 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Monasticism or monachism, literally the act of "dwelling alone" (Greekmonos, monazein, monachos), has come to denote the mode of life pertaining topersons living in seclusion from the world, under religiousvows and subject to a fixed rule, asmonks,friars,nuns, or in general as religious. The basicidea of monasticism in all its varieties is seclusion or withdrawal from the world orsociety. The object of this is to achieve a life whose ideal is different from and largely at variance with that pursued by the majority ofmankind; and the method adopted, no matter what its precise details may be, is always self-abnegation or organized asceticism. Taken in this broad sense monachism may be found in every religious system which has attained to a high degree ofethical development, such as Brahmin,Buddhist, Jewish,Christian, andMoslemreligions, and even in the system of those moderncommunisticsocieties, often anti-theological in theory, which are a special feature of recent social development especially in America. Hence it is claimed that a form of life which flourishes in environments so diverse must be the expression of a principle inherent inhumannature and rooted therein no less deeply than the principle of domesticity, though obviously limited to a far smaller portion ofmankind. This article and its two accompanying articles,EASTERN MONASTICISM andWESTERN MONASTICISM, deal with the monastic order strictly so called as distinct from the "religious orders" such as thefriars, canons regular, clerks regular, and the more recent congregations. For information as to these see RELIGIOUS ORDERS, and the article on the particular order or congregation required.
Any discussion of pre-Christian asceticism is outside the scope of this article. So too, any question of Jewish asceticism as exemplified in theEssenes or Therapeutae of Philo's "De Vita Contemplativa" is excluded.
It has already been pointed out that the monastic ideal is an ascetic one, but it would be wrong to say that the earliestChristian asceticism was monastic. Any such thing was rendered impossible by the circumstances in which the earlyChristians were placed, for in the first century or so of theChurch's existence theidea of living apart from the congregation of thefaithful, or of forming within it associations to practise special renunciations in common was out of the question. While admitting this, however, it is equally certain that monasticism, when it came, was little more than a precipitation ofideas previously in solution amongChristians. For asceticism is the struggle against worldly principles, even with such as are merely worldly without beingsinful. The world desires and honours wealth, so the ascetic loves and honours poverty. If he must have something in the nature ofproperty then he and his fellows shall hold it in common, just because the world respects and safeguards private ownership. In like manner he practisesfasting and virginity that thereby he may repudiate the licence of the world.
Hereafter the various items of this renunciation will be dealt with in detail, they are mentioned at this time merely to show how the monastic ideal was foreshadowed in the asceticism of the Gospel and its first followers. Such passages as I John, ii, 15-17: "Love not the world, nor the things that are in the world. If any manlove the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world is theconcupiscence of the flesh, and theconcupiscence of the eyes, and thepride of life, which is not of the father but is of the world. And the world passeth away and theconcupiscence thereof. But he that doeth the will ofGod abideth forever" — passages which might be multiplied, and can bear but one meaning if taken literally. And this is precisely what the early ascetics did. We read of some who, driven by thespirit of God, dedicated their energies to the spread of the Gospel and, giving up all their possessions passed from city to city involuntary poverty as apostles and evangelists. Of others we hear that they renouncedproperty and marriage so as to devote their lives to the poor and needy of their particular church. If these were not strictly speakingmonks andnuns, at least themonks andnuns were such as these; and, when the monastic life took definite shape in the fourth century, these forerunners were naturally looked up to as the first exponents of monachism. For thetruth is that theChristian ideal is frankly an ascetic one and monachism is simply the endeavour to effect a material realization of that ideal, or organization in accordance with it, when taken literally as regards its "Counsels" as well as its "Precepts" (seeASCETICISM;EVANGELICAL COUNSELS).
