The long work of the Bollandist Suysken is vitiated by an analogous fault; fixed in his principle that the oldest documents are always the best,[2] he takes his stand upon the first Life of Thomas of Celano as upon an impregnable rock, and judges all other legends by that one.[3]

When we connect the documents with the disturbed circumstances which brought them into being, some of them lose a little of their authority, others which have been neglected, as being in contradiction with witnesses who have become so to say official, suddenly recover credit, and in fact all gain a new life which doubles their interest.

This altered point of view in the valuation of the sources, this criticism which I am inclined to call reciprocal and organic, brings about profound alterations in the biography of St. Francis. By a phenomenon which may appear strange we end by sketching a portrait of him much more like that which exists in the popular imagination of Italy than that made by the learned historians above mentioned.

When Francis died (1226) the parties which divided the Order had already entered into conflict. That event precipitated the crisis: Brother Elias had been for five years exercising the functions of minister-general with the title of vicar. He displayed an amazing activity. Intrenched in the confidence of Gregory IX. he removed the Zelanti from their charges, strengthened the discipline even in the most remote provinces, obtained numerous privileges from the curia, and with incredible rapidity prepared for the building of the double basilica, destined for the repose of the ashes of the Stigmatized Saint; but notwithstanding all his efforts, the chapter of 1227 set him aside and chose Giovanni Parenti as minister-general.

Furious at this check, he immediately set all influences to work to be chosen at the following chapter. It even seems as if he paid no attention to the nomination of Giovanni Parenti, and continued to go on as if he had been minister.[4]

Very popular among the Assisans, who were dazzled by the magnificence of the monument which was springing up on the Hill of Hell, now become the Hill of Paradise, sure of being supported by a considerable party in the Order and by the pope, he pushed forward the work on the basilica with a decision and success perhaps unique in the annals of architecture.[5]

All this could not be done without arousing the indignation of the Zealots of poverty. When they saw a monumental poor-box, designed to receive the alms of the faithful, upon the tomb of him who had forbidden his disciples the mere contact of money, it seemed to them that Francis's prophecy of the apostasy of a part of the Order was about to be fulfilled. A tempest of revolt swept over the hermitages of Umbria. Must they not, by any means, prevent this abomination in the holy place?

They knew that Elias was terrible in his severities, but his opponents felt in themselves courage to go to the last extremity, and suffer everything to defend their convictions. One day the poor-box was found shattered by Brother Leo and his friends.[6]

To this degree of intensity the struggle had arrived. At this crisis the first legend appeared.

II. First Life by Thomas of Celano[7]

Thomas of Celano, in writing this legend, to which he was later to return for its completion, obeyed an express order of Pope Gregory IX.[8]

Why did he not apply to one of the Brothers of the Saint's immediate circle? The talent of this author might explain this choice, but besides the fact that literary considerations would in this case hold a secondary place, Brother Leo and several others proved later that they also knew how to handle the pen.

If Celano was put in trust with the official biography, it is because, being equally in sympathy with Gregory IX. and Brother Elias, his absence had kept him out of the conflicts which had marked the last years of Francis's life. Of an irenic temper, he belonged to the category of those souls who easily persuade themselves that obedience is the first of virtues, that every superior is a saint; and if unluckily he is not, that we should none the less act as though he were.

We have some knowledge of his life. A native of Celano in the Abruzzi, he discreetly observes that his family was noble, even adding, with a touch of artless simplicity, that the master had a peculiar regard for noble and educated Brothers. He entered the Order about 1215,[9] on the return of Francis from Spain.

At the chapter of 1221 Caesar of Speyer, charged with the mission to Germany, took him among those who were to accompany him.[10] In 1223 he was named custode of Mayence, Worms, Cologne, and Speyer. In April of the same year, when Caesar returned to Italy, devoured with the longing to see St. Francis again, he commissioned Celano to execute his functions until the arrival of the new provincial.[11]

We have no information as to where he was after the chapter-general held at Speyer September 8, 1223. He must have been in Assisi in 1228, for his account of the canonization is that of an eye-witness. He was there again in 1230, and doubtless clothed with an important office, since he could commit to Brother Giordano the relics of St. Francis.[12]

Written in a pleasing style, very often poetic, his work breathes an affecting admiration for his hero; his testimony at once makes itself felt as sincere and true: when he is partial it is without intention and even without his knowledge. The weak point in this biography is the picture which it outlines of the relations between Brother Elias and the founder of the Order: from the chapters devoted to the last two years we receive a very clear impression that Elias was named by Francis to succeed him.[13]

Now if we reflect that at the time when Celano wrote, Giovanni Parenti was minister-general, we at once perceive the bearing of these indications.[14] Every opportunity is seized to give a preponderating importance to Elias.[15] It is a true manifesto in his favor.

Have we reason to blame Celano? I think not. We must simply remember that his work might with justice be called the legend of Gregory IX. Elias was the pope's man, and the biography is worked up from the information he gave. He could not avoid dwelling with peculiar satisfaction upon his intimacy with Francis.

On the other hand, we cannot expect to find here such details as might have sustained the pretension of the adversaries of Elias, those unruly Zealots who were already proudly adorning themselves with the title of Companions of the Saint and endeavoring to constitute a sort of spiritual aristocracy in the Order. Among them were four who during the last two years had not, so to say, quitted Francis. We can imagine how difficult it was not to speak of them. Celano carefully omits to mention their names under pretext of sparing their modesty;[16] but by the praises lavished upon Gregory IX., Brother Elias,[17] St. Clara,[18] and even upon very secondary persons, he shows that his discretion is far from being always so alert.

All this is very serious, but we must not exaggerate it. There is an evident partiality, but it would be unjust to go farther and believe, as men did later, that the last part of Francis's life was an active struggle against the very person of Elias. A struggle there surely was, but it was against tendencies whose spring Francis did not perceive. He carried with him to his tomb his delusion as to his co-laborer.

For that matter this defect is after all secondary so far as the physiognomy of Francis himself is concerned. In Celano's Life, as in the Three Companions or the Fioretti, he appears with a smile for all joys, and floods of tears for all woes; we feel everywhere the restrained emotion of the writer; his heart is subjected by the moral beauty of his hero.

III. SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE ORDER FROM 1230-1244

When Thomas of Celano closed his legend he perceived more than anyone the deficiencies of his work, for which he had been able to collect but insufficient material.

Elias and the other Assisan brothers had told him of Francis's youth and his activity in Umbria; but besides that he would have preferred, whether from prudence or from love of peace, to keep silence upon certain events,[19] there were long periods upon which he had not received a single item of information.[20]

He therefore seems to indicate his intention of resuming and completing his work.[21]

This is not the place to write the history of the Order, but a few facts are necessary to put the documents into their proper surroundings.

Elected minister-general in 1232, Brother Elias took advantage of the fact to labor with indomitable energy toward the realization of his own ideas. In all the provinces new collections were organized for the Basilica of Assisi, the work upon which was pushed with an activity which however injured neither the strength of the edifice nor the beauty of its details, which are as finished and perfect as those of any monument in Europe.

We may conceive of the enormous sums which it had been necessary to raise in order to complete such an enterprise in so short a time. More than that, Brother Elias exacted absolute obedience from all his subordinates; naming and removing the provincial ministers according to his personal views, he neglected to convoke the chapter-general, and sent his emissaries under the name of visitors into all the provinces to secure the execution of his orders.

The moderate party in Germany, France, and England very soon found his yoke insupportable. It was hard for them to be directed by an Italian minister resident at Assisi, a small town quite aside from the highways of civilization, entirely a stranger to the scientific movement concentred in the universities of Oxford, Paris, and Bologna.

In the indignation of the Zelanti against Elias and his contempt for the Rule, they found a decisive support. Very soon the minister had for his defence nothing but his own energy, and the favor of the pope and of the few Italian moderates. By a great increase of vigilance and severity he repressed several attempts at revolt.

His adversaries, however, succeeded in establishing secret intelligence at the court of Rome; even the pope's confessor was gained; yet in spite of all these circumstances, the success of the conspiracy was still uncertain when the chapter of 1239 opened.

Gregory IX., still favorable to Elias,[22] presided. Fear gave sudden courage to the conspirators; they threw their accusations in their enemy's face.

Thomas of Eccleston gives a highly colored narrative of what took place. Elias was proud, violent, even threatening. There were cries and vociferations from both sides; they were about to come to blows when a few words from the pope restored silence. He had made up his mind to abandon his protege. He asked for his resignation. Elias indignantly refused.

Gregory IX. then explained that in keeping him in charge he had thought himself acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority: that he had no intention to dominate the Order, and, since the Brothers no longer desired Elias, he declared him deposed from the generalate.

The joy of the victors, says Eccleston, was immense and ineffable. They chose Alberto di Pisa, provincial of England, to succeed him, and from that time bent all their efforts to represent Elias as a creature of Frederick II.[23] The former minister wrote indeed to the pope to explain his conduct, but the letter did not reach its destination. It must have reached the hands of his successor, and not been sent forward; when Alberto of Pisa died it was found in his tunic.[24]

All the fury of the aged pontiff was unchained against Elias. One must read the documents to see to what a height his anger could rise. The friar retorted with a virulence which though less wordy was far more overpowering.[25]

These events gained an indescribable notoriety[26] all over Europe and threw the Order into profound disturbance. Many of the partisans of Elias became convinced that they had been deceived by an impostor, and they drew toward the group of Zealots, who never ceased to demand the observance pure and simple of the Rule and the Will.

