the modern innovation which has substituted journalism for history, or for that tradition that is the gossip of history, has had at least one definite effect. it has insured that everybody should only hear the end of every story. journalists are in the habit of printing above the very last chapters of their serial stories (when the hero and heroine are just about to embrace in the last chapter, as only an unfathomable perversity prevented them from doing in the first) the rather misleading words, "you can begin this story here." but even this is not a complete parallel; for the journals do give some sort of a summary of the story, while they never give anything remotely resembling a summary of the history. newspapers not only deal with news, but they deal with everything as if it were entirely new. tutankamen, for instance, was entirely new. it is exactly in the same fashion that we read that admiral bangs has been shot, which is the first intimation we have that he has ever been born. there is something singularly significant in the use which journalism makes of its stores of biography. it never thinks of publishing the {19}life until it is publishing the death. as it deals with individuals it deals with institutions and ideas. after the great war our public began to be told of all sorts of nations being emancipated. it had never been told a word about their being enslaved. we were called upon to judge of the justice of the settlements, when we had never been allowed to hear of the very existence of the quarrels. people would think it pedantic to talk about the serbian epics and they prefer to speak in plain every-day modern language about the yugo-slavonic international new diplomacy; and they are quite excited about something they call czecho-slovakia without apparently having ever heard of bohemia. things that are as old as europe are regarded as more recent than the very latest claims pegged out on the prairies of america. it is very exciting; like the last act of a play to people who have only come into the theatre just before the curtain falls. but it does not conduce exactly to knowing what it is all about. to those content with the mere fact of a pistol-shot or a passionate embrace, such a leisurely manner of patronising the drama may be recommended. to those tormented by a merely intellectual curiosity about who is kissing or killing whom, and why, it is unsatisfactory.

most modern history, especially in england, suffers from the same imperfection as journalism. at best it only tells half of the history of christendom; and that the second half without the first half. men for whom reason begins with the revival of learning, men for whom religion begins with the reformation, can never give a complete account of anything, for they have to start with institutions whose origin they cannot explain, or generally even imagine. just as we hear of the admiral being shot but have never heard of his being born, so we all heard a great deal about the dissolution of the monasteries, but we heard next to nothing about the creation of the monasteries. now this sort of history would be hopelessly insufficient, even for an intelligent man who hated the monasteries. it is hopelessly insufficient in connection with institutions that many intelligent men do in a quite healthy spirit hate. for instance, it is possible that some of us have occasionally seen some mention, by our learned leader-writers, of an obscure institution called the spanish inquisition. well, it really is an obscure institution, according to them and the histories they read. it is obscure because its origin is obscure. protestant history simply begins with the horrible thing in possession, as the pantomime begins with the demon king in the goblin kitchen. it is likely enough that it was, especially towards the end, a horrible thing that might be haunted by demons; but if we say this was so, we have no notion why it was so. to understand the spanish inquisition it would be necessary to discover two things that we have never dreamed of bothering about; what spain was and what an inquisition was. the former would bring in the whole great question about the crusade against the moors; and by what heroic chivalry a european nation freed itself of an alien domination from africa. the latter would bring in the whole business of the other crusade against the albigensians, and why men loved and hated that nihilistic vision from asia. unless we understand that there was in these things originally the rush and romance of a crusade, we cannot understand how they came to deceive men or drag them on towards evil. the crusaders doubtless abused their victory, but there was a victory to abuse. and where there is victory there is valour in the field and popularity in the forum. there is some sort of enthusiasm that encourages excesses or covers faults. for instance, i for one have maintained from very early days the responsibility of the english for their atrocious treatment of the irish. but it would be quite unfair to the english to describe even the devilry of '98 and leave out altogether all mention of the war with napoleon. it would be unjust to suggest that the english mind was bent on nothing but the death of emmett, when it was more probably full of the glory of the death of nelson. unfortunately '98 was very far from being the last date of such dirty work; and only a few years ago our politicians started trying to rule by random robbing and killing, while gently remonstrating with the {22}irish for their memory of old unhappy far-off things and battles long ago. but however badly we may think of the black-and-tan business, it would be unjust to forget that most of us were not thinking of black-and-tan but of khaki; and that khaki had just then a noble and national connotation covering many things. to write of the war in ireland and leave out the war against prussia, and the english sincerity about it, would be unjust to the english. so to talk about the torture-engine as if it had been a hideous toy is unjust to the spanish. it does not tell sensibly from the start the story of what the spaniard did, and why. we may concede to our contemporaries that in any case it is not a story that ends well. we do not insist that in their version it should begin well. what we complain of is that in their version it does not begin at all. they are only in at the death; or even, like lord tom noddy, too late for the hanging. it is quite true that it was sometimes more horrible than any hanging; but they only gather, so to speak, the very ashes of the ashes; the fag-end of the faggot.

