roR Reference NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM THIS ROOM CAT, NO. 1935 LIBRARY BUREAU CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY FINE ARTS LIBRARY Cornell University Library N 6911.U58 V.I Outlines for the study of art, 3 1924 020 584 755 Cornell University Library The original of tliis bool< is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924020584755 OUTLINES FOR THE Study of Art BY H. H. gpwERs, Ph.D. Mary M. Powers, A.B. Louise M. Powb Vol. I. EARLY ITALIAN ART From the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Century To accompany a Collection of five hundred Reproductions (series b, the university prints) BOSTON BUREAU OF UNIVERSITY TRAVEL 1907 Bureau of University Travel BOSTON ; Ql^tit Qrnbor ^tMst, Sue 1S07 ITablc of Contents. INTRODUCTORY. I, The Study of Art. ByH.H. Powers. II. How to Use the Lessons III. Gfflieral Bibliography of Italian Art IV. Two Suggested Lists of Books V. Italian Froniinciation SECTION I. ART BEFORE THE RENAISSANCE. Special Bibliography, No. 1. 1. Greek and Roman Painting 2. Sculpture and Painting during the Middle Ages ...... 3. Mosaics ... . . Essay: The Bright Spot in the Dark Ages. By H. H. Powers. SECTION n. ITALIAN SCULPTURE AND PAINTING OF THE EARLY RENAISSANCE. , Thirteenth and Fottrteenth Centuries. Special Bibliography, No. 2. Sciulptore. 4. The Pisani — Niccolb; Giovanni; Andrea da Fontedera. .... Early Italian Art. Painting. 5 and 6. Primitivb Plorentinb Schooi,: Margaritone; Cimabue; Giotto; the Giotteschi. 7. SiBNESE Schooi,: Guido da Siena; Duccio da Buoninsegna; the Lorenzetti; Simone Martini and his followers. 8. Transition Painters: Umbrian: Ottaviano Nelli; Gentile da Fabriano . . . • • Florentine: Fra Angelico Essay: Early Tuscan Artists. By Louise M. Powe. SECTION III. SCULPTURE IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. L Special Bibliography, No. 3. 9. Jacopo della Quercia 10. Ghiberti; Brunelleschi 11. Donatello; Michelozzo; Bertoldo . 12. The Della Robbia .... Essay: The Gates of Paradise. By H. H. Powers. SECTION IV. PAINTING IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. Florentine School. Special Bibliography, No. 4. 13. Early Masters: Masolino; Masaccio; Fra Filippo Lippi 14. Technicians: Andrea del Castagno; Paolo Uccello; Pesellino; the Polla- '' juoli; Verocchio .... -Contents. la 16. Wai,!, DbcoraTors: Benozzo Gozzoli; Ghirlandajo; Cosimo Rosselli; Piero di Cosimo ..... 16 and 17. Later Masters: Botticelli; Filippino Lippi; Lorenzo di Credi; Rafaellino del Garbo Essay: The Place of the Portrait in Religious Art. By H. H. Powers. SECTION V. PAINTING IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. Umbrian School Special Bibliography, No. 5. 18 and 19. Urbino Group: Piero della Francesca; Melbzzo da Forli; Palmezzano; Gio- vanni Santi; Signorelli 20 and 21. Pertjgia Group: Bonfigli; Fiorenzo di Lorenzo; Perugino; Lo Spagna; Pintuiicchio .... Essay: Italian Provincial Art. By H. H. Powers. , SECTION VI. PAINTING IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. Schools of Northern -Italy. I. Special Bibliography, No, 6. 22. Padua: Squarcione; Mantegna; Marco Zoppo 23. Fbrrara: Cosimo Tura; . Francesco Cbssa; Lorenzo Costa; II Francia iv Early Italian Art. 24. Vbrona: Pisanello; Liberale da Verona; Girolamo dai Libri Milan: Vincenzo Foppa; Borgognone VicEnza: Bartolommeo Montagna Essay: The Double Mind of the Renaissance. By Mary Montague Powers. SECTION VII. PAINTING IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. Schools of Northern Italy. II. VSNICE. Special Bibliography, No. 7. 25. Johannes Alemannus; the Vivaripi, An- tonio, Bartolommeo, Alvise 26. The Bellini Family. . . . , 27. Carpaccio; Crivelli .... 28. Antonello da Messina; Cima da Conegli- ano; Basaiti; Catena Essay: The Art of Venice. By H. H. Powers. SECTION vin. SCULPTURE IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. IL Minor Scolptors. Special Bibliography, No. 8. 29 and 30. Florentikb Workers in Marble : The Rossellini; Desiderio da Settignano; Mino da Fiesole; Benedetto da Majano ..... Contents. 31. BronzB WoRKSRS: Antonio del Pollajuolo; Verocchio . . ■ • _• 32. Sculptors Outside oi; Plorbncb: Civi- tali; Niccol6daBari; Omodeo Essay: Early Italian Art. By H. H. -lofMS. ERRATA. Pages 8 and 9 Read sensuous for senuous 80 and 144 " Powe for Pome 172 " does for dose 192 . " common or for commonor 220 Add after Essay, The Portrait in Religious Art, by H. H. Powers. 221 Read Lorenzo de for Lorenzode 369 " after Sistine Chapel, Botticelli for Ghirlandajo 382 character for Character 384 " Appartimenti for Appartimento 409 " Koniglichen for Koniglich en 46'^ " Sienese f or Siense 497 " Memling for Memline 503 Add below II Condottiere, Louvre, Paris 526 Read Florentine Workers for workers 526 " Early Italian Art for Arts 531 " Nicholas for Nicolas 538 " sculptor for scuplture 548 " was for wa 550 " Geschichte for Geschicte 562 " Civitali for Civitale 567 " NiccoJo dell' Area for del Area ABBREVIATIONS. b. for born; c, for about (eirea); d. for died; fi. for flourish. iv Early Italian Art. 24. VSRona: Pisanello; Liberate da Verona; Girolamo dai Libri " *:;ga^ Milan: VincenzoFoppa;iBqrgognone • "ag and 30. TLoSSNTINB-wroKJiwiB. Rossellini; Desiderio da Settignano; Mino da Fiesole; Benedetto da Majano ..... Contents. 31. Bronze Workbrs : Antonio del Follajuolo ; Verocchio ..... 32. SctTLPTORS OuTSIDB Olf FLORENCE: Civi- tali; Niccol6daBari; Omodeo Essay: Early Italian Art. By H. H. Powers. INTRODUCTION. By H. H. Powers. THE STUDY OF ART. Not long ago the writer stood with a company of others in jthe sacristy of the Duomo, m Florence, in the presence of a little angel once reverently attributed to Donatello, one of the loveliest creations of Florentine art. The silent eloquence of that pure face needed no explanation, no translation into the halting language of words. Art was here at its simplest and its best. The party gazed rapt, enjoying one of those rare mo- ments which compensate for the waiting and the work of existence. But there was one who did not look at the angel. She was trying to locate it in her guide- book. And as the few moments of contemplation were ended and the group moved on, she was heard to inquire : "What did he say it was? I could not find it in the book." The leader was sad. One of Ufe's opportunities had been missed, never to return. How could a person spend those precious minutes looking into a book, when an angel was there to look at ! So the leadef thought, and he ventured to express his thought. And now the lady was troubled. She was conscientiously doing her 2 Eari,y Italian Art. best. She was interested and intelligent and could not see how she could have done otherwise. She said she could not see enough in a statue or picture to produce any permanent impression. She thought she lacked aesthetic feeling. She had to read about these things and get the name and the story if she was to get any- thing out of them. Her case was common enough. She was unjust to herself. She did not lack aesthetic feeling or capacity to receive impressions from statues and paintings. She simply had not learned to get impressions that way. Like most of us, she had had little opportunity to see things of this kind, while books had been her constant companions. And so it had come about that she got at art indirectly, through translation, as it were. "Words had become a very natural language, but figures, faces, colors, etc., as used in art, these meant little. And so when she saw a picture or a statue she asked instinct- ively : ' 'Where is it in the book? What is the name of it? What does it mean? Put it into words for me. " Probably most of us feel the same way. 'It isn't alto- gether strange or altogether bad. Words are wonder- fully handy things, and we have learned to depend on them for almost every purpose. We are using them more and more to express our higher feelings, and these expressions have been made so wonderfully accessible by means of printing that we instinctively look to books for our highest inspiration. So we want the angel's message translated into words. We gaze perhaps va- cantly at picture or statue, but when we see the same idea put into paragraphs of long primer or brevier, the The Study of Art. 3 lines glow with beauty and our hearts bum within us. All this is inevitable and in some measure good. We ought to use the language that -best serves our purpose and translate other things into it whenever translation will help us. But we must never imagine that this is the only way to know art or that all art is Capable of such translation. It is not the only way; in some respects it is not the natural way. The best things that painting and sculp- ture have to tell us are things that cannot be put into words. If they could be, there would be no need of these arts at all. Words may help us to get a start, but they are merely the scaffolding by means of which we build an appireciation of art. As soon as possible we should get rid of the scaffolding. Above all things we should not mistake it for the building itself. The novice in art always looks for the names and titles of pictures. Kven if they convey no real idea to him, they are "filling" and appease his hunger. The true lover of art scarcely looks at the title and hardly remembers it if he does so. For him art has its own language, and words are unnecessary, perhaps even disturbing. This, then, is the problem that confronts the student of art, to learn to understand the language of art. It is not learning things about works of art; it is learning to see what is in works of art. To learn about them may help some. To translate their meaning into words may help at first, just as it helps in leamingaforeign language to translate it for a time into our own. But the aim in both cases should be to get over translating. We never know either until we do. 4 Eari,y Italian Art. Most of our daily study of art is based on a contented acceptance of the translation method. A group of per- sons say, "Go to, now, let us study art," and forthwith there is an organization, a program, a preparation of papers which are read and kindly applauded in tium. Of pictures there are few, and as descriptions of such things convey but vague impressions, the writers usu- ally turn to more interesting matter We learn about the artist's life, his family, his love affairs, his mother-in- law, his court relations, etc. These have the well- known charm of personal gossip in dignified form; they even have a remote bearing on art. But these things are not art, nor do they ever give us the clew to its deeper meaning. If the work is done in a broader way it takes accoimt of the largest setUng of the artist's work — ^the contem- porary history, the religious, political and social ideals and conditions of the age. Such subjects, though not the essence of an , are so influential in determining its form and spirit that they are necessary to any thorough understanding of art. The study of these subjects is wholly to be commended in and of itself. But it must still be remembered that these things are not art, and that when they are mastered, the study of art proper is but ready to begin. Another favorite side issue is the cataloguing of pic- tures. To learn what works an artist produced, where, when, for whom, and for how much, and then to trace their vicissitudes down to date, is a useful task and one that facilitates the study of art; but the cataloguing of pictures is as different from the study of art as the cata- The Study op Art. 5 loguing of books is different from the study of literature. Carried into the higher field of expert criticism, this cataloguing of pictures becomes the science of attribu- tions, the determination of authorship in cases of doubt by ^ the critical examination of evidence of all kinds. This is one of the most useful of technical services and one of the most worthless of culture exercises connected with the whole subject of art. One more line of pseudo art study may be mentioned by way of warning. This we may call, for lack of a bet- ter term, technical study, the study of the processes by which art. is produced. This, of course, is work appro- priate and necessary for the artist himself. He cannot paint pictures without a very painstaking study of the processes and principles of his art. But we who have no other task or need than to enjoy pictures when painted, have less need of knowing these processes. It is no more necessary to know the technique of painting in order to enjoy a picture than it is to know the tech- nique of cooking in order to enjoy a dinner. Nor does the artist's technical knowledge make him the best judge of art. In general he is not so. Few painters have ever acquired fame as critics or interpreters of painting. They cannot overcome the habit of looking at the tapestry on the wrong side. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the cooking, and the cook's palate usually becomes untrustworthy before the cooking is done. Hence he who studies art to enjoy it should study it from the enjoyer's rather than from the producer's point of view. He should keep outside the kitchen. Technical knowledge will undoubtedly reveal 6 Early Italian Art. to him new beauties and new defects, but it will usually- blind him to many more. It is apt to make him think too much about skill and cleverness, as an elocutionist Hstens to the intonations and watches the gestures of a speaker without paying much attention to what he says. Skill and cleverness are necessary to the highest art, but they are not art. There is no true art, as there is no true oratory, without great ideas and worthy senti- ments, and these are often present in large measures in works that show httle cleverness or power of expression. What, then, should we look for in art if its essence is not to be found in any of these things ? Simply beauty. Beauty is the soul of art, and the true art lover, like the true artist, must care for it above all else. The desire to acquire technical terminology and fashionable erudition to indulge a vagrant curiosity and gratify our fondness for gossip, such motives as these may give to the study of art an ephemeral popularity, but an enduring interest in art must be based on the love of beauty for its own sake. Not beauty as we are perhaps wont to think of it, simple prettiness of a superficial character. Beauty is a many-sided thing. It appears in simple forms of loveliness which appeal to the merest child, and again its aspect is sublime and terrible, such that we should scarce call it beauty at aU were it not that with all its awfuhiess it still draws us and something in our souls speaks in its behalf. In its simplest forms beauty ap- peals to all; in its highest forms it appeals to very few. It behooves us to lift ourselves in the scale of being by studjdng the great language of beauty, the study of art, But such a general answer to our inquiry is not enough. Simply to look for beauty in these vague and Thb Study op Art. 7 unknown forms is too indefinite a program. Is there nothing more specific that we can look for? Perhaps it will help us to classify the different lines of our inquiry, using painting as our illustration. First of all, there is what we may call the psychic con- tent of the picture — ^let us say, for short, its meaning. I/Ct us suppose that persons are represented in the pic- ture, we may ask such questions as these : Who are these people? What are they doing? Why did the artist put them there? Going farther we may ask: What kind of people are they? What sentiments do their faces and attitudes express? Are their characters or sentiments appropriate for the artistic purpose or the historic setting of the subject? And so on. These are the questions that come to us first. They are not the simplest or perhaps the most fundamental; indeed it is only by a very complicated mental process that we can get such ideas out of pictures. But complicated mental processes are something that we are very used to, and as social beings we are so accustomed to give attention to persons and form estimates of them that we are sure to do the same with the persons we meet in pictures. Sometimes these questions permit of definite ansv/ers ; sometimes not. Then again a double answer is possible. There will be names and titles for those who need them, but closer scrutiny will reveal the fact that the artist cared nothing for these names, that they were only an afterthought, put on to satisfy those whose lack of aes- thetic feeling requires these verbal symbols, and that he had other and very different reasons for painting these figures and disposing them as he did. Art is full pf these 8 Eari,y Italian Art. double meanings, due to the fact that pictures are so often painted to be enjoyed by one class and paid for by another. But simple or manifold, the meaning is always there and should be gotten at. It may be insig- nificant, even in a good picture, or, again, it may be among the sublimest conceptions that have entered the human mind, as in the case of the Moses or some of the nameless figures on the Sistine ceiling. But important as is this psychic factor, it is not the only thing in the pidtiure. When we have found out who the people are and what they are doing and every- thing of this sort, we have not gotten all there is in the picture; sometimes we have gotten only the smallest part. We shall understand this best if we turn for a moment to poetry or music. In a poem or an anthem there is a certain meaning of the kind we have been considering, but everybody knows that that is not all. Take out the rh3rthm and the music and state the meaning in plain prose, and much of the charm is lost, perhaps all of it; It is much the same with pictures. Take the plain meaning and put it into prosaic form and much of the beauty is lost. There is something more than meaning in the picture, something that corresponds to the rhj^hm of the poem or the music of the anthem, and though it conveys to us no very tangi- ble idea, it exercises a wonderful influence over our imagination and gives the picture its charm. This we may call the senuous element as contrasted with the psychic element in art. It is quite as noble, and in a way even more fundamental. Chief among the senuous elements in sculpture and painting is line. We must clearly distinguish, however, Thb Study o? Art. 9 between the use of line to convey meanings and its use for senuous effect. Handwriting furnishes an example. Lines are used to make letters and spell words and sentences. But quite aside from this meaning in lines, the handwriting may be beautiful or ugly. There is a beauty in fine curves and deUcate harmony of lines quite apart from the meaning which these lines convey. So in pictures. Lines may be made to express figures, attitudes, etc., and thus to tell the story. But the story may be told very truthfully and forcefully, and yet the lines may be awkward and inharmonious, like writing that is bad, though legible and full of meaning. And so every true artist tries to arrange the lines of his picture, not only so that they will represent truthfully the things he is portraying, but so that they will sug- gest a pleasing pattern and a fine harmony in them- selves. Take any great picture and efface all the detail of the figures, obliterate the faces, forget the meaning, and still the main structural lines will show a fine ar- rangement and harmony within themselves. If this is lacking we do not enjoy the picture, though we may not know why. It is like a poem turned to prose. It will not seem poetical, no matter how fine the ideas may be. Color is another senuous element of great importance. It, too, has its value in expressing meanings. By means of color we distinguish oranges from apples, and so forth. All artists try to color the things they paint so as to make them true to nature. But this is only the beginning of the color problem in painting. We like color for its own sake, even when it means nothing at all. That is why we take so much pains in coloring our 10 Early Italian Art. houses and our fabrics, though these colors have no special meaning. Now this senuous delight in color xs a large part of the painter's capital. It is not enough to color things true. They must be so colored and so combined as to form a color harmony, let us say a sym- phony in color, for there are harmonies and discords in colflT which are much like those in sound. It isn't enough for the painter to color things as they are colored by nature, any more than it is enough for the composer to imitate natural sounds. Each should create new and richer harmonies, even though truthfulness of representation be somewhat sacrificed thereby. Closely related to color and line are light and shade. These, too, are useful to express meanings. Lights and shadows tell us the shape of things quite as much as Unes. But they, too, have their poetry quite on their own account. The skilful painter uses masses of shadow to blend and tone his colors much as the organist uses the stops or the pianist the pedals, softening transi- tions and distributing emphasis as suits his purpose. That is why a painting of a^ beautifully dressed lady so far transcends the reality. The colors in the dress may be as fine as in the paiating, but the witching effects of shadow are lacking. The colors in the dress are played like the organ-grinder's melodies, while the painter modulates them like tones from an exquisite violin. So when we have gotten at the meaning of the picture our work is but half done. We have still to ask: Are the lines, simply as lines, harmonious and beautiful? Are the colors well chosen and grouped? Are line and color propertymodulated by shadow? In short, is the Th^ Study op Art. 11 picture beautiful merely as a decorated surface, irre- spective of the things it represents? Some pictures whose meaning is comparatively slight have these quali- ties in a high degree, and are entitled to a high place in art. Indeed, one of the finest decorative arts the world possesses, that of the Moors, has no meaning whatever, but consists solely of color and line made beautiful by their own inner harmony. After these fundamentals come the technical in- quiries already referred to. As we have indicated, these inquiries are likely to do more harm than good un- less they are kept strictly subordinate to the great ftm- damentals. But in their place they are valuable and necessary to a thorough appreciation of art. Thus, every art student should be familiar with the just pro- portions of the human body. Taking the length of the head from chin to crowii as the unit, all measures of the body may be stated in terms of this imit. This is not the place to enter into details, but these can be easily found and mastered. These proportions must, of course be varied in art as in nature, but clumsy departures from the rule are unpleasing and inartistic. Perspective is another fundamental requirement of all good representation. This may be defined as the law of relation between objects as seen in space. Linear per- spective is the law of proportion and direction. Far- away objects look small and near ones large. Parallel lines receding from the spectatpr seem to converge to- ward a single point opposite the eye of the spectator. I/ines running below the line of vision, like a fence or a road, converge upward ; line| above, like the cornice of a 12 Early Italian Art. btdlding, converge downward ; those from the right con- verge to the left, and those from the left converge to the right. The important thing to note is that all parallel lines converge toward a single point. This point may shift as the spectator turns or shifts his position, but at a given moment there can be only one focal point. The painter must conform to this law. The lines represented in his picture must converge toward a sin- gle point and must converge just enough. If, as fre- quently happens, the lines converge toward more than one poiat, or converge at a wrong angle, the perspec- tive is false. Aerial perspective is the determination of space rela- tions by gradations of color and distinctness. We see things through the atmosphere, but the atmosphere is neither wholly transparent nor wholly colorless. The result is that distant objects are dimmed in outline. Moreover, the atmosphere spreads over the local color of all objects an overtone of blue whose varjdng depth is the best index of longer distances. The study of these atmospheric effects has given painters not only an ex- pressive language of representation, but an exquisite object of beauty in itself, the study of which is revolu- tionizing our feeling toward nature. But whatever importance may be attached to these matters, they must not be allowed to divert our atten- tion from the more essential elements of art. The most perfect drawing and delicate perspective never make art unless employed in the service of high thought and refined feeling, while with these qualities many an artist whose drawibg was defective and whose perspective was Thb Study op Art. 13 awry, has achieved immortality. The abnormal sensi- tiveness to these matters which the technician inevita- bly acquires is as impossible for the layman as it is un- necessary to his highest satisfaction. They should be a means and not an end to both the artist and the lover of art. The successful study of art depends largely upon cer- tain simple moral qualities. It may be well to enumer- ate them in closing these suggestions. Be honest. Never affect to see or to feel what you do not see or feel, simply to please somebody or to be on the popular side. The habit of affecting, of echoing con- ventional judgments, when once fonned, makes true personal judgments and appreciations impossible. The temptation to pose as a connoisseur and to seem to see what we imagine we ought to see, is very seductive, but every such pretence postpones the day of real seeing. Until we can forget all considerations of this kind and listen to the angel, and to him alone, his message will not be for us. Be modest. If honesty compels us to confess our ignorance, it does not require us to parade it. If we can see nothing in the things the judges have pronounced great, we do not need to talk or boast of it, or ridicule their judgment. It is an occasion for humility rather than for complacency. The chances are infinitely in favor of that slowly accumulating judgment of mankind which expresses the feelings of millions of men and the experience of centuries. There is a silly phrase much in use: "I don't know anjrthing about art; I only know what I like. " He who knows nothing about art has no 14 BarlyI Italian Art. likings worth considering. "Never mind your likings; try to understand, " is a fuodamental rule for all learn- ing. In the last resort hking is everything in art, for art exists only to be liked; but our early likiags, bom of narrow experience and biased by ignorance, are often a simple impertinence, the most serious obstacle to that intelligent appreciation on which all true hking ulti- mately depends. The novice in art is apt to face a pic- ture of which he knows nothing with a feeUng that he must decide whether he likes it or not. This judgment, which should gather up all other judgments and in- quiries, may safely be postponed as long as possible. When the spirit of earnest inquiry has so triumphed over our early likings that we have forgotten we ever had them, then enjoyment will come to us in infinitely greater measure. Be patient. I/ive in the presence of the best things. Give the angel a pati,ent hearing, even though at first he seem mute. Learning art is learning to see, not memo- rizing the results of other people's seeing. If you don't enjoy the great masters, live with them until you do. The best things are seldom on the surface ; the deepest thought and feeling are often shrouded in an almost impenetrable reserve. But patience will prevail and will reward those who exercise it. The art of the world is its supreme possession, the epitome of its experience and its highest inspiration. To understand it is to under- stand the ideal life of humanity, to understand and realize our highest selves. ^be inee of tbe Xessone. The I^essons here presented are designed to encourage and facilitate the study of pictures through reproduc- tions, not to serve as a substitute for them. It is as- sumed that the student will be provided with abundant material, either that issued in connection with the Out- lines or an equivalent. Without such material the Out- lines, which are merely a laboratory guide, will be of no use whatever. The work here outlined includes the following: 1. Questions about pictures, statues, etc. These are not only first in importance but should be taken up first. Begin with the pictures; read about them afterwards. These questions are not always capable of exact an- swers, and differences of opinion will often be possible. Nor are they intended to be comprehensive. The stu- dent need not always answer all of them, iior should, he confine himself to them. They are merely samples of questions that can be multipUed indefinitely. The im- portant thing is that attention should be directed from the very outset to the pictures themselves rather than to books about them. In general the questions are not such as can be answered by reading. 