RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict

by Saint Benedict

  The first task in studying the language of St. Benedict, however, is to recover it. Since the colloquial Latin of his time departed in many respects from the established rules of Latin vocabulary, grammar and syntax, it has always seemed offensive to the cultivated ears of purists. In the next century there was a renaissance of Latin studies in England (where Latin was a rather artificial language of an educated elite, imported by Christian missionaries), and then in the Lombard kingdom of Italy and the Frankish kingdom of Gaul, culminating in the Carolingian renaissance of the eighth century. The scribes trained in the revived norms of the schools were shocked at the “irregularities” of earlier texts and did not hesitate to “correct” them to make them conform to their standards. This process, called normalization, is well known to anyone who studies ancient texts. It is the task of textual criticism to restore the earliest ascertainable form of the text, based upon the evidence of the manuscripts. Textual criticism will be discussed in the following section; here we presuppose its results, which can be found in critical editions of the Latin text.

  Perhaps the most obvious difference to one acquainted with classical Latin is in the vocabulary. There are new words like biberes (35.12), synaxis (17.7) and contagiare (28.8); words used in a new and technical sense like proicere (58.28), to ‘kick out’ of the monastery, or erigere (57.3), to ‘fire’ or dismiss someone from a position; new expressions such as si fuerit unde (39.3), ‘if there are any’; and strange adjectival forms such as digesti (8.2), ‘having finished digesting.’ Best known of all the variations is the opening word of the Prologue: where the normalized version has the classical form ausculta, the original text used the popular obsculta.

  The spellings occurring in manuscripts and sometimes reproduced in critical editions are a shock to those unacquainted with medieval orthography, which often reflects pronunciation variants and can sometimes be used to suggest the geographical provenance of a codex. In the Rule we find such variants as obis for ovis, praecium for pretium, sepe for saepe, ortus for hortus, quirie for kyrie, promtus for promptus, clusura for clausura, and vini for bini. Most editors regularize these forms as in this edition, because it is in any case impossible to reconstruct the orthography of the original; but they will be found in facsimile and diplomatic editions, and sometimes in critical editions, at least in the apparatus. The use of i in place of j, however, and of u in place of v, is commonly adopted in many critical editions, because the use of different characters to distinguish the vocalic forms from the consonantal forms of these letters was adopted only in the Middle Ages.

  The breakdown of the inflectional system of classical Latin can be observed in St. Benedict’s use of cases. The most flagrant examples occur in the liturgical code, which perhaps reflects a more popular usage than the other parts of the Rule. We find examples of the use of the accusative with prepositions that normally take the ablative, and vice versa, such as de sedilia sua (9.7), in lecta sua (48.5), post quibus (11.4) and usque hora qua sexta (48.3). Relative pronouns do not agree with their antecedents, as in tria cantica quas (11.21); nor verbs with their subjects, as in canticum unumquemque . . . dicantur (13.10). Prepositions are freely introduced into constructions where classical Latin uses the ablative alone: ab for comparison, as in meliores ab aliis (2.21) or a Christo carius (5.2); in with ablative of time, as in hieme (55.5); cum with ablative of instrument, as in lintea cum quibus . . . tergunt (35.8).

  The use of phrases that appear to be dangling is very common in low Latin: these are legitimate nominative absolutes, such as memor semper abbas (2.6), hortans nos de hac re scriptura dicens (7.45), noviter veniens quis (58.1). There is one case of the accusative absolute: dispositionem uniformem . . . servatam (18.10). The so-called sympathetic dative occurs in mihi sermo dirigitur (Prol.3) and in pedes . . . omnibus lavent (35.9); and the epexegetical genitive or genitive of identity in phrases like supplicatio litaniae (9.10) and sapientiae doctrina (64.2). It is also characteristic of the language to use periphrases instead of a simple verb, as in taciturnitatem habens (7.56), absque murmurationibus sint (40.9), munditias faciat (35.7). We also find nouns that are treated indeclinably because they had become standard terms, especially in the cases of titles of parts of the Bible: lectionem de Evangelia (11.9), canticum Deuteronomium, qui [!] dividatur in duas glorias (13.9), a sanctum Pascha (15.1), a Pentecosten (15.2), Heptateuchum aut Regum (42.4).

