some observations on the brancacci chapel frescoes after their cleaning

7/21/2019 Some Observations on the Brancacci Chapel Frescoes after Their Cleaning

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/some-observations-on-the-brancacci-chapel-frescoes-after-their-cleaning 1/18

Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The BurlingtonMagazine.

http://www.jstor.org

Some Observations on the Brancacci Chapel Frescoes after Their CleaningAuthor(s): Keith ChristiansenSource: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 133, No. 1054 (Jan., 1991), pp. 4-20Published by: Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/884614

Accessed: 11-12-2015 20:40 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:40:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/884614

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp






http://www.jstor.org/stable/884614

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl

http://www.jstor.org/



. D)ctail•f 7 he expul.ion ofAIdam and Eve from Paradi.se, by Masaccio. Fresco. (Brancacci Chapcl, S. Maria dcl Carmine, Florence).






THE BRANCACCI CHAPEL

5.

5. The temptation f Adam and Eve, byMasolino. Fresco, 214 by 89 cm.

(Brancacci Chapel, S. Maria delCarmine, Florence).

6. The expulsion of Adam and EvefromParadise, by Masaccio. Fresco,214 by 90 cm. (Brancacci Chapel,S. Maria del Carmine, Florence). 6.

two uninterrupted lateral walls, and a back wall divided

by a biforate window. The fresco cycle, undertaken duringthe period in which Felice di Michele Brancacci had

patronal rights to the chapel,'0 was arranged in three hori-zontal bands, the uppermost of which- comprising thelunettes was destroyed between 1746 and 1748, when adecorated vault was created." Despite this loss and someambiguities in Vasari's description, the programme as it

was originally conceived can now be reconstructed with afair degree of accuracy, thanks to the recovery of the sinopieof the two scenes on either side of the window (Figs.2 and 3),

of fragments of a heretofore unrecorded scene beneath thewindow (Fig.4), and of elements of the decorative borders onthe embrasures (Fig.4). According to Vasari, the triangular-shaped areas of the vault contained images of the four

evangelists. In the lunette on the upper left wall was shownthe Calling of St Peter (Matthew 4:18-20) - a later copy ofthis scene exists.12 To the left of the window, on the backwall, was depicted Peter grieving after having denied Christ

(Matthew 26:75; Luke 22:62),and to the

rightChrist

charg-ing Peter to 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:15-17). The sinopie ofthese two scenes were first published by Ornella Casazza in

"'Felice inherited rights to the chapel at his father's death in 1394. There is,however, no definitive proof that he actually commissioned he cycle: see MOLHO,loc.cil. above, pp.74-76. VASARIdentified the patron as Antonio

Brancacc(ii.e.

the son of Piero di Piuvichecse), who died between 1383 and 1389, leaving anendowment of 200 florins for the chapel (presumably used for its construction:see MOHLO, pp.80-81, and PANDIMI(;LIO, p.Cil. bove, pp.25, 49-51). The factthat in 1389 Scrotino di Silvestro Brancacci hoped to secure burial privileges bycontributing 50 florins towards the decoration of the chapel (see note 9 above),may indicate that a plan was in hand. Recently, M. BOSKOVITs('I1 percorso diMasolino: Precisazioni sulla cronologia e sul catalogo', Arte cristiana, no.718[19871, pp.55-57) has argued that Antonio's executors were responsible or thecommission, but this is without documentary support. It stands to reason that

Felice, as patron of the chapel, was responsible or overseeing any work carriedout in it."A drawing of the chapel, hypothetically reconstructed, is reproduced ino. CASAZZA: I1 cilo delle storic di San Pietro c la "historia salutis". Nuovelettura della cappella Brancacci', Critica 'arte, LI, n.9 [1986], p.87. It containserrors the scene beneath the window makes no allowance for the slant of the sill),and the scaled diagram reproduced by L. WATKINS ('Technical Observations onthe Frescoes of the Brancacci Chapel', Mitteilungen es Kunsthistorischen nstitutesin Florenz, 7 [1973], p.67) is more accurate, although not definitive.'2Published by R. LONGHI 'Fatti di Masolino e di Masaccio', (ritica d'arte,nos.3-4 [1940], p.146), it was included in the exhibition, L'Eth di Masaccio: Iprimo Quattrocento Firenze, Palazzo Vccchio, Florence [1990], no.45.

7







1986.13 The Pasce oves meas s not mentioned by Vasari, butit was of crucial theological importance to the cycle, since itunderscored Peter's special position among the apostles.14According to Vasari, the right-hand lunette containedChrist walking on the water and extending his hand to Peter(Matthew 14:23-32) - the scene commonly known as theNavicella. A mosaic of this subject, designed by Giotto, dec-orated the portico of old St Peter's in Rome, and Masolino'slunette probably conformed to the compositional features

of that work. This scene was another symbol of Papalauthority. The middle band of frescoes survives intact,containing Masaccio's scene of Christ commanding eter to paythe tribute money at Capernaum Matthew 17:24-27; Fig.9),Masolino's of Peter preaching to the multitudes (Acts 2:14;Fig.10), Peter baptising (Acts 2:41; Fig.12) by Masaccio,and Masolino's combined depiction of Peter and John healingthe lame man before he Temple at Jerusalem (Acts 3:2-8) andthe Raising of Tabitha (Acts 9:36-42; Fig. 11). The left wallof the bottom tier has the apocryphal story of Peter raisingthe son of Theophilus at Antioch and the Chairing of St Peter(Fig.16), a work begun by Masaccio, but completed orrepaired by Filippino Lippi in the 1480s. Filippino's con-tribution to this fresco is now no

longer problematic,for

his less rigorous, though wonderfully delicate, system ofmodelling is readily distinguishable from Masaccio's, andthe division proposed in Berti's monograph of 1964 can beconfirmed: the innovative architecture on the left, for

example, is due to Masaccio.15 Whether this fresco was

actually defaced and partly destroyed after the exile ofFelice Brancacci in 1435, as is often stated,'6 whether the

figures added by Filippino were merely a means of updat-ing the scene through the insertion of further portraits, orwhether the fresco was actually abandoned incomplete fol-lowing Masaccio's transfer to Rome, still seems to me opento debate. It may be worth noting that one of the portraitheads added by Filippino has been conspicuously vandalised

(the figure behind Theophilus's son). On the window wallare Masaccio's scenes of Peter healing with his shadow (Acts5:15; Fig. 15) and Peter distributing the goods of the church(Acts 4:35-5:10; Fig.17), while on the adjacent right wall

Filippino Lippi depicted the combined apocryphal scenesof Peter and Paul before Nero with Simon Magus and the Cruci-

fixion of Peter. Whether both subjects of Filippino's scenewere part of the original scheme is not certain, for the ex-tremely fragmentary fresco discovered beneath the window

- apparently by Masaccio has been identified as theCruc/ifxion f St Peter." If this identification is correct, thenit is possible that a depiction of Peter occupying the Chairin Rome (an event alluded to byJacopo da Voragine) was

7. Head, by Masolino. Fresco. (Brancacci Chapel, S. Maria del Carmine,Florence).

intended as a counterpart to his chairing in Antioch on the

opposite wall. In the newly exposed fresco, however, (Fig.4)there is no evidence of either of the pyramids traditionallyused to locate Peter's crucifixion, and the shape of the pic-

ture field is an odd one for so important an episode. Itshould not be forgotten that Vasari mentions a 'liberare liinfermi', which might just refer to this scene (the event,from Acts 5:16, also relates textually to the two flankingscenes). Then, on the piers of the entrance arch (which was

probably also decorated, possibly with medallions withheads of saints)18 are shown the Fall, by Masolino, andthe Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise, by Masaccio

(Figs.5 and 6), with, below them, Paul visiting Peter inprison at Antioch, and Peter freedfrom prison n Jerusalem (Acts12:6-10), both by Filippino Lippi.

