INTRODUCTION

T his commentary makes no pretense of doing any more than

helping our brothers and sisters in St. Benedict, the Oblates,
to read and meditate the Holy Rule and to draw practical
conclusions from it. Thus the author has not tried to be erudite. If he
has ventured sometimes to enter into some details of textual or
historical criticism, the reason is that he thought he could thus
provide a better grasp of the meaning of the text, and also that he
wanted his work to be a sort of compendium of the principal
problems posed by the study of the Holy Rule, for the use of those
who would have neither the time nor the means to devote
themselves to a more personal or more extensive study. If here and
there he has multiplied the quotations, the reason is that, being
simply an Oblate himself, he needed to feel himself always
supported by authentic interpreters.
It is with the same purpose of furnishing the Oblates a body of
knowledge indispensable for them or nearly so, that by way of
introduction the author proposes to say here a few words on the
history of the Benedictine Oblature and to follow this summary with
brief notes on the principal commentaries.
The Benedictine Oblature
It has sometimes been asked whether there were Oblates in St.
Benedict’s time. It is certain that the term “Oblate” was originally
reserved for the children offered to the monastery, as we learn from
Chapter 59. But it is no less certain that from the beginning there
were in the vicinity of the monasteries persons desirous of
perfection, united to the cenobitic groups by a more or less definite
manner of affiliation.
Some of these Christian men and women belonged to the ancient
institution of the “ascetics”, faithful living in the world, often with
their families, in conformity with that ideal of the primitive Church
whose close relation to the monastic ideal has been shown by Dom
Germain Morin. There were still some ascetics of this first type, as
Dom Ursmer Berlière has observed, in the seventh century.
Thus the Life of St. Benedict, by St. Gregory the Great, shows us,
not far from Monte Cassino, “two religious women of distinguished
origin, who lived in a place apart” with their nurse, and whose
temporal affairs were administered by a very religious man. They
belonged to a secular church, where they received Communion; and
yet St. Benedict excommunicates them for a lack of charity towards
their benefactor, as if he had a certain authority over them.
In another chapter it is the brother of the monk Valentinian, “a
layman and very devout”, who comes to the monastery every year to
renew his spiritual strength. He is compared to the “servant” of the
Prophet Eliseus; and St. Gregory informs us that “from his place he
came every year, fasting, to the monastery of the man of God”.
Evidently this custom had been prescribed for him by the Saint
himself; for one day when he had failed to observe it, “the holy man
rebuked him for eating on the way”, and he in confusion “fell at
Benedict’s feet and was ashamed for his sin, the more so when he
had learnt that the venerable man had seen him commit the fault
though not present”.
Moreover, around the monastery there lived workmen employed
in the labor of the fields. St. Benedict implies their presence when he
says in Chapter 48 that in poor monasteries the monks may have to
gather the harvest themselves, a proof that in the more fortunate
monasteries this task was entrusted to others.
Now the monks were far from being indifferent to the religious
formation of these modest co - workers, for in imitation of their holy
Father they strove to lead the neighboring peasants to God. If the
faithful felt an attraction towards the monastery, surely the monks
for their part felt a need of assimilating them, and the assimilation is
already a form of apostolate.
In his substantial study on the Origins of the Oblature, a scholarly
Oblate, the Abbe Deroux, has shown that with the evolution of the
monastic labor the workmen of the monastery became famuli and
ended by being progressively transformed into religious under the
name of fratres conversi or Lay Brothers. But their original situation
was really that of Secular Oblates, living in the atmosphere of the
monks and under their spiritual direction, under Statutes varying
from place to place.
Beginning with the seventh century, we see alongside of these
famuli laymen and laywomen joining the monasteries under certain
conditions as permanent guests. They submit to the Abbot and
occupy themselves with carrying out his plans outside of the
monastery. They usually make a partial or total donation of their
property into his hands in return for their room, clothing and board.
When they renounce their freedom they take the name of Oblates
and wear a habit resembling that of the monks.
Not all, however, live in the monastery. Some remain in the
world, kept there by their circumstances. These two categories,
resident and non - resident, appear clearly in the ninth century. We
know how William, Abbot of Hirschau, in the 11th century
organized the Oblates of his Abbey and gave them Constitutions
which provoked the admiration of his contemporaries.
