111 The Reply of the Lord Abbot to Bernard of Clairvaux (1144)

Summary:

Expressed delight with Bernard’s latest letter, excuses himself from not answering the previous letter, expresses regret for mutual distrust between the monks of the two orders. He attributes this first to difference in customs (and this is childish and stupid). If such difference was a reasonable reason, there would be no charity in the world at all. Then describes differences in customs across the Church. All monks united by a single profession, should not be divided by differences in custom, which is at the discretion of the abbot. The monks should cultivate instead an inner eye which ignores such outer differences. This he especially urges on his own Cluniac monks. Let all not scorn one another. Do not worry about differences in the colour of clothing. Both the black and white robed do it. It is not the colour of the habit, but the colour of the soul that matters. Both colours have excellent reasons and the Rule allows it. The real conflict, Peter says, lies in the tide turning against their order, and the new are preferred. Lets be friends. Cluniacs don’t criticize. [from Letters of St. Bernard, 376-77]

This letter consists of three broad sections. 1) [pg. 274-78] a reply to Bernard’s epistle 228 (or 305 in James) 2). An exposé of the relationship between the Cluniacs and Cistercians, appealing for Bernard’s intervention [278-94] 3) An exhortation to Bernard to write against the doctrines of Islam [pgs. 294-98]. The first two sections are woven together with allusions to two brotherhoods, to the pastoral responsibilities of Bernard and Peter and the third sections seems appended at a later point (possibly, a compilation letter, Constable rejects this, but Knight suggests as possible). The first two sections combine the device of private frame and public centre (also in letter 28). [taken from Knight, 117]

The bulk off this letter, resuming the apologetic discussion initiated 20 years earlier in letter 28- perhaps as a double apologia for both Cistercians and Cluniacs.

Text:

The brother Peter, the humble abbot of Cluny wishes the eternal salvation to which he aspires, to the inseparable guest [friend] of my heart, the lord Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux , one to be revered with a singular veneration and to be embraced with the whole arms of charity.

<GK>Perhaps your sagacious Sanctity will wonder and, as I fear, impute to sloth or contempt, that I present myself as a tardy replier to so sweet and pleasant a letter from a friend, to which I should have presented myself pleasantly and swiftly.</GK> But both are far [from the truth] and not only are far, but both are utterly untrue, since almost no one? ever so greatly clings to letters, either so happily receiving them or so studiously reading them. The reason for my tardiness appears to be, on one part, that the bearer of them –who coming to Cluny did not find me there since I myself was ...

<GK>275] [My mind] was attracted …. and so attracted that, what I never remember having done, except out of reverence for sacred books, as soon as I had read the letter I kissed it.

275] I stored…. it up and added it to the silver and gold which … I am accustomed to carry with me for the work of alms-giving.

275] I wished to reply what had taken possession of my mind the following day, but prevented by the daily or rather continual overseer demanding other things, I keep silent.

276] Does it please you to joke like this?

276] as one who is striving not in play, but in earnest to shut out acknowledged rivalries from the hearts of many.

276] Therefore, it is sweet to me to always speak with you and to preserve the honeyed sweetness of charity between us with pleasant words.

276] Meanwhile, in consequence of the reasons mentioned above, justice acts for me, because blame is not found in me.

276] I could have called myself the wounded friend, as you did of yourself, and deservedly demand punishment for the harm and injuries.

276] But I am merciful after my fashion, I remit everything even unasked. As you have said, I am mindful of no injuries.

276] For this also pertains to the matter which follows that, …I first show indulgence to all, do myself beforehand, what I labour that others should do.</GK>

For he looks towards that charity so much, which I reserve already from long past towards you in the depths of my heart, it seems to me that [277] “much water”, as it is written, “is not able to extinguish it, nor are rivers able to overcome it. In some cases, I am seen often as having experienced this, which “much water is not able to extinguish nor rivers are able to overwhelm.”

<GK>When will the sincere affection of my heart, ignited towards you be able to be extinguished or overwhelmed by any rivulets of sinister rumour, when it could neither be extinguished by the many waters of tithes, nor overwhelmed by the force of the rivers of Langres.</GK>

You know what I say, and I do not say it for any other reason, than that your prudence take for granted that I, reflecting on the signs/ indications/ distinctionsof my soul, can be stable in the program of the constant love towards you. And I presume this same thing of you, and I

For if he who does not love awaits death, what death does he await who hates? If he awaits death who does not love, what death does he await who causes destruction? To what end, I ask, does he come? I discern that some among both ours and yours hold themselves mutually opposed to one another, as if sworn to combat, and they, who ought to live unanimous in the house of the Lord, fall away from mutual charity. I see them to be of the household of the same Lord, of the army of the same king, to be called by the same name “Christians” and also by the title “monks”. I see that submitted not only by the bond of communal faith but more so to the yoke of the monastic Rule, they tend the Lord’s field with many and different exertions. And since the name of Christians joins them, as I said, since the monastic profession unifies them, I do not know ...

<GK>277] I see that some have fallen off from mutual charity… having expelled Him who dwells in Heaven and whose place was made not in mutual rancour but in brotherly peace.

And, O matter full of lamentation that the proud archangel, cast down from Heaven has again occupied the heavenly heights, and that he who not able to establish his seat in the north has established it here in the south, the more splendid part of heaven. Thus truly, thus openly it is gloried that he had done this, when

(since)… he [the arrogant archangel] reigns with tyrannical rule in the minds of men heavenly by profession, splendid by example.

