Phronema Volume 30(1), 2015

Brenda Llewellyn Ihssen, John Moschos’ Spiritual Meadow:

Authority and Autonomy at the End of the Antique World. Surrey,
EN: Ashgate, 2014. 181 pages. ISBN 978 1 4094351 6 7.

The Leimonarion (Λειμωνάριον), which is usually translated into

English as The Spiritual Meadow, was written by John Moschos, the
spiritual father of St Sophronius of Jerusalem, during their ascetic
travels – for they were “dependent entirely on the hospitality of others”
(2) – throughout Byzantium in the late sixth and early seventh centuries
AD. Brenda Llewellyn Ihssen thoroughly contextualises the historical
circumstances of their “xeniteia” (2) in the ‘Introduction’ (1-17) to her
insightful and extensive study of the work, which aims at identifying and
exploring the dialectic between ‘authority’ and ‘autonomy’ in the lives
of the figures – ascetic and lay, holy and otherwise – depicted in The
Meadow. She especially hones in on the tension between the authority
of ecclesiastical authorities and the ostensible autonomy of monks and
laypersons, and the ramifications of this tension for social history (16).
I shall return to these topics below. For now, it is important to highlight
that after identifying the content of The Meadow as “spiritually beneficial
tales” that were shared amongst the monastic milieus of Egypt, Syria,
and Palestine at the time (11), the author adumbrates the topics that
she intends to address throughout, namely, “how relationships among
laity and professional religious, issues of wealth and poverty, health and
healing, death and dying were addressed among early Byzantine and

187
Book Reviews

secular society” (15). The use of the word ‘secular’ here should have
been clarified – since what we deem today as the separation between
religious and secular institutions did not function for the Christian Roman
empire of Byzantium; nevertheless these topics constitute the four main
chapters of the work, the first two of which are prefaced with modern
examples that resemble the issues addressed. For instance, the beginning
of chapter one on ‘Monks in The Meadow: Proving and Improving the
Ascetic Program’ (19-44), which addresses ‘grazer’ monks (or, βοσκοί
at 23, 25), begins with a brief reflection on the renowned American
vagabond and adventurer Christopher McCandless, who tragically died
of starvation in Alaska in 1992 (19), and the second chapter ‘Money in
The Meadow: Coin, Cost and Conversion’ (45-69) begins with the 2008
economic crisis in the United States (45). Whilst it would be unwise to
make an explicit parallel between McCandless and the 2008 financial
crash – insofar as neither the former nor the latter involved explicitly
Christian concerns – with the motivations of some of the holy figures
addressed by Moschos in The Meadow, still these examples are welcome
insofar as they draw the ancient context into conversation with today.
Moreover, each chapter then follows with a brief review of the relevant
scholarly literature on the topics addressed, highlighting thereby the
author’s significant contribution to existing bodies of knowledge.

In chapter one, Ihssen traces the culture of movement in

monasticism before highlighting that, for Moschos, “wandering occurs
because writing about the tales that he gathers is a significant component
of his particular ascetic program” (21), a program which is ‘proved’ in
various ways by the figures that he writes about. There are, for instance,
anchorites and grazers, both of whom can be inter-related if anachōrēsis
(ἀναχώρησις), from where we get the word anchorite, is to be understood
literally (25). The author then gives several examples of grazers who
‘prove’ their asceticism in various circumstances (28, 31) – although,
once again, this verb is perhaps not apt, since ‘proving’ denotes an
outward demonstration that would be antithetical to the humility sought
by many of these ascetics. Turning to the improvement of the ascetic
program (35), Ihssen addresses the liminal boundaries between monk and

188
Phronema Volume 30(1), 2015

layperson in the Byzantine Empire, especially in relation to obedience

and discernment (37). The former is reflected in the role of the disciple,
and in one example Ihssen assesses the obedience of a slave named
Theodore, who, in serving his rich and cruel master (37-39), is able to
attain monastic-like discipline and is thus praised by the monks (38). The
latter topic of discernment is reflected in the elder (39), and Ihssen uses
an example of a female doctor who, in discerning and compassionately
rebuking the lustful thoughts of her monastic patient, is able to cure both
his body and his soul (39-41). In both cases, the author aptly shows that
Moschos’ text displays liminality between monastics and laypersons in
that qualities conventionally associated with the former can be applied to
the latter, with ‘improvements’ in the lives of ascetical persons resulting
from their obedience to the guidance that is marked by (spiritual)
discernment.

