Silence: the meaning of silence in the rule of St. Benedict

1

.Ih'I'I~;KCIAN STUDIES SERIES: NUMBER TWENTY-TWO

SILENCE I'11c Meaning of Silence in the Rule of St Benedict

CISTERCIAN PUBLICATIONS CONSORTIUM PRESS Washington, D.C. 1973

Cistercian Studies Series This volume

ISBN 0-87907-800-6 ISBN 0-87907-822-7

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 74188556

8 Copyright, Cistercian Publications. Inc., 1973

Ecclesiastical permission to publish this book was received from Bernard Flanagan, Bishop of Worcester, December 13, 197 1.

'I'his Book was first presented as a doctoral dissertation at the I;;~cwltyo f Theology of St Paul University, Ottawa, as partial 1'111 l'illrncnt of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of' S;~c.rc.tl'I'heology.

CONTENTS

I'ART ONE: THE RULE OF BENEDICT 1 I'Iw Structure of the Benedictine Rule " S~lrt~cc \ I ' c . n ~a in the Spiritual Doctrine Section I I'vn~sin the Discipline Section 'I S, I I I I ~Conclusions

3 13 20 43 58

I'ART TWO: THE RULE OF THE MASTER 11 I ' l ~ c . Kclationship between the Rule of the Master and 1111. Kule of Benedict 71 1 I'l~rRule of the Master on Silence 79 tI A (:omparison of the Two Rules 94 I'AKT THREE: OTHER SOURCES ' 1 1111 reduction 1 1 ) J I I I I I I Cassian I I Ihsil I " :\11~11stine and Caesarius of Arles I I'dwmius and the Oriental Rule I 1 I ' I I ~ . Rules of the Fathers and the Rule of Macarius 1 ' 1 ~ .Sources and the Rule of Benedict 1 ' 1

109 117 129 136 145 152 158

I'AKT FOUR: SILENCE AND SPEECH 1 1 1 W h o is to Speak I I I'lw Manner of Speaking

179 202

vii

INTRODUCTION

B

E F O R E INVESTIGATING the teaching of silence in the Rule of Benedict, it will be helpful to consider briefly the general interest in the topic of silence today. Although there is no intention of doing justice to the bibliography of silence, some notations will indicate to the reader that work is being done in this field and that silence is of interest to modem man. Is this because it is a value that has been overlooked by our task-oriented society and is being threatcmed, or is it because silence has a value which is perennially iittractingman? It is not my intention at present to make any judgment on this interest in silence but rather merely to note it. The general interest in silence today will be considered from two main points of view, philosophical and theological, but this doesnot mean that all studies can be reduced to these two categories. There is no intention to exhaust the matter with these categories. THE GENERAL INTEREST IN SILENCE TODAY

The present age is recognized by many as an age of noise. Modem communication media have made it possible for man to enjoy sound whenever he desires and wherever he may be. Moreover, technological advances have been accompanied by various types of mechanical noises which have occasionally been noted with alarm. These noises seem to be on the increase and bring with them great dangers. There seems to be a

X

Introduction

rise in the incidence of deafness, and some are even afraid that man as a species will lose his sense of hearing due t o the constant bombardment of sound. It has been observed that noise has had an influence on blood pressure, circulation and nervous disorders. So man is concerned and sees he must control noise and is beginning t o make efforts t o d o so.' The increase of noise may help explain why the topic of silence is of interest today, an interest which is found even in the literary field. The novel The Heart is a Lonely HunterZportrays John Singer as the hero of the story. In spite of being a mute, Singer is the confidant of many of the characters in the story. People could speak t o him, and they knew he listened. Somehow he answered their needs although he never spoke. In his silence he communicated with others. Two novels by Chaim Potok both treat of silence. These two novels are closely related t o each other. In The Chosen3 one finds the old Chassidic Rabbi raising his son in silence in order t o make him feel for his people. The Rabbi does this because he fears that his son is too intellectual and hopes to develop in him a deep sensitivity. In the sequel, The P r ~ r n i s ethe , ~ son has become a psychologist who applies the treatment of silence therapeutically t o cure a young Jewish boy's problem of hatred and inability to express his feelings. Thus in both novels the theme or topic of silence is predominant. The subject of silence is of interest t o philosophers today and is often studied in connection with their reflections on human communication. Much has been written in the past few years on the philosophy of language. Max Picard is justly famous for his little book The World of S i l e n ~ e , ~ w h i cish in many ways an effort to develop a metaphysics or ontology of s i l e n ~ e . ~ 1. These thoughts have been especially inspired by Millicent Brower, "Noise Pollution: a Growing Menace," in Saturday Review 50, 1967, p. 17-19. 2. Carson McCullers, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, New York, Bantam, 1970 307 p. 3. Chaim Potok, The Chosen, Greenwich, Fawcett, 1968, 271 p. 4. Chaim Potok, The Promise, New York, Knopf, 1969, 368 p. 5. Max Picard, The World o f Silence, *anslated by Stanley Godman. Chicago. Regnery, 1961, XX-232p. 6. Ibid, cf. the Preface by Gabriel Marcel, p. xi-xvii.

Introduction

xi

I'lcxrd sees speech and silence as essentially related. This point will be elaborated on later. For his part, the Italian philosopher hlic.lwle Federico Sciacca follows Picard very closely in his reI lrctions on the meanings of speech and silence.' (:losely related to the philosophic reflections on silence are wlliit could be called theological reflections. The meaning of uilcmce is reflected upon in the context of God's Word spoken 1 1 ) man in revelation. In order to hear God speak man must listen, and in order to listen he must be silent.'Thus silence In necessary for every Christian, not just for the monk. Silence I n not only necessary for listening to God's Word, but it can Ibc the response of man. Indeed, silence is essential for the life 01' intimacy with God to which man is called. Silence is neceswry for prayer.9 A number of articles on the meaning of religious silence have Iwcn written since the Second Vatican Council. The Council dled upon all religious to reform and adapt. Religious were I I ) renew their lives by a "return to the sources of all Christian life and to the original spirit of the institute^."'^ And they were I I adapt to the changed conditions of the present time. In light 01' this call to renewal and adaptation one of the areas to be ~ludiedis that of silence which has always been considered p r t of religious asceticism and practice. Various articles have I ppeared. '' (

7. Michele Federico Sciacca, "11 silenzio e la parola: Meditazioni di un filosofo," LII Vita Monustica 12. 1959. p. 21-29. N. Cf. Ladislas Orsy, "God speaks in silence," in Sponsa Regis 36, 1965, p. 153-

I nn 9. RenC Simon, "Silence et vie chrbtienne," in L'Anneau d'Or, No. 114, 1963, 1). 454461. 10. Perfectae Cantatis No. 2, in The Teachings of the Second Vatican CounciL i,'omplete Texts of the Constitutions, Decrees and Declarations, Westminster, Newmm, 1966, p. 234. l l. Sister Ann Rita, "Religious Silence." in Sisters Today 38, 1967, p. 344346; SinterJeanne Joseph Daly, "Out of the Depths," ibid., p. 194195; Thornas Dubay, "Silence and Renewal," in Review for Religious 25. 1966, p. 80-94; C.R. Moens, "Heligious Silence," in Sponsa Regis 36, 1965, p. 359-370; Sister Joann Otten, trocr, "A position paper on a functional approach to silence," in Review for Reli&us 27, 1968, p. 208-222; M. Sweetman, "Silence," ibid.. 22, 1963, p. 430434.

xii

Introduction

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPEAKING AND SILENCE

A point that is made quite frequently by those who reflect on the meaning of silence is that speech and silence must be understood in relationship to each other. They do not destroy each other, but sustain and support each other,12 and it is impossible to understand one without the other.I3 "Silence is not the enemy of dialogue, but its natural co~nterpoise.'"~ There is, according to Moens, an eloquent silence,'' that is a silence that undergirds speech, prepares for it and enriches it. A speech which rises out of silence is true dialog for it is above vain chatter, empty words and wounding criticism. Silence can even communicate, and this sometimes better than words. In the meditations of the Italian philosopher Sciacca16silence and speech are integrally related. One thinks in silence, reflects in silence, meditates and contemplates in silence. One listens in silence. But even more, silence is speech.17Every word is born in silence and returns to silence. The word is born in silence, lives in silence, culminates in silence. Silence is the father of the word, of speech. Language is a union of words and silence. Words do not exist without silence, for silence is an essential part of intelligible sound and without silence there would be no language. Sciacca's thought seems to be nothing more than reflections on the thoughts of Max Picard.18Silence for Picard is the origin of all speech. Speech comes out of silence. It is in fact the reverse of silence just as silence is the reverse of speech. "Speech is therefore essentially related to ~ilence."'~"Speech and si12. A. Marc, "Le Silence," in Revue d'ascitique et de mystique 26-27, 195051, p. 289. 13. Simon, op. cit.. p 454. 14. Daly, op. c i f , p 195. 15. Moens, op. cit., p 360361. 16. Sciacca, op. cit. 17. Ibid, p. 22: "11 silenzio i: parola 18. Picard, op. cit. 19. Ibid, p. 9.

... ."

Introduction

0..

xlu

Ir11c.cbelong together . . . Speech must remain in relationship w i h~ the silence from which it raised itself From these brief observations it is apparent that when one ~vl'lcctson silence he must also reflect on speech. Speech and rrllrnce are essentially related, not as opposites or contraries, I I I I I because they are rooted in man who is communicating with ruiother. In order to communicate, man must listen and so be nllcnt, and when man wishes to respond he must use silence ,IN wcll as words to make himself intelligible. Thus speech and nilcnce find their ultimate meaning in the fact that man comI I I unicates. RELIGIOUS SILENCE

'I'here are two works which treat specifically and at some Irngth the question of religious silence. The first is an essay Iby Abbot Pierre S a l m ~ n . The ~ ' second is a book by a Trappist t ~ ~ o nP. k ,M. B r u n ~ . ~ ~ Abbot Salmon's essay is divided into two major parts. First I I surveys ~ the doctrine and practice of silence in the Scriptures, in the Fathers, in ancient and medieval monasticism. I Ic is especially interested in the practical regulations concern111gsilence, but is also concerned with the reasons and motiv~ttionsfor silence. Salmon understands silence in its primary ncnse as abstinence from words. In his second part Salmon tries to produce a theological nyllthesis of the meaning of silence based on the data of the I'irst part. Silence does not mean mutism but rather moderaI ion in speaking. Thus silence is a moral virtue. The primary tncming of silence is to be found in relationship to prayer ,111dman's call to life in God. Druno's work is much larger than Salmon's, but it is more wstricted in scope. It is a study of monastic silence especially 20. Ibid. p 21. 2 1. P. Salmon, "Le silence religieux. Practique et Thkorie," in Mkhnges Bin6 rlictins, Abbaye S. Wandrille, Editions de Fontenelle, 1947, p. 11-57. 22. P. M. Bruno, Aux 6coutes de Dieu, le silence monastique, Besanqon, Librairlr A. Cart, 1952, 289 p.

xiv

Introduction

in light of the Cistercian tradition. The book is divided into three parts: the first part discusses the foundations for silence; the second part reflects on the advantages and good results of silence; the third part considers the practice of silence. In part one the author synthesizes the doctrine of the Rule of B e n e d i ~on t ~ silence ~ and shows how it is dependent on its sources. He then presents the interpretation of this doctrine according to the Cistercian tradition. Bruno's work is more systematic than analytic. There is no detailed analysis of the teaching of silence in the RB. The third part of his book betrays his systematic a priori. He subsumes the theology or spirituality of silence under the category of mystical theology and treats it accordingly. He presents twelve degrees of silence, considering silence from a much broader perspective than abstinence from words. His treatment belongs more to the literary genre of spiritual theology than a methodical analysis of texts in order to determine doctrine and practice. THE METHOD AND APPROACHOF THE PRESENT STUDY

I have chosen to write on silence in the Rule of Benedict for a number of reasons. Silence is a topic which is of interest to modern man as a superficial glance at pertinent literature reveals. It is a subject which is of interest to the modern religious who according to the directions of the Second Vatican Council is trying to renew and adapt his mode of life. The renewed interest that is shown in silence is therefore a good reason to study systematically the text of a monastic rule that has contributed so much to the formation of traditional religious spirituality. My purpose, therefore, is to study silence in the historical document which is the basis for the Benedictine way of life. There is no intent to say what exactly this means for renewal and adaptation. It is hoped that an analysis of the teaching in the RB will speak for itself and help in the task of renewal and adaptation. But this thesis remains for the most part a preliminary study with regard to this task. 23. From here on referred to simply as RB.

Introduction

xv

My primary concern is t o study the RB's teaching on silence. Wllilt exactly does the RB say about silence, its meaning and 11s purpose, its goal and concrete realization? Such questions lllity seem t o be irrelevant and futile t o some. The Rule simply utiltcs its position; it is clear and simple. But is such really the I MC? What exactly does the RB say about silence? Is there a I I hcrent doctrine and practice? Does the RB present a philos~ ~ p hory theology of silence? In order t o answer these queslions a detailed analysis of the RB is essential. True, the RB (ontains a specific chapter on silence, but it treats of silence 111 u number of places and these treatments should be brought together and compared t o see if there is an underlying doctrine of silence. Therefore the RB must be analyzed in itself. But the RB is in the tradition of monasticism and in the past 1c.w years much study has been done on this complex tradition. The RB is not an isolated monastic document that appcared in a historical vacuum, but it had antecedents and c,ontemporaries that influenced it. Indeed, when one studies 111csource of the RB it is obvious that that rule is dependent ~tponmonastic and patristic sources. In the past few years it has become more obvious that the 1
KM.

xvi

Introduction

mius, as well as others which will be considered. It is my intention to investigate these works to find out how the author of the RB used monastic sources in the matter of silence, that is, how he was in keeping with or in opposition to his predecessors. Such a study seems essential for it is only in its historical context that a doctrine can be understood. Therefore my method will be twofold. First I plan to analyze the RB as a literary unit without concern for its sources and the tradition in which it is found. This will present the teaching of the RB on silence, considering the RB as an integral work. But since no historical document can be considered in isolation, it will be necessary to analyze the recognized sources of the RB. This analysis will throw light on the teaching of the RB. The task will then be to unify what has been discovered from both methods. In this manner the fuller teaching of the RB on silence will become apparent. I wish to make it clear just what I mean by the teaching of silence in the RB. There are many dimensions and aspects of silence. Silence can be internal and external. There can be the silence of man's psychic powers, the silence of the intellect, of the will, of the emotions. Such a silence is characterized as internal tranquillity and peace. This type of silence is not my primary object of investigation in the RB. My concern is rather with external silence. Such a concern does indeed have to consider the phenomenon of internal silence for the two are closely related, one expressing and realizing the other. But it is obvious that there can be a deep internal silence even in the face of external noise and commotion. On the other hand there can be great external silence while internally there is none. When we consider external silence we must admit many varieties of this type of silence. There is a silence from noise of any kind. There is even the silence of physical movement, a resting from movement. But what comes to mind primarily is silence from speaking or the use of words and language. It is this last type of silence that is the object of my investigation. I am interested primarily in silence as a lack of verbal communication, that is in silence from speaking. In my opinion this is the primary aspect of silence in the RB.

Introduction

xvii

With this limited concept of silence in mind my approach is ~~cclctermined. I wish t o study silence in the context of the llnc o f speech. Such an approach is legitimate. It is based on I 11c. modern philosophical studies concerning the meaning of ~llc.nce.Most of these studies consider silence in relationship I I I vcrbal communication and language. It is also based on the I( U's apparent teaching. One need only read chapter six of the I( I1 to see that the doctrine on taciturnity presented there conI c.ms the use and restraint of speech as well as the non-use of ( I N - tongue. Silence for the RB is understood as silence from alwi~king.This will become clearer as we proceed with the inv r n l igation. This is not t o say that other aspects of silence are 11111 l o be found in the RB. Rather, the primary concern of the I(H with regard t o silence is silence from speaking. I t must be frankly admitted that although the analysis of the I v x t s of the RB should be carried on with objectivity, a certain u~~l),jcctivity is bound to enter in. Here one approaches the quest ~ I , I I o f h e n n e n e ~ t i c sBenedictines .~~ live by a historical docuI I I I Wand ~ , it is this document which must be analyzed and ~l~tvrpreted. Thus this thesis will not only be an analysis and ~ . u c . p i sof texts but an interpretation. In any study the sub11'1.1 or investigator approaches the study with his own backH ~ ~ w and n d pre-understanding. This is bound t o affect the s t ~ ~ t l yfor , the subject must enter into dialog with the text. I'his does not mean that the subject should allow his person 1 1 ) clctermine what the text says and thus force the text into I I I mwnceived categories. But the subjective aspect must always IPIQ i~dmitted. 'I'hc present author is an American Black Benedictine of the I wcntieth century. He lives in the context of a living tradition .III(I this life experience is bound t o enter into his analysis of t III. tcxt of the RB. Thus it should not be surprising if his intc.rprctation differs from that of a Cistercian or of a monk of , ~ l ~ o t h century. cr Interpretations are conditioned by the hisI I wical context in which the interpreter lives. They are all v . l l i t l in so far as they do justice t o the text itself, listening to 2 5 . Cf my article "Relevance of the Rule Today," in The American Benedictine Ilvr~ivw19, 1968, p. 243-246.

xviii

Zntroduc tion

the text and evaluating it in the light of lived experience. We do not have an infallible teaching authority with regard to the RB. But we do have the norms of tradition and the living authority of the abbot. I therefore submit my interpretation to my fellow monks and abbots. They will be best equipped to judge the authenticity of my interpretation.

PART ONE

THE R U L E OF BENEDICT

CHAPTER I

'1'1115 STRUCTURE O F THE BENEDICTINE RULE

r

HE HISTORICAL DOCUMENT known as theRule of Benedict is a monastic rule of the West. The earliest manuscript dates from about 700 A.D. and is found in 111cBodleian Library at Oxford. However, the best witness to I IN- original document is a ninth century manuscript presently I I I I I I ~ in the library at Saint Gall and is known as Saint-Gall (1 I *I or "A."' Christian Mohrmann, the noted philosopher, has trclied the Latin used in this manuscript and has determined I 11~11it is a faithful witness to a sixth century original.' By andyzing the orthography and grammatical constructions of "A" hlolirmann concludes that its predecessor was written in Italy I I I the sixth century. Mohrmann's conclusion is in accord with the tradition that IIM attributed the RB to the Italian Abbot Benedict who is prewli~cdfor imitation and emulation by Pope Gregory the Great I I I the second book of his Dia1ogues.j According to Gregory I llis lknedict came from Nursia, studied in Rome, fled the City 8 ~ ~ founded ~ t l a group of twelve monastic cells at Subiaco, and

'

I . Much study has been done on the manuscript tradition of the RB. It is not Itrt rmnirry for the present study to enter into this discussion. An excellent classifiallon and description of the many manuscripts of the RB can be found in the ~ttrluceof Rudolf Hanslik'sedition of the Rule: BenedictiReguh, CSEL 75, Vienna, Il~~rldcr-Pichler-Tempsky, 1960, p. xxv-lxix. Cf. also Anselmo Lentini, S. Benede1 1 ~ r . /.U RegoLa, Testo, Versione e Commento, Montccassino, 1947, p. Ixii-lxxii. 2 . (:hristine Mohrmann, "La Latinit6,de Saint Benoit. Etude linguistique sur la I ~utlitionManuscrite de la Rhgle," in Etudes sur le Lotin des Chre'tiens I , Rome, I ~ l b i o n cdi Storia e Letteratura, 1961, p. 403-435. 'I. 1I.L. 66, CC. 126-204. 0

4

Silence

eventually moved to Montecassino where he established a monastery. Gregory recounts the miraculous events of the life of this holy abbot and claims t o have the details from four disciples of Benedict, some of whom were still living when he wrote. This would enable one t o date Benedict somewhere in the first half of the sixth century. Towards the end of book two of the Dialogues Gregory says that Benedict wrote a monastic rule.4 It is not the purpose of this study to enter into the debate concerning the authorship of the RB. Benedictine monks regulate their lives according t o a historical document. Dom Anscari Mund6, following the suggestions of Mohrmann, has shown that the RB cannot only be situated in sixth-century Italy, but that it can be localized in the environs of Rome. He further demonstrates, by an analysis of sources, that the RB was written sometime after 527, but before 556.'Hanslik suggests that the RB was written around 540.' There is no compelling reason t o deny the traditional thesis concerning the authorship and sixth-century dating of the RB. Indeed there are good indications that the traditional thesis is correct. Although the question of the authorship is not important for an analysis of the text of the RB, the problem of dating is important in connection with the question of the sources of the RB. The position of Rudolf Hanslik, based as it is on the cogent arguments of Mohrmann and Mund6, is the one accepted here. With this background it is now time t o turn to the RB itself.

TRACES OF ORDER

The first necessary step will be to look at the RB as a literary unit. Does the RB manifest any sort of coherence or logical 4. Diologues, ch 36, ibid. c. 200. 5. Anscari Mund6, "L'authenticitC de la R e y l a Sancti Benedicti," in Studia Anselmiana 42, 1957, p. 105-158. 6. Hanslik, op. cit.. p. xiii

The Structure of the Benedictine Rule

5

I ~ o~ression I in

its structure? Is there any noticeable plan t o the 111g;mizationof the contents of the RB? Can one discover an llldcrlying outline t o the RB? These questions must first be ,111sweredin order to place the texts which concern silence in 1 Iwir proper perspective. When one looks at the RB for the first time one immediately I I O I C S that there are various blocks or sections that treat of a I M I I icular and specified subject matter. The most obvious block I \ llrat which concerns the celebration of the opus dei. This is I I W block on liturgy and encompasses chapters 8 to 19. Next, I I I I C notes two sections that deal with excommunication, cor11.1 lion and satisfaction: chapters 23 to 30 and then chapters I'I 10 46. These two sections have been called the penal code 1 1 1 the RB. There is a section, chapter 35 to 41, that deals with I Iic discipline of eating. Finally, there is a section that concerns l l ~ creception of candidates: chapter 5 8 t o 63. Another observation that one can make on first sight is that I Iirrc are repetitions in the RB. The penal code is found in two rq);irate sections, chapters 23 t o 30 and 4 3 to 46. The author I 11 I he RB reflects on the abbot in two separate chapters, one , I I IIW very beginning of the Rule (ch 2) and the other towards I I I ~cnd of the Rule (ch 64). Superiors other than the abbot ,!Ire treated twice, the deans in chapter 21 and the provost in I 11,lpter 65. The doctrine on obedience is found in a number I 11 places in the RB: in chapter 5 which is specifically on obetlwl~ce;in chapter 7 "On Humility" where the second, third J I I ~ Ifourth degrees of humility refer specifically t o obedience; I I I c,l~apter 68; and again in chapter 71. 'I'llc RB apparently ends twice. In its present form it contains $1 I'rolog and seventy-three chapters. Chapter 7 3 is very much Ilkr ;m Epilog, giving the purpose for the RB but encouraging I I I ~ .reader t o go beyond its doctrine t o the fullness of tradition. I l l lwcver, in chapter 66 "On the Porters of the Monastery" one l 111t1sthis closing remark:

I

ItB 66.8 We desire that this Rule be read aloud often in the lbmmunity, so that no brother may excuse himself on the

Silence ground of ignorance.' Such a statement fits much better at the end of the Rule. Therefore many scholars take this as an indication of a two-fold redaction of the RB. The author wrote the Rule up to and including chapter 66, which was the end of the Rule. Later, because of further experience, he added chapters 67 to 73. In doing so he did not change the first conclusion that comes at the end of chapter 66. Thus the RB appears to end twice. If the author did add chapters 67 to 73 later on, this is an indication that the Rule was composed over a period of time. There are other indications of this progressivecompilation. The author of the RB seems to opt for an organizational structure of authority based upon deans rather than a provost. Chapter 21 "On the Deans" implies that the abbot shares his authority with deans. Nevertheless, in chapter 65 the RB allows for the establishment of a provost, but with some reluctance. This allowance is apparently an afterthought and was excluded when the author wrote chapter 21. It should be observed however that chapter 21 ends with a reference to the provost. This may be a later addition. A good indication that the establishment of a provost and his authority was an afterthought is found in the regulation which places one or two seniors (deans? ) in the refectory to preside when the abbot is absent (56.3). This regulation does not seem to take into account the presence of a provost. The RB was thus probably composed over a period of time. The author mitigated, complemented and even changed some of his original ideas without always correcting the text so that the teaching would be uniform throughout the Rule. Thus, for instance, in the teaching on obedience in chapter 68 the author definitely mitigates what was said in the fourth degree of hu7. The citations from the RB will follow the translation of Dom Justin McCann, The Rule of Saint Benedict, Westminster, Newman, 1952, xxiv-214 p. The Latin and versification follow that of the edition of the Rule by Rudolf Hanslik, Benedicti Reguh, CSEL 75, lxxv-376 p. This versification was f i s t employed by Anselmo Lentini, S. Benedetto, La Regola, and has now become the accepted manner for referring to passages from the RB.

The Structure of the Benedictine Rule

7

~ ~ ~ ~In l i chapter ty. 68 the monk is permitted to make represenI , I ion ~ when he feels he has been commanded to do something 1111pssib1e. In 7.35 he is "silently to embrace patience" if he ll~rctswith difficulties and contradictions in obedience. The 111itigationin chapter 68 does not contradict what is found in 1.115-43,but surely softens it. Since the RB was apparently composed over a period of time I I lnay be extremely difficult to discover any rigid plan or log11 i~llyorganized progression in its teaching. The author would I , I ~her have tacked on his ideas or inserted them where he felt I l~cywere necessary.

VARIOUS SOLUTIONS CONCERNING THE STRUCTURE OF THE RB

Granted that the RB was composed over a period of time and lhus precludes a once-for-all logical and coherent order, it is I ~ d b ltoe see some noticeable plan. This plan would however I,c broken into as necessity and experience demanded. Almost rvery commentator of the RB has tried to discover the author's Iwic plan. It will not be the present task to give all the solulions that have been suggested, but in looking at a few of the Idi~nssuggested it may be possible to come to some working hypothesis concerning the order of the material in the RB. 'I'he German patrologist Berthold Altaner gives the following l d i n e of the RB:' The internal and external life of the monastic community is regulated in seventy-three chapters: 1-3: constitution; 4-7: life of virtue; 8-20: choir office; 21-30: faults; 3 1-57: administration of houses; 1). Berthold Altaner, Patrology, translated by Hilda Graef, New York, Herder and Ilerdcr, 1961, p. 577.

8

Silence 58-66: reception of new members; 67-73: appendices. The Rule set the monastic community a double aim: prayer and work, founded on the faithful observance of stability (stabilitas loci), of ure moral conduct (conversatio = conversio morum), an: of obedience under the patriarchal government of the abbot.

Abbot Cuthbert Butler in his classical work Benedictine Monachism has the following to say:9 The Rule consists of a Prologue and seventy-three chapters of very unequal length. Dom Edmund Schmidt . . . has sought to show that the chapters follow a definite plan, with perfectly articulated logical sequence, so as to form an organic whole from first to last. His demonstration has not met with much acceptance, and for myself I have to say that I consider it in many places far-fetched and forced, and as a whole unconvincing. Still, a certain rough order, or rather grouping, is discernible, which may be set forth thus: After the Prologue Chap I, Definition that the Rule is for cenobites. 11,111, Government of the monastery. IV-VII, Ascetical principles. VIII-XX, The canonical Office. XXI, XXII, Deans and dormitory. XXIII-XXX, Penitential code. XXXI-XXXIV, Administration of temporals. XXXV-LVII, Daily life. LVIII-LXIII, Recruitment. LXIV, LXV, Appointment of abbot and provost. LXVI, LXVII, Enclosure. LXVIII-LXXII, Community life. LXXIII, Epilogue. 9. Cuthbert Butler, Benedictine Monachism, London, Longmans, 1919, p. 167168. Butler is one of the few who does not see chapters 67-73 as an addition to the RB. He maintains that the reference to the "Rule to be read" in chapter 66 applies merely to the rule concerning enclosure. For a good criticism and rejection of this position see Dom John Chapman, Saint Benedict and the Sixth Centusy, London, Shced and Ward, 1929, p. 23-24, note 1.

The Structure of the Benedictine Rule

9

I)om Garcia Colombas, monk of Montserrat, suggests the following structural plan of the RB:1•‹

Prolog I. Organic Constitution of the Cenobium (cc. 1-3). 11. The Spiritual Arts (cc. 4-7). 111. Prayer cc. 8-20). IV. Interna Regime and Disciplinary Code (cc. 21-30). V. Administration of the "House of God" (cc. 31-57). 1. Temporal goods (cc. 3 1-34). 2. The monastic refectory (cc. 35-41). 3. Regular dispositions and disciplines (cc. 42-47). 4. Prayer and work (cc. 48-52). 5. The relations of a monk and monastery to outsiders (cc. 53-57). VI. The Community (cc. 58-65). 1. Recruitment of personnel (cc. 58-61). 2. Order in the community (cc. 62-63). 3. Institution of monastic hierarchy (cc. 64-65). VII. Conclusions: the porter and cloister (c. 66). VIII. Additions (cc. 67-72). IX. Epilog (c. 73).

I

I(udo1f Hanslik in his critical edition of the Rule of Benedict uivcs this outline:" After the Prolog and Introduction (c. I) the Rule is divided into three major parts. A. cc. 11-XXX the structure and function of the cenobium. 1. the basis of the cenobium, namely the abbot and the brothers, cc. 11-111. 2. the spiritual arts, cc. 1111-VII. 3. the Works of God, cc. VIII-XX. 4. the fraternal battle line or punishments, cc. XXIXXX. 10. Dom GarciaM. Colombas, Dom Leon M. Sansegundo, Dom Odilon M. Cunill, Vida y su Reglu, Madrid, La Editorial Catblica, 1954, p. 275-277. I I . Ilanslik, op. cit., p. xvi.

5,111 I{rnito su

10

Silence

B. cc. XXXI-LVII the administration of the cenobium. 1. the articles the cenobium must possess, cc. XXXIXXXIIII. 2. the monastic table, C.C. XXXV-XXXXII. 3. the establishment of punishment in the monastery, cc. XXXXIII-XXXXVII. 4. the works of the monks, cc. XXXXVIII-LII. 5. the relation between monks and laymen, cc. LIIILVII. C. cc. LVIII-LXVI the renewal of the cenobium. l. the reception of new men into the monastery, cc. LVIII-LXIII. 2. the ordination of abbot and prior,cc. LXIIII-LXV. 3. the establishment of the porter, c. LXVI. Then follows an appendix containing cc. LXVII-LXXII, and an Epilog, c. LXXIII. Dom Anselmo Lentini, monk of Montecassino, does not present an outline in his edition of the Rule. However, in the course of his commentary a structural plan is suggested. In summary it would appear somewhat as follow^.'^ Prolog I. cc.

The organic structure and essential lines of monastic society. Ascetic doctrine. 11. cc. 4-7. 111. CC. 8-19. Regulations for Divine Office, and Brief chapter on private prayer. c. 20 IV. cc.' 21-57. The internal organization and discipline of the monastery (central section). The juridic constitution of the community and the official position of individual members. VI. CC. 67-73. Additions to the Rule. 1-3.

Dom Philibert Schmitz, monk of Maredsous, gives the following outline at the beginning of his edition of the Rule: l 3 12. Lentini, op. cit., p. 35, 80, 156, 226, 476, 580. IS. D. Ph Schmitz, Benedicti Rcgula. Maredsous, 1962~, p. vi-vii.

The Structure of the Benedictine Rule

11

It is sufficient to recall that since it (RB) was written according t o needs and many times added t o and retouched, it does not respond t o a clear and precise plan. One can however distinguish . . . a general order, a t least a series of chapters on the same subject . . Prolog I. The principles of the life and spirituality: I-VII. 11. The liturgy and prayer: VIII-XX. 111. Legislation: XXI-LXXII. a. Deans and dormitory: XXI-XXII. b. Penitential code: XXIII-XXX. c. Various services and daily life: XXXI-LVII. d. Recruitment: LVIII-LXII. e. Hierarchy: LXIII-LXV. f. Relations with outsiders: LXVI-LXVII. g. Community life: LXVIII-LXXII. IV. Epilog: LXXIII.

.

SUGGESTED OUTLINE

With these various suggested structural plans of the RB in tl~ind,it should now be possible t o present a working outline ~ I ' t h RB. e This is attempted for the purpose of placing the vaI ious texts on silence in their proper perspective. Prolog. I. cc. 1-20. Structure, Spirituality and Prayer. a) Organic constitution of cenobium, cc. 1-3. b) Spiritual doctrine, cc. 4-7. c) Public and private prayer, cc. 8-20. 11. cc. 21-57. Discipline and Administration. a) Deans and penitential code, cc. 21-30. b) Cellarer and his responsibilities, cc. 31-41. c) Discipline, cc. 42-57. 111. cc. 58-66. Renewal of the Cenobium. a) Recruitment, cc. 58-62. b) Order and hierarchy, cc. 63-66. IV. cc. 67-72. Additions. Epilog. c. 73.

Silence One must always be conscious how relatively arbitrary any outline of the RB will be. Whatever plan one decides upon it seems clear that there is definitely a change of tone and interest as one progresses into the Rule. Some of the sections of the RB show an internal order within them in so far as regulations are arranged according to a logical plan, one regulation suggesting the following. There is an internal progression in chapters four to seven as will be more clearly shown later. There is also a close connection between the cellarer and his duties (cc. 3 1-41).If there is an overall distinction concerning the material in the RI3 it may be that between spiritual doctrine and administration-discipline. These two categories are not totally distinct for there is profound spiritual doctrine contained in much that could be called disciplinary. And the discipline realizes the spiritual doctrine. However, according to the apparent outline, the author of the RB is more concerned with spiritual doctrine in the first part of the Rule, while the latter part of the Rule is primarily concerned with discipline and administration.

CHArnER I1

SILENCE

B

E F O R E LOOKING AT T H E TEXTS which concern silence it will be helpful to take a brief look at the vocabulary of silence in the RB. The RB uses the obvious terms concerning silence. But these terms can have varying nuances and so it is necessary to determine just what nuance the RB uses. In this survey only the terms which specifically mean silence will be considered. However it must be noted that [he RB says much concerning silence in other terms as well. This will become clearer as the further investigation of the text proceeds. SILERE-SILENTIUM

The verb silere is used two times in the RB. RB 1.12 Of the wretched observance of all these folk (i.e. the Gyrovagues) it is better to be silent than to speak (melius est silere quam loqui). RB 6.1 "I was dumb and was humbled, and kept silence even from good words" (PS 38.3) (obmutui et humiliatus sum et silui a bonis). The Latin verb can be used in a literal and a transferred sense. 'I'he literal meaning is "to be noiseless, still or silent; to keep silence, not speak of."' The transferred meaning signifies the l. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford, Clarmdon, 1958, p. 1699 under sileo. Cf. also Acgidio Forcellini, Lexicon Totius Lotinitatis, I'utavij Typis Seminarii, 1940, Tome IV, p. 367-368 under sileo.

14

Silence

act of remaining inactive; t o rest or t o cease; t o be still o r quiet in opposition t o being in action. The context of the two uses in the RB shows that the literal sense is the one employed, that is that the verb refers t o silence from words, that is t o not speaking. That such is the case is especially clear in 1.12 where silere is contrasted with loqui. It is also established in 6.1 where immediately before the Psalmist says: "That I offend not with my tongue. I have set a guard to my mouth.'' (PS 38.2). The contexts in which silere is used in the RB therefore indicate that the term is primarily and exclusively related t o silence from words and not t o a broad concept of silence, a concept that would include inner tranquillity and inactivity. This is not t o say that these values are rejected. But they are not the primary concern. Even though 6.1 is a Scriptural citation and therefore not the author's own use of the verb, it does indicate how the author understood the word. His own proper use of silere in 1.12 is in perfect accord with the usage as he found it in the Scripture citation. The noun silentium is used four times in the RB: RB 38.5 And let there be the greatest silence (summum fiat silentium), so that no whisper, and n o voice but the reader's, may be heard there. RB 42.1 Monks should practice silence at all times (omni tempore silentium debent studere), but especially at night. RB 48.5 After the sixth hour, having left the table, let them rest on their beds in perfect silence (cum omni silentio); or if anyone wishes t o read by himself, let him read so as not to disturb others. RB 52.2 When the Work of God is finished, let all go out in deep silence (cum summo silentio), and let reverence for God be observed. Just as the verb silere has a literal and transferred sense, so too has the nounsilentium. The general literal meaning is the state 2. Lewis and Short, op. cit., p. 1689 under silentium; Cf. also Forcellini, op. cit., p. 966367 under silentium

Silence

15

III' being still or silent, a noiselessness or stillness. The translured sense means a standstill as opposed t o motion or activity. I I signifies a cessation, a repose, inaction o r tranquillity. The wc ofsilentium in 48.5 comes closest t o this transferred sense, 11\11 even here the concept of silence is discussed in reference I I I the use of the voice in reading. I t is generally accepted that ( I I C ancients read orally and aloud. The context gives indicaI I O I ~of this ancient practice of audible reading in cautioning I I W reader not t o read in such a manner as t o disturb those who wish to rest. 'I'he three other uses of silentium are found in contexts which ~~ltlicate that its primary signification is a lack of verbal actiV I I that ~ , is a lack of speaking. Note the qualifying adjectives (38.5and 52.2 summum; 48.5 omne) t o which reference will II(. made later. TACERE-TACITA-TACITURNITAS

I'llc verb tacere is used three times in the RB: KB 6.2 The prophet teaches us that we should at times, I'or the love of silence, refrain from good talk (propter tacil urnitatem debere tacere). KB 6.6 For it becometh the master to speak and t o teach; I ~ u tit befits the disciple t o be silent and t o listen (tacere e t tr rcdire). KB 7.30 (God) should say t o us in the future: "These things tlidst thou do, and I was silent (tacui)" (PS49.21). I I I ~ c n e r ausage l the verb tacere means not t o speak, that is t o I I V silent. When it refers t o a person it specifically implies lack I I I li~lkingand is therefore more limited in significance than rrlcrv which can also mean to be still and t o make no noise.3 I I I ~ I I tacere in the RB refers specifically t o a lack of talking is I I I J ~ Iclear ~ from its use in 6.2 and 6.6. In both contexts the I 1.1 111 is found in the expressed context of speech. This contrast 'l I r w i s and Short, op. c i f , p. 1833 under taceo; Cf. also Forcellini, op. cit.. I vwr IV,p. 654 under taceo.

16

Silence

between tacere and speech is even borne out by the use of tacere in 7.30 which is in a Scriptural citation. God was silent concerning the monk's evil ways (7.29), but at the day of judgment he will say, that is he will speak to him. The adverb tacite is used only once in the RB: RB 7.35 The fourth degree of humility is that, meeting in this obedience with difficulties and contradictions and even injustice, he should with a quiet mind hold fast to patience (tacite conscientia patientiam amplectatur). The manuscripts vary between tacita, an adjective modifying conscientia, and tacite, an adverb. According to Dom Justin McCann the RB uses an adverb where an adjective would be easier in 27.5: Magnopere enim debet sollicitudinem gerere a b b m 4 But there is no need to defend such a construction in the present case for tacite could just as well modify the verb amplectatur. Indeed, the example given by McCann to defend his position of choosing the adjective reading does not seem very convincing since in 27.5 an adverb makes as much sense as an adjective and there is no need to think that the RB uses an adverb where a n adjective would be easier. If one accepts the reading tacite and sees it as an adverb then the translation could read: "He silently with (his) mind embraces patience." There would not be very much difference in the meaning, but an important nuance comes to the fore. The manner in which one embraces patience is underscored, namely, silently, that is without speech or words, especially without murmuring or objections. RB 5.14 But this obedience itself will then be acceptable to God and leasing to men, if what is commanded be not done timorous y, or tardily, or tepidly, nor with murmuring or the raising of objections (aut cum murmurio, uel cum responso nolentis).

P

This silent acceptance of adifficult command is implied also in the doctrine concerning an impossible command. After the 4. McCann, The Rule of St. Benedict, p. 1 7 4 1 7 5 , note 33.

Silence

17

lnonk has made representation he is to go ahead and obey if ~ l l csuperior insists. After patiently (patienter) explaining his I c-asonswithout pride, obstinacy or contentiousness (contradic,cvado)he is to obey (68.2-3). I t would seem that in keeping with the use of tacere and its ~ ~ i m a meaning ry of refraining from speech, the adverb tacite I N indeed the better reading and is more in keeping with the mcaning of the word in the RB. 'I'he noun taciturnitas is used five times in the RB. The first llsc is in the title of chapter 6 "Of Silence" (De Taciturnitate). RB 6.2 The prophet teaches us that we should at times, I'or the love of silence (propter taciturnitatem), refrain from good talk. RB 6.3 On account of the great value of silence (propter taciturnitatis grauitatem), let leave to speak be seldom grantrd. RB 7.56 The ninth degree of humility is that a monk restrain his tongue and keep silence (linguam ad loquendum prohibeat monachus, et taciturnitatem habens), not speaking until he is questioned. RB 42.8-9 And when they come out of Compline, let there I)c no further permission for anyone to say anything (nulla sit lzcentia denuo cuiquam loqui aliquid). Severe punishment ~ l d be l accorded to anyone who is found to infringe this rule of silence (hanc taciturnitatis regulam). ,411 the uses of the term are consistent in the RB. Taciturnitas ~rl'crsto restraint of the tongue, to refraining from speech, to ~il~t~ce.

CONCLUSION

I'rom this brief analysis of the use of silere, silentium, and /rrc.cv-e,taciturnitas it would seem that there is no appreciable ~llll'crencebetween silere and tacere, between silentium and I t r , iturnitas. The words could be used interchangeably for they

18

Silence

mean the same thing. That the RB seemed to know no difference is apparent from chapter 42 in which both terms are found. RB 42.1 Monks should practice silence (silentium) at all times, but especially at night. RB 42.89 And when they come out of Compline, let there be no further permission for anyone to say anything. Severe punishment shall be accorded to anyone who is found to infringe this rule of silence (taciturnitatis regulam). However, it does seem that the RB does consider the two terms as having a different nuance. An intriguing phenomenon is the heavy use of the terms tacere, tacite and taciturnitas in the early section of the Rule, that is in chapter 6 and 7. Of the nine uses of these terms eight occur in these two chapters, the only exception being the use in the chapter on night silence. Thus, in general, when presenting the doctrine of silence the RB uses taciturnitas rather than silentium. If the RB prefers to use the term taciturnitas when referring to the doctrine of silence, it uses the term silentium almost exclusively when referring to the practice of silence. Silentium is used only four times in the RB and all these uses are in the Central Section, the section on discipline and administration. Thus it would seem that in the mind of the author of the RB there is a difference between taciturnitas and silentium. The first refers to the virtue or habit of silence, the second to the actual practice of silence. But this conclusion cannot be made without certain reservations for in chapter 42 the RB uses both terms, and the use of silentium is more in the sense of doctrine and virtue while taciturnitas is in the sense of actual practice. Thus it may be concluded that the RB did see a difference between taciturnitas and silentium, but nothing so clear as not to warrant the two terms from being used interchangeably. From this brief analysis of the technical terms concerning silence or restraint of speech, one is already prepared to conclude that the doctrine of the RB on silence is to be found in certain areas within that Rule. It is of course immediately obvious that the RB treats the question in a chapter set aside

Silence

19

rpecifically for that purpose, that is chapter 6 "Of Silence." I'hen there is chapter 42 "That no one speak after Compline" 111 which more of the doctrine is presented. The RB treats silence in the context of the weekly reader at table (ch 38), ll~edaily manual labor (ch 48), and the oratory of the mon,~stery(ch 52). It will also have been observed that the terms 1 ~ ) i nto t chapter 7 "Of Humility" as containing some reference 10 silence. As one looks at the various texts that refer specifically to rrilcnce it will be noticed that they can be placed in either the wpiritual doctrine section or in the disciplinary section. There ~c relevant texts in the section of chapters 4 to 7. The other ~ r x t sall occur in the section that has been called discipline . I I I ~administration, that is chapters 21 to 57. This allocation 111' texts will be the basis of the distinction employed to cate~orizethe texts in the following two chapters. 'I'he doctrine on silence in the RB would not be complete I I looking ~ only at the texts in which the above mentioned Icrlns are found, for the RB has some important things to say , ~ l ~ o silence ut without the use of these specific terms. Thus 111c.reis a section in chapter 4 "The Tools of Good Works" which has to do with silence. There is also the teaching on wlcrlce with regard to the excommunicated in chapters 25 and :If;. 'There is also the silence with the guests in chapter 53. I t is now time to look at all these texts. Each text will be midyzed in context in order to understand its meaning. After 6t~~i~lyzing the texts individually one will be in a better position 1 1 ) perceive the coherence and unity of the doctrine on silence I I I (he RB.

CHAPTER 111

TEXTS I N THE SPIRITUAL DOCTRINE SECTION

S THE CHAPTER on the structure of the Rule has shown, chapters 4 to 7 form a unit. Further analysis indicates that chapter 4 "The Tools of Good Works," chapter 5 "Of Obedience," chapter 6 "Of Silence," and chapter 7 "Of Humility" form a closely related and interconnected literary unit. The close connections of these chapters is apparent by looking at chapter 4 and observing how it prepares for the three following chapters. Then one can look at chapter 7 and see how it incorporates the teaching of chapters 5 and 6. The first step is to observe how much of the terminology and thought found in chapter 4 is repeated and commented on in chapters 5 to 7. For example, the adjective eternal (aeternus) is used seven times in the RB and five of these uses occur between chapter 4 and 7. All except one use refers t o "eternal life," the use in 6.8 being the one exception. It will be helpful to look at the six uses of the adjective when it modifies life:

A

RB 4.46 To desire eternal life (uitam aeternam) with all spiritual longing. RB 5.1-4 The first degree of humility is obedience without delay. This becometh those who hold nothing dearer to them than Christ (cf. 4.21). Because of the holy service which they have professed, the fear of hell (cf. 4.44-45), and the glory of life everlasting (gloriam uitae aeternae), as soon as any-

Texts in the Spritual Doctrine Section

21

~hinghas been ordered by the superior, they receive it as a tlivine command and cannot suffer any delay in executing it. KB 5.9-10 And almost in the same moment of time that I he master's order is issued, is the disciple's work completed, in the swiftness of the fear of the Lord; the two things being ~ i ~ p i daccomplished ly together by those who are impelled by I llc desire of attaining life everlasting (ad uitam aeternam gradiendi amor incumbit). RB 7.11 Let him ever remember all the commandments of ( ;od (cf. 4.1-7 specifically), and how hell (gehennam cf. 4.45) will burn for their sins those that despise him; and let him cxmstantly turn over in his heart the eternal life (uitam aetertrnm) which is prepared for those that fear him. I ' l ~ cother two uses of the adjective are found in chapter 72 )I' the Good Zeal Which Monks Ought to Have." This chap11.r is shorter that chapter 4, but it is quite similar to it and

"(

s ~ ~ r r belongs ly to the spiritual doctrine section of the RB as a I,II cr edition. KB 72.2 There is a good zeal which separates from evil and Icitds to God and life everlasting (ad uitam aeternam). KB 72.11-12 Let them prefer nothing whatever to Christ (c.1'. 4.21; 5.2). And may he bring us all alike to life everIi~sting(ad uitam aeternam).

Is't.cm this analysis of "eternal life" one sees already connectlinks between chapters 4 to 7. There are other ideas in I I~i~pter 4 that reflect the doctrine found in chapter 7, especialIv on the first degree of humility, and prepare for that chapter. l I I~itsalready been seen that 4.44,45 and 46, which refer to ( ~ ~ t l ~ m ehell n t ,and eternal life, are taken up again in chapter 'I 1 -4,lOand especially in 7.1 1. There is also an apparent simiIlll.itybetween 4.48-49 and 7.12-13. IIIK

I
wcr the actions of one's life.

t

ere) one everywhere.

I
22

Silence

RB 7.12-13 And guarding himself always (custodiens se omni hora) from sins and vices, whether of thought, word, hand, foot, or self-will (cf. 4.60), and checking also the desires of the flesh (cf. 4.59), let him consider that God is always beholding (a Deo respeciomni hora) him from heaven, that his actions are everywhere visible to the eye of the Godhead, and are constantly being reported to God by the angels. Another phrase that shows this close connection between chapters 4 to 7 is "one's own will" (uoluntas propria). This phrase is used ten times in the RB, five times between chapters 4 t o 7 . The use of this phrase elsewhere in the RB (Pro1 3; 1.11; 3.8; 33.4; 49.6) cautions one against considering chapters 4 t o 7 as an isolated block. However, it is interesting that eight of the ten uses occur in the very first part of the RB, that is from the Prolog to chapter 7. RB 4.60 To hate one's own will (uoluntatem propriam odire). RB 5.7 Such as these, therefore, immediately abandoning their own affairs and forsaking their own will (uoluntatem propriam deserentes). RB 7.12 And guarding himself always from sins and vices. whether of thought, . . . or self-will (uoluntatis propriae). RB 7.19 We are indeed forbidden t o do our own will (uoluntatem uero propriam) by Scripture, which saith t o us: "Turn away from thine own will (a uoluntatibus tuis) (Ecclus 18.30). RB 7.31 The second degree of humility is that a man love not his own will @ropriam quis non amans uoluntatem). Another similarity is worthy of note. RB 4.50 When evil thoughts come into one's heart (cogitationes malas cordi suo aduenientes), t o dash them at once o n the rock of Christ and to manifest them t o one's spiritual father. RB 7.44 The fifth degree of humility is that he humbly confess and conceal not from his abbot any evil thoughts that enter his heart (cogitationes malas cordi suo aduenientes).