Thomas of Celano was of this number.[27] With profound sadness he saw the innumerable influences that were secretly undermining the Franciscan institute and menacing it with ruin. Already a refrain was going the rounds of the convents, singing the victory of Paris over Assisi, that is, of learning over poverty.

The Zealots gained new courage. Unaccustomed to the subtleties of ecclesiastical politics, they did not perceive that the pope, while condemning Brother Elias, had in nowise modified the general course which he had marked out for the Order. The ministers-general, Alberto di Pisa, 1239-1240, Aymon of Faversham, 1240-1244, Crescentius de Jesi, 1244-1247, were all, with different shades of meaning, representatives of the moderate party.

Thomas of Celano's first legend had become impossible. The prominence there given to Elias was almost a scandal. The necessity of working it over and completing it became clearly evident at the chapter of Genoa (1244).

All the Brothers who had anything to tell about Francis's life were invited to commit it to writing and send it to the minister Crescentius de Jesi.[28] The latter immediately caused a tract to be drawn up in the form of a dialogue, commencing with the words: "Venerabilium gesta Patrum." So soon after as the time of Bernard de Besse, only fragments of this were left.[29]

But happily several of the works which saw the light in consequence of the decision of this chapter have been preserved to us. It is to this that we owe the Legend of the Three Companions and the Second Life by Thomas of Celano.

IV. LEGEND OF THE THREE COMPANIONS[30]

The life of St. Francis which has come down to us under the name of the Legend of the Three Companions was finished on August 11, 1246, in a little convent in the vale of Rieti, which appears often in the course of this history, that of Greccio. This hermitage had been Francis's favorite abode, especially in the latter part of his life. He had thus made it doubly dear to the hearts of his disciples.[31] It naturally became, from the earliest days of the Order, the headquarters of the Observants,[32] and it remains through all the centuries one of the purest centres of Franciscan piety.

The authors of this legend were men worthy to tell St. Francis's story, and perhaps the most capable of doing it: the friars Leo, Angelo, and Rufino. All three had lived in intimacy with him, and had been his companions through the most important years. More than this, they took the trouble to go to others for further information, particularly to Filippo, the visitor of the Clarisses, to Illuminato di Rieti, Masseo di Marignano, John, the confidant of Egidio, and Bernardo di Quintavalle.

Such names as these promise much, and happily we are not disappointed in our expectation. As it has come down to us, this document is the only one worthy from the point of view of history to be placed beside the First Life by Celano.

The names of the authors and the date of the composition indicate before examination the tendency with which it is likely to be in harmony. It is the first manifesto of the Brothers who remained faithful to the spirit and letter of the Rule. This is confirmed by an attentive reading; it is at least as much a panegyric of Poverty as a history of St. Francis.

We naturally expect to see the Three Companions relating to us with a very particular delight the innumerable features of the legends of which Greccio was the theatre; we turn to the end of the volume, expecting to find the story of the last years of which they were witnesses, and are lost in surprise to find nothing of the kind.

While the first half of the work describes Francis's youth, filling out here and there Celano's First Life, the second[33] is devoted to a picture of the early days of the Order, a picture of incomparable freshness and intensity of life; but strangely enough, after having told us so much at length of Francis's youth and then of the first days of the Order, the story abruptly leaps over from the year 1220 to the death and the canonization, to which after all only a few pages are given.[34]

This is too extraordinary to be the result of chance. What has happened? It is evident that the Legend of the Three Companions as we have it to-day is only a fragment of the original, which was no doubt revised, corrected, and considerably cut down by the authorities of the Order before they would permit it to be circulated.[35] If the authors had been interrupted in their work, and obliged to cut short the end, as might have been the case, they would have said so in their letter of envoy, but there are still other arguments in favor of our hypothesis.

Brother Leo having had the first and principal part in the production of the work of the Three Companions, it is often called Brother Leo's Legend; now Brother Leo's Legend is several times cited by Ubertini di Casali, arraigned before the court of Avignon by the party of the Common Observance. Evidently Ubertini would have taken good care not to appeal to an apocryphal document; a false citation would have been enough to bring him to confusion, and his enemies would not have failed to make the most of his imprudence. We have at hand all the documents of the trial,[36] attacks, replies, counter replies, and nowhere do we see the Liberals accuse their adversary of falsehood. For that matter, the latter makes his citations with a precision that admits of no cavil.[37] He appeals to writings to be found in a press in the convent of Assisi, of which he gives sometimes a copy, sometimes an original.[38] We are then authorized to conclude that we have here fragments which have survived the suppression of the last and most important part of the Legend of the Three Companions.

It is not surprising that the work of Francis's dearest friends should have been so seriously mutilated. It was the manifesto of a party that Crescentius was hunting down with all his power.

After the fleeting reaction of the generalate of Giovanni di Parma we shall see a man of worth like St. Bonaventura moving for the suppression of all the primitive legends that his own compilation may be substituted for them.

It is truly singular that no one has perceived the fragmentary state of the work of the Three Companions. The prologue alone might have suggested this idea. Why should it take three to write a few pages? Why this solemn enumeration of Brothers whose testimony and collaboration are asked for? There would be a surprising disproportion between the effort and the result.

More than all, the authors say that they shall not stop at relating the miracles, but they desire above all to exhibit the ideas of Francis and his life with the Brothers, but we search in vain for any account of miracles in what we now have.[39]

An Italian translation of this legend, published by Father Stanislaus Melchiorri,[40] has suddenly given me an indirect confirmation of this point of view. This monk is only its publisher, and has simply been able to discover that in 1577 it was taken from a very ancient manuscript by a certain Muzio Achillei di San Severino.[41]

This Italian translation contained only the last chapters of the legend, those which tell of the death, the stigmata, and the translation of the remains.[42] It was, then, made at a time when the suppressed portion had not been replaced by a short summary of the other legends.

From all this two conclusions emerge for the critics: 1. This final summary has not the same authority as the rest of the work, since the time when it was added is unknown. 2. Fragments of a legend by Brother Leo or by the Three Companions scattered through later compilations may be perfectly authentic.

In its present condition this legend of the Three Companions is the finest piece of Franciscan literature, and one of the most delightful productions of the Middle Ages. There is something indescribably sweet, confiding, chaste, in these pages, an energy of virile youth which the Fioretti suggest but never attain to. At more than six hundred years of distance the purest dream that ever thrilled the Christian Church seems to live again.

These friars of Greccio, who, scattered over the mountain, under the shade of the olive-trees, passed their days in singing the Hymn of the Sun, are the true models of the primitive Umbrian Masters. They are all alike; they are awkwardly posed; everything in and around them sins against the most elementary rules of art, and yet their memory pursues you, and when you have long forgotten the works of impeccable modern artists you recall without effort these creations of those unknown painters; for love calls for love, and these vapid personages have very true and pure hearts, a more than human love shines forth from their whole being, they speak to you and make you better.

Such is this book, the first utterance of the Spiritual Franciscans, in which we already see the coming to life of some of those bold doctrines that not only divided the Franciscan family into two hostile branches, but which were to bring some of their defenders to the heretic's stake.[43]

V. FRAGMENTS OF THE SUPPRESSED PART OF THE LEGEND OF THE THREE COMPANIONS

We may now take a step forward and try to group the fragments of the Legend of the Three Companions, or of Brother Leo, which are to be found in later writings.

We must here be more than ever on our guard against absolute theories; one of the most fruitful principles of historic criticism is to prefer contemporary documents, or at least those which are nearest them; but even with these it is necessary to use a little discretion.

It seems impossible to attack the reasoning of the Bollandists, who refuse to know anything of legends written after that of St. Bonaventura (1260), under pretext that, coming after several other authorized biographies, he was better situated than anyone for getting information and completing the work of his predecessors.[44] In reality this is absurd, for it assumes that Bonaventura undertook to write as a historian. This is to forget that he wrote not only for the purpose of edification, but also as minister-general of the Minor Brothers. From this fact his first duty was to keep silent on many facts, and those not the least interesting. What shall we say of a biography where Francis's Will is not even mentioned?

It is easy to turn away from a writing of the fourteenth century, on the ground that the author did not see what was going on a hundred years before; still we must not forget that many books of the end of the Middle Ages resemble those old mansions at which four or five generators have toiled. An inscription on their front often only shows the touch of the last restorer or the last destroyer, and the names which are set forth with the greatest complacency are not always those of the real workmen.

Such have been many Franciscan books; to attribute them to any one author would be impracticable; very different hands have worked upon them, and such an amalgam has its own charm and interest.

Turning them over—I had almost said associating with them—we come to see clearly into this tangled web, for every work of man bears the trace of the hand that made it: this trace may perhaps be of an almost imperceptible delicacy; it exists none the less, ready to reveal itself to practised eyes. What is more impersonal than the photograph of a landscape or of a painting, and yet among several hundreds of proofs the amateur will go straight to the work of the operator he prefers.

These reflections were suggested by the careful study of a curious book printed many times since the sixteenth century, the Speculum Vitae S. Francisci et sociorum ejus.[45] A complete study of this work, its sources, its printed editions, the numerous differences in the manuscripts, would by itself require a volume and an epitome of the history of the Order. I can give here only a few notes, taking for base the oldest edition, that of 1504.

The confusion which reigns here is frightful. Incidents in the life of Francis and his companions are brought together with no plan; several of them are repeated after the interval of a few pages in a quite different manner;[46] certain chapters are so awkwardly introduced that the compiler has forgotten to remove the number that they bore in the work from which he borrowed them;[47] finally, to our great surprise, we find several Incipit.[48]

However, with a little perseverance we soon perceive a few openings in the labyrinth. In the first place, here are several chapters of the legend of Bonaventura which seem to have been put in the van as if to protect the rest of the book. If we abstract them and the whole series of chapters from the Fioretti, we shall have diminished the work by nearly three-quarters.

