28. To Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (c. 1127)

Partial, fragmentary first draft.

Date: (postdates the writing of the Apologia). 1127.

Description: A letter from Peter to Bernard, in which he addresses/ responds to a list of accussations leveled against the Cluniacs by the Cistericians, suggesting deviations from the proper adherance of the RB. The letter has three parts, A) a ‘counter attack’ B) a detailed rebuttal, employing citation of auctoritas and exempla, arguments by application of ratio, and rhetorical devices used to ridicule the arguments of the opponents; C) peroration [extended rhetorical summing up] focussing on the ideal of caritas, as the means to ensure the salvation of souls, and thus the necessity of discretion.

Dialogue form is implied, with Peter as spokesman for Cluniacs.

Text:

Some parts incorporated from Maitland's text <Mait>, some from Gillian Knight <GK> and some translated by Marc Saurette <MarcS>

<MarcS>To Bernard, the Lord Abbot of Claivaux.

The humble brother Peter, the abbot of the Cluniacs wishes present health and eternal salvation to Bernard, the lord abbot of Clairvaux, venerable on account of his merits, beloved on account of his love for us.

It is for a long time, most beloved brother, from which time, I desired to see you, to embrace you and to speak with you about the aids of the soul, drawing from the aromatic spiritual sweetness of your excellent manner of living to the smelled out innermost place of my heart, beginning to love you before I knew you, beginning to revere you before I considered you.

...

I would certainly prefer to open to you, by the living word, the secrets of my heart, than to commit these proclamations by a scurrying pen. But, large distances of lands, much business and many hardships, the bitterness of those attacking us, up until now have prevented this, lest it concern you. What is permitted, I would grant therefore, is necessary, and in the manner by which I am able, since, I am able, only in such a manner, I should make open myself to your fraternity as I said before by a careful note, what drives me in certain things. For I recognize in you the erudition of the secular world and, what is far more useful, I see you equally instructed and decorated by the wisdom of divine letters, and, with Egypt abandoned, enriched thus by the spoils of Egypt, the wealth of the Hebrews, such that you are able both, remaining the very rich man, to supplement the indigence of others and to bring forth a certain judgement about doubtful things.</MarcS>

<GK>Accordingly, certain of yours object to ours: “You do not”, they [Cistercians] say, “follow the Rule whose rectitude you have undertaken to uphold,</GK><Mait>as may be seen by your works.” On the contrary, your feet have turned aside into unknown paths, and devious tracks of all sorts. For having made the laws to your liking, you call them most sacred. You renounce the precepts of the fathers for your customs; and what seems monstrous, you act in one and the same manner both as masters and disciples. Moreover, to increase your sin and the Divine Displeasure, you bind yourselves by a vow before God and his saints, and trasgressing it, you show yourselves, without a doubt, guilty of breaking a vow. You promise to fight in the heavenly camp under the rule of St. Benedict and to maintain a perpetual obedience to his regulations. This is your promise- let us see whether your manner of life corresponds to it.

And that we may take up these points in regular order, how do you keep the Rule as to the admission of novices, when it directs that they shall not be received until after a year, during which their spirits shall be tried whether they are of God and you received them without hesitation, and (if we may so speak) the very moment that they apply! Whence it happens that, having been carelessly received, they live still more carelessly after their reception; and because when they came they did not understand what they were coming todo; and having not been previously trained in the stadium, when they come to the real conflict, they fly instead of fighting or if they fight with a bravery which should insure conquest, their inexpertness renders them an easy prey to the enemy.

By what authority, also, do you defend the use of leather garments, and of skins of various sorts, when that Rule contains nothing about such things?

It commands also, that those who are sent abroad shal receive breeches from the wardrobe, and shall replace them there on their return, not allowing any one but those who are so circumstanced to wear them.

As to your bed furniture, judge for yourselves whether you follow the Master, while you certainly put both under and over you more things, and different things than those prescribed by the Rule. In that Rule, so often mentioned already, you read that all the monks should be satisfied with two dressed dishes; or that, if there be means for providing a third, it shall be of fruit or legumes, wether you adhere to this, is known to yourselves.

It commands that monks who are transgressor and apostates from their profession –that is, those who withdrew thei necks from the yoke of the Rule, run away from monasteries and return to the secular life– shall, if they express their repentence and desire to return, be received to the third time; and that after that they repeat the offence, they shall not again be received. You, however, set at nought this regulation, as you do the others, and receive them as often as they choose to come, contrary to the command of the Rule.