  Many of these features are derived simply from the living language of the period. But some aspects of the Latin of the RB (and the RM) depend rather upon traditional Christian and monastic usage. The fact that St. Benedict wrote in the vernacular rather than in the studied Latin of the schools does not tell us anything about his literary culture. Monastic writers often deliberately chose the popular language as more suited to their intended audience and to the simplicity they cultivated. If Cassian and Sulpicius Severus were skilled stylists, the Western rules were generally composed in a more popular style; even Jerome restrained his rhetorical impulses when he translated the Pachomian rule. Christianity, however, had developed its own vocabulary, both by taking over Greek words, such as scandalum or diacon, and by giving new meanings to existing Latin words, such as sacramentum and missa. To these the monastic literature added an additional specialized vocabulary.

  Therefore, it is not surprising to find terms that designate Christian and especially liturgical subjects: angelus, antiphona, apocalypsis, apostolus, chorus, diabolus, dioecesis, hebdomada, eleemosyna, episcopus, evangelium, eulogia, hymnus, presbyter, psalmodia, zelus. Some of the specific monastic terms, largely imported from the East, are: abbas, acediosus, anachorita, coenobium, decania, eremita, gyrovagus, monachus, monasterium, sarabaita, senpecta, zelotypus. Other words, like frater, servire and servitium, militia and militare, and schola have taken on specifically monastic connotations. The RB also shows the influence of the canonical and liturgical language of the time,35 particularly of Roman usage, in the use of terms like si quis, nisi forte, dignari and mereamur. Missae is an interesting case of a word used both in the normal Christian sense, meaning ‘Mass’ (38.2), and with a specialized monastic meaning, ‘concluding formula’ (17. passim).

  Though St. Benedict did not evidently make a particular point of cultivating style, his language nevertheless is not entirely devoid of literary elegance. Studies of the prose rhythm of the RB have shown that its author was conscious of the cursus.36 Both Greek and Roman authors had sought to vary the pattern of sentence endings, or clausulae, in a way pleasing to the ear. Classical writers based these patterns on quantity.37 Thus, Cicero’s ear was pleased by such endings as

  nēglĕgēbāntr

  orātōn lŏcūm (two cretics)

  silēntūm pōllcēntr (cretic + two trochees)

  As quantity weakened and accent strengthened, writers sought the coincidence of the accent with the quantitative ictus on the first syllable of the foot, e.g., This tendency is especially noticeable in Pope St. Leo. Eventually accent prevailed, elisions were ignored, and three forms of what became known as the cursus achieved a virtual monopoly. These correspond to a, b and c above, and are:

  cursus planus ríght are your júdgments

  cursus tardus (two dactyls) thóse are my coúnselors

  cursus velox (dactyl + two trochees) cóme and revére the státutes

  An example of the RB’s sense of rhythm can be found in chapter 20, on reverence in prayer, if it is divided into sense lines and the clausulae analyzed:

  Brevis debet esse et púra orátio (cursus tardus)

  nisi forte ex affectu inspirationis divinae grátiae prótendátur. (cursus velox)

  In conventu tamen omnino breviétur orátio, (cursus tardus)

  et facto signo a priore omnes páriter súrgant. (cursus planus)

  A similar case is the beautiful passage of chapter 27 on the abbot’s concern for the lost:

  Pastoris boni pium imitétur exémplum, (cursus planus)

  qui . . . abiit unam ovem quae erráverat quaérere; (cursus ta
rdus)

  cuius infirmitati tántum compássus est, (cursus tardus)

  ut eam in sacris humeris suis dignarétur impónere (cursus tardus)

  et sic reportáre ad grégem. (cursus planus)

  This passage also shows the influence of biblical and liturgical language upon the author: the words of the Gospel are here paraphrased and put into rhythmic form, and the phrase ut . . . dignaretur . . . imponere is reminiscent of the liturgical formulas of the Roman sacramentaries. This kind of artful prose is not so much the product of conscious effort as the overflow of a sensibility thoroughly saturated in a tradition, to the extent that the esthetic unity of form and content has become second nature.

