What is a monk? The word monk' is derived from the Greek word monakhos which means alone' or solitary'. In the early years of the fourth century, which are generally accepted as the embryonic years of Christian monasticism, individual Christian ascetics migrated into the desert wilderness of Egypt to engage in a solitary life of spiritual discipline. Their extraordinary way of life became an inspiration to great numbers of people who, following their example, withdrew from the secular world and entered the desert wilderness. Why this migration took place, how such people were perceived and why so many over so many years followed the way of the monakhos are issues too complex to be studied here.

Nevertheless, we should reflect upon how in the preceding centuries the persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire had become ever more frequent and violent, culminating in the Great Persecution instituted by the Emperor Diocletian in the year 303. It was to last for more than eight years, during which time thousands were killed and many more abused in the most terrible of ways, and it is reasonable to assume that during those years many fled into the wilderness to lead a way of life free from oppression. The Great Persecution finally came to an end when Constantine became emperor in the year 312.

That Christians of the second and third centuries, may also have looked to the desert as a place of refuge is a matter of speculation as there are few records to guide us. It is probable, however, that during this period numerous people, albeit unrecorded, left the main centres of population and entered the wilderness to engage in the spiritual life free from religious intolerance, thereby establishing a precedent for the later solitaries of the fourth century. Another factor to be considered is the effect of the Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and Licinius in the year 313. This edict granted religious freedom to Christians throughout the empire, and returned to them any properties previously confiscated by the state. As a consequence, the fortunes of the Church were reversed and the power of the bishops increased. This unexpected turn of events was not without its problems, of which one in particular stands out.

Before Constantine became emperor the oppressed Church consisted of people motivated by a need to seek spiritual perfection. Baptism was the first step and it was hard won. It was clearly understood by the candidate that through baptism the soul became a member of the Church, which was not simply an organisation of people but the living Body of Christ, and in doing so received the grace and power to continue on the path of spiritual perfection, even in the face of state persecution. However, when Constantine broke the chains of the state persecution, he also forged, inadvertently perhaps, a new and more insidious means of bondage by showering imperial favour and largesse upon the Church. Thus, as the privileges of the state were bestowed upon the Church it quickly became fashionable to be a Christian.

This proved to be a serious issue for the recently emancipated Church because previous to the Edict of Milan it had been normal for candidates to spend three years or more receiving spiritual instruction before being baptised. This ensured that candidates were effectively prepared for a spiritual way of life and that the growth of the Church was organic and manageable, but as the secular fortunes of the Church increased the numbers of socially aspiring applicants grew massively. The rapid increase in demand for membership generated unforeseen problems for the Church as it tried to cope with educating in the traditional manner the many thousands of people seeking to become Christians.

In many cases the motivation for spiritual perfection took second place to the desire for wealth, power and status. The result was that nominal Christians were to be found everywhere whilst spiritually aspiring Christians were just as few as before the time of Constantine. Furthermore, conflicts arose within the Church concerning orthodoxy, heresy and the parameters of authority. In the light of these seismic changes it is easy to understand how spiritually minded Christians of the fourth century fled not so much from the material world but from the materialism infesting the Church, and from court bishops who were fighting each other for choice territories. One can imagine traditionally minded Christians fleeing from the unseemly politics of the Church, entering the wilderness of Egypt and Palestine to return to the ancient prescribed life of simplicity and spiritual purity.

The word monk' was not then a commonplace name as it is today. Initially, the term monk' (monakhos) was used specifically to describe a man living a spiritual life in solitude. Other terms were also used to describe these solitary ascetics, such as the word hermit' or eremite' (from the Greek eremos, denoting an inhabitant of a desert'). They were also called anchorites' (from anachoréo, I withdraw). Eremites or anchorites were predominantly men who withdrew from the company of other people to dwell alone in isolation, although it is apparent that not all of them sought complete solitude as it is recorded that many were accompanied by a disciple. As the fourth century progressed many inspired Christians of both sexes were forming religious communities in the Egyptian desert. These communities were called coenobia a term derived from the Greek word koinobion indicating a shared or common life. Their members were known as coenobites, but as time passed they were also called monks.

In the early years of the fourth century, the most renowned solitary', St. Anthony (c. 251356), introduced a form of community life known as the eremitical, when he undertook the spiritual direction and organisation of the many spiritual aspirants who had gathered about him. At about the same time St. Pachomius (c. 292348) founded what may be considered the first conventional monastery, or coenobium, at Tabenna in the far south of Egypt [see map]. These community models or systems spread rapidly and in a relatively short time were firmly established throughout the Levant. Eremites or hermits were not specifically bound to a Rule such as that undertaken by those dwelling in a ceonobium and, unlike the coenobites, were generally free to wander at will.