If we take away two more chapters taken from St. Bernard of Clairvaux and those containing Franciscan prayers, or various attestations concerning the indulgence of Portiuncula, we finally arrive at a sort of residue, if the expression may be forgiven, of a remarkable homogeneity.

Here the style is very different from that in the surrounding pages, closely recalling that of the Three Companions; a single thought inspires these pages, that the corner-stone of the Order is the love of poverty.

Why should we not have here some fragments of the original legend of the Three Companions? We find here nothing which does not fit in with what we know, nothing which suggests the embellishments of a late tradition.

To confirm this hypothesis come different passages which we find cited by Ubertini di Casali and by Angelo Clareno as being by Brother Leo, and an attentive comparison of the text shows that these authors can neither have drawn them from the Speculum nor the Speculum from them.

There is, besides, one phrase which, apart from the inspiration and style, will suffice at the first glance to mark the common origin of most of these pieces.[49] Nos qui cum ipso fuimus. "We who have been with him." These words, which recur in almost every incident,[49] are in many cases only a grateful tribute to their spiritual father, but sometimes, too, they have a touch of bitterness. These hermits of Greccio suddenly recall to mind their rights. Are we not the only, the true interpreters of the Saint's instructions—we who lived continually with him; we who, hour after hour, have meditated upon his words, his sighs, and his hymns?

We can understand that such pretensions were not to the taste of the Common Observance, and that Crescentius, with an incontestable authority, has suppressed nearly all this legend.[51]

As for the fragments that have been preserved to us, though they furnish many details about the last years of St. Francis's life, they still are not those whose loss is so much to be regretted. The authors who reproduce them were defending a cause. We owe them little more than the incidents which in one way or another concern the question of poverty. They had nothing to do with the other accounts, as they were not writing a biography. But even within these narrow limits these fragments are in the first order of importance; and I have not hesitated to use them largely. It is needless to say that while ascribing their origin to the Three Companions, and in particular to Brother Leo, we must not suppose that we have the very letter in the texts which have come down to us. The pieces given by Ubertini di Casali and Angelo Clareno are actual citations, and deserve full confidence as such. As for those which are preserved to us in the Speculum, they may often have been abridged, explanatory notes may have slipped into the text, but nowhere do we find interpolations in the bad sense of the word.[52]

Finally, if we compare the fragments with the corresponding accounts in the Second Life of Celano, we see that the latter has often borrowed verbatim from Brother Leo, but generally he has considerably abridged the passages, adding reflections here and there, especially retouching the style to make it more elegant.

Such a comparison soon proves that Brother Leo's narratives are the original and that it is impossible to see in them a later amplification of those of Thomas of Celano, as we might at first be tempted to think them.[53]

VI. SECOND LIFE BY THOMAS OF CELANO[54]

First Part

In consequence of the decision of the chapter of 1244 search was begun in all quarters for memorials of the early times of the Order. In view of the ardor of this inquiry, in which zeal for the glory of the Franciscan institute certainly cast the interests of history into the background, the minister-general, Crescentius, was obliged to take certain precautions.

Many of the pieces that he received were doing double duty; others might contradict one another; many of them, under color of telling the life of the Saint, had no other object than to oppose the present to the past.

It soon became imperative to constitute a sort of commission charged to study and cooerdinate all this matter.[55] What more natural than to put Thomas of Celano at its head? Ever since the approbation of the first legend by Gregory IX. he had appeared to be in a sense the official historiographer of the Order.[56]

This view accords perfectly with the contents of the seventeen chapters which contain the first part of the second legend. It offers itself at the outset as a compilation. Celano is surrounded with companions who help him.[57] A more attentive examination shows that its principal source is the Legend of the Three Companions, which the compilers worked over, sometimes filling out certain details, more often making large excisions.

Everything that does not concern St. Francis is ruthlessly proscribed; we feel the well-defined purpose to leave in the background the disciples who so complacently placed themselves in the foreground.[58]

The work of the Three Companions had been finished August 11, 1246. On July 13, 1247, the chapter of Lyons put an end to the powers of Crescentius. It is, therefore, between these two dates that we must place the composition of the first part of Thomas of Celano's Second Life.[59]

VII. SECOND LIFE BY THOMAS OF CELANO[59]

Second Part

The election of Giovanni di Parma (1247-1257) as successor of Crescentius was a victory for the Zealots. This man, in whose work-table the birds came to make their nests,[61] was to astonish the world by his virtues. No one saw more deeply into St. Francis's heart, no one was more worthy to take up and continue his work.

He soon asked Celano to resume his work.[62] The latter was perhaps alone at first, but little by little a group of collaborators formed itself anew about him.[63] Thenceforth nothing prevented his doing with that portion of the work of the Three Companions which Crescentius had suppressed what he had already done with the part he had approved.

The Legend of Brother Leo has thus come down to us, entirely worked over by Thomas of Celano, abridged and with all its freshness gone, but still of capital importance in the absence of the major part of the original.

The events of which we possess two accounts permit us to measure the extent of our loss. We find, in fact, in Celano's compilation all that we expected to find in the Three Companions: the incidents belong especially to the last two years of Francis's life, and the scene of many of them is either Greccio or one of the hermitages of the vale of Rieti;[64] according to tradition, Brother Leo was the hero of a great number of the incidents here related[65] and all the citations that Ubertini di Casali makes from Brother Leo's book find their correspondents here.[66]

This second part of the Second Life perfectly reflects the new circumstances to which it owes its existence. The question of Poverty dominates everything;[67] the struggle between the two parties in the Order reveals itself on every page; the collaborators are determined that each event narrated shall be an indirect lesson to the Liberals, to whom they oppose the Spirituals; the popes had commented on the Rule in the large sense; they, on their side, undertook to comment on it in a sense at once literal and spiritual, by the actions and words of its author himself.

History has hardly any part here except as the vehicle of a thesis, a fact which diminishes nothing of the historic value of the information given in the course of these pages. But while in Celano's First Life and in the Legend of the Three Companions the facts succeed one another organically, here they are placed side by side. Therefore when we come to read this work we are sensible of a fall; even from the literary point of view the inferiority makes itself cruelly felt. Instead of a poem we have before us a catalogue, very cleverly made, it is true, but with no power to move us.

VIII. NOTES ON A FEW SECONDARY DOCUMENTS

a. Celano's Life of St. Francis for Use in the Choir.

Thomas of Celano made also a short legend for use in the choir. It is divided into nine lessons and served for the Franciscan breviaries up to the time when St. Bonaventura made his Legenda Minor.

That of Celano may be found in part (the first three lessons) in the Assisi MS. 338, fol. 52a-53b; it is preceded by a letter of envoy: "Rogasti me frater Benedicte, ut de legenda B. P. N. F. quaedam exciperem et in novem lectionum seriem ordinarem ... etc. B. Franciscus de civitate Assisii ortus a puerilibus annis nutritus extitit insolenter."

This work has no historic importance.

b. Life of St. Francis in Verse.

In the list of biographers has sometimes been counted a poem in hexameter verse[68] the text of which was edited in 1882 by the lamented Cristofani.[69]

This work does not furnish a single new historic note. It is the Life by Celano in verse and nothing more; the author's desire was to figure as a poet. It is superfluous, therefore, to concern ourselves with it.[69]

c. Biography of St. Francis by Giovanni di Ceperano.

One of the biographies which disappeared, no doubt in consequence of the decision of the chapter of 1266,[71] is that of Giovanni di Ceperano. The resemblance of his name to that of Thomas of Celano has occasioned much confusion.[72] The most precious information which we have respecting him is given by Bernard of Besse in the opening of his De laudibus St. Francisci: "Plenam virtutibus B. Francisci vitam scripsit in Italia exquisitae vir eloquentiae fr. Thomas jubente Domino Gregorio papa IX. et eam quae incipit: Quasi stella matutina vir venerabilis Dominus et fertur Joannes, Apostolicae sedis notarius."[73]

In the face of so precise a text all doubt as to the existence of the work of Giovanni di Ceperano is impossible. The Reverend Father Denifle has been able to throw new light upon this question. In a manuscript containing the liturgy of the Brothers Minor and finished in 1256 he found the nine lessons for the festival of St. Francis preceded by the title: Ex gestis ejus abbreviatis quae sic incipiunt: Quasi stella (Zeitschrift fuer kath. Theol., vii., p. 710. Cf. Archiv., i., p. 148). This summary of Ceperano's work gives, as we should expect, no new information; but perhaps we need not despair of finding the very work of this author.

d. Life of St. Francis by Brother Julian.

It was doubtless about 1230 that Brother Julian, the Teuton, who had been chapel-master at the court of the King of France, was commissioned to put the finishing touches to the Office of St. Francis.[74] Evidently such a work would contain nothing original, and its loss is little felt.

IX. LEGEND OF ST. BONAVENTURA

Under the generalate of Giovanni di Parma (1247-1257) the Franciscan parties underwent modifications, in consequence of which their opposition became still more striking than before.

The Zelanti, with the minister-general at their head, enthusiastically adopted the views of Gioacchino di Fiore. The predictions of the Calabrian abbot corresponded too well with their inmost convictions for any other course to be possible: they seemed to see Francis, as a new Christ, inaugurating the third era of the world.

