this, if not with the connivance of Rome and the cardinal protector, at
least without their opposition. These events had indeed been narrated by
Angelo Clareno, but the undisguised feeling which breathes through all
his writings and their lack of accuracy had sufficed with careful
critics to leave them in doubt. How could it be supposed that in the
very lifetime of St. Francis the vicars whom he had instituted could
take advantage of his absence to overthrow his work? How could it be
that the pope, who during this period was sojourning at Rieti, how that
Ugolini, who was still nearer, did not impose silence on these
agitators?[32]

Now that all the facts come anew to light, not in an oratorical and
impassioned account, but brief, precise, cutting, dated, with every
appearance of notes taken day by day, we must perforce yield to
evidence.

Does this give us reason clamorously to condemn Ugolino and the pope? I
do not think so. They played a part which is not to their honor, but
their intentions were evidently excellent. If the famous aphorism that
the end justifies the means is criminal where one examines his own
conduct, it becomes the first duty in judging that of others. Here are
the facts:

On July 25th, about one month after Francis's departure for Syria,
Ugolini, who was at Perugia, laid upon the Clarisses of Monticelli
(Florence), Sienna, Perugia, and Lucca that which his friend had so
obstinately refused for the friars, the Benedictine Rule.[33]

At the same time, St. Dominic, returning from Spain full of new ardor
after his retreat in the grotto of Segovia, and fully decided to adopt