Life of St. Francis of Assisi by Paul Sabatier (best historical biographies txt) 📕

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
year. The Bollandists, who hold for 1219, have so clearly seen
this argument that they have been obliged to deny the
authenticity of the bull (or at least to suppose it wrongly
dated). A. SS., p. 839.

[2] Vide A. SS., p. 604. Cf. Angelo Clareno, Tribul. Archiv. ,
i., p. 559. A papa Innocentis fuit omnibus annuntiatum in
concilio generali ... sicut sanctus vir fr. Leo scribit et fr.
Johannes de Celano. These lines have not perhaps the
significance which one would be led to give them at the first
glance, their author having perhaps confounded consilium and
consistorium . The Speculum, 20b says: Eam (Regulam
Innocentius) approvabit et concessit et postea in consistorio
omnibus annuntiavit.

[3] Ne nimia Religionem diversitas gravem in Ecclesia Dei
confusionem inducat, firmiter prohibemus, ne quis de
coetero novam Religionem inveniat; sed quicumque voluerit
ad Religionem converti, unam de approbatis assumat. Labbé and
Cossart: Sacrosancta concilia , Paris, 1672, t. xi., col. 165.

[4] Eccl., 15 ( An. franc. , t. 1, p. 253): Innocentium in
cujus obitu fuit presentialiter S. Franciscus .

[5] 3 Soc., 61; cf. An. Perus. , A. SS., p. 606f.

[6] Thomas of Celano must be in error when he declares that
Francis was not acquainted with Cardinal Ugolini before the
visit which he made him at Florence (summer of 1217): Nondum
alter alteri erat præcipua familiaritate conjunctus (1 Cel., 74
and 75). The Franciscan biographer's purpose was not historic;
chronological indications are given in profusion; what he seeks
is the apta junctura . Tradition has