278] Be it absent that he who is said to have been so weakened b y the Saviour, that he is bound even for his maidservants, that he is mocked by his servants as a bird, should himself so mock his servants and maidservants and lord overt hem like worthless slaves. </GK>

But why do they slander themselves? Why are they assailed by one another?

Let come, I ask, let come the matter of the litigation, and if anything of a just quarrel they are able bear out against each other, let it be finished with impartial judges considering. Why do you drive brother away from brother? And, why do you drive, I say, the Cluniac brother from a Cistercian brother, or the reverse, so that the variety of all differing is known by two names. If they are cities, if castles, if villages, if estates, if any terrestrial possession either little or great, if, moreover, gold, silver or any quality or quantity of money, say it, undertake it, propose it! The judges of equality, nor iniquity are present, prepared to conclude immediately all the suits of this sort. Peace is easily restored, charity heals [all] wounds, after such a sundering of hearts is recognized to have arisen on account of such or similar things. But I see that you too reject all these things, that you make it that nothing is retained for yours on earth, and you, made wealthy by blessed poverty, propose to follow Christ-the-pauper. It is not this matter with which I come into conflict. And I will not desist, I will not tire, I will not remain quiet until I come to the bottom of this sought-after truth.

[¶] Perhaps diverse custom, the varied observation of the monastic order is the cause among you of this strife. But if this, most beloved, is the cause of so much evil, truly irrational and which I say both for salvation and grace of yours, is truly childish and foolish. Surely it does not seem irrational, puerile or foolish (which destroys all reason) to you and which every sound wise man opposes. For if varied custom, if the manifold variation of infinite things ought to create valleys between the servants of Christ, then what of peace, what of concord, what of unity, what of the law of Christ will remain- not only for monks, but for all Christians, about what was said by a great apostle, “One ought to carry the burden of another, and thus you fulfill the law of Christ.” If I say, “the law of Christ”, that is charity, ought to be abandoned by all those following different usages, never ought it be openly sought for hereafter. For never is it able to be found after it is excluded for all those following a diversity of manners. Surely, most beloved, the whole world of the Earth is counted for the churches of Christ already from antiquity. [279] And since the multiplicity of churches under one faith and of those serving God with charity almost exceeds every number, almost as much variety of uses is found among them as is the infiniteness of places. This, in songs, in readings, in all ecclesiastical offices, in different vestments, in different fasts (besides those authentic fasts which cannot be changed). This, in every similar thing, which[all] were instituted by the prelates of the Churches on account of the differences of times, places, peoples and regions in which– according to the apostle pertains greatly to such things– one can overflow in his sense so greatly. Therefore, do all these churches abandon charity because they have changed custom? Do they cease to be Christians since they are seen as different in diverse usages? Is the supreme good of peace lost, since everyone undertakes the good in a different way? In his life and word, the teacher of the Church Ambrose did not think thusly, who speaking of the fast on the Sabbath, which he say to be observed in Rome, and when made Bishop of Milan, did not find it observed there, said, “When I am in Rome, I guard the observed fast according to the Roman Church. When in Milan, following the manner of this Church, I do not fast.” Describing this and [Ambrose’s] devotion to the good mother, the father Augustine described that according to the manner which he saw to be held within the African Churches, he wished to offer his offerings contrary to the observance of the Italian Churches in Milan, but he was prohibited by Ambrose.

[¶] But why do I labour over such things? I surround the suffering thing with multiple testaments and examples without a reason, especially since neither the dissonance of the time of Easter among the ancients, nor the known difference of the Christian sacrifice between the Greeks and Latins was able to harm charity or to effect any Schism of unity. The sainted fathers are witnesses of the preceding thing, as are the books approved of them which churches left behind/ abandoned. because, rising in one time, setting in another, in one way (time?) do the English celebrate Easter on the island of Britannia, and in another do the Christian Scots, namely the older ones. We are also witnesses of our time, who see the Roman Church and the whole Latin tongue to offer the sacrifice of unleavened bread to the salvific God, while the Greek Church and a large part of the East and barbarians, but Christian peoples are said to sacrifice leavened bread. Since this is the case, neither the ancients nor moderns fell away from charity on account of such obvious and famous dissonances of usages, since nothing which harms faith and charity is found in all these things. Where am I going with this? So that, if on account of various usages, [280] O brothers, your souls are varied, if on account of the diversity of custom, your souls are diversified, is on account of one or another manner accepted by you from the founders of the churches, they grew weary from the charity of peace or of unity, they depart as one from the examples of such fathers so much to be venerated and in the manner of saints who grew stronger from weakness, the strong are made in battle , grow strong by a weakening of charity.

[¶] But you say, “Sometimes, a variation in usages are accepted by different churches, sometimes by men of this very order. If the usages of many churches are different in sound faith and charity, it is not marvelous, but it is remarkable if the sworn and professed men of this [order] do not follow the manner of their institution.” [¶] Is it only this, I ask, which divides you, my beloved, from others? Is it wholly this which harms the charity in you? Is it wholly this which does not permit the sons of peace to be peaceful between themselves? If a lay person was “peaceful with those who hated peace, does the monastic vie with another monk in a criminal duel? Does a son of light love a son of darkness in order to not disrupt the good of peace; does a son of light fight another son of light, to which proposal I answer no, for a monk. If this alone certainly is the indignation of your souls, if this is the complete harm of charity, it is easy to remedy, but [only] if obstinence is lacking. Attend, therefore, so that love of your own thinking does not cloud the light of your senses, since anyone who maintains only that which he himself wishes, does not merit to follow unity. Whence I ask that you discuss –without the zeal of each side and of defensive individual feeling– whether the reason of the division is right; and when you recognize that it is unjust, may you unite the sundered souls. For behold, yours also serve under the one Rule under which any of yours hope to be able to gain eternal salvation in that spiritual militia. And if none of yours are disappointed by this possibility, then I do not know what place will be able to survive this discord, this sundering, this abuse.

