CHAPTER XX

FRANCIS'S WILL AND DEATH

End of September-October 3, 1226

The last days of Francis's life are of radiant beauty. He went to meet

death, singing,[1] says Thomas of Celano, summing up the impression of

those who saw him then.

To be once more at Portiuncula after so long a detention at the bishop's

palace was not only a real joy to his heart, but the pure air of the

forest must have been much to his physical well-being; does not the

Canticle of the Creatures seem to have been made expressly to be sung in

the evening of one of those autumn days of Umbria, so soft and luminous,

when all nature seems to retire into herself to sing her own hymn of

love to Brother Sun?

We see that Francis has come to that almost entire cessation of pain,

that renewing of life, which so often precedes the approach of the last

catastrophe.

He took advantage of it to dictate his Will.[2]

It is to these pages that we must go to find the true note for a sketch

of the life of its author, and an idea of the Order as it was in his

dreams.

In this record, which is of an incontestable authenticity, the most

solemn manifestation of his thought, the Poverello reveals himself

absolutely, with a virginal candor.

His humility is here of a sincerity which strikes one with awe; it is

absolute, though no one could dream that it was exaggerated. And yet,

wherever his mission is concerned, he speaks with tranquil and serene

assurance. Is he not an ambassador of God? Does he not hold his message

from Christ himself? The genesis of his thought here shows itself to be

at once wholly divine and entirely personal. The individual conscience

here proclaims its sovereign authority. "No one showed me what I ought

to do, but the Most High himself revealed to me that I ought to live

conformably to his holy gospel."

When a man has once spoken thus, submission to the Church has been

singularly encroached upon. We may love her, hearken to her, venerate

her, but we feel ourselves, perhaps without daring to avow it, superior

to her. Let a critical hour come, and one finds himself heretic without

knowing it or wishing it.

"Ah, yes," cries Angelo Clareno, "St. Francis promised to obey the pope

and his successors, but they cannot and must not command anything

contrary to the conscience or to the Rule."[3]

For him, as for all the spiritual Franciscans, when there is conflict

between what the inward voice of God ordains and what the Church wills,

he has only to obey the former.[4]

If you tell him that the Church and the Order are there to define the

true signification of the Rule, he appeals to common sense, and to that

interior certitude which is given by a clear view of truth.

The Rule, as also the gospel, of which it is a summary, is above all

ecclesiastical power, and no one has the right to say the last word in

their interpretation.[5]

The Will was not slow to gain a moral authority superior even to that of

the Rule. Giovanni of Parma, to explain the predilection of the

Joachimites for this document, points out that after the impression of

the stigmata the Holy Spirit was in Francis with still greater plenitude

than before.[6]

Did the innumerable sects which disturbed the Church in the thirteenth

century perceive that these two writings--the Rule and the

Testament--the one apparently made to follow and support the other,

substantially identical as it was said, proceeded from two opposite

inspirations? Very confusedly, no doubt, but guided by a very sure

instinct, they saw in these pages the banner of liberty.

They were not mistaken. Even to-day, thinkers, moralists, mystics may

arrive at solutions very different from those of the Umbrian prophet,

but the method which they employ is his, and they may not refuse to

acknowledge in him the precursor of religious subjectivism.

The Church, too, was not mistaken. She immediately understood the spirit

that animated these pages.

Four years later, perhaps to the very day, September 28, 1230, Ugolini,

then Gregory IX., solemnly interpreted the Rule, in spite of the

precautions of Francis, who had forbidden all gloss or commentary on the

Rule or the Will, and declared that the Brothers were not bound to the

observation of the Will.[7]

What shall we say of the bull in which the pope alleges his familiar

relations with the Saint to justify his commentary, and in which the

clearest passages are so distorted as to change their sense completely.

"One is stupefied," cries Ubertini of Casali, "that a text so clear

should have need of a commentary, for it suffices to have common sense

and to know grammar in order to understand it." And this strange monk

dares to add: "There is one miracle which God himself cannot do; it is

to make two contradictory things true."[8]

Certainly the Church should be mistress in her own house; it would have

been nothing wrong had Gregory IX. created an Order conformed to his

views and ideas, but when we go through Sbaralea's folios and the

thousands of bulls accorded to the spiritual sons of him who in the

clearest and most solemn manner had forbidden them to ask any privilege

of the court of Rome, we cannot but feel a bitter sadness.

Thus upheld by the papacy, the Brothers of the Common Observance made

the Zelanti sharply expiate their attachment to Francis's last requests.

Cæsar of Speyer died of violence from the Brother placed in charge of

him;[9] the first disciple, Bernardo di Quintavalle, hunted like a

wild beast, passed two years in the forests of Monte-Sefro, hidden by a

wood-cutter;[10] the other first companions who did not succeed in

flight had to undergo the severest usage. In the March of Ancona, the

home of the Spirituals, the victorious party used a terrible violence.

The Will was confiscated and destroyed; they went so far as to burn it

over the head of a friar who persisted in desiring to observe it.[11]

WILL (LITERAL TRANSLATION).

See in what manner God gave it to me, to me, Brother Francis, to

begin to do penitence; when I lived in sin, it was very painful

to me to see lepers, but God himself led me into their midst,

and I remained here a little while.[12] When I left them, that

which had seemed to me bitter had become sweet and easy.

A little while after I quitted the world, and God gave me such a

faith in his churches that I would kneel down with simplicity

and I would say: "We adore thee, Lord Jesus Christ, here and in

all thy churches which are in the world, and we bless thee that

by thy holy cross thou hast ransomed the world."

Besides, the Lord gave me and still gives me so great a faith in

priests who live according to the form of the holy Roman Church,

because of their sacerdotal character, that even if they

persecuted me I would have recourse to them. And even though I

had all the wisdom of Solomon, if I should find poor secular

priests, I would not preach in their parishes without their

consent. I desire to respect them like all the others, to love

them and honor them as my lords. I will not consider their

sins, for in them I see the Son of God and they are my lords. I

do this because here below I see nothing, I perceive nothing

corporally of the most high Son of God, if not his most holy

Body and Blood, which they receive and they alone distribute to

others. I desire above all things to honor and venerate all

these most holy mysteries and to keep them precious. Whenever I

find the sacred names of Jesus or his words in indecent places,

I desire to take them away, and I pray that others take them

away and put them in some decent place. We ought to honor and

revere all the theologians and those who preach the most holy

word of God, as dispensing to us spirit and life.

When the Lord gave me some brothers no one showed me what I

ought to do, but the Most High himself revealed to me that I

ought to live according to the model of the holy gospel. I

caused a short and simple formula to be written, and the lord

pope confirmed it for me.

Those who presented themselves to observe this kind of life

distributed all that they might have to the poor. They contented

themselves with a tunic, patched within and without, with the

cord and breeches, and we desired to have nothing more.

The clerks said the office like other clerks, and the laymen

_Pater noster_.

We loved to live in poor and abandoned churches, and we were

ignorant and submissive to all. I worked with my hands and would

continue to do, and I will also that all other friars work at

some honorable trade. Let those who have none learn one, not for

the purpose of receiving the price of their toil, but for their

good example and to flee idleness. And when they do not give us

the price of the work, let us resort to the table of the Lord,

begging our bread from door to door. The Lord revealed to me the

salutation which we ought to give: "God give you peace!"

Let the Brothers take great care not to receive churches,

habitations, and all that men build for them, except as all is

in accordance with the holy poverty which we have vowed in the

Rule, and let them not receive hospitality in them except as

strangers and pilgrims.

I absolutely interdict all the brothers, in whatever place they

may be found, from asking any bull from the court of Rome,

whether directly or indirectly, under pretext of church or

convent or under pretext of preachings, nor even for their

personal protection. If they are not received anywhere let them

go elsewhere, thus doing penance with the benediction of God.

I desire to obey the minister-general of this fraternity, and

the guardian whom he may please to give me. I desire to put

myself entirely into his hands, to go nowhere and do nothing

against his will, for he is my lord.

Though I be simple and ill, I would, however, have always a

clerk who will perform the office, as it is said in the Rule;

let all the other brothers also be careful to obey their

guardians and to do the office according to the Rule. If it come

to pass that there are any who do not the office according to

the Rule, and who desire to make any other change, or if they

are not Catholics, let all the Brothers, wherever they may be,

be bound by obedience to present them to the nearest custode.

Let the custodes be bound by obedience to keep him well guarded

like a man who is in bonds night and day, so that he may not

escape from their hands until they personally place him in the

minister's hands. And let the minister be bound by obedience to

send him by brothers who will guard him as a prisoner day and

night until they shall have placed him in the hands of the Lord

Bishop of Ostia, who is the lord, the protector, and the

correcter of all the Fraternity.[13]

And let the Brothers not say: "This is a new Rule;" for this is

a reminder, a warning, an exhortation; it is my Will, that I,

little Brother Francis, make for you, my blessed Brothers, in

order that we may observe in a more catholic way the Rule which

we promised the Lord to keep.

Let the ministers-general, all the other ministers and the

custodes be held by obedience to add nothing to and take nothing

from these words. Let them always keep this writing near them,

beside the Rule; and in all the chapters which shall be held,

when the Rule is read let these words be read also.

I interdict absolutely, by obedience, all the Brothers, clerics

and layman, to introduce glosses in the Rule, or in this Will,

under pretext of explaining it. But since the Lord has given me

to speak and to write the Rule and these words in a clear and

simple manner, without commentary, understand them in the same

way, and put them in practice until the end.

And may whoever shall have observed these things be crowned in

heaven with the blessings of the heavenly Father, and on earth

with those of his well-beloved Son and of the Holy Spirit the

consoler, with the assistance of all the heavenly virtues and

all the saints.

And I, little Brother Francis, your servitor, confirm to you so

far as I am able this most holy benediction. Amen.

After thinking of his Brothers Francis thought of his dear Sisters at

St. Damian and made a will for them.

