Franciscan Institute Publications
  • Toward a Resolution of the Franciscan Question: From the Perspective of Hagiography

I am extremely happy and honored to be part of this roundtable that celebrates Jacque Dalarun’s recent book, Vers une résolution de la question franciscaine: La Légende ombrienne de Thomas de Celano (Paris: Fayard, 2007). During his stay with us at the Franciscan Institute as Visiting Professor in 2004–2005, he and Jean François Godet-Calogeras led a seminar for us faculty and students on the so-called Legend of the Three Companions which did much more than simply interpret that text, and it was in the context of that seminar that his attention was drawn to the subject of his recent book, the Umbrian Choir Legend. [End Page 484]

Jacques investigates the Umbrian Choir Legend within the larger context of Franciscan hagiographical production that begins with Celano’s Vita s. Francisci, the Legenda ad usum chori, Julian of Speyer’s Vita s. Francisci, the Anonymous of Perugia, the Legend of the Three Companions, the material of the companions transmitted in 1246 from Grecchio, Celano’s Memoriale, the Dialogus de gestis sanctorum Fratrum minorum, and finally Celano’s Tractatus de miraculis, texts which make their appearance between 1229 and 1253, and even Bonaventure’s hagiographical text, the Legenda maior. The text of the Umbrian Choir Legend was first brought to light by Michael Bihl in 1928, who discovered it in a Breviary in Naples, gave it the name of the Naples Legend of Saint Francis, and dated it between 1253 and 1260. Two years later, Giuseppe Abate discovered a more complete edition of the text in a breviary found in Terni, considered it to be incomplete and dated it between the years 1230–1239. Abate argued that parts of this liturgical text were re-written and were later included in Celano’s Memoriale and Tractatus, and included some of the miracles which first appeared in Celano’s Vita as well as in the important and official Assisi 338 manuscript. In 1895, Paul Sabatier first drew attention to the collection of miracles in Assisi 338, and he, as well as Abate some thirty-fives years later, suggested Thomas of Celano as author. Abate further argued that the Naples-Terni legend made its way into choral breviaries, while the Legenda ad usum chori made its way into portable breviaries (I leave the development of the liturgical context to Tim Johnson). Bihl responded to Abate in 1935, convinced of the Umbrian origin of the text, now giving it the name of Umbrian Choir Legend, and argued for its completeness. The discussion continued between Bihl and Abate, and the text was included, albeit in incomplete form, in Volume X of the Analecta Francescana in 1936. Since then, the Legend itself was largely ignored until it was discussed briefly in the context of Brother Elias’ history by P. Sella in 20011, and then in this detailed study and critical edition of the text by Jacques. [End Page 485]

The Umbrian Choir Legend is a unique hagiographical text made up of approximately twenty-five pages of Latin text. Divided into two parts, the first part is composed of eleven paragraphs beginning rather abruptly (perhaps it is incomplete?) with the description of the Stigmata of Francis on LaVerna two years before his death in 1224, a description of his death, burial, canonization, and concluding with a description of the transfer of Francis’s body to the newly built tomb church in 1230. The text itself is a “re-written” text using both Celano’s Vita as well as Julian’s Vita, as Jacques demonstrates through careful textual analysis. The perspective on the stigmata remains that of Celano from his Vita, though the stigmata is described as a “miracle,” a perspective taken over from Julian (LJS 61). The second section of text is composed of miracles and is also “re-written” from miracles contained in Celano’s Vita, the Legend for use in choir, Julian’s Vita, as well as from some of the miracles contained in Assisi 338, which appear to be re-written in part two of the Umbrian Choir Legend, providing a version midway between that of Assisi 338 and the Tractatus. Because the description of the miracles taken from the source texts (1C, LCh, LJS, Assisi 338) undergo very little re-writing except for improvement to the cursus in the Umbrian Legend, this would suggest Celano’s authorship and show him to be a writer continually perfecting his own work, while the texts he uses from other authors are usually significantly re-worked by him (cf. Part II of the Memoriale). Given the sources used to write the Umbrian Choir Legend, Jacques argues that the text was likely produced in Assisi. In addition, Jacques notes that in the Assisi 338, at the conclusion of the miracles (which reappear in UChL) one can identify, with technical assistance, three erased words: minister, generalis and noster. These three erased words and what followed might suggest that the Umbrian Choir Legend did emanate from an official commission given to Celano, as Celano never worked without an official commission. But this does not mean that Celano was simply a scribe, rather he was a true author who had a personal perspective which he expressed in his writing despite the specific commission he received. The question of who might have commissioned the text – Elias, Albert of [End Page 486] Pisa, Haymo of Faversham, or Crescentius of Jesi – takes us into the history of text which will be treated by Michael Cusato, but Jacques does suggest the text should be dated between 1237 and 1245.

