Cap. XXXIII
SI QUID DEBEAT MONACHUS PROPRIUM HABERE

[Ms P, fol. 100r – Paulus Diaconus –
Ps.-Basil: Ms K¹, fol. 80r; Ms E¹, fol. 122v; Ms E2, fol. 191v]

Ch. 33
IF A MONK SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING OF HIS OWN

Translated by: Kaitlin Heller

Rectum ordinem tenuit in hoc loco S. Benedictus, cum postquam dixit, ut cellararius omnia vasa monasterii cunctamque substantiam ac si altaris vasa conspicere deberet [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 31.10], et subjunxit suo ordine de ferramentis vel rebus monasterii [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 32] brevem esse faciendum et diligenter esse tractanda, [et] subjunxit statim: Si quid debeat monachus proprium habere, i. e. ne aliquis velit se subtrahere aut auferre se ab illa generalitate. Ideo rectum fuit, ut statim diceret, ut nullus auderet proprium habere, sed omnia siat communia. Reddit causam, quare, cum dicit: ₄quibus nec corpora nec voluntates licet habere in propria voluntate - ac si diceret aliis verbis: nam si corpora et voluntatem in propria non licet habere potestate, multo minus aliquid rei habere proprium debent, quod extra corpus est.'

St. Benedict preserves the proper order in this place in the text when, after he says that the cellarer should consider every vessel of the monastery and all property as if they were the vessels of the altar [cf. Regula Benedicti c. 31.10], and adds that a catalogue (brevem) should be taken, in its order, of the instruments or possessions of the monastery [cf. Regula Benedicti c. 32], and that these things should be carried out diligently, he adds immediately: If a monk should have anything of his own, i.e., that no one should wish to subtract from or make any exception to that generalization. Therefore it was right, as he immediately says, that none should presume to have anything of his own, but all things should be communal. He gives the reason why when he says: ₄to them it is permitted to have neither bodies nor wills under their own will, as if he said in other words: 'for if it is not permitted to have bodies or will in one’s own will, how much less should they have any thing of their own, which is outside the body.'

Quod autem dicit: ₂non liceat dare vel accipere sine jussione abbatis, non ad praestitum attinet, sed ad proprium possidendum; nam licet sibi praestare invicem acus vel cultellum aut tabulas aut aliquid tale sine jussione, quia caritas est, et ejus intentio non fuit, ut caritas evellatur, sed magis, ut confirmetur, h. e. ut nullus proprium habeat, eo quod jam non est caritas, si aliquid vult unus habere, quod non vult, ut alius habeat illud. [page 388]

What he moreover says ₂it should not be permitted to give or receive without the order of the abbot does not pertain to what is supplied, but to personal possession; for it is permitted to provide for one another with needles or a little knife or tablets or anything without such an order, because it is charity, and it was not his intention that charity should be plucked out, but rather that it should be strengthened, that is, that no one should have anything of his own, because even now it is not charity if one person wishes to have something which he does not wish for another to have. [page 388]

Quod vero liceat, sibi invicem praestare, h. e. commodare, ipse S. Benedictus alibi jubet, cum dicit: Obedientiae bonum non solum abbati exhibenda est, sed etiam sibi invicem obediant fratres [Regula Benedicti, c. 71.1]. Caritas autem non est, nec etiam bonum obedientiae, si sedet frater ad mensam, cum alii sedent fratres, et contigerit, ut ibi non habeat cultellum suum, et ille qui juxta sederit, suum ei cultellum non praestiterit - sicut diximus, caritas non est. Ita de ceteris necessitatibus intelligendum est.

Indeed, that it should be permitted to provide for one another, this is, to lend, St. Benedict himself orders elsewhere, when he says: the good of obedience should be shown not only to the abbot, but indeed the brothers should obey one another in turn¹ [Regula Benedicti, c. 71.1]. However it is clearly not charity, nor indeed the good of obedience, if a brother sits at a table when other brothers are sitting and it happens that he does not have his own little knife there, and he who is sitting next to him does not offer him his own little knife —just as we have said, this is not charity. So it is to be understood regarding other necessities.

