m

w

mm

0[

'IgWtthe/fSlttis
\ fur Hie falidu&ig 0/ g. QUegt ot^t/tif Ce/t>/^\

n

Bought with the Income
of the
ANN S. FARNAM FUND

GIOTTO
AND SOME OF HIS
FOLLOWERS

VOLUME I

GIOTTO
AND SOME OF HIS
FOLLOWERS

BY
OSVALD SIREN, Ph.D.
PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY OF ART
UNIVERSITY OP STOCKHOLM

ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY
FREDERIC SCHENCK
Volume I

CAMBRIDGE
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
19 17

COPYRIGHT. 1917
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS

I "^ r-

PREFACE
THIS book would never have been written had it not been for
some of my good friends of the Fine Arts Department at Har
vard University. Had I been left alone with my material (collected
during many years) it would have remained a burden to me rather
than an incentive to a book. I should hardly ever have felt the
happy surprise I now feel when I see the book almost completed,
though I still cannot help regretting that it had to be finished with
so much haste.
The incentive came to me in the following way. One day in
December, 1915, I lunched with two of the professors of the Fine
Arts Department at the Harvard Club in Boston. I was much im
pressed by the splendid and exhaustive teaching carried on by the
professors of the Department, whereas at home I was so unfortunate
as to be single-handed. The only thing I could say on my own be
half was that I had been lecturing on Giotto and his followers. But
this was enough. My friends' enthusiasm and appreciation for any
eflForts in the field of the History of Art seemed at once to attach a
peculiar importance to those tedious lectures; and when they heard
that I had some of my notes with me, they expressed a desire that
I should give some of the same lectures at Harvard. The proposal
was a surprise to me, but there was something tempting about it
for it afforded me an opportunity for a longer stay at the leading
university in America, where the study of the History of Art had
become particularly well founded. I did not perhaps at first reahze
my own incapacity as deeply as I ought to have. At any rate, pre
liminaries were soon discussed more in detail and the very serious
diflBculty involved in my insufficient command of the English lan
guage was disposed of when my friends promised they would find
me some secretary or collaborator who would be able to answer for
the linguistic side of the endeavor. It may be said at once that this
promise was carried out in the most splendid way when they secured
Mr. Frederic Schenck, at that time Instructor in the English De
partment at Harvard, to assist me in the writing of my lectures in
English. How the final arrangements were concluded which led to my
moving from New York to Cambridge, is hardly a matter of inter-

vi PREFACE
est to the reader of this book. It all came about very suddenly;
and in the middle of January, 1916, I found myself located with
Mr. Schenck at " The Blacksmith's Shop " in Cambridge. I may,
however, add that the first three lectures had been prepared by me
with the assistance of some American-Scandinavian friends in New
York, and I wish to mention with particular gratitude Mr. John
Gade and his mother who were most active in helping me over the
initial difficulties. These lectures were then slightly corrected by
Mr. Schenck. How this admirable linguist and great lover of
Romance Art managed to do all the rest of the very long and tire
some labor involved in the shaping of these English lectures still seems
to me almost inexplicable. Since he had, of course, his regular duties
and occupations at the same time, he could devote only his spare
moments — usually at night — to my labors. I shall hardly ever
forget those late hours on Brattle Street when I tried to dictate some
theories about Giotto or his followers in an English which was plen
tifully interspersed with foreign expressions, but which was never
theless turned by Mr. Schenck into scholarly language. I am fully
convinced that had I not insisted upon so many awkward turns and
modes of expression to which I was accustomed, the book would
have appeared in finer literary form. So the linguistic purist ought
not to blame him, but rather me who cared less about the literary
form than about theories and the langue de mHier. It also happened
more than once that I got tired and despondent about the whole un
dertaking and left Mr. Schenck alone to translate from the Swedish
or German manuscripts I had prepared years ago; he did it nearly
as well as when we collaborated, for he had the grasp of my trend of
thought, even when expressions occurred which could not be trans
lated with the aid of dictionaries.
When the lectures finally had been delivered, and my friends at
Harvard arranged with the Harvard University Press to have them
published — an arrangement which was mainly due to the initiative
and efforts of Professor Paul Sachs — I inserted some comple
mentary chapters in order to make the whole publication more like
a book on Giotto and some of his followers. But of course it still
retains its original character of a series of lectures, and perhaps
something more. It has no pretense to be an exhaustive, historical
book on the early Florentine Trecento painters; it is merely an
attempt to lay a foundation for a better knowledge and truer esti
mate of the most prominent painters in Florence about 1300-60.
For this purpose it seems to me superfluous to describe every paint-

PREFACE vii
ing that may be associated with the masters under discussion, or to
make a note of every traditional and pseudo-historical record that
may exist about them. I have simply tried to give as clear an out
line as possible of the leading artistic individualities, completing the
critical analysis of their main works with such documentary or his
torical records as seemed to me most trustworthy and which I had
been able to collect without plunging into the bottomless sea of re
search in the Italian archives. But even with these very narrow
limitations of my preparatory studies I am able to offer some infor
mation about Giotto's principal followers which is not to be found
in any other book on the subject.
The books which exist on Florentine Trecento painting are not
only scanty and incomplete, but mostly unsatisfactory from a
scholarly point of view. I can say this without bias, because I have
myself for many years been an active contributor to the literature
on Giotto and his followers. Even the rather bulky and numerous
publications, which during the last twenty or twenty-five years have
been printed about Giotto himself, contribute comparatively little
to a truer knowledge and appreciation of the great master's indi
vidual aims and his position in the general evolution of Trecento
painting. Giotto has been too often treated as an isolated figure,
and too little studied in relation to his contemporaries and followers
whose art may serve to throw much light on the dominating figure.
This is also the case in the last important monograph on Giotto by
Dr. F. Rintelen. It is a book which indeed holds a place of its own
and, in the way of scholarly methods and critical analysis, far ex
ceeds all previous publications on the same subject. But as the
author entered upon his work without sufficient study of the art
that preceded and followed Giotto, his book has, in my opinion,
become not only one-sided but in certain respects even misleading.
Rintelen gives splendid exhaustive descriptions, for instance, of
Giotto's Paduan frescoes, but when it comes to works in which
Giotto's share is less evident, he over-shoots the mark in his de-
preciative critical account. Giotto's art becomes in his hands a
rather abstract phenomenon without relation to the general trend
of development in Trecento painting — an imposing intellectual
structure, admirable in the boldness of its outlines but historically
unexplained. Rintelen's presentation of Giotto appears in many
ways a reaction against Thode's treatment of the same subject in
his well known work on St. Francis and his monograph on the
painter — books which in great part are built on historical traditions

viii PREFACE
and on records of dubious trustworthiness. It is only to be re
gretted that Rintelen goes so far in his depreciation of all historical
records and in his contempt for Giotto's following as to lead us
astray when it comes to attributions and dates, because he has on
the other hand a firm grasp of many of the basic qualities in the
master's art.
My endeavor was to regard Giotto's art as far as possible in re
lation to the art that preceded, surrounded, and followed the great
master. I have, of course, paid particular attention to the analysis
of his main creations (though not necessarily describing every
picture) and I hope that the principal features of this gigantic per
sonality have been sufficiently emphasized to impress every one with
his absolute superiority and unique historical importance. But at
the same time it was obvious to me that Giotto could not be rightly
imderstood without a broader presentation of his school than has
hitherto been made. Accordingly I did not hesitate to devote con
siderable space and effort to the discussion of several, little known
masters who followed in his wake. I tried to group under different
heads, according to the methods of constructive art criticism, certain
works achieved under the direct influence of the master, and to
combine the artistic individualities thus formed with such historical
records as could be gathered from the earliest writers on those sub
jects. Unfortunately we have practically no signed works by those
early painters, and absolutely trustworthy records of their lives and
works are extremely scarce. Consequently many of my results are
hypothetical and may be modified by later discoveries. I hope,
nevertheless, that they may prove of some value for further studies
by opening up an almost neglected field of Italian art history, and
by indicating a way for future research.
Most of the work had to be built up from the ground, independ
ently of whatever theories existed before about the same material.
The attributions were to be proved by stylistic analysis in almost
every instance. This may in part explain the rather too descriptive
character of the book. The material was to be presented at some
length, if my treatment were to become of value as a foundation for
further study in the same field. I hope, indeed, that it soon will be
possible to give a more synthetic account of Giotto's school, if not
of the whole Florentine Trecento; but as yet there are too many
unsolved historical problems and uncertain attributions to allow of
such a presentation.

PREFACE ix
Another reason for a certain unevenness of this book may lie in
the fact that it is in part constructed on some of my previous publi
cations on Giotto (1906) and Giottino (1907). I now regard both
those books as out of date and misleading in some of their state
ments; but they were nevertheless most valuable to me when I had
to complete the present volume, or the lectures, within a very short
time. I used parts of my previous publications as a kind of prepara
tory draft for this book, altering freely much of what I had written
ten years earlier. But at the same time, I suppose a certain draw
back was occasioned by the consultation of my older books — an
influence which of course was not felt when composing the quite
new, original chapters of the present work. It may thus truthfully
be stated that the present book has not only been prepared during
a considerable time, but written during nearly ten years, although
the intervals in the work have been much longer than the periods of
creative activity. I do not think this long period of preparation and
work can be regarded as an advantage, in view of the lack of unity
and concentration it brought about. But it may have been useful
in so far as it has given me an opportunity to re-consider at different
times some of my attributions and my theories about general sty
listic development. I have found reason to modify some of my former
views. On the other hand I have also in many cases been able to
find new grounds for theories and attributions which I first divulged
more than a decade ago. Unfortunately the great war has prevented
me from going to Italy during the time when I have been most ac
tively preparing the present volume; it is only too probable that
some corrections and additions would have resulted from such a
journey. They may perhaps find a place in a second volume on the
later Florentine Trecento painters — if I ever manage to publish it.
The material I have collected for such a volume is perhaps more
extensive than that which has been used for the present work.
The present deplorable condition of international affairs has
caused a considerable delay in the issue of this book. It was in
great part set up in type during the spring and summer of 1916, but
since I left America at the beginning of June great difficulties arose
in the exchange of proofs. The mail service between Cambridge and
Stockholm was extremely slow and uncertain; it took months for
proofs to arrive and be returned; and some proofs never arrived at
all. The prospect of seeing this book published within a year or two
became darker every month so that I finally decided to come over

X PREFACE
again to the place where it was printed. Returning to America, I
have once more met with the greatest interest and zeal for this work
on the part of the Harvard University Press.
A real loss to me was not to find Mr. Schenck at his usual occu
pations and free to assist in the final polishing of the proofs. He is
at present engaged in more pleasant duties. But I had the good
fortune to meet in New York Mr. Maurice W. Brockwell, of London,
who undertook to read the final proofs. His very sensitive ear for
English caused a few changes in expression. I feel much obliged to
Mr. Brockwell for the value of the work that he has done on my
book, thereby making it more serviceable to Europeans.
But the main credit rests with Mr. Frederic Schenck. Indeed,
had it not been for him and my other friends of the Fine Arts De
partment at Harvard, the book would never have been achieved.
OsVALD SiRilN.
New York, July 8, 1917.

CONTENTS

PAGE
I. Intkoduction  3
n. The frescoes in the Uppee Church at Assisi  8
in. Biographical notes on Giotto  21
IV. The frescoes in the Arena Chapel at Padua  30
V. Giotto's artistic style in the Arena frescoes  54
VI. The frescoes of the Cappella Bardi and Cappella Peruzzi . 59
VII. Panel pictures by Giotto and his assistants  74
Vni. Giotto's school  91
1. The Magdalen frescoes  93
2. The St. Nicholas frescoes and panel pictures by the same master 97
3. The Allegories  106
4. The Life of the Virgin  112
5. The Santa Chiara frescoes and some panel pictures  120
6. The frescoes in San Francesco at Pistoja  125
IX. Taddeo Gaddi  130
1. Biographical notes  130
2. The frescoes in Santa Croce  134
3. The Pisan frescoes  144
4. Panel pictures  147
X. Bernardo Daddi  157
1. Biographical notes  157
2. Bernardo's principal paintings  160
XI. Jacopo dal Casentino  189
xn. Maso — Giottino  193
1. Historical notes  193
2. The frescoes  198
3. Panel pictures  209
Xin. Andrea Orcagna  214
1. Historical notes  214
2. Easel pictures  219
3. The frescoes  232
XIV. Nabdo di Cione  241
1. Fresco paintings  241
2. Easel pictures  249
XV. Jacopo di Cione  256
Lists of Pictures by Giotto and some of his followers . . . 263

GIOTTO AND SOME OF HIS
FOLLOWERS

INTRODUCTION
DURING the early Middle Ages the development of Italian
art, viewed as a whole, showed a constantly increasing with
drawal from nature. The late antique, as it appears in Roman and
Pompeian art, was strongly naturalistic. Its particular strength lay,
above all, in its virtuosity, in the extraordinary ease with which it
solved the problem of pictorial illusion, in its suppleness and mo-
bihty in the interpretation of nature. It was an art which played
with the means of expression, but rarely had anything of deeper
meaning to impart. With the spread of Christianity, attention
was turned more and more from the outer world to inner realities.
The subjective emotional life became a more dominant influence
in the productions of art. Forms, of course, change more slowly
than emotional life, but nevertheless the transition went on, first
in the East, later in the West — and its course was toward
abstraction. This is not the place to follow its development and the shifting
periods of progress and decline; we need only bear in mind that
when mediaeval art stood highest, as ih Byzantium in the ninth
century, it was also most untrammeled by nature, freest in its
abstract symbolism. Technique and the means of expression (above
all, the line) had attained such perfection that artists could really
render in line and form intense emotional life, and interpret symboli
cally something of the ceremonial grandeur of Byzantine culture and
its dream of hierarchical beauty. Artistic creation was then borne on
a strong wave of emotion; and it matters little whether this be classi
fied by later times as exotic or artfficial, for it was in any case of
such a nature that it demanded expression in genuine, artistic form.
In occidental art one can hardly detect any such general emo
tional ferment, with its resultant artistic revival, before the dawn
of Gothic. If we turn especially to painting in Italy, it must be
acknowledged that the best productions of the early Middle Ages
were made under direct influence from the East, and to no small
extent by resident Greek artists. The general tendency is, of course,
nearly the same as in Byzantine art, but its trend away from nature

4 GIOTTO
was not accompanied in Italian art by a corresponding refinement of
abstract formulae. Artistic expression degenerated more and more
into elementary symbolism, growing less expressive as the interest
in nature and the ties with antiquity were loosened. Western art
seems to have missed that stimulus of imaginative and emotional
life which inspired the decorative splendor of the culture of the
Eastern Empire. It drew no inspiration from gorgeous brocades,
glittering jewels, all the refined conventionalism in the forms of
life, which distinguished Byzantium, and it was lacking in feeling
for the aesthetic signfficance of abstract line. The West sought
representation, illustration, narrative.
Western art seems above all to have felt a much stronger need of
fructffication by nature than the Byzantine. WTien fresh blood was
not introduced by such contact, this art generally became a more or
less mechanical imitation of the works of the preceding generation.
Imagination seemed to dry up, and technique to grow coarse, when
it had no spur to new discoveries. The Italian artists of the ninth
and tenth centuries had hardly anything original to give. How far
they were behind their Byzantine models may be seen in the frescoes
at Urbano alia Caffarella or in the paintings in the Sylvester Chapel
at Quattro Coronati in Rome. The best painting done in Rome at
this period was still the work of Greek artists.
It is important to bear in mind this general lassitude in order to
estimate aright the new contributions made by the Italian painters
of the thirteenth century. Their merit, generally speaking, was to
reestablish art on a national basis, to free it from the fetters which
for centuries had kept it prisoner to Byzantium. These painters of
the thirteenth century are, therefore, to a certain extent, the heralds
of a new era in Italian painting — a phase of development in which
the general tendency may be regarded as opposite to that of the pre
ceding period. Such masters as Giunta Pisano, Cimabue, and Guido
of Siena, owe their historical interest to the expression they gave to
something essentially Italian — to a dramatic or lyric pathos which
does not vibrate in the works of Byzantine masters. They use to
some extent the old formulae, but modified and tempered as was
demanded by their emotional and imaginative life.
It was only in the nature of things that a reaction should follow.
The abstract conventionalism of the artistic symbol had been carried
to its extreme limit, and in clumsy hands had degenerated into
schematism. The life of art had fallen below zero, and threatened
to congeal entirely; the thaw was gradual, and more than one spring

INTRODUCTION 5
day was necessary. The revivifying sun was the growing interest
in nature and in human life.
In the thirteenth century a wave of emotional awakening swept
over the land — a spiritual movement of the deepest significance
in national life and art. The great representative of this revival
of the spiritual and emotional life of the individual was, as is
well known, St. Francis; but the saint of Assisi was no solitary
instance, although the purest and most gifted representative of the
new order. Many another could be found in the number of the
friars, as well as among the nobles and citizens, who felt a new
religious rapture, a new conception of life. The mighty wave of
emotion wliich swept over southern and middle Europe during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries found expression in many directions.
In general history, it is most clearly marked by the Crusades; in
the world history of art, by the birth of neo-Christian art — the
Gothic. In Italy this awakening is clearly discernible in the painting which
grew up along with the preaching friars and their capacious edifices.
It was called forth by inner as well as outer causes, and as soon as
the requisite conditions were there, creative personalities appeared.
It lay in the very nature of things that this revival should assume
a national and local character, and lead to a stronger interest in the
outer world. The real awakening, the impelling force, came from
within as a part of the whole trend of the new civilization — but
the new direction of evolution led outward toward objective reality.
This development may be followed further, step by step, in the art
of the fourteenth century, where the general tendency seems to be
the attempt to attain ever stronger and more convincing expression
for objective phenomena.
But along with this general evolution many deviations and
individual variations appear, which lead into side-tracks and give no
support to the naturalistic tendency. At all times there have been
artists whose work has been more imaginative than realistic, and
who have been more interested in inner than in outer reality.
It is, however, easy to see that the remaining values gained during
this period, slowly preparing the dawn of the Renaissance, lay within
the field of naturalistic representation. The decisive step by which
art was absolutely freed from mediaeval traditions was of course
taken shortly after the middle of the fifteenth century by the great
masters, who devoted their best efforts to the development of such
means as might serve in the representation of reality. There was

6 GIOTTO
a time when artists were literally carried away by joy at the
discovery of the richness and beauty of nature, the expressiveness
of the human body, the pictorial qualities of light and shade, the
illusive values of the laws of perspective and other similarly formal
things. But, happily, there were creative geniuses strong enough to
keep fresh the inner fountain of art, even during such a period of
scientffic drought.
Studying the leading artists of the fourteenth century, especially
in Florence, one is constantly reminded of the conflict between pure,
imaginative creation and the trend toward objective reality. The
latter forms, as it were, the red thread of the evolution, but the imagi
native, subjective element is naturally that which, above all, stamps
the hall-mark of individual genius. The conflict is often more
noticeable in these early works than in later ones, because the
technical skill which conceals difficulties and arrests attention by
naturalistic description is so much less developed. These early
artists devote themselves mostly to traditional themes, employed
for centuries, and containing a standardized symbolical meaning;
they had, therefore, comparatively little occasion to linger over the
historical or literary purport of the subject. The illustrative or
descriptive element does not as yet absorb so much of the artist's
power of creation as during the Quattrocento; suggestions only were
given in places where later times gave complete descriptions; sym
bols of form, instead of full, naturalistic illusion. In many cases,
perhaps, this was more a result of deficiency in technical and formal
training than of conscious artistic effort, but it led nevertheless to
concentration on what is artistically most important: the rhythmic
values of design, the significant form. The creations of the great
primitive masters are not weakened by disturbing elements of illus
trative detail or objective illusion.
These general principles should be kept in mind when we proceed
to a study of the Trecento painters. We must never expect from
them that kind of illusion which the masters of later times have
led us to associate with the art of painting, nor should we look for
such abstract symbolism as the great painters of the earliest Middle
Ages carried to relative perfection. The pictorial art of the four
teenth century forms a kind of transition between the subjective
symbohsm — the art of conventionalized line and decorative
rhythm — and the representation of objective reality, as confirmed
by our visual experience. These two basic elements appear, natu
rally, in different combinations and with varying degrees of strength

INTRODUCTION 7
and importance in different individuals; they attain harmonious
fusion only in the greatest. Giotto, for instance, is at the same time
an intense, imaginative creator, giving his work a free, rhythmic
form, and a convincing portrayer of fundamental objective values
such as weight, mass, volume, and movement. His individual
artistic greatness lies above all in his ability to transform the illus
trative motifs into rhythmic values of line and form. His impor
tance for subsequent development must, however, be sought in his
new conquests in the realm of naturahstic representation.

II
THE FRESCOES IN THE UPPER CHURCH AT ASSISI
THE point of departure generally taken for the study of Giotto's
art is the Upper Church of San Francesco in Assisi, for this con
tains works of two different generations : an older, which represents
the art before Giotto, and a later, representing his own time. The
later works are also generally attributed to Giotto himself. Latterly,
however, strong doubts have been expressed regarding this attri
bution, which is not supported by any documentary or historical
facts, but rests solely on ancient tradition, to a certain extent
strengthened by comparisons of style.^
We thus meet at the outset of the study of Giotto's art a problem
of attribution on which we must endeavor to throw some light before
we proceed to the analysis of works of more authentic character.
In order to understand the historical position and peculiar style
of the Giottesque frescoes at Assisi, it is of course desirable to devote
a closer study to the earlier frescoes in the same church, but as such
a course would demand too much space, we must Kmit ourselves to
noting briefly the principal groups into which these paintings may
be divided, as well as their general connection with the later frescoes
ascribed to Giotto.
The earliest frescoes are without doubt Cimabue's paintings in
the choir: grand, decorative compositions, full of strong dramatic
pathos, and marked throughout by a strongly individual, linear style.
The second group consists of frescoes in the eastern part of the nave,
evidently executed in connection with Cimabue's work, but by
weaker artists of his following. In some of these paintings we can
trace a resemblance to the style of Jacopo Torriti, as we know it
from his mosaics in Rome. The last group is confined to the west
end of the nave, beginning on the northern wall with the history of
Isaac and Jacob, and on the southern wall with the representation
' For an account of the historical facts relating to the paintings in San Francesco in
Assisi see Thode, Franz von Assisi und die Anfange der Kunst der Renaissance, Berlin, 1885,
and Venturi, La Basilica d' Assisi.
The most comprehensive criticism of the traditional attribution of the paintings is to be
found in Rintelen, Giotto und Giotto Apocryphen, MUnchen, 1912.
8

THE FRESCOES IN SAN FRANCESCO 9
of the Piet^. The four figures in the vaulting of the western bay are
closely connected with these in style. It is apparent that several
artists were active with this group too, but they all represent one
school or common style, closely connected with the Roman artist,
Pietro Cavallini. These frescoes show most striking affinities
with the St. Francis pictures. They thus become of the greatest
historical and stylistic interest when we face the question of
Giotto's work at Assisi. They are, however, so badly damaged
that they afford only fragmentary material for formal analysis.
If we take the best preserved, namely the pictures from the story
of Isaac and Jacob, we find in them strong points of resemblance
to the authentic work of Pietro Cavallini, the fragment of his Last
Judgment in St. Cecilia in Trastevere. The apostles, which are here
still extant, are nearly related to the main figures at Assisi (Pl.I).
In both cases the statuesque cast of the figures, evidently in
spired by Roman sculpture, is characteristic, and the stately frames
draped in Roman togas, the fine heads which often look as if molded
in bronze, the details of the faces — the high forehead, the straight,
short nose, the well formed ears, the small mouth — also closely
correspond. As far as a master's identity can be proved by morpho
logical details, it appears incontestable. It seems, however, that the
St. Cecilia frescoes reveal a softer and broader brush-work. The
difference may be the result of the better protection given to these
pictures, which have not been so exposed to wind and weather or
subjected to such vandalism in restoration as the Assisi frescoes.
The intimate connection of school cannot, however, be overlooked.
To gain an idea of the artistic style and the manner of expression
in the St. Francis frescoes it is not expedient to study them in the
chronological order in which the events are unfolded, beginning on
the northern wall next the choir and continuing to the corresponding
point on the southern. It is more to the purpose to choose some
characteristic pictures out of the series, unless we go over all of it
several times. Turning from an attentive study of the Isaac fres
coes and the representations of the Church Fathers in the western
bay, we at once observe essential similarities of style in the St.
Francis frescoes. A typical example is the representation of St.
Francis and his followers before Pope Innocent III, receiving per
mission to preach (PI. 2). The picture is near the middle of the
northern wall. The Pope seated on his throne and blessing the kneel
ing friars is exactly the same figure as the St. Gregory in the vault.

10 GIOTTO
The chiseled type with the straight nose pinched at the root, the long
eyebrows almost grown together, the sharp stroke above the mouth,
the perfect oval of the face — all these features are absolutely alike
in the two figures. The same is true of the treatment of the drapery.
The sharply pressed folds, broadly painted with strong Ughts, giving
the impression of a material harder than cloth, appear to have been
done after the same pattern, and by the same hand.
Looking more carefully to see how the fresco is composed, we find
that the artist took pains to represent a complete interior. He has
attained partial success by introducing deep arches borne on con
soles, intended to support the ceiling, but valuable chiefly in giving
an added impression of depth to the stage. The point of vision is
taken in the center, the side walls are equally foreshortened. The
arches and consoles are richly adorned with cosmati-work, exactly
hke that on Gregory's throne; the walls are covered with costly
hangings. The figures are not drawn from the same viewpoint as
the interior. They stand in no organic relation to the room, but
rather give the impression of being stuck on. There are two groups :
on one side the Franciscan friars; on the other, the Pope with the
chamberlains and cardinals in waiting. A connection is established
by the gestures of the chief figures, but we receive no impression
of the importance of the occasion, this remarkable fulfillment of
St. Francis' deepest longing. The group of friars suffers from
absolute monotony, emphasized by a similarity in gesture; the
Pope's followers are standing by, as perfectly indifferent witnesses.
A certain doll-like unreality attaches to all the figures, not so much
because of their deficient psychological expression as because they
do not form links in an organic composition. They have been put
there to illustrate the story, but they do not cooperate towards a
dramatic unity.
Let us now choose instead of an interior a picture representing
outdoor incidents, to see whether its tridimensional space composi
tion is better executed. St. Francis Renouncing his Worldly Posses
sions (PI. 3) is one of the most dramatic scenes in the whole legend.
The young man's enthusiasm drives him to take off his garments,
abjure his earthly father, and entrust himself wholly to his Father in
Heaven. The action is in an open place in Assisi, flanked by two
buildings probably intended to represent his father's house and some
church. These two architectural wings are remarkably weak, not
only because of their improbable relation to the figures (in this respect
they foUow the custom of the time) but still more because of their

THE FRESCOES IN SAN FRANCESCO 11
arbitrary construction. They seem to be made of a lot of smaller
parts pasted together at surprising angles of perspective. The
artist insists on a mass of minutely decorated detail, but fails to
give an appearance of probability to the whole construction. He
cannot draw a single column that carries weight, or a roof that
really rests upon the walls. The figures are again divided into two
groups: Bernardone with his followers upon one side, and, on the
other, St. Francis with his followers, foremost among them the
bishop who is wrapping the youth in his mantle.
The father holds the clothes which his son has taken off on one
arm and raises the other to strike, but is restrained by a more
cautious citizen. The son lifts his hands to heaven in supplication.
The contrast is undeniably effective, but one has a feeling that the
action stopped with this tableau. There is no trace of any deeper
emotion or dramatic tension reflected in those present, if we dis
regard the gestures of the two principal actors. The bishop looks
petrffied, like a sharply chiseled statue from a Gothic niche. His
two canons belong in the same category. The people behind the
father are crowded so close together that not one of them could pos
sibly move. Nothing stands out except a few bronze-colored busts
of the same type as in the Isaac pictures. The striking similarity in
expression, tj^es, and positions of the heads led me years ago to
suppose that this painting, like the greater number of the frescoes
of this series, had been much altered by a restoration which accentu
ated the statuesque rigidity of the figures and the mask-like uni
formity of the faces. A later examination has, however, led me to
a somewhat different opinion. The paintings have certainly suffered
considerably, both by the peeling off of the colors in some places
and by the retouching, but the repainting cannot be said to have
entirely altered the character of their style. The frescoes still give
us the impression of some one master's individual manner.
Another of the earliest illustrations in the series represents St.
Francis giving his mantle to a poor man who once was rich (PI. 4).
The composition is remarkably well constructed. The youthful
saint is placed in the middle of the foreground: on one side of
him stands the old man bending forward to receive the gift, on the
other side is the horse; all three figures are on the nearest plane of
the foreground. Behind them are steep mountains rising toward
the upper corners; the two dominating diagonals cross right over
St. Francis' head. There is undeniably something grand in this
landscape, and it has considerable decorative effect in its careful

12 GIOTTO
balance. But here again, as in the preceding pictures, the figures
and the landscape (with its architecture) form two entirely different
elements, imagined and drawn independently of each other, and
then loosely joined. A certain harmony of line here forms a basis
for a unified, decorative effect, but the space composition is very
defective, and the figures fall out of the picture.
A picture which, although it is among the most entertaining of
the series, shows the artist's inability to carry out an organic space
composition, is Christmas Night in Greccio (PI. 5). The artist has
here set himself a problem which clearly exceeds his powers. The
scene is laid in the choir of a church, which is meant to be separated
from the nave by a high masonry choirscreen. On this screen is
fastened a crucifix which, like the pulpit, is seen from behind. In the
choir stand the altar, covered by a Gothic tabernacle resting on four
slender columns, and the great lectern. All this is depicted most
carefully : the decoration of the tabernacle with reliefs and cosmati-
work, the graceful garlands, the embroideries of the altar cloth,
the screens and candles of the choir pulpit, and the wooden ribs
of the crucifix. The artist could not have taken greater pains to
evoke tangible impressions of reality, but his intention, so well
carried out in detail, is entirely missed in the whole. There is
really no room for these tightly packed friars, priests, and spectators.
Those who stand in the front row give the impression of broad, flat
dolls, and of the others only the busts can be seen between the
shoulders of those in front. Whether they really have any bodies,
or legs to stand on seems uncertain. Nor is any greater depth
suggested by the open door in the background, through which the
inquisitive women are streaming in. The flgures lack body. But
the artist has brought out so skilfully all the captivating and
wonderful features of the story, so clearly portrayed the singing
friars, the busy priests, and St. Francis with the Christ-child in his
arms, as well as all the accessories, that one at first scarcely looks
for an organic structure in the composition, or a unified effect which
might be produced by figures entering as cubic forms into the
architectural setting. It is only on closer analysis that the funda
mental weaknesses become apparent; this is the case with almost
all these frescoes. The illustrative element is, however, usually so
important that the stricter artistic requirements may easily be over
looked. A typical picture is St. Francis before the Sultan (PL 6), ready to
go through the ordeal by fixe. The composition is clearly divided

