through which even the bones grow fat. Likewise, there, the living bread which descends from the sky97 is found; among those rocks burst forth the fountains of irrigation and the living waters, which are not only satisfying but are truly able to suffice even for salvation. There is an extraordinarily pleasant agreement between this meadowland and pleasure of the inner man, on the one hand, and this uncultivated desert, on the other; that which is wilderness for the body, is the paradise for the soul. 40. Now the fruitful region of the land itself has little of which to boast by comparison to the wilderness. Is a land enriched to some degree by its fruits? In this land that grain is most highly begotten which by its fat satisfies the hungry. Is another being filled by rejoicing vineyards? In this land that wine is most joyously brought forth which well makes glad the heart of man.98 Is another preeminent for pastures? In this land graze those sheep concerning which it is proclaimed feed my sheep.99 Is another pictured with flourishing flowers? In this land truly shines that

96 Cf. Matt. XIII, 4-8; Marc IV, 4-8; Luc. VIII, 5-8.

97 Cf. Ioh. VI, 33 and 59.

98 PsG CIII, 15

99 Ioan. XXI, 17

79 flower of the field and lily of the valley. 100 Lastly, is another exulting for the beautiful metals, is another yellow for all its gold? In this land the variegated stonework sparkles with the shimmering light of lightning. Thus, in every way, this land is superior to all others, and by far excels all lands for the good of all others. 41. Therefore, oh venerable land, either habitable by the saints already placed within you, or desirable to those not far removed from you, do you exist, because by Him you are made fertile for the good of the whole world, wherein the world is held together. You seek that husbandman who cultivates His own land, not yours; being sterile of the faults of your inhabitants, you are fertile with virtues. Whosoever of the saints sought your friendship found God; whoever nurtured you found Christ in you. Whoever himself inhabits you delights in the indwelling Lord. And the same is both your possessor and a divine possession. He who does not flee your habitation, himself becomes a temple of God.

100 Cant. II, 1

80 42. Indeed, I owe reverence to all the places of the wilderness which are illuminated by the withdrawal of the pious; nevertheless with special honor I embrace my Lirinum, which from the extensive shipwrecks of the tempestuous world, by the arms of the most pious rescues those coming from that world, and the ones of this generation burning with agitation it brings gently under its shadows, in order that, panting, they there may regain the spirit beneath that inner shadow of the Lord. By flowing waters, flourishing grasses, shining flowers, by pleasant sights and by aromas, by those possessing paradise it displays what they shall possess. Which was founded under the authority of Honoratus, author of heavenly instructions; which so quickly received the Father by so many rules, its countenance shines with the force of the apostolic spirit; which both nourishes the most excellent monks and produces the surrounding priests. This place now keeps the successor of that one, Maximus101 by name, because after the brilliant one himself, he deserves to be received; this place cherished Lupus,102 reverencing the name, who brought back to us that wolf of the tribe of Benjamin; this place cherished the brother of that Vincentium,103 the clear jewel of inner brilliance; that place now possesses the venerable grave of Caprasium, an equal to the saints of old. This place now cherishes those saintly old men who, from their separate cells, introduced the Egyptian Fathers to our Gauls. 43. Whom did I see there but my good Jesus, the assembly of the saints, and

101 St. Maximus, Bishop of Turin (ca. 380 -- ca. 470). Despite the fact that many of his writings survive, little is known of Maximus beyond the facts that he witnessed the martyrdoms of three missionaries, and attended synods in Milan (451) and Rome (465).

102 St. Lupus, Bishop of Troyes (ca. 383 -- 479). Having agreed with his wife, after seven years of marriage, to separate and devote themselves to religious matters, he made his way to Lérins, where, in 426 he embraced the monastic life. about a year later, however, he accepted the bishopric of Troyes, which position he held for about fifty years.

103 St. Vincent of Lérins (died before 450). Beyond the fact that he was a monk at the abbey of Lérins, little is known about his life. His work the Commonitorium, contains the famous Vincentian Canon of Orthodoxy: "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est." (What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all).

81 the covenanters? They burned a great value in those boxes of delightful unguent, which breathed the aroma of life everywhere. I inferred the inner man by the condition of the outer man they presented; by the value of being bound together, by the downcast humility, by the most tender piety, by the greatest steadfastness in hope, by the modest walk, by the quick obedience, by the silent camaraderie, by the serene countenance. Truly they themselves, by the contemplation of the angelic, continuously manifest the walk of the quiet life. They covet nothing, they desire nothing, except that which alone desiring, they covet. While they seek a blessed life, they move with the blessed, and even while they so far encompass this, still they pursue. And do they thus desire to be separated from transgressions? Now they are separated. Do they wish to have a pure life? Now they have it. Do they strive to mark all time in the praises of God? They so mark. Do they desire to rejoice in the company of the saints? They rejoice. Do they seek to be delighted with Christ? They delight in the spirit. Do they eagerly long to obtain the life of the wilderness? They obtain by the heart. Thus, through the most abundant grace of Christ, many of these things which are longed for in the future, are awarded in the present. They take further the thing itself, yet they follow the hope. They do not have an inconsiderable thing, and even the value of the labor is in the labor itself. Because, I may say, the reward will be what is now in the exertion. 44. By these things, my dearest Hilary, the community was most deeply imparted and instilled in you, and also most deeply in those you gathered together, who are now cheered with eager exultation at your return. With these I implore you, do not remove my sins from your memory or from your intercession; with these, I say, in whom I do not know whether you yourself had brought more joy, or whether you had found more. You now are the true Israel, who with his heart glimpsed God; of a generation once freed from the darkness of Egypt; by the enemy transgression being plunged beneath the health giving waters; set ablaze with the faith following the fire

82 in the desert. The once bitter, through the wood of the cross you now experience as sweet. You draw forth from Christ the waters springing into eternal life. You feed the inner man with celestial bread. In the gospel you receive in thunder the divine voice;104 Whereby when you will have persevered with Israel in the wilderness, you will enter the promised land with Jesus. Farewell in Christ Jesus our Lord.

