Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Form, content and meaning in seven Franciscan altarpieces of the Dugento Gibson, Carol Jayne 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 G52_7.pdf [ 10.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099918.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099918-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099918-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099918-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099918-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099918-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099918-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099918-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099918.ris

Full Text

FORM, CONTENT AND MEANING IN SEVEN FRANCISCAN ALTARPIECES OF THE DUGENTO by CAROL JAYNE GIBSON B.A., Un i v e r s i t y of Western Ontario, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Fine Arts We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the requirgd^standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1974 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be all o w e d without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f A u g, f \ An The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date Q p < u l ) ^ J , i q > i i Abstract Although the fresco cycle of the Upper Church, A s s i s i represents the f u l l e s t early i l l u s t r a t i o n of the legend of St. Francis, there i s an e a r l i e r t r a d i t i o n of Franciscan iconography which i s very important, but often over-looked. It i s found i n a group of painted wooden al t a r p i e c e s depicting St. Francis and scenes from h i s legend. Seven such panels survive from the thi r t e e n t h century. They are found i n Pescia, P i s a , P i s t o i a , Florence, A s s i s i , Rome, and Siena. Together with a known eighth a l t a r p i e c e which i s now l o s t these paintings form an i n t e r - r e l a t e d group. The Pescia panel i s perhaps the most important member of the s e r i e s . It i s the only signed and dated exam-ple, a work by Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i from 1235. It also represents the e a r l i e s t s u r viving a l t a r p i e c e of t h i s type. The other f i v e Tuscan panels a l l follow the gable-shaped design of Pescia I. The two Umbrian examples are of a d i f f e r e n t shape but t h e i r iconography indicates a clear connection with the Tuscan t r a d i t i o n . A l l of the a l t a r p i e c e s display a large c e n t r a l f i g u r e of St. Francis with small scenes to e i t h e r side. Ranging from 1235 to the 1290's they date from within a decade of the death of Francis to the end of the Dugento. The seven a l t a r p r i c e s have not to date been thoroughly examined as a group. They have been c i t e d as examples of s t y l i s t i c trends i n dugento a r t , and the Pescia panel has been researched h i s t o r i c a l l y because of i t s importance as a signed and dated work. The only manner i n which a l l seven a l t a r p i e c e s have been investigated together has been an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the subjects represented i n t h e i r side scenes. But no intensive study of these panels as a group which displays the e a r l i e s t development of Franciscan inocography. Nor has there been a successful attempt to correlate the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the subject matter to the environment of th i r t e e n t h century Franciscan thought i n i i i which they were produced. If the format, function, and iconography of the alt a r p i e c e s i s considered together with early Franciscanism, however, the si g n i f i c a n c e of the art works as exponents of Franciscan doctrine can be suggested. Several aspects of the paintings are valuable i n d i c a t o r s of the doctrines l y i n g behind them. F i r s t of a l l , the phys i c a l format of the al t a r p i e c e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t because i t represented a new form designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the i l l u s t r a t i o n of Francis and h i s l i f e . The phys i c a l source of t h i s panel format was the s t o r i e d c r u c i f i x . When t h i s d e r i v a t i o n i s considered i n l i g h t of the b e l i e f s of Franciscan Joachimism with respect to the r o l e of Francis as a second C h r i s t , i t can be seen that even the design of the panels had thematic implications. Thus a consideration of a l t a r p i e c e design i s important. What i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n the side scenes can be established through reference to t h i r t e e n t h century written accounts of the l i f e of St. Francis which served as the sources f o r the p i c t o r i a l motifs. The questions then a r i s e as to why p a r t i c u l a r scenes were repeatedly chosen f o r representation and why the choice changed i n some of the panels. To understand the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the events i l l u s t r a t e d , the paintings must be considered within t h e i r contemporary envi-ronment of ea r l y Franciscanism. Placed against the background of developments within the Franciscan Order i n the thirteenth century, p a r t i c u l a r l y those events immediately following the death of Francis, what i s i l l u s t r a t e d on the a l t a r -pieces takes on a new s i g n i f i c a n c e . The e a r l i e s t t r a d i t i o n of subject matter stressed posthumous miracles of St. Francis. These miracles can be rel a t e d to the canonization of Francis, so that i t may be concluded that they were designed as exponents of the sanct i t y of Francis. This emphasis on miracle scenes was replaced i n some of the a l t a r p i e c e s by a growing i n t e r e s t i n scenes of the l i f e of Francis, so i v that by the end of the century no posthumous miracles were included on the panels. These panels were not the only thirteenth century representations of St. Francis. When the c e n t r a l figures are compared to other Dugento depictions of Francis, however, i t appears that the a l t a r p i e c e s belong to a d i s t i n c t t r a d i t i o n with respect to the way i n which Francis was i n t e r p r e t e d . The reasons for the type of St. Francis shown on the a l t a r p i e c e s can be appreciated when the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the scenes' iconography i s considered. But an aware-ness of other trends i n Franciscan thought and l i t e r a t u r e i s also important here. The d i s t i n c t s t y l e and a t t i t u d e of the c e n t r a l figures can be shown to be a r e s u l t of the t h i r t e e n t h century views of Francis as expressed by Franciscan Joachimism. Within the context of thirteenth century Franciscan doctrines, the s t o r i e d retables take on a new s i g n i f i c a n c e as meaningful and d i d a c t i c objects. They also occupy an important p o s t i i o n as precursors to the legend of St. Francis as i t was interpreted i n the A s s i s i frescoes. V TABLE OF CONTENTS L i s t of Plates v i i Introduction 1 Chapter I: The Format and Prototypes of the Storied Retable 4 Chapter I I : H i s t o r i c a l Background 10 Early h i s t o r y of the Order 10 L i t e r a r y Sources for the L i f e of St. Francis 14 Joachimism and Franciscanism 19 Chapter I I I : The Miracle Panels 30 The Healing of the Deformed G i r l 31 The Healing of the Cripple(s) 39 - The Healing of Bartolemeo of Narni 46 The Healing of the Possessed 49 New Miracles on Pisa II 54 Deductions: Dependencies and Dating 57 Chapter IV: The L i f e - c y c l e Panels 64 P i s t o i a Panel 64 Florence IV 70 Siena V 84 - Thematic Developments: Conclusions 88 Chapter V: The Stigmatization and the Sermon to the Birds 93 The Sermon to the Birds 93 The Stigmatization 96 Chapter VI: J o a c h i s t i c Influence on the Storied Retables 106 Traditions of Thirteenth Century Portrayals of St. Francis 114 The Central Figures on the Storied Retables 118 Chapter VII: Conclusions 125 Bibliography 130 V I Plates 136 Appendix I 143 Appendix II 158 v i i LIST OF PLATES 1. Pescia I 2. Pisa II 3. P i s t o i a I I I 4. Florence IV 5. Siena V 6. A s s i s i VI 7. Rome VII 8. S. Miniato a l Tedesco VIII 9. Siena, Pinacoteca, St. Catherine of Siena panel 10. Siena, Pinacoteca, 1215 P a l i o t t o 11. Lucea, S. Michele painted c r u c i f i x 12. Florence, U f f i z i , Stigmatization panel 13. Subiaco, Sacuo Speco, St. Gregory chapel, fresco of St. Francis 14. P a r i s , Louvre, St. Francis panel Rome, S. Francesco a Rlpa, St. Francis panel - Margaritone d'Arezzo A s s i s i , S. Maria d e g l i Angeli, St. Francis panel - School of Cimabue 15. A s s i s i , S. Maria d e g l i Angeli, St. Francis panel 1 Introduction Early i n the thirteenth century a new a r t form appeared i n Tuscany: the gabled retable depicting a large f i g u r e of St. Francis of A s s i s i surrounded by scenes from h i s legend. Both the format and subject matter of these a l t a r p i e c e s were unprecedented i n I t a l i a n a r t . Seven panels of t h i s t r a d i t i o n survive and are presently located i n Pescia, Pisa, P i s t o i a , Florence, Siena, A s s i s i j and 1 2 Rome. Together with an eighth panel which i s now l o s t , they comprise an i n t e r - r e l a t e d and d i s t i n c t t r a d i t i o n of Franciscan a r t . The a l t a r p i e c e s range 3 i n date from 1235 to the 1290's, and thus represent the e a r l i e s t i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the Franciscan legend. A l l seven panels pre-date the fresco cycle of the Upper Church, A s s i s i which i s so often regarded as the s i g n i f i c a n t s t a r t i n g point i n a study of Franciscan iconography. But i t i s instead these dugento al t a r p i e c e s that reveal the e a r l i e s t Franciscan a t t i t u d e s as expressed i n art works dedicated to t h e i r founder. Francis died i n 1226, was canonized i n 1228, and already being represented i n the new art form by 1235. The sudden emergence of the St. Francis a l t a r -pieces brings several questions to mind. Why was Francis so quickly honoured by being included i n no small way on major works of r e l i g i o u s art? Why was a new panel format devised s p e c i f i c a l l y for h i s depiction? What do the scenes represent and why were they chosen? Why was St. Francis characterized i n the manner displayed by the c e n t r a l figures? None of these queries have been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y answered i n previous studies of the St. Francis s t o r i e d retables. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the a l t a r p i e c e s can be appreciated only when they are considered within the context of t h i r t e e n t h century Franciscan doctrines and a t t i t u d e s . If they are regarded as v i s u a l documents of early Franciscanism, however, t h e i r o r i g i n a l meanings become considerably c l e a r e r . The form, subject matter, and meaning of the panels were c l o s e l y i n t e r - r e l a t e d . 2 For example, the early emergence of the a l t a r p i e c e s and the subjects f i r s t chosen to -be emphasized on these were r e s u l t s of the nature of the Fran-ciscan thought that immediately followed the death of Francis. The subject matter changed during the Dugento according to d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s towards Francis as he came to be l e s s of a contemporary phenomenon and more of an h i s t o r i c a l f i g u r e . The format chosen for the panels and the conceptions of the c e n t r a l f i g u r e s , however, are i n d i c a t o r s of another more prophetic Franciscan doctrine which was prevalent throughout the century. The establishment of both the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d o c t r i n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the dugento Franciscan a l t a r p i e c e s not only reveals something of t h e i r inde-pendent importance as the e a r l i e s t i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the Franciscan Legend, but also establishes them as i n f l u e n t i a l precedents to l a t e r and better-known Franciscan painting such as the fresco cycle of A s s i s i . NOTES See Appendix I and Plates 1-7. See Appendix I: San Miniato a l Tedesco VIII, and Plate See Appendix I. .4 CHAPTER I: THE FORMAT AND PROTOTYPES OF THE STORIED RETABLE Pescia I i s the e a r l i e s t extant example of both a gabled dossal""" and the 2 representation of the saint surrounded by scenes from h i s l i f e . Other gable-shaped panels and rectangular saint-with-scenes retables both appeared l a t e r i n the th i r t e e n t h century, but t h e i r i n i t i a l combination i n the Pescia panel suggests that the e n t i r e format was an invention s p e c i f i c a l l y designed for the depiction of St. Francis of A s s i s i . Of the ten t h i r t e e n t h and early fourteenth century gabled dossals c i t e d by Garrison, s i x are of St. Francis 3 and h i s l i f e . Although designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the representation of St. Francis, t h i s form of dossal was soon adapted to depict other s a i n t s with scenes from t h e i r legends, such as that of St. Margaret of Cortona from the 4 early fourteenth century, or that of Mary Magdalen now i n the Florence Accademia, from 1280-1285.The e a r l i e s t s t o r i a t e d a l t a r p i e c e s , however, are of St. Francis. The precedents for panels depicting a c e n t r a l f i g u r e and side compart-ments are two-fold: the antependium and the s t o r i e d C r u c i f i x . The antependium [ a l t a r - f r o n t a l , p a l i o t t o ] was a stone or metal r e l i e f designed for placement on the front face of the a l t a r , and known to have been i n use as early as the eighth century. P a r t i c u l a r l y the metal a l t a r f r o n t a l s often consisted of a t r i p a r t i t e arrangement with a Redeemer figu r e i n the centre section and scenes from the l i f e of Christ at the s i d e s . 7 Similar compositions painted on wooden g panels are known to have been used i n Spain as a l t a r - f r o n t a l s , but i t i s a matter of debate whether or not early I t a l i a n panels of t h i s format, such as 9 the 1215 panel i n the Siena Pinacoteca, were o r i g i n a l l y p a l i o t t o s . In any event, the format i f not the use of the a l t a r - f r o n t a l did i n s p i r e a group of h o r i z o n t a l rectangular dossals of a c e n t r a l f i g u r e with scenes to ei t h e r side. This type seems to have been popular only i n Siena, Florence, Arezzo, and A s s i s i - P e r u g i a , with no examples from Pisa or L u c c a . T h e two St. Francis panels from A s s i s i and Rome belong to t h i s t r a d i t i o n . However, the e a r l i e s t known h o r i z o n t a l panel which depicts a saint rather than a Christ f i g u r e i s the St. Zenobius panel from 1240-1250."'"''' Thus, although the A s s i s i and Rome paintings follow the antependium t r a d i t i o n i n t h e i r shape, the idea of a saint surrounded by scenes seems to derive from the St. Francis gabled dossal which precedes the hor i z o n t a l saint dossal. This d e r i v a t i o n i n the case of the St. Francis panels i s further enforced by iconographic evidence, as w i l l be seen. A second precursor to the St. Francis retable i s the s t o r i e d C r u c i f i x , 12 13 whose importance i n t h i s respect i s stressed by both Garrison and Hager. The s t o r i e d C r u c i f i x , depicting a c e n t r a l figure of Christ and small scenes of the passion i n the aprons, was s t r i c t l y a Tuscan panel form. It was most 14 popular from the l a t e twelfth through most of the thir t e e n t h centuries. Not only were both the s t o r i e d C r u c i f i x and the St. Francis gabled dossal u n i -quely Tuscan inventions, but also, as Garrison"^ points out, the s t o r i e d C r u c i f i x i t s e l f was most probably used as an actual a l t a r p i e c e . This increases the l i k e l i h o o d that t h i s type of C r u c i f i x served as a model f o r the St. Francis 16 dossal. Hager sees the s t o r i e d retable taking over elements of the s t o r i e d C r u c i f i x as an actual transference i n the case of the Pisan works, where the sto r i e d C r u c i f i x ceased to be produced almost as soon asr.the retable form appeared. The influence can hardly be reduced to such a d i r e c t transplant, however, p a r t i c u l a r l y since the number of examples of s t o r i e d retables i s very l i m i t e d . There are, moreover, strong inconographic reasons to suggest that the development of the St. Francis dossal through the I n s p i r a t i o n of the s t o r i e d C r u c i f i x was a conscious attempt to indic a t e a p a r a l l e l i s m between Christ and St. Francis. The function of the gabled saint panel was c l e a r l y , according to Hager"'"7, 6 that of a re t a b l e , that i s , a panel to be placed on top of an a l t a r . Unlike 18 a group of panels depicting s i n g l e figures of saints which were designed for devotional nooks, private patrons, or for suspension on columns, the St. Francis panels have r e l a t i v e l y wide bases to accommodate t h e i r placement on an a l t a r . The progression from Pescia I to Pisa II and P i s t o i a I I I towards a greater emphasis on the h o r i z o n t a l through the lower placement of the gable transversal i s seen by Hager as an increased adjustment to the panel's r o l e 19 20 21 as an a l t a r p i e c e . Both Garrison and Hager, however, note that there i s a tendency at the end of the Dugento towards an increased v e r t i c a l i t y of proportions; the Mary Magdalen panel and the Siena St. Francis are examples of t h i s tendency. The determination of the o r i g i n a l function of the Santa Croce St. Francis panel presents some d i f f i c u l t y , f o r i t was legendarily o r i g i n a l l y 22 located on a column of that church. Although Hager mentions t h i s fact without doubting i t , he also maintains that the painting was d e f i n i t e l y a 23 dossal. The conformity of t h i s panel to the gabled dossal t r a d i t i o n suggests that i t was indeed designed for use on an a l t a r ; t h i s conclusion i s strengthened by the fa c t there are no documented examples of a panel of t h i s type being designed for suspension on a column. With regard to the format of the Santa Croce St. Francis re t a b l e , 24 however, Hager makes an i n t e r e s t i n g suggestion. He observes that the unique presence of two rows of scenes below the c e n t r a l f i g u r e might be regarded as one of the early forerunners of the p r e d e l l a element of a l t a r -pieces. Hager's idea here i s w e l l worth consideration, e s p e c i a l l y since i t i s within a development of the s t o r i e d retable t r a d i t i o n that two important examples of l a t e r , more developed predella-precursors appear: i n Simone Martini's St. Louis of Toulouse a l t a r p i e c e of 1317 [Naples, G a l l e r l a Nazionale], and the Giotto workshop panel of the Stigmatization of St. Francis [Paris, Louvre, early fourteenth century]. Unlike the paliotto-form panels, gabled dossals of saints do not seem to have gained pos i t i o n s on the high a l t a r u n t i l r e l a t i v e l y l a t e , but were confined to side or chapel a l t a r . When t h i s type of panel did appear on a 25 high a l t a r , i t was generally only i n a small church with a s i n g l e c h o i r . The creation of a new Romanesque panel type, the gabled dossal, i s i n i t s e l f an important event, but the f a c t that t h i s invention seems to be a d i r e c t r e s u l t of the desire to venerate St. Francis i n p a r t i c u l a r makes t h i s phenomemon doubly i n t e r e s t i n g . The invention of the new art form resulted from the s p e c i a l honours bestowed upon Francis of A s s i s i i n the t h i r t e e n t h century. An understanding of who St. Francis was and how he was regarded i s therefore necessary to appreciate the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the a r t dedicated to him. 8 NOTES ^"Gabled dossal" i s the term used to describe t h i s type of panel by Edward B. Garrison, I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting. An I l l u s t r a t e d Index [Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1949], p. 153. "Gabled" refe r s to the shape of the panel, and "dossal" designates i t s use as an a l t a r p i e c e . 2 i b i d . 3 These are c i t e d by Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, pp. 154-156, NUMBERS 402-411. 4 i b i d . , p. 154, number 403. ~*ibid., p. 154, number 404. Braun, Der C h r i s t l i c h e a l t a r [Munich, 1924], pp. 118-119, c i t e d by Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 139. 7 F o r example, the p a l i o t t o i n the Duomo, C i t t a d i C a s t e l l o , reproduced by Hellmut Hager, Die Anfange des i t a l i a n i s c h e n A l t a r b i l d e s [Munich: S c h r o l l , 1962], plate 70. g Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 139. 9 C l a s s i f i e d as a dossal by Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Paintxng, p. 140, but as a p a l i o t t o by Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s , p late 70. "^Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 139. ''""'"This panel i s now located i n the Museo dell'Opera d e l Duomo, Florence. Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s , p. 92 suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y that a l o s t e a r l i e r saint p a l i o t t o once stood on the a l t a r of San Tommaso, Florence. 12 Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 153. 13 Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s , p. 96. 14 Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, pp. 197-198. 1 5 i b i d . , p. 197. ^^Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s , p. 96. """^ibid., p. 94. 18 Examples of these types of panels are found i n Garrison I t a l i a n  Romanesque Panel Painting, numbers 51-60. 9 19 Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s , p. 94. This change i n proportions i s exemplified by a comparison of Pescia I and Pisa I I . According to the measurements given by P. Benvenuto Bughetti, V i t a e m i r a c o l i d i S.! Francesco  n e l l e tavole i s t o r i a t e dei s e c o l i XIII e XIV [estratto da Archivum  franciscanum historicum, 1926], Pescia I measures 1.06 m. to the base of the gable and Pisa II 0.91 m. The o v e r a l l dimensions of the two panels are nearly i d e n t i c a l . 20 Garrison Italian-Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 153. 21 Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s , p. 95. 22 see Appendix, Florence IV. 23 Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s , pp. 96-97. 2 4 i b i d . , pp. 94-95. 25 This phenomenon i s discussed with examples by Hater, i b i d . , pp. 97-98. The placement of h o r i z o n t a l rectangular dossals i s discussed on pp. 91-92. tl 101 CHAPTER IIj^HISTQRICAL BACKGROUND Francis of A s s i s i was an extreme advocate of both poverty and humility. He was strongly opposed to unnecessary materialism such as r i c h church decoration. His l i f e of constant s e l f d e n i a l was an i n d i c a t i o n of h i s s t r i v i n g s f or humility. Yet within a decade of h i s death a new art form was devised for the veneration of t h i s s a i n t . In denial of Francis's i d e a l s h i s successors elevated him to a semi-divine p o s i t i o n and commissioned paintings of Francis for the a l t a r s of t h e i r churches. To understand what prompted t h i s e arly emergence of Franciscan art i t w i l l be necessary to review b r i e f l y the events surrounding the death of Francis, the h i s t o r y of the Order i n the thirteenth century, and the l i t e r a r y sources f o r the legend of St. Francis. Early History of the Order Since i t was nothing from the a c t u a l l i f e of Francis which resulted i n art works dedicated to him, but rather the e f f o r t s of his successors, a survey 1 ' of the events of the Saint's l i f e i s unnecessary here. A few of Francis's i d e a l s and actions are worth noting, however, i n order to better understand the c o n f l i c t s which l a t e r s p l i t the Order. From 1209, when the e a r l i e s t active followers joined him, Francis envi-sioned h i s Order as a group of preachers, propertyless and unlearned, who were to beg or work for t h e i r food and l i v e i n improvised branch huts. The 2 e a r l i e s t Rule was based on these i d e a l s , as set down i n the Gospels. In the years that followed t h i s e a r l i e s t phase of Franciscanism, however, the Order expanded remarkably, so that the appointment of p r o v i n c i a l ministers and the establishment of more permanent Franciscan centres became necessary. An important event i n the development of the Order was Francis's meeting with Cardinal Ugolino i n 1217. Francis appointed Ugolino to the p o s i t i o n of Protector of the Franciscan Order. While Francis was on missionary journeys 11 to Syria and Egypt i n 1219 Ugolino used.his power to make conditions easier for the Order by ordering a l l prelates to give- the f r i a r s f a c i l i t i e s for preaching and b u i l d i n g , and by obtaining p r i v i l e g e s for them. Despite the Cardinal's p o s i t i v e intentions, Francis was h o r r i f i e d upon h i s return to f i n d such contradictions to h i s ideals as convents being b u i l t for h i s f r i a r s . In 1221 Francis stepped down as o f f i c i a l head of his Order, for i t was obvious to him that the siz e and nature of the Order now required the organizational powers of a more business-minded leader. Peter Catani was appointed Vicar of 3 the Order and upon his death E l i a s of Cortona. Francis s t i l l adhered to h i s o r i g i n a l ideals f o r the Order, however, 4 and l a i d them down i n the expanded Rule of 1221, the "Regula Prima". But i n 1222 demands were made for a new Rule, e s p e c i a l l y by those f r i a r s such as p r i e s t s and academics. These members objected p r i m a r i l y to the Rule's non-allowance for extensive s c h o l a r l y i n t e r e s t s . Their suggestion that the F r i a r s Minor adopt the Rule of some other e x i s t i n g monastic order was soundly rejected by Francis, who instead drew up another Rule. This Rule was f i r s t revised by Ugolino upon Francis' request, then further changed by the minis-ters at the Chapter of 1223, who i n s i s t e d on the del e t i o n of demands such as that requiring f r i a r s to take nothing with them on t h e i r journeys.^ Thus, even t h i s e a r l y i n the h i s t o r y of the Order, i n t e r n a l d i v i s i o n s were becoming evident. The opposition was one of ideologies, between Francis and one section of f r i a r s on the one hand who s t i l l maintained the importance of adhering to s t r i c t Gospel-based ideals such as absolute poverty, and Ugolino, E l i a s , and the more academic f r i a r s on the other, whose i n t e r e s t s lay more i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the F r i a r s Minor as a powerful monastic i n s t i t u t i o n . Shortly before h i s death i n 1226, Francis made a f i n a l appeal to the f r i a r s to uphold h i s i d e a l s ; i n his p a r t l y autobiographical Testament he warns the brothers against accepting buildings or p r i v i l e g e s and demands that they obey the Rule l i t e r a l l y . The future danger for the Order i n i t s increased i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n was appa-r e n t l y obvious to Francis, but unfortunately h i s appeal i n the Testament was of l i t t l e e f f e c t i n curbing i t s monastic development. . Immediately following the death of Francis on October 3, 1226, E l i a s became the dominant f i g u r e i n the Order. As Vicar, he was the only f r i a r i n a p o s i t i o n of authority. E l i a s sent out a l e t t e r announcing Francis's death to the various provinces, but the emphasis of the l e t t e r was not on the g r i e f f e l t at the death, but rather on the s a i n t l i n e s s of F r a n c i s . 7 The miracle of the Stigmatization, which had been kept secret from a l l but a few f r i a r s since 8 9 i t s occurance i n 1224, was now p u b l i c l y proclaimed by E l i a s . Now that Francis was dead, the privacy of h i s mystical experiences was pu b l i c property, and E l i a s saw i t s value f o r the imminent canonization of Francis and thence the glory of the Order. Somehow the sensationalism of Francis's s a n c t i t y took precedence over the id e a l s he had expressed when a man, as i f h i s earthly r o l e could be dismissed now that he had a heavenly one. Although John Parenti, a man s t i l l dedicated to poverty and s i m p l i c i t y was elected to the new executive p o s i t i o n of Minister General of the Order i n 1227, E l l a s remained very a c t i v e . He planned, f o r example, a grand b a s i l i c a to be erected i n A s s i s i to the glory of F r a n c i s . " ^ Of great importance to the i n t e r e s t s of E l i a s and h i s c o l l e a -gues was the e l e c t i o n of Cardinal Ugolino to the papacy i n 1227, as Gregory IX. Gregory approved the construction of the b a s i l i c a , and i n 1228 came to A s s i s i to perform the canonization r i t e s f o r Francis, lay the foundation stone f o r the b a s i l i c a , and appoint a writer to compose an o f f i c i a l L i f e of St. Francis. Of great s i g n i f i c a n c e to the future development of the Order was Gregory's papal b u l l "Quo e l o n g a t i " of 1230, i n which he declared that the 13 Testament of Francis was not binding to the f r i a r s , because i t had been l a i d 12 down without the consultation of the ministers. This d e c i s i o n solved the problem of Francis's statement i n the Testament that the Rule must be observed l i t e r a l l y . With the authority of the Testament denied, the Rule could now be changed. An immediate a l t e r a t i o n of the Rule allowed f r i a r s the use of any 13 property provided i t l e g a l l y belonged to someone e l s e . The chain of Ministers-General who followed John Parenti, and the type of development which they encouraged became incr e a s i n g l y objectionable to those members of the Order who s t i l l sought to follow Francis's i d e a l s and Testament. F r i a r s of t h i s point of view came to be known as the S p i r i t u a l f a c t i o n of the Order, as opposed to the Conventuals. Amongst the S p i r i t u a l s were some of the f r i a r s who had been Francis's closest f r i e n d s : Leo, Angelo, Ruffino, and others, as well as a s u b s t a n t i a l number of newer converts who opposed the way i n which the Order was being i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d . The S p i r i t u a l s s t i l l l i v e d i n secluded huts or caves for the most part, and followed a l i f e of preaching and begging; the largest colony of S p i r i t u a l s was found i n the Marches of 14 Ancona i n the mid-thirteenth century. John Parenti was replaced as Minister-General i n 1232 by E l i a s of Cortona. E l i a s ' s oppressive r u l e , luxurious l i v i n g habits, and a s s o c i a t i o n with the excommunicated emperor Frederick II were objected to not only by the S p i r i t u a l f a c t i o n , but by the F r i a r s Minor i n general. E l i a s was deposed i n 1239 and excommunicated."'""' His successors i n o f f i c e were Albert of Pisa [1239-40] and Haymo of Faversham [1240-44] who were both academics and gave great encouragement to Franciscan 16 scholarship, much to the d i s t r e s s of the S p i r i t u a l s who remembered Francis's i n s i s t e n c e that one must cast o f f even learning to become dedicated s o l e l y to Christ."'' 7 The next Minister-General, however, Crescentius of I e s i [1244-47], was openly opposed to the S p i r i t u a l s . He saw them as being a disobedient 14 f a c t i o n of the Order who deserved to be punished and repressed to curb t h e i r 18 extremism. It was understandably with great joy that the S p i r i t u a l s greeted the appointment of John of Parma i n 1247, for here was f i n a l l y a M i n i s t e r -General of t h e i r own "party" who wished to see a return to the e a r l i e r ideo-logy. John of Parma's term was an extremely successful one i n lessening the growing gaps within the Order, achieved mainly through h i s personal e f f o r t s to v i s i t and communicate with a l l the Franciscan centres. However i n 1257, and apparently upon the suggestion of the Pope, he resigned, mainly as a 19 r e s u l t of h i s involvement with the scandal of the E t e r n a l Evangel and the desire to c l e a r the Order of the h e r e t i c a l suspicions that the incident had aroused. The S p i r i t u a l Minister-General was replaced by the much more mode-rate John of Fidanza a f t e r the occurrence, and the whole of the S p i r i t u a l party i n general f e l l into further disrepute because of the extreme Joachimism of a few of i t s members. The L i t e r a r y Sources for the L i f e of St. Francis On July 16, 1228, a f t e r the Canonization ceremonies at A s s i s i , Pope Gregory IX commissioned the f i r s t o f f i c i a l l i f e of St. Francis to be v 20 written. It i s important to note here that not only was the Saint's h i s t o r y ordered to be written, but i t was commissioned by the Pope himself. In no way was t h i s written l i f e story the personal memoirs of an ardent f r i a r , prompted by h i s fond r e c o l l e c t i o n s of Francis. This L i f e i s more appropria-t e l y seen as a companion document to the Canonization b u l l , the written proof of the s a n c t i t y of Francis. Likewise, the man chosen to be author of t h i s work, brother Thomas of Celano, was not one of Francis's more intimate acquaintances, but a reputable writer of moderate views, who had not joined 21 the Franciscan Order u n t i l 1215. As Moorman points out, the o f f i c i a l purpose of Thomas of Celano's V i t a Prima i s detectable both i n i t s s t y l e and content, 15 e s p e c i a l l y i f i t i s compared to l a t e r writings of a more personal t r a d i t i o n , such as the S c r i p t a Leonis. For example, i n describing Francis's childhood, Celano concentrates on h i s delinquency so as to more dramatically emphasize hi s l a t e r conversion, and s t o r i e s of the miracles and supernatural powers of Francis are stressed f a r more than more personal descriptions or the f a c t s 22 surrounding the establishment of the Order. The h i s t o r i c a l accuracy of Celano's V i t a Prima i s not of present concern; the important consideration here i s that t h i s l i t e r a r y source i s an o f f i c i a l l y commissioned piece of propaganda designed to emphasize above a l l the f a c t that Francis was indeed a 23 s a i n t . The source of the commission i s further evident i n the prominent ro l e given to E l i a s i n the V i t a Prima, while other important brothers l i k e Leo, 2 A Angelo and Masseo are never mentioned. In l i g h t of E l i a s ' s r o l e i n organizing the future of the Order, i t i s only natural that an o f f i c i a l account of Francis should seek to demonstrate that Francis had intended E l i a s to assume the dominance that he now had. Having been a Franciscan for a r e l a t i v e l y short time, Celano must have received most of the information for h i s book from a v a r i e t y of sources, other 25 f r i a r s , and c i t i z e n s of A s s i s i . Moorman surmises that t h i s c o l l e c t i o n of s t o r i e s obtained by Celano was kept i n the l i b r a r y at A s s i s i . Other s l i g h t l y l a t e r compilations of the l i f e of St. Francis present f u l l e r accounts of events described i n Celano I. This suggests that a common source was being drawn 26 upon. Celano's V i t a Prima was completed some time between 1229 and 1231. Although a few e a r l i e r r e f e r e n c e s ^ to events of Francis's l i f e are extant, t h i s work i s the e a r l i e s t complete account which survives, and apparently the e a r l i e s t one w r i t t e n . Celano's V i t a Prima begins with an account of Francis's early l i f e and conversion, followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s dedication to Poverty, S i m p l i c i t y , 16 Humility and Obedience. Then he recounts the Saint's missionary works, a number of s t o r i e s of h i s miraculous powers, and a c o l l e c t i o n of more personal 28 s t o r i e s . The l a s t section consists of a c o l l e c t i o n of accounts of miracles cocurring a f t e r the death of Francis and ascribed to h i s divine powers. 29 Although few authors take note of t h i s point, t h i s l a s t section of Celano represents more than j u s t a random s e l e c t i o n of legends. The miracle s t o r i e s recounted i n I Celano, numbers 127 to 150, i n fact represent a recording of the f o r t y miracles which were approved for the canonization of Francis i n 1228. 3 0 Following the normal canonization procedure, a commission of prelates was appointed by Gregory IX i n 1227 to e s t a b l i s h the two aspects of Francis's l i f e necessary to prove h i s worthiness for canonization: the s a n c t i t y of h i s l i f e , and the demonstration of miracles performed through him a f t e r h i s death. The accounts of f o r t y miracles c o l l e c t e d by the commission were next examined by the Pope, who came to A s s i s i i n May, 1228 for t h i s purpose. He also i n t e r -viewed the persons who had a c t u a l l y experienced the miraculous healings. The process then included various consultations and speeches regarding Francis's s a n c t i t y amongst the cardinals at Perugia, and resulted i n the approval of 31 both Francis's s a i n t l y l i f e , and the v a l i d i t y of a l l f o r t y miracles. At the canonization ceremony on July 16, 1228, Gregory IX read h i s sermon on the 32 san c t i t y of Francis, the l i s t of miracles was read out by one of the prelates and Francis was thence proclaimed a s a i n t . The miracles c o l l e c t e d by the canonization commission are those l i s t e d by Celano i n the l a s t section of h i s V i t a Prima. 33 Although followed by a few minor writings on the l i f e of St. Francis, Celano's V i t a Prima was the dominant l i t e r a r y source for the Order from 1228 u n t i l 1244. At the Chapter General i n Genoa i n 1244, however, i t was decided — 17 that a new o f f i c i a l L i f e should bet written, and an i n v i t a t i o n was extended to a l l the f r i a r s to submit any r e c o l l e c t i o n s or s t o r i e s they possessed about 34 Francis. The o f f i c i a l w r i t i n g which came out of the new material sent xn to A s s i s i from 1245-46 was Thomas of Celano's V i t a Secunda, of 1247. The nature of t h i s work i s quite d i f f e r e n t from that of the V i t a Prima; the f i r s t part of the l a t e r work consists of a more d e t a i l e d account of Francis's l i f e up to the time of h i s conversion. The second part i s arranged under headings such as the Saint's humility or s i m p l i c i t y , describing through anecdote the character and i d e a l s of Francis. This type of L i f e would seem to represent the desire of the f r i a r s f o r a more personal account of t h e i r founder, as opposed to the 35 o f f i c i a l dogmatic one of the V i t a Prima. Indeed, much of the material sub-mitted for the V i t a Secunda came from the closest companions of Francis: brothers Leo, Ruffino, and Angelo. Their c o l l e c t i o n of personal memoirs was also drawn upon by writers other than Celano. Accounts based on t h i s source belong to the more humanistic t r a d i t i o n of l i t e r a r y sources for the l i f e of 36 Francis. Celano i s quite e x p l i c i t i n the V i t a Secunda about the o r i g i n a l wishes of St. Francis with regard to maters such as absolute proverty, begging, and the observance of the Rule. These were areas whose i n t e r p r e t a t i o n were 37 increasingly d i v i d i n g the Order. Thus, although commissioned as an " o f f i -c i a l " and therefore t h e o r e t i c a l l y neutral L i f e , Celano's second work shows 38 d e f i n i t e S p i r i t u a l i s t sympathies. It has been suggested that t h i s bias accounts for the r e l a t i v e unpopularity of the V i t a Secunda, f o r the M i n i s t e r -General [Grescentius] at that time had more Conventual tendencies. The degree to which t h i s work r e f l e c t s the p o l i c y of the contemporary Order rather than a re l i a n c e on Celano's e a r l i e r w r i t i n g , however, i s indicated by the fac t that E l i a s , now excommunicated, i s not mentioned by name once i n the V i t a Secunda. 18 The V i t a Secunda was apparently regarded as being inadequate due to i t s lack of miracle s t o r i e s , for sometime around 1250 Celano was asked by M i n i s t e r -39 General John of Parma to record the Saint's miracles. This t h i r d work, the Tractatus de M i r a c u l i s , repeats many of the miracles of the V i t a Prima, and adds a large number of new miracles which had occurred a f t e r the publishing of the e a r l i e r work. 4^ In the 1250's, a d i f f e r e n t type of " u n o f f i c i a l " Franciscan l i t e r a t u r e appeared as a symptom of the i n t e r n a l problems which were d i v i d i n g the Order. The Verb.a Sancti F r a n c i s c i was probably written by Leo and other " S p i r i t u a l " f r i a r s , for i t includes such i n d i s c r e e t passages as accounts of Francis's con-f l i c t s with the c l e r i c a l ministers. It has been suggested that t h i s work was produced as a protest against the dismissal of John of Parma i n 1257. The F i o r e t t i , an anonymous compilation of the same period, shows the sympathies of i t s author by i t s d e s c r i p t i o n of John of Parma as the perfect f r i a r , and the writings of Angelo of Clareno stress the oppositions within the Order and 41 the hardships of the S p i r i t u a l s . Probably because of t h i s rather dangerous trend i n Franciscan l i t e r a t u r e , the Chapter General of 1260 commissioned Minister-General Giovanni Fidanza [St. Bonaventura] to write a moderate and complete l i f e of St. Francis which would replace a l l others. The r e s u l t of t h i s assignment was Bonaventura's Leggenda Majora published i n 1263; upon i t s appearance i t was declared to be the only o f f i c i a l biography of Francis, and a l l other accounts were banned from 42 use. The greater part of the content of the Leggenda Majora derives from the works of Thomas of Celano, with a few new additions, but the tone of Bonaventura's work i s quite d i f f e r e n t . His purpose i s to present Francis as an uncontroversial and rather removed Saint, so he omits those areas of h i s l i f e vwhich emphasize either the most personal aspects of Francis, or h i s 19 b e l i e f s regarding areas of doctrine which were presently extremely d e l i c a t e , such as the authority of the Testament. Bonaventura's method of w r i t i n g i s b a s i c a l l y an abridgement of Celano, leaving out or adding b i t s i n order to 43 smooth over c o n t r o v e r s i a l areas. Joachimism and Franciscanism At t h i s point i t i s necessary to r e f e r to an area of t h i r t e e n t h century Franciscan thought and l i t e r a t u r e which, although never associated with the early representations of St. Francis, i s e s s e n t i a l for a complete understand-ing of both t h e i r format and iconography. The area i n question i s the 44 Joachimist movement. Joachim of Fiore [1135 to 1202] was a C i s t e r c i a n monk i n Calabria whose prophetic w r i t i n g s , most notably the Liber Concordiae Novi et Veteri s  Testamenti, and the Exposito i n Apocalypsim were very i n f l u e n t i a l on l a t e r r e l i g i o u s thought. Joachim's view of h i s t o r y consisted b a s i c a l l y of a d i v i -sion into three ages. The f i r s t age, that of the Father, had been the period of the Old Testament. The second age, that of the Son, was that period which was j u s t then drawing to i t s close. The t h i r d age, of the Holy S p i r i t , would lead to the Last Judgement and end of the world. Each age was divided into seven shorter periods, and each was marked by the appearance of three great men. The men of the f i r s t age had been Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and those of the second age Zachariah, John the B a p t i s t , and C h r i s t . The great men of the age of the Holy S p i r i t would be three who were prophesied i n the Scriptures: the man clothed i n l i n e n i n Daniel 12:7, and two angels of the Apocalypse, namely the one with the s i c k l e [Revelation 14:14] and the one having the s e a l of the L i v i n g God [Revelation 7:2] who would be the renovator of the Church and the head of the New Jerusalem. The f i r s t age was designated as that of married men, 45 the second of c l e r i c s , and the t h i r d of s p i r i t u a l monks. 20 Joachim prophesied that the Third Age would begin i n the year 1260; this:j t r a n s i t i o n corresponded to the opening of the seventh seal of the Apocalypse. The t h i r d age would be one of peace and complete understanding of the S c r i p t u -res, u n t i l the return of the A n t i c h r i s t and Last Judgement. Of great impor-tance i n Joachim's w r i t i n g s , however, was the period of t r a n s i t i o n between the second and t h i r d ages, the years from 1200 to 1260. This would be a period of great t r i b u l a t i o n , marked by both the appearance of the A n t i c h r i s t , and the beginnings of new s p i r i t u a l understanding, corresponding to the opening of the 46 s i x t h apocalyptic s e a l . Joachim had already i d e n t i f i e d the Benedictines as the precursors of the s p i r i t u a l monks which were to come. But preceding the contemplatives of the Third Age, he envisioned two a d d i t i o n a l orders of monks as preparing the way, one of hermits praying f o r the world, and one of preachers mediating between the a c t i v e and contemplative l i f e . Elsewhere he sees them as an order of l a i e t y and one of clergy, and gives them many s c r i p t u r a l a l l e g o -r i e s such as the raven and dove sent out by Noah, or the two witnesses of the 4 7 Apocalypse. The appearance of the two new mendicant orders of the Franciscans and Dominicans i n the early t h i r t e e n t h century seemed to f u l f i l l p r e c i s e l y the expectations of Joachim, so that both Orders were quick to see themselves i n t h i s prophetic r o l e of being sent to save the world for the approaching Age. Joachim's o r i g i n a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of an a c t i v e and contemplative order was soon 48 replaced by that of the two a c t i v e preaching orders. The early entrance in t o the new mendicant orders of Joachim's ideas i s not s u r p r i s i n g i n l i g h t of the fact that the monks of Joachim's small Florentian order had been taught to expect the appearance of the two orders, and went out to h a i l the new orders 49 as the f u l f i l l m e n t of the prophecy. A large number of pseudo-Joachist writings appeared around the mid-21 th i r t e e n t h century which were based upon his works but emphasized above a l l the r o l e of the monks heralding the Third Age."^ Some of these writings have been atrributed to Franciscan authors. The e a r l i e s t and most important of these pseudo-Joachistbbobks i s the Super Hieremian, which must have been i n existence before 1242, since i t i s quoted i n another important work, the Scriptum Super Apocalypsim which was produced by that date."'"'" This l a s t work i s not a spurious one, but by the known author of Alexander of Bremen, a Franciscan. Alexander speaks of the prophetic rol e s of Dominic and Francis, 52 but implies that i t i s the Franciscans who w i l l t r u l y f u l f i l l the prophecy. And i t was indeed within the Franciscan Order rather than the Dominican one that Joachimism was most popularly held. These Joachimist writings were a l l considered to be completely orthodox, and aroused no suspicions of heresy. The prime example of an extremist Franciscan-Joachist w r i t e r , however, i s found i n the f r i a r Gerard of Borgo San Donnino. Gerard's book, the Eter n a l Gospel, appeared i n 1254 i n P a r i s , where 53 the young Franciscan attended the University. Although no copy of the work survives today, i t apparently consisted of a gloss upon three of Joachim of Fiore's writings, plus a "Liber Introductorius" by Gerard. Some of i t s con-tents are known through p a r t i a l manuscripts and a l i s t of a r t i c l e s drawn up f o r 54 the book.'s condemnation, so that i t can be concluded that Gerard's theories were b a s i c a l l y an extension to extremes of Joachim's "pattern-of-threes". Besides apparently making extremely strong claims for the h i s t o r i c a l r o l e of St. Francis, Gerard proclaimed that the writings of Joachim were the Eternal Gospel of the t h i r d age and would replace the authority of the Old and New Testaments. Such a view i s far removed from Joachim's statement that perfect understanding of the e x i s t i n g gospels would come about i n the t h i r d age. Gerard interpreted Joachim himself as being that angel of the Apocalypse who appeared out of heaven 22 with an open book a f t e r the sounding of the s i x t h trumpet [Revelation 10:1,2]; the book represented Joachim's w r i t i n g s . T h i s h e r e t i c a l work appeared at the University of Paris at an unfortunate time, for the c o n f l i c t between Seculars and Mendicants there was then at i t s height. The book was immediately seized by the secular masters, and by William of St. Amour i n p a r t i c u l a r , and used as evidence against the Mendicants. A l i s t of thirty-one objections was drawn up by the Anagni Commission of the seculars, and sent to Pope Alexander IV, who condemned the book i n October, 1255. The Eternal Gospel was burned and Gerard spent the remainder of h i s l i f e i n prison. A more serious r e s u l t f or the S p i r i t u a l Franciscans was the dismissal of John of Parma as Minister-General i n 1257. John of Parma had been a close acquaintance of Gerard's, and h i s dismissal i s generally seen as a d i r e c t r e s u l t of h i s known Joachimist tendencies, and h i s rather peripheral involvement with the scandal of Gerard that brought so much disgrace to the F r a n c i s c a n s . I t must be noted, however, that only Gerard's writings, and not those of Joachim, were considered h e r e t i c a l at that time. Indeed, the writings of the next generation of well-respected Franciscan scholars continued to show moderate Joachist views. Among the foremost of these were Peter John O l i v i , Bartholomew of P i s a , Ubertino da Casale, and St. Bonaventura himself. It must be explained here that the S p i r i t u a l F r a n c i s - . cans i n p a r t i c u l a r had the strongest i n t e r e s t i n Joachimism. This was espe-c i a l l y because of t h e i r devotion to absolute poverty, an i d e a l which Joachim had emphasized among the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of h i s prophesied s p i r i t u a l monks. The S p i r i t u a l s also had a greater leaning towards mysticism than the Conventuals, so that Joachim's writings had a c e r t a i n a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . And above a l l the persecution being suffered by the S p i r i t u a l s at t h i s time was seen as a f u l f i l l m e n t of Joachim's foreseen period of great hardship.^ 7 Casting themselves 23 i n the ro l e of Joachim's tortured holy men, the S p i r i t u a l s found even greater strength f o r t h e i r b e l i e f s ; t h e i r mission to reform the Church had been f o r e -t o l d . This b e l i e f of the S p i r i t u a l Franciscans i s most strongly described by Angelo of Clareno i n h i s H i s t o r i a Septem Tribulationum of the early fourteenth 58 century. St. Bonaventura was by no means a S p i r i t u a l , nor was he a strong follower of Joachimism, f o r he had i n fact repudiated Joachim's view of h i s t o r y i n some 59 of h i s wr i t i n g s . Yet other of h i s works show a d i s t i n c t influence of the thinking of Joachim i n h i s v i s i o n of a future "status". And i n the introduction to h i s Leggenda Majora Bonaventura makes the d i s t i n c t l y Joachimist claim that St. Francis, was the s i x t h angel of the Apocalypse, marked by the seal of the 60 L i v i n g God. This i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e f e r s d i r e c t l y back to Joachim's prophecy that one of the t h i r d great men of the t h i r d age would be the person f o r e t o l d as t h i s Apocalyptic angel. St. Francis f i t the r o l e p h y s i c a l l y as well as s p i r i t u a l l y , f o r the marks of the stigmata were interpreted as the seal of the L i v i n g God marking the angel. The ro l e of Francis as a sort of "angel of mercy" also suited h i s ideology; the s i x t h apocalyptic angel appears j u s t before the angels of the four corners of the earth are to destroy the world, and he bids them to postpone t h e i r destruction u n t i l those people who were j u s t had been saved.6""" This a l l seemed to f i t Francis extremely w e l l , f o r he was neither a preacher of doom nor a contemplative by nature, but represented the extremes of alt r u i s m i n h i s l i f e . Francis stressed that the mission of hi s followers was to l i v e "not for themselves alone but f o r the s a l v a t i o n of 62 souls". St. Bonaventura was not the f i r s t writer to state outright that St. Francis was indeed t h i s Apocalyptic angel. It was evidently contained i n Gerard's Eternal Evangel of 1255, but i t has been suggested that John of Parma 63 was the f i r s t to thus i d e n t i f y St. Francis. Ubertino da Casale a t t r i b u t e s 24 64 the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to Johncof Parma. But i t i s s u r p r i s i n g that St. Bonaventure, the moderate, should include t h i s f l d e s c r i p t i o n i n h i s o f f i c i a l V i t a Majora. It has been suggested by A n t a l ^ that Bonaventura's i n c l u s i o n of the dogma represented a conscious "compromise" with the S p i r i t u a l s . Reeves,^ however, sees Bonaventura's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Francis here as being almost unconscious, as an example of j u s t how c l o s e l y Franciscan and Joachist thought had become intermingled; "St. Bonaventura was a Joachite malgre l u i " . In any case, t h i s passage i n the V i t a Majora i s a strong example of how ideas o r i g i -nating i n Joachimism had become part of o f f i c i a l Franciscan doctrine by about 1260. The prevalence of more committed Joachist views amongst leading F r a n c i s -cans i s found i n the writings of Peter John O l i v i and Ubertino da Casale, who were both strongly S p i r i t u a l i s t i n t h e i r b e l i e f s . O l i v i was a teacher and w r i t e r i n Provence, and h i s most important work with regard to h i s Joachite b e l i e f s was the P o s t i l l a Super Apocalypsim of C i r c a 1280. O l i v i drew heavily on Joachim's Exposito f o r t h i s work, as well as r e f e r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y to 6 7 Joachim by name, and he described i n d e t a i l the s p e c i a l r o l e of St. Francis. Amongst the more r a d i c a l of h i s followers, O l i v i himself was h a i l e d as an Apocalyptic f i g u r e of the t h i r d age corresponding to St. Paul. This tendency contributed to the l a t e r condemnation of O l i v i ' s writings by the Franciscan 68 Chapter General i n 1299. 'Most important to Tuscan Joachimism, however, was O l i v i ' s p o s i t i o n for several years a f t e r 1287 as l e c t o r i n Santa Croce, Florence.^ 9 The most outstanding of O l i v i ' s I t a l i a n followers was Ubertino da Casale, head of the Tuscan S p i r i t u a l i s t s , and author of the Arbor Vitae  C r u c i f i x a e . The f i f t h book of t h i s volume displays most c l e a r l y Ubertino's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Joachim's and O l i v i ' s pattern of h i s t o r y . 7 ^ Ubertino was i n fact a l e c t u r e r at Santa Croce while O l i v i was there,7''" so that h i s influence ' 25 was undoubtably d i r e c t . Less c o n t r o v e r s i a l than these S p i r i t u a l i s t oriented writings of O l i v i and Ubertino was the fourteenth century L i b e r de conformitate b e a t i F r a n c i s c i ad vitam domini Jesu, a work approved by the Chapter General of 72 1390. Written by the Franciscan Bartholomew of P i s a i n 1385, i t represents the more moderate stream of J o a c h i s t i c thought which emphasizes the r o l e of Francis as a second C h r i s t . The e n t i r e Liber de conformitate presents an elaborate system of p a r a l l e l s between the l i v e s of C h r i s t and Francis, and 73 sets f o r t h the theme of the Apocalyptic r o l e of St. Francis and h i s Order. The idea that St. Francis represented a second Chr i s t i s an aspect of t h i r t e e n t h century Franciscan doctrine which w i l l be of p a r t i c u l a r importance when considering early Franciscan a r t . This widespread and completely orthodox idea derived ultimately from Joachimism. As Marjorie Reeves notes, " i t was only Joachim's T r i n i t a r i a n pattern of threes which made i t possible to extend the well-known concors of twos between the Testaments into the future, by making claims f o r St. Francis that were otherwise well-nigh blasphemous. St. Francis stoodoon the threshold of the t h i r d status as Christ on that of the second, and the p a r a l l e l s which Joachim had found between the f i r s t and the second status must now be sought between the second and t h i r d . " ' The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Francis as a p a r a l l e l to C h r i s t was p h y s i c a l l y suggested by Francis's r e c e i v i n g of the stigmata, the wounds of C h r i s t . And h i s i d e a l s as displayed by h i s l i f e s t y l e were also very C h r i s t - l i k e , But the d o c t r i n a l basis f o r a c t u a l l y claiming that Francis was a second Chr i s t was Joachim's scheme of B i b l i c a l p a r a l l e l s . This pattern of thought pervaded the views of even those Franciscans who outwardly opposed much of Joachim of Fiore's teachings. As Reeves points out, " I t must be emphasized that one did not need to be a committed Joachite to share i n t h i s general a t t i t u d e towards the r o l e of St. Francis and h i s Order i n history."75 26 NOTES ''"For an account of the l i f e of St. Francis, see Paul Sabatier, Vie de S. Francois d'Assise [Paris: Fischbacher, 1894]. '2 John R. Moorman, A History of the Franciscan Order from i t s Origins  to the Year 1517 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968], pp. 10-19. 3 i b i d . , pp. 31, 46-52. 4 i b i d . , p. 52. ^ i b i d . , pp. 53-61. 6 i b i d . , pp. 75-80. For a t r a n s l a t i o n of the Testament, see Sabatier Vie de S. Francois, pp. 389-393. 7Moorman A History of the Franciscan Order, pp. 83-84. Thomas of Celano [Vita Prima, number 952 states that only E l i a s and Rufino saw the Stigmata while Francis was a l i v e . Sabatier Vie de S. Francois, pp. 404-405 reproduces i n t r a n s l a t i o n the section of the l e t t e r dealing with the Stigmatization. He gives as the source of the complete text: Spoelbrach, Speculum V i t a B. F r a n c i s c i , v o l . II [Anvers: 1620], pp. 103-106. "*"^ See Moorman A History of the Franciscan Order, p. 85. John R. Moorman, The Sources for the L i f e of St. Francis of A s s i s i [Manchester: University Press, 1940], p. 61 notes that E l i a s had obtained the s i t e f o r the b a s i l i c a even before Gregory had issued the B u l l recommencing that such a church be b u i l t . "'""'"Moorman A History of the Franciscan Order, p. 86. 12 The B u l l "Quo Elo n g a t i " i s reproduced by Sbarale, Bullarium F r a n c i s - canum Romanorum Pontiflcum, v o l . I [Rome: Typls Sacrae Congregationis de Propoganda Fide, 1759]. 13 Moorman A History of the Franciscan Order, p. 90 f f . With regard to other early b u l l s see Moorman, The Sources, p. 60. 14 Decima L. Douie, The Nature and the E f f e c t of the Heresy of the F r a t i c e l l i [Manchester: University Press, 1932],.p. 6 f f . "'""'Moorman A History of the Franciscan Order, pp. 96-104. 1 6 i b i d . , p. 105-107. ^Quoted by Moorman A History of the Franciscan Order, i b i d . , p. 108.' 27 19 See Chapter I I , "Joachimism and Franciscanism", 20 Moorman The Sources, p. 61. 21 i b i d , pp. 61-63. 22 A discussion of the V i t a Prima as an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the l i f e of Francis i s provided by Moorman, i b i d . , p. 63 f f . 23 i b i d . , p. 63 and note 3, p. 63. 2 4 i b i d . , p. 65. 25 i b i d . , pp. 67-76. The Legend of the Three Companions i n p a r t i c u l a r displays the use of the same source as that of the V i t a Prima. 26 See Moorman, i b i d . , pp. 67-68 for arguments for a r e l a t i v e l y l a t e date. Other authors, including Sabatier have accepted February, 1229 as the completion date of the book on the basis of a f i f t e e n t h century manuscript of the work i n which that date i s given. 27 These are described by Moorman The Sources, pp. 55-57. They were generally eyewitness accounts of i s o l a t e d events i n the l i f e of Francis. 28 Part I of the V i t a Prima deals with most of Francis' l i f e , Part II with h i s l a s t two years, and Part III with h i s canonization and posthumous miracles. 29 The i d e n t i t y of the miracles i s recognized by Pompei B i b l i o t e c a  Sanctorum, v o l . V, p. 1143. Moorman The Sources, p. 64 suggests the source more t e n t a t i v e l y . 30 Pompei, B i b l i o t e c a Sanctorum, v o l . V, pp. 1090, 1143. More than one miracle story often comprises a s i n g l e Celano number. Hence the d i s c r e -pancy between 40 miracles and Celano numbers 127-150. 3 1 i b i d . , pp. 1090-1092. 32 Gregory's canonization sermon i s recorded by Joannis Hyacinthi Sbarale, Bullarium Franciscanum Romanorum Pontificum [Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1759], pp*. 42-44. , 33 Notably the Officium Rhythmicum by J u l i a n of Speyer [e. 1232] and the Legenda V e r s i f i c a t a by Henry of Avrandres [c. 1232]. 34 Moorman The Sources, p. 89 f f . 35 This view i s held by Moorman, i b i d . 36 Although Bonaventura also drew from t h i s source, the most unabridged versions of the s t o r i e s c o l l e c t e d survive i n the Scr i p t a Leonis and the Legend of the Three Companions. 37 See Moorman The Sources, pp. 123-127 for a discussion of the V i t a Secunda. 3 8 i b i d . , p. 127. 39 See Moorman, i b i d . , pp. 127-128 for a discussion of the Tractatus d e i M i r a c u l i s . 40 Pompei B i b l i o t e c a Sanctorum, Vol. V, p. 1143 assigns dates to the occurrence of the miracles. 41 This view i s discussed by Rosalind Brooke, S c r i p t a Leonis, R u f i n i  et Angeli Sociorum S. F r a n c i s c i [Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1970], pp. 64-65. 42 The reasons for the commissioning of Bonaventura's Leggenda and the ban on other writings are discussed by Brooke, i b i d . , and Moorman The Sources, pp. 141-142. 43 See Moorman The Sources, pp. 142-151 for an analysis of Bonaventura' sources, content and s t y l e . 44 The f u l l e s t account of Joachimism i s Marjorie Reeves The Influence  of Prophecy i n the Later Middle Ages. A Study i n Joachimism [Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1969]. 45 Gordon L e f f Heresy i n the Later Middle Ages, v o l . I [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967], p. 71 f f . i b i d . 47 Reeves The Influence of Prophecy, p. 142 f f . ^ ^ i b i d . , p. 148. 49 i b i d . , p. 152. 5 0 i b i d . , pp. 56-58, 149-160. ^^"Guido Bondatti Gioachinismo e franeescanesimo n e l Dugento [ A s s i s i : S. Maria d e g l i Angeli, 1924], p. 38. 52 L e f f Heresy i n the Later Middle Ages, vol-. I, p. 79. 53 For a discussion of the Eternal Evangel see L e f f , i b i d . , p. 79 f f . and Reeves The Influence of Prophecy, pp. 59-59. 54 The most complete l i s t of the a r t i c l e s i s recorded by Matthew Paris Chronica Majora, v o l . VI [London: Longman and Co., 1882], pp. 335-339. ~^L e f f Heresy i n the Later Middle Ages, p. 79. 56 John of Parma's views were so close to some of those expounded the Eternal Evangel that he was suspected as the author. See Reeves The Influence of Prophecy, p. 63. 5 7 i b i d . , p. 175 f f . C O i b i d . , p. 191. 59 For s p e c i f i c examples see Reeves, i b i d . , p. 179. 60 Leggenda Major, Prologue, number 1. ^ R e v e l a t i o n 7:2. 62 Thomas of Celano V i t a Prima, number 35. 63 Reeves The Influence of Prophecy, p. 176. 64 i b i d . , p. 176, note 3. 65 Frederick Antal Florentine Painting and i t s . S o c i a l Background [London: Regan Paul, 1948], p. 148 f f . 66 Reeves The Influence of Prophecy, p. 181. 6 7 i b i d . , pp. 196-200. 6 8 i b i d . , p. 200. x b x d . 7 0 i b i d . , pp. 207-209. 7 1 i b i d . , p. 200. 72 Moorman A History of the Franciscan Order, pp. 396-397. lbxd. 74 Reeves The Influence of Prophecy, p. 177. xbid. CHAPTER I I I : THE MIRACLE PANELS J U When the quantity of Franciscan l i t e r a t u r e already i n existence i n the thirt e e n t h century i s considered, i t might be expected that the richness and va r i e t y of the Franciscan legend would have been r e f l e c t e d i n contemporary a r t . But an examination of the subject matter of the st o r i a t e d retables reveals that t h i s was not the case. It was not the story of Francis' l i f e which was given preference on the panels, but four p a r t i c u l a r miracles of healing that occurred a f t e r h i s death. These four miracle i l l u s t r a t i o n s appear i n Pescia I, Pisa I I , P i s t o i a I I I , A s s i s i VI and Rome VII. In the l a t t e r two examples they are the only scenes included, whereas Pescia I com-bines them with two events from Francis' l i f e , and Pisa II with the i l l u s t r a -tions of two a d d i t i o n a l miracles. P i s t o i a I I I d i f f e r s from the others i n that i t displays a cycle of four l i f e scenes along with the four miracles; i t w i l l therefore be considered apart from the other four miracle panels. But Pescia I, Pisa I I , A s s i s i VI and Rome VII are a l l representatives of the e a r l i e s t p i c t o r i a l t r a d i t i o n of the Franciscan legend. Because of the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n t h e i r subject matter these paintings w i l l be dealt with as a d i s t i n c t group with a common thematic emphasis. The r e p e t i t i o n of i d e n t i c a l subjects throughout these panels also permits an examination of the development and d e r i v a t i o n of the s p e c i f i c p i c t o r i a l motifs used, from t h e i r e a r l i e s t appearance i n Pescia I to the l a t e s t of the group, Rome VII. The f i r s t two scenes represented on Pescia I are the Stigmatization and the sermon to the b i r d s , events which occurred during the l i f e of Francis. Of the four panels to be discussed here, only Pescia I displays these scenes. The possible reasons f o r t h e i r i n c l u s i o n and the rather s p e c i a l iconographic t r a d i t i o n to which they belong w i l l be discussed at a l a t e r point rather than i n connection with the "miracle t r a d i t i o n " paintings. It w i l l here s u f f i c e to mention that both events are described i n Celano's V i t a Prima and so are 31 i n accordance with the 1235 date on the panel, as well as the source for the 1 miracle scenes. The Healing of the Deformed G i r l The scene at the bottom l e f t of Pescia I begins the s e r i e s of miracle por t r a y a l s . Although a general decipherment of what i s happening i n t h i s 2 scene was suggested by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, and described somewhat more 3 accurately by Siren, the s p e c i f i c l i t e r a r y source f o r t h i s story was not 4 i d e n t i f i e d u n t i l 1926, by Bughetti. The event i s described i n Thomas of Celano's V i t a Prima, where i t i s number 127 and the f i r s t miracle described i n that section of the book devoted to posthumous miracles.^ The account i n Celano reads as follows: On the day i n which the sacred body of the most blessed Francis was l a i d to rest l i k e a precious treasure, embalmed more with c e l e s t i a l perfumes than with earthly aromas, a young g i r l was c a r r i e d to the sepulchre, who for a year had had a monstrously bent neck, so that her head touched her shoulder and she was unable to look up, excepting sideways. She was placed for a l i t t l e while with her head under the tomb i n which lay the body of the Saint; and immediately, thanks to the most holy man, the neck was straightened up, and her head returned to i t s proper p o s i t i o n , so that the g i r l , frightened by the sudden change, began to run away crying. A sort of c a v i t y ^ was seen on her shoulder, as a r e s u l t of the long i n f i r m i t y . The way i n which Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s story i n Pescia I serves as the model for a l l the following t h i r t e e n t h century represen-tations of the miracle. The s i t e of the miracle i s shown as an a l t a r , surmoun-ted by a round baldacchino, supported by four columns. This type of a l t a r becomes the standard s e t t i n g for the miracles occurring a f t e r Francis' death at h i s tomb. The a l t a r i s perhaps meant to represent the sort of tomb-altar under which the body of St. Francis would have been i n the Church of S. Giorgio, A s s i s i at that time. 7 The s p e c i f i c depiction of the a l t a r i n t h i s f i r s t scene, however, i s d i f f e r e n t than i n the two following ones on the same panel, i n that the f i r s t a l t a r i s shown with a p r o j e c t i o n extending at r i g h t angles from the 32 mensa. The a l t a r - c l o t h hangs along the end of t h i s p r o j e c t i o n , not across the front of the a l t a r i t s e l f as i n the next two scenes i n which the p r o j e c t -ion i s omitted. The only w r i t e r to have mentioned the uniqueness of t h i s g a l t a r i s Bughetti who, although he misreads the s p a t i a l structures being represented i n the object, has an i n t e r e s t i n g suggestion for the reason f o r t h i s a l t a r ' s d i f f e r e n t s t y l e . Because the written account s p e c i f i c a l l y mentions the fact that t h i s miracle took place on the day of Francis' entomb-ment, Bughetti surmises that a conscious e f f o r t i s being made here to i l l u s -t r a t e the wooden sarcophagus i n which the Saint's body was c a r r i e d to S. Giorgio that day. Because the other two "tomb miracles" shown on Pescia I also occurred before;the'jbodyotif CSt.Francis was transferred from S. Giorgio to S. Francesco i n 1230, Bughetti does not suggest that t h i s " p r o j e c t i o n " form of a l t a r i s meant s p e c i f i c a l l y to represent the actual form of the S. Giorgio tomb, nor does he hold that t h i s i s an accurate depiction of the 9 actual wooden sarcophagus. But because the a l t a r p r o j e c t i o n i s shown quite d e f i n i t e l y with a sort of lock-plate, suggesting that i t i s a lidded structure l i k e a c o f f i n , the p o s s i b i l i t y that the a r t i s t i s here representing the sarcophagus of St. Francis attached to the a l t a r would therefore seem to be quite strong. Perhaps he wished to emphasize the idea that the c o f f i n i s not yet under the a l t a r , since t h i s miracle occurred on the same day as the b u r i a l . Or perhaps the a r t i s t i s v i s u a l l y i n d i c a t i n g the fact that the a l t a r which i s the s i t e of a l l three miracles i s also the tomb of Francis; the de l i n e a t i o n of the two parts i s omitted from the following two scenes, but the idea i s meant to be understood there as w e l l . On top of the a l t a r are shown an ampula, a c h a l i c e , and a book to c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h the structure as an a l t a r . The baldacchino would seem to serve a s i m i l a r p i c t o r i a l purpose. Two Franciscan f r i a r s , attendants to the Saint's 33 tomb, stand behind the a l t a r . Within t h i s one scene two events from the miracle story are represented. The f i r s t episode i s shown by the fi g u r e of the l i t t l e g i r l , her head bent to one side, leaning against the front of the altar-tomb. Her mother kneels l e f t of the a l t a r and r a i s e s her hands and face i n su p p l i c a t i o n to one of the f r i a r s , who extends h i s r i g h t hand down to her and looks at her. Behind the kneeling woman a group of f i v e witnesses to the miracle look on. The r e s u l t of the miracle i s indicated by a second depiction of the mother [in i d e n t i c a l clothing] walking away to the far l e f t of the scene, with her healed daughter s i t t i n g on her shoulder. Bughetti suggests that the gesture of upraised hands of the right-hand f r i a r , which he reads as a gesture of surprise and wonder, belongs to the second episode of the story. The b u i l d i n g indicated l e f t of the a l t a r , terminating i n a pointed tower, i s , l i k e a l l the buildings i n the scenes of the Pescia panel, of the type appearing contemporaneously as backdrops i n passion scenes on c e r t a i n s t o r i e d c r u c i f i x e s [for example, Florence, U f f i z i , Number 434: Lucca, c r u c i f i x e s i n S. G i u l i a and S. M i c h e l e ] . ^ It i s of a type i n s p i r e d by Byzantine manuscript 12 i l l u m i n a t i o n s . The type of rounded baldacchino used i n t h i s a l t a r p i e c e has 13 s i m i l a r precedents. Bughetti holds that the presence of t h i s type of b u i l d i n g with a tower i s meant to indi c a t e a church throughout the scenes. In the case of the miracle of the deformed g i r l he suggests that the church b u i l -14 ding i s meant to remind the viewer that the a l t a r i s located within a church. Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i has interpreted t h i s miracle quite f r e e l y from the Celano text. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e t t i n g he has devised i s suggested nowhere i n the written account, but i s derived more from e a r l i e r p i c t o r i a l motifs i n scenes such as those of passion cycle s . Bonaventura's composition as a whole, however, appears to be h i s own invention here, based neither on the e a r l i e r 34 s p e c i f i c iconography of a d i f f e r e n t scene, nor on a p a r t i c u l a r arrangement of elements s p e c i f i e d by the l i t e r a r y source. The l i t t l e g i r l i s shown with a bent neck, l y i n g against Francis' tomb as described by Celano. But the re s t of the story seems to have been reconstructed by the a r t i s t according to popular legend, r e l i g i o u s custom, or h i s own imagination. The i n c l u s i o n of the c h i l d ' s mother, for example, who kneels before the a l t a r then c a r r i e s her daughter away, i s an aspect of the story which undoubtedly derived from popular accounts of the miracle and assumptions by the a r t i s t . So also the crowls of onlookers, who might represent the unspecified number of people who brought the deformed g i r l to the tomb. Or perhaps they serve to represent witnesses to the miracle, confirming i t s actual occurrence and thus here functioning as a piece of v i s u a l propagranda. But the placing of two f r i a r s behimd the a l t a r -tomb, although also not mentioned i n the text, probably derives from the a r t i s t ' s awareness [perhaps s p e c i f i e d by patron Franciscans] of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l custom; that i s , that the actual tomb of Francis was attended to by f r i a r s of the Order. When the recurrence of t h i s miracle scene i s examined i n the panels which follow Pescia I, i t i s clear that the l a t e r a r t i s t s are following the iconographic pattern of Pescia I, rather than basing t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s on the Celano text. In Pisa I I , t h i s scene i s represented as the top-most one on the l e f t . The basic elements and th e i r d i s p o s i t i o n are i d e n t i c a l to those of the Pescia composition: the a r c h i t e c t u r a l background, the a l t a r with pro-j e c t i n g tomb under a baldacchino, two attendant f r i a r s , the c h i l d i n front of the tomb, the woman kneeling and carrying the g i r l away on her shoulder, and the crowd of observers. Thus, the Pisan a r t i s t has copied h i s iconography from Pescia I, or a s i m i l a r e a r l i e r panel. An examination of iconographic d e t a i l s , however, reveals something of the dif f e r e n c e i n a r t i s t i c personality between 35 B e r l i n g h i e r i and the Pisan a r t i s t . To begin with, the second a r t i s t i s working within a d i f f e r e n t shape of f i e l d than that i n which Bonaventura represented the scene. For although Pescia I and Pisa IT are of comparable dimensions and both include three scenes to each side, the lower placement of the gable on Pisa II has resulted i n f i e l d s f o r the scenes which are reduced i n height, and increased i n l e n g t h . ^ The r e s u l t i s a sort of s t r e t c h i n g out of a l l the elements i n the Pisa II scenes. In B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s version of the miracle of the deformed g i r l a l l of the action takes place i n front of the rectangle of background ar c h i t e c t u r e . But i n the corresponding Pisa II the group of spectators stands l e f t of the b u i l d i n g , before a void i n the l e f t part of the composition, and the mother i s yet to the l e f t of them, walking o f f the extreme edge of the scene rather than into [or out of] the b u i l d i n g . The architecture i t s e l f , although of a s i m i l a r type to that shown i n Pescia I, i s reduced i n s i z e , and the tower extends considerably abo-ve the roof l i n e of the h o r i z o n t a l part of the structure. The Pisan a r t i s t i s apparently more interested i n defining actual a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements, while B e r l i n g h i e r i was concerned more with using these features to produce a back-ground pattern on which to set h i s f i g u r e s . For not only does Bonaventura make the tower and h o r i z o n t a l roof of h i s b u i l d i n g the same height, but he also extends t h i s roof l i n e to j o i n that of the baldacchino so that the l i m i t s of a l l the a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements together form one continuous l i n e defining the rectangle i n which the scene occurs. The a r t i c u l a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g stops where the baldacchino begins even though the roof extends beyond t h i s , creating a s i n g l e background plane. This type of arrangement of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements i s seen throughout the Pescia I scenes, but i s most evident i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r composition. In the corresponding Pisa II scene, however, the con-cept of the architecture i s quite d i f f e r e n t . It neither defines the e n t i r e f i e l d 36 nor presents a continuous rectangular o u t l i n e . The heights of the elements are v a r i e d , with the tower r i s i n g above the low b u i l d i n g , and the baldacchino likewise extending beyond the roof l i n e . Perhaps most notable i s the fact that the baldacchino i s c l e a r l y meant to be located i n front of the b u i l d i n g , f o r the b u i l d i n g does not stop where the baldacchino begins, but extends behind i t and even past i t to the r i g h t . The greater i n t e r e s t of the Pisan painter i n suggesting the s p a t i a l p o s i t i o n of h i s objects i s further evident when his representation of the tomb-altar i s compared to B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s . The idea that the sarcophagus part of the structure extends out from the a l t a r i s much more c l e a r l y indicated i n the Pisa version through the use of two d i f f e r e n t ground l i n e s f o r tomb and altar."'" 7 The c h i l d leaning against the a l t a r i s also easier to read. The d e t a i l s of the three objects on the mensa, and the lock plate [now with a keyhole] are maintained i n the Pisa II scene. The proportions of the figures are somewhat d i f f e r e n t from Bonaventura's, i n that they have rather smaller heads and t a l l e r bodies, but t h e i r poses are essen-t i a l l y the same as i n the e a r l i e r work. The figures of the onlookers, however, are given more dramatic gestures, and the left-hand f r i a r does not bend down towards the kneeling woman. A rather puzzling new feature i n the Pisa II scene i s the dress of the two f r i a r s ; the l e f t one wears what appears to be a l i g h t grey tunic over h i s dark robe, of which the hood and cuffs protrude, while the r i g h t f r i a r ' s garb i s exactly reversed i n colour. Similar double-coloured robes are depicted throughout the Pisa II scenes, although some of the outer robes [as i n scenes three and four] take the form of sleeveless tunics with hoods of the same colour. The reasons for these v a r i a t i o n s i n dress, which 18 appear most markedly i n the Pisa II panel, remain u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y 19 explained. Bughetti i n s i s t s that the colour reversals are not merely the caprice of the a r t i s t , but that the form of habit with the short tunic over i t 37 might represent the costume of n o v i t i a t e s , since i t i s always the younger of the two f r i a r s that wears t h i s form of robe. This does not e n t i r e l y explain a l l the v a r i a t i o n s i n dress, however. It would further appear that a dark habit with l i g h t c u f f s , hem, and hood [as i n scenes two and f i v e ] i s the form used to in d i c a t e St. Francis himself, while the l i g h t robe with dark hood i s the garb of the senior f r i a r , and the other form of a short dark tunic over a l i g h t gown i s that of the n o v i t i a t e . Without the support of a written d e s c r i p t i o n of early Franciscan dress, however, t h i s must remain conjecture. Another d e t a i l of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l r i t u a l which appears i n the f i r s t P isa II scene [absent from the Pescia I] i s the fact that the f r i a r who i s most a c t i v e l y intervening between the a l t a r and supplicant woman wears his hood up 20 over h i s head, while the other f r i a r does not. The miracle of the deformed g i r l appears i n both A s s i s i VI and Rome VII as the upper left-hand scene, but the A s s i s i VI design i s s p a t i a l l y more elaborate than the Pescia I and Pisa II versions. The a r t i s t here i s again drawing on the established iconography rather than a written account, because of the persistence of the basic elements as devised by B e r l i n g h i e r i . Thus, the altar-tomb with attendant f r i a r s i s at the r i g h t , the mother f i r s t kneels before i t while her c h i l d rests i n front, and i s then shown walking o f f to the l e f t with the healed g i r l , and a crowd of spectators stands i n the centre. The shape of the f i e l d i s here a square again, closer to the area of the Pescia I, but the A s s i s i a r t i s t ' s attempts at s p a t i a l l y arranging the objects i n his composition are even farther from B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s simple rectangular pattern than were those of the Pisan painter. For now the sing l e building.vwith a tower has been replaced by an e n t i r e town, presumably on a h i l l , at the l e f t 21 of the scene. The si z e of the figures i n proportion to that of the pi c t u r e f i e l d have been considerably reduced, and the number of figures increased; 38 the onlookers now number over twenty, while the two f r i a r s behind the a l t a r have increased to about eight. A type of baldacchino i s again shown over the a l t a r but i t i s t a l l and pointed now, not a semi-dome. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g that the altar-tomb takes a d i f f e r e n t form i n the A s s i s i scene than i n the previous two of the same subject. Rather than being represented as an a l t a r with a projecting front-piece, the structure i s indicated here j u s t as a wooden sarcophagus with legs. There i s neither an a l t a r c l o t h nor objects for mass on top as before, but the lock i s c l e a r l y indicated as fastening the l i d of the sarcophagus to i t s front. Thus, the desire to indic a t e that t h i s i s the c o f f i n i n which St. Francis was that day c a r r i e d to S. Giorgio i s even stronger here, and the contrast between t h i s structure and the a l t a r s of the other scenes i n A s s i s i VI i s even more pronounced. Unlike the a r t i s t s of the Pescia I and Pisa I I , the A s s i s i VI painter uses the somewhat more advanced 22 technique of the "fore-shortened f r o n t a l " construction to suggest the projec t i o n of h i s objects into space, f o r example i n the altar-tomb, the a r c h i t e c t u r a l structure behind the tomb, and the buildings of the townscape. This technique, along with the general elaboration of t h i s scene permits the 23 secure dating of t h i s panel a f t e r those of Pescia I and Pisa I I . The corresponding miracle scene on Rome VII, although a much simpler 24 composition than the A s s i s i VI one, was probably executed l a t e r . The basic d i s p o s i t i o n of the scene continues the established iconography, but some of i t s d e t a i l s resemble those of A s s i s i VI so c l o s e l y as to suggest a d i r e c t d e r i v a t i o n . The pose and drapery of the e x i t i n g woman are nearly i d e n t i c a l i n the two works, for example, as are those of the left-most observer i n both scenes. The pointed s t y l e of baldacchino i s also maintained i n the Rome VII pi c t u r e , and so i s the p l a i n wooden-box type of altar-tomb. The l a t t e r i s now given two candlesticks on top, however, and a c l o t h hanging rather curiously 39 from i t s lower edge. The type of architecture i n the Rome VII scene i s much closer to that i n A s s i s i VI than i n the two e a r l i e r paintings, but the number of buildings i s reduced so that one structure replaces the townscape and another stands behind the a l t a r . Both of these buildings are c l e a r l y d i s t i n -guished as churches by the crosses on t h e i r roof-tops. The a r t i s t ' s use of "foreshortened f r o n t a l " construction added to h i s increased s i z e of the b u i l -dings i n proportion to the figures makes them quite convincing as actual a r c h i t e c t u r a l structures. The crowd of f r i a r s has again been reduced to two, whose gestures are d i f f e r e n t here. The group of witnesses i s now given more prominence i n that the l e f t f r i a r seems to be addressing them rather than the woman. This might indi c a t e a c e r t a i n loss of understanding of the narr a t i v e the part of the a r t i s t , with an increased r e l i a n c e on previous depictions without r e f e r r a l back to the o r i g i n a l text. A s i m i l a r phenomenon occurs i n Rome VII's following scene. The Healing of the Cripple(s) In Pescia I, the precise i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the second miracle scene, represented at the upper r i g h t , i s somewhat more d i f f i c u l t than the f i r s t . 25 Crowe and Cavalcaselle erroneously believed the scene to represent St. 26 Francis d i s t r i b u t i n g alms. Siren interpreted i t quite accurately i n reco-gnizing that t h i s i s another miracle which took place at the tomb of Francis, but i n which the dead Saint miraculously reappears; he also c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i -f i e s the crowd of kneeling people as c r i p p l e s , and the man to t h e i r r i g h t as 27 p i l g r i m . But i t i s again Bughetti who provides the most s a t i s f a c t o r y expla nation of exactly what i s occurring i n t h i s scene. He concludes that B e r l i n g h i e r i i s here representing a combination of miracle s t o r i e s , recounted 28 i n Celano's V i t a Prima, numbers 128 - 134. Number 128: In the t e r r i t o r y of Narni there was a young man with a 40 twisted t i b i a , such that he could not walk without the aid of two crutches; he was a beggar, who knew neither h i s father nor h i s mother, and for several years was thus wretched. Through the grace of our most blessed father Francis he was freed from the sad malady, and was able to walk of h i s own accord without a s t i c k , p r a i s i n g and b l e s s i n g God and h i s Saint. Number 129: A c e r t a i n Nicolo, c i t i z e n of Foligno, numb i n h i s l e f t l e g and tormented by strong spasms, had spent so much on doctors to recover h i s health that he found himself i n debt to a greater extent than he wanted or was able to be. F i n a l l y , not having found any benefits i n t h e i r cures, tormented by such acute pains that h i s continuous c r i e s did not l e t the neighbours sleep at night, he prayed to God and to St. Francis and had himself c a r r i e d to the Saint's tomb; and a f t e r having spent a night i n prayer, he was able to return j u b i l a n t to h i s home with h i s leg stretched out and without a walking s t i c k . Number 130: Another young man who had a lame leg, so that h i s knee touched h i s chest and h i s heel touched h i s thigh, went to the sepulchre of the blessed Francis, while h i s father macerated h i s f l e s h with a h a i r s h i r t and h i s mother did grave penitence for him, and he immediately recovered h i s health completely, so that he was able to run through the piazzas completely happy, thanking God and St. F r a n c i s . Number 131: In the c i t y of Fano there was a c r i p p l e whose ulcerated t i b i a s were bent and joined to h i s body, and the stench of the sores was so great that no one wanted to agree to take him to the h o s p i t a l . Through the grace of our most blessed father Francis, to whom he appealed for mercy, he soon afterwards was r e j o i c i n g at h i s cure. Number 132: A c h i l d from Gubbio, with c r i p p l e d hands, l o s t for a year the use of a l l her limbs, and was c a r r i e d by her nurse, together with an image of wax, to the tomb of the most blessed Father, to obtain the grace of a cure. After staying there f o r eight days, a l l her limbs were healthy, and because even more f i t for use than usual. Number 133: Another young boy, from Monteneri, lay for several days i n front of the door to the church i n which rested the body of the Saint, not being able to walk or s i t , because from the waist down he was deprived of the strength and use 41 of h i s limbs. One day he entered the church and touched the tomb, and went out healthy and unharmed. This boy said that while he lay i n front of the tomb of the glorious Saint, there appeared to him a young man dressed i n the habit of the f r i a r , with some pears i n h i s hand, and he had c a l l e d him and exhorted him to get up, o f f e r i n g him one; and he took i t , answering: "Look, I am a p a r a l y t i c , I cannot get up." However, he ate the pear and began to extend h i s hand towards the other one that was offered to him; but i n v i t e d again by the young man to get up, he did not move, f e e l i n g himself paralyzed. But stretching out h i s hand, the young man drew him towards him, led him outside, and disappeared. The boy, seeing himself cured, took to narrating the whole event i n a loud voice. Number 134: A woman, from a v i l l a g e c a l l e d Coccorano, was c a r r i e d on mats to the sepulchre of the blessed Father, since she was unable to use any of her limbs except for her tongue. Kept there for a while, she arose p e r f e c t l y cured. Another c i t i z e n of Gubbio c a r r i e d a c r i p p l e d son of h i s i n a basket to the tomb of the holy Father, and he was made healthy again. He had been so cripped that h i s shins, joined to h i s thighs, were a l l atrophied.29 30 Bughetti thinks that B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s second miracle scene must be a loose i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these healing s t o r i e s . This suggestion i s l o g i c a l , since the s t o r i e s 128 to 134 do represent that section of the text devoted to c r i p p l e s healed at Francis' tomb [the unquestionable subject of the painted scene]. Moreover, the order which the a r t i s t i s following, based on the scenes preceding and immediately following t h i s one, also indicates that t h i s i s the part of Celano's text which i s being used here. B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s dependence on the written descriptions i s even les s obvious i n t h i s scene than i n the previous one, however. The s e t t i n g i s again an a l t a r covered by a baldacchino, but the form of the a l t a r does not include the p r o j e c t i n g sarcophagus, but i s a simple table shape with a c l o t h hanging down across i t s f r o n t . A second white c l o t h with a decorative border across i t s top hangs l i k e a c u r t a i n from a h o r i z o n t a l pole behind the a l t a r . Book, cha l i c e and ampula are again placed on the mensa. Three f r i a r s are now represented behind the a l t a r , however, and the c e n t r a l one 42 i s meant to be St. Francis himself, as indicated by the halo. The miracle i n which the apparition of Francis p a r t i c i p a t e s i s c l e a r l y intended to be that t o l d i n Gelano number 133, i n which he appears at h i s tomb to a young c r i p p l e and o f f e r s him pears. The Saint i s shown i n the process of taking the hand of the boy who kneels closest to the a l t a r , i n whose other hand a pear i s represented. It i s d i f f i c u l t to t e l l whether or not the two atten-dant f r i a r s , who r a i s e t h e i r hands i n gestures of wonder are aware of the apparition. The crowd of kneeling figures behind that of the f i r s t boy a l l seem to represent c r i p p l e s , for the right-most fi g u r e i s c l e a r l y shown with round club f e e t , and two p a i r s of crutches are indicated l y i n g along the lower 31 t edge of the scene. Bughetti s suggestion that t h i s group of c r i p p l e s repre-.. sents i n a very general way the number of a f f l i c t e d people who sought cures at Francis' tomb [as described by Celano, numbers 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134] would seem to be the most acceptable one. The a r t i s t has not p a r t i c u l a r i z e d the ailments or sex of the c r i p p l e s as described i n the text, but indicates them merely as a crowd of supplicant young men, t h e i r lameness indicated as already mentioned. At the f a r r i g h t of the scene are depicted two figures walking away from the a l t a r . These are meant to represent two of the kneeling c r i p p l e s a f t e r they have been cured; t h e i r dress and pouches indicated at t h e i r sides make them correspond to the boy whose hand St. Francis grasps, and the fi g u r e kneeling behind him dressed i n red. The presence of the other f i g u r e , standing j u s t r i g h t of the kneeling supplicants i s more d i f f i c u l t to account f o r . Bughetti notes that h i s hat and mantle d i s t i n g u i s h him as a p i l g r i m , but the chestnut branch which he holds and the water b o t t l e hanging from a s t i c k over h i s shoulder are the 32 a t t r i b u t e s of a leper. The a r t i s t i s apparently making another g e n e r a l i -zation from the text here; he i s i n d i c a t i n g the f a c t that lepers as w e l l as 43 c r i p p l e s enjoyed the miraculous healing powers of the dead Saint. That t h i s f i g u r e represents one of the lepers healed a f t e r Francis' death [as mentioned by Celano, number 146, where, however, the miracle does not occur at the tomb] 33 i s a more p l a u s i b l e p o s s i b i l i t y than Bughetti's other suggestion. He sur-mises that t h i s leper was suggested by the man described i n Celano 131 who had sores on h i s c r i p p l e d legs. Thus, t h i s miracle scene, although based on events narrated i n the V i t a Prima, i s again the invention of Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i [or an e a r l i e r a r t i s t ] i n both i t s composition and i t s s p e c i f i c content. And i t i s again the Pescia I i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s scene which i s followed i n the l a t e r St. Francis retables. A s i m i l a r miracle scene reoccurs i n Pi s a I I , A s s i s i VI and Rome VII, but the way i n which Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s o r i g i n a l conception of i t i s altered and misread i s very i n t e r e s t i n g to follow. On Pi s a II t h i s scene i s represented at the upper r i g h t . Instead of basing the a r c h i t e c t u r a l background oh Pescia I type arrangements the Pisan a r t i s t has repeated h i s own a r c h i t e c -t u r a l composition of the upper l e f t scene i n exact mirror image. The place-ment and gestures of the figures likewise r e f l e c t those of the f i r s t scene. The i n t e r e s t of th i s a r t i s t i n thus symmetrically balancing h i s compositions i s again evident i n h i s arrangement of the two lowest scenes on h i s panel. The form of the a l t a r and objects on the mensa are s i m i l a r to those i n Pescia 34 I, but the Pisan a r t i s t omits the c e n t r a l f i g u r e of St. Francis. Like the a r c h i t e c t u r e , the posit i o n s and gestures of the two attendant f r i a r s now echo those i n the scene across from i t . Not only has St. Francis been omitted i n the Pisa II version of the scene, but also the e n t i r e pear miracle i n which he p a r t i c i p a t e d and the large number of supplicant c r i p p l e s . A s i n g l e lameness miracle now i s represented, for j u s t one figu r e kneels before the a l t a r , h i s crutches i n front of him. He i s then shown walking o ff to the r i g h t . Despite 44 t h i s s h i f t i n subject matter, the dependence of the a r t i s t on the Pescia I iconography i s s t i l l evident because of the retention of s p e c i f i c motifs such as the crutches, the pouch of the c r i p p l e , and e s p e c i a l l y the fi g u r e of 35 the p i l g r i m - l e p e r . This l a s t f i g u r e i s depicted almost i d e n t i c a l l y to that of the Pescia I scene, but an even more s p e c i f i c i n d i c a t i o n of h i s malady has been added i n the form of dark spots on h i s face and legs. The type of the c r i p p l e i s considerably d i f f e r e n t from any of those shown by B e r l i n g h i e r i , i n that he i s represented as a r e l a t i v e l y older man here, with a beard. 36 Bughetti suggests that the man i s now s p e c i f i c a l l y meant to depict Nicolo da Foligno, described i n Celano number 129; t h i s i s a l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y since Nicolo i s one of the two c r i p p l e s not s p e c i f i c a l l y described as "young" by Celano. The basic iconography of t h i s scene i n A s s i s i VI follows that of the Pisa composition. Two f r i a r s with s i m i l a r gestures stand behind the a l t a r , a s i n g l e bearded c r i p p l e i s shown kneeling with upraised hands then e x i t i n g , and the leper figure with the same a t t r i b u t e s and red spots stands i n the centre. The A s s i s i VI a r t i s t introduces o r i g i n a l elements to t h i s scene i n h i s arran-gement of the architecture and the type of a l t a r . The buildings are placed to both sides of the composition and are of the foreshortened f r o n t a l type shown i n the f i r s t scene, but are much more crudely executed here [this scene i s 37 apparently the work of a second a r t i s t ]. A t a l l , rounded baldacchino with s i x slender columns r i s e s above a structure behind the a l t a r which suggests a concave apse. A s i m i l a r smaller baldacchino tops the strange structure at the fa r l e f t , as a pointed one does the b u i l d i n g to the r i g h t . The a l t a r i s quite elaborately represented with an arcaded base hung with lamps, and the head of a l i o n decorates i t s centre f r o n t . The mensa i s not painted but done e n t i r e l y i n gold l e a f , into which a cross, book, c h a l i c e , ampulae, and 45 candlesticks have been outlined with i n c i s e d dots. A further transformation of t h i s scene i n Rome VII [lower r i g h t scene] provides f a i r l y conclusive evidence that t h i s panel was executed a f t e r A s s i s i VI. The arrangement of the composition i s roughly the same but again somewhat s i m p l i f i e d , with the a l t a r surmounted by a round baldacchino at the l e f t . The c o l l e c t i o n of buildings at the r i g h t of the A s s i s i scene i s replaced by a si n g l e a r c h i t e c t u r a l structure which i s shown i n f a i r l y convinc-ing f r o n t a l foreshortening to in d i c a t e a receding, nave-like space. The a l t a r i s not the elaborate type of A s s i s i VI, but a simple draped one with a cross on top and large candlestocks i n front. Two f r i a r s again attend the a l t a r , but the one on the l e f t now stands d i r e c t l y i n front of the a l t a r rather than beside or behind i t , and t h i s f r i a r ' s gestures are here more e x p l i c i t as he points d i r e c t l y at the kneeling man. The si n g l e f i g u r e of a c r i p p l e kneeling before the a l t a r with upraised hands i s again of the aged, bearded type of Pisa I and A s s i s i VI. But i t is, s i g n i f i c a n t that t h i s man i s not shown e x i t i n g to the r i g h t a f t e r the miracle, as i n the previous three versions, but i s replaced by the fi g u r e of a young man who stands at the extreme r i g h t with crossed arms watching the action at the a l t a r . Because both the general layout and c e r t a i n iconographic features [in the upper two scenes] common to A s s i s i VI and Rome VII already, i n d i c a t e a d i r e c t connection 'between them, t h i s figureeofvthe^right-mos.t man seems to indic a t e that Rome VII was almost c e r t a i n -l y modelled a f t e r the A s s i s i VI, and not vi c e versa. For, probably as a re s u l t of not understanding the exact subject-matter, the Rome VII .ar t i s t has completely al t e r e d the established iconography f o r the scene by not represent-ing before-and-after episodes. The figu r e of the pi l g r i m - l e p e r , however, i s again included i n the same pose and with the i d e n t i c a l objects as i n the previous three versions; the spots i n d i c a t i n g h i s leprosy are not shown i n 46 t h i s case. The Healing of Bartolomeo da Narni The t h i r d miracle represented on Pescia I [centre r i g h t scene] and reproduced on subsequent panels i s r e l a t i v e l y easy to i d e n t i f y due to the 38 s p e c i f i c nature of i t s depiction. The story on which i t is based i s found i n the V i t a Prima number 135.which reads as follows: Bartolomeo, from the c i t y of Narni, who was extremely poor, a f t e r having sle p t f or a while i n the shade of a walnut tree, awoke to f i n d himself paralyzed so that he was no longer able to walk: gradually the malady progressed; h i s l e g and foot became t h i n , bent, and dried up, so that he could f e e l neither c u t t i n g nor scalding. But the true lover of the poor, and father of a l l miseries, most s a i n t l y Francis, appeared to him one night i n his sleep and ordered him to betake himself to a bath, where, moved to p i t y by such misery, he wished to cure him. Upon awaking, and not knowing what to do, he narrated the v i s i o n to the bishop of the c i t y , who exorted him to go to the bath, and blessed him. So leaning on a s t i c k , he headed for the indicated place as w e l l as he could, and as he proceeded, a l l unhappy and exhausted, he heard a voice say to him, "Go with the peace of the Lord; I am with you with regard to that which you have desired." In the v i c i n i t y adjoining the bath he l o s t h i s way, since i t was night, and he again heard the voice advising him that i t was not the r i g h t way, and i t indicated to him the d i r e c t i o n . When he had reached and entered the bath, he f e l t a hand placed on h i s foot and another on h i s l e g , c a r e f u l l y moving along i t . And freed immediately, he leapt out of the water, lauding and b l e s s i n g the omnipotence of the Creator and of His blessed servant Francis, who had done him such a great favour. For he had been thus c r i p p l e d for s i x years, and was a beggar and quite old. 39 Bonaventura sets t h i s miracle of healing before a s o l i d a r c h i t e c t u r a l background of three b u i l d i n g s , shown absolutely f r o n t a l l y as i n h i s other scenes. At the l e f t i s the a r t i s t ' s rather p e c u l i a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the bath, which i s shown simply as an area of water [indicated by wave patterns] with some flame-like rock formations at i t s l e f t edge. The c r i p p l e Bartolomeo, wearing only a l o i n c l o t h , i s seated on these rocks, immersed i n the water 40 up to h i s waist. He supports h i s c r i p p l e d leg [which, as Bughetti notes, i s represented as being considerably thinner than h i s healthy one] between 47 his crutches which he holds to e i t h e r side of i t . St. Francis, bearing halo and stigmata, stands outside the bath but leans over i t to grasp Bartolomeo's foot with h i s l e f t hand and h i s leg with h i s r i g h t . To the r i g h t of the scene the r e s u l t of the miracle i s shown where Bartolomeo, now f u l l y dressed, walks away with h i s crutches over h i s shoulder. B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s p i c t o r i a l i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n of the scene , although based on a knowledge of the written text to the extent of i n c l u d i n g d e t a i l s such as the exact placement of Francis' hands, i s again o r i g i n a l here. Aspects not mentioned by the text, but most e f f e c t i v e f o r t e l l i n g the story v i s u a l l y , are the before-and-after contrasts of Bartolomeo undressed then clothed, and using h i s crutches then carrying them away. These are additions to the story created either by Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i or a preceding a r t i s t which become part of the standard iconographyt of the scene. On Pisa II the miracle of Bartolomeo of Narni again appears i n the centre r i g h t p o s i t i o n . Although the basic arrangement of the scene i s the same, with Bartolomeo s i t t i n g i n the bath at the l e f t , Francis leaning over i t , and then the c r i p p l e e x i t i n g at the far r i g h t , the Pisan a r t i s t has changed many of the d e t a i l s from the e a r l i e r conception. The bath i s now conceived of as being located inside a b u i l d i n g , as indicated by the b r i c k wall and crenellated top of the rectangle enclosing the water. The c r i p p l e d man i s i n almost the iden-t i c a l pose and dress as i n the Pescia scene, but he now s i t s on a sort of bench that i s submerged i n the water. St. Francis i s shown i n the same a t t i t u d e of leaning over to touch the c r i p p l e ' s l e g , but the d e t a i l of representing t h i s l e g as thinner.ithan the healthy one i s no longer included. The Pisan a r t i s t has chosen to show a completely d i f f e r e n t background to the scene than that devised by B e r l i n g h i e r i ; he has replaced the row of buildings by a ser i e s of 41 h i l l s topped by small plants, suggesting a country s e t t i n g . The pose of 48 Bartolomeo as he walks away with h i s crutches has also been changed consi-derably. He turns h i s head back to the l e f t , raises h i s l e f t hand, and i s shown i n a more active a t t i t u d e of walking. These d e t a i l s together suggest h i s wonder and happiness at the cure. This pose of Bartolomeo as developed i n P i s a II i s that which i s retained i n successive i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the event. In both A s s i s i VI and Rome VII the healing of Bartolomeo of Narni i s depicted as the lower left-hand scene. The composition i n A s s i s i VI r e t a i n s the established order from l e f t to r i g h t of seated Bartolomeo, Francis touch-ing h i s l e g and foot, then Bartolomeo leaving. But the e n t i r e s e t t i n g has again been greatly a l t e r e d . The bath i s indicated by a crenellated w a l l as being insi d e a b u i l d i n g , although on a smaller scale here than In the Pisa version, and another small gabled b u i l d i n g has been added behind the f i g u r e of St. Francis. A large arrangement of buildings topped by a small baldacchino occupies the right-hand section of the scene; Bartolomeo i s shown stepping into the doorway of t h i s structure as he leaves. And as a background to the e n t i r e composition a rocky landscape sprouting spiky, large-leafed trees has been included as w e l l . Apart from t h i s tendency towards elaboration of the s e t t i n g [which was also noted i n the f i r s t miracle scene], the A s s i s i VI a r t i s t has maintained the same iconography as that developed i n the Pisa scene. The bending posture of St. Francis i s indicated much more a c t i v e l y , however, with a suggestion of the weight being placed on h i s bent r i g h t l e g , while the l e f t i s extended back. The greater tendency of t h i s a r t i s t to indi c a t e bodily forms beneath the drapery, and at the same time s t y l i z e the folds into patterns i s evident here i n the robes of St. Francis and Bartolomeo. This miracle scene undergoes i t s most d r a s t i c iconographic a l t e r a t i o n i n 49 Rome VII, although the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n here i s s t i l l based on that type o r i g i n a t i n g i n Pescia I, rather than a l i t e r a r y source. The d i s p o s i t i o n of the scene i s p a r t i a l l y reversed here, with Bartolomeo shown e x i t i n g o f f the l e f t edge of the composition; however, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the other two figures i s maintained. This change may represent a desire of the Rome a r t i s t to repeat the same p i c t o r i a l sequence of before-and-after that i s indicated i n his scene above; s i m i l a r c o n t i n u i t i e s are evident i n Pescia I and Pisa I I . The Rome a r t i s t ' s dependence on A s s i s i VI i s again evident i n the pose of St. Francis, although i t i s somewhat more clumsily executed here. The established gestures of the three figures have been maintained, except that the seated Bartolomeo now holds h i s crutches d i f f e r e n t l y . The most s i g n i f i c a n t change i n the scenels iconography, however, i s the placing of the bath r i g h t i n s i d e a b u i l d i n g . It i s no longer merely the symbolic suggestion of architecture [that i s , a crenellated wall] but the representation of an actual structure resembling an arcaded aediculum topped by a r a i l i n g and dome with cross. The figures of Bartolomeo and Francis are quite convincingly set within t h i s b u i l d i n g . The a b i l i t y of t h i s a r t i s t to represent s p a t i a l enclosures, as seen i n t h i s scene and i n the foreshortened structure i n the lower r i g h t one, i s a s k i l l which c e r t a i n l y has not been s u f f i c i e n t l y noted. Indeed, the q u a l i t y of t h i s panel on the whole has been overlooked i n the general assumption that 42 i t represents merely an i n f e r i o r copy of A s s i s i VI. In the Bartolomeo of Narni scene, a second smaller b u i l d i n g i s depicted at the l e f t of the composi-t i o n , and a rocky landscape with t r e e - l i k e forms again forms a backdrop to the whole scene. The Healing of the Possessed The l a s t miracle scene common to the four panels i s a representation of de v i l s being cast out from possessed persons, again at the tomb of St. Francis. 50 This i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was recognized as early as 1910, by S a l m i a l t h o u g h the 44 t r a d i t i o n begun by Crowe and Cavalcaselle that i t represented casting the d e v i l s out of Arezzo was propagated by F a c h i n e t t i . ^ In Celano's V i t a Prima, the section devoted to miracles of healing which ends with the story of Bartolomeo of Narni i s followed by a short section on those who recovered t h e i r sight through the powers of St. Francis, then by an account of the l i b e r a t i o n 46 of the possessed, numbers 137 and 138. Number 137: There was i n Foligno a man named Pietro who, having embarked upon a voyage to v i s i t , both for a iv.otive o f f e r i n g and for advised penitence, the sanctuary of the blessed Archangel Michael, a r r i v e d at a spring. Th i r s t y from the weariness of walking, he drank of that water, and seems to have swallowed demons. And thus possessed for three years, he did things h o r r i b l e to see and to repeat. A r r i v i n g at the tomb of the most holy Father, he f e l t the furious demons t o r t u r i n g him c r u e l l y , but upon contact with the sepulchre, he was immediately and wonderfully freed, by an obvious and clear miracle. Number 138: To a mad woman of Narni, who did and said appalling things, the blessed Francis appeared i n a v i s i o n , and said to her: "Make a sign of the cross"; and a f t e r she answered that she was unable to, he himself marked her with the sign of the cross, and thus put to f l i g h t the insanity and demonic ex a l t a t i o n . Many other men and women, tormented by demons with various tortures and deceived with witchcraft, were delivered from t h e i r yoke through the remarkable graces of the glorious Father. But since men of such a type are often the prey of i l l u s i o n s , rapid mention i s made of them, and l e t us pass on to more important miracles.47 These events are depicted on Pescia I i n the lower right-hand scene. Against an a r c h i t e c t u r a l background of three towered b u i l d i n g s , the s e t t i n g f or the miracles i s again an a l t a r , very s i m i l a r to that shown i n the second miracle scene of t h i s painting, but with a smaller baldacchino and cu r t a i n 48 behind, and with a lamp hanging above. Two Franciscan f r i a r s stand beside and behind the a l t a r ; the l e f t one touches h i s companion on the back, who 51 r a i s e s h i s hands i n amazement at the action i n front of him. Three possessed people stand at the ri g h t of the a l t a r and emit winged black demons from t h e i r open mouths. The possessed man, with raised hands, has been i d e n t i f i e d by Bu-49 g h e t t i as Pietro of Foligno, but there i s nothing i n B e r l i n g h i e r i s depic-t i o n of him to s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y him as such. The two other possessed figures are both women with t h e i r hands t i e d i n front of them. The one on the ri g h t has a bare torso and i s accompanied by a man who holds her by the arm. The women's loose h a i r , nakedness, and enforced sedation are apparently a l l i n d i c a t i o n s of t h e i r wild and dangerous states of mind, but there i s nothing which s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e s one of them as the woman described by Celano i n number 138 [that i s , no apparition of St. Francis i s shown]. The three possessed people must instead be interpreted as merely representative of the large number referred to generally by Celano. D e t a i l s such as the woman's nudity and the man accompanying her are B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s creations to better convey the import of the scene; the depiction of winged creatures coming out of the f i g u r e s ' mouths i s a t r a d i t i o n a l iconography for the exorcism of •j . . 5 0 d e v i l s . The representation of th i s class of miracles also appears on Pisa II i n the lower r i g h t corner. Instead of repeating B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e t t i n g , the Pisan a r t i s t again reproduces h i s standard background arrangement which i s common to a l l h i s "tomb miracle" scenes; i n t h i s case the s e t t i n g i s i d e n t i c a l [except for the colours] to that of his upper r i g h t scene. The in t e r p r e t a t i o n of the legend has, however, again been drawn from B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s . The p o s i t i o n s and gestures of the two f r i a r s are extremely close to those of Pescia I. But the number of figures has been reduced and the scene s i m p l i f i e d , as was that of the healing of c r i p p l e s . Only one figu r e of a mad person i s now included: that of the bare-breasted woman. Her hands are again t i e d i n front of her and her loose h a i r i s shown as being even longer and more disarrayed; 52 she emits a s i m i l a r l i t t l e demon from her mouth. The repulsiveness of her condition i s emphasized to a greater degree by her companion, who now holds her at arm's length and looks f a r more distressed than the figu r e i n the Pescia scene. A new figu r e stands at the f a r r i g h t ; he covers h i s ears with h i s hands and grimaces, an at t i t u d e which suggests that the possessed woman i s producing h o r r i b l e c r i e s . Bughetti"^ suggests that the Pisan a r t i s t i s representing a new miracle of exorcism here, described i n Celano's Tractatus de M i r a c u l i s of 1250, number 153 which describes a young possessed woman who i s healed at Francis' tomb. Although the Pisan a r t i s t does, as w i l l be shown, use the Tractatus as the source f o r two other new miracle scenes which he includes on t h i s panel, there i s nothing i n Tractatus number 153 which would account for the only addition he makes to B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the scene [that i s , the man covering h i s ears]. , In l i g h t of the way i n which the Pisa II a r t i s t modified the scene of c r i p p l e s , i t would seem more probable that he i s again using only the p i c t o r i a l t r a d i t i o n of the Pescia panel, and not a l i t e r a r y source as the model for the exorcism scene. It i s the Pisa II version of th i s miracle, i n which only one possessed person i s shown, that i s continued i n A s s i s i VI and Rome VII, where t h i s scene i s i n the upper r i g h t p o s i t i o n . In A s s i s i VI the a r t i s t has greatly elaborated the s e t t i n g , although the basic elements of the scene are the same as those of Pisa I I . This tendency has already been noticed i n the other A s s i s i scenes. The painter of the healing of the possessed i s the same one responsible f o r the f i r s t miracle scene, as opposed to the second A s s i s i a r t i s t who executed the 52 two bottom scenes. This f i r s t a r t i s t has again m u l t i p l i e d the number of attendant f r i a r s from two to a large crowd, j u s t as he did i n scene one. The number of onlookers at the ri g h t has likewise been increased from the sing l e man of Pisa II to a large number. The event i s again set at an a l t a r , but t h i s i s depicted as an elaborate arcaded structure s i m i l a r to that i n the scene 53 below, with the objects i n c i s e d on the gold-leaf mensa. A large b u i l d i n g with a doorway and baldacchino has been rendered i n b e a u t i f u l d e t a i l behind the a l t a r ; further background additions are the tree and house [complete with an occupant looking over the balustrade] at the ri g h t of the scene. The a r t i s t ' s dependence on the Pescia-Pisa iconography i s evident i n the positi o n s and gestures of the two foremost f r i a r s , and the bare-breasted woman with her companion who holds her arm [more a c t i v e l y now]. The motif of the man at the f a r r i g h t covering h i s ears derives from the Pisa II version of the scene. The o r i g i n a l i t y of the A s s i s i a r t i s t , however, i s most c l e a r l y indicated by h i s treatment of the figure of the woman, who i s no longer merely one of the cha-racters i n the narrative but perhaps the most expressive and b e a u t i f u l l y ren-dered fi g u r e of the e n t i r e panel. Her pose i s quite d i f f e r e n t from that of the e a r l i e r i l l u s t r a t i o n s ; she does not have her hands t i e d i n front of her, but holds her ri g h t arm up as i f i n acknowledgement of the d e v i l that leaves her. Her extended l e f t arm i s held by the attendant. Instead of being shown standing sedately she i s extending her r i g h t l e g and bending the l e f t one under her weight, and she t i p s her head completely back to emit the tormenting demon. The v i t a l i t y of t h i s pose i s further emphasized by the .Keau;ti£ull t r e a t -ment of her drapery, which clings smoothly to reveal her legs beneath, and f a l l s i n patterns of l i v e l y curves between them. A comparison of t h i s f i g u r e with that of St. Francis i n the Bartolomeo of Narni scene i s a cl e a r i n d i c a -t i o n that the l a t t e r , although i t reveals the designer's s i m i l a r intentions to depict an act i v e pose beneath drapery, was i n fact executed by an assistant of the master. The most obvious s i m i l a r i t y between the exorcism scenes i n Rome VII and A s s i s i VI i s the r e p e t i t i o n by the Rome a r t i s t of the figu r e of the possessed woman. Although she now faces i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n and r a i s e s her arm even higher, her pose and the handling of the drapery c l e a r l y derive from the 54 A s s i s i f i g u r e . The se t t i n g i s again l e s s i n t r i c a t e than i n the preceding version of the scene; the a l t a r i s a simple draped one with a baldacchino behind and candlesticks i n fro n t . A r c h i t e c t u r a l structures are again shown at the r i g h t , one of them now being a church as indicated by a cross on top. Another strangely narrow b u i l d i n g has been added i n the centre of the composi-t i o n . The increased number of figures has also been maintained from the A s s i s i VI i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , although the crowd of f r i a r s now appears behind the l e f t p r i n c i p a l f r i a r , not the r i g h t one. The gestures of the two foremost attendants resemble those of every other version of th i s scene, but the ri g h t f r i a r now turns to look at his colleague rather than the woman. The figu r e of a man covering h i s ears has been omitted i n the Rome VII panel, but a s i g n i f i c a n t change occurs i n the woman's companion. This i f i g u r e i s no longer conceived of as the meek attendant of the Pescia and Pisa scenes, or the anxious-looking companion of the A s s i s i VI version, but i s now an extremely muscular and b r u t a l -looking man who grasps the woman with both hands i n a posture of a c t i v e l y r e s t r a i n i n g her rather than leading her. A second man behind him also holds the woman's arm, further increasing the idea of her ph y s i c a l violence. This change does not seem to derive from any new l i t e r a r y source, but i s a develop-ment by the Rome VII a r t i s t . New Miracles on Pisa II Besides the four miracles whose iconographies were established i n Pescia I, Pisa II includes two new miracles which are unique to t h i s work. The i d e n t i t y of these two miracle scenes, which appear as the bottom two scenes on the l e f t , 53 has been established by Bughetti. They represent incidents which were not recorded i n the V i t a Prima, but were l a t e r miracles written down i n Celano's Tractatus de Mi r a c u l i s of c i r c a 1250. Pisa II i s the only panel which includes 54 miracles derived s p e c i f i c a l l y from the Tractatus; Antal i s quite mistaken when he states that the Tractatus i s the iconographical source for a l l the early 55 St. Francis retables. The two scenes on the Pisa II panel which are based on t h i s source have been i d e n t i f i e d by Bughetti as i l l u s t r a t i n g the miracles described i n Tracatus numbers 103 and 193.. Number 103: In the v i l l a g e of P i g l i o , i n the Campagna, on the feast day of St. Francis a woman was h a s t i l y performing her work. But she was scolded for i t by a noble woman because i t was observed by everyone as a divine c u l t . "I need l i t t l e time." she sa i d , "to f n i s h my work; i f the Lord sees i t , then I commit a s i n ! " Immediately she was gravely punished i n the person of her daughter, who was s i t t i n g there nearby. The mouth of the g i r l twisted as f a r as her ears, and her eyes, pushed almost so they darted r i g h t out, were r o l l e d back i n a p i t i f u l way. Women hastened from everywhere and, for the innocent young g i r l , cursed the impiety of the mother. Immediately the l a t t e r prostrated h e r s e l f on the ground, f u l l of sorrow, promising to observe the day as a f e s t i v a l every year, and to give food on i t to the poor i n remembrance of the Saint. Without delay the torture of the daughter ceased, a f t e r which the mother repented of the s i n she had committed.55 Number 193: A noble lady from the ca s t l e of Galete suffered with a f i s t u l a between her breasts, and a f f l i c t e d by the stench as well as the pain, had not found any remedy for health. One day she entered the church of the f r i a r s to pray and seeing a book that contained the l i f e and miracles of St. Francis, she promptly looked to see what the contents were. Having learned the tru t h , bathed by tears, she took the book and held i t open against the diseased area: "As i t says, oh St. Francis, that the things are true written about you on t h i s page, so also may I now be freed through your grace of t h i s sore!" And while she wept and continued i n devotion, she soon removed the bandages, and was so completely healed that one was able to f i n d no trace of a scar afterwards.56 The Pisan a r t i s t has apparently devised the iconography for these scenes himself, and, as Bughetti"* 7 notes, h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are somewhat l e s s f a i t h -f u l to Celano's text than were B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s innovative i l l u s t r a t i o n s . In the case of the f i r s t of the two new miracles, t h i s may be the r e s u l t of the confusion of more than one story, f or the a f f l i c t e d g i r l i s represented with her eyes hanging f a r out of her sockets, but with no other f a c i a l deformity. 56 This feature may indic a t e the influence of two other miracle s t o r i e s i n which 5 8 people are mentioned who have an eye dislo c a t e d from i t s socket. But the other elements of the i l l u s t r a t i o n seem to derive from miracle 103 i n the Tractatus; the young g i r l i s shown seated on a bed-like structure while the mother stands behind and holds out her hands to ask for Francis' mercy. The Saint appears at the r i g h t and extends h i s righ t hand i n a gesture of ble s s i n g and holds a book i n the l e f t . The scene i s set against a background of s o l i d a rchitecture of the same type as that i n the other Pisa II sCeries. The composition of the second Tractatus scene, at the bottom l e f t , i s based l a r g e l y on that of the upper l e f t scene. The s e t t i n g i s i d e n t i c a l except that a simple draped a l t a r replaces the more complex one of the f i r s t miracle. Two f r i a r s stand behind and beside the a l t a r but, unlike those of the other three "tomb-miracle" scenes, the hooded f r i a r who i s apparently o f f i c i a t i n g stands farthest away from the supplicant woman, and the other f r i a r i n d i c a t e s him to her. Like the two e a r l i e r miracle scenes at the top, t h i s composition i s a before-and-after de p i c t i o n . The woman i s f i r s t shown standing l e f t of the a l t a r holding the large, sore-marked breast growth that extends outside her robe. Her elaborately decorated mantle indicates her noble rank. At the extreme l e f t the woman i s shown again, leaving the scene a f t e r having been hea-le d . There i s no attempt to i l l u s t r a t e the r o l e of the book i n the miracle as i t i s described by Celano. Although a book i s indicated on the meansa, t h i s i s not unique to t h i s scene but appears on a l l of the a l t a r s i n Pisa I I . The reason f o r the i n c l u s i o n of these two new miracle i l l u s t r a t i o n s on the Pisa II a l t a r p i e c e i s unaccountable. Although the o r i g i n a l four miracles are r e t o l d i n the Tractatus, the two a d d i t i o n a l ones are not located d i r e c t l y before or a f t e r them; the o r i g i n a l order of the V i t a Prima no longer even ex i s t s i n the Tractatus. These two miracles therefore do not seem to have been chosen, l i k e B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s , i n a general following of t h e i r order i n the text. Neither are these-two miracles described as happening i n Pisa or i t s v i c i n i t y , so they have apparently not been singled out for s p e c i f i c t o p i c a l reasons. The Pisan a r t i s t was undoubtedly assigned h i s subject matter on some p a r t i c u l a r b a s i s , but the s i g n i f i c a n c e which the two new scenes may have had i s e l u s i v e . The order i n which the Pisan a r t i s t represents the s i x scenes does 59 not follow t h e i r chronology i n the Tractatus, nor does he place the two new miracles a f t e r the four o r i g i n a l ones of Pescia I. Instead he seems to have arranged the scenes roughly on the Pescia I order but i n such a way that he can symmetrically balance h i s e n t i r e composition by placing the "tomb-miracle" scenes with t h e i r morror-image settings i n the four corners, and the two scenes with divergent settings i n the centre. Deductions: Dependencies and Dating The miracle scenes on Pescia I are the e a r l i e s t surviving i l l u s t r a t i o n s of these subjects and may represent the f i r s t p i c t o r i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Celano's text. Whether Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i was the creator of the o r i g i n a l scenes or not, i t i s the iconography of Pescia I which the subsequent miracle panels follow. E i t h e r Pescia I or an unknown e a r l i e r p ainting was the icono-graphic model from which a l l other i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the four miracles d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y were d e r i v e d . ^ The s i z e , shape, and number of scenes of Pi s a II in d i c a t e i t s close connection to Pescia I. Although i t includes two unique miracle scenes, Pisa II i s closer than A s s i s i VI or Rome VII to the Pescia I versions of the four o r i g i n a l miracles. These four miracle scenes, however, were considerably s i m p l i f i e d from Pescia I to Pisa I I . The most s i g n i f i c a n t changes occurred i n scenes of the healing of the c r i p p l e s and the healing of the possessed, where the number of s i c k people i s reduced to a si n g l e f i g u r e i n both scenes. Both A s s i s i VI and Rome VII repeat the s i m p l i f i e d scenes of Pisa II by 58 including only one cripped man and one possessed woman. This indicates that A s s i s i VI and Rome VII are not dependent on Pescia I, but on eit h e r Pisa II or an unknown panel with s i m i l a r scenes. A s s i s i VI and Rome VII are strongly re l a t e d i n t h e i r iconographies [ e s p e c i a l l y noticeable i n the healing of the possessed] and t h e i r p h y s i c a l formats. However, A s s i s i VI displays some de-t a i l s of subject matter which are present i n Pisa II but absent from Rome VII, such as the man covering h i s ears i n the possessed scene and the healed c r i p p l e walking away from the a l t a r . A s s i s i VI i s therefore dependent on Pisa I I , and Rome VII on A s s i s i VI. The chain of iconographic influences among the extant panels i s thus Pescia I to Pisa II to A s s i s i VI to Rome VII. The date of Pescia I i s known to be 1235. Because of i t s dependence on the Tractatus de M i r a c u l i s , Pisa II can be assigned a date a f t e r 1250, but probably within the decade of the '50's because of i t s a f f i n i t y to Pescia I, and f o r s t y l i s t i c reasons. A s s i s i VI must therefore date from a f t e r the 1250's and, because of i t s s t y l i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p to the school of Giunta Pisano^"'', most probably from at l e a s t a decade a f t e r P i s a I I . This places Rome VII at le a s t i n the 1270's, and quite possibly even l a t e r i n the century due to the r e l a t i v e l y advanced a r c h i t e c t u r a l and s p a t i a l solutions which i t displays. 62 These dates would agree with those proposed [without reasons] by Garrison. The Significance of the Miracle Scenes That four p a r t i c u l a r posthumous miracles should be repeatedly chosen out of the wealth of s t o r i e s about St. Francis f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n on the s t o r i e d retables must i n d i c a t e something about the r e l i g i o u s doctrines behind them or the intended purpose of the panels. When the sources of these four miracles i s examined, the reasons for t h e i r frequent i n c l u s i o n on the al t a r p i e c e s becomes cl e a r . Those miracles chosen for depiction on Pescia I and repeated on Pisa I I , A s s i s i VI and Rome VII a l l derive from that l a s t section of Celano's V i t a Prima 59 which enumerates the miracles that occurred a f t e r the death of Francis, As already noted, the f o r t y miracles there described are those which were 63 c o l l e c t e d f or the purpose of Francis' canonization. There was therefore a d i r e c t l i n k between the canonization procedure iand the s e l e c t i o n of subject matter for the a l t a r p i e c e s . The Franciscans who commissioned the panels were not interested i n i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the l i f e of Francis, but of those events which had proven h i s s a n c t i t y . Such a choice indicates that the s t o r i e d r e t a -bles were not designed as v i s u a l narratives expounding the events of Francis' career; they were instead v i s u a l reminders of the f a c t that Francis was a s a i n t . As a l t a r p i e c e s they were objects of veneration, and likewise what was represen-ted on them emphasized the a t t i t u d e towards Francis which most deserved worship: h i s semi-divine p o s i t i o n as a s a i n t . Like the speedy canonization i t s e l f , the commissioning of Celano's V i t a  Prima, and the erection of the sumptuous A s s i s i b a s i l i c a , the production of the early s t o r i e d retables was a symptom of the desire within the Order to e s t a b l i s h and emphasize the s a n c t i t y of t h e i r founder. These early miracle panels can be seen as belonging to the atmosphere of o f f i c i a l Franciscan propagranda which surrounded Francis' canonization. In t h e i r emphasis on the canonization mira-c l e s , Pescia I, ,Pisa I I , A s s i s i VI and Rome VII belong to a d i s t i n c t t r a d i t i o n of Franciscan iconography. But the subject matter of the s t o r i e d retables changes during the Duecento, and P i s t o i a I I I , even though i t includes the four miracle scenes, indicates a new development i n the i l l u s t r a t i o n of the Franciscan legend. 60 NOTES "''All s i x events which were i l l u s t r a t e d on Pescia I were described by Thomas of Celano i n h i s V i t a Prima of 1230. 2 J.A. Crowe and G.B. Cavalcaselle, A History of Painting i n I t a l y , vol.1 [New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1903], p. 242 i d e n t i f y the scene as the " r e v i v i n g of a young g i r l " . This i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s repeated by P. V i t t o r i n o F a c c h i n e t t i , Iconografia Francescana [Milano: S. Lega E u c h a r i s t i c a , 1926] , p. 23, note 4. 3 Oswald Siren, Toskanische Maler im XIII. Jahrhundert [ B e r l i n : Paul Cassirer, 1922], pp. 79-80. 4 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 11. ^The same miracle i s r e t o l d almost verbatim i n Celano's Tractatus de  M i r a c u l i s , number 160. St. Bonaventura does not include i t . 6 Translated from Thomas of Celano's V i t a Prima [ A s s i s i : S. Maria d e g l i Angeli, Porziuncola e d i t i o n , 1970], pp. 146-147. 7 The body of Francis was placed i n S. Giorgio i n 1226 and transferred to S. Francesco i n 1230. 8 Bughetti V i t a e M i r a c o l i , pp. 12-13. Bughetti reads the a l t a r as being represented i n a s i n g l e plane so that he i n t e r p r e t s the v e r t i c a l l i n e s as long legs supporting the mensa, not as the edges of a p r o j e c t i o n . ^ i b i d . " ^ i b i d . , p. 14. "'""'"Reproduced i n Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting. 12 See Edward B. Garrison, Studies i n the History of Medieval I t a l i a n  Painting, v o l . IV [Florence: Okchki, 1960-62]. i b i d . 14 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , pp. 9-11. "'"^Sabatier Vie de S. Francois discusses how the body of Francis was considered so valuable and was so sought a f t e r by worshippers that the tomb was constantly guarded. "^The dimensions of the scene compartments are given by Bughetti V i t a  e m i r a c o l i as Pescia I: 0.33 m. by 0.31 m., Pisa I I : 0.29 m. by 0.40 m. "^Bughetti, i b i d . , p. 24 again misreads, the s p a t i a l d e piction of the tomb and sees i t as f l o a t i n g i n the a i r . 61 18 Some of the f r i a r f i gures on P i s t o i a I I I and A s s i s i VI display s i m i l a r two-coloured habits. 19 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , pp. 29-31. 20 Covering the head s i g n i f i e d p r otection from demons. See Louis Reau,: Iconographie de l ' A r t Chretien, v o l . I [Paris: Presses U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France, 1955], p. 235. 21 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 64 suggests that t h i s h i l l town represents A s s i s i . 22 This i s the term used to describe s i m i l a r constructions by John White, The B i r t h and Rebirth of P i c t o r i a Space [Boston: Boston Book and Art Shop, 1967], pp. 26-28. 23 White, i b i d . , i d e n t i f i e s the reappearance of the foreshortened-f r o n t a l as occurring p r i m a r i l y during the era of Cimabue. 24 See Appensix, Rome VII. 25 Crowe and Cavalcaselle A History of Painting i n I t a l y , p. 140. Repeated by F a c c h i n e t t i Iconografia Francescana, p. 23, note 4. 26 Siren Toskanische Maler, p. 81 27 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , pp. 15-16. 28 A l l of these miracles are r e t o l d i n s l i g h t l y abbreviated form i n Celano's Tractatus de M i r a c u l i s , numbers 161-167. Bonaventura includes none of them. 29 Translated from the V i t a Prima,, pp. 147-149. 30 Bughetti V i t a e M i r a c o l i , pp. 15-16. 31 These crutches are not depicted l i k e those.of the following scene. Instead they seem to represent the objects used by crawling c r i p p l e s with which they dragged themselves along the ground. 32 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 16, note 1 c i t e s other e a r l i e r examples of s i m i l a r a t t r i b u t e s . 33 i b i d . , p. 16. 34 Bughetti, i b i d . , p. 26 suggests that the large space between the two f r i a r s was meant to indi c a t e Francis' i n v i s i b l e presence. This i s not a l i k e l y suggestion, however, for the e n t i r e miracle which involved the ac t i v e intervention of Francis has been omitted. 35 Mario Salmi, "Una tavola p r i m i t i v a n e l l a Chiesa d i S. Francesco a Pisa", R i v i s t a d'Arte, VII, 1910, p. 67 misreads the pilgr i m - l e p e r as a man who has brought the c r i p p l e to the tomb and who has removed h i s shoes and c a r r i e s them over h i s shoulder. 36 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 26. 37 See Appendix, A s s i s i VI. 38 Crowe and Cavalcaselle A History of I t a l i a n Painting, p. 242, and F a c c h i n e t t i Iconografia Francescana, p. 23, note 4 i d e n t i f y the scene as Francis " r a i s i n g a c r i p p l e " . Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 17 gives the s p e c i f i c l i t e r a r y source. 39 Translated from the V i t a Prima, pp. 149-150. 40 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 17. 4"""Celano's d e s c r i p t i o n suggests a country s i t e for the bath i n that i t gives no place names. Siren Toskanische Maler, p. 171 i s most derogatory i n h i s judgement of the a r t i s t of Rome VII. Salmi "Una tavola p r i m i t i v a n e l l a Chiesa d i S. Francesco a Pi s a " , p. 70. ^Crowe and Cavalcaselle A History of I t a l i a n Painting, p. 242. ^ F a c c h i n e t t i Iconografia Francescana, p. 23, note 4. ^Repeated i n Celano's Tractatus de M i r a c u l i s , numbers 150-156. Bonaventura reproduces them i n part i n h i s section "De m i r a c u l i s " , number 4. "^Translated from the V i t a Prima, pp. 151-152. 48 The use of lamps and incense held s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e m exorcism r i t e s . See Reau Iconographie de l ' A r t Chretien, v o l . I, pp. 227-228. 49 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 18. ~*^Reau Iconographie de l ' A r t Chretien, v o l . I. "^Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 28. 52 See Appendix, A s s i s i VI. 53 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 25. "^Frederick Antal, Florentine Painting and i t s S o c i a l Background [London:';Kegan Paul, 1911], p. 147. "^Translated from the Tractatus de Mi r a c u l i s [ A s s i s i : S. Maria d e g l i Angeli, Porziuncola e d i t i o n , 1970], p. 476. 63 5 6 i b i d . , pp. 510-511. "^Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 25. 58 Tractatus de M i r a c u l i s , numbers 119, 122. 59 The Tractatus numbers following the order of the scenes on the panel are 160, 103, 193, 161-167, 173, 150-156. 60 The same four miracles appear to have been represented on San Miniato a l Tedesco VIII [see plate V I I I ] , but i n abbreviated form from Pescia I. Their arrangement repeats Pescia I, however, suggesting that the l o s t panel was produced a f t e r Pescia I but before Pisa I I . ^ G i u n t a Pisano was a c t i v e , i n the 1250's a n a 1260's. 62 Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting. 6 3 See Chapter I I , "The L i t e r a r y Sources f o r the L i f e of St. Francis". 64 CHAPTER IV: THE LIFE-CYCLE PANELS The P i s t o i a Panel Although P i s t o i a I I I i s roughly contemporary with A s s i s i VI, the scenes of P i s t o i a III display a new trend i n the iconography of the Franciscan legend. The four miracle scenes which were common to the four miracle panels appear at the bottom of P i s t o i a III with four scenes from the l i f e of Francis above. This arrangement places P i s t o i a I I I midway between the e a r l i e s t "miracle panel" iconography and the f u l l y developed " l i f e - c y c l e " iconography which w i l l appear i n Florence IV and Siena V. The four o r i g i n a l miracle scenes are placed i n the lower two compartments on each side. They are depicted i n the same order as they were i n Pescia I, rea-ding top to bottom, l e f t to r i g h t . This order i s repeated i n the top four scenes. The eight scenes of the panel thus form two separate units i n t h e i r reading or-der, the d i v i s i o n being between i l l u s t r a t i o n s of Francis' l i f e and of miracles a f t e r h i s death. The iconography of the miracle scenes follows the general pat-tern established i n Pescia I, but due to the absence of some motifs and the addi-t i o n of others unique to the P i s t o i a I I I iconography,it i s not possible to deter-mine the p a r t i c u l a r p i c t o r i a l source drawn upon by t h i s a r t i s t . The basic e l e - .. ments, however, as well as the s t y l e and conception of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l back-grounds place t h i s panel closer to Pescia I and Pisa II than to Rome VII and A s s i s i VI. The arrangement of the f i r s t miracle scene, that of the "healing of the deformed g i r l " repeats the general pattern of a l l i t s other versions, with the mother kneeling before the a l t a r at the r i g h t , the young g i r l l y i n g i n front of the a l t a r , and the mother leaving at the f a r l e f t with the healed g i r l on her shoulders. But there are several features unique to t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the scene. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l background has been reduced to a sing l e narrow b u i l d i n g at the extreme l e f t and the group of witnesses to the miracle has 65 been completely eliminated. The number of f r i a r s has been increased to three, however, and a t r i p l e baldacchino structure surmounts the a l t a r . This takes the form of a p l a i n wooden sarcophagus of the type which appears i n A s s i s i VI, with two books on i t s top. The most i n t e r e s t i n g d e t a i l i s the p o r t r a y a l of the g i r l leaning against the a l t a r ; she i s here depicted with her shoulder bared and her head l y i n g r i g h t against i t , an iconographic d e t a i l which suggests that the P i s t o i a I II a r t i s t [or the panel's commissioners] may have been r e f e r r i n g back to the l i t e r a r y account more than was done i n other copies of t h i s scene. A new type of gesture i s also displayed by the characters i n t h i s scene. As she leaves at the l e f t , the mother ra i s e s her open r i g h t hand and the l i t t l e g i r l on her shoulders u p l i f t s both her hands, as i f they are marvelling at the miracle that has j u s t occurred. The second miracle scene depicting the healing of the c r i p p l e i s of that type established i n Pisa I I , i n which only one c r i p p l e and the l e p e r - p i l g r i m are included. The a l t a r i n the P i s t o i a scene i s a draped one, with c h a l i c e , book, and ampula on the mensa and a s i n g l e baldacchino over i t . The background architecture i s again reduced to a si n g l e structure at the far l e f t . A rather i n t e r e s t i n g transference of a t t r i b u t e s occurs between the figures of the two supplicants. The figure of the c r i p p l e i s shown, both as he kneels and walks away, holding the s t i c k with hanging water b o t t l e which previously was i n the hands of the p i l g r i m f i g u r e to d i s t i n g u i s h him as a leper. The second f i g u r e , who s t i l l wears the hat and mantle of the p i l g r i m , now bears none of the a t t r i -butes which indicate that he was also a leper, although Bughetti"'' maintains that traces of a chestnut branch i n h i s hand are v i s i b l e beneath retouchings to the scene. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n of the crutches l y i n g beside the kneeling c r i p p l e as they were shown i n the other versions of t h i s miracle scene. Three f r i a r s again appear behind the a l t a r and display new gestures here. The l e f t -66 most f r i a r r a i s e s h i s hands high into the a i r i n an att i t u d e of prayer, while the one next to him holds h i s l e f t hand, completely covered by the sleeve of hi s t u n i c , over h i s mouth. This l a s t gesture recurs i n the fourth miracle scene of t h i s panel. The lay-out of the t h i r d miracle scene, the healing of Bartholomeo of Narni, most c l o s e l y resembles that of Pescia I. The bath i s shown simply as a sort of pond with rocks at the l e f t upon which Bartolomeo s i t s . A large rectangular b u i l d i n g i s shown behind the bath. The p o s i t i o n of St. Francis, who bends to touch the c r i p p l e ' s l e g , i s neither the almost perpendicular one of Pisa II nor the act i v e one of A s s i s i VI and Rome VII but closest to that of Pescia I. The fi g u r e of Bartolomeo leaving with h i s crutches over h i s shoulder i s also most s i m i l a r to Pescia I i n that he walks s t r a i g h t ahead without the backward glance and raised l e g shown i n the other versions. „A s l i g h t change occurs i n the P i s t o i a scene where the seated Bartolomeo i s represented holding h i s crutches to eit h e r side of h i s body rather than s p e c i f i c a l l y supporting h i s c r i p p l e d l e g . The l a s t of the four miracle depictions i s again the healing of the possessed. The d i r e c t i o n of the scene on P i s t o i a I I I . i s i n reverse to i t s other four versions, with the a l t a r now located at the r i g h t . The form of the baldacchino over the a l t a r i s quite d i f f e r e n t ; i t i s more l i k e an aediculum. The only other a r c h i t e c t u r a l element i n the scene i s a small b u i l d i n g at the extreme l e f t . A large number of f r i a r s observe the miracle from behind the a l t a r . Those at the l e f t look up and gesture towards the d e v i l s being emitted and the f r i a r at the far r i g h t displays the covering-the-mouth a t t i t u d e already described. Left of the a l t a r stands a sing l e possessed woman who now emits two, instead of one, l i t t l e winged demons. She i s not shown bare-breasted t h i s time but again has long, dishevelled h a i r . Her male companion i s shown i n a new at t i t u d e of placing h i s arms r i g h t around her rather than holding her 67 arm, and a second onlooker at the extreme l e f t looks up at the d e v i l s , h i s hands raised i n surprise. The four upper scenes of P i s t o i a I II represent, i n chronological order, the approbation of the Rule, Francis preaching, the Stigmatization, and the death of Francis. Except for the Stigmatization, these scenes are the e a r l i e s t extant representations of these events from the earthly l i f e of St. Francis. Their i n c l u s i o n on a s t o r i e d retable would seem to i n d i c a t e a new d i r e c t i o n i n the thematic emphasis of Franciscan a r t . The choice of the four events from the Saint's l i f e represented on P i s t o i a I II suggests an i n t e r e s t i n that part of Francis' story which was i n f l u e n t i a l on the establishment of the Order. This i s indicated by the p o r t r a y a l f i r s t of a l l of Francis r e c e i v i n g the Pope's permission to form a new Order, followed by a scene of him carrying out the pur-pose of the Order by preaching. The Stigmatization, an event of a d i f f e r e n t s i g n i f i c a n c e i s then included, but notably i n chronological sequence. The s e r i e s ends with a representation of the death of the founder. In i t s p o r t r a y a l of events from Francis' l i f e i n chronological order ending with a death scene, P i s t o i a I l l ' s iconography resembles the general type of subject matter found i n paintings of the l i f e of Christ or Mary, or of other saints on s t o r i e d 2 retables. It also serves as a basis for the much more elaborate " l i f e - s t o r y " iconography of Florence IV. The story of the approbation of Francis' f i r s t r u l e by Innocent III i s recounted i n Celano's V i t a Prima numbers 32-33. No d e s c r i p t i v e d e t a i l s of the event are included there, with regard to s p e c i f i c actions or appearances. The emphasis of the written account i s on the good intentions and blessedness of the persons involved. Thus, there i s no s p e c i f i c a l l u s i o n to the text i n the P i s t o i a I II a r t i s t ' s p o r t r a y a l of the scene. His composition i s a very simple one, arranged to f i t into the t r i a n g u l a r compartment at the upper l e f t of the panel. The Pople, wearing e c c l e s i a s t i c a l robes, i s seated at the r i g h t while a 68 crowd of c l e r i c s look on from behind the chair: Francis, depicted here without a halo since t h i s i s an event occurring before h i s death, kneels before Innocent III at the l e f t . The book representing the Rule i s held i n the hands of the two f i g u r e s , i n the act of being presented to one or the other. No background elements are included. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the second scene on the l e f t cannot be correlated with any p a r t i c u l a r passage i n Franciscan l i t e r a t u r e . The drawback of not being able to i d e n t i f y p r e c i s e l y some of the elements of the scene [namely, the structure at the bottom] due to the poor p h y s i c a l condition of the panel further increases the d i f f i c u l t y i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . No s i m i l a r composition appears i n any of the other retables. That the scene represents St. Francis 3 preaching i s the most accurate i d e n t i f i c a t i o n that i s p o s s i b l e . Francis and two other f r i a r s are shown standing on a sort of r a i s e d a l t a r or ambo that has a balustrade along the top, a scalloped lower edge, and motifs of eagles deco-r a t i n g i t s f r o n t . Francis, represented without a halo, stands i n the centre and r a i s e s h i s open r i g h t hand i n a gesture s i m i l a r to that of the panel's large c e n t r a l f i g u r e . With h i s l e f t hand he points down to the ground, while the f r i a r s to e i t h e r side look i n towards him. Under the ambo i s a structure which appears to be an a l t a r , for i t has a book placed on i t s top. But i t i s depicted d i f f e r e n t l y from the a l t a r s i n the other scenes and seems to be marked by dark v e r t i c a l bands down i t s centre and side edges. To the f a r l e f t and r i g h t of the scene stand large crowds of people gazing up at the f r i a r s : Those on the l e f t are a l l women wearing long v;robes and with covered heads, while those on the r i g h t are a l l men i n short tunics. The t h i r d of the upper scenes on P i s t o i a I I I i s a representation of the Stigmatization. Because of i t s s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e the iconography of t h i s scene w i l l be discussed separately and i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to other early Stigmatization i l l u s t r a t i o n s . 69 The l i f e - c y c l e scenes on P i s t o i a III end with a representation of the funeral of St. Francis. Although the events surrounding Francis' funeral are described i n the V i t a Prima numbers 116 to 118, there i s nothing i n t h i s or any other written account that indicates the dependence of the scene on a l i t e r a r y 4 source. As Bughetti notes, the scene i s derived more from representations of Christ's sepulchre or the death of the V i r g i n . Francis i s depicted with halo and stigmata, l y i n g with h i s hands crossed over hi s chest on a high b i e r draped with red c l o t h . Two f r i a r s stand behind the b i e r , the l e f t one reading from a book and r a i s i n g h i s rig h t sleeve to h i s face, and the r i g h t one holding an o b l i t e r a t e d object that appears to be a candle. A large crowd of f r i a r s i n Franciscan habits stands at the r i g h t of the scene, d i s p l a y i n g various gestures of g r i e f . At the l e f t i s a group of c l e r i c s i n e c c l e s i a s t i c a l garb, one of whom holds a censer and an open book which reads: REQUIEM ETERNAM DONAEI DOMINE."* A f r i a r near the back of t h i s group of c l e r i c s r a i s e s a leafed branch which Bughetti^ i d e n t i f i e s as the aspergillum. Bughetti also notes that c e r t a i n traces of paint at the top of the scene are the vestiges of a depiction of St. Francis i n glory but these are not d i s c e r n i b l e today. Such a motif was, however, i n v a r i a b l y included on representations of the death of the V i r g i n , on which t h i s scene seems to be modelled. Moreover, the scene of the funeral of Francis on Florence IV i s very s i m i l a r to that of P i s t o i a III and includes the image of Francis i n glory. It i s therefore l i k e l y that P i s t o i a III o r i g i n a l l y bore the d e t a i l which Bughetti suggests. In i t s combination of four miracle scenes and four l i f e - c y c l e scenes P i s t o i a III can be seen as j o i n i n g the two streams of early Franciscan iconogra-phy. The trend towards l i f e - c y c l e subject matter was not s t r i c t l y a subsequent development to the miracle panels, however. P i s t o i a III derives i t s miracle scenes' iconography from Pescia I, but i s not related to Pisa I I , A s s i s i VI or 70 Rome VII. The i n t e r e s t i n l i f e - c y c l e scenes was beginning to develop at the same time as the l a t e r miracle panels were being produced. Florence IV i s dependent on P i s t o i a I II i n both d e t a i l s of subject matter and the t r a d i t i o n of l i f e - c y c l e iconography. Florence IV The St. Francis retable i n the Bardi Chapel, Santa Croce displays twenty side scenes, and thus represents the most extensive cycle of the legend of St. Francis before the A s s i s i frescoes. Like those of P i s t o i a I I I , the twenty scenes are arranged i n chronological order. But the reading order here begins at the upper l e f t , runs top to bottom, then, with the four scenes at the base of the c e n t r a l f i g u r e , from top to bottom i n the l e f t two and bottom to top i n the the r i g h t two. The reading d i r e c t i o n of these four bottom scenes i s compositionally indicated by the strong diagonals i n the'uppermost two compart-ments. The cycle f i n i s h e s from the bottom to top of the eight scenes on the panel's r i g h t side. Although t h i s panel's iconography does include the depic-t i o n of c e r t a i n miracles a f t e r Francis' death, these are not arranged as a separate group of scenes echoing the format of the miracle panels as i n P i s t o i a I I I , but are intergrated with the other scenes so that the cycle forms a sin g l e chronological s e r i e s . Florence IV therefore represents the e a r l i e s t continuous l i f e - c y c l e n a r r a t i v e of the Franciscan legend. It i s t h i s type of na r r a t i v e which i s followed i n the l a t e r Siena V, and i n the fresco cycles of the subject in 1 A s s i s i aiid i n the Bardi Chapel. The f i r s t scene represents an event from Francis' youth, described i n the V i t a Prima, numbers 12 and 13, 7 i n which Francis i s locked i n a dark room i n h i s parents' house by h i s father as a r e s u l t of the l a t t e r ' s disapproval of his son's actions. Francis' mother, however, releases him when her husband leaves the house. In the Florence IV scene the young Francis i s represented i n a 71 tunic since the event occurs before h i s taking up of the habit and with a halo [as he i s shown i n a l l the scenes of t h i s panel]. He i s depicted at the righ t emerging from the doorway of a b u i l d i n g . His hands are t i e d to a column outside; the d e t a i l that h i s hands were bound i s mentioned s p e c i f i c a l l y i n the written account. His mother unties them. To the l e f t stands Francis' father, who extends h i s hands towards the others i n gestures of disapproval. The presence of the father at t h i s scene i s e i t h e r an addition by the a r t i s t , or meant to represent the events occurring immediately before or a f t e r the action shown at the r i g h t , from which he i s absent according to the written des-c r i p t i o n . The background to t h i s scene consists of a s e r i e s of f r o n t a l l y d e p i ct-ed b u i l d i n g s , which are quite s i m i l a r i n both.the types of structures shown and t h e i r decorative borders to those of Pescia I and Pisa II [and perhaps P i s t o i a III although the l a t t e r i s too d i r t y to d i s t i n g u i s h i n d e t a i l ] . Scene two depicts the events described i n the V i t a Prima immediately g following the ones shown above, i n numbers 14 and 15. Francis renounces h i s worldly goods before the Bishop and returns to h i s father a l l that has been given him. The basic iconographic lay-out f o r t h i s scene as i t i s established here becomes the basis for l a t e r representations of the event. Francis' parents stand at the l e f t and Francis s i t s on the lap of the seated Bishop [ d i s t i n -guished by a mitre and red robe] at the r i g h t . He covers the naked youth with h i s mantle, as described by Celano. Between the two groups of figures l i e . - the garments which Francis has taken o f f and thrown to the ground. This i s another d e t a i l which accurately follows the text. Both Francis and h i s father point down at the clothes, while the mother and a standing c l e r i c a l f i g u r e look on from the extreme l e f t and r i g h t r e s p e c t i v e l y . The t h i r d scene represents for the f i r s t and only time the incident of Francis' f i r s t tunic taking the form of a cross. Although t h i s event i s 72 described i n Celano's V i t a Prima, number 22, the a r t i s t i s apparently basing hi s i l l u s t r a t i o n on Bonaventura's account, as t o l d i n chapter II number 4, where the circumstances surrounding the story are al t e r e d so that i t occurs i n the presence of the Bishop, immediately a f t e r Francis' renunciation of worldly goods. The same figures of Bishop and deacon are shown as i n the scene above, but reversed and at the l e f t , and both r a i s e t h e i r hands i n wonder at the occurrence before them. Francis, s t i l l clothed i n h i s lay tunic, stands at the r i g h t and touches the miraculous habit with a long rod. The habit i s depicted as i f seen from above, against the background ar c h i t e c t u r e ; i t s hood and sleeves are stretched out so that i t approximates the shape of a cross. The fourth compartment contains another scene unique to Florence IV: Francis at the Porziuncola [the f i r s t church used ,by .the early Franciscans as t h e i r base]. The s p e c i f i c event being depicted i s the story of how upon hearing at Mass at the Porziuncola the text, i n which Christ t e l l s h i s d i s c i p l e s 9 to take neither money, nor two robes, nor shoes on t h e i r t r a v e l s , Francis r i d s himself of h i s shoes and walking s t i c k . This event i s described by Celano as part of the same story of the cross-shaped habit [Celano number 22], but the l i t e r a r y source for t h i s painted scene again seems to be Bonaventura's version [I I I , 1]. For not only has the cross-shaped habit event been placed before t h i s one, according to Bonaventura's order of n a r r a t i v e , but Francis i s also shown i n the Proziuncola scene already wearing h i s brown habit t i e d with a rope, an apparel which i s a r e s u l t of t h i s story i n Celano's d e s c r i p t i o n . The scene consists of the p r i e s t behind a high a l t a r i n the centre, an e c c l e s i a s t i c a l a s s i s t a n t at the l e f t , and Francis kneeling at the r i g h t with a group of onloo-kers behind him. Francis i s i n the process of removing h i s r i g h t shoe; the l e f t one i s already o f f , on the ground beside him. The p r i e s t looks down towards him and holds an open book which bears the words: SEQUENTIA SANCTI EVANGELII SECUNDAM LUCAM."" The f i f t h event depicted i s the approbation of the Rule; t h i s i s the f i r s t of those scenes common to both Florence IV and P i s t o i a I II which i n d i -cate an iconographic dependence of the former on the l a t t e r [or on a s i m i l a r unknown panel of the same t r a d i t i o n ] . The basic arrangement of the Pope seated at the r i g h t with other c l e r i c s behind and Francis kneeling before him with the book of the Rule between them i s the same. The scene has been elaborated some-what i n Florence IV, however. A second f r i a r stands behind Francis, holding hi s hands p r a y e r f u l l y towards the Pope, and l e f t of him a fi g u r e i n e c c l e s i a s t i -c a l robes stands grasping a closed book. The background has also been f i l l e d i n to resemble those of the panel's other scenes. Another new subject appears i n the s i x t h scene: the presepio at Greccio. In both Celano's V i t a Prima [numbers 85, 86] and Bonaventura's Leggenda [X, 7] i t i s described how Francis took part i n a Christmas mass at Greccio to which he brought a manger, ox, and ass to recreate Bethlehem.. But i t i s apparently the Celano account which the Bardi Master i s using for h i s source, f o r t h i s version stresses the fact that Francis served as deacon at the mass and sang from the Gospel. Bonaventura's story does not s p e c i f i c a l l y mention t h i s f a c t , but dwells more upon the miraculous v i s i o n had by an onlooker, i n which Francis was seen to waken and hold a c h i l d i n the manger. Although t h i s i s another new scene i n Franciscan iconography the event i s repeated with v a r i a t i o n s on Siena V and the A s s i s i frescoes. The a l t a r , with a r t i c l e s for the mass on top, i s represented i n the centre of the scene with the celebrant p r i e s t i n red robes standing behind. In front of the a l t a r i s a series of three small h i l l -ocks on which rests the c h i l d , with the heads of the ox and ass peering over i t . Francis stands to the r i g h t ; he wears deacon's robes and holds an open book i n h i s l e f t hand, a censer i n h i s r i g h t . A group of l i s t e n e r s stands to 74 h i s r i g h t , and three white-robed assistants are at the f a r l e f t . Although the standard a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms f i l l part of the background, another s t r u c -ture l i k e a shallow arch has been added here over the centre of the scene. The next event depicted i s Francis' sermon to the b i r d s , the iconography of which w i l l be discussed i n Chapter V. This i s followed by a new scene at the lower l e f t of the panel: Francis preaching before the Sultan of Egypt. The V i t a Prima d6es InOt Include t h i s story, but Bonaventura's account does [IX, 7,8]. Most of the written d e s c r i p t i o n i s devoted to the words of Francis i n h i s attempt to convert the Sultan to C h r i s t i a n i t y , so that the painted ver-sion of the story i s p r i m a r i l y an attempt to suggest the s e t t i n g of the event. Francis i s shown at the l e f t holding an open book and r a i s i n g h i s hand as he speaks to the Egyptians. A second f r i a r stands behind him; t h i s i s a d e t a i l s p e c i f i e d by the text, which states that brother Illuminato accompanied Francis on t h i s mission. But a t h i r d f r i a r i s also j u s t v i s i b l e behind him. The Sultan i s seated on a cushioned throne; h i s large dark beard suggests h i s eastern n a t i o n a l i t y , h i s crown and sceptre h i s rank. An attendant with a spear stands behind him. In the ecentre of the scene i s a large crowd of Egyptians, a l l looking a t t e n t i v e l y towards Francis, some of them r a i s i n g t h e i r hands. Many of the men are turbanned and have long dark or grey beards. Those i n the.front row [who are the only l i s t e n e r s whose bodies are v i s i b l e ] s i t i n cross-legged pos i t i o n s as a further i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r o r i e n t a l character. The i n c l u s i o n of the crowd of Egyptians i s an elaboration of the written account, which r e f e r s to Francis' desire to convert the Sultan's people, but not to the fac t that he a c t u a l l y preached to them as w e l l . The following two scenes are unique to the Bardi a l t a r p i e c e , occurring no where else i n early Franciscan art and i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to speculate upon the possible reasons for the i n c l u s i o n of these r e l a t i v e l y obscure subjects. 75 Scenes 9 and 10 w i l l be discussed together here because of t h e i r l i t e r a r y and t o p i c a l a f f i n i t i e s . Both s t o r i e s are recounted only i n Celano's V i t a Prima, t h e . f i r s t i n numbers 77 and 78, followed d i r e c t l y by the second i n number 12 79. Both are presented as examples of Francis' s p e c i a l love for lambs, because of t h e i r associations with C h r i s t . The f i r s t story t e l l s how Francis and brother Paolo came across a shepherd with a herd of goats that included one lamb. Having compassion for the lamb, which Francis compared to that of C h r i s t , they purchased i t through the donation of a passing merchant and placed i t i n the c l o i s t e r s of a monastery. The panel representation of the scene i s set amid h i l l s to i n d i c a t e the pas t o r a l s i t e . The shepherd, i n tunic and hat, holding h i s s t a f f , stands at the r i g h t with h i s herd of goats and boars i n the foreground. He extends h i s r i g h t hand towards the three f r i a r s who stand at the l e f t behind the h i l l . The right-most one i s Francis, who holds the white lamb under h i s arm. The second story t e l l s how on another occasion Francis and Paolo encoun-tered a man taking two lambs to market, hung by t h e i r feet from a pole over h i s shoulders. In h i s compassion f o r the animals Francis gave the man h i s new mantle so that he need not s e l l the lambs, and ordered him to keep the animals but never to harm them. The Bardi a r t i s t ' s representation of t h i s event i s based quite accurately on the Celano text; i t shows Francis at the l e f t with h i s companion, i n the process of o f f e r i n g the mantle to the peasant at the r i g h t . The l a t t e r i s depicted with the t i e d lambs over h i s shoulder as des-cribed by the text. The background again consists of h i l l s . There are three possible explanations for the i n c l u s i o n of these "sheep" scenes on Florence IV. Their posi t i o n s on the panel are r e l a t i v e l y important ones i n that they are immediately next to the a l t a r . When the subject matter i s considered with that of some of the other scenes which appear for the f i r s t time on t h i s panel, e s p e c i a l l y the f i r s t two scenes from Francis' youth, Scene 11 of Francis doing penance, and Scene 14 of Francis among the lepers, i t i s evident that the iconographical programme of t h i s painting has been designed to emphasize d i f f e r e n t aspects of the Saint's l i f e than i n a l l e a r l i e r a l t a r -pieces. For these new scenes i l l u s t r a t e the more human and emotional aspects of Francis' character more than ever before. The underlying theme of the i c o -nography i s neither the sanc t i t y of Francis as proven by posthumous-miracles [as i n the f i r s t four panels], nor Francis as founder of the Order [as i n the P i s t o i a I I I " l i f e " scenes], although events from both of these trends are s t i l l included here. That the scenes to be represented were c a r e f u l l y and s p e c i f i -c a l l y chosen rather than j u s t based on a s i n g l e l i t e r a r y account i s indicated by the fac t that the two "sheep" scenes were d e l i b e r a t e l y included from the V i t a Prima at a time when o f f i c i a l Franciscan doctrine decreed that only Bona-13 ventura's Leggenda was to be used as a biography of the Saint. The addi t i o n of more anecdotal scenes would seem to in d i c a t e the influence of the S p i r i -14 t u a l i s t type of i n t e r e s t i n Francis' l i f e . Perhaps i t was on the basis of s i m i l a r observations that Zimmerman"^ stated [without reasons] h i s b e l i e f that the painter of the Bardi panel was a S p i r i t u a l Franciscan. The p o s s i b i l i t y of S p i r i t u a l i s t influence on the iconography of t h i s painting seems to be a strong one when i t i s remembered that i n the 1280's the church of Santa Croce had strong S p i r i t u a l i s t tendencies during the l e c t o r s h i p s of Peter John O l i v i and Ubertino of Casale."^ Apart from t h i s general tendency i n the panel's iconography, there may have been more p a r t i c u l a r reasons f o r the s p e c i f i c i n c l u s i o n of the two "sheep" scenes. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that Bonaventura's account of Francis going before the Sultan includes a section describing Francis' mental preparation for the mission."''7 One of the passages Francis quotes to his companion i s "I send you l i k e sheep into the midst of wolves" [Matthew 10: 16]. Since the two "sheep" scenes are depicted immediately following the one of Francis before the Sultan, a p i c t o r i a l a l l u s i o n to Francis' words may have been intended here. Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the.two s t o r i e s of Francis saving lambs were chosen for t h e i r J o a c h i s t i c suggestiveness, both i n t h e i r p a r a l l e l i s m of Francis with Christ the Lamb, and i n t h e i r implications of the Lamb of the Apocalypse and hence Francis' Apocalyptic r o l e . The J o a c h i s t i c influences on Franciscan art w i l l be discussed i n d e t a i l i n Chapter VI. The scene following these two depicts another of the more emotional events of Francis' l i f e , and i s again unique to Florence IV. The story being shown i s 18 an act of penitence by Francis, who had eaten meat during an i l l n e s s . Both Celano and Bonaventura describe how he repented for t h i s s i n . Celano [Vita  Prima number 52] says that Francis ordered one of h i s companions to lead him by a rope around h i s neck through A s s i s i to declare h i s s i n f u l n e s s . But Bonaven-tura [VI, 2] describes more s p e c i f i c a l l y that Francis had himself dragged by the rope across the cathedral f l o o r before a crowd of townspeople and f r i a r s . The Bardi scene d i f f e r s from both descriptions i n that Francis i s shown seated i n the centre with a rope around h i s neck and binding his hands to a column. But the fact that he i s depicted having removed his habit, which l i e s on the ground to the l e f t , and i s clad only i n his drawers would i n d i c a t e that i t i s Bonaventura's account that i s being referred to, where th i s aspect of the story i s s p e c i f i c a l l y included. No other f r i a r s are shown observing the event, but crowds of townspeople look on from either side, the men on the l e f t and the women on the r i g h t as i f they are i n fact i n s i d e a church. The background of two v e r t i c a l side buildings and a h o r i z o n t a l one between i s s i m i l a r to those of the panel's e a r l i e r scenes. The next scene i s the Stigmatization, which w i l l be discussed i n Chapter V. This i s followed by a scene which again appears here for the f i r s t time: 78 the apparition at A r i e s , a subject which reappears i n the A s s i s i frescoes with ,. a completely d i f f e r e n t iconography. The story of t h i s miraculous event i s included i n the writings of both Celano [Vita Prima, 48] and Bonaventura [IV, 10]. The descriptions are e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l ; during the meeting of the Chapter at Aries i n 1224, from which Francis was absent, Anthony of Padua was d e l i v e r i n g a sermon on "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". As he spoke, one of the f r i a r s named Monaldo, who was exceptionally virtuous, saw a v i s i o n of Francis with hi s hands held out forming a cross and b l e s s i n g the f r i a r s , sus-pended i n the a i r at the entrance to the meeting house. The Bardi; i l l u s t r a t i o n of the event depicts i t as occurring outside rather than i n a room. At the l e f t the grey-haired Anthony stands before the doorway to a b u i l d i n g and r a i s e s h i s hands i n an a t t i t u d e of preaching. A large crowd o f . f r i a r s , a l l clutching books, stand at the r i g h t l i s t e n i n g to and watching him. In the c e n t r a l space appears the bust of Francis, who faces Anthony. He i s not shown with h i s arms extended as described by the text, but merely holding up h i s r i g h t hand i n a gesture 19 of b l e s s i n g . Bughetti i s probably correct i n i d e n t i f y i n g the left-most of the l i s t e n i n g f r i a r s as Monaldo, since he i s the only one who extends his hands and who appears to be regarding Francis rather than Anthony. Although t h i s depiction i s the only extant version of the scene preceding the frescoed one at A s s i s i , the l a t t e r i s i n no way dependent on the panel scene, but i s much 20 more accurate to the textual d e s c r i p t i o n . The following scene represents Francis caring for lepers, which i s des-21 cribed by Bonaventura i n h i s Chapter I I , 6, and i s therefore placed rather d r a s t i c a l l y out of order i n the panel's cycle of subjects. Bonaventura's account t e l l s that early i n h i s career Francis stayed with the lepers and l o v i n g l y washed t h e i r feet and dressed t h e i r wounds. This d e s c r i p t i o n i s followed by the story of how a leper was cured when Francis kissed h i s i n f e c t e d 79 l i p s . The panel i l l u s t r a t i o n i s a double one. At the r i g h t three men with leprosy, indicated by red spots covering t h e i r bodies, are seated on a large bench. Francis bends over beside them i n the process of washing the feet of one of them i n a basin of water. A towel hangs from h i s b e l t . At the l e f t of the scene Francis i s shown again, s i t t i n g on a bench and holding another leper on h i s lap. This may represent the episode of Francis k i s s i n g the leper f o r , 22 as Bughetti notes, Francis has one of h i s hands placed behind the s i c k man's head, as i f to draw i t clos e r to h i s own. Against the a r c h i t e c t u r a l background 23 a cloth hangs from the c e n t r a l baldacchino; Bughetti i d e n t i f i e s t h i s object as the towel which Francis has removed i n the second part of the story, but i t i s so strangely knotted and folded as to suggest that i t represents some other u n i d e n t i f i a b l e object. Next i s an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the funeral of St. Francis, which has strong s i m i l a r i t i e s to P i s t o i a I l l ' s version of t h i s scene. The Saint l i e s with crossed hands on a large b i e r , h i s head on a cushion, but facing the other d i r e c t i o n now. Groups of f r i a r s stand to e i t h e r side; one at the r i g h t holds an open book while another behind the b i e r swings a censer. At the top of the scene i s a small representation of Francis; soul being drawn up to heaven by angels, a feature which was also o r i g i n a l l y part of the P i s t o i a III scene. A new addition, however, which l i n k s t h i s scene to the one following i t i s the kneeling figures i n front of the b i e r . These two men and two women are lame or i l l people. They r a i s e t h e i r hands towards the dead Saint and are shown with malformed legs and crutches beside them. This suggestion that miracles of healing were sought immediately upon Francis' death r e l a t e s well to the next scene of posthumous miracles. The representation of healings at Francis' tomb condenses several of the miracles shown on e a r l i e r panels into a s i n g l e scene. The unmistakable 80 s i m i l a r i t i e s between the elements of t h i s i l l u s t r a t i o n and the miracle por-t r a y a l s on P i s t o i a I II i n d i c a t e that the Florence IV a r t i s t was basing h i s com-24 p o s i t i o n on P i s t o i a I II or a very s i m i l a r unknown panel. The a l t a r i s i n the form of a p l a i n wooden box, as i n P i s t o i a I l l ' s scene 5, and the p o s i t i o n of the l i t t l e g i r l l y i n g i n front of i t i s almost i d e n t i c a l to that of the P i s t o i a I I I version. The mother i s not shown kneeling before the tomb, but walks o f f at the l e f t with the g i r l on her shoulders. Two f r i a r s stand behind the a l t a r with t h e i r hands raised high i n the a i r . This d i s t i n c t i v e gesture seems to derive from that of one of the f r i a r s i n P i s t o i a I l l ' s scene 6. The second healing miracle shown i s the exorcism of the possessed. The possessed woman, the man who holds her, and the one behind who holds up h i s hands i n surprise are a l l nearly i d e n t i c a l to the corresponding figures i n P i s t o i a I l l ' s scene 8. The head of another man has been placed beside the woman's, however, and the fi g u r e of a man i n a tunic looking up at the demons with r a i s e d hands has been added next to the tomb. 25 Scene 17 has been i d e n t i f i e d by Bughetti as representing the canoniza-t i o n of Francis. The canonization ceremony i s described i n the V i t a Prima i n great d e t a i l i n numbers 123 to 126, and i n the Leggenda Majora, 15, 7, but i t i s depicted very simply on Florence IV. The Pope and three cardinals stand behind the a l t a r at the r i g h t and a crowd of robed e c c l e s i a s t i c a l figures a s s i s t at the r i g h t . Pope Gregory r a i s e s h i s hand i n proclamation. Like that of the presepio scene, the a l t a r i s covered by a shallow decorated arch. This i s perhaps to i n d i c a t e the s e t t i n g within a church, although i t i s omitted i n other of the church scenes. By placing the canonization i l l u s t r a t i o n a f t e r the scene of miraculous healings, the a r t i s t of Florence IV has deviated from the order of d e s c r i p t i o n i n the written accounts, but has been h i s t o r i c a l l y accurate. The texts t e l l the story of the canonization then describe the miracles, whereas 81 the panel indicates that the tomb miracles were those which occurred before the canonization. Scenes 15, 16 and 17 of Florence IV therefore comprise a v i s u a l account of the process of which the e a r l i e r miracle panels were products. Francis died, the lame a r r i v e d , they were healed at h i s tomb, and Francis was canonized as a r e s u l t of the miracles. The three f i n a l scenes of Florence IV a l l i l l u s t r a t e other posthumous miracles. Hence, t h i s section of the paintings cycle represents a v a l i d a t i o n of the e a r l i e r miracle panel's t r a d i t i o n . Two of these scenes are unique to t h i s panel. Scene 18 i l l u s t r a t e s Francis appearing i n a boat to save i t from shipwreck. A number of very s i m i l a r tales of Francis rescuing shipwrecked s a i l o r s are found i n Celario's Tractatus [numbers 81 to 87] and Bonaventura's section on miracles, Part IV, so that the exact miracle being depicted i s u n i -26 d e n t i f i a b l e . Bughetti suggests the one described by Bonaventura, IV, number 5, which concerns s a i l o r s from Ancona. The boat i s set amid a pattern of waves flanked by pointed rocks which represent the shorelines. Francis appears i n person at the l e f t and raised h i s hand i n b l e s s i n g . A crowd of s a i l o r s face him, kneeling or extending t h e i r hands i n s u p p l i c a t i o n . The following miracle scene has not been i d e n t i f i e d . It does not corres-pond to any event described by Celano or Bonaventura and must therefore derive ei t h e r from a more obscure source or from an o r a l rather than written t r a d i -t i o n . The scene takes place at an a l t a r which i s probably the tomb of Francis. Two f r i a r s stand behind i t . At the l e f t a large number of men emerge from a doorway and approach the a l t a r . They are a l l naked except for l o i n c l o t h s and each bears a candle. The candles are being presented to one of the f r i a r s while the other raises h i s hands i n prayer or invokation. It would appear that the men are performing some r i t e of penitence at the tomb of Francis, for 27 t h e i r nudity i s an.indication of t h e i r penitent state. Bughetti notes that 82 t h i s i l l u s t r a t i o n corresponds to one of the s t o r i e s found i n the legend of St. 28 Anthony of Padua i n which s a i l o r s from Venice do penance. It i s probably a s i m i l a r event which occurred at Francis' tomb that i s depicted on Florence IV, e s p e c i a l l y since t h i s scene follows that of shipwrecked s a i l o r s . Perhaps the penitent men are meant to represent those same s a i l o r s whom Francis rescued i n the previous scene. The l a s t scene on Florence IV i s the now-familiar healing of Bartolomeo of Narni. The d e t a i l s of the Florence IV version of t h i s miracle i n d i c a t e another dependence on P i s t o i a I I I . The conception of the bath i s s i m i l a r and the way i n which Bartolomeo s i t s with h i s crutches f a r apart, then walks st r a i g h t o f f the scene without a backward glance are features which had appeared i n P i s t o i a I I I . The only preceding s t o r i e d retable which Florence IV resembles i n the d e t a i l s of i t s scenes i s P i s t o i a I I I , which i n turn was rela t e d only to Pescia I. Florence IV can therefore be seen as the r e s u l t of a second chain of dependencies within the panels. The f i r s t ran from Pescia I, to Pisa II to A s s i s i VI and Rome VII. This second set of iconographic r e l a t i o n s h i p s , however, passes from Pescia I to P i s t o i a III to Florence IV. The twenty scenes on Florence IV comprise a very i n t e r e s t i n g and somewhat enigmatic l i f e - c y c l e . That such a large number of subjects should appear on a st o r i e d retable i s i n i t s e l f s i g n i f i c a n t , since the most extensive previous 29 cycle consisted of only eight scenes. Moreover, fourteen of the scenes have 30 no known prototypes and eight of these never appear again i n early Franciscan a r t . The l i t e r a r y sources which were chosen f o r models for the scenes are also i n t r i g u i n g . Most of the events shown are described by both Celano and 31 Bonaventura, but i n four cases Bonaventura alone has been consulted and i n 32 two cases Celano. Florence IV must date a f t e r 1263 because of the s p e c i f i c 83 dependence upon Bonaventura's Leggenda Major. The panel was therefore executed at a time when a l l biographies of St. Francis except Bonaventura's had been banned. Yet the Celano text has also been referred to i n the subject matter. These fac t s suggest that the choice of subjects for Florence IV held a s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e for whoever was responsible for t h e i r designation, the importance of which was greater than the desire to follow the o f f i c i a l p o l i c y of the Order. When the subjects of the Celano scenes [9 and 10] are considered along with some of the other new scenes on Florence IV such as the presepio at Greccio, Francis doing penance and Francis among the lepers, i t can be concluded that Florence IV displays a much stronger i n t e r e s t i n the more anecdotal and unspec-tacular incidents of Francis' l i f e . The c o l l e c t i o n of scenes on Florence IV i s d i f f e r e n t from any that precede or follow i t . This might indi c a t e that the panel's iconography was determined by S p i r i t u a l Franciscans, to whom the id e a l s Francis displayed i n his .daily l i f e were more important than the establishment 33 of a powerful monastic Order. An i n s c r i p t i o n at the top of Florence IV provides proof that i t was the idea l s expressed by Francis' l i f e which were meant to be emphasized i n the painting. At the top of the panel's gable a hand i s shown emerging from the heavenly spheres and bearing a s c r o l l which reads: HUNC EXAUDITE PERHIBENTEM 34 DOGMATA VITE ["hearken unto t h i s man revealing the p r i n c i p l e s of l i f e " ] The emphasis of the Florence IV subject matter i s thus not only suggested by the choice of scenes, but i s also reinforced by the statement at the top. The i n s c r i p t i o n c l e a r l y states that i t i s the p r i n c i c p l e s of l i f e which are of concern. The categorization of Florence IV as an important l i f e - c y c l e panel i s spelled out on the painting i t s e l f . The advice of the i n s c r i p t i o n i s v i s u a l l y c a r r i e d out by the two angels at the top who point towards the s c r o l l and by the seventeen small busts of Franciscans on the inner border who r a i s e 84 t h e i r hands and heads towards the cen t r a l f i g u r e of Francis. ..Both the i n s c r i p t i o n and the small busts are unique to t h i s panel. Florence IV c l e a r l y establishes the d i r e c t i o n of iconographic development among the thi r t e e n t h century storied, retables In that i t s subject matter d i s -plays an increased emphasis on l i f e - c y c l e rather than posthumous miracle scenes. In t h i s respect i t represents a stage of development between P i s t o i a III and Siena V. Yet the large number of scenes and t h e i r thematic uniqueness set Florence IV apart as an unparalleled v i s u a l statement of early Franciscan thought. Siena V The eight scenes chosen for representation on Siena V indi c a t e yet another development i n the depiction of the Franciscan legend, and i t i s t h i s type of l i f e - c y c l e which leads d i r e c t l y to that of the frescoes of the Upper Church, A s s i s i . Every scene on Siena V i s included i n the o f f i c i a l Bonaventura biogra-phy and reappears i n the A s s i s i fresco c y c l e . Unlike those of the previous panels, a l l the scenes of Siena V i l l u s t r a t e events from Francis', l i f e , with no posthumous miracle i l l u s t r a t i o n s . This series i s therefore a true " l i f e -c y c l e " and f a r removed from the o r i g i n a l miracle panels. The chronological reading order of the subjects begins at the lower l e f t , up the l e f t row of scenes and down the r i g h t . The f i r s t scene represents Francis' renunciation of worldly goods, a subject which was also included on Florence IV. . Despite the v e r t i c a l rectan-gular shape of Siena V's scene compartments which necessitates a new arrange-ment of the elements i n some cases, the basic pattern displayed i n the Florence IV version of the scene i s maintained here. The bishop i s seated at the ri g h t holding the young Francis on h i s lap and wrapping h i s mantle around the boy's naked body. Francis indicates h i s clothes which are l y i n g on the ground to 85 h i s father, who stands at the l e f t with a group of onlookers behind him. The fig u r e of Francis' mother i s not distinguished among the crowd. A t a l l , e l a -borate a r c h i t e c t u r a l structure with an arcaded base and baldacchino on top f i l l s the r i g h t background. The second subject represented i s Francis before the c r u c i f i x i n San Damiano. This scene appears here for the f i r s t time on a painting,-; but was 35 represented i n stained glass somewhat e a r l i e r i n the Upper Church, A s s i s i . The Sienese a r t i s t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, i s a unique one. The event being depicted i s not included i n any of Celano's accounts but i s found i n the Leggenda Major, I I , number 1. The story describes how Francis, while praying in the church of San Damiano before h i s conversion hears the painted c r u c i f i x there t e l l him to r e p a i r h i s church. In Bonaventura's account t h i s incident precedes that of Francis' renunciation of worldly goods, but the.Sienese a r t i s t has not only reversed t h i s order.,'but also represented Francis i n the c r u c i f i x scene already wearing the habit and bearing the marks of the stigmata. The i n t e r e s t s of the a r t i s t here seem to be i n the symbolic s i g n i f i c a n c e of the scene rather than an h i s t o r i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n of the story. For, besides making those changes j u s t mentioned, he places Francis not i n an a t t i t u d e of prayer but i n a dramatic pose which i s almost i d e n t i c a l to that of the Stigmatization scene, with Francis s t r e t c h i n g h i s arms up towards the c r u c i f i x . The most unusual feature of t h i s scene, however, i s the conception of the c r u c i f i x i t -s e l f . Quite unlike the f a i t h f u l r e n d i t i o n of a painted c r u c i f i x panel which appears i n the A s s i s i fresco, the c r u c i f i x on Siena V i s shown as an actual cross bearing a body. The story has been interpreted so as to conceive of the Chr i s t figure as l i t e r a l l y coming to l i f e , not j u s t speaking. For not only i s t h i s f i g u r e represented as an actual body, but i t i s also shown having removed i t s r i g h t arm from the cross to point down at Francis. This i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n suggests that the emphasis i s intended to be on the intimate 86 r e l a t i o n s h i p between Christ and Francis. The s e t t i n g of the scene consists merely of an a l t a r over which the c r u c i f i x stands, with a fenestrated wall behind and a tower to the l e f t . These l a s t two elements are perhaps meant to represent the church of San Damiano. The t h i r d scene on Seina V i s again a new subject i n paintings but one 36 which f i r s t appeared i n the A s s i s i stained glass. It depicts the dream of Pope Innocent I I I , who has a v i s i o n of Francis supporting the f a l l i n g b u i l -ding of the Lateran on h i s shoulders. It i s t h i s event which convinces the Pope that he should accept the Rule of Francis. The story i s recounted i n the Leggenda Major, I I I , number 10. The incident i s not described by Celano. The iconography here i s again.unique i n that Francis i s shown supporting a large tower which has broken o f f and f a l l s from the structure of the Lateran. This conception of the scene i s quite d i f f e r e n t from the t r a d i t i o n which begins i n the stained glass version and i s used i n the A s s i s i fresco. In these l a t t e r two scenes Francis supports the e n t i r e t i l t i n g b u i l d i n g on h i s shoulders, a 37 d e t a i l which i s more accurate to the text than the Siena V i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In front of the elaborate architecture of the Seina V scene Innocent III i s depicted l y i n g on a b i e r - l i k e bed wearing h i s papal vestments and extending h i s arms out towards Francis. The fourth scene of the panel i s the sermon to the b i r d s , which w i l l be discussed i n Chapter V. It i s followed by the scene of the v i s i o n of the f i e r y chariot at the upper r i g h t . This i s the e a r l i e s t known i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h i s event, which was described i n Celano's V i t a Prima, number 47, and i n the Leggenda Major, IV, number 4. The story i s worth repeating here i n order to appreciate how i t was f i r s t v i s u a l l y interpreted on Siena V. The Celano and Bonaventura descriptions are almost i d e n t i c a l , but since other of Siena V's scenes were based s o l e l y on the Leggenda Major i t was probably t h i s source 87; which was used. While s t i l l staying i n that hut, one Saturday Francis went to A s s i s i to preach the following day i n the cathedral, as was the custom. He lodged for the night i n a miserable and squalid l i t t l e house i n s i d e the kitchen-garden of the parsonage, and passed the e n t i r e night i n prayer. Although distant from h i s sons i n body, he was not i n s p i r i t . Around midnight, while some of the f r i a r s were sleeping and others awake i n prayer a most splendid chariot of f i r e surmounted by a globe l i k e the sun that changed the night into day was seen to enter through the door of the hut and turn about inside three times. At that miracu-lous l i g h t they a l l awoke t e r r i f i e d , and not only saw each other's body, but also the innermost part of the s p i r i t , the conscience. They found themselves having a si n g l e thought: "God, i n the chariot of f i r e , intends to show us the gentle father, absent i n body, present i n s p i r i t , transfigured by c e l e s t i a l splendour and love i n order that we may follow him with f a i t h , l i k e the true Israelites".38 I n front of an a r c h i t e c t u r a l background the f r i a r s who see the v i s i o n are r e -presented a l l asleep i n a rather strange arrangement of l y i n g stacked up h o r i z o n t a l l y on'two beds which are depicted as i f seen from above. Some of the f r i a r s r a i s e t h e i r hands as they are awakened by the apparition. The cha-r i o t shown i n the sky above i s hardly the "extremely splendid chariot of f i r e " described i n the text, but a small rectangular structure of l a t t i c e d wood with four l i t t l e wheels on thei.bottom. It i s not surmounted by a sun-like globe, but contains the figure of Francis, of whom the globe was symbolic. The chariot i s drawn by two angels who face Francis as he gestures towards 39 them. This scene i s followed by the Stigmatization, which again w i l l be treated i n Chapter V. The seventh subject represented on Siena V i s the presepio at Greccio, which also appeared on Florence IV. The iconographic features are now quite d i f f e r e n t , however, although the c e n t r a l motif of the celebrant standing behind the a l t a r i s s i m i l a r . The s e t t i n g consists of a t a l l background structure l i k e an arcaded aediculum represented s t r i c t l y f r o n t a l l y l i k e a l l of t h i s a r t i s t ' s b u i l d i n g s . The p r i e s t r a i s e s h i s hands and i s flanked by only one attendant to e i t h e r side. Francis does not stand to the side i n h i s r o l e 88 of deacon, but i s shown dressed i n h i s habit kneeling i n front of the a l t a r beside the c r i b . This indicates that i t i s d e f i n i t e l y Bonaventura's account which stresses the v i s i o n of Francis with the Christ c h i l d that i s being r e f e r -red to. The c r i b containing the swaddled c h i l d i s not placed on rocks, but i s a more substantial structure with legs and arcaded sides. The animals look on from the far r i g h t . The l a s t scene of Siena V's cycle i s the funeral of Francis. Like the P i s t o i a III and Florence IV i l l u s t r a t i o n s of t h i s event, the general icono-graphy i s based on that of other standard "death of s a i n t s " scenes. Francis i s l a i d out on a draped b i e r , the p r i e s t celebrating the funeral ceremony stands at h i s side, and a crowd of attendants f i n t h i s case f r i a r s ] hold crosses at the rear. A sing l e church-like b u i l d i n g i s shown i n the background. When the scenes common to both Siena V and the A s s i s i frescoes are 40 compared i t i s d i f f i c u l t to accept the claim made.by Stubblebine that the former i s dependent on the l a t t e r . The Siena V in t e r p r e t a t i o n s of San Damiano, Innocent's dream, and the f i e r y chariot bear no resemblance to those of the frescoes. Had the Siena V a r t i s t been influenced by a work as important as the A s s i s i frescoes h i s solutions to the scenes would c e r t a i n l y have been 41 closer to the more successful ones of A s s i s i . Stubblebine.overlooks the fact that several of the scenes common to Siena V and the fresco cycle also appeared e a r l i e r i n the A s s i s i stained glass. This would have been a more l i k e l y i n s p i r a t i o n for Siena V's iconography than the highly developed fresco compositions. In both i t s choice of subject matter and i t s s t r i c t adherence to the Bonaventuran source, Siena V can be regarded as an immediate predecessor to the A s s i s i frescoes, not a de r i v a t i v e work. Thematic Developments: Conclusions The e a r l i e s t cycles of scenes on s t o r i e d retables of St. Francis were 89 those of posthumous miracles that had been used as evidence f o r the s a n c t i t y of Francis. This t r a d i t i o n f i r s t appeared on Pescia I i n 1235 and was repea-ted w e ll into the century, the l a s t surviving example being Rome VII. While t h i s established subject matter was s t i l l being used, however, another trend i n the iconography of the panels was beginning which suggests a new a t t i t u d e towards the veneration of St. Francis. This was the development of the l i f e -cycle n a r r a t i v e scenes which i n d i c a t e that i t was no longer j u s t the s a n c t i t y of Francis which was to be emphasized i n paintings, but also the p r i n c i p l e s of h i s l i f e , as the i n s c r i p t i o n on Florence IV states. A l i f e - c y c l e s e r i e s of scenes f i r s t appears on P i s t o i a I I I , where i t was combined with a miracle cycle i d e n t i c a l to those of the miracle panels. Florence IV represents the f i r s t s i n g l e chronological cycle which i l l u s t r a t e s the l i f e of Francis followed by miracles and h i s canonization. The iconography of Florence IV, however, i s a greatly expanded one, consisting of twenty scenes. Special circumstances seem to have been responsible for the number and subject matter of the Florence IV scenes, for not only are many of the subjects unique, but they were chosen i n disregard of the decrees of the Order. The l a s t of the panels, Siena V, displays a true l i f e - c y c l e i n that no posthumous miracles are included i n i t s scenes. It also represents o f f i c i a l Franciscan doctrine for i t s period because a l l of i t s scenes were derived from the Bonaventura biography. The use of t h i s source, as well as the choice of subjects on Siena V are repeated i n the frescoes of the Upper Church, A s s i s i . Siena V also 42 dates from the l a t e Duecento, so that i t may be seen as a d i r e c t precedent to the A s s i s i cycle on several accounts. The two subjects included on the retables which have not yet been discussed are the Stigmatization and the sermon to the b i r d s . This i s because they do not s t r i c t l y belong to e i t h e r the miracle or l i f e - c y c l e t r a d i t i o n of iconography, but had s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n Franciscan a r t . 91) NOTES "'"Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 36. For example, the Accademia Magdalen panel, or numerous panels of the Madonna enthroned. See Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting. 3 This i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s given by Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 34. 4 i b i d . , p. 35. ~*This apparently indicates that i t i s the l a s t r i t e s which are being administered. Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 35. 7 A l s o i n Bonaventura's Leggenda Major, I I , numbers 2-3. g i b i d . , I I , number 4. 9 Matthew 10: 9, 10. """^ The i n s c r i p t i o n indicates that Luke II i s being read from. This chapter describes the n a t i v i t y of C h r i s t . Such a deviation from the Porziuncola story i s unexplained, and perhaps represents a confusion with the Greccio story. "'""'"Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 40 suggests that the arch was intended to convey the idea of a grotto. 12 The sources are i d e n t i f i e d by Bughetti, i b i d . , p. 46. 13 See Chapter I I , "The L i t e r a r y Sources for the L i f e of St. Francis", xbid. "^Max G. Zimmerman, Giotto und die Kurist I t a l i e n s im M i t t e l a l t e r [Leipzig: E.A. Seemann, 1899], p. 193. 16 See Chapter I I , "Joachimism and Franciscanism". """^Bonaventura, Leggenda Major, IX, number 8. 18 Bonaventura omits the d e t a i l that i t was f o r eating meat that Francis did penance. He merely states that Francis repented a f t e r recovering from a serious i l l n e s s . 19 Bughetti V i t a e M i r a c o l i , p. 48. 20 The A s s i s i scene i s set within a b u i l d i n g . Francis appears at the doorway with h i s arms extended i n a cross formation. 21 Also found i n the V i t a Prima, number 17. 92 22 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 48 23 i b i d . 24 Bughetti, i b i d . , p. 50 also draws t h i s conclusion. 25 i b i d . , p. 50. 2 ^ i b i d . , p. 51. 2 7 i b i d . , p. 51. 28 Found i n the Legenda Prima of St. Anthony, according to Bughetti, i b i d . 2 9Scenes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19. 3 0Scenes 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19. 3 1Scenes 4, 8, 11, 18. 32 Scenes 9 and 10. 33 See Chapter I I , "Early History of the Order". 34 Translated by Dr. Malcolm McGregor, Department of C l a s s i c a l Studies, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 35 P. Egidio M. Giusto, Le Vetrate d i S. Francesco i n A s s i s i [Milan: A l f i e r i e Lacroix, 1911], p. 211. 3 6 i b i d . , p. 214. 37 The Bonaventura text s p e c i f i c a l l y states that Francis was seen holding the b u i l d i n g on h i s shoulders. 38 Translated from San Bonaventura, S. Francesco d ' A s s i s i [Bari: E d i z i o n i Paoline, 1972], pp. 52-53. 39 The A s s i s i version of the scene depicts horses p u l l i n g the chariot rather than angels. This was an a l l u s i o n to the story of the chariot of E l i j a h [2Kings: 2, 11] which was drawn by horses. 40 James H. Stubblebine, Guido da Siena [Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964], pp. 107-109. 41 Other paintings done a f t e r the A s s i s i frescoes show a strong s i m i l a -r i t y to the iconography there. For example, the Stigmatization panel by the Giotto workshop, now i n the Louvre. 42 See Appensix, Siena V. 93 CHAPTER V: THE STIGMATIZATION AND THE SERMON TO THE BIRDS The two events from the l i f e of Francis chosen for i n c l u s i o n with, the miracle scenes on Pescia I were the Stigmatization and the sermon to the b i r d s . These themes reappear ei t h e r s i n g l y or together on P i s t o i a I I I , Florence IV and Siena V. Their appearance on these three l a t e r panels i s not unusual f o r , being events from Francis' earthly l i f e , they were included i n the l i f e cyle scenes. But that these two p a r t i c u l a r incidents should be chosen for i l l u s t r a -t i o n on the e a r l i e s t mircale panel, Pescia I, indicates that they held s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e at that time. As i n the case of the four o r i g i n a l miracle scenes, s p e c i f i c Franciscan doctrines underlie t h e i r appearance on Pescia I. The Stigmatization and, to a lesser degree, the sermon to the birds symbolized much more than legendary t a l e s of a Saint. The Sermon to the Birds The account of the preaching to the birds i s found i n Celano's V i t a Prima, number 58, which reads i n part: . . . the most blessed father Francis was crossing the Spoleto v a l l e y . He a r r i v e d at a place near Bevagna, where there was gathered a large number of birds of every species, doves, rooks, and that type c a l l e d "sparks". Seeing them, the Servant of God, who was f i l l e d with such fervour that he f e l t compassion and a f f e c t i o n even for the lesser and unreasoning creatures, quickly ran to them, leaving h i s companions on the road. And he approa-ched them, seeing that they awaited him, and greeted them according to h i s custom; but astounded that the birds did not take to t h e i r wings to f l e e as they usually did, f u l l of joy, he humbly begged them to hear the word of God. And among other things he said t h i s : "My winged brothers, you must praise your Creator much, and love him always, because he has given you plumage to clothe you, and feathers to f l y , and everything that you have need of. God has made you noble amongst the other creatures, and allowed you to dwell i n the clearness of the a i r ; you neither sow nor reap, yet He protects you and governs you without any concern on your part." At these words, the birds - as both he himself and the f r i a r s who found themselves with him recounted - miraculously gave signs of t h e i r e xultation following t h e i r nature, s t r e t c h i n g out t h e i r necks, extending t h e i r wings, opening t h e i r beaks, and looking at him. And he passed and repassed through the midst of them, grazing t h e i r heads and bodies with h i s tu n i c . In conclusion he blessed them and, making the sign of the cross, gave them permission to f l y 94'-elsewhere. Then the blessed Father recommenced his walk with hi s companions, r e j o i c i n g and thanking God, who i s worshipped by a l l the creatures with devoted confession.1 Like other scenes of Pescia I, the iconography f o r the sermon to the birds establishes the basic pattern followed i n most successive early versions of the scene. The s e t t i n g consists of a b u i l d i n g at the l e f t which i s very s i -milar to that shown i n the Stigmatization scene above, and a s e r i e s of t a l l peaked h i l l o c k s at the r i g h t . On these are perched about f i f t e e n birds among clumps of flowering vegetation and shrubs that sprout up along the h i l l tops. The birds are of various sizes and markings, as described i n Celano's text, and they a l l face towards Francis who stands to the l e f t . Diverging somewhat from the written account, B e r l i n g h i e r i represents two f r i a r s d i r e c t l y behind Francis, rather than showing him alone with the b i r d s . St. Francis i s depicted with .a halo and the marks of the stigmata. He faces the birds and r a i s e s h i s l e f t hand towards them,and he holds a closed book under his r i g h t arm. One of his companions r a i s e s h i s hands i n amazement. The other s t o r i e d retables which include a representation of the sermon to the b i r d s are Florence IV and Siena V, where i t i s placed i n chronological order among the l i f e - c y c l e scenes. The Florence IV version of the scene appears second from the bottom i n the left-hand row of scenes on the panel. The iconography here seems to be based only i n part upon the Pescia I t r a d i t i o n . The group at the l e f t of St. Francis followed by two f r i a r s i s s i m i l a r except that Francis' hand gestures are reversed and the f r i a r who r a i s e d h i s hands i n the Pescia scene now holds a book. But no buildings are included, and the conception of the b i r d s and t h e i r perch i s quite d i f f e r e n t . Rather than s i t t i n g on a h i l l s i d e they are a l l arranged on a single strange tree with short, tufted branches up the r i g h t side of i t s trunk and four extremely long branches extend-ing h o r i z o n t a l l y to the l e f t . The b i r d s s i t i n regular rows along these 95 branches, a l l facing towards Francis, with t u f t s of vegetation separating them. A f i f t h row s i t s . on the ground below the branches. One d e t a i l of t h i s repre-sentation of the sermon to the birds scene indicates that the Bardi St. Francis Master i s being somewhat more f a i t h f u l to the l i t e r a r y account of the event than was B e r l i n g h i e r i ; one of the rows of birds i s depicted with a l l i t s mem-bers l i f t i n g t h e i r wings i n the demonstration of j o y described by Celano. In Siena V the sermon to the b i r d s , which i s the upper l e f t scene on the panel, i s set on a h i l l s i d e . Two trees are depicted on the top of the h i l l , but these are not inhabited by b i r d s ; the birds are now a l l represented on the ground over the e n t i r e side of the h i l l . The feature of the birds s i t t i n g on the ground had appeared i n two representations of the scene which are probably e a r l i e r than the Siena one: the t h i r t e e n t h century stained glass window i n the 2 Upper Church at A s s i s i , and an early fresco of the subject i n the Lower 3 Church. It i s t h i s t r a d i t i o n which i s l a t e r followed i n the fresco of the sermon to the b i r d s i n the Upper Church. Francis i s depicted alone at the l e f t of the Siena scene, extending h i s r i g h t hand toward the b i r d s , some of which are shown again l i f t i n g t h e i r wings. A large v a r i e t y of b i r d species are represented, and i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that these include three large birds at the bottom which appear to be b i r d s of prey. The story of the sermon to the birds conveys something of the miraculous powers of Francis, but of a very d i f f e r e n t type than that of the posthumous healings that occurred at the Saint's tomb. This incident instead stresses one of the more appealing aspects of Francis' character: h i s rapport with nature. It i s therefore quite possible that the sermon to the birds was i l l u s t r a t e d on Pescia I because of i t s popular attractiveness. It introduces an element of human i n t e r e s t that counter-balances the emphasis on Francis' s a n c t i t y expressed by a l l the other scenes on the panel. When the preaching to the birds was included i n the fresco cyle of the Upper Church, A s s i s i at the end of the 96 century, i t seems ta have been f o r s i m i l a r reasons of popular appear that i t 4 was given a p o s i t i o n of s p e c i a l importance. But there are c e r t a i n features of the Pescia I version which indi c a t e that t h i s e a r l i e s t representation of Francis' sermon to the b i r d s held symbolic as well as popular s i g n i f i c a n c e . The sermon to the birds was an incident which took place before Francis' Stigmatization, yet i t i s placed a f t e r the Stigmatization scene on Pescia I . And Francis bears both the marks of the stigmata and a halo as he preaches to the b i r d s . When the same subject i s included i n a s e r i e s of l i f e - c y c l e scenes on Florence IV Francis i s represented with h i s t o r i c a l accuracy as not having the stigmata wounds. The inaccuracy of the Pescia scene indicates that i t was not the h i s t o r i c a l account which was of major concern. The emphasis placed on the stigmata suggests that the sermon to the birds was singled out for i n c l u -sion on Pescia I as a symbolically important scene. That t h i s event held more than an h i s t o r i c a l and popular s i g n i f i c a n c e for the early Franciscans i s i n d i -cated even more strongly by i t s i l l u s t r a t i o n on Siena V, where Francis i s shown not only with the marks of the stigmata, but alsop;reaching to very strange types of b i r d s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of these birds and the underlying symbolism of depic-tions of the sermon to the b i r d s on Pescia I and Siena V can be r e l a t e d to doctrines of Franciscan Joachimism. The ways i n which J o a c h i s t i c b e l i e f s found expression i n thestoried retables w i l l be examined s h o r t l y . The Stigmatization The story of the Stigmatization i s f i r s t r elated i n Thomas of Celano's V i t a Prima, numbers 94-95. Number 94: While staying at the hermitage which i s c a l l e d La Verna a f t e r the place i n which i t i s situated, two years before h i s death he saw i n a divine v i s i o n a man standing above him, with h i s hands stretched out and h i s feet together, with s i x wings l i k e a seraphim n a i l e d to the cross; two wings were raised above h i s head, two were extended for f l y i n g , and the two l a s t ones covered h i s e n t i r e 97 body. At such a sight the blessed servant of the Most High was f i l l e d with admiration, but d i d not know how to under-stand the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the v i s i o n . He was overcome with joy by the gentle love on the face of the Seraphim, which imparted to i t inestimable beauty, but was t e r r i f i e d upon consideration of the cross to which he was n a i l e d , and of the b i t t e r n e s s of h i s passion. He f e l t , as i t i s s a i d , sad and happy at the same time, and joy and sadness alternated within him. At the same time he forced himself to understand the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the v i s i o n , and h i s whole s p i r i t was agitated by t h i s e f f o r t . He did not succeed i n understanding anything p r e c i s e l y , and remained preoccupied with the singu-l a r i t y of the apparition, when there began to appear on h i s hands and feet the marks of n a i l s , l i k e on the man he had seen c r u c i f i e d above him j u s t before. Number 95: His hands and feet were pierced r i g h t i n the centre by n a i l s , the heads of which were v i s i b l e on the palms and upper part of the feet, while the points came out on the other sides; the marks on the palms were found, and pointed at the backs, — and a piece of f l e s h appeared i n the form of the point of a n a i l , bent over, extending out of the f l e s h . In t h i s way also were impressed the marks of n a i l s on h i s f e e t , i n r e l i e f on the other f l e s h . His r i g h t side had a long wound, as i f pierced by a lance, which issued blood with which his tunic and drawers were often bathed . . . . 5 The remainder of number 95 describes how the marks of the stigmata were seen by a few of the f r i a r s , and how the stigmata represented an honour greater than that shown to any .other man. It i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the scene representing the Stigmatization on Pescia I i s placed out of chronological order among the scenes to be given the important f i r s t p o s i t i o n at the upper l e f t . It was the s i n g l e most important event from Francis' l i f e with regard to h i s s a n c t i t y ; representing God's demonstration of Francis' s p e c i a l p o s i t i o n . The iconography of the Stigmati-zation used by Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i sets out the general pattern which i s followed i n a l l early I t a l i a n depictions of the miracle. The s e t t i n g consists of a s e r i e s of flower-covered h i l l o c k s , with a three-branched tree at t h e i r base, suggesting the actual s i t e of the event on Mount La Verna. A large b u i l d i n g with double doors and steps leading up to i t , which Bughetti^ i d e n t i f i e s 98 as a church, appears at the l e f t of the scene, and a smaller b u i l d i n g i s at the f a r r i g h t . Francis kneels at the base of the rocky h i l l , holding his hands up to the l e v e l of h i s face, and looking up i n the d i r e c t i o n of the appari-t i o n . He has a halo, and the round marks of the stigmata are on h i s hands and fe e t , but there i s no i n d i c a t i o n of the side wound. In the upper r i g h t corner of the scene the v i s i o n of the Seraphim i s represented. A series of blue semi-circular bands above i t i n d i c a t e the spheres of heaven from which i t descends. B e r l i n g h i e r i 1 s depiction of the Seraphim i s r e l a t i v e l y accurate to the textual d e s c r i p t i o n [unlike some l a t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ] J Among the s i x wings i n the p o s i t i o n s described i n the written account the face of a man i s shown, looking s t r a i g h t ahead rather than down at Francis. To either side h i s extended hands are depicted: and, below the wings, his f e e t , a l l marked l i k e those of St. Francis. The a r t i s t has deviated from Celano's d e s c r i p t i o n , however, i n two s i g n i f i c a n t ways. F i r s t of a l l , he has omitted the cross to which the seraphic man was described as being n a i l e d . This omission de-empha-sizes the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Seraphim with Chr i s t s p e c i f i c a l l y . And secon-dly, B e r l i n g h i e r i [or h i s prototype] seems to have been the creator of an iconographic feature which becomes standard i n nearly a l l l a t e r representations of the Stigmatization: the rays which emanate from the Seraphim to the f i g u r e of St. Francis. No such rays are v i s i b l e i n the Pescia I scene today, and only one author has made the observation that they almost c e r t a i n l y were o r i g i -n a l l y there. The evidence for t h e i r intended presence i s the formation of the h i l l s i n B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s scene. A channel which i s c e r t a i n l y not merely part of the a r t i s t ' s construction of the landscape has been l e f t c u t t i n g through the rocks i n a path that leads d i r e c t l y from the Seraphim to the head of Francis. When i t i s also noted that those representations of the Stigmatiza-t i o n which seem to be based on B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s [for example the t h i r t e e n t h 9 century B e r l i n g h i e r i - s c h o o l panel of the Stigmatization i n the U f f i z i ] include 9 9 rays of l i g h t extending from the Seraphim to Francis' head, i t must be conclu-ded that s i m i l a r rays were o r i g i n a l l y depicted,on Pescia I. These emanated from the Seraphim along the area l e f t blank i n order that they might better stand out, to the halo of Francis. Thus, i t can be assumed that t h i s icono-graphie feature of the Stigmatization o r i g i n a l l y appeared i n Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s composition. The Stigmatization i s represented on P i s t o i a I I I among the four scenes depicting events from the l i f e of St. Francis. I t i s here placed i n chronolo-g i c a l order with the other scenes, so that i t occupies the upper r i g h t p o s i t i o n , which i s a t r i a n g u l a r compartment. Perhaps p a r t i a l l y due to the p h y s i c a l shape of the scene, the composition of the P i s t o i a scene i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t from that of Pescia I. The s e t t i n g i s a tr i a n g u l a r arrangement of rocks, with trees at the extreme l e f t and ri g h t of the scene. The representation of b u i l -dings has been reduced to two small domed structures which are set into the rocks to the right of Francis. The Saint, wearing a halo, faces l e f t i n t h i s representation, again kneeling and looking at the Seraphim who now appears almost across from him and turned towards him. The Seraphim i s very small, without a cross, and with only two p a i r s of wings, the pair above the head having been omitted."""^ Three rays of l i g h t extend from the Seraphim to Francis' raised hands; the marks of the stigmata are indicated on Francis' hands and fee t . A Stigmatization scene i s also included on Florence IV where i t i s again placed i n i t s chronological p o s i t i o n among the scenes so that i t appears at the base of the c e n t r a l f i g u r e . This version of the scene i s extremely s i m i l a r to the Stigmatization panel i n the U f f i z i , a fact which has led some scholars to a t t r i b u t e both paintings to the same a r t i s t . 1 1 That the two paintings are relat e d and probably from the same workshop i s c e r t a i n , but there are no 100 features which d e f i n i t e l y suggest which representation i s the e a r l i e r of the two. The general lay-out of the Florence IV scene i s roughly s i m i l a r to that of Pescia I, with a small b u i l d i n g at the f a r l e f t and a s e r i e s of h i l l s from which sprout plants and a three-branched tree forming the main backdrop. But Francis no longer kneels among the rocks, but on a rectangle of i n l a i d stone pavement i n front of the b u i l d i n g . This feature also appears i n the U f f i z i panel. St. Francis i s again shown kneeling and facing towards the r i g h t , but h i s exact posture i s d i f f e r e n t from that of the Pescia f i g u r e ' s . Only one of h i s feet i s v i s i b l e and he now extends his hands up and to e i t h e r side rather than holding them i n the rather p r a y e r f u l p o s i t i o n of Pescia I. The Seraphim i s represented i n the upper r i g h t , descending from the spheres. It has no cross and i s very s i m i l a r to the Pescia v i s i o n , except that the head of the man now bears a halo and he looks s l i g h t l y downwards towards Francis. Three wide rays j o i n the f i g u r e of the Seraphim to Francis' halo. The most r a d i c a l iconographic change i n the t h i r t e e n t h century represen-ta t i o n s of the Stigmatization i s seen i n Siena V. The scene i s again i n i t s r e l a t i v e chronological p o s i t i o n i n the panel's cycle, located second from the top at the r i g h t . I t ' s new features are apparently not the inventions of the a r t i s t of Siena V, but derive from two e a r l i e r versions of the Stigmatization which are found on two sets of r e l i q u a r y shutters, Siena Pinacoteca numbers 4 12 and 5. Like Siena V, these two works are a t t r i b u t e d to the school of Guido da Siena, and the number 4 shutters have been accepted as a painting by Guido 13 himself. whether or not t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n be correct, Siena number 4 does display the most f u l l y and c a r e f u l l y executed version of the Guidesque S t i g -matization iconography. It was therefore probably the o r i g i n a l scene from which s i m i l a r compositions derived. The d i s t i n g u i s h i n g features of the Gui-desque Stigmatization as i t appears on the shutters and Siena V are the pose 101 of Francis and the precise form of landscape. Francis i s shown kneeling, but turned so that his. back i s almost towards the viewer and h i s head i n p r o f i l e . The most d i s t i n c t i v e d e t a i l i s that he r a i s e s h i s hands high above his head, towards the Seraphim that appears d i r e c t l y above him. On Siena V t h i s pose has been made even more act i v e by showing Francis i n what has been described 14 as a "half-running, h a l f - g e n u f l e c t i n g " p o s i t i o n . The uniquely Guidesque s e t t i n g for the Stigmatization, i n both the shutter and a l t a r p i e c e representa-t i o n s , consists of a large rocky h i l l to the r i g h t on top of which stands a s i n g l e b u i l d i n g with a domed roof and a large arched doorway. The most pecu l i a r aspect of the landscape, however, i s the depiction of three small bears on the h i l l s i d e , two of which eat b e r r i e s from the vegetation while the other l i e s i n s i d e a small cave at the lower r i g h t . These bears are quite d i s -t i n c t i v e i n the number 4 shutters, but rather hard to d i s c e r n i n the Siena V scene where t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s are l e s s p r e c i s e l y indicated. No s p e c i f i c icono-graphie s i g n i f i c a n c e for the bears has been discovered, although i t has been suggested that they may e i t h e r i n d i c a t e the remoteness of the s i t e of the Stigmatization or serve as an example of the charm over animals which Francis possessed. 1"' The Seraphim of Siena V i s represented with a halo and n a i l e d to the cross. He looks down at St. Francis, and f i v e rays of l i g h t emanate from the Seraphim's feet to Francis' head and marked hands. In considering the development of the representation of the Stigmatization throughout the t h i r t e e n t h century i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the non-textual feature of the rays from Seraphim to Francis, perhaps devised by Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i , i s an iconographie d e t a i l which becomes an i n t e g r a l part of Stigmatization scenes, not only on these panels, but throughout centuries of 16 17 l a t e r depictions. It has been suggested by some authors that B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s arrangement of the scene derives from representations of Christ i n the Garden 102 Gethsemane, and that t h i s p i c t o r i a l source was chosen to emphasize the para-l l e l s between Christ and Francis. There are no s p e c i f i c iconographie features to suggest such a de r i v a t i o n however, and surely the general s i m i l a r i t y of the two types of scenes can simply be accounted for by the presence of l i k e e l e -ments i n the s t o r i e s : a h i l l y s e t t i n g , a praying f i g u r e , and a heavenly appa-r i t i o n . The claim that the Stigmatization i s s p e c i f i c a l l y based on "Agony i n the Garden" scenes i s only a p o s s i b i l i t y . The miracle of the Stigmatization was the single most s i g n i f i c a n t piece of evidence f o r the Franciscans to demonstrate the c e r t a i n s a n c t i t y of t h e i r founder. Although the event occurred on September 17, 1224 i t was revealed 18 only to a few close comrades by Francis at that time. Immediately a f t e r the Saint's death, however, i t was the Stigmatization above a l l else upon which E l i a s seized as proof of F r a n c i s 1 holiness, and t h i s was the event he emphati-c a l l y p u b l i c i z e d i n h i s l e t t e r which announced the death of Francis i n 19 1226. Before the Canonization procedure of 1228, Pope Gregory IV was reluctant to accept the c e r t a i n t y of the miracle of the Stigmatization [ s p e c i f i c a l l y of the side wound], although t h i s fact would not have prevented the canonization i n l i g h t of the host of other demonstratable miracles ascribed to Francis. But during t h i s period of doubt Francis appeared to Gregory i n a dream and showed him h i s bleeding wound; the event i s described by Bonaventura, Miracula, i , 2. A f t e r t h i s v i s i o n Gregory accepted the a c t u a l i t y of the Stigmatization, -included i t both with the other miracles which had been 20 21 v e r i f i e d for the Canonization and i n l i t u r g i c a l chants which he composed, and i n l a t e r years defended i t s r e a l i t y i n Papal B u l l s directed against c e r t a i n 22 sects who denied i t [for example, i n the B u l l "Confessor Domim" of 1237]. The fact of Francis' Stigmatization was thus not only established as a r e a l i t y among members of the Order, but was also given o f f i c i a l sanction by the Pope.. 103 The i n c l u s i o n of the Stigmatization scene on Pescia I i s therefore i n accordance with the thematic emphasis of the four scenes i l l u s t r a t i n g the canonization miracles. Even more than the posthumous miracles, the v e r i f i c a -t i o n of t h i s event was evidence of Francis' e s p e c i a l l y holy nature. But the Stigmatization held a much greater s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the e a r l y Franciscans i n that i t placed Francis i n a very s p e c i a l p o s i t i o n as a p a r a l l e l to C h r i s t . And those aspects of the Stigmatization which are emphasized on Pescia I i n d i -cate that i t ' s symbolism functioned at yet a t h i r d l e v e l of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Both t h i s t h i r d s i g n i f i c a n c e and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Francis with Christ were r e s u l t s of Franciscan J o a c h i s t i c throught. In order to understand the f u l l implications of representations of the Stigmatization, i t i s therefore necessary to examine the ways i n which Joachimism was i n f l u e n t i a l on early Franciscan a r t . 104 NOTES ''"Translated from the V i t a Prima, pp. 67-69. 2 Giusto Le Vetrate d i S. Francesco i n A s s i s i , pp. 214-215. 3 Reproduced by F a c c h i n e t t i Iconografia Francescana. Attributed to an unknown a r t i s t of the l a t e t h i r t e e n t h century. 4 It i s one of the two frescoes placed out of chronological order. For a discussion of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of i t s p o s i t i o n , see John White, Art and Architecture i n I t a l y 1250-1400 [Hammondsworth: Pelican, 1966]. ^Translated from the V i t a Prima, pp. 105-106. ^Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 9. 7 The tendency to i n c r e a s i n g l y represent the Seraphim with the body of Ch r i s t i s seen i n the fourteenth century, e.g., the Stigmatization panel i n the Louvre from the school of Giotto. g Siren Toskanische Maler gives a complete mis i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the meaning of the scene based on the assumption that no rays were ever included. 9 P l a t e 12. 10 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i , p. 35 suggests that the upper p a i r of wings was o r i g i n a l l y included, but has been scratched o f f . "'"''"See Georgio S i n i b a l d i and Georgio Brunetti, Catalogo d e l l a Mostra  Giottesca d i Firenze d a l 1937 [Florence: Sansoni, 1943], pp. 20-22. Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 72. 12 Reproduced by Stubblebine Guido da Siena. 13 i b i d . , pp. 69-71. 1 4 J o h n White, "The Date of 'The Legend of St. Francis' at A s s i s i " , Burlington Magazine, October 1956, p. 344. "'"^Stubblebine Guido da Siena, p. 22. "^See i l l u s t r a t i o n s i n F a c c h i n e t t i Iconografia Francescana. "^Paolo D'Ancoria, Les P r l m i t i f s I t a l i e n s du Xle au X HIe Si e c l e [Paris: Les Editions d'Art et d'Histoire, 1935], p. 53, and Antal Florentine  Painting, p. 150. 18 See Chapter I I , note. 19 See Chapter I I , "Early History of the Order". 20 Pompei B i b l i o t e c a Sanctorum, v o l . I I , p. 1091. 105 21 Sabatier Vie de S. Francis d'Assise, pp. 408, 411. 22 i b i d . , p. 407. 106 CHAPTER VI: JOACHISTIC INFLUENCE ON THE STORIED RETABLES That Franciscan Joachimism was i n f l u e n t i a l on early Franciscan art i s indicated by the form, content and c e n t r a l figures of the s t o r i e d retables. As discussed i n Chapter I I , J o a c h i s t i c thought was widespread i n the t h i r t e e n t h century, p a r t i c u l a r l y among S p i r i t u a l Franciscans. But some aspects of t h i s doctrine were accepted even by Franciscans who were not professed Joachites. The two ideas of p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e to art which were accepted as orthodox Franciscan doctrines i n the Dugento were the iden-t i f i c a t i o n of St. Francis as the s i x t h angel of the Apocalypse, and the d e s i -gnation of Francis as a second C h r i s t . The l a t t e r claim could be made without h e r e t i c a l implications when Francis was considered within the context of Joachim's patterns of p a r a l l e l figures i n the three h i s t o r i c a l ages. Francis' p o s i t i o n i n the t h i r d age corresponded to C h r i s t ' s i n the second. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of St. Francis with Christ i s manifested i n the very format chosen for the representation of Francis and h i s legend. As Garrison"*" 2 and Hager point out, the gabled, s t o r i e d retable which was devised s p e c i f i -c a l l y f o r the depiction of St. Francis i s based on the format of the s t o r i e d c r u c i f i x . The deliberate choice of the c r u c i f i x as a model for thet !St. Francis a l t a r p i e c e indicates that d o c t r i n a l reasons lay behind i t . The i n t e n t i o n was to suggest the p a r a l l e l i s m between Christ and Francis through the s i m i l a r i t i e s between the panels designed for t h e i r veneration. This much 3 has been pointed out by Garrison, but what has been overlooked i s the f a c t that i t was J o a c h i s t i c doctrine which was responsible for the p a r a l l e l s which 4 were drawn between Christ and Francis. Once the presence of J o a c h i s t i c /• doctrines have been recognized i n the p h y s i c a l form and arrangement of the Franciscan a l t a r p i e c e s , i t i s then reasonable to expect manifestations of underlying Joachist thought i n other aspects of the s t o r i e d retables. However, 107 It i s f i r s t , necessary to e s t a b l i s h the p r o b a b i l i t y of Joachicism playing a major r o l e i n the retables by showing that i t was an important influence on other early Franciscan a r t . The prevalence of J o a c h i s t i c views i n th i r t e e n t h century Franciscan l i t e r a t u r e has already been noted.^ The evidence that Joachimism was also r e f l e c t e d i n various ways i n early Fran-ciscan art can be shown through three separate phenomena: an ancient legend connecting Joachim of Fiore himself with a p o r t r a i t of St. Francis, a strong connection with Joachimism i n the iconography of early thirteenth century English manuscripts i l l u s t r a t i n g the Franciscan legend, and a s p e c i -f i c J o a c h i s t i c a l l u s i o n i n one of Cimabue's frescoes i n the Upper Church, A s s i s i . As early as the mid-thirteenth century the beginnings of a legend were being written down which claimed that Joachim of Fiore had not only f o r e t o l d the coming of the two Mendicant Orders, but had also a c t u a l l y drawn, or ordered to be drawn, pictures of the future F r i a r s . ^ By the fourteenth cen-tury t h i s legend had developed into the story that Joachim had overseen the production of the two mosaics i n St. Mark's, Venice which depict Sts. Francis [with the stigmata] and Dominic. This claim appears for one or both of the two Saints i n a number of fourteenth century w r i t i n g s , 7 including Bartholomew of Pisa's De Conformitate, and the legend i t s e l f was depicted i n 8 a seventeenth century fresco i n the church of Ognissanti, Florence. What-9 ever the o r i g i n s of t h i s i n t e r e s t i n g story may have been, the s i g n i f i c a n t point for our purposes i s the fact that there was an a s s o c i a t i o n i n c e r t a i n trends of Franciscan thought between Joachim's prophecy of the Franciscan Order and early p i c t o r i a l renderings of the Saint; that i s , a d i r e c t connection between p o r t r a i t s of St. Francis and Joachimism. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between Joachimism and .thirteenth century English 108 depictions of Francis preaching to the birds was noted and examined by the l a t e F. D. Klingender, 1 %^ who pointed out that early English versions of t h i s scene were based not only on Thomas of Celano's account of the event, but also on an u n o f f i c i a l L i f e of St. Francis written by Roger of Wendover. This account a l t e r s the circumstances surrounding Francis' sermon to the b i r d s , and s p e c i f i c a l l y adds that the birds were s i t t i n g among c a r r i o n . 1 1 The birds i n the English i l l u s t r a t i o n s , therefore, are represented as birds of prey. A prime example of t h i s phenomenon i s a drawing from the 1240's 12 by Matthew Paris of Francis preaching to such b i r d s . The drawing i l l u s -t rates the passage from Roger of Wendover's account, but Matthew Paris has also included the Celano text on a s c r o l l . The changes i n the Roger of Wendover text with regard to t h i s story are apparently due to h i s desire to p a r a l l e l the event with two other ones described i n Revelation. The f i r s t was Revelation 19: 17-18, i n which an apocalyptic angel summons " a l l the fowls that f l y i n the midst of heaven to feed upon the f l e s h of kings", and the second i n Revelation 18:1-2, where another angel declares that f a l l e n Babylon has become "a cage of every unclean and h a t e f u l b i r d " . The Roger of Wendover text i s l i k e n i n g Rome [to which the s e t t i n g of the sermon to the birds has been transferred] to the apocalyptic Babylon, and Francis to an apocalyptic angel. The basis f o r such an a l l u s i o n was Joachimism, which i s known to have 13 reached England by t h i s time. The p a r a l l e l s between the Franciscan and apocalyptic s t o r i e s were made not only i n the Roger of Wendover text, but are evident i n the s i m i l a r i t i e s of composition among the manuscript i l l u s -t r a t i o n s themselves of the two events. The figure of St. Francis preaching to the birds corresponds to that of the angel of Revelation 19 i n the l a y -14 out of the scenes. Thus, i n t h i s case, Franciscan iconography seems to 109 have been strongly influenced by that of Apocalypse manuscripts due to the thematic p a r a l l e l s derived from J o a c h i s t i c doctrine. A second example of t h i s phenomenon i n English representations of St. Francis, and one which Klingender d i d not discuss, occurs i n Matthew P a r i s ' representation of the Stigmatization. "^ Like the Sermon to the Birds, t h i s scene appears to have derived much of i t s iconography from Apocalyptic manu-s c r i p t i l l u m i n a t i o n s . Matthew P a r i s ' version of the Stigmatization i s s t r i k i n g l y d i f f e r e n t from I t a l i a n representations of the subject; i t depicts Francis [untonsured] l y i n g asleep bearing the marks of the, stigmata. The large six-winged seraphim, n a i l e d to a cross, stands beside him. The motif of Francis l y i n g on an undulating piece of ground with h i s head supported by h i s r i g h t hand and h i s eyes closed immediately brings to mind contemporary English manuscript drawings i l l u s t r a t i n g the Apocalyptic r e v e l a t i o n of St. 16 John on the i s l a n d of Patmos. And Matthew P a r i s ' seraphim displays the feature of having sections of i t s wings covered with eyes. This characte-r i s t i c i s not included i n any of the written descriptions of Francis' v i s i o n , but i t i s part of the d e s c r i p t i o n of the apocalyptic beasts surrounding the lamb, [Revelation 4:6-8], the second of which i s i n the form of a seraphic six-winged angel."'"7 Thus, Matthew P a r i s ' i l l u s t r a t i o n of the Stigmatization i s a second example of the use of Apocalyptic imagery as an iconographic source, not merely for reasons of convenience, but undoubtedly as a r e s u l t of the thematic connections being made between the subjects which derived from Joachimism. Klingender's major oversight i n h i s discussion of the apocalyptic over-tones of English i l l u s t r a t i o n s of Francis' sermon to the birds was h i s assumption that the I t a l i a n s , by contrast, were interested only In an un-18 symbolic representation of the l i f e of St. Francis. It i s l i k e l y that i n 110 I t a l y , where Joachimism f i r s t arose and flo u r i s h e d that t h i s trend i n thought should also be r e f l e c t e d i n Franciscan art when i t so markedly did i n England. Understandably, the I t a l i a n J o a c h i s t i c influence on Franciscan iconography took a d i f f e r e n t form from the English, for the English Franciscan imagery was based almost uniquely on the Anglo-French t r a d i t i o n of i l l u s t r a t e d 19 Apocalypse manuscripts of the thir t e e n t h century. That Apocalyptic a l l u s i o n s d e r i v i n g from Joachimism were present i n thi r t e e n t h century I t a l i a n Franciscan art can be demonstrated by one of Cimabue's frescoes i n the Upper Church, A s s i s i . The fresco i n question i s the c e n t r a l scene on the end of the l e f t transept w a l l . It i s part of Cima-20 bue's Apocalypse cycle decorating the choir and transepts. Whether or not the idea of an Apocalyptic cycle was i n any way suggested by the apocalyptic r o l e of Franciscanism as derived from the writings of Joachim of Fio r e i s a matter for speculation. But i t i s c e r t a i n l y s i g n i f i c a n t that of the f i v e scenes from Revelation chosen for depic t i o n , one of them was that of the angel who had the seal of the L i v i n g God descending from the east. Since the written L i f e by Bonaventura which i d e n t i f i e d t h i s same angel as St. Francis himself was the o f f i c i a l account at the time t h i s fresco was executed, and i t was St. Bonaventura's descriptions which i n s p i r e d other parts of 21 Cimabue's choir iconography, there can be l i t t l e doubt that the. prominent depiction of the descending angel i s a d i r e c t reference to the J o a c h i s t i c 22 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of St. Francis. In l i g h t of the above evidence that J o a c h i s t i c thought was associated with and r e f l e c t e d i n Franciscan art i n the thir t e e n t h century, i t does not seem unreasonable to suppose that Franciscan Joachimism may also have been i n f l u e n t i a l on the iconography of the early s t o r i e d retables. Since the format of the retables was designed to suggest a J o a c h i s t i c p a r a l l e l [Christ I l l and St. Francis] the p o s s i b i l i t y of other manifestations i s very strong. Underlying J o a c h i s t i c themes may i n part account for the choice of c e r t a i n scenes which appear on the a l t a r p i e c e s . J o a c h i s t i c reasons for the i n c l u s i o n of scenes 9 and 10 of Francis rescuing sheep on Florence IV have 23 already been mentioned. If the program of Florence. TV was designed by S p i r i t u a l i s t Franciscans, as suggested, i t i s even more probable that ideas from Joachimism prompted the choice of scenes 9 and 10. The sermon to the b i r d s and the Stigmatization also lend themselves to J o a c h i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n . The i n c l u s i o n of these subjects on Pescia I was undoubtedly a r e s u l t of the s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e they held, aspects of which were discussed i n Chapter V. In addition to the reasons already suggested for t h e i r importan-ce, however, the sermon to the birds and the Stigmatization convey a symbo-lism r e l a t i n g to J o a c h i s t i c thought. Although the scenes of the sermon to the birds on Pescia I and Florence IV do not bear the s t r i k i n g resemblance to i l l u s t r a t i o n s of Apocalyptic events that the English versions of the subject did, s i m i l a r thinking may explain the importance given the scene at l e a s t on Pescia I, where i t was not part of a l i f e - c y c l e . It Is possible that a text such as that by Roger of Wendover which suggested the Apocalyptic p a r a l l e l i s m of the sermon to the b i r d s was being alluded to in-the early I t a l i a n i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the event. The Pescia I sermon to the b i r d s de-p i c t s Francis bearing the stigmata marks although h i s t o r i c a l l y the sermon occurred before the Stigmatization. As w i l l , be discussed i n greater d e t a i l s h o r t l y , i t was the marks of thestigmata which s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d Fran-c i s as an Apocalyptic angel, so that h i s u n - h i s t o r i c a l representation with them i n the Pescia I scene may i n d i c a t e that J o a c h i s t i c implications were intended. In the Siena V version of the sermon to the b i r d s , however, the 112 J o a c h i s t i c symbolism resembles that of the English i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , f o r the scene displays the p e c u l i a r i t y common i n the English versions of Francis preaching to large birds of prey. This i s an a l l u s i o n to the idea being J . . i l l u s t r a t e d i n the English scenes that the sermon to the birds was an event p a r a l l e l to the Apocalyptic angel summoning the fowls to feed upon f l e s h . That the sermon to the birds held Apocalyptic s i g n i f i c a n c e i n I t a l y as we l l as i n England by the end of the Dugento i s therefore a c e r t a i n t y . The scene of the Stigmatization, however, bore even stronger Joachis-t i c implications i n i t s i l l u s t r a t i o n on the s t o r i e d retables, beginning with th Pescia I version of the scene. The Stigmatization was not only the most important miracle which proved to the early Franciscans the holiness of th e i r founder, but was also the evidence which made poss i b l e tie i d e n t i f i c a -t i o n of Francis as the s i x t h angel of the Apocalypse. The marks of the s t i g -mata were believed to be the marks of the L i v i n g God which distinguished the 24 Apocalyptic angel. Furthermore, the fact that these marks took the form of Christ's wounds reinforced the p a r a l l e l i s m between Francis and C h r i s t . Within the context of Franciscan Joachimism the Stigmatization therefore held dual s i g n i f i c a n c e i n that i t both i d e n t i f i e d Francis as the Apocalyptic angel f o r e t o l d by Joachism and placed the Saint as the p a r a l l e l f i g u r e to Christ i n the t h i r d age. That t h i s type of symbolism'was intended i n the retable i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the Stigmatization i s indicated by the d e t a i l s of i t s e a r l i e s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on Pescia I. The two s i g n i f i c a n t ways i n which 25 B e r l i n g h i e r i s depiction of the event varies from i t s written d e s c r i p t i o n are the omission of a cross from the seraphic v i s i o n and the addition of rays Milking the Seraphim to Francis. Both of these a l t e r a t i o n s suggest that i t was not the f a c t that Francis saw a v i s i o n of Chris t that was meant to be emphasized i n the painting. The omission of the cross de-emphasizes the 113 Idea that the v i s i o n represented C h r i s t , while the presence of rays i n d i -cates a d i r e c t metaphysical r e l a t i o n s h i p between Francis and the Seraphim. It i s hence the transference of the stigmata marks from a v i s i o n whose ange --11c q u a l i t i e s are stressed that the Pescia I scene was intended to communi-cate. Francis sees and i s associated with an angel. This strongly suggests that i t was F r a n c i s 1 i d e n t i t y with the Apocalyptic angel which was of impor-tance i n the Pescia I i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Stigmatization, and perhaps i n those other versions of the scene which repeated the features of B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s i l l u s t r a t i o n . Francis' stigmata marks are emphasized i n other parts of the s t o r i e d retables apart from the Stigmatization scenes. Siena V i s unique i n that i t portrays Francis bearing the wounds i n a l l f i v e of the scenes which occurred before the Stigmatization. The suggestiveness of t h i s feature i s p a r t i c u l a r l y strong i n Seina V's depiction of the c r u c i f i x at San Damiano, where Francis raises h i s marked hands towards the c r u c i f i e d Christ who extends h i s wounded hand down towards Francis. This scene therefore empha-sizes the s i m i l a r i t i e s between Christ and Francis, and i l l u s t r a t e s i n a single combination of gestures the whole pattern of thought which prompted the design of the s t o r i e d retables: the symbolism of the c r u c i f i x panel as a reminder of Francis' s p e c i a l p o s i t i o n . The marks of the stigmata are emphasized on a l l of the s t o r i e d retables i n the prominence they are given on the c e n t r a l figures of St. Francis. The whole conception of the large c e n t r a l figures does, i n f a c t , i n d i c a t e that i t was J o a c h i s t i c thought which influenced t h e i r d i s t i n c t i v e s t y l e and type. In order to suggest that these figures display a J o a c h i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Francis i t w i l l be necessary to f i r s t e s t a b l i s h that the conception of the Saint on the s t o r i e d retables represents a t r a d i t i o n quite d i f f e r e n t 114 from that of other thirteenth century depictions of St. Francis. Traditions of Thirteenth Century Portrayals of St. Francis Although the St. Francis s t o r i e d retable was the f i r s t a rt form to depict the Saint with scenes, i t was not the only, nor even the e a r l i e s t t h irteenth century representation of St. Francis. The other types of early p o r t r a y a l s , however, seem to belong to quite d i f f e r e n t p i c t o r i a l t r a d i t i o n s than the a l t a r p i e c e s , and therefore i l l u s t r a t e by contrast that the c e n t r a l figures on the s t o r i e d retables composed a d i s t i n c t i v e type of representation. What i s generally regarded as the oldest extant depiction of St. Francis i s a fresco i n the chapel of St. Gregory at Sacro Speco, Subiaco, which r e -26 presents Francis standing f u l l length. Beside t h i s fresco i s another of Pope Gregory IX dedicating a chapel which includes an i n s c r i p t i o n s t a t i n g that the painting was executed i n the second year of Gregory's p o n t i f i c a t e [that i s , 1228]. Because the a r t i s t of the Francis fresco appears to be the same one as that of the adjacent Gregory, the date 1228 can be assigned 27 to the former as w e l l , assuming that both frescoes were executed together. Dates even e a r l i e r than t h i s , however, have been suggested due to the nature of Francis' p o r t r a y a l ; he i s shown without a halo or the stigmata, and an i n s c r i p t i o n at the top reads FR FRACISCU [instead of SAN]; These features would indi c a t e that the painting was completed before Francis' canonization, and has led some authors to accept the legend that i t was executed upon an actual v i s i t of Francis to the monastery i n 1218, or else that i t was at 28 le a s t done before the miracle of the stigmatization of 1224. But the acceptance of such an early date i s i n no way necessary; the painting can be assigned the more r e l i a b l e date of early 1228, before the July canoniza-t i o n . This s t i l l makes the fresco the e a r l i e s t extant port r a y a l of the Saint. The aspect of t h i s representation which i s most important to the 115 present discussion, however, i s the "type" of t h i s Francis. He i s shown with h i s hood off-centre and covering h i s head. No tonsure i s v i s i b l e and he has a rough beard and moustache. The whole face has a sketchy q u a l i t y to i t , and with i t s simple features, large, d i r e c t eyes, and smooth skin, conveys a benign, almost smiling impression. The gestures of Francis are also noteworthy; with h i s r i g h t hand he gestures towards a s c r o l l with the 29 i n s c r i p t i o n PAX HUIC DOMUI, which he holds out at h i s side i n h i s l e f t hand. A second early t h i r t e e n t h century fresco of St. Francis, located i n S. 30 Francesco, Greccio also depicts Francis i n such a way as to emphasize his more human q u a l i t i e s , although i n t h i s case he i s depicted with a halo and i n s c r i p t i o n which i d e n t i f i e s him as a s a i n t . Nothing i n h i s a t t i t u d e stresses h i s semi-divine status, however, for he i s represented kneeling i n p r o f i l e , and weeping. The circumstances surrounding t h i s unusual d e p i c t i o n of St. Francis have hardly been given the attention such a unique p o r t r a y a l of the Saint deserves, but for present purposes i t w i l l s u f f i c e to point out that t h i s fresco, l i k e the Subiaco one, belongs to quite a d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n than that of the St. Francis retables. Perhaps the e a r l i e s t panel painting of St. Francis i s an e a r l y duecento piece i n the Louvre which depicts a si n g l e figure of the Saint i n f u l l 31 length. Because of iconographical a f f i n i t i e s with the Subiaco fresco i t has been assigned a date shortly a f t e r the former and a t t r i b u t e d to the 32 Roman school, probably coming from the workshop of the Subiaco a r t i s t . The general stance of the f i g u r e , the arrangement of the hood over the head, and the f r i e n d l y frankness of the f a c i a l expression are a l l quite close to the Subiaco representations, but there are important differences which place the Louvre panel i n what could be c a l l e d the second t r a d i t i o n of St. Francis 116 p o r t r a i t s . The sanctity of Francis i s now made quite c l e a r ; not only i s he given a halo and i n s c r i p t i o n "S. FRANCISCUS", but the marks of the stigmata are given considerable prominence. Whereas the Subiaco fi g u r e held out h i s r i g h t hand to point out the s c r o l l which he held i n h i s l e f t , the Louvre St. Francis holds up h i s r i g h t hand, palm outwards, to display the wound of the stigmata there. The marks on h i s feet are likewise c l e a r l y indicated and an opening i n h i s habit reveals the wound i n h i s side. Contributing to the idea that Francis i s not only holy, but a second Christ i s . t h e i n s c r i p t i o n on the book which he holds i n h i s l e f t hand; i t reads, i n shortened form: " S p i r i t u s Domini super me; propter quod unxit me, praedicare c a p t i v i s remis-33 sionen et caecis visum". This text derives from Luke IV:.18-19, where the words [ o r i g i n a l l y found i n Isaiah 61] are spoken by C h r i s t . Their appearance here therefore emphasizes the view that St. Francis was a second C h r i s t . The general "type" of the Louvre St. Francis, that i s , a s i n g l e f u l l - l e n g t h f i g u r e which displays the stigmata but which re t a i n s a c e r t a i n warmth of ' 34 expression, has several t h i r t e e n t h century examples. The most s i g n i f i c a n t group of such representations i s the large number of small rectangular panels produced by Margaritone d'Arezzo and h i s workshop. Seven such paintings e x i s t , the majority of them being signed, and they were produced roughly 35 between 1260 and 1280. Although by no means i d e n t i c a l , they a l l have c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t i e s i n that they depict a f u l l - l e n g t h f i g u r e of St. Francis of rather squat proportions. The stance i s very s i m i l a r to that of the Subiaco and Louvre representations, with one leg s l i g h t l y bent, the other bearing the weight, and the cowl i s likewise shown over the head. The Saint holds abook [usually closed] i n h i s l e f t hand, and e i t h e r displays the s t i g -mata on the palm of h i s r i g h t as i n the Louvre work, or holds a cross i n i t . The stigmata on the hands and feet are c l e a r l y indicated, but the side wound 117 i s not shown. Most notable f o r purposes of comparison, however, i s the way i n which the Saint,'s face i s depicted; h i s head i s generally turned s l i g h t l y to one side, with h i s eyes looking i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . The eyes are large, the nose long, and the l i p s r e l a t i v e l y f u l l , so that combi-ned with the proportionately large s i z e of the head, the face conveys an almost winsome expression. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y strong i n the panels i n the Vatican Pinacoteca, Montpulciano, Siena and Ganghereto. In t h e i r juxtapo-s i t i o n of a very human por t r a y a l of Francis with the a t t r i b u t e s which mark hi s s a n c t i t y , the Margaritone d'Arezzo panels belong to the same s p i r i t of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as the Louvre St. Francis painting. The l a t e s t major duecento examples of. t h i s t r a d i t i o n for the represen-t a t i o n of St. Francis are two paintings from the school of Cimabue. The f i r s t of these, which i s a t t r i b u t e d to Cimabue himself, i s a standing f i g u r e of St. Francis which i s included i n the fresco of an enthroned Madonna and 36 Ch i l d i n the r i g h t transept of the Lower Church, A s s i s i . The stance of the figure i s s i m i l a r to those discussed above but the hood i s not over the head, so that the tonsure i s completely exposed. A l l of the stigmata marks, inclu d i n g the side wound, are shown, and the Saint i s depicted with a halo. He again holds a closed book i n h i s l e f t hand, but also now places h i s r i g h t hand upon i t . The face, although much more modelled•and les s naively depic-ted than the Margaritone versions s t i l l bears an almost smiling expression with the eyes focused s l i g h t l y to one side. The second Cimabue-school 37 representation of St. Francis, from about 1284-95, i s a panel painting 38 located i n the Museo of Santa Maria d e g l i Angeli, A s s i s i , which seems to be based d i r e c t l y on the Cimabue fresco. The posture and a t t r i b u t e s of the Saint are almost i d e n t i c a l , although the face of the panel p o r t r a i t i s some-what more homely-looking, with i t s protruding ears and le s s developed 118 modelling. The Central Figures on the Storied Retables When any of the above thi r t e e n t h century depictions of St. Francis are compared to the c e n t r a l figures of the s t o r i e d r e t a b l e s , i t appears that quite a d i f f e r e n t conception of the Saint underlies the l a t t e r . The ce n t r a l St. Francis of the Pescia a l t a r p i e c e has been var i o u s l y described as " r i g i d and h i e r a t i c " , 3 9 "visionary and un c o r p o r e a l " . 4 0 "ascetic", 4"'" "strange and f o r b i d d i n g " , 4 2 "austere and gloomy". 4 3 None of these terms would apply to the depictions of Francis just described, but the Pescia I St. Francis and those which follow on the other s t o r i e d retables do convey such q u a l i t i e s . Since the Pescia I figure i s the e a r l i e s t and perhaps most extreme of the " a s c e t i c " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the Saint, i t w i l l be given prime considera-t i o n . Some of i t s features are s i m i l a r to those of the Louvre-to-Cimabue . trend of p o r t r a i t s ; the figure i s a f u l l - l e n g t h standing one, with halo, and stigmata marks on the hands and feet. The Saint holds up his r i g h t hand, palm outwards, to display the stigmata, and holds a book i n his l e f t hand. He i s dressed i n the Franciscan habit, and shown, with a tonsure and short beard. But here the s i m i l a r i t i e s end. Of the s i n g l e - f i g u r e representations, the Louvre painting i s probably 44 the nearest i n date to Pescia I, and i s also done i n the same medium of tempera on panel. Hence an e f f e c t i v e contrast i s possi b l e . The propor-tions of Bonaventura B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s figure are quite d i f f e r e n t from that of the Louvre St. Francis, for i t i s extremely t a l l with a small, t h i n face and elongated hands. The stance i s also markedly, d i f f e r e n t . Whereas the Louvre fi g u r e stands i n a s l i g h t contrapposto p o s i t i o n with the shape of the bent leg defined beneath the drapery and the, feet pointing out to eit h e r side, the Pescia I stands p e r f e c t l y erect and with no i n d i c a t i o n of bodily 119 forms beneath the habit.. The wide expanse of evenly, f l u t e d drapery almost seems to be self-supporting, as the f r a i l t y of the Saint's exposed members hardly suggest a weighty body beneath. The p o s i t i o n of the.-feet, pointing s t r a i g h t down, further adds to the i n s u b s t a n t i a l , " f l o a t i n g " impression of the f i g u r e . These features can hardly be at t r i b u t e d s o l e l y to the s t y l e and technique of the a r t i s t , f o r B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s small figures i n the side scenes are shown a c t i v e l y walking and kneeling on the ground, with bodily forms indicated under the drapery. It was instead by deliberate choice that the cen t r a l f i g u r e was depicted i n t h i s "uncorporeal" way. The face of the Pescia I St. Francis compared to that of the Louvre figu r e i s also s t r i k i n g l y non-human. The long, t h i n proportions have been further de-humanized by a geometric schematization; the ears are t r i a n g u l a r patterns, the forehead i s divided by a se r i e s of white l i n e s , dark semi-c i r c l e s underlie the eyes and prominent dark l i n e s run from the Saint's ears to the ends of h i s drooping moustache, giving the impression of sunken cheeks. The eyes are small and gaze f i x e d l y :beyond the viewer, quite unlike the frank looks of the Subiaco and Louvre f i g u r e s . But B e r l i n g h i e r i ' s small figures [except f o r three of the figures of St. Francis h i m s e l f ] , do not display t h i s a u s t e r i t y of expression. Throughout the St. Francis retables, i t i s the Pescia I type of repre-sentation that i s followed, with some modifications, i n the ce n t r a l f i g u r e s , and not the Subiaco-to-Cimabue traditions.. The faces of the s i x other c e n t r a l Saint figures [with the exception of the Siena V] a l l display a s i m i l a r geo-metric d i v i s i o n of th face by hard l i n e s , the most extreme cases being those of the Pisa II and P i s t o i a I I I . The l i n e s are softer on A s s i s i VI, Rome VII, and Florence IV, but s t i l l o u t l i n e the sunken cheeks of the emaciated face, which takes on an incr e a s i n g l y sharp appearance i n these three cases due to 120 the emphatically pointed chin and t h i n cheeks. In the l a t e r Siena V c e n t r a l f i g u r e the f a c i a l l i n e s have been considerably naturalized but the face i s s t i l l a r i g i d one with wrinkled brow and bony cheeks. A l l of the c e n t r a l figures exhibit frowning mouths emphasized by t h e i r drooping mousta-ches and they generally stare f i x e d l y s t r a i g h t ahead. This type of express-ion i s quite d i f f e r e n t from that of Margaritone's happy l i t t l e Saints, or of the humanized Cimabue fi g u r e s . A f t e r the f l o a t i n g column of drapery of the Pescia I f i g u r e , the under-l y i n g forms of the c e n t r a l figures are i n c r e a s i n g l y indicated, and the feet take on a rather more natural stance. The robes of the Pisa II St. Francis, for example, are arranged i n uneven U-shaped folds as a s l i g h t i n d i c a t i o n of h i s bent l e f t l e g . The a t t i t u d e of having one leg forward is-suggested quite well by the drapery of the A s s i s i VI and Rome VII f i g u r e s . The a r t i s t of Florence IV has indicated both of the Saint's underlying legs, and placed the feet i n a more active p o s i t i o n with the Saint's r i g h t foot i n p r o f i l e . The stern, s t a r i n g c e n t r a l figures of the St. Francis rerables, however, c l e a r l y represent quite a d i f f e r e n t concept of the Saint than that which inspir e d the other s i n g l e - f i g u r e representations already mentioned. The " a s c e t i c " type cha r a c t e r i z a t i o n i s not confined to the s t o r i e d retables. It also appears i n the small f i g u r e of St. Francis on the B e r l i n g h i e r i -45 school diptych i n the U f f i z i , and i n the panel painting of the Saint i n 46 47 Santa Maria d e g l i Angeli, among others. But a l l of the s t o r i e d r e t a -ble figures are depicted i n t h i s general s p i r i t , and' the type i t s e l f seems to o r i g i n a t e with t h i s panel form i n Pescia I. The reasons f o r t h i s type of p o r t r a y a l i n the a l t a r p i e c e appear to be twofold. F i r s t of a l l , the St. Francis retable was devised s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the wors-hip of the new s a i n t . Whereas early s i n g l e - f i g u r e depictions of 121 Francis l i k e that at Subiaco, appear to belong to the "Erinnerungsdar-48 s t e l l u n g " t r a d i t i o n as Hager suggests, i n s p i r e d by actual memories of Francis' v i s i t , the retable representations belonged to that frenzy of propaganda following Francis' death that was aimed at fi r m l y e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s s a n c t i t y . The close connection between the iconography of the side scenes and the canonization procedure has already been noted. Thus, i t i s quite l o g i c a l that i n panels designed f o r such "saint-worship' 5 purposes, Francis should be represented i n such a way as to emphasize h i s other-worldliness and play down h i s human q u a l i t i e s ; a s i m i l a r tendency has 49 already been noted i n the compilation of Thomas of Celano's V i t a Prima. The second explanation for t h e i r type l i e s i n th i r t e e n t h century Joachistic-Franciscan thought. The f a c i a l expressions and gestures of the ce n t r a l St. Francis figures have strong Apocalyptic implications i n that they immediately suggest the figure of the Last Judgement C h r i s t . The Christ of the Baptistery mosaic, F l o r e n c e , a n d the enthroned Christ on a panel painting i n T r e v i g n a n o , e x e m p l i f y the two iconographic t r a d i t i o n s for such f i g u r e s . In t h e i r harsh, s t r i c t l y f r o n t a l stares, the St. Francis figures are very s i m i l a r to the Baptistery type of Apocalyptic C h r i s t , but the gestures are p a r a l l e l e d by the "blessing-type" C h r i s t , f o r example, the smaller Last Judgement Baptistery C h r i s t who stands above the large judging C h r i s t , and by the enthroned Trevignano f i g u r e . This type of Christ holds h i s r i g h t hand, palm out, i n front of h i s chest i n a gesture of bl e s s i n g , and holds a book i n h i s l e f t . These hand posi t i o n s are echoed i n the St. Francis f i g u r e s , where the Saint holds up h i s r i g h t hand ei t h e r palm out to display the stigmata [as i n Pescia I, Pisa I I , and P i s t o i a I I I ] , i n a bl e s s i n g gesture [Florence IV], or holding a cross [ A s s i s i VI, Rome VII and Siena V]. A book i s always held i n the l e f t hand. It i s also 122 s i g n i f i c a n t that the only type of Chr i s t f i g u r e that i s depicted e x p l i c i t l y d i s p l a y i n g h i s wounds i s the Apocalyptic C h r i s t , as exemplified by the large-judging Christ i n the Baptistery. Another iconographie as s o c i a t i o n which the c e n t r a l St. Francis figures have with the Last Judgement i s the presence of angels above the c e n t r a l f i g u r e . Two angels appear at the tops of the Pescia I, Pisa I I , and F l o -rence IV, while a whole host of angels flanking a b l e s s i n g C h r i s t top Siena V. On Pescia I, these angels are represented f r o n t a l l y , wearing elaborately decorated gowns. Their i d e n t i c a l poses r e f l e c t that of St. Francis, i n that they hold up t h e i r r i g h t palms and grasp rods i n t h e i r l e f t . In the Pisa II version they turn towards the centre, pointing towards Francis with t h e i r outermost hands and holding the rods i n t h e i r others. On Florence IV the angels extend both t h e i r open hands towards the centre, where a s c r o l l i s held by a heavenly hand. Before t h e i r appearance on the s t o r i e d retables t h i s type of angel, p a r t i c u l a r l y the o r i g i n a l Pescia I type holding a rod, seems to have had two preceding iconographical uses i n I t a l i a n a r t : i n Last Judgement scenes, 52 and on the cimasa panels of painted wooden c r u c i f i x e s . In the Florence Baptistery mosaic, for example, the hierarchy of angels i s depicted in a r e g i s t e r above the large Judging C h r i s t , beginning with, the six-winged sera-phim d i r e c t l y to e i t h e r side of the b l e s s i n g C h r i s t . The next class of angels to the r i g h t of the seraphim are of that type seen i n the Pescia I and Pisa II retables, holding rods i n t h e i r l e f t hands and i n d i c a t i n g C h r i s t with t h e i r r i g h t . They are i d e n t i f i e d by an i n s c r i p t i o n on the mosaic as 53 DOMI NATIONES. The representation of t h i s type of angel at the tops of c r u c i f i x e s , as on that by Berlinghiero B e r l i n g h i e r i i n the Pinacoteca, 54 Lucca, where the angels are almost i d e n t i c a l to those depicted by the 123 younger B e r l i n g h i e r i on the Pescia panel, i s also r e l a t e d to Last Judge- ment iconography. The t r a d i t i o n of representing e i t h e r a Last Judgement Christ with angels [as seen i n Pisan C r u c i f i x number 20"^], or a scene of 56 The Ascension of the V i r g i n [as i n Pisan C r u c i f i x number 15] was often reduced to ju s t angel f i g u r e s , or Mary flanked by a n g e l s . T h a t s i m i l a r angels should be^depicted above the figure of St. Francis would suggest that e i t h e r yet another formal p a r a l l e l between the painted c r u c i f i x and the St. Francis retable i s being made to further emphasize the thematic p a r a l l e l , or that an a l l u s i o n to Francis' Apocalyptic r o l e i s being made, or both. On Siena V, the a l l u s i o n to a Last Judgement Christ iconography i s even more s p e c i f i c i n that the angels depicted surround the actual f i g u r e of a ble s s i n g C h r i s t . The Pescia I was apparently the f i r s t panel painting to 58 portray such angels apart from the C r u c i f i x e s . In considering the d i s t i n c t i v e features which characterize the type of St. Francis represented i n the ce n t r a l figures of the s t o r i e d retables, i t would appear that a double a l l u s i o n i s being made. F i r s t of a l l , the very fact that a large v e r t i c a l figure i s shown between the side scenes, that Francis prominently displays those marks which most i d e n t i f y him with the c r u c i f i e d C h r i s t , and that he i s shown under a p a i r of angels, suggest para-l l e l s with the Christ figures on painted wooden Crucifixes., And secondly, the f a c i a l expression of the Saint, h i s hand gestures [including, again, h i s display of the stigmata marks], and the iconographic s i g n i f i c a n c e of the angels, a l l r e l a t e to the representation of the Apocalyptic C h r i s t . In both areas of reference, the p o s s i b i l i t y that J o a c h i s t i c trends of thought were i n part responsible f o r th i s mode of depiction of St. Francis i s quite strong. The iconographic features reminiscent of C r u c i f i x f igures serve to point out even more patently that the St. Francis retable was consciously 124 based on that art form for thematic purposes, and that the basis for the C h r i s t - S t . Francis p a r a l l e l lay i n the patterns of r e l i g i o u s h i s t o r y set down i n J o a c h i s t i c w r i t i n g s . The apparent a l l u s i o n s of the c e n t r a l St. Francis figures to Last Judgement iconography are perhaps an even more d i r e c t reference to the role of Francis as derived from the Franciscan i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Joachimism. The two f a c t s that St. Francis was i d e n t i f i e d as a s p e c i f i c angel of the Apocalypse [the stigmata marks being the out-standing basis f o r such an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ] , and that he appears on the sto-r i e d retable looking l i k e an Apocalyptic Christ and d i s p l a y i n g the stigmata, may c e r t a i n l y have been re l a t e d . This i s not to suggest that the figures were designed e x p l i c i t l y to i l l u s t r a t e J o a c h i s t i c ideas, but rather that an Apocalyptic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and depiction of Francis, which ultimately derived from Joachimism, was considerably more widespread i n the t h i r t e e n t h century even among non-Joachite Franciscans than i s generally acknowledged. Just as t h i s trend i n thought appears to have manifested i t s e l f , i n t h i r t e e n t h c-eritury English Franciscan art through the d e r i v a t i o n of the motifs for c e r t a i n Franciscan s t o r i e s from Apocalypse i l l u s t r a t i o n s , s i m i l a r thought i n I t a l y resulted i n the conceptions of St. Francis which are displayed i n the c e n t r a l figures on the thirteenth century s t o r i e d retables. 125 CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSIONS The seven Franciscan a l t a r p i e c e s from Pescia I to Siena VII comprise a d i s t i n c t group of paintings with r e l a t e d and bnter-dependent subject matter. The t r a d i t i o n they represent together i s the e a r l i e s t body of i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the Franciscan legend. After examining exactly what was depicted on each of the a l t a r p i e c e s , however, i t i s possible to suggest an iconographie develop-ment within the Dugento. The subjects from the Franciscan legend which were chosen for representation on the e a r l i e r panels were p r i m a r i l y posthemous miracles. These were combined with scenes from the l i f e of Francis as the century progressed, and eventually omitted e n t i r e l y as the a l t a r p i e c e s i n c r e a -si n g l y emphasized l i f e - c y c l e scenes. Reasons underlying the choice and changes of scenes can also be suggested. The four miracles included on a l l the e a r l i e r panels were s p e c i f i c a l l y those which comprised part of the l i s t of miracles c o l l e c t e d f o r the canonization of Francis. That they were the subjects chosen for representation on the f i r s t a l t a r p i e c e s dedicated to Francis indicates that the i n t e n t i o n of the art works was to emphasize Francis' proven s a n c t i t y . The change to iconographies based on scenes from Francis' l i f e suggests that the a t t i t u d e of s t r e s s i n g the canonization was being replaced by one i n which Francis was regarded more as an h i s t o r i c a l f i g u r e . This change may be accounted for e i t h e r as part of a more general movement i n the Dugento which inc r e a s i n g l y humanized r e l i g i o u s art [for example, the switch from the Christus triumphans to the Christus patiens on the painted c r u c i f i x e s ] , or perhaps as the decreased necessity to celebrate Francis' s a n c t i t y . Within the l i f e - c y c l e panels them-selves some of the changes i n subject matter can be explained by the decision by the Franciscan Order to acknowledge only Bonaventura's Leggenda Major as the o f f i c i a l biography of Francis. The p h y s i c a l shape and arrangement of the new panel type devised f o r the 126 St. Francis retables can also be r e l a t e d to Franciscan doctrine. Because the panel type was based on the s t o r i e d c r u c i f i x , the p h y s i c a l s i m i l a r i t y of the panels implied a p a r a l l e l i s m between the figures of Christ and Francis. The conception of Francis as an " a l t e r Christus" was an important doctrine within the Order, and one which derived from the view of h i s t o r y expounded by Joachimism. Hence, both subject matter and format of the retables can be explained to a large degree by a t t i t u d e s within t h i r t e e n t h century Franciscanism. Franciscan applications of J o a c h i s t i c themes also manifested themselves i n the s t y l e used for the p o r t r a y a l of Francis on the retables. The stern, h i e r a t i c Francis figures seem to indicate the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Saint which gave him an apocalyptic r o l e based i n Joachimism. Throughout the Dugento the a r t i s t i c conception of Francis on the a l t a r p i e c e s did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y change. A l l of the connections which can be made among Franciscan doctrine, the subject matter of the retables, t h e i r p h y s i c a l lay-out, and t h e i r s t y l e serve to demonstrate how c l o s e l y these works of art r e f l e c t e d the thinking of t h e i r times. The choice of scenes was e s p e c i a l l y c a r e f u l l y planned, so ,that the subjects emphasized only those aspects of St. Francis that were thought to be s i g n i f i c a n t by the Franciscans who designed the iconographic programmes. The scenes on the a l t a r p i e c e s did not represent a random choice of appealing s t o r i e s about Francis for the pleasure of the viewers. They were instead d e l i b e r a t e l y chosen to i l l u s t r a t e s p e c i f i c doctrines about Francis. Even the shape of some of the panels and the type of the c e n t r a l figures r e f l e c t e d d e f i n i t e ways i n which the Saint was to be venerated. This suggests a great deal about the function of the s t o r i e d retables as d i d a c t i c r e l i g i o u s objects. A d e t a i l e d examination of the iconography of the early Franciscan a l t a r -pieces i s also valuable i n a consideration of the A s s i s i frescoes ,of the Legend of St. Francis. The nave frescoes of the l i f e of St. Francis represent 127 an extremely important movement i n the development of trecento painting. Because the st o r i e d retables comprise the only body of e a r l i e r Franciscan sub-j e c t matter, they must be given consideration f o r an understanding of the si g n i f i c a n c e of the subjects chosen i n the A s s i s i Legend of St. Francis. The A s s i s i frescoes do not represent an unprecedented l i f e - c y c l e of Francis. Their innovative subject matter can be f u l l y appreciated only when they are seen as a stage i n the t r a d i t i o n begun i n the s t o r i e d r e t ables. In the choice of subjects and t h e i r dogmatic implications the fresco cycle i s far removed from the f irst miracle panels, but follows quote n a t u r a l l y from the iconography of Siena VII, the l a t e s t of the panels. In addition to contributing to an awareness of the general import of the subject choices, a comparison of scenes common to the frescoes and the retables could i n d i c a t e s p e c i f i c changes i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The seven s t o r i e d retables of St. Francis represent an important t r a d i t i o n i n dugento art i n three major respects: as examples of the r i s e and e a r l i e s t development of Franciscan iconography, as exponents of t h i r t e e t h century Franciscan doctrines, and as precursors to the A s s i s i frescoes. 128 NOTES "'"Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 153. 2 Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s , p. 96. 3 Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 153. 4 See Chapter I I , "Joachimism and Franciscanism". 5 i b i d . ^Reeves The Influences of Prophecy, p. 72. 7These are enumerated by Reeves, i b i d . , p. 73. g Guido Bondatti Gioachimism e francescanesimo, pp. 163-164. 9 The sources of the legend are discussed by Reeves The Influence of  Prophecy, pp. 100-101. "^F. D. Klingender, "St. Francis and the Birds of the Apocalypse", Journal  of the Warburg and Courtauld I n s t i t u t e s , XVI, 1953, pp. 13-23. "'""'"The Roger of Wendover account reads: "Francis found crows, k i t e s , mag-pies, and many other fouls that f o l y i n the midst of heaven s i t t i n g among carr i o n i n the suburb, and c a l l e d out to them ...". Translated by Klingender, i b i d . , p. 15. 12 Reproduced by Klingender, i b i d . , figure b. 13 Decima L. Dovie, The Nature and E f f e c t of the Heresy of the F r a t i c e l l i [Manchester: Manchester U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1932], pp. 25-26. """^Klingender "St. Francis and the Birds", p. 15, note 2 l i s t s t h i r t e e n t h century English i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the sermon to the b i r d s , to be compared to the Apocalyptic i l l u s t r a t i o n s reproduced i n his a r t i c l e . """"^ Drawing reproduced by M. R. James, "The Drawings of Matthew P a r i s " , The  Walpole Society, XIV, 1925-26, pp. 11-26, plate XI. "^See, for example t h i s scene i n M. R. James, The T r i n i t y College  Apocalypse [London: The Roxburghe Club, 1909]. 17 The otder of Seraphim i n general did not display eyes on t h e i r wings. See Gustav Davidson, A Dictionary of Angels [New York: The Free Press, 1967], p. 267. 18 Klingender "St. Francis and the Birds", pp. 13, 20. 19 See M. R. James, The Apocalypse i n Act [Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1959]. 129 20 For the h i s t o r y and iconography of t h i s cycle see A l f r e d Nicholson, Cimabue A C r i t i c a l Study [Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1932], p. 5 f f . 21 Nicholson, i b i d . , p. 6 suggests that the subject matter i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the emphasis i n Bonaventura's account upon the idea of Francis' s p e c i a l devotion to angels and above a l l to St. Michael. 22 See Nicholson, i b i d . , pp. 8-9. 2 3 S e e Chapter IV, "Florence IV". 24 Reeves The Influence of Prophecy. 25 See Chapter V "The Stigmatization" for a t r a n s l a t i o n of Celano's d e s c r i p t i o n of the Stigmatization. 2 6 S e e Plate 13. 27 Edgar Waterman Anthony, Romanesque Fescoes. [Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1955], pp. 80-81. 28 Authors who accept an early date for the fresco include F a c c h i n e t t i and Hager. 29 A greeting used by Francis - "The peace of God be with you". 30 Reproduced by F a c c h i n e t t i I c o n i g r a f i a Francescana. 3 1 S e e Plate 14. 32 Richard Offner, "Note on an Unknown St. Francis i n the Louvre", Gazette des Beaux Arts", February, 1952, pp. 129-133. 33 i b i d . , p. 130. 34 See F a c c h i n e t t i Iconografia Francescana. 35 Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, pp. 50-52, numbers 51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60. 36 Reproduced by Nicholson Cimabue. 37 Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 50, number 53. lb i d . 39 Bughetti V i t a e m i r a c o l i . 40 Siren Toskanische Maler. ^D'Aucona Les P r i m i t i f s I t a l i e n s . 129* 42 Robert Oertel, Early I t a l i a n Painting to 1400 [New York: Praeger, 1968]. Adolfo Venturi, S t o r i a d e l l ' Arte I t a l i a n a , Vol. V [Milano: U l r i c o Hoepli, 1907]. 4 4 P e s c i a I dates from 1235. Offner "An Unknown St. Fra n c i s " dates the Louvre panel at about 1230. 45 Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 97, number 243. See Plate 15. 46 i b i d . , p. 50, number 52. See Plate 14. 47 See F a c c h i n e t t i Iconografia Francescana. 48 Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s , p. 90. 49 See Chapter I, "The L i t e r a r y Sources f o r the L i f e of St. Francis . "^See Mario Salmi, " I . Mosaici d e l '=Bel San Giovanni' e l a p i t t u r a d e l Secolo XIII a Firenze", Dedalo, XI, 1930-31, pp. 543-569. "'"'"Reproduced by Hager i t a l i a n i s c h e A l t a r b i l d e s . 52 The cimasa panel i s the uppermost, rectangular component of the c r u c i f i x . 53 "Nations" were an order of archangel. See Davidson A Dictionary of 54„ Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 187, number 476 55^ Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting, p. 201, number 521 56 r . Garrison I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting. "^Evelyn Sandberg-Vavala, La Croce Dipinta [Verona: Apollo, 1929]:. 58 Similar angels appear at the tops of Madonna and Child panels near the end of the century. 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY Analecta Francescana. Volumes I-V. Quaracchi: Collegio S. Bonaventura, 1887. Ansaldl, Matteo. Chiesa e Convento d l San Francesco i n Pescia. Pescia: Tip. E. C i p r i a n i , 1911. Antal, Frederick. Florentine Painting and i t s S o c i a l Background. London: Kegan Paul, 1948. A n z i l o t t i , P i e t r o . S t o r i a d e l l a Val d i Nievole d a i ' o r i g i n e d i Pescia f i n o  all'anno 1818. P i s t o i a : Cino, 1846. B a l d i n i , Umberto. Firenze Restaura. Guida a l i a Mostra. Florence: 1972. Bett, Henry. Joachim of F l o r a . London: Methuen, 1931. B i a g i , Guido. In Val d i Nievole. Guida i l l u s t r a t a . Florence: Landi, 1901. Bonaventura, San. San Francesco D ' A s s i s i . B a r i : Paoline, 1972. Bondatti, Guido. Gioachinismo e francescanesimo nel.Dugento. A s s i s i : Sta. Maria d e g l i Angeli, 1924. B o r i , Mario. "Notizie s u l l a cappella Neri i n Castello e s u l l a tavola d e l l a cappella Bardi i n S. Croce". R i v i s t a d'Arte, IV, 1906, pages 193-194. Borsook, Eve. The Companion Guide to Florence. London: 1966. Bracaloni, P. Leone. L'Arte Francescana. Todi: T i r d e r t e , 1924. Bughetti, P. Benvenuto. V i t a e m i r a c o l i d i S. Francesco n e l l e tavole i s t o r i a t e d e i s e c o l i XIII e XIV. e s t r a t t o da Archivum franciscanum  historicum, 1926. C h i a p p e l l i , Alessandro. San Francesco e l ' A r t e . Rome: Nuova Antologia, 1926. Clasen, Sophronius. Legenda Antigua des Heiligen Franziskus. Leiden: E. J . B r i l l , 1967. C o l e t t i , L u i g i . "La Mostra Giottesca". B o l l e t t i n o d'Arte, 1937, pages 49-72. Crowe, J.A., and Cavalcaselle, G.B. A History of Painting i n I t a l y , Volume I. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1903. 131 Da Morrona, Alessandro. Pisa i l l u s t r a t a . P i s a : Prosperi, 1893. D'Ancona, Paolo. Les P r i m i t i f s I t a l i e n s du Xle au X l l l e S i e c l e s . P a r i s : Les E d i t i o n s d'Art et D'Histoire,-1935. Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels. New York: The Free Press, 1967. Douie, Decima L. The Nature and E f f e c t of the Heresy of the E r a t i c e l l i . Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1932. F a c c h i n e t t i , P. V i t t o r i n o . Iconografia Francescana. Milano: Casa E d i t r i c e S. Lega E u c a r i s t i c a , 1924. E a c c h i n e t t i , P. V i t t o r i n o . San Francesco n e l l a s t o r i a , n e l l a legenda, n e l l '  arte. Milano: S. Lega E u c h a r i s t i c a , 1926. Firenze. Mostra Giottesca. Catalogo. Bergamo: I s t i t u t o I t a l i a n o d ' a r t i grafiche, 1937. Francastel, P i e r r e . "L'art i t a l i e n et l e r o l e personnel de Saint Francois". Annales, Volume XI, 1956. G a l l i , Nori Andreini. La Grande Vald l n i e v o l e . Firenze: V a l l e c c h i , 1970. Garrison, Edward B. "A New History of Bonaventura d i Berlinghiero's St. Francis Dossal i n Pescia". Studies i n the History of Mediaeval I t a l i a n  Painting, Volume I, Number 2, autumn, 1953, pages 69-78. Garrison, Edward B. I t a l i a n Romanesque Panel Painting. An I l l u s t r a t e d Index. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1949. G i g l i o l i , Odoardo H. P i s t o i a n e l l e sue opere d'arte. Firence: F. Lumachi, 1904. G i l l e t , Louis. H i s t o i r e A r t i s t i q u e des Ordres Mendiants. Pa r i s : Flammaion, 1939. Giusto, P. Egidio M. Le Vetrate d i S. Francesco i n A s s i s i . Milan: A l f i e r i e Lacroix, 1911. Hager, Hellmut. Die Anfange des I t a l i e n i s c h e n A l t a r b l l d e s . Munich: Anton S c h r o l l & Co., 1962. James, M.R. "The Drawings of Matthew P a r i s " . The Walpole Society, XIV, 1925-26. James, Montague Rhodes. The T r i n i t y College Apocalypse, f a c s i m i l e reproduction of manuscript R.16.2 i n the l i b r a r y of T r i n i t y College. London: The Roxburghe Club, 1909. 132 Joachim de F l o r e . L'Evangile Eternel,.Part I I . traduction francaise par Emmanuel Aegerter. P a r i s : Les Editions Rieder, 1928. J u l l i a n , R. "Le franciscanisme et l ' a r t i t a l i e n " . Phoebus, 1946, pages 105-115. Basle: Holbein Pub. Co., 1946. K a f t a l , George. St. Francis i n I t a l i a n Painting. London: George A l l e n and Unwin Ltd., 1950. K a f t a l , George. Saints i n I t a l i a n Art, Volume I, I I . Florence: Sanson!, 1952. Khovoshinsky, B a s i l e , and Salmi, Mario. I P i t t o r i Toscani dal XIII at XVI  Secolo. I. P r i m i t i v i . Rome: Ermanno Loescher & Co., 1912. Klingender, F.D. "St. Francis and the Birds of the Apocalypse". Journal of  the Warburg and Coutauld I n s t i t u t e s . Volume XVI, 1952, pages 13-23. Lanzi, L u i g i . S t o r i c a p i t t o r i c a d e l l ' I t a l i a . Volume I. Bassano: Remodini, 1809. Lasareff, V i c t o r . "Two Newly-Discovered Pictures of the Lucca School". The Burlington Magazine. XI, July, 1927, pages 56-67. Lazzareschi, E. "Un Nuovo Contributo a l i o Studio d e l l ' I c o n o g r a f i a Francesca-na". B o l l e t t l n o d i S t o r i a P a t r i a . XIV, 1908. L e f f , Gordon. Heresy i n the Later Middle Ages. 1 Volume 1. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. Lemmens, P. Leonardus. Testimonia Minora Saeculi XIII d e S . Francesco  A s s i s i e n s i . Florence: C o l l i g i i S. Bonaventurae, 1926. Longhi, Roberto. "Guidizio s u l Duecento". Proporzlonl. I I , 1948, pages 5-54. Mann, Horace K. The Lives of the Popes i n the Middle Ages. Volume XII. Vaduz: Krans Reprint Ltd., 1964. Messini, Angelo. Profetismo e profezie ritmiche i t a l l a ne d ' i s p i r a z i o n e  Gioachimito - Francescana nei s e c o l i XIII, XIV, e XV. e s t r a t t o da Miscellanea Francescana. Volume 38-39, 1939. M i s c i a t e l l i , Piero, and L u s i n i , Aldo. San Francesco e Siena. Siena: La Diana, 1927. Moise, F. Santa Croce d i Firenze. Firenze: G a l i l e l a n a , 1845. Moorman, John R.H. A History of the Franciscan. Order from i t s Origins to  the Year 1517. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968. Moorman, John R.H. Early Franciscan Art.and L i t e r a t u r e . B u l l e t i n of the John Rylands L i b r a r y . Volume 27, Number 2, June, 1943; reprint e d i t i o n , Manchester: Manchester Uni v e r s i t y Press, 1943. 133 Moorman, John R.H, The.Sources for the L i f e . o f St. Francis of A s s i s i . Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1940. Nicholson, A l f r e d . Cimabue. A C r i t i c a l Study. Princeton,. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1932, Nucci, Ermenigildo. P i c c o l a guida s t o r i c o - a r t i s t i c a d e l l a Chiesa d i S.  Francesco a Pescia. Pescia: t i p . E. Nucci, 1915. Oertel, Robert. Early I t a l i a n Painting to 1400. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968. Oertel, Robert. "Giotto-Ausstellung i n Florenz". Z e i t s c h r i f t fur Kunstges-chlchte, 1937, pages 218-238. Offner, Richard. "Note on an Unknown St. Francis i n the LouvreV. Gazette des  Beaux Art s . February, 1952. Offner, Richard. "The Mostra del Tesoro d i Firenze Sacra - I". Burlington  Magazine. LXIII, July-December, 1933, pages 72-84. Florence: B l b l i o t e c a Laurenziana. conv. sopp. 382 and 397. Peter John O l i v i , . " P o s t i l l a i n Apocalypsim". Pa r i s , Matthew. Chronica Majora. Volume VI. London: Longman & Co., 1882. Pompei, Alfonso. "Francesco da A s s i s i " . B i b l l o t e c a Sanctorum.; Volume V. Reau,Louis. Iconographie de l ' a r t chretien. P a r i s : Presses u n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France., 1955-1959. Reeves, Marjorie, and Hirsch-Reich, Beatrice. The Figurae of Joachim of  F i o r e . Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1972. Reeves, Marjorie. The Influence of Prophecy i n the Later Middle Ages. A  Study i n Joachimism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. R i d o l f i , Michele. Lettera dell'accademico Prof. Michelle R i d o l f i a l marchese  Pietro Selvatico Estenze. Lucca: Tiposgrafica d i Guiseppe G i u s t i , 1857. Rosenthal, E. "Crib of Greccio and Franciscan Realism". Art B u l l e t i n . 36, pages 57-60, March, 1954. Sabatier, Paul. Vie de S. Francois d'Assise. P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Fischbacher, 1894. Salmi, Mario. "I Mosaici del 'Bel San Giovanni'.e l a p i t t u r a del Secolo XIII a Firenze". Dedalo-. XI, Volume 3, 1930-31, pages 543-69. Salmi, Mario. "La Mostra Giottesca:. Emporium. LXXXVI, J u l y , 1937, pages 349-364. 134 Salmi, Mario. "Una tavola p r i m i t i v a n e l l a Chiesa d i S. Framcesco a Pi s a " . R i v i s t a d'Arte. VII, 1910, page 67. Sa l t e r , Emma Gurney. Franciscan Legends i n I t a l i a n A rt. London: J.M. Dent and Co., 1905. Sandberg-Vavala, Evelyn. La Croce Dipinta. Verona: Apollo, 1929. Sandberg-Vavala, Evelyn. Sienese Studies. Florence: Olschki, 1952. Sbarale, Joannis Hyacinthi. Bullarium Franciscanum Romanorum Pontificaum. Tomus I. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1759. Florence: B i b l i o t e c a Laurenziana. FirML 142 [ f o l . 156r-161v;] . Sebastiano da Verona, "Prophetia Joachim de S.Francisco". S e r r i , P i e t r o . Nuova guida per l a c i t t a d i Pisa. Pisa: Prosperi, 1833. S i n i b a l d i , Georgio, and Brunetti, Georgio. Catalogo d e l l a Mostra Giottesca  d i Firenze dai 1937. Florence: Sansoni, 1943. Siren Oswald. Toskanische Maler im XIII. Jahrhundert. B e r l i n : Paul Cassirer, 1922. Smart, Alastair.. The A s s i s i Problem and the Art of'Gio t t o . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Stubblebine, James H. Guido da Siena. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University;Press , 1 9 6 4 . Thode, Henry. Franz von A s s i s i und die Anfange der Kunst der Renaissance i n  I t a l i e n . Wien: Phaidon-Verlag, 1934. T i t i , Pandolfo. Guida per i l passeggiere d i l e t t a n t e d i p i t t u r a , s c u l t u r a , ed  a r c h i t e t t u r a n e l l a c i t t a d i Pis a . Lucca: 1751. Toesca, P i e t r o . S t o r i a d e l l ' A r t e I t a l i a n a . II Medioevo. Torino: T i p o g r a f i a Sociale Torinese, 1927. Tommaso da Celano. V i t a d i S. Francesco. d'Assisi. e,Trattato d e i M i r a c o l i , trans. Fausta C a s o l i n i . A s s i s i : E d i z i o n i Porziuncola, 1970. Van Marie, Raimond. The Development of the I t a l i a n Schools of Painting. Volume I. The Hague: Martinus N i j h o f f , 1923. Vas a r i , Giorgio. Le Vi t e de p i u eccelente p i t t o r i s c u l t o r i e a r c h i t e t t o r i . I. [1568]. Milano: E d i z i o n i per i l Club del Libro, 1962. Venturi, Adolfo. S t o r i a d e l l ' A r t e I t a l i a n a . V. La P i t t u r a del Trecento. Milano: U l r i c o Hoepli, 1907. 135 Waterman, Anthony. Romanesque Frescoes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951. White, John. Art and Architecture i n I t a l y , 1250 to 1400. Hammondsworth: Pelican, 1966. White, John. "The Date of 'The Legend of St. Francis' at A s s i s i " . Burlington  Magazine. XCVIII, October, 1956, page 344 f f . Zimmermann, Max G. Giotto und die Kunst I t a l i e n s im M i t t e l a l t e r . Volume I. L e i p z i g : E.A. Seemann, 1899. Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 6 139 Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 10 141 Plate 13 142 S. I i.111. • - i H Hijwt Aiii.i-lii'l'.-*..r..i P l a t e 14 Pl a t e 15 143 A P P E N D I X 1 P e s c i a I P e s c i a , S a n F r a n c e s c o , t h i r d a l t a r o n t h e r i g h t f r o m t h e e n t r a n c e t e m p e r a o n w o o d , a g a b l e d d o s s a l h e i g h t : 1.60 m . , w i d t h : 1.23 m. [ G a r r i s o n ] s i g n e d a n d d a t e d a t t h e b a s e : A . D . M . C . C . X . X . X . V . BONAVETURA B E R L I G E R I . . . s i x s i d e s c e n e s : l e f t [ t o p t o b o t t o m ] : t h e S t i g m a t i z a t i o n , t h e s e r m o n t o t h e b i r d s , h e a l i n g t h e d e f o r m e d g i r l r i g h t [ t o p t o b o t t o m ] : h e a l i n g c r i p p l e s , h e a l i n g B a r t o l o m e o d a N a r n i , h e a l i n g t h e p o s s e s s e d T h e p a n e l w a s r e s t o r e d i n 1910 b y P r o f e s s o r De P r a y f r o m F l o r e n c e , who " c o n s o l i d a t e d " t h e c o l o u r s a n d f r e e d t h e o r i g i n a l f r a m e f r o m t h e b a r o q u e o r n a -ment t h a t c o v e r e d i t [ N u c c i ] . T h e 1910 r e s t o r a t i o n i s t h e o n l y d o c u m e n t e d o n e , b u t t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e ' s h a l o w a s a t o n e t i m e r e d o n e , a n a d d i t i o n w h i c h c o v e r e d up t h e p o i n t o f t h e h o o d [ S i n i b a l d i a n d B r u n e t t i ] . T h e p a i n t i n g h a s s u f f e r e d some d a m a g e t h r o u g h p e e l i n g a n d s c r a t c h i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e l o w e r t w o s c e n e s , b u t i s g e n e r a l l y i n a n e x c e l l e n t s t a t e o f p r e s e r v a t i o n . I t r e t a i n s i t s o r i g i n a l f r a m e . A n s a l d i m a i n t a i n s t h a t h i n g e m a r k s a r e v i s i b l e o n t h e s i d e s o f t h e p a n e l ' s f r a m e s , w h i c h i n d i c a t e t o h i m t h a t t h e p a i n t i n g o r i g i n a l l y f o r m e d p a r t o f a t r i p t y c h , p o s s i b l y w i t h s h u t t e r s . T h e o n l y o t h e r w r i t e r t o c o m m e n t u p o n t h i s i s G a r r i s o n , w h o r e p o r t s t h a t n o h i n g e m a r k s a r e p e r c e p t i b l e o n t h e p a n e ] t o d a y , a n d s u g g e s t s t h a t A n s a l d i w a s p e r h a p s m i s l e d b y r e m n a n t s o f n a i l s o r r i n g s w h i c h o n c e s e r v e d f o r t h e p a i n t i n g ' s s u s p e n s i o n . H a g e r ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s o n t h e u s e f o r w h i c h t h e p a n e l w a s d e s i g n e d f u r t h e r d e c r e a s e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e p a n e l w a s o r i g i n a l l y a t a b e r n a c l e . A c c o u n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e p a n e l ' s o r i g i n a l l o c a t i o n a r e q u i t e c o n f u s e d . T h e o l d e s t a l l u s i o n t o i t i s c o n t a i n e d i n a n i n s c r i p t i o n f r o m 1614 l o c a t e d o n t h e f r o n t o f t h e M a i n a r d i a l t a r , o v e r w h i c h t h e p a n e l i s s t i l l l o c a t e d . T h e i n s c r i p t i o n t e l l s how a member o f t h e M a i n a r d i f a m i l y i n d i c a t e d i n h i s w i l l t h a t t h i s new a l t a r s h o u l d be b u i l t i n p l a c e o f t h e p r e v i o u s M a i n a r d i o n e , a n d t h a t o n l y t h e a n c i e n t a n d v e n e r a t e d i m a g e o f S t . F r a n c i s s h o u l d b e r e t a i n -e d . T h e M a i n a r d i a l t a r w a s a t t h a t t i m e t h e f i r s t a l t a r o n t h e r i g h t o f t h e n a v e , we a r e i n f o r m e d by a n o t h e r s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y s o u r c e . [ S e e G a r r i s o n ] I t w a s m o v e d t o i t s p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n b e t w e e n 1715 a n d 1720 [ G a r r i s o n ] . T h e p a i n t i n g b e i n g r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e i n s c r i p t i o n i s d e f i n i t e l y t h e B e r l i n g h i e r i p a n e l , f o r a s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y c h r o n i c l e r w r i t i n g s o o n a f t e r w a r d s c i t e s t h e d a t e a n d s i g n a t u r e o f t h e F r a n c i s p a n e l o n t h e M a i n a r d i a l t a r . [ G a r r i s o n ] B u t e x a c t l y how l o n g i t h a d b e e n i n t h e c h u r c h a t P e s c i a b e f o r e 161*4 i s a n o t h e r p r o b l e m . A w e l 1 - p r o p a g a t e d l e g e n d , q u o t e d b y M a t t e o A n s a l d i , B u g h e t t i , a n d S i n i b a l d i a n d B r u n e t t i i s t h a t t h e p a n e l w a s o b t a i n e d by a n c e s t o r s o f M a t t e o M a i n a r d i i n F l o r e n c e , a n d t h a t M a t t e o g a v e i t t o t h e c h u r c h i n 1494- G a r r i s o n t r a c e s b a c k t h i s l e g e n d a n d f i n d s i t t o h a v e o r i g i n a t e d i n A n z i l o t t i ' s w r i t i n g o f 1846, i n w h i c h n o s o u r c e i s c i t e d , a n d h e n c e s e e n a s p r o b a b l e f i c t i o n by G a r r i s o n . B o t h B u g h e t t i a n d S i n i b a l d i - B r u n e t t i f i n d t h e 1494 d a t e s u s p i c i o u s b e c a u s e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e M a i n a r d i h a d r e p o r t e d l y h a d a n a l t a r i n S a n F r a n -c e s c o s i n c e 1295> s o t h a t t h e p a n e l w o u l d m o r e l o g i c a l l y h a v e b e e n o b t a i n e d a t t h a t t i m e . S i n i b a l d i a n d B r u n e t t i f i n d f u r t h e r s t r e n g t h f o r t h i s o b j e c t i o n i n t h e i r e r r o n e o u s b e l i e f t h a t t h e M a i n a r d i a l t a r h a d s t o o d i n i t s p r e s e n t l o c a -t i o n , t h i r d o n t h e r i g h t , s i n c e 1295- B u t t h e 1295 d a t e i t s e l f , p r o p a g a t e d by A n s a l d i , B u g h e t t i , a n d S i n i b a I d i - B r u n e t t i , i s a p i e c e o f m i s i n f o r m a t i o n , a s G a r r i s o n d e m o n s t r a t e s . T h e 1295 f i g u r e w a s f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d by G i u s e p p e s A n s a l d i i n 1879- S i n c e i t a p p e a r s i n n o e a r l i e r s o u r c e , G a r r i s o n a s s u m e s t h a t i t i s a m i s r e a d i n g o f t h e d a t e 1235 w h i c h a p p e a r s i n a n i m p o r t a n t , b u t g e n e -r a l l y i g n o r e d d o c u m e n t b y L u c a s W a d d i n g , a F r a n c i s c a n a n n a l i s t w r i t i n g i n 1625. W a d d i n g r e c o r d s t h a t t h e M a i n a r d i f a m i l y e r e c t e d a n a l t a r i n S a n F r a n c e s c o i n 145 t h e y e a r 1235- T r u s t i n g t h a t W a d d i n g h a d a c c e s s t o r e l i a b l e d o c u m e n t s , G a r r i s o n c o n j e c t u r e s t h a t t h e B e r l i n g h i e r i p a n e l w a s c o m m i s s i o n e d a l o n g w i t h t h e M a i n a r d i a l t a r i n 1235» a n d t h u s t h e p a i n t i n g h a s a l w a y s b e e n i n S a n F r a n c e s c o , P e s c i a . G a r r i s o n , h o w e v e r , i s a l s o a w a r e o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t W a d d i n g o b t a i n e d h i s 1235 d a t e f r o m t h e p a n e l i t s e l f , a n d n o t f r o m a n h i s t o r i -c a l r e c o r d . H a g e r a c c e p t s G a r r i s o n ' s h y p o t h e s i s a s b e i n g c o r r e c t , a n d s e e s G a r r i s o n ' s h e s i t a t i o n a s b e i n g u n n e c e s s a r y , p r e f e r r i n g t o t h i n k t h a t W a d d i n g h a d a c c e s s t o n o w - g o n e e v i d e n c e . T h e p r o b l e m G a r r i s o n s u g g e s t s , h o w e v e r , m u s t b e s e e n a s a s u b s t a n t i a l o n e i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y p r e - s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y d o c u m e n t a t i o n , s o t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e S t . F r a n c i s p a n e l i n t h e P e s c i a c h u r c h s i n c e 1235 c a n by n o m e a n s b e a c c e p t e d a s a p r o v e n f a c t . T h i s p a n e l i s t h e o n l y s i g n e d e x t a n t w o r k b y t h e L u c c h e s e a r t i s t B o n a v e n t u r a B e r l i n g h i e r i . I t w a s d i s c o v e r e d i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . T h e a c c o u n t o f t h i s r z e - e x p o s u r e i s r e l a t e d by M i c h e l e R i d o l f i , w h o w a s a r t d i r e c t o r f o r t h e d u c h y o f L u c c a a t t h a t t i m e . In 162*» a p a i n t i n g o n c a n v a s by A l e s s a n d r o B a r d e l l i d a U z z a n o w a s p l a c e d o v e r t h e B e r l i n g h i e r i p a n e l , s o t h a t o n l y t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e o f S t . F r a n c i s w a s e x p o s e d t h r o u g h a n o p e n i n g i n t h e c e n t r e o f t h e c a n v a s [ G a r r i s o n ] . A s t h i s a p p a r e n t l y c o v e r e d t h e s i g n a t u r e b u t l e f t l e g i b l e t h e o r i g i n a l d a t e , t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e a r t i s t o f t h e S t . F r a n c i s w a s s o o n f o r g o t t e n , a n d t h e w o r k w a s g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d t o a s a p a i n t i n g by M a r g a r i t o n e d ' A r e z z o f r o m 1235- In t h e 18^0 ' s G a e t a n o Mi l a n e s i a n d G i o v a n n i P i n i o f t h e F l o r e n t i n e A c c a d e m i a a n d G a l l e r i a r e s p e c t i v e l y , w e r e i n v e s t i g a t i n g w o r k s o f a r t t h r o u g h o u t T u s c a n y i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r a new s e d i t i o n o f V a s a r i ' s L i v e s , a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h e h i d d e n s c e n e s a n d s i g n a t u r e o n t h e P e s c i a p a n e l . T h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p a n e l w a s t h e n t u r n e d o v e r t o R i d o l f i , who h a d t h e s e v e n -t e e n t h c e n t u r y c a n v a s r e m o v e d , a n d a d r a w i n g made o f t h e F r a n c i s p a i n t i n g . I t i s n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e c a n v a s w a s p e r m a n e n t l y r e m o v e d a t t h a t t i m e , f o r B u g h e t t i r e p o r t s t h a t B i a g i s t i l l s p e a k s o f t h e c l o t h c o v e r i n g i n 1901, 146 b u t G a r r i s o n q u i t e r i g h t l y s e e s t h i s a s a m i s r e a d i n g o f B i a g i , a n d s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e c a n v a s w a s n o t r e p l a c e d o v e r t h e p a n e l a f t e r R i d o l f i ' s i n i t i a l r e m o v a l o f i t . S i n i b a l d i a n d B r u n e t t i r e p r o d u c e B u g h e t t i ' s v i e w o n t h i s m a t t e r . B a r d e l l i ' s c a n v a s w a s a t a n y r a t e i n a new l o c a t i o n by 1911, b e h i n d t h e h i g h a l t a r . [ A n s a l d i ] A s l a t e a s 1908 t h e r e w a s c o n f u s i o n o v e r B a r d e l l i ' s r o l e i n t h e p a i n t i n g , w h e n L a z z a r e s c h i c l a i m e d t h a t t h e s i d e s c e n e s o f t h e S t . F r a n c i s p a n e l w e r e b y A l e s s a n d r o B a r d e l 1 i , who he t h o u g h t w a s p e r h a p s t h e r e s t o r e r o f t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e . B u g h e t t i d i s p u t e s t h i s v i e w , n o t r e a l i z i n g t h a t L a z z a r e s c h i , w h o h a d n e v e r s e e n t h e a c t u a l p a i n t i n g , w a s c o n f u s i n g t h e c a n v a s p a i n t i n g w i t h t h e s i d e s c e n e s . P i s a 11 P i s a , S a n F r a n c e s c o , A g o s t i n i C h a p e l [ f i r s t c h a p e l l e f t o f c a p p e l l a m a g g i o r e ] t e m p e r a o n w o o d , a g a b l e d d o s s a l , t r u n c a t e d a t t h e t o p h e i g h t : 1.63 m. , w i d t h : 1.29 m- [ G a r r i s o n ] s i x s i d e s c e n e s : l e f t [ t o p t o b o t t o m ] : h e a l i n g t h e d e f o r m e d g i r l , h e a l i n g t h e p u n i s h e d d a u g h t e r , h e a l i n g t h e n o b l e w o m a n r i g h t [ t o p t o b o t t o m ] : h e a l i n g t h e l a m e m a n , h e a 1 i n g B a r t o l o m e o d a N a r n i , h e a l i n g t h e p o s s e s s e d O n l y m i n o r r e s t o r a t i o n s h a v e b e e n c a r r i e d o u t o n t h e p a n e l . S a l m i s t a t e s t h a t i t u n d e r w e n t e i t h e r a c l e a n i n g o r a r a i s i n g o f i t s c o l o u r s i n t h e l a t e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . A l a r g e a r e a a t t h e u p p e r l e f t h a s b e e n b a d l y d a m a g e d a n d f i l l e d i n . T h r e e h o r i z o n t a l c r a c k s r u n t h e w i d t h o f t h e p a n e l a t t h e j o i n t s o f t h e b a c k s u p p o r t i n g p l a n k s . T h e o r i g i n a l f r a m e i s m i s s i n g . A c u s p e d f r a m e a d d e d i n 1910 [ S a l m i ] w a s l a t e r r e m o v e d . T h e p o i n t o f t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e ' s h o o d , w h i c h o r i g i n a l l y e x t e n d e d t o t h e r i g h t , h a s b e e n c o v e r e d o v e r by a n e w e r g o l d h a l o [ B u g h e t t i ] . T h e e a r l i e s t r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s w o r k i s b y V a s a r i , w h o , i n h i s a c c o u n t o f t h e l i f e o f C i m a b u e , r e c o r d s : 147 ... S. F r a n c e s c o d i P i s a , l o r o c o n v e n t o , a f a r e i n una t a v o l a un S. F r a n c e s c o che f u da q u e ' p o p o l i t e n u t o c o s a r a r i s s i m a , c o n o s c e n d o s i i n e s s o un c e r t o que p i u d i b o n t a , e n e l l ' a r i a d e l l a t e s t a e n e l l e p i e g h e d e ' p a n n i , che n e l l a m a n i era g r e c a nonera s t a t a u s a t a i n f i n ' a l l o r a da c h i aveva a l c u n a cosa l a v o r a t o , non pur i n P i s a , ma i n t u t t a I t a l i a . A l t h o u g h V a s a r i ' s a t t r i b u t i o n t o Cimabue may be d i s m i s s e d as l e g e n d a r y , h i s r e f e r e n c e does a l l o w t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e panel he speaks o f i s indeed t h e one found i n t h e same c h u r c h t o d a y . S i n i b a l d i and B r u n e t t i , however, o b j e c t t h a t i t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t Cimabue a c t u a l l y d i d have a S t . F r a n c i s panel i n t h e c h u r c h , w h i c h i s today l o s t . But t h e f a c t t h a t a S t . F r a n c i s p a i n t i n g i n San F r a n c e s c o , P i s a i s r e f e r r e d t o c o n t i n u o u s l y from V a s a r i ' s t i m e on would seem t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the p r e s e n t panel w i t h t h a t mentioned by V a s a r i . S e v e r a l o t h e r s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y s o u r c e s [11 L i b r o d ' A n t o n i o B i l l i , M a g i i a b e c h i a n o , Gel 1 i ] r e f e r t o a p a i n t i n g o f S t . F r a n c i s i n t h e P i s a c h u r c h , and g i v e i t the t r a d i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n t o Cimabue. R e f e r e n c e t o t h e panel i s found i n t h e P i s a c o n v e n t ' s d i a r y , under March 7, 1631, where i t i s r e c o r d e d t h a t t h e p a i n t i n g was c a r r i e d t h r o u g h t h e c i t y i n a p r o c e s s i o n d u r i n g an e p i d e m i c . [ S i n i b a l d i and B r u n e t t i ] In t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , T i t i r e c o r d s t h e panel as b e i n g on t h e a l t a r o f t h e S e t a c h a p e l , near t h e S a c r i s t y , but c o v e r e d o v e r e x c e p t f o r the c e n t r a l f i g u r e by a s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y work by P a u l i g n a n i . T i t i a l s o r e p o r t s t h a t t h e o l d e r panel i s s a i d t o be by Cimabue. The f a c t t h a t the S t . F r a n c i s p a i n t i n g was c o v e r e d by a n o t h e r had been mentioned as e a r l y as 1728 by M a r i o t t i n i , who more s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t F r a n c i s was v i s i b l e o n l y from t h e bust up. In 1859 t h e panel was removed from t h e c h u r c h o f San F r a n c e s c o and p r o g r e s s i v e l y t r a n s p o r t e d t o numerous p l a c e s u n t i l b e i n g r e t u r n e d t o San F r a n c e s c o a t some p o i n t between 1878 and 1910, a f t e r w h i c h i t was p l a c e d on t h e a l t a r o f t h e A g o s t i n i c h a p e l , f r e e o f i t s p r e v i o u s c o v e r i n g , where i t i s seen t o d a y . The l a s t w r i t e r t o a c c e p t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n t o Cimabue was 148 Lanzi in 1809- Da Morrona suggested Giunta Pisano in 1793. and was agreed with by S e r r i . Crowe and Cava lcase l le a t t r i bu te the work to Margaritone d 'A rezzo , as does Wackernagel. S iren i d e n t i f i e s the a r t i s t as Ugolino di Tedice . Of those wr i ters who put no name to the a r t i s t , but ident i f y him with other works, Vitzhum and Volbach see the same a r t i s t as being responsib le for the St. Francis panel and the C r u c i f i x of San P i e r i no , as d id S i r en , but do not accept the author as Ugol io . Toesca thinks the panel to be by the same a r t i s t as the Rome and Ass i s i St. Francis pa in t ings . And Sandberg-Vavala a t t r i bu tes the pa int ing to the same master who executed the Parizano a l t a rp i ece and the Madonna and Chi ld in the Ryerson C o l l e c t i o n , Chicago. ,Garrisoni and S in i -baldii-Bruriettl maintain an Unknown Riiisan ai5tiiis>t who had displayed a ce r ta in s t y l i s t i c r e l a t i onsh ip to the works of Giunta Pisano. The matter of the pa in t i ng ' s date can be f ixed somewhat more s p e c i f i c a l l y . By showing that some of the pane l ' s scenes are based on events descr ibed only in Thomas of Celano's Tractatus de M i racu l i s of 1250, Bughetti notes that the work must date from a f te r the middle of the century. This internal evidence has been accepted as conc lus ive by D'Ancona, Garrison and Oertel . Hager s t i l l dates the panel 1240-1250. If s t y l i s t i c a f f i n i t i e s with Giunta Pisano [act ive in the second quarter of the Duecento] are maintained, however, i t is reasona-ble to place the St. Francis panel r e l a t i v e l y c lose to mid-century, that i s , between 1250 and 1260. P i s to i a III P i s t o i a , Museo C i v i co tempera on wood, a gabled dossal he ight : 1.62 m., width: 1.36 m. [Garrison] e ight side scenes: l e f t [top to bottom]: approbation of the Rule, Francis preaching, heal ing the deformed g i r l , heal ing the lame man r ight [top to bottom]: S t igmat iza t ion , funeral of F ranc i s , heal ing Bartolomeo da Narn i , heal ing the possessed 149 T h e p a n e l i s i n a p o o r s t a t e o f p r e s e r v a t i o n . E x t e n s i v e r e s t o r a t i o n w a s c a r r i e d o u t i n 1612. A t t h e b a s e o f t h e p a n e l i t i s r e c o r d e d t h a t : R e s t a u r a t o a d i XX d i d i c e m b r e a n n o M D C X I I . A t t h i s t i m e t h e h a b i t o f t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e w a s r e p a i n t e d , t h e s c e n e s w e r e e x t e n s i v e l y r e t o u c h e d t h r o u g h o u t , t h e g o l d w a s r e n e w e d , a n d a . n e w i n t e r n a l d e c o r a t i v e b o r d e r w a s p a i n t e d i n . T h e o u t e r b o r d e r o f t h e f r a m e a p p e a r s t o b e t h e o r i g i n a l o n e , h o w e v e r . T h e p a n e l i s a l s o e x t r e m e l y d i r t y t o d a y . An u p p e r a d d i t i o n w h i c h t u r n e d t h e p a n e l i n t o a r e c t a n g l e , w a s a l s o a d d e d , b u t l a t e r r e m o v e d . [ B u g h e t t i ] T h e p a n e l w a s o b t a i n e d b y t h e museum i n 1915; b e f o r e t h i s i t w a s l o c a t e d i n t h e c h u r c h o f S a n F r a n c e s c o , P i s t o i a , o n t h e a l t a r o f t h e B r a c c i o l i n i C h a p e l , t h e f i r s t c h a p e l t o t h e r i g h t o f t h e m a i n a l t a r . I t w a s o n t h e a l t a r u n t i l t h e e n d o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a t w h i c h t i m e i t w a s m o v e d t o t h e S a c r i s t y o f t h e same c h u r c h u n t i l b e i n g t a k e n o v e r by t h e M u s e o C i v i c o . [ L a z z a r e s c h i , B u g h e t t i ] T h e p a n e l ' s p r e s e n c e i n t h e c h u r c h o f S a n F r a n c e s c o c a n be t r a c e d b a c k w i t h c e r t a i n t y o n l y t o t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , w h e n i t i s m e n t i o n e d i n a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c h u r c h . [ B u g h e t t i ] I t w a s a t t h a t t i m e l o c a t e d i n s i d e a t a b e r n a c l e a n d f l a n k e d b y p a i n t i n g s o f S t s . C l a r e a n d E l i z a b e t h . No e a r l i e r s o u r c e s w h i c h r e f e r t o t h e p a i n t i n g h a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d , s o t h a t i t i s i m p o s s i -b l e t o c o n j e c t u r e w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e p a n e l w a s d e s i g n e d f o r t h i s c h u r c h . H o w e v e r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p e r m a n e n t b u i l d i n g o f S a n F r a n c e s c o , P i s t o i a w a s n o t b e g u n u n t i l 129*+ w o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t i t w a s n o t . T h e d a t e a n d o r i g i n o f t h i s p a n e l a r e d i f f i c u l t t o a s c e r t a i n , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e t h e o r i g i n a l s t y l e i s h a r d t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e n e a t h t h e e x t e n s i v e r e s t o -r a t i o n . F o r i c o n o g r a p h i e r e a s o n s , h o w e v e r , i t c a n b e p l a c e d b e t w e e n t h e P i s a p a n e l a n d t h a t o f S a n t a C r o c e , F l o r e n c e . I t c a n t h e r e f o r e be d a t e d a p p r o x i -m a t e l y i n t h e t h i r d q u a r t e r o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . V e n t u r i d a t e s i t b e t w e e n t h e A s s i s i a n d S a n t a C r o c e p a n e l s . L a z z a r e s c h i e r r s i n s e e i n g t h i s 150 p a n e l a s b e i n g d e p e n d a n t o n t h e F l o r e n c e o n e . S a n d b e r g - V a v a l a r e m a r k s t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p a n e l i s t o o p o o r t o a t t r i b u t e i t t o a p a r t i c u l a r a r t i s t o r w o r k s h o p , b u t s e e s i t m o r e g e n e r a l l y a s by a f o l l o w e r o f B o n a v e n t u r a B e r l i n g h i e r i . G a r r i s o n p i n p o i n t s t h e d a t e t o 1265-1275 [ w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n ] , a n d a s s i g n s t h e w o r k t o a T u s c a n a r t i s t r e l a t e d t o M e l i o r e . H a g e r r e p e a t s G a r r i s o n ' s d a t e s . Some c o n f u s i o n r e s u l t e d f r o m C a v a 1 e a s e l 1 e 1 s a t t r i b u t i o n o f t h i s p a i n t i n g t o L i p p o M e m m i , a n e r r o r w h i c h r e s u l t e d f r o m a n i n d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e S t . F r a n c i s p a n e l a n d a l a t e r o n e i n t h e c a p e l l a m a g g i o r e . [ B u g h e t t i ] A s e c o n d f a l s e a t t r i b u t i o n w a s C h i t i ' s c l a i m [1910] t h a t t h e p a i n t e r w a s F r a n c e s c o D e s i d e r i , w h o w a s t h e a r t i s t o f t h e p a i n t i n g s w h i c h o n c e f l a n k e d t h e S t . F r a n c i s p a n e l . [ B u g h e t t i ] F l o r e n c e IV F l o r e n c e , S a n t a C r o c e , B a r d i C h a p e l t e m p e r a o n w o o d , a g a b l e d d o s s a l h e i g h t : 2.34 m - , w i d t h : 1.27 m. [ G a r r i s o n ] t w e n t y s i d e s c e n e s : l e f t [ t o p t o b o t t o m ] : F r a n c i s r e l e a s e d b y h i s m o t h e r , h i s r e n u n c i a t i o n o f w o r l d l y g o o d s , t h e c r o s s - s h a p e d t u n i c , a t t h e P o r z i u n c o l a , t h e a p p r o b a -t i o n o f t h e R u l e , t h e p r e s e p i o a t G r e c c i o . , t h e s e r m o n t o t h e b i r d s , p r e a c h i n g b e f o r e t h e S u l t a n b a s e [ u p p e r l e f t t o u p p e r r i g h t ] : t h e s h e e p a m o n g g o a t s , s a v i n g t w o s h e e p , S t i g m a t i z a t i o n , F r a n c i s d o i n g p e n a n c e r i g h t [ b o t t o m t o t o p ] : t h e a p p a r i t i o n a t A r i e s , F r a n c i s among t h e l e p e r s , t h e f u n e r a l o f F r a n c i s , h e a l i n g t h e d e f o r m e d g i r l a n d t h e p o s s e s s e d , t h e c a n o n i z a t i o n , s a v i n g t h e s h i p w r e c k e d , b e i n g p a i d t r i b u t e , h e a l i n g B a r t o l o m e o d a N a r n i T h e p a n e l r e m a i n s e s s e n t i a l l y i n i t s o r i g i n a l s t a t e , w i t h o u t a n y r e t o u -c h i n g s e x c e p t f o r t h e f i l l i n g i n o f t w o c r a c k s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e p a n e l o n e i t h e r s i d e o f t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e , a n d a f e w p a t c h e s w i t h i n t h e s c e n e s . I t w a s c l e a n e d i n 1953, a t h i c k l a y e r o f v a r n i s h a n d d i r t b e i n g r e m o v e d . [ B a l d i n i ] A l t h o u g h p a r t i a l l y h i t by t h e A r n o f l o o d o f 1967, t h e p a i n t i n g s u f f e r e d n o d a m a g e f r o m i t . [ B a l d i n i ] T h e o r i g i n a l f r a m e o f t h e p a n e l i s m i s s i n g , a n d new b a c k i n g h a s b e e n a d d e d . _ 151 T h i s p a i n t i n g i s a l s o m e n t i o n e d b y V a s a r i i n 1 5 6 8 . C i t i n g C i m a b u e ' s w o r k s i n S a n t a C r o c e , V a s a r i s a y s : f e c e i n u n a t a v o l a i n c a m p o d ' o r o un S . F r a n c e s c o , e l o r a t r a s s e , i l c h e f u c o s a n u o v a i n q u e ' t e m p i , d i n a t u r a l e , c o m e s e p p e i l m e g l i o , e t i n t o r n o a e s s o t u t t e l ' i s t o i r e d e l l a v i t a s u a i n v e n t i q u a d r e t t i p i e n e d i f i g u r e p i c c i o l e i n c a m p o d ' o r o . A l t h o u g h V a s a r i ' s a t t r i b u t i o n c a n n o t be t a k e n s e r i o u s l y , n o r c a n h i s c l a i m t h a t t h e p o r t r a i t w a s d o n e f r o m l i f e , t h e r e c a n be n o d o u b t t h a t t h e p a n e l he d e s c r i b e s i s t h e s a m e o n e t h a t i s s t i l l i n S a n t a C r o c e . M o r e o v e r , s e v e r a l o t h e r d o c u m e n t s a r e a v a i l a b l e w h i c h e n a b l e t h e p a i n t i n g ' s l o c a t i o n t h e r e t o b e t r a c e d b a c k e v e n f u r t h e r . I t i s r e c o r d e d i n t h e " S e p u l t a r i o " o f S a n t a C r o c e t h a t i n 1595 t h e p a n e l w a s t r a n s f e r r e d , w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e c e r e m o n y , t o t h e B a r d i C h a p e l f r o m i t s p r e v i o u s l o c a t i o n o n t h e c o l u m n o f t h e T e d a l d i f a m i l y [ w h i c h w a s t h e f o u r t h c o l u m n o n t h e l e f t n a v e f r o m t h e t r a n s e p t ] . [ B u g h e t t i ] T h i s t r a n s f e r e n c e w a s a p p a r e n t l y i n k e e p i n g w i t h a r e q u e s t made b y B a r t o l o T e d a l d i i n h i s w i l l ; h e w i s h e d a n a l t a r t o S t . F r a n c i s t o b e e r e c t e d a t t h e f a m i l y c o l u m n , b u t s i n c e t h i s w o u l d d i s r u p t t h e l a y - o u t o f t h e c h u r c h , h i s d e s c e n d a n t s c o m p r o m i s e d b y p l a c i n g t h e p a i n t i n g , b e l i e v e d t o be by C i m a b u e , i n t h e B a r d i C h a p e l w h i c h w a s a l r e a d y d e d i c a t e d t o t h e S a i n t . [ S i n a b a l d i a n d B r u n e t t i ] A s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y d o c u m e n t r e c o r d s , s o m e w h a t l e s s r e l i a b l y t h e e a r l i e r h i s t o r y o f t h e p a n e l . [ B o r i ] Th i s . ; d o c u m e n t , d a t e d 1 6 2 4 , s t a t e s t h a t t h e w i l l o f t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d B a r t o l o T e d a l d i h a d b e e n d r a w n up i n t h e y e a r 1 4 7 1 . T h e p a n e l w a s t h e r e f o r e i n S a n t a C r o c e p r i o r t o t h a t d a t e , a l t h o u g h B a r t o l o ' s r e q u e s t w i t h r e g a r d t o i t s p l a c e m e n t w a s n o t r e a l i z e d , u n t i l o v e r a c e n t u r y l a t e r . T h e s a m e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y w r i t e r a l s o r e c o r d s a l e g e n d a s t o t h e p a i n t i n g ' s o r i g i n ; i t w a s r e p o r t e d l y c o m m i s s i o n e d by o n e e a r l i e r B a r t o l o T e d a l d i , who w a s a n a r d e n t a d m i r e r o f S t . F r a n c i s , He l i v e d i n s i d e a w o o d e n b o x f r o m w h i c h h e o r d e r e d t h e p a n e l t o b e p a i n t e d . T h u s t h i s 152 l e g e n d u p h o l d s t h e i d e a t h a t t h e S t . F r a n c i s p a n e l w a s f r o m i t s o r i g i n i n t e n -d e d f o r t h e T e d a l d i , a n d p r e s u m a b l y f o r t h e i r d e v o t i o n a l s p o t i n S a n t a C r o c e . T h e t r u t h o f t h i s c a n n o t b e p r o v e n , b u t t h e e a r l y f o u n d i n g o f t h e F r a n c i s c a n c h u r c h i n F l o r e n c e c e r t a i n l y a l l o w s f o r i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . A l a r g e n u m b e r o f a u t h o r s h a v e b e e n s u g g e s t e d f o r t h i s p a i n t i n g . U n t i l t h e m i d d l e o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y V a s a r i ' s a t t r i b u t i o n t o C i m a b u e w a s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d . [ S e e S i n i b a l d i a n d B r u n e t t i ] C a v a l c a s e l l e a n d T h o d e s u g g e s t e d M a r g a r i t o n e d ' A r e z z o . V e n t u r i , L a z z a r e s c h i , a n d W a c k e r n a g e l named n o a r t i s t b u t s t r e s s e d h i s B y z a n t i n e b a c k g r o u n d . T h e m o s t p r o m i n e n t r e c e n t t e n d e n c y h a s b e e n t o i d e n t i f y t h e a u t h o r o f t h i s p a i n t i n g w i t h t h e a r t i s t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a g r o u p o f p a i n t i n g s f i r s t d e f i n e d b y S i r e n a n d a t t r i b u t e d b y h i m t o B a r o n e B e r l i n g h i e r i , b r o t h e r o f B o n a v e n t u r a . T h e g r o u p o f r e l a t e d p a i n t a i n g s h a s b e e n v a r i o u s l y r e a r r a n g e d t o s u i t t h e s t y l i s t i c j u d g e m e n t s o f s e v e r a l w r i t e r s , [ V i t z h u m a n d U d b a c h , T o e s c a , S a n d b e r g - V a v a l a , S a l m i ] b u t t h e a t t r i b u t i o n t o B a r o n e B e n l j i n g h i e r i h a s b e e n r e j e c t e d . C a s e s h a v e b e e n made f o r b o t h a L u c c h e s e a n d F l o r e n t i n e o r i g i n o f t h e a r t i s t , w h i l e S a l m i h a s a c c o u n t e d f o r t h e p r e s e n c e o f b o t h s t y l e s i n t h e w o r k by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e a r t i s t w a s L u c c h e s e , b u t h a d w o r k e d i n F l o r e n c e a n d w a s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e B a p t i s t e r y m o s a i c s t h e r e . In many o f i t s s t y l i s t i c f o r m u l a e t h e p a i n t i n g b e a r s a c e r t a i n r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h e L u c c h e s e - B e r 1 i n g h i e r i s c h o o l , b u t t h a t w h i c h i s d i s t i n c t l y F l o r e n t i n e a t t h i s d a t e i s t h e t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s a n i n c r e a s e d a t t e m p t a t s u g g e s t i n g v o l u m e , s e e n i n t h e S a n t a C r o c e p a n e l i n t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n o f t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e ' s l e g s b e n e a t h h i s h a b i t . [ S a l m i , S a n d b e r g - V a v a l a ] T h e p a n e l i s g e n e r a l l y a s s i g n e d now t o t h e a n o n y m o u s " B a r d i S t . F r a n c i s M a s t e r " . In d a t i n g t h e p a n e l , a " t e r m i n u s p o s t quern" w a s e s t a b l i s h e d by B u g h e t t i f o r i c o n o g r a p h i c r e a s o n s . T h e d e p e n d e n c e o f some o f t h e s c e n e s o n S t . B o n a v e n t u r a ' s L e g g e n d a M a i o r o f 1263 p l a c e s t h e p a i n t i n g a f t e r t h i s d a t e . 153 G a r r i s o n , Hager, B a l d i n i , and Borsook, however, d a t e the panel between 1250 and 1260. Siena V S i e n a , P i n a c o t e c a , number 313 tempera on wood, a g a b l e d d o s s a l h e i g h t : 2.32 m. , w i d t h : 1.13 m- [ G a r r i s o n ] e i g h t s i d e s c e n e s : l e f t [bottom t o t o p ] : the r e n u n c i a t i o n o f w o r l d l y goods, the c r u c i f i x o f San Damiano, t h e dream o f Innocent I I , the sermon t o the b i r d s r i g h t [ top t o b o t t o m ] : the c h a r i o t o f f i r e , t h e S t i g m a t i z a t i o n , t h e p r e s e p i o a t G r e c c i o , t h e f u n e r a l o f F r a n c i s The panel has undergone c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s t o r a t i o n . I t was c l e a n e d and r e s t o r e d i n 1931 but was s t i l l r e t o u c h e d beyond r e c o g n i t i o n i n 1949. [ G a r r i s o n ] S e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y a d d i t i o n s such as cusped d e c o r a t i o n o f t h e a r c h e s , t h e r a y s emanating from t h e wounds o f t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e , and the book h e l d by t h e redeemer f i g u r e were removed w i t h t h i s r e s t o r a t i o n . In 1969 t h e c o l o u r s were renewed and a l l o t h e r r e t o u c h i n g s were removed. T h i s l e f t nume-rous b l a n k a r e a s which were r e s t o r e d t o be r e c o g n i z a b l y n o n - o r i g i n a l . The o r i g i n a l frame was a l s o uncovered i n 1969- [Donato] The p a n e l has s u f f e r e d some c r a c k i n g a t t h e j o i n t s o f t h e b a c k i n g p l a n k s . The panel was p r e v i o u s l y l o c a t e d i n t h e c h u r c h o f San F r a n c e s c o i n C o l l e Val d 1 " E l s a , from w h i c h i t was a c q u i r e d by t h e S i e n a g a l l e r y i n 1866. [ B u g h e t t i ] No e a r l i e r r e f e r e n c e s t o i t have been d i s c o v e r e d . It i s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d t h a t the a r t i s t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s panel was a l a t e f o l l o w e r o f Guido da S i e n a . [Mi sc i a t e l 1 i and L u s i n i , B u g h e t t i , G a r r i s o n , S a n d b e r g - V a v a l a , S t u b b l e b i n e ] . Much o f t h e a r c h i t e c t u r e and the c e n t r a l f i g u r e r e f l e c t Guidesque f o r m u l a e , [ S t u b b l e b i n e ] and t h e S t i g m a t i z a t i o n scene i s m o d e l l e d a f t e r the unique i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s scene found i n a n o t h e r work which i s e x t r e m e l y c l o s e t o , i f not a c t u a l l y by Guido. [ S i e n a P i n a c o t e c a Number k] But the v e r t i c a l i t y o f t h e p a n e l ' s p r o p o r t i o n s p l a c e i t 154 f a i r l y late in the Duecento [Hager], as does the rather ref ined model l ing. [Stubblebine] Gar r i son , Sandberg-Vavala, and Hager date the panel 1290-1300. Stubblebine places i t in the f i r s t decade of the fourteenth century. A s s i s i VI A s s i s i , San Francesco, Museo present ly in Rome, I s t i tu to Centrale del Restauro tempera on wood, a hor izonta l rectangular dossal he ight : 0.96 rn. , width: 1.375 m. [Garrison] four s ide scenes: l e f t [top to bottom]: heal ing the deformed g i r l , heal ing Bartolomeo da Narn i r ight [top to bottom]: heal ing the possessed, heal ing the lame man Small areas of the scenes have been damaged and repainted. The panel is present ly being cleaned ex tens i ve l y . The inner frame appears to be o r i g i n a l but a second newer frame has been added around i t . Venturi f i r s t suggested that th i s panel o r i g i n a l l y served as an a l t a r f ronta l in San Francesco, A s s i s i . Lazzareschi and Siren agreed with him, but Siren points out that i t s dimensions are too small for i t to have been on the high a l t a r over the Sa in t ' s grave. He suggests an o r i g i na l locat ion on a smaller s ide a l t a r in the southern transept of the Upper Church;, although he presents no reasons for favouring th i s s i t e . F ra t in i , however, is convinced that the panel decorated one s ide of F ranc i s ' tomb-altar, and even suggests that the Rome St. Francis panel hung on the other s i de . Bughetti doubts that the As s i s i pa int ing was ever intended as a pa l i o t t o at a l l . This view is a l so shared by Garrison and Hager. The only piece of ear ly wr i t ten evidence which may refer to the A s s i s i panel is reproduced by Hager; a seventeenth century wr i t ing by Boverio descr ibes a panel of St. Francis located above an a l t a r jus t before the s t a i r s leading up to the Upper Church. Because th i s author s t resses the facts that the panel is very old and the f igure of St . Francis is qu i te conspicuous, Hager bel ieves him to be r e f e r r i ng to the pa int ing in 155 q u e s t i o n , a n d f u r t h e r s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e l o c a t i o n B o v e r i o d e s c r i b e s w a s t h e o r i g i n a l s i t e o f t h e p a n e l , s i n c e i t w a s c l o s e t o t h e t o m b - a l t a r . H a g e r s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e p a n e l w o u l d h a v e b e e n t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e S a c r i s t y when t h a t s i d e a l t a r [ n o ^ l o n g e r e x t a n t ] was r e m o v e d s o m e t i m e a f t e r t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y . S i n c e B o v e r i o d o e s n o t m e n t i o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f i g u r e o f S t . F r a n c i s i s s u r r o u n d e d b y f o u r s i d e s c e n e s , t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f h i s p a n e l w i t h t h e p r e s e n t o n e c a n n o t e v e n be f i r m l y a s s e r t e d . T h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e s a i n t i n t h e b a s i l i c a i s e x t r e m e l y h i g h , s i n c e t h e e n t i r e b u i l d i n g was d e d i c a t e d t o h i m a n d h o u s e d h i s t o m b . C a v a l c a s e l l e a n d S i r e n a t t r i b u t e t h e p a n e l t o G i u n t a P i s a n o , a n d t h u s r : t o t h e e a r l y t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . S i r e n s e e s t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n b e i n g i n c r e a s e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t G i u n t a p r o d u c e d a p a i n t e d C r u c i f i x f o r t h e U p p e r C h u r c h a t A s s i s i i n 1 2 3 6 . V e n t u r i a n d L a z z a r e s c h i a s s i g n t h e w o r k t o a B y z a n t i n e m a s t e r o f t h e s e c o n d h a l f o f t h e D u g e n t o . G a r r i s o n s u g g e s t s a n U m b r i a n , G i u n t e s q u e a r t i s t , a n d a d a t e o f 1 2 6 5 - 1 2 7 5 - H a g e r r e p e a t s t h i s d a t e . I c o n o g r a p h i c a l l y , t h e p a n e l c a n be f i r m l y p l a c e d a f t e r P e s c i a I a n d p r o b a b l y a f t e r P i s a I I . Rome VI I Rome , P i n a c o t e c a V a t i c a n a , n u m b e r 23 t e m p e r a o n w o o d , a h o r i z o n t a l r e c t a n g u l a r d o s s a l h e i g h t : 0 . 6 7 m . , w i d t h : 0 . 8 6 5 m. [ G a r r i s o n ] f o u r s i d e s c e n e s : l e f t [ t o p t o b o t t o m ] : h e a l i n g t h e d e f o r m e d g i r l , h e a l i n g B a r t o l o m e o d a N a r n i r i g h t [ t o p t o b o t t o m ] : h e a l i n g t h e p o s s e s s e d , h e a l i n g t h e l a m e man S i r e n , B u g h e t t i , a n d G a r r i s o n a l l p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e g o l d b a c k g r o u n d h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e l y r e s t o r e d . T h i s r e s t o r a t i o n c o v e r e d t h e p o i n t o f t h e h o o d o f t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e . [ B u g h e t t i ] A s B u g h e t t i a n d G a r r i s o n s u g g e s t , t h e s c e n e s h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r a b l y r e p a i n t e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e l o w e r r i g h t o n e . T h e d a t e 156 of these res torat ions is not recorded. The panel appears to have been cut s l i g h t l y at the edges and the frame has been removed e n t i r e l y . Because of th i s pane l ' s r e l a t i v e l y small s i z e , there is less debate as to whether or not i t may have served o r i g i n a l l y as a p a l i o t t o . S i r en , Gar r i son , and Hager a l l agree that i t was designed as a retabel , although Frant in i suggested that the As s i s i and Rome paint ings both o r i g i n a l l y served as f ron ta l s on F ranc i s ' tomb-altar, despi te the i r d i f f e rences in s i z e . There have been no other suggestions as to the pane l ' s o r i g i na l placement; i t has not been i den t i f i ed with any work mentioned in e a r l i e r sources. Because of th i s panel ' s s i m i l a r i t y to that of A s s i s i , Thode assigns them both to the same a r t i s t . S i r en , however, observes the two paint ings are s t y l i s t i c a l l y qui te d i f f e r e n t . The s i m i l a r i t y in format leads Bughetti to conclude that the Rome p ic ture was executed e i ther immediately before or immediately a f te r the As s i s i one. Garr ison and Hager assign it to the fourth quarter of the th i r teenth century. S iren holds that i t cannot be dated before the end of the century on the basis of technica l grounds which he does not exp l a in . Facchnetti a t t r ibu tes the panel to Margaritone d 'Arezzo . Garr ison suggests a north Umbrian o r i g i n . San Miniato al Tedesco VIII formerly in San Miniato al Tedesco, San Francesco now l o s t , but recorded in an engraving by Boverio tempera on wood, a gabled dossal s i x s ide scenes: l e f t [top to bottom]: the S t igmat iza t ion , heal ing the deformed g i r l , heal ing the lame boy [?] r ight [top to bottom]: the sermon to the b i r d s , heal ing the possessed, heal ing Bartolomeo da Narni On the upper part of the engraved pa int ing Boverio has wr i t ten the name of the church in which i t was located, and at the base is the date 1 2 2 8 . As 157 B u g h e t t i p o i n t s o u t , t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y o f t h i s d a t e i s e x t r e m e l y d u b i o u s , f o r B o v e r i o d o e s n o t r e p r e s e n t i t i n Roman n u m e r a l s , i n w h i c h a t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y d a t e w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n . I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t B o v e r i o w o u l d h a v e t r a n s p o s e d t h e n u m e r a l s , f o r i n c o p y i n g t h e P e s c i a a l t a r p i e c e he h a s f a i t h f u l l y r e p r o d u c e d t h e A . D . M . C . C . X . X . X . V . T h u s t h e 1228 h a s e v e r y i n d i c a t i o n o f h a v i n g b e e n a d d e d a t a l a t e r d a t e . I t i s n o t a m a t t e r o f B o v e r i o i n c l u d i n g a d a t e w h i c h h e h a d f o u n d e l s e w h e r e , e i t h e r , f o r i n t h e t e x t o f h i s b o o k he c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e p a i n t i n g , b e l i e v e d t o h a v e b e e n my M a r g a r i t o n e , h a s t h e d a t e 1228 a t i t s b a s e . B o t h H a g e r a n d O e r t e l a c c e p t t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y o f t h e 1228 d a t e , h o w e v e r . H a g e r f u r t h e r h o l d s t h a t t h e a b s e n c e o f a h a l o o n t h e c e n t r a l f i g u r e p r o v e s t h a t t h e p a i n t i n g w a s e x e c u t e d b e f o r e t h e s a i n t ' s c a n o n i z a t i o n i n 1228. 158 APPENDIX II Sp e c i f i c A t t ributes of the Central Figures Quite apart from the nature and s i g n i f i c a n c e of the "type" of St. Francis represented i n the centre of the retables, these f i g u r e s display c e r t a i n iconographic features which should be mentioned both for t h e i r r o l e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the p i c t o r i a l a t t r i b u t e s of the Saint, and for p e c u l i a r i t i e s of iconography which the various panels display. A l l of the c e n t r a l Francis figures are shown with a halo, to Indicate the f r a i r ' s status as a sa i n t . The haloes of Pisa I I , A s s i s i VI and Siena V are elaborately decorated by patterns i n c i s e d on the gold background. The halo of the P i s t o i a III figure i s unique i n that i t protrudes i n r e l a t i v e l y high r e l i e f behind the head of the Saint, being rather s i m i l a r i n th i s respect to the haloes of many C r u c i f i x f i g u r e s . The a t t r i b u t e established for St. Francis i n these early retable repre-sentations which becomes the Saint's d i s t i n g u i s h i n g feature i s the marks of the Stigmata. On the Pescia f i g u r e , these are indicated as large reddish c i r -c l es on the hands and fe e t ; the marks are s i m i l a r l y shown on the A s s i s i and Rome panels and are large black dots on Florence IV. Those of Pisa II and P i s t o i a III are considerably smaller. The only f i g u r e of the seven retables that displays the side wound i s that of Siena V, where i t appears through an opening i n the habit on the Saint's r i g h t chest. St. Francis i s shown barefoot i n a l l of the panels, and wearing the hooded Franciscan habit. The colour of the habit v a r i e s , however; i t i s dark brown on Pescia I, Pisa I I , P i s t o i a I I I , and Florence IV, deep blue on A s s i s i VI and Rome VII, and grey on Siena V. In the thirteenth century, the brown or grey habit was the type generally worn by the F r i a r s Minor, but a blue robe apparently did e x i s t for use only on s p e c i a l f e s t i v a l days. The depiction of 159 St. Francis i n t h i s blue habit seems to be a feature unique to A s s i s i VI and Rome VII i n Franciscan a r t ; i n the single miracle scene i n which St. Francis himself appears [the healing of Bartholomew of Narni], Francis i s again depicted i n blue on these two panels. A l l seven of the c e n t r a l f i g u r e s on the retables are shown with a knotted rope b e l t around the waist and hang-ing down the fr o n t ; t h i s was a d i s t i n c t i v e part of the Franciscan habit. The tying of the rope into three knots which s i g n i f i e d the three Franciscan v i r t u e s of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience was apparently not an established custom yet i n the thir t e e n t h century, f o r although the Pescia, P i s a , Sta. Croce, and Rome figures are a l l shown with three knots i n th e i r cords, the P i s t o i a and Siena ones each have four, and that of A s s i s i s i x . The c e n t r a l figures are shown either with t h e i r hoods p a r t i a l l y or comple-t e l y covering t h e i r heads [Pescia I, Pisa I I , Rome VII, Florence IV], or with bare heads [ P i s t o i a I I I , A s s i s i VI, Siena V]. The p o s i t i o n of the cowl does not seem to have any great iconographie s i g n i f i c a n c e here. It i s very i n t e -r e s t i n g to note, however, that those figures which display t h e i r cowls a l l o r i -g i n a l l y had long, pointed hoods s i m i l a r to that of the Florence St. Francis. On Pescia I, Pisa I I , and Rome VII these points have been apinted over i n gold to make the hood appear as a simple, rounded one. Pointed hoods are s t i l l v i s i b l e on the small f r i a r figures i n the side scenes, however. But on P i s t o i a III,where the ce n t r a l figure i s bare-headed, the great majority of the pointed hoods worn by the small figures have been methodically scratched away to round them o f f . Most of these retouchings have been noted by Bughetti, but neither he nor any other author o f f e r s an explanation for t h i s procedure. The c a r e f u l painting over of ju s t the points of St. Francis' hoods was doubtless the re s u l t of a seventeenth century dispute amongst the various factions of the Franciscan Order over the o r i g i n a l s t y l e of the Franciscan cowl. The Pescia l ' s 160 c e n t r a l f i g u r e , for example, i s known to have s t i l l displayed a pointed hood i n 1632, when Zaccaria Boverio made an engraving of i t to use as evidence for the argument f o r the o r i g i n a l pointed form of the cowl. Paintings d i s p l a y i n g such hoods located i n Conventual Franciscan churches, where the rounded hood was favoured, were probably retouched to conform to the convents' b e l i e f s as the dispute continued. The exception i s the unaltered panel of Sta. Croce, Florence, a Conventual church. The c e n t r a l St. Francis figures display two types of actions of t h e i r r i g h t hands; the e a r l i e r form i s that seen i n Pescia I, Pisa I I , P i s t o i a I I I , and Florence IV where Francis holds hi s hand with the palm out i n front of h i s chest to display the stigmata. In the case of Florence IV t h i s p o s i t i o n i s combined with a gesture of b l e s s i n g . The second at t i t u d e for the r i g h t hand as displayed by the A s s i s i VI, Rome VII, and Siena V figures consists of Francis holding, a small cross i n front of h i s chest as a symbol of h i s i m i t a t i o n of C h r i s t ; the stigmata marks are v i s i b l e on the back of h i s hand. It i s t h i s second p o s i t i o n of holding a cross i n which St. Francis i s most often depicted i n l a t e r a r t where he i s not shown a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an event. A l l of the c e n t r a l figures of the seven retables hold a book i n t h e i r l e f t hands. In A s s i s i VI and Rome VII, the book i s open, and the words on the pages of the A s s i s i one read: " S i v i s perfectus esse, vade, vende omnia quae habes et da pauperibus". These are o r i g i n a l l y the words of C h r i s t , found i n Matthew 19:21, but were also spoken by Francis i n reply to Bernard of Quintavalle, who wished to become his d i s c i p l e , and they are recorded by Thomas of Celano i n h i s two L i v e s . The c e n t r a l f i g u r e of Rome VII, a painting which appears to be based on A s s i s i VI i n several other respects, holds an open book i n a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n but the pages i n t h i s case are blank, although ruled. The reason f o r t h i s feature i s unclear. The books held up by the other 161 f i v e c e n t r a l figures are a l l closed, and there i s some dispute over the intend-ed i d e n t i t y of these volumes. It has been suggested that the closed book represents the book of the Rule, but Bughetti objects that i t i s probably an Evangelicum or other B i b l i c a l text s i g n i f y i n g Francis' r o l e as a preacher. The reason given by Bughetti for r e j e c t i n g the Rule i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s that throughout the scenes of Pescia I, for example, other f r i a r s have a s i m i l a r book before them on the a l t a r s , a feature which Bughetti sees as suggesting the B i b l i c a l nature of the volume. This l i n e of reasoning, however, could also be used to support the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the book as the Rule, for i n the scenes of the Approbation of the Rule on P i s t o i a ITI and Florence IV the book which represents the Rule i s again s i m i l a r to the one held by the c e n t r a l figure i n each case. It would thus seem impossible to reach a d e f i n i t e conclusion about t h i s a t t r i b u t e of the c e n t r a l f i g u r e . One aspect of these portrayals of St. Francis on which a r e l a t i v e l y large amount has been written i s whether or not they represent attempts at actual p o r t r a i t u r e of the Saint. The reference point for such discussions i s a short d e s c r i p t i o n by Thomas of Celano of Francis' physical appearance. Any attempts at conclusions on t h i s matter are obviously of l i t t l e a v a i l . The faces of a l l the figures belong to a rather severe and s t y l i z e d "type" rather than suggesting the attempt to represent the p o r t r a i t of an actual man. The only features which might be said to be i n accord with the known appearance of Francis are the beard and tonsure, which are shown on a l l seven panels, and which were mentioned by Celano. The constant representation of the Saint with bare feet i s both a symbol of h i s devotion to poverty, and an i n d i c a t i o n of h i s actual habits of dress. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099918/manifest

Comment

Related Items