But alongside of these numerous cases of union we find others in
which the bonds of brotherhood seem to be mostly spiritual. This is
the case with the fratres or sorores familiares. Princes, Bishops,
knights, inscribed in the register of the monasteries, are united by a
religious bond to the monks, who consider them as “brothers” and
“sisters”. But, according to the persons and the places, the affiliation
appears more or less close and involves more or less of obligations.
In certain cases, evidently, it is scarcely more than a simple union
of prayers and of merits; but in others it is more than that.
Sometimes the reception takes place in chapter. The Oblate is
“received as a brother”. Sometimes he is given a monastic habit,
which he will wear under his clothes or which he will put on for
certain occasions. Guichard, Abbot of Pontigny, clothed St. Thomas
á Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a cowl with a reduced hood
and narrowed sleeves, so made that he might wear it constantly
without its being seen. To William Longsword, Duke of Normandy,
who would have liked to become a monk, Martin, Abbot of
Jumièges, also gave a cowl and a tunic, which the prince put away in
a chest of which he always carried the key; and undoubtedly the
Duke put them on for certain occasions. The Abbé Dubois, relating
the history of the Abbey of Morimond in the middle of the 12th
century, tells us that many priests, impressed by the life of the
monks and unable to resist such touching examples, regarded it as
the greatest good fortune to be affiliated with the Order, had their
heads shaved, took the monastic habit and followed the Benedictine
Rule as best they could in their own houses.
No doubt the already ancient custom of giving the monastic habit
or a part of it to the Christians affiliated with the Order but unable to
enter the monastery, was what inspired St. Norbert when he invested
with a white woolen scapular the Count Thibaut of Champagne, the
first of his Tertiaries. Later, St. Francis of Assisi did not consider
himself an innovator in giving the Franciscan serge to Luchesio and
to Bona Donna, but rather in giving them a Rule which constituted
an Order, complete in itself and living in the world.
In the ninth century we have in the person of Géraud d’Aurillac
the example of a lay nobleman leading the religious life in the
world, under the direction of the Bishop Walbert. If there is no
question of a habit for him, we learn at least that he had the monastic
tonsure given him, which he concealed “under the rest of his flowing
hair”, and that he recited the Office every day with the clergy.
The history of St. Henry, Emperor, is well known. When he asked
Richard, Abbot of St. Vannes, to receive him as a monk, the Abbot
had him come to Chapter and put this question to him: “Will you,
following the Rule and following the example of Jesus Christ, be
obedient until death?” Upon the affirmative reply of the “postulant”,
the Abbot continued: “I hereby receive you as a monk and from this
day I charge myself with the care of your soul. For that reason I
want you to do, with the fear of God, everything that I shall order
you to do”. The Emperor having acquiesced once more, the Abbot
declared: “I want you, therefore, to return and govern the empire
which God has entrusted to you, and by your constancy in
administering justice to procure in so far as you are able the welfare
of the whole state”.
During his life the Oblate remained, as much as he could, under
the direction of the monks. St. Henry frequently consulted Abbot
Richard.
Certain Oblates, like Bouchard the Venerable, Count of Vendome,
at Saint - Maur - des - Fossés, came to live near the Abbey so that
they could take part in the psalmody of the monks. For the women
this was rather common. Living in cells near the monastery, they
spent the intervals between the Offices in mending or washing the
monks’ clothes or in making ornaments for the church. This was
done at the Abbéy of Le Bee in Normandy by the mother of Blessed
Herluin, the founder, and later by Basilis, widow of Hugh, Amfride,
her niece, and Eve, widow of William Crespin. We may cite, at the
priory of Le Desert, a dependancy of Notre - Dame de Lyre,
Hélisende, wife of Gilbert de Terray; at Lessies, Ada, widow of
Thierry d’Avesnes, Petronilla, widow of Raoul, Count of Viesville,
and others. The list could be considerably lengthened. These holy
women received “the habit of religion” or at least the veil. Some
were virgins, others widows, some married women, such as
Helisende, cited above, for whom her husband endowed Masses,
recalling that she had lived “as a sister”, near the priory of Le
Désert. The influence of these Oblate women was sometimes
profound. The monk Chronicler of Lessies tells us that the Oblate
Ada was “the guardian of the Abbey’s religious fervor”.
