CRITICAL NOTE THE RULES OF PACHOMIUS TRANSLATED FROM THE ETHIOPIC

PACHOMIUS is the father of monastic institutions. He was born in 292 in the district of Thebes in Egypt, and died in 348. He lived accordingly in that memorable period, when, through Constantine the Greek, the ecclesia pressa became the recognized religion of the empire. This great change in the external status of the Church naturally had a powerful influence on many of her internal features. Not the least was this the case with reference to the anachoritic life, which just then was beginning to stand so high in the favor of Christians. Already at an earlier date the practice of withdrawing from the world, in order to serve God alone, had found many followers, principally, as is quite natural, in Egypt, the land of Philo, the Gnostics and the Therapeutics, of Clemens and Origen.* The father of this separation of the individual from the world and the Church is the holy Antonius. When the ascetic impulses, so powerful in the early Church, could not find expression any longer in martyrdom, they followed the leadership of an Antonius, and the result was that in the degree that external peace became the possession of the Church, the number of monks increased, and soon numbered tens of thousands.

But among these there was no external connection; each one selected the place best suited to his wants, and worshipped and served God according to his own way and manner. Before the day of Pachomius, however, we already read of λαῦραι, i.e., streets or collection of monk cells. The fact of such dwelling together on the part of the anachorites is attested both by historians and by the existence of tiers of caves or hewn-out cells, e.g., in the desert of Judæa, in Egypt, and in Arabia Petræa. Ebers, in his grand Palästina in Wort und Bild, thinks that this dwelling together was as much for mutual protection against robbers and wild animals, as for aid and counsel in the worship of the Lord. But even these laura and their conduct were entirely a matter of choice on the part of those who lived together there.

The first one to organize into a compact body these thousands of individual monks was Pachomius. He himself was a monk, trained under the direction of Palæmon, one of the strictest pupils of the holy Antonius. Claiming to be obeying a divine command, Pachomius established the first monastery proper, the first κοινόβιον, and gave its members rules and regulations. His new departure proved successful, and it was not many years before the large majority of the monks were in connection with one of these many “common dwelling places” that sprang up throughout Christendom; and nearly everywhere in this work of organization was the spirit and method of Pachomius a directing influence; and the rules which he set up for the original house on Tabenna, an island in the Nile, became the model for nearly all others. The historical importance of Pachomius thus consists not only in being the originator of what can properly be called monastic institutions, but also in having given them, at least for centuries, their form and character.

This being the case, the monastic rules which have been handed down to us under his name cannot be without worth. Of these rules there are several collections. The longest list embraces 194 articles, and is published by Lucas Holste in his Codex regularum, Part I, pp. 26–36, as Regula S. Pachomii. Gazaeus has reproduced them, but with some changes, and arranged in 128 articles in his edition of Cassianus de Caenobior. institut., pp. 800 seq., and they are claimed to be a Latin translation made by Jerome from the original rules of Pachomius. But this cannot be the case, as Orsiesius and Theodorus, two pupils of Pachomius, are mentioned in them as having aided in the composition. The translator has not been able to consult these rules, but from the statements of Prof. Mangold in Herzog’s Real Encyklop., vol. xi., p. 159, it appears that they are evidently enlarged forms of the shorter list of which we will now speak.

This shorter and better known list is found in the Historia Lausiaca of Palladius, c. 38, and in Sozomenus, Hist. Eccles., 3, 14. The author of the first work was a contemporary of Epiphanius and Jerome, and well known as their antagonists in the Origen controversy. He was born in Galatia in 368, and when but twenty years old went to Egypt to become acquainted with the famous monastic leaders of that country. He remained there a number of years, but later, at the advice of his physician, went to Palestine, where he also devoted his time to the study of this system. Later, on the basis of his observations, he wrote his history, entitled τὸ Λαυσαϊκόν, as it was dedicated to Lausius, a high political official in Cappadocia. The book was written about 420, and consists of a number of biographical sketches of Egyptian and Palestinian monks, and hence is sometimes called Paradisus de vitis Patrum. Among these is also a life of Pachomius, of whose rules he gives a list, which is reproduced substantially by the historian Sozomenus, and corresponds in all the leading features, though not verbally, to the first part of the Ethiopic collection. Wherever this Greek text throws any light on the translation of the Ethiopic it has been utilized. In order to show how in substance the Greek agrees with part first of the Ethiopic, we will here reproduce the summary given by Sozomenus. A literal Latin translation taken from Valesius, will probably show this best. It reads:

“Porro tabulam dedisse ei dicitur, quæ etiamnum custoditur a monachis. In ea præscriptum est, ut unicuique permitteret tantum edere, bibere, operari ac jejunare, vel secus quantum posset. Et iis quidem qui validius comederent, opera magis laboriosa imponeret: facilia vero abstinentibus. Utque multas cellas ædificaret: in singulis vero tres degerent monachi. In uno antem conclavi simul omnes cibum sumerent; et cum silentio ederent, sedentes ad mensam velato capite, ita ut nec se mutuo, nec aliud quid piam viderent præter mensam et apposita cibaria. Nullus vero peregrinus unà cum illis vesceretur, nisi forte illac pertransiens exciperetur hospitivo. Quod siquis cum ipsis vellet degere, is triennii spatio difficiliora exerceret opera, atque ita denum ipsorum contubernis sociaretur. Adhaec ut pellibus vestirentur, et capita mitris laneis tegerent, quas etiam clavis quibusdam purpureis insigniri jussit. Utque lineis tunicis et cingulis uterentur, cinctique in tunicis et pellibus dormirent, sedentes in cathedris structis, ex utroque latere ita clausis ut cujusque stratum contineretur. Ut primo antem ac prostremo hebdomadis die ad altare accedentes at sacrorum mysteriorum communionem, zonas solverent pellesque deponerent. Præterea ut duodecies orarent quotidie, mane scilicet sexies, et tantundem vespere. Noctù quoque totidem vicibus: hora antem nona ter. Ut cibum sumpturi, ante unamquamque orationem Psalmum canerent. Ut universa congregratio in viginti classes dividatur easque e Græcorum literis cognomentum accipianti cognomen vero ipsis aptetur pro vita et moribus singularum. Verbi gratia simpliciones jota appellentur: versuti ξ. rel ξ., et sic de aliis, prout institutum cujusque classis figurâ alicujus literæ apte exprimere licet.”

To this account of the character of the rules, the historian adds the following concerning the life and deeds of Pachomius. He says: “These laws Pachomius set up for his pupils, a most humane man and so much beloved of God, that he could know the future and could very often speak with the angels. But he lived on Tabenna, an island of Thebes, whence to-day the name Tabenneses is derived. But those that lived according to these laws became very renowned, and grew into such numbers that they amounted to seven thousand men. For the congregation which lived on the Island of Tabenna, with whom also Pachomius lived, numbered one thousand and three hundred monks. The remainder, however, were scattered throughout the district of Thebes and Egypt. There is, however, the same method and discipline of life among them all; all things are common to all. And the congregation which is on the Island of Tabenna is considered the mother of the others; those who come out of it are regarded as fathers and leaders.”

The Ethiopic versions of the rules of Pachomius, which are here for the first time presented in an English dress, were published by Prof. Dillmann, in his Chrestomathia Acthiopica, 1866, pp. 57–69, from a MS. in the possession of the French Oriental scholar, d’Abbadi, compared with a copy in the British Museum. The Ethiopic rules consist of three distinct parts, which are undoubtedly different in origin and date, as they differ in character. The first part is, as we have seen, the same as the Greek form, which reaches up almost to the days of Pachomius himself, and if not verbatim from his pen, are yet authentic enough for all practical purposes. The original Greek of the second part has not yet been printed, but Dillmann states that it is found in a Florentine Manuscript, of which a Latin translation has appeared in the Acta Sanctorum (Venice, 1738), “sub die XIVa Maii, pp. 346 et 347.” The third is probably the most remarkable part, and of it no copy in any other language is known to exist. The editor of the Ethiopic text mentions it as “recentioris utique sed scite compositae,” while Mangold says it has an “altertümlichen Character.” The third part is really no collection of rules at all, but only a kind of symbolical homily on the character and duty of the monastic brethren. The fact that in it so much is spoken of false members shows that at the time of its composition the institution had already commenced to degenerate, and Dillmann’s opinion concerning its age is probably correct. Its reception and retention by the Ethiopic Church will surprise no one who is acquainted with the traditional favor of that people for ascetic and allegorical literature.

A German translation from the Ethiopic was made by Dr. König, now a privat-docent in Leipzig, and was published in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1878, pp. 323–337. In issuing the present version the translator had no further intention than to make so noteworthy a document accessible to the Christian reader in general and to the Church historian in particular, for further study and use. These rules are more than a mere curiosity of literature; they belong to the oldest documentary evidences we have concerning the inner life and character of an institution whose history is closely connected with the history of the Church. As such they merit the attention of scholars.

[Translation.]