Besides a desire of observing the evangelical counsels, and a horror of the vice and disorder that prevailed in apagan age, two contributory causes in particular are often indicated as leading to a renunciation of the world among the earlyChristians. The first of these was the expectation of an immediateSecond Advent of Christ (cf.1 Corinthians 7:29-31;1 Peter 4:7, etc.) That thisbelief was widespread is admitted on all hands, and obviously it would afford a strong motive for renunciation since a man who expects this present order of things to end at any moment, will lose keeninterest in many matters commonly held to be important. Thisbelief however had ceased to be of any great influence by the fourth century, so that it cannot be regarded as a determining factor in the origin of monasticism which then took visible shape. A second cause more operative in leading men to renounce the world was the vividness of theirbelief inevil spirits. The firstChristians saw the kingdom ofSatan actually realized in the political and social life ofheathendom around them. In their eyes the gods whosetemples shone in every city were simply devils, and to participate in their rites was to join indevil worship. WhenChristianity first came in touch with theGentiles the Council ofJerusalem by itsdecree about meat offered to idols (Acts 15:20) made clear the line to be followed. Consequently certain professions were practically closed to believers since a soldier, schoolmaster, or state official of any kind might be called upon at a moment's notice to participate in some act of state religion. But the difficulty existed for privateindividuals also. There were gods who presided over every moment of a man's life, gods of house and garden, of food and drink, of health and sickness. Tohonour these wasidolatry, to ignore them would attract inquiry, and possiblypersecution. And so when, to men placed in this dilemma, St. John wrote, "Keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21) he said in effect "Keep yourselves from public life, from society, from politics, from intercourse of any kind with the heathen", in short, "renounce the world".
By certain writers the communitarian element seen in theChurch ofJerusalem during the years of its existence (Acts 4:32) has sometimes been pointed to as indicating a monastic element in its constitution, but no such conclusion is justified. Probably the community of goods was simply a natural continuation of the practice, begun byJesus and the Apostles, where one of the band kept the common purse and acted as steward. There is no indication that such a custom was ever instituted elsewhere and even atJerusalem it seems to have collapsed at an early period. It must be recognized also that influences such as the above were merely contributory and of comparatively small importance. The main cause which begot monachism was simply the desire to fulfillChrist's law literally, to imitate Him in all simplicity, following in His footsteps whose "kingdom is not of this world". So we find monachism at first instinctive, informal, unorganized, sporadic; the expression of the same force working differently in different places,persons, and circumstances; developing with the natural growth of a plant according to the environment in which it finds itself and the character of the individual listener who heard in hissoul the call of "Follow Me".
It must be clearly understood that, in the case of themonk, asceticism is not an end in itself. For him, as for all men, the end of life is toloveGod. Monastic asceticism then means the removal of obstacles to lovingGod, and what these obstacles are is clear from the nature oflove itself. Love is the union of wills. If the creature is toloveGod, he can do it in one way only; by sinking his own will inGod's, by doing the will ofGod in all things: "if yelove Me keep my commandments". No one understands better than themonk those words of the beloved disciple, "Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life", for in his case life has come to mean renunciation. Broadly speaking this renunciation has three great branches corresponding to the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
(a) Poverty
There are few subjects, if any, upon which more sayings ofJesus have been preserved than upon the superiority of poverty over wealth in His kingdom (cf.Matthew 5:3;13:22;19:21 sq.;Mark 10:23 sq.;Luke 6:20;18:24 sq., etc.), and the fact of their preservation would indicate that such words were frequently quoted and presumably frequently acted upon. The argument based on such passages asMatthew 19:21 sq., may be put briefly thus. If a man wish to attain eternal life it is better for him to renounce his possessions than to retain them.Jesus said, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God", the reason being nodoubt that it is difficult to prevent the affections from becoming attached to riches, and that such attachment makes admission intoChrist's kingdom impossible. AsSt. Augustine points out, the disciples evidently understoodJesus to include all who covet riches in the number of "the rich", otherwise, considering the small number of the wealthy compared with the vast multitude of thepoor, they would not have asked, "Who then shall be saved"? "You cannot serveGod andMammon" is an obvioustruth to a man who knows by experience the difficulty of a whole-hearted service ofGod; for the spiritual and material good are in immediate antithesis, and where one is the other cannot be. Man cannot sate his nature with the temporal and yet retain anappetite for the eternal; and so, if he would live the life of the spirit, he must flee thelust of the earth and keep his heart detached from what is of its very nature unspiritual. The extent to which this spiritual poverty is practised has varied greatly in the monachism of different ages and lands. InEgypt the first teachers ofmonks taught that the renunciation should be made as absolute as possible. Abbot Agathon used to say, "Own nothing which it would grieve you to give to another".St. Macarius once, on returning to his cell, found a robber carrying off his scanty furniture. He thereupon pretended to be a stranger, harnessed the robber's horse for him and helped him to get his spoil away. Anothermonk had so stripped himself of all things that he possessed nothing save a copy of the Gospels. After a while he sold this also and gave the price away saying, "I have sold the very book that bade me sell all I had".
