From: St. Dominic and His Work, by Pierre Mandonnet, O.P.,
Translated by Sister Mary Benedicta Larkin, O.P., B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis/London, 1948.
CHAPTER XXI
The Rule of St. Augustine Composed of Two TextsThe Rule of St. Augustine, therefore, consists of the Disciplina monasterii, a short but precise and complete Rule, plus a Commentary which supplements it closely, and forms with it a single whole. To demonstrate the truth of this statement, I shall appeal to the several classes of arguments, or evidences here enumerated: 1. Evidence of the manuscript tradition; 2. Evidence of the historical tradition; 3. Evidence of criticism of the Rule; 4. Evidence of the Transcription annexed to letter 211.
MANUSCRIPT TRADITION The question of manuscript tradition is of prime importance when an attempt is being made to establish the source and ascertain the nature of a writing that has endured for a number of centuries; in the case of the Rule of St. Augustine, the period covers fifteen centuries. Moreover, here it concerns the transmission not of a work of some extent, like so many other writings of Augustine, but of only a few pages, a booklet, a libellus, as the author himself styled it, and in consequence more apt to disappear. In the Augustinian monasteries the Rule was to be read for the community every week. It must have comprised only a few pages; certainly its size would not have helped to ensure its preservation through the centuries. The transmission of the Rule of St. Augustine for any length of time was therefore attended by a special hazard, in addition to risks that prevail under ordinary conditions in the domain of manuscript writing. For that reason we might expect to encounter a very defective state of manuscript tradition, one presenting notable difficulties.
Fortunately no such problem exists. The tradition will be found uniform, precise, and permanent, as discovered through critical works undertaken to establish the text of the Rule of St. Augustine. These works, particularly the achievement of Schroeder and De Bruyne, are not numerous, but they leave no doubt on the matter. Their authors may have had some inexact notions in regard to the origin of the Augustinian legislative texts, but at least they present a vigorous and harmonious account of what has been the manuscript tradition of the Rule. Moreover, an explicit confirmation of their conclusions may be read in those of Eusebius Amort.
In the line of manuscript tradition, as far back as it can be traced and up to the twelfth century, the Rule of St. Augustine appears in an identical form. Made up of two parts, distinct but unified, it comprises a single whole. De Bruyne, who weighed the matter carefully in the edition of the Rule which he published,(1) presents a text composed first of what has been called the Disciplina monasterii, and then of what is a Commentary upon it.
The first part begins thus: "Let God be loved above all things, dearest brethren, and then our neighbor, because these are the principal commands given to us." The second part begins: "These are the things which we command you who are assembled in the monastery to observe."
No mistake should be made about the respective beginnings of the two parts, because at the time of the suppression of the Disciplina monasterii in the twelfth century, the first of these sentences was transferred to the beginning of the second part, where it is ordinarily found today; but this was not the original arrangement.
De Bruyne has very closely examined this question on the relation of the two parts of the Rule. I cannot do better than to quote his findings, to which, moreover, I fully subscribe. Speaking of the union of the Disciplina monasterii (OM) and the Commentary (RA), he says:
All historians have noted this union ... the two writings have never at the same time existed separately. This union is not a case of simple juxtaposition which could be accidental; it is a close union: there is never an explicit after OM [Disc. monas.], never an incipit before RA [Comm.]. . . On the other hand, one part does not run into the other, for the distinction is marked by a paragraph and a capital letter (C), by the two lines in uncial. (L), by three lines in uncial (AB). Manuscript P is an exception: the texts follow without a break. The two writings always follow in the same order.THE WORK OF ST. AUGUSTINE The independent information contributed by Eusebius Amort only confirms what we have just said. Amort published the Rule of St. Augustine from a manuscript of the twelfth century of the Collegiate Church of Ranshofen. It conforms to the tradition described by De Bruyne. Even more significant, Amort states that the other copies of the Rule found in Bavaria and Austria at the time of his writing, and dating from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, conform to that of Ranshofen. The case is similar for those of more ancient origin, which are in three other places.(2)
No doubt exists about what constituted the Rule of St. Augustine. A short Rule, called the Disciplina monasterii, and a Commentary on that Rule, taken together compose our treatise in the manuscript tradition, though each is shown to be distinct from the other in the copy by diacritical marks. Besides, the unity and duality arise rather from the contents than from the form, as will be evident upon further examination.
As to the antiquity of the manuscripts in which the Rule has been preserved, the oldest leads us back, according to specialists, to the seventh century, perhaps even to the sixth, with the Latin manuscript 12634 from the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, proceeding from Corbie. Other manuscripts are from the ninth and from the following centuries.(3) The age of this documentation shows what a chronological extent this tradition covers and how far from the truth were the authors who formerly thought that the Rule of St. Augustine was an eleventh or twelfth century production.
Lastly, the assignment of an author in the manuscripts is generally, with but one exception, on account of an "absent-minded slip of the copyist," in favor of the one St. Augustine. As is the custom with manuscripts even from ancient Roman times, it is at the explicit of the work that the title and the name of the author are found. In this case we meet the same one constantly: Explicit regula sancti Augustini (4) ("Here ends the Rule of St. Augustine"), or equivalently, in the text in use with the Preachers: Explicit regula beati Augustini episcopi ("Here ends the Rule of Blessed Augustine, Bishop"). The formula is more euphonic, because it conforms to the rule of the cursus. In Augustinian monasteries the Rule was chanted. Today, with the Preachers, it is simply read, but the beginning and the end are chanted.
Such, then, is the manuscript tradition of the Rule of St. Augustine. From the beginning it explicitly attributes to St. Augustine the two parts of the Rule. It would be hard to find anything more clear and simple. How it was possible to entangle a problem which offered so little in the way of difficulty becomes the real question. An explanation of this singular phenomenon has already been sketched.
THE HISTORICAL TRADITION We may regret that the manuscript tradition of the Rule does not run a little closer to the very years of St. Augustine's life, yet this documentary insufficiency can, to a certain extent, be made good, because the historical tradition notably bridges the gap. The Rule of St. Augustine has exercised a historical influence of varied character, particularly on the formulation of later rules. By ascending the rounds of this kind of ladder we can reach even the time of St. Augustine.
Under the title Regula Tarnatensis, we have a Rule that has an obscure origin; but its composition is ordinarily placed in the sixth century. It recognizes and utilizes the two parts of the Rule of St. Augustine, and a large proportion of the conclusion is almost a literal translation of it.(5)
With the Rule of St. Benedict in the first third of the sixth century we stand chronologically on more solid ground. His Rule recognizes and uses that of St. Augustine to such an extent that Dom Lambot and especially Dom De Bruyne thought the Disciplina monasterii might be the work of St. Benedict.(6) Dom Morin, as we have noted,(7) showed that this view would have to be rejected. But critics have indicated that the whole Rule of St. Augustine was known and used by St. Benedict and that consequently it is of earlier origin than the Benedictine Rule.