104 Matt. XIX, 28

83 Appendix B: Writings of Eucherius and Textual Tradition

All the surviving works attributed to Eucherius can be found in Patrologia Latina. They include De Laude Eremi, found in Volume 50, pp. 701-711; De Contemptu Mundi is in Volume 50, pp. 711-726; Formulae Spiritualis Intelligentiae can be found in volume 42, pp. 1199-1208; Instructiones ad Salonium is in volume 50, pp. 773-822; Passio Acaunensium Martyrum, S. Mauricii et Sociorum Eius is in volume 50, pp. 827-832; and Epistula ad Salvium Episcopum is in volume 50, pp. 827-828. Both De Contemptu Mundi and De Laude Eremi have been translated into French by L. Cristiani. It is interesting to note that Gennadius of Marseilles was of the opinion that Eucherius‘ outstanding and most popular work was Passio Acaunensium Martyrum, S. Mauricii et Sociorum Eius. Modern historians generally agree that this work was not, in fact, written by Eucherius of Lyons. It would appear, then, that Eucherius was held in high regard as an author for some time after his death, but that this reputation was based not so much upon his actual works as upon one mistakenly attributed to him. There are ten major texts of De Laude Eremi listed by Salvatore Pricoco. They are as follows: Codex Reginensis Latinus 708 (formerly Bourdelotii). Parchment with 116 folia, two columns, 34-36 lines per page. Twelfth century. Located at the Vatican Library. Codex Genevievensis 76. Parchment with 113 folia, (folia 93r – 97v) two columns, 33 lines per page. Twelfth century. Located at the Monastery of Sainte Genevieve in Paris. Codex Gratianopolitanus 306. Parchment, 166 folia (89r – 95r), two columns, 31 lines per page. Twelfth century. Grenoble.

84 Codex Parisiensis 2182. Parchment, 170 folia, two columns, 32 lines per page. Thirteenth century. National Library, Paris. Codex Bibliothecae Nationalis Parisiensis 2883. Parchment, 118 folia (115r – 118v), one column, 36 lines per page. Late twelfth or early thirteenth century. National Library, Paris. Codex Avenioniensis 348 (197). Paper, 165 folia (23v – 38v), one column, 22 to 23 lines per page. Sixteenth century. Codex Bibliothecae Arsenalensis 397 (590 T.L.). Paper, 167 folia (31v – 37v), one column, 35 – 36 lines per page. Sixteenth century. Biblioteque de L‘Arsenal. Codex Chigianus C V 146 (367 and 756). Paper, 439 folia. Late fifteenth or early sixteenth century. Vatican Library. Codex Parisiensis 2990 (Colbertinus 6556 Regius 4594). Paper, 93 folia (43v – 70v), One column, 14 – 16 lines per page. Thirteenth century. Biblioteque Nationale, Paris. Codex Membranaceus Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis 16065 (s. Nic. 65). 156 folia (148v – 149r), two columns, 45 – 46 lines per page. Late thirteenth or early fourteenth century. Monaco. Codex Zwettlensis 224. Paper, 194 folia, two columns, 44 – 45 lines per page. Fifteenth century. Bibliotheca Monasterii Cisterciensis. The first edition of De Laude Eremi was edited by a monk of Lérins in 1578 from a codex from the library at Lérins. The codex is now lost. Faucher also edited the text at Lérins, and the codex he used is also now lost. The text used for this paper is that of Salvatore Pricoco. He based his critical text on Codex Gratianopolitanus, comparing it with the others. None of the extant manuscripts is earlier than the twelfth century. It is interesting to note that of the ten extant manuscripts, only one (Codex

85 Bibliothecae Nationalis Parisiensis) places De Laude Eremi together with other works dealing with Grace, free will and original sin. Most of the other codices are either collections based on the writers from the region or Arles, monastic exhortations, or various works for which the purpose of the collection cannot easily be discerned.

86 Appendix C: The Latin Text of De Laude Eremi

1. Magno tu quidem animo egressus dudum de domo tua et de cognatione tua usque in mare magnum recedentia105 penetraveras, maiore tamen virtute eremus a te repetita est.106 Siquidem, cum hanc primum hospes ingressus es, habuisti ducem et velut itineris tui praevium, quem deinde militiae caelestis magistrum, eumque tunc secutus et parentes relinquens parentem tamen sequebaris; nunc vero, cum eundem ascitum ad pontificale fastigium prosequendum putaveris, ad familiare secretum eremi te amor rettulit. Ergo nunc es nobilior et maior exemplo: prius enim, cum desertum peteres, comitatus etiam 107 fratrem videbaris; nunc, cum desertum repeteres, etiam fratrem108 reliquisti. At qualem illum quantumque! Quanto tibi semper dilectionis cultu observatum! Quam singulari tibi affectione devinctum! Ut cuius caritati praeferre nihil possis, nisi forte solam eremi caritatem! Quam cum illi iusto praeponis examine, approbasti diligere te non illum parum sed hanc amplius aliquid. Ostendisti etiam ille in te secreti amor quam magnus esset, cui etiam maximus cederet. Qui quidem eremi amor, quid in te nisi Dei amor appellandus est! Servasti ergo caritatis ordinem lege praescriptum primo Deum tuum, exin proximum diligendo.109

105 Patrologia Latina inserts eremi secreta.

106 Patrologia Latina inserts quam petita.

107 Patrologia Latina omits etiam.

108 Patrologia Latina has patrem.

109 Symbolically, ―the furthest point in the great sea‖ may refer to the organized, bureaucratic hierarchy which characterizes human civilization. This is not inconsistent with the Biblical usage of the figure. "The wilderness," stands in contrast to the high organization of the Roman Church and Empire. It symbolizes the individual stripped of his recourse to human contrivance and social advantage. It is a picture of man's place of meeting with God.

87 2. Quem tamen ego sola profectus tui contemplatione, ut animo conicio, nec adversatum itineri consilioque tuo existimo, sed inusitato inter devinctas sibi personas modo dimittere te ille, ut puto, non minus voluit quam tu discedere. Diligit enim et ille te multum vicissim; in amore tamen tuo commodum tuum consulit,110 cumque affluentissima eius et summa in te sit caritas, fastigium111 tamen illius tendit usque ad utilitatem. 3. Et tu licet omnem iamdudum censum in Christi pauperes Christo dives effuderis, tum et praeferas licet annis iuvenem, moribus senem, sis etiam ingenio clarus, clarus eloquio, nihil in te tamen primore loco magis suspexerim dilexerimque quam quod solitudinis sedem sic concupisti; unde quia me respondere copiosius spatiosissimis ac facundissimis litteris tuis saepe postulas, sufferas paulisper necesse est, cum sis112 sapiens, insipientiam meam, dum recolo multimodam Domini gratiam erga hanc ipsam eremum dilectam tuam. Eremum ergo recte incircumscriptum Dei nostri templum dixerim; etenim quem certum est habitare in silentio, credendum est gaudere secreto. Saepius se illic videndum sanctis suis praebuit et conciliante loco congressum non est aspernatus humanum; in deserto quippe Moyses glorificato vulta Deum conspicit, in deserto Helias vultum pavens, ne Deum conspiciat, obvolvit; et quamvis omnia ipse tamquam sua revisitet neque uspiam desit, tamen, ut aestimare licet peculiarius visitationem dignatur eremi et caeli secretum. 4. Ferunt quendam alio 113 quaerenti quali inesse loco Deum crederet respondisse, ut, quo se duceret, impiger sequeretur; tunc114 comitante eodem, ad late

