The Monk’s Robe

The monk’s robe, too, should be such as merely covers the body, prevents the disgrace of nakedness and keeps off harm from the cold. It should not be the kind that feeds the seeds of vanity and pride. For the same apostle tells us, “Having food and covering, let us be content with these.” “Covering,” he says, not “clothing,” as is wrongly found in some Latin copies. That is, something that merely covers the body, not something that pleases the fancy by splendid attire. It should be ordinary, so that it is not thought remarkable for any novelty of color or fashion among others who follow the same calling. It should be quite free from anxious fussing, yet not stained and discolored through neglect. Finally, these garments should be so far removed from this world’s fashions that they remain entirely common property for the use of the servants of God. For whatever is claimed by one or a few among the servants of God, and is not the common property of the whole body of the brothers alike, is either superfluous or vain. For that reason it is to be thought harmful, giving an appearance of vanity rather than of virtue. [a]

Therefore, whatever patterns we see were not taught either by the saints of old who laid the foundations of the monastic life, or by the fathers of our own time who in their turn keep up those customs today, we too should reject as superfluous and useless. That is why they utterly disapproved of a robe of sackcloth. It is visible to all and conspicuous, and for that very reason it will not only bring no benefit to the soul but will rather feed vanity and pride. It is also awkward and unsuitable for doing the necessary work for which a monk ought always to go ready and unhindered. Even if we hear of some respectable persons who have dressed in this garb, that is no reason for us to pass a rule for the monasteries, nor should the ancient decrees of the holy fathers be overturned simply because we do not think that a few men, relying on the other virtues they possess, deserve blame even for those things they have practiced outside the catholic rule. For the opinion of a few ought not to be preferred to the general rule for all, or to interfere with it. For we ought to give unhesitating loyalty and unquestioning obedience, not to the customs and rules that the will of a few has introduced, but to those that long-standing antiquity and a great number of holy fathers have handed on by unanimous decision to those who come after.

Nor indeed ought we to take it as a precedent for our daily life that Joram, the wicked king of Israel, when surrounded by bands of his enemies, tore his clothes and is said to have had sackcloth underneath them; or that the people of Nineveh, to soften the sentence of God that the prophet had pronounced against them, were clothed in rough sackcloth. The king is shown to have worn it secretly underneath, so that unless his outer garment had been torn, no one could possibly have known of it. And the people of Nineveh put up with a covering of sackcloth at a time when all were mourning over the coming destruction of the city and were all clothed in the same garments, so that no one could be accused of showing off. For where there is no special difference, and all are alike, no harm is done.