This was the most extensive Petrine cycle produced inthe fifteenth century, and it can hardly be coincidental

13(cASAZZA, loc.cit. at note 11Ibove, pp.69-70. See also BALDINI, oc.cit. at note 6above, pp.91f :'4The discovery of this sinopia puts an end to the speculation on the subject ofthis scene, so strangely overlooked by Vasari. Recent opinion favoured adepiction of St Peter denying Christ as a logical companion to his repentance.MOLHO,oc.cit. at note 9 above, p.53, rightly thought the absence of this scenerequired an explanation, so central is it to any Petrine cycle.'"'This ad been doubted in M.MEISS: Masaccio and the Early Renaissance: TheCircular Plan', Acts of the Twentieth nternational ongress f the History of Art,Princeton [1963], p. 145.'6This idea was developed by H. BROCKHAUS 'Die Brancacci-Kapelle n Florenz',Mitteilungen esKunsthistorischen nstitutes n Florenz, [1919-32], pp. 169-78), andhas gained wide acceptance. See, for example, P. MELLER: La Capella Brancacci:problemi ritrattistici ed iconografici', Acropoli, II [1960-61], pp.197ff.; andBALDINI nd CASAZZA,p.cit. t note 8 above, pp. 194, 306, 322."7See CASAZZA,oc.cit. at note 11 above, p.69, and U. BALDINI: La CappellaBrancacci nella Chiesa del Carmine a Firenze', Quaderni el Restauro, [1984],

pp.22-23; and BALDINI nd CASAZZA, p.cit. at note 8 above, pp.295-96.'8This has been suggested, for example, by WATKINS, loc.cit. at note 11 above,

p.67.9"The two most authoritative studies of the iconography of the frescoes are byMOLHO, oc.cit. at note 9 above, and A. DEBOLD-VON KRITTER: Studien zum

Petruszyklus in der Brancaccikapelle, Berlin [1975], the conclusions of which aremasterfully summarised and discussed in E. BORSOOK: The Mural Painters qfTuscany, Oxford [1980], pp.63-67. Molho describes the historical issues thatmust have determined the commission, and emphasises the topical significanceof the various scenes. Debold-von Kritter gives a highly convincing theologicalexegesis not only for the individual scenes but for the overall scheme. The two

readings are not mutually exclusive. Neither author was able to make use of theother's work, but both place strong emphasis on Nicholas of Lyra's commentaries,a copy of which was in the Carmine. See also the comments ofBOSKOVITS loc.cit.at note 10 above, pp.63-64 note 39), and c. GILBERT ('Some Special Images forCarmelites c. 1330-1430', in Christianity and the Renaissance, ed. T. VERDON nd

HENDERSON, Syracuse [1990], pp.192-95.)

8







8. Head, by Masaccio. Fresco. (Brancacci Chapel, S. Maria del Carmine,Florence).

that it was conceived at a time when Papal authority,already questioned by John Wycliffe and John Hus, wasalso being contested by the conciliar movement.19 TheCarmelites were staunch supporters of the papacy - and so,it seems, was the patron of the chapel Felice Brancacci.20Indeed, members of the Carmelite order- which traced itsorigins to the Old Testament Prophet Elijah -- are shownlistening to St Peter preach, and they witness his enthrone-ment at Antioch an event that marks both Peter's positionas head of the Church and the institution of the tonsure(Fig. 16). In three of the scenes by Masaccio and Masolino -Peter preaching, Peter baptising and Peter raising the son ofTheophilus, there are also unmistakable portraits amongthe bystanders. This was not a novel feature: portraits hadbeen included in an earlier fresco cycle in the Carmine it-self by the late gothic artist Starnina, who distinguishedthem from the historical figures by the use of contemporarydress. It

should, however,be noted that there is no firm

basis fbr the widely accepted ideai originating withVasari's identification of one of the apostles in the Tribute

money as a self-portrait of Masaccio that some of' the

apostles and beggars are disguised portraits of Masolino,Donatello and Brunelleschi.2'

Moreover, whatever political or biographical allusionsthere may be in some of the scenes (and it seems to methat much of what has been written on these lines is basedmore on assumptions about how contemporaries viewedthese fresco cycles than on probability), the overridingtheme of the cycle is that of salvation through the Church,as symbolised by St Peter."22 This is the most obvious reasonfor the appearance of Adam and Eve on the two piers.They bracket the cycle in the same way in which the

depiction of the Last Judgement above the entrance archin the church of S. Francesco at Arezzo introduces Pierodella Francesca's fresco cycle treating Redemption throughthe True Cross."2 And, as in that celebrated cycle, so herestrict narrative sequence was not the governing factor.Rather, the scenes are arranged so that theological allusionsare underscored by visual analogies.24 The fact that thetwo lunettes opposite each other showed seascapes has fre-quently been remarked (in one, Peter is chosen by Christ;in the other he is saved by Christ). But no less significantare the

landscape settingsof Peter

preachingnd Peter

haptis-ing; the city-scapes (with their unified perspective) of'Peterhealing with his shadow and Peter distributing he goods of theChurch; r the courtyards of Peter raising he son qf Theophilusand Peter and Simon Magus. There can be no doubt thatthese are meant to be read as complementary pairs. Peter's

unique ability to heal by means of his shadow was viewedas an illustration of his position as apostolus rincipalis, whilethe distribution of the goods established his authority inthe early Church.25 The scenes of him preaching and

baptising illustrate the potestates redicandi t baptizandi withwhich all the apostles were charged by Christ (Matthew28:19), but which are here performed by Peter alone."2The Pasce ovesmeas, n which Christ thrice questions Peter's

love of him and thrice charges him to 'feed my sheep' is, ofcourse, directly related to Peter's repentance after havingthrice denied Christ.27 Beyond such complementary pairs,it might be noted that Jacopo da Voragine declares Peter

deserving of three feasts 'because he was raised above theother apostles in three ways: in authority, in the love ofChrist, and in the power to work miracles'.'2 This triad

roughly corresponds to the dominant themes of each ofthe three walls, for on one Peter is repeatedly exalted asChrist's designated leader,29 on another his ministry isillustrated (appropriately, this is the wall with the Pasceovesmeas), while the third (opened by the NJavicella n whichChrist saves Peter as he walks on the water) emphasises hismiraculous

powers."?This concern for a thematic

andvisual unity over strict narrative sequence is characteristicof a number of fifteenth-century fresco cycles (Piero della

2"See DEBOLD-VON RITTER, p.cit. at note 19 above, pp.152ff., and MOHLO,loc.cit. at note 9 above, pp.67-69, 77-78.

2'l'he standard study on the identification of the portraits is MELLER, oc.cit. atnote 16 above, pp.186-227; 273-312. The identifications are reviewed in the

pertinent entries of BALDINI nd CASAZZA, p.cit. at note 8 above.

22'l'his theme underlies the persuasive analysis ofDEBOLD-VON KRITTER, p.Cit. atnote 19 above, pp.121-45 (especially pp.141-42); see also BORSOOK, op.Cit. atnote 19 above; and BALDINI nd CASAZZA, p.Cit. at note 8 above, pp.319-22.23DEBOLD-VON KRITTER, op.cit. at note 19 above, pp. 129-30, cites texts underscoringa close symbolic connexion between Peter paying the tribute money andAdam's sin.24This was emphasised by WATKINS, oc.cit. at note 11 above, p.68.

