after no long interval to the higher authority and more practicable precepts of the Nursian; whose genuine institution indeed was soon afterwards planted in the south of the island by the monk Augustine. At the same time the same system was spreading northward beyond the mountains of the Rhine; and though it may probably be true, that the 'Holy Rule' (regula sancta) was not universally received until the ninth century-until the practice had been vitiated by many corruptions—it is evident, that it obtained great prevalence long before that time, while it yet retained its original integrity; and it is equally clear, that its moral operation upon a lawless and bloodthirsty generation could not possibly be any other, than to restrain and to humanize.

During the greater part of the seventh and the beginning of the following age, frightful ravages were committed by the Lombards in Italy, and by the Danes in France and Britain, against which even the sanctity of the monastic profession furnished very insufficient protection. Throughout this period of devastation, while all other laws and establishments were overthrown, it was not probable that even those of St. Benedict should remain inviolate. The monastery of Monte Cassino was destroyed about fifty years after its foundation, and the holy spot remained desolate for almost a century and a half*. And though the respectable fugitives found an asylum at Rome, where the discipline was perpetuated in security, during that long period of persecution, others were less fortunate; and even in those which escaped destruction a more relaxed observance naturally gained ground, in the midst of universal licentiousness. Accordingly we learn, that, towards the end of the eighth century, the order of St. Benedict had so far degenerated from its pristine purity, that a thorough reform, if not an entire reconstruction, of the system was deemed necessary for the dignity and welfare of the Church.

The individual to whom this honourable office was destined, was also named Benedict; he was descended from a powerBenedict of Aniane. ful Gothic family, and a native of Aniane in the diocese of Montpellier. Born about the year,750, he devoted his early life to religious austerities, exceeding not only the practice of his brethren, but the instruction of the founder. The Rule of St. Benedict was formed, in his opinion, for invalids and novices; and he strove to regulate his discipline after the sublimer models of Basil and Pachomius. Presently he was chosen to preside over his monastery; but in disgust, as is reported, at the inadequate practice of his subjects, he retired to Aniane, and there laid the foundation of a new and more rigid institution. The people reverenced his sanctity and crowded to his cell; the native nobles assisted him in the construction of a magnificent edifice; and endowments of land were soon conferred upon the humble Reformer of Aniane. Moreover, as he enhanced the fame of his austerities by the practice of charity and universal benevolence †, his venerable name deserved the celebrity which it so rapidly acquired. His Ascetic

* See Leo Ostiensis. Chron. Cassinens, lib. i. Gregory III. restored the monastery, and Zachary his successor granted to it (about the year 743) the privilege of exclusive dependence on the Bishop of Rome. But one blessing was still wanting to secure its prosperity-and that was happily supplied by the Abbot Desiderius in 1066. In exploring some ruins about the edifice, he discovered the body of St. Benedict! It is true that a pope was soon found to pronounce the genuineness of the relic. Nevertheless the fact was long and malevolently disputed by rival impostors.

+ Besides the general mention of his profuse donations to the poor, it is particularly related respecting this Benedict, that whenever an estate was made over to him, he invariably emancipated all the serfs which he found on it. Act. SS. Benedict., tom. v.

disciples were eagerly sought after by other monasteries, as models and instruments for the restoration of discipline; and as the policy of Charlemagne concurred with the general inclination to improvement, the decaying system was restored and fortified by a bold and effectual refor mation.

When Benedict of Aniane undertook to establish a system, he found it prudent to relax from that extreme austerity, which as a simple monk he had both professed and practised. As his youthful enthusiasm abated, he became gradually convinced, that the rule of the Nursian Hermit was as severe as the common infirmities of human nature could endure*. He was therefore contented to revive that Rule, or rather to enforce its observance; and the part which he peculiarly pressed on the practice of his disciples, was the obligation of manual labour. To the neglect of that essential portion of monastic discipline the successive corruptions of the system are with truth attributed; and the regulations, which were adopted by the Reformer of Aniane, were confirmed (in 817) by the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle. From this epoch † we may date the renovation of the Benedictine Order; and though, even in that age, it was grown perhaps too rich to adhere very closely to its ancient observance, yet the sons whom it nourished may nevertheless be accounted, without any exaggeration of their merits, among the most industrious, the most learned, and the most pious of their own generation.

