Cap. LVI
DE MENSA ABBATIS

[Ms P, fol. 140r – Paulus Diaconus –
Ps.-Basil: Ms K¹, fol. 152r; Ms E¹, fol. 160r; Ms E², fol. 241v]

Ch. 56
ON THE ABBOT'S TABLE

Translated by: Tristan Sharp

Rectum ordinem tenuit in hoc loco S. Benedictus, cum dicit _tde mensa abbatis. Superius enim dixerat de susceptione hospitum, deinde quia solent hospites offerre aliquid fratribus, ne monachus sine licentia accipiat ea, quae ipse hospes dare voluerit, constrinxit monachum, ne illa sine licentia accipiat. Et iterum ne forte murmuret monachus: quare ita constrictus sum, ut non accipiam propter meam necessitatem, quod mihi amicus vel propinquus transmittit aut donat? ideo S. Benedictus studuit statim subjungere de calciamentis vel aliis necessitatibus tribuendis, quatenus malum murmurationis oriri non possit. Deindeque subjunxit etiam, cum quibus isti hospites, qui veniunt, manducare debeant, cum hoc capitulum constituit, in quo docet, ut ipse abbas cum ipsis hospitibus manducare studeat. Sed de loco, ubi ipse abbas manducet cum hospitibus, dubitatio apud quosdam existit. De qua dubitatione, qualiter certius teneatur, secundum quod Deus dederit, juxta capacitatem nostri sensus nunc dicemus.

St. Benedict has held to the correct order in this place where he speaks about the abbot’s table. For he had spoken above about the reception of guests [Regula Benedicti, c. 53] and then, since guests are accustomed to offer something to the brothers, he constrains the monk not to receive anything, lest he receive these things that the guest wished to give to him without permission.¹ [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 54] And again, lest perhaps the monk grumble: 'Why am I so constrained that I cannot accept what I need, which my friend or relative hands over or gives to me?' Benedict is careful to add [a chapter] at once on offering sandals and other necessities, so that the evil of grumbling may not be able to arise. [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 55] And then he also adds material concerning with whom those guests ought to eat when they arrive, when he includes this chapter [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 54.21-24], in which he teaches that the abbot himself should take care to eat with those guests. But concerning the place where the abbot should dine with the guests there is doubt in some quarters. We will now speak about this doubt according to the capacity of our understanding, explaining how it may be grasped more surely, according to God’s will.

Ait enim: ₁Mensa abbatis cum hospitibus et peregrinis sit semper.

For he says, ₁Let the table of the abbot always be with the guests and pilgrims.

Mensa enim a mense dicta est, sicut Cassiodorus dicit, quia eodem die convivia ritu gentilium exercebantur. [Cassiodorus, Expositio psalmorum 22:6, CCSL 97, p. 212] [page 522]

For the word ‘table’ [mensa] comes from ‘month’ [mensis], as Cassiodorus says, for feasts were held on the same day in the fashion of the gentiles. [Cassiodorus, Expositio psalmorum 22:6]² [page 522]

Attendendum est in hoc loco, quia B. Benedictus hospitalitatem et humanitatem docuit.

One should note that in this place blessed Benedict teaches hospitality and humane conduct (humanitas).

Hospites sunt, qui de eadem regione sunt, i. e. de prope. Peregrini sunt, qui de alia regione. Peregrinus enim dicitur, sicut dicit Cassiodorus, quasi pergens longius. [Cassiodorus, Expositio psalmorum 38:13, CCSL 97, p. 361]

Guests are those from the same region, i.e. from nearby. Pilgrims are those from another region. For one is called a ‘pilgrim’ [peregrinus] as if traveling further [pergens longius], as Cassiodorus says [Cassiodorus, Expositio psalmorum, 38:13].³

Sequitur: ₂Quoties tamen minus sunt hospites, quos vult de fratribus vocare, in ipsius sit potestate. ₃Seniorem tamen unum aut duos semper cum fratribus dimittendum procuret propter disciplinam.

There follows: ₂As often as there are fewer guests, let it be in his power to invite those of the brothers whom he wants. ₃Let him take care, however, that one or two of the seniors are always left with the brothers for the sake of discipline.

