there is undoubtedly a sense in which two is company and three is none; there is also another sense in which three is company and four is none, as is proved by the procession of historic and fictitious figures moving three deep, the famous trios like the three musketeers or the three soldiers of kipling. but there is yet another and a different sense in which four is company and three is none; if we use the word company in the vaguer sense of a crowd or a mass. with the fourth man enters the shadow of a mob; the group is no longer one of three individuals only conceived individually. that shadow of the fourth man fell across the little hermitage of the portiuncula when a man named egidio, apparently a poor workman, was invited by st. francis to enter. he mingled without difficulty with the merchant and the canon who had already become the companions of francis; but with his coming an invisible line was crossed; for it must have been felt by this time that the growth of that small group had become potentially infinite, or at least that its outline had become permanently indefinite. {114}it may have been in the time of that transition that francis had another of his dreams full of voices; but now the voices were a clamour of the tongues of all nations, frenchmen and italians and english and spanish and germans, telling of the glory of god each in his own tongue; a new pentecost and a happier babel.

before describing the first steps he took to regularise the growing group, it is well to have a rough grasp of what he conceived that group to be. he did not call his followers monks; and it is not clear, at this time at least, that he even thought of them as monks. he called them by a name which is generally rendered in english as the friars minor; but we shall be much closer to the atmosphere of his own mind if we render it almost literally as the little brothers. presumably he was already resolved, indeed, that they should take the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience which had always been the mark of a monk. but it would seem that he was not so much afraid of the idea of a monk as of the idea of an abbot. he was afraid that the great spiritual magistracies which had given even to their holiest possessors at least a sort of impersonal and corporate pride, would import an element of pomposity that would spoil his extremely and almost extravagantly simple version of the life of humility. but the supreme difference between his discipline and the discipline of the old monastic {115}system was concerned, of course, with the idea that the monks were to become migratory and almost nomadic instead of stationary. they were to mingle with the world; and to this the more old-fashioned monk would naturally reply by asking how they were to mingle with the world without becoming entangled with the world. it was a much more real question than a loose religiosity is likely to realise; but st. francis had his answer to it, of his own individual sort; and the interest of the problem is in that highly individual answer.

the good bishop of assisi expressed a sort of horror at the hard life which the little brothers lived at the portiuncula, without comforts, without possessions, eating anything they could get and sleeping anyhow on the ground. st. francis answered him with that curious and almost stunning shrewdness which the unworldly can sometimes wield like a club of stone. he said, "if we had any possessions, we should need weapons and laws to defend them." that sentence is the clue to the whole policy that he pursued. it rested upon a real piece of logic; and about that he was never anything but logical. he was ready to own himself wrong about anything else; but he was quite certain he was right about this particular rule. he was only once seen angry; and that was when there was talk of an exception to the rule.

