book is a true sheaf, or rather it is a millstone under which the

indefatigable author has pressed, somewhat at hazard, the sheaves of his

predecessors. Most of the time he inserts them just as they are,

confining himself to the work of harvesting them and weeding out the

tares.

Therefore, when we reach the end of this voluminous work we have a very

vague impression of St. Francis. We see that he was a saint, a very

great saint, since he performed an innumerable quantity of miracles,

great and small; but we feel very much as if we had been going through a

shop of objects of piety. All these statues, whether they are called St.

Anthony the Abbot, St. Dominic, St. Theresa, or St. Vincent de Paul,

have the same expression of mincing humility, of a somewhat shallow

ecstasy. These are saints, if you please, miracle-workers; they are not

men; he who made them made them by rule, by process; he has put nothing

of his heart in these ever-bowed foreheads, these lips with their wan

smile.

God forbid that I should say or think that St. Bonaventura was not

worthy to write a life of St. Francis, but the circumstances controlled

his work, and it is no injustice to him to say that it is fortunate for

Francis, and especially for us, that we have another biography of the

Poverello than that of the Seraphic Doctor.

Three years after, in 1263, he brought his completed work to the

chapter-general convoked under his presidence at Pisa. It was there

solemnly approved.[78]

It is impossible to say whether they thought that the presence of the

new legend would suffice to put the old ones out of mind, but it seems

that at this time nothing was said about the latter.

It was not so at the following chapter. This one, held at Paris, came to

a decision destined to have disastrous results for the primitive

Franciscan documents. This decree, emanating from an assembly presided

over by Bonaventura in person, is too important not to be quoted

textually: "Item, the Chapter-general ordains on obedience that all the

legends of the Blessed Francis formerly made shall be destroyed. The

Brothers who shall find any without the Order must try to make away with

them since the legend made by the General is compiled from accounts of

three who almost always accompanied the Blessed Francis; all that they

could certainly know and all that is proven has been carefully inserted

therein."[79] It would have been difficult to be more precise. We see

the perseverance with which Bonaventura carried on his struggle against

the extreme parties. This decree explains the almost complete

disappearance of the manuscripts of Celano and the Three Companions,

since in certain collections even those of Bonaventura's legend are

hardly to be found.

As we have seen, Bonaventura aimed to write a sort of official or

canonical biography; he succeeded only too well. Most of the accounts

that we already know have gone into his collection, but not without at

times suffering profound mutilations. We are not surprised to find him

passing over Francis's youth with more discretion than Celano in the

First Life, but we regret to find him ornamenting and materializing some

of the loveliest incidents of the earlier legends.

It is not enough for him that Francis hears the crucifix of St. Daraian

speak; he pauses to lay stress on the assertion that he heard it

_corporeis auribus_ and that no one was in the chapel at that moment!

Brother Monaldo at the chapter of Arles sees St. Francis appear

_corporeis oculis_. He often abridges his predecessors, but this is not

his invariable rule. When he reaches the account of the stigmata he

devotes long pages to it,[79] relates a sort of consultation held by

St. Francis as to whether he could conceal them, and adds several

miracles due to these sacred wounds; further on he returns to the

subject to show a certain Girolamo, Knight of Assisi, desiring to touch

with his hands the miraculous nails.[81] On the other hand, he uses a

significant discretion wherever the companions of the Saint are in

question. He names only three of the first eleven disciples,[82] and

no more mentions Brothers Leo, Angelo, Rufino, Masseo, than their

adversary, Brother Elias.

As to the incidents which we find for the first time in this collection,

they hardly make us regret the unknown sources which must have been at

the service of the famous Doctor; it would appear that the healing of

Morico, restored to health by a few pellets of bread soaked in the oil

of the lamp which burned before the altar of the Virgin,[83] has little

more importance for the life of St. Francis than the story of the sheep

given to Giacomina di Settesoli which awakened its mistress to summon

her to go to mass.[84] What shall we think of that other sheep, of

Portiuncula, which hastened to the choir whenever it heard the psalmody

of the friars, and kneeled devoutly for the elevation of the Holy

Sacrament?[85]

All these incidents, the list of which might be enlarged,[86] betrays

the working-over of the legend. St. Francis becomes a great

thaumaturgist, but his physiognomy loses its originality.

The greatest fault of this work is, in fact, the vagueness of the figure

of the Saint. While in Celano there are the large lines of a

soul-history, a sketch of the affecting drama of a man who attains to

the conquest of himself, with Bonaventura all this interior action

disappears before divine interventions; his heart is, so to speak, the

geometrical locality of a certain number of visitants; he is a passive

instrument in the hands of God, and we really cannot see why he should

have been chosen rather than another.

And yet Bonaventura was an Italian; he had seen Umbria; he must have

knelt and celebrated the sacred mysteries in Portiuncula, that cradle of

the noblest of religious reformations; he had conversed with Brother

Egidio, and must have heard from his lips an echo of the first

Franciscan fervor; but, alas! nothing of that rapture passed into his

book, and if the truth must be told, I find it quite inferior to much

later documents, to the Fioretti, for example; for they understood, at

least in part, the soul of Francis; they felt the throbbing of that

heart, with all its sensitiveness, admiration, indulgence, love,

independence, and absence of carefulness.

X. DE LAUDIBUS OF BERNARD OF BESSE[87]

Bonaventura's work did not discourage the biographers. The historic

value of their labor is almost nothing, and we shall not even attempt to

catalogue them.

Bernard of Besse, a native probably of the south of France[88] and

secretary of Bonaventura,[89] made a summary of the earlier legends.

This work, which brings us no authentic historic indication, is

interesting only for the care with which the author has noted the places

where repose the Brothers who died in odor of sanctity, and relates a

mass of visions all tending to prove the excellence of the Order.[89]

Still the publication of this document will perform the valuable office

of throwing a little light upon the difficult question of the sources.

Several passages of the _De laudibus_ appear again textually in the

Speculum,[91] and as a single glance is enough to show that the

Speculum did not copy the _De laudibus_, it must be that Bernard of

Besse had before him a copy, if not of the Speculum at least of a

document of the same kind.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Bull _Quo elongati_ of September 28, 1230. See p. 336.

[2] It is needless to say that I have no desire to put myself in

opposition to that principle, one of the most fruitful of

criticism, but still it should not be employed alone.

[3] The learned works that have appeared in Germany in late

years err in the same way. They will be found cited in the body

of the work.

[4] Eccl., 13. _Voluerunt ipsi, quos ad capitulam concesserat

venire frater Helias; nam omnes concessit, etc._ _An. fr., t.

i._, p. 241. Cf. _Mon. Germ. hist. Script._, t., 28, p. 564.

[5] The death of Francis occurred on October 3, 1226. On March

29, 1228, Elias acquired the site for the basilica. The

_Instrumentum donationis_ is still preserved at Assisi: Piece

No. 1 of the twelfth package of _Instrumenta diversa pertinentia

ad Sacrum Conventum_. It has been published by Thode: _Franz von

Assisi_, p. 359.

On July 17th of the same year, the day after the canonization,

Gregory IX. solemnly laid the first stone. Less than two years

afterward the Lower church was finished, and on May 25, 1230,

the body of the Saint was carried there. In 1236 the Upper

church was finished. It was already decorated with a first

series of frescos, and Giunta Pisano painted Elias, life size,

kneeling at the foot of the crucifix over the entrance to the

choir. In 1239 everything was finished, and the campanile

received the famous bells whose chimes still delight all the

valley of Umbria. Thus, then, three months and a half before the

canonization, Elias received the site of the basilica. The act

of canonization commenced at the end of May, 1228 (1 Cel., 123

and 124. Cf. Potthast, 8194ff).

[6] _Spec._, 167a. Cf. _An. fr._, ii., p. 45 and note.

[7] The Bollandists followed the text (A. SS., Octobris, t. ii.,

pp. 683-723) of a manuscript of the Cistercian abbey of Longpont

in the diocese of Soissons. It has since been published in Rome

in 1806, without the name of the editor (in reality by the

Convent Father Rinaldi), under the title: _Seraphici viri S.

Francisci Assisiatis vitæ dual auctore B. Thoma de Celano_,

according to a manuscript (of Fallerone, in the March of Ancona)

which was stolen in the vicinity of Terni by brigands from the

Brother charged with bringing it back. The second text was

reproduced at Rome in 1880 by Canon Amoni: _Vita prima S.

Francisci, auctore B. Thoma de Celano. Roma, tipografia della

pace_, 1880, in 8vo, 42 pp. The citations will follow the

divisions made by the Bollandists, but in many important

passages the Rinaldi-Amoni text gives better readings than that

of the Bollandists. The latter has been here and there retouched

and filled out. See, for example, 1 Cel., 24 and 31. As for the

manuscripts, Father Denifle thinks that the oldest of those

which are known is that at Barcelona: _Archivo de la corona de

Aragon_, Ripoll, n. 41 (_Archiv._, t. i., p. 148). There is one

in the National Library of Paris, Latin alcove, No. 3817, which

includes a curious note: "_Apud Perusium felix domnus papa

Gregorius nonus gloriosi secundo pontificus sui anno, quinto

kal. martii (February 25, 1229) legendam hanc recepit,

confirmavit et censuit fore tenendam._" Another manuscript,

which merits attention, both because of its age, thirteenth

century, and because of the correction in the text, and which

appears to have escaped the researches of the students of the

Franciscans, is the one owned by the École de Médicine at

Montpellier, No. 30, in vellum folio: _Passionale vetus ecclesiæ

S. Benigni divionensis_. The story of Celano occupies in it the

fos. 257a-271b. The text ends abruptly in the middle of

paragraph 112 with _supiriis ostendebant_. Except for this final

break it is complete. Cf. Archives Pertz, t. vii., pp. 195 and

196. Vide General catalogue of the manuscripts of the public

libraries of the departments, t. i., p. 295.

[8] Vide 1 Cel., Prol. _Jubente domino et glorioso Papa

Gregorio_. Celano wrote it after the canonization (July 16,

1228) and before February 25, 1229, for the date indicated above

raises no difficulty.

[9] 1 Cel., 56. Perhaps he was the son of that Thomas, Count of

Celano, to whom Ryccardi di S. Germano so often made allusion in

his chronicle: 1219-1223. See also two letters of Frederick II.

to Honorius III., on April 24 and 25, 1223, published in

Winckelmann: _Acta imperii inedita_, t. i., p. 232.

[10] Giord., 19.

[11] Giord., 30 and 31.

[12] Giord., 59. Cf. Glassberger, ann. 1230. The question

whether he is the author of the _Dies iræ_ would be out of place

here.

[13] This is so true that the majority of historians have been

brought to believe in two generalates of Elias, one in

1227-1230, the other in 1236-1239. The letter _Non ex odio_ of

Frederick II. (1239) gives the same idea: _Revera papa iste

quemdam religiosum et timoratum fratrem Helyam, ministrum

ordinis fratrum minorum ab ipso beato Francisco patre ordinis

migrationis suæ tempore constitutum ... in odium nostrum ...

deposuit_. Huillard-Breholles: _Hist. dipl. Fred. II._, t. v.,

p. 346.

[14] He is named only once, 1 Cel., 48.

[15] 1 Cel., 95, 98, 105, 109. The account of the Benediction is

especially significant. _Super quem inquit (Franciscus) tenes

dexteram meam? Super fratrem Heliam, inquiunt. Et ego sic volo,

sit...._ 1 Cel., 108. Those last words obviously disclose the

intention. Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 139.

[16] 1 Cel., 102; cf. 91 and 109. Brother Leo is not even named

in the whole work. Nor Angelo, Illuminato, Masseo either!

[17] 1 Cel., Prol., 73-75; 99-101; 121-126. Next to St. Francis,

Gregory IX. and Brother Elias (1 Cel., 69; 95; 98; 105; 108;

109) are in the foreground.

[18] 1 Cel., 18 and 19; 116 and 117.

[19] Those which occurred during the absence of Francis

(1220-1221). He overlooks the difficulties met at Rome in

seeking the approbation of the first Rule; he mentions those

connected neither with the second nor the third, and makes no

allusion to the circumstances which provoked them. He recognized

them, however, having lived in intimacy with Cæsar of Speyer,

the collaborator of the second (1221).

[20] For example, Francis's journey to Spain.

[21] 1 Cel., 1, 88. _Et sola quæ necessaria magis occurrunt_ ad

præsens _intendimus adnotare_. It is to be observed that in the

prologue he speaks in the singular.

[22] In 1238 he had sent Elias to Cremona, charged with a

mission for Frederick II. Salembeni, ann. 1229. See also the

reception given by Gregory IX. to the appellants against the

General. Giord., 63.

[23] See the letter of Frederick II. to Elias upon the

translation of St. Elizabeth, May, 1236. Winkelmann, _Acta_ i.,

p. 299. Cf. Huillard-Bréholles, _Hist. dipl._ Intr. p. cc.

[24] The authorities for this story are: _Catalogus ministrorum_

of Bernard of Besse, _ap_ Ehrle, _Zeitschrift_, vol. 7 (1883),

p. 339; _Speculum_, 207b, and especially 167a-170a; Eccl., 13;

Giord., 61-63; _Speculum_, Morin., tract i., fo. 60b.

[25] _Asserabat etiam ipse prædictus frater Helyas ... papam ...

fraudem facere de pecunia collecta ad succursum Terræ Sanctæ,

scripta etiam ad beneplacitum suum in camera sua bullare clam et

sine fratrum assensu et etiam cedulas vacuas, sed bullatas,

multas nunciis suis traderet ... et alia multa enormia imposuit

domino papæ ponens os suum in celo_. Matth. Paris, _Chron.

Maj._, _ann. 1239_, _ap Mon. Ger. hist. Script._, t. 28, p. 182.

Cf. Ficker, n. 2685.

[26] Vide Ryccardi di S. Germano, _Chron._, _ap Mon. Ger. hist.

Script._, t. 19, p. 380, ann. 1239. The letter of Frederick

complaining of the deposition of Elias (1239):

Huillard-Bréholles, _Hist. Dipl._, v., pp. 346-349. Cf. the

Bull, _Attendite ad petram_, at the end of February, 1240,

ibid., pp. 777-779; Potthast, 10849.

[27] He was without doubt one of the bitterest adversaries of

the emperor. His village had been burnt in 1224, by order of

Frederick II., and the inhabitants transported to Sicily,

afterward to Malta. Ryccardi di S. Germano, _loc. cit._, _ann._

1223 and 1224.

[28] Vide the prologue to 2 Cel. and to the 3 Soc. Cf.

Glassberger, ann. 1244, _An. fr._, ii., p. 68. _Speculum_,

Morin, tract. i., 61b.

[29] _Catalogus ministrorum_, edited by Ehrle: _Zeitschrift_, t.

7 (1883). no. 5. Cf. _Spec._, 208a. Mark of Lisbon speaks of it

a little more at length, but he gives the honor of it to

Giovanni of Parma, ed. Diola, t. ii., p. 38. On the other hand,

in manuscript 691 of the archives of the Sacro-Convento at

Assisi (a catalogue of the library of the convent made in 1381)

is found, fo. 45a, a note of that work: "_Dyalogus sanctorum

fratrum cum postibus cujus principium est: Venerabilia gesta

patrum dignosque memoria, finis vero; non indigne feram me

quoque reperisse consortem. In quo libro omnes quaterni sunt

xiii_."

[30] The text was published for the first time by the

Bollandists (A. SS., Octobris, t. ii., pp. 723-742), after a

manuscript of the convent of the Brothers Minor of Louvain. It

is from this edition that we make our citations. The editions

published in Italy in the course of this century, cannot be

found, except the last, due to Abbé Amoni. This one,

unfortunately, is too faulty to serve as the basis of a

scientific study. It appeared in Rome in 1880 (8vo, pp. 184)

under the title: _Legenda S. Francisci Assisiensis quæ dicitur

Legenda trium sociorum ex cod. membr._ _Biblioth. Vatic. num.

