The present essay briefly examines evidence for the development of the mendicant orders, focusing on their relationship to important members of the middle and upper classes in the communes as one of the chief ways in which they gained popularity and public support. These orders came into existence between the late twelfth century and the latter half of the thirteenth. Their increased involvement with the laity was both a direct product of their concern with the needs of the contemporary church and a source of conflict between them and the existing monastic and diocesan clergy. The experience of the Humiliati in various dioceses in northern Italy illustrates an important point, namely the growing divisions within the church and the tendency to label various groups as heretical. The condemnation of the Humiliati and other groups by Pope Lucius III in Verona in 1183 is a sign of the increasing sensitivity to the danger of heresy among the laity within the leadership of the church.

With the election of Pope Innocent III in 1198, there was a recognition that the divisions within the church threatened to drive many good Christians into the arms of the heretics. Innocent and his allies in the hierarchy began to embrace some elements in the popular religious movements. Among the earliest beneficiaries were the Humiliati, the Trinitarians, and the founder of the Hospital of the Holy Spirit in Rome. It was shortly after this that Francis of Assisi, with the support of his bishop, approached Innocent. In this same period, Dominic de Guzman with his bishop undertook missionary work among Catharist heretics in the Midi. These seemingly separate occurrences were the beginning of a new approach to the problems that were besetting the church. The formation of the mendicant orders was the result not only of their founders but also of the recognition by the papacy of the role that they might play in a divided church.

This essay moves away from the emphasis on the internal history of the orders and focuses on their relationship to the laity. It focuses on the reason for the success of the mendicants as well as the failure of some to survive. Few topics in medieval religious history have received the attention accorded the mendicant orders, especially the Franciscans and Dominicans, the earliest and the most widely known.Footnote ² Gradually in the course of the thirteenth century, the Carmelites, Augustinians (Eremiti), Servites, the Friars of the Sack, and the Pied Friars were founded.Footnote ³ The Humiliati, though not classified as mendicants, shared much in common with them. The Trinitarians had more in common with hospitallers and specialized in ransoming captives. The Crutched Friars (Fratres Cruciferi) worked in hospitals and cared for the sick. A large part of existing research has been devoted to the internal history of the orders. Scholars within these communities were chiefly interested in constitutional and religious issues.Footnote ⁴ More recently, however, greater attention has been paid to relations with the community at large.Footnote ⁵ This approach owed much to the research of historians outside the order, such as Paul Sabatier, Herbert Grundmann, and Gioacchino Volpe, who were moved by issues that had little to do with the internal history of the order.Footnote ⁶ More recent scholarship such as that by Lester Little looks to the place of the friars in the broader society, a trend that has now become dominant.Footnote ⁷ In the case of the Dominicans, their highly visible and controversial role in the Inquisition, even though the numbers actually involved in this work were small, has attracted considerable attention. Although some Franciscans were also inquisitors, their pastoral activity and their close relations with the laity have overshadowed that aspect of their work. Much less attention has been paid to those orders founded later, but recently a valuable survey has been published by Frances Andrews.Footnote ⁸ What emerges clearly from a comparative study of all of these orders is the fact that, despite numerous similarities, the term mendicant did not apply in a strict meaning to any of them, though it may have significance for several during their early period. It was much more a term that distinguished them from the monastic order than a description of their way of life.

Much of this essay focuses on the Franciscans, the most successful of the mendicant orders and the one whose history has presented the greatest problems to historians. By looking at their relations with the laity, we gain a different perspective on that history. Emphasis on the internal history of the order has led to a too exclusive concern with the poverty issue and internal conflicts. By asking what the laity, particularly those who were most important to the development of the order, found in it that attracted them, we change the emphasis to one that stresses the mass appeal of Francis of Assisi and the spirituality that he and his followers brought that touched the lives of the rising urban classes. We begin by seeing the relationship of the mendicants with traditional monasticism.

I. The Mendicants

While all these orders were rooted in the monastic tradition, some, such as the Humiliati, the Augustinians (Eremiti), the Carmelites, and the Servites, were more traditional than the Dominicans and the Franciscans. In the case of the Humiliati, previous experience may well have led them to maintain more traditional organizational structures. The Franciscans underwent severe internal turmoil in the period after the death of Pope Gregory IX over the issue of poverty within the order.Footnote ⁹ In spite of this conflict, their reputation among the laity seems to have remained high even into the fourteenth century, as is evident in Dante's Divina Commedia.Footnote ¹⁰ In spite of their internal disputes, the Franciscans enjoyed continuing support from the papacy and the hierarchy, as well as the laity. The order did spawn a radical wing, the spiritual Franciscans, which was viewed as revolutionary because of its ties to Joachimism, which drew on contemporary mystical strains as well as issues that were distinctly Franciscan. It would be surprising if the history of the Franciscans, given their involvement with the religious movements of the period, were not a lightning rod for contemporary conflicts within the church. For example, the first Franciscans to go to Germany before 1220 raised suspicion that they were heretics.Footnote ¹¹ Despite this setback, the important question is, how did they achieve the remarkable success that they attained in the medieval church? For there is no doubt that they were the model for the mendicants who followed them in the latter part of the century.