25See DEBOLD-VON RITTER, p.cit. at note 19 above, pp.123-24. MOLHO (10c.cil.at note 9 above, pp.60-61) points out that the Biblical account of Ananias wasused by opponents of the Papacy, and that Masaccio's depiction, with Peteralone distributing alms, seems conceived in direct response to these arguments.26Ibid., p.60.27See the commentary on this subject in DEBOLD-VON KRITTER, op.Cit. at note 19

above, pp. 140-41.28J. DE VORAGINE: The Golden Legend, tr. and ed. G. RYAN and H. RIPPERGER, NewYork [1941], p. 170.29The crucial scene is the Tribute money, which MEISS loc.cit. at note 15 above,p. 126) has shown conveys the same meaning as the giving of the keys to St Peter.

30BORSOOK, op.cit. at note 19 above, p.64, remarks on the appositeness of Voragine'scomments.

9







Francesca's cycle of the True Cross in Arezzo and FilippoLippi's paired lives of Sts Stephen and John the Baptist inPrato might be cited), and it seems to mark a major shiftin the way such cycles were perceived and understood byfifteenth-century viewers.

It is known from a clause in Felice Brancacci's Will of1432 that, for some reason, the frescoes were left unfin-

ished.3• In 1435 Felice was exiled by the Medicean govern-ment, and it is probably after that date that the highlyvenerated thirteenth-century painting of the Madonna delPopolo was placed in the chapel, partially covering thefresco beneath the window.•2 (Before this it is just conceiv-able that Donatello's marble relief of Christ giving the keys o

Peter in the Victoria and Albert Museum- the most im-portant Petrine episode missing from the cycle - decoratedthe altar.):33 After 1435 the chapel is most frequently

9. The ribute money, y Masaccio. Fresco, 247 by 597 cm. (Brancacci Chapel,S. Maria del Carmine, Florence).

10. Peter reaching othe multitudes, y Masolino and Masaccio? Fresco,247 by 168 cm. (Brancacci Chapel, S. Maria del Carmine, Florence).

' MOLHO loc.cit. at note 9 above, pp.51, 92), transcribes the testament.

I''I'he picture has been removed from its baroque frame, cleaned, and re-installed. Despite assumptions to the contrary, there are no certain notices of itin the Brancacci Chapel prior to 1460, and the report that it was in the chapelby 1422 seems to be no more than supposition: see MOLHO, oc.cit. at note 9above, pp.82-83, for a review of the literature and documents. u. PROCACCI

('L'Incendio della Chiesa del Carmine del 1771', Rivista d'arte, 14 [ 1932], p.157)suggested that it may originally have been intended for the high altar, whichseems plausible. In 1315 Andrea Corsini was converted in front of the image,described as on the altar of the Virgin (see MOLHO, p.82), which was thededication of the high altar (PROCACCI, . 176). VASARI (op.cit. at note 1 above,p.41) states that the high altar-piece was painted by Domenico di Bartolo, andthis is likely to have taken place about 1436: see c. STREHLKE, n Painting inRenaissance Siena: 1420-1500, exh.cat., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

[1988], pp.250-54. The commissioning of a new altar-piece from Domenico diBartolo would have provided the pretext for the removal of the old image to theBrancacci Chapel, whose patron had been exiled.

3'IThis hypothesis, first advanced in j. POPE-HENNESSY: Donatello's Relief of theAscension with Christ Giving the Keys to Saint Peter, London [ 1949], and since then

widely accepted, is reviewed in full in H.W. JANSON: The Sculpture of Donatello,Princeton [1963], pp.92-95. DEBOLD-VON RITTER (Op.cit. at note 19 above,pp. 147-51) advances the hypothesis that the relief was incorporated as a predellafor the Madonna del Popolo, but this seems unlikely if only because that image was

probably only placed in the chapel after 1435/36 (see note 32 above). POPE-

HENNESSY also suggested that the marble relief served as a predella, but in viewof the discovery of a fresco below the window that severely limited the height of

any object on the altar, it could equally well have served as a dossal. One mightimagine it being sold to the Medici by the Carmelites following the transfer ofthe Madonna del Popolo to the chapel; it is mentioned in the 1492 inventory of the

Medici I'Palace.

10







11. Peter

and,

ohn healing the ame man before he temple at Jerusalem and the raising ofTabitha, by Masolino. Fresco, 247 by 588 cm. (Brancacci Chapel, S. Maria delCarmine, Florence).

12. Peter baptising, by Masaccio and Masolino? Fresco, 247 by 172 cm.

(Brancacci Chapel, S. Maria del Carmine, Florence).

referred to as the Cappella della Vergine Maria, and it was inhonour of this image that a laywomen's confraternity wasestablished in 1460.34 Only in 1474 did the Brancaccireturn to Florence, and only after 1480 was the cyclecompleted by Filippino Lippi.

Much attention - some may think too much has focusedon the dating and relative chronology of the individualfrescoes, and on the respective contributions of Masaccioand Masolino. The time span involved is extremely narrow- from about 1425 to 1428 -- so the matter might seem

inconsequential. And yet, for anyone interested in the

origins of renaissance art and the way a collaborative

project between two quite individual artists worked, it is

of primary importance. Moreover, the discoveries madeduring restoration bear directly on these issues and makea review of the evidence worthwhile.

According to Vasari, the chapel decorations were begunby Masolino and then continued by Masaccio, but OrnellaCasazza and Umberto Baldini have made a case fobr scrib-

ing one of the newly discovered sinopie rom the lunettes to

Masaccio, thereby suggesting that the whole cycle was a

joint undertaking. 3 I remain unconvinced by their divisionof hands, for sinopie an differ widely in character dependingat which stage during the creation of a work they weredrawn. It is, for example, possible that the minor differ-ences between the sinopia of the Pasce oves meas (Fig.3) andthe

Repentanteter

(Fig.2)are the result of Masolino

havingpreviously elaborated one composition more carefully on

paper (the Pasce oves meas), as opposed to working out theother directly on the intonaco. n other words, the sinopia ofthe Repentant eter may simply be a more exploratory drawingby Masolino than that for the Pasce oves meas, which com-

pares closely with Masolino's sinopie at Empoli.36 Whatseems to me far more decisive for our understanding of the

34See, again, MOLHO, oc.cil. at note 9 above, p.83, fbr the relative documents.

35CASAZZA, loc.cil. at note 11 above, BALDINI, oc.cil. at note 17 above, and

BALDINI nd CASAZZA,op.Cit.

at note 8 above, pp.292, 323. LONGHI (10C.cil. at note12 above, p. 154) also believed the cycle to be a joint commission.

36BERTI, op.cit. at note 6 above, p.37, and L. BERTI and R. FOGGI (MasacCio,Florence [1989], pp. 18, 88), do not accept Baldini's division of hands.

11







13. Detail of Fig. 12 before cleaning.

initial commission and the point at which Masaccio inter-vened is the surviving decoration on the embrasures (Fig.4)

again first published by Baldini.":7The window divides the lunette scenes, and its decorative

motifs would have been determined at the outset. Theyconsist of a regular pattern of bristling tendrils within a

rectangular field, punctuated by circular feigned marbleframes which enclose bust-length heads (Figs.7 and 8).This is identical to the scheme Masolino employed in theembrasures of his fresco cycle of' 1424 at Empoli and also tothat in his contemporaneous frescoed Pielh at the Collegiataat Empoli.38 I find it difficult to believe that this typicallygothic ornamental scheme would have been adopted if'there had been any intention to employ classical mouldingsand Corinthian pilasters to frame the large, rectangularscenes of the middle and lower tiers. The window decor-ation bears the same relationship to these Brunelleschianpilasters as the gothic scheme devised by Bicci di Lorenzofor the vault of S. Francesco at Arezzo bears to the renais-sance motifs Piero della Francesca introduced after Bicci'sdeath. Indeed, Bicci's vocabulary is almost identical toMasolino's, which is not surprising, since Bicci belonged toan only slightly older generation. Just as at Arezzo thesedifferences of style point to a change in the directing hand,so in the Brancacci chapel the embrasure decoration un-covered in the restoration assures us that there was achange in direction following completion of the vaults andlunettes, a change for which only Masaccio not Masolino-can have been

