1259). His discordant witness barely deserves being cited by way of memoir (see Critical Study, p. 431). To be able to forgive the fanciful character of his long disquisitions on St. Francis, we are forced to recall to mind that he owed his information to the verbal account of some pilgrim. He makes the stigmata appear a fortnight before the Saint's death, shows them continually emitting blood, the wound on the side so wide open that the heart could be seen. The people gather in crowds to see the sight, the cardinals come also, and all together listen to Francis's strange declarations. (Historia major, Watts's edition London, 1 vol. fol., 1640, pp. 339-342.)
This list might be greatly lengthened by the addition of a passage from Luke bishop of Tuy (Lucas Tudensis) written in 1231;[3] based especially on the Life by Thomas of Celano, and oral witnesses.
The statement of Brother Boniface, an eye-witness, at the chapter of Genoa (1254). (Eccl. 13.)
Finally and especially, we should study the strophes relating to the stigmata in the proses, hymns, and sequences composed in 1228 by the pope and several cardinals for the Office of St. Francis; but such a work, to be done with accuracy, would carry us very far, and the authorities already cited doubtless suffice without bringing in others.[4]
The objections which have been opposed to these witnesses may be reduced, I think, to the following:[5]
a. Francis's funeral took place with surprising precipitation. Dead on Saturday evening, he was buried Sunday morning.
b. His body was enclosed in a coffin, which is contrary to Italian habits.
c. At the time of the removal, the body, wrested from the multitude, is so carefully hidden in the basilica that for centuries its precise place has been unknown.
d. The bull of canonization makes no mention of the stigmata.
e. They were not admitted without a contest, and among those who denied them were some bishops.