[¶] For you said that it was amazing if committed and professed men do not follow the manner of their institution. To which I reply: If the committed and professed men do not serve the manner of their institution but nonetheless they strive towards that saved and eternal life with different observances, why does it matter? Why really does it matter and why is it problematic if he is brought by a different path to the same place, if by a multifold path towards this very life, if by a manifold journey to that which is the heavenly Jerusalem, which is our Mother? For if you, O Cluniac to a Cistercian and you Cistercian to a Cluniac recognize that you stray in your assumed program and according to Scripture you take care to hold inwardly to the way which seems right to men, then I admit to you that the ‘just’ is the reason of correcting brothers, or admonishing or, if one does not wish to hear you, of reproving and cursing. [281] Then certainly if you chide, if you speak out against, if even you are hateful, then I agree that you act justly, that you act rightly, especially when I hear of such things from the great prophet saying to God, “Should I hate whom hate you, and let myself be ruined upon your enemies? With total hatred I hate those; they are made an enemy to me.” I ought to congratulate moreover, that you are not a deaf listener of that scripture saying, “Run, hasten, help your friend, [but] do not give eyes to dreams nor allow your eyelids to sleep. And about that, “Cursed is he who keeps back his sword from bloodshed.” Then, openly I will confess to you that the reasons of hatreds are right, and I, –a single fellow traveler– girded with sword, will follow your steps in order to destroy the enemies of God and those who, according to the apostle, “convert mendacity into hypocrisy”. And now, since I see that under the rule yours and ours extend from the earth to the heavens with various and sacred institutes, and through different paths extending to the same reward, “Hasten thus that you may know [him], there does not remain to you, as it seems to me, any reason for being indignant, nor being hateful nor being abusive. But you still demand that I prove what I said, and how I will show that under this one rule or under the profession of this rule, through diverse paths a monk is able to enter into a safe haven. A response to this is perfectly easy to be revealed by me, and authority joined to reason does not lack, that both you, the Cluniac in your use, and you the Cistercian, in your manner, are able to happily run on the paths of the commandments of God, and quite happily are able to reach the suitable end of the race. And since I first bring up authority which always ought to be brought up first in such things, the very same is brought up first also in this argument, and reason is not disjoined from the same even for a little interval. By why do you object, brother? I say that those professed of the rule do not observe the commandments of that rule similarly. Truly, I say, this is what you said, that the commandments of the rule are observed differently by those professed of this rule in different chapters. But lest you consider monks of this sort culpable on account of this, lest you dare to argue this for reason of prevarication, listen the celestial authority, or rather, the authority of the king of the heavens: “If your eye be simple, then your whole body will be bright.” Listen also to the apostle, “Do everything you do in charity.” Listen also to the father Augustine, “Have charity and do whatever you are able”. Listen also to the writer of the Rule, or rather to the holy spirit, the dictator of the Rule: “Moderate and order all this in such a way that all souls are saved and what the brothers do, they do without grumbling.” And what can be more clear, more obvious, or more evident? Surely the very serenity of those words show it to be thus without any further clouding, and [282] , since the veil of all clouds is removed, it manifests the brightest light of truth to mortals. Behold O brother, the master of the heavens teaches that your whole body is made clear through the simplicity of the eye, that is, the whole of your works are made clear through the intention of purity; behold, the greatest doctor of the Church after Him commands that all your works be done in charity; behold, the greatest instructor after the apostles of the Church grants to you, with charity abiding, every power of doing what you would wish; behold Father Benedict , on whom you are founded, commands the abbot to moderate thusly all things, in order that souls be saved, and murmuring is absent and you fear to welcome the diversity of those following under the Rule? Surely you separate the most safe from all danger, whose intention of saving souls according to that Rule excuses what is more commanded than whatsoever mobility or sin of difference?

[¶] But now, as even reason is understood to have been subjected entirely to aforecited authorities, to adhere to it indivisibly, chapters concerning the present question are added in which certain modified things are shown about the simple eye, sincere charity, and the intention of saving souls. For with this demonstrated, I leave nothing to be contested by you, I think, that pertains to this present business:

I. For you use the simple eye, you who do not open the entrance of the cloister to the novice except after a year, since according to the apostle and words of the rule, you scrutinize the spirit of one newly entering whether he might be of God for the period of a whole year. II. You use also only the simple eye, you who receive one entering after less than the period of one year, since you fear his returning to his original squalor, and to the detestable evils of his former life during a postponement so great in time. III. You use also the simple eye, you who are satisfied with two tunics and two cowls or a few more vestments of this type, since, even though it is not a precept, you prefer to follow nonetheless the counsel or the thinking of the writer of the rule, than to add or wear clothes of another type. IV. You use also the simple eye, you who, allow the use of moderate hides, since you provide for the weak, for the infirm, for the delicate, for all in the colder parts of the world, lest they grumble, lest they grow weak, lest, after rational necessity is removed, anyone at all withdraw from the proposition. V. You use the simple eye who receive fugitives (except after the third time) since you strive to serve the very words of the Rule, and to deter foolish and unstable monks from frequent flight, since the entrance of the returnee is eventually denied. VI. You also use the simple eye, you who receive a monk returning more than the third time, [283] since you fear lest with forgiveness denied, he might perish, exposed to enemies and lest the wolf, who also is accustomed to seize and disperse enclosed [beasts], kill the wandering sheep. VII. You use also the simple eye, you who observe without exception, any regular fast of both summer and winter, since both just as those things were drawn out, you wish to sustain, and receive the greater reward of the more extended fast. But what I say with a soul pure of charity for the eight days of the birth of Christ, epiphany, the purification, which truly for all are dominical days, I agree that the fasts are not observed sufficiently by some. VIII. You also use the simple eye, who you except both those days which I just mentioned and all authentic solemnities of 12 lessons from this custom of regular fastings, since you attempt to honour in such a manner the Lord, the apostles, even some of the saints and you propose to imitate the manner of almost all religious fasting this way. IX. You see with the simple eye, who observe manual labour according to the precept of the rule, since you wish to obey the Rule, and to occupy the [kind of] leisure inimical to soul according to the sayings of this Rule, with such practices, so sacred not only to monks but also to the apostolic institutions, and as much as your ability is given, to provide also the necessary things of life imitating the ancient fathers. X. You use also the simple eye who postpone in some way this manual work, since established not in forests, nor in deserts, but in the middle of cities or castles, and surrounded completely by people, you are not often able to quickly depart and return through a mixed crowd of both sexes for the sake of such endeavours without some or much danger, and moreover you do not possess for the most part suitable places where you be able to practice such works. But lest the leisure inimical to the religious find a place of harming in you, when you are free from work, and either where and when you are able to work by hands, or where you are not able to, you balance by varying with each other this manual work with divine works, and thus lest spirit claims for itself the home of your breast being never empty, occupy the whole time of your life with sacred endeavours, of which you are able, XI. You use the simple eye who adore the Christ in all guests coming or going, with a lowered head or with every body prostrated on the earth, and with every foot washed, since you suffice to honour the good of charity preeminent according to the decrees of the gospels and the Rule with complete zeal, as one ought, and you attempt by an demonstration of so saintly a humanity to claim a suitable mercy for yourself. XII. You use also the simple eye who do not prostrate yourself [284] before every guest, who do not wash every persons’ feet, since it is totally impossible for you given such a great multitude of guests continually arriving, to always be prostrate on the ground, to wash the feet of all, to such an extent that if you wished to be free continually for these things, you would be unable to fulfill this alone, even if all other practices of your order were omitted. And since you omitted what you considered to be impossible for you, you show to men what is necessary for one receiving guests, and you undertake with honour those when you are able, [and]you excuse by the simplicity of the eye from those aforesaid things which you are unable to fulfill. XIII. You use the simple eye who wish to be always at the table of the abbot with the guests and pilgrims, since both you seek to obey the rule and to faithfully serve humanely those visiting you. XIV. You use the simple eye also, you who distinguish yourself to be not always with guests, but always to be with your brothers, since, you assist by calling him back to the common meal from the extravagance of many abbots, as I speak more leniently, who are accustomed to be favourable to himself on the occasion of guests but headless of obligation with his. XV. You use the simple eye, you who labour , like the Esdras to repair the law, or who labour like the Machabees repaired the ruins of the temple of God, so do you endeavour to repair the many losses of the monastic order and to restore the many among many ruins of manners and many monasteries, and after having rejected concessions more effete than necessary, you strive to recall the tepor of our times to the manner of the ancient and original fervour. XVI. You also use a simple eye, you who so moderate the commandments of the rule and your Order as according to the words of the same rule, “and let it be that the strong desire and the infirm do not flee”, that he who is fed bread and milk so little that he just does not lose his life, and he who is not able to grasp the reward offered for races causing panting, is taught to strive towards that [reward] at least with a slow foot, since what is restored to him after a year is no less called indwelling than that which is restored after a month.

This, moreover, I say, by the different labour of those journeying to salvation, since according to the apostolic voice, “Everyone receives their particular mercy, according to their labour.” Consider Benedict –the author of this your proposition; although you are compelled to follow his writings at least by this testimony, where charity commands it, in contrast, you should love to follow with laudable devotion since it is seen fitting by so great a man. Consider this Benedict – the author of your institution– who commands that all his writings leads back all to the objective of charity and to follow this or that order in whatever way for the salvation of souls. Consider Maurus –the preeminent disciple among [Benedict’s] disciples, who after sent by [Benedict] to Gaul, is read to have changed some or much of [Benedict’s] Rule, with that eye which I wrote above. Consider also, the many fathers of monasteries after him, and the preeminent life and innumerable miracles done by God through them as much in life as after death clearly brought into the light what things were enacted with the spirit of God on account of the times, [285] of the places, of the people for moderating the writings of that oftmentioned Rule. And what more can I say? With a similar order through the remaining things, which are seen, with the different chapters progressing through, you will/ should find everywhere “the simple eye” which some call charity and others call the intention of souls wishing to be saved, and in this manner, you will discover nothing different, nothing dissonant, in those things which are seen to be followed differently, since through charity all things become one.