2. Reading. This is of great importance in con- nection with the direct study above mentioned, though comparatively valueless apart from such study. Its value is indeed greatly lessened if it is done in advance of the other work. The bibliography and reading notes here furnished are not exhaustive; they are intended merely to be ser- 16 EarItY Italian Art. viceable. In many cases it will pay to read more than the passages specially recommended. 3. Papers. These are valuable, especially in club work, provided they do not anticipate or displace the direct study of the pictures themselves. There is always a danger that the preparation of a paper will throw the work of the session too much upon a single person. In the club, as in private study, the pictures should be studied first. The paper will be far more intelligible after this work is done. In general the paper can best deal with outljdng subjects, bibliographical, historical, etc., and hence should never monopolize or dominate a meeting devoted to the study of art. It should not be too long. 4. Discussion. This is more important than the paper and should be a prominent feature of all joint study. It should deal with the pictures themselves and should be made as general as possible. Nothing can niore effectually kill art study than to have one do the work for the rest. Studying by proxy is Uke eating by proxy. 5. Correspondence, This is offered as a last resort in connection with personal inquiry. We do not expect the work done to be submitted to us for general criti- cism, nor do we expect to furnish information which can be obtained from other sources. To conduct the work of individuals and clubs by correspondence would quite exceed the limits of our force and our remuneration. We simply offer assistance where other resources fail. Even so, our contribution will be in the nature of a sug- gestion rather than of an authoritative pronotmcement. The study of art is not furthered by oracles. Thb Use op the I^essons. 17 ABBREVIATIONS. A Ancient Bap Baptistery. Br British. Cat Catalogue. Cath jCathedral. c Century. ch Church. Cf Compare with. C. & C - Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Ed Edition. Gal Gallery. Hist History. Ill Illustrated. It Italian. K Kugler. . Med Mediaeval. Mus '. Museum. Nat'l National or Nazionale. S. or Sta Saint or Santa. S. M Santa Maria. V. or vol Volume. W. & W Woltmann and Woermann. (Bcneral BibUoerapbij. DICTIONARIES. ^ Adeline, Jui,ES. Dictionary of Terms in Art. N. Y., Apple- ton & Co., 1891. $2.25. Plain, brief definition of terms, with concise descriptions where necessary. Bryan, Michael. Dictionary of Painters and Engravers. New Edition. Revised under the Supervision of George C Williamson. III. 5 v. Lond., Bell, 1903. 21s. each. Champfin, J. D., and Perkins, Charles C. Cyclopedia of Painters and Paintings. 4 v. N. Y., Scribner, 1886. $25.00 (raised to $37.50). A scholarly and authoritative work. In condensed form, it gives informa- tion which, if sought elsewhere, would lead the reader through many pages or volumes of history and description. The lists of paintings are not complete, but are characteristic, and thus of great assistance to the student. MoIIett, J. W. An Illustrated Dictionary of Words csed in Art and ArchiEoIogy. Lond., S. Low & Co., 1883. 15s. Concise; profusely illustrated. A somewhat wider range of terms than in Adeline's work. HISTORIES OF ART. Crowe, J. A., and Cavalcaselle, G. B. Painting in Italy. 3 v. Painting in North Italy. 2 v. Lond., Murray, 1864-1871. Out of print. New Edition. Edited by Langton Douglas, assisted by S. Arthur Strong. 6 v. Sold only in sets. N. Y., Scribner, 1903. $6.00 each. The original work, published in 1864, has been for years invaluable to the fclose student. The present edition is much more than a mere Ire-issue. A great deal of new material had been gathered by the authors during their lifetime, and tliis, together with the results of recent discoveries, has been incorporated into the text or finds place in notes by the editors, themselves able art critics. At the present writing (January, 1907) but two volumes have been issued; others, however, are soon to follow. Heaton, Mrs. Charles, ed. by Cosmo Monkhouse. Concise History of Painting. Lond., Bell, 1893. Bohn's Libraries. 5s. Written agreeably and with abundant knowledge. Its tendency to artis- tic gossip may be considered as offset by the general justness of its estimates of paintings. Not illustrated. Recommended for its chronological lists of artists, at the back of the book, so arranged as to make the study of com- parative dates easy. Kogler, F. J., ed, by Sir A. H. Layard. Italian Schools of Painting. 2 v. 111. Lond., Murray, 1900. $12.00. The most complete work on the subject yet written, covering the entire filed of Italian painting to the nineteenth century. It has been revised by GjeNBRAI, BlBWOGRAPHY. 19 Sir A. H. Layard in the light, of recent discov^es and attributions of paint- ings, and may be accepted as a trustworthy guide. It stands midway be- tween the cyclopedia and works of exhaustive criticism like that of Crowe and Cavalcaselle. The OufUnes follow Kugler in matters of authority, Lanzi, A. L. History of Painting in Italy. 3 v. Lend., Bell, 1847. Bohn's Libraries. 3s. 6d. each. Written in the eighteenth century, less for the student than for the general reader. It is not arranged for easy research, although carefully in- dexed. From Lanzi, as from Vasari, may be gleaned much interesting information concerning the en-virorutnent of the artist and contemporary conditions, seldom embodied in later works. Ltibke, WilhElm, ed. by Clarence Cook. History of Art. 2 V. N. Y., Dodd, Mead & Co., 1878. Students' ed. S7.50. New Edition, revised and largely rewritten by Russell Sturgis. 2 V. N. y., Dodd, Mead & Co., 1904. « History of Sculptcre. 2 v. Lond., Smith, F4der & Co. 42s. Lubke's books have long been, and will long remain, standard works to readers who enjoy the author's observations on social conditions and his brilliant summary of the tendencies of an epoch. Mr. Sturgis' s revision of the History of Art brings the work up to date and makes it far more valuable to the present-day student. Marqoand, Ai,tEN, and Frothingham, A. L., Jr., History of Scttlptare. 111. N. Y., I. S. Ancient Vase Paintings. Lond., Unwin, 1894. 31s. 6d. A collection of reproductions, printed in the colors of the originals. Intro- ductory historical sketch, while not assuming to be complete, glances at various parts of the field. Section on Interpretation of Paintings is sugges- tive and valuable. Htiddiston, John HomEr. Lessons from Greek Pottery. N. Y., Macmillan, 1898. $1.25. Vase Paintings as illustrations of Greek customs. The Bibliography of Greek Art, to which several pages are devoted, will be welcomed by the inter- ested reader on that subject. Layard, A. H. Mosaic Decoration. Paper read at a meeting of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Lend., 1869. Gives some very interesting facts concerning present methods of mosaic work and the restoration of ancient examples. Longfellow, W. P. P. The Greek Vase. Scribner's Magazine, V. 3, pp. 419-433 (April, 1888). An analysis of the form and line of Greek vases. Vase decoration is not considered in the text; but there are characteristic illustrations of paintings, showing how the decoration is applied to the shape and size of the article by an intelligent decorator. Mac, August. Pompeii, its Life and Art. 111. N. Y., Mac- millan, 1899. S6.00. A book that throws much light on Greek and Roman art. Milman, Heney Hart. History of Latin Christianity. 8 v. N. Y, W. J. Middleton, 1870. A well-known work, treating of the church under the Popes to the time of Nicholas V. Mitchell, Lucy M. A History of Ancient Sctilptfire. 2 v. N. Y, Dodd, Mead & Co., 1894. Students' ed. $7.50. Murray, A. S. Greek Archaeology. Lend., Murray, 1892. 18s. Murray, A. S., and Smith, A. H. Vhite Athenian Vases in the British Mtiseom. Lend., Longman & Co. (sold by), 1896. Twenty -seven plates, reproduced from tracings, in brown and white; very interesting, and in some cases beautiful. Text describes coloring of the originals. Northcote, J. SpEncer, and Brownlow, W. R. Roma Sotte- ranea, an account of Roman Catacombs. Part IL Christian Art. Lond., Longmans, Green & Co., 1879. Like Hemans's book (see abovel, this is written from the churchman's pomt of view, but the subject of art is treated sympathetically and with knowledge. Special Bibuography. 33 Ongania< Fermnando. publisher. La Basilica di San Karco in Venezia. Text, 3 v. Plates, 9 v. Venice, 1881-1888 This fine work will be found in many large libraries. The plates reproduce in detail almost the entire structure of the famous church, many of them in color. The text, which is in Italian, consists of explanations of the plates and documents relatmg to the history of the building. Parker, John Hbnry. Archasology of Rome, Part XI. Lend., Murray, 1876. Church and Altar Decorations and Mosaic Pictures. A valuable addition to the volume is a chapter by St. John Tyrwhitt, comparing catacomb frescos with mosaic pictures; with critical estimate of Roman frescos of the early Empire, and a description of technical processes. Perry, Thomas Sargent. Greek Portraits in Egyptian Tombs. 111. Scribner's Magazine. February, 1889. Ricci, CORRADO. Ravenna. Italia Artistica. Bergamo, 1903. 3.50 lire. Beautifully illustrated. The first of a projected series of monographs on Italian cities. Robinson, Edward. Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Vases, in Museum of Art, Boston. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Introduction embodies a sketch of the history of Qreek vases, summing up the general traits of the drawing or painting of each style or epoch; Wallis, Henry. Pictures from Greek Vases > the White Athenian Lekythoi. Lond., Dent, 1896. 42s. A series of large plates, printed after colored drawings, distinguished by sympathetic outline, beauty of face and grace of figure, and suggesting much charm in the coloring of the originals. They are similar in subject, because all are taken from funerary vessels. The introduction explains the place of the Lekythoi in the history of art. Wickoff, Franz. Roman Art. Some of its principles and their application to Early Christian Painting. Critic£d and interpretative. Much of its material is drawn from Mau's Pompeii, but the application is Wickofif's own. Wilpert, Joseph. Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms. 2 V. 267 plates. Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, 1903. A monumental work. The plates will be found of the utmost interest as illustrating very completely the decorations of the Catacombs: 'Winckelmann, John. History of Ancient Art. 2 v. Boston, > Osgood & Co., 1880. 89.00. PERIODICALS. Churchman. 1902: Jan. 25, April 12. Articles on Mosaics. GREEK AND ROMAN PAINTING. OUTLINE FOR STUDY. Greek Painting; sources of our knowledge regarding it; epoch-making painters; relation of the painting of the Greeks to their sculpture. Relation of Roman to Greek art. Greek artists in Italy. Mural decorations as seen in Rome and Pompeii; scenes chosen, character of work. Standards of art under Roman rule. Greek Vase Painting: ^Shapes and uses of vases '' Technical methods of decoration. "^Epochs, and styles of decoration. ** Etruscan vases. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. Methods and materials of painting. Classic stories suggested by our pictures. Roman m3rthology compared with Greek. The Pompeian House. Note. — Our knowkdge of Greek Painting is gained almobi. entirely from literary sources, except for that especial form of the art found on the vases of all periods. The excavations of Pompeii, which have been progressing systematically since 1860, have brought to light much of interest in the mural decorations of the first century of our era. Many of these examples, now preserved in the Naples Museum, are copies of Greek subjects, thus affording us a remote hint of what the originals may have been. Due allowance must, however, be made both for the con- ventions of the period and for the fact that much of the work was probably that of mere artizans. Greek and Roman Painting. 35 questions on special pictures. No. t. — Chariot Race. National Museum, Naples. Does the subject chosen for the decoration of this vase suggest the date of its manufacture? Does the decoration serve to emphasize the shape of the vase? Compare with 2 in this respect. Compare also the way in which the figures are drawn. Which seems the older art? What advantage in either? Account for the generally superior quality of geomet- rical to pictorial ornament. Is that the case in all the illustrations of vase painting? Was the painter's aim usually decorative or narrative? In what respects does the surface of a vase lend itself to narrative ? No. 2 — Eos and Kephalos. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Inside of a Greek Kylix — a vase that is wide and shallow, set on a low standard; Colors, red and black. Eos, the Dawn, is about to carry Kephalos to the heavens. On outside of vase a circular row of figures turn from the altars, where sacrifice is being offered, to gaze toward the receding figure of their com- panion with gestures of surprise. Probably early 5th century B.C. Does this drawing fit well within the circle? Is the torso (body or tnmk) of Kephalos correctly formed? Are legs and feet drawn with understanding of anatomy ? Explain. Do the faces seem archaic or modem ? Is the story intelligently suggested? Which predominates in the picture — ^beauty or archaism? In what way is the fine quality of the work shown? 36 Eari,y Italian Art. No. 3 — Group of Greek Mafdens. National Museum, Naples. Painting on marble; probably executed in Greece. Found in Herculaneum. What are the lower figures doing? the upper figures? Is the subject a serious one? Is it probably represen- tative of the best Greek painting? Why? Can you see any other reason than the requirements of the action for putting the arms as they are? How would you characterize the effect? Do you find a simi- lar effect in other parts of the picture ? Is the drawing true? Is it artistic? Are these two questions synonjmious? What parts seem best drawn? Does the drapery resemble that of Greek statues? Compare with draperies of thie Parthenon frieze (Series A, 157-159), with those of the Nike Balustrade (Series A, 170, 171) with Roman work (Series A, 222). What does this suggest as to the possible date of this work? What can you discover in the work itself to justify the conclusion that it is of Greek rather than Roman origin? What do you conclude as to the character and quality of Greek painting at this period? No. 4 — The Sacrifice of Iphigenia. National Museum, Naples. Pompeian fresco; poor copy of famous Greek original. The Greeks, detained on their excursion against Troy by unfavorable winds, are led by an oracle to sacrifice Agamemnon's daughter, but at the last moment she is carried away by Diana to be her priestess, a stag being substituted by the goddess for sacrifice. GrBEk and Roman Painting. 37 Who is the figure to the right ? that to the left ? Why does he cover his face? Who are the central figures? Why so nearly nude? Who are the figures above? What are the principal defects in the work? Is the action stilted or easy? Is the composition pleasing? Why is the figure of Diana repeated? Are the figures on extreme left and right correctly proportioned? Why ? Are the attitudes intelligently felt ? From what point does the light come? Are light and shade consis- tently arranged ? Can you explain the f atdts in the pic- ture otherwise than by defects in the original? No. 5 — Discovery of Teleptitfs. National Museum, Naples. Fresco, found in Herculaneum. Telephus, having been ex- posed at his birth by his parents, is suckled by a hind sent by the gods. Arcadia in the guise of a local deity presides over the scene at which Hercules discovers his infant son. What can you say of the drawing and modelling of the hind? the child? the male figure? the arms of the female figure? the eagle? Is the lion as well represented as the other figures? Why? Who is the youthful figure above, to the left? What character does the face express? Is it well expressed? Are the figures in general graceful and well repre- sented? the draperies? . (Compare with good Greek sta- tues and with Renaissance works.) * Do you notice any defects of representation in the sitting figure, the child, or elsewhere? 38 EARI.Y ITAUAN Art. No. 6— Medea Heditating the Murder of her Children. National Museum, Napks. Pompeian fresco. Does this figure express, in a complete and dignified manner, the tragedy indicated by the title? Are there faults in its expression — if so, what? Is there any weakness in the figure? Is womanliness indicated? Does the face suggest maternal tenderness? Does it suggest insanity or ferocity? Is the large eye indica- tive of certain traits of character, or is it common to women in Hellenistic and Roman paintings? The fig- ures in No. 5. Is Medea'^s form well proportioned or are there defects of drawing? Does the figure look as if it were studied from life or painted from imagina- tion? No. JO — The Infant Hercoles Mastering the Serpent. House of the Vettii, Pompeii. Pompeian fresco, probably copy of Greek original. When eight months old Hercules was attacked by two serpents sent by Juno to devour him. He seized them and strangled them, in the presence of Amphitryon and Alcmene, while his brother alarmed the house by his shrieks. What is the character of the drawing and figure work? Is the perspective well represented? Why is the eagle introduced? Cf. 5. Which attitude is best? Does the artist successfully represent fright in the spectators? Is there an appropriate amount of detail in the pic- ture? Is it well chosen and represented? Grebk and Roman Painting. 39 Are there any lines in the picture that seem to have been determined wholly or in part for their sensuous effect, i.e., grace and beauty, rather than truth to nature ? No. 1 1 — The Panistunent of Dirke. House of the Vettii, Pompeii. Fresco, somewhat defaced. Dirke had cruelly treated the mother of the two youths and was by them bound to the horns of a wild bull. Cf. No. 271 Series A — ^Farnese BuIL National Museum, Naples. Hellenistic sculpture, much restored; same subject. What differences do you note between the painting and the sculpture? What similarities? Do any of the latter seem mere coincidences or like copying? If so, which is the copy? Why? Is this a good subject for art? Why? Is it better adapted to painting or to sculpture? Why? Could the painter have told the story more fully to advantage? the sculptor? No. IS-^AIdobrandini Marriage. Vatican, Rome. Greek work of the 1st century B. C. . This is one of the finest ancient paintings in existence. It was found in 1609 near the Arch of Gallienus and is named from Cardinal Aldobrandini into whose possession it then came. Identify the bride, the bridegroom, the other figures. Interpret the expression of the principal faces. Ex- plain the action to the left ; to the right ; in the center. 40 EAiaY ITAUAN Art. Is the picture a unit or a group of separate pictures? Would it have been better if all the figures had been united in a single action or group interest? Does the shape of the picture influence this? Why are certain figures represented half nude and others not? Who are these figures? Are the figures well drawn and posed ? Are they rest- ful or not? Does the picture lack animation? Where is the animation most manifest? How do the draperies compare with those of other Greek figures? of Byzantine and early Christian figures ? Which seems to you the best? In what painting of your acquaintance are they surpassed? Do you detect any arrangement of lines with ref- erence to symmetry and beauty other than that re- quired for the representation of the figures? Is the representation ever sacrificed to these ends? No. 7 — ^A Bacchante. National Museum, Naples. No. 8 — 'Loves as Wine Merchants. No. 9— A Cock Fight. House of the Vettii, Pompeii. This Pompeian house, which was excavated in 1894-'96, has been left as nearly as possible in its original condition, and fur- nishes one of the best illustrations, not only of the arrangement of .rooms in the Roman house, but of the methods of decoration. The long frieze in which the little Loves are seen carrying on all the varied duties of life is of great charm. Greek and Roman Painting. 41 No. 12— Wall Decoration. Pompeii. In what does the attractiveness of this work consist? Do these details suggest large and consistent plans of interior decoration? Do they suggest permanence, or that the wall decoration would soon be changed, as with us? Are they well done, carefully executed? Do they show devemess, invention? Do you call them good art? Why? (A good ques- tion to return to.) GENERA!, QUESTIONS. What was the relative importance of painting and sculpture in Greek art? How do you account for the popular impression on this point ? How did Roman art differ from that of Greece? Was it progressive? Which of the works above mentioned seem purely Greek? Which are ptirely Roman? How far do the others partake of the one or the other character ? State as definitely as possible the character of the Roman as distinguished from the Greek spirit in art. Is there a dose aUiance between Roman painting and sculpture? How? Was Roman art idealistic or realis- tic? Had the Roman painters high ideals? What were their subjects? Did they treat mythological subjects nobly? Are extant mural paintings of the Roman period suf- fidently numerous for tracing the devdopment of Ro- man art, or are they chiefly of one epoch? May these 42 Early Italian Art. mural paintings be supposed to represent the highest artistic achievement of the time, like such notable works of to-day, as the paintings in thenew Congressional Library at Washington or the Public Library of Bos- ton? Why? How would you limit decorative painting, i. e., where may the line be drawn between decorative art and pictorial art, or decorative art and high art? If a pictorial subject becomes a fitting wall decoration, what pictorial qualities must be suppressed in its treatment? Were historical subjects notably frequent in Roman sculpture? in Roman painting? Was the spirit of their mural paintings, in general, serious and lofty, or mirth- ful? Was any one class of mythological events more frequently represented? Are these paintings probably originals or copies of originals? What do some of them suggest regarding the excellence and popularity of pos- sible originals? What essential condition of painting had the ancients discovered? What did they lack that critics of modem painting require absolutely? Greek and Roman Painting. 43 REFERENCES. Collignon Greek Archaeology. 261-324. Gardner Catalogue of Greek Vases in Fitz-William Museum. Gayley Classic Myths. Guhland Koner Life of Greeks and Romans. 124-133; 142-154; 275-278 ; 357-365; 465-476. Harrison and MacColl. . .Ancient Vase Paintings. Heaton History of Painting. 9-16; 19-20. Huddiston . . . .Lessons from Greek Pottery. Longfellow . . . .The Greek Vase. Scribner's Magazine, v. 3. (April, 1888.) 419-433. Ltibke History of Art, edited by Sturgis. I. 242-254; 307-311. Mau Pompeii, its Life and Art. 239-273; 315-334; 446-474; 499-501. Mitchell History of Ancient Sculpture. II. 645-649. Murray Greek Archaeology. 58-112; 360-403; 407-443. Murray White Athenian Vases in British Museum. Parker Archaeology of Rome. Part XI. 1-10. Perry Scribner's Magazine, v. 5. (February, 1889.) 219-225. Some Greek Portraits. Poynter Classic and Italian Painting. 13-38: 39-45. Robinson Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Vases in Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Seeman Mythology. Van Dyke History of Painting. 21-31. Von Reber Ancient Art. 366-386; 463-472. Wallis Pictures from Greek Vasc„. Wickoff Roman Art. Winckelmann . .History of Ancient Art. 86-114. Woltmann and Woermann. .History of Painting. I. 35-99; 104-142. %CSBOn 2. SCULPTURE AND PAINTING DURING THE MIDDLE AGES. OUTLINE FOR STUDY. Characteristics of Roman Art; causes of its decliae. Dependence of Christian upon classic art; posi- tion of the Church in the Empire and its development. Influence of Christianity upon Art; themes chosen ; favorite legends and S3mibols of the early Church. Art in the Catacombs, its object and character; by what standards to be judged. Early Christian sarcophagi, their workmanship and decoration; influence of Roman models; comparison with Greek tomb reliefs. Material and intellectual conditions xmder the Byzantine Empire; the iconoclastic move- ment. Character of Byzantine Art; its conventionaUty and lack of freedom, departure from nature, feeling for decorative effect. Influence of the East upon ItaUan Art. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. The Catacombs of Rome. Constantine's City. The Rise of the Popes. The Mt. Athos Handbook (Didron). Carvings in Ivory. Thb^MiddIiE Ages. 45 questions on special pictures. , Nos. 41, 42 — Catacomb Paintings. These reproductions are taken from copies of frescos gathered from the Catacombs of Rome, many of them now nearly if not quite destroyed. Most of them were from the Catacombs of St. Calixtus. All were probably executed before the time of Dio- cletian, 284 A. D., and slight as they are furnish us almost our only information concerning the strictly Christian art of this early period. The familiar stories of Jonah, Moses Striking the Rock, the Paralytic and the Good Shepherd, are easily recog- nized. The figures with hands upraised are' called " orantes" — praying ones, and represent the deceased. The grave digger with his pick was often represented. The funeral feast is some- times mistaken for the feast of the Eucharist. Of this the fish bearing the basket of bread is perhaps a symbol. Why is the story of Jonah so often repeated? Cf. Sarcophagus, 372. Is it told in the spirit of literalism? Is the same true of other subjects? What suggested the form of the whale? Is the scene of Jonah under the gourd used merely as an accessory, or has it a meaning bf its own? How carefully is the work done? Do these frag- ments suggest a large and consistent scheme of wall decorations? Cf. 43. What purpose did they serve? No. 43 — ^Fresco. Crypt, SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Rome. The modem church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo in Rome is built over the extensive apartments of the private houses occupied, according to tradition, by John and Paul, two court officials to Constantia, daughter of Constantine, who suflfered martyrdom there by order of Julian. The church erected in 400 was de- stroyed in 1024, and the lower rooms completely lost sight of. 46 Early Itai^ian Art. They were discovered and excavated in 1887. Pagan and Christian wall decorations may here be studied side by side. This example dates probably from the 2d or 3d century. How does this painting compare with those in the Catacombs? What suggestion of Christian sjntnbolism is there here? Is it Christian or classic? How does it compare with Pompeian wall decoration? Cf. 8. Does this fragment suggest a well-considered scheme of decoration? an attractive interior? Is the work carefully or sketchily done? No. 371 — Christian Sarcophagus. (Good Shepherds and vintage scene.) Lateran Museum, Rome. Found in the Catacombs of St. Prsetextus, probably late 2d or early 3d century. No. 372 — Christian Sarcophagtis, (History of Jonah.) Lateran Museum, Rome. Found in the burial place of the Vatican (scene of Nero's persecutions), 4th or 5th century. The small scenes above are, Raising of Lazarus, Moses Striking the Rock, Seizure of Moses (?) Daniel (?). No. 373 — Christian Sarcophagus. (Agape and Crescenziano.) Lateran Museum, Rome. Late period. The scenes are perhaps: Offerings of the Fields and Herds (Cain and Abel?), Adam and Eve, the Deceased, Miracles of Christ. In which of these Sarcophagi do you find reminders of classic influence? In what does this influence consist? ^n Middies Agbs. 4lr Is it equally true of all? Is any one of them wholly consistent in this respect? In what does the variation consist? How appropriate are these scenes for a funeral monu- ment? Why were they chosen? How skilfully are the stories told? Has this, or making a beautiful surface, been the aim of the artists? In which one has the space been most successfully filled? What general criticism upon all three in this respect? Do they differ from classic art in this? How does the method of stone-cutting differ from that of the Parthenon frieze? (Series A. 142-159.) What advantages has this method? Are there dis- advantages? What pecuharities of proportion in 373? What makes it so monotonous? Why has the Christ head no nimbus? Cf. Catacomb paintings and mosaics. No. 44 — CtiicHi-xioa. (Fresco.) S. Maria Antiqua, Rome. During the recent excavations in the Roman Forum there were found in the extensive remains of the Library coimected with the Temple of Augustus, just under the steep cliff of the Palatine and close to the present entrance to the Forum, a series of frescos of the utmost interest. That there must have been a, place of worship here as early as the 6th century is proved by the dated tombstones which have been found in the pavement. The name S. M. Antiqua may easily have been given to the gre^t basilica built on the site by Pope John VII in 705-708, to distinguish it from S. M. Nuova on the other side of the Forum. The date of the frescos is determined by the figure of Pope Zacharias (741- 752) who is represented with a square nimbus, showing him to be 48 Early Itai^ian Art. alive at the time. This representation of the Crucifixion is of especial interest as it is a subject seldom treated in early art. The earliest known example dates from 586. This example may perhaps have been done by Greek artists driven from the East by the Iconoclasts. Is the figure of the crucified Christ usually clothed? Why is it so here? In what other respects does this differ from the customary representations? What is the character of the face ? Cf . Earlier and later mosaics. Has the artist attempted to represent the tragedy of the scene? Is this a mistake? What is the meaning of the attitudes of the Madonna and St. John? Why does the Christ nimbus differ from the others? Study the faces, the draperies, the way in which the figures stand. How much artistic ability is shown ? ( 1. Madonna and Child (panel). No. 45< ( 2. OttcSfixion with scenes from the Passion (panel). No. 46 — S. Mary Magdalen (panel). Academy, Florence. These are typical paintings of the period immediately preced ing Cimabue, the 12th and early 13th centuries. While they are probably the work of Italian artists, they show unmistakable signs of Byzantine influence, notably in the elongated forms, the draperies, and the misanthropic expressions. Why are some of the figures so much larger than others? What do the small figures represent? Do they resemble any of the Mosaic figures? In what respect are the Madonna and Child fatdty? Have they any redeeming feattu'es? Ths Middle Ages. 49 Why is the Christ figure represented in this way? Cf. 44. Which is the more impressive? the better art? What is the garment of the Magdalen? What is the story of her life as told by the small pictures? What confusion of Bible characters is shown? How much of the earlier Christian symbolism is there in these pictures? What new elements are introduced? Do they show a study of life? sense of beauty? feeling for decorative effect? No. 374 — ^Madonna (marble relief). S. Marco, Venice. Byzantine relief of the 11th century. This representation of the Madonna is often found on Byzantine coins of the 11th century and is several times repeated in the sculptures built into the walls of San Marco. This example is found in the Capella Nova in the north transept. Like most of the sculptures of the church, it was brought from elsewhere to adorn the building. What indicates that this is the Madonna? How does it differ from the Madonna to which we are accustomed? When does the different conception make its appear- ance? Explain the attitude? Has it appeared before? How does this compare with the early representations of Christ? Is the modelling delicately and carefully done? How are the draperies treated? Which of the mosaics does this most resemble ? In what respect ? No. 375 — Adoration of the Magi. S. Stefano, Bologna. Painted terra-cotta of the 14th century. It was shown in the Exposition of Sacred Art, in 1900, but is now in a chapel of that 50 Early Italian Art. portion of the quaint old sevenfold church of S. Stefano, known as "della Tiinita." Compare with 373. Are the proportions the same? Do the faces suggest a different nationality? Is the modelling better than 373? Do the garments fall nat- urally? Is the general sentiment of these figures em- phasized by the direction of the folds of the draperies? If transversely curved folds were more prominent than vertical folds, would the figures make the same impres- sion of devoutness and solemnity as now? How does this group show that a new element has entered into Christian worship? No. 47 — Byzantine Madonna. S. Maria Maggiore, Florence. Why is the flesh of these figures dark? Do the folds of drapery recall Greek statues? Are they as true to natiu-e? Do they have an impression of dignity? Is the pose awkward, or easy and nattural? Is the figure of the Madonna expressive of natural tenderness? or solicitude for the salvation of the world? Does she arouse our interest? Does she seem proud or indifferent? Is she human? Is she divine? Is the work marked by carefulness of execution or does it seem that of an inexperienced artist? Does it seem more or less advanced than 45? than 375? No. 377 — Saviour between Symbols of the Evangelists, with King David. Campo Santo, Pisa. This tomb relief from the middle of the 12th century bears the quaint inscription, " This work which you see Bonamico made; The Middle Ages. 51 pray for him. " This is believed to be the only example in Italy of a subject which, strictly Byzantine in its origin, was popular in French art of the 12th century. Works of this period are rare in Italy. The figure above of King David playing upon his harp is by the same artist, but was not intended for this tomb. Note the extremely flat treatment. All the surfaces are raised a comparatively even distance from the back- ground, the modelling then being suggested by a multi- tude of fine lines. The animals are similar to those found on Byzantine capitals and also in early Norman work. The character of the draperies and especially the treatment of the hair are noteworthy. Compare with later Byzantine mosaics and paintings. No. 378 — Ptilpit, fay Gaido da G>mo. S. Bartolotnmeo ia Pantano, Pistoja. Made in 1250. Both in its position against the wall and in the character of the reliefs it well illustrates the art of Northern Italy before the Pisani. What has suggested this method of supporting the pulpit? Is there undue sense of weight? Compare with the pulpits by the Pisani. What are the figures at the comers? How sup- ported? What do they add to the beauty and meaning of the work? What are the subjects of the reliefs? Are the figures well arranged in each reUef ? Has the story or the ar- tistic effect been the artist's chief thought? Might the entire front have been used as a single panel for deco- rating? What would have been the result? 52 Barly Itaint(ption of Jtidai. Who are the persons here represented ? What is their traditional character? Does Giotto treat them sympa- thetically, i. e., does he exaggerate or moderate their traditional character? Why? Cf. representations of Judas by Leonardo and others. Is there anything significant in the representation of Satan, or is he simply grotesque? Why is the figure not more distinct? Cf. 104. What is the dark object above Judas' head? Why so represented? No. 65 — The Entrance into Jertisalem. What scene in this event has Giotto chosen for the picture? What naturalistic touches has he added? For what purpose ? Do they seem undignified ? Are the figures all standing still, or is there an impression of movement? How is this secured? Who constitute the two groups before Christ and behind Him? How are they distinguished? How successful are the animals in this picture? Cf. 383, 61. What are the trees in the background? Giotto. 101 No. 57 — ^Meeting of Joachim and Annai detail. No. 66 — The Last Supper: detail, Central Group. No. 71 — The Last Jadgmentt detail Scrovegno and Angels. How much of expression, of sentiment, of beauty, do you find in these faces? Is the face Giotto's chief means of expression? What does he accompUsh by gesture and attitude? Cf. 58, 65. Was he equally ver- satile in facial expression? Does this closer view of his faces give a more or less favorable impression of his abil- ity in this direction? In what way are his faces beauti- ful? What peculiarities of feature are noticeable in all his faces? Are these the result of tradition? No. 67 — ^The Crucifixion. What are the soldiers to the right doing? Why are they not represented as more coarse and brutal ? Is the reason to be found in the temperament of the painter or in the requirements of art? Cf. later representations of similar scenes. What is the chief figure to the right doing? Why represented with the aureole? Is the expression of sentiment satisfactory? Cf. 60, 61, 64, 68. Is there any doubt as to the sentiment Giotto wishes to express? Is it suitable to the event? Is it sincere? No. 68 — ^The Bewailing of Christ. Are the draperies of the Madonna and the sitting figures natural? Are they artistically pleasing? Is 102 Early Italian Art. there any objection to representing such plain surfaces as heavy fabrics naturally take? Cf. draperies in 49 and 50. Notice the general direction of the lines of the drap- eries. Have they any spiritual suggestion? Is death successfully represented in the figure of the Christ? in the face? No. 69— Hope. No. 70— Envy. Could you guess the meaning of these figures without their names? Why is the figure of Hope not standing? Is the figure rising? How can you tell? Is it by the -wings? Are they appropriate? "What is the meaning of the flame in the other pic- ture? the horn? the serpent? the bag? the large ear? Notice the different attitude of the free hand in the two cases. Why? Why the difference in drapery? Cf. 55 and 56. In which is the allegory most easily, most satisfactorily interpreted? No. 72 — St. Francis Before the Sultan. Bardi Chapel, S. Croce, Florence. The Franciscan Church of Santa Croce had four chapels deco- rated by Giotto's hand, Vasari tells us. All were whitewashed over during the 17th century. In 1841 the task of removing the whitewash was begun, and the frescos (ft the Bardi and Peruzzi are now recovered, though not without much inevitable retouch- ing and restoration. In the frescos of the Bardi Chapel, Giotto tells agaiiLthe story of St. Francis. No. 72 shows him before the Sultan, challenging the infidel priests to the trial by fire which he himself is ready to pass through. Giotto. 103 Are there mistakes of perspective in the throne? Has Giotto improved in this respect since his earlier work in the Arena Chapel? Is the same true of the draperies? Cf. 58. Is the figure of the Sultan dignified, worthy of his station? What are his moral qualities? Does Giotto show any reUgious intolerance or bigotry in his pictures? Cf. 64. Is he indifferent religiously? What is expressed by the action of St. Francis? by that pf the priests? Is the story well told? What artistic elements in the picture? No. 73— Death of St. Francis. Where is this scene supposed to take place ? Explain the surroundings. Can they be justified? Who are these tonsured figures? the untonsured kneehng figure? the two figures to the left? What are they doing? What are the end groups holding? What do these add to the composition? Is the groupmg suc- cessfully handled? Where is the center of interest? How is this result secured? What sentiment is here expressed, grief or surprise? Why? Is the sentiment clear and strong? Is it im- > moderate ? Does it differ appropriately for the different participants? Explain the figure and gesture beyond the saint's head. Explain the group above, the atti- tude*of the saint. What is remarkable about these angels? No. 74^-St. Loais of France; St. Qare. In simulated niches upon the altar wall of the Bardi Chapel are figures of St. I^ouis of "France, St. Louis of Toulouse, St. Clare 104 Early Italian Art. and St. Elizabeth. Herr Thode, in a recent monograph on Giotto, places the date of this work as after 1317, since St. Louis of Toulouse was canonized in that year. After having studied these pictures and formed an independent judgment of their worth, it will be both interesting and helpful to read the third of Mr. Rus- kin's "Mornings in Florence." No. 75 — ^Ascension of St. John the Evangelist. Peruzzi Chapel, S. Croce, Florence. The frescos of the Peruzzi Chapel illustrate the lives of St. John the Evangelist and St. John the Baptist. Is this a simple ascension or an ascension and resur- rection? Does the main action here represented tell the whole story? Is it possible to really tell a series of consecutive events in a single scene ? Why ? How does Giotto manage to call attention to the less obvious part of the story? Is the attention of the wit- nesses to this remarkable event directed as it would be in actual experience? Should it be so directed? Why? Is the artist ever justified in deviating from nature? Why? Enumerate as completely as possible Giotto's devices for giving dramatic intensity to this scene. What elements of beauty do you find? No. 76— Fejwt of Herod. Peruzzi Chapel, S. Croce, Florence. A figure very similar to this of the violin player is found in one of the most beautiful, but unfortunately one of the most Giotto. 105 damaged frescos of the Aiena Chapel — the Return of the Virgin to her Home. How much of the story has the artist told ? Are there other cases in which Giotto has combined two scenes in one picture? (Recall this fact in your later study.) Is it here a confusing element? Who are the two girls standing behind Salome? What is the meaning of their attitude? Where is their attention directed? What is the gesture of the man at the left? Is it natural? is it suggestive? What ex- cellence in the figure of the violin player? No. 77 — Heads of Two Apostles. National Gallery, London. Fragment of a fresco. Though probably not by Giotto's own hand, these faces admirably illustrate the spirit of his work. Are these faces cold? Are they passionate? Are they self-conscious and posing for eflFect? Are they weak and sentimental? Are they affected and insin- cere? Are they awkward and stiff? Characterize them as well as possible as regards their conception; their execution. Find as marked contrasts as possible for them in the above-mentioned particulars. GENERAL QUESTIONS. A. Giotto's Thought. Classify his themes as painter. Which class prepon- derates? His characteristic treatment: which was most prominent, emotion, character, or event, i. e., is he a character or dramatic painter? Cf. Giovanni Pisano, 390, 391. 106 Early Italian Art. His resource as a narrator; note the ways in which he suggests what cannot be fully expressed. What arts can narrate events most easily— sculpture, painting, poetry, drama? Why? Does Giotto lack sentiment? Cf. 59, 60. Is he a correct judge of sentiment, i. e., is the sentiment depicted correctly conceived? Cf. 68. Is he cahn or intense? Sincere or affected? Conscious or uncon- scious? Shallow or profound? What is his most marked characteristic? Is he realistic or idealistic in intention, i. e., does he find men and real things suitable for the expression of his ideas, or does he consciously modify them in the in- terest of his ideas? How did he "burst the bonds of mediaeval tradition" ? How far are Giotto's ideas his own and how far merely the expression of current conceptions? How original was his work? Does his painting show traces of classic influence? Can you see Niccol6 Pisano's influence? How much feeling has he for beauty of face or out- line, and charm of attitude merely as such? What type of beauty appeals to him most? B. Giotto's Technique. What are the most pronounced defects and excel- lences in his drawing? Account for the peculiar posi- tion of the eyes in his side views of the face. How do his faces differ from the Byzantine type? (cf. Mosaics) from Cimabue's? Are his figures animafed, or set and pattern-like? wooden or graceful? Are his draperies naturalistic or fanciful ? Do the most materialistic look Giotto. 107 best in the picture? Does he ever modify the lines of his draperies to indicate the beauty of the form beneath, to suggest grace or motion or dignity? Cf. drapery of Greek sculpture. Do his figures indicate study from the living model, or drawing from memory or imagi- nation? Do Giotto's compositions indicate that he placed figures and their details with reference to making a pleasing arrangement of lines, considered simply as such; or were his lines always meant to state or inter- pret facts? Are his figures so grouped as to fill the spaces agreeably? Does he ever introduce meaningless figures for filling or ornament? Are details introduced merely for decorative effect? How much naturahiess is there in his landscapes? "Wherein do they fail? Does the architecture in his paintings show a scientific knowledge of the laws of perspective? Are his animals lifeUke? How do they compare with the htunan figures? REFERENCES. Adderly Francis, the Little Poor Man of Assisi. Alger The Little Flowers of .Saint Francis of Assisi. Berenson Florentine Painters. 3-23. Blashfield Italian Cities. IL 87-138. Brown Fine Arts. 71-74; 104rl07. Cartwright Painters of Florence. 1-46. aement Christian Symbolism. 26-27: 87-89; 109-114. Crowe and Cavalcaselle... Painting in Italy. I. 185-190; 195-342. v;-j New Ed. I. 165-168; 173-193; II. 1-112. Gardner Florence. 1-70. 108 Eari^y Italian Art. Gordon Assisi. 39-136; 149-185; 228-257. Heaton History of Painting. 28-39. Horner Walks in Florence. I. 62-66. Jameson Lives of Italian Painters. 9-15. Jameson Monastic Orders. 267-309. Jameson Sacred and Legendary Art. Tarves Art Hints. 194-209. kugler Italian Schools. 1. 72-98. Lee (Violet Paget)... Euphorion. L 27-54; 169-177. 11:6-10. Lee (Violet Paget). . . Renaissance Fancies and Studies. 22-29. Lindsay. Sketches of Christian Art. IL 161-265. Masters in Art. .Giotto. August, 1902. Oliphant Makers of Florence. 1-97; 107-127. Oliphant Francis of Assisi. Perkins, F. Mason. .Giotto. Quilter Giotto. Radcliffe History of Painting. 31-46. Rea Tuscan Artists. 108-112. Von Reber Mediaeval Art. 658-666. Ruskin Mornings in Florence. Ruskin Giotto and His Works in Padua. Sabatier Life of St. Francis of Assisi. Stillman Old Italian Masters. 8-18; 28-39. Syinonds The Age of the Despots. Ch. I. Symonds The Fine Arts. 185-197. Vasari Lives, etc. I. 1-14; 49-80. Woltmann and Woermann. .History of Painting. I. 425-430; 435-450. The Giotteschi. 109 THE GIOTTESCHI. Taddeo Gaddi. i300?-I366. Agnolo Gaddi. t333?-(396. Giovanni da Milano, fl. 1366. Giottino (Giotto di Stefano?). I324?-I357? Orcagna (Andrea di Cione). 1308-1368. OUTLINE FOR STUDY. The imitative work of the Giotteschi; repetition of the motives and materials made familiar by Giotto. The Franciscan Church of Santa Croce, a mu- seum of the work of this school : The Baroncelli Chapel, decorated by Taddeo Gaddi, Giotto's favorite pupil. The Rinuccini Chapel, decorated by Gio- vanni da Milano. The Chapel of S. Sylvestro, by Giottino. The Legend of the True Cross, by Agnolo Gaddi, in the Choir. Work in S. Francesco, Assisi, ascribed to the Giotteschi. Orcagna as architect, sculptor, and painter; the Tabernacle of Or San Michele; frescos in the Strozzi Chapel, S. Maria Novella; mosaics of the fagade of the Cathedral, Orvieto. The grace, beauty, and originality of his work. Wall decorations of the Spanish Chapel, S. Maria Novella, Florence. Artistic achievements of the fourteenth century. llO :^ARi,Y Itawan Art. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RBSBARCH. The great building epoch of Florence. The Dominican Order and its chief exponent, Thomas Aquinas. Mediaeval conceptions of Heaven and Hell. Boccaccio and the Decameron. QUESTIONS ON SPECIAI, PICTURES. TADDEO GADDL No. 78 — ^Meeting of Joachim and Anna. No. 79 — -Presentation of the Virgin. No. 80 — Marriage of the Virgin. Baroncelli Chapel, Santa Croce, Florence. This chapel in the right transept of the church was decorated about 1338 by Taddeo Gaddi with scenes from the life of the Virgin. A number of other frescos by him in the same church have been destroyed. How do the backgroimds differ from those in Giotto's pictures? Is the architecture more or less ambitious? Do the pictures gain by these means? Explain the twisted columns. In 78 why does the woman point her thumb at'Anna? Cf. 64. Is the action equally vivid and appropriate? Why does the shepherd look out of the picture? Does this occur in Giotto's work? What is its effect? Compare 79 with the same scene by Giotto, 58. Did Giotto try seriously to represent a temple? Did this artist? What is gained or lost? What would a later artist have done? In which picture is the little Virgin ^BM (^lOTTESCHl. ' 111 more pleasing? Why? Which is the more animated scene? In which is deeper sentiment? Explain the breaking of the rods in 80 ; the bird seated on the branch; the upUfted hand. What is the center of interest? Is it easily distinguished? Why? Are the figures well grouped? How does it compare with Giotto's work in this respect? Are attitudes successful in these pictures? draper- ies? Are figures well proportioned? Is the sentiment deep and genuine ? Are the faces beautiful ? What has the artist learned from Giotto? Has he improved upon his master? GIOVANNI DA MILANO. No. 81 — Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalen. Rinuccitu Chapel, S. Croce, Florence. This chapel, connected with the sacristy of the church, was also decorated with the familiar scenes from the life of Christ and the Virgin. Vasari attributed this work to Taddeo Gaddi, but documents recently discovered, as well as the style of the work, confirm the fact that it was done by Giovanni da Milano. How do the background and setting compare with Giotto's in richness? in naturalness? How much of a gain is this for the artist's purpose? What is the ar- tist's purpose? May he legitimately have more than one ? What ? How important is each ? How do the draperies and other details compare with those previously examined? What of the general ele- gance and finish of the picture? Cf. 61, 65. Are the figures strong and forceful? Compare the Christ, the angel, the woman, with those of Giotto in 112 Eari,y Italian Art. similar scenes. Is there any connection between ele- gance and conventionality ? Why ? GIOTTINO. No. 82 — Q^cifixioiu S. Maria Novella, Florence. Found, together with other frescos, in the crypt beneath the Spanish Chapel. Compare with 67 throughout. From which could you best make out the incidents of the story? What incidents are included in either which the other does not give? Which succeeds best in telling the episode of the centurion? To whom does he speak in Giotto's pic- ture? In this picture? Which is right? Does the difference extend to other figures in the picture? What is the result? Is there any superiority of sentiment or dramatic force in this picture? any similarity? Which picture is the more "stagey"? What defects do you note in drawing, drapery, and attitude? ORCAGNA. No. 83— Paradise. No. 84— Saints: detiil of 83. No. 85— Christ and the Virgiiit detail of 83. Strozzi Chapel, S. Maria No\rella, Florence. This chapel was decorated by Orcagna about 1354. On the altar wall is pictured the Last Judgment, the figures being skil- Thb Giotteschi. 113 'ully arranged above and at the sides of the narrow lancet window. The Paradise fills the wall on the Savior's right, Christ and the Wrgin enthroned, with saints and prophets surrounding them. The left wall is occupied by the scenes of hell, not by Orcagna's land — ^perhaps by his brother Nardo . Why are these figures arranged Uke this? Is it a Efcod arrangement? Are the higher ones meant to be higher or farther away? How do they seem? Is there any naturahiess or spontaneity in this group ? Is it bad on that account? Would it be a better wall decoration if there were depth and perspective in the picture ? Why ? Are the figures as such stiff or tmgraceful? Are the faces beautiful? Are they expressive? How would you interpret their expression? Are the faces more beautiful, more full of sentiment, than can be found in Giotto's work? in that of the other Giotteschi? Is the same true of the forms and atti- tudes? Are they equally real? What is Orcagna's contribution to art? No. 404 — Tabernacle. No. 405 — ^Marriage of the Virgins panel from 404. No. 406 — Ann«nciation of Death of the Virgin: panel from 404. No. 407— Death and Translation of the Virginj panel from 404. Or San Michele, Florence. In 1355 Orcagna was called upon by the brotherhood of Or San Michele to build a costly tabernacle for their wonder-working Madonna, to whom many offerings had been brought during the outbreak of the plague in 1348. The shrine is of white marble, elaborately carved, inlaid with colored and gilded glass in 114 Early Itawan Art. Cpsmatin work. Eight bas reliefs, scenes from the life of the Virgin, are arranged about the base of the shrine. A single large panel, 407, occupies the back. The painting now enclosed in this costly frame is not the original miraculous one, but was perhaps painted by Bernardo Daddi (d. 1348). The tabernacle was completed in 1359. Note carefully where the scixlptural and other decora- tion is placed. How does it compare architecturally with the pulpits by the Pisani? Would it be better with more sculptural decoration? Could relief be success- fully substituted for inlaid work throughout? Why? Can you draw any conclusion as to the requirements of decorative art? Is the shrine too elaborate? Would equal elaboration be desirable in a cathedral fagade? Compare 405 with the same scene by Taddeo Gaddi, 80. Whatdetailsare the same in both? What details are emphasized here? Is this fitting? Which scene is the more simple? Which is more beautiful? Are the draperies good? the forms and faces dignified, refined? Cf. 395, 396, by Andrea Pisano. Interpret the attitude and expression of the Virgin and the angel in 406. Why the extreme simpUdty of the representation? Would more detail or accessory have added to its beauty? Is this a commonplace theme? Is it treated in a commonplace manner? What sentiment pervades this and 405? In what important respects does 407 differ from the other panels ? Why the different treatment in the upper and lower portions? Which is better? In how far is Orcagna indebted to earlier artists? What new elements are fotmd in his work? Tne GioTTESCHi. 