CHAPTER VI

ST. FRANCIS AND INNOCENT III

Summer 1210[1]

Seeing the number of his friars daily increasing, Francis decided to

write the Rule of the Order and go to Rome to procure its approval by

the Pope.

This resolution was not lightly taken. It would be a mistake in fact to

take Francis for one of those inspired ones who rush into action upon

the strength of unexpected revelations, and, thanks to their faith in

their own infallibility, overawe the multitude. On the contrary, he was

filled with a real humility, and if he believed that God reveals himself

in prayer, he never for that absolved himself from the duty of

reflection nor even from reconsidering his decisions. St. Bonaventura

does him great wrong in picturing the greater number of his important

resolutions as taken in consequence of dreams; this is to rob his life

of its profound originality, his sanctity of its choicest blossom. He

was of those who struggle, and, to use one of the noblest expressions of

the Bible, of those who _by their perseverance conquer their souls_.

Thus we shall see him continually retouching the Rule of his institute,

unceasingly revising it down to the last moment, according as the growth

of the Order and experience of the human heart suggested to him

modifications of it.[2]

The first Rule which he submitted to Rome has not come down to us; we

only know that it was extremely simple, and composed especially of

passages from the Gospels. It was doubtless only the repetition of those

verses which Francis had read to his first companions, with a few

precepts about manual labor and the occupations of the new

brethren.[3]

It will be well to pause here and consider the brethren who are about to

set out for Rome. The biographies are in agreement as to their number;

they were twelve, including Francis; but the moment they undertake to

give a name to each one of them difficulties begin to arise, and it is

only by some exegetical sleight of hand that they can claim to have

reconciled the various documents. The table given below[4] briefly

shows these difficulties. The question took on some importance when in

the fourteenth century men undertook to show an exact conformity between

the life of St. Francis and that of Jesus. It is without interest to us.

The profiles of two or three of these brethren stand out very clearly in

the picture of the origins of the Order; others remind one of the

pictures of primitive Umbrian masters, where the figures of the

background have a modest and tender grace, but no shadow of personality.

The first Franciscans had all the virtues, including the one which is

nearly always wanting, willingness to remain unknown.

In the Lower Church of Assisi there is an ancient fresco representing

five of the companions of St. Francis. Above them is a Madonna by

Cimabue, upon which they are gazing with all their soul. It would be

more true if St. Francis were there in the place of the Madonna; one is

always changed into the image of what one admires, and they resemble

their master and one another.[5] To attempt to give them a name is to

make a sort of psychological error and become guilty of infidelity to

their memory; the only name they would have desired is that of their

father. His love changed their hearts and shed over their whole persons

a radiance of light and joy. These are the true personages of the

_Fioretti_, the men who brought peace to cities, awakened consciences,

changed hearts, conversed with birds, tamed wolves. Of them one may

truly say: "Having nothing, yet possessing all things" (_Nihil habentes,

omnia possidentes_).

They quitted Portiuncula full of joy and confidence. Francis was too

much absorbed in thought not to desire to place in other hands the

direction of the little company.

"Let us choose," he said, "one from among ourselves to guide us,

and let him be to us as the vicar of Jesus Christ. Wherever it

may please him to go we will go, and when he may wish to stop

anywhere to sleep there we will stop." They chose Brother

Bernardo and did as Francis had said. They went on full of joy,

and all their conversations had for their object only the glory

of God and the salvation of their souls.

Their journey was happily accomplished. Everywhere they found

kindly souls who sheltered them, and they felt beyond a doubt

that God was taking care of them.[6]

Francis's thoughts were all fixed upon the purpose of their journey; he

thought of it day and night, and naturally interpreted his dreams with

reference to it. One time, in his dream, he saw himself walking along a

road beside which was a gigantic and wonderfully beautiful tree. And,

behold, while he looked upon it, filled with wonder, he felt himself

become so tall that he could touch the boughs, and at the same time the

tree bent down its branches to him.[7] He awoke full of joy, sure of a

gracious reception by the sovereign pontiff.