The river of Egyptian monasticism was fed by three tributaries. In Upper Egypt [see map] through the influence of Pachomius, monasticism took the form of the coenobium. In Lower Egypt, through the influence of Anthony the eremitical type of monasticism predominated. A third was established in the mountains of Nitria [see map], a desert some sixty miles south of Alexandria. The monks who dwelt in Nitria and in the wastes of Scete followed the lead of two great figures: Macarius, much influenced by Anthony, and Pambo. At its height this movement consisted of five thousand monks, divided into fifty Lavras' or congregations. In due course these systems merged, more by mutual osmosis than anything else, and it became the custom for those seeking the life of a solitary or hermit to first enter a coenobium where they received spiritual direction and guidance from the abbot, a preparation that could, and frequently did take years before they were ready to undertake the arduous life of an anchorite. Yet, regardless of the various names and titles, the term monk' orMonakhos was, by the middle of the fourth century, commonly applied to those who were known to have consecrated their life to God, be they solitaries or coenobites; thus, I shall use the term monk' henceforth.

Did monasticism begin earlier than the fourth century? We will probably never know for certain but, apart from the political turmoil taking place in the fourth century, there are several interesting factors that suggest it may have. One is the role of John the Baptist in the Gospels. He is described [Matt. 3, Mark. 1] as being clothed in a garment made of camel's hair with a leather belt around his waist, and that his food consisted of locusts and wild honey, and it is generally accepted that he resided in the wilderness' [Luke 3: 25]. John was neither an isolated nor a unique example. Several Old Testament figures are closely associated with the desert. For example, Moses led the people of Israel into the desert wilderness for some forty years [Book of Exodus]. Another example is that of the great Jewish prophet Elijah [1 Kings 1719]; both allude to traditions concerning the withdrawal from human society for the purpose of seeking spiritual knowledge and experience, so it is quite probable that small loose-knit communities of spirituals' had existed in the wilderness previous to the fourth century.

John the Baptist is particularly significant, because if we accept that his recognition and acceptance of Christ made him a Christian, then he is the earliest known Christian solitary living in the wilderness and engaging in the spiritual life and, clearly, many of the Christians who entered the wilderness with the purpose of communing with God saw John as their role model. This is obvious in the earliest texts about the desert fathers, many of which are contemporary or near contemporary accounts of the lives and works of these extraordinary people. The earliest is the Life of Anthony issued in 357 (Anthony died in 356) by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (296373).

John's lifestyle, particularly his diet of locusts and wild honey', may seem odd if not unbelievable to many readers; after all, where does one find a regular supply of locusts and honey? It is true that in the arid regions of North Africa and Palestine there is a history of eating locusts, when they are available, and it is possible that John may have taken advantage of this source of protein. However, this is highly unlikely because the early solitaries generally disapproved of eating meat, vegetarianism being a fundamental characteristic of early monastic life. So where does John's diet fit into this scenario? Arguably, it is a matter of translation. The Greek word that is usually translated into the English language as locusts' is akrides, which does mean the insect, but it also refers to the locust-bean plant', otherwise known as the carob tree, a species of shrub or tree whose fruit is very nutritious and relatively easy to acquire as it is native to Mediterranean countries, including Palestine, and is very common in the arid regions of North Africa, including Egypt. Furthermore, the reference to wild honey may also be a question of mistranslation as the Greek words for wild honey, mela agria, are thought by some to be a misunderstanding of the word melagria or melagrion, which is a nutritious and versatile plant well-known to solitaries and other dwellers in the wilderness. A diet including these plants is sustainable and consistent with the lives of the early solitaries who, following John's example, lived on the vegetation they found in the wilderness.

It is evident that dietary control featured heavily in the asceticism of the desert fathers. Indeed, the ascetic discipline of the solitary monk, following the example of John the Baptist, involved a restricted diet of simple and often uncooked foods that were typically eaten no more than once a day, and from time to time, during Lent for example, even less frequently. Some are reputed to have fasted for many days, even weeks at a time. Most drank water only and that sparingly, although some were occasionally known to have taken a little wine. Generally, the monks followed a simple vegetarian diet and were able to grow their own food (especially in communities), supplemented by other foodstuffs, bread for example, obtained by the labour of their hands, in weaving linen, basket making, or rope making. The solitaries tended to be more extreme and varied in their approach. Many of them, following the example of John the Baptist, foraged for food in the wilderness, which to the informed and observant is a plentiful and dependable larder.