Dom Morin, in the article cited, proposes as the approximate date of the composition of the Disciplina monasterii, independent of every consideration of Augustinian origin, the year 440: "This would be some ten years after the death of St. Augustine," as Dom Lambot wrote,(8) when he noted passages taken from the Rule by the Regula sanctarum virginum of St. Caesarius of Arles, an excellent edition of which he has recently produced.(9)
The historical criticism thus reaches very close to the time of St. Augustine, but it is particularly by a study of the text that the Rule may be discovered to verge on the very threshold of the career of its author, even the year 388. But just as we advance the existence and the integral content of the Rule of St. Augustine, tracing it to the very period of its author, so we still affirm the permanence of the Rule in the same form at the beginning of the twelfth century. Not only does that period provide manuscripts,(10) showing accord with the evidence as already revealed by tradition, but it likewise records the fact of the notable transformation of the Rule as the effect of the letter of Gelasius II (August 11, 1118). This circumstance will be treated fully in the next chapter; but we call attention to it at this point to complete our demonstration.
MARKS The papal letter, in fact, acquaints us with the contents of the Rule of St. Augustine at this period, and the text we shall reproduce will reveal its identity with that already described. Gelasius' intervention had as a particular result the disappearance of the first part, the legislative element, and the reduction of the Rule to the second part, or Commentary, and in this state of mutilation there has been transmitted to us since the twelfth century what is today inappropriately called the Rule of St. Augustine.
The suppression of the Disciplina monasterii was not effected in the beginning by a total decapitation. Theologian that be was, St. Augustine had written in the first line of his Rule: "Let God be loved above all things, dearest brethren, and then our neighbor, because these are the principal commands given to us." The first commandment of the Gospel, written therein by the legislator and containing in itself the whole content of the Rule, could hardly be suppressed. There was fidelity to this idea at the time of the suppression of the Disciplina monasterii. It harmonized, moreover, with the desire expressed by the Pope. The first and essential formula was retained, therefore, and was transferred to the beginning of the Commentary' where it still is today, followed by the formula with which the second part of the Rule began in its original arrangement: "These are the things which we command you who are assembled in the monastery to observe." The regard shown for this legitimate scruple in the suppression of the Disciplina monasterii is a proof in point for the evidence that the Disciplina was then considered the first part of the Rule of St. Augustine.
Therefore, taking the evidence as a whole, we may accept as solidly established the Augustinian authorship of the complex unit which bears, or rather, which did bear, the name of the Rule of St. Augustine.
Nor do we think there can be any doubt about the primitive contents of the Rule: a law that was short, but precise, and complete in itself, with a long addition composed later in the form of a Commentary and supplement to the first ethical prescriptions. After the composition of the second part, the whole circulated per modum unius, under the title of the Rule of St. Augustine, until the twelfth century, when the Disciplina monasterii was suppressed, henceforth to be replaced by special legislation better adapted to the needs of the new chapters and orders of canons regular. After this suppression, strictly speaking, there was no longer a Rule of St. Augustine.
Now it is time to pass to the study of the texts of the Rule. They not only confirm what we have just said, but would suffice, even of themselves, for the same demonstration.
CRITICISM OF THE RULE Our consideration of the Rule of St. Augustine is made neither from a literary nor from a religious point of view. Our sole aim is to select from the document a number of characteristics of such a nature as to contribute data about its authenticity, its origin, and its purpose.
ST. AUGUSTINE'S FOUNDATION First of all, there is a matter of preliminary interest. What we know about the foundation of the monasteries of St. Augustine supplies initial information on the Rule. St. Augustine evidently wrote the Rule in view of the type of religious life which he organized, because a monastery, housing a community of men more or less numerous, could not conceivably function without a Rule to determine the observances of those living in common. Although our knowledge of life in the Augustinian monasteries is limited, we can gather precise data concerning the time of their establishment and the role of St. Augustine himself.
During his stay in Italy, Augustine learned of monastic life in the Orient and in Italy. Dom Gougaud has exhaustively treated this aspect of the subject.(11) Augustine, upon returning from Italy toward the close of 388, attempted to establish his first monastery at Hippo. This we know from his own words in a sermon to the Catholics of Hippo during his episcopate: "I, whom you see as your Bishop by the grace of God, came in my youth to this city as many of you know. I sought for a place here to establish a monastery and live with my brethren; for I had forsaken all ambition as regards this world."
This first project of St. Augustine must have failed; Hippo must have appealed to its future Bishop as having advantages not afforded by the little city of Tagaste, where in reality he did succeed in founding an establishment. It is interesting to see Augustine three years later renew his first project and attempt to transfer the institution from Tagaste to Hippo. The fact that Augustine was only a layman, and a recent convert, may have created difficulties for him. In any event, for the initial venture he went to his native city, Tagaste, where he sold his possessions, gave the proceeds to the poor, and established his monastery under the rule of poverty. It should be noted that he does not in any way refer positively and explicitly to the first establishment. From his biographer and friend Possidius, who lived many years with him, we know definitely about the foundation at Tagaste, the first monastery. From him we learn not only that Augustine made the first foundation immediately after his return to Africa, but that he remained in the monastery for three years and that he lived there with his companions "in fasts, prayers, and good works, meditating on the law of the Lord day and night. What God revealed to him in his meditations and prayers, he taught to souls far and near in sermons and books."
During these three years Augustine was still a layman, and this fact suggests a problem. By what authority could he conduct a monastery? The very text of his first Rule, the Disciplina monasterii, will be examined to learn whether his status is in any way indicated.
After three years, as he himself says, he went to Hippo to attract one of his friends to the religious life, and likewise to establish a monastery there. It was on this occasion that the Catholic inhabitants of the city constrained the aged Bishop to confer the priesthood on Augustine. Knowing the intensity of the new priest's desire to live the common life, the Bishop gave him a site on church property for the establishment of his monastery.
This foundation at Hippo probably occasioned a transfer of the monastery from Tagaste. Direct information to this effect is wanting, but the evidence of historical sources inclines in favor of it. Possidius, for example, remarks that ten bishops, of whom he was one, came out of the community at Hippo during the lifetime of Augustine, whereas he makes no allusion to the monastery of Tagaste. it seems that the latter had disappeared.
At any rate, Augustine, the priest at the head of the monastery, enjoyed an authority quite superior to the authority he could exercise as a layman during the years at Tagaste. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, to discover an addition to the short Rule, Disciplina monasterii, in the Commentary in which the author refers to himself as a priest and shows the consciousness of his new power.
As a matter of record, we should note that, after Augustine became a bishop, his desire was to have a monastery of clerics in his episcopal home. But that development in his life belongs to a period later than the one when the Rule was formulated.
THE DISCIPLINA Before approaching the study of our legislative texts, or rather to have at hand an instrument requisite for the purpose, we must first transcribe the text of the Disciplina monasterii, since the consideration will center principally on this text. The text is not especially rare -- we have elsewhere indicated the names of certain editions. But it is not readily available to everyone. Therefore we present it here before proceeding to our discussion. The form of the text is the one established by Dom De Bruyne. The reference for it has been indicated above.