What shall we say of the regular fasts which you have so set aside, and so changed according to your own will and pleasure, that you scarcely retain some small remains of them– and those, perhaps, more from shame towards man than from the fear of God? For whereas the monks are commanded to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, from Whitsuntide to the 13thof September, they should fast till the ninth hour, unless they have work to do in the fields, or the heat of the weather should be very oppressive. And whereas it is also enjoined that from the 13thof September to AshWednesday, they should always take their meal at the ninth hour, you, on the contrary, throughout the summer, make all the days of the week alike, and to keep the prescribed fast by eating twice everyday, and the remainder of the itme, by keeping or neglecting the fast at your pleasure. Instead of submitting yourselves to the Rule, you make the Rule submit to you.

Manual labour, which the holy fathers, the hermits, always used– whereby even the apostles provided the means of sustenance for themselves and others– concerning which, while visiting the sin of the first man with this punishment, God said, “in the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat thy bread” – of which, also, David, “Though shalt eat the labour of thy hands; blessed art thou, and it shall be well with thee;” you have so renounced, that not even all these authorities have power to make you labour, nor can the obedience which you promised to render to God, according to the Rule, prevail to draw from your bosom, and set to work, hands that have become delicate through idleness.

You know that it is there also commanded, that on the arrival or departure of guests, Christ, who is received in them, is to be worshipped by the monks,wi th bowing of the head, or the prostration of the whole body on the ground. Neither are you ignorant that it is there commanded– ‘The abbot shal pour water on the hands of the guests; the abbot and the whole congregation shall wash the feet of all the guests; but you, despisers of your vow, do not care to keep it even in that small matter.

The abbot is directed to keep an inventory of the implements and various things belonging to the monastery; but either through negligence he does not care, or through pride he does not condescend, to do it.

Moreover, whereas it is commanded that those who are not able to attend the church to join the divine worship, shall bow their knees with godly fear in the place where they may happen to be; you (according to your custom, following your own rule and despising the common one) neglect this, though there is nothing very burdensome in it; and making some devices of your own, you put contempt on this little commandment, just as you do on those which are greater.

Also, it commands that the abbot shall always take his meals with the guests and the strangers, that so he may always have Christ as his guest, who declares that he will say, “I was a stranger and you took me in.” This so great benefit, and one so easily obtained, you despise, as though you thought it of no value.

It is commanded that wheresoever the brethren meet each other, the younger shall ask the blessing of the elder” and this also, is not done among you.

It is commanded that a wise old man shall be put at the gate of the monastery, which his not done.

It is directed that the porter shall answer, “Deo gratias,” or give his blessing to everyone who shall knock or call, and this is not observed.

This, however – this, I say, oppossed to all reason and authority, how do you defend– that those who have already made a profession of steadfastness, and conversion, and obedience, in one place, should again, in another place, repeat the vow of stability, conversion of life, and obedience; and you compel them to make void their former faith; so that you thus environ those who give way to you with such inevitable peril that , turn which way they will, they cannot escape sin. For if they will keep the first vow, they are guilty as to the second; if they keep the second, they are entangled by the first. Nor do they alone suffer, but the same chain will bind yourselves, perhaps even more severely; for deceivers ought to suffer a greater punishment that those who are deceived.

But besides, give if you can, any excuse for this– that contrary to your Rule, so often mentioned (yours certainly, yours either to save or condemn you) you receive, indifferently, monks of another and of a known monastery, without permission of their own abbots, or letters of recommendation; and thus you do to others what you should not have done to yourselves, according to that divine precept, which says, “This is my commandment, that you love one another.”

Beside all this, there is one thing which you pertinaciously maintain, which every one must plainly see to be unjust and contrary to the decrees of the church, and such as might lead all persons justly to condemn you. Contrary to the custom of the whole world, you refuse to have any bishop of your own. How absurd is this, even the ignorant must see. For whence are you to get the chrism? Whence holy orders? Whence the consecration of churches and the benediction of burial places? Whence, in short, all things which in order to canonical performance, require the presence or direction of a bishop? Certainly, in these points you break the Rule, not only of monks but of all Christians.