115 THE SPANISH CHAPEL. Santa Maria Novella, built in 1272, is the great Dominican church of Florence, as Santa Croce is that of the Franciscans. The chapter house, now known as the Spanish Chapel, opening from the cloister court, was built 1320-1350, and decorated soon after. Vasari attributed the work to Taddeo Gaddi and Simone Martini. The majority of critics incline now to ascribe the work on the four walls to Andrea da Firenze, who in 1377 was busy painting in the Campo Santo of Pisa. The painting of the ceiling was, perhaps, by the hand of Antonio Veneziano, active 1370-1387. While none of the work is of the highest rank, the chapel is most interesting, both for the completeness of its dec- oration and as showing the intellectual and aesthetic taste of the period. Mr. Ruskin's " Mornings in Florence," IV and V, are enthusiastic descriptions of the place. No. {03 — Christ Bearing the Cross, Detail from left-hand side of altar wall. No. 104 — ^Descent of Christ into Limbo.. Detail from right-hand side of altar wall. No. (05 — Triumph of St. Thomas Aqtiinas. No. 106 — Virtues and Sciences: detail of 105. This fresco occupies the left wall of the chapel and is intended to glorify the intellectual element of Christianity. St. Thomas Aquinas, who had been lately canonized,' sits enthroned ; beneath his feet the three arch-heretics; on either side are saints and prophets and above hover the seven Virtues. The long row of female figures on Gothic thrones symbolize the Sciences and Virtues, and at the feet of each sits the historic character famous in that department of knowledge. Thus in 106 we have, tradi- tionally, naming from left to right, Faith and Dionysius, Hope and John of Damascus, Charity and St. Augustine, Arithmetic and Pjrthagoras, Geometry and Euclid, Astronomy and Ptolemy. Some of the figures, notably that of Charity, have been injured by repainting. 116 Early Itai,ian Art. No. 107 — The Oiofch Militant and Triamphant, No. 108— Groap of Portraitsj detail of 107. We have here pictured the activities of the Church. The Cathedral of Florence, at this time not completed, stands as the symbol of the Church on earth; before it are seated the Pope and the Emperor. The " Flock of God " are guarded by the black and white dogs, the Domini Canes, a play on the name and garb of the Dominican Order. St. Dominic preaches to the people and (a little higher on the right) converts those given up to worldly pleasure and points the way to heaven, at whose gate stands St. Peter. Above, Christ in glory is surrounded by the heavenly host. What different principles of wall decoration are shown in these pictures? Compare the divisions of wall space, arrangement of figures, character of background. How do they differ in subject? Do either of them resemble Giotto's work in the Arena Chaj)el? in Assisi? Which makes the more intelligible wall surface? Which is the more beautiful? Which is more interest- ing? Why? Does this mean that it is better artisti- cally? How are the prophets distinguished in 105 ? the Virtues above? What difference of treatment is there in 106 between the allegorical and historic characters? Has the artist tried to bring out individuality in the faces? Has he succeeded ? Are the forms as actual, as well understood, as in the work of Giotto? Are the draperies better? Is there more of grace, of beauty, of significance, of originality, than with Giotto ? Compare with Sienese work. Is there anything to confirm or refute Vasari's attribution? The Giotteschi. 117 Notice the difference in 107 between the figures in- side and out the Gate of Heaven. Why is this? Are there differences of proportion throughout the picture? Is this intentional or the result of carelessness? Are the forms as carefully done as in 105? Compare the representation of Satan in 104 with that in 64? Why the difference? Which is more suggestive of the spirit of evil? GBNERAI< QUESTIONS. As a group, how far were the Giotteschi in accord with Giotto, i. e., how much or how Uttle does their work resemble his? In what way does their work differ from his? Of the followers of Giotto, which is the better artist? Why? Along what lines has an advance been made? 118 Early Italian Art. REFERENCES. Allen Florence. 7-37; 59-72; 177-189. Berenson Florentine Painters. 20-23. Cartwright Painters of Florence. 47-72. Crowe and CavalcaseUe .. Painting in Italy. I. 354-375; 402- 444; 463-475; 488. New Ed. II. 124-145; 181-218; 234-247. Freeman Sculpture of the Italian Renaissance. 45-49. Gardner Florence. 184-198; 228-242; 354-370. Harkness Francis and Dominic and the Mendicant Orders. Horner Walks in Florence. I. 49-59. II. 15-22; 40- 72; 231-235. Jameson Lives of Italian Painters. I. 214-217. II. 15- 75; 206-237. Jameson Monastic Orders. 393-419. Lanzi History of Painting. 65-69. Lee (Violet Paget).. .Renaissance Fancies. 71-85 Lindsay Sketches of Christian Art. II. 266-359.^111. 129-149. Perkins, Charles. .Italian Sculpture. 45-50. Phillimore . . . .Studies in Italian Literature. 1-20. Poynter Classic and Italian Painting. 63-73. Ruskin Mornings in Florence. Stillman Old Italian Masters. 51-55; 62-69. Symonds The Fine Arts. 197-200; 205-210. Symonds Boccaccio. Vasari Lives, etc. I. 114-144. Woltmann and Woermann. .History of Painting. I. 450-463. Xeason 7, SIENESE SCHOOL. EARLY SIENESE PAINTERS. Gfiido da Siena, fl. I28I. Doccio di Bfioninsegna. I260?-I339? OUTLINE FOR STUDY. The beginnings of Sienese Art. Duccio's position between Byzantine tradition and the reform established by Giotto. The ' ' Majestas " of the Siena Cathedral ; Duccio's Madonna type. The scenes from the life of Christ as contrasted with Giotto's work. Duccio's possible claim to the Rucellai Madonna : the arguments for and against (Cartwright, Douglas). TOPICS POR FURTHER RESBARCH. Siena, its situation, its life; rivalry between Flor- ence and Siena, past and present. The cult of the Virgin Mary. The technique of panel painting. GUIDO DA SIENA. No. 86 — ^Madonna and Child. Palazzo Pubblico, Siena. Formerly in Si Domenico, Siena. Much controversy has arisen over the date of the inscription, whether the picture was 120 Eari^y Italian Art. painted in 1221 or 1281. The weight of authority seems to place it at the later date. It has been much repainted, with the exception of the six angels in the corners. What is the attitude of the Mother toward the Child? toward spectators? What peculiarities in the hands? in the body and limbs of the Child? Study the dra- peries and notice the evidences of repainting. Why are the angels so placed? Are the wings skil- ftdly handled? How do they compare with those by Cimabue? Cf. 49, 50. Are there here reminders of the Byzantine style? DUCCIO. No. 87 — Madonna Enthroned with Saints and Angels. Cathedral Museum, Siena. This is the great altarpiece, which on its completion, June 9 , 1311, was carried in procession to the Duomo amid great public rejoicing. The account is more than a legend, being con- firmed by contemporary chronicles. It is known often as the Majestas. On the back of the great panel were thirty-four little pictures, f cenes from the' life of Christ, of which 88 and 89 are examples. It was originally in an elaborate Gothic frame and adorned the high altar in the Cathedral. It is interesting to remember that Giotto had completed his work in the Arena Chapel shortly before this altarpiece was begun. Compare with the Rucellai Madoima, 50. What re- semblances are noteworthy? i What improvement in modeling, in drapery," in sentiment? fls^the^Cluld bet- ter drawn.'more natural and lifelike? ? 'Whichfis more -r. n conventional, the Mother or the Child? SiBNBSS SCHOOI,. 121 Are the groups of saints and angels well arranged? Was there any difl5culty in such arrangement? What pecuUarity in the features, shape of head? Are the faces beautiful ? In what way ? How do they compare with Giotto's faces? Are they full of meaning? Have they life and vigor? No. 88 — Christ in Gethsemane. No. 89 — Entrance into Jerusalem. Cathedral Museum, Siena. Sections from the back of the great altarpiece. No . 87. Compare 89 with the same scene by Giotto, 65. In which are there more details? Are they skilfully intro- duced? What is the effect upon the picture? How many disciples accompany Christ in each? What difference in the way they are shown? Are the scenes equally vivid? Is Christ equally the center of interest in the two? Are the animals equally good? Is the Christ type the same as in 88? What other resemblance? Which shows greater technical skill, 88 or 89? In which is there greater feeling of reaUty? Why is Jesus represented twice in 88? Is this legiti- mate? Can you recall other instances? Is the result- ing incongruity managed skilfully or not? Could the repetition have been made less glaring? Are the figures well posed and grouped? Are the faces expressive? What of the landscape? 122 Early Itauan Art. Is the artist more at home in this kind:bfwork,'88, 89, or in that of 87, the other side of the altarpiece ? Is he more akin to Cimabue or Giotto? Which art was the old and which the new at that time? No. 90 — Anconat Maclonna and Child with Saints. Academy, Siena. A late work of the artist. In what respects do this Madonna and Child resemble 50, 87? Can you detect points of superiority in this picture? In the others? Does the Madonna seem more or less alive than the saints? In what respect does the general scheme of Cimabue's pictures differ from this? Which seems to have been the more original? In the Ught of this picture can you define "conven- tionalized art"? Have you detected more than one kind of conventional art? Formulate as well as you can and keep the question before you as you study further. SIENA'S FRESCANTI. Pietro Lorenzetti, fl. I305-I348. Ambrogio Lorenzetti, fl. 1323-1348. OUTUNB FOR STUDY. Frescos by Pietro in the Church of S. Francesco, Assisi, their undue emotion and attempts at SieNBSE School. 123 realism. Contrast afforded by the Madonna with Saints. Easel pictures by the Lorenzetti. Frescos by Ambrogio in the Palazzo Pubblico, Siena. The place of Allegory in Art. The Campo Santo of Pisa and its decorations. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. The Palazzo Pubblico of Siena. Government of Italian towns in the fourteenth century. QUESTIONS ON SPECIAL PICTURES. PIETRO LORENZETTI. No. 93 — ^Macionna and Child with SS. John and Francis. Lower Church, S. Francesco, Assisi. " At Assisi, in a fresco by Fietro of such relief and such enamel as to seem contrived of ivory and gold rather than painted, the Madonna holds back heartbroken tears as she looks fixedly at her Child, who, Babe though He is, addresses her earnestly; but she remains unconsoled. " — Berenson. How does this differ from Madonnas by Duccio? Is there here any dependence upon gorgeous robes? Does it suffer on that account? Is it less impressive than a Madonna entUioned? What beaut y is there in the faces ? Are they natural ? How do they compare with Giotto's faces? 124 Early Italian Art. AMBROGIO LORENZETTL No. 94 — Good GoveMunent. No. 95— Pcacej detaU of 94. No. 96 — ^Magnanimity, Temperance, Jtisticet detail of 94. Palazzo Pubblico, Siena. The Sala della Pace was decorated in 1337-1343 by Ambrogio with frescos representing Good and Bad Government and their eflfects upon the community. In 94 we see the Commune of Siena majestically enthroned, with Virtues on either side, while below are captives and men bearing tribute. At the left sits Justice directed by Wisdom, from whose scales lean angels to administer rewards and punishments. Below sits Concord. Identify as far as possible the various figures. Do they suggest strikingly the qualities they represent? Did they ever do so? What in the pictures seems to indicate that they were weak in this respect to the mind of the artist? If these figures were not easily identified, was there any advantage in representing abstractions in this way?. Has any artist succeeded in making this representation of abstractions impressive^ and dear? Was it a good direction for painting to take? Can you give any principle governing the choice of themes in painting? Is the figure of Peace well drawn and modeled? Is the drapery good? What of attractiveness is there in the faces and figures in 96? Why are female figures generally chosen to represent abstract qualities? SiENEse School. 125 How successful is this work as a wall decoration ? In what does its interest and value consist? Nos. 98, 99— The Tricmph of Death. No. lOI — Groap of Womenj detail of 98. No. 102 — ^Horsemen: detail of 99. Campo Santo, Pisa. The Campo Santo of Pisa with its contents forms one of the most interesting museums of early art to be found in all Italy The building itself was designed by Giovanni Pisano. Beneath the arcade stand many interesting sculptures both of classic and Christian times, while the walls are adorned with frescos of various periods. Among the earliest of these is the Triumph of Death, thoroughly characteristic of the fancies and beliefs of the fourteenth century. The artist is unknown. Sienese influence is, however, evident, both in the spirit and in the execution. What kind of a party is that in the left foreground, 102? What do they meet? What is the attitude of each? What is the nioral? What are the group to the right doing? What is the figure with the scj^he? What is the origin of this figure? What is the nioral? What are the beggars doing in the left center? Why does the scythe-bearer ignore them? What are the miniature figures being taken from the mouths of the corpses? Is this idea original with the painter? Why have the pious hermits above a place in the picture? What is the moral of the upper part of the picture? What indication is there that the artist thought his 126 ^ARLY Italian Art. picture not wholly intelligible? Is it an intellectual unity? Is it a pictorial unity? Is it serious and ear- nest, or intended to provoke mirth? To what pictures already studied is it most nearly related? Is it a good line for painting? Why did it obtain vogue? Why did it disappear? How much technical ability has the artist shown? Are the animals well drawn? Are the forms well modeled, attitudes well expressed? Are the fljang figures skilfully suggested? What touches of realism are there?' What beauty has the picture? What appro- priateness? No. too — ^The Infernos detail, Last Judgment. Campo Santo, Pisa. Artist unknown, probably by the same hand as the Triumph of Death. Mr. Berenson ascribes these paintings to a follower of the Lorenzetti. Identify the principal figures and kinds of torment as far as possible. Is there any sense in which this picture can be called beautiful? Has it any value as art? Was this arrange- ment pictorial, or was it suggested by literary descrip- tion? Wotdd a painter, if not trying to illustrate a lit- erary work, be apt to choose this arrangement of his subject? Is the picture to be regarded as allegorical? Did the artist regard it as fanciful? the contemporary spectator? Has this picture the same interest and value as the Triumph of Death? Sl4Niesfi SCBtOOtv. 12? THE DECORATIVE VAI^UE OP SIENESE ART. Simone Martini. l283-(344. Lippo Memmit dt 1356. Giacomo di Mino del Pellicciaios fi. (362-1389. Sano di Pietro. I406-I48I. Matteo di Giovanni. I435?-I495. OUTLINE FOR STUDY. Traits of the Sienese School as established by Simone Martini; color scheme. His work in the Palazzo Pubblico, Siena ; frescos in S. Francesco, Assisi. Altarpieces and panel paintings. His life and work at Avignon; friendship with Petrarch. His collaboration with his brother-in-law, Lippo Memmi; Lippo's independent work. The decorative quality of Simone's work; his influence upon later Sienese artists. Sano di Petro, his grace and beauty; his adher- ence to old traditions. ^ The prolific brush of Matteo di Giovanni; his representations of the Massacre of the Inno- cents. The decline of Sienese art. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. The Papal residence at Avignon. Petrarch and Laura. 128 Eari,y Italian Art. SIMONE MARTINI. No. 9J — The Annanciation witli Saints. UiBzi, Florence. Tempera, with gold background. Originally in the Cathedral, Siena, over the altar of S. Ansano, for which it was painted. Simone was assisted in this work by Lippo Memmi, who prob- ably painted the two saints. What connection have the two saints with the story? the medallions above? In what sense is the work a unity? Do you find the blank background satisfactory? How do angel and Virgin compare in naturalness and grace with Orcagna's panel, 406 ? in beauty of feattu-e? in decorative effect? in depth and appropriateness of sentiment? In what sense may this be called a great advance on Giotto? in what sense a serious decline? LIPPO MEMMI. No. 92 — Virgin of Mercy. Chapel of S. Corporale, Cathedral, Orvieto. " Lippo, native of the pleasant Siena, painted us," is the quaint inscription on this picture. Why is the figure of the Virgin so large? Have we seen this before? Is there any significance in the ar- rangement of the mantle? How strong an impression of actual, tangible form is there beneath the garments? Does the robe fall in natural folds? Note the brocaded pattern. SiENESB SCHOOI,. 129 W0 Have the angels beautiful faces, beautiful forms? How much of reality is there in the group of suppliants below? Are they so arranged as to give depth to the picture? What is the attitude of the Virgin toward them? Where is her attention directed? What is her character? GIACOMO DEL PELLICCIAIO. No. 97— Madonna del Belverde. Servi di Maria, Siena. This is the only undamaged picture now remaining from the hand of Giacomo, one of the followers of Simone Martini. It is characteristic of one of the marked tendencies of the Sienese school. As Mr. Douglas well says, this picture " gives us the same kind of pleasure as does a rich ecclesiastical vestment, or a well-decked altar with a splendid dossal and lights all lit for festival." SANO DI PIETRO. No. 109 — ^Madonna and Child, with Saints. Academy, Siena. S. Bernardino, on the right, is one of the local saints of Siena. During the early half of the 15th century he preached through- out Italy, ca,ttyiag with him always a tablet with the monogram of Christ surrounded by flames, which he urged the people to paint or carve upon their homes and churches in adoratipn of the Holy Name. Has this the Same kind of beauty as 97? Has it any deeper beauty? What is the character of the Christ- child ? What unusual feature is noticeable ? 130 Early Italian Art. How much of bodily form and substance have the figures and faces? Does this make them more or less attractive? How do they compare with other Sienese work in this respect? with Florentine art? Cf. Giotto, Orcagna, Spanish Chapel (No. 106). MATTEO DI GIOVANNI. No. tlO — Madonna and Child, wKh Angels. Academy, Siena. Has the eye the same character in all these faces? What effect has it upon the expression? Is this pecu- Uar to Matteo? Are the angels' faces idea:l or real? Does this picture show more feeling for bodily form than previous ones? more regard for decorative effect? What is the senti- ment of the picture? Is it genuine? Is it deep? Is this a religious picture? Why? GENERAL QUESTIONS. What is the difference between the Florentine and Sienese schools? Which was most interested in pro- ducing a beautiful thing? Which most interested in how to do the thing? What is the artistic temperament — the love of pro- ducing somethingbeautiful.or of doing a thing skilfully? Did one school stand in advance of the other in tech- nical knowledge, i. e., drawing of figures and draperies, linear perspective, distribution of light and shade? Which was the more devout? How do you judge? SmNESE School. 131 Was Orcagna more closely allied to the Sienese or Florentines? Why? Did he contribute anytidag new to art? Did the Sienese painters? What qualities render Duccio's work interesting and an advance beyond the Byzantine? Why not as inter- esting as Giotto's? Was the Sienese school pervaded or controlled by one idea more distinctly than the Florentine? Explain. Which school is superior? Did one contain the principal of growth rather than the other? Why? REFERENCES. Baedeker Central Italy: Siena. Berenson Central Italian Painters. 18-52. Blashfield Italian Cities. I. 47-109. Crowe and Cavalcaselle .. Painting in Italy. I. 177-185; 445- 452. II. 34-52; 60-81; 90-99; 117-145 New Ed. I. 156-165. II. 219-226. Douglas History of Siena. 328-392; 481-485. Gardner The Story of Siena. Gordon Assisi. 198-229. Heaton History of Painting. 46-49. Heywood Guide to Siena. 19-93; 97-99; 175-198; 202- 212. Jameson Legends of the Madonna. Jarves Art Studies. 116-118; 18S-210; 216-218. Kugler Italian Schools. I. 109-117; 189-206. Lanzi History of Italian Painting. I. 277-282. Lindsay Sketches of Christian Art. IL 132-173. Fhillimore Studies in Italian Literature. 20-60. Poynter Classic and Italian Painting. 54-58; 61-63; 73-77. Von Reber Mediaeval Art. 668-671 ; 673-675 . 132 EarIvY Italian Art. StiUman . ..Old Italian Masters. 12-27; 40-46; 56-62. Also Century Magazine, v. 15, 1888, Dec; 1889; Jan., Feb. (Duccio;Simone Martini; A. Lorenzetti). Symonds Age of the Despots. 33-39; 54-57; 66-68; 207- 209. Symonds Fine Arts. 197-204; 216-218. Symonds Revival of Learning. 69-98. Symonds Sketches. . III. 41-48 (Siena). Vasari Lives, etc. I. 94-114; 145-150. Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting. 1.430-432. 463-478. Xesson 8, TRANSITION PAINTERS. UMBRIAN SCHOOL. Ottaviano Nelli, fl. J403-I444. Gentile da Fabriano. J360?-I428? (Gentile di Niccold di Giovanni Massi da Fabriano.) OUTLINB FOR STUDY. Rise of the Umbrian School ; its connection with the Sienese ; distinguishing traits. Affinity between Gentile and Fra Angelico. Gentile's influence on Venetian Painting. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. Umbria : its situation and importance in Italy. Some^of Gentile's Venetian friends. The Pageant in Art. (Brown, Fine Arts.) QUESTIONS ON SPECIAL PICTURES. OTTAVIANO NELLI. No. I J I — ^Madonna and Child, with Saints and Angels. S. Maria Nuova, Gubbio. This well-preserved wall painting by Nelli is dated 1403. It is often known as Madonna del Belvedere. What is the purpose of this painting? What is the aged man to the right doing? Why does he carry a 134 Early Itai^ian Art. crutch? Explain the two small figures in the lower left-hand comer? Is the picture solemn or joyous? restful or disturbing? Is it painted with knowledge of nature? Why are the portraits so inferior in drawing to the other figures? Does the treatment of the subject seem original? Why? How does the painting show Sienese influence? Why may Ottaviano be considered a Transition painter? Why do you excuse the very obvious faults of the picture? GENTILE DA FABRIANO. No. 1 12 — Adoration of the Magi. Academy, Florence. Painted in 1423 for the Church of Santa TrinitS. in Florence. Gold is used lavishly in the halos, ornaments, and trappings of the horses. What is the nominal center of interest? the real cen- ter? Is it a fault when the two do not coincide? In what sense? Why are the dogs here? the apes? the gaily capari- soned horses? What is the kneeling youth doing in the center foreground? What kind of a company is this? What has the painter really at heart? What is the result in the earnestness and vigor of his religious theme? Are there any compensations for this? I^What is the quality of the workmanship? the ar- rangement of the figures? the execution of details? the backgrotmd? the perspective? Does this make a fine picture? In what sense? Does it make the highest art? Why? Transition Painters. 135 No. JJ3 — ^Madonna and Child. Museum, Pisa. Does the Madonna tip her head as in 49, 50? What is the difference? Is the attitude pleasing here? In the other cases ? Is the Madonna beautiful ? the Child ? Is the Child natural? Is it true to church tradition? Could it be both? Why? What of the background? the Child's blanket? In what sense was the painter a great artist? (Recall Introduction.) No. 114 — Madonna and Child. Yale School of Fine Arts, New Haven, U. S. A. What change has taken place in the representation of the Christ-child? Why is this? What is the effect upon the picture? Has the Madonna an ideal face for the Mother of Christ? What is the sentiment of the picture? Is it possible to make so simple a group unportant and significant? What is the fruit in the background? Why is it there? Meaning of the ornamental design on Madon- na's aureole and the border of her garment ? Are richly chased aureoles in accord with the time and the school? Have you seen them before in this course? How has the artist represented texture, i. e., the smoothness or roughness, lightness or weight of the different materials represented? Of what are you conscious when you look at the garment, the metal, the hair, the fruit? Do these things add to or detract from the interest of the picture? 136 Eari^y Italian Art. FLORENTINE SCHOOL. Fra AngeKco (Giovanni da Fiesole). I387-I455. OUTLINE FOR STUDY. The bearing of Fra Angelico's life and work upon his art. Early training in painting and its effect upon his technique. His paintings before he entered San Marco; work at Cortona. Works in San Marco ; the Crucifixion ; frescos in I the corridors and cells. The many easel pictures from Fra AngeUco's brush. Influences that modified his manner later in life. Frescos in Orvieto ; in the Nicholas Chapel of the Vatican. The secret of his popularity; his permanent claim to esteem; his place in art development. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. Fiesole, the hill-town. The Convent of San Marco and its patrons. Monastic life, ideal and real. Illuminated Manuscripts. QUESTIONS ON SPECIAL PICTURES. No. J 15 — ^Hadonna of the Linaifioli. Uffizi, Florence. Painted in 1433 for the guild of linen merchants, whence its name. The tabernacle may be closed with shutters, on either side of which are painted life-size figures of saints. Transition Painters. 137 Is the Madonna remarkable in face, in figure, or atti- tude? What sentiment is expressed? Is the Madonna natural or realistic? With or without seeming inten- tion? Is the Child a true child? Why? What does He hold in His hand? Why? Does the picture seem characterless? Is it conventional? In what sense? Compare with the group of Madonna and Child in 113. With the other Madonnas by Gentile. Have the artists the same purpose in mind? Which seems the more advanced? Compare with Giotto and the Giotteschi. Is the progress of a century evident? With what is the frame decorated? Is this a good idea for a frame? Why? No. J 16 — The Last Judgment. No. IJ7— The Blessed: detail of 116. No. J 18— The Condemned: detail of 116. Academy, Florence. Painted for the Convent of S. Maria degli Angeli in Florence. The work is of miniature finish and exquisiteness. Probably completed before 1429. What place or region is represented by each of the five principal parts of this picture? Who is the central figure above? the surrotmding figures? the group on either side? Why are the graves thus formally repre- sented? Does the extreme right seem to be in' the same style as the rest? Why? What other work does it most resemble? 138 Early Italian Art. Is the set and fonnal style of the picture an excellence or a defect? Examine the details with a lens (117, 118). Notice especially the faces in the central circle and those to the extreme left. Are these figures realistic and human? Do they show traces of passion, pain, weariness, of hu- man experience in short? Is this correct for angels? for saints and men made perfect through suffering? Is this accidental or intentional ? If the latter, why? No. ( 19 — ^Dominican Monks Meeting Qirist. Cloister, San Marco, Florence. . This lunette is over the door opening from the cloister court into the room set apart for the entertainment of strangers. Which of these faces is painted with the greater care and success? Why? What does it argue as to the painter's personal feeling toward his order? toward Christianity? Do you know of any other Christ-head similar to this? Is it weak? Is it sad? Is it fanatical? Is it assertive? Is the picture self-conscious? Is it conventional, i. e., does it reproduce a set tjrpe? Is it sincere and S5anpathetic? Is it deeply or feebly emo- tional? Is it sane and wholesome, or morbid? Can you define from it the painter's ideal? In what circles, if any, did that ideal obtain vogue? No. 120 — Annunciation. Upper Corridor, San Marco, Florence. ,Fra Angelico's work in San Marco began in 1436 and was finished before 1446. This fresco at the head of the stairs, as one enters the upper corridor, bears a Latin inscription inviting all who pass to say an Ave Maria. Traksition Painters. 