[In the following introduction to his 1929 translation of the Rule of St. Benedict, Gasquet examines Benedict's religious and monastic ideals and the influence of these in early medieval Europe.]

The Rule of St. Benedict may fitly find a place in any collection of classics. As a code of laws it has undoubtedly influenced Europe; and, indeed, there is probably no other book, save of course the Holy Bible, which with such certainty can be claimed as a chief factor in the work of European civilization. It is undeniable that most of the nations of modern Europe were converted to the Christian faith and tutored in the arts of peace by the influence of the mode of life known as monastic. The men whose names are connected with the beginnings of civilization in the various countries of Europe, and their fellow-labourers, were for the most part trained for their mission under the Rule of St. Benedict. Such, for example, was Augustine in England, Boniface in Germany, Ansgar in Scandinavia, Swithbert and Willibrord in the Netherlands, etc.

In view of the facts, therefore, it will hardly be denied that the monastic system, as codified in the Rule of St. Benedict, has been proved to possess some strange power of influencing great bodies of men and winning them from the darkness of paganism and the horrors of savagery to the light of Christianity and the blessings of a civilized life. The secret of this fascination is obvious, and the monuments, such as Canterbury and Fulda, Salzburg, and the thousands of Benedictine abbeys which existed, or still exist, in Europe, all testify to the fact that it was the monastic life lived by monk-apostles in the midst of the peoples they hoped to convert, upon which their success mainly depended. The monastic plan was similar to the old Roman plan of civilizing by means of "colonies" planted among the conquered races of the empire. The colonists brought with them the arts, and to some extent the culture, of Imperial Rome, and their mere life lived among the subjugated peoples induced these latter of their own accord to adopt the manners, the language and the law of their conquerors. There was probably no programme, or pretence, but the influence of the life followed by the trained Roman colonist worked its charm without noise or compulsion.

In the same way the monk came with the like lesson of peace and civilization, but with the addition of the all-powerful assistance of religion and the strong attraction which self-sacrifice ever exerts over the minds of the unlettered. Thus Augustine came to England with forty companions, all trained in the "school" of St. Benedict, and in the principles of his Rule. They landed in this country and won it to Christ with cross and banner and religious chants. Then they settled down to live their lives of prayer and labour, and whilst their success is written in the annals of our country, we know the names only of a very few of these apostles, and they those only who were called later to form similar centres in other parts. History can tell us nothing of their preaching and teaching. No doubt they did all this; but what we know of their work is that they lived their life according to the Rule; they built up other places and formed other colonies, and then they died; and, behold! the peoples among whom they dwelt were Christian.

St. Benedict

St. Benedict, the author of this code of monastic rules, to the influence of which Europe owes so much, was born at Nursia, a city of Umbria, in the year 480. The beginnings of his life witnessed the extinction of the Roman Empire in the West, and the year of his birth saw Odoacer, the first barbarian who had ruled in Italy, in possession of the throne of the Cæsars. All over the Western world the times were difficult and the outlook gloomy, and Italy especially presented a sad spectacle of misery and desolation. At a time when civilization appeared to be upon the very verge of extinction, and the Christian Church seemed to be on the point of losing the foothold it had gained amid the ruins of the Roman Empire, St. Benedict appears as the providential instrument of regeneration. After experiences gained in the schools of Rome, in his cave amid the solitudes of Subiaco, and as ruler of the monks of Vicovaro, he gathered round him at Subiaco a body of monks whom he distributed in twelve separate colonies and ruled for eighteen years. It was here, probably, that he conceived the lines of his celebrated monastic code, which he compiled finally when, about the year 528, he removed to the spot where now stands the renowned sanctuary of Monte Cassino. He died, according to the tradition of the Benedictine Order, on March 21, 543 A.D.

The Spirit of Monasticism

To understand the position of the Rule set forth by St. Benedict, and to comprehend the reason of its success in the Western world generally, it is necessary to know the meaning of monasticism in the early ages of the Church. In comparatively modern times various religious Orders have come into existence in order to meet some accidental needs of the Church, using the religious life as a means to carry out those objects. In the early ages the conception of utility or purpose, other than the perfecting of the individual soul, does not appear to have entered into the ideal of the regular life. It was regarded merely as a systematized form of life on the lines of the Gospel counsels of perfection, to be lived for its own sake and as the full expression of the Church's true and perfect life. Whatever the means, the end to be attained by religious life was the same in all systems or methods of life, namely, the more complete realization of the supernatural end of human existence, and the closer conscious union of the soul with God. This was to be attained by the removal of every hindrance to this elevation of mind, arising from self or external things; and by the practice of the Christian virtues according to the counsels of perfection. Whatever might conduce to the realization of the supernatural and higher life was enjoined and eagerly adopted. To some the practice of a solitary life in the desert appeared the most efficacious means of attaining to this desired elevation of the soul; to others the discipline of severe and sustained bodily labour seemed necessary; to others, again, the practice of astonishing austerities, of self-inflicted punishment, or of long and ever-increasing vocal prayers, seemed the most sure road by which to reach the object in view. In Egypt and the East generally the most characteristic features of the monastic life have been described as "the craving for austerities, individualism and the love of the eremitical life."

