Saint Benedict includes among his instruments of good works the following two precepts (Reg. 4.68-69):
Respect the seniors, i.e. older monks (seniores venerari)
Love the juniors, i.e. younger monks (iuniores diligere)
Later, in the section on the order of the community (Reg. 63), these precepts find fuller expression in some detailed instructions concerning how the monks should address one another:
Let the juniors, therefore, respect the seniors, and the seniors love the juniors. Moreover, even in the form of address, let no one call another by the bare name (puro nomine); but let the seniors call their juniors brothers (fratres) and the juniors address their seniors as fathers (nonnos). In this way, paternal respect is signified. Let the Abbot, however, because he is thought to act in Christ's stead, be called Lord and Abbot (Domnus et Abbas); not from any claim on his own part, but out of honor and love for Christ [1].
The purpose of this paper is to trace some of the antecedents of these instructions in the Greek, Latin, and Jewish literatures of antiquity.
Saint Benedict himself points to a logical starting place for such an investigation, in his insistence that the Abbot should be addressed respectfully, "not from any claim on his own part, but out of honor and love for Christ". Jesus is addressed "by the bare name" only once in the four canonical gospels, by the penitent thief at Lk. 23.42. This single occurrence is the exception which confirms the rule, since instead of
He said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom,
some manuscripts replace the vocative of "Jesus" with a dative and read
He said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom [2].
In his commentary on this passage, J.A. Fitzmyer regards this variant as a deliberate "effort to avoid having Jesus addressed by his name" [3].
Occasionally, the vocative "Jesus" is found with other words in apposition:
There are a few other special ways of addressing Jesus. Mary addresses her son as "child" (Lk. 2.48), and during Jesus' trial and crucifixion he is taunted with the names:
Anointed One (literally "Christe", Mt. 26.68)
King of the Jews (Mt. 27.29, Mk. 15.18, Jn. 19.3; as a variant reading at Lk. 23.27)
You who destroy the Temple and in three days rebuild it (Mt. 27.40, Mk. 15.29 with different word order)
Mk. 1.24 ("the holy one of God") and Jn. 20.28 ("my Lord and my God") are sometimes regarded as examples of nominative for vocative. The former certainly does not fall under that heading, but the latter probably does (cf. Rev. 4.11).
However, the normal way of addressing Jesus in the Gospels is by one of the following titles [6]:
Lord (kyrie)
Teacher (didaskale)
Rabbi (rabbi, rabbouni)
Master (epistata)
The following chart shows the distribution of these forms of address among the four Gospels:
For a complete list of all occurrences of these forms of address in the Gospels, see the Appendix.
That Jesus himself regarded these titles as proper and normal forms of address is apparent from Mt. 7.21, 23.7-10, Lk. 6.46, and especially Jn. 13.13: "You call me Teacher and Lord, and you speak rightly". Two incidents confirm the customary use of these titles:
Before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus told two disciples to fetch a colt: "If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?', say 'The Lord has need of it.'" (Mk. 11.3, Mt. 21.3, Lk. 19.31).
Similarly, before the Passover, Jesus instructed his disciples to follow a man carrying a jar of water until he entered a house, then to say to the owner: "The Teacher says, 'Where is the room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?'" (Mk. 14.14, Mt. 26.18, Lk. 22.11).
In light of this evidence, it is misleading to say about the name Jesus what W. Foerster says in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "The name borne by Jesus is in the first instance an expression of His humanity .... It is by this name that He is discussed among the people. This is the name by which He is addressed." [7]
From Jewish, Greek, and Latin sources it can be shown that to address one's superior (especially one's teacher) by name and not by title in his presence, or even to mention him thus in his absence, was considered bad manners if done in ignorance and an insult if intentional. Two passages from the Babylonian Talmud testify to the existence of this rule.
Sanhedrin 100 a: R. Nahman said: [An epikoros [8] is] one who calls his teacher by name, for R. Johanan said: Why was Gehazi punished? Because he called his master by name, as it is written, And Gehazi said, My lord, O King, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life (2 Kings 8.5) [9].