For a few years these dreams moved all Europe; the faith of the Joachimites was so ardent that it made its way by its own force; sceptics like Salimbeni told themselves that on the whole it was surely wiser not to be taken unawares by the great catastrophe of 1260, and hastened in crowds to the cell of Hyeres to be initiated by Hugues de Digne in the mysteries of the new times: as to the people, they waited, trembling, divided between hope and terror. Nevertheless their adversaries did not consider themselves beaten, and the Liberal party still remained the most numerous. Of an angelic purity, Giovanni di Parma believed in the omnipotence of example: events showed how mistaken he was; at the close of his term of office scandals were not less flagrant than ten years earlier.[75]

Between these two extreme parties, against which he was to proceed with equal rigor, stood that of the Moderates, to which belonged St. Bonaventura.[76]

A mystic, but of a formal and orthodox mysticism, he saw the revolution toward which the Church was hastening if the party of the eternal Gospel was to triumph; its victory would not be that of this or that heresy in detail, it would be, with brief delay, the ruin of the entire ecclesiastical edifice; he was too perspicacious not to see that in the last analysis the struggle then going on was that of the individual conscience against authority. This explains, and up to a certain point gains him pardon for, his severities against his opponents; he was supported by the court of Rome and by all those who desired to make the Order a school at once of piety and of learning.

No sooner was he elected general than, with a purpose that never knew hesitation, and a will whose firmness made itself everywhere felt, he took his steps to forward this double aim. On the very morrow of his nomination he sketched the programme of reforms against the Liberal party, and at the same time secured the summons of the Joachimite Brothers before an ecclesiastical tribunal at Citta-della-Pieve. This tribunal condemned them to perpetual imprisonment, and it needed the personal intervention of Cardinal Ottobonus, the future Adrian V., for Giovanni di Parma to be left free to retire to the Convent of Greccio.

The first chapter held under the presidence of Bonaventura, in the extended decisions of which we find everywhere tokens of his influence, assembled at Narbonne in 1260. He was then commissioned to compose a new life of St. Francis.[77]

We easily understand the anxieties to which this decision of the Brothers was an answer. The number of legends had greatly increased, for besides those which we have first studied or noted there were others in existence which have completely disappeared, and it had become equally difficult for the Brothers who went forth on missions either to make a choice between them or to carry them all.

The course of the new historian was therefore clearly marked out: he must do the work of compiler and peacemaker. He failed in neither. His book is a true sheaf, or rather it is a millstone under which the indefatigable author has pressed, somewhat at hazard, the sheaves of his predecessors. Most of the time he inserts them just as they are, confining himself to the work of harvesting them and weeding out the tares.

Therefore, when we reach the end of this voluminous work we have a very vague impression of St. Francis. We see that he was a saint, a very great saint, since he performed an innumerable quantity of miracles, great and small; but we feel very much as if we had been going through a shop of objects of piety. All these statues, whether they are called St. Anthony the Abbot, St. Dominic, St. Theresa, or St. Vincent de Paul, have the same expression of mincing humility, of a somewhat shallow ecstasy. These are saints, if you please, miracle-workers; they are not men; he who made them made them by rule, by process; he has put nothing of his heart in these ever-bowed foreheads, these lips with their wan smile.

God forbid that I should say or think that St. Bonaventura was not worthy to write a life of St. Francis, but the circumstances controlled his work, and it is no injustice to him to say that it is fortunate for Francis, and especially for us, that we have another biography of the Poverello than that of the Seraphic Doctor.

Three years after, in 1263, he brought his completed work to the chapter-general convoked under his presidence at Pisa. It was there solemnly approved.[78]

It is impossible to say whether they thought that the presence of the new legend would suffice to put the old ones out of mind, but it seems that at this time nothing was said about the latter.

It was not so at the following chapter. This one, held at Paris, came to a decision destined to have disastrous results for the primitive Franciscan documents. This decree, emanating from an assembly presided over by Bonaventura in person, is too important not to be quoted textually: "Item, the Chapter-general ordains on obedience that all the legends of the Blessed Francis formerly made shall be destroyed. The Brothers who shall find any without the Order must try to make away with them since the legend made by the General is compiled from accounts of three who almost always accompanied the Blessed Francis; all that they could certainly know and all that is proven has been carefully inserted therein."[79] It would have been difficult to be more precise. We see the perseverance with which Bonaventura carried on his struggle against the extreme parties. This decree explains the almost complete disappearance of the manuscripts of Celano and the Three Companions, since in certain collections even those of Bonaventura's legend are hardly to be found.

As we have seen, Bonaventura aimed to write a sort of official or canonical biography; he succeeded only too well. Most of the accounts that we already know have gone into his collection, but not without at times suffering profound mutilations. We are not surprised to find him passing over Francis's youth with more discretion than Celano in the First Life, but we regret to find him ornamenting and materializing some of the loveliest incidents of the earlier legends.

It is not enough for him that Francis hears the crucifix of St. Daraian speak; he pauses to lay stress on the assertion that he heard it corporeis auribus and that no one was in the chapel at that moment! Brother Monaldo at the chapter of Arles sees St. Francis appear corporeis oculis. He often abridges his predecessors, but this is not his invariable rule. When he reaches the account of the stigmata he devotes long pages to it,[79] relates a sort of consultation held by St. Francis as to whether he could conceal them, and adds several miracles due to these sacred wounds; further on he returns to the subject to show a certain Girolamo, Knight of Assisi, desiring to touch with his hands the miraculous nails.[81] On the other hand, he uses a significant discretion wherever the companions of the Saint are in question. He names only three of the first eleven disciples,[82] and no more mentions Brothers Leo, Angelo, Rufino, Masseo, than their adversary, Brother Elias.

As to the incidents which we find for the first time in this collection, they hardly make us regret the unknown sources which must have been at the service of the famous Doctor; it would appear that the healing of Morico, restored to health by a few pellets of bread soaked in the oil of the lamp which burned before the altar of the Virgin,[83] has little more importance for the life of St. Francis than the story of the sheep given to Giacomina di Settesoli which awakened its mistress to summon her to go to mass.[84] What shall we think of that other sheep, of Portiuncula, which hastened to the choir whenever it heard the psalmody of the friars, and kneeled devoutly for the elevation of the Holy Sacrament?[85]

All these incidents, the list of which might be enlarged,[86] betrays the working-over of the legend. St. Francis becomes a great thaumaturgist, but his physiognomy loses its originality.

The greatest fault of this work is, in fact, the vagueness of the figure of the Saint. While in Celano there are the large lines of a soul-history, a sketch of the affecting drama of a man who attains to the conquest of himself, with Bonaventura all this interior action disappears before divine interventions; his heart is, so to speak, the geometrical locality of a certain number of visitants; he is a passive instrument in the hands of God, and we really cannot see why he should have been chosen rather than another.

And yet Bonaventura was an Italian; he had seen Umbria; he must have knelt and celebrated the sacred mysteries in Portiuncula, that cradle of the noblest of religious reformations; he had conversed with Brother Egidio, and must have heard from his lips an echo of the first Franciscan fervor; but, alas! nothing of that rapture passed into his book, and if the truth must be told, I find it quite inferior to much later documents, to the Fioretti, for example; for they understood, at least in part, the soul of Francis; they felt the throbbing of that heart, with all its sensitiveness, admiration, indulgence, love, independence, and absence of carefulness.

X. DE LAUDIBUS OF BERNARD OF BESSE[87]

Bonaventura's work did not discourage the biographers. The historic value of their labor is almost nothing, and we shall not even attempt to catalogue them.

Bernard of Besse, a native probably of the south of France[88] and secretary of Bonaventura,[89] made a summary of the earlier legends. This work, which brings us no authentic historic indication, is interesting only for the care with which the author has noted the places where repose the Brothers who died in odor of sanctity, and relates a mass of visions all tending to prove the excellence of the Order.[89]

Still the publication of this document will perform the valuable office of throwing a little light upon the difficult question of the sources. Several passages of the De laudibus appear again textually in the Speculum,[91] and as a single glance is enough to show that the Speculum did not copy the De laudibus, it must be that Bernard of Besse had before him a copy, if not of the Speculum at least of a document of the same kind.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Bull Quo elongati of September 28, 1230. See p. 336.

[2] It is needless to say that I have no desire to put myself in opposition to that principle, one of the most fruitful of criticism, but still it should not be employed alone.

[3] The learned works that have appeared in Germany in late years err in the same way. They will be found cited in the body of the work.

[4] Eccl., 13. Voluerunt ipsi, quos ad capitulam concesserat venire frater Helias; nam omnes concessit, etc. An. fr., t. i., p. 241. Cf. Mon. Germ. hist. Script., t., 28, p. 564.

[5] The death of Francis occurred on October 3, 1226. On March 29, 1228, Elias acquired the site for the basilica. The Instrumentum donationis is still preserved at Assisi: Piece No. 1 of the twelfth package of Instrumenta diversa pertinentia ad Sacrum Conventum. It has been published by Thode: Franz von Assisi, p. 359.

On July 17th of the same year, the day after the canonization, Gregory IX. solemnly laid the first stone. Less than two years afterward the Lower church was finished, and on May 25, 1230, the body of the Saint was carried there. In 1236 the Upper church was finished. It was already decorated with a first series of frescos, and Giunta Pisano painted Elias, life size, kneeling at the foot of the crucifix over the entrance to the choir. In 1239 everything was finished, and the campanile received the famous bells whose chimes still delight all the valley of Umbria. Thus, then, three months and a half before the canonization, Elias received the site of the basilica. The act of canonization commenced at the end of May, 1228 (1 Cel., 123 and 124. Cf. Potthast, 8194ff).

[6] Spec., 167a. Cf. An. fr., ii., p. 45 and note.

