in one sense doubtless it is a sad irony that st. francis, who all his life had desired all men to agree, should have died amid increasing disagreements. but we must not exaggerate this discord, as some have done, so as to turn it into a mere defeat of all his ideals. there are some who represent his work as having been merely ruined by the wickedness of the world, or what they always assume to be the even greater wickedness of the church.
this little book is an essay on st. francis and not on the franciscan order, still less on the catholic church or the papacy or the policy pursued towards the extreme franciscans or the fraticelli. it is therefore only necessary to note in a very few words what was the general nature of the controversy that raged after the great saint's death, and to some extent troubled the last days of his life. the dominant detail was the interpretation of the vow of poverty, or the refusal of all possessions. nobody so far as i know ever proposed to interfere with the vow {173}of the individual friar that he would have no individual possessions. nobody, that is, proposed to interfere with his negation of private property. but some franciscans, invoking the authority of francis on their side, went further than this and further i think than anybody else has ever gone. they proposed to abolish not only private property but property. that is, they refused to be corporately responsible for anything at all; for any buildings or stores or tools; they refused to own them collectively even when they used them collectively. it is perfectly true that many, especially among the first supporters of this view, were men of a splendid and selfless spirit, wholly devoted to the great saint's ideal. it is also perfectly true that the pope and the authorities of the church did not think this conception was a workable arrangement, and went so far in modifying it as to set aside certain clauses in the great saint's will. but it is not at all easy to see that it was a workable arrangement or even an arrangement at all; for it was really a refusal to arrange anything. everybody knew of course that franciscans were communists; but this was not so much being a communist as being an anarchist. surely upon any argument somebody or something must be answerable for what happened to or in or concerning a number of historic edifices and ordinary goods and chattels. many idealists of a socialistic {174}sort, notably of the school of mr. shaw or mr. wells, have treated this dispute as if it were merely a case of the tyranny of wealthy and wicked pontiffs crushing the true christianity of christian socialists. but in truth this extreme ideal was in a sense the very reverse of socialist, or even social. precisely the thing which these enthusiasts refused was that social ownership on which socialism is built; what they primarily refused to do was what socialists primarily exist to do; to own legally in their corporate capacity. nor is it true that the tone of the popes towards the enthusiasts was merely harsh and hostile. the pope maintained for a long time a compromise which he had specially designed to meet their own conscientious objections; a compromise by which the papacy itself held the property in a kind of trust for the owners who refused to touch it. the truth is that this incident shows two things which are common enough in catholic history, but very little understood by the journalistic history of industrial civilisation. it shows that the saints were sometimes great men when the popes were small men. but it also shows that great men are sometimes wrong when small men are right. and it will be found, after all, very difficult for any candid and clear-headed outsider to deny that the pope was right, when he insisted that the world was not made only for franciscans.
{175}for that was what was behind the quarrel. at the back of this particular practical question there was something much larger and more momentous, the stir and wind of which we can feel as we read the controversy. we might go so far as to put the ultimate truth thus. st. francis was so great and original a man that he had something in him of what makes the founder of a religion. many of his followers were more or less ready, in their hearts, to treat him as the founder of a religion. they were willing to let the franciscan spirit escape from christendom as the christian spirit had escaped from israel. they were willing to let it eclipse christendom as the christian spirit had eclipsed israel. francis, the fire that ran through the roads of italy, was to be the beginning of a conflagration in which the old christian civilisation was to be consumed. that was the point the pope had to settle; whether christendom should absorb francis or francis christendom. and he decided rightly, apart from the duties of his place; for the church could include all that was good in the franciscans and the franciscans could not include all that was good in the church.
there is one consideration which, though sufficiently clear in the whole story, has not perhaps been sufficiently noted, especially by those who cannot see the case for a certain catholic common sense larger even than franciscan enthusiasm. {176}yet it arises out of the very merits of the man whom they so rightly admire. francis of assisi, as has been said again and again, was a poet; that is, he was a person who could express his personality. now it is everywhere the mark of this sort of man that his very limitations make him larger. he is what he is, not only by what he has, but in some degree by what he has not. but the limits that make the lines of such a personal portrait cannot be made the limits of all humanity. st. francis is a very strong example of this quality in the man of genius, that in him even what is negative is positive, because it is part of a character. an excellent example of what i mean may be found in his attitude towards learning and scholarship. he ignored and in some degree discouraged books and book-learning; and from his own point of view and that of his own work in the world he was absolutely right. the whole point of his message was to be so simple that the village idiot could understand it. the whole point of his point of view was that it looked out freshly upon a fresh world, that might have been made that morning. save for the great primal things, the creation and the story of eden, the first christmas and the first easter, the world had no history. but is it desired or desirable that the whole catholic church should have no history?
