No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
In this paper I propose to give a description of the thought of John Cassian. There are two recent books on Cassian, one in English by Dr. Owen Chadwick and one in French, by Canon Christiani.I do not mean to go over the ground covered by these works but I have set myself the task of approaching the ideas of Cassian from a special point of view.
page 1 note 1 John Cassian, Cambridge 1950.Google Scholar
page 1 note 2 Jean Cassien, Paris 1946.Google Scholar
page 1 note 3 Cf., e.g., Bloomfield, M. W., ‘Joachim of Flora’, in Traditio, XIII (1957) 265.Google Scholar
page 1 note 4 Cf. Knowles, Dam D., The Monastic Order in England, Cambridge 1949, 10.Google Scholar
page 1 note 5 Cf., however, Benz, E., ‘La Messianità de San Benedetto’, in Ricerche Religiose, VII (1931).Google Scholar
page 1 note 6 Knowles, op. cit., 11.
page 2 note 1 Chadwick, N. K., Poetry and Letters in Early Christian Gaul, London 1955, 189.Google Scholar
page 2 note 2 Seston, W., ‘Remarques sur la rôle de la pensée d'Origène dans les origines du monachisme’, in Revue de l'histoire des religions, CVIII (1933), 201.Google Scholar
page 2 note 3 Conferences, xviii. 5; E. C. S. Gibson's translation in Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, xi.
page 2 note 4 Loc. cit.
page 3 note 1 Koch, H., Pronoia und Paideusis, Berlin 1932, 84, 87Google Scholar; Faye, E. de, Esquisse de la pensée d'Origène, Paris 1925, 116, 119, 137Google Scholar; Völker, W., Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes, Tübingen 1931, 59, 79–81.Google Scholar
page 4 note 1 Conf., v. 16; I have not reproduced the whole scheme.
page 5 note 1 Inst., v. 43.
page 5 note 2 Cf. Thomas, E. J., The Life of Buddha, London 1931, 193.Google Scholar
page 5 note 3 i, 21.
page 5 note 4 Cf.also Fillozat, J., ‘La doctrine des brahmanes d'après St.Hippolyte’, Revue de l'histoire des religions, CXXX (1945) 77, 83.Google Scholar
page 5 note 5 It is not without interest to note that Origen seems to have met Hippolytus during his sojourn in Rome about 210/11; Cadiou, R., La Jeunesse d'Origène, Paris 1935, 63.Google Scholar
page 5 note 6 Conf., x. 11.
page 5 note 7 Conf., x. 5.
page 6 note 1 Cf. Marsili, S., Giovanni Cassiano ed Evagrio Pontico, Rome 1936, 137, 161.Google Scholar
page 6 note 2 Conf., i. 6.
page 6 note 3 In view of these explanations I cannot share either Chadwick's (op. cit., 95–6) or Christiani's (op. cit., 224) concern at Cassian's negative preoccupation with sin and at his failure to encourage monks to strive for goodness.
page 6 note 4 Op. cit., 85.
page 6 note 5 See below, end of VI.
page 7 note 1 Conf., i. 6.
page 7 note 2 Conf., x. 11.
page 7 note 3 Conf., x. 10.
page 7 note 4 Conf., i. 7.
page 7 note 5 Conf., x. 11. I cannot agree with Chadwick's remark that this purity of heart or apathy is the negative side of charity (op. cit., 93) and that Cassian is lacking in a positive conception of charity.
page 8 note 1 Cf. also Conf., i. 11.
page 8 note 2 O. Chadwick, op. cit., 96, 138.
page 8 note 3 Conf., x. 10.
page 9 note 1 Balthasar, H. U. V., ‘Le Mystérion d'Origène’, in Recherches de science religieuse 1936 538.Google Scholar
page 9 note 2 E. de Faye, op. cit., 76, 112–13; W. Völker, op. cit., 116; Daniélou, J., Origène, Paris 1948, 204. It is worth noting that Origen himself did not really draw a clear distinction between the pure intelligences and God and that such a distinction was attributed to him only by Rufinus who was anxious to make him as palatable as possible to his Latin readers. Cf. J. Daniélou, op. cit., 216 and E. de Faye, op. cit., 138.Google Scholar
page 9 note 3 Cf. the remarks of Lubac, H. de, Histoire et esprit, Paris 1950, 237. Chadwick, it seems, misunderstands the meaning of this cosmology, for he shares Nygren's strange view that Origenism only stresses man's urge for God (op. cit., 184) and that the ascetic theologian, indebted as he is to Origen, thinks of ‘progress as an advance up a ladder and so gives the impression that God is far away behind lofty barriers’ (op. cit., 179). I find this description more reminiscent of Kafka than of Cassian.Google Scholar
page 10 note 1 Conf., ix. 4, my italics.
