The Love of Learning and the Desire for God

The Love of Learning and the Desire for God 1
Jean Leclercq, O.S.B.
(New York: Fordham University Press, 1982)
1 Introduction
Catherine Misrahi first translated Leclercq’s
Amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu: Initiation
aux auteurs monastiques du moyen àge (Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf, 1957) into English in 1961. This
is now the third edition, though no revision
history is given. The work consists of a series of
lectures that Leclercq, a Benedictine monk,
delivered to young monks at the Institute of
Monastic Studies at Sant’Anselmo in Rome in
1955-56. The need for a third edition and for four
reprints of this edition is evidence that his work
is not dated after forty years.
2 Synopsis
In a brief introduction entitled Learning and
Spirituality, Leclercq sets his stage, presenting a
distinction that is fundamental to the rest of his
material, that between monasticism and
scholasticism. Monasticism reached its apex in
the twelfth century, and by the end of the book
one realizes that in Leclercq’s eye twelfthcentury
monasticism reached its apex in Bernard
of Clairvaux. Most theological interest, though,
has been given to the following century. The
writers of the thirteenth century were not monks
but scholastics, churchmen who became also
academics. Their way of doing theology was so
different that Leclercq uses the terms monastic
theology and scholastic theology. The scholastic
wanted “to acquire knowledge” (p. 3) and pursued
it by attempting an objective analysis of all his
questions. The monastic, by contrast, wanted to
know God, pursuing him by a subjective analysis
of his own self and of Scripture. Leclercq argues
for a second major distinction between the two
groups. Scholastic theology was usually
developed orally in debate with colleagues
before it was committed to writing; even when
written it still shows it heritage in the debating
chamber. Monastic theology was literate from
the start.
Having made it clear that he is a twelfthcentury
monastic theologian at heart, Leclercq
presents his ten chapters in three sections, each
addressing a major aspect of monastic culture: its
formation, its sources and its fruits.
2.1 The Formation of Monastic Culture
Medieval monasticism owes its origins to
Benedict and Gregory, and, in particular, to two
of their writings, Benedict’s Rule for Monks and
Gregory’s Life of Benedict. Benedict set the
pattern for future monks by abandoning his
secular studies because they are not godly, and
embarking on a life of learned ignorance. This did
not imply a life devoid of learning. Far from i t ,
for his rule assumes educated monks. What is
involved is a turning away from the world’s
learning in order to pursue a God-centered
learning, which is really what theology should
be. The primary teaching method was the lectio
divina, a reading that was audible and often
conducted while walking. This vocalized reading
produced meditation in which the text was
recited over and over and thus committed not only
to memory but also to action. The purpose of this
meditated reading was not the acquisition of
knowledge but the pursuit of God and the
concomitant obedience to him. Since the monks
were to devote so much time to meditated
reading, grammar was an important component of
monastic studies. By contrast, Cassiodorus,
director of the monastery at Vivarium, though
not himself a monk, prescribes a very different
system of study, one which includes equal
attention to secular studies, which he divided
into the trivium and quadrivium that became
standard in later scholastic education. Because
Benedict’s Rule focused on the timeless search for
God, it has endured, while Cassiodorus, diverted
into secular studies, is today forgotten.
Benedict prescribed the goal and system of
monastic culture: the pursuit of God through the
meditated reading of the Scriptures and the
Fathers. To this Gregory added an essential
doctrine, that of the desire for God and the
1
Review written January 1996 for Dr. John Toews’ course The Agonies and Ecstasies: Varied portraits o f
the Christian to AD 1550 (HST 560), Winter School 1996, Regent College, Vancouver, BC.
1

The Love of Learning and the Desire for God 2
possession of God which alone satisfies that
desire. Though rising to the highest office,
Gregory wrote of the Christian life as a life of
detachment and desire: detachment from the
world and from sin, and an intense desire for God.