It has not come down to us, and we need not wonder; the Spiritual

Brothers might flee away, and protest from the depths of their retreats,

but the Sisters were completely unarmed against the machinations of the

Common Observance.[14]

In the last words that he addressed to the Clarisses, after calling upon

them to persevere in poverty and union, he gave them his

benediction.[15] Then he recommended them to the Brothers, supplicating

the latter never to forget that they were members of one and the same

religious family.[16] After having done all that he could for those

whom he was about to leave, he thought for a moment of himself.

He had become acquainted in Rome with a pious lady named Giacomina di

Settisoli. Though rich, she was simple and good, entirely devoted to the

new ideas; even the somewhat singular characteristics of Francis pleased

her. He had given her a lamb which had become her inseparable

companion.[17]

Unfortunately all that concerns her has suffered much from later

retouchings of the legend. The perfectly natural conduct of the Saint

with women has much embarrassed his biographers; hence heavy and

distorted commentaries tacked on to episodes of a delicious simplicity.

Before dying Francis desired to see again this friend, whom he

smilingly called Brother Giacomina. He caused a letter to be written her

to come to Portiuncula; we can imagine the dismay of the narrators at

this far from monastic invitation.

But the good lady had anticipated his appeal: at the moment when the

messenger with the letter was about to leave for Rome, she arrived at

Portiuncula and remained there until the last sigh of the Saint.[18]

For one moment she thought of sending away her suite; the invalid was so

calm and joyful that she could not believe him dying, but he himself

advised her to keep her people with her. This time he felt with no

possible doubt that his captivity was about to be ended.

He was ready, he had finished his work.

Did he think then of the day when, cursed by his father, he had

renounced all earthly goods and cried to God with an ineffable

confidence, "Our Father who art in heaven!" We cannot say; but he

desired to finish his life by a symbolic act which very closely recalls

the scene in the bishop's palace.

He caused himself to be stripped of his clothing and laid upon the

ground, for he wished to die in the arms of his Lady Poverty. With one

glance he embraced the twenty years that had glided by since their

union: "I have done my duty," he said to the Brothers, "may the Christ

now teach you yours!"[19]

This was Thursday, October 1.[20]

They laid him back upon his bed, and, conforming to his wishes, they

again sang to him the Canticle of the Sun.

At times he added his voice to those of his Brothers,[21] and came back

with preference to Psalm 142, _Voce mea ad Dominum clamavi_.[22]

With my voice I cry unto the Lord,

With my voice I implore the Lord,

I pour out my complaint before him,

I tell him all my distress.

When my spirit is cast down within me,

Thou knowest my path.

Upon the way where I walk

They have laid a snare for me,

Cast thine eyes to the right and look!

No one recognizes me;

All refuge is lost for me,

No one takes thought for my soul.

Lord, unto thee I cry;

I say: Thou art my refuge,

My portion in the land of the living.

Be attentive to my cries!

For I am very unhappy.

Deliver me from those who pursue me!

For they are stronger than I.

Bring my soul out of its prison

That I may praise thy name.

The righteous shall compass me about

When thou hast done good unto me!

The visits of death are always solemn, but the end of the just is the

most moving _sursum corda_ that we can hear on earth. The hours flowed

by and the Brothers would not leave him. "Alas, good Father," said one

of them to him, unable longer to contain himself, "your children are

going to lose you, and be deprived of the true light which lightened

them: think of the orphans you are leaving and forgive all their faults,

give to them all, present and absent, the joy of your holy benediction."

"See," replied the dying man, "God is calling me. I forgive all my

Brothers, present and absent, their offences and faults, and absolve

them according to my power. Tell them so, and bless them all in my

name."[23]

Then crossing his arms he laid his hands upon those who surrounded him.

He did this with peculiar emotion to Bernard of Quintavalle: "I desire,"

he said, "and with all my power I urge whomsoever shall be

minister-general of the Order, to love and honor him as myself; let the

provincials and all the Brothers act toward him as toward me."[24]

He thought not only of the absent Brothers but of the future ones; love

so abounded in him that it wrung from him a groan of regret for not

seeing all those who should enter the Order down to the end of time,

that he might lay his hand upon their brows, and make them feel those

things that may only be spoken by the eyes of him who loves in God.[25]

He had lost the notion of time; believing that it was still Thursday he

desired to take a last meal with his disciples. Some bread was brought,

he broke it and gave it to them, and there in the poor cabin of

Portiuncula, without altar and without a priest, was celebrated the

Lord's Supper.[26]

A Brother read the Gospel for Holy Thursday, _Ante diem festum Paschæ_:

"Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come

to go from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in

the world he loved them unto the end."

The sun was gilding the crests of the mountains with his last rays,

there was silence around the dying one. All was ready. The angel of

death might come.

Saturday, October 3, 1226, at nightfall, without pain, without struggle,

he breathed the last sigh.

The Brothers were still gazing on his face, hoping yet to catch some

sign of life, when innumerable larks alighted, singing, on the thatch of

his cell,[27] as if to salute the soul which had just taken flight and

give the Little Poor Man the canonization of which he was most worthy,

the only one, doubtless, which he would ever have coveted.

On the morrow, at dawn, the Assisans came down to take possession of his

body and give it a triumphant funeral.

By a pious inspiration, instead of going straight to the city they went

around by St. Damian, and thus was realized the promise made by Francis

to the Sisters a few weeks before, to come once more to see them.

Their grief was heart-rending.

These women's hearts revolted against the absurdity of death;[28] but

there were tears on that day at St. Damian only. The Brothers forgot

their sadness on seeing the stigmata, and the inhabitants of Assisi

manifested an indescribable joy on having their relic at last. They

deposited it in the Church St. George.[29]

Less than two years after, Sunday, July 26, 1228, Gregory IX. came to

Assisi to preside in person over the ceremonies of canonization, and to

lay, on the morrow, the first stone of the new church dedicated to the

Stigmatized.

Built under the inspiration of Gregory IX. and the direction of Brother

Elias, this marvellous basilica is also one of the documents of this

history, and perhaps I have been wrong in neglecting it.

Go and look upon it, proud, rich, powerful, then go down to Portiuncula,

pass over to St. Damian, hasten to the Carceri, and you will understand

the abyss that separates the ideal of Francis from that of the pontiff

who canonized him.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Mortem cantando suscepit._ 2 Cel., 3, 139.

[2] The text here taken as a basis is that of the Assisi MS.,

338 (f^o 16a-18a). It is also to be found in _Firmamentum_, f^o

19, col. 4; _Speculum_, Morin, _tract._ iii., 8a; Wadding, _ann.

1226_, 35; A. SS., p. 663; Amoni, _Legenda Trium Sociorum_;

Appendix, p. 110. Everything in this document proclaims its

authenticity, but we are not reduced to internal proof. It is

expressly cited in 1 Cel., 17 (before 1230); by the Three

Companions (1246), 3 Soc., 11; 26; 29; by 2 Cel., 3, 99 (1247).

These proofs would be more than sufficient, but there is another

of even greater value: the bull _Quo elongati_ of September 28,

1230, where Gregory IX. cites it textually and declares that the

friars are not bound to observe it.

[3] _Promittet Franciscus obedientiam ... papæ ... et

successoribus ... qui non possunt nec debent eis præcipere

aliquid quod sit contra animam et regulam._ _Archiv._, _i_, p.

563.

[4] _Quod si quando a quocumque ... pontifice aliquid ...

mandaretur quod esset contra fidem ... et caritatem et fructus

ejus tunc obediet Deo magis quam hominibus._ Ib., p. 561.

[5] _Est [Regula] et stat et intelligitur super eos ... Cum spei

fiducia pace fruemur cum conscientiæ et Christi spiritus

testimonio certo._ Ib., pp. 563 and 565.

[6] _Archiv._, ii., p. 274.

[7] _Ad mandatum illud vos dicimus non teneri: quod sine

consensu Fratrum maxime ministrorum, quos universos tangebat

obligare nequivit nec successorem suum quomodolibet obligavit;

cum non habeat imperium par in parem._ The sophism is barely

specious; Francis was not on a par with his successors; he did

not act as minister-general, but as founder.

[8] _Arbor vit. cruc._, _lib._ v., _cap._ 3 and 5. See above, p.

185.

[9] _Tribul._, Laur., 25b; _Archiv._, i., p. 532.

[10] At the summit of the Apennines, about half way between

Camerino and Nocera (Umbria). _Tribul._, Laur., 26b; Magl.,

135b.

[11] _Declaratio Ubertini_, _Archiv._, iii., p. 168. This fact

is not to be questioned, since it is alleged in a piece

addressed to the pope, in response to the liberal friars, to

whom it was to be communicated.

[12] _Feci moram cum illis._, MS., 338. Most of the printed

texts give _miseracordiam_, which gives a less satisfactory

meaning. Cf. Miscellanea iii. (1888), p. 70; 1 Cel., 17; 3 Soc.,

11.

[13] It is evident that heresy is not here in question. The

Brothers who were infected with it were to be delivered to the

Church.

[14] Urban IV. published, October 18, 1263, Potthast (18680), a

Rule for the Clarisses which completely changed the character of

this Order. Its author was the cardinal protector Giovanni degli

Ursini (the future Nicholas III.), who by way of precaution

forbade the Brothers Minor under the severest penalties to

dissuade the Sisters from accepting it. "It differs as much from

the first Rule," said Ubertini di Casali "as black and white,

the savory and the insipid." _Arbor. vit. cruc. lib._ v., _cap._

vi.

[15] V. _Test. B. Claræ_; _Conform._, 185a 1; Spec., 117b.

[16] 2 Cel., 3, 132.

[17] Bon., 112.

[18] The Bollandists deny this whole story, which they find in

opposition to the prescriptions of Francis himself. A. SS., p.

664 ff. But it is difficult to see for what object authors who

take great pains to explain it could have had for inventing it.

