from that cavern, that was a furnace of glowing gratitude and humility, there came forth one of the strongest and strangest and most original personalities that human history has known. he was, among other things, emphatically what we call a character; almost as we speak of a character in a good novel or play. he was not only a humanist but a humorist; a humorist especially in the old english sense of a man always in his humour, going his own way and doing what nobody else would have done. the anecdotes about him have a certain biographical quality of which the most familiar example is dr. johnson; which belongs in another way to william blake or to charles lamb. the atmosphere can only be defined by a sort of antithesis; the act is always unexpected and never inappropriate. before the thing is said or done it cannot even be conjectured; but after it is said or done it is felt to be merely characteristic. it is surprisingly and yet inevitably individual. this quality of abrupt fitness and bewildering consistency belongs to st. francis {95}in a way that marks him out from most men of his time. men are learning more and more of the solid social virtues of medieval civilisation; but those impressions are still social rather than individual. the medieval world was far ahead of the modern world in its sense of the things in which all men are at one: death and the daylight of reason and the common conscience that holds communities together. its generalisations were saner and sounder than the mad materialistic theories of to-day; nobody would have tolerated a schopenhauer scorning life or a nietzsche living only for scorn. but the modern world is more subtle in its sense of the things in which men are not at one; in the temperamental varieties and differentiations that make up the personal problems of life. all men who can think themselves now realise that the great schoolmen had a type of thought that was wonderfully clear; but it was as it were deliberately colourless. all are now agreed that the greatest art of the age was the art of public buildings; the popular and communal art of architecture. but it was not an age for the art of portrait-painting. yet the friends of st. francis have really contrived to leave behind a portrait; something almost resembling a devout and affectionate caricature. there are lines and colours in it that are personal almost to the extent of being perverse, if one can use the word perversity of an inversion that was also a conversion. {96}even among the saints he has the air of a sort of eccentric, if one may use the word of one whose eccentricity consisted in always turning towards the centre.

before resuming the narrative of his first adventures, and the building of the great brotherhood which was the beginning of so merciful a revolution, i think it well to complete this imperfect personal portrait here; and having attempted in the last chapter a tentative description of the process, to add in this chapter a few touches to describe the result. i mean by the result the real man as he was after his first formative experiences; the man whom men met walking about on the italian roads in his brown tunic tied with a rope. for that man, saving the grace of god, is the explanation of all that followed; men acted quite differently according to whether they had met him or not. if we see afterwards a vast tumult, an appeal to the pope, mobs of men in brown habits besieging the seats of authority, papal pronouncements, heretical sessions, trial and triumphant survival, the world full of a new movement, the friar a household word in every corner of europe, and if we ask why all this happened, we can only approximate to any answer to our own question if we can, in some faint and indirect imaginative fashion, hear one human voice or see one human face under a hood. there is no answer except that francis bernardone had {97}happened; and we must try in some sense to see what we should have seen if he had happened to us. in other words, after some groping suggestions about his life from the inside, we must again consider it from the outside; as if he were a stranger coming up the road towards us, along the hills of umbria, between the olives or the vines.

francis of assisi was slight in figure with that sort of slightness which, combined with so much vivacity, gives the impression of smallness. he was probably taller than he looked; middle-sized, his biographers say; he was certainly very active and, considering what he went through, must have been tolerably tough. he was of the brownish southern colouring, with a dark beard thin and pointed such as appears in pictures under the hoods of elves; and his eyes glowed with the fire that fretted him night and day. there is something about the description of all he said and did which suggests that, even more than most italians, he turned naturally to a passionate pantomime of gestures. if this was so it is equally certain that with him, even more than with most italians, the gestures were all gestures of politeness or hospitality. and both these facts, the vivacity and the courtesy, are the outward signs of something that mark him out very distinctively from many who might appear to be more of his kind than they really are. it is truly said {98}that francis of assisi was one of the founders of the medieval drama, and therefore of the modern drama. he was the very reverse of a theatrical person in the selfish sense; but for all that he was pre-eminently a dramatic person. this side of him can best be suggested by taking what is commonly regarded as a reposeful quality; what is commonly described as a love of nature. we are compelled to use the term; and it is entirely the wrong term.

