Western Monastic Spirituality: Cassian, Caesarius of Arles, and Benedict ed. by Roger Haight, Alfred Pach III, and Amanda Avila Kaminski (review)

Reviewed by: Western Monastic Spirituality: Cassian, Caesarius of Arles, and Benedict ed. by Roger Haight, Alfred Pach III, and Amanda Avila Kaminski Lucas P. Depierre Roger Haight, Alfred Pach III, and Amanda Avila Kaminski, eds., Western Monastic Spirituality: Cassian, Caesarius of Arles, and Benedict (New York: Fordham University Press, 2022), 136 pp. In this accessible introduction to Western monastic spirituality, Roger Haight (Union Theological Seminary in New York), Alfred Pach III (Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine), and Amanda Avila Kaminski (Texas Lutheran University) offer primary texts from three classic figures: John Cassian (d. ca. 435), Caesarius of Arles (d. 542), and Benedict of Nursia (d. 547). These texts are accompanied by an introduction on the historical context, as well as a concluding essay that engages spirituality in the present day. These editors have published the volume within the series Past Light on Present Life: Theology, Ethics, and Spirituality, with a threefold aspiration (130–31): (1) providing historical context for the primary texts and their authors to introduce the central theme, in this volume “western monastic spirituality”; (2) offering primary texts that serve as testimony to the key insights of the classical figures under study; and (3) providing reflections on the enduring relevance of those teachings in our current life. In contrast with the promising title, this work falls short of engaging Western monasticism as a comprehensive phenomenon but succinctly presents the three figures mentioned in the subtitle. In general, the introduction of the historical context (part 1, pp. 1–20) is unsatisfactory if not misleading. For instance, it fails to notice that Cassian’s spiritual themes are primarily addressed to individual ascetic sages rather than regulated monasteries; in fact, what evidence is there that he ever found a community? Explaining that Caesarius simply “translates Cassian’s theory” (9) overlooks the crucial significance of contrasting paradigms (eremitical/communal) in the birth of monasticism—and even monasticisms. The introduction of the texts themselves disregards the complexity of late antique and early medieval sources that have intricately shaped Western monasticism and these specific texts. The assertion that Caesarius solely relies on [End Page 230] Augustine and Cassian (9) is dubious. For example, living in Arles, Caesarius probably knows De vita contemplativa of Julianus Pomerius who died in Arles around 499–505. The exhortations to virgins by Clement of Rome (d. ca. 99) or De laude heremi of Eucherius of Lyon (d. ca. 449) addressed to Hilary of Arles (d. ca. 428) may have also influenced him. Furthermore, in contrast to an idealist picture, the Eastern inspiration of monastic spirituality was not only conveyed in the south of France through the mediation of Cassian as the reader may believe reading this volume. Notably, Rufinus of Alquileia (d. ca. 411) had translated the Instituta monachorum of Basil of Caesarea (d. 397) prior to 397, and Jerome translated the Rule of Pachomius circa 404. By around 500, if not earlier, the Regula magistri that would later inspire the Rule of St. Benedict was composed likely by assembling even earlier materials. Moreover, the initial section of the book does not clarify the choice of the editors to exclude the other texts that make a major contribution to the emergence of Western monastic spirituality: among others, the Augustine rule—which stands as the oldest monastic rule in the West—as exposed in Letter 211 or in Sermons 355 and 356, some of the Latin texts mentioned above, or even the rigorous Rule of Fructuosus of Braga (d. ca. 665). The second objective of the editors, which aims to offer direct primary sources, is relatively well fulfilled, although the volume should not be considered a critical edition. Cassian’s Conference 1 is published from Owen Chadwick’s serious translation from 1958, without any modification. The Rule for Nuns of Caesarius is furnished through the doctoral dissertation of Maria Caritas McCarthy in 1960, which was at the time the first English translation available. Again, the original text and notes are unaltered, including the decontextualized philo-logical remarks of McCarthy, and some “op. cit.” references that are untraceable without access to the original text. The choice of this primary text highlights that, even if not speaking in their own voices, women...