Passion by Fashion:

Kierkegaard, St. Francis, and Clothes

Eric Ziolkowski (U.S.A.)

Despite Walter Benjamins perception of fashion as a defining feature of the nineteenth

century,1 Mark C. Taylors claim that Fashion is a recent invention and did not exist prior to
the advent of modernity2 needs to be qualified. Leopardi personified Fashion [Moda] as the
immortal sister of Madam Death [madama Morte], and both of them as daughters of Caducity
[Caducit]; as Fashion reminds Death, you and I together keep undoing and changing things
down here on earth although you go about it one way and I another.3 Georg Simmel likewise
saw fashion as a timeless universal phenomenon in the history of our race, though he allowed
that it plays a more conspicuous rle in modern times.4 In his view fashion is the human
impulse to imitation, satisfying the need for social adaptation and conformity, freeing the
individual from the concern of making choices and to subsist simply as a creature of the group,
as a vessel of the social contents. At the same time, fashion equally satisfies the opposite need
of differentiation, the tendency towards dissimilarity, the desire for change and contrast.5
Understood as combining the antitheses of imitation and differentiation, equalization and
individualization,6 or the need of union . . . and the need of isolation,7 fashion bears directly
upon the thinking and writings of Sren Kierkegaard, as much as it bears upon the life of St.
Francis of Assisi: a figure with whom he is rarely mentioned in conjunction. This article
considers the general pertinence of fashion to Kierkegaard, and then the tradition of philosophical
and theological antipathy to fashion from Socrates to Kierkegaard, before briefly comparing the
latter with Francis. With whose renowned public renunciation of clothes Kierkegaard appears to
have felt, at least once, a momentary affinity.
1

Cf. Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 6281.
Mark C. Taylor, Hiding (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 169.
3
Giacomo Leopardi, Operette Morali / Essays and Dialogues (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 6869.
4
Georg Simmel, Fashion, International Quarterly 10 (1904), 133, 137.
5
Ibid., 132, 133.
6
Ibid., 143.
7
Ibid., 137.
2

Fashion, Comparison, and Demonic Despair

The bearing of fashion upon Kierkegaard is revealed through his consistent pitting of the
single individual - or, in Simmels terminology, the socially-differentiated individual - against
such mimetically-oriented conformist group-forces as rabble-barbarism [Pbelagtighed],
leveling [Nivellering], and the established ecclesiastical order. Like Kierkegaard himself, his
unpublished pseudonym Petrus Minor deplores the crowd, the mass, the public or whatever
droves there are that give one occasion to have to speak of human beings as one speaks of a drove
of cattle.8 While readers are often drawn to Kierkegaards notion that God beckons the single
individual away from submersion in the crowd, many have been disturbed by his oft-perceived
asocial individualism.9 Regardless of whether this perception is fair or correct, the pertinence of
fashion to Kierkegaards exaltation of the single individual is evinced in his signed writings of
184548; where he repeatedly expresses contempt for comparison [Sammenligning], the worst
of all seductions and the noxious shoot that stunts the tree.10 Peoples indulgence in
comparison is the sine qua non of fashion. The fashionable person, observes Simmel, is
regarded with mingled feelings of approval and envy,11 both of which feelings stem from
comparison. For Kierkegaard engagement in comparison, as betrayed by either one of those
feelings, is always hazardous and wrong, especially when the individuals relation to the eternal
truth is at issue. This is because
if it is true that I do not have the right to compare myself with others in order to praise and
exalt myself but need only to relate myself to the ideal, then it is also true that I do not have
the right to compare myself with others in order to despair over myself, but here again I
must keep to myself and to the truth and never permit myself either proudly or
sympathetically to want to understand the truth through the fate of a third person whom I
can never know; instead I must grasp the eternal truth.12

Pap., VII-2 B 235, p. 41n / BA, 150n.

On the development of this construal, see the introduction to Foundations of Kierkegaards Vision of Community:
Religion, Ethics, and Politics in Kierkegaard, ed. George B. Connell and C. Stephen Evans (Atlantic Highlands NJ:
Humanities Press, 1992), viiix.
10
SV1, 8: 177, 178 / WL, 186.
11
Georg Simmel, Fashion, 140.
12
Pap., VI A 137 / JP, 1: 924.
9

Anticipating Leopardis presentation of Fashion and Death as perpetually undoing and changing
things, a presentation supported by Simmels observation that fashion always occupies the
dividing-line between the past and the future and is concerned only with change,13
Kierkegaard observes in his Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits (1847): Custom and use
[Skik og Brug] change, and any comparison limps or is only half truth; but eternitys custom
[Skik], which never becomes obsolete, is that you are a single individual.14 Skik og Brug, an
expression that Kierkegaard and his pseudonyms use quite often, might also be translated loosely
as fashion.15 Yet the Danish term Mode, which Kierkegaard sometimes uses, is semantically
closer to fashion in Simmels sense. For example, when Kierkegaard pronounces a certain
situation as comical as a man would beor everyone if it became the style [or fashion, Mode]
if he were to go around wearing a cap with a thirty-foot visor;16 or when his pseudonym
Johannes Climacus observes that just as in one era people wear round hats, in another threecornered hats, in the same way a fashion [en Mode] in our generation would have a person forget
the ethical requirement.17 The focus upon images of head coverings in these passages coincides
with yet another of Simmels points, namely, that
Fashion occasionally will accept objectively determined subjects such as religious faith,
scientific interests, even socialism and individualism; but it does not become operative as
fashion until these subjects can be considered independent of the deeper human motives
from which they have risen. For this reason the rule of fashion becomes in such fields
unendurable. We therefore see that there is good reason why externalsclothing, social
conduct, amusementsconstitute the specific field of fashion, for here no dependence is
placed on really vital motives of human action.18
In accordance with the principle of contradiction that informs his conception of the existential
stages and underlies his conception of irony, humor, the comic, and the tragic, the earlier
quotation from Kierkegaard about a cap would in fact defy Simmels point here. For the only

13

Georg Simmel, Fashion, 139, 152.

SV1, 8: 222 / UDVS, 130.
15
Hermann Vinterberg and Jens Axelsen, McKays Modern DanishEnglish/EnglishDanish Dictionary (New York:
David McKay), 1959.
16
SV1, 8 : 94 / TA, 101.
17
SV1, 7: 302 / CUP1, 349.
18
Georg Simmel, Fashion, 135.
14

reason Kierkegaard evokes a cap, an item that falls within the normal field of fashion
designated by Simmel, is to analogize the idea of an ephemeral, external, visual fashion in capwear to what he identifies as the current, internal, existential fashion of forget[ting] the ethical
requirement.
This is not the only place where Kierkegaard defies the normal confinement of fashion to the
sphere of externalsclothing, social conduct, amusements. Elsewhere, writing in the late
1840s and evoking no external analogy, Kierkegaard points out that the [Hegelian] system is
scarcely mentioned anymore, at least not as the shibboleth [Mode-Ordet, literally a fashion-word]
and as the demand of the times.19 Several years earlier, the normal limitation of fashion to the
external sphere is more elaborately and brazenly defied by the Fashion Designer [Modehandler]
at the banquet recounted in In Vino Veritas, the first part of Kierkegaards Stages on Lifes Way
(1845). Whereas scholars today are quick to call attention to the Designers condemnable sexism
and misogyny, his association of fashion with women and fickleness is hardly original.
Nonetheless, as a literary figure, the Designer particularly pleases Kierkegaard.20 Not only
because he is the only banqueter who is newly invented rather than adopted from Either/Or,21 but
also, undoubtedly, because he epitomizes a modern cultural tendency that Kierkegaard wants to
expose as pernicious: the leveling of all human thought, commitments, and even religion to a
plane dominated by the whims of fashion. Fashion, the Designer declares, is the sacred,22 and
Everything in life is a matter of fashion: from love, hoopskirts, and a nose ring, to fear of
God.23 It thus seems natural for Johannes Climacus to diagnose the Fashion Designer as
constituting demonic despair in a state of passion.24 This diagnosis anticipates Simmels
conclusion that fashion, because of the mimetic requirements it places upon its adherents,
releases the individual of all responsibilityethical and aesthetic.25 For passionate demonic
despair is one of the epitomic conditions of aesthetic existence, whose exemplar is marked by a
desire to avoid responsibility.26

19

SV1, 13: 605 / PV, 118-119.

