Slocum’s
explanation of the foundation of the Franciscan Order
Kay Slocum
follows the life of Francis Belardorne of Assisi. He was a young man who
involved himself in the conflicts between Assisi and neighbouring towns in
which he was taken captive and placed in prison where he became violently ill.
In seeking out religious consolation Francis heard a voice from the altar at
the Church of St. Damian saying, “Francis, go build my church.” After this he
began, using the materials from his father’s shop, to repair his church. His
father, enraged, imprisoned Francis however Francis managed to escape and
sought refuge with a local bishop. Shortly after Francis dramatically stripped
himself of clothing and proclaimed his allegiance to God and renounced his
father. Such was the beginning of his life as a holy man.
Francis proceeded to repair churches, however, did
not understand fully what his role was in the service of God. This was until a
priest’s sermon allowed Francis to realise that he should live and preach the
apostolic life, a life in which one was completely unburdened by the possession
of personal property or money. Francis, having attracted some followers, drew
up a rule detailing this lifestyle. In contrast to the cloistered monks of the
Cistercian Order Francis advocated a life residing amongst the people surviving
on work and alms. This was inspirational to those, particularly the literate,
who sought to imitate the life of Jesus according to the gospels due to
dissatisfaction with the “moral laxity” of the clergy and tedium of monastic
spirituality. Moreover Francis’ appreciation for the beauty of the natural
world allowed him to create an emotional connection with the populous including
heretics. As Slocum illustrates, however, Francis avoided serious accusations
of heresy himself due to his respect for the priesthood and sacraments. Though
initially reluctant, this allowed Pope Innocent to approve the Franciscan Rule
in 1210.
The Franciscan
Order, now official, began to expand and engage in missionary activity
throughout Europe. Though the order was conceived initially without governance
the increased size required Francis to write the second rule which reinforced
the commitment to authority and established an administrational hierarchy. From
there on the Franciscan Order had its own mature identity which began to
influence further religious orders of holy poverty such as the “Poor Clares.”
Also
Slocum’s explanation of the foundation of the Dominican Order
The Dominican order was different to that of the
Franciscans, although in some ways the two mirrored each other closely. The Dominicans “emphasized learning and education” (p.361) and it “closely resembled the traditional monastic
establishments” (p.361). It was
started as an attempt to control Cathar heresy. Dominic de Guzmán, a Spanish
priest, and his bishop Diego of Osma, began “itinerant
preaching” (p. 361) and eventually became known as the ‘order of
preachers’.
Like the Franciscans, the Dominicans adopted the
apostolic life of poverty, which suggests that this way of life was becoming
more of an ideal sought throughout Europe as it gained wealth.
The Dominicans were unable to create a new rule for
themselves, however the Pope Honorius III gave papal confirmation for the order
to become a branch of the Rule of St Augustine, as it was very close to the
desires of the Dominicans. Unlike St Francis, Dominic readily accepted the need
for administration and organisation and created a “representative form of government of the Order of Preachers” (p.365)
which was unique to it.
In Celano’s
account of Francis’ life, with what values does he imbue the figure of Francis?
Tomas of Celano, in his account of Francis’ life,
portrays him as a pious and devoted man who despises the burdens of material
possession in favour of spiritual wisdom, appreciation of God’s creation and
the apostolic life. Francis is bold yet gentle which serves to create an
enigmatic and almost Christ-like persona. These qualities are illustrated as
Francis, on receiving payment for the sale of his clothes and horse, offers it
almost immediately to a church in disrepair both in order to rebuild the church
and free him of the monetary burden. On the priests refusal of the donation
Francis throws the money out of the window “treating it as if it were dust.” He
does this, according to Celano, because “he wanted to possess wisdom, which is
better than gold, and prudence, which is more precious than silver.” This
contempt for worldly possessions is illustrated further when Francis, on
hearing the priest’s explanation of the gospel, discards all that he owns in
favour of a crude tunic. Even in poverty Francis reinforces his humility
through mortification of the flesh and his devotion to the service to god as he
strips himself of his clothes and hands them to his father, standing before him
completely naked unashamed. This is further established in his capture by the
Saracens in which he remains composed in the face of death and torture. His
dramatic actions are, however, always laced with a selflessness and respect for
all of God’s creation. His generosity is matched with his affection for nature.
Celano’s Francis possessed a powerful emanating grace which earned him much
exultation as a preacher. It in is this romantic balance between confidence and
compassion that Celano achieves the portrayal of Francis as almost a Christ
like figure.
From
Celano’s stories how do you understand Francis’ relationship with the natural
world?
Francis, in Celano’s stories, is profoundly and
connected to the natural world. He believes it crucial that all of creation
should know the word of God and became famous not only for his preaching to the
animals but the command he seemed to have of them.