It is not our intention to trace the numberless branches which sprang from the stem of St. Benedict, and overshadowed the surface of Europe. But there are three at least among them, which, by their frequent mention in ecclesiastical history, demand a separate notice, the Order of Cluni, the Cistercian Order, and that of the Chartreux. The monastery of Corbie, also of great renown, was founded by Charlemagne for the spiritual subjugation of Saxony; but it is no way distinguished from the regular Benedictine institutions, than by its greater celebrity.

During the ninth century, the rapid incursions of the Normans, and the downward progress of corruption, once more re

duced the level of monastic sanctity; and a fresh The Order of Cluni. impulse became necessary to restore the excel

lence and save the reputation of the system. The method of reformation was, on this occasion, somewhat different from that previously adopted.

The duty of silence was very generally enjoined in monastic institutions. In the Rule of The Brethren of the Holy Trinity,' established by Innocent III., we observe for instance-Silentium observant semper in Ecclesia sua, semper in Refectorio, semper in Dormitorio,'-and even on the most necessary occasions for conversation the monks were instructed to speak remissa voce, humiliter, et honeste.-See Dugdale, vol. ii. p. 830.

It would not appear that these changes very much influenced the condition of monachism in England. The three great reformations in that system which took place in our church were, (1) that of Archbishop Cuthbert, in the year 747; (2) that of Dunstan, in 965, promulgated in the Council of Winchester, on which occasion the general constitution, entitled,-Regula Concordiæ Anglica Nationis,-was for the first time prescribed. It was founded partly on the Rule of St. Benedict, partly on ancient customs. (3) That of Lanfranc, in 1075, authorised by the Council of London, and founded on the same principle as the second. Mabillon, a zealous advocate and an acute critic, sufficiently shows from John the Deacon, (who wrote the Life of Gregory the Great in 875,) that the Rule of St. Benedict was received in England before the second of those reformations. Our allusions to the ecclesiastical history of England are thus rare and incidental, because that Church is intended, we believe, to form the subject of a separate work.

Such as the Camaldulenses, Sylvestrini, Grandimontenses, Præmonstratenses, the Monks of Valombrosa, and a multitude of others.

A separate order was established, derived indeed immediately from the stock of St. Benedict, yet claiming, as it were, a specific distinction and character-it was the order of Cluni. It was founded about the year 900, in the district of Maçon, in Burgundy, by William, duke of Aquitaine; but the praise of perfecting it is rather due to the abbot, St. Odo. It commenced, as usual, by a strict imitation of ancient excellence, a rigid profession of poverty, of industry, and of piety; and it declined, according to the usual course of human institutions, through wealth, into indolence and luxury. In the space of about two centuries it fell into obscurity; and after the name of Peter the Venerable (the contemporary of St. Bernard), no eminent ecclesiastic is mentioned as having issued from its discipline. Besides the riches, which had rewarded and spoiled its original purity, another cause is mentioned as having contributed to its decline the corruption of the simple Rule of St. Benedict, by the multiplication of vocal prayers, and the substitution of new offices and ceremonies for the manual labour of former days. The ill effect of that change was indeed admitted by the venerable Abbot in his answer to St. Bernard.

