Second half of St Francis cycle

 

The second half of the St. Francis Cycle, Assisi

(frescoes 15 to 28)

 

Since Vasari, and before, the frescoes in in the upper Church at Assisi have been associated with the name of Giotto. Since then doubt has been cast on this attribution, and the possibility of it being a Sienese painter or a member of Cimabue’s school discussed. More credibly the first and the last three frescoes of the cycle have been associated with the St. Cecilia Master; but it is not the purpose of this essay to discuss the historical basis of attribution to certain artists, but to compare the frescoes of the second half of the cycle individually in an attempt to establish the presence of different hands.

The shading and modelling on the face of St. Francis is basically the same from the ‘Sermon to the Birds’ through to the “Stigmatisation”. The St. Francis of ‘The Appearance at Arles’ is difficult to compare because it is seen from the front, yet the highlights round the cheekbones and forehead can still be seen. The others, particularly 16 and 17, are remarkably similar; they all show darkness around the eyelids and mouth and strong light on the nose. The posture of the head is also fairly consistent. The monk who accompanies St. Francis in 15 is echoed in the monk at the table in 16, especially the slightly parted mouth, sharp nose and the shape of the eyes. Though the wrinkles and hairstyles vary. The monk seated in the foreground of the ‘Confirmation of the Rule’ is much closer to the figure in 15. He shares the same deep wrinkles on the forehead, the way he is wearing his hood and is displaying an air of anxiety. This mood seems to have been transferred to St. Francis in 18, though one or two of the monks also show it, and they have the deep wrinkles at the side of the eyes which the monk in 15 also demonstrates.

The architectural elements of 16, 17 and 18 form a distinct compositional unit. 17 is seen centrally, with 16 and 18 projecting towards 17 with exaggerated perspective. This does not seem merely to be a concession to the standard viewing point of the bay (which in this case would be between 18 and 18 anyway) but a conscious design feature, necessitating a single designer. It is curious that 19 does not fit into this scheme but seems out on a limb. Its own architectural elements are much more schematic, and plain, when compared with the detailed and decorated architecture of 16, 17 and 18. Fine detail can also be seen in the tablecloth of 16 and the curtain screen and stepped throne of 17. The landscape of 19 has more similarity with 14, and, though the trees are also slightly like 15, difference in subject matter does not seem sufficient to explain the variations. The drapery of 19 is not so clearly modelled in large, obvious folds as in 15, 16, 17 and 18 but this may be partly deterioration. So, despite the similar portrayal of the face of St. Francis, 19 appears to be by a different artist to both the preceding and following frescoes.

The feathers of the Seraphic Christ in 159 are fairly similar to those of the angels in the ‘Death of St. Francis’ but there the comparison ends. The composition is more crowded, the faces less individualised and the point (or in this case points) of interest are stubbornly central. However some of the monks seated and facing inwards are reminiscent of ‘The Appearance at Arles’. In terms of composition 20 relates well to 22 (the ‘Funeral of St. Francis’), in that both have the same figure of the now hooded St. Francis lying in the centre with a crowd above it and images above that. The portrayal of the dead St. Francis is very much the same in the next bay, in 23. This fresco demonstrates a competent grasp of architecture in all its detail. The figures on the façade of S. Damiano are comparable with those at the top of 21. The naturalistic tree is in stark contrast with the trees of 19. Detailed decoration of cloths in 23 to 25 is again evident, and the shape of the bed, and particularly the figure lying on it, in ‘The Dream of Gregory IX’ are similar to the ‘Dream of Bishop Guido’. The architecture in the frescoes 20 to 25 uses Roman arches, whereas in 15 to 18 the Gothic arch was used. In 25 there are some well painted and expressive heads which seem irreconcilable with the uniform and slightly bland heads of the crowd scenes. This might be explained by the use of the assistants in crowd scenes, smaller groups tend to show more expression; another example is the monks surrounding Brother Augustine in 21.

The last three frescoes from the third major group. Their most distinctive feature is impossibly slim, tall, rectangular architectural settings. The decoration on clothes and drapery is just as elaborate, but it is used less frequently. In 26 (the ‘Cure of Giovanni d’Ilerda’) the bed is different from those in 21 and 25, though the head of St. Francis in 25 is quite similar to that of 26, 27 and 28, but his beard is slightly shorter and utilises less modelling of shade. The angel in 27 (the ‘Confession of the Revived Woman’) is very different from the angels of 20 who are proportioned like humans. The buildings in 28 (the ‘Freeing of the Heretic – Pintro d’Alifia’) are probably meant to be Trajan’s Column and the Septizonium in Rome, though the figures they carry are not particularly classical in dress. In all three scenes the modelling of faces seems more confident and there is an attempt to show character and age; in 27, for example, we have the first child.

None of the frescoes in the second half of the St. Francis cycle look wrong together in the same church. But there are some discrepancies which cannot be explained by artistic creativity and different subject matter. Broadly speaking these discrepancies form two barriers to similarity so the frescoes form three groups in all. From 15 to 19, from 20 to 25 and from 26 to the end. But, on closer inspection, 19 does not relate well to any of the other frescoes and the group from 20 to 25 also has some significant internal variations as well as similarities with what has gone before and will come after. Inevitably, where the divisions come is partly subjective, but the fact that they exist at all is hopefully established.