The RB seems to have made its appearance shortly thereafter. It is like Eugippius in its catholic tendency to admit all previous strands of tradition, whether known directly or only mediately. If its closest dependence is upon the RM, it has nevertheless made generous use of Augustine and has apparently been influenced by his emphasis upon fraternal relationships even more than the textual parallels alone would lead one to suspect. Like Eugippius, it also shows knowledge of the Egyptian tradition from direct acquaintance with Pachomius and Cassian, as well as through the Master. Like him, too, the RB has used Basil, though not so extensively as Augustine, and is moreover acquainted with both the Four Fathers and the Second Rule of the Fathers.
In another way, however, the RB is most unlike Eugippius. If its sources are nearly the same, the way in which it has used them is totally different. While the earlier work is merely a string of citations arranged in logical order, the RB has made a masterful synthesis of the materials it uses. In it the various rivulets flowing from Gaul, Africa, Egypt, Cappadocia and Italy itself merge to form a powerful stream. The forceful synthesis of Egyptian tradition enunciated by the RM is taken over, but only after being purified and simplified, and then softened and completed by its merger with the traditions of Basil and Augustine. The disparate branches of the monastic tradition are brought together and harmonized, correcting and completing one another, so that the richness of the whole deposit may be preserved without loss. Diverse elements are not merely juxtaposed but fully assimilated, so that they find their rightful place in a larger unity. This could have been accomplished only by a person of clear vision and liberal attitude of mind, who had for a long time pondered the Word of God in its numerous expressions through the various strands of monastic tradition; who had come to perceive their harmony on a deeper level; and who had arrived at an experiential knowledge of the unity of monastic tradition through his living of it. Is this perhaps an aspect of what is signified by his vision of all creation gathered into a single ray of light (Greg. dial. 2,35)?
It is this broadness of vision and synthetic quality that sets the RB apart from the other Latin rules. The stream of tradition continued after St. Benedict, and rules continued to be produced through the seventh century. But his work was not surpassed. Eventually the RB was recognized as the finest expression of monastic tradition the Western experience had produced, and it gradually came to supplant all the others. Not only did it constitute the most complete and masterful synthesis of monastic tradition in its most catholic sense, but it did so in an enduring fashion, free from the narrowness of partial viewpoints and passing over ephemeral details of observance bound to particular circumstances, to bring out the essential evangelical principles of monasticism. The fuller our knowledge of the tradition from which the RB emerged, the clearer becomes our vision of its real greatness.
6. THE CONTENT OF THE RULE
Despite the traditional character of monastic rules, each legislator made a personal contribution. Even if he did not add anything to the tradition he received, his assimilation of it was unique. Both what he included and what he omitted tell us something of his own understanding. So long as the RB was considered an original work, the whole of both the theory and the practical regulations was deemed to be legitimate evidence of St. Benedict’s personal contribution to Western monasticism. His probable dependence upon the RM, however, now demands that this methodology be nuanced. His contribution must be sought primarily in the passages proper to the RB, and especially where he corrects or changes the prescriptions of the RM. Elements that he has taken over more or less intact from the RM cannot be considered a contribution of the RB; but here, too, the minor alterations, the omissions and additions, the changed perspective introduced here and there, all help to reconstruct the mentality of its author in contrast to the legislator from whom he is borrowing. To know the mind of St. Benedict has become a more subtle undertaking, requiring confrontation with his predecessors at every step.32
One of the most notable features of the RB is its brevity. It has reduced the huge bulk of the RM by more than two thirds. It is true that this has been done at the expense of the grandeur of the Master’s structural concept and sometimes with a loss of clarity, but with an enormous gain in intelligibility and simplicity. The RB remains a complete treatment of all the essentials required for cenobitic life: both the spiritual doctrine and the practical ordering of the life are provided in quite a full manner. But simplification has been achieved by omitting the innumerable details of observance, which soon rendered the RM anachronistic, and the endless casuistic treatment of every conceivable possibility so characteristic of the Master’s mentality. St. Benedict had the clear vision of a man who instinctively perceives what is important and isolates it from the mass of secondary detail. On occasion, he replaces pages of fussy casuistry with a single sentence summing up the whole issue, clearly states the principle involved in a supremely memorable fashion, and leaves everything else to the abbot’s discretion.
The overall pattern of the RB is clear enough, even though the connections between parts are sometimes loose or unclear, and less logical than in the RM. The latter is divided quite clearly into two main portions, which the RM itself calls actus militiae cordis and ordo monasterii, respectively. (The proponents of a gradually evolving Regula Monasteriorum regard these as two originally separate compositions, combined to form an embryonic rule.)33 The RB maintains this arrangement: the spiritual doctrine is given first (Prol. and chs. 1–7), followed by the regulations (chs. 8–73). The first part follows the RM quite closely, and most of its text is derived from the other rule, though large sections are shortened or omitted. After the Prologue and the opening chapter on the kinds of monks, the ascetical program is laid down in three successive articulations: the abbot and his advisers (2–3); a catalogue of good works (4); and the three capital virtues of the monk: obedience, silence and humility (5–7).