DISCIPLINA MONASTERII (12)
1. Let God be loved above all things, dearest brethren, and then our neighbor, because these are the principal commands given to us. 1. Ante omnia, fratres carissimi, diligatur Deus, deinde proximus, quia ista sunt praecepta principaliter nobis data. 2. This is how we ought to pray or say the psalms. In the morning three psalms should be said: the sixty-second, the fifth, and the eighty-ninth; at Tierce, let a psalm be said with a responsory, then two antiphons, a lesson, and a concluding prayer; in like manner at Sext and None; at evening, moreover, one responsory psalm, four antiphons, again one responsory psalm, a lesson, and a concluding prayer. And at a convenient time after the evening exercise, all being seated, the lessons may be read; moreover, after this let the customary psalms be recited before retiring. Night prayers, for the months of November, December, January, February, twelve antiphons, six psalms, three lessons; for March, April, September, October, ten antiphons, five psalms, three lessons; for May, June, July, August, eight antiphons, four psalms, two lessons. 2. Qualiter autem nos oportet orare vel psallere describimus; id est in matutinis dicantur psalmi tres: sexagesimus secundus, quintus et octogesimus nonus; ad tertiam prius psalmus ad respondendum dicatur, deinde antiphonae duae, lectio et completorium; simili modo sexta et nona; ad lucernarium autem psalmus responsorius unus, antiphonae quattuor, item psalmus unus responsorius, lectio et completorium. Et tempore opportuno post lucernarium, omnibus sedentibus, legantur lectiones; post haec autem consuetudinarii psalmi ante sonnium dicantur. Nocturnae autem orationes, mensae novembri, decembri, januario et februario, antiphonae duodecim, psalmi sex, loctiones tres; martio, aprili, septembri et octobri, antiphonae decem, psalmi quinque, lectiones tres; maio, junio, julio et augusto antiphonae octo, psalmi quattuor, lectiones duae. 3. Let them (the brethren) work from morning to the hour of Sext; and from Sext to the hour of None they may be free for reading; and at None they may return books; and after they have eaten, they may work again in the garden, or wherever it will be necessary, until evening. 3. Operentur a mane usque ad sextam, et a sexta usque ad nonam vacent lectioni, et ad nonam reddant codices, et, postquam refecerint, sive in horto, sive ubicumque necesse fuerit, faciant opus usque ad horam lucernarii. 4. Let no one do anything for himself alone, whether for clothing or anything else; for we desire to live the apostolic life. 4. Nemo sibi aliquid suam vindicet proprium, sive in vestimento, sive in quacumque re; apostolicam enim vita optamus vivere. 5. Let no one do anything with murmuring, lest he perish by a judgment like that for murmurers. 5. Nemo cum murmurio aliquid faciat, ut non simili judicio murmuratorum pereat. 6. Let them obey with fidelity, honor their father after God, and respect their superior as becomes the holy. 6. Fideliter obediant, patrem suum post Deum honorent, praeposito suo deferant sicut decet sanctos. 7. Seated at the table let them be silent to listen to the reading. if, moreover, any need shall arise, their superior shall see to it. On Saturday and Sunday, as is the custom, those who wish may have wine. 7. Sedentes ad mensam taceant audientes lectionem. Si autem aliquid opus fuerit, praepositus eorum sit sollicitus. Sabbato et dominica, sicut consuetudo est, qui volunt, vinum accipiant. 8. If any need to go out of the monastery for any purpose, let two go. No one may eat or drink out of the monastery without permission, for this is not in accord with monastic discipline. If the brethren are commissioned to sell any of the goods of the monastery, let them be careful to do nothing contrary to the law, knowing that they may offend God in His servants; if they are buying something for the monastery, let them discharge the business carefully and faithfully as servants of God. 8. Si opus fuerit ad aliquarn necessitatern monasterii mitti, duo eant. Nemo extra monasterium sine praecepto manducet neque bibat, non enim hoc ad disciplinam pertinet monasterii. Si opera monasterii mittantur fratres vendere sollicite servent ne quid faciant contra praeceptum, scientes quoniam Deurn exacerbant in servis ipsius; sive aliquid, emunt ad necessitatern monasterii, sollicite et fideliter, ut servi Dei, agant. 9. Let there be no idle word among them; let them be about their own work from the morning; similarly after the prayers of Tierce let them go to their own work; they should not stand about talking, unless perchance it may be for the good of the spirit. Let them sit in silence at their duties, unless perchance the necessity of the work require that something be said. 9. Otiosum verbum apud illos non sit, a mane ad opera sua sedeant, post orationes tertiae eant similiter ad opera sua; non stantes fabulas contexant, nisi forte aliquid sit pro animae utilitate. Sedentes ad opera taceant, nisi forte necessitas operis exegerit ut loquatur quis. 10. If anyone shall not have tried to fulfill these things in all virtue, with the help of God, and shall have disregarded them with a stubborn spirit, and if, having been admonished once and again, he shall not amend, let him know that he must subject himself as is proper to monastic discipline. Moreover, if his age admits of it, he may be punished. 10. Si quis autem non omni virtute, adjuvante miseri cordia Domini, haec conatus fuerit implere, contumaci vero animo despexerit, semel atque iterurn commonitus, si non emendaverit, sciat se subjicere disciplinae monasterii sicut oportet. Si autem talis fuerit aetas ipsius, etiam vapulet. Observing these things faithfully and piously in the name of Christ, you will profit, and our joy will be great in your salvation. Amen. Haec autem in nomine Christi fideliter et pie observantes et vos proficietis et nobis nft Parva erit laetitia de vestra salute. Amen. These are the things which we command you who are assembled in the monastery to observe. Haec eunt quae ut observetis praecipimus in monasterio constituti. The first purpose for which you have been gathered together. . . . Primum, propter quod in uno estis congregati. . . . An attentive study of this first part of the Rule would require an extended discussion. Our consideration will be limited to the most important points affecting the general problem. To begin with we shall examine the form and the material contents of the Disciplina monasterii.
THE TITLE The first question might be whether the Disciplina had a title. In the manuscript tradition where the Disciplina monasterii is always united to the Commentary, the title of Rule of St. Augustine is given to the two parts per modum unius; the existence of a special title for the Disciplina does not have to be supposed.
Before the composition of the second part of the Rule, however, the first part, as a separate document, may have had a title that persisted later. Dom De Bruyne noted that he came upon no indication of a title except in the Laon manuscript 328 bis (ninth century), where he found the designation, De ordine monasterii. De Bruyne retained this title in his edition of the Disciplina; at first sight, it seems to correspond well with the contents, and for want of any other inscription, it seems advisable to accept it. Ordo applies quite well to the contents of articles two and three, which define the ordo officii, and the periods of work, prayer, and reading, since successive exercises are thus regulated by the hours of the day. But this term does not apply to the rest of the Rule, which prescribes moral acts that are not determined by time and that generally cannot be included in the notion of ordo.
Twice in this section there occur two qualifying expressions which the Rule applies to itself. Such are the following:
8. "For this is not in accord with monastic discipline."10. "Let him know that he must subject himself as is proper to monastic discipline."
Thus, what the author establishes in the Rule, according to his own words, is the Disciplina monasterii, that is, monastic observance.
THE CONTENT The Disciplina monasterii is composed of a succession of ten articles. Ordinarily the manuscript tradition does not number them; they are numbered here for convenience. The material in the Disciplina is well arranged. Though there is no outward mark of division, it is, in fact, divided into two sections.
Articles two and three, which are the most important, have a precise statutory form and refer to what the brethren must do. The second, much longer than the third, enumerates the hours of the Divine Office and what is to be chanted, along with provision for the seasonal variations. The third determines the time for prayer, work, reading, and the one meal of the day, at the hour of Sext, so that in these matters there could be no uncertainty for persons subject to this Rule.
The other paragraphs of the Rule have a religious or moral import: on poverty, obedience, silence, and business outside the monastery. Short though they are, the articles, taken together, constitute a unified whole. The Rule begins with a general proposition, the evangelical precept of love for God and neighbor. In the last paragraph the lawmaker acknowledges the satisfaction he experiences when there is a faithful and devout observance of what is proposed. The word Amen at the close signifies the end of the document.