As the monastic institute became more organized legislation appeared in the various codes to regulate this point among others. That the principle remained the same however is clear from the strong way in which St. Benedict speaks of the matter while making special allowance for the needs of the infirm, etc. (Reg. Ben., xxxiii). "Above everything the vice of private ownership is to be cut off by the roots from themonastery. Let no one presume either to give or to receive anything without leave of theabbot, nor to keep anything as his own, neither book, nor writing tablets, nor pen, nor anything whatsoever, since it is unlawful for them to have their bodies or wills in their own power". The principle here laid down, viz., that themonk's renunciation of privateproperty is absolute, remains as much in force today as in the dawn of monasticism. No matter to what extent any individualmonk may be allowed the use of clothing, books, or even money, the ultimate proprietorship in such things can never be permitted to him. (SeePOVERTY;MENDICANT FRIARS;VOW.)
(b) Chastity
If the things to be given up be tested by the criterion of difficulty, the renunciation of material possessions is clearly the first and easiest step for man to take, as these things are external to his nature. Next in difficulty will come the things that are united to man's nature by a kind ofnecessary affinity. Hence in the ascending order chastity is the second of the evangelical counsels, and as such it is based upon the words ofJesus, "If any man come to me and hate not hisfather and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters yea and his ownsoul also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). It is obvious that of all the ties that bind the human heart to this world the possession of wife and children is the strongest. Moreover the renunciation of themonk includes not only these but in accordance with the strictest teaching ofJesus all sexual relations or emotion arising therefrom. The monasticidea of chastity is a life like that of theangels. Hence the phrases, "angelicus ordo", "angelica conversatio", which have been adopted fromOrigen to describe the life of themonk, nodoubt in reference toMark 12:25. It is primarily as a means to this end thatfasting takes so important a place in the monastic life. Among the earlyEgyptian and Syrianmonks in particularfasting was carried to such lengths that some modern writers have been led to regard it almost as an end in itself, instead of being merely a means and a subordinate one at that. Thiserror of course is confined to writers about monasticism, it has never been countenanced by any monastic teacher. (SeeCELIBACY OF THE CLERGY;CHASTITY;CONTINENCE;FAST;VOW.)