Quaeritur in hoc loco, ubi debet abbas manducare, utrum in refectorio, an foris? Sunt alii, qui dicunt, quia in refectorio debet manducare. Quomodo ergo dimittere debet fratres duos cum fratribus in refectorio, si ille debet manducare ibi? Qui respondentes dicunt: propterea dixit B. Benedictus, seniores dimittere, quia suut talia refectoria, in quibus ita sedent fratres propter multitudinem fratrum, ut ab abbate non possint videri, veluti sunt in S. Gallo. Et iterum sunt plurimi, qui dicunt, abbatem foris manducare debere, eo modo, cum silentio et lectione. [Cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 38]

One may ask at this point where the abbot ought to dine, whether in the refectory or outside it? There are some who say that he ought to dine in the refectory. Then how can he be required to leave two brothers with the brothers in the refectory, if he ought to dine there? They say in reply, Blessed Benedict says to leave the seniors because there are some refectories in which the brothers, on account of the multitude of brothers, sit so that they cannot be seen by the abbot, as they do at St. Gall. And again there are many who say that the abbot ought to dine outside the refectory, but in the same way as the brothers, with silence and reading. [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 38]

Ubi animadvertendum est, quia si ille abbas ita fuerit mortificatus, sicut ista regula dicit, non est malum suspicandum de illo. Si autem fuerit gulosus et vagus et non ita mortificatus, sicut regula dicit, non solum non debet illic manducare, verum etiam ullam abbatiam non habere.

Here it must be observed that if the abbot is humbled in this manner, as the Rule says, then evil cannot be suspected of him. If, however, he is gluttonous and wanders about and is not humbled in this way, as the Rule says, not only ought he not dine there, but indeed he should not even hold any abbacy.

Quod autem dicit quos vult de fratribus vocare, in ipsius sit potestate, non debet intelligi, ut illos, quos ad suum libitum vult, i. e. decanum aut praepositum sine necessitate, sed illos debet vocare, qui debiles sunt, quibus necessitas fuerit.

When it says that it is in his power invite those of the brothers whom he wants, it should not be understood that he can invite those whom he pleases (i.e. a dean or prior) without need, but rather those who are weak, for whom it is necessary.

Forte dicit aliquis, 'Quare illos debiles et non alios, cum regula non dicit: debiles, sed quos vult?' Cui respondendum est, quia voluntas abbatis secundum sacram regulam semper debet esse bona. Sacra enim regula dicit: semper indigentium necessitatem debet inspicere, non voluntatem invidentium, et secundum necessitatem uniuscujusque debet illi tribuere; non debet considerare personas, sed necessitates [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 55.20-22] [page 523] quia S. Benedictes non dat illi licentiam, ut contra rationem aliquid agat vel disponat, sed juste et recte debet agere et disponere.

Perhaps someone will say, 'Why those who are weak, and not others, since the Rule does not say ‘weak,’ but ‘whom he wants’?' One should reply, 'Because the will of the abbot, according to the holy Rule, ought to always be good.' For the holy Rule says: he ought to always look to the necessities of the needy, not the desires of the envious, and let him give to each one according to his need; [cf. Act 2:45, 4:35] he ought not to consider the person, but the need. [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 55.20-22] [page 523] For St. Benedict does not give the abbot permission to do or arrange something contrary to reason, but he ought to do and arrange things justly and rightly.

Forte dicit aliquis, 'Quare S. Benedictus praecepit abbati cum hospite manducare, cum alibi praeceperat, omnem necessitatem et omnem humanitatem hospiti exhiberi? [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 12-14] Jam si ille abbas cum hospite debet manducare et hospiti omnem necessitatem et humanitatem exhibere, ergo abbas non videtur bonum exemplum dare fratribus?' Cui respondendum est: intentio S. Benedicti fuit, et ideo illum mortificat, ut nihil contra regulam agat aut disponat; et quia ille mortificatus debet esse, ideo ut magis exemplum det fratribus, praecepit illi cum hospite manducare, ut cum ille de quatuor vel quinque pulmentis plus nil sumpserit, quam de tribus, et ibi continens fuerit, ceteri forte, qui de tribus pulmentariis nimium sumere cupierint, ejus exemplum capiant et doceantur, de tribus pulmentis mensurate manducare, si eorum abbas de pluribus pulmentis tantum manducat, quantum de tribus. Similiter et de honestate sentiendum est.