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

23

'I'he analysis of these various texts and themes shows that chapters 4 to 7 are internally connected. But this connection is made even clearer if one considers the virtues of obedience (ch 5)' silence (ch 6)' and humility (ch 7). 'l'here is a block of maxims in chapter 4 that refers to obedience and so prepares for chapter 5. RB 4.60 To hate one's own will. RB 4.61 To obey in all things the commands of the abbot, even though he himself (which God forbid) should act otherwise: remembering the Lord's precept: "What they say, do ye; but what they do, do ye not" (Matt 23.3). RB 4.63 To fulfil1 God's commandments daily in one's deeds. 'I'here is another block of maxims that refers to silence and prepares for chapter 6. RB 4.5 1 To keep one's mouth from evil and depraved talk. RB 4.52 Not to love much speaking. RB 4.53 Not to speak vain words or such as move to laughter. RB 4.54 Not to love much or violent laughter. 'I'here is one maxim that specifically refers to humility and ~oprepares for chapter 7. RB 4.43 Not to be proud. I'rom these observations it seems that chapter 4 prepares for the three following chapters. The chapters on I d)cdience, silence and humility merely magnify and elaborate O I I certain tools of good works. From this it can be concluded III;II chapters 4 to 7 constitute a literary unit. More insight into I his fact can be gained by now looking at the close connections IWIween chapters 5 to 7. Besides what has already been noted ~ l ~ c are r e other indications that these three chapters form a I lose unit. i111t1anticipates

24

Silence

Chapter 7 "Of Humility" presents the monk with twelve degrees of humility which are compared to steps in a ladder (7.6) to be ascended. The second, third and fourth degrees refer specifically to obedience and thus reflect chapter 5. The first degree of humility also refers to obedience for it considers the question of the monk's own will (uoluntas propria) that must be turned away from (7.19)or abandoned ( 5 . 7 ) .The connection between the first degree of humility and chapter 5 was pointed out on the score of the desire for eternal life. Thus the first four degrees of humility refer to obedience. The fifth, seventh, ninth, tenth and eleventh degrees of humility concern speech. The ninth degree is specifically concerned with silence (7.57: taciturnitas) and repeats the same Scriptural citation that is found in chapter 6 : "In much speaking thou shalt not escape (avoid) sin" ( 6 . 4 ) (Prov 10.19). The tenth degree reflects 6.8 and the eleventh reflects 6.7-8. Thus three of the last steps on the ladder of humility refer to silence. The twelve degrees of humility include four on obedience and three on silence. This is the same sequence followed by chapters 5 and 6, obedience and silence. Chapter 7 incorporates the teaching of these two chapters and either expands upon it or summarizes it. The chapter on humility is really a chapter also on obedience and silence. On the other hand chapters 5 and 6 contain teaching on humility.

RB 5.1 The first degree of humility (humilitatis gradus) is obedience without delay. RB 6.7 And therefore, if there be anything to be asked from the superior, let it be sought with all humility (cum omni humilitate) and respectful submission. The interrelationships between humility, obedience and the manner of speaking will be analyzed later. It is evident that obedience, silence and humility are closely interrelated. THE TEXTS

It is now possible to look at the texts on silence that occur within the literary unit of chapters 4 to 7 . These texts are

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

25

Iosely related and somewhat repetitious. It seems best to I q i n with chapter 6, since it is the basic doctrine, prepared I l b r in chapter 4 and repeated in chapter 7.

I

Chapter 6 "Of Silence" (De Taciturnitate) I Let us do as saith the prophet: "I said, I will take heed unto my ways, that I offend not with my tongue, I have set a guard to my mouth. I was dumb and was humbled (humiliatus sum) and kept silence (silui) even from good words" (PS 38.2-3). 'L Here the prophet teaches us that if we should at times, for the love of silence (propter taciturnitatem), refrain (tacere) from good talk, we should with more reason still, for fear of sin's punishment, eschew (cessari) all evil talk. :I 'Therefore, on account of the great value of silence (propter taciturnitatisgrauitatem),let leave to speak be seldom granted to observant disciples, even though it be for good, holy, and edifying conversations; 4 for it is written: "In much speaking (multiloquio) thou shalt not escape sin" (Prov 10.19), 5 and elsewhere: "Death and life are in the power of the tongue" (Prov 18.21). ci For it becometh the master to speak (loqui) and to teach (docere);but it befits the disciple to be silent (tacere) and t o listen (audire). 'I And therefore, if there be anything to be asked from the su erior, let it be sought with all humility and respectful su mission (cum omni humilitate et subiectione reuerenhe). H But as for buffoonery and talk that is vain and stirs to laughter, we condemn such things everywhere with a perpetual ban, and forbid the disciple to open his mouth for such conversation.

f,

\I~l~ough the chapter is entitled "Of Silence" it also con1.1 11s speaking in so far as it will be necessary at times for the I I I I I I I ~to speak. But this must be done with restraint. The RB

I

26

Silence

explains how t o speak when it is necessary t o ask something of the superior (6.7). The manner of speaking and silence are both related t o humility. The monks speak "with humility," but one is also silent because of humility (PS 38. 2-3). It thus appears that humility is the important virtue, expressed both in.silence and speaking. I n this chapter on silence one finds passing indications of why one is t o speak. The master is t o speak in order t o teach (6.6), while the monk speaks when he requires something from the superior (6.7). But most important, the reasons for silence are presented.

THE REASONS FOR SILENCE

The RB gives three reasons for silence: (1) t o avoid sin; (2) for the sake of silence (taciturnitas) and gravity (grauitas); and (3) in order t o listen. (1). T o Avoid Sin. The first reason the RB gives for the practice of silence is so that the monk may avoid sin: RB 6.1 "I said, I will take heed unto my ways, that I offend not with my tongue (in lingua mea)" (PS 38.2). The theme of guarding the use of the tongue is found beginning in the Prolog and runs through chapter 7. The term lingua is found seven times in the RB and only from the Prolog to chapter 7. In all but one use it refers t o keeping watch over the tongue. Four uses occur in Scriptural citations. The workman whom the Lord seeks among the multitude is given the following admonition: RB Pro1 17 "If thou wilt have true and everlasting life, keep thy tongue from evil (prohibe linguam tuam a malo) and thy lips that they speak n o guile" (PS 33.14).

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

27

llere the custody of the tongue is connected with the desire I'or eternal life. Sin of course is that which would keep the monk from the reward of eternal life, but in this case the molivation is expressed more positively than in 6.1 where the rmphasis is on sin. The monk, the Lord's workman, desires therefore to dwell in the tabernacle of the Lord's kingdom. The Lord himself nl~owsthe way to that tabernacle saying:

RB Pro1 25-26 "He that walketh without blemish and doth that which is right; he that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath used no deceit in his tongue (qui non egit dolum in lingua sua)" (PS 14.2). I lcre, as in Prolog 17, the motivation for proper use of the Iongue, that is in refraining from deceit, is the desire for eterI I ~ I Ilife, the desire to live in the Lord's tabernacle. From these two uses of the tongue in the Prolog one gets a Iwtter idea of the reason for the practlce of silence as expres~ c v lin the citation in 6.1. The monk's one goal is eternal life, Il;rI>itationin the tabernacle of the Lord, but sin will keep him I ~ o mthis goal. In speaking there is always the danger of sin "I'or it is written: 'In much speaking thou shalt not escape N I I I ' " (Prov 10.19) (6.4; 7.57), "and elsewhere: 'Death and I~lc.are in the power of the tongue (in manibus linguae)' " (I'rov 18.21) (6.5). Thus the monk has set a guard over his w,~ysso that he may not sin by use of the tongue. 'I'hese thoughts are repeated in chapter 7. The first degree of I~urnilityis that fear which is constantly aware of God's presV I I ~ .in ~ judgment. The monk will therefore always remember 1 ; i d ' s commands. He will recall that hell will be the reward 1 4 1 1 sins, while eternal life will be the reward of those who fear 1 ;od. And so: KB 7.12- 13 Guarding himself always from sins and vices, whether of thought, word (linguae), hand, foot, or self-will, J I I ~checking also the desires of the flesh, let him consider 1 1 ~God t is always beholding him from heaven, that his acI Ions are everywhere visible to the eye of the Godhead, and , I I constantly ~ being reported to God by the angels.

28

Silence

Thus the motivation of fear of sin is elaborated on by the theme of fear of God who is always present in judgment. Fear of the Lord qualifies both silence and speech, as will be seen later. The important attitude for the monk is fear of the Lord. Whether he speaks or refrains from speaking is not itself that important, for both of these should express his consciousness of God's presence. But since it is so easy to offend God by the use of the tongue, the monk will be very cautious in its use and keep a constant watch over himself. Keeping guard over the tongue is also a sign of humility: RB 7.56 The ninth degree of humility is that a monk restrain his tongue (linguam a d loquendum prohibeat) and keep silence (et taciturnitatem habens), not speaking until he is questioned. If the monk must always beware of sinning by use of his tongue, then the safest course is to refrain from speaking until he is questioned. Such will be a sign of his humility, a sign of his fear of God which is the first degree of humility. In the above text humility and silence are closely related, a relationship that has been noted before and is expressed in 6.1. To summarize the RB's first reason for silence, it can be said to be in order t o avoid sin, but the reason one avoids sin is out of fear of the Lord and the desire for everlasting life. Thus the motivation is also positive. The monk keeps silence because he is aware and conscious of God's presence in judgment, and he fears to offend God by ungkirded use of the tongue. Silence is therefore one of the monk's manifestations of his desire for God and this is expressed in 6.1,4,5 as a desire to avoid sin. The positive aspect is hinted at in 6.5 when the Scripture citation is used: "Death and life (uita) are in the power of the tongue" (Prov 18.2 1). The theme of eternal life (uita aeterna) has already been discussed. That theme which appeared in chapters 4, 5 and 7 also appears in chapter 6. This is another indication of the close connection between these chapters. (2). For the Sake of Silence and Gravity. The second reason the RB gives for the keeping of silence is for the sake of silence itself.

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

29

RB 6.2 We should at times, for the love of silence (propter taciturnitatem), refrain from good talk. RB 6.3 On account of the great value of silence @ropter taciturnitatis grauitatem), let leave to speak be seldom granted to observant disciples. 'I'he RB seems to justify silence on the merits of silence itself. 11 is therefore necessary to look more closely at the phrase propter taciturnitatis grauitatem to see if any light can be I hrown on this motivation. The term grauitas will be analyzed later in the context of lhe manner in which a monk speaks. The term is found six limes in the RB, and five of these uses are in the phrase 'with ~ravity' which is used to specify a manner of speaking. It is used with 'self-restraint' (22.6; 42.1 1 ) and 'with humility' (7.60; 47.4) and connotes a certain dignity, seriousness and reflection in speaking. It suggests that one speak with few and sensible words, that is precisely, and without being noisy (7.60). Prom these five uses of the term it would seem that the nixth use in 6.3 also carries the same basic meaning. It refers I O dignity and seriousness in the use of the tongue and for his reason the translation of Dom McCann is unacceptable mince it does not convey this idea. Another reason why the ran slat ion "on account of the great value of silence" is un,~cwptableis that it does not consider the phrase propter tacilrrrnitatis grauitatem as an appositive genitive construction.' I. The appositive genitive construction, that is the genetivus identitatis uel inhaetrtttiae is used rather frequently in the RB. Hanslik, Regula, p. 356 notes the followIny examples: RB 2.20; 3.4; 6.3,8; 7.28; 9.10; 21.4; 24.5; 25.5; 28.6; 40.4;483 4; hY.3; 58.17; 64.2; 69.2; 70.4; 73.7. Christine Mohrmann, "La Langue de Saint BeIIIIC~," in Etudes sur Le Latin des Chritiens II, Rome, Edizioni di Storia e Lettera Iuru, 1961, p. 334 says that this construction is one of the characteristics of the rtyk of the RB and is an indication of the dependence of the RB o n the language 111 luw and liturgical Latin in use at Rome. In this construction the two nouns are III npposition; they are synonyms; one defines or explains the other. Neither Hanslik I I I U Mohrmann note RB 6.3 as an example of this construction, but the meaning of as used in the RB - which is discussed later o n in this thesis - seems to #t~t~tilas I~~~llc,ate that it is indeed synonymous with taciturnitas. The use of this construc111111 by the RB in its teaching on silence is frequent. This will be seen as the inveb ~lrnlionproceeds. Thus there are good reasons to consider propter taciturnitatis #twitatem as an appositive genitive.

30

Silence

An indication that the construction is being employed here comes from the phrase propter taciturnitatem in 6.2. The reason for silence is given in both 6.2 and 6.3. In the second case it is expanded upon and explained but remains basically the same. These things being considered, the reason expressed in 6.3 could be translated as "because of the seriousness of monastic life which produces silence," or "for the sake of taciturnity and gravity," or "for the sake of gravity which is the same as taciturnity." Thus the reason given for silence is on account of the dignity and seriousness with which monks should speak. To speak frequently and without reserve would not be in keeping with the seriousness of the monastic life. This seriousness results from the goal or purpose of monastic life, that is "to seek God" (58.7). It is a seriousness that results from an awareness of God's presence, a seriousness that fears offending God by sin. So it is that the second reason is very similar to the first. It will be seen later that the gravity, dignity or seriousness that should characterize the monk's speech is tied up with the concept of humility. Just as the monk is to manifest his humility and gravity in his speech, so too silence can also be an expression, indeed the realization of the monk's humility and gravity. When the RB says that silence is to be kept for the sake of silence (propter taciturnitatem: 6.2) he is saying that silence is to be kept for the sake of silence and gravity (propter taciturnitatis grauitatem: 6.3). And this means for the sake of silence which is the same as gravity-therefore for the sake of gravity. Thus the expressed motivation is not merely a redundancy. T o keep silence for the sake of silence really means to keep silence because of the gravity and seriousness of monastic life, a gravity that is expressed by restraint of the tongue.

(3). For the Sake of Listening. The third reason given by the RB for keeping silence is for the sake of listening.

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

31

KB 6.6 For it becometh the master to speak (loqui) and (docere);but it befits the disciple to be silent (ta(.clre)and to listen (audire). to teach

I'l~istext is very important both for the purpose of speech silence. The master speaks in order to teach. The disil'lc keeps silent in order to listen. Note the relationship beI wvcn silence and speech. Silence is necessary so that one can I I I . ; I ~ the voice of God as it comes to him in Scripture, and so I I I , I ~ he may hear the voice of the abbot-master who teaches 111111 the way to eternal life. The monk listens so that he may I I ~ I I . and ~ thus return t o God from whom disobedience has wl);~ratedhim.

, ~ t ~ for tl (

I
I,ltc.d to -obedience. The monk is silent in order t o listen to I I I V cx)rnmands of the master and obey them. It has already I I I , V I I noted that chapter 6 "Of Silence" is closely related t o I It,tp~cr 5 "Of Obedience" structurally. It now becomes clear ~ l l ythis is the case. Silence is the necessary prerequisite for ~dwtlicnce.Without silence the monk will not hear the masI I 1 ' 3 c,ornmands and so will not be able to obey them. I'llis third reason for keeping silence is in accord with the I I I Q I I.c.;uon, that is to avoid sin. The first sin was a sin of dis~ll~c.tlicnce. To return t o God man must obey God, turning I I I ~ ,1,;lc.kon his own self-will and disobedience. To be obedient I ( ;I~tl'scommands is to avoid sin. The monk can avoid sin by I I U I I . ~ to I ~ God's I I K commands and obeying them. II

4 1

Silence THE VOCABULARY OF SILENCE IN CHAPTER 6

The verb silere is used only once ( 6 . 1 ) and that in a Scriptural citation. Tacere is used twice (6.2 6 ) . Taciturnitas is used three times (Title; 6.2, 3 ) . But these are not the only words or expressions used to refer to silence. In the introductory Scripture citation one reads: "1 have set a guard to my mouth" (posui on' meo custodium) (PS38.2). At the end of verse 2 it says: RB 6.2 We should with more reason still, for fear of sin's punishment, eschew all evil talk (quanto magis a malis uerbis propter poenam peccati debet cessari). The concluding verse says: RB 6.8 But as for buffoonery and talk that is vain and stirs laughter, we condemn (damnamus) such things everywhere with a perpetual ban, and forbid the disciple to open his mouth for such conversation (et ad talk eloquia ducipulum aperire OS non permittimus). When the author discusses silence from evil words, from buffoonery and vain talk, he does not use the word tacere. He uses tacere with regard to good words (6.2: a bonis eloquiis interdum propter tacitunitatem debet tacere). With regard to evil words he uses 'to cease from' (a malis uerbis propter poenam peccati debet cessari).And with regard to buffoonery, vain talk, and talk that stirs to laughter he condemns it (damnamus) and does not permit the disciple to open his mouth for such words (6.8: ad talia eloquia . . . uperire O S non permittimus). Consider the difference in motivation. The monk keeps silent from good words on account of taciturnity, whereas he eschews all evil talk on account of the fear of sin's punishment (6.2). It would seem that when the author thinks of taciturnity he thinks of restraint from good speech, but when he thinks of restraint from evil words he uses another word or phrase to indicate this restraint. If one looks at the uses of tacere and taciturnitas in the RB it will be seen that these words never are

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

33

11st-dto mean restraint from evil words. Rather, in every case 11 can be understood as restraint from "good, holy and edifyI I I K conversations" (6.3).

PERMISSION TO SPEAK

RB 6.3 Therefore, on account of the great value of silence (better: on account of seriousness and silence), let leave to speak be seldom granted (rara loquendi concedatur licentia) 1 o observant disciples, even though it be for good, holy and rtli fying conversations. Atwrding to this verse, it would seem that the RB envisages silence would be the general rule in the monastery. Since "Icave to speak be seldom granted" then it would follow that ~ l r c . monk would need special permission to speak. But the vrrse could also imply that leave was given at specified times 1411. speaking. It is true that chapter 6 says nothing about speI ~lic times for talking, but if one considers the injunction in IH.21 that "brothers should not associate with one another I I I unseasonable hours (horis incompetentibus)" it may be I 11.11 there were seasonable hours (horis competentibus) or prea( rihed hours when the brothers could freely associate with 1.i1c.hother. More insight into this will be acquired as this study 111 t weds. Ilut was silence the general rule in the monastery? Were 11ronksto live with each other without speaking except when I lwy had specific permission or leave from the superior? This W I wld mean that all casual intercourse was forbidden. Such a ~ ~ v i t i oseems n extreme and not keeping with certain implicit ~~~tlications in the RB. 'l'hc very short chapter 26 "Of Those Who Without Leave ( :lmsort With the Excommunicated" has the following to say: I11i1t

I
34

Silence

(loqui cum eo), or to send him a message, let him receive the like punishment of excommunication. According to this text it would seem that brothers who were not excommunicated could consort with and speak to each other without the abbot's leave, permission or direct command. If such were not the case the ostracization of the excommunicated would not have any real meaning. Thus from this text it would seem that among brothers normal social intercourse, which would include talking, was to be expected in the monastery. This implication of free verbal intercourse among the brothers is also found in the chapter on Lent (ch 49). RB 49.5-7 In these days, therefore, let us add something beyond the wonted measure of our service, such as private prayers and abstinence in food and drink. Let each one, over and above the measure prescribed for him, offer God something of his own free will in the joy of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, let him stint himself of food, drink, sleep, talk (de loquacitate), and jesting (de scurrilitate), and look forward with the joy of spiritual longing t o the holy feast of Easter. During Lent each monk is to "add something beyond . . . over and above the measure prescribed." If perpetual silence were already the prescribed measure then it would make no sense to suggest that during Lent a monk stint himself of talk. But on the other hand, jesting is also suggested as an area in which the monk can stint himself during the days of Lent. Elsewhere (6.8) the RB condemns buffoonery (scurrilitas) with a perpetual ban. There seems to be a contradiction both on the scorc of talking and jesting between chapters 6 and 49. In chapter 6 a general rule of silence seems to be the rule (v. 3) and scurrility is perpetually banned (v. 8). However, in chapter 49 both speaking and jesting are suggested as areas in which the monk can stint himself and thus offer to God something over and beyond the prescribed measure. Is there not an obvious inconsistency in the teaching of these two chapters?

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

35

I t would seem that the general rule of silence and the per~wtualban against jesting are not as absolute in the daily life 111' the monk as chapter 6 would seem to suggest. This conI Itlsion comes from looking at still other situations portrayed 111 the RB where talking between the monks seems to be taken l I granted. I n chapter 67 "Of Brethren who are Sent on a Journey" the I t dlowing admonition is given.

KB 67.5-6 Nor let anyone presume to tell another what he has seen or heard outside the monastery, because this causes

vcry great harm. But if anyone presume to do so, let him undergo the punishment of the Rule.

I'l~islegislation seems to take for granted that there may be cxsion for a brother who has been outside of the monastery 11 I recount his experiences to another brother. If the rule was III;II of perpetual silence then there would be no need to cauI I O I ~ a brother about speaking about his experiences, for he wc~uldnot be permitted to talk at all. Still another indication of free interchange between the Il~otherscomes from the specific legislation that warns a I I I I 11 her to avoid conversation C f a b ~ l aduring )~ the time when I w should be at the opus dei or engaged in holy reading.

I 11

liB 43.8 For if they (those who come late to the Work of (;od) were to remain outside the oratory, there might be (mc who would go to bed a ain and sleep, or at least sit himnclf down outside and in ulge in idle talk Cfabulis uacat), , I I thus ~ an occasion would be provided for the evil one.

%

IiB 48.17-18 But one or two senior monks should cerc,~inlybe deputed to go round the monastery at the times :'. 'I'l~rtermfabuh isusedonly in these two passages in the RB. McCann translates "idlc talk" or "gossip." The word can mean a narrative or a story, especially be used to signify conversation in general. It is 111n~l111ldy in this latter sense that it is used in the RB and in the monastic sources IIIIII will be analyzed later. Cf. Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary. p. 7 13 under t . 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 r ;dso Forcellini, Lexicon, Tome 11, p. 401-4(I2 under fabula.

11 H I .I

III ti~iousstory. But it can also

36

Silence

when the brethren are occupied in reading, to see that there be no slothful brother who spends his time in idleness or gossip (qui uacat otio aut fabulis) and neglects the reading, so that he not only does himself harm but also disturbs others. These two texts seem to imply that monks may be prone to story telling, idle talk, gossip, or just ordinary conversation. The legislation that warns against such conversation during the opus dei and during holy reading seems to take into account that at other times this type of talk may be more excusable. At any rate, these specific injunctions could imply that when a community exercise is not going on monks can speak more freely. It should be noted that in 43.8 the reason for refraining from such idle talk is that it would give the devil an occasion. Thus it seems that unnecessary gabbling is an instrument of the devil. This reinforces one of the meanings or purposes of silence. One keeps silent so that the devil may not get the upper hand, that is in order to avoid sin. However, the reason for silence, that is for not gossiping, in 48.18 is so that one brother may not disturb another who is trying to read. Silence is for the purpose of holy reading. Another indication that conversation among the brothers was rather free and spontaneous comes from the rather frequent condemnation of murmuring.' Murmuring can be internal as well as external, but it is usually manifested externally.

RB 5.17-18 For if the disciple obey with an ill will, and murmur not only in words but even in his heart (non solum ore sed etiam in corde si murmurauen't), then even though he fulfil the command, his work will not be acceptable to God, who sees that his heart is murmuring. RB 34.6 Above all, let not the vice of murmuring show itself in any word or sign (in aliqui qualicumque uerbo uel significatione), for any reason whatever. 3. The verb murmurare is dsed five times; the nounmunnuratio is used fwe times; the adjective munnuriosus is used once and the noun murmurium also once.

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

37

AI1 in the monastery are to receive what is necessary according 1 0 their own individual needs. They are not to murmur if one rcceives more than another (34.6). The weekly servers at table irre to receive some bread and a drink before the meal so that "they may serve their brethren w i t h u t murmuring and undue hardship" (35.13). If no wine is available in the place where I he community lives, the monks should however not murmur (40.9). The abbot may arrange the hours of meals differently ~lianthe hours suggested in the Rule "so that the brethren may t l o their work without justifiable murmuring" (41.5). The I W O brothers assigned to the guest kitchen are to receive help when they need it "so that they may serve without murmuring" (53.18). Most of these admonitions against murmuring envisage a situation where two or more monks are together in some communal service. When they are thus together it is quite natural that they will speak to each other. The Rule expressly cxutions against a type of talking that is destructive of community peace. In 40.8 it says that monks should bless God (benedicant Deum) rather than murmur.

RB 23.1 If any brother shall be found contumacious (contumax), or disobedient (inobediens), or proud (superbus), or a murmurer (murmurans) . . . 111 this text murmuring is connected with disobedience and pride. This is worthy of note considering the connection belween obedience, silence and humility that has already been rrcn. But one must be cautious of equating verbal silence with c~l~edience and humility, for a monk can murmur in his heart (G. 17-18) and so while keeping external silence, still be dischedient and proud. But it may be safe to say that generally rilcnce is a sign of obedience and humility (7.35). Icrom all of these implications it would seem that the phrase "lct leave to speak be seldom granted" (6.3) is not t o be taken loo absolutely. Chapter 6 is in the spiritual doctrine section of ~ l i rRule and therefore presents theory more than practice. I'lic implications that point to possible free verbal intercourse

38

Silence

among the monks all appear in the later section of the Rule, that is in the disciplinary section. Thus there may be here a discrepancy between theory and actual practice; in theory monks were not to speak to each other except with permission; in practice, and this is implicitly accepted by the author, monks had free access to each other and could speak. This is a question that cannot be simply solved one way or the other. The Rule seems to be inconsistent. It may be that as one anallyzes the total teaching on silence in the RB this problem of inconsistency will clear up somewhat.

Chapter 4: 5 1-54 5 1 To keep one's mouth from evil and depraved talk ( O S suum a malo uel prauo eloqui custodire). 52 Not to love much speaking (multum loqui non amare). 53 Not to speak vain words or such as move to laughter (uerba uana aut risui apta non loqui). 54 Not to love much or violent laughter (rtjum multum aut excussurn non amare).

These verses have already been commented on under various headings. They constitute a block in chapter 4 that refers to silence and prepares for chapter 6 "Of Silence." They also reflect what will be said in the degrees of humility in chapter 7 concerning silence. It may be necessary to repeat some of what has already been pointed out in order to analyze these verses as a unit. The terms tacere and silere and their respective noun forms are not used here. In 4.5 1 the RB interdicts evil and depraved talk. In 6.2 it says: "we should . . . eschew all evil talk (a malis uerbis . . . debet cessari)." In chapter 6 when the RB speaks about refraining from evil talk it does not use the term tacere but other expressions. The term tacere is used only with refraining from good talk, and 4.51 coincides with this use of terminology. This conclusion is also borne out by 4.53 where the monk is "not to speak (non loqui) vain words."

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

39

The condemnation against words that move to laughter in 4.53 is in accord with 6.8 and 7.59-60. The prohibition against laughter will be commented upon when discussing the charitcteristic of wisdom as a manner of speaking. In 6.8 the RB perpetually bans "scurrility and talk that is vain and stirs h g h t e r (risum mouentia)," but 4.54 does not seem to be so i~bsolute in its condemnation. The injunction is not that a lnonk do not laugh at all, but rather that he love not much or violent laughter. This would imply that some laughter could Iw expected in the monk's life. It seems that here again the doctrine of the RB is not totally consistent in all its parts. 'I'he rather absolute condemnation of laughter in chapter 6 is 11ot reflected in chapter 4, nor is it found so absolutely in 7.59 where one reads that amonk ought "not be ready Cfacilis) i111dprompt to laughter (promptus in risu)." This seems to imply that laughter can be expected at times, but the monk ought not be on the lookout for every possible occasion to Iirugh. At any rate, whether the prohibition against laughter is Nccn as absolute or relative, it cannot be denied that the author o I ' the RB takes a rather dim view of laughter and cautions 4~ilinstit. This evaluation of laughter probably stems from l l ~ cseriousness of the monastic life and the importance of Ilumility. Seemingly, laughter is an expression of pride and a 1ilc.k of gravity. 'I'he monk is "not to love much speaking" ( 4 . 5 3 ) for ScripItlre says that "In much speaking thou shalt not avoid sin" (I'rov 10.19). This Scripture citation is found in both 6.4 and 1.57. This maxim shows how closely related are chapters 4, 6 J I I ~7, a relationship that has already been noted. 'I'he two maxims in chapter 4 that follow the block on siIrwce are important for they may throw light upon the very waning of silence. KB 4.55 To listen gladly to holy reading. KB 4.56 To apply oneself frequently to prayer. chapter 6 the author gave three reasons for silence: to void sin; for the sake of gravity; in order to listen. It could

111

40

Silence

well be that in the two maxims that follow immediately on the maxims on silence the RB expands the reasons for silence. Silence is practiced so that the monk may listen to holy reading and apply himself to prayer. The first is not really anything new compared to chapter 6. There it was seen that one of the reasons for silence is to listen to the master who teaches God's commands. But the voice of God comes to the monk also in holy reading. The monk must listen to this voice, and he is silent in order to listen (6.6). So also, in chapter 4, the monk practices silence (4.51-54) in order to be able to listen to the voice of God speaking to him in holy reading (4.55). It was noted above in passing that in 48.18 the reason given for not gossiping or carrying on conversation during the time for holy reading, that is, for keeping silence, was so that one brother may not disturb another who is trying to read. It will be necessary to comment on this again when the text in 48.18 is analyzed. According to 4.56, if this maxim is seen in close connection with 4.51-55, the reason for silence is so that the monk may apply himself frequently to prayer. It will be seen later that this same reason is to be found in chapter 52. Silence is thus one of the monk's manifestations of his desire for God, which is realized in prayer. Chapter 7.35 and 56-61 35 The fourth degree of humility is that, meeting in this obedience with difficulties and contradictions and even injustice, he should with a quiet mind hold fast to patience (tacite comcientia patientiam amplectatur). 56 The ninth degree of humility is that a monk restrain his tongue and keep silence (taciturnitatem habens), not speaking until he is questioned. 57 For Scripture showeth that "in much talking thou canst not avoid sin', (Prov 10.19); 58 and that "the talkative man shall not prosper on the earth" (PS 139.12).

Texts in the Spiritual Doctrine Section

41

59 The tenth degree of humility is that he be not ready and prompt to laughter, for it is written: "The fool lifteth up his voice in laughter" (Ecclus 2 1.23). 60 The eleventh degree of humility is that a monk, when he speaks, do so gently and without laughter, humbly and seriously (humiliter cum gravitate), in few and sensible words, and without clamor. 61 It is written: "A wise man is known by the fewness of his words" (Cf. Enchirid. Sexti Pythagor. 134). 'I'here have already been many occasions to comment on this nrction. There is no need to repeat what has been said. It will I)e good however to draw attention to some points. 'The ninth to eleventh degrees of humility contain the same doctrine that is found in chapter 6 and in the block of chapter 4.51-54. There is really nothing new added to that doctrine. 'I'he reason for keeping silence (7.56-57) is to avoid sin. Note Ilowever that it is not a perpetual silence that is imposed. The monk speaks when he is questioned. The text does not say who is the one who can question and it can be presumed that another monk may be the questioner. It now becomes apparent how the RB makes statements that cannot be taken too seriously, otherwise they would make for an impossible situation. In his case, the degrees of humility are meant for all monks. Thus I N ) monk would ever speak, for each monk would be waiting to npeak until he was questioned. It has been noted that the RB contains passages in which conversation between monks is at lrast implied. But the recommendation in the ninth degree of humility would not allow for this, indeed, it would make convrrsation impossible. The answer to this dilemma may lie in the fact that these chapters, that is 4 to 7, belong t o the spiritual doctrine section of the Rule and thus present theory more tlli~npractice. In theory a monk should not speak until quest ioned by another; in practice this would make all conversation ~mpossible.And in practice it cannot be realized and was never ~ntendedto be realized. This discrepancy between theory and ~wi~ctice has already been noted with regard to 6.3. 'I'he textual critical problem in 7.35 has already been discuswrcl. What is worthy of note in this verse is the relationship be-

42

Silence

tween obedience, silence and humility. This relationship has been noted with regard to the close links that bind together chapter 5 , 6 and 7. There can be no doubt that in the RB these three virtues are intimately and necessarily related; one virtue realizes and expresses the other two; one virtue cannot exist without the other two. The virtues of obedience, silence and humility are also connected with patience in 7.35. Patience is again referred to at the end of the fourth degree of humility:

RB 7.42 Moreover, in adversities and injuries they patiently (per patientiam) fulfil1 the Lord's commands. Through patience monks obey the commands of the Lord even though they must endure adversities and injuries. And this is a sign, a manifestation of their humility. They endure patiently and silently (7.35). Silence is an expression and realization of their patience. Thus silence is a way of participating in the passion of Christ. Pro1 50 So that, never abandoning his rule but persevering in his teaching in the monastery until death, we shall share by patience @er patientiam) in the sufferings of Christ, that we may deserve to be partakers also of his kingdom. It is through patience that the monk will share in the passion of Christ and thus gain eternal life in the kingdom of the Lord. One realization and expression of this patience is silence (7.35). Through the practice of silence the monk participates in the passion of Christ. The ninth to eleventh degrees of humility concern how to speak more than silence. Silence is indeed expressly referred to (7.56: taciturnitas), but the emphasis is on how to speak when one does speak. Silence can only be understood in the context of human speaking and its meaning; one can practice silence only if one knows how to use one's voice properly.

CHAPTER IV

TEXTS I N T H E DISCIPLINE SECTION

A

L L T H E T E X T S T H A T R E M A I N concerning silence or lack of speech occur in the second major section of the RB, that section which concerns administration , ~ l r ddiscipline. This section consists of chapters 2 1 t o 57. There IN one text that occurs in chapter 67, but this chapter belongs 1 0 the later additions t o the Rule and can be considered as Idonging t o the administration-discipline material. 'I'he section of chapters 21 to 57 is further distinguished by 11lc twofold Penal Code that occurs therein. Chapter 23 t o 30 m d 43 t o 46 constitute this Penal Code. These chapters treat (11' excommunication, punishment for faults and satisfactions. 111 this section the technical vocabulary of silence is not used, ~~cvertheless there are texts that have t o d o with silence. Chapters 25 and 26 RB 25.1-3 The brother who is guilty of a graver fault shall Ile excluded both from the table and from the oratory. Let none of the brethren consort with him or speak t o him (nullus ei fratrum in nullo iungatur consortia, nec in conloquio). Let him work alone at the task enjoined him and abide in penitential sorrow. RB 26.1-2 If any brother presume, without the abbot's leave, t o consort in any way with an excommunicated brother or t o converse with him (quolibet mod0 se iungere, aut loqui cum e o ) , or t o send him a message (uel mandatum ei din'gere), let him receive the like punishment of excommunication.

44

Silence

These two texts are very closely related, indeed they contain the same disciplinary measure. No brother may associate or speak to an excommunicated brother. The excommunicated brother is deprived of all social intercourse and must even work alone (25.3). This injunction is interesting. It could imply that if the excommunicated worked with the other brothers the punishment of ostracization could not be effectively carried out since brothers normally speak to each other during work. In the case of the excommunicated, imposed silence is a punishment. This gives a new dimension to silence in the RB. Silence is vindictive, but it is also medicinal. The punishments of excommunication are ordered to put the fear of the Lord in the souls of the brothers (48.20), but they also are inflicted so that the brother may repent and his soul be saved (25.4). Chapters 24 and 44 RB 24.4 And this shall be the rule for one who is thus excluded from the common table: Until he have made satisfaction, he shall not intone psalm or antiphon in the oratory, nor read a lesson. RB 44.1-2. 5-6 Let this be the rule for one who for a serious fault is excommunicated from oratory and table. At the hour when the Work of God is being performed in the oratory, let him lie prostrate before the door of the oratory, saying nothing (nihil dicens), but just lying there with his face to the ground at the feet of the brethren as they come out of the oratory . . . . And then, if the abbot so order, let him be received into the choir, to the place which the abbot shall appoint. Nevertheless, he must not presume to intone psalm, or lesson, or anything else in the oratory, unless the abbot give that further permission. The excommunicated brother is not only cut off from all social intercourse with his brothers (25.1-3; 26.1-2), but he is not allowed to use his voice in the daily vocal celebration of the Work of God. He is indeed reduced to silence; he is not spoken to nor can he speak (44.1).

Texts in the Discipline Section

45

I t should be noted that the RB distinguished grave and more wrious faults, and provided a measure of punishment in proportion to the gravity of the fault (24.1). For lesser faults the 111onkis excommunicated only from the common table (24.3). 111. is to eat later than the brothers (24.5-6). In the oratory he I I M ~join in with public psalmody, but he may not intone a ~)Ni~lrn or antiphon nor read a lesson (24.4). Brothers who are ~11ilty of a graver fault are excluded both from the common tihle and from the oratory, and such a one cannot be associ~ ~ t rwith t i or spoken to (25.1-2). When the opus dei is being I dcbrated in the oratory he may not join in but lies prostrate I I I the door of the oratory, saying nothing (nihil dicens: 44.1). 'I'hus for more serious faults the monk is reduced to complete nilcnce. 'I'his legislation and its progressive punishment gives some Itlea of how painful the restriction on use of the voice must I w e been. The more serious the fault the greater the punishIllcnt. Those who have committed a lesser fault can still use ll~eirvoice in choir. Those guilty of a more serious fault are I I O L allowed t o use their voice even in choir; they are reduced I an absolute silence. ()

Chapter 43 RB 43.8 For if they (i.e. those who come late to the Work o f God) were to remain outside the oratory, there might be one who would go to bed a ain and sleep, or at least sit himself down outside and in ulge in idle talk Cfabulis uacat), and thus an occasion would be provided for the evil one.

%

'l'his text has already been commented on, but it is put here I~ccauseit belongs to the Penal Code of the RB. It is noteworthy because it implies that during the scheduled time of I IIC opus dei the voice of the monk is to be used only to praise l l ~ cCreator (16.5) and not for idle conversation. Even if a 111onkcannot come to the oratory for the opus dei, due to work or distance, he is to perform the Work of God where he I N (cf. ch 50 passim). Therefore it can be concluded that during

46

Silence

the time of the opus dei the monk is not to use his voice ill any other way than in public prayer. Thus silence is imposctl on all during these hours of prayer, and this silence has for irs purpose the freeing of the monk's voice for praise of God.

THE CENTRAL SECTION

Although the suggested outline does not indicate that chap ters 31 to 57 constitute a unit as such it will be noted t h i ~ ~ most of the structural plans given above consider it so.' Thin section contains the second part of the Penal Code, that is chapters 43 to 46, but for the purpose of categorizing thc texts on silence this Penal Code is prescinded from now sincc the texts were treated above. Four texts will be considered here. It is in these four textn that the use of the word silentium is found in the RB. Thc term is used only four times in the RB and those four uscs occur in the Central Section which concerns administration and discipline. Chapter 38.1, 5-9 1 At the meals of the brethren there should not fail to bc reading. 5 And let there be the greatest silence (summum fiat siletl tium), so that no whis er, and no voice but the reader's may be heard there &t nullius mussifatio uel uox nisi solius legentis ibi audiatur). 6 But for the things that they may need as they eat and drink, let the brethren so sup ly them to one another that no one shall need to ask or anything (ut nullus indigeat petere aliquid). 7 If, however, there be any need, then let the thing be asked for by means of some sign rather than by speech (sonitzc cuiuscumque signi potius quam uoce).

P

1. E.g. Altaner, Colombag Hanslik, Lentini, Schmitz.

Texts in the Discipline Section

47

H Nor let anyone venture there to ask questions about the

reading or anything else (de ipsa lectione . . . requirere), lest it give occasion for disorder (ne detur occasio). '1 IIowever, the superior, if he thinks fit, may say a few words for the edification of the brethren (nisi forte prior pro aedificatione uoluerit aliquid breuiter dicere). :l~,~l)ter 38 is entitled "Of the Weekly Reader." As can be I'rom the above citation it is concerned also with silence ! I I 111ctable while the monks eat. The purpose of this strict MIII.II~.C (summum silentium) is so that the monks may hear 1111. wading. No other voice but that of the reader should be III (l. 'Thus silence has for its purpose listening. I ' I I ~specification that no one is to ask anything about the I I ~ttling there (ibi),that is while in the refectory at meals, may ~~~tl~c.;ite that brothers can speak elsewhere about the reading. \ Ia~.other may need another brother to explain or expand upon ~ l l ~ ~ ~ r the h i has n g heard in the reading. This is permissible and I W I I ~ o o dbut , it cannot be done in the refectory during meals. I I I I I I I S L be done at another time and in another place. But one 1111lnl keep in mind the principle:

I

WI-II

I( B 6.3 Therefore, on account of the great value of silence wopter taciturnitatis g a ~ i t a t e r nlet ) ~ leave to speak be selI 11111 granted to observant disciples, even though it be for H I I I ~ d holy, , and edifying conversation.

'(

111-tragain there may be an inconsistency between the theory 1 1 I I~i~pter 6 and the practice seemingly permitted in chapter

I

l /l

I Iw reason why one cannot ask questions about the reading I llr refectory is that it may give occasion (ne detur occasio). I I I I I I I Justin McCann presumes that this means an "occasion 11 11 I lisorder." But this is not specified as such in the Rule. It I I I ~ \,I I)c that the RB has in mind that unnecessary speech, or III\ wlwech at all, may give occasion to the devil, as would III

I I Iw rritism of McCann's translation has already been made. For the sake of ~ I I I I I I I I hI y his translation is retained when the RB is cited.

48

Silence

talk outside the oratory when a monk should be inside pray in^ (43.8: uel fabulis uacat, et datur occasio maligno). I t was see11 above that in the RB one keeps silence to avoid sin, that is to keep the devil in check. The superior (prior) may break the silence in the refectory and interrupt the reading in order t o "say a few words f o ~ edification" (pro aedqicatione). It is interesting to note t h i ~ ~ the very purpose of reading is to edify, to build up the hearers. RB 38.12 The brethren are not to read or sing each in hi# turn, but those only who give edification to the hearers ( q i t r aedificant audientes). RB 42.3 Let a brother read the Conferences of Cassii~l~ (Collationes) or the lives of the Fathers, or something elw that may edify the hearers (quod aedificet audientes). RB 47.3 But let no one presume to sing or read, unless h(can fulfill the office to the edification of his hearers (ut aerh ficentur audientes). RB 53.9 Let the Law of God be read before the guest f o ~ his edification (ut aedqicetur). The reading at table as well as the interruption by the superio~ is for the edification of the brothers. The important thing i~ edification. It can be accomplished by reading or by the su perior's words. But it is to be noted that the words of the SII perior should be brief. This seems to indicate that the HI! considered the reading of more value than the superior's wordn, that the reading has a better chance to be edifying.

Chapter 42. l, 8-11 1 Monks should practice silence at all times (omni temporr silentium debent studere monachi),but especially at nig111 (maxime tamen nocturnis horis) . . . . 8 And so, being all assembled in one place, let them S;I\ Compline. And when they come out of Compline, 1t.r there be no further permission for anyone t o say any thing (nulla sit licentia denuo cuiquam loqui aliquid).

Texts in the Discipline Section

49

!) Severe punishment (graui uindictae subiaceat) shall be

accorded t o anyone who is found t o infringe this rule of silence (taciturnitatis r e p l a m ) I 0 unless speech be made necessary by the arrival of guests or the abbot give someone an order. I I But even so, this speaking itself should be done with the utmost gravity and the most becoming restraint. 1111111 Justin McCann translates studere by "practice."

This is used three times in the RB, in this present passage and I WO other texts.

11.1 111

111

I
I ~ I I Y ,I O

lIt4

'41

Afl~qulchas no direct equivalent in Latin. The translator

( V ) while searching for a translation fixes his mind on the which he uses consistently throughout the 11,111.;1tive except in 61 (68.25), where 'abstinentia' is used. III

rvc 11.d'studium,' I I.vwis

and Short, op. cit.. p. 1768 under studeo.

50

Silence

'Studium,' however, falls short of the full meaning of aoKqULC, which im lies a special studium, viz. a striving after moral perfection, wRile plain 'studium' leaves the object which the striving tries to attain quite undetermined . . . . In common speech 'studium' stands for a fancy or liking for something, an intellectual interest, steady application. Actual practice is expressed by 'exercitatio.' Hence the hrases: 'studium philosophiae, linguae, rhetoricae, uirtutis.

,a

One of the main aims of Lorit in his study of the Latin translations of the Life of Antony is to show the continuity and development of the Latin terms used in monastic writings. It .would seem that his remarks concerning the use and meaning of studium throw light upon the use of studere in the RB. In light of this, when the RB says "monks should study silence at all times" it is using a term (studere) that is recognized as an ascetical term. Thus the desire for and pursuit of silence is part of the ascetic way of life of the monk. Silence has an ascetical dimension. Also, the RB is not refemng to the practice of silence so much as to the desire for and steady application towards it. The emphasis is on the process towards acquiring silence rather than on the actual exercise of silence. With these observations in mind omni tempore silentium debent studere monachi can better be translated as "monks should at all times be striving after silence." Thus the phrase is exhortative rather than legislative. This does not mean that chapter42 does not contain legislation. It surely does. But the legislative specifications flow from the theory contained in the exhortation, and this may explain why the RB uses the term taciturnitas in this context. It has been noted above that the term silentium is restricted to the disciplinary section of the RB while the term taciturnitas is usually found in the theory section or spiritual doctrine section. The RB uses the term taciturnitas here because it is presenting theory as well as disciplinary legislation. Thus one sees the close connection between 4. L Th k Lorik, Spin'tual Terminology in the Lotin Translations of the Vita Antonii Reference to Fourth and Fifth Century Monastic Literature, Nijmegen, Dekker and van de Vegt N. V., 1958, p. 69-70.

Texts in the Discipline Section

51

I lieory and discipline. This of course does not answer the probIcm of inconsistency between theory and practice that has Iwen noted elsewhere. In this case there is consistency between 1 heory and practice, for the legislation follows closely on the I heory. What is the practice legislated for in chapter 42? No one is 1 0 speak after Compline (nulla sit licentia denuo cuiquam lopi aliquid). What does licentia mean? The RB uses this term I hree times.

RB 6.3 Therefore, on account of the great value of silence, let leave to s eak be seldom granted (ram loquendi concedatur l i c e n t d . RB 42.8 Let there be no further permission (licentia) for iinyone to say anything. RB 43.11 Nor let him (who comes late to the Work of God) presume to join the choir until he have done penance, unless the abbot have pardoned him and given him permission (nisi forte abbas licentiam dederit remissione sua). I)om Justin McCann translates this term (licentia) with the meaning of permission. In Latin usage however it means "freedom, liberty, leave to do as one pleases, license."' In particuIiir it can mean the "liberty which one assumes, boldness, presumption." There is no need to understand it as "permission." Ncvertheless, two of the contexts in which the term is used in I he RB indicate that the freedom is granted by a specific commind of the abbot (42.10; 43,ll). In any case, after Compline the monk no longer has freedom to speak. Does this imply that he had freedom to do so beI'ore? This problem is tied up with the problem of freedom to speak in the RB. This has already been discussed at some Irngth. The present passage does not seem to throw any new light upon this question. If the position in the RB is that a ~tionkdoes not speak at all unless he have specific permission, then this text implies that such permission should not be D. Lewis and Short, op. cit., p. 1062 under licentia; Cf. also Forcellini, op. cit., I'ome 111, p. 80-81.

52

Silence

granted after Compline. If the RB allows for free speech during the day hours, as many implications lead one to believe, then this freedom is curtailed after Compline. In either case, silence should reign after Compline. Why is silence so important at night (maxime tamen nocturnis horis)? Monastic tradition may help one answer this question. It may be that night time was the period during which the devil had special powers and roamed freely abroad, but there is n o indication of this theme in the RB. Rather, night was the time for sleep and prayer. Thus silence reigned so that monks who were trying t o sleep and rest would not be disturbed (cf. 48.5). It has been seen that one keeps silence from idle talk in order t o pray (cf 43.8). The monk spent the time after midnight until sunrise in the celebration of vigils (8.2,4). Thus night time was a period for rest and for prayer, not for talking. Although silence after Compline was very important, it could be broken by the arrival of guests or the specific order of the abbot (42.10). Why should the arrival of guests cause the silence t o be broken? When a guest arrived all greeted him, prayed together with him and exchanged the kiss of peace (ch 53 passim). This could hardly be done without conversation, and this fact is alluded t o by the exception to night silencc given here. The important point is that silence after Compline is n o t so absolute that it does not allow for exceptions.

Chapter 48.5, 17-18 5 After the sixth hour, having left the table, let them (thc monks) rest on their beds in perfect silence (cum omni silentio); or if anyone wishes to read by himself, let him read so as not t o disturb the others. 17 But one or two senior monks should certainly be deputed t o go round the monastery at the times when the brethren are occupied in reading 1 8 t o see that there be no slothful brother who spends his time in idleness or gossip (qui uacat otio aut fabulis) and

Text in the Discipline Section

53

neglects the reading, so that he not only does himself harm but also disturbs others. (:li;~pter48 is entitled "Of the Daily Manual Labor." I t legisI,~tcsthe horarium, that is the times for work and for reading. Along with the celebration of the opus det these two occupat i c ms fill the monk's day. The horarium varies according t o the rr;uon. From Easter until the Kalends of October the monks worked from the first t o fourth hour. Then they read from the Iourth t o sixth hour. After dinner and a siesta they worked , ~ ~ i from ~ i n the middle of the eighth hour until Vespers. Thus t lwy spent about six hours in work and at least two in reading. ,411hough the horarium changed at other seasons, the proport ic In of work and reading remained fairly constant. 'I'here are two references to silence in chapter 48. The first trl'crence is obvious since it employs the term silentium. During t l i v siesta monks are t o rest in perfect silence (48.5). Here siIvtice is ordered to the monk's rest. The specification of silence , ~ tthis particular time may imply that at other times silence w;~snot so strictly imposed. 'I'he second reference t o silence does not employ any of the ccx.hnical terms, but silence is implied as the rule during the I itne spent in holy reading. Here silence is for holy reading. The ~ ~ i o nrefrains k from gossip, that is, conversation Cfabula), so ~lii~ het may not disturb others who are trying t o read. Howwcr, is it not possible that during the reading one brother could ,Ink another to explain t o him what he has read? Such a request in not specifically forbidden here as it is during the reading in t l ~ crefectory (38.8). From its condemnation there it would wrcm that such questions are t o be expected and even pennittrd at the proper time and place.