The foundation accounts found in the histories produced during the early years of the orders put their emphasis on the founder, which was understandable in the case of Francis of Assisi, considering his charisma. Modern scholars like John Moorman have continued to stress his unique qualities while focusing on the more ordinary aspects of his work, such as his effort to keep things simple: wooden churches or abandoned houses.Footnote ¹² But, as all modern scholars have recognized, from the earliest years emphasis was on Francis as a cult figure.Footnote ¹³ His personality dominated the early history of the order. In the vitae composed by Thomas of Celano and St. Bonaventure, the founding of the order and its development were closely paralleled in his life. His miracles confirmed his image as a Christ-like figure. No such image attached to Dominic. But the actual development of the Franciscans was quite different from that depicted in these accounts, and it more closely followed that of the Dominicans. In London and Oxford, they enjoyed the hospitality of the latter.Footnote ¹⁴ In many places, on their first arrival, the friars were granted a small existing church and a plot of land for a convent and gardens. In Brescia, the Franciscans first settled at the small parish church of San Giorgio Martire, located on the hillside below the western wall of the citadel, which dominated the city.Footnote ¹⁵ The church lay in the suburbs that were just developing in this area and to the south.

The image of an order living primarily by begging—mendicancy—does not represent the actual situation of the Franciscans, Dominicans, or the later mendicants save to a very limited degree and that in their early years. Begging could not provide for the physical needs of the community for housing, for a religious setting adequate to meet the needs of preachers and teachers, and the growing demand for their services as confessors and counselors. Although patrons could assist the friars, they were seldom in a position to meet their needs on a regular basis. The development of the mendicants, moreover, did not follow a single model, as is evident from the substantial differences among the various orders and especially between the Franciscans and the Dominicans. Although the use of the term mendicant is contemporary, from a modern point of view the usage seems somewhat inappropriate, since it conveys an inaccurate picture of the internal development of the orders.

In the case of the Franciscans, considerable emphasis was early placed on the manner in which they secured support and held property, stressing their uniqueness in avoiding ownership of money, goods, and property. In actuality, stress by modern historiography on these arrangements has led to a distortion of the development of the order, making it seem as if the conflict over property raised obstacles to the work of the order. This point is best illustrated if we turn to the historic role of public support of religious communities.Footnote ¹⁶ The support of the communes was also critical to the development of the mendicants. But such public support was neither new nor limited to the mendicants. In a world in which monarchs and nobles traditionally founded and supported monastic houses, it is not surprising that communes took up similar functions, since they regarded themselves as successors to these authorities.Footnote ¹⁷ But their role was directed to the needs of the communities rather than to the support of the charitable works carried out by the friars at this time.

Charity for the poor was in the hands of the laity, often through confraternities or guilds. At times, communes also provided public support for the poor and would continue to do so. In Bergamo, for example, the confraternity of the Misericordia, founded at the behest of the Dominican bishop Herbord in 1265, encompassed many earlier groups that had existed on the parish level. The membership of the Misericordia included numerous members of the communal elite and their families. It had the paramount role in providing charity for the poor. I have not found any legislation at this time designating any public support for the friars in works of charity. Instead, communal statutes addressed the needs of the members of the orders themselves. Thus, when the mendicants appear in communal statutes, it is as recipients of aid either for construction or alms for the support of the community. They are sometimes grouped with non-mendicants, and support was in response to formal requests made by the various groups. These legal ties were critical to the early history of the mendicants.

