Third, it is not a simple matter to sort out the significantly changed conditions that make our time different from earlier ages of monastic history. Clearly, when people no longer speak or understand Latin, then it is time to use a language people can understand. When one lives and works in an agricultural environment, a certain schedule is appropriate; in a city a different one may be needed. But it would be naïve to imagine that people in antiquity had less difficulty with silence or obedience and that because conditions today are different, these practices should be abandoned. Likewise, the discovery that there are alternative ways of doing something does not imply that one should immediately abandon the traditional way of doing it. Change for its own sake is of no benefit to a society or institution. Stability and continuity are important values in any society.
3. Has the human condition changed fundamentally?
It remains to consider the third ground mentioned earlier for questioning the relevance of the Rule, namely, that life and people today are so different from life and people in late antiquity that a document written then can hardly be of much use now.
It seems to be a perennial temptation in all ages to imagine that contemporary culture represents the apogee of human development. Certainly, the rapidity of change in our culture has engendered a belief both in progress itself and in progress as a solution to human problems. Rooted in the Renaissance and strengthened by the Industrial Revolution, this belief has received added energy from popularizations of Hegel, Marx, Darwin and others. It underlies and underpins the view that reading the documents of the past is like reading the books of our nursery days. That this belief in progress is very wide-spread needs no documentation; that it is sound is, on many grounds, questionable.
First, it rests on a number of insecure assumptions. There is reason to question the assumption of the perfectibility of fallen man, and to ask whether the idea of constant progress is compatible with a realistic view of the evil and sin present in the world. Equally questionable is the assumption that rapid change is necessarily a motion of constant upward progress. Might not the motion be circular, or wavelike as in alternating current, or even downward, or now one, now another?
Second, do the observable facts really support such a trust in progress? Undoubtedly, in the last few centuries there has been an enormous expansion in human knowledge and in man’s ability to control and utilize the material world. Ever more rapidly accelerating technological progress has brought many present benefits and countless possibilities for improving the quality of human life in the future. Nor is such progress limited to the obvious material benefits of a higher standard of living (at least for those who share in it). To cite but a few examples: the progress in medicine has greatly alleviated human suffering; psychiatry and other social sciences continue to shed new light on mental illness and human behavior generally; vast amounts of research have given us a greater knowledge of human history than ever before.
But a less optimistic observer could point out that all this progress has produced greater and greater disparity between the few rich and the many poor of the world. The last hundred years have witnessed human atrocities on a scale unknown before; Dachau, Hiroshima and Vietnam are not milestones of progress. And technology is answerable for our capacity to destroy on a scale scarcely imaginable even now. Then there are the numerous ecological problems that continue to arise.
Adding up the balance sheet on the human race is a precarious and possibly futile exercise at any point in history, but it is difficult to feel wholly confident that the bottom line today shows a larger profit than ever before.
And so one need not deny that there has been progress, or that further progress is both possible and desirable, in order to see that an uncritical trust in progress may be mistaken.
We believe, in fact, that it is incorrect to belittle the past and to lose a sense of what is perennial in the affairs of the human spirit. When individuals and societies come to regard their problems as unique, then no help can be sought from others and a sense of shared humanity is lost. But it is a liberating experience when individuals discover that the difficulties and troubles they experience link them with, rather than separate them from, the rest of humanity. So too is it with nations and societies.
Anyone who is acquainted with the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, published long before either the Communist Manifesto or the Russian Revolution, knows that the present rivalry of the two most powerful nations on earth is hardly due to the clash of rival ideologies alone. Likewise, anyone who has read Thucydides is hardly surprised to observe the shifting alliances in the United Nations or the role that jealousy seems to play in international affairs.
By the same token, in the realm of the Spirit (where Christians have always had grounds for being most optimistic about the possibilities of progress), a discovery of the wisdom in the monastic tradition, even in this “little rule for beginners,” can help to put us in touch with what is perennial and human, thereby broadening and deepening our humanity and our life in the Spirit. Perhaps if the ancient monastic wisdom were more widely known in our time, so many thousands of Westerners would not be seeking spiritual peace in non-Western and non-Christian settings. The great challenge to monasticism in our society, which should also be the challenge of monasticism to our time, is to show by a life of renunciation and self-discipline that it is possible to achieve spiritual peace and simplicity of heart in the midst of the technological complexity of contemporary culture, to show that it is still possible for brothers to “dwell together in unity” (Ps 132[133]).
