Description and content

To enter into the catechism of the Magdalen Chapel, let us focus first on a few

of the images of the chapel. First we will look at Supper at the House o f the Pharisee,

which is on the left wall of the chapel as you enter from the nave and then we will

look at The Raising o f Lazarus and the Noli me Tangere in comparison with Giotto’s

most notable works, the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua. This exercise will give us a sense of the style, technique and basic sort of context of the chapel.^^^

The Supper at the House o f the Pharisee sits above the image of Bishop

Pontano Teobaldo who is receiving a blessing from St Rufinius, and below Zosimus

Giving a Cloak to the Magdalen.^^^ To the right is The Raising o f Lazarus. Four layers frame the fresco. Moving from the inside out: the first is yellow; the second, red

Or Mary Magdalen in Communion with the Angels.

The content of these four frescoes derives from the legendary material already covered in previous sections. See Voragine, 61-79.

Bellosi, Giotto at Assisi adds to the title ^And Her Assumption into Heaven”, 9. Though there is little evidence support that this was the intent of either the artist of the patron.

All future references to the images will be described fi*om this perspective with the entrance from the nave as the starting point.

Bellossi titles this St Maiy Magdalen receives Holy Communion from Saint Maximinus and her

assumption into heaven. Because of the lack of primary contracts or ensuing work on this fresco there

is confusion on the title. The man could be Maximinius or it could be Zosimus, who is named by both Lunghi and Bellosi in another of the frescoes in the chapel. Elvio Lunghi, The Basilica o f St Francis in

Assisi (Antella; Florence: SCALA Group, 1996), 143; Bellosi, Giotto at Assisi, 9. If one were taking

the legend from Voragine, it would be St Maximinius—though it was Zosimus who found Mary of Egypt in the desert, gave her a cloak, and offered her last communion. With the confusion and conflation of Maiy of Egypt and Mary Magdalen, the name of the man in the fresco may also be confused. Voragine, 63.

Chapter 4 ~ Theological Analysis

marbling; and the third (top right) a blue, yellow and red alternating pattern with elaborate yellow markings on the left; and the fourth is a thick outer frame around the top right and bottom with a repeating blue and red diamond-honeycomb pattern on

white. This fourth frame serves to connect the scene to Pontano’s portrait and The

Raising o f Lazarus. The border on the outer left rises along the comer and curvature of the chapel and connects the fresco to the larger schema of the chapel encompassing

the entire arch of The Magdalen Receiving Communion. Lighting in the chapel is

muted on a sunny day, and relatively dim otherwise though the candelabra that hangs (and is likely to have hung) lights this fresco better than most of the fr escoes in the chapel.

Figure 11 Supper at the House of the Pharisee

The scene of Supper in the House o f the Pharisee is situated in a five-panelled

portico which offers a commanding sense of perspective. The portico shelters the figures and, while many similar architectural structures are painted in the Upper Church above, it is also striking in its similarity the same scene at Santa Croce (also Franciscan) in Florence, by Taddeo Gaddi, though, the detail of both the architecture and the decoration in Assisi are much more elaborate.

Figure 12 Detail Tree of Life and Christ Taddeo Gaddi

Pharisee identifies the Magdalen as Luke’s unnamed penitent (7:36-50).^^* From reading Luke’s test, we learn the entire story associated with this fresco. It is clear that she has entered uninvited and fallen at the feet of Jesus. Responding to the unspoken dismay of his host, Jesus has allowed the woman to smother his feet with tears and kiss his feet. From Luke we know that Jesus’ responds to the others saying: “Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.” (Luke 7:47) Then he says to the woman at his feet. “Your sins are forgiven.” (Luke 7:48) At this, the host and his guests begin to grumble asking: “Who is this who even forgives sins?” This is the moment of tension captured in the fresco. Jesus extends his hand perhaps as a gesture of hope for his listeners, or to demonstrate his trust or even to further emphasize his point. One man ponders. Two men confer and another man grips his knife. Mary, seemingly unaware.

According to Canali, The Crucifix with the Tree of Life, the overall subject, is based on a text by Bonaventure who is the man sitting in the far left bottom comer around which the fresco of interest is painted, resting a scroll across his lap. Ferrucio Canali, The Basilica o f Santa Croce, trans. Julia Weiss, ed. Barbara Bonechi, 2003 ed. (Florence: Bonechi Edizioni “II Turismo”, 1997), 95.

kisses Jesus’ feet in devotion and humility, overwhelmed by Jesus’ mercy, acceptance forgiveness, and blessing.

The artist places the Magdalen kneeling on the far left so that the part of her cloak that covers her feet edges up against the lower left comer of the painting allowing her hem to drape over the interior yellow frame. This gives the feeling that she is not wholly contained in the frame, but edging out into the space of the viewer, a fairly unusual device for its time. In keeping with tradition, she is cloaked in red with her golden hair unbound and draping over her hand which holds Jesus’ feet. Jesus, sitting almost languidly in profile on a masterfully detailed wooden chair, wears a cloak with patterning echoing that of the Magdalen weeping at his feet,^^^ his gaze drawing ours across the scene. His left hand is opened toward the critical Pharisee, his right hand points (dangles?), two fingers extended downward toward the hunched shoulders of Mary as if in a blessing. Her focus is steadfast, not on the action of the room, but on his feet. His focus is on the men gmmbling at the impropriety of an ill- famed woman in the Pharisee’s own house, touching the guest of honour. The three servants in the foreground seem oblivious to the anything going on, as they

concentrate on their task of serving bread. Yet while the action takes place between Jesus and the Magdalen on the far left, the backs of two of the servants turn away from one another and serve as a frame for the man in the centre, Simon the Pharisee, who wears blue and yellow with a gold aureole. This man, master of the house and host to his invited guests, turns a notably aggressive look at Jesus, clutching in his right hand a (barely noticeable) knife prefiguring the violence of the Crucifixion yet to come.^^^ To the left of Simon, a man in white with a broad gold strip about his neck and down his tunic, faces (left) away from Jesus toward a third man with an aureole. These two, perhaps startled at the events, exchange glances of dismay. The viewer’s gaze is directed, not necessarily at Jesus or Mary, but rather at Simon the Pharisee. The slanting backs of the servant, the posture of the five figures at the table, even the layout of the bread and knife upon the table, all call attention to Simon.

It seems as she has taken off his shoe in order to wash it. This may hold significance later as we discuss the importance of Francis identifying with the poverty of Christ. Remarking on his foreshortened aureole, Bellosi calls our attention to similarities of these images with those “sacred figures seen either in profile or in a very pronounced three-quarter turn” at Padua and claims that this “is yet another of Giotto’s spatial ideas.” Bellosi, Giotto at Assisi, 12.

The blade on the table is also worn, possibly due to someone scratching the silver off. Another possibility is that the hostility toward Jesus represented by the presence of the knife could have been distasteful for some pilgrim or friar who took it upon themselves to remove it.

Chapter 4 ~ Theological Analysis

To continue with a detailed description of each fresco (as I have done above) and then offer a thorough description of each detail within each fresco would be outside the scope of this paper and it is likely that it might not be a true assessment of the intentions of the patron and artist(s). Instead, we will step back from intensive descriptive engagement with the individual fresco and move to analyse the Chapel as a whole work. It may seem a less satisfying route, but it is the route that I believe will prove worthwhile in the end.

3. Agendas: a fresco approach