SRS ae BOTH: heed tte t dash Scien PSs glare 2 EO tem Kir SG pw ey me 4 HELE eK b pty 't es rece f ati bas age + ? ae ‘ geo ’ quae eee kt aes pra ey ms ES tacidh ie ihittat a Tate sty mbats tate aig Latest a sarees eee retates Becca recant petetiety ict cte ket m3 es ele a ratat we ] as we 3 Taste pers ee + em gn alee ed eT) Soret ss, eae Lig ak ‘ tots veh ‘ sae iat fel iietalelesetstetrte siete Ath iol Lo talsbebedatelsiebatel state tedetrtgcsig stale tates srbristebedpiatsteseczists tis tpcuatsdsictatal ies ‘ oat 4 ¢ ee 4 bats = E : ot tee te i Nabbiabesits a ¥ whee * az 7 : ay ai * jeter: ee oe errant Soret FP: Petade: y, series eee ie a See RAKeaeaw A ay ae mei pas ener THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS BY THE SAME AUTHOR LIFE OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI With 13 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 12s. 6d. net. GOD AND THE SUPERNATURAL A CATHOLIC STATEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH Edited by the Very Rev. FATHER CUTHBERT, O.S.F.C. 8vo, I5s. net. Contents.—Editor’s Preface.—Introductory. By the Rev. Ronald A. Knox, M.A.—The Supernatural. By the Rev. C, C. Martindale, $.J.—The Idea of God. By the Rev. M. C. D’Arcy, S.J.—The Nature and Destiny of Man, By Christopher Dawson, B.A.—The Problem of Evil. By E. I. Watkin. M.A.—The Person of Christ. By Father Cuthbert, O.S.F.C.—The Divine Atonement. By Father Cuthbert, O.S.F.C.—The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. By E, I. Watkin, M.A.—The Sacramental System. By the Rev. C. C. Martindale, S.J.—Life after Death. By the Rey. C. C. Martindale, $.J.—Index. LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. LONDON, NEW YORK, TORONTO, BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS. THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS AND OTHER STUDIES IN THE GENIUS OF THE FRANCISCANS BY FATHER CUTHBERT, O.S.F.C. NEW EDITION LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C. 4 NEW YORK, TORONTO BOMBAY, CALCUTTA AND MADRAS cone Wibil obstat: Cc. SCHUT, Censor Deputatus Smprimatur ; EDM; CAN. SURMONT, Westmonasterii, die 7 Julii 1924 MADE IN GREAT BRITAIN, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PREFACE To those who look upon the history of the past as some- thing more than a subject for pleasurable curiosity, who regard it rather as a mirror of the workings of the human spirit, from which one might gain some measure of the wisdom of experience, the main interest will always lie not in the mere spectacle or stage-setting of historic personages and events but rather in the more universal principles or truths of life itself to which the phenomena, of history bear witness. We really know men only in so far as we know the ideals and motives by which they act ; and a man’s ultimate value to the world is not so much in himself as in the ideas and ideals by which he lives. This is true whether we take men individually or as they act together in some body corporate. Moreover, the phe- nomena of history are of little moment to practical know- ledge save as they are connected in our thought with the main current of the world’s life in which the human spirit at all times finds its affinity with the past. In this book an attempt is made to gauge the real value of the life and genius of the Franciscans in relation to the human spirit itself. It is indeed but an inchoate attempt which others perhaps will improve upon if they deem the subject of sufficiently vital interest. The revival of the study of St. Francis and the Franciscans seems to point to a more than academic interest in Franciscan history. * Vv vi PREFACE To many people St. Francis is a mediaeval prophet with a spiritual message for our own day. The question arises : What is the message which he brought to the world when he set up his standard of poverty in the Umbrian plain ? Until we know that we cannot tell whether or how far his message is of immediate value at this present time. One danger there is in an enthusiasm such as many have to-day for the great Poverello : it is the danger latent in all hero-worship, namely, of a too external view of a man’s life and conduct. There is indeed in the story of St. Francis an intelligible fascination for an age in revolt against the tyranny of materialism. But such fascination does not always bear the test and scrutiny of experience. To picture to oneself the idyllic simplicity of “ the Umbrian Galilee’? may bring a period of mental relief when one is daily confronted with the philistinism of a utilitarian age. But if the mental relief is to pass into really appreciative thought and to add to the practical wisdom of life, the question must be faced: Was that idyllic simplicity a mere dreamer’s dream or was it a practical response to some felt vital need of the human spirit ? Was it, again, a mere transitory phenomenon or had it an underlying universal truth which men at any time might be the better for recognizing ? The Catholic Church at the beginning of the Franciscan movement instinctively confessed that the movement was of more than temporary usefulness and with her genius for assimilation, incorporated its ideals and practical conduct into the repertory of her standard “‘ Rules ”’ for religious perfection. Some will say that the Church in accepting the Franciscan movement fettered its idealism and made it captive to her legal organization. This is not the place for an apologetic concerning the Church’s methods. PREFACE i vil May we not say, however, that in her moderating influence upon the development of the Franciscan fraternity, the Church showed a deeper wisdom than those who would narrowly identify the genius of the Franciscan spirit with its primitive local and transitory expression? However that may be, the Franciscan ideal has remained a more or less living force in the Catholic world from the days of St. Francis until the present time. That it has done so, is surely a testimony that the Franciscans grasped some vital principle of human life itself and realized it under the zgis of the Cathalic Church. The present volume consists of five distinct “ studies,” in each of which an attempt has been made to present the inner thought of some aspect of the Franciscan life. One of these studies, “‘ The Story of the Friars,” is substantially a reprint of an essay, ‘On the Spirit and Genius of the Franciscan Friars,’’ published in 1903 but long since out of print. For the purpose of this book, the essay had to be largely rewritten. The paper on St. Clare was written on the occasion of the septcentennial commemoration of the “conversion” of St. Clare, in 1912, and appeared in the course of that year in The Catholic World of New York. I have to tender my thanks to the editor of that magazine for his kind permission to republish the paper. In the study which gives the title to the book, I have incorporated a section of a lecture on ‘“‘St Francis and Poverty,” delivered in 1909 at the Franciscan College, Cowley, on the occasion of the septcentenary of the founding of the Franciscan Order. The fourth paper, “‘ A Modern Friar,” was begun with a view to separate publication, but at its conclusion it seemed to me more advisable to publish it in this volume, since it is but another illustration of the Franciscan mind; with the additional advantage that it vill PREFACE shows us a mind, genuinely and wholly Franciscan, actively alive to the problems of the present-day world. I am fully conscious of the incompleteness of these studies ; and doubtless the student of Franciscan history will be able to point out many a shortcoming in my treat- ment of the subjects I have dealt with. But I send out this book for what it is worth, in the hope that it may throw some light not only upon Franciscan history but also upon some of the moral and spiritual problems by which our own time is perplexed. Fr. CUTHBERT, 0O.8.F.C. GROSSETESTE HovsE, OXFORD. AUTHOR’S NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION In preparing the second edition of The Romanticism of St. Francis, the author has included an essay appreciative -of the character and work of Adam Marsh, one of the outstanding figures in the history of the early English Franciscans. The author, perhaps, may be permitted to say a word concerning this essay. Some few years ago he began to prepare material for a memoir of Adam Marsh, but he had not proceeded far in his research when it became evident that the story of Adam Marsh could be properly set forth only as it forms part of the larger story of the great reform movement in which the friar played no un- important part. However, before the author could complete his researches for this larger story, he was called upon to undertake duties which made further research impossible. Whether he will be able at some future time to take up the threads of the story and complete it, is uncertain. That is his excuse for presenting the reader with the present fragmentary study of one whom he regards as amongst the noblest of the Franciscan figures in the thirteenth century. Various emendations and additions have been made in the original essays, particularly in “The Story of the Friars.” ix ral , as 7 Wy io} 5 ON is i i open’ 7 ‘ ' . 1 wet $F, 7a ANG ay Tear yi ‘) \ i? Ye J Saas Bai eed ‘ ie Ie) Mi oh i pt ai SS 7 rar , if Sar) fel $i) Hee Pans Gi. ye. bee FI CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE ‘ 4 é ‘ ‘ ° ° : ‘ Vv THE RoMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS . P " ‘ ; 1 Sv. CLARE oF ASSISI ‘ x ‘ : ‘ can b THE Story OF THE FRIARS i ; : : ‘ - 125 ADAM MARSH: AN ENGLISH FRANCISCAN OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY . ; ‘ . i ; ‘ . 190 A MopERN FRIAR se ‘ i , : : 3 Pe Nby: \ INDEX : ¢ { ‘ ‘ { : ‘ Res 1 | xi ie ; ‘ > $ ) ‘1x J a + yi nf - rt he y , Pee Fi s 5 * “4 * baie of Seo f Hy Wie Ae ‘ Y & 3 f; THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS I No better definition of the poverty loved by St. Francis has yet been given than that sung by Fra Jacopone da Todi :— Povertate e nulla havere Et nulla cosa poi volere Et omne cosa possidere En spirito de libertate. “Poverty is in having nothing and in desiring nothing, yet in possessing all things in the spirit of liberty.” It sounds paradoxical; but behind the screen of paradox hides the great truth of the Franciscan life, smilingly awaiting the seeker who would know why Francis loved his Lady Poverty. One can imagine Fra Jacopone, the worshipful page, meeting the inquirer at the threshold and in response to the question: ‘‘ What is this Poverty ?” replying: ‘“‘ Povertate e nulla