FRANCISCAN QUESTION
This name is given to the question of the biographical sources of St Francis, particularly concerning the legend known as *De tribus sociis* ("Of the Three Companions"), which has involved, in scholarly treatments, the so-called *Speculum Perfectionis* and other biographies from the first century of Franciscan historical literature.
### I. THE BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES OF ST FRANCIS
In addition to the short works left by the Saint himself, there is a vast body of biographical material in numerous legends or biographies from the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th, which are considered sources for his life and fall into two broad categories: authentic legends and legends of uncertain origin. The authentic legends are the two by Thomas of Celano, together with the *Tractatus de miraculis*, and the legend written by St Bonaventure; various versions were derived from these (such as one by Caesarius of Speyer and a metrical one by Henry of Avranches), particularly for illustrative purposes. Legends of uncertain origin are those whose author, precise provenance, and date of composition are unknown. Among these, the most important are the legend *De tribus sociis* and the *Speculum Perfectionis*. The entire Franciscan Question revolves around these, having arisen towards the end of the last century and remaining unresolved.
### II. ORIGINS OF THE CONTROVERSY
The legend *De tribus sociis* is so called because it begins with a letter written by the three companions of St Francis—Brother Leo, Brother Angelo, and Brother Rufino—from Greccio on 17 September 1246, in which they say they are sending some of their recollections to the Minister General. It was already known from the *Acta Sanctorum* (October, II, Antwerp 1768). In 1856, however, the annalist of the Order, Fr Stanislao Melchiorri, published a vernacular version of the same legend, but one that was much more extensive (79 chapters instead of the traditional 18), the missing material having been taken from other biographical sources about the Saint (Celano, St Bonaventure, the *Fioretti*, etc.).
In 1894, Sabatier (q.v.), in his *Vie de St François*, analysed the legend and noted how disproportionate it was in its account of the Saint’s life (of the 18 chapters, 14 dealt with his youth and early conversion, 2 concerned Cardinal Ugolino [Gregory IX], and the others with his death and canonisation), and suggested the idea that the legend had been mutilated, perhaps by the superiors of the Order. This idea was taken up by Frs Marcellino da Civezza and Teofilo Domenichelli, who claimed to reconstruct it in its entirety based on the vernacular version published by Melchiorri in 1856 (1899). This futile attempt gave Fr Van Ortroy the opportunity to demolish critically the authenticity of the legend itself, considering it a compilation from the 14th or the end of the 13th century. For him, the prologue letter remained doubtful as it did not correspond to the content. Sabatier replied, but most critics sided with Fr Van Ortroy.
At this point, the *Speculum Perfectionis* appeared, known to Franciscan historians but now presented in a scholarly edition by Fr Sabatier (1898) as an unpublished work attributed to Brother Leo. Based on a false notice in the Mazarin Codex, Sabatier dated its composition to 1227, barely a year after the death of the Seraphic Father, without noticing the patent implausibility of the date, which was soon pointed out by critics. In 1900, Salvatore Minocchi discovered another codex in the Convent of Ognissanti in Florence, dated 1318, which was far more plausible. Through simple critical deductions, he nonetheless discovered in the narratives of the *Speculum* an older core that could go back to the companions of St Francis. Shortly afterwards, Fr Leonardo Lemmens indeed found an earlier redaction of the *Speculum* in a codex from St Isidore (1/73) in Rome, in almost perfect agreement with Minocchi’s deductions, from which he concluded that the true writing sent by the "technologists" with the letter from Greccio to the Minister General in 1246 was precisely this one. Other difficulties, however, do not leave the matter entirely certain: for example, the fact that the prologue’s success in the codices is always linked to the traditional legend of the Three Companions and never to the *Speculum Perfectionis*.
### III. RESULTS AND HYPOTHESES
If Minocchi’s opinion is accepted, what remains of the legend of the Three Companions? Some, especially the older scholars and Sabatierians, and even some recent ones, admit its authenticity, but among them some say it is intact and fully consistent with the prologue (Pulignani, recently Barbi, etc.), others say it is mutilated (Sabatier), and others see it as part of a composition completed by the *Speculum* (Mandonnet, Tillemann, Joergensen). Most, however, reject its authenticity and date it to the end of the 13th or the beginning of the 14th century: some consider it a unitary but late compilation from earlier sources, especially Celano (Bihl); others see it as drawing on earlier, partly unknown or lost sources (Cuthbert); for others, it drew on the same sources as Celano’s *Legenda secunda* (Oliger); a very recent opinion (Moorman) suggests it was composed in successive stages, with an initial core dating to before Celano’s *Legenda Prima* (1228).
From all this, it is clear how far the problem remains from being resolved, as it also involves other secondary issues.
**
The rupture of diplomatic relations with the French Republic (29 July 1904), the abrogation of the Concordat, and the proclamation of the law on the separation of Church and State (9 Dec. 1904) led Pius X to a certain rapprochement with the Quirinale. Figures from the royal court, parliamentarians, and public officials appeared at papal audiences contrary to the custom hitherto maintained. An even more significant fact: the Pope, concerned about the increase in the number of deputies of the extreme left, authorized (11 June 1905) the legislative voting of Italian Catholics, but only in particular cases, when the strict necessity for the good of souls and for the supreme interests of individual dioceses was recognized (encycl. Il fermo proposito, in Pii X Acta, II, Rome 1907, pp. 112-32).