On what ground do you hold parish churches, first fruits and tithes, when, according to the canons, all these things pertain not to monks, but to clerks? That is, they are granted to those whose office it is to baptize, and to preach, and to perform what ever else belongs to the cure of souls, in order that they may not be necessaily involved in secular business; but that, as they labour in the church, they may live by the church, as the Lord saith, “The labourer is worthy of his hire” But why do you usurp these things, while it is not your place to do any of the duties which we have mentioned? And while you do not perform that labour, why do you take the wages thereof?

But what will you say concerning those secular possessions which you hold after the manner of secular persons, from whom, in this particular, you seem not to differ at all. For towns, villages and peasants, servants and handmaids, and, what is worse, the proceeds of tolls and taxes, and almost all revenues of that king, you receive indifferently, hold them unlawfully, and, when they are attacked, you do not scruple to use all means to defend them. Hence, it is that, contrary to the laws of monastic order, ecclesiastics carry on secular causes, monks turn advocates, accuse and are accused, becomewitnesses (contrary to the apostle’s injunction) are present at trials and, under pretext of maintaining their rights, they do, in heart, return into Egypt. After having left Sodom, they turn to behold its conflagration. Having put their hand to the plough, they look back , and therefore cannot be fit for the kingdom of heaven. In all these tings, we have very clearly shown that you are transgressors of your profession, and of your vow; for if it is certain that your Rule has commanded these things, and that you have made a vow to keep it – if it shall appear that you have not hitherto done this– it is clear, as we have said, that you are guilty of breaking your vow. But we observe all these things as they are commanded; and keep without exception, whatsoever is in the Rule which we promised to God that we would keep.”[57]

To these things, our monks reply – Oh! Oh! A new race of pharisees has risen up in the world, who seperating themselves from others and setting themselves before all, say what the prophet foretold that they would say, “Touch me not for I am clean.” But to answer first, to that which you have put last– say, you true observers of the Rule, how is it that you boast of keeping it, when, as your very words show, you do not even keep that short paragraph in which it is said that the monk is not only to declare with his lips, but to feel in his inmost hear, that he is the least and the meanest of men? Is this to believe and to declare yourselves inferior, while you disparage the deeds of others and extol your own, despise others and magnify yourselves, while the Scripture directs, “when you shall have done all those things which are commanded, you say, ‘we are unprofitable servants”’. “In thy sight,” says the prophet, “shall no man living be justified”; and Isaiah, “All our righteousness are as filthy rags.” </Mait><MarcS>And you saints, you alone, you are indeed the only monks in the whole world! With all others false and fallen, according to the interpretation of your words, you alone stand firm among all, whence both you offer out a habit of an unaccustomed color, and in contradistinction of almost the whole of the world of all monks, you show off yourselves white among blacks. And certainly the ancient blackness of clothing, founded by the fathers for the reason of humility, since it is cast off by you, by prefering the strange/ novel whiteness, you adjudge yourselves better than them. And truly, is it not read, concerning that great and admirable monk Martin, that he went about in an alb and short tunic, but rather, “in a black and hanging pallium.” Also, thence truly you are trangressors and, you wish to be seen more as defenders of the Rule, than as observors, on account of which commandment, you teach, that for clothes, “the monk is not made by colour and size.” You, who throw away the capable colour of humilty and great abjection, are convinced that you are the colludors of this most manifest [precept] and you take up that thing, namely the alb, (by which in scripture, joy and solemnity is shown) against the aforementioned mandate of the Rule. And when, “placed in the valley of tears”, by which it is ordered that the clothing, a designation of mourning and penitennce, envokes mourning always and happiness never.You, contrarily, show happiness in miserable things, joy in grief, unrestrained delight in mourning by the brightness of your clothing. But lest we seem more to punish the injuries of words with words, than to respond to objections by reason, by those things (with which omitted at present, we are able more justly to attack you, we reply thusly to this things to which you objected. And so that we may resolve the objections, in the order in which they were put by you, we say that in the observance of the Rule, we have in no way steps distorted, in no way, paths ignored, in now way follow any deviations, but follow in every manner of calculating, the rectitude of the Rule. We do not place the traditions of the fathers above private laws since also thoses things were created by the holy fathers, who the holy life and many miracles are and testify that they were pleasing to God, on account of which it was fitting to mandate such things, and it is fitting for us to observe them. Clearly, it was fitting and always will be fitting, that the pastors command the sheep which they rule, and the sheep obey the shepherds as they obey God. You endeavor to show us to be trangessors of our vow, [while] we show ourselves to be observors of which.[58]

