RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Read online

  20 The best study of Cassian is O. Chadwick, John Cassian (Cambridge Univ. Press 1950, 19682).

  21 See A. de Vogüé “Les mentions des oeuvres de Cassien chez Benoît et ses contemporains” SM 20 (1978) 275–285.

  22 J. Gavigan, De vita monastica in Africa Septentrionali inde a temporibus S. Augustini usque ad invasiones Arabum (Turin: Marietti 1962); G. Folliet “Aux origines de l’ascétisme et du cénobitisme africain” Saint Martin et son temps, StA 46 (Rome: Herder 1961) pp. 25–44; A. Manrique “San Agustino y el monaquismo africano” Ciudad de Dios 173 (1960) 118–143.

  23 G. Folliet “Des moines Euchites à Carthage en 400–401” Studia Patristica 2. TU 64 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1957) 386–399.

  24 R. Halliburton “The Inclination to Retirement. The Retreat of Cassiciacum and the ‘Monastery’ of Tagaste” Studia Patristica 5, TU 80 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1962) 329–340.

  25 See L. Verheijen, La Règle de Saint Augustin, 2 vols. (Paris: Études Augustiniennes 1967).

  26 See A. Zumkeller, Das Mönchtum des heiligen Augustinus, Cassiciacum 11 (Würzburg: Augustinus Verlag 19692); A. Manrique, La vida monástica en San Agustin (Salamanca: Studia Patristica 1959); Teología augustiniana de la vida religiosa (Madrid: El Escorial 1964); L. Verheijen “Saint Augustin” Théologie de la vie monastique, Théologie 49 (Paris: Aubier 1961) pp. 201–212; A. Sage, La Règle de Saint Augustin commentée par ses écrits (Paris: La Vie Augustinienne 1961), reproduced in La vie religieuse selon saint Augustin (Paris: La Vie Augustinienne 1972); G. Ladner, The Idea of Reform (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press 1959).

  27 On Fulgentius, see J. Gavigan “Fulgenzio di Ruspe” Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione 4.998–1002.

  28 The expression is that of A. de Vogüé “Saint Benoît et son temps: Règles italiennes et règles provençales au VIe siècle” RBS 1 (1972) 169–193, with discussion, 219–221; see also “The Cenobitic Rules of the West” CS 12 (1977) 175–183.

  29 L. de Seilhac, L’utilisation par S. Césaire d’Arles de la Règle de S. Augustin, StA 62 (Rome: Herder 1974).

  30 A. de Vogüé “La Règle d’Eugippe retrouvée?” RAM 47 (1971) 233–265. The identification had been independently made by L. Verheijen and previously suggested by Cardinal Schuster. Critical edition by F. Villegas and A. de Vogüé, Eugippii Regula, CSEL 87 (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky 1976).

  31 R. Lorenz, article cited above in note 1.

  The Rule of St. Benedict

  The foregoing summary of monasticism in the West brings this account to sixth-century Italy, the time and place that brought forth the Benedictine Rule, the most influential document in the entire history of Western monasticism. The study and investigation of this Rule, and the complex questions surrounding its origin and relationship to previous monastic literature, will be facilitated by an examination of the immediate historical background, in order to gain an understanding of the circumstances that shaped the development of ecclesiastical institutions at that period.

  1. THE SIXTH CENTURY

  At this time, the collapse of Roman civilization was at hand in Gaul, where, for a time, Provence provided an island of safety while the northern provinces were being sacked by barbarian invaders; and in Africa, where the Vandals spread pillage and terror everywhere. Italy, too, became prey to the Goths in the early fifth century. The fall of Rome before the onslaught of Alaric in 410 was a traumatic shock to the whole civilized world, and expressions of horror at the news came from Jerome in far-off Bethlehem (Hier. epist. 123,16)1 and from Augustine across the sea in Africa.2 Rufinus, together with Melania the Younger and Pinianus, fled to Sicily before the advancing barbarians; there Rufinus died, and the others went on to Africa. Paulinus was imprisoned for a short time, but was later allowed to return to Nola.

  The barbarian tribes began to dismember an empire already seriously weakened from within by misgovernment and oppressive taxation, and scourged by famine and pestilence. By mid-century the Huns were ravaging northern Italy, and Rome was sacked a second time by the Vandals in 455. The official end of the Western empire came in 476 with the deposition of Romulus, the last emperor, by the barbarian leader Odoacer, who ruled until displaced in 493 by Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths. Under Theodoric’s long rule, there was peace until his death in 526. Soon after this, however, the Eastern emperor Justinian determined to regain the West, and war raged up and down the Italian peninsula almost unceasingly from the coming of the Byzantine armies in 535 until the final defeat of the Ostrogoths in 553. Rome was besieged three times during the Gothic War. The reconquest was short-lived, for in 568 the Lombards arrived to pillage Italy anew and settle in the north. At the end of the sixth century, in the time of Gregory the Great, there was practically no effective political order in Italy, and the Christian world began to look more and more toward the Holy See as the only stable authority.

  During this whole period, from the beginnings of monasticism through the sixth century, ecclesiastical society was almost as troubled as its civil counterpart. While the great theological controversies centered for the most part in the East, they had ramifications in the West as well. The fourth century was dominated by the Arian controversy, the fifth by the Christological controversies following the condemnation of Nestorianism at Ephesus in 431. After the Council of Chalcedon in 451, large sections of the East refused to accept the condemnation of monophysitism and went into schism. These heresies had no following in the West, but the Roman See was constantly preoccupied with the preservation of orthodoxy and with countering the political moves of the Eastern emperors, especially their repeated attempts to reconcile the monophysites at the expense of orthodoxy, endeavors that lasted until the Moslem invasions of the seventh century.

  The West was troubled by the Pelagian problem and the subsequent controversies about grace, which lasted through the fifth century and into the sixth. This was particularly a problem for monastic circles, which often favored the semi-Pelagian position because the Augustinian views on grace seemed to negate the value of asceticism. The most troubling heresy in the West, however, was Arianism, which survived there long after it had been settled in the East. While the doctrine had little appeal to Western Christians, it became the faith of most of the barbarian invaders. Living on the fringes of the empire, they had first come into contact with Christianity through missionaries whose allegiance was Arian at a time when Arianism had triumphed throughout the Eastern empire. The Vandals were fiercely anti-Catholic, the Goths usually more tolerant, but Arianism remained a powerful force in Italy throughout the fifth and sixth centuries, and survived in some places until the eighth.

  These developments in political, social and ecclesiastical life left their mark upon Western monasticism. The breakdown of order in society and the widespread pillage and destruction did not destroy monastic life, but tended to draw monks out of isolation and favored their banding together in communities. Both civil and ecclesiastical authorities became more inclined to regulate the monastic life to combat the anarchy and unorthodox excesses into which it easily degenerated when totally unchecked. Accordingly, monasticism gradually became more organized and institutionalized. While there were still hermits in abundance, a more organized cenobitic life grew in popularity. In the early sixth century, we find a noticeable tightening up of discipline and increasing regimentation in the coenobia, a necessity that bears witness to the moral decline that accompanied the decay of ancient culture. Institutions differ from one monastery to another, but on the whole the similarities are more striking than the divergences.

  One reason for this is that all the monks drew upon the same sources. The Latin literature — Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Sulpicius Severus, Cassian, the Lerins school — became known almost everywhere. In the course of the fifth and sixth centuries, a considerable body of Eastern literature was translated into Latin, so that the monastic practice of Egypt and Cappadocia became the foundation of the Western traditions. We have already spoken of the translation of the Life of Antony,
the Pachomian literature, the Small Asceticon of Basil, and the History of the Monks in Egypt. In addition to these, a Latin version of Palladius’ Lausiac History seems to have been made in the fifth century.3

  In the first half of the sixth century, Dionysius Exiguus translated the Greek Life of Pachomius,4 and the Roman deacon Pelagius, about the same time, began a Latin version of the Verba Seniorum, which was completed about 550 by the subdeacon John.5 The most important source of Eastern monastic teaching, however, was John Cassian. This whole body of literature constituted a tradition that was the culmination of some two hundred years of monastic experience and became the common inheritance of sixth-century Western monasticism.

  In Gaul at this time, the major influence in the south was still the monastery of Lerins, though Arles became, under Caesarius and Aurelian, a center of monastic legislation. The type of life that flourished at Condat and its foundations was becoming increasingly organized in a strictly cenobitic fashion, and a similar evolution can be traced elsewhere in Gaul, which had some two hundred monasteries by the end of the sixth century, in addition to numerous solitaries. In Italy, too, monasticism flourished despite the evils of the time — even because of them, to some extent, for the collapse of Roman civilization led many to reflect upon the transitoriness of the things of this life. Salvian’s De gubernatione Dei, written in the middle of the fifth century, presents an eloquent case for the barbarian invasions as God’s just punishment upon the sins of pagans and Christians alike.6 At the end of the sixth century, Gregory the Great believed that the end of the world was approaching; and he is our best witness to the flourishing character of monasticism in the preceding century. The monks and virgins, hermits and cenobites who populate the pages of his Dialogues clearly demonstrate the variety of monastic forms in sixth-century Italy.

  Of all the monasteries that must have flourished in Italy in the first half of the sixth century, aside from the foundations of St. Benedict, only two stand out somewhat from the darkness in which history has shrouded this period. One is the monastery of Eugippius, of which little is known. Born in Africa, he became a disciple and later biographer of the Roman monk St. Severin, apostle of Noricum, who died in 482.7 Later, about 512, he was abbot of the monastery of Lucullanum, just outside of Naples, built at the tomb of St. Severin. Although information about the life at Lucullanum is sketchy, contemporary accounts indicate that the monastery was a seat of learning. Eugippius was in contact with Dionysius Exiguus, Fulgentius of Ruspe, the latter’s disciple and biographer Ferrandus, and Cassiodorus, all of whom had similar interests. That he shared Fulgentius’ admiration for Augustine is shown by the fact that he composed for his monks a book of excerpta from Augustine, which was popular in the Middle Ages. The influence of Augustine on the monastic rule that is probably the work of Eugippius has been noted, and shows how the monks of this period drew upon various sources, both Eastern and Western, for their monastic teaching.

  The other monastery is that of Vivarium, the foundation of Cassiodorus in Calabria. Born about 485 of a noble family, Cassiodorus rose to high positions in civic life and was the principal minister of Theodoric and his successors. Amid the disasters of the times, he aspired to save Christian culture for posterity. His plan to found a Christian university at Rome was nullified by the outbreak of the Gothic War and the death of Pope Agapitus. He then retired from public life about 540 and founded a monastery on his estate at Vivarium, though he himself did not make monastic profession. Here he assembled a noteworthy library, wrote his Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum,8 and founded a scriptorium that produced manuscripts that later found their way to numerous libraries of Europe. The monastery does not seem to have long survived its founder, who died about 585 at a very advanced age. Although little is known of the observance of Vivarium, its importance consists less in its monastic influence than in its cultural impact, which was due to the intellectual program of Cassiodorus himself and which he bequeathed to the Middle Ages.9

  2. ST. BENEDICT AND HIS RULE: THE STATE OF THE QUESTION

  It is at this point that we must consider St. Benedict, who was a contemporary of Eugippius and Cassiodorus. A generation ago the entire question of Benedict and his Rule seemed perfectly clear, even though there were many areas about which we knew less than we would have liked. The accepted view may be summarized as follows. The life of Benedict is known to us through a biography written less than a half century after his death by his disciple St. Gregory the Great, the first Benedictine Pope, and based upon testimony provided by men who had known Benedict personally. In this Life, Gregory relates that Benedict wrote a rule for monks, which could be none other than the Rule known throughout the Western Church under Benedict’s name and handed down from earliest times in countless manuscripts. It was believed that this Rule, brought to the Lateran by Benedict’s monks when their monastery was destroyed by the Lombards about 570, was followed by Gregory himself in his monastery on the Coelian Hill in Rome, that it was taken to England by Augustine and his companions when sent by Gregory to evangelize the Angles and was subsequently carried back to the continent by the English missionaries.

  The Rule, a document whose brevity and simplicity belie its wisdom, was thought to be an original work that forcefully reveals the personality and genius of its author. While he was aware of the forms of monastic life that had preceded him in both East and West and drew copiously upon their literature, he saw that a new beginning had to be made to meet the needs of the times. His moderation, his emphasis upon a stable community life in opposition to individualism, and his encouragement of civilizing work ensured that the institute he founded would become a powerful force in fashioning a Christian Europe out of the ruins of the barbarian invasions. He may even have been commissioned by the Pope to reform Western monasticism; in any case, his work was a contribution of extraordinary originality and foresight that makes him tower above his predecessors and contemporaries.

  In the past thirty-five years, some significant changes have been made in this appraisal. It is not a question of totally changing our view of Benedict and his Rule, but of nuancing our judgments in some areas, modifying some positions that went beyond the facts, and abandoning maximalist positions in favor of more sober historical probabilities.10 But there is no reason for skepticism: the irresponsible rumors occasionally heard that unidentified “scholars” have disproved St. Benedict’s existence or found that he never wrote a rule may serve to shock the uninformed and delight the iconoclast, but are nonetheless utterly without foundation. What has happened is that an extraordinary and extremely beneficial renewal of studies in the Rule of St. Benedict and related monastic literature has provided new insights that to some extent alter but, more important, clarify and deepen our understanding.

  What has brought about this renewal is the study of a related document, the Regula Magistri. A Latin monastic rule of unknown authorship, about three times the length of the RB, it has been known from ancient times, since Benedict of Aniane included it in his Codex Regularum, or collection of ancient rules,11 in the early ninth century. Although all these rules were similar insofar as they drew upon the same tradition and did not hesitate to borrow from one another, the RM manifests particularly close contacts with the RB. Large sections of the texts of these two rules are identical, or nearly so; thus practically the entire prologue and first seven chapters of the RB can also be found in the RM, mingled with other material. This had always been explained on the supposition that the RM was a later work, of the seventh or eighth century, and that its anonymous author, whose lack of originality, it was thought, was equaled only by his long-windedness, had simply borrowed large sections from the RB.

  This hypothesis was in itself perfectly reasonable, for such procedure was not uncommon in ancient times. The Rule of Donatus for virgins, for example, which belongs to seventh-century Gaul, consists almost entirely of extracts from Benedict, Columban and Caesarius. This view of the RM appeared satisfactory to the erudit
e Maurist scholars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; Dom Hugh Ménard, who edited the Concordia Regularum in 1638, conjectured that it might be the work of Benedict Biscop, the Northumbrian admirer of all things Roman and monastic, who founded Wearmouth and Jarrow in the late seventh century. In the meantime, no one had undertaken a thorough study of this rule, which seemed to have little to offer.

  This situation changed abruptly, however, in the late 1930s, with the sudden appearance of the contrary hypothesis, namely, that the RM was the earlier of the two rules and that the RB had borrowed from it. This proposal was first made by Father Augustine Genestout, a monk of Solesmes, though it was made public by others before his own studies were published. The initial reaction was one of shock, disbelief and reluctance to accept a view that seemed at first sight to rob St. Benedict of all originality and reduce him to an unimportant imitator. Some scholars reacted with a vigorous defense of the traditional view, while others proposed a mediating position. Only after the publication of a reliable text of the RM could the controversy advance on firmer ground. Now, after a generation has passed and innumerable studies have been devoted to the problem, the question can be viewed in a calmer and more objective fashion.12

  A close literary relationship between two documents poses a complex problem that usually cannot be resolved by any single argument, since individual pieces of evidence can point in opposite directions. The interrelationship of the Synoptic Gospels, for instance, is again being hotly debated, although the majority of New Testament scholars once thought it had been definitively solved. Likewise, the RM-RB question cannot be said to have reached a solution that fully accounts for all the evidence and completely satisfies everyone. Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence is definitely in favor of the priority of the RM, and there is no longer any prominent expert in the field who holds that the RB is earlier than its sister rule. To put it another way, the working hypothesis of the priority of the RM offers an adequate explanation of the composition of the RB in the majority of cases, whereas the contrary hypothesis is unable to account for many features of the RM. The genesis and development of the RM itself, however, and the stage of its development that was known to the author of the RB, are still matters for vigorous dispute.