Chapter 52.1-5

I Let the oratory be what its name implies, and let nothing else be done o r kept there.

54

Silence

2 When the Work of God is finished, let all go out in deep silence (cum summo silentio exeunt), and let reverence for God be observed (habeatur reuerentia deo), 3 so that any brother who may wish to pray privately be not hindered by another's misbehaviour. 4 And at other times also, if anyone wish to pray secretly, let him just go in and pray: not in a loud voice (non in clamosa uoce), but with tears and fervor of heart. 5 He, therefore, who does not behave so, shall not be permitted to remain in the oratory when the Work of God is ended, lest he should, as we have said, be a hindrance to another. It has already been noted in 4.51-56 that one of the reasons for silence is so that a monk may give himself frequently to prayer. This is the reason given in chapter 52. Monks are to leave the oratory with the greatest silence (cum summo silentio) so that a brother who wishes to remain there and pray may not be disturbed. And any brother who does stay to pray, or enters at any time for this purpose, is to pray silently (non in clamosa uoce) so that he will not disturb another. Thus it is that silence is for prayer. Note the connection between silence and reverence for God. It will be noted later that a monk is to speak with reverence. Here, however, silence is a manifestation of reverence towards God. Thus whether one speaks or is silent he is to show forth reverence towards God. The important thing is reverence. This can be expressed both in speaking and in silence, but it would seem that the best expression of reverence towards God is silence. PASSING INDICATIONS

There are three further texts that concern silence or the lack of speaking and in none of these texts is the technical terminology of silence employed. Two of the texts belong to the Central Section, that is chapters 31 to 57, but they are treated separately due to their secondary nature. The third text is found in the additions to the RB, that is in chapter 67.

Texts in the Discipline Section

55

Chapter 49 RB 49.7 That is to say, let him (the monk) stint himself of food, drink, sleep, talk (de loquacitate), jesting (de scurrilitate), and look forward with the joy of spiritual longing to the holy feast of Easter. 'I'his text has already been commented on. It is found in the chapter on Lenten observance. Lent is a time for purification and penance (49.2-3). Thus the restriction on the use of the tongue is a sign of penance. Therefore silence takes on much the same characteristics that it had with regard to the excommunicated. It is purifying and penitential. During the Lenten season the monk is to talk and jest less than during the rest of the year, and he is to pray more (49.5). Silence can be seen here again for prayer. True, "the life of the monk ought at all times to be Lenten in its character, but since I'ew have the strength for that . . . ." This statement may give some indication why there is some inconsistency in the teaching on silence in the RB. Lent is a time of greater restraint in the use of the tongue. But the whole life of a monk should be like Lent and therefore be characterized by strict restraint of the tongue among other things. But few have the strength for that and so there is a certain relaxation of the severities of Lenten observance throughout the rest of the year. So too with silence. The ideal would be to keep perfect silence at all times, but since this is severe, and rather impossible, monks can speak to each other. However, during Lent they are encouraged to live as closely to the ideal as is humanly possible. Chapter 5 3 RB 53.23-24 Let no one, without special instructions, associate or converse (societur neque conloquatur) with guests. If he meet or see them, let him greet them humbly (salutatis humiliter), as we have said, and ask a blessing (petita benedictione); then let him pass on, saying that he is not permitted to talk (dicens sibi non licere conloqui) with a guest.

Silence This brief legislation concerning silence with the guests concludes the relatively long chapter 53 "Of the Reception of Guests." It would seem that monks are not to speak to guests at all. However, if one looks a little more closely at the text and the total chapter it will be seen that what is legislated for is protracted conversation with the guests, for the superior and all the brothers meet the guest when he arrives. They pray together and exchange the kiss of peace (53.3-4). Surely this meeting, which is carried out with all charity (cum omni officio caritatis), includes greetings and some verbal exchanges. This seems to be the case as envisaged in 42.10. In the text under consideration (53.23-24)there is also indication that a monk does exchange some words with the guest. He greets him humbly. Earlier the Rule had said concerning this salutation that in it all humility should be shown (53.6: in ipsa autem salutatione omnis exhibeatur humilitas), and this was accomplished by a bow of the head and prostration of the body (53.7). Thus the salutation need not be verbal, but the monk does ask the guest for a blessing and then passes on saying he cannot speak to a guest (53.24). So there is some verbal exchange with the guest. Why were monks not to carry on a conversation with the guest? It may be for the same reason that a monk was not to speak about what he had experienced while outside the monastery (67.4). A guest who had just come from outside would have little to talk about except what he had seen, heard and done outside the monastery. But such stories can cause great harm to a monk who lives a rather enclosed life. They would serve only to distract him and tempt him to give up his way of life. It may also be that silence with regard to the guest is really a sign of reverence for the presence of Christ. It has been noted that silence is a response of reverence to God ( 5 2 . 2 ) .The monk remains silent in the presence of God, and the guest represents Christ in a special way (53.1, 15). In recognition of the special presence of Christ the monk remains silent. But it must be noted that the silence of the monk with regard to the guest is not a haughty and cold silence. It is a silence

Texts in the Discipline Section

57

I hat

must be formed by charity (53.3) and humility (53.6,24). It is a silence that expresses concern and interest and a deep I'aith. Chapter 67 RB 67.5 Nor let anyone presume to tell another what he has seen or heard outside the monastery, because this causes very great harm. 'I'his text has been commented upon a number of times. It scems to indicate that brothers do converse among themselves, hut that in doing so certain topics are forbidden. Thus a monk who has been outside the monastery must keep silence concerning what he has seen or heard.

CHAPTER V

SOME CONCLUSIONS

I

T I S NOW POSSIBLE to present conclusions that can be drawn from the analyses of the preceding chapters. These conclusions are by no means final since it is still necessary to review the teaching concerning silence in the sources of the RB, but they are results of the investigation of the RB as a literary unit. THE DOCTRINE OF SILENCE

When one speaks of the doctrine of silence one is concerned with the theory rather than the actual practice. What meaning does silence play in the spirituality presented by the RB? What is the value of silence in relationship to other values? What is the motivation that underlies the observance of silence? The Rule recognizes that man is naturally inclined to talk and enjoys verbal intercourse. The monk is cautioned against playful talk and useless conversation and is warned against excessive laughter and buffoonery. The monk is reminded of the gravity of monastic life, a gravity which should engender a constant restraint with regard to the use of the tongue. Thus the Rule encourages and values highly the virtue of taciturnity. This evaluation of taciturnity is based on the desire to avoid sin and practice virtue. The monk can hardly hope t o avoid sin if he does not control his tongue. Neither can he realize in

Some Conclusions

59

practice certain virtues unless he observes silence. Although the I
The monk is to love and value silence because by observing it he can avoid the sins of the tongue. These sins are various and the RB does not pretend to list all possible sins that pertain to the use or misuse of the tongue. There is some indication that of the possible sins of the tongue the ones the RB is most concerned with are those which could also be categorized as sins of disobedience and pride. In unrestrained speaking the monk can be disobedient through such things as murmuring and talking back. Speech can also be an expression of pride because the monk wants to show off his knowledge, excuse himself and justify his conduct. To counteract these tendencies and to avoid these vices the monk is to learn to be silent. Thus in silence the monk can realize the virtues of humility and obedience, and because of the virtues of obedience and humility the monk must restrain his speech. The close interconnection between chapters 5 to 7 shows how closely interrelated the three virtues of obedience, silence and humility are. Obedience is one of the primary characteristics of the cenobite. He has placed himself willingly under a rule and an abbot, but in order to obey another one must hear

60

Silence

what he commands. Thus silence is practiced so that one may obey. The monk cannot hope to be obedient unless he has learned how to be silent and listen to the voice of the master. Silence is not only necessary in order for the monk to be obedient, but along with obedience it is an expression of humility. Humility is the all-encompassing virtue, realized through obedience and silence. Silence is closely related to fear of the Lord. This is clear from the motivation for silence in order to avoid sin. The monk keeps silent in order not t o commit sin and offend God. But this fear of sin also has the aspect of reverence and respect for God. The monk remains silent out of respect for God. SILENCE AND COMMUNICATION

Silence for the RB is to be understood in the context of verbal communication. Silence is a lack of speaking, a restraint of the tongue. This restraint of the use of the tongue is related to verbal communication; one keeps silence in order to hear another. The monk is one who listens to the Word of God as it comes to him in Scripture. In order to hear this Word he musc refrain from talking. The monk hears God's Word especially in Scripture, in the opus dei and in holy reading. For this reason these two periods in his daily life are periods of silence from all other communication. Silence is not only the necessary prerequisite so that the monk can hear another communicate,' but it can also be thr response to another who is communicating. After the opus dei the monk leaves the oratory in silent reverence. This is not only so that another monk may communicate with God in private prayer, but is also a response to what has just been communicated. The monk remains silent, trying to absorb what has just transpired. 1. One here thinks of the concept developed by modem psychology of "listening with the third ear." Silence is necessary for a sympathetic openness and under. standing of what the other is trying to say. The listener tries to grasp what the speaker is saying by allowing the speaker's words to penetrate into his inner self. In order to accomplish this a respectful and attentive silence is essential.

Some Conclusions

61

(lhapter 6 "Of Silence" precedes the rather long section in that is concerned with public prayer, that is chapters H to 19. This same progression is found in chapter 4 - silence ,111d then prayer. The block in chapter 4 concerns silence, holy I c;tding2and prayer. These three activities cannot be separated; I llrc prepares for and leads to the other; one encourages, stimuI,~lcsand culminates in the other.

I 11c RB

SILENCE AND PENANCE

In the RB silence occasionally has a penitential aspect. This be noted with regard to the silence imposed on the excomll~unicated.In this case silence is considered as part of the punlnl~mentof the excommunicated and should help lead him to 1cspentance.The penitential aspect of silence is also t o be noted I I I the chapter on Lent. Lent is a period of overcoming vices J I I ~of greater fidelity in virtue; it is a period of repentance. I I I this context the monk is urged to give up talking, that is to Iw silent. I n to

THE PRACTICE OR DISCIPLINE OF SILENCE

Because silence has a value it should be observed. Thus the ItB proceeds to legislate for certain times and places of silence. Ily means of this legislation the RB wants to ensure that the ~ o o dof silence is realized in the daily life of the monk. Most 1 1 1 ' the legislation seems to be concerned with silence as a pre1,cquisitefor listening and so flows from the doctrine of silence which has been characterized above under the heading of silclice and communication. The question of absolute or perlwtual silence will be treated later when the doctrine and ~ ~ ; l c t i are c e shown in more general relationship. 2. The amount of time spent in holy reading depends upon the season of the vru. It would vary From two to four hours. Dom Chapman, St. Benedict, p. 9 2 I I

ornputes how much time a monk would read or hear read in a year's time. He ~~lculatcs 1,265 hours of reading in the year, not counting the lessons at Matins.

62

Silence

The RB establishes times and places of silence. These two categories are not always distinct, for there are times of silence because the monk is in a certain place at that time. On the other hand, a place may be a silent place due to the time during which it is occupied. There are, however, times that are silent times no matter where one is and there are places of silence no matter what time it is. The RB also discusses silence with regard to certain persons. Times of Silence Monks are to be silent from all talk during the celebration of the opus dei. At first sight this may not seem t o be a necessary restriction since all will be at the office. But some may come late or may not be able to come due to work or distance from the oratory, as for instance on a journey. During the time for the office these are to pray where they are. Likewise, the monk who comes late to the Work of God is to enter to join the prayer and not stay outside and talk. All indications point to the fact that during the time of the celebration of the office monks are to keep silence from all talk and use their voices only in praising the Creator. Monks are to be silent during the daily periods of holy readings. This would be a period of silence for at least two hours a day. Further, monks are to remain silent during their meals so that they may listen to the reading. They are also to be silent during the siesta. A special time of silence is the night. After Compline the monk no longer speaks with the freedom that he did so during the day hours. When this period ceases is not specified in the RB. Later monastic tradition ended the night silence with the recitation of Prime, but there is no indication in the RB when the night silence ends. Places of Silence The oratory is a place of silence at all times. The celebration of the opus dei does not break this silence but oral or vocal private prayer would be a violation of silence. At the conclusions of the opus dei all should leave in silence. At any

Some Conclusions

63

time during the day a monk can enter the oratory to pray, but he must do so in silence. The refectory is a place of silence, at least during meals. There is no specification concerning other times. In fact one gets the impression that monks could speak there when meals were not in progress. This impression comes from the warning to the servers not to murmur when they receive their allowance of drink and bread before the meal. Another place of silence is the dormitory. Here again there is no legislation demanding silence in the place as such, but rather it is silence in the dormitory at particular times. During the hours of sleeping at night there would be silence due to the regulation concerning night silence. During the day there would be silence in the dormitory during the siesta. Such specific legislation concerning silence during the siesta may indicate that at other times during the day monks were accustomed to talking in the dormitory. Monks were to keep silence during the time of holy reading. There is no indication in the RB that there was a special place for this reading. It may be that there was a special reading room or cloister, but the Rule gives no details on such a place. Rather, two senior monks are to go around the monastery (48.17: qui circumeant monasterium) to check on the reading. Thus the monastery as a whole was a place of silence during the time for reading. Persons The RB explicitly states that one monk may not speak to another who is excommunicated. And the excommunicated brother may not speak. Also, monks are not to speak to the guests except for a greeting and a request for a blessing. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF SILENCE

Having established the regulations for silence the RB also specifies exceptions to the rule. It is to be noted that there is no exception whatever to the silence that must be main-

64

Silence

t i n e d in the oratory. Even should a monk wish t o pray aloud he may not d o so there. The oratory is a place of absolute silence at all times. The dormitory is a place of absolute silence during the period of siesta. No exception is made t o this rule and should a monk wish to read he must d o so in such a manner that he does not disturb those trying t o rest. The silence after Compline can be broken for two reasons: if it is necessary because of the arrival of guests or if the abbot give someone an order. Thus one cannot speak of night silence as an absolute. It can be broken for the sake of charity towards the guests and by the abbot's command. The silence in the refectory during meals may be broken by the superior for the sake of edification. Thus it is n o t absolute but admits an exception. The silence imposed upon the excommunicated can be broken by wise seniors sent t o console the excommunicated brother. From the indications given in the RB it would thus seem that a silence that allows for no exceptions is t o be observed in the oratory at all times. It is t o be observed during the time of the opus dei and during holy reading periods. All other places and times of silence allow for exceptions t o be made. ADJECTIVES MODIFYING SILENTIUM

The RB uses the adjective summum two times t o qualify silence:

RB 38.5 And let there be the greatest silence (summum fiat silentium), so that no whisper, and n o voice but the reader's, may be heard there (i.e. in the refectory at meals). RB 52.2 When the Work of God is finished, let all go out in deep silence (cum summo silentio), and let reverence for God be observed. The RB uses the adjective omne once t o qualify silence:

RB 48.5 Let them rest on their beds in perfect silence (cum omni silentio).

Some Conclusions

65

In the fourth use of silentium in the RB no qualifying adjecI ive is used. This is the silence after Compline ( 4 2 . 1 ) . 'The RB seems t o indicate a difference in the seriousness of silence by means of the qualifying adjectives. The least serious or important is the night silence which can be broken for the sake of charity towards the guests and at the abbot's command. More serious is the silence during the siesta. It can be broken only by one who wishes t o read. This reading is probably audible, but it must be so restrained as not t o disturb those who ;Ire trying to rest. The most serious is that in the refectory during the meals and the silence of the oratory. The first allows I'or an exception, that is the superior may break the silence t o cwmment on the reading. But no one else may break this siIcnce. The silence in the oratory allows for n o exception whatever, not even for private prayer if it is audible.

PUNISHMENT FOR BREAKING SILENCE

RB 24.1 The measure of excommunication and punishment should be proportioned to the gravity of the fault (secundum modum culpae). According t o this passage the seriousness of a fault can be determined by its proportionate punishment. The term grauis is used two times in the RB t o specify the category of a fault.

RB 25.1 The brother who is guilty of a graver fault (p-auioris culpae) shall be excluded from the table and from the oratory. RB 44.1 Let this be the rule for one who for a serious fault (pro grauibus culpis) is excommunicated from oratory and table. 'I'hese serious faults which excluded the culprit from table and I'rom oratory are distinct from lesser faults (24.3: leuioribus culpis) which exclude the culprit only from the common table. Are there any examples in the RB which will give some idea of

Silence what graver and lesser faults may be? The term grauis is used two times to specify a category of punishment and thus gives some idea of the seriousness of the faults. RB 42.9 Severe punishment shall be accorded to anyone who is found to infringe this rule of silence (quod si inuentus fuerit quisquam praeuaricare hanc taciturnitatis regulam, grabi uindictae subiaceat). RB 55.17 If any brother be found to have anything that he has not received from the abbot, let him undergo the strictest punishment (et si cui inuentum fuerit quod ab abbate non accepit, grauissimae disciplinae subiaceat). Note the similarity of construction and terminology in these two passages. The rule of silence after Compline, if broken, merits severe punishment (grabi uindictae). The rule of no private property if broken merits the strictest punishment (grauissimae disciplinae). It is obvious that failures against poverty are far more serious than failures against silence, even night silence. This is not to say that breaking silence is a lesser fault spoken of in 24.3. It would seem that breaking the rule of silence at night is a graver fault and would exclude the culprit from meals and from common prayer. Such a punishment indicates the gravity of the fault. Thus the gravity (grauitas) of silence can possibly be explained in relation to its punishment (6.3: propter taciturnitatis grauitatem). It is quite serious to be excluded from the table and from choir and to be cut off from all fraternal dialog. But it must be emphasized that the RB considers the radical self-dispossession of the monk far more important than the keeping of silence. The monk's denial of personal property is a once-for-all act and is essential to authentic monasticism. But silence is a habit that is acquired and strengthened throughout the monk's life. It is not an absolute which knows no exceptions. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE

The conclusions concerning the teaching and practice of silence in the RB would not be complete without some comment

Some Conclusions

67

on the question of inconsistency in the doctrine of the RB. It has been noted on occasion that the first part of the Rule, the theory section, seems to demand a more severe silence than is implied in the latter part of the Rule, that is the discipline ucction. The theory seems to say that a monk should not speak unless he has permission. He is to avoid all laughter and jestiug. He is not to speak unless spoken to. But there are many indications in the discipline section that monks conversed freely among themselves. Is there then an inconsistency between r heory and practice with regard to silence? It has been noted that the RB was probably composed over a period of time. The author mitigated in the latter part of the Rule some of what he had expressed in the first part. This was noted with regard to obedience. It has also been noted that the author changes his mind with regard to the establishment of a provost (ch 65). This would replace the organizational structure based on deans (ch 21). The treatment of the abbot itself is softened as can be noted by comparing chapter 2 and 64. Thus it should not be surprising that in the teaching on silence there also be found a certain mitigation. The rather severe theory of the earlier part of the Rule is softened by the more understanding practice as found implied in the latter part of the Rule. In the first part of the Rule silence seems absolute. In the second part there are indications that free conversation was permitted. Whatever the solution may be it does seem at this point that there is a difference between the theory of silence as presented in the Rule and its practice, in so far as the theory seems to demand a stricter silence than practice actually allows for. How ever, if one considers the doctrine as outlined above in the conclusions, then there is no real inconsistency for the practice of silence flows from the doctrine and tries to realize it. It would seem that the RB accepted the fact that monks were social human beings who needed to interreact and communicate. Thus the RB foresaw that there would be intercourse and conversation. But human nature being what it is monks can become too talkative, indulging in idle talk just for the

68

Silence

fun of it. For this reason the Rule specifically warns against idle talk, scurrility and buffoonery. And in order to ensure that monks would have the leisure and quiet necessary t o pray, to read and t o rest, the RB legislates for times and places of silence. What is noteworthy is that the Rule does not establish places and times for talking. The attitude that seems t o be presented by the RB is that conversation and social interaction is the general rule except at specific times and in specific places where silence is legislated for. Granted, when one considers the amount of time spent at the opus dei and in daily reading, certainly periods of silence, there does not seem t o be much time left during the day for free conversation. But this would mean that during the hours of work, between six t o eight hours a day depending on the season, monks could associate and converse with each other. But this must not be misunderstood. It does not mean that the monks could recreate during work. There is no indication in the RB of recreation as it is known in later tradition. The concept of recreation seems t o be dependent upon an attitude towards silence that is not found in the RB. The concept of recreation depends upon a view of silence that is t o be enforced and kept at all times. It suggests that silence is the general rule during the day except at specific times when the rule of silence is relaxed and the monks can recreate and speak t o each other. Thus one can postulate two differing views. The first view is that monks are free t o converse and associate with each other according t o the norms of social intercourse, except at specified times and in specified places where silence is legislated for. The second view considers silence t o be the general rule. Monks are t o be silent at all times except when the rule is relaxed out of necessity or out of concern for the weakness of human nature. Thus periods of talking and recreation are legislated for. From all indications the first view seems t o be that of the RB. Further analysis will show that the RB is quite concerned about the manner in which a monk speaks. It is this teaching on how t o speak which indicates thc relative freedom of conversation according t o the RB at times and places not specified as times and places of silence.

PART TWO

THE RULE OF THE MASTER

CHAPTER V1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RULE O F THE MASTER AND T H E RULE O F BENEDICT

T

HIS PART CONCERNS the Rule of the Master, its teaching on silence, and its relationship to the Rule of Benedict. The Rule of the Master'is considered the prirnary literary source for the RB and is peculiarly related to it. lkcause of the unique nature of the relationship between the two Rules, the Rh4 is treated independently of the other sources which will be discussed in Part Three. The so-called Rule of the Master (Regula Magistri) is an ancient monastic rule. Its date and locality of origin as well as its authorship are quite mysterious and the object of much dehate. This debate will be surveyed below. The text of the Rh4 is found in Benedict of Aniane,~Concordia RegulammZ and likewise in his Codex R e g u l a r ~ r n .A~ diplomatic edition was published in 19534 which is the basis for the text published by Adalbert de VogiiC in the series Sources ChrCtiennes.'

l. Referred to usually as RM. 2. P.L 103, c c 713-1380. 3. Edited by Lucas Holstenius, Rome, 1661; third edition with observations by Marianus Brockie, Augsbourg, 1759; this has been republished in Graz, 1957-58. 'I'he Codex is found in P.L. 103 and the RM is noted in c. 574, but the text is not given. Rather, it is found in P.L. 88, cc. 943-1052. 4. La Regle du Mazbe, Edition diplomatigue des manuscrits Latins 12205 et 12634 de Pans, by H. Vanderhoven and F. Masai with the collaboration of P.B. Corbett, Bruxelles, Aux Editions "Erasme," 1953,339 p. 5. A. de VogiiC, La Rkgle du Maitre. I and 11. Sources ChrCtiennes 105 and 106, Paris, Cerf, 1964, 453 p. and 520 p. An English translation of this will be found in Volume Six of the Cistercian Studies Series.

Silence The RM is relatively quite extensive. It is three times the length of the RB and is the longest rule in the ~?inth-century collection of ancient monastic rules made by Benedict of Aniane. The RM has no title as such and was called the Rule of the Master by Benedict of Aniane because of the literary device according t o which the majority of the title headings of the chapters take the form of questions, either direct or indirect. "It is this convention of course which gave its accepted title t o the Regula MagistriV6 The RM is a true rule of life and embraces the total existence, material and spiritual, of the monastic community and the individual monk.' Composed of a Prolog and ninety-five chapters it contains spiritual doctrine, legislation for and description of monastic institutes. One of its most striking characteristics, when compared with other ancient monastic rules, is its apparently well-planned order and the methodical organization of its contents.' The Rh4 is divided into two parts, the spiritual doctrine section, the prolog to chapter 10, and the discipline section, chapter 11 to 95. This distinction is made by the author of the RM himself at the beginning of chapter 11, where he states that in what has preceded he has established the acts of justice (actus iustitiae . . . ordinauit), that is the spiritual life. With chapter 11 he opens the second part of the Rule, the ordo monasterii, which regulates the daily life and the organization of the monastery. These two parts of the RM are distinct but inseparable. The discipline section flows from and is a consequence of the spiritual doctrine. Throughout the entire RM there is an amazing coherence and logical development. It is not necessary to present here a detailed summary of the plan and composition of the RM. However, it will be useful to indicate briefly the logical progression of the contents of part 6. P. B. Corbett, The Lotin of the Regula Magistn; Louvain, Publications Universitaires, 1958, p. 149. 7. de Vogiit, La R2gfe I, p. 9. 8. Ibid., p. 169. 9. For an excellent presentation of the plan and composition of the Rh4 see de Vogiit, ibid., p. 169-178.

The Relationship Between the RM and the RB

73

The Prolog presents the Rule as the Word of God and the code for following the narrow path. Chapter 1 defines the cenobite as one who lives under a rule and an abbot and distinguishes him from other types of monks. Chapter 2 then discusses the abbot under whom the cenobite has placed the direction of his life. Chapters 3 to 6 present the doctrine that is taught by the abbot to the monks. Then three of the virtues of monastic asceticism are treated in more detail in chapters 7 to 10. Thus ends the first section of the RM, the spiritual doctrine section which is bound together by the abbot's function to teach, that is to be doctor and master. Chapter 11 follows quite logically. The provosts of the monastery are chosen by the abbot and two are placed over every ten monks. Their function is to see to it that the teaching of the abbot is put into practice by the monks. But since monks are human they will surely fail at times in living according to the doctrine taught them by the abbot. Thus follows a section on disciplinary sanctions, chapter 12 and 13, and on how an excommunicated brother does penance and is reconciled, chapter 14. If one follows the remainder of the RM it is quite obvious that one chapter follows another in fairly logical sequence, one point preparing for the next, one point elaborating on the preceding. It is hard to doubt that the RM is a well composed literary unit. There are some insertions into the overall plan, but in general the chapters follow each other in a recognizable plan. When was this Rule written, where, and by whom? These are questions that are still debated by scholars. These questions lead one right into the dispute concerning the relationship between the RM and the RB. The similarity between the RM and the RB has been recognized for centuries. The two Rules contain word for word parallel passages, especially in the first section or spiritual doctrine section, that is RM Prolog to chapter 10 and RB Prolog to chapter 7. The basic structure of the two Rules is quite similar. Even when there are no word-for-word parallels, the doctrine and legislation contained in the two Rules reflect each other.

74

Silence

The RM consists of ninety-five chapters, the RB of seventythree. But chapter 95 of the RM concerns the porters of the monastery, just as does chapter 66 of the RB. This is of interest since most scholars maintain that the earlier redaction of the RB ended with chapter 66, chapters 67 and 73 being added later on as an appendix. In spite of the overwhelming similarities between the two Rules there are quite noticeable differences. The RM is three times as long as the RB; it is much more wordy. The author of the RM is given to theological speculation and elaborate development of apoint. The liturgical practices of the two Rules show great differences. The RM loves ritual and spends a lot of time in describing minute details, as for instance with regard to eating and to reconciliation. The author of the RM and the author of the RB can hardly be the same person for there are too many differences in tone in the two Rules, but it is obvious that there is a close relationship. It is highly suspected that one Rule depended upon the other in its composition. One Rule used the other as a literary source, changing and expanding or eliminating certain sections, omitting others, adding still others. Only such an explanation could explain the close similarity and the word-for-word parallels. The traditional and unsophisticated explanation for this relationship was that the RM was an eighth or ninth century elaborated commentary on the RB. This explanation rested on the fact that the first documentary witness to the existence of the RM was in the collections of Benedict of Aniane. There is no historical reference to this Rule before that time although now it has been determined that the earliest manuscripts of the RM precede Benedict of Aniane and are older than any extant manuscripts of the RB. The oldest manuscript of the RB is that of Oxford which dates from about 700 A.D. The oldest complete manuscript of the RM dates from the end of the sixth century or the beginning of the seventh.'' Extracts from the RM are found in an even more ancient manuscript 10. F. Masai, h Rhgie du Maitre, Edition diplomatique, p. 59-60.

The Relationship Between the RM and the R B

75

which dates from the end of the sixth century." But the manuscript tradition of the two Rules does not solve the question of interdependence. In 1937, at the International Congress of Benedictine abbots held in Rome, the French monk Dom A. Genestout orally presented his thesis that the Rh4 was prior to the RB and was the primary source for much of the RB, especially the Prolog and the first seven chapters. A few years later he presented his t h e sis in print.'12This thesis began the debate that was to last for years and to produce over a hundred articles concerning the relationship between the two Rules.13 There is no need to pre sent here the details of the debate. Various solutions have been offered with regard t o the relationship between the RM and the KB. In treating of this problem the question of the date of origin, locality and authorship of the RM has been discussed and many solutions have been presented. The question of origin, date and authorship are closely related to the question of interdependence. If the RM is dated earlier than the RB then it can be considered the source for the RB. If the Rh4 is dated later than the RB, then the RM depends upon the RB as a source. If the place of origin can be determined for the Rh4 it may be relatively simple t o establish the author. On the other hand, if the author can be determined, the place and date of origin will be fairly easily established. It is not the present intention to go into details of the various positions and the arguments for each of them. It may he helpful to summarize the solutions in general categories. With regard to authorship, some scholars hold that Benedict l l. A. Genestout, "Le plus ancien tkmoin de la RM, le Par. Lat. 12634," in Sc* torium I, 1946-47, p. 139; F. Masai, op. cit., p. 59. 12. A. Genestout, "La dglc du Maiire et la rigle de Saint Benoit," in Revue d'accitique et de mystique 21, 1940, p. 51-112. 13. For a bibliography of the pertinent articles between 1938 and 1957 sec G r c r(orio Penco, S Benedicti Reguh Introduzione, Testo. Apporati, 7hduzione e Corn mento, Fircnze, "La NuovaItalia" Editrice, 1958, p. xi-xviii For a good annotated bibliography of these articles see 0. Zimmermann, "An unsolved problem: The Rule of Saint Benedict and the Rule of the Master," in The American Benedictine Review 10, 1959, p. 86-106. For an analysis and summary of the debate up t o 1962 see D. Knowles, "The Regula Magistri and the Rule of St. Benedict," in Great Historical Enterprises: Problems in Monastic History, Edinburgh, Nelson, 1963, p. 139-195.

Silence himself may have been the author of the RM.14 Dom M. Cappuyns maintains that the author of the Rh4 is the sixth-century contemporary of Benedict, Cassiodor~s.'~ P. Blanchard suggests that Columbanus wrote the RM at Bobbio early in the seventh-century.16J. Perez de Urbel concludes that the author of the Rm was the seventh-century Spaniard John of Biclaro." None of these solutions has received acceptance by the other known scholars in the field and have been proven unfounded. Indeed some are shown to be wrong by the antiquity of the earliest manuscripts. According to the majority of scholars the author of the RM remains anonymous. With regard to place of origin, there are three places that merit the most attention. According to Corbett, it is either Spain or Southern Gaul." He opts for Southern Gaul, probably around Mar~eilles.'~ Adalbert de Voguk, probably the most competent scholar at present on the RM, locates the Rh4 in the environs of Rome in Italy.'' Most scholars accept either Corbett's or de Vogiid's localization for both present good arguments for their position. The present author accepts de Vogiid's position. The date of the RM is highly disputed. Generally, most scholars now date it in the sixth century in view of the antiquity of the extant manuscripts. The dispute concerns whether it should be placed earlier or later in that century. If the RM is the source for the RB then it must be earlier than the RB. If 14. 0. Zimmermann, "The Regula Magistri: the primitive Rule of St. Benedict," in The American Benedictine Review 1. 1950, p. 11-36; J. Froger, "La Rkgle du Maitre et les sources du monachisme binedictin," in Revue d'ascitique et de my.$ tique 30, 1954. p. 275-288. 15. M. Cappuyns, "L'auteur de la Regula Magistri: Cassiodore," in Recherches de thtologie ancienne et midiivale 15, 1948, p. 209-268. 16. P. Blanchard, "La rhgle du Mdtre et la rkgle de saint Benoit." in Revue binPdictine 60, 1950. p. 25-64. 17. J. Perez de Urbel, "El Maestro, San Benito, y Juan Biclarense," in Hispania I. 1940, p. 7-42. 18. P. B. Corbett, "The Regula Magistri and some of its Problems," in Studio Patristica I , Berlin, 1957, p. 84. 19. P. B. Corbett, The Latin of the Regulo Magistri, p. 133 and 141. 20. de Vogiit, Lo R?gle I, p. 233.

The Relationship Between the RM and the R B

77

the RB is the source for the RM then the RM must be later. But it is the dating of the RM that will determine this relationship. Vandenbroucke claims that the RM was written between 555 and 575." Needless to say he holds the priority of the KB over the RM. In the same article he shows that what is common to both the RM and the RB, what he calls S, must have been written between 513 and 520.22 His arguments for this are based on the use of sources and are quite convincing. Using Vandenbroucke's dating of S and considering that the RM is a literary unit the entire RM could be dated sometime around 520. Of course this is in opposition to Vandenbroucke's thesis iind he would not agree with it since his point is that the RM shows signs of being a hiterogeneous composition. But de VogiiC has shown the unity of the RM in spite of the apparent interpolations and traces of subsequent red action^.'^ After a detailed analysis of style, language and use of sources de Vogiit cwncludes that the RM was written in the first quarter of the sixth century.24 This would be in basic agreement with the cwnclusion of Vandenbroucke concerning the part common to the RB and the RM. It is safe to conclude with de VogiiC I herefore that the RM was written before the RB and is used I)y the latter as a source. There is no need to summarize the various opinions concerning the relationship between the RM and the RB. The best hypothesis is that the RM is prior to and the source for the RB. 'I'his hypothesis has gained much ground in the past few years ;ts it has been applied to interpreting the RB. Gregorio Penco used this hypothesis in his commentary on the RB." AdalIm-t de Vogiit has used it with obvious success in his extensive sr udy on the abbot and the community in the RB.'~ It is on the basis of this hypothesis that the RM is considered 21. F. Vandenbroucke, "Sur le sources de La rkgle bknkdictine et de la Regula Magistri." in Revue binidictine 62, 1952, p 271. 22. Ibid., p. 236. 23. de VogiiC, La R2gle I, p. 178-195 and 200-206. 24. Ibid.. p. 233. 25. Penco, op. cit. 26. A. de Vogiik. The Community and the Abbot in the Rule of St. Benedict. Spencer, Cistercian Publications. 1973. 2 vols.

78

Silence

as a source for the RB in this thesis. As an immediate source for the RB, the RM's teaching on silence will throw light on that doctrine in the RB. Even should the hypothesis of the RM be found untrue with further study, which is indeed very unlikely, the great similarity between the RM and RB, especially in the spiritual doctrine section, suggests that a study of silence in the RM will throw light on the doctrine of silence in the RB. As Dom Justin McCann says in the Introduction to his edition and English translation of the RB:

As has been said already, this debate (i.e. concerning the relationship between RM and RB) is not yet concluded. Although, for myself, I believe that the Master's Rule is the work of a later writer, working upon the text of the Regula Monachorum, yet I do not wish to press this view upon my readers. What I should like to do is to persuade them that in any case - whatever be the issue of the debate - the Master's Rule has in regard of St. Benedict's a twofold value: (1) when the exact relationship of the two Rules to each other has been determined, new light may be thrown upon the early history of St. Benedict's Rule; (2) and, even now, before that relationship has been determined, the Master's Rule cannot fail to assist us in the interpretation of St. ~enedict's.~' With the profound studies of de VogiiC the debate is fairly well concluded although it must be admitted that there are those who still hold to the thesis of the priority of the RB to the RM. For those who do so, the statement of Dom McCann is in place. The present writer holds the priority of the RM. With this in mind, it is now time to give a survey of the RM's teaching on silence.

27. McCann, The Rule of St. Benedict, p. xx-xxi.

CHAPTER V11

T H E RULE O F THE MASTER ON SILENCE

T

HE TEACHING ON SILENCE in the RM can be distinguished into the categories of doctrine and practice. It is the purpose of this section to present a survey I ,S the doctrine. The practical applications of this doctrine will Iw summarized in the following section.

THE CONTEXT OF THE DOCTRINE

'I'he doctrine concerning silence in the RM is part of the toteaching on asceticism or the spiritual life. This doctrine In Sound especially in the first section of the Rule, the spiritual tloctrine section, that is, the Prolog to chapter 10. But there .Ire important aspects of doctrine throughout the entire Rule. 'l'hus one cannot restrict oneself merely to the Master's elabot.i~iionin section one of his Rule for an overall view of his docI rine concerning silence. However, this first section is the most ttnportant, for it explicitly treats of the ascetical life and elab#,ratesand develops the doctrine pertaining to it. 'I'he treatment of silence in the RM is only part of a much I ; ~ r ~doctrine er on asceticism. The Master presents a well-devel1q)cd theory of asceticism.' The fundamental view of the MasI(-r'sspirituality is that the monk avoid sin and fulfil1 the will 1;11

I . For a comprehensive survey of the RM's doctrine sec A. de VogiiC. La R?gle I, 11. 87-123; see also F. Cavallera, "La R e y l a Magistri: sa doctrine spiritulle," in ReIWV

d'ascitique et mystique 20, 1939, p. 337-368.

Silence

of God so that he may attain eternal life.' This negative and positive aspect of the same view unifies his entire doctrine. The monk must always be on guard lest he sin and offend God and thus lose the heavenly reward. In order to fulfil1 God's will the monk is obedient to the abbot (ch 2) who teaches the way of life, that is, the spiritual art (ch 3). The monk realizes this spiritual art by practicing virtue (ch 4) and avoiding vice (ch 5). Among the virtues t o be especially practiced are humility, obedience and silence (4.3).3 These virtues correspond to vices which are to be destroyed in the furnace of the fear of God, namely pride, disobedience and much talking (5.2). The Master lists other virtues to be practiced and vices to be destroyed, but he singles out these three for more thorough treatment. Thus he develops the virtue of obedience in chapter 7, silence in chapters 8 and 9, and humility in chapter 10. It would seem that of all the virtues these three are the most important as the basis of monastic spirituality or asceticism. The Master's explicit treatment of silence is relatively long and complex. The two chapters (cc 8 and 9) which treat silence are together longer than the chapter on obedience (ch 7) and are about the same length as the chapter on humility (ch 10). Chapter 8 concerns silence itself and places it in the context of man's struggle against sin. Chapter 9 gives directions on how to break silence. Chapter 8 presents some of the anthropology of the Master. The soul of man lives in the body as a sword does in its sheath. The Master develops this idea with the image of a tree. The root of man's life is his heart. From this root two branches reach up and to the outside of man. The eyes are one branch, the mouth the other. Through the eyes the soul looks out 2. Cf. de VogiiC, La Rkgk I, p. 97: "Fuu le p6chC pour hiter la gihenne, accomplir la volontC de Dieu pour obteni la g l o k Ctemelle: tel est donc, sous r s deux aspects, nigatif et positif, le concept fondamentd qui confhre son unit6 B tout cc trait6 spirituel. I1 pourra d'ailleurs sembler que I'accent est mis le plus souvent sur le moment dgatif. West-cc pas surtout d'hiter le pCchC qu'il s'agit? " S. The references to the text of the RM will be indicated in this manner throughout this study. They correspond to the versification established in A. de VogiiC'n edition of the RM,La Rkgle du Mahse I and 11, SC 105, 106.

The Rule of the Master on Silence

81

11pon the world. Through the mouth the soul emits sounds into the external world. It is through these two branches that rvil can infect the soul. Therefore the monk must keep guard over his eyes lest anything evil enter into the heart and pollute lie soul. And he must guard his tongue lest any evil that has Iwen conceived in his heart be emitted to the outside. In order I O control internal thoughts, God and nature have equipped Illan with a gate, the mouth, and a bar, the teeth, which should I)c closed and kept under surveillance. Thus evil thoughts rising up internally will find no escape but will be turned back at the I'ortifications of the mouth and teeth and so be returned to [lie heart where they will be dashed to pieces. 'I'herefore a monk keeps constant guard over his thoughts, words and sight lest he sin and offend God and so bring zbout his own destruction. He even refrains from good words lest he Iw easily betrayed into evil speech by a lack of control over Ibis mouth. A perfect monk, one who has control over thoughts, words and sight, is rarely granted permission to speak. In much tillking one can hardly avoid sin. Indeed, monks should be d e n t until their tongue is loosened by the interrogation of I he abbot. Ilaving established that the perfect monk does not speak until questioned by the abbot, the Master proceeds to chapter !) in which it is legislated that a monk may speak only when Ilc obtains permission to do so. Silence keeps the monk from ~ o o dand from bad speech. The only way this silence can be Ibroken is by the monk asking for permission to speak, or beI-itusehe has been questioned by the abbot. The Master then ~wesentsthe ritual for asking permission to speak. This will I)c considered below in the section on practice. The Master c,ontinueschapter 9 with reflections on the purpose of silence. l lis primary concern is to avoid sin and thus to escape from I~cll.He also makes a distinction between perfect and imperlcct disciples. This distinction applies to the practice of silence. I t is to be noted that throughout chapters 8 and 9 doctrine md practice are interwoven. However, for the sake of analysis it seems best to treat these two aspects separately. 'I'he Master's treatment of silence is part of his ascetical doc-

Silence

82

trine, of the monk's constant struggle against sin and his efforts to fulfil1 the will of God. In this context silence is closely associated with the virtues of obedience and humility and cannot be separated from them. This close interconnection of the three virtues is found in 4.3 and in the three opposing vices listed in 5.2. This interrelationship is even more evident when one considers the internal connections that bind together chapter 7 to 10.4 The connection between obedience, silence and humility is most clearly manifest in chapter 10 where the Master treats of obedience in the second to fourth degrees of humility, silence in the ninth to eleventh, and humility in the fifth to seventh.' REASONS FOR SILENCE

To Avoid Sin and Practice Virtue, that is, for God The purpose for silence is explicitly stated by the Master when he puts in the mouth of the silent monk the response to the question: "Why are you silent and sad and walking with a bowed head? " (9.23). The monk responds: "Because I am fleeing from sin and fear God and I guard myself from all that God hates. For this reason I am always cautious." (9.24). From this question and response one learns the motivation for monastic silence. It is negative and positive. It is to avoid sin as well as to express one's fear of God. Immediately before this question and answer the Master has commented on the monk's need to show by outward signs his humility, stating that no matter where he is the monk should have the memory of God always in his mind (9.22). The motivation for silence in order to avoid sin is reiterated by the Master on various occasions throughout his Rule. The monk is to keep silence from good words for the sake of silence. How much more is he to keep silence from evil words on ac4. For an excellent and detailed analysis of these four chapters see de VogiiC, The Community . De VogiiC is concerned especially with obedience but his investigation shows that this block of chapters is a close unit. 5. de VogiiC, La R+e I, p. 95.

.. .

The Rule of the Master on Silence

83

of the punishment due t o sin ( 8 . 3 2 ) .He keeps silence t o I'rce from sin, because he fears the perpetual fire of hell and wvks for the eternal riches of immortal life ( 9 . 4 1 ) .Thus in tllis observance of silence he never forgets God and seeks t o w ) i d the vices of the mouth (9.47).So at all times the monk kwpsguard over his speech and does not allow sins of the t1111~ue (50.24). T o keep silence is therefore the same as not (50.23). s1111iing I I' the negative aspect of the monk's motivation for silence I& n o that he may avoid sin, this motivation can be stated posit~vrly.Silence is observed in order t o practice virtue. Thus it 1 4 I O he noted that silence is associated with many other virtues I I I the RM. Silence can be the manifestation, the expression I I realization of various virtues. 'I'l~cclose connection between silence and humility is noted 111 4.3 where virtues t o be practiced are listed. This same conI I W I ion is expressed in 5.2 concerning vices that are t o be deu t I c )yed. The close interconnection between silence and hu1111li1y is also t o be noted in the position of chapters 8 and 9 I I I llic literary unit of chapters 7 t o 10. And chapter 10 on huI I I I I ~ yI explicitly treats silence in degrees nine to eleven of the L~tltlcrof humility. This close association of humility and siII.II(.C is frequently and clearly expressed in chapter 9 . The I I I I I I ~who ~ wishes t o speak stands before the superior "with I I I N hcad bowed humbly" (9.3; cf. 9.20) and asks for permis'411111 to speak. Should he not receive permission he returns t o 1113work behaving as a man ofsilence. In a silence which is the W I I I I C as humility (9.9: in ipsa humilitate taciturnitatis) he Q I I I luld consider himself unworthy to speak, or that the silence I I W been imposed upon him as a trial t o discover his humility ( ' ) . U - 10,14).Silence is thus for the Master an expression of hu~l~ility, a manifestation of it, a realization of it. If the monk c l ~ c ~ lspeak, d even in this he manifests his humility by the Ill,lliner in which he speaks, that is slowly (9.43).But the bett 1 . 1 expression of humility is silence. Silence associated with 1111lliility is also found in the same context with reverence ( 5 0 . I .I ). I'hc virtue of obedience, as has been noted, is closely related

I

I I I I I ~ ~

111.

I

84

Silence

to the virtues of humility and silence. The connection between silence and obedience will be noted again later. Closely associated with these concepts is the idea of reverence. In chapter 7 , on obedience, it is stated that i n principle the disciple responds immediately to the voice of the Master who gives him a command or asks him a question. But such swift obedience can only be expected of the perfect disciples who are few in number (7.10). For many, the Master may have to repeat his command. But this need to repeat t h e command or to ask the disciple to do something should not b e misunderstood. Silence on the part of the disciple may well be a sign of reverence for the Master and in no way a sign of disobedience (7.16-19). Silence and reverence seem to be equated where the abbot, his bed placed in the middle of the dormitory, keeps a watch on all the brothers, considering the silence and reverence of all (29.4). In the presence of the abbot during work hours, the monks are to show humility, silence and reverence (50.44). When brothers are on a journky they can converse as they travel along (56.9-10). When it comes time for the opus dei they are to keep silence out of reverence for the Work of God (56. 2). Thus silence and reverence are shown to be intimately connected in the RM. Silence is an expression of reverence and can be motivated out of reverence. Silence is specified by gravity. The monk refrains from good words for the sake of silence and gravity, that is for the sake of silence which is synonymous with gravity (8.33: propter taciturnitatis grauitatem). That gravity can carry the connotation of silence is found in 50.22 where the brothers have accomplished their work with gravity, that is silently. Silence and gravity are even equated with the cause of God, that is they pertain to or belong to God (84.2). I t is to be noted that elsewhere gravity is defined as without laughter but rather with a consciousness of sin ( 1 1.76). Thus gravity is opposed t o all levity ( 1 1.86; 92.22). Finally, silence is related to gentleness and to charity ( 1 1. 7 0 ) . It is also associated with peace. The monastery should be a place of silence and peace, not a place of anger and noisy shouting ( 21.14).

The Rule of the Master on Silence

85

From this brief summary it can be seen that silence is not 111crelyto avoid sin, the negative aspect of the Master's ascetI I . ; ~ doctrine. Silence is also practiced in order to realize virtue. 'I'hus silence is associated with humility, obedience, reverence, ~(ravity,gentleness, charity and peace. Silence can realize these virtues, manifest them as well as support them. This leads to I Ilc further idea expressed by the RM. Silence in order to avoid nin and practice virtue is observed for the sake of God. To keep silence in order to avoid sin and to practice virtue is really to keep silence for God. This is because sin separates I'rom God while virtue expresses one's attachment t o God and nubmission to his will. Therefore the Master imposes silence so I hat the monk may never be deceived by forgetfulness, but Inay always keep the precepts of God with regard to his tongue. 'I'hat is to say, the Master imposes silence for God (9.27-29). 'I'he monk keeps silence from good as well as evil words for ( h d (9.47). Thus silence which is the same as gravity is praciced for the purpose of God (84.3). Silence and Listening Another motivation for silence is for the purpose of listening. 'I'his motivation is closely related to the motivation which has Iwen discussed above. The monk listens to the Master and to holy reading in order to avoid sin by the practice of submission to the teaching of the Master, that is by obedience. Therefore the monk keeps silence in order to be able to be obedient and lhus practice virtue. The Master is the teacher of the way to perfection. He teaches the commands of the Lord and leads the disciple in the path of virtue. In order for the disciple to hear the Master's instructions the disciple must be silent. It is the role of the Master to speak and so to teach. It is the place of the disciple to keep silence and to listen (8.37). The disciple keeps silence even from good words because it is the place of the Master to teach doctrine, not the disciple (9.38). The disciple listens to the Master's doctrine in silence, and having heard it puts it into practice by his deeds (11.53). Thus it is seen that silence is essentially re-

86

Silence

lated t o obedience. The disciple can only fulfil1 the commands and realize the teaching of the Master if he has heard what the Master has said. Thus silence is necessary for obedience. During the hours of work one of the monks reads to the others while they work. Thus during work the monks are t o be silent in order t o listen t o reading (50.29). They keep silence from evil and listen to the good words of the reading, and thus they avoid sin. So it is to be noted that this purpose of silence, that is to hear the reading, is intimately related t o the motivation characterized as avoidance of sin. Silence is also kept during work so that the monks may meditate on the psalms or think about Scripture (50.24-26, 41-43). Thus silence from evil words is prescribed lest the monk sin with his tongue (50.24), and in order t o keep free from such sin the monk occupies his thoughts with Scripture. It is t o be noted that should the abbot be absent the monk may question another about the divine precepts o r he may say something edifying about God. Such questions and edifying remarks are probably stimulated by the reading that the monk is listening to while he works. Thus it is seen that the motivation for silence that can be categorized as listening is closely related to the motivation which stems from a desire to avoid sin and t o practice virtue. Silence for the Sake of Silence The Master gives a third motivation for the practice of silence. The monk refrains from bad words t o avoid the punishment due to sin. He refrains from good words for the sake of silence (8.32-35). This is not so redundant as it appears at first glance. The Rh4 really says that the monk keeps silence because of taciturnity and gravity, that is because of the seriousness with which a monk should conduct himself and use his voice. Coming out of the oratory, the monk immediately keeps silence because the time for psalmody is completed and the time for silence has begun (68.5). Silence is a good thing because it avoids sin and realizes the practice of virtue. Thus silence for the sake of silence is really not different from the other motivations discussed by the Master.

