ABSTRACT
We are used to thinking of Byzantine ascetics against the paradigm of the great monastic theologians who played such a krge part in the development of Orthodoxy. The weight given to their activities, both by political historians interested in the consequences of schisms, and by ecclesiastical historians interested in tracing the development of Christian doctrine, has made this inevitable. But how representative were prominent monastic theologians of wider ascetic culture? Were monastic communities in general really interested in doctrine at all, and if so, what kind of doctrine? To assess this it is necessary to consider not only the literature produced by monk theologians and preserved by 'the Church' as the cornerstones of Orthodoxy, but also the literature which was preserved by ascetic communities themselves. Work is currently in progress examining extant monastic brebia and noting the books they mention,1 and it will be interesting to examine the results this produces. But such inventories are relatively few, and will only provide partial evidence for the life of other monastic communities. A complementary, and more widespread source of evidence for the literature which practising ascetics used is provided by the extent of manuscript survival. With reference to this type of evidence I would like to examine the works of two ascetics who, though living at different times and engaged in different types of composition, produced works which had a wide and enduring appeal for monastic communities both in their own day and continuously to the present. My excuse for linking two authors who differ both in period and genre is that one of them valued and made extensive use of the other.