[7] The Bollandists followed the text (A. SS., Octobris, t. ii., pp. 683-723) of a manuscript of the Cistercian abbey of Longpont in the diocese of Soissons. It has since been published in Rome in 1806, without the name of the editor (in reality by the Convent Father Rinaldi), under the title: Seraphici viri S. Francisci Assisiatis vitae dual auctore B. Thoma de Celano, according to a manuscript (of Fallerone, in the March of Ancona) which was stolen in the vicinity of Terni by brigands from the Brother charged with bringing it back. The second text was reproduced at Rome in 1880 by Canon Amoni: Vita prima S. Francisci, auctore B. Thoma de Celano. Roma, tipografia della pace, 1880, in 8vo, 42 pp. The citations will follow the divisions made by the Bollandists, but in many important passages the Rinaldi-Amoni text gives better readings than that of the Bollandists. The latter has been here and there retouched and filled out. See, for example, 1 Cel., 24 and 31. As for the manuscripts, Father Denifle thinks that the oldest of those which are known is that at Barcelona: Archivo de la corona de Aragon, Ripoll, n. 41 (Archiv., t. i., p. 148). There is one in the National Library of Paris, Latin alcove, No. 3817, which includes a curious note: "Apud Perusium felix domnus papa Gregorius nonus gloriosi secundo pontificus sui anno, quinto kal. martii (February 25, 1229) legendam hanc recepit, confirmavit et censuit fore tenendam." Another manuscript, which merits attention, both because of its age, thirteenth century, and because of the correction in the text, and which appears to have escaped the researches of the students of the Franciscans, is the one owned by the Ecole de Medicine at Montpellier, No. 30, in vellum folio: Passionale vetus ecclesiae S. Benigni divionensis. The story of Celano occupies in it the fos. 257a-271b. The text ends abruptly in the middle of paragraph 112 with supiriis ostendebant. Except for this final break it is complete. Cf. Archives Pertz, t. vii., pp. 195 and 196. Vide General catalogue of the manuscripts of the public libraries of the departments, t. i., p. 295.

[8] Vide 1 Cel., Prol. Jubente domino et glorioso Papa Gregorio. Celano wrote it after the canonization (July 16, 1228) and before February 25, 1229, for the date indicated above raises no difficulty.

[9] 1 Cel., 56. Perhaps he was the son of that Thomas, Count of Celano, to whom Ryccardi di S. Germano so often made allusion in his chronicle: 1219-1223. See also two letters of Frederick II. to Honorius III., on April 24 and 25, 1223, published in Winckelmann: Acta imperii inedita, t. i., p. 232.

[10] Giord., 19.

[11] Giord., 30 and 31.

[12] Giord., 59. Cf. Glassberger, ann. 1230. The question whether he is the author of the Dies irae would be out of place here.

[13] This is so true that the majority of historians have been brought to believe in two generalates of Elias, one in 1227-1230, the other in 1236-1239. The letter Non ex odio of Frederick II. (1239) gives the same idea: Revera papa iste quemdam religiosum et timoratum fratrem Helyam, ministrum ordinis fratrum minorum ab ipso beato Francisco patre ordinis migrationis suae tempore constitutum ... in odium nostrum ... deposuit. Huillard-Breholles: Hist. dipl. Fred. II., t. v., p. 346.

[14] He is named only once, 1 Cel., 48.

[15] 1 Cel., 95, 98, 105, 109. The account of the Benediction is especially significant. Super quem inquit (Franciscus) tenes dexteram meam? Super fratrem Heliam, inquiunt. Et ego sic volo, sit.... 1 Cel., 108. Those last words obviously disclose the intention. Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 139.

[16] 1 Cel., 102; cf. 91 and 109. Brother Leo is not even named in the whole work. Nor Angelo, Illuminato, Masseo either!

[17] 1 Cel., Prol., 73-75; 99-101; 121-126. Next to St. Francis, Gregory IX. and Brother Elias (1 Cel., 69; 95; 98; 105; 108; 109) are in the foreground.

[18] 1 Cel., 18 and 19; 116 and 117.

[19] Those which occurred during the absence of Francis (1220-1221). He overlooks the difficulties met at Rome in seeking the approbation of the first Rule; he mentions those connected neither with the second nor the third, and makes no allusion to the circumstances which provoked them. He recognized them, however, having lived in intimacy with Caesar of Speyer, the collaborator of the second (1221).

[20] For example, Francis's journey to Spain.

[21] 1 Cel., 1, 88. Et sola quae necessaria magis occurrunt ad praesens intendimus adnotare. It is to be observed that in the prologue he speaks in the singular.

[22] In 1238 he had sent Elias to Cremona, charged with a mission for Frederick II. Salembeni, ann. 1229. See also the reception given by Gregory IX. to the appellants against the General. Giord., 63.

[23] See the letter of Frederick II. to Elias upon the translation of St. Elizabeth, May, 1236. Winkelmann, Acta i., p. 299. Cf. Huillard-Breholles, Hist. dipl. Intr. p. cc.

[24] The authorities for this story are: Catalogus ministrorum of Bernard of Besse, ap Ehrle, Zeitschrift, vol. 7 (1883), p. 339; Speculum, 207b, and especially 167a-170a; Eccl., 13; Giord., 61-63; Speculum, Morin., tract i., fo. 60b.

[25] Asserabat etiam ipse praedictus frater Helyas ... papam ... fraudem facere de pecunia collecta ad succursum Terrae Sanctae, scripta etiam ad beneplacitum suum in camera sua bullare clam et sine fratrum assensu et etiam cedulas vacuas, sed bullatas, multas nunciis suis traderet ... et alia multa enormia imposuit domino papae ponens os suum in celo. Matth. Paris, Chron. Maj., ann. 1239, ap Mon. Ger. hist. Script., t. 28, p. 182. Cf. Ficker, n. 2685.

[26] Vide Ryccardi di S. Germano, Chron., ap Mon. Ger. hist. Script., t. 19, p. 380, ann. 1239. The letter of Frederick complaining of the deposition of Elias (1239): Huillard-Breholles, Hist. Dipl., v., pp. 346-349. Cf. the Bull, Attendite ad petram, at the end of February, 1240, ibid., pp. 777-779; Potthast, 10849.

[27] He was without doubt one of the bitterest adversaries of the emperor. His village had been burnt in 1224, by order of Frederick II., and the inhabitants transported to Sicily, afterward to Malta. Ryccardi di S. Germano, loc. cit., ann. 1223 and 1224.

[28] Vide the prologue to 2 Cel. and to the 3 Soc. Cf. Glassberger, ann. 1244, An. fr., ii., p. 68. Speculum, Morin, tract. i., 61b.

[29] Catalogus ministrorum, edited by Ehrle: Zeitschrift, t. 7 (1883). no. 5. Cf. Spec., 208a. Mark of Lisbon speaks of it a little more at length, but he gives the honor of it to Giovanni of Parma, ed. Diola, t. ii., p. 38. On the other hand, in manuscript 691 of the archives of the Sacro-Convento at Assisi (a catalogue of the library of the convent made in 1381) is found, fo. 45a, a note of that work: "Dyalogus sanctorum fratrum cum postibus cujus principium est: Venerabilia gesta patrum dignosque memoria, finis vero; non indigne feram me quoque reperisse consortem. In quo libro omnes quaterni sunt xiii."

[30] The text was published for the first time by the Bollandists (A. SS., Octobris, t. ii., pp. 723-742), after a manuscript of the convent of the Brothers Minor of Louvain. It is from this edition that we make our citations. The editions published in Italy in the course of this century, cannot be found, except the last, due to Abbe Amoni. This one, unfortunately, is too faulty to serve as the basis of a scientific study. It appeared in Rome in 1880 (8vo, pp. 184) under the title: Legenda S. Francisci Assisiensis quae dicitur Legenda trium sociorum ex cod. membr. Biblioth. Vatic. num. 7339.

[31] 2 Cel., 2, 5; 3, 7; 1 Cel., 60; Bon., 113; 1 Cel., 84; Bon., 149; 2 Cel., 2, 14; 3, 10.

[32] Giovanni di Parma retired thither in 1276 and lived there almost entirely until his death (1288). Tribul., Archiv., vol. ii. (1886), p. 286.

[33] 3 Soc., 25-67.

[34] 3 Soc., 68-73.

[35] The minister-general Crescentius of Jesi was an avowed adversary of the Zealots of the Rule. The contrary idea has been held by M. Mueller (Anfaenge, p. 180); but that learned scholar is not, it appears, acquainted with the recitals of the Chronicle of the Tribulations, which leave not a single doubt as to the persecutions which he directed against the Zealots (Archiv., t. ii., pp. 257-260). Anyone who attempts to dispute the historical worth of this proof will find a confirmation in the bulls of August 5, 1244, and of February 7, 1246 (Potthast, 11450 and 12007). It was Crescentius, also, who obtained a bull stating that the Basilica of Assisi was Caput et Mater ordinis, while for the Zealots this rank pertained to the Portiuncula (1 Cel., 106; 3 Soc., 56; Bon., 23; 2 Cel., 1, 12; Conform., 217 ff). (See also on Crescentius, Glassberger, ann. 1244, An. fr., p. 69; Sbaralea, Bull. fr., i., p. 502 ff; Conform., 121b. 1.) M. Mueller has been led into error through a blunder of Eccleston, 9 (An. fr., i., p. 235). It is evident that the chapter of Genoa (1244) could not have pronounced against the Declaratio Regulae published November 14, 1245. On the contrary, it is Crescentius who called forth this Declaratio, against which, not without regret, the Zealots found a majority of the chapter of Metz (1249) presided over by Giovanni of Parma, a decided enemy of any Declaratio (Archiv., ii., p. 276). This view is found to be confirmed by a passage of the Speculum Morin (Rouen, 1509), f^o 62a: In hoc capitulo (Narbonnae) fuit ordinatum quod declaratio D. Innocentii, p. iv., maneat suspensa sicut in Capitulo METENSI. Et praeceptum est omnibus ne quis utatur ea in iis in quibus expositioni D. Gregorii IX. contradicit.