The Disciplina is in itself a true Rule, adequate for the direction of a community of men, provided there is a head, an authority. Does the Disciplina monasterii vest power in an authority? The presence of such a mechanism in any social group, whatever its nature, is a prime necessity. It is mentioned in the Rule, but in an unusual way. Authority is referred to only indirectly. Neither the existence nor the rights of such an authority are defined; but it is indicated in the article concerning the obedience of the subjects, which says:
6. "Let them obey with fidelity, honor their father after God, and respect their superior, as becomes the holy."Here two authorities are mentioned, a father and a superior, and the attitude of the subjects to both is aptly implied in a somewhat veiled formula. The father is not named again in the Disciplina; the superior is referred to a second time in article seven, in a passage indicating that be is particularly responsible for the temporal administration of the monastery. The Commentary on the Rule contains a more explicit parallel passage that throws light on the question. It will be considered later.
Meanwhile let us note that the author of the Disciplina does not take it upon himself to give an imperative character to his Rule or to confer upon those who are at the head of his monastery an authority at all definite. Obedience seems operative here as a general virtue, rather than as something enjoined by the preceptive force of a clearly defined law. (13) To understand this condition, we need merely reflect on the position of Augustine in founding his first monastery. He was a layman, who gathered around himself a few friends of good will; for all he outlined a short but precise formulary of life. As we read it we have the impression that it is a piece of tentative legislation in which authority is hardly asserted. In fact, Augustine, being an ordinary Christian, had no official authority. His community lived under a regime of individual good will, directed toward life in common. Once he becomes a priest, the situation will be different.
THE WORDING In the light of this information (that is, of an Augustine newly baptized, and still a layman, taking the initiative in founding a monastery of which he was to be the head and the legislator), certain features of wording in the Rule are explicable, such as perhaps raised a doubt of its authenticity in the minds of certain critics, who thought the style of the Disciplina not Augustinian.
It might readily be objected that the question of style can hardly be thought of in connection with this first part of the Rule. The formulas are too short and too concise to justify any issue on that score. Nevertheless, where comparison is possible, as in the texts that have been cited or will be cited later in reference to the authorities of the monastery, the relationship between the language of the Disciplina and that of the Commentary is marked. But no one denies the Augustinian style of the second part of the Rule. Our object now, however, is to show that the wording of the Disciplina monasterii does present certain significant peculiarities which, far from ruling out the hand of St. Augustine, actually help to identify it.
As we have already pointed out, we need to recall merely that the lawmaker who composed the Rule was a layman, but recently converted. Thus certain structural features in the document may be explained.
At times the author of the Rule seems to consider himself apart from those for whom he writes, whereas at other times he identifies his lot with theirs. Thus, in article two, which begins: "This is how we ought to pray or say the psalms," it is evident that in liturgical matters he includes himself with those who are living the common life.
But other paragraphs read as though the author were not one of the subjects or were not bound by their obligations. In the third article he says: "Let them (the brethren) work from morning to the hour of Sext. . . ."
The form of the verb (operentur) shows that the prescription refers to "those who are in the monastery," but seems not to include the author. That is explicable: it was provision for manual work, and Augustine was fully occupied with his engrossing labors as an apostle and writer.(14) For him the problem of work was solved.
What subtle phrasing he employed to distinguish the authority of a father and that of a superior! As a layman, Augustine could call himself father. After his ordination, he could speak of himself as a priest, and then it is evident that he not only announces a program, but imposes it: "We command."
In the last sentence of the Disciplina, Augustine allows a second and last reference to himself. If the fratres carissimi, to whom he has addressed himself in the opening words, will observe what has been proposed, he acknowledges: "Our joy will be great in your salvation."
The general structure of the Disciplina monasterii is thus more comprehensible if it is considered in the light of the personal position of Augustine when he began his career as a lawgiver; it was that of a fervent layman, eager for the common life.
Augustine defined the common life in a few words. Having declared that none of the brethren should consider anything his own, he added, giving totality of view in a single thought: "For we desire to live the apostolic life." The expression optamus ("we desire") bears witness to the fact that this voluntary choice was the cornerstone of the monastic foundation and that, like others, Augustine was binding himself to lead the apostolic life. For Augustine, to lead the apostolic life meant to possess no personal property. He explains this more fully at the beginning of his Commentary, where he refers to the celebrated scriptural text: "For thus you read in the Acts of the Apostles that they had all things in common, and distribution was made to everyone according as be had need" (4:32-35).(15)
All ecclesiastical tradition has been and will be faithful to this concept of the apostolic life as constituted by the common life and by individual poverty. This expression, "to lead the common life," was revived as a reform appeal when the Sovereign Pontiffs of the eleventh and twelfth centuries endeavored to re-establish it among the clergy and propagate the Rule of St. Augustine.
A careful analysis of the Disciplina monasterii thus enables us to identify the Rule, not only as the work of St. Augustine, but even as the first piece of legislation composed by him when he founded his first monastery at Tagaste in 388.
Before concluding this study of the text of the Disciplina monasterii, certain features of the program it proposed should be examined, because they were accountable for its suppression in the twelfth century.
Article two, comprising a detailed outline of the entire Divine Office, is remarkable; liturgists have signalized it as the oldest ordo officii known in the Church.(16) Viewed in the light of this liturgical entry, the date of composition was usually placed toward the middle of the fifth century. What we have established here should show that the correct date would be the same as for that of the composition of the Disciplina monasterii, the year 388. As to the language, the omissions, and the provisional indications, specialists in the history of liturgy could raise many problems; but it is readily conceivable that this fourth-century liturgical Office would not correspond even remotely with that which the Church had developed by the end of the twelfth century.
Likewise, to impose manual labor upon clerics from the hour of rising until noon and from three in the afternoon until nightfall seems quite totally out of accord with the temper of the men and the age, if we consider the economic changes in medieval Europe.
Lastly, though adequate for appetites cultivated in an African climate, the provision for a single meal at None, or three o'clock in the afternoon, would create tremendous difficulties in view of the physical needs of men in northern countries.
THE COMMENTARY IS NOT A RULE The tone of the Disciplina monasterii manifestly marks it as a provisional law to be tested by trial. This is revealed by what we have just explained and will be substantiated to a greater degree by what will be said on the legislative complement which Augustine decided to add to his first Rule.
After three years' trial of the Disciplina and his own elevation to the priestly dignity, Augustine had full authority to legislate, as was not the case in the period of his life as a layman. The transfer of the monastery from Tagaste to Hippo or, if one prefers, the new foundation in that city at the time of Augustine's ordination, naturally gave occasion for the writing of the text that we call the Commentary on the Disciplina monasterii, because it is that above all, though it may also be called a complement. This remark leads to our next consideration.
First we must clear the way by disposing of a prejudice which, since the twelfth century, has obscured the clear understanding of the problem of the Rule of St. Augustine.
Up to that time, the Rule of St. Augustine signified the Disciplina monasterii and the complement now about to be considered. This combined work became acephalous in the twelfth century, when the Disciplina was dropped and the Commentary retained. Though structurally longer in extent than the Disciplina, the Commentary was much poorer in legislative prescriptions, and, strictly speaking, there was no longer a Rule of St. Augustine.
