La vie quotidienne des moines

en Orient et en Occident
(ive-xe siècle)

R
U
E
Volume I

T
L’ état des sources

U
A
Édité par
Olivier Delouis et Maria Mossakowska-Gaubert
N
E
IM
C
E
SP

ÉC O L E
FR A N Ç A I S E
D 'AT H È N E S

Avec le soutien de l’UMR 8167 – Orient et Méditerranée.

INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ARCHÉOLOGIE ORIENTALE ÉCOLE FRANÇAISE D’ATHÈNES

BIBLIOTHÈQUE D’ÉTUDE 163 – 2015

 Sommaire

R
U
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... ix

E
T
Abréviations ................................................................................................................................ xiii

U
égypte et nubie A
Włodzimierz Godlewski
Monastic Architecture
and its Adaptation to Local Land Features (Egypt)........................................................... 3
N

Maria Mossakowska-Gaubert
Alimentation, hygiène, vêtements et sommeil
E

chez les moines égyptiens (ive-viiie siècle) :

IM

l’état des sources archéologiques et écrites ........................................................................ 23

Ewa Wipszycka
Les activités de production et la structure sociale
C

des communautés monastiques égyptiennes .................................................................... 57

Anne Boud’hors
E

Production, diffusion et usage de la norme monastique :

SP

les sources coptes ................................................................................................................. 69

Włodzimierz Godlewski
Monastic Life in Makuria.................................................................................................... 81
Bibliographie ................................................................................................................................. 99

V
Sommaire
 palestine, syrie
et mésopotamie du nord
Joseph Patrich
Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem............................................................................... 125
Lorenzo Perrone
La vie quotidienne des moines en Palestine (ive-xe siècle) :
l’état des sources littéraires.................................................................................................. 151

R
André Binggeli
La vie quotidienne des moines en Syrie-Mésopotamie

U
au miroir déformant des sources littéraires (ive-xe siècle).............................................. 179

E
Bibliographie ................................................................................................................................ 193

T
le monde byzantin

U
Cathernine Jolivet-Lévy
La vie des moines en Cappadoce (vie-xe siècle) :
A
contribution à un inventaire des sources archéologiques ............................................... 215
Olivier Delouis
Portée et limites de l’archéologie monastique
N

dans les Balkans et en Asie Mineure jusqu’au xe siècle .................................................. 251

E

Vincent Déroche
La vie des moines : les sources pour l’Asie Mineure
IM

et les Balkans, ca 300-1000 apr. J.-C. ................................................................................ 275

Annick Peters-Custot
La vie quotidienne des moines d’Orient
C

et d’Occident, ive-xe siècle. L’Italie méridionale byzantine ........................................... 289

E

Bibliographie ................................................................................................................................ 305

SP

afrique du nord
et espagne wisigothique
Przemysław Nehring
Literary Sources for Everyday Life
of the Early Monastic Communities in North Africa.................................................... 325
Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez
Visigothic Monasticism. Written Sources and Everyday Life ...................................... 337
Bibliographie ................................................................................................................................. 351

VI La vie quotidienne des moines en Orient et en Occident (ive-xe siècle)

 gaule et italie du nord
Cécile Treffort
Des mots aux choses :
traces de la vie quotidienne des moines en Gaule avant l’an mil ................................... 359
Anne-Marie Helvétius
Normes et pratiques de la vie monastique en Gaule avant 1050 :
présentation des sources écrites ........................................................................................ 371

R
Eleonora Destefanis
La vie quotidienne des moines

U
et des moniales en Italie du Nord jusqu’au xe siècle :
état des sources archéologiques ........................................................................................ 387

E
Peter Erhart

T
La vie quotidienne des moines en Italie du Nord
jusqu’au ixe siècle d’après les sources littéraires .............................................................. 413

U
Bibliographie ............................................................................................................................... 429
A
irlande,
monde anglo-saxon et germanique
N

Bernadette McCarthy
Living as a Monk in Early Medieval Ireland:
E

an Archaeological Perspective ......................................................................................... 457

IM

John-Henry Clay
The Everyday Life of Monactic Communities in Anglo-Saxon England
and Germanic West up to 1000: the Literary Sources ................................................. 493
C

Bibliographie ............................................................................................................................... 509

E

Résumés ........................................................................................................................................ 525

SP

Liste des contributeurs ............................................................................................................... 547

VII
Sommaire
 Joseph Patrich

Daily Life
in the Desert of Jerusalem*

R
EU
T
he Desertof Jerusalem (fig. 1), known also as the Judaean Desert, extends between the
Holy City on top of the Judaean Hills in the west and the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea

T
in the east, encompassing an area of ca. 20 × 90 sq.km. The remains of ca 60 ­monasteries,
of two main types—laurae and coenobia, were uncovered there. Monasticism in this desert
AU
started in the early 4th century with Chariton. Its leaders in the 5th and 6th ­century were
Euthymius, Sabas and Theodosius. Cyril of Scythopolis (d. 559 AD), the hagiographer of these
and four other Palaestinian saints, was the principal historian of this monastic movement.
Other, minor literary sources, written in Greek1, include: the Historia Lausiaca of Palladius
(HL), Vita Charitonis (V. Char.), Vita Gerasimii (V. Ger.), the Spiritual Meadow (Leimonarion) of
EN