Sequitur: ₁Praecipue hoc vitium radicitus amputandum est de monasterio: ₂ne quis praesumat aliquid dare aut accipere sine jussione abbatis, ₃neque aliquid habere proprium, nullam omnino rem, neque codicem, neque tabulas, neque graphium, sed nihil omnino, ₄quippe quibus nec corpora sua nec voluntates licet habere in propria voluntate. ₅Omnia vero necessaria a patre sperare monasterii, nec quidquam liceat habere, quod abbas non dederit aut permiserit.

Next: ₁This vice chiefly is to be cut off from the monastery at the roots: ₂that no one should presume to give or receive anything without the order of the abbot, nor to have anything of his own, ₃not one thing whatsoever, neither a book, nor tablets, nor a stylus, but absolutely nothing, ₄since to them it is of course not permitted to have either their bodies or wills in their own control. ₅Rather, they should hope for all the necessaries from the father of the monastery, and not have anything that the abbot has not given or permitted.

Praecipue, i. e. maxime, ante omnia.

Chiefly, that is, especially, before all things.

Hoc enim intuendum est, quia scriptura divina de illo vitio,¹ radicitus amputandum esse, quod valde detestabile est, sicut in hoc loco dicit unde, quia hoc vitium valde est detestabile et abominabile, noluit aliqua poena illos constringere, sed celeri morte finire.

This indeed is to be considered, because the divine scripture [says] about that vice, that it should be cut off at the roots because it is greatly detestable, just as he says in this place in the text that because this vice is greatly detestable and abominable, he does not wish to constrain them with any punishment, but to finish them off with a quick death.²

Cum dicit ne quis praesumat, i. e. audeat.

When he says no one should presume, that is ‘dare.

Istud enim, quod dicit nullam omnino rem - quasi diceret: nullam rem omnino; quod autem dicit omnibus modis, h. e. per nullum modum. Hoc intuendum est: quippe quibus nec corpora sua nec voluntates licet habere in propria voluntate; si jam voluntatem non debet habere in sua potestate, quanto minus aliquam rem.

Indeed, that text which says nothing whatever is as if it were saying: no thing altogether, since it says, moreover, in all ways, this is, in no way. This is to be considered: to whom it is of course permitted to have neither their bodies nor wills in their own control; if now one should not have one’s will in one’s own power, how much less any property.

Quippe, i. e. certe. Quia monachus nihil debet habere proprium neque rem neque voluntatem, tunc talis debet esse sicut mortuus. Quare non graphium vel tabulas debet proprium habere, cum ille S. Benedictus inferius jubet tribuere. Bene dicit non proprium habere, quia si tribuitur illi, non ad proprietatem [page 389] tribuit,² sed ad suam utilitatem habere. Si autem abbas aut praepositus aut decanus postea quaerit illi³ suas tabulas vel graphium, non debet illa sua sicut⁴ propria defendere, sed statim dare. Si vero non dederit, jam ad proprium vult defendere.

Of course, that is, certainly. Since a monk should have nothing of his own, neither property nor will, then he must be just as if dead. Wherefore he must not have a stylus or tablets of his own, since St. Benedict later orders their distribution. Rightly he says not to have anything of one’s own, because if it is given to someone, it is not given as a possession, but to have for his own use.³ [page 389] But if the abbot or prior or deacon asks of him his tablets or stylus, he should not defend those things as his own property, but give them over immediately. But if he should not give them over, he wishes already to defend them as his own.

Cum autem dicit Omnia vero necessaria a patre sperare monasterii, subaudiendum est: oportet, vel debet. Intuere, quia non dicit a parentibus vel ab amicis, sed a patre monasterii.

However, when [Benedict] says Truly to hope for all the necessaries from the father of the monastery, ‘it is proper,’ or ‘he should’ is to be understood. Consider that he does not say from parents or from friends, but from the father of the monastery.

