<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_133" id="Page_133">{133}</SPAN></span>
<h2><i>Chapter VIII</i><br/> <small><i>The Mirror of Christ</i></small></h2></div>
<p><span class="smc">No</span> man who has been given the freedom of
the Faith is likely to fall into those hole-and-corner
extravagances in which later degenerate
Franciscans, or rather Fraticelli, sought to concentrate
entirely on St. Francis as a second
Christ, the creator of a new gospel. In fact
any such notion makes nonsense of every motive
in the man's life; for no man would reverently
magnify what he was meant to rival, or only
profess to follow what he existed to supplant.
On the contrary, as will appear later, this little
study would rather specially insist that it was
really the papal sagacity that saved the great
Franciscan movement for the whole world and
the universal Church, and prevented it from
petering out as that sort of stale and second-rate
sect that is called a new religion. Everything
that is written here must be understood not only
as distinct from but diametrically opposed to
the idolatry of the Fraticelli. The difference
between Christ and St. Francis was the difference
between the Creator and the creature;
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_134" id="Page_134">{134}</SPAN></span>
and certainly no creature was ever so conscious
of that colossal contrast as St. Francis
himself. But subject to this understanding,
it is perfectly true and it is vitally important
that Christ was the pattern on which St. Francis
sought to fashion himself; and that at many
points their human and historical lives were even
curiously coincident; and above all, that compared
to most of us at least St. Francis is a most
sublime approximation to his Master, and,
even in being an intermediary and a reflection,
is a splendid and yet a merciful Mirror of
Christ. And this truth suggests another, which
I think has hardly been noticed; but which
happens to be a highly forcible argument for
the authority of Christ being continuous in the
Catholic Church.</p>
<p>Cardinal Newman wrote in his liveliest controversial
work a sentence that might be a model
of what we mean by saying that his creed tends
to lucidity and logical courage. In speaking of
the ease with which truth may be made to look
like its own shadow or sham, he said, "And if
Antichrist is like Christ, Christ I suppose is
like Antichrist." Mere religious sentiment might
well be shocked at the end of the sentence;
but nobody could object to it except the logician
who said that Cæsar and Pompey were very
much alike, especially Pompey. It may give a
much milder shock if I say here, what most of
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_135" id="Page_135">{135}</SPAN></span>
us have forgotten, that if St. Francis was like
Christ, Christ was to that extent like St. Francis.
And my present point is that it is really very
enlightening to realise that Christ was like
St. Francis. What I mean is this; that if men
find certain riddles and hard sayings in the story
of Galilee, and if they find the answers to those
riddles in the story of Assisi, it really does show
that a secret has been handed down in one
religious tradition and no other. It shows that
the casket that was locked in Palestine can be
unlocked in Umbria; for the Church is the
keeper of the keys.</p>
<p>Now in truth while it has always seemed
natural to explain St. Francis in the light of
Christ, it has not occurred to many people to
explain Christ in the light of St. Francis. Perhaps
the word "light" is not here the proper
metaphor; but the same truth is admitted in
the accepted metaphor of the mirror. St. Francis
is the mirror of Christ rather as the moon is the
mirror of the sun. The moon is much smaller
than the sun, but it is also much nearer to us;
and being less vivid it is more visible. Exactly
in the same sense St. Francis is nearer to us, and
being a mere man like ourselves is in that sense
more imaginable. Being necessarily less of a
mystery, he does not, for us, so much open his
mouth in mysteries. Yet as a matter of fact,
many minor things that seem mysteries in the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_136" id="Page_136">{136}</SPAN></span>
mouth of Christ would seem merely characteristic
paradoxes in the mouth of St. Francis.
It seems natural to re-read the more remote
incidents with the help of the more recent ones.
It is a truism to say that Christ lived before
Christianity; and it follows that as an historical
figure He is a figure in heathen history. I mean
that the medium in which He moved was not the
medium of Christendom but of the old pagan
empire; and from that alone, not to mention
the distance of time, it follows that His circumstances
are more alien to us than those of an
Italian monk such as we might meet even to-day.