The Christian who rightly appreciates his own
sinfulness and consequent misery experiences a
double ‘compunction’: a compunction of fear and a
compunction of desire. This produces a pained
spirit, distraught over the misery of sin but
desiring God. Himself buffeted by suffering,
Gregory saw that God awakens our desire for him
by pressing on us through sin, through suffering or
through temptation. Man must make himself
sensitive and responsive to this pressure from
God. The appropriate response is tears: tears of
repentance and tears of desire. Goaded by God,
the soul takes flight like an eagle and soars
toward God where it finds transcendent love and
peace. This finding of God has practical
outworking in fruitful service to God. Alas, the
eagle’s flight is not always upward. The soul
falls back, wearied, only to recover and soar
upward again, stronger for the experience.
Gregory contributed to the monastic tradition an
unsurpassed theology of the experiential
relationship between God and man.
It took another three centuries for fullfledged
medieval monasticism to be built upon
the foundations of early sixth-century Benedict
and late sixth-century Gregory. The missing
ingredient, the third formative influence, was
the reawakening of culture following the
depredations of the Germanic tribes that had
brought down the rotten Roman Empire. This
renaissance, occurring during the Carolingian
period of the late eight and early ninth centuries,
is the subject of Leclercq’s third chapter. Gregory
had sent missionary monks to England, carrying
not only Roman Christianity but also the
remnants of Roman culture. While this new
learning thrived in England it died out on t h e
continent as society and culture dissolved. English
missionary monks, such as Boniface, returned to
the continent bringing their preserved Latin
culture with them. Around 780 Charlemagne
initiated a renaissance of Western culture. This
revival of culture was accomplished through
three men from monastic backgrounds: Paul the
Deacon from the monastery at Monte Cassino
revised the liturgy and wrote on grammar; Alcuin
of York organized a royal school in Aachen and
later in Tours in which were raised a new
generation of literary young men; St. Benedict of
Aniane, “sometimes considered the second founder
of Benedictine monasticism” (p. 43), revived the
monasteries by recalling their attention to Jerome
and Gregory and to the pursuit of God.
These, then, are the three formative
influences that shaped medieval monastic
culture: Benedict’s rule of study, Gregory’ doctrine
of desire, and the Carolingian renaissance.
2.2 The Sources of Monastic Culture
Leclercq turns to the sources of monastic
culture, which he covers in four heads: devotion
to heaven, sacred learning, the ancient
traditional spirituality, and liberal studies.
Medieval monastic culture has two types of
sources, literary texts assimilated through
meditative reading, and experience, of which the
most important is that experience which “induces
the desire to reach the culmination of this
experience” (p. 53). The content of monastic
culture can be summarized in two words: grammar
and spirituality. “On the one hand, learning is
necessary if one is to approach God and to express
what is perceived of Him; on the other hand,
literature must be continually transcended and
elevated in the striving to attain life” (p. 53).
The most important of the themes which kept
the monks faithful to the vision of Gregory, in
the transcendent and the eschatological, was
devotion to heaven. We find this heavenlymindedness
in their literature under the topics of
the heavenly Jerusalem of which the monastery
is an earthly anticipation, to which is attached
the ideas of Temple and Tabernacle. With his
gaze set on Jerusalem the mediaeval monk was
fond of writing about Christ’s ascension thereto,
and of his Transfiguration. Consideration of God
in glory led to consideration of the angels
rendering him praise. The desire for heaven
produced a literature on tears. This desire for
heaven had practical outworkings. It produced an
intense joy in the soul as a foretaste of heaven,
and a commitment to a life of leisure, albeit a
very busy leisure, but one in which one has
deliberately turned aside from the cares of the
world. This desire is the fruit not of study and the
search for knowledge, but rather of contemplation
that springs from faith, hope and love, activities
of the heart not the mind.
