Life of St. Francis of Assisi
aspirations, to run after the ephemeral laurels of learning.
We have already seen that the habit of the Franciscans of this time was
to make their abode within easy reach of great cities; Pacifico and his
companions established themselves at St. Denis.[27] We have no
particulars of their work; it was singularly fruitful, since it
permitted them a few years later to attack England with full success.
Francis passed the following year (1218) in evangelizing tours in Italy.
It is naturally impossible to follow him in these travels, the itinerary
of which was fixed by his daily inspirations, or by indications as
fanciful as the one which had formerly determined his going to Sienna.
Bologna,[28] the Verna, the valley of Rieti, the Sacro-Speco of St.
Benedict at Subiaco,[29] Gaeta;[30] San Michele on Mount Gargano[31]
perhaps received him at this time, but the notes of his presence in
these places are too sparse and vague to permit their being included in
any scheme of history.
It is very possible that he also paid a visit to Rome during this time;
his communications with Ugolini were much more frequent than is
generally supposed. We must not permit the stories of biographers to
deceive us in this matter; it is a natural tendency to refer all that we
know of a man to three or four especially striking dates. We forget
entire years of the life of those whom we have known the best and loved
the most and group our memories of them around a few salient events
which shine all the more brilliantly the deeper we make the surrounding
obscurity. The words of Jesus spoken on a hundred different occasions
came at last to be formed into a single discourse, the Sermon on the
Mount. It is in such cases that criticism needs to be delicate, to
mingle a little divination with the heavy artillery of scientific
argument.
The texts are sacred, but we must not make fetiches of them;
notwithstanding St. Matthew, no one to-day dreams of representing Jesus
as uttering the Sermon on the Mount all at one time. In the same way, in
the narratives concerning the relations between St. Francis and Ugolini,
we find ourselves every moment shut up in no-thoroughfares, coming up
against contradictory indications, just so long as we try to refer
everything to two or three meetings, as we are at first led to do.
With a simple act of analysis these difficulties disappear and we find
each of the different narratives bringing us fragments which, being
pieced together, furnish an organic story, living, psychologically true.
From the moment at which we have now arrived, we must make a much larger
place for Ugolini than in the past; the struggle has definitively opened
between the Franciscan ideal--chimerical, perhaps, but sublime--and the
ecclesiastical policy, to go on until the day when, half in humility,
half in discouragement, Francis, heartsick, abdicates the direction of
his spiritual family.
Ugolini returned to Rome at the end of 1217. During the following winter
his countersign is found at the bottom of the most important bulls;[32]
he devoted this time to the special study of the question of the new
orders, and summoned Francis before him. We have seen with what
frankness he had declared to him at Florence that many of the prelates
would do anything to discredit him with the pope.[33] It is evident the
success of the Order, its methods, which in spite of all protestations
to the contrary seemed to savor of heresy, the independence of Francis,
who had scattered his friars in all the four corners of the globe
without trying to gain a confirmation of the verbal and entirely
provisional authorization accorded him by Innocent III.--all these
things were calculated to startle the clergy.
Ugolini, who better than any one else knew Umbria, Tuscany, Emilia, the
March of Ancona, all those regions where the Franciscan preaching had
been most successful, was able by himself to judge of the power of the
new movement and the imperious necessity of directing it; he felt that
the best way to allay the prejudices which the pope and the sacred
college might have against Francis was to present him before the curia.
Francis was at first much abashed at the thought of preaching before the
Vicar of Jesus Christ, but upon the entreaties of his protector he
consented, and for greater security he learned by heart what he had to
say.
Ugolini himself was not entirely at ease as to the result of this step;
Thomas of Celano pictures him as devoured with anxiety; he was troubled
about Francis, whose artless eloquence ran many a risk in the halls of
the Lateran Palace; he was also not without some more personal
anxieties, for the failure of his _protege_ might be most damaging to
himself. He was in all the greater anxiety when, on arriving at the feet
of the pontiff, Francis forgot all he had intended to say; but he
frankly avowed it, and seeking a new discourse from the inspiration of
the moment, spoke with so much warmth and simplicity that the assembly
was won.[34]
The biographers are mute as to the practical result of this audience. We
are not to be surprised at this, for they write with the sole purpose of
edification. They wrote after the apotheosis of their master, and would
with very bad grace have dwelt upon the difficulties which he met during
the early years.[35]
The Holy See must have been greatly perplexed by this strange man,
whose faith and humility were evident, but whom it was impossible to
teach ecclesiastical obedience.
St. Dominic happened to be in Rome at the same time,[36] and was
overwhelmed with favors by the pope. It is a matter of history that
Innocent III. having asked him to choose one of the Rules already
approved by the Church, he had returned to his friars at Notre Dame de
Prouille, and after conferring with them had adopted that of St.
