The Rule of St. Benedict - Essay Example

? The Rule of St. Benedict THE RULE OF ST. BENEDICT Introduction The Rule of St. Benedict is a precept book for monks living underan abbot’s authority in a community, which was authored by St. Benedict of Nursia. This set of rules became a guide for other monasteries around Western Europe in the one and a half centuries in which they existed. The rules act as moderation between institutional formalism and individual zeal, acting as a middle ground1. In formulating the rules, St. Benedict sought to provide leadership for the monastic order, foster understanding among the monks, and establish order in the monasteries. The rule was authored to provide a guide for the formation of autonomous and individual communities, which Benedictine monasteries remain to this day. The emphasis laid on autonomy helped the monasteries to assume contemplative lifestyles and cultivate communities that were tightly bonded2. However, the monasteries also suffered from isolation from the communities that surrounded them, as well as increased inefficiency, declining appeal for potential recruits, and decreased mobility in serving others. Over the centuries, different emphasis on the rules led to the divergence of Ancient Observance, Cistercian Common Orders, and the Benedictine Confederation. St. Benedict, however, did not author the rules in a vacuum and it is evident that his work was heavily influenced by fading Athenian and Hebrew traditions present in medieval Europe at the time3. While this does not mean the rule was a throwback to the ancient times, there are various similarities. This paper seeks to compare the power relations and hierarchical structures in the early Benedictine monasteries and the governing of secular society at the time. The Benedictine Monastery as a Microcosm of Society as a Whole The Benedictine monastery under the Rule of St. Benedict acted as a microcosm of the external society with most of its rules being analogous to the rules that ensured a functional society at the time. As at the time of its writing, the rules were moderate and discretionary, taking into consideration the weaknesses of man. The rules, unlike present rules, had no excesses or narrow-minded views, and instead, were based on sober regulations and common sense4. Similar to the society in which he lived, St. Benedict ordered that the monks were to eat two cooked dishes of food at every meal, as well as a pound of bread daily. In the summer, he insisted on two meals and one in the winter, which was the same thing that peasants did due to the scarcity of food in the winter. The monks were also ordered to retire to their boarding rooms for six to eight hours every evening, which is the same as peasants who were not supposed to wander around the towns at night5. The Rule of St. Benedict also perceived the need for government in a uniform and permanent form, rather than the variable and arbitrary models used by other monasteries before his6. This led to a form of collectivism that was no different to society as a whole. The rule insisted on a common life compared to the solitary life led by Egyptian monks. In furthering his aim, St. Benedict also introduced into his rule the vow of stability, which was to become the basis of the order’s permanence and success. This is just one example of his idea of the family as practiced in society that pervades the rule. Family ties bounded the members of his monastery, just like in society. In addition, the members of this family took upon the obligation of preserving the family, in this case the monastery, until they died. This aspect of the rule secured the community, as it did the family in society, with all member monks sharing in the fruits that arose from each of the monk’s labor. It also gave the monks the strength that comes from being part of a united family pursuing similar ends, which, in the case of society, meant subsistence farming and hunting. Therefore, like the defining Hebrew and Athenian society that was present at the time, the monks were part of a larger organization, rather than independent individuals7. The practice of obedience by the Benedictine monasteries according to the rule of St. Benedict is similar to that of the society where they were expected to obey their feudal lords. The life of Benedictine monasteries revolved around the abbot, just as that in the wider society revolved around the feudal lord8. The monastery leadership was also given the power of judgment and discretion, which was similar to that allowed for the feudal lords. In addition, the power afforded to monastic leaders, like those afforded to feudal lords, was only safeguarded by their obligation to consult with their fellow abbots and, in the case of society, with other feudal lords. While the monks were also allowed some level of discretion, they were expected to do only that which was allowed by the abbot, just as peasants were expected to follow laws set down by their feudal lords. Benedictine monasteries also created positions for the physically strong monks to patrol the monasteries, which was analogous to the warriors and knights attached to the feudal lords who protected the community from external attacks and theft9. Finally, just as in society as a whole, the rule of St. Benedict ensured that men had more worth than women did. In fact, the monastery did not admit women, which is analogous to the way the society as a whole excluded women from making decisions. Rank in the Monastery Compared to Medieval Society According to the Rule of St. Benedict, an abbot governed the monastery, serving as a ruler, in this case a feudal lord, would in the external society. Although the abbot differed from the feudal lord in that the monks were tasked with electing him, the abbot had complete power of monks in his monastery, just as feudal lords had complete control over serfs and peasants working on the land granted to him by the king10. In addition, just as no serf or peasant could leave the land without permission from the lord, monks were not allowed to leave the monastery without permission from the abbot. In addition, the abbot was responsible to the bishop who was the local representative of the pope, while the feudal lord was responsible to the local representative of the king. The conception St. Benedict had of his monasteries was that of a family, albeit a spiritual family, where all monks were sons of the monastery family, the father being the abbot and their permanent home being the monastery. This was comparable to the feudal system in medieval society where all peasants belonged to the land on which they farmed, living as a family and depending on the lord as the fiefdom’s