RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict

by Saint Benedict

  16 J. H. Wansbrough “St. Gregory’s Intention in the Story of St. Scholastica and St. Benedict” RBén 75 (1965) 145–151; P. Courcelle “‘Habitare secum’ selon Perse et saint Grégoire le Grand” Revue des études anciennes 69 (1967) 266–279; C. Dagens “La ‘conversion’ de saint Benoît selon saint Grégoire le Grand” Revista di storia e letteratura religiosa 5 (1969) 384–391; V. Recchia “La visione di San Benedetto e la ‘compositio’ del secondo libro dei Dialoghi di Gregorio Magno” RBén 82 (1972) 148–149; A. de Vogüé “La rencontre de Benoît et de Scholastique. Essai d’interprétation” RHS 48 (1972) 257–273; A. Maehler “Évocations bibliques et hagiographiques dans la vie de saint Benoît par saint Grégoire” RBén 83 (1973) 398–429; P. A. Cusack “St. Scholastica: Myth or Real Person?” DR 92 (1974) 145–159; M. Doucet “La tentation de saint Benoît. Relation ou création par saint Grégoire le Grand?” CollCist 37 (1975) 63–71; K. Gross “Der Tod des hl. Benedictus. Ein Beitrag zu Greg. d. Gr., Dial. 2,37” RBén 85 (1975) 164–176; P. A. Cusack “Some Literary Antecedents of the Totila Encounter in the Second Dialogue of Pope Gregory I” Studia Patristica 12, TU 115 (Berlin; Akademie-Verlag 1975) 87–90; “The Temptation of St. Benedict: An Essay at Interpretation through the Literary Sources” ABR 27 (1976) 143–163. For St. Gregory’s concept of the monastic life, see R. Gillet “Spiritualité et place du moine dans l’Église selon saint Grégoire le Grand” in Théologie de la vie monastique (Paris: Aubier 1961) pp. 322–351; A. de Vogüé “Les vues de Grégoire le Grand sur la vie réligieuse dans son Commentaire des Rois” SM 20 (1978) 17–63.

  17 The first “life” of St. Benedict in modern times was that of Abbot L. Tosti of Montecassino, Saint Benedict: An Historical Discourse on His Life (London: Kegan Paul 1896). The principal lives that have appeared since then are: F. Cabrol, Saint Benedict (London: Burns Oates 1934); J. McCann, Saint Benedict (New York: Sheed and Ward 1937; Image paperback 1958); J. Chapman, Saint Benedict and the Sixth Century (1929; rpt. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press 1972); T. F. Lindsay, St. Benedict: His Life and Work (London: Burns Oates 1949); I. Schuster, Saint Benedict and His Times (St. Louis: B. Herder 1951); T. Maynard, Saint Benedict and His Monks (New York: Kenedy 1954). Of somewhat different character are: I. Herwegen, St. Benedict: A Character Study (London: Sands 1924); I. Ryelandt, Saint Benedict the Man (St. Meinrad, Ind.: Grail Press 1950).

  18 See A. de Vogüé “‘Discretione praecipuam’: à quoi Grégoire pensait-il?” Benedictina 22 (1975) 325–327, who argues that the phrase refers especially to BB 58, in which Gregory has recognized this quality of “discernment,” which he then uses to characterize the whole Buie.

  19 A. de Vogüé “La mention de la ‘regula monachorum’ à la fin de la ‘Vie de Benoît’. Sa fonction littéraire et spirituelle” RBS 5 (1977) 289–298.

  20 Gregory’s acquaintance with the RB is denied by K. Hallinger “Pabst Gregor der Grosse und der hl. Benedikt” Commentationes in Regulam S. Benedicti, StA 42 (Rome: Herder 1957) pp. 231–319. For the opposite view, see O. Porcel, San Gregorio Magno y el monacato. Cuestiones controvertidas, Scripta et Documenta 12 (Montserrat: Abadia 1960) and his earlier work La doctrina monástica de San Gregorio Magno y la “regula monachorum,” Catholic Univ. Studies in Sacred Theology 60 (Washington: Catholic Univ. Press 1951).

  21 A. Mundó “L’authenticité de la Regula Sancti Benedicti” in Commentationes, pp. 105–158 (cited in previous note); de Vogüé, 1.149–172.

  22 The fullest demonstration of the priority of the RM is that of A. de Vogüé, 1.245–314.

  23 See A. Wathen, Silence: The Meaning of Silence in the Rule of St. Benedict (Washington, D.C.: Cistercian Publications 1973) pp. 7–12.

  24 This view has been consistently maintained by A. de Vogüé in his editions of the RM and RB and his numerous other writings.

  25 This position is defended by the late F. Masai and E. Manning. While their projected volume setting forth the thesis in detail has not yet appeared, it is sketched in their “Recherches sur les manuscrits et les états de la Regula Monasteriorum” Scriptorium 20 (1966) 193–214; 21 (1967) 205–226; 22 (1968) 3–19; 23 (1969) 393–433.

