The Assisi Compilation - 114 

In his study of Codex 1046, Delorme noted that the text had been divided into three sections, each of which began with illuminated initials. In addition to some previously unknown material (AC 4-14), the first section consisted of passages taken from The Remembrance of the Desire of a Soul by Thomas of Celano (AC1-3), written in 1247, and Leo's Verba Sancti Francisci [Words of Saint Francis] (AC 15-20).9 The second section was taken entirely from Thomas's Remembrance (AC 23-49). Because the third section began with the largest of the illuminated initials, Delorme maintained that it contained the most important material. Therefore he arranged this material into three subdivisions of anecdotes or remembrances of "we who were with him" (AC 50-100, 107-120) and put Leo's Intentio Regulae [The Intention of the Rule] in the last section (AC 101-106).10 However, Delorme published part of the first section of his discovery and all of the third, that is, the three subdivisions, arguing that the other sections, those containing passages of Thomas, were already known.

Discussions of the merits of Delorme's publication have since influenced twentieth-century approaches to Francis of Assisi. In 1967, Jacques Cambell examined the material presented in the 1920's. Not only did Cambell re-order the material but, to suggest its authorship, he gave it a new title: I fiori dei tre compagni [The Flowers of the Three Companions].11 Three years later, Rosalind Brooke published her own edition of the same Perugia manuscript.12 Like Delorme, she omitted some passages arguing that they could be found elsewhere. In her arrangement of the material, Brooke took the same approach as Cambell, however, by identifying "we who were with him" with Brothers Leo, Rufino, and Angelo, the companions of Saint Francis. She based her argument on the letter traditionally found at the beginning of The Legend of The Three Companions,13 maintaining that it offered a more accurate description of what was contained in the final three sections of Codex 1046. Thus Brooke published the letter at the beginning of the Perugia manuscript.

Marino Bigaroni in 1975 attempted to correct the problems associated with this text. In the first place, he "reclaimed" the work for Assisi,14 arguing that the manuscript had been written in Assisi, not Perugia. More importantly, Bigaroni gave the work the more appropriate title of a "compilation." In doing so, however, he introduced another problem: the manner of treating this compilation. Bigaroni was undoubtedly aware of the approach originally taken by Delorme, and later by Cambell and Brooke, that is, to untangle the documents that make up the compilation and to study them chronologically.15 Nevertheless, Bigaroni chose to publish the entire manuscript 1046 simply as a compilation of different texts written at different times, all of which were transcribed about 1311. By publishing the manuscript as he found it and giving it a new title, The Assisi Compilation, he avoided any attempts to re-arrange or interpret it.

As the initiatives of Cambell, Brooke, and Bigaroni were unfolding, Raoul Manselli was studying texts associated with Francis's companions. The result was Nos Qui Cum Eo Fuimus, which Manselli subtitled: Contributo alla Questione Francescana [Contribution to the Franciscan Question].16 He called for a more




Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 2, p. 114