II. Legislation

A brief survey of legislation suggests a complex picture. One of the most interesting pieces of legislation is a statute dealing with the confraria of Ivrea.Footnote ¹⁸ It spells out regulations regarding the amounts to be dispensed by the confraria of Ivrea to “miserable persons,” that is, those in danger of losing their station in life through poverty. The mendicants did not belong in this category, but the statute specifies in the case of the Franciscans and Dominicans the conditions under which they may share in the food of the confraria, namely when there is a surplus.Footnote ¹⁹ On the feasts of St. Francis and St. Dominic, they were to be given the same gifts that were given on the Feast of St. Theodore. Obviously, they were being made eligible for public charity by the commune. Moreover, this statute makes the point that they are given support for themselves and not for the poor. The statutes of Nice contain a rather interesting arrangement that not only do mendicants, who have no real estate [stabilia], pay no hearth tax, but neither should they be counted in the number of hearths.Footnote ²⁰ Recognition of this special status of the mendicants should, I believe, be read as recognition of their view on poverty in their way of life, for which this statute aims to provide a remedy. It is evident that this provision applies to the situation of the Franciscans rather than the other mendicants. At Brescia in 1279, the Poor Clares asked for support.Footnote ²¹ In 1252, the Franciscans joined the Dominicans and the Augustinians (Eremiti) in seeking an exemption on taxes for goods intended for their houses outside of Brescia.Footnote ²² Frances Andrews discusses the close relationship formed between the Augustinians and the castrum of Monticiano in the later thirteenth century.Footnote ²³ Examination of legislation suggests that the religious orders were dependent on the communes for ordinary activities.Footnote ²⁴

Communal legislation treated the mendicants in traditional ways by providing funds for food and clothing as well as for construction. The aims of these laws were purely practical. Obviously, they reflected the thinking of leading members of the commune. Of course, we must be careful not to read too much into it, but it seems fair to suggest that communal support demonstrates a level of popularity. The type of concern that is reflected in the law can also be read as a reflection of conventional attitudes. The legislation raises another important point. The laws we have dealt with here refer chiefly to the mendicants from the Alpine regions. The numbers were modest, and their convents were not centers of education. The great majority of Franciscans and Dominicans were concentrated in central Italy and the cities of the lower Po valley. This was also the richest part of the peninsula in terms of both agriculture and industry. It witnessed a dramatic increase in population illustrated by the enlargement of the areas enclosed within walls in the thirteenth and early fourteenth century. The mendicant orders shared in this prosperity. In the large region between the Alps and Rome, they were able to draw on much greater resources. The result of their close identification with the urban middle and upper classes was reflected in a consequent narrowing of the groups from which members were recruited. Public support combined with private patronage from these classes made possible the great mendicant churches of Florence, Bologna, Venice, and Padua, as well as those in many smaller towns.

One of the most difficult problems facing the historian of the mendicant orders in the thirteenth century is the paucity of evidence dealing with their relationship with the laity as opposed to that treating their internal development and activities.Footnote ²⁵ One of the major reasons for this scarcity lies in the very small number of thirteenth-century lay authors and the fact that their writings mostly provide little or nothing about relations between the orders and the laity. True enough, the Franciscan chronicler Salimbene does provide some valuable information on relations of the laity with the Franciscans, though his writing is quite opinionated. Save for an occasional report such as that left by Thomas of Spalato regarding the sermon Francis of Assisi preached in the public square in Bologna in 1222 or 1223, our only sources for his preaching are directed more to the members of the order than to exploring the relationship to the laity.Footnote ²⁶ The major exception to this, if it is one, lies in the sermons Francis preached to the crusaders and the sultan in Egypt in 1219. I have dealt with the problems they present most recently in an article titled “St. Francis of Assisi's Way of Peace.”Footnote ²⁷ I suggest that that experience was formative for Francis and, to some degree, for the order.

III. Franciscan Exceptionalism

The other mendicant orders did not have a founder with such a charismatic personality as that of Francis, who was clearly a major celebrity during his lifetime. But even the Franciscans had to make their way, as we have already suggested, based on their own work and not merely on the reputation of their founder, though they invested enormous efforts into publicizing his life, employing the greatest artists of the day in their churches. Still, those images, virtually unique in the iconography of the mendicant orders in the thirteenth century, do not provide the kind of testimony that we are seeking. The voice of the laity is missing.

But the case of Brescia provides an extraordinary means for understanding this aspect of the development of the Franciscans in the mid-thirteenth century. There a small confraternity, composed of causidici, that is, counselors as opposed to advocates, met on a regular basis, probably before 1250, at the church of San Giorgio Martire, where the Franciscans first settled. Such an opportunity is almost unique, particularly because one of its members provides us with a body of writings without parallel for such a group in this period. It was independent of the friars, though it enjoyed a good relationship with them. It is from Albertanus of Brescia, a married layman and perhaps the leading member of the group, who authored three important treatises and five sermons, that we glean our information.Footnote ²⁸ The four sermons that he delivered to the confraternity in the year 1250 constitute a commentary on its rule, a fact that suggests that it had only recently been founded. On occasion friars were present and even spoke after the meeting, but there is no indication that they were in charge.Footnote ²⁹ In his first Brescian sermon, he speaks about “spiritual refreshment,” which “we are accustomed to receive here from the friars.”Footnote ³⁰ The evidence clearly suggests that this was an effort to unite members of the same profession in a religious organization. What emerges, however, are also some insights into the reasons the Franciscans came to be valued by members of the professional class.