But in the mean time, during the long period of its prosperity, the order of Cluni had reached the highest point of honourable reputation; insomuch that during the eleventh century, a bishop of Ostia (the future Urban II.) being officially present at a council in Germany, suppressed in his signature his episcopal dignity, and thought that he adopted a prouder title, when he subscribed himself Monk of Cluni, and Legate of Pope Gregory*.' Those two names were well associated; for it was indeed within the walls of Cluni, that Hildebrand fed his youthful spirit on those dreams of universal dominion, which he afterwards attempted to realize it was there, too, that he may have meditated those vast crusading projects which were accomplished by Urban, his disciple. But however that may be, the cloister from which he had emerged to change the destinies of Christendom, and the discipline which had formed him (as some might think) to such generous enterprises, acquired a reflected splendour from his celebrity; and since the same institution was also praised for its zealous and active orthodoxy, and its devotion to the throne of St. Peter, shall we wonder that it flourished far and wide in power and opulence; and that it numbered, in the following age, above two thousand monasteries, which followed its appointed Rule and its adopted principles? Yet is there a sorrowful reflection which attends the spectacle of this prosperity. Through all the parade of wealth and dignity, we penetrate the melancholy truth, that the season of monastic virtue and monastic utility was passing by, if indeed it was not already passed irrevocably; and we remark how rapidly the close embrace of the pontifical power was converting to evil the rational principles and pious purposes of the original institution.

Howbeit, we do not

The Cistercian Order.

read that any flagrant immoralities had yet disgraced the establishment of Cluni. Only it had attained a degree of sumptuous refinement very far removed from its first profession. This degeneracy furnished a reason for the creation of a new and rival community in its neighbourhood. The Cistercian order was founded in 1098 †,

* See Hist. Litter. de la France, Vie Urban II.

Anno milleno, centeno, bis minus uno,

Pontifice Urbano, Francorum Rege Philippo,

and very soon received the pontifical confirmation. In its origin it successfully contrasted its laborious poverty and much show of Christian humility with the lordly opulence of Cluni; and in its progress, it pursued its predecessor through the accustomed circle of austerity, wealth, and corruption. This Institution was peculiarly favoured from its very foundation; since it possessed, among its earliest treasures, the virtues and celebrity of St. Bernard. One of the first of the Cistertian monks, that venerated ecclesiastic established, in 1115, the dependent abbey of Clairvaux, over which he long presided; and such was his success in propagating the Cistertian order, that he has sometimes been erroneously considered as its founder. The zeal of his pupils, aided by the authority of his fame, completed the work transmitted to them; and with so much eagerness were the monasteries of the Citeaux filled and endowed, that, before the year 1250, that order yielded nothing, in the number and importance of its dependencies, to its rival of Cluni. Both spread with almost equal prevalence over every province in Christendom; and the colonies long continued to acknowledge the supremacy of the mother monastery. But the Citeaux was less fortunate in the duration of its authority, and the union of its societies. About the year 1350, some confusion grew up amongst them, arising first from their corruptions, and next from the obstruction of all endeavours to reform them. At the end of that century, they were involved in the grand schism of the Catholic church, and thus became still further alienated from each other; till at length, about the year 1500, they broke up (first in Spain, and then in Tuscany and Lombardy) into separate and independent establishments. St. Bruno, with a few companions, established a residence at the Chartreuse, in the summer of 1084: the usual duties of labour, temperance, and prayer were enjoined with more perhaps than the usual severity. But this community did not immediately rise into any great eminence; it was long governed by Priors, subject to the bishop of Grenoble; and its founder died (in 1101) in a Calabrian monastery. Nearly fifty years after its foundation, its statutes were written by a Prior, named Guigues †, who presided over it for eighteen years. By the faithful

Order of La Chartreuse.

Burgundis Odone duce et fundamina dante,

Sub Patre Roberto cœpit Cistercius Ordo.-Pagi, Vit. Urban II., sect. 73. The date of another celebrated Institution, which we have no space to notice, has been similarly (though less artificially) recorded:

Anno milleno, centeno, bis quoque deno

Sub Patre Norberto Præmonstratensis viget Ordo.

Norbert was archbishop of Magdeburg, and in great repute with Innocent II. The site of the monastery was præmonstrated by a vision-hence the name. The rule was that of St. Augustine; the Brethren were confirmed by Calixtus II., under the designation of Canonici Regulares Exempti; and they spread to the extremities of the east and the west.-Hospin. lib. v. c. xii.