The monks took their learning from three
literary sources: Scripture, the Fathers, and
classical literature. Grammar was studied as an
‘introduction to Scripture’ Here Leclercq returns to
the distinction he drew in the preface, that

The Love of Learning and the Desire for God 3
between monasticism and scholasticism. The
monastic learns through meditative reading;
though he may start with grammar he seeks
wisdom and appreciation with the ultimate goal
being desire for heaven. The scholastic, by
debating with the text, seeks science and
knowledge. The monastic triplet of reading,
meditation and prayer produced a “rumination
and reminiscence” (p. 75) of Scripture. This rich
knowledge of Scripture gave the ability to roam
freely throughout the entire Bible, attuned to
allusion, and gave them a vivid Biblical
imagination. While the scholastics consulted
written concordances, the monastics did not have
to—they had the entire Scriptures on instant
mental recall. Monastic exegesis was both literal
and mystical, literal because of the interest in
grammar and in reading, mystical because
Scripture was not a source for knowledge but t h e
message of salvation from God. The Old
Testament was seen not as a history book, but as
the first half of this story of salvation. Though i t
might have a historical meaning, it was always
interpreted as foreshadowing New Testament
salvation. The most read and most frequently
commentated book of Scripture was the Song of
Songs. Whereas the scholastics interpreted the
Song more abstractly as God’s relation to the
Church as a whole, the monastics saw it as God’s
intensely personal relationship to the individual
believer; it therefore expressed their whole
theology, their whole goal in life.
Benedict urged the monks to read the
Fathers. The monastic monks considered Benedict
to be himself one of the Fathers. Therefore, when
monasticism was strong the monks turned to the
Fathers, and especially to the Greek Father
Origen. Of the Latin Fathers, most frequently
consulted were Jerome for his linguistic skills, for
his letters and for his thoughts on asceticism; and
Augustine for his writings on monasticism. The
scholastics searched the Fathers for
metaphysical ideas, the monastics sought help in
living the monastic life, i.e. in pursuing God. The
most important monastic ideal was that of
Anthony; his life was therefore widely read. The
monks appreciated the Fathers for their literary
quality and for their spiritual quality. They
remained patristic at heart while the scholastics
spun off into philosophical speculation. Leclercq
describes Bernard of Clairvaux as the last of the
Fathers.
After the Scriptures and the Fathers, the
third source of medieval monastic culture is the
classical literature of pagan antiquity, topic of
the seventh chapter. The classics were studied in
the monastic schools. Committed to studying the
classics, they conformed them to their theology
by Christianizing them through allegorical
interpretation. “Although it was generally
recognized that these authors were pagans, i t
was the important thing for medieval monks that
they should make use of them as Christians” (p.
117). This reinterpretation of the classics
extended to archaeological remains: statues of
emperors became the saints, and mythical
creatures were incorporated into religious art.
Leclercq quotes Boutemy-f. Vercauten in
pondering the clash this must have produced in
the monks between their love for classical
antiquity and their desire to destroy paganism.
The monastic writers consciously and
subconsciously borrowed from the pagan classical
authors, but their desire was not to create a neoclassicism
as did humanists of the renaissance
who were torn between two cultures, pagan and
Christian. Rather they appreciated the beauty
they saw in the classic authors and adapted it to
their own Christian ends. This appreciation for
beauty extended to nature, poetry and humor,
lending great artistry to their writings.
Meanwhile, scholastic humanism was focusing
more and more on dialectics, valuing clarity of
argument over artistic expression with the result
that “the language of orators and poets [gave]
place to that of metaphysicians and logicians”
(p. 142 quoting Hubert).
2.3 The Fruits of Monastic Culture
In his third section, Leclercq describes the
fruits produced by this monastic culture. He does
so under three heads: literary genres, monastic
theology, and the liturgy.
While the scholastics developed the
literary genre of the abstract question and the
dispute, the monastics stuck to more concrete
genres, generally addressing their works to a
specific audience than into thin air. Be they
letters, dialogs, histories, sermons or
commentaries, they wrote to edify. Thus their
sermons and commentaries are devotional in
nature rather than prolonged explanations of
texts. Often the monks lived by the rule of
silence. Unable to engage, as the scholastics, in
oral debate with one another, they meditated
long and hard. When finally they did express
themselves it was in written form. These writings
were of high literary quality, the fruit of much

The Love of Learning and the Desire for God 4
reading, and of high spiritual quality, the fruit
of much meditation. It was the monks who kept
alive the interest in history, evident in both
their reading and writing. The monks knew and
appreciated the classical historians. They also
wanted to preserve remembrance of the past.