1E9 • How does the Madonna compare with that of previous painters in beauty? in delicacy? in appropriateness and subtlety of emotion? Why is she represented as blonde? Do you see any traces of the Byzantine type of features retained by Duccio and Cimabue? Compare the angel with others as regards character and sentiment, attitude, decorative effect. Do the draperies seem natural? What previous work may be compared with this as regards landscape adjuncts? How does the garden compare with Giotto's nature studies? What fundamental difference is there in their treatment of architecture? Cf. 59 and 91. With which one has this most in common? What points of superiority in each? In what does the charm of this picture consist? No. 121 — Clirist Appearing to Mary Magdalen. Cell, San Marco, Florence. Most of the convent cells were adorned with frescos by Fra Angelico and his assistants. Many of them consist only of the Crucifix, but in the series from the Passion are a number of ex- quisite beauty. Which is the better of these two faces? Is this the case with most representations of this and similar scenes? Why? What criticism would you make on the rocks? the sward? the drawing and attitude? Is the spirit of this picture different from the others? How would you characterize it? 140 Early Italian Art. * No. J22 — The Crucifixion. No. J23— Saints: detail of 122. Chapter House, San Marco, Florence. Probably painted after 1441. The Church Fathers, founders of religious orders, and favorite Florentine saints are introduced (in 122, SS. Domenic, ZenobiuS^ Jerome, Ambrose, and Fran- cis). Below are medallion portraits of famous Dominicans. How does this differ from customary representations of the Crucifixion ? Is it more or less impressive on that account? Is there an attempt to represait the suffer- ings of the Crucified? Which is the repentant thief? How do you judge ? Are the expressions accurate ? Are the interest and emotion of the lower figures concentrated upon the scene before them? Is their emotion intense, sincere, overdrawn? Is there indivi- duality in the faces? Is there beauty? How are the draperies painted? How much of form and solidity have the figures? Cf. other pictures. What advance ia this work? What sentiment pervades this picture ? To what is it due? No. 124 — St. George: detail. . Academy, Florence. Decorative figure from the frame of the Descent from the Cross, painted about 1440 for the church of Santa Trinity. Chosen to illustrate Fra Angelico's angelic type of face and his strong feeling for decorative effect. No. 125 — Group of Prophets. Chapel of S. Brizio, Cathedral, Orvieto. Fra Angelico's work in Orvieto, begun during a brief vacation in his sojourn in Rome, was never completed and consists only Transition Painters. 141 of a Christ in Judgment and the Group of Prophets in two of the compartments of the vaulted ceiling of the chapel. After the Frate's death the work was untouched for many years till completed by Signorelli in 1499-1504. Is any particular skill manifested in the arrangement of these figures? Would a free and spontaneous arrange- ment have been suitable ? Does the subject present any difficulties in the way of such grouping? the location? Is the prophet-character well represented? In what does it fall short? Is the picture more or less decorative in detail than others by the same painter? Should it be so? What would determine the question? No. 126 — 0>ndemnation of St. Lawrence. No. 127 — St. Stephen Preaching; Dispute with the Doctors. Chapel of Nicholas V, Vatican, Rome. In 1447 Fra Angelico, called to Rome by the Pope, began the decoration of the chapel of S. Lorenzo, used as a private oratory or studio by Pope Nicholas V. In the lower tier are pictured scenes from the life of St. Law- rence, and above those from the life of St. Stephen. In 126 does the painter correctly interpret the spirit of a Roman tribunal as regards judge, hostile witnesses, friends of the accused, soldiers, spectators, etc. ? Was the scene suited to his temperament? In what respects? Has the painter gained anything in freedom of ar- rangement and naturalness of attitude ? Is the work in any respect more realistic? If so, is it better for that? 142 Eari^y Itauan Art. Is 127 more realistic than other pictures by Fra Angelico ? Why ? Does it show any technical advance in perspective, drawing, grouping, pose of figures, etc.? Is the inner spirit changed? Is the painter more of a painter than before? More of an artist? What is the difference? GENERAL QUESTIONS. What qualities relate the Sienese painters to Gentile da Fabriano and Ottaviano Nelli? What new note is struck in Gentile's Adoration of the Magi? How far was Sienese painting studied from nature, and how suc- cessful was it in imitation? Is Gentile's work the logi- cal conclusion of Sienese ideas? What resemblances between Gentile and Fra An- gelico? Why is the latter classed in the Florentine school? In what ways does he resemble the Sienese artists? Are the artistic qualities of his presentation equal to the devoutness of his sentiment? Of what is the change of style in his later work significant? What was lost? what gained? How is the growth of the Renaissance movement shown in Gentile and Fra Angelico? What do you un- derstand by the scientific spirit in art? Is it consistent with the highest artistic production? Why? Is the dis- tinction between the Florentine and Sienese schools clear? Transition Painters. 143 REFERENCES. Berenson Central Italian Painters. 84-85. Berenson Florentine Painters. 23-26; 99-102. Berenson Lorenzo Lotto. 76-81. Brown Fine Arts. 74-78. Cartwright ..... Painters of Florence. 100-107. Crowe and Cavalcaselle.. Painting in Italy. 11. 182-183. III. 87-106. Douglas Fra Angelico. Heaton History of Painting. 55-57. Horner Walks in Florence. I. 152-169. Jameson Lives of Italian Painters. 72-77. Jarves Art Studies. 298-302. Kugler .......ItaUan Schools. L 121-132; 209-212. Lee (Violet Paget).. Euphorion. I. 195. II. 10-13. Lee (Violet Paget) .. Renaissance Fancies and Studies. 89-92; 104-106. Lindsay Sketches of Christian Art. II. 122-125; 222-251. Middleton Illuminated Manuscripts. Oliphant Makers of Florence. 198-228. Phillimore Fra Angelico. Quaile Illuminated Manuscripts. Quaritch Fac-similes from Manuscripts. Von Reber Mediaeval Art. 672: 675. Stillman Old Italian Masters. 70-90. (Also Century Magazine, v. 16, 1889, July; August.) Symonds Fine Arts. 239-241. Vasari Lives, etc. IL 34-49; 94-97. Woltmann and Woermann... History of Painting. II. 281-287; 328-329. 144 Early Itauan Art. EARLY TUSCAN ARTISTS. By Louise M. Pomb. Wliether or not the Byzantine Greeks held the monopoly of artistic production through the mediaaval period, their influence was dominant and governed the character of art in its plastic and pictorial forms. But it is certain that that phase of art had run its course by the middle of the thirteenth century in Italy, and that a reactionary movement had been gathering force for some decades. In sculpture this movement was energetically launched by Niccol6 Pisano ; in painting by Giotto. ! Gothic art, which had developed in France and Ger- many, although in a certain sense indigenous, was the outcome of Byzantine hieratic art and did not contain within itself the elements of reform. It stood both for observation of nature and for idealism of foi-m, but was as yet in an incomplete stage. Hence in statuary, awk- wardness resulting from ignorance of anatomical con- struction was curiously combined with the sentimental grace of long, curving lines in draperies that clothed limbs draiwn from imagination ; the mediaeval religious temper was reflected in the intense attitudes and spir- itual expression of the statues. Gothic art existed in north Italy during the early thirteenth century only in its ruder, less expressive form. At this point started Niccolo's reform move- ment which derived its impulse from the contem- plation of Roman classic art, itself naturalistic both in form and spirit as opposed to hieratic, but subject to EARtY Tuscan Artists. 145 such limitations and conventions as were imposed by centuries of artistic discipline. This movement, although destined later, in the vigorous art of Dona- tello, to sweep all before it, spent its initial force within the lifetime of Niccold. The revival of Gothic influence may be traced in Niccol6's own late works, while it combined with the classic in something like equal pro- portions in the work of his son, Giovanni, and was para- mount in the refined, swa3nbg figures of Andrea da Pontedera's lovely art. Nevertheless, the develop- ment of Gothic art had received a check that was final. Giotto was allied in force of character to Niccold and was as great an innovator. His reform, not based on classic art, but on study of the world around him, con- sisted in the naturalistic presentation of religious themes. The gulf between Giotto and his immediate predecessor, Cimabue, was enormous and was not bridged over by any intermediate performance. Cimabue, to all intents and purposes, belonged to a school of Greek Byzantines. Possibly he was a man of greater talent than his predecessors and contempo- raries, since in the works attributed to him there is a little more grace, less of hieratic dependence upon fixed rules for attitude and expression, and there is some suggestion of freedom of composition in his frescos in San Francesco of Assisi. His angels at least begin to be alive. The Madonna of Santa Trinita is Byzantine, and beautifully so. Certain elements of beauty in that picture are sacrificed in the Rucellai Madonna in whom is less exquisiteness of sentiment, attitude, and drapery but a nearer approach to the actual or ordinary ; on 146 EarivY Italian Art. the whole, however, it is a greater work because it is representative of the new idea in art, less restrained and pattern like, although less beautiful. It points the way to absolute freedom ; thus it breaks, first and finally, mediaeval bonds in painting. After youth's first force is spent in the battle against useless and worn-out conventions there comes a time when one ceases to wage warfare for mere activity's sake, old likes, customs, and ideas gradually reassert themselves, and the man, from being a radi- cal, becomes a conservative ; so in the artist's career, when, weary of contention against established forms and methods, his innovating fervor relaxes and we find him yielding certain points. Thus Niccol6 did ; and Cimabue, after his start toward naturalism, did not pursue the course to its logical finish, but rested at a point midway. One fresco, defaced and sadly injured, intimates, however, that he had made a considerable advance beyond the old standard; the group of the Madonna, Child and a few angels is balanced, with intelligent understanding of the requirements of symmetrical composition, by the single figure of St. Francis. The figures are all drawn practically to one scale — scarcely a trace of the pious artificiality of an oversized divinity with undersized worshipers ; the entire scene is natural, easy, probable, and the incident is stated in the most direct way. In this fresco Cimabue is the forerunner of Giotto. Giotto was absolutely a naturalist. He is a narrator, who gives some idea of what went before and what will follow the particular moment depicted — ^not by indud- , Early Tuscan Artists. 147 ing more than the action of one moment in his picture, but through suggestive attitudes and expression. His work has a local flavor informing us how certain things were done in his time and what people wore and the style of their buildings : in his opinion this was a far more reasonable way to render sacred circumstance than to try to depict an environment that he had never seen. The religious and civic subjects to which he was restricted by the public demand he treats as the primeval man might have done, taking for his models the people around him and the commonplace events of his daily life. His Madonna is not a fine lady, queen of heaven, but a sane, simple, pure-hearted woman of his own class, devout and motherly, exem- plar of all wholesome, homely virtues. His angels are of a like sort, beautifully blending human possibilities with churchly ideality — that is, when resting upon the earth ; if floating in the air their impossible forms testify to a helpless adherence to traditional representation — the only instance of it in Giotto's painting. To understand that Giotto's art is a great advance, reflect what the loss would be had his backgrounds not been landscape or correctly conceived architecture — had he not introduced animals or represented motion. He was doing habitually along these lines what had been done scarcely at all before him. Besides these valuable contributions to method, which were eagerly adopted by later artists and incor- porated into artistic tradition, Giotto developed qualities which were his alone. Certain of his achieve- ments were not repeated. No other artist of his 148 Early Italian Art. century approaches him in simple dramatic power; unequal to strong or subtle facial expression he tells his story by means of pose and gesture. He possessed the rare art of making the story real : in the Entry of Christ into Jerusalem, that theme so familiar to Christian thought, a conventional portrayal of people carrying palms and a road strewn with garments, would have been dull and uninteresting, would have lacked the vivifying touch of realism ; that he supplies by picturing youths climbing the palm tnmks to break off the leaves, and by the manner in which some divest themselves of a portion of their wearing apparel — possibly not altogether dignified, but intensely aUve. Again, in the Ascension of St. John, how was the preceding incident suggested? The open sepulchre would probably have remained unnoticed had not attention been called to it by the eloquent attitudes of the figures around it. In the Raising of Lazarus, a superb piece of realism occurs in the way two young men in the foregrotmd handle the cover of the sepulchre. All this may seem easy ; so it is after Giotto. But it has never been done quite so naively and success- fully by any other painter. Giotto introduced no useless figures, never a meaningless attitude, never a detail in the interest of irrelevant prettiness ; high purpose and sane judgment lead his work to the highest plane, although his methods are primitive and imperfect. Giotto's principles, like Niccolo's, were not trans- mitted tmaltered by his followers. Lacking the master's force, intelligence, and constructiveness, the work of the Giotteschi tended more or less toward a reversion Early Tuscan Artists. 149 to pre-Giottesque types. Even Taddeo, Giotto's pupil of almost a generation's span, failed to comprehend the spirit of his master's methods, although he made shift at imitating them. Taddeo's was but eye service, and the master's studious observation of natural facts and phenomena found no correspondence in the pupil's thought and work ; for instance, in the Presentation of the Virgin Taddeo adopts Giotto's conception of the scene, but treats it with such variation of its temper and pattern as to produce something at once less true to nature, less beautiful and less interesting. Taddeo's reversion brought him very near to the Sienese school, which represents a sixrvival of the Byzan- tine idea. By Simone Martini and other Sienese, by Ottaviano Nelli, this idea was wrought into exceeding beauty of type, color, and ornament. Something of this delicate prettiness, this precious quality, is seen in Taddeo's paintings. During the period of the Giotteschi, naturalism, like a stream that flows underground during a part of its course, was quite or nearly lost to view, reappearing temporarily in Giovanni da Milano and in the sculpture of Orcagna : but not until Masaccio's advent a century later did the stream flow forth in full volume again. Orcagna, usually classed with the Giotteschi, de- serves a higher rank, so much more powerful an artistic personality was he. He opened out no original path, he led no independent movement, but his influence made for the betterment of art. He was a man of eminent talent — a painter with a delicate perception of beauty, a serious and thoughtful sculptor of relief. 150 Early Italian Art. and still more distinguished for the mechanical per- fection of his work. That piece of goldsmithery in marble and mosaic, the Tabernacle of Or San Michele, is marvelous in its elaborateness and finish, while its reliefs are comparable in dignity and pathos with those of Giovanni Pisano. Yet can it be conceived that Giotto, realist, would have painted such a picture as Orcagna's Paradise? Granted that Giotto never did anything with so much charm ; but was he not an artist of larger caUbre — occupied with more important considerations in art and ethics? Compared with the Giotteschi and contemporary Sienese, Orcagna stood distinctly in advance of his time. Giovanni da Milano formed the transition from the earlier men to Orcagna. Orcagna, in turn, is a link between Giotto and the Sienese ; also between Giotto and Ghiberti. In the angels of his Paradise are beauty and beatific sweetness like unto the sweetness of Sienese saints and cherubs ; in his relief of the tabernacle, Annotmcement of the Virgin's Death, is an elegance akin to Ghiberti, together with the largeness and simplicity found in Giotto. Duccio sustains much the same relation to the Sienese as Cimabue to the Florentines, and is more happy than Cimabue in compositions containing num- erous figures. Why, then, do we say that Cimabue was more distinctly released from Byzantine restric- tions? Perhaps it is the hint of vigorous realism in Cimabue as opposed to the tame grace and gravity of Duccio. In Duccio's work as a whole is evidence of talent oija. highjorder. His one or two wdl-known Madonnas do not exhibit him in as favorable a light as Eari,y Tuscan Artists. 151 his paneled altarpieces in which groups of figures are well arranged and intelligently massed, and strict symmetry is as little regarded as by Giotto. In Simone Martini and the frescanti of the Spanish Chapel the Sienese taste for lovely faces, ornamental accessories, and delicate execution finds full develop- ment, which is carried still farther by those closely allied painters of the Umbrian uplands, Ottaviano Nelli and Gentile da Fabriano. The growth of larger qualities is also displayed in these frescos ; Christ bearing the Cross and Christ in Limbo, of the Spanish Chapel, are excellent in composition and nearly free from the conventions and archaisms that mar contem- poraneous frescos in the Campo Santo of Pisa. The first is the prototype of Tintoretto's famed compoa- tion : the second, less happy because of the faulty rendering of rock structure, is, like Duccio's Entry into Jerusalem, an intelligent arrangement of subordinate figures in a mass, while the one of chief interest is set in prominent relief by his position above and apart from the crowd. Fra Angelico ranks as one of the Florentine school by virtue of his birth and residence in that vicinity. In spirit, design, and execution his earlier work is in direct desceiit from the Sienese. He is characterized as behind his age ; but he is what a Sienese might have been at his time had the practice and sentiment of Simone Martini developed without check or modifica- tion from the other school. Fra Angelico drew far better than Simone, or the imknown, excellent painter of the Spanish Chapel, whose work^ have beeti ascribed 152 Early Italian Art. to Simone. With all his cloistral devoutness and sim- plicity hewas a finished artist, and not only loved celestial beauty and the beauty of lovely tints and rainbows and gold embroidery as ardently as did the Sienese, but he assimilated "readily the discoveries of Paolo Uccello and other devotees of scientific research, also as much of the art of landscape as was imderstood by Florentines of his day. But it is for his single-minded, childlike, fervent piety that we love him, and perhaps we blind ourselves to the evidences of his acquaintance with contemporary culture that really exist even in his earher pictures. For we grieve that in his paintings on the walls of the chapel of Nicolas V. in the Vatican somewhat of the youthful, earnest frate has vanished, while in its stead is a more sophisticated and less moving painter. Fin- ished and beautiful as these frescos are, they betray a loss of spiritual quality. Fra Angelico was the last of the great Tuscan prim- itives. Within his lifetime a second apostle of natur- alism had arisen and passed away — ^that immortal genius, Masaccio, who dominated the artistic thought of his generation, completed the artistic revolution started by Giotto, and secured the lasting victory of naturalism. The influence of hieratic tradition was dead and buried in Tuscany. The Florentine school became scientific, i. e., inter- ested in how to do the thing. The Florentines were investigators and painted to illustrate and prove their scientific theories rather than because they were im- pelled by an irresistible desire to create a beautiful thmg. Eari,y Tuscan ARTists. 153 The Sienese gave attention primarily to beautiful production, although they ultimately absorbed and applied what had been discovered or invented by the Florentines. Which of the two was the more artistic? And what is the artistic temperament — the love of imitating or pro- ducing the beautiful without regard to correct method? or the love of doing a thing in the best and most com- plete way in which it can be done? the love of beauty or the love of skill? SECTION III. Sculpture in the Fifteenth Century, CONTENTS. Speciai, Bibwography, No. 3. Lesson 9. Jacopo deI/IvA Qubrcia. Lesson 10. Ghiberti; BrunElleschi. Lesson 11. Donateli.nd painted with more knowledge of form and the phenomena of nature? Cf. 61, 68, 130, 187. Did scientific studies introduce a diBferent class of subjects? Who led the way to scientific draughtsmanship — ^the sculptors or painters? REFERENCES. Berenson .. .Florentine Painters. 31-61; 113; 134-135; 140. Cartwright..Painters of Florence. 118-143; 167-160; 182-195. Crowe and Cavalcaselle. .Painting in Italy. II. 283-293; 302-313; 354-356; 372-413. Cruttwell . . .Verocchio. Gilbert Landscape in Art. 180-203. Jarves Art Studies. 250-252; 271-272. Kugler Italian Schools. I. 134-139; 151-153; 166-167; 176-179. MorelU ItaUan Masters. I. 253-268; v. II. 180-181; 265-271. Miintz VAged'Or. 662-666. Muntz Les Primitifs. 619-624. Paget ^ Renaissance Fancies and Studies. 81-82. Scott Sir John Hawkwood. Symonds . . .Fine Arts. 224-226; 231-233; 263. Symonds . . .Revival of Learning. 168-178. Vasari Lives, etc. I. 177-192; IL 79-93; 192-206; 237-265. Woltmann and Woermann. .History of Painting. 11. 287- 289; 310-313. Yriarte Florence. 385-387. PERIODICALS. Century Magazine, v. 18. May, 1890. L'Art. March 25, 1883; February 15, 1884. %CB80n 15 WALL DECORATORS BENOZZO GOZZOLI (Benozzo di Lese di Sandro). I420-I497, "A very lovely and noble mind, though one of the second order." OUTLINE FOR STUDY. Benozzo's early training; his association with Fra Angelico in Rome and in the Cathedral at Orvieto; transmission of Fra Angelico's manner through Benozzo. His frescos in the Medici Chapel, Riccardi Palace, Florence. His recognition of the beauty and interest of landscape; fondness for rich architectural effects; his inventiveness. Benozzo's work in Umbrian towns; homeUn'ess of his style in the frescos of St. Augustine, San Gimignano. Extensive wall paintings in the Campo Santo, Pisa; his skill in narrative. Rarity of his panel picttu^es. The measure of Benozzo's talent — his fadUty, imwearied productiveness, and enthusiasm; his limitations; modification of his native realism by Fra Angelico's idealism; his re- lation to Umbrian schools. Wai,i, Decorators. 261 topics for further research. The story of the Riccardi Palace (Ross), Life of St. Augustme. QUESTIONS ON SPECIAL PICTURES. No. (59 — Madonna, Chfid, and Saints. Vanucci Gallery, Perugia. On wood; painted for a religious foundation in Perugia, in 1456, after the Montefalco frescos, while the influence of Fra Angelico was still paramount. This picture in its turn is believed to have exercised a strong influence on Umbrian painting. Compare with work by Fra Angelico, particularly 115, 123, 125. What resemblances are noticeable? Has Benozzo advanced beyond his master in this work? Is he a better student of the human form, of drapery, of character, of sentiment? How are the saints distinguished? Are there any advantages in this form of halo? No. J60 — ^No. J6J — ^Jotjrney of the Magi: details. No. 162 — Group of Angels: detail. Medici Chapel, Riccardi Palace, Florence. Frescos; painted 1459 in commemoration of an important church council, convened in Florence, 1439, when the Patriarch of the Eastern Church and John Paleologus, Emperor of Con- stantinople, met Pope Eugenius IV of the Western Church. The palace now called Riccardi was built by Cpsimo de' Medici. The family chapel is a -small apartment 25 by 20 feet, originally with one door and no windows. Benozzo's rich frescos, still 262 Early Itai^ian Art. in admirable preservation, arenot cut into separate sections (as was customary) but cover the walls in a continuous narrative. The subject, Journey of the Magi to Bethlehem, is conceived as an imposing contemporary pageant winding through a beautiful Tuscan landscape. The walls of the tribune represent the garden of Paradise, filled with angelic choirs kneeling or in joyous flight toward the center, where, over the altar, was a Nativity, the culminating point of the procession. The altar wall is now broken by a window and the altarpiece is gone; there is evidence that it was painted by Fra Lippo Lippi, and some authorities are confident that it was the lovely Madonna in Adoration, now in Berlin (No. 151). In 160 the young Lorenzo de' Medici, crowned with roses, rides in the foreground; back of him are Cosimo and other members of the Medici family. In 161 the central figure is the Greek Emperor, John Faleologus. What diflficulties does an artist meet in treating his wall as a unit instead of cutting it into sections, as in 196? How successfully has Benozzo handled these difficulties? Which is the better principle of wall decoration? Compare with 112. Are the pictures conceived in the same spirit or is one a more religious work? Which is the more able, the more advanced? Is the intro- duction of family portraits legitimate? What effect has it? Is the portrait character foremost or are the faces idealized? Why should the yotmg Lorenzo occupy so prominent a position? Is the nationality of the Greek Emperor suggested? his royal degree? In 160 what suggested the character of the land- scape? Has it appeared in previous pictures? Are the trees possible? Are the animals well drawn? Is Wall Decorators. 