The formation of a Catholic party was, however, still not permitted. The conclusion of the Gentiloni Pact (v.) enabled Giolitti, thanks to the contribution of Catholic votes and candidates, to achieve an electoral triumph in 1913 and brought with it important consequences. At the Settimana sociale held in Milan from 30 Nov. to 6 Dec. 1913, the Archbishop of Udine A. Rossi, in his opening address, asked whether «the present condition of society, become atheistic and pagan, could still permit a civil principate of the popes, which Providence had established to guarantee the freedom of the Church». It was noted how this situation was entirely inadequate to the mission of the Holy See, though it was maintained that it was still necessary for the freedom of the Pope not to be precarious but stable and inviolable, «safeguarded, indeed, by a pledge or guarantee of an international character, since this freedom concerned Catholics of all nations». In his closing speech Count Giuseppe Dalla Torre expressed the wish that the q. r. might be resolved «through the constitutional will of the country, on the part of the State», but without compromising the principle of the sovereignty of the Holy See.
The Osservatore Romano of 20 Dec. raised no objection to these words, and though it noted that these were merely studies, it allowed the discussion to proceed regarding the manner of the guarantee. Pius X, it was surmised, would not prove intransigent, except on the question of principle. Meanwhile, the world war of 1914 broke out.
The inadequacy of the Law of Guarantees became evident when Italy joined the Allies (24 May 1915). The presence in Rome of the ambassadors of the Central Powers presented serious difficulties. The diplomats moved to Lugano; Benedict XV thus found himself in serious difficulties in his relations with the Catholic world. Nevertheless, he did not accept the hospitality kindly offered by the King of Spain, hoping that the conclusion of the peace treaty, which would inevitably bring the war period to a close, would provide him with the opportunity to regulate the q. r. with the sanction of Europe. The imprudently tendentious press campaign that immediately opened in Germany, Austria, and Bavaria in favor of the restoration of temporal power came close to compromising the Holy See. Benedict XV had to intervene through his Secretary of State, Cardinal Gasparri, who in an interview on 28 June 1915 declared that the Holy See expected «a suitable settlement of its situation not from foreign arms, but from the triumph of those sentiments of justice which it hopes will increasingly spread among the Italian people in accordance with their true interest» (Corriere d’Italia, 28 June 1915). This did not prevent a cardinal commission tasked with studying the solution to so complex a problem from unanimously recognizing the absolute necessity of a definitive international sanction (Mercure de France, 10 Dec. 1923, pp. 394-406). Now, precisely at the request of Italy, Article 15 of the secret treaty signed in London by the Allies on 26 Apr. 1915 excluded the Pope from future peace negotiations (Nouvelles religieuses, 15 Mar. 1918, pp. 168-71; 15 June 1918, pp. 375-88; 10 Apr. 1920, p. 153).
Italy, however, had no cause for complaint against the Holy See. Had not Filippo Meda, leader of the «Catholic deputies», accepted the portfolio of Finance in a national concentration ministry formed by Paolo Boselli on 19 June 1916? And had it not been Meda himself who, on behalf of the Italian government, took possession of the Palazzo Venezia, seat of the Austrian embassy to the Vatican—a move that provoked a papal protest as further proof of the untenable condition imposed by the Law of Guarantees upon the Holy See, a protest, however, that was noted immediately as singularly mild? And had not the Apostolic Penitentiary also abrogated the famous Non expedit? Moreover, Don Luigi Sturzo had founded in 1919, with the tacit assent of the Holy See, the Partito Popolare. On 23 May 1920 the encyclical Pacem Dei munus appeared, which permitted visits by Catholic sovereigns to Rome because this would contribute to the brotherhood of peoples. This document of capital importance, however, did not abrogate any of the protests issued by the predecessors of Benedict XV regarding the loss of temporal power (AAS, 12 [1920], p. 215).
Yet even on the other side, after the war, there were governmental manifestations attesting to a near and radical change of climate. The liquidation of the property of German Catholic missions provided Monsignor B. Cerretti, Secretary of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, with the opportunity to approach in Paris various representatives of the Great Powers, to converse amicably with them, and to win them over. The well-known contacts with President Orlando (May 1919) then took place, and he gave serious consideration to a highly elaborate project drawn up by Cardinal Gasparri for the solution of the q. r. This project attributed to the Vatican precincts the character of a State, with independence and international sovereignty, and hinted at a consequent Concordat to regulate ecclesiastical law with the kingdom. The resignation of the Orlando cabinet (June 1919) brought this significant unofficial negotiation to an end. Meanwhile, however, the Catholics Nava and Rodinò entered into subsequent ministerial combinations. In the autumn of that same year, Cardinal Filippo Giustini, papal legate to Jerusalem, traveled there, embarking on the cruiser Quarto with royal honors. In the spring of 1921, talk of a Conciliation was so widespread that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a special summary of the relevant press debates.
In truth, even the return of France to regular diplomatic relations with the Holy See (16 May 1921), by accentuating among the numerous diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican the absence—and thus the sense of isolation—of Italy in matters where the highest spiritual affairs of the world were discussed, contributed to imposing the improbable necessity of a final and equitable settlement, which was favored by the most responsible and healthy part of public opinion, grateful to the Holy See and to Catholics for the noble line of conduct they had maintained even with regard to the country during the conflict. Thus the Minister Rocco expressed in full Parliament (21 June 1921) his sentiment in terms that were approved by a crowd of Italians: «It does not seem impossible to find a point of agreement that reconciles the demands of the Holy See for a situation of full independence with the internal and international necessities of the Italian State» (E. Devoghel, La question romaine sous Pie XI et Mussolini, Paris n.d., p. 32).
Thus the very official mourning decreed, for the first time in similar cases, by the Italian government (Bonnoni cabinet) on the occasion of the death of Benedict XV (22 Jan. 1922), serves to demonstrate how the time was now more than ripe for the attainment of the long-awaited and hoped-for Conciliation (v. PATTI LATERANENSIS).