st. francis was not a lover of nature. properly understood, a lover of nature was precisely what he was not. the phrase implies accepting the material universe as a vague environment, a sort of sentimental pantheism. in the romantic period of literature, in the age of byron and scott, it was easy enough to imagine that a hermit in the ruins of a chapel (preferably by moonlight) might find peace and a mild pleasure in the harmony of solemn forests and silent stars, while he pondered over some scroll or illuminated volume, about the liturgical nature of which the author was a little vague. in short, the hermit might love nature as a background. now for st. francis nothing was ever in the background. we might say that his mind had no background, except perhaps that divine darkness out of which the divine love had called up every coloured creature one by one. he saw everything as dramatic, distinct from its setting, not all of a {99}piece like a picture but in action like a play. a bird went by him like an arrow; something with a story and a purpose, though it was a purpose of life and not a purpose of death. a bush could stop him like a brigand; and indeed he was as ready to welcome the brigand as the bush.

in a word, we talk about a man who cannot see the wood for the trees. st. francis was a man who did not want to see the wood for the trees. he wanted to see each tree as a separate and almost a sacred thing, being a child of god and therefore a brother or sister of man. but he did not want to stand against a piece of stage scenery used merely as a background, and inscribed in a general fashion: "scene; a wood." in this sense we might say that he was too dramatic for the drama. the scenery would have come to life in his comedies; the walls would really have spoken like snout the tinker and the trees would really have come walking to dunsinane. everything would have been in the foreground; and in that sense in the footlights. everything would be in every sense a character. this is the quality in which, as a poet, he is the very opposite of a pantheist. he did not call nature his mother; he called a particular donkey his brother or a particular sparrow his sister. if he had called a pelican his aunt or an elephant his uncle, as he might possibly have done, he would still have meant that they were particular creatures assigned by their {100}creator to particular places; not mere expressions of the evolutionary energy of things. that is where his mysticism is so close to the common sense of the child. a child has no difficulty about understanding that god made the dog and the cat; though he is well aware that the making of dogs and cats out of nothing is a mysterious process beyond his own imagination. but no child would understand what you meant if you mixed up the dog and the cat and everything else into one monster with a myriad legs and called it nature. the child would resolutely refuse to make head or tail of any such animal. st. francis was a mystic, but he believed in mysticism and not in mystification. as a mystic he was the mortal enemy of all those mystics who melt away the edges of things and dissolve an entity into its environment. he was a mystic of the daylight and the darkness; but not a mystic of the twilight. he was the very contrary of that sort of oriental visionary who is only a mystic because he is too much of a sceptic to be a materialist. st. francis was emphatically a realist, using the word realist in its much more real medieval sense. in this matter he really was akin to the best spirit of his age, which had just won its victory over the nominalism of the twelfth century. in this indeed there was something symbolic in the contemporary art and decoration of his period; as in the art of heraldry. the franciscan birds and beasts {101}were really rather like heraldic birds and beasts; not in the sense of being fabulous animals but in the sense of being treated as if they were facts, clear and positive and unaffected by the illusions of atmosphere and perspective. in that sense he did see a bird sable on a field azure or a sheep argent on a field vert. but the heraldry of humility was richer than the heraldry of pride; for it saw all these things that god had given as something more precious and unique than the blazonry that princes and peers had only given to themselves. indeed out of the depths of that surrender it rose higher than the highest titles of the feudal age; than the laurel of cæsar or the iron crown of lombardy. it is an example of extremes that meet, that the little poor man, who had stripped himself of everything and named himself as nothing, took the same title that has been the wild vaunt of the vanity of the gorgeous asiatic autocrat, and called himself the brother of the sun and moon.