7339._

[31] 2 Cel., 2, 5; 3, 7; 1 Cel., 60; Bon., 113; 1 Cel., 84;

Bon., 149; 2 Cel., 2, 14; 3, 10.

[32] Giovanni di Parma retired thither in 1276 and lived there

almost entirely until his death (1288). _Tribul._, _Archiv._,

vol. ii. (1886), p. 286.

[33] 3 Soc., 25-67.

[34] 3 Soc., 68-73.

[35] The minister-general Crescentius of Jesi was an avowed

adversary of the Zealots of the Rule. The contrary idea has been

held by M. Müller (_Anfänge_, p. 180); but that learned scholar

is not, it appears, acquainted with the recitals of the

Chronicle of the Tribulations, which leave not a single doubt as

to the persecutions which he directed against the Zealots

(_Archiv._, t. ii., pp. 257-260). Anyone who attempts to dispute

the historical worth of this proof will find a confirmation in

the bulls of August 5, 1244, and of February 7, 1246 (Potthast,

11450 and 12007). It was Crescentius, also, who obtained a bull

stating that the Basilica of Assisi was _Caput et Mater

ordinis_, while for the Zealots this rank pertained to the

Portiuncula (1 Cel., 106; 3 Soc., 56; Bon., 23; 2 Cel., 1, 12;

_Conform._, 217 ff). (See also on Crescentius, Glassberger, ann.

1244, _An. fr._, p. 69; Sbaralea, _Bull. fr._, i., p. 502 ff;

_Conform._, 121b. 1.) M. Müller has been led into error through

a blunder of Eccleston, 9 (_An. fr._, i., p. 235). It is evident

that the chapter of Genoa (1244) could not have pronounced

against the _Declaratio Regulæ_ published November 14, 1245. On

the contrary, it is Crescentius who called forth this

_Declaratio_, against which, not without regret, the Zealots

found a majority of the chapter of Metz (1249) presided over by

Giovanni of Parma, a decided enemy of any _Declaratio_

(_Archiv._, ii., p. 276). This view is found to be confirmed by

a passage of the Speculum Morin (Rouen, 1509), f^o 62a: _In hoc

capitulo (Narbonnæ) fuit ordinatum quod declaratio D.

Innocentii, p. iv., maneat suspensa sicut in Capitulo_ METENSI.

_Et præceptum est omnibus ne quis utatur ea in iis in quibus

expositioni D. Gregorii IX. contradicit._

[36] Published with all necessary scientific apparatus by F.

Ehrle, S. J., in his studies _Zur Vorgeschichte des Concils von

Vienne_. _Archiv._, ii., pp. 353-416; iii., pp. 1-195.

[37] See, for example, _Archiv._, iii., p. 53 ff. Cf. 76.

_Adduxi verba et facta b. Francisci sicut est aliquando in

legenda et sicut a sociis sancti patris audivi et in cedulis

sanctæ memoriæ fratris Leonis legi manu sua conscriptis, sicut

ab ore beati Francisci audivit._ Ib., p. 85.

[38] _Hæc omnia patent per sua [B. Francisci] verba expressa per

sanctum fratrem virum Leonem ejus socium tam de mandato sancti

patris quam etiam de devotione prædicti fratris fuerunt

solemniter conscripta, in libro qui habetur in armario fratrum

de Assisio et in rotulis ejus, quos apud me habeo, manu ejusdem

fratris Leonis conscriptis. Archiv._, iii., p. 168. Cf. p. 178.

[39] 3 Soc., Prol. _Non contenti narrare solum miracula ...

conversationis insignia et pii beneplaciti voluntatem_.

[40] _Leggenda di S. Francesco, tipografia Morici et Badaloni_,

Recanati, 1856, 1 vol., 8vo.

[41] See Father Stanislaus's preface.

[42] 3 Soc., 68-73.

[43] The book lacks little of representing St. Francis as taking

up the work of Jesus, interrupted (by the fault of the secular

clergy) since the time of the apostles. The _viri evangelici_

consider the members of the clergy _filios extraneos._ 3 Soc.,

48 and 51. Cf. 3 Soc., 48. _Inveni virum ... per quem, credo

Dominus velit in toto mundo fedem sanctæ Ecclesiæ reformare_.

Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 141. _Videbatur revera fratri et omnium

comitatium turbæ quod Christi et b. Francisci una persona

foret_.

[44] A. SS. p. 552.

[45] _Venetiis, expensis domini Jordani de Dinslaken per Simonem

de Luere_, 30 januarii, 1504. _Impressum Metis per Jasparem

Hochffeder_, Anno Domini 1509. These two editions are identical,

small 12mos, of 240 folios badly numbered. Edited under the same

title by Spoelberch, Antwerp, 1620, 2 tomes in one volume, 8vo,

208 and 192 pages, with a mass of alterations. The most

important manuscript resembles that of the Vatican 4354. There

are two at the Mazarin Library, 904 and 1350, dated 1459 and

1460, one at Berlin (MS. theol. lat., 4to, no. 196 sæc. 14).

Vide Ehrle, _Zeitschrift_. t. vii. (1883), p. 392f; _Analecta

fr._, t. i., p. xi.; _Miscellanea_, 1888, pp. 119. 164. Cf. A.

SS., pp. 550-552.

The chapters are numbered in the first 72 folios only, but these

numbers teem with errors; fo. 38b. caput lix., 40b, lix., 41b,

lxi. ibid., lxii., 42a, lx., 43a, lxi. Besides at fos. 46b and

47b there are two chapters lxvi. There are two lxxi., two

lxxii., two lxxiii., etc.

[46] For example, the history of the brigands of Monte-Casale,

fos. 46b, and 58b. The remarks of Brother Elias to Francis, who

is continually singing, 136b and 137a. The visit of Giacomina di

Settesoli, 133a and 138a. The autograph benediction given to

Brother Leo, 87a; 188a.

[47] At fo. 20b we read: _Tertium capitulam de charitate et

compassione et condescensione ad proximum. Capitulum_ xxvi. Cf.

26a, 83a, 117b, 119a, 122a, 128b, 133b, 136b, where there are

similar indications.

[48] Fo. 5b: _Incipit Speculum vitæ b. Francesci et sociorum

ejus_. Fo. 7b; _Incipit Speculum perfectionis_.

[49] We should search for it in vain in the other pieces of the

Speculum, and it reappears in the fragments of Brother Leo cited

by Ubertini di Casali and Angelo Clareno.

[50] Fo. 8b, 11a, 12a, 15a, 18b, 21b, 23b, 26a, 29a, 33b, 43b,

41a, 48b, 118a, 129a, 130a, 134a, 135a, 136a.

[51] Does not Thomas de Celano say in the prologue of the Second

Life: "_Oramus ergo, benignissime pater, ut laboris hujus non

contemnenda munuscula ... vestra benedictione consecrare

velitis, corrigendo errata et superflua resecantes_."

[52] The legend of 3 Soc. was preserved in the Convent of

Assisi: "_Omnia ... fuerunt conscripta ... per Leonem, ... in

libro qui habetur in armario fratrum de Assisio_." Ubertini,

_Archiv._, iii., p. 168. Later, Brother Leo seems to have gone

more into detail as to certain facts; he confided these new

manuscripts to the Clarisses: "_In rotulis ejus quos apud me

habeo, manu ejusdem fratres Leonis conscriptis_," ibid. Cf. p.

178. "_Quod sequitur a sancto fratre Conrado predicto et viva

voce audivit a sancto fratre Leone qui presens erat et regulam

scripsit. Et hoc ipsum in quibusdam rotulis manu sua conscriptis

quos commendavit in monasterio S. Claræ custodiendos.... In

illis multa scripsit ... quæ industria fr. Bonaventura omisit et

noluit in legenda publice scribere, maxime quia aliqua erant ibi

in quibus ex tunc deviatio regulæ publice monstrabatur et

nolebat fratres ante tempus in famare._" _Arbor._, lib. v., cap

5. Cf. _Antiquitates_, p. 146. Cf. _Speculum_, 50b. "_Infra

scripta verba, frater Leo socius et Confessor B. Francisci,

Conrado de Offida, dicebat se habuisse ex ore Beati Patris

nostri Francisci, quæ idem Frater Conradus retulit, apud Sanctum

Damianum prope Assisium._" Conrad di Offidia copied, then, both

the book of Brother Leo and his _rotuli_; he added to it certain

oral information (_Arbor, vit. cruc._, lib. v., cap. 3), and so

perhaps composed the collection so often cited by the

Conformists under the title of _Legenda Antiqua_ and reproduced

in part in the Speculum. The numbering of the chapters, which

the Speculum has awkwardly inserted without noting that they

were not in accord with his own division, were vestiges of the

division adopted by Conrad di Offida.

It may well be that, after the interdiction of his book and its

confiscation at the Sacro Convento, Brother Leo repeated in his

_rotuli_ a large part of the facts already made, so that the

same incident, while coming solely from Brother Leo, could be

presented under two different forms, according as it would be

copied from the book or the _rotuli_.

[53] Compare, for example, 2 Cel., 120: Vocation of John the

Simple, and Speculum, f^o 37a. From the account of Thomas de

Celano, one does not understand what drew John to St. Francis;

in the Speculum everything is explained, but Celano has not

dared to depict Francis going about preaching with a broom upon

his shoulder to sweep the dirty churches.

[54] It was published for the first time at Rome, in 1806, by

Father Rinaldi, following upon the First Life (vide above, p.

365, note 2), and restored in 1880 by Abbé Amoni: _Vita secunda

S. Francisci Assisiensis auctore B. Thomade Celano ejus

discipulo. Romæ, tipografia della pace_, 1880, 8vo, 152 pp. The

citations are from this last edition, which I collated at Assisi

with the most important of the rare manuscripts at present

known: Archives of Sacro Convento, MS. 686, on parchment of the

end of the thirteenth century, if I do not mistake, 130 millim.

by 142; 102 numbered pages. Except for the fact that the book is

divided into two parts instead of three, the last two forming

only one, I have not found that it noticeably differs from the

text published by Amoni; the chapters are divided only by a

paragraph and a red letter, but they have in the table which

occupies the first seven pages of the volume the same titles as

in the edition Amoni.

This Second Life escaped the researches of the Bollandists.

It is impossible to explain how these students ignored the

worth of the manuscript which Father Theobaldi, keeper of the

records of Assisi, mentioned to them, and of which he offered

them a copy (A. SS., _Oct._, t. ii., p. 546f). Father Suysken

was thus thrown into inextricable difficulties, and exposed

to a failure to understand the lists of biographies of St.

Francis arranged by the annalists of the Order; he was at the

same time deprived of one of the most fruitful sources of

information upon the acts and works of the Saint. Professor

Müller (_Die Anfänge_, pp. 175-184) was the first to make a

critical study of this legend. His conclusions appear to me

narrow and extreme. Cf. _Analecta_ fr., t. ii., pp. xvii.-xx.

Father Ehrle mentions two manuscripts, one in the British

Museum, Harl., 47; the other at Oxford, Christ College, cod.

202. _Zeitschrift_, 1883, p. 390.

[55] The Three Companions foresee the possibility of their

legend being incorporated with other documents: _quibus

(legendis) hæc pauca quæ scribimus poleritis facere inseri, si

vestra discretio viderit esse justum._ 3 Soc., Prol.

[56] One phrase of the Prologue (2 Cel.) shows that the author

received an entirely special commission: _Placuit ... robis ...

parvitati nostræ injungere_, while on the contrary the 3 Soc.

shows that the decision of the chapter only remotely considered

them: _Cum de mandato proeteriti capituli fratres teneantur

... visum est nobis ... pauca de multis ... sanctitati vestræ

intimare._ 3 Soc., Prol.

[57] Compare the Prologue of 2 Cel. with that of 1 Cel.

[58] _Longum esset de singulis persequi, qualiter bravium

supernæ vocationis attigerit_. 2 Cel., 1, 10.

[59] This first part corresponds exactly to that portion of the

legend of the 3 Soc., which Crescentius had authorized.

[60] Observe that the Assisi MS. 686 divides the Second Life

into two parts only by joining the last two.

[61] Salimbeni, ann. 1248.

[62] Glassberger, ann. 1253. _An. fr._ t. ii., p. 73. _Frater

Johannes de Parma minister generalis, multiplicatis litteris

præcipit fr. Thomæ de Celano (cod. Ceperano), ut vitam beati

Francisci quæ antiqua Legenda dicitur perficeret, quia solum de

ejus conversatione et verbis in primo tractatu, de mandato, Fr.

Crescentii olim generalis compilato, ommissis miraculis fecerat

mentionem, et sic secundum tractatum de miraculis sancti Patris

compilavit, quem cum epistola quæ incipit: Religiosa vestra

sollicitudo eidem generali misit_.

This treatise on the miracles is lost, for one cannot identify

it, as M. Müller suggests (_Anfänge_, p. 177), with the second

part (counting three with the Amoni edition) of the Second Life:

1^o, epistle _Religiosa vestra sollicitudo_ does not have it;

2^o, this second part is not a collection of miracles, using

this word in the sense of miraculous cures which it had in the

thirteenth century. The twenty-two chapters of this second part

have a marked unity; they might be entitled _Francis a prophet_,

but not _Francis a thaumaturgus_.

[63] In the Prologue (2 Cel., 2, Prol.) _Insignia patrum_ the

author speaks in the singular, while the Epilogue is written in

the name of a group of disciples.

[64] Greccio, 2 Cel., 2, 5; 14; 3, 7; 10; 103.--Rieti, 2 Cel.,

2, 10; 11; 12; 13; 3, 36; 37; 66; 103.

[65] St. Francis gives him an autograph, 2 Cel., 2, 18. Cf.

_Fior._ ii. _consid._; his tunic, 2 Cel., 2, 19; he predicts to

him a famine, 2 Cel., 2, 21; cf. _Conform._, 49b. Fr. Leo ill at

Bologna, 2 Cel., 3, 5.

[66] The text of Ubertini di Casali may be found in the

_Archiv._, t. iii., pp. 53, 75, 76, 85, 168, 178, where Father

Ehrle points out the corresponding passages of 2 Cel.

[67] It is the subject of thirty-seven narratives (1, 2 Cel., 3,

1-37), then come examples on the spirit of prayer (2 Cel., 3,

38-44), the temptations (2 Cel., 3, 58-64), true happiness (2

Cel., 3, 64-79), humility (2 Cel., 3, 79-87), submission (2

Cel., 3, 88, 91), etc.

[68] Le Monnier, t. i., p. xi.; F. Barnabé, _Portiuncula_, p.

15. Cf. _Analecta fr._, t. ii., p. xxi. _Zeitschrift für kath.

Theol._, vii. (1883), p. 397.

[69] _Il piu antico poema della vita di S. Francisco d'Assisi

scritto inanzi all' anno 1230 ora per la prima volta pubblicato

et tradotto da Antonio Cristofani_, Prato, 1882, 1 vol., 8vo.

288 pp.

[70] Note, however, two articles of the Miscellanea, one on the

manuscript of this biography which is found in the library at

Versailles, t. iv. (1889), p. 34 ff.; the other on the author of

the poem, t. v. (1890), pp. 2-4 and 74 ff.

[71] See below, p. 410.

[72] Vide Glassberger, ann. 1244; _Analecta_, t. ii., p. 68. Cf.

A. SS., p. 545 ff.

[73] Manuscript in the Library of Turin, J. vi., 33, f^o 95a.

[74] _Plenam virtutibus S. Francisci vitam scripsit in Italia

... frater Thomas ... in Francia vero frater Julianus scientia

et sanctitate conspicuus qui etiam nocturnali sancti officium in

littera et cantu possuit præter hymnos et aliquas antiphonas

quae summus ipse Pontifex et aliqui de Cardinalibus in sancti

præconium ediderunt._ Opening of the _De laudibus_ of Bernard of

Besse. See below, p. 413. Laur. MS., f^o 95a. Cf. Giord., 53;

_Conform._, 75b.