At the hour of death the Secular Oblate was often clothed in the
monastic habit and, following the example of the monks, he expired
on ashes. Still more often, he was clothed in it after his death and
was buried in the cloister, as he had stipulated at the time of his
reception. An obit was made for him and he was accorded suffrages
like the members of the community.
 Thanks to St. Frances of Rome, a group of Oblate women became
famous in the 15th century, namely the group which was formed at
Rome around the monastery of St. Mary of the Snows, served by the
Benedictine Congregation of Mount Olivet. After having been a
model wife and mother, Frances, who had been a Secular Oblate
since 1425 and had become a widow in 1436, retired with some
pious ladies to the house of Tor’ di Specchi, which she had rented
while her husband was living. The “sisters”, without any vow,
followed the Rule of St. Benedict, adapted to their situation by Dom
Antonello di Monte - Savelli. They wore a white woolen veil over a
modest black dress.
“Frances”, writes Dom Bernard Maréchaux, “directed her little
flock admirably. Hers was a soul all of a piece, having no end but
God and going straight to Him like an arrow. Living in constant
contact with God and His Saints, the admirable mystic was none the
less an ardent apostle. She carried on a battle without truce against
licentious fashions. She devoted herself to the sick and the poor; and
amid manifold works of mercy and sowing miracles in her footsteps,
she went down to the bottom of that abyss of humility and obedience
dug by St. Benedict. She was filled to the brim with that spirit of
compunction which is the strength of Benedictine prayer…”
The monastic decadence of the 15th and 16th centuries necessarily
involved a decadence of the Oblature. Yet the latter was not wholly
forgotten in the 17th century. Writing at that time the life of the
Venerable Mechtilde of the Blessed Sacrament, the Abbé Duquesne
made this observation: “Formerly it was quite a common practice to
take the habit of a certain religious Order to which one had some
attraction.
“One did not give up one’s state in life nor even the clothes proper
to that state, but was content to wear under the ordinary clothes
some mark or symbol of the Order one had chosen”. But, he
continued, “this devotion, formerly so esteemed and so revered, is
no longer anything but the object of the censure and the mockery of
the world”.
 The 17th century saw some great Oblate women. The most
celebrated was Helena Lucretia Cornaro - Piscopia, of one of the
most illustrious families of Venice. A prodigy of learning, but also
of piety and of mortification, she consecrated herself secretly to the
Lord at the age of 11. In love with the liturgy, she assisted at the
Office every day in the Abbey of St. James. A little later she
renewed her vow and received as an Oblate the large Benedictine
scapular, which she always wore under her secular clothes. Dom
Mabillon did not fail to go and visit her on his way through Italy.
Death took her at the age of 32. Her body, clothed in the habit of the
Order, rests at St. Justina of Padua in the chapel reserved for the
burial of the monks.
During the same era Mother Mechtilde of the Blessed Sacrament
received into the Oblature the Countess of Chateauvieux. Through
the Abbé Duquesne we know the details of the investiture, which
took place during the night, after Matins; and the same author has
preserved for us the little allocution addressed by the “Venerable
Mother” to the new Oblate when she had put on the tunic, the leather
belt, the scapular and the veil.
In the 18th century the necessarily followed the destinies of the
monastic Order and suffered its agony. It was revived in the 19th
century by the great monk who restored the Order of St. Benedict in
France, Dom Prosper Guéranger, first Abbot of Solesmes. His
thoughts on this subject have been collected in a little work entitled
The Church or the Society of the Divine Praise. Later on, the
Oblature was revealed to the public at large by a celebrated Oblate
of Ligugè, the writer Huysmans, whose book The Oblate has not
been without influence on the progress of the Oblature. Since then it
has not stopped prospering and being an effective instrument of
Christian renewal in a society three - fourths paganized.
In 1898 His Holiness Pope Leo XIII in a Brief dated June 17
established the privileges of the Benedictine Oblates. In July, 1904,
His Holiness Pope Pius X, at the request of the Right Reverend
Abbot Primate of the Order, Dom Hildebrand de Hemptinne,
approved and confirmed the Statutes of the Oblates. Henceforth the
Benedictine Oblates have a juridical status in their Order and in the
Church.