His hopes were to be somewhat blighted. Innocent III. had now for twelve

years occupied the throne of St. Peter. Still young, energetic,

resolute, he enjoyed that superfluity of authority given by success.

Coming after the feeble Celestine III., he had been able in a few years

to reconquer the temporal domain of the Church, and so to improve the

papal influence as almost to realize the theocratic dreams of Gregory

VII. He had seen King Pedro of Aragon declaring himself his vassal and

laying his crown upon the tomb of the apostles, that he might take it

back at his hands. At the other end of Europe, John Lackland had been

obliged to receive his crown from a legate after having sworn homage,

fealty, and an annual tribute to the Holy See. Preaching union to the

cities and republics of Italy, causing the cry ITALIA! ITALIA! to

resound like the shout of a trumpet, he was the natural representative

of the national awakening, and appeared to be in some sort the suzerain

of the emperor, as he was already that of other kings. Finally, by his

efforts to purify the Church, by his indomitable firmness in defending

morality and law in the affair of Ingelburge and in many others, he was

gaining a moral strength which in times so disquieted was all the more

powerful for being so rare.

But this incomparable power had its hidden dangers. Occupied with

defending the prerogatives of the Holy See, Innocent came to forget that

the Church does not exist for herself, that her supremacy is only a

transitory means; and one part of his pontificate may be likened to

wars, legitimate in the beginning, in which the conqueror keeps on with

depredations and massacres for no reason, except that he is intoxicated

with blood and success.

And so Rome, which canonized the petty Celestine V., refused this

supreme consecration to the glorious Innocent III. With exquisite tact

she perceived that he was rather king than priest, rather pope than

saint.

When he suppressed ecclesiastical disorders it was less for love of good

than for hatred of evil; it was the judge who condemns or threatens,

himself always supported by the law, not the father who weeps his son's

offence. This priest did not comprehend the great movement of his

age--the awakening of love, of poetry, of liberty. I have already said

that at the opening of the thirteenth century the Middle Age was twenty

years old. Innocent III. undertook to treat it as if it were only

fifteen. Possessed by his civil and religious dogmas as others are by

their educational doctrines, he never suspected the unsatisfied

longings, the dreams, unreasoning perhaps, but beneficent and divine,

that were dumbly stirring in the depths of men's hearts. He was a

believer, although certain sayings of the historians[8] open the door

to some doubts on this point, but he drew his religion rather from the

Old Testament than from the New, and if he often thought of Moses, the

leader of his people, nothing reminded him of Jesus, the shepherd of

souls. One cannot be everything; a choice intelligence, an iron

will[9] are a sufficient portion even for a _priest-god_; he lacked

love. The death of this pontiff, great among the great ones, was

destined to be saluted with songs of joy.[10]

His reception of Francis furnished to Giotto, the friend of Dante, one

of his most striking frescos; the pope, seated on his throne, turns

abruptly toward Francis. He frowns, for he does not understand, and yet

he feels a strange power in this mean and despised man, _vilis et

despectus_; he makes a real but futile effort to comprehend, and now I

see in this pope, who lived upon lemons,[11] something that recalls

another choice mind, theocratic like his own, sacrificed like him to his

work: Calvin. One might think that the painter had touched his lips to

the Calabrian Seer's cup, and that in the attitude of these two men he

sought to symbolize a meeting of representatives of the two ages of

humanity, that of Law and that of Love.[12]

A surprise awaited the pilgrims on their arrival in Rome: they met the

Bishop of Assisi,[13] quite as much to his astonishment as to their

own. This detail is precious because it proves that Francis had not

confided his plans to Guido. Notwithstanding this the bishop, it is

said, offered to make interest for them with the princes of the Church.

We may suspect that his commendations were not very warm. At all events

they did not avail to save Francis and his company either from a

searching inquiry or from the extended fatherly counsels of Cardinal

Giovanni di San Paolo[14] upon the difficulties of the Rule, counsels

which strongly resemble those of Guido himself.[15]

What Francis asked for was simple enough; he claimed no privilege of any

sort, but only that the pope would approve of his undertaking to lead a

life of absolute conformity to the precepts of the gospel. There is a

delicate point here which it is quite worth while to see clearly. The

pope was not called upon to approve the Rule, since that came from Jesus

himself; at the very worst all that he could do would be to lay an

ecclesiastical censure upon Francis and his companions for having acted

without authority, and to enjoin them to leave to the secular and

regular clergy the task of reforming the Church.

Cardinal Giovanni di San Paolo, to whom the Bishop of Assisi presented

them, had informed himself of the whole history of the Penitents. He

lavished upon them the most affectionate tokens of interest, even going

so far as to beg for a mention in their prayers. But such assurances,

which appear to have been always the small change of the court of Rome,

did not prevent his examining them for several successive days,[16] and

putting to them an infinite number of questions, of which the conclusion

was always the advice to enter some Order already existing.

To this the unlucky Francis would reply as best he could, often not

without embarrassment, for he had no wish to appear to think lightly of

the cardinal's counsels, and yet he felt in his heart the imperious

desire to obey his vocation. The prelate would then return to the

charge, insinuating that they would find it very hard to persevere, that

the enthusiasm of the early days would pass away, and again pointing out

a more easy course. He was obliged in the end to own himself vanquished.

The persistence of Francis, who had never weakened for an instant nor

doubted his mission, begat in him a sort of awe, while the perfect

humility of the Penitents and their simple and striking fidelity to the

Roman Church reassured him in the matter of heresy.

He announced to them, therefore, that he would speak of them to the

pope, and would act as their advocate with him. According to the Three

Companions he said to the pope: "I have found a man of the highest

perfection, who desires to live in conformity with the Holy Gospel and

observe evangelical perfection in all things. I believe that by him the

Lord intends to reform the faith of the Holy Church throughout the whole

world."[17]

On the morrow he presented Francis and his companions to Innocent III.

Naturally, the pope was not sparing of expressions of sympathy, but he

also repeated to them the remarks and counsels which they had already

heard so often. "My dear children," he said, "your life appears to me

too severe; I see indeed that your fervor is too great for any doubt of

you to be possible, but I ought to consider those who shall come after

you, lest your mode of life should be beyond their strength."[18]

Adding a few kind words, he dismissed them without coming to any

definite conclusion, promising to consult the cardinals, and advising

Francis in particular to address himself to God, to the end that he

might manifest his will.

Francis's anxiety must have been great; he could not understand these

dilatory measures, these expressions of affection which never led to a

categorical approbation. It seemed to him that he had said all that he

had to say. For new arguments he had only one resource--prayer.

He felt his prayer answered when in his conversation with Jesus the

parable of poverty came to him; he returned to lay it before the pope.

There was in the desert a woman who was very poor, but

beautiful. A great king, seeing her beauty, desired to take her

for his wife, for he thought that by her he should have

beautiful children. The marriage contracted and consummated,

many sons were born to him. When they were grown up, their

mother spoke to them thus: "My sons, you have no cause to blush,

for you are the sons of the king; go, therefore, to his court,

and he will give you everything you need."

When they arrived at the court the king admired their beauty,

and finding in them his own likeness he asked, "Whose sons are

you?" And when they replied that they were the sons of a poor

woman who lived in the desert, the king clasped them to his

heart with joy saying, "Have no fear, for you are my sons; if

strangers eat at my table, much more shall you who are my lawful

sons." Then the king sent word to the woman to send to his court

all the sons which she had borne, that they might be nourished

there.

"Very holy father," added Francis, "I am this poor woman whom

God in his love has deigned to make beautiful, and of whom he

has been pleased to have lawful sons. The King of Kings has told

me that he will provide for all the sons which he may have of

me, for if he sustains bastards, how much more his legitimate

sons."[19]

So much simplicity, joined with such pious obstinacy, at last conquered

Innocent. In the humble mendicant he perceived an apostle and prophet

whose mouth no power could close. Successor of St. Peter and vicar of

Jesus Christ that he felt himself, he saw in the mean and despised man

before him one who with the authority of absolute faith proclaimed

himself the root of a new lineage of most legitimate Christians.