responsible.3"Masolino was an immensely gifted artist. This is amplyunderscored by the cleaning, from which he emerges as afar more consistent artistic personality than past criticismhas, perhaps, allowed; but there is nothing in his survivingwork to suggest that he could, on his own, have made thecreative leap necessary to bridge the gap that separates hisearlier pictures from the surviving frescoes in the BrancacciChapel. This becomes evident if one examines the workhe undertook in Empoli in 1424. In his frescoed lunetteabove a door in the church of S. Stefano which shows theMadonna and Child within a gothic architectural frame-work (Fig.23), the architecture -- impressive in itself isempirically foreshortened in accordance with a low viewingpoint, but the figures are portrayed as though seen straighton, with the child standing on his toes: in other words, thefigures and the architecture have been conceived as inde-pendent elements and are spatially unrelated (this is alsotrue of his other fragmentary fresco in S. Stefano usuallyidentified as showing St Ivo and his pupils). The use of an

empirically foreshortened architectural framework had along tradition in Florentine art, but the most pertinentanalogy is with some saints depicted in ambitious architec-tural tabernacles by Starnina in the Carmine in 1404(Fig.22).40 Now, according to Vasari, Starnina was

17U. BALDINI: 'Nuovi atf'rschi nella Cappella Brancacci: Masaccio and Masolino',Critica d'Arte, XLIX, no.1 [1984], pp.65-72; idem, loc.cit. at notes 6 and 17above; and idem: 'Dcl "'Iributo" e altro del Masaccio', Critica d'arte, LIV, no.20

[1989], pp.32-33; and BALDINI nd CASAZZA, op.cit. at note 8 above, pp.292-96.Here again, Baldini draws what seems to me an unconvincing distinction ofhands between the fragmentary remains, pointing out that according to theevidence of the giornate, the left embrasure, including the tondo with the headascribed to Masolino, was painted after St Peter preaching, followed by the borderbeneath the window, and then the right hand embrasure above the tondo thathe ascribes to Masaccio. Peter baptising was then painted, followed by the lowerleft embrasure decoration, the fragmentary scene beneath the window, and the

right tondo and lower portion of the embrasure, establishing a regular rhythm.'he technical cvidence thus allows the sort of division of hands made by

Baldini, but I note that his attribution of the weaker of the two heads depictedin the embrasures to Masaccio is not accepted by E. WAKAYAMA: 'Masolino onon Masolino: problemi di attribuzione', Arte cristiana, 719 [1987], pp.726-27;BERTI, op.cit. at note 6 above, p.37; BERTI and FOGGI, p.cit. at note 36 above,p. 19, or by BOSKOVITS, oc.cit. at note 10 above, p.64 note 41. The attribution of

one of the heads to Masaccio does not affect the arguments put forward here,

which concern the authorship of the decorative components rather than theperson(s) responsible for painting them. It is worth noting that a cartoon was

employed in painting some of the acanthus decoration, and even Baldini allowsthat the right hand tondo may be based on a cartoon by Masolino. WAKAYAMA

(p. 134 note 19), suggests the possibility of an assistant.

T8'1I'he ayment to Masolino was published in G. POGGI: Masolino e la compagniadella croce in Empoli', Rivista d'arte, III [1905], p.48. T'he remaining sinopie ofthe fresco cycle are examined in B. COLE: 'A Reconstruction of Masolino's TrueCross Cycle in S. Stefano, Empoli', Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen nstitutes n

Florenz, XIII [1967], pp.289-300. Masolino's activity in Empoli is convenientlyreviewed in the exhibition catalogue, Masolino a Empoli, held in S. Stefano,Empoli [1987].39The various opinions voiced on this matter are conveniently summarised byBOSKOVITS (loc.cit. at note 10 above, p.63 note 31), who favours a collaborativeeffort from the outset (p.57). See also L. BERTI: L'Opera completa di Masaccio,Milan [19861, pp.92-93, for a review of opinons.40On Starnina's work in the Carmine see c. SYRE: Studien um "Maestro del

Bambino Vispo" und Starnina, Bonn [1979], pp.41-46, and j. VAN WAADENOIJEN:

Starnina e il gotico nternazionale Firenze, Florence t1983], pp.26-27.

12







Masolino's teacher, and it is surely significant that as lateas 1424 Masolino still applied a decorative vocabularyand system of projection common to late gothic painting.The same is true of his Empoli Pietl, which is a softer,somewhat more rationalised version of Lorenzo Monaco's

visionary painting of two decades earlier, now in theAccademia.

One of the few surviving painted portions of the chapelMasolino decorated in S. Stefano, Empoli, in 1424 is a

small niche, on the back wall of which is depicted a stilllife of shelves stocked with missals and communion cruetsof wine and water (there are Trecento precedents for thismotif). The casual approach to spatial projection anddelicately described shadows cast by the various objects -

something ofa novelty at this date reveal the unmistak-able influence of Gentile da Fabriano, who introducedthis descriptive approach to painting in Florence around1420.41 The shadows are employed to enhance the qualityof verisimilitude, but they play only a minor r61le n defin-ing the spatial configuration of the composition, and thereis nothing to suggest a systematic study of their projection.Masolino never completely overcame this essentially gothicmanner of

visualising objectsin isolation. Thus, in the

cleaned scene of the Raising of Tabitha (Fig. 11), the bril-

liantly highlighted rocks that lie scattered about the vast,unarticulated square, like so many semi-precious stones,have the character of arresting, still life elements, differingmarkedly in this respect from those in Masaccio's Tribute

money Fig.9), which are simply incidental details. No lessindicative is the evidence that Masolino continued to useflat embellishments on the rich costumes of his figures andto prefer varied, decorative colours for his architecture.42The cleaning has also accentuated the contrast betweenMasolino's delicately painted and beautifully abstract fig-ures of Adam and Eve (Fig.5), suspended rather than

standing in a timeless, airless environment (there are, how-

ever, traces of lcaves and flowers on the black backgroundthat originally defined the ground plane), and those natu-

ralistically conceived, tragic figures Masaccio depicts makingtheir sorrowful way into a barren, hostile world (Fig.6), theirnakedness, grief and their position in space - dramatised

by a relentless beam of light that is meaningfully playedagainst supernatural rays (originally gilt) that issue fromthe gates of Paradise.

On the occasions I was on the scaffolding, I was impressedby the way in which the two artists seem consciously tohave allocated their work so as to minimise their funda-mental differences of approach.43 Apart from the fact,perhaps not altogether incidental, that Masolino painted

ourfirst

parentsin Paradise while Masaccio

portrayedtheir first steps into the real world, there is the carefulalternation by which, on one side of the chapel, Masaccio'sTribute money s juxtaposed with Masolino's St Peter preaching,and, on the opposite side, Masolino's Raising of Tabithawith Masaccio's St Peter baplising. One of the more remark-

14. Detail of Fig. 11.

able details to emerge from the cleaning is Masaccio'sdepiction of water splashing off the head of the devout,kneeling neophyte into the river below in a way that musthave astounded the artist's contemporaries and makesone regret even more the loss of other, similarly observed

details.) To my eye, the matter goes even further. Prior tothe cleaning, I had never been bothered by the landscapesettings behind Masolino's scene of St Peter preaching andMasaccio's of St Peter baptising (Figs. 10 and 12), but I amnow struck by the way those delicate, ant-hill formationsbehind Masaccio's figures resemble the landscapes ofMasolino's frescoes in Castiglione Olona of some ten yearslater (for example, in the Baptism of Christ n the baptistry).On the other hand, the more rugged, freely defined wooded

slopes behind Masolino's figures seem to me indistinguish-able from those in the Tribute money. With the appearanceof the bit of landscape to the right of the building in theTribute money Fig.9) - another of the surprising discoveriesof the cleaning - we can now appreciate that the landscape

41Gentile left Brescia in September 1419 to join Martin V, then in Florence. Heis first documented in Florence between 5th August and 24th October 1420: seeK. CHRISTIANSEN: entile da Fabriano, Ithaca [1982], pp. 160-62, docs.IV, VI.