Principal Commentaries on the Holy Rule
Our purpose in giving some notes here on the principal
commentaries on the Holy Rule is not so much to outline a chapter
of literary history which could not be complete in so few pages, as to
allow the reader to identify the commentators whose names will
recur most often. Moreover, we shall limit ourselves in general to
the Latin and French commentaries, these being the ones with which
the majority of our readers have some chance of coming in contact.
To Dom Ursmer Berlière’s excellent book, Benedictine
Asceticism, we owe some scholarly and interesting pages on the
commentaries on the Rule composed from the beginning up to the
end of the 12th century. The first and best known was that of Paul
Warnefrid, called Paul the Deacon, written about 770 for the monks
of Civate, near Milan. “Rich in precise details on the Benedictine
observance of the eighth century, it served as a basis for the works
of Hildemar and Basile”, both belonging to the ninth century.
To St. Benedict of Aniane, who died in 821, we owe the Codex
Regularum and the Concordia Regularum, the latter being
particularly useful for studying the sources of the Benedictine Rule.
A little after 817 and before 820 a commentary was published by
Smaragdus, Abbot of St. Michael. This commentary, which was
above all literal and moral, was much used in the Middle Ages.
About 820 the pupils of Hildemar, monk of Civate, collected their
teacher’s conferences under the title of Tractatus in Regulam Sancti
Benedicti.
Hucbald of St. Amandus, who died in 930, wrote the Glose de
Diversis Doctoribus Collecte, in Regulam Sancti Benedicti.
In the 12th century appeared the works of Rupert of Deutz, Peter
the Deacon, St. Hildegard, Stephen of Paris, as also an Expositio in
Regulam Sancti Benedicti attributed without proof to The Cistercian
Radulph, Abbot of Vaucelles, who died in 1151.
The principal commentator of the 13th century was Bernard,
Abbot of Monte Cassino, whose Expositio in Regulam, although
inspired by the works of Paul the Deacon and Smaragdus, has
nevertheless, in Dom Butler’s opinion, “a great value” as a picture
of the life and the ideas prevailing at Monte Cassino in the 13th
century, in the heyday of that monastery’s prosperity and influence.
In the 14th century Peter Boherius, a French monk who became
Bishop of Civita - Vecchia in 1364, wrote his In Regulam S.
Benedicti Apparatus. In his explanation of the Rule he followed
especially Cassian and St. Jerome. He owed much to Bernard, but
was not equal to him.
In the 15th century the Dominican Juan de Torquemada, whose
name is sometimes latinized into “Turrecremata” (1388 - 1468),
composed an Expositio in Regulam S. Benedicti “of great
excellence” according to Dom Butler; a commentary which felt the
effects of the endeavors at reform begun in the Councils of Basle
and Constance.
At the end of the same century, John Tritheim (Trithemius), Abbot
of Spannheim, undertook a commentary which he brought only as
far as Chapter 14, of a preeminently ascetical and mystical character.
With the 17th century and the great reforms of St. Vannes and St.
Maur there appeared a whole host of scholarly commentators whose
works are a veritable gold mine from the point of view of monastic
history but with whom, as Dom L’Huillier observes, the method of
exposition word by word has the disadvantage “of preventing any
view of the whole, any general pattern”, or at least of making them
hard to discover.
In 1638 Dom Hugh Menard wrote some imposing Notae et
Observationes on the Concordia Regularum of St. Benedict of
Aniane.
 To Dom Benedict van Haeften, prior of Afflighem, we owe a
scholarly work published in 1644 under the title of Disquisitionum
Monasticarum Libri XII. It is not a literal commentary, but the
material in it is grouped by subjects and the whole is preceded by an
explanation of the life of St. Benedict according to the Dialogs of St.
Gregory.
The Commentaire sur la Règle de S. Benoît (1687) of Dom Joseph
Mège enjoyed its hour of fame in the 17th century. It had its
polemical aspect, since it was aimed at the Traité de la Sainteté et
des Devoirs de la Vie Monastique published by Dom Armand Jean
Le Bouthillier de Rancé, Abbot and reformer of La Trappe; but it is
much more than a weapon of argument. The commentary of Dom
Mége was regarded as “laxist”; still on the whole it is excellent and
reflects well the “discretion” of St. Benedict.