Dom De Bruyne's study did not lead to a solution of the problem about the origin of the Rules. But, after a slight examination of the Commentary, he rightly concluded that it could not be a Rule. To him we are indebted for opening the way to our thesis.
Referring to the second part of the Rule which he designates by the letters RA, meaning Regula Augustini, be writes: "RA contains excellent prescriptions, gripping and profound remarks; but, it must be said, it is not a Rule. . . . I cannot imagine a man founding a monastery of men and giving them RA as a Rule."(17) As he penned those words, did Dom De Bruyne feel like one uttering something rash: to declare that what for centuries was known as the Rule of St. Augustine was not a Rule? What an unheard-of statement! Yet, Dom De Bruyne was right.
That is the truth, quite the exact truth. Reduced to what it is now, whether under the form of the Commentary for the brothers, or under the form of the Commentary for the sisters, the Rule of St. Augustine (let us still call it that) would not ensure the common life of three people for even two days, because it lacks the essential elements, however rudimentary, indispensable to that end.
In reading this Rule of St. Augustine, we sense that it is addressed to a group leading a common life and practicing individual poverty; but that does not save the Rule, called since the twelfth century the Rule of St. Augustine, from being an amorphous composition where nothing precise is established for the direction of a social organization however embryonic. Allusions are made to what is done or ought to be done in the community; but without exact determination. For example, there is the statement that what is not appointed must not be sung. But nowhere is it definite that one must sing, or what one must sing, or that the choral Office has an assigned place in the occupations of the religious. To this end there is not any sign of an ordo for the day, week, or year: no trace of liturgy. Still we read: "Be instant in prayer at the hours and times appointed." Yet neither hours nor times are indicated in the text. And so it is for everything. However, the loftiest considerations of a moral and religious order are therein couched in a Latinity still close to that of the classical age. All this may strike us as disconcerting.
It is over fifty years since I began to hear read in the refectory every week what we now call the Rule of St. Augustine, and often I asked myself how this venerable text could be an instrument to direct and guide a monastery of men with any regularity. I did not know bow to answer the query, and the accidental information I could gather merely confused me.
About thirty years ago, after reading Hauck's conclusion recorded above, I gave up interest in a problem which then appeared insoluble. Fortunately Benedictine learning reopened the question of the Augustinian Rules. Dom Lambot and Dom De Bruyne tried to orientate it in the Benedictine tradition, and then Dom Morin showed their mistake, but it was their priceless work of erudition that led me to approach this problem. If I have succeeded, as I think I have, in establishing a sound solution, it is because they furnished me with the initial data for the proof.
In bringing to light, under the name of Ordo monasterii, the almost forgotten Disciplina, which I did not know existed, Dom Lambot laid the cornerstone of the problem. Dom De Bruyne, by declaring that the Rule of St. Augustine is not a Rule and by studying thoroughly the relation of the three legislative texts, put into my hands exactly what I needed for constructing a demonstration.
RELATION OF THE TWO PARTS The second part of the Rule of St. Augustine contains what might be called a treatise on the spirit and the virtues proper to the religious state: fraternal charity, individual poverty, humility, prayer in community, conduct at table, religious deportment, relations with seculars and especially with women, fraternal correction, the common life, regulation of disputes and faults, mutual duties of superiors and subjects, benefits to be derived from observance, and so on.
These moral considerations follow closely the order of the precise and short rules of the Disciplina: the precept of charity, choral Office, hours of work and of meals, duty outside the monastery, correction of faults, and the like. Added for the purpose of interpreting the spiritual and religious significance of the particular prescriptions, these form a true spiritual commentary on the Disciplina: that explains the name assigned to it.
Furthermore, this second part of the Rule might also be classed as complementary legislation, though this trait may not be strikingly evident. A Rule like the Disciplina monasterii, tested in daily living for three years under the observant eye of Augustine, would have proved its quality and its possibilities of improvement, It was natural that the lawgiver should have profited by these years of reflection and experience when the circumstances of his priesthood and the occasion of a new foundation afforded him an opportunity to revise his legislation.
A comparative study of the two parts of the Rule will show that each part -- in fact, each article in the two parts -- is not contradictory in any way, but in a certain measure is complementary. This work has already been done by Dom De Bruyne, who applied himself to the comparison of the Augustinian texts with such precision and skill that his achievement dispenses us from repeating the examination. His conclusion merits the full confidence of our readers.
In paragraph four, entitled "Comparison between RA and OM" (that is, according to the denomination we have agreed on, comparison between the Commentary and the Disciplina monasterii), Dom De Bruyne writes: "Four statements are easily posited: these two documents have many differences; they are never contradictory; in general, they are complementary; in rare passages where they are parallel, there is agreement . . ."
"In general, OM [Disciplina monasterii] does not touch matters treated in RA [the Commentary]; it indicates points which RA does not mention. For instance, it omits prescriptions relative to the sick (nos. 9-13), the bath (no. 13), the habit (nos. 10, 12), the oratory (no. 7), the long passage on custody of the eyes in the presence of women (nos. 9, 10). On the other hand, it considers the Divine Office (no. 2), the horarium (no. 3), silence (no. 8), etc. Evidently its purpose was to complete RA."
Here Dom De Bruyne is mistaken about the relative order of these two texts because of the theory by which he attributed the composition of the Disciplina monasterii to St. Benedict; he has inverted the order, but the facts remain the same: eadem est ratio contrariorum. He continues: " Between the two writings there is no contradiction; rather is the contrary true. Thus OM prescribes that books be returned every day at the hour of None. According to RA, the books may be asked for every day.(18)
Thus it may be maintained that nothing prevents the two parts of the Rule of St. Augustine from constituting a single whole; but rather that the one even demands, coordinates, and completes the other in reciprocal content. Still it seems that this complementary character, slight as it is, ought not to be exaggerated. The addition to the Rule is much more of a commentary than a complement.
On closer scrutiny this last remark appears a bit superficial and calls for modification. The Commentary was an addition of prime importance for the Rule, and its very existence would suffice to show that the Rule of St. Augustine normally consists of the two known parts, and that it is unquestionably the work of the Bishop of Hippo.(19)
THE PRECEPTIVE FORCE We have noted the absence of any preceptive formula in the Disciplina monasterii. The authority of the father and of the superior, which article six mentions indirectly, seems not to flow from the imperative force of a definite legislation, but solely from the virtue of the subjects. The formula is subtly indirect and aptly expresses the relations of the two persons: "Let them honor their father after God and respect their superior as becomes the holy."
The Commentary in turn names the father and the superior in a parallel text, where there exists a new authority. "Obey your superior as a father, serving with honor, and offend not God; and yet more, the priest who has charge of you all."
Here the superior has become father, and the father has become a priest, but their respective hierarchy is maintained, because a few lines farther on, in regard to corrections, we read: "It is more particularly the office of the superior to refer whatever exceeds his capability to the priest whose authority among you is greater."
The praepositus (superior) evidently holds the same subordinate position in the Rule and in the Commentary; therefore, it is the presbyter (priest) of the Commentary who was pater (father) in the Disciplina monasterii.
Augustine himself is this priest who was once the father. Did not this elevation in his rank among them belong to the time of his return from Hippo? A change had come. The father who did not venture to impose his authority while proposing the Disciplina monasterii to his friends could now speak as a master. Experience with his Rule over a period of two or three years had taught him how difficult it was to have men live in community, and he had noted in practice points wherein the Disciplina monasterii would have to be clarified or supplemented; that was his purpose with his Commentary.