Albertanus began to write in the year 1238. His first work was titled “De amore Dei et proximi et aliarum rerum et de forma vite.” In this essay, he fused the concept of a religious rule with the classic moralist tradition, based on his careful study of the letters of Seneca, in his desire to present a vision of society as a pursuit of happiness in this world.Footnote ³¹ He was very much a man of the commune, as is evident from the sermon that he preached in Genoa in 1243, while in the service of the podesta, to the audience of causidici and notaries, and his second treatise, written in 1245, “De doctrina loquendi et tacendi,” both of which are directed to the professional concerns of a member of the commune.Footnote ³² After his return from Genoa, his “Liber consolationis et consilii,” best known in English to Chaucer scholars in the version known as the “Tale of Melibee,” focuses on the problem of securing peace in the commune and, most particularly, on the vendetta as a source of conflict. During this period Albertanus may well have been more closely involved with the Franciscans, who had arrived in Brescia before he wrote this treatise. Given the difficulty in getting a more complete picture of the activities of the Franciscans on this level, we must use every opportunity to reveal their relations with men who were important leaders in the commune.

What is very evident is that the Franciscans who, with the Dominicans, were identified with the movement to bring peace to the communes carried out in the so-called Alleluia of 1233, would certainly have found the theme of the “Liber consolationis et consilii” supportive of their efforts. Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence in Albertanus's writings that would enable us to make this point more evident. Perhaps it would be best to suggest that about this period we are approaching a critical point in the development of communes, which is reflected both in the Alleluia of 1233 and the writings of Albertanus, without going beyond the suggestion that they shared common concerns. The issue of factional violence already prominent in 1233 had emerged as a threat to communal governance. But each source drew on its own perspective, for, as we see in the “Tale of Melibee” and in the sermons, there were differences in the manner in which each approached the issue of violence. For example, the stress on usury, which was central to the view of the friars as a cause of divisions, found no significant role in Albertanus's writings.Footnote ³³ Still, these encounters demonstrate the extent to which mendicants, in this case Franciscans, drew on issues that were also of deepest concern to a group of laymen. This point, which has not been fully investigated, strongly suggests that the Franciscans were much closer to the laity at this early date than we have previously thought, but not that they were the leaders in this relationship. Obviously, this would change in the course of the second half of the thirteenth century with the growth of third orders.

In fact, as we look at the situation in Brescia, it seems clear that the friars, whether Dominican or Franciscan, lent their support to existing groups, only taking initiative as organizers later. Close examination of the sermons of Albertanus of Brescia does make it clear that the laity were in the leading role, with the friars as supporting cast. But the development of their relations with the upper classes was gradual. For example, we know that Albertanus was closely connected to the rising family of the Maggi (de Madiis) through service with Emmanuel de Madiis, the professional podesta in Genoa, whose family provided two bishops and dominated political life in Brescia at the end of the century under Bishop Berard, but there is no evidence for close ties between him and such leading noble families as the Gambara and the emergent Martinengo.Footnote ³⁴ Moreover, the Franciscans lagged behind the Dominicans in both Brescia and Bergamo, where the latter enjoyed episcopal support from members of their own order. The picture of the friars that emerges from the writings of Albertanus of Brescia is of a group seeking allies from among the middle class by sharing their concerns.

A comparison with the way an earlier figure found acceptance by the hierarchy shows that awareness of the need to cultivate relations with the urban middle classes was in the air. Saint Homobonus of Cremona, whose cause for sainthood had been advanced by Bishop Sicard of Cremona shortly after his death and who was canonized by Pope Innocent III in 1199, was embraced and his cult encouraged for this very reason.Footnote ³⁵ His earliest vita, probably prepared by Sicard as part of that process, describes him as a pious layman, faithful in attending Mass, and active in charitable activities, even to the point of incurring criticism from his family.Footnote ³⁶ He was a tailor and member of a confraternity, and was later claimed by the Humiliati. His vita suggests that its author was concerned to make him acceptable to the hierarchy. When asked to preach to his fellow members, he refused on the ground that he was not sufficiently learned. Francis of Assisi reflected a similar viewpoint when, in company with one of his brothers, he went out to preach. When the brother later asked why he did not preach as he had intended, he assured him that they had preached by example. In the case of Albertanus, whose learning was impressive, the Brescian Franciscans had no problem. What distinguished Francis from laymen like Homobonus or Albertanus is the way he moved to gain recognition for his foundation as clerics bound by a rule, in effect following the path charted by the Humiliati and John of Matha, the founder of the Trinitarians during this same period.Footnote ³⁷ The Franciscans did not merely spring from the laity but continued to resonate with them.

