Cardinal Schuster was beatified in 1996 (nearly 20 years before his immediate successor as Archbishop of Milan, Giovanni Battista Montini), and this is the first of his works to be published in English since that date. Schuster was a monk and had been Abbot of St Paul’s outside the walls in Rome; his love for monastic life shines through the pages of this volume and makes it a valuable testimony to the spirituality of one of the small number of Benedictines canonised in the last few centuries, and the source of wisdom for monks even today. This is particularly useful for English language readers: the great tradition of Italian Benedictine scholarship in the twentieth century has been poorly represented in translation (the most notable absence is surely Dom Anselmo Lentini’s edition of the Rule of St Benedict with its important commentary), and it is to be hoped that this book will stimulate future translations.

The Italian original was published in the final years of the Second World War, and the book on occasions reflects Schuster’s hopes for the role Benedictine life might play in the work of reconstructing society that he foresaw as coming after the end of that conflict. It is noteworthy that the priorities he identifies have not been superseded in the period since then: he stresses the liturgical life of monastic communities and sees them as centres of spiritual formation for the whole Church. These themes flow from the wider context of Schuster’s life and work: he had been a distinguished liturgical scholar in his younger years, and his ministry as Archbishop was distinguished by pastoral concern for the holiness of the Ambrosian Church. The moving words about holiness at the end of this commentary are an invitation to followers of St Benedict at any date, as well as an insight into the personal spiritual life of the monk Cardinal.

While readers of New Blackfriars might be delighted to see evidence of Benedictine scholarship and sanctity from any period, they might also ask what relevance this book has to them today. More, perhaps, than one might think. There has been a revolution in the study of the Rule of St Benedict in the last fifty years or so, stimulated by the work of Dom Adalbert de Vogüé and in particular by his hypothesis that the Rule of St Benedict was preceded by and used an anonymous text known to us as the Rule of the Master. Modern commentaries devote much time and energy to source critical analysis that attempts to identify what is personal to St Benedict by looking at the way in which he uses and modifies the text of the earlier Rule. Schuster, following the earlier theory that this Rule was a rather uninteresting successor to St Benedict’s, entirely ignores it. But he is concerned to look at the sources of St Benedict’s Rule: his references to St Augustine, St Caesarius, and John Cassian demonstrate a concern to show how Benedict was rooted in the earlier tradition while able to handle it creatively. Where Schuster differs more radically from most contemporary scholarly commentaries (and it would be a serious misrepresentation to deny that this is a scholarly work) is that he also regards writers and others after St Benedict as authoritative expositors of the Rule. The most obvious of these in the commentary is St Gregory the Great, but it is also noteworthy that he is able to draw on more modern sources. His personal relationship with (now Blessed) Placid Riccardi (another monk of St Paul’s) offers some powerful anecdotes. Here then, is the first point of interest for all those concerned about the handling of the charismatic impulse of a religious family: Schuster is not afraid to see the wider patrimony of the tradition as an authentic source for the understanding of the charism. In doing so, he liberates Benedictine studies from the focus on source-critical comparisons that had risked becoming the only permitted source of interpretive wisdom. As the ongoing work of reflection on the charism of an institute (what the late Cardinal George wittily called ‘founderology’) continues, this book offers an opportunity to step back and look at different possibilities for going forward in any context.

Another important point about the commentary is Schuster’s use of liturgical scholarship to support his arguments. The illustrations he draws from the Ambrosian liturgy are pleasing indications of his commitment to what had become his own local church, but there are a number of occasions where collect prayers are used to good effect to illuminate the points that are being made, as when the Ambrosian collects express the link between St Benedict himself and the good zeal his Rule invites monks to demonstrate. The way the tradition has invited us to invoke the great saints of our tradition in public liturgy has something to say about the gifts of the Spirit that are characteristic of their followers.

It is also good to see Schuster’s arguments for positions that have fallen out of favour in contemporary scholarship. Two are worthy of comment: the first is his argument that St Benedict was himself a priest. Though now few argue this, the evidence that Schuster brings forward cannot be dismissed, and it is perhaps time for this question to be re-opened now that the battles about clerical identity in monastic life that raged in the nineteen sixties have at least subsided. The second is his view that the Rule was in some sense the product of a papal request. English language readers may be familiar with Abbot Chapman’s statement of this position. Though Schuster’s suggestion is importantly different from Chapman’s they both draw on a significant body of evidence. Once again, it seems reasonable to suggest that a re-examination of the relationship between monasticism and the wider Italian Church in the fifth and sixth century may offer new light on the Rule in its day, and suggestions about how that relationship might be lived today.

I should add that Schuster’s text is often delightful. He has the engaging habit of relying on others when offering a difficult opinion or criticism: the enlistment of Abbot Delatte to support a criticism of both stingy superiors and needy monks is both telling and charming. These personal touches add to the value of this book, and suggest the human and spiritual wisdom of the saint who wrote it. Finally – and this is a comment on our times – the original Italian text simply printed the Latin text of the Rule. The translation includes an English version – but one which has fallen into the melancholy pattern of using outdated Latinisms more reminiscent of seventeenth century English than that of today. A modern reader who is not fluent in Latin will probably want his own translation to hand. But so equipped, the reader will benefit from a text which is not simply a period piece but one which has valuable contributions to make to a number of contemporary conversations beyond the walls of monasteries.