Basil the Great, Saint
Bishop of Caesarea and distinguished Doctor of the Church (329-379)
Basil the Great, Saint, Bishop of Caesarea, one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church, b. probably 329; d. January 1, 379. He ranks after Athanasius as a defender of the Oriental Church against the heresies of the fourth century. With his friend Gregory of Nazianzus and his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, he makes up the trio known as “The Three Cappadocians”, far outclassing the other two in practical genius and actual achievement.
LIFE.—St. Basil the Elder, father of St. Basil the Great, was the son of a Christian of good birth and his wife, Macrina (Acta SS., January, II), both of whom suffered for the Faith during the persecution of Maximinus Galerius (305-314), spending several years of hardship in the wild mountains of Pontus. St. Basil the Elder was noted for his virtue (Acta SS. May, VII) and also won considerable reputation as a teacher in Caesarea. He was not a priest (Cf. Cave, Hist. Lit., I, 239). He married Emmelia, the daughter of a martyr, and became the father of ten children. Three of these, Macrina, Basil, and Gregory are honored as saints; and of the sons, Peter, Gregory, and Basil attained the dignity of the episcopate.
Under the care of his father and his grandmother, the elder Macrina, who preserved the traditions of their countryman, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-275) Basil was formed in habits of piety and study. He was still young when his father died and the family moved to the estate of the elder Macrina at Annesi in Pontus, on the banks of the Iris. As a boy, he was sent to school at Caesarea, then “a metropolis of letters”, and conceived a fervent admiration for the local bishop, Dianius. Later, he went to Constantinople, at that time “distinguished for its teachers of philosophy and rhetoric”, and thence to Athens. Here he became the inseparable companion of Gregory of Nazianzus, who, in his famous panegyric on Basil (Or. xliii), gives a most interesting description of their academic experiences. According to him, Basil was already distinguished for brilliancy of mind and seriousness of character and associated only with the most earnest students. He was able, grave, industrious, and well advanced in rhetoric, grammar, philosophy, astronomy, geometry, and medicine. (As to his not knowing Latin, see Fialon, Etude historique et litteraire sur St. Basile, Paris, 1869.) We know the names of two of Basil’s teachers at Athens, Prohaeresius, possibly a Christian, and Himerius, a pagan. It has been affirmed, though probably incorrectly, that Basil spent some time under Libanius. He tells us himself that he endeavored without success to attach himself as a pupil to Eustathius (Ep., I). At the end of his sojourn at Athens, Basil being laden, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus, “with all the learning attainable by the nature of man”, was well equipped to be a teacher. Caesarea took possession of him gladly “as a founder and second patron” (Or. xliii), and as he tells us (ccx), he refused the splendid offers of the citizens of Neo-Caesarea, who wished him to undertake the education of the youth of their city.
To the successful student and distinguished professor, “there now remained”, says Gregory (Or. xliii), “no other need than that of spiritual perfection”. Gregory of Nyssa, in his life of Macrina, gives us to understand that Basil’s brilliant success both as a university student and a professor had left traces of worldliness and self-sufficiency on the soul of the young man. Fortunately, Basil came again in contact with Dianius, Bishop of Caesarea, the object of his boyish affection, and Dianius seems to have baptized him, and ordained him Reader soon after his return to Caesarea. It was at this time also that he fell under the influence of that very remarkable woman, his sister Macrina, who had meanwhile founded a religious community on the family estate at Annesi. Basil himself tells us how, like a man roused from deep sleep, he turned his eyes to the marvellous truth of the Gospel, wept many tears over his miserable life, and prayed for guidance from God: “Then I read the Gospel, and saw there that a great means of reaching perfection was the selling of one’s goods, the sharing of them with the poor, the giving up of all care for this life, and the refusal to allow the soul to be turned by any sympathy towards things of earth” (Ep. ccxxiii). To learn the ways of perfection, Basil now visited the monasteries of Egypt, Palestine, Coele-Syria, and Mesopotamia. He returned, filled with admiration for the austerity and piety of the monks, and founded a monastery in his native Pontus, on the banks of the Iris, nearly opposite Annesi. (Cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog. of Asia Minor, London, 1890, p. 326.) Eustathius of Sebaste had already introduced the eremitical life into Asia Minor; Basil added the cenobitic or community form, and the new feature was imitated by many companies of men and women. (Cf. Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., VI, xxvii; Epiphanius, Haer., lxxv, 1; Basil, Ep. ccxxiii; Tillemont, Mem., IX, Art. XXI, and note XXVI.) Basil became known as the Father of Oriental monasticism, the forerunner of St. Benedict. How well he deserved the title, how seriously and in what spirit he undertook the systematizing of the religious life, may be seen by the study of his Rule. He seems to have read Origen’s writings very systematically about this time, for in union with Gregory of Nazianzus, he published a selection of them called the “Philocalia”.