[75] In proof of this is the circular letter, _Licet

insufficentiam nostram_, addressed by Bonaventura, April 23,

1257, immediately after his election, to the provincials and

custodes upon the reformation of the Order. Text: _Speculum_,

Morin, tract. iii., f^o 213a.

[76] Salimbeni, ann. 1248, p. 131. The _Chronica tribulationum_

gives a long and dramatic account of these events: _Archiv._, t.

ii., pp. 283 ff. "_Tunc enim sapientia et sanctitas fratris

Bonaventuræ eclipsata paluit et obscurata est et ejus manswetudo

(sic) ab agitante spiritu in furorum et iram defecit._" Ib., p.

283.

[77] Bon., 3. 1. At the same chapter were collected the

constitutions of the Order according to edicts of the preceding

chapters; new ones were added to them and all were arranged. In

the first of the twelve rubrics the chapter prescribed that,

upon the publication of the account, all the old constitutions

should be destroyed. The text was published in the _Firmamentum

trium ordinum_, f^o 7b, and restored lately by Father Ehrle:

_Archiv._, t. vi. (1891), in his beautiful work _Die ältesten

Redactionen der General-constitutionen des Franziskanerordens_.

Cf. _Speculum_ Morin, fo. 195b of tract. iii.

[78] The _Legenda Minor_ of Bonaventura was also approved at

this time; it is simply an abridgment of the _Legenda Major_

arranged for use of the choir on the festival of St. Francis and

its octave.

[79] "_Item præcipit Generale capitulum per obedientiam quod

omnes legenæ de B. Francisco olim factæ deleantur et ubi

inveniri poterant extra ordinem ipsas fratres studeant amovere,

cum illa legenda quæ facta est per Generalem sit compilata prout

ipse habuit ab ore illorum qui cum B. Francisco quasi semper

fuerunt et cuncta certitudinaliter sciverint et probata ibi sint

posita diligenter._" This precious text has been found and

published by Father Rinaldi in his preface to the text of

Celano: _Seraphici viri Francisci vitæ duæ_, p. xi. Wadding

seems to have known of it, at least indirectly, for he says:

"_Utramque Historiam, longiorem et breviorem, obtulit

(Bonaventura) triennio post in comitiis Pisanis patribus

Ordinis, quas reverentur cum gratiarum actione_, SUPRESSIS ALIIS

QUIBUSQUE LEGENDIS, ADMISERUNT." Ad ann., 1260, no. 18. Cf.

Ehrle, _Zeitschrift für kath. Theol._, t. vii. (1883), p.

386.--"_Communicaverat sanctus Franciscus plurima sociis suis et

fratribus antiquis, que oblivioni tradita sunt, tum quia que

scripta erant in legenda prima, nova edita a fratre. Bonaventura

deleta et destructa sunt_, IPSOJUBENTE _tum quia_ ..." _Chronica

tribul._, _Archiv._, t. ii., p. 256.

[80] Bon., 188-204.

[81] Bon., 218.

[82] Bernardo (Bon., 28), Egidio (Bon., 29), and Silvestro

(Bon., 30).

[83] Bon., 49.

[84] Bon., 112.

[85] Bon., 111.

[86] Vide Bon., 115; 99, etc. M. Thode has enumerated the

stories relating especially to Bonaventura: (_Franz von Assisi_,

p. 535).

[87] Manuscript I, iv., 33, of the library of the University of

Turin. It is a 4to upon parchment of the close of the fourteenth

century, 124 ff. It comprises first the biography of St. Francis

by St. Bonaventura and a legend of St. Clara, afterwards at f^o

95 the _De laudibus_. The text will soon be published in the

_Analecta franciscana_ of the Franciscans of Quaracchi, near

Florence.

[88] In reading it we quickly discover that he was specially

well acquainted with the convents of the Province of Aquitania,

and noted with care everything that concerned them.

[89] Wadding, ann. 1230, no. 7. Many passages prove at least

that he accompanied Bonaventura in his travels: "_Hoc enim_ (the

special aid of Brother Egidio) _in iis quæ ad bonum animæ

pertinent devotus Generalis et Cardinalis predictus ... nos

docuit_." F^o 96a. _Jamdudum ego per Theutoniæ partes et

Flandriæ cum Ministro transiens Generali._ Ibid., f^o 106a.

[90] Bernard de Besse is the author of many other writings,

notably an important _Calalogus Ministrorum generalium_

published after the Turin manuscript by Father Ehrle

(_Zeitschrift für kath. Theol._, t. vii., pp. 338-352), with a

very remarkable critical introduction (ib., pp. 323-337). Cf.

_Archiv für Litt. u. Kirchg._, i., p. 145.--Bartolommeo di Pisa,

when writing his _Conformities_, had before him a part of his

works, f^o 148b, 2; 126a, 1; but he calls the author sometimes

_Bernardus de Blesa_, then again _Johannes de Blesa_. See also

Mark of Lisbon, t. ii., p. 212, and Hauréau, _Notices et

extraits_, t. vi., p. 153.

[91] "_Denique primos Francisci xii. discipulos ... omnes

sanctos fuisse audirimus preter unum qui Ordinem exiens leprosus

factus laqueo vel alter Judas interiit, ne Francisco cum Christo

vel in discipulis similitudo deficeret_," f^o 96a.

* * * * *

III

DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS

In this category we place all the acts having a character of public

authenticity, particularly those which were drawn up by the pontifical

cabinet.

This source of information, where each document has its date, is

precisely the one which has been most neglected up to this time.

I. DONATION OF THE VERNA

The _Instrumentum donationis Montis Alvernæ_, a notarial document

preserved in the archives of Borgo San Sepolcro,[1] not only gives the

name of the generous friend of Francis, and many picturesque details,

but it fixes with precision a date all the more important because it

occurs in the most obscure period of the Saint's life. It was on May 8,

1213, that _Orlando dei Catani_, Count of Chiusi in Casentino, gave the

Verna to Brother Francis.

II. REGISTERS OF CARDINAL UGOLINI

The documents of the pontifical chancellery addressed to Cardinal

Ugolini, the future Gregory IX., and those which emanate from the hand

of the latter during his long journeys as apostolic legate,[2] are of

first rate importance.

It would be too long to give even a simple enumeration of them. Those

which mark important facts have been carefully indicated in the course

of this work. It will suffice to say that by bringing together these two

series of documents, and interposing the dates of the papal bulls

countersigned by Ugolini, we are able to follow almost day by day this

man, who was, perhaps without even excepting St. Francis, the one whose

will most profoundly fashioned the Franciscan institute. We see also

the pre-eminent part which the Order had from the beginning in the

interest of the future pontiff, and we arrive at perfect accuracy as to

the dates of his meetings with St. Francis.

III. BULLS

The pontifical bulls concerning the Franciscans were collected and

published in the last century by the monk Sbaralea.[3] But from these

we gain little help for the history of the origins of the Order.[4]

The following is a compendious list; the details have been given in the

course of the work:

No. 1. August 18, 1218.--Bull _Literæ tuæ_ addressed to Ugolini. The

pope permits him to accept donations of landed property in behalf of

women fleeing the world (Clarisses) and to declare that these

monasteries are holden by the Apostolic See.

No. 2. June 11, 1219.--_Cum delecti filii._ This bull, addressed in a

general way to all prelates, is a sort of safe conduct for the Brothers

Minor.

No. 3. December 19, 1219.--_Sacrosancta romana._ Privileges conceded to

the Sisters (Clarisses) of Monticelli, near Florence.

No. 4. May 29, 1220.--_Pro dilectis._ The pope prays the prelates of

France to give a kindly reception to the Brothers Minor.

No. 5. September 22, 1220.--_Cum secundum._ Honorius III. prescribes a

year of noviciate before the entry into the Order.

No. 6. December 9, 1220.--_Constitutus in præsentia._ This bull concerns

a priest of Constantinople who had made a vow to enter the Order. As

there is question here of _frater Lucas Magister fratrum Minorem de

partibus Romaniæ_ we have here indirect testimony, all the more precious

for that reason, as to the period of the establishment of the Order in

the Orient.

No. 7. February 13, 1221.--New bull for the same priest.

No. 8. December 16, 1221.--_Significatum est nobis._ Honorius III.

recommends to the Bishop of Rimini to protect the Brothers of Penitence

(Third Order).

No. 9. March 22, 1222.[5]--_Devotionis vestræ._ Concession to the

Franciscans, under certain conditions, to celebrate the offices in times

of interdict.

No. 10. March 29, 1222.--_Ex parte Universitatis._ Mission given to the

Dominicans, Franciscans, and Brothers of the Troops of San Iago in

Lisbon.

Nos. 11, 12, and 13.--September 19, 1222.--_Sacrosancta Romana._

Privileges for the monasteries (Clarisses) of Lucca, Sienna, and

Perugia.

No. 14. November 29, 1223.--_Solet annuere._ Solemn approbation of the

Rule, which is inserted in the bull.

No. 15. December 18, 1223.--_Fratrum Minorum._ Concerns apostates from

the Order.

No. 16. December 1, 1224.--_Cum illorum._ Authorization given to the

Brothers of Penitence to take part in the offices in times of interdict,

etc.

No. 17. December 3, 1224.--_Quia populares tumultus._ Concession of the

portable altar.

No. 18. August 28, 1225.--_In hiis._ Honorius explains to the Bishop of

Paris and the Archbishop of Rheims the true meaning of the privileges

accorded to the Brothers Minor.

No. 19. October 7, 1225.--_Vineae Domini._ This bull contains divers

authorizations in favor of the Brothers who are going to evangelize

Morocco.

This list includes only those of Sbaralea's bulls which may directly or

indirectly throw some light upon the life of St. Francis and his

institute. Sbaralea's nomenclature is surely incomplete and should be

revised when the Registers of Honorius III. shall have been published in

full.[6]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It was published by Sbaralea, Bull., t. iv., p. 156, note h.

This act was drawn up July 9, 1274, at a time when the son of

Orlando as well as the Brothers Minor desired to authenticate

the donation, which until then had been verbal.

[2] See _Registri dei Cardinali Ugolino d'Ostia e Ottaviano

degli Ubaldini pubblicati a cura di Guido Levi dall'Istituto

storico italiano.--Fonti per la storia d'Italia_, Roma, 1890, 1

vol., 4to, xxviii. and 250 pp. This edition follows the

manuscript of the National Library, Paris: Ancien fonds Colbert

lat., 5152A. We must draw attention to a very beautiful work due

also to Mr. G. Levi: _Documenti ad illustrazione del Registro

del Card. Ugolino_, in the _Archivio della societa Romana di

storia patria_, t. xii. (1889), pp. 241-326.

[3] _Bullarium franciscanum seu Rom. Pontificum constitutiones

epistolæ diplomata ordinibus Minorum, Clarissarum et

Poenitentium concessa, edidit Joh. Hyac. Sbaralea ord. min.

conv._, 4 vols., fol., Rome, t. i. (1759), t. ii. (1761), t.

iii. (1763), t iv., (1768)--_Supplementum ab Annibale de Latera

ord. min. obs. Romæ_, 1780.--Sbaralea had a comparatively easy

task, because of the number of collections made before his. I

shall mention only one of those which I have before me. It is,

comparatively, very well done, and appears to have escaped the

researches of the Franciscan bibliographers: _Singularissimum

eximiumque opus universis mortalibus sacratissimi ordinis

seraphici patris nostri Francisci a Domino Jesu mirabili modo

approbati necnon a quampluribus nostri Redemptoris sanctissimis

vicariis romanis pontificabus multipharie declarati notitiam

habere cupientibus profecto per necessarium. Speculum Minorum

... per Martinum Morin ... Rouen_, 1509. It is 8vo, with

numbered folios, printed with remarkable care. It contains

besides the bulls the principal dissertations upon the Rule,

elaborated in the thirteenth century, and a _Memoriale ordinis_

(first part, f^o 60-82), a kind of catalogue of the

ministers-general, which would have prevented many of the errors

of the historians, if it had been known.

[4] The Bollandists themselves have entirely overlooked those

sources of information, thinking, upon the authority of a single

badly interpreted passage, that the Order had not obtained a

single bull before the solemn approval of Honorius III.,

November 29, 1223.

[5] And not March 29, as Sbaralea has it. The original, which I

have had under my eyes in the archives of Assisi, bears in fact:

_Datum Anagnie XI. Kal. aprilis pontificatus nostri anno sexto_.

[6] The Abbé Horoy has indeed published in five volumes what he

entitles the _Opera omnia_ of Honorius III., but he omits,

without a word of explanation, a great number of letters,

certain of which are brought forward in the well-known

collection of Potthast. The Abbé Pietro Pressuti has undertaken

to publish a compendium of all the bulls of this pope according

to the original Registers of the Vatican. _I regesti del

Pontifice Onorio III._ Roma, t. i., 1884. Volume i. only has as

yet appeared.

* * * * *

IV

CHRONICLERS OF THE ORDER

I. CHRONICLE OF BROTHER GIORDANO DI GIANO[1]

Born at Giano, in Umbria, in the mountainous district which closes the

southern horizon of Assisi, Brother Giordano was in 1221 one of the

twenty-six friars who, under the conduct of Cæsar of Speyer, set out for

Germany. He seems to have remained attached to this province until his

death, even when most of the friars, especially those who held cures,

had been transferred, often to a distance of several months' journey,

from one end of Europe to the other. It is not, then, surprising that he

was often prayed to commit his memories to writing. He dictated them to

Brother Baldwin of Brandenburg in the spring of 1262. He must have done

it with joy, having long before prepared himself for the task. He

relates with artless simplicity how in 1221, at the chapter-general of

Portiuncula, he went from group to group questioning as to their names

and country the Brothers who were going to set out on distant missions,

that he might be able to say later, especially if they came to suffer

martyrdom: "I knew them myself!"[2]

His chronicle bears the imprint of this tendency. What he desires to

describe is the introduction of the Order into Germany and its early

developments there, and he does it by enumerating, with a complacency

which has its own coquetry, the names of a multitude of friars[3] and

by carefully dating the events. These details, tedious for the ordinary

reader, are precious to the historian; he sees there the diverse

conditions from which the friars were recruited, and the rapidity with

which a handful of missionaries thrown into an unknown country were able

to branch out, found new stations, and in five years cover with a

network of monasteries, the Tyrol, Saxony, Bavaria, Alsace, and the

neighboring provinces.

It is needless to say that it is worth while to test Giordano's

chronology, for he begins by praying the reader to forgive the errors

which may have escaped him on this head; but a man who thus marks in his

memory what he desires later to tell or to write is not an ordinary

witness.

Reading his chronicle, it seems as if we were listening to the

recollections of an old soldier, who grasps certain worthless details

and presents them with an extraordinary power of relief, who knows not

how to resist the temptation to bring himself forward, at the risk

sometimes of slightly embellishing the dry reality.[4]

In fact this chronicle swarms with anecdotes somewhat personal, but very

artless and welcome, and which on the whole carry in themselves the

testimony to their authenticity. The perfume of the Fioretti already

exhales from these pages so full of candor and manliness; we can follow

the missionaries stage by stage, then when they are settled, open the

door of the monastery and read in the very hearts of these men, many of

whom are as brave as heroes and harmless as doves.

It is true that this chronicle deals especially with Germany, but the

first chapters have an importance for Francis's history that exceeds

even that of the biographers. Thanks to Giordano of Giano, we are from

this time forward informed upon the crises which the institute of

Francis passed through after 1219; he furnishes us the solidly

historical base which seems to be lacking in the documents emanating

from the Spirituals, and corroborates their testimony.

II. ECCLESTON: ARRIVAL OF THE FRIARS IN ENGLAND[5]

Our knowledge of Thomas of Eccleston is very slight, for he has left no

more trace of himself in the history of the Order than of Simon of

Esseby, to whom he dedicates his work. A native no doubt of Yorkshire,

he seems never to have quitted England. He was twenty-five years

gathering the materials of his work, which embraces the course of events

from 1224 almost to 1260. The last facts that he relates belong to years

very near to this date.