1. For in receiving novices we serve the rule in every way, since we follow that precept which says, :All whch the father gives to me, come to me, and he who comes to me, I will not cast outside.” This we would not follow if we cast away those who came here inspired by it. For “no one”, it says, “is able to come to me, unless the father who sent me attacted him.” If, therefore, what the father attracts, and the son undertakes and the spirit who, “breathes where he wishes,” and we expel, what other than to resist God, are we seen to do?</MarcS>

<Mait>After these, you require by what authority we defend the use of pelices and various furs, since in the rule nothing about this is reported. But also we require by what authority we are constrained to abstain from them. This, since you are unable to affirm it, because thing you cannot truly, we affirm our reasons in the meantime, and from them we demonstrate the we do not act badly with clothing in furs. Therefore, we scrutinize firstly the words of the rule, and if it furs from

9. [71] It is objected to us that, on every arrival or departure of guests, both the abbot and the whole congregation do not prostrate themselves on the ground, or bow their heads in the sight of all their guests, that the abbot does not pour water on the hands of the guests, and that he, as well as the whole congregation, does not wash all their feet. It is affirmed by these objectors, that the salvation of monks depends on their kepeping these things to the letter; but oh! men, like children, running after butterflies, fighting, yet beating not us but the air, making frivilous objections, not following the path of discretion, the mother of virtues, and therefore turning aside from the right way. Tell us! We beseech you, is the Congregation of Cluny, or any other congregation to be adjudged to have broken its vow and therefore to be deprived of eternal salvation, unless, with its abbot, it bows or prostrates itself before all guests who come and go? Shall it be consigned to perdition if it does not wash the hands and feet of all the guests? If it be so, either the whole body of monks must be at all times in the house appropriated to guests, or the guests must be lodged in the cloister and in the apartments of the monks; for it is quite impossible that the injunction be literally fulfilled unless they actually live together. For the continual coming and going of visitors will require the constant attendance of those who are to wait upon them

Hence it will happen that those whom you wish to be monks can no longer be so, but always living with secular persons, will lose both the name and the true life of monks. And while they are labouring unwisely to keep this part of the law, they must give up all the rest of it, without even attaining for what they aim. Thus, plainly, it will happen thusly– this will be the consequence– monks must live with clerks, soldiers, peasants, clients, players and men of various conditions, and even (for those are not shut out from hospitality) with women. And these oeculier persons, these who are dead to the world, these to whom even the free use of the common air is not allowed, are to be again mixed up in promiscuous intercourse with mankind, from whom they have separated. Undoubtedly, the number of visitorsis almost always so great that if we must bow and prostrate ourselves before them all, it will be necessary, as I have said, that all the monks should be with them from the rising of the sun to its setting, and spend the whole day in genuflections and in washing hands and feet, and very often they would not be able to go through the business of the day. Let them, then give up all divine service. Let them give up all the other parts of the Rule. Let them even give up their meals. Let them not trouble themselves about prime, or Terce, or sext or nones or vespers or compline, or the celebration of mass. Let them give up all these things for the washing of hands and feet, and either let the Church be silent, or let some other persons be found to do the duty of monks. Does this not appear the most stupid protest against such a proceeding? Would not even the brute beasts cry out against it? We do, however, what we can. And on every day in the year, we do wash the hands and the feet of three strangers and offer them bread and wine, the abbot taking his turn, and none except those who are disabled by sickness being excepted.

Thus we fulfill what we can of the Rule, and do not, for the sake of this, break other parts of it. For if it behoves us, as out Lord saith, to do these things and not leave the other undone. And though, as I have shown, reason itself, even without our adding anything, exclaims against your objection, and completely makes an end of it. Yet it behoves us to recur to what we before stated, and from thence to show that we fully keep the Rule. St. Benedict says, “Let the abbot so temper and dispose all things so that souls may be saved.” He said, “all things” and excepted none. If therefore, the abbot is allowed, for the good of souls, to temper and dispose all things, it is lawful for him to so temper these things that have been mentioned as that the guests shall want nothing that is necessary, but shall be received and provided for with respect, brotherly love, and diligence.; while, at the same time, the Church of God shall not be defrauded of its proper service and no part, even the least, of regular observance shall be intermitted.