[¶] I add to these things, which nonetheless are obvious to all, almost nothing of such things prescribed in the Rule, but having arisen with an addition of condition and the disposition of the abbot. But even if it was said commandingly by no means is it able to [be?] prejudice[d by?] the single eye, that is, with evangelical charity. For such things, as is known from the number of changeable precepts, also, when charity commands. without any fear of transgression ought to be changed. And in this respect the prevarication of the Rule ought not be held suspect by those professed to it, since the Rule of that holy father depends upon that sublime and general rule of Charity, upon which and in which (according to those words of truth) “hang all law and the prophets.” But if the law is universal, then also it is the law of this rule. Therefore, the monk, benefiting from the Rule of the father Benedict, then truly serves it, in every chapter of it either observed or modified, when he maintains the law of charity everywhere. Why is this so? If this, o brother, was certainly the sole reason of the reciprocal schism, surely now it seems utterly excluded [from being possible]? Surely now the hearts of monks ought to be unified in fraternal peace, since the differences from which [hearts] were divided, charity makes into unity? Surely, the multiplicity made a unity, which under a single monastic order, or under the program of a single rule, leads those following different but still good [customs] to a unity of the highest good and the merited end of everlasting life? “Let there be peace,” therefore, o Jerusalem, “in your virtue” and, as if follows, “let there be an abundance in your towers”. But lest perchance we find there to be among these, those who say “peace, peace and it is not peace”, let us discern if any reason for a parting still remains, and lest an unexpected serpent emerge from his lair while we slept and felt safe, and bite one of ours or yours sleeping incautiously. For, perhaps, those clothes of different colour allow for the kindling of discord and the multiplicitous difference of clothing lays the groundwork for a variety of lies. For as I almost always discern, and as it is very easy to show to all those looking on carelessly, the black monk (as I will put it) sees the white monk approaching as if like a chance star at the margins of sight; the white monk scarcely looks at the black with the middle part of his eye [looks straight at], even when he runs into him. I have seen this many times and I do not remember how many of the black monks, are stuck senseless, mocking any approaching white monk as if he was a monster, [286] and just like is he was a Chimera or a centaur, or, showing by their voice and gestures of the body some kind of exotic tale is impressed on their eyes, I see likewise that loquacious white monks, initially and for a long time upon many occasions, conferring with each other, suddenly grow silent when any black monk approaches, and guard themselves, like secrets of enemies from prying opponents, with the remedy of silence. I have seen both kinds of men, silent tongues, [but] talkative eyes, hands and feet, and what they do not wish to speak with the voice, lest they be accused, they clearly shout out by the aid of gestures. The mute voice, the talkative limbs and in a perverted order of nature, men are noisy with stones, [yet] are silent with other men. I remember often seeing such things of that Solomonic word, with which he spoke about a similar kind of men: “He nodded/ assented with his eyes, he rubbed his feet, he spoke with his fingers, evil plotted in his depraved heart and all the time he struck up quarrels.” And O depraved and obstinate counsel of an angel –the worst and cast down by God– who not wishing that he alone fall from eternal peace, sought out for himself companions of his fate from whereever he could, and in order that he might be gladdened by the more glorious victory/ reward, under the violent impulse of his iniquity, he strove to tear down the cedars and firs of the paradise of god, whose very inhabitant already had left/ stood out [extitit]. He lamented/ suffered that the victory of heresies [heresum] fell to him by which from primordial times he was accustomed to divide the Church of God, and seeing that he was not able to injure the faith then by any strategy, since the spirit of God was filling that globe of the earth with faith, he turned every attempt towards the injuring of mutual charity. For since he was not now able to persuade Christian men that they were infidels, he laboured with every effort they not love one another. First the sect of the Arians, then of the Sabellians, then of the Novati and then of the Donatists, then the Pelagians, then from the hour of greater antiquity the sect of the execrable Manicheans fell, then, with the spirit of God blowing, the clouds of innumerable heretics casting shadows on the light of faith floated away and they abandoned the mournful day to us, with every shadow far removed. But following these an African whirlwind suddenly strove to disturb everything, and since it recognized that was strong, it sought to redress former damages through the harming of charity. But in order that I might lead back my pen to that issue which I had begun, why does it seem to you, O white monk, that the blackness of your brother, not of the mind, but of the clothing ought to be detested? Why, o black monk, do you believe that the whiteness of your brother not of the mind, but of the clothing ought be admired? Sure both of yours comes from the sheep of that shepherd, who said, “Let my sheep hear my voice, and I, the Lord, recognize them, and they follow me and I give eternal life to them, and they will not every perish nor will anyone take them from my hand.” And what shepherd ever distinguishes between the discoloured wools of his sheep? Not God, I say, but only Man! Who ever disputed this? Who ever judged his sheep to be more white than black, or more black than white? [287] Who ever did not seek whether they were black or white, but whether they were black or white from that their own flock? And o maliciousness of man! O such innocence of the sheep! O one constant in your origin, a substance created brute animals! O one perverted in the rational animating nature! What white ram ever scorned the black? What black sheep ever hated the white. Surely, as a group, surely without strife, surely, with complete tranquility, without any complaint of the multiple colours, without any disquiet, they may fill the shepherd’s sheepfolds. And indeed sometimes one ram butts horns with another, one sheep head butts another, but difference of colour does not bring the former or latter to blows, but the innate anger of these animals or the anger roused for whatever reason, arouses them. And now, as I see it, Man is more foolish than Beast– he does not understand [his] position in regard to his respectability– and –which is far more to be lamented– the monastic man removes himself from the unity of charity based on the variable difference of colour. Do not! Do not, I pray thee brother, plead on account of a different wool, if you desire to be the sheep of Christ, since that shepherd casts out none of his sheep; the variety of colour does not remove one from the flock of sheep, but only an injury to faith or charity. I say He does not remove anyone from his herd on account of colour, which both from far-removed places and from diverse religions, he gathers together the Jew and the Gentile into one flock of the Christian faith. For example, the patience of holy Jacob the Patriarch also teaches this, who with an equal heart ten times bore unchanging mercy to Laban [Gen. 30: 32] and by tending to the multicoloured flock with the same spirit and care of a good shepherd, he showed that he made no distinctions between the white and the black or beasts of spotted colours. And since the apostle said, “Neither circumcision not its lack is anything, but one newly created in Christ Jesus is everything.” And in another place, “where there is no longer Gentile and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian and Scythian, slave or freeman, but Christ is and is in all things”, what childish soul is able to be so foolish that, for something as great as salvation, it thinks to make distinctions between the colour of various clothes, or the manner of diverse customs observed by one newly created in Christ. But if nothing corresponds so greatly to salvation, then why does varied colour of clothing divide monks? Why does it generate a schism? Why does it divide souls? Why does it injure charity? It is not, it is not [I repeat] from any cause, nor for any reason (and I do not mention [out of] hatred, or division, and certainly not grunting) among them. Consider the suitable defender of your whiteness, the single eye, as I said above, of your conscience, for which you wear a white hood and tunic, lest a monk wearing black for a long time considers that it is not possible to be a monk unless under