While the scholastics looked ahead, the
monastics looked back, though nonetheless with
their spiritual gaze steadfastly forward on the
new Jerusalem. They wrote history to render
praise to God for his sovereign superintendence of
history, and to offer to their readers salient
lessons: good role models to be copied and bad role
models to be avoided. History was interpreted
religiously in light of the Church. “The monks
have described fewer battles than ceremonies”
(p. 159). One sub-genre of this historiography
was hagiography, the recording of the lives of
the saints. What was important in the life of the
saint was not the details of his life but his
exercise of virtue, the recitation of which
produces praise to God, and a model for imitation.
When historical facts were lacking they were
created in accordance with certain conventional
themes. “Their design was not to relate true
stories, but to expound a moral doctrine that was
always true” (p. 164). Other lives were written to
assist in the process of canonization, in which the
marvellous or miraculous was an important
element. “Medieval man took more interest in
permanent and universal ideas than in specific
events transitory in nature. To understand them,
one must adopt their point of view. Once this is
done, legend becomes, in a sense they themselves
would have approved, truer than history” (p.
166).
The most common genre of monastic literature
is the sermon. It formed part of the regular
monastic observance. Their preaching was
devotional, practical, simple and edifying. By
contrast, scholastic preaching became
increasingly complicated, theoretical and rigidly
logical. As a result, scholastic sermons are no
longer read but monastic sermons are.
Another common genre is the letter. The
Benedictine vow of silence, of stability, and of
cloistered life, left letters as the usual form of
communication between monks, whether within
the same house or in different houses. Indeed,
Benedict in his rule had covered the sending and
receipt of letters. Since all letters were approved
by the abbot, all were edifying. These letters
might be exhortations to former peers on the
outside to join one in the monastery, letters of
encouragement or spiritual direction, ongoing
doctrinal discussions, or letters of friendship,
written merely for the purpose of bringing joy to
the recipient. Another genre of writing, the
florilegium was a collection of favorite texts,
generally ascetic or mystical in character,
compiled for convenient meditation.
Leclercq has already distinguished monastic
theology from scholastic theology. He devotes
the ninth chapter to a study of monastic
theology. He borrows Congar’s definition of
theology as a ‘discipline in which the truths of
the Christian religion, based on and illuminated
by revelation, are interpreted, developed, and
ordered into a body of doctrine’ (p. 192). While
there is no doubt that the scholastics developed a
theology, it is now recognized that monastic
thought is equally deserving of being called a
theology. During the medieval period, Christian
reflection took place in the monasteries and in
the town schools. There were two types of
schools, monks’ schools for young men preparing
for the contemplative life of the monastery, and
clerical schools for those training for the active
life of the church. Scholastic theology was born
in these urban clerical schools. The monks,
emphasizing grammar, learnt Scripture and kept
the mystical, artistic language of Scripture. The
scholastics, emphasizing logic and clarity,
reduced the Bible’s poetic word-pictures to
abstract philosophical concepts, creating an
increasingly technical language. The monks
cherished the writings of the past, while the
scholastics sought new solutions to new questions.