_Spec._, 133a; _Fior._ iv.; _consid._; _Conform._, 240a. I have

borrowed the whole account from Bernard of Besse: _De Laudibus_,

f^o 113b. It appears that Giacomina settled for the rest of her

life at Assisi, that she might gain edification from the first

companions of Francis. _Spec._, 107b. (What a lovely scene, and

with what a Franciscan fragrance!) The exact date of her death

is not known. She was buried in the lower church of the basilica

of Assisi, and on her tomb was engraved: _Hic jacit Jacoba

sancta nobilisque romana_. Vide Fratini: _Storia della

basilica_, p. 48. Cf. Jacobilli: _Vite dei Santi e Beati dell'

Umbria_, Foligno, 3 vols., 4to, 1647; i., p. 214.

[19] 2 Cel., 3, 139; Bon., 209, 210; _Conform._, 171b, 2.

[20] 2 Cel., 3, 139: _Cum me videritis ... sicut me nudius

tertius nudum vidistis._

[21] 1 Cel., 109; 2 Cel., 3, 139.

[22] 1 Cel., 109; Bon., 212.

[23] 1 Cel., 109. Cf. _Epist. Eliæ._

[24] _Tribul._ Laur., 22b. Nothing better shows the historic

value of the chronicle of the Tribulations than to compare its

story of these moments with that of the following documents:

_Conform._, 48b, 1; 185a, 2; _Fior._, 6.; _Spec._, 86a.

[25] 2 Cel., 3, 139; _Spec._, 116b; _Conform._, 224b, 1.

[26] 2 Cel., 3, 139. A simple comparison between this story in

the _Speculum_ (116b) and that in the _Conformities_ (224b, 1)

is enough to show how in certain of its parts the _Speculum_

represents a state of the legend anterior to 1385.

[27] Bon., 214. This cell has been transformed into a chapel and

may be found a few yards from the little church of Portiuncula.

Church and chapel are now sheltered under the great Basilica of

Santa Maria degli Angeli. See the picture and plan, A. SS., p.

814, or better still in _P. Barnabas aus dem Elsass, Portiuncula

oder Geschichte U. L. F. v. den Engeln_. Rixheim, 1884, 1 vol.,

8vo, pp. 311 and 312.

[28] 1 Cel., 116 and 117; Bon., 219; _Conform._ 185a, 1.

[29] To-day in the _clôture_ of the convent St. Clara. Vide

Miscellanea 1, pp. 44-48, a very interesting study by Prof.

Carattoli upon the coffin of St. Francis.

* * * * *

CRITICAL STUDY OF THE SOURCES

* * * * *

SUMMARY

I. ST. FRANCIS'S WORKS.

II. BIOGRAPHIES PROPERLY SO CALLED.

1. Preliminary Note.

2. First Life by Thomas of Celano.

3. Review of the History of the Order 1230-1244.

4. Legend of the Three Companions.

5. Fragments of the Suppressed Portion of the Legend.

6. Second Life by Thomas of Celano. First Part.

7. Second Life by Thomas of Celano. Second Part.

8. Documents of Secondary Importance:

Biography for Use of the Choir.

Life in Verse.

Biography by Giovanni di Ceperano.

Life by Brother Julian.

9. Legend of St. Bonaventura.

10. De Laudibus of Bernard of Besse.

III. DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS.

1. Donation of the Verna.

2. Registers of Cardinal Ugolini.

3. Bulls.

IV. CHRONICLERS OF THE ORDER.

1. Chronicle of Brother Giordano di Giano.

2. Eccleston: Arrival of the Friars in England.

3. Chronicle of Fra Salimbeni.

4. Chronicle of the Tribulations.

5. The Fioretti and their Appendices.

6. Chronicle of the XXIV. Generals.

7. The Conformities of Bartolommeo di Pisa.

8. Glassberger's Chronicle.

9. Chronicle of Mark of Lisbon.

V. CHRONICLERS NOT OF THE ORDER.

1. Jacques de Vitry.

2. Thomas of Spalato.

3. Divers Chroniclers.

* * * * *

CRITICAL STUDY OF THE SOURCES

There are few lives in history so abundantly provided with documents as

that of St. Francis. This will perhaps surprise the reader, but to

convince himself he has only to run over the preceding list, which,

however, has been made as succinct as possible.

It is admitted in learned circles that the essential elements of this

biography have disappeared or have been entirely altered. The

exaggeration of certain religious writers, who accept everything, and

among several accounts of the same fact always choose the longest and

most marvellous, has led to a like exaggeration in the contrary sense.

If it were necessary to point out the results of these two excesses as

they affect each event, this volume would need to be twice and even four

times as large as it is. Those who are interested in these questions

will find in the notes brief indications of the original documents on

which each narrative is based.[1]

To close the subject of the errors which are current in the Franciscan

documents, and to show in a few lines their extreme importance, I shall

take two examples. Among our own contemporaries no one has so well

spoken on the subject of St. Francis as M. Renan; he comes back to him

with affecting piety, and he was in a better condition than any one to

know the sources of this history. And yet he does not hesitate to say in

his study of the Canticle of the Sun, Francis's best known work: "The

authenticity of this piece appears certain, but we must observe that we

have not the Italian original. The Italian text which we possess is a

translation of a Portuguese version, which was itself translated from

the Spanish."[2]

And yet the primitive Italian exists[3] not only in numerous

manuscripts in Italy and France, particularly in the Mazarine

Library,[4] but also in the well-known book of the _Conformities_.[5]

An error, grave from quite another point of view, is made by the same

author when he denies the authenticity of St. Francis's Will; this piece

is not only the noblest expression of its author's religious feeling, it

constitutes also a sort of autobiography, and contains the solemn and

scarcely disguised revocation of all the concessions which had been

wrung from him. We have already seen that its authenticity is not to be

challenged.[6] This double example will, I hope, suffice to show the

necessity of beginning this study by a conscientious examination of the

sources.

If the eminent historian to whom I have alluded were still living, he

would have for this page his large and benevolent smile, that simple,

_Oui, oui_, which once made his pupils in the little hall of the Collège

de France to tremble with emotion.

I do not know what he would think of this book, but I well know that he

would love the spirit in which it was undertaken, and would easily

pardon me for having chosen him for scape-goat of my wrath against the

learned men and biographers.

The documents to be examined have been divided into five categories.

The first includes _St. Francis's works_.

The second, _biographies properly so called_.

The third, _diplomatic documents_.

The fourth, _chronicles of the Order_.

The fifth, _chronicles of authors not of the Order_.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] If any student finds himself embarrassed by the extreme

rarity of certain works cited, I shall make it my duty and

pleasure to send them to him, as well as a copy of the Italian

manuscripts.

[2] E. Renan: _Nouvelles études d'histoire religieuse_, Paris,

1884, 8vo, p. 331.

[3] See above, pp. 304 ff.

[4] Mazarine Library, MS. 8531: _Speculum perfectionis S.

Francisci_; the Canticle is found at fo. 51. Cf. MS., 1350 (date

of 1459). That text was published by Boehmer in the _Romanische

Studien_, Halle, 1871. pp. 118-122. _Der Sonnengesang v. Fr.

d'A._

[5] _Conform._ (Milan, 1510), 202b, 2s. For that matter it is

correct that Diola, in the _Croniche degli ordini instituti da

S. Francisco_ (Venice, 1606, 3 vols. 4to), translated after the

Castilian version of the work composed in Portuguese by Mark of

Lisbon, was foolish enough to render into Italian this

translation of a translation.

[6] See pages 333 ff.

* * * * *

I

ST. FRANCIS'S WORKS

The writings of St. Francis[1] are assuredly the best source of

acquaintance with him; we can only be surprised to find them so

neglected by most of his biographers. It is true that they give little

information as to his life, and furnish neither dates nor facts,[2]

but they do better, they mark the stages of his thought and of his

spiritual development. The legends give us Francis as he appeared, and

by that very fact suffer in some degree the compulsion of circumstances;

they are obliged to bend to the exigencies of his position as general of

an Order approved by the Church, as miracle-worker, and as saint. His

works, on the contrary, show us his very soul; each phrase has not only

been thought, but lived; they bring us the Poverello's emotions, still

alive and palpitating.

So, when in the writings of the Franciscans we find any utterance of

their master, it unconsciously betrays itself, sounding out suddenly in

a sweet, pure tone which penetrates to your very heart, awakening with a

thrill a sprite that was sleeping there.

This bloom of love enduing St. Francis's words would be an admirable

criterion of the authenticity of those opuscules which tradition

attributes to him; but the work of testing is neither long nor

difficult. If after his time injudicious attempts were here and there

made to honor him with miracles which he did not perform, which he would

not even have wished to perform, no attempt was ever made to burden his

literary efforts with false or supposititious pieces.[3] The best

proof of this is that it is not until Wadding--that is to say, until the

seventeenth century--that we find the first and only serious attempt to

collect these precious memorials. Several of them have been lost,[4]

but those which remain are enough to give us in some sort the refutation

of the legends.

In these pages Francis gives himself to his readers, as long ago he gave

himself to his companions; in each one of them a feeling, a cry of the

heart, or an aspiration toward the Invisible is prolonged down to our

own time.

Wadding thought it his duty to give a place in his collection to several

suspicious pieces; more than this, instead of following the oldest

manuscripts that he had before him, he often permitted himself to be led

astray by sixteenth-century writers whose smallest concern was to be

critical and accurate. To avoid the tedious and entirely negative task

to which it would be necessary to proceed if I took him for my

starting-point I shall confine myself to a positive study of this

question.

All the pieces which will be enumerated are found in his collection.

They are sometimes cut up in a singular way; but in proportion as each

document is studied we shall find sufficient indications to enable us

to make the necessary rectifications.

The archives of Sacro Convento of Assisi[5] possess a manuscript whose

importance is not to be overestimated. It has already been many times

studied,[6] and bears the number 338.

