VII. POVERTY. The vow of poverty is a natural result of asceticism, so that we expect to meet with it as a matter of course wherever men have been taught that to save their souls it is necessary for them to abandon the world. The monks of Christendom suppose that they have an additional motive for this rule in the example of Christ and his apostles. Thus, Chaucer's Wife of Bath, v. 6761, exclaims, "And ther as ye of poverte me repreve, The highe God, on whom that we beleve, May understond, that Jesus heven king, The universal tendency there is among all ascetics to the breaking of this law, as well as the difficulty of framing regulations that may not be set aside by the ingenuity of those who wish to transgress them, may be seen in the fact, that nearly every order has been intended at its commencement to repress the style of luxury in which the preceding communities have lived; whilst it has only required the elapse of a reasonable time before the new order has been drawn into the vortex of the very extravagancies it was intended to put down, and for which purpose it was originated. By Jerome (Ep. 95) complaint is made that some who called themselves solitarii lived in the midst of a crowd, and had the attendance of servants; they had all the conveniences requisite for a carousal; and their food was eaten from vessels of glass or some other costly material. The same author relates (Ep. 18) that a certain anchoret left a hundred crowns at his death. When the monks resident in the same desert met together to enquire what was to be done with the money, some proposed that it should be given to the poor, but it was finally resolved that the whole sum should be thrown into his grave, with the malediction, "May thy money pass with thee to perdition." Until the rise of the mendicants, the individual members of the various orders were regarded as denying themselves the enjoyment of personal property, though the community to which they belonged might itself possess ample revenues. Even Dominic, though he prescribed the most severe poverty, did not forbid the houses of his order to enjoy in common small rents in money. But Francis pro hibited his monks from possessing a collective revenue, and the vow of poverty was absolute. The rule was as follows:-" Fratres sibi nihil approprient, nec domum, nec locum, nec aliquam rem ; sed sicut perigrini et advenae in hoc seculo, in paupertate et humilitate famulantes Domino, vadant pro eleemosynâ confidenter." The bishop of Acco, 1220, writing of the Franciscans, says, "They have neither monasteries nor churches; neither fields, nor vineyards, nor cattle; nor houses, nor any possessions; nor where to lay the head." When a church was bestowed upon Francis by the Benedictines of Monte Sonbazo, he refused to accept the property or dominion, and would only have the use of the place; in token of which he sent the monks annually a basket of fish. He would not allow any property to be invested in his order, that he might say more perfectly that he had neither house, food, nor clothes. When asked which of all the virtues he thought was the most agrecable to God, he replied, "Poverty is the way to salvation, the nurse of humility, and the root of perfection. Its fruits are hidden, but they multiply themselves in ways that are infinite," Yet a division broke out among his followers as to the precise interpretation of his rule, in consequence of which a mitigation of the requirement as to the total abrogation of all worldly possessions was made by Gregory IX. in 1231; and in 1245 the bull of Innocent IV. allowed them to possess certain articles of furniture, with a few utensils, books, &c. About a century afterwards a dispute arose between the Franciscans and Dominicans respecting the poverty of Christ and his apostles; it being argued by the followers of Francis that they had no possessions of any kind whatever, either as private property or as a common treasure, whilst the followers of Dominic asserted most strenuously a contrary opinion. The pope decided in favour of the Dominicans; and it is recorded that many of the Franciscans perished in the flames of the inquisition for persisting in their opposition to this decree. It was enjoined by Ignatius Loyola that the professed Jesuits should not possess any real estates or revenues, either in particular or in common; but that colleges might enjoy revenues and rents for the maintenance of students of the order. It is said to be peculiar to this society, that the religious, after their first vows, retain some time the dominion or property of their patrimony, without the administration (the latter condition being essential to a religious vow of poverty) till they make their renun * Alban Butler, July 31. ciation. Francis of Sales did not allow the nuns belonging to the order of the Visitation to have the propriety or even the long use of anything whatever, even their chambers, beds, crosses, beads, and books, were to be changed every year. The monastic churches were, however, sometimes adorned in a costly manner, even when the rule of poverty was personally regarded with all strictness. Benedict long used wooden, and afterwards glass or pewter chalices at the altar, and if any presents of silk ornaments were made to him, he gave them to other churches; but he afterwards effected a change in this practice, and built a stately church, furnished with silver chalices and rich ornaments. It was a rule among the Cistertians that in their places of worship all unnecessary display should be avoided; they had neither gold nor silver crosses, nor candelabras, except one of iron; nor a chalice, except it were one of copper or iron; and they reproached the monks of Clugny with having churches "immensely high, immoderately long, superfluously broad, sumptuously furnished, and curiously painted;" so that men were led to admire more that which was beautiful than that which was sacred. There were individual monks who carried out these ideas to their utmost extent. All the furniture in the little cell of John, the Carmelite, consisted of a paper image and a cross made of rushes, and his beads and breviary were of the meanest description. The words fakir and dervish, so commonly met with in all accounts of Mahometan countries, are said to mean, the one in Arabic, and the other in Persian, poor. These devotees ask alms in the name of God, and are restricted to a life of poverty, relying for their support upon the charity of the faithful. Some of them are independent, whilst others are associated together in communities like the monastic orders of Christendom. The monks endeavour to trace the origin of their system to the first year of the Hegira; and it is said that there are now thirty-two different orders existing in the Turkish empire. They found the reason of the ascetic life upon a saying of Mahomet-Poverty is my glory. The priest of Budha, previous to his ordination, must possess eight articles, called ata-pirikara. 