The scholastics reduced theology to just another
liberal discipline over which they held
professional disputes. The monks retained a sense
of respect and mystery for Scripture. Bernard
explained, “This sacrament is great; it must be
venerated, not scrutinized.” Scholasticism led to
self-inflation, producing a state of agitation not
conducive to the contemplative life, and
distracting the spirit from the undivided search
for God, distracting it with numerous superfluous
questions. The monks sought simplicity, not the
simplicity of ignorance, but that of a single aim:
“[t]o seek God, not to discuss Him” (p. 205). Such
simplicity maintained humility. Monastic
theology was not totally devoid of speculation;
there is an objective knowledge of God but i t
should always produce a subjective, personal
knowledge of Him. The knowledge of God should
be essentially religious and experiential. The two
main foci of monastic theology are therefore the

The Love of Learning and the Desire for God 5
mystery of salvation, man’s objective standing
before God; and the mystery of union with God,
man’s subjective standing before God. The
Benedictines focused on the former, the
Cistercians on the latter. “Monastic theology is a
theology of admiration and therefore greater
than a theology of speculation. Admiration,
speculation: both words describe the act of
looking. But the gaze of admiration adds
something to the gaze of speculation. It does not
necessarily see farther, but the little it does
perceive is enough to fill the whole soul of the
contemplative with joy and thanksgiving.” (p.
226)
Leclercq’s final chapter concerns the liturgy
which he reserves for last “because it is linked
with all other aspects of monastic life” (p. 236).
The entire life of the monk revolved around the
liturgy. New liturgical texts were constantly
being developed, as new feasts were added to the
calendar, or in response to changes in literary and
musical tastes. These texts were drawn primarily
from the Scriptures and from the Fathers. This
daily experience of the liturgy influenced the
other writings of the monks, producing an
emphasis on ecclesiology since worship took
place in the context of the church, and on
eschatology since worship looked forward to
union with God. The liturgy was the culmination
of monastic theology. “In the liturgy, love of
learning and desire for God find perfect
reconciliation” (p. 251).
2.4 Epilogue
Leclercq concludes his work with a brief
epilogue entitled Literature and the Mystical
Life. Although the monasteries always were
centers of spiritual life, there were particular
periods when they flourished, producing a
remarkable body of literature. It sought to keep
alive the ancient literature of the Scriptures and
the Fathers. It was a literature of learned men,
but also of mystics who are interested in learning
only in so far as it stimulated an appetite for God.
It was the product of great cultural attainment
and of great spiritual attainment. Though they
were learned, cultured, literary men, they were
at the same time simple-minded, detached from
interest in self or the world, and writing from
experience not speculation. It is the combination
of holiness and literary genius that gives their
writings a lasting appeal. When a writer such as
Bernard is totally absorbed with God, as in his
sermons on the Song of Songs, his “art resides
solely in the rhythm of the sentences which is
attuned to an inner rhythm born of the possession
of God” (p. 267f).
The book ends with five one-page
appendices, whose purpose is not clear.
3 Evaluation
Leclercq reminds us in the first sentence of his
preface that he is a monk addressing other
monks. It is therefore only to be expected that he
should present a very favorable history of
medieval monasticism. It has become trendy for
modern historians, even evangelical historians,
to strive for objectivity in the name of academic
excellence. This produces church histories devoid
of reference to God, something that would have
been absurd to Leclercq and his beloved monks
alike. The distinction Leclercq draws between
monastic theology and scholastic theology could
be applied to contemporary studies in church
history.
As a monk addressing monks, Leclercq assumes
that his hearers are familiar with Latin and
with monastic history. His Latin quotations are
frequent; rarely are they translated. The book is
not a history of medieval monasticism; it is
assumed the monks already knew their history.
Instead it is what the subtitle proclaims it to be:
a study of monastic culture. Consequently, the
reader who does not know the broad outline of
monastic history will be a little lost. As for the
Latin, I cannot judge whether I missed anything
or not.
The book is actually not quite as proclaimed
by its subtitle, “A Study of Monastic Culture.”
One is surprised to find no description of early
monasticism of either north Africa or Celtic
Britain. Furthermore, Leclercq’s focus on
literature in his concluding epilogue leaves one
dissatisfied that he has ignored the rest of
culture. A glance at the copyright page, though,
shows that Leclercq’s objective, as described in
the subtitle of his French original, was initiation
aux auteurs monastiques du moyen àge, an
introduction to monastic authors of the Middle
Age. The English subtitle renders the reader a
double disservice by ignoring this emphasis on
the medieval era and on literature.