  26 Proposed early in the controversy by O. Zimmermann “The Regula Magistri: The Primitive Rule of St. Benedict” ABR 1 (1950) 11–36, this view was re-examined by A. de Vogüé “La Règle du Maître et les Dialogues de S. Grégoire” RHE 61 (1966) 44–76.

  27 Particularly influential in this sense was C. Butler, Benedictine Monachism: Studies in Benedictine Life and Rule (London: Longmans Green 1919).

  28 See C. Peifer “The Biblical Inspiration of Monasticism” CS 1 (1966) 7–31.

  29 What follows is largely dependent upon A. de Vogüé “The Cenobitic Rules of the West” CS 12 (1977) 175–183.

  30 A. de Vogüé “La Règle de Césaire pour les moniales” RAM 47 (1971) 369–406. The Rule of Caesarius has been translated into English by M. C. McCarthy, The Rule for Nuns of St. Caesarius of Arles (Washington: Catholic Univ. Press 1960).

  31 The extant monastic rules in Latin were collected by Benedict of Aniane in the early ninth century into his Codex Regularum, which was printed by L. Holstenius (Rome 1661) and subsequently by M. Brockie (Augsburg 1759; rpt. Graz 1957). It is included in PL 103, but for certain rules the reader is sent to other volumes of the PL, where they have been printed with the other works of the author in question. Some of these rules have recently appeared in more critical editions. In addition to the critical editions of the RM, the RB and Eugippius already noted, these are: J. Vilanova, Regula Pauli et Stephani (Montserrat: Abadia 1959); J. Neufville “Règle des IV Pères et Seconde Règle des Pères. Texte critique” RBén 77 (1967) 47–106; F. Villegas “La Regula Monasterii Tarnantensis. Textes, sources, et datation” RBén 84 (1974) 7–65; A. de Vogüé “La ‘Regula Orientalis.’ Texte critique et synopse des sources” Benedictina 23 (1976) 241–271. See also M. E. Bouillet “Le vrai Codex Regularum de saint Benoît d’Aniane” RBén 75 (1965) 345–349; J. Neufville “Sur le texte de la Règle des IV Pères” ibid. 307–312; “Les éditeurs des Regulae Patrum: saint Benoît d’Aniane et Lukas Holste” RBén 76 (1966) 327–343; F. Villegas “La Regula cuiusdam Patris ad Monachos. Ses sources littéraires et ses rapports avec la Regula Monachorum de Columban” Revue d’histoire de la spiritualité 49 (1973) 3–36, 135–144.

  32 What follows is partially dependent upon A. de Vogüé “The Rule of St. Benedict” CS 12 (1977) 243–249.

  33 For a sketch of this hypothesis, see F. Masai “Les documents de base de la Règle” RBS 1 (1972) 111–151.

  34 On the language of the RB, see C. Mohrmann “La latinité de saint Benoît. Étude linguistique sur la tradition manuscrite de la règle” RBén 62 (1952) 108–139, rpt. in Études sur le latin des chrétiens, Storia e letteratura 65 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura 1958) 1.403–435; “La langue de saint Benoît” in P. Schmitz, Sancti Benedicti Regula Monachorum (Maredsous: Éditions de l’Abbaye 19552) pp. 9–39. A valuable analysis of the linguistic features of the RB is contained in the Index Grammaticus of the critical edition by R. Hanslik, Benedicti Regula, CSEL 75 (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky 1960; 19772). See also B. Linderbauer, S.B. Regula Monachorum, herausgegehen und philologisch erklärt (Metten: Abtei Verlag 1922).

  35 See E. Kasch, Das liturgische Vokabular der frühen lateinischen Mönchsregeln, RBS Supplementa 1 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg 1974).

  36 This has been studied in the RB by A. Lentini, Il ritmo prosaico nella Regola di San Benedetto (Montecassino 1942).

  37 See N.G.L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford: The Clarendon Press 19702) s.v. Prose-rhythm, for a good succinct account.

  38 See G. Widhalm, Die rhetorische Elemente in der Regula Benedicti, RBS Supplementa 2 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg 1974).

  39 The fundamental bibliography of printed editions of the RB is A. Albareda, Bibliografia de la Regla Benedictina (Montserrat: Abadia 1933). Father J. D. Broekaert of St. André has been working to correct and complete
the repertory of Albareda; see his notice “Bibliographie des éditions imprimées de la Règle de saint Benoît de 1489 à 1929” RBS 1 (1972) 167. For editions since 1930, see B. Jaspert “Neuere französische Ausgaben der Benedictusregel. Eine Statistik” SMGBO 79 (1968) 435–438; “Regula S. Benedicti. Die deutschen Ausgaben (1930–1965)” ibid. 80 (1969) 225–230; “Regula S. Benedicti. International Bibliography. A Work-Report” ABR 20 (1969) 157–160.