I suppose the most authoritative commentary
can hardly be certain of the current or conventional
weight of all His words or phrases; of
which of them would then have seemed a common
allusion and which a strange fancy. This archaic
setting has left many of the sayings standing
like hieroglyphics and subject to many and
peculiar individual interpretations. Yet it is
true of almost any of them that if we simply
translate them into the Umbrian dialect of the
first Franciscans, they would seem like any
other part of the Franciscan story; doubtless
in one sense fantastic, but quite familiar. All
sorts of critical controversies have revolved
round the passage which bids men consider the
lilies of the field and copy them in taking no
thought for the morrow. The sceptic has alternated
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_137" id="Page_137">{137}</SPAN></span>
between telling us to be true Christians
and do it, and explaining that it is impossible
to do. When he is a communist as well as an
atheist, he is generally doubtful whether to
blame us for preaching what is impracticable
or for not instantly putting it into practice. I
am not going to discuss here the point of ethics
and economics; I merely remark that even
those who are puzzled at the saying of Christ
would hardly pause in accepting it as a saying
of St. Francis. Nobody would be surprised to
find that he had said, "I beseech you, little
brothers, that you be as wise as Brother Daisy
and Brother Dandelion; for never do they lie
awake thinking of to-morrow, yet they have
gold crowns like kings and emperors or like
Charlemagne in all his glory." Even more
bitterness and bewilderment has arisen about
the command to turn the other cheek and to
give the coat to the robber who has taken the
cloak. It is widely held to imply the wickedness
of war among nations; about which, in itself,
not a word seems to have been said. Taken thus
literally and universally, it much more clearly
implies the wickedness of all law and government.
Yet there are many prosperous peacemakers who
are much more shocked at the idea of using the
brute force of soldiers against a powerful foreigner
than they are at using the brute force of policemen
against a poor fellow-citizen. Here again I
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_138" id="Page_138">{138}</SPAN></span>
am content to point out that the paradox becomes
perfectly human and probable if addressed by
Francis to Franciscans. Nobody would be surprised
to read that Brother Juniper did then
run after the thief that had stolen his hood,
beseeching him to take his gown also; for so
St. Francis had commanded him. Nobody would
be surprised if St. Francis told a young noble,
about to be admitted to his company, that so
far from pursuing a brigand to recover his shoes,
he ought to pursue him to make him a present
of his stockings. We may like or not the atmosphere
these things imply; but we know what
atmosphere they do imply. We recognise a
certain note as natural and clear as the note of
a bird; the note of St. Francis. There is in it
something of gentle mockery of the very idea of
possessions; something of a hope of disarming
the enemy by generosity; something of a humorous
sense of bewildering the worldly with the
unexpected; something of the joy of carrying
an enthusiastic conviction to a logical extreme.
But anyhow we have no difficulty in recognising
it, if we have read any of the literature of the
Little Brothers and the movement that began
in Assisi. It seems reasonable to infer that if
it was this spirit that made such strange things
possible in Umbria, it was the same spirit that
made them possible in Palestine. If we hear
the same unmistakable note and sense the same
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_139" id="Page_139">{139}</SPAN></span>
indescribable savour in two things at such a
distance from each other, it seems natural to
suppose that the case that is more remote from
our experience was like the case that is closer
to our experience. As the thing is explicable
on the assumption that Francis was speaking
to Franciscans, it is not an irrational explanation
to suggest that Christ also was speaking to some
dedicated band that had much the same function
as Franciscans. In other words, it seems only
natural to hold, as the Catholic Church has held,
that these counsels of perfection were part of
a particular vocation to astonish and awaken
the world. But in any case it is important to
note that when we do find these particular
features, with their seemingly fantastic fitness,
reappearing after more than a thousand years,
we find them produced by the same religious
system which claims continuity and authority
from the scenes in which they first appeared.