The Règle de S. Benoît Expliquée selon son Véritable Esprit,
which the Abbé de Rancé brought out in 1689, is a sort of
justification of the ideas set forth in the Devoirs de la Vie
Monastique. This commentary enjoyed a very great vogue in its
time, and from it were drawn some Meditations sur la Règle de S.
Benoît (4th ed. 1713). One may find in it some explanations of detail
which are not without interest, but the whole of the book is
dominated by the personal notions of the reformer, who allowed
himself to be swayed by an unbalanced admiration for the practices
of the desert Fathers and accentuated the penitential note
immoderately. As a consequence the work reflects the spirit of the
Abbé de Rancé much more than the spirit of St. Benedict and,
despite real merits, it would not be a sure guide in Benedictine
spirituality.
The scholarly commentary of Dom Martène, Commentarius in
Regulam S.P. Benedicti (1690), was intended as a mean between
Dom Mège and the Abbé de Rancé. The learned Maurist took
advantage of his immense erudition to clarify the text with the help
of the monastic customs of all times. The whole appears heavy, but
quite rich in information for anyone who has a taste for monastic
history.
To Dom Louis Quinet, Abbot of Barbery, we owe the
Éclaircissements sur la Règle de S. Benoît in the form of dialogs
between an Abbot and a woman in religion, which are above all of a
practical character.
Alongside of these great works we may appropriately cite some
mystical writings having the Rule as object, such as the meditations
or various treatises of Dom Philippe Frangois of the Congregation of
St. Vannes, Dom Robert Morel, Dom Simon Bougis, Dom Claude
Martin and others of the Congregation of St. Maur.
The great commentator of the 18th century was Dom Augustin
Calmet, Abbot of Senones, of the Congregation of St. Vannes. It
was in 1732 that he published his Commentaire sur la Règle de S.
Benoît, of which a Latin translation appeared in 1750. In Dom
Butler’s opinion this commentary is “really learned, but less
archaeological than Martène’s, and seems to bring out better the
spirit and meaning of the Rule”. It is preceded by a preface treating
of the Rule and of monastic history which Dom Butler describes as
admirable and which in his opinion is “so good as to merit being
printed by itself as an Introduction to the Rule”.
La Traduction et Explication Littérale et Morale de la Règle de S.
Benoît, published at Rouen in 1714 without any author’s name by
M. de Gournay, Abbé du Tronchet, is all but forgotten today.
Perhaps it does not deserve this oblivion. The commentary is rather
well thought out. Historical explanation and textual criticism are not
neglected in this work, but its character is above all ascetical. We
have made rather frequent use of it.
The 19th century produced no French commentary. It was a time
of restoration, and sometimes of difficult restoration. More pressing
needs had to be met, and the works of the old writers could suffice.
The 20th century will undoubtedly be more fertile.
 The Explication Ascétique et Historique de la Règle de S. Benoît
brought out in 1901 without any author’s name by Dom L’Huillier is
far from being a negligible work. It is a very personal work,
sometimes out of proportion, but one which will never be consulted
without profit. It was certainly the best commentary before that of
Dom Delatte.
In 1908 Dom Étienne Salasc, Abbot of La Grande Trappe, gave
us, likewise without author’s name, La Règle de S. Benoît Traduite
et Commentée. The translation is that of Dom Gueranger. “We
would not have been capable of doing better”, says the author
modestly. As for the spirit which presided over his work, he tells us
that he was “inspired above all by the original monuments of
Cîteaux, erected by Saints and, thanks be to God, still in force in our
day”. The quotations are numerous, but they often consist of glosses
on the text rather than being a literal commentary properly so called.
In the following year, 1909, Dom Symphorien, definitor of the
Order of Reformed Cistercians, gave us La Règle de S. Benoît
Meditée. It is not a commentary properly speaking, but a series of
meditations on the text, or rather on a choice of more inspirational
passages. It is a work at once practical and profound, which a person
can utilize with profit for meditating the Holy Rule.
The Commentaire sur la Règle de Saint Benoît, by the Right Rev.