Perhaps someone will say, 'Why did St. Benedict order the abbot to dine with the guests, when elsewhere he had ordered that every need and kindness [humanitas] be provided for a guest? [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 12-14] For if the abbot ought to dine with a guest, and to provide every need and kindness to the guest, therefore does not the abbot seem to give a good example to the brothers?' To whom one should reply, the intention of St. Benedict was both to humble him, so that he will do or arrange nothing contrary to the Rule, and since he ought to be humbled, therefore so that he may rather give an example to the brothers, he orders him to dine with a guest, so that when he takes no more from four or five dishes than he would from three, and is restrained there, perhaps the others, who may want to take too much from their three dishes, will follow his example and be taught to dine with measure from the three dishes, if their abbot dines the same amount from many dishes as they would from three. One should understand the same point concerning appropriate behaviour (honestas).

De loco vero non satis claret, ubi manducare debeat. Potuit enim plenius intelligi, foris manducare debere, si non invenirentur talia refectoria, quae superius diximus, ita habere mensas ordinatas, ut omnes fratres ab abbate non possint videri. Sed hoc quid erit? Nam si ille talis est, qualem ista regula dicit, non est de illo malum suspicandum, ubicunque manducaverit.

But it is not sufficiently clear where the abbot ought to dine. For one could have more readily understand that he ought to dine outside the refectory, if there were not refectories such as we have mentioned above that have their tables arranged so that all the brothers cannot be seen by the abbot. But what of this? For if he is such a man as the Rule describes, one should not suspect evil of him, wherever he dines.

Forte dicit aliquis, 'Quare debet coquina abbatis juxta coquinam fratrum esse, si abbas extra refectorium debet manducare?' [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 53:16] Cui respondendum est: Illi, qui dicunt, abbatem non debere manducare extra refectorium, dicunt, coquinam abbatis esse erga coquinam monachorum. Notandum est enim, sicut diximus, quia de mensa abbatis, ubi esse debet, i. e. utrum in refectorio cum mensis fratrum, an extra refectorium, varie intelligitur. Aliter enim intelligunt spirituales abbates, aliter carnales. Dicunt quidem carnales abbates, quia cum hospitibus extra refectorium debet esse mensa abbatis.

Perhaps someone will say, 'Why should the abbot’s kitchen be next to the kitchen of the brothers, if the abbot ought to dine outside of the refectory?' [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 53.16] To which one should reply: those who say that the abbot ought not to dine outside of the refectory say that the abbot’s kitchen is opposite the kitchen of the monks. For one should note, as we have said, that there are various interpretations of where the abbot’s table should be, i.e. whether in the refectory with the tables of the brothers, or outside the refectory. For spiritual abbots understand it in one way, carnal abbots in another. Carnal abbots, to be sure, say that the abbot’s table ought to be outside of the refectory with the guests.

Assumunt in adjutorium sui erroris illud, quod S. Benedictus dicit: Quoties tamen minus sunt hospites, quos vult de fratribus [page 524] vocare, in ipsius sit potestate; seniores tamen unum aut duos semper cum fratribus dimittendum procuret propter disciplinam. Quid enim necesse fuerat S. Benedicto dicere: unum aut duos semper cum fratribus dimittendum procuret propter disciplinam, si in refectorio abbas manducare debuisset, cum ipse abbas, si ibi manducat, potest disciplinam habere, ne aliquid inhoneste aut agatur aut loquatur?¹

They claim in support of their error the fact that St. Benedict says: As often as there are fewer guests, let it be in his power to invite those of the brothers [page 524] whom he wants. Let him take care, however, that one or two of the seniors are always left with the brothers for the sake of discipline. Why was it necessary for St. Benedict to say Let him take care that one or two of the seniors are always left with the brothers for the sake of discipline, if the abbot ought to dine in the refectory, since the abbot himself, if he eats there, can maintain discipline, lest anything be done or said improperly?