John Moschus, the writings of Antony of Choziba, and more. There are also Syriac Monophysite
sources, such as the Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, the Monk Romanus,
and Plerophoria by John Rufus.2
Daily life was not the same for all monks; city monks registered in the clergy of a church
M

led a different daily life then monks in the countryside, who were engaged in agriculture
or hospitality of pilgrims.3 Both had a different routine than the desert monks. And there,
I

­laurites had a different routine than cœnobites. The laurites lived and worked in their cells, the
EC

­coenobites—outside. Manual works common for both were the weaving of baskets, ropes and
mats from palm fibbers, fronds and branches. Mundane tasks were the carrying of water from
an adjacent well, or spring, assisting the cook, the construction workers, and the gardener,
­collecting fire-wood and seasonal edible plants4 such as manouthion, maloah, Melagria roots and
SP

 *  This paper is dedicated to the blessed memory of my dear friend—Prof. Yizhar Hirschfeld, who had passed
away in Nov. 2006. His work was a major contribution for the study of Palestinian monasticism. May he rest
in Peace .
1.  For the presentation of the literary sources cf. also the article of Lorenzo Perrone in the present volume.
2.  The major works on Palestinian Monasticism are: Chitty 1966; Flusin 1983; Perrone 1990; Hirschfeld
1990a; Hirschfeld 1992; Patrich 1995a; Binn 1996; Di Segni 2005.
3.  Such monasteries regularly had an oil press, stables, and even a flour mill. See, for example, Barbé, Zelinger
2005, p. 117; Taxel 2008, who deals with the monasteries in hinterland of Diospolis (Lod/Lydda), Nicopolis
(Emmaus) and Eleutheropolis (Beth Guvrin)—three of the major inland cities in central Palestine; Dauphin
1986; Dauphin 1979.
4.  Hirschfeld 1990b; Rubin 2002.

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 125

 caper buds and pods (fig. 2), and cleaning trash disposal. There were also communal tasks such
as guest master, the one who cares for the sick, the cook, the backer, the mules driver, gardener,
calligrapher, librarian, and those in charge of the religious services and the sacred duties in the
monastery church: the precentor (kanonarches) who also served as a treasurer (keimeliarches),
the one in charge of the offerings (prosphorarches), and the candle-lighter. The term of service
in the communal tasks was one year, and it could be prolonged year after year. In a coenobium
the services in the church were held every day, while in the laura they were held during the
weekends or during dominical feasts and commemorations. A cœnobium, being a walled mon-

R
astery with a gate had a gatekeeper—a trained monk of high discipline (fig. 3). A laura, being
un-walled, did not need one (fig. 4). Younger monks could also serve as attendants for elderly

EU
monks. The abbot, his deputy and the steward (oikonomos) were a group apart.5
The 24 hours of each day were divided into three parts: work, prayer and sleep—about
6 hours each night.6 Extreme measures of mortifications, common to Syria were rare; they
are recorded by Palladius (HL 48, 1423) at the end of the 4th century (ca 388 AD), regarding

T
the way of life in the Laura of Douka—a Laura of Chariton. A monk named Sisinius, of a
Cappadocian origin, secluded himself in a cave, and for three years refrained from sitting or
AU
lying down, and did not go out. Palladius also mentions two chain-wearing anchorites from
Jerusalem: Innocentius the Priest on Mt. of Olives, and Olympius of Pontus (HL 43, 134-138;
98, 179). Such extreme asceticism, which undoubtedly had its origins in Syrian or Eustathian
influences, vanished during a later period, when the influence of Basil’s teachings increased.
Euthymius declared that a monk should not maintain excessive asceticism, and that a young
EN

man who did so was guilty of arrogance (V. Euth. 9, 17). Yet, in a small underground monastic
cell at Kh. Tabaliya, to the south of Jerusalem, near the monastery of Mar Elias, dated to
sometime between the 6th and the 8th century, was found a skeleton of a monk wrapped in
a heavy iron chain, 6 m long, weighting approximately 6 kg (fig. 5).7 The monk was interred
M

in his subterranean hermitage, and thereafter a round tower was built above, as a memorial.
There are also few notices on stylite monks. The best example of a tower of seclusion in our
I

region was found in Umm al-Rasas, not far from Madaba, in the province of Arabia.8
EC

Daily life was not the same throughout the week, neither throughout the year: there was a
different routine in the week days, and in the weekend; the dominical feasts, or ­commemorative
days had as well their own routine, the liturgy taking most of the time. The actual routine
also depended on the monastic rule in effect in a particular monastery. Sabas, before ­dying,
SP

gave his monks a written rule; one for the laurites, another for the cœnobites. The short
­monastic typikon of St. Sabas had reached us only in two MS found in Mt. Sinai, one from
the 12th-13th centuries, the other from the 15th century. Some of its regulations can be traced
back to Sabas days. Earlier, in the second half of the 5th century Gerasimus issued a monastic
rule for his monks. But the rules could not touch upon every single aspect of the daily life.

