BULGARINI, FRANCIS, AND THE BEGINNING OF A TRADITION

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Fine Arts of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Laura Dobrynin

June 2006

This thesis entitled

BULGARINI, SAINT FRANCIS, AND THE BEGINNING OF A TRADITION

by

LAURA DOBRYNIN

has been approved for

the School of Art

and the College of Fine Arts by

Marilyn Bradshaw

Associate Professor of Art History

Charles McWeeney

Dean, College of Fine Arts

DOBRYNIN, LAURA, M.A., June 2006, Art History

BULGARINI, SAINT FRANCIS, AND THE BEGINNING OF A TRADITION (110 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Marilyn Bradshaw

This thesis examines the influence of the fourteenth-century Sienese painter

Bartolommeo Bulgarini through his depiction of Saint Francis of exposing his side wound. By tracing the development of this motif from its inception to its dispersal in selected Tuscan panel of the late-1300’s, this paper seeks to prove that

Bartolommeo Bulgarini was significant to its formation. In addition this paper will examine the use of punch mark decorations in the works of artists associated with

Bulgarini in order to demonstrate that the painter was influential in the dissemination of the motif and the subsequent tradition of its depiction.

This research is instrumental in recovering the importance of Bartolommeo

Bulgarini in Sienese art history, as well as in establishing further proof of the existence of the hypothesized Sienese “Post-1350” Compagnia, a group of Sienese artists who are thought to have banded together after the bubonic plague of c.1348-50.

Approved:

Marilyn Bradshaw

Associate Professor of Art History 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………….....3

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 5

INTRODUCTION ...... 8

CHAPTER ONE EARLY DEPICTIONS OF SAINT FRANCIS ...... 11

CHAPTER TWO TOWARDS A NEW ICONOGRPAHIC TREND ...... 19

CHAPTER THREE BARTOLOMMEO BULGARINI ...... 26

CHAPTER FOUR THE DEPICTION OF SAINT FRANCIS IN THE CIRLCE OF BULGARINI...... 36

CHAPTER FIVE THE DEPICTION OF SAINT FRANCIS IN ...... 49

CONCLUSION...... 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 62

APPENDIX I FRANCISCAN CHURCHES IN ...... 94

APPENDIX II EARLY SOURCES ON THE NATURE OF THE STIGMATA OF SAINT : THOMAS OF CELANO’S ACCOUNT OF FRANCIS’S LIFE...... 106

APPENDIX III EARLY SOURCES ON THE NATURE OF THE STIGMATA OF SAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI: SAINT BONAVENTURE’S ACCOUNT OF FRANCIS’S LIFE ...... 109

5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

Figure 1. Saint Gregory Master or Third Master of Anagni, Saint Francis, 1228, , Sacro Speco of San Gregorio, Subiaco…………………………..67

Figure 2. Bonaventura Berlinghieri of Lucca, The Legend of Saint Francis, 1235, tempera on panel, 160 x 123 cm, San Francesco, Pescia………………...68

Figure 3. School of , The Dream of Gregory IX, c.1291-92, fresco, Upper of the Basilica of San Francesco, Assisi………….69

Figures 4. Unknown Sienese Sculptor, Saint Francis, c.1300, stone, Church of San Francesco, …………………………………………………………70

Figure 5. , Saint Francis, c.1317, fresco, Chapel of Saint Martin, Lower Church of the Basilica of San Francesco, Assisi…………………71

Figure 6. Lippo Memmi, Saint Francis, c.1326, tempera on panel, 105 x 44 cm Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena...... 72

Figure 7. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Cavoni Chapel , c.1340, tempera on panel, 121 x 181 cm, Centro di Restauro, Foretezza da Basso, Florence..73

Figure 8. Memmi’s punch designs (numbered 72 and 178 by Skaug) found in Bulgarini’s early works, c.1339-40………………………………………74

Figure 9. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Fogliano Triptych, before 1340, tempera on panel, and Child: 91.5 x 58. 5 cm, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena, Saint Ansano:79.2 x 42. 5 cm, and Saint Galgano:73.4 x 42. 4 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena...... 75

Figure 10. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Saint Francis, 1340’s, tempera on panel, 53 x 43.5 cm, Wallraf-Richarzt Museum, Cologne...... 76

Figure 11. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, The Berenson Polyptych, late-1340’s, tempera on panel, Madonna and Child: 91.5 x 57 cm, lateral panels: each approx. 68.5 x 39 cm, Bernard Berenson Collection, Villa I Tatti, Florence………….77

Figure 12. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Sestano Altarpiece, before 1350, tempera on panel, : 137.4 x 89 cm, Saint Paul: 91.6 x 52.2 cm, and Saint John the Evangelist: 92.2 x 53.2 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena……..78

6 Figure 13. Jacopo di Mino Pellicciaio, Madonna and Child with , c.1345, tempera on panel, 200 x 240 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena...... 79

Figure 14. Bulgarini’s punch designs (numbered 398, 265, and 320 by Skaug) as seen here in his Berenson Polyptych, Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece, and the Cologne Francis………………………………………………………….80

Figure 15. Shop of Luca di Tomme, Saint Francis, mid-to late-14th century, tempera on panel, 23 x 18.2 cm, Private Collection………………………………81

Figure 16. Niccolo Buonaccorso, Stories of the New Testament, mid-to late-14th century, tempera on panel, 110 x 75 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena….82

Figure 17. Niccolo Buonaccorso, Saint Francis, detail from Stories of the New Testament, mid-to late-14th century, tempera on panel, 110 x 75 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena...... 83

Figure 18. Master of Panzano, Saints Francis and , late-14th century, tempera on panel, approx. 26.7 x 10.2 cm, Museum of Fine Art, San Diego…….84

Figure 19. Bartolo di Fredi Cini, Saint Francis, detail of Coronation Altarpiece, 1388, tempera on panel, 200 x 115 cm, Musei Civico, ……..85

Figure 20. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Assumption of the Virgin, early-1360’s ,tempera on panel, 204.4 x 112 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena…………………86

Figure 21. Giotto Bondone, Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata, c.1295-1300, tempera on panel, 31.3 X. 16.3 cm, Louvre, Paris………………………87

Figure 22. Giotto Bondone and Assistants, The Peruzzi Altarpiece, c.1310-15, tempera on panel, 105.7 x 250.2 cm, North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh…………………………………………………………………...88

Figure 23. , Saint Francis, 1334, tempera on panel, 90.8 x 34.3 cm, Mrs. R. F. Pickhardt Collection, Sherborn, Massachusetts……………...89

Figure 24. Giovanni da Milano, Saint Francis, c.1360, tempera on panel, 113.1 x 39.5 cm, Louvre, Paris…………...... 90

Figure 25. Punch (numbered 283 by Skaug) used by both Bulgarini and Giovanni da Milano………………………………………………………………...91

Figure 26. Puccio di Simone, Saint Francis, after 1360, tempera on panel, 88.8 x 40.6 cm, Fogg Museum of Art, Cambridge, Massachusetts…………………..92

7 Figure 27. Giovanni del Biondo, Saints John the Evangelist, Bartholomew, and Francis with other Saints, 1365-75, tempera on panel, 100 x 36 cm, Pinacoteca, Musei Vaticani, ………………………………………93 8 INTRODUCTION

The fourteenth-century Sienese painter Bartolommeo Bulgarini (fl. 1337- d.1378) was one of the most talented and influential painters of his generation. One of only a few artists active both before and after the outbreak of Black Plague in 1348, Bulgarini was a vital bridge between the early Ducciesque tradition and the diverse artistic atmosphere of the later fourteenth century. Bulgarini’s prestigious commissions and the recognition he received in his own time attest to his artistic importance, even as his influence on his peers is only now beginning to be fully explored.

The re-connection of the historical person Bartolommeo Bulgarini with existing works has proved to be a difficult task and one that has been ongoing for much of the twentieth century.1 In 1917, the art collector, historian, and critic Bernard Berenson

began writing about a group of anonymous Sienese paintings from different

private and public collections that seemed to him to be part of a body of work from a single painter.2 These paintings Berenson believed were all part of the oeuvre of a single

artist who showed the influence of the Sienese painters Ugolino da Siena and Pietro

Lorenzetti. Because of the name of the artist who executed these works was unknown,

Berenson gave the artist the rather misleading name of “Ugolino Lorenzetti.”

Ernst DeWald, in an article in 1923, rejected the idea of a master who was the

pupil of Ugolino da Siena and a follower of as the painter of the works grouped by Berenson. De Wald suggested instead the idea of an anonymous master who was a follower of Pietro Lorenzetti (but not a pupil of Ugolino da Siena) for several of the paintings in Berenson’s “Ugolino Lorenzetti” group. This artist De Wald named the

“Master of the Ovile Madonna.”3 9 In 1931 Millard Meiss wrote an article entitled “Ugolino Lorenzetti” in which he

asserted that both DeWald’s and Berenson’s groups of paintings belonged to one master and that the perceived differences in the works were due to the development of the artist

over a long career.4 Meiss then proceeded to construct a relative chronology of works by

“Ugolino Lorenzetti.”

The pivotal point in the study of these paintings came in 1936 when in another article Meiss argued for the attribution to Bartolommeo Bulgarini of works assigned to both “Ugolino Lorenzetti” and the “Master of the Ovile Madonna.”5 Meiss carried out

extensive archival investigation and brought to light numerous references in documents

of the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries that suggested a connection between

certain works and the fourteenth-century Sienese Bulgarini.

The authoritative work on Bulgarini is Judith Steinhoff-Morrison’s dissertation on

the artist.6 Essentially a monograph, this study thoroughly investigates Bulgarini’s life,

career, and artistic practices. Her thesis convincingly ties Bulgarini to the works of

“Ugolino Lorenzetti” and the “Master of the Ovile Madonna” and develops a relative

chronology of the painter’s works. While focusing on Bulgarini’s importance to the

Sienese school and his influence on other Tuscan painters of the period, Steinhoff-

Morrison also sheds some new light on the practice of in Siena after the Black

Death.

In my study on Bulgarini, I seek to continue to clarify the contribution of the artist

and his works, and to show his influence on his fellow painters by tracing the conception

and distribution of the iconography of Saint Francis exposing his side wound. Included in

the thesis, therefore, is a brief overview of some of the very earliest depictions of the 10 saint and the first extant instance of the portrayal of Francis exposing his side wound.

This is followed by the tracing of the new trend in Franciscan imagery in fresco, sculpture, and panel paintings. Yet, the major focus of my thesis is on Bartolommeo

Bulgarini and his adoption and subsequent alteration of the new Franciscan iconography, and I trace its usage in the circle of Bulgarini as evidence of this master’s influence on his contemporaries. Bulgarini’s influence was not limited to Siena, however, and by following the trail of the depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound to the city of

Florence, I demonstrate the nature of Bulgarini’s influence on Giovanni da Milano and his Florentine circle.

1. For a more thorough discussion of the history of the study of Bartolommeo Bulgarini, see Judith Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting of the Mid- Fourteenth Century” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1990), 6-11.

2. For more information regarding his research and the paintings he studied, see two articles by Bernard Berenson: “Ugolino Lorenzetti: Part One,” Art in America 5 (1917): 259-75 and “Ugolino Lorenzetti: Part Two,” Art in America 6 (1918): 25-52. Both articles were reprinted in Bernard Berenson, Essays in the Study of Sienese Painting (New York: Frederic Fairchild Sherman, 1918).

3. Ernst DeWald, “Master of the Ovile Madonna,” Art Studies 1 (1923): 45-54.

4. Millard Meiss, “Ugolino Lorenzetti,” Art Bulletin 13 (1931): 376-98.

5. Millard Meiss,“Bartolommeo Bulgarini altrimenti detto ‘Ugolino Lorenzetti’?,” Rivista d’Arte 18 (1936): 113-36. The crux of Meiss’ argument lies with a Biccherna cover for the year 1353 (which was attributed to Ovile Master on stylistic grounds) and a document for payment to Bulgarini which Meiss believed to be of the same year. According to Steinhoff- Morrison, until recently the original payment document had been lost and was known only through eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources. A fragment of the original document has now been found. Archivo di Stato, Siena, Biccherna ms.231. Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini”, 27.

6. Refer to note 1. 11 CHAPTER ONE

EARLY DEPICTIONS OF SAINT FRANCIS

Saint Francis (Giovanni Bernardone) was born in 1181/2. The son of a wealthy

merchant, he spent his youth enjoying the luxuries his family provided. While still in his

young adulthood, however, after having received divine visions, he renounced earthly

goods to live a life dedicated to the ideas of poverty, obedience, and chastity. During his

lifetime he created a brotherhood devoted to his ideas known as the Order of Minor

(later called the ). According to his legend, during the summer of 1224 he

miraculously received the five wounds of Christ (know as stigmata) on his hands, feet,

and side. Francis died on 3 October 1226, and less than two years later, on 16 July 1228, he was canonized by Gregory IX (reg 1227–41).1

After the death of Saint Francis of Assisi in 1226, a rush was on to preserve his

memory in both word and art. It was at this time that the earliest known depiction of

Francis was made. This likeness of him is a full-length figure in a wall mural in the

Benedictine Church of San Gregorio, Subiaco (Figure 1), a work almost certainly painted

in 1228, the year of the Saint’s canonization and two years after his death.2

Commissioned by Pope Gregory the IX (r.1227-1241), a friend and protector of Francis, the painting served to commemorate the Saint’s visit to Subiaco in 1218, as well as to promote Pope Gregory’s association with Francis, whose following was increasingly gaining in popularity.3

The Sacro Speco fresco indicates the first iconographic program for Saint Francis.

Painted before any cohesive textual version of the Saint’s life existed, it shows 12 the direct influence of the Pope and may be an attempt to depict the actual likeness of the

Saint by those who actually had known him. In the fresco Francis already appears with many of the attributes that would characterize him in later art. He is shown as a young, gaunt, bearded male, who is barefoot and wears the grayish-brown habit of his order, belted with a rope that is knotted three times (to symbolize his three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience).4

What is curious about this portrayal of Francis, however, is that although the work

was painted the year of his canonization, he is shown with no halo and the title behind his

head reads “Fr (ater) Fransicus” ( Francis) instead of “S (anctus) Francisus,”

(Saint Francis).5 Also omitted is any sign of Saint Francis’s stigmata.

According to legend, Francis had received the stigmata on Mount Alverna in

1224.6 Although a few of his closest brothers had seen Francis’s marks, they were sworn

to secrecy and did not reveal anything about the stigmata until after the Saint’s death.

While revelation of the miracle of the stigmata confirmed the sanctity of Francis for

many of his followers, Pope Gregory the IX was skeptical (most particularly of Francis’s

side wound) and omitted all mention of the stigmatization in his proclamation in the

canonization of Francis.7 Thus, the choice to depict Francis as he had appeared as a

brother, and not as he could have appeared with the miracle of the stigmata, might have

been an attempt by Gregory to find a satisfactory way of depicting Francis without

making reference to his wounds.

The lack of Pope Gregory’s acceptance of the stigmata caused outrage among

many of Francis’s followers, and throughout the next decade they lobbied hard to have

the stigmatization become a part of church doctrine.8 Under pressure, Pope Gregory 13 soon recanted. In justification of his change of heart, he wrote of a dream in which

Francis had appeared to him and showed him the wound in his side, dispelling all doubts about the veracity of his stigmatization.9

The oldest known painting of Saint Francis on panel is located in the church of

San Francesco in Pescia, a small town northwest of Florence (Figure 2). This work,

painted in 1235 by Bonaventura Berlinghieri, may be the first of its kind and was a model

for other panels painted soon after.10 Unlike the fresco of Francis at Subiaco, which was

painted from the memory of the likeness of Saint Francis, this panel draws its visual information about the Saint from descriptions in the text Vita Prima (1228-29) by

Thomas of Celano.11 This document, commissioned by Pope Gregory IX, acted as the

Church’s official biography of the Saint.

In Berlinghieri’s depiction, Francis again appears as a young man, bearded and barefoot, who wears the habit of the Franciscan Order, belted with the tri-knotted rope.

Yet, unlike the work at Subiaco, Berlinghieri’s panel depicts Francis with a halo and with

the marks of the stigmata on his palms and feet. This painting thus acts as the earliest

visual testimony to the belief in the miraculous nature of Saint Francis’s wounds and also as an official papal seal on his sanctity.12 Interestingly, the wound in Francis’s side, the

very mark Pope Gregory IX had most doubted, is absent.

What is also present in Berlinghieri’s depiction of Saint Francis, which would

become common to his later representation, is the book that he holds in his arm. The

inclusion of a book is common in the depiction of saints, especially those who had either

written influential texts (such as the evangelists) or were viewed as being particularly

learned (such as Saint Catherine of Alexandria).13 14 Even before the death of Francis of Assisi his Order had been divided into two factions: the Spirituals and the Conventuals. The Spirituals wished to closely follow

Francis’s rules by rejecting money and goods and living as itinerant friars.14 The

Conventuals, who were in the majority, wished to follow a more monastic lifestyle. They

accepted modifications to Francis’s rules that allowed them the use of land, furniture, and

other property.15

This debate concerning the interpretation of the rule of the Order of Friars Minor

was made even more intense by the testament Francis created before his death. It

declared that all who held office in the Order were bound to observe the Rule as it was

written. Francis also wrote that since the Rule had been dictated to him by God, all

discussion of its interpretation was banned.16

Unsure how to resolve the conflict, the Friars Minor consulted Pope Gregory. In response, Gregory issued the papal bull Quo elongate in which he concluded that the last testament of Francis was not binding and that the Friars Minor, contrary to the original

Rule of Francis, were entitled to the use of such property as buildings, furniture,

liturgical items, and books.17 This ruling paved the way for the poor mendicant order to

become powerful patrons of the arts.