“…He
exorted all birds, all animals, all reptiles, and even nonexistant creatures to
praise and love the creator for every day, when the name of the saviour was
announced, he himself saw their obedience”
Celano tells us about Francis’ travels as he
returns fish to the water, preaches to the birds and commands wildlife. Perhaps
most notable, however, is the way in which Celano shows Francis’ holiness and
compassion seems to miraculously emanate as if he were a Christ-like conduit of
the grace of God. This can be seen in the story of the woman made able to give
birth safely by touching the reigns of a horse ridden by Francis. His way with
the animals, was so great, that the animals themselves became holy.
Le Goff
places Francis life in the context of increased urbanisation. What argument
does Le Goff make about the impact of urban life upon Francis’ religious life?
In the years preceding Francis’ birth, the
population of Europe increased dramatically, and “people had to be fed, materially and spiritually” (p.1). People began to live closer together and so
more urban societies began to form as built-up areas formed around castles and
churches. Le Goff states that “holiness
related more directly to towns” (p.2), in order to maintain influence over
the population, the Church had to embrace towns and adapt to them.
The importance of possessions and property grew,
creating a more materialistic society. In response to that “the Church was the first to change” (p.3). The Gregorian reforms
were introduced which created strong distinctions between the Church and laity,
it also “involved an aspiration … to
achieve the true apostolic life” (p.4) New Orders appeared which preached a
return to poverty, these Orders were successful because they were able to
connect with the people in urban life who were becoming “increasingly active in religious life” (p.5).
Le Goff suggests that the rise of urbanisation
created a society where religion was more accessible to the people but the
world was becoming “one of exclusion” (p.11),
Francis, in contrast, proclaimed the “divine
presence in all creatures” (p.11). Thus it could be argued that Francis saw
the world as becoming increasingly focused on individuals and their property
and problems. As a result he tried to create a life of equality amongst all,
where the divine was the centre of all life. Throughout his life, St Francis
was often compared to Jesus, many believing that he was a new incarnation of
the Son of God.
--Bobbie & Jeremy
20 comments:
Sorry, I was just wondering...In reference to the sentence (first paragraph)- "He was a young man who involved himself in the conflicts between Assisi and neighbouring towns in which he was taken captive and placed in prison where he became violently ill." - Who is 'he'? Francis or Slocum?
And I have a question... Was there ever people that didn't base their lives around religion and the spiritual word of God? If so, where/how did they live?
Or was religion such an influence that people weren't given a choice - (though most people believed anyway)
I can't help but wonder if there was someone who thought Francis might have just been a crazy man talking to animals?
And I mean that in the sincerest of ways.
Hi Jess - the 'he' is Francis. Apart from anything else, Slocum is a woman, I'm pretty sure.
But to the more interesting parts of your comment! A good discussion starter. There were certainly people in medieval Europe who didn't practise Christianity, but I somehow doubt that there were people who had no beliefs at all. For example, Norway was only officially converted to Christianity under the eleventh century king, Olaf II, but the Norse had a vibrant pantheon of Gods before that. My answer would be that belief was a key part of basically everybody's life, and that for most people that meant some kind of Christianised belief - but not necessarily well or accurately understood, hence the emergence of heresies. People believed what they believed strongly, and they didn't feel as we might that religion is a sort of optional extra to 'real life', or something you only do on Sundays. It was everywhere and always, and was one of many factors affecting choice making, morality, etc. in daily life. A friend of mine who works on medieval Dominicans described it as 'kind of like Buddism in that it is a way of life and not just a way of worship; and kind of like Baz Lurhman's Romeo and Juliet in that it was almost hyper-real'. The medieval Christian could see holiness and power just about anywhere, where as we see 'nature' or 'the world' with a sort of detachment from it, even though we might think it's valuable or pretty. (Of course if you were a Cathar you looked about you and saw the world and knew that it was horrifyingly corrupt and that its decay was eating away at you... nasty, but still hyper-real.) This is one reason why those stories about Francis adoring the natural world were told, and why they were powerful: they were 'anti-Cathar' in the sense that they were demonstrating the goodness of the physical world. I find that quite radical and comforting personally!
Finally, while people may not always have believed that visions or miracles came from God (and therefore weren't 'true' in that sense), I think they were unlikely to see behaviour like Francis' as 'just crazy'. They didn't have a concept of 'just crazy' because they didn't have a 'scientific', post-Enlightenment view of the way the world worked. They understood life to be full of mysterious and Godly signs. Even if we think, "clearly this Francis guy had some kind of psychosis", we should recognise that for medieval people their framework for understanding that behaviour was totally different. Talking to yourself (or animals) was strange, and might have signalled possession by some evil spirit, but equally it might have been true Godly inspiration. After all, signs from God were normally expressed by unusual things - otherwise how would you distinguish them from everyday stuff?! Telling the difference was what they were worried about - and that's why things like Celano's Life of Francis was written... to try to demonstrate that it was the latter.
Thank you for asking me along Kathleen. I am Anne - the aforementioned friend who works on medieval Dominicans.
I wanted to add a few things to Slocum's comments. First of all, it is useful to remember that neither group were called Franciscan or Dominican in their own period. It is not until the sixteenth century that these names were applied. During the Middle Ages they were known as the Order of Friars Minor (Franciscans) and the Order of Preachers (Dominicans). Each order is thus differentiated by their task and in the case of the Dominicans, they did not specialise primarily in learning and education, but they were most interested in preaching and the spread of theologically sound doctrine. To do this, they had to educate themselves and this is why they were so involved in the Universities. So when they were in southern France, they were not necessarily controlling the Cathars, but instead they were engaged in larger a project of preaching and renewal. It is also useful to bear in mind that the Franciscan Order was also involved in a similar project as well as a more single minded pursuit of poverty.
In regards to whether or not Francis was just crazy, in some ways this is the whole point. The figure of Saint Francis is a difficult one, because he is by no means normal to us now, nor was he then to those who knew him. Part of the point of his extreme devotion to poverty and mendicancy (begging), of his singing to the birds and talking to animals is to force his contemporaries to think about their own life and their own faults. He is meant to be a disturbing figure, to make you uncomfortable and make you react. He went out of his way to do so. The example of the birds is in fact Francis turning around and saying he would have better success in preaching to the birds (It is also interesting to think about why in some versions he is singing whilst in others, he is preaching or talking. What is the difference?) than to humans. They pay more attention to God's words than do mankind. There are a number of implications in this for his relationship to the natural world, and how Francis (and Celano) used such stories of his interactions to get across messages to those listening. Rarely are these stories without a didactic meaning behind them.
I still hold that medieval belief is most akin to a combined Buddhism and Baz Lurhman, but it is also worthwhile recalling that there is no such thing as a 'nation state' in this period. Therefore there is no medicare, no centrelink, no (Or at least very, very few) indepedent hospitals, no psychologists or counsellors - none of the things we take for granted as being provided by someone who is not the church. Your social network is the material world of the church, so no matter the state of your soul the church is embedded within the physical and social aspect of your life. Indeed, more often than not it is the very centre of your town, markets and celebrations take place outside (sometimes inside!) them. All your family are buried there. So even if your belief was heretical or perhaps not as powerful as that of a person who has taken religious vows, you are still part of the Christian life just by being.
I just have a qustion that except the practical and political differences, are there any foundamental and theological disputes between Franciscans and Dominicans?
oh ok... I find it so hard to believe that there was no 'scientific' view, well if there was it was very very very limited.
If religion and belief and faith for the most part was such a strong, true part of everyone's life, how is it that it has become a choice nowadays? - Is this to do with the science we have today? - I wonder if there are more aspects than just science that decreased the impact of religion..
Shang - interesting questions. I think (but perhaps Anne will correct me) that the differences are essentially to do with practice in terms of how best to live a mendicant/monastic life. It seems unlikely that their differences extend to fundamental issues of theology, since the papacy approved them both at precisely the time when orthodoxy was a major issue. If anyone wants to follow this up and report back it would be most interesting!
Big questions Jess! I think the issue of what led to the decline (in some parts of the modern West) of religious practice is a huge and complex matter, not merely to do with 'science' but lots of social changes which fall outside our course but are fascinating to consider.
In medieval terms, they did have science, but it was a science that sat within Christian cultural assumptions without challenging them in strident ways. So when I said 'science' above with respect to Fracnis' mental state, I mean what we, now, understand as science, which is different from medieval science. Principles like experimentation and logical argument were already known and used - for example by Roger Bacon in the 13th century, who, incidentally, was a Franciscan - but the interpretation of the data was conducted within a Christian world view. The idea that science and religion are opposed is really a very recent one in human affairs! There's a lot written on this topic, but for interest your could begin with this book: Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives
Hey BTW, I just found this interesting article about violence against Franciscans and Dominicans in the medieval period by a scholar called Guy Geltner who is acually coming to visit Monash over the winter break. You might be interested too...
I'm just curious why was the Pope initially reluctant to approve the Franciscan Rule? was it because the greater church power didn't want to give up their wealth and items, or was it for another reason?
Good question Eloise. Does anyone want to put forward a suggestion? What did Francis stand for? And why might it have made the pope uneasy?