In this section the RB largely adopts the teaching of the RM, which is in the tradition of Cassian and Egypt. It harks back to the desert origins of semi-anchoritism and its fundamental constitutive element, the relationship of disciple to master that a monk has to a spiritual father. The latter is the charismatic of proven virtue and experience who is able to guide the disciple, through discernment of spirits, along the same path of self-renunciation he himself has followed. Though the number of his disciples is increased in the coenobium, the basic principle remains intact: the abbot is primarily a spiritual father to each monk; the monastery is a schola, or place where training is given; the purpose is to lead men to future salvation through the practice of the ascetic life. Hence the importance of the abbot and of the three virtues; these are the monk’s primary means of salvation, according to Cassian’s interpretation of the Scriptures. While accepting this basic program, the RB makes some discreet modifications of emphasis. To the futurist eschatology of the RM it adds a certain dimension of realized eschatology. This goes along with a greater stress on charity, not merely as a goal to strive for, but as an already present reality — elements giving a foretaste of concerns that will emerge more clearly later in the Rule.
The second part of the RB prescribes the necessary elements of institutional structure and discipline. Some sections have a character of their own and are easily isolated: thus the liturgical code (8–20) regulates the divine office; the penitential code (23–30) sets forth the manner of dealing with delinquents; the code of satisfaction (43–46) prescribes the measure of satisfaction for various faults; chapters 58–63 deal with acceptance of new members and the order of the community. In between these groupings are chapters treating of deans and the dormitory (21–22), material goods (31–34), food and sleep (35–42), work, prayer and exterior relationships (47–52), guests and related subjects (53–57), selection of the abbot and prior (64–65), the porter (66), and finally an appendix (67–73), which has no parallel in the RM and deals largely with fraternal relationships, one of the special emphases of the RB. In this se
cond part of the Rule, both the order and the content are often closely related to the RM, but St. Benedict has here dealt much more freely with his source. Consequently, his own contribution stands out more clearly in this second major division of the Rule.
The RB manifests a certain liberalism and humanism, in the pristine sense of those terms. The author understands human nature, both its grandeur and its weakness, respects it and wants to facilitate its organic growth. He knows that human persons and their actions are of infinite variety and complexity, and that individual problems require individual solutions. Unlike the Master, he does not attempt to regulate everything in advance, to foresee every possible case. He trusts the abbot to make prudent decisions as the need arises; it is enough for the Rule to enunciate the principles. The abbot must exercise discretion, that “mother of virtues” lauded by Cassian, which enables one to select, out of all possible choices, the one that best fits present circumstances. The abbot bears a heavy responsibility, but he is not expected to be omniscient or impeccable; his weakness is also recognized. It is this quality of the RB that, more than anything else, rendered it adaptable to so many different situations. The author himself sometimes explicitly provides for varying circumstances.
Respect for persons appears also in Benedict’s sense of community. He has modified the almost exclusively vertical vision of the RM by emphasizing the relationships of the monks to one another. It is here that the influence of Augustine is most apparent. St. Benedict’s monks are indeed disciples under a master, come to the schola to be trained, but they are also brothers to one another, bound together by ties of mutual charity and support. That this understanding of the monastery as a fraternal communion in love is profoundly evangelical is clear from the fact that Benedict several times cites Augustine’s favorite text from Acts 4:32-35. Chapter 72 of RB on good zeal is perhaps the most eloquent expression of this insight.
It is respect for persons and for the mystery of freedom, once again, that lies behind St. Benedict’s concern for inner dispositions of the heart. Indeed, a rule must legislate for exterior behavior, and St. Benedict has little tolerance for outward observance that is careless, singular or perfunctory. But he knows that conformity alone is not enough and that legislation cannot solve all problems. Whereas the Master is concerned that the law make provision for every conceivable case, St. Benedict often contents himself with general statements that leave all kinds of details at loose ends. He is more concerned with why things are done and how they are done than with precise regulations. The motivation behind the observance is the object of his interest — the individual’s submission to the action of grace within him. Thereby the whole tone of monastic asceticism is elevated to a lofty spiritual plane.
This does not mean that the standards of monastic observance have been lowered in the RB. Though it is noted for moderation, there is no significant difference between the RB and other Western monastic literature in the role assigned to austerity. In some areas, such as food and drink and the length of the common prayer, the RB is less demanding than the RM and other earlier rules; but this is because the monks have heavier work to do, probably a result of the economic difficulties brought on by the Gothic War and the ensuing civil chaos. St. Benedict is not anxious to make concessions in regard to observance, and does so only with reluctance. In some cases, which he regards as matters of principle, such as private ownership, he is even more severe than the Master, and he sometimes closes a chapter leaving a violent threat ringing in the reader’s ear. He seems much impressed by the evils of the time, which no doubt had a deleterious effect upon the general level of morality, with repercussions upon the life of monasteries as well.