[36] Published with all necessary scientific apparatus by F. Ehrle, S. J., in his studies Zur Vorgeschichte des Concils von Vienne. Archiv., ii., pp. 353-416; iii., pp. 1-195.

[37] See, for example, Archiv., iii., p. 53 ff. Cf. 76. Adduxi verba et facta b. Francisci sicut est aliquando in legenda et sicut a sociis sancti patris audivi et in cedulis sanctae memoriae fratris Leonis legi manu sua conscriptis, sicut ab ore beati Francisci audivit. Ib., p. 85.

[38] Haec omnia patent per sua [B. Francisci] verba expressa per sanctum fratrem virum Leonem ejus socium tam de mandato sancti patris quam etiam de devotione praedicti fratris fuerunt solemniter conscripta, in libro qui habetur in armario fratrum de Assisio et in rotulis ejus, quos apud me habeo, manu ejusdem fratris Leonis conscriptis. Archiv., iii., p. 168. Cf. p. 178.

[39] 3 Soc., Prol. Non contenti narrare solum miracula ... conversationis insignia et pii beneplaciti voluntatem.

[40] Leggenda di S. Francesco, tipografia Morici et Badaloni, Recanati, 1856, 1 vol., 8vo.

[41] See Father Stanislaus's preface.

[42] 3 Soc., 68-73.

[43] The book lacks little of representing St. Francis as taking up the work of Jesus, interrupted (by the fault of the secular clergy) since the time of the apostles. The viri evangelici consider the members of the clergy filios extraneos. 3 Soc., 48 and 51. Cf. 3 Soc., 48. Inveni virum ... per quem, credo Dominus velit in toto mundo fedem sanctae Ecclesiae reformare. Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 141. Videbatur revera fratri et omnium comitatium turbae quod Christi et b. Francisci una persona foret.

[44] A. SS. p. 552.

[45] Venetiis, expensis domini Jordani de Dinslaken per Simonem de Luere, 30 januarii, 1504. Impressum Metis per Jasparem Hochffeder, Anno Domini 1509. These two editions are identical, small 12mos, of 240 folios badly numbered. Edited under the same title by Spoelberch, Antwerp, 1620, 2 tomes in one volume, 8vo, 208 and 192 pages, with a mass of alterations. The most important manuscript resembles that of the Vatican 4354. There are two at the Mazarin Library, 904 and 1350, dated 1459 and 1460, one at Berlin (MS. theol. lat., 4to, no. 196 saec. 14). Vide Ehrle, Zeitschrift. t. vii. (1883), p. 392f; Analecta fr., t. i., p. xi.; Miscellanea, 1888, pp. 119. 164. Cf. A. SS., pp. 550-552.

The chapters are numbered in the first 72 folios only, but these numbers teem with errors; fo. 38b. caput lix., 40b, lix., 41b, lxi. ibid., lxii., 42a, lx., 43a, lxi. Besides at fos. 46b and 47b there are two chapters lxvi. There are two lxxi., two lxxii., two lxxiii., etc.

[46] For example, the history of the brigands of Monte-Casale, fos. 46b, and 58b. The remarks of Brother Elias to Francis, who is continually singing, 136b and 137a. The visit of Giacomina di Settesoli, 133a and 138a. The autograph benediction given to Brother Leo, 87a; 188a.

[47] At fo. 20b we read: Tertium capitulam de charitate et compassione et condescensione ad proximum. Capitulum xxvi. Cf. 26a, 83a, 117b, 119a, 122a, 128b, 133b, 136b, where there are similar indications.

[48] Fo. 5b: Incipit Speculum vitae b. Francesci et sociorum ejus. Fo. 7b; Incipit Speculum perfectionis.

[49] We should search for it in vain in the other pieces of the Speculum, and it reappears in the fragments of Brother Leo cited by Ubertini di Casali and Angelo Clareno.

[50] Fo. 8b, 11a, 12a, 15a, 18b, 21b, 23b, 26a, 29a, 33b, 43b, 41a, 48b, 118a, 129a, 130a, 134a, 135a, 136a.

[51] Does not Thomas de Celano say in the prologue of the Second Life: "Oramus ergo, benignissime pater, ut laboris hujus non contemnenda munuscula ... vestra benedictione consecrare velitis, corrigendo errata et superflua resecantes."

[52] The legend of 3 Soc. was preserved in the Convent of Assisi: "Omnia ... fuerunt conscripta ... per Leonem, ... in libro qui habetur in armario fratrum de Assisio." Ubertini, Archiv., iii., p. 168. Later, Brother Leo seems to have gone more into detail as to certain facts; he confided these new manuscripts to the Clarisses: "In rotulis ejus quos apud me habeo, manu ejusdem fratres Leonis conscriptis," ibid. Cf. p. 178. "Quod sequitur a sancto fratre Conrado predicto et viva voce audivit a sancto fratre Leone qui presens erat et regulam scripsit. Et hoc ipsum in quibusdam rotulis manu sua conscriptis quos commendavit in monasterio S. Clarae custodiendos.... In illis multa scripsit ... quae industria fr. Bonaventura omisit et noluit in legenda publice scribere, maxime quia aliqua erant ibi in quibus ex tunc deviatio regulae publice monstrabatur et nolebat fratres ante tempus in famare." Arbor., lib. v., cap 5. Cf. Antiquitates, p. 146. Cf. Speculum, 50b. "Infra scripta verba, frater Leo socius et Confessor B. Francisci, Conrado de Offida, dicebat se habuisse ex ore Beati Patris nostri Francisci, quae idem Frater Conradus retulit, apud Sanctum Damianum prope Assisium." Conrad di Offidia copied, then, both the book of Brother Leo and his rotuli; he added to it certain oral information (Arbor, vit. cruc., lib. v., cap. 3), and so perhaps composed the collection so often cited by the Conformists under the title of Legenda Antiqua and reproduced in part in the Speculum. The numbering of the chapters, which the Speculum has awkwardly inserted without noting that they were not in accord with his own division, were vestiges of the division adopted by Conrad di Offida.

It may well be that, after the interdiction of his book and its confiscation at the Sacro Convento, Brother Leo repeated in his rotuli a large part of the facts already made, so that the same incident, while coming solely from Brother Leo, could be presented under two different forms, according as it would be copied from the book or the rotuli.

[53] Compare, for example, 2 Cel., 120: Vocation of John the Simple, and Speculum, f^o 37a. From the account of Thomas de Celano, one does not understand what drew John to St. Francis; in the Speculum everything is explained, but Celano has not dared to depict Francis going about preaching with a broom upon his shoulder to sweep the dirty churches.

[54] It was published for the first time at Rome, in 1806, by Father Rinaldi, following upon the First Life (vide above, p. 365, note 2), and restored in 1880 by Abbe Amoni: Vita secunda S. Francisci Assisiensis auctore B. Thomade Celano ejus discipulo. Romae, tipografia della pace, 1880, 8vo, 152 pp. The citations are from this last edition, which I collated at Assisi with the most important of the rare manuscripts at present known: Archives of Sacro Convento, MS. 686, on parchment of the end of the thirteenth century, if I do not mistake, 130 millim. by 142; 102 numbered pages. Except for the fact that the book is divided into two parts instead of three, the last two forming only one, I have not found that it noticeably differs from the text published by Amoni; the chapters are divided only by a paragraph and a red letter, but they have in the table which occupies the first seven pages of the volume the same titles as in the edition Amoni.

This Second Life escaped the researches of the Bollandists. It is impossible to explain how these students ignored the worth of the manuscript which Father Theobaldi, keeper of the records of Assisi, mentioned to them, and of which he offered them a copy (A. SS., Oct., t. ii., p. 546f). Father Suysken was thus thrown into inextricable difficulties, and exposed to a failure to understand the lists of biographies of St. Francis arranged by the annalists of the Order; he was at the same time deprived of one of the most fruitful sources of information upon the acts and works of the Saint. Professor Mueller (Die Anfaenge, pp. 175-184) was the first to make a critical study of this legend. His conclusions appear to me narrow and extreme. Cf. Analecta fr., t. ii., pp. xvii.-xx. Father Ehrle mentions two manuscripts, one in the British Museum, Harl., 47; the other at Oxford, Christ College, cod. 202. Zeitschrift, 1883, p. 390.

[55] The Three Companions foresee the possibility of their legend being incorporated with other documents: quibus (legendis) haec pauca quae scribimus poleritis facere inseri, si vestra discretio viderit esse justum. 3 Soc., Prol.

[56] One phrase of the Prologue (2 Cel.) shows that the author received an entirely special commission: Placuit ... robis ... parvitati nostrae injungere, while on the contrary the 3 Soc. shows that the decision of the chapter only remotely considered them: Cum de mandato proeteriti capituli fratres teneantur ... visum est nobis ... pauca de multis ... sanctitati vestrae intimare. 3 Soc., Prol.

[57] Compare the Prologue of 2 Cel. with that of 1 Cel.

[58] Longum esset de singulis persequi, qualiter bravium supernae vocationis attigerit. 2 Cel., 1, 10.

[59] This first part corresponds exactly to that portion of the legend of the 3 Soc., which Crescentius had authorized.

[60] Observe that the Assisi MS. 686 divides the Second Life into two parts only by joining the last two.

[61] Salimbeni, ann. 1248.

[62] Glassberger, ann. 1253. An. fr. t. ii., p. 73. Frater Johannes de Parma minister generalis, multiplicatis litteris praecipit fr. Thomae de Celano (cod. Ceperano), ut vitam beati Francisci quae antiqua Legenda dicitur perficeret, quia solum de ejus conversatione et verbis in primo tractatu, de mandato, Fr. Crescentii olim generalis compilato, ommissis miraculis fecerat mentionem, et sic secundum tractatum de miraculis sancti Patris compilavit, quem cum epistola quae incipit: Religiosa vestra sollicitudo eidem generali misit.

This treatise on the miracles is lost, for one cannot identify it, as M. Mueller suggests (Anfaenge, p. 177), with the second part (counting three with the Amoni edition) of the Second Life: 1^o, epistle Religiosa vestra sollicitudo does not have it; 2^o, this second part is not a collection of miracles, using this word in the sense of miraculous cures which it had in the thirteenth century. The twenty-two chapters of this second part have a marked unity; they might be entitled Francis a prophet, but not Francis a thaumaturgus.

[63] In the Prologue (2 Cel., 2, Prol.) Insignia patrum the author speaks in the singular, while the Epilogue is written in the name of a group of disciples.

[64] Greccio, 2 Cel., 2, 5; 14; 3, 7; 10; 103.—Rieti, 2 Cel., 2, 10; 11; 12; 13; 3, 36; 37; 66; 103.

[65] St. Francis gives him an autograph, 2 Cel., 2, 18. Cf. Fior. ii. consid.; his tunic, 2 Cel., 2, 19; he predicts to him a famine, 2 Cel., 2, 21; cf. Conform., 49b. Fr. Leo ill at Bologna, 2 Cel., 3, 5.

[66] The text of Ubertini di Casali may be found in the Archiv., t. iii., pp. 53, 75, 76, 85, 168, 178, where Father Ehrle points out the corresponding passages of 2 Cel.

[67] It is the subject of thirty-seven narratives (1, 2 Cel., 3, 1-37), then come examples on the spirit of prayer (2 Cel., 3, 38-44), the temptations (2 Cel., 3, 58-64), true happiness (2 Cel., 3, 64-79), humility (2 Cel., 3, 79-87), submission (2 Cel., 3, 88, 91), etc.

[68] Le Monnier, t. i., p. xi.; F. Barnabe, Portiuncula, p. 15. Cf. Analecta fr., t. ii., p. xxi. Zeitschrift fuer kath. Theol., vii. (1883), p. 397.

[69] Il piu antico poema della vita di S. Francisco d'Assisi scritto inanzi all' anno 1230 ora per la prima volta pubblicato et tradotto da Antonio Cristofani, Prato, 1882, 1 vol., 8vo. 288 pp.

[70] Note, however, two articles of the Miscellanea, one on the manuscript of this biography which is found in the library at Versailles, t. iv. (1889), p. 34 ff.; the other on the author of the poem, t. v. (1890), pp. 2-4 and 74 ff.

[71] See below, p. 410.

[72] Vide Glassberger, ann. 1244; Analecta, t. ii., p. 68. Cf. A. SS., p. 545 ff.

[73] Manuscript in the Library of Turin, J. vi., 33, f^o 95a.

[74] Plenam virtutibus S. Francisci vitam scripsit in Italia ... frater Thomas ... in Francia vero frater Julianus scientia et sanctitate conspicuus qui etiam nocturnali sancti officium in littera et cantu possuit praeter hymnos et aliquas antiphonas quae summus ipse Pontifex et aliqui de Cardinalibus in sancti praeconium ediderunt. Opening of the De laudibus of Bernard of Besse. See below, p. 413. Laur. MS., f^o 95a. Cf. Giord., 53; Conform., 75b.

[75] In proof of this is the circular letter, Licet insufficentiam nostram, addressed by Bonaventura, April 23, 1257, immediately after his election, to the provincials and custodes upon the reformation of the Order. Text: Speculum, Morin, tract. iii., f^o 213a.

[76] Salimbeni, ann. 1248, p. 131. The Chronica tribulationum gives a long and dramatic account of these events: Archiv., t. ii., pp. 283 ff. "Tunc enim sapientia et sanctitas fratris Bonaventurae eclipsata paluit et obscurata est et ejus manswetudo (sic) ab agitante spiritu in furorum et iram defecit." Ib., p. 283.

[77] Bon., 3. 1. At the same chapter were collected the constitutions of the Order according to edicts of the preceding chapters; new ones were added to them and all were arranged. In the first of the twelve rubrics the chapter prescribed that, upon the publication of the account, all the old constitutions should be destroyed. The text was published in the Firmamentum trium ordinum, f^o 7b, and restored lately by Father Ehrle: Archiv., t. vi. (1891), in his beautiful work Die aeltesten Redactionen der General-constitutionen des Franziskanerordens. Cf. Speculum Morin, fo. 195b of tract. iii.

[78] The Legenda Minor of Bonaventura was also approved at this time; it is simply an abridgment of the Legenda Major arranged for use of the choir on the festival of St. Francis and its octave.

[79] "Item praecipit Generale capitulum per obedientiam quod omnes legenae de B. Francisco olim factae deleantur et ubi inveniri poterant extra ordinem ipsas fratres studeant amovere, cum illa legenda quae facta est per Generalem sit compilata prout ipse habuit ab ore illorum qui cum B. Francisco quasi semper fuerunt et cuncta certitudinaliter sciverint et probata ibi sint posita diligenter." This precious text has been found and published by Father Rinaldi in his preface to the text of Celano: Seraphici viri Francisci vitae duae, p. xi. Wadding seems to have known of it, at least indirectly, for he says: "Utramque Historiam, longiorem et breviorem, obtulit (Bonaventura) triennio post in comitiis Pisanis patribus Ordinis, quas reverentur cum gratiarum actione, SUPRESSIS ALIIS QUIBUSQUE LEGENDIS, ADMISERUNT." Ad ann., 1260, no. 18. Cf. Ehrle, Zeitschrift fuer kath. Theol., t. vii. (1883), p. 386.—"Communicaverat sanctus Franciscus plurima sociis suis et fratribus antiquis, que oblivioni tradita sunt, tum quia que scripta erant in legenda prima, nova edita a fratre. Bonaventura deleta et destructa sunt, IPSOJUBENTE tum quia ..." Chronica tribul., Archiv., t. ii., p. 256.

[80] Bon., 188-204.

[81] Bon., 218.

[82] Bernardo (Bon., 28), Egidio (Bon., 29), and Silvestro (Bon., 30).

[83] Bon., 49.

[84] Bon., 112.

[85] Bon., 111.

[86] Vide Bon., 115; 99, etc. M. Thode has enumerated the stories relating especially to Bonaventura: (Franz von Assisi, p. 535).

[87] Manuscript I, iv., 33, of the library of the University of Turin. It is a 4to upon parchment of the close of the fourteenth century, 124 ff. It comprises first the biography of St. Francis by St. Bonaventura and a legend of St. Clara, afterwards at f^o 95 the De laudibus. The text will soon be published in the Analecta franciscana of the Franciscans of Quaracchi, near Florence.

[88] In reading it we quickly discover that he was specially well acquainted with the convents of the Province of Aquitania, and noted with care everything that concerned them.

[89] Wadding, ann. 1230, no. 7. Many passages prove at least that he accompanied Bonaventura in his travels: "Hoc enim (the special aid of Brother Egidio) in iis quae ad bonum animae pertinent devotus Generalis et Cardinalis predictus ... nos docuit." F^o 96a. Jamdudum ego per Theutoniae partes et Flandriae cum Ministro transiens Generali. Ibid., f^o 106a.

[90] Bernard de Besse is the author of many other writings, notably an important Calalogus Ministrorum generalium published after the Turin manuscript by Father Ehrle (Zeitschrift fuer kath. Theol., t. vii., pp. 338-352), with a very remarkable critical introduction (ib., pp. 323-337). Cf. Archiv fuer Litt. u. Kirchg., i., p. 145.—Bartolommeo di Pisa, when writing his Conformities, had before him a part of his works, f^o 148b, 2; 126a, 1; but he calls the author sometimes Bernardus de Blesa, then again Johannes de Blesa. See also Mark of Lisbon, t. ii., p. 212, and Haureau, Notices et extraits, t. vi., p. 153.

[91] "Denique primos Francisci xii. discipulos ... omnes sanctos fuisse audirimus preter unum qui Ordinem exiens leprosus factus laqueo vel alter Judas interiit, ne Francisco cum Christo vel in discipulis similitudo deficeret," f^o 96a.

* * * * *



III

DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS

In this category we place all the acts having a character of public authenticity, particularly those which were drawn up by the pontifical cabinet.

This source of information, where each document has its date, is precisely the one which has been most neglected up to this time.

I. DONATION OF THE VERNA

The Instrumentum donationis Montis Alvernae, a notarial document preserved in the archives of Borgo San Sepolcro,[1] not only gives the name of the generous friend of Francis, and many picturesque details, but it fixes with precision a date all the more important because it occurs in the most obscure period of the Saint's life. It was on May 8, 1213, that Orlando dei Catani, Count of Chiusi in Casentino, gave the Verna to Brother Francis.

II. REGISTERS OF CARDINAL UGOLINI

The documents of the pontifical chancellery addressed to Cardinal Ugolini, the future Gregory IX., and those which emanate from the hand of the latter during his long journeys as apostolic legate,[2] are of first rate importance.