But there is a question which exceeds all others in importance, though it might not occur to a reader of the two legislative texts if it were not indicated: it is the question of their preceptive force. Preceptive force does not exist in the Disciplina: obedience appears only as a general virtue, and not as one of subordination to a special authority who has the right to command. In the Commentary the Rule has a formal imperative force. The two above-mentioned texts may be compared:
"Fideliter obediant; patrem suum post Deum honorent; praeposito suo deferant sicut decet sanctos." Praeposito tanquam patri obediatur, honore servato, ne in illo offendatur Deus; multo magis presbytero qui omnium vestrum curam gerit."
"Let them obey with fidelity; honor their father after God and respect their superior as becomes the holy." "Obey your superior as a father, serving with honor, and offend not God; and much more, the priest who has charge of you all."
Furthermore, in planning his Commentary on the Rule, Augustine's first thought was to give to both texts an imperative character.
This was not difficult in the case of the Commentary, since he was about to compose it. Therefore, in the opening words and throughout, we find imperative expressions applicable to any law.
As for the Disciplina, which did not have this character, Augustine provided by introducing between the two parts of his Rule a formula pertaining to what precedes in the Disciplina, and to what follows in the Commentary; by a skillful transitional passage, the formula can and must apply to the two parts.
Haec sunt quae ut observetis praecipimus in monasterio constituti. "These are the things which we command you who are assembled in the monastery to observe." Haec refers both to what has been read and to what is to be read; the praecipimus here has a force in virtue of which its meaning reverts to the Disciplina and gives it the imperative value not inherent in its precepts. The formula so truly welds the Disciplina and its Commentary into one that tradition accepted them as a single whole and separated them only at the beginning of the twelfth century in circumstances to be treated later. This unity was effected not merely on a structural basis but, as has been shown, on a profound constitutional likeness. St. Augustine's skill ensured for the two parts of his Rule that which gives value to legislation, its preceptive force. Therefore in the textual revisions imposed on each of the parts when separated, the two precepts, that of charity and that of the lawgiver ("These are the things which we command you to observe"), were retained in each section of the original whole.
THE WELDING TRANSITION Why did not Augustine, who devoted so much time to writing, compose a now edition of the Rule? The document in question was a law, and a legislative text is not simply the production of an author. The text was in force in an established community and was consecrated by usage; it could be supplemented or revised, but not entirely abolished. All legislative history proves this. This truth would be evident again in 1255 with regard to the same Rule of St. Augustine. There was the proposal of Alexander IV that it should be fused with the Constitutions of the Preachers, but the project fell through. Both legislative texts had been established and had the force of law; usage had consecrated them.
We may add that each of the two parts of the Rule kept a distinct character and, except in the guaranty of the preceptive force, each served its special purposes, according to its own particular raison d'être. It would not have been proper to fuse them. The Disciplina, short and concise, with numbers and hours, determined in a definite way the schedule of life; on this point it required only rare additions. The Commentary, genial, literary, and hortatory in tone, was meant to interpret the spirit of the Rule, to develop its religious significance. This complementary diversity in itself contributed to the unity of the whole; the structural and organic welding strengthened the impression of totality. Such was the Rule of St. Augustine as it came from his own hands, the fruit of his own religious life.
No one would question this assertion if the first part of the Rule of St. Augustine had not disappeared in the twelfth century, and if subsequently the Commentary, which was used as a separate document, was not generally regarded as apocryphal in the edition for men and as derived from letter 211, addressed to religious women. The prevalence and uncontested acceptance of this historical prejudice from the twelfth century on oblige us to complete the proof by a study of the text of the letter, not only for the purpose of restoring it to the place it ought to have in reference to the Commentary, but also to explain the error made on this subject.
EVIDENCE OF THE TRANSCRIPTION ANNEXED TO LETTER 211 With the exception of Father Vega, all recent critics and many older ones also, hold it as established that the Regula fratrum (Commentary) is a transcription of the Regula sororum (Transcription), adapted for a monastery of men. Thus, in discussions relative to the three Augustinian legislative texts, the dependence is regarded as an established fact, and even as something in the category of an evident truth. Anyone who does not wish to accept this a priori and who pursues a close consideration of the case will find that there is nothing to justify such a prejudice and also that it is the Regula sororum which proceeds from the Regula fratrum.
The prejudice is an ancient one. It came into being less than half a century after the disappearance of the Disciplina monasterii brought about an obstruction in historical perspective. The celebrated Dialogue of the Cluniac and the Cistercian, dating from 1156,(20) supports the idea that the Rule of St. Augustine was drawn up for women. Moreover, the tone is controversial. In recalling this feminine origin of the Rule, the Cistercian denies to the Norbertines, for whom he does not spare his sarcasm, the right to consider that they are called to the priesthood more than Benedictines.(21) The assertion is made as a discovery. Another contemporary work, purporting to express the opinion of many, purely and simply creates a doubt about the authenticity of the Rule.(22)
In the sixteenth century Erasmus again opened the question about the dependence of the two Rules. He did it, however, with a reserve characteristic of him. Neither in his work nor in his life did the celebrated humanist like to take a decided stand. But subsequent writers were less reserved. Erasmus brought out an edition of the works of St. Augustine which was reprinted many times.(23) In what he has called the Censura Regulae D. Augustini, he stated his belief that the original text was that annexed to the letter to the sisters, the other being only an adaptation for men.(24) He did not even assert that the adaptation was the work of Augustine.
Amort has called attention to the names of some leading authors who adopted Erasmus' view;(25) but ordinarily these authors did not employ the somewhat evasive tone affected by the celebrated humanist in the expression of his judgment. At any rate, in our time all doubt about the dependence of the Regula fratrum upon the Regula sororum has yielded to an acceptance of it as an established fact.
How did the Commentary in the edition for women acquire such a distinction? After the suppression of the Disciplina, critics were confronted with a single text in both forms. The Commentary in the edition for men was an isolated treatise, unattached to any other. In the other form, however, it was annexed to a letter of St. Augustine which served as its passport and as a guaranty of its authenticity. Its fortune was made.
The style of letter 211 (modern notation) is so characteristic of Augustine that it never occurred to anyone to question its authenticity. There is certainly no doubt about that. But does the same hold true for the legislative text annexed to it? On this, too, all seem to agree, except Father Vega, who denies the authenticity.(26) The Rule, as a matter of fact, simply follows the letter without any word to indicate a dependence, without any sign of direction either in the letter or in the Rule to require that these two texts be kept together or that they form a single whole.
This objection or this premise was not new. Amort raised it and refuted it.(27) We do not see what weight it could have in seriously compromising the Augustinian origin of the Regula sororum. The legislative text addressed to the sisters would not have been adequate in itself, as we have already concluded, for the guidance and direction of a community; but there is nothing to show that the sisters did not already have a Rule, perhaps even the one given to the men, the Disciplina monasterii. Assuredly, the Regula sororum was written for women. Considering this fact, we should not regard it as strange that it was affixed to a letter in which Augustine vigorously censured those to whom it was addressed, a community of religious women. Circumstances justified the procedure of their superior, the Bishop of Hippo. We should not forget that the Regula sororum and the Regula fratrum are one and the same text under different forms, and the position of Augustine when he wrote to the convent which his sister had governed justified his sending to the religious these exhortations to higher perfection which he had composed for their use and which he had already given to a monastery of men.
