Spanish and Portugese
Monastic History 600-1300

Charles Julian Bishko



[377] In the fourth volume of his Geschichte der römischen Literatur (2nd ed., 1914) M. Schanz briefly discusses under the Late Latin literature of Spanish Priscillianism the so-called Regula Consensoria Monachorum. (2) This short work, the correct title of which is Consensoria Monachorum (henceforth abbreviated as CM), takes the form of an agreement among a group of individuals seeking to establish a monastic community. It defines the terms of association, the admission of new members and the secession of old ones, the abbot's powers, and the preservation of the community and its movable wealth in the event of violent assault from without. Although certain late medieval MSS and the earliest printed editions ascribe the text to St. Augustine, (3) L. Holstenius rightly rubricked it incerti auctoris in his 1661 Codex Regularum Monasticarum (4) No attempt at identification, however, was made until 1907, when I. Herwegen published his important study of the monastic pactum, that uniquely Spanish written contract between abbot and monks under which, in the territories of Galicia, Asturias, Castile, and the Navarrese Rioja, the strongly authoritarian abbatiate of orthodox cenobitism was radically modified in favor of a constitutional monastic polity emphasizing the monks' rights, even to rebellion, against their abbot. (5) Impressed by certain quasi-pactual features of the CM, [378] Herwegen (pp. 71-9) very tentatively asserted the work might well emanate from the same general region and period which, as he ably demonstrated, produced the pactum, i. e., the old Roman-Visigothic province of Callaecia, Gallaecia, or Galicia, soon after 650. This proposal, however, was immediately and forcefully assailed by D. DeBruyne, who argued that its reference to the Germanic invasions of Roman Spain and its use of a pre-Hieronymian Bible necessarily dated the CM no later than the fifth century, while peculiarities of content and terminology proved it to be a monastic Rule used by communities of heretical Priscillianist monks. (6)

Since 1908 DeBruyne's conclusions have been almost unanimously accepted among students of Hispano-Latin literature and Spanish ecclesiastical history, (7) the only exceptions being the already cited Schanz, who finds them " ohne durchschlagende Gründe," and Ángel Custodio Vega, the latest editor of the text, for whom the Priscillianist evidence particularly seems inconclusive. (8) It is the aim of the present paper to attack this current identification and, after refuting DeBruyne, to prove that the CM, as Herwegen suggested, is a type of non-Priscillianist Galician monastic pactum of the later seventh century.

1. The charge of Priscittianism. DeBruyne's case for the CM 's [379] Priscillianist origin is by no means strong. The work's promulgation by the monks themselves rather than by a monastic legislator, its sharp curtailment of the abbot's powers, and its marked interest in the monastic temporal, which is strangely viewed as the collective possession of the consentientes , all testify to a certain unorthodoxy, but this no more proves the CM Priscillianist than his mortality proves Socrates a hare. The first feature is abnormal only if the CM is assumed to be a Rule, which, as we shall see, it is not; the second recalls the non-monarchical abbatiate of the pactum, which, however unorthodox, is certainly not Priscillianist; and as for the third, it may be pointed out that Priscillianism was at least as hostile as orthodox monasticism to the possession of material goods by avowed ascetics. (9) Again, the single citation of a probably apocryphal scripture (c. iii: amicum noli, etc.), which DeBruyne relates to the known Priscillianist addiction to this type of literature, likewise carries little weight, for, down to the tenth century at least, Spanish writings of unimpeachable orthodoxy cite uncanonical prophetic and exhortatory tracts as if they possessed Biblical authority. (10)

Hardly more convincing is DeBruyne's claim that the strong fear of doctrinal contamination from without (c. v.: aut si quis ab aliquo doctrinam, audierit, praeter quam in monasterio consecutus est, ab eo cui se credidit hanc aut non suscipiat aut eam non subtrahat doctori [i.e., abbati]) is directed against orthodoxy. This really cuts both ways: orthodox monks in a Priscillianist milieu might well so seek to protect themselves against circumambient heresy. But the correct interpretation of this passage is surely not a doctrinal one, for in monastic circles doctrina commonly means not tenet of faith but ascetic practice. (11) [380] To cite only Spanish examples, the council of VII Toledo in 646 (c. v) declares of itinerant anchorites: in monasteriis omnimodo deputentur ut illic sancti ordinis meditantes doctrinara primum possint discere quae sunt a patribus instituta . . . atque tunc demum si doctrinae et sancti operis fructu exstiterint fecundati, ad summam virtutis properent . (12) In XI Toledo (675) abbots are warned against tolerating any departure from traditional liturgical usage (c. iii); a violator is to be punished: et necessariam officiorum doctrinara studiose addiscat. (13) The Regula SS. Pauli et Stephani Abbatum parallels the CM passage closely, when it says (c. xiv) : nec ab adveniente hospite sine iussu prioris quidquam talium rerum aliquis audeat meditari, ne peregrinis varietatum doctrinis et quodammodo diliramentorum suavitatibus irretiti, simplicitatis et veritatis maturitatem fastidiant. (14) That doctrina in CM, c. v, has the same meaning as in the foregoing instances is confirmed by the context: the monk believes ( se credidit) the transmitter of the doctrina, but the doctrina itself is not so much believed as followed or observed (consecutus est ). Monastic usage, moreover, is a subject upon which abbots might properly pass judgment; matters of faith would be more naturally referred to sacerdotal or episcopal authorities.

DeBruyne's final proof of Priscillianist origin is the CM's use of doctor as equivalent to abbas (c. v), which he regards as unique in monastic history. The title doctor is known to have been applied by the Priscillianists to members of their ascetic governing élite, and its assumption by individuals was expressly forbidden in Spain by the anti-Priscillianist council of Saragossa in 380 (c. vii). (15) But to identify the Priscillianist doctor, whose charismatic authority would in all likelihood make him a highly autocratic official, (16) with the weak primus inter pares of the CM, hardly seems logical. Besides, early monastic literature both within and outside Spain frequently refers to the teaching functions of the abbot; (17) and evidence exists to show that, whatever [381] its original heretical connotation, doctor eventually came to be used technically in Visigothic Spain to mean a ruler of monks, whether an abbot or (with reference to episcopal control over diocesan monasteries) a bishop. The Regula Orientalis of Vigilias, apparently written in Gaul in the early fifth century, and widely used in Spain, refers to the abbot (c. i) as doctor et pater, (18) Two metrical Latin epitaphs of the Anthologia Hispana illustrate, it would seem, the episcopal application. One, that of the metropolitan bishop John of Tarragona (d. 519-20), speaks of him as rector doctorq(ue) prefuisti monacis et populis. (19) The other, the epitaph of the bishop Justinian of Valencia (ca . 546), reads in part: pius preclarus doctor alacer facundus / . . . / virgines institue(n)s monacos(que) gu<bernans>. (20) The early tenth century Escorial MS Lat. a. I. 13, containing much pre-711 Galician material, speaks, in an as yet unidentified text, of penitents who remain sub potestate iudicis aut doctoris vel abbatis. (21) Other examples might be cited from unpublished tenth and eleventh century Spanish charters in which Hispano-Visigothic ecclesiastical terminology is conservatively retained. (22)

