FOOTNOTES:
[1] The commencement of the great missions and the inst.i.tution of provincial ministers is usually fixed either at 1217 or 1219, but both these dates present great difficulties. I confess that I do not understand the vehemence with which partisans of either side defend their opinions. The most important text is a pa.s.sage in the 3 Soc., 62: _Expletis itaque undecim annis ab inceptione religionis, et multiplicatis numero et merito fratribus, electi fuerant ministri, et missi c.u.m aliquot fratribus quasi per universas mundi provincias in quibus fides catholica colitur et servatur._ What does this expression, _inceptio religionis_, mean? At a first reading one unhesitatingly takes it to refer to the foundation of the Order, which occurred in April, 1209, by the reception of the first Brothers; but on adding eleven full years to this date we reach the summer of 1220. This is manifestly too late, for the 3 Soc. say that the brethren who went out were persecuted in most of the countries beyond the mountains, as being accredited by no pontifical letter; but the bull _c.u.m dilecti_, bears the date of June 11, 1219. We are thus led to think that the eleven years are not to be counted from the reception of the first Brothers, but from Francis"s conversion, which the authors might well speak of as _inceptio religionis_, and 1206 + 11 = 1217. The use of this expression to designate conversion is not entirely without example.
Gla.s.sberger says (_An. fr._, p. 9): _Ordinem minorum incepit anno 1206._ Those who admit 1219 are obliged (like the Bollandists, for example), to attribute an inaccuracy to the text of the 3 Soc., that of having counted eleven years as having pa.s.sed when there had been only ten. We should notice that in the two other chronological indications given by the 3 Soc. (27 and 62) they count from the conversion, that is from 1206, as also Thomas of Celano, 88, 105, 119, 97, 88, 57, 55, 21. Curiously, the Conformities reproduce the pa.s.sage of the 3 Soc. (118b, 1), but with the alteration: _Nono anno ab inceptione religionis_. Giordano di Giano opens the door to many scruples: _Anno vero Domini_ 1219 _et anno conversionis ejus decimo frater Franciscus ... misit fratres in Franciam, in Theutoniam, in Hungariam, in Hespaniam_, Giord., 3. As a little later the same author properly harmonizes 1219 with the thirteenth year from Francis"s conversion, everyone is in agreement in admitting that the pa.s.sage cited needs correction; we have unfortunately only one ma.n.u.script of this chronicle.
Gla.s.sberger, who doubtless had another before him, subst.i.tutes 1217, but he may have drawn this date from another doc.u.ment. It is noteworthy that Brother Giordano gives as simultaneous the departure of the friars for Germany, Hungary, and France; but, as to the latter country, it certainly took place in 1217. So the Speculum, 44a.
The chronicle of the xxiv. generals and Mark of Lisbon (Diola"s ed., t. i., p. 82) holds also to 1217, so that, though not definitely established, it would appear that this date should be accepted until further information. Starting from slightly different premises, the learned editors of the _a.n.a.lecta_ arrive at the same conclusion (t. ii., pp. 25-36). Cf. Evers, _a.n.a.lecta ad Fr. Minorum historiam_, Leipsic, 1882, 4to, pp. 7 and 11.
That which appears to me decidedly to tip the balance in favor of 1217, is the fact that the missionary friars were persecuted because they had no doc.u.ment of legitimation; and in 1219 they would have had the bull _c.u.m dilecti_, from June 11th of that year. The Bollandists, who hold for 1219, have so clearly seen this argument that they have been obliged to deny the authenticity of the bull (or at least to suppose it wrongly dated). A. SS., p. 839.
[2] Vide A. SS., p. 604. Cf. Angelo Clareno, _Tribul. Archiv._, i., p. 559. _A papa Innocentis fuit omnibus annuntiatum in concilio generali ... sicut sanctus vir fr. Leo scribit et fr.
Johannes de Celano._ These lines have not perhaps the significance which one would be led to give them at the first glance, their author having perhaps confounded _consilium_ and _consistorium_. The Speculum, 20b says: _Eam (Regulam Innocentius) approvabit et concessit et postea in consistorio omnibus annuntiavit._
[3] _Ne nimia Religionem diversitas gravem in Ecclesia Dei confusionem inducat, firmiter prohibemus, ne quis de coetero novam Religionem inveniat; sed quic.u.mque voluerit ad Religionem converti, unam de approbatis a.s.sumat._ Labbe and Cossart: _Sacrosancta concilia_, Paris, 1672, t. xi., col. 165.
[4] Eccl., 15 (_An. franc._, t. 1, p. 253): _Innocentium in cujus obitu fuit presentialiter S. Franciscus_.
[5] 3 Soc., 61; cf. _An. Perus._, A. SS., p. 606f.