Dom Paul Delatte, former Abbot of Solesmes, which appeared in
19131, is, beyond contradiction, a work of the first rank. “For an
understanding, not only intellectual but spiritual, of the Rule”,
declares Dom Butler, “it is, I think, the best of all. The element of
learning, monastic history and archaeology is there in sufficient
proportion, but it does not overload the work; there is also an
element of theology in explaining the principles of the Rule. It is
highly practical both in details of the life and their application to
modern conditions, and also in regard to the spiritual and religious
1
English translation by Dom Justin McCann, monk of Ampleforth,
Commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict (Latrobe, Pa., The Archabbey Press,
1950).
side of the life. It is clear, sane, full... and satisfying. I do not
hesitate to pronounce it, for general purposes of instruction, the best
of the commentaries”. It will be seen that we have followed this
commentary almost step by step, in order to make the essence of it
accessible to the greatest number of our fellow Oblates. We shall be
happy if in doing this we have responded to the thought of the
venerable author, who dedicated his work “in love and devotedness,
to all those, whether in monasteries or in the world, who belong to
the great family of St. Benedict”.
More recently, in 1925, the Right Rev. Dom Bernard Laure,
Abbot of Hautecombe, brought out, especially for the Oblates, the
Règle du Patriarche Saint Benoît, Texte, Traduction, Commentaire.
The Latin text and the translation, which is Dom Gueranger’s, are
divided into sections according to the daily readings followed in the
French Congregation. This arrangement makes the book very
practical for Oblates who want to unite themselves each day “in
thoughts and sentiments with those who make the Benedictine Rule
the norm of their life in the cloister”. The commentary, succinct but
adequate, is almost always followed by a few words of practical
application.
We have no intention whatsoever of making a needless
duplication of this excellent little book, which it will always be good
to reread. The reading public we have in mind is perhaps more
limited than that of the “pious persons deeply attached to the
Benedictine Order” to whom the author addressed himself. We have
in mind especially those Oblates who desire to know the Holy Rule
with a knowledge somewhat more than elementary, so as to draw the
greatest possible profit from it for their interior life, but who have
not the leisure to consult the great commentaries directly. That is
why, without pretending to do a work of scholarship, we have not
neglected the manifold problems on the subject of the text and its
meaning. That is also why we have developed the practical
applications, separating them, however, from the commentary
properly so called, since these applications sometimes consider
situations which had not been directly envisaged by St. Benedict.
Texts and Translations
As to the translation, we have not ventured to undertake one
ourself. There are several in existence on the choice of which we
hesitated. We followed the counsels given us in adopting the
translation of the “received text” made by Dom Guéranger, which is
used for the readings in the refectory in the French Congregation
and hence has a sort of privileged position.
The “received text”, utilized by Dom Guéranger and generally
followed since the 11th century, goes back certainly at least to the
eighth century, for it is the one which Paul Warnefrid used in his
commentary composed about 735. It is the result of a combination of
two more ancient versions. The one, represented especially by an
Oxford manuscript, was in current usage in the seventh and eighth
centuries in the monasteries of Italy, France, England and Germany.
The other version, in circulation especially at the beginning of the
ninth century, came from an exemplar preserved at Monte Cassino;
and the representative of it closest to the original is the manuscript
of St. Gall transcribed from a copy sent to Charlemagne by
Theodemar, Abbot of Monte Cassino. It is this last, judged the most
authentic, which served as a basis for the works of Dom Butler, for
the translation made by the Reverend Fathers of Farnborough and
for the one published in 1933 in the Collection Pax, made by the
nuns of Sainte - Croix de Poitiers.
The differences among these three texts, says Dom Butler, “are
not, in the majority of cases, great, and seldom affect the substance
of the Rule”. In our explanations we have ignored the insignificant
variations, but we have been careful to note in passing all those
which might have some interest for the comprehension of the text.
May this humble work help the children of St. Benedict living in
the world to become permeated with the spirit of him whom they
have the good fortune of being able to call their holy Father. It has
no other reason for being.
Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus2.

Montreuil - en - Auge
On the Feast of St. Wandrille
July 22, 1934

2
Them otto of the Benedictine Order: U.I.O.G.D.