Kiddushin 31 b: Our Rabbis taught: A sage must change his father's name and his teacher's name, but the interpreter does not change his father's name and his teacher's name .... As when Mar, son of R. Ashi, lectured at the college sessions; he said [to the interpreter]: My father, my teacher [said thus], whereas his interpreter said: Thus did R. Ashi say [10].
In the Middle Ages Maimonides formulates this rule explicitly:
A disciple is forbidden to call his teacher by name, even when the latter is not present. This rule only applies if the name is unusual, so that anyone hearing it knows who is meant. In his presence, the pupil must never mention his teacher's name, even if he desires to call another person who bears the same name; the same is the rule with his father's name [11].
It is a far cry from the earnestness of the Jewish sages to the slapstick of Roman comedy, but we can see the same rule in effect in a scene from Plautus' Bacchides. When the pedagogue Lydus discovers that his pupil Pistoclerus has been paying court to a prostitute, the following quarrel ensues (132-138):
LY. Now you've ruined me, yourself, and my effort.
To no avail did I often point out to you the correct way.
PI. I wasted my effort in the same place you wasted yours:
Your teaching is of no use to me or to you.
LY. O stubborn heart! PI. You annoy me.
Keep quiet and follow me, Lydus. LY. Just look,
Now he doesn't call me "pedagogue", but "Lydus".
A series of scholia in the commentary of Aelius Donatus on the comedies of Terence illuminates Lydus' wish to be called by his title rather than by his name. When the married woman Sostrata addresses her maid Canthara with the words "my nurse" (mea nutrix) in the Adelphoe (288), Donatus remarks:
Even the fact that she says "nurse" is a mark of respect, as (Verg. Aen. 4.634): "My dear nurse, put my sister Anna here"; for nouns derive their significance from what they refer to [12], at least those nouns with which we want everyone to address us, as "master", "doctor", "speaker" (magister medicus orator).
In the same play, the young man Aeschinus addresses the pimp Sannio by his title (184, 196), while the slave Syrus addresses Sannio by name (210). Donatus (ad Adel. 210.3) notes the difference:
See how cleverly Terence writes. Above (184, 196) he has Sannio addressed as "pimp" (lenonis nomine) by Aeschinus, which is natural since Aeschinus is haughty and harsh by reason of his age and purpose. But Terence represents the crafty flatterer Syrus speaking with the pimp in a more respectful tone and calling him "Sannio". Generally, you honor those engaged in disreputable professions when you call them by name, whereas those placed in lofty positions love to be called by the title of their profession, as "commander", "speaker", "philosopher" (imperator orator philosophus). [13]
Donatus' younger contemporary Servius (ad Aen. 1.76) states the rule in this form: "A subordinate honors his superior when he addresses him by title, not by name; on the other hand, a superior honors his subordinate when he addresses him by name alone." [14]
Failure to take this rule into consideration has led to misunderstanding of the lines from the Odyssey (14.145-147) where the swineherd Eumaeus says of his master Odysseus:
Even in his absence, o stranger, to call him by name
I hesitate; for he favors me exceedingly and cherishes me in his heart;
but I call him "dear lord" (etheion) even at a distance.
G.P. Rose writes, "The major puzzle concerning the passage is why Eumaeus has waited so long to name Odysseus and only does so here with misgivings" [15]. C.E. von Erffa finds the phrase "even in his absence" unintelligible and adds, "I cannot find an enlightening explanation in any commentary" [16]. M. Scott recognizes two possibilities: first, that the mere mention of Odysseus' name makes Eumaeus' longing for him all the more keener and painful, and second, that to speak his name aloud subjects Odysseus to baneful magical influences [17]. B. Fenik explains Eumaeus' hesitation as a dramatic device to increase suspense [18].
The true explanation seems to me to be a much simpler and more straightforward one. In Odysseus' presence, Eumaeus would naturally avoid calling him by name out of respect. Such is his reverence for his master that even when Odysseus is absent he is still reluctant to name him [19].