  40 E. Schmidt, Regula Sancti Patris Benedicti (Ratisbon: Pustet 1880).

  41 The Oxford codex has been published in a facsimile edition by H. Farmer, The Rule of St. Benedict, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 15 (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger 1968). A diplomatic edition of the St. Gall codex was published by G. Morin, Regulae Sancti Benedicti traditio codicum Mss. Casinensium a praestantissimo teste usque repetita codice Sangallensi 914 (Montecassino 1900).

  42 E. Wölfflin, Benedicti Regula Monachorum (Leipzig: Teubner 1895).

  43 L. Traube, Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti (Munich: Verlag der Königlichen Akademie 1898, 19102).

  44 On the date, see H. Brechter “Monte Cassinos erste Zerstörung: Kritische Versuch einer zeitlichen Fixierung” SMGBO 56 (1938) 109–150.

  45 Willibald’s life, The Hodoeporicon of St. Willibald, was written by Huneberc, an Anglo-Saxon nun of Heidenheim. The text can be found in MGH SS 15,1,80–117. It has been translated by C. H. Talbot, The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany (New York: Sheed and Ward 1954) pp. 151–177.

  46 P. Meyvaert “Problems Concerning the ‘Autograph’ Manuscript of Saint Benedict’s Rule” RBén 69 (1959) 3–21.

  47 A critical edition of the letter of Theodomar to Charlemagne has been published by K. Hallinger and W. Wegener in Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum (Siegburg: F. Schmitt Respublica Verlag 1963) 1.137–175. See J. Neufville “L’authenticité de l’‘Epistula ad regem Carolum de monasterio sancti Benedicti directa et a Paulo dictata’” SM 13 (1971) 295–309.

  48 Text of the letter in Traube, Textgeschichte, pp. 692–693.

  49 This is the view of Hanslik, Benedicti Regula, pp. xxiv–xxv; “Die Benediktinerregel im Wiener Kirchenvätercorpus” Commentationes, pp. 159–169.

  50 The most notable was that of B. Paringer “Le manuscrit de Saint-Gall 914 représente-t-il le latin original de la Règle de saint Benoît?” RBén 61 (1951) 81–140.

  51 This has been established especially by C. Mohrmann “La latinité de saint Benoĺt” cited above in note 34, who explicitly refutes the contentions of Paringer, and also by A. Mundó “L’authenticité” cited in note 21.

  52 See J. Neufville “L’authenticité de l’‘Epistula ad regem Carolum’” cited in note 47.

  53 E. Manning “Problèmes de la transmission du texte de la Regula Benedicti” RBS 5 (1977) 75–84.

  54 See C. Mohrmann “La latinité” cited in note 34.

  55 C. Butler, Sancti Benedicti Regula Monachorum: Editio Critico-Practica (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder 1912).

  56 B. Linderbauer, S. Benedicti Regula, herausgegeben und philologisch erklärt (Metten: Abtei Verlag 1922).

  57 B. Linderbauer, S. Benedicti Regula Monasteriorum, Florilegium Patristicum 17 (Bonn: Peter Hanstein 1928).

  58 A. Lentini, S. Benedetto, La regola: testo, versione e commento (Montecassino 1947).

  59 J. McCann, The Rule of Saint Benedict in Latin and English (London: Burns and Oates 1952).

  60 G. Penco, S. Benedicti Regula: introduzione, testo, apparati, traduzione e commento (Florence: Editrice “la nuova Italia” 1958).

  61 Some of his early studies are incorporated in H. Plenkers, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der ältesten lateinischen Mönchsregeln (Munich: Oskar Beck 1906). Plenkers also edited the second edition of Traube’s Textgeschichte in 1910.

  62 Hanslik, Benedicti Regula.

  63 See A. Mundó “La nouvelle édition critique de la Règle de saint Benoît” RBén 71 (1961) 381–399; and especially P. Meyvaert “Towards a History of the Textual Transmission of the ‘Regula S. Benedicti‘” Scriptorium 17 (1963) 83–110.

  64 A. de Vogüé and J. Neufville, La Règle de saint Benoît, 1–6. The first volume contains the introduction and the Prologue and first seven chapters of RB. with critical text, translation and notes. The remainder of the Rule is contained in the second volume. The third volume provides the complete text of some twenty-five important manuscripts for the Prologue and first seven chapters, and other significant passages. Volumes 4 to 6 provide historical and critical commentary. A seventh volume, Commentaire doctrinal et spirituel (1977), has exactly the same format and is called Tome vii, though it is not enumerated in the Sources Chétiennes series (it is listed as hors série). An earlier volume, La communauté et l’abbé dans la Règle de saint Benoît (Paris: Desclée 1961) contains de Vogüé’s commentary on eighteen chapters of the RB and must be used along with the other volumes, as this material is not repeated in the other seven volumes.