The earliest Cistertians, under Alberic, who died in 1109, affected a rigid imitation of the Rule of St. Benedict. They refused all donations of churches and altars, oblations and tithes. It appeared not (they said) that in the ancient quadripartite division the Monasteries had any share-for this reason, that they had lands and cattle, whence they could live by work. They avoided cities and populous districts; but professed their willingness to accept the endowment of any remote or waste lands, or of vineyards, meadows, woods, waters (for mills and fishing), as well as horses and cattle. Their only addition to the old rule was that of lay brothers and hired servants.-Frères Convers Laiques.

† Fleury, H. E. 1. 67, s. 58. From these statutes it appears, that from September to Easter the monks were allowed only one meal a day; that they drank no pure wine; that fish might not be purchased except for the sick; that no superfluous gold or silver was permitted at the service of the altar; that the use of medicine was discouraged; but

observance of those statutes, though in its commencement far outstripped by its Cistertian competitors, it gradually rose into honourable notoriety; and at length, about the year 1178, its rule was sanctioned by the approbation of Alexander III. From this event, its existence as a separate order in the church is properly to be dated; and henceforward it went forth from its wild and desolate birth-place, and spread its fruitful branches over the gardens and vineyards of Europe. The rise of the Chartreux gave fresh cause for emulation to their brethren of older establishment; and the rivalry thus excited and maintained by these repeated innovations, if it caused much professional jealousy and doubtless some personal animosity, furnished the only resource by which the monastic system could have been brought to preserve even the semblance of its original practice. Still it should be remarked, that these successive additions to the fraternity implied no contempt of the institutions of antiquity: they made no profession of novelty, or of any improvement upon pristine observances; on the contrary, the more modern orders all claimed, as they respectively started into existence, the authority and the name of St. Benedict. The monk of Cluni, the Cistertian, the Carthusian, were alike Benedictines; and the more rigid the reform which they severally boasted to introduce, and the nearer their approximation to the earliest practice, the better were their pretensions founded to a legitimate descent from the Western Patriarch.

The rules of the reformed orders invariably inculcated the performance of manual labour; and the neglect of that Institution of Lay Brethren. injunction invariably led to their corruption. But an alteration had been effected in the general constitution of the body, which alone precluded any faithful emulation of the immediate disciples of St. Benedict. As late as the eleventh age the monks were for the most part laymen; and they performed all the servile offices of the establishment with their own hands. But in the year 1040, St. John of Gualbert introduced into his monastery of Vallombrosa a distinction which was fatal to the integrity of former discipline. He divided those of his obedience into two classes-lay brethren and brethren of the choir; and while the spiritual and intellectual duties of the intitution were more particularly enjoined to the latter, the whole bodily labour, whether domestic or agricultural, was imposed upon their lay associates *. Thenceforward the Monks (for the higher class began to appropriate that name) became entirely composed either of clerks, or of persons destined for holy orders; the religious offices were celebrated and chiefly attended by them; while the servant was commanded to repeat his pater without suspending his work, and presented with a chaplet for the numbering of the canonical hours. A reason was advanced for this change; and had not a much stronger been afforded by the inordinate accumulation of wealth, it might have seemed perhaps that, to compensate for that prohibition, the monks were bled five times a year. It is proper to add, that during the same period they were permitted to shave only six times. Some statutes of this order are given by Dugdale, Monast. vol. i. p. 951. Among them we observe a strict injunction to manual labour:

Nunc lege, nunc ora, nunc cum fervore labora;

Sic erit hora brevis, et labor ille levis.

* In the Ordres Monastiques, p. iv. c. 18, two sorts of laymen are mentioned as living in French monasteries: (1) Such as gave themselves over as slaves to the establishment, and were called Oblats or Donnés. (2) Such as were recommended for support to mo nasteries of royal foundation by the king. But neither of these classes were, properly speaking, lay brethren.