_______________
1 On this period, see G. Penco “La prima diffusione della Regola di S. Benedetto” Commentationes in Regulam S. Benedicti, StA 42 (Rome: Herder 1957) pp. 321–345.
2 See G. Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries, Studi di antichità cristiana 23 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana 1957).
3 On Celtic monasticism, see J. Ryan, Irish Monasticism: Origins and Early Development (Dublin: Talbot Press 1931).
4 See B. Lehane, The Quest of Three Abbots (New York: Viking Press 1968).
5 Our knowledge of Columban is derived from his own writings and from the Vita S. Columbani written by Jonas of Bobbio around 640. Jonas did not know Columban personally, as he came to Bobbio some three years after the saint’s death, but he wrote the Life at the request of Bertulf, third abbot of Bobbio, and of Waldebert, abbot of Luxeuil, and consulted eyewitnesses who were still living at both monasteries. Critical text by E. Krusch in MGH SSRM 4 (1902); separate edition 1905. See J. Laporte “Columbano” Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione 2.1228–1236, with good bibliography. See also G. Metlake, The Life and Writings of St. Columban (Philadelphia: Dolphin Press 1914); T. Concannon, The Life of St. Columban: A Study of Ancient Irish Monastic Life (St. Louis: B. Herder 1915); M. M. Dubois, Un pionnier de la civilisation Occidentale: Saint Columban (c.540–615) (Paris: Alsatia 1950); J. Wilson, Life of St. Columban (London: Burns Oates 1952); F. MacManus, Saint Columban (New York: Sheed and Ward 1952).
6 Critical edition and translation by G. Walker, S. Columbani Opera, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 2 (Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies 1957).
7 See F. Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich (Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag 1965) pp. 121–151.
8 Text in L. Traube, Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti (Munich: Verlag der k. Akademie 1898) pp. 92–93.
9 PL 87.274–298.
10 Vita Sadalbergae 8: MGH SSRM 5,54.
11 PL 88.1051. See Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 286–287.
12 We find such phrases as sub regula sanctorum patrum, maxime beati Benedicti et sancti Columbani abbatum; secundum normam patrum domni Benedicti et domni Columbani; sub regula beati Benedicti et ad modum Luxoviensis monasterii; secundum regulam sancti Benedicti vel domni Columbani, etc. See Prinz, pp. 268–284.
13 De Vogüé, 1.162–169.
14 M. Deanesly, Augustine of Canterbury (Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press 1964). There
is a good account of the Gregorian mission and its aftermath in P. Hunter Blair, The World of Bede (New York: St. Martin’s Press 1970).
15 It is not certain when Lerins adopted the RB, but it was already known at Albi, not very far distant, a generation earlier. Benedict and Wilfrid may also have become acquainted with it in Italy.
16 Bede says that the observance of Wearmouth and Jarrow was based upon the practices of seventeen monasteries Benedict had visited. See Baedae hist.abb. 7 and 11; also Anon, hist.abb. 16 and 25.
17 Facsimile edition by H. Farmer, The Rule of St. Benedict, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 15 (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger 1968). See P. Engelbert “Paläographische Bemerkungen zur Faksimileausgabe der ältesten Handschrift der Regula Benedicti” RBén 79 (1969) 399–413. This codex represents the “interpolated text.” Did this recension originate in Rome? It is noteworthy that the Verona codex, which also belongs to this text tradition, entitles the RB “regula a sancto Benedicto romense edita,” just as the letter of Venerandus calls it “regula sancti Benedicti abbatis romensis.” Both in England and in Gaul the RB was received as a Roman rule, a quality that especially recommended it to the Anglo-Saxons and the Carolingians.
18 Boniface’s life (Will, vita Bon.) was written soon after his death by the priest Willibald. Boniface’s surviving letters are also a valuable source for his life. See E. Emerton, The Letters of St. Boniface, Records of Civilization 31 (New York: Columbia Univ. Press 1940).