father11. The abbot, as the monastic father was allowed to devolve the government, while also directing those under him on how to run the affairs of the monastery12. This is comparable to the practice of feudal lords whereby they selected loyal peasants as foremen on their land with strict instructions on how the peasants were supposed to live. Just as the abbot was required by the Rule of St. Benedict to remember his title, as well as the fact that he was the representative of Christ on earth, the feudal lords were also required to ensure their peasants called them by their names, while also being representatives of the king at the local level. St. Benedict’s monastic system as set out in his Rule was totally based on the abbot’s power and supremacy. Although the Rule directs the government, which the abbot oversees, as well as furnishing him with the required principles that should lead his actions, the monks were ordered by the same Rule to obey their abbot without hesitation or question13. However, this did not extend to the commission of evil under the instructions of the abbot. This is similar to the feudal society at the time, in which the peasants were ordered and expected to follow the commands of their lord with regards to when to farm and other related activities. The monks are also expected to obey the abbot as they would God, while the reverence, and respect that the monks pay to the abbot is paid to the abbot through the love of God14. This is because, as the father of the monastery, he represents Christ amidst his fellow men. This is comparable to the feudal system where the peasants were expected to obey their feudal lord as they would the king, while all the work that he does on behalf of the peasants is paid to him by the king, through concessions. This is because the feudal lord was considered as being the representative of the king among the local people, and his will deliberated as that of the king. The whole government of the monastery and the societal land was dependent on the abbot and lord respectively. However, nothing that the abbot taught or commanded his monks to do was supposed to be outside the teachings of God, just as nothing the feudal lord did was meant to be outside the wishes of the king15. The feudal lord and abbot were also responsible for the appointing authorities in their jurisdictions, while also dismissing them as he wished. In addition, they were also tasked with the administration of temporal possessions to those under them by virtue of their position. Finally, the two were also tasked with the maintenance of discipline in their jurisdictions and punishing the peasants and monks who did not follow the rules for lords and abbots respectively. Comparing Work and Punishment in Benedictine Monasteries and Medieval Society Manual labor for the Benedictine monks was laid down in the Rule of St. Benedict. Cultivation of the earth was also encouraged in the Rule of St. Benedict as a form of labor under which the monks were required to cultivate without reserve16. This is similar to the society at that time, in which farming was the single most important economic and social activity. Because the relationship between the monks in the monasteries and their patrons was of a feudal nature, it only followed that they were expected to work and manage their land holding in the same way that feudal lords and peasants did. In fact, the Rule of St. Benedict ensured that the manner in which the monks utilized their land was more akin to the peasant customs than most Catholic orders of the time17. Most of the land held by the Benedictine monasteries was usually agricultural land that was tilled by the monks. Older monasteries had vassals to whom the military tenure given to feudal lords in the outside society was entrusted18. This arrangement, just as it did with the outside society, provided the Benedictine monasteries with knights who, in turn owed their allegiance to the liege lords. These monasteries also had the ability to farm their land out or even work them under a reeve or bailiff directly, which was something that feudal lords also had the ability to do. Other Benedictine monasteries at the time also had their land held by Frankalmoin, which were less likely to have land held by the service of the knights, a similar occurrence in outside society. With time, as the Benedictine monasteries began to become more autonomous, the monasteries borrowed from outside societal changes by using granges in the management of their land holdings. Both the Benedictine monks and the outside society, since their land was not developed when they settled on it, turned to manorial systems in the administration of their land holdings19. The Rule of St. Benedict was heavily influenced by the society around St. Benedict, especially in the way that punishment was handled20. One of the most visible similarities has to do with the concept of obedience and the punishment meted out on those who did not obey the abbot or, in the society’s case, the feudal lord. The God of the Hebrews, as well as and that of the Athenians, was considered as a one of great severity and those crossing the feudal lords were considered to have crossed him. Punishment was meted out immediately in proportion to the committed crime. The abbot, just as the lords would invoke god and the king in their punishments, was ordered by the Rule not to be shy about punishing stray monks. The Rule of St. Benedict is clear about proportional punishment, although the abbot is encouraged to increase proportionately and slowly the level of punishment for transgressing monks21. The abbot was allowed to mete out corporal punishment, just as the feudal lords did on the peasants, although this was as a last resort. While the feudal lords cannot be called shepherds in the way they led the peasants, they were expected to keep track of their peasants and punish them if they went astray, just as St. Benedict tells abbots to do22. Like the Athenians, whose influence was still strong among the peasants at the time, St. Benedict orders monks to balance the punishment for monks with their offense. Finally, although the feudal lords would dismember thieves and robbers, unlike the abbot, the abbot was allowed to conduct some form of spiritual dismemberment, contending that the abbot should, as a last resort, amputate using the knife, which refers to excommunication in this case23. References Clark, James. G. The Benedictines in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge, Suffolk, U.K.: Boydell Press, 2011. Milis, Ludo. J. Angelic Monks and Earthly Men: Monasticism and Its Meaning to Medieval Society. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012. Read More