It appears, however, that a very important detail of form has been

overlooked. It is this: that No. 338 is not _one_ manuscript, but _a

collection_ of manuscripts of very different periods, which were put

together because they were of very nearly the same size, and have been

foliated in a peculiar manner.

This artificial character of the collection shows that each of the

pieces which compose it needs to be examined by itself, and that it is

impossible to say of it as a whole that it is of the thirteenth or the

fourteenth century.

The part that interests us is perfectly homogeneous, is formed of three

parchment books (fol. 12a-44b) and contains a part of Francis's works.

1. The Rule, definitively approved by Honorius III., November 20,

1223[7] (fol. 12a-16a).

2. St. Francis's Will[8] (fol. 16a-18a).

3. The Admonitions[9] (fol. 18a-23b).

4. The Letter to all Christians[10] (fol. 23b-28a).

5. The letter to all the members of the Order assembled in

Chapter-general[11] (fol. 28a-31a).

6. Counsel to all clerics on the respect to be paid to the

Eucharist[12] (fol., 31b-32b).

7. A very short piece preceded by the rubric: "Of the virtues which

adorn the Virgin Mary and which ought to adorn the holy soul"[13] (fol.

32b).

8. The _Laudes Creaturarum_, or Canticle of the Sun[14] (fol. 33a).

9. A paraphrase of the _Pater_ introduced by the rubric: _Incipiunt

laudes quas ordinavit. B. pater noster Franciscus et dicebat ipsas ad

omnes horas diei et noctis et ante officium B. V. Mariæ sic incipiens:

Sanctissime Pater_[15] (fol. 34a).

10. The office of the Passion (34b-43a). This office, where the psalms

are replaced by several series of biblical verses, are designed to make

him who repeats them follow, hour by hour, the emotions of the Crucified

One from the evening of Holy Thursday.[16]

11. A rule for friars in retreat in hermitages[17] (fol. 43a-43b).

A glance over this list is enough to show that the works of Francis here

collected are addressed to all the Brothers, or are a sort of

encyclicals, which they are charged to pass on to those for whom they

are destined.

The very order of these pieces shows us that we have in this manuscript

the primitive library of the Brothers Minor, the collection of which

each minister was to carry with him a copy. It was truly their viaticum.

Matthew Paris tells us of his amazement at the sight of these foreign

monks, clothed in patched tunics, and carrying their books in a sort of

case suspended from their necks.[18]

The Assisi manuscript was without doubt destined to this service; if it

is silent on the subject of the journeys it has made, and of the

Brothers to whom it has been a guide and an inspiration, it at least

brings us, more than all the legends, into intimacy with Francis, makes

us thrill in unison with that heart which never admitted a separation

between joy, love, and poetry. As to the date of this manuscript, one

must needs be a paleographer to determine. We have already found a

hypothesis which, if well grounded, would carry it back to the

neighborhood of 1240.[19]

Its contents seem to countenance this early date. In fact, it contains

several pieces of which the _Manual of the Brother Minor_ very early rid

itself.

Very soon they were content to have only the Rule to keep company with

the breviary; sometimes they added the Will. But the other writings, if

they did not fall entirely into neglect, ceased at least to be of daily

usage.

Those of St. Francis's writings which are not of general interest or do

not concern the Brothers naturally find no place in this collection. In

this new category we must range the following documents:

1. The Rule of 1221.[20]

2. The Rule of the Clarisses, which we no longer possess in its original

form.[21]

3. A sort of special instruction for ministers-general.[22]

4. A letter to St. Clara.[23]

5. Another letter to the same.[24]

6. A letter to Brother Leo.[25]

7. A few prayers.[26]

8. The benediction of Brother Leo. The original autograph, which is

preserved in the treasury of Sacro Convento, has been very well

reproduced by heliograph.[27]

As to the two famous hymns _Amor de caritade_[28] and _In foco l'amor

mi mise_,[29] they cannot be attributed to St. Francis, at least in

their present form.

It belongs to M. Monaci and his numerous and learned emulators to throw

light upon these delicate questions by publishing in a scientific manner

the earliest monuments of Italian poetry.

I have already spoken of several tracts of which assured traces have

been found, though they themselves are lost. They are much more numerous

than would at first be supposed. In the missionary zeal of the early

years the Brothers would not concern themselves with collecting

documents. We do not write our memoirs in the fulness of our youth.

We must also remember that Portiuncula had neither archives nor library.

It was a chapel ten paces long, with a few huts gathered around it. The

Order was ten years old before it had seen any other than a single book:

a New Testament. The Brothers did not even keep this one. Francis,

having nothing else, gave it to a poor woman who asked for alms, and

when Pietro di Catania, his vicar, expressed his surprise at this

prodigality: "Has she not given her two sons to the Order?" replied the

master[30] quickly.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Collected first by Wadding (Antwerp, 1623, 4to), they have

been published many times since then, particularly by De la Haye

(Paris, 1641, f^o). These two editions having become scarce,

were republished--in a very unsatisfactory manner--by the Abbé

Horoy: _S. Francisci Assisiatis opera omnia_ (Paris, 1880, 4to).

For want of a more exact edition, that of Father Bernardo da

Fivizzano is the most useful: _Opuscoli di S. Francesco

d'Assisi_, 1 vol., 12mo, pp. 564, Florence, 1880. The Latin text

is accompanied by an Italian translation.

[2] "_Die Briefe, die unter seinem Namen gehen, mögen theilweise

ächt sein. Aber sie tragen kaum etwas zur näheren Kenntniss bei

und können daher fast ganz ausser Acht bleiben_." Müller, _Die

Anfänge des Minoritenordens_, Freiburg, 1 vol., 8vo, 1885, p. 3.

[3] Pieces have been often attributed to St. Francis which do

not belong to him; but those are unintentional errors and made

without purpose. The desire for literary exactness is relatively

of recent date, and it was easier for those who were ignorant of

the author of certain Franciscan writings to attribute them to

St. Francis than to admit their ignorance or to make deep

researches.

[4] For example, the first Rule; probably also a few canticles;

a letter to the Brothers in France, Eccl., 6; another to the

Brothers in Bologna: "_Prædixerat per litteram in qua fuit

plurimum latinum_," Eccl., ib.; a letter to Antony of Padua,

other than the one we have, since on the witness of Celano it

was addressed: _Fratri Antonio episcopo meo_ (2 Cel., 3, 99);

certain letters to St. Clara: "_Scripsit Claræ et sororibus ad

consolationem litteram in quâ dabat benedictionem suam et

absolvebat_," etc. _Conform._, f^o. 185a, 1; cf. _Test. B.

Claræ_. A. SS., Augusti, t. ii., p. 767: "_Plura scripta

tradidit nobis, ne post mortem suam declinaremus a paupertate_;"

certain letters to Cardinal Ugolini, 3 Soc., 67.

It is not to negligence alone that we must attribute the loss of

many of the epistles: "_Quod nephas est cogitare, in provincia

Marchie et in pluribus aliis locis testamentum beati Francisci

mandaverunt (prelati ordinis) districte per obedientiam ab

omnibus auferi et comburi. Et uni fratri devoto et sancto, cujus

nomen est N. de Rocanato combuxerunt dicum testamentum super

caput suum. Et toto conatu fuerunt solliciti, annulare scripta

beati patris nostri Francisci, in quibus sua intentio de

observantia regule declaratur._" Ubertino di Casali, _apud

Archiv._, iii., pp. 168-169.

[5] Italy is too obliging to artists, archæologists, and

scholars not to do them the favor of disposing in a more

practical manner this trust, the most precious of all Umbria.

Even with the indefatigable kindness of the curator, M.

Alessandro, and of the municipality of Assisi, it is very

difficult to profit by these treasures heaped up in a dark room

without a table to write upon.

[6] In particular by Ehrle: _Die historischen Handschriften von

S. Francesco in Assisi._ _Archiv._, t. i., p. 484.

[7] See pages 252 ff ... and 283.

[8] See pages 333 ff.

[9] See pages 259 ff.

[10] See page 325 ff.

[11] See pages 322 ff.

[12] See page 327.

[13] I give it entire: "_Regina sapientia, Dominus te salvet,

cum tua sorore sancta pura simplicitate.--Domina sancta

paupertas, Domimus te salvet, cum tua sorore sancta

humilitate.--Domina sancta caritas, Dominus te salvet, cum tua

sorrore sancta obedientia. Sanctissimæ virtutes omnes, vos

salvet Dominus, a quo venitis et proceditis._" Its authenticity

is guaranteed by a citation by Celano: 2 Cel., 3, 119. Cf. 126b

and 127a.

[14] See pages 304 f.

[15] I shall not recur to this: the text is in the Conformities

138a 2.

[16] The authenticity of this service, to which there is not a

single allusion in the biographies of St. Francis, is rendered

certain by the life of St. Clara: "_Officium crucis, prout

crucis amator Franciscus instituerat (Clara) didicit et affectu

simili frequentavit._" A. SS., Augusti, t. ii., p. 761a.

[17] It begins: _Illi qui volunt stare in heremis_. This text is

also found in the Conformities, 143a, 1. Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 43; see

p. 97.

[18] _Nudis pedibus incedentes, funiculis cincti, tunicis

griseis et talaribus peciatis, insuto capucio utentes ... nihil

sibi ultra noctem reservantes ... libros continue suos ... in

forulis a collo dependentes bajulantes._ Historia Anglorum,

Pertz: _Script._, t. 28, p. 397. Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 135; _Fior._, 5;

_Spec._, 45b.

[19] See page 322 n.

[20] See page 252.

[21] See page 157.

[22] See pages 318 ff.

[23] See page 239.

[24] See page 327.

[25] See page 262.

[26] _a._ _Sanctus Dominus Deus noster._ Cf. _Spec._, 126a;

_Firmamentum_, 18b, 2; _Conform._, 202b, 1.

_b._ _Ave Domina sancta._ Cf. _Spec._, 127a; _Conform._, 138a, 2.