(c) Obedience
"The first step inhumility is obedience without delay. This benefits those who count nothing dearer to them than Christ on account of the holy service which they have undertaken...withoutdoubt such as these follow that thought of the Lord when He said, I came not to do my own will but the will of Him that sent me" (Reg. Ben., v). Of all the steps in the process of renunciation, the denial of a man's own will is clearly the most difficult. At the same time it is the most essential of all asJesus said (Matthew 16:24), "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me". The most difficult because self-interest, self-protection, self-regard of all kinds are absolutely a part of man's nature, so that to master suchinstincts requires asupernatural strength. The most essential also because by this means themonk achieves that perfect liberty which is only to be found where is the Spirit of the Lord. It was Seneca who wrote, "parere deo libertas est", and thepaganphilosopher's dictum is confirmed and testified on every page of the Gospel. InEgypt at the dawn of monasticism the custom was for a youngmonk to put himself under the guidance of a senior whom he obeyed in all things. Although the bond between them was whollyvoluntary the system seems to have worked perfectly and the commands of the senior were obeyed without hesitation. "Obedience is the mother of all virtues": "obedience is that which openethheaven and raiseth man from the earth": "obedience is the food of all thesaints, by her they are nourished, through her they come to perfection": such sayings illustrate sufficiently the view held on this point by the fathers of thedesert. As the monastic life came to be organized by rule, the insistence on obedience remained the same, but its practice was legislated for. Thus St. Benedict at the very outset, in the Prologue to his Rule, reminds themonk of the prime purpose of his life, viz., "that thou mayest return by the labour of obedience to Him from whom thou hast departed by thesloth of disobedience". Later he devotes the whole of his fifth chapter to this subject and again, in detailing thevows hismonks must take, while poverty and chastity are presumed as implicitly included, obedience is one of the three things explicitly promised.
Indeed thesaint even legislates for the circumstance of amonk being ordered to do something impossible. "Let him seasonably and with patience lay before his superior the reasons of his incapacity to obey, without showingpride, resistance or contradiction. If, however, after this the superior still persist in his command, let the youngerknow that it is expedient for him, and let him obey thelaw of God trusting in His assistance" (Reg. Ben., lxviii). Moreover "what is commanded is to be done not fearfully, tardily, nor coldly, nor with murmuring, nor with an answer showing unwillingness, for the obedience which is given to superiors is given toGod, since He Himself hath said, He that heareth you heareth Me" (Reg. Ben., v). It is not hard to see why so much emphasis is laid on this point. The object of monasticism is toloveGod in the highest degree possible in this life. Intrue obedience the will of the servant is one with that of his master and the union of wills islove. Wherefore, that the obedience of themonk's will to that ofGod may be as simple and direct as possible, St. Benedict writes (ch. ii) "theabbot is considered to hold in themonastery the place ofChrist Himself, since he is called by His name" (seeOBEDIENCE;VOW).St. Thomas, in chapter xi of his Opusculum "On the Perfection of the Spiritual Life", points out that the three means of perfection, poverty, chastity, and obedience, belong peculiarly to the religious state. For religion means the worship ofGod alone, which consists in offering sacrifice, and ofsacrifices theholocaust is the most perfect. Consequently when a man dedicates toGod all that he has, all that he takes pleasure in, and all that he is, he offers aholocaust; and this he does pre-eminently by the three religiousvows.
It must be clearly understood that the monastic order properly so-called differs from thefriars, clerks regular, and other later developments of thereligious life in one fundamental point. The latter have essentially some special work or aim, such as preaching, teaching, liberating captives, etc., which occupies a large place in their activities and to which many of the observances of the monastic life have to give way. This is not so in the case of themonk. He lives a special kind of life for the sake of the life and its consequences to himself. In a later section we shall see thatmonks have actually undertaken external labours of the most varied character, but in every case this work is extrinsic to the essence of the monastic state.Christian monasticism has varied greatly in its external forms, but, broadly speaking, it has two main species (a) theeremitical or solitary, (b) the cenobitical orfamily types. St. Anthony may be called the founder of the first andSt. Pachomius of the second.