263 the hunting scene an appropriate addition? Is Be- nozzo consistent in foreshortening and perspective? Where does he succeed ? Where does he fail ? Why does he retain this form of halo in 162? Is there any reason for suggesting this kind of plumage? Is there any reminder that Fra Angelico was Benozzo's teacher? Was one more modem than the other? How do the angels compare with those by Botticelli? by Fra FiUppo? Is the picture truly devout or was the artist's purpose chiefly to make an ornamental arrangement? One of the chief charms of these frescos is to be found in the color, which is still beautifully fresh and rich. The greens of the landscape predominate, against which the gay costumes and the jeweled trappings of the horses stand out, the details often picked out in gold. No. 163 — ^Building the Tower of Babel. No. (64 — Angels s detail, Life of Abraham. Campo Santo, Pisa. Frescos painted from 1469-1485. The Campo Santo _of Pisa is a celebrated burial ground, about 400' feet by 118, surrounded by a Gothic arcade which is closed in by a solid wall on the outer side. (See note under Nos. 98-102.) During the second half of the 14th century Tuscan painters covered three of these spacious walls (the interior face) with frescos; the work was then interrupted by Pisa's war with Florence. Seventy years later Benozzo resumed the decoration, completing it in sixteen years. His subjects cover Old Testa- ment story from Noah to Solomon; like the frescos in the Ric- cardi Palace, these are treated as contemporaneous scenes and 264 Eari,y iTAiviAN Art. contain numerous portraits of notable persons of the time. (For detailed description of the Campo Santo see Kugler, v. I. 109-117.) In 163 is there any attempt to reproduce the archi- tectural style of the time of the Tower of Babel? If the costumes, etc., were historically correct would this picture be more interesting or better fitted for the exposition of scripture? Why? Interpret the attitudes and expressions; what part do these men take in building the Tower? Is the "Babel" of tongues suggested? How may the por- traits be distinguished from ideal heads? Compare the landscape with 160 (use a reading glass). Is there any improvement? Does it suggest modem treatment of landscape? Would Benozzo have been a great landscape painter had he lived when landscape was an interesting motive for its own sake? Are the figures of 164 standing still or walking? What part do they play in the narrative? Cf. 422. Do they show advance in artistic conception over 162? Are the draperies as expressive as those by Bot- ticeUi? GENBRAl, QUESTIONS. With what artists would Benozzo naturally be compared, i. e., who were his full contemporaries? Had he accomplished as much as they, or more? How does his treatment of landscape compare with theirs? What special qualifications did he possess as wall decorator? Wai,i, Decorators. 265 Taking all in all was Benozzo a great artist? Was he serious or trivial? Are his works cold or heartfelt or commonplace? In what work did he show most originality and ability? REFERENCES. Berenson . . .Florentine Painters. 61-63; 105-106. Brown The Fine Arts. 290-291. Cartwright. .Painters of Florence. 161-176. Crowe and Cavalcaselle. .Painting in Italy. II. 498-516. Gilbert Landscape in Art. 197-198. Heaton History of Painting. 58-59. Jameson .... Sacred and Legendary Art. Janres Art Studies. 302-306. Kugler Italian Schools. I. 163-166. Muntz L'Aged'Or. 619-628. Paget Renaissance Fancies and Studies. I. 106-107. Ross Florentine Palaces. 238-269. Stillman .. .Old Italian Masters. 109-114. Stokes Benozzo Gozzoli. (Newnes Art Library.) Symonds . . .Fine Arts. 241-244. Vasari Lives, etc. II. 105-114. Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting. II. 305-308. PERIODICALS. American Journal of Archaeology. 1893, July-September. Burl ngton Magazine, v. I. (1903, March), pp. 6-20. Century Magazine, v. 17. 1889, November. L'Art. V. 27. 1883. pp. 125-134; 189-192; 201-205. PortfoUo. 1883. pp. 49, 76, 102. 266 EarIvY Italian Art. GHIRLANDAJO (Domenlco di Tommaso Bigotdi). J449- «494. "The Heir of the Ages." OUTIvINB FOR STUDY. Ghirlandajo's apprenticeship; his grasp of the principles of art; attachment to the old medium of tempera. His fresco in the Sistine Chapel, Rome. His work in Florence — frescos in Sta. Trinita; in the Ognissanti; in the Palazzo Vecchio; in the choir of S. M. Novella. Frescos in Sta. Fina, San Gemignano. Other lines of artistic activity. Ghirlandajo's characteristics as draughtsman; as colorist; in composition; the soundness of his artistic judgment; lack of inspiration; monumental size of his works. Prominence of the portrait in Ghirlandajo's art; his lack of subtlety in portraiture. Painters in his family : his brothers ; his brother- in-law. Bastiano Mainardi; his son Ridolfo. TOPICS POR FimTHBR RESEARCH Story of Santa Fina. Pope Sixtus IV. QUESTIONS ON SPECIAL PICTURES. No. 202— Callingr of the Disciples. Sistine Chapel, Vatican, Rome. Fresco : painted 1482 or 1483. For arrangement of frescos in the Sistine Chapel see note under Botticelli. Another painting by Ghirlandajo, near the door, has perished. WaivIv Decorators. 267 Cf. 170. What fundamental differences in the com- position of these pictures? Which is more effective as a wall decoration? Why? In which are the details more beautiful, more carefully worked out? What means has Ghirlandajo used to secure a sense of dis- tance? Who are the two rows of men at the right? Com- pare with Botticelli, 172. In which series is there more variety, more vitality and sense of reality? Are they painted in the same spirit? What are the merits of this fresco? No. J95— Death of St. Francis. Sassetti Chapel, S. Trinity, Florence. Santa Trinity, a church of the Vallombrosan monks, dates from the 12th century, but was rebuilt before the 15th. The Chapel of the Sassetti family, in the right transept, is frescoed with scenes from the life of St. Francis on the side walls, portraits of the donors on the altar wall and sibyls on the ceiling; it affords an example of complete unity of design. These frescos are among Ghirlandajo's finer works in technical qualities as well as in the spirit of their composition. High lights are touched with gold on the darker sides of the chapel. Pamted 1485. Does honest grief possess this group? Are there any indifferent persons? Compare with the same scene by Giotto, 73. In which is St^ Francis most constantly recalled? Which is the most touching, representation? Cf. also 147. Enumerate proofs of Ghirlandajo's skill in drawing and grouping, in attitudes, gestures, arrangement of drapery, in landscape, linear and aerial perspective? Is the picture commonplace? Are there instances of crudity? 268 Eari^y ItaIvIan Art. No. 205— Nativity. Academy, Florence. Tempera on wood: 5 ft. 6i in. by 5 ft. 5 in. : painted, 1486, for the altar of the Sassetti Chapel, where it is now replaced by a copy. The second shepherd, pointing to the Babe, is considered a portrait of Ghirlandajo. What reminders of the enthusiasm for classic re- mains are in this picture? Are they skilfully and harmoniously used? What incidents of the infancy of Jesus are introduced? At what is Joseph looking? Is Ghirlandajo suc- cessful as a painter of animals? Do they participate in the scene? Have the shepherds peasant faces? Are they absorbed in devotion? To what does the second shepherd direct attention? Does that add to the impressiveness of the scene? How does his mental attitude compare with the one at his left? Do the Madonna and Child show a more perfect art than has appeared before? No. (96 — Scenes from Life of John the Baptist. No. 198 — Sacrifice of Zacharias. No. J99— Groap of Heads. Detail of 198. No. 200— Birth of John the Baptist. No. 20 J— Portrait Heads. Detail of 200. No. 197— Presentation of the Virgin. Choir, S. M. Novella, Florence. Santa Maria Novella, the great Dominican Church of Florence, was begmi 1279: the fasade, designed by Alberti, was added WAhh Decorators. 269 1470. In the 14th and 16th centuries neariy all the great painters of Tuscany contributed to its interior decoration. The choir, originally the chapel of the Ricci tamily, had been painted by Orcagna; in 1485, as these frescos had become seriously defaced, the Ricci accepted the offer of Giovanni Tornabuoni to bear the expense of repainting, and the commission was given to Ghirlandajo. The side walls, window wall, and ceiling are covered with a consistent scheme of decoration. On the left wall, scenes from the life of the Virgin; on the right, the life of John the Baptist (seg 196 : in both series the story begins with the lower tier). Above the window a Coronation, and at the sides figures of the donor and his wife. Ghirlandajo employed assistants but reserved the two lower courses of scenes for himself, including 198 and 200; in 197 are traces of an assistant's hand. 198 contains portraits of distinguished Florentines, among whom the Tornabuoni family are naturally prominent. The detail, 201, is believed to represent Giovanna degU Albizzi, the bride of young Lorenzo Tornabuoni, and the subject of one of Botticelli's frescos from the Villa Lemmi (185). Ghirlandajo, facile and prolific frescante, carried farther, perhaps, than any other artist of his period the prevailing ten- dency toward subjects that reflected the magnificence of im- portant social functions. Such themes as the Marriage of the Virgin, Adoration of the Magi, Presentation in the Temple, the obsequies of Holy Personages, and numerous others that will readily occur to the mind, afforded opportunity for illustration of contemporary customs and costumes Study 196. Taken as a whole, is this such an ar- rangement of incidents, distribution of light and^dark, solidity and transparency as constantly interests the mind and refreshes the eye? Compare the Arena Chapel, the Spanish Chapel and the Medici Chapel. Cf. 197, 58, 79. What great advance has Ghirlan- dajo made? Is architecture correctly represented? Are the figures rightly proportioned to it? Is the 270 Early Italian Art. action always appropriate and impressive? Explain the different character of the draperies, e. g., of St. Anne and of the woman at the extreme left. Is the Virgin the center of attention? What is her mental attitude? Does she inspire the same feeling of ten- derness as Giotto's Httle maid? Why is the nude figure introduced? How can the excellent drawing of this man be reconciled with the two small figures in the center of the foreground? Is the general sentiment of the composition impres- sive, stately, inspired? How does it compare with 58 in this respect? in consistency and sincerity? as a wall decoration ? Study 198. Where did this scene take place? Has the artist attempted to represent it historically as to building or spectators? What advantage has this method? Has Ghirlandajo carried it to an extreme? Cf. 414. Are the figures in the proper planes, i. e., at correct relative distances from the spectator? Charac- terize the faces of the group given in 199. Why are they present at this scene? Cf. 176. Which faces have most character, most distinction? Which artist has given the details of the face with most painstaking exactness? Which best conveys the sense of per- sonality, of individuality? In which does good por- traiture consist? Who are the persons represented in 200, 201? How are they connected? Where is the center of interest? Has artistic propriety been exercised in this? Might the picture have been more perfectly harmo- nized? How? Where has the figure on the right been Wali< Decorators. 271 seen before? Why is it introduced? Is the portrait head more carefully characterized than those of 199? Are these scenes carefully and harmoniously com- posed? Have they dignity and stately beauty? Are they agreeably varied? No. 203— Last Supper. Small Refectory, S. Marco, Florence. Fresco: figures life size. Repetition of the larger fresco in he Refectory of the Ognissanti. On what part of the narrative is this picture based? Who is the figure on the near side of the table? How designated? Is the interest of the picture well cen- tered? Is there an attempt at division into sub- ordinate groups? How much individuality in the different faces and attitudes? Is this a successful representation of a moment of deep feeling? Is the architectural space pleasantly filled? Does the addition of such details as birds, vases, the cat, etc., make the scene more vivid and actual? Does it disturb solemnity and impressiveness? No. 204— The Visttation. Louvre, Paris. Tempera on wood: figures life size. Commissioned, 1491, by Lorenzo Tornabuoni for his chajpel in the Church of Cestello (now Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi), Florence. It was begun by Ghirlandajo but finished by Davide and Benedetto, his brothers. Where can evidence of the goldsmith's training be seen? Does the exquisite finish of the picture 272 Early Italian Art. engage the attention to the exclusion of higher con- siderations? Has the painter worked as an artist or an artisan? Cf. 467. Is the central group equal in sentiment and siacerity to the Delia Robbia group? What do the attendant figures add to the scene? Has Ghir- landajo chosen a beautiful Madonna type? Cf. 205. No. 206— Old Man and Child. Louvre, Paris. Wood: figures life size; probably an early work. The man wears the ancient dress of Florentine magistrates. What relation and what sentiment exist between these two? How does the disfigurement of the man's face affect the impression produced by the picture? May it serve as a foil for the delicacy of the child's features? Would one care more for the picture if the disfigurement were absent? Has any earlier picture shown hair treated as intelligently? What effect has the window on the picture? Char- acterize Ghirlandajo's paiating of landscape. Cf. 204. How does he convey the sense of space and distance? Is the space filled with air? How can this be deter- mined? How does it diffei- from the landscape of modem artists? GENERAL QUESTIONS. Are Ghirlandajo's paintings characterized by lofti- ness of character, sincerity, and devoutness, or only by Wall Decorators. 273 taste and propriety? Are they emotional or essen- tially commonplace? Among these pictures are there any in which alteration in any particular could not be desired? Compare Ghirlandajo's attitude toward his work with BotticeUi's. Which had the more ability? the more imagination? Which was the most interested in art for art's sake? Which made it the chief busi- ness of his life and which the secondary? Which evolved the painter's instinct and which the draughts- man's? Which was more stimulating to devotional feeling in the spectator? Are there any quaUties in Ghirlandajo's work as admirable as Botticelli's grace of line? Note the rhythm of Ghirlandajo's composition; how he op- poses vertical with horizontal lines; the pleasing relations that figures and architecture bear to each other; the variety of his designs contrasted with their harmony and quietness, their con- servatism and propriety. Is the idea of the pageant always present in Ghir- landajo's pictures? Is this art in the best sense? Did he understand the essential in landscape better than Masacdo? What is the essential? Define reaUsm in landscape. Can a landscape be both poetic and realistic? How do Ghirlandajo and Benozzo resemble each other? What is the kind and what the measure of their success as compared with Giotto, Fra Angelico, Masaccio, Filippino Lippi? Were they teachers in the truest sense? Could suc- ceeding painters accomplish more and better work 274 Early Italian Art. because these two had shown them the way? Did they continue painters, content and absorbed in painting pure and simple, to the end? Did Botti- celli? Filippino Lippi? REFERENCES. Armstrong lrvo Frbderick Baron Chronicles of the Hotise of Borgia. N. Y., Dutton, 1901. Guttwell, Maud. Ltica Signorelli. Great Masters in Painting and Sculpture. 111. London, Bdl, 1899. $1.75. Dennistoun, Jamss. Dukes of Urbino. 3 v. London, Longmans, 1851. The most complete history in English of the Court of Urbino and its relations to other Italian principalities. Chapters 26-30, vol. II, are devoted to Umbrian artists of the fifteenth century. Destree. JuLES. Notes sur les primitifs Italiens. v. 2. Sur quelques Peintres des Marches et I'Ombrie. 111. Florence, Alinari, 1900. Brief but discriminating biographical and critical chapters, accompanied by lists of paintings. Graham. Jban Carlylb. The Problem of Fiorenzo di Lo- renzo. 111. Rome, Loescher, 1903. This study is a timely addition to the scanty Uterature of the early Um- brian school. Gregorovius, Fbrmnand. Lucretia Borgia. 111. N. Y. Appleton, 1903. The famous historian's researches have resulted in the almost complete vindication of this much maligned lady. Hare, Christopher. The Most Illtistriotis Ladies of the Italian Renaissance. 111. N. Y., Scribner, 1904. 83.00. Hotton, Edward. The Cities of Umbria. 111. London, Methuen, 1905. 11.50. The author takes a thoroughly sympathetic attitude toward Italian art. Illustrations in color. 328 Eari^y ItaIvIAN Art. Kitcliiii, G. W. Life of Pope Pios II, as iUustrated by Pintur- icchio's frescos in the Piccolomini Library at Siena. London, Arundel Society, 1881. Layard, A. H. Frescos of Bernardo Pintaricchio in the Collegiate Church of S. TSL Maggiore at Spello. 1858. Giovanni Santi and his Fresco at Cagli. 1859 . Martyrdom of St. Sebastian at Panicale, 1856. 111. London, Arundel Society. Matarazzo, Francesco. Chronicles of the Gty of Peragia, 1492-1503. Tr. by Edward Strahan Moran. London, Dent, 1905. $1.25. Especially concerns the struesles o{ the Baslioni. Paget, Violet (pseud. Vernon Lee). Belcaro. London, Unvvin, 1872. 5s. PhiUipps, Evelyn. Pintoricchio. Great Masters in Painting and Sculpture. London, Bell, 1901. $1.76. Ricci, CoREADO. Pintaricchio, His Life, 'Work, and Times. 111. Phila., Lippincott, 1902. Quarto. Valuable alike for its text and its numerous and beautiful illus- trations. Schmarsow, August. Melozzo da Forli. 111. 1886. 100 m. Raphael tmd Pinturicchio in Siena. 111^ 1880. 12.50 m. Stuttgart. The first is a quarto volume, admirably illustrated, marked by the same careful research and discriminatinfir criticism as Ricci's Pinturicchio. Steinmann, Ernst. Pintaricchio. Knackfuss Monographc. 111. N. Y., Lemcke & Buechner, 1898. $1.50. Symonds, Margaret, and Gordon, Lina Duff. Story of Percgia. 111. N. Y., Macmillan, 1898. $1.50. Waters, W. G. Piero della Francetca. Great Masters in Painting and Sculptm-e. 111. London, Bell, 1900. $1.75. SpEciai, Bibliooraphy. 329 yffebet, Siegfried. Fioteazo dj Lorenzo. Eine Kunst his- ^^ torische Studie. 111. Strassburg, Keitz, 1904. Illustrations valuable, showing Fiorenzo's mature style especially. Williamson, G. Pertigino. 111. Great Masters 'in Painting and Sculpture. London, Bell, 1900. $1.75. ■Witting, Felix. Piero dei Franceschi. 111. Strassburg, Heitz, 1898. (In German.) Yriarte, Charles. Un Gjndottiere aa XV* Siicie a Rimini. Paris, 1882. 25 fr. PERIODICALS. Century Magazine, v. 19. (1890.) Gazette des Beaux Arts. v. 73 ; v. 74 ; v. 75 (1893-1894) , V. 77 ; V. 78 (1895-1896). Portfolio. 1893. Xessom \8 anb 19. THE URBINO GROUP. PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA (Pietro di Benedetto de' Fran- ceschi). I420?-I492. OUTLINE FOR STXJDY. Influences that controlled the development of Umbrian painting ; the centers of Umbrian art — Gubbio, Urbino, and Perugia ; early Umbrian artists. The second generation of scientific reaUsts ; Piero and the Florentines — ^interactive in- fluence ; Piero's writings on mathematics and perspective. Piero's originaUty ; his disposition to experi- ment ; line of connection between Piero and l/conardo da Vinci ; the completeness of his artistic equipment. His indifference to human beauty ; character of his landscapes; use of architectural motives. Piero's frescos in San Francesco, Rimini ; in San Francesco, Arezzo ; at Borgo San Sepolcro. Portraits attributed to Piero ; his altarpieces and important easel pictures ; his Madonna type. Piero's contribution to the progress of art ; his influence over succeeding artists. 332 KarIvY Italian Art. topics for further research. The influence of bas-relief in promoting realism in painting; Donatello's share in this influence. Classical culture amongst Umbrian artists. *Sigismondo Malatesta, lord of Rimini; ''the combination of humanistic culture with de- praved morals. "l/con Battista Alberti ; Hhe Malatestian Temple. The Legend of the Holy Cross. QUESTIONS ON SPECIAL PICTURES. No. 223 — Sigisfflondo Malatesta paying homage to St. Sigfsmond. Chapel of the Relics, S. Francesco, Rimmi. S. Francesco is the celebrated Tempio dei Malatesta, remodeled by Sigismondo after plans by Alberti. The fresco here repro- duced is the earliest of Piero's existing frescos, dated 1451; Malatesta' s portrait is notable for "sincerity and originaUty of treatment" ; the castle of Rimini, Malatesta's stronghold, is re- presented in the medaUion at the right. The distance has suffered from repainting. St. Sigismond, King of Burgundy, was patron saint of Cremona and of his namesake, Sigismondo Malatesta. Is this an original presentation of the theme? How does it differ from preceding paintings? (Compare Piero's dates with Fra lyippo Lippi, Benozzo Gozzoli, Mantegna). Does St. Sigismond impress one as a sacred personage? Are the symbols bome by him necessarily ecclesiastic? Is this a select type for saint or man? Thb Urbino Group. 333 Apply the last question to the worshiper. Is he devout, humble? Does his face indicate nobiUty or the character ascribed to him by historians? Was Piero incapable of profound devotional expression? Cf. 224, 225. Is there any mannerism in the figures commonly found in Piero's paintings? Is the introduction of the dogs an impropriety? Are they well done? Note the care given to the tex- ture and ornamentation of draperies; explain the presence of the medallion and the coat of arms; does anything about the picture detract from the impor- tance of the chief incident? Study the effect of the garlands: do they disturb the lines or the sentiment of the composition? Cf. Mantegna. Does the idea seem to have originated with Piero? Where can similar forms be found of an earUer period? Has this picture a sense of largeness, of simpUcity, of space exceeding or equal to pictures previously studied ? How is the feeling of spaciousness conveyed ? No. 224 — The Baptism of Christ. National Gallery, London. Temperaon wood, 5 ft. Si in. by 3 ft. 9i in.; painted possibly 1453-1454. Once an altarpiece at the priory of St. John the Baptist, Borgo San Sepolcro. When the priory was suppressed the picture was transferred to the Sacristy of the cathedral, where it formed the center of an altar decoration. Sold, 1785, in order to obtain money to repair the church. The absence of atmospheric quaUty in the background suggests over-cleaning. 334 Early Italian Art. How does this compare with earlier representations of the theme in reaUsm, in types, in devoutness? What is there new in the treatment of accessories? Is the picture thereby rendered more beautiful, more expressive? Is there any loss of sincerity? How does this resemble Botticelli's pictures, 168, 169? Which was painted first? Characterize Piero's treatment of the nude in pro- portions, in modeling. Did his contemporaries (note date of picture) equal him in this respect? Have these figures a right relation to the backgroimd? Is their landscape setting more elaborate than usual at this time? What light does this pictture throw upon Piero's methods of study? truthfulness of observation? care for the perfection of his work? No. 225 — The Resurrection. Museum, San Sepolcro. Fresco : painted during the period of the Baptism and the frescos at Arezzo. This unusual conception of the subject is not original with Piero. The scene is laid at dawn, with a richly colored sky. Christ bears the symbol of victory, a banner with a cross. The sleeping guard, who is seen full face, is, traditionally, a portrait of the artist. How would the expression of the Savior's eyes be described? How does the figure compare with other studies of the nude, considering the period ? Cf . 62, 139, 191, 310, 431. How successful is this as a character study? What is the general sentiment of the picture? The Urbino Group. 335 Does it seem like an act of sacrilege to analyze this work? Is the character of a Roman soldier well conceived? Is heavy slumber successfully represented? Is there a resemblaJace to Mantegna's work in composition, drawing, or types? What great qualities had either Piero or Mantegna that the other lacked? Does the landscape heighten the effect of the picture? Is there any inconsistency in the landscape? Any inappropriate adjuncts or anachronisms? Does the entire picture impress one by its artificiality or its truthfulness? Cf. 223,225,227. What characteristics are common to all? No. 228— Visit of the Queen of Shefaardetail. No. 232 — 'Vision of Constantine. Bacci Chapel, S. Francesco, Arezzo. Frescos painted between 1452 and 1466 by order of Luigi Bacci. 228 represents the recognition of the holy tree by the Queen of Sheba, an incident of the Golden Legend. A branch of the tree of knowledge, planted on Adam's tomb, became a great tree and in the reign of Solomon was felled to use in the building of the temple. The workmen made it a foot bridge over a stream. Its true nature was miraculously revealed to the Queen of Sheba when she approached the bridge on her way to visit Solomon. Solomon was warned that when a certain man should be sus- pended on that tree it would signify that the fall of the Jews was at hand; to avert the evil prophecy he buried the wood. On this spot, later, the pool of Bethesda formed; before the Crucifixion the tree rose and floated on the surface and was used 336 Early Itawan Art. for the cross. The heavy line through the picture is apparently an iron brace to strengthen the walls of the church. 232 is sadly injured by dampness. All but one wing is obliterated of the angel flying down in the upper part of the fresco. The light probably proceeds from this heavenly visitant. In 228 do the women who accompany the queen share her emotions? Is the type interesting? Why? Is the group natural in attitudes and incident? Are the actors commonplace or spirited? Is the composi- tion monotonous because of so many heads on the same level? Has the artist attempted oriental costumes? What costumes are best for artistic purposes? What argu- ments are there for contemporary, historical, and conventional dress? Illustrate. What special excellencies in the drawing of the horses? Cf. 112, 160, 315, 318, 444. Do previous paintings show trees as solid, as full of air, as natural in arrangement of branches, foUage, and blossoms? (Name the species.) Which artist cared most for such things — Botticelli, Benozzo, Ghirlandajo? How has the artist in 232 achieved the effect of night, of mystery? What is the source of light? Is the lighting consistent? What is the sentiment of the pictture? Is this a purely naturalistic conception? ^Tiy do not the guards seem to be aware of the heavenly visi- tant? Would the scene have been more impressive if it had been more dramatic? What proofs of artistic skill in the shaping of the The Urbino Group. 337 tent? In diiar'oscuro? in composition? in individual figures? in ease of attitude? What contemporary or earlier works can be cited that are equal to it in originality, plausibility, in technical excellence? Is the use of the outline in this group of pictures an advantage? What was its purpose? Did any other artist use it habitually? No. 226 — Portrait of Federigo da Montefeltro. No. 227— Portrait of Battista Sforza. Uffizi, Florence. Diptych: painted in mixed medium (distemper glazed with oil) probably before 1472. On the reverse side of the panels are allegorical pictures, Triumphs, in which the duke and duchess are prominent. The portraits are remarkable for their technical qualities. They represent the Duke and Duchess of Urbino. Do these portraits indicate unusually profound in- sight on the part of the painter? Does the lack of personal beauty diminish the interest of the pictures? Why are they painted side view? Is the shape of the eye individual to the sitters or is it a mannerism of Kero? How do the two faces differ in treatment? Are they flat or well roimded and solid? How does 226 differ in technique from 266, 297? Are the heads well constructed? Why should not the bodies be better drawn? Was Piero incapable of making the figure more supple — more subtle? Why is the landscape so important? What conspicuous quality also characterizes 223, 225, 228? 338 EarIvY ITAUAN Art. No. 230— Portrait of a Lady. Poldi-Pezzoli, Milan. 1 ft. 6 in. by 1 ft. 9 in. No. 231— Portrait of a Lady. Kaiser Priedrich Museum, Berlin. 