The Rule of the Master on Silence

Purpose of Night Silence The RM especially legislates for silence after Compline (30. 11-14). This silence is t o last until the opening prayer at the office of vigils. The purpose of this silence is so that monks may sleep (30.10, 27). The motivation for silence is thus quite pragmatic. At the same time the Master displays his casuistic mind in this regard. Monks keep silence at night so that they may worthily pray the opening verse at the vigils. At the time they go to bed they say the verse "Place, 0 Lord, a guard on my mouth and a door around my lips" (PS 140.3). Vigils opens with the verse "Lord, open my lips and my mouth will announce your praise" (PS 50.17). Thus monks must keep silence at night so that they can truly open their mouths at vigils (58. 2). The motivation for night silence appears quite different from that of silence in general. The motivation characterized as listening would not apply. In its place the Rh4 legislates for silence so that a rubric may be truly realized. But surely the motivation which stems from the desire t o avoid sin applies to night silence.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The doctrine of silence in the RM is quite coherent. It is part of the ascetical doctrine of the Rh4 and must be seen in the context of the whole. It is especially related t o obedience and humility. One keeps silence from good as well as bad words (9.1, 35-37, 47) in order t o avoid sin and to practice virtue. This is the same as saying one keeps silence for God. Intimately related to this primary motivation is the motivation for silence in order to hear God's Word as it comes t o the disciple through the teaching of the Master and reading. Thus silence is a good thing and one can keep silence for the sake of silence. Silence is part of the total struggle of the monk to avoid sin and fulfil1 the will of God and thus gain eternal life.

88

Silence

Silence is one of the virtues demanded of the new abbot (92. 12, 79). If the abbot is to teach the monks the way of perfection he himself must be perfect. Indeed, the newly appointed abbot has been chosen because he is the best and most perfect of all the monks in the monastery (92.72, 7 6). An aspect of that perfection is his practice of the virtue of silence. The Practice It has been noted that the Rh4 is divided into two sections, the spiritual doctrine section and the discipline section. The doctrine concerning silence is found especially in the first section, but there is important teaching in the second section also. So too with regard to the practice of silence. Specifications are found especially in the second section of the RM, but there are important practical details in the first section. In the context of meals being prepared on time the Master states the principle that underlies his teaching on silence: "Let it be a monastery of silence and peace" (2 1.14). For the RM the monastery is a place where silence reigns. And the Master means just that. In chapter 8 he established the principle that permission to speak, even good and holy words, be rarely granted to perfect disciples. Indeed, a brother who has not been questioned by the abbot should keep silence until so questioned (8.33-37). The Master takes this principle so seriously that he proceeds to legislate on how a brother is to ask for permission to speak and how he is to respond when questioned. When a brother wishes to speak he stands before the superior with his head bowed and says "Benedicite." Should the superior not answer, the monk may repeat the request saying "Benedicite" once again. If, however, the superior still does not answer, the monk is to return to his work in silence (9.125). This legislation seemingly applies for those cases when the abbot is not present. The superior from whom the permission is sought is therefore the monk's provost. If the abbot is present the monk does not speak until he is questioned by the abbot (9.42). This rule of not speaking until questioned is re-

The Rule of the Master on Silence

89

I'erred t o in a number of places in the RM (7.16-19; 8.34; 10.75; 11.43). The Master apparently means what he says. However, if the abbot is absent, the monk may speak (9.43). But it is necessary t o get permission from the superior (9.4950). With permission the monk may speak about things that pertain t o God and in a low voice that manifests his humility (9.43-44). Should the monk begin t o speak words that do not pertain t o God he is ordered t o be silent by his provost. Monks need permission not only t o speak but t o use their voice in public functions. Before a brother intones or recites a psalm during the office he must first ask a blessing (56.2) or be ordered t o do so by the abbot (22.13-14; 46.1-2). The reader at meals must ask for a blessing before he begins reading (24. 13). It would seem that according t o the RM a monk may not use his voice unless he has received permission by asking for a blessing, o r unless he has been ordered t o use it. The monks can be distinguished into perfect and imperfect disciples according t o their keeping the legislation on silence. Perfect disciples are those who are pure of heart and have been cleansed from sin (9.41). They are rarely given permission t o speak (8.33). They do not speak until they have received a blessing giving them permission (9.1-10). Ideally they keep silent from good as well as evil words (9.47). But this strict law is only for the perfect (9.46). Imperfect disciples however can speak about matters which d o not pertain to sin (9.49). However they must ask a blessing before speaking. The Rule itself grants general permission t o speak of holy things during work when the abbot is absent (50.26, 43). The perfect disciple will of course keep silence. This relaxation is given for the sake of the imperfect. The provosts play avery important role in this legislation concerning silence. Two provosts are chosen and placed over every ten monks (1 1.4). Their function is t o see to it that the doctrine-taught by the abbot is put into practice by the monks under them. They are t o purge the vices and sins of the brothers (1 1.14, 22). They are always present with their charges, observing whatever they do, and correcting them when necessary (1 1.27-30).

90

Silence

Since silence is such an important virtue and an essential part of the spiritual doctrine taught by the abbot, the provosts are very cautious concerning its practice. If they hear a monk speaking without having been questioned, they are to admonish him to keep silence for he is breaking the Rule (11.41-45). When a brother has been given permission to speak the provost is t o make sure that that brother does not speak too loudly and thus show a lack of humility (11.46-48). The provost should also note the content of the monk's speech and correct him if he is not speaking edifying words (1 1.49-62). He should order such a monk t o be silent (9.44). In this manner the provost make sure that the legislation concerning silence is realized in practice by the monks.

PECULIARITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS

Having established the general rule of silence that is to be observed at all times, the Master singles out certain situations for more detailed treatment. This is in keeping with his general tendency to be complete and to provide for every possible situation and circumstance. During the hours of work the monks are t o keep silence (9. 19; 50.19, 25). While they work a brother reads to them (50. 11, 27, 35). But the working monk may recite the psalms or meditate on Scripture (9.45; 50.26). This meditation is done in a low voice and so it would seem that a brother who wishes to do this would separate himself from the rest of the group so as not t o disturb others. Should the abbot be absent (50. 45) the monks have permission to speak about good and holy things (50.26, 43, 45). But on no account are they to speak vain and worldly words (50.25) or words that move t o laughter (8.5 1; 1 1.49). Even though the Rule itself grants this general permission for the monk to speak about holy things during work it would seem that the monk must still obtain a blessing before speaking (9.49). The perfect disciple will not avail himself of this permission but will refrain from speaking good as well as bad words (9.46-47), or at least will rarely use the per-

The Rule of the Master on Silence

91

mission (8.33). He will wait until questioned before he breaks silence. During the meal of the monks there is to be reading (ch 24). The cellarer and weekly ministers who serve at table are t o pcrform their services and then sit down in silence and eat (16. 43; 23.10, 30, 33). During the course of the meal the brothers may question about what is being read (24.19). They make known their desire to question and ask for permission t o speak by knocking with their knife, spoon or bread (!) (9.25-26). During the course of the meal the abbot may on his own initiative explain what is being read (24.19). He may also ask a brother t o recite aloud what has just been read (24.34). In this way the brothers are forced t o pay close attention t o the reader, for they never know when they will be asked t o recite back what has just been read. It would seem that the meals could be rather noisy in spite of the general rule of silence. Anyone could interrupt the reading and ask for an explanation. The abbot may have required a brother t o recite the just read passage. Another brother, who is fasting, may whisper t o the cellarer to indicate that the portion of food or drink he is leaving untouched is given up for God (2 7,47-49). And the Rule specifies that n o one should speak to a brother who comes late t o the meal, but that he should eat the meal without a word from anyone (73.9-10). This does not necessarily imply that the brothers spoke t o each other during the meals. All other indications point t o a strict rule of silence among the brothers themselves which is enforced by the provost (1 1.122). It probably refers t o the fact that the late comer may not ask a question in the prescribed manner, nor may anyone bless his food before he eats it (73.8). Brothers who are travelling outside of the monastery may converse and talk t o each other (56.9). Thus the Rule provides especially for them and permits them t o disregard the general rule of silence. But this is an exception. However, a t the time for the opus dei they are not to speak of other things (56.10). Before they begin the opus dei they are to stop all other talk out of reverence for the opus dei (56.2). The oratory of the monastery is a place of silence. 'l'he only

92

Silence

thing that breaks the silence of this place is the psalmody of the monks (54.4). When the monks leave the oratory, the psalmody completed, silence is t o reign there once again. Indeed, as they leave the brothers may not even meditate on the psalms. This seems t o be a clear indication that meditation means vocal recitation in a subdued voice. During work hours brothers may d o this (50.26), but it is explicitly forbidden as they exit from the oratory. The conversation between brothers, allowed with specific permission from the superior or from the Rule, is denied t o the excommunicated. In his work no one may converse with him (13.45). No one may speak t o him or keep him company (13. 54). At the divine office, during the prayer following a psalm, the excommunicated, lying at the threshold of the oratory, cries out for forgiveness (13.63; 14.1-2) and recites a rather long prayer confessing his fault and asking for forgiveness (14.3-19). This prayer of the culprit breaks the silence of the prayer that follows each psalm of the office. There is silence in the dormitory just as throughout the monastery. The beds are so arranged that the abbot may be centrally located and keep a guard over the silence of the brothers (29.2-4).The brothers sleep clothed so that on rising they have no need to ask where anything is (1 1.120) and so break silence. After Compline there is no longer any permission to speak (30. 11). It is a time of very strict silence. Should a brother need t o communicate with another he should d o so by some sign. For this reason a night light is placed in the dormitory. However, if it is necessary to say something it should be whispered and spoken so softly that a third party may not hear it. And before a brother speaks he must say the verse "0Lord, open my lips . . ." (PS 50.17) (30.17-22). Should guests arrive after Compline they are t o be ministered to silently, and if it is necessary t o speak t o them this should be done quietly (30.24-25). CONCLUDING REMARKS

The teaching on silence in the RM can be distinguished into the categories of doctrine and practice, but these two aspects

The Rule of the Master on Silence

93

are integrally and essentially related. The doctrine prepares for and undergirds the practice. The practice realizes and specifies the doctrine. It flows out of the doctrine. There is no inconsistency between the two aspects. The specifications of the doctrine in disciplinary and practical rules ensures that the virtue of silence can be realized in the daily life of the monks. The Master teaches that silence is so important for the spiritual life that a monk should seldom speak, even refraining from good words. Only in this way can the monk be always on guard against sins of the tongue. The struggle to avoid sin is never over even for perfect disciples. Thus perfect disciples will be those who are more on guard, who have more control over their lives, and in this respect, over their tongues. The rather detailed legislation concerning permissions to speak indicates that the Master really means it when he says the monk is seldom to be granted permission to speak. The constant surveillance of the provosts shows that he means to enforce this principle. The rather frequent repetition of the injunction to speak only when questioned shows that the Master means this. In almost every situation which allows for conversation the Master legislates the manner in which it should be carried out. The emphasis throughout the Rh4 is on silence. It is the general rule. When this silence is to be broken the Master spends time on discussing the how and why of doing so. Thus much of the Master's concern is on excusing speech when it is necessary. He legislates for silence but allows for necessary speaking. In allowing for speech he makes sure that the principles of silence are still realized. One could say that in the Rh4 the normal condition is silence. Speech is a concession and must always be allowed for by specific legislation. But it is also true that the Master realistically knows that not all monks will be able to keep the strict law of silence. Thus he foresees that monks will speak among themselves. But the Master wants to make sure that even here the conversation pertains to good and edifying talk. But even this is an imperfection and certainly not the ideal to be sought. The ideal is silence and all the legislation tries to realize this ideal.

CHAPTER V111

COMPARISON O F THE TWO RULES

T

H E WORKING HYPOTHESIS of this investigation is that the RM is prior to the RB. This means that the RB depends upon the RM as a source, especially for those sections which have word-for-word parallels in both Rules. If one compares the teaching on silence in both Rules one finds similarities but also important differences. Considering that the author of the RB had in hand the text of the RM as he wrote his own Rule, it is enlightening to see how he changed, elaborated on, added to or omitted specifications found in the RM. Through such a comparison one can come to a better understanding of the meaning of silence in the RB. Thus it is important to note how the two Rules are similar and how they differ. For the purpose of this comparison the teaching concerning silence will again be distinguished in the categories of doctrine and practice.

DOCTRINE

Silence and the Structure of the Two Rules The structure or outline of the RM is quite logical and cohesive. This Rule is specifically divided into two major actions. The first section concerns spiritual doctrine. The second section legislates for the discipline of the monastery. The RB follows the basic pattern of the RM but with important differ-

Comparison of the Two Rules

95

ences. The outline of the RB has been relatively difficult to establish and various solutions have been noted above, but in comparing the RB to the RM the problem of the RB's outline and structure comes clear. The RB follows the basic outline of the RM in that there is a spiritual doctrine section followed by a disciplinary section. The cohesiveness and logical order of the outline rests with the Rh4 and the RB reflects this outline, especially in the first section. The RM Prolog t o chapter 10 and the RB Prolog t o chapter 7 show the same progression and are t o be noted for their word-for-word parallels. There are similarities between the two Rules in the disciplinary sections (Rh4 cc 11-95 and RB cc 8-73) and some word-for-word parallels, but nothing as outstanding as is found in the first sections. One could say that the greatest differences between the two Rules are found in their respective disciplinary sections. As one looks at the overall outline of the two Rules, the difference of position of the block on the opus dei and prayer is striking. In the RM chapter 11, on the provosts, follows immediately the spiritual doctrine section. This is a very logical progression in view of the role of the provosts. They are t o observe the monks under them and see to it that they put into practice what has been taught in the first section. But this progression is broken into in the RB for the corresponding chapter to chapter 11 of the Rh4 is chapter 21 of the RB, on the deans. The author of the RB inserts between these two points the section on the opus dei and prayer (RB cc 8-20). In the RM the block on prayer is found in chapter 31 to 48. It follows the discussion of silence after Compline (RM ch 30) and one can notice a logical progression. Silence after Compline is broken by the night vigils and so the author of the RM is led to discuss the opus dei, beginning with vigils and continuing throughout the day. Why does the RB break into the logical progression of the RM between R M Prolog t o chapter 10 and its connection with RM 1l ? Why does it put here the section on the opus dei? One reason may be because the author of the RB saw the opus dei as part of the spiritual doctrine of the Rule and not as part of the discipline. But there is also another possible explanation, not really that much different

96

Silence

but pointing up an important meaning for silence in the mind of the author of the RB. Silence is in function to prayer, as has been seen in both the RB and the RM, but the RB wishes to emphasize this point. The author moves the block on prayer as close to his discussion on silence as he can without destroying the unity of the block on obedience, silence and humility. In doing this he reasserts one of his points concerning the meaning of silence. Silence is ordered to communication with God; a monk keeps silent so that he may hear the Word of God. And the opus dei is one of the primary locales for the revelation of this Word. One cannot deny that this same view was shared by the RM, but the repositioning of the block on prayer by the RB indicates that the author wished to emphasize it, or at least ensure that it was not reduced t o another motivation. In both Rules the explicit treatment of silence is found in the context of the treatment of obedience and humility. The same progression is found in both Rules. The virtues of obedience, silence and humility are closely associated in RB 4 and in RM 3, 4 and 5. These virtues are then explicitly treated in separate chapters: obedience in RM 7 and RB 5; silence in RM 8 and 9 and RB 6; humility in RM 10 and RB 7. The treatment of these virtues in the RM is somewhat longer than that in the RB, but the text of the RB is drawn almost word for word from the text of the RM. The treatment of silence in the RM 8 and 9 is almost ten times as long as that found in RB 6. The RM treatment of silence runs to eighty-eight verses, the RB to eight verses. The first six verses of RB 6 are found at the conclusion of RM 8, while the last two verses of RB 6 are found at the conclusion of RM 9. The RB omits the W ' s anthropological elaborations (RM 8) and the details on how permission for speaking is to be obtained (RM 9). The first omission is in keeping with the RB's penchant for brevity and apparent dislike for theological speculation. The latter omission will be noted later in the discussion on the practice of silence in the two Rules. It is to be concluded that for both Rules, silence is part of the spiritual doctrine and is intimately associated with obe-

Comparison of the Two Rules

97

dience and humility. One keeps silent so that one may hear the commands of God and obey them. This silence and obedience are a manifestation of humility. Such relationship is found especially in the ten degrees of humility that are identical in both Rules (RM 10, RB 7). Purpose and Motivation of Silence The three basic motivations for silence are found in both Rules. First, the monk keeps silence in order to avoid sin and practice virtue. This motivation is more fully developed in the RM, but it is certainly accepted by the RB. The elaboration by the RM is not surprising considering the prolixity of the author and his tendency to develop a point and speculate theologically. If there is any difference in the two Rules it is that all motivations for silence in the RM can be reduced to this basic motivation. Such a reduction is not quite so apparent in the RB. The positive aspect of the motivation in order to avoid sin is the practice of virtue. In both Rules silence is closely associated with the virtues of obedience and humility, and both Rules relate silence with reverence and with gravity. The R M associates silence with the virtues of gentleness, charity and peace. In the RB these virtues are found rather in the context of how one speaks, as will be seen later. The second motivation given by the two Rules is silence for the sake of listening. This motivation is essentially connected with the practice of obedience and humility. Thus it is closely related to the first motivation, that is silence in order to avoid sin and practice virtue. A monk keeps silence in order to hear God's Word coming to him in Sacred Scripture, in holy reading and especially in the commands and teaching of the abbot. Concerning this motivation, there seems to be a slight difference between the two Rules. The RB emphasizes this motivation more than the RM.This conclusion arises from the RB's placement of the block on prayer as has been discussed above. The RM surely has this same vision of silence for the sake of hearing God's Word, especially as it comes through the voice

98

Silence

of the abbot, but this is reduced for the RM to avoidance of sin and practice of virtue. The RB does not so clearly reduce this motivation to avoidance of sin. This may be accounted for by the fact that the RB does not repeat the speculations of the RM, and thus the logical interrelationships are not as clear in the RB as in the RM. Even so, the fact that the RB omits much of the speculation of the RM that ties the two motivations together, and the insertion of the block on prayer into the logical sequence followed by the RM seems to indicate that the RB does not totally accept the reduction of this motivation to the first, but rather wishes to emphasize it on its own merits. The third motivation for silence given by the two. Rules is silence for the sake of silence. This motivation follows from the first two. If silence avoids sin and permits the practice of virtue, if silence allows one to hear God's voice, then it is a good and should be practiced. Thus one can speak of silence for the sake of silence. But as has been seen in analyzing the RB, the statement "to practice silence for the sake of silence" does not do justice to the rich thought of the RB. Neither does it do so to the RM. Both Rules are very similar on this point since the RB borrows from the RM. Silence is observed for the sake of taciturnity and gravity, with all the nuances that such a statement contains in the concept of gravity. It is even clearer in the RM than the RB that gravity has the nuance of restraint in speech. A monk works with gravity, that is silently, according to the RM. The difference between the RM and the RB on this point is that the RM clearly reduces this motivation to the first motivation, that is the desire to avoid sin. In the RB this reduction is not so explicit. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The doctrine of silence is part of the spiritual doctrine of both the RM and the RB. The RB depends upon the RM for its basic teaching, but sees fit to omit much of the speculation and theological elaboration. The RB seemingly relaxes some of the emphasis found in the RM with regard to motivation out

Comparison of the Two Rules

99

of desire to avoid sin, and in place of this one-sided emphasis shifts to a slight but noticeable emphasis on silence as motivated by desire to listen to God's Word. This so-called emphasis in the RB as compared to the Rh4 must not be misunderstood. It is very subtly introduced. Indeed, it may be wrong to classify it as an emphasis. Rather, what the RB does is to ensure that the three basic motivations for silence are respected as complementary dimensions and are not reduced to a single overbearing motivation. The Rh4 reduces the three motivations to the aspect of avoidance of sin. The RB shows that the three motivations are related, but wants each to be c~nsideredin its own right. Thus the RB emphasizes the motivation for silence in order to listen as compared to the RM where this motivation is simply reduced to an aspect of avoidance of sin.

PRACTICE

If the differences in doctrine between the two Rules are very slight, the differences in practice are more noticeable. These differences in practice will in their turn affect the doctrine and enable one to see a real difference in the complete teaching of the two Rules. Vandenbroucke in passing states that "silence in the RM is less strict than in the RB."' The present author cannot agree with this statement. A comparison of the two Rules will show that the RM is much stricter than the RB with regard to the practice of silence. Both Rules state that "on account of gravity or taciturnity permission to speak should seldom be given even to perfect disciples." There is no indication in the disciplinary specifications of the RB that this meant that the monk must have permission to speak each time he spoke. Indeed there are strong implications in the RB that monks could speak as they felt it necessary and useful. On the other hand, the RM seems to

. . . le silence est moins strict qu'en RSB," F. Vandenbroucke, "Sur . .," in Revue binidictine 62, 1952, p. 268.

1. "En M les Sources.

Silence mean exactly what it says: one cannot speak without permission. The Rh4 legislates for this permission and explains the ritual for obtaining it. The provosts are to correct one who speaks without permission. The doctrine and practice of the RM is coherent on this point. That of the RB seems to be inconsistent. Both Rules say in the ninth degree of humility that the monk is not to speak until questioned. It is only in this degree of humility that the RB makes this statement. On the other hand, the RM states this same principle on at least four occasions. The Rh4 seems to imply that this principle should be kept literally. The provost is to correct a monk who speaks without first being questioned. The RB gives no indication that this principle is to be kept literally, and the reason it appears at all is because the degrees of humility are taken word for word from the RM. The RB could not leave out the ninth degree without destroying the image of the twelve-rung ladder. Thus the RB leaves the principleas stated in the RM but apparently has no intention of enforcing it or emphasizing it. One of the most important differences between the RM and the RB has to do with the provosts. In the RM they are the watchdogs of the abbot, making sure that the monks under them practice the abbot's spiritual doctrine. They constantly observe the monks, admonish and correct them, and report to the abbot. In the RB the deans are in charge of their deaneries, but their function is not so clearly spelt out as is that of the provosts in the RM. One certainly does not get the impression that they are watchdogs. The RB has omitted much of the detail of the RM. This is probably because the monk in the RB was considered more as a mature person who could make some decisions which would be respected. The monk in the RB could speak when he thought it necessary or profitable. He did not need a provost to constantly observe him and to correct him. The RB does not tell the deans to keep a close watch on the monks' talking because the RB allowed monks to speak as necessary and as prudence dictated. Thus on the enforcement of the rule of silence the RB is much more relaxed than the RM.

Comparison of the Two Rules

101

Both Rules legislated for reading at table. The RB specifically states that at meals no one is to speak or to make any noise, but only the voice of the reader is to be heard. The superior may say a few brief words for the edification of the brothers. According to the R M anyone may ask a question at table, first obtaining permission, and the abbot may call on anyone to repeat what has just been read. The RB's insistence on silence in the refectory at meals seems to be directed against these practices of the RM. Meals in the Master's monastery would seem to be a bit disorderly in so far as anyone could interrupt the reader. The silence demanded by the RB at meals is much stricter than that of the RM. The RB would have to make this a special point because in other situations silence was not so strict. The RB makes a special note of silence to be kept during the siesta. The RM legislates for a siesta also, but no special mention is made concerning silence during this time. The reason for this difference probably is accounted for by the fact that in the RM silence was the general rule, and so there was no need to specify for a special silence during the siesta. On the other hand, there are good indications that in the RB talking was normally permitted except at specific times and in specific places. Thus the RB had to single out special times and places of silence. The siesta was one of these. Both the RM and the RB demand silence after Compline and during the hours of the night. The RM says that the time for granting permission to speak is now completed. This is quite similar to the legislation of the RB. From the legislation concerning night silence alone one could not get an idea of the difference between the rule of silence in the RB and RM. But when one compares all the details of the two Rules, it does seem that the RM legislated for perpetual silence while the RB did not. One gets the impression that on rising for the night office, the monks in the RB could encourage one another verbally if necessary, but with gravity and restraint. The Rh4 specifically legislates that the monks sleep clothed so that they need not ask one another where anything is upon rising. During the hours of work the RM legislates for reading and

102

Silence

also for silence. This specification for silence during the hours of work is in keeping with the general rule of silence unless one has the permission to speak. Indeed, the RM gives general permission to speak about holy things if the abbot is absent. None of these specifications appear in the RB. One gets the impression that in the RB free and spontaneous talking was allowed during work hours. This does not mean that for the RB work time was similar to what modem monks know as recreation. Rather, it means that the RB permitted necessary conversation, knowing that this would occasionally be abused. But this is not a good way of saying it. It is not that the RB permitted conversation during work. Rather, the monk had the free use of his faculty of speech, but the use of this faculty must constantly be guarded and restrained. At certain times and in certain places the RB itself imposed a strict restraint. At other times the restraint came from the very meaning of communication itself. If a monk wished to communicate with God then restraint of speech was necessary. But a monk also had to communicate with his brother. During those times and places not specified in the RB as situations of silence, the monk would communicate freely and easily. Both Rules treat the question of how guests should be received and treated in the monastery. Indeed, the RM goes into much more detail than the RB.An interesting difference is that the RM does not explicitly state, as does the RB, that monks are not to associate or converse with the guests. The RM does demand that a guest work with the monks, especially if he wishes to remain in the monastery over three days. In view of the general difference with regard to silence in the RB and the RM this difference with regard to the guests is not surprising. The RM did not need to forbid speaking with guests because it legislated for a perpetual silence in the monastery, except when permission was given to speak. Even at work there was reading. Thus the monks had no occasion to speak to the guests. In the RB on the contrary, monks could converse during the hours of work. It was during these hours that one would more than likely find occasion to converse with a guest. But this is explicitly forbidden by the RB.

Comparison of the Two Rules

103

The excommunicated monk is treated quite similarly in both the RB and the RM. He is suspended from meals and from choir and must work alone. No one may speak to him. There is no indication with regard to treatment of the excommunicated that there is a difference in the practice of silence between the RM and the RB. However, the RM says that even if the excommunicated asks a blessing no one should answer him. This seems to indicate once again that whenever one wished to speak in the RM he needed permission. But even this is denied to the excommunicated. The RM explicitly grants permission for monks on a journey outside the monastery to carry on conversation. This is an exception to the general rule of silence and so must be legislated for. In the RI3 there is no such legislation. This difference can be explained by the RB's attitude toward silence. Monks were to keep silence in specified places and at specified times. The regulations concerning places would not apply to monks on journey. The regulations concerning times, especially the time of the opus dei, would of course apply. Otherwise the monks were free to converse on a journey just as they could were they in the monastery. The RB saw no reason to specify that on a journey monks could talk to each other. The reference to giving up talking during Lent as something over and above the regular observance also seems to indicate that for the RB monks could freely converse. Otherwise how could this curtailment of speech be something over and above the regular discipline. It is of note that this legislation is not found in the RM. This apparently stems from the fact that silence was the general and enforced rule at all times for the RM. When the RM speaks of a special silence on Good Friday, it is referring to the silence of psalmody. On Good Friday no office is chanted in the oratory of the monastery. This silence is then broken by the joyful announcement of the alleluia at the Easter vigil. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The difference between the RM and the RB concerning doc-

104

Silence

trine and practice can be summarized as follows. The RM insists on the general rule of silence that is to be kept at all times and in all places. But since this is impossible in any society, and since some communication is absolutely necessary, the Rh4 specifies when and how a monk may speak. The RB in principle insists on the general rule of silence, but in practice it sees communication or speaking as the normal situation. In order to keep a guard on the use of speech and to regulate communication and insure it, the RB legislates for specific times and places of silence. There is maybe not that much difference when these two principles are put into practice, but the perspective is quite different. The first emphasizes silence in itself. The second emphasizes silence in the context of communication; silence is functional rather than determining. In the RM there is a basic cohesiveness between doctrine and practice. The discipline realizes the expressed principles or theory. On the other hand, there seems to be some inconsistency between some of the theory and the disciplinary practice that is found in the RB. This fact seems to verify the hypothesis of the priority of the RM over the RB. The RM shows by its consistency and cohesiveness the fundamental unity of that document. The entire RM, spiritual doctrine and discipline, was written by the same author. One section authentically reflects the other. There is logical consistency throughout. The RB, however, shows the results of heavy borrowing with regard to the spiritual doctrine and a somewhat independent development of discipline and practice. The inconsistency in the RB can thus be explained by the RB's heavy dependency on the RM with regard to the doctrine and theory of silence, but the practice of silence is more independent of the RM. Thus results a certain inconsistency. A survey of the terminology concerning silence used in the two Rules is enlightening.The RB uses the verb silere two times and the noun silentium four times. It uses the verb tacere three times, the adverb tacite one time, the noun taciturnitas five times. What is of special interest is that the noun silentium is used only in the latter part of the Rule, when the RB discusses discipline. All the forms of the root tacere, except one, are

Comparison of the Two Rules

105

used in the first part of the Rule, in the spiritual doctrine section. The author thus seems t o think of doctrine when he uses a form of the root tacere. When he uses silentium he thinks of practice. The author of the RM uses silere only once. He uses silentium nine times. The verb tacere is used twenty-six times, the adverb tacite five times, the noun taciturnitas thirty-five times, the adjective tacitus eleven times. These words are used proportionately throughout the two sections of the RM. One cannot discover any indication that in using the terms the author thought primarily of doctrine o r of practice. For the Master the words were synonymous. However, one must note that the Master shows a predilection for forms of the root tacere. This preference for tacere oversilere is the possible explanation why the Master changes the verb in one of his citations of Psalm 38.2-3. In 8.31 he cites it as "siluia bonis." In the same citation in 9.36 he has "tacui a bonis." RB 6.1 quotes this same citation and is dependent on RM 8.31. Thus one finds silere in the doctrine section of the RB although silentium is found only in the disciplinary section. The RB changes the verb from tacere t o silere in a passage that is dependent on the RM. In RB 1.12, concerning theGyrovagues, the RB says "melius est silere quam loqui." RM 1.13 says "melius tacerem quam de talibus aliquid dicerem" In the RB the author says no more about the subject but immediately concludes the chapter. On the contrary, the Master speaks about the Gyrovagues in a passage that extends over sixty verses. From this difference it is possible t o get an insight into the meaning of the terms used. The RM means of course that it is better t o keep silence than t o speak, however he goes ahead and speaks about the Gyrovagues. This is n o indication that tacere does not mean silence for the RM, for there are sufficient indications in the RM that the root tacere meant t o keep silence. It is just an indication of the loquacity or prolixity of the author who seems t o enjoy expanding a point. But one does get a good indication of the relative meaning of the terms for the RB. When the author uses silere he means the actual practice of silence. When he uses the root tacere he

Silence thinks more of theory or doctrine. In this case the RB uses silere instead of tacere because the author will put silence into practice and not speak about the Gyrovagues. This use of the term silere in the first section of the RB is thus in keeping with the use of silentium in the second section. From this analysis of the terms for silence it would seem that the priority belongs t o the RM. There is n o difference in the use of the terms in the RM, but there is a predilection for forms of the root tacere. The author of the RB however saw some difference in the terms. Thus he changed them when he saw fit, and in the section where he is less dependent on the Rh4, that is in the disciplinary section, he shows a preference for the term silentium. But it must be admitted that the comparison of terms, and the comparison of doctrine, does not prove the priority of the Rh4 over the RB. It does, however, give strength t o the argument. In this it can be of service in the debate concerning the relationship between the Rh4 and the RB. In conclusion, it must be noted that the opinion of F. Vandenbroucke cannot be held and substantiated. Silence is not less strict in the RM than in the RB. It is more strict, and the RB is in comparison with the RM rather lax. On this point one can note again the discretion for which the RB has been traditionally famous.

PART THREE

OTHER SOURCES

CHAPTER IX

INTRODUCTION

BBOT C U T H B E R T B U T L E R contributed greatly t o the question of the sources of the RB by presenting an Index Scriptorum in his Critico-Practical Edition of the Rule.' More recently Rudolf Hanslik, in his edition of the Rule of Benedict in the Vienna Corpus of Latin Fathers, has indicated the patristic sources of the RB.2 Hanslik supplements Butler in so far as he takes into account the studies that have appeared since Butler's edition. Analyzing the lists of Butler and Hanslik one gets a good idea of the works known by the author of the RB and probably used by him in writing his Rule, or at least known t o him. Neither Butler nor Hanslik consider the RM as a possible source for the RB. Butler compiled his index before the RMRB debate began in earnest. Hanslik, aware of the arguments for the priority of the Rh4 with regard to.the RB, holds t o the priority of the RB. He dates the RM between 570-5803 and considers it a witness to a disfigured text of the RB.4 For this reason he does not consider it a source for the RB. The investigation of Adalbert de Vogiik on the dating and localization of the RM5 indicate that the RM dates prior t o the RB and

A

2

1. C. Butler, Sancti Benedicti Regula Monarteriorum, Friburg, Herder, 1927 , p. 187-191. 2. Hanslik, Regula, CSEL 75, p. 169-174. 3. Ibid, p. xix. 4. Ibid., p. xli-xlvi. 5. Cf. de VogiiC, La Rkgle 1, p. 221-233.

110

Silence

could be a source for it. It is in view of the arguments proposed by de Vogiit that the RM has been considered the primary source of the RB in this study. However, because of the nature of the debate and the peculiar relationship of the RM t o the RB it has seemed best t o treat this question separately. Therefore, in this Part the question of the RM is prescinded from. When the sources are compared t o the RB in the final chapter of this Part, the RM will be kept on the horizon, but no great effort has been made t o determine the interrelations between the sources of the RB and the RM. Before entering into the problem of the possible literary sources of the RB a word must be said about the use of Sacred Scripture in the RB. Without a doubt Scripture is the major source of inspiration for the doctrine of the RB. When one investigates the sources of the M,Scripture must therefore be considered. Abbot Butler gives an index of Scripture citations in the RB.6 Hanslik presents an index which contains not only indications of direct Scripture citations but also allusions made by the RB t o Scripture.' The RB contains seventy-six explicit citations of the Old Testament and makes at least fifty-seven allusions t o it. The most frequently cited or alluded t o book is that of the Book of Psalms. There are fifty-two citations and fourteen allusions. The Wisdom literature is heavily used. The Book of Proverbs is cited twelve times and alluded t o five times. Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) is cited five times and alluded t o eight times. The RB also uses the major Prophets. From Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel and Daniel there are a total of six citations and nine allusions. The least frequently used books of the Old Testament are the Historical Books. There is only one citation from Genesis. There are in all fourteen allusions t o Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, I Kings, Tobias and Judith. The New Testament is even more popular in the RB than is the Old. The RB uses sixty-four citations from the New Testament and alludes to it at least one hundred times. Twenty6. Butler, op. cit., p. 183-186. 7. Hanslik, op. cit., p. 166-169.

Introduction

111

three of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament are represented. The most popular Gospel by far is that according to Matthew: nineteen citations and twenty-six allusions. The Pauline Corpus is represented by thirty-one citations and thirty-five allusions. The most frequently quoted Pauline Epistle is that to the Romans. It is cited nine times. In citing the Scriptures the RB never gives the reference. Frequently the citation is introduced by "the Lord says," "the prophet says," "the apostle says," "as it is written," or some such phrase. It seems to be presumed that the reader will be so familiar with the Scripture that no reference is needed. The author of the RB himself is so familiar with Scripture that he can allude to it without any transition of thought, for Scripture should be the norm of human life. RB 73.3 For what page or what utterance of the divinelyinspired books of the Old and New Testament is not a most unerring rule of human life? From this brief and incomplete analysis of the use of Sacred Scripture in the RB it is quite evident that the author of the RB depends heavily upon it for his doctrine and teaching. When speaking of the sources of the RB one must therefore consider Scripture. But Scripture is used differently by the RB than any other source. No other source is quoted with explicit acknowledgment. It is not the present purpose to investigate Sacred Scripture as the source of the RB's teaching on silence. Indeed, this aspect is prescinded from. There will be occasion later t o indicate certain Scripture passages that concern silence and belong to the common heritage of monastic tradition on silence. They will be noted because they are used by the tradition, but there will be no effort to develop them as a Scriptural theme. For the purpose of this study it is to be noted how predominant a role Scripture plays in the thinking of the author of the RB. If silence is, among other aspects, ordered to communication, to dialog, to listening, the author of the RB shows how this has been realized in his own life and work. The author

112

Silence

of the RB shows a familiarity with Sacred Scripture that could only hage come about by silent and penetrating attention to the Word of God as it is spoken t o man in Sacred Scripture. The author of the RB gives evidence that he has listened t o God's voice and thus it can be concluded that he knew how to keep silence in order t o hear that voice. The use of Scripture in the RB indicates that the author's teaching on silence as a necessary condition for hearing God's Word was put into practice by himself. If one quickly peruses the index of authors given b y Butler or Hanslik, it is noted that the RB is indebted t o ancient monastic and patristic literature. In these lists one finds references to the great Latin doctors, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyprian, Jerome and Leo. There are references to the monastic authors such as Basil, Caesarius of Arles and John Cassian. There are also references t o monastic writings such as the Rule of Macarius, the Rule of Pachomius, the Lives of the Fathers. There are even references t o non-monastic writings such as certain Councils and the Gelasian Sacramentary. All these references imply that the author of the RB knew the works referred t o and used them in writing his Rule, or at least was familiar with them if he did not borrow from them. A number of studies have appeared concerning the specific sources of the RB. As the investigation proceeds these will be noted with regard t o specific authors. The basis for considering an earlier work as source for the RB is usually because of ob-' vious literary parallels or similarity in content. Even when there is n o literary parallelism, nor similarity in content, if a work precedes the RB and was known in the West a t the time the RB was written, one can presume that the author of the RB may have been familiar with it. But in order t o be on some solid foundation in determining the possible sources of the RB it is best t o follow the conclusions of recognized authorities. Therefore, in this investigation of possible sources for the RB on silence, only those works have been considered which are admitted by competent scholars to be possible sources. The two most critical studies with regard t o the

Introduction

113

sources of the RB are those of Anscari Mundb8 and F. Vand e n b r o ~ c k e .Most ~ commentators discuss the sources of the RB.1•‹ For the purpose of the present investigation certain restrictions have been made. It is the present author's intention t o review the Latin monastic literature that could have been used by the author of the RB as his source material. This body of literature will be analyzed for its explicit teaching on silence. There is n o intention t o d o an in-depth study of each of the possible sources. Rather, the sources will be surveyed for their teaching o n silence and the conclusions arrived at will be compared t o the conclusions reached in studying the doctrine of silence in the RB. Note that the object of the present investigation is the Latin monastic literature that the RB could have used as a source for its doctrine on silence. First of all, it is Latin literature. The corpus of ancient monastic literature is immense. There are writings in Greek, in Coptic, in Syriac and other ancient Christian languages. It would be impossible t o review all this literature in the confines of this study. But more importantly, the author of the RB shows n o indication of having known any other language than Latin. It is true that in the RB one finds loan-words, especially Greek loan-words." These are all words that were part of the ecclesiastical and monastic Latin of the sixth century. Most scholars deny that the author of the RB knew Greek. St. Benedict indeed possessed considerable, though hardly an extraordinary, acquaintance with the writings of the Latin 8. Anscari Mundb. "L'AuthenticitC de la Regula Sancti Benedicti," in Studia Anselmiana 42, 1957, p. 105-158, especially p. 126-138, "Les sources littkraires de RB." 9. F. Vandenbroucke, "Sur les Sources de la Rkgle BCnCdictine et de la Regula Magistri," in Revue bknkdictine 62, 1952, p. 216-273. 10. Colombaq San Benito, p. 248-251; Lentini, La Regola, p. xvii-xx; Penco, Regula, p. Ixxxiii-xciii; B. Steidle, The Rule of St. Benedict, a Commentary, translated by Urban Schnitzhofer, Canon City, Beuroner Kunstverlag, 1952, p. 38-40; Giuseppe Turbessi, Ascetismo e Monachesimo in S. Benedetto, Roma, Editrice Studium, 1961, p. 45-50. 11. Hanslik, op. cit., p. 349.

114

Silence

Church Fathers. The Greek Fathers he knew, of course, only through their Latin translations, which however, were available to him in sufficient number. But we must in truth deny that St. Benedict understood Greek. Nor did he have an extensive knowledge or appreciation of profane writers.12 Granted that the author of the RB knew only Latin, one need look only in the Latin corpus of ancient writings for his sources. This Latin corpus will include translations of Oriental writings that were available to the author of the RB in Latin when he wrote his Rule. It will become clearer as the study proceeds which works were available to him in Latin. The second restriction placed upon the investigation is that the writings must pertain to the corpus of monastic literature. This means that the writing must be specifically directed to monks or refer to monks or be recognized as generally pertaining to the corpus of monastic literature. Thus it will be necessary to review the so-called monastic Rule of Augustine. It is true that one can dispute whether Augustine wrote for monks in the classical sense of the term monk. But, as will be seen, the Rules of Augustine were certainly in existence by the time the RB was written and were probably known to the author. On the other hand, the Augustinian corpus is immense. It is not the present purpose to survey all of Augustine's writings to determine his doctrine on silence. A third restriction limits the investigation to Latin monastic' works that belong to the literary genre of Rules or Institutes. Some exception is made to this restriction in so far as the monastic works of John Cassian do not belong to this literary genre. It seemed essential to survey the works of Cassian since they were surely known to the author of the RB and the Rule shows aprofound familiarity with them and dependency upon them. The works of Cassian are in many ways unique and form a literary genre of their own. Exception is also made for two works of Basil addressed to monks. These two works help one understand the teaching of the Rule of Basil. The same holds 12. Steidle, op. cit, p. 40; Cf. also Lentini, op. cit., p. xviii, note 4.

Introduction

115

for the Testament of Orsiesius. This work throws light on the Rule of Pachomius and along with the two works of Basil could be considered theological reflections on the monastic life, much like the works of Cassian. A final exception is with regard to Augustine's De opere monachorum. It is not a monastic rule, but since it is explicitly addressed to monks it is considered. The limitation of the investigation to monastic Rules and Institutes, with the addition of the related documents noted above, means that the vast corpus of correspondence will not be considered, that is, the letters of monastic authors will not be surveyed. Neither will there be any concern for the works that belong to the literary genres of hagiography and history. This means that the Lives of the Fathers, the Sayings of the Fathers, and the various Histories of the Monks will not be analyzed. It goes without saying that since the investigation concerns only those Latin monastic writings that could have been used as a source of the RB, the date of the writing of the RB must be fixed with some certainty. It has been noted above that the RB was probably written about 540. This means that any literary parallel in a work written before that date can be considered a source for the RB. Any parallels in a work written after 540 would use the RB as a source. It will be seen that all the sources considered here were written well before 540 with the exception of Caesarius of Arles' Rule for Nuns whose final redaction dates from 534. The studies of Mundb and Vandenbroucke both show that the RB depends upon the work of Caesarius and not the other way around as Abbot Chapman thought.13 With these restrictions in mind one can now indicate the possible sources of the doctrine of the RB concerning silence. Leaving aside Sacred Scripture, and the RM because it has been treated separately, there are the two monastic works of John Cassian, the Institutes and the Conferences. Then there is "the Rule of our Holy Father Basil" (RB 73.5) which was 13. Chapman, St. Benedict, p. 75 and 87.

116

Silence

known to the author of the RB in the Latin translation of Rufinus. Then there are the related monastic Rules of Augustine and Caesarius of Arles. Next, one finds the Rule of Pachomius, translated by Jerome, and the so-called Oriental Rule. These two are closely related. Finally, there are the three Rules of the Fathers and the Rule of Macarius. It is time t o look at these various Rules to discover what they teach concerning silence. In the final chapter of this Part their teaching on silence will be compared with the teaching on silence in the RB.

CHAPTER X

JOHN CASSIAN

J

OHN CAS SIAN, a fifth-century author, is well known for his works on spiritual theology. However, relatively little is known of his life. He became a monk in Bethlehem and then traveled for a number of years in Egypt. There he became acquainted with Egyptian monasticism in both its cenobitical and eremitical forms. In the course of his travels he was introduced to many of the famous Egyptian abbots or fathers of the monastic life from whom he heard spiritual conferences. In later years Cassian settled in Gaul near Marseilles and founded there a monastery for men and another for women. It was during this latter period of his life that he set down in writing the doctrine that he had been taught in Egypt.' Cassian wrote two works that concern Egyptian monastic life, explaining its practice and doctrine. These writings belong to a genre that Chadwick has classified as "ethical divinity."' They are not the same as a monastic rule, nor are they historical or biographical in the same sense that other early writings are. They describe the ethical reason for the manner of life adopted by the Egyptian monks and intend to inspire their readers to like behavior. 1. For the details of Cassian's life and the content of his teaching see: Owen Chadwick, John C a s s i o ~London, Cambridge, 1968', viii-17 1 p.; E. Pichery, Jean Carsien: Confirences I-VII, Sources Chrktiennes 42, Paris, Cerf, 1955, p. 7-72;JeanClaude Guy, Jean Cassien: Vie et doctrine spirituelle, Paris, Lethielleux, 1961, p. 11-62. 2. Chadwick, op. cit.. p. 8.

118

Silence

The two monastic works of Cassian are the Institutiones3 and the C o n l ~ t i o n e sThe . ~ first consists of twelve books. The first four of these give details about the cenobitic life as lived in Egypt, while the following eight books discuss the eight vices which a monk must fight against. The second work is a collection of twenty-four Conferences given by abbots of the Egyptian desert. The Institutes were written between 420 and 424.' The Conferences were probably completed by the middle of 426, but certainly before 430.6 The two works are closely related and there are internal indications that the author saw them as a comprehensive unit.7 These two works of Cassian on monastic spirituality have had a great influence on the thought of spiritual writers in the West subsequent to him. Cassian is a recognized source for the Rule of the Master.' Cassian also greatly influenced the Rule of Benedict. The question is raised with regard to the RB, in view of the RM controversy, whether the author of the RB used Cassian at times as an immediate source or whether he used Cassian through the intermediary of the RM. If the RM is prior to the RB, then where both Rules show a dependency upon Cassian it would be safe to conclude that the RB could depend upon Cassian through the RM. Indeed, Dom Bernard Capelle, early in the debate concerning the relationship be3. De Institutis Coenobiorum et de Octo fincipalium Vitiorum Remediis: Libri XII, CSEL 17, edited by Michael Petschenig, Vienna, 1888;JeanCLaude Guy, Jean Cassien: Institutions Cinobitiques, Sources ChrCtiennes 109, Paris, Cerf. 1965. There is an English translation of all except Book 6 in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Chdtian Church. Second Series, Vol XI. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1955, by Edgar C.S. Gibson. A new and complete translation is in preparation at Oxford and will appear in the Cistercian Studies Series 4. Johannis Cassiani Conhtiones XXIIII, CSEL 19, edited by Michael Petschenig, Vienna, 1886; Dom E. Pichery, Jean Carsien: Confirences I-VII, Sources ChrCtiennes 42, Paris, Cerf, 1955; Confirences VIII-XVII, SC 54, Paris, Cerf, 1958; Confkrences XVIII-XXIV, SC 64. Paris, Cerf, 1959. There is an English translation of all except Conferences 12 and 22 in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series, Vol XI, Grand Rapids, Eerdmanq 1955, by Edgar C.S. Gibson. A new and complete translation will appear shortly in the Cistercian Studies Series 5. Guy, Jean Cassien: Institutions Cinobitiques, p. 11. 6. Pichery, op. cit., p. 29. 7 . Ibid., p. 90. 8. Corbett, Latin of the Reguh Mclgistri, p. 60.