Et in eo, quod dicit dimittendum, apparet, quod alibi est ipse abbas et alibi sunt illi, super quos dimittuntur seniores propter disciplinam, et non insimul. Et ideo, quia dicit dimittendum procuret, vult, ut alibi sit abbas, et alibi sint fratres, cum quibus seniores dimitti jubet. Isti tales, qui ita intelligunt, quia carnales sunt, non spiritaliter intelligunt nec secundum intentionem S. Benedicti.

And in that he says are left, it appears that the abbot is in one place, and those over whom the seniors are left for the sake of discipline are in another, and they are not together in one place. And therefore, since he says let him take care that they are left, he intends the abbot to be in one place, and the brothers, with whom he orders the seniors to be left, in another. Such as these, who understand the Rule in this manner because they are carnal, do not understand it spiritually, nor according to the intention of St. Benedict.

Scimus autem, quia S. Benedictus spiritalis homo fuit et Deo devotissime deserviens, et ideo per hanc regulam ad instruendam vitam se sequentium spiritaliter vivere docuit. Ille enim docet et admonet abbatem, ut abbas nomen majoris factis implere debeat et magis exemplis, quam verbis, suos discipulos debeat docere, sicut habes: Ergo cum aliquis suscipit nomen abbatis, duplici debet doctrina suis praeesse discipulis, i. e. omnia bona et sancta factis amplius quam verbis ostendat; [Regula Benedicti, c. 2.11-12] et iterum: Omnia vero, quae discipulos docuerit esse contraria, in suis factis indicet non agenda. [Regula Benedicti, c. 2.13]

We know, however, that St. Benedict was a spiritual man and one serving God devotedly, and therefore he taught those following him through this Rule to live a spiritual life. For he teaches and admonishes the abbot, that the abbot should live up to his title with greater deeds, and ought to teach his disciples more by examples than by words, as he has it: there when anyone takes up the name of abbot, he ought to surpass his disciples in a two-fold teaching, i.e., let him show every good and holy thing in deeds more than in words [Regula Benedicti, c. 2.11-12], and again: Let him indicate by his deeds that everything that he teaches his disciples to be contrary to the Rule is not to be done [Regula Benedicti, c. 2.13].

Ac per hoc, si foris, i. e. extra refectorium manducaverit, jam non factis suos discipulos docebit, quia, sui discipuli eum non vident, cum quanta moderatione, cum quanto silentio et cum quanta gravitate cum hospitibus manducat, sed magis ex hoc occasionem habere potest ipse abbas, si carnalis fuerit, cum foris manducaverit, aliquid loquendi aut inhoneste aliquid agendi; et cum hoc factum fuerit, in suis factis docet discipulos agere ea, quae agenda non sunt, cum debet in suis factis docere et non agere, quae agenda non sunt.

And thus if he dines outside, i.e. outside of refectory, then he will not teach his disciples by his deeds, since his disciples do not see him, do not see with what moderation, with what silence, and with what gravity he dines with the guests, but rather an abbot, if he is carnal, can have a great opportunity, when he dines outside the refectory, to say or do something improper. And when this occurs, he teaches his disciples by his deeds to do what should not be done, when he ought to teach them by his deeds to not do what ought not to be done.

Unde si in refectorio manducaverit cum illis hospitibus, cum quibus in refectorio [page 525] debet manducare, tria bona erunt, quae ad salutem animae attinent, unum videlicet, quia exemplo suo docet, cum quanto silentio, cum quanta mensura et moderatione atquo gravitate manducare² debet cum hospitibus; [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 42.11] secundum bonum est, ut hospites, cum viderint tam abbatem quam et monachos cum timore Dei et cum reverentia atque moderatione sive etiam gravitate manducare,³ glorificent Dominum, sicut Dominus dicit: Videntes vestra bona opera et glorificent patrem vestrum, qui in coelis est; [Mt 5:15] et quandoque Domino miserante ipsi hospites contemnentes ea, quae saeculi sunt, ad Dei servitutem venire festinabunt; tertium etiam bonum est, quia cum hoc fecerit, i. e. cum abbas in refectorio manducaverit, implebit illud, quod, sicut dictum est, S. Benedictus praecepit dicens, ut simul omnes dicant versum et orent et sub uno omnes accedant ad mensam. [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 43.12]