Et ideo necesse est, sicut B. Gregorius dicit, si vult pastor suis discipulis proficere, magnum studium debet habere de temporalibus necessitatibus praebendis. Qui cum curare corporalia [omitted in ed. Mittermüller, added from SC 381: funditus neglegunt, subditorum necessitatibus minime concurrunt. Quorum nimirum praedicatio plerumque despicitur; quia dum delinquentium facta corripiunt, sed tamen eis necessaria praesentis vitae non tribuunt, nequaquam libenter audiuntur. Egentis etenim mentem doctrinae sermo non penetrat, si hunc apud eius animum manus misericordiae non commendat. Tunc autem verbi semen facile germinat, quando hoc in audientis pectore pietas praedicantis rigat.

And therefore it is necessary, just as Blessed Gregory says, if a pastor wishes to improve his students, he should have great zeal for providing the temporal necessities. Those who completely neglect to care for what pertains to the body in no way meet the needs of those put under them. Their preaching, of course, is for the most part scorned, because while they reproach the deeds of sinners, they nevertheless do not give them the necessities of this present life and are by no means willingly heard. If the hand of mercy does not commend it to his heart, the word of doctrine does not penetrate the mind of one in need. But the seed of the word sprouts easily when the piety of the preacher waters it in the heart of the listener.

Unde rectorem necesse est ut interiora possit infundere, cogitatione innoxia etiam exteriora providere. Sic itaque pastores erga interiora studia subditorum suorum infundere, cogitatione innoxia etiam exteriora providere. Sic itaque pastores erga interiora studia subditorum suorum ferveant, quatinus in eis exterioris quoque vitae providentiam non relinquant. Nam quasi iure, ut diximus, a percipienda praedicatione gregis animus frangitur, si cura exterioris subsidii a pastore neglegatur.

Whence it is necessary for a ruler that he can infuse inward things and provide, with blameless thought, for exterior things. Therefore, pastors should burn with regard to the inward zeal of their charges in such a way that also they do not leave out provision for their interior lives. For as if by right, as we said, the spirit of the flock is broken against preaching it should heed if care for exterior help is neglected by the pastor.

Unde et primus pastor sollicite ammonet, dicens: Seniores qui in vobis sunt, obsecro consenior et testis Christi passionum, qui et eius quae in futuro revelanda est, gloriae communicatur, pascite qui in vobis est gregem Dei. [1 Pt 5:1-2] Qui hoc in loco pastionem cordis an corporis suaderet aperiut, cum protinus adiunxit: Providentes non coacte, sed spontanee secundum Deum, neque turpis lucri gratia, sed voluntarie. Quibus profecto verbis pastoribus pie praecavetur, ne dum subiectorum inopiam satiant se mucrone ambitionis occident, ne cum per eos carnis subsidiis reficiuntur proximi, ipsi remaneant a justitiae pane jeiuni. Hanc pastorum sollicitudinem Paulus excitat, dicens Qui suorum, et maxime domesticorum curam non habet, fidem negavit, et] est infideli deterior. [1 Tim 5:8] [Gregory the Great, Regula Pastoralis II, c. 7, SC 381, pp. 226-228]

Whence also the first pastor attentively admonishes, saying, 'As co-elder and witness of Christ’s sufferings with whom is also shared his glory that will be revealed in the future, I beseech the elders among you: feed the flock of God among you.' [1 Pt 5:1-2] In this place he shows whether it was the feeding of the heart or the body that he was urging when he added right away, 'Providing not compelled but willingly, according to God, not for the sake of filthy lucre but of their own will.' [1 Pt 5:2] With these words, surely, pastors are admonished lest they kill themselves with the sword of ambition while they satisfy the need of those set under them and that they themselves do not fast from the bread of justice while their neighbors are revived with aid to the flesh through them. Paul rouses this pastoral solicitude when he says, 'If he does not have care for his own, and especially those of his household, he has denied faith and is worse than an infidel.' [1 Tim 5,8] [Gregory the Great, Regula Pastoralis II, c. 7]

Quod vero dicit quod abbas non dederit vel permiserit - dare attinet, quod abbas dat de rebus monasterii; quod autem dicit permiserit, attinet ad illud, quod abbas concedit, i. e. quod a parentibus vel ab aliquo monacho tribuitur.