his dark colour, and since you recognize in your program the innumerable warm ups [288] under the habit of the black monks, you wished to kindle, with this laudable skill, new and greater fervour of the monastic religion through the up until now unaccustomed whiteness of clothing. Consider also, not very differently, acceptable/ good/ credible creator of your blackness and the manner of custom long ago passed down by the fathers, by which custom you see yourselves more observant [of the Rule] by following old customs, than by arriving at/ inventing new ones. Consider both the unconquerable defendress of each of your colours– the voice of the common Rule–which commands that (for clothing) “the monk is not proclaimed by the colour or size of his clothes” but they wear clothes of that colour and quality which they have in their area or which are easily able to be found or is somewhat comparable. The aforementioned reason/ explanation therefore protects even perhaps more than any other I knew until now. Paternal authority also watches over your blackness which is equivalent for every reason, and which ought not be adjudged inferior by anyone meditating salvation. And can I bring up an example of any of the fathers asserting this? And whom greater than Martin am I able to bring up? He, indeed, he, the great Martin, monk and bishop revered the colour of black clothes, in his clothes. It is read thusly about this in his life, “The beasts, touching him on the side, saw him covered with a black and hanging cloak. Little by little they ceased to be frightened in the other part.” It is testified that indeed he was a monk, and he founded Marmoutiers, which is not far from Poitiers, the monastery near Milan and the monastery for himself at Tours. Behold the monk Martin! Behold Martin covered in black clothing. But what also about those things Jerome write in the letter sent to Nepotianus. “Equally avoid,” he says, “clothes dyed dark or very white.” Admonishing him namely that he guard against vainglory and boasting, not only in white clothes, which then secular used more often, but also for dark clothes, which those teachers of religion of that time were accustomed to use. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, the contemporary and acquaintance of the said Martin, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome, praised often by them, but also by the pope Gregory the Great , describing the journey of a certain woman of the noble class but recently having converted to a program of monastic religion, spoke thusly in a letter sent to Sulpicious Severus, “We see the glory of the Lord in that journey of that mother and children, In it, indeed, was something but far from being matched. The senators accompanied that woman sitting on that large [macro] and worthless mule (groaning and glitter towards Appia), with total worldly ostentation, in which the honoured and the wealthy are able to abound, from their heaving carriages, faleratis horses, golden coaches and [289] many chariots. But the grace of the humble Christian outshone the splendors of vanity. The rich admired the saintly poor woman, and our paupers mocked them. We see the confusion of this world, [and] suitable for God, the purple silk, and gilded appurtenances serving those in old and black clothing. Let us bless the lord, who made the humble the highest, filled up the hungry with good things, and cast away the foolish rich.” Behold not only the men of ancient religion but also the women taking up a program of sanctity are written to have used black clothes. For as I admit what I feel, it seems that it seems to me that this black about which it is disputed is more fitting among the great Fathers as the colour of humility, of penitence, of mourning. They diminish in such endeavours, since it is especially fitting to watch over the whole life of the monk, so that the colour is connected to manners/ morals, clothes to virtues by whatever connection they might. For, since antiquity , both the angel of the returning Lord and the heralds of the angel of the ascending Lord indicated, and the very saviour appearing in the glory of this transformation shining in snowy white clothes showed that white clothes designated glory more than humility, more joyfulness than sadness, [and] as we all know, with even the doctors of Church interpreting thusly. Thence, the good and learned man and bishop Sidonius Apollinaris, mocking the stinging vice certain people with a stopping/ blaming, among the other things with which he inveighed against them, he said, “They process in white to funeral rites, in black for nuptials” showing them greatly mixed up in manners and acts as they changed, by a reverse order, funereal display for nuptial and nuptial display for the funereal. For those who observed the common manner of this time, processed not white for funerals, black for marriages, but white for marriages and black for funerals, as white agrees with nuptial joy and black with the funereal mourning. I myself recently saw this while among Spanish and I admired that this ancient manner was observed still by all the Spanish. Indeed, husbands for dead wives, wives for dead husbands, fathers for dead sons, sons for dead fathers, relatives for any of their departed relatives, friends for friends deceased no matter what the cause, immediately put down their arms, silk vestments, remove the coverings of travel cloaks and removing entirely all colourful or previous dress, they dress themselves only with black and drab clothes. Thus, after their own hair and the tails of their beasts [are] cropped, they completely blacked themselves and these beasts with dark pigment. But such actions of mourning or indications of sadness, they weep for the dearly departed, and for the period of a single year, they remain in such mourning under public law. From such great authority and reasoning, black monk, I provide satisfaction for you and your colour, [290] and nonetheless I do not condemn whiteness on that account for the white monk. You ought to be praised since you do not wish to exceed the holy manner of your fathers; he ought to be praised also since through the unaccustomed brightness of clothing, one also excites fervour of his soul more and more in this manner in the holy program. He distinguishes himself in his own way by such a colour not by his communal charity (which should be a sin!) but by the– as known to all– lukewarmness of many of this order. Since therefore you ought to be under the one shepherd, Jesus Christ, since you ought to live in the single sheepfold of the Church, since you ought to live according to the one faith and hope of eternities, both you–the white monk– and you –the black monk– what can you, as I will say perhaps a little harshly, [who are like] the most stupid sheep argue/ make suit about different wool coats? What do you bring up in turn, about so little or rather so foolish a case against you? Why do you rend that premier garment of charity at so childish an opportunity? Why do you separate dwelling places? Why do you bite them not now with the teeth of a sheep but of a wolf? Why do you draw apart? Why do you injure? Watch, beware, lest the word “innocence” with which we describe sheep, makes you not of them, which the greatest shepherd will place at his right hand and concerning which he said: “My sheep hear my voice and I, the Lord, recognize them, and they follow me, and I give eternal life to them, and they do not ever die.” But what is absent, makes you among them, about which it is read and sung, “like sheep put in the fire, death gives them rest.” Do you presently see that it is a foolish reason to dispute over colour? That it is a damnable thing to hate a brother for his colour? That it is the greatest evil, to disparage a brother on account of his colour? If this was the only reason for the mutual schism, if this was the sole material of such a division, if, I say, this was the single and complete substance of the schismatic monk, surely this schism of your hearts– now already old and having been refuted by so many arguments– can be unified? Surely charity heals the wounds? Sure evangelical peace is restored to the sons of peace? Give satisfaction, therefore, to peace, o sons of peace, and with it, begin a perpetual federation, lest perhaps if it been done otherwise, that direst of judgments of the prophet will sometime be born against you: “My God did not say peace to the impious.” And now, give thanks to God, I judge that I have penetrated through to the longstanding reasons of hatreds and the shadows, of certain men of our Order, and now I think that nothing remains for one looking even very carefully. Which, if the matter considers itself thusly, neither you the white will attack the black, not you, the black, will attack the white, if you wish to observe these writings [heretofore accomplished], and according to the position of the highest charity, you will not maneuver against your brother over the different manners of customs or on account of, as so often mentioned, colour.