it is perhaps the chief suggestion of this book {177}that st. francis walked the world like the pardon of god. i mean that his appearance marked the moment when men could be reconciled not only to god but to nature and, most difficult of all, to themselves. for it marked the moment when all the stale paganism that had poisoned the ancient world was at last worked out of the social system. he opened the gates of the dark ages as of a prison of purgatory, where men had cleansed themselves as hermits in the desert or heroes in the barbarian wars. it was in fact his whole function to tell men to start afresh and, in that sense, to tell them to forget. if they were to turn over a new leaf and begin a fresh page with the first large letters of the alphabet, simply drawn and brilliantly coloured in the early medieval manner, it was clearly a part of that particular childlike cheerfulness that they should paste down the old page that was all black and bloody with horrid things. for instance, i have already noted that there is not a trace in the poetry of this first italian poet of all that pagan mythology which lingered long after paganism. the first italian poet seems the only man in the world who has never even heard of virgil. this was exactly right for the special sense in which he is the first italian poet. it is quite right that he should call a nightingale a nightingale, and not have its song spoilt or saddened by the terrible tales of itylus {178}or procne. in short, it is really quite right and quite desirable that st. francis should never have heard of virgil. but do we really desire that dante should never have heard of virgil? do we really desire that dante should never have read any pagan mythology? it has been truly said that the use that dante makes of such fables is altogether part of a deeper orthodoxy; that his huge heathen fragments, his gigantic figures of minos or of charon, only give a hint of some enormous natural religion behind all history and from the first foreshadowing the faith. it is well to have the sybil as well as david in the dies irae. that st. francis would have burned all the leaves of all the books of the sybil, in exchange for one fresh leaf from the nearest tree, is perfectly true; and perfectly proper to st. francis. but it is good to have the dies irae as well as the canticle of the sun.
by this thesis, in short, the coming of st. francis was like the birth of a child in a dark house, lifting its doom; a child that grows up unconscious of the tragedy and triumphs over it by his innocence. in him it is necessarily not only innocence but ignorance. it is the essence of the story that he should pluck at the green grass without knowing it grows over a murdered man or climb the apple-tree without knowing it was the gibbet of a suicide. it was such an amnesty and reconciliation that the freshness {179}of the franciscan spirit brought to all the world. but it does not follow that it ought to impose its ignorance on all the world. and i think it would have tried to impose it on all the world. for some franciscans it would have seemed right that franciscan poetry should expel benedictine prose. for the symbolic child it was quite rational. it was right enough that for such a child the world should be a large new nursery with blank white-washed walls, on which he could draw his own pictures in chalk in the childish fashion, crude in outline and gay in colour; the beginnings of all our art. it was right enough that to him such a nursery should seem the most magnificent mansion of the imagination of man. but in the church of god are many mansions.
every heresy has been an effort to narrow the church. if the franciscan movement had turned into a new religion, it would after all have been a narrow religion. in so far as it did turn here and there into a heresy, it was a narrow heresy. it did what heresy always does; it set the mood against the mind. the mood was indeed originally the good and glorious mood of the great st. francis, but it was not the whole mind of god or even of man. and it is a fact that the mood itself degenerated, as the mood turned into a monomania. a sect that came to be called the fraticelli declared themselves the true sons {180}of st. francis and broke away from the compromises of rome in favour of what they would have called the complete programme of assisi. in a very little while these loose franciscans began to look as ferocious as flagellants. they launched new and violent vetoes; they denounced marriage; that is, they denounced mankind. in the name of the most human of saints they declared war upon humanity. they did not perish particularly through being persecuted; many of them were eventually persuaded; and the unpersuadable rump of them that remained remained without producing anything in the least calculated to remind anybody of the real st. francis. what was the matter with these people was that they were mystics; mystics and nothing else but mystics; mystics and not catholics; mystics and not christians; mystics and not men. they rotted away because, in the most exact sense, they would not listen to reason. and st. francis, however wild and romantic his gyrations might appear to many, always hung on to reason by one invisible and indestructible hair.