havere et nulla cosa poi volere’’. With grim humour he notes the effect of this simple negation ; then with a rush of sympathy for the inquirer and of triumph for the Lady Poverty, he invites him in with: ‘‘ Et omne cosa possidere en spirito de libertate ”. In some such way it was that Francis ad- mitted his disciples to the following of Poverty. He too was conscious of the paradox and delighted in it, though not so turbulently as Jacopone: but that perhaps was B 2 THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS because the saint was more wholly possessed by Poverty, whereas Jacopone, as we have said, was her faithful page, standing between her and an incredulous world. The reader must pardon me if I have thus at once fallen into the speech of fancy and allegory. It is hardly possible otherwise to get at that Franciscan spirit which captivated the imagination of the thirteenth century, and thrilled its religious life with a sense of Christ-like liberty. The Franciscan story is itself a romance ; it is woven through and through with the spirit of romance ; it expressed itself in the language of romance. For all time the Franciscans have consecrated the romantic temperament and _ vision. They were not led on by philosophy or statesmanship, or by what is called practical common-sense. Theirs was the enthusiasm and vision which belongs to the spring-time of life, when a man’s spirit soars upon the wings of adven- ture, and he reasons by intuition and speaks in figure. Their unique achievement was that they laid hold of this spring-time spirit and by God’s grace dedicated it as a permanent possession in the tradition of Catholic life, for the comfort and joy of ages to come. Of this spring-time spirit as it thus entered into the service of Jesus Christ and was accepted by the Catholic people, Franciscan poverty is the token. Poverty, to St. Francis and his followers, had no attraction or signifi- cance apart from that splendid possession of the spring-time life. They did not become poor from a morbid clinging to discomfort ; not even in order to inflict discomfort on others. They embraced poverty because it held for them a comfort and joy in this life, and the promise of yet a greater in the next. Poverty to them was at once a promise and possession of life, not its negation. Even now, and upon the earth it brought them joy. For like the Gospel, though THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS 3 less universally, the poverty of the Franciscans, whilst it transcended in its aspiration and achievement the natural experience of the world, was yet closely allied to it. One cannot understand the Gospel save by reference to the universal needs of humanity ; and the true explanation of _ Franciscanism will be found only as we keep in view the romantic spirit which is of the nature of man. That romanticism which reveals itself so palpably in the story of the first Franciscan days, and in such purely Franciscan literature as the Sacrum Commercium and the Fioretti is no mere accident due to individual temperament or character : it is of the essence of the Franciscan spirit. One finds it, in a higher or lower intensity, in all pages of Franciscan history, sometimes untroubled in its freedom, at other times main- taining itself painfully against the intrusion of an alien spirit ; but always to the fore wherever the instinct of the world recognizes the genuine Franciscan tradition. It is that which gives to the story of Francis and his fraternity its penetrating idealism, its lyrical and dramatic situations, its comedy and tragedy, its spirit of adventure, and its unconventionalism, its wide human sympathies, and the mystical note in its religious devotion. When, then, we speak of poverty as being the dis- tinguishing mark of the life Franciscan, we must beware lest we take too narrowly the ‘nulla havere e nulla volere ”—the having and desiring nothing—of Jacopone’s definition. Francis, in truth, had much and desired much that makes life worth living, even from a merely secular standpoint, though much more from the standpoint of his religious faith. No one surely can doubt this who has read that delightful story in the Fioretti which tells ‘“ how St. Francis and Brother Masseo placed some bread which they had begged on a stone beside a fountain, and how St. Francis 4 THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS greatly praised Poverty ”’. This story strikes so clearly the right Franciscan note concerning poverty, that it may be well to quote it at length. The story begins by relating how St. Francis, having sent the brethren two and two to various cities and places “after the example of Christ,” himself with Brother Masseo set out on the road to France. It continues :—} “Coming one day to a certain town and being very hungry, they [St. Francis and Brother Masseo] went, according to the Rule, to beg bread for the love of God, St. Francis going down one street and Brother Masseo down another. But because St. Francis was a man of mean appearance and small of stature, and accounted a vile beggar by those who knew him not, he received nothing but a few mouthfuls and crumbs of dry bread ; whilst Brother Masseo, being tall and comely in person, had good pieces and large, and many, given to him, and entire loaves. When they had begged enough they went together to a place outside the town, where there was a fair fountain, that they might eat, and beside which also was a broad and convenient stone, on which each placed all the alms which he had begged. And St. Francis, seeing that the pieces of bread which Brother Masseo had were larger and better than his own, had great joy, and spoke thus: ‘O Brother Masseo, we are not worthy of so great treasure ’. And as he repeated these words several times, Brother Masseo answered him: ‘ Father, how can this be called treasure, when we are in such poverty, and lack the things of which we have need—we, who have neither cloth, nor knives, nor plates, nor porringer, nor house, nor table, nor manservant, nor maidservant ?’ Then said St. Francis : 1 I quote from the Catholic Truth Society’s translation: The Litéle Flowers of St. Francis, chap. x1. THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS 5 *‘ And this is what I call great treasure that there is nothing here provided by human industry, but everything is pro- vided by Divine Providence, as we may manifestly see in this bread we have begged, in this stone which serves 80 beautifully for our table, and in this so clear fountain. And therefore I desire that we should pray to God that He would cause holy Poverty, which is a thing so noble that God Himself was made subject to it, to be loved by us with our whole heart.’ ” Having prayed, and eaten their frugal meal, Francis and Masseo resume their journey. On the way Francis invites his companion to go with him to St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome. ‘““*My brother,’ he says, ‘let us go to St. Peter and St. Paul, and pray them to teach us, and to give us to possess the inestimable treasure of holy poverty, inas- much as it is a treasure so exalted and so Divine that we are not worthy to possess it in our vile bodies, seeing that this is that celestial virtue by which all earthly and transitory things are trodden under foot, and all impedi- ments are lifted away from the soul, so that she can freely unite herself to the Eternal God. And this is the virtue which makes the soul, while still retained on earth, converse with the angels in heaven ; and this it is which accompanied Christ to His Cross, with Christ was buried, with Christ was raised up, with Christ ascended into heaven, which being given in this life to the souls which are enamoured of it, facilitates their flight to heaven, seeing that it guards the arms of true humility and charity, and therefore let us pray the most holy Apostles of Christ, who were perfect lovers of this Pearl of the Gospel of Christ, that they will beg for us this grace to be true lovers, observers, and humble disciples of this most precious, most lovable, evangelical poverty.’ ”’ 6 THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS It is evident that to the Franciscan spirit as expressed in this story, poverty was a veritable sacrament bringing its receivers into communion with spiritual realities which are a vital joy to those who perceive them; and the important point is that the Fioretti is at one with almost all Franciscan literature in thus applauding the poverty of St. Francis as a sacrament of joyous life. The question then is : What were those realities which invested Franciscan poverty with such vital joy ? That is the question we shall endeavour to answer in the course of these pages. This much is at once clear: poverty did not merely hold out an exile’s hope to its Franciscan worshippers. The lyrical joyousness of the Fioretti is sufficient to assure us that Francis and those who were one with him in spirit, had already a felt possession of life, together with an assurance of a greater life to come. Nature itself, as witness the delight in “the fair fountain”? and “broad convenient stone,’ is to them a joy. They rejoice, too, in the freedom of soul from “earthly and transitory things ’’ which poverty gives them. Poverty leads them to converse with Christ on earth and facilitates their soul’s flight towards heaven. The joy is present and palpable : they find themselves in a life beautiful. Giotto and Sassetta understood this when they painted their allegories of Francis and Poverty ; so, too, did Dante when he sang of “ the love, the marvels, and tender gazing ”’ between the two lovers, which drew to Poverty a worshipping company.! In fact, the significance of Fran- ciscan poverty has ever been set forth most convincingly by poet and artist, just because of its inherent romance. To understand it at all adequately, one must approach it through the idealism which belongs to the romantic temperament. For that reason the Franciscan idea has 1 Paradiso, Canto x1. 77. THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS 7 not infrequently been regarded as unpractical, of too ethereal a texture to have any direct relationship with the workaday world. The continued existence through seven centuries of the Franciscan fraternity and _ still more the far-reaching influence of Franciscan teaching on Catholic life, should make one pause before commit- ting oneself to too absolute an assertion of this nature. Impracticable the Franciscan idea will be, if you set it to solve problems outside its own sphere ; and unpractical it would be if the romantic temperament had no place in the economy of life. To the Manchester economist, for instance, Franciscan poverty is naturally unthinkable except as a stupid challenge to the first principles upon which its utilitarian philosophy is based. So, too, from a religious point of view, to the Calvinist the Franciscan spirit will be not merely the mother of heresy but sheer spiritual chaos. But wherever men accept the romantic spirit either as a guiding principle or as a vitalizing influence, they will find some affinity in themselves with the Franciscan mind. This, perhaps, explains the renewed enthusiasm for St. Francis at the present day. Utilitarianism and material- ism have resulted in so pronounced a pessimism that men are once again turning their eyes towards that romance of the spirit which for long they flouted, but which has ever been the savour of the world’s life. And in this spreading feeling for spiritual renewal, St. Francis has once again been hailed as a prophet. Yet it will be well to recognize that the idealism of St. Francis was not a luxury of mere esthetic sentiment, but a faith in life itself, an apprehension of realities and responsibilities. Only as it is thus realized, can Franciscan idealism have any power to disperse the winter of our discontent. IT How closely the idealism of St. Francis was allied with a practical conduct of life, will be seen if we consider Fran- ciscan poverty in what we may call its economic aspect. Three fundamental notions stand out quite clearly in the Franciscan conception of poverty, economically considered. In the first place, the friars were to have no kind of pro- prietorship over material goods, neither individually nor corporately ; next, they were to labour and serve others, and for this they might receive a wage like other poor men ; thirdly, in case of necessity they were to go begging for alms : and in the eyes of St. Francis, living by alms was the highest poverty. In the matter of proprietorship there can be no question as to the saint’s intention. The brethren might enjoy the use of such things as were needful for bodily life—food, raiment, lodging, and so forth—but they must have no proprietorship even in the things needful. This principle is expressed thus in the Rule of the Friars Minor: ‘“ The brothers shall appropriate nothing to themselves, neither house, nor place, nor anything at all’’.1 And this law applied to the friars corporately as well as individually. The fraternity as such were to have no possessions, even as its individual members had none. The idea of corporate poverty was new amongst religious orders in the Church, and even amongst the penitential congregations of the * Rule of 1223, cap. 6. 8 THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS 9 Middle Ages, with which the Franciscan Order had a close affinity. The members of these orders and congregations might renounce property as individuals ; they always kept the right to own property in common. But St. Francis would have nothing to do with property in any sense. “The Brethren,” he said, “‘ must be pilgrims and strangers in the world.”! The Speculum Perfectionis tells us: ‘‘ He was minded the Brethren should in no wise, neither in houses, nor churches, nor gardens, nor in ought else whereof they had the use, trespass beyond the bounds of poverty, nor hold any places whatsoever by right of ownership, but should sojourn therein as pilgrims and strangers ’’.? Celano says: “‘ He [Francis] would not let the Brethren live in _ any dwelling, even a small one, unless it were sure that there was some owner to whom the property belonged ; for he always aimed at his sons observing the laws of pilgrims— namely, to be gathered under another’s roof, to pass onward peaceably, and to thirst after their native land”’.3 Later on, when the Order grew in numbers, this Rule was found to have its inconveniences, but Francis would not relax it, not even when urged to do so by Cardinal Ugolino.* And in like manner St. Clare for thirty years contended against those who in this matter deemed the Franciscan Rule impracticable.® Indeed the whole scheme of the Franciscan Rule was formed upon this acceptance of corporate poverty in the 1 Rule of 1223, cap. 6. 2 Speculum Perfectionis, cap. 10. 3 IT Celano, 59. * Speculum Perfectionis, cap. 68.—The cardinal, in face of a practical difficulty, eventually declared that dwellings used by the Friars Minor, when not otherwise owned, were the property of the Holy See, and not of the Franciscan fraternity. ° Cf. The Life and Legend of the Lady St. Clare, translated by Mrs. Balfour, Introduction, ii, 10 THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS sense of non-proprietorship. The brethren were not to be tied to any place by bond of ownership ; they were to be free from the responsibilities and temptations of property in order that they might follow out their own special vocation. What that vocation was we shall see farther on : it is hinted at in the passages quoted above, where it is said that St. Francis wished his brethren to be as “‘ pilgrims and strangers ’’ wherever they came. But even pilgrims upon the road must live ; and lacking possessions of their own, they have but two honest means of subsistence before them: the alms which others might give them, or their own labour. Francis declared for both labour and alms. And here we come upon a certain difficulty to our modern way of thinking. The saint had a strong affection for the beggar and his dependence upon alms ; and there can be no doubt that he regarded the beggar’s dependence upon alms as something sacred in the eyes of God. Let us hear his own words :— ‘* Dearest brothers,’ he exclaimed on one occasion, “‘ the Son of God, Who for our sakes made Himself poor in this world, was nobler than we. For His sake we have chosen the way of poverty, and ought not to be ashamed to go for alms.’’! And there is a touching story told of a Brother, perhaps one of those who at first were bashful in begging, returning from Assisi with alms, and as he came near the Porziuncola he broke forth into song, singing with a loud voice. St. Francis, hearing him, suddenly jumped up, and ran out and kissed the brother’s shoulder; and, taking the wallet on his own shoulders, he exclaimed: ‘ Blessed be my brother who goes readily [for alms], seeks humbly, and returns rejoicing ”’.? In his Rule, after ordaining that the brethren shall have no proprietorship, the Saint con- 1 TI Celano, 74. 2 Ibid., 75: THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS. 11 tinues: “And as pilgrims and strangers in this world serving the Lord in poverty and humility, let them go confidently in quest of alms . . . this, my dearest brothers, is the height of the most sublime poverty: poor in goods but exalted in virtue ’’.1 Again there is in his reply to Cardinal Ugolino, who remonstrated with him for going out to beg his bread when he was a guest in the Cardinal’s house : ‘‘ My lord,”’ replied Francis, ‘‘ I have shown you honour since I have honoured a greater Lord ; for God is well pleased with poverty and especially with that poverty which is voluntary begging ”’.2 When, then, we are told that labour and not mendicancy is the basis of the economical life of the Friars Minor, the inference is apt to run counter to the explicit words and | conduct of St. Francis and his first following. The whole story of the first Franciscan days proves that mendicancy was not regarded merely as an occasional expedient in times of distress ‘“‘ when the wages of our work are not given us ”’: mendicancy was to Francis the nobler poverty. And yet at the same time it is true that he insisted on the moral obligation to labour and serve others. The brethren must work even whilst they are encouraged “to go for alms”. In his first Rule he has this passage: ‘ Let the brothers who know how to work, labour and exercise themselves in that art which they may understand, if it be not contrary to the salvation of their souls, and they can exercise it becomingly. For the prophet says: ‘For thou shalt eat the labours of thy hands, blessed art thou, and it shall be well with thee’. And the apostle says: ‘If any man will not work, neither let him eat’. Again: “ Let 1 Regula IT, cap. 6. 2 TI Celano, 73. * RegulaI, cap. 7. Cf. Barthol. Pisan., De Conformitate in Anal. Franc., Iv. pp. 407-10; also II Celano, 161, Speculum Perfectionis, cap. 24. 12 THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS every man abide in the art or employment wherein he is called . . . and they may have the tools and implements necessary for their work ’’.1 The Rule also contemplates the brethren serving in the houses of others, for it says: ‘‘ Let the brothers, in whatever places they may be among others to serve or to work, not be chamberlains, nor cellarers, nor overseers in the houses of those whom they serve ”’.2 We know that these passages in the Rule were not mere dead- letters. The Vita Fratris Afgidii tells us how Brother Giles, whilst sojourning with the monks of the Santi Quattro in Rome, used to keep the monks supplied with water from the distant fountain of San Sisto ; it tells us, too, how on his journey he earned his bread by peddling water through the city, or hawking baskets, or threshing beans, or burying the dead ; and the legend adds : ‘“‘ When this failed him, he returned to the table of Jesus Christ, begging alms from door to door”. The Speculum Perfectionis tells us how the Friars assisted the labourers in the field at harvest time, receiving a portion of the harvest as their wage.4 Thomas of Celano, describing the daily life of the first friars, says : ‘‘ By day those who knew how to, worked with their hands ; and they stayed in lepers’ houses or in other decent places, serving all with humility and charity ’.® There is, too, the witness of St. Francis in his Testament. Finally, in the second Rule it is laid down the friars “‘ may receive as the reward of their labour, the things needful for the body, both for themselves and their brethren, excepting coin or money ’’.6 At first sight it might seem as though there were here a contradiction to the exaltation of mendicancy as the more worthy poverty. But the contradiction lies partly in our 1 Regula I, cap. 7. 2 Ibid. * Chron. xxtv., Gen. in Anal. Franc., 1. p. 81. 4 Cap. 55, ® I Celano, 39. ® Regula IT, cap. 5. THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS 13 own habit of thought which instinctively regards “‘ the honest workman” as morally superior to the beggar ; partly to the failure to grasp the idea itself as it existed in Francis’s mind. Francis did not, as is the common fashion, regard labour and alms as an antinomy in the life of the poor. The beggar and the labourer symbolized to him two aspects of a sacred truth which he in special manner connected with the idea of Christian poverty: that truth was the truth of Divine Providence. It will be remembered how Francis, in the moment of being disinherited by his father, exclaimed: ‘‘ Now, I may more freely say: ‘Our Father Who art in heaven’’’.! Giotto, depicting this scene on the wall of the church of San Francesco at Assisi, has represented the Saint at this moment looking up to heaven and gazing upon the Hand of God’s Providence held out to him through the clouds. The picture is an accurate setting forth of the faith in which the Franciscan life was founded. Out of this faith in Divine Providence arose the special form of the Franciscan’s relationship both with God and creatures. God to him was before all else, the Great Father, the Infinite Love Who encompasses creation with watchful solicitude ; and men and all living things were the family of God, who fulfil their life in trustful dependence upon His loving care. With the realization of this faith as the supreme form of all his religious life, Francis came to regard the beggar’s depend- ence upon the goodwill of men, as the symbol of every man’s proper dependence upon God: and straightway the beggar became sacred to him. But Francis had the gift of seeing truths comprehensively, as poets and mystics have. If Divine Providence spelt dependence on the creatures’ part, it spelt bounty on God’s 1 II Celano, 12. 14 THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS part : and creatures are formed in the image of God : in the faith of Francis, therefore, all creatures in their degree are called to dispense the bountifulness of God, as well as to be its recipients. This aspect of his faith reveals itself splendidly in his attitude towards Nature, in whose working he saw God’s providence in action : as when he sang in his Canticle of Brother Sun :— Praise be to Thee, my Lord, with all Thy creatures, Chiefest of all, Sir Brother Sun Who is our day ; through whom Thou givest light... . Praise be to Thee, my Lord, for Brother Wind, and for the air, and for the cloud, for clear sky and all weathers, By which Thou givest nourishment to all Thy creatures. ... Praise be to Thee, my Lord, for Brother Fire ; by whom Thou lightest up the night... . Praise be to Thee, my Lord, for our Sister, Mother Earth, The which sustains and keeps us : She brings forth diverse fruits, the many-hued flowers and grass. O Creatures all! praise and bless my Lord and grateful be, And serve Him with deep humility.? The same sentiment is found in the Fioretti story quoted above. The “ fair fountain’ and the “ broad convenient stone ” are to him evidences of God’s solicitude : they fulfil in their purpose the bounty of God inasmuch as they provide drink and a table for the poor man’s meal. But whereas Nature discharges this trust unconsciously, man is the conscious and responsible channel of the Divine bounty. No man_ possesses anything, whether gifts of Nature or acquired gifts or gifts of grace, merely for his own pleasure: they are a trust which properly he controls for the good of the family of God. From this point of view the labour by which we contribute to the well-being of the world, as well as the dispensing of acquired wealth, is a * Vide my Life of St. Francis of Assist, Ist ed., p. 354; 3rd ed., p. 421. THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS 15 fulfilment of the Divine solicitude for man, and a practical exhibition of one’s belief in Providence : whilst idleness is in some measure a frustration of God’s designed bounty. The poor man in his poverty may not be able to dispense wealth, but he can still dispense the better thing, his personal service: and it was in this light that Francis regarded labour. A man’s labour, whether of body or spirit, was to him the most. direct exhibition in creaturely fashion of God’s unceasing labour for the welfare of His creatures: and as such, labour was sacred to Francis. Labour had indeed many values in the saint’s eyes. He regarded it, for example, as the guardian of that humility which belongs to the truly Christian soul ; especially menial work which brings a man into spiritual fellowship with the poor. Also, he held it as a safeguard against the tempta- tions of body and soul, which idleness induces. But above all, labour was to him an act of love towards God and man. | Hence, whilst on the one hand the Franciscan fraternity was to give the world an example of entire faith in God’s watchful solicitude, by its renunciation of property and its dependence on alms ; on the other hand, the friars were to show forth in their labour the co-ordinate obligation of men to work and to serve one another. And in order that their labour should be more securely established in its primary motive of fulfilling the law of Divine Love, their work was not to be dependent upon any wage. ‘I worked with my hands and so I desire to work,” Francis wrote in his Testa- ment, “and I firmly desire that all the other brethren work in some honest employment. Let those who know not how to work, learn ; not from desire to receive