[382] Lastly, DeBruyne fails to explain the sanctions clause of the CM's initial chapter: in domino ergo iure observationis et legis nos teneamus, etc. Observatio here means observatio monastica , i. e., the canonical obligations of the monastic vows; while lex has reference to the lex civilis, i. e., to secular enforcement in Late Roman and post-Roman law of the conditio monastica, as well as of the contract as such. Either we must assume, contrary to all probability, that the state in Galicia, whether Late Roman, Suevic, or Visigothic, was expected to enforce a heretical covenant which could have no validity in its courts following the Emperor Maximus' official proscription of Priscillianism (384), a ban never revoked under Suevic or Visigothic law, so far as we know; or, as is far more probable, the CM was a covenant not among heretics but among orthodox monks, binding in the ius utriusque fori. In the latter case, the charge of Priscillianism loses its last remaining support.

2. The Germanic invasions. Since Priscillianism, as the canons of the council of II Braga (572) show, survived in Galicia until late in the sixth century, DeBruyne uses other evidence to prove the CM's fifth century origin, although its alleged heretical character naturally strengthened the case for an early date. From cc. vii-viii it appears that the CM monastery was frequently (ut fieri solet) menaced with destruction by incursio repentina aut hostilitas. In c. vii the monks promise that, if forced to flee for this reason, they will reassemble about the abbot and restore to him whatever monastic chattels they have been able to rescue at the time of attack. For DeBruyne, these mysterious assaults fix 500 A. D. as the CM's terminus ante quem, for he explains them as due to the fifth century Germanic invasions of Roman Spain, at a time when the province of Gallaecia was repeatedly harassed by marauding bands of Alans, Asdingian Vandals, and Sueves. This interpretation would be more convincing if the context did not equally permit the destroyers to be the hostile Arabs or Berbers of the eighth century, (23) or, assuming the CM Priscillianist, orthodox extirpators of heretical [383] monachism. But the true significance of these passages is clarified by other Galician references to destructive attacks upon monastic communities. The Regula Monastica Communis, written in the province ca. 660-675, speaks in several places of attacks upon abbeys by kinsmen seeking to recover property granted a house by some relative at the time of his monastic profession. (24) So, in c. i, it describes the frequency with which monks of what it calls false monasteries encompass the ruin of their communities: quod si aliqua ex illis imbecillitas apparuerit, propinquos, quos in saeculo reliquerunt, cum gladiis et fustibus ac minis sibi adiutores adducunt, et qualiter haec disrumpant in prima dudum conversatione excogitant. Such armed violence, however, was equally feared by more orthodox communities, for in c. xiv the Reg. Mon. Com. notes the necessity of expelling a monk who contra seniorem vel fratres in facie perstiterit, et cum propinquis se vindicare maluerit; and a little later it adds (c. xviii): comperimus per minus cauta monasteria qui cum facultaticulis suis ingressi sunt, postea tepefactos cum granai exprobratione repetere et saeculum quod relinquerant, ut canes ad vomitum, revocare; et cum propinquis quod monasteria contulerant hoc extorquere et indices saeculares requirere et cum senioribus (25) monasteria dissipare. So, too, in the pactum appended to this Rule, the monk pledges the abbot that he will not contra regulam occulte cum parentibus germanis filiis cognatis vel propinquis aut certe cum fratre secum habitante consilium de absente supradicto patre nostro inierit . Other examples might be cited, but these will suffice to prove that cc. vii-viii of the CM refer not to such major political catastrophes as the Germanic or Muslim invasions, but to attacks of hostile kinsmen whose hopes of landed inheritance and other wealth lay in destroying the monastery and recovering their relative's portion of its temporal. This background of familial property concepts and of hostility toward Roman modes of alienation of goods illumines the CM's insistence upon the temporal as permanently transferred to communal ownership. It reveals that this latter doctrine was designed to meet the needs of an environment in which monastic poverty and divine proprietorship of ecclesiastical goods were but dimly understood and little respected. All of which points not to the [384]Roman fifth, but the Visigothic seventh, century as the period of the CM's composition.

3. The Biblical citations. In DeBruyne's judgment, the CM's fifth century origin is decisively proved by its use of an Old Latin rendering of the Scriptures, since by 500 the Vulgate was well established in the Iberian peninsula. (26) Of the fourteen Biblical citations one, as already seen, is probably apocryphal: amicum noli, etc. (c. iii); a second is too brief or free a paraphrase to be significant: unum, etc. (c. i); two are the same in OL and Vulg.: habentes, etc. (c. i; Acts 2, 44 or 4, 32) and pacifici., etc. (c. iv; Ecclus. 6, 6); and the remaining ten unquestionably contain a high proportion of OL readings, chiefly from a, b, c, and several African versions, above all, k. De-Bruyne assumes (hence apparently Schanz's doubts, loc. cit.) that by the sixth century the Vulg. had either displaced or so corrupted OL Biblical MSS in Galicia that a work so predominantly OL in its citations as the CM could not have been written. Yet everything we know of the history of the Spanish Bible well into the Middle Ages testifies to the remarkable longevity of the OL and the retarded triumph of the Vulg. This applies with especial force to so relatively isolated and remote a province as Galicia. Berger and Dom Quentin have shown that even down to the eleventh century Spanish Biblical texts fall into four main categories: OL Bibles; Vulg. Bibles containing whole books in OL; Vulg. books peppered with OL readings, and even occasionally provided with OL marginal glosses; and Vulg. Bibles, although as DeBruyne himself notes, " on devait chercher longtemps avant de trouver [en Espagne] une Vulgate pure." (27) Peninsular Biblical citations, therefore, ordinarily display an admixture of OL and Vulg. readings, something a more careful analysis may show to be true of the CM, since two of its citations could be from the Vulg. and among the other ten there are some possibly distinctively Vulg. readings.

[385] In short, the strong probability exists of OL Bibles surviving in Galicia at least to 711, above all in the rural milieu from which the CM evidently springs. This argument DeBruyne partially anticipates by calling attention to the difference in the Biblical versions used in the seventh century Galician Regula Monachorum of Fructuosus of Braga and the Regula Monastica Communis. (28) The degree of " hieronymianization " of these two works in the unsatisfactory printed editions is uncertain, but in any case the four brief citations of the Reg. Monach. prove nothing. The some thirty-four citations of the Reg. Hon. Com., however, reflect a highly mixed Bible, almost as much OL as Vulg., and with the same affinities as the CM to a, b, c, and the African group. The higher content here of Vulg. readings as compared with CM is explicable geographically as well as chronologically. It is just what might be expected in a literary work emanating from Braga, the chief cultural and ecclesiastical center; undoubtedly the rate of occurrence of OL readings and OL Biblical MSS would rise as one moved out from the provincial capital.