(a) The Eremitical Type of Monasticism
This way of life took its rise among themonks who settled around St. Anthony's mountain at Pispir and whom he organized and guided. In consequence it prevailed chiefly in northernEgypt fromLycopolis (Asyut) to the Mediterranean, but most of our information about it deals with Nitria and Scete. Cassian andPalladius give us full details of its working and from them we learn that the strictesthermits lived out of earshot of each other and only met together for Divine worship on Saturdays andSundays, while others would meet daily and recite their psalms andhymns together in little companies of three or four. There was no Rule of Life among them but, asPalladius says, "they have different practices, each as he is able and as he wishes". The elders exercised an authority, but chiefly of a personal kind, their position and influence being in proportion to their reputation for greater wisdom. Themonks would visit each other often and discourse, several together, onHoly Scripture and on the spiritual life. General conferences in which a large number took part were not uncommon. Gradually the purelyeremitical life tended to die out (Cassian, "Conf.", xix) but a semi-eremitical form continued to be common for a long period, and has never ceased entirely either in East or West where theCarthusians andCamaldolese still practise it. It is needless here to trace its developments in detail as all its varieties are dealt with in special articles (seeANCHORITES;ST. ANTHONY;ORDERS OF ST. ANTHONY;CAMALDOLESE;CARTHUSIANS;HERMITS;LAURA;EASTERN MONASTICISM;STYLITES OR PILLAR SAINTS;ST. PAUL THE HERMIT).
(b) The Cenobitical Type of Monasticism. This type began inEgypt at a somewhat later date than theeremitical form. It was about the year 318 thatSt. Pachomius, still a young man, founded his firstmonastery at Tabennisi near Denderah. The institute spread with surprising rapidity, and by thedate ofSt. Pachomius' death (c. 345) it counted eightmonasteries and several hundredmonks. Most remarkable of all is the fact that it immediately took shape as a fully organized congregation or order, with a superior general, a system of visitations and general chapters, and all the machinery of a centralized government such as does not again appear in the monastic world until the rise of theCistercians and Mendicant Orders some eight or nine centuries later. As regards internal organization the Pachomianmonasteries had nothing of thefamily ideal. The numbers were too great for this and everything was done on a military or barrack system. In eachmonastery there were numerous separate houses, each with its own praepositus, cellarer, and other officials, themonks being grouped in these according to the particular trade they followed. Thus the fullers were gathered in one house, the carpenters in another, and so on; an arrangement the more desirable because in the Pachomianmonasteries regular organized work was an integral part of the system, a feature in which it differed from the Antonian way of life. In point of austerity however the Antonianmonks far surpassed the Pachomian, and so we find Bgoul andSchenute endeavouring in their greatmonastery at Athribis, to combine the cenobitical life of Tabennisi with the austerities of Nitria.
In the Pachomianmonasteries it was left very much to the individual taste of eachmonk to fix the order of life for himself. Thus the hours for meals and the extent of hisfasting were settled by him alone, he might eat with the others in common or have bread and salt provided in his own cell every day or every second day. The conception of the cenobitical life was modified considerably bySt. Basil. In hismonasteries atrue community life was followed. It was no longer possible for each one to choose his own dinner hour. On the contrary, meals were in common, work was in common,prayer was in common seven times a day. In the matter of asceticism too all themonks were under the control of the superior whose sanction was required for all the austerities they might undertake. It was from these sources that western monachism took its rise; further information on them will be found in the articlesBASIL THE GREAT; RULE OF SAINT BASIL;SAINT BENEDICT OF NURSIA;SAINT PACHOMIUS;SAINT PALLADIUS.
It has already been pointed out that themonk can adopt any kind of work so long as it is compatible with a life ofprayer and renunciation. In the way of occupations thereforeprayer must always take the first place.