Of almost double the length of that of Giordano, Eccleston's work is far

from furnishing as interesting reading. The former had seen nearly

everything that he described, and thence resulted a vigor in his story

that we cannot find in an author who writes on the testimony of others.

More than this, while Giordano follows a chronological order, Eccleston

has divided his incidents under fifteen rubrics, in which the same

people continually reappear in a confusion which at length becomes very

wearisome. Finally, his document is amazingly partial: the author is not

content with merely proving that the English friars are saints; he

desires to show that the province of England surpasses all others[6]

by its fidelity to the Rule and its courage against the upholders of new

ways, Brother Elias in particular.

But these few faults ought not to make us lose sight of the true value

of this document. It embraces what we may call the heroic period of the

Franciscan movement in England, and describes it with extreme

simplicity.

Aside from all question of history, we have here enough to interest all

those who are charmed by the spectacle of moral conquest. On Monday,

September 10th, the Brothers Minor landed at Dover. They were nine in

number: a priest, a deacon, two who had only the lesser Orders, and five

laymen. They visited Canterbury, London, Oxford, Cambridge, Lincoln, and

less than ten months later all who have made their mark in the history

of science or of sanctity had joined them; it may suffice to name Adam

of Marisco, Richard of Cornwall, Bishop Robert Grossetête, one of the

proudest and purest figures of the Middle Ages, and Roger Bacon, that

persecuted monk who several centuries before his time grappled with and

answered in his lonely cell the problems of authority and method, with a

firmness and power which the sixteenth century would find it hard to

surpass.

It is impossible that in such a movement human weaknesses and passions

should not here and there reveal themselves, but we owe our chronicler

thanks for not hiding them. Thanks to him, we can for a moment forget

the present hour, call to life again that first Cambridge chapel--so

slight that it took a carpenter only one day to build it--listen to

three Brothers chanting matins that same night, and that with so much

ardor that one of them--so rickety that his two companions were obliged

to carry him--wept for joy: in England as in Italy the Franciscan gospel

was a gospel of peace and joy. Moral ugliness inspired them with a pity

which we no longer know. There are few historic incidents finer than

that of Brother Geoffrey of Salisbury confessing Alexander of

Bissingburn; the noble penitent was performing this duty without

attention, as if he were telling some sort of a story; suddenly his

confessor melted into tears, making him blush with shame and forcing

tears also from him, working in him so complete a revolution that he

begged to be taken into the Order.

The most interesting parts are those where Thomas gives us an intimate

view of the friars: here drinking their beer, there hastening, in spite

of the Rule, to buy some on credit for two comrades who have been

maltreated, or again clustering about Brother Solomon, who had just come

in nearly frozen with cold, and whom they could not succeed in

warming--_sicut porcis mos est cum comprimendo foverunt_, says the pious

narrator.[7] All this is mingled with dreams, visions, numberless

apparitions,[8] which once more show us how different were the ideas

most familiar to the religious minds of the thirteenth century from

those which haunt the brains and hearts of to-day.

The information given by Eccleston bears only indirectly on this book,

but if he speaks little of Francis he speaks much at length of some of

the men who have been most closely mingled with his life.

III. CHRONICLE OF FRA SALIMBENI[9]

As celebrated as it is little known, this chronicle is of quite

secondary value in all that concerns the life of St. Francis. Its

author, born October 9, 1221, entered the Order in 1238, and wrote his

memoirs in 1282-1287; it is therefore especially for the middle years of

the thirteenth century that his importance is capital. Notwithstanding

this, it is surprising how small a place the radiant figure of the

master holds in these long pages, and this very fact shows, better than

long arguments could do, how profound was the fall of the Franciscan

idea.

IV. THE CHRONICLE OF THE TRIBULATIONS BY ANGELO CARENO[10]

This chronicle was written about 1330; we might therefore be surprised

to see it appear among the sources to be consulted for the life of St.

Francis, dead more than a century before; but the picture which Clareno

gives us of the early days of the Order gains its importance from the

fact that in sketching it he made constant appeal to eye-witnesses, and

precisely to those whose works have disappeared.

Angelo Clareno, earlier called Pietro da Fossombrone[11] from the name

of his native town, and sometimes da Cingoli, doubtless from the little

convent where he made profession, belonged to the Zelanti of the March

of Ancona as early as 1265. Hunted and persecuted by his adversaries

during his whole life, he died in the odor of sanctity June 15, 1339, in

the little hermitage of Santa Maria d' Aspro in the diocese of Marsico

in Basilicata.

Thanks to published documents, we may now, so to speak, follow day by

day not only the external circumstances of his life, but the inner

workings of his soul. With him we see the true Franciscan live again,

one of those men who, while desiring to remain the obedient son of the

Church, cannot reconcile themselves to permit the domain of the dream to

slip away from them, the ideal which they have hailed. Often they are on

the borders of heresy; in these utterances against bad priests and

unworthy pontiffs there is a bitterness which the sectaries of the

sixteenth century will not exceed.[12] Often, too, they seem to

renounce all authority and make final appeal to the inward witness of

the Holy Spirit;[13] and yet Protestantism would be mistaken in seeking

its ancestors among them. No, they desired to die as they had lived, in

the communion of that Church which was as a stepmother to them and which

they yet loved with that heroic passion which some of the _ci-devant_

nobles brought in '93 to the love of France, governed though she was by

Jacobins, and poured out their blood for her.

Clareno and his friends not only believed that Francis had been a great

Saint, but to this conviction, which was also that of the Brothers of

the Common Observance, they added the persuasion that the work of the

Stigmatized could only be continued by men who should attain to his

moral stature, to which men might arrive through the power of faith and

love. They were of the violent who take the kingdom of heaven by force;

so when, after the frivolous and senile interests of every day we come

face to face with them, we feel ourselves both humbled and exalted, for

we suddenly find unhoped-for powers, an unrecognized lyre in the human

heart.

There is one of Jesus's apostles of whom it is difficult not to think

while reading the chronicle of the Tribulations and Angelo Clareno's

correspondence: St. John. Between the apostle's words about love and

those of the Franciscan there is a similarity of style all the more

striking because they were written in different languages. In both of

these the soul is that of the aged man, where all is only love, pardon,

desire for holiness, and yet it sometimes wakes with a sudden

thrill--like that which stirred the soul of the seer of Patmos--of

indignation, wrath, pity, terror, and joy, when the future unveils

itself and gives a glimpse of the close of the great tribulation.

Clareno's works, then, are in the strictest sense of the word partisan;

the question is whether the author has designedly falsified the facts or

mutilated the texts. To this question we may boldly answer, No. He

commits errors,[14] especially in his earlier pages, but they are not

such as to diminish our confidence.

Like a good Joachimite, he believed that the Order would have to

traverse seven tribulations before its final triumph. The pontificate of

John XXII. marked, he thought, the commencement of the seventh; he set

himself, then, to write, at the request of a friend, the history of the

first six.[15]

His account of the first is naturally preceded by an introduction, the

purpose of which is to exhibit to the reader, taking the life of St.

Francis as a framework, the intention of the latter in composing the

Rule and dictating the Will.

Born between 1240 and 1250, Clareno had at his service the testimony of

several of the first disciples;[16] he found himself in relations with

Angelo di Rieti,[17] Egidio,[18] and with that Brother Giovanni,

companion of Egidio, mentioned in the prologue of the Legend of the

Three Companions.[19]

His chronicle, therefore, forms as it were the continuation of that

legend. The members of the little circle of Greccio are they who

recommend it to us; it has also their inspiration.

But writing long years after the death of these Brothers, Clareno feels

the need of supporting himself also on written testimony; he repeatedly

refers to the four legends from which he borrows a part of his

narrative; they are those of Giovanni di Ceperano, Thomas of Celano,

Bonaventura, and Brother Leo.[20] Bonaventura's work is mentioned only

by way of reference; Clareno borrows nothing from him, while he cites

long passages from Giovanni di Ceperano,[21] Thomas of Celano[22] and

Brother Leo.[23]

Clareno takes from these writers narratives containing several new and

extremely curious facts.[24]

I have dwelt particularly upon this document because its value appears

to me not yet to have been properly appreciated. It is indeed partisan;

the documents of which we must be most wary are not those whose tendency

is manifest, but those where it is skilfully concealed.

The life of St. Francis and a great part of the religious history of the

thirteenth century will surely appear to us in an entirely different

light when we are able to fill out the documents of the victorious party

by those of the party of the vanquished. Just as Thomas of Celano's

first legend is dominated by the desire to associate closely St.

Francis, Gregory IX., and Brother Elias, so the Chronicle of the

Tribulations is inspired from beginning to end with the thought that the

troubles of the Order--to say the word, the apostasy--began so early as

1219. This contention finds a striking confirmation in the Chronicle of

Giordano di Giano.

V. THE FIORETTI[25]

With the Fioretti we enter definitively the domain of legend. This

literary gem relates the life of Francis, his companions and disciples,

as it appeared to the popular imagination at the beginning of the

fourteenth century. We have not to discuss the literary value of this

document, one of the most exquisite religious works of the Middle Ages,

but it may well be said that from the historic point of view it does not

deserve the neglect to which it has been left.

Most authors have failed in courage to revise the sentence lightly

uttered against it by the successors of Bollandus. Why make anything of

a book which Father Suysken did not even deign to read![26]

Yet that which gives these stories an inestimable worth is what for want

of a better term we may call their atmosphere. They are legendary,

worked over, exaggerated, false even, if you please, but they give us

with a vivacity and intensity of coloring something that we shall search

for in vain elsewhere--the surroundings in which St. Francis lived. More

than any other biography the Fioretti transport us to Umbria, to the

mountains of the March of Ancona; they make us visit the hermitages, and

mingle with the life, half childish, half angelic, which was that of

their inhabitants.

It is difficult to pronounce upon the name of the author. His work was

only that of gathering the flowers of his bouquet from written and oral

tradition. The question whether he wrote in Latin or Italian has been

much discussed and appears to be not yet settled; what is certain is

that though this work may be anterior to the Conformities,[27] it is a

little later than the Chronicle of the Tribulations, for it would be

strange that it made no mention of Angelo Clareno, if it was written

after his death.

This book is in fact an essentially local[28] chronicle; the author has

in mind to erect a monument to the glory of the Brothers Minor of the

March of Ancona. This province, which is evidently his own, "does it

not resemble the sky blazing with stars? The holy Brothers who dwelt in

it, like the stars in the sky, have illuminated and adorned the Order of

St. Francis, filling the world with their examples and teaching." He is

acquainted with the smallest villages,[29] each having at a short

distance its monastery, well apart, usually near a torrent, in the edge

of a wood, and above, near the hilltop, a few almost inaccessible cells,

the asylums of Brothers even more than the others in love with

contemplation and retirement.[30]

The chapters that concern St. Francis and the Umbrian Brothers are only

a sort of introduction; Egidio, Masseo, Leo on one side, St. Clara on

the other, are witnesses that the ideal at Portiuncula and St. Damian

was indeed the same to which in later days Giachimo di Massa, Pietro di

Monticulo, Conrad di Offida, Giovanni di Penna, and Giovanni della Verna

endeavored to attain.

While most of the other legends give us the Franciscan tradition of the

great convents, the Fioretti are almost the only document which shows it

as it was perpetuated in the hermitages and among the people. In default

of accuracy of detail, the incidents which are related here contain a

higher truth--their tone is true. Here are words that were never

uttered, acts that never took place, but the soul and the heart of the

early Franciscans were surely what they are depicted here.

The Fioretti have the living truth that the pencil gives. Something is

wanting in the physiognomy of the Poverello when we forget his

conversation with Brother Leo on the perfect joy, his journey to Sienna

with Masseo, or even the conversion of the wolf of Gubbio.

We must not, however, exaggerate the legendary side of the Fioretti:

there are not more that two or three of these stories of which the

kernel is not historic and easy to find. The famous episode of the wolf

of Gubbio, which is unquestionably the most marvellous of all the

series, is only, to speak the engraver's language, the third state of

the story of the robbers of Monte Casale[31] mingled with a legend of

the Verna.

The stories crowd one another in this book like flocks of memories that

come upon us pell-mell, and in which insignificant details occupy a

larger place than the most important events; our memory is, in fact, an

overgrown child, and what it retains of a man is generally a feature, a

word, a gesture. Scientific history is trying to react, to mark the

relative value of facts, to bring forward the important ones, to cast

into shade that which is secondary. Is it not a mistake? Is there such a

thing as the important and the secondary? How is it going to be marked?

The popular imagination is right: what we need to retain of a man is the

expression of countenance in which lives his whole being, a heart-cry, a

gesture that expresses his personality. Do we not find all of Jesus in

the words of the Last Supper? And all of St. Francis in his address to

brother wolf and his sermon to the birds?

Let us beware of despising these documents in which the first

Franciscans are described as they saw themselves to be. Unfolding under

the Umbrian sky at the foot of the olives of St. Damian, or the firs of

the March of Ancona, these wild flowers have a perfume and an

originality which we look for in vain in the carefully cultivated

flowers of a learned gardener.

APPENDICES OF THE FIORETTI

In the first of these appendices the compiler has divided into five

chapters all the information on the stigmata which he was able to

gather. It is easy to understand the success of the Fioretti. The people

fell in love with these stories, in which St. Francis and his companions

appear both more human and more divine than in the other legends; and

they began very soon to feel the need of so completing them as to form a

veritable biography.[32]

The second, entitled Life of Brother Ginepro, is only indirectly

connected with St. Francis; yet it deserves to be studied, for it offers

the same kind of interest as the principal collection, to which it is

doubtless posterior. In these fourteen chapters we find the principal

features of the life of this Brother, whose mad and saintly freaks still

furnish material for conversation in Umbrian monasteries. These

unpretending pages discover to us one aspect of the Franciscan heart.

The official historians have thought it their duty to keep silence upon

this Brother, who to them appeared to be a supremely indiscreet

personage, very much in the way of the good name of the Order in the

eyes of the laics. They were right from their point of view, but we owe

a debt of gratitude to the Fioretti for having preserved for us this

personality, so blithe, so modest, and with so arch a good nature.

Certainly St. Francis was more like Ginepro than like Brother Elias or

St. Bonaventura.[33]

The third, Life of Brother Egidio, appears to be on the whole the most

ancient document on the life of the famous Ecstatic that we possess. It

is very possible that these stories might be traced to Brother Giovanni,

to whom the Three Companions appeal in their prologue.

In the defective texts given us in the existing editions we perceive the

hand of an annotator whose notes have slipped into the text,[34] but in

spite of that this life is one of the most important of the secondary

texts. This always itinerant brother, one of whose principal

preoccupations is to live by his labor, is one of the most original and

agreeable figures in Francis's surroundings, and it is in lives of this

sort that we must seek the true meaning of some of the passages of the

Rule, and precisely in those that have had the most to suffer from the

enterprise of exegetes.

The fourth includes the favorite maxims of Brother Egidio; they have no

other importance than to show the tendencies of the primitive Franciscan

teaching. They are short, precise, practical counsels, saturated with

mysticism, and yet in them good sense never loses its rights. The

collection, just as it is in the Fioretti, is no doubt posterior to

Egidio, for in 1385 Bartolommeo of Pisa furnished a much longer

one.[35]

VI. CHRONICLE OF THE XXIV. GENERALS[36]

We find here at the end of the life of Francis that of most of his

companions, and the events that occurred under the first twenty-four

generals.

It is a very ordinary work of compilation. The authors have sought to

include in it all the pieces which they had succeeded in collecting, and

the result presents a very disproportioned whole. A thorough study of it

might be interesting and useful, but it would be possible only after its

publication. This cannot be long delayed: twice (at intervals of fifteen

months) when I have desired to study the Assisi manuscript it was found

to be with the Franciscans of Quaracchi, who were preparing to print it.

It is difficult not to bring the epoch in which this collection was

closed near to that when Bartolommeo of Pisa wrote his famous work.

Perhaps the two are quite closely related.

This chronicle was one of Glassberger's favorite sources.

VII. THE CONFORMITIES OF BARTOLOMMEO OF PISA[37]

The Book of the Conformities, to which Brother Bartolommeo of Pisa

devoted more than fifteen years of his life,[38] appears to have been

read very inattentively by most of the authors who have spoken of

it.[39] In justice to them we must add that it would be hard to find a

work more difficult to read; the same facts reappear from ten to fifteen

times, and end by wearying the least delicate nerves.

It is to this no doubt that we must attribute the neglect to which it

has been left. I do not hesitate, however, to see in it the most

important work which has been made on the life of St. Francis. Of course

the author does not undertake historical criticism as we understand it

to-day, but if we must not expect to find him a historian, we can boldly

place him in the front rank of compilers.[40]

If the Bollandists had more thoroughly studied him they would have seen

more clearly into the difficult question of the sources, and the authors

who have come after them would have been spared numberless errors and

interminable researches.

Starting with the thought that Francis's life had been a perfect

imitation of that of Jesus, Bartolommeo attempted to collect, without

losing a single one, all the instances of the life of the Poverello

scattered through the diverse legends still known at that time.

He regretted that Bonaventura, while borrowing the narratives of his

predecessors, had often abridged them,[41] and himself desired to

preserve them in their original bloom. Better situated than any one for

such a work, since he had at his disposal the archives of the Sacro

Convento of Assisi, it may be said that he has omitted nothing of

importance and that he has brought into his work considerable pieces

from nearly all the legends which appeared in the thirteenth and

fourteenth centuries; they are there only in fragments, it is true, but

with perfect accuracy.[42]

When his researches were unsuccessful he avows it simply, without

attempting to fill out the written testimonies with his own

conjectures.[43] He goes farther, and submits the documents he has

before him to a real testing, laying aside those he considers

uncertain.[44] Finally he takes pains to point out the passages in

which his only authority is oral testimony.[45]

As he is almost continually citing the legends of Celano, the Three

Companions, and Bonaventura, and as the citations prove on verification

to be literally accurate, as well as those of the Will, the divers

Rules, or the pontifical bulls, it seems natural to conclude that he was

equally accurate with the citations which we cannot verify, and in which

we find long extracts from works that have disappeared.[46]

The citations which he makes from Celano present no difficulty; they are

all accurate, corresponding sometimes with the First sometimes with the

Second Legend.[47]

Those from the Legend of the Three Companions are accurate, but it

appears that Bartolommeo drew them from a text somewhat different from

that which we have.[48]

With the citations from the _Legenda Antiqua_ the question is

complicated and becomes a nice one. Was there a work of this name?

Certain authors, and among them the Bollandist Suysken, seem to incline

toward the negative, and believe that to cite the _Legenda Antiqua_ is

about the same as to refer vaguely to tradition. Others among

contemporaries have thought that after the approbation and definitive

adoption of Bonaventura's _Legenda Major_ by the Order the Legends

anterior to that, and especially that of Celano, were called _Legenda

Antiqua_. The Conformities permit us to look a little closer into the

question. We find, in fact, passages from the _Legenda Antiqua_ which

reproduce Celano's First Life.[49] Others present points of contact

with the Second, sometimes a literary exactitude,[50] but often these

are the same stories told in too different a way for us to consider them

borrowed.[51]

Finally there are many of these extracts from the _Legenda Antiqua_ of

which we find no source in any of the documents already discussed.[52]

This would suffice to show that the two are not to be confounded. It has

absorbed them and brought about certain changes while completing them

with others.[53]

The study of the fragments which Bartolommeo has preserved to us shows

immediately that this collection belonged to the party of the Zealots of

Poverty; we might be tempted to see in it the work of Brother Leo.

Most fortunately there is a passage where Bartolommeo di Pisa cites as

being by Conrad di Offida a fragment which he had already cited before

as borrowed from the _Legenda Antiqua_.[54] I would not exaggerate the

value of an isolated instance, but it seems an altogether plausible

hypothesis to make Conrad di Offida the author of this compilation. All

that we know of him, of his tendencies, his struggle for the strict

observance, accords with what the known fragments of the _Legenda

Antiqua_ permit us to infer as to its author.[55]

However this may be, it appears that in this collection the stories have

been given us (the principal source being the Legend of Brother Leo or

the Three Companions before its mutilation) in a much less abridged form

than in the Second Life of Celano. This work is hardly more than a

second edition of that of Brother Leo, here and there completed with a

few new incidents, and especially with exhortations to perseverance

addressed to the persecuted Zealots.[56]

VIII. CHRONICLE OF GLASSBERGER[57]

Evidently this work, written about 1508, cannot be classed among the

sources properly so called; but it presents in a convenient form the

general history of the Order, and thanks to its citations permits us to

verify certain passages in the primitive legends of which Glassberger

had the MS. before his eyes. It is thus in particular with the chronicle

of Brother Giordano di Giano, which he has inserted almost bodily in his

own work.

IX. CHRONICLE OF MARK OF LISBON[58]

This work is of the same character as that of Glassberger; it can only

be used by way of addition. There is, however, a series of facts in

which it has a special value; it is when the Franciscan missions in

Spain or Morocco are in question. The author had documents on this

subject which did not reach the friars in distant countries.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Chronica fratris Jordani a Giano._ The text was published

for the first time in 1870 by Dr. G. Voigt under the title:

"_Die Denkwürdigkeiten des Minoriten Jordanus von Giano_ in the

_Abhandlungen der philolog. histor. Cl. der Königl. sächsischen

Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften_," pp. 421-545, Leipsic, by

Hirzel, 1870. Only one manuscript is known; it is in the royal

library at Berlin (Manuscript. theolog. lat., 4to, n. 196, sæc.

xiv., foliorum 141). It has served as the base of the second

edition: _Analecta franciscana sive Chronica aliaque documenta

ad historiam minorum spectantia. Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi) ex

typographia collegii S. Bonaventuræ_, 1885, t. i., pp. 1-19.

Except where otherwise noted, I cite entirely this edition, in

which is preserved the division into sixty-three paragraphs

introduced by Dr. Voigt.

[2] Giord., 81.

[3] He names more than twenty four persons.

[4] It does not seem to me that we can look upon the account of

the interview between Gregory IX. and Brother Giordano as

rigorously accurate. Giord., 63.

[5] _Liber de adventu Minorum in Angliam_, published under the

title of _Monumenta Franciscana_ (in the series of _Rerum

Britannicarum medii Ævi scriptores_, _Roll series_) in two

volumes, 8vo; the first through the care of J. S. Brewer (1858),

the second through that of R. Howlett (1882). This text is

reproduced without the scientific dress of the _Analecta

franciscana_, t. i., pp. 217-257. Cf. English Historical Review,

v. (1890), 754. He has published an excellent critical edition

of it, but unfortunately partial, in vol. xxviii., _Scriptorum_,

of the _Monumenta Germaniæ Historica_ by Mr. Liebermann,

Hanover, 1888, folio, pp. 560-569.

[6] Eccl., 11; 13; 14; 15. Cf. Eccl., 14, where the author takes

pains to say that Alberto of Pisa died at Rome, surrounded by

English Brothers "_inter Anglicos_."

[7] Eccl., 4; 12.

[8] Eccl., 4; 5; 6; 7; 10; 12; 13; 14; 15.

[9] It was published, but with many suppressions, in 1857, at

Parma. The Franciscans of Quaracchi prepared a new edition of

it, which appeared in the _Analecta Franciscana_. This work is

in manuscript in the Vatican under no. 7260. Vide Ehrle.

_Zeitschrift für kath. Theol._ (1883), t. vii., pp. 767 and 768.

The work of Mr. Clédat will be read with interest: _De fratre

Salembene et de ejus chronicæ auctoritate_, Paris, 4to, 1877,

with fac simile.

[10] Father Ehrle has published it, but unfortunately not

entire, in the _Archiv._, t. ii., pp. 125-155, text of the close

of the fifth and of the sixth tribulation; pp. 256-327 text of

the third, of the fourth, and of the commencement of the fifth.

He has added to it introductions and critical notes. For the

parts not published I will cite the text of the Laurentian

manuscript (Plut. 20, cod. 7), completed where possible with the

Italian version in the National Library at Florence

(Magliabecchina, xxxvii.-28). See also an article of Professor

Tocco in the _Archivio storico italiano_, t. xvii. (1886), pp.

12-36 and 243-61, and one of Mr. Richard's: Library of the École

des chartes, 1884, 5th livr. p. 525. Cf. Tocco, the _Eresia nel

medio Evo_, p. 419 ff. As to the text published by Döllinger in

his _Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters_, Münich,

1890, 2 vols., 8vo, II. _Theil Dokumente_, pp. 417-427, it is of

no use. It can only beget errors, as it abounds with gross

mistakes. Whole pages are wanting.

[11] _Archiv._, t. iii., pp. 406-409.

[12] Vide _Archiv._, i., p. 557 ... "_Et hoc totum ex rapacitate

et malignitate luporum pastorum qui voluerunt esse pastores, sed

operibus negaverunt deum_," et seq. Cf., p. 562: "_Avaritia et

symoniaca heresis absque pallio regnat et fere totum invasit

ecclesie corpus_."

[13] "_Qui excommunicat et hereticat altissimam evangelii

paupertatem, excommunicatus est a Deo et hereticus coram

Christo, qui est eterna et in commutabilis veritas._" _Arch._,

i., p. 509. "_Non est potestas contra christum Dominum et contra

evangelium._" Ib. p. 560. He closes one of his letters with a

sentence of a mysticism full of serenity, and which lets us see

to the bottom of the hearts of the Spiritual Brothers. "_Totum

igitur studium esse debet quod unum inseparabiliter simus per

Franciscum in Christo._" Ib., p. 564.

[14] For example in the list of the first six generals of the

Order.

[15] The first (1219-1226) extends from the departure of St.

Francis for Egypt up to his death; the second includes the

generalate of Brother Elias (1232-1239); the third that of

Crescentius (1244-1248); the fourth, that of Bonaventura

(1257-1274); the fifth commences with the epoch of the council

of Lyon (1274) and extends up to the death of the inquisitor,

Thomas d'Aversa (1204). And the sixth goes from 1308 to 1323.

[16] "_Supererant adhuc multi de sociis b. Francisci ... et alii

non pauci de quibus ego vidi et ab ipsis audivi quæ narro._"

Laur. Ms., cod. 7, pl. xx., f^o 24a: "_Qui passi sunt eam

(tribulationem tertiam) socii fundatoris fratres Aegdius et

Angelus, qui supererant me audiente referibant_." Laur. Ms., f^o

27b. Cf., Italian Ms., xxxvii., 28, Magliab., f^o 138b.

[17] The date of his death is unknown; on August 11, 1253, he

was present at the death-bed of St. Clara.

[18] Died April 23, 1261.

[19] "_Quem (fratrem Jacobum de Massa) dirigente me fratre

Johanne socio fratris prefati Egidii videre laboravi. Hic enim

frater Johannes ... dixit mihi_...." _Arch._, ii., p. 279.

[20] " ... _Tribulationes preteritas memoravi, ut audivi ab

illis qui sustinuerunt eas et aliqua commemoravi de hiis que

didici in quatuor legendis quas vidi et legi._" _Arch._, ii., p.

135.--"_Vitam pauperis et humilis viri Dei Francisci trium

ordinum fundatoris quatuor solemnes personæ scripserunt, fratres

videlicet scientia et sanctitate præclari, Johannes et Thomas de

Celano, frater Bonaventura unus post Beatum Franciscum Generalis

Minister et vir miræ simplicitatis et sanctitatis frater Leo,

ejusdem sancti Francisci socius. Has quatuor descriptiones seu

historias qui legerit_...." Laurent. MS., pl. xx., c. 7, f^o 1a.

Did the Italian translator think there was an error in this

quotation? I do not know, but he suppressed it. At f^o 12a of

manuscript xxxvii., 28, of the Magliabecchina, we read:

"_Incominciano alcune croniche del ordine franciscano, come la

vita del povero e humile servo di Dio Francesco fondatore del

minorico ordine fu scripta da San Bonaventura e da quatro altri

frati. Queste poche scripture ovveramente hystorie quello il

quale diligentemente le leggiera, expeditamente potra cognoscere

... la vocatione la santita di San Francisco._"

[21] Laur. MS., f^o 4b ff. On the other hand we read in a letter

of Clareno: "_Ad hanc (paupertatem) perfecte servandam Christus

Franciscum vocavit et elegit in hac hora novissima et precepit

ei evangelicam assumere regulam, et a papa Innocentio fuit

omnibus annuntiatum in concilio generali, quod de sua

auctoritate et obedientia sanctus Franciscus evangelicam vitam

et regulam assumpserat et Christo inspirante servare promiserat,

sicut sanctus vir fr. Leo scribit et fr. Johannes de Celano._"

_Archiv._, i., p. 559.

[22] "_Audiens enim semel quorundam fratrum enormes excessus, ut

fr. Thomas de Celano scribit, et malum exemplum per eos

secularibus datum._" Laur. MS., f^o 13b. The passage which

follows evidently refers to 2 Cel., 3, 93 and 112.

[23] "_Et fecerunt de regula prima ministri removeri capitulum

istud de prohibitionibus sancti evangelii, sicut frater Leo

scribit._" Laur. Ms. f^o 12b. Cf. _Spec._, 9a, see p. 248. "_Nam

cum rediisset de partibus ultramarinis, minister quidam

loquebatur cum eo, ut frater Leo refert, de capitulo

paupertatis_," f^o 13a, cf. _Spec._, 9a, "_S. Franciscus, teste

fr. Leone, frequenter et cum multo studio recitabat fabulam ...

quod oportebat finaliter ordinem humiliari et ad sue humilitatis

principia confitenda et tenenda reduci_." _Archiv._, ii., p.

129.

There is only one point of contact between the Legend of the

Three Companions, such as it is to-day, and these passages; but

we find on the contrary revised accounts in the _Speculum_ and

in the other collections, where they are cited as coming from

Brother Leo.

[24] Clareno, for example, holds that the Cardinal Ugolini had

sustained St. Francis without approving of the first Rule, in

concert with Cardinal Giovanni di San Paolo. This is possible,

since Ugolini was created cardinal in 1198 (Vide Cardella:

_Memorie storiche de' Cardinali_, 9 vols., 8vo, Rome, 1792-1793,

t. i., pt. 2, p. 190). Besides this would better explain the

zeal with which he protected the divers Orders founded by St.

Francis, from 1217. The chapter where Clareno tells how St.

Francis wrote the Rule shows the working over of the legend, but

it is very possible that he has borrowed it in its present form

from Brother Leo. It is to be noted that we do not find in this

document a single allusion to the Indulgences of Portiuncula.

[25] The manuscripts and editions are well-nigh innumerable. M.

Luigi Manzoni has studied them with a carefulness that makes it

much to be desired that he continue this difficult work. _Studi

sui Fioretti_: Miscelenea, 1888, pp. 116-119, 150-152, 162-168;

1889, 9-15, 78-84, 132-135. When shall we find some one who can

and will undertake to make a scientific edition of them? Those

which have appeared during our time in the various cities of

Italy are insignificant from a critical point of view. See

Mazzoni Guido, _Capitoli inediti dei Fioretti di S. Francesco_,

in the _Propugnatore_, Bologna, 1888, vol. xxi., pp. 396-411.

[26] Vide A. SS., p. 865: "_Floretum non legi, nec curandum

putavi._" Cf. 553f: "_Floretum ad manum non habeo._"

[27] Bartolommeo di Pisa compiled it in 1385; then certain

manuscripts of the Fioretti are earlier. Besides, in the stories

that the Conformities borrow from the Fioretti, we perceive

Bartolommeo's work of abbreviation.