Augustine; Honorius therefore was not sparing of privileges for him. It
is hardly possible that Ugolini did not try to use the influence of his
example with St. Francis.
The curia saw clearly that Dominic, whose Order barely comprised a few
dozen members, was not one of the moral powers of the time, but its
sentiments toward him were by no means so mixed as those it experienced
with regard to Francis.
To unite the two Orders, to throw over the shoulders of the Dominicans
the brown cassock of the Poor Men of Assisi, and thus make a little of
the popularity of the Brothers Minor to be reflected upon them, to leave
to the latter their name, their habit, and even a semblance of their
Rule, only completing it with that of St. Augustine, such a project
would have been singularly pleasing to Ugolini, and with Francis's
humility would seem to have some chance of success.
One day Dominic by dint of pious insistance induced Francis to give him
his cord, and immediately girded himself with it. "Brother," said he, "I
earnestly long that your Order and mine might unite to form one sole and
same institute[37] in the Church." But the Brother Minor wished to
remain as he was, and declined the proposition. So truly was he inspired
with the needs of his time and of the Church that less than three years
after this Dominic was drawn by an irresistible influence to transform
his Order of Canons of St. Augustine into an order of mendicant monks,
whose constitutions were outlined upon those of the Franciscans.[38]
A few years later the Dominicans took, so to speak, their revenge, and
obliged the Brothers Minor to give learning a large place in their work.
Thus, while hardly come to youth's estate, the two religious families
rivalled one another, impressed, influenced one another, yet never so
much so as to lose all traces of their origin--summed up for the one in
poverty and lay preaching, for the other in learning and the preaching
of the clergy.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The commencement of the great missions and the institution
of provincial ministers is usually fixed either at 1217 or 1219,
but both these dates present great difficulties. I confess that
I do not understand the vehemence with which partisans of either
side defend their opinions. The most important text is a passage
in the 3 Soc., 62: _Expletis itaque undecim annis ab inceptione
religionis, et multiplicatis numero et merito fratribus, electi
fuerant ministri, et missi cum aliquot fratribus quasi per
universas mundi provincias in quibus fides catholica colitur et
servatur._ What does this expression, _inceptio religionis_,
mean? At a first reading one unhesitatingly takes it to refer to
the foundation of the Order, which occurred in April, 1209, by
the reception of the first Brothers; but on adding eleven full
years to this date we reach the summer of 1220. This is
manifestly too late, for the 3 Soc. say that the brethren who
went out were persecuted in most of the countries beyond the
mountains, as being accredited by no pontifical letter; but the
bull _Cum dilecti_, bears the date of June 11, 1219. We are thus
led to think that the eleven years are not to be counted from
the reception of the first Brothers, but from Francis's
conversion, which the authors might well speak of as _inceptio
religionis_, and 1206 + 11 = 1217. The use of this expression to
designate conversion is not entirely without example.
Glassberger says (_An. fr._, p. 9): _Ordinem minorum incepit
anno 1206._ Those who admit 1219 are obliged (like the
Bollandists, for example), to attribute an inaccuracy to the
text of the 3 Soc., that of having counted eleven years as
having passed when there had been only ten. We should notice
that in the two other chronological indications given by the 3
Soc. (27 and 62) they count from the conversion, that is from
1206, as also Thomas of Celano, 88, 105, 119, 97, 88, 57, 55,
21. Curiously, the Conformities reproduce the passage of the 3
Soc. (118b, 1), but with the alteration: _Nono anno ab
inceptione religionis_. Giordano di Giano opens the door to many
scruples: _Anno vero Domini_ 1219 _et anno conversionis ejus
decimo frater Franciscus ... misit fratres in Franciam, in
Theutoniam, in Hungariam, in Hespaniam_, Giord., 3. As a little
later the same author properly harmonizes 1219 with the
thirteenth year from Francis's conversion, everyone is in
agreement in admitting that the passage cited needs correction;
we have unfortunately only one manuscript of this chronicle.
Glassberger, who doubtless had another before him, substitutes
1217, but he may have drawn this date from another document. It
is noteworthy that Brother Giordano gives as simultaneous the
departure of the friars for Germany, Hungary, and France; but,
as to the latter country, it certainly took place in 1217. So
the Speculum, 44a.
The chronicle of the xxiv. generals and Mark of Lisbon (Diola's
ed., t. i., p. 82) holds also to 1217, so that, though not
definitely established, it would appear that this date should be
accepted until further information. Starting from slightly
different premises, the learned editors of the _Analecta_ arrive
at the same conclusion (t. ii., pp. 25-36). Cf. Evers, _Analecta
ad Fr. Minorum historiam_, Leipsic, 1882, 4to, pp. 7 and 11.
That which appears to me decidedly to tip the balance in favor
of 1217, is the fact that the missionary friars were persecuted
because they had no document of legitimation; and in 1219 they
would have had the bull _Cum dilecti_, from June 11th of that