{116}his argument was this: that the dedicated man might go anywhere among any kind of men, even the worst kind of men, so long as there was nothing by which they could hold him. if he had any ties or needs like ordinary men, he would become like ordinary men. st. francis was the last man in the world to think any the worse of ordinary men for being ordinary. they had more affection and admiration from him than they are ever likely to have again. but for his own particular purpose of stirring up the world to a new spiritual enthusiasm, he saw with a logical clarity that was quite reverse of fanatical or sentimental, that friars must not become like ordinary men; that the salt must not lose its savour even to turn into human nature's daily food. and the difference between a friar and an ordinary man was really that a friar was freer than an ordinary man. it was necessary that he should be free from the cloister; but it was even more important that he should be free from the world. it is perfectly sound common sense to say that there is a sense in which the ordinary man cannot be free from the world; or rather ought not to be free from the world. the feudal world in particular was one labyrinthine system of dependence; but it was not only the feudal world that went to make up the medieval world nor the medieval world that went to make up the whole world; and the whole world is full of this fact. {117}family life as much as feudal life is in its nature a system of dependence. modern trade unions as much as medieval guilds are interdependent among themselves even in order to be independent of others. in medieval as in modern life, even where these limitations do exist for the sake of liberty, they have in them a considerable element of luck. they are partly the result of circumstances; sometimes the almost unavoidable result of circumstances. so the twelfth century had been the age of vows; and there was something of relative freedom in that feudal gesture of the vow; for no man asks vows from slaves any more than from spades. still, in practice, a man rode to war in support of the ancient house of the column or behind the great dog of the stairway largely because he had been born in a certain city or countryside. but no man need obey little francis in the old brown coat unless he chose. even in his relations with his chosen leader he was in one sense relatively free, compared with the world around him. he was obedient but not dependent. and he was as free as the wind, he was almost wildly free, in his relation to that world around him. the world around him was, as has been noted, a network of feudal and family and other forms of dependence. the whole idea of st. francis was that the little brothers should be like little fishes who could go freely in and out of that net. they could do so precisely because {118}they were small fishes and in that sense even slippery fishes. there was nothing that the world could hold them by; for the world catches us mostly by the fringes of our garments, the futile externals of our lives. one of the franciscans says later, "a monk should own nothing but his harp"; meaning, i suppose, that he should value nothing but his song, the song with which it was his business as a minstrel to serenade every castle and cottage, the song of the joy of the creator in his creation and the beauty of the brotherhood of men. in imagining the life of this sort of visionary vagabond, we may already get a glimpse also of the practical side of that asceticism which puzzles those who think themselves practical. a man had to be thin to pass always through the bars and out of the cage; he had to travel light in order to ride so fast and so far. it was the whole calculation, so to speak, of that innocent cunning, that the world was to be outflanked and outwitted by him, and be embarrassed about what to do with him. you could not threaten to starve a man who was ever striving to fast. you could not ruin him and reduce him to beggary, for he was already a beggar. there was a very lukewarm satisfaction even in beating him with a stick, when he only indulged in little leaps and cries of joy because indignity was his only dignity. you could not put his head in a halter without the risk of putting it in a halo.

{119}but one distinction between the old monks and the new friars counted especially in the matter of practicality and especially of promptitude. the old fraternities with their fixed habitations and enclosed existence had the limitations of ordinary householders. however simply they lived there must be a certain number of cells or a certain number of beds or at least a certain cubic space for a certain number of brothers; their numbers therefore depended on their land and building material. but since a man could become a franciscan by merely promising to take his chance of eating berries in a lane or begging a crust from a kitchen, of sleeping under a hedge or sitting patiently on a doorstep, there was no economic reason why there should not be any number of such eccentric enthusiasts within any short period of time. it must also be remembered that the whole of this rapid development was full of a certain kind of democratic optimism that really was part of the personal character of st. francis. his very asceticism was in one sense the height of optimism. he demanded a great deal of human nature not because he despised it but rather because he trusted it. he was expecting a very great deal from the extraordinary men who followed him; but he was also expecting a good deal from the ordinary men to whom he sent them. he asked the laity for food as confidently as he asked the fraternity for fasting. but he {120}counted on the hospitality of humanity because he really did regard every house as the house of a friend. he really did love and honour ordinary men and ordinary things; indeed we may say that he only sent out the extraordinary men to encourage men to be ordinary.

this paradox may be more exactly stated or explained when we come to deal with the very interesting matter of the third order, which was designed to assist ordinary men to be ordinary with an extraordinary exultation. the point at issue at present is the audacity and simplicity of the franciscan plan for quartering its spiritual soldiery upon the population; not by force but by persuasion, and even by the persuasion of impotence. it was an act of confidence and therefore a compliment. it was completely successful. it was an example of something that clung about st. francis always; a kind of tact that looked like luck because it was as simple and direct as a thunderbolt. there are many examples in his private relations of this sort of tactless tact; this surprise effected by striking at the heart of the matter. it is said that a young friar was suffering from a sort of sulks between morbidity and humility, common enough in youth and hero-worship, in which he had got it into his head that his hero hated or despised him. we can imagine how tactfully social diplomatists would steer clear of scenes and excitements, how cautiously psychologists {121}would watch and handle such delicate cases. francis suddenly walked up to the young man, who was of course secretive and silent as the grave, and said, "be not troubled in your thoughts for you are dear to me, and even among the number of those who are most dear. you know that you are worthy of my friendship and society; therefore come to me, in confidence, whensoever you will, and from friendship learn faith." exactly as he spoke to that morbid boy he spoke to all mankind. he always went to the point; he always seemed at once more right and more simple than the person he was speaking to. he seemed at once to be laying open his guard and yet lunging at the heart. something in this attitude disarmed the world as it has never been disarmed again. he was better than other men; he was a benefactor of other men; and yet he was not hated. the world came into church by a newer and nearer door; and by friendship it learnt faith.

it was while the little knot of people at the portiuncula was still small enough to gather in a small room that st. francis resolved on his first important and even sensational stroke. it is said that there were only twelve franciscans in the whole world when he decided to march, as it were, on rome and found a franciscan order. it would seem that this appeal to remote headquarters was not generally regarded as necessary; {122}possibly something could have been done in a secondary way under the bishop of assisi and the local clergy. it would seem even more probable that people thought it somewhat unnecessary to trouble the supreme tribunal of christendom about what a dozen chance men chose to call themselves. but francis was obstinate and as it were blind on this point; and his brilliant blindness is exceedingly characteristic of him. a man satisfied with small things, or even in love with small things, he yet never felt quite as we do about the disproportion between small things and large. he never saw things to scale in our sense, but with a dizzy disproportion which makes the mind reel. sometimes it seems merely out of drawing like a gaily coloured medieval map; and then again it seems to have escaped from everything like a short cut in the fourth dimension. he is said to have made a journey to interview the emperor, throned among his armies under the eagle of the holy roman empire, to intercede for the lives of certain little birds. he was quite capable of facing fifty emperors to intercede for one bird. he started out with two companions to convert the mahomedan world. he started out with eleven companions to ask the pope to make a new monastic world.

innocent iii., the great pope, according to bonaventura, was walking on the terrace of st. john lateran, doubtless revolving the great {123}political questions which troubled his reign, when there appeared abruptly before him a person in peasant costume whom he took to be some sort of shepherd. he appears to have got rid of the shepherd with all convenient speed; possibly he formed the opinion that the shepherd was mad. anyhow he thought no more about it until, says the great franciscan biographer, he dreamed that night a strange dream. he fancied that he saw the whole huge ancient temple of st. john lateran, on whose high terraces he had walked so securely, leaning horribly and crooked against the sky as if all its domes and turrets were stooping before an earthquake. then he looked again and saw that a human figure was holding it up like a living caryatid; and the figure was that of the ragged shepherd or peasant from whom he had turned away on the terrace. whether this be a fact or a figure it is a very true figure of the abrupt simplicity with which francis won the attention and the favour of rome. his first friend seems to have been the cardinal giovanni di san paolo who pleaded for the franciscan idea before a conclave of cardinals summoned for the purpose. it is interesting to note that the doubts thrown upon it seem to have been chiefly doubts about whether the rule was not too hard for humanity, for the catholic church is always on the watch against excessive asceticism and its evils. probably they meant, especially when they said {124}it was unduly hard, that it was unduly dangerous. for a certain element that can only be called danger is what marks the innovation as compared with older institutions of the kind. in one sense indeed the friar was almost the opposite of the monk. the value of the old monasticism had been that there was not only an ethical but an economic repose. out of that repose had come the works for which the world will never be sufficiently grateful, the preservation of the classics, the beginning of the gothic, the schemes of science and philosophies, the illuminated manuscripts and the coloured glass. the whole point of a monk was that his economic affairs were settled for good; he knew where he would get his supper, though it was a very plain supper. but the whole point of a friar was that he did not know where he would get his supper. there was always a possibility that he might get no supper. there was an element of what would be called romance, as of the gipsy or adventurer. but there was also an element of potential tragedy, as of the tramp or the casual labourer. so the cardinals of the thirteenth century were filled with compassion, seeing a few men entering of their own free will that estate to which the poor of the twentieth century are daily driven by cold coercion and moved on by the police.

