Life of St. Francis of Assisi by Paul Sabatier (i am malala young readers edition TXT) 📖

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, § 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. François, 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 curé 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 œconomo 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.

Table of
Contents

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 below4 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.