This no doubt explains Benedict’s pessimism about the level of the monastic life of his own time in comparison with the giants of the past. The RB makes no extravagant claims for itself; it is only a “little rule for beginners.” The monk is sent to the Fathers for further instruction and for acquaintance with an ideal that seems unattainable in the evil times that have befallen Italy. The heroic period of monastic origins is looked back upon as a golden age. The author seems to have had more than his share of experience in attempting to lead and inspire men in an age when everything seems to be getting worse. This gives him a healthy sense of realism; he does not expect heroic performances beyond the possibilities of human nature, though the ideal is to be kept high. St. Benedict shows an extraordinary understanding of weakness, a compassion for those who fail or are troubled or distressed, a delicate patience even with the hard of heart. In this respect, too, his Rule is deeply human and evangelical.
The monasticism of the Rule, like that of other cenobitic institutes, institutionalizes to some degree, though in a relatively uncomplicated way, what was in its origins purely charismatic. St. Benedict intends his Rule to provide a manual of discipline for the individual cenobite and at the same time to ensure an environment in which the ascetical life may be fruitfully pursued. Indeed, the coenobium was the place for only the first phase of the monastic experience, which Cassian calls the vita activa, and it was only this that monastic rules presumed to regulate. A monk who has successfully reached the goal of the ascetical life, which is charity or purity of heart, the state in which his own inner turmoil is quieted so that he can listen to the Spirit within him, is ready for the solitary life. In the desert there is no rule but that of the Spirit.
Such at least is the dominant Egyptian tradition, outside Pachomian circles, and Cassian favored it, though he is curiously ambivalent on the role of the coenobium. Like the RM, St. Benedict appears to espouse this same view; no doubt he regarded the cenobitic life as safer for the majority of men, but he retains the idea that it is a training school for the desert, and so he must have envisaged the possibility that at least some monks would go on to the solitary life.
The exercises prescribed by the Rule, however, like those of other cenobitic legislation, are those of the “active” life, which are intended to conduct the monk through the ascetical combat so that he may reach the goal of union with God through prayer. The Rule offers no theories about the life of prayer, but it is nevertheless understood to be the objective. The monk’s time was divided among three activities: common prayer, lectio and work. Several hours each day were devoted to the divine office, or “Work of God.” This is more developed than among the solitaries or cenobites of Egypt, for Benedict was influenced by the urban monks of the West. Besides the traditional night office, there were seven prayer-times during the day, consisting of psalms and short readings from the Bible. While the Rule places great emphasis upon the office, there are no overtones of a liturgical theology of the community. The monks pray together because they live together, and thereby form a quasi-local church.
About four additional hours each day were devoted to lectio, which included reading, private prayer and meditatio, the memorization, repetition and “rumination” of biblical texts. This prayerful reflection upon Scripture and its interpretation by the Fathers and monastic writers kept the monk’s mind constantly filled with the Word of God and helped to shape the whole of his inner psychology and outward activity (see Appendix 6, pp. 471-477). The silence and relative solitude maintained by reducing contact with the world outside to a minimum created an atmosphere that favored recollection.
St. Benedict looks upon work in a highly traditional way: its purposes are to provide a means of subsistence for the monks themselves, to be an ascetical discipline in harmony with the rest of their life, and to produce a surplus for almsgiving to the poor. There was a great concern for the unfortunate, for travelers and guests, who were to be received as Christ. There is no mention of work for apostolic ends; the only apostolic activity enunciated, besides the sanctification of the monks themselves, is to show charity to those who come to the monastery. Benedict is reluctant to have monks go out; through enclosure the monastery creates its own desert. Nor is there any academic or cultural purpose expressed in the Rule, as was explicit in the intention of C
assiodorus. The learning acquired through constant reading was purely religious and ascetical in character, though it could well be profound. Those who entered, however, were taught whatever grammar and rhetoric they needed to perform lectio and the opus Dei.
There was no clerical apostolate, as in later times, for most of the monks were laymen like St. Benedict himself. He shares the misgivings of the Egyptians about the dangers of a monk’s receiving holy orders, but he is more open than the Master. He allows priests to enter the community, and even provides that a monk may be ordained priest or deacon if necessary. But the sole purpose of clerics in the monastery was to care for the sacramental needs of the community (and guests), and they were in no way to be exalted over the other monks. The primary concern is always that of the supernatural welfare of the monks themselves, for whom the monastery exists: “that souls may be saved.”
7. THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULE
St. Benedict was a man of the mid-sixth century who wrote in the language of his time. But by his time the linguistic situation in the West was becoming quite complex. Latin was already entering upon the process of breakdown that would eventually lead to the formation of the Romance languages. The canons of classical Latinity were still taught in the schools (to the extent that the schools were still functioning amid the chaos of the times) and were followed by cultivated writers of the period, such as Cassiodorus and Boethius. Gregory the Great, though disclaiming any concern for style, could still write good Latin at the end of the sixth century, whereas his contemporary Gregory of Tours, in Gaul, already displays many popular features. In Italy a vulgar tongue, spoken largely by the lower classes, had long coexisted with the literary language; fragments of it have been preserved in some inscriptions and graffiti. Somewhere between these extremes was the living, colloquial language spoken by the middle and upper classes in ordinary day-to-day intercourse. This is the language which St. Benedict commonly used and in which he wrote the Rule. The Master uses the same language, and the RM manuscripts provide an earlier witness to it.34
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 16