Until we get some much needed chronological and regional studies of OL-Vulg. interaction in Spain, we can only generalize with caution, but it seems reasonable to conclude that setting the fifth century as the arbitrary terminus of OL circulation in Galicia is hazardous, if not downright erroneous. This is particularly true if it can be shown that all the other evidence strongly points to a seventh century date for the CM, as examination of the text and its transmission will soon make clear.

If the CM is neither Priscillianist nor necessarily of the fifth century, then Herwegen's proposed identification as a type of later seventh century Galician monastic pactum merits the critical examination it has not yet received. Of first importance in this connection is the neglected evidence of the manuscript tradition. Three early medieval collections of monastic Rules preserve the CM text: (1) Munich Hof- und Staatsbibliothek Lat. 28118, saec. ix (M), the great Codex Trevirensis from the St. Maximinus abbey at Trier, containing the Codex Regularum of the Carolingian monastic reformer St. Benedict of Aniane (d. 821) ; (29) (2) Escorial Lat. a. I. 13, fols. 50v, col. 3-51v , col. 2, [386] saec. x ineunte (B), copied by Leodegundia for the Galician nunnery of Bobadilla, near Samos, prov. Lugo; (30) and (3) Escorial Lat. s. III. 32, fols. 66r-67v , saec. ix (E), of northwest or north-central Spanish provenance. (31) In addition, the rubric of a lost text survives in London Brit. Mus. Addit. MS 30055, foi. 223r, saec. x (L), a codex regularum from the archive of the monastery of San Pedro de Cárdena, near Burgos in Old Castile. (32)

According to Seebass and Plenkers, Holstenius' printed text, which Migne reproduces with slight revision, is probably based upon a 1467 Cologne MS (Stadtbibliothek theol. 231) that is an accurate copy of M. (33) Ángel C. Vega's 1933 edition is the first to use the important Escorial codices, but it regrettably fails to publish the majority of their variant readings, tending to conceal the fact that the Holstenius-Brockie-Migne text [387] contains numerous errors. Vega's text also rests primarily upon M, so that the need for a new critical edition is evident. Collation of all three MSS, the results of which can only be briefly summarized here, establishes several important points hitherto overlooked. The most obvious is the just mentioned weakness of M, which is corrected not infrequently by the agreement of B and E. More striking, however, is the fact of the general agreement between M and E as against B, a divergence marked enough to justify the conclusion that there exist two fairly distinguishable versions of the text. This double tradition is established by the following major variant readings:

M and E: communi definitione decrevimus apud nos, ab ullo, quod et (a E) nobis scriptum est, teneamus et in eo usque in finem permaneamus quoniam (c. i); vestimento, vestiemini, quaerite, opponentur (adponentur E) (c. ii); qui prior est, amicum noli cito comprobare (c. iii); indicet (om. E) abbati (c. iv); haec quae scripta sunt (hec conscriptum est E) (c. v); adversus alterum (abbatem E) alter catus fuerit semel sed (altercatus emendet se E) secundum evangelium (c. vi); abbatem, festinare debebunt, ullo modo poterunt (poterint E ) separari quos divina charitas (karitas E) sociavit quia cautum (c. vii); superius, proprie (cui per E) retinere, cogitaverit (c. viii); propter, cauta qui (c. ix).

B: degretum est apud nos, ab ullis, quod a nobis ceptum est, teneamus quoniam; uestitum, utimini, querite primum, adicietur; qui preest, amicum noli cito conprobare aut si cito conprobaberis noli cito reprobare; renuntiet abbati; hec conscriptio; aduersus aliut altercatus fuerit emendet secundum euangelium; abbatem eorum, festinare debent, ullo metu poterint separari cautum; iam superius, cum ipso retiñere, contigerit; non propter, cauta quia.

Some of B's variants from M and E are explicable as scribal omissions or alterations (e. g., in c. ii utimini and adicie(n)tur are Vulg. substitutions for the original OL), and at certain points its text is less clear than that of M and E. Nevertheless, there are indications that in some respects B stands closer than either M or E to a lost archetype. The apocryphal citation of c. iii, which no scribe would be likely to supplement, appears in fuller form; the altercatio passage (c. vi) avoids the confusing readings of both M and E, which disagree here; and the logical [388] non propter . . . stabiles of c. ix is found only in B . All these variants., although they do not affect the meaning of the text in any serious sense, suffice to establish two different traditions.

No less significant is the fact that this double textual tradition is reinforced by the MSS in another way. All four MSS attach the CM closely to a monastic Rule. In M and E the work immediately follows the Regula S. Basilii, under the rubric incipit consensoria monachorum. (34) In B and L it stands as an additional twenty-fifth chapter of the Regula S. Isidori (in B simply rubricked c. xxv; in L as c. xxv. incipit conscensoria monachorum ). From this it may be inferred that before passing into the codices regularum each of these Rules must have circulated independently in MSS containing only the Rule and the attached CM. This testimony to what may be called Basilian and Isidorian lines of transmission takes on even greater interest when it is discovered to parallel exactly the double descent of the text. M and E, textually in basic agreement, both belong to the Basilian line; B (unfortunately the L text is lost), to the Isidorian.

All this throws much needed light upon the origins and nature of the CM. It confirms its Spanish and, specifically, Galician, provenance, first proposed by Herwegen but never proved, even by DeBruyne. Three of the known MSS are now seen to be Spanish (B from Galicia, L from Castile, E from the same general area); and it could be shown without much difficulty, although this is not the place to undertake it, that all the early medieval Spanish codices regularum (and a number of these are known) derive from one or more late seventh century Galician collections of monastic Rules. The same is true of Benedict of Aniane's Codex Regularum , which M preserves; this contains an undue proportion of Galician material, some of it not otherwise preserved, even in Galician MSS (e. g., the complete Regula Monastica Communis, the Regula SS. Pauli et Stephani Albatum, and the De Genere Monachorum of the abbot Valerius), and it seems very likely that the great leader of the Carolingian Benedictine Reform drew heavily, and perhaps directly, upon the rich literary tradition of seventh century Galician monasticism. (35)

[389] Furthermore, the collocation ot the CM in Basilian or Isidonan MSS assists in determining its date, for it is possible to discover within reasonable limits when the Regula S. Isidori reached Galicia. Isidore did not write his Rule until the period of his metropolitanate, 620-636; and Fructuosus of Braga, author ca. 635 of the first Galician monastic Rule, shows no knowledge of it, although he draws freely upon such other monastic sources as Cassian, Pachomius, Jerome ad Eustochium, and the De Ordine Monachorum. On the other hand, the Galician Regula Monastica Communis, which appeared ca. 660-675, definitely cites the Isidorian Rule. The latter thus seems to have reached Galicia soon after 650. The Basilian Rule cannot be traced in this fashion, but it was not used by Fructuosus and probably reached Galicia at much the same time as the Reg. S. Isid . To be sure, it is not enough to know that the CM could not have circulated in Galicia, as an appendix to the Isidorian and Basilian Rules, before ca. 650, since conceivably it could have done so earlier as an independent document. But if, as seems inherently likely, it was written to supplement a monastic Rule, and if, as the MSS indicate, it was normally used with either the Basilian or Isidorian regulae, then the probability is that it dates from about the same period as the Galician advent of these Rules, namely ca. 650-675.