In 1263 Bonaventure was appointed the eighth Minister General of the Order of

Friars Minor after Saint Francis, a position he held until 1274.18 At the inception of

Bonaventura’s governance, there was much unrest among the group (now commonly

referred to as the Franciscans), as the controversy between the Spiritual and Conventuals

threatened to spilt in the Order apart. Also, John of Parma, the Minister General prior to 15 Bonaventure, had brought the Franciscan Order under intense criticism and the suspicion of heresy.19

In order to try to bring peace to the warring Franciscan factions and to dispel the

cloud of heresy, Bonaventure launched into a campaign of reformation. By carefully

rewriting Celano’s biography of Francis, Bonaventure portrayed Saint Francis as the

founder of an order subservient to the church.20 This move was meant to place the

Franciscan Order under the protection of the papacy, warding off any claims that they

were heretical and re-affirming the Conventual’s stance that the pope had the authority to

preside over the laws of the Order. Bonaventure’s biography, called the Legenda Major,

was to be the official biography of Saint Francis, and a decree was passed in 1266

declaring that all earlier accounts should be destroyed.21

Bonaventure’s text, as a source for information on the life of Saint Francis, had an

enormous impact on the development of Franciscan iconography. One of the most

complete depictions of the text in art can be found in the Upper Church of the Basilica of

San Francesco at Assisi. Painted around the turn of the fourteenth century, the work entitled Life of Saint Francis consists of twenty-eight frescoed scenes.22 It is among these

that the depiction of Saint Francis holding open the tear in his robe was first

depicted.23

The Dream of Gregory IX (Figure 3), in chronological order the twenty-fifth

fresco of the cycle, illustrates the story told by Pope Gregory IX in which Saint Francis

posthumously appeared to him in a vision. While holding the tear in his habit so that his

side wound was visible, Francis gave the pope a vial of blood that had flowed from the

gash. According to the Pope this was the moment in which he realized the truth of 16 Francis’s stigmata. The story, which was not included in Celano’s biography, was pivotal in Bonaventure’s account. According to Bonaventure, Francis visited Pope Gregory to absolve him from making the mistake of a wrong judgment and to authorize and bless

Gregory’s decision to canonize Francis, an act which had already occurred. Thus, the story of The Dream of Gregory IX is meant to reveal Francis’s true nature and to give legitimacy to the papacy’s claim to Francis’s place of authority within his Order.

In corroboration of these points, there seems to be a connection between the depiction of the side wound in the Assisi frescos and the reigning pope during the time the frescos were commissioned. There is much emphasis on Francis’s stigmata in the last part of the fresco cycle, with several of the later scenes paying particularly close attention to the side wound. These include: The Stigmatization (19), The Death and Funeral of

Saint Francis (20), The Authentication of the Stigmata (22), Francis’s Body Taken to San

Domiano (23), and The Healing of the Man from Ilerda (26). Some scholars believe that the emphasis on the side wound may be due to the fact that during the pontificate of

Nicholas IV (1288-1292), when the composition of the frescos was most likely conceived, there were once again disputes within the Franciscan Order concerning the nature of the stigmata.

Although this first depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound is an important commentary on the veracity of the stigmata and of the power the pontiff held over the Franciscan Order, it seems to be only incidental to the narrative nature of the fresco scene. Nowhere else, nor in any other art work, does the artist of the frescos or any of his contemporaries use this gesture of the exposing of the side wound when portraying

Saint Francis. It was not until the beginning of the fourteenth century in the city of Siena 17 that the rendering of Francis exposing his wound would first become part of the practice of the Saint’s portraiture.

1. Louise M. Bourdua, “Franciscan Order,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 11:707. For more information on the life of Saint Francis of Assisi, see Adrian House, Francis of Assisi: A Revolutionary Life. (London: Chatto and Windus), 2001.

2. Rev. John R.H. Moorman, Early Franciscan Art and Literature (Manchester: Manchester University, 1943), 7.

3. Laurence B. Kanter and Giovanni Morello, ed., The Treasury of Saint Francis of Assisi. (Milan: Electa, 1999), 27. Louise M. Bourdua, “Saint Francis,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 11:708.

4. Saint Francis is also holding a scroll on which is inscribed the words “Pax huic domui” (“Peace to this House”). See Vincent Moleta, From St. Francis to Giotto (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1983), 16.

5. Ibid.

6. Rosa Giorgi, Saints in Art, trans. Thomas Michael Hartmann (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 130.

7. Kanter and Morello, Treasury of Saint Francis, 27.

8. Ibid., 7.

9. Ibid., 27.

10. Moletta, St. Francis to Giotto, 16.

11. Ibid. For an excerpt from Celano’s text, see Appendix II.

12. Moletta, St. Francis to Giotto,18.

13. The book most likely is a bible and refers to Francis’s devotion to the Christ. The inclusion of a book in the case of Saint Francis may be an allusion to the rules which Saint Francis composed for his followers, and the book therefore would be a reference to Francis as the founder of an order.

14. Louise Bourdua, The Franciscans and Art in Late Medieval (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 19.

15. Ibid., 16.

18 16. John Moorman, A History of the Franciscan Order (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 89.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid., 90.

19. John Moorman, A History of the Franciscan Order, 114-15. John of Parma was accused of Joachimism, a belief promoted in the doctrines of the Calabrain Prophet, Joachim da Fiore, which were officially condemned by the pope in 1256. Joachimism taught that there were three states of the world’s history corresponding with the Trinity. The first state was recorded in the when the world was under God the Father. The second state, under God the Son, was the world of the New Testament and the early church. The third state, under the Governance of the Holy Spirit, was believed to be just beginning at the time of Joachim’s writings. Many Franciscan Spirituals became disciples of the prophet, believing that Saint Francis was the sign of the coming of the New Age.

20. Felix Arnold Heap, “The Impact of Written Sources on the Development of the Franciscan Theme in Italian Painting Leading to Changes in the Iconography in Depictions of St. Francis of Assisi in the Late Sixteenth Century” (Ph.D. diss., Franciscan University of Steubenville, 1974), 24. Refer also to Appendix III.

21. Bourdua, “Saint Francis,” 709.

22. Bonaventure’s text had a particularly strong influence on the Franciscan iconography of the Basilica of Saint Francis in Assisi. For more information on his biographies, refer to Appendix II, and Felix Arnold Heap, “The Impact of Written Sources on the Development of the Franciscan Theme in Italian Painting.”

23. There is great controversy surrounding the exact date and authorship of the Life of Saint Francis frescos. They have been traditionally ascribed to Giotto, and while he may have played a role in their design, it is now believed that several different artists were involved in their execution. As to the dating of the frescos, several different kinds of evidence support a date around the end of the pontificate of Nicholas IV (d. 1292). See William R .Cook, Images of Saint Francis of Assisi: In Painting and Glass from the Earliest Images to ca. 1320 (Perth: University of Western Australia, 1999), 58.

19

CHAPTER TWO

TOWARDS A NEW ICONOGRPAHIC TREND

The first time a new iconography of Saint Francis appeared--one that went beyond

the narrative portrayals of the dream of Pope Gregory IX to show a portrait-type

depiction of the Saint holding open the tear in his robe--was about 1300-10. This new

representation appears in a life-size stone sculpture of Saint Francis in the Church of San

Francesco, Siena (Figure 4). The statue shows the Saint clutching with his left hand an open book inscribed with the first line of the Franciscan Rule, while he is gently pulling

back the fabric of the tear in his robe with his right hand to reveal the wound in his side.1

Though now located inside the church (to the right of the ), the statue might have originally been placed outside, installed above the main entrance to the church.2

Although little is known for certain about the creator or the placement of the

sculpture, scholars have suggested that it is the work of one of two Sienese sculptors,

Ramo di Paganello or Nicola di Nuto.3 However, more recent scholarship refutes the

possibility of the authorship of either of these two artists and places the date of the

execution of the work in the first decade of fourteenth century.4 In his catalogue on

images of Saint Francis of Assisi, William R. Cook states that the statue was most likely

fashioned after two narrative sculptures that are now in fragments.5 The first of these

surviving sculptures is a stone panel located on the interior south wall of the Church of

San Martino in Siena.6 Although the right half of the panel is missing, the left half shows

Saint Francis receiving the stigmata. The scene portrays the Saint kneeling on one knee, 20 holding both hands above his head, and exposing a large rip in the side of his habit though which his side wound can been seen.

The second surviving fragment thought to be the prototype for the statue is another stone panel located on the wall of the Church of San Francesco, Siena. The sculpture, which now consists of only two pieces, was once part of a much larger cycle of scenes from the life of Saint Francis and might have originally been part of a tomb or altar. The first panel shows Saint Francis delivering a sermon to the birds and the second is essentially a mirror image of The Dream of Gregory IX, a fresco in the Upper Church in the Basilica of Saint Francis in Assisi in which Saint Francis appears to Pope Gregory

IX. 7

Not long after the creation of the statue of Saint Francis for the church of San

Francesco in Siena, other images of the Saint holding open his robe to expose his side

wound appear. The first of these was created by the painter Simone Martini (c.1284–

1344). Martini was one of the leading Sienese painters of his day. Most likely originally

trained in the circle of , he has been seen by many scholars as one of the most

outstanding painters of the fourteenth century, not only in Italy, but in all of Europe.8

One of the most intriguing set of works attributed to Martini and his shop are the

frescoes in the Saint Martin Chapel in the lower Church of the Basilica of San Francesco,

Assisi. Believed to have been finished around 1317, the consecration and decoration of

the chapel was commissioned by Gentile Partino da Montefiore (c.1240/50-1312).9 Da

Montefiore was a Franciscan who was made Cardinal of San Martino ai Monti. His title, along with his close connections to the French house of Anjou, explains the subject 21 matter of the fresco cycle as well as the depiction of various saints connected with the

French royal family.10

In the fresco cycle’s full-length portrait of Francis (Figure 5), located just to the

right of the chapel’s entrance, the Saint holds open the tear in his robe to expose his side

wound, and raises his other hand in a sign of benediction. Cook has hypothesized that

Martini drew his inspiration for the fresco from the statue of Saint Francis in San

Francesco, Siena.11 With the lack of any other model and because of Martini’s Sienese

citizenship, Cook’s hypothesis about the source of Martini’s figure seems plausible. The

question remains, however, why did this new iconography of the Saint not become part of

the artist’s repertoire of images?

Although the frescos of the Saint Martin chapel were an important commission

for Martini, the gesture of Saint Francis holding open his robe is not found in any other

known works by Martini, including that of another, later, depiction of Saint Francis also

located in the Saint Martin Chapel.

Besides works in fresco or sculpture, the new way of depicting Saint Francis exposing his side wound started to be developed in panel painting in the 1320’s, as seen

in an altarpiece by Lippo Memmi (fl 1317- c.1350), the son of the painter Memmi di

Filippuccio. This elder painter was also the master of Simone Martini, and it was in

Filippuccio’s workshop that it is surmised Martini and Memmi started their artistic

partnership.12 In 1324 Martini married Memmi’s sister, Giovanna, and the two painters

soon opened a shop together.13After Simone Martini’s departure from Siena in 1336,

Lippo seems to have received only one major civic commission (his work in the new tower of the in Siena), and his specific whereabouts in the mid-1340’s 22 is unknown, although some have speculated he could have joined Martini in before 1350, by which time Memmi is thought to have died. Memmi’s collaboration and stylistic affinity with Martini makes it difficult to assign and assess his works, and he is often viewed as a minor artist and imitator of Martini.

The only pre-Vasari records to mention Memmi are by in 1447 and by the fifteenth-century chronicler Giovanni Bisdomini. Yet, these mention little more than the painter’s name.14 Vasari’s account of Simone Martini, written in the

sixteenth century, includes information on Memmi as well, but even here the painter is

discussed as little more than a side note in Martini’s life. Subsequent writers and historians have been able to establish more information on the life and works of Memmi; however, the information is still rather sparse, and the problem of disentangling his career from that of Martini remains.

Around 1325 Memmi was responsible for creating an altarpiece for the main altar

in San Paolo a Ripa d’Arno, a panel of which is Saint Francis, now in the Siena

Pinacoteca (Figure 6). The earliest mention of this polyptych was by Vasari in the second

edition of his Lives of the Artists in which he listed the works Memmi supposedly

executed with Martini.15The polyptych seems to have been broken up early, and several

early secondary sources mention that it was signed by the painter; the date of the

altarpiece is placed about 1325.16 Gurtrude Coor was the first to discover that the

scattered panels of a Madonna and Saints Peter, Paul, John the Baptist, Louis, Francis, and John the Evangelist belong together and correspond to Vasari’s description of the

San Paolo a Ripa d’Arno Altarpiece.17 Reconstructed, the altarpiece consists of seven pieces with the Madonna and Child18 at the center, flanked by Saints Louis,19 Paul,20 and 23 John the Baptist21 to the left and John the Evangelist,22 Peter,23and Saint Francis24 to the right. There are additional panels of Hermit Saints25 and a Blessing Christ.26 Bonnie A.

Bennet, in her dissertation on Lippo Memmi, claim that many things about the panels

correspond and support their relationship as a unified whole: the dimensions of the panels

are roughly the same, the panels of Christ, Saint John the Evangelist, Saint Francis, and

Saint Louis have the same punch mark designs in their haloes, and the border pattern on

the robes of Saint John the Evangelist and Saint Paul correspond. Bennet also suggests

that several hands can be seen at work in the figures of the altarpiece, and that were it not

for the historical evidence of Memmi’s signature, the work might be considered another

work from Martini’s prolific workshop.27

When comparing Memmi’s depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound in

the San Paolo Altarpiece with that of Martini’s fresco of Francis in the Chapel of Saint

Martin, it is clear that both artists drew on a shared idea of an iconographic pattern.

Although the stylistic differences between the two artists are easy enough to identify, the

similarities in the way that Francis gently and lightly sweeps away the cloth of the tear in

his robe and in the way that his almost boneless hand is held up in a graceful gesture of

blessing suggest that Memmi was very much aware of and influenced by Martini’s

fresco.

Once again, however, the depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound is

not found in any other of Memmi’s existing works, and the new depiction seems to have

come to a dead end as Martini moved his shop to the court of Avignon in France, and

Memmi’s career in Siena became eclipsed by other highly skilled painters.

24 1. See Cook, Images of Saint Francis of Assisi, 202. The book is inscribed Regula et vita minorum fratrum haec est scilicet Domini nostril Jesu Christo santum evangelium observare vivendo in obedientia sine proprio et in castitate (“The Rule and life of the Friars Minor is this, namely, to observe the Holy Gospel of our Lord Christ by living in obedience, without property, and in chastity”).

2. The statue was presumably removed in the early 20th century before the church façade was remodeled.

3. Ramo di Paganello, was active between 1281–?1328. No documented or signed works by him are known. Documents link him to work in the Siena (1281, 1288), and (1293, 1310). Lisbeth Castelnuovo-Tedesco, “Ramo di Paganello,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 25:879. For a discussion of Nicola di Nuto (doc. 1321-1347-8), see W. R. Valentiner, “Observations on Sienese and Pisan Trecento Sculpture,” Art Bulletin 9 (1927):177-221.

4. Cook, Images of Saint Francis of Assisi, 202.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., 203-04. Cooks dates this panel to c. 1300 and states that this sculpture was probably originally in San Francesco, but there is no knowledge of how it came to be in San Martino.

7. Ibid. 200-1. These panels are dated also to c. 1300, making them contemporary with both the sculpture of Saint Francis and the San Martino panel.

8. Andrew Martindale, “Simone Martini,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 20:505.

9. Although there are records indicating that Cardinal Gentile Partino da Montefiore del’Aso died in 1312, having previously given a large sum of money for the chapel, the dating of Martini’s frescos to the year 1317 is still not entirely agreed upon by all scholars. See Cecilia Jannella, Simone Martini (Firenze: Scala, 1989), 16-19, for a discussion of the dating. Bennett believes that stylistically the frescos date to the 1330’s, around the same time as Martini and Memmi’s famous . Bonnie A. Bennett, “Lippo Memmi, Simone Martini’s ‘Fratello in Arte’: The Image Revealed by his Documented Works” (Ph.D diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1977), 156.

10. Cecilia Jannella, Simone Martini (Firenze: Scala, 1989), 18. The various saints depicted are Saints Louis of France, Louis of Toulouse, Clare, Elizabeth of Hungary, Catherine of Alexandria, , Francis, and Anthony of .

11. Cook, Images of Saint Francis of Assisi, 202. Cook states that, “the way that Francis displays the side wound in this statue may have been the model for Simone Martini’s ‘portrait’ with a similar motif in the Lower Church of Assisi.”

12. Bennett, Lippo Memmi, 157.

13. Ibid., 2. 25

14. Ibid., 4.

15. , Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans. Gaston Duc de Vere (London: Macmillan, 1912), 172.

16. Bennett, Lippo Memmi, 97.

17. Gertrude Coor, “Two Unknown Paintings by the Master of the Glorification of Saint Thomas and Some Closely Related Works” Pantheon 19 (1961): 126-35. Also see Michael Mallory, “An Altarpiece by Lippo Memmi Reconsidered” Metropolitan Museum Journal 9 (1974): 187-202.

18. Madonna and Child, tempera on panel, 86.5 x 55cm, Staatliche Museen Berlin,(accession no. 1067)

19. Saint Louis of Toulouse, tempera on panel, 105 x 44 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena, (accession no. 48)

20. Saint Paul, tempera on panel, 95.9 x 48.3 cm, Metropolitan Museum, New York, (accession no. 88.3.99)

21. John the Baptist, tempera on panel, 94.6 x 45.7 cm, of Art, Washington D.C Kress Collection, (accession no. 511)

22. Saint John the Evangelist, tempera on panel, 104.9 x 44.6 cm, Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Griggs Collection, (accession no. 1896.1943.239)

23. Saint Peter,tempera on panel, 94 x 44 cm, Louvre, Paris, (accession no. 1152)

24. Saint Francis of Assisi,tempera on panel, 105 x 44 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena, (accession no. 49)

25. Hermit Saints, Lindenau-Museum, Altenburg, (accession n0. 44, 45)

26. Blessing Christ, Musee de Douai, Douai, France (accession no. 34)

27. Bonnie A. Bennett, Lippo Memmi, 98. 26

CHAPTER THREE

BARTOLOMMEO BULGARINI

Approximately fifteen years after Memmi’s altarpiece was executed, the portrayal of Saint Francis holding open his robe to expose his side wound would finally become a common part of an artist’s repertoire in the works of Bartolommeo Bulgarini. Bulgarini

(act.1337- 1378) belonged to the generation of painters immediately following Martini and Memmi, and as one of the most talented artists of his time, he became a major artistic figure following the plague of 1348.1He is the only artist of his generation to be mentioned by the sixteenth-century critic Giorgio Vasari,2 and the recognition he attained

as an artist in his own time can be attested by the prestigious commissions he received.