[6] Thomas of Celano must be in error when he declares that Francis was not acquainted with Cardinal Ugolini before the visit which he made him at Florence (summer of 1217): _Nondum alter alteri erat praecipua familiaritate conjunctus_ (1 Cel., 74 and 75). The Franciscan biographer"s purpose was not historic; chronological indications are given in profusion; what he seeks is the _apta junctura_. Tradition has preserved the memory of a chapter held at Portiuncula in presence of Ugolini during a stay of the curia at Perugia (_Spec._, 137b.; _Fior_., 18; _Conform._, 207a; 3 Soc., 61). But the curia did not come back to Perugia between 1216 and Francis"s death. It is also to be noted that according to Angelo Clareno, Ugolini was with Francis in 1210, supporting him in the presence of Innocent III. Vide below, p. 413. Finally the bull _Sacrosancta_ of December 9, 1219, witnesses that already during his legation in Florence (1217) Ugolini was actually interesting himself for the Clarisses.
[7] See, for example, the description of the chapter of 1221 by Brother Giordano. Giord., 16.
[8] With regard to the figure of five thousand attendants given by Bonaventura (Bon., 59) Father Papini writes: _Io non credo stato capace alcuno di dare ad intendere al S. Dottore simil fanfaluca, ne capace lui di crederla_.
_... In somma il numero quinque millia et ultra non e del Santo, incapace di scrivere una cosa tanto improbabile e relativamente impossibile. Storia di S. Fr._, i., pp. 181 and 183. This figure, five thousand, is also indicated by Eccl., 6. All this may be explained and become possible by admitting the presence of the Brothers of Penitence, and it seems very difficult to contest it, since in the Order of the Humiliants, which much resembles that of the Brothers Minor (equally composed of three branches approved by three bulls given June, 1201), the chapters-general annually held were frequented by the brothers of the three Orders. Tiraboschi t. ii., p. 144. Cf. above, p.
158.
[9] Vide 2 Cel., 3, 121; _Spec._, 42b; 127b.
[10] _Praecipio firmiter per obedientiam fratribus universis quod ubicunque sunt, non audeant petere aliquam litteram in Curia Romana._ _Test. B. Fr._
[11] A comparison with the Bullary of the Preaching Friars is especially instructive: from their first chapter at Notre Dame de Prouille, in 1216, they are about fifteen; we find there at this time absolutely nothing that can be compared to the Franciscan movement, which was already stirring up all Italy.
But while the first bull in favor of the Franciscans bears the date of June 11, 1219, and the approbation properly so called that of November 29, 1223, we find Honorius already in the end of 1216 lavishing marks of affection upon the Dominicans; December 22, 1216, _Religiosam vitam_. Cf. Pressuti, _I regesti, del Pontefice Onorio III._, Roma, 1884, t. i., no. 175; same date; _Nos attendentes_, ibid., no. 176; January 21, 1217, _gratiarum omnium_, ib., no. 243. Vide 284, 1039, 1156, 1208. It is needless to continue this enumeration. Very much the same could be done for the other Orders; whence the conclusion that if the Brothers Minor alone are forgotten in this shower of favors, it is because they decidedly wished to be. It must be admitted that immediately upon Francis"s death they made up for lost time.
[12] The authenticity of this pa.s.sage is put beyond doubt by Ubertino di Casal"s citation. _Archiv._, iii., p. 53. Cf.
_Spec._, 30a; _Conform._, 111b, 1; 118b, 1; Ubertino, _Arbor vitae cruc._, iii., 3.
[13] _Burchardi chronicon ann. 1217_, _loc. cit._, p. 377. See also the bulls indicated by Potthast, 5575, 5585-92.
[14] Before 1217 the office of minister virtually existed, though its definitive inst.i.tution dates only from 1217. Brother Bernardo in his mission to Bologna, for example (1212?), certainly held in some sort the office of minister.
[15] Imprisoned by order of Elias, he died in consequence of blows given him one day when he was taking the air outside of his prison. _Tribul._, 24a.
[16] Giord., 5 and 6; 3 Soc., 62.
[17] Of Giovanni di Parma, Clareno, Anthony of Padua, etc.
[18] Mark of Lisbon, t. i., p. 82. Cf. p. 79, t. ii., p. 86, Gla.s.sberger _ann._, 1217. _An. fr._, ii., pp. 9 ff.; _Chron xxiv. gen._, MS. of a.s.sisi, no. 328, f^o 2b.
[19] _Spec._, 44a.; _Conform._, 119a, 2; 135a; 181b, 1; 1 Cel., 74 and 75.
[20] Cel., 3, 129. _Diligebat Franciam ... volebat in ea mori_.
[21] V. bull of January 23, 1217, _Tempus acceptabile_, Potthast, no. 5430, given in Horoy, t. ii., col. 205 ff.; cf.
Pressuti, i., p. 71. This bull and those following fix without question the time of the journey to Florence. Potthast, 5488, 5487, and page 495.
[22] It is superfluous to point out the error of the Bollandist text in the phrase _Monuit (Cardinalis Francisc.u.m) coeptum non perficere iter_, where the _non_ is omitted, A. SS., p. 704.
Cf., p. 607 and 835, which has led Suysken into several other errors.
[23] Bon., 51. Cf. Gla.s.sberger, _ann_. 1217; _Spec._, 45b.
[24] Heb., iv., 12; 2 Cel., 3, 49; Bon., 50 and 51.