Pap., V A 109 / JP, 5: 5744.
21
A point made by Alastair Hannay, Kierkegaard: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001),
261.
22
SV1, 6: 67 / SLW, 67.
23
UDVS, 71.
24
SV1, 7: 255 / CUP1, 298; cf. Pap., VI A 41, p. 16 / JP, 5: 5804.
25
Georg Simmel, Fashion, 155.
26
SV1, 2: 79 / EO2, 86.
20

Kierkegaard and Climacus were not the first to oppose fashion from a philosophical or
theological perspective.

Philosophical and Theological Anti-Fashion from Socrates to Kierkegaard

The philosophical opposition to fashion began as early as Socrates, who reportedly claimed to
be as unfit for fine raiment and fine shoes as for fine speech.27 After him, Diogenes of Sinope
proved downright antagonistic to fashion: known for folding his presumably dirty, sweaty, and
wrinkled cloak, in order to sleep in it. That prototypical Cynic was said to have required his
young followers to go barefoot and scantily clad; to have once derided a youth for dressing with
overmuch care; and to have eventually been found wrapped up, dead, in his own cloak, which he
had putatively used to smother himself. In his contempt for pretentious dress Diogenes was
perhaps equaled only by the Israelites god Yahweh who, as reported several centuries earlier,
threatened through a prophets voice to punish court officials and royal family members who
wore imported garments.28
By the dawn of the Common Era the modest cloak, robe, or mantle, called the pallium (the
Latin equivalent of the Greek

), had become the standard intellectuals anti-fashion

statement. A garment associated no less stereotypically with the unworldly philosopher in the
Roman Empire than is the tweed jacket with the professor in modern America. Thus, Justin
Martyr, even after his conversion, was known for going about in the garb of the philosophers
[habitu quoque philosophorum incedens],29 and Tertullian exalted the pallium over the more
cumbersome Roman toga as the garment specially suited to clothe the Christian [vestire
Christianum].30 As for clothes that departed from nature and modesty [de natura et modestia
transferunt], Tertullian urged that it be considered acceptable to stare and to point ones finger at
them, and to betray them with a nod [acie figere, et digito destinare, et nutu tradere].31 However,
the kind of Christian sartorial elitism which such an attitude evidently fostered elicited a backlash
at the Council of Gangra (34045), whose twelfth canon condemns any man who under pretence

27

Quoted in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers [Vitae philosophorum], 6, 4041.

Zeph 6: 8.
29
Cited in Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 99.
30
Tertullian, De pallio, Patrologia Latina, ed. Jacques Paul Migne, vols. 1-217 (Paris: Migne, 18441855), vol. 2,
1106A.
31
Tertullian, De pallio, vol. 2, 1098B.
28

of asceticism, should wear a peribolum and, as if this gave him righteousness, shall despise
those who with piety wear the berus and use other common and customary dress.32 Here,
denotes the pallium of philosophers and monks, and connotes lacerna, the
kind of cloak Romans donned over their togas in cold or wet weather.
That conciliar pronouncement seems echoed in a comment Martin Luther made a millennium
later. According to him, the monks considered themselves much holier and better than other
Christians by reason of their garb, their tonsures, their eating and drinking. Such asceticism,
without faith, would not help any monk escape damnation: It might be better for him to wear a
silken garment in place of his hair shirt.33 Among the aspects of monasticism against which
Luther railed were the precepts about, and the practice of, donning cowls, hoods, cords, cinctures,
and hair shirts. Nowhere, observes Luther, do the scriptures prescribe such monkish attire. Even
John the Baptist, with his holiness, his ascetic life, his odd dress and food,34 never exhorted
people to imitate his example, to don a camels hairy hide and put a leather girdle around their
waists. On the contrary, he pointed to Christ.35 And if John, the greatest of humans, could not
help us to salvation by his asceticism, any other saint, such as Francis, Dominic, or the pope
with his austere orders, cowls, cords, and rules will be a thousand times less capable of doing
this.36
Consistent with his own exaltation of faith over works as the sole criterion for human
justification Luther insisted that wearing monkish garb, which he dismissed as a work,37 does not
constitute service to God.38 Cowl-wearing, like fasting and obeying the rule of a religious order,
should not be mistaken as essential to piety and hence obligatory;39 and that Christ and his
sacrifice are not to be confused with St. Francis and the saints cowl.40 Indeed, Luther disparaged
the cowl constantly, condemning it as contrary to God,41 and criticized the practice of imitating