As we have already seen in the case of Brescia—and we could easily extend this to other communes—within a relatively short time the mendicants developed very strong ties with leading members of the commune. They formed a bridge between the upper classes and the masses. Albertanus pointed out that assistance to the poor was important to the peace and order of the community. He was aware of the danger of violence.Footnote ³⁸ He might easily have added that political factions tended to draw support from the lower class. Albertanus gave deep thought to the risk posed to the commune by social unrest. Recent studies have paid more attention to the origins of violence but have seldom plumbed the attitudes of contemporaries. The fact that Albertanus made this argument suggests that there was a fairly wide recognition of its cogency. But Albertanus did not recommend a solution based on legislation. He did not address the issue of public charity, nor did he speak about the role of the friars in this situation despite the presence of some of them at his sermon where he raised this question. He was very likely aware of their involvement in the preaching of the Alleluia in 1233 in which they had undertaken a reform of statutory law in the communes, a step that placed them in the middle of factional controversy, but he made no mention of it.Footnote ³⁹ Instead, he advocated personal commitment by the laity to a way of life based on confraternity rules.

Evidence does not permit us to know with certainty whether this choice represented a rejection of the path advocated by the friars during the Alleluia, but we should not rule out the possibility that it was put forward as an alternative. The attitude of Albertanus toward the mendicants, and particularly the Franciscans, lends support to a need for a study of the way their role in the communes developed in the latter part of the century. It is in this sense that we may rethink the early history of the Third Order, an approach certainly consistent with the direction laid out by Albertanus, whose work became increasing popular over the next century.

Albertanus of Brescia provides us with an interesting insight into the way professionals viewed the issue of the poverty of the mendicants. He pointed out that both the Dominicans and Franciscans did not hesitate to add to their houses and churches as needed.Footnote ⁴⁰ The casual nature of this remark, made as early as 1238, makes it much more important than the conjectures of scholars. The conflict over poverty within the Franciscan Order was only beginning to heat up about that time. During their early years, internal conflict before mid-century had much more to do with the locus of authority in the order than with the issue of poverty.Footnote ⁴¹ Indeed, as Salimbene's chronicle makes clear, the issue of authority within the order, which had troubled it since its founding and had ultimately led to the withdrawal of St. Francis from a role as leader of the community, was central to the conflict over Brother Elias's leadership of the order. Criticism of Brother Elias on the issue of poverty was a side issue in that dispute.Footnote ⁴²

What brought the poverty issue to the fore was the growth of the wealth of the order, which brought on a crisis between the builders and administrators and those who saw what they regarded as the simpler life of the earlier years disappearing. As we have seen, the wealth of the mendicants was increasing due to public support. Notably, the strength of the opposition to the building of great churches and larger convents seems to have been in more remote and poorer areas and among some intellectuals. Albertanus probably reflected the majority of the laity in seeing no problem over the issue of poverty in the order. The growing popularity of the order did not revolve around the issue of poverty. Albertanus made it very clear that he valued the friars for the “spiritual refreshment” that they brought.

There is no question that the order was undergoing significant changes in this period. But these were more related to the changing character of its membership than to poverty as such. The change in its members would have a profound effect on its relationship to the laity. It is precisely this issue that had the greatest impact on the development of the order. Salimbene, who reflects this change and the internal conflicts it provoked, provides the key to understanding its impact on members of the community.Footnote ⁴³ The “gentrification” of the order was chiefly the product of the patient efforts of the friars to gain acceptance from the middle and upper classes. It was this process rather than the poverty issue itself that split the order. The majority of the friars gained acceptance because they were members of wealthy families.Footnote ⁴⁴ Increasingly, public support for the order was also support for the sons of leading families. They transformed the order gradually, perhaps even without doing so consciously, and certainly not with any intent to undermine the work of St. Francis. Their leader was St. Bonaventure. His Life of St. Francis was the clearest statement of their position. They defended their vision aggressively, labeling their opposition heretics. They were chiefly responsible for promoting the Franciscans as the order that was closest to the masses. The secret of the success of the Franciscans and the Dominicans lay in the kinds of services that they performed for the urban middle-class preachers and objects of charity. This picture fits into the testimony of Albertanus of Brescia regarding the value placed on this service. This view is not to denigrate the concern of the friars for the poor, but for much of this period they were engaged in efforts to build the order. They saw themselves as the deserving poor.