5.  Hirschfeld 1992, p. 69-101; Patrich 1995a, p. 169-195.

6.  Patrich 1995a, p. 229-253.
7.  Kogan-Zehavi 1998; Israeli, Mevorach 2000, p. 184-185.
8.  Piccirillo 1992, fig. 330; Michel 2001, p. 417-418, fig. 404-407.

126 Joseph Patrich

So in ­addition to a written prescription, there was a monastic tradition, and everywhere and
always, the actual state of monastic discipline was determined very much by the personality
of the abbot and of the leading monks—“the fathers”, or “the elders” of each monastery.9
From the literary sources three principal lauritic systems could be traced in the Desert of
Jerusalem: That of Chariton, implemented in the laura Pharan, and followed by ­Euthymius
(d. 473 AD) in his laura; that of Gerasimus (d. 475 AD), and that of Sabas (d. 532 AD).10
In Choziba (fig. 6-7) the weekend routine for the cell-dwellers11 was different from the weekend
routine at the monasteries of Gerasimus and Sabas.

R
In the Desert of Jordan River, near Jericho and the site of B ­ aptism, it was quite easy to in-
stall hermitages in natural or in ­man-made caves, cut in the soft marl formation near springs

EU
and palm groves.12 This desert is also called after its two major monasteries—Calamon and
Gerasimus. Two rock-cut hermitages of the Laura of Gerasimus are still preserved in the
marl rock above Ain Nukheil (fig. 8). Five others were exposed farther away to the southwest,
near the tiny spring of Ain Abu Mahmud.13 One is shaped like a 13 m long tunnel, another

T
has in addition a cell and a chapel, and the most elaborate has two cells, an elaborate chapel,
each having a window with circular window-pans, and a kitchen equipped with a stove and a

locking apparatus.
AU
rock-cut chimney (fig. 9). The entrance had well cut jambs, a socket for the door hinge, and a

But generally speaking, hermitages in the desert of Jerusalem were not just natural caves
but rather masonry structures in the open, or in front of natural caves (fig. 10), leaving the
cave as a rear space. The remains indicate that many of them were well designed and built by
EN

professional masons; they were not makeshift structures. The construction material was par-
tially wrought fieldstones. The walls were held together with cement made of mud and lime,
with the faces plastered. Floors were plastered or tessellated. Roofing was of wooden beams
baring the space between the rock cliff and the opposite external wall. The roof above was
M

plastered as well. Roof tiles were not found. Natural caves were expanded by the addition of
built structures in front, never by excavating inward into the rock. They were equipped with
I

windows for light and ventilation.14

EC

There were hermitages intended for a single monk, and other, intended for several monks
(an elderly monk and his disciple or attendant, brothers-in-blood, monks of common ethnic
origin, or of similar theological inclination). Most of the hermitages that were measured in the
Great Laura—34 altogether, were for the lodging of a single monk; 7 were intended for two or
SP

three monks. The average living area of the hermitages there, intended for single monks, was
55sqm; the largest one (no. 17) was 210 sqm; the smaller—(no. 37), just 10 sqm.15 The Laura of
Jeremias, called after its founder, one of Sabas disciples, is the smallest recorded laura. It is a level

9.  Patrich 1995a, p. 203-228 and 274-275.

10.  Patrich 1995b.
11.  Patrich 1990a.
12.  Hirschfeld 1989-1990, fig. 38-44; Hirschfeld 1991; Sion 1996, pl. 1-4; Patrich 2009.
13.  Patrich, Arubas, Agur 1993.
14.  Patrich 1995a, p. 84-90.
15.  Ibidem, p. 95, table 1; p. 100, table 2.

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 127

 laura with twelve cells set in three groupings. Most cells were quite small, of a single room and
a floor area of not more than 15 sqm.16

The Rules of Gerasimus for the Cell Dwellers had reached us in his Vita. The anonymous
author is identified by some scholars with Cyril himself; in any event, he drew upon the ­latter’s
writings. The author provides orderly and detailed rules that Gerasimus set for the cell ­dwellers
(V. Ger.2-3, 2-4):
2.  “… after he founded there (in the desert of the Jordan) a very famous laura, he established

R
in its center a cœnobium and enacted a regulation that the novices would dwell in the cœnobium
and would learn the monastic way of life, while those perfect in God’s eyes, who are noted for

EU
their willing exertions, who have surpassed the majority in their ascent in the spirit of God,
they shall dwell in the cells, and to them he gave such a rule that each one of them shall dwell
in seclusion in his own cell five days of the week, eating nothing except bread, water, and dates,
while on Saturday and Sunday they (all the anchorites) would come to the church, and after

T
having participated in the Divine Mysteries, they would partake of cooked food accompanied
by a little wine in the cœnobium—all (the monks: i.e. both anchorites and coenobites) used to
AU
perform the office of the psalm-singing together on Saturday and on ­Sunday—while on the
other five days (the cell-dwellers) had to seclude themselves, as was stated.
3.  They were forbidden to light a lamp in the cell at all, or to make a hot drink, or to eat
cooked food; nay, they were absolutely poor, humble of spirit, and independent of the urges
of the flesh. They controlled the stomach and all bodily pleasure; and not only this, they also
EN

became free from the passions of the soul, from pain and from anger and from cowardice and
from lethargy… In their cells they made rope and baskets; and each one of them would bring
on Saturday to the cœnobium the fruits of his weekly labor, and on Sunday afternoon he would
take the weekly supplies, loaves of bread and dates and one jug of water, and so he would return
M

to his cell… None of them would have in his cell any material possessions, except for these
essential things, one tunic and a mantle and a hood; and for bedding each one had one reed
I

mat, and a patchwork blanket, and a cushion, and one clay bowl, in which he both ate and also
EC

moistened the palm fronds” (translated by Leah Di Segni).