32

The Council of Gangra, Acta et symbola conciliorum quae saeculo quarto habita sunt, ed. E. J. Jonkers (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1954), 83. Cf. also Peter Brown, The Body and Society, 288; and Lynda L. Coon, Sacred Fictions: Holy
Women and Hagiography in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), 58.
33
Luthers Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, vols. 1-55 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 195576), vol. 23: 68. See also vol. 23: 71, 127, 261, 271, 320, 409.
34
Ibid., vol. 22: 65.
35
Ibid., vol. 22: 51; cf. 50.
36
Ibid., vol. 22: 59; cf. 50.
37
Ibid., vol. 23: 135, 182.
38
Ibid., vol. 23: 24, 25, 34. Cf. vol. 23: 121, 171.
39
Ibid., vol. 52: 172-73.
40
Ibid., vol. 22: 359.
41
Ibid., vol. 22: 268, 270, 327, 386, 387; cf. vol. 23: 68, 124, 179, 196, 263, 333, 367.

such saints as Bernard and Francis whose examples inspired it.42 His conviction in this regard
was compounded by his experience of having once striven for salvation by means of the
cowl,43 during his years as an Augustinian monk.
Three centuries after Luthers time we encounter the most decisive case of a philosopher
being derided for having broken a basic rule of sartorial fashion. Arguably no article of any
philosophers attire, not even Diogenes cloak; nor Justins, has ever been more openly discussed
or, above all, publicly mocked than Kierkegaards uneven trouser legsnot to mention other
idiosyncrasies of his dress and physical appearance.44 On account of the frequent satirizing and
cartooning of them in The Corsair, during his notorious and protracted conflict with that tabloid,
his legs attracted stares and snickers on the street as he walked by. Reducing him to a martyr of
laughter in a manner Kierkegaard likened to Christs Passion,45 this public mockery became so
intense that his tailor feared for his own trade.46 In a journal entry of 1849, alluding to the former
editor of The Corsair, Kierkegaard quips: it would be a relief if I could get [Mer Aron]
Goldschmidt to write, for example, about my suit-coat, my vest, my hat, so my legs could get a
little peace.47 As a child, a generation later, Georg Brandes would be admonished by his nurse to
pull his own trousers over his boots so as not to be a Sren Kierkegaard.48
Kierkegaard knew that he was not the first philosopher whose clothing attracted attention. He
was fond of citing the passage from Diogenes Laertius that contains Socratess aforementioned
avowal of being unfit for fine raiment and fine shoes.49 On one occasion he alluded to Diogenes
of Sinopes ethic of worldly frugality, including the latters wearing but a single garment, as
inverting the human beings precocious other-worldly need of God.50 Johannes Climacus evokes
the image of Diogenes hurriedly belt[ing] up his cloak and eagerly trundl[ing] his tub up and

42

Ibid., vol. 2: 113; cf. vol. 22: 51, 261, 268, 273, 446; cf. vol. 24: 224; cf. vol. 34: 26.
Ibid., vol. 22: 359.
44
COR, 11415, 120, 131, 13335. See also Encounters with Kierkegaard. A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries,
trans. and ed. Bruce H. Kirmmse (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1996), 23, 89, 90, 92, 97, 138, 183.
45
Pap., X 1 A 120 / JP, 6: 6348; and Pap., X-2 A 39 / JP, 6: 6493. See also Eric Ziolkowski, Evil Children in
Religion, Literature, and Art (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2001), 136-37.
46
Pap., VIII 1 A 175 / COR, 222. The article The New Planet in The Corsair, no. 277, 9 January 1846 (translated
in COR, 114) contains satirical references to Kierkegaards tailor that could have credibly caused him anxiety over
his professional reputation.
47
Pap., X 2 A 101 / JP, 6: 6509.
48
Georg Brandes, Sren Kierkegaard, En kritisk Frenstilling i Grundrids (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1877), 1.
Translated in Encounters with Kierkegaard. A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, 97. See also COR, 290n, 107.
49
SV1, 13: 134n / CI, 38n; and SV1, 8: 104 / TA, 111; and SV1, 12: 301 / FSE, 9.
50
SV1, 5: 86 / EUD, 303. See Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 9.
43

down the street.51 Yet Kierkegaard offered a different explanation of the cause clbre his own
trousers had become. Commenting from the imagined vantage of a heavenly poet upon the
present time when legs are supposed to provide the criterion . . . for what it is to be a human
being, he wrote that his mockers all furnished an essential appurtenance, a chorus, a priceless
market-town chorus, which took its stand on what it understood, his trousers, which became the
demand of the times, or even more precious, a chorus that wanted to ironizethe ironist.52
To ironize the ironist! It was no small irony that the late father of this bookish ironistthe
father of this philosopher in the ill-fitting trousers, garbed self-consciously in the costume
[Costmet] of public derision53had been a merchant of textiles and clothing, a fact noted in
the dedications to him that head all but one of Kierkegaards six sets of upbuilding discourses of
1843 and 1844.54 In this regard, Kierkegaard was probably aware of his own striking affinity with
St. Francis.

Francis and KierkegaardCut from Similar Cloth?

Like Kierkegaard, Francesco (Francis) Bernardone was the son of a cloth merchant; a wealthy
Assisian. If the relations between Sren, Michael Pedersen Kierkegaard, and Bishop Jakob Peter
Mynster triangulated in a way that had far-reaching implications for Srens religious
development, and his stance toward society and the church,55 so did the bishop of Assisi (Guido
II) wind up adjudicating a fateful filial-paternal crisis between Francesco and Pietro Bernardone;
at the pivotal juncture in the sons self-removal from everyday society in response to a divine
calling. According to the official legend: young Franciss conversion from existence as a reveler
and bon vivant to a life of pure, single-minded, imitation of Christ, or what Kierkegaard might
describe as his leap from the aesthetic stage to the religious (bypassing the ethical altogether),
involved his stripping himself naked publicly in the presence of the bishop and handing his
clothes back to his stunned father.

51

SV1, 4: 176 / PF, 6.

SV1, 13: 581 / PV, 96.
53
SV1, 13: 554 / PV, 67.
54
SV1, 3: 9, 169; SV1, 4: 5, 119; SV1, 5: 77 / EUD, 3, 51, 105, 229, 293.
55
Pap., VIII 1 A 415 / JP, 5: 6076: I have admired no one, no living person, except Bishop Mynster, and it is a joy
to me to be reminded always of my father.
52

This scene, recorded in the initial written account of Franciss life56 and signifying his
renunciation of worldly goods and of kinship ties, became a standard feature of Franciscan
hagiography and a popular scene in late medieval and Renaissance art.57 Notably it is mentioned
in the little monograph of 1826 on Francis by the German Catholic writer and publicist Joseph
von Grres, which Kierkegaard cites without comment in a journal entry of 1841.58 That this
renunciation scene may have led Kierkegaard to identify with Franciss symbolic self-divestiture,
and subsequent life of self-imposed poverty, is suggested by his writing four entries later: Next
to taking off all my clothes, owning nothing in the world, not the least thing, and then throwing
myself in the water, I find most pleasure speaking a foreign language, preferably a living one, in
order to become entfremdet [estranged or alienated] to myself.59 Here Kierkegaards use of that
German term seems telling, for Grress German text suggests that Kierkegaard identifies with
Francis. Grres, upon first describing Francis as a rich merchants son [Eines reichen Kaufherrn
Sohn] (a description likely to catch Kierkegaards attention), observed that the young,
poetically-gifted saint-to-be did not remain alien [fremd] to the spiritual-lyrical sway of the
troubadours who passed down from southern France to central Italy, including Assisi, toward
Rome. If Kierkegaard finds pleasure in speaking a foreign language so as to become selfalienated, he was likely encouraged by Grress ensuing conjecture that it was Franciss solid
grasp of the troubadours foreign tongue, Provenal, that had enabled their songs to affect Francis
in such a way as to foster his estrangement from his worldly self. After his conversion, added
Grres, he went once through a thicket and sang Gods praise with a loud voice in the French
language, and when robbers asked him who he was, he called himself the Herald of God.60
Whether or not Kierkegaard really did identify with Franciss renunciation, his acquaintance
with the saints life clearly made a significant and lasting impression on him; despite the scarcity
of other references to him in the writings. Having referred to Franciss stigmata in a journal entry
of 13 October 1838 as the print that Christ made upon the Occident61 Kierkegaard later, in an
56