That the CM was intended to accompany a Rule and be used with it, exactly as the so-called Fructuosan pactum was designed for use with, and was attached in the MSS to the terminus of, the Regula Monastica Communis, seems certain. Rule the CM emphatically is not, nor is it so entitled except in late non-Spanish MSS and the printed editions. It contains none of the prescriptions on daily régime, diet, clothing, labor, prayer, etc., indispensable to monastic Rules. The significant fact that, as in the Fructuosan pactum, the monks affix their signatures to it, [390] proves beyond all cavil its true character as a formal legal instrument. Style and terminology supply further evidence. The CM' s opening formulae closely resemble the juridical language of the Visigothic ecclesiastical synods, as can be seen by comparing its initial communi definitione decrevimus (degretum est apud nos B) . . . residentibus nobis in monasterio . . . omnibus placuit with consensu communi decrevimus (council of II Seville [619], c. xi) ; communi definitione decrevimus . . . communi decreto sancimus (IX Toledo [655], praef. and c. ix); patribus residentibus (XIII Toledo [683]); nobis residentibus . . . patribus residentibus (XVII Toledo [694] ). (37) Omnibus placuit is a common commencement of conciliar decrees. This legal terminology is in keeping with the fact that in c. viii the CM expressly calls itself a pactum. This is in the passage prohibiting seizure of the monastic temporal by any of the consentientes on the grounds that this per pactum ad omnes pertinet; and it would be absurd to posit any other agreement on common ownership than cc. iv and viii of the CM itself. Five other terms occur in the MSS to describe the text: definitio (c. i: M, E); conscriptio (c. v: B ); liber (c. ix) ; sermo (c. ix: E, which terminates: finit hie sermo); and the titular consensoria monachorum. Conscriptio is fairly neutral, and sermo is evidently a later scribal rubric; but definitio recalls the synonymous use of definitio and pactum (or placitum) in the Leges Visigothorum (e. g., II, 5, 8: placitum sive definitio; III, 1, 4: pacta vel definitiones ). (38) The phrase in isto libro preceding the monks' subscriptions can be paralleled in the Mozarabic liturgy by the use of libellum to designate the monastic pactum. (39) Given the original terminal position of the CM in MSS of the Basilian or Isidorian Rules, however, it seems possible to take liber here as referring to the whole liber regulae, with the Rule and consensorial pactum taken together. The term consensoria is a , found only in the CM, and the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (IV, 390, s.v. cônsênsôrius, -a -um), misled by the printed editions, erroneously regards it as an adjective, with regula understood. [391] If anything is understood it is really definitio or the like, but the probability is that the word is a noun, not an adjective (cf. similar Late Latin first declension feminines as tractoria, completuria, tonsuriae) . (40) The employment of consensoria rather than pactum in the title reflects the juridical distinction between the CM and the Reg. Man. Com. pactum: the latter is a bilateral contract between two parties, the abbot and the corporate body of monks, while the CM , in which each consentiens is a contracting party, resembles more closely the Roman societas omnium bonorum. Notwithstanding this difference, the CM from the monastic standpoint is essentially a pactum , i. e., a written and subscribed covenant for the foundation, governance, and enlargement of a monastic society.

At this point it becomes necessary to defend the unity of the text against DeBruyne's captious effort (pp. 83-4) to split it into two different redactions, one terminating with the sentence iugiter (igitur MSS) haec, etc. of c. v, and the other, of perceptibly later date, extending through to the conclusion. (41) DeBruyne holds that (1) iugiter haec, etc. logically conclude an original form of the text; (2) the two mentions of property (cc. iv, viii) would have been united in a document written at one time, and c. viii could only have been added later after non-observance of c. iv; (3) disunity and incoherence are proved by the phrase quod superius diximus (c. viii), which has no application to anything whatsoever in the text. Actually, however, the words iugiter haec, etc. conclude and emphasize the immediately preceding directives on property and withdrawal, and could never have been followed by the signatures of the consentientes, as c. ix is. The separate treatment of property is accounted for by the fact that c. iv deals with it under normal conditions, c. viii with its preservation under abnormal conditions, i. e., after the monastery's destruction, as anticipated in c. vii. The phrase quod superius (iam superius B) diximus naturally and logically applies to the causa necessitatis theme of cc. vii and possibly iv. DeBruyne himself admits the text is "tout entière conçue dans le même esprit et peut-être aussi [392] dans le même style." In short, the logic of the text surpasses that of the hypercritical attempt to dichotomize it.

Recognition of its unity and its pactual character considerably advances the problem of the CM's chronological allocation. It is DeBruyne's greatest weakness that he wholly neglects to determine the work's logical place in the historical and institutional evolution of Galician monasticism. (42) His major premises, that in fifth century Galicia (as nowhere else in Spain) Priscillianist anchoritism developed full-fledged monastic communities, that two centuries before orthodox monastic Rules were written in Spain Galician Priscillianism had produced one, and that the peculiarities of this Rule could be explained by its heretical background, are all of them historically unwarrantable assumptions. The truth is, cenobitism, as opposed to the asceticism of isolated individual ascetics or that of small unorganized groups, cannot be proved to have existed in Galicia before ca. 550, when with royal support it was introduced into the Suevic kingdom by the eastern monk Martin of Braga. Martin founded the monasterium Dumiense near Braga, and perhaps some other houses, presumably organizing them along normal oriental lines; but his cenobitism made little headway, and it was not until the following century, with Fructuosus of Braga (ca. 615/20--ca . 660), that a widespread, popular monastic movement swept over the province. By ca. 660, furthermore, for reasons that cannot be entered into here, Galician monasticism was abandoning certain basic institutions of orthodox monasticism and embarking upon a singular period of radical experimentation in the organization and government of the monastic community. The individual professio charter was replaced, or at least supplemented, by the group covenant-profession, variously called pactum, sacramentum, or iuramenta (Reg. Man. Com., cc. i, xviii); and this brought with it free election of abbots, as against the episcopal appointment normal to Visigothic monasticism and sanctioned in c. li of the council of IV Toledo (633), and diminution in varying degree of the abbot's authority. It entailed also a marked rise of chronic internal controversy among the now more or less [393] equalitarian monks, weakening of the monastic ideal of stabilitas, and frequent withdrawals from monasteries by dissatisfied monks (Reg. Mon. Com., cc. i, ii, xviii and xx, and the pactum ). Furthermore, although perhaps due as much to contemporary property concepts as to internal weakness, all these Galician houses suffered from violent attacks by kinsfolk of disgruntled monks, often resulting in a monastery's destruction and the loss of'its temporal (Reg. Mon. Com., ce. i and xviii, and the pactum). 