[¶] But why do I say this? How did I exceed the mind? Where is the intellect of the soul? Whence goes the hidden point of seeing? I think that I discovered the whole matter of the scandals; I think that I uncovered all the shadows of the hatreds. [291] I suspect, as I said, that the diversity of customs alone, the variety of colours alone, the quality or quantity of clothes, or of foods harmed the charity between monks, and exists only for the reason of such evil alone. I will spot the “straw in the eye of a brother”, but I will be unable to see the large beam and strong oak in my or his eye. And now, with the eye cleared, the day brightened, and with the noonday sun not allowing anything to now remain in obscurity, I see; and I see, I say, what it is fitting to say to me for the peace of all, whence, however, I am certain, what is was fitting to me for the peace of all goods. For the saying mentioned he who is unworthy of himself, as Jerome said. The healthy part of the body does not flee the hand of the physician, but what trembling of the finger touching it draws out, shows that without a doubt pestilence hides within.

[¶] Tell, say, I ask you, as I speak first to a man of my project, say, o black monk, give glory to God and unveil what lies hidden still in the depths of your heart against your brother. Who, I ask, is able to allow new men to be preferred to the ancient, the zeal of them place above our acts, theirs to seem more deal and ours more worthless? Who is able to see with an equal eye that for the most part the world is turned from the our ancient world, that it is converted to the program of these new persons, that the well trodden paths are abandoned by the seculars, [and] that the course is made on paths unknown until now. Who suffers to prefer the new over the old, the junior over the seniors, the white over the black monks? This you do not say, I emphasize, black monk.

[¶] And you Black monk? What do you propose? “We, the lucky ones”, I suggest, “whom a longer and more proven institution commends , which the world proclaims as more blessed to other monks, whose repute obscures the estimation of others, whose day disguises the light of others, whose sun hides the stars of others. We are the restorers of lost religion, we are the resurrectors of our dead Order, we are most justified condemners of lazy, halfhearted and defiled monks. We, [though] distinguished in manners, acts, uses and clothes from others, both make to be revealed ancient tepidity and prove that we excel in the new fervor of our brothers.”

[¶] Behold, behold that true, more hidden [and],– far removed from the charity towards others– more hostile reason which cut the unity of your minds, which severed those houses from one another, which always sharpens your tongues like a sword to degrading and cursing words, in the words of the prophet. But let the injurious sword be blunted by the sword of the divine word, and lest the fruits gathered with such efforts are dispersed by the light breeze of empty glory, be satisfied if you are wise.

[¶] And o unlucky and greatly to be mourned loss, if the purest [292] continence of your most long age, if your invincible obedience, if unbroken fastings, if everlasting vigils, if the so weighty yoke of discipline, is the so many trophies of patience, if such great and so many innumerable labours not only of the earthly life, but also of the celestial life (as I shall summarize many things briefly) through such great times towards the compensation of eternity, gathered together by you through the grace of God, one hissing of a worthless serpent will disperse, and putting you at leisure by a single breath, the sleeping/ancient dragon will render you empty in the sight of the highest judge. And where is what the saviour said to his disciples still working against this sickness: “I saw Satan as if a bolt of lightening falling from the sky”? Where is what he whom seems to be the better of them said to another, about a similar quarrel made between them, “Not so, however, with you; rather, let he whom is the better among you, become like the younger, let the leader become like a server.” Where does lies, hidden from the eyes of memory, that what the highest and greatest one, whose “greatness is not finished” according to the psalm, and who, according to the apostle, “God blessed above all things in the world”, not considering himself above or equal to his servants, but humbling himself, continues and says, “For I am among you as one who serves”? The apostle was convinced that he ought not prefer himself to another apostle and ought not a monk be convinced that he ought not prefer himself to another monk? The better disciple was subjected to the lesser, the superior to the inferior, by Christ the teacher, and [yet] do I, a Cluniac, strive to be elevated above the Cistercian? Christ subjected himself to his disciples, and will the Christian and monk raise his neck swelling with pride about his brother perhaps far better? Did majesty cast him out, and did infirmity strike him? Did his preeminence humiliate himself and did he exalt the putrid? God served and did the filth strive to command? And how do you fall, brother, from the rank of your rule, according to which you must glory to lower yourself, so that “the monk pronounces himself not only with his tongue inferior and more worthless to all, but also believes with the innermost desire of his heart”? And why do I labour further? It is not necessary for religious men, wise men, literate men to show themselves sharper, nor, as commonly it is said that Minerva teaches, is it necessary that wood refers to a forest, or water to a river or sea. The wisdom of yours both understands [and] recognizes that just as without faith, so also without charity it is impossible to please God, nor is anyone able to retain charity by any effort after humility has been cast off.

[¶] For from where humility departs, there, by necessity, pride enters. Where envy is born, immediately charity dies. For neither is it possible to love him whom the envious envy, nor is charity able in any way to remain in one not loving. On this account, where charity is lacking, so is humility and where humility lacks, also does charity. This, the apostle clearly teaches, when he said, “Charity does not envy, it does not act wrongly, it is not ambitious.” [293] And since not even charity subdues the desires for strange things, “it does not seek what are its own”. Therefore, charity must exclude all haughtiness, all ambition, all cupidity, all avarice, or rather, through charity, according to the sequence of the Apostle, iniquity is completely expelled at the same time.

[¶] If you wish now, Cluniac brother, Cistercian brother, to keep this Charity intact which the apostle called the very law of Christ, if, through it you wish to accumulate for yourself the greatest treasures in Heaven, and if you wish to keep them once accumulated, make all the effort which you can, and drive from yourself the causes which –I do not [only] say, flee it, I do not say [even], destroy it– but those which harm it even a little, if you wish to recall the banished, shut the entrance of your firm breast to those falling/coming back and retain the eternal cohabitator with every embrace of your holy heart. Charity retained firmly will raise you up to the kingdoms of Heaven, which inclines the king of the heavens through its sufficient and sweet force towards Earth. The apostle is a faithful witness to this, saying that God sent his son in the likeness of corrupted flesh on account of/ out of the considerable charity. You shall perpetually rejoice in the presence of God by charity and, just as he promised, none will take from you your joy, when God will be all things in all [people]. When you shall have sated your hunger for a long time, then his glory is made manifest. When you are similar to Him, then you are made manifest, and united to Him evermore through this charity, you shall see him as He is.

[¶] Now at length, back to you, my beloved, to whom the present letter is sent, the pen hastens, that from where the beginning took up, it may finish its unfortunate prolixity in you[?]. My reason for writing, as I professed above, as conscience testifies, was indeed only charity. As it [charity] pertains so greatly to us both, I strive to relight it by a breath of mutual discussion and to fan the accustomed flames of mutual charity even greater. It remains that [for] you [to also do so] whom highest providence prepared as a pure white and strong column for the edifice of the monastic order and whom it provides as a remarkable light for our times –like a reddish star– in word and example, not only to monks, but also to the whole Latin Church. It remains, I say, that, you devote so much labour as you are able to this divine work and that you do not allow the greatest congregations of one name and one order to be divided further. I always endeavored that I commend those saintly monks of your congregation to our brothers and I always rooted [inviscerarem] the former [our brothers] in the later [your monks], if it is possible, in the union of perfect charity. This publicly, that privately, this I do not hesitate to do in the greatest gatherings of our brothers, and I labour in order that I eradicate by those means (which I am able) that blight of envy which is tends to corrode secretly the guts from the inside. Strive in accordance with that great grace brought for you by God [294] to the communal field, in order that, just as none after you be proved to have planted many useful things in it in our days, so, does everything contrary enough to useful things be removed by laudable zeal and industry. Force out with that sublime and enflaming eloquence deriving from the spirit of God, as I put it mildly, that childish emulation from their hearts, that murmuring from their tongue and engender the fraternal delectation to the place of those they wish or do not wish.

[¶] Let not the diversity of usages, the variety of colours further segregate your flocks from ours, but, repairing the corrupted, reintegrating the cloven, unifying the divided, let charity reunited all things having derived from the highest unity. Thus plainly, it is fitting in such a way that for whom there is one God, one faith and one baptism, whom one church comprises, whom one eternal and blessed life awaits, to them also, according to Scripture, there ought to be “one heart and soul”. I sent to a begemmed friend a crystal of salt, whose corporeal use I formerly heard was useful to you and whose spiritual intellect I thought to be necessary for the things written above. For however many and precious appurtenances of your virtues are born to the table of the eternal king without the salt of their fraternal salt, as the unsalted are rejected , if they season them with that salt, then those dishes now pleasing are admitted with those offering. For he who under His Law receives no sacrifice without salt, shows that he is pleased by the gift of no virtue lacking the seasoning. [¶] I sent also our new translation arguing against the worst evil heresy of Mohammed….

[298] For although, as I said above, this can not benefit, as I see it, those lost [souls]…

And although I, impeded, am distracted by many impendiments, can not be distracted for long, if possible.