page 10 note 2 Conf., xvi. 13.
page 10 note 3 Conf., xvi. 6.
page 11 note 1 Conf., xvi. 7.
page 11 note 2 Conf., xi. 7.
page 11 note 3 Conf., xi. 8.
page 11 note 4 Conf., xi. 9.
page 11 note 5 Conf., xi. 10.
page 11 note 6 Conf., ix. 31.
page 11 note 7 Conf., ix. 20.
page 12 note 1 Conf., iv. 5.
page 12 note 2 I cannot agree with Chadwick's remark that Cassian is inciting his monks ‘to assess the success and the purity of their prayers by the test of hedonism’ (op. cit., 147). To recommend sweetness as the test of perfection in prayer is not what one usually means by hedonism for to say that one is a hedonist is to say that one is seeking sweetness rather than God. Chadwick seems to favour the ‘modern test’, i.e. ‘effect upon life’ and he says, indeed (179), that Cassian excludes this modern test in favour of the unreliable test of spiritual experience. One could argue against this, first, that the so-called modern test can also be very unreliable and, secondly, that Cassian himself was by no means unaware of the fact that a monk's ability to be a true friend even to a brother who does not really deserve to be loved and that an ability to live in complete seclusion without bitterness against the world one has left, are true tests of successful contemplation. (Cf. section VIII, below).
page 12 note 3 Inst., vi. 20; 22–23; and Conf., ii. 23. I cannot share Chadwick's opinion that Cassian's concern for chastity must be dismissed as a ‘monomania’ (op. cit., 54) and that his ‘doctrine of continence is governed by the impossible ideal of living immune from natural processes’ (Ibid., 92). This alleged ‘monomania’ was an integral part of Cassian's framework and entirely justified in the context of his thought.
page 12 note 4 De Civitate Dei, xiv. 24.
page 13 note 1 Conf., xv. 2; cf. xv. 6–7.
page 13 note 2 H. Koch, op. cit., 83; W. Völker, op. cit., 166, 190.
page 13 note 3 Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom., IV. xxiii, 149.
page 13 note 4 E. de Faye, op. cit., 138; but see the remarks about Rufinus's version, above 9 n. 2.
page 13 note 5 Conf., x. 11.
page 13 note 6 Loc. cit.
page 13 note 7 v. 34.
page 14 note 1 Conf., ix. 13.
page 14 note 2 Conf., ix. 25.
page 14 note 3 Ibid.
page 14 note 4 E.g., Conf., xi. 7.
page 14 note 5 H. de Lubac, op. cit., 210, 213; W. Völker, op. cit., 149, 218. ‘The earthly life of Christ was a grand symbolic drama, a divine mystery play for the enlightenment of humanity. The whole process of Christ, as our divines used to call it, is to be re-enacted in little in the spiritual experience of the believer:’ Inge, W. R., Origen (Proc. Brit. Academy, 1946), XXXII. 131.Google Scholar
page 14 note 6 E.g., Conf., xi. 7.
page 15 note 1 Sec Rahner, H., ‘Das Menschenbild des Origenes’, Eranos Jahrbuch 1947, XV. 228–9, 238.Google Scholar
page 15 note 2 For a fuller understanding of the meaning of deification see Lot-Borodine, M., ‘La doctrine de déification dans l'église grécque’, Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1932, 20Google Scholar; and the remarks by Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos, Göttingen 1913, 425. In view of all this the strength of Chadwick's criticism of Cassian is difficult to understand: “The notion that man must not only aim at praising and worshipping God like the angels but must attempt to step beyond the physical conditions of common life, we cannot but regard as disastrous’ (op. cit., 93). Given Cassian's metaphysical premisses and the whole context of Eastern theology, his views on deification were both natural and necessary.Google Scholar
page 15 note 3 J. Daniélou, op. cit., 170.