Thomas de Celano, Vita prima S. Francisci (Quaracchi-Florence: Typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 19261941), paragraphs 1314.
57
See Eric Ziolkowski, Evil Children in Religion, 93-99, which includes a reproduction of Giottos frescoed
representation of this scene (illustration 5).
58
Joseph von Grres, Der heilige Franciscus ein Troubadour (Strassburg, 1826); cited in Pap., III A 93 / JP, 5:
5492. In the re-edition I consulted, Der heilige Franziskus [sic] von Assisi, ein Troubadour (Berlin: WeltgeistBcher, 1926). The scene in question is alluded to on p. 8.
59
JP, 5: 5493. In Papirer this undated entry of 1841 occurs as III A 97, and the citation of Grress book at III A 93.
60
Grres, Der heilige Franziskus, 8.
61
Pap., II A 276 / JP, 1: 288.

10

entry of 1847, points to Franciss form of conformity [Conformitet] with Christcrystallized

in the stigmataas a medieval exaggeration.62 The next year, in his Christian Discourses
(1848), he makes what turns out to be the sole reference to Francis (albeit not by name) in the
entire published authorship, and the last reference to him anywhere in all the writings:63 exalting
him as the imitator [Efterflger] of Christ who resembled him most. Kierkegaard proceeds to
question the factuality of the stigmata, alleging that Francis was one who did not, as superstition
so coveted, bear his wounds on his body but whose life was also retrogression instead of
progression, who also, according to the Christian order of precedence, ascended from rung to
rung, ridiculed, insulted, persecuted, crucified. Here, Franciss image is invoked to support
Kierkegaards claim that Christ was crucified not by a few individuals or by his first-century
generation but rather by the human race. According to Kierkegaard, like all humans, even
Francis, Christs closest imitator, would be able to imagine himself present at the Crucifixion
only as an accomplice.64
Despite his figurative claim to have written Either/Or in a monastery,65 and his later selfregard as a penitent,66 Kierkegaard pursued a course of life radically different from Franciss,
especially regarding manner of dress. According to legend, the naked Francis had no sooner
handed his clothes to his father than the presiding bishop removed his own episcopal mantel
[pallium] and wrapped the young man in it,67 a gesture foreshadowing the Catholic Churchs
official embrace of the Order of Friars Minor that the young renunciant went on to found.
Kierkegaard, though he by contrast will disparage the deceased Bishop Mynster and cut himself
off from the established Danish church, nonetheless never mocks the peculiarities of monastic
garb the way Luther did. Yet, despite his own trouser-leg problem in particular, as well as The
Corsairs cartooning of his whole physical and sartorial gestalt, Kierkegaard can honestly record
62

Pap., VIII 1 A 349 / JP, 2: 1839.

The only exception is the unannotated bibliographic list constituting Pap., X 6 C 7; cf. JP, 6: 6830, which includes
a citation of Leben und Regel des heiligen Franziskus von Assis [sic], trans. Herenaus Haid, vols. 1-2 (Munich: Jakob
Giel, 182829). The second volume bears the variant title Die kleinen Werke des heiligen Franziskus von Assis.
Kierkegaards citation of Haids translation combines these two titles.
64
SV1, 10: 288 / CD, 278.
65
SV1, 13: 526 / PV, 35.
66
Pap., X 1 A 56, p. 44 / JP, 6: 6317, p. 400; Pap., X 1 A 115 / JP, 6: 6345; Pap., X 1 A 250, p. 164 / JP, 6: 6383;
Pap., X 2 A 130 / PJS, 436; and SV1, 13: 519 / PV, 24.
67
Cf. e. g. Thomas de Celano, Vita prima S. Francisci, 15, line 7; Julien Speyer, Vita S. Francisci, 9, line 8; and
Bonaventure, Legenda maior, 2.4, line 12; all in Legendae S. Francisci Assisiensis saeculis XIII et XIV
conscriptae, Analecta Franciscana (QuaracchiFlorence: Typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 192641), vol. 10:
14, 340, 565. See also Legenda trium sociorum, ed. Thophile Desbonnets (Rome: Collegio S. Bonaventura,
Grottaferrata, 1974), p. 105, sect. 20, line 20.
63

11

in a journal entry of 1848: I have never been a Diogenes, . . . ; I have dressed properly and
decently.68

68

Pap., IX A 64 / JP, 6: 6160.