119

John Cassian

tween the Rh4 and RB, had to admit that with regard to the teaching on the degrees of humility the Master was more faithful to Cassian than was the RB.9 More recently, Adalbert de Vogiii has explored this same problem and shows that the RB chapter 7 depends on Cassian through the RM chapter 10.1•‹ One gets a good idea of the RB's dependency on and extensive use of Cassian by glancing at the Index Scriptorum in the editions of the RB edited by Butler and Hanslik. Hanslik notes forty-eight references where the RB seemingly depends on the Conferences and fifty-nine references where it depends on the Institutes. " The author of the RB certainly seems to have been well acquainted with the works of John Cassian, and this even independently of the use of Cassian in the RM, for not all of these seeming dependencies are found in the RM. Besides, the author of the RB specifically encourages his readers to read the Conferences and the Institutes of the Fathers (RB 73.5) and legislates for their reading in public before Compline (RB 42.3). The RB does not mention Cassian by name, but most commentators agree that it is referring to the Conferences of Cassian. There is good reason therefore to study the teaching on silence in the monastic works of John Cassian. The author of the RB was certainly influenced by Cassian and familiar with his either through the Rhl or independently of it. What is the teaching on silence that he found there? SILENCE IN JOHN CASSIAN

It is indeed surprising, considering the magnitude of the works of John Cassian, that there is relatively little said about silence. This is all the more surprising in so far as Cassian explicitly treats of various virtues to be practiced and vices to be avoided by the monk. The doctrine of silence is not explicitly treated, 9. B. Capelle, "Cassien, le Maitre et saint Benoit: ancimne et midibale 11, 1939, p. 110-118. ., p. 207-266. 10. de VogiiC, La CommunautC 11. Hanslik, R e p h , p. 17 1-172.

..

in Recherches de t h i o l o e

120

Silence

although one could expect that among the principal vices that attack the monk one would find the vice of loquacity or gossip, or something akin to it. But such is not the case. Such a failing is not singled out for explicit treatment in the Institutes, and among the twenty-four Conferences one does not find any that treats specifically of silence. Cassian has a system of spirituality which is well thought out and quite elaborate. Within this system silence does not have a major or predominant role. This is not to say that silence was not integrated into the total system. It can be seen that it was. Since Cassian did not systematize silence in his plan it will not be necessary in this survey to do so. It will be enough to extricate what teaching there is on silence where it is treated in passing. In order to do this it will be necessary to have some idea of Cassian's thought regarding idle talk, chattering and gossip. The monk is to avoid such talk, which implies he is to keep silent at times. Then the teaching on silence itself will be reviewed. It will be seen that in Cassian's mind silence could be both a virtue and a vice. Finally, the rules regarding silence in the cenobium will be presented. If this presentation seems to lack any overall structure, it is because the thought of Cassian itself seems to lack much organization with regard to silence.

IDLE TALK, GOSSIP, CHATTERING, SCURRILITY

The elder Abbot Machetes never slept during a spiritual conference, but as soon as the talk degenerated into detractions or useless words he would fall off to sleep (Inst 5.29).12 By such an action he showed that the devil was the enemy of spiritual conferences and the encourager and suggester of idle tales and useless talk (Inst 5.3 1). Filthy conversation, scurrility, buffoonery and foolish talking find their roots in the vice of fornication (Conf 5.16) and so must be avoided. Wordy chattering and curiosity stem from acedia (Conf 5.16). In order to overcome this vice the monk was to stay in his cell and not run 12. References to the Institutes will be made in this fashion, indicating Book and chapter. S o too, with the Conferences.

John Cassian

121

about seeking distractions and thus be disturbed by rumors and idle chatter (Inst 10.7). One form of pride is made manifest by unbridled freedom in silly giggling and laughing. This form of pride has n o scruple about talking freely on matters that are unsuitable and foolish, and is opposed t o the restraint of silence (Conf 4.20). Thus a loud voice in conversation, noisy and excessive laughter, and such a freedom of the tongue that words pour out without any gravity or seriousness, are signs of pride (Inst 12.29). On the other hand, no inopportune chattering, no light and frivolous laughter, n o unrestrained and undisciplined mirth are signs of humility (Inst 12.27) There is t o be reading at the meals of the monks in order t o stop unnecessary and idle conversation (Inst 4.17). After the meeting for common prayer, the monk is not t o loiter and gossip, but t o return t o his cell. There he is t o remain and work, not leaving his cell to chatter. Rather, as he works, his heart and mouth should be occupied by spiritual meditation, that is he is t o repeat by heart some psalm o r passage of Scripture (Inst 2.15). Thus there is n o time for idle talk. Idle gossip hinders one from attaining the goal of constant meditation on the Holy Scriptures and recollection of spiritual things (Conf 1.18). Vain words, much speaking and scurrility are enemies t o the pure prayer that the monk desires to realize. Such things will haunt the monk when he wants to pray, for one brings t o prayer his memories. Thus in order t o have a pure heart at prayer the monk ought t o avoid vain words, much speaking and scurrility (Conf 9.3). From these observations concerning idle talk and laughter, it is seen that in the daily struggle against vices the monk must keep aguard on his use of his tongue. Control of the tongue is necessary t o avoid vice and t o practice virtue.

SILENCE

With his reflections on the harm of idle talk and chattering Cassian suggests that a monk is t o restrain the use of his tongue. He is at times t o observe silence in order t o avoid certain vices

Silence and to practice virtue. Above all, control of the tongue is necessary in order to pray with purity of heart. But control of the tongue is not necessarily the same as silence. Silence means not merely control of the tongue, but the lack of speaking, the lack of verbal communication. Such a silence is best realized in the solitude of the desert (Cf. Conf 7.26; 14.4; 19.10; 24. 18). In this solitude one is freed from all intercourse with other men. In such a silence one is undisturbed by his brothers (Conf 24.18). Thus one finds in Cassian the themes of solitude and silence in the loneliness of the desert. However, for the purpose of the present survey these themes are prescinded from. Here silence is considered as an absence of communication between men who are in contact with each other. Silence or the absence of verbal communication between monks is considered both negatively and positively by John Cassian, that is, silence can be a vice as well as a virtue. There is an undesirable as well as a desirable silence. Negative or Undesirable Silence There is a silence which refuses to forgive another. It does not allow one to speak to another with civility because it is angry and cannot forgive (Inst 8.11). Thus a silent sulkiness can be a sign of deep and unresolved anger (Inst 8.12). Such an attitude seeks the desert in cowardly flight rather than practicing the patience and humility that is needed in human intercourse (Inst 8.18). Thus silence can be nothing more than the nursing of a grudge in one's heart against one's brother (Inst 12. 27). Such a silence is not a virtue and is not desirable. It is a bitter silence which refuses to accept another's apology (Conf 16.18) or to make an apology. It is a sign of pride. It was noted above that one form of pride was made manifest in verbosity and noisy talking. But there is another form of pride (Inst 12.25) that is perhaps more subtle. This form of pride puts on an appearance of seriousness and gravity and delights in not talking (Conf 4.20). Silence ought to be a sign of compunction and humility, but it can be a sign of pride and

John Cassian anger (Inst 12.27). Silence can be a type of vainglory (Inst 11.3) as well as the cause for vainglory (Inst 11.4). A good example of this proud silence is the refusal to openly confess one's secret sins to one's superior. It is the devil who inspires such a silence and he can be overthrown in this case only by an open confession of fault (Conf 2.11), that is by speaking. Thus silence can be opposed to an open and humble confession of guilt (Conf 2.13). In this way silence is really a vice and not to be practiced. Dejection can also reduce a monk to silence. This dejection does not allow a monk to be gentle with his brothers (Inst 9.1). It makes it impossible for him to receive guests civilly and to converse with them (Inst 9.4). The monk is warned not to give up communication with his brothers, but rather to practice patience (Inst 9.7). Thus silence can be used as an escape from social responsibilities. This type of silence is not desirable. From these observations it appears that for Cassian silence was not always and necessarily a good thing. There is a silence that not only leads one into vainglory, but is itself a form a vainglory and pride. In this way silence can be a vice and thus must be avoided and fought against. Positive or Desirable Silence Admitting that silence can be a vice, Cassian also shows that it is avirtue. But silence has arelative value. It is better to practice patience than to give up communicating with the brothers (Inst 9.7). And although the silence of one's cell is desirable and necessary for the monk, it is not to be preferred to obedience. At the sound of the signal for a community exercise, the monk is to leave his work and reading and the silence and quiet of his cell (Inst 4.12). As a virtue silence can be learned from an elder who is proficient in it (Inst 5.4). But one cannot hope to practice silence without God's grace (Conf 13.6), for God's grace is necessary to practice any virtue. Silence has various purposes. At the common prayer all are to be perfectly silent while one chants the psalms. And at the concluding prayer no voice is to be heard except the one who

124

Silence

prays. Such a strict silence is enjoined at this time that even coughing, the clearing of the throat, yawns, groans and sighs are forbidden. Anyone who prays aloud or makes any noise is guilty of a double fault. He offers God a careless prayer, but he also disturbs another who would otherwise pray with greater attention (Inst 2.10). Thus silence at prayer is for the sake of reverence and respect for God. It is also observed out of concern for one's brother, in order not t o disturb his prayer. The purpose of silence at meals is so that one can hear the reading, but the purpose of reading is not for the sake of spiritual exercise. Rather, reading has been introduced, follow. ing the example of the Cappadocians, in order to stop unnecessary and idle conversation, especially arguments (Inst 4.17). Thus one notes that at meals silence is imposed for the sake of peace and tranquillity. Reading is introduced in order to keep silence. But there is surely a reciprocity here. Reading is introduced in order to keep the monks from speaking, and the monks keep silence in order t o hear the reading. The monk remains in his cell during the day and works in silence. His mouth and heart are to be occupied by spiritual meditation, repeating by heart some psalm or passage of Scripture (Inst 2.15). Thus silence is ordered to meditation. Constant meditation on Holy Scripture and the recollection of spiritual things is the goal of the monk's life. Idle talk hinders one from attaining this goal (Conf 1.18). During the silence of the night the monk is to go over Scripture (Conf 14.10). From these notations it can be concluded that a very important purpose for silence is so that the monk may meditate on Sacred Scripture. If the monk is always talking he will have no time for meditating on Scripture. The monk's profession is contemplation of divine purity. This cannot be acquired except by silence and perseverance and meditation in one's cell (Inst 10. 3 ). Fighting against the monk's perseverance in meditation in the silence of his cell is the vice of acedia. This vice makes the monk restless and tempts him to leave his cell and distract himself with chattering and loafing. But the monk must overcome this temptation and remain in the quiet of his cell (Inst 10.7).

John Cassian

125

He must work in silence as Paul the apostle taught by his own example (Inst 10.1 1 and 14; cf. 2 Thess 3.12). The fruits of the silence which shuts one's mouth and allows no freedom to speak should be tranquillity and calmness (Conf 18.12). But it must be admitted that external silence alone does not realize these fruits unless the heart is at peace, and for true peace of heart the virtues of humility and patience must be acquired.13 When a monk is wronged by another he should keep silence (Conf 16.26), observingwhat the psalmist says: "I put a guard over my ways so that I would not sin in my tongue. . . . I kept silence, I was humbled and kept silence from good words" (PS 38.2-3). Thus when wronged or injured the monk does not respond in kind, but acts like a blipd, deaf and dumb man (Inst 4.41). In this way he can hope to attain the summit of love and virtue, especially as it is realized in the virtue of humility. Silence is one expression of humility, one realization of this essential virtue. It should be a sign of compunction and humility, and it is if it allows the monk to listen to spiritual teaching with an open heart (Inst 12.27). In Cassian's treatment of the ten signs of humility, the last two signs refer to silence (Inst 4.39). Just as talkativeness and unrestrained laughter are signs of pride (Inst 12.29), so the control of these is a sign of humility (Inst 4.39). The humble monk listens to the teaching of his elders. He does so in a silence which is open and responsive (Conf 14.9). Pride will tempt the listener to become in turn a teacher, but the monk must overcome this temptation to vainglory and with silence seal the teaching of the elder in the memory where it is stored (Conf 14.13). That the desire to teach is a sign of vainglory (Conf 14.9), and that the teaching of an elder should be stored in the memory and sealed in by silence may explain the interesting notation made by Cassian that a Conference often begins in si13. The theme of patience is found throughout the works of Cassian. No attempt has been made here to synthesize this doctrine since it only obliquely touches upon the teaching on silence. But it should be noted that it is a rich and recurring theme and would lend itself to further investigation.

Silence lence (Conf 3.2; 11.4-5;17.6;24.l) and ends in silence (Conf 8.25;22.16; 24.26). The conference begins after a silent pause because the speaker is hesitant to speak and does not wish to speak out of vainglory, but for the purpose of edification. It can also be a sign of reverence and respect for the speaker on the part of the listener (Conf 15.1). When the conference is completed silence reigns so that what has been said can be sealed in the memory of the listener. Here it is seen that silence is again ordered to listening and meditation, for one absorbs what has been said in silence. On three occasions where a conference ends in silence the speakers allude to the image of a safe port or harbor of silence which has been entered after a crossing of the deep sea (Conf 8.25;22.16;24.26). It is as if they recognized that in speaking they were in danger in the open sea - the danger of vainglory? - but in completing the discourse they have returned once again to the safe harbor of silence. Abbot Serenus states that in this safe harbor of silence, which is deep and boundless, the breath of the Holy Spirit will drive one further in (Conf 8.25). Is this to say that the Spirit allows one to penetrate the depths of doctrine only if one has learned to be silent? As the monk progresses in the life of prayer he will eventually arrive at that state where he can no longer pray in words, but will be reduced to silence. This is that ineffable prayer that knows no sound of the voice, no movement of the tongue, no pronunciation of words (Conf 9.25). At times the monk's sense of compunction will be such that no words can express what he feels (Conf 9.27). This prayer of silence, a prayer of the heart and not of the voice, is a realization of the Gospel injunction to pray with the door closed (Conf 9.35;cf. Matt 6.6). The point of all this is that the purest prayer can indeed be silence. Silence can be prayer; it can be the realization of the monk's goal.

THE RULES OF THE CENOBIUM

The writings of John Cassian do not belong to the literary genre of monastic rules. However, in the first four books of

John Cassian the Institutes the author presents details of the way of life in the Egyptian cenobia. In this section one finds details concerning the monk's dress, common prayer and certain specifications with regard to silence. Monks are to keep silence during common prayer. No sound is to be made while one of the monks chants the psalm. And when the prayer is being concluded, only the voice of the monk making the conclusion is to be heard (Inst 2.10). After the common prayer, the monks are to return to their cells without loitering. They are to work in their cells and refrain from going out to chatter (Inst 2.15). Should any disregard this rule they are to be suspended from common prayer. If anyone has been suspended from common prayer no one is to speak with him or pray with him (Inst 2.16). Chapter 16 of Book 4 of the Institutes is analogous to the penal code sections one finds in classical monastic rules. Here, among other failures, the following are indicated as demanding public satisfaction: if a monk does not return immediately to his cell after common prayer; if a monk carries on a conversation with anyone other than his cell mate; if a monk talks to relatives or secular friends without the senior being present. None of these specifications explicitly enjoin silence, but in keeping them silence is imposed. Finally, there is the rule of reading at meals (Inst 4.17). It is expressly stated that no one is to talk. The superior himself may ask for something if he sees someone in need of it, but this should be done by means of some sign.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The references to silence are scattered throughout the works of Cassian. There is no systematic treatment of it. Thus it is rather difficult to analyze and synthesize. But it seems clear that silence as restraint of speech is a relative good. Indeed, it can even be bad. Whether it is good or evil depends upon its motivation. Motivated by vainglory and pride or by anger and dejection, silence is an evil. But motivated by humility, a desire to listen to spiritual doctrine or to meditate on Scripture, si-

128

Silence

lence is a good and is to be cultivated. Pure prayer can even take the form of silence. Silence can only be evaluated in so far as it is related to something else. When it is related to a vice it is evil. When it is related to a virtue it is good. One does not find any indication that silence is good or evil in itself. It is always functional for good or for evil.

CHAPTER XI

BASIL

T

H E B E N E D I C T I N E R U L E specifically mentions the "Rule of our holy Father Basil'' (RB 73.5). From the references given in Hanslik's Index Scriptorum' it is obvious that the author of the RB knew the so-called Rule of Basil translated into Latin by Rufinus of Aquileia. From the preface to this translation written by Rufinus one learns that it was translated for Ursacius, Abbot of the monastery of Pinetum in Italy.* Rufinus did this translation shortly after his return to the West in 3 9 7 . 3 In the Codex Regularum of Benedict of Aniane this work is referred to as the Rule of Basil, but Rufinus seems to have preferred to call it institute^.^ In any case this seems to be the work referred to by the RB. It has been noted that the author of the RB shows no indication of having known Greek. Thus his knowledge of Basil's works would depend upon their Latin translations which would have been available to him when he wrote his Rule. In the Greek corpus of Basil's writings there are two so-called monastic rules. The Regulae fusius tractatae5 and the Regulae breuius tractatae. The first consists of fifty-five questions with answers. The second contains 3 1 3 questions and answers. The 1. Hanslik, Regulo. p. 17 1. 2. P.L. 103, CC.485-486. 3. Francis X Murphy, Rufinus of Aquileia (345-411): His Life and Works. Washington, Catholic University, 1945, p. 50, note 86, and p. 63, note 18. 4. Instituta monachomm, cf. P.L. 103, cc. 485-486. 5. P.G. 31, cc. 889-1052. 6. P.G. 9 1, cc. 1080-1905

130

Silence

Latin edition by Rufinus consists of 203 questions and answers. Traditionally it was considered that Rufinus combined the two Greek Rules, omitting some questions and rearranging the order. His translation was considered to be rather free and often nothing more that a paraphrase,' but Dom Jean Gribomont has now shown that Rufinus translated an early recension of the Asceticon of Basil. This early edition is no longer extant in Greek, but is testified to by the Latin translation of Rufinus and a family of Syriac translations.' Basil wrote this first edition before he became bishop in 370,9 probably around 365." From this it is to be concluded that the Rule of Basil as translated by Rufinus is indeed the work of Basil, granting that it presents his early thought rather than his more mature and better developed thinking with regard to community life. There are two other monastic works in Latin attributed to Basil that seem to have been known by the author of the RB. They are the Admonitio ad filium spiritualem and The Discourse on Asceticism. The origin of both of these works is obscure. Whether they are indeed Latin translations of works of Basil can be questioned.

THE RULE OF BASIL

It has been noted that ancient Latin Christian literature apparently knew the Asceticon of Basil only in the version of Rufinus." This Instituta monachorum or Rule of Basil1?consists 7. Murphy, op. cit., p. 9 1; Lentini, La Regoh, p. xviii; cf. also the critical observations by M. Brocke in Migne, P.L. 103, cc. 485486. 8. J. Gribomont, Histoire de Texts des Ascitiques de S. Bade, Louvain, Publications Universitaires, 1953, p. 5 , 6 , 65, 95, 237, 251. 9. Ibid., p. 323. 10. L. Lkbe, "Saint Bade. Note i propos des Rkgles Monastiques," in Revue 64ntdictine 76, 1966, p. 116-119. l l. Gribomont, op. cit., p. 9 1. 12. Lucas Holstenius, Codex Regularurn I, Graz, 1957, p. 65-108= P.L. 103, cc. 487-554. There is no English translation of this work. The two Greek versions of the Asceticon are translated by W.K.L. Clarke, The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil, London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1925. 362 p. The translator notes which questions correspond to the Rule translated by Rufinus

Basil

131

of 203 questions about the ascetic life in community. The corresponding answers are composed of Scripture citations and explanations of them. These questions and answers contain what pertains to Christian perfection. There seems t o be some plan t o the work, but it is difficult to establish.13 For the purpose of analyzing the teaching on silence it is not necessary to be concerned with the plan of the Rule. The treatment of silence appears in the latter part of the Rule. In this latter part the questions follow each other rather haphazardly.14 Silence: Question 136" asks whether it is good to keep complete silence. The answer is that silence (silentium et taciturnitas) is good when it is appropriate either with regard t o persons or to time. Intemperance in speech must be controlled and silence is indeed at times necessary to avoid vices of the tongue. One should learn t o speak at the proper times. The general impression one gets is that silence is a relative good, depending on circumstances, one's motivation and the content of one's speech. Question 13716 asks whether one should speak during the time of prayer or psalmody. This seems to indicate that some monks would not attend the common prayer because they were engaged in some necessary work." NO one is to speak during this time unless the requirements of his ministry and service demand it. Even so, he is to speak quietly and without disturbing or offending others. Idle Words: Question 4018 asks how idle words are to be judged. In response Basil says that all words that do not advance the grace of faith in Christ are idle. Such words are dangerous even though they may seem t o be good. They are idle 13. Dom Jean Gribomont has analyzed the plans of the three versions of the Asceticon as seen from the progressive redactions: J. Gribomont, "Obeissancc et Evangile selon saint Basile le Grand," in SuPplPment de h Vie Spirihtelle 21, 1952 p. 192-215. He shows that the theme of obedience is the central question and esta blishes what order there is in the questions. 14. Ibid., p 199. 15. P.L. 103, c. 536. 16. Ibid., c 536. 17. Cf. Clarke, The Ascetic Works, p. 293, note 4. 18. P.L. 103, c. 513.

132

Silence

because they d o not pertain t o the edification of faith and so grieve the Holy Spirit. Therefore they must be avoided. Laughter: The question of laughter is closely associated with the teaching on silence as has been frequently observed in the various analyses made above. Basil asks whether it is permitted t o laugh at all (Question 53).19 He responds that the Lord will condemn those who laugh now (cf. Luke 6.25). From this it is clear that there is never a time when the faithful soul can laugh. Rather, the Christian is to weep and be sorry since so many d o not keep God's law and die in sin. Basil also treats this problem of laughter in Question •’iZ0 where he discusses the virtue of continence or moderation. This virtue moderates all of man's activities, among them the use of sight, hearing and speech. A sign of an incontinent man is inordinate laughter. A man should rather be serious and composed. Basil condemns that type of laughter which is rooted in the passions, but he does not at all mean to condemn the joy of soul felt by a Christian. A smile is all that is necessary t o indicate the joy of one's SOUL THE ADMONITION OF BASIL TO HIS SPIRITUAL SON

The Latin text of the Admonitio ad Filium Spiritualem attributed to Basil is found in Benedict of Aniane's Codex Regularum. 2 1 According t o some scholars this is an authentic work of Basil of which the original Greek text is lost and whose Latin translation was very probably done by R u f i n u ~This . ~ ~ document is not a legislative text but rather a sort of introduction t o the monastic life given in the form of an exhortation by a senior t o his spiritual son. The RB seems t o have known this document for there are literary parallels between it and the opening verses of the Prolog of the RB.23 19. P.L 103, c. 515. 20. P.L. 103, cc. 449-501. 21. P.L. 103, cc. 683-700 22. Eugitne Manning, "L'Admonitio S. Basilii ad filium spin'tualem et la Ritgle de S. Benoit," in Revue d'ascttique et de mystique 42, 1966, p: 465-479. Cf. p. 476 where Manning cites Lehman and Rochais as holding for Basd's authorship. 23. Ibid., p. 476-478.

Basil The Admonitio is composed of a short Prolog and twenty chapters. The chapters discuss various aspects of the spiritual life, especially virtues to be practiced and vices t o be avoided. Two chapters are of particular interest with regard t o silence. Chapter 1624is on the control of the tongue. This chapter immediately follows the chapter on avoiding pride (ch 15),25 in which there is no special reference t o use of the tongue. But an earlier chapter on humility (ch 10)26states that a proud man is known by his mouth. This connection between humility and the use of the voice is not referred t o in chapter 16. There it is merely stated that one is t o abstain from unlawful words, that he is not t o blaspheme. Neither should one speak idle words, for one will have t o give account of these on judgment day. One is t o avoid useless words and should speak at the appropriate time with proper words that furnish grace t o the hearers. Chapter 1727 concerns fleeing from vain joy. It is especially concerned with the question of laughing. The thought of the author is very similar to that of Questions 8 and 53 of the Latin Rule of Basil. A smile is enough t o manifest the joy of the interior man. Loud laughing is t o be avoided. Thejoking of children is not suitable for a man who is drawn t o perfection. Thus on this score of laughing and joking one can distinguish between children and the mature or perfect man. The perfect man is one who grasps the seriousness of life and so is not given to joking and laughing. He is filled with compunction and desires t o die and be with Christ, for he knows that now is the time for tears and weeping, while later he will be filled with joy. This idea that control of laughter is in view of the passing nature of this world and the promise of future joy is alluded t o in chapter g2*which is on fleeing the love of this world. Now is the time when there can be immoderate and useless laughter, but this is passing away quickly. From these indications, it ap24. P.L. 103, c. 696. 25. Ibid., c. 695. 26. Ibid., c. 692. 27. Ibid., cc. 696-697. 28. P.L. 103, c. 690.

134

Silence

pears that control of laughter is motivated by eschatological considerations.

THE DISCOURSE ON ASCETICISM

There is a small work of some ninety-five lines that has been preserved in Latin and is attributed to Dom Wilmart presents a text of this discourse based on four Latin manuscripts. It is called Admonitio SanctiBasiliiad Monachos (Quomod0 Monachus vivere d e b e ~ t ) . ~The ' translation of this work into Latin was probably made in Italy.31 In reading this document one is struck by the similarity between it and chapter 4 of the RB. Nothing is said specifically about silence, but the monk is told to use a soft voice and to be moderate in words. He is to understand more and speak less. He is not to be presumptuous in words nor to love lengthy tales. And he is not to be prompt to laugh.32

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In the Latin works of Basil available to the RB there is relatively little that specifically concerns silence. Silence is expressly treated in the Rule, Questions 136 and 137. However, closely associated subjects are treated more at length. The problem of idle words is discussed in all three works, so too is laughter. From Basil's treatment it would seem that silence was necessary in order to control the tongue, especially with regard to idle talk and laughing. But silence is good in relationship to persons and times. It is not an absolute good to be sought for itself. But restraint and control of the tongue is essential for 29. D.A. Wimart, "Le Discours de saint Bade sur 1'Asckse en Latin," in Revue bdnddictine 27, 1910, p. 226-233. SO. Ibid., p. 228-231. 31. Ibid., p. 233. 32. These exhortations are found in the first part of the text from line 7 to 12 of the edition presented by Wilmart.

Basil

135

the Christian ascetic who wishes to be perfect. It is indeed worthy of note that although Basil condemns laughing he does not encourage sullenness nor moroseness. On two occasions he specifically states that a smile is sufficient to manifest the joy of one's soul. Basil's thoughts on laughing are certainly motivated by eschatological considerations.

CHAPTER XI1

AUGUSTINE AND CAESARIUS OF ARLES

H

AN S L I K L I S T S a number of places where the RB can be dependent on various works of Augustine.' Especially to be noted is Letter 211. Dom Lambot, thirty years earlier, had studied the possible dependencies of the RB on the works of Augustine.' He concluded that of the possible dependencies few were necessarily direct. Lately, Eugene Manning has investigated the influence of Augustine's monastic legislation on the RB.3 He sees the RB influenced by the Rule of Augustine through the RM. However, in spite of Manning's position, there is no need to limit the knowledge the author of the RB had of the monastic legislation of Augustine to the mediatorship of the RM, for there is reason to believe that the RB was aware of Augustine's monastic works independently of the RM. The dissemination of these works speaks in favor of this position. In looking for any teaching regarding silence in Augustine the concern here is only with his specifically monastic works, that is the Rule of Augustine and the De opere monachorum. The latter presents no great textual problem. The former however is quite problematic. What exactly does one mean by the Rule of Augustine? Quite recently Luc Verheijen has published a two-volume 1. Hanslik, Regulq p. 170. 2. D.C. Lambot, "L'influence de S. Augustin sur La Regle de S. Benoit," in Revue Liturgique et Monactique 14, 1929, p. 320-330. 3. Eughe Manning, "La ICgislation monastique de S. Augustin et la Regula Monasteriorum," in Augustiniana 16, 1966, p. 917-329.

Augustine and Caesarius of Aries

137

study on the questions surrounding the Rule of A u g u ~ t i n e . ~ Verheijen shows that the dossier of the Rule of Augustine is made up of nine documents, four of them addressed t o men and five addressed t o women. By analysis and comparison of these nine documents it is concluded that there are three basic documents which make u p the so-called Rule of Augustine. These three basic documents, according to their date of composition, are the Ordo Monasterii, the Praecepturn and the Obiurga tio. The Ordo Monasterii was most likely written by Alypius, the friend of Augustine.' Alypius had traveled to the Orient and visited Jerome. He there became acquainted with Eastern monasticism. On his return t o the West he became bishop of Thagaste and wrote the Ordo Monasterii around 395.6 He showed this work t o Augustine who gave his approval. In turn, following the example of Alypius, Augustine composed the Praecepturn for the monks in the monastery at Hippo7 sometime between 397 and 400.' Some years later Augustine wrote the Obiurgatio to the convent where his sister had been superior. This letter was occasioned by internal disturbances in the convent and was written somewhere around 423.9 Within a short time these three documents were joined in various combinations. The Ordo Monasterii and the Praecepturn were combined. This combination is called the Praecepturn longius by Verheijen.l0 The combination was probably made by Alypius and constituted the first "codex regularurn." Alypius took this combination with him on one of his trips t o Italy. Thus it was that the so-called Rule of Augustine was disseminated in the form of the Praecepturn longius. The author of the RB probably knew this form." Another combination was also made. The Obiurgatio or let4. Luc Verheijen, La R2gle de Saint Augustin. I . Tradition Manuscrite, and 11, Recherches Histongues, Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes, 1967,p. 477 and p. 258. 5. Verheijen 11, p. 155. 6. Ibid., p. 164. 7. Ibid., p. 2 16. 8. Ibid., p. 115. 9. Ibid., p. 203. 10. Ibid. I. p. 11;11, p. 439. l l. Verheijcn 11, p. 216.

Silence ter to the nuns was combined with a feminine transcription of thefiaeceptum. This feminine transcription of the Praeceptum is known as the Regularis Informatio. The combination is known as the Epistula longior12 which the Maurists knew as Letter 2 11 . 1 3 This form also knew an early diffusion. There is no reason to exclude the possibility that the author of the RB knew this feminine tradition.I4 From this it can be seen that the RB probably knew the three basic documents that compose the Rule of Augustine. However, it would have used them in some combination. In order to see the possible dependency of the RB on the Rule of Augustine it is sufficient to analyze the three basic documents in their primitive forms according to the critical edition of Verheijen. These forms would probably be closer to the text the author of the RB knew than any later manuscript text given the short lapse of time between their separate writings and their combination and diffusion.

THE RULE OF AUGUSTINE

The Ordo Monasterii: l 5 The Ordo Monasterii was written by Alypius shortly after his return from his visit to the Orient. It is legislative and juridical in tone. It specifies that while the monks are sitting at table for meals they are to be silent and listen to the reading (7).16Monksare not to murmur (5). Neither are they to speak idle words (9). This condemnation of idle talk is found in the context of the daily work of the monks. While they work they are to sit in silence unless the necessity of work demands that they speak. They are not to stand around conversing unless this may perhaps be useful for the soul. The Praeceptum: l' Augustine wrote the Praeceptum at the 12.Ibid.1,~.12;II,p.217. 13. Ibid. 11, p. 177. 14. Ibid., p. 2 18. 15. The critical edition of this document is found in Verheijcn 1, p. 148-152. 16. The number refers to the paragraph enumeration found in Verheijen's critical edition 17. The critical edition of this document is found in Verheijen 1, p. 417-437.

Augustine and Caesan'us of Arles

139

close of the fourth century. He was probably well aware of the Ordo Monasten'i and wished to complement it. The tone is far less juridical than that of the Ordo and is a longer document than it. Monks are to have reading at table (3.2),18 but it is not specified that they keep silence. However, this can be taken for granted in light of the specifications in the Ordo which the Praeceptum complements. Augustine says explicitly that silence would be cruel in the case of the need of fraternal correction (4.8). There is no other reference to silence in this work. However, the author says that hard words should be refrained from. If they d o come forth from the mouth, then healing words should also come forth from the mouth which has so wounded another. From this it seems that monks were encouraged to apologize to each other when they had been offensive (6.2). ' ~ letter to nuns by Augustine is relatiThe O b i ~ r g a t i o : The vely short. There is no reference to silence in it.

DE OPERE MONACHORUM

Augustine wrote the De opere monachorum about 401-L11his treatise was written at the request of the bishop of Carthage, Aurelius. It attempted to solve some problems concerned with monastic discipline, especially that some monks were refusing to work and support themselves. Augustine comments on the exhortation of Paul to the Thessalonians (2 Thess 3.12), saying that monks should work to provide their own food. The point to be noted is that in commenting on this passage Augustine seems to emphasize not only 18. The numbers correspond to the enumeration of section and paragraph given in Verheijen's edition. 19. The critical edition of this document is found in Verheijen I, p. 105-107. 20. CSEL 41, p. 531-595, edited by Joseph Zycha; there is an English translation in The Fathers of the Church 16, by Sister Mary Sarah Muldowney, New York. 1952, p. 321-394. 21. Franciscus Moriones, Enchiridion Theologicum Sancti Augustin< Madrid, La Editorial ~ a t d i c a ,1961, p. 707.

Silence the aspect of work, but also of silence (3.4).22 Monks are to work silently, that is quietly and obediently (29.37). Monks who claim t o be following the Gospel by not working, and who spread this doctrine abroad, are really idle gossipers and it would be better for them t o shut up and give their tongue the same rest that they allow t o their hands. Thus they could at least give an example of silence as well as of laziness (22.26). What do these idlers want to do? They wish t o spend their time in prayer and reading. But Augustine says that while a monk works he can sing psalms and meditate on the law of God (17.20). Augustine says nothing here about silence, but in view of what is said elsewhere about working in silence it could be concluded that monks were t o work in silence in order t o give them the opportunity to mediate on the Scriptures. But this is not the point of Augustine's arguments. He is more concerned with getting the idle monks t o work and tells them that while they work they can pray and meditate.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

From the above considerations it is apparent that Augustine - considered it necessary t o make some statement concerning monastic silence. The least informative of all is the De opere monachorum. This work was written in a polemic situation and thus does not necessarily reflect monastic thought and practice. The comments on 2 Thessalonians with regard t o working and eating in silence d o not reflect a normal situation. These comments are made in the light of an abuse and a false interpretation of Scripture. However, in view of the teaching of other monastic writings, the comments of Augustine seem t o reflect a monastic tradition of silence during work and the avoiding of gossip. It is noteworthy that John Cassian also comments on 2 Thessalonians 3.12 in his treatment on acedia (Inst 10.1 1-14) and says that

- ar Alypius as the case might be

22. The numbers refer to the enumeration in the CSEL edltion of this work.

Augustine and Caesarius of Arles

141

the monk is t o work in silence and restrain himself from running about and distracting himself with chatter. Whatever may be the difficulties in appealing to the De opere monachorum for Augustine's teaching on silence, it makes little difference. From the documents of the Rule of Augustine one concludes t o the following: there is silence during meals so that monks may listen to the reading; there is silence during work unless it is necessary t o speak; the monk is t o avoid idle talk and murmuring. On the other hand, a monk may speak when it will help another and be useful for the soul, either his own or the other's. A monk has a special obligation to speak when fraternal correction demands it. It would be cruel to keep silence in this case. Given the relative paucity of the monastic work of Augustine it is noteworthy that silence is treated t o the extent that it is. And this is of course due especially t o the Ordo Monasterii of Alypius. And there the proportion is striking. Out of a total of eleven paragraphs, two specifically treat of silence.

CAESARIUS OF ARLES

The sixth century bishop of Arles, Caesarius, wrote two monastic rules. The Regula ad Monachos was written for men, and the Regula ad Virgines for consecrated women. The first was written early in the sixth century, around 500 or shortly after.23 The second, the Rule for Nuns, was presented t o the community in its final form in 534.14The Rule for Monks is much shorter than the Rule for Nuns, but there can be little doubt that there is a close relationship between the two.'' Because of the relatively late date of the final redaction of the Rule for Nuns, some scholars question the possibility that 23. F. Vandenbroucke, "Sur les sources de la Rlrgle btntdictine . . .," in Revue binidictine 62, 1952, p. 229. 24. Mother Maria Caritas McCarthy, The Rule for Nuns of St. Caesarius of Arles. A Translation with a Critical Introduction. Washington, C ~ t h o l i cUniversity, 1960, P 9. 25. Ibid., p. 8, 62, 90.

142

Silence

the author of the RB knewit at all. However, the more tenable position is that the author of the RB did know both Rules of Caesari~s.'~ If the author of the RB used the final redaction of Caesarius' Rule for Nuns, then the final redaction of the RB must be later than 534.

SILENCE IN THE RULES OF CAESARIUS

The Rule for Monks:" The Rule for Monks is quite short and probably reflects the monastic tradition of Lerins." While monks chant the psalms no one should presume to speak. While they are at table eating no one is to speak. One of the monks reads so that as the body is being refreshed by food, the soul may be nourished by the word of God.29When a monk is corrected he must not presume to respond.30 These are only prescriptions given in the Rule regarding silence. There is another reference to silence which is not legislative but doctrinal. Monastic life is a battle waged by the soldier of Christ. Among the virtues in which the monk should excel is listed ~ilence.~' The Rule for Nuns:32 The Rule for Nuns was redacted later than the Rule for Monks and over a period of about twenty years. It was begun about 512 and completed in 534.33It shows a heavy dependency on the Rule of Augustine, especially in the first part of the Rule.34 As a complete work the Rule is rather disorganized and rambling, and is composed of seventy26. Ibid., p. 155; Vandenbroucke, op. cif., p. 229-232; Mundb, "L'authenticitk .,"in Studia Anselmiam 42, 1957, p. 126-127. 27. The critical edition of the Rule has been edited by Dom Gennain Morin, in SanctiCaesarii EpiscopiArehtensis. Opera O m n L Vol. I1 Opera Varia, Marcdsous, 1942, p. 149-155. 28. MCCarthy, op. cit.. p. 90. 29. Morin, op. cit., p. 150. The paragraphs of the Rule are not numbered. It is therefore necessary to indicate the page of MoM's edition on which the reference to silence is made. 30. Ibid., p. 151. 31. Ibid., p. 152. 32. The critical edition is found inMorin, op. cit., p. 101-124. There is an English translation in McCarthy, op. cit. 33. Morin, op. cit., p. 99. 34. McCarthy, op. cit., p. 107-126.

..

Augustine and Caesarius of Arles

143

three so-called chapters, most of which are merely one paragraph. The Rule proper consists of the first forty-seven chapters. This section was probably completed about 520.35 All the references t o silence are found in this section. The nuns should never speak in a loud voice nor should they ever murmur (17). While the psalms are being chanted they are not permitted t o talk (10). There is a section that runs from chapter 1 8 t o 20 that treats of various aspects of silence. This section begins with a notation that the sisters should obey the Mother Abbess. It then immediately legislates that during meals they should sit in silence and listen t o the reading so that as the mouth receives nourishment the ears should hear the word of God (18). During the hours of work they are to avoid idle talk according t o the Apostle's injunction in 2 Thessalonians 3.12 to work quietly. If they speak it is only that which pertains t o edification and the usefulness of the soul (19). While they are working they are t o meditate on the word of God and pray in their hearts. If the necessity of work requires it they may speak (20; cf. also 22). Silence would be wrong when fraternal correction demands that one speak t o another and rebuke her. In such a case silence would be cruel (24).

CONCLUSIONS

It is apparent how close the thought of Caesarius is t o that of Augustine. The specifications of silence are the same with regard t o meals and working. Both call upon the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians t o justify silence during work. This appeal t o 2 Thessalonians was also made by John Cassian. The specification of silence during psalmody is also reminiscent of Cassian. 35. Lucien-Rkne Delsalle, "Comparaison, datation, localisation relatives des rkgles monastiques de Saint CCsaire d'Arles, saint Ferrbol d'Uzks et de la 'Regula Tamantensis Monasterii' ;" in Augustiniana 11, 1961, p. 21-22. 36. The numbers correspond to the enumeration of the paragraphs as found in Morin's critical edition

144

Silence

The primary concern of Caesarius with regard to silence is silence for the sake of meditation and prayer. The monk or nun is to keep silence so that he may hear the word of God in psalmody, or at table reading, and then meditate upon this word as he works. Caesarius is insistent on constant recollection and meditation. With regard t o the RB's dependency on the Rules of Caesarius there is no reason to demand that the author of the RB knew of them only after 534, the date of the final redaction of the Rule for Nuns. The author of the RB may have known an earlier redaction of the Rule for Nuns, sometime after 520. Thus on the score of silence in the RB and the Rules of Caesarius there is no need to date the RB as late as 534.

CHAPTER XI11

PACHOMIUS A N D T H E O R I E N T A L R U L E

J

EROME T R A N S L A T E D into Latin in 404 a series of writings of the first abbots of Pachomian monasticism. The most important of these are four groups of monastic prescriptions which Jerome called the Praecepta, the Praecepta et Instituta, the Praecepta atque Iudicia, and the Praecepta ac Leges. These four collections together are known as the Rule of Pachomius. Jerome also translated the spiritual testament of Abbot Orsiesius, the first successor of Pachomius.' The Rule of Pachomius, as it has been preserved in the Latin translation of Jerome shows signs of an evolution, and thus was not necessarily written by Pachomius himself, but may be the work of his disciples.? However, it is in the form of Jerome's translation that the Rule of Pachomius was disseminated in the West and was known by the author of the RB.3 The Rule of Pachomius translated by Jerome consists of four sections, and it will be necessary to look at each section to discover the teaching on silence. It will also be advantageous t o look at the spiritual testament of Pachomius' first successor, Orsiesius. This document gives one a good idea of the Pal . Dom Amand Boon, Pachomiana Latina, Rkgle et Epitres de S. Pach6me. Epitre de S. ThPodore et "Liber" de S. Orsiesius. Texte Latin de S. JirBme, Louvain, Bureaux de la Revue, 1932, p. v. (Bibliothtque de la R m e d'Histoirc EcclCsiastique). 2. Annand Veilleux. La Liturgie dans Le Cinobitisme PachBmien au Quatn2me Siacle, Studia AnseLmiana 57. Rome, Herder, 1968, p. 116, 117. 131. 3.Boon, op. cit., p. vi.

146

Silence

chomian understanding of monasticism. It too was apparently known t o the author of the RB.

THE RULE OF PACHOMIUS~

It seems best t o treat separately the four collections of monastic prescriptions which make up the Rule of Pachomius. This is because of the evolution and development of thought that these four collections manifest, and also because of the difference in nature of the four. (1) The Praecepta: The Praecepta is the longest of the four collections. It is composed of 144 paragraphs or precepts. It is the fundamental part of the Rule of Pachomius and is concerned with the organization, administration and discipline of the cenobium. There seems to be little order in the work. One subject follows another, not because of any rigorous logic, but by a simple association of ideas.' There are also repetitions, a good sign that this section itself was redacted over a period of time. By comparison with the other three sections of the Rule the Praecepta contains most of the Pachomian teaching concerning silence. During the common prayer n o one is t o speak or laugh while one monk chants the psalms, says the prayer, or reads a lesson A monk is not even to whisper or smile during this common prayer (121). When the prayer is over, and the community leaves the oratory, monks are t o return t o their cells individually, or go t o the refectory as the case may be. While doing so they are to meditate on Scripture (28). There is no explicit mention of silence in this precept, but surely it is implied since they are t o go t o the spot singly. At meals no one is to speak or to laugh (31; 33). If anything is needed it is to be sought for by a sign. Nothing is said about reading while at meals. When they leave the refectory, they are 4. The critical edition is found in Boon, op. d.,p. 13-74. 5. Veilleux, op. d.,p. 126-127. 6. The numbers correspond to the enumeration of the precepts found in the cal edition of Boon.

cnti-

Pachomius and the Oriental Rule

147

to return to their place without speaking until they arrive there (34). While they are in their own cells, they are not t o speak about secular matters, but may reflect on Scripture together (122). Whenever the whole community comes together, monks should avoid speaking t o each other, but rather should meditate on Scripture (59). At work the monks are not t o speak about secular matters. They should meditate on holy things or else keep silence (60). This seems t o mean that they meditate vocally and maybe even talk t o one another about holy things. When working in the bakery n o one is t o speak to another, but all are t o keep silence or sing the psalms or something of Scripture while they work ( 1 16). On Sundays all are to wash their monastic garb, and as they do so they are to keep silence (68). When monks return from a journey they are not t o speak about what they have seen, heard, or done (57; 86). If a monk has a relative at the convent of nuns close by, he may visit with her, but he is not to speak about secular things (143). When monks have come together for sleep no one is t o speak to another (88). During the night n o one speaks t o another (94). From these prescriptions one gets the impression that whenever the community gathers as a whole, for prayer, for eating, for sleep, for work, there is t o be silence. But when the monks are in smaller groups they may speak about holy things and reflect on Scripture together. At all times they must avoid speaking about secular things. The purpose of silence seems to be t o free the monk for meditation and rumination on Scripture. (2) The Praecepta et Instituta: This section consists of eighteen paragraphs. These prescriptions are addressed t o the provost or heads of the monastic houses. They are t o call together the monks for prayer, organize the common work, and in general oversee the part of the community they are in charge of. Paragraph 18 is an exhortation t o the provost to practice various virtues and avoid certain vices. Among other things the provost is not t o be quick to speak idle words. He is not to laugh and joke as d o the stupid. And he is not t o laugh with

148

Silence

the boys of the community. These are the only references to silence in this section. (3) The Praecepta atque Iudicza: This section is sort of a penitential code. It is composed of sixteen paragraphs or prescriptions. There is one reference to silence. Whoever disturbs the brothers and is easily given to speaking is t o be corrected (10). (4) The Praecepta ac Leges: This section is made up of fifteen paragraphs. They concern the gathering for prayer of the various houses. There is no reference made to silence. THE LIBER ORSIESII

'

The spiritual testament of Abbot Orsiesius is a beautiful document on the meaning of monastic life, especially life in community. It is longer than the Rule of Pachomius. It is imbued with pastoral solicitude and addresses itself to a crisis that endangered the internal life of the community. Superiors must correct the monks, while brothers on their part must be obedient. Superiors and brothers are reminded of fraternal responsibility in maintaining common observance.' Toward the end of the testament, Orsiesius reminds his monks that they must read and study Scripture (51).9 Scripture must be the constant companion of the monk. In this context Orsiesius quotes Lamentations 3.27-28: "It is good for a man to take the yoke upon himself from his youth. He will sit alone and in silence because he has taken upon himself the yoke." (52). From the context it seems that the monk keeps silence in order to meditate upon the word of God in Scripture. CONCLUSIONS

From all appearances the primary, and actually the only expressed motivation for silence in the Pachomian literature 7. The critical edition of this document is found in Boon, op. cit.. p. 109-147. 8. For a good summary of this testament see A. de VogiiC, "Le monastkre, Eglise du Christ," in Studia Anselmiam 42. 1957, p. 25-46, especially p. 28. 9. The number corresponds to the paragraph enumeration in the critical edition of Boon

Pachomius and the Oriental Rule

149

is for the purpose of meditation on Scripture. This is found in the testament of Orsiesius which is a spiritual document rather than a legislative one. But it is also found in the section of the Rule known as Praecepta. The monk was to learn to read so that he could learn the Scriptures. Scripture was his Rule of life.'' If the monk kept silence it was so that he might ruminate on Scripture. He could talk to another about holy things, that is they could mediate on Scripture together. There is no indication of an absolute silence in Pachomian monasticism. There were times and places when strict silence was to be observed. When the entire community gathered together silence was enforced. Thus there was silence in all community exercises - prayer, meals, working, sleeping. At other times monks could converse. But all secular talk was always forbidden. This condemnation of secular talk probably explains why one returning from a journey could not narrate what had occurred to him while away.

THE ORIENTAL RULE

The Rule of Vigilius, also called the Regula Orientalis," was composed at the beginning of the fifth century, probably in Gaul.I2 It is attributed to the deacon Vigilius and seems to be heavily dependent upon the Rule of Pachomius. For this reason it is probably called the Oriental Rule. It consists of fortyseven chapters which contain legislation pertaining t o the good order of the m o n a ~ t e r y . ' ~ The dependency of the Oriental Rule on the Rule of Pachomius is made manifest with regard to legislation concerning silence. Almost all the specifications concerning silence in the Oriental Rule are to be found in the Rule of Pachomius. 10. Cf. Corbinian Gindele. "La lecture de 1'Ccriture dam le monastire de saint PachBme," in Bible et Vie Chre'tienne, No. 67. 1966, p. 43-52. l l . P.L. 103, cc. 477-484. 12. Boon, Pachomiana Latim, p. vi, xliii. 13. Cf. P.L. 103, cc. 477-478, thecriticalobservations by Mariano Brockic which precede the Rule.

150

Silence

Chapter seventeen14 presents a list of do nots for the provost. Among the things he is to avoid one finds the following: not to speak idle words; not to laugh and joke as the stupid do; not to laugh with the boys of the monastery. Chapter 30'' prescribes that the monks are to be obedient t o their seniors and defer to one another. They are to practice patience, modesty, humility, charity, and peace without lying, evil words, or verbosity. It is to be noted here that restraint in speech is associated with obedience, patience, modesty, humility, charity and peace. At work no one is t o speak about secular things. Rather, monks are to meditate on holy things, or keep silence.16 No one is sent outside the monastery on business by himself alone. Two or three go together so that they can protect each other and be consoled. They are not to destroy each other by useless talk." When a guest comes to the monastery he has no right t o speak t o the monks unless by the leave of the abbot, and in the presence of the seniors.'' There is to be no talking or laughing while eating.19 If anything is needed at meals no one should dare speak, but should make some sign to the ministers at table.20 When the brothers come together to sleep no one speaks t o a n ~ t h e r . Indeed, ~' at night no one is to speak to another.22 Should a brother be corrected for some fault, he is to be patient and not respond.23 Should a brother be excommunicated because he does not amend when corrected, none of his juniors may speak to him.24 It is obvious that almost all the specifications concerning silence in the Oriental Rule are the same as those found in the 14. P.L. 103, c 478. 15. Ibid., c. 482. 16. Ibid., c 478, chapter 5. 17. P.L. 103, c. 480, chaptcr 20. 18. Ibid., c. 481, chapter 26. 19. Ibid., c. 482, chaptcr 36. 20. Ibid., c 482, chapter 38. 21. Ibid., c 478, chapter 8. 22. Ibid.. c. 484, chapter 44. 23. Ibid., c. 482, chapter 34. 24. P.L. 103, c. 482, chapter 32.