Basil was drawn from his retreat into the arena of theological controversy in 360 when he accompanied two delegates from Seleucia to the emperor at Constantinople, and supported his namesake of Ancyra. There is some dispute as to his courage and his perfect orthodoxy on this occasion (cf. Philostorgius. Hist. Eccl., IV, xii; answered by Gregory of Nyssa, In Eunom., I, and Maran, Proleg., vii; Tillemont, Mem., note XVIII). A little later, however, both qualities seem to have been sufficiently in evidence, as Basil forsook Dianius for having signed the heretical creed of Rimini. To this time (c. 361) may be referred the “Moralia”; and a little later came the books against Eunomius (363) and some correspondence with Athanasius. It is possible, also, that Basil wrote his monastic rules in the briefer form while in Pontus, and enlarged them later at Caesarea (Baert). There is an account of an invitation from Julian for Basil to present himself at court and of Basil’s refusal, coupled with an admonition that angered the emperor and endangered Basil’s safety. Both incident and correspondence however are questioned by some critics (e.g. Maran; cf. Tillemont, De Broglie, Fialon).
Basil still retained considerable influence in Caesarea, and it is regarded as fairly probable that he had a hand in the election of the successor of Dianius who died in 362, after having been reconciled to Basil. In any case the new bishop, Eusebius, was practically placed in his office by the elder Gregory of Nazianzus. Eusebius having persuaded the reluctant Basil to be ordained priest, gave him a prominent place in the administration of the diocese (363). In ability for the management of affairs Basil so far eclipsed the bishop that ill-feeling arose between the two. “All the more eminent and wiser portion of the church was roused against the bishop” (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii; Ep. x), and to avoid trouble Basil again withdrew into the solitude of Pontus. A little later (365) when the attempt of Valens to impose Arianism on the clergy and the people necessitated the presence of a strong personality, Basil was restored to his former position, being reconciled to the bishop by St. Gregory of Nazianzus. There seems to have been no further disagreement between Eusebius and Basil and the latter soon became the real head of the diocese. “The one”, says Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. xliii), “led the people the other led their leader”. During the five years spent in this most important office, Basil gave evidence of being a man of very unusual powers. He laid down the law to the leading citizens and the imperial governors, settled disputes with wisdom and finality, assisted the spiritually needy, looked after “the support of the poor, the entertainment of strangers, the care of maidens, legislation written and unwritten for the monastic life, arrangements of prayers, (liturgy?), adornment of the sanctuary” (op. cit.). In time of famine, he was the savior of the poor.
In 370 Basil succeeded to the See of Caesarea, being consecrated according to tradition on June 14. Caesarea was then a powerful and wealthy city (Soz., Hist. Eccl., V, v). Its bishop was Metropolitan of Cappadocia and Exarch of Pontus which embraced more than half of Asia Minor and comprised eleven provinces. The See of Caesarea ranked with Ephesus immediately after the patriarchal sees in the councils, and the bishop was the superior of fifty chorepiscopi (Baert). Basil’s actual influence, says Jackson (Prolegomena, XXXII) covered the whole stretch of country “from the Balkans to the Mediterranean and from the Aegean to the Euphrates”. The need of a man like Basil in such a see as Caesarea was most pressing, and he must have known this well. Some (e.g. Allard, De Broglie, Venables, Fialon) think that he set about procuring his own election; others (e.g. Maran, Baronius, Ceillier) say that he made no attempt in his own behalf. In any event, he became Bishop of Caesarea largely by the influence of the elder Gregory of Nazianzus. His election, says the younger Gregory (loc. cit.), was followed by disaffection on the part of several suffragan bishops “on whose side were found the greatest scoundrels in the city”. During his previous administration of the diocese Basil had so clearly defined his ideas of discipline and orthodoxy, that no one could doubt the direction and the vigour of his policy. St. Athanasius was greatly pleased at Basil’s election (Ad Pallad., 953; Ad Joann. et Ant., 951); but the Arianizing Emperor Valens, displayed considerable annoyance and the defeated minority of bishops became consistently hostile to the new metropolitan. By years of tactful conduct, however, “blending his correction with consideration and his gentleness with firmness” (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii), he finally overcame most of his opponents.
