I. Rule and Life § 1 Birth of the Rule
1.1. The fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian era witnessed the birth of a peculiar literature that, at least at first glance, does not seem to have had precedents in the classical world: monastic rules. The set of texts that the tradition classifies under this rubric is, at least as concerns form and presentation, so diverse that the incipit of the manuscripts can only summarize them under very diverse titles: vitae, vita vel regula, regula, horoi kata platos, peri tÄs askÄseĆs tĆn makariĆn paterĆn, instituta coenobiorum, praecepta, praecepta atque instituta, statuta patrum, ordo monasterii, historiae monachorum, askÄtikai diataxeis . . . But even if we keep to the very narrow conception of the term that underlies the Codex regularum, in which Benedict of Aniane collected around twenty-five ancient rules at the beginning of the ninth century, the diversity of the texts could not be greater. This diversity appears not only as to dimensions (from the approximately three hundred pages of the Regula magistri to the few sheets of the rule of Augustine or of the second Rule of the Fathers), but as to presentation (questions and answersâerotapokriseisâbetween monks and master in Basil, an impersonal collection of precepts in Pachomius, verbal proceedings of a gathering of Fathers in the Rule of the Four Fathers). Above all, they are diverse in terms of content, which ranges from questions regarding the interpretation of Scripture or the spiritual edification of monks to the dry or meticulous enunciation of precepts and prohibitions. These are not, at least at first glance, juridical works, even though they claim to regulate, often in fine detail and through precise sanctions, the life of a group of individuals. They are not historical narratives, even though at times they seem to simply transcribe the way of life and habits of the members of a community. They are not hagiographies, even though they are frequently mixed together with the life of the founding saint or Father to such a degree that they present themselves as recording it in the form of an exemplum or forma vitae (in this sense, Gregory Nazianzus could state that the life of Anthony written by Athanasius was âlegislation [nomothesia] for the monastic life in narrative form [en plasmati diÄgÄseĆs]â; Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 21). Although their ultimate goal is doubtless the salvation of the soul according to the precepts of the Gospel and the celebration of the Divine Office, the rules do not belong to ecclesiastical literature or practice, from which they distance themselvesânot polemically but nonetheless firmly. They are not, finally, hypomneumata or ethical exercises, like those that Michel Foucault has analyzed from the late classical world. And yet their central preoccupation is precisely that of governing the life and customs of men, both singularly and collectively.
The present study intends to show how, in these texts that are at once dissimilar and monotonous, the reading of which seems so difficult to the modern reader, a transformation is carried out. This transformationâto an extent probably more decisive than in the juridical, ethical, ecclesiastical, or historical texts of the same eraâcollides with law as much as with ethics and politics. It also implies a radical reformulation of the very conceptuality that up until that moment articulated the relationship between human action and norm, âlifeâ and ârule,â and without which the political and ethical-juridical rationality of modernity would be unthinkable. In this sense, the syntagmas vita vel regula, regula et vita, regula vitae are not simple hendiadyses. Rather, in the present study they define a field of historical and hermeneutical tensions which demands a rethinking of both concepts. What is a rule, if it seems to be mixed up with life without remainder? And what is a human life, if it can no longer be distinguished from the rule?