  The RB also uses a number of rhetorical devices that were cultivated in antiquity.38 There are cases of repetition for rhetorical effect (anaphora), such as the following:

  promittant sub iureiurando quia numquam per se

  numquam per suffectam personam . . . . (59.3)

  non sit turbulentus et anxius,

  non sit nimius et obstinatus,

  non sit zelotypus et nimis suspiciosus . . . . (64.16)

  Ordines suos in monasterio ita conservent ut conversationis tempus,

  ut vitae meritum discernit

  utque abbas constituent. (63.1)

  There are some striking cases of alliteration in the Rule, in which the repetition of similar sounds seems to have been deliberately cultivated to produce an effect:

  admoneatur semel et secundo secrete a senioribus suis (23.2).

  si veniens perseveraverit pulsans et . . . visus fuerit patienter portare et persistere petitioni suae . . . . (58.3).

  prohibent pravorum praevalere consensum, sed domui Dei dignum constituant dispensatorem (64.5).

  Particularly noticeable is a case where the techniques of repetition, anaphora, asyndeton and alliteration combine to produce a memorable phrase:

  et sollicitudo sit si revera Deum quaerit,

  si sollicitus est ad opus Dei,

  ad oboedientiam,

  ad opprobria (58.7)

  There are also a few instances of chiastic arrangement of phrases, a figure in which the first element corresponds to the last, the second to the next-to-the-last, etc., in an A-B-B-A pattern (called chiasmus because the pattern forms the Greek letter chi [χ]). Some examples are:

  accipientes nova,

  vetera semper reddant (55.9).

  altiori consilio abbas praetulerit vel

  degradaverit certis ex causis . . . . (63.7).

  These few examples provide only an illustration of the rhetorical character of the Rule. They have been chosen solely from the sections proper to the RB, though similar elements can be found in the RM and in the common passages as well. The Prologue, chiefly the work of the Master, has long been recognized as having striking rhetorical quailties, such as the alliterative conclusion: ad mortem in monasterio perseverantes, passionibus Christi per patientiam participemur, based on 1 Pet 4:13, but with added rhetorical effect. This feature should not be exaggerated, as it was perhaps often unconscious, but it lends a degree of elegance to the Rule that helps to enforce its message without prejudice to its simplicity.

  8. TEXT AND EDITIONS OF THE RULE

  Except for the biblical literature, probably no other text from antiquity was copied in the Middle Ages as often as the RB. Hundreds of manuscripts are still extant. Since the first printing at Venice in 1489, more than a thousand editions have appeared, including either the Latin text or translations into numerous vernacular languages, or both together in bilingual editions.39 As in the case of the New Testament, however, the printed editions invariably reproduced a textus receptus, a text that had been normalized and standardized as early as the ninth century, correcting the Latin and smoothing out any difficulties in the text. It was not until the late nineteenth century that the modern critical study of the text began.

  The pioneer in this work was a Benedictine scholar, Daniel Haneberg of Munich, monk and then abbot of St. Boniface, and subsequently bishop of Speyer. He collated a number of manuscripts himself and then, when prevented by other duties from continuing, turned over his materials to Father Edmund Schmidt of Metten, encouraging him to complete the project. Schmidt published the first critical edition in 1880.40 He already observed that the manuscripts fall into two principal groups, often called the ausculta and obsculta texts, respectively, from the form of the opening word. The former is represented chiefly by the Oxford Codex Hatton 48; the latter by the Codex Sangallensis 914.41 Schmidt attributed both forms to St. Benedict himself, believing that he had issued two editions of the Rule.

  The next critical edition was that of Eduard Wölfflin, an authority on Low Latin, who was interested in the RB chiefly from a linguistic viewpoint.42 His edition of 1895 was based on only four manuscripts (Schmidt had used fifteen), and he considered the ausculta text to be superior, though he later confessed that his judgment had been premature.