Basil’s letters tell the story of his tremendous and varied activity; how he worked for the exclusion of unfit candidates from the sacred ministry and the deliverance of the bishops from the temptation of simony; how he required exact discipline and the faithful observance of the canons from both laymen and clerics; how he rebuked the sinful, followed up the offending, and held out hope of pardon to the penitent. (Cf. Epp. xliv, xlv, and xlvi, the beautiful letter to a fallen virgin, as well as Epp. liii, liv, lv, clxxxviii, cxcix, ccxvii, and Ep. clxix, on the strange incident of Glycerius, whose story is well filled out by Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, New York, 1893, p. 443 sqq.) If on the one hand he strenously defended clerical rights and immunities (Ep. civ), on the other he trained his clergy so strictly that they grew famous as the type of all that a priest should be (Epp. cii, ciii). Basil did not confine his activity to diocesan affairs, but threw himself, rigorously into the troublesome theological disputes then rending the unity of Christendom. He drew up a summary of the orthodox faith; he attacked by word of mouth the heretics near at hand and wrote tellingly against those afar. His correspondence shows that he paid visits, sent messages, gave interviews, instructed, reproved, rebuked, threatened, reproached, undertook the protection of nations, cities, individuals great and small. There was very little chance of opposing him successfully, for he was a cool, persistent, fearless fighter in defense both of doctrine and of principles. His bold stand against Valens parallels the meeting of Ambrose with Theodosius. The emperor was dumbfounded at the archbishop’s calm indifference to his presence and his wishes. The incident, as narrated by Gregory of Nazianzus, not only tells much concerning Basil’s character but throws a clear light on the type of Christian bishop with which the emperors had to deal and goes far to explain why Arianism, with the court behind it, could make so little impression on the ultimate history of Catholicism.
While assisting Eusebius in the care of his diocese, Basil had shown a marked interest in the poor and afflicted; that interest now displayed itself in the erection of a magnificent institution, the Ptochotropheion, or Basileiad, a house for the care of friendless strangers, the medical treatment of the sick poor, and the industrial training of the unskilled. Built in the suburbs, it attained such importance as to become practically the center of a new city with the name of e kaine polis or “Newtown”. It was the mother-house of like institutions erected in other dioceses and stood as a constant reminder to the rich of their privilege of spending wealth in a truly Christian way. It may be mentioned here that the social obligations of the wealthy were so plainly and forcibly preached by St. Basil that modern socialists have ventured to claim him as one of their own, though with no more foundation than would exist in the case of any other consistent teacher of the principles of Catholic ethics. The truth is that St. Basil was a practical lover of Christian poverty, and even in his exalted position preserved that simplicity in food and clothing and that austerity of life for which he had been remarked at his first renunciation of the world (Nitti, Catholic Socialism, New York, 1895, iii; Villemain, Tableau d’eloq. Chret., Paris, 1891, 116 sqq.).
In the midst of his labors, Basil underwent suffering of many kinds. Athanasius died in 373 and the elder Gregory in 374, both of them leaving gaps never to be filled. In 372 began the painful estrangement from Gregory of Nazianzus. Anthimus, Bishop of Tyana, became an open enemy, Apollinaris “a cause of sorrow to the churches” (Ep. cclxiii), Eustathius of Sebaste a traitor to the Faith and a personal foe as well. Eusebius of Samosata was banished, Gregory of Nyssa condemned and deposed. When Emperor Valentinian died and the Arians recovered their influence, all Basil’s efforts must have seemed in vain. His health was breaking, the Goths were at the door of the empire, Antioch was in schism, Rome doubted his sincerity, the bishops refused to be brought together as he wished. (Duchesne, L’Eglise d’Orient, Paris, 1881.) “The notes of the church were obscured in his part of Christendom, and he had to fare on as best he might,—admiring, courting, yet coldly treated by the Latin world, desiring the friendship of Rome, yet wounded by her reserve,—suspected of heresy by Damasus, and accused by Jerome of pride” (Newman, The Church of the Fathers). Had he lived a little longer and attended the Council of Constantinople (381), he would have seen the death of its first president, his friend Meletius, and the forced resignation of its second, Gregory of Nazianzus. Basil died January 1, 379. His death was regarded as a public bereavement; Jews, pagans, and foreigners vied with his own flock in doing him honor. The earlier Latin martyrologies (Hieronymian and Bede) make no mention of a feast of St. Basil. The first mention is by Usuard and Ado who place it on June 14, the supposed date of Basil’s consecration to the episcopate. In the Greek “Menaea” he is commemorated on January 1, the day of his death. In 1081, John, Patriarch of Constantinople, in consequence of a vision, established a feast in common honor of St. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom, to be celebrated on January 30. The Bollandists give an account of the origin of this feast; they also record as worthy of note that no relics of St. Basil are mentioned before the twelfth century, at which time parts of his body, together with some other very extraordinary relics were reputed to have been brought to Bruges by a returning Crusader. Baronius (c. 1599) gave to the Naples Oratory a relic of St. Basil sent from Constantinople to the pope. The Bollandists and Baronius print descriptions of Basil’s personal appearance and the former reproduce two icons, the older copied from a codex presented to Basil, Emperor of the East (877-886).