this quality, of something outstanding and even startling in things as st. francis saw them, is here important as illustrating a character in his own life. as he saw all things dramatically, so he himself was always dramatic. we have to assume throughout, needless to say, that he was a poet and can only be understood as a poet. but he had one poetic privilege denied to most poets. in that respect indeed he might be called the one happy {102}poet among all the unhappy poets of the world. he was a poet whose whole life was a poem. he was not so much a minstrel merely singing his own songs as a dramatist capable of acting the whole of his own play. the things he said were more imaginative than the things he wrote. the things he did were more imaginative than the things he said. his whole course through life was a series of scenes in which he had a sort of perpetual luck in bringing things to a beautiful crisis. to talk about the art of living has come to sound rather artificial than artistic. but st. francis did in a definite sense make the very act of living an art, though it was an unpremeditated art. many of his acts will seem grotesque and puzzling to a rationalistic taste. but they were always acts and not explanations; and they always meant what he meant them to mean. the amazing vividness with which he stamped himself on the memory and imagination of mankind is very largely due to the fact that he was seen again and again under such dramatic conditions. from the moment when he rent his robes and flung them at his father's feet to the moment when he stretched himself in death on the bare earth in the pattern of the cross, his life was made up of these unconscious attitudes and unhesitating gestures. it would be easy to fill page after page with examples; but i will here pursue the method found convenient everywhere in this short sketch, and {103}take one typical example, dwelling on it with a little more detail than would be possible in a catalogue, in the hope of making the meaning more clear. the example taken here occurred in the last days of his life, but it refers back in a rather curious fashion to the first; and rounds off the remarkable unity of that romance of religion.

the phrase about his brotherhood with the sun and moon, and with the water and the fire, occurs of course in his famous poem called the canticle of the creatures or the canticle of the sun. he sang it wandering in the meadows in the sunnier season of his own career, when he was pouring upwards into the sky all the passions of a poet. it is a supremely characteristic work, and much of st. francis could be reconstructed from that work alone. though in some ways the thing is as simple and straightforward as a ballad, there is a delicate instinct of differentiation in it. notice, for instance, the sense of sex in inanimate things, which goes far beyond the arbitrary genders of a grammar. it was not for nothing that he called fire his brother, fierce and gay and strong, and water his sister, pure and clear and inviolate. remember that st. francis was neither encumbered nor assisted by all that greek and roman polytheism turned into allegory, which has been to european poetry often an inspiration, too often a convention. whether he gained or lost by his contempt of learning, it never occurred to him {104}to connect neptune and the nymphs with the water or vulcan and the cyclops with the flame. this point exactly illustrates what has already been suggested; that, so far from being a revival of paganism, the franciscan renascence was a sort of fresh start and first awakening after a forgetfulness of paganism. certainly it is responsible for a certain freshness in the thing itself. anyhow st. francis was, as it were, the founder of a new folk-lore; but he could distinguish his mermaids from his mermen and his witches from his wizards. in short, he had to make his own mythology; but he knew at a glance the goddesses from the gods. this fanciful instinct for the sexes is not the only example of an imaginative instinct of the kind. there is just the same quaint felicity in the fact that he singles out the sun with a slightly more courtly title besides that of brother; a phrase that one king might use of another, corresponding to "monsieur notre frère." it is like a faint half ironic shadow of the shining primacy that it had held in the pagan heavens. a bishop is said to have complained of a nonconformist saying paul instead of saint paul; and to have added "he might at least have called him mr. paul." so st. francis is free of all obligation to cry out in praise or terror on the lord god apollo, but in his new nursery heavens, he salutes him as mr. sun. those are the things in which he has a sort of inspired infancy, only to be paralleled in nursery {105}tales. something of the same hazy but healthy awe makes the story of brer fox and brer rabbit refer respectfully to mr. man.

this poem, full of the mirth of youth and the memories of childhood, runs through his whole life like a refrain, and scraps of it turn up continually in the ordinary habit of his talk. perhaps the last appearance of its special language was in an incident that has always seemed to me intensely impressive, and is at any rate very illustrative of the great manner and gesture of which i speak. impressions of that kind are a matter of imagination and in that sense of taste. it is idle to argue about them; for it is the whole point of them that they have passed beyond words; and even when they use words, seem to be completed by some ritual movement like a blessing or a blow. so, in a supreme example, there is something far past all exposition, something like the sweeping movement and mighty shadow of a hand, darkening even the darkness of gethsemane; "sleep on now, and take your rest...." yet there are people who have started to paraphrase and expand the story of the passion.

st. francis was a dying man. we might say he was an old man, at the time this typical incident occurred; but in fact he was only prematurely old; for he was not fifty when he died, worn out with his fighting and fasting life. but when he came down from the awful asceticism and more {106}awful revelation of alverno, he was a broken man. as will be apparent when these events are touched on in their turn, it was not only sickness and bodily decay that may well have darkened his life; he had been recently disappointed in his main mission to end the crusades by the conversion of islam; he had been still more disappointed by the signs of compromise and a more political or practical spirit in his own order; he had spent his last energies in protest. at this point he was told that he was going blind. if the faintest hint has been given here of what st. francis felt about the glory and pageantry of earth and sky, about the heraldic shape and colour and symbolism of birds and beasts and flowers, some notion may be formed of what it meant to him to go blind. yet the remedy might well have seemed worse than the disease. the remedy, admittedly an uncertain remedy, was to cauterise the eye, and that without any anæsthetic. in other words it was to burn his living eyeballs with a red-hot iron. many of the tortures of martyrdom, which he envied in martyrology and sought vainly in syria, can have been no worse. when they took the brand from the furnace, he rose as with an urbane gesture and spoke as to an invisible presence: "brother fire, god made you beautiful and strong and useful; i pray you be courteous with me."

if there be any such thing as the art of life, it seems to me that such a moment was one of its {107}masterpieces. not to many poets has it been given to remember their own poetry at such a moment, still less to live one of their own poems. even william blake would have been disconcerted if, while he was re-reading the noble lines "tiger, tiger, burning bright," a real large live bengal tiger had put his head in at the window of the cottage in felpham, evidently with every intention of biting his head off. he might have wavered before politely saluting it, above all by calmly completing the recitation of the poem to the quadruped to whom it was dedicated. shelley, when he wished to be a cloud or a leaf carried before the wind, might have been mildly surprised to find himself turning slowly head over heels in mid air a thousand feet above the sea. even keats, knowing that his hold on life was a frail one, might have been disturbed to discover that the true, the blushful hippocrene of which he had just partaken freely had indeed contained a drug, which really ensured that he should cease upon the midnight with no pain. for francis there was no drug; and for francis there was plenty of pain. but his first thought was one of his first fancies from the songs of his youth. he remembered the time when a flame was a flower, only the most glorious and gaily coloured of the flowers in the garden of god; and when that shining thing returned to him in the shape of an instrument of torture, he hailed it from afar like {108}an old friend, calling it by the nickname which might most truly be called its christian name.

that is only one incident out of a life of such incidents; and i have selected it partly because it shows what is meant here by that shadow of gesture there is in all his words, the dramatic gesture of the south; and partly because its special reference to courtesy covers the next fact to be noted. the popular instinct of st. francis, and his perpetual preoccupation with the idea of brotherhood, will be entirely misunderstood if it is understood in the sense of what is often called camaraderie; the back-slapping sort of brotherhood. frequently from the enemies and too frequently from the friends of the democratic ideal, there has come a notion that this note is necessary to that ideal. it is assumed that equality means all men being equally uncivil, whereas it obviously ought to mean all men being equally civil. such people have forgotten the very meaning and derivation of the word civility, if they do not see that to be uncivil is to be uncivic. but anyhow that was not the equality which francis of assisi encouraged; but an equality of the opposite kind; it was a camaraderie actually founded on courtesy.