the case of the inquisition is here taken at random, for it is one among any number illustrating the same thing; and not because it is especially connected with st. francis, in whatever sense it may have been connected with st. dominic. it may well be suggested later indeed that st. francis is unintelligible, just as st. dominic is unintelligible, unless we do understand something of what the thirteenth century meant by heresy and a crusade. but for the moment i use it as a lesser example for a much larger purpose. it is to point out that to begin the story of st. francis with the birth of st. francis would be to miss the whole point of the story, or rather not to tell the story at all. and it is to suggest that the modern tail-foremost type of journalistic history perpetually fails us. we learn about reformers without knowing what they had to reform, about rebels without a notion of what they rebelled against, of memorials that are not connected with any memory and restorations of things that had apparently never existed before. even at the expense of this chapter appearing disproportionate, it is necessary to say something about the great movements that led up to the entrance of the founder of the franciscans. it may seem to mean describing a world, or even a universe, in order to describe a man. it will inevitably mean that the world or the universe will be described with a few desperate generalisations in a few abrupt sentences. but so far from its meaning that we see a very small figure under so large a sky, it will mean that we must measure the sky before we can begin to measure the towering stature of the man.

and this phrase alone brings me to the preliminary suggestions that seem necessary before even a slight sketch of the life of st. francis. it is {24}necessary to realise, in however rude and elementary a fashion, into what sort of a world st. francis entered and what has been the history of that world, at least in so far as it affected him. it is necessary to have, if only in a few sentences, a sort of preface in the form of an outline of history, if we may borrow the phrase of mr. wells. in the case of mr. wells himself, it is evident that the distinguished novelist suffered the same disadvantage as if he had been obliged to write a novel of which he hated the hero. to write history and hate rome, both pagan and papal, is practically to hate nearly everything that has happened. it comes very near to hating humanity on purely humanitarian grounds. to dislike both the priest and the soldier, both the laurels of the warrior and the lilies of the saint, is to suffer a division from the mass of mankind for which not all the dexterities of the finest and most flexible of modern intelligences can compensate. a much wider sympathy is needed for the historical setting of st. francis, himself both a soldier and a saint. i will therefore conclude this chapter with a few generalisations about the world that st. francis found.

men will not believe because they will not broaden their minds. as a matter of individual belief, i should of course express it by saying that they are not sufficiently catholic to be catholic. but i am not going to discuss here the doctrinal truths of christianity, but simply {25}the broad historical fact of christianity, as it might appear to a really enlightened and imaginative person even if he were not a christian. what i mean at the moment is that the majority of doubts are made out of details. in the course of random reading a man comes across a pagan custom that strikes him as picturesque or a christian action that strikes him as cruel; but he does not enlarge his mind sufficiently to see the main truth about pagan custom or the christian reaction against it. until we understand, not necessarily in detail, but in their big bulk and proportion that pagan progress and that christian reaction, we cannot really understand the point of history at which st. francis appears or what his great popular mission was all about.

now everybody knows, i imagine, that the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were an awakening of the world. they were a fresh flowering of culture and the creative arts after a long spell of much sterner and even more sterile experience which we call the dark ages. they may be called an emancipation; they were certainly an end; an end of what may at least seem a harsher and more inhuman time. but what was it that was ended? from what was it that men were emancipated? that is where there is a real collision and point at issue between the different philosophies of history. on the merely external and secular side, it has been truly said that men awoke from a sleep; but there had been dreams {26}in that sleep of a mystical and sometimes of a monstrous kind. in that rationalistic routine into which most modern historians have fallen, it is considered enough to say that they were emancipated from mere savage superstition and advanced towards mere civilised enlightenment. now this is the big blunder that stands as a stumbling-block at the very beginning of our story. anybody who supposes that the dark ages were plain darkness and nothing else, and that the dawn of the thirteenth century was plain daylight and nothing else, will not be able to make head or tail of the human story of st. francis of assisi. the truth is that the joy of st. francis and his jongleurs de dieu was not merely an awakening. it was something which cannot be understood without understanding their own mystical creed. the end of the dark ages was not merely the end of a sleep. it was certainly not merely the end of a superstitious enslavement. it was the end of something belonging to a quite definite but quite different order of ideas.