[25] Brother Pacifico interests us [the French people]
particularly as the first minister of the Order in France; information about him is abundant: Bon., 79; 2 Cel., 3, 63; _Spec._, 41b.: _Conform._, 38a, 1; 43a, 1; 71b; 173b, 1, and 176; 2 Cel., 8, 27; _Spec._, 38b; _Conform._, 181b; 2 Cel., 3, 76; _Fior._, 46; _Conform._, 70a. I do not indicate the general references found in Chevalier"s Bibliography. The Miscellanea, t. ii. (1887), p. 158, contains a most precise and interesting column about him. Gregory IX. speaks of him in the bull _Magna sicut dicitur_ of August 12, 1227. Sbaralea, Bull, fr., i., p.
33 (Potthast, 8007). Thomas of Tuscany, _socius_ of St.
Bonaventura, knew him and speaks of him in his _Gesta Imperatorum (Mon. germ. hist. script._, t. 22, p. 492).
[26] Eccl., 1; _Conform._, 113b, 1.
[27] Toward 1224 the Brothers Minor desired to draw nearer and build a vast convent near the walls of Paris in the grounds called Vauvert, or Valvert (now the Luxembourg Garden), (Eccl., 10; cf. _Top. hist. du vieux Paris_, by Berty and Tisserand, t.
iv., p. 70). In 1230 they received at Paris from the Benedictines of Saint-Germain-des-Pres a certain number of houses _in parocchia SS. Cosmae et Damiani infra muros domini regis prope portam de Gibardo (Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, no. 76. Cf. _Topographie historique du vieux Paris; Region occid. de l"univ._, p. 95; Felibien, _Histoire de la ville de Paris_, i., p. 115). Finally, St. Louis installed them in the celebrated Convent of the Cordeliers, the refectory of which still exists, transformed into the Dupuytren Museum.
The Dominicans, who arrived in Paris September 12, 1217, went straight to the centre of the city, near the bishop"s palace on the _Ile de la Cite_, and on August 6, 1218, were installed in the Convent of St. Jacques.
[28] _Fior._, 27; _Spec._, 148b; _Conform._, 71a and 113a, 2; Bon., 182.
[29] The traces of Francis"s visit here are numerous. A Brother Eudes painted his portrait here.
[30] Bon., 177.
[31] Vide A. SS., pp. 855 and 856. Cf. 2 Cel., 3, 136.
[32] Among others those of December 5, 1217, Potthast, 5629; February 8, March 30, April 7, 1218, Potthast, 5695, 5739, 5747.
[33] 1 Cel., 74. _O quanti maxime in principio c.u.m haec agerentur novellae plantationi ordinis insidiabantur ut perderent._ Cf. 2 Cel., 1, 16. _Videbat Franciscus luporum more sevire quamplures._
[34] 1 Cel., 73 (cf. 2 Cel., 1, 17; _Spec._, 102a); 3 Soc., 64; Bon., 78. The fixing of this scene in the winter of 1217-1218 seems hardly to be debatable; Giordano"s account (14) in fact determines the date at which Ugolini became _officially_ protector of the Order; it supposes earlier relations between Honorius, Francis, and Ugolini. We are therefore led to seek a date at which these three personages may have met in Rome, and we arrive thus at the period between December, 1217, and April, 1218.
[35] A word of Brother Giordano"s opens the door to certain conjectures. "My lord," said Francis to Honorius III., in 1220, "you have given me many fathers (popes) give me a single one to whom I may turn with the affairs of my Order." (Giord., 14, _Multos mihi papas dedisti da unum_, ... etc.)
Does not this suggest the idea that the pontiff had perhaps named a commission of cardinals to oversee the Brothers Minor?
Its deliberations and the events to be related in the following chapter might have impelled him to issue the bull _c.u.m dilecti_ of June 11, 1219, which was not an approbation properly so called, but a safe-conduct in favor of the Franciscans.
[36] He took possession of St. Sabine on February 28, 1218.
[37] 2 Cel., 3, 87. The literal meaning of the phrase is somewhat ambiguous. The text is: _Vellem, frater Francisce, unam fieri religionem tuam et meam et in Ecclesia pari forma nos vivere_. _Spec._ 27b. The echo of this attempt is found in Thierry d"Apolda, _Vie de S. Dominique_ (A. SS., Augusti, t. i., p. 572 d): _S. Dominicus in oscula sancta ruens et sinceros amplexus, dixit: Tu es socius meus, tu curres pariter mec.u.m, stemus simul, nullus adversarius praevalebit_. Bernard of Besse says: _B. Dominicus tanta B. Francisco devotione cohesit ut optatam ab eo cordam sub inferiori tunica devotissimi cingeret, cujus et suam Religionem unam velle fieri diceret, ipsumque pro sanct.i.tate caeteris sequendem religiosis a.s.sereret._ Turin MS., 102b.
[38] At the chapter held at Bologna at Whitsunday, 1220. The bull _Religiosam vitam_ (Privilege of Notre Dame de Prouille) of March 30, 1218, enumerates the possessions of the Dominicans.