Whence if he dines in the refectory with those guests, with whom he ought to dine in the refectory, [page 525] there will be three goods that pertain to the salvation of the soul: first that he teaches by his example with what silence, with what restraint, and moderation, and gravity one ought to eat with guests.[cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 42.11] The second good is that the guests, when they see both the abbot and the monks dining with the fear of God, and with reverence, and with moderation (or even gravity), they may glorify the Lord, just as the Lord says, That, seeing your good works, they may glorify your Father, who is in heaven [Mt 5:15], and whenever, according to God’s mercy, these guests condemn worldly things, they will hasten to come to the service of God. The third good is that when he does this (i.e., when the abbot dines in the refectory), he fulfills that which, as it is said, St. Benedict ordered, saying that they should all say the verse together, and pray and sit down at table as one. [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 43.12]

Vel quomodo potest esse verum hoc, quod dicunt, ut S. Benedictus dicat, abbatem non in refectorio cum fratribus et hospitibus manducare debere, sed extra refectorium cum hospitibus, cum superius dicat: ad mensam autem, qui ante versum non occurrerit, ut insimul omnes dicant versum et orent, et sub uno omnes accedant ad mensam? [Regula Benedicti, c. 43.13] Ecce hic dicit, omnes accedere ad mensam et non exceptavit abbatem dicens ‘excepto abbate, qui cum hospitibus manducaturus est’, sed tantum dixit omnes dicant versum. Et hoc non suffecit ei semel dicere omnes, sed bis, cum subjunxit et sub uno "omnes" accedant ad mensam. [Regula Benedicti, c. 43.13]

Or how can what they say be true, that St. Benedict says that the abbot ought not to dine in the refectory with the brothers and the guests, but rather outside the refectory with the guests, when he says above: But, if anyone does not arrive at the table before the verse so that all may say the verse and pray together and all may sit down at table as one.[Regula Benedicti, c. 43.13] Behold, here he says that they all sit down at table, and he does not make an exception for the abbot, saying, except for the abbot, who is going to dine with the guests, but he only says that they should all say the verse. And it is not enough for him to say all once, but twice, when he adds, and may they all go to the table as one. [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 43.13]

Ac per hoc, cum ita intelligendum est, ut abbatis mensa in refectorio cum mensis fratrum esse debeat, illud, quod dicit S. Benedictus: seniorem tamen unum aut duos semper cum fratribus dimittendum procuret propter disciplinam, [ita] discrete et rationabiliter intelligi debet.

And in this way, since it must be understood that the abbot’s table ought to be in the refectory, with the table of the brothers, so the fact that St. Benedict says Let him take care to leave one or two of the seniors with the brothers on account of discipline, should be understood in a reasonable and discerning manner.

Dixit enim S. Benedictus in superiori capitulo, ubi de susceptione hospitum docet, ut abbas, si hospes ante legitimam horam refectionis venerit, debeat rumpere jejunium et cum hospite manducare, si non tale sit jejunium, [page 526] quorum non licet, sicut habes: Jejunium a priore frangatur propter hospites; nisi forte praecipuus sit dies jejunii, qui violari non possit. Fratres autem consuetudinem jejuniorum prosequantur. [Regula Benedicti, c. 53.10-11]

For St. Benedict says in an earlier chapter, where he teaches about the reception of guests, that if a guest should come before the appointed hour for eating, the abbot ought to break his fast and dine with the guest, if it is not the sort of fast [page 526] for which this is not allowed, as you read: Let a fast be broken by the prior on account of the guests, unless it be a major fast, which may not be violated. The brothers, however, should follow the customary fasts.[Regula Benedicti, c. 53.10-11]