From the very outset it has been regarded as themonk's firstduty to keep up the officialprayer of theChurch. To what extent the Divine office was stereotyped in St. Anthony's day need not be discussed here, butPalladius and Cassian both make it clear that themonks were in no way behind the rest of the world as regards theirliturgical customs. The practice of celebrating the office apart, or in twos and threes, has been referred to above as common in the Antonian system, while the Pachomianmonks performed many of the services in their separate houses, the whole community only assembled in the church for the more solemn offices, while the Antonianmonks only met together on Saturdays andSundays. Among themonks ofSyria the night office was much longer than inEgypt (Cassian, "Instit.", II, ii; III, i, iv, viii) and new offices at different hours of the day were instituted. Inprayer as in other matters St. Basil's legislation became the norm among Easternmonks, while in the West no changes of importance have taken place since St. Benedict's rule gradually eliminated all local customs. For the development of the Divine office into its present form see the articles,BREVIARY;CANONICAL HOURS; and also the various "hours", e.g.,MATINS,LAUDS, etc.;LITURGY, etc. In the east this solemnliturgicalprayer remains today almost the sole active work of themonks, and, though in the west many other forms of activity have flourished, the Opus Dei orDivine Office has always been and still is regarded as the preeminentduty and occupation of themonk to which all other works, no matter how excellent in themselves, must give way, according to St. Benedict's principle (Reg.Ben., xliii) "Nihil operi Dei praeponatur" (Let nothing take precedence of the work ofGod). Alongside the official liturgy, privateprayer, especiallymentalprayer, has always held an important place; seePRAYER;CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE.
The firstmonks did comparatively little in the way of external labour. We hear of them weaving mats, making baskets and doing other work of a simple character which, while serving for their support, would not distract them from the continual contemplation ofGod. UnderSt. Pachomius manual labour was organized as an essential part of the monastic life; and since it is a principle of themonks as distinguished from themendicants, that the body shall be self-supporting, external work of one sort or another has been an inevitable part of the life ever since.
Agriculture, of course, naturally ranked first among the various forms of external labour. The sites chosen by themonks for their retreat were usually in wild and inaccessible places, which were left to them precisely because they were uncultivated, and no one else cared to undertake the task of clearing them. The rugged valley ofSubiaco, or the fens and marshes of Glastonbury may be cited as examples, but nearly all the most ancientmonasteries are to be found in places considerable uninhabitable by all except themonks. Gradually forests were cleared and marshes drained, rivers were bridged and roads made; until, almost imperceptibly, thedesert place became a farm or a garden. In the laterMiddle Ages, when the blackmonks were giving less time to agriculture, theCistercians reestablished the old order of things; and even today suchmonasteries as La Trappe de Staoueli in northern Africa, or New Nursia in western Australia do identically the same work as was done by themonks a thousand years ago. "We owe the agricultural restoration of a great part ofEurope to themonks" (Hallam, "Middle Ages", III,436); "TheBenedictinemonks were the agriculturists ofEurope" (Guizot, "Histoire de la Civilisation", II,75); such testimony, which could be multiplied from writers of every creed, is enough for the purpose here (seeCistercians).
Even more important than their services to agriculture has been the work of the monastic orders in the preservation of ancient literature. In this respect too the results achieved went far beyond what was actually aimed at. Themonks copied the Scriptures for their own use in theChurch services and, when theircloisters developed intoschools, as the march of events made it inevitable they should, they copied such monuments of classical literature as were preserved. At first nodoubt such work was solely utilitarian, even in St. Benedict's rule the instructions as to reading and study make it clear that these filled a very subordinate place in the disposition of the monastic life.Cassiodorus was the first to make the transcription ofmanuscripts and the multiplication of books an organized and important branch of monastic labour, but his insistence in this direction influenced western monachism enormously and is in fact his chief claim to recognition as a legislator formonks. It is not too much to say that we today are indebted to the labours of the monastic copyists for the preservation, not only of the Sacred Writings, but of practically all that survives to us of the secular literature of antiquity (seeMANUSCRIPT;CLOISTER;SCRIPTORIUM).
At first no one became amonk before he was an adult, but very soon the custom began of receiving the young. Even infants in arms were dedicated to the monastic state by theirparents (see Reg. Ben., lix) and in providing for theeducation of these child-monks thecloister inevitably developed into a schoolroom (see Oblati). Nor was it long before theschools thus established began to include children not intended for the monastic state. Some writers have maintained that this step was not taken until the time ofCharlemagne, but there is sufficient indication that such pupils existed at an earlier date, though the proportion of external scholars certainly increased largely at this time. The system ofeducation followed was that known as the "Trivium" and "Quadrivium" (seeTHE SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS), which was merely a development of that used during classical times. The greater number of the largermonasteries in westernEurope had a claustralschool and not a few, of which St. Gall inSwitzerland may be cited as an example, acquired a reputation which it is no exaggeration to callEuropean. With the rise of theuniversities and the spread of themendicant orders the monastic control ofeducation came to an end, but theschools attached to themonasteries continued, and still continue today, to do no insignificant amount ofeducational work (seeTHE SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS;CLOISTER;EDUCATION;SCHOOLS).