cardinal san paolo seems to have argued more or less in this manner: it may be a hard life, but {125}after all it is the life apparently described as ideal in the gospel; make what compromises you think wise or humane about that ideal; but do not commit yourselves to saying that men shall not fulfil that ideal if they can. we shall see the importance of this argument when we come to the whole of that higher aspect of the life of st. francis which may be called the imitation of christ. the upshot of the discussion was that the pope gave his verbal approval to the project and promised a more definite endorsement, if the movement should grow to more considerable proportions. it is probable that innocent, who was himself a man of no ordinary mentality, had very little doubt that it would do so; anyhow he was not left long in doubt before it did do so. the next passage in the history of the order is simply the story of more and more people flocking to its standard; and as has already been remarked, once it had begun to grow, it could in its nature grow much more quickly than any ordinary society requiring ordinary funds and public buildings. even the return of the twelve pioneers from their papal audience seems to have been a sort of triumphal procession. in one place in particular, it is said, the whole population of a town, men, women and children, turned out, leaving their work and wealth and homes exactly as they stood and begging to be taken into the army of god on the spot. according to the story, {126}it was on this occasion that st. francis first foreshadowed his idea of the third order which enabled men to share in the movement without leaving the homes and habits of normal humanity. for the moment it is most important to regard this story as one example of the riot of conversion with which he was already filling all the roads of italy. it was a world of wandering; friars perpetually coming and going in all the highways and byways, seeking to ensure that any man who met one of them by chance should have a spiritual adventure. the first order of st. francis had entered history.

this rough outline can only be rounded off here with some description of the second and third orders, though they were founded later and at separate times. the former was an order for women and owed its existence, of course, to the beautiful friendship of st. francis and st. clare. there is no story about which even the most sympathetic critics of another creed have been more bewildered and misleading. for there is no story that more clearly turns on that simple test which i have taken as crucial throughout this criticism. i mean that what is the matter with these critics is that they will not believe that a heavenly love can be as real as an earthly love. the moment it is treated as real, like an earthly love, their whole riddle is easily resolved. a girl of seventeen, named clare and belonging to one {127}of the noble families of assisi, was filled with an enthusiasm for the conventual life; and francis helped her to escape from her home and to take up the conventual life. if we like to put it so, he helped her to elope into the cloister, defying her parents as he had defied his father. indeed the scene had many of the elements of a regular romantic elopement; for she escaped through a hole in the wall, fled through a wood and was received at midnight by the light of torches. even mrs. oliphant, in her fine and delicate study of st. francis, calls it "an incident which we can hardly record with satisfaction."

now about that incident i will here only say this. if it had really been a romantic elopement and the girl had become a bride instead of a nun, practically the whole modern world would have made her a heroine. if the action of the friar towards clare had been the action of the friar towards juliet, everybody would be sympathising with her exactly as they sympathise with juliet. it is not conclusive to say that clare was only seventeen. juliet was only fourteen. girls married and boys fought in battles at such early ages in medieval times; and a girl of seventeen in the thirteenth century was certainly old enough to know her own mind. there cannot be the shadow of a doubt, for any sane person considering subsequent events, that st. clare did know her own mind. but the point for the moment is that {128}modern romanticism entirely encourages such defiance of parents when it is done in the name of romantic love. for it knows that romantic love is a reality, but it does not know that divine love is a reality. there may have been something to be said for the parents of clare; there may have been something to be said for peter bernardone. so there may have been a great deal to be said for the montagues or the capulets; but the modern world does not want it said; and does not say it. the fact is that as soon as we assume for a moment as a hypothesis, what st. francis and st. clare assumed all the time as an absolute, that there is a direct divine relation more glorious than any romance, the story of st. clare's elopement is simply a romance with a happy ending; and st. francis is the st. george or knight-errant who gave it a happy ending. and seeing that some millions of men and women have lived and died treating this relation as a reality, a man is not much of a philosopher if he cannot even treat it as a hypothesis.