Pythagoras' disciples also displayed a pious relectance to utter their teacher's name [20]. Their habit of introducing his quotations with the words "he said" was proverbial in antiquity, especially in the Latin form "ipse dixit". The ancient grammarians and lexicographers often mention this honorific use of certain pronouns, e.g. "autos" [21] in Greek, "ille" [22] and "ipse" [23] in Latin. A remark by Rudolf Hirzel shows penetrating insight into the psychology of the subordinate who refers to his superior by these pronouns. It is, he says, "as if that one (the superior) were the only person to come into consideration for him (the subordinate) and as such did not require a distinguishing designation" [24]. In the Middle Ages, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux has an interesting comment on Mary Magdalene's repeated use of the pronoun "him" in Jn. 20.15 ("Sir, if you removed him, tell me where you put him, and I will take him away"). Saint Bernard says: "Who is this 'him'? She names no name, she takes for granted that what her own heart could not forget, even for a moment, must be plain to all" [25]. On the other hand, when a superior replaces the name of his subordinate with a pronoun like Greek "houtos" or Latin "iste", it is a mark of disdain, not respect [26].
That commanders win their troops' favor and incite their valor by calling them by name is a commonplace of ancient history and poetry. In his idealized biography of the Persian emperor Cyrus, Xenophon claims that "whenever he wished to honor someone, it seemed to him to be fitting to address him by name" (Cyr. 5.3.47) [27], and in the Iliad, Agamemnon instructs Menelaus to wake up the soldiers, "addressing each man by his father's lineage [i.e. using patronymics], honoring all" (10.68-69) [28].
The ability to call one's many subordinates and dependents by name without the aid of a "prompter" (nomenclator) is considered a noteworthy feat, performed by the emperors Trajan (Plin. Pan. 23.1) and Hadrian (Vita Hadr. 20.9). A certain Saufinius in Petronius' Satyricon is praised for being "quick to return a greeting and speak forth everyone's name, just like one of us" (44.10). An aspiring politician would do well to address individual voters by name, and so Quintus Cicero (Comm. Pet. 8.31) counsels his famous brother Marcus:
Men dwelling in town or country, if they are known to us by name, suppose they are our friends. (cf. Cic. Mur. 36.77)
Ovid (A.A. 2.251-254) advises a would-be lover to imitate the candidate for political office:
Don't be ashamed to put yourself under obligation to servants and maids, as each is first in rank. Greet each one by name (it doesn't cost you anything); shake their lowly hands as if you're canvassing for votes.
Failure by a subordinate to observe this rule could have serious consequences, as Martial (6.88) notes:
This morning by accident I greeted you with your real name, Caecilianus, and I didn't call you "my lord". You ask me how much this freedom of speech is costing me? It deprived me of a hundred farthings. (cf. 2.68, 5.57)
Nevertheless, as Nietzsche points out, "The familiarity of superiors embitters one, because it may not be returned," [29] and, despite the consequences, a few courageous or foolish individuals in antiquity resented this rule enough to break it. In a list of men who deserted from Antony to Caesar before the Battle of Actium, Velleius Paterculus includes "the eminent gentleman Cn. Domitius, who alone of Antony's adherents never addressed the queen [Cleopatra] except by name" (2.84.2). Seneca says that the emperor Caligula "was angry at Herennius Macer, because he had greeted him as 'Gaius'" (Dial. 2.18.4). A similar anecdote is told about Helvidius Priscus, "who alone greeted Vespasian by his private name, even on his return from Syria" (Suet. Vesp. 15.2). According to Suetonius (Nero 7.1; cf. 41.1) and Tacitus (Ann. 12.41.6), Britannicus insisted on calling Nero by the name given to him at birth instead of by his adoptive name. Lucian (Alex. 55) says that the followers of the pseudo-prophet Alexander were angry because Lucian called their leader by his name "Alexander" instead of by the title "prophet".