Et ideo, cum dicit abbati, suum jejunium frangere, hoc est, ante horam legitimam manducare, [et] fratres omnes non debere⁴ manducare, exceptis his, quos S. Benedictus jussit, eo quod prandium forte erit magnum, et hospites pauci, et ita pauci, ut superet prandium, quatenus ne superfluum manducent, quia pauci hospites sunt, sed cito et moderate ipsum prandium consumtum fiat. Sic enim S. Benedictus in isto prandio fieri jussit, cum fratres vocare praecepit, sicut Dominus praecepit Judaeis de comedendo pascha ita dicens: si autem minor est numerus, ut sufficere possit ad vescendum agnum, assumet vicinum, qui conjunctus est domui ejus juxta numerum animarum, [Ex 12:4] quae sufficere possunt ad esum agni, quatenus ista comestio fiat festine consumta et modesta absque superfluitate.

And therefore when he says to the abbot that he should break his fast, that is, dine before the appointed hour and that all the brothers ought not to dine, except for those whom St. Benedict orders to do so because the meal may be large and the guests few, and so few that the meal will surpass their needs. As many should dine as will ensure that the guests do not eat too much, because they are few, but let this meal be consumed quickly and with moderation. For thus St. Benedict orders this meal to take place, when he instructs the abbot to invite the brothers, just as the Lord instructed the Jews concerning eating the paschal meal, saying thus: If, however, the number [of a man’s household] is smaller than what is needed to consume a lamb, let him take on his neighbour, who is joined to his household as regards the number of souls [Ex 12:4] that is, sufficient for eating a lamb, so that this meal may be consumed quickly and with moderation and without excess.

Ita S. Benedictus fecisse videtur in hoc loco, sicut diximus; nam consuetudo scripturae divinae est, aliquando ita dicere, quasi ad omnes vel de omnibus dicat, cum non de omnibus vel ad omnes loquatur, veluti S. Paulus apostolus facere cognoscitur, cum Corinthiis loquitur; ait enim: Gratias ago Deo meo semper pro vobis in gratia Dei, quae data est vobis in Christo Jesu, quia in omnibus divites facti estis in illo, in omni verbo et in omni scientia, sicut testimonium Christi, confirmatum est in vobis. [1 Cor 1:4]

Thus St. Benedict appears to have done the same thing in this place, just as we have said; for it is the custom of divine scripture sometimes to say something as if to everyone or about everyone, when it does not speak to everyone or about everyone, as St. Paul the Apostle makes known, when he speaks to the Corinthians, for he says: I give thanks to my God always for you in the grace of God, which has been given to you in Christ Jesus, since in all things you have been made rich in him, in every word and in all knowledge, just as the testimony of Christ is confirmed in you, [1 Cor 1:4-6] since he amplifies and says: such that nothing is lacking in any grace for you who await the revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Cor 1:7]

Quia⁵adjungit et dicit: ita ut nihil vobis desit in ulla gratia expectantibus revelationem Domini nostri Jesu Christi. [1 Cor 1:7] Ecce, gratiam Dei datam asserit, factos in omnibus divites dicit, in omni verbo et in omni scientia, Christi testimonium, i. e. quod de semetipso moriendo et resurgendo testatus est, in eorum vita confirmatum esse perhibet, et nihil eis deesse in ulla gratia testatur.

Behold, he asserts that the grace of God has been given, he calls them rich in all things, in every word and in all knowledge, the testimony of Christ, that is, what he testifies concerning his own death and resurrection. He shows that the testimony is confirmed in their lives, and he bears witness that nothing was lacking for them in any grace.

