1920 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 441 balanced jiidgement on many of the questions which are dealt with in his extremely interesting volume. One main question may be said to present itself in relation to all the points, or almost all the points, with which the author deals. How far is the true Benedictine tradition still maintained ? Can it be said that the Benedictine life of our own day fulfils, for those who live under the rule, and for those outside, the same needs, or needs essentially the same, as those for which the rule was meant to provide, according to the standard which the rule sets forth ? The changes which have taken place, no doubt, are enormous. The difEerence between a monastic house of the sixth and one of the twentieth century may be less than that between the general life of the population in the same periods. But so far as we can picture to ourselves the older monastic life it may well seem impossible to suppose that its ideals should in any marked degree still dominate the modern institution, or that, if they do so, the communities in which they prevail should in these times still supply what the rule was meant to provide. Yet probably few readers who follow carefully the author's examination of the subjects with which he deals — and it may be said that his treatment is singularly free from anything that can fairly be described as special plead- ing — will fail to acknowledge that in regard to things essential, and to things which are of more than transient and temporary importance, the tradition has been maintained and the working of the rule is continuing to bear its intended fruit in a degree much greater than may commonly be imagined. That this should be the case is due to the fact that the rule was framed with a real knowledge of human nature, and with a wide adaptability. It left ample scope for the exercise, by those to whom its working was to be entrusted in time to come, of wise judgement and of ' sanctified common sense '. There has been, at times, a tendency to impose uniformity more rigid than the rule provides, upon the independent monasteries established under the rule. There has been, at times, a danger, from so-called reforms, of introducing, as elements of this uniformity, ideals which St. Benedict consciously and wisely set aside, or of developing certain sides of the monastic life at the expense and to the detriment of others. The author, who deals with instances of these dangers, maintains the view that they have been on the whole avoided by the Benedictine monasteries, and that those who have been content to abide by the original rule have on the whole succeeded in keeping the middle path between undue laxity and the reactionary asceticism which implied a return to standards other than those of St. Benedict : that while such developments as those promoted by Benedict of Aniane, or as those associated with the Cluniac ' reforms ' and the rise of the Cluniac Order, have not been without effect upon Benedictine life and practice, they have not, in the long run, injuriously affected the balance of monastic duties. On two tendencies of the present time, which seem to be adverse to the spirit of the rule, the author speaks with con- siderable misgivings about their probable results. One of these is the growth of a system by which abbots are appointed not for life but for a short term of years, a system which is inconsistent with St. Benedict's conception of the community as a family of which the abbot is the father