_c._ _Sancta Maria virgo._ Cf. _Spec._, 126b; _Conform._, 202b, 2.

[27] Vide S. François, in 4to, Paris. 1885 (Plon), p. 233. The

authenticity of this benediction appears to be well established,

since it was already jealously guarded during the life of Thomas

of Celano. No one has ever dreamed of requiring historical proof

of this writing. Is this perhaps a mistake? The middle of the

sheet is taken up with the benediction which was dictated to

Brother Leo: _Benedicat tibi Dominus et custodiat te, ostendat

faciem suam tibi et misereatur tui convertat vultum suum ad te

et det tibi pacem._ At the bottom, Francis added the letter

_tau_. ~[Greek: Tau]~, which was, so to speak, his signature

(Bon., 51; 308), and the words: _Frater Leo Dominus benedicat te_.

Then when this memorial became a part of the relics of the

Saint, Brother Leo, to authenticate it in a measure, added the

following notes: toward the middle: _Beatus Franciscus

scripsit manu sua istam benedictionem mihi fratri Leoni_;

toward the close: _Simili modo fecit istud signum thau cum

capite manu sua_. But the most valuable annotation is found at

the top of the sheet: _Beatus Franciscus duobus annis ante

mortem suam fecit quadragesimam in loco Alvernæ ad honorem

Beatæ Virginia Mariæ matris Dei et beati Michael archangeli a

festo assumptionis sanctæ Mariæ Virginis usque ad festum

sancti Michael septembris et facta est super eum manus Domini

per visionem et allucotionem seraphym et impressionem

stigmatum in corpore suo. Fecit has laudes ex alio latere

catule scriptas et manu, sua scripsit gratias agens Domino de

beneficio sibi collato._ Vide 2 Cel., 2, 18.

[28] Wadding gives the text according to St. Bernardino da

Siena. _Opera_, t. iv., _sermo_ 16, _extraord. et sermo feriæ

sextæ Parasceves_. Amoni: _Legenda trium sociorum_, p. 166.

[29] Wadding has drawn the text from St. Bernardino, _loc.

cit._, _sermo_ iv., _extraord._ It was also reproduced by Amoni,

_loc. cit._, p. 165. Two very curious versions may be found in

the Miscellanea, 1888, pp. 96 and 190.

[30] 2 Cel., 3, 35. This took place under the vicariat of Pietro

di Catania; consequently between September 29, 1220, and March

10, 1221.

* * * * *

II

BIOGRAPHIES PROPERLY SO CALLED

I. PRELIMINARY NOTE

To form a somewhat exact notion of the documents which are to occupy us,

we must put them back into the midst of the circumstances in which they

appeared, study them in detail, and determine the special value of each

one.

Here, more than anywhere else, we must beware of facile theories and

hasty generalizations. The same life described by two equally truthful

contemporaries may take on a very different coloring. This is especially

the case if the man concerned has aroused enthusiasm and wrath, if his

inmost thought, his works, have been the subject of discussion, if the

very men who were commissioned to realize his ideals and carry on his

work are divided, and at odds with one another.

This was the case with St. Francis. In his lifetime and before his own

eyes divergences manifested themselves, at first secretly, then in the

light of day.

In a rapture of love he went from cottage to cottage, from castle to

castle, preaching absolute poverty; but that buoyant enthusiasm, that

unbounded idealism, could not last long. The Order of the Brothers Minor

in process of growth was open not only to a few choice spirits aflame

with mystic fervor, but to all men who aspired after a religious

reformation; pious laymen, monks undeceived as to the virtues of the

ancient Orders, priests shocked at the vices of the secular clergy, all

brought with them--unintentionally no doubt and even unconsciously--too

much of their old man not by degrees to transform the institution.

Francis perceived the peril several years before his death, and made

every effort to avert it. Even in his dying hour we see him summoning

all his powers to declare his Will once again, and as clearly as

possible, and to conjure his Brothers never to touch the Rule, even

under pretext of commenting upon or explaining it. Alas! four years had

not rolled away when Gregory IX., at the prayer of the Brothers

themselves, became the first one of a long series of pontiffs who have

explained the Rule.[1]

Poverty, as Francis understood it, soon became only a memory. The

unexampled success of the Order brought to it not merely new recruits,

but money. How refuse it when there were so many works to found? Many of

the friars discovered that their master had exaggerated many things,

that shades of meaning were to be observed in the Rule, for example,

between counsels and precepts. The door once opened to interpretations,

it became impossible to close it. The Franciscan family began to be

divided into opposing parties often difficult to distinguish.

At first there were a few restless, undisciplined men who grouped

themselves around the older friars. The latter, in their character of

first companions of the Saint, found a moral authority often greater

than the official authority of the ministers and guardians. The people

turned to them by instinct as to the true continuers of St. Francis's

work. They were not far from right.

They had the vigor, the vehemence of absolute convictions; they could

not have temporized had they desired to do so. When they emerged from

their hermitages in the Apennines, their eyes shining with the fever of

their ideas, absorbed in contemplation, their whole being spoke of the

radiant visions they enjoyed; and the amazed and subdued multitude

would kneel to kiss the prints of their feet with hearts mysteriously

stirred.

A larger group was that of those Brothers who condemned these methods

without being any the less saints. Born far away from Umbria, in

countries where nature seems to be a step-mother, where adoration, far

from being the instinctive act of a happy soul soaring upward to bless

the heavenly Father, is, on the contrary, the despairing cry of an atom

lost in immensity, they desired above all things a religious

reformation, rational and profound. They dreamed of bringing the Church

back to the purity of the ancient days, and saw in the vow of poverty,

understood in its largest sense, the best means of struggling against

the vices of the clergy; but they forgot the freshness, the Italian

gayety, the sunny poetry that there had been in Francis's mission.

Full of admiration for him, they yet desired to enlarge the foundations

of his work, and for that they would neglect no means of influence,

certainly not learning.

This tendency was the dominant one in France, Germany, and England. In

Italy it was represented by a very powerful party, powerful if not in

the number, at least in the authority, of its representatives. This was

the party favored by the papacy. It was the party of Brother Elias and

all the ministers-general of the Order in the thirteenth century, if we

except Giovanni di Parma (1247-1257) and Raimondo Gaufridi (1289-1295).

In Italy a third group, the liberals, was much more numerous; men of

mediocrity to whom monastic life appeared the most facile existence,

vagrant monks happy to secure an aftermath of success by displaying the

new Rule, formed in this country the greater part of the Franciscan

family.

We can understand without difficulty that documents emanating from such

different quarters must bear the impress of their origin. The men who

are to bring us their testimony are combatants in the struggle over the

question of poverty, a struggle which for two centuries agitated the

Church, aroused all consciences, and which had its monsters and its

martyrs.

To determine the value of these witnesses we must first of all discover

their origin. It is evident that the narratives of the no-compromise

party of the right or the left can have but slender value where

controverted points are concerned; whence the conclusion that the

authority of a narrator may vary from page to page, or even from line to

line.

These considerations, so simple that one almost needs to beg pardon for

uttering them, have not, however, guided those who have studied St.

Francis's life. The most learned, like Wadding and Papini, have brought

together the narratives of different biographers, here and there pruning

those that are too contradictory; but they have done this at random,

with neither rule nor method, guided by the impression of the moment.

The long work of the Bollandist Suysken is vitiated by an analogous

fault; fixed in his principle that the oldest documents are always the

best,[2] he takes his stand upon the first Life of Thomas of Celano as

upon an impregnable rock, and judges all other legends by that one.[3]

When we connect the documents with the disturbed circumstances which

brought them into being, some of them lose a little of their authority,

others which have been neglected, as being in contradiction with

witnesses who have become so to say official, suddenly recover credit,

and in fact all gain a new life which doubles their interest.

This altered point of view in the valuation of the sources, this

criticism which I am inclined to call reciprocal and organic, brings

about profound alterations in the biography of St. Francis. By a

phenomenon which may appear strange we end by sketching a portrait of

him much more like that which exists in the popular imagination of Italy

than that made by the learned historians above mentioned.

When Francis died (1226) the parties which divided the Order had already

entered into conflict. That event precipitated the crisis: Brother Elias

had been for five years exercising the functions of minister-general

with the title of vicar. He displayed an amazing activity. Intrenched in

the confidence of Gregory IX. he removed the _Zelanti_ from their

charges, strengthened the discipline even in the most remote provinces,

obtained numerous privileges from the curia, and with incredible

rapidity prepared for the building of the double basilica, destined for

the repose of the ashes of the Stigmatized Saint; but notwithstanding

all his efforts, the chapter of 1227 set him aside and chose Giovanni

Parenti as minister-general.

Furious at this check, he immediately set all influences to work to be

chosen at the following chapter. It even seems as if he paid no

attention to the nomination of Giovanni Parenti, and continued to go on

as if he had been minister.[4]

Very popular among the Assisans, who were dazzled by the magnificence of

the monument which was springing up on the _Hill of Hell_, now become

the _Hill of Paradise_, sure of being supported by a considerable party

in the Order and by the pope, he pushed forward the work on the basilica

with a decision and success perhaps unique in the annals of

architecture.[5]

All this could not be done without arousing the indignation of the

Zealots of poverty. When they saw a monumental poor-box, designed to

receive the alms of the faithful, upon the tomb of him who had forbidden

his disciples the mere contact of money, it seemed to them that

Francis's prophecy of the apostasy of a part of the Order was about to

be fulfilled. A tempest of revolt swept over the hermitages of Umbria.

Must they not, by any means, prevent this abomination in the holy place?

They knew that Elias was terrible in his severities, but his opponents

felt in themselves courage to go to the last extremity, and suffer

everything to defend their convictions. One day the poor-box was found

shattered by Brother Leo and his friends.[6]

To this degree of intensity the struggle had arrived. At this crisis the

first legend appeared.