Any number of philosophies will repeat the
platitudes of Christianity. But it is the ancient
Church that can again startle the world with
the paradoxes of Christianity. <i>Ubi Petrus ibi
Franciscus.</i></p>
<p>But if we understand that it was truly under
the inspiration of his divine Master that St. Francis
did these merely quaint or eccentric
acts of charity, we must understand that it was
under the same inspiration that he did acts of
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_140" id="Page_140">{140}</SPAN></span>
self-denial and austerity. It is clear that these
more or less playful parables of the love of men
were conceived after a close study of the Sermon
on the Mount. But it is evident that he made
an even closer study of the silent sermon on that
other mountain; the mountain that was called
Golgotha. Here again he was speaking the
strict historical truth, when he said that in fasting
or suffering humiliation he was but trying to do
something of what Christ did; and here again
it seems probable that as the same truth appears
at the two ends of a chain of tradition, the tradition
has preserved the truth. But the import of
this fact at the moment affects the next phase
in the personal history of the man himself.</p>
<p>For as it becomes clearer that his great
communal scheme is an accomplished fact and
past the peril of an early collapse, as it becomes
evident that there already is such a thing as an
Order of the Friars Minor, this more individual
and intense ambition of St. Francis emerges
more and more. So soon as he certainly has
followers, he does not compare himself with his
followers, towards whom he might appear as a
master; he compares himself more and more
with his Master, towards whom he appears
only as a servant. This, it may be said in passing,
is one of the moral and even practical conveniences
of the ascetical privilege. Every other
sort of superiority may be superciliousness.
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_141" id="Page_141">{141}</SPAN></span>
But the saint is never supercilious, for he is
always by hypothesis in the presence of a superior.
The objection to an aristocracy is that it is a
priesthood without a god. But in any case the
service to which St. Francis had committed
himself was one which, about this time, he conceived
more and more in terms of sacrifice and
crucifixion. He was full of the sentiment that
he had not suffered enough to be worthy even
to be a distant follower of his suffering God.
And this passage in his history may really be
roughly summarised as the Search for Martyrdom.</p>
<p>This was the ultimate idea in the remarkable
business of his expedition among the Saracens
in Syria. There were indeed other elements
in his conception, which are worthy of more
intelligent understanding than they have often
received. His idea, of course, was to bring the
Crusades in a double sense to their end; that is,
to reach their conclusion and to achieve their
purpose. Only he wished to do it by conversion
and not by conquest; that is, by intellectual
and not material means. The modern mind is
hard to please; and it generally calls the way of
Godfrey ferocious and the way of Francis fanatical.
That is, it calls any moral method unpractical,
when it has just called any practical
method immoral. But the idea of St. Francis
was far from being a fanatical or necessarily
even an unpractical idea; though perhaps he
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_142" id="Page_142">{142}</SPAN></span>
saw the problem as rather too simple, lacking
the learning of his great inheritor Raymond
Lully, who understood more but has been quite
as little understood. The way he approached
the matter was indeed highly personal and
peculiar; but that was true of almost everything
he did. It was in one way a simple idea, as most
of his ideas were simple ideas. But it was not
a silly idea; there was a great deal to be said for
it and it might have succeeded. It was, of course,
simply the idea that it is better to create Christians
than to destroy Moslems. If Islam had been
converted, the world would have been immeasurably
more united and happy; for one thing,
three quarters of the wars of modern history
would never have taken place. It was not
absurd to suppose that this might be effected,
without military force, by missionaries who
were also martyrs. The Church had conquered
Europe in that way and may yet conquer Asia
or Africa in that way. But when all this is
allowed for, there is still another sense in which
St. Francis was not thinking of Martyrdom as a
means to an end, but almost as an end in itself;
in the sense that to him the supreme end was to
come closer to the example of Christ. Through
all his plunging and restless days ran the refrain:
I have not suffered enough; I have not sacrificed