Into this world of contractual, equalitarian, unstable, and potentially short-lived monastic communities of post-650 the CM fits perfectly. It is, like the Fructuosan pactum and the Reg. Mon. Com., c. i, sacramentum or iuramenta, a group professio; and like them it incorporates a tradition of non-episcopal institution of abbots, weakened abbatial authority, internal disorders, chronic secessions, and familial attacks. Just where the consensorial community stands with relation to these other types of Galician monastery is less clear. It was Herwegen's proposal that the CM might be the pactum of the type of monastery attacked in Reg. Mon. Com., c. i; but there are certain objections to this otherwise attractive identification. The difference in title is of some importance, even though the Reg. Mon. Com. might contemptuously stigmatize a consensoria monachorum as a mere sacramentum or iuramenta. The CM's silence about the wives, children, and serfs taken into the Reg. Mon. Com., c. i, monasteries by the landowners who established them, is noteworthy; such houses would have to be double monasteries, and certain questions of servile manumission sub modo would arise. These are problems their covenant might logically be expected to treat. Again, the CM's preservation in collections of Rules almost certainly put together in the late seventh century by monks of the Reg. Mon. Com. tradition indicates amicable relations between the latter and consensorial monachism, not the acrid hostility of Reg. Mon. Com., c. i. Nor do we gain much by associating the CM with the presbyteral monasteries also denounced by the Reg. Mon. Com. in c. ii, for these were not of group origin and undoubtedly had in their presbyter-abbots stronger rulers than the consensorial doctor.

A more fruitful line of inquiry into the precise connections of the CM is suggested by the two short texts that follow it in [394] MS Escorial Lat. a. I. 13, fols. 51v-52r. These have been published by Antolín under the titles (De caritate fraterna ) and (De poenitentia?) . (43) The first of these, rubricked in the MS as c. xxvi of the Reg. S. Isid., is an impassioned plea for the abandonment of internal disputes in monastic houses, the unknown author arguing that those who have given up family, home, and wealth ought not to allow personal quarrels and animosities to destroy communal harmony. The second piece, without rubric or, more probably, included under the preceding rubric, deals with penitential discipline in cases of murder, adultery, and perjury. It insists that penance for such sins is to be determined by the bishop, not the priest; presents a list ( censum penitentie) of seven money commutations (in solidi); and declares penitents are to remain under the authority of a judge or abbot, depending obviously on whether or not they have entered monasteries (cf. Reg. Mon. Com., c. xix: Quid in monasterio debeant observare qui peccata graviora in saeculo commiserint). Both these texts have significant links with the CM and probably come from the same locale. The appeal for internal concord strikes at a major CM problem; and the use of doctor for abbas, as noted above, parallels CM, c. v. The Biblical citations are mixed OL-Vulg., with a perceptibly stronger Vulg. inclination than the CM, although this may be due partly to the hieronymizing tendencies of B. There is even an apparently apocryphal citation, beginning non poterat loqui, in the first piece. Until we know something about the origin of the probably Irish-inspired Galician penitential system, the establishment of which in the province hardly antedates 650, the chronological data of these two texts cannot be fully exploited. But if they do have the same provenance as the CM, they prove that the houses using the latter were closely associated with the episcopate and the parochial system, which in turn shows that such houses, maintaining relations with what the Reg. Mon. Com. (cc. i-ii) would call an episcopus saecularis, stood outside the limits of the Reg. Mon. Com. monastic federation of Fructuosan and allied houses in the so-called sancta communis regula.

Further study of Galician monasticism in the latter half of the seventh century will be needed before all the institutional [395] problems, and the precise monastic, ecclesiastical, and secular connections of the CM can be fully understood. For the present, it need only be concluded that the current identification is completely misleading; and that the work properly belongs in the Late Visigothic period of Galician literature, between 650 and 711. So understood, it constitutes a new and important source for the history of Spanish monasticism on the eve of the Muslim invasion.


[396A] While no one, as Estatal and Verheijen remark, (44) any longer dreams of defending the old conception of the CM as the Regula prima of St Augustine, the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the character, date and provenance of this text have not yet been altogether dispelled. Two errors in particular that I sought to correct in 1948 continue in circulation: (i) the classification as a monastic rule, a terminology dating from at least the time of Benedict of Aniane and subsequently promoted by various medieval and modern editors who mistook this little monastic piece for a composition of the bishop of Hippo; and (ii) the ascription to a Priscillianist milieu, the thesis of DeBruyne. De Vogue in his authoritative Règle de Saint Benoît, to cite a recent example, still classifies the CM among the some thirty monastic Rules emanating from the old Latin cenobitism. (45) Ayuso in the Prolegómenos volume of his projected edition of the Vetus Latina Hispana, where he summarizes without comment the views of DeBruyne and myself on the CM, rubrics it as an "anónimo priscillianista", the composition of a "pseudo-Prisciliano". (46) In 1955 a paper of A. Casimassa on the Augustinian Rule--first published to be sure in 1921-1923--still presents without qualification this Priscillianist thesis. (47)
Little wonder then that in 1967 Verheijen could express the opinion that the questions of place of origin and date still remained open. (48)

Nevertheless, the case presented above for identifying CM as a type of seventh-century Gallegan pactum has enjoyed increasing assent, and remains as strong as, indeed even stronger than, in 1948. (49) No formal defense of DeBruyne's chronology and Priscillianist attribution has been attempted nor has any refutation been made of the objections I raised against these, while further study of the vicinal, presbyteral and pactual cenobitism of Visigothic Galicia (Study I in this volume) has reinforced my own conviction that the piece can only be explained in the context of this region and [397A] period, just as its incorporation into the codices regularam of the monastic communities of the Alta Reconquista demonstrates its wide use in thoroughly orthodox circles and tells heavily against the allegation of heretical Priscillianist composition. As far back as 1943 Arbesmann and Hümpfner, when rejecting DeBruyne's interpretation in a work of which in 1948 I was unaware, expressed themselves as confident "that it can be shown that the author is St Fructuosus and that its tendency is rather anti-Priscillianist." (50) On the chronological side this was a step in the right direction, although these authors, primarily concerned with the thought and writings of Jordanus of Saxony, offered no proof of their assertions or any real justification of the rubric prefixed to their improved edition of the text: S. Fructuosi decretum observantiae regularis alias Regula Consensoria.

