Life of St. Francis of Assisi
follow him in this pilgrimage, accompany him in thought through Judea
and Galilee, to Bethlehem, to Nazareth, to Gethsemane! What was said to
him by the stable where the Son of Mary was born, the workshop where he
toiled, the olive-tree where he accepted the bitter cup? Alas! the
documents here suddenly fail us. Setting out from Damietta very shortly
after the siege (November 5, 1219) he may easily have been at Bethlehem
by Christmas. But we know nothing, absolutely nothing, except that his
sojourn was more prolonged than had been expected.
Some of the Brothers who were present at Portiuncula at the
chapter-general of 1220 (Whitsunday, May 17th) had time enough to go to
Syria and still find Francis there;[28] they could hardly have arrived
much earlier than the end of June. What had he been doing those eight
months? Why had he not gone home to preside at the chapter? Had he been
ill?[29] Had he been belated by some mission? Our information is too
slight to permit us even to venture upon conjecture.
Angelo Clareno relates that the Sultan of Egypt, touched by his
preaching, gave command that he and all his friars should have free
access to the Holy Sepulchre without the payment of any tribute.[30]
Bartholomew of Pisa on his part says incidentally that Francis, having
gone to preach in Antioch and its environs, the Benedictines of the
Abbey of the Black Mountain,[31] eight miles from that city, joined the
Order in a body, and gave up all their property to the Patriarch.
These indications are meagre and isolated indeed, and the second is to
be accepted only with reserve. On the other hand, we have detailed
information of what went on in Italy during Francis's absence. Brother
Giordano's chronicle, recently discovered and published, throws all the
light that could be desired upon a plot laid against Francis by the very
persons whom he had commissioned to take his place at Portiuncula, and
this, if not with the connivance of Rome and the cardinal protector, at
least without their opposition. These events had indeed been narrated by
Angelo Clareno, but the undisguised feeling which breathes through all
his writings and their lack of accuracy had sufficed with careful
critics to leave them in doubt. How could it be supposed that in the
very lifetime of St. Francis the vicars whom he had instituted could
take advantage of his absence to overthrow his work? How could it be
that the pope, who during this period was sojourning at Rieti, how that
Ugolini, who was still nearer, did not impose silence on these
agitators?[32]
Now that all the facts come anew to light, not in an oratorical and
impassioned account, but brief, precise, cutting, dated, with every
appearance of notes taken day by day, we must perforce yield to
evidence.
Does this give us reason clamorously to condemn Ugolino and the pope? I
do not think so. They played a part which is not to their honor, but
their intentions were evidently excellent. If the famous aphorism that
the end justifies the means is criminal where one examines his own
conduct, it becomes the first duty in judging that of others. Here are
the facts:
On July 25th, about one month after Francis's departure for Syria,
Ugolini, who was at Perugia, laid upon the Clarisses of Monticelli
(Florence), Sienna, Perugia, and Lucca that which his friend had so
obstinately refused for the friars, the Benedictine Rule.[33]
At the same time, St. Dominic, returning from Spain full of new ardor
after his retreat in the grotto of Segovia, and fully decided to adopt
for his Order the rule of poverty, was strongly encouraged in this
purpose and overwhelmed with favors.[34] Honorius III. saw in him the
providential man of the time, the reformer of the monastic Orders; he
showed him unusual attentions, going so far, for example, as to transfer
to him a group of monks belonging to other Orders, whom he appointed to
act as Dominic's lieutenants on the preaching tours which he believed it
to be his duty to undertake, and to serve, under his direction, an
apprenticeship in popular preaching.[35]
That Ugolini was the inspiration of all this, the bulls are here to
witness. His ruling purpose at that time was so clearly to direct the
two new Orders that he chose a domicile with this end in view, and we
find him continually either at Perugia--that is to say, within three
leagues of Portiuncula--or at Bologna, the stronghold of the Dominicans.
It now becomes manifest that just as the fraternity instituted by
Francis was truly the fruit of his body, flesh of his flesh, so does
the Order of the Preaching Friars emanate from the papacy, and St.
Dominic is only its putative father. This character is expressed in
one word by one of the most authoritative of contemporary annalists,
Burchard of Ursperg ([Cross] 1226). "The pope," he says, "_instituted_
and confirmed the Order of the Preachers."[36]
Francis on his journey in the Orient had taken for special companion a
friar whom we have not yet met, Pietro di Catana or _dei Cattani_. Was
he a native of the town of Catana? There is no precise indication of it.
It appears more probable that he belonged to the noble family _dei
Cattani_, already known to Francis, and of which Orlando, Count of
Chiusi in Casentino, who gave him the Verna, was a member. However that
may be, we must not confound him with the Brother Pietro who assumed the
habit in 1209, at the same time with Bernardo of Quintavallo, and died
shortly afterward. Tradition, in reducing these two men to a single
personage, was influenced not merely by the similarity of the names, but
also by the very natural desire to increase the prestige of one who in
1220-1221 was to play an important part in the direction of the
Order.[37]
At the time of his departure for the East Francis had left two vicars in
his place, the Brothers Matteo of Narni and Gregorio of Naples. The
former was especially charged to remain at Portiuncula to admit
postulants;[38] Gregorio of Naples, on the other hand, was to pass
through Italy to console the Brothers.[39]
The two vicars began at once to overturn everything. It is inexplicable
how men still under the influence of their first fervor for a Rule which
in the plenitude of their liberty they had promised to obey could have
dreamed of such innovations if they had not been urged on and upheld by
those in high places. To alleviate the vow of poverty and to multiply
observances were the two points toward which their efforts were bent.