enough; I am not yet worthy even of the shadow
of the crown of thorns. He wandered about the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_143" id="Page_143">{143}</SPAN></span>
valleys of the world looking for the hill that
has the outline of a skull.</p>
<p>A little while before his final departure for the
East a vast and triumphant assembly of the
whole order had been held near the Portiuncula;
and called The Assembly of the Straw Huts,
from the manner in which that mighty army
encamped in the field. Tradition says that it
was on this occasion that St. Francis met St. Dominic
for the first and last time. It also says,
what is probable enough, that the practical
spirit of the Spaniard was almost appalled at
the devout irresponsibility of the Italian, who
had assembled such a crowd without organising
a commissariat. Dominic the Spaniard was,
like nearly every Spaniard, a man with the mind
of a soldier. His charity took the practical
form of provision and preparation. But, apart
from the disputes about faith which such incidents
open, he probably did not understand in this
case the power of mere popularity produced
by mere personality. In all his leaps in the
dark, Francis had an extraordinary faculty of
falling on his feet. The whole countryside
came down like a landslide to provide food and
drink for this sort of pious picnic. Peasants
brought waggons of wine and game; great
nobles walked about doing the work of footmen.
It was a very real victory for the Franciscan
spirit of a reckless faith not only in God but in
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_144" id="Page_144">{144}</SPAN></span>
man. Of course there is much doubt and dispute
about the whole story and the whole relation
of Francis and Dominic; and the story of the
Assembly of the Straw Huts is told from the
Franciscan side. But the alleged meeting is
worth mentioning, precisely because it was
immediately before St. Francis set forth on his
bloodless crusade that he is said to have met
St. Dominic, who has been so much criticised for
lending himself to a more bloody one. There
is no space in this little book to explain how
St. Francis, as much as St. Dominic, would
ultimately have defended the defence of Christian
unity by arms. Indeed it would need a large
book instead of a little book to develop that
point alone from its first principles. For the
modern mind is merely a blank about the philosophy
of toleration; and the average agnostic
of recent times has really had no notion of what
he meant by religious liberty and equality.
He took his own ethics as self-evident and enforced
them; such as decency or the error of the Adamite
heresy. Then he was horribly shocked if he heard
of anybody else, Moslem or Christian, taking
<i>his</i> ethics as self-evident and enforcing <i>them</i>;
such as reverence or the error of the Atheist
heresy. And then he wound up by taking all
this lop-sided illogical deadlock, of the unconscious
meeting the unfamiliar, and called it
the liberality of his own mind. Medieval men
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_145" id="Page_145">{145}</SPAN></span>
thought that if a social system was founded
on a certain idea it must fight for that idea,
whether it was as simple as Islam or as carefully
balanced as Catholicism. Modern men really
think the same thing, as is clear when communists
attack their ideas of property. Only
they do not think it so clearly, because they
have not really thought out their idea of property.
But while it is probable that St. Francis would
have reluctantly agreed with St. Dominic that
war for the truth was right in the last resort,
it is certain that St. Dominic did enthusiastically
agree with St. Francis that it was far better
to prevail by persuasion and enlightenment
if it were possible. St. Dominic devoted himself
much more to persuading than to persecuting;
but there was a difference in the methods simply
because there was a difference in the men.
About everything St. Francis did there was
something that was in a good sense childish,
and even in a good sense wilful. He threw
himself into things abruptly, as if they had
just occurred to him. He made a dash for his
Mediterranean enterprise with something of the
air of a schoolboy running away to sea.</p>
<p>In the first act of that attempt he characteristically
distinguished himself by becoming the
Patron Saint of Stowaways. He never thought
of waiting for introductions or bargains or any
of the considerable backing that he already had
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_146" id="Page_146">{146}</SPAN></span>
from rich and responsible people. He simply
saw a boat and threw himself into it, as he threw
himself into everything else. It has all that
air of running a race which makes his whole life
read like an escapade or even literally an escape.