1.2. The perfect comprehension of a phenomenon is its parody. In 1534, at the end of the Vie trĂšs horrifique du grand Gargantua, Rabelais recounts how Gargantua, in order to reward the monk with whom he has shared his unedifying undertakings, has an abbey constructed for him which was to be called ThĂ©lĂšme. After having described in all the particulars the architectonic structure of the edifice (en figure exagone, en telle façon que Ă chascun angle estoit bastie une grosse tour, âhexagonal in shape in such a way that at each angle was built a stout round towerâ; Rabelais, pp. 41/118), the arrangement of the accommodations, the style of the vestments of the Thelemites and their age, Rabelais explains comment estoient reiglĂ©z leur maniĂšre de vivre, âhow they were regulated in their way of life,â in a form that is, by all evidence, nothing but a parody of monastic rule. As in every parody, it witnesses a point-by-point inversion of the monastic cursus, scrupulously articulated by the rhythm of the horologia and the Divine Office, in what seems, at least at first glance, to be an absolute lack of rules:
Et parce que Ăšs religions de ce monde, tout est compassĂ©, limitĂ© et reiglĂ© par heures, feut decrĂ©tĂ© que lĂ ne seroit horologe ny quadrant aulcun, mais selon les occasions et opportunitĂ©z seroient toutes les oeuvres dispensĂ©es; car (disoit Gargantua) la plus vraye perte du temps quâil sceust estoit de compter les heuresâquel bien en vientil?âet la plus grande resverie du monde estoit soy gouverner au son dâune cloche, et non au dictĂ© de bon sens et entendement [And because in the monasteries of this world everything is compassed, limited, and regulated by hours, it was decreed that there should never be any clock or sundial whatever, but all works would be dispensed according to the occasions and opportunities; for, Gargantua used to say, the greatest waste of time he knew of was to count the hoursâwhat good comes of that? And the greatest folly in the world was to govern oneself by the ring of a bell and not at the dictation of good sense and understanding]. (Rabelais, pp. 37/116â17)
Toute leur vie estoit employĂ©e non par loix ou reigles, mais selon leur vouloir et franc arbitre. Se levoient due lict quand bon leur sembloit, beuvoient, mangeoient, travailloient, dormoient quand le dĂ©sir leur venoit; nul le esveilloit, nul ne les parforceoit ny Ă boire ny Ă manger ny Ă faire chose aultre quelconque. Ainsi lâavoid estably Gargantua. En leur reigle nâestoit que ceste clause: fay ce que vouldras [All their life was laid out not by laws, statues, or rules but according to their will and free choice. They got up out of bed when they saw fit, drank, ate, worked, slept when they came to feel like doing so; no one woke them up, no one forced them either to drink or to eat or to do anything else whatever. Thus Gargantua had established it. In their rule was only this clause: do what you will]. (Rabelais, pp. 60/127)
It has been said that ThĂ©lĂšme âwas the antimonasteryâ (Febvre, pp. 165/158). And yet if we look more closely, it is not simply a matter of an inversion of order into disorder and of rule into anomia. Even if contracted into only one sentence, a rule exists and has an author (ainsi lâavoit estably Gargantua, âthus Gargantua has established itâ). And the end that it intends is, despite the point-by-point dismissal of every obligation and the unconditional liberty of each, perfectly homogenous with that of the monastic rule: âcenobyâ (koinos bios, the common life), the perfection of a common life in all and for all (unianimes in domo cum iocunditate habitare, âlive harmoniously in a house pleasantly,â as an ancient rule has it):
Par ceste libertĂ© entrĂšrent en louable Ă©mulation de faire tous ce que Ă un seul voyoient plaire. Si quelquâun ou quelcune disoit: âbeuvons,â tous beuvoient; si disoit: âjouons,â tous jouoient; si disoit: âAllons Ă lâesbat Ăšs champs,â tous y alloient [By this freedom they were all moved by laudable emulation to do what they saw a single one liked. If some man or woman said: âLetâs drink,â they all drank; if one said: âLetâs go play in the fields,â they all went]. (Rabelais, pp. 61/126)
The abbreviated formulation of the rule is not, however, an invention of Rabelais, but goes back to the author of one of the first monastic rules, and still further, to Augustine, who, in his commentary on the First Epistle of John (7.4.8), had summarized the precept of the Christian life in the genuinely Gargantuan stipulation: dilige et quod vis fac, âlove and do what you wish.â Moreover, it corresponds precisely with the way of life of those monks who were, according to a tradition inaugurated by Cassian, pejoratively named âSarabaitesâ and whose sole rule was caprice and desire (pro lege eis est desideriorum voluntas). The Rabelaisian parody, though comical in appearance, is thus so serious that one can compare the episode of ThĂ©lĂšme to the Franciscan foundation of a new type of order (Gilson, pp. 265â66): the common life, by identifying itself with the rule without remainder, abolishes and cancels it.
1.3. In 1785, in his cell in the prison of the Bastille, Donatien Alphonse de Sade, filling a roll of paper twelve meters long with a minute calligraphy in only twenty days, wrote what many consider his masterpiece: Les 120 journĂ©es de Sodome (The 120 Days of Sodom). The narrative frame is well known: on November 1 of an unspecified year at the end of the reign of Louis XIV, four powerful and rich libertinesâthe duke of Blangis, his brother the bishop, the president of Curval, and the financier Durcetâlock themselves away with forty-two victims in the castle of Silling in order to celebrate an orgy that would be without limits and yet perfectly and obsessively regulated. Here as well, the model is unequivocally the monastic rule. Yet while in Rabelais, the paradigm is evoked directly (ThĂ©lĂšme is an abbey) in order to be precisely negated and reversed (no clocks, no divisions of time, no compulsory behavior), at Silling, which is a castle and not an abbey, the time is articulated according to a meticulous ritualism that recalls the unfailing ordo of the monastic Office. Immediately after having been locked up (indeed walled up) in the castle, the four friends write and promulgate the rĂšglements (âstatutesâ) that must govern their new common life. Not only is every moment of the âcenobyâ fixed beforehand as in the monasteryâthe sanctioned rhythms of waking and sleeping, the rigidly programmed collective meals and âcelebrationsââbut even the boysâ and girlsâ defecation is subject to meticulous regulation. On se lĂšvera tousles jours Ă dix heures du matin, demands the rule, parodying the scansion of the canonical hours, Ă onze heures les amis se rendront dans lâappartement des jeune filles . . . de deux Ă trois heures on servira les deux premiĂšres tables . . . en sortant du souper, on passera dans le salon dâassemblĂ©e (this is the synaxis or collecta or conventus fratrum of monastic terminology) pour la cĂ©lĂ©bration (the same term that in the rules designates the Divine Offices) de ce quâon appelle les orgies . . . (âthe company shall rise every day at ten oâclock in the morning . . . at eleven oâclock, the friends shall repair to the quarters appointed for the little girls . . . from two to three the first two tables shall be served . . . the evening meal concluded, Messieurs shall pass into the salon for the celebration of what are to be called orgiesâ; pp. 41â43/241â46).
Corresponding to the lectio of Holy Scripture (or of the text of the rule itself, as in the Regula magistri) that accompanied the meals and the daily occupations of the monks in monasteries, one finds here the ritual narration that the four historiennes, la Duclos, la Champville, la Martaine, and la Desgranges, make of their depraved life. Corresponding to the unlimited obedience-unto-death of the monks toward the abbot and their superiors (oboedientia praeceptum est regulae usque ad mortem; Fructuosus, Regula monastica communis, chap. 5, p. 1115B), there is the absolute malleability of the victims to their masters, including extreme torture (le moindre rire, ou le moindre manque dâattention ou respect ou de soumission dans les parties de dĂ©bauche sera une des foutes les plus graves et les plus cruellement punies, âthe least display of mirth, or the least evidence given of disrespect or lack of submission during the debauched activities shall be deemed one of the gravest of faults and shall be one of the most cruelly punishedâ; Sade pp. 44/248âin the same sense, monastic rules punish laughter during gatherings: Si vero aliquis depraehensus fuerit in risu . . . iubemus . . . omni flagello humilitatis coherceri, âif someone is caught laughing or using scurrilous language . . . we order that he be chastised in the name of the Lord by every scourge of humilityâ; VogĂŒĂ© 1, 1, pp. 202â4/31).
Here also then, as at ThélÚme, the cenobitic ideal is parodically maintained (indeed, exaggerated). But while life in the abbey, making pleasure their rule, ended by abolishing it, at Silling the laws, in being identified at every point with life, can only destroy it. And while the monastic cenoby is conceived as lasting forever, here, after only five months, the four libertines, who have sacrificed the life of their objects of pleasure, hastily abandon the by now half-empty castle to return to Paris.
1.4. It can appear surprising that the monastic ideal, born as an individual and solitary flight from the world, should have given origin to a model of total communitarian life. Nevertheless, as soon as Pachomius resolutely put aside the anchorite model, the term monasterium was equivalent in use to cenoby and the etymology that refers to the solitary life was dismissed to such a point that, in the Rule of the Master, monasteriale can be put forward as a translation of cenobite, and is glossed as militans sub regula vel abbate (âserving under a rule and an abbotâ; VogĂŒĂ© 2, 1, pp. 328/105). The rule of Basil was already on guard against the perils and egotism of the solitary life, which âthe doctrine of charity does not permitâ (machomenon tĆi tÄs agapÄs nomĆi; Basil, Regulae fusius tractatae, chap. 7). âIt is impossible, in...