It would be too long to give even a simple enumeration of them. Those which mark important facts have been carefully indicated in the course of this work. It will suffice to say that by bringing together these two series of documents, and interposing the dates of the papal bulls countersigned by Ugolini, we are able to follow almost day by day this man, who was, perhaps without even excepting St. Francis, the one whose will most profoundly fashioned the Franciscan institute. We see also the pre-eminent part which the Order had from the beginning in the interest of the future pontiff, and we arrive at perfect accuracy as to the dates of his meetings with St. Francis.

III. BULLS

The pontifical bulls concerning the Franciscans were collected and published in the last century by the monk Sbaralea.[3] But from these we gain little help for the history of the origins of the Order.[4]

The following is a compendious list; the details have been given in the course of the work:

No. 1. August 18, 1218.—Bull Literae tuae addressed to Ugolini. The pope permits him to accept donations of landed property in behalf of women fleeing the world (Clarisses) and to declare that these monasteries are holden by the Apostolic See.

No. 2. June 11, 1219.—Cum delecti filii. This bull, addressed in a general way to all prelates, is a sort of safe conduct for the Brothers Minor.

No. 3. December 19, 1219.—Sacrosancta romana. Privileges conceded to the Sisters (Clarisses) of Monticelli, near Florence.

No. 4. May 29, 1220.—Pro dilectis. The pope prays the prelates of France to give a kindly reception to the Brothers Minor.

No. 5. September 22, 1220.—Cum secundum. Honorius III. prescribes a year of noviciate before the entry into the Order.

No. 6. December 9, 1220.—Constitutus in praesentia. This bull concerns a priest of Constantinople who had made a vow to enter the Order. As there is question here of frater Lucas Magister fratrum Minorem de partibus Romaniae we have here indirect testimony, all the more precious for that reason, as to the period of the establishment of the Order in the Orient.

No. 7. February 13, 1221.—New bull for the same priest.

No. 8. December 16, 1221.—Significatum est nobis. Honorius III. recommends to the Bishop of Rimini to protect the Brothers of Penitence (Third Order).

No. 9. March 22, 1222.[5]—Devotionis vestrae. Concession to the Franciscans, under certain conditions, to celebrate the offices in times of interdict.

No. 10. March 29, 1222.—Ex parte Universitatis. Mission given to the Dominicans, Franciscans, and Brothers of the Troops of San Iago in Lisbon.

Nos. 11, 12, and 13.—September 19, 1222.—Sacrosancta Romana. Privileges for the monasteries (Clarisses) of Lucca, Sienna, and Perugia.

No. 14. November 29, 1223.—Solet annuere. Solemn approbation of the Rule, which is inserted in the bull.

No. 15. December 18, 1223.—Fratrum Minorum. Concerns apostates from the Order.

No. 16. December 1, 1224.—Cum illorum. Authorization given to the Brothers of Penitence to take part in the offices in times of interdict, etc.

No. 17. December 3, 1224.—Quia populares tumultus. Concession of the portable altar.

No. 18. August 28, 1225.—In hiis. Honorius explains to the Bishop of Paris and the Archbishop of Rheims the true meaning of the privileges accorded to the Brothers Minor.

No. 19. October 7, 1225.—Vineae Domini. This bull contains divers authorizations in favor of the Brothers who are going to evangelize Morocco.

This list includes only those of Sbaralea's bulls which may directly or indirectly throw some light upon the life of St. Francis and his institute. Sbaralea's nomenclature is surely incomplete and should be revised when the Registers of Honorius III. shall have been published in full.[6]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It was published by Sbaralea, Bull., t. iv., p. 156, note h. This act was drawn up July 9, 1274, at a time when the son of Orlando as well as the Brothers Minor desired to authenticate the donation, which until then had been verbal.

[2] See Registri dei Cardinali Ugolino d'Ostia e Ottaviano degli Ubaldini pubblicati a cura di Guido Levi dall'Istituto storico italiano.—Fonti per la storia d'Italia, Roma, 1890, 1 vol., 4to, xxviii. and 250 pp. This edition follows the manuscript of the National Library, Paris: Ancien fonds Colbert lat., 5152A. We must draw attention to a very beautiful work due also to Mr. G. Levi: Documenti ad illustrazione del Registro del Card. Ugolino, in the Archivio della societa Romana di storia patria, t. xii. (1889), pp. 241-326.

[3] Bullarium franciscanum seu Rom. Pontificum constitutiones epistolae diplomata ordinibus Minorum, Clarissarum et Poenitentium concessa, edidit Joh. Hyac. Sbaralea ord. min. conv., 4 vols., fol., Rome, t. i. (1759), t. ii. (1761), t. iii. (1763), t iv., (1768)—Supplementum ab Annibale de Latera ord. min. obs. Romae, 1780.—Sbaralea had a comparatively easy task, because of the number of collections made before his. I shall mention only one of those which I have before me. It is, comparatively, very well done, and appears to have escaped the researches of the Franciscan bibliographers: Singularissimum eximiumque opus universis mortalibus sacratissimi ordinis seraphici patris nostri Francisci a Domino Jesu mirabili modo approbati necnon a quampluribus nostri Redemptoris sanctissimis vicariis romanis pontificabus multipharie declarati notitiam habere cupientibus profecto per necessarium. Speculum Minorum ... per Martinum Morin ... Rouen, 1509. It is 8vo, with numbered folios, printed with remarkable care. It contains besides the bulls the principal dissertations upon the Rule, elaborated in the thirteenth century, and a Memoriale ordinis (first part, f^o 60-82), a kind of catalogue of the ministers-general, which would have prevented many of the errors of the historians, if it had been known.

[4] The Bollandists themselves have entirely overlooked those sources of information, thinking, upon the authority of a single badly interpreted passage, that the Order had not obtained a single bull before the solemn approval of Honorius III., November 29, 1223.

[5] And not March 29, as Sbaralea has it. The original, which I have had under my eyes in the archives of Assisi, bears in fact: Datum Anagnie XI. Kal. aprilis pontificatus nostri anno sexto.

[6] The Abbe Horoy has indeed published in five volumes what he entitles the Opera omnia of Honorius III., but he omits, without a word of explanation, a great number of letters, certain of which are brought forward in the well-known collection of Potthast. The Abbe Pietro Pressuti has undertaken to publish a compendium of all the bulls of this pope according to the original Registers of the Vatican. I regesti del Pontifice Onorio III. Roma, t. i., 1884. Volume i. only has as yet appeared.

* * * * *



IV

CHRONICLERS OF THE ORDER

I. CHRONICLE OF BROTHER GIORDANO DI GIANO[1]

Born at Giano, in Umbria, in the mountainous district which closes the southern horizon of Assisi, Brother Giordano was in 1221 one of the twenty-six friars who, under the conduct of Caesar of Speyer, set out for Germany. He seems to have remained attached to this province until his death, even when most of the friars, especially those who held cures, had been transferred, often to a distance of several months' journey, from one end of Europe to the other. It is not, then, surprising that he was often prayed to commit his memories to writing. He dictated them to Brother Baldwin of Brandenburg in the spring of 1262. He must have done it with joy, having long before prepared himself for the task. He relates with artless simplicity how in 1221, at the chapter-general of Portiuncula, he went from group to group questioning as to their names and country the Brothers who were going to set out on distant missions, that he might be able to say later, especially if they came to suffer martyrdom: "I knew them myself!"[2]

His chronicle bears the imprint of this tendency. What he desires to describe is the introduction of the Order into Germany and its early developments there, and he does it by enumerating, with a complacency which has its own coquetry, the names of a multitude of friars[3] and by carefully dating the events. These details, tedious for the ordinary reader, are precious to the historian; he sees there the diverse conditions from which the friars were recruited, and the rapidity with which a handful of missionaries thrown into an unknown country were able to branch out, found new stations, and in five years cover with a network of monasteries, the Tyrol, Saxony, Bavaria, Alsace, and the neighboring provinces.

It is needless to say that it is worth while to test Giordano's chronology, for he begins by praying the reader to forgive the errors which may have escaped him on this head; but a man who thus marks in his memory what he desires later to tell or to write is not an ordinary witness.

Reading his chronicle, it seems as if we were listening to the recollections of an old soldier, who grasps certain worthless details and presents them with an extraordinary power of relief, who knows not how to resist the temptation to bring himself forward, at the risk sometimes of slightly embellishing the dry reality.[4]

In fact this chronicle swarms with anecdotes somewhat personal, but very artless and welcome, and which on the whole carry in themselves the testimony to their authenticity. The perfume of the Fioretti already exhales from these pages so full of candor and manliness; we can follow the missionaries stage by stage, then when they are settled, open the door of the monastery and read in the very hearts of these men, many of whom are as brave as heroes and harmless as doves.

It is true that this chronicle deals especially with Germany, but the first chapters have an importance for Francis's history that exceeds even that of the biographers. Thanks to Giordano of Giano, we are from this time forward informed upon the crises which the institute of Francis passed through after 1219; he furnishes us the solidly historical base which seems to be lacking in the documents emanating from the Spirituals, and corroborates their testimony.

II. ECCLESTON: ARRIVAL OF THE FRIARS IN ENGLAND[5]

Our knowledge of Thomas of Eccleston is very slight, for he has left no more trace of himself in the history of the Order than of Simon of Esseby, to whom he dedicates his work. A native no doubt of Yorkshire, he seems never to have quitted England. He was twenty-five years gathering the materials of his work, which embraces the course of events from 1224 almost to 1260. The last facts that he relates belong to years very near to this date.