Search

Esta contribución propone diferentes nociones de “paisajes monásticos” (geográficas, políticas, textuales, económicas, espirituales) y discute si el hecho de aplicarlas al movimiento monástico supuestamente iniciado por Columbanus puede ayudarnos a redefinir o deconstruir el concepto de “monacato columbano”. La comparación de las evidencias sobre la vida monástica en las obras hagiográficas e historiográficas de Gregorio de Tours con la descripción de la vida monástica en la Vita Columbani de Jonás de Bobbio muestra que podemos identificar un cambio de un “paisaje monástico” en la Francia merovingia del siglo VI a un “paisaje monástico” políticamente integrado en el siglo VII. Sin embargo, esto no significa que el cambio fundamental fuera necesariamente el resultado de las actividades del monje irlandés Columbanus. Una lectura atenta de la descripción de Jonás del paisaje espiritual y físico entorno a Luxeuil, la principal fundación de Columbanus, muestra el grado de continuidad entre las fundaciones monásticas en la Galia antes de Columbanus y el supuesto centro de un nuevo movimiento monástico “columbano”., This contribution proposes different notions of “monastic landscapes” (geographic, political, textual, economic, spiritual) and discusses whether applying them to the monastic movement allegedly initiated by Columbanus may help us to refine or deconstruct the concept of “Columbanian monasticism.” Comparing evidence on monastic life in Gregory of Tours’ hagiographic and historiographic works with the depiction of monastic life in Jonas of Bobbio’sVita Columbanishows that we can indeed identify a shift from a “landscape with monasteries” in sixth-century Merovingian Francia to a politically integrated “monastic landscape” in the seventh century. However, this does not mean that the fundamental shift was necessarily the result of the activities of the Irish monk Columbanus. An investigation of Jonas’ depiction of the spiritual and physical landscape around Columbanus’ main foundation Luxeuil shows the grade of continuity between monastic foundations in Gaul before Columbanus and the alleged center of a new “Columbanian” monastic movement.

The seventh-century Regula cuiusdam ad uirgines (Someone’s Rule for Virgins), which was most likely written by Jonas of Bobbio, the hagiographer of the Irish monk Columbanus, forms an ideal point of departure for writing a new history of the emergence of Western monasticism understood as a history of the individual and collective attempt to pursue eternal salvation. The book provides a critical edition and translation of the Regula cuiusdam ad uirgines and a roadmap for such a new history revolving around various aspects of monastic discipline, such as the agency of the community, the role of enclosure, authority and obedience, space and boundaries, confession and penance, sleep and silence, excommunication and expulsion.

Theologische Revue, Bd. 116 (2020): November

D’évidence, il n’y a pas d’enfermement sans règle. L’un des traits communs aux milieux clos est que ceux qui y vivent doivent obéir à des normes fortes, qu’il s’agisse de la règle monastique, de la règle hospitalière ou du règlement de prison. Reprenant l’étude comparée des enfermements religieux et carcéraux esquissée par les sciences sociales dans les années 1960 et 1970, cet ouvrage fait suite au volume Enfermements. Le cloître et la prison (vie-xviiie siècle), publié en 2011. Il explore la place des règlements et des normes dans les cloîtres comme dans les prisons. Il entend montrer toutes les nuances de cette histoire dans la longue durée, entre le ive et le xixe siècle, et en Europe, des îles Britanniques à la péninsule Ibérique, en passant par l’espace germanique. L’ouvrage interroge donc la nature de la règle et historicise sa mise en texte. Il compare les manières de produire l’obéissance dans les milieux clos et les dérèglements qui y surgissent. L’un des enjeux de cette étude des règles et dérèglements en milieux clos est de mieux comprendre et de réévaluer le rôle que la discipline religieuse a pu jouer dans la mise en place des systèmes carcéraux occidentaux.

Cet article étudie comment les différentes règles du haut Moyen Âge (les règles de Césaire, d’Aurélien, de Benoît, de Colomban et la Regula cuiusdam ad virgines) relèvent le défi d’« organiser » la sainteté collective et de produire des prières d’intercession efficaces, en dépit du postulat d’Augustin, selon lequel tout être humain est inévitablement voué au péché et totalement dépendant de la grâce divine. Chaque règle conçoit de façon différente la discipline monastique comme un outil pour atteindre le salut. Certaines règles (en particulier celles de Césaire et d’Aurélien) insistent sur la clôture et la nécessaire séparation de l’espace monastique par rapport au monde environnant où sévit le péché ; d’autres règles (celles de Benoît et de Colomban) font de l’obéissance, de l’humilité et de la confession régulière des péchés les instruments principaux du salut. La Regula cuiusdam ad virgines du viie siècle établit le système disciplinaire le plus élaboré, combinant la clôture, la soumission et la confession régulière. This article analyzes how different early medieval monastic rules (the Rules of Caesarius, Aurelian, Benedict, Columbanus and the Regula cuiusdam ad virgines) deal with the challenge of organizing collective sanctity and producing effective intercessory prayer despite the Augustinan postulate that every human is inevitably sinful and fully dependent on divine grace. Every rule develops different concepts of monastic discipline as tool for approaching a salvation. Some rules (especially those of Caesarius and Aurelian) put a strong emphasis on enclosure and separation of the monastic space from the sinful and polluting outside world; other rules (those of Benedict and Columban) use obedience, humility and the permanent confession of sins as main instruments for attaining salvation. The seventh-century Regula cuiusdam ad virgines provides the most elaborate disciplinary system, which combines the concept of enclosure with that of submission and permanent confession.

This article discusses the limitations and advantages of using ›asceticism‹ as a universal category and as a hermeneutic tool in the study of late antique religious life and comparative studies of religious communities. It first explores the roots and the history of the terms ›asceticism‹, ›Askese‹ and ›ascétisme‹ arguing that they originate from early modern scholarly traditions rather than being based on the language of late antique and early medieval Christian texts. A second part traces the origins of the term askēsis in Greek monastic discourse, using the Vita Antonii, the Historia Lausiaca, Theodoret’s Historia religiosa and the Greek and Latin versions of the Vita Pachomii as case studies. I argue that Athanasius of Alexandria’s decision to use askēsis as a key term of his monastic program was motivated by limiting the range of appropriate religious practices rather than praising what we might call radical asceticism. Askēsis took on a life of its own and attained various meanings in Greek monastic texts but never found an equivalent in Latin monastic language. The third part describes the diversification of ›ascetic‹ practices and ideals in a number of Latin hagiographic and normative texts. I question to what extent it makes sense to consider religious practices emerging in the West (following a rule, unconditional obedience, humility, enclosure, sexual abstinence, liturgical discipline, etc.) as forms of Western ›asceticism‹ and argue that using ›asceticism‹ uncritically carries the danger of obfuscating nuances, diversity and transformations of religious practices in the Latin (but also in the Greek) world of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages.