Life of St. Francis of Assisi
ii., p. 278, etc.
[4] 1 Cel., 24; 3 Soc., 27, 28, 29; 2 Cel., 1, 10; 3, 52; Bon.,
28; A. SS., p. 580. It is evident that the tradition has been
worked over here: it soon came to be desired to find a miracle
in the manner in which Francis found the passage for reading.
The St. Nicholas Church is no longer in existence; it stood upon
the piece of ground now occupied by the barracks of the
_gendarmerie_ (_carabinieri reali_).
[5] Matt., xix., 21; Luke, ix., 1-6; Matt., xvi., 24-26. The
agreement of tradition upon these passages is complete. 3 Soc.,
29; 2 Cel., 1, 10; Bon., 28; _Spec._, 5b.; _Conform._, 37b. 2,
47a. 2; _Fior._, 2; Glassberger and the Chronicle of the xxiv.
generals reversing the order (Analecta, fr., t. ii., p. 5) as
well as the Conformities in another place, 87b, 2.
[6] 3 Soc., 30. Cf. _Anon. Perus._, A. SS., p. 581a. This scene
is reported neither by Celano nor by St. Bonaventura.
[7] This date is given in the life of Brother Egidio; A. SS.,
_Oct._, t. ii., p. 572; _Aprilis_, t. iii., p. 220. It fits well
with the accounts. Through it we obtain the approximate date of
the definitive conversion of Francis two full years earlier.
[8] 1 Cel., 25; 3 Soc., 23; Bon. 29. Cf. _Anon. Perus._, A. SS.,
p. 582, and A. SS., _Aprilis_, t. iii., p. 220 ff.
[9] _Spec._, 25a: _Qualiter dixit fratri Egidio priusquam esset
receptus ut daret mantellum ciudam pauperi. In primordio
religionis cum maneret apud Regum Tortum cum duobus fratribus
quos tunc tantum habehat._ If we compare this passage with 3
Soc., 44, we shall doubtless arrive at the conclusion that the
account in the Speculum is more satisfactory. It is in fact very
easy to understand the optical illusion by which later on the
Portiuncula was made the scene of the greater number of the
events of St. Francis's life, while it would be difficult to see
why there should have been any attempt to surround Rivo-Torto
with an aureola. The Fioretti say: _Ando inverso lo spedale dei
lebbrosi_, which confirms the indication of Rivo-Torto. _Vita d'
Egidio_, Sec. 1.
[10] _An. Perus_, A. SS., p. 582. Cf. _Fior._, _Vita di Egidio_,
1; _Spec._, 124, 136; 2 Cel., 3, 68; A. SS., _Aprilis_, t. iii.,
p. 227.
[11] _Spec._, 34a; _Conform._, 219b, 1; _Ant. fr._, p. 96.
[12] The Gyrovagi. Tr.
[13] 3 Soc. 32-34; 1 Cel., 27 and 28; Bon., 31.
[14] 3 Soc., 35. Cf. _Anon. Perus._; A. SS., p. 584.
[15] Later on, naturally, it was desired that Francis should
have had no better supporter than Guido; some have even made him
out to be his spiritual director (St. Francois, Plon, p. 24)! We
have an indirect but unexceptionable proof of the reserve with
which these pious traditions must be accepted; Francis did not
even tell his bishop (_pater et dominus animarum_, 3 Soc., 29)
of his design of having his Rule approved by the pope. This is
the more striking because the bishop would have been his natural
advocate at the court of Rome, and because in the absence of any
other reason the most elementary politeness required that he
should have been informed. Add to this that bishops in Italy are
not, as elsewhere, _functionaries_ approached with difficulty by
the common run of mortals. Almost every village in Umbria has
its bishop, so that their importance is hardly greater than that
of the cure of a French canton. Furthermore, several pontifical
documents throw a sombre light on Guido's character. In a
chapter of the decretals of Honorius III. (_Quinta compil._,
lib. ii., tit. iii., cap. i.) is given a complaint against this
bishop, brought before the curia by the Crucigeri of the
hospital _San Salvatore delle Pareti_ (suburbs of Assisi), of
having maltreated two of their number, and having stolen a part
of the wine belonging to the convent: _pro eo quod Aegidium
presbyterum, et fratrem eorem conversum violentas manus
injecerat ... adjiciens quod idem hospitale quadam vini
quantitate fuerat per eumdem episcopum spoliatum._ _Honorii
opera_, Horoy's edition, t. i., col. 200 ff. Cf. Potthast, 7746.
The mention of the hospital _de Pariete_ proves beyond question
that the Bishop of Assisi is here concerned and not the Bishop
of Osimo, as some critics have suggested.
Another document shows him at strife with the Benedictines of
Mount Subasio (the very ones who afterward gave Portiuncula to
Francis), and Honorius III. found the bishop in the wrong: Bull
_Conquerente oeconomo monasterii ap_. Richter, _Corpus juris
canonici_. Leipzig, 1839, 4to, Horoy, _loc. cit._, t. i., col.
163; Potthast, 7728.
[16] 3 Soc., 36 and 37. Cf. _Anon. Perus. ap._, A. SS., p. 585;
_Test. B. Francisci_.
[17] 3 Soc., 38-41.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VI
ST. FRANCIS AND INNOCENT III
Summer 1210[1]
Seeing the number of his friars daily increasing, Francis decided to
write the Rule of the Order and go to Rome to procure its approval by
the Pope.
This resolution was not lightly taken. It would be a mistake in fact to
take Francis for one of those inspired ones who rush into action upon
the strength of unexpected revelations, and, thanks to their faith in
their own infallibility, overawe the multitude. On the contrary, he was
filled with a real humility, and if he believed that God reveals himself
in prayer, he never for that absolved himself from the duty of
reflection nor even from reconsidering his decisions. St. Bonaventura
does him great wrong in picturing the greater number of his important
resolutions as taken in consequence of dreams; this is to rob his life
of its profound originality, his sanctity of its choicest blossom. He
was of those who struggle, and, to use one of the noblest expressions of
the Bible, of those who _by their perseverance conquer their souls_.
Thus we shall see him continually retouching the Rule of his institute,
unceasingly revising it down to the last moment, according as the growth
of the Order and experience of the human heart suggested to him
modifications of it.[2]
The first Rule which he submitted to Rome has not come down to us; we
only know that it was extremely simple, and composed especially of
passages from the Gospels. It was doubtless only the repetition of those
verses which Francis had read to his first companions, with a few
precepts about manual labor and the occupations of the new
brethren.[3]
It will be well to pause here and consider the brethren who are about to
set out for Rome. The biographies are in agreement as to their number;
they were twelve, including Francis; but the moment they undertake to
give a name to each one of them difficulties begin to arise, and it is
only by some exegetical sleight of hand that they can claim to have
reconciled the various documents. The table given below[4] briefly
shows these difficulties. The question took on some importance when in
the fourteenth century men undertook to show an exact conformity between
the life of St. Francis and that of Jesus. It is without interest to us.
The profiles of two or three of these brethren stand out very clearly in
the picture of the origins of the Order; others remind one of the
pictures of primitive Umbrian masters, where the figures of the
background have a modest and tender grace, but no shadow of personality.
The first Franciscans had all the virtues, including the one which is
nearly always wanting, willingness to remain unknown.
In the Lower Church of Assisi there is an ancient fresco representing
five of the companions of St. Francis. Above them is a Madonna by
Cimabue, upon which they are gazing with all their soul. It would be
more true if St. Francis were there in the place of the Madonna; one is
always changed into the image of what one admires, and they resemble
their master and one another.[5] To attempt to give them a name is to
make a sort of psychological error and become guilty of infidelity to
their memory; the only name they would have desired is that of their
father. His love changed their hearts and shed over their whole persons
a radiance of light and joy. These are the true personages of the
_Fioretti_, the men who brought peace to cities, awakened consciences,
changed hearts, conversed with birds, tamed wolves. Of them one may
truly say: "Having nothing, yet possessing all things" (_Nihil habentes,
omnia possidentes_).
They quitted Portiuncula full of joy and confidence. Francis was too
much absorbed in thought not to desire to place in other hands the
direction of the little company.
"Let us choose," he said, "one from among ourselves to guide us,
and let him be to us as the vicar of Jesus Christ. Wherever it
may please him to go we will go, and when he may wish to stop
anywhere to sleep there we will stop." They chose Brother
Bernardo and did as Francis had said. They went on full of joy,
and all their conversations had for their object only the glory
of God and the salvation of their souls.
Their journey was happily accomplished. Everywhere they found
kindly souls who sheltered them, and they felt beyond a doubt
that God was taking care of them.[6]
Francis's thoughts were all fixed upon the purpose of their journey; he
thought of it day and night, and naturally interpreted his dreams with
reference to it. One time, in his dream, he saw himself walking along a
road beside which was a gigantic and wonderfully beautiful tree. And,
behold, while he looked upon it, filled with wonder, he felt himself
become so tall that he could touch the boughs, and at the same time the
tree bent down its branches to him.[7] He awoke full of joy, sure of a
gracious reception by the sovereign pontiff.
His hopes were to be somewhat blighted. Innocent III. had now for twelve
years occupied the throne of St. Peter. Still young, energetic,
resolute, he enjoyed that superfluity of authority given by success.
Coming after the feeble Celestine III., he had been able in a few years
to reconquer the temporal domain of the Church, and so to improve the
papal influence as almost to realize the theocratic dreams of Gregory
VII. He had seen King Pedro of Aragon declaring himself his vassal and
laying his crown upon the tomb of the apostles, that he might take it
back at his hands. At the other end of Europe, John Lackland had been
obliged to receive his crown from a legate after having sworn homage,
fealty, and an annual tribute to the Holy See. Preaching union to the
cities and republics of Italy, causing the cry ITALIA! ITALIA! to
resound like the shout of a trumpet, he was the natural representative
of the national awakening, and appeared to be in some sort the suzerain
of the emperor, as he was already that of other kings. Finally, by his
efforts to purify the Church, by his indomitable firmness in defending
morality and law in the affair of Ingelburge and in many others, he was
gaining a moral strength which in times so disquieted was all the more
powerful for being so rare.
But this incomparable power had its hidden dangers. Occupied with
defending the prerogatives of the Holy See, Innocent came to forget that
the Church does not exist for herself, that her supremacy is only a
transitory means; and one part of his pontificate may be likened to
wars, legitimate in the beginning, in which the conqueror keeps on with