Although they vary considerably in time of composition and place of origin, these scattered passages from Jewish, Greek, and Latin literature, when pieced together, form a remarkably consistent and uniform picture. From their agreement can be constructed a rule governing the use of names and titles in forms of address which must have been widely observed in antiquity. The social distance between superior and subordinate is emphasized by how they address one another. The subordinate confirms his own lowliness when he addresses his superior with a respectful title, and the superior maintains his own exalted position when he addresses his subordinate with a depreciatory title. Address by name, on the other hand, temporarily effaces this distinction. If the subordinate undertakes to remove the barrier on his own initiative, he commits a breach of decorum bordering on insult, but if the superior condescends to use his subordinate's name, he grants him a favor and pays him a compliment.
Saint Paul bids us tear down the social barriers represented by this rule:
Here is neither Greek nor Jew, neither circumcised nor uncircumcised, not barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all in all. (Col. 3.11; cf. 1 Cor. 12.13, Gal. 3.28)
In the social milieu of antiquity, inequality in forms of address could be abolished if everyone used names or if everyone used respectful titles. In adopting the latter solution, Saint Benedict does not humiliate or demean superiors; instead, he elevates and dignifies subordinates.
1. Translations are my own, unless otherwise indicated.
2. Statements concerning the text of the New Testament are based on the authority of K. Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 13th edition (Stuttgart, 1986).
3. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X - XXIV) (Garden City, 1986), p. 1510.
4. Some manuscripts add "Jesus" before "Son of God" at Mt. 8.29 (the Gadarene demoniacs).
5. The address "Son of David" without "Jesus" occurs at Mt. 9.27 (two blind men), Mk. 10.48, and Lk. 18.39 (the blind beggar Bartimaeus). At Lk. 18.39 some manuscripts, influenced by 18.38, prefix "Jesus". The Canaanite woman calls Jesus "Lord Son of David" (Mt. 15.22), and the two blind men on the road to Jericho cry, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David" (Mt. 20.30, where some manuscripts add "Jesus" after "us", and 20.31).
6. For a complete list of occurrences in the gospels, see the Appendix to this paper. F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (New York, 1969), pp. 68-128, discusses the different nuances of Lord, Teacher, Rabbi, and Master in the Gospels. The evangelical modes of addressing Jesus were followed in early Christianity: see I. Hausherr, Noms du Christ et voies d'oraison (Rome, 1960), pp. 27-119. It was my reading of Hausherr's book that inspired me to write this paper.
7. W. Foerster, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, English translation, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, 1965), p. 287.
8. Derived from the name Epicurus, this word means atheist. See H.A. Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy (Leiden, 1973), especially part I (pp. 1-34) and notes 48, 91, and 113 (pp. 106, 111, and 114-115). The word survives in modern Hebrew and Yiddish.
9. Translated by H. Freedman (London, 1935), vol. 2, p. 677. See also Berakoth 27 b, translated by M. Simon (London, 1948), pp. 164-165.
10. Translated by H. Freedman (London, 1936), p. 154.
11. Mishneh Torah, I (The Book of Knowledge), Study of the Torah 5.5, translated by M. Hyamson (Jerusalem, 1965), p. 62 a. M. Aberbach, "The Relations between Master and Disciple in the Talmudic Age," in Essays Presented to Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (London, 1967), pp. 1-24, puts the prohibition on naming in a wider context. Apparently this prohibition on naming has survived until modern times. According to H.M. Rabinowicz, Hasidim: The Movement and Its Masters (London, 1988), p. 125, the appellation "Holy Jew" (Yehudi HaKadosh) may have been given to Rabbi Jacob Isaac (1765-1814) of Przysucha because his master, the Seer of Lublin, was also Rabbi Jacob Isaac (1745-1814) and "rabbinic ruling forbids a disciple to call himself by the same name as his teacher". Rabinowicz (p. 413, n. 1) refers to that part of the Shulhan Arukh known as Yoreh De'ah, ccxlii, 15.
12. A translation of "sunt enim nomina ad aliquid". In their Latin Dictionary (rpt. Oxford, 1987), Lewis and Short (s.v. ad, D.1.d; cf. s.v. aliquis, II.D) explain "nomina ad aliquid dicta" as "nouns used in relation to something, i.e. which derive their significance from their relation to another object".
13. Cf. Don. ad Eun. 395.1, 455, 806.5.
14. See also. Don. ad Adel. 891.2, 894.2-3; ad Phorm. 1048.2; Serv. (auct.) ad Aen. 1.38, 1.65, 12.652; Tib. Claud. Don. ad Aen. 1.65, 1.581-582. Servius draws a specific application of the rule in his note on G. 4.321: "It is hateful to call one's parents by name".
15. Phoenix 34 (1980) 287, n. 5.
16. AIDOS und verwandte Begriffe in ihrer Entwicklung von Homer bis Demokrit (Leipzig, 1937), p. 19.
17. Acta Classica 23 (1980) 33-34, n. 47, independently of N. Austin, CSCA 5 (1972) 8-9, who also proposes the magical explanation. Neither Scott nor Austin mentions Ar. Ran. 298-300, where Dionysus warns his slave Xanthias not to call him by name, probably for fear that the bogey Empousa will overhear and thereby gain magical power over him: see L. Radermacher, Aristophanes' Frösche, 3rd edition (Graz, 1967), pp. 177-178.
18. Studies in the Odyssey (Wiesbaden, 1974), pp. 28-30.
19. Something like this explanation was advanced by S.E. Bassett, CJ 14 (1918-1919) 385-386.
20. Iambl. Vita Pythag. 10.53, 18.88, 28.150, 35.255 (quoting Hom. Od. 14.145-146). A.S. Pease on Cic. N.D. 1.5.10 has an extensive collection of parallels illustrating the proverbial "ipse dixit".
21. Apoll. Dysc. De Constr. 1.43 (p. 88 Bekker); Poll. 3.74; Bekker's Anecd. Graeca vol. 1, p. 78; Cramer's Anecd. Graeca Oxon. vol. 1, p. 53; Suda s.v.; schol. ad Ar. Nub. 219 and Ran. 520.
22. Don. ad And. 787.1; Serv. (auct.) ad Aen. 1.3, 1.617, 3.558, 10.707, 12.5; Virg. gramm. Epist. 2 (pp. 127-128 Huemer).
23. Don. ad And. 265.2, 312.2; ad Hec. 428; Serv. (auct.) ad Ecl. 4.43; ad G. 3.387; ad Aen. 4.356, 4.377, 12.343; Agroecius (Gramm. Lat. vol. 7, p. 119); Gloss Aa (Gloss. Lat. vol. 5, p. 276).
24. R. Hirzel, Der Name, 2nd edition (Leipzig, 1927), p. 27. The entire discussion of "Namensunterdruckung als Ehrfurcht" on pp. 25-27 is valuable.
25. On the Song of Songs I (Sermons 1-20), translated by K. Walsh (Kalamazoo, 1981), p. 44 = Sermon 7.6.8.
26. On "houtos", see J.A. Fitzmyer (above, note [3]) on Lk. 15.2, 15.30, 15.31, 22.56, 22.59, 23.2 (pp. 1076, 1091, 1187, 1464, 1465, 1474). On "iste", see Don. ad And. 15.1; ad Eun. 192.1, 214.2, 365.1; ad Adel. 835.3, 842.3; Virg. gramm. Epist. 2 (p. 128 Huemer); Agroecius Gramm. Lat. vol. 7, p. 119). Nisbet and Hubbard in their note on Hor. Carm. 2.11.18-20 ("What boy will quickly cool cups of hot Falernian [wine] in the passing stream?") give examples of commands to slaves expressed with the use of an indefinite or interrogative pronoun.
