Some reflections:



(1) That Francis was a good looking man, as suggested by the author,was hardly the case. We have contemporary portraits of Francis showing otherwise along with descriptions of his contemporaries such as Thomas of Celano;



(2) That Francis was a womanizer, again suggested by the author, is doubtful. There is no evidence at all of this. In 13th Century Assisi, such a small town, it would have been prohibitied unless the author is suggesting Francis visited houses of prostitution. There is no record of this at all. The author is putting her 21st Century inklings into the 13th Century;



(3) There is no indication at all that Francis had any romantic feelings

toward Claire of Assisi. History is completely silent on this issue. The author is right concerning Francis' and his love of Arthurian legends.

As a matter of history, the idea of chivalric love prohibited sexual contact. Lady Poverty was just that - an element of his mystical life. And indeed the age difference is suspect - Francis was almost 30 when he converted to the mystical life - Claire turning 14 - 15;



(4) Yes, Francis did go to war. The author says he was a "warrior."

Such a word suggests a lifestyle that could hardly portray the Francis of Assisi of historical record. Yes, he went to battle but we have no idea of what he did. He could have killed or he could have been nursing the wounded in his first battle. We don't know. We do know he was trying to fulfill his father's aspirations when he armored up to go on the Cursades. This venture, we know, was interrupted by a mystical event for Francis. He turned back and became a knight of his Lord - the mystical Christ who eventually spoke to him at Daniano. Was he then a "failed knight?" as suggested by the author. Francis thought otherwise. The problem here appears to be the author's lack of religious instinct which would make such events incomprehensible. If anything can be said about Francis at this juncture is that he failed to live up to his father's wishes - a failed son rather than a failed knight. The relationship between Francis and his father is a gold mine that deserves psychological scrutiny - to be sure a Freudian would come to a different conclusion than a Jungian.



(5)The author contends that he created friendship with the Muslims. Highly exagerated. Francis was a medieval man and most likely thought as most medieval Christians the belief of the highly influential Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, the first preacher of the Crusades a century earlier. Bernard said "to kill a Muslim is not to commit homocide." Francis confronted the Sultan during the Crusades. At that time he justified the killing going as being necessary until the Muslims accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ. On his return from the Crusades he not only did not preach against the Crusades but his Order, the Franciscans, were ordered by the Pope to preach the Crusades. In this capacity, they went from town to town to raise men, money and material for the Crusades. Had it not been for the Franciscans the Crusades could not have happened in that century. No objections from the founder here;



There are many good books on Saint Francis. This is not one of them. The author lacks the spirit of the age, the religious instinct that can comprehend what the actors are going through. I am sorry to say this is not good history. It is sloppy history reflecting the feelings of the present into the past. Of the possible five stars I take away three for want of history but give it one star for the cover and one star for the paper it is written on. Why punish the innocent even if inanimate?