THE TRANSCRIPTION IS ST. AUGUSTINE'S Moreover, Augustine's way of sending the Rule attached to his letter, without any preface to the Regula sororum, should not seem difficult to explain, simply because of our preoccupation with critics with whom Augustine did not have to be concerned. Furthermore, he had not done otherwise in the formulation of his Rule for the men. After composing the short Rule, the Disciplina monasterii, later he added the complement or the Commentary which, while meant to form a whole with the Disciplina, has no external mark to indicate this dependence. Only through the contents of the Commentary can we arrive at a conclusion about its positive dependence on the Disciplina monasterii.
Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for rejecting the authenticity of the form of the Commentary known as the Regula sororum. But it is one thing to accept it as the work of St. Augustine and quite another to hold that the Commentary called Regula ftatrum was derived from it, and not conversely.
The Regula fratrum and the Regula sororum are not two different texts, but one and the same text in two forms; not that the author would have composed a neuter text which he would transcribe later for masculine and feminine use (such an idea in this case would be chimerical), but, having composed one, he must have drafted a second from the first. Not even by a comparison of the two texts would it be possible to say a priori which was the first written. It is interesting, however, that Dom Lambot found some lessons better in the men s edition than in the other. This we can understand, since the text for the men was the original,
Editors and critics who have closely examined the manuscripts and it may easily be done -- are unanimous in saying that the transcription from one text to the other was executed carefully and with scrupulous exactitude. They are mistaken, I think, in holding that the text for the brothers was derived from that for the sisters; but this view does not alter the relationship which they note between the two forms.
De Bruyne writes: "Schroeder has acknowledged and Capelle has more insistently declared that the writer of RA (the Commentary for the brothers) was very conservative. He altered the letter of the text only when it was indispensable to do so. It was but slightly affected; here are the principal changes."(28) De Bruyne notes these changes, which fill little more than a page; nor do I think the foregoing conclusion should be modified for that reason. The connection between the two texts is such that we must take for granted that the Commentary, whether for the brothers or the sisters, constitutes but a single text and that the two adaptations of the text are the work of the same hand.
All the literature of the Middle Ages shows evident traces of the current fashion of taking and adapting passages from earlier documents for later ones. Rules, statutes, or constitutions not only did not escape this common practice, but furnish even more characteristic examples of it. In any case, it is more easily ascertained that what is striking in this sort of taking and adapting is the apparent freedom with which literary sources have been transformed. The dependence of the two Augustinian texts in the conservative manner noted above is probably unique. That is one reason why there should be no hesitation in attributing the Commentary of the brothers and the Commentary of the sisters to St. Augustine.
But nothing, absolutely nothing, proves that the text for the sisters served as a starting point for the text for the brothers. It is true that, ff the Rule of St. Augustine is made to consist, as it is today, of the text of the Commentary alone in either of its forms, there is difficulty ir, deciding on the priority of dependence. Fortunately there is more to the Rule of St. Augustine, and when it is reconstituted in its two parts, on the basis of the manuscript tradition, the women's form of the Commentary loses every title to be considered the primitive text.(29)
The demonstration developed in the preceding paragraphs suffices to reverse the order, gratuitously accepted today, of the relation existing between letter 211 and the Commentary on the Rule. The text of the Commentary annexed to the letter is merely a Transcription of the first, or original, Commentary.
Furthermore, a direct study of the Commentary in the women's form leads to the discovery of new evidence for the prior claim of the men's form. First of all, it is unlikely that Augustine would have waited until the year 423, the date of letter 211, to enact a legislative text. For about forty years his interests had been linked with the common "apostolic" life. Thirty-five years before, he had founded his first monastery; all during the ensuing period he was engaged in founding or governing communities of men or of women. For a long time also he had been writing for the direction of monks.
It is not less unlikely that he would have begun legislating for women when the communities of which he was the founder and immediate father were composed of men. Then, too, we should note that the introductory considerations in the Commentary express the very personal views of Augustine on the life of clerics, such as he developed them in his celebrated sermons on clerics and such as Possidius briefly summarized in describing life in his monastery in 391.(30)
ORIGIN OF THE TRANSCRIPTION Moreover, this supposed Rule of the sisters is not called such anywhere in writing. Letter 211 furnishes no clue on the subject. The document makes no claim for itself. As for the manuscript tradition, only one Rule of St. Augustine is recognized from the beginning, and that is the Rule for the men with its two parts.
So far as is known, this Rule for sisters was received and practiced by no other convent of women than the one to which the letter was addressed by Augustine. So true is this, that in the following century, when Caesarius of Arles was about to draw up a rule for women, he found inspiration in the text of St. Augustine, and borrowed, not from the Commentary attached to letter 211, but from the Commentary for the men. We may not even say that the women to whom the letter was addressed received this text as a Rule: as we have remarked, there is no introduction to explain why this legislation is attached to the Bishop's letter. On the other hand, by using the findings of Dom De Bruyne, I have shown the connection between the Commentary and the Disciplina monasterii. Augustine could not have composed the Commentary without reference to the Disciplina. This Commentary alone would never serve the purpose of a Rule, nor would its import be fully comprehensible without the Disciplina, since it was the spiritual development of the Disciplina.
True, we might suppose that the sisters were already following the first Rule in an adapted form. But such a supposition proves nothing as regards the Commentary. If St. Augustine had drawn up the Commentary at the time he composed the letter, he would have written the document as a single whole. At the close of his reprimand, for instance, after announcing what he was about to do, he would have changed the subject and explained that he was not stopping with words of reproach but was composing for their immediate and express use a legislative complement on the details of their Rule. As things are, does not the absence of such an explanation give evidence that the Commentary was something Augustine had on hand and that he was satisfied simply to transcribe it for all useful purposes? As the Disciplina was written for men and existed only in that form, the transcribed Commentary was also for men.
How and when did St. Augustine compose it? Lacking any direct information, the only way we can settle the question is to assign this legislative document to the literary and particularly the monastic career of the Bishop of Hippo. A legislative text, one elaborated in two Characteristic stages like the true Rule of St. Augustine, does not come into being by chance; it stands as evidence of definite conditions, of living history: an experimental period of trial, followed by art occasion for imperative promulgation, and at length the final interpretation in a commentary. Thus the Rule holds the history of Augustine's foundations.
Through an independent study of the Transcription annexed to letter 211, we can approach some conclusions.
Along with the classic Commentary, the Rule of St. Augustine includes a basic or capital text not found in the Transcription annexed to letter 211. That basic or capital text is the Disciplina monasterii, written by St. Augustine at the time of the foundation of his first African monastery. These two divisions, the Disciplina and the Commentary, are welded into a single law by the transitional precept: Haec sunt quae ut observetis praecipimus in monasterio constituti ("These are the things which we command you who are assembled in the monastery to observe"). And finally, the Commentary was transcribed in the feminine form for the use of religious women. It is time now to consider how this unity was dissolved in the twelfth century and how the Rule was reduced to its Commentary.
NOTES 1 La première règle de saint Benoît, pp. 318-26.
6 La première regle, loc. cit.
7 L'ordre des heures canoniales, loc. cit..
9 S. Caesarii Arelatensis Episcopi Regula Sanctarum Virginum aliaque opuscula ad sanctimoniales directa, Bonn, 1933 (Florilegium Patristicum, Fasc. XXXIV).