II. First Life by Thomas of Celano[7]

Thomas of Celano, in writing this legend, to which he was later to

return for its completion, obeyed an express order of Pope Gregory

IX.[8]

Why did he not apply to one of the Brothers of the Saint's immediate

circle? The talent of this author might explain this choice, but

besides the fact that literary considerations would in this case hold a

secondary place, Brother Leo and several others proved later that they

also knew how to handle the pen.

If Celano was put in trust with the official biography, it is because,

being equally in sympathy with Gregory IX. and Brother Elias, his

absence had kept him out of the conflicts which had marked the last

years of Francis's life. Of an irenic temper, he belonged to the

category of those souls who easily persuade themselves that obedience is

the first of virtues, that every superior is a saint; and if unluckily

he is not, that we should none the less act as though he were.

We have some knowledge of his life. A native of Celano in the Abruzzi,

he discreetly observes that his family was noble, even adding, with a

touch of artless simplicity, that the master had a peculiar regard for

noble and educated Brothers. He entered the Order about 1215,[9] on

the return of Francis from Spain.

At the chapter of 1221 Cæsar of Speyer, charged with the mission to

Germany, took him among those who were to accompany him.[10] In 1223 he

was named custode of Mayence, Worms, Cologne, and Speyer. In April of

the same year, when Cæsar returned to Italy, devoured with the longing

to see St. Francis again, he commissioned Celano to execute his

functions until the arrival of the new provincial.[11]

We have no information as to where he was after the chapter-general held

at Speyer September 8, 1223. He must have been in Assisi in 1228, for

his account of the canonization is that of an eye-witness. He was there

again in 1230, and doubtless clothed with an important office, since he

could commit to Brother Giordano the relics of St. Francis.[12]

Written in a pleasing style, very often poetic, his work breathes an

affecting admiration for his hero; his testimony at once makes itself

felt as sincere and true: when he is partial it is without intention and

even without his knowledge. The weak point in this biography is the

picture which it outlines of the relations between Brother Elias and the

founder of the Order: from the chapters devoted to the last two years we

receive a very clear impression that Elias was named by Francis to

succeed him.[13]

Now if we reflect that at the time when Celano wrote, Giovanni Parenti

was minister-general, we at once perceive the bearing of these

indications.[14] Every opportunity is seized to give a preponderating

importance to Elias.[15] It is a true manifesto in his favor.

Have we reason to blame Celano? I think not. We must simply remember

that his work might with justice be called the legend of Gregory IX.

Elias was the pope's man, and the biography is worked up from the

information he gave. He could not avoid dwelling with peculiar

satisfaction upon his intimacy with Francis.

On the other hand, we cannot expect to find here such details as might

have sustained the pretension of the adversaries of Elias, those unruly

Zealots who were already proudly adorning themselves with the title of

_Companions of the Saint_ and endeavoring to constitute a sort of

spiritual aristocracy in the Order. Among them were four who during the

last two years had not, so to say, quitted Francis. We can imagine how

difficult it was not to speak of them. Celano carefully omits to mention

their names under pretext of sparing their modesty;[16] but by the

praises lavished upon Gregory IX., Brother Elias,[17] St. Clara,[18]

and even upon very secondary persons, he shows that his discretion is

far from being always so alert.

All this is very serious, but we must not exaggerate it. There is an

evident partiality, but it would be unjust to go farther and believe, as

men did later, that the last part of Francis's life was an active

struggle against the very person of Elias. A struggle there surely was,

but it was against tendencies whose spring Francis did not perceive. He

carried with him to his tomb his delusion as to his co-laborer.

For that matter this defect is after all secondary so far as the

physiognomy of Francis himself is concerned. In Celano's Life, as in the

Three Companions or the Fioretti, he appears with a smile for all joys,

and floods of tears for all woes; we feel everywhere the restrained

emotion of the writer; his heart is subjected by the moral beauty of his

hero.

III. SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE ORDER FROM 1230-1244

When Thomas of Celano closed his legend he perceived more than anyone

the deficiencies of his work, for which he had been able to collect but

insufficient material.

Elias and the other Assisan brothers had told him of Francis's youth and

his activity in Umbria; but besides that he would have preferred,

whether from prudence or from love of peace, to keep silence upon

certain events,[19] there were long periods upon which he had not

received a single item of information.[20]

He therefore seems to indicate his intention of resuming and completing

his work.[21]

This is not the place to write the history of the Order, but a few facts

are necessary to put the documents into their proper surroundings.

Elected minister-general in 1232, Brother Elias took advantage of the

fact to labor with indomitable energy toward the realization of his own

ideas. In all the provinces new collections were organized for the

Basilica of Assisi, the work upon which was pushed with an activity

which however injured neither the strength of the edifice nor the

beauty of its details, which are as finished and perfect as those of any

monument in Europe.

We may conceive of the enormous sums which it had been necessary to

raise in order to complete such an enterprise in so short a time. More

than that, Brother Elias exacted absolute obedience from all his

subordinates; naming and removing the provincial ministers according to

his personal views, he neglected to convoke the chapter-general, and

sent his emissaries under the name of visitors into all the provinces to

secure the execution of his orders.

The moderate party in Germany, France, and England very soon found his

yoke insupportable. It was hard for them to be directed by an Italian

minister resident at Assisi, a small town quite aside from the highways

of civilization, entirely a stranger to the scientific movement

concentred in the universities of Oxford, Paris, and Bologna.

In the indignation of the _Zelanti_ against Elias and his contempt for

the Rule, they found a decisive support. Very soon the minister had for

his defence nothing but his own energy, and the favor of the pope and of

the few Italian moderates. By a great increase of vigilance and severity

he repressed several attempts at revolt.

His adversaries, however, succeeded in establishing secret intelligence

at the court of Rome; even the pope's confessor was gained; yet in spite

of all these circumstances, the success of the conspiracy was still

uncertain when the chapter of 1239 opened.

Gregory IX., still favorable to Elias,[22] presided. Fear gave sudden

courage to the conspirators; they threw their accusations in their

enemy's face.

Thomas of Eccleston gives a highly colored narrative of what took place.

Elias was proud, violent, even threatening. There were cries and

vociferations from both sides; they were about to come to blows when a

few words from the pope restored silence. He had made up his mind to

abandon his _protégé_. He asked for his resignation. Elias indignantly

refused.

Gregory IX. then explained that in keeping him in charge he had thought

himself acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority: that he

had no intention to dominate the Order, and, since the Brothers no

longer desired Elias, he declared him deposed from the generalate.

The joy of the victors, says Eccleston, was immense and ineffable. They

chose Alberto di Pisa, provincial of England, to succeed him, and from

that time bent all their efforts to represent Elias as a creature of

Frederick II.[23] The former minister wrote indeed to the pope to

explain his conduct, but the letter did not reach its destination. It

must have reached the hands of his successor, and not been sent forward;

when Alberto of Pisa died it was found in his tunic.[24]

All the fury of the aged pontiff was unchained against Elias. One must

read the documents to see to what a height his anger could rise. The

friar retorted with a virulence which though less wordy was far more

overpowering.[25]

These events gained an indescribable notoriety[26] all over Europe and

threw the Order into profound disturbance. Many of the partisans of

Elias became convinced that they had been deceived by an impostor, and

they drew toward the group of Zealots, who never ceased to demand the

observance pure and simple of the Rule and the Will.

Thomas of Celano was of this number.[27] With profound sadness he saw

the innumerable influences that were secretly undermining the Franciscan

institute and menacing it with ruin. Already a refrain was going the

rounds of the convents, singing the victory of Paris over Assisi, that

is, of learning over poverty.

The Zealots gained new courage. Unaccustomed to the subtleties of

ecclesiastical politics, they did not perceive that the pope, while

condemning Brother Elias, had in nowise modified the general course

which he had marked out for the Order. The ministers-general, Alberto di

Pisa, 1239-1240, Aymon of Faversham, 1240-1244, Crescentius de Jesi,

1244-1247, were all, with different shades of meaning, representatives

of the moderate party.

Thomas of Celano's first legend had become impossible. The prominence

there given to Elias was almost a scandal. The necessity of working it

over and completing it became clearly evident at the chapter of Genoa

(1244).

All the Brothers who had anything to tell about Francis's life were

invited to commit it to writing and send it to the minister Crescentius

de Jesi.[28] The latter immediately caused a tract to be drawn up in

the form of a dialogue, commencing with the words: "_Venerabilium gesta

Patrum_." So soon after as the time of Bernard de Besse, only fragments

of this were left.[29]

But happily several of the works which saw the light in consequence of

the decision of this chapter have been preserved to us. It is to this

that we owe the Legend of the Three Companions and the Second Life by

Thomas of Celano.

IV. LEGEND OF THE THREE COMPANIONS[30]

The life of St. Francis which has come down to us under the name of the

Legend of the Three Companions was finished on August 11, 1246, in a

little convent in the vale of Rieti, which appears often in the course

of this history, that of Greccio. This hermitage had been Francis's

favorite abode, especially in the latter part of his life. He had thus

made it doubly dear to the hearts of his disciples.[31] It naturally

became, from the earliest days of the Order, the headquarters of the

Observants,[32] and it remains through all the centuries one of the

purest centres of Franciscan piety.

The authors of this legend were men worthy to tell St. Francis's story,

and perhaps the most capable of doing it: the friars Leo, Angelo, and

Rufino. All three had lived in intimacy with him, and had been his

companions through the most important years. More than this, they took

the trouble to go to others for further information, particularly to

Filippo, the visitor of the Clarisses, to Illuminato di Rieti, Masseo di

Marignano, John, the confidant of Egidio, and Bernardo di Quintavalle.

Such names as these promise much, and happily we are not disappointed in

our expectation. As it has come down to us, this document is the only

one worthy from the point of view of history to be placed beside the

First Life by Celano.