Little is know about Bartolommeo Bulgarini’s early life. In documentation he is

often referred to as the son of ‘Misser Bulgarinio’, a man of minor nobility who, at times,

held several prominent posts in the commune of Siena.3 Thus it seems that Bulgarini is

the only known fourteenth-century Sienese artist of noble birth. The idea of Bulgarini as a

gentleman artist who painted for recreation, however, must be dismissed, as surviving

records suggest that neither his artistic career nor his patrimony provided him with great

wealth. Surviving documentation seems to indicate that painting was Bulgarini’s

occupation, and he received payment for his work.4

Nothing can be said for certain about the artistic training of Bulgarini, but it is supposed from the analysis of his works that he probably started as a pupil of the painter

Ugolino di Nerio and later was influenced by the work of Pietro Lorenzetti and Simone

Martini. The earliest documentation for the artist is in the year 1338, when he received 27 payment for the painting of a Biccherna cover.5 By 1348 Bulgarini seems to have become

a recognized painter, because documents pertaining to a commission for a church in

Pistoia list him as one of the two best artists in Siena.6 During the next decades the artist

was in considerable demand as a painter and received several prominent commissions, not only in Siena, but also in Florence and other Tuscan towns.

It is quite possible that Bulgarini was the “Master Bartholomeus de Senis” that is

mentioned among the list of artists working in the Vatican in the year 1369.7 Records

indicate that the Master Bartholommeo received 16 soldi per day, an income provided to only the few best artists working for Pope Urban V.8 One of the last period records to

mention Bulgarini lists him as having died on September 4, 1378.9

Although quite a few records of the artist’s life and activity survive, very few can be linked to surviving works. The reconstruction of his oeuvre and the chronology of his works rest mainly on the reconstruction of an altarpiece made in honor of St. Victor for the Duomo in Siena. This well-documented work serves as a marker for stylistic analyses of Bulgarini’s work, as it is one of only a few paintings that can be reasonably authenticated.10

While other scholars have found Bulgarini’s influence on his contemporary artists

in such things as the use of color and line and the rendering of facial expression and

hands, it is in the use of Bulgarini’s particular type of Saint Francis pulling back his robe to expose his side wound and the explosion of this motif into the art of Siena, and later

the rest of Tuscany that the immensity of his influence can best be noted.

Around 1340 Bulgarini included the iconography of Saint Francis opening the

tear in his robe in an altarpiece he made for the Franciscan church of Santa Croce in 28 Florence (Figure 7).11 The painting consists of five large panels containing the Virgin and

Child (at center) flanked by an unknown male saint and Saint John the Baptist to the left and Saint John the Evangelist and Saint Francis to the right. The figures shown in the pinnacles are, from left to right: Saint Anthony of Padua, Saint Paul, Christ the

Redeemer, Saint Peter, and an Archangel. Five figures are represented in the predella

panels: Saint Claire, an unknown male saint, the Man of Sorrows, Saint Elizabeth of

Hungary and Saint Louis of Toulouse.12

The coat of arms included in the uppermost corners of the panels at the ends of

the predella suggest that the painting was commissioned by the Covoni, a noble

Florentine family.13 Although it is unknown which member of the family commissioned

the work, it seems likely to have been Giovanni di Guasco, who was born in 1292 and died in 1353.14 The attribution of this work to Bulgarini seems to be rather firm and rests not only on stylistic comparisons with other of Bulgarini’s secure works (such as the

Saint Victor Altarpiece), but also on the words of Vasari, who noted that the altarpiece

stood in the Saint Sylvester chapel in Santa Croce.15

A comparison of Memmi’s Saint Francis with the one from Bulgarini’s Cavoni

Chapel Altarpiece shows that Bulgarini must have been aware of his predecessor’s prototype. The facial features, the heavy band of hair below the tonsure, the sway of the body, and the incline of the neck in Bulgarini’s figure show congruencies with Memmi’s style, suggesting some sort of association between the two artists.

The nature of Bulgarini and Memmi’s artistic contact, however, is unclear.

Stylistically, Bulgarini shows the influence of many of the artists of Memmi’s generation,

such as Ugolino di Nerio, Simone Martini, and Pietro Lorenzetti. Bulgarini’s 29 characteristic blending of many styles, along with the absence of written documentation, make it very difficult to determine with which of these artists he might have trained, for how long, and in what capacity. However, the transference of a set of decorative punches from the panel paintings of Memmi to the works of Bulgarini provides tantalizing evidence that the two artists had a close artistic association.

In a monumental undertaking Erling Skaug, with the help of other scholars, studied, cross-referenced, and catalogued over 700 different punch mark decorations used by more than thirty Tuscan artists active in the Trecento. As a part of this study Skaug came to four very important conclusions about punch designs in panel paintings. The first is that painters (or their workshops) seem to have done their own tooling before the painting commenced; second, each tool used was probably designed by the artist and not

mass produced; third, due to the method by which each tool was made, even almost

identical patterns have slight irregularities that differentiate them from one another; and lastly, due to their irregularities, punches originating with certain painters may be tracked.16 Thus, Skaug found punch tools to be an important part of the investigation into the associations between Trecento artists. The information he has compiled is particularly useful when examining the movement of the iconography of Saint Francis exposing his side wound, as it gives clues to the approximate time certain artists were exposed to each other’s works, and to the nature of their involvement.

According to Skaug, in Memmi’s panel of Saint Francis from the San Paolo a

Ripa d’Arno Altarpiece, the artist used several different types of decorative punches. The

tools used to make these punches were the property of Memmi’s workshop and, based on

examinations of early Trecento punch designs, seem to have only been used in that 30 context during his lifetime.17 Of these several punches used in Memmi’s panel, there are

two designs, identified by Skaug as numbers 72 and 178 (Figure 8), that were employed

in Bulgarini’s earliest known surviving work, the Fogliano triptych (Figure 9).18 This painting was carried out just before Bulgarini’s use of the new iconography of Saint

Francis in the Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece.

Although the evidence of shared punch tools is not conclusive enough to say that

Bulgarini was trained by Memmi, or even took part in his workshop, the appearance of these punches in Bulgarini’s early works suggests a close and perhaps prolonged contact between the two artists in the formative years of Bulgarini’s artistic career. This important contact might have resulted in Bulgarini’s having seen and adapted Memmi’s depiction of Saint Francis.

In light of this information concerning punch marks, it is critical to point out that

Bulgarini was not simply a slavish imitator of Memmi’s figure. The younger artist may have been influenced by Memmi, but the Francis he created for the Cavoni Chapel

Altarpiece, his first known rendering of Francis, has certain elements completely of

Bulgarini’s own design. Not merely a copy of Memmi’s, Bulgarini’s Francis shows that the artist was thinking differently about how the Saint should be represented. Switching the hands with which the Saint pulls back the tear in his robe, and changing the gesture of pulling the cloth from that of a gentle sweep, to one more of a firm grip, Bulgarini changed the impact that the revelation of the stigmata has on the viewer. With the inclusion of a weighty bible under Francis’s right arm, Bulgarini perhaps meant to show

Saint Francis more as the founder of his order and a servant of the word of God. 31 Not long after the creation of a new type of Saint Francis exposing his side wound, Bulgarini again used this new way of depicting Saint Francis for the pinnacle of another altarpiece. Little is known about this pinnacle, now located in the Wallraf-

Richarzt Museum in Cologne, Germany (Figure 10), 19 but the rendering of the draperies

as well as the positioning of Francis’s left eye (which is characteristic of Bulgarini, and

looks very much like that of the figure of Saint Francis in the Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece)

seems to confirm the attribution of the panel to the artist.20

In this work, Bulgarini once again changed the format of Saint Francis exposing

his side wound by having the Saint facing toward the left. This turn is more than just

incidental as it places the wound of Saint Francis, traditionally depicted on the right side,

more in the direct line of sight of the viewer. In this depiction of the Saint, the great

emphasis that Bulgarini placed on the wound is seconded by the inclusion of a slim cross

in the figure’s left hand. Thus it seems that the artist was interested in conveying Saint

Francis’s likeness to and relationship with the crucified Christ.

Lastly, another altarpiece from the shop of Bulgarini depicts Saint Francis

opening the tear in his robe to expose the wound of the stigmata in his side. This altar

painting, housed in the Bernard Berenson collection at the Villa I Tatti, Florence (Figure

11), consists of five panels. These show the Virgin and Child, flanked by (from left to the right) Saint Francis, Saint John the Baptist, Saint Augustine, and Saint Mary Magdalene.

Above the main panels are pinnacle figures of Saint James, Saint Paul, The Redeemer,

Saint Peter, and Saint Louis of Toulouse.

No documented evidence about the date or patronage of this work survives.

However, based on the prominence of Franciscan Saints, it can be surmised that it had 32 Franciscan patronage. Other characteristics of the painting, such as the low spring point of the arches, point to a date close to Bulgarini’s Sestano Altarpiece (Figure 12), in which

both the figures and format are similar.21 This would place the Berenson Polyptych in the

late-1340’s, and approximately in the same decade as both the Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece

and the Cologne pinnacle; however, the Berenson Polyptych is not accepted as fully by

the hand of Bulgarini by all scholars.22

The Berenson Polyptych include at least two different hands.23 According to

Steinhoff-Morrison the figures of Saint Francis, as well as Saint Augustine, Saint Mary

Magdalene, and their accompanying pinnacles may be attributed to one artist (Hand A).

Another artist (Hand B), she has also proposed, was responsible for the figures of Saint

John the Baptist, Saint Paul, and Saint James. Both of these artists, were affiliated with

Bulgarini’s workshop as their styles reappear in other works attributed to Bulagrini. 24

In the Berenson Polyptych, Bulgarini effectively blended both the Cavoni and

Cologne types of Saint Francis exposing his side wound. The Berenson Francis takes the

pose of the Cologne Francis by turning to the left to better expose his wound; yet, instead

of placing a cross in his left hand, Bulgarini again shows Francis with a book tucked

securely under his arm. These books differ, however, in both their size and shape and in

their positioning in relation to the body of Francis.

Thus, not only was Bulgarini the first artist to consistently use the design type of

Saint Francis pulling back the fabric of his robe with his right hand to expose his side

wound, but also he was the first artist, it seems, to alter and develop the new figure to suit

his patron’s needs, as well as his own. These changes to the figure, however slight as they

may seem, are monumentally important in establishing the fact that it was Bulgarini’s 33 prototype, not Memmi’s, which was responsible for the spread of this new Franciscan imagery. While illustrations of Francis which are almost identical to Bulgarini’s compositions of the Saint abound in later Sienese art, Memmi’s figure with the gesture of benediction remains for the most part an anomaly, until it re-appeared much later in the

Quatrocento.

1. Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 5.

2. Giorgio Vasari, Lives, 120.

3. Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 5. Bartolommeo’s father, Bolgarino di Simone Bulgarini, is identified as “Misser Bulgarinio.”

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., 23. A Biccherna is a small, painted panel. These were created between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries as covers for the official documents of the Commune of Siena. Although the term was derived from the name of the chief financial office of Siena (the Biccherna), the usage of the word was extended to include painted panel covers for documents of other Sienese civic institutions such as the tax office (Gabella), the hospital of Santa Maria della Scala, the Opera del Duomo, and various lay confraternities. For further discussion of these covers, see Hayden B.J Maginnis “Biccherna,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 4:321.

6. Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 26. 7. Ibid., 30. 8. Ibid. Steinhoff-Morris states that 16 soldi per day “matches the highest salary paid to any of the twenty-four painters similarly employed by Pope Urban V and in fact was awarded only to those few whom the Pope held in the highest regard.” For a discussion of the publication of the document and its identification with Bulgarini, see Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 31, n. 43.

9. Ibid., 61. This document is located in Siena, Achivio di Stato, Ospedale ms. no. 62, Donazioni e Oblazioni (1347-1437, f.78 [October 5, 1370]).

10. Elizabeth Beatson, Norman Muller and Judith Steinhoff, “The Saint Victor Altarpiece in : A Reconstruction.” Art Bulletin 68 (1896): 610-31. Unpublished church inventories of Siena Cathedral (years 1591 and 1594) reveal that artist Bartolommeo Bulgarini was commissioned around 1351 to paint an altarpiece dedicated to Saint Victor. As described in documents, the altarpiece was a Nativity flanked by two saints. According to the authors, the only panel ascribed to Bulgarini which fit the date, 34 composition, and size of this now lost work is the Nativity (Fogg Museum of Art, Harvard). By studying the panel joining, tooling of the halos, and the artist’s choice of colors, the authors also maintained that two panels of unsure authorship (showing Saint Victor and Saint Corona) from the Statens Museum in Copenhagen, as well as, “Ugolino Lorenzetti’s” Louvre and Blinding of Saint Victor belong to the dismantled diptych.

11. Steinhoff-Morrison suggests that the altarpiece was made early in Bulgarini’s career and, based on the possible patronage and the complexity of the visual organization, is to be dated to the first few years of the 1340’s. For a complete discussion of the dating, see Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 341-53.

12. Ibid., 342-343.

13. Ibid., 345.

14. Ibid. Although the records pertaining to the Covoni family suggest several different members of the family as possible patrons for Bulgarini’s altarpiece, Giovanni di Guasco (1292-1353) seems the most likely candidate. He was highly active in the service of the commune and the church of Santa Croce. His patronage would also account for the inclusion of two Saint Johns (Giovanni) in the altarpiece.

15. At the end of his entry on Pietro Lorenzetti, Vasari states: “A disciple of Pietro was Bartolommeo Bologhini of Siena, who wrought many panels in Siena and other place in Italy, and in Florence there is one by his hand on the altar of the Chaple of S. Silvestro in S. Croce.” Giorgio Vasari, Lives, 120.

16. Erling Skaug, Punch Marks from Giotto to , 2 vols. (Oslo: IIC-Nordic Group, 1994), 27.A simplified example of how the study of punch tool designs can be used as part of the investigation of the relationship between two artists is the case of Jacopo di Mino del Pellicciaio. Pellicciaio’s early works (1342-48/50) contain only the punches used by the elder painter, the anonymous Master of the Loeser Madonna. Although around 1348/50-62 Pellicciaio seems to come into maturity as an artist and begins to use other punches, he still retains those punches belonging to the Master of the Loeser Madonna, presumably because the elder painter had either stopped painting or died. Scholars have hypothesized this sharing of tools as a father-to-son continuity, which would identify the anonymous Loeser Master as Mino Parcis da Siena, a collaborator of Simone Martini, recorded as being Pellicciaio’s father.

17. Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 2, 7.2. Skaug asserts that after Simone Martini developed extensive punchwork around 1315-1320, the practice spread to other painters of his generation such as Ugolino di Nerio, and the Lorenzetti brothers and that these painters acquired their own punches, allowing their respective shop outputs to be distinguished from the 1320’s on. Skaug also states that painters of the next generation, such as Bartolommeo Bulgarini, also acquired their own punches before mid- century, allowing their works to also be distinguished from each other and the previous generation.

35 18. Ibid., 7.12. The earliest known surviving painting by Bulgarini, the Fogliano Triptych consists of a Madonna and Child, 91.5 x 58.5 x 2.8 cm (Opera del Duomo, Siena) and Saint Ansanus 79.2 x 42.5 x 3cm and Saint Galganus, 73.4 x 42.4 x 3 cm (Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena). De Nicola (1912-13) was the first to note the correspondences between the Madonna and the panels of Saint Ansanus and Saint Galganus, and the dowel holes confirm that the three panels belong together. Punch mark evidence, painting technique, and iconography relate the triptych to other Sienese paintings of the late 1330’s; thus, it is at this time span that Steinhoff-Morrison places the triptych’s date. Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 326-332.

19. In his article on “Ugolino Lorenzetti” (Art Bulletin 13 (1931): 376-98), Millard Meiss first attributes this painting to Bulgarini. Meiss also suggested the dating of the panel to the early part of Bulgarini’s career. This attribution is accepted by Steinhoff-Morrison, who places its date soon after the Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece (early-1340’s) and before 1348. See Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 362.

20. Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 411.

21. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Sestano Altarpeice, late-1340’s tempera on panel, Saint Peter, 137.4 x 89 x 2.2 cm, Saint Paul, 91.6 x 52.2 x 2.4 cm, and Saint John the Evangelist, 92.2 x 53.2 x 2.2 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. The earliest reference to the altarpiece is Brogi’s inventory of 1862 in which he recorded the three panels in the church of San Bartolommeo in Sestano. Meiss attributed the panels to ‘Ugolino Lorenzetti’ in 1931, which has been universally accepted by subsequent writers. The generally dark palette, style, and iconography have led scholars to consistently date the work before the middle of the fourteenth century. For more information, see Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 396-402.

22. Ibid., 408. The acceptance of the Berenson Polyptych by the hand of Bulgarini is not fully accepted by all scholars. Perkins (1931) was the first to recognize stylistic similarities between the Berenson polyptch and the work of “Ugolino Lorenzetti” and the Ovile Master. Brandi (1933) pointed out the close relationship between this polyptych and The Radicondoli Polyptych (Siena Pinacoteca, #54), a work now considered to be by Bulgarini. Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 408, attributes the Berenson Polyptych to the shop of Bulgarini.

23. Ibid.

24. Steinhoff-Morrison states that Hand A is much closer than Hand B to Bulgarini and may even be the master himself. Hand A seems to have painted some of the pinnacles of Radicondoli Polyptych (Siena Pinacoteca, #54). Hand B is found in the Louvre Crucifixion (Paris, Louvre, # 312), the Frankfurt Blinding of Saint Victor (Stadelsches Kunstinstut, # 2135), the Esztergom Saints (Moses and Daniel, Christian Museum, # 55.142, and #143), and the prophets in the spandrels of the Assumption of the Virgin (Siena Pinacoteca, # 61). Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 408, 36

CHAPTER FOUR

THE DEPICTION OF SAINT FRANCIS IN THE CIRLCE OF BULGARINI

In the 1340’s, at the time of Bulgarini’s burgeoning fame and influence, it seems that Siena was experiencing a sudden loss in master painters. Simone Martini had already been at the papal court of Avignon for many years, and such older, influential painters as

Segna di Bonaventura and Ugolino di Nerio were already deceased. Then in 1348, the

Black Plague struck Siena.1 This catastrophe not only decimated the city’s population, but

also cut short the lives of the highly significant Lorenzetti Brothers as well as many other

promising artists. With the great painters of the later Trecento, such as Andrea Vanni,

still in their very early youth, only Bulgarini, Barna da Siena (a painter whose very

existence is debated), and Lippo Memmi were of any established name and practice.

With the collapse of the traditional artist workshop due to the high mortality rate,

it has been suggested by some modern scholars that many of the surviving painters

banded together in a loose alliance in which they collaborated on works, shared technical

and stylistic elements, and helped to train developing artists. This alliance, hypothesized by author Erling Skaug, has been titled the “Sienese Post-1350 Compagnia.”2 Bulgarini

appears to have been a very influential member of this partnership and his shop may have

3 been the physical location of much of the company’s activity. It is also likely that it was

through this artistic association that Bulgarini’s new type of depiction of Saint Francis spread.

Skaug’s hypothesis for the existence of the Post-1350 Compagnia is based on the

presence of identical punches in the works of various artists active in Florence and Siena 37 around 1350. In his in-depth study, Skaug confirmed that, generally, Trecento workshops tended to have their own set of punch tools, which were shared by shop members. These punches, however, were not normally used by or lent to persons outside of the particular shop.4 Early Sienese artists, such as Simone Martini, the Lorenzetti Brothers, and Ugolino

di Nerio, all used different punches in their respective shops, which in turn allowed their

outputs to be readily distinguished from the 1320’s to mid-century.5

Before 1350, according to Skaug, the painters of the generation that succeeded

Martini and the Lorenzetti, artists like Bulgarini, were using punches that were uniquely

their own, and which also allowed for their output to be distinguished from each other

and from their predecessors. However, Skaug determined that around 1350, right after the

outbreak of the Black Death, the individual nature of the different workshops’ punches become blurred, and punches which had formerly only been found in a specific artist’s

oeuvre begin to be found in many of the works of the principal painters in the city. This

distribution of punch motifs suggests that many of the principle painters in Siena after the

Black-Death were in close enough contact to be able to borrow and share punch tools.6

Skaug’s investigation of the punches of Bulgarini gives very convincing evidence

that the artist was an important part of the Post-1350 Compagnia. The eighty-three

distinct punches that he recorded in Bulgarini’s work are the largest number known to

date to have been used in any Trecento painter’s workshop. Even when subtracting the

punches that may have been borrowed from other artists, those punches that might be

considered the property of Bulgarini are still considerable. The number surpasses, as

Skaug commented, even those found in the works of Pietro Lorenzetti.7 38 One artist who seems to have been very active in the Sienese Compagnia, and who most likely worked in very close contact with Bulgarini, is the artist Jacopo di Mino

Pellicciaio (fl 1342– c.1396). Pellicciaio’s documented activity began in 1342, only a

few years later than Bulgarini’s.8 Records from 1362 concerning the movement of

Duccio’s Maesta mention both Pellicciaio and Bulgarini as involved in the endeavor.9

This text offers proof that the two artists knew each other and were called to participate in this project. Because many of Pellicciaio’s works exhibit Bulgarini-esque qualities, several scholars have suggested that Pellicciaio must have been influenced by him in different stages of his artistic career.10

Although the exact duration and nature of Bulgarini and Pellicciaio’s relationship

is unknown, several of Pellicciaio’s paintings, such as The in the

Museo Civico, Montepulciano, c. 1348-62, bear strong resemblances to Bulgarini’s work.

Also, it appears that nine of the total twenty-two decorative punches used in Pellicciaio’s

Coronation can also be found in Bulgarini’s work. Of these nine shared punches, three

appear in Bulgarini’s early paintings and probably originally belonged to him.11

In his altarpiece, Madonna and Child with Saints (Figure 13), now located in the

Siena Pinacoteca, Pellicciaio depicted a Saint Francis that is very close to Bulgarini’s

images of Francis which were likely his prototypes.12 Pellicciaio’s altarpiece was created

around 1345, or soon after Bulgarini had created the Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece.13 In his work, Pellicciaio captured the essence of Bulgarini’s figure, including the sway of

Francis’s back, the bulging fold of the habit around his neck, and the clutching motion of his fingers against the fabric. The congruencies between Bulgarini’s and Pellicciaio’s figures suggest that Pellicciaio was aware of Bulgarini’s Francis in the Cavoni Chapel 39 Altarpiece, or another similar Francis by him, and that the younger artist created his figure after Bulgarini’s design.

Yet, it is not only the stylistic similarities between the two artists’ compositions of

Francis which give an indication of Bulgarini’s association with Pellicciaio. The sharing of punch mark decorations between the two painters also supports the view that

Pellicciaio was a part of Bulgarini’s sphere. Of the twenty-two different punches

Bulgarini used in his paintings containing the depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound, the three designs that Skaug identified as numbers 265, 320, and 398 (Figure 14) appear in Pellicciaio’s art executed just after his Siena altarpiece, Madonna and Child with Saints, of c. 1345.14 This suggests that at some time before or around Pellicciaio’s

creation of Saint Francis exposing his wound for his c. 1345 altarpiece, Pellicciaio was working in close enough proximity to Bulgarini to have borrowed and used his punch tools.

Interestingly, the influence, and more specifically the borrowing of punch tools,

was mutual between the two artists. In his Siena Madonna and Child with Saints

altarpiece of c. 1345, Pellicciaio used nine different punches.15 Skaug noted that these

punches are, for the most part, distinct to Pellicciaio’s work and were previously the property of the ‘Master of the Loeser Madonna,’ who is thought to have been

Pellicciaio’s father.16 In the few years between Bulgarini’s first depiction of Saint Francis

in the Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece and his later depiction of the Saint in the Berenson

Polyptych, three of Pellicciaio’s nine punch designs were used by Bulgarini. The evidence that the shared punches provide is significant because it allows it to be determined that Pellicciaio and Bulgarini were in direct contact during the time in which 40 both artists were actively creating depictions of Francis exposing his side wound. Thus, it seems likely that while the two artists were swapping punch tools, Pellicciaio was also being introduced to the elder painter’s unique depiction of Saint Francis.

Several later fourteenth-century Sienese artists who most likely had contact with

Bulgarini in the years following the initiation of the Post-1350 Compagnia also have

paintings in which they depict a figure of Saint Francis exposing his side wound. These

depictions of the Saint seem to be fairly close copies of Bulgarini’s Francis in the Cavoni

Chapel Altarpiece.

Luca di Tomme (fl 1356–89), like Jacopo di Mino Pellicciaio, seems to have been

in close contact with Bulgarini.17 The head of a busy workshop, Luca, along with Bartolo di Fredi Cini, was one of the most successful artists in Siena during the second half of the

fourteenth century. The first documentation of the artist is in 1356 when he is listed as a

member of the Sienese painters’ guild.18 By 1362 Luca is listed as having joined

Bulgarini and Pellicciaio on the transferal of Duccio’s Maesta from the high altar of the

Duomo in Siena.19 This documented cooperation between Luca and Bulgarini confirms

the relationship between the two artists that can be seen in both their styles and

techniques. Equally compelling is the evidence that--much like in the relationship

between Bulgarini and Pellicciaio--Luca and Bulgarini used identical punches in several

paintings, indicating a sharing of their tools.20

A panel attributed to the shop of Luca di Tomme shows a depiction of Saint

Francis exposing his side wound (Figure 15). Very little is known about this panel, as its

provenance and location are unknown and its condition is poor.21 Although Erling Skaug

has uncovered convincing evidence for the close working relationship between Bulgarini 41 and Luca in the form of shared punch mark decorations, the decoration of this particular panel has not been studied. Unlike other fourteenth-century depictions of Saint Francis exposing his side wound, this one is not a close copy of Bulagrini’s Cavoni Chapel type

Francis. Much like Memmi’s figure, this Francis reaches over his body with his left hand to pull at the fabric covering the wound on his right side. Unlike the gentle, sweeping gesture of Memmi’s saint, however, Luca’s figure clutches the fabric with the tightly bent fingers reminiscent of Bulgarini’s figures. The influence of Bulgarini on the younger painter may be seen more in the rendering of the body of the figure of Saint Francis than in the gesture. Much like Bulgarini’s depictions of Saint Francis, Luca’s Francis languidly leans backward, with his hips slightly forward. His voluminous robe seems weighty and the thick cowl around the Saint’s neck has deep, bulky, shadowy folds. Even the rendering of the heavy pleats of Francis’ robe where it is tied by the rope belt, which it overlaps, is very similar to that of Bulgarini’s Francis.

Niccolo di Buonaccorso (fl Siena, 1356; bur Siena, 17 May 1388) was a slightly younger contemporary of Luca di Tomme, and presumed to have been the son of the painter Buonaccorso di Pace.22 His name first appears in the membership list of the

Sienese painters’ guild in 1355-6, and in 1375 he, along with the painter Bartolo di Fredi

Cini, was elected as a representative of the Terzo di Camollia.23 Sometime between 1378

and 1386 Niccolo registered in the Sienese painters’ guild, and in May 1388 he is listed

as among those buried in the convent of San Domenico, Siena.24

Although little is actually known about Niccolo’s training, it has been suggested

that he might have received his initial instruction in the 1360’s in the workshop of Jacopo

di Mino Pellicciaio.25 If this supposition is correct, it means that Niccolo almost assuredly 42 would have had contact with Bulgarini, who was at the time working with both

Pellicciaio and Luca di Tomme on the removal of Duccio’s Maesta from the Duomo.

In Niccolo’s Stories of the New Testament (Figure 16), the artist includes a

depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound (Figure 17).26 This altarpiece was

housed in the convent of Saint Marta in Siena, though little else is known about its making or commission. Relatively little research has been done on Buonaccorso’s life and art, and no thorough analysis of his use of punch mark decoration has been attempted. Nevertheless, Buonaccorso’s figure of Saint Francis in the Stories of the New

Testament is related to the Saint Francis type that appears in Bulgarini’s Cavoni Chapel

Altarpiece. Although there are slight stylistic differences between the two figures of the

Saint, the gesture of the Saint’s cradling the book in his left hand, the thick fold of the habit over the rope belt, and even the wide V-like spread of the first two fingers of the right hand suggest Buonaccorso’s familiarity with Bulgarini’s figure.

Among the works of another artist closely associated with Niccolo Buonaccorso,

the Master of Panzano (fl c. 1360–90),27 there is also found another Bulgarini-type-

depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound. The oeuvre of this Sienese painter

was grouped by Bernard Berenson around a small triptych, Mystic Marriage of Saint

Catherine, Saint Peter, Saint Paul and Other Saints, in the Church of San Leolino,

Panzano.28 While this is generally accepted, scholars are in much debate about the other

details of the unknown painter’s life, career, and artistic formation. Several dates of

activity have been proposed for the Master, and several artists, namely Niccolo di

Buonaccorso, Bartolo di Fredi Cini, and Luca di Tomme, have been named as playing a part in the formation of his style.29 43 A panel that has been attributed to the artist, which is now in the San Diego

Museum of Art (Figure 18), shows a picture of Saint Francis exposing his side wound.

Once again, almost nothing is known about the origin or making of this panel. Yet, a comparison of this painting with Bulgarini’s depiction of Saint Francis in the Cavoni

Chapel Altarpiece shows that the Panzano Master must have been familiar with

Bulgarini’s art, be it through the painter himself, or through his involvement with the

Post-1350 Compagnia.

Although the Francis of the Panzano Master shows an interesting innovation in having the forefinger of the Saint point to his wound, the figure type is still essentially that of the figure of Francis in Bulgarini’s Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece. The most striking similarity is the book and the way each Saint holds it. Both painters chose to show

Francis cradling the closed book under the left arm, holding it very close against the body and seemingly supported both by the hand, placed precariously near the bottom corner, and by the movement of the arm pressed against the body. The books themselves are very similar in design and both share the peculiarity of looking almost bent, and overly sharp at the bottom edge. In the Master of Panzano’s figure, however, we find the first panel painting depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound in which the figure’s body is completely shown. Aside from Simone Martini’s fresco in the Saint Martin Chapel, and the statue of Saint Francis in the Siena Cathedral, all of the other depictions of Francis displaying his side wound have shown only the torso of the Saint (a three-quarter length pose). From this point on the full-length representation of the Saint becomes predominant. 44 Another very successful painter of the late-fourteenth century, Bartolo di Fredi

Cini, also adopted the type of Francis seen in Bulgarini’s Cavoni Chapel Altarpeice.

Bartolo di Fredi is first mentioned in Sienese records in 1353, when he leased a workshop with the painter Andrea Vanni.30 Some of his earliest known works show clear stylistic links with the followers of Simone Martini, especially with Lippo Memmi and the Master of the Madonna di Palazzo Venezia, a painter already established as working closely with

Bartolommeo Bulgarini.31 After 1937 none of Bartolo di Fredi documented works can be

identified. However, two paintings can be attributed to the painter final years, both of

which show the influence of Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Taddeo di Bartolo. These two

paintings are an altarpiece, now partly reconstructed, with Saints Peter, Paul and John

the Evangelist,32 and the , perhaps from the Chapel of the Magi in

San Domenico, Siena.33

In the Coronation Altarpiece (Figure 19), considered one of Bartolo’s most

spectacular works, the artist included a Bulgarini-type depiction of Saint Francis

exposing his side wound. The altarpiece was commissioned by the confraternity of Saint

Peter in 1383, probably to adorn the large Annunciation Chapel in San Francesco in

Montalcino. Due to delays and his brief exile from the city, Bartolo apparently complete

the work until 1388, the year inscribed on the altarpeice.34 Patricia Hapring has noted that

although the Coronation Altarpiece is now disassembled, a written description from the

eighteenth century allows the attempts at an accurate reconstruction to be made. The altarpiece drew on many prototypes, including Duccio’s Coronation in the stained glass window in the of the Siena Duomo (c. 1290), Jacopo di Mino del Pellicciao’s 45 Coronation of the Virgin (early-1300’s), and Bartolommeo Bulgarini’s Assumption of the

Virgin (ca. 1350/1360) (Figure 20), which was then in Santa Maria della Scala.35

The further influence of Bulgarini can be seen in the similarities between

Bartolo’s depiction of Saint Francis and Bulgarini’s Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece prototype.

Despite the few differences in the artists’ styles, the portrayals of the Saint are almost

exactly alike. Both Saints use their left hand to closely clutch a book to their waists, and

the action of the right hand draws attention to the gaping hole in the cloth of the figure’s

side, through which the wound of the Stigmata can be seen. Bartolo even tries to capture

the rounded, sloping shoulder of Bulgarini’s figure, as well as the figure’s curving stance

and forward bending head.

These few artists were in no way the end of the practice of portraying Saint

Francis exposing his side wound. The new Franciscan iconography popularized by

Bulgarini continued to thrive in the art of Siena well into the fifteenth century, and also

found its way into repertoire of the painters of Siena’s neighbor and rival, the city of

Florence.

1. Diana Norman, Painting in Late Medieval and Siena (1260-1555) (London: Yale University Press, 2003), 125.

2. Skaug, Punch Marks from Giotto to Fra Angelico, 89. Skaug states that around 1350 the sphragiologically distinct workshops in Siena become blurred as all the punches available were shared by the principle painters of the city. Skaug calls this phenomenon the “Post- 1350 Compagnia”, and situates Jacopo di Mino del Pellicciaio, Naddo Ceccarelli, Niccolo di Ser Sozzo, Luca di Tomme and Bartolommeo Bulgarini as members.

3. Judith Steinhoff, “Artistic Working Relationships after the Black Death: A Sienese Compagnia, c.1350-1363 (?),” Renaissance Studies 14 (2000): 8.

4. Skaug, Punch Marks from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol.1, 253.

5. Ibid., 256. 46

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., 252

8. Momar S. Frinta, “Deletions from the Oeuvre of Pietro Lorenzetti and Related Works by the Master of the Beata Umiltà, Mino Parcis da Siena, and Jacopo di Mino dell Pelliciaio” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 20 (1976): 13.

9. For a discussion of the movement of Duccio’s Maesta from one area in the Siena Cathedral to another, see Steinhoff-Morrison,“Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 262. The document, which pertains to Bulgarini, is in the Archivio dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena, Entrata e Uscita no. 343 (1362), f.4v (August), records the following: “ a bartolomeo di miss. bolgharino e Lucha dipentore e Iachomo dipentore ebero che furo arghomentare a levare la tavola de la madona quando si trasmuto e posesi dal crocefiso ebero xxx soldi per uno di lore monto in tutto quattro Lire e dieci soldi” (270).

10. Steinhoff, “Artistic Working Relationships,” 8.

11. Skaug, Punch Marks from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol.2, 7.8 and 7.12. The twenty-two punches found in Pellicciaio’s Montepulciano Coronation of the Virgin are nos. 62, 86, 135, 191, 209, 265, 303, 320, 349, 355, 383, 432, 433, 434, 514 536, 559, 597, and 617. Two of these punches (nos. 290 and 386) originally belonged to the Master of the Loeser Madonna. Eleven punches (nos. 209, 279, 292, 303, 383, 432, 433, 514, 559, 597 and 617) are of an unknown origin. Nine punches were shared with Bulgarini (nos. 62, 86, 135, 265, 320, 349, 355, 434, and 536). Of these nine punches, three (nos. 86, 135, and 536) were used by both artists approximately around the same time, making the ownership of the tool unclear. The remaining six punches (nos. 62, 265, 320, 349, 355, and 434) were likely to have originally been the property of Bulgarini, with two of these punches (nos. 265, 320) appearing repeatedly in Bulgarini’s early works.

12. Enzo Carli. La Pittura Senese del Trecento (Milano: Electa, 1981), 96. Carli noted that Jacopo di Mino Pellicciaio’s Madonna and Child with Saints, c. 1345, was originally attributed to the “Master of the Ordini” by Longhi. Carli futher added that Bellosi made the attribution to Jacopo di Mino del Pellicciaio by linking the work to a number of other paintings, including Madonna and Child, Church of Saints Martin and Victor in Sarteano, which is signed by the artist and dated 1342.

13. Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 2, 7.8. The dating of Pellicciaio’s works is difficult, but the recent consolidation of his oeuvre has made it possible to construct a chronology. Though there are only two extant signed and dated paintings, Madonna and Child, 1342 (SS Martino e Vittoria, Sarteano), and The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine, 1362 (Museo Civico, Siena), scholars have divided Pellicciaio’s work into three periods. The first period (1342-1348/50) seems to have been when the artist was affiliated with the shop of the Master of the Loeser Madonna. All of the punch marks used by Pellicciao during this time were taken over from the Loeser Master. During the second period (1348/50-1362), the height of which is the execution of the Montepulciano Coronation, twenty new punches are found in Pellicciaio’s works. These new punches are shared with the majority of the other painters in Siena. The last period (c. 1362- ?) began with the Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine (1362). Only a few punches from the 47 previous period were still being used, as the artist introduced new punches. The information on Pellicciaio’s chronology comes from Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 1, 235.

14. Only several works attributed to Pellicciaio have, thus far, had their punchmarks studied. Of these several works, only the Coronation of the Virgin (Museo Civico, Montepulciano), Madonna and Child with Saints (Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena), and The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine (Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena) contain punches previously used in the works of Bartolommeo Bulgarini.

15. Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 2, 7.8.

16. Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 1, 234. The Master of the Loeser Madonna is the fictitious name of an anonymous painter who was a contemporary of the Lorenzetti. This name was derived from a dispersed polyptych in the Charles Loeser Donation, Florence. Frinta suggest that the Loeser Master is Magister Minus pictor Parcis de Senis (Mino Parcis), who was mentioned in a document dated September 21, 1321 along with Magister Petrus pictor Laurentii de Senis (Pietro Lorenzetti), as a collaborator on an altarpiece for the Pieve at . Thus, Frinta speculates that, based on his name, Jacopo di Mino del Pellicciaio’s use of the Loeser Master’s punches is a father to son continuity. Frinta, “Deletions from the Oeuvre of Pietro Lorenzetti,” 21.

17. For a brief overview of the career of Luca di Tomme, see Carola Hicks, “Luca di Tomme,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 19: 375-74.

18. Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 250.

19. Pia Palladino, Art and Devotion in Siena after 1350: Luca di Tomme and Niccolo di Buonaccorrso (San Diego: Timkin Musuem of Art, 1997), 11. For more information about the removal of Duccio’s Maesta, see note 12.

20. Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 253.

21. Sherwood A. Fehm, Luca di Tomme: A Sienese Fourteenth-Century Painter (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986), 161. This panel has not been dated. Lucca’s works generally are dated to the decades that comprise what is seen as five phases of his style. In Sequence A (c.1350/56?-62) are Lucca’s earliest works. This is the time in which the artist may have had contact with the Post-1350 Compagnia and Bartolommeo Bulgarini. During Sequence B (1362) new punches were introduced to Lucca’s art (chiefly because most of the Post-1350 Compagnia’s tools were now in Florence), and he began a collaboration with Niccolo di Ser Sozzo. The last to phase of Lucca’s career is distinguished by new punch acquisitions. His late period is divided into three parts: Transition phase B/C (1362/63-1366), Sequence C1 (1367-69/70) and Sequence C2 (1370-90). For more discussion on Luca’s dating see, Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 1, 246- 48.

48 22. H.P.J Maginnis, “Niccolo di Buonaccorso,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 23:9. According to Maginnis, Buonaccorso di Pace was active 1348 to c. 1362.

23. Pia Palladino, Art and Devotion in Siena, 46. Siena was originally divided into areas, called "terzi", literally meaning “thirds”. The first terzo, called "Terzo di Città" was the earliest inhabited area of the city, the second, the "Terzo di Camollia" takes its name from the City Gate, the Porta Camollia, and the third terzo is "Terzo di San Martino."

24. Ibid., 47.

25. Ibid.

26. Niccolo di Bonaccorso (Buonaccorso), Stories of the New Testament altarpiece was originally found in the Convent di Santa Maria a Siena, as noted by De Angelis in 1816. It was first attributed to Buonaccorso by Federico Zeri in 1978. This attribution was confirmed by Boskovits in 1980. For a detailed discussion of the above, see Enzo Carli. La Pittura Senese del Trecento (Milano: Electa, 1981), 95-96.

27. Palladino, Art and Devotion in Siena, 51.

28. John Richards, “Master of the Panzano,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 20:741.

29. Pia Palladino, Art and Devotion in Siena, 67.

30. Gaudenz Frueler, “Bartolo di Fredi Cini,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 7:328-29.

31. For a discussion of the relationship between the Master of the Palazzo Venezia Madonna and Bartolommeo Bulgarini, see Steinhoff-Morrison, “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting,” 245 and Steinhoff, “Artistic Working Relationships,” 10.

32. See Frueler, “Bartolo di Fredi Cini,” 7: 329.

33. Patricia Harpring, The Sienese Painter Bartolo di Fredi Cini (Cranbury, NJ : Associated University Presses, c1993), 87, and 167, nos. 39 and 45.

34. Ibid., 87, and 176-77, n. 45. For a reconstruction of the Coronation Altarpiece, see 89.

35. Ibid., 89.

49

CHAPTER FIVE

THE DEPICTION OF SAINT FRANCIS IN FLORENCE

The depiction of Saint Francis before the mid-Trecento often relied on the

prototypes of the depiction of the Saint which had been codified during the decoration of

Basilica of Saint Francis in Assisi during the late-thirteenth and early-fourteenth

centuries. With the Church’s official acceptance of Francis’s stigmata, and more

particularly his side wound, it became common practice in art to clearly depict Francis

with all five marks of the crucifixion.

In Florence the model for the portrayal of Saint Francis came primarily from the painter Giotto. Though subtlety varied, Giotto’s renderings of the Saint often consisted of two major types. The first type shows the Saint with his arms in various positions, yet with a large and clear rip in his habit exposing the wound on his side (Figure 21). This gesture was common to the depiction of the Saint in the city of Siena, as well, and was favored by many of the painters of the late- and early-Trecento. In the second type, which was more particular to Florence than to Siena, the Saint has his hands folded over his chest, crossed just over the stomach region, as can be seen in the Peruzzi

Altarpiece (Figure 22). The convention of showing Francis exposing his side wound

would not commonly appear in Florentine panel paintings until around 1360, long after it

had been established in Siena.

The first Florentine artist to depict Saint Francis exposing his side wound was

Bernardo Daddi. One of the most important painters in Florence during the first half of

the fourteenth century, Daddi was a pupil of Giotto and he and his workshop were 50 preeminent in the production of small-scale specialized panel paintings.1 His c. 1334

altarpiece, Virgin and Child with Saints (Figure 23), is the earliest known Florentine

panel portraying Saint Francis displaying the wound in his side.2 Due to the abraded and

flakey condition of the paint surface, it is difficult to tell the exact nature of the figure’s

gesture, but Francis appears to be pushing back the fabric of a tear in his habit with the

fingers of his right hand to expose a glimpse of his side wound.3

Although Daddi’s Francis is an interesting highlight in the early Florentine

depiction of Saint Francis, it seems to have had little to no impact on the illustration of

the Saint in the works of his contemporaries. Much like in the work of the early Sienese

artists, such as Lippo Memmi and Simone Martini, who also pioneered a unique portrayal

of Francis exposing his side wound, Daddi’s new Francis is not found in any other of his

known works, nor does it seem to be the model for successive Florentine painters.

Interestingly, this portrayal of Francis also does not find its way into the art of any of

Daddi’s immediate followers, with the exception Puccio di Simone, who will be

discussed later.

The artist who introduced to Florence of a type of Saint Francis taken specifically

from Bulgarini and the artistic tradition of Siena, where images of Francis exposing his

side wound had been flourishing, was Giovanni da Milano. This may have come about

through Giovanni’s probable involvement with Bulgarini and the Post-1350 Compagnia.

The knowledge of Giovanni da Milano is complicated by the fact that his life is

scantily documented. The painter is first recorded in December 1346, with his name

appearing on a Florentine document.4 From 1346 to 1363, his whereabouts are unknown

and the only thing that can be said for sure about him is that for these seventeen years he 51 stayed away from Florence.5 Just before May 1365, Giovanni’s name appears again in the

documents of Florence, and in 1366 he was offered and accepted Florentine citizenship.

After this time his location is disputed, and it is not until 1369 that his name shows up

again in the documents of the Vatican. In this year, he was in Rome, working for Pope

Urban V, who commissioned him to paint some chapels. According to Vasari, after

Giovanni left Rome, he returned to Milan where he continued painting until his death

around 1369.It has been hypothesized that during his long absence from Florence,

between the years 1346 and 1363, Giovanni ended up in Siena, where he began working

with Bulgarini in the Post-1350 Compagnia.6

In one of Giovanni’s works dating from about this time, the San Torpe Altarpiece

(Figure 24), the artist included a curiously Bulgarini-esque type depiction of Saint

Francis. A comparison between Bulgarini’s and Giovanni’s images of Francis shows that

Giovanni was almost certainly aware of Bulgarini’s tradition of the depiction of Saint

Francis exposing his side wound. Giovanni’s figure shows the same format of Francis

exposing his side wound that Bulgarini developed in the Cavoni Altarpeice. Both figures

of Francis pull back the fabric of the tear in the robe with their right hand while clutching

a book close to their left side. Showing the figure of Francis in full length, however, may

refer back to the tradition of other Sienese Post-1350 Compagnia artists, such as the

Master of Panzano and Bartolo di Fredi Cini.

Besides leaving the circle of the Post-1350 Compagnia with Bulgarini’s design of

the depiction of Saint Francis, Giovanni apparently also left Siena with a great number of

Bulgarini’s and the Compagnia’s punch tools. Of the six punches Giovanni used to

decorate his San Torpe Altarpiece, all of them were originally Sienese. In addition, the 52 one punch tool that Giovanni used on his panel of Saint Francis, design 283 (Figure 25), originally belonged to Bulgarini and was used by him in the Berenson polyptych.7 Thus, the evidence of the punch marks seem to prove that Giovanni must have had contact with

Bulgarini and his circle, resulting in Giovanni’s importation of the new Sienese iconography to Florence.

After the very first depictions of a Sienese type Saint Francis in the works of

Giovanni da Milano, the illustration of Francis in this manner began to spread throughout the works of other Florentine artists. One of the first of these new depictions is found in a work by the painter Puccio di Simone (fl c. 1345–65). Puccio’s Saint Francis (Figure 26) is distinct, however, in that although it was more than likely inspired by Giovanni da

Milano’s depiction of the Saint, it does not easily compare to those illustrations of

Francis which are part of the Sienese tradition.

Puccio di Simone (also known as the Master of the Fabriano Altarpiece) was one of the many pupils of Bernardo Daddi. In his essay, John Richards wrote: “Puccio everywhere shows himself indebted to Bernardo Daddi—in his compositions, his figure types, in decorative details and in his choice of the fabrics with which he clothes his

Virgins and Saints.”8 Yet, Daddi had died about the same time Puccio’s career began to

flourish and most assuredly the elder artist was not the only one to influence him.

Scholars have also agreed that he was influenced by such artists as and

that he must have been aware of the work of Giovanni da Milano.9

Puccio’s panel in the Fogg Museum of Art in Cambridge, Massachusetts, offers

an interesting alternative type to the early depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side

wound by Daddi and the later Sienese prototype made by Bulgarini and reintroduced to 53 Florence by Giovanni da Milano. Puccio’s painting shows the Saint in the traditional

Florentine pose of arms crossed against the chest as Giotto depicted the figure; yet, the right hand crosses under the left to pull back the fabric of the robe and expose the wound in his side. Little is known about this altarpiece, except that it is thought to be among the artist’s very last works and it seems to have been painted jointly with a minor painter known as the Master of the Corsi Triptych (also known as the Master of the Rinuccini

Chapel and the Master of the Barberino).10

Puccio’s Francis is an inventive derivation of Bulgarini’s Cavoni Chapel

Altarpiece combined with the crossed arm portrayal of Giotto. At the time Puccio’s painting was made, Bulgarini’s had been in the Florentine Church of Santa Croce for more than ten years. Undoubtedly, a work produced by one of Siena’s preeminent painters and placed in one of Florence’s most important religious centers would not have gone unnoticed by Puccio, nor would Giotto’s painting in the same church. Puccio’s

Saint Francis is distinctive, not only in his oeuvre, but also in the works of Florence in general.

It was in the works of the artists who became part of the circle of Giovanni da

Milano that the depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound (and more specifically the type introduced by Bulgarini) began to flourish in the art of Florence.

Based on the diffusion of identical punches first in the works of many principal

Sienese artists, and later in the works of many Florentine artists, Skaug hypothesizes that

there were two large joint workshops, which he calls “compagnie,” working in Trecento

Tuscany. In one large workshop were the members of the Sienese Post-1350 Compagnia, 54 and in the second were Florentine artists headed by Giovanni da Milano.11 This

Florentine compagnia Skaug calls the “Post- 1363 Collaboration.”12

From the mid 1360’s onward, Giovanni da Milano’s punch tools (including those introduced from Siena) seem to have been used by all of the principal Florentine masters.13 Unlike in the Post-1350 Compagnia, however, where all the artists’ punches

were pooled, it seems that the artists of Florence just suddenly stopped using their own

punches in favor of those of Giovanni. The collaboration seems to have begun around the

time Giovanni da Milano arrived in Florence, circa 1364, and continued until the mid

1370’s.14 It was also during this time of collaboration between the Florentine artists that

we see in the art of Florence the rise in the depiction of Saint Francis holding open the tear in his robe. One of the first and most important painters to have joined this collaboration and to have taken up the Sienese type depiction of Saint Francis was the painter Giovanni del Biondo.

Biondo seems to have been an extremely prolific artist, and his surviving oeuvre

is said to be the richest of any Florentine painter.15 He was born in Casentino, and is first

documented in Florence in the year 1356 as having acquired Florentine citizenship.16

Stylistically he was one of the followers of Orcagna, though he also worked closely with

Nardo di Cione and Jacopo del Casentino. Due to his large output of works a chronology

of Biondo’s works is a monumental task. However, Erling Skaug arranges the painter’s

works in a loose group of three periods. In the first, his Sequence A, are works dating to

the years 1356/60-1365. In the second, his Sequence B, are works from about 1365-1375,

and in the third, his Sequence A2, are the works dated about 1375.17 It was during the

years 1365-75 that Biondo became associated with the Post-1363 collaboration and with 55 Giovanni da Milano, and it was during these years that a Sienese type image of Saint

Francis exposing his side wound appears in his art.

In Biondo’s panel, Saints John the Evangelist, Bartholomew and Francis with other Saints (Figure 27), now in the Vatican Pinacoteca, the artist used eight different

punches (nos. 501, 4, 7, 292, 434, 614, 615, and 611).18 Of these punches, six were used both in the works of Giovanni da Milano and in the Sienese Post-1350 Compagnia (nos.

4, 7, 292, 434, 614, and 615). It is also interesting to note that all six of these punches were Sienese in origin and were used by Giovanni da Milano in his San Torpe Altarpiece,

which shows the depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound. Thus, it seems

likely that lacking any previous significant Florentine models of Francis exposing his side

wound, except for those of Giovanni da Milano, Biondo’s choice in the depiction of the

Saint was influenced by the Sienese type established by Bartolommeo Bulgarini.19

Giovanni da Milano’s importation of the Sienese type depiction of Saint Francis

and its subsequent dispersal in the Florentine Post-1363 collaboration is hardly the end of

the story when it comes to the tradition of the depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side

wound. A long list of later Florentine artists, such as Giovanni dal Ponte (1385-1437),

Lorenzo di Niccolo (1392-1412), and Giovanni di Francesco (1412-1459), as well

fifteenth-century Sienese and Venetian painters, readily embraced the new iconography,

making it a common part of the practice of the depiction of the Saint well into the

Renaissance.

1. Enrica Neri Lusanna, “Daddi, Bernardo,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 8:441.

56 2. Most of this altarpiece is now in the Johnson Collection of the Fogg Museum of Art, Cambridge, Mass; the panel of Saint Francis is in the Fitchburg Museum, Mass.

3. Carl Brandon Strehlke, Italian Paintings, 1250-1450, in the John G. Johnson Collection and the Philadelphia Museum of Art (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art in association with the Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 98. Interestingly, unlike the earlier depictions of Saint Francis that show the Saint with his free hand raised in benediction, with a cross, or with a book, Daddi’s Saint seems to be clutching his belt with his free hand.

4. Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 1 181.

5. Ibid., 257.

6. Ibid., 181.

7. Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 2, 6.11.

8. John Richards, “Simone, Puccio di,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 25:691.

9. Richard Freemantle, Florentine Gothic Painters (London: Martin Secker7&Warburg, 1977), 86. The first recorded mention of Puccio di Simone was his enrollment in Medici e speciali between 1346 and 1348. About 1349 he islisted in a Pistoiese document as one of the best painters of his time. Puccio’s last work is dated 1360, and by 1362 he was dead. Puccio’s chronology is still relatively uncertain. The first phase of Puccio’s works may correspond to the period he spent in Daddi’s Shop (i.e, until 1348). In the next phase of his career, the mid-1350 period, Puccio is presumed to have had a close relationship with painter Allegretto Nuzi. Puccio’s late period, toward the 1360’s, has been characterized as one of isolation from his contemporary Florentines. During this time, he was associated with the Corsi-Barberino Master and the Pistoiese painter Giovanni di Bartolomeo Cristiani. In most of his works Puccio used the punches and style of tooling from the workshop of Daddi. The similarities between the two artists in this respect are so great that it is sometimes almost impossible for scholars to tell the difference between the two artists. Yet, in several paintings created towards the end of Puccio’s career, new punches not found in Daddi’s work begin to appear. In the Cambridge Triptych, Puccio used six different punches. Two of these six punches designs, numbers 285 and 311, are from the shop of Daddi and were used in many of Puccio’s early works. Another punch, number 267, seems to have been Puccio’s own and was also used in many of his earlier works. Yet, the last three punches, numbers 253, 435, and 497, are a complete anomaly in Puccio’s oeuvre and only show up in this particular work. These new punches in Puccio’s work suggest that there is stylistic evidence for the triptych not only being a collaboration, but also displaying punches that might have belonged to the collaborating artist.

10. Ibid. This artist was among the minor contemporaries of Orcagna (doc. 1343- d.1368). Designated by Offner as the “Master of the Corsi” and “Master of the Barberino Madonna” by Zeri, Boskovits proposed the synthesis of the two. Skaug proposes that this master was one of many who were involved in what he calls the “Post-1348 Problem”. This is a provisional heading for a number of roughly contemporary works that were 57 tooled by a mixture of punches from second hand sources, punches that previously belonged to the Master of the Dominican Effigies, Bernardo Daddi, Jacopo del Casentino, and (surprisingly) Pietro Lorenzetti. It seems that these punches became available after the death of their owner in the plague of 1348. A number of these punches available from Bernardo Daddi’s shop must have been shared with Puccio di Simone, testifying to contact also with him.

11. Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 1, 254.

12. Ibid., 183.

13. Ibid., 255.

14. Ibid., 186.

15. Brendan Cassidy, “Del Biondo, Giovanni,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996), 12:708.

16. Skaug, Punch Mark from Giotto to Fra Angelico, vol. 1, 200.

17. Ibid., 204.

18. Ibid. This panel, dated 1365-75, falls into Biondo’s period of association with the Florentine Post-1363 collaboration.

19. Unlike Bulgarini’s Francis prototype, Biondo’s Saint Francis does not include a book tucked under his left arm. Biondo does, however, place a book very close to Francis’s arm by including it in the hands of the Bishop Saint to the left of Francis.

58

CONCLUSION

Though the seeds for the tradition of the depiction of Saint Francis holding open the tear in his habit to expose his side wound were sown in the late-thirteenth and early- fourteenth centuries by various master painters, it was not until the time of Bartolommeo

Bulgarini that the practice became commonplace in panel painting.Through Bulgarini’s

great talent, innovation, and influence, the custom of illustrating the Saint exposing his

side wound became an institution in its own right, not only in Siena but also in Florence

and beyond.

Although the influence of Lippo Memmi can be seen in both the works by

Bulgarini and his later contemporaries, it is truly Bulgarini’s image of Francis, as seen in

the Cavoni Chapel Altarpeice, with the grasping of the tear in the fabric and the book

pressed tightly to the side, that became the standard for depicting the Saint in Sienese

painting. Copied and modified by Bulgarini’s contempories, this iconography can be seen

as a marker in the study of Bulgarini’s contact with his fellow artists, and of his broad

influence on fourteenth-century painting. This iconography also gives visual evidence in

support of Skaug’s hypothesis of the collaborative workshop in post-plauge Siena. The sharing of the image of Saint Francis exposing his side wound suggests that many of the various artists living in Siena in the mid-fourteenth century were thinking, training, and working together.

The arrival of the new Franciscan iconography in Florence in the works of

Giovanni da Milano supports the notion that this artist was active in the art production of

the circle of Bulgarini in Siena. Though Giovanni’s Francis also shows the influence of 59 such artists as the Master of Panzano and Bartolo di Fredi Cini, the type is still essentially

Bulgarini’s, suggesting the Master’s sway. The dispersal of the Sienese type Saint Francis among the circle of Giovanni da Milano, speaks of Bulagrini’s influence (albeit removed) and provides visual evidence to support the hypothesis of the Post-1363 collaboration of

Florentine artists that Skaug has described.

Unfortunately, studies such as this are inevitably incomplete. Many works that could have shed further light on the subject have now been either lost or destroyed, and the removal and dispersal of panels from their original location has made the knowledge of existing works irrevocably fragmentary. In many cases even the most basic facts about a piece of art, such as its date and creator, have been lost and must be reconstructed using stylistic analysis. Appendix I was created to familiarize the reader with the centers of the

Franciscan order in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Tuscany, and to the types of art that were created for each. This information is intended to give the reader some additional insight into the practices, patronage, and influence of the Franciscans in fourteenth century Tuscany.

As important as Bulgarini was to the depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound, the new iconography also owes its existence and dispersal to the influence of the culture and ritual of the religious experience which informed it. Although it is impossible to pinpoint the exact reason that the image of the Saint exposing his side wound was important to the Franciscans, the traditions of both the order and of the Catholic faith hold some answers. Just as the miracle of the resurrection transformed Christ, the miracle of Francis’s stigmata became the pivotal point in the life and legend of the Saint. That both the resurrection and the stigmata were doubted, only to be verified by the testing of 60 the side wound, is of monumental importance. The displaying of Francis’ side wound in art became a visual test of ‘seeing is believing’ and a testament to the belief in the resurrection and the divinity of Christ.1 Undoubtedly, the connection between art and the

written word was fueled by early Franciscan literature and Appendix II and III provide

excerpts from the writings of both Thomas of Celano and Saint Bonaventure regarding

the nature and significance of Francis’s stigmata. Franciscan culture in Italy in the

fourteenth century was vast and the investigation into the importance of the stigmata and

the side wound of Saint Francis for the Franciscans and how it is reflected in the other

mediums bears more investigation.

Even though Franciscan literature was a great influence the final decision for the depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound was ultimately that of the patrons.

Although we can reasonably deduce the identity of the patron for Bulgarini’s Cavoni

Chapel Altarpiece, how or why Bulgarini was chosen to carry out the commission for the rival city is unknown. Similarly the patrons and their connections to the other artists displaying Saint Francis exposing his side wound are unknown. One likely source to consider is the Church of Santa Croce itself. As the largest and most important

Franciscan center in Tuscany, it was home to art works commissioned by many prominent families from many of the most important artists of both the thirteenth- and fourteenth-centuries. The fact that the church is in Florence speaks of the influence that its art might have had on the later generations of Florentine artists who drew not only of

Bulagrini, but also on Giotto and Daddi, for their creations of Saint Francis. Although the exact nature of the workings of the artistic milieu of Santa Croce is unknown, its study 61 could bring valuable insight to both the study of the iconography of Saint Francis, as well as fourteenth century Tuscan art in general.

The study of the creation and dispersal of Bulgarini’s iconography of Francis, as it stands, is significant to future studies both of the artist and of Trecento art in many ways.

First of all, it establishes the visual origins and pattern of diffusion of the depiction of

Saint Francis exposing his side wound. This information opens the possibilities for the inquiry into the significance and derivation of the image, as well as establishes a precedent for further study into Franciscan iconography. Also, this inquiry brings more insight into the development of art in Trecento Siena, expanding the role of Bartolommeo

Bulgarini, the idea of the Sienese alliance (compagnia), and the importance of other lesser studied artists active in Bulgarini’s circle.

1. The depiction of Saint Francis exposing his side wound may also refer to other popular images of the time such as the Doubting Thomas and Man of Sorrows. The story of the Doubting Thomas is based on the Biblical account of Thomas the Apostle, who doubted the and demanded to feel Jesus' wounds before being convinced. After seeing Jesus alive and receiving the opportunity to touch his wounds, Thomas professed his faith in Jesus. This story is paralleled in the legend of Saint Francis by the account of the verification of the stigmata. Upon Francis’s death, the wounds of the Saint were allowed to be viewed. A Knight called Gerolamo (Jerome) doubted their authenticity and insisted on touching them. Upon touching the side wound, Gerolamo’s doubts were removed and he became a zealous advocate of the miracle. The Man of Sorrows is an image of Christ, often clothed in a loincloth, wearing the crown of thorns and displaying the wounds from the cross in his hands, feet and sides. The idea for the images comes from the story of the Mass of Gregory the Great. During the Eucharist, Christ appeared on the altar – d isplaying His still-bleeding wounds - and letting the blood drip into the chalice. This act was seen as proof of the transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ during the mass.

62

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beatson, Elizabeth, Norman Muller and Judith Steinhoff. “The Saint Victor Altarpiece in Siena Cathedral: A Reconstruction.” Art Bulletin 68 (1896): 610-31.

Bennett, B. A. “Lippo Memmi, Simone Martini’s ‘Fratello in Arte’: The Image Revealed by his Documented Works.” Ph.D diss., U. Pittsburgh, 1977.

Berenson, Bernard. “Ugolino Lorenzetti: Part One,” Art in America 5 (1917): 259-75.

_____. “Ugolino Lorenzetti: Part Two.” Art in America 6 (1918): 25-52.

_____. Essays in the Study of Sienese Painting. New York: Frederic Fairchild Sherman, 1918.

_____. Italian Pictures of the Renaissance: A List of the Principal Artists and Their Works With an Index of Places. Central Italian and North Italian schools. Vol.1. London: Phaidon, 1968.

_____. “Quadri Senza Casa: Il Trecento Senese, II” Dédalo 2 (1930): 329–62.

Bourdua, Louise M. “Franciscan Order” The Dictionary of Art. Vol. 11. Edited by Jane Turner. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

_____. The Franciscans and Art Patronage in Late Medieval Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Cassidy, Brendan. “Del Biondo, Giovanni.” The Dictionary of Art. Vol.12. Edited by Jane Turner. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

Carli, Enzo. La Pittura Senese del Trecento. Milano: Electa, 1981.

Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Lisbeth. “Paganello, Ramo di.” The Dictionary of Art. Vol.25. Edited by Jane Turner. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

Chiarini, Gloria. The Florence Art Guide. 2004. http://www.mega.it/eng/egui/monu/xpiazza.htm (accessed February 13, 2006)

Cole, Bruce. “A New Triptych by Niccolò di Buonaccorso” Burlington Magazine 199 (1977): 184-187.

Cook, William R. Images of Saint Francis of Assisi: In Painting and Glass from the Earliest Images to ca. 1320. Perth: University of Western Australia, 1999.

63 Coor, Gertrude. “Two Unknown Paintings by the Master of the Glorification of Saint Thomas and Some Closely Related Works” Pantheon 19 (1961): 126-35.

Cruickshank, J. W. The Smaller Tuscan Towns. New York: H. Holt and Company, 1912.

DeWald, Ernest. “Master of the Ovile Madonna.” Art Studies 1 (1923): 45-54.

Fehm, Sherwood A. Luca di Tomme: A Sienese Fourteenth-Century Painter. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986.

_____. “Attributional problems surrounding Luca di Tommè.” Essays presented to Myron P. Gilmore. Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice, 1978.

Fleming, John. From Bonaventure to Bellini: An Essay in Franciscan Exegesis. Princeton: Princeton University, 1982.

Freemantle, Richard. Florentine Gothic Painters. London: Secker & Warburg, 1975.

Frinta, Momar S. “Deletions from the Oeuvre of Pietro Lorenzetti and Related Works by the Master of the Beata Umiltà, Mino Parcis da Siena, and Jacopo di Mino dell Pelliciaio” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 20 (1976): 271–300.

Frueler, Gaudenz. “Cini, Bartolo di Fredi.” The Dictionary of Art. Vol.7. Edited by Jane Turner. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

Giorgi, Rosa. Saints in Art. Translated by Thomas Michael Hartmann. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003.

Goffen, Rona. Spirituality in Conflict: Saint Francis and Giotto’s Bardi Chapel. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press, 1988.

_____. Piety and Patronage: Bellini, Titian, and the Franciscans. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

Habig, Marion, ed. St. Francis of Assisi: Writings and Early Biographies. English Omnibus of the Sources for the Life of Saint Francis. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1977.

Harpring, Patricia. The Sienese Painter Bartolo di Fredi Cini. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, c1993.

Heap, Felix Arnold. “The Impact of Written Sources on the Development of the Franciscan Theme in Italian Painting Leading to Changes in the Iconography in 64 Depictions of St. Francis of Assisi in the Late Sixteenth Century.” Ph.D. diss., Franciscan University of Steubenville, 1974.

Hicks, Carola. “Tomme, Luca di.” The Dictionary of Art. Vol.23. Edited by Jane Turner. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

Holder, Philancy N. in Context: The History and Architecture of an Italian Hill Town to the 17th Century. Clarksville, Tenn.: HP Pub. Co., 1992.

House, Adrian. Francis of Assisi: A Revolutionary Life. London: Chatto and Windus, 2001.

Jannella, Cecilia. Simone Martini. Firenze: Scala, 1989.

Kanter, Laurence B. and Giovanni Morello, eds. The Treasury of Saint Francis of Assisi. Milan: Electa, 1999.

Lavin, Marilyn Aronberg. : San Francesco, Arezzo. New York: G. Braziller, 1994.

Lusanna, Enrica Neri. “Daddi, Bernardo” The Dictionary of Art. Vol.8. Edited by Jane Turner New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

H.P.J Maginnis. “Buonaccorso, Niccolo di.” The Dictionary of Art. Vol. 23. Edited by Jane Turner. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

_____. “A Re-identified Panel by Niccolò di Buonaccorso” Source 1 (1982): 18–20.

Mallory, Michael. “An Altarpiece by Lippo Memmi Reconsidered” Metropolitan Museum Journal 9 (1974): 187-202.

Martindale, Andrew. “Martini, Simone.” The Dictionary of Art. Vol.20. Edited byJane Turner. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

Martucci, Roberto. Florence: Guide to the Principal Buildings: History of Architecture and Urban Form. Venezia: Canal & Stamperia, 1997.

Meiss, Millard. “Ugolino Lorenzetti.” Art Bulletin 13 (1931): 376-98.

_____. “Bartolommeo Bulgarini altrimenti detto ‘Ugolino Lorenzetti’?,” Rivista d’Arte 18 (1936): 113-36.

Moleta, Vincent. From St. Francis to Giotto. Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1983.

Moorman, John. A History of the Franciscan Order. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. 65

_____. Early Franciscan Art and Literature. Manchester: Manchester University, 1943.

_____. Medieval Franciscan Houses. St. Bonaventure, N.Y: Saint Bonaventure University, 1983.

Muller, Norman E. “Observations on the painting technique of Luca di Tomme.” Bulletin (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) 19 (1973): 12-21.

Norman, Diana. Painting in Late Medieval and Renaissance Siena (1260-1555). London: Yale University Press, 2003.

Offner, Richard and Klara Steinweg. A Critical and Historical Corpus of . New York: New York University, 1930–84.

_____. “A Ray of Light on Giovanni del Biondo and Niccolò di Tommaso” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 7 (1956): 173–82.

Prato, Italy. The Church of San Francesco. http://www.po-net.prato.it/artestoria/citta/eng/francesc.htm (accessed April 3, 2006)

Palladino, Pia. Art and Devotion in Siena after 1350: Luca di Tomme and Niccolo di Buonaccorrso. San Diego: Timken Museum of Art, 1997.

Richards, John. “Master of Panzano” The Dictionary of Art. Vol. 20. Edited by Jane Turner. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

_____. “Simone, Puccio di” The Dictionary of Art. Vol. 25. Edited by Jane Turner. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1996.

Ross, Janet. The Story of Lucca. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1912.

Sarteano, Italy. The Church of San Francesco. http://www.welcometuscany.it/special_interest/thermal_spas/siena_Sarteano.htm (accessed February 13, 2006)

Scheller, Robert W. Exemplum: Modle-Book Drawings and the Practice of Artistic Transmission in the . (ca. 900-ca.1470).

Skaug, Erling. Punch Marks from Giotto to Fra Angelico. 2 Vols. Oslo: IIC-Nordic Group, 1994.

Steinhoff-Morrison, Judith. “Artistic Working Relationships after the Black Death: A Sienese Compagnia, c.1350-1363(?)” Renaissance Studies 14 (2000): 1-45. 66

_____. “Bartolommeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting of the Mid fourteenth Century.” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1989).

Strehlke, Carl Brandon. Italian paintings, 1250-1450, in the John G. Johnson Collection and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art in association with the Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004.

The Church of San Francesco, Cortona. http://www.sojourn-in-italy.com/Cortona_Churches/Cortona_SFrancesco.html (accessed February 13, 2006)

The Church of San Francesco, Grosetto. 2003. http://www.gol.grosseto.it/puam/comgr/turismo/sfrancesco.php?l= (accessed February 13, 2006)

The Church of San Francesco, Siena. 2006. http://www.sienaonline.com/church_of_san_francesco.html (accessed February 13, 2006)

The Church of San Francesco, Pistoia. http://www.comune.pistoia.it/eng/scoperta_41_eng.html (accessed February 13, 2006) or L. Gai. San Franceso, La Chiesa e il convento in Pistoia. Pistoia: 1993.

Valentiner, W. R. “Observations on Sienese and Pisan Trecento Sculpture.” Art Bulletin 9 (1927): 177-221.

Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Translated by Gaston Duc de Vere. London: Macmillan, 1912.

White, John. Art and architecture in Italy 1250-1400. 3d ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1993.

67

Figure 1. Saint Gregory Master or Third Master of Anagni, Saint Francis, 1228, fresco, Sacro Speco of San Gregorio, Subiaco. 68

Figure 2. Bonaventura Berlinghieri of Lucca, The Legend of Saint Francis, 1235, tempera on panel, 160 x 123 cm, San Francesco, Pescia. 69

Figure 3. School of Giotto, The Dream of Gregory IX, c. 1291-92, fresco, Upper Church of the Basilica of San Francesco, Assisi. 70

Figure 4. Unknown Sienese Sculptor, Saint Francis, c. 1300, stone, Church of San Francesco, Siena. 71

Figure 5. Simone Martini, Saint Anthony and Saint Francis, c. 1317, fresco, Chapel of Saint Martin, lower Church of the Basilica of San Francesco, Assisi. 72

Figure 6. Lippo Memmi, Saint Francis, c. 1325, tempera on panel, 105 x 44 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. 73

Figure 7. Bartolommeo Bulagrini, Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece, c.1340, tempera on panel, 121 x 181 cm, Centro di Restauro, Foretezza da Basso, Florence. 74

Design # 72

Design # 178

Figure 8. Memmi’s punch designs (numbered 72 and 178 by Skaug) found in Bulgarini’s early works, c. 1339- 40. 75

Figure 9. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Fogliano Triptych, before 1340, tempera on panel, Madonna and Child: 91.5 x 58. 5 cm, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena, Saint Ansano: 79.2 x 42. 5 cm, and Saint Galgano: 73.4 x 42. 4 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. 76

Figure 10. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Saint Francis, 1340’s, tempera on panel, 53 x 43.5 cm, Wallraf-Richarzt Museum, Cologne. 77

Figure 11. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, The Berenson Polyptych, late-1340’s, tempera on panel, Madonna and Child (91.5 x 57 cm), and lateral panels (approx. 68.5 x 39 cm), Bernard Berenson Collection, Villa I Tatti, Florence. 78

Figure 12. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Sestano Altarpeice, before 1350, tempera on panel, Saint Peter:137.4 x 89 cm, Saint Paul: 91.6 x 52.2 cm, and Saint John the Evangelist: 92.2 x 53.2 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. 79

Figure 13. Jacopo di Mino Pellicciaio, Madonna and Child with Saints, c. 1345, tempera on panel, 200 x 240 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. 80

Design # 320

Design # 398

Design # 265

Figure 14. Bulgarini’s punch designs (numbered 398, 265, and 320 by Skaug) as seen here in his Berenson Polyptych, Cavoni Chapel Altarpiece, and the Cologne Francis. 81

Figure 15. Shop of Luca di Tomme, Saint Francis, mid-to late 14th century, tempera on panel, 23 x 18.2 cm, Private Collection. 82

Figure 16. Niccolo Buonaccorso, Stories of the New Testament, mid-to late-14th century, tempera on panel, 110 x 75 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. 83

Figure 17. Niccolo Buonaccorso, Saint Francis detail from Stories of the New Testament, mid-to late-14th century, tempera on panel, 110 x 75 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. 84

Figure 18. Master of Panzano, Saints Francis and Ansanus, late-14th century, tempera on panel, approx. 26.7 x 10.2 cm, Museum of Fine Art, San Diego. 85

Figure 19. Bartolo di Fredi Cini, Saint Francis, detail of Coronation Altarpiece, 1388, tempera on panel, 200 x 115 cm, Musei Civico, Montalcino. 86

Figure 20. Bartolommeo Bulgarini, Assumption of the Virgin, early-1360’s, tempera on panel, 204.4 x 112 cm, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. 87

Figure 21. Giotto Bondone, Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata, c. 1295-1300, tempera on panel, 31.3 X. 16.3 cm, Louvre, Paris. 88

Figure 22. Giotto Bondone and Assistants, The Peruzzi Altarpiece, c. 1310-15, tempera on panel, 105.7 x 250.2 cm, North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh. 89

Figure 23. Bernardo Daddi, Saint Francis, 1334, tempera on panel, 90.8 x 34.3 cm, Mrs. R.F. Pickhardt Collection, Sherborn, Massachusetts. 90

Figure 24. Giovanni da Milano, Saint Francis, c. 1360, tempera on panel, 113.1 x 39.5 cm, Louvre, Paris. 91

Design # 283

Figure 25. Punch (numbered 283 by Skaug) used by both Bulgarini and Giovanni da Milano. 92

Figure 26. Puccio di Simone, Saint Francis, after 1360, tempera on panel, 88.8 x 40.6 cm, Fogg Museum of Art, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 93

Figure 27. Giovanni del Biondo, Saints. John the Evangelist, Bartholomew and Francis with other Saints, 1365-75, tempera on panel, 100 x 36 cm, Pinacoteca, Musei Vatican, Rome. 94

APPENDIX I

FRANCISCAN CHURCHES IN TUSCANY * denotes churches not plotted on the map

In the beginning the Order of the Friars Minor was only a band of followers of Saint Francis, with the small Umbrian chapel of the Portiuncula as its center. The itinerant nature of the brotherhood, however, necessitated that the order send missions throughout Italy and much of the known world. Although Francis preferred the members of his community to live without property or fixed residences, slowly the Order of Friars Minor began to receive and/or construct permanent dwellings and churches. By the year 1217 the number of members and properties of the friars had grown to such an extent that it was decided, for the ease of governance, to set up a number of provinces.1 Italy was composed of several different provinces, each being further divided into custodies. The Province of Tuscany included the custodies of , Lucca, Florence, Siena, Arezzo, Chuisi and Marittima.2 Below is a list of each custody of Tuscany and the Franciscan churches founded there in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Notes pertinent to the art, history, and patronage of the churches in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries have been made wherever possible.

THE CUSTODY OF MARITTIMA: (plotted in red) -GROSETTO: San Francesco. The structure was first erected as San Fortunato by the Benedictines3 who had left Grosetto because of the danger from malaria.4 About 1220 the church and the convent were given over to Saint Francis who, upon returning from the East, had landed in a port along the Maremma coast.5 The church was restored and adorned in 1231 and further embellished in 1289 by Nello Pannocchieschi. Most of the early artwork is no longer in the church, although a beautiful Crucifix of great value adorns the High altar. This painting is attributed to Duccio di Boninsegna, and was most probably made in 1289, the year in which the church was reopened to worship.6

-SUVERETO: San Francesco. The Convent of San Francesco was founded in 1288, although the land was given to the order in 1286.7

-CASTIGLIONE DELLA PISCIA: San Francesco. The church was founded c. 1260.8

-MONTIERI: San Francesco. The Convent was said to have been founded by Saint Francis in 1220, but there is no real evidence to support this date. Early in the fourteenth century the friars had dispersed, but returned about 1324.9 95 -: San Francesco. The church was possibly founded c. 1220, as Ambrose de Massa, a priest, was said to have lived there for fifteen years when he died in 1236.10 The church yard stands upon a little promontory and owing to the slipping of the soil it has been almost entirely destroyed, being only a sixth of its original size. Near the door to the right is a sepulchral stone recording the death of a child, Bindoccius, the son of the Countess Margherita Aldobrandeschi (d.1312) and Dominus Nello Pannocchieschi. According to the tradition, Nello (or Paganello), desiring to be free to marry the Countess Margharita, had his wife Pia thrown from the window of his castle in the Maremma in 1295. Dante places Pia in the Antepurgetory among those who delayed repentance, “Remember me, who am La Pia” she says “Siena made me, Maremma unmade me” (Purg. v. 133).11

-PIOMBINO: San Francesco. The church was founded sometime before 1334. In 1453 the place was more or less destroyed in warfare.12

THE CUSTODY OF SIENA: (plotted in ) -SIENA: San Francesco. The Franciscan friars settled in the area of Siena c.1216, where they lived on the hills of Ravacciano. They moved into the city c.1236 and took over the church of San Pietro ad Ovile. They began building their own church in 1246.13 Almost completely ravaged by fire in 1655, the church of San Francesco was restored by Giuseppe Partini between 1885 and 1892. The facade was rebuilt between 1894 and 1913 to designs by Vittorio Mariani and Gaetano Ceccarelli.14 Despite the damage of the fire, much of the early art from the church survives. Over the entrance door was a statue of Saint Francis thought, until recently, to have been made by Ramo di Paganello (1281–?1328) or Nicola di Nuto (doc. 1321-1347-8). This statue, presumably due to the rebuilding of the façade, is now located on the right hand of the . 15 On the right wall, close to the entrance, is a fresco of the Visitation by Taddeo di Bartolo (b. 1362/63, Siena, d. 1422). In the cloister is a fresco, Madonna and Child, by Ambrogio Lorenzetti (b. c. 1290, Siena, d. 1348). The third chapel to the left of the choir contains two frescos by Ambrogio Lorenzetti, with the coat of arms of the Bandini Piccolomini family. In the chapel next to the choir (to the left) is a crucifixion by Pietro Lorenzetti (c.1280-1348), and in the first chapel to the right of the choir is an altarpiece, Madonna and Child, also by this artist. Over the altar of the chapel in the cloister of the Seminario is Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Madonna and Child.16

-: San Francesco. An early settlement house was being repaired here in 1227 and in 1247 the friars moved to a new site. Today, only the façade of the original church remains.17

-COLLE DI VAL D’ELSA: San Francesco. Franciscan friars were first known to be here in 1229, though the first church dedication was in 1485.18

96 -VOLTERRA: San Francesco. The church is said to have been built in the lifetime of Saint Francis; hence, it was built before the year 1226. The Chapel of the Cross was covered in frescos by Cenni Di Francesco Di Ser Cenni (1369-1415) of Florence in 1410.19

-POGGIBONSI:San Francesco. Saint Francis preached here in 1213 and the church of Santa Maria was given to him for the friar’s use in 1220. In 1405 it was given to the Observant branch of the Franciscans.20

-ASCIANO: San Francesco. The church was founded in 1313.21 On a pilaster in the chapel to the right of the choir is a painting, Madonna and Child, ascribed to Lippo Memmi (c.1290-1347).22

THE CUSTODY OF LUCCA: (plotted in purple) -PISTOIA: San Francesco. An old legend held dear by the people of Pistoia tells that it was Saint Francis himself who led his brothers to Pistoia, but in truth the first Franciscan community in the city was documented only in the mid-thirteenth century.23 In 1249 the friars acquired the church of Santa Maria in Prato and the refurbishing of the church was in process in 1250. In 1289 they had permission to build a new church, which was completed halfway through the fourteenth century.24 The choir of the church is painted with scenes of from the story of St. Francis by Puccio Capanna (c.1325-50), a disciple of Giotto, whose principal work can be seen in the Campo Santo, Pisa. In the Sacristy there are also other frescos by Puccio Capanna; these include Madonna and Child, Nativity, Crucifixion, , and the Stigmata.25 Many of the artworks that had enriched the church over time have since been relocated, such as the thirteenth-century Saint Francis panel, recently attributed to Coppo di Marcovaldo (c.1225-74), today in the Municipal Museum, and the painting, Madonna and Child with Angels, by Pietro Lorenzetti (c.1280-1348), today in the Gallery, Florence.26

-SAN MINIATO: San Francesco. The church is said to have been founded in 1221.27

-PESCIA: San Francesco. Although a community was founded in Pescia by Saint Francis in 1211, the simple church of San Francesco was not built until around 1300.28 The most important decorative feature of the church, which served as the burial place for the rich merchants of Pescia, is the large altarpiece by the Luccan painter Bonaventura Berlinghieri (active 1215-42). In an inscription beneath the feet of Saint Francis the artist signed and dated the work 1235, only nine years after the saint’s death. The panel is the oldest surviving example of this type of picture that portrays the saint in a central position surrounded by scenes of his life and works, a format which until then had been reserved for the Madonna and Child.29

-FUCECCHIO: San Francesco. The church was founded around the year 1250.30 97 -LUCCA: San Francesco. According to legend, the Franciscan rule was established in Lucca by Saint Francis himself, but the order had no permanent home until Brother Elias built a convent and a church there some time before 1253. It was in this church that Castruccio Castracane (1281-1328), duke of Lucca and a famous condottierri, was buried. Unfortunately, all that remains of this early church are two canopied monuments dating from 1249 and 1250, which are built into the west front on either side of the door.31 The existing church dates from the middle of the fourteenth century, and is largely due to the patronage of the Guinigi family.32 In 1345 Francesco Guinigi built the chapel of Santa Lucia near the cloister as a burial place for his family.

-CARMIGNANO: San Francesco. The convent is said to have existed in Carmignano since the time of Saint Francis, but it has always been very small.33

THE CUSTODY OF CHIUSI: (plotted in yellow) *-S. PROCESSO: San Francesco. Founded c. 1280, the church changed hands between the Conventuals and the Observants a number of times in the fifteenth century.34

*-PIANO:San Francesco. Franciscan were here in 1227 and a new convent was built in 1276.35

*-COLUMBAIA: San Francesco. Claims have been made that Saint Francis came here around 1221 for meditation, but most probably the community was founded here rather later, perhaps c. 1226. The convent became Observant at the end of the fourteenth century, in 1390 or 1400.36

-MONTALCINO: San Francesco. In 1285 the Abbot of the Benedictine monastery gave the friars a church with adjacent buildings, churchyard, and gardens.37

-SAN QUIRICO: Tuscany, Chiusi. San Francesco. The convent here was founded before 1343.38

-: San Francesco. Founded before 1443,39 the church was either rebuilt or restored by Pope Pius II (1405-64). In the nave are fragments of two works, Agony in the Garden and Madonna and Child with S. Francis and Anthony, which appear to be in the Florentine style of the end of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth century. In the choir are frescos of the life of Saint Francis, which may be the work of a follower of Agnelo Gaddi (1369-96).The paintings are said to have been executed by order of the Lamberti family of Pienza.40

-MONTEPULCIANO: San Francesco. The friars obtained the church of Santa Margarita de Saxo in 1229, which they turned into a convent dedicated to Saint Francis.41 98 -CHIUSI: San Francesco. The convent was founded before 1343. The Order of the Friars Minor in Chiusi were reputed to posses the ring given to the Virgin Mary when she became betrothed to Joseph. The house fell into decay, and was taken over by the Observants in 1459.42

-CETONA: San Francesco. Claims have been made that a house was founded here in 1212, but some scholars believe that this is not really possible. The confusion may stem from the fact that Cetona was visited in early times by brother Giles as a place of retreat.43

-SARTEANO: San Francesco. It has been declared that Saint Francis came here and founded a house in 1212. In 1463 the place was handed over to the Observants, but in 1466 the pope ordered it to be given back to the Coventuals. The people objected to this and the house was retained by the Observants.44 The church houses a triptych, Madonna and child with Saints, by Jacopo di Mino del Pellicciaio (1342–c.96).45

-RADICOFANI: San Francesco. The church was founded in 1256.46

THE CUSTODY OF FLORENCE: (plotted in pink) -FLORENCE: Santa Croce. Santa Croce is one of the largest and most richly decorated mendicant churches in Italy. The original design for the structure as it now appears is thought to have been the work of Arnolfo di Cambio (1245-c.1310). The foundations of the church were laid in 1294-95, and in 1320 construction was sufficiently far advanced for Mass to be celebrated here. When at last the church was finished in 1442, it was consecrated by Pope Eugene IV.47 The church was patronized by some of the most illustrious families in Florence at the time, such as the Bardi, Peruzzi, Tosinghi, Pulci, Rinuccini, and Alberti. Their chapels were decorated by many of the most famous artists of the Duecento and Trecento. The church includes works, such as a crucifix by (1240?–1302?), frescos in the Bardi and Peruzzi Chapels by Giotto (1267-1337), frescoes in Baroncelli chapel, in the sacristy (Crucifixion), in the refectory () by (c.1300-66), and frescoes in the Castellani Chapel and in the chancel by Agnolo Gaddi (c.1345-96).48 In 1560 Grand Duke Cosimo ordered substantial alterations to be made to the church. This work was entrusted to Giorgio Vasari, and consisted of pulling down the old choir, plastering over some of the fourteenth-century frescos, and inserting tabernacles.49

-FLORENCE: San Gallo. This church is where it has been said that Saint Francis stayed when he was in Florence and where it was that he met Cardinal Ugolino in 1218. However, it is not known exactly when a community was started here. In 1481 the hospital which belonged to the convent was handed over to the Augustinian Friars.50 99 -BARBERINO: San Francesco. The church was founded before 1278.51

-BORGO S. LORENZO (): San Francesco. The church was certainly founded before 1343. Bartholomew of Pisa says that Saint Francis was once there and that a pulpit is preserved from which he is said to have preached.52

-CASTEL FIORENTINO: San Francesco. A church was originally built here in 1236 and was either rebuilt or re-founded in 1399.53

-PRATO: San Francesco. According to legend the church was founded by Saint Francis in 1212, but this is doubtful.54 In 1228 the Town Council of Prato presented the Franciscans with land on which to build a little church and a priory, though construction did not begin until 1281.55 The cloister chapel contains the fresco, Crucifixion, by Niccolo Pietro Gerini (c.1368-1415), as well as the marble tomb of Gimignano Inghirami (1370-1460). Francesco Marco Datini (1335-1410) is also buried in this chapel.56

-FIGLINE: San Francesco. Tradition states that Franciscans were installed here in 1220, but there is no certain documentation of the Friars Minor before 1278.57

THE CUSTODY OF PISA: (plotted in green) -PISA: San Francesco. According to Gratien, the Order of Friars Minor settled here in 1211, but this can not mean much as the community had scarcely been organized by then. In 1228 they were given the church of in the city, though, owing to the hostility of the , they did not get possession of it until 1247. This building, however, proved to be too small, and a larger church was built in 1261.58 Although the building was restored in the beginning of the seventeenth century, some of the early artwork still remains. Some of the most notable pieces are the marble altarpiece, Madonna and Child with Saints Benedict, James (?), John the Baptist, Peter, Laurence, and Francis, by Tomasso Pisano, frescoes by Taddeo di Bartolo (dated 1395) in the sacristy, and frescos of scenes from the life of Christ by Niccolo di Pietro Gerini (c.1368-1415) in the cloister.59

-VICO PISANO: San Francesco. Vico Pisano is said to have been visited by Saint Francis, but the date of installation of Franciscans here is unknown.60

*-SAN MARTINO: San Francesco. The church was founded c. 1337.61

-SARZANA: San Francesco. A church is thought to have existed here by 1265, though it was rebuilt in 1309.62 100 -PONTREMOLI: San Francesco. The church was founded before 1343. In 1470 the Conventuals were turned out and replaced by the Observants.63

THE CUSTODY OF AREZZO: (plotted in blue) -AREZZO: San Francesco. According to one account, Saint Francis himself founded a small community in Arezzo in 1211 when he and a companion journeyed to the city and founded a convent in the town’s outskirts. In 1290, the Minorite brotherhood received permission to relocate inside of the city walls. The new church was designed by Giovanni da Pistoia in 1314, and is a single-aisle hall church with three graduated flat apses. By 1322 some functions could be performed within the structure, and by 1338 the church was fully operational.64 On the wall of the right isle are two paintings: The Crucifixion by Margaritone (active c.1250-90) and The Annuncation by Spinello Aretino (c. 1345-1410). The chamber at the foot of the tower has frescoes by Spinello Aretino. The chief feature of the church décor, however, is the fresco cycle depicting scenes of The Legend of the True Cross by Piero della Francesco (c. 1410/20-92).65

*-GANGARETO: San Francesco. The Order of Friars Minor is said to have been founded in Gangaretto by Saint Francis in 1211, but they are first known for certain to be there only in 1343.66

-LUCIGNANO: San Francesco. The church was founded before 1292.67

-LA VERNA (ALVERNA): The Franciscan convent and churches of La Verna are built upon the rocky cliffs of a spur from the Alpi di Catenaja, which divides the valleys of the Tiber and the Arno. According to legend, Saint Francis came here seeking a solitary spot where he might hold a vigil in honor of the Archangel Michael. He received the use of the mountain by the owner, Lord Orland of Chiusi. It was here that Francis received the Stigmata on September 14, 1224.68 CHIESA DEGLIE ANGELIE was begun before the death of Saint Francis and was finished in the fourteenth century. The convent was rebuilt after a fire in 1472; thus, most of the decoration comes from the fifteenth century and after. On the façade of the church are the coat of arms both of the Catani of Chiusi and of the Florentine Republic. The consuls of the Arte della Lana of Florence became custodians of the goods of the convent in 1432, and this right passed in time to the commune of Florence.69 CHIESA GRANDE was begun in 1348 by Count Tarlato of Pietramala, and his wife Countess Giovanna of Santa Fiore. It was finished by the consuls of the Arte della Lana, and the Florentines.70 CHAPEL OF THE CROSS, built in 1263, was formerly a cell to which Saint Francis withdrew when he wished to be entirely alone.71 CHIESA DELLA STIGMATA was built near the spot where Francis was said to have received the stigmata.72 101 -CASTEGLIONE FIORENTINO: San Francesco. There was a friary here in 1259.73

*-CERTOMONDO: San Francesco. The church was founded before 1265.74

-POPPI: San Francesco. The church was founded before 1265.75

-CORTONA: San Francesco. In 1200 this site belonged to the Benedictine monks of S. Egidio, who sold it to the Commune of Cortona.76 When Brother Elias returned to Cortona between 1239 and 1243, the city gave him this land on which to build a Franciscan church. The structure, started in 1244,77 rose quickly and was opened to worship in May of 1254.78 The church has been heavily remodeled, especially in the seventeenth century, and the original frescos that covered the walls were badly damaged and painted over. Most of the these frescos are by the School of Buonamico di Martino (active 1315-36) (called Buffalmacco) and date back to 1382.79 The chapel at the end on the right aisle contains a monument to Raniero Ubertini, Bishop of Cortona from 1325 to 1348, who was a victim of the plague of 1348. In the chorus is the tomb of Brother Elias (c. 1180- 1253), and in the crypt below, which is no longer accessible due to the seventeenth-century modifications, painter was buried after his death in 1523.80

-MONTEVARCHI: San Francesco. The church was founded in 1327.81

FRANCISCAN HOUSES NOT WITHIN A CUSTODY -CANDELARIA: Tuscany. A Conventual house was founded here in 1356.82

102

103 1. John R.H. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses (St. Bonaventure, N.Y: St. Bonaventure University, 1983), 691. 2. Ibid., 693. 3. The Church of S. Francesco, Grosetto. 2003. http://www.gol.grosseto.it/puam/comgr/turismo/sfrancesco.php?l= (accessed February 13, 2006) 4. Anne Mueller von der Haegen, Art &Architecture, Tuscany (Cologne: Könemann, 2001), 456. 5. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 209. 6. The Church of S. Francesco, Grosetto. 2003. http://www.gol.grosseto.it/puam/comgr/turismo/sfrancesco.php?l= (accessed February13, 2006) 7. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 467. 8. Ibid., 117. 9. Ibid., 322. 10. Ibid., 292. 11. J. W. Cruickshank, The Smaller Tuscan Towns (New York: H. Holt and company,1912), 423-24. 12. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 385. 13. Ibid., 450-53. 14. The Church of San Francesco, Siena. 2006. http://www.sienaonline.com/church_of_san_francesco.html (accessed February 13, 2006) 15. Ibid. 16. Cruickshank, The Smaller Tuscan Towns, 331-33. 17. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 426. 18. Ibid., 141. 19. Cruickshank, The Smaller Tuscan Towns, 413-14. 20. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 389. 21. Ibid., 32. 22. Cruickshank, The Smaller Tuscan Towns, 351. 23. The Church of San Francesco, Pistoia. http://www.comune.pistoia.it/eng/scoperta_41_eng.html (accessed February 13, 2006) or L. Gai. San Franceso, La Chiesa e il convento in Pistoia. Pistoia: 1993. 24. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 387. 25. Cruickshank, The Smaller Tuscan Towns, 144-45. 26. The Church of San Francesco, Pistoia. http://www.comune.pistoia.it/eng/scoperta_41_eng.html (accessed February 13, 2006) or L. Gai. San Franceso, La Chiesa e il convento in Pistoia. Pistoia: 1993. 27. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 430-1. 28. Ibid., 380. 29. Haegen, Art &Architecture, 110. 30. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 192. 31. Janet Ross, The Story of Lucca (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1912), 228-30. 32. Ibid., 228-30. 33. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 110. 34. Ibid., 432. 35. Ibid., 383. 36. Ibid., 143. 104 37. Ibid., 312. 38. Ibid., 433. 39. Ibid., 383. 40. Cruickshank, The Smaller Tuscan Towns, 371. 41. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 319. 42. Ibid., 133. 43. Ibid., 125. 44. Ibid., 439. 45. Sarteano, Siena. http://www.welcometuscany.it/special_interest/thermal_spas/siena_Sarteano.htm (accessed February 13, 2006) 46. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 400. 47. Roberto Martucci, Florence: Guide to the Principal Buildings: History of Architecture and Urban Form (Venezia: Canal & Stamperia, 1997), 56. 48. Gloria Chiarini, The Florence Art Guide, 2004. http://www.mega.it/eng/egui/monu/xpiazza.htm (accessed February 13, 2006) 49. Martucci, Florence, 56. 50. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 184-5. 51. Ibid., 50. 52. Ibid., 82. 53. Ibid., 115. 54. Ibid., 395-6. 55. http://www.po-net.prato.it/artestoria/citta/eng/francesc.htm *** 56. Cruickshank, The Smaller Tuscan Towns, 154. 57. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 183. 58. Ibid., 386. 59. Cruickshank, The Smaller Tuscan Towns, 64-5. 60. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 511. 61. Ibid., 430. 62. Ibid., 440. 63. Ibid., 392. 64. Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, Piero della Francesca: San Francesco, Arezzo (New York: G. Braziller, 1994), 8-9. 65. Haegen, Art &Architecture, 283. 66. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 195. 67. Ibid., 176. 68. Cruickshank, The Smaller Tuscan Towns, 192-98. 69. Ibid. 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid. 73. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 117. 74. Ibid., 123. 75. Ibid., 392. 76. The Church of San Francesco, Cortona. http://www.sojourn-in-italy.com/Cortona_Churches/Cortona_SFrancesco.html (accessed February 13, 2006) 77. Philancy N. Holder, Cortona in Context: The History and Architecture of an Italian Hill Town to the 17th Century (Clarksville, Tenn.: HP Pub. Co., 1992), 185. 78. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 150. 105 79. The Church of San Francesco, Cortona. http://www.sojourn-in-italy.com/Cortona_Churches/Cortona_SFrancesco.html (accessed February 13, 2006) 80. Ibid. 81. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, 322. 82. Ibid., 105.

106

APPENDIX II

EARLY SOURCES ON THE NATURE OF THE STIGMATA OF SAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI: THOMAS OF CELANO’S ACCOUNT OF FRANCIS’S LIFE1

Brother Thomas of Celano (born c.1185-died c. 1255) was the first biographer of Saint Francis of Assisi. The First Life of Saint Francis was commissioned in 1228, the year of Francis’s canonization, at the command of Pope Gregory IX. The completed manuscript received the Pope’s approval in 1229. The Second Life of Saint Francis was commissioned from Celano about 1244. In addition, Brothers Leo, Rufino, and Angelo gathered as much information as they could from the people whose lives had been touched by Francis, and sent this to the minister general of the order, explaining that the stories were meant not as a new legend of Saint Francis, but as insertions to the already written legend. Celeno’s new work was finished sometime in the year 1247.

First Life of Saint Francis: Book II, Chapter III Concerning the vision of the man in the likeness of a crucified seraph

94 Two years before Francis gave his soul back to heaven, while he was living in the hermitage which was called Alverna, after the place on which it stood, he saw in the vision of God a man standing above him, like a seraph with six wings, his hands extended and his feet joined together and fixed to a cross. Two of the wings were extended above his head, two were extended as if for flight, and two were wrapped around the whole body. When the blessed servant of the Most High saw these things, he was filled with the greatest wonder, but he could not understand what his vision should mean. Still, he was filled with happiness and he rejoiced very greatly because of the kind and gracious look with which he saw himself regarded by the seraph, whose beauty was beyond estimation; of the fact that the seraph was fixed to a cross and the sharpness of his suffering filled Francis with fear. And so he arose, if I may so speak, sorrowful and joyful, and joy and grief were in him alternately. Solicitously he thought what his vision could mean, and his soul was in great anxiety to find its meaning. And while he was thus unable to come to any understanding of it and the strangeness of the vision perplexed his heart, the marks of the nails began to appear in his hands and feet, just as he had seen them a little before in the crucified man above him.

95 His hands and feet seemed to be pierced through the middle by nails, with the heads of the nail appearing in the inner side of the hands and on the upper sides of the feet and their pointed ends on the opposite sides. The marks in the hands were round on the inner side, but on the outer side they were elongated; and some small pieces of flesh took on the appearance of the end of the nails, bent and driven back and rising above the rest of the flesh. In the same way the marks of the nails were impressed upon the feet and raised in a similar way above the rest of the flesh. Furthermore, his right side was as though it had been pierced by a lance and had a wound in it that frequently bled so that his tunic 107 and trousers were very often covered with the sacred blood. Alas, how few indeed merited to see the wound in his side while this crucified servant of the crucified Lord lived! But happy was Elias who, while the saint lived, merited to see this wound; and no less happy was Rufino who touched the wound with his own hands. For when this brother Rufino once put his hand upon the bosom of this most holy man to rub him, his hand fell down to the right side of Francis, as it can happen; and it happened to touch the precious wound. The holy man of God was not a little grieved at this touch, and pushing his hand away, he cried out to the Lord to forgive Rufino. For he made every effort to hide his wound from those outside the order, and he hid it with such great care from those close to him that even the brothers who were always at his side and his most devoted followers did not know of this wound for a long time. And though the servant and friend of the Most High saw himself adorned with so many and such great pearls, as with the most precious gems, and endowed in a wonderful manner above the glory and honor of all other men, he did not become vain in the heart nor did he seek to please anyone out of thirst for vainglory; but lest human favor should steal any of the grace given him, he strove in every way he could to hide it.

First Life of Saint Francis: Book II, Chapter IX The sorrowing of the brothers and their joy when they saw Francis bearing the marks of the cross; and the wings of the seraphim.

113 …And because he glowed with such wondrous beauty before all who looked upon him and his flesh had become even more , it was wonderful to see in the middle of his hands and feet, not indeed the holes made by the nails, but the nails themselves formed out of his flesh and retaining the blackness of iron, and his right side was red with blood. These signs of martyrdom did not arouse horror in the minds of those who looked upon them, but they gave his body much beauty and grace, just as little black stone do when they are set in a white pavement. His brothers and sons came hurriedly, and weeping, they kissed the hands and feet of their beloved father who was leaving them, and also his right side, in the wound of which was presented a remarkable memorial of him who in pouring forth both blood and water from that same place reconciled the world to his father. Not only those who were permitted to kiss the sacred stigmata of Jesus Christ which St. Francis bore on his body, but even those who were permitted only to see them, thought they had been granted a very great gift. For who, seeing this thing, would give himself to weeping rather than joy? Or if he wept, would he not do so rather from joy than from sorrow? Whose breast is so much like iron that it would not be moved to sighs? Whose heart so much like stone that it would not be broken to compunction, that it would not be strengthened to good will? Who is so dull, so unfeeling, that he would not realize in truth that as this saint was honored upon earth with so singular a gift, so would he also be magnified in heaven by an ineffable glory? 108 The Second Life of Saint Francis: HOW FRANCIS CONCEALED THE STIGMATA Chapter C How a certain brother got to see the wound in his side

138 While the uncovered location of these members made the wounds in his hands and feet visible to some, no one was worthy to see the wound in his side while Francis was yet alive, with the exception of one person and then only once. For whenever Francis had his tunic cleaned, he would cover the wound in his side with his right hand. At times, however, he covered the wound by putting his left hand over the pierced side. But when one of his companions was rubbing him, his other hand slipped down upon the wound and caused Francis great pain. A certain other brother, seeking out of prying curiosity to see what was hidden to others, said to the holy father one day: “Would it please you, Father, if we cleaned your tunic?” The saint replied: “May the Lord reward you, Brother, I do need it.” Therefore, while Francis was taking off his tunic, that brother looked carefully and saw clearly the wound in his side. He was the only one who saw it while Francis was alive; none of the other saw it until he was dead.

1. Excerpts quoted in Appendix II are from Marion A. Habig, ed., St. Francis of Assisi: Writings and Early Biographies. English Omnibus of the Sources for the Life of Saint Francis. (Chicago, Franciscan Herald Press, 1977).

109

APPENDIX III

EARLY SOURCES ON THE NATURE OF THE STIGMATA OF SAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI: SAINT BONAVENTURE’S ACCOUNT OF FRANCIS’S LIFE1

In 1260, Saint Bonaventure (1221-47) was asked by the members of the Order of Friars Minor to write a new biography of Saint Francis to replace the existing accounts by Celano as the official life of the Saint. The new Life of Saint Francis was completed sometime in 1262 or 1263. Soon after, in 1266, it was decreed that all copies of the legend of Saint Francis made in the past should be destroyed. The first of Bonaventure’s works is called the Legenda Major (Major Life of Saint Francis). Bonaventure’s second work, the Legenda Minor (Minor Life of Saint Francis) is intended for liturgical use and is an abridgement of the earlier work.

Major Life of Saint Francis: Part I, Chapter XIII The stigmata of Saint Francis (1-10)

3 …As the vision disappeared, it left his heart ablaze with eagerness and impressed upon his body a miraculous likeness. There and then the marks of nails began to appear in his hands and feet, just as he had seen them in his vision of the Man nailed to the Cross. His hands and feet appeared pierced through the center with nails, the heads of which were in the palms of his hands and on the instep of each foot, while the points stuck out on the opposite side. The heads were black and round, but the points were long and bent back, as if they had been struck with a hammer; they rose above the surrounding flesh and stood out from it. His right side seemed as if it had been pierced with a lance and was marked with a livid scar which often bled, so that his habit and trousers were stained.

8 …Francis succeeded in covering the wound in his side so carefully that no one could get more than a glimpse of it during his lifetime. A friar who used to wait on him carefully gently prevailed upon him to take off his habit and have it shaken out, and as he watched closely he saw the wound. He put three of his fingers on it immediately, so that he was able to feel as well as see how big it was. The friar who was Francis’ vicar at that time managed to see the wound by a similar subterfuge. Another of his companions, a man of extraordinary simplicity, put his hand in under his capuche to massage his chest because he was not feeling well, and accidentally touched the wound, causing the saint great pain. As a result, Francis always wore trousers which reached up to his arm-pit, in order to cover the scar on his side. The friars who washed his trousers and shook out his habit found them stained with blood. This clear proof left them with no doubt of the existence of the wound which they afterwards contemplated and venerated with others on his death.

110 Major Life of Saint Francis: Chapter XV The Canonization of St. Francis and the Solemn Transferal of His Remains

2 …In his holy hands and feet could be seen the nails which had been miraculously formed out of his flesh by God; they were so much part of his flesh that, when they were pressed on one side, they immediately jutted out further on the other side, as if they were made of solid material which reached right through the wound in his side which was not the result of any human action could be seen clearly, just like the wound in our Savior’s side, which gave birth to the mystery of redemption and human rebirth. The nails were black like iron, but the side wound was red, and the flesh was contracted into sort of a circle, so that it looked like a beautiful rose. The rest of his skin which was naturally inclined to be dark and had become more so in his illness, became shinning white, giving is some idea of the beauty which will belong to the bodies of saints in heaven.

Sermon II on Saint Francis, Opera Omnia, IX, 580.

4 St. Francis had great devotion to the Incarnation and the Cross of Christ. In his love for our Lord and in his life, he was changed in Christ crucified, as the Seraph with six wings appeared to him. He had huge nails in his hands and feet, and they were bent double where they stuck out from the souls of his feet; there was also a wound in his side. He would say with all truth, in the words of the bride, “You have wounded me.” He was dark-skinned by nature and because of his rigid penance; but his skin appeared gleaming white and red at his death, and he asked to be left lying naked for as long as it takes to walk a mile. With St. Paul he could say, “With Christ I hang upon the Cross. God forbid that I should make a display of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

1. Excerpts quoted in Appendix III are from Marion A. Habig, ed., St. Francis of Assisi: Writings and Early Biographies. English Omnibus of the Sources for the Life of Saint Francis, (Chicago, Franciscan Herald Press, 1977).