The early conception of what was necessary for monastic life was modified to some extent by St. Basil in the latter half of the fourth century. His changes tended to the introduction of community as opposed to the eremitical life and the placing of religious and ascetical exercises under the control of a Superior. From Egypt monachism was introduced into Rome and Italy, and is found already established in Gaul about the time when St. Basil was modifying earlier practices in the East. It is somewhat difficult to say how far the individual rules of Eastern monastic reformers, like St. Basil or St. Pachomius, affected the life of Italian or other European monasteries. That these rules were known is certain, both because Rufinus had translated into Latin that of St. Basil, and St. Jerome that of Pachomius, and because St. Benedict refers in his code to "the Rule of our Holy Father Basil," as well as to the Collations of Cassian and the Lives of the Fathers of the Desert (cap. 73). But those who have best reason to pass a judgment on the matter consider that the influence of the "reforms" of St. Basil, etc., on Western monasteries had been very slight up to the time of St. Benedict, and that, at most, some of the "rules and regulations" had been borrowed in a spirit of eclecticism from the codes of Basil and Pachomius. It seems almost certain, writes a modern authority, that "in Italy, as in Gaul and Ireland, early monachism was thoroughly Egyptian in its ideals and its working."

The Work of St. Benedict

The danger of adopting Eastern ideals by Westerns is obvious. A method of life which may suit the people of Egypt and the East generally, may and probably will be found to be wholly unsuitable for those of Italy and Gaul, and if unsuitable and impracticable, such a method of life must inevitably lead to laxity, and tend to become a hindrance rather than a help to attain the end for which it exists. This was a recognized fact even before the time of St. Benedict. Cassian found it necessary to introduce mitigations into the Egyptian practices to make them possible for European monks, and there is evidence at least of some laxity in the monasteries of Italy in the fifth century. In his Rule (cap. 1) St. Benedict speaks with severity of the Sarabites and Gyrovagi, two classes of monks to be found as the result of the system. As the same authority, quoted above, says, "This falling away may no doubt have been largely due to the fact that the monks of Italy and Gaul were trying to live up to an ideal which the climatic and other conditions of the country rendered impossible, or, at any rate, extremely difficult, and to the discouragement and demoralization consequent on an abiding sense of failure."

It was to meet this real danger that St. Benedict wrote his Rule. It must be remembered, he had had for three years at Vicovaro personal experience of the existing quasi-Eastern monastic system which had almost ended in the tragedy of his death for endeavouring to insist upon the proper carrying out of the rule which the monks professed to follow. His remedy for the state of general laxity which prevailed amongst those professing to lead the higher life was bold and novel. He did not endeavour to insist upon the discarded austerities and penitential exercises of the East, but sought reformation on new lines. He secured the old ideals of the ascetical life by moderation and common-sense ruling over men given to prayer and labour directed and controlled by obedience to authority. But the life was made possible by sufficient food, ample sleep, proper clothing, regulated prayers, and even personal austerities checked by the will of the abbot. All this was strangely different from the type of monastic observance which had hitherto prevailed not only in the East, but in Italy and Gaul. The ideals, the attainment of those spiritual heights which the soul was competent to gain, were the same, but for the more sure success Benedict's code of laws was characterized by a wide and wise discretion. To secure this end, those who wished to walk in the path of the Gospel counsels were required, as the Prologue of his Rule tells us, to promise a life-long obedience. This was a new feature, and was the first introduction of a life-long "profession," or promise of obedience "according to the Rule," and it was with the utmost care made known to the monk who "wished to fight under the law" that "from that day forth it was not lawful for him to withdraw his neck from the yoke of the rule."

The Adoption of the Rule in the West

The result of the introduction of this principle was twofold: on the one hand it established that continuity of family life known as "stability in the community," which has since become characteristic of the monastic life; and on the other it substituted for the personal will of a Superior the code of laws by which his government was to be fashioned. Further, as the Rule shows, though St. Benedict required obedience to his code of laws, he never intended to prohibit other customs and practices not at variance with it. In fact, he expressly refers his followers to the Rule of St. Basil and to other authorities for further guidance. That in process of time St. Benedict's legislation should have superseded all others was in the nature of things inevitable. As I have elsewhere said, "The difference of tone and form between his Rule and that of others is unmistakable; and however deep and intense the piety which breathes in the Regula Cœnobialis, which goes under the name of St. Columban, it is a relief to pass from its crude expositions of monastic discipline to the grave and noble laws of the Roman monk. Under these circumstances it is not wonderful that by the end of the eighth century not merely had St. Benedict's Rule superseded all others, but in France the memory of any other code had so completely perished that it could be gravely doubted whether monks of any kind had existed before the time of this great monastic legislator, and whether there could be any other monks but Benedictines."