The names of the authors and the date of the composition indicate before

examination the tendency with which it is likely to be in harmony. It is

the first manifesto of the Brothers who remained faithful to the spirit

and letter of the Rule. This is confirmed by an attentive reading; it is

at least as much a panegyric of Poverty as a history of St. Francis.

We naturally expect to see the Three Companions relating to us with a

very particular delight the innumerable features of the legends of which

Greccio was the theatre; we turn to the end of the volume, expecting to

find the story of the last years of which they were witnesses, and are

lost in surprise to find nothing of the kind.

While the first half of the work describes Francis's youth, filling out

here and there Celano's First Life, the second[33] is devoted to a

picture of the early days of the Order, a picture of incomparable

freshness and intensity of life; but strangely enough, after having told

us so much at length of Francis's youth and then of the first days of

the Order, the story abruptly leaps over from the year 1220 to the death

and the canonization, to which after all only a few pages are

given.[34]

This is too extraordinary to be the result of chance. What has happened?

It is evident that the Legend of the Three Companions as we have it

to-day is only a fragment of the original, which was no doubt revised,

corrected, and considerably cut down by the authorities of the Order

before they would permit it to be circulated.[35] If the authors had

been interrupted in their work, and obliged to cut short the end, as

might have been the case, they would have said so in their letter of

envoy, but there are still other arguments in favor of our hypothesis.

Brother Leo having had the first and principal part in the production of

the work of the Three Companions, it is often called Brother Leo's

Legend; now Brother Leo's Legend is several times cited by Ubertini di

Casali, arraigned before the court of Avignon by the party of the Common

Observance. Evidently Ubertini would have taken good care not to appeal

to an apocryphal document; a false citation would have been enough to

bring him to confusion, and his enemies would not have failed to make

the most of his imprudence. We have at hand all the documents of the

trial,[36] attacks, replies, counter replies, and nowhere do we see the

Liberals accuse their adversary of falsehood. For that matter, the

latter makes his citations with a precision that admits of no

cavil.[37] He appeals to writings to be found in a press in the

convent of Assisi, of which he gives sometimes a copy, sometimes an

original.[38] We are then authorized to conclude that we have here

fragments which have survived the suppression of the last and most

important part of the Legend of the Three Companions.

It is not surprising that the work of Francis's dearest friends should

have been so seriously mutilated. It was the manifesto of a party that

Crescentius was hunting down with all his power.

After the fleeting reaction of the generalate of Giovanni di Parma we

shall see a man of worth like St. Bonaventura moving for the suppression

of all the primitive legends that his own compilation may be substituted

for them.

It is truly singular that no one has perceived the fragmentary state of

the work of the Three Companions. The prologue alone might have

suggested this idea. Why should it take three to write a few pages? Why

this solemn enumeration of Brothers whose testimony and collaboration

are asked for? There would be a surprising disproportion between the

effort and the result.

More than all, the authors say that they shall not stop at relating the

miracles, but they desire above all to exhibit the ideas of Francis and

his life with the Brothers, but we search in vain for any account of

miracles in what we now have.[39]

An Italian translation of this legend, published by Father Stanislaus

Melchiorri,[40] has suddenly given me an indirect confirmation of this

point of view. This monk is only its publisher, and has simply been able

to discover that in 1577 it was taken from a very ancient manuscript by

a certain Muzio Achillei di San Severino.[41]

This Italian translation contained only the last chapters of the legend,

those which tell of the death, the stigmata, and the translation of the

remains.[42] It was, then, made at a time when the suppressed portion

had not been replaced by a short summary of the other legends.

From all this two conclusions emerge for the critics: 1. This final

summary has not the same authority as the rest of the work, since the

time when it was added is unknown. 2. Fragments of a legend by Brother

Leo or by the Three Companions scattered through later compilations may

be perfectly authentic.

In its present condition this legend of the Three Companions is the

finest piece of Franciscan literature, and one of the most delightful

productions of the Middle Ages. There is something indescribably sweet,

confiding, chaste, in these pages, an energy of virile youth which the

Fioretti suggest but never attain to. At more than six hundred years of

distance the purest dream that ever thrilled the Christian Church seems

to live again.

These friars of Greccio, who, scattered over the mountain, under the

shade of the olive-trees, passed their days in singing the Hymn of the

Sun, are the true models of the primitive Umbrian Masters. They are all

alike; they are awkwardly posed; everything in and around them sins

against the most elementary rules of art, and yet their memory pursues

you, and when you have long forgotten the works of impeccable modern

artists you recall without effort these creations of those unknown

painters; for love calls for love, and these vapid personages have very

true and pure hearts, a more than human love shines forth from their

whole being, they speak to you and make you better.

Such is this book, the first utterance of the Spiritual Franciscans, in

which we already see the coming to life of some of those bold doctrines

that not only divided the Franciscan family into two hostile branches,

but which were to bring some of their defenders to the heretic's

stake.[43]

V. FRAGMENTS OF THE SUPPRESSED PART OF THE LEGEND OF THE THREE

COMPANIONS

We may now take a step forward and try to group the fragments of the

Legend of the Three Companions, or of Brother Leo, which are to be found

in later writings.

We must here be more than ever on our guard against absolute theories;

one of the most fruitful principles of historic criticism is to prefer

contemporary documents, or at least those which are nearest them; but

even with these it is necessary to use a little discretion.

It seems impossible to attack the reasoning of the Bollandists, who

refuse to know anything of legends written after that of St. Bonaventura

(1260), under pretext that, coming after several other authorized

biographies, he was better situated than anyone for getting information

and completing the work of his predecessors.[44] In reality this is

absurd, for it assumes that Bonaventura undertook to write as a

historian. This is to forget that he wrote not only for the purpose of

edification, but also as minister-general of the Minor Brothers. From

this fact his first duty was to keep silent on many facts, and those not

the least interesting. What shall we say of a biography where Francis's

Will is not even mentioned?

It is easy to turn away from a writing of the fourteenth century, on the

ground that the author did not see what was going on a hundred years

before; still we must not forget that many books of the end of the

Middle Ages resemble those old mansions at which four or five generators

have toiled. An inscription on their front often only shows the touch of

the last restorer or the last destroyer, and the names which are set

forth with the greatest complacency are not always those of the real

workmen.

Such have been many Franciscan books; to attribute them to any one

author would be impracticable; very different hands have worked upon

them, and such an amalgam has its own charm and interest.

Turning them over--I had almost said associating with them--we come to

see clearly into this tangled web, for every work of man bears the trace

of the hand that made it: this trace may perhaps be of an almost

imperceptible delicacy; it exists none the less, ready to reveal itself

to practised eyes. What is more impersonal than the photograph of a

landscape or of a painting, and yet among several hundreds of proofs the

amateur will go straight to the work of the operator he prefers.

These reflections were suggested by the careful study of a curious book

printed many times since the sixteenth century, the _Speculum Vitæ S.

Francisci et sociorum ejus_.[45] A complete study of this work, its

sources, its printed editions, the numerous differences in the

manuscripts, would by itself require a volume and an epitome of the

history of the Order. I can give here only a few notes, taking for base

the oldest edition, that of 1504.

The confusion which reigns here is frightful. Incidents in the life of

Francis and his companions are brought together with no plan; several of

them are repeated after the interval of a few pages in a quite different

manner;[46] certain chapters are so awkwardly introduced that the

compiler has forgotten to remove the number that they bore in the work

from which he borrowed them;[47] finally, to our great surprise, we

find several _Incipit_.[48]

However, with a little perseverance we soon perceive a few openings in

the labyrinth. In the first place, here are several chapters of the

legend of Bonaventura which seem to have been put in the van as if to

protect the rest of the book. If we abstract them and the whole series

of chapters from the Fioretti, we shall have diminished the work by

nearly three-quarters.

If we take away two more chapters taken from St. Bernard of Clairvaux

and those containing Franciscan prayers, or various attestations

concerning the indulgence of Portiuncula, we finally arrive at a sort of

residue, if the expression may be forgiven, of a remarkable homogeneity.

Here the style is very different from that in the surrounding pages,

closely recalling that of the Three Companions; a single thought

inspires these pages, that the corner-stone of the Order is the love of

poverty.

Why should we not have here some fragments of the original legend of the

Three Companions? We find here nothing which does not fit in with what

we know, nothing which suggests the embellishments of a late tradition.

To confirm this hypothesis come different passages which we find cited

by Ubertini di Casali and by Angelo Clareno as being by Brother Leo, and

an attentive comparison of the text shows that these authors can neither

have drawn them from the Speculum nor the Speculum from them.

There is, besides, one phrase which, apart from the inspiration and

style, will suffice at the first glance to mark the common origin of

most of these pieces.[49] _Nos qui cum ipso fuimus_. "We who have been

with him." These words, which recur in almost every incident,[49] are

in many cases only a grateful tribute to their spiritual father, but

sometimes, too, they have a touch of bitterness. These hermits of

Greccio suddenly recall to mind their rights. Are we not the only, the

true interpreters of the Saint's instructions--we who lived continually

with him; we who, hour after hour, have meditated upon his words, his

sighs, and his hymns?

We can understand that such pretensions were not to the taste of the

Common Observance, and that Crescentius, with an incontestable

authority, has suppressed nearly all this legend.[51]

As for the fragments that have been preserved to us, though they furnish

many details about the last years of St. Francis's life, they still are

not those whose loss is so much to be regretted. The authors who

reproduce them were defending a cause. We owe them little more than the

incidents which in one way or another concern the question of poverty.

They had nothing to do with the other accounts, as they were not writing

a biography. But even within these narrow limits these fragments are in

the first order of importance; and I have not hesitated to use them

largely. It is needless to say that while ascribing their origin to the

Three Companions, and in particular to Brother Leo, we must not suppose

that we have the very letter in the texts which have come down to us.