[28] I am speaking here only of the fifty-three chapters which

form the true collection of the Fioretti.

[29] The province of the March of Ancona counted seven

custodias: 1, Ascoli; 2, Camerino; 3, Ancona; 4, Jesi; 5, Fermo;

6, Fano; 7, Felestro. The Fioretti mention at least six of the

monasteries of the custodia of Fermo: Moliano, 51, 53;

Fallerone, 32, 51; Bruforte and Soffiano, 46, 47; Massa, 51;

Penna, 45; Fermo, 41, 49, 51.

[30] At each page we are reminded of those groves which were

originally the indispensable appendage of the Franciscan

monasteries: _La selva ch' era allora allato a S. M. degli

Angeli_, 3, 10, 15, 16, etc. _La selva d' un luogo deserto del

val di Spoleto_ (Carceri?), 4; _selva di Forano_, 42. _di

Massa_, 51, etc.

[31] The _Speculum_, 46b, 58b, 158a, gives us three states. Cf.

_Fior._, 26 and 21; _Conform._, 119b, 2.

[32] This desire was so natural that the manuscript of the

Angelica Library includes many additional chapters, concerning

the gift of Portiuncula, the indulgence of August 2d, the birth

of St. Francis, etc. (Vide Amoni, Fioretti, Roma, 1889, pp. 266,

378-386.) It would be an interesting study to seek the origin of

these documents and to establish their relationship with the

Speculum and the Conformities. Vide _Conform._, 231a, 1; 121b;

_Spec._, 92-96.

[33] Ginepro was received into the Order by St. Francis. In 1253

he was present at St. Clara's death. A. SS., _Aug._, t. ii., p.

764d. The Conformities speak of him in detail, f^o 62b.

[34] The first seven chapters form a whole. The three which

follow are doubtless a first attempt at completing them.

[35] Conformities, f^o 55b, 1-60a, 1.

[36] See _Archiv._, t. i., p. 145, an article of Father Denifle:

_Zur Quellenkunde der Franziskaner Geschichte_, where he

mentions at least eight manuscripts of this work. Cf. Ehrle:

_Zeitschrift_, 1883, p. 324, note 3. I have studied only the two

manuscripts of Florence: Riccardi, 279, paper, 243 fos. of two

cols. recently numbered. The Codex of the Laurentian Gaddian.

rel., 53, is less careful. It is also on paper, 20 x 27, and

counts 254 fos. of 1 column. F^o 1 was formerly numbered 88. The

order of the chapters is not the same as in the preceding.

[37] The citations are always made from the edition of Milan,

1510, 4to of 256 folios of two columns. The best known of the

subsequent editions are those of Milan, 1513, and Bologna, 1590.

[38] He began it in 1385 (f^o 1), and it was authorized by the

chapter general August 2, 1399 (f^o 256a, 1). Besides, on f^o

150a, 1, he set down the date when he was writing. It was in

1390.

[39] I am not here concerned with the foolish attacks of certain

Protestant authors upon this life. That is a quarrel of the

theologians which in no way concerns history. Nowhere does

Bartolommeo of Pisa make St. Francis the equal of Jesus, and he

was able even to forestall criticism in this respect. The

Bollandists are equally severe: "_Cum Pisanus fuerit scriptor

magis pius et credulus quam crisi severa usus_...." A. SS., p.

551e.

[40] He has avoided the mistakes so unfortunately committed by

Wadding in his list of ministers general. Vide 66a. 2, 104a, 1,

118b, 2. He was lecturer on theology at Bologna, Padua, Pisa,

Sienna, and Florence. He preached for many years and with great

success in the principal villages of the Peninsula and could

thus take advantage of his travels by collecting useful notes.

Mark of Lisbon has preserved for us a notice of his life. Vide

_Croniche dei fratri Minori_, t. iii., p. 6 ff. of the Diola

edition. He died December 10, 1401. For further details see

Wadding, ann. 1399, vii., viii., and above all Sbaralea,

_Supplementum_, p. 109. He is the author of an exposition of the

Rule little known which can be found in the Speculum Morin,

Rouen, 1509, f^o 66b-83a, of part three.

[41] This opinion is expressed in a guarded manner. For example,

f^o 207a, 1, Bartolommeo relates the miracle of the Chapter of

the Mats, first following St. Bonaventura, then adding: "_Et

quia non aliter tangit dicta pars (legendæ majoris) hoc insigne

miraculum: antiqua legenda hoc refertur in hunc modum_." Cf.

225a, 2m. "_Et quia fr. Bonaventura succincte multa tangit et in

brevi: pro evidentia prefatorum notandum est ... ut dicit

antiqua legenda._"

[42] However, it is necessary to note that not only are there

considerable differences between the editions published, but

also that the first (that of Milan, 1510) has been completed and

revised by its editor. The judgments passed upon Raymond

Ganfridi, 104a, 1, and Boniface VIII., 103b, 1, show traces of

later corrections. (Cf. 125a, 1. At f^o 72a, 2m, is indicated

the date of the death of St. Bernardin, which was in 1444, etc.)

Besides, we are surprised to find beside the pages where the

sources are indicated with clearness others where stories follow

one another coming one knows not from whence.

[43] F^o 70a, 1: "_Cujus nomen non reperi._" 1a, 2: "_Multaque

non ex industria sed quia ea noscere non valui omittendo._"

[44] F^o 78a, 1: _Informationes quas non scribo quia imperfectas

reperi._ Cf. 229b, 2: "_De aliis multis apparitionibus non

reperi scripturam, quare hic non pono._"

[45] F^o 69a, 1: "_Hec ut audivi posui quia ejus legendam non

vidi._" Cf. 68b, 2m: _Fr. Henricus generalis minister mihi

magistro Bartholomeo dixit ipse oretenus._

[46] The citations from Bonaventura are decidedly more frequent.

We should not be surprised, since this story is the official

biography of St. Francis; the chapter from which Bartolommeo

takes his quotations is almost always indicated, and, naturally,

follows the old division in five parts. Opening the book at

hazard at folio 136a I find no less than six references to the

_Legenda Major_ in the first column. To give an idea of the

style of Bartolommeo of Pisa I shall give in substance the

contents of a page of his book. See, for example, f^o 111a (lib.

i., conform. x., pars. ii., Franciscus predicator). In the third

line he cites Bonaventura: "_Fr. Bonaventura in quarta parte

majoris legende dicit quod b. Franciscus videbatur intuentibus

homo alterius seculi._" Textual citation of Bonaventure, 45.

Three lines further on: "_Verum qualis esset b. F. quoad

personam sic habetur in legenda antiqua ... homo facundissimus,

facie hilaris_, etc." The literal citation of the sketch of

Francis follows as 1 Celano, 83, gives it as far as: "_inter

peccatores quasi unus ex illis_," and to mark the end of the

quotation Bartolommeo adds: "_Hec legenda antiqua_." In the next

column paragraph 4 commences with the words: _B. Francisci

predicationem reddebat mirabilem et gloriosam ipsius sancti

loquutio: etenim legenda trium Sociorum dicit et Legenda major

parte tertia: B. Francisei eloquia erant non inania, neo risu

digna_, etc., which corresponds literally with 3 Soc., 25, and

Bon., 28. Then come two chapters of Bonaventura almost entire,

beginning with: _In duodecima parte legende majoris dicit Fr.

Bonaventura: Erat enim verbum ejus_, etc. Textual quotation of

Bon., 178 and 179. The page ends with another quotation from

Bonaventura: _Sic dicebat prout recitat Bonaventura in octava

parte Legende majoris: Hac officium patri misericordiarum_. Vide

Bonav., 102 end and 103 entire. This suffices without doubt to

show with what precision the authorities have been quoted in

this work, with what attention and confidence ought to be

examined those portions of documents lost or mislaid which he

has here preserved for us.

[47] F^o 31b, 2: _ut dicit fr. Thomas in sua legenda_, cf. 2

Cel., 3, 60.--140a, 2: _Fr. in leg. fr. Thome_, cf. 2 Cel., 3,

60.--140a 1, cf. 2 Cel., 3 16.--142b, 1: _Fr. in leg. Thome

capitulo de charitate_, cf. 2 Cel., 3, 115.--144b, 1: _Fr. in

leg. fr. Thome capitulo de oratione_, cf. 2 Cel., 3, 40.--144b,

1, cf. 2 Cel., 3, 65.--144b, 2, cf. 2 Cel., 3, 78.--176b, 2, cf.

2 Cel., 3, 79.--182b, 2, cf. 2 Cel., 2, 1.--241b, 1, cf. 2 Cel.,

3, 141.--181a, 2, cf. 1 Cel., 27. It is needless to say that

these lists of quotations do not pretend to be complete.

[48] F^o 36b, 2. _Ut enim habetur in leg._ 3 Soc., cf. 3 Soc.,

10.--46b, 1, cf. 3 Soc., 25-28.--38b 2, cf. 3 Soc. 3.--111a, 2,

cf. 3 Soc., 25.--134a, 2, cf. 3 Soc., 4.--142b, 2, cf. 3 Soc., 57

and 58.--167b, 2, cf. 3 Soc., 3 and 8.--168a, 1, cf. 3 Soc.,

10.--170b, 1, cf. 3 Soc., 39, 4.--175b, 2, cf. 3 Soc.,

59.--180b, 2, cf. 3 Soc., 4.--181a, 1, cf. 3 Soc., 5, 7, 24, 33,

and 67.--181a. 2, cf. 3 Soc., 36.--229b, 2, cf. 3 Soc., 14. etc.

The reading of 3 Soc. which Bartolommeo had before his eyes was

pretty much the same we have to day, for he says, 181a, 2.

referring to 3 Soc., 67: "_Ut habetur quasi in fine leg_. 3

_Soc._"

[49] F^o 111a, 1, _Sic habetur in leg. ant._, corresponds

literally with 1 Cel., 83.--144a, 2. _Franciscus in leg. ant.

cap. v. de zelo ad religionem_, to 1 Cel. 106.

[50] F^o 111b, 1. _De predicantibus loqueus sic dicebat in ant.

leg._ Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 99 and 106. 140b, 1. Cf. 2 Cel., 3,

84.--144b, 1, cf. 2 Cel., 3, 45--144a, 1, cf. 2 Cel., 3, 95 and

15.--225b, 2, cf. 2 Cel., 3, 116.

[51] F^o 31a, 1. Vide 2 Cel., 3, 83.--143a, 2. Vide 2 Cel., 3,

65 and 116.--144a, 1. Vide 2 Cel., 3, 94.--170b. 1. Vide 2 Cel.,

3, 11.

[52] F^o 14a, 2.--32a. 1.--101a, 2.--169b, 1.--144b, 2.--142a,

2.--143b, 2.--168b, 1.--144b, 1.

[53] Chapters 18 (chapter of the mats) and 25 (lepers cured) of

the _Fioretti_ are found in Latin in the Conf. as borrowed from

the Leg. Ant. Vide 174b, 1, and 207a. 1.

Finally, according to f^o 168b, 2, it is also from the Leg. Ant.

that the description of the coat, such as we find at the end of

the _Chronique des Tribulations_, was borrowed. See _Archiv._,

t. ii., p. 153.

[54] F^o 182a, 2; cf. 51b, 1; 144a, 1.

[55] He died December 12, 1306, at Bastia, near Assisi. See upon

him _Chron. Tribul. Archiv._, ii.; 311 and 312; _Conform._, 60,

119, and 153.

[56] Although the history of the Indulgence of Portiuncula was

of all subjects the one most largely treated in the

Conformities, 151b, 2--157a, 2, not once does Bartolommeo of

Pisa refer to it in the _Legenda Antiqua_. It seems, then, that

this collection also was silent as to this celebrated pardon.

[57] Published with extreme care by the Franciscan Fathers of

the Observance in t. ii. of the _Analecta Franciscana, ad Claræ

Aquas_ (Quaracchi, near Florence), 1888, 1 vol., crown 8vo, of

xxxvi.-612 pp. This edition, as much from the critical point of

view of the text, its correctness, its various readings and

notes, as from the material point of view, is perfect and makes

the more desirable a publication of the chronicles of the xxiv.

generals and of Salimbeni by the same editors. The beginning up

to the year 1262 has been published already by Dr. Karl Evers

under the title _Analecta ad Fratrum Minorum historiam_,

Leipsic, 1882, 4to of 89 pp.

[58] I have been able only to procure the Italian edition

published by Horatio Diola under the title _Croniche degli

Ordini instituti dal P. S. Francesco_, 3 vols., 8vo, Venice,

1606.

* * * * *

V

CHRONICLES OUTSIDE OF THE ORDER

I. JACQUES DE VITRY

The following documents, which we can only briefly indicate, are of

inestimable value; they emanate from men particularly well situated to

give us the impression which the Umbrian prophet produced on his

generation.

Jacques de Vitry[1] has left extended writings on St. Francis. Like a

prudent man who has already seen many religious madmen, he is at first

reserved; but soon this sentiment disappears, and we find in him only a

humble and active admiration for the _Apostolic Man_.

He speaks of him in a letter which he wrote immediately after the taking

of Damietta (November, 1219), to his friends in Lorraine, to describe it

to them.[2] A few lines suffice to describe St. Francis and point out

his irresistible influence. There is not a single passage in the

Franciscan biographers which gives a more living idea of the apostolate

of the Poverello.

He returns to him more at length in his _Historia Occidentalis_,

devoting to him the thirty-second chapter of this curious work.[3]

These pages, vibrating with enthusiasm, were written during Francis's

lifetime,[4] at the time when the most enlightened members of the

Church, who had believed themselves to be living in the evening of the

world, _in vespere mundi tendentis ad occasum_, suddenly saw in the

direction of Umbria the light of a new day.

II. THOMAS OF SPALATO

An archdeacon of the Cathedral of Spalato, who in 1220 was studying at

Bologna, has left us a very living portrait of St. Francis and the

memory of the impression which his preachings produced in that learned

town.[5]

Something of his enthusiasm has passed into his story; we feel that that

day, August 15, 1220, when he met the Poverello of Assisi, was one of

the best of his life.[6]

III. DIVERS CHRONICLES

The continuation of William of Tyre[7] brings us a new account of

Francis's attempt to conquer the Soudan. This narrative, the longest of

all three we have on this subject, contains no feature essentially new,

but it gives one more witness to the historic value of the Franciscan

legends.

Finally, there are two chronicles written during Francis's life, which,

without giving anything new, speak with accuracy of his foundation, and

prove how rapidly that religious renovation which started in Umbria was

being propagated to the very ends of Europe. The anonymous chronicler of

Monte Sereno[8] in fact wrote about 1225, and tells us, not without

regret, of the brilliant conquests of the Franciscans.

Burchard,[9] Abbot Prémontré d'Ursberg (died in 1226), who was in Rome

in 1211, leaves us a very curious criticism of the Order.

The Brothers Minor appeared to him a little like an orthodox branch of

the Poor Men of Lyons. He even desires that the pope, while approving

the Franciscans, should do so with a view to satisfy, in the measure of

the possible, the aspirations manifested by that heresy and that of the

Humiliati.

It is impossible to attribute any value whatever to the long pages given

to St. Francis by Matthew Paris.[10] His information is correct

wherever the activities of the friars are concerned, and he could

examine the work around him.[11] They are absolutely fantastic when he

comes to the life of St. Francis, and we can only feel surprised to find

M. Hase[12] adopting the English monk's account of the stigmata.

The notice which he gives of Francis contains as many errors as

sentences; he makes him born of a family illustrious by its nobility,

makes him study theology from his infancy (_hoc didicerat in litteris et

theologicis disciplinis quibus ab ætate tenera incubuerat, usque ad

notitiam perfectam_), etc.[13]

It would be useless to enlarge this list and mention those chroniclers

who simply noticed the foundation of the Order, its approbation, and the

death of St. Francis,[14] or those which spoke of him at length, but

simply by copying a Franciscan legend.[15]

It suffices to point out by way of memory the long chapter consecrated

to St. Francis in the Golden Legend. Giachimo di Voraggio ([Cross]

1298) there sums up with accuracy but without order the essential

features of the first legends and in particular the Second Life by

Celano.[16]

As for the inscription of Santa Maria del Vescovado at Assisi it is too

unformed to be anything but a simple object of curiosity.[17]

* * * * *

I have given up preparing a complete bibliography of works concerning

St. Francis, that task having been very well done by the Abbé Ulysse

Chevalier in his _Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen age_,

Bio-Bibliographie, cols. 765-767 and 2588-2590, Paris, 1 vol., 4to,

1876-1888. To it I refer my readers.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] He was born at Vitry sur Seine, became Curé of Argenteuil,

near Paris; Canon of Oignies, in the diocese of Namur, preached

the crusade against the Albigenses, and accompanied the

Crusaders to Palestine; having been made Bishop of Acre, he was

present in 1219 at the siege and at the capture of Damietta and

returned to Europe in 1225; created Cardinal-bishop of Frascati

in 1229, he died in 1244, leaving a number of writings. For his

life, see the preface of his _Historiæ_, edition of Douai, 1597.

[2] This letter may be found in (Bongars) _Gesta Dei per

Francio_, pp. 1146-1149.

[3] _Jacobi de Vitriaco Libri duo quorum prior Orientalis, alter

Occidentalis Historiæ nomine inscribitur studio Fr. Moschi Duaci

ex officina Balthazaris Belleri_, 1597, 16mo, 480 pp. Chapter

xxxii. fills pages 349-353, and is entitled _De ordine et

prædicatione fratrum Minorum_. See above, p. 229.

[4] This appears from the passage: _Videmus primus ordinis

fundatorem magestrum cui tanquam summo Priori suo omnes alii

obediunt._ _Loc. cit._, p. 352.

[5] It is inserted in the treatise of Sigonius on the bishops of

Bologna: _Caroli Sigonii de episcopis Bononiensibus libri

quinque cum notis L. C. Rabbii_, a work which occupies cols.

353-590 of t. iii. of his _Opera omnia_, Milan, 1732-1737, 6

vols., f^o. We find our fragment in col. 432.

[6] This passage will be found above, p. 241.

[7] _Guillelmi Tyrensis arch. Continuala belli sacri historia_

in Martène: _Amplissima Collectio_, t. v. pp. 584-572. The piece

concerning Francis is cols. 689-690.

[8] _Chronicon Montis Sereni_ (at present Petersberg, near

Halle), edited by Ehrenfeuchter in the _Mon. Germ. hist.

Script._, t. 23, pp. 130-226, 229.

[9] _Burchardi et Cuonradi Urspergensium chronicon_ ed., A. Otto

Abel and L. Weiland, _apud Mon. Germ, hist._, t. 23, pp.

333-383. The monastery of Ursperg was half-way between Ulm and

Augsburg. Vide p. 376.

[10] _Matthæi Parisiensis monachie Albanensis, Historia major_,

edition Watts, London, 1640. The Brothers Minor are first

mentioned in the year 1207, p. 222, then 1227, pp. 339-342.

[11] See the article, _Minores_, in the table of contents of the

_Mon. Germ. hist. Script._, t. xxviii.

[12] _Franz von Assisi_, p. 168 ff.

[13] See above, p. 97, his story of the audience with Innocent

III.

[14] For example, _Chronica Albrici trium fontium_ in Pertz:

_Script._, t. 23, _ad ann. 1207_, 1226, 1228. Vide Fragment of

the chron. of Philippe Mousket ([Cross] before 1245). _Recueil des

historiens_, t. xxii., p. 71, lines 30347-30360. The number of

annalists in this century is appalling, and there is not one in

ten who has omitted to note the foundation of the Minor

Brothers.

[15] For example, Vincent de Beauvais ([Cross] 1264) gives in his

_Speculum historiale_, lib. 29, cap. 97-99, lib. 30, cap.

99-111, nearly every story given by the Bollandists under the

title of _Secunda legenda_ in their _Commentarium prævium_.

[16] _Legenda aurea_, Graesse, Breslau, 1890, pp. 662-674.

[17] A good reproduction of it will be found in the _Miscellanea

francescana_, t. ii., pp. 33-37, accompanied by a learned

dissertation by M. Faloci Pulignani.

* * * * *

APPENDIX

CRITICAL STUDY OF THE STIGMATA AND THE INDULGENCE OF AUGUST 2

I. THE STIGMATA

A dissertation upon the possibility of miracles would be out of place

here; a historic sketch is not a treatise on philosophy or dogmatics.

Still, I owe the reader a few explanations, to enable him with thorough

understanding to judge of my manner of viewing the subject.

If by miracle we understand either the suspension or subversion of the

laws of nature, or the intervention of the first cause in certain

particular cases, I could not concede it. In this negation physical and

logical reasons are secondary; the true reason--let no one be

surprised--is entirely religious; the miracle is immoral. The equality

of all before God is one of the postulates of the religious

consciousness, and the miracle, that good pleasure of God, only degrades

him to the level of the capricious tyrants of the earth.

The existing churches, making, as nearly all of them do, this notion of

miracle the very essence of religion and the basis of all positive

faith, involuntarily render themselves guilty of that emasculation of

manliness and morality of which they so passionately complain. If God

intervenes thus irregularly in the affairs of men, the latter can

hardly do otherwise than seek to become courtiers who expect all things

of the sovereign's _favor_.

The question changes its aspect, if we call miracle, as we most

generally do, all that goes beyond ordinary experience.

Many apologists delight in showing that the unheard of, the

inexplicable, are met with all through life. They are right and I agree

with them, on condition that they do not at the close of their

explanation replace this new notion of the supernatural by the former

one.

It is thus that I have come to conclude the reality of the stigmata.

They may have been a unique fact without being more miraculous than

other phenomena; for example, the mathematical powers or the musical

ability of an infant prodigy.

There are in the human creature almost indefinite powers, marvellous

energies; in the great majority of men these lie in torpid slumber, but

awaking to life in a few, they make of them prophets, men of genius, and

saints who show humanity its true nature.

We have caught but fleeting glimpses into the domain of mental

pathology, so vast is it and unexplored; the learned men of the future

will perhaps make, in the realms of psychology and physiology, such

discoveries as will bring about a complete revolution in our laws and

customs.

It remains to examine the stigmata from the point of view of history.

And though in this field there is no lack of difficulties, small and

great, the testimony appears to me to be at once too abundant and too

precise not to command conviction.

We may at the outset set aside the system of those who hold that Brother

Elias helped on their appearance by a pious fraud. Such a claim might

indeed be defended if these marks had been gaping wounds, as they are

now or in most cases have been represented to be; but all the testimony

agrees in describing them, with the exception of the mark on the side,

as blackish, fleshy excrescences, like the heads of nails, and in the

palms of the hands like the points of nails clinched by a hammer. There

was no bloody exudation except at the side.

On the other hand, any deception on the part of Elias would oblige us to

hold that his accomplices were actually the heads of the party opposed

to him, Leo, Angelo, and Rufino. Such want of wit would be surprising

indeed in a man so circumspect.

Finally the psychological agreement between the external circumstances

and the event is so close that an invention of this character would be

as inexplicable as the fact itself. That which indeed almost always

betrays invented or unnatural incidents is that they do not fit into the

framework of the facts. They are extraneous events, purely decorative

elements whose place might be changed at will.

Nothing of the sort is the case here: Thomas of Celano is so veracious

and so exact, that though holding the stigmata to be miraculous, he

gives us all the elements necessary for explaining them in a

diametrically opposite manner.

1. The preponderating place of the passion of Jesus in Francis's

conscience ever since his conversion (1 Cel., 115; 2 Cel., 1, 6; 3, 29;

49; 52).

2. His sojourn in the Verna coincides with a great increase of mystical

fervor.

3. He there observes a Lent in honor of the archangel St. Michael.

4. The festival of the exaltation of the cross comes on, and in the

vision of the crucified seraph is blended the two ideas which have taken

possession of him, the angels and the crucifix (1 Cel., 91-96,

112-115).

This perfect congruity between the circumstances and the prodigy itself

forms a moral proof whose value cannot be exaggerated.

It is time to pass the principal witnesses in review.

1. Brother Elias, 1226. On the very day after the death of Francis,

Brother Elias, in his capacity of vicar, sent letters to the entire

Order announcing the event and prescribing prayers.[1]

After having expressed his sorrow and imparted to the Brothers the

blessing with which the dying Francis had charged him for them, he adds:

"I announce to you a great joy and a new miracle. Never has the world

seen such a sign, except on the Son of God who is the Christ God. For a

long time before his death our Brother and Father appeared as crucified,

having in his body five wounds which are truly the stigmata of Christ,

for his hands and his feet bore marks as of nails without and within,

forming a sort of scars; while at the side he was as if pierced with a

lance, and often a little blood oozed from it."

2. Brother Leo. We find that it is the very adversary of Elias who is

the natural witness, not only of the stigmata, but of the circumstances

of their imprinting. This fact adds a peculiar value to his account.

We learned above (Critical Study, p. 377) the untoward fate of a part of

the Legend of Brothers Leo, Angelo, and Rufino. The chapters with which

it now closes (68-73) and in which the narrative of the miracle occurs,

were not originally a part of it. They are a summary added at a later

time to complete this document. This appendix, therefore, has no

historic value, and we neither depend on it with the ecclesiastical

authors to affirm the miracle, nor with M. Hase to call it in question.

Happily the testimony of Brother Leo has come down to us in spite of

that. We are not left even to seek for it in the Speculum, the Fioretti,

the Conformities, where fragments of his work are to be found; we find

it in several other documents of incontestable authority.

The authenticity of the autograph of St. Francis preserved at Assisi

appears to be thoroughly established (see Critical Study, p. 357); it

contains the following note by Brother Leo's hand: "The Blessed Francis

two years before his death kept on the Verna in honor of the B. V. Mary

mother of God, and St. Michael Archangel, a Lent from the festival of

the Assumption of the B. V. M. to the festival of St. Michael in

September, and the hand of God was upon him by the vision and the

address of the seraph and the impression of the stigmata upon his body.

He made the laudes that are on the other side, ... etc."

Again, Eccleston (13) shows us Brother Leo complaining to Brother Peter

of Tewkesbury, minister in England, that the legend is too brief

concerning the events on the Verna, and relating to him the greater

number of the incidents which form the nucleus of the Fioretti on the

stigmata. These memorials are all the more certain that they were

immediately committed to writing by Peter of Tewkesbury's companion,

Brother Garin von Sedenfeld.

Finally Salembeni, in his chronicle (ad ann. 1224) in speaking of

Ezzelino da Romano is led to oppose him to Francis. He suddenly

remembers the stigmata and says, "Never man on earth, but he, has had

the five wounds of Christ. His companion, Brother Leo, who was present

when they washed the body before the burial, told me that he looked

precisely like a crucified man taken down from the cross."

3. Thomas of Celano, before 1230. He describes them more at length than

Brother Elias (1 Cel., 94, 95, 112).

The details are too precise not to suggest a lesson learned by heart.

The author nowhere assumes to be an eye-witness, yet he has the tone of

a legal deposition.

These objections are not without weight, but the very novelty of the

miracle might have induced the Franciscans to fix it in a sort of

canonical and so to say, stereotyped narrative.

4. The portrait of Francis, by Berlinghieri, dated 1236,[2] preserved

at Pescia (province of Lucca) shows the stigmata as they are described

in the preceding documents.

5. Gregory IX. in 1237. Bull of March 31; _Confessor Domini_ (Potthast,

10307. Cf. 10315). A movement of opinion against the stigmata had been

produced in certain countries. The pope asks all the faithful to believe

in them. Two other bulls of the same day, one addressed to the Bishop of

Olmütz, the other to the Dominicans, energetically condemns them for

calling the stigmata in question (Potthast, 10308 and 10309).

6. Alexander IV., in his bull _Benigna operatio_ of October 29, 1255

(Potthast, 16077), states that having formerly been the domestic

prelate of Cardinal Ugolini, he knew St. Francis familiarly, and

supports his description of the stigmata by these relations.

To this pontiff are due several bulls declaring excommunicate all those

who deny them. These contribute nothing new to the question.

7. Bonaventura (1260) repeats in his legend Thomas of Celano's

description (Bon., 193; cf. 1 Cel. 94 and 95), not without adding some

new factors (Bon., 194-200 and 215-218), often so coarse and clumsy that

they inevitably awaken doubt (see for example, 201).

8. Matthew Paris ([Cross] 1259). His discordant witness barely

deserves being cited by way of memoir (see Critical Study, p. 431). To

be able to forgive the fanciful character of his long disquisitions on

St. Francis, we are forced to recall to mind that he owed his

information to the verbal account of some pilgrim. He makes the

stigmata appear a fortnight before the Saint's death, shows them

continually emitting blood, the wound on the side so wide open that

the heart could be seen. The people gather in crowds to see the sight,

the cardinals come also, and all together listen to Francis's strange

declarations. (_Historia major_, Watts's edition London, 1 vol. fol.,

1640, pp. 339-342.)

This list might be greatly lengthened by the addition of a passage from

Luke bishop of Tuy (Lucas Tudensis) written in 1231;[3] based

especially on the Life by Thomas of Celano, and oral witnesses.

The statement of Brother Boniface, an eye-witness, at the chapter of

Genoa (1254). (Eccl. 13.)

Finally and especially, we should study the strophes relating to the

stigmata in the proses, hymns, and sequences composed in 1228 by the

pope and several cardinals for the Office of St. Francis; but such a

work, to be done with accuracy, would carry us very far, and the

authorities already cited doubtless suffice without bringing in

others.[4]

The objections which have been opposed to these witnesses may be

reduced, I think, to the following:[5]

_a._ Francis's funeral took place with surprising precipitation. Dead on

Saturday evening, he was buried Sunday morning.

_b._ His body was enclosed in a coffin, which is contrary to Italian

habits.

_c._ At the time of the removal, the body, wrested from the multitude,

is so carefully hidden in the basilica that for centuries its precise

place has been unknown.

_d._ The bull of canonization makes no mention of the stigmata.

_e._ They were not admitted without a contest, and among those who

denied them were some bishops.

None of these arguments appears to me decisive.

_a._ In the Middle Ages funerals almost always took place immediately

after death (Innocent III. dying at Perugia July 16, 1216, is interred

the 17th; Honorius III. dies March 18, 1227, and is interred the next

day).

_b._ It is more difficult than many suppose to know what were the habits

concerning funerals in Umbria in the thirteenth century. However that

may be, it was certainly necessary to put Francis's body into a coffin.

He being already canonized by popular sentiment, his corpse was from

that moment a relic for which a reliquary was necessary; nay more, a

strong box such as the secondary scenes in Berlinghieri's picture shows

it to have been. Without such a precaution the sacred body would have

been reduced to fragments in a few moments. Call to mind the wild

enthusiasm that led the devotees to cut off the ears and even the

breasts of St. Elizabeth of Hungary. [_Quædam aures illius truncabant,

etiam summitatem mamillarum ejus quidam praecidebant et pro reliquiis

sibi servabant._--_Liber de dictis iv. ancillarum_, Mencken, vol. ii.,

p. 2032.]

_c._ The ceremony of translation brought an innumerable multitude to

Assisi. If Brother Elias concealed the body,[6] he may have been led

to do so by the fear of some organized surprise of the Perugians to gain

possession of the precious relic. With the customs of those days, such a

theft would have been in nowise extraordinary. These very Perugians a

few years later stole away from Bastia, a village dependent on Assisi,

the body of Conrad of Offida, which was performing innumerable miracles

there. (_Conform._, 60b, 1; cf. Giord., 50.) Similar affrays took place

at Padua over the relics of St. Anthony. (Hilaire, _Saint Antoine de

Padoue, sa légende primitive_, Montreuil-sur-Mer, 1 vol., 8vo, 1890, pp.