In appearance it was a trifling matter, in reality it was much, for it
was the first movement of the old spirit against the new. It was the
effort of men who unconsciously, I am willing to think, made religion an
affair of rite and observance, instead of seeing in it, like St.
Francis, the conquest of the liberty which makes us free in all things,
and leads each soul to obey that divine and mysterious power which the
flowers of the fields adore, which the birds of the air bless, which the
symphony of the stars praises, and which Jesus of Nazareth called
_Abba_, that is to say, Father.
The first Rule was excessively simple in the matter of fasts. The friars
were to abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays; they might add
Mondays and Saturdays, but only on Francis's special authorization. The
vicars and their adherents complicated this rule in a surprising manner.
At the chapter-general held in Francis's absence (May 17, 1220), they
decided, first, that in times of feasting the friars were not to provide
meat, but if it were offered to them spontaneously they were to eat it;
second, that all should fast on Mondays as well as Wednesdays and
Fridays; third, that on Mondays and Saturdays they should abstain from
milk products unless by chance the adherents of the Order brought some
to them.[40]
These beginnings bear witness also to an effort to imitate the ancient
Orders, not without the vague hope that they would be substituted for
them. Brother Giordano has preserved to us only this decision of the
chapter of 1220, but the expressions of which he makes use sufficiently
prove that it was far from being the only one, and that the malcontents
had desired, as in the chapters of Citeaux and Monte Cassino, to put
forth veritable constitutions.
These modifications of the Rule did not pass, however, without arousing
the indignation of a part of the chapter; a lay brother made himself
their eager messenger, and set out for the East to entreat Francis to
return without delay, to take the measures called for by the
circumstances.
There were also other causes of disquiet. Brother Philip, a Zealot of
the Clarisses, had made haste to secure for them from Ugolini the
privileges which had already been under consideration.[41]
A certain Brother Giovanni di Conpello[42] had gathered together a
great number of lepers of both sexes, and written a Rule, intending to
form with them a new Order. He had afterward presented himself before
the supreme pontiff with a train of these unfortunates to obtain his
approbation.
Many other distressing symptoms, upon which Brother Giordano does not
dwell, had manifested themselves. The report of Francis's death had even
been spread abroad, so that the whole Order was disturbed, divided, and
in the greatest peril. The dark presentiments which Francis seems to
have had were exceeded by the reality.[43] The messenger who brought
him the sad news found him in Syria, probably at St. Jean d'Acre. He at
once embarked with Elias, Pietro di Catana, Caesar of Speyer, and a few
others, and returned to Italy in a vessel bound for Venice, where he
might easily arrive toward the end of July.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] One proof of the obscurity in which Dominic remained so long
as Rome did not apotheosize him, is that Jacques de Vitry, who
consecrates a whole chapter of his _Historia Occidentalis_ to
the Preaching Friars (27, p. 333) does not even name the
founder. This is the more significant since a few pages farther
on, the chapter given to the Brothers Minor is almost entirely
filled with the person of St. Francis. This silence about St.
Dominic has been remarked and taken up by Moschus, who finds no
way to explain it. Vide _Vitam J. de Vitriaco_, at the head of
the Douai edition of 1597.
[2] Francis, who died in 1226, is canonized in 1228; Anthony of
Padua, 1231 and 1233; Elisabeth of Thuringia, 1231 and 1235;
Dominic, 1221 and 1234.
[3] 3 Soc., 61.
[4] Shed abroad, Lord, thy Spirit, and all shall be created, and
thou shalt renew the face of the earth.
[5] 2 Cel., 3. 87; _Spec._, 132b; _Conform._, 207a, 112a;
_Fior._, 18. The historians of St. Dominic have not received
these details kindly, but an incontestable point gained from
diplomatic documents is that in 1218 Dominic, at Rome, procured
privileges in which the properties of his Order were indicated,
and that in 1220 he led his friars to profess poverty.
[6] 2 Cel., 3, 9; _Spec._, 17a.
[7] _Spec._, 49a; _Tribul._, Laur. MS., 11a-12b; _Spec._, 183a;
_Conform._, 135b 1.
[8] The principal sources are indicated in A. SS., Augusti, t.
i., pp. 470 ff.
[9] Giord., 18; 3 Soc., 62.
[10] Sbaralea, _Bull. fr._, t. i, p. 2; Potthast, 6081: Wadding,
_ann. 1219_, No. 28, indicates the works where the text may be
found. Cf. A. SS., p. 839.
[11] The title sufficiently indicated the contents: _Domenico
priori S. Romani tolosani ejusque fratribus, eos in protectionem
recipit eorumque Ordinem cum bonis et privilegiis confirmat_.
_Religiosam vitam_: December 22, 1216; Pressuti, t. i., 175,
text in Horoy t. ii., col. 141-144.