10 De Bruyne, op. cit., pp. 316 f.; Arnort, op. cit., p. 128.
11 Revue Mabillon, XXIV (1934), 149.
12 The following is the Latin text.
[For the online version we have reproduced the Latin text as a table in the body of the article. -- The Webfriar]1. Ante omnia, fratres carissimi, diligatur Deus, deinde proximus, quia ista sunt praecepta principaliter nobis data.2. Qualiter autem nos oportet orare vel psallere describimus; id est in matutinis dicantur psalmi tres: sexagesimus secundus, quintus et octogesimus nonus; ad tertiam prius psalmus ad respondendum dicatur, deinde antiphonae duae, lectio et completorium; simili modo sexta et nona; ad lucernarium autem psalmus responsorius unus, antiphonae quattuor, item psalmus unus responsorius, lectio et completorium. Et tempore opportuno post lucernarium, omnibus sedentibus, legantur lectiones; post haec autem consuetudinarii psalmi ante sonnium dicantur. Nocturnae autem orationes, mensae novembri, decembri, januario et februario, antiphonae duodecim, psalmi sex, loctiones tres; martio, aprili, septembri et octobri, antiphonae decem, psalmi quinque, lectiones tres; maio, junio, julio et augusto antiphonae octo, psalmi quattuor, lectiones duae.
3. Operentur a mane usque ad sextam, et a sexta usque ad nonam vacent lectioni, et ad nonam reddant codices, et, postquam refecerint, sive in horto, sive ubicumque necesse fuerit, faciant opus usque ad horam lucernarii.
4. Nemo sibi aliquid suam vindicet proprium, sive in vestimento, sive in quacumque re; apostolicam enim vita optamus vivere.
5. Nemo cum murmurio aliquid faciat, ut non simili judicio murmuratorum pereat.
6. Fideliter obediant, patrem suum post Deum honorent, praeposito suo deferant sicut decet sanctos.
7. Sedentes ad mensam taceant audientes lectionem. Si autem aliquid opus fuerit, praepositus eorum sit sollicitus. Sabbato et dominica, sicut consuetudo est, qui volunt, vinum accipiant.
8. Si opus fuerit ad aliquarn necessitatern monasterii mitti, duo eant. Nemo extra monasterium sine praecepto manducet neque bibat, non enim hoc ad disciplinam pertinet monasterii. Si opera monasterii mittantur fratres vendere sollicite servent ne quid faciant contra praeceptum, scientes quoniam Deurn exacerbant in servis ipsius; sive aliquid. emunt ad necessitatern monasterii, sollicite et fideliter, ut servi Dei, agant.
9. Otiosum verbum apud illos non sit, a mane ad opera sua sedeant, post orationes tertiae eant similiter ad opera sua; non stantes fabulas contexant, nisi forte aliquid sit pro animae utilitate. Sedentes ad opera taceant, nisi forte necessitas operis exegerit ut loquatur quis.
10. Si quis autem non omni virtute, adjuvante miseri cordia Domini, haec conatus fuerit implere, contumaci vero animo despexerit, semel atque iterurn commonitus, si non emendaverit, sciat se subjicere disciplinae monasterii sicut oportet. Si autem talis fuerit aetas ipsius, etiam vapulet.
Haec autem in nomine Christi fideliter et pie observantes et vos proficietis et nobis nft Parva erit laetitia de vestra salute. Amen.
Haec eunt quae ut observetis praecipimus in monasterio constituti.
Primum, propter quod in uno estis congregati. . . .
13 "Let them obey with fidelity . . . as becomes the holy."
14 In the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique or in Histoire de la littérature chrétienne of De Labriolle (Paris, 1924, table no. 8), there is a chronological list of the works of St. Augustine which gives evidence of his steady literary activity from the time of the foundation of his monasteries. It is in accord with what Possidius wrote when he described the occupations of St. Augustine at this time.
15 These are the very expressions employed by Possidius in describing the life of the Monastery in 391: one might think he was alluding to the beginning of the Commentary drawn up at that time.
16 "The ordo just analyzed is assuredly rudimentary. From it we can glean only a very imperfect notion of the practices it was intended to regulate. Nevertheless, liturgists will refer to it. It is the oldest that can be examined. In the history of the Office, it belongs to a period of transition when Prime had not yet been adopted everywhere, and Compline was beginning to have a place with the other canonical hours" (Lambot, "Un ordo officii du Ve siècle," Revue bénéd., XLII (19301, 80).
19 Here ends the text dictated by Father Mandonnet.
20 This interesting opusculum was the object of several studies, the last of which was by J. Storm, who succeeded in determining the date of the composition as 1256, but was unable to determine the author. Dr. V. Redlich supplied the missing data; the Dialogue was written at Adelspach by a certain Irungus, a Cluniac who became a Cistercian and who, it seems, must be identified with Irungus of St. Emmeran. These points agree with what was otherwise known about the nature and geographical background of the work.
21 The following is the text of the passage:
Cluniac: "Whence do you hold that their Rule was written for women?" Cistercian: "From the prologue of the same Rule." Cluniac: "Their Rule has no prologue." Cistercian: "Because they dropped it and changed the feminine form into the masculine" (Dialogus, Martène, Anecd., V, 1625).Here it would seem that the Cistercian is confusing the Disciplina and Epistle 211. The Premonstratensians in the course of the twelfth century caused the effective disappearance of the Disciplina monasterii which served as a prologue to their Rule at the time of their foundation (1119-20). But it was Epistle 211 which served as a prologue (if the term may be used) to the feminine form of the Commentary. The Cistercian's mistake would be repeated more than once in the course of the next eight centuries (MHV).22 "To be sure, concerning the Rule, which many of the canons assigned to St. Augustine, because it bears that title, I am audacious enough to declare something as certain. For if I shall say it is not his, the title itself, which everywhere includes the name of Augustine, will contradict me. Again, if I assert that it is his, two objections can be raised, and they are voiced by many: first, that it is not included, as many of his works are, in the Book of Retractations, and secondly, that it is notably lacking in the quality of diction and gravity of style characteristic of that Aurelius. . . . No one, therefore, may believe his brother to be a prevaricator of the way of the Lord in regard to that Rule, the authorship of which is contested by many (De diversis ordinibus ecclesiae; PL, CCXIII, 833).
23 Cf. Bibliotheca erasmiana, 2nd series, Ghent, 1893, pp. 13 f.
24 "This Rule, both in thought and diction, points to Augustine. In its gracious humility and in its humaneness, it reflects the author, although probably it was not written for clerics but for women who lived together under the direction of Angustine's sister. He calls her a superior, but ultimate authority was vested in the priests. With some changes, it was adapted for the use of men" (cited by C. Pennotti, Historia tripartita, 1624, p. 48).
26 Vega (p. 6) says that the Regula sororum is not St. Augustine's; and farther on (pp. 10-12) he demonstrates only that it was not written at the same time as the Letter. It was written earlier for the men; the adaptation might have been made on occasion of the Letter, and that would not affect the character of the document.
27 Op. cit., p. 149 to the end.
28 La première règle de saint Benoît, p. 328.
29 From the beginning of this part, up to this point, with the exception of the second paragraph, the text was taken from a first draft made by Father Mandonnet.
30 The sermons De vita et moribus clericorum suorum are in PL, XXXVIII, 1568 ff.
CONTENTS