for the rest, we may at least assume that no friend of what is called the emancipation of women will regret the revolt of st. clare. she did most truly, in the modern jargon, live her own life, the life that she herself wanted to lead, as distinct from the life into which parental commands and conventional arrangements would have forced her. she became the foundress of a great feminine {129}movement which still profoundly affects the world; and her place is with the powerful women of history. it is not clear that she would have been so great or so useful if she had made a runaway match, or even stopped at home and made a mariage de convenance. so much any sensible man may well say considering the matter merely from the outside; and i have no intention of attempting to consider it from the inside. if a man may well doubt whether he is worthy to write a word about st. francis, he will certainly want words better than his own to speak of the friendship of st. francis and st. clare. i have often remarked that the mysteries of this story are best expressed symbolically in certain silent attitudes and actions. and i know no better symbol than that found by the felicity of popular legend, which says that one night the people of assisi thought the trees and the holy house were on fire, and rushed up to extinguish the conflagration. but they found all quiet within, where st. francis broke bread with st. clare at one of their rare meetings, and talked of the love of god. it would be hard to find a more imaginative image, for some sort of utterly pure and disembodied passion, than that red halo round the unconscious figures on the hill; a flame feeding on nothing and setting the very air on fire.

but if the second order was the memorial of such an unearthly love, the third order was as {130}solid a memorial of a very solid sympathy with earthly loves and earthly lives. the whole of this feature in catholic life, the lay orders in touch with clerical orders, is very little understood in protestant countries and very little allowed for in protestant history. the vision which has been so faintly suggested in these pages has never been confined to monks or even to friars. it has been an inspiration to innumerable crowds of ordinary married men and women; living lives like our own, only entirely different. that morning glory which st. francis spread over earth and sky has lingered as a secret sunshine under a multitude of roofs and in a multitude of rooms. in societies like ours nothing is known of such a franciscan following. nothing is known of such obscure followers; and if possible less is known of the well-known followers. if we imagine passing us in the street a pageant of the third order of st. francis, the famous figures would surprise us more than the strange ones. for us it would be like the unmasking of some mighty secret society. there rides st. louis, the great king, lord of the higher justice whose scales hang crooked in favour of the poor. there is dante crowned with laurel, the poet who in his life of passions sang the praises of the lady poverty, whose grey garment is lined with purple and all glorious within. all sorts of great names from the most recent and rationalistic centuries would stand revealed; the great {131}galvani, for instance, the father of all electricity, the magician who has made so many modern systems of stars and sounds. so various a following would alone be enough to prove that st. francis had no lack of sympathy with normal men, if the whole of his own life did not prove it.

but in fact his life did prove it, and that possibly in a more subtle sense. there is, i fancy, some truth in the hint of one of his modern biographers, that even his natural passions were singularly normal and even noble, in the sense of turning towards things not unlawful in themselves but only unlawful for him. nobody ever lived of whom we could less fitly use the word "regret" than francis of assisi. though there was much that was romantic, there was nothing in the least sentimental about his mood. it was not melancholy enough for that. he was of far too swift and rushing a temper to be troubled with doubts and reconsiderations about the race he ran; though he had any amount of self-reproach about not running faster. but it is true, one suspects, that when he wrestled with the devil, as every man must to be worth calling a man, the whispers referred mostly to those healthy instincts that he would have approved for others; they bore no resemblance to that ghastly painted paganism which sent its demoniac courtesans to plague st. anthony in the desert. if st. francis had only pleased himself, it would have been with {132}simpler pleasures. he was moved to love rather than lust, and by nothing wilder than wedding-bells. it is suggested in that strange story of how he defied the devil by making images in the snow, and crying out that these sufficed him for a wife and family. it is suggested in the saying he used when disclaiming any security from sin, "i may yet have children"; almost as if it was of the children rather than the woman that he dreamed. and this, if it be true, gives a final touch to the truth about his character. there was so much about him of the spirit of the morning, so much that was curiously young and clean, that even what was bad in him was good. as it was said of others that the light in their body was darkness, so it may be said of this luminous spirit that the very shadows in his soul were of light. evil itself could not come to him save in the form of a forbidden good; and he could only be tempted by a sacrament.