42BALDINI and CASAZZA (op.cit. at note 8 above), p. 127, give an account of thecondition of the scene and the original effect of the brocades worn by one of the'messengers' and bystanders in the scene of Tabitha's resurrection.

43This has, of course, been commented on by others, most recently by CASAZZA,

(op.cit. at note 11 above, pp.69-84), BALDINI and CASAZZA (op.Cit. at note 8above, pp.322-24), and BOSKOVITS loc.cil. at note 10 above, p.57). Casazza

argues for a fairly rigid division, decided upon by the two artists at the inceptionof the cycle. Although my own analysis is significantly simpler than LONGHI'S

(loc.cit. at note 12 above, pp. 145-91) it shares his less schematic approach to the

matter of artistic collaboration.

13






TH F B R A N CACCI CHAPEL

15. Peter hrealini4 with hi.s hadow, by Masaccio. Fresco, 232 by 162 cm. (Brancacci Chapel, S. Maria dcl Carmine, Florcnce).

14







16. Peter aising he onoqf heophilus t Antioch nd he hairing lfStPeter, by Masaccio and Filippino Lippi. Fresco, 232 by 597 cm. (Brancacci Chapel, S. Maria dlCarmine, Florl(nc((:).

in Masolino's scene(Fig. 10)

wasplanned as

acontinuationof that in the Tribute money, nterrupted by the corinthian

pilaster in the corner. This was an idea taken up by Sassettain the predella of his altar-piece of the Madonna of the snowpainted in 1430-32, where the landscapes of adjacent scenesare shown with a common horizon.44 I believe, in fact,that this wrap-around landscape was painted by Masaccio,and it is worth noting that the landscape background ofthe St Peter preaching s painted on the same giornata as theframing pilaster in the Tribute money.45 This also occurs inreverse, in Masaccio's scene of St Peter baptising Fig.12), inwhich the landscape was painted, I believe, by Masolino.46On reflection, this seems a perfectly natural way of unifyingthe cycle as a whole. The Masolinesque head of Christ in

Masaccio's Tribute money, whose authorship has long beendisputed,47 is perhaps the outcome of a similar attempt toequalise two inherently different approaches to painting,though whether it was actually painted by Masolino - asI think probable cannot be stated with certainty.48 Iwould, however, like to point out that both Masaccio and

Masolino had assistants.49 This is worth bearing in mindin evaluating such passages as the newly discovered headsin the decorative borders of the embrasures and even theportrait-like heads at the left of Masolino's fresco of St Peterpreaching: heir authorship, too, has long been disputed.50Although they are evidently painted on the same giornata asthe head of St Peter,"' they lack both the delicacy of theother portraits (including those of two Carmelites) in thesame scene and the structural analysis characteristic ofthose by Masaccio. They are curiously similar in handlingand typology to the heads of two angels in a small picture inthe Horne Museum in Florence (Fig.20) that, I believe, isone of the earliest- and certainly one of the most ambitious- works by Masaccio's younger brother Scheggia52 (thislittle painting suggests, in fact, that Scheggia was closelyinvolved with his brother's experiments at this time, some-thing we might assume from the desco da parto in Berlin,the reverse side of which was, in my opinion, also paintedby Scheggia).

The point of these remarks is not to argue for a rigid

44I remarked upon this fact in Painting n Renaissance iena, cited at note 32above, p.8.45IThis oint was made by WATKINS, oc.cit at note 11 above, pp.65-74. See nowthe diagram in BALDINI nd CASAZZA, p.cit. at note 8 above, p.352. Watkinssuggested the possibility that the background n the Baptism was by Masolino.46 am pleased to learn that these observations, which I made to OrnellaCasazza in 1986, have also been expressed by Luciano Bellosi and are acceptedby BERTI op.cit. at note 6 above, pp.44-45), and BERTI nd FOGGI (op.cit. t note36 above, pp. 19, 104).47'l'he debate over this seemingly insignificant detail - which, however, carriesimplications for the dating of the fresco - was instigated by LONGHI (loc.cit. atnote 12 above, pp. 160-61 . For a review of opinions, see BERTI, op.cit. at note 39above, p.95. . C(ASAZZA: asaccio la Cappella Brancacci, lorence [1990], p.26,BALDINI, oc.cit. at note 37 above, pp.33-36, and BALDINI nd CASAZZA, p.cit. atnote 8 above, p.43, have insisted that there are no technical differences betweenthe head of Christ and the apostles, but I am not at all convinced by thecomparisons: ee WAKAYAMA, oc.cit. t note 37 above, pp. 125-26.48Christ's head is painted on a separate giornata, ut it was not the last elementin the fresco. The giornata with the pink cloak of Christ, above the waist but notincluding his right hand, overlaps the giornata with the head. Taken together,the figure of Christ is riddled with inconsistencies that seem to me to argue forsome sort oftcollaboration. The section with the hand of the tax collector is, forexample, of a higher order, and the fiet of Christ are modelled with a strengthlacking in the head. The appearance of this figure, of course, is crucial to thevisual unity of the cycle. T'h blue of the cloak is here, as elsewhere n the cycle,badly damaged.

49In Pisa Masaccio's assistant was Andrea di Giusto, and it stands to reason thathis younger brother, Scheggia, occasionally worked with him as well. It is prob-able that Paolo Schiavo and Vecchietta both later worked with Masolino.50LONGHI (loc.cit. t note 12 above, pp.155-56) ascribed hem to Masaccio, whichnow seems incredible, given the comparison with the portraits in the St Peterbaptising nd the Raising of the on of Theophilus Longhi believed that Filippinowas responsible or the portrait heads n the Baptising, ut this s flatly contradictedby the sequence of the giornate).

TI'orriti's iagram (published n WATKINS, oc.cit. at note 11, p.71) showed theheads on a separate giornata, but this is denied by CASAZZA, p.cit. at note 47above, p.33, and BALDINI nd CASAZZA,p.cit. t note 8 above, pp.83, 352.52'l'he picture is ascribed to the Fucecchio Master (which is to say, to Schcggia)in R. VAN MARLE: The Development f the talian Schools fPainting, Vol.XVI, ''heHague [1937], p.194. It appears in Berenson's ists of' 1932 (p.40) and 1963(p.63) as a late work of Francesco di Antonio (under this name Berensongrouped works by the so-called Master of the Adimari Cassone/FucecchioMaster). Curiously, the irrelevant attribution to Boccati is retained in F. ROSSI:II Museo Horne a Firenze, Milan [1967], p.145. P. ZAMPETTI (Giovanni occati,Milan [1971], Fig.139) inexplicably calls it Marchigian and gives its location asunknown. Scheggia's career - or at least the earlier part of it (he lived until1486) - now assumes a far more interesting character thanks to MargaretHaines's demonstration hat he was involved with the decoration of the 'Sacrestiadelle Messe' of the cathedral of Florence: see M. HAINES: he "Sacrestia elleMesse" of the Florentine athedral, lorence [1983], pp.62-63, and 105-06. TheHorne picture, which may date as early as c. 1430, shows Scheggia following inthe footsteps of his brother and reflecting, n a minor key, the work of Donatelloand Bruncllcschi.