even in that fairy borderland of his mere fancies about flowers and animals and even inanimate things, he retained this permanent posture of a sort of deference. a friend of mine {109}said that somebody was the sort of man who apologises to the cat. st. francis really would have apologised to the cat. when he was about to preach in a wood full of the chatter of birds, he said, with a gentle gesture "little sisters, if you have now had your say, it is time that i also should be heard." and all the birds were silent; as i for one can very easily believe. in deference to my special design of making matters intelligible to average modernity, i have treated separately the subject of the miraculous powers that st. francis most certainly possessed. but even apart from any miraculous powers, men of that magnetic sort, with that intense interest in animals, often have an extraordinary power over them. st. francis's power was always exercised with this elaborate politeness. much of it was doubtless a sort of symbolic joke, a pious pantomime intended to convey the vital distinction in his divine mission, that he not only loved but reverenced god in all his creatures. in this sense he had the air not only of apologising to the cat or to the birds, but of apologising to a chair for sitting on it or to a table for sitting down at it. anyone who had followed him through life merely to laugh at him, as a sort of lovable lunatic, might easily have had an impression as of a lunatic who bowed to every post or took off his hat to every tree. this was all a part of his instinct for imaginative gesture. he taught the world a large part of {110}its lesson by a sort of divine dumb alphabet. but if there was this ceremonial element even in lighter or lesser matters, its significance became far more serious in the serious work of his life, which was an appeal to humanity, or rather to human beings.

i have said that st. francis deliberately did not see the wood for the trees. it is even more true that he deliberately did not see the mob for the men. what distinguishes this very genuine democrat from any mere demagogue is that he never either deceived or was deceived by the illusion of mass-suggestion. whatever his taste in monsters, he never saw before him a many-headed beast. he only saw the image of god multiplied but never monotonous. to him a man was always a man and did not disappear in a dense crowd any more than in a desert. he honoured all men; that is, he not only loved but respected them all. what gave him his extraordinary personal power was this; that from the pope to the beggar, from the sultan of syria in his pavilion to the ragged robbers crawling out of the wood, there was never a man who looked into those brown burning eyes without being certain that francis bernardone was really interested in him; in his own inner individual life from the cradle to the grave; that he himself was being valued and taken seriously, and not merely added to the spoils of some social policy or the names in {111}some clerical document. now for this particular moral and religious idea there is no external expression except courtesy. exhortation does not express it, for it is not mere abstract enthusiasm; beneficence does not express it, for it is not mere pity. it can only be conveyed by a certain grand manner which may be called good manners. we may say if we like that st. francis, in the bare and barren simplicity of his life, had clung to one rag of luxury; the manners of a court. but whereas in a court there is one king and a hundred courtiers, in this story there was one courtier, moving among a hundred kings. for he treated the whole mob of men as a mob of kings. and this was really and truly the only attitude that will appeal to that part of man to which he wished to appeal. it cannot be done by giving gold or even bread; for it is a proverb that any reveller may fling largesse in mere scorn. it cannot even be done by giving time and attention; for any number of philanthropists and benevolent bureaucrats do such work with a scorn far more cold and horrible in their hearts. no plans or proposals or efficient rearrangements will give back to a broken man his self-respect and sense of speaking with an equal. one gesture will do it.

with that gesture francis of assisi moved among men; and it was soon found to have something in it of magic and to act, in a double sense, like a charm. but it must always be conceived {112}as a completely natural gesture; for indeed it was almost a gesture of apology. he must be imagined as moving thus swiftly through the world with a sort of impetuous politeness; almost like the movement of a man who stumbles on one knee half in haste and half in obeisance. the eager face under the brown hood was that of a man always going somewhere, as if he followed as well as watched the flight of the birds. and this sense of motion is indeed the meaning of the whole revolution that he made; for the work that has now to be described was of the nature of an earthquake or a volcano, an explosion that drove outwards with dynamic energy the forces stored up by ten centuries in the monastic fortress or arsenal and scattered all its riches recklessly to the ends of the earth. in a better sense than the antithesis commonly conveys, it is true to say that what st. benedict had stored st. francis scattered; but in the world of spiritual things what had been stored into the barns like grain was scattered over the world as seed. the servants of god who had been a besieged garrison became a marching army; the ways of the world were filled as with thunder with the trampling of their feet and far ahead of that ever swelling host went a man singing; as simply he had sung that morning in the winter woods, where he walked alone.