161 (1148/52) To the Priors and Subpriors of Cluniac places.

Brother Peter, the humble abbot of the Cluniacs sends greetings and blessing and thanks from the creator of grace to our venerable and beloved brothers– as much the priors as the custodians of the order, wheresoever they are established.

Do I speak or remain silent? Do I open my lips or close them? If I should have thought to be [one] of them, about whom it is said, “My people, who call you blessed, themselves deceive you and obscure the path of your footsteps” and about whom Sacred Scripture mockingly says in the voice of the foolish person, “Tell us pleasantries, show us illusions” or about those about whom [Scripture] also said, “They are silent dogs not able to bark”[1][then] either I fawn over you or I remain silent. If I shall have fawned , alas, I shall run up against that prophecy, which is read in Isaiah, “Woe to those who call evil, good and good, evil”, naming shadows, light and light, shadows and alternating bitterness for sweetness and sweetness for bitterness.” If I should have remained silent, I dread also this: If you do not proclaim his iniquity to the iniquitous [person] , the same one indeed “shall die for their iniquity, but their blood I will require at your hand.” And that section, “Woe to me for I remained silent.” I do not intend to fawn over you, nor to remain silent. For each is equally dangerous, the more to it which I intend to say,. Therefore, there remains the other of the two which I mentioned above, that is, not that I remain silent, but that I speak. “Shout out,” it says, and do not hold back, raise up you voice as if a trumpet.” Therefore I speak and I shout both so that those of you who preside, repeat these things to others and so that I admonish the speechless. For it ought to be feared to no lesser degree by you than by me, if you remain silent, since you know those sworn to you, even if not in the fullness of power, nonetheless in the service of consideration.

And lest I carry on beyond what ought to be said, it is reported to me –and this not by evil and frivolous people– which I do not say without an inward sorrow of the heart, that now there is no difference, insofar as it relates to the eating of meat, between our brothers and the laity, between the laity and the regular clergy, or rather, as I should expressly remark, between buffoons and monks. I say that there is no difference between these and those, but much is, alas, in a perverse order. Certain mimics or copy-cats abstain from meat all Saturday for the sake of God, the majority of the laity abstains an entire fourth over and above, [and] those abstain from it, even every second weekday. [389] But our brothers, monks and Cluniacs here of the sacred order and of a heavenly profession, despised by God, having cast off shame, continue to consume meat the whole year, so it is said, on every ferial day besides the sixth, and this they do not even do secretly, but openly and publically: “they proclaim their sin,” as the prophet says, “like Sodom.” They hurry from place to place and, as kites or vultures, they quickly circle round wherever they see the kitchen fires or when their nostrils draw in the scent of roasted or grilled meat. And since through their depraved example the sacred order is blasphemed for people seeing this, they blaspheme the work of the Lord with their mouth. “Woe”, Sacred Scripture says, “to them by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed.” If anyone, driven by the fear of God, wished to abstain from such food, he is mocked now by such people and is called a hypocrite, a pretender and profane. He is reckoned by them, as if a Gentile and a heretic; they preach that it ought to be one guard against him, as if an open enemy.[2]