  65 F. Masai and E. Manning “Les états du chapitre premier du Maître et la fin du Prologue de la Règle bénédictine” Scriptorium 23 (1969) 393–433.

  66 G. Colombás, L. Sansegundo and O. Cunill, San Benito: Su vida y su regla, BAC 115 (Madrid: La Editorial Católica 1954, 19682).

  67 B. Steidle, Die Benedictus-Regel lateinisch-deutsch (Beuron: Kunstverlag 1964, 19772).

  68 M. Gretsch, Die Regula Sancti Benedicti in England und Ihre Altenglische Übersetzung, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Englischen Philologie 2 (Munich: W. Fink 1973); J. Oetgen “The Old English Rule of St. Benedict” ABR 26 (1975) 38–53.

  69 L. Doyle, St. Benedict’s Rule for Monasteries (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press 1948). The original hardcover edition has the text arranged in sense lines; this format has not been preserved in the popular paperback edition.

  70 B. Bolton, The Rule of St. Benedict for Monasteries (London: Ealing Abbey 1970). The most recent American translation is that of A. C. Meisel and M. L. del Mastro, The Rule of St. Benedict Translated, with Introduction and Notes (Garden City: Doubleday Image Books 1975). Unfortunately this edition cannot be recommended; the translation is inaccurate and misleading, and some of the information provided is erroneous.

  The Rule in History

  The Rule of St. Benedict was one of many Latin rules written by monastic founders between the fifth and seventh centuries to provide a basic framework of spirituality and discipline for a particular monastery. Like the others, it was meant to reflect the universally received tradition, though its own scope was severely limited: St. Benedict did not intend to establish an “order” or to legislate for monks of future centuries. Unlike the others, however, with the sole exception of St. Augustine’s, his Rule was gradually adopted throughout the Western Church and eventually became almost the sole norm of Western monasticism. This development was the result of a long and gradual historical process involving many factors. It is the purpose of this section of the Introduction to offer a brief sketch of this process, which may enable the reader to see the connection between the historical document that is here introduced and the Benedictine life that is today implanted in almost every part of the world.

  1. THE EARLY DIFFUSION OF THE RB

  The earliest period is the most obscure.1 During St. Benedict’s lifetime, the Rule was written for his monastery of Montecassino; there is no record that it was followed anywhere else, except perhaps at the foundation St. Gregory says he made at Terracina, about which nothing is known except what is contained in the Dialogues (Greg. dial. 2,22). Montecassino was destroyed sometime between the Lombard invasion in 568 and the composition of the Dialogues in 593; St. Gregory says that the monks escaped with their lives (Greg. dial. 2,17). Two centuries later Paul the Deacon reports the tradition that the community took refuge in Rome, taking the Rule with them (Paul. diac. gest.Lang. 4,17). There is no reliable evidence of what subsequently became of the community, though this copy of the Rule was probably the same one that was still in Rome around 750, when Pope Zachary sent it
to the restored Montecassino.

  St. Gregory knew the Rule, which he praises in the Dialogues (Greg. dial. 2,36) and cites once in the Commentary on Kings (Greg. lib. 1 Reg. 4,70), though not by name. This does not mean that his monastery of St. Andrew on the Coelian was governed by the RB; monasteries at this period usually drew upon a number of rules. Subsequently, there is no clear evidence of a Roman monastery governed exclusively by the RB until the tenth century, under Cluniac influence.2 The monasteries of Italy were practically all destroyed during the Lombard period. It was not until the end of the seventh century that a renewal took place, leading to the foundation of Farfa in 705 and of St. Vincent on the Volturno soon after, as well as to the restoration of Montecassino around 720. This renewal was due chiefly to outside influences, principally from Gaul and England, but also from Byzantine refugees fleeing to the West from the iconoclasts and the Moslems.

  In the late sixth and early seventh centuries, another powerful monastic influence invaded the continent — the Irish. The ascetical life flourished among the Celts of Ireland from the late fifth century onward, following St. Patrick’s missionary activity. The Celtic peoples developed their own form of the monastic life, both solitary and cenobitic, which had some features in common with Eastern monasticism, perhaps by way of Lerins. In Ireland, which had never known Roman occupation and therefore had no towns, an unusual form of Church organization developed along tribal lines. The local church coincided with the clan, which took on a monastic character, with the abbot as chieftain. Though he might also be bishop, in many cases the bishop was a subject of the abbot. The Celtic monks also developed a great love of learning, and their monasteries became centers of an extraordinary culture. Their liturgical practice included some peculiarities that later brought them into conflict with the Roman tradition. They promoted a harsh discipline with severe penitential practices.3