19 The Anglo-Saxons also influenced the renewal of monastic life at Montecassino after its restoration by Petronax. St. Willibald spent some ten years there before joining Boniface and seems to have been influential in restoring the observance of the RB. Later on, Boniface maintained contact with Montecassino, sending disciples there and to other Italian monasteries to learn more of monastic observance. See Eigil of Fulda, Vita Sturmii 14: MGH SS 2,371; translation in C. H. Talbot, The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany (New York: Sheed and Ward 1954) pp. 181–202; and Rudolph of Fulda, Vita Leobae: MGH SS 15,125; translation also in Talbot, pp. 205–226.
20 His life was written by his disciple Ardo: critical edition by G. Waitz in MGH SS 15,200–220. See also J. Narberhaus, Benedikt von Aniane: Werk und Persönlichkeit, Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens 16 (Münster: Aschendorff 1930); J. Winandy “L’oeuvre monastique de saint Benoît d’Aniane” Mélanges Bénédictines (S. Wandrille: Éd. de Fontenelle 1947) pp. 237–258; Ph. Schmitz “L’influence de saint Benoît d’Aniane dans l’histoire de l’Ordre de saint Benoît” Il monachesimo nell’ alto Medioevo e la formazione della civiltà occidentale, Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ alto Medioevo, Settimane di Studio 4 (Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro 1957) pp. 401–415.
21 The relevant documents, edited by J. Semmler, can be found in Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum (Siegburg: F. Schmitt 1963) 1.423–582.
22 See above, p. 88, n. 31.
23 PL 103.701–1380.
24 On Louis the Pious, see E. S. Duckett, Carolingian Portraits (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press 1962) pp. 20–57; on his monastic concepts, see T. Noble “The Monastic Ideal as a Model for Empire: The Case of Louis the Pious” RBén 86 (1976) 235–250.
25 See A. Linage Conde, Los origines del monacato benedictino en la península Ibérica, 3 vols. (Leon: Centro de Estudios e Investigación “San Isidoro” 1973).
26 The earliest ones are published in Volume I of Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum, which is appropriately subtitled: Initia Consuetudinis Benedictinae: Consuetudines Saeculi Octavi et Noni. See note 21 above.
27 On the question of making profession according to a particular customary, see J. Leclercq “Profession according to the Rule of St. Benedict” Rule and Life, ed. M. B. Pennington, Cistercian Studies 12 (Spencer, Mass.: Cistercian Publications 1971) pp. 117–150.
28 Recently a fragment of a still earlier commentary was discovered, which may come from Corbie. See K. Hallinger “Das Kommentarfragment zu Regula Benedicti IV aus der ersten Hälfte des 8. Jahrhunderts” Wiener Studien 82 (1969) 211–232. This shows that the tendencies that appear in the time of Benedict of Aniane had been developing for some time; Smaragdus was working out of an already existing tradition of interpreting the Rule, though perhaps it was more often oral than written.
29 Critical text in A. Spannagel and P. Engelbert, Smaragdi Abbatis Expositio in Regulam S. Benedicti, Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum 8 (Siegburg: F. Schmitt 1974).
30 Published as Pauli Warnefridi Diaconi Casinensis Commentarium in regulam S.P.N. Benedicti, Bibliotheca Casinensis 4 (Montecassino 1880).
31 Thus W. Hafner “Paulus Diaconus und der ihm zugeschriebene Kommentar zur Regula S. Benedicti” Commentationes in Regulam S. Benedicti, StA 42 (Rome: Herder 1957) pp. 347–358; Der Basiliuskommentar zur Regula S. Benedicti: Ein Beitrag zur Autorenfrage karolingischer Regelkommentare, Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens 23 (Münster: Aschendorff 1959).
32 R. Mittermüller, Expositio Regulae ab Hildemaro tradita et nunc primum typis mandata (Ratisbon: Pustet 1880). For a study of this commentary, see A. Schroll, Benedictine Monasticism as Reflected in the Warnefrid-Hildemar Commentaries on the Rule (New York: Columbia Univ. Press 1941).
33 See the general bibliography for the principal commentaries on the RB; a discussion of their merits can be found in C. Butler, Benedictine Monachism (London: Longmans Green 1919) pp. 177–183. See also the “Catalogus alphabeticus auctorum qui in Regulam S. Benedicti scripserunt” in A. Calmet, Commentarius litteralis, historico-moralis in Regulam S.P. Benedicti (Liège 1750) pp. liii–lxxviii, and the appendix of the work of Schroll, pp. 197–205, cited in the previous note.