Quis hoc credat, quia paulo post eos corripiat, quos ita laudat? Nam post cetera subjunxit: Obsecro [page 527] autem vos per nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ut idipsum dicatis omnes et non sint in vobis schismata. Significatum est mihi de vobis, fratres mei, ab his, qui sunt Chloes, quia sunt contentiones inter vos. Hoc autem dico, ut unusquisque vestrum dicit: 'Ego quidem sum Pauli, ego autem Apollo, ego vero Cephae, ego autem Christi'. [1 Cor 1:10-12]

Who would believe this, since shortly thereafter he corrects those whom he thus praises? For after a little he adds: I beg you, [page 527] however, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing and that there be no division among you. It has been brought to my attention, with regard to you, my brothers, by those who are of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. I say, moreover, that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul; I, however, to Apollos; I indeed to Cephas; I, however, belong to Christ”. [1 Cor 1:10-12]

Ecce, quos in omni verbo et in omni sapientia laudaverat, quibus nihil deesse in ulla gratia dixerat, paulisper loquens ad increpandum leniter veniens divisos erga se ipsos reprehendit, et quorum prius salutem narraverat, postmodum vulnera patefecit. Numquid mentitus est Paulus, ut prius eis nihil deesse in omni gratia diceret, quibus postmodum dicturus erat, unitatem deesse? Absit hoc! quis de illo talia vel desipiens credat? Sed [quia] erant inter Corinthios quidam omni gratia repleti, et erant quidam in personarum favoribus excessivi. Ecce in hoc loco non debemus intelligere omnes Corinthios laudasse, sed quosdam, cum dicit: In omnibus divites facti estis et nihil in ulla gratia vobis deest. [1 Cor 1:5] Et quosdam ex illis debemus intelligere increpasse propter divisionem, quia divisi erant, cum se alii dicebant esse a Paulo, alii vero Cephae, alii autem Christi; quamquam videatur ita laudere Corinthios, quasi omnes laudasset.

Behold, those whom he had praised in all speech and in all wisdom, for whom he had said that nothing was lacking in any grace, speaking for a little while to rebuke, beginning gently he reproves those divided amongst themselves, and he afterwards makes clear the wounds of those whose health he had earlier described. Did Paul lie when he first said that nothing in any grace was lacking for them, whom he was later going to say were lacking in unity? Far from it! Who would be so foolish as to believe such things about him? But there were among the Corinthians some who were full of all grace, and some who paid excessive regard to personal loyalties. Behold, in this place we should not understand him to have praised all the Corinthians, but only certain of them, when he says: You have been made rich in all things, and nothing is lacking for you in any grace [1 Cor 1:5]. And we should understand him to have reproved some of them on account of divisions, since they were divided, when some said that they were for Paul, others for Cephas, others indeed for Christ (although it may seem that he praises the Corinthians in such a way as to praise them all).

Ita etiam in hoc loco S. Benedictus intelligitur fecisse, cum dicit: seniorem tamen unum aut duos semper cum fratribus dimittendum procuret propter disciplinam, quasi [cum] de omni tempore dicat, quo cum hospitibus manducat; sed de illo tempore dicit, quo ante horam legitimam cum hospitibus, sicut diximus, manducat, eo quod non sibi contrarius est S. Benedictus, cum superius dicit, omnes simul orare ad mensam et simul dicere versum et omnes sub uno accedere ad mensam. Similiter Dominus legitur in evangelio dixisse discipulis suis, cum prius eis dicit: Quo ego vado scitis et viam scitis, [Io 14:4] et inferius dicit: Si cognovissetis me, et patrem meum utique cognovissetis. [Io 14:7]

In this same way we should understand what St. Benedict has done in this place, where he says: Let him take care to leave one or two of the seniors with the brothers on account of discipline, as if he were speaking about every time when the abbot dines with guests. But he is speaking only about the time when he dines with guests before the appointed hour, as we have said. So St. Benedict does not contradict himself when he says above that they should all say the verse together and pray and go to the table as one [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 43.13]. Similarly one reads that the Lord said in the Gospel to his disciples first: You know where I am going and you know the way [Io 14:4] and later: If you had known me, you would also have know the Father. [Io 14:7]

Unde in hoc loco, ut recte intelligatur, debemus cognoscere, quia quidam erant, qui sciebant eum, quidam vero non; ac per hoc illis, qui sciebant, [page 528] intelligendum est dixisse: et viam scitis et quo vado scitis, nescientibus, quorum unus erat Thomas, dixit: Si cognovissetis me, et patrem meum utique cognovissetis. Et ideo necesse est, ut lector discretus sit in intelligendo, quatenus in ipsa scriptura divina, quae Domino dictante veracissima est et valde discreta, aliqua contrarietas non inveniatur.