it was the end of a penance; or, if it be preferred, a purgation. it marked the moment when a certain spiritual expiation had been finally worked out and certain spiritual diseases had been finally expelled from the system. they had been expelled by an era of asceticism, which was the only thing that could have expelled them. christianity had entered the world to cure the {27}world; and she had cured it in the only way in which it could be cured.

viewed merely in an external and experimental fashion, the whole of the high civilisation of antiquity had ended in the learning of a certain lesson; that is, in its conversion to christianity. but that lesson was a psychological fact as well as a theological faith. that pagan civilisation had indeed been a very high civilisation. it would not weaken our thesis, it might even strengthen it, to say that it was the highest that humanity ever reached. it had discovered its still unrivalled arts of poetry and plastic representation; it had discovered its own permanent political ideals; it had discovered its own clear system of logic and of language. but above all, it had discovered its own mistake.

that mistake was too deep to be ideally defined; the short-hand of it is to call it the mistake of nature-worship. it might almost as truly be called the mistake of being natural; and it was a very natural mistake. the greeks, the great guides and pioneers of pagan antiquity, started out with the idea of something splendidly obvious and direct; the idea that if man walked straight ahead on the high road of reason and nature, he could come to no harm; especially if he was, as the greek was, eminently enlightened and intelligent. we might be so flippant as to say that man was simply to follow his nose, so long as it was a greek nose. and the case of {28}the greeks themselves is alone enough to illustrate the strange but certain fatality that attends upon this fallacy. no sooner did the greeks themselves begin to follow their own noses and their own notion of being natural, than the queerest thing in history seems to have happened to them. it was much too queer to be an easy matter to discuss. it may be remarked that our more repulsive realists never give us the benefit of their realism. their studies of unsavoury subjects never take note of the testimony which they bear to the truths of a traditional morality. but if we had the taste for such things, we could cite thousands of such things as part of the case for christian morals. and an instance of this is found in the fact that nobody has written, in this sense, a real moral history of the greeks. nobody has seen the scale or the strangeness of the story. the wisest men in the world set out to be natural; and the most unnatural thing in the world was the very first thing they did. the immediate effect of saluting the sun and the sunny sanity of nature was a perversion spreading like a pestilence. the greatest and even the purest philosophers could not apparently avoid this low sort of lunacy. why? it would seem simple enough for the people whose poets had conceived helen of troy, whose sculptors had carved the venus of milo, to remain healthy on the point. the truth is that people who worship health cannot remain healthy. when man goes {29}straight he goes crooked. when he follows his nose he manages somehow to put his nose out of joint, or even to cut off his nose to spite his face; and that in accordance with something much deeper in human nature than nature-worshippers could ever understand. it was the discovery of that deeper thing, humanly speaking, that constituted the conversion to christianity. there is a bias in man like the bias in the bowl; and christianity was the discovery of how to correct the bias and therefore hit the mark. there are many who will smile at the saying; but it is profoundly true to say that the glad good news brought by the gospel was the news of original sin.

rome rose at the expense of her greek teachers largely because she did not entirely consent to be taught these tricks. she had a much more decent domestic tradition; but she ultimately suffered from the same fallacy in her religious tradition; which was necessarily in no small degree the heathen tradition of nature-worship. what was the matter with the whole heathen civilisation was that there was nothing for the mass of men in the way of mysticism, except that concerned with the mystery of the nameless forces of nature, such as sex and growth and death. in the roman empire also, long before the end, we find nature-worship inevitably producing things that are against nature. cases like that of nero have passed into a proverb, when sadism sat on a throne brazen in the broad daylight. but the truth i mean is something much more subtle and universal than a conventional catalogue of atrocities. what had happened to the human imagination, as a whole, was that the whole world was coloured by dangerous and rapidly deteriorating passions; by natural passions becoming unnatural passions. thus the effect of treating sex as only one innocent natural thing was that every other innocent natural thing became soaked and sodden with sex. for sex cannot be admitted to a mere equality among elementary emotions or experiences like eating and sleeping. the moment sex ceases to be a servant it becomes a tyrant. there is something dangerous and disproportionate in its place in human nature, for whatever reason; and it does really need a special purification and dedication. the modern talk about sex being free like any other sense, about the body being beautiful like any tree or flower, is either a description of the garden of eden or a piece of thoroughly bad psychology, of which the world grew weary two thousand years ago.