By common consent, Basil ranks among the greatest figures in church history and the rather extravagant panegyric by Gregory of Nazianzus has been all but equalled by a host of other eulogists. Physically delicate and occupying his exalted position but a few years, Basil did magnificent and enduring work in an age of more violent world convulsions than Christianity has since experienced. (Cf. Newman, The Church of the Fathers.) By personal virtue he attained distinction in an age of saints; and his purity, his monastic fervor, his stern simplicity, his friendship for the poor became traditional in the history of Christian asceticism. In fact, the impress of his genius was stamped indelibly on the Oriental conception of religious life. In his hands the great metropolitan See of Caesarea took shape as a sort of model of the Christian diocese; there was hardly any detail of episcopal activity in which he failed to mark out guiding lines and to give splendid example. Not the least of his glories is the fact that toward the officials of the State he maintained that fearless dignity and independence which later history has shown to be an indispensable condition of healthy life in the Catholic episcopate.
Some difficulty has arisen out of the correspondence of St. Basil with the Roman See. (Bossuet, “Gallia Orthodoxa”, c. lxv; Puller, “Primitive Saints and the See of Rome“, London, 1900.) That he was in communion with the Western bishops and that he wrote repeatedly to Rome asking that steps be taken to assist the Eastern Church in her struggle with schismatics and heretics is undoubted; but the disappointing result of his appeals drew from him certain words which require explanation. Evidently he was deeply chagrined that Pope Damasus on the one hand hesitated to condemn Marcellus and the Eustathians, and on the other preferred Paulinus to Meletius in whose right to the See of Antioch St. Basil most firmly believed. At the best it must be admitted that St. Basil criticized the pope freely in a private letter to Eusebius of Samosata (Ep. ccxxxix) and that he was indignant as well as hurt at the failure of his attempt to obtain help from the West. Later on, however, he must have recognized that in some respects he had been hasty; in any event, his strong emphasis of the influence which the Roman See could exercise over the Eastern bishops, and his abstaining from a charge of anything like usurpation are great facts that stand out obviously in the story of the disagreement. With regard to the question of his association with the Semi-Arians, Philostorgius speaks of him as championing the Semi-Arian cause, and Newman says he seems unavoidably to have Arianized the first thirty years of his life. The explanation of this, as well as of the disagreement with the Holy See, must be sought in a careful study of the times, with due reference to the unsettled and changeable condition of theological distinctions, the lack of anything like a final pronouncement by the Church‘s defining power, the “lingering imperfections of the Saints” (Newman), the substantial orthodoxy of many of the so-called Semi-Arians, and above all the great plan which Basil was steadily pursuing of effecting unity in a disturbed and divided Christendom. (Cf. De Broglie, “L’Eglise et l’Empire Romain”, Paris, 1866, V, ii; Rivington, “The Primitive Church and the See of Peter”, London, 1894; Newman, “The Church of the Fathers”, Idem, “The Arians of the Fourth Century”; Jungmann, “Dissertationes select. in hist. eccl.”, II, 13; De Smedt, “Dissertationes select. in primam aetatem hist. eccl.”, p. 276.)