The Contents of the Rule

The code of monastic laws, as will be seen in the translation here printed, consists of a Prologue or Preface and seventy-three chapters. The Prologue contains many important principles of the spiritual life, and the beginning makes it clear that St. Benedict had before him the Latin translation of St. Basil's Admonitio ad filium spiritualem. The ideas, and many of the actual words of the introductory paragraph are evidently taken from these writings of one whom he calls "our Holy Father Basil." In the first chapter of the Rule the "Patriarch of Western monachism" divides those wishing to lead the "higher life" into hermits or anchorites, that is, solitaries, and cœnobites, or those living together in communities. It is for this latter class only that his Rule is intended, namely, for monks living together in a monastery under an abbot and following a common form of life. Of the actual material buildings we have unfortunately very few details. All that we gather is that they were intended to be placed in the midst of fields, to be enclosed by walls, and ought to contain as far as possible all that the monks could need for their life. The monastery was to be looked on as the "school of divine service" and the "workshop" where the monk was to labour at the "artes spirituales"—the spiritual work of his supernatural vocation—by exercising himself in the use of the "Instruments of good works," described in the fourth chapter, which included the commandments of God and the natural virtues. St. Benedict shows himself as above all things practical in his system of spirituality, and he warns his followers that the first work on the road of perfection is the rooting up of their vices and labouring at the exact performance of what God long ago ordered as necessary in the ten commandments for all classes of Christians in common.

According to the Rule the monks were to be occupied in manual labour, reading and, above all, in the liturgy of the Church. The former included not merely labour in the fields, but the exercise of any art in which some might be proficient, the result of which might be sold for the benefit of the monastery, or be in any other way useful for the common good. The necessity of supplying books for public and private reading would show that St. Benedict, although he does not expressly mention it, intended monks that were capable of writing and illuminating to be employed in this way, which subsequently proved of the greatest service to European civilization by multiplying in the scriptoria of the monastic houses, and thus preserving to our times the literature of classical ages and the works of the early Fathers of the Christian Church. The time devoted to reading—to intellectual studies generally—varied according to the period of the year, but the hours after Vespers, from three to six o'clock, as well as Sundays, were apparently set apart for study (chap. 48); whilst St. Benedict's declaration that every monk must have his graphium or style, and his tablets for writing, shows that intellectual work was contemplated by him. The centre of the monastic life, according to the Rule, was unquestionably the Liturgy, or as St. Benedict calls it, the Opus Dei, or Divine Office. "Nothing was to be preferred" to this part of the common life of the religious house, and the legislator devotes several chapters of his code to ordering and arranging the Psalmody for his monks.

The monastery properly constituted resembled a self-centred state or city. Surrounded by walls, with its workshops, its farms, its gardens, its mill, etc., it was governed by the various necessary officials under the direction of a Superior. St. Benedict, however, conceived the religious house to resemble rather the family of which the abbot held the place of the father, and a father in whom the members of the family acknowledged, with affectionate respect, the obedience due to our Lord Himself, because, as he says, "he occupies the place of Christ." This father, or abbot, was chosen by the votes of the monks, and the principles which should guide him in ruling his family are amongst the most important and useful laid down by St. Benedict. Though he has the appointment of his officials, and has the right and duty of ruling and watching over each individual member of the religious community, he himself is subject to the provisions of the Rule, and is bound to live the common life of the brethren.

The Text of the Rule

It is unnecessary to say much under the present circumstances as to the text of the Rule of St. Benedict. There appears never to have been any serious doubt cast upon the fact that the book as we have it now is substantially what came from the pen of the author. In the text of a work so frequently copied as this must have been during the whole of the Middle Ages, and especially in the period from the ninth to the twelfth century, when it was practically the only monastic Rule of the West, it is inevitable that differences should be found to exist. The original, or what was believed to have been the original autograph of St. Benedict, after having been long preserved at Monte Cassino perished in a disastrous fire in the Monastery of Teano, whither it had been taken for safety during the invasion of the Saracens into Italy. It is of interest to Englishmen to know that the oldest MS. at present known is Hatton MS. 42, written in England in the seventh or eighth century; the next oldest being the St. Gall MS., which is probably not older than the beginning of the ninth century. For the benefit of nuns in England who followed the Rule, and of others, the work was several times translated into English during the Middle Ages, and for the benefit of the "devout religious women" of his diocese it was "Englished" by Bishop Richard Foxe, and printed by Pynson on January 22, 1516-17. In the seventeenth century another translation was made partly by Father Leander Jones and partly by Father Cuthbert Fursden in their connection with the English Benedictine nuns of Cambrai. This was published first in 1638, and has been more than once since printed. Upon this the present translation has been based, although it must be confessed that I have found it necessary to take considerable liberties with the work of the seventeenth-century translators.