1, 2, 3. Robes, of different descriptions. 4. A girdle for the loins. 5. A pátara or alms-bowl. 6. A razor. 7. A needle. 8. A perahankada, or water-strainer. The robes will form the subject of a separate section. The bowl is for the purpose of receiving the food presented in alms by the faithful. The razor is for the shaving of the hair. The needle, which is for the repairing of the priest's robes, is not to have a case made of bone, ivory, or horn; if he is found to possess one, it is to be broken, and the fault requires confession and absolution. In this respect some of the monks carried their vow of poverty to greater excess than the Budhists, as Theodorus forbade his followers to have even as much property as a needle. Among the later monks, however, every one had a table-book, knife, needle, and handkerchief. It was formerly common for men to carry needle-cases about their persons, in order that they might be able to mend their clothes. In the time of Chaucer the needle was of silver.* The waterstrainer is considered to be a necessary article, as "if any priest shall knowingly drink water containing insects, it is a fault that requires confession and absolution;" it is to be a cubit square, without a single thread broken. Even the laic who takes upon himself the five obligations is required to possess a strainer, and to use it whenever he drinks water. The Jaina priests, in addition to the strainer, carry a broom, in order that they may sweep the insects out of their way as they walk, as they fear to tread on the minutest being.t These articles can be given to a single priest; but as other descriptions of property can only be given to a chapter, they are the only things he can possess in his own individual right. When taking upon himself the last of the ten obligations, the priest declares, "I will observe the precept that forbids the receiving of gold or silver." But some other articles, such as chairs, couches, curtains, umbrellas, sandals, and staves, may be received by the chapter. If the priest receives coined gold or silver, or causes it to be received, or uses it if deposited for him; or if he uses any kind of bullion; it is a fault involving forfeiture. He is also expressly forbidden to engage in mercantile transactions. When the priest sees money, jewels, or ornaments in any place, he is not to touch them, though they may appear to be lost, unless it be in a house or garden, in which case it may be picked up and given to the owner. ? It was supposed by the late James Prinsep, from the absence of any of the titles of sovereignty on many coins that are evidently of Budhist origin from the symbols that they bear, that the Budhist * Fosbroke's British Monachism. + Colebrooke's Miscellaneous Essays, ii. 194. E coinage was struck in the monasteries of the priesthood; but as the priest was forbidden to touch money, under any circumstances, the supposition must be incorrect. It has been doubted whether any native coin, properly so called, was circulated in India anterior to the incursion of Alexander, as none of the ancient books of the Hindus mention coined money; but in the most ancient laws of the Budhists, the distinction is recognised between coined money and bullion. The monks of Britain were less scrupulous in this matter than their eastern compeers. The monastic mint was not unfrequently an establishment of great importance, and if we may judge from the number of their coins yet in existence, the issues must have been extensive. The abbey of Bury had the following officers-custos cunei, or keeper of the mint; monetarius, the moneyer or mint-master; cambiator, or exchanger; duo custodes, or keepers; and duo assaisiatores, or assayers.† Among the easterns generally, the most valuable personal property is that which can be corrupted by " the moth and the rust;" or garments, and ornaments fabricated of the precious metals; and as the priest can only possess three robes, and these of a particular kind, and is not allowed to have rich furniture, or to possess gold or silver, it is not in his power to accumulate that which alone would in India be regarded as wealth. Even when articles of a more valuable description are presented to the community, they cannot be used by the priest without being previously disfigured. Thus the priest may have a carpet or coverlet, but it must not be made with a mixture of silk; nor of woollen of a black colour, but two parts black, one white, and one brown; it is to be used six years, and then not given away or renewed, without the consent of the other priests; and the sitting carpet is to be disfigured by having part of an old carpet attached to it of a span in size.‡ The second of the three great ecumenical convocations that at an early period were held by the Budhists, was assembled in consequence of the unauthorised practices of some of the priests in the city of Wésáli. Among other things it was their custom upon the lunar festivals to fill a golden basin with water, and placing it in the midst of the assembly, to say to their followers, "Beloved! bestow upon the priesthood a kahapanan coin, or half, or a * Journal Bengal As. Soc. Aug. 1843, + Taylor's Index Monasticus. Gogerly's Translation of the Pátimokkhan. |