WRITINGS.—Dogmatic.—Of the five books against Eunomius (c. 364) the last two are classed as spurious by some critics, The work assails the equivalent Arianism of Eunomius and defends the Divinity of the Three Persons of the Trinity; it is well summarized by Jackson (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, VIII). The work “De Spiritu Sancto”, or treatise on the Holy Spirit (c. 375) was evoked in part by the Macedonian denial of the Divinity of the Third Person and in part by charges that Basil himself had “slurred over the Spirit” (Gregory Naz., Ep. lviii), that he had advocated communion with all such as should admit simply that the Holy Ghost was not a creature (Basil, Ep. cxiii), and that he had sanctioned the use of a novel doxology, namely, “Glory be to the Father with the Son together with the Holy Ghost” (De Sp. S., I, i). The treatise teaches the doctrine of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, while avoiding the phrase “God, the Holy Ghost” for prudential reasons (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii. Wuilcknis and Swete affirm the necessity of some such reticence on Basil’s part. (Cf. Jackson, op. cit., p. XXIII, note.) With regard to Basil’s teaching on the Third Person, as expressed in his work against Eunomius (III, i), a controversy arose at the Council of Florence between the Latins and the Greeks; but strong arguments, both external and internal, availed to place Basil on the side of the “Filioque“. The dogmatic writings were edited separately by Goldhorn, in his “S. Basilii Opera Dogmatica Selecta” (Leipzig, 1854). The “De Spiritu Sancto”, was translated into English by Johnston (Oxford, 1892); by Lewis in the Christian Classic Series (1888); and by Jackson (op. cit.). Exegetical.—These include nine homilies “On the Hexaemeron” and thirteen (Maran) genuine homilies on particular Psalms. A lengthy commentary on the first sixteen chapters of Isaias is of doubtful authenticity (Jackson), though by a contemporary hand. A commentary on Job has disappeared. “The Hexaemeron” was highly admired by Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. xliii, n. 67). It is translated entire by Jackson (op. cit.). The homilies on the Psalms are moral and hortatory rather than strictly exegetical. In interpreting the Scripture, Basil uses both the literal and the allegorical methods, but favors the literal system of Antioch. His second homily contains a denunciation of usury which has become famous. Homiletical.—Twenty-four sermons, doctrinal, moral, and panegyrical in character, are looked upon as generally genuine, certain critical difficulties, however, remaining still unsolved. Eight of these sermons were translated into Latin by Rufinus. The discourses place Basil among the very greatest of Christian preachers and evince his special gift for preaching upon the responsibilities of wealth. The most noteworthy in the collection are the homilies on the rich (vi and vii) copied by St. Ambrose (De Nabuthe Jez., v, 21-24), and the homily (xxii) on the study of pagan literature. The latter was edited by Fremion (Paris, 1819, with French translation), Sommer (Paris, 1894), Bach (Munster, 1900), and Maloney (New York, 1901). With regard to Basil’s style and his success as a preacher much has been written. (Cf. Villemain, “Tableau d’eloq. chret. au IVe siecle”, Paris, 1891; Fialon, “Etude Litt. sur St. B.”, Paris, 1861; Roux, “Etude sur la predication de B. le Grand”, Strasburg, 1867; Croiset, “Hist. de la litt. Grecque”, Paris, 1899.) Moral and Ascetical.—This group contains much of spurious or doubtful origin. Probably authentic are the latter two of the three prefatory treatises, and the five treatises: “Morals”, “On the Judgment of God“, “On Faith“, “The Longer Monastic Rules”, “The Shorter Monastic Rules”. The twenty-four sermons on morals are a cento of extracts from the writings of Basil made by Simeon Metaphrastes. Concerning the authenticity of the Rules there has been a good deal of discussion. As is plain from these treatises and from the homilies that touch upon ascetical or moral subjects, St. Basil was particularly felicitous in the field of spiritual instruction. Correspondence.—The extant letters of Basil are 366 in number, two-thirds of them belonging to the period of his episcopate. The so-called “Canonical Epistles” have been assailed as spurious, but are almost surely genuine. The correspondence with Julian and with Libanius is probably apocryphal; the correspondence with Apollinaris is uncertain. All of the 366 letters are translated in the “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers”. Some of the letters are really dogmatic treatises, and others are apologetic replies to personal attacks. In general they are very useful for their revelation of the saint’s character and for the pictures of his age which they offer. Liturgical.—A so-called “Liturgy of St. Basil” exists in Greek and in Coptic. (See Liturgy of Saint Basil.) It goes back at least to the sixth century, but its connection with Basil has been a matter of critical discussion (Brightman, “Liturgies, Eastern and Western”, Oxford, 1896, I; Probst, “Die Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts and deren Reform”, Munster, 1893, 377-412).
EDITIONS OF ST. BASIL.—The editio princeps of the original text of the extant works of Basil appeared at Basle, 1551, and the first complete Latin translation at Rome, 1515 (autograph manuscript in the British Museum). The best edition is that of the Maurist Benedictines, Garner and Maran (Paris, 1721-30), republished with appendixes by Migne (P.G., XXIX-XXXII). For fragments attributed to Basil with more or less certainty, and edited by Matthaei, Mai, Pitra, and others, see Bardenhewer, “Patrologie” (Freiburg, 1901), 247. Portions of letters recently discovered in Egyptian papyri were published by H. Landwehr, “Griechische Handschriften aus Fayum”, in “Philologus”, XLIII (1884).