FRANCIS
210
FRANCIS
other orders, after which no one may leave the order
(c. ii of the rule of 1221). Furthermore we see in
c. xviii of the second rule, that much authorityis given
to the ministers through the general chapter, which
hitherto had been frequented by all the brothers, but
now is reserved to the ministers. The second rule was
probably published at the General Chapter of Portiun-
cula, 1221, where for the last time all the friars con-
vened. It was certainly in use in the autumn of the
same year, since the Friars in Germany held at Augs-
burg, Oct., 1221, a provincial chapter in accordance
with c. xviii of this rule (See Jordanus, c. xxiii , Analecta
Franciscana, i, 9 ; ed. Bohmer, p. 27). The second rule
is called " Regula prima " by all older Franciscan writ-
ers, it being the first known in its text, or also " Regula
non bullata ", for it was never solemnly confirmed by
a papal Bull. It has been preserved in many manu-
scripts and has been often printed, but there are some
noteworthy discrepancies of text in chaps, x and xii.
The following remarks may be added to characterize
it. The rule of 1221 consists of twenty-three chapters,
some of which are composed almost entirely of Scrip-
tural texts; in others many admonitions are found and
towards the end even prayers. The introductory
words " Brother PVancis . . . promises obedience and
reverence to our Lord Pope Innocent" (d. 1216)
show clearly that the second rule is only an enlarged
version of tlie primitive one. In chaps, iv and xviii ap-
pears an organization, which at the time the first rule
was written (1209) could not have existed, since St.
Francis had then only twelve companions. Chap, vii, on
Working and Serving, is almost certainly of the primi-
tive rule, for its prohibition " not to be chamberlains,
nor cellarers, nor overseers in the houses of those whom
they serve ", found scarcely, or only exceptionally, any
application in 1221. The Life of "Brother Giles (Ana-
lecta Francisc, iii, 74 sq., and the introduction of
Robinson's "The Golden Sayings of the Blessed
Brother Giles", Philadelphia, 1907) may be read as an
illustration of this chapter. It may appear strange
that neither Thomas of Celano nor St. Bonaventure
mentions this second rule, which certainly marked an
important stage in the Franciscan Order. The reason
thereof may be because it was composed in connexion
with troubles arisen within the order, on which they
preferred to keep silent.
(c) The Rule of 1223.— St. Bonaventure (Leg. maj., c. iv) relates that when the order had greatly in- creased, St. Francis had a vision which determined him to reduce the rule to a more compendious form. (See also II Cel., ii, 159.) From St. Bonaventure (loc. cit.), "Speculum perfectionis " (c. i), and other sources we know that St. Francis, with Brother Leo and Brother Bonizo of Bologna (see, however, on the latter, Carmichael, "The two Companions" in Fran- ciscan Monthly, Lx (1904), n. 86, p. 34-37), went in 1223 to Fonte Colombo, a beautiful wood-covered hill near Rieti, where, fasting on bread and water, he caused the rule, the fruit of his prayers, to be written by the hand of Brother Leo, as the Holy Spirit dic- tated. Elias, to whom this rule was entrusted, after a few days declared that he had lost it, hence St. Francis had the rule rewritten. Spiritual sources give other rather dramatic circumstances, under which the new rule was communicated to the provincials, headed by Brother Elias. As the primary authorities on the life of St. Francis say nothing on the point, it may be sup- posed that those records served only to justify the Spirituals in their opposition to the rest of the order. The rule composed in 1223 was solemnly confirmed by the Bull "Solet annuere" of Ilonorius III, 29 Nov., 1223 (Bull. Franc, I, 1.5), and, as St. Bonaventure (Leg. maj., c. iv) and many other early Franciscan writers observe, by the Bull of the Highest Priest Jesus Christ , through the impression of the Stigmata, 14 Sept., 1224.
The rule of 1223 is the Franciscan Rule properly so
called, the rule which the Friars Minor still observe.
It is named by Franciscan authors "Regula bullata"
or "Regula secunda". The question has been put
whether St. Francis was quite free in drawing up the
definitive text of his rule. From what has been al-
ready said, it may be gathered that St. Francis suc-
cessively developed his rule, adapting it to the cir-
cumstances; hence if all the particulars of the former
rules are not found in the last one that is no reason to
say St. Francis omitted them against his own will.
Those who believe in an influence exercised on St.
Francis in recasting the third rule appeal to the fol-
lowing points: Firstly, in a letter (Opuscula S. Fran-
cisci, Quaracchi, 1904, ep. iii, p. 108 sq.) which St.
Francis wrote to a certain minister, perhaps to Elias, he
proposes that at the next chaj^ter of Whitsuntide a
chapter of the rule should be written to the effect that
if any brother has sinned venially and humljly owns it,
they (the ministers or the priests) shall " have abso-
lutely no power of enjoining other penance save only
this: go and sin no more". Now in c. vii of the third
rule only merciful treatment of sinning brothers in
general is recommended. Secondly, Angelo Clareno
(Trib. i, ed. Tocco, op. cit., p. 58, and "Expositio in
Reg.") tells us that the dispositions of c. x in the third
rule were much in favour of the friars, who recurred to
their ministers for the pure observance of the rule, but
Honorius III, seeing the inconvenience of such a large
concession, modified those passages, before approving
the rule. Thirdly, Gregory IX, in the Bull "Quo
elongati"_ (1230), says that he knew the intention of
St. Francis with regard to the rule, as he had assisted
him when he WTOte it and obtained its confirmation.
Fourthly, in c. xiv of the second rule, is the passage of
the evangelical prohibitions (Luke, ix, 3), which is not
to be found in the last rule, and the reason thereof is
indicated by Spiritual authorities, such as "Speculum
perfectionis", e. iii, Angelo Clareno (Trib. 1): "the
Ministers caused it to be removed from the Rule".
It is hard to say how far these assertions are true,
since we have all this information, with the exception
of that given by Gregory IX, from sources that are
not quite free of suspicion. Carmichael (Dublin Re-
view, 1904, CXXXIV, n. 269, p. 372 sq.) has with
skill attacked all these arguments. Still some diver-
gence of views may have existed on a few points.
Another question connected with the former one is
whether the rule was revealed to St. Francis. To put
the question clearly we should ask, which of the three
rules was revealed? Against the theory of the Spirit-
uals it is more reasonable to say that St. Francis fol-
lowed an inner light of grace when taking the texts of
the Gospel as his rule of life in the years 1208-1209.
Only of that first rule does St. Francis himself speak
as revealed to him. (See the words of his Testament
cited above.) Of course a special guidance of Provi-
dence must be admitted in a work of such importance
as the definitive Rule of St. Francis.
(2) Contents of the. Rule. — The rule is contained in the Bull "Solet annuere", and begins with these char- acteristic words: "The rule and life of the Minor Brothers is this, namely, to observe the holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ by living in obedience, without property and in chastity." St. Francis promises obedience to Pope Honorius and his successors, the other brothers are to obey Brother Francis and his successors (c. i). Having thus laid the solid founda- tion of unity upon the Church, St. Francis gives par- ticulars concerning reception, profession, and vest^ ments of the brotliers. They are forbidclen to wear shoes, if not compelled through necessity (c. ii). Chapter the third prescribes for the clerics " the Divine Ofiice according to the order of the holy Roman Church, with the exception of the Psalter; wherefore (or, as soon as) they may have breviaries". The lay- brothers have to say Paternosters, disposed according to the canonical hours. The brothers are to "fast