1 ft. 8 in. by 1 ft. 2 in. These, together with several other female heads in profile in various European galleries, have long been ascribed to Piero della Prancesca, although there is no documentary evidence. Berenson is inclined to attribute these to Verocchio; other critics suggest Piero del Pollajuoli. The exquisite portrait, 230, is painted in tempera, heavily loaded with pigment of light tints without shadow, fused to an enamel-like surface and has much the same delicate beauty as a very low relief. 231 is similarly treated; its background is a cold, harsh blue Study the features in 230, the delicacy and firmness of the modeUng, treatment of the hair, the handling of ornaments, brocades, etc., comparing with the works of other artists. Is the face strong or significant? What constitutes its charm? Was the high forehead customary in pic- tures of this period, or are Piero's works an exception? Did Piero usually paint hair with so much attention to detail? Is such richness of ornament characteristic of him? Is there refinement or lack of it in the modeling of the back of the neck? Cf. 231. How do these por- traits differ from 226 and 227 in the shape of the body? The Urbino Group. 339 In general, what qualities of this portrait resemble Piero della Francesco's known work? Is one's enjoy- ment lessened because of uncertainty as to the artist? Apply the above questions to 231. Were these two portrait studies from the same model? No. 229 — Madonna In Adoration. Louvre, Paris. Formerly attributed to Piero della Francesca, now catalogued under the name of Baldovinetti. See Berenson, Study of Italian Art. 11. 23-39. Figures life size. Compare with unquestioned works by Piero. Is this as simple in composition? As unaffected in sen- timent? Compare with the queen's attendants in 228; with 230. Is there a close resemblance in type or otherwise? Can any indication be found elsewhere of the playful fancy evident in the representation of the little Jesus? Could Filippo I^ippi have painted a Madonna like this? Botticelli? ~ Mantegna? Why? Does it re- semble Francia? Is it unique? Can you recall a landscape like this by any other artist? GENERAL QUESTIONS. Had Piero a fixed and easily recognized style? Does the scientific aspect of his work attract the most at- tention? Was he a well-roimded artist — equal in technical qualities, in largeness of conception, in ca- pacity for feeling? Had he a^keen perception of 340 Eari,y Itauan Art. beauty? How manifested? Does his landscape har- monize with the subject of the picture — ^is it necessary to the full development of the motive? In what does his originality consist? REFERENCES. Berenson . . . Central Italian Painters. 68-75. Berenson . . .Study and Criticism of Italian Art. II. 23-39. Crowe and Cavalcaselle. .Painting in Italy. II. 380; 526- 555. Hutton The aties of Umbria. 60-59; 102-114; 133-163. Kugler Italian Schools. I. 214-219. Miintz Les Primitifs. 627-638. Mflntz. .... .La Renaissance, etc., a l'6poque de Charles VIII. 372-375. Symonds . . .Age of Despots. 172-173. Symonds . . .Fine Arts. 74-76; 234-235. Symonds . . .Revival of Learning. 339-343. Symonds . . .Sketches, etc. II. 14-31. Vasarl Lives, etc. IL 20-31; 49-61. Waters .... Piero della Francesco. Witting .... Piero dei Franceschl. Woltmann and Woermann. .Hist, of Painting. II. 328-336. Yriarte Un Condottiere au XV" SiScle Ji Rimini. Thb Urbino Group. 341 MELOZZO DA FORLI. J438-I494. MARCO FALMEZZANO (Marcos di Melotios)- (456-t5437 OUTLINE FOR STUDY. Scientific character of Melozzo's art; new appli- cation of perspective; his daring feats in fore- shortening; grandeur of his conceptions; vital quality of his work. Influence of Piero della Francesco upon Melozzo ; the contrast in their types. Melozzo's work under the patronage of Pope Sixtus IV — frescos in the Tribune of Santi Apostoli, Rome; the fresco in the Vatican I/ibrary (note their present location). The "Liberal Arts" in the ducal palace at Urbino. Ceiling decorations in the Church of the Santa Casa, Loreto. Melozzo's isolated position as artist; compare with Mantegna and Signorelli. Palmezzano's artistic activity; his frescos and panel paintings in Forli and vicinity. Palmezzano's relation to Melozzo and confu- sion of the works of the two artists. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. Historical libraries — the Library of the Vatican. Pottery of Gubbio and Urbino. An illustrious Virago — Caterina Sforza. (Hare.) The story of St. Anthony of ^gypt. 342 Eari,y Itauan Art. questions on spsciai, pictures. MELOZZO DA FORLI. No. 238— The Saviori detail. Quirinal, Rome. No. 239— Head of Apostle. No. 240— Angel with Viol. No. 241 — ^Angel with Lute. No. 242 — ^Angel with Timbrel. Sacristy, St. Peter's, Rome. Frescos from the semi -dome of the Tribune of SS. Apostoli, Rome. This church, erected by Pope Pelagius I in the sixth century was dedicated to the Apostles James and Philip. A tribune was added by Sixtus IV, 1475-1480, and its decoration entrusted to MelozEo. The subject of the painting in the semi-dome was the Ascension of Christ among cherubs, with angels playing musical instruments and apostles gazing upwards. When the Tribune was demolished, 1711, the figure of Christ was cut from the wall and placed on a landing in the Quirinal palace; while three fragments of apostles and others of angels were removed to the Sacristy of St. Peter's. Does the drawing of these figures indicate their position on the wall or ceiling? Kxplain the different degrees of foreshortening in the Savior, angels and prophet. Why should the figure of Christ demand visible support more than the angel in 243? Is His gesture benign or threatening? Is it original with Melozzo? Have later artists used the same motive? Thb Urbino Group. 343 Is His face a worthy one? Cf. 81, 119, 141, 207. What development of an ideal is noticed? Compare the infant angels with Orcagna's Paradise, 83, 84. What is the difference? Are they too promi- nent or are they subordinated to the principal figure? How is this effect produced? Explain the attitudes of the musical Angels. Do they need the support of the solid earth? What contributes to this impression? Are their splendid vitality and their freedom of movement inconsistent with their sacred function? Will they soon weary of praising God? Are they conscious of spectators? Do their faces show strong power of characterization? Are there any shortcomings in the painter's equip- ment ? Is he equally admirable in face, figure, drapery ? Are there any signs of weakness, indecision, timidity? Has he been hampered by tradition? preoccupied with scientific problems? Does his work lack beauty? refinement? grandeur? Is there any appearance of painful effort, or is this the work of a man for whom difiiculties seem never to have existed? Is there any resemblance between Melozzo and Masacdo? Has he traits in common with Piero della Francesca? No. 244 — Siztos IV Givtne Aadience to Platina. Picture Gallery, Vatican, Rome. Fresco transferred to canvas. A new Vatican Library was founded by Pope Sixtus IV, and occupied the ground floor, under the Sistine Chapel, in a building erected by him, 1475-1480. Melozzo's fresco, which pictures 344 Early Italian Art. the library itself, adorned a wall of the apartment. Platina, a celebrated historian and member of the Roman Academy, was appointed librarian by the Pope. This is essentially a family portrait group. Giuliano della Rovere, Cardinal of S. Pietro in Vincoli and afterwards Pope Julius II, stands facing Sixtus; beside Sixtus is Raffaello Riario, Cardinal San Giorgio; the taller figure, back of Platina, is Count Girolamo Riario, founder of a line of princes; the remaining figure is conjecturally Giovanni della Rovere, whose son suc- ceeded to the duchy of Urbino. All of these were the Pope's nephews. Who should be the center of interest in this group? Has the artist drawn attention to him? Does the divided attention of the two persons on the left weaken the picture as a whole? Are all the subordinate figures church dignitaries? Why? Do all the faces bear the portrait character? How do they compare in vigor, vitality, individuaUty with others by Mdozzo? Does the style of architecture suggest a more lofty and spacious apartment? Is there any lack of archi- tectural dignity in the picture? What style is repre- sented? Was this customary at this time? Is it consistently carried out? Is there confusion or crowd- ing of architectural members? overloading with detail? From how many points does the light proceed? Are rules of perspective observed in the figures as well as in the architecture? Is the division of the group into pairs attended with stiffness or other dis- advantages? How is variety secured? Is the group as a whole successfid? effective? Thb Urbino Group. 345 No. 245— Rhetoric. National Gallery, London. 5 ft. li in. by 3 ft. 2i in. One of the series of "Seven Liberal Arts" painted for the palace at Urbino and which probably adorned the Ducal Library. *rhey have been dispersed and only four are known, two of which are in London, two in BerUn. Critics have not left their attribu- tion to Melozzo, undisturbed. ' ' This series is, by the noble gravity of the composition, unique. ' ' Does the female figure worthily represent the idea indicated by the title? Is her beauty of a severe or an alluring tjrpe? Why should she be youthful? Is there any significance in the splendor of her dress? Why is she enthroned with rich architectural environ- ment? Cf. 184, 185, 189. Explain the presence of the male figure. Does this resemble other figures by Melozzo in gen- eral style, type of head, draperies, in ornamental acces- sories, in projection and rotmdness, in spontaneity? No. 243 — ^Angeli detail, ceiling of Sacristy. Chiesa della Casa Santa, Loreto. The vaulted ceiling of this apartment is divided into sections by ribs radiating from the center, each section filled by an angel bearing a symbol of the Passion. On the balustrade below sit eight Prophets. Crowe and Cavalcaselle beUeve that this ceiling was painted by Mdozzo's pupil, Palmezzano, despite strong resemblances to the Santi ApostoU frescos. These, two artists estabUshed the system of dome decoration (suggested, perhaps, a few years earlier by Mantegna), which was perfected by Correggio and used so effectively by the Caracci and Tiepolo in the late Ren- aissance. 346 EarivY Italian Art. Is the architectural decoration moulded stucco or a painted imitation? How do you judge? How are the figures intended to be looked at? (Experiment by holding the picture in various positions.) Is the angel resting or in flight? its draperies too voluminous or marred by meaningless folds? Why does it extend the chalice? Is it ideal as a heavenly messenger? What is expressed by the face in the lower part of the picture? Which of the Prophets is suggested by it? How does it compare in character and technique with 239? PALMEZZANO. No. 278 — ^Madonna enthroned with four Saints. Brera, Milan. On wood: painted 1493. On the left are John the Baptist and St. Peter; on the right, Mary Magdalen and St. Dominic. Study the details of the picture — branching and foliage of the trees, the clouds, the distance; texture and cast of draperies, the marble pavement, the orna- ment on Madonna's throne; are these admirable? Study the picture in a larger aspect — the general shape of the mountain, the plausibility of the architec- ture; the proportions of the figures, the connection between the incident and its environment; what is the conclusion regarding the painter's artistic ability? Is Madonna beautiful, gracious, thoughtful? Are the saints noble in mien, comely, reverential? Are The Urbino Group. 347 their garments appropriate to the social station and occupations of the wearers? What was the artist's attitude toward a sacred subject? What was of most importance to him? Why does the picture fail to charm? What peculiarity in this picture is also found in those by Melozzo? Which artist is the most probable author of 243? REFERENCES. Berenson . . .Central Italian Painting. 75-77. Crowe and Cavalcaselle . . Painting in Italy. II. 556-578. Hare Illustrious Ladies of the Italian Renaissance. 229-266. Jacquemart. .History of Ceramic Art. 257-290. Kugler Italian Schools. I. 219-222. Mtintz L'Aged'Or. 689-698. Prime Pottery and Porcelain. 155-170. Schmarsow .Melozzo da Forli. WoltmannandWoermann. .History of Painting. II. 337-340. Broussole ... La Jeunesse du Perugin. 162-165. Destr^e . . . .Quelques Peintres des Marches et de I'Ombrie. 43-48. 348 EarIvY Itai^ian Art. GIOVANNI SANTI (Sanzio). I435?-I494. (Giovanni's name, originally Sante, was changed by him to Santi or Sanzi, and later Bembo "euphonized it into Sanzio" for his illustrious son, Raphael.) OUTtrlNB FOR STUDY. The artistic circle of Urbino in the late fifteenth century; Giovanni Santi's literary talent; his intimacy with distinguished painters ; his share in the formation of Raphael's manner. Santi's wall paintings at Cagli; his easel picttu-es; the medium in which he worked. Santi's work considered with reference to his associates, Piero della Francesca and Melozzo ; with reference to Perugino and Bonfigli; also with reference to the early Umbrians, Otta- viano Nelli and Gentile da Fabiiano ; analyze the principles of these different groups of painters and Santi's relation to them. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. ^Urbino and its ruling family; '"two products of the Renaissance — Federigo da Montefeltro and Sigismondo Malatesta. The humanists and the minor courts of Italy. I^esser artists of the Umbrian Apennines. (Kugler.) Affinities between the Umbrian painters and their Flemish contemporaries. (Miintz, Les Primitifs; Broussole.) The Urbino Group. 349 questions on special picture. No, 237 — ^Madonna with Saints and Angels. Tiranni Chapel, S. Domenico, Cagli. The paintings in this chapel, the only frescos known by Gio - vanni Santi, are, collectively, his chef d'oeuvre. The group of Madonna and Saints is over the altar; above is a lunette; and in the vaulted ceiling a choir of child angels siuround the Savior. The angel on the left of Madonna's throne is, traditionally, a portrait of Raphael, then nine years of age; on the same side are St. Peter and St. Francis of Assisi; opposite are John the Baptist and St. Dominic. Madonna is a type character- istic of Santi. Is there any sadness, any premonition of suffering in the faces of this group? Is it more or less uplifting to the worshiper because of its fainter appeal to the emotions than some other pictures of the Holy Family? Is the group connected by unity of sentiment and action or are the individuals isolated? Are they connected by ingenious arrangement of leading lines? Does the picture recall any earlier artist? Does it resemble the works of other artists of the Urbino group? What is the character of the picture — is it ornate, simple, elegant, devout? Compare with Palmezzano's similar picture as to treatment, details, gracefulness, spontaneity; to what conclusions does this comparison point? 350 Eari,y Italian Art. REFERENCES. Blanc ficole ombrienne. Broussole ..La Jeunesse du Pa-ugin. 150-161; 230-232. Crowe and Cavalcaselle. .Painting in Italy. II. 579-599. Dennistoun Dukes of Urbino Destrte .... Quelques Peintres des Marches et de TOmbrie. 49-55. Hutton The Cities of Umbria. 115-132. Kugler Italian Schools. I. 223-229. Layard . . . .Giovanni Santi and his fresco at Cagli. Miintz La Renaissance, etc., a I'^poque de Charles VIII. 354-371. Miintz Les Primitifs. 127-138; 331-339. Passavant . . Raphael and his Father. 9-32. Symonds . . .Age of Despots. 172-183. Symonds . . .Revival of Learning. 302-306. Symonds ...Sketches, etc. IL 64-87. Williams Hill Towns of Italy. 372-389. Woltmann and Woermann. .II. 329-332; 340-342. The Urbino Group. 351 LUCA SIGNORELLI (Ltica da Cortoina). (44{-I523. OUTWNE FOR STUDY. An Umbrian artist with strong Tuscan affinities; his companions at the Court of Urbino. Signorelli's energetic style; exploiting of the nude ; mastery of anatomy and foreshortening ; of composition; of decorative design; the sternness of his ideal; disregard of beauty; his color. His frescos in Petrucci Palace, Siena; at I^oreto; at Convent of Monte Oliveto. Monumental work in the Chapel of the Madonna of San Brizio, Orvieto Cathedral. Signorelli the Citizen; municipal honors and duties; his strong and upright character. Signorelli's influence upon the development of art; a forenmner of Michelangelo. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. Influence on art and morals of the study of the nude. Orvieto and its Cathedral, The Myth of Pan. The story of St. Benedict. QUESTIONS ON SPECIAIy PICTURES. No. 246 — School of Pan. (German title ' ' Pan, as God of natural life and master of music") Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin. Oil on canvas: 8 ft. 6J in. by 6 ft. 5 in. : date 1484 (?). Probably painted for Lorenzo de Medici. Discovered, 1865, in a storeroom of the Corsini Palace, Rome, when all the figures 362 EarivY Itauan Art. were covered with a repaint of drapery. Although somewhat injured by the removal of the overpaint it is considered the best of Signorelli's easel pictures. The god Pan is bronze color. The female figure in the left foreground represents the nymph Echo. What idea does Pan represent in mythology? Ex- plain the goat's legs, the crescent moon, the sj^inx, and staff of grapevine. Are the other personages m5rtho- logical or human? Are wood sprites usually supposed to be gay and lightsome? Why the melancholy ex- pression on some of the faces? Why the introduction of aged persons? What is the center of interest? Is the attention of all directed to a common point? By what devices are the figures connected? Is the composition un- fettered and flowing? Has Signorelli selected forms of refined proportions? Are such figures altogether appropriate to the subject? Do they look like flesh or marble or bronze? Compare with other paintings by Signorelli; is there a man- nerism here? Compare Echo with Botticelli's Venus, 167; which is the more classic in temper? Which the better study of the nude? Study the background. Is there any significance in the classic architecture? Are the curious forms at the right intended for landscape or ruined buildings? Are the forms in the air merely clouds? Are they essential to the meaning of the Allegory? Has Signorelli given an unusually poetic interpreta- tion of classic myth? How does he compare with Botticelli in refinement, delicacy, beauty? The Urbino Group. 353 No. 247— Holy Family. U£5zi, Florence. Tondo, 4 ft. 6 in. diameter: painted between 1484 and 1490. Originally in a Guelphic Audience Hall. One of a group of Holy Families painted in the same period as "Pan" and all pos- sessing similar characteristics. Signorelli frequently used the tondo, and his genius for composition is brilliantly illustrated in his adaptation of the larger lines and curves to the circular form. Are the attitudes of these figures natural or were they designedly arranged to conform to the circle? Is the book on the ground an accident? Is the com- position strong and restful ? Are there any meaningless accessories — ^if so are they disturbing or do they add to the interest of the picture? (Note that the striped scarf is a favorite accessory in Umbrian pictures.) Is Mary remarkable for beauty? for force of charac- ter? What remains of the old-time conception of Madonna and Child? How is the gesture of the Child to be interpreted? What effect has it on the sentiment of the picture? What effect has the humility of a man like Joseph? Are these new types appropriate? Is Signorelli's conception lofty? Compare with Palmezzano and Giovanni Santi: what is the difference? No. 255 — ^Portrait of a Man. Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin. Formerly considered Signorelli's own portrait; but recent investigation finds too little resemblance to his authentic portraits to support this claim. Painted in oil in 1484. 354 Early Italian Art. What relation has this subject to his background? What relation have the figures in the background to the classic ruins? Is the relief group on the building at the right a familiar subject in Greek art? Does this kind of background enhance the interest of a good portrait? Is it in accordance with good artistic judg- ment? Compare this portrait with Masaccio's portrait of an old man, 145, and with Mantegna's Cardinal Scarampi, 297. Which is best modeled? Which is most like flesh? What is the dominant expression of each face? Need beauty cease to exist because of deep furrows and strongly marked features? Which is probably the most characteristic portrait? What traits are common to these three? How do they differ from Botticelli's Man with a Medal, 174? No. 248 — ^Adoration of the Magi. Yale School of Fine Arts, New Haven. Tempera on wood: 1 ft. 5 in. x 1 ft. 2 in: painted about 1508. Part of a predella: from the Archbishop's Palace, Cortona. It is admirably preserved, never having been cleaned or restored. The high lights and brocaded patterns are touched with gold. It has been suggested that it is a school piece, but high author- ities accept it as SignoreUi's own painting. What points of resemblance to SignoreUi's other work? What reminders of an earlier style of art? What line of artistic influence is suggested? What is the predominating thought in the group? How wide a range of emotion is depicted? Is this a noble realism? The Urbino Group. 355 Are the animals moved by more than natural curi- osity? How does the background help and how does it mar the composition? Is the foreground designed in the spirit of a great artist? Can any archaisms be excused in a work of this period and this school? No. 249 — Group of Patriarchs. Ceiling. No. 250 — Detail: Preaching of Antichri.3-. No. 25 ( — The Resurrection. No. 252— Calling of the Elect. No. 253 — The Condemned. 1^0. 254 — Lucan and Episodes from his Poems. Chapel of S. Brizio, Cathedral, Orvieto. Frescos: painted 1449-1504. The Gothic Cathedral of Orvieto, one of the most interesting in Italy, had attracted sculptors and painters for two centuries before Signorelli. The large chapel in the right transept, originally called Capella Nuova, was dedicated in the seventeenth century to the Madonna di San Brizio, because of a Byzantine picture of the Virgin, reputed to work miracles, which still hangs over the altar. The chapel has a groined ceiling in eight com- partments: on the east end or altar wall is a small triple window; in the opposite end a fine arched portal. The paintings literally cover the ceiUng and walls above a marble dado. In 1447 Fra Angelico accepted an order to fresco the chapel, but finished only two sections of the ceiling (see 125). Fifty-two years later Signorelli was called to complete the decoration. He carried on his predecessor's plan for the ceiling, filling the six remaining compartments with groups of saints and angels. On the walls he painted the grand series illustrative of the after 356 Early Italian Art. life of the soul; over the portal, following its curved outline, is The Death of the Wicked; on each side wall two large paintings- Preaching of Antichrist and Calling the Elect, The Resurrection and The Condemned; these subjects are continued on the altar wall — on one side of the window, Heaven, on the other side, Descent into Hell. The backgrounds are entirely of gold. Below these subjects the walls are covered with a groundwork of arabesques into which are set square portraits of anciens poets, surrounded by medallions containing scenes from their poems,' painted in grisaille. The portrait of Lucan is set beside an arched recess, which formerly contained the sarcophagus of the patron saint of Orvieto. Beneath the portrait is an in- scription to Signorelli and the sculptor, Ippolito Scalza. Compare 249 with 125. In how far did Signorelli conform to the work of the earlier artist? Which is the more intelligible group? What changes of taste are indicated by 249 ? Which is the better decoration ? Which the nobler art? Which the more spiritual 'or celestial in its atmosphere? Does either group appear interested in one common subject ? Is either dramatic ? What faces and attitudes are typical of Signorelli? What is the meaning of Antichrist in 250? How does this fragment illustrate the idea? What is the mass at the base of the pedestal and why introduced? What does the seriousness of these people indicate? Do any seem to be suflFering under conviction of sin? Have these faces a portrait quality? Compare with Ghirlandajo. Is there a prevailing type? What con- spicuous examples are here of correct and vigorous drawing? Are they beyond criticism? Is 251 a dignified presentation of the subject? Is it pathetic? Does it contain grotesque elements? The Urbino Group. 357 Has the artist successfully depicted the emotions appropriate to the event? Has he been controlled by artistic reserve, or is the scene unduly dramatic? Why are some of the risen clothed with flesh, some skeletons, some in the fuU flush of vigorous life, some languid? Compare the archangels with 253; what difference in poise and how produced? How do the infant angels assist in the composition and its meaning? Would the scene in the upper air be as impressive without the floating banners and flying ribbons? How has Signorelli used the principle of opposition with good artistic results? With good psychic results? Study 252. How has Signorelli introduced variety into a symmetrical composition? Is the upper part in this and 251 overw^ghted, — ^i. e., are the few large figures above balanced by the mass of small figures below ? How are the upper and lower parts connected ? Is the effect, as composition, satisfactory? Cf. also 253. What is the general compositional form? Do the transports of the angels meet with full re- sponse from the redeemed? Compare the musicians with those by Mdozzo ; in which is the form more care- fully studied? which seem most actual and vital? Are the figures repellent on account of their nudity? Was Signordli's taste gross in this respect? Which made the stronger appeal to Signorelli — celestial or terrestrial beings? Account for this preference. In 253 do the heavenly guardsmen compare with the demons in vigor? Would the angels of the Resurrection be better here? Would the scene have been more horrible, more convincing if there had been 358 Early Itai^ian Art. more difference between demons and human beings? Would that necessarily have involved a more childish conception of the torments of the damned? Cf. 118. Does this representation suggest mental torment as the chief factor in their sufferings? Is there any justification for the introduction of the grotesque or ludicrous? Has Signorelli successfully coped with the difficulties he imposed upon himself in this design? Cf. 100, 118, 452. Are there reminiscences of antique works? Does his mass of struggUng forms convey the sense of a multitude, of solidity, of depth of space? Do they move or are they petrified? Do their actions exceed or fall short of the requirements of the situation ? Why is this a stupendous performance? In which of these Orvieto frescos has SignoreUi worked with most freedom and enthusiasm? In which are his limitations most evident? Is he entitled to a place among the great artists? Note 254. Why was Lucan introduced in such a place? Is there an attempt at a character portrait? Are his curls and chaplet treated in a manner charac- teristic of SignoreUi ? Cf . 246, 248. Are the medallion groups composed in harmony with the circular bound- ary? Do they maintain Signorelli's reputation as a draughtsman? Why are these small figures conspicu- ous although they are in the midst of a design composed of larger elements? In the arabesques do the human and animal forms arrest the eye, or is the eye irresistibly impelled forward along the main curves? Is there any objection to the The Urbino Group. 