15







17. Peter distributing he goods of the Church, by Masaccio. Fresco, 232 by 157 cm.(Brancacci Chapcl, S. Maria dcl Carmine, Ftlorcncc).

division of hands but, rather, to underscore the profbunddiflercnces marking the approaches of the two principalartists involved in the fresco cycle and the imaginativeways they compcnsated f'r them. It is this very close col-

lab)oration that enables the frescoes to be dated with someaccuracy, flir Masolino can hardly have been employedon tlhem prior to 1425, when he completed his work at

Empoli. In July 1425 he was, significantly, paid fbr paint-ing props fbr the annual mystery play in the Carmine,"'

and in September he departed fbr Hungary to work for ayear for the condottiere ippo Spano.54 Recent research hasdemonstrated that he probably did not return to Florenceuntil 1428.5" Under these circumstances, the collaborationbetween the two artists can only have taken pllace in 1425,and we may go so far as to conjecture that Masaccio's in-volvement stemmed partly from Masolino's need to ex-pedite the work. Even so, the cycle was not complete at thetime of Masolino's departure, and it was left to Masaccio

to continue it alone.This hypothesis leaves unanswered the question of why,

after enlisting Masaccio then a full twenty years youngerMasolino allowed him to take on so crucial a r^le1c y

introducing an innovative scheme and a new pictorialvocabulary. I doubt that we shall ever really know theanswer to this perennial riddle, which inspired RobertoLonghi to write his brilliant article, 'Fatti di Masolino e diMasaccio'. The existence of an altar-piece produced at thistime by the two artists fbr the church of S. Ambrogio (nowin the Uffizi) does suggest that they may have formed somesort of association or compagnia. However, it is also worth

considering whether the Carmelite prior may have playedsome

partin the

change. AlthoughCarmelite

patronagein

Tuscany during the early fifteenth century has still to be in-

vestigated in a systematic way, the evidence suggests thatthe order consistently favoured the most progressive styleavailable, whether in Florence, Pisa, or Siena (not only didStarnina work in S. Maria dcl Carmine early in the centuryin what was then a completely new style, but in the 1420sand 1430s Filippo Lippi, Sassetta, and Domenico di Bartolo

produced works for Carmelite establishments).56 At thetime Masolino was at work on the lunettes, Masaccio mayhave been completing his now lost fresco of the consecrationof the Carmelite church in the cloister of the Carmine.?7Confronted with the problem

of.jointauthorship, Vasari

resorted to the simplest solution: that Masolino died and

that Masaccio was hired to replace him. We now knowthis to be false.

Of'singular interest in the first edition of'Vasari's Liveswhich is the more credible on the matter is his suggestionthat Masaccio received the commission through the inter-vention of Brunelleschi. Whether or not this is literallytrue, there can be no doubt that Brunclleschi had a keeninterest in the young painter. The novel mouldings and

pilasters that were introduced to frame the various scenes

"The payment was published by P. CAIOLI n Rivista toricacarmelitana, [1929],p.96.

4()On 1Ist September 1425 Masolino conveyed power of attorney to his banker,Antonio Piero Benizi: see R. FREMANTLE: Some New Masolino Documents',THE BUIRLIN(;IT()N MAGAZINE, CXVII [1975], p.659.

5See M()I.H(), o.Ci. at note 9 above, p)p.83-85.5"Starnina decorated the chapel of St Jerome in the Carmine, of which onlyfragments of standing saints survive, together with line engravings of the narrative

(CICens (see SYRE and VAN WAADENOIJEN, both cited at note 40 above). FilippoLippi, who is documented as a monk at the Carmine between 1421 and 1432,paintedt a fresco cdescrib)ed )y Vasari as showing the confirmation of the Carmeliterule, an altar-piece possibly intended fbr the rood screen for the church, and atleast one small devotional panel now at Empoli: see K. CHRISTIANSEN: 'NewLight on the Early Work of Filippo Lippi', Apollo, 122 [1985], pp.341-42, 343notes 22-23; M. BOSKOVITs: 'Fra Filippo Lippi, carmelitani e il rinascimento',Arte Crisliana, no.715 1986], pp.235-52; and GILBERT, loc.cil. at note 19 above,pp. 196-99. Sassetta's Arte della Lana altar-piece seems to have been painted forthe Carmine n Siena, although this has been questioned by Gilbert (pp. 180-92).His information seems, however, not to be based on a study of the actual

documents and later accounts that form the basis of my analysis in Painting in

Renaissance Siena, cited at note 32 above, pp.64-67. Domenico di Bartolo is said

by Vasari to have painted the high altar-piece of the Carmine in Florence: seeSTREHLKE, loc.cit. at note 32 above. Masaccio's Pisa altar-piece was, of course,also for a Carmelite church. The constant communication betweenl Carmeliteestablishments in Tuscany must have provided all important avenue for thetransmission of artistic ideas. In the case of Lippi, it is known that in 1426 five

years before he is cited as a painter - he was in Siena for the feistivities of the

Assumption of the Virgin. Then, in 1428, he served as 'sopriore' n Siena (seeBOSKOVITS, p.238). Masaccio's commission in Pisa may well have come about

through such avenues (a 'Frate Bartolomeo da Firenze' witnessed one of the pay-ments made to him), as may, conjecturally, that of I)omenico di Bartolo inFlorence.

57According to the document transcribed in J. BECK: Masaccio: The DI)ocuments,New York [1978], pp. 12-13, the consecration took place on 9th, not 19th April1422, but there is no direct evidence when Masaccio commemorated the event.Beck's conjecture that the commission led to Masaccio rather than Masolinobeing hired to decorate the Brancacci chapel is mere speculation. For a summaryof opinions, see BERTI, op.cit. at note 39 above, p.88; and c. (;ILBEKRT: "l'heDrawings now associated with Masaccio's Sagra', Storia dell'arte, no.3 11969),pp.260-78.

16







arc entirely Bruncllcschian, and it is Brunclleschian archi-tecture that forms the backdrop to Masaccio's frescoes.Indeed, the rcmarkable and now fully visible church inthe )background of Masaccio's Peter healing with his shadow

(Fig. 15), with its engaged columns supporting a straightentablaturc, arched windows beneath an arcade, and aclassical pediment pierced by a circular window, providesthe strongest evidence we have for Brunelleschi's ideas

ab)out church lfatades. Masaccio's depiction also bears onthe authorship of a well-known silver relief in the Louvreshowing Christ exorcising a possessed man, sometimesassociated with Bruncelleschi.5" Yet, however innovativeMasaccio's use of a framing system of corinthian pilastersand classical mouldings to divide the scenes may have

been, it was alln equivocal success. In all earlier fresco

cycles, a careful division was maintained between fictivearchitecture and pictorial space, as is evident in the frescoesof the lifte of St Francis at Assisi. By contrast, in theBrancacci Chapcl the intention was evidently to make bothframework and narrative conform to the same system of

projection, and the solution that was adopted was to makethe pilasters lproject into the actual picture field so that

they seem to sit not on an independent, fictive architecturalmoulding, but on the actual ground or even in the caseof the St Peter baptising in the river bed where the actiontakes place. It is small wonder that the experiment wasnot repeated by later artists, with the notable exception ofGhirlandaio Piero della Francesca, for example, eliminatedall vertical framing elements in his cycle at Arezzo.