Beans, cheese, eggs, even fishes are now considered nauseating. Only pots of Egypt are pleasing. Roast or boiled pork, fresh fat, cirogrillus, rabbit, a goose chosen from a flock of geese, hens, and almost all domestic beasts and birds serve as the meals of these ‘saintly’ monks. But they even denegrate those things now. The considerable attention engenders squeemishness. The sated monk is turned to courtly and foreign delights, and is now only able to eat wild goat, venison, boar or bear. The woods ought to be sacrificed, the work is for hunters. With the skill of birdcatchers, fasciani, patridges, and turtle-doves are caught, lest the servant of God perish from hunger. Carefully it ought be prepared, so that –since it is impossible to live otherwise– the desires of [the brother] are fully satisfied. What therefore remains? When, indeed, only the sixth ferial day of each week is not included for these feasts, and the same is added and nor does Lent of Christians provides unending feasts. They remove the fasts from the middle of spring, summer, fall and winter. The complete year as a whole extends with feasts and parties, lest perchance the god of such men is offended, about which and concerning whom the apostle says, “Their belly is their God and their glory is in their shame.” For why do such monks grow tired without fruit? Why, without hope of mercy, do they abstain from meat on the sixth ferial day, Lent or a few other days. For what hope of mercy is able to reside in them , who are seen to abstain from meat on those sacred days not by their own will but by command, not voluntarily but coerced. For nothing, I say again nothing, could convince me that such people wish to abstain from meat those days, if it could be done unpunished. Therefore they abandon what they are made to command, and as from that foreign bread concerning which is is read in the Gospel, “Blessed is he who chews bread in the kingdom of God,” and just as those banished from that table, about whom Christ [says] that “may you eat and drink at my table in my kingdom” [390] they do not send away in the meantime the flesh- not the pork, the beef, or any other that sixth ferial day and Lent. The whole and complete year, as I already said, extends in rejoicing and feasts, such that mourning and anguish are maintained through the ages by these feasts. The Cluniac estates do not now suffice as I heard from a certain of ours, worthy in faith, for the meals and parties of our extravagences, such that if a server devoted to meats and to the vows of them should wish to satisfy them, it would be necessary to sell the very lands and estates. And O whosoever is the butcher of such a party, is this benefiting the monk, is this what you vowed to God? Is this what you promised in the presence of your abbot and your brothers? Is this the Rule, according to which you swore you would live? Let us see, let us see! This Rule is brought up in the middle and is recognized whether it maintains professing what is prescribed about meat. It says, “The eating of the meat of any four legged beast ought to be abstained from by all, except the completely weak and sick.” And in another place, “The eating of meat is allowed to the infirm insofar as it is helpful. And when they become better, all must abstain from meat in the accustomed manner.” What did you say? I am a monk. O would that be true! If therefore, you are a monk, where was it that you professed? You certainly professed obedience according to the Rule of St. Benedict. These words which you heard are moreover from this chapter. Why therefore do you prevaricate? Why do you lie to God? Why do you deceive your very self? Your own words condemn you “from your own mouth” such that they adjudge you a worthless servant, men serve and angels retain the chirograph which you wrote, [the chirograph] to be put before you on the day of the great judgement of the Lord before the tribunal of the highest and judge of truth, Jesus Christ; I say ‘to be put before you’ and to be read, either for life or for death. And lest it is fitting for you to run back to what you are accustomed, as you said and this chapter says, changed just like some others also for some sure reason by the certain holy fathers, I respond: It is otherwise. For if something concerning accepting novices, concerning manual labour, if concerning clothing and similar things, was changed by the good fathers after Saint Benedict, it was not done from ambiguity, but for a clear and rational reason. And since the sake and reason were [already] scrupuluously described, since twice by me in two letters [28, 111] sent some time ago to the lord abbot of Clairvaux, I adjudge it superfluous to repeat this. If you were more studious, you would find it there plainly. And how is the violation of this chapter excused? How does a healthy monk with sound strengths using meat not demonstrate himself to be guilty? Tell me if you have anything and if some reason is true or true-seeming, defend your [eating of] meat, if you are able. But you don’t have a reason. I say you don’t as I consider what you will say. You plainly do not [even] have a [bodily] mole (and I do not call it a blemish?) from where you purge your oathbreakings.

The Rule denies it. Justice refuses it. And why do I say this? The Rule sometimes remains silent. The chief reformer of the Rule, Odo, the greatest renewer of the monastic Order in Gaul came after the great Benedict and his disciple Maurus. [391] Odo, I name, the first father of the Cluniac order who now dead, undertook with the greatest effort to resurrect almost everywhere the fervour of the monastic project: the saint was extinguished in his time; “the truths were diminished by the sons of men.”

In almost all the ends of our Europe, there was nothing about being a monk beyond a tonsure and a habit. Then almost alone, he instituted by his divine work and (laying down the first foundation of Cluny), afterwards he did not cease to plant the seeds of religion here and there as long as he lived. What did he– your first father– think, therefore, O brother, about the chapter on meat? What did he say? What did he write? Consult his book, reread his words! Discover among the other things that he had written: out of such a fear of such things, some monk of that corrupted time had come to his parents’ house one day and sought a refection be prepared for him. And when his parents responded that they had fish without difficulty, that man, indignant at the mention of fish, with a cudgel which he held strongly in his hand, struck a hen standing nearby. And he said, “Why do you say that you have fish? This plainly, this presently is fishy enough for me.” [His parents] blushing at the words of an impudent man hurriedly prepared the struck chicken for the monk at the aesus, they bring it to the fire and they begin to roast it. And after it is roasted a little longer, at his throats’ urging, he was impatient and as if by the passion of an impulse, he cut open the chicken , removed the offal and threw it into his mouth. And quickly having vanished, when he attempted to swallow, he was not able; when he attempted to cough it up, that thing did not work [either]. All ran together, shouted at each other, repeated blows on the neck are redoubled; they labour with every zeal and effort in order that the meal of the dead be able to be ejected. But to no end. Thus, with the way of the gullet chosen, with spiritual vitality extinguished, this monk, prefering to consume the obstructing mortifying meal, [and] not to confess his sin, nor to take the salvific meal, that is the body of Christ, was dead in a moment. Thus, felled before his time by so terrible a death, he teaches to those present and future that to fall into the hands of this living god ought to be feared and demonstrates clearly that the eating of meats is not suitable for strong and healthy monks. This certainly is a Cluniac teaching, brother, the judgement of your first and holy father Odo about the meats of his monks. But perhaps lest you say, that he condemned this vice in only one monk, recollect the story of his life, and recall to your mind [how] with great zeal he prohibited the monks of Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire committed to him from eating meats. For thus it is read there, “Moreover, he began his days to persuade them that they ought to restrain from eating meat, to live sparingly and to possess no personal property.” And this afterwards, “[392] And those brothers endeavoured to finish off by eating that very thing which they had renounced, since to the others – which our father had brought with him– he had unwillingly conceeded to them as with all things consumed, at the least, flesh for eating. Concerning which thing, they ceaselessly desired fish. In contrast, the pious father weighed every competence of themin order to prohibit them from one. From which one? From eating any flesh!

This is said as I said, if you are Cluniac, the teaching of your father, this is his example, this is his precept. Therefore, either deny him, your father, and eat your meat, or acknowledge your fault and abstain from those meats which are not for you. I say “those” not “yours” if you are a monk and are healthy. And why do I say, “if you are a monk and you are healthy”? I will say something in addition. Consider how greatly the eating of meat ought to be condemned among monks, when, most severely, it was condemned by God even among the Jews. They said, “Who will give to us meat for eating!?”. “Our strength is dried up. And our eyes see nothing else other than manna.” And what comes after? “Truly angry was,” Sacred Scripture says, “the wrath of the lord. But the thing was even seen as unacceptable by Moses.” Because if God “is angered”, if “Moses found it intolerable” that a Jew desired meat, surely God would not be able to be pleased, surely it would not be tolerable when against his vow a monk eats flesh? But listen to the fearful judgment of God. Although God was angry for this reason, although that mumbling was seen as intolerable by Moses, the Jewish desire was satisfied, however, andthose having obtained what they evily had desired were punished and torments were carried out unto them, by the judgment, where it is said, “I gave to them according to the desires of their hearts, they go about according to their own devices.” Thus, certainly it is done thusly. “But they had a wanton desire in the wilderness and they put God to the test in the desert places. And he granted them their request and sent an abundance into their souls [animas].” For thus it is said to them, “Consecrate yourselves, for tomorrow you shall eat meat; For I,” God said, “heard you say, “Who will give us meat to eat tomorrow? It is well for us in Egypt.” So, the lord will to us flesh and you will eat, not one day, or two days, or five or ten or even twenty but for all the days of a month, until it comes out your nostrils and it is changed into vomit, because you have rejected the lord who is in our midst.” And behold, it was fulfilled what they had desired. They ate and they perished. Listen to Moses, “The flesh as still between their teeth and they had not yet digested this dinner, and behold the wrath of the lord was kindled against the people and he struck them with a very great plague. And that place was called, the Tombs of Desire, for there, the buried the people who had desired meat.” Listen also to David, “The food was still in their mouths and the anger of God rose against them. He killed the fattest of them and laid low the chosen of Israel.” What is more evident? What is more to be feared? Listen ravenly monk and do not grow angry that I name you thus. [393] For in what way are you different from a raven, from a vulture, from a bear, or from a wolf? Those birds or beasts gape at bloody dishes; they do not make a division between eating either day from days or hour from hours.

Thus, it is as I see also you, who, as I wrote above, do not allow any day, any hour, unless compelled by force, to keep you away from such meals. Listen, take notice and understand the [situation of] the Jews; God takes vengeance so fearfully for their desire for meat [while] in no way did they first vow to God an abstinence from meat. Although they did not vow any such thing to God, although they promised nothing, however, since they had wanton desire, since they grumbled, since they ate, “the anger of God rose against them,” the chosen of Israel were laid low, untold numbers were killed and were buried in the tombs of desire, since they desired after meat. And did YOU, who ought to be reckoned in Heaven on account of greater merit, vow that while healthy, you would not eat meat , whose prophetic voice resonates so very assiduously in the presence of God, and to whom more courageously it promises, “I render unto you my vow which I pronounce with my lips” when unpunished you evade almost daily beginning the ineffectual pact you made with God? You wish, or rather, you demand to be given what is promised to you by your neighbour and you think that what is promised to God will not be compelled by God? Indeed, he remains silent now, but as he says, does anyone remain silent for ever? Certainly whensoever he speaks as if a woman in labour, certainly as these words of him constrain him, “He will cry out and he will shout,” and “he will show himself mighty against his enemies.” He rises upsince you are a provoker, he rises upsince you are a liar, nor does he send away anything until the final fourth quarter. Therefore, these things ought quickly to put the fear of God in you, even if you are not yet cast away from the face of God, fear what you hear, do not think about empty and playful things, since what no mortal is ever able, and neither are you able, I believe, to escape the judgment of God. These words are not mine, but the apostle’s, or rather, his whom in the apostle talks of Christ. “Put,” as Solomon said, when you come to the table, “Put” I say, “a knife to your throat” and “transfix your flesh with the fear of God” do not compel them to abstain from your flesh. Through the apple, which is less, not through flesh did the parent of human flesh persish and lose the world. Which sin is so great , he recognizes even if turning away a little. For unless first he was accused/ charged of/with that eating, the son of God could not have born such great things for expiating them in his assumed flesh. But am I unmindful of something of examples? The evidences of Sacred Scripture are innumerable, which condemn the intemperance of the gullet, which demonstrate how much evil follows thence, which proscribes to every Christian, and I do not say “to monks”, to be waryin every way. Whence, what the apostle said above, “Not in eatings and drinkings.” Which, showing this further, adds, what follows from there, “Not in beds and shameless acts.”But perhaps, you place before me the goats of Isaac by which he about to be satisfied, blessed the son. Perhaps also you throw the ravens of Greece/ Elijahin the way, concerning whom it is said that, “they brought to him bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening.” And I, although you might not be a patriarch, conceed to you, with pleasure, the goats of the patriarch, if however, now satisfied, you will also give to me the benedictions which he gave to the son. I do not restrict the meat of Heliaeif either you are a prophet or you receive meat borne to you by ravens.

But lest I seem excessive in my speech, I will now finish my words. For, why should I say more? If these [words] do not deter you, neither, as I think it, will more. If these do not correct you, nor, as I consider it, will further. Therefore, God shall provide whether what was said will benefit you. But if they do not profit you, at least they will compel me onwards. For I will say to God, what the father Benedict prohibited those contemptible persons, about to be called masters, by the following things, “I did not hide your justice in my heart, I brought up your truth and your salvation. But despising this, they spurned me.”

[1]Reference to letter by Matthew of Albano?

[2]Evans, Monastic Life at Cluny. pg. 42, translates it as, “like hawks and vultures, they gathered wherever they saw smoke from a kitchen, whereever they smelt meat cooking… Beans, cheese, eggs and fish disgusted them; they only found savoury the flesh-pots of Egypt. Roast or boiled pork, a well fatted heifer, rabbit, hare, a goose choosen with care, chicken, in fact every kind of meat and fowl appears on the table to these holy monks. But soon such food in its turn ceases to be good enough; satiety brings fastidiousness; rare and royal luxuries must be provided. Today a monk cannot stay his hunger but on the flesh of goats, of stags, of boars, of wild bear. Huntsmen, range the forest! Fowlers, catch partridges, pheasants, pigeons; let not the servant of God die of hunger…. Thou monk who eats flesh, who sits down to such banquets, is it thus that you fulfill the vow made before God at your profession? Is this the promise made to your abbot and brethren? Is this the rule by which you should live?