The second chapter tries to “seek and identify connections

between wealth, poverty and soteriology” (47), and begins by referring to
the patristic understanding, based on the Gospel, that God’s identification
with humanity in the incarnation is particularly evident in the lives of
the poor (47-49). Since Christ is present in the poor, then “giving to the
poor is giving directly to God” (52), and Ihssen again turns to pertinent
beneficial tales from The Meadow in order to show that those who invest
in the poor through various means and circumstances are investing
thereby in God and hence salvation (52-55). Conversely, one who fails
to give to the poor fails “to bring one’s offering to God” (55). The
marketplace terminology of ‘investment’ (55, 60, 66) is a little strange
given that it functions along the lines of a gain-motivated scheme that
stands in direct opposition to Christ’s exhortation in Luke 6:35 to love
and to give even to one’s enemies without expecting anything in return.
Nevertheless, there is value in Ihssen’s nuanced approach that also
highlights that both poverty (60) and wealth (61) can lead to salvation.
Without being stated outright by the author, this implies that personal
circumstances and/or weaknesses and strengths play an important role
in the way one undertakes his or her Christian transformation. The
intricacies of almsgiving are then addressed (62-68), with just ‘who

189
Book Reviews

gets to give?’ being the primary concern as tensions between giver and
recipient, depending on their respective social classes, could arise (64).
Although many themes related to alms are present in The Meadow,
including “alms grounded in sacrifice, alms as representative of God’s
character (i.e. love and/or compassion for the poor) and alms connected
to punishment and reward” (63), ultimately Ihssen wisely concludes that
“it is not the distribution of alms that is redemptive; the attention to the
ascetic life, a life that provides consistent opportunity for almsgiving, is
redemptive” (69).

Chapter three on ‘Medical Management in The Meadow: Curing,

Enduring and Identity Formation’ (71-103) addresses the theology of
health and healing in a way that contrasts contemporary medical methods
with ancient approaches. Ihssen asserts that the former focus on utilitarian
“causes and cures” whereas the latter were more interested in managing
symptoms so that there could result a reorientation of meaning both for
the suffering person and for his or her community (74). This holistic
approach is discernible in two ways in the beneficial tales, namely with
reference “to either management or acceptance of ill health” (75). Ihssen
delineates the approaches to healing in the scriptures and the writings
of the Church fathers – some of whom drew on the Greek philosophical
tradition (75-77) – before addressing themes related to illness as
asceticism (80) and asceticism leading to illness (83), with the former
being considered acceptable and the latter unacceptable by some patristic
sources. Next, Ihssen turns to medicine in the age of Moschos, which
she asserts was sophisticated and by no means primitive; with many of
the hospitals that were set up in populated areas and along pilgrimage
routes being serviced by physicians who were “quite adept at diagnosing
illnesses” (84).

Healing is the norm in the beneficial tales of The Meadow,

with the author pointing out in relation to the cure of a woman with
breast cancer by a young monk that Moschos is concerned to show that
healing takes place at the hands of figures who use spiritual discernment
to diagnose and cure illnesses in miraculous ways (87-91). Healing,

190
Phronema Volume 30(1), 2015

however, is not limited to diseases such as cancer, but also to infertility

(91-94) and poison from snake bites (94-97), and stories related to each
of these are pertinently assessed. Finally, Ihssen points out that some of
the tales in The Meadow highlight the importance of enduring disease as
an ascetic discipline that facilitates the flourishing of the ‘inner man’ (98-
103). In summarising the two approaches to sickness, namely, curing and
endurance, Ihssen concludes that in both cases the afflicted “participate
in the economy of salvation through distinct and highly individualistic,
non-liturgical processes” (103). Unfortunately, this statement posits too
sharp a dichotomy between personal experience and the experience of
the ecclesial community; for in both cases it can be presumed that God
the Trinity is present in the lives of the afflicted – and in the former cases
the healer as well – thereby cancelling out any individualism. Moreover,
whilst the liturgy is not mentioned in the beneficial tales addressed, it
does not necessarily follow that the figures depicted in those tales were
not active participants in the ecclesial context.

Chapter four is entitled ‘Mortality in The Meadow: Dying, Death

and Predetermination’ (105-44), and deals with what Moschos’ beneficial
tales tell us about “how monks and those who interacted with them faced
and interpreted death” (106). As the largest chapter in the volume, it
addresses a variety of themes, including the foresight given to some saints
concerning their own reposes, which is labelled as ‘Predetermination:
Forewarned is Forearmed’ (107-17). Ihssen explains that this knowledge
was actively sought by the monk (107) and that it entailed “a theology
of predetermination” (108), which can only be partly the case given that
a) foresight in patristic tradition is viewed as a gift of the Holy Spirit
which are typically not ‘sought’ or gained but ‘given’ and b) whilst
Christianity presupposes predetermination from the point of view of God
(Romans 8:28-29), nevertheless predetermination and freedom operate
synergetically and on different levels insofar as what God ‘predetermines’
actually refers to our free choices, which he foresees; which is not quite
covered by Ihssen when she tackles the issue of “God’s sovereignty and
activity and personal human freedom and agency” (108). The author ends
this section by explaining that the beneficial tales addressed therein relate

191
Book Reviews

to two specific parties, the solitary ascetic and the monastic institution
(116), thereby bringing to the fore the work’s concern for the dialectic
of ‘authority’ and ‘autonomy’ between the two from the perspective of
social history. This tension carries on into the next section when Ihssen
observes the ‘combative’ dimension to solitaries who, on account of
their inner conflict that ostensibly takes place outside the normative
ecclesiastical system, emerge as individuals beyond the ‘integrative’
process, which happens when the ascetic is transformed within the system
(118). I believe that Ihssen’s assertion that there is an inherent conflict
between the ‘combative’ (autonomous) and ‘integrative’ (authoritative)
experiences imposes too sharp a distinction on a very complex topic; for
whilst these two approaches are indeed distinguishable from each other,
nevertheless the salvation of the solitary – which is a way of life that is
relevant to his or her own personal circumstances and not necessarily
prioritised to the collective – always takes place within the ecclesial
framework which is Christ’s body (1 Corinthians 12:27-31). In any case,
Ihssen tries to prove this thesis in relation to the deceased, autonomous
solitaries who – whilst eschewing community throughout their lives – are
later dug up and transferred to the ‘authoritative’ communities (119-21).
But such an approach does not factor in something that I hinted at above;
namely, that the ecclesial experience is communal, and if certain persons
decided to live more or less on their own for the sake of their salvation,
this does not necessarily mean that they wished to be entirely precluded
– either in this life or the next – from communion with other Christians
who make up the body of Christ.

The last section of this chapter (124-36) maps out the relationship
of Christians with the dead in a very immanent way insofar as it addresses
beneficial tales that involve the Christian dead rising in the here and now,
firstly in relation to say final goodbyes to, in the case of one tale, a dead
monk’s elder, and, in the case of another, a philanthropist Christian who
had prepared the deceased for burial (126-28). Various other types of
‘intermediate’ resurrection experiences are analysed before the chapter
ends with a final tale about a revelation to an elder about his deceased
disciple standing on the head of a bishop in Hades (134-35), thereby

192
Phronema Volume 30(1), 2015

pointing to “the contempt that monastics held for hierarchs” (135) in a

way that engages the central question of the work concerning the tension
between ‘authority’ and ‘autonomy’ in The Meadow. The conclusion
summarises the findings of each chapter whilst focusing precisely on this
theme, that Moschos’ Spiritual Meadow is replete with references to the
authoritative ecclesiastical hierarchy being opposed to the autonomy of
solitary ascetics, and to this end Ihssen points out that in the text “one
finds tale after tale that supports the will of the individual Christian
[...] one finds neither arrogant, overweening pride nor subversion,
but a beneficial message of the validity of the individual, trust in the
understanding of ‘self’ as capable of making a decision before God and
with God, even if that decision is neither upheld nor respected by those
around them” (144). Whilst this is to an extent a legitimate evaluation
insofar as the Church on an institutional level has often fallen short
of the standards exemplified by the holy persons she extols – such as
those depicted in The Meadow – nevertheless those persons more often
than not undertook the Christian journey both within and for the sake
of this ecclesial framework which, it must not be forgotten, is the body
of Christ. Paradigmatic for the life of the Church is Christ’s exhortation
“where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them”
(Matthew 18:20). This means that nothing in Christianity is done entirely
on one’s own, and even in the cases of hermits The Meadow offers a great
many examples of the environmental communion between God, ascetics
and various animals, birds, and reptiles; none of which is covered by
Ihssen, whose references to ‘autonomy’ and ‘individualism’ reflect more
the spirit of this age than Moschos’. Nevertheless, the work truly shines
in its rigorous assessment of a late antique text that should receive more
attention in the academy, and the author does a fine job of bringing it into
conversation with contemporary issues and concerns. This is compelling,
given that The Meadow itself is not without existential significance for
the receptive reader, and especially for the Christian.

Mario Baghos
St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College

193