You say that the Rule directs that we should place a wise old man at the gate of the monastery, and that we omit to do so. But we reply, supposing us to have a porter who is a wise man, though eh does not happen to an old one, are we to be condemned as breakers of the Rule, and on that account deserving of Hell? Suppose we should not be able to find wisdom and age in the same person? Is he on this account (because he is not both old in years and wise in conduct) incapable of acting as porter? What says the scripture? “Wisdom is the grey heair unto men and an unspotten life is old age” Beside this, unless he answers, “Deo gratias,” to all who knock or call, or bawls out a benediction, even though he should perform all the offices of kindness to those who come, yet according to you, it profiteth nothing. And not even the whole Rule, kept most strictly in all other points, can suffice to save us, unless the aforesaid porter cries out with a loud voice, “deo gratias.” Let reason consider this. Let truth consider, let the lovers of truth consider and without our saying a work, let them tell us what they think. But why are we to place a porter at our gate, when we have no gate? For our gates are not shut by day, but always standing open, they admit all comers, without respect of persons. No one is obliged to knock or call, because he finds, not only the outer gates, but the entrance to the hospitium open, and seating himself there, he sees that every necessary preparation has been made for his reception. Lest, however, the monks should be kept out of their own houses, we cause a wise and honest servant to remain and to lie at hand; who, at noon, or at those times when are the gates of the monastery are by custom closed, may answer to those who knock or call, not so much by the clamour of his voice, as by the performance of his duty. Then, certainly, thus doint, we are not breakers, but, according to our power, keepers of our Rule.

After this, you adduce some very strange and unheard-of charges, -insomuch that we hesitate to answer, through mere astonishment. You blame us, and say that we are just like secular persons, because we have castles, towns, peasants, servants and handmaids, and (worse still) revenues arising from tolls; and we accept property of almost every such kind without distinction, hold it unlawfully and defend it by all sorts of means against those who attack it. You add, that on this account, laying aside our monastic character, we assume that of lawyers, accuse and are accussed, produce witnesses from our own body, are concerned (contrary to the apostle’s injunction) in judicial proceedings, and cannot therefore be fit for the kingdom of heaven.

It would be proper for you who make these charges to substantiate them by some form of authority, to which we must yield, and not let them rest on your bare assertion, by which we are not greatly moved. For thus the law requires, that he who accuses anyone should prove his charge, since the burden of proof always lies on the accuser. Nevertheless, we will here act contrary to this judicial method, and sparing you, whom we know to be unable to prove your case, we will prove our own in the following manner:

We know, indeed, that “the earth in the Lord’s and the fulness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein, but beside this, we read elsewhere in the same Psalms, “The heaven, even the heavens are the Lord’s, but the earth has he given to the children of men”. It is plain, then, that both the heaven and the earth are the Lord’s, but that he has given the earth unto men for a time, that, if they use it well, they may, after the earth, attain unto heaven, and that what was his by sovereign power, may become man’s through his benignity. By which most merciful benignity and most benign mercy, though he “hath poised with three fingers the bulk of the earth and wieghed the mountained in scales, and the hills in a balance”, he nevertheless accepts that same earth, and those earthly gifts, from those same men to whom he had given them, and (if I may so speak) allows the kingdom of heaven to be bought at his own expense, Nor does he thence seek profit for himself, but the salvation of man, and esteems that his own gain. Hence, it is that, while he order that meat should be given to the hungry, and drink to the thirsty, he previously creates bread in the corn, wine in the grap and loads the trees with fruit, and the animals with offspring. The very water, for a cup of which given to the needy, de has seclared that a reward is laid up, he makes to rise from springs, and flow through all rivers. And, in a word, all the things with regard to which he rewards the goodwill of those who give them, he does himself, first of all, give to those givers. Hence, the Church of God, grounding its right as well on the old Testament as on the New, receives all thins that are offered, not to her, but to God, as his representative; and thence charitably maintains those of her members that are in want, and have no property of their own in the work: as clerks, and monks or paupers or whomsoever she knows to suuffer the need of such things. Monks, therefore, (for at present we speak of them only) receive all the offerings of the faithful, whether in moveable or immoveable property, and repay the donors by a perpetual course of prayer, fasting and good work. But as it is respecting the acceptance of immoveable property that we are no called into question, I will at present answer to that question.