He lay like lumber among the cargo, with one
companion whom he had swept with him in
his rush; but the voyage was apparently unfortunate
and erratic and ended in an enforced
return to Italy. Apparently it was after this
first false start that the great re-union took
place at the Portiuncula, and between this and
the final Syrian journey there was also an attempt
to meet the Moslem menace by preaching to
the Moors in Spain. In Spain indeed several of
the first Franciscans had already succeeded
gloriously in being martyred. But the great
Francis still went about stretching out his arms
for such torments and desiring that agony in
vain. No one would have said more readily
than he that he was probably less like Christ
than those others who had already found their
Calvary; but the thing remained with him
like a secret; the strangest of the sorrows of
man.</p>
<p>His later voyage was more successful, so far
as arriving at the scene of operations was concerned.
He arrived at the headquarters of
the Crusade which was in front of the besieged
city of Damietta, and went on in his rapid and
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_147" id="Page_147">{147}</SPAN></span>
solitary fashion to seek the headquarters of the
Saracens. He succeeded in obtaining an interview
with the Sultan; and it was at that interview
that he evidently offered, and as some say proceeded,
to fling himself into the fire as a divine
ordeal, defying the Moslem religious teachers
to do the same. It is quite certain that he would
have done so at a moment's notice. Indeed
throwing himself into the fire was hardly more
desperate, in any case, than throwing himself
among the weapons and tools of torture of a
horde of fanatical Mahomedans and asking them
to renounce Mahomet. It is said further that
the Mahomedan muftis showed some coldness
towards the proposed competition, and that one
of them quietly withdrew while it was under
discussion; which would also appear credible.
But for whatever reason Francis evidently
returned as freely as he came. There may be
something in the story of the individual impression
produced on the Sultan, which the narrator
represents as a sort of secret conversion. There
may be something in the suggestion that the
holy man was unconsciously protected among
half-barbarous orientals by the halo of sanctity
that is supposed in such places to surround an
idiot. There is probably as much or more in
the more generous explanation of that graceful
though capricious courtesy and compassion which
mingled with wilder things in the stately Soldans
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_148" id="Page_148">{148}</SPAN></span>
of the type and tradition of Saladin. Finally,
there is perhaps something in the suggestion
that the tale of St. Francis might be told as a
sort of ironic tragedy and comedy called The
Man Who Could Not Get Killed. Men liked
him too much for himself to let him die for his
faith; and the man was received instead of the
message. But all these are only converging
guesses at a great effort that is hard to judge,
because it broke off short like the beginnings of
a great bridge that might have united East and
West, and remains one of the great might-have-beens
of history.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the great movement in Italy was
making giant strides. Backed now by papal
authority as well as popular enthusiasm, and
creating a kind of comradeship among all classes,
it had started a riot of reconstruction on all
sides of religious and social life; and especially
began to express itself in that enthusiasm for
building which is the mark of all the resurrections
of Western Europe. There had notably
been established at Bologna a magnificent mission
house of the Friars Minor; and a vast body of
them and their sympathisers surrounded it with
a chorus of acclamation. Their unanimity had
a strange interruption. One man alone in that
crowd was seen to turn and suddenly denounce
the building as if it had been a Babylonian temple;
demanding indignantly since when the Lady
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_149" id="Page_149">{149}</SPAN></span>
Poverty had thus been insulted with the luxury
of palaces. It was Francis, a wild figure, returned
from his Eastern Crusade; and it was the first
and last time that he spoke in wrath to his
children.</p>
<p>A word must be said later about this serious
division of sentiment and policy, about which
many Franciscans, and to some extent Francis
himself, parted company with the more moderate
policy which ultimately prevailed. At this point
we need only note it as another shadow fallen
upon his spirit after his disappointment in the
desert; and as in some sense the prelude to the
next phase of his career, which is the most isolated
and the most mysterious. It is true that everything
about this episode seems to be covered
with some cloud of dispute, even including its
date; some writers putting it much earlier in
the narrative than this. But whether or no it
was chronologically it was certainly logically
the culmination of the story, and may best be
indicated here. I say indicated for it must be a
matter of little more than indication; the thing
being a mystery both in the higher moral and the
more trivial historical sense. Anyhow the conditions
of the affair seem to have been these.