Pachomius and the Oriental Rule

15 1

Rule of Pachomius. One interesting difference is the explicit association of restraint of speech with the virtues of obedience, patience, modesty, humility, charity and peace in the Oriental Rule. This association is not made in the Rule of Pachomius.

CHAPTER XIV

THE RULES O F THE FATHERS AND THE RULE OF MACARIUS

I

N T H E C O D E X R E G U L A R U M of Benedict Aniane there is found a sequence of three rules which are known as The Rule of the Four Fathers,' the Second Rule of the Fathers: and the Third Rule of the father^.^ These three rules are closely related. They are the synodal acts of abbots meeting together towards the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth ~ e n t u r y According .~ to Anscar Mundb, they find their origin in Southern Gaul, but J. Neufville, who has presented the critical edition of the first two, places them in Italy in the first half of the fifth century.' Neufville does not date the Third Rule of the Fathers, but his "stemma" of manuscripts seems t o indicate that he would date it around 700.6Mund6 however thinks it may date shortly after the Council of Agde in 506.' The author of the RB could therefore be aware of all three Rules when he set about writing his own Rule, if the dating of Mund6 for the Third is accepted. l. P.L. 103, c c 435-442. 2. Ibid., cc. 441-444. 3. Ibid., c c 443-446. 4. Anscar Mund6, "Les anciens synodes abbatiaux et les 'Regulae Ss. Patrum' ," in Studia Anselmiana 44, 1959, p. 107-125. 5. J. Neufville,,"Rkgle des IV Pires et Seconde Rigle des Pires," in Revue bknkdictine 77. 1967, p. 61-64. 6. Ibid., p. 54. 7. Mundb, op. cit., p. 120-12 1.

The Rules of the Fathers and the Rule of Macarius

153

SILENCE IN THE THREE RULES

The Rule of the Four Fathers: This collection of decrees by abbots in synod is called the Rule of the Four Fathers because the various sections are attributed to Serapion, Macarius, Paphnutius and Macarius, famous Egyptian abbots. Neufville presents the critical edition of two recensions of this work which he calls Greek P and E.' There is very little difference between the two recensions and with regard to silence no difference at all. It will be sufficient therefore to look at recension Greek P, the later of the two. It is divided into six sections. Section Two concerns the role of the superior, especially in the reception of postulants and guests. This section is attributed to Abbot Macarius. Two notations regarding silence are made. No one is allowed to speak to a guest except the superior or one whom the superior wishes to d o so (2.40).9 The context continues with regulations concerning eating. Guests are not to eat with the brothers (2.41). At table no one is allowed to speak, and no word is to be heard except the recitation of Scripture. The superior may speak or one whom the superior wishes to speak may do so (2.42). Section Four, attributed to the second Macarius, is concerned with the reception of visiting monks and clerics. These may speak t o the monks concerning Scripture, but only with permission from the superior (4.13). Section Five is an appendix and is not attributed t o any specific abbot. I t concerns correction and excommunication. If a monk emits idle words he is excommunicated (5.2). No one may associate with him or speak to him (5.3). One is also excommunicated for laughter and scumlous words (5.4). The Second Rule of the Fathers:" This Rule, the synodal acts of abbots in what today could be called a General Chapter, 8. Neufville, op. cit., p. 72-91. 9 . The numbers refer to the section or chapter and the verse according to Neufville's critical edition of recension Creek P. 10. The critical edition is found in Neufville, op. cit., p. 92-95.

154

Silence

or better a Congress of Abbots, is much shorter than the Rule of the Four Fathers. It consists of forty-six verses, fifteen of which are concerned with silence. This means that one third of the Rule is legislation about the practice of silence. It would seem that it was a major concern at this synod. During work monks are not t o converse with one another (1 l ) . " They are to meditate and keep their thoughts on the Lord. A junior may not speak in general assembly until he has been questioned (12). This seems t o be a general rule. Juniors d o not speak until questioned or at least, when there is opportunity for speaking, they, like the rest, speak according t o rank (17 to 21). There seems t o be a time for speaking, for if one desires t o receive consolation or hear a secret word he must seek the opportune time (13). A guest is to be received with humility and peace, but n o one is to ask him where he comes from, why he has come, or where he is going. Indeed, no one may join him for conversation or story-telling ( l 4 t o ,16). If a monk is weighed down by sleepiness at vigils he may go out of the oratory, but he is not t o occupy himself in conversation. Rather, he is t o return t o his work (37-38). Whenever there is reading, all are to observe silence and listen to Scripture (39). No special mention is made of reading at meals, but especially at meals n o one is t o speak except the superior or one whom he interrogates (46). The Third Rule of the Fathers:'' This is the shortest of the three Rules. It is made up of fourteen precepts or paragraphs. Precept Seven13 is taken word for word from the Second Rule of the Fathers verse 46: especially at meals no one is t o speak except the superior or one whom he interrogates. Precept EightI4 legislates for monks going out for necessary business and supplies. They are to go in twos or threes, but those given to talking o r gluttony are not to be sent out. 11. The number corresponds to the vc~sificationin Neufville's critical edition 12. P.L. 103, cc. 443-446. 13. Ibid., c. 445. 14. Ibid., c 445.

The Rules of the Fathers and the Rule of Macarius

155

CONCLUSION

All three Rules have some legislation regarding silence. The Third Rule says the least, indeed in one place out of two it merely repeats a prescription of the Second Rule. Is this an indication that silence at meals was not being enforced and so the abbots in synod had t o repeat the prescription again? The First Rule, or Rule of the Four Fathers, treats of certain problems, especially the reception of guests, visiting monks and clerics. In this context it speaks of silence, especially at table. Guests were not t o eat with the community. The community is t o eat in silence and listen to the Scripture reading. Thus it is seen that all three Rules mention silence at meals. Was this a point of laxity in monastic discipline? Why should this point be reiterated in all three Rules, unless the abbots in synod felt it important and saw some abuse? It may be, in light of the First Rule, that guests were being invited into the monastic dining room and there all carried on conversation while they ate. The first Rule specifically states that a guest may speak t o the community on Scripture, that is give a spiritual conference, but he must have the permission of the superior. The Second Rule is of special interest with regard t o legislation on silence. That one third of the Rule concerns silence seems t o indicate that silence was a serious concern of the abbots in synod. It is noteworthy that monks are not t o speak to guests and swap stories. Nor are the monks t o be inquisitive about the guest's journey. One gets the impression from these various prescriptions of the First and Second Rules that the roads were filled with pilgrims and traveling monks who could easily disturb the regular monastic discipline of a monastery and be a source of gossip and disquiet. One motivation for silence expressed in the First and Second Rules is silence for the sake of listening t o Scripture and for the purpose of meditation. Silence is so important that breaking it by idle talk, laughing and scurrility merits excommunication.

Silence

THE RULE OF MACARIUS

Little is known about the origin and use of the Rule of Macarius.15 It is composed of thirty chapters or paragraphs and contains much that is word-for-word parallel with the three Rules of the Fathers discussed above. Mund6 maintains that it is prior to these Rules which cite it.16 Neufville sees a special relation between the Rule of Macarius and the Third Rule of the Fathers. In his "stemma" of manuscripts he places it around 500." According to S.G. Luff, the Rule of Macarius was the rule propagated and kept at the monastic center of Lerins." The critical observations of Mariano Brockie which precede the Rule in the Codex Regularurn attribute it to Macarius the Alexandrian, the disciple of Antony. It was introduced at Lerins by John, the founder and first abbot of Reome.19 Whatever be its origin and author, it seems to have been in circulation at the time the RB was written. In the second chapter of the Rule of Macarius various virtues are noted for the monk to practice. Certain vices are to be avoided. Among the things for the monk to avoid is talkativeness." If a monk is corrected or rebuked he is to be patient and make no response, but rather be humbled in all things." Very close to this is the exhortation to suffer injuries silently.22 Monks should never raise their voice, but through humility and obedience rejoice in the ~ o r dIt. is~ noteworthy ~ that restraint of the voice is here connected with humility and obedience. Earlier it had been associated with patience and humility. 15. P.L. 103, CC.447-452. 16. Mundb, "Les anciens synodes abbatiaux .,"in Studia Anselmiana 44, 1959, p. 117. 17. Neufville, "Rkgle dea IV Pires in Revue btm'dictine 77, 1967, p. 47. 18. S.G. Luff. "A survey of primitive monasticism in central Gaul," in Downside Review 70, 1952, p. 187. 195. 19. P.L. 103, cc. 447-448. 20. Ibid., c. 447. 21. Ibid., c. 449, chapter 16. 22. P.L. 103, c. 450, chapter 21. 23. Ibid., c. 449, chapter 19.

..

...,"

The Rules of the Fathers and the Rule of Macarius

157

Three references to silence in the Rule of Macarius are almost word for word as these are found in the Second and Third Rules of the Fathers. This is a good indication of the close relationship of these Rules. One may leave vigils if he is weighed down by sleep. He is to work and not converse. Whenever there is reading in the congregation all are to observe silence and listen to the Scripture being read.24Especially at table no one speaks except the superior or one who is questioned." Finally, when one is sent outside for supplies he is to go with one or two others. Those chosen for this errand are not to be talkative or given to The exact relationship between all these Rules is not of importance here. It is only to be noted that they are closely related. The important point about the references to silence in the Rule of Macarius is the association of silence or restraint in speech with patience, humility and obedience.

24. Ibid., c. 449, chapter 16. This is equivalent to verses 37 to 39 of the Second Rule of the Fathers. 25. Ibid., c. 449, chapter 18. This prescription is found in the Second Rule of the Fathers, verse 46, and in the Third Rule of the Fathers, paragaph 7. 26. P.L. 103, c 450, chapter 22. This is equivalent to precept 8 of the Third Rule of the Fathers.

CHAPTER XV

T H E S O U R C E S AND T H E R U L E O F S T . BENEDICT

B

ECAUSE O F T H E U N I Q U E N A T U R E of the relationship between the RM and the RB these two Rules have been compared independently. With regard to the other sources and the RB, there are no word-for-word parallels concerning silence. Some of the sources influenced the RB through the mediatorship of the RM, but all of those we have considered were probably known to the author of the RB and could therefore have an independent influence on his writing. They all contain some teaching on silence, either with regard to doctrine or practice or both. For the purpose of comparison the teaching on silence will again be distinguished into doctrine and practice. What is the doctrine of silence in the sources? What is the practice? CONDEMNATION OF IDLE TALK AND LAUGHING

The RB condemns scurrility, idle talk and laughter "with a perpetual ban, and forbid(s) the disciple to open his mouth for such conversation" (RB 6.8). This is an integral part of the doctrine on silence. It will be helpful to look at the sources to see what they have t o say about such things since most of the sources do have something to say. Cassian says that idle talk, buffoonery and sc&rility find their roots in the vices of fornication and acedia. Such talk is encouraged by the devil, hinders meditation and is the enemy of pure prayer. Chattering and frivolous laughter is a sign of

The Sources and the Rule of St. Benedict

159

pride. From such observations it is apparent that idle talk and laughter is t o be avoided by the monk. Basil defines idle words. They are words that d o not advance the grace of faith in Christ, that is they d o not pertain t o the edification of faith, and therefore they grieve the Holy Spirit. One will have t o give an account of them on judgment day. Basil includes in the virtue of continence or moderation the suppression of laughter. During this life man is to weep and be sorry for sins. Laughter is not permitted. Thus Basil sees restraint in laughter as an eschatological awareness. On the subject of laughter and joking Basil distinguishes between the perfect man and children. The perfect man is the man who has grown up. He is no longer childish but mature, and manifests this by his control of laughing. This designation of the perfect man as one who does not laugh is interesting in light of the distinction between perfect and imperfect disciples found in the RM on the score of speaking. The RB retains the designation of perfect disciple in its treatment of silence, but does not contrast with it the imperfect disciple. The reason the author of the RB was willing to keep the designation of perfect disciple with regard t o keeping silence may therefore be explained not merely because this designation was found in the RM, but because it was found in monastic tradition. Thus even though the RB does not contrast perfect and imperfect disciples in relationship to use of speech as does the RM, the RB could retain the designation perfect without its contrast imperfect. In passing it should be noted that with regard to the designation of perfect disciple as found in the RB, RM and Basil in connection with man's control of his speech, this designation may find its ultimate foundation in the third chapter of the Epistle of James. The Apostle says that a perfect man is one who does not offend with his tongue.' The use of the desig1. In the Vulgate, Jamcs 3.2 reads: "In rnultis enim offendimus omncs. Si quis inverbo non offendit, hic perfectus est vir, potest etiam freno circurnducere totum corpus" It is also worthy of note that in chapter 4 of the same Epistle there is a reference to laughter and humility - 4.9-10: "Miseri estote et lugete et plorate; risus vester in luctum convertatur, et gaudium in maerorem. Humiliamini in conspectu Domini, et exaltabit vos"

160

Silence

nation perfect by the Apostle James and by Basil as one who controls his tongue may help to explain why the RB retained this designation found in the RM. If the RM is the only reason for the RB's use of perfect in designating the quiet monk, then it is difficult t o see why the author of the RB did not keep the perfect-imperfect contrast found in the RM. Basil's use of the designation may be the reason the RB retained it, granted that the designation in Basil has a slightly different nuance. The compelling reason for the RB was probably the designation as found in the Epistle of J a m e ~ . ~ In the Ordo Monasterii which is part of the dossier of the Rule of Augustine, monks are cautioned not to speak idle words. This is found in the context of daily work. This same legislation is found in the work of Caesarius of Arles. The Rule of Pachomius says that during work the monk is not t o speak of secular matters, and it cautions the provost t o avoid idle words, laughter and joking. These same specifications are found in the Oriental Rule which, as has been noted, repeats many of the Pachomian prescriptions. In the Rule of the Four Fathers a monk is excommunicated for idle words, laughter or scurrilous speech. One so excommunicated cannot be associated with or spoken to by others. From these observations it is clear that the RB is in keeping with earlier monastic legislation concerning the condemnation of idle talk, scurrility and laughing. The RB is especially close t o Cassian concerning laughter as a sign of pride. In the tenth and eleventh degrees of humility in the RB chapter seven laughter is discussed. The humble monk is not easily given to laughing and when he speaks he does so without laughter. Laughter is thus a sign of pride. Idle talk and secular speech are not necessarily t o be equated. Idle talk is destructive and grieves the Holy Spirit, according to Basil. It does not build up faith in Christ. But secular talk may be indifferent; it can be useful and necessary. But these conclusions are not t o be found in the texts themselves. The 2. It is surprising that Hanslik does not refer to this passage in Jamcs in his Index Scriptorum. De VogiiC makes no mention of it in his Scripture references with regard to the RM.

The Sources and the Rule of St. Benedict

161

only texts to use the designation secular talk are those of the Rule of Pachomius and the Oriental Rule. These texts d o not define what is meant by secular talk. In view of the context, secular matters are contrasted with meditation on holy things, that may be conversation on holy things. During work the Pachomian monk was t o speak of holy things or was t o keep silence. The RB nowhere speaks of secular talk. It does not condemn it nor permit it. It would seem that this category was indifferent. THE MOTIVATION AND PURPOSE OF SILENCE

It has been seen that the motivation and purpose for silence in the RB is quite similar to that found in the RM. The monk keeps silence in order t o avoid sin and practice virtue. He also keeps silence in order t o listen, and connected with this is the motivation which stems from the desire to pray and reflect. Finally, the monk keeps silence for the sake of silence or gravity. The Rh4 reduces all of these motivations to that which arises from a desire t o avoid sin. The RB shows the relationship of all t o the motivation arising from the desire to avoid sin, but does not reduce them to it. In this way the RB ensures that silence for the purpose of listening to the Word of God is preserved in its own 'right. It will be good to look at these three motivations in the other sources.

TO AVOID SIN AND PRACTICE VIRTUE

T o avoid sin and practice virtue are not two different motivation~.They are merely the negative and positive aspects of the same motivation. The sources other than the RM d o not explicitly state that a motivation for silence is that a monk may avoid sin. Only Basil specifically states that one should control the use of the tongue in order to avoid vices of the tongue. And in the Rule of Macarius one of the vices to be avoided is talkativeness. Never-

162

Silence

theless, the sources treat this motivation quite extensively under the categories of idle talking and chattering, for it is obvious that in treating of these categories the sources treat the same subject that the RB and Rh4 consider under the motivation characterized as the desire to avoid sin. However, since the sources d o not clearly and manifestly relate silence and the condemnation of idle talk, it has seemed best t o treat the two under separate headings. Only the Rh4 and RB treat of idle talk explicitly under the specific title of silence. Compared t o the development in the RB the motivation characterized as avoidance of sin plays a very minor explicit role in the sources other than the RM. From this it can be concluded that any emphasis in the RB on this motivation comes from the RB's dependency on the Rh4. If the negative aspect is scarcely treated in the context of silence in the sources, the positive aspect is more developed. The teaching of the RM and RB with regard t o silence for the purpose of practicing virtue is found seminally in the other sources. Silence is associated with other virtues, for silence is the manifestation, expression and realization of other virtues. According to Cassian silence is a sign of reverence or respect for the elder who is giving a conference. Caesarius lists silence among the virtues that the soldier of Christ is to attain. Silence is explicitly associated with humility. Before looking at the treatment of this association in the sources it is interesting t o note that the Scripture citation from Psalm 38.2-3 that is found in the beginning of RB chapter 6 is also found in some of the sources. In the RB the citation reads: I said, I will take heed unto my ways, that I offend not with my tongue. I have set a guard to my mouth. I was dumb and was humbled, and kept silence even from good words3

The thing to be noted in this citation is the association of si3. The Vulgate reads: "Dixi: custodiam vias meas, ut non delinquam in lingua mea; posui o n meo custodiam, cum consisteret peccator adversus me. Obmutui et humiliatus sum et silui a bonis, et dolor mcus renovatus est.''

The Sources and the Rule of St. Benedict

163

lence and humility. This citation is used by the RM.4 It is also found in Cassian5 and in B a d 6 In Cassian and Basil it is found in the context of silence, but is used a bit differently than in the RB and RM. Cassian uses it in the context of a monk being provoked by wrongs. He is to remain silent and observe what the Psalmist has said. Basil uses the citation t o prove that there are times when and persons with whom silence is appropriate. Although these authors use the citation' differently than the RB and RM, it is t o be noted that they use it in the context of silence. This citation thus seems to have been a traditional text used for supporting the monastic doctrine of silence. Psalm 38.2-3 associates humility and silence. This association is developed with some detail in the RM and RB. It is found also in some other sources of the RB, but not nearly with the elaborate development found in the RM. It is known that Cassian's ten signs of humility are the basis for the twelve degrees of humility found in the RM and RB.' The last two signs of humility in Cassian's ten refer t o silence. Cassian also established this relationship between silence and humility elsewhere. Free and easy talk is a sign of pride. Chattering is a sign of pride, as is a lack of gravity or seriousness in speech. Thus silence is a sign, a manifestation of humility. Basil also relates silence and humility. A monk's pride is known by his speech. Basil's treatment of silence o r control of the tongue follows his treatment of avoiding pride in the Admonitio ad Filium Spiritualem. In the Oriental Rule restraint in speech is associated with the virtues of obedience, patience, modesty, humility, charity and peace. This is of special interest since silence or speech is associated with these same virtues in the RM and RB. In the RB silence is associated with obedience, patience, and humility, while modesty, charity and peace are related t o how one speaks, as will be seen below. The Rule of Macarius says that a monk should never raise his 4. RM 8.31 and 9.36. 5. Conf 16.26.

6. Latin Rule, Question 136. 7. de VogiiC, La Communauti

. . . , p.

207-266.

164

Silence

voice, but rather through humility and obedience rejoice in the Lord. Here it is not specifically silence but control of the voice which is associated with humility and obedience. This is of interest in view of the way in which a monk should use his voice in the RB. This aspect will be studied later. In the Oriental Rule and Rule of Macarius restraint in speech is associated with humility and obedience. Other sources also relate silence and obedience. Cassian says that obedience is preferable to silence. In De opere monachorum Augustine tells monks to work silently, that is quietly and obediently. Here silence seems to be equated with obedience or at least is closely related to it. In view of the progression found in the RM and RB from obedience to silence, as is noted in the progression of the chapters in the first part of these Rules, the progression from obedience to silence in Caesarius of Arles' Rule for Nuns is striking. The section on silence therein begins with a notation t o obey the Mother Abbess. More than likely this progression originally belongs to the Rh4 and is used by both Caesarius and the RB. The Oriental Rule also associated restraint in speech and patience. It specifically associates silence and patience when it tells the monks to be silent and patient when corrected. The Rule of Macarius says the same but adds a note concerning humility. When a monk is corrected he is to be patient and make no response but be humbled. Cassian too associates silence and patience. When a monk has been wronged or injured he is to be like a blind, deaf and dumb man. When disturbed or injured the monk is to remain silent and keep a guard on his tongue and be humbled like the Psalmist advises (PS 38.2-3). It is to be noted that patience and humility are both related to silence in Cassian and the Rule of Macarius. This relationship is found in the fourth degree of humility in the RM and RB. From these observations it is clear that the motivation for silence in order to avoid sin and practice virtue is found in the sources of the RB. But it must be admitted that this teaching is not elaborated on as clearly as it is in the RM which develops this doctrine fully and systematically, emphasizing the nega-

The Sources and the Rule of St. Benedict

165

tive aspect, that is the avoidance of sin. The positive aspect, that is the practice of virtues, is proportionately stronger in the other sources when compared to the negative aspect. The RB follows in the path of the RM and emphasizes the negative aspect, although not nearly as unilaterally as does the RM. As has been seen the real difference between the RB and RM with regard to the motivation for silence lies elsewhere. On the point of avoidance of sin and practice of virtue, the RB is in harmony with the RM. And this mutual doctrine is found seminally in the sources. Thus, accepting the RM's doctrine the RB is in keeping with monastic tradition. The aspect of the doctrine in the sources that receives the most elaborate development in the RM is the motivation for silence out of the desire to avoid sin. On the positive side, the virtues that are especially associated with silence are obedience and humility. It has been noted how closely related these virtues are in the R M and the RB. This close association is already hinted at in the other sources. But the genius to show the close interrelationship between these three virtues belongs especially to the RM. The RB pares down the RM's elaboration, but remains basically and essentially in agreement with it. In so far as the RB does not reduce all motivation for silence t a the desire to avoid sin as the RM does, one can say that the RB is closer to the other sources which do not emphasize avoidance of sin as an explicit motivation to practice silence.

TO LISTEN

The second main reason for observing silence in the RM and RB is for the sake of listening, listening to the Word of God as it comes through Scripture and the doctrine of the masterabbot. It has already been noted that the RB ensures that this motivation is not merely reduced to the motivation arising from the desire to avoid sin. In looking at the other sources one must expand this motivation for the sake of listening to include silence as motivated by desire for meditation on Scripture and for prayer.

166

Silence

In Cassian restraint of the use of the tongue is associated with the control of vices and the practice of virtues. But the main and primary motivation for silence is for the purpose of meditation on the Scripture and for prayer. Idle talk and gossip hinder one from attaining the goal of constant meditation on Scripture. During work one is t o meditate on Scripture, and during the night the monk is t o go over Scripture. One cannot meditate on Scripture if one is running about and chattering. Silence also enables one t o listen t o spiritual teaching from an elder and this teaching should be sealed with silence in the memory. Finally, silence is related to prayer. There is t o be absolute silence during common prayer, which is a sign of reverence for God and also in order not t o disturb another who is praying. A monk is t o avoid vain words, much speaking and scurrility so that when he wants t o pray he will not be disturbed by his memories. From these observations it is clear that silence for Cassian is motivated by the desire t o meditate on Scripture, t o listen t o spiritual doctrine, and t o pray. Compared with other motivations in Cassian these are the primary ones. Augustine says that monks can sing psalms and meditate on the law of God while they work, and he seems t o indicate that monks should be silent during work. It could be concluded therefore that silence is for the purpose of meditation, but it must be admitted that such a motivation is not all that clear in Augustine. Caesarius, who is heavily dependent upon Augustine, is much clearer and explicit on the purpose of silence. The nuns are t o keep silence during work and meditate on the Word of God and pray in their heart. In both his Rules Caesarius states that while they are eating the monks and nuns are t o sit in silence and listen to the reading so that as the mouth receives nourishment the ears may hear the Word of God. The primary motivation for silence according to all indications is for the purpose of hearing God's Word and meditating upon it. This same motivation is found in Pachomius. Monks are not t o speak or laugh during the common prayer. Here silence seems t o be ordered t o listening to God's Word in the Psalmody

The Sources and the Rule of St. Benedict

167

and readings. It can also be interpreted as motivated by the desire for prayer. The primary meaning of silence in Pachomius however is in relationship to meditation on the Scripture. That such is the case is made clear by relatively frequent repetition of the prescription t o keep silence and meditate. As monks leave the common prayer they are to return to their cells meditating on Scripture. In their cells they are not to speak about secular things but are to meditate on Scripture. At a community gathering the monks are not to talk, but rather meditate on Scripture. At work the monks are not t o speak of secular things but are to meditate. Silence for the sake of meditation on Scripture is explicitated in the spiritual testament of Abbot Orsiesius. For Pachomius the primary meaning of silence is in relationship to meditation on Scripture. Indeed this is the only expressed motivation. According to the Second Rule of the Fathers, whenever there is common reading all are to observe silence and listen to the Scripture. This same precept is found in the Rule of Macarius. Thus in these two Rules silence is for the purpose of listening to God's Word in Scripture. The Second Rule of the Fathers says that during work the monks are not t o talk, but are to meditate on the Lord. Here the motivation for silence is for the purpose of meditation. It would seem from these observations that the sources greatly emphasize silence as motivated for the purpose of meditation on Scripture. This motivation is essentially related to the motivation of the purpose of listening to God's Word, but there is a slight difference. One meditates on the Word of God after he has heard it. Meditation is much more an internal action, while listening is more an action of the total man. The senses are involved more actively. Meditation is a follow-up to hearing. Hearing, which may be intense and deep at the moment, does not necessarily demand that one continue meditating on what was heard, or that one repeat to himself what has been read. Hearing the Word of God in Scripture and meditation on that Word are so closely related that it is difficult t o separate the two and make any distinctions. However, there is a differ-

168

Silence

ence, and one can emphasize the actual hearing or the consequent meditation on what has been heard. And it is here that the RB seems to differ from the sources. In the sources the emphasis seems to be on meditation on the Word of God. In comparison the RB seems to emphasize hearing or listening to the Word of God as it is read or proclaimed. This in no way means that the RB did not want the monks to meditate or ruminate on the Scripture, but nowhere does it explicitly associate silence and meditation. It does however explicitly associate silence and listening. For the RB silence was ordered to the actual hearing of the Word of God in the opus dei, in holy reading, and in the doctrine of the abbot. Silence is also for the purpose of praying, but nowhere is it said that a monk refrains from talking in order to meditate on Scripture. Surely this was accepted by the a u t h o ~of the RB, but the important fact is that it is not expressed. One enters here into the question of contemplation in the RB. What is it, and how much is it emphasized? It is not the purpose of this study to enter into this problem. The point to be noted here is that for the RB silence is ordered more to hearing the Word of God than to meditating upon it. Thus silence is in relationship to God speaking in his Word, rather than to the monk's meditation upon that Word. Silence is thus, for the RB, to be seen in the context of a dialog or conversation between God and man, rather than in an internal rumination on Scripture. Silence is to be considered in the context of God speaking to man and man listening. It is not primarily to be viewed from the point of man's reflecting on what has been heard in the dialog. This subtle difference between listening and meditating is difficult to express. In no way do I wish to separate or oppose these two actions of man responding to God. But the first looks more at man in the actual process of hearing God's Word. The second looks at man more in the state of repose after the dialog is over, or is at least suspended for the moment. And yet, this is not the true picture. Meditation continues the dialog between God and man, but it is more on the part of man. The Word of God is more in the memory than in the ears. Lis-

The Sources and the Rule of S t . Benedict

169

tening emphasizes the voice of God speaking and penetrating the ears and heart of man, not just the retention in the memory. It seems that the emphasis in the RB's meaning of silence is on listening rather than on meditating. And in this way the RB differs slightly and subtly from its sources. There is in the RB a basis for reflection on silence as a necessary prerequisite for communication with God. Silence is necessary so that the monk may hear God's Word and respond by deeds as well as by meditation.

FOR THE SAKE OF SILENCE

The RB, following the RM, gives a third motivation for silence. Silence is kept for the sake, or for the good of silence. It has been seen that this statement is not as redundant as it sounds. However, this motivation is found in no other source except the RM. On the contrary, what is found elsewhere is the explicit teaching that silence is of relative value and is not always a good. Cassian explicitly states that silence can be an evil. It can be the manifestation, expression and realization of vice. There can be an angry silence. Silence can be merely the nursing of a grudge. A monk may be silent because he is dejected and so will refuse to be hospitable to guests. Silence can be caused by vainglory and be a type of that vice. I t can be a sign of pride, and as such it refuses to confess one's faults. The other sources are less explicit, but they teach that silence is a relative good. Basil says that silence is good when it is appropriate t o times and persons. Augustine and Caesarius give the members of the community permission to talk when it is useful for the soul or necessary because of work. Both say that one must speak when fraternal correction demands it. There is no reason to suppose that the author of the RB disagrees with any of these observations, but he does not explicitly state them. It has already been seen that the RB does not impose an absolute silence, that ordinary conversation was

Silence considered the normal situation. The RB does not establish times and places for speaking, but on the contrary times and places for silence. The RB does not demand that a monk get permission t o speak when he wants to d o so. All indications seem t o point t o the fact that for the RB silence was a relative good, in spite of the expressed motivation of silence for the sake of silence. This motivation is taken from the RM. In the RM, silence seems t o be an absolute, and the motivation of silence for the sake of silence is in keeping with the doctrine and practice of the RM. On the contrary, the doctrine and practice of silence in the RB is not always consistent. The practice of silence in the RB shows that the author did not accept the absolute value of silence as did the author of the RM. This is in spite of the RB's acceptance of the expressed motivation of the RM with regard t o the good of silence.

THE PRACTICE OF SILENCE

The doctrine of silence in the sources has been compared t o the doctrine in the RB. It was seen that the RB is in basic conformity with monastic tradition, but with some variations. Also, the doctrine of silence in the RB is more fully developed than in the sources other than the RM. It is now time t o compare the practice of silence in the RB with the practice in the sources. Before looking at specifications regarding places, times and persons, it will be helpful t o make some further observations regarding the question of absolute silence. In the RM there is a ritual for obtaining permission t o speak. This is not found in the RB, and neither is it found in any other source of the RB. The RM means it when it states that a monk should not speak until questioned. Only one other source makes any reference to speaking only when questioned. The Second Rule of the Fathers states that a junior may speak in assembly only when he is questioned. This prescription is not accepted by the RB. In the council of all the brothers all may give their advice. Indeed, "God often reveals what is better t o the younger'' (RB 3.3).

The Sources and the Rule of St. Benedict

171

Nothing is said about the necessity for the junior t o be questioned before he offers his advice.

SILENCE AT TABLE

All the sources except Basil prescribe silence during the meals. Most of the sources also prescribe reading at this time, but not all d o so explicitly. Cassian says that reading has been introduced in Egypt during the meals after the example of the Cappadocians in order t o stop unnecessary and idle conversation, especially arguments. It was not introduced for the sake of spiritual exercise. No one should speak, and if anything is needed some sign.should be made. In view of the absence of any prescription in the Latin Rule of Basil, this notation is interesting. It indicates that with the Cappadocians there was the custom of reading and silence at meals. Indeed, in the Greek Rule of Basil mention is made of silence and reading at meals,8 but this Rule was unknown t o the author of the RB. What is of interest about Cassian's observation is that reading is not introduced for its own sake, but rather in order t o stop conversation. Such a motivation is not found in the RB. In the Ordo Monasterii it is stated that there is to be silence at meals and all are t o listen t o the reading. In the Praeceptum Augustine calls for reading at meals but no mention is made of silence. In view of the complementary nature of the Praeceptum silence is surely implied since the Ordo Monasterii specifies it. Caesarius prescribes for silence at meals in both his Rules. The monks and nuns are t o hear the Word of God with their ears as their mouth receives nourishment. The Rule of Pachomius makes no mention of reading at table, but forbids speech and laughter. This-same prescription is found in the Oriental Rule which so heavily depends on the Rule of Pachomius. It may be that there was silence but n o 8. Regukae breuius tmctatae, Question 180.

172

Silence

reading. After the meal, Pachomius prescribes that the monks return to their places without speaking. The three Rules of the Fathers and the Rule of Macarius all prescribe silence at meals. In the Rule of the Four Fathers no one is allowed to speak. All are to listen t o Scripture. The superior may speak, or one whom the superior wishes to speak may do so. In the other Rules no mention is made of reading. It is merely stated that no one speaks except the superior or one whom he interrogates. These four Rules show some similarity with the RM. According to the RM the abbot may interrogate one of the monks concerning what is being read, and a monk may get permission to question the superior about what is being read. The RB allows only the superior to speak for the sake of edification. It is obvious that silence at meals was a universal tradition in the sources of the RB. The RB maintains this tradition. There is some variation in the sources concerning reading at table and its motivation. Silence in the RB at meals is for the sake of the reading which is to be edifying.

SILENCE DURING WORK

Most of the sources speak of silence during work. Cassian says that the monk is to remain in his cell and meditate on Scripture. According to the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3.129 one is t o work in silence.'' Augustine comments on this passage from Scripture when he is correcting monks who refuse to work for their living." In the Ordo Monasterii the monk is told to sit in silence and work unless necessity demands speech. Monks are not to stand around and talk unless it is useful for the soul. Caesarius, who closely reflects Au9. The Vulgate reads, 2 Thess 3.11-12: "Audivimus enim inter vos quosdam ambulare inquiete, nihil operantes sed curiose agentes. Iis autem qui eiusmodi sunt dcnuntiamus et obsecramus in Domino Iesu Christo, ut cum silentio operanteq suum panem manduccnt." 10. Inst 10.1 1-14. l l. De opere monachorum 3.4.

The Sources and the Rule of St. Benedict

173

gustine, says that according t o 2 Thessalonians 3.12 nuns are t o avoid idle talk and work quietly. They may speak for edification or for the usefulness of the soul.12 Pachomius states that monks are not to engage in secular talk while they work in their cells. When they work in the bakery they are t o keep silence and sing the psalms. On Sundays, as they wash their monastic garbs, they are t o d o so in silence. The Oriental Rule says that during work there is t o be no talk of secular matters, rather monks are t o meditate on holy things. The Second Rule of the Fathers is very close t o this in saying that monks are not to engage in idle story-telling, but are to meditate and keep their thoughts on the Lord. Thus it is seen that many of the sources specifically speak of silence during work. It has been noted that the RM also legislates for silence and reading while the monks work. In view of this almost universal tradition it is surprising that the RB says nothing explicit about silence during work. What is even more surprising is that the RB makes n o reference or allusion to 2 Thessalonians 3.12. The RM cites this passage in the context of a guest monk who is expected t o work.I3 The guest monk is t o work with the other monks and apparently like them keep silence. This text from 2 Thessalonians seems therefore t o have a place in monastic tradition both with regard to work and t o silence. The absence of this citation in the RB can be interpreted as meaning that silence during work was not emphasized in the RB. According t o the RB the monk's love and appreciation for silence would dictate when he will speak and there is no need to legislate for it during work.

SILENCE DURING THE OPUS DEl

It has been pointed out that during the time that the opus dei was being performed in the oratory, the RB wanted those who were not present to pray where they were. They were 12. Rule for Nuns 19. 13. RM 78.24.

Silence thus t o keep silence from all other speech. In Basil it is similar. Should monks be unable t o come t o common prayer because of some necessary occupation, they are t o keep silence during the time of prayer or psalmody. Some of the other sources speak of silence during the common prayer. Cassian demands absolute quiet during prayer. Caesarius says that while the psalms are being chanted no one is permitted t o talk. Pachomius prescribed that a monk is not t o speak or laugh during common prayer. He is not even t o whisper or smile. All these references probably refer t o a monk who is present at the common prayer. The ancient custom was that one monk chanted a psalm or said the prayer while all others remained quiet. While one prayed then all others were t o keep strict silence. Why does the RB not say anything about this? Surely the RB demanded silence while one monk chanted a psalm. There is some discussion concerning the mode of execution of the psalms in the opus dei. There is n o reason t o believe that the RB wished the psalms t o be chanted other than in the ancient manner, that is by one monk.'" However, in view of the absence of any legislation concerning silence during psalmody, it may be inferred that according t o the RB all the monks chanted the psalms together. Thus there would be no occasion for a monk t o speak during psalmody. However, this inference is in no way compelling and is only a possible interpretation. On the other hand, the reason the RB says nothing about silence at this time may be due t o its general insistence on silence in order t o hear the Word of God. As has been noted, the peculiar emphasis, if there is an emphasis, of the RB's teaching on silence is that it is in function to hearing the Word of God in Scripture. This point has been made with such clarity by the RB that possibly the author saw n o need to repeat it in this case. The Second Rule of the Fathers and the Rule of Macarius both say that if a monk is drowsy at vigils he should return t o work, but should not talk. The RB says rather that a monk 14. Cf. McCann, Rule, p. 182-189, note 46.

The Sources and the Rule of St. Benedict

175

who is late for office should enter the oratory, for if he stayed outside he might give in t o talking. According t o the RB when monks leave the oratory after the opus dei there is t o be strict silence out of respect for God and so that one who wishes to stay and pray may not be disturbed. Cassian says that after common prayer monks are not to loiter and gossip, but are to return. to their cells and meditate on Scripture. There is a slight difference between the RB and Cassian and Pachomius. The RB shows a concern for others' desire for prayer. Cassian and Pachomius look more t o the monk himself. Thus one can say there is more social concern in the RB's legislation than in the others.

SILENCE AT NIGHT

It is surprising that little is said in the sources about silence during the night. Only Pachomius and the Oriental Rule specify that when the monks congregate to sleep no one is t o talk. During the night there is t o be n o talking. No doubt these sources influenced the RB's legislation concerning night silence, but the greatest influence probably came from the RM.

SILENCE AND GUESTS

There is relatively little about conversation with guests in the sources. The Oriental Rule states that no one may speak with the guests except by the leave of the abbot and in the presence of the seniors. The Rule of the Four Fathers says that a guest should not be questioned nor conversation carried on. These two latter Rules seem t o indicate that guests were frequent and were disturbing monastic discipline, especially with regard to silence. The same situation may explain the RB's legislation concerning silence with the guests.

Silence

SILENCE AND EXCOMMUNICATION

Some of the failures mentioned by Cassian for which the monk is excluded from common prayer are carrying on a conversation with other than a cell mate, for talking t o secular friends or relatives without a senior being present. Pachomius says that one easily given t o speaking is t o be corrected. The Rule of the Four Fathers imposes excommunication for idle words and for laughter and scurrilous words. The RB does not appear t o be so severe in these cases. According t o Cassian, if anyone has been suspended from common prayer no one is to speak with him o r pray with him. If one is excommunicated according t o the Rule of the Four Fathers n o one may speak t o him. In the Oriental Rule only juniors are not permitted t o speak t o the excommunicated. Thus the RB's rather severe legislation concerning the excommunicated, that is that no one may speak t o him, has some basis in monastic tradition.

PART FOUR

S I L E N C E A N D SPEECH

CHAPTER XVI

WHO I S T O S P E A K

S

I L E N C E H A S MANY DIMENSIONS. One, explicitly treated by the RB, is speaking or verbal communication. It will be advantageous t o analyze the role of speech in the RB. This analysis will throw light upon its teaching concerning silence. One of the conclusions arrived at in the investigation of the doctrine and practice of silence in the RB was that the RB does not legislate for an absolute silence. Silence is imposed for certain circumstances, otherwise the monks are free to speak. But is it as simple as that? Investigation will show that although one can speak of free and normal conversation among the monks, speaking in the RB is always qualified. The teaching on speaking in the RB will show how important the doctrine of silence really is. Compared t o all the sources considered, the RB seems t o emphasize as a purpose of silence the listening t o the Word of God. The teaching of silence in the RB is multi-dimensioned and in harmony with its sources, but when compared t o the sources a slight shift in emphasis appears: silence is in relationship t o hearing; silence is understood in the context of intercommunication; silence is an aspect of the dialog between God and man. Such a conclusion with regard t o the teaching of silence in the RB must not be considered unilaterally and isolated from the fuller and more complex teaching. It is a conclusion that is subtly introduced into the totality of the teaching and finds its place in the fuller context, but it is there and is worth reflecting upon.

180

Silence

If one speaks of silence in the context of dialog between God and man, the meaning of dialog must be properly understood. It is not used here in a technical or philosophic sense. Dialog is understood here as the presence of one t o the other, especially through verbal communication. God speaks his Word t o man. Man listens and responds by word, by deed and by meditation. The monk must first hear the Word of God before he can respond. Thus the RB seems t o go t o the very root of intercommunication between God and man, for hearing the Word of God is the primary prerequisite for responding t o that Word. Silence enables the monk t o hear God's Word so that he may respond. The Word of God is multi-formed: it is spoken in Scripture; it is spoken through history; it is spoken by other men; it is spoken in many ways. 'These various forms are not in opposition, they are complementary. All the forms are instrumental. With these reflections in mind it will be helpful to look at who speak in the RB. Such an investigation will indicate whether or not the RB does indeed see silence in the context of the dialog between God and man, for it will indicate not only who speak but why they speak. At the same time that such an investigation throws light upon the question of silence in the context of the dialog between God and man, it will also throw light upon the freedom t o speak that the RB seems t o imply. If one can determine who speak and why, he can get a better idea of how free one is t o speak.

WHO SPEAK IN THE RB GOD

The most important speaker in the RB is God himself.' The Lord shows the way (Prol 20) and gives commands t o be followed (2.4; 12; 7. l l, 42; 21.2). At every moment of the monk's life the Lord is present (7.13-14) advising the monk and showing him the way he must go (Prol 20,24,49). 1. In the KB Deus is used 103 times; Dominus 66 times.

Who is to Speak

181

God speaks to the monk especially through Sacred Scripture. Scripture cries o r calls out t o the monk (Prol 14) and exhorts him (7.45). Scripture is the voice of the Lord (Prol 9, 19; 7.32) speaking to the monk. An analysis of the use of Scripture in the RB shows how important it is for the monk. The RB is filled with Scripture citations and allusions. In the complete RB there are 299 references t o Scripture. This includes direct citations of which there are 141. The others are allusions t o Scripture. Looking just at the Prolog of the RB one finds 767 words in the Latin text, and of these 200 are in Scripture citations. That means that the Prolog is one-fourth Scripture. This refers only t o direct citations. In the Prolog there are also many allusions to Scripture. If one voice is heard above all other voices in the monastery, it is the voice of God as it comes t o the monk in Sacred Scripture. One way of introducing a Scripture citation is "the Lord says" (dicit deus: Prol 16; 2.14; 27.7; dicit dominus; Prol 38; 2.9; 5.5, 11; ait dominus: Prol 33; 39.9; 64.22). Christ himself speaks t o the monk through Scripture (36.1 ;53. l). The author of the RB also introduces Scripture citations by the phrases "Scripture says" (7.19, 21, 25, 33, 36) and the "prophet says" (dicere: Prol 30; 2.9; 7.23, 29, 50, 52;ait: 6.1; 16.1, 4; 19.3). Scripture excites or stirs up the monk (Prol 8), cries out t o him (7. l ) , commands (7.25), exhorts (7.45), and points out (7.57), as well as simply says. The "apostle says" also introduces Scripture citations (dicere: Prol 36; 2.3; 7.34; ait: 27.4; 28.6; 58.2). The RB shows great concern over daily holy reading (chapter 48 passim). This is a time during which the monk listens t o the voice of the Lord in Scripture in a very special and attentive way. The monk spends from two t o three hours a day in holy reading. Besides hearing the voice of the Lord in holy reading, the monk hears it for another two or three hours in the public proclamation of Scripture in the opus dei. Thus it is to be noted that the Lord God, through the medium of Sacred Scripture has a major speaking role in the daily life of the monk. Considering how much space is given t o Scripture in the Rule itself, in the hours spent in the opus dei and in lectio divina, it is obvious what a predominant role the voice

182

Silence

of the Lord plays in the life of the monk. The monk is to listen t o this voice (Prol 9, 10, 16, 39; 4.55; 13.12; 38.5, 12; 42.3, 4; 64.21), respond t o it (Prol 16, 35; 11.10; 13.14), and obey it (Prol 2, 3, 40). Sometimes the monk's verbal response to the voice of the Lord in Scripture is the monk's own use of Scripture. Thus Scripture not only speaks t o the monk, but the monk responds t o the voice of the Lord by using Scripture, especially the prophet, who is usually a Psalmist (Prol 30; 2.9; 7.50, 52, 66).

THE ABBOT

The head of the monastic congregation2 is most frequently referred t o as abbot (abbas). The title abbot occurs a t least 126 times in the RB and always refers t o the superior of the monastery. The Latin equivalent for father (pater) is employed only seventeen times in the RB and refers t o God (Prol 6; 2.3, 7; 58.22), the abbot (2.24; 33.5; 49.9), the cellarer (31.2), and t o the "Fathers" of the Church and of early monasticism (9.8; 18.25; 42.3; 48.8; 73.2, 4, 5). There is one use of pater that is problematic in so far as it can be disputed whether it refers t o God, t o the abbot, or t o the author of the RB (Prol 1 ). Since this text introduces the Prolog and thus the whole Rule, and since it is found in the context of the terms master (magister) and son (filius), which must also be considered in this analysis, it is necessary t o stop here for a moment and analyze the text and suggest possible solutions. The text and its immediate context read as follows: Prol 1-3 Hearken, my son, t o the precepts of the master and incline the ear of thy heart; freely accept and faithfully fulfil1 the instructions of a loving father, that by the labor of obedience thou mayest return t o him from whom thou hast 2. The community in the RB is never designated by the term communitus. The term congsegatio is the one most frequently used in the RB to designate the community.

Who is to Speak

183

strayed by the sloth of disobedience. To thee are my words now addressed, whosoever thou mayest be that renouncing thine own will to fight for the true King, Christ, doest take up the strong and glorious weapons of obedience. The question of concern is who is the loving father who gives admonitions (admonitionem piipatris)? Who is it that speaks and to whom the monk is to listen as a son (obsculta, o fili)? A traditional and legitimate interpretation of this text is that it is the abbot-author of the Rule who speaks as master and father. The monk is the disciple and son who listens. Such an interpretation would be in keeping with the immediate context, for one reads in verse 3, "to thee my words are now addressed." It is also in keeping with the principle found in chapter 6: RB 6.6 For it becometh the master to speak and to teach; but it befits the disciple to be silent and to listen. But there is another interpretation that is possible and may be more correct. If one looks at the Prolog of the RB as a literary unit, another father-son relationship is made manifest. The term father (pater) is used two times in the Prolog of the RB. Prol 1 . . . the instructions of a loving father. Prol 6 . . . that he may never as an angry father disinherit his children. There can be no doubt that father in verse 6 refers to God. Further, if one considers the pronouns in verse 2: Prol 2 . . . that by the labor of obedience thou mayest return to him (ad eum . . . redeas) from whom (a quo) thou hast strayed by the sloth of disobedience. Surely "to. him" and "from whom" refer to God the Father. Therefore the loving father of verse 1would be God the Father and not the author of the Rule. This conclu&on gains ground when one considers the use of

184

Silence

son (filius) in the Prolog of the RB. Son is used four times. Besides in verse 1 it is found in: Pro1 5 . . . so that he who has deigned t o count us among his sons (in filiorum dignatus est numero computare). Pro] 6 . . . that he may never as an angry father disinherit his children (ut non solum iratus pater. . . filios exheredet). Prol 12 . . . Come, ye children, hearken unto me (uenite, fili, audite me). In these three uses the filial relationship is to God. S o it can be concluded that in verse 1 the father-son relationship is that between God and the monk, and not the abbot-author and the monk, for the Prolog does not speak as father-author t o monkson except possibly in verse 1, the verse that is under investigation. What is even more compelling is the use of brother fiater) in the prolog. Brothers (fratres) is used three times: Pro1 19 What can be sweeter t o us, dearest brethren F a tres carissimi), than this voice of our Lord inviting us? Pro1 24 Then, brethren (fratres), let us hear the Lord . . . Pro] 39 So, brethren CFfatres), we have asked the Lord . . . The author consistently speaks t o the reader as t o a brother. He nowhere calls the reader son, except in verse 1 if the traditional interpretation is correct. From this analysis it would seem that the father-son relationship that is described in verse 1 is the relationship between God and the monk and not that between the author-abbot and the monk. Compelling as this conclusion now seems to be from the above andysis, there is still more to be said with regard t o the first interpetation. The abbot himself is called father (pater) in three places in the RB (2.24; 33.5; 49.9). A text that closely reflects that of the Prolog verse 1 is chapter 2.24: RB 2.24 He (the abbot) must adapt himself t o circumstances, now using severity and now persuasion, displaying the rigor of a master (dirum magistn') or the loving kindness of a father (piurn patris).

Who is to Speak

185

Note that in the Prolog and 2.24 the same terms are used, master and father. And further, the same adjective specifies father in both texts, that is loving (pius). From this analysis and comparison (recall the similarity between Prol 1-3 and 6.6), it is apparent that the father-son relationship expressed in Prol 1 could be that between abbotauthor and monk, or simply between abbot and monk. At any rate there is an ambiguity here. The master and father could be God or the author-abbot. It is not absolutely sure which the RB intends. It could be either, and there is good reason for both positions. Indeed, the RB seems t o want t o leave this ambiguous. Such ambiguity may therefore be intentional in order t o present a very important doctrine, a doctrine that is made manifest by what at first sight seems to be contradictory interpretations. The abbot is the mouthpiece of God in the community. This does not mean that the abbot displaces the voice of God which is mediated especially by Sacred Scripture, but rather that the voice of God is also heard in the voice of the abbot. The monk's filial relationship to God the Father is realized by his filial relationship t o the abbot. But note well, in order that this may not be misunderstood, the RB shies away from characterizing the abbot-monk relationship as paternal-filial. Because the abbot mediates God's Word t o his brother monks, he is t o teach or ordain nothing contrary t o the law of God (2.4). In his words the abbot proposes the commandments of the Lord (2.2). If the RB does not emphasize the speaking role of the abbot as that of a father speaking t o his sons, there is another image that receives more emphasis. The abbot is characterized as master (magister) who speaks to his disciples (discipuli). The characterization is found five times with regard t o master, while disciple is employed thirteen times. All of these uses save one are found in the Prolog and first six chapters of the RB.3 3. The exception is 36.10 where the disciple is used, but not master. It is interesting to note that the majority of uses occur in chapters 2 to 6, there being only one use of master, without the specification of disciple, in the Prolog. Thus the use of master in the RB is confined to that section that is especially indebted to the RM and in which verbal parallels are most frequently found.

186

Silence

The master gives precepts (Prol 1: praecepta magistri), teaches doctrine (2.23-24: in doctrina . . . dirum magistri), disposes all (3.6: magistro . . . ipsum prouide et iuste condecet cuncta disponere), and gives commands (5.9: magistri iussio). It is the function of the master t o speak and t o teach (6.6: nam loquiet docere magistrum condecet). The disciple keeps quiet and listens (6.6: tacere et audire discipulum conuenit) and obeys (Prol l ; 3.6; 5.9). The abbot, because he is master, is teacher and so enjoys a prominent role of speaking in the monastery. It is his function to speak and so to teach (2.4, 13; 6.6) the doctrine of monastic life (2.5, 6, l l , 23; 64.2). He speaks and teaches on every occasion and with regard t o all the circumstances of daily living in the monastic community. He preaches the doctrine of the Lord and teaches the Lord's commands t o his disciples. This he does by word and example (2.1 1-13). He teaches and preaches by word t o disciples who are capable of understanding. He teaches and preaches by the example of his life to disciples who are hard of heart and of simple minds (2.12). This distinction between teaching those capable by word and the dull by example gives a good insight into the meaning of verbal communication in the monastery. The verbal teaching of the abbot is reserved for those disciples who are capable of understanding and who thus possess a certain sensitivity. Dull hearts and simple minds would not grasp the lesson given by words. These must be taught by example. This implies a certain refinement that is essential for one to be able to comprehend verbal teaching. T o grasp verbal doctrine demands a certain sensitivity of heart, a certain sophistication of person. Further on in chapter 2 (W 23-25) another distinction is made in the abbot's teaching style. Following the admonition of the Apostle, the abbot reproves, persuades and rebukes (2 Tim 4.2). He reproves the undisciplined and restless; he persuades the obedient, meek and patient t o an even more perfect life-style; he rebukes and corrects the negligent and contemptful. Almost contradicting what had been said above (2. 1 1-13), the abbot now verbally teaches all categories of monks. But he treats each monk according t o his inner disposition and

Who is to Speak

187

aptitude. But even here there is demanded a certain sensitivity on the part of the monk, for in correcting his monks the abbot will discover some t o whom words mean nothing. T o those of gentle disposition and good understanding the abbot will admonish by words the first and second time. But t o the bold, hard, proud and disobedient he will immediately apply corporal punishment (2.27-28). Such a distinction is in keeping with that found in 2.1 1-13. This again points out the meaning of verbal communication. It is effective only when there is t o be found a certain sensitivity of soul. T o such a one the abbot can speak with success and fruit. T o the hard of heart the abbot may rebuke and correct by words, but it will be useless. This type will only understand action - the abbot's good example and punishment that is corporeal. It is the place of the abbot t o give commands in the monastery. Cenobites are those monks who desire an abbot t o reign over them and who wish t o walk by his judgment and command (5.12). In all things they obey the abbot's precepts (4. 61). And so the abbot gives commands and decisions in every aspect and on every horizon of monastic life. The abbot gives orders t o the cellarer ( 3 1.4, 5, 12, 15) who is in charge of the temporalities of the monastery. The abbot also directs the deans in their charge over their respective deaneries (21.2). He gives the craftsmen of the monastery permission t o employ their trades (57.1). It is the abbot who presents a monk for ordination t o the priesthood or diaconate and then commands him t o function according t o his order (61.1, 3). The abbot calls all the monks to council and explains t o them what is t o be discussed (3.1-3). He listens t o their counsel but makes the final decision regarding the matter. The abbot determines the sleeping arrangements of the monks (22.2). He gives his blessing on the extra good works that each monk has decided t o perform during Lent (49.10). It is the abbot who gives permission for a monk to eat outside the monastery even though that monk will be returning the same day (5 1.2). And the abbot gives permission for a monk t o receive letters or tokens (54. l ) , or t o give something away (33.2).

188

Silence

The abbot can associate with and speak to the guests who come t o the monastery (53.16). No other monk is permitted to d o this without the abbot's leave. The abbot can command a brother t o speak after Compline (42.10), and it is he who orders who is to read or sing in community exercises (47.4). The excommunicated monk is one of the special concerns of the abbot. He is to have the greatest solicitude concerning him (27.1, 5). It is the abbot who decides the measure of his punishment and how it is to be carried out (24.2; 25.5). He decides when the excommunicated monk has made sufficient satisfaction and can give permission for another monk t o converse with the excommunicated. Thus it can be seen that the abbot has a special role of ordering the life of the monastery and the monks. He teaches, corrects, gives commands and permissions. Since the abbot must teach, he must speak (6.6). His speaking role depends upon his teaching role, his correcting function, his constant concern for the well-being of the flock committed t o him. Thus in the abbot's case speaking is necessary so that he may serve his brothers and lead them on the paths of God t o the royal reign of glory. The teaching role is primary and almost all the abbot's speech can be reduced t o this role.

MONASTERY OFFICIALS

Praepositus: The RB is not very positive with regard t o the role of the provost (praepositus) in the monastery, and so it is not too specific with regard t o his duties (chapter 65).4 The RB is indeed quite hesitant in permitting the existence of such a functionary and openly prefers an organizational structure based on deans (65.12). In regulating for a provost the RB emphasizes what must be avoided rather than what role he is 4. The paepositus is the second in rank and authority, after the abbot Today we call this monk the prior. One must be careful when reading the RB not to confuse the praepositus and aprior, for they are not necessarily the same person For a good treatment and explanation of the meaning of praepositus and his function, cf. de VogiiC, La Communauti . . ., p. 388-437.

Who is to Speak

189

t o play. Thus it is very difficult t o determine the speaking role of the provost. The provost must beware of considering himself a second abbot (65.2). He has therefore n o right to teach, t o preach, t o correct, or t o admonish independently of the abbot. Rather, he is t o reverently carry out whatever the abbot enjoins upon him, and he is t o d o nothing contrary t o the abbot's will and disposition (65.16). It is obvious that the provost does give commands t o other members of the community, for no private command is t o be preferred t o that of the abbot or provosts (71.3).' It appears from the negative approach of chapter 65 that the provost is intimately involved in the inner workings of the monastery. He can be the cause of dissentions, envies, quarrels, detractions, rivalries and disorders (65.2, 7 ) .This would seem t o demand that he be able t o speak when and where and t o whom he wished. In order t o safeguard against such scandals, his speaking role is always determined by the provost's relation t o and dependence upon the abbot (65.16). There will be occasions in the monastery when and where the provost will be the prior, that is the first in command or the superior. In such occasions his speaking role is determined by that as prior. Dean(s): If the monastic congregation is large it is t o be divided into smaller groups of monks which are governed by a monk called a dean. The dean is t o be solicitous over his deanery in all things according to the commands of God and the precepts of the abbot. The abbot therefore shares his own responsibilities with the deans ( 21.1-3;65.12-13). This implies that the dean participates in the teaching and correcting roles of the abbot. That the dean shares the teaching role of the abbot becomes clear when one compares the qualifications specified by the RB for the selection of both abbot and deans. A monk is chosen (elegatur) t o be abbot b y the merit of his life (uitae autem merito) and the doctrine of his wisdom (sa5. The text gives the plural form, praepositoncm, which seems to indicate that the author of the RB, at least subconsciously, prefers the abbot to share his responsibilities with more than one, for instance with deans (65.12-13).

Silence pientiae doctrina: 64.2).'j It is necessary that an abbot be wise in doctrine for he is the dispenser and teacher of wisdom and doctrine in the monastery. So too concerning the deans. They are not chosen according t o their monastic rank, but according t o the merit of their lives and the doctrine of their wisdom (21.4: et non eliganturper ordinem, sed secundum meritum et sapientiae doctrinam). The criteria for their choice implies that the deans have a teaching role in the monastery, a role that is dependent upon the abbot and which participates in his responsibility (21.2-3). Thus the deans participate in the magisterial role of the abbot and are t o speak and t o teach (6.6). With regard to the abbot, they remain a disciple who is to keep silence and listen. With regard t o their deanery, they are a master and must speak and teach. Cellarer: The cellarer (chapter 3 1) is a monk of some importance in the monastery and his responsibilities and duties involve him with almost everyone. He does all at the bidding of the abbot and must report t o him (32.3).' The weekly servers must return the refectory and kitchen vessels t o the cellarer in a cleaned condition so that he may turn them over t o the next group (35.10-1 1). Should anyone have misused these vessels he is to be verbally corrected (32.4), as is anyone who misuses monastery goods. It is surely the function of the cellarer to make these corrections on the spot. Such a case could be that envisaged in 71.6 where a superior (prior) may verbally correct a monk but may not excommunicate him or strike him, for these latter are the prerogatives of the abbot alone (ch 70). 6. Sapientiae doctrina is an appositive genitive or genetivus identitatis uel inhaerentiae. In this construction the genitive merely repeats the idea of the noun it modifies. Therefore sapientiae doctrina could be translated as "doctrine which is wisdom," or "doctrine and wisdom." 7. There is no reason to suppose that in chapter 32 the RB legislates for some other officials than the cellarer. The cellarcr must be of mature character (31.1: maturirmoribus), and the custodians of the monastery's tools and articles must be the same (32. l : de quorum uita et moribus secusus sit). Compare 31.10: Omnia uasa monasterii cunctamque substantiam ac si altatis uasa sacrata conrpiciat, and chap ter 32. Chapter 32 probably continues and develops the thought expressed in 31. 17 - that the cellarer be given assistance if the community be large.

Who is to Speak The cellarer is to have concern for the sick, the young, the guests, and the poor (31.9). This demands that he converse with them, finding out their needs and desires. It is interesting that the cellarer is given freedom to speak with the guests, which is not the case with all the monks (53.23-24). In his exchanges with so many, the cellarer is warned not to be stubborn and rough spoken (iniuriosus: 31.1). If someone asks for something unreasonably, the cellarer is t o deny the petitioner reasonably and with humility ( 3 1 . 7 ) .And if he cannot give the petitioner what he asks, he is to give him at least a good word ( 3 1.13). Since the cellarer must be speaking frequently, he must be a God-fearing man and not one who will disturb the quiet of monastic life (turbulentus: 31.1-2). He must d o all with good measure and according to the abbot's commands ( 3 1.12). Porter: At the gate of the monastery there is placed a wise old man. This wise old man must know how to receive an answer and to give an answer (66.1-4). The porter has therefore a speaking role to play on the fringe of the community. He speaks to those who come to the gate, and his attention is directed only to them. It is worth noting that the porter is characterized as wise (sapiens) in his speaking role.

MONKS ACCORDING TO RANK

Prior: The designation prior is found eighteen times in the RB. It is not a title in the RB as for instance abbas, magister, praepositus, decanus. These latter words refer t o a specific functionary. Prior is rather a qualitative adjective indicating one who is first in rank.' This means that the prior may change with circumstances. One may be prior at one time in a given situation but not at another. Thus a senior monk is prior t o a junior (63.12); the dean is prior to his deanery; the provost is prior to the rest of the fraternity. All of these will on occasion have to cede their priority - a senior monk with respect t o 8. Abbot Justin McCann translates prior as "superior."

192

Silence

his dean, the dean with regard to the provost, and the provost with regard t o the abbot. If there is one in the monastery who is always and in every situation prior, it is the abbot. The one who is prior - and this applies always t o the abbot, t o others according t o circumstance - enjoys a speaking role. He can be asked things (6.7), and so be called upon to fulfil1 the pedagogical or educative role of instruction and teaching doctrine. He may also say a short word for edification during the table-reading (38.9). In this latter case one can suppose the prior t o be usually the provost since in general the abbot would not be in the refectory for meals. According t o the RB the abbot eats with the guests in a special place (cf 56), and since the guests are frequent (53.16), the abbot could normally be absent from the community meals. Whoever is superior in the refectory may break the silence there and interrupt the reading in order t o explain what is being read and t o edify the brothers. The prior can give commands (71.4) which may a t times be difficult and contrary (7.41) and even impossible t o carry out (68.4). The prior may verbally correct a brother and explain t o him his displeasure (71.6). Only the abbot may excommunicate or strike an erring monk (ch 70). There is a good example of the shifting meanipg of the term prior. It is the prior who entertains guests and can break the monastic fast for their sake (53.8-10). But it is specifically the abbot who is to eat with the guests (53.16 and ch 56). Thus it is seen that the abbot is prior par excellence. Maior: The term maior is used nineteen times in the RB. It does not designate an official in the monastery. The term is a qualitative adjective which refers to rank. A maior ranks above a minor, and this relationship is equally expressed by senior and junior (63.16). A maior has the right of commanding obedience from a minor (5.4, 15; 7.34). Thus a maior may speak to a minor and command him t o d o something. The abbot is the maior par excellence in the monastery (2.1). As such he is the teacher, preacher, admonisher, correcter of all the other monks. Senior: The term senior is used thirteen times in the RB.

Who is to Speak

193

A senior is one who is more experienced in monastic living. It is a designation of rank and is contrasted with junior, just as maior is contrasted with minor (63.16). There is no indication that after a specified time one enters the ranks of the seniors. One is senior t o another if he has entered the monastery a t an earlier hour (63.8). But apparently there are those who are recognized as seniors in the congregation. They are t o be called to council when there is a decision of lesser importance t o be made (2.12). One or two preside in the refectory when the abbot is not present (56.3).9 They are also in charge of the sleeping quarters of the brothers should the size of the community prohibit all the monks from sleeping in the same place (22.3) under the supervision of the abbot. There are also those seniors who are recognized as spiritual men and directors of souls (4.50; 46.5). As one grows older in monastic living he gains wisdom (27.2), and so can be entrusted with care of others' spiritual life. He has a sensitive understanding of weaknesses and knows how t o console a younger monk. It would seem that whether senior refers t o a recognized older segment of the fraternity, or to a monk who is longer in monastic life than another, the senior has a speaking role in the community. Certain seniors give counsel t o the abbot when asked for (2.12). Wise seniors are sent by the abbot t o the excommunicated t o console him and encourage him t o make satisfaction (27.2). The rigid rule of no communication or association with the excommunicated (ch 26) is thus relaxed in this case, for these wise seniors are t o act as senpectae. ' O 9. This regulation does not seem to take into account the presence of a provost. This is another indication that the regulation concerning a provost is an afterthought in the RB. 10. Abbot Justin McCann explains this term as meaning"p1aymate" in the notes which accompany his trans1a:ion of the Rule, p. 183, note 47. Einar Molland, " 'Ut sapiens medicus.' Medical Vocabulary in St. Benedict's Regula Monachorum," in Studia Monostica 6, 1964, p. 297 says: "Senpecta may accordingly be interpreted as 'mustard poultice.' applied as a pain-relieving (pain-distributing) means." Molland spends considerable time o n the criticism of senpecta interpreted as "playmate." It is his contention that there are a number of medical terms in chapters 27 and 28 of the RB, one of these being senpecta.

194

Silence

Seniors are the confidants of other monks. They listen t o their trials and temptations and t o their frank admission of their sins and failures (4.50; 46.5). Surely in return the senior gives some advice and consolation t o his suffering junior. Seniors also command and give precepts (23.1; 63.16), even if it be such a simple thing as telling a junior to be seated. Seniors admonish an erring brother in private (secrete) at least twice (23.1-2) before publishing his failures publicly before all. Thus from a senior's concern for his junior brother in many aspects of monastic life, it is apparent that a senior has an important speaking role in the monastery. He consoles, exhorts, corrects, commands. His great concern is motivated by the spiritual welfare of his brother. junior: The term junior is used eleven times in the RB. It is a relative designation. A monk is junior to another because he has entered the monastery later than the other (63.8). Thus every monk will be a junior compared t o another, unless he has been in the monastery the longest. But apparently there is a group of younger monks who can be considered juniors, just as a group of the older monks are considered seniors. But this designation does not depend upon age and dignity, but upon length of time in monastic life. A particular monk is considered a junior and a senior at the same time-a junior t o those who are his seniors, a senior t o his juniors. A junior is the same as a minor (63.10, 16) and thus is contrasted t o a prior (62.10, 12, 15; 7 1.4) and t o a maior and senior (63.16). A junior asks his senior, a maior, for a blessing when they meet each other (63.15). In general the junior does not speak first except to ask for a blessing o r t o represent his case when the prior has given an impossible order (68.4). I t is not the place of the junior to speak but rather t o obey (71.4) and honor his senior (4.70; 63.10). In the community council the junior has the same right t o express his opinion as any of his seniors. Indeed, it is often through the junior that the Lord reveals what is best (3.3). It would seem that the more junior one is, the more he is to listen and obey. As one progresses in monastic life he takes a more active part in speaking, in giving commands, and in bestowing blessings.

Who is to Speak

195

Priest: A priest has no special rank in the monastery. He is t o keep the place that is his on account of his entrance into the congregation (62.5). Thus a priest has n o special speaking role in the monastery. He may be called upon t o give blessings (60.4) and to exercise his priestly ministry in celebrating the sacraments. But there is n o indication that he has a right t o teach or to preach. Such a right would belong t o him only because the abbot would share his responsibilities with the priest, as he could with any other monk.

MONKS IN GENERAL

C ~ n ~ r e g a t iThe o : term cong*regatiois used in the RB twentyfive times to indicate the whole community. Although the term is not used in any context which regulates the opus dei (except 17.6), it is clear that the opus dei is celebrated by the whole community. Thus the congregation uses its voice to sing praise to the Creator seven times during the day and once during the night (16.3-5). This is one of the most important occupations of the congregation, and nothing is t o be preferred t o it (43.3). The congregation elects the abbot (64.1) and can reasonably ask for a provost (65.14). It can also request that a priest be raised in rank within the congregation (62.6). And the congregation has a voice in the ordering of the monastic life, for the abbot calls all the congregation to council (3.1), and listens to the counsel of the brothers. The congregation is therefore not a passive, silent community. It has a role t o play in the public prayer which is vocal, and a role in the election of superiors, and even with regard t o rank in the community. Monk and Brother: Two words, monachus and Pater are used t o refer t o the individual monk." Sometimes in context these words refer t o any or to all the members of the monastic congregation. At other times they refer t o an individual who has a special task or assignment. 11. Monachus is employed thirty-fiv'etimesin the RB; frater is employed ninetytwo times. By the time of the writing of the RB " 'frater' became synonymous with 'monachud ," LoriC. Spiritual Terminology . . , p. 34.

.

196

Silence

The brothers are to give advice to the abbot when they are called t o council (3.2, 4), and one such case is with regard to the appointment of a provost (65.15). One brother reads to the community the lessons of the opus dei. A brother also reads at table. This is not just any brother, but one who can so read or sing as to edify the others (38.12; 47.3). A monk speaks t o God in prayer, in the public recitation of the psalter (18.24), in the privacy of the oratory (52.3), and in the intimacy of his own heart (Pro1 39). A monk can speak to his abbot, his spiritual senior, especially in representation when he considers a command to be impossible to be fulfilled (68.1-2). A monk speaks t o another when questioned by him (7.56). A brother sent upon a journey (cf 5 1.1) asks the prayers of abbot and congregation (67.1) before setting out and upon returning (67.4). Whenever they meet, the junior asks his senior for a blessing (63.15). A God-fearing brother is put in charge of the guest quarters (53.21), and surely he converses with the guests concerning their needs. Indeed, upon the arrival of a guest all the brothers greet him with charity (53.3). It is not true t o say that no one speaks t o the guests, for all at least ask for their blessing when they pass them (53.24). A brother may apparently associate with and speak t o another when some monastic exercise is not in session (cf 43.8 and 48.18). The RB specifies that a brother is not to join himself t o another brother at unseasonable hours (horis incompetentibus: 48.2 1). The phrase horis competentibus is used three times in the RB. Two uses refer to the regular scheduled times for the opus dei (47.1; 50.1). The third use seems t o indicate that there is a scheduled time for asking for things from the cellarer (31.18). It may be then that there were determined times when monks could freely converse among themselves, and this would explain the injunction not t o associate at unseasonable hours. But in light of the discipline of silence, it is better to see that unseasonable hours are those hours when silence is especially enforced. It is hours of silence that are scheduled in the RB and not hours of conversation. Thus when silence is not prescribed, brothers may associate and converse with each other.

Who is to Speak

197

Normally a monk may not associate with an excommunicated brother (26.1). This implies that in other circumstances one brother may associate (se iungere) and speak to another (loqui cum e o ) except at certain specified times and in certain places, that is at times and in places of silence. Inuicem: Brothers are t o obey one another (7 1 . 1 ) . This demands that they make known their desires t o each other, for how else could one brother be obedient t o another? Thus there must be conversation between brothers, at least by signs. In rising for the night office monks are t o exhort and encourage one another. This could imply talking, but not necessarily so. The encouragement could come from good example only. In 7.55 where the verb encourage is also used it specifies by good example (maiorum cohortantur exempla). In 22.8 it specifies that monks are t o exhort each other moderately (inuicem se moderate cohortentur). In 22.6 they are t o prevent each other with gravity (inuicem se praeuenire . . . cum . . . grauitate). These two specifications are found in 42.1 1 where the necessary talking after Compline is characterized (cum summa grauitate et moderatione honestissima fiat). In keeping with this injuction it is quite possible t o see that the RB has in mind that on rising for the night office monks would verbally encourage each other, but with the same restraint that a monk speaks after Compline when it is necessary. Disciple: The term disciple is not really a general term t o indicate a monk. It refers specifically to the monk in his relationship t o the abbot who is master and teacher. It befits the disciple t o be silent and to listen, while it becomes the master t o speak and t o teach ( 6 . 6 ) .The perfect disciple is rarely given permission to speak good, holy and edifying words ( 6 . 3 ) , and is never allowed to open his mouth t o scurrility, useless words and words that move t o laughter ( 6 . 8 ) .It is not the place or part of the disciple t o speak and t o teach. Rather, the disciple is to obey ( 2 . 6 ) ;3.6; 5.9, 17) while the master or abbot is t o teach and give commands (2.5, 11-13; 5.9; 6.6). From the analysis of disciple one sees that the monk as disciple has n o speaking role in the monastery, that is that he has n o official speaking role or teaching role. His role is rather t o keep silence, t o listen and t o obey.

198

Silence

Son: The monk characterized by the term son Cfilius) has no speaking role in the RB. The Excommunicated: An excommunicated monk is deprived of all normal communication with his brothers. He cannot intone a psalm or antiphon in the oratory, neither can he perform the service of reader (24.4). He is not allowed to join in the celebration of the opus dei if he has committed a serious fault (44. l), but lies prostrate at the door of the oratory during the office. No one may speak to him or associate with him (25.2). He does not participate in community meals and prayer (25.1), and no one may bless his food (25.6). From these negative restrictions concerning the excommunicated, one can get a good idea of normal conversation within the community. There would seem to be a healthy and normal free association and conversation between brothers. If this were not the case the restriction against it would not make much sense as a punishment (25.2). Although the excommunicated may not be spoken to nor associated with, the abbot does see to it that wise seniors are sent his way to console him and move him to satisfaction (27.2-3).

GUESTS

The RB foresees that regular monastic life will include the monk's relationship to guests, who are never wanting (53.16). The RB legislates for the reception and accommod;ition of the guest. One gets the impression that the guest has no recognized speaking role in the community. Monks do greet the guest (cf 53.3), ask for a blessing and pass on, saying they are not allowed to converse with a guest (53.23-24). Thus the guest does give a blessing to the monk who seeks it. Otherwise his conversation is restricted to the abbot (53.8: prior), the guest-master (cf 53.21), the cellarer (cf 31.9), and any monk to whom the command has been given to associate with the guest (53.8, 23). A visiting pilgrim monk may request to be received as a guest (6 1.1). In conversing with the abbot he may point out or criticize something, but this should be done reasonably, humbly

Who is to Speak

199

and charitably (61.4). But in general, a guest does not have a speaking role in the community. This is because he is not a teacher of monastic spirituality and has more to learn than to teach. In the case of a monk guest, he may have something to teach the community by his observations, but these are made only to the abbot.

SILENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHO SPEAK

The analysis of who speak leads to important conclusions that complement the teaching on silence in the RB. Without a doubt God is the most important speaker according to the RB. God speaks in Scripture, especially as it is proclaimed in the opus dei and in public reading. God also speaks in the Scripture used in the Rule itself. Next to Scripture, the abbot has the predominant speaking role in the monastic community. This is because the abbot teaches the doctrine of God. The abbot is the main instrument next to Scripture for mediating the Word of God to the monks. Thus his role is unique compared to the other monks. But other monks assist the abbot in his teaching role, and so they have an official speaking role to play. They take on this role in so far as they participate in the abbot's teaching role. The analysis of silence and of who speak shows a basic consistency of doctrine and practice in the RB. It has been seen from the investigation of silence that silence is ordered to listening. From the investigation of who speak one sees that speaking is ordered to teaching. Thus speech and silence are correlative with teaching and listening; one speaks to teach; one is silent in order to listen. It is also to be noted that the monk uses his voice especially in the opus dei in order to praise God the Creator. But the monk is silent in the opus dei in order to hear the Word of God proclaimed especially in the reading from Scripture. Thus silence is in order to hear the Word of God; speech is in order to respond to that Word by praise. What can also be noted from the analysis of who speak in

200

Silence

the RB is with regard to the freedom a monk has t o speak. A monk is free t o speak in so far as he responds to God in praise. He is also free t o speak in so far as he fulfills a teaching role. Little else is said about the freedom t o speak. One gets the impression that if a monk is not praising God or teaching the doctrine of God he has no freedom to speak. But the explicit teaching on who speak and why must be complemented by the implicit speaking situations that the RB considers. Both the teaching on silence and the teaching on who speak indicate that there will be occasions when the monks associate with each other and converse. Monks could console each other, support each other, encourage each other, and even command each other. The results of the investigation of who speak emphasize the meaning of silence for listening, and speech for praise and teaching, but it in no way indicates that all other speech was forbidden nor that silence was an absolute. In order t o get an even better idea of the relationship between silence and speech, it will be good to look at how one speaks according t o the RB. Such an analysis will throw even more light upon the question of freedom to speak in the RB, and correspondingly upon the enforcement of silence. Before proceeding to this investigation some comment should be made with regard t o the injunction: RB 6.3 Therefore, on account of the great value of silence, let leave to speak be seldom granted t o observant disciples (perfectis discipulis), even though it be for good, holy and edifying conversations. The analysis of master and disciple with regard t o who speak in the monastery can now throw more light upon this statement by the author of the RB. It has already been noted that this sentence is borrowed from the RM. In the RM a contrast is developed between perfect and imperfect disciples with regard t o the freedom with which one speaks or restrains himself from speech. In the RB no such contrast is made. The point to be noted concerning the injunction about perfect disciples being rarely given leave t o speak is that the term

Who is to Speak dlsciple is used. This term is used in the RB almost exclusively in verbal parallels with the RM. The author of the RB seemingly prefers t o call the members of the community brothers or monks. The term disciple does not designate a monk as such in the RB, but rather the monk in his special relationship t o the abbot as one who learns and who listens. Thus the injunction must be understood in the broader context of the monk as disciple and the abbot as master. In this relationship the monk as disciple has nothing t o say, but is t o keep silence and listen. It is the master who is t o speak so that he may teach. Thus monks as disciples, even as perfect disciples, indeed as perfect disciples, are t o keep silent and listen. The conclusion is in keeping with the hesitancy with which a monk should teach according t o Cassian. A monk should always be willing t o listen t o the teaching of an elder who gives a spiritual conference, but he should seal the message in his memory with silence and be careful about wanting t o become a teacher himself. Since there is great danger that the monk may fall into vainglory and pride in teaching and giving spiritual conferences, the monk should fear the role of teacher. Thus he is slow to accept the role of speaker and teacher, but is content to keep silence and to listen. The monk thus strives t o be a perfect disciple, keeping silence and listening. He shuns taking upon himself the responsibility of being a master and teacher. But this relationship of disciple t o master does not envisage all the situations and relationships in the RB. The designation disciple is used for the monk in very specified and restricted contexts in the RB. In some ways the monk is always a disciple, one who is t o listen and learn. But in other ways he is not a disciple. Between brothers in the community this designation does not hold, and so the injunction concerning the perfect disciple's freedom t o speak does not apply. This means, as has been noted from other points of view, that the RB does not legislate for an absolute silence. In so far as he is something other than a disciple, namely a member of a community of brothers, he may speak with freedom. In order to get a better idea of just how free this speech was it will be helpful t o look at how one speaks according t o the RB.

CHAPTER XVII

T H E MANNER O F SPEAKING

A

S ONE ANALYZES T H E P H E N O M E N O N of speaking and verbal communication in the RB certain characteristics become evident. There are certain stereotyped phrases employed to describe the manner in which one speaks. The most frequent specification used is 'humbly' or 'with humility' (humiliter; cum humilitate). Another frequently used phrase is 'with gravity' (cum grauitate). Then there are the phrases 'with reverence' (cum reuerentia) and 'reasonably' (rationabiliter). Connected with 'with humility' and 'with reverence' one finds 'with subjection' (cum subiectione). Another specification appears with the use of 'charity' (caritas). Then there is the less frequently used 'with gentleness' (cum mansuetudine) and 'with moderation' (cum moderatione). Although they are not qualifying phrases, the terms 'wisdom' (sapientia, sapiens) and 'fear of the Lord' (timor Dei; timere b e u m ) also ihrow light upon the manner df speaking. If one looks at these various specifications one gets a better idea of how one is to speak according t o the RB. This in turn will give a better idea of the meaning of speech and its purpose. WITH HUMILITY

The Latin root humilis is used fifty-two times in the RB,' twenty-two of which uses are found in contexts in which some 1. Verb humiliare eleven times; adjective humilis three times; adverb humiliter three times; noun humilitas thirty-five times.

The Manner of Speaking

203

reference is made t o the use of the tongue in speech. From this observation it is obvious that there is some connection between humility and speaking. The first thing t o note is that of the twelve degrees of humility five concern speech: the fifth (7.44);the seventh ( 7 . 5 1 ) ; the ninth (7.56);the tenth (7.59);the eleventh (7.60).Thus chapter 7 , which is specifically on humility, concerns itself with the monk's speaking for almost half of the twelve degrees. From this proportion it is imperative to conclude that the connection between humility and speaking is not accidental. When the author of the RB thinks about humility he thinks about speaking, and when he considers speaking h e is led t o reflections on humility. The RB uses the adverb (humiliter) twice t o characterize the monk's manner of speaking. When a monk speaks he is t o d o so humbly (7.60). When he greets a guest he is t o d o so humbly (53.24). A prepositional phrase ( m m humilitate) has much the same significance as the adverb and is employed eight times. The fqllowing speaking situations are characterized by the phrase 'with humility': the brothers give counsel (3.4); something is asked for from the superior ( 6 . 7 ) ;a petition is made t o powerful men ( 2 0 . 1 ) and t o God ( 2 0 . 2 ) ;the cellarer denies a request (31.7);one sings or reads (47.4);a guest-monk remarks on a defect ( 6 1 . 4 ) ;the congregation asks for aprovost (65.14).It is worth noting that the abbot's speech is never characterized by this specification. The reason the abbot's speaking is not characterized by 'with humility' may be because 'with humility' implies subjection t o another. This conclusion comes from the use of 'with humility' in two texts along with 'subjection' (3.4: cum omni humifitatis subiectione; 6.7: cum omni humilitate et subiectione reuerentiae). Comparing these two texts one could conclude that subjection isin apposition with humility. Both words say the same thing. One word defines and explains the other. The technical word for the Latin construction in 3.4 is an appositive genitive. The RB uses this construction a number of times, as has been noted above. If 'with humility' suggests 'with subjection' that is 'with obedience,' then it would not apply t o

Silence the abbot. The monk is to obey and be subject t o the commands of the abbot (3.6: sicut discipulos conuenit oboedire magistro). Thus one sees in chapter 3 the interconnection between humility, subjection and obedience. This could explain why the abbot's speech is never characterized as 'with humility.' Another word used two times in connection with 'with humility' is 'reverence.' In one text it is found in connection with humility and subjection (6.7: cum omni humilitate et subiectione reuerentiae), and in the other with humility alone (20.1: cum humilitate et reuerentia). Comparing these two texts, it seems clear that the RB is again employing an appositive genitive in 6.7. Thus all three words, 'humility,' 'subjection' and 'reverence' specify and define each ot-her. Speaking 'with humility' means speaking 'with subjection' and 'with reverence.' Reverence is the attitude of an inferior towards a superior, especially towards God (9.7; 11.3; 52.2). It is the attitude of the junior monk towards his superior (4.70; 63.12). The corresponding attitude of the senior towards the junior is characterized as love (4.71; 63.10)' not reverence. And so it will be seen that the abbot's speaking can be characterized as 'with love' (cf 64.14), but not 'with reverence.' From the above analysis it seems that one can conclude that a good method of determining just what the RB means by characterizing the manner of speaking with 'with humility' or 'humbly' can be obtained by analyzing the contexts in which this specification is found. This is not t o say that 'with humility' means the same as the other specification that can be found in the same text. Rather, it means that when the RB uses 'with humility' other specifications come t o the author's mind and help determine what he means by 'with humility.' Since many of these specifications will be analyzed later on they will now only be noted. The specification 'reasonably' (rationabiliter) is found three times in connection with 'with humility' (3 1.7; 6 1.4; 65.14). T o speak 'with humility' implies therefore that one speaks 'reasonably,' that is with few (pauca uerba) and reasonable words (rationabilia: 7.60). Another specification found in con-

The Manner of Speaking

205

junction with 'humbly' and 'with humility' is 'with gravity' or 'gravely' (cum grauitate: 7.60;47.4)' and without laughter (7.60). From these various specifications that are found in conjunction with the characteristic of 'with humility' it is obvious how rich and all encompassing the characteristic is. It is rich in meaning and encompasses many speaking situations in the monastery. It would seem that to speak 'with humility' were almost a tangible and physical characteristic. It would be noticeable in one's attitude as well as in 0ne.s composure, just as humility itself is both internal and external, an attitude which has external consequences.

WITH GRAVITY

There are six texts in the RB in which the term grauitas is used. The phrase 'with gravity' (cum grauitate) is found five times, that is in all but one of the uses of grauitas in the RB. Three uses of this phrase are definitely found in speaking situations. Whenever a monk speaks he is t o d o so 'with gravity' (7.60).When it is necessary t o speak after Compline it is to be done 'with gravity' (42.11). When a monk sings or reads he is t o d o so'with gravity' ( 4 7 . 4 ) .It appears therefore that 'with gravity' is a characteristic of the manner in which a monk should speak, just as is the specification 'humbly' or 'with humility.' Indeed, 'with gravity' is found in connection with 'humbly' (7.60: humiliter cum gravitate) and 'with humility' (47.4: cum humilitate et grauitate). Two uses of the phrase 'with gravity' d o not at first sight seem to refer t o the manner in which a monk should speak (22.6;43.2). But if one looks more closely at these texts there are indications that both may refer to speaking situations. Look first at 43.2. Monks are t o h u n y t o the oratory at the sound of the signal. They are t o d o so 'with gravity' so that no occasion be given for levity or scurrility (ut non scurilitas inueniat fomitem). The term scurrility could very well be one that

206

Silence

characterizes a type of speech. Indeed, in English the adjective 'scurrilous' has for its primary meaning "using or given t o the language of low b u f f ~ o n e r ~ . " ~ More convincing than this English usage is the very use of the term in the RB itself. Scurrilitas is used three times in the RB. In its two other uses it is found in context with other terms that denote speaking. RB 6.8 But as for buffoonery (scurilitates) and talk that is vain and stirs t o laughter (uerba otiosa et risum mouentia) we condemn such things everywhere with a perpetual ban, and forbid the disciple t o open his mouth for such conversation. RB 49.7 That is t o say, let him (the monk) stint himself of food, drink, sleep, talk (de loquacitate), and jesting (de scurrilitate), and look forward with the joy of spiritual longing t o the holy feast of Easter. With these two texts as sounding boards, it would seem that the use of scurrility in 43.2 carries the connotation of buffoonery or jesting in a vocal manner. Contrasted with this is 'with gravity.' Thus one can conclude not only that 'with gravity' specifies a mode of speaking in four texts in the RB, but one also gets an insight into its meaning, that is without levity and silly talk. The second questionable text, the fifth in which 'with gravity' is found, is 22.6. When monks rise for the night office they are "to forestall one another t o the Work of God; yet this with all gravity and self-restraint" (cum omni tamen grauitate e t modestia). There is no compelling reason t o suppose that the RB suggests that in so doing the monks will be speaking t o each other. However one verse further on the RB says: RB 22.8 When they rise for the Work of God, let them encourage one another (inuicem se moderate cohortentur), on account of the excuses t o which the sleepy are addicted. 2. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1967, p. 7 7 6 .

The Manner of Speaking

207

It is interesting to note that the manner in which rising monks are to forestall each other ( c u m grauitate) and encourage each other (modErate) is the very manner specified by the RB for a monk to speak after Compline:

RB 42.11 This speaking itself should be done with the utmost gravity and the most becoming restraint ( c u m summa pauitate e t moderatione). From this comparison it is easy to conclude that the text in 22.6 envisages a possible speaking situation. Thus it appears that all five uses of the phrase 'with gravity' can refer to a speaking situation. 'With gravity' specifies the manner in which a monk is to speak. In Latin grauitas has a literal and a figurative sense. Literally it refers to weight, quantity, amount. Figuratively it can be used in a bad sense and in a good sense. In a bad sense it connotes an aspect of heaviness in an unpleasant way. In a good sense it signifies an aspect of heaviness in an agreeable way and conveys the idea of dignity, importance, seriousness. In both the bad and good sense one can speak 'with gravity' (loqui cum grauitate). To speak with gravity in the bad sense means to speak crudely, roughly, haltingly. To speak with gravity in a good sense means to speak with dignity, with authority, seriously, precisely, with reflecti~n.~ From the above analyses it seems that to speak 'with gravity' implies a certain self-restraint (22.6; 42.1 1 ) and gentility (22. 8). Its meaning may be close to 'with humility' (7.60; 47.4). It connotes a certain dignity, seriousness and reflection in the manner of speaking. It suggests that one speak with few and sensible words, that is precisely, and without being noisy (7. 60). In some ways it is surprising that the abbot's speech is not characterized specifically 'with gravity' since such a designation can also mean to speak with authority. It will be shown 3. For the basis of these reflections see Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionmy, p. 829 under grauitas. There it is noted that Ciccro used the phrase 'with gravity' with regard to speech: Cic. Att. 9.9.2; 9.19.3, cum grauitate potius loquar. Cf. also Forcellini, Lexicon. Tome 11, p. 618.

208

Silence

further on that the only characteristics of the abbot's speech are designated by the ideas of love, wisdom, and fear of the Lord. It would seem that when the author of the RB uses the phrase 'with gravity' he does not have in mind the meaning 'with authority' for the phrase is never used in conjunction with any of the authority figures in the monastery, that is with abbot, provost, dean or maior. This is a good indication that all monks could speak in the monastery, not just the superiors. But a monk's speech should always be qualified by gravity. By determining the meaning of grauitas in five of its uses in the RB one is better prepared to understand the sixth use. In 6.3 the reason that permission to speak is seldom given is: "On account of the great value of silence" (propter taciturnitatis grauitatem). It has been seen that a better translation of this would be "on account of gravity and silence,'' or "on account of silence which is the same as gravity." It now becomes clear that such a translation does more justice t o the Latin and brings out the particular nuance of grauitas which is a word that specifies a manner of speaking or restraint in speaking. A disciple is seldom given permission t o speak because of gravity, that is because of silence. Thus whether a monk speaks or keeps silence he is t o value gravity and preserve it. One could also say that whether one speaks or remains silent one is t o value silence and preserve it. Thus proper speaking does not destroy the virtue of silence. Proper speaking may destroy the fact of silence (silentium), but not the virtue of silence (taciturnitas or grauitas). From this it appears that proper speech and the virtue of silence are not in opposition t o each other according to the RB.

WITH REVERENCE

The term reverence (reuerentia) is used eight times in the text of the RB. One use refers t o the reverence shown t o a priest (60.7).Once it is used t o express the respectful and obedient attitude of the provost towards the abbot (65.16);once the attitude of a junior towards a senior (63.11).Four times

The Manner of Speaking

209

it is used t o specify an attitude towards God (9.7; 11.3; 20.1; 52.2). Three times it is used in the context of using the voice (6.7; 20.1; 52.2). More specifically a text that refers to silence, 52.2 was treated above. Here one should note however that reverence is t o be shown in not speaking as well as in speaking. Thus the important thing is reverence. One can and should exhibit reverence in speaking as well as in silence. Reverence is the attitude of an inferior in the presence of a superior (20.1; 63.11; 65.16). It is especially the attitude of man in the presence of God (9.7; 11.3; 52.2). Thus speaking 'with reverence' (6.7; 20. l ) implies that one is aware and conscious of the dignity of the one to whom one is speaking. It could be maintained, considering the texts, that the author of the RB understood reverence as expressed in speaking or in silence as an awareness of the presence of God in all human intercourse. This conclusion is borne out by the first degree of humility:

RB 7.10, 12-13 The first degree of humility, then, is that a man keep the fear of God before his eyes, altogether shunning forgetfulness . . .And guarding himself always from sins and vices, whether of thought, word (linguae), hand, foot and self-will, and checking also the desires of the flesh, let him consider that God is always beholding him from heaven, that his actions are everywhere visible to the eye of the Godhead, and are constantly being reported to God by the angels. The monk lives constantly in the awareness of the presence of God. This produces in him an attitude called reverence which is expressed in all his actions and so too in his use of words. This attitude of reverence is intimately associated with the attitude known as fear of the Lord. One is reverent in speaking out of fear of the Lord, one aspect of which is fear of offending the Lord by sin. And so out of reverence and fear of the Lord one speaks with few words and seldom, "for it is written: 'In much speaking thou shalt not escape sin' (Prov 10.19) and elsewhere: 'Death and life are in the power of the tongue (linp a e ) ' (Prov 18.2 1)" (6.4-5). One of the expressions of rever-

210

Silence

ence in speaking, especially in prayer or speaking to God, is by fewness of words (20.3: non in multiloquio). Speaking with few words is also a characteristic of speaking humbly (7.60: humiliter cum gravitate, uel pauca uerba). And so the connection between 'with humility' and 'with reverence' is again made manifest. T o speak 'with reverence' is to speak 'with humility.' It implies an awareness of the presence of God and so corresponds to a fear of the Lord that fears sinning against the Lord. For this reason speaking 'with reverence' is made manifest by fewness of words. Indeed, the best expression of reverence for God may be to keep silent (52.2). REASONABLY

The adjective reasonable (rationabilis) is used two times in the RB (2.18; 7.60). Only the second of these texts concerns speaking. The adverb reasonably (rationabiliter) is used three times. All three uses of the adverb are found in the context of speaking. In all three uses of reasonably the manner of speaking is at the same time characterized 'with humility.' And in the one use of the adjective reasonable the manner of speaking is characterized by 'humbly.' From this it can be concluded that there is not much difference between the use of the adverb and the prepositional phrase. They could be used interchangeably. This constant use of 'humbly' with 'reasonably' gives some idea of the meaning of 'reasonably' for the RB. T o speak reasonably could carry all the nuances of speaking with humility. From the context of 7.60 one sees that the idea of speaking reasonably means also to use few words, that is to avoid many words. Avoiding many words, as has been seen above, is a characteristic of speaking with reverence. And speaking with reverence is connected with speaking humbly. It is becoming more obvious that the predominant and most all-encompassing characteristic of the manner of speaking is 'with humility.' 'With humility' is defined and specified by the other characteristics which merely spell out its meaning.

The Manner of Speaking

WITH SUBJECTION

The phrase 'with subjection' is used two times in the RB,and both texts are found in the context of speaking. Note the use of the phrase and a text which is related t o it:

RB 3.4 cum omni humilitatis subiectione; RB 6.7 cum omni humilitate et subiectione reuerentiae; RB 20.1 cum humilitate et reuerentia. The first two texts employ an appositive genitive. I n the first case humility is a genitive modifying subjection. In the second reverence is a genitive modifying subjection, while humility stands in parallel with subjection and equally depends upon the preposition. In the third text humility and reverence equally depend upon the preposition. From this comparison one can conclude that the three terms are closely related. In fact, it can be concluded that they define each other: humility defines subjection; subjection defines reverence; reverence defines humility. This also means that one specifies the other; one explains the other. From what has already been seen above the fundamental characteristic would be humility. The other characteristics are related and subservient t o it. 'With subjection' more specifically means to be ready t o submit t o anotherss will and be obedient t o it. This comes clear from looking at 3.4-5 :

RB 3.4-5 Let the brethren give their advice with all deference and humility (cum omni humilitatis subiectione), nor venture t o defend their o inion obstinately; but let the decision de end rather on t e abbot's judgement, so that when he has ecided what is the better course, all may obey (obediant).

S

R

This connection between subjection, humility and obedience is not surprising when one considers the close connection between humility and obedience.

212

Silence

RB 5.1 The first degree of humility (humilitatis) is obedience (obedientia) without delay. RB 7.34 The third degree of humility (humilitatis) is that a man for the love of God subject (se subdat) himself t o his superior in all obedience (omni obedientia). RB 7.35 The fourth degree of humility (humilitatis) is that, meeting in this obedience (zn ipsa obedientia) with difficulties and contradictions and even injustice, he should with a quiet mind hold fast t o patience. It is also interesting to note that 'with subjection' is found contrasted with presumption. In 3.4-5 the monk who speaks 'with subjection' is not t o venture t o defend his position obstinately (nonpraesumant procaciter defendere). In 20.1, a text that has been noted as throwing light upon the phrase 'with subjection,' it says that men d o not presume (non praesumimus) t o ask anything of powerful men except with humility and respect. In a third text in which the term presumption is found, the term is in the same context as 'with humility, and in being obedient, although this term is not specified. RB 47.3-4 But let no one presume (non preasumat) to sing or read, unless he can fulfil1 the office t o the edification of his hearers. Let it be done with humility (cum humilitate), gravity, and reverence (tremore), and by him whom the abbot has appointed (cui iusserit abbas). Therefore, 'with subjection' implies that the one speaking does not speak presumptuously and as an authoritarian. But rather, he speaks with the awareness of his position, which is t o listen and obey. Therefore he speaks cautiously, reverently and humbly.

CHARITY

Although the phrase 'with charity' (cum caritate) is used only once in this simple form (64.14), three other texts use an equivalent phrase (53.3; 61.4; 66.4). In two cases the RB uses

The Manner of Speaking

213

a n adjectival genitive, that is a situation in which the noun in the genitive case takes on the function of an adjective and modifies the noun t o which it is related (53.3: c u m omni o f ficio caritatis; 66.4: cum feruore caritatis). In a third case the RB uses an appositive genitive, that is where the noun in the genitive defines and means the same as the noun it is in relationship t o (61.4: rationabiliter e t cum humilitate caritatis). The following speaking situations are therefore specified by the phrase 'with charity' or some expression that can be reduced t o it in meaning: when the abbot verbally corrects (64. 14); when the superior and monks greet a guest (53.3); when the porter answers someone who comes t o the gate of the monastery (66.4); when a visiting guest-monk remarks on some matter concerning the way of life of the monastery (61.4). In 53.3-4 the concepts of charity and peace are closely related:

RB 53.3-4 As soon, therefore, as a guest is announced, let the superior or some brethren meet him with all charitable service (cum omni officio caritatis). And first of all let them pray together, and then let them unite in the kiss of peace (sic sibisocientur in pace) . . . In the greeting of all guests . . . let the greatest humility be shown (omnis exhibeatur humilit~s).~ This coqnection between charity and peace is found elsewhere in the RB:

R B 4.25 Not to make a feigned peace (pacem falsam;. R B 4.26 Not t o forsake charity (caritatem). RB 4.72 T o pray for one's enemies in the love (amore) of Christ. RB 4.73 T o make peace (inpacem redire) with one's adversary before sundown. 4. The text says occurratur ei a priore uel a fratribus. There is no indication that only "some" of the brothers are to meet the guest. The force of uel here is not "or" but "and," as it is the case in the many other places in the RB. Cf. Hanslik, Regulo, "Index Verborurn," p. 336 under uel (= et).

