The Omnibus Homo Sacer

by Giorgio Agamben

  radical transformation in the way of conceiving both life and rule.

  1.4. The fact is, as Francis never tired of mentioning, what is in question in

  the “rule and life” is not so much a formal teaching, but even and above all a se-

  quence or following ( Domini nostri Iesu Christi . . . vestigia sequi, “our Lord Jesus Christ, whose footprints we must follow”; Francis 1, pp. 6/127; or, even more

  forcefully, in the so-called “last will” of St. Clare: volo sequi vitam et paupertatem altissimi Domini, “I . . . wish to follow the life and poverty of our most high

  Lord Jesus Christ”; ibid., pp. 228/46). It is not a matter so much of applying a

  form (or norm) to life, but of living according to that form, that is of a life that, in its sequence, makes itself that very form, coincides with it.

  For this reason, tying back to the initial declaration ( haec est vita), the con-

  clusion of the Regula non bullata can refer to things quae in ista vita scripta sunt: precisely because what was written here was a life and not a rule, a form of life

  and not a code of norms and precepts, the text itself can be defined as “life.”

  968

  HOMO SACER IV, 1

  And it is in this sense that one must understand the punctilious repetition of

  the term vita paired with regula (even granting that this second term had not been added, as some scholars maintain, at a later time): the evangelical form

  of life, the coelestis vitae formae evoked by Clement V, is never only regula, but at the same time regula et vita or simply vita. For this reason, the Regula non bullata can use vita where we would expect regula ( si quis volens accipere hanc vitam . . . si fuerit firmus accipere vitam nostram, “If anyone, desiring . . . to accept this life . . . and if he is determined to accept our life”; ibid., pp. 8/110),

  and, likewise, can refer indifferently to life with terms that usually refer to the

  rule ( promittentes vitam istam semper et regulam observare, “promising to observe

  always our life and rule”; pp. 110/213).

  It is clear that Francis has in mind here something that he cannot simply call

  “life,” but neither can he let it be classified solely as “rule.” Hence the scholars’

  difficulty in the face of what seems to be an indistinct use of the two terms

  (Tabarroni, p. 81, cf. Coccia, p. 112). But it is, in truth, the exact opposite of

  a useless redundancy: the two words are put in a reciprocal tension, to name

  something that cannot be named otherwise. If life is indeterminated into rule in

  the same measure in which the rule is indeterminated into life, this is possible

  only because what is in question in both is the novitas that Francis calls vivere secundum formam ( Sancti Evangelii) and that we must now try to define.

  א One encounters an indetermination of life and rule, as we have seen, already in

  the monastic tradition in the formula vita vel regula at the beginning of the Lives of the Fathers of Jura (cf. also, in the Rule of the Four Fathers: qualiter vitam fratrum, vel regulam tenere possit; Vogüé 1, p. 190). Moreover, the Franciscan et does not have the disjunctive value of the vel in the formula of the abbey at Lerins. While this implies that life is blurred together with the rule ( la vie ou la règle, c’est­à­dire la vie comme règle, “life or rule, that is to say, life as rule”; Thomas, p. 136), the et is to be understood instead in the sense of a juxtaposition which is at the same time a separation (significant here is the sequence

  in the Regula non bullata: haec est vita Evangelii . . . and regula et vita istorum fratrum haec est—first life by itself, then the juxtaposition of life and rule). Substituting an et for the vel, Francis conjoins and at the same time disjoins the two terms, as if the form of life that he has in mind could be situated only in the space of the et, in the reciprocal tension between rule and life.

  In the Franciscan literature, the proximity and at the same time the distinction be-

  tween vita ( modus vivendi) and regula are always maintained. Thus in Bonaventure: Ex quibus patenter elucet, quod Fratrum minorum regula non discordat a vita, nec communis ipsorum modus vivendi discordat a regula (“From this it appears clearly that the Rule of the Friars Minor is not in disharmony with their way of life, nor their way of common

  life with the Rule”; Bonaventure, Apologia paupertum, pp. 376/250). In an even more ob-

  THE HIGHEST POVERTY

  969

  vious way, Ubertino of Casale distinguishes modus vivendi and status regularis, the forma evangelica in vivendo given by Christ to the apostles and the regula:

  [Franciscus] in auditu illius verbi in quo Christus, ut dictum est, formam tribuit

  apostolis evangelicam in vivendo . . . statum regularem et modum vivendi ac-

  cepit, predicte norme apostolice per omnia se coactans, et in hoc ordinem suum

  incepit; et ideo dicitur in principio regule: “Regula et vita minorum fratrum

  hec est, scilicet Domini nostri Ihesu Christi sanctum evangelium observare,”

  quasi summarie omnia que sunt in regula reducens ad formam evangelicam in

  vivendo [(Francis), on hearing that word in which Christ, as it is said, shows to

  the apostles the evangelical form in the way he lived . . . accepted a regular state

  and mode of living, constraining himself in all things by the apostolic norm that

  was preached, and in this way he began his order; and indeed it is said at the

  beginning of the rule: “This is the rule and life of the Friars Minor, that is, to

  observe the Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,” as if to serve as a summary

  leading everything that is in the rule back to the evangelical form in their way

  of living]. (Ubertino, p. 130)

  A little afterward, Ubertino, citing the passage from the rule in which it is said that

  the brothers “promise to observe this life and the rule” ( promictentes istam vitam et regulam observare), he puts it in correspondence with the forma vitae et norma quam Christus servavit, “the form and norm of life that Christ observed; ibid., p. 131). As in Francis, the two paired terms are not identified, but rather put in reciprocal tension.

  א It is significant that when a companion asks him why he did not intervene to cor-

  rect the decadence of his order, whose members had abandoned “simplicity and poverty,

  which are the principle and foundation of our order,” Francis reproached him firmly for

  wanting to implicate him in questions that did not concern his duty ( vis . . . me implicare in his que non pertinent ad officium meum). “If I cannot convince them and correct their vices with preaching and example, I do not want to become a persecutor to pursue

  and frustrate them, like the power of this world [ nolo carnifex fieri ad percutiendum et flagellandum, sicut potestas huius seculi]” (Francis 1, 2, pp. 472–74). In the tension that Franciscanism installed between rule and life, there is no place for anything like an application of the law to life, according to the paradigm of worldly powers (among whom,

  in the vocabulary of that era, the Church could also be included more or less directly).

  1.5. The other Franciscan sources, which make use of the syntagma forma vitae

  many times, confirm this special character of the “rule” dictated by the founder.

  The rule of St. Clare, definitively approved by Innocent IV in 1253, imitates in

  its introduction the definition of the Regula non bullata, but substitutes the syntagma form of life for the rule and life of Francis’s text (“The form of life of the Order of Poor Sisters, which the Blessed Francis established, is this”; Francis 1, 1,

  pp. 304/211). A little afterward, Clare, reporting the words of Francis, says that

  970

  HOMO SACER IV, 1

  “the Blessed Father . . . wrote for
us the form for living in this way [ scripsit nobis formam vivendi in hunc modum]” (ibid., pp. 316/218). The brief text that follows

  does not, however, contain either precepts or rules. Instead, after having merely

  indicated that the sisters have chosen to “live according to the perfection of the

  holy Gospel,” it simply formulates a promise (“I resolve and promise for myself

  and for my sisters always to have that same loving care and special solicitude

  for you as I have for them”; ibid.). Clare thus calls “form of life” not a code of

  norms, but something that seems to correspond to what Francis calls “life,” “rule

  and life,” or in the Testament, “living according to the form of the holy Gospel.”

  Scholars have wondered (Marini, pp. 184–85) if a more complete redaction

  of the forma vivendi written by Francis might exist. It is significant, however,

  that in the Angelis gaudium, in which Gregory IX denies authorization to Agnes

  of Prague to follow the Franciscan model, the pope defines the text of Francis

  in a diminutive way as formula vitae and opposes to it the constitutions of Ugo-

  lino, designated as a “rule” ( ipsae—the Poor Clares— formula predicta postposita, eamdem regulam . . . observarunt . . . te ac sorores tuas ab observantia predictae formulae de indultae nobis a Domino potestatis plenitudine absolventes volumus

  et mandamus quatenus eamdem regulam tibi sub bull nostra transmissa reverentia filiali suscipias, “Setting aside their above-mentioned formula, they have observed the same rule. . . . Absolving you and your sisters from observance of the

  aforementioned formula out of the plenitude of the power granted to us by the

  Lord, we desire and command that you uphold the same rule transmitted to you

  under our bull with filial reverence”; cf. Marini, p. 189). Gregory IX explicitly

  denies to the formula of Francis—compared to the potum lactis (“milk”) of the newborn and opposed to the cibum solidum (“solid food”) of the constitutions—

  the character of a rule, a sign that forma vitae and regula were not perceived as synonymous. “To choose to live according to the perfection of the holy Gospel”

  is a formula vitae, not a rule.

  A passage from the Life of St. Francis (or Greater Legend), composed by

  Bonaventure of Bagnoregio in 1266, contains in this sense a decisive indica-

  tion. Under the guidance of Francis, writes Bonaventure, “the Church was to

  be renewed . . . in three ways: by the form of life, the rule, and the doctrine

  of Christ which he would provide [ secundum datam ab eo formam, regulam

  et doctrinam Christi triformiter renovanda erat Ecclesia]” (2.8, pp. 21–22). The

  tripartition articulated by Bonaventure (who follows a passage from the Life of

  Thomas of Celano: ad cuius formam, regulam et doctrinam, “after whose pat-

  tern, rule, and teaching . . . ”; Francis 2, 2, pp. 90/37) corresponds to the three

  levels or modes into which the activity of the Church is structured. But it is

  THE HIGHEST POVERTY

  971

  decisive that the form of life corresponds here neither with a normative system

  (for the Church, canon law) nor with a corpus of doctrine (the collection of

  dogmas in which the Church articulates the Catholic faith). It is a third thing

  between doctrine and law, between rule and dogma, and it is only from the

  awareness of this specificity that its definition can become possible.

  1.6. Thomas of Celano, who often places life and rule side by side in his

  biography, shows that he is distinguishing the first term as much from rule as from

  life in a generic sense. At the point when he narrates the episode of the redaction

  of the first rule, he puts it in these terms: scripsit sibi et fratribus suis . . . simpliciter et paucis verbis vitae formam et regulam (“Blessed Francis . . . wrote down simply and in a few words for himself and his brethren . . . a pattern and rule of life”;

  Francis 2, pp. 78/31). Since Thomas is obviously paraphrasing and citing here the

  words of Francis in the Testament, one should suspect that the expression vitae

  forma et regula corresponds to the text’s vivere secundum formam sancti Evangelii.

  Therefore this hendiadys that will return so often in the Franciscan literature is

  an attempt to explain the vivere secundum formam of Francis, juxtaposing the

  syntagma form of life with the term rule, as if thus to underline the fact that it could not be established in a series of normative precepts.

  Later, after having narrated the miracles of the saint, Thomas writes: “How-

  ever, since we have not determined to set forth miracles (which do not make

  holiness but show it), but rather the excellence of St. Francis’s life and the

  flawless pattern of his conduct [ sed potius excellentiam vitae ac sincerissimam

  conversationis ipsius formam]” (pp. 140/120). Conversatio means “conduct,”

  “way of life”: by juxtaposing the term with forma, in a sense more or less

  equivalent to forma vitae, Thomas shows that he has in mind not a simple way

  of life, but an exemplary, qualified way of life that cannot, however, be under-

  stood as a rule. In a preceding passage, the level of life ( qualiter denique vita

  et mores ipsorum . . . forent proximis ad exemplum, “how their life and behavior

  might . . . be an example to their neighbors”) is distinct in this sense both

  from that of observance of a rule ( qualiter regulam quam susceperant possent

  sincere servare, “how they might sincerely observe and unfailingly guard the

  Rule they had received”) and from direct relation to God ( qualiter in omni

  sanctitate et religione coram Altissimo ambularent, “how they should walk in all

  holiness and religion before the Most High”; pp. 82–84/34). Living according

  to a form undoubtedly implies, according to a frequent meaning of the term

  forma in medieval Latin, an exemplary relation with others and is moreover

  not simply synonymous with exemplum.

  972

  HOMO SACER IV, 1

  In Bonaventure, the syntagma forma (or formula) vitae—or even simply

  forma ( Forma igitur praescripta apostolis . . . ; De perfectione evangelica, p. 157)—

  appears frequently, both in reference to the rule ( scripsit sibi et fratribus suis simplicis verbis formulam vitae; Life of St. Francis 3.8) and in the meaning of way of life (for example, in the General Constitutions, under 4, 1, de forma interius conversandi, to which there corresponds, immediately after, the rubric de modo exterius exeundi; and in the Apologia pauperum [11, 17], forma vivendi refers to the way of life of Virgo et Mater Domini nostri Iesu Christi).

  In any case, the syntagma form of life seems to acquire in Franciscanism a

  technical meaning, and it is important not to let it elude us. As we have already

  seen for the expression regula vitae, the genitive is not only objective, but also subjective. The form is not a norm imposed on life, but a living that in following

  the life of Christ gives itself and makes itself a form.

  1.7. In commentaries on the rule, the specificity of the Franciscan concept of

  “life,” briefly expressed in the syntagma forma vitae, is often confirmed. In An-

  gelo Clareno’s Expositio regulae, the text’s incipit thus gives rise to a thorough terminological commentary, in which on the one hand, the term regula is abstracted

  from the juridical sphere in the strict sense and on the other, vita is opposed to merely vegetative life and becomes synonymous with a “holy” and “perfect” form

  o
f life. Let us read this passage, in which Clareno’s familiarity with the Greek

  language and monastic tradition and at the same time his perplexity in the face

  of Francis’s text are evident:

  Regula, id est evangelicus canon, sanctificans decretum et lex gratiae et iustitiae

  Christi humilitatis et forma vivendi secundum exemplar Christi Iesus paupertatis

  et crucis. [Rule, that is, an evangelical canon, sanctifying decree, and law of the

  grace and justice of Christ’s humility and form of living according to the example

  of Christ Jesus’ poverty and cross.]

  Regula, quia recte ducit, et modum recte vivendi sine omni errore docet. Quos

  enim nostri grammatici declinare in partibus declinabilis orationis dicunt, hoc

  Graeci regulare et canonizare nuncupant. [Rule, which rightly guides and teaches

  a mode of living rightly without any error. What our grammarians call declining

  into the declinable parts of speech, the Greeks call regulating and canonizing.]

  Vita vero apud Graecos dicitur zoi et pro vita vegetativa et animali imponitur,

  vios vero apud eos pro virtuosa sanctorum conversatione tantum scribitur. Ita

  et nunc in regula et in omnibus sanctorum historiis hoc nomen vita pro sancta

  conversatione et perfecta virtutum operatione accipitur. [Life is called among the

  Greeks zoē and this is used for both vegetative and animal life, while among them bios is written for the virtuous behavior of the saints. Always and everywhere in

  THE HIGHEST POVERTY

  973

  the rule and in the histories of all the saints this word life is used to mean holy

  behavior and the perfect carrying out of the virtues.] (Clareno, p. 140)

  Not only is the rule as evangelicus canon defined as a “form of living” according

  to the model of the Gospel, but it is compared to a grammatical rule rather than

  to a law in the proper sense (“The Greeks call ‘regulating’ and ‘canonizing’ what

  our grammarians call ‘declining’”). On the other hand, in the opposition—

  thanks to the Greek distinction between zoē and bios—of the two meanings of the term “life,” bios is considered equivalent to sancta conversatio, that is to the perfect form of life. In reality the whole passage testifies to Clareno’s difficulty