The main focus of the narrative part of the Umbrian Choir Legend is on Francis himself signed by Stigmata. This divinely sanctioned Francis blesses Elias as his successor, whom he “keeps at his right hand” (UChL IV:2). Elias is mentioned by name five times and always spoken of in a positive tone. But in addition to Elias, who was privileged to see the side wound, Ruffino too is mentioned as witness to the side wound, but presented rather negatively as he caused Francis much pain with his surreptitious touch. Angelo and Leo, “the dearest of all to him” are mentioned by name as the two brothers who sang the Praises of the Lord as requested by Francis himself as he drew near to death – Celano did not reveal these names in his Vita describing them there only as “his special sons” (1C 109). In his Vita, Celano mentioned that Francis entrusted his care to certain brothers who were very dear to him and he relied upon them as his “four pillars.”2 Here in the Umbrian Choir Legend we have four brothers mentioned, Elias, Ruffino, Angelo and Leo, thus including Elias among the four pillars of his dear brothers. Three of those named would sign the letter from Greccio in 1246 which accompanied the material collected at request of the general chapter in 1244, for material to complete Celano’s vita. The Lady Clare, too, is named, together with the Poor Ladies at San Damiano as the funeral cortege stopped on its way into the city for Francis’s burial, where the sisters lament Francis’s passing, who leaves them abandoned and without consolation – a lament that takes on significantly greater valence with the movement against Elias in the last years before his deposition. Pope Gregory is named in the text only in the context of the canonization and transferral of Francis’s body. So Gregory appears not as a counselor and confident of Francis but as one who simply testifies to Francis’s holiness. [End Page 487]

There follows in Part II a collection of miracles which is initiated with the description of a miracle that was worked by Francis “who carries the marks of the eternal king” on the day of his burial, thus linking the miracles directly to Francis’s Stigmata (a perspective Celano will repeat in his Tractatus where the foundation of the Order is presented as his first and greatest miracle, supported by Stigmata described in chapter two, the lengthiest chapter of miracles in the text). The miracles authorize and emphasize the holiness of Francis by calling attention to his unique role in the historical development of the Order. Francis’s role is God-given, suggests the Umbrian Choir Legend, and hence cannot be easily set aside.

What could explain the appearance of this rather strange little hagiographical/liturgical text? Given all the evidence Jacques marshals, and the three possible scenarios that he proposes for its origin, it seems most likely that Celano worked on the text as the movement against Elias was taking shape in his last years as general minister, in order to reaffirm Francis’s choice of Elias, as well as to underline Francis as the foundation of the Order. In response perhaps to this, the Anonymous of Perugia would appear in 1241, after the tumultuous chapter of 1239 which deposed Elias and set the Order firmly on the path of clericalization, after the election of the priest Albert of Pisa, and after the altered constitutional structure affirmed by that chapter. This narrative work of brother John, a disciple of Giles, narrates the history and development of the Order into a clerical ecclesial institution, and only “uses” Francis to demonstrate that a clerical order was his intention from the beginning. For John, the Order is the primary focus, while Francis the founder remains in the shadow, as the Order takes on a life independent of him and his intentions. John mentions the stigmata only briefly and in passing, and no miracles are included, in striking contrast to the Umbrian Choir Legend that presents the image of Francis as the Christ-like founder of the Brotherhood, marked with the wounds of Jesus, and fully in charge of the direction of the Order by relying on and blessing Elias as his vicar and successor. These two texts present two different understandings of the Franciscan Order, and would [End Page 488] continue to remain in tension throughout the rest of the thirteenth-century and into the fourteenth. Given this scenario though, as Jacques argued, it was thus likely that Thomas of Celano himself was responsible for the Franciscan Question, as all the hagiographical texts that appeared in the 1240s were responding to his understanding of Francis and the Order in the context of an Order that changed directions in 1239 leaving Francis in the shadows. And even though it was not transmitted in many exemplars, as an official text the Umbrian Choir Legend influenced subsequent hagiographical texts. It was used by the author of the Legend of the Three Companions to complete the last two chapters of his narrative dealing with Francis’s Stigmata, death and burial – thus eliminating the need to posit a dependence on Bonaventure’s Major Legend as suggested by Desbonnets. The Umbrian Legend was taken up again by Celano for some sections of his Memoriale as well as for his Tractatus de miraculis, and through these texts affecting indirectly even Bonaventure’s Legenda maior.

So, what has Jacques Dalarun accomplished in his marvelous study?

First, his meticulous scholarship and careful methodology has provided a model for any future study of hagiographical texts, demonstrating the crucial role of manuscript history for a correct understanding of a text. It is simply impossible to interpret a text independent of its textual and contextual history. The meaning of the text emerges from the text in both its historical context of transmission and its reception.

Second, Jacques has suggested another part of the solution to the Franciscan question as it has come to be proposed in terms of understanding the sources, and the origin of the hagiographical texts which appeared in the 1240’s and up through the 1260’s, explaining the context of the General Chapter’s request of 1244, and in relation to hagiographical production subsequent to 1246 with the material received from the companions. His proposed textual stem (p. 241) lays out quite clearly and neatly the relationship among the texts from Celano’s Vita through his Tractatus. It is clear now that the Umbrian Choir Legend is a source for the Legend of the Three Companions, the Memoriale and the Tractatus. (He [End Page 489] has suggested the same for a second part of the question regarding the Leo texts in recent essays published concerning the AC and 2MP.) He has also raised critical questions about the relationship of Thomas of Celano and Julian of Speyer with regard to their Vitae and their possible collaboration.

Third, his study has made available to us a reliable new critical edition of this very significant and key text for understanding the hagiographical output of the 1240s and 1250s (his edition also, unfortunately makes the English translation in FAED 2, somewhat obsolete), together with the tools and information necessary for its interpretation.

Fourth, he has drawn scholarly attention to another neglected text, the Dialogus de gestis sanctorum Fratrum minorum attributed to Thomas of Pavia, who also responded to the request of Crescentius of Jesi and the general chapter in 1244 which sought more “signs and wonders” of Francis. It is a collection of 259 miracles (44 of which are attributed to Anthony of Padua, a hero for men like Haymo of Faversham and the clerical leadership after 1239) wherein Francis is practically absent, and the text appears as an affirmation that Francis is not the only one who can work miracles, and like the Anonymous of Perugia it removes Francis from the center of the life of the Order. Miracles are as thus as important as narrative to the understanding of a text.

And finally in studying the Umbrian Legend, Jacques has also brought to light new manuscripts of old texts, including a newly identified fragment of Celano’s Memoriale, adding another piece to the problematic textual history of that text, and providing a strong argument that the search for new manuscripts is not yet completed!

Much, much more could be said as it is impossible to present even a summary of his work in the time allotted. But in short, and hagiographically speaking, Jacques has freed us from bondage to the “magic circle” within which Paul Sabatier closed Franciscan scholarship. In doing so, he has opened the way for a more adequate appreciation of the processes which produced the various texts and images of Francis that appeared in the mid-thirteenth-century. He does not make the texts reflect his convictions or perspectives, but rather, he allows the texts to speak in their own voice as a result of [End Page 490] his method and his respect for the texts and authors he studies. We are all greatly in his debt for opening up these Franciscan texts for us. Because of this book, we are able to get closer to figures like Celano, and John the disciple of Giles, and Julian of Speyer, and Ruffino, the probable author of the Legend of the Three Companions, and Thomas of Pavia and his Dialogus, and even to Bonaventure, and thus, are able to come to an understanding of the little poor man from Assisi in all his complexity and contradictions, for after all, the authors are merely relating their own experience of Francis! For all of this, and with hope for what is yet to come, from the heart, I thank you Jacques!

Michael W. Blastic
The Franciscan Institute

Footnotes

1. “La ‘Malavventura’ di Frate Elia. Un percorso attraverso le fonti biografiche.” Il Santo XLI (2001): 215–300.

2. 1 C 102 describes how Francis gave his care to “certain brothers” who were very dear to him, and “blessed Francis rested upon them as a house upon four pillars.”

Share