27. See also Xen. Cyr. 1.4.15. The Romans (Val. Max. 8.7.16; Plin. H.N. 7.24.88; Quint. 11.2.50; Solin. 1.108; cf. Amm. 16.5.8) were under the impression that Cyrus had memorized the names of all of his soldiers. For other commanders, see Thuc. 7.69.2; Liv. 8.39.4; Sall. Cat. 59.5; Caes. B.G. 2.25.2; Tac. Ann. 2.81.1, Hist. 1.23, 3.10.4; Plin. Pan. 15.5; Arr. Anab. 2.7.7, 2.10.2.
28. See also Verg. Aen. 11.731 (imitating Furius Bibaculus frg. 13 Morel, according to Macrob. Sat. 6.1.34); Val. Flacc. 4.649; Stat. Theb. 6.460-462; Sil. Ital. 1.454-455; Claud. 5.369, 28.255-256.
29. Beyond Good and Evil, translated by H. Zimmern (New York, 1907), p. 101.
Mt. 8.2, 8.6, 8.8, 8.21, 8.25, 9.28, 14.28, 14.30, 15.22, 15.25, 15.27, 16.22, 17.15, 18.21, 20.30, 20.31, 20.33, 26.22. The phrase "son of David" is added at 15.22, 20.30, 20.31. The vocative "Lord" appears as a variant reading (not counted) at 13.51, 20.33. Omitted by some manuscripts at 8.6, 17.15.
Mk. 7.28. As a variant reading (not counted) at 1.40, 8.32, 9.22, 10.51.
Lk. 5.8, 5.12, 7.6, 9.54, 9.61, 10.17, 10.40, 11.1, 12.41, 13.23, 17.37, 18.41, 19.8, 22.33, 22.38, 22.49. As a variant reading (not counted) at 8.24, 9.57, 9.59, 23.42.
Jn. 4.11, 4.15, 4.19, 4.49, 5.7, 6.34, 6.68, 9.36, 9.38, 11.3, 11.12, 11.21, 11.27, 11.32, 11.34, 11.39, 13.6, 13.9, 13.25, 13.36, 13.37, 14.5, 14.8, 14.22, 21.15, 21.16, 21.17, 21.20, 21.21. At 21.20 "Lord" is repeated from 13.25. Not counted are 8.11, since the passage in which it falls is an interpolation (7.53-8.11), and 20.15, where Mary Magdalene, not recognizing Jesus, thinks she is addressing the gardener as "Sir". As a variant reading (also not counted) at 13.8, 20.16. Omitted by some manuscripts at 4.11, 4.19, 9.38, 11.21, 11.39, 13.37, 21.20, 21.21.
Mt. 8.19, 12.38, 19.16, 22.16, 22.24, 22.36. Some manuscripts add "good" at 19.16.
Mk. 4.38, 9.17, 9.38, 10.17, 10.20, 10.35, 12.14, 12.19, 12.32, 13.1. At Mk. 10.17 and Lk. 18.18, "Teacher" is modified by the adjective "good", which prompts Jesus to reply that only God is good. As a variant reading (not counted) at 12.28. Omitted by some manuscripts at 9.38.
Lk. 7.40, 9.38, 10.25, 11.45, 12.13, 18.18, 19.39, 20.21, 20.28, 20.39, 21.7. As a variant reading (not counted) at 5.5, 8.45, 9.33, 9.49. Omitted by one manuscript at 10.25.
Jn: Not counted are 1.38 (explanation of "rabbi"), 8.4 (in the interpolated passage 7.53-8.11), and 20.16 (explanation of "rabbouni").
Mt. 26.25, 26.49 (both said by Judas Iscariot). Omitted by one papyrus at 26.49.
Mk. 9.5, 10.51, 11.21, 14.45 (where some manuscripts exhibit epanadiplosis).
Jn. 1.38, 1.49, 3.2, 4.31, 6.25, 9.2, 11.8, 20.16.
Lk. 5.5, 8.24, 8.45, 9.33, 9.49, 17.13. The case of epanadiplosis at 8.24 is counted as one occurrence. "Jesus" precedes "Master" at 17.13. With variants ("Lord" or "Teacher") everywhere except 17.13.