this is not to be confused with mere self-righteous sensationalism about the wickedness of the pagan world. it was not so much that the pagan world was wicked as that it was good enough to realise that its paganism was becoming wicked, or rather was on the logical high road to wickedness. i mean that there was no future for "natural magic"; to deepen it was only to {31}darken it into black magic. there was no future for it; because in the past it had only been innocent because it was young. we might say it had only been innocent because it was shallow. pagans were wiser than paganism; that is why the pagans became christians. thousands of them had philosophy and family virtues and military honour to hold them up; but by this time the purely popular thing called religion was certainly dragging them down. when this reaction against the evil is allowed for, it is true to repeat that it was an evil that was everywhere. in another and more literal sense its name was pan.

it was no metaphor to say that these people needed a new heaven and a new earth; for they had really defiled their own earth and even their own heaven. how could their case be met by looking at the sky, when erotic legends were scrawled in stars across it; how could they learn anything from the love of birds and flowers after the sort of love stories that were told of them? it is impossible here to multiply evidences, and one small example may stand for the rest. we know what sort of sentimental associations are called up to us by the phrase "a garden"; and how we think mostly of the memory of melancholy and innocent romances, or quite as often of some gracious maiden lady or kindly old parson pottering under a yew hedge, perhaps in sight of a village spire. then, let {32}anyone who knows a little latin poetry recall suddenly what would once have stood in place of the sun-dial or the fountain, obscene and monstrous in the sun; and of what sort was the god of their gardens.

nothing could purge this obsession but a religion that was literally unearthly. it was no good telling such people to have a natural religion full of stars and flowers; there was not a flower or even a star that had not been stained. they had to go into the desert where they could find no flowers or even into the cavern where they could see no stars. into that desert and that cavern the highest human intellect entered for some four centuries; and it was the very wisest thing it could do. nothing but the stark supernatural stood up for its salvation; if god could not save it, certainly the gods could not. the early church called the gods of paganism devils; and the early church was perfectly right. whatever natural religion may have had to do with their beginnings, nothing but fiends now inhabited those hollow shrines. pan was nothing but panic. venus was nothing but venereal vice. i do not mean for a moment, of course, that all the individual pagans were of this character even to the end; but it was as individuals that they differed from it. nothing distinguishes paganism from christianity so clearly as the fact that the individual thing called philosophy had little or nothing to do with {33}the social thing called religion. anyhow it was no good to preach natural religion to people to whom nature had grown as unnatural as any religion. they knew much better than we do what was the matter with them and what sort of demons at once tempted and tormented them; and they wrote across that great space of history the text: "this sort goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

now the historic importance of st. francis and the transition from the twelfth to the thirteenth century, lies in the fact that they marked the end of this expiation. men at the close of the dark ages may have been rude and unlettered and unlearned in everything but wars with heathen tribes, more barbarous than themselves, but they were clean. they were like children; the first beginnings of their rude arts have all the clean pleasure of children. we have to conceive them in europe as a whole living under little local governments, feudal in so far as they were a survival of fierce wars with the barbarians, often monastic and carrying a more friendly and fatherly character, still faintly imperial in so far as rome still ruled as a great legend. but in italy something had survived more typical of the finer spirit of antiquity: the republic. italy was dotted with little states, largely democratic in their ideals, and often filled with real citizens. but the city no longer lay open as under the roman peace, but was pent in {34}high walls for defence against feudal war and all the citizens had to be soldiers. one of these stood in a steep and striking position on the wooded hills of umbria; and its name was assisi. out of its deep gate under its high turrets was to come the message that was the gospel of the hour, "your warfare is accomplished, your iniquity is pardoned." but it was out of all these fragmentary things of feudalism and freedom and remains of roman law that there was to rise, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, vast and almost universal, the mighty civilisation of the middle ages.

it is an exaggeration to attribute it entirely to the inspiration of any one man, even the most original genius of the thirteenth century. its elementary ethics of fraternity and fair play had never been entirely extinct and christendom had never been anything less than christian. the great truisms about justice and pity can be found in the rudest monastic records of the barbaric transition or the stiffest maxims of the byzantine decline. and early in the eleventh and twelfth centuries a larger moral movement had clearly begun. but what may fairly be said of it is this, that over all those first movements there was still something of that ancient austerity that came from the long penitential period. it was the twilight of morning; but it was still a grey twilight. this may be illustrated by the mere mention of two or three of {35}these reforms before the franciscan reform. the monastic institution itself, of course, was far older than all these things; indeed it was undoubtedly almost as old as christianity. its counsels of perfection had always taken the form of vows of chastity and poverty and obedience. with these unworldly aims it had long ago civilised a great part of the world. the monks had taught people to plough and sow as well as to read and write; indeed they had taught the people nearly everything that the people knew. but it may truly be said that the monks were severely practical, in the sense that they were not only practical but also severe; though they were generally severe with themselves and practical for other people. all this early monastic movement had long ago settled down and doubtless often deteriorated; but when we come to the first medieval movements this sterner character is still apparent. three examples may be taken to illustrate the point.

first, the ancient social mould of slavery was already beginning to melt. not only was the slave turning into the serf, who was practically free as regards his own farm and family life, but many lords were freeing slaves and serfs altogether. this was done under the pressure of the priests; but especially it was done in the spirit of a penance. in one sense, of course, any catholic society must have an atmosphere of penance; but i am speaking of that rather sterner spirit of penance which had expiated the excesses of paganism. there was about such restitutions the atmosphere of the death-bed; as many of them doubtless were examples of death-bed repentance. a very honest atheist with whom i once debated made use of the expression, "men have only been kept in slavery by the fear of hell." as i pointed out to him, if he had said that men had only been freed from slavery by the fear of hell, he would at least have been referring to an unquestionable historical fact.

another example was the sweeping reform of church discipline by pope gregory the seventh. it really was a reform, undertaken from the highest motives and having the healthiest results; it conducted a searching inquisition against simony or the financial corruptions of the clergy; it insisted on a more serious and self-sacrificing ideal for the life of a parish priest. but the very fact that this largely took the form of making universal the obligation of celibacy will strike the note of something which, however noble, would seem to many to be vaguely negative. the third example is in one sense the strongest of all. for the third example was a war; a heroic war and for many of us a holy war; but still something having all the stark and terrible responsibilities of war. there is no space here to say all that should be said about the true {37}nature of the crusades. everybody knows that in the very darkest hour of the dark ages a sort of heresy had sprung up in arabia and become a new religion of a military but nomadic sort, invoking the name of mahomet. intrinsically it had a character found in many heresies from the moslem to the monist. it seemed to the heretic a sane simplification of religion; while it seems to the catholic an insane simplification of religion, because it simplifies all to a single idea and so loses the breadth and balance of catholicism. anyhow its objective character was that of a military danger to christendom and christendom had struck at the very heart of it, in seeking to reconquer the holy places. the great duke godfrey and the first christians who stormed jerusalem were heroes if there were ever any in the world; but they were the heroes of a tragedy.

now i have taken these two or three examples of the earlier medieval movements in order to note about them one general character, which refers back to the penance that followed paganism. there is something in all these movements that is bracing even while it is still bleak, like a wind blowing between the clefts of the mountains. that wind, austere and pure, of which the poet speaks, is really the spirit of the time, for it is the wind of a world that has at last been purified. to anyone who can appreciate atmospheres there is something clear and clean about the atmosphere of this crude and often harsh society. its very lusts are clean; for they have no longer any smell of perversion. its very cruelties are clean; they are not the luxurious cruelties of the amphitheatre. they come either of a very simple horror at blasphemy or a very simple fury at insult. gradually against this grey background beauty begins to appear, as something really fresh and delicate and above all surprising. love returning is no longer what was once called platonic but what is still called chivalric love. the flowers and stars have recovered their first innocence. fire and water are felt to be worthy to be the brother and sister of a saint. the purge of paganism is complete at last.

for water itself has been washed. fire itself has been purified as by fire. water is no longer that water into which slaves were flung to feed the fishes. fire is no longer that fire through which children were passed to moloch. flowers smell no more of the forgotten garlands gathered in the garden of priapus; stars stand no more as signs of the far frigidity of gods as cold as those cold fires. they are all like things newly made and awaiting new names, from one who shall come to name them. neither the universe nor the earth have now any longer the old sinister significance of the world. they await a new reconciliation with man, but they are already capable of being reconciled. man has stripped from his soul the last rag of nature-worship, and can return to nature.

while it was yet twilight a figure appeared silently and suddenly on a little hill above the city, dark against the fading darkness. for it was the end of a long and stern night, a night of vigil, not unvisited by stars. he stood with his hands lifted, as in so many statues and pictures, and about him was a burst of birds singing; and behind him was the break of day.