The biographers have held that by this parable Francis sought above all

things to tranquillize the pope as to the future of the brethren; they

find in it a reply to the anxieties of the pontiff, who feared to see

them starve to death. There can be no doubt that its original meaning

was totally different. It shows that with all his humility Francis knew

how to speak out boldly, and that all his respect for the Church could

not hinder his seeing, and, when necessary, saying, that he and his

brethren were the lawful sons of the gospel, of which the members of the

clergy were only _extranei_. We shall find in the course of his life

more than one example of this indomitable boldness, which disarmed

Innocent III. as well as the future Gregory IX.

In a consistory which doubtless was held between the two audiences some

of the cardinals expressed the opinion that the initiative of the

Penitents of Assisi was an innovation, and that their mode of life was

entirely beyond human power. "But," replied Giovanni di San Paolo, "if

we hold that to observe gospel perfection and make profession of it is

an irrational and impossible innovation, are we not convicted of

blasphemy against Christ, the author of the gospel?"[20]

These words struck Innocent III. with great force; he knew better than

any one that the possessions of the ecclesiastics were the great

obstacles to the reform of the Church, and that the threatened success

of the Albigensian heresy was especially due to the fact that it

preached the doctrine of poverty.

Two years before he had accorded his approbation to a group of

Waldensians, who under the name _Poor Catholics_ had desired to remain

faithful to the Church;[21] he therefore gave his approval to the

Penitents of Assisi, but, as a contemporary chronicler has well

observed, it was in the hope that they would wrest the banner from

heresy.[22]

Yet his doubts and hesitations were not entirely dissipated. He reserved

his definitive approbation, therefore, while lavishing upon the brothers

the most affectionate tokens of interest. He authorized them to continue

their missions everywhere, after having gained the consent of their

ordinaries. He required, however, that they should give themselves a

responsible superior to whom the ecclesiastical authorities could always

address themselves. Naturally, Francis was chosen.[23] This fact, so

humble in appearance, definitively constituted the Franciscan family.

The mystics whom we saw going from village to village transported with

love and liberty accepted the yoke almost without thinking about it.

This yoke will preserve them from the disintegration of the heretics,

but it will make itself sharply felt by those pure souls; they will one

day look back to the early days of the Order as the only time when their

life was truly conformed to the gospel.

When Francis heard the words of the supreme pontiff he prostrated

himself at his feet, promising the most perfect obedience with all his

heart. The pope blessed them, saying: "Go, my brethren, and may God be

with you. Preach penitence to everyone according as the Lord may deign

to inspire you. Then when the All-powerful shall have made you multiply

and go forward, you will refer to us; we will concede what you ask, and

we may then with greater security accord to you even more than you

ask."[24]

Francis and his companions were too little familiar with Roman

phraseology to perceive that after all the Holy See had simply consented

to suspend judgment in view of the uprightness of their intentions and

the purity of their faith.[25]

The flowers of clerical rhetoric hid from them the shackles which had

been laid upon them. The curia, in fact, was not satisfied with

Francis's vow of fidelity, it desired in addition to stamp the Penitents

with the seal of the Church: the Cardinal of San Paolo was deputed to

confer upon them the tonsure. From this time they were all under the

spiritual authority of the Roman Church.

The thoroughly lay creation of St. Francis had become, in spite of

himself, an ecclesiastical institution: it must soon degenerate into a

clerical institution. All unawares, the Franciscan movement had been

unfaithful to its origin. The prophet had abdicated in favor of the

priest, not indeed without possibility of return, for when a man has

once reigned, I would say, thought, in liberty--what other kingdom is

there on this earth?--he makes but an indifferent slave; in vain he

tries to submit; in spite of himself it happens at times that he lifts

his head proudly, he rattles his chains, he remembers the struggles,

sadness, anguish of the days of liberty, and weeps their loss. Among the

sons of St. Francis many were destined to weep their lost liberty, many

to die to conquer it again.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The date usually fixed for the approval of the Rule by

Innocent III. is the month of August, 1209. The Bollandists had

thought themselves able to infer it from the account where

Thomas of Celano (1 Cel., 43) refers to the passage through

Umbria of the Emperor Otho IV., on his way to be crowned at Rome

(October 4, 1209). Upon this journey see Böhmer-Ficker, _Regesta

Imperii. Dei Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Philipp, Otto IV._,

etc., Insbruck, 1879, 4to, pp. 96 and 97. As this account

follows that of the approval, they conclude that the latter was

earlier. But Thomas of Celano puts this account there because

the context led up to it, and not in order to fix its date.

Everything leads to the belief that the Brothers retired

(_recolligebat_, 1 Cel., 42) to Rivo-Torto before and after

their journey to Rome. Besides, the time between April 23d and

the middle of August, 1209, is much too short for all that the

biographers tell us about the life of the Brothers before their

visit to Innocent III. The mission to Florence took place in

winter, or at least in a very cold month. But the decisive

argument is that Innocent III. quitted Rome toward the end of

May, 1209, and went to Viterbo, returning only to crown Otho,

October 4th (Potthast, 3727-3803). It is therefore absolutely

necessary to postpone to the summer of 1210 the visit of the

Penitents to the pope. This is also the date which Wadding

arrives at.

[2] 3 Soc., 35.

[3] 1 Cel., 32; 3 Soc., 51; Bon., 34. Cf. _Test. B. Fr._ M. K.

Müller of Halle, in his _Anfänge_, has made a very remarkable

study of the Rule of 1221, whence he deduces an earlier Rule,

which he believes to be that of 1209 (1210). For once I find

myself entirely in accord with him, except that the Rule thus

reconstructed (Vide _Anfänge_, pp. 14-25, 184-188) appears to me

to be not that of 1210, which was very short, but another, drawn

up between 1210 and 1221. The _plures regulas fecit_ of the 3

Soc., 35, authorizes us to believe that he made perhaps as many

as four--1st, 1210, very short, containing little more than the

three passages of the vocation; 2d, 1217 (?), substantially that

proposed by M. Müller; 3d, 1221, that of which we shall speak at

length farther on; 4th, 1226, the Will, which if not a Rule is

at least an appendix to the Rule. If from 1221-1226 he had time

to make two Rules and the Will, as is universally admitted,

there is nothing surprising in his having made two from

1210-1221. Perhaps we have a fragment of that of 1217 in the

regulation of hermitages. Vide below, p. 109.

[4] Thomas of Celano's list. 1, _Quidam pium gerens animum_; 2,

_Bernardus_; 3, _Vir alter_; 4, _Ægidius_; 5, _Unus alius

appositus_; 6, _Philippus_; 7, _Alius bonus vir_; 8, 9, 10, 11,

_Quatuor boni et idonei viri_. 1 Cel., 24, 25, 29, 31. The

Rinaldi-Amoni text says nothing of the last four. Three

Companions: 1, _Bernardus_; 2, _Petrus_; 3, _Ægidius_; 4,

_Sabbatinus_; 5, _Moritus_; _Johannes Capella_; 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

Disciples received by the brethren in their missions. 3 Soc.,

33, 35, 41, 46, 52. Bonaventura: 1, _Bernardus_; 2, ... 3,

_Ægidius_; 4, 5, ... 6, _Silvestro_; 7, _Alius bonus viri_; 8,

9, 10, 11, _Quatuor viri honesti_. Bon., 28, 29, 30, 31, 33. The

Fioretti, while insisting on the importance of the twelve

Franciscan apostles, cite only six in their list: Giovanni di

Capella, Egidio, Philip, Silvestro, Bernardo, and Rufino.

_Fior._, 1. We must go to the Conformities to find the

traditional list, f^o 46b 1: 1, _Bernardus de Quintavalle_; 2,

_Petrus Chatanii_; 3, _Egidius_; 4, _Sabatinus_; 5, _Moricus_;

6, _Johannes de Capella_; 7, _Philippus Longus_; 8, _Johannes de

Sancto Constantio_; 9, _Barbarus_; 10, _Bernardus de

Cleviridante_ (sic); 11, _Angelus Tancredi_; 12, _Sylvester_. As

will be seen, in the last two documents twelve disciples are in

question, while in the preceding ones there are only eleven.

This is enough to show a dogmatic purpose. This list reappears

exactly in the _Speculum_, with the sole difference that Francis

being there included Angelo di Tancrede is the twelfth brother

and Silvestro disappears. _Spec._, 87a.

[5] According to tradition, the five _compagni del Santo_ buried

there beside their master are Bernardo, Silvestro, William (an

Englishman), Eletto, and Valentino(?)

[6] 3 Soc., 46; 1 Cel., 32; Bon., 34.

[7] 1 Cel., 33; 3 Soc., 53; Bon., 35.

[8] St. Ludgarde (1182-1246) sees him condemned to Purgatory

till the Last Judgment. Life of this saint by Thomas of Catimpré

in Surius: _Vitæ SS._ (1618), vi., 215-226.

[9] _Vir clari ingenii, magnæ probitatis et sapientiæ, cui

nullus secundus tempore suo:_ Rigordus, _de gestis Philippi

Augusti_ in Duchesne. _Historiæ Francorum scriptores coætanei_,

t. v., p. 60.--_Nec similem sui scientia, facundia, decretorum

et legum perititia, strenuitate, judiciorum nec adhuc visus est

habere sequentem._ Cf. Mencken, _Script. rer. Sax._, Leipzig,

1728, t. iii., p. 252. _Innocentius, qui vere stupor mundi erat

et immutator sæculi._ Cotton, _Hist. Anglicana_, Luard, 1859, p.

107.

[10] _Cujus finis lætitiem potius quam tristitiam generavit

subjectis._ Alberic delle Tre Fontane. Leibnitz, _Accessiones

historicæ_, t. ii., p. 492.

[11] _Decidit in acutam (febrem) quam cum multis diebus fovisset

nec a citris quibus in magna quantitatæ et ex consuetudine

vescebatur ... minime abstineret ... ad ultimum in lethargia

prolapsus vitam finivit._ Alberic delle Tre Fontane, _loc. cit._

[12] Fresco in the great nave of the Upper Church of Assisi.

[13] 1 Cel., 32; 3 Soc., 47.

[14] Of the Colonna family; he died in 1216. Cf. 3 Soc., 61.

Vide Cardella, _Memorie storiche de' Cardinali_, 9 vols., 8vo,

Rome, 1792 ff., t. i., p. 177. He was at Rome in the summer of

1210, for on the 11th of August he countersigned the bull

_Religiosem vitam_. Potthast, 4061. Angelo Clareno relates the

approbation with more precision in certain respects: _Cum vero

Summo Pontifici ea quæ postulabat [Franciscus] ardua valde et

quasi impossibilia viderentur infirmitate hominum sui temporis,

exhortabatur eum, quod aliquem ordinem vel regulam de approbatis

assumeret, at ipse se a Christo missum ad talem vitam et non

aliam postulandam constanter affirmans, fixus in sua petitione

permansit. Tunc dominus Johannes de Sancto Paulo episcopus

Sabinensis et dominus Hugo episcopus Hostiensis Dei spiritu moti

assisterunt Sancto Francisco et pro his quæ petebat coram summo

Pontifice et Cardinalibus plura proposuerunt rationabilia et

efficacia valde. Tribul._ Laurentinian MS., f^o 6a. This

intervention of Ugolini is mentioned in no other document. It

is, however, by no means impossible. He also was in Rome in the

summer of 1210. (Vide Potthast, p. 462.)

[15] 1 Cel., 32 and 33; 3 Soc., 47 and 48. Cf. _An. Per._, A.

SS., p. 590.

[16] 1 Cel., 33.