Each monk should conduct the evening prayer in his cell; however, he was forbidden to light
a lamp to read by its light after the prayer (ibidem 4, 45). No one had possessions of his own,
SP

and everything was communal property (ibidem).

The set of rules which Gerasimus gave to the cell dwellers therefore relates to the following
aspects: (1) The division of the week between the weekdays in the cell and the weekend in the
church. (2) The food: during the week in the cell, and on the weekend in the cœnobium. (3) Prayer
practices in the cell and weekend ceremonies in the church. (4) The work of the monk in his
cell. (5) The monk’s utensils and garments.

16.  Ibidem, p. 113-116, table 3; Patrich 1990b, pl. 35-40.

128 Joseph Patrich

1. ORGANIZATION AND THE DIVISION OF THE WEEK 17

In contrast with Gerasimus, Sabas did not establish his laura around a coenobium. The ­Novitiate
of the Great Laura—the Small Cœnobium—was placed outside the bounds of the Laura;
he also sent the novices to Theodosius, or to the cœnobium Euthymius. His, therefore, was a
settlement solely of anchorites.
The monks in the Great Laura, like those of Gerasimus, were staying in their cells for five
days a week, and gathered in the church of the laura on Saturday and Sunday. In Choziba,

R
in contrast, the cell dwellers would come to the cœnobium only towards evening on Saturday,
before the evening prayer. The case was different in the laurae of Chariton—Pharan, Douka

EU
and Souka, and in the Laura Euthymius. But since V. Char. was written in the 6th century,
­apparently by a monk of Souka, who was inspired by the writings of Cyril, it may be questioned
to what extent the life of the monks described in this composition faithfully reflects the reality
in the time of Chariton. According to the Vita, Chariton left instructions for his monks in

T
Pharan before he moved to Douka (V. Char. 1617, 2829), but these were not written regulations.
Euthymius as well did not leave written regulations. Hence, in order to learn of the way of life
AU
in these laurae, we must draw details that are scattered in various sources.
Chariton laid down the precept that the monks must not emerge frequently from their cells,
but rather stay inside as much as possible (V. Char. 17, 29). This clearly refers to the weekdays,
and it is implicated that in the Laura Pharan it was not obligatory to stay in the cell throughout
the weekdays; it seems that the monks were accustomed to leave their cells and to associate
EN

with each other.

Also in Sinai, where the laurite way of life was prevalent, the monks would come to the
church only on Sunday (Leimonarion 126, 2988). During the week they visited each other at
times, in order to maintain proper relations among themselves (Narrationes 3, 619622). This,
M

therefore, was a practice similar to that in the Laura Pharan.

I

2. FOOD AND DRINK 18

EC

Chariton established that it is necessary to eat only once, at the end of the day, a small
amount, and that the food must be unprocessed and simple: bread with salt and spring or
SP

rainwater (V. Char. 16, 28). If the food did indeed include only bread and water, then this was
even less than what Gerasimus had permitted his monks.

17.  Patrich 1995a, p. 206 and 229-253.

18.  Ibidem, p. 207-210, 225.

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 129

 FOOD

The food Gerasimus permitted his monks during the five weekdays was very basic: bread,
water, and dates. In the Great Laura, we also hear, in addition to dates, of carobs. Carobs
grow there even today. It is possible that the monk’s food also included legumes, vegetables
and porridge (for the old ones). In any event, we have not found cooking facilities in any cell
of the Great Laura. Stoves which were found in ʿAin Abu Mahmud (fig. 9), and in almost all
of the cells of Choziba, indicate that the anchorites there would cook their food, and perhaps

R
also bake bread for themselves (fig. 11).
It was a measure of asceticism to eat the leftovers of cooked dishes, served on Saturdays and

EU
Sundays. Anchorites, who did not belong to a monastic community, and who did not receive
nourishing meals on the weekends, might eat fresh vegetables, which they cultivated in their
tiny gardens (V. Cyr. 16, 232), or legumes soaked in water (ibidem 19, 234).