In the first place, then, we plead our Rule. For in treating the reception of novices, it says, “if he has any property, let him either first give it to the poor, or by a solemn act of donation, confer it on the monastery”. By saying, “If he has any property”, it excepts nothing. But if it excepts nothing, it does not except any landed property or town or peasants or servants or handmaids or anything of that kind. but clearly nothing is excepted and therefore it is obvious that these things which we have mentioned are not excepted. And what I have before quoted from St. Gregory agrees with the command of our Rule, wherein he forbids that any bishop or secular person should presume in any way, or on any occasion, either by fraud or by force, to take from the revenues, or property or muniments of monasteries, or of cells, or towns belonging to them. For, by forbidding that any one should take away any of these things, or presume to employ fraud or force against them, he most evidently shows that monks might lawfully possess revenues, property, cells and towns; as he would, by no means, have forbidden that they should be disturbed in the possession of those things, if he had known that they held them unlawfully. And since the revenues arising from land are of different kings, and property is of various descriptions and since there cannot be towns without inhabitants (that is men and women of different conditions), and the words of St. Gregory contain no exception – any kind of property, any towns, and by a parity of readoning, any inhabitants of the different conditions, that is, free or servile.

But you will, perhaps object that without the help of all these things, monk ought to provide what is needful for them, by agriculture, and the labour of their own hands. I think, however, that no one can fail to see how indecent and impossible this would be; and in the first place, I shall show that it is impossible, How are a languid set of men, confined to a vegetable diet, that timparts scarcely any physical strngth and in fact, hardly keeps them alive, and who are, on that account, in a state of great debility, to endure agricultural labours, which are found most oppressive by hinds and peasants, and to do the hardwork of ploughmen, exposed sometimes to scorching heat, sometimes to rain, snow and intense cold? And how are they who, by religious fasting, commonly diminish even their poor weakly food, to bear such hard andcontinual labour? And if, as to bodily strength, they could bear all this, why should they do it, when, without the help of others, they can obtain sufficient food and clothing?

Having shown that it is impossible, I will show that it would be indecent. Does it appear indecent– Yes, most indecent, that monks who are directed always to keep in the cloister, devoting themselves most intensely to silence, prayer, reading and meditation, and the other precepts of the Rule and services of the Church, should throw up all these things for vulgar and rustic labour? That those who, like the fine linen of the tabernacle, should adorn its interior by their value and their fine texture (that is, by the subtle contemplation of heavenly things) should like hair-cloth on the outside, have to bear the wind and rain and all the sorms– that is, too great occupation in wordly affairs, drawing them away from internal things?

And since this, as I have said, is proved to be both indecent and impossible, you must of necessity allow monks some other means of maintaining their order above absolute want; and indeed, if you refuse you permission, we shall nevertheless, relying on the authority of the saint, continue our practice. You have just heard that St. Gregory allowedthese things to monks. Now, observe that he gavethem, for thus we read in his life: “When Gregory came to havethe full power of disposing of his property, he built six monasteries in Sicily, and stocked them with a sufficient number of monks, to whom he have as much landed property as might provide a daily maintenance of those who were there serving God.” And of St. Maur we read, “The next day St. Maur went to see and take possession of the royal estate, which the king had given to the monastery.” And again, “At the same time, Lothar, coming to Angers, sent word to the man of God that he wished to come to the moanstery. And when the man of God returned an answer that he might come, he set out with a few attendants. And when he had come there, he gave to that place an estate belonging to the royal property, called Blazon, and there, also, by royal authority he gave the town called Longus-campus. We find too, that almost all things which you think that monks ought not to have, were possessed by St. Columban and many other holy monks, whose merits God attested by many and great miracles, and whom the Church solemly commemorates.

And now, to add another argument to what we have premised: Who will not think it more right, more expedient, more useful, that everyone of those various things which have been specified should be in the hands of those whom the Order which they have assumed and the monastic vow which they have made, bind into a lawful use and possession of them, than of those, who, through negligence, and being under the influence of less strict obligation, not merely despise the trouble of good management, but also from an undue love of the thigngs themselves and by ill management of them, bring on their own destruction? For as we see commonly, and inalmost every cacse, as long as they are held by secular personns, they are dealt with in a secular manner; but when the property in them is transferred to the religious (if they are such, not in name only, but in fact) then by the religious they will be religiously dealt with. And, for instance, let me specify some things. Suppose a castle is given to monks, it immediately ceases to be a castle, and becomes an oratory; nor does anyone after that fight against corporeal enemies, in a corporeal army, but is employed in repelling spiritual enemies, by spiritual weapons. And thus it comes to pass, that what was before fighting for the devil, now begins the fight for Christ, and what was before a den of thieves is made a house of prayer.