Francis and a young companion, in the course
of their common wandering, came past a great
castle all lighted up with the festivities attending
a son of the house receiving the honour of knighthood.
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_150" id="Page_150">{150}</SPAN></span>
This aristocratic mansion, which took its
name from Monte Feltro, they entered in their
beautiful and casual fashion and began to give
their own sort of good news. There were some at
least who listened to the saint "as if he had been
an angel of God"; among them a gentleman
named Orlando of Chiusi, who had great lands in
Tuscany, and who proceeded to do St. Francis a
singular and somewhat picturesque act of courtesy.
He gave him a mountain; a thing somewhat
unique among the gifts of the world. Presumably
the Franciscan rule which forbade a man to accept
money had made no detailed provision about
accepting mountains. Nor indeed did St. Francis
accept it save as he accepted everything, as a
temporary convenience rather than a personal
possession; but he turned it into a sort of refuge
for the eremitical rather than the monastic life;
he retired there when he wished for a life of prayer
and fasting which he did not ask even his closest
friends to follow. This was Alverno of the
Apennines, and upon its peak there rests for ever
a dark cloud that has a rim or halo of glory.</p>
<p>What it was exactly that happened there may
never be known. The matter has been, I believe,
a subject of dispute among the most devout
students of the saintly life as well as between
such students and others of the more secular sort.
It may be that St. Francis never spoke to a soul
on the subject; it would be highly characteristic,
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_151" id="Page_151">{151}</SPAN></span>
and it is certain in any case that he said very
little; I think he is only alleged to have spoken
of it to one man. Subject however to such truly
sacred doubts, I will confess that to me personally
this one solitary and indirect report that has
come down to us reads very like the report of
something real; of some of those things that
are more real than what we call daily realities.
Even something as it were double and bewildering
about the image seems to carry the impression
of an experience shaking the senses; as does the
passage in Revelations about the supernatural
creatures full of eyes. It would seem that St. Francis
beheld the heavens above him occupied
by a vast winged being like a seraph spread out
like a cross. There seems some mystery about
whether the winged figure was itself crucified
or in the posture of crucifixion, or whether it
merely enclosed in its frame of wings some
colossal crucifix. But it seems clear that there
was some question of the former impression;
for St. Bonaventura distinctly says that St. Francis
doubted how a seraph could be crucified,
since those awful and ancient principalities
were without the infirmity of the Passion. St. Bonaventura
suggests that the seeming contradiction
may have meant that St. Francis
was to be crucified as a spirit since he could not
be crucified as a man; but whatever the meaning
of the vision, the general idea of it is very vivid
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_152" id="Page_152">{152}</SPAN></span>
and overwhelming. St. Francis saw above him,
filling the whole heavens, some vast immemorial
unthinkable power, ancient like the Ancient of
Days, whose calm men had conceived under the
forms of winged bulls or monstrous cherubim,
and all that winged wonder was in pain like a
wounded bird. This seraphic suffering, it is said,
pierced his soul with a sword of grief and pity;
it may be inferred that some sort of mounting
agony accompanied the ecstasy. Finally after
some fashion the apocalypse faded from the
sky and the agony within subsided; and silence
and the natural air filled the morning twilight
and settled slowly in the purple chasms and
cleft abysses of the Apennines.</p>
<p>The head of the solitary sank, amid all that
relaxation and quiet in which time can drift by
with the sense of something ended and complete;
and as he stared downwards, he saw the marks
of nails in his own hands.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />