They laid him back upon his bed, and, conforming to his wishes, they
again sang to him the Canticle of the Sun.
At times he added his voice to those of his Brothers,[21] and came back
with preference to Psalm 142, _Voce mea ad Dominum clamavi_.[22]
With my voice I cry unto the Lord,
With my voice I implore the Lord,
I pour out my complaint before him,
I tell him all my distress.
When my spirit is cast down within me,
Thou knowest my path.
Upon the way where I walk
They have laid a snare for me,
Cast thine eyes to the right and look!
No one recognizes me;
All refuge is lost for me,
No one takes thought for my soul.
Lord, unto thee I cry;
I say: Thou art my refuge,
My portion in the land of the living.
Be attentive to my cries!
For I am very unhappy.
Deliver me from those who pursue me!
For they are stronger than I.
Bring my soul out of its prison
That I may praise thy name.
The righteous shall compass me about
When thou hast done good unto me!
The visits of death are always solemn, but the end of the just is the
most moving _sursum corda_ that we can hear on earth. The hours flowed
by and the Brothers would not leave him. "Alas, good Father," said one
of them to him, unable longer to contain himself, "your children are
going to lose you, and be deprived of the true light which lightened
them: think of the orphans you are leaving and forgive all their faults,
give to them all, present and absent, the joy of your holy benediction."
"See," replied the dying man, "God is calling me. I forgive all my
Brothers, present and absent, their offences and faults, and absolve
them according to my power. Tell them so, and bless them all in my
name."[23]
Then crossing his arms he laid his hands upon those who surrounded him.
He did this with peculiar emotion to Bernard of Quintavalle: "I desire,"
he said, "and with all my power I urge whomsoever shall be
minister-general of the Order, to love and honor him as myself; let the
provincials and all the Brothers act toward him as toward me."[24]
He thought not only of the absent Brothers but of the future ones; love
so abounded in him that it wrung from him a groan of regret for not
seeing all those who should enter the Order down to the end of time,
that he might lay his hand upon their brows, and make them feel those
things that may only be spoken by the eyes of him who loves in God.[25]
He had lost the notion of time; believing that it was still Thursday he
desired to take a last meal with his disciples. Some bread was brought,
he broke it and gave it to them, and there in the poor cabin of
Portiuncula, without altar and without a priest, was celebrated the
Lord's Supper.[26]
A Brother read the Gospel for Holy Thursday, _Ante diem festum Paschæ_:
"Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come
to go from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in
the world he loved them unto the end."
The sun was gilding the crests of the mountains with his last rays,
there was silence around the dying one. All was ready. The angel of
death might come.
Saturday, October 3, 1226, at nightfall, without pain, without struggle,
he breathed the last sigh.
The Brothers were still gazing on his face, hoping yet to catch some
sign of life, when innumerable larks alighted, singing, on the thatch of
his cell,[27] as if to salute the soul which had just taken flight and
give the Little Poor Man the canonization of which he was most worthy,
the only one, doubtless, which he would ever have coveted.
On the morrow, at dawn, the Assisans came down to take possession of his
body and give it a triumphant funeral.
By a pious inspiration, instead of going straight to the city they went
around by St. Damian, and thus was realized the promise made by Francis
to the Sisters a few weeks before, to come once more to see them.
Their grief was heart-rending.
These women's hearts revolted against the absurdity of death;[28] but
there were tears on that day at St. Damian only. The Brothers forgot
their sadness on seeing the stigmata, and the inhabitants of Assisi
manifested an indescribable joy on having their relic at last. They
deposited it in the Church St. George.[29]
Less than two years after, Sunday, July 26, 1228, Gregory IX. came to
Assisi to preside in person over the ceremonies of canonization, and to
lay, on the morrow, the first stone of the new church dedicated to the
Stigmatized.
Built under the inspiration of Gregory IX. and the direction of Brother
Elias, this marvellous basilica is also one of the documents of this
history, and perhaps I have been wrong in neglecting it.
Go and look upon it, proud, rich, powerful, then go down to Portiuncula,
pass over to St. Damian, hasten to the Carceri, and you will understand
the abyss that separates the ideal of Francis from that of the pontiff
who canonized him.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Mortem cantando suscepit._ 2 Cel., 3, 139.
[2] The text here taken as a basis is that of the Assisi MS.,
338 (f^o 16a-18a). It is also to be found in _Firmamentum_, f^o
19, col. 4; _Speculum_, Morin, _tract._ iii., 8a; Wadding, _ann.
1226_, 35; A. SS., p. 663; Amoni, _Legenda Trium Sociorum_;
Appendix, p. 110. Everything in this document proclaims its
authenticity, but we are not reduced to internal proof. It is
expressly cited in 1 Cel., 17 (before 1230); by the Three
Companions (1246), 3 Soc., 11; 26; 29; by 2 Cel., 3, 99 (1247).
These proofs would be more than sufficient, but there is another
of even greater value: the bull _Quo elongati_ of September 28,
1230, where Gregory IX. cites it textually and declares that the
friars are not bound to observe it.
[3] _Promittet Franciscus obedientiam ... papæ ... et
successoribus ... qui non possunt nec debent eis præcipere
aliquid quod sit contra animam et regulam._ _Archiv._, _i_, p.
563.
[4] _Quod si quando a quocumque ... pontifice aliquid ...
mandaretur quod esset contra fidem ... et caritatem et fructus
ejus tunc obediet Deo magis quam hominibus._ Ib., p. 561.
[5] _Est [Regula] et stat et intelligitur super eos ... Cum spei
fiducia pace fruemur cum conscientiæ et Christi spiritus
testimonio certo._ Ib., pp. 563 and 565.
[6] _Archiv._, ii., p. 274.
[7] _Ad mandatum illud vos dicimus non teneri: quod sine
consensu Fratrum maxime ministrorum, quos universos tangebat
obligare nequivit nec successorem suum quomodolibet obligavit;
cum non habeat imperium par in parem._ The sophism is barely
specious; Francis was not on a par with his successors; he did
not act as minister-general, but as founder.
[8] _Arbor vit. cruc._, _lib._ v., _cap._ 3 and 5. See above, p.
185.
[9] _Tribul._, Laur., 25b; _Archiv._, i., p. 532.
[10] At the summit of the Apennines, about half way between
Camerino and Nocera (Umbria). _Tribul._, Laur., 26b; Magl.,
135b.
[11] _Declaratio Ubertini_, _Archiv._, iii., p. 168. This fact
is not to be questioned, since it is alleged in a piece
addressed to the pope, in response to the liberal friars, to
whom it was to be communicated.
[12] _Feci moram cum illis._, MS., 338. Most of the printed
texts give _miseracordiam_, which gives a less satisfactory
meaning. Cf. Miscellanea iii. (1888), p. 70; 1 Cel., 17; 3 Soc.,
11.
[13] It is evident that heresy is not here in question. The
Brothers who were infected with it were to be delivered to the
Church.
[14] Urban IV. published, October 18, 1263, Potthast (18680), a
Rule for the Clarisses which completely changed the character of
this Order. Its author was the cardinal protector Giovanni degli
Ursini (the future Nicholas III.), who by way of precaution
forbade the Brothers Minor under the severest penalties to
dissuade the Sisters from accepting it. "It differs as much from
the first Rule," said Ubertini di Casali "as black and white,
the savory and the insipid." _Arbor. vit. cruc. lib._ v., _cap._
vi.
[15] V. _Test. B. Claræ_; _Conform._, 185a 1; Spec., 117b.
[16] 2 Cel., 3, 132.
[17] Bon., 112.
[18] The Bollandists deny this whole story, which they find in
opposition to the prescriptions of Francis himself. A. SS., p.
664 ff. But it is difficult to see for what object authors who
take great pains to explain it could have had for inventing it.
_Spec._, 133a; _Fior._ iv.; _consid._; _Conform._, 240a. I have
borrowed the whole account from Bernard of Besse: _De Laudibus_,
f^o 113b. It appears that Giacomina settled for the rest of her
life at Assisi, that she might gain edification from the first
companions of Francis. _Spec._, 107b. (What a lovely scene, and
with what a Franciscan fragrance!) The exact date of her death
is not known. She was buried in the lower church of the basilica
of Assisi, and on her tomb was engraved: _Hic jacit Jacoba
sancta nobilisque romana_. Vide Fratini: _Storia della
basilica_, p. 48. Cf. Jacobilli: _Vite dei Santi e Beati dell'
Umbria_, Foligno, 3 vols., 4to, 1647; i., p. 214.
[19] 2 Cel., 3, 139; Bon., 209, 210; _Conform._, 171b, 2.
[20] 2 Cel., 3, 139: _Cum me videritis ... sicut me nudius
tertius nudum vidistis._
[21] 1 Cel., 109; 2 Cel., 3, 139.
[22] 1 Cel., 109; Bon., 212.
[23] 1 Cel., 109. Cf. _Epist. Eliæ._
[24] _Tribul._ Laur., 22b. Nothing better shows the historic
value of the chronicle of the Tribulations than to compare its
story of these moments with that of the following documents:
_Conform._, 48b, 1; 185a, 2; _Fior._, 6.; _Spec._, 86a.
[25] 2 Cel., 3, 139; _Spec._, 116b; _Conform._, 224b, 1.
[26] 2 Cel., 3, 139. A simple comparison between this story in
the _Speculum_ (116b) and that in the _Conformities_ (224b, 1)
is enough to show how in certain of its parts the _Speculum_
represents a state of the legend anterior to 1385.
[27] Bon., 214. This cell has been transformed into a chapel and
may be found a few yards from the little church of Portiuncula.
Church and chapel are now sheltered under the great Basilica of
Santa Maria degli Angeli. See the picture and plan, A. SS., p.
814, or better still in _P. Barnabas aus dem Elsass, Portiuncula
oder Geschichte U. L. F. v. den Engeln_. Rixheim, 1884, 1 vol.,
8vo, pp. 311 and 312.
[28] 1 Cel., 116 and 117; Bon., 219; _Conform._ 185a, 1.
[29] To-day in the _clôture_ of the convent St. Clara. Vide
Miscellanea 1, pp. 44-48, a very interesting study by Prof.
Carattoli upon the coffin of St. Francis.
* * * * *
CRITICAL STUDY OF THE SOURCES
* * * * *
SUMMARY
I. ST. FRANCIS'S WORKS.
II. BIOGRAPHIES PROPERLY SO CALLED.
1. Preliminary Note.
2. First Life by Thomas of Celano.
3. Review of the History of the Order 1230-1244.
4. Legend of the Three Companions.
5. Fragments of the Suppressed Portion of the Legend.
6. Second Life by Thomas of Celano. First Part.
7. Second Life by Thomas of Celano. Second Part.
8. Documents of Secondary Importance:
Biography for Use of the Choir.
Life in Verse.
Biography by Giovanni di Ceperano.
Life by Brother Julian.
9. Legend of St. Bonaventura.
10. De Laudibus of Bernard of Besse.
III. DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS.
1. Donation of the Verna.
2. Registers of Cardinal Ugolini.
3. Bulls.
IV. CHRONICLERS OF THE ORDER.
1. Chronicle of Brother Giordano di Giano.
2. Eccleston: Arrival of the Friars in England.
3. Chronicle of Fra Salimbeni.
4. Chronicle of the Tribulations.
5. The Fioretti and their Appendices.
6. Chronicle of the XXIV. Generals.
7. The Conformities of Bartolommeo di Pisa.
8. Glassberger's Chronicle.
9. Chronicle of Mark of Lisbon.
V. CHRONICLERS NOT OF THE ORDER.
1. Jacques de Vitry.
2. Thomas of Spalato.
3. Divers Chroniclers.
* * * * *
CRITICAL STUDY OF THE SOURCES
There are few lives in history so abundantly provided with documents as
that of St. Francis. This will perhaps surprise the reader, but to
convince himself he has only to run over the preceding list, which,
however, has been made as succinct as possible.
It is admitted in learned circles that the essential elements of this
biography have disappeared or have been entirely altered. The
exaggeration of certain religious writers, who accept everything, and
among several accounts of the same fact always choose the longest and
most marvellous, has led to a like exaggeration in the contrary sense.
If it were necessary to point out the results of these two excesses as
they affect each event, this volume would need to be twice and even four
times as large as it is. Those who are interested in these questions
will find in the notes brief indications of the original documents on
which each narrative is based.[1]
To close the subject of the errors which are current in the Franciscan
documents, and to show in a few lines their extreme importance, I shall
take two examples. Among our own contemporaries no one has so well
spoken on the subject of St. Francis as M. Renan; he comes back to him
with affecting piety, and he was in a better condition than any one to
know the sources of this history. And yet he does not hesitate to say in
his study of the Canticle of the Sun, Francis's best known work: "The
authenticity of this piece appears certain, but we must observe that we
have not the Italian original. The Italian text which we possess is a
translation of a Portuguese version, which was itself translated from
the Spanish."[2]
And yet the primitive Italian exists[3] not only in numerous
manuscripts in Italy and France, particularly in the Mazarine
Library,[4] but also in the well-known book of the _Conformities_.[5]
An error, grave from quite another point of view, is made by the same
author when he denies the authenticity of St. Francis's Will; this piece
is not only the noblest expression of its author's religious feeling, it
constitutes also a sort of autobiography, and contains the solemn and
scarcely disguised revocation of all the concessions which had been
wrung from him. We have already seen that its authenticity is not to be
challenged.[6] This double example will, I hope, suffice to show the
necessity of beginning this study by a conscientious examination of the
sources.
If the eminent historian to whom I have alluded were still living, he
would have for this page his large and benevolent smile, that simple,
_Oui, oui_, which once made his pupils in the little hall of the Collège
de France to tremble with emotion.
I do not know what he would think of this book, but I well know that he
would love the spirit in which it was undertaken, and would easily
pardon me for having chosen him for scape-goat of my wrath against the
learned men and biographers.
The documents to be examined have been divided into five categories.
The first includes _St. Francis's works_.
The second, _biographies properly so called_.
The third, _diplomatic documents_.
The fourth, _chronicles of the Order_.
The fifth, _chronicles of authors not of the Order_.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] If any student finds himself embarrassed by the extreme
rarity of certain works cited, I shall make it my duty and
pleasure to send them to him, as well as a copy of the Italian
manuscripts.
[2] E. Renan: _Nouvelles études d'histoire religieuse_, Paris,
1884, 8vo, p. 331.
[3] See above, pp. 304 ff.
[4] Mazarine Library, MS. 8531: _Speculum perfectionis S.
Francisci_; the Canticle is found at fo. 51. Cf. MS., 1350 (date
of 1459). That text was published by Boehmer in the _Romanische
Studien_, Halle, 1871. pp. 118-122. _Der Sonnengesang v. Fr.
d'A._
[5] _Conform._ (Milan, 1510), 202b, 2s. For that matter it is
correct that Diola, in the _Croniche degli ordini instituti da
S. Francisco_ (Venice, 1606, 3 vols. 4to), translated after the
Castilian version of the work composed in Portuguese by Mark of
Lisbon, was foolish enough to render into Italian this
translation of a translation.
[6] See pages 333 ff.
* * * * *
I
ST. FRANCIS'S WORKS
The writings of St. Francis[1] are assuredly the best source of
acquaintance with him; we can only be surprised to find them so
neglected by most of his biographers. It is true that they give little
information as to his life, and furnish neither dates nor facts,[2]
but they do better, they mark the stages of his thought and of his
spiritual development. The legends give us Francis as he appeared, and
by that very fact suffer in some degree the compulsion of circumstances;
they are obliged to bend to the exigencies of his position as general of
an Order approved by the Church, as miracle-worker, and as saint. His
works, on the contrary, show us his very soul; each phrase has not only
been thought, but lived; they bring us the Poverello's emotions, still
alive and palpitating.
So, when in the writings of the Franciscans we find any utterance of
their master, it unconsciously betrays itself, sounding out suddenly in
a sweet, pure tone which penetrates to your very heart, awakening with a
thrill a sprite that was sleeping there.
This bloom of love enduing St. Francis's words would be an admirable
criterion of the authenticity of those opuscules which tradition
attributes to him; but the work of testing is neither long nor
difficult. If after his time injudicious attempts were here and there
made to honor him with miracles which he did not perform, which he would
not even have wished to perform, no attempt was ever made to burden his
literary efforts with false or supposititious pieces.[3] The best
proof of this is that it is not until Wadding--that is to say, until the
seventeenth century--that we find the first and only serious attempt to
collect these precious memorials. Several of them have been lost,[4]
but those which remain are enough to give us in some sort the refutation
of the legends.
In these pages Francis gives himself to his readers, as long ago he gave
himself to his companions; in each one of them a feeling, a cry of the
heart, or an aspiration toward the Invisible is prolonged down to our
own time.
Wadding thought it his duty to give a place in his collection to several
suspicious pieces; more than this, instead of following the oldest
manuscripts that he had before him, he often permitted himself to be led
astray by sixteenth-century writers whose smallest concern was to be
critical and accurate. To avoid the tedious and entirely negative task
to which it would be necessary to proceed if I took him for my
starting-point I shall confine myself to a positive study of this
question.
All the pieces which will be enumerated are found in his collection.
They are sometimes cut up in a singular way; but in proportion as each
document is studied we shall find sufficient indications to enable us
to make the necessary rectifications.
The archives of Sacro Convento of Assisi[5] possess a manuscript whose
importance is not to be overestimated. It has already been many times
studied,[6] and bears the number 338.
It appears, however, that a very important detail of form has been
overlooked. It is this: that No. 338 is not _one_ manuscript, but _a
collection_ of manuscripts of very different periods, which were put
together because they were of very nearly the same size, and have been
foliated in a peculiar manner.
This artificial character of the collection shows that each of the
pieces which compose it needs to be examined by itself, and that it is
impossible to say of it as a whole that it is of the thirteenth or the
fourteenth century.
The part that interests us is perfectly homogeneous, is formed of three
parchment books (fol. 12a-44b) and contains a part of Francis's works.
1. The Rule, definitively approved by Honorius III., November 20,
1223[7] (fol. 12a-16a).
2. St. Francis's Will[8] (fol. 16a-18a).
3. The Admonitions[9] (fol. 18a-23b).
4. The Letter to all Christians[10] (fol. 23b-28a).
5. The letter to all the members of the Order assembled in
Chapter-general[11] (fol. 28a-31a).
6. Counsel to all clerics on the respect to be paid to the
Eucharist[12] (fol., 31b-32b).
7. A very short piece preceded by the rubric: "Of the virtues which
adorn the Virgin Mary and which ought to adorn the holy soul"[13] (fol.
32b).
8. The _Laudes Creaturarum_, or Canticle of the Sun[14] (fol. 33a).
9. A paraphrase of the _Pater_ introduced by the rubric: _Incipiunt
laudes quas ordinavit. B. pater noster Franciscus et dicebat ipsas ad
omnes horas diei et noctis et ante officium B. V. Mariæ sic incipiens:
Sanctissime Pater_[15] (fol. 34a).
10. The office of the Passion (34b-43a). This office, where the psalms
are replaced by several series of biblical verses, are designed to make
him who repeats them follow, hour by hour, the emotions of the Crucified
One from the evening of Holy Thursday.[16]
11. A rule for friars in retreat in hermitages[17] (fol. 43a-43b).
A glance over this list is enough to show that the works of Francis here
collected are addressed to all the Brothers, or are a sort of
encyclicals, which they are charged to pass on to those for whom they
are destined.
The very order of these pieces shows us that we have in this manuscript
the primitive library of the Brothers Minor, the collection of which
each minister was to carry with him a copy. It was truly their viaticum.
Matthew Paris tells us of his amazement at the sight of these foreign
monks, clothed in patched tunics, and carrying their books in a sort of
case suspended from their necks.[18]
The Assisi manuscript was without doubt destined to this service; if it
is silent on the subject of the journeys it has made, and of the
Brothers to whom it has been a guide and an inspiration, it at least
brings us, more than all the legends, into intimacy with Francis, makes
us thrill in unison with that heart which never admitted a separation
between joy, love, and poetry. As to the date of this manuscript, one
must needs be a paleographer to determine. We have already found a
hypothesis which, if well grounded, would carry it back to the
neighborhood of 1240.[19]
Its contents seem to countenance this early date. In fact, it contains
several pieces of which the _Manual of the Brother Minor_ very early rid
itself.
Very soon they were content to have only the Rule to keep company with
the breviary; sometimes they added the Will. But the other writings, if
they did not fall entirely into neglect, ceased at least to be of daily
usage.
Those of St. Francis's writings which are not of general interest or do
not concern the Brothers naturally find no place in this collection. In
this new category we must range the following documents:
1. The Rule of 1221.[20]
2. The Rule of the Clarisses, which we no longer possess in its original
form.[21]
3. A sort of special instruction for ministers-general.[22]
4. A letter to St. Clara.[23]
5. Another letter to the same.[24]
6. A letter to Brother Leo.[25]
7. A few prayers.[26]
8. The benediction of Brother Leo. The original autograph, which is
preserved in the treasury of Sacro Convento, has been very well
reproduced by heliograph.[27]
As to the two famous hymns _Amor de caritade_[28] and _In foco l'amor
mi mise_,[29] they cannot be attributed to St. Francis, at least in
their present form.
It belongs to M. Monaci and his numerous and learned emulators to throw
light upon these delicate questions by publishing in a scientific manner
the earliest monuments of Italian poetry.
I have already spoken of several tracts of which assured traces have
been found, though they themselves are lost. They are much more numerous
than would at first be supposed. In the missionary zeal of the early
years the Brothers would not concern themselves with collecting
documents. We do not write our memoirs in the fulness of our youth.
We must also remember that Portiuncula had neither archives nor library.
It was a chapel ten paces long, with a few huts gathered around it. The
Order was ten years old before it had seen any other than a single book:
a New Testament. The Brothers did not even keep this one. Francis,
having nothing else, gave it to a poor woman who asked for alms, and
when Pietro di Catania, his vicar, expressed his surprise at this
prodigality: "Has she not given her two sons to the Order?" replied the
master[30] quickly.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Collected first by Wadding (Antwerp, 1623, 4to), they have
been published many times since then, particularly by De la Haye
(Paris, 1641, f^o). These two editions having become scarce,
were republished--in a very unsatisfactory manner--by the Abbé
Horoy: _S. Francisci Assisiatis opera omnia_ (Paris, 1880, 4to).
For want of a more exact edition, that of Father Bernardo da
Fivizzano is the most useful: _Opuscoli di S. Francesco
d'Assisi_, 1 vol., 12mo, pp. 564, Florence, 1880. The Latin text
is accompanied by an Italian translation.
[2] "_Die Briefe, die unter seinem Namen gehen, mögen theilweise
ächt sein. Aber sie tragen kaum etwas zur näheren Kenntniss bei
und können daher fast ganz ausser Acht bleiben_." Müller, _Die
Anfänge des Minoritenordens_, Freiburg, 1 vol., 8vo, 1885, p. 3.
[3] Pieces have been often attributed to St. Francis which do
not belong to him; but those are unintentional errors and made
without purpose. The desire for literary exactness is relatively
of recent date, and it was easier for those who were ignorant of
the author of certain Franciscan writings to attribute them to
St. Francis than to admit their ignorance or to make deep
researches.
[4] For example, the first Rule; probably also a few canticles;
a letter to the Brothers in France, Eccl., 6; another to the
Brothers in Bologna: "_Prædixerat per litteram in qua fuit
plurimum latinum_," Eccl., ib.; a letter to Antony of Padua,
other than the one we have, since on the witness of Celano it
was addressed: _Fratri Antonio episcopo meo_ (2 Cel., 3, 99);
certain letters to St. Clara: "_Scripsit Claræ et sororibus ad
consolationem litteram in quâ dabat benedictionem suam et
absolvebat_," etc. _Conform._, f^o. 185a, 1; cf. _Test. B.
Claræ_. A. SS., Augusti, t. ii., p. 767: "_Plura scripta
tradidit nobis, ne post mortem suam declinaremus a paupertate_;"
certain letters to Cardinal Ugolini, 3 Soc., 67.
It is not to negligence alone that we must attribute the loss of
many of the epistles: "_Quod nephas est cogitare, in provincia
Marchie et in pluribus aliis locis testamentum beati Francisci
mandaverunt (prelati ordinis) districte per obedientiam ab
omnibus auferi et comburi. Et uni fratri devoto et sancto, cujus
nomen est N. de Rocanato combuxerunt dicum testamentum super
caput suum. Et toto conatu fuerunt solliciti, annulare scripta
beati patris nostri Francisci, in quibus sua intentio de
observantia regule declaratur._" Ubertino di Casali, _apud
Archiv._, iii., pp. 168-169.
[5] Italy is too obliging to artists, archæologists, and
scholars not to do them the favor of disposing in a more
practical manner this trust, the most precious of all Umbria.
Even with the indefatigable kindness of the curator, M.
Alessandro, and of the municipality of Assisi, it is very
difficult to profit by these treasures heaped up in a dark room
without a table to write upon.
[6] In particular by Ehrle: _Die historischen Handschriften von
S. Francesco in Assisi._ _Archiv._, t. i., p. 484.
[7] See pages 252 ff ... and 283.
[8] See pages 333 ff.
[9] See pages 259 ff.
[10] See page 325 ff.
[11] See pages 322 ff.
[12] See page 327.
[13] I give it entire: "_Regina sapientia, Dominus te salvet,
cum tua sorore sancta pura simplicitate.--Domina sancta
paupertas, Domimus te salvet, cum tua sorore sancta
humilitate.--Domina sancta caritas, Dominus te salvet, cum tua
sorrore sancta obedientia. Sanctissimæ virtutes omnes, vos
salvet Dominus, a quo venitis et proceditis._" Its authenticity
is guaranteed by a citation by Celano: 2 Cel., 3, 119. Cf. 126b
and 127a.
[14] See pages 304 f.
[15] I shall not recur to this: the text is in the Conformities
138a 2.
[16] The authenticity of this service, to which there is not a
single allusion in the biographies of St. Francis, is rendered
certain by the life of St. Clara: "_Officium crucis, prout
crucis amator Franciscus instituerat (Clara) didicit et affectu
simili frequentavit._" A. SS., Augusti, t. ii., p. 761a.
[17] It begins: _Illi qui volunt stare in heremis_. This text is
also found in the Conformities, 143a, 1. Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 43; see
p. 97.
[18] _Nudis pedibus incedentes, funiculis cincti, tunicis
griseis et talaribus peciatis, insuto capucio utentes ... nihil
sibi ultra noctem reservantes ... libros continue suos ... in
forulis a collo dependentes bajulantes._ Historia Anglorum,
Pertz: _Script._, t. 28, p. 397. Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 135; _Fior._, 5;
_Spec._, 45b.
[19] See page 322 n.
[20] See page 252.
[21] See page 157.
[22] See pages 318 ff.
[23] See page 239.
[24] See page 327.
[25] See page 262.
[26] _a._ _Sanctus Dominus Deus noster._ Cf. _Spec._, 126a;
_Firmamentum_, 18b, 2; _Conform._, 202b, 1.
_b._ _Ave Domina sancta._ Cf. _Spec._, 127a; _Conform._, 138a, 2.
_c._ _Sancta Maria virgo._ Cf. _Spec._, 126b; _Conform._, 202b, 2.
[27] Vide S. François, in 4to, Paris. 1885 (Plon), p. 233. The
authenticity of this benediction appears to be well established,
since it was already jealously guarded during the life of Thomas
of Celano. No one has ever dreamed of requiring historical proof
of this writing. Is this perhaps a mistake? The middle of the
sheet is taken up with the benediction which was dictated to
Brother Leo: _Benedicat tibi Dominus et custodiat te, ostendat
faciem suam tibi et misereatur tui convertat vultum suum ad te
et det tibi pacem._ At the bottom, Francis added the letter
_tau_. ~[Greek: Tau]~, which was, so to speak, his signature
(Bon., 51; 308), and the words: _Frater Leo Dominus benedicat te_.
Then when this memorial became a part of the relics of the
Saint, Brother Leo, to authenticate it in a measure, added the
following notes: toward the middle: _Beatus Franciscus
scripsit manu sua istam benedictionem mihi fratri Leoni_;
toward the close: _Simili modo fecit istud signum thau cum
capite manu sua_. But the most valuable annotation is found at
the top of the sheet: _Beatus Franciscus duobus annis ante
mortem suam fecit quadragesimam in loco Alvernæ ad honorem
Beatæ Virginia Mariæ matris Dei et beati Michael archangeli a
festo assumptionis sanctæ Mariæ Virginis usque ad festum
sancti Michael septembris et facta est super eum manus Domini
per visionem et allucotionem seraphym et impressionem
stigmatum in corpore suo. Fecit has laudes ex alio latere
catule scriptas et manu, sua scripsit gratias agens Domino de
beneficio sibi collato._ Vide 2 Cel., 2, 18.
[28] Wadding gives the text according to St. Bernardino da
Siena. _Opera_, t. iv., _sermo_ 16, _extraord. et sermo feriæ
sextæ Parasceves_. Amoni: _Legenda trium sociorum_, p. 166.
[29] Wadding has drawn the text from St. Bernardino, _loc.
cit._, _sermo_ iv., _extraord._ It was also reproduced by Amoni,
_loc. cit._, p. 165. Two very curious versions may be found in
the Miscellanea, 1888, pp. 96 and 190.
[30] 2 Cel., 3, 35. This took place under the vicariat of Pietro
di Catania; consequently between September 29, 1220, and March
10, 1221.
* * * * *
II
BIOGRAPHIES PROPERLY SO CALLED
I. PRELIMINARY NOTE
To form a somewhat exact notion of the documents which are to occupy us,
we must put them back into the midst of the circumstances in which they
appeared, study them in detail, and determine the special value of each
one.
Here, more than anywhere else, we must beware of facile theories and
hasty generalizations. The same life described by two equally truthful
contemporaries may take on a very different coloring. This is especially
the case if the man concerned has aroused enthusiasm and wrath, if his
inmost thought, his works, have been the subject of discussion, if the
very men who were commissioned to realize his ideals and carry on his
work are divided, and at odds with one another.
This was the case with St. Francis. In his lifetime and before his own
eyes divergences manifested themselves, at first secretly, then in the
light of day.
In a rapture of love he went from cottage to cottage, from castle to
castle, preaching absolute poverty; but that buoyant enthusiasm, that
unbounded idealism, could not last long. The Order of the Brothers Minor
in process of growth was open not only to a few choice spirits aflame
with mystic fervor, but to all men who aspired after a religious
reformation; pious laymen, monks undeceived as to the virtues of the
ancient Orders, priests shocked at the vices of the secular clergy, all
brought with them--unintentionally no doubt and even unconsciously--too
much of their old man not by degrees to transform the institution.
Francis perceived the peril several years before his death, and made
every effort to avert it. Even in his dying hour we see him summoning
all his powers to declare his Will once again, and as clearly as
possible, and to conjure his Brothers never to touch the Rule, even
under pretext of commenting upon or explaining it. Alas! four years had
not rolled away when Gregory IX., at the prayer of the Brothers
themselves, became the first one of a long series of pontiffs who have
explained the Rule.[1]
Poverty, as Francis understood it, soon became only a memory. The
unexampled success of the Order brought to it not merely new recruits,
but money. How refuse it when there were so many works to found? Many of
the friars discovered that their master had exaggerated many things,
that shades of meaning were to be observed in the Rule, for example,
between counsels and precepts. The door once opened to interpretations,
it became impossible to close it. The Franciscan family began to be
divided into opposing parties often difficult to distinguish.
At first there were a few restless, undisciplined men who grouped
themselves around the older friars. The latter, in their character of
first companions of the Saint, found a moral authority often greater
than the official authority of the ministers and guardians. The people
turned to them by instinct as to the true continuers of St. Francis's
work. They were not far from right.
They had the vigor, the vehemence of absolute convictions; they could
not have temporized had they desired to do so. When they emerged from
their hermitages in the Apennines, their eyes shining with the fever of
their ideas, absorbed in contemplation, their whole being spoke of the
radiant visions they enjoyed; and the amazed and subdued multitude
would kneel to kiss the prints of their feet with hearts mysteriously
stirred.
A larger group was that of those Brothers who condemned these methods
without being any the less saints. Born far away from Umbria, in
countries where nature seems to be a step-mother, where adoration, far
from being the instinctive act of a happy soul soaring upward to bless
the heavenly Father, is, on the contrary, the despairing cry of an atom
lost in immensity, they desired above all things a religious
reformation, rational and profound. They dreamed of bringing the Church
back to the purity of the ancient days, and saw in the vow of poverty,
understood in its largest sense, the best means of struggling against
the vices of the clergy; but they forgot the freshness, the Italian
gayety, the sunny poetry that there had been in Francis's mission.
Full of admiration for him, they yet desired to enlarge the foundations
of his work, and for that they would neglect no means of influence,
certainly not learning.
This tendency was the dominant one in France, Germany, and England. In
Italy it was represented by a very powerful party, powerful if not in
the number, at least in the authority, of its representatives. This was
the party favored by the papacy. It was the party of Brother Elias and
all the ministers-general of the Order in the thirteenth century, if we
except Giovanni di Parma (1247-1257) and Raimondo Gaufridi (1289-1295).
In Italy a third group, the liberals, was much more numerous; men of
mediocrity to whom monastic life appeared the most facile existence,
vagrant monks happy to secure an aftermath of success by displaying the
new Rule, formed in this country the greater part of the Franciscan
family.
We can understand without difficulty that documents emanating from such
different quarters must bear the impress of their origin. The men who
are to bring us their testimony are combatants in the struggle over the
question of poverty, a struggle which for two centuries agitated the
Church, aroused all consciences, and which had its monsters and its
martyrs.
To determine the value of these witnesses we must first of all discover
their origin. It is evident that the narratives of the no-compromise
party of the right or the left can have but slender value where
controverted points are concerned; whence the conclusion that the
authority of a narrator may vary from page to page, or even from line to
line.
These considerations, so simple that one almost needs to beg pardon for
uttering them, have not, however, guided those who have studied St.
Francis's life. The most learned, like Wadding and Papini, have brought
together the narratives of different biographers, here and there pruning
those that are too contradictory; but they have done this at random,
with neither rule nor method, guided by the impression of the moment.
The long work of the Bollandist Suysken is vitiated by an analogous
fault; fixed in his principle that the oldest documents are always the
best,[2] he takes his stand upon the first Life of Thomas of Celano as
upon an impregnable rock, and judges all other legends by that one.[3]
When we connect the documents with the disturbed circumstances which
brought them into being, some of them lose a little of their authority,
others which have been neglected, as being in contradiction with
witnesses who have become so to say official, suddenly recover credit,
and in fact all gain a new life which doubles their interest.
This altered point of view in the valuation of the sources, this
criticism which I am inclined to call reciprocal and organic, brings
about profound alterations in the biography of St. Francis. By a
phenomenon which may appear strange we end by sketching a portrait of
him much more like that which exists in the popular imagination of Italy
than that made by the learned historians above mentioned.
When Francis died (1226) the parties which divided the Order had already
entered into conflict. That event precipitated the crisis: Brother Elias
had been for five years exercising the functions of minister-general
with the title of vicar. He displayed an amazing activity. Intrenched in
the confidence of Gregory IX. he removed the _Zelanti_ from their
charges, strengthened the discipline even in the most remote provinces,
obtained numerous privileges from the curia, and with incredible
rapidity prepared for the building of the double basilica, destined for
the repose of the ashes of the Stigmatized Saint; but notwithstanding
all his efforts, the chapter of 1227 set him aside and chose Giovanni
Parenti as minister-general.
Furious at this check, he immediately set all influences to work to be
chosen at the following chapter. It even seems as if he paid no
attention to the nomination of Giovanni Parenti, and continued to go on
as if he had been minister.[4]
Very popular among the Assisans, who were dazzled by the magnificence of
the monument which was springing up on the _Hill of Hell_, now become
the _Hill of Paradise_, sure of being supported by a considerable party
in the Order and by the pope, he pushed forward the work on the basilica
with a decision and success perhaps unique in the annals of
architecture.[5]
All this could not be done without arousing the indignation of the
Zealots of poverty. When they saw a monumental poor-box, designed to
receive the alms of the faithful, upon the tomb of him who had forbidden
his disciples the mere contact of money, it seemed to them that
Francis's prophecy of the apostasy of a part of the Order was about to
be fulfilled. A tempest of revolt swept over the hermitages of Umbria.
Must they not, by any means, prevent this abomination in the holy place?
They knew that Elias was terrible in his severities, but his opponents
felt in themselves courage to go to the last extremity, and suffer
everything to defend their convictions. One day the poor-box was found
shattered by Brother Leo and his friends.[6]
To this degree of intensity the struggle had arrived. At this crisis the
first legend appeared.
II. First Life by Thomas of Celano[7]
Thomas of Celano, in writing this legend, to which he was later to
return for its completion, obeyed an express order of Pope Gregory
IX.[8]
Why did he not apply to one of the Brothers of the Saint's immediate
circle? The talent of this author might explain this choice, but
besides the fact that literary considerations would in this case hold a
secondary place, Brother Leo and several others proved later that they
also knew how to handle the pen.
If Celano was put in trust with the official biography, it is because,
being equally in sympathy with Gregory IX. and Brother Elias, his
absence had kept him out of the conflicts which had marked the last
years of Francis's life. Of an irenic temper, he belonged to the
category of those souls who easily persuade themselves that obedience is
the first of virtues, that every superior is a saint; and if unluckily
he is not, that we should none the less act as though he were.
We have some knowledge of his life. A native of Celano in the Abruzzi,
he discreetly observes that his family was noble, even adding, with a
touch of artless simplicity, that the master had a peculiar regard for
noble and educated Brothers. He entered the Order about 1215,[9] on
the return of Francis from Spain.
At the chapter of 1221 Cæsar of Speyer, charged with the mission to
Germany, took him among those who were to accompany him.[10] In 1223 he
was named custode of Mayence, Worms, Cologne, and Speyer. In April of
the same year, when Cæsar returned to Italy, devoured with the longing
to see St. Francis again, he commissioned Celano to execute his
functions until the arrival of the new provincial.[11]
We have no information as to where he was after the chapter-general held
at Speyer September 8, 1223. He must have been in Assisi in 1228, for
his account of the canonization is that of an eye-witness. He was there
again in 1230, and doubtless clothed with an important office, since he
could commit to Brother Giordano the relics of St. Francis.[12]
Written in a pleasing style, very often poetic, his work breathes an
affecting admiration for his hero; his testimony at once makes itself
felt as sincere and true: when he is partial it is without intention and
even without his knowledge. The weak point in this biography is the
picture which it outlines of the relations between Brother Elias and the
founder of the Order: from the chapters devoted to the last two years we
receive a very clear impression that Elias was named by Francis to
succeed him.[13]
Now if we reflect that at the time when Celano wrote, Giovanni Parenti
was minister-general, we at once perceive the bearing of these
indications.[14] Every opportunity is seized to give a preponderating
importance to Elias.[15] It is a true manifesto in his favor.
Have we reason to blame Celano? I think not. We must simply remember
that his work might with justice be called the legend of Gregory IX.
Elias was the pope's man, and the biography is worked up from the
information he gave. He could not avoid dwelling with peculiar
satisfaction upon his intimacy with Francis.
On the other hand, we cannot expect to find here such details as might
have sustained the pretension of the adversaries of Elias, those unruly
Zealots who were already proudly adorning themselves with the title of
_Companions of the Saint_ and endeavoring to constitute a sort of
spiritual aristocracy in the Order. Among them were four who during the
last two years had not, so to say, quitted Francis. We can imagine how
difficult it was not to speak of them. Celano carefully omits to mention
their names under pretext of sparing their modesty;[16] but by the
praises lavished upon Gregory IX., Brother Elias,[17] St. Clara,[18]
and even upon very secondary persons, he shows that his discretion is
far from being always so alert.
All this is very serious, but we must not exaggerate it. There is an
evident partiality, but it would be unjust to go farther and believe, as
men did later, that the last part of Francis's life was an active
struggle against the very person of Elias. A struggle there surely was,
but it was against tendencies whose spring Francis did not perceive. He
carried with him to his tomb his delusion as to his co-laborer.
For that matter this defect is after all secondary so far as the
physiognomy of Francis himself is concerned. In Celano's Life, as in the
Three Companions or the Fioretti, he appears with a smile for all joys,
and floods of tears for all woes; we feel everywhere the restrained
emotion of the writer; his heart is subjected by the moral beauty of his
hero.
III. SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE ORDER FROM 1230-1244
When Thomas of Celano closed his legend he perceived more than anyone
the deficiencies of his work, for which he had been able to collect but
insufficient material.
Elias and the other Assisan brothers had told him of Francis's youth and
his activity in Umbria; but besides that he would have preferred,
whether from prudence or from love of peace, to keep silence upon
certain events,[19] there were long periods upon which he had not
received a single item of information.[20]
He therefore seems to indicate his intention of resuming and completing
his work.[21]
This is not the place to write the history of the Order, but a few facts
are necessary to put the documents into their proper surroundings.
Elected minister-general in 1232, Brother Elias took advantage of the
fact to labor with indomitable energy toward the realization of his own
ideas. In all the provinces new collections were organized for the
Basilica of Assisi, the work upon which was pushed with an activity
which however injured neither the strength of the edifice nor the
beauty of its details, which are as finished and perfect as those of any
monument in Europe.
We may conceive of the enormous sums which it had been necessary to
raise in order to complete such an enterprise in so short a time. More
than that, Brother Elias exacted absolute obedience from all his
subordinates; naming and removing the provincial ministers according to
his personal views, he neglected to convoke the chapter-general, and
sent his emissaries under the name of visitors into all the provinces to
secure the execution of his orders.
The moderate party in Germany, France, and England very soon found his
yoke insupportable. It was hard for them to be directed by an Italian
minister resident at Assisi, a small town quite aside from the highways
of civilization, entirely a stranger to the scientific movement
concentred in the universities of Oxford, Paris, and Bologna.
In the indignation of the _Zelanti_ against Elias and his contempt for
the Rule, they found a decisive support. Very soon the minister had for
his defence nothing but his own energy, and the favor of the pope and of
the few Italian moderates. By a great increase of vigilance and severity
he repressed several attempts at revolt.
His adversaries, however, succeeded in establishing secret intelligence
at the court of Rome; even the pope's confessor was gained; yet in spite
of all these circumstances, the success of the conspiracy was still
uncertain when the chapter of 1239 opened.
Gregory IX., still favorable to Elias,[22] presided. Fear gave sudden
courage to the conspirators; they threw their accusations in their
enemy's face.
Thomas of Eccleston gives a highly colored narrative of what took place.
Elias was proud, violent, even threatening. There were cries and
vociferations from both sides; they were about to come to blows when a
few words from the pope restored silence. He had made up his mind to
abandon his _protégé_. He asked for his resignation. Elias indignantly
refused.
Gregory IX. then explained that in keeping him in charge he had thought
himself acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority: that he
had no intention to dominate the Order, and, since the Brothers no
longer desired Elias, he declared him deposed from the generalate.
The joy of the victors, says Eccleston, was immense and ineffable. They
chose Alberto di Pisa, provincial of England, to succeed him, and from
that time bent all their efforts to represent Elias as a creature of
Frederick II.[23] The former minister wrote indeed to the pope to
explain his conduct, but the letter did not reach its destination. It
must have reached the hands of his successor, and not been sent forward;
when Alberto of Pisa died it was found in his tunic.[24]
All the fury of the aged pontiff was unchained against Elias. One must
read the documents to see to what a height his anger could rise. The
friar retorted with a virulence which though less wordy was far more
overpowering.[25]
These events gained an indescribable notoriety[26] all over Europe and
threw the Order into profound disturbance. Many of the partisans of
Elias became convinced that they had been deceived by an impostor, and
they drew toward the group of Zealots, who never ceased to demand the
observance pure and simple of the Rule and the Will.
Thomas of Celano was of this number.[27] With profound sadness he saw
the innumerable influences that were secretly undermining the Franciscan
institute and menacing it with ruin. Already a refrain was going the
rounds of the convents, singing the victory of Paris over Assisi, that
is, of learning over poverty.
The Zealots gained new courage. Unaccustomed to the subtleties of
ecclesiastical politics, they did not perceive that the pope, while
condemning Brother Elias, had in nowise modified the general course
which he had marked out for the Order. The ministers-general, Alberto di
Pisa, 1239-1240, Aymon of Faversham, 1240-1244, Crescentius de Jesi,
1244-1247, were all, with different shades of meaning, representatives
of the moderate party.
Thomas of Celano's first legend had become impossible. The prominence
there given to Elias was almost a scandal. The necessity of working it
over and completing it became clearly evident at the chapter of Genoa
(1244).
All the Brothers who had anything to tell about Francis's life were
invited to commit it to writing and send it to the minister Crescentius
de Jesi.[28] The latter immediately caused a tract to be drawn up in
the form of a dialogue, commencing with the words: "_Venerabilium gesta
Patrum_." So soon after as the time of Bernard de Besse, only fragments
of this were left.[29]
But happily several of the works which saw the light in consequence of
the decision of this chapter have been preserved to us. It is to this
that we owe the Legend of the Three Companions and the Second Life by
Thomas of Celano.
IV. LEGEND OF THE THREE COMPANIONS[30]
The life of St. Francis which has come down to us under the name of the
Legend of the Three Companions was finished on August 11, 1246, in a
little convent in the vale of Rieti, which appears often in the course
of this history, that of Greccio. This hermitage had been Francis's
favorite abode, especially in the latter part of his life. He had thus
made it doubly dear to the hearts of his disciples.[31] It naturally
became, from the earliest days of the Order, the headquarters of the
Observants,[32] and it remains through all the centuries one of the
purest centres of Franciscan piety.
The authors of this legend were men worthy to tell St. Francis's story,
and perhaps the most capable of doing it: the friars Leo, Angelo, and
Rufino. All three had lived in intimacy with him, and had been his
companions through the most important years. More than this, they took
the trouble to go to others for further information, particularly to
Filippo, the visitor of the Clarisses, to Illuminato di Rieti, Masseo di
Marignano, John, the confidant of Egidio, and Bernardo di Quintavalle.
Such names as these promise much, and happily we are not disappointed in
our expectation. As it has come down to us, this document is the only
one worthy from the point of view of history to be placed beside the
First Life by Celano.
The names of the authors and the date of the composition indicate before
examination the tendency with which it is likely to be in harmony. It is
the first manifesto of the Brothers who remained faithful to the spirit
and letter of the Rule. This is confirmed by an attentive reading; it is
at least as much a panegyric of Poverty as a history of St. Francis.
We naturally expect to see the Three Companions relating to us with a
very particular delight the innumerable features of the legends of which
Greccio was the theatre; we turn to the end of the volume, expecting to
find the story of the last years of which they were witnesses, and are
lost in surprise to find nothing of the kind.
While the first half of the work describes Francis's youth, filling out
here and there Celano's First Life, the second[33] is devoted to a
picture of the early days of the Order, a picture of incomparable
freshness and intensity of life; but strangely enough, after having told
us so much at length of Francis's youth and then of the first days of
the Order, the story abruptly leaps over from the year 1220 to the death
and the canonization, to which after all only a few pages are
given.[34]
This is too extraordinary to be the result of chance. What has happened?
It is evident that the Legend of the Three Companions as we have it
to-day is only a fragment of the original, which was no doubt revised,
corrected, and considerably cut down by the authorities of the Order
before they would permit it to be circulated.[35] If the authors had
been interrupted in their work, and obliged to cut short the end, as
might have been the case, they would have said so in their letter of
envoy, but there are still other arguments in favor of our hypothesis.
Brother Leo having had the first and principal part in the production of
the work of the Three Companions, it is often called Brother Leo's
Legend; now Brother Leo's Legend is several times cited by Ubertini di
Casali, arraigned before the court of Avignon by the party of the Common
Observance. Evidently Ubertini would have taken good care not to appeal
to an apocryphal document; a false citation would have been enough to
bring him to confusion, and his enemies would not have failed to make
the most of his imprudence. We have at hand all the documents of the
trial,[36] attacks, replies, counter replies, and nowhere do we see the
Liberals accuse their adversary of falsehood. For that matter, the
latter makes his citations with a precision that admits of no
cavil.[37] He appeals to writings to be found in a press in the
convent of Assisi, of which he gives sometimes a copy, sometimes an
original.[38] We are then authorized to conclude that we have here
fragments which have survived the suppression of the last and most
important part of the Legend of the Three Companions.
It is not surprising that the work of Francis's dearest friends should
have been so seriously mutilated. It was the manifesto of a party that
Crescentius was hunting down with all his power.
After the fleeting reaction of the generalate of Giovanni di Parma we
shall see a man of worth like St. Bonaventura moving for the suppression
of all the primitive legends that his own compilation may be substituted
for them.
It is truly singular that no one has perceived the fragmentary state of
the work of the Three Companions. The prologue alone might have
suggested this idea. Why should it take three to write a few pages? Why
this solemn enumeration of Brothers whose testimony and collaboration
are asked for? There would be a surprising disproportion between the
effort and the result.
More than all, the authors say that they shall not stop at relating the
miracles, but they desire above all to exhibit the ideas of Francis and
his life with the Brothers, but we search in vain for any account of
miracles in what we now have.[39]
An Italian translation of this legend, published by Father Stanislaus
Melchiorri,[40] has suddenly given me an indirect confirmation of this
point of view. This monk is only its publisher, and has simply been able
to discover that in 1577 it was taken from a very ancient manuscript by
a certain Muzio Achillei di San Severino.[41]
This Italian translation contained only the last chapters of the legend,
those which tell of the death, the stigmata, and the translation of the
remains.[42] It was, then, made at a time when the suppressed portion
had not been replaced by a short summary of the other legends.
From all this two conclusions emerge for the critics: 1. This final
summary has not the same authority as the rest of the work, since the
time when it was added is unknown. 2. Fragments of a legend by Brother
Leo or by the Three Companions scattered through later compilations may
be perfectly authentic.
In its present condition this legend of the Three Companions is the
finest piece of Franciscan literature, and one of the most delightful
productions of the Middle Ages. There is something indescribably sweet,
confiding, chaste, in these pages, an energy of virile youth which the
Fioretti suggest but never attain to. At more than six hundred years of
distance the purest dream that ever thrilled the Christian Church seems
to live again.
These friars of Greccio, who, scattered over the mountain, under the
shade of the olive-trees, passed their days in singing the Hymn of the
Sun, are the true models of the primitive Umbrian Masters. They are all
alike; they are awkwardly posed; everything in and around them sins
against the most elementary rules of art, and yet their memory pursues
you, and when you have long forgotten the works of impeccable modern
artists you recall without effort these creations of those unknown
painters; for love calls for love, and these vapid personages have very
true and pure hearts, a more than human love shines forth from their
whole being, they speak to you and make you better.
Such is this book, the first utterance of the Spiritual Franciscans, in
which we already see the coming to life of some of those bold doctrines
that not only divided the Franciscan family into two hostile branches,
but which were to bring some of their defenders to the heretic's
stake.[43]
V. FRAGMENTS OF THE SUPPRESSED PART OF THE LEGEND OF THE THREE
COMPANIONS
We may now take a step forward and try to group the fragments of the
Legend of the Three Companions, or of Brother Leo, which are to be found
in later writings.
We must here be more than ever on our guard against absolute theories;
one of the most fruitful principles of historic criticism is to prefer
contemporary documents, or at least those which are nearest them; but
even with these it is necessary to use a little discretion.
It seems impossible to attack the reasoning of the Bollandists, who
refuse to know anything of legends written after that of St. Bonaventura
(1260), under pretext that, coming after several other authorized
biographies, he was better situated than anyone for getting information
and completing the work of his predecessors.[44] In reality this is
absurd, for it assumes that Bonaventura undertook to write as a
historian. This is to forget that he wrote not only for the purpose of
edification, but also as minister-general of the Minor Brothers. From
this fact his first duty was to keep silent on many facts, and those not
the least interesting. What shall we say of a biography where Francis's
Will is not even mentioned?
It is easy to turn away from a writing of the fourteenth century, on the
ground that the author did not see what was going on a hundred years
before; still we must not forget that many books of the end of the
Middle Ages resemble those old mansions at which four or five generators
have toiled. An inscription on their front often only shows the touch of
the last restorer or the last destroyer, and the names which are set
forth with the greatest complacency are not always those of the real
workmen.
Such have been many Franciscan books; to attribute them to any one
author would be impracticable; very different hands have worked upon
them, and such an amalgam has its own charm and interest.
Turning them over--I had almost said associating with them--we come to
see clearly into this tangled web, for every work of man bears the trace
of the hand that made it: this trace may perhaps be of an almost
imperceptible delicacy; it exists none the less, ready to reveal itself
to practised eyes. What is more impersonal than the photograph of a
landscape or of a painting, and yet among several hundreds of proofs the
amateur will go straight to the work of the operator he prefers.
These reflections were suggested by the careful study of a curious book
printed many times since the sixteenth century, the _Speculum Vitæ S.
Francisci et sociorum ejus_.[45] A complete study of this work, its
sources, its printed editions, the numerous differences in the
manuscripts, would by itself require a volume and an epitome of the
history of the Order. I can give here only a few notes, taking for base
the oldest edition, that of 1504.
The confusion which reigns here is frightful. Incidents in the life of
Francis and his companions are brought together with no plan; several of
them are repeated after the interval of a few pages in a quite different
manner;[46] certain chapters are so awkwardly introduced that the
compiler has forgotten to remove the number that they bore in the work
from which he borrowed them;[47] finally, to our great surprise, we
find several _Incipit_.[48]
However, with a little perseverance we soon perceive a few openings in
the labyrinth. In the first place, here are several chapters of the
legend of Bonaventura which seem to have been put in the van as if to
protect the rest of the book. If we abstract them and the whole series
of chapters from the Fioretti, we shall have diminished the work by
nearly three-quarters.
If we take away two more chapters taken from St. Bernard of Clairvaux
and those containing Franciscan prayers, or various attestations
concerning the indulgence of Portiuncula, we finally arrive at a sort of
residue, if the expression may be forgiven, of a remarkable homogeneity.
Here the style is very different from that in the surrounding pages,
closely recalling that of the Three Companions; a single thought
inspires these pages, that the corner-stone of the Order is the love of
poverty.
Why should we not have here some fragments of the original legend of the
Three Companions? We find here nothing which does not fit in with what
we know, nothing which suggests the embellishments of a late tradition.
To confirm this hypothesis come different passages which we find cited
by Ubertini di Casali and by Angelo Clareno as being by Brother Leo, and
an attentive comparison of the text shows that these authors can neither
have drawn them from the Speculum nor the Speculum from them.
There is, besides, one phrase which, apart from the inspiration and
style, will suffice at the first glance to mark the common origin of
most of these pieces.[49] _Nos qui cum ipso fuimus_. "We who have been
with him." These words, which recur in almost every incident,[49] are
in many cases only a grateful tribute to their spiritual father, but
sometimes, too, they have a touch of bitterness. These hermits of
Greccio suddenly recall to mind their rights. Are we not the only, the
true interpreters of the Saint's instructions--we who lived continually
with him; we who, hour after hour, have meditated upon his words, his
sighs, and his hymns?
We can understand that such pretensions were not to the taste of the
Common Observance, and that Crescentius, with an incontestable
authority, has suppressed nearly all this legend.[51]
As for the fragments that have been preserved to us, though they furnish
many details about the last years of St. Francis's life, they still are
not those whose loss is so much to be regretted. The authors who
reproduce them were defending a cause. We owe them little more than the
incidents which in one way or another concern the question of poverty.
They had nothing to do with the other accounts, as they were not writing
a biography. But even within these narrow limits these fragments are in
the first order of importance; and I have not hesitated to use them
largely. It is needless to say that while ascribing their origin to the
Three Companions, and in particular to Brother Leo, we must not suppose
that we have the very letter in the texts which have come down to us.
The pieces given by Ubertini di Casali and Angelo Clareno are actual
citations, and deserve full confidence as such. As for those which are
preserved to us in the Speculum, they may often have been abridged,
explanatory notes may have slipped into the text, but nowhere do we find
interpolations in the bad sense of the word.[52]
Finally, if we compare the fragments with the corresponding accounts in
the Second Life of Celano, we see that the latter has often borrowed
verbatim from Brother Leo, but generally he has considerably abridged
the passages, adding reflections here and there, especially retouching
the style to make it more elegant.
Such a comparison soon proves that Brother Leo's narratives are the
original and that it is impossible to see in them a later amplification
of those of Thomas of Celano, as we might at first be tempted to think
them.[53]
VI. SECOND LIFE BY THOMAS OF CELANO[54]
_First Part_
In consequence of the decision of the chapter of 1244 search was begun
in all quarters for memorials of the early times of the Order. In view
of the ardor of this inquiry, in which zeal for the glory of the
Franciscan institute certainly cast the interests of history into the
background, the minister-general, Crescentius, was obliged to take
certain precautions.
Many of the pieces that he received were doing double duty; others might
contradict one another; many of them, under color of telling the life of
the Saint, had no other object than to oppose the present to the past.
It soon became imperative to constitute a sort of commission charged to
study and coördinate all this matter.[55] What more natural than to put
Thomas of Celano at its head? Ever since the approbation of the first
legend by Gregory IX. he had appeared to be in a sense the official
historiographer of the Order.[56]
This view accords perfectly with the contents of the seventeen chapters
which contain the first part of the second legend. It offers itself at
the outset as a compilation. Celano is surrounded with companions who
help him.[57] A more attentive examination shows that its principal
source is the Legend of the Three Companions, which the compilers
worked over, sometimes filling out certain details, more often making
large excisions.
Everything that does not concern St. Francis is ruthlessly proscribed;
we feel the well-defined purpose to leave in the background the
disciples who so complacently placed themselves in the foreground.[58]
The work of the Three Companions had been finished August 11, 1246. On
July 13, 1247, the chapter of Lyons put an end to the powers of
Crescentius. It is, therefore, between these two dates that we must
place the composition of the first part of Thomas of Celano's Second
Life.[59]
VII. SECOND LIFE BY THOMAS OF CELANO[59]
_Second Part_
The election of Giovanni di Parma (1247-1257) as successor of
Crescentius was a victory for the Zealots. This man, in whose work-table
the birds came to make their nests,[61] was to astonish the world by
his virtues. No one saw more deeply into St. Francis's heart, no one was
more worthy to take up and continue his work.
He soon asked Celano to resume his work.[62] The latter was perhaps
alone at first, but little by little a group of collaborators formed
itself anew about him.[63] Thenceforth nothing prevented his doing with
that portion of the work of the Three Companions which Crescentius had
suppressed what he had already done with the part he had approved.
The Legend of Brother Leo has thus come down to us, entirely worked over
by Thomas of Celano, abridged and with all its freshness gone, but still
of capital importance in the absence of the major part of the original.
The events of which we possess two accounts permit us to measure the
extent of our loss. We find, in fact, in Celano's compilation all that
we expected to find in the Three Companions: the incidents belong
especially to the last two years of Francis's life, and the scene of
many of them is either Greccio or one of the hermitages of the vale of
Rieti;[64] according to tradition, Brother Leo was the hero of a great
number of the incidents here related[65] and all the citations that
Ubertini di Casali makes from Brother Leo's book find their
correspondents here.[66]
This second part of the Second Life perfectly reflects the new
circumstances to which it owes its existence. The question of Poverty
dominates everything;[67] the struggle between the two parties in the
Order reveals itself on every page; the collaborators are determined
that each event narrated shall be an indirect lesson to the Liberals, to
whom they oppose the Spirituals; the popes had commented on the Rule in
the large sense; they, on their side, undertook to comment on it in a
sense at once literal and spiritual, by the actions and words of its
author himself.
History has hardly any part here except as the vehicle of a thesis, a
fact which diminishes nothing of the historic value of the information
given in the course of these pages. But while in Celano's First Life and
in the Legend of the Three Companions the facts succeed one another
organically, here they are placed side by side. Therefore when we come
to read this work we are sensible of a fall; even from the literary
point of view the inferiority makes itself cruelly felt. Instead of a
poem we have before us a catalogue, very cleverly made, it is true, but
with no power to move us.
VIII. NOTES ON A FEW SECONDARY DOCUMENTS
a. _Celano's Life of St. Francis for Use in the Choir._
Thomas of Celano made also a short legend for use in the choir. It is
divided into nine lessons and served for the Franciscan breviaries up to
the time when St. Bonaventura made his _Legenda Minor_.
That of Celano may be found in part (the first three lessons) in the
Assisi MS. 338, fol. 52a-53b; it is preceded by a letter of envoy:
"_Rogasti me frater Benedicte, ut de legenda B. P. N. F. quædam
exciperem et in novem lectionum seriem ordinarem_ ... etc. _B.
Franciscus de civitate Assisii ortus a puerilibus annis nutritus extitit
insolenter._"
This work has no historic importance.
b. _Life of St. Francis in Verse._
In the list of biographers has sometimes been counted a poem in
hexameter verse[68] the text of which was edited in 1882 by the
lamented Cristofani.[69]
This work does not furnish a single new historic note. It is the Life by
Celano in verse and nothing more; the author's desire was to figure as a
poet. It is superfluous, therefore, to concern ourselves with it.[69]
c. _Biography of St. Francis by Giovanni di Ceperano._
One of the biographies which disappeared, no doubt in consequence of the
decision of the chapter of 1266,[71] is that of Giovanni di Ceperano.
The resemblance of his name to that of Thomas of Celano has occasioned
much confusion.[72] The most precious information which we have
respecting him is given by Bernard of Besse in the opening of his _De
laudibus St. Francisci_: "_Plenam virtutibus B. Francisci vitam scripsit
in Italia exquisitæ vir eloquentiæ fr. Thomas jubente Domino Gregorio
papa IX. et eam quæ incipit: Quasi stella matutina vir venerabilis
Dominus et fertur Joannes, Apostolicæ sedis notarius._"[73]
In the face of so precise a text all doubt as to the existence of the
work of Giovanni di Ceperano is impossible. The Reverend Father Denifle
has been able to throw new light upon this question. In a manuscript
containing the liturgy of the Brothers Minor and finished in 1256 he
found the nine lessons for the festival of St. Francis preceded by the
title: _Ex gestis ejus abbreviatis quæ sic incipiunt: Quasi stella_
(_Zeitschrift für kath. Theol._, vii., p. 710. Cf. _Archiv._, i., p.
148). This summary of Ceperano's work gives, as we should expect, no new
information; but perhaps we need not despair of finding the very work of
this author.
d. _Life of St. Francis by Brother Julian._
It was doubtless about 1230 that Brother Julian, the Teuton, who had
been chapel-master at the court of the King of France, was commissioned
to put the finishing touches to the Office of St. Francis.[74]
Evidently such a work would contain nothing original, and its loss is
little felt.
IX. LEGEND OF ST. BONAVENTURA
Under the generalate of Giovanni di Parma (1247-1257) the Franciscan
parties underwent modifications, in consequence of which their
opposition became still more striking than before.
The Zelanti, with the minister-general at their head, enthusiastically
adopted the views of Gioacchino di Fiore. The predictions of the
Calabrian abbot corresponded too well with their inmost convictions for
any other course to be possible: they seemed to see Francis, as a new
Christ, inaugurating the third era of the world.
For a few years these dreams moved all Europe; the faith of the
Joachimites was so ardent that it made its way by its own force;
sceptics like Salimbeni told themselves that on the whole it was surely
wiser not to be taken unawares by the great catastrophe of 1260, and
hastened in crowds to the cell of Hyères to be initiated by Hugues de
Digne in the mysteries of the new times: as to the people, they waited,
trembling, divided between hope and terror. Nevertheless their
adversaries did not consider themselves beaten, and the Liberal party
still remained the most numerous. Of an angelic purity, Giovanni di
Parma believed in the omnipotence of example: events showed how mistaken
he was; at the close of his term of office scandals were not less
flagrant than ten years earlier.[75]
Between these two extreme parties, against which he was to proceed with
equal rigor, stood that of the Moderates, to which belonged St.
Bonaventura.[76]
A mystic, but of a formal and orthodox mysticism, he saw the revolution
toward which the Church was hastening if the party of the eternal Gospel
was to triumph; its victory would not be that of this or that heresy in
detail, it would be, with brief delay, the ruin of the entire
ecclesiastical edifice; he was too perspicacious not to see that in the
last analysis the struggle then going on was that of the individual
conscience against authority. This explains, and up to a certain point
gains him pardon for, his severities against his opponents; he was
supported by the court of Rome and by all those who desired to make the
Order a school at once of piety and of learning.
No sooner was he elected general than, with a purpose that never knew
hesitation, and a will whose firmness made itself everywhere felt, he
took his steps to forward this double aim. On the very morrow of his
nomination he sketched the programme of reforms against the Liberal
party, and at the same time secured the summons of the Joachimite
Brothers before an ecclesiastical tribunal at Città-della-Pieve. This
tribunal condemned them to perpetual imprisonment, and it needed the
personal intervention of Cardinal Ottobonus, the future Adrian V., for
Giovanni di Parma to be left free to retire to the Convent of Greccio.
The first chapter held under the presidence of Bonaventura, in the
extended decisions of which we find everywhere tokens of his influence,
assembled at Narbonne in 1260. He was then commissioned to compose a new
life of St. Francis.[77]
We easily understand the anxieties to which this decision of the
Brothers was an answer. The number of legends had greatly increased, for
besides those which we have first studied or noted there were others in
existence which have completely disappeared, and it had become equally
difficult for the Brothers who went forth on missions either to make a
choice between them or to carry them all.
The course of the new historian was therefore clearly marked out: he
must do the work of compiler and peacemaker. He failed in neither. His
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.