  In 1898 Wölfflin’s contention was reversed in a brilliant demonstration by the German philologist Ludwig Traube, who reconstructed the history of the text of the Rule in a fashion that has determined all subsequent study of it.43 Traube showed that the ausculta text was widely diffused throughout Italy, Gaul, Germany and England in the seventh and eighth centuries. The obsculta text was introduced into the Frankish kingdom in the late eighth or early ninth century under the influence of the Carolingian revival. One would normally suspect, therefore, as Wölfflin did, that the text of the older codices is the more authentic, and the Carolingian text a normalizing revision. Traube’s contention was that, in this case, exactly the opposite is true, and to support it he offered historical arguments as well as those drawn from the internal evidence of the manuscripts.

  Traube’s historical reconstruction is based upon several documents: some statements about the Rule made by Paul the Deacon, a late eighth-century monk of Montecassino, in his History of the Lombards; a passage in the Cassinese Chronicle, by the twelfth-century chronicler Leo of Ostia; a letter from Theodomar, abbot of Montecassino (really the work, it would seem, of Paul the Deacon), to the Emperor Charlemagne, which survives in a number of manuscripts; and a letter from two monks of the abbey of Reichenau (located on an island in the Lake of Constance) to the librarian of their abbey; this letter is bound into the same codex as the St. Gall copy of the RB and has probably been there since the tenth century.

  We know from St. Gregory that Montecassino was destroyed by the Lombards after their invasion of Italy in 568 (the exact date of the destruction is uncertain), but that all the monks escaped with their lives (Greg. dial. 2,17).44 The monastery then lay in ruins for a century and a half, until its restoration about 717 by Petronax of Brescia, who was joined by some monks, probably hermits, already living there (Paul. diac. gest. Lang. 6,40). The abbey probably began to follow the Benedictine Rule once more only upon the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon Willibald in 729. He was accustomed to the RB from its use in England, and he remained at Montecassino for about a decade, until sent by Pope Gregory III to assist St. Boniface in Germany.45

  In 774 Frankish rule replaced that of the Lombards in Italy. At this time, under its first Frankish abbot, Theodomar, Montecassino enjoyed an intellectual renaissance. The greatest light of this movement was Paul the Deacon, a Lombard of noble extraction who had been educated by the grammarian Flavianus and who became a monk at Montecassino around 775. In the 780s he spent several years at the court of Charlemagne, where he was highly esteemed along with other intellectuals such as Alcuin and Theodulph, and he is probably the chief reason for the ties between Montecassino and the Frankish monarchy at this time. Toward the end of his life, he wrote his History of the Lombards, an important source for the period.

  Paul says that when the monks of Cassino fled from the Lombard destruction in the late sixth century, they took refuge in Rome, taking with them a copy of the Rule Benedict had written (Paul. diac. gest. Lang. 4,17). Traube interpreted this to mean the autograph, though this is har
dly explicit in the text nor intrinsically probable. The much later Leo of Ostia says that they went to the monastery of the Lateran, whose abbot is mentioned in the Dialogues. We know little about this monastery, but it seems to have passed out of existence in the seventh century (Leo.Ost. chron.Cas.). In the middle of the eighth century, however, after the restoration of Cassino, Paul the Deacon tells us that Pope Zachary (741–752) sent to Petronax, among other things, “the rule that the blessed Father Benedict wrote with his own holy hands” (Paul. diac. gest. Lang. 6,40). Traube suggested that the autograph had passed from the Lateran monastery to the papal library, from which it was returned to Montecassino.

  We are next told, by Leo of Ostia, that Montecassino was again destroyed by the Saracens, in 883, and that the monks fled to the monastery of Teano near Capua, taking the precious manuscript with them. This monastery burned to the ground, however, and the codex with it, probably in 886 (Leo.Ost. chron.Cas. 1,48). Until the end of the eighteenth century, Montecassino possessed a single leaf (containing RB 72–73), which was traditionally held to be a surviving page of the autograph, but, in the judgment of Mabillon, who examined it, was not old enough to be authentic.46 It appears that the Cassinese monks had other copies, however, for the manuscripts that modern editors classify as “Cassinese” seem to have derived their text-form at least in part from the destroyed “autograph” or a related manuscript.