Of course the fundamental contribution of Brunelleschito the frescoes was the system of perspective that Vasaristates he taught Masaccio ('suo molto amico') and on whichthe spatial logic is based. We still know relatively littleabout the actual practice of perspective before 1435, whenAlberti formulated its basic principles in a way that anyinterested artist could comprehend. However, Polzer's ex-

emplary study of Masaccio's detached and badly damagedfresco of the Trinity in S. Maria Novella makes clear thatin its early stages perspective practice was no simple matter

(indeed, in the predella scenes of his altar-piece for Pisa of1426, Masaccio employed an empirical system for whichthere are precedents in Trecento practice).59 In the Trinity,Masaccio seems to have transferred the architectural settingfrom a carefully worked out and presumably scaled, draw-

ing to the damp plaster wall, using a system of lines drawnfrom a foreshortened square to find the proper shape of acolumn, and some type of squaring to help in foreshorteningthe face of the Virgin in accordance with the low viewing

18. The Pazzi Madonna, by Donatello. Marble, 74.5 by69.5

cm. (StaatlicheMuseen, Berlin).

19. Hope, by Donatello. Bronze, 52 cm. high. (Baptistry, Siena).

"LOIN(;II, loc.cil. at note 12 above, pp. 161-62, was the first to make this ascrip-tion; )both attril)ution and date have heent much discussed. See most recently,P. JOANNIDES: 'Masaccio, Masolino and "minor sculpture"', Paragone, no.451

[19871, pp.15-18, 1).23 note 47, and p.24 note 54.

"SCe j. POLZER: "I'he Anatomy of Masaccio's Holy T'rinity', Jahrbuch der BerlinerMuseen, 13 [1971], pp.18-58. P. ROSSI: 'Lettura dcl "Tributo" di Masaccio',Critica d'arte, LIV, no.20 [1989], pp.39-42, has proposed a reconstruction of the

perspective scheme of the Tribute money that presupposes a distant point con-struction that could only

havew been laid out on pa)per and then transferred tothe wall mechanically. 'Ihis appears to have been the procedure adopted in the

Trinity ir'esco, b)ut there is no evidence that it was used in the Tribute money.Indeed, the discrepancies Rossi finds in the fresco almost certainly derive from

an approximative/cmpirical system that could b)e aid out on the wall itself with

strings, a straight edge, and a compass.

17







20. Madonna and child with two angels, here attributed to Giovanni di scr Giovanni,called Scheggia. Tempera and gold on wood, 57 by 37 cm. (Musco Horne,Florence).

point he assumed.60 None of the settings of the BrancacciChapel frescoes is of this complexity, but all the buildingsrepresented in them required some sort of incised 'scaffold-ing'. This could take the form of a few vertical lines markedat regular intervals along an orthogonal, as in the scene ofSt Peter distributing hegoods of the church (Fig. 17) to space thewindows of a foreshortened fagade, or a more complicatedsystem in which radiating lines are incised from variouscentres along the orthogonals to determine the stone

blocks of a palace, as in St Peter healing with his shadow(Fig. 15).

Perspective was, however, only the framework forMasaccio's new pictorial vocabulary. It created the spatialstage, but no less important was the problem of'filling thisstage with objects that appear to occupy the expandedspace. In the Raising of Tabitha, Masolino was able to getdown the main lines of a perspectival setting so effectivelythat, following Longhi's analysis, the background buildingshave frequently been attributed to Masaccio. They are,however, totally out of scale with the foreground structuresand can now be seen to be painted in Masolino's pleasing,pastel colours, with his keen eye for homely detail.6' It haslong been known that to construct this perspectival setting,Masolino attached a cord to a nail placed just to the rightof the two well-dressed messengers in the centre of thescene: he extended the cord along the fobreshortened idesof his planned buildings, and snapped an impression intothe damp plaster.62 The foreshortening of an arch orirregular surface could not be resolved so simply: ratherthan go through the painstaking steps that Masaccio'ssystem of projection demanded, Masolino resorted to afree-hand method which

producedthe

mis-shapenarches

of the Temple portico at the left. Moreover, filling thesespaces with solid looking figures posed still further prob-lems, and throughout Masolino's career the figural com-ponents of his compositions remain distinct from theirsettings. The spectators who surround Tabitha's bedscarcely displace more space than those of Starnina in hisscene of the death of St Jerome painted twenty yearsearlier in the Carmine (Starnina's fresco is known from anengraving in Seroux d'Agincourt's Histoire de 1'art). ForMasolino, the new science was reduced to a workshoptechnique to be added to the formulas already in hisrepertoire.

Masaccio almost certainly succeeded where Masolino

failed through his innovative use of sculpted models whichhe could drape, pose, and place under controlled lightingconditions, enabling him to study the manner in whichlight describes form and the space around it.63 Only inthis way could he break free from the prevailing workshopmethods described by Cennino Cennini, for whom model-ling was a matter of applying colours in a carefully gradatedsequence. Masaccio realised that by modelling figures indistinct planes, the impression of form was actually in-creased,'64 and that light could be used not only to describeform, but also to articulate space.65 Here again, the clean-

600n the possible function of this squaring, see the discussion in BORSOOK, op.cit.at note 19 above, pp.59-60. In all probability, the Virgin's face was studied

separately on a piece of paper, and the squaring was simply used to transfer this

study to the wall. It should not be confused with Alberti's velo, which wascreated as an aid in studying fbreshortened figures, and it can hardly be takenas evidence for presuming that Alberti was in Florence prior to 1428, when theban on the Alberti family was lifted (this is suggested by BERTI, op.cit. at note 6above, p.56, among others)."6BERTI, op.cit. at note 6, p.48, has now accepted the entire work as Masolino's,as has BALDINI, loc.cit at note 6 above, p. 104, and BALDINI and CASAZZA, p.cit. atnote 8 above, pp.123-4. 'l'he reattribution of the background buildings andfigures to Masolino had already been suggested in WATKINS, loC.Cit. t note 11above, pp.72-73, on the basis of an analysis of the giornate.(2See BORSOOK, op.cit. at note 19 above, pp.65, 67 note 45; and WATKINS, loC.Ci.at note 11 above, p.73. I cannot agree with Casazza (in BALDINI nd CASAZZA,op.cit. at note 8 above, pp.123-24) that Masaccio had anything to do with the

perspective scheme of the background. Indeed, an emphatic but simple perspec-

tive construction, divorced from the narrative content, is also typical of Masolino'swork at S. Clemente and at Castiglione Olona, and has been well characterised

by J. WHITE (The Birth and Rebirth of Pictorial Space, New York and London, 2nded. [1967], pp. 137-38) who refers to Masolino's interest in 'the abstract patternof perspective' (p. 144).6~This was first suggested in j. POPE-HENNESSY: 'The Interaction of Painting and

Sculpture in Fifteenth-century Florence', Journal of the Royal Society qf" Arts,CXVII [May 1969], pp.420-21.64Few have commented on Masaccio's novel handling of paint, but even in thesmall Madonna and Child created for Cardinal Orsini and now in the Uffizi, the

small, regular brushstrokes of earlier artists are replaced with thinly appliedareas describing the edges and cavities of the drapery. It is my impression thatMasaccio experimented with novel glazes, especially in his pinks.65The most acute analysis of Masaccio's use of light is R. OFFNER: 'Light onMasaccio's Classicism', Studies in the History of Art dedicated o William E. Suida onhis Eightieth Birthday, London [1959], pp.66-67. However, I cannot agree withOffner's suggestion that this innovative use of light derived from a study of

Roman frescoes.

18







ing has reinforced our perception of quite how novelMasaccio's achievement was: it entailed nothing less thanthe rejection of sanctioned traditions for a method ofpainting based both on direct observation and on a theoryof vision.

