The Rule of St. Benedict is the governing document for almost all Western monastic traditions. In the introduction he says that his intention is to create “a school for the Lord’s service” with a Rule that is “nothing harsh, nothing burdensom”. This Rule lays out the basic structure of life in the monastery, and frequently gives reasons—borne out of experience—for a particular guideline. Judging from Benedict’s exposition of Scripture in the introduction, the guiding principle create an external discipline by ascetic living so as to focus on God and not be distracted by the world. The Rule is essentially an instructional handbook on how to be an abbot.

The monks are to live within the walls of the monastery, which should encompass everything that is necessary to live. They have a rigorous schedule of singing all 150 psalms every week (Benedict gives a rough schedule, and laments that “we” are so much less disciplined than “our” forebears, who said all the psalms every day). There is scheduled time for reading, particularly on Sunday, and the rest of the day is involved in working at whatever task the abbot has given each person. The abbot takes the place of Christ in the community, so is to be obeyed promptly, without question, although if the monk feels that he has been given an impossible task he may say so once, and if the abbot does not change his mind he must then set about it. The monks do not interact with the world outside of the monastery, and if they must go on an errand in the world, they should eat nothing outside the monastery and be back by evening.

Much of the Rule is practical guidelines on what kind of person should be cellarer, the guest-greeter (an older monk), etc. Some of the rules are to avoid political infighting, such as that an abbot and a prior should not both be appointed by the bishop, because the prior is subordinate to the abbot, but appointed by the same authority as that which appointed the abbot, so the prior tends to see himself as equal to the abbot and tends to usurp the abbot’s authority. Other rules ensure that necessary but unliked tasks are done but shared equitably. Kitchen duty, for example is limited to one week, and the monk whose turn begins should prostrate himself on the oratory floor when his turn begins and thank God for the opportunity to serve. There are also practical rules like the monks should sleep clothed, so that they will be ready to get in the middle of the night to sing Matins. Also, newer monks should be have beds between senior monks, “for the sleepy like to make excuses together”.

Discipline is a little strange to modern thinking. The abbot, acting as a father should try different ways to persuade errant monks to amend their ways, but if that fails, the monk should be subject to corporal punishment. For really serious offences they are to eat alone, do their tasks alone and without help, and lie prostrate on the oratory floor during services, until the abbot decides that they have “made satisfaction”. For less serious offences, they only lie prostrate at the services.

The abbot is repeatedly told that he must, himself, keep the Rule and be an examplar of it; he must lead by example. Since he represents Christ to the monastic community, he must act like Christ. He is to be a loving father to the monks, entreating, cajoling, and, if necessary, disciplining his sheep into the way of salvation. He is not to be overbearing or one-size-fits-all; Benedict’s Rule makes a lot of allowance for differences in local climactic conditions and individual monks. He even allows a cup of wine per day, even though he and the Church Fathers think that wine is not appropriate for monks, because “the monks of this day cannot be convinced of this”. With that in mind, the abbot is also in complete charge of the monastery, and what he says must be obeyed as one obeys Christ.

Benedict’s Rule, unintentionally it seems, is a constitution of an institution. He makes the rules of the community clear, and if you want to join the community, you spend a year as a novice and are read the rule at repeated intervals so it is clear what you are signing up for. The rule that effectively makes it an institution, though, is the rule that no monk may have any private property. Any tools and food are to be signed for, so that the abbot and cellarer, respectively, can keep track of things. Essentially everything is owned by the monastery/community, and private ownership of communal/institutional goods is theft. Even at a modern workplaces, which are almost always institutions or corporations (which is just a for-profit institution), when you leave, you take nothing with you except what you brought with you. (The difference is that Benedict sees private ownership of any kind as wrong; even direct gifts by a relative to a monk may be appropriated for other uses by the abbot, although it is possible that he may only see it as wrong in a monastic community.)

The result of Benedict’s Rule was transformational for western Europe. Since monasteries were required to be self-sufficient, and since work was to be done as to God, monasteries tended to create high quality goods. For instance, monasteries brought viticulture with them, if only for communion wine. Since monasteries were required to house guests (which Benedict notes there are always) and do it as it welcoming Christ, they became places of hospitality and the first hospitals. The requirement for the monks to read made monasteries a repository of books, and although I lack the historical knowledge to assert that they were places of learning—monasticism is a fundamentalist impulse to act out Christ’s commands literally, which does not usually pair well with the academic impulse—certainly there must have been some element of learning given the proximity of all those books. All these factors made monasteries a key element of medieval culture, since monasteries were the only institutions with the values and the means to do these things. (At least initially; in later years, the formation of the Guilds may have also adopted some aspects of this.)

Despite the clear benefits that Benedictine monasticism brought, I disagree with Benedict’s fundamental assumptions. He notes that we should let our fear of not attaining heaven drive us to produce the fruit of good works in our lives. His “school” aims to produce these works by practicing moderate asceticism. It is not burdensome like the Desert Fathers austere asceticism, but I fail to see how self-denial produces Christian virtue. It might drive you to figure out why are failing to keep the Rule, but it might just produce prideful obedience. Ultimately, it seems to be a Torah 2.0, although the legalism is supposed to be tempered with the guidance of a spiritual father. God made the world and said it was good; let us rejoice and be glad in the day he has made. The goal is the fruit of the Spirit, not disciplines of self-denial. So why not seek the fruit directly? Some fruit is that of discipline (self-control, patience) but others not (joy, peace), or at least the link is not clear to me.

However, Benedict was working within the tradition he was given, so I cannot fault him directly. Certainly he made a Rule that was doable by many people, a Rule that created a monastic institution, and a Rule that was clear yet also flexible enough to still be a key component of monastic living 1600 years later. It did not protect against abuse of authority by the abbot, and it was, to my mind, ascetic without any balancing forces, but it was successful. There were many reforming monastic movements that added some things to the Rule to prevent monks from getting soft (for instance, the Cluniacs had a centralized “quality control” system), but the reforms were always trying to get back to living the Rule.