[17] 3 Soc., 48.

[18] 3 Soc., 49; 1 Cel., 33; Bon., 35 and 36. All this has been

much worked over by tradition and gives us only an echo of the

reality. It would certainly have needed very little for the

Penitents to meet the same fate before Innocent III. as the

Waldenses before Lucius III. Traces of this interview are found

in two texts which appear to me to be too suspicious to warrant

their insertion in the body of the narrative. The first is a

fragment of Matthew Paris: _Papa itaque in fratre memorato

habitum deformem, vultum despicabilem, barbam prolixam, capillos

incultos, supercilia pendentia et nigra diligenter considerans;

cum petitionem ejus tam arduam et executione impossibilem

recitare fecisset, despexit cum et dixit: Vade frater, et quære

porcus, quibus potius debes quam hominibus comparari, et involve

te cum eis in volutabro, et regulam illis a te commentatam

tradens, officium tuæ prædicationis impende. Quod audiens

Franciscus inclinato capite exixit et porcis tandem inventis, in

luto se cum eis tamdiu involvit quousque a planta pedis usque ad

verticem, corpus suum totum cum ipso habitu polluisset. Sicque

ad consistorium revertens Papæ se conspectibus præsentavit

dicens: Domine feci sicut præcepisti exaudi nunc obsecro

petitionem meam_. Ed. Wats, p. 340. The incident has a real

Franciscan color, and should have some historic basis.

Curiously, it in some sort meets a passage in the legend of

Bonaventura which is an interpolation of the end of the

thirteenth century. See A. SS., p. 591.

[19] 3 Soc., 50 and 51; Bon., 37; 2 Cel., 1, 11; Bernard de

Besse, Turin MS., f^o 101b. Ubertini di Casali (_Arbor vitæ

crucifixæ_, Venice, 1485, lib. v., cap. iii.) tells a curious

story in which he depicts the indignation of the prelates

against Francis. _Quænam hæc est doctrina nova quam infers

auribus nostris? Quis potest vivere sine temporalium

possessione? Numquid tu melior es quam patres nostri qui

dederunt nobis temporalia et in temporalibus abundantes

ecclesias possiderunt?_ Then follows the fine prayer inserted by

Wadding in Francis's works. The central idea is the same as in

the parable of poverty. This story, though not referable to any

source, has nevertheless its importance, since it shows how in

the year 1300 a man who had all the documents before his eyes,

represented to himself Francis's early steps.

[20] Bon., 36.

[21] The attempt of Durand of Huesca to create a mendicant order

has not yet been studied with sufficient minuteness. Chief of

the Waldenses of Aragon, he was present in 1207 at the

conference of Pamiers, and decided to return to the Church.

Received with kindness by the pope he at first had a great

success, and by 1209 had established communities in Aragon, at

Carcassonne, Narbonne, Béziers, Nimes, Uzès, Milan. We find in

this movement all the lineaments of the institute of St.

Dominic; it was an order of priests to whom theological studies

were recommended. They disappeared almost completely in the

storm of the Albigensian crusade. Innocent III., _epistolæ_,

xi., 196, 197, 198; xii., 17, 66; xiii., 63, 77, 78, 94; xv.,

82, 83, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 137, 146. The first of these

bulls contains the very curious Rule of this ephemeral order.

Upon its disappearance vide Ripoli, _Bullarium Prædicatorum_, 8

vols., folio, Rome, 1729-1740, t. i., p. 96. Cf. Elie Berger,

_Registres d'Innocent IV._, 2752.

[22] Burchard, of the order of the Premostrari, who died in

1226. See below, p. 234.

[23] 3 Soc., 52; Bon., 38.

[24] 3 Soc., 52 and 49.

[25] St. Antonino, Archbishop of Florence, saw very clearly that

it was _quædam concessio simplex habitus et modi illius vivendi

et quasi permissio_. A. SS., p. 839. The expression "approbation

of the Rule" by which the act of Innocent III. is usually

designated is therefore erroneous.

* * * * *