110 Patrologia Latina has consuluit.

111 Patrologia Latina has summit.

112 Patrologia Latina inserts ipse.

113 Patrologia Latina has quemdam alii.

114 Patrologia Latina has tum.

88 patentis eremi secreta venisse et ostendens solitudinis vastae recessum: "En," inquit, "ubi Deus est." Nec immerito ibi esse promptius creditur, ubi facilius invenitur. 5. Nam et in primordiis rerum, cum omnia Deus in sapientia faceret et singula quaeque futuris usibus apta distingueret, non utique hanc terrae partem inutilem et inhonoratam reliquit, 115 sed cuncta non magis praesenti magnificentia quam futuri praescientia creans, venturis, ut arbitror, eremum sanctis paravit. Credo, his illam locupletem in fructibus voluit et pro indulgentioris naturae vice hanc sanctorum dare fecundam, ut sic pinguescerent fines deserti et, cum rigaret de superioribus suis montes, abundarent quoque multiplicata fruge convalles, locorumque damna suppleret, cum habitationem sterilem habitatore ditaret. 6. Possessor ille paradisi et transgressor praecepti, cum locum voluptatis habitaret, fixam sibi a Deo legem servare non potuit; quanto enim iocundior116 ille amoenitatibus locus, tanto hic in lapsum pronior fuit. Unde non solum hunc legibus suis subdidit, sed etiam in nos usque suum illum stimulum mors tetendit. Proinde eremum colat qui vitam cupit; quia amoeni incola mortem paravit. Sed iam ad posteriora eremi Deo semper acceptae exempla veniamus.

115 Patrologia Latina has dimisit.

116 Patrologia Latina has jucundior.

89 7. Moyses, cum egisset pecus ad interiora deserti, tunc resplendente 117 eminus Deum igne vidit innocuo; nec solum vidit, verum etiam audivit loquentem. Nempe tunc Dominus, cum abici pedum vincula commoneret, sanctam eremi terram pronuntiavit dicens: Locus in quo tu stas terra sancta est; manifesto tunc indicio118 meritum occulti honoris expressit. Confirmata quippe est a Deo sanctitas loci sanctitate etiam testimonii, in quo, ut reor, etiam illud pariter et latenter enuntiat, ut accedens ad eremum pristinis curarum obligationibus vitae gressus 119 absolvat et anterioribus vinculis expeditus incedat, ne locum polluat. Ibi primum Moyses divini colloquii familiaris adhibetur interpres, accipit verba ac vicissim refert, dicenda agendave et percunctatur pariter et docetur ac mutuo confabulationis usitatoque commercio cum caeli Domino sermocinatur; ibi virgam resumit in opera signorum potentem ingressusque eremum pastor ovium, pastor ab eremo remittitur populorum. 8. Quid deinde plebs Dei ab Aegypto liberanda et operibus absolvenda terrenis, numquid non avia petiit ad solitudinesque confugit appropinquatura in eremo utique Deo, a quo fuerat exempta servitio? Tendebat igitur ad desertum longa vastitate terribile, Moyse duce. Quam magna multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine!120 Eremum ingressus Moyses, Deum viderat; en redit rursus ut videat. Ipse plane dux itineris populum suum Dominus ad deserta ducebat, in usum utriusque temporis viantibus trahens columnam nunc rubentem flamma, nunc nube candentem. Dabat ita tunc promerentibus e caelo signum, quod lactea mole porrectum alternis irradiabat ardoribus. Intento Israhel lumine sequebatur radium corusco eminus igne rutilantem, ut in eremi secreta tendentibus digne Dominus, cum iter ostenderet, lumen praeferret.

117 Patrologia Latina has resplendentem.

118 Patrologia Latina has iudico

119 Patrologia Latina has se instead of gressus.

120 Psa. 30:20.

90 9. Huic identidem populo nonne ad deserta tendenti obiecta invii maris claustra patuerunt,cum inter praeruptos gurgites iter carpens, pulverulenta121 vestigiis agmine122 rubris litoribus ingessit minantesque123 undarum pendentium montes124 de profunda valle suspiciens sic custos gentis freti stagna transivit.125

121 Patrologia Latina has pulverulento.

122 Critical Text has agmina, Patrologia Latina has agmine.

123 Patrologia Latina has exstantesque.

124 Patrologia Latina has montes.

125 Patrologia Latina has transmisit.

91 10. Neque in hoc tantum divini operis virtus stetit; nudata namque rersum refluo aequore operiens, iter eorum cum hoste delevit, totumque in sedibus suis mare, credo ne ab eremo Israhel reverteretur, opposuit. Aperuit inter aquas viam et circumfusis126 deinde aquis texit, ut desertum expetentibus patefaceret itum, clauderet reditum. 11. Hac ergo gratiae virtute donata est gens illa, cum ad solitudinem tenderet; plura tamen promeruit, cum possideret. Illic namque eandem insperato Dominus miraculo refecit, cum percussa silice exundantes aquas sitientibus praebuit, et abhor- rentibus saxis rivos nativo fonte depromens, occulta manu 127 imposuit subitam latentibus venis naturam. Nec solum illic ingesto flumine viscera siccae rupis infudit, verum etiam dulcedine super indita amaros tristibus aquis haustus repressit. Illas elicuit, has placavit; nec maiore miraculo e saxis aquas quam ex aquis alias aquas reddidit. Obstupuit plebs cuncta caelestis auxilii illic opem sentiens non minus in his aquis quae erant quam in illis quae nondum fuerant. 12. Illic etiam idem populus demissum caelitus cibum albenti solo legit, cum in128 nubibus Dominus panem pluvium sicco imbre deiecit. In tabernacula et in circumiecta castrorum manna ninguido aere illapsum cecidit, ubi panem angelorum manducavit homo. Et quia sufficit diei malitia sua, cotidianum129 divina indulgentia victum contulit iam tunc lege130 praemissa, ne in crastinum cogitaret. Sic quondam in eremo constitutis, quia praestare victum terrena non poterant, caelum ministrabat.

126 Critical Text has confusis, Patrologia Latina has circumfusis.

127 Patrologia Latina has manus.

128 Patrologia Latina has e(x).

129 Patrologia Latina has quotidianum.

130 From legit, rather than lex.

92 13. Legem etiam et caelestia edicta Hebraeus idem numquid non eremi inhabitator accepit, tum cum propius admotus inspicere divino digito impressa tabulis signa meruit? Eductus castris in occursum Domini, ad radicem montis obvius institit; vidit equidem pavore perculsus illum Sinai verticem, quem terrore multo conspicuae 131 maiestatis 132 insederat; aspexit attonitus montem procul interfluenti igne fumantem, quem deinde totum late nubes densissima obtectum operiebat; expavit hinc micantia expressis ignibus fulgura et tonitrua crebris fragoribus mixto buccinarum clangore reboantia. Ita filii Israhel, dum in solitudinibus degerent, Dei sedem videre, vocem audire meruerunt. 14. Talibus olim similibusque usa est ac sustentata miraculis natio illa, cum deserti incola fuit, cum eam inusitatus cibus, repentinus potus, inconsummabilisque vestitus aleret, cum etiam illorum133 quae extrinsecus corpus ambiebant infatigabili habitu permanerent. Quicquid 134 eorum necessitati locorum ingenium non obtulerat135, manifesta Dei magnificentia suggerebat. Vix in haec caelestis gratiae dona pervenit sanctorum unus, qui de hoc populo ait: Non fecit taliter136 Dominus137 omni nationi; 138 specialia contulit, inaudita concessit, cum divinis muneribus populum refecit in eremo.

131 Patrologia Latina has conspicua.

132 Patrologia Latina has maiestas.

133 Patrologia Latina has illa.

134 Patrologia Latina has quidquid.

135 Patrologia Latina has attulerat.

136 Vulgata has similiter.

137 Patrologia Latina omits Dominus.

138 Vulgata has genti.

93 15. Et haec quamvis in figuram nostri facta tradantur et facies illa rerum mysteriis flagret139 occultis, omnesque in Moyse baptizati in nube et in mari escam spiritalem manducasse, potum spiritalem bibisse referantur, tamen omnia haec ita futurorum continent fidem, ut gestorum custodiant veritatem. Quamquam nec sic quidem eremi minor laus est, etiam si ea quae illic gesta sunt in sacramentorum sint altitudinem referenda; nihil140 gratiae derogatur, etiam si ille tunc status corporis et vestimentorum non secuta corruptio venturae vitae specimen detulerunt. Magna namque loci gratia est, si quales illos beatissimi saeculi felicitas habebit, tales in hoc iam istos eremus habeat. 16. Quid, quod filii Israhel ad illam desiderabilem terram non nisi habitatione eremi pervenerunt? Et ut gens eadem postea possideret illam lacte et melle manantem, prius hanc aridam incultamque posssedit. Totum semper ad veram patriam eremi mansionibus iter panditur. Habitet inhabitabilem terram, qui vult videre bona Domini in regione vivorum, sit hospes huius, qui civis esse contendit illius. 17. Sed ut haec relinquam, David ipse insidias regis infesti non nisi cum desertum expeteret evasit, qui in Idumaeae ariditatibus commoratus toto Dominum corde sitiebat, ut sitiens in deserto et in invio et inaquoso tum demum appareret Deo in sancto, ac deinceps Dei virtutem pariter et gloriam sanctus videret. 18. Helias vero, maximus secretorum colonus, caelum imbribus clausit, ignibus reseravit, ministra alite cibum sumpsit, fixa mortis iura revocavit, Iordanem dividuum interrupto amne transivit, caelum ardenti curru raptus ascendit. 19. Quid deinde Helisaeus, consectator vitae huius atque virtutis? Nonne perinde divinorum miraculorum opere claruit, quem insignem nunc scissus torrens,

139 Patrologia Latina has floreat.

140 Patrologia Latina adds ergo.

94 nunc innatans ferrum, nunc redivivi, nunc olei incrementa fecerunt, quique postremo post alia quam plurima duplicatam in se virtutem magistri hoc etiam comprobavit, quod ille superstes defunctum, hic defunctum exsuscitat iam defunctus? 20. Filii quoque prophetarum relictis urbibus expetebant gemino defluentem fonte Iordanem exstruebantque in abditis tabernacula remoto iuncta torrenti. Excubabat cohors sancta secreti fluminis ripis, velut quibusdam sparsa tentoriis et habitationibus congruis: egregia indoles spiritum custodiebat paternum. 21. Quid? Ille, quo maior inter mulierum natos non surrexit, nonne in deserto clamans in deserto vivebat? In deserto ab hoc baptismus traditur, in deserto paenitentia praedicatur, in deserto primum mentio regni caelestis infertur; ibi haec ille audientibus primus ingessit, ubi haec citius ambiens quisque promeruit. Nec immerito futurus hic arduus habitator deserti ante faciem Domini angelus mittitur, viam reserat in caeleste regnum, Christi141 et praecursor et testis dignum qui Patrem e caelo loquentem audiret, Filium baptizando contingeret, Spiritum sanctum descendentem videret. 22. Ipse quoque Dominus ac Salvator noster baptizatus confestim, ut Scriptura ait, a Spiritu in desertum ducitur. Quis hic igitur est Spiritus? Cunctatio nulla subest, quin Sanctus. Quod deinde Spiritus sanctus pertrahit in desertum, nimirum istud ille dictat, ille istud tacitus inspirat, fitque eremus Spiritu142 sancto suggerente143 digna suggestio. Mystico ergo flumine infusus nihil sibi prius agendum putat, quam ut ad secreta contendat. Et tamen ille sanctificantes semper aquas tunc sanctifi- caverat nec peccati hominem purgatus abluerat; peccatum enim ille neque fecerat

141 Patrologia Latina omits Christi.

142 Patrologia Latina has Spiritui.

143 Patrologia Latina has suggerenti.

95 neque metuebat. Eremi tamen ardore144 flagrabat atque in omnibus salutaris auctor exempli hanc sibi145 non dignam nobis desiderabat. Quae si votiva Deo ab erroribus libero, quanto magis necessaria homini erroribus obnoxio? Si petita non delinquenti, quanto magis exoptanda peccanti?

144 Patrologia Latina has et eremi tamen amore.

145 Patrologia Latina omits sibi.

96 23. Ibi etiam in famulatum Domini remotis circumstrepentium146 turbis tacita divini vigoris ministeria succedunt, et in eremo constitutus, tamquam147 in caelum revectus, occurrentium excipitur officiis angelorum; ibi tunc temptantem notae artis insidiis hostem illum antiqui temporis confutavit supplantatoremque veteris Adam novus Adam reppulit. O laus magna deserti, ut diabolus qui vicerat in paradiso, in eremo vinceretur! 24. Desertus etiam locus ille erat, in quo Salvator noster quinque virorum milia panibus quinque et piscibus tantum duobus pavit, satiavit, explevit. Semper in deserto suos pane Iesus pascit; suis praetulerat olim manna divini muneris fidem, nunc fragmina praetulerunt, eodemque miraculo victus, ut tunc esurientibus decidit, ita nunc vescentibus crevit; cunctis dono suo epulae auctioribus maiores fuerunt cibis quam fuerant latae148 conviviis. Desertis, inquam, desertis tantorum nunc signorum causas demus: virtus potentiam declarasset, si habuisset locus copiam? 25. Et tunc Dominus Iesus ad excelsi montis remotiora secessit, cum tribus tantum sibi adhibitis electis insolita claritate vultus effulsit; qui, cum assumptum palam hominem praeferret, declarandae maiestatis indicium secretis credidit. Ibi tunc ille apostolorum maximus: Bonum erat, inquit, nos hic esse, adamans scilicet magnitudinem signi in remotione deserti. 26. Idem quoque Dominus Iesus, ut scribitur, in desertum locum ibat ibique orabat? Locus ergo iam ille vocetur orationis locus, quem exorando Deum idoneum Deus auctor ostendit docuitque unde facilius nubes humiliantis se oratio penetraret, adiuta loco, quia honorata secreto, atque ipse illic orando cum peteret, demonstravit,

146 Patrologia Latina has circumstrepentibus.

147 Patrologia Latina inserts iam.

148 Patrologia Latina has illatae.

97 ubi orare nos velle competeret.149 27. Quid nunc ergo Iohannem, Macariumque commemorem, aliosque quam plures, quorum conversatio dum in desertis est, in caelis facta est? Appropinquaverunt illi tantum Domino quantum appropinquare Deo hominem fas sinebat admissique sunt in divinarum opera rerum quantum carne circumdatos licebat admitti. Fixam in superna mentem caelestibus inseruerunt secretis; hinc comitantem gratiam aut revelationibus tacitis aut clamantibus signis protulerunt, et suffragante secreto usque in id provecti sunt, ut terram quidem corpore tunc contingerent, caelum vero spiritu iam possiderent.

149 PatLat has vellet, cum peteretur.

98 28. Hoc igitur eremi habitaculum dicam non immerito quamdam fidei sedem, virtutis arcam, caritatis sacrarium, pietatis thesaurum, iustitiae promptuarium. Nam sicut in magna domo pretiosa quaeque claustris obsignata in remotis habentur, ita magnificentia illa sanctorum abditorum eremo, quam difficultatibus suis natura observavit; 150 deponiturque in terra quoddam conclave deserti, ne conversationis humanae usu obsolescat.151 Apteque a mundi Domino haec pretiosior152 divitiarum suppellex153 in illa mundanae domus parte non solum conditur, verum etiam, cum usus est, ex reconditis promitur. 29. Fuit olim erga eremum cura divinae Providentiae summa et maxima, sed ne nunc quidem parva est. Nam et nunc, cum eremi incolis victus divinitus insperata supervenit largitate, quid aliud quam e caelo lapsus defluit? Habent et isti in hac caelesti 154 munificentia suum manna, nec minus his Dominus brachii sui opere secreto alimoniam spargit ex abdito. Et cum silicibus perfossis tandem divino munere respondentes e saxis aquae profluunt, quid aliud quam velut Moysi virgae ictu percussa rupe emerguntur? 155 Vestimentorum perinde habitus in eremi vastitate degentibus; nunc quoque ecce non deficit, qui, dum iugiter gratuito divina provisione succedit, utique succedendo manet. Aluit Dominus in deserto suos quondam, sed et nunc alit; et illos quidem quadraginta annis, hos vero quousque anni erunt. 30. Merito hanc Sanctus divino igne succensus relicta sede propria sedem

150 Patrologia Latina has obseravit, deponitur intra for observavit; deponiturque in terra.

151 Patrologia Latina has abolescat.

152 Patrologia Latina has pretiosa.

153 Lexical Spelling is supellex.

154 Patrologia Latina omits caelesti.

155 Patrologia Latina has emergunt.

99 legat; merito propinquis, filiis parentibusque praeponat, suorumque omnium commercio emat; merito haec genitalem deserentibus patriam temporariae patriae nomen obtineat, a qua non metus, non desiderium, non gaudium, non maeror evocet; merito plane universorum affectuum sola sit pretium. 31. Quis enim enumerare beneficia eremi digne queat, virtutisque commoda habitantium in ea? In mundo positi, quodammodo extra mundum recedunt, in solitudinibus, ut ait Apostolus, errantes, in montibus et in speluncis et in cavernis terrae. Nec immerito dignum talibus Apostolus negat esse mundum, qui alieni sunt ab illo rei publicae humanae tumultu, sepositi, quieti, silentes, nec magis absunt a voluntate peccandi quam a facultate. 32. Clari apud veteres saeculi huius viri, defatigati laboribus negotiorum suorum, in philosophiam se tamquam in domum suam recipiebant. Quanto pulchrius ad haec manifestissimae sapientiae studia divertunt magnificentiusque ad solitudinum libertatem et desertorum secreta secedunt, ut, philosophiae tantum vacantes, in illius eremi deambulacris 156 tamquam in suis gymnasiis, exerceantur! Ubi, quaeso, liberius quam in deserti habitatione servetur Pascha? Sed virtutibus et continentia: continentia, inquam, quae velut alia quaedam est cordis eremus. Nam et Moyses quadraginta continuos se in eremo dies, totidemque et post se illic Helias ieiunio dedit, et uterque ibi inediam ultra humani effectus vires extendit; deinde et Dominus idem, sed in deserto, abstinentiae tempus exegit. Nec praeterea usquam legimus spatia eadem exacta ieiunio, ut putandum sit aliquem tribui per Dominum locis illis etiam vigorem. 33. Ubi, quaeso, magis vacare et quam dulcis sit Dominus, videre contingit? Ubi promptior ad perfectionem tendentibus via panditur? Ubi maior virtutibus campus aperitur? Ubi facilius mentis, ut possit circumspicere, custodia? Ubi liberior cordis, ut deo inhaerere certet, intentio, quam illis utique secretis, in quibus

156 Vulgate has vastitate.

100 Deum non solum invenire promptum est, verum etiam custodire? 34. Et quamvis saepe in eremo tenuis soli pulvis occurrat, nusquam tamen firmius Evangelicae illius domus fundamenta iaciuntur. In illis licet aliquis consistere harenis velit, nequaquam tamen super harenas domum construit, nusquam magis quam illic supra petram praedictum illud aedificium collocatur, quod immobili stabilitate fundatum, inconcussa mole durabit, ut tempore ingruentium procellarum non flantibus ventis, non immissis torrentibus subruatur. Itaque habitatores deserti talia sibi aedificia, sed in cordibus, fabricant, illi qui summa imis appetunt, excelsa humilitate sectantur, desides atque immemores terrenorum, ob spem votumque caelestium; qui abiciunt divitias, dum egere malunt; non157 egere festinant, dum esse divites concupiscunt; die ac nocte labore vigilisque decertant, ut apprehendant vitae illius principium, cuius non invenietur extremum. Sic materno eremus sinu continet illos aeternitatis rectissime avaros, bene prodigos brevitatis, incuriosos praesentis temporis, certos futuri, et per haec assequuntur, ut in quos saeculorum fines decurrerunt, his saecula sine fine contingant. 35. Fervent ibi conscriptae interioris hominis salubriter leges et aeterni saeculi iura subtilius. Non illic humana criminum facinorumque praescripta vim suam resonant, nec se ultricia capitalium delictorum iura exserunt: cor nisi purissimum indignae leges faciunt reum; atque ipse omni studio mentis motus interior intra iustitiae terminos coercetur eodemque se iudice vel levium cogitationum principia plectuntur. Apud alios malum sit malum fecisse, apud hos vero malum est bonum non fecisse.

157 Patrologia Latina omits non.

101 36. Sed quo modo ego possim commemoratione digna interiora eremi instituta venerari? Nunc vero illud tacitus praeterire non possum, quod in habitatoribus eius vis illa virtutis quam abscondita cunctis paene tam nota est. Nam cum se utique in remota abigunt mundum, humanumque consortium repudiantes, occuli quidem gestiunt, meritum tamen occulere non posunt; quantum se eorum introrsum158 agit vita, tantum se foras159 proripit gloria Deo, ut arbitror, ita inter utrumque moderante, ut incola eremi suae lateat saeculo et non lateat exemplo. Haec lucerna est, quae per160 universum mundum161 resplendet162 supra eremi candelabrum locata; hinc se flagrantissimum lumen per tenebrosa mundi membra diffundit; haec est civitas quae abscondi non potest in deserti monte constructa, quae imagine sua caelestem Hierusa- lem terris dedit. Proinde si quis in tenebris est, huic lumini appropinquet, ut videat, si quis discrimini patet, ad hanc civitatem tendat, ut tutus sit. 37. O quam iocundae sunt sitientibus Deum etiam deviae illis saltibus solitudines! Quam amoena sunt quaerentibus Christum illa secreta, quae longe lateque natura excubante porrecta sunt! Silent omnia: tunc in Deum suum laeta mens quibusdam silentii stimulis excitatur, tunc ineffabilibus vegetatur excessibus, nullus interstrepens illic sonus, nulla nisi forte cum Deo vox est; solus ille animo,163 dum164

158 Patrologia Latina has introrsus.

159 For introrsum and foras, cf. Matt. VI 4,6.

160 Patrologia Latina omits per.

161 Patrologia Latina omits mundum.

162 Patrologia Latina inserts orbem.

163 Patrologia Latina has admodum.

164 Patrologia Latina has suavis.

102 sonitus silentium secretae stationis intervenit interpolatque165 illum placidae quietis statum, strepitus quiete dulcior, et sanctus modestissimae conversationis tumultus; tunc hymnis suave resonantibus excelsa ipsa ferventes chori pulsant, atque in caelum non minus paene vocibus quam orationibus pervenitur.

165 Patrologia Latina has interpellatque.

103 38. Fremit frustra tunc circuiens166 adversarius tamquam intra caulas ovibus septis lupus, et tamquam munorum obiectu ita eremi ambitu. Hostes suos submovet ac, ne in vanum vigilent qui custodiunt civitatem, peculiarius Christo propugnatore munitur, ut adoptiva Deo gens quantum secreti spatiis exposita, tantum hostibus suis clausa sit. Invisit sane speciosa deserti laetantium angelorum chorus, et per illam Iacob scalam commeantes, eremum frequentia abditae visitationis illustrant. In illo quoque meridie sponsus recubat habitatoresque deserti caritate vulnerati contemplantur eum dicentes: Invenimus quem quaesivit167 anima nostra, tenebimus eum et non dimittemus.168 39. Non est infructuosum, ut creditur, non est istud sterile eremi solum nec infecunda arentis saxa deserti. Illic multiplex germen et centenos accola fructus recondit; non facile illic iacta semina secus viam decidunt, quae volucres assumant, nec in petrosa facile dilabuntur, quae non habentia altitudinem terrae orto sole169 aestuent et arescant, neque in spineta facile fugiunt, quae iam adultis sentibus obruantur. Uberi illic messem proventu colonus metet, producitur in his saxis seges illa per quam etiam ossa pinguescunt. Invenitur etiam illic panis vivus qui de caelo descendit, erumpunt in illis rupibus fontes irrigui et aquae vivae, quae non satiandis solum, verum etiam possint sufficere salvandis. Hic interioris hominis pratum170 et

166 Patrologia Latina has circumveniens.

167 Patrologia Latina has diligit. This appears to be a deliberate emendation to correspond to the Vulgate reading.

168 The text of Patrologia Latina differs from the critical text in the arrangement of whole clauses. The critical text is given above; Patrologia Latina arranges the text in segments as follows: 1. Frement frustra . . . septis lupus. 2. invisit sane . . . visitationis illustrant. 3. ac[,] ne . . . propugnatore munitur. 4. et tamquam . . . suos submovet. 5. ut adoptiva . . . clausa sit. 6. In illo . . . non dimittemus.

169 Patrologia Latina omits orto sole.

170 Vulgate pastus.

104 voluptas, hic incultum desertum illic mira amoenitate iocundum est, eademque corporis est eremus, animae paradisus. 40. Nulla iam quamvis fertilis tellus terrae eremi se comparatione iactaverit. Est terra aliqua frugibus ditis? In hac maxime nascitur frumentum illud, quod esurientes adipe suo satiat. Est alia gravidis laeta vinetis? In hac maxime profertur vinum illud, quod bene laetificat cor hominis. Est alia pascuis praestans? In hac saluberrime pascunt oves illae, de quibus dicitur, Pasce oves meas. Est alia floribus picta vernantibus? In hac maxime verus ille flos campi et lilium convallium refulget. Postremo alia171 est speciosis172 exsultans metallis, alia vero auro suo fulva est? In hac varii lapidum micant vibrante luce fulgores. Ita terra haec singulis terris maior ad singula, omnes longe praecedit bonis omnibus. 41. Recte ergo tu, veneranda tellus, sanctis aut in te positis aut non procul a te remotis aut habitabilis dudum aut desiderabilis exstitisti, quia pro universis bonis illius es fertilis, in quo173 habentur universa. Tu cultorem hunc, qui suam terram, non qui tuam excolat, requiris, tu inhabitantium te vitiis sterilis, tu fecunda virtutibus. Tuam quicumque sanctorum familiaritatem quaesivit, Deum repperit; Christum in te, quisquis te coluit, invenit. Ipse qui habitat, Domino habitatore laetatur idemque174 est et possessor tuus et divina possessio; tuum qui non refugit habitaculum, factus est ipse Dei templum.

171 Patrologia Latina inserts est.

172 Patrologia Latina appears to have speciosius. The print is too poor to read.

173 Patrologia Latina has qua.

174 Patrologia Latina has idem ipse.

105 42. Equidem cunctis eremi locis quae piorum illuminantur secessu reverentiam debeo, praecipuo tamen Lirinum175 meam honore complector,176 quae procellosi naufragiis mundi effusis, 177 piissimis ulnis receptat venientes ab illo, saeculi flagrantes aestu blande introducit sub umbras suas, ut illic spiritum sub illa interiore Domini umbra anheli resumant. Aquis scatens, herbis virens, floribus renitens, visibus odoribusque iocunda, paradisum possidentibus se exhibet quem possidebunt;178 digna quae caelestibus disciplinis Honorato auctore fundata sit, quae tantis institutis tantum nacta sit patrem, apostolici spiritus vigore et vultus 179 radiantem; digna quae illum suscipiens, ita emitteret 180 ; digna quae et 181 praestantissimos alat monachos et ambiendos proferat sacerdotes. Haec nunc successorem eius tenet, Maximum nomine, clarum, quia post ipsum meruit adsciri; haec habuit182 reverendi nominis Lupum, qui nobis illum ex tribu Beniamin lupum retulit; haec habuit germanum eius Vincentium, interno gemmam splendore perspicuam; haec nunc possidet venerabilem gravitate Caprasium, veteribus sanctis parem; haec nunc habet sanctos senes illos, qui divisis cellulis Aegyptios Patres Gal- liis nostris intulerunt.

175 Vulgate Lerinam.

176 Patrologia Latina has complectens.

177 Patrologia Latina has effusos.

178 Patrologia Latina omits quem possidebunt.

179 Patrologia Latina inserts honore.

180 Port. cod. eniteret.

181 Patrologia Latina omits et.

182 Patrologia Latina omits habuit.

106 43. Quos ego illic, Iesu bone, sanctorum coetus, conventusque vidi! Pretiosa in his suavi unguedine alabastra183 flagrabant, spirabat passim odor vitae. Interioris hominis faciem exterioris habitu praeferebant, constricti caritate, humilitate deiecti, mollissimi pietate, firmissimi in spe, incessu modesti, oboedientia citi, occursu taciti, vultu sereni, prorsus ipsa protinus contemplatione angelicae quietis agmen ostendunt. Nihil concupiscunt, nihil desiderant nisi eum tantum, quem solum desiderantes concupiscunt. Dum beatam quaerunt vitam, beata184 agunt, eamque et dum adhuc ambiunt, iam consequuntur. Itaque optant a peccatoribus segregari? iam segregati sunt. Castam possidere vitam volunt? Iam185 possident. Omne in Dei laudibus tempus habere ambiunt? Habent. Desiderant gaudere sanctorum coetibus? Gaudent. Christo frui cupiunt? Spiritu fruuntur. Vitam eremi adipisci gestiunt? Corde adipiscuntur. Ita per largissimam gratiam Christi multa ex his quae in futurum exoptant in praesentiarum merentur; rem porro ipsam 186 capiunt, dum spem sequuntur. Habent non parvum etiam in labore ipso pretium187 laboris, quia paene iam in opere est quod merces erit. 44. Horum188 mi Hilari carissime, redditus insertusque consortio, plurimum tibi, plurimum etiam illis contulisti, qui nunc pro reditu tuo alacri exultatione laetantur. Cum his, obsecro peccatorum meorum intercessionisque memoriam ne oblitteraveris; cum his, inquam, quibus nescio an ipse gaudii plus attuleris an maius

183 Patrologia Latina has alabastrum.

184 Patrologia Latina has beatam.

185 Patrologia Latina omits iam.

186 Patrologia Latina has iam.

187 Patrologia Latina has premium.

188 Patrologia Latina inserts tu.

107 inveneris. Tu nunc verior Israhel, qui corde Deum conspicaris, ab Aegypto189 saeculi tenebris dudum expeditus, salutiferas aquas submerso hoste transgressus, in deserto accensum fidei ignem secutus, amara quondam, per lignum crucis dulcia nunc experiris, salientes in vitam aeternam aquas a Christo trahis, internum hominem superno pane pascis, in Evangelio tonitrui190 divinam accipis vocem; qui cum Israhel in eremo contineris,191 cum Iesu terram repromissionis intrabis. Vale in Christo Iesu Domino nostro.

189 Patrologia Latina has Aegyptiis.

190 Patrologia Latina has throni tui.

191 Patrologia Latina has commoraris.

108 Select Bibliography

Apollinaris Sidonius. Carmina. Genova: Edizioni S Marco dei Giustiniani, 1982.

Athanasius. The Life of Saint Antony. Translated by Robert T Meyer. New York: Newman Press, 1978.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. De Civitate Dei. Edited by Bernhard Dombart. Lepsiae: In adobes B.G. Teubner, 1863.

Burton-Christie, Douglas. The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early Christian Monasticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Cassian, John. Joannis Cassiani Opera Omnia cum amplissimis commentariis Alardi gazai in hac Parisiensi editione. Parisiis: J.-P. Migne successores, 1874.

------Collationes XXIV. Edited by Michael Petschenig. New York: Johnson Reprint, 1966.

------De Institutis Coenobiorum et de Octo Principalium Vitiorum Remediis libri XII. Edited by Michael Petschenig. Vienna: Vindobonae F. Tempsky, 1888.

------The Conferences Translated by Boniface Ramsey, O.P., in Ancient Christian Writers, Edited by Walter J. Burghardt, John Dillon, and Dennis McManus. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.

------John Cassian – Conferences. Translated by Eugene Pichery. Paris: Editiones du Cerf, 1955.

Chadwick, Henry. Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.

Chadwick, Owen. John Cassian. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

------Western Asceticism. London: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

Coombes, William Henry. Sacred Eloquence. London: J.P. Coghlan, 1978.

Cooper-Marsdin, Arthur Cooper. The History of the Islands of the Lérins: The Monastery, Saints and Theologians of S. Honoratus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913.

109 Decarreaux, Jean. Monks and Civilization. Translated by Charlotte Haldane. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.

Deferrari, Roy Joseph. L'Ile et l'abbaye de Lérins: Recits et Description. Lérins: Imprimerie de L'Abbaye, 1929.

Demougeot, Etienne. ―Constantin III, l‘empereur d‘Arles,‖ in Hommage á André Dupont. Études medievales languedociennes Montpelier: Federation Historique du Languedoc et du Rousillon, 1974.

Drummond Steven K. and Lynn H. Nelson, The Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome. Armonk, NY and London UK: M. E. Sharpe, 1994.

Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons. On Contempt for the World. Translated by Henry Vaughan. London: Humphrey Moseley at the Princes Armes, St. Paul‘s Churchyard, 1654.

------Eucherius: De Laude Eremi. Edited by Salvatore Pricoco. Catania: University di Catania, 1965.

Farmer, Sharon A. Communities of Saint Martin. Legend and Ritual in Medieval Tours. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Franklin, Carmela Vircillo, Ivan Havener, and J. Alcuin Francis. Early Monastic Rules: The Rules of the Fathers and The Regula Orientalis. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1982.

Frend, W. H. C. The Donatist Church; A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1952.

Gheon, Henri. St. Martin of Tours. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1946.

Gouilloud, Andre. Saint Eucher; Lérins et L'Eglise de Lyon au Ve Siecle. Lyon: Library Briday, 1881.

Hilary of Arles, ―Sermo de Vita Sancti Honorati,‖ pp. 49-78 in Vitae Sanctorum Honorati et Hilarii, Episcoporum Arelatensium. Edited by Samuel Johan Cavallin. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1952.

Hoare, Frederick Russell (trans.). The Western Fathers. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1954.

Honoratus of Marseilles. ―Vita Sancti Hilarii Episcopi Arelatennsis,‖ pp. 81-109 in Vitae Sanctorum Honorati et Hilarii, Episcoporum Arelatensium. Edited by

110 Samuel Johan Cavallin. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1952.

Jackson, George Anson. The Post-Nicene Latin Fathers. New York: D. Appleton, 1890.

Jones, Arnold H. M. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. 3 volumes. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1964.

Knowles, David. From Pachomius to Ignatius: A Study in the Constitutional History of the Religious Orders. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.

Laclercq, Jean. The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture. Translated by Catharine Misrahi. London: S.P.C.K., 1978.

Ladeuze, Paulin. Étude sur le Cenobitisme Pakhomien pendant LVe Siécle et la Premiere Moitié du Ve. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1961.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. Two Volumes. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1975.

Luibheid, Colm (trans.). John Cassian -- Conferences. New York: Paulist Press, 1985.

MacKendrick, Paul. Roman France. New York: St. Martin‘s Press, 1972.

MacMullen, Ramsay. ―Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire,‖ Harvard Monographs, no. 62. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.

Malone, Edward Eugene. The Monk and the Martyr. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1950.

Munke, Bernhard (ed.). Vita Sancti Honorati. Halle: E. Karras, 1911.

Nelson, Lynn H. ―Orosius‘ Commentary on the Fall of Roman Spain.‖ Classical Folia (1977), pp. 85-104.

------―The Place Names of Val Ancha and the Fall of Roman Spain.‖ Locus 2. (1989), pp. 17-33.

Nomura, Yushi (trans.). Desert Wisdom: Sayings from the Desert Fathers. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982.

Nouailhat, Rene. Saints et Patrons: les Premiers Moines de Lérins [Dissertation], 1988.

111 Orosius, Paulus. Liber Apologeticus Contra Pelagius. Edited by C. Zangemeister. Vienna: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 1866 ff. Volume 5.

------Pauli Orosii Historiarum adversos paganos, libri VII. Edited by Karl Zangmeister. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1966.

------Il Rifiuto del Mondo De Contemptu Mundi. Firenze: Nardini Editore, 1990.

------L'ospia deo Samto: Il Cenobio de Lerino e le Origini del Monachesmo Galico. Roma: Edizioni dell'Ateneo and Bizzarri, 1978.

Priscus. ―At the Court of Attila,‖ fragment 8 in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Translated by J.B. Bury.

URL: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/priscus1.html.

Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Four Volumes. Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, Inc., 1991.

Rees, B. R. (trans.). The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers. Woodbridge, Suffolk, and Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 1991.

Regnault, Lucien. La Vie Quotidienne des Peres du Desert en Egypte au I’VE Siecle. Paris: Hachette, 1990.

Rousseau, Philip. Ascetics, Authority, and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Rufinus, Tyrannius. Historia Monachorum sive de Vita Sanctorum Patrum. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Eight Volumes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910.

------The Life of Saint Pachomius and His Disciples. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1980.

Veilleus, Armand. Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth Century Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.

Vogue, Adalbert de. Histoire Litterarire du Mouvement Monastique dans L'antiquite. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1991.

112 Ward, Benedicta. Apophthegmata Patrum: The Sayings of the Desert Fathers -- The Alphabetical Collection. London: Mowbrays, 1975.

Waddell, Helen. The Desert Fathers. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1960.

URL: www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Western/eucherius.html

113