the price of their labour, but for example’s sake and to repel idleness.” If the wages of their work were not given them, he added, “ they 16 THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS shall go asking alms with confidence”’. The notion of a definite price for so much labour was in fact distasteful to the soul of Francis, inasmuch as it seemed to him to denote a personal interest at variance with that free service of Christian charity in which he saw the figure of the Divine bounty. Brought up as he had been in the atmosphere of a merchant’s calling, he had come to connect the commercial Spirit with selfishness and avarice: and all bargaining for gain was to him odious.1_ He would have men give freely ; and this he made the law of his fraternity.2_ And as they were to give freely, so they were to receive freely and with- out shame whatever was needful: though to maintain themselves in poverty and to avoid the abuse of generosity, they were not to accept anything beyond what was strictly needed for their sustenance. Such then was poverty as conceived by St. Francis. It meant the renunciation of all dominion over material goods, even that dominion which is implicit in the notion of a legal wage. That was its negative aspect. Positively it signified dependence upon God’s bounty as manifested in the generosity of Nature and of man’s goodwill. Concomi- tantly, however, with this dependence went the obligation to fulfil in oneself the active bounty of God, through labour and service. It is evident that this Franciscan poverty in its simplest form, as embraced by Francis and his fraternity, would be unworkable in the ordinary life of the world. Nor did Francis himself ever consider it as applicable to society at large. Even to his lay followers, or tertiaries as they are now called, he handed it on only in a modified form. With them it was to be as a spiritual leaven in daily life rather 1 See the story of Brother Sylvester in II Celano, 109. 2 Cf. Leg. 3 Soc., xi. 43-44, THE ROMANTICISM OF ST. FRANCIS 17 than as a hard-and-fast external rule. At the same time idealism is always to be tested by its capacity to influence the matter-of-fact life of the multitude: unless it can do this, it is lacking in reality. But Franciscan poverty has proved itself in history as an effective protest against the world’s avarice and absorption in material gains ; and it undoubtedly lays claim to serious consideration by Christian economists, in so far as it asserts that the true basis of economic relations in Christian society is that human fellow- ship which is implied in the Catholic conception of the Fatherhood of God. But it must be remembered that Francis was not directly concerned with the spiritual problem of wealth, but with the spiritual value of poverty as a condition for the realiza- tion of the soul’s freedom. Others before Francis had shown how wealth and property can be an instrument for the upholding of Christian character and Christian society. It was Francis who most clearly convinced men that poverty, too, may be a factor in moral and spiritual develop- ment. But just as wealth to effect its purpose in the ideal of the kingdom of Christ must be governed by Christian laws and motives, so, too, poverty attains to Christian freedom only when it is taken up by the Catholic Faith and invested with the rights and responsibilities which flow from the Catholic conception of society. The poor man’s fundamental right under this law is to be sustained in his necessities by the goodwill of his fellow-Christians :; his fundamental responsibility is to maintain this right in honour by fulfilling the common law of mutual service through his labour. Upon this conception of poverty Francis built up the spiritual life of his fraternity. What that life was in its full and intimate sense we will now consider. c III To anyone acquainted with the history of the Middle Ages it will be evident that the story of St. Francis in its tempera- ment and idealism is peculiarly akin to mediaeval chivalry. In his religious conversion Francis became “the knight- errant of Christ,” ‘‘ the herald of the heavenly King,”’ “‘ the minstrel of the Lord ’’.! His life, as we read it, is a chivalrous adventure and a song. In his youth his day-dream was to emulate the heroes of romantic chivalry; like them he would go forth and win knighthood and glory, become a captain in war, and win fame by his personal prowess and courtliness. One must need feel the spirit of youth to sympathize with the vagaries of his early days before he found his vocation, and to understand the intense serious- ness which lay behind them. With him they were not the mere whims of a moment, but the immature expressions of a spirit seeking to know itself, as his later story proves. And the spirit which was in him was really the spirit of that new chivalry which was refashioning the manhood of the Middle Ages and giving at once an inspiration and a law to the newly awakened sense of personal life which dominates the history of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Chivalry was undoubtedly the most virile product of the romantic movement of that period ; and it still lives in the Christian world’s conception of a gentleman as the embodiment of 1 Cf. Speculum Perfectionis, cap. 72;