The most famous of the early solitaries, St. Anthony and Paul of Thebes, established their asceticism upon the precepts of Scripture, particularly the Gospels, in which John plays a significant role. The Scriptures describe John as, The voice of one crying in the wilderness' [Matt. 3:3], whose mission was to prepare the people of Israel by teaching them a way of repentance as the precursor to spiritual regeneration, an undertaking established in Baptism and completed in Christ. To the early followers of Christ, repentance meant changing entrenched behaviour patterns dictated by nature and social conditioning. To achieve this meant renouncing the world and undertaking a new way of life: a life of spiritual discipline, rooted in Christ's words, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me' [Matt. 19:21]. The desert solitaries did just that, and in doing so they established in their asceticism a spiritual path that was available to all who had the will and strength to persevere. They lived according to the precepts of the Scriptures, which defined their rule of life, for no acceptable alternative existed until the mid-fourth century when the celebrated Pachomius put into writing a Rule, itself based upon Scripture, for the life of the community of monks that grew around him at Tabenna.

To be continued . . .

Asceticism is a form of self-discipline that was prominent in Greco-Roman culture and it played a significant role in the lives of the desert fathers. Derived from the Greek word askesis, meaning exercise' or training', asceticism was initially conceived as a programme of bodily exercises to be used by athletes in preparation for the athletic competitions that were so popular in the classical world. In the third century BC it was adapted and employed by Stoic philosophers who modified and applied the system of athletic exercises to the purpose of mental and spiritual development. To this end the Stoics integrated psycho-spiritual processes, such as meditation, fasting and other forms of self-denial for the purpose of separating the soul from the body and its negative influence.

This philosophical disposition of the Stoics was not lost to primitive Christianity; however, the dualism of the Stoics, (and for that matter those we now call Gnostics), was from the beginning alien to the Church. Thus, the asceticism of the desert fathers, although similar in practice to that of the Stoics etc., was directed towards purification not by separation, but through unification the unification of the body, soul and spirit in Christ. For the solitary monk this askesis was a means of training the whole person in a spiritual discipline, central to which was overcoming the demands of the carnal appetites and engaging in prayer according to the instruction of St Paul, who in his first letter to the Thessalonians advocates that all who aspire to the spiritual life should Pray without ceasing' [1 Thess. 5:17]. Fulfilling this undertaking required the aspirant to relinquish all but the most essential of physical needs and to renounce all needs of the personality beyond that necessary for the spiritual life. It was to this end that the solitaries engaged in the life of an ascetic. As the name implies, solitaries generally lived alone, shunning human company to concentrate their entire lives in engaging with the spiritual work according to the imperative of St. Paul. Some of them lived in caves whilst others built small stone shelters known as cells'. Some, regardless of the climate, lived in the open throughout the year, a few even going naked. The majority, however, wore humble clothing, frequently wearing garments that even beggars would refuse to wear. As time passed and more formal communities were established, a recognisable dress code emerged, although the condition of such clothing did not necessarily improve. Silence was another fundamental of the solitary life. Even in communities it was common practice for the solitary to refrain from speaking to anyone and then to reply only when spoken to. It is a discipline still adhered to in many monastic communities to this day.

Inevitably, the monastic ideal of renunciation consisting of an ascetic life devoted to prayer and meditation evolved over the course of time, but although it was driven by its own irrepressible energy it was also shaped in different ways by the rapidly changing world in which it had taken root. What began as a migration of a few independent solitaries into the Egyptian desert very quickly became a mass movement of spiritually hungry people. Drawn together by a shared spiritual ideal these proto-monks gathered together to share in a common life, and great exemplars such as Anthony, Macarius and Pachomius came forward and took the lead in enabling these embryonic communities to establish social mechanisms that fulfilled their personal and communal objectives.

Yet, although the monks had renounced the secular world, the world was not so inclined to relinquish its hold on the monks, for although established far from centres of civilisation, the political and religious conflicts that raged around and within the Church during the fourth century reached deep into the monastic communities of the Egyptian deserts. At first, when their numbers were few, the political and doctrinal issues that troubled the Church had little effect upon the desert monks but, as their numbers grew, and as they began to organise themselves into communities and refine their teachings, what they believed and taught became a matter of significance to the politically minded authorities of the Church. Consequently there were many organisational and doctrinal issues that required clarification and agreement between the growing monastic houses and the Church administration a process that was not accomplished without pain or indeed bloodshed.