Of the firsthermits many lived in caves,tombs, and deserted ruins, but from the outset themonk has been forced to be a builder. We have seen that the Pachomian system required buildings of elaborate plan and large accommodation, and the organized development of monastic life did not tend to simplify the buildings which enshrined it. Consequently skill in architecture was called for and so monastic architects were produced to meet the need in the same almost unconscious manner as were the monastic schoolmasters. During themedieval period the arts ofpainting, illuminating,sculpture, and goldsmiths' work were practised in themonasteries all overEurope and the output, must have been simply enormous. We have in the museums,churches, and elsewhere such countless examples of monastic skills in these arts that it is really difficult to realize that all this wealth of bountiful things forms only a small fraction of the total of artistic creation turned out century after century by these skilful and untiring craftsmen. Yet it is certainlytrue that what has perished by destruction, loss and decay would outweigh many times the entire mass ofmedieval art work now in existence, and of this the larger portion was produced in the workshop of thecloister (seeARCHITECTURE;ECCLESIASTICAL ART;PAINTING;RELIQUARY;SCULPTURE).
As years passed by the great monastic corporations accumulated archives of the highest value for the history of the countries wherein they were situated. It was the custom too in many of the largerabbeys for an official chronicler to record the events of contemporary history. In more recent times the seed thus planted bore fruit in the many great works of erudition which have won for themonks such high praise from scholars of all classes. TheMaurist Congregation of Benedictines which flourished inFrance during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was the supreme example of this type of monastic industry, but similar works on a less extensive scale have been undertaken in every country of westernEurope bymonks of all orders and congregations, and at the present time (1910) this output of solid scholarly work shows no signs whatever of diminution either in quality or quantity.
Perhaps the mission field would seem a sphere little suited for monastic energies, but noidea could be morefalse. Mankind is proverbially imitative and so, to establish aChristianity wherepaganism once ruled, it isnecessary to present not simply a code ofmorals, not the merelaws and regulations, nor even thetheology of theChurch, but an actual pattern ofChristiansociety. Such a "working model" is found preeminently in themonastery; and so it is the monastic order which hasproved itself the apostle of the nations in westernEurope. To mention a few instances of this — Saints Columba inScotland, Augustine inEngland,Boniface inGermany, Ansgar in Scandinavia, Swithbert and Willibrord in theNetherlands, Rupert and Emmeran in what is nowAustria, Adalbert inBohemia, Gall and Columban inSwitzerland, weremonks who, by the example of aChristiansociety, which they and their companions displayed, led the nations among whom they lived frompaganism toChristianity and civilization. Nor did the monastic apostles stop at this point but, by remaining as a community and training their converts in the arts of peace, they established asociety based on Gospel principles and firm with the stability of theChristian faith, in a way that no individual missionary, even the most devoted and saintly, has ever succeeded in doing.
It must be clearly understood however, that monasticism has never become stereotyped in practice, and that it would be quitefalse to hold up any single example as a supreme and perfect model. Monasticism is a living thing and consequently it must be informed with a principle of self-motion and adaptability to its environment. Only one thing must always remain the same and that is the motive power which brought it into existence and has maintained it throughout the centuries, viz., thelove ofGod and the desire to serve Him as perfectly as this life permits, leaving all things to follow after Christ.
APA citation.Huddleston, G.(1911).Monasticism. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10459a.htm
MLA citation.Huddleston, Gilbert."Monasticism."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 10.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1911.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10459a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Marie Jutras.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.