The pieces given by Ubertini di Casali and Angelo Clareno are actual

citations, and deserve full confidence as such. As for those which are

preserved to us in the Speculum, they may often have been abridged,

explanatory notes may have slipped into the text, but nowhere do we find

interpolations in the bad sense of the word.[52]

Finally, if we compare the fragments with the corresponding accounts in

the Second Life of Celano, we see that the latter has often borrowed

verbatim from Brother Leo, but generally he has considerably abridged

the passages, adding reflections here and there, especially retouching

the style to make it more elegant.

Such a comparison soon proves that Brother Leo's narratives are the

original and that it is impossible to see in them a later amplification

of those of Thomas of Celano, as we might at first be tempted to think

them.[53]

VI. SECOND LIFE BY THOMAS OF CELANO[54]

_First Part_

In consequence of the decision of the chapter of 1244 search was begun

in all quarters for memorials of the early times of the Order. In view

of the ardor of this inquiry, in which zeal for the glory of the

Franciscan institute certainly cast the interests of history into the

background, the minister-general, Crescentius, was obliged to take

certain precautions.

Many of the pieces that he received were doing double duty; others might

contradict one another; many of them, under color of telling the life of

the Saint, had no other object than to oppose the present to the past.

It soon became imperative to constitute a sort of commission charged to

study and coördinate all this matter.[55] What more natural than to put

Thomas of Celano at its head? Ever since the approbation of the first

legend by Gregory IX. he had appeared to be in a sense the official

historiographer of the Order.[56]

This view accords perfectly with the contents of the seventeen chapters

which contain the first part of the second legend. It offers itself at

the outset as a compilation. Celano is surrounded with companions who

help him.[57] A more attentive examination shows that its principal

source is the Legend of the Three Companions, which the compilers

worked over, sometimes filling out certain details, more often making

large excisions.

Everything that does not concern St. Francis is ruthlessly proscribed;

we feel the well-defined purpose to leave in the background the

disciples who so complacently placed themselves in the foreground.[58]

The work of the Three Companions had been finished August 11, 1246. On

July 13, 1247, the chapter of Lyons put an end to the powers of

Crescentius. It is, therefore, between these two dates that we must

place the composition of the first part of Thomas of Celano's Second

Life.[59]

VII. SECOND LIFE BY THOMAS OF CELANO[59]

_Second Part_

The election of Giovanni di Parma (1247-1257) as successor of

Crescentius was a victory for the Zealots. This man, in whose work-table

the birds came to make their nests,[61] was to astonish the world by

his virtues. No one saw more deeply into St. Francis's heart, no one was

more worthy to take up and continue his work.

He soon asked Celano to resume his work.[62] The latter was perhaps

alone at first, but little by little a group of collaborators formed

itself anew about him.[63] Thenceforth nothing prevented his doing with

that portion of the work of the Three Companions which Crescentius had

suppressed what he had already done with the part he had approved.

The Legend of Brother Leo has thus come down to us, entirely worked over

by Thomas of Celano, abridged and with all its freshness gone, but still

of capital importance in the absence of the major part of the original.

The events of which we possess two accounts permit us to measure the

extent of our loss. We find, in fact, in Celano's compilation all that

we expected to find in the Three Companions: the incidents belong

especially to the last two years of Francis's life, and the scene of

many of them is either Greccio or one of the hermitages of the vale of

Rieti;[64] according to tradition, Brother Leo was the hero of a great

number of the incidents here related[65] and all the citations that

Ubertini di Casali makes from Brother Leo's book find their

correspondents here.[66]

This second part of the Second Life perfectly reflects the new

circumstances to which it owes its existence. The question of Poverty

dominates everything;[67] the struggle between the two parties in the

Order reveals itself on every page; the collaborators are determined

that each event narrated shall be an indirect lesson to the Liberals, to

whom they oppose the Spirituals; the popes had commented on the Rule in

the large sense; they, on their side, undertook to comment on it in a

sense at once literal and spiritual, by the actions and words of its

author himself.

History has hardly any part here except as the vehicle of a thesis, a

fact which diminishes nothing of the historic value of the information

given in the course of these pages. But while in Celano's First Life and

in the Legend of the Three Companions the facts succeed one another

organically, here they are placed side by side. Therefore when we come

to read this work we are sensible of a fall; even from the literary

point of view the inferiority makes itself cruelly felt. Instead of a

poem we have before us a catalogue, very cleverly made, it is true, but

with no power to move us.

VIII. NOTES ON A FEW SECONDARY DOCUMENTS

a. _Celano's Life of St. Francis for Use in the Choir._

Thomas of Celano made also a short legend for use in the choir. It is

divided into nine lessons and served for the Franciscan breviaries up to

the time when St. Bonaventura made his _Legenda Minor_.

That of Celano may be found in part (the first three lessons) in the

Assisi MS. 338, fol. 52a-53b; it is preceded by a letter of envoy:

"_Rogasti me frater Benedicte, ut de legenda B. P. N. F. quædam

exciperem et in novem lectionum seriem ordinarem_ ... etc. _B.

Franciscus de civitate Assisii ortus a puerilibus annis nutritus extitit

insolenter._"

This work has no historic importance.

b. _Life of St. Francis in Verse._

In the list of biographers has sometimes been counted a poem in

hexameter verse[68] the text of which was edited in 1882 by the

lamented Cristofani.[69]

This work does not furnish a single new historic note. It is the Life by

Celano in verse and nothing more; the author's desire was to figure as a

poet. It is superfluous, therefore, to concern ourselves with it.[69]

c. _Biography of St. Francis by Giovanni di Ceperano._

One of the biographies which disappeared, no doubt in consequence of the

decision of the chapter of 1266,[71] is that of Giovanni di Ceperano.

The resemblance of his name to that of Thomas of Celano has occasioned

much confusion.[72] The most precious information which we have

respecting him is given by Bernard of Besse in the opening of his _De

laudibus St. Francisci_: "_Plenam virtutibus B. Francisci vitam scripsit

in Italia exquisitæ vir eloquentiæ fr. Thomas jubente Domino Gregorio

papa IX. et eam quæ incipit: Quasi stella matutina vir venerabilis

Dominus et fertur Joannes, Apostolicæ sedis notarius._"[73]

In the face of so precise a text all doubt as to the existence of the

work of Giovanni di Ceperano is impossible. The Reverend Father Denifle

has been able to throw new light upon this question. In a manuscript

containing the liturgy of the Brothers Minor and finished in 1256 he

found the nine lessons for the festival of St. Francis preceded by the

title: _Ex gestis ejus abbreviatis quæ sic incipiunt: Quasi stella_

(_Zeitschrift für kath. Theol._, vii., p. 710. Cf. _Archiv._, i., p.

148). This summary of Ceperano's work gives, as we should expect, no new

information; but perhaps we need not despair of finding the very work of

this author.

d. _Life of St. Francis by Brother Julian._

It was doubtless about 1230 that Brother Julian, the Teuton, who had

been chapel-master at the court of the King of France, was commissioned

to put the finishing touches to the Office of St. Francis.[74]

Evidently such a work would contain nothing original, and its loss is

little felt.

IX. LEGEND OF ST. BONAVENTURA

Under the generalate of Giovanni di Parma (1247-1257) the Franciscan

parties underwent modifications, in consequence of which their

opposition became still more striking than before.

The Zelanti, with the minister-general at their head, enthusiastically

adopted the views of Gioacchino di Fiore. The predictions of the

Calabrian abbot corresponded too well with their inmost convictions for

any other course to be possible: they seemed to see Francis, as a new

Christ, inaugurating the third era of the world.

For a few years these dreams moved all Europe; the faith of the

Joachimites was so ardent that it made its way by its own force;

sceptics like Salimbeni told themselves that on the whole it was surely

wiser not to be taken unawares by the great catastrophe of 1260, and

hastened in crowds to the cell of Hyères to be initiated by Hugues de

Digne in the mysteries of the new times: as to the people, they waited,

trembling, divided between hope and terror. Nevertheless their

adversaries did not consider themselves beaten, and the Liberal party

still remained the most numerous. Of an angelic purity, Giovanni di

Parma believed in the omnipotence of example: events showed how mistaken

he was; at the close of his term of office scandals were not less

flagrant than ten years earlier.[75]

Between these two extreme parties, against which he was to proceed with

equal rigor, stood that of the Moderates, to which belonged St.

Bonaventura.[76]

A mystic, but of a formal and orthodox mysticism, he saw the revolution

toward which the Church was hastening if the party of the eternal Gospel

was to triumph; its victory would not be that of this or that heresy in

detail, it would be, with brief delay, the ruin of the entire

ecclesiastical edifice; he was too perspicacious not to see that in the

last analysis the struggle then going on was that of the individual

conscience against authority. This explains, and up to a certain point

gains him pardon for, his severities against his opponents; he was

supported by the court of Rome and by all those who desired to make the

Order a school at once of piety and of learning.

No sooner was he elected general than, with a purpose that never knew

hesitation, and a will whose firmness made itself everywhere felt, he

took his steps to forward this double aim. On the very morrow of his

nomination he sketched the programme of reforms against the Liberal

party, and at the same time secured the summons of the Joachimite

Brothers before an ecclesiastical tribunal at Città-della-Pieve. This

tribunal condemned them to perpetual imprisonment, and it needed the

personal intervention of Cardinal Ottobonus, the future Adrian V., for

Giovanni di Parma to be left free to retire to the Convent of Greccio.

The first chapter held under the presidence of Bonaventura, in the

extended decisions of which we find everywhere tokens of his influence,

assembled at Narbonne in 1260. He was then commissioned to compose a new

life of St. Francis.[77]

We easily understand the anxieties to which this decision of the

Brothers was an answer. The number of legends had greatly increased, for

besides those which we have first studied or noted there were others in

existence which have completely disappeared, and it had become equally

difficult for the Brothers who went forth on missions either to make a

choice between them or to carry them all.

The course of the new historian was therefore clearly marked out: he

must do the work of compiler and peacemaker. He failed in neither. His