T
19
DRINK 
AU
In addition to water, two other drinks are mentioned in the sources dealing with the life
of the monks: Eukration, eukraton, or eukras—a hot drink, which was brewed from pepper,
cumin, and anise—was common among the monks, especially in Palaestina. It was drunk by
the monk in his cell, not served only in the communal meals. Gerasimus prohibited his monks
EN

from drinking eukration in their cells; according to him, this is a drink suitable for coenobites
(V. Ger. 4, 4).
There were different practices concerning wine. It seems that the drinking of wine was preva-
lent among the cell dwellers in the Great Laura, unless they were stringent with themselves, as
M

was Aphrodisius. Gerasimus permitted his monks a little wine only in the fraternal meals on
Saturday and Sunday; on these occasions it was also served in the Great Laura (V. Sab. 58, 159).
I

The diet in the Great Laura was hence slightly different from the one, which Gerasimus had
EC

regulated for the monks of his laura. However, it is also narrated that his monks had difficulty
in observing these norms strictly, and they asked him to be allowed eukration and cooked foods.
In Choziba the cell dwellers would also keep oil for consumption in their cells (V. Georg. 12,
107-109). There are no allusions to this being permitted or common in the Great Laura, where
SP

they consumed it in the Saturday and Sunday fraternal meals (below). It is possible that this
reflects a deterioration of norms between the time of Cyril and that of Antonius, the author of
V. Georg. in the first half of the 7th century AD. The cell dwellers of Choziba also would pick
caper buds and pods (fig. 2d), in the proper season, and take them to their cells, on their way
back from the cœnobium (ibidem 42, 1434). Other wild plants that were collected in the desert
include the Mannouthion (μαννούθιον) (fig. 2a), and the Maloah (μαλóα)—saltbushes (fig. 2b),
whose leaves were added to the food, as a spice, and melagria (fig. 2c).

19.  Ibidem, p. 208-209.

130 Joseph Patrich

 The food in the weekend common meals included vegetable dishes (λάχανον), legumes
(ὄσπριον), or pseudotrophion (ψευδοτρόφιον) (V. Sab. 44, 135). The legume dishes included
a bean dish (φάβα) called pissarion (πισάριον) (V. Sab. 40, 130), and there also were squash
dishes (κολοκύνθια). In these meals also were served: wine, bread, oil, cheese, and honey
(V. Sab. 58, 159). The bread was fresh, if we assume that baking was done every week, before
the ­common weekend meals.20 On Sunday afternoon the loaves of bread and other foodstuffs
were distributed to the cell dwellers. In the festive Easter meals, in addition, white bread was
served, as well as eggs. Meat was permitted only for the sick (Leimonarion 65, 2916). We do

R
not hear of fish in the sources from this period.

EU
3. THE PRAYER PRACTICE IN THE CELL
AND IN THE CHURCH 21

T
Chariton instructed his monks to pray and chant psalms seven times a day, at set times, and
with great concentration (V. Char. 1617, 2829). He placed special emphasis on raising up for the
AU
night prayer, and established that the monks must stay awake 6 hours during the night, which
was the accepted quota. Psalms could be repeated between the hours of prayer as well, while
the monks were engaged in labor. He also recommended to his monks to study the Scriptures
in their cells.
A private chapel (oratory) was a common feature of the hermitages of the Great ­Laura.22
EN

Eleven of the 45 surveyed hermitages had private chapels, and four more had a simple
prayer niche. It was also encountered in two hermitages in the Desert of Gerasimus, near
ʿAin Abu Mahmud mentioned above (fig. 9),23 and outside the Cœnobium Choziba.24 Two
well-preserved ­examples are hermitage no. 13 (fig. 11), as well as no. 18 there, attributed by the
M

local tradition to George Chozibites. But a private chapel was not a regular component of
every single cell; they are not to be found in some other laurae, like Heptastomos, Jeremias,
I

or Firminus. Some chapels served a small group of cell-monks living adjacent to each other.
EC

Chapels could have colorful mosaic floors, like in the case of complex no. 27 of the Great Laura
of Sabas (fig. 12), wall paintings, or cement-cast furnishings (no. 28 there).25 But generally the
floors were just plastered, or of trodden earth.
The Eucharist rite was held in the Laura Pharan only on Sundays. The monks were supposed
SP

to remain in their cells for six days, and not five, as Gerasimus had instructed his monks, and
as was the practice, at a later period, in the Great Laura.

20.  See: Hirschfeld 1996.

21.  Patrich 1995a, p. 229-253.
22.  Ibidem, p. 90-106; Patrich 1993.
23.  Patrich, Arubas, Agur 1993.
24.  Patrich 1990a
25.  Patrich 1995a, p. 98 and fig. 46-49.

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 131

 Regarding the weekend prayers, therefore, there is a decisive difference between Pharan and
what Gerasimus and Sabas established for the cell dwellers—communal prayers on Saturday
and Sunday.26

4. THE MONK’S WORK IN HIS CELL27

Chariton ordered that the monk, when in his cell, should be engaged in labor while reciting

R
psalms (V. Char. 16, 28). Euthymius wove ropes in his cell in Pharan, thus earning his livelihood
and giving the excess income to the needy (V. Euth. 6, 14). This routine of a monk working in

EU
his cell was common to all later laurae. Other monks were weaving baskets, or mats (fig. 13).
It seems that in Pharan the income from the work went directly to the monk who used it in
order to purchase his food, distributing the rest to the needy. If such indeed was the case,
then there was a considerable difference in the administrative and economic organization of

T
Pharan at the beginning of the 5th century and that of the later laurae, in which caring for the
livelihood of each monk was the responsibility of the central administration of the monastery,
AU
and the monk did not get any income for his labor, which could be distributed to the needy.
Such a structure reflects a looser monastic administration than that known to us from the
Great Laura and even than that of Euthymius.
Apparently during the time of Euthymius each monk still had a great deal of free choice
regarding the way of life which he wished to maintain, similar to the situation in Nitria dur-
EN

ing the time of Palladius. We do not hear that Euthymius asked the abbot of the monastery
for his farewell blessing when he went forth from his cell with his friend Theoctistus into the
heart of the desert. Furthermore, it was the fathers of Pharan, not the abbot of the Laura, who
searched for the missing Euthymius and Theoctistus, and the decision of the latter to move their
M

dwelling place from the Laura and establish a new monastery was apparently not conditional
upon the consent of the abbot of the Laura, for there is no evidence of his very existence. It is
I

quite possible that the fathers of Pharan, a group of elderly monks, directed the place. It should
EC

be mentioned in this context that also in Mt. Nitria there was no monastery abbot at about
this period, and the settlement was directed by a group of eight priests, led by a senior priest.28
Some monks were permitted to handle other works. Cyril was engaged in writing in his
cell in the New Laura and later, in the Great Laura. There is also mention of a calligrapher
SP

(καλλιγράφoς) (V. Sab. 84, 189), who was copying books.

26.  Patrich 1995b.

27.  Hirschfeld 1992, p. 104-106; Patrich 1995a, p. 210.
28.  Patrich 1995a, p. 224-228.

132 Joseph Patrich

5. THE MONK’S GARMENTS AND ACCOUTREMENTS 29

The items the monk kept in his cell answered his most essential needs: clothing, bedding,
and eating utensils.
As regards clothing, Chariton was accustomed to wear a tunic of hair (V. Char. 15, 27)—
a ­figurative phrase, and to lie down—only for a short while—on the ground, passing most of
the night in prayer. This, however, was an exceptional ascetic practice, not the norm.

R
GARMENTS

EU
A sleeveless tunic, a mantle and a cowl were the common clothing of the Judean Desert
monks. Aphrodisius, in the Great Laura (V. Sab. 44, 135) had only one tunic. This implies that
the norm in the Laura was two tunics, not one. Two or three tunics were also the norm in the

T
Pachomian monasteries, as well as in Sinai.
But there were also more extreme standards. Sabas’ ideal was a patchwork cloak as an outer
AU
garb. According to Cyril, this is how he dressed, even when standing before Emperor ­Anastasius
in his palace. Such also was the cloak of Heraclides and his brother Georgius of Choziba, who
were distinguished as monks extremely stringent with themselves (V. Georg. 9, 105; 12, 108).
A staff, which is mentioned in the sources together with the garb of the Egyptian monks,
is also mentioned in the sources referring to the Judean Desert. A goatskin or shoulder strips
EN

prevalent in Egypt, are not mentioned in Cyril’s writings. The cloak—the outer garment, was
black, as was the cowl. Their colour was similar to that of the Syrian monks, as distinguished
from that of the Egyptian monks. We have no data regarding the colour of the tunic.
M

EATING ACCOUTREMENT IN THE GREAT LAURA30

I
EC

The eating utensils in the cell of Aphrodisius, distinguished in his ascetic measures, included
a bowl (λεκάνη) in which he kept his food; it may be assumed that he also had a drinking
­vessel for water (cf. Leimonarion 19, 2865). He did not cook, hence he did not have a pot (χύτρα),
­casserole (χαλκίον), and a stove (μαγειρεῖον). All these were to be found in the cells of the
SP

regular monks in the Great Laura, so it seems. Clay vessels uncovered in some ­hermitages,
like those near ʿAin Abu Mahmud (fig. 14), or that of Procapis at Mt. Nebo,31 shed light on
the actual reality. In both, cooking pots were among the vessels found, indicating that nor-
mally the monks in the Laura of Gerasimus and cell dwellers elsewhere did cook in their cells,
and even warmed eukartion, as the sources allude. The monks of Gerasimus had difficulty in
­observing the prohibition against heating drink and cooking food, and these cooking utensils

29.  Hirschfeld 1992, p. 91-93; Patrich 1995a, p. 210-220.

30.  Hirschfeld 1992, p. 99; Patrich 1995a, p. 220-223.
31.  Piccirillo, Alliata 1990.

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 133

 were probably to be found in their cells as well. In hermitage no. 3 near ʿAin Abu Mahmud a
nice example of a cooking stove with a rock cut flue above it was preserved (fig. 9).
George of Choziba had the following eating utensils: a clay vessel (κέραμoς), a stone mortar
(ἴγδη λιθίον) for grinding food scraps, and probably also a bowl for soaking the dry food balls
before eating them. A nice assortment of tableware came from Martyrius and Kh. Ed Deir
monasteries—both cœnobia.32
Gerasimus forbade his monks to lit oil lamps and read in their cells after the evening prayer.
Interesting, no oil lamp was found in the cells in the desert of Gerasimus near ʿAin Abu

R
Mahmud, but depressions in the walls in the hermitages indicate that oil lamps were used there,
in spite of the fact that no fragments were found. In the hermitage at Nusaib Ushira—not

EU
far from Choziba, a fragment was found,33 and likewise elsewhere. A glass oil lamp that was
hanged on a wire from the ceiling was found in the hermitage of the monk wrapped in iron
chain in Kh. ­Tabaliya, mentioned above. But this hermitage is located next to Jerusalem—­
Bethlehem road, not in the desert. Other belongings found in the cell included a small pottery

T
goblet, an iron knife, two horseshoe-shaped pieces—perhaps of the sandals, a bar of an iron
cross, a belt buckle and a few pottery crockery shreds.34
AU
BEDDING AND OTHER ACCOUTREMENT IN THE GREAT LAURA35

The bedding of Aphrodisius included a mat on heaps of straw (στιβάδιον ἐπὶ ψιάτιον) and
EN

a patchwork blanket (κεντώνιον). Regular monks of the Laura would sleep on a mattress
(χαλάδριον). Georgius of Choziba, who was a cell dweller, and who maintained an ascetic way
of life, had as bedding a patchwork mat (στρῶσις ῥακίων). A mat of palm frond was found
among the basketry in ʿAin Abu Mahmud (fig. 13).36 Stone beds were found in hermitage 3
M

there (fig. 9). This was the regular furnishing in the Monastery of Euthymius (fig. 15). Sleeping
on a stone bed over a mattress seems to have been the norm.
I

In the Laura of the Ailiotes, it was the practice to sleep on a chair or on a wicker armchair, as
EC

did the Egyptian monks (Leimonarion 63, 2916; 68, 2917); Cyril had in his cell in the New Laura
a seat (καθέδρα) on which he sat while writing (V. Euth. 60, 84). He did not sleep in the chair.
Sleeping on a pile of hay with or without a mat (V. Georg. 40, 142) and especially on the bare
earth, were measures of asceticism.
SP

In Choziba there was a similarity in clothing and bedding, to the standards of Gerasimus,
meanwhile assuming an additional level of poverty. Instead of a regular mat, presumably made
of reeds or palms, Georgius slept on a patchwork mat, and he had a patchwork cloak, which
possibly also served as a blanket.

32.  Magen 1993; Hirschfeld 1999.

33.  Netzer 1990.
34.  Kogan-Zehavi 1998.
35.  Hirschfeld 1992, p. 93-97; Patrich 1995a, p. 223.
36.  Supra, note 13.

134 Joseph Patrich

 CONCLUSION

It is clear from the survey that there were certain differences in monastic regulations, and their
application between the various monasteries in the Desert of Jerusalem. As we have seen, there is
a similarity between Gerasimus’ standards and Aphrodisius’ conduct. Gerasimus’ norm lies in the
realm of asceticism and stringency in the Great Laura; however, in the Laura of Gerasimus as well
there apparently was a difference in the realms of diet and cooking between the normative regula-
tions and the actual reality. At the same time, however, the differences revealed between the stan-

R
dards of Gerasimus (which constituted a legal standard difficult to maintain), and the reality in the
Great Laura, expressed in cooked food and sleeping on a mattress, may possibly have their source in

EU
a ­chronological gap of ca. 100 years between Gerasimus’ regulations and the time of Cyril’s writing.
Nor may we ignore the possibility that the author of V. Ger.—apparently a monk in his Laura37——
wanted to aggrandize the reputation of the founder of that laura. At any rate, in no realm were
Sabas’ regulations for the cell dwellers stricter than those laid down by Gerasimus for his monks.

T
This survey therefore indicates that in many realms daily life in laurae of the type of Pharan
were different from the Laurae of Gerasimus and Sabas. It is clear that Sabas did not establish

closer to the Laura of Gerasimus.

AU
his Laura after the model of Euthymius (the model of Pharan), but rather according to a model

But are the available literary sources, intending to edify the monks, trustworthy? Monks
were indeed living in harsh conditions in the desert, some even in caves. Cyril of Scythopolis
and his heroes were well acquainted with the reality of the desert—its topography and ecology;
EN

in many details, his hagiographies are grounded in fact. The archaeological finds complement
his descriptions. They indicate that generally the hermitages were well-built structures, with
appropriate supply of water, ventilation and light. But the accoutrements were generally simple
and elementary. There were also large cœnobia, with spacious dining halls adorned with mosaic
M

pavements, well equipped kitchens, and elaborately decorated churches. The best example in the
region under consideration is the ­Monastery of Martyrius—second to Theodosius in its size
I

and importance. It also held a hostelry, a large garden and a bathhouse.38 Being located at some
EC

distance from the hostelry, the bathhouse seems to had served the therapeutic needs of ailing
monks, rather than pilgrims and guests.39 Such amenity stands in contrast to the ascetic life,40
and there is no reason to conclude that it was frequented on a regular basis by each coenobite.
SP

37.  Flusin 1983, p. 36-40.

38.  Magen 1993, note 31; Magen, Talgam 1990, p. 93; Damati 2002.
39.  Another bathhouse was uncovered in a cœnobium more adjacent to Jerusalem, located near the road leading to
Jericho. The bathhouse, added to the monastery in the Umayyad, or early Abbasid period, was built near the gate, to
serve better the needs of pilgrims. See: Amit, Seligman, Zilberbod 2003; Di Segni 2003. An elaborate bathhouse
comprised a separate wing of a monastic pilgrims’ center near the city of Gaza. See: Elter, ­Hassoune 2005. The
complex, in its most elaborate 6th c phases, comprises of a vast basilical church with a crypt, an annexed chapel and
a baptistery, a well, a bath complex, a refectory and a hostelry, indicating that it became a center of pilgrimage. The
relative location of the bathhouse in the complex indicates that it was intended to serve pilgrims. On baths and bath-
ing in the Syrian and Egyptian monasticism see: Gatier 2009; Grossmann 2009; Mossakowska-Gaubert 2009.
40.  See, for example, Palladius, HL 55.2. But washing ones feet was considered a token of respect. See, for
example, Leimonarion 139; 233; 237.

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 135

 The literary sources should be read with caution, taking into consideration the archaeologi-
cal finds. At the same time, acquaintance with these sources enables a better deciphering of
the mute evidence of stones, and vice versa—the finds may elucidate the real essence of the
written sources.

R
EU
T
AU
EN
I M
EC
SP

136 Joseph Patrich

 R
EU
T
AU
EN
I M
EC
SP

Fig. 1.  Map of the Monasteries in the Desert of Jerusalem

(after Hirschfeld 1992, Map I).

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 137

 R
EU
T
a.
AU b.
EN
I M
EC
SP

c. d.

Fig. 2.  Edible plants of the desert (M. Zohari, Flora Palaestina, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,
Jérusalem 1966-1986, I.607, I.204, IV.27, I.358 respectively, courtesy Prof. Avi Shmida):
a.  Manouthion (Gundelia tournefortii)
b.  Saltbushes – maloah (Atriplex halimus)
c.  Melagria (Asphodelus microcarpus)
d.  Caper buds and pods (Capparis spinosa).

138 Joseph Patrich

 R
EU
T
a. AU
EN
I M
EC
SP

b.

Fig. 3.  The cœnobium of the Cave (Spelaion): a. General view of the lower area (photo J. Patrich);
b. Reconstruction (drawing Er. Cohen, after Patrich 1995, p. 152, fig. 66).

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 139

 R
EU
T
AU
EN
I M
EC
SP

Fig. 4.  Map of the Great Laura of Sabas (drawing Er. Cohen, after Patrich 1995, p. 83, fig. 26).

140 Joseph Patrich

 R
EU
T
AU
EN
M

a.
I
EC
SP

Fig. 5 a-b.  Kh. Tabaliya – monk skeleton

wrapped in chains and the reconstruction
of the way the chains were worn
(after Kogan-Zehavi 1998, fig. 9, courtesy
Israel Antiquities Authority).
b.

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 141

 R
EU
T
AU
Fig. 6.  Choziba monastery – general view (photo J. Patrich).
EN
I M
EC
SP

Fig. 7.  Map of Choziba monastery and the adjacent cells (ta kellia) (drawing B. Arubas, after Patrich 1995,
p. 125, fig. 53).

142 Joseph Patrich

 R
Fig. 8.  The Desert of Gerasimus, general view (photo J. Patrich).

EU
T
AU
EN
I M
EC
SP

Fig. 9.  ʿAin Abu Mahmud, monastic cell no. 3, plan and cross section
(drawing B. Arubas, after Patrich 1995, p. 130, fig. 57).

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 143

 R
EU
T
AU
a.
EN
I M
EC
SP

b.

Fig. 10.  The Great Laura, the cell attributed to Xenophon, located on a rock shelf in front of a cave, on a high
cliff: a. Plan (drawing Er. Cohen, after Patrich 1995, p. 88, fig. 31); b. Cross sections (drawing Er. Cohen,
after Patrich 1995, p. 89, fig. 33).
144 Joseph Patrich
 R
EU
T
AU
EN

a.
I M
EC
SP

c.

b.

Fig. 11.  Choziba, cell no. 13, with a baking facility (tabun) in the lower level:
a. Plan (drawing B. Arubas, after Patrich 1995, p. 134, fig. 60a); b. Cross section;

c. Reconstruction (drawing B. Arubas, after Patrich 1995, p. 135, fig. 60b). 145
 R
EU
T
AU
EN

a.
I M
EC
SP

Fig. 12 a-b.  Mosaic pavement

in the private chapel of ­monastic
complex no. 27 of the Great Laura
of Sabas (photo J. Patrich,
and drawing Er. Cohen, after
­Patrich 1995, p. 103, fig. 46).
b.

146 Joseph Patrich

 R
EU
T
AU
EN
I M
EC
SP

Fig. 13. Basketry remains from cell nos. 3

and 4 at ˁAin Abu Mahmud
(photo G. Laron).

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 147

 R
EU
T
AU
EN
I M
EC
SP

Fig. 14.  Pottery vessels retrieved from the hermitages at ʿAin Abu Mahmud
(after Patrich, Arubas, Agur 1993).

148 Joseph Patrich

 R
EU
T
AU
EN
MI
EC
SP

Daily Life in the Desert of Jerusalem 149

 R
EU
T
AU
EN
I M
EC

Fig. 15.  A masonry bed in a cell in the Monastery of Euthymius (photo J. Patrich).

SP

150 Joseph Patrich