Whence in this passage, if we are to understand it rightly, we must know that there were some who knew him and some who did not; and thus [page 528] one should understand him to have said to those who knew him: You know the way and you know where I am going; but to those who did not know (one of whom was Thomas), he said: If you had known me, you would also have know the Father. And therefore it is necessary for the reader to be discerning in understanding that in divine scripture itself, which, through the Lord’s dictation, is most true and very subtle, no contradiction of any kind will be found.

Ac per hoc, sicut in dictis Domini et Pauli necessaria est discretio, ut intelligatur, aliis dixisse illud, i. e. laudem, qua digni erant, aliis dixisse errorem divisionis, quo increpandi erant; et Dominus aliis dixit, scire, et alios increpaverit, quia nesciebant, sicut Thomam;⁶ nam si omni tempore intelligitur dixisse Pater Benedictus, esse dimittendum unum aut duos seniores cum fratribus propter disciplinam, ut velit abbatem semper extra refectorium manducare, magis occasionem peccati procreat atque transgressionem praecepti, quam aedificationem generet animae, quia si abbas foris manducaverit, tunc si carnalis fuerit, manducabit more vanorum hominum cum scurrilitate atque levitate et joco. Transgressio quippe praecepti erit in eo, quod regula dicit, omnes simul accedere ad mensam, et non omnes accedent simul, eo quod nec abbas erit ibi neque qui cum abbate manducaverint.

And in this way, just as in the sayings of Lord and of Paul discernment is necessary, so that one may understand that Paul said this to some (i.e. the praise of which they were worthy), but he declared the error of division to others, who needed to be reproved because of it, and the Lord declared to some that they knew, and reproved others, since they did not know (such as Thomas) [discernment is also necessary in the sayings of St. Benedict].⁴ For if Father Benedict is understood to have said that one or two of the seniors should be left with the brothers on account of discipline at all times, as if he wanted the abbot to always dine outside of the refectory, he would give rise to an occasion for sin and a transgression of a precept rather than fostering the edification of the soul, for if the abbot dined outside, then if he were carnal, he would dine in the manner of vain men, with buffoonery and levity and jokes. This would be a transgression of a precept, in that the Rule says that they should all come to the table together, and they would not all come together, since the abbot would not be there, nor those who dined with the abbot.

Et quia S. Benedictus cognovit, carnales homines invenire jocandi atque aliquid scurriliter agendi,⁷ inde praecepit superius, ut ille, qui pro sua tarditate [quia] tarde venit ad officium nocturnum, intrare⁸ intus, dicens: quia forte erit talis, qui se aut recollocet aut fabulis vacet, et datur occasio maligno [Regula Benedicti, c. 43.8] - et propterea praecepit, ut ingrediatur intro. Similiter et in hoc loco facere videtur, eo quod cognoverat, juvenes et adolescentes agere aliquid inhoneste et vanitates loqui, si non viderint abbatem vel eos priores, quos reverentur et timent, et ideo, ne occasionem isti ita faciendi inveniant, praecepit, ut cum eis unus vel [page 529] duo seniores dimittantur, quatenus duo sint, unum, ut abbas cum hospitibus faciat caritatem, alterum, ut negligentes peccandi occasionem non inveniant.

And since St. Benedict knew that carnal men find [a chance] to joke and do something scurrilous, therefore he ordered above that he who came late to the night office should enter into the choir in accordance with his tardiness, saying: since perhaps one may seat himself outside and indulge in idle talk, and an occasion for evil arise. [Regula Benedicti, c. 43.8] – and therefore he ordered that he enter the choir. In this place he seems to have done likewise because he knew that the young men and adolescents would behave inappropriately and talk nonsense if they did not see the abbot or the priors, who they revere and fear and therefore, lest they find an opportunity for behaving in that way, he ordered that one or [page 529] two seniors brothers be left with them, so that two things might occur: first, that the abbot could take loving care of the guests; second, that the negligent would not find an occasion for sin.