30-40.)

_d._ The bull of canonization, with the greater number of such

documents, for that matter, makes no historic claim. In its wordy

rhetoric we shall sooner learn the history of the Philistines, of

Samson, or even of Jacob, than of St. Francis. Canonization here is only

a pretext which the old pontiff seizes for recurring to his favorite

figures.

This silence signifies nothing after the very explicit testimony of

other bulls by the same pontiff in 1227, and after the part given to the

stigmata in the liturgical songs which in 1228 he composed for the

office of St. Francis.

_e._ These attacks by certain bishops are in nowise surprising; they are

episodes in the struggle of the secular clergy against the mendicant

orders.

At the time when these negations were brought forward (1237) the

narrative of Thomas of Celano was official and everywhere known; nothing

therefore would have been easier, half a score of years after the

events, than to bring witnesses to expose the fraud if there had been

any; but the Bishop of Olmütz and the others base their objections

always and only upon dogmatic grounds.

As to the attacks of the Dominicans, it is needless to recall the

rivalry between the two Orders;[7] is it not then singular to find

these protestations coming from Silesia (!) and never from Central

Italy, where, among other eye-witnesses, Brother Leo was yet living

([Cross] 1271)?

Thus the witnesses appear to me to maintain their integrity. We might

have preferred them more simple and shorter, we could wish that they had

reached us without details which awake all sorts of suspicions,[8] but

it is very seldom that a witness does not try to prove his affirmations

and to prop them up by arguments which, though detestable, are

appropriate to the vulgar audience to which he is speaking.

II. THE PARDON OF AUGUST 2D, CALLED INDULGENCE OF PORTIUNCULA[9]

This question might be set aside; on the whole it has no direct

connection with the history of St. Francis.

Yet it occupies too large a place in modern biographies not to require a

few words: it is related that Francis was in prayer one night at

Portiuncula when Jesus and the Virgin appeared to him with a retinue of

angels. He made bold to ask an unheard-of privilege, that of plenary

indulgence of all sins for all those who, having confessed and being

contrite, should visit this chapel. Jesus granted this at his mother's

request, on the sole condition that his vicar the pope would ratify it.

The next day Francis set out for Perugia, accompanied by Masseo, and

obtained from Honorius the desired indulgence, but only for the day of

August 2d.

Such, in a few lines, is the summary of this legend, which is surrounded

with a crowd of marvellous incidents.

The question of the nature and value of indulgences is not here

concerned. The only one which is here put is this: Did Francis ask this

indulgence and did Honorius III. grant it?

Merely to reduce it to these simple proportions is to be brought to

answer it with a categorical No.

It would be tedious to refer even briefly to the difficulties,

contradictions, impossibilities of this story, many a time pointed out

by orthodox writers. In spite of all they have come to the affirmative

conclusion: _Roma locuta est_.

Those whom this subject may interest will find in the note above

detailed bibliographical indications of the principal elements of this

now quieted discussion. I shall confine myself to pointing out the

impossibilities with which tradition comes into collision; they are both

psychological and historical. The Bollandists long since pointed out the

silence of Francis's early biographers upon this question. Now that the

published documents are much more numerous, this silence is still more

overwhelming. Neither the First nor the Second Life by Thomas of Celano,

nor the anonymous author of the second life given in the Acta Sanctorum,

nor even the anonymous writer of Perugia, nor the Three Companions, nor

Bonaventura say a single word on the subject. No more do very much later

works mention it, which sin only by excessive critical scruples: Bernard

of Besse, Giordiano di Giano, Thomas Eccleston, the Chronicle of the

Tribulations, the Fioretti, and even the Golden Legend.

This conspiracy of silence of all the writers of the thirteenth century

would be the greatest miracle of history if it were not absurd.

By way of explanation, it has been said that these writers refrained

from speaking of this indulgence for fear of injuring that of the

Crusade; but in that case, why did the pope command seven bishops to go

to Portiuncula to proclaim it in his name?

The legend takes upon itself to explain that Francis refused a bull or

any written attestation of this privilege; but, admitting this, it would

still be necessary to explain why no hint of this matter has been

preserved in the papers of Honorius III. And how is it that the bulls

sent to the seven bishops have left not the slightest trace upon this

pontiff's register?

Again, how does it happen, if seven bishops officially promulgated this

indulgence in 1217, that St. Francis, after having related to Brother

Leo his interview with the pope, said to him: "_Teneas secretum hoc

usque circa mortem tuam; quia non habet locum adhuc. Quia hæc

indulgentia occultabitur ad tempus; sed Dominus trahet eam extra et

manifestabitur._" _Conform._, 153b, 2. Such an avowal is not wanting in

simplicity. It abundantly proves that before the death of Brother Leo

(1271) no one had spoken of this famous pardon.

After this it is needless to insist upon secondary difficulties; how is

it that the chapters-general were not fixed for August 2d, to allow the

Brothers to secure the indulgence?

How explain that Francis, after having received in 1216 a privilege

unique in the annals of the Church, should be a stranger to the pope in

1219!

There is, however, one more proof whose value exceeds all the

others--Francis's Will:

"I forbid absolutely all the Brothers by their obedience, in whatever

place they may be, to ask any bull of the court of Rome, whether

directly or indirectly, nor under pretext of church or convent, nor

under pretext of preaching, nor even for their personal protection."

Before closing it remains for us to glance at the growth of this legend.

It was definitively constituted about 1330-1340, but it was in the air

long before. With the patience of four Benedictines (of the best days)

we should doubtless be able to find our way in the medley of documents,

more or less corrupted, from which it comes to us, and little by little

we might find the starting-point of this dream in a friar who sees

blinded humanity kneeling around Portiuncula to recover sight.[10]

It is not difficult to see in general what led to the materialization of

this graceful fancy: people remembered Francis's attachment to the

chapel where he had heard the decisive words of the gospel, and where

St. Clara in her turn had entered upon a new life.

When the great Basilica of Assisi was built, drawing to itself pilgrims

and privileges, an opposition of principles and of inspiration came to

be added to the petty rivalry between it and Portiuncula.

The zealots of poverty said aloud that though the Saint's body rested in

the basilica his heart was at Portiuncula.[11] By dint of repeating and

exaggerating what Francis had said about the little sanctuary, they came

to give a precise and so to say doctrinal sense to utterances purely

mystical.

The violences and persecutions of the party of the Large Observance

under the generalship of Crescentius[12] (1244-1247) aroused a vast

increase of fervor among their adversaries. To the bull of Innocent IV.

declaring the basilica thenceforth _Caput et Mater_ of the Order[13]

the Zealots replied by the narratives of Celano's Second Life and the

legends of that period.[14] They went so far as to quote a promise of

Francis to make it in perpetuity the _Mater et Caput_ of his

institute.[15]

In this way the two parties came to group themselves around these two

buildings. Even to-day it is the same. The Franciscans of the Strict

Observance occupy Portiuncula, while the Basilica of Assisi is in the

hands of the Conventuals (Large Observance), who have adopted all the

interpretations and mitigations of the Rules; they are worthy folk, who

live upon their dividends. By a phenomenon, unique, I think, in the

annals of the Church, they have pushed the freedom of their infidelity

to the point of casting off the habit, the popular brown cassock.

Dressed all in black, shod and hatted, nothing distinguishes them from

the secular clergy except a modest little cord.

Poor Francis! That he may have the joy of feeling his tomb brushed by a

coarse gown, some daring friar must overcome his very natural

repugnances, and come to kneel there. The indulgence of August 2d is

then the reply of the Zealots to the persecutions of their brothers.

An attentive study will perhaps show it emerging little by little under

the generalship of Raimondo Gaufridi (1289-1295); Conrad di Offida ([Cross]

1306) seems to have had some effect upon it, but only with the next

generation do we find the legend completed and avowed in open day.

Begun in a misapprehension it ends by imposing itself upon the Church,

which to-day guarantees it with its infallible authority, and yet in its

origin it was a veritable cry of revolt against the decisions of Rome.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The text was published in 1620 by Spoelberch (in his

_Speculum vitæ B. Francisci_, Antwerp, 2 vols., 12mo, ii., pp.

103-106), after the copy addressed to Brother Gregory,

minister in France, and then preserved in the convent of the

Recollects in Valenciennes. It was reproduced by Wadding (Ann.

1226, no. 44) and the Bollandists (pp. 668 and 669).

So late an appearance of a capital document might have left

room for doubts; there is no longer reason for any, since the

publication of the chronicle of Giordano di Giano, who relates

the sending of this letter (Giord., 50). The Abbé Amoni has

also published this text (at the close of his _Legenda trium

Sociorum_, Rome, 1880, pp. 105-109), but according to his

deplorable habit, he neglects to tell whence he has drawn it.

This is the more to be regretted since he gives a variant of

the first order: _Nam diu ante mortem_ instead of _Non diu_,

as Spoelberch's text has it. The reading _Nam diu_ appears

preferable from a philological point of view.

[2] Engraved in Saint François d'Assise, Paris, 4to, 1885, p. 277.

[3] _Bibliotheca Patrum._ Lyons, 1677, xxv., _adv.

Albigenses_, lib. ii., cap. 11., cf. iii., 14 and 15.

Reproduced in the A. SS., p. 652.

[4] The curious may consult the following sources: Salimbeni,

ann. 1250--_Conform._, 171b 2, 235a 2; Bon., 200; Wadding,

_ann. 1228_, no. 78; A. SS., p. 800. Manuscript 340 of the

_Sacro Convento_ contains (fo. 55b-56b) four of these hymns.

Cf. _Archiv._ i., p. 485.

[5] See in particular Hase: _Franz v. Assisi_. Leipsic, 1

vol., 8vo., 1856. The learned professor devotes no less than

sixty closely printed pages to the study of the stigmata,

142-202.

[6] The more I think about it, the more incapable I become of

attributing any sort of weight to this argument from the

disappearance of the body; for in fact, if there had been any

pious fraud on Elias's part, he would on the contrary have

displayed the corpse.

[7] See, for example, 2 Cel., 3, 86, as well as the encyclical

of Giovanni di Parma and Umberto di Romano, in 1225.

[8] The following among many others: Francis had particularly

high breeches made for him, to hide the wound in the side

(Bon., 201). At the moment of the apparition, which took place

during the night, so great a light flooded the whole country,

that merchants lodging in the inns of Casentino saddled their

beasts and set out on their way. _Fior., iii. consid._

Hase, in his study, is continually under the weight of the bad

impression made upon him by Bonaventura's deplorable

arguments; he sees the other witness only through him. I think

that if he had read simply Thomas of Celano's first Life, he

would have arrived at very different conclusions.

[9] The most important document is manuscript 344 of the

archives of Sacro Convento at Assisi. _Liber indulgentiæ S.

Mariæ de Angelis sive de Portiuncula in quo libra ego fr.

Franciscus Bartholi de Assisio posui quidquid potui sollicite

invenire in legendis antiquis et novis b. Francisci et in

aliis dictis sociorum ejus de loco eodem et commendatione

ipsius loci et quidquid veritatis et certitudinis potui

invenire de sacra indulgentia prefati loci, quomodo scilicet

fuit impetrata et data b. Francisco de miraculis ipsius

indulgentiæ quæ ipsam declarant certam et veram._ Bartholi

lived in the first half of the fourteenth century. His work is

still unpublished, but Father Leo Patrem M. O. is preparing it

for publication. The name of this learned monk gives every

guaranty for the accuracy of this difficult work; meanwhile a

detailed description and long extracts may be found in the

Miscellanea (ii., 1887). _La storia del perdono di Francesco

de Bartholi_, by Don Michele Faloci Pulignani, pp. 149-153

(cf. _Archiv._, i., p. 486). See also in the Miscellanea (i.,

1886, p. 15) a bibliographical note containing a detailed list

of fifty-eight works (cf. ibid., pp. 48, 145). The legend

itself is found in the _Speculum_, 69b-83a, and in the

_Conformities_, 151b-157a. In these two collections it is

still found laboriously worked in and is not an integral part

of the rest of the work. In the latter, Bartolemmeo di Pisa

has carried accuracy so far as to copy from end to end all the

documents that he had before him, and as they belong to

different periods he thus gives us several phases of the

development of the tradition. The most complete work is that

of the Recollect Father Grouwel: _Historia critica S.

Indulgentiæ B. Mariæ Angelorum vulgo de Portiuncula ... contra

Libellos aliquos anonymo ac famosos nuper editos_, Antwerp,

1726, 1 vol., 8vo. pp. 510. The Bollandist Suysken also makes

a long study of it (A. SS., pp. 879-910), as also the

Recollect Father Candide Chalippe, _Vie de saint François

d'Assise_, 3 vols., 8vo, Paris, 1874 (the first edition is of

1720), vol. iii., pp. 190-327.

In each of these works we find what has been said in all the

others. The numerous writings against the Indulgence are

either a collection of vulgarities or dogmatic treatises; I

refrain from burdening these pages with them. The principal

ones are indicated by Grouwel and Chalippe.

Among contemporaries Father Barnabas of Alsace: _Portiuncula

oder Geschichte Unserer lieben Frau von den Engeln_ (Rixheim,

1 vol., 8vo. 1884), represents the tradition of the Order, and

the Abbé Le Monnier (_Histoire de Saint François_, 2 vols.,

8vo, Paris, 1889), moderate Catholic opinion in non-Franciscan

circles.

The best summary is that of Father Panfilo da Magliano in his

_Storia compendiosa_. It has been completed and amended in the

German translation: _Geschichte des h. Franciscus und der

Franziskaner übersetzt und bearbeitet_ von Fr. Quintianus

Müller, vol. i., Munich, 1883, pp. 233-259.

[10] 2 Cel., 1, 13; 3 Soc., 56; Bon., 24.

[11] _Conform._, 239b, 2.

[12] See in particular _Archiv._, ii., p. 259, and the bull of

February 7, 1246. Potthast, 12007; Glassberger, _ann. 1244_

(_An. fr._ t. ii., p. 69).

[13] _Is qui ecclesiam_, March. 6, 1245, Potthast, 11576.

[14] 2 Cel., 1, 12 (cf. _Conform._, 218a, 1); 3 Soc., 56;

_Spec._, 32b ff.; 49b ff.; _Conform._, 144a, 2.

[15] _Conform._, 169a; 2, 217b. 1 ff. Cf. _Fior._, Amoni's ed.

(Appendix to the Codex of the Bib. Angelica), p. 378.

* * * * *

* * * * *

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES

TEXT CONVENTIONS

Text surrounded by underscores (_text_) indicates italics in the

original.

Text surrounded by tildes (~text~) indicates bold in the original.

'Folio' abbreviation: The original has two versions. 'F' or 'f'

followed by superscripted 'o' is transcribed F^o/f^o.

'fo.'/'fos.' is transcribed 'fo.'/'fos.'.

[Cross] is used where the text had a single character that resembled a

Maltese Cross, and denotes year of death.

Footnotes have been moved from the bottom of each page to the end

of each chapter, and renumbered by chapter.

CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL TEXT

In many spots in the scans, primarily in footnote citations,

periods and commas are partially or completely obscured, with

white space where the mark would logically appear. Where the scan

is unclear, punctuation has been transcribed to match the most

common use in the book. Where the punctuation is different from

common usage, but clearly present (i.e. no extra white space

after an abbreviation or full comma where a period seems to make

more sense), the scans have been replicated.

There were a number of incidences of missing closing quotation

marks, particularly for dialog or prayers. These have been

corrected without further comment.

Two lines missing from the translation of the prayer commonly

known as "The Canticle of All Creatures" (Chapter XVII) have been

added. The added text is shown in braces ({}).

'Analecta Fracniscana' in CRITICAL STUDY OF THE WORKS, Section IV,