I believe the Pope was reluctant to accept the Franciscan Rule because it questioned the importance of wealth and possessions something the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church weren't willingly to sacrifice even for spiritual enlightment. There is that famous line from the Bible , "It is harder for a rich man to give up all his possessions than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" (Something along those lines)
I find Celano’s stories interesting, particularly the way in which they describe Francis’ connection to the natural world and therefore to the creations of God. Reinforcing Bobbie and Jeremy’s discussion of the values the figure of Francis represent and the comparative view between Christ and Francis.
I also completely agree with what Kathleen has said about understanding these ‘signs of God’ in a period eye. In other words keeping in mind that our understandings of the world is soooo much more advanced and developed then what Francis’ would have been in Medieval times. That is was anything strange or un explainable that occurred was either a sign from God or from the Devil and that the hold Christianity had over most of Medieval Europe was quite strong as the Church was extremely influential and powerful.
So, if we keep these things in mind, you can a better understanding of why so many people accepted these weird and unusual behaviors as a sign from some higher being. Don’t forget that God was seen as the center and creator of ALL things, therefor what was put on the earth was a representation of God and his will.
I agree with what Deniz said.
In terms of the whole Christendom's place within society thing and religion vs science ..…
I find it interesting that religion in the middle ages seemed to be about preaching to the masses and condemning anyone who went against orthodox belief as a heresy, whereas nowadays it seems the church is more based on appealing to people - almost recruiting support as opposed to condemning those who don’t follow (if you get me)… do you guys think that this is just the church having to adapt to the times … the role of the church has fundamentally changed, or something more??
Also, regarding Le Goff's piece - with urbanisation and the rise of towns ect. The reinstitution of money and cash on a large scale and having more material possessions to buy and sell, could this have increased general communal sin (stealing ect)…. Was Le Goff suggesting that sin contributed to the formation of orders, people embarking on crusade and developments in "doctrine of sin and the sacraments" in order for people to redeem themselves ect. or is this a bit of a stretch…
Another point..
I also agree with twaltrich (tom?) about the pope vs Franciscan rule
I found it interesting in Le Goff's piece, when it said that "new orders - the Cistercians, especially - tended towards acquisition of wealth, exploitation of lay brothers…." but that Francis of Assis wanted to "bring the town a feeling for poverty rather than material wealth", you'd think that the church would be more willing to support Francis than other orders, yet the Franciscans were the ones whole struggled for papal approval…
You're putting your finger on it there. The established church was wealthy, settled, part of the hierarchy or 'establishment'. Francis was against all that. He was a radical in a similar way to Jesus himself in his time. He was telling people to overthrow their devotion to all that 'worldly stuff' and live a really basic life of 'essentials only'. I think it threatened the church in at least two ways, and maybe you guys can think of some more. 1) it implicitly criticised them for their wealth, status and behaviour, etc. 2) it was a potential source of religious anarchy, which not only threatened the authority of the message as taught by the established church, but (in their eyes) could have put people's souls in peril by doing so. Given this I think the question of why the pope approved them - and the Dominicans - is a biggie!
On the Le Goff query... I don't think he's just saying that sin led to these developments, but that urbanisation led to new and increased opportunities for sin, and greater concentration of sin, and that therefore (perhaps) movements like the crusades, heresies, etc were products of urbanisation. Did anyone else get that impression from his chapter?
In regards to the Dominican and Franciscan orders, were they not types of Mendicant orders? Where by they rely on the charity of the people to support their orders. Why do they do this and what exactly does it entail?
You're right - they were mendicants (beggers). They had to work or beg for food, and have nothing of their own - not even a spare tunic or any shoes. It was a radical attempt to recreate the kind of life of Jesus and his early followers - wandering about preaching and living from the charity of believers. Why would they do this? I think there are at least two reasons. Anne touched on one above: it was a physical way of highlighting the hypocrisy of the sinful lives of townspeople and the wealth of churchmen. On the other hand, because it was Christlike, it was also inherently good. It was really challenging - but Jesus never said it was going to be easy to lead a good life. Taking on this tough life was a really literal and extreme way of demonstrating devotion.
Tiff's having trouble with her computer, she said her post will hopefully be up in the next hour and says "please dont fail me :p" haha
Sorry for the late post, I was stuck at work and then having technical difficulties!!
I found it very interesting how similar Thomas of Celano's account of Francis' life and Einhard's 'Life of Charlemagne' were. They both presented these men as Christ-like figures, and are both probably extremely biased!
In response to Gen's post, I believe the church has had to adapt to the times. When you look at the customs in the bible, such as stoning people, they have no relevance to society today. I think the church has had to change their approach to evangelism to appeal to different societies. Bible-bashing and condemning people in today's society would not win the church much popularity, so they've opted for a different method. I find it strange, though, how Jesus can preach a message of love and tolerance, yet the church (medieval and current) can still be so intolerant! What happened to 'love others' and 'treat others as you'd like to be treated'?
Post a Comment