Terracotta relief depicting the Funeral of St. Francis by (workshop of) Benedetto da Maiano, Italy (Florence), ca. 1481

The Funeral of St Francis. Relief in terracotta. The body of the Saint lies in the centre on a bier before an altar. Behind the bier are two friars, one standing with hands joined in prayer, the other kneeling as he kisses the Saint's hand. To the left, at the head of the bier, stands a vested priest holding a book, accompanied by five friars, one with a thurible. To the right, at the foot of the bier, stands a firar holding a processional cross, accompanied by two acolytes bearing candles and by three other figures. In the centre background, above the apse of the church, a kneeling figure of the Saint in a mandorla is supported by two flying angels. The relief is recessed inside a moulded border.

The present relief is one of a set of three with 240- and 241-1889. They are sketch models for five marble reliefs on the pulpit of Santa Croce, Florence. Although it is not documented, Vasari (1878, iii, pp.339-40) reports that the pulpit was commissioned by the Florentine banker Pietro Mellini. The finished reliefs are part of a scheme of five which depict the following subjects (i) Pope Honorius III confirming the Establishment of the Franciscan Order (the present piece), (ii) St Francis before the Sultan, (iii) The Stigmatisation of St. Francis, (iv) The Funeral of St. Francis (242-1889) and (v) The Martyrdom at Ceuta (241-1889). A fourth terracotta sketch which can be stylistically firmly linked with the present group is in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin and depicts The Vision of Pope Innocent III, although the composition does not feature in the finished pulpit.
The museum purchased the group from the heirs of Marchesa Bianchi Bandinelli of Siena for £437. Before their acquisition the reliefs were the subject of a correspondence in The Times. In a letter published on 5 November 1883, Mr William Mercer expressed regret that the Museum had not purchased the reliefs “now miraculously preserved in the palace of Siena of the Marchesa Bianchi, nata Velci [sic, d’Elci], an ancient Florentine house”. In a reply, published in The Times of 7 November 1883, Robinson states that the reliefs “were brought to my notice some years ago”, but were not purchased on account of the owner’s “exaggerated idea of their pecuniary value”.

Physical examination of this object has lead to a changing theory concerning the areas of gray discolouration in the clay and the loss of the figure in front of the bier. Radke, based on evidence provided by John Larson, suggested that the relief had blown apart during firing. More recent examination by Charlotte Hubbard has suggested that the colour change is due to iron oxide in the clay. A lack of oxygen in the kiln caused the clay to turn gray instead of red.

Historical significance: The significance of this object and the two related reliefs in the group is in the fact that they are surviving sketches for a surviving finished sculptural monument. Stylistic and physical analysis has been able to firmly place the reliefs as sketches before, rather than copies after, the finished marbles. They are part of an important and complex iconographic scheme for a high profile commission.

This terracotta differs from its finished marble counterpart in a number of respects, among which are the grouping of the rear figures on the right and the omission of a figure kneeling in the centre foreground before the bier. A mark in the foreground suggests that the kneeling figure was originally included and has been removed (Maclagan and Longhurst, agreed by Pope-Hennessey). In addition the relief (as is true for all four) is smaller than the finished marble (the marble being 77.5sq.cm and the present relief being 66 .7cm x 64.1cm).
Bode questioned and Venturi denied the status of these objects as preparatory sketches for the finished marbles on the grounds that they were too similar, and were therefore later copies. Bode later recanted this doubt and they are now universally accepted as models made before the marbles on the grounds that the differences are slight and therefore likely to be the result of visual corrections in scale and perspective, when translated into marble (Boucher).
The fact that the Berlin panel, although stylistically firmly liked with the V&A pieces depicts a scene not eventually executed also gives rise to some controversy. The stylistic link places it within a preparatory scheme of six scenes, the five finished in marble and this additional composition. An inventory of the artist’s work, drawn up after his death in 1497 lists a terracotta model for the pulpit and six relief panels. This means that six reliefs were worked up as sketches (three now at the V&A, one in Berlin and two now lost) and that the envisaged scheme was altered at some stage during it’s execution, so that one panel was dropped and only five finished. Radke suggests that the original six-relief scheme was an octagonal plan, with six sides of decoration, one side which attached the pulpit to the neighbouring pier and one side to enter the structure. The hexagonal scheme which was eventually realised has a staircase cut into the pier, is entered from one side of the hexagon therefore leaving only five free for adornment.

It may follow that the Berlin panel was simply then just dropped from the scheme, however more complex suggestions have been made concerning the evolution of the iconographic scheme. Pope-Hennessey suggests that the Berlin panel’s Vision of Pope Innocent III gave way to the Pope Honorius III Confirms the Estabishment of the Franciscan Order. This is based on the similarities on the background, the Roman monuments being the same but reversed and that therefore the second is an evolution of the first, and the related themes. The Franciscans may have stipulated this because the establishment of the order was a more important scene in their history. Carl, however, in her re-dating of the works to 1480-7, suggests that the scene of martyrdom actually depicts the murder of proto-martyrs at Marrakech rather than the martyrdom at Ceuta. The former would have been more topical, the proto-martyrs having been canonized in 1481. The insertion of this more topical relief would have meant another being left out.

Niehaus and Myssok reject Radke’s theory concerning the number of reliefs intended for the scheme saying that because six reliefs were listed in the inventory, does not mean that six were initially intended or commissioned. Myssok highlights the physical differences between the Berlin and V&A reliefs, the Berlin having a sketchier style and an absence of gilding, and therefore attributes them to two different periods. Myssok gives the Berlin piece to a later period, saying that the sketchiness is a result of Benedetto’s later style developed after the marbles were completed. Boucher finds this an over-complicated thesis, suggesting that evidence of gilding may still be found if the Berlin relief were to be thoroughly examined. Stylistically he finds all four characteristic of Benedetto’s meticulous hand, recognisable as that of the carver which he truly was, rather than a modeller in clay.

This is one of three reliefs (along with 240-1889 and 241-1889), which together with a fourth panel of the Vision of Pope Innocent III in Berlin, constitute the most important surviving relief cycle in terracotta from the 15th century. They are sketch-models for panels on the marble pulpit in Santa Croce, Florence, executed by Benedetto da Maiano. The sketch-models are smaller than the marble panels and differ in a number of details. The pulpit was commissioned by the Florentine banker, Pietro Mellini, whose marble portrait-bust was carved by Benedetto in 1474.

242-1889