For indeed the text says what the abbot has not given or permitted. To give means what the abbot gives out of the monastery’s things; moreover, the text that says he shall have permitted pertains to that item that the abbot grants, that is, what is given by parents or another monk.

Sequitur: ₆Omniaque omnibus sint communia, i. e. et omnia sint communia omnibus. Bene dicit: communia sint omnibus, quia bos aut ager vel equus et cetera omnibus communia debent esse.

Next: ₆And all things for everyone should be common, that is, and all things should be in common for everyone. Rightly he says things should be common for everyone, because ox and field and horse and other things must be common for everyone.

Nullus enim debet habere aut equum aut aliquid, quod non sit commune. ₆Ut scriptum est: neque quisquam suum aliquid esse dicat vel praesumat [Act 4:32] - quasi dicat: non debet aliquis dicere meum aliquid, sicut scriptum est: quia non dicebat vel praesumebat.

Indeed, no one should have either a horse or anything that is not communal. ₆As it is written: nor should anyone say or presume that anything is his own [Acts 4:32] – as if it said: no one should call anything ‘mine,’ just as it is written: because he neither said it nor presumed it.

Sequitur: ₇Quod si quisquam huic nequissimo vitio deprehensus fuerit delectari, admoneatur semel et iterum; si non emendaverit, correptioni subjaceat.

Next: ₇That if anyone should be caught taking pleasure in this most wretched vice, let him be admonished once and again; if he will not amend, let him be subjected to correction.

Sunt enim alii, qui istud nequissimum vitium referunt ad id, quod supra dicitur: neque aliquid habere proprium. Sunt iterum alii, qui hoc nequissimum vitium, referunt ad id, quod paulo supra dicitur: ne quisquam suum dicat. Sed melius est, ⁵ ad neque aliquid habere proprium referatur quam ad meum dicere, [page 390] eo quod sunt multi, qui quamvis dicant in sermone meum, tamen nolunt habere suum in proprietate, sed in communi hoc, quod meum dicunt, quia non mala intentione dicunt.

For there are some who relate that most wretched vice to that which is said above: nor to have anything of one’s own. There are again others who relate this most wretched vice to that which is said a little above: no one should call it his. But it is better that it should be related to nor to have anything of one’s own than to call it ‘mine,’ [page 390] because there are many who although they say ‘mine’ in speech do not wish to have something in ownership, but in this common having, which they call ‘mine,’ because they do not speak with evil purpose.

Et iterum sunt alii, qui dicunt in sermone nostrum, tamen in habendo suum est, non commune, quia nolunt, ut alii illam rem habeant aut etiam utantur aut tangant, non sicut illi superiores, qui quamvis dicant non sponte meum, tamen, in quantum illis licitum est, volunt, ut illam rem ceteri habeant in commune, sicuti est graphium, cappam, melotam, tabulam et reliqua.

And again there are others, who say in speech ‘ours,’ though it is in having theirs, not communal, because they do not want others to have that thing or even use or touch it, not like those above, who nevertheless do not say ‘mine’ willfully; rather, in however much is permitted to them, they want others to have that thing in common, like a stylus, hood [cappam], cloak [melotam], tablet, and so on.