page 15 note 4 Conf., xxii. 7.
page 16 note 1 Op. cit., 181; cf. also the remarks of Dix, Dom G., The Shape of the Liturgy, 1945, 332.Google Scholar
page 16 note 2 See Reitzenstein, R., Historia monachorum und historia lausiaca, Göttingen 1916, 188–9.Google Scholar
page 16 note 3 H. Koch, op. cit., 31, 64, 74, 78; E. de Faye, op. cit., 97, 114, 122, 124–5; H. de Lubac, op. cit., 216; W. Völker, op. cit., 78; Cf. Anrich, G., Clemens u. Origen als Begründer der Lehre vom Fegefeuer, in Theologische Abhandlungen f.H. Holtzmann, 1902, 103.Google Scholar
page 17 note 1 I cannot share Chadwick's surprise in his comment on Conf., xx. 8–9: ‘It sounds as if the soul must work a little before this grace can be bestowed,’ op. cit., 60.
page 17 note 2 It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the fact that there was no room in the Alexandrian Platonic tradition for the belief that Christ's death had been an effective sacrifice. Cf. also J. Wytzes, ‘Paideia and Pronoia in the Works of Clemens Alexandrinus’, Vigiliae Christianae, ix. 156.
page 17 note 3 Both Clement and Origen had insisted that there is no contradiction between the proposition that ‘God wishes us to be saved by means of ourselves’ and the statement that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellowship with the Logos. See Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma, London 1894–1899, ii 365–6Google Scholar.
page 17 note 4 Conf., xvi. 5.
page 17 note 5 Conf., xvi. 24.
page 17 note 6 Conf., xvi. 23.
page 17 note 7 Conf., xvi. 28.
page 18 note 1 De Amicitia, xvii. 64.
page 18 note 2 Ibid., xviii. 65.
page 18 note 3 Ibid., xxii. 85.
page 18 note 4 Ibid., xx. 74.
page 18 note 5 Conf., xvi. 23.
page 18 note 6 Conf., xvi. 13.
page 18 note 7 Conf., i. 11.
page 19 note 1 Butler, E. C., Benedictine Monachism, London 1924, 29.Google Scholar
page 20 note 1 The Historia Lausiaca was written entirely in the spirit of Evagrius's ascetic theology. Cf. R. Draguet, ‘L'histoire lausiaque’, etc., Revue d'histoire eccl., xlii. 42.
page 20 note 2 Chadwick's criticism of Cassian for failing ‘to support the collapsing bulwarks of society’, op. cit., 179, seems to me to be based upon a misunderstanding of the cosmic economy upon which Cassian's thinking was based.
page 20 note 3 Conf., x. 10.
page 20 note 4 Conf., x. 14.
page 21 note 1 Conf., xix. 6.
page 21 note 2 Conf., xix. 10.
page 21 note 3 Conf., xix. 8.
page 21 note 4 Conf., xix. 9.
page 21 note 5 Conf., xix. 12.
page 22 note 1 In view of this, I cannot agree with Chadwick that Cassian recommends acts of altruism merely as useful and ‘quasi-optional’ aids in the struggle for personal perfection, op. cit., 105.
page 22 note 2 Conf., xix. 9.
page 22 note 3 It seems to me that Chadwick fails to do justice to Cassian's insight into the interdependence of the ideals of anchorites and coenobites. He writes as if the decision in favour of the one or the other depended not on spiritual principles but on personal whims, op. cit., 49–52 and 178.
page 22 note 4 See Grundmann, H., Studien über Joachim von Flores, Leipzig 1927, 129, 132, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 22 note 5 This conclusion cannot come as a surprise when one recalls how deeply rooted Joachim was in the Cistercian conception of monachism (Buonaiuti, E., Gioacchino da Fiore, Rome 1931, 109 ff.)Google Scholar and that the ideals of Cistercian monachism in turn were largely derived from St. Benedict and from Cassian (Gilson, E., The Mystical Theology of Saint Bernard, London 1940, 28–32).Google Scholar
page 22 note 6 O. Chadwick, op. cit., 5.