Nevertheless, in spite of the conflicts that plagued Church and monastery alike, the spiritual way of life of the monastic communities of the desert evolved a regular form, as did the Rule by which they lived. The monastery, with its focus on a life of prayer, meditation and labour, proved to be a very successful communal system that delivered almost everything the spiritually minded could need. An unexpected bonus was the abundance of material goods produced from the combined labour of the monastery. This increase in material wealth brought with it both benefits and liabilities. The monasteries were able to flourish, but at a cost. Managing the resources of an increasingly wealthy monastery required changes in administration and in the life-style of the monk; changes that were driven in part by the needs of the monastery, and in part by a Church hierarchy seeking to control the material resources as well as the intellectual and religious life of the monks. For a while the monasteries were able to maintain a reasonably stable system of spiritual development that could adjust to these changes; however, it was not to last and in due course what began as a renunciation of materialism and the forces of the material world succumbed to both. Its success became its downfall; a pattern that would be repeated down through the centuries, even to the present day.

A great deal of our understanding about the rules and practices of these various communities, especially with regards to the communities of Nitria and Scete, has come down to us through the writings of contemporaries such as the anchorite Evagrius of Pontus [c. 345398]. Evagrius spent the majority of his years among the cells of Scete engaging in the ascetic life. He was highly regarded in his day with a reputation for great wisdom and piety. He was also a fervent Origenist and a prodigious and acclaimed writer who fell foul of the Church for his adherence to the teachings of Origen. His writings were, nevertheless, used by John Cassian [c. 355c. 445] as a basis for introducing Egyptian monasticism into Western Europe. Cassian had spent several years in a monastic community located near Bethlehem in Palestine before travelling to Egypt where he dwelt for several years among the desert monks, collecting and recording information about the ascetic life and rule of the desert fathers. In 415 Cassian established two monasteries near Marseilles, one for men and one for women. He instituted a Rule for both based upon his experience in Egypt and upon the writings of Evagrius.

In the sixth century, St. Benedict (c. 535), drawing on the work of Cassian and through him upon Evagrius and the legacy of the desert fathers and their communities, established what was to be the most successful Rule for a monastic community. In his Rule he classifies four kinds of monk. The first kind he called coenobites. As described above, these were spirituals who lived together in a community, following a common rule under the supervision and guidance of an abbot. The second he called anchorites or hermits, who after appropriate training in the discipline of a community, went forth to lead a life of solitude. Both of these embraced the life of renunciation, accepting the vows of obedience, poverty and hastity. Accordingly, they met with Benedict's approval as following a fit and proper life for a monastic. However, he also listed two others that he did not approve of. The first he called sarabites, a class of ascetics in the early Church who lived either in their own homes or in small groups near the cities and acknowledged no monastic superior. Of these Benedict stated that … they had not been tried under any Rule nor schooled by an experienced master …' Because of this there was real doubt in the Church concerning them, and the term sarabite' has since become synonymous with the self-taught of whom it is said, the self-taught have inadequate teachers and even more inadequate students'. The fear was that such people were in danger of becoming the ill-informed misinforming the uninformed. The second he called girovagi (wandering monks), these he condemns as people who lived off the charity of others and whose religious life was but a pretence, following their own will without the restraint of obedience.

Benedict's condemnation was not harsh. On the contrary, he recognised that for good reasons stability in the contemplative life of the monk, from the very beginning, had been based upon withdrawing from the world, and in his Rule he enshrined that long-established commitment to renunciation by requiring the monk to reside within the monastery, dedicating every moment of the day to spiritual discipline. In doing so he acknowledged the teachings of earlier exemplars of the monastic life who maintained that above all things the contemplative life was best served by removing all distractions from the field of experience, and because the external world was full of distractions the cell, and subsequently the monastery, was the most effective way of eliminating them. It was with this in mind that Benedict condemned the sarabites and the girovagi; as such people were more likely than not to deviate from the work and fall into error. It was a common saying that a monk out of his cell is like a fish out of water both will perish. With Benedict, monasticism entered a new phase, a phase that focussed as much, if not more, upon the spread of monastic communities in Europe rather than the East.