The same argument may be used as to peasants, servants and handmaids. And by it we may most excellently prove that monks have alegitimate right to possess them. For everybody sees how secular masters rule over their peasants, servants and handmaids. For they are no satisfied with their accustomed and due service, but always unmercifully claim their persons with their property, and the property with their persons. Hence it is that, beside the accustomed payments, they, three of four times in the year, or as often as they please, spoil them of their goods; they oppress them with innumerable claims of service; they lay upon them grievous and insupportable burdens. Hence, they force many to leave their native soil and fly to foreign parts and (which is worse) their very persons, which Christ has redeemed with so rich a price –even his own blood– they are not afraid to sell for one so mean, that is, for money. Now, monks, though they may have such possessions, do not possess them in the same way, but very differently. For they employ only the lawful and due services of the peasants to procure the conveniences of life. They harass them with no exactions, they impose no intolerable burdens, and if they see them in want, they maintain them at their own expense. They have servants and handmaids, not as servants and handmaids, but as brothers and sisters; and receiving from them, reasonable serive according to their ability, take care to return that they shall suffer no want or injury, so that they are (to use the words of the apostle) as having nothing, yet possessing all things. By the authorities and arguments which I have adduced, therefore it is, I think, clear even to the blind, that monks may not only lawfully possess such things, but even more lawfully than laymen. And why are we to be prohibited from receiving the proceeds of tolls, when it is acknowledged that the princes of this world hold them lawfully? Or, is it thought unlawful for them to possess what the apostle directs their subjects to pay to them – “tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom all over the world without reproof from the Church of God, which passes by no unrighteousness. Nobody is excommunicated, nobody is even called in question for it. And since, without the contradiction of anyone, they receive them as they do their other rights, why may they not, in like manner, give them to churches and monasteries of God? Why may not monks rightly received those from them as well as other things? If you object that St. Matthew, being called by the Lord from the receipt of customs, did not afteerwards return to it, as an unrighteous calling, while Peter and the other apostles, who were fishermen, after being in like manner called, were found afterwards fishing, whereby they proved the lawfullness of that occupation, we reply that this does not in any way help your argument, or weaken ours, for we are not defending violent exactions, such as Matthew relinquished, by just, customary payments, which the Church receives.You have said, “St. Benedict framed his Rule either with or without charity. But that he framed it without charity none of you dare to affirm, and therefore you do not deny that he framed it with charity. And now, since the Rule was framed with charity, it was not meant to be altered. And if not to be altered, then to be kept. Therefore, you either act injuriously towards the saint by changing it, or you keep it by entire obedience.” And to this we reply: It is clear that the rule was framed by charity, but it is not clear that on that account it is unalterable. Nay, from its having been framed by charity, it follows that it may be altered. And to make this evident, let us inquire into what is the office of charity. And what is the office of charity? The one and single office of charity is to seek the salvation of men by all means. Our Lord himself, the apostles, all the saints, cry aloud that this is its office. All holy scripture, as I have already repeatedly said, testifies that whatsoever it commands is just, and (what is a still greater argument) the Lord has declared that on it hang all the law and prophets. This the apostle calls the fulfilling of the law, and the end of the commandment. Of this Augustine says, “If this one thing be wanting, all things are vain; if this only be present, all are complete.” Of this too, he says elsewhere, “But the whole fruit is charity without which whatever else a man may have, he is nothing.” And in another place, “Have charity and do what you will.” And therefore, to promote the salvation of men, it doth what it will, and if it be lawful for it to do as it will, it was lawful for it to make a law, and lawful also to change it. Nor can it be said that ny injury is done to the saint, for it is not altered by another, but by that which, being shed abroad in his hear by the Holy Spirit given to him, used him as an instrument for the composition of the Rule. And since it envieth not, is not puffed up, does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not her own, those who are filled therewith know nothing of such things, and being without envu, inflation, and ambition, they know not how to take offence. No injury therefore, is done to the saint, for it made his Rule according to the circumstances fo theat time, and when it saw it woulf be useful to do so, altered what it had itself made, retaining whatever it seemed proper to retain. And as it would be absurd to say that an injury was done to a notary, if he who dictated any document to him should afterwards, for some reason known perhaps to himself only, either by his own or another’s hand, to alter what he had written, so it would be to say that St. Benedict injuriously treated, if Charity with by him, if she had so pleased, or by any other whom she shall see fit to employ, should, on sufficient grounds, alter all or any og the things which she originally wrote by him.