Et sunt iterum alii, qui et sermone et opere suum dicunt: isti sunt nequiores omnibus. Et sunt alii, qui et sermone et opere nostrum dicunt: isti sunt meliores omnibus. Ubi animadvertendum est, quia illi, qui dicunt solummodo sermone et non opere, de quibus in primis diximus, non sunt culpabiles, nec illis congruit, quod dicit nequissimum vitium, sed tantum pro honestate monasterii admonendi sunt, ut sicut nolunt opere suum dicere, ita etiam verbis non dicant. Illi autem, qui dicunt nostrum in sermone, et opere suum, culpabiles sunt, et istis congruit hoc, quod dicit nequissimum vitium. Illi autem, qui et sermone et opere suum dicunt, isti pejores sunt omnibus, sicut diximus, et ideo omnimodo illis convenit hoc, quod dicit nequissimum vitium.

And there are again others who say theirs both in speech and in deed: those are worse than all the others. Whereby it is to be noted that those who say it only in speech and not in deed, about whom we first spoke, are not guilty, nor does that text which says the most wretched vice pertain to them, but they are to be admonished only for the integrity of the monastery, so that, just as they do not wish to say ‘theirs’ in deed, thus they do not even say it in words. But those who say ‘ours’ in speech and ‘theirs’ in deed are guilty, and to them this text pertains, which says the most wretched vice. But those who say ‘theirs’ in both speech and deed, they are more wicked than all the others, just as we said, and therefore this text which says the most wretched vice applies to them in all ways.

Nunc videndum est, ubi debet ista correptio esse, utrum in leviori culpa, quia nequissimum dixit esse illud, an in graviori? Forte dicit aliquis: in graviori, eo quod nequissimum dixit esse. Non est verum, sed in leviori, quia spiritale est. Ideo est spiritalis, eo quod in delectatione est et non in opere. Sed tamen ideo dicitur nequissimum, quia ad comparationem aliorum vitiorum spiritalium istud vitium nequissimum est.

Now it is to be seen where that reproof should be, whether in the less serious fault, since that text said it is most wretched, or in the more serious? Someone may say: in the more serious, because that text says it is most wretched. It is not, truly, but in the less serious, since it is spiritual. Therefore the fault is spiritual, because it is in enjoyment and not in deed. But still it is therefore called most wretched, since in the comparison to other spiritual vices that vice is most wretched.

Qui vero dicit meum, quamquam vitium sit, tamen pejus est, habere proprium et non dicere meum, quam dicere meum et non habere. Et hoc notandum est, quia iste, qui dicit meum, considerari debet, utrum sponte an negligenter vel simpliciter dicat meum.

But he who says ‘mine,’ though it may be a vice - nevertheless it is more wicked to have a thing of one’s own and not say ‘mine’ than to say ‘mine’ and not have it. And this is to be noted, since he who says ‘mine’ should be examined as to whether he says ‘mine’ wilfully or heedlessly or innocently.

Sciendum est enim, quia ista delectatio in significatione aliqua ostenditur. Delectari pro habere ponitur, quia, quando dicitur admoneatur semel et secundo, [page 391] in habere constat.

For it should be known, since that delight is exhibited in some outward sign. To be delighted is substituted for to have, since, when Let him be admonished once and again is said, [page 391] that refers to to have.

Forte dicit aliquis: 'Causa necessitatis habeo et non delector.' Cui respondendum est: 'Unde habes illud?' Ille respondit: ‘a parentibus aut ab amicis.' Quibus respondendum est: 'Tu non debuisti illud accipere sine licentia. Si tibi necessarium fuit, debuisti cum licentia abbatis illud habere.' Ille respondit: 'Abbatis quaesivi licentiam, sed noluit concedere.' Quibus respondendum est: 'Melius est in penuria et necessitate mori, quam praevaricator tuae professionis existere.'

Someone may say: ‘I have it by reason of necessity, and I do not delight in it.’ He is to be answered: ‘Whence do you have it?’ He responds, ‘From parents or friends.’ Which words are to be answered, ‘You should not have accepted that without permission. If it was necessary to you, you should have had that with the permission of the abbot.’ He replies, ‘I sought the permission of the abbot, but he did not wish to allow it.’ Which words are to be answered, ‘It is better to die in want and need than to be an apostate from your [monastic] profession.’