214

Silence

RB 65.11 Therefore, we have judged it expedient, for the preservation of peace and charity (propter pack caritatisque custodiam), that the abbot should have the appointment to all offices in his monastery. From these texts it is obvious how closely related charity and peace are in the mind of the author of the RB. Could it not therefore be said that t o speak 'with charity' implies speaking in such a way as to safeguard peace? This conclusion gains ground when one considers 34.5-6, a text in which peace and a destructive type of speaking are contrasted. RB 34.5-6 So will all the members be at peace (in pace). Above all, let not the vice of murmuring show itself in any word (in aliqua qualicumque uerbo) or sign, for any reason whatever. This connection between love and peace is also found in the RB's admonition t o the new abbot in chapter 64, the same chapter in which one notes a connection between speaking and charity. RB 64.15-16 And let him (the abbot) study rather t o be loved than feared (plus amari quam timeri). Let him not be turbulent (turbulentus) or anxious, overbearing o r obstinate jealous or too suspicious, for otherwise he will never be at rest (requiescit). From all these comparisons it appears that charity and peace are closely interrelated. Further, t o speak 'with charity' includes the idea of speaking so as t o safeguard peace. This is the conclusion that is hinted at in 53.3-4. In 53.3-6 and 61.4 the concept of charity is associated with that of humility, and in the latter text also with reasonably. Thus to speak 'with charity' is a way of expressing humility and exercising reason. It has already been noted how closely connected speaking 'with humility' and 'reasonably' are. Now it is seen that these two determinations carry the nuance of also speaking with charity.

The Manner of Speaking

WITH GENTLENESS

The phrase 'with gentleness' ( m m mansuetudine) is found twice in the RB. The first time it characterizes the manner in which the porter should give a response (66.4). The second use specifies the manner in which an impossible command should be received (68.1). Although 68.1 specifies a hearing situation rather than a speaking situation, it is found in the larger context of a monk speaking t o make representation. The phrase can therefore be considered as specifying a manner of speaking. I t is interesting that in both contexts in which the phrase 'with gentleness' is used the term 'charity' is also found. In 68.1-3, 5 the concept of obedience is associated with 'with gentleness.' I t is further specified as 'without pride,' that is with humility. From these observations it can be seen that the phrase 'with gentleness' is in keeping with many of the other characteristics of speaking that have been noted, that is 'with humility,' with 'subjection,' 'with charity.'

WITH MODERATION

The specification 'with moderation' (42.1 1: cum summa grauitate e t moderatione), 'moderately' (22.8: se moderate), and 'with modesty' (22.6: cum omni tamen grauitate e t modestia) are each used once in the RB. They are treated here together since their meaning is quite similar.' These texts have already been considered under the analysis of 'with gravity.' It was there determined that 22.6-8 very likely envisages a speaking situation. That which is noteworthy is the connection between 'with gravity' and 'with moderation' 5. Cicero states that moderatio and modestia can be used to translate the same Greek work. Cic. Tusc. 3,18,16: "earn uirtutern Graeci awlppauw~vuocant: quam soleo quidern turn ternperantiam, turn moderationern appellare, nonnunquam etiam rnodestiam" Cf. Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, p. 1154, under modest&

2 16

Silence

(42.1 l ) , or 'modesty' ( 2 2 . 6 ) . Moderation (modestia) "in the language of the Stoics (is) the quality of saying and doing everything in the proper place and at the proper time."6 The use of moderatio and modestia in association with grauitas gives one a deeper insight into the meaning of that term. It is also becoming more clear that there are a few basic characteristics of the manner of speaking in the RB. These basic specifications are elaborated on and nuanced by other specifications. In the above instances 'with gravity' is the basic specification that is elaborated on and defined by the specification 'with moderation.'

WISDOM

The specification of speaking 'wisely' is not found in the RB. Nevertheless speaking and wisdom are interrelated in some texts (7.60-61; 19.4; 21.4; 27.2-3; 31.1-2; 53.22; 64.2; 6 6 . 1 ) . Comparing these texts with the observations concerning those who have a speaking role in the monastery, it is noteworthy that wisdom is a characteristic of those who have a special speaking role. First of all, the abbot must be a wise man ( 2 7 . 2 ) , indeed he is chosen for his wisdom ( 6 4 . 2 ) .It was seen above that the abbot has an all-encompassing speaking role in the monastery. Others who have a special speaking role must also be wise: the deans ( 21.4);the cellarer ( 31.1);the porter ( 6 6 .l ) ; the seniors who are sent t o comfort an excommunicated brother ( 2 7 . 2 ) . It will also be noted that although the guest-master was not listed as one who had a special speaking role, he too must be wise (53.22). This admonition refers specifically t o the administration of the material needs of the guest, but it could also very well imply that the guest-master must be wise for he will have t o converse with the guests. In one of his most important duties, the celebration of the opus dei, the monk is admonished by Scripture to sing wisely (sapienter: PS 46.8: 19.4). Whenever he speaks the monk mani6. Lewis and Short, op. cit., p. 1154.

The Manner of Speaking

2 17

fests his wisdom by the fewness of his words (7.61). This wisdom is also exhibited by the monk's refraining from laughter, "for it is written: 'The fool (stultus) lifteth up his voice in laughter' (Ecclus 21.23)" (7.59; also 7.60: sine risu). The RB prohibition against laughter is a constant in the RB: RB 4.53 Not to speak vain words o r such as move t o laughter (uerba . . . risui). RB 4.54 Not t o love much or violent laughter (risum multum aut excussum non amare). RB 6.8 But as for buffoonery and talk that is vain and stirs laughter (risum mouentia) we condemn such things everywhere with a perpetual ban, and forbid the disciple t o open his mouth for such conversation. The reason for this perpetual ban is that only a fool laughs (7.59). The monk on the contrary is t o be a wise man and his wisdom is made manifest by his use of his voice. Words that cause laughter are vain (4.53) and useless (6.8). Laughter is contrasted with wisdom (7.59-61)' with gravity and with humility. T o speak without laughter is a sign of humility. There have been a number of occasions in which it was seen that laughter was a sign of pride and was to be avoided. Here one notes a connection between wisdom, gravity and humility on the score of laughter. T o conclude, wisdom should be a characteristic of those who speak. A monk can be considered t o be wise by the way he speaks. Those who enjoy a special speaking role in the monastery have a special need for wisdom. In order to speak one should first be wise. And the way one speaks will manifest his wisdom: "A wise man is known by the fewness of his words."' FEAR OF THE LORD

Fear of the Lord is the attitude that arises in the monk when he considers the final judgment and the possibility of going t o hell. 7. This quotation used in RB 7.61 is from the "Sentences of Sextus," Enchirid Sexti Pythgor, 134, as noted by Hanslik, Regulu, p. 50.

218

Silence

RB 7.10-11 The first degree of humility, then, is that a man keep the fear of God (timorem Dei) before his eyes, altogether shunning forgetfulness. Let him ever remember all the commandments of God, and how hell will b u m for their sins those that despise him; and let him constantly turn over in his heart the eternal life which is prepared for those that fear him (timentibus Deum). RB 4.44 T o fear the Day of Judgment (diem iudicii timere). RB 4.45 T o dread hell. This attitude greatly influences the manner in which a monk speaks. Immediately following 7.10- 11 is the admonition for the monk t o guard himself from sins and vices, whether of thought, word (linguae), etc. And in the chapter on the tools of good works (ch 4), the exhortation t o fear the day of judgment is rather quickly followed by the admonitions:

RB 4.5 1T o keep one's mouth from evil and depraved talk. RB 4.52 Not t o love much speaking. RB 4.53 Not t o speak vain words or such as move t o laughter. RB 4.54 Not t o love much or violent laughter. It would seem therefore that when the monk speaks he should always be conscious that he is in the proximity of offending God by committing sin. For this offense he may suffer the pains of hell, "for Scripture showeth that 'in much talking thou canst not avoid sin' (Prov 10.19)" (7.57). Fear of the Lord will therefore be the basic attitude that determines the monk's manner of speaking. This fear of the Lord is the first degree of humility (7.10-30). It has already been noted how the RB characterizes the monk's speaking by 'with humility.' The above observations show how closely related are fear of the Lord and humility. But fear of the Lord as specified by fear of hell slowly gives way t o love, a love that is arrived at after the monk has mastered all the degrees of humility.

The Manner of Speaking

219

RB 7.67-69 Then, when all these degrees of humility have been climbed, the monk will presently come t o that perfect love of God which casts out all fear (ad caritatem Dei perueniat illam quae perfecta foris mittit timorem); whereby he will begin t o observe without labor, as though naturally and by habit, all those precepts which formerly he did not observe without fear: n o longer for fear of hell, but for love of Christ (non iam timore gehennae sed amore Christi) and through good habit and delight in virtue. Thus it is seen that the practice of humility leads t o love, a love which replaces fear. It was shown above that humility and love are connected in certain speaking situations. From the present analysis it is apparent that speaking as determined by fear of the Lord is related t o speaking with humility and with charity. T o reinforce this connection between fear of the Lord and charity note 66.4 where the porter's response is characterized b y both concepts.

RI3 66.4 Then let him (the porter) attend (reddat responsum) t o them promptly, with all the gentleness of the fear of God (cum omni mansuetudine timoris Dei) and with fervent charity (cum feruore caritatis). Consider also that the abbot corrects with charity (64.12-14) and admonishes with fear (2.39-40). Those who have a special speaking role in the monastery must possess fear of the Lord: the abbot (2.39; 3.1 1); the cellarer (31.2); the porter (66.4). The guest-master must also possess this attitude (53.21), also the infirmarian (36.7). These two in the discharge of their duties will surely find the necessity t o speak more frequently than most monks. The monks themselves are t o have fear of the Lord in two very important speaking situations; the election of a new abbot (64.1), and the giving of counsel for the appointment of a provost (65.15). Fear of the Lord is found in the same context as wise with regard t o the cellarer (31.1-2), the guest-master (53.21-22), and the porter (66.4). It has also been noted that both of these characteristics become the abbot (64.2: wise; 2.39-40 and

220

Silence

3.1 1: fear of the Lord). Thus the wise man is one who fears the Lord and in his speech manifests it. From all of these observations it is clear how fundamental the attitude of fear of the Lord is t o the manner in which a monk speaks. Fear of the Lord is associated with being wise, with charity, and with humility. Fear of the Lord is the basis of humility and all its expressions, but this fear gives way t o love as one progresses in humility. Thus the RB does not say to speak with fear of the Lord, but rather shows that fear of the Lord is the fundamental attitude that should undergird all speech. This fear is made manifest by the speaker's wisdom, his love, and above all by his humility. SILENCE AND MANNER OF SPEAKING

The conclusion that the RB does not impose an absolute silence on the monks has been arrived at from various directions. An investigation of how one speaks according t o the RB supports this conclusion. It is seen that very few of the specifications of how to speak apply explicitly t o those who have an official role of speaking. Wisdom, charity and fear of the Lord are t o characterize the speech of those who have an official speaking role in the monastery. The other specifications should surely apply to them also. Certain specifications are never explicitly attributed to the abbot. This may be because the abbot is presumed t o be a perfect monk and so would realize in his speech all the characteristics demanded of the monk, but it is also because certain characteristics describe the relationship of the monk t o the abbot, and so d o not apply to the abbot as such. Such is especially the case with the specification 'with subjection.' But since many of the specifications are essentially related, if one does not apply, neither does the other. Thus 'with humility,' 'with gravity.' and 'with reverence' are never applied to the abbot. On the other hand, wisdom, charity, and fear of the Lord are applied t o the abbot. But these characteristics are essentially related t o 'with humility,' and thus with all the others. Thus one could conclude that the abbot must realize

The Manner of Speaking

22 1

in his speaking all the specifications that are demanded of the monks, but in his own way. The important point is that apparently all monks will have occasion t o speak, not just the officials or the abbot. The specifications on how t o speak seem t o be more concerned with all the monks rather than with just the officials. This is an indication that all will speak in the monastery. Thus the specifications on how t o speak indicate from another point of view that speech is a normal situation in the monastery, that there is not an absolute silence. Granting this, it is obvious that speech is never t o be uncontrolled and loose. Although the RB does not legislate for an absolute silence, this is not t o say that monks are free to speak with abandon. Indeed, the investigation of how one speaks according to the RB shows that a monk's speech is always t o be controlled and disciplined. Speech and silence are closely related. One of the motivations for silence is t o avoid sin and practice virtues. Speech is t o be conditioned by the monk's fear of the Lord which as has been seen is essentially connected with the avoidance of sin, and in speech certain virtues must always be evident and qualify the speech. Thus whether one is silent or speaks, sin is t o be avoided and virtues made manifest. In his speaking the monk is always to keep the fear of God before his mind, that is he is to avoid sin. But this fear of God progresses towards perfect love, a love which enables the monk to act without fear and out of a delight in virtue. Fear of God and the love towards which it tends is realized in the virtue of humility, and thus it is not surprising that the primary characteristic of the monk's speech is 'with humility.' Because he fears the Lord, because he loves, the monk speaks with humility. Many of the other characteristics of the monk's speech are explicitly connected with humility. The RB integrally associates obedience, silence and humility. The RB likewise associates obedience, speaking and humility. In silence as well as in speech, the monk is t o realize obedience and humility. The important thing is not silence or speech, but the virtues of obedience and humility.

222

Silence

Connected with obedience and humility is reverence. Speaking with reverence the monk manifests his humility and shows his readiness t o obey. The rather frequent use of the appositive genitive construction by the RB indicates that the author wanted these virtues t o be seen in relationship t o each other. One cannot exist without the other. One manifests, expresses and realizes the other. The doctrine of the RB concerning virtues is quite cohesive, and it is hard t o separate one virtue from the other for they are all tied u p together and are intertwined. Silence and speech are intertwined with the other virtues. Speech must be a manifestation of the other virtues, but it can only be so if it is controlled and disciplined. Speech that manifests and realizes the virtues of humility, obedience and reverence will be characterized by fewness of words. It will be speech without laughter and without scurrility, and so it will indicate that the monk is wise. It will express gravity and seriousness. Gravity is a predominant characteristic of speech according t o the RB. It is integrally related t o the virtue of humility and the other virtues. Gravity can be another word for taciturnity. The two words can be synonyms. If such is the case, then to speak with gravity could also be stated as t o speak with taciturnity. This is an important observation. It means that for the RB speech does not destroy silence. Or better, controlled and disciplined speech is not in opposition to the virtue of silence. Speech may destroy the fact of silence (silentium), but it does not destroy the virtue of silence (taciturnitas). When a monk speaks he must do so with gravity and taciturnity. The same virtues are t o be manifest in speech and in silence. Silence is associated with humility, obedience, reverence, gravity. All of these virtues must be expressed in speech, but there are certain virtues that the RB associates with speech and not with silence. This is not t o say that these virtues cannot be realized and expressed in silence, but it would seem that the author of the RB thinks more of these virtues in relationship t o speaking than t o silence. Thus speaking is a positive good and is at times desirable and not just permitted.

The Manner of Speaking

223

One can conclude that in the RB the purpose of speech is not merely to teach. Speech can also be the manifestation of certain virtues. Some virtues find a better expression in speech than in silence. The important thing for the RB is the practice of virtues, especially the virtues of humility and obedience. Silence and speech are both good and can be the realization of virtue. The investigation of how one speaks thus gives a further insight into the doctrine of silence in the RB. Granted there is not an absolute silence in the RB, neither is there an absolute approval of speech. Speaking is always guarded and conditioned. A monk never speaks without control and a deep sense of the gravity with which he must use his voice. Speaking is a seriouq matter, and the use of the tongue must always be with restraint and qualified by virtue. This ensures the practice of the virtue of silence, a virtue that looks as much at using the voice as not using it.

CONCLUSIONS

I

T I S N O W POSSIBLE to draw some final and general

conclusions. Many of these conclusions have been expressed as the study progressed and nothing new nor startling is t o be expected. They are presented here in summary form and will be set forth under four headings. First of all, the RB will be viewed in the context of the sources investigated. Secondly, silence and speech will be related especially in view of the life of virtue. Then, the social dimension of silence will be synthesized. Finally, the question of consistency in the teaching, doctrine and practice, concerning silence in the RB will be considered.

THE RB AND THE SOURCES

When the RB considers the concept of silence it is concerned primarily with restraint from speech. Silence means a lack of verbal communication. This does not mean that the RB does not consider other dimensions of silence, such as internal tranquillity, mystic silence, avoidance of noise, etc. But the explicit teaching concerning silence in the RB concerns verbal silence. This is apparent from the analysis of terms and texts concerning silence in the RB. The RB and its sources are in basic agreement concerning the motivation for and meaning of this silence. All the documents agree on the basic motivations for silence: silence is ob-

Conclusions

225

served in order t o avoid sin and practice virtue; silence is kept in order to be able to listen and meditate. The documents emphasize one or the other of these motivations. The third motivation, silence for the sake of silence or gravity, is hardly found, at least explicitly, in any source but the RM. The meaning of silence in the RB possesses all the richness of the sources, but seems especially to be motivated by a desire to listen. For this reason the teaching on who speaks in the RB and why they speak was analyzed. One of the main reasons one speaks according t o the RB is to teach. One speaks in order to teach; one is silent in order t o listen. Silence in the RB is motivated especially by the desire t o listen to holy reading and to pray. In chapter 4 the instruments of good works that concern restraint in speech immediately precede the admonitions concerning reading and prayer. This same progression is found in the primary source of the RB, that is in the RM. The RB repeats this same motivation in its discussion of holy reading and prayer in the disciplinary section of the Rule, and this does not differ much from what is found in the RM. But what is different is the structural arrangement of the block on the opus dei. The RB moves this block as close to the treatment of silence as possible. By doing so the author of the RB may be saying that the primary motivation for silence is so that the monk may hear the Word of God as proclaimed in the reading of Scripture and then may respond in praise by means of the psalmody. Such a conclusion is rather tenuous, but it gains strength when the RB is compared with the other sources. In the other sources the primary motivation for silence seems to be in order to meditate. The RI3 nowhere explicitly speaks of silence in relationship to meditation. Rather, silence is in relationship to listening to God's Word in the opus dei, in holy reading, in the teaching of the abbot. If these two facts are looked at together then it appears that compared to the sources the RB wants to ensure that the motivation for silence in order to listen to the Word of God is not obscured nor merely reduced to some other motivation. On this point it is revealing that the ulterior motivation of the RM and Cassian is not found in the RB. In these two sources

Silence reading is on occasion introduced not for its own value but for the purpose of keeping the monk occupied with good thoughts and so to avoid sinning with his tongue. The reading is merely an instrument and is not valued for itself. Such motivation is not found in the RB. Reading there is valued because it edifies. A monk is silent in order t o hear this edifying reading. Silence must be treated in a monastic Rule for it is an essential part of monastic doctrine and practice. There can be n o authentic monasticism without silence, that is the restraint and proper use of speech. Thus all the sources investigated are concerned with silence t o a greater or lesser degree. In the earlier Rules there is little development of any explicit doctrine of silence. The early Rules merely legislate for silence and the doctrine is rather implicit. It is with the RM that one finds the first explicit and elaborate development of the doctrine of silence. The RM overdevelops the doctrine with its wordy elaboration and speculation. In light of the development in the RM, it can be said that the RB returns t o a more primitive simplification but without losing the richness contained in the RM's elaboration. With regard t o doctrine, the RB is not as developed and extensive as is that of the RM.With regard t o practice, the RB is not so rigid and legalistic as is the RM. The RB returns to the simplicity of the earlier sources. In the RM the primary motivation for silence is t o avoid sin. This is not the primary motivation in the other sources. Thus when the RB accepts the motivation but de-emphasizes it by not reducing all other motivations to it, the RB is more in keeping with the primitive sources. The sources other than the RM d o not seem t o impose an absolute silence. Thus the RB in its more relaxed approach t o silence is more in keeping with the earlier sources than it is with the RM. The RB's teaching on silence is well-balanced compared t o the sources. It is not as elaborate and verbose as the RM, neither is it as undeveloped as the earlier sources. The development thus comes through the RM, but the RM's speculation and elaboration are simplified. The RB thus extracts from the tradition all that is good, but also adds its own insights and

Conclusions

227

nuances. The author of the RB reforms and adapts; he remains faithful to the tradition but opens a new vista for the meaning of silence. That new vision, which is based on tradition, is the perspective of silence in relationship to listening. Where did this perspective come from? i t must be admitted that this perspective is not without foundations in tradition. But it is given a new direction. This is the genius of the author of the RB. He remains faithful to the basic teaching of tradition but shapes the tradition in a new direction. That direction is to ensure that silence is seen in the context of speaking and listening. Silence has meaning because man is one who communicates. Silence is in function to human communication with God and with man. Granting that the RB opens the door for considering silence in the context of dialog, one must beware of forcing the author of the RB into modem concepts and categories. But there is basis in the RB for reflecting on silence as the womb and prerequisite for communication. The RB is open to modem insights.

SILENCE AND SPEECH AND THE LIFE OF VIRTUE

Both silence and speech are related to the life of virtue. Some virtues can be expressed and realized both in silence and speech. However certain virtues are more manifest in silence, while others are manifest only in speech. Thus with regard to the life of virtue, silence and speech are not in opposition. Before developing this conclusion it will be good to look at the connection between speech and silence. Speech and silence are not in opposition. They are complementary. One can only practice the virtue of silence if he knows the meaning of speech and how to speak properly. One can speak properly only if one knows the meaning and value of silence and how to keep silence. The RB rather frequently qualifies speech 'with gravity.' The monk is to speak 'with gravity.' But it has been seen that gravity is synonymous with taciturnity. This means that a monk

228

Silence

is t o speak with taciturnity. A monk is to speak with the virtue of silence. Thus even in speech the virtue of silence must be ensured. It has been noted that the RB does not use the terms tacere or taciturnitas with regard t o evil speech. These terms are used only with regard t o good speech. Thus the virtue of silence looks especially t o restraint of good speech. The value of silence will determine when to speak and what to speak about. Evil speech of course must be controlled, but it is not the virtue of silence which governs this control for it is not so much control that is needed but elimination. There is never any excuse for evil talk. Idle talk, gossip and senseless chatter are always forbidden, but ordinary conversation is t o be expected. And the criterion for such speech will be its own value and the value of taciturnity. The admonition t o refrain from speaking good words because of the value of taciturnity can thus be seen t o mean not an absolute silence from all speaking, but a control of speech. The investigation of how one speaks in the RB shows that speech must always be qualified. Even in speech virtue must be manifest. Thus there is n o absolute silence in the RB except with regard t o idle talk, evil talk and silly chattering. There is a general openness t o ordinary conversation and speech, but such conversation must be qualified. The RB shows great concern over how monks speak, and this teaching on the manner of speaking balances the teaching on silence. One speaks officially t o teach or to praise God, but there is also unofficial conversation. The monks are t o support, console and help each other. But in their conversation their speech is t o be characterized by humility, by gravity, by moderation, by wisdom and above all by fear of the Lord. Thus the doctrine of silence o r restraint of speech must be considered in connection with the doctrine of who speaks and how they speak. Both speech and silence are related t o virtue. The virtues of obedience, silence and humility are closely related. A monk keeps silence in order to listen t o what is being taught so that he may obey. Obedience is the first degree of humility, but

Conclusions

229

humility is realized in silence and obedience. This is because silence is the prerequisite for obedience. One does not exist without the other, and both are manifestations of humility. The relationship between silence and humility is almost universal in the monastic tradition. The relationship is fully developed in the RM,but it is found seminally in Cassian, Basil and other Rules. But if silence is related to obedience and humility, so is speaking. A monk is to speak 'with humility.' He is also to speak 'with subjection' or obedience. Thus his speech is t o manifest these virtues just as much as his silence. The important thing here is the virtues of obedience and humility. Silence and speech are in service t o them. Some virtues seem to be better expressed in speech than in silence. This is not t o say that these virtues cannot be realized in silence, but the RB explicitly mentions them in the context of speech and not of silence. Associated exclusively with speech are the virtues of charity, gentleness and wisdom. Thus it can be concluded that silence and speech are not in opposition in the RB. One determines the other; one receives its value from the other. A monk knows how to speak if he knows how to be silent; he knows how to be silent if he knows how to speak. Silence and speech are complementary.

THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF SILENCE

From the above observations it can be concluded that silence in the RB must be considered in the context of dialog, that is of communication. A monk responds in praise of God after he has heard the Word of God. In order to hear the Word of God the monk must listen, and in order to listen the monk must keep silence. Silence is not the important thing; hearing and obeying are. Silence is motivated out of concern for oneself and for another. One keeps silence so that he himself may hear another and respond to him. The monk keeps silent so that he may hear the Word of God in Scripture as proclaimed in the opus

Silence dei and in holy reading. But the monk also keeps silence so that another may hear God's Word. The monk keeps silent during the opus dei so that other monks will not be disturbed or distracted. This social concern is also expressed in the monk's silence after the opus dei. The monk remains silent so that those who wish t o pray may d o so without disturbance. The social concern of silence is also made manifest in the monk's silence during the period of the siesta. In this case the monk's silence is not so that another may listen, but so that he may rest, a silence motivated out of concern for another's well-being. The cenobite lives in close and intimate contact with his brother monks. Cenobitic life is a social existence, and as such it demands at least minimal legislation in order t o protect the individual's rights. Thus the RB legislates for times and places of silence. This is to ensure that each monk will be given the opportunity t o hear God's Word. But it also l m k s t o the wellbeing of the monk, especially with regard to rest. The RB prescribes silence during the night and during the siesta. From all appearances the RB does not legislate for silence during periods of work. There is no explicit legislation in the RB concerning this period, whereas many of the sources d o explicitly prescribe silence during work. Compared t o the sources the RB allows freedom of speech during the hours of work. The reason the RB does not prescribe silence during work may be explained by what has been frequently suggested as one of the primary motivations for silence in the RB. The period of work is not a time during which the Word of God is proclaimed or read. It is interesting t o compare the RB and the RM on this point. The RM prescribes reading and silence during work. The purpose for the reading is t o keep the monks from talking and committing sin. It does not seem to be valued for itself. Thus the reading is ordered to silence. The silence is not primarily for the sake of listening t o the reading. In the RB, on the contrary, neither reading nor silence is prescribed during work. The RB did not need t o legislate for silence at this time because more profound motivations would dictate the monk's use of speech. That the RB does not prescribe silence and reading during

Conclusions

231

the period of work is another indication of the meaning of silence in the RB. Silence is motivated out of concern for one's own and another's well-being, the undisturbed listening to God's Word or the necessary rest one needs. Work is a social activity and demands social intercourse. During work the will and Word of God are mediated differently than during the opus dei and holy reading. During work the Word of God comes to a monk through the interaction of brothers. It is especially during work that brothers may be mutually obedient, submitting to one another by the help they give t o each other and by the demands made upon them by a mutual task. In order to accomplish their work monks must be able to communicate, but this is not to say that the RB permits necessary conversation only in so far as the work demands it. It would seem that according to the RB the periods of work were those periods during which normal and even relaxed communication between monks took place. It was the time when monks could offer each other consolation, comfort and support as needed and desired. It was a time when monks listened to each other and responded accordingly. The fact that silence is not legislated for during the work period does not mean that this was a time when the monk need not listen. Rather it was a time when the Word of God came to the monk through the exigencies of daily living and social interchange, and the monk responded accordingly. The regulations concerning the excommunicated clearly underline the social dimensions of speech and silence. The excommunicated is ostracized from the community. He is cut off from all social intercourse. He may not participate in the opus dei where monks hear God's Word and respond to it in praise. He may not eat with the monks and listen with them to the reading. And at work he is left alone and no one may speak to him. Thus the excommunicated is cut off from the social aspects of the dialog between God and man. From all these observations it appears that the teaching concerning silence and speech in the RB must be considered in the context of the monk as a social being. As a social being the monk is related t o God and to other men. The teaching of silence and speech looks to these interrelationships.

Silence

THE QUESTION OF INCONSISTENCY

One of the conclusions that appeared after the internal investigation of the RB with regard t o its teaching on silence was that there seemed t o be an inconsistency between doctrine and practice. The doctrine seemed t o call for strict if not absolute silence. The monk was seldom t o speak. The practice of silence on the other hand, seemed t o suggest that free and normal conversation was t o be expected among the monks. The RB shows some inconsistency in a number of areas. The earlier part of the RB seems to demand a blind and unquestioning obedience. The latter part of the Rule allows the monk to make representation when he feels he has been commanded t o d o the impossible. The RB opts for deans in the earlier part of the Rule. Later it legislates for a provost, but with obvious reluctance. There are indications throughout the Rule that this problem was never completely resolved by the author. More frequently than not, the RB seems t o imply that the authority of the abbot should be shared by more than one, that is by deans or seniors. It has been pointed out that the RB shows signs of progressive compilation. There are indications of evolution in the thought of the author. It thus seems that the RB was written over a period of years and redacted a number of times. This may explain the seeming inconsistencies. The author changed his mind as time went by, and he mitigated some of his earlier decisions. Another possible explanation for seeming inconsistencies is that the author of the RB was trying t o extract all that was good from the previous tradition as it had been articulated in the various monastic Rules. In so doing there was not always perfect cohesiveness. This is especially noticeable with regard t o the RB's dependency upon the RM. The RB shows a heavy dependency upon the Rh4 in the spiritual doctrine section. There are long passages taken word for word from the RM. In the disciplinary section the RB shows far greater independence of the corresponding section in the RM. This varying

Conclusions

233

dependency on the RM may explain the seeming inconsistency between the doctrine and practice of silence in the RB. The RB copies the statement "let leave t o speak be seldom granted" from the RM. This appears in the doctrine section of both Rules. The RM legislates in such a manner that this statement is realized in practice. The RB does not d o so. Granted that the RB does not legislate for a strict silence, the analysis of how one speaks according t o the RB shows that the author does not mean that the monk may speak freely and without restraint. When a monk speaks he is to d o so with restraint and control. The RB cautions against loose speech. And when it says that monks should seldom speak it means just that. But the RB sees no need t o legislate for this. The RB prefers t o form the monk's behavior by principle rather than by prescriptions. The value of silence and speech will dictate t o the monk when and how t o speak. In this way the RB avoids formalism and legalism. The intrinsic value of speech and silence will dictate t o the monk better than minute prescriptions and legislation. In allowing doctrine t o mold and form practice the RB manifests a certain confidence in the maturity of the monks. The mature monk, the perfect monk, will know how t o speak and how t o keep silent. Thus the perfect monk will seldom be given leave t o speak, not because the RB prescribes that he must obtain permission each time he wishes t o talk, but rather because the manner in which he should speak will always make him cautious in his speech. The greatest control of speech will be the intrinsic value of speech and silence. Even though the RB does not legislate for silence a t all times, certain situations are legislated for. This is t o ensure the minimal observation of silence for the good of the monks. As a social unit the congregation needs some legislation for the good of community living. The specific legislation concerning the observance of silence flows from and depends upon the doctrine or theory of silence. If one can hardly avoid sins of the tongue except by keeping silence, then at times it is good to enforce silence in order t o make sure that sin is avoided. And when silence is not en-

234

Silence

forced, speech must always be guarded and controlled, qualified by virtues. Silence is a realization of the essential monastic virtues of obedience and humility. Only in silence can the monk hear the commands of God and so respond by obedience. And silence is a sign and expression of humility, the central monastic virtue. In order to ensure that these virtues can be realized in daily life, silence is imposed at certain times and in certain places. However, most of the practical specifications with regard to the observance of silence flow from the theory of silence that considers the value of silence in relationship to listening and communication. Silence is prescribed especially during those times when the Word of God is being proclaimed or read. During work, when the Word of God is not being proclaimed through the celebration of the opus dei or in holy reading, the monk is more at liberty to speak. There is a profound consistency in the teaching concerning silence in the RB. The practice or discipline endeavors to reallize all of the doctrine or theory. The legislation looks to the value and motivations for silence and flows from them, not in a legalistic or formalistic manner, but in the enunciation of principles. The doctrine of silence emphasizes silence in relationship to listening and the legislation reflects this.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Augustine, De opere monachorum, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 41, edited by Joseph Zycha, Vienna, Tempsky, 1900, p. 531-595. --, The Work of Monks. The Fathers of the Church, vol. 16, trano lated by Sister Mary Sarah Muldowney, New York, Fathers of the Church, 1952, p. 32 1-394. --, Obiurgatio, in Luc Verheijen, La R2gle de Saint Augustin I. Tradition Manuscrite, Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes, 1967, p. 105-107. --, Ordo Monasterii, in Luc Verheiien. La R2gle de Saint Augustin I, Tradition Manuscrite, Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes, 1967, p. 14%152. --, Praeceptum, in Luc yerheijen, La Rkgle de Saint Augustin I. Tradition Manuscrite, Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes, 1967, p. 41 7-437. Basil, Admonitio ad Filium Spiritualem, P.L. 103, cc. 683-700. Admonitio Sancti Basilii ad Monachos (Quomodo Monachus vivere debeat), in D.A. Wilmart. "Le Discours de saint Bade sur 1'Asckse en Latin," in Revue bdnkdictine 27. 1910. p. 228-231. S. Basilii Caesareae Cappadociae Episcopi Regula ad Monachos, P.L. 103, CC. 487-554. Sancti Benedicti Regula Monasteriorum, Editionem Critico-Practicam, Editio Altera, edited by Cuthbertus Butler, Friburg, Herder, 1927, xxiv-223 p. Benedicti Regula, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 75, edited by Rudolphus Hanslik, Vienna, Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1960, lxxv-376 p. The Rule of Saint Benedict, translated by Abbot Justin McCann, Westminster, Newman, 1952, xxiv-214 p. Caesarius, Regula Monachorum, in Sancti Caesarii Episcopi Arelatensis, Opera Omnia, vol. 11, edited by Germain Morin, Maredsous (no p u b lisher), 1942, p. 149-155. --, Regula Virginum, in Sancti Caesarii Episcopi Arelatensis, Opera Omnia, vol. 11, edited by Germain Morin, hlaredsous (no publisher). 1942, p. 101-124. The Rule for Nuns of S t Caesarius of Arles: A Translation with a Critical Introduction, by Mother Maria Caritas McCarthy, Washington, Catholic University, 1960, vi-230 p.

235

236

Bibliography

Jean Cassien: Institutions Ce'nobitiques, Sources Chktiennes, vol. 109, edited and translated by Jean-Claude Guy, Paris, Cerf, 1965, 531 p. Jean Cassien: Confe'rences I-VII, Sources Chrktiennes, vol. 42, edited and translated by Dom E. Pichery, Paris, Cerf, 1955, 277 p. Jean Cassien: Confe'rences VIII-XVII Sources ChrCtiennes, vol. 54, edited and translated by Dom E. Pichery, Paris, Cerf, 1958, 286 p. Jean Cassien: Confirences XVIII-XXIV, Sources ChrCtiennes, vol. 64, edited and translated by Dom E. Pichery, Paris, Cerf, 1959, 247 p. The Works of John Cassian, translated by Edgw Gibson, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 11, p. 162-641. La R2gle du Maibe I-II, Sources ChrCtiennes, vol. 105 and 106, edited and translated by Adalbert de VogiiC. Paris, Cerf, 1964. vol. I 4 5 3 p.. vol. I1 520 p. La Rbgle du Muitre, Edition diplornatique des manuscrits Latins 12205 e t 12634 de Paris, edited by H. Vanderhoven and F. Masai with the collaboration of P.B. Corbett, Bruxelles, Aux Editions "Erasme," 1953, 339 p. The Rule of the Master, Cistercian Studies Series no. 6, translated by Luke Eberle, Spencer, Mass., Cistercian Publications, 1973. Regula ad Monachos, S. Macarii Alexandrini Abbatis Nitriensis, P.L. 103, cc. 447-452. Regula Orientalis, P.L. 103, cc. 477-484. Liber Patni Nojtri Orsiesii, in Pachomiana Latina. Rbgle e t ~ p i t r e sde S. Pachome, Epitre & S. Thkodore e t "Liber" de S. Orsiesius. Texte latin de S. Je'rBme, edited by Dom Amand Boon, Louvain, Bureaux de la Revue, 1932, p. 104147 (Bibliothkque de la Revue d'Histoire Ecclksiastique, Fasc. 7). Pachomius, Regula, in Pachomiana Latina. R2gle e t ~ p i t r e sde S. Pachome, Epitre de S. Thtodore e t "Liber" de S. Orsiesius. Texte latin de S. Je'rBme, edited by Dom Amand Boon, Louvain, Bureaux de la Revue, 1932, p. 13-74 (Bibliothkque de la Revue d'Histoire Eccltsiastique, Fasc. 7). Rule of the Four Fathers, edited by J . Neufville, in "Rkgle des IV Pkres et Seconde Rkgle des Pkres," in Revue binkdictine 77, 1967, p. 72-91. Second Rule of the Fathers, edited by J. Neufville, in "Rkgle des IV Phes e t Seconde Rkgle des Pkres," in Revue be'nidictine 77, 1967, p. 92-95. Tertia Patrum Regula ad Monachos. P.L. 103, cc. 443-446. SECONDARY

SOURCES

Altaner, Berthold, Patrology, translated by Hilda Graef, New York, Herder and Herder, 1961, xxiv-660 p. Ann Rita, Sister, "Religious Silence," in Sisters Today 38, 1967, p. 344-346.

Bibliography Blanchard, P., "La rhgle du Maitre e t la rkgle de saint Benoit," in Revue btnkdictine 60, 1950, p. 25-64. Brower, Millicent, "Noise Pollution: a Growing Menace," in Saturday Review 50, 1967, p. 17-19. Bruno, P.M., Aux kcoutes de Dieu, le silence monastique. Besanqon, lmprimerie de l'Est, 1952, 289 p. Butler, Cuthbert, Benedictine Monachism, London, Longmans, 1919, vi-387 p. Capelle, B., "Les oeuvres de Jean Cassien et la Rigle binidictine, " in Revue liturgique et monastique 9, 1929, p. 307-3 19. --, "Cassien, le M a h e et saint Benoh," in Recherches de thtologie ancienne et mkdikvale 11, 1939, p. 110-118. Cappuyns, M., "L'auteur de la Regula Magistri: Cassiodore," in Recherc h e ~de thkologie ancienne et mkdidvale 15, 1948, p. 209-268. --, Lexique de La Regula Magistri, Steenbrugge, Martinus Nijhoff, 1964, 209 p. Cavallera, F., "La Regula Magistri: sa doctrine spirituelle," in Revue d'ascktique et de mystique 20, 1939, p. 337-368. Chadwick, Owen, John Cassian, London, Cambridge, 19682, viii-17 1 p. Chapman, John, Saint Benedict and the Sixth Century, London, Sheed and Ward, 1929, vi-239 p. Clarke, W.K.L., The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil, New York, Macmillan, 1925,362 p. Climent, Jean-Marie, Jean Neufville, and Daniel Demeslay, La R&gledu Maitre III, Concordance Verbale, Sources Chritiennes, vol. 107, Paris, Cerf, 1965, 503 p. Colombas, Garcia, Leon Sansegundo, and Odilon Cunill, San Benito su Vida y su Re& Madrid, La Editorial Catblica, 1954, xx-759 p. Corbett, P.B., "The Regula Magistri and some of its Problems," in Studia Patristica I, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1957, p. 82-93. --, The Latin of the Regula Ma@tri with particular reference to its colloquial aspects, Louvain, Publications Universitaires, 1958,308 p. Daly, Sigter Jeanne Joseph, "Out of the Depths," in Sisters Today 38, 1967, p. 194195. Dekkers, Eligius and Aemilius Gaar, Clavis Patrum Latinorum, Editio altera, Bruge, C Beyaert, 1961, xxviii-640 p. Delsalle, Lucien-Red, "Comparison, datation, localisation relatives des rhgles monastiques de saint Cisaire d'Arles, saint Ferdol d'Uzis e t de la 'Regula Tarnantensis Monasterii'," in Augustiniana 11, 1961, p. 5-26. Forcellini, Aegidio, Lexicon Totius Latinitatis, 6 Tomes, Patavii, Typis Seminarii, 1940. Froger, J., "La Rhgle du M a k e et les sources du monachisme binidictin," in Revue d'ascktique et de mystique 30, 1954, p. 275-288. Genestout, A., "La Rhgle du Maitre et la Rhgie de Saint Benoit," in Revue d'ascktique et de mystique 21, 1940, p. 51-112. --, "Le plus ancien tkmoin de la RM, le par. Lat. 12634," in Scriptorium 1, 1946-47, p. 129-142.

238

Bibliography

Gindele, Corbinian, "La lecture et 1'Ecriture dans le monastkre de saint PachSme," in Bible et Vie Chre'tienne 67, 1966, p. 43-52. Gribomont, J., "Obiissance e t Evangile selon saint Basile le Grand," in Supple'ment de fa Vie Spirituelle 21, 1952, p. 192-215. --, Histoire du Texte des Asce'tiques de S. Basile, Louvain. Publications Universitaires, 1953, xix-348 p. Guy, Jean-Claude, Jean Cassien: Vie e t d o c t h e spirituelle, Paris, Lethielleux, 1961, 140 p. Holstenius, Lucas, Codex Regularum Monasticarum et Canonicarum 1-11, Graz, Akademische Druc k-und Verlagsanstalt, 1957 (Photomechanic reimpression of the thirdedition with observations by M. Brockie, Augsbourg, 1759). Knowles, Dom David, "The Regula Magistri and the Rule of St Benedict," in Great Historical Enterprises: Problems in Monastic History, Edinburgh, Nelson, 1963, p. 139-195. Lambot, D.C., "L'influence de S. Augustin sur la Rhgle de S. Benoit," in Revue liturgique et monastique 14, 1929, p. 320-330. Ltbe, L, "Saint Basile. Note a propos de Rtgles monastiques," in Revue bkne'dictine 76, 1966, p. 116-119. Lentini, Anselmo, S. Benedetto la Regola: Testo, Versione e t Commento, Montecassino (no publisher), 1947, lxxxi-639 p. Lcwis, Charlton T., and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1958. 2019 p. LoriC, L. Th.A., Spiritual Terminology in the Latin Translations of the Vita Antonii with reference to fourth and fifth century monastic literature, Nijmegcn, Dekker and van de Vegt N.V., 1955, xv- 180 p. McCullers, Carson, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, New York, Bantam, 1970, 307 p. Manning Euene, "La ligislation monastique de S. Augustin e t la Regula Monasteriorum," in Augustiniana 16, 1966, p. 3 17-329. "L9Admonitio S. Basilii ad filium spiritualem et la RBgle de S. Benoit," in Revue d'ascitique et de mystique 42, 1966, p. 475479. Marc, An&, "Le Silence," in Revue d'ascktique et de mystique 26-27, 1950-51, p. 289-307. Moens, G. R, "Religious Silence," in Sponsa Regis 36,1965, p. 359-370. Mohrmann, Christine, "La Latiniti de Saint Benqit. Etudes linguistiques sur la Tradition Manuscrite de la Rkgle," in Etudes sur le Latin des Chrktiens I, Rome, Edizioni di Storia Letteratura, 1961, p. 403-435. --, "La Langue de Saint Benoit," in Etudes sur le Latin des Chre'tiens 11, Rome, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1961, p. 325-345. Moland, Einar, " 'Ut Sapiens Medicus.' Medical Vocabulary in St. Benedict's RegulaMonachorum," in Studio Monastica 6, 1964, p. 273-298. Moriones, Franciscus, Enchiridion Theologicum Sancti Augustini Madrid, La Editorial Catblica, 1961, xxxi-743 p. Mundb, Anscari, "L'authenticiti de la Regula Sancti Benedicti," in Studia Anselmiana 42, 1957, p. 105159.

--.

Bibliography

239

--, "Les anciens synodes abbatiaux e t lee 'Regulae Ss. Patrum'." in

Studin Anselmiana 44, 1959, p. 107-125. Murphy, Francis X, Rufinus of Aquileia (345-411): His Life and Works, Washington, Catholic University, 1945, xviii-248 p. Neufville, J., "Sur le texte de la Rkgle des IV Pkres," in Revue btntdictine 75, 1965, p. 307-3 12. --, "Les Cditeurs des 'Regulae Patrum': Saint Benoit d'Aniane et Lukas Holster," in Revue btntdictine 76, 1966, p. 327-343. --, "Rkgle des IV Pkres e t Seconde Rtgle des Pkres," in Revue bknddictine 77, 1967, p. 47-106. Orsy, Ladislas, "God Speaks in Silence," in Sponsa Regis 36, 1965, p. 153-158. Ottenstroer, Sister Joann, "A position paper on a functional approach to Silence," in Review for Religious 27, 1968, p. 208-222. Penco, Gregorio, S. Benedicti Regula, Introduzrone, Testo. Apparati, Traduzione e Commento, Firenze, "La Nuova Italia" Editrice, 1958, cviii-283 p. Perez de Urbel, J., "El Maestro, San Benito, y Juan Biclarense," in Hispunk 1, 1940, p. 7-42. Picard, Max, The World of Silence, translated by Stanley Godman, Chicago, Regnery, 1961, xx-232 p. Potok, Chaim, The Chosen, Greenwich, Fawcett, 1968, 271 p. --, The Promise, New York, Knofp, 1969, 368 p. Salmon, P., "Le silence religieux. Patique et ThCorie," in Mtlanges B t n t dictines, Abbaye S. Wandrille, Editions de Fontenelle, 1947, p. 11-57. Schmitz. P h , Benedicti Regula, Maredcous (no publisher), 196z3, xli306 p. Sciacca, Michele Federico, "I1 silenzio e la parola: Meditazioni di un filosofo," in Vita Monastica 12, 1958, p. 21-29. Simon, Rent, "Silence et vie chrktienne," in L'Anneau d'Or 114, 1963, p. 454461. Steidle, Basilius, The Rule of St Benedict with an introduction, a new translation of the Rule and a commentary, translated by Urban J. Schmitzhofer, Canon City, Beuroner Kunstverlag, 1967, 307 p. Sweetman, M, "Silence," in Review for Religious 22, 1963, p 430-434. Turbessi, Giuseppe, Ascetismo e Monachesimo Prebenedett~no,Roma, Editrice Studium, 1961,217 p. --, Ascetismo e Monachesimo in S. Benedetto, Roma, Editrice Studium, 1965, 220 p. Vandenbroucke, F., "Sur les sources de la Rkgle bknCdictine et de la Regula Magistri," in Revue btntdictine 62, 1952, p. 216-273. Veilleux, Armand, La Liturgie duns le Ce'nobitisme PachGmien au Quat r i h e Siscle, Roma, Herder, 1968, xxxii-393 p. (Studia Anselmiana 5 7). Verheijen, Luc, La Rbgle de Saint Augustin, I, Tradition Manuscrite, 11. Recherches Historiques, Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes, 1967, vol. I 477 p.. vol. I1 258 p.

Bibliography VogiiC, Adalbert de, "Le monasttre, ~ ~ l i du s eChrist," in Studia Anselmiona 42, 1957, p 25-46. --, The Communrty and the Abbot in the Rule of Saint Benedict, Cistercian Studies Series, no. 5, translated by Charles Philippi, Spencer, Mass, Cistercian Publications, 1973. Wathen, Ambrose, "Relevance of the Rule Today," in The American Benedictine Review 19, 1968, p. 234253. Wilmart, D.A., "Le Discoun de Saint B a d e sur l1Asc6se en Latin," in Revue btnidictine 27, 1910, p. 226-233. Zimmermann, Odo, "The Regula Magistri: the primitive Rule of St. Benedict," in The A m e r i c a Benedictine Review 1,1950, p. 11-36. --, "An unsolved problem: the Rule of Saint Benedict and the Rule of the Master," in The American Benedictine Review 10, 1959, p. 86-106.

CISTERCIAN FATHERS SERIES Under the direction of the same Board of Editors as the Cistercian Studies Series, the Cistercian Fathers Series seeks t o make available the works of the Cistercian Fathers in good English translations based on the recently established critical editions. The texts are accompanied by introductions, notes and indexes prepared by qualified scholars. CF 1: Bernard of Clairvaux, Vol. l: Treatises I Introductions: Jean Leclercq O S B CF 2: Aelred of Rievaulx, Vol. 1: Treatises, Pastoral Prayer Introduction: David Knowles CF 3: William of St Thierry, Vol. 1: On Contemplating Cod, Prayer, Meditations Introductions: Jacques Hourlier OSB CF 4: Bernard of Clairvaux, Vol. 2: On the Song of Songs I Introduction: Corneille Halflants ocso CF 5: Aelred of Rievaulx, Vol. 2: Spiritual Friendship Introduction: Douglas Roby CF 6: William of St Thierry, Vol. 2: Exposition o n the Song of Songs Introduction: J. M. DCcha.net O S B CF 7: Bernard of Clairvaux, Vol. 3: On the Song o f Songs 11 Introduction: Jean Leclercq O S B CF 8: Guerric of Igny: Liturgical Sermons I Introduction: Hilary Costello and John Morson

ocso CF 9: William of St Thierry, Vol. 3: The Enigma of Faith Introduction: John Anderson CF 12: William of St Thierry, Vol. 4: The Golden Epistle Introduction: J. M. Dhchanet O S B CF 13: Bernard of Clairvaux, Vol. 5: Treatises II Introduction: M . Basil Pennington ocso CF 24: Three Treatises on Man: A Cistercian Anthropology Introduction: Bernard McGinn CF 32: Guerric of Igny: Liturgical Sermons II CISTERCIAN PUBLICATIONS CONSORTIUM PRESS Washington D.C.