Sulle trace di una storia omessa: Storiografia moderna e contemporanea dell’ Ordine francescano (review)

In this book, Guiseppe Buffon confronts the lack of interest in the history of the Franciscan Order from the time of the official division of Observants and Conventuals in 1517 until the Second Vatican Council (p. 29). The reason, he claims, is to be found in a misinterpretation of the Council’s call for religious orders to rediscover the spirit and aims of their founders. For Franciscans, this has resulted in an unbalanced emphasis on the writings and early history of the brotherhood prior to St. Bonaventure, at the expense of the Order’s modern institutional history. The reforms and divisions of the latter period have been treated as irrelevant in terms of the order’s attempt to uncover its true identity in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council (pp. 39–45). In addition, some scholars have claimed that, because it is so “splintered, wide-spread and wide-ranging in focus: the typical Franciscan history simply does not exist,”¹ Buffon refuses to accept this state of affairs, arguing that the essence of Franciscan identity is to be found in the totality of the Order’s history, complex and conflictual as it may be.

Given that St. Francis himself did not intend to found an order, a critical acceptance of pluriformity in interpreting his charism would, according to Buffon, constitute an important starting point in the search for Franciscan identity. Problems occur when any one group within an institute claims to have found the key to the charism, excluding other groups as decadent or deviating from the founder’s perceived intention. Buffon cites Heribert Holzapfel’s history of the Order (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1909) as an example. This work aroused such controversy that it had to be withdrawn from commercial sale (pp. 47–51). A member of the Observant family and promoter of the Leonine Union of 1897, Holzapfel considered the separation of 1517 as an unfortunate necessity, promoting, as it did, official sanction of two diverse interpretations of the Franciscan charism. This paved the way for further divisions, each one convinced of its own legitimacy in terms of faithfulness to St. Francis. They were the work of restless and ambitious men, who professed reform so they could exempt themselves from obedience and detach themselves from their legitimate superiors. With the passage of time, the Observants would have demonstrated their vitality and propensity for reform without the need for these divisions (p. 49).

In contrast to Holzapfel, Buffon suggests that what is required is a new history of the order that takes serious account of particular histories and of other literature produced by the different parties concerned (Observants, Reform, Recollects, Alcantarines, Capuchins, and Conventuals, pp. 249–53). He examines several of these works in detail, placing them in their historical context without neglecting associated controversies and hagiographical debates (pp. 66–228). An extensive bibliography also is included (pp. 7–26). Buffon argues that this material reveals a constant dialectic between the central administration of the Order and autonomous groups, between official history and history as interpreted by individual groups, and between pluralism/autonomy and unity. All this, he claims, has contributed to Franciscan identity (p. 259).

Although primarily of interest to those concerned with the nature of Franciscanism, Buffon’s work may have wider appeal. His approach might well encourage discussion of the nature of reform in religious life and the multiplicity of factors, both within and without an Institute, that contribute to its success or failure in any given period. A historiographical approach, according to Buffon, enables the scholar to take in a wider perspective than one focused exclusively on the founder and his or her immediate surroundings. His is a timely reminder that, in addition to “accepting and retaining the spirit and aims of each founder,” the “sound traditions” of an...