In general, Spanish scholarship of recent decades has yet to reach a consensus. Fernández Alonso opts for a Fructuosan ambience as does Orlandis, although this latter specialist retains the misnomer Regula Consensoria; and T. González, citing only the brief reference to CM in my article "Pactos monásticos" (Diccionario de historia eclesiástica de España, ed. Q. Aldea, Madrid, 1973, III, 1858), classifies CM as a non-Priscillianist Rule, or rather compromiso, of uncertain date. (51) At Spoleto in 1956 Mundo noted the conflicting views; (52) Pérez de Urbel has on occasion spoken of "la profesión considerada como un pacto en la Regula Consensoria" and the "pacto de la Regla Consensoria;" (53) and Díaz y Díaz, whose preparation of a critical edition of the Regula S. Isidori has given him special interest in the CM as so strongly represented in the manuscript tradition of the Isidorian code, provides bibliography upon it without as yet expressing any final judgment as to date and origin. It can be expected, however, that in due time this able scholar's Isidorian investigations will shed fresh light upon various aspects of the CM's use and diffusion. (54)

Meanwhile, the erudite student of Díaz y Díaz, Dr. Antonio Linage Conde, has had occasion to discuss CM at two points (pp. 263-66, 306-8) in the first tome of his massive Los orígenes del monacato benedictino en la Península Ibérica (León, 1973). (55) Here he expresses general, if somewhat qualified, agreement with my classification of the piece as a product of Gallegan pactual cenobitism; but he refuses to regard it as a genuine type of pactum, thus leaving in complete obscurity the reasons for its attachment to Hispanic manuscripts of the Rules of St Isidore and St Basil in precisely the same terminal position as that occupied by the pactum appended to the Regula Monastica Communis (RCom.). Furthermore, on the grounds that the ascription of CM to the decades before 711 is "el punto más flaco" of my argument, Linage Conde prefers to attribute the anti-monastic attacks, so fearfully envisaged in cc. vii-viii, to Muslim marauders, so that, in his own words, the work would have been composed in Galicia "inmediatemente después del 711, cuando aún no habían llegado a la zona [398A] donde el monasterio estuviese enclavado los invasores islámicos." This is a solution I mentioned in 1948 only to dismiss it as no more persuasive than de Bruyne's Germanic conjecture, since in effect it reduces the genesis of CM to incomprehensibility by removing it from the crucial epoch of Gallegan cenobitic conflict and institutional experimentation between ca. 650 and 675, which alone can explain its peculiar features.

For at least two additional reasons Linage Conde's thesis does not in my judgment merit favorable consideration. The first of these is the undeniable fact, as affirmed above, that the incursio repentina aut hostilitas confronting the consensorial monks exhibits no overtones of foreign or anti-Christian assault but on the contrary harmonizes perfectly with the allusions of RCom 1, 14 and 17 and of the Pactum of RCom, which depict the monasteries of Galicia ca. 675-700 as existing in a social and juridical environment of close-knit blood relationships and inalienable familial property-holding. This is a milieu in which transfers of lands or other goods entail the potential destruction of religious communities at the hands of violently hostile kinsmen of disgruntled monks, either themselves attacking cum gladiis et fustibus ac minis, or alternatively employing the equally deadly juridical weapon of the public indices and salones. That is why, in that extraordinary supplementary c. 18, the heads of the Sancta Communis Regula absolutely forbid the federation's coenobia to accept any benefactions from converts. In short, CM uses invasio as a technical juridical, not a politico-military, term.

A second principal objection is that Linage Conde assumes there was only a single consensorial house ("el monasterio") which somehow survived inviolate despite the very early Muslim occupation of Galicia, presumably down to Alfonso I's transplantation of the region's monks in 740-750 to the safety of westernmost Asturias and Castella Vetula. This runs counter to the codicological proofs that CM had a more ancient and widespread history of use than so brief an interval as two or three decades in the highly disorganized first century of the Reconquest in Galicia. In three manuscripts of the pure or non-interpolated redaction of the Regula s. Isidori (Esc. a. I. 13, Brit. Mus. Addit. 30055, Paris B. N. 13090), CM is shown by the text itself or by the surviving capitulationes to have been terminally appended to the Hispalensian code in precisely the position of the pactum of RCom. (56) In Munich Staatsbibl. Clm 28 118 and Esc. S. III. 32 it is similarly attached to the Rule of St Basil, although here CM is not fused with this work as such, evidently because its form and content prevented its being mistaken for a final interrogatio. All these cases demonstrate that as a true pactum CM must originally have circulated for some time in quasi-monoregular houses of predominantly Isidorian or Basilian observance before, with the accompanying Rule, it became embedded in late 7th-century Gallegan codices regularum, the direct ancestors of those which by the commencement of the 9th century were being copied in the monastic scriptoria of Castile and the Carolingian Empire.

No definitive edition of CM has yet been published, although that of Arbesmann and Hümpfner marks an advance over the texts found in Holstenius-Brockie and PL 66: 993-996. and 32: 1447-1450. Professor Barlow bases his English rendering, the only one, upon collation of the variant manuscript readings. (57)

On questions relating to the biblical citations, there is now available Ayuso's guide to the versions and MSS of the Old Latin Scriptures circulating in ancient and [399A] early medieval Spain. (58) Some further light is thrown upon the terms doctor and doctrina, with particular reference to the office and functions of the abbot in ancient western monasticism, in de Vogüe's edition of the Règle du Maître. (59) Finally, it may be suggested that closer attention to the MSS and circulation in Spain of Rufinus' compilation of the Regula s. Basilii , with which (as with that of St Isidore) CM is found associated in the Hispanic codices regularum, may well yield additional clues to the origins and popularity of this opusculum. It should be observed that the Regula ss. Pauli et Stephani, cited in this Study as a product of seventh-century Galicia, has been convincingly shown by Vilanova to have been written in Italy at the end of the sixth century. (60)

Notes for Study Two 

1. For assistance in the course of this study, grateful acknowledgment is made to the authorities of the Biblioteca del Escorial; the Frederick Sheldon Fund, Harvard University; the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, University of Virginia; and the Research Committee, University of Virginia.

2. Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. I. von Müller, VIII, iv, 1, p. 384.

3. P. Schroeder, " Die Augustinerchorherrenregel. Entstehung, kritischer Text und Einführung der Regei," Archiv für Urkundenforschung , IX (1926), p. 273.

4. References are to the 1759 Vienna edition of Holstenius, by M. Brockie, which prints the CM text, t. I, pp. 136-7. With minor revisions, this is the text reproduced in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Latinae Cursus Completus (Paris, 1844-64), LXVI, cols. 993-6.

5. Dom Ildefons Herwegen, Das Pactum des hl. Fruktuosus von Braga (Stuttgart, 1907; Kirchenrechtliehe Abhandlungen, ed. U. Stutz, Heft

6. Dom Donatien DeBruyne, " La Regula Consensoria. Une régle des moines priscillianistes," Revue Bénédictine, XXV (1908), pp. 83-8. DeBruyne's Priscillianist theory apparently derives from a remark of U. Berlière, Rev. Bénéd., XXIV (1907), p. 41*. Although Herwegen took occasion to reply to other strictures of DeBruyne upon Das Pactum (e.g., Rev. Bénéd., XXIX [1912], pp. 97-8), he tacitly accepted the demolition of his CM hypothesis.

7. E. g., O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (Freiburg i. B., 1902-32), III, p. 412; U. Moricca, Storia della Letteratura Latina Cristiana (Turin, 1928-), II, 1, p. 594; Pascual Galindo, " Literatura hispano-latina. Escritores cristianos," in R. Menéndez Pidal (ed.), Historia de España. II. España Romana (Madrid, 1935), p. 557; H. Leclercq, " Cénobitisme," Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, II, 2 (Paris, 1910), cols. 3220-1; Z. García Villada, Historia Eclesiástica de España (Madrid, 1929-), I, 2, p. 141; J. Pérez de Urbel, Los Monjes Españoles en la Edad Media (Madrid, 1933-4), I, pp. 158-162.

8. La Regla de San Agustín (El Escorial, 1933), p. 7. I have not seen B. Gamelo, " Datos históricos acerca de la Regla de San Agustín," Archivo Augustiniano, XXXVIII (1932), pp. 364-97, which includes a brief treatment of the CM, presumably based on DeBruyne.

9. Cf., inter alios, B.-Ch. Babut, Priscillien et le Priscillianisme (Paris, 1909), pp. 84-5; 135.

10. E. g., Regula Monastica Communis, c. xii: omnis detractor eradicabitur (Holstenius-Brockie, Cod. Reg. Man., I, 214, where its ascription to " Gal. 7 " is equivalent to dating it on the Greek Kalends) ; Z. García Villada, Crónica de Alfonso III (Madrid, 1918), pp. 60-1: in vanum currit, etc.; and an 864 charter of the cathedral church of Santa María de Valpuesta, beginning inquirite dominum, etc. (L. Barrau-Dihigo, " Chartes de l'eglise de Valpuesta du ixe au xie siècle," Rev. Hispanique, VII [1900], pp. 297-9).

11. Cf. St. Benedict, Reg. Monach., c. lxxiii: sunt doctrinae sanctorum patrum quarum observatio perducat hominem ad celsitudinem perfectionis (ed. C. Butler [Freiburg i. B., 1927], p. 131).

12. Migne, Patr. Lat., LXXXIV, col. 408.

13. Ibid., col. 459.

14. Patr. Lat., LXVI, cols. 953-4.

15. Patr. Lat., LXXXIV, col. 316.

16. Cf. A. Puech, " Les origines du priscillianisme," Bull. d'Ancienne Littérature et d'Archéologie Chrétienne, II (1912), pp. 176-7.

17. E.g., Reg. Ia. SS. Patrum, c. xvi (Holst.-Brockie, I, p. 14; Patr. Lat., CIII, cols. 440-1); S, Orsiesius, Doctrina de Inst. Monach., c. xxv (A. Boon-L. Th. Lefort, Pachomiana Latina [Louvain, 1932], p. 126) ; S. Fructuosus, Reg. Monach., c. xx (Patr. Lat., LXXXVII, col. 1108).

18. Holst.-Brockie, I, p. 61; Patr. Lat., CIII, col. 477; of. Boon-Lefort, op. cit., pp. 42-4.

19. José Vives, Inscripciones Cristianas de la España Romana y Visigoda (Barcelona, 1942), pp. 83-4 (no. 277) ; G. B. de Rossi, Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae (Rome, 1857-8), II, l, p. 294; E. Hübner, Inscriptionum Hispaniae Christianarum Supplementum (Berlín, 1900), p. 84 (no. 413). Vives is doubtless right in confining doctor in these two inscriptions to episcopal monastic jurisdiction and denying its equivalence to abbas; but since Visigothic bishops were commonly-recruited from the abbatiate, an implied reference to the fact that John and Justinian had earlier served as abbots need not be altogether ruled out.

20. Vives, p. 85 (no. 279) ; de Rossi, p. 293; Hübner, no. 409.

21. Fol. 52r; cf. G. Antolín, " Un 'codex regularum' del siglo IX," Ciudad de Dios, LXXV (1908), p. 316.

22. 970: doctori Sigerrici abbati (L. Barrau-Dihigo, "Notes et documents sur l'histoire du royaume de León. I. Chartes royales léonaises," Revue Hispanique, X [1903], p. 399); ca. 980: . . . abba siue doctor albel(d)ensis (Madrid, Archivo Histórico Nacional, Clero, Libro de Pergaminos de San Juan de la Peña , I [MS 442], priv. 12-R; date restored on prosopographical grounds) ; 1087: pelagius abita doctormonacorum (Arch. Hist. Nac., Clero, Tumbo de San Salvador de Celanova [MS 986 B], fol. 41v ).

23. L. Barrau-Dihigo, " Recherches sur l'histoire politique du royaume asturien (718-910)," Rev. Hisp., LII (1921), pp. 106-45, 150-7, and especially pp. 250-60 and 348-52 on monastic establishments in frontier territory still subject to hostile invasion.

24. Holst.-Brockie, I, pp. 208-19; Patr. Lat., LXXXVII, cols. 1109-30.

25. Perhaps read saionibus, with Herwegen, p. 3, n. 1.

26. On the OL in Spain, cf., passim, Samuel Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate (Paris, 1893); F. C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala (Cambridge, 1896; Texts and Studies, IV, 3) ; F. Stummer, Einführung in die lateinische Bibel (Paderborn, 1928) ; and D. DeBruyne, "Étude sur les origines de la Vulgate en Espagne," Rev. Bénéd., XXI (1914-19), pp. 373-401.

27. Berger, pp. 8-28; H. Quentin, Mémoire sur l'Établissement du Texte de la Vulgate, Ière partie: Octateuque (Rome-Paris, 1922), chap. VI; DeBruyne, Rev. Bénéd., XXV (1908), p. 88.

28. Holst.-Brockie, I, pp. 201-219; Patr. Lat., LXXXVII, cols. 1099-1130.

29. O. Seebass, "Über das Regelbuch Benedikts von Aniane," Zeitschriftfür Kirchengeschichte, XV (1894-5), pp. 244-60; H. Plenkers, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der ãltesten lateinischen Mönchsregeln (Munich, 1906; Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinisclien Philologie des Mittelalters, Bd. I, Hit. 3), pp. 4-8. On Benedict of Aniane and his Codex, cf. P. Schmitz, " Benoît d'Aniane," Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastique, VIII (Paris, 1935), pp. 177-88 (with good bibliography).

30. G. Antolín, " Historia y descripción de un ' codex regularum' del siglo IX," Ciudad de Dios, LXXV (1908), pp. 23-33, 304-316, 460-71, 637-49; LXXVI (1908), pp. 310-323, 457-70; LXXVII (1908), pp. 48-56, 131-6 [also separately, Madrid, 1908] ; idem, Catálogo de los Códices Latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial (Madrid, 1910-23), I, pp. 21-25. For the date, cf., most recently, A. Millares Carlo, Nuevos Estudios de Paleografía Española (Mexico City, 1941), pp. 106-7.

31. Antolín, Catálogo, IV, pp. 82-5.

32. W. M. Whitehill, " Un códice visigótico de San Pedro de Cárdeña (British Museum, Additional ms. 30055)," Boletín de la Academia de la Historia, CVII (1935), pp. 513-14. The survival of still another early CM text in Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 10876, saec. x, is suggested by Gerou's reference to the Regula S. Isidori as there containing 25 titles (note that in B and L the CM appears as c. xxv of this regula) ; but L. Delisle's description of this MS, giving the Isidorian explicit and the rubrics of two short appended pieces (Reg. S. Pachomii, c. lxxvii; Conc. Hispal. II, c. xi) seems to rule out this possibility. Cf. Delisle, " Notices sur les manuscrita disparus de la bibliothèque de Tours pendant la premiere moitié du xixe siècle," Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, XXI, l (1884), pp. 246-7; Catalogue Général dês Manuscrits des Bibliothèques Publiques de France. Départements, XXXVII, l (ed. M. G. Collón; Paris, 1900), pp. 493-4.

33. Plenkers, loc. cit.

34. Benedict of Aniane places the CM after the Benedictine Rule, but for its post-Basilian position in M, see Plenkera, p. 8.

35. According to Vega (pp. 27, 30), M is of Spanish provenance.

36. Reg. Man. Com,, c. ix: et patrum exempla . . . lignarius fuit is based on Reg. S. Isid., c. v, 2: nam patriarchae . . . officium gessit. This passage originally comes from St. Augustine, De Opere Monachorum, c. xiii: si Iudaeos dixerint . . . faber fuit (ed. J. Zycha, Corpus Script. Eccles. Lat. [Vienna, 1900], p. 553) ; but the language shows it reached the Reg. Man. Com . through Isidore. For a clue to the advent and popularity of Isidore's writings in Galician monastic circles ca. 675, cf. the prologue to the Vita S. Fructuosi (ed. by F. C. Nock, The Vita Sancti Fructuosi [Washington, 1946; Cath. Univ. of America Studies in Mediaeval History, N. S., VII], pp. 86-9).

37. Patr. Lat., LXXXIV, cols. 598, 433, 437, 487, 551, 552.

38. Ed. K. Zeumer, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges , I, 1 (Hanover-Leipzig, 1902), pp. 109, 126, and index, s.v. definitio, pactum.

39. M. Férotin, Le Liber Ordinum en Usage dans l'Eglise Wisigothique et Mozarabe d'Espagne (Paris, 1904; Monumenta Ecclesiae Litúrgica, V), col. 86.

40. C. D. Du Cauge, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis (Niort, 1883-7), VIII, p. 144; Férotin, op. cit., index, s. v. completuria, tonsurie.

41. Berlière (Rev. Bénéd., XXV [1908], p. 72) also had his doubts concerning this partition of the text, which was first suggested by Herwegen, p. 72.

42. On Galician monasticism before 711, see Herwegen; Pérez de Urbel, Monjes Españoles, I, pp. 183-93; 377-450; and C. J. Bishko, "Spanish monasticism in the Visigothic period," Harvard University, Summaries of Ph.D. Theses, 1937 (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 120-9.

43. Ciudad de Dios, LXXV (1908), pp. 314-16.

44. Juan Manuel del Estatal, "Estado actual de la investigación sobre la historia de la Orden agustiniana," Ciudad de Dios, LXXXI (1966), 501-2; Luc Verheijen, La Règle de Saint Augustin (Paris, 1967), I, 7. Cf. A. C. Vega, "Notas histórico-críticas en torno a los orígenes de la Regla de San Agustín," Bol. R. Acad. Hist., CLII (1963), 15, and note 4.

45. Adalbert de Vogüé, La Règle de Saint Benoît (Paris, 1971-2; Sources chrétiennes, 181-186), I, 29, note 1, and elsewhere.

46. Teófilo Ayuso Marazuela, La Vetus Latina Hispana (Madrid, 1953), I, 482 (no.226).

47. Antonio Casimassa, "Il piú antico codice della regola monastica di Sant'Agostino," Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia , ser. III, Rendiconti, I (1921-2, 1922-3), 95-105; reprinted in Lateranum , Annex XXI, no. 1-4 (Roma, 1955), where see 1, 107.

48. Op. cit., II, 9, with reproduction (7-9) of the text as edited by Hümpfner (note 7, below).

49. See E. Dekkers, Clavis patrum latinorum, no. 1872 (Sacris erudiri, III, 1951, 319); M. C. Díaz y Díaz, Index scriptorum latinorum medii aevi hispanorum (Salamanca, 1958-9), I, 88 (no. 317); Claude W. Barlow, Iberian Fathers (Washington, 1969; The Fathers of the Church, 62-63), II, 215-6.

50. Rudolphus Arbesmann and Winfridus Hümpfner, Jordani de Saxonia Líber vitasfratrum (New York, 1943), lxxvi-lxxviii, 484-488.

51. J. Fernández Alonso, La cura pastoral en la España romano-visigoda (Roma, 1955), 491; José Orlandis, La Iglesia en la España visigótica y medieval (Pamplona, 1976), 233-4; idem, Historia de España. La España visigótica (Madrid, 1977), 248; Teodoro González in Historia de la Iglesia en España, ed. R. García-Villoslada, I (Madrid, 1979), 632-3.

52. Anscari Mundó, "Il monachesimo nella penisola ibérica fino al sec. VII," Il monachesimo nell' alto medioevo e la formazione delia civiltà occidentale (Spoleto, 1957), 99.

53. See his "Vida y caminos del Pacto de San Fructuoso," Rev. port, de história, VII (1963), 383; and "Carácter y supervivencia del Pacto de San Fructuoso," Bracara Augusta, XXII (1968), 227.

54. Manuel Díaz y Díaz, "Aspectos de la tradición de la Regula Isidori," Stud. Monastica, V (1963), 31 (note 16), 39; and "El códice Monastico de Leodegundia (Escorial a. I. 13)," Ciudad de Díos, CLXXXI (1968), 578 (notes 30-32).

55. See also his El monacato en España e Hispanoamérica (Salamanca, 1977), 29.

56. "Consensoria Monachorum" (Study II), notes 31-2, and the Introducción by Julio Campos Ruiz to his edition of the Regula s. Isidori in Santos Padres Españoles, t. II, ed. J. Campos Ruiz and I. Roca Melia (Madrid, 1971), 84-6.

57. Jord. de Sax. Lib. vit., 484-488 (Appendix A); Barlow, Iberian Fathers, II, 217-220.

58. See note 3; cf. also B. M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford, 1977).

59. Vogüé, La Régle du Maître (Pans, 1964-5), I, 110-111; III, 136-7; cf. the discussion of "l'abbé docteur et le priscillianisme" in his La communauté et l'abbé dans la Règle de saint Benoît (Paris, 1961), 176-86. Neither work cites the passage in CM or the preceding Study.

60. J. E. M. Vilanova, Regula Pauli et Stephani: edició crítica i comentari (Abadía de Montserrat, 1959; Scripta et Documenta , 11).