I would have a somewhat different take on this. From my experience with the Schlitpacher/Cusanus monastic reform materials, I would say that this can be taken fairly literally. Relief from some liturgical duties need not mean a relaxation of religious vigor. Of course, since the schedula does not specify, we can't be sure, but had there been serious laxity, it probably would have been noted or at least described with more severe language.
Trusting the abbess is what one would expect in the monastic context--unless the abbess has proved herself unworthy of such trust. The Benedictine system placed considerable responsibility on the shoulders of the abbot (which was also true of the Carthusians--about whom I have addressed this topic elsewhere). One might consult Johannes Rode's _De bono regimine abbatis_ in Bernhard Pez, Bibliotheca Ascetica (I don't recall which volume, perhaps vol. 6) for an example. The abbess is the one responsible for carrying out reforms within the monastery; only if she was recalcitrant or if serious opposition existed within the convent would one move to more direct intervention--and, for Benedictines (apart from the more centralized Bursfeld and Santa Giustina congregations of this era), this usually meant pressure from a prince-patron or perhaps a bishop. But precisely there, as Bishop of Brixen, Cusanus was notably unsuccessful in reforming convents of nuns who resisted his efforts. But others know this material better than I.
Written reports of visitations were often laconic but that need not mean that we should read between the lines largely with suspicion. They avoided putting details in writing, partly to protect confidentiality and partly precisely because monastic life left much to the _discretio_ of the superior, for reasns I have tried to explain in more detail elsewhere (_Fifteenth-Century Carthusian Reform_, esp. ch. 4 and 6).
Dennis Martin
>>> [log in to unmask] 11/19/00 09:22 AM >>>
Dear Susanne,
Rather than deviationists, the nuns may have been simply remiss in their
duties, nor particularly ready to go back to regular observance. These
faults may not have been so minor if the visitor, after noting that 'the
convent of nuns has become lax in the observance of the rule, although
no major excesses were found and all submitted to the visitor'
immediately adds that 'some burdens of divine worship have been eased
and it is hoped [he cautiously leaves himself out of the picture] that
the undertaking will prosper on account of the zeal and discretion of
the abbess.' This sounds like compromise to me - the nuns promised
obedience in exchange for partial release from their liturgical duties.
But the situation was far from settled, if the visitor relied on the
abbess' qualities for a continued improvement. Furthermore - and here I
tread on unknown ground, because I am not a religious, but perhaps some
Benedictine will correct me if I am wrong - the liturgy (Mass and Divine
Office) is central to the Benedictine rule. Thus, to excuse the nuns
from liturgical worship would be like telling the Dominicans that they
really don't need to preach, or to the Templars that they need not
defend the Holy Land, or to Mother Teresa's nuns that they don't have to
tend the sick. Cheers, Luciana
--
****************************************
Luciana Cuppo Csaki
Societas internationalis pro Vivario
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/9891/
****************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|