34 See D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge Univ. Press 19632); J. Robinson, The Times of St. Dunstan (Oxford: The Clarendon Press 1923; rpt. 1969); Tenth-Century Studies, ed. D. Parsons (London: Phillimore 1975).
35 See J. Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture (New York: Fordham Univ. Press 1961).
36 On Cluny, see especially G. de Valous, Le monachisme clunisien des origines au XVe siècle, 2 vols. (Paris: Picard 19702); J. Evans, Monastic Life at Cluny, 910–1157 (1931; rpt. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books 1968); N. Hunt, Cluny under St. Hugh, 1049–1109 (London: Edw. Arnold 1967); Cluniac Monasticism in the Central Middle Ages, ed. N. Hunt (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books 1971); K. Hallinger, Gorze-Kluny: Studien zu den monastischen Lebensformen und Gegensätzen im Hochmittelalter, StA 22–23 (Rome: Herder 1950–51; rpt. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt 1971); H. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford: The Clarendon Press 1970).
37 See J. Leclercq “La crise du monachisme aux XIe et XIIe siècles” Aux sources de la spiritualité occidentale: Étapes et constantes (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf 1964) pp. 175–199; C. Peifer “Monastic Renewal in Historical Perspective” ABR 19 (1968) 1–23.
38 On Cîteaux, see L. Lekai, The White Monks (Okauchee, Wis.: Our Lady of Spring Bank 1953); The Cistercians: Ideals and Realities (Kent, Ohio: Kent State Univ. Press 1977); B. Lackner, The Eleventh Century Background of Cîteaux (Washington, D.C.: Cistercian Publications 1972).
39 J. Dubois “The Laybrothers’ Life in the 12th Century: A Form of Lay Monasticism” CS 7 (1972) 161–213; K. Hallinger “Woher kommen die Laienbrüder?” Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis 12 (1956) 1–104.
40 See Ph. Schmitz, Histoire de l’Ordre de saint Benoît, vol. 7: Les moniales (Maredsous: Éditions de l’Abbaye 1956); Eileen Power, English Medieval Nunneries, rev. ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press 1940), which is the standard work; there is an interesting, if short chapter on nuns in her Medieval Women (Cambridge Univ. Press 1976); S. Hilpisch, A History of Benedictine Nuns (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press 1958); N. Hunt “Notes on the History of Benedictine and Cistercian Nuns in Britain” CS 8 (1973) 157–177; M. Connor “The First Cistercian Nuns and Renewal Today” CS 5 (1970) 131–168; J. McNamara and S.F. Wemple “Sanctit
y and Power: The Dual Pursuit of Medieval Women” Becoming Visible: Women in European History, ed. R. Bridenthal and C. Koonz (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1977).
41 His Life by Andrew Jacobi is translated in F. Fattorini, The Saints of the Benedictine Order of Montefano (Clifton, N.J.: Holy Face Monastery 1972).
42 See D. Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, Vol. 3 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1959).
43 A. Krailsheimer, Armand-Jean de Rancé, Abbot of La Trappe (Oxford: The Clarendon Press 1974).
44 See B. Danzer, Die Benediktinerregel in der Übersee (St. Ottilien: Missionsverlag 1929) pp. 95–96. There seems to be no satisfactory documentary proof of this tradition.
45 O. Kapsner “The Benedictines in Brazil” ABR 28 (1977) 113–132.
46 M. Hall “Colonial American Benedictines” St. Anselm’s Abbey Newsletter (Washington, D.C. Spring 1980).
47 T. O’Connor “A Benedictine in Frontier America” DR 53 (1935) 471–479; A. Plaisance “Dom Pierre Joseph Didier, Pioneer Benedictine in the United States” ABR 3 (1952) 23–26.
48 The story of the Trappists in America is told by T. Merton, The Waters of Siloe (New York: Harcourt Brace 1949).
49 J. Oetgen, An American Abbot: Boniface Wimmer, O.S.B. (Latrobe, Pa.: The Archabbey Press 1976).
50 C. Barry, Worship and Work (1956; rpt. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press 1980).
51 P. Beckman, Kansas Monks (Atchison, Kans.: Abbey Student Press 1957).
52 R. Baska, The Benedictine Congregation of St. Scholastica: Its Foundation and Development (Washington: Catholic Univ. Press 1935).
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 24