the great saint was sane; and with the very sound of the word sanity, as at a deeper chord struck upon a harp, we come back to something that was indeed deeper than everything about him that seemed an almost elvish eccentricity. he was not a mere eccentric because he was always turning towards the centre and heart of the {181}maze; he took the queerest and most zigzag short cuts through the wood, but he was always going home. he was not only far too humble to be an heresiarch, but he was far too human to desire to be an extremist, in the sense of an exile at the ends of the earth. the sense of humour which salts all the stories of his escapades alone prevented him from ever hardening into the solemnity of sectarian self-righteousness. he was by nature ready to admit that he was wrong; and if his followers had on some practical points to admit that he was wrong, they only admitted that he was wrong in order to prove that he was right. for it is they, his real followers, who have really proved that he was right and even in transcending some of his negations have triumphantly extended and interpreted his truth. the franciscan order did not fossilise or break off short like something of which the true purpose has been frustrated by official tyranny or internal treason. it was this, the central and orthodox trunk of it, that afterwards bore fruit for the world. it counted among its sons bonaventura the great mystic and bernardino the popular preacher, who filled italy with the very beatific buffooneries of a jongleur de dieu. it counted raymond lully with his strange learning and his large and daring plans for the conversion of the world; a man intensely individual exactly as st. francis was intensely individual. it {182}counted roger bacon, the first naturalist whose experiments with light and water had all the luminous quaintness that belongs to the beginnings of natural history; and whom even the most material scientists have hailed as a father of science. it is not merely true that these were great men who did great work for the world; it is also true that they were a certain kind of men keeping the spirit and savour of a certain kind of man, that we can recognise in them a taste and tang of audacity and simplicity, and know them for the sons of st. francis.
for that is the full and final spirit in which we should turn to st. francis; in the spirit of thanks for what he has done. he was above all things a great giver; and he cared chiefly for the best kind of giving which is called thanksgiving. if another great man wrote a grammar of assent, he may well be said to have written a grammar of acceptance; a grammar of gratitude. he understood down to its very depths the theory of thanks; and its depths are a bottomless abyss. he knew that the praise of god stands on its strongest ground when it stands on nothing. he knew that we can best measure the towering miracle of the mere fact of existence if we realise that but for some strange mercy we should not even exist. and something of that larger truth is repeated in a lesser form in our own relations with so mighty a maker of history. he also {183}is a giver of things we could not have even thought of for ourselves; he also is too great for anything but gratitude. from him came a whole awakening of the world and a dawn in which all shapes and colours could be seen anew. the mighty men of genius who made the christian civilisation that we know appear in history almost as his servants and imitators. before dante was, he had given poetry to italy; before st. louis ruled, he had risen as the tribune of the poor; and before giotto had painted the pictures, he had enacted the scenes. that great painter who began the whole human inspiration of european painting had himself gone to st. francis to be inspired. it is said that when st. francis staged in his own simple fashion a nativity play of bethlehem, with kings and angels in the stiff and gay medieval garments and the golden wigs that stood for haloes, a miracle was wrought full of the franciscan glory. the holy child was a wooden doll or bambino, and it was said that he embraced it and that the image came to life in his arms. he assuredly was not thinking of lesser things; but we may at least say that one thing came to life in his arms; and that was the thing that we call the drama. save for his intense individual love of song, he did not perhaps himself embody this spirit in any of these arts. he was the spirit that was embodied. he was the spiritual essence and substance that walked the {184}world, before anyone had seen these things in visible forms derived from it: a wandering fire as if from nowhere, at which men more material could light both torches and tapers. he was the soul of medieval civilisation before it even found a body. another and quite different stream of spiritual inspiration derives largely from him; all that reforming energy of medieval and modern times that goes to the burden of deus est deus pauperum. his abstract ardour for human beings was in a multitude of just medieval laws against the pride and cruelty of riches; it is to-day behind much that is loosely called christian socialist and can more correctly be called catholic democrat. neither on the artistic nor the social side would anybody pretend that these things would not have existed without him; yet it is strictly true to say that we cannot now imagine them without him; since he has lived and changed the world.
and something of that sense of impotence which was more than half his power will descend on anyone who knows what that inspiration has been in history, and can only record it in a series of straggling and meagre sentences. he will know something of what st. francis meant by the great and good debt that cannot be paid. he will feel at once the desire to have done infinitely more and the futility of having done anything. he will know what it is to stand under {185}such a deluge of a dead man's marvels, and have nothing in return to establish against it; to have nothing to set up under the overhanging, overwhelming arches of such a temple of time and eternity, but this brief candle burnt out so quickly before his shrine.