If truly manual activities ought to be preferred to spiritual exercises, never would have Mary chosen to sit at the feet of the Lord and to learn his teachings without interruption, never would see have permitted her sister (Martha?) to serve alone, never the Lord would have said that she chose the best way. Thus, if the spirit occupies itself with prayer, reading, the psalmody, and other acts of this kind, the Rule, as we recount it, is followed in perfection, since by acting thusly, it is evident that the monk is not leisurely but hard working. (70- from Folz, 152).

[86-7]

Since one of the objections urged against us is that we receive immovable property, we now reply to that. In the first place we set forth the Rule itself. Dealing with the reception of novices it says, "If he has any possessions, let him give them beforehand to the poor, or, making a solemn donation, let him bestow them on the monastery." By saying therefore "if he has anything" it excepted nothing. But if it excepted nothing it did not except any farm, villa, serfs, servants, or handmaidens, nor anything of this kind. It is clear that nothing was excepted. It is clear, therefore, that those things we have mentioned were not excepted.[1]

With this decree of the Rule the words of the Blessed Gregory, related above, also agree. He forbade any bishop or secular to presume to curtail in any way the income, property, or charters of the monasteries, or to presume to make any grants of liberty on any pretext.... He would by no means have forbidden them to be molested in such matters if he had recognized that they possessed them unjustly. And since the returns from the soil are manifold, and a wide variety is evident in different things, and since villas cannot exist without inhabitants, namely men and women, of different conditions, and since the writings of the Blessed Gregory contain no exceptions with regard to these things, monks are shown to be able to possess incomes, possessions, villas, and likewise, inhabitants of varied status, that is, free or servile.[2]

[93] And we say, in contradistinction: You present yourselves to be the best defendors of blessed Benedict, whom defending you cause greater injuries. You cause injuries truly when you seek to laude his such that we are seen to detract from the praise of other saints, so that growth of the former are at the expense of the latter. For this is accustomed to happen between those whom pride divides, not those whom charity unifies. And we ask that what we say be made manifest. Is it or is it not fitting to change those things on account of those saints whom we said above had changed the statutes of our former fathers? If you say it is not fitting, we can respond: they acted badly therefore, whoever changed previous decrees!? Saint Gregory acted badly badly when conceding an illicit matrimony to the English. The catholic synod acted badly when changing the catholic synod; [94] several leaders of the Roman seat, of known sanctity, acted badly changing the precepts of other saintly Roman pontiffs; Paul himself acted badly…

This I conceed: what is considered just, what is recognized as unjust which uptonow had been sacred, will cease to be sacred, the church is judged to haved …

If you judge saying this to be pride and blasphemy, you ought to say that those have been able to change those statutes from the original wise counsel, or perhaps that you ought to remain silent which alone remains. But if you remain silent, then you show yourself using the consel of the pharisees, who no wishing to confess the truth nor wishing to attack it, choose silence ….

The Roman pontiffs respond: on account of the signaled and known sanctity

I have written this to you, dearest friend, contravening epistolary brevity through the coercion of the subject matter … (101)

For apart from the harshness of the words which I have set down to represent the lurking animosity of a faction, I have understood/ meant the rest as it has been brought forth. (101)

from Jean leClercq, “How is it possible that enfeebled men, who nourish themselves with plants and vegetables, do not give any power to their body which, poorly fed, hardly supports their life, might undertake agricultural labour, which is difficult for peasants and hardsmen themselves…. And if this were possible, is it fitting that the brothers to whom it is prescribed to remain assiduously in the cloister, to deliver themselves intensely to work and to prayer, to reading, to meditation, to the other precepts of the rule and to ecclesiastical offices, abadoning all this to give their attnetion to labour of the fame and other common/ vulgar works. Those who ought to decorate their inner tabernacle

[1][From Roy C. Cave & Herbert H. Coulson, A Source Book for Medieval Economic History, (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1936; reprint ed., New York: Biblo & Tannen, 1965), pp. 299-301.]

[2][From Roy C. Cave & Herbert H. Coulson, A Source Book for Medieval Economic History, (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1936; reprint ed., New York: Biblo & Tannen, 1965), pp. 299-301.]</Mait>