359 use of these fonns in a sacred edifice? Do the straight lines produce an impression of stiffness? Is the general effect monotonous or is there emphasis at appropriate points? Is the design wild, vivacious, quiet? GENERAL QUESTIONS ON THE CHAPEI/ OF SAN BRIZIO. What effect would these frescos have upon the aesthetic sense? upon morals? (Note the murderous scenes in Lucan's "Episodes.") Do they "provoke to prayer" and worship? In what spirit were they painted — that of the artist, the technician, the moraUst? Is this spirit exploited at the expense of other import- ant quaUties? Is there an element of coarseness or an unworthy motive? Were there any forerunners of Signorelli in this special line of work? GENERAL QUESTIONS ON THE UMBRO-FLORENTINES. Did they care greatly for splendid accessories — as costly draperies, jeweled ornaments, fanciful archi- tecture? Were they devotees of the severer forms of art? Had each his specialty — anatomy, linear per- spective, space composition? Was their composition simple or intricate? Did their realism degrade their conceptions, or does it enrich and elevate the spectator? Was their art wholly free from triviality? Did they attain to large freedom of treatment or were they restrained by academic rules? Were they influenced by classic art, as was Mantegna? Did they leave art more noble than they found it? 360 Early Italian Art. Were their figures and groups naturally connected or were they isolated? Is the mind satisfied if the Ijersons are related to each other merely by leading lines or other technical devices and not by common interest in some object or event? Does good compo- sition ever admit of isolation of figures? or wandering attentioiT? Is propriety violated in 248 by the ab- sorption of a majority of the group in the costly gifts? Does something similar to that characterize all of Signorelli's compositions? Imagine Melozzo's fresco in SS. Apostoli reconstructed from the fragments given in the Reproductions; in what would all of those persons be interested? What is the case in 237? Are plastic effects obtained in Piero's paintings? Compare with Mantegna. To what is due, primarily, the plastic tendencies of painting at this time? sec- ondarily ? Were the aims of either of these artists more ideal than those of contemporary Florentines? The Urbino Group. 361 REFERENCES. Berenson . . .Central Italian Painters. 77-82. Blashfield... Italian Cities. I. 134-144. Crowe and Cavalcaselle. .Painting in Italy. II. 1-35. Cruttwell . . Luca SignorelU. Gayley .... Classic Myths. 77; 136-138; 200-204. Gilbert Landscape in Art. 235-237. Heaton History of Painting. 73, 74. Button The Cities of Umbria. 84-98; 168-180. Jameson Legends of the Monastic Orders. Jarves Art Studies. 272-276. Keane .Early Masters, etc. (Dohme Series). 448-465. Kugler Italian Schools. L 181-186. Morelli Italian Painters. L 92,93. Muntz Les Primitifs. 200-225. Miintz L'Age d'Or. 698-712. Paget (Vernon Lee) . . Belcaro. 156-196. Paget Euphorion. I. 198-201; 205, 206. Paget ...... Renaissance Fancies and Studies. 80, 81 ; 87, 88. Phillipps ..Frescos in the Sixtine Chapel. 58-67. Rea Tuscan and Venetian Artists. 44-56. Seeman Classical Mythology. 149-152. Symonds . . .Fine Arts. 278-293. Symonds . . .Sketches, etc. III. 81, 82; 137-154. Vasari Lives, etc. II. 351-367. Woltmann and Woermann. .History of Painting. II. 342-349. Vasari and Woltmann and Woermann contain diagrams of the Chapel of San Brizio in the Cathedral at Orvieto. PERIODICALS. Century Magazine, v. 19. 1890, November. Gazette des Beaux Arts. 2' Ser. v. 11. (1875.) 105-118. %c30ons 20 ant) 21. THE PERUGIA GROUP. BENEDETTO BONFIGLI. J425?-J496? FIORENZO DI LORENZO. f440?-l522. OUTLINE FOR STUDY The early Perugian School of painting; two divergent tendencies represented by Bonfigli and Fiorenzo: their common artistic deriva- tion from Benozzo Gozzoli and Piero della Francesca. Bonfigli, the last of the Old Perugian School; his naturahsm; interest in architectural sub- jects; the naivetd and gradousness of his angels and female types; his relation to Sienese art. Appreciation of Bonfigli by the Perugians; his works in Perugia — historical value of his frescos in the Palazzo Pubblico; his banner paintings. Fiorenzo di I^orenzo — a long-neglected person- ality in art history; his artistic character in the light of recent research. The series of panels called Acts of San Bernar- dino : pictures of a more certain attribution. Fiorenzo's development of landscape and at- mosphere; tendency toward artificiality. (Note. Broussole is especially recommended for reference.) The Perugia Group. 363 TOPICS FOR further RESEARCH R61e of the Banner in the history of Italian painting. The story of San Bernardino. Influence of the Tuscan, Benozzo Gozzoli, on Umbrian painting. (Broussole, La Jeunesse du P^rugin, Book II. ch. iv. Sec. 1.) The bridge between Sienese and Umbrian art. (Broussole, La Jeunesse du Perugin. Book II. ch. iv. Sec. 2.) QUESTIONS ON SPECIAI, PICTURES. BONFIGLI. No. 233 — Angels bearing Emblems of the Passion. Vanucci Gallery, Perugia. Part of a series of small panels which once belonged to votive pictures. It is stated that these two were supports of a lunette painted by Piorenzo di Lorenzo. Is the expression of the angels genuine or conven- tional? Identify the articles which they carry. Are the panels decorative? In what part of the work has the artist been most able? Where most helpless? If the date and name of the artist were not given when would one think these figures were painted? What school and what artists do they most resemble in style, sentiment, and accessories? Formulate reasons for such an opinion. What connection have they with the Umbrian school? 364 Eari^y Itauan Art. No. 234 — ^Annanciation. Vanucci Gallery, Perugia. One of a group of pictures by interesting though second-rate Umbrian painters which, collectively, serve to fix Umbrian traits — the broad foreheads and small chins, graceful attitudes and prettiness, the devotional sentiment. The introduction of St. Luke as scribe is an innovation; perhaps the suggestion of recording the Annunciation came from the College of Notaries, for whom the picture was painted. Are there any traces in this picture, of the archaisms of 233? How is the composition balanced? Had Bonfigli become an adept in perspective drawing? in the appUcation of ornament? in the representation of landscape forms? What other artists, Umbrian and Tuscan, have crowned their sacred personages with roses? Was Bonfigli's knowledge of anatomy equal to his knowledge of perspective? Was that usually the case at this period? Note the resemblance of the character of folds and their light outlines to Sienese painting. Cf . 86, 87, 88, 89, also 50. Is this a survival of Byzan- tine practice — see 40? How can it be explained? No. 235 — ^A Miracle of San Bernardino. Vanucci Gallery, Perugia. Tempera on wood: 2 ft. 7 in. by 1 ft. lOin. : painted about 1473? One of a series of eight panels, from S. Francesco al Prato, Perugia, which originally formed part of the framework of a processional banner painted by Bonfigli. Measwements indi- cate that four of these panels were arranged vertically on each side of the banner. The Perugia Group. 365 It is still a question whether all or any of these panels, which differ in treatment, were actually painted by Fiorenzo. For centuries they were ascribed to Pisanello. Four of them are pro- nounced the finest things of the school of that period, and they illustrate the popular art movement. The subject of 235 is the liberation of a prisoner. Was the artist successful in linear perspective — ^i. e., does his landscape retire miles into the distance? Cf. 284, 283, 268. What artists painted landscapes in this manner? What aspect of landscape appealed to Benozzo Gozzoli, to Mantegna? What to Lorenzo Costa, to Francia, to Perugino? Did all paint truth- fuUy? What pecuUarities in the figures? Have they the quality of exquisiteness? How do they compare with UcCello's? Does the saint occupy a dignified position? Why is the excited man in the midst of the group ignored by the soldiers while the citizens look upon him with astonishment? No. 236 — ^Adoration of the Magi. ^ Vanucci Gallery, Perugia. Painted in mixed medium on gesso laid on linen, and mounted on wood: 7 ft. 9 in. by 5 ft. 10 in. : originally in the church of the Servites, now S. M. Nuova, Perugia. Of the fifty easel paint- ings and frescos attributed to Fiorenzo only two are positively identified. The Adoration bears a close afiBnity to them. Is this easy, flowing composition ? How is the center of interest established? Are attitudes, position of the heads, drawing of the hands natural or affected? Is devotional feeling genuine? profound? Cf. 234. Do 366 Early Italian Art. draperies, hands, heads prove a perfected knowledge of such forms? Note the Umbrian character of the faces and compare with Perugino. What is the dominant quality of Fiorenzo's land- scape? Trace these peculiar rock forms through the work of other artists : what is the conclusion regarding their origin and popularity? Was the careful draw- ing of plants especially characteristic of Umbrians? In what special relation do Bonfigli and Fiorenzo stand to the Umbrian school ? What are their mutually differing tendencies? Indicate the causes of Fiorenzo's advance beyond Bonfigli. Compare dates, try to ascertain their environment and inspiration. REFERENCES. Bereuson . . .Central Italian Painters. 82-10 Blanc Ecole ombrienne: Appendix. Blashfield... Italian Cities. II. 24-27. Broussole . .La Jeunesse du P^rugin. 172-194; 223-230; 284-298. Crowe and Cavalcaselle. .Painting in Italy. II. 138-161. Destrde Sur quelques Peintres des Marches et de rOmbrie. 30-36; 61-71. Button The Cities of Umbria. 181-200. Jameson .... Legends of the Monastic Orders. Kugler Italian Schools. I. 229-231. Phillipps Pintoricchio. 22-29. Ricci Pinturicchio. 4-6. Symonds . . .Sketches, etc. III. 69-75. Waters Piero della Francesca. 114. Weber Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. Woltmann and Woermann. .History of Painting, II. 332' 333. Thb Pbrugia Group. 367 PIETRO PERUGINO (Pietro Vanticci della Pieve). J446-I524. "The Painter of Ecstasy." OUTLINE FOR STUDY. Tuscan artists in Umbria — their works and influence; distinction between Umbrian paint- ing and the Umbrian school; relation of Umbrian painting to religion. Perugino, the head of the Umbrian school; his work the most complete eifposition of late Umbrian sentiment; his dreamy tempera- ment; were his native tendencies modified by his associations in Florence and Rome? Perugino's mastery of the technics of fresco and oil; richness and charm of his color; expres- siveness of his drawing; atmospheric quality of his landscape. Umbrian landscape as an inspiration to space composition. Perugino's frescos in the Sistine Chapel and elsewhere in the Vatican. His frescos in the Cambio, Perugia. Decorative adjuncts in common use — fluttering draperies and ribbons; angels as decorative material. Perugino's altarpieces; his Umitations as a group composer; the sweetness and monotony of his types; sympathetic portraiture. 368 Early Italian Art. Pemgino's popularity as painter and teacher; the alleged double nature of the man ; decline of artistic power and rise of the mercenary spirit in later life ; his pupils and imitators. TOPICS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. The hill towns of Umbria; ''mediaeval feuds; ■^Perugia and the Baglioni. (Williams, Hill Towns of Italy; Hutton; Matarazzo.) The French Pillage, 1797; 1812. (Williamson, ch. viii.) Space Compoation. (Berenson.) QUESTIONS ON SPECIAL PICTURES. No. 258 — Madonna, Child, and Two Angels. Poldi-Pezzoli, Milan. On wood: 11 in. by 9 in. : an early work. Is this type common to Pemgino's pictures? Does it exist in real life? Are its mental and spiritual traits peculiarly suited to such a subject? Is the picture more or less devotional than 272, 273? Is the Child a true baby? How different from 273? Compare with previous artists — ^which is the more satisfactory ideal? How could the angels be made more ethereal? Are any of Pemgino's angels ethereal? Cf. Botlicelli, 186, 167. Has the artist shown most skill in faces, hands, hair, draperies, ornament? What is the inference regarding his artistic ideals? Re- garding his immaturity? The Perugia Group. 369 No. 263 — Christ delivering the Keys to Peter. Sistine Chapel, Vatican, Rome. Frescos: painted between 1481 and 1483. For descriptions of the Sistine Chapel see Ghirlandajo — Sec- tion IV. Besides this picture, which is on a side wall of the Chapel, Perugino painted three on the altar wall — Assumption of the Virgin, Finding of the Child Moses and Nativity of Christ; these were destroyed to make place for Michelangelo's Last Judgment. Why are some of the figures draped and some dressed? Is this a violation of contemporary custom? What is the effect of the figures in the middle distance? (Con- sider this question carefully.) Is this in accordance with artistic purpose? What Roman structures are suggested? Indicate Perugino's departure from his models: has he thus enhanced the feeling of air and space in his composi- tion? Is the composition easy, suave, restful? How is this effect obtained? Is it generally characteristic of Perugino? Does the picture lack vivacity? What contributes to that in the foreground group? in the background? Cover the small figures; is the effect the same — i. e., do they mar the quietness? do they add to the vital quality? Does the subject, call for intense devotional ex- pression? Are its requirements fully met? Are the actors in the scene closely related by sjrmpathy? Is the tone of the picture dignified, imaffected? Is this an epitome of Perugino's qualities? 370 Early Itawan Art. No. 266— Portrait of a Yotith. Uffizi, Florence. Oil on wood. This picture has long been attributed to Lorenzo di Credi and considered a portrait of Alessandro Braccesi who became notary of the Signory; the naming, however, may be purely arbitrary. In the opinion of Morelli it is an early work by Perugino, painted about 1485 or 1490. Note that this portrait and the youth on the extreme right of the Deposition, 269, are from the same model. Are the qualities of good portraiture here — ^is the head well constructed and the bony framework felt? Is the outline sensitive? the modeling firm yet subtle? Is movement suggested? Is the pensive quality of the face a portrait charac- teristic, or is the artist responsible for it? Does it add to the interest of the face? Do the simpUdty of the dress or the quaint cut of the hair either detract from or add to the beauty of the picture? How large a part do such considerations play in the portraits previously studied? Cf. 145, 206, 226, 230, 265, 287. Compare this face with others by Perugino and Lorenzo di Credi: is there confirmation for either attribution? No. 268 — The Crucifixion. S. M. Maddalena dei Pazzi, Florence. Fresco: finished 1496. Commissioned by Pietro da Dionisio Pucci and his wife Gio- vanna. It covers the entire side wall of the Chapter House. The landscape is a reminiscence of that seen from Perugia. Thb Pbrugia Group. 371 Mary Magdalene kneels at the foot of the cross: on the left are Madonna and St. Bernard: on the right, St. John Evan- gelist and St. Benedict. Do these massive, simple architectural forms aid in giving clearness and depth to the atmosphere? Are the spaces satisfactorily filled? How does this differ from the usual arrangement of the subject? Which arrangement makes the more impressive picture? Would this picture be improved by small groups in the middle distance? Cf. 263. Does the architecture take the place of figures — i.e., if it were removed would more figures be necessary? Cf . 223. What is the purpose of the wide landscape, artistically and spiritually? How is this an example of balance without symmetry? Does this representation of the Crucified make an excessive emotional appeal? Is the mood of the mourners appropriate ? What would be gained or what lost by a more naturalistic, a more dramatic conception ? In what sense is this Perugino's masterpiece? No. 262 — Chrfst at Gethsemane. Academy, Florence. On wood: 8 ft. 10 in. by 5 ft. 4 in. Originally in the Church of the Gesuati, Florence, where also were frescos by Perugino. The fresco perished when the church was demolished in the siege of 1529. This panel and a Piet&., both masterpieces, were removed to a place of safety. 372 Early Italian Art. No. 269 — The Deposition. Pitti, Florence. Oil: figures life size. Painted for the nuns of Santa Chiara. It is related that Francesco del Pugliese offered them three times what they paid for the picture, which they refused because Perugino had said that he did not believe he could equal it. These pictures, painted during the same period, one in 1495, the other before 1499, "mark the apogee of the master's glory," and illustrate his genius and hi^ limitations. In 262 does the eye fall easily and naturally upon the center of interest? What in the arrangement of the picture contributes to this end? Why is the angel present? Is it in flight, poised, running? Are weariness and slumber faultlessly rep- resented? Cf. 226. Have the groups in the middle an historical significance? How do they differ from Perugino's larger figures? Cf. 235. What is suggested by this comparison? Does the eye feel the need of intermediate figures between these and the foreground group? What reasons can be suggested for the omis- sion of such figures? How do the side groups contribute to the general effect of 269? Can a p3Tamidal composition be seen here? Compare other landscapes by Perugino: to what do this and that of 262 owe their extreme beauty? How is the feeling of distance secured? Are the trees cor- rect in their proportion to the landscape? If they were blotted out what woidd be the effect upon the picture — The Perugia Group. 373 would it be less attractive, would its atmospheric qual- ity be reduced? Do these pictures make a powerful appeal? Does the figure of Christ on the Mount express foreboding or mental anguish? In what varying ways is the one emotion represented in the Depoation? Was Perugino unable or unwilling to represent excessive emotion? Does artistic good form tend rather to reserve than to emotionalism? What is pre-eminently the office of a religious picture? No. 259 — Sposalizio. Museum, Caen. Oil: life size; probably painted between 1495 and 1500. Once the altarpiece of the Chapel of the Anello in the Cathedral, Perugia. Until recently ascribed to Perugino and believed to be the prototype' of Raphael's Sposalizio. Late critics are inclined to agree with Berenson that it is the work of Lo Spagna and that its execution followed Raphael's picture instead of preceding it. (See Berenson, Studies in Italian Painting, vol. II. 1-23; Williamson, Perugino, 586.) Is the temple imposing, well designed? Does it look as far distant as the size of the foregroimd figures would indicate? (Constantly compare it with Christ delivering the Keys to Peter, 263.) What causes this discrepancy? What relation to the betrothal ceremony have the figures in the middle distance? (Do not answer with- out dose examination.) Do they fulfil the office of intermediate figures? Cf. 269. Is their introduction 374 Early Itawan Art. gratuitous, inartistic? Compare their drawing with Fiorenzo and Pinturicchio. How does the group compare in naturahiess of incident and by-play with 263? Explain the action of the youth back of Joseph. What does Joseph carry over his shoulder? Are the costumes and head dresses characteristic of Perugino? Compared with Perugino's unquestioned works does this embody his traits — drawing and proportion of fig- ures, their action or preoccupation, treatment of middle distance, style of architecture, prominence of land- scape — ^to such an extent as to justify distrust of its genuineness? No. 264 — Virgin adoiing the Child; Archangels ISIichael and Raphael. National Gallery, London. Oil on wood: painted between 1495 and 1499. A part of each arch is new and a piece has also been added to the bottom of the central panel. This triptych once formed the lower part of an altarpiece of six panels, painted for the Certosa of Pavia. Two other panels are in France, only the central panel of the upper tier remaining in its original place. Chiara Fancelli, whom Perugino married in 1493, is said to have been the model for the angel Raphael, who is leading Tobit. No. 270 — ^Madonna in Adoration. Pitti, Florence. Oil on wood : 2 ft. 10 in. square. A replica of this picture is in a private collection in St. Peters- burg. It is also duplicated, with some slight changes, in the central panel of the Certosa altarpiece. The^Pbrugia Group. 375 Note adaptation of the duplicated subject to the shape of the panel. Is the composition equally suc- cessful in both cases? Note also their delicacy in draw- ing and fancy, their refinement of expression; how do they compare with other work by Perugino? What traits do they serve to fix? What is the function of the angels in the central panel of the triptych? How are these angels an im- provement over earlier work? Cf. 262. Is this an imusually happy and dignified conception of Madonna's office? Compare Madonnas of other painters. Which feeling is more pronounced — ^natural, maternal affection, or recognition of the Child' s divinity ? Is this a profoundly significant conception of an earthly mother? What is suggested by the expression of her face, by her gracious, sympathetic bearing, by the amplitude of her form? the simple richness of her dress? Are the children and youthful angel in just relation to Madonna as regards size? Which is most satis- factory — ^this infant, imconscious of his divinity, or the pretematurally wise infants of some other painters of the Holy Family? Is the little St. John conceived in a more religious spirit? What other artists are recalled by this Madonna type? Compare the two archangels : why does one make a genuine appeal to the heart while the other is empty and affected? What famous representation of a warrior saint does Michael recall? Are these figures duplicated in Perugino's work? What effect has duplication on one's estimate of an artist? 376 Early Italian Art. No. 267— Viaion of St. Beraard. Alte Pinacothek, Munich. On wood: 5 ft. 9 in. by 5 ft. 6 in.: painted 1496-1600. Originally in the Nasi Chapel, Santo Spirito, Florence. Consider the noble architecture, the simply ar- ranged garb, the quietly elegant little desk, the glimpse of outdoor delightfulness, the composition that is symmetrical without monotony; do these qualities characterize all of Perugino's work? Is the title needed to show who is the most impor- tant personage in the group? How has the artist made this plain ? Why does he customarily represent Madonna as above the ordinary size of woman? Is there any suggestion that this is avision ? Woidd a modem artist represent a vision in this manner? Would tlie spiritual relation seem more intimate and precious if spectators were not present ? Why are these disinterested persons introduced ? (Consider carefully.) Compare with 210. (Filippino's picture was painted about twelve years earlier.) Account for the more mature conception and arrangement of Perugino's work, the perfected landscape, the absolute restful- ness of his composition. Did the Florentines excel in landscape? Cf. 207, 208. Note the convention of short columns and low arches: where did it begin? Has Perugino avoided any sense of incongruity or confusion? Is that equally the case with other artists? The Perugia Group. 377 No. 265— St. Sebastian. Louvre, Paris. Oil on wood: 5 ft. 6 in. by 2 ft. 9 in. Is the fact of martja-dom sufficiently emphasized? formulate arguments for and against such emphasis. Imagine the group of arches in 262 added here: would it disturb the spirit that pervades the picture now? Cf . 289. Would the picture be equally effective if the background were a curtain or a wall? Why? Are there errors of taste in the setting? Does the effeminate loveliness of the saint detract from the power of the picture to inspire devotion? Is the expression of heavenly resignation unsullied by self-consciousness? How does this compare with other St. Sebastians in beauty, pathos, fitness? What criticisms may be passed upon it as a study of the nude? No. 261 — Assumption of the Virgin. Academy, Florence. Oil on wood: figures life size; date, 1500. Painted for the high altar of the monastery of Vallambrosa. The witnesses .are four Vallambrosan Saints: Cardinal St. Bernardo degli Uberti; St. Giovanni Guall^erto, the founder; St. Benedict; the Archangel Michael. Many of the figures are repetitions from earlier works. This picture shows all Perugino's faults and puerility—senti- mentality, effeminate men, bow-legged angels with draperies blown between their limbs, isolation of figures without unity of composition; but combined with that ineffaceable sense of beauty and grace that persists in all his works. 378 Early Italian Art. Is the vision beautiful in conception? What affec- tations in drawing? Is Madonna graceful? dignified? appealing? How does this representation of saints fit the saintly character? Does the saintly ideal de- mand greater virility? Is the warrior angd distinctly characterized? What is the mental attitude of the witnesses toward the miraculous scene? Does it satisfy the require- ments of the religious ideal? Study the large lines of the picture. (Therein lies one of Perugino's pectiliar charms.) Are the ciures long and graceftd or short and abrupt? Are they inter-related? Do they keep the eye moving con- stantly, easily, pleasantly? No, 256 — ^Fortitude and Temperance. No. 257— Ventfflt detail of Vault. Audience Hall, Cambio, Perugia. Frescos: figures life Size; painted 1499-1500. The paintings in the halls or rooms decorated by Signorelli, Perugino, and Pinturicchio were similarly arranged. The vaulted ceilings were adorned with medallions of single figures sometimes set amidst arabesques. High up on the side walls, like a deep frieze, were placed the narrative or symbolic pictures, with arched tops. Below and separated from them by a rich cornice, was often a field of arabesques in which were inlaid medallions and pictorial' designs. Paneling and intarsia filled the place between this and the floor. In those times the walls of a civic building, a parish church, or the monastery chapel were alike decorated with mingled Pagan and Christian themes; classical allegories and devotional subjects were applied to either. Thb Perugia Group. 379 The Audience Hall of the Collegio del Cambio (the old Chamber of Commerce) is a small apartment on the ground floor, whose upper walls and ceiling are covered with Perugino's frescos. There is a high wainscot of intarsiatura : the Judges' throne, the desks and seats are of richly carved dark wood. Above the wainscot are the frescos : on one side of the room, Prophets and Sibyls: opposite. Pagan philosophers and warriors; at the ends. The Nativity and The Transfiguration. On the groined ceiling, arabesques with inset medallions of Pagan deities. The subjects were submitted by a professor of rhetoric at Perugia. To Perugino are ascribed all the figures; the arabesques, although designed by him, were probably executed by his assistants. In 256, Fortitude is on the left, Temperance on the right. Below stand exemplars of these virtues: beginning at the left, Lucius Licinius, Leonidas, Horatius Codes, Scipio, Pericles, Cincinnatus. Is there a character difference between Fortitude and Temperance? Are they foreshortened as they would naturally be if the observer saw them from the ground? Are the figures in the foreground grouped or in any way connected with each other? What advantage has this arrangement as a wall decoration? Do these figures form a flat row or are some in advance of others? Does this convey an illusion of convexity or concavity in the surface of the panel? Is the deco- ration richer than if the surface appeared of an even flatness? Are the figures in armor capable of vigorous battle? Do their grace and beauty suggest the higher qualities of knighthood? Are the sages significant conceptions? Has historical accuracy been observed? Are the fantastic head-dresses a legitimate element of interest? Ar« they peculiar ta Perugino? 380 Eari,y Itai