The use of sculptural models became commonplace afterMasaccio it is, for example, described in detail by Filaretein book 24 of his treatise, completed by 1465, and is alludedto in Ghiberti's Commentaries.66 he most significant state-

ment on the use of three-dimensional aids, however, comesfrom Alberti (De Pictura, III, 58), who declares that it isbetter for a painter to study a mediocre piece of sculpturethan an excellent painting (as Cennino had urged hisreader to do), since from the latter he will learn only howto make a likeness, whereas from the former he will learnto 'represent both likeness and correct incidence of light'.Alberti's view that 'painting and sculpture are cognatearts, nurtured by the same genius' (II, 27) stemmed, inpart, from the common means he believed they employedto achieve a like end.67

The practice of using sculptural models almost certainlyoriginates with Masaccio - or, rather, with Donatello, who

employedmodels as

partof his creative

process.It is not

coincidental that Masaccio's figures, drapery style, andeven compositions have repeatedly been compared withDonatello's sculpture. For example, it has long been recog-nised that the closest analogy for the circular compositionand suggestion of an atmospheric background in the Tributemoney occurs in Donatello's marble relief of Christ giving thekeys to St Peter n the Victoria and Albert Museum (which,as we have seen, may have been carved for the chapel).68Even a detail such as the foreshortened hand of Masaccio'sAdam has a precise analogy in the relief sculpture ofDonatello: the hand of the Virgin in the so-called PazziMadonna in Berlin might be cited (Fig. 18). In both there isa marked awkwardness, but no earlier artist had faced such

representational problems. Vasari tells us that Masaccio'followed so far as possible in the footsteps of Filippo[Brunelleschi] and Donatello',69 but the issue that is raisedis not simply that of recognising an affinity with Donatello'ssculpture (or even with such Antique prototypes as havesometimes been adduced as sources for Masaccio's figures),but his use of models actually prepared for him by thesculptor.70 The similarities between Donatello's small-scalebronzes, such as his figure of Hope from the Siena baptistry(Fig. 19), and Masaccio's painted figures, give some idea ofthe sort ofstatuette with which Masaccio might have stagedhis compositions. Similarly, a comparison of Donatello'sterracotta bust of Niccol6 da Uzzano in the Bargello (itself

recently cleaned to brilliant effect) with the head ofMasaccio's noble old man in Peter healing with his shadow(Fig. 15) suggests that Masaccio did not restrict himself to

21. Detail of Saints Jerome and John the Baptist, by Masaccio. Tempera and goldon wood. 114 by 55 cm. (National Gallery, London).

small models but may sometimes have employed a life-sizebust or a cast from life to study the play of light on anirregular surface. The figures of St Peter paying the taxcollector in the Tribute Money and distributing alms in thelower band seem to have been created from a single,draped model or mannequin viewed from different sides.7'

Equally, the marvellously described drapery of Masaccio'sSt Peter enthroned must be the result of a study made fromactual cloth dipped in size and arranged on a lay figure-a procedure later followed by Leonardo in Verrocchio'sworkshop. And Masaccio must have transcribed his im-pressions of these models in drawings embellished withwashes and white heightening, of the type that soon becamecommonplace. This new method of making pictures en-abled Masaccio to leave behind the neo-Giottesque stylehe had practiced only three years earlier in his triptychfrom Cascia di Reggello, and to create the strongly plasticfigures of the middle tier of the Brancacci Chapel; andthen to move on to a still bolder manner in which form isdescribed almost entirely in terms of light and abruptlymodelled planes ofcolour. Indeed, so great are the advances

"Ghiberti's comments and their relevance to contemiporary painting are treated

brictly by J. POPE-HENNESSY: l'he Sixth Centenary of(ihiberti',

in The Study andCriticism oq Italian Sculpture, Princeton [1980), pp.64, 68-69. On the use of

sculptural models by renaissance painters, see especially L. FUSCO: 'The Use of

Sculptural Models by painters in Fifteenth-Century Italy', Art Bulletin, LXIV[ 1982], pp.125-94; w. PRINZ: Dal vero o dal modello? Appunti e testimonianzesull'uso dei manichini nella pittura del Quattrocento', in Scritti di storia dell'artein onore di Ugo lProcacci, , Milan [1977], pp.222-28; and JOANNIDES, loc.cit. at note58 above.

67See POPE-HENNESSY, oc.cit. at note 63 above.

"See, for example, MEISS, oc.cit. at note 15 above, pp. 136-39.

69VASARI, Vol.I, p.289.7"'The comparison made by L. BERTI ('Masaccio 1422', Commentari, XII, 2[1961], p.93), between the figure of St Ambrose in Masaccio's triptych of 1422at Cascia di Reggello and Donatello's contemporary bronze statue of St Louisof Toulouse only underscores how little the derivation of motifs - in this case the

way the two saints hold their croziers - has to do with the representationalproblems to which I refer and how distant Masaccio was at that date from

understanding the means towards his goal.71This was noted by PRINZ loc.cit. at note 66 above, p.202). I cannot agree withPrinz in extending the practice to Masolino.

19






THE BRANCACCI CHAPEL,

22. St Benedict, b)yStarina. Fresco, 500

by 130( rm.,)l'fiorc

(l('tachmcnlt fromthe wall. (S. Mariad1(l armine,Floircnc).

'

23. Madonna ndChildwith wo angels, by Masolino. D)ctachcd resco, 100 by 140 cm., showl rc-illstalledatbove the sacristy door fbr which it was painted. (Santo Stefman, Emporli).

made in the lower tier of the Brancacci Chapel that I-like a numb)cr of' othcrs am convinced these frescoes can

only have )een lpaintedafter an

interruption;this was

prob)ab)ly ccasioned by Masolino's departure fo)rHungaryin 1425 and by the commission from Masaccio of'an altar-piece fi)r the Carmine's sister church at Pisa in 1426,where he worked in the co:mpany of Donatello. The simi-larity betwccn the damaged Madonna and Child in theNational Gallery, London, from that altar-piece and thefigure of'St Peter seems to me a clear record of his expandingmastery.

Now, more than ever bef'cre, Masaccio's work in theBrancacci Chapcl can be seen to chart the replacement of

workshop conventions with a vastly more complicatedcreative process based on direct observation, which was toonovel and complex for the forty-three year old Masolinoto have fully absorb)ed. It was this method that set achallenge to successive generations of'artists: o Fra Angelico,whose work carried out around 1430 shows a new awarenessof Masaccio's method of modelling in planes of' colour; toFilippo Lippi, whose Annunciatlion n S. Lorenzo actuallyimitates the idiosyncratic style of Masaccio's buildings inthe background of the Raising of the son of Theophilus a useof applied mouldings that derived from the architecture of"the exterior of the Florence Baptistry, so admired )byBrunelleschi); to Piero della Franccsa, whose frcsco of theQueen qf Sheba adoring the wood of the true cross now seemsmore than ever an homage to Masaccio's Tribute money,and whose figures were certainly studied from draped lay-figures or models; to Filippino, for whom the experienceof completing the Brancacci Chapel frescoes was determi-nant; to Leonardo da Vinci, whose statement that 'lightand shadow together with forcshortening constitute theultimate excellence in the science of' painting'72 couldhardly have been fbrmulated without Masaccio's initialexperiments; and to Michelangelo himself' who as a youthmade a drawing after the very figure of' Peter in theTribute

Moneythat seems most

likelyto have been

bascdon a draped model. But as we can now see after thecleaning of the frescoes in both the Brancacci Chapel andon the Sistine ceiling, Michelangelo was not only impressedby the tactility of Masaccio's figures, which he transcrib)edin that drawing. He was struck by Masaccio's marvellouslylucid and novel method of achieving sculptural effects b)ythe use of colour laid down in broad planes; except that inhis work, as never before or since, painting became thetrue handmaid of sculpture.

Metropolitan useum fArt, New iork

7"T1'1 (iuote. is o thel• 7rallalo ((:Codx tUrbitias Latinus 1270, fbil.196r): scc A. MCMAHON, d.: Treatise n Painting by Leonardo a Irnri, Pricetn 1 n119561,p.840.

2()