As for the desert fathers themselves, it would be a mistake for the reader to accept their sayings in the literal sense only. These sayings frequently carried different levels of meaning. Indeed, allegory and metaphor were frequently employed in the Greco-Roman world. And given that Palladius and many of the desert monks were followers of Origen, it should come as no surprise that many of the passages contained in this book may also be understood in allegorical or metaphorical terms. One example is the use of the term fornication'. Throughout the ages this word has been commonly understood to signify inappropriate or unlawful sexual congress. It is a subject that is frequently referred to in the Paradise, but careful reading of such passages often reveals a deeper meaning, a meaning that alludes to the soul's obsession with the things of the senses, of which irrepressible sexual fantasies are but one expression. Many of these passages demonstrate that among the early desert monks the term fornication' was applied to a wide range of carnal desires that could dominate the minds of solitary monks, thereby leading them away from the essential work of prayer and meditation. An obvious example of this is passage numbered 123 [p. 86] in which Abbâ Epiphanius says, Whenever a thought fills your heart with vainglory or with pride, say thou unto thyself, “Old man, behold thy fornication.”' [p. 98] These fornications' or obsessions had to be overcome if the solitary monk was ever to find the peace that surpasses all understanding', and consequently they were the subject of a great deal of reflection within these communities.

When considered in such a way, many of the fabulous stories concerning the seemingly impossible events and supernatural experiences that befell these solitary monks were not simply tales of wonder and imagination. They also reveal a profound understanding of human psychology. However, to understand them they need to be considered in context, and there is one context above all that needs to be recognised, which is that the central objective of the life and work of both the anchorite and the coenobite was spiritualising their life and being. This they did by withdrawing from the world and from the domination of the senses; turning away from everything that the biology and psychology of the terrestrial body defined in scriptural terms as the First Adam is programmed to facilitate. Paul describes the nature of First Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians [15:3954]. It is a subject worthy of prolonged meditation. The most common reaction of the terrestrial body to this kind of discipline is to instinctively revert to its biological programming and psychological conditioning. This instinctive response manifests in many ways but generally follows a recognisable pattern, a pattern that begins with the arousal of natural appetites (biology), accompanied by the stimulation of the imagination and the mind (psychology). Regardless of the forms it took it was the duty of the monk to overcome such impulses and to refocus on the spiritual work at hand.

If the monk was successful in overcoming the instinctive nature of the terrestrial body then the conflict, far from being over, could be externalised. This externalisation is described by the desert fathers (and by spiritual aspirants from other traditions) as afflictions imposed upon them by demons seeking to deflect them from their spiritual objective by confronting them with a host of carnal temptations, or by trying to sow seeds of doubt to undermine their resolve. Thus, a war ensues on a supernatural level between the monk and the demonic forces that may continue for many years. Yet, even when the demonic adversaries are defeated, and peace reigns in the soul of the solitary monk, it is not the end of the matter, for just as the internal conflict between the soul and the needs of the terrestrial body is externalised into a conflict with supernatural forces (demons), so the conflict between soul and demons may translate further into an external conflict with a physical being or creature who manifests in a physical form the demonic forces arrayed against the monk.

Many of the stories of the supernatural battles told by or about solitary monks conform to this pattern and only come to an end when either the solitary has overcome the instinctive nature of the terrestrial body or has surrendered to its demands. Now, it should be mentioned here that whether the reader is prepared to accept the reality of demonic entities, or to think of them as being hallucinations induced by unnatural means such as fasting or sleep deprivation, is a matter of personal preference, but it should be understood that to the monks of the time the experiences were real, and as such they were defined and conveyed, primarily in the form of short stories or sayings, according to the conventions of the time, which included the use of allegory and metaphor. Thus, far from being simple tales of superstitious primitives' many subtle meanings were embedded into their conveyance, and because of the wisdom they were understood to contain, these stories were used as educational tools, being passed on from teacher to student, from one monastery to another and from generation to generation. The problem for the casual reader or unwary student lies in accepting their literal meaning only, and/or imposing upon them modern theories that were never relevant in their time.

Far from being quaint remnants of a bygone age, these sayings embody a spiritual wisdom that is as fresh and relevant today as it was when it was first written some 1,600 years ago. In sum, as a social experiment monasticism has been clearly very successful, with perhaps the most outstanding reasons for that success being the combination of dedicated people and a stable organisational structure. Even in the arid environs of the Egyptian wilderness the well-organised monks were able to build and sustain extensive communities and, further, were able to generate surplus produce for distribution among the poor of the region. In some cases the surplus was sent as far as Alexandria for distribution among the urban poor.

Remarkably, this was only the beginning, for history demonstrates that the emergence of monasticism in the Egyptian deserts was a revolutionary movement that not only transformed the communal life of Egypt but also much of the Roman world. Indeed, throughout the fourth and fifth centuries the communal model of the monastery rapidly spread throughout an increasingly unstable Roman Empire.

In due course, the focus of the world of monasticism shifted, inevitably, from the Near East to the world of Western Europe where a new world order was to emerge. Here, through the influence of Cassian, Martin of Tours and in due course Benedict, the inspiration of the desert monks slowly rooted itself, but with a different form and dynamic, however, that is another story.