THE FRESCOES IN SAN FRANCESCO 13
into three groups: on the right, the sultan on his throne, surrounded
by his bodyguard; in the center, St. Francis, with a brother; to
the left, the shrinking Mohammedan priests. The meaning is made
quite clear by the movement of the principal personages. But on
looking closer, one finds that the figures are little more than manni-
kins, lacking such deeper artistic expressiveness as might be pro
duced by their cooperation in a unified space composition. Where,
for instance, have the attendants crowded behind the sultan any
room to stand ? Are they not arbitrarily jammed in and cut off ?
The friar behind St. Francis is a quite bodiless shadow, and of the
Mohammedan priests it is only the foremost who betrays any third
dimension. The two crowded behind him give the impression of
meaningless, formal repetition, weakening, rather than strengthen
ing, the effect of the awkward movement of the first. The artist
does not seem to have known or cared anything about their organic
structure or physical qualities; they are, to him, rather actors in
a shadow play, comprehensible, but not convincing, lacking the
power to suggest the strong and wonderful drama of the soul.
Neither do the architectural elements strengthen the impression of
reality: rather the contrary. Both the sultan's throne and the
peculiar loggia-formed building, which has an oriental look about it,
are so falsely drawn that one fears they may collapse. The artist's
principal object again seems to be embellishment — the glass and
marble mosaic, the coffered vault, the crockets upon the gable and
the statues which terminate the pillars of the pagoda — details
without any noticeable connection.
A picture of remarkably good dramatic action represents the death
of the knight of Celano (PI. 7). The repast is over, the knight
has confessed, and is now lying dead on the floor. St. Francis rises
from the table, apparently explaining the situation to the reproach
ful man who turns toward the saint as he points to the dead body.
By the action of the man, the connection between the two principal
figures, the saint and the knight, is established, and the chief diagonal
is brought out. The same concentration of action down toward
the right-hand corner is further accentuated by the women who are
rushing in, forming a compact mass in contrast to the commanding
solitary figure of the saint. There is something suggestive in the
uniform movement of the women, despite their stiffness. The first
impression is decidedly felicitous. On closer examination, however,
one cannot help noticing the poverty of invention, the monotonous
similarity of position, and the arbitrary mutilation of the figures.

14 GIOTTO
The faces, and especially those of the women rushing in, have the
common stereotyped character; a grimace is all that enlivens them.
The room is indicated by a recess furnished with the bench and the
dining-table, and covered by a barrel vault, which carries an over
hanging loggia. The whole arrangement makes an unreal impres
sion, and once more indicates the artist's incapacity to represent the
determining factors in the construction of a room.
In the representation of the expulsion of the demons from Arezzo
(PI. 8), the artist has laid particular stress upon the drawing of the
city and the church outside of it. He has endeavored to give as
far as possible an accurate picture of Arezzo, or at least a view of a
characteristic mediaeval city, crowned by towers, roof -loggias, etc.,
but in so doing he has lost himself in a confusion of angles and
forms resembling paper houses loosely pasted together and piled on
top of each other. The positions and gestures of the figures are
undeniably expressive, especially the commanding gesture of the
standing Sylvester, which continues the rising line from the kneeling
Francis. It really becomes clear that the will and power of these
two monks is directed upward, toward the fleeing demons. But
the elements of composition are not fused into a complete whole —
each stands by itself; the city, the church, the figures, their grouping
in the picture, are illustrative, not artistically significant.
The artist is decidedly most successful when he employs as few
figures as possible. His deficient knowledge of unffied space com
position makes it impossible for him to control the problem of a
great mass of figures. But single figures may, through their posi
tions and gestures, be made very effective. We have seen examples
in the picture just described, and we find them still more striking in
the celebrated representation of St. Francis calhng forth water from
the rock to quench the thirst of the mule-driver (PI. 9). Ever since
the days of Vasari, the stooping man, who is so eagerly lapping the
fresh, gushing water, has been considered a masterpiece of natural
istic design. The effectiveness, however, is entirely in the expressive
silhouette — no further characterization is to be found. The position
of the figure, also, is hardly inteUigible. Where is his other leg ?
St. Francis has been impressively placed higher up on the cliff.
The upward striving movement of the figure, and above all, of its
lifted arms, is emphasized by the rock rising like a pyramid. But
where is St. Francis' other arm ? Is it quite concealed by the one
in front ? The two friars with the donkey, behind him, form a
significant support, a strengthening foil.

THE FRESCOES IN SAN FRANCESCO 15
The frescoes which we have mentioned show a rather homo
geneous style. Even if they were not entirely executed by the
same hand, they are still so similar in composition, type, propor
tions of the figures, landscape, and architectural motifs, that we
must conclude that they were done under the direction of one artist.
He has left the mark of his own personality upon the works. This
group, uniform in style, does not, however, comprise all the pic
tures belonging to the legend of St. Francis. The characteristic
features are not to be found in the first, or in the last nine, pictures
(PI. 20-28), where divergences are noticeable, both in the method
of composition and in the style of the figures themselves, which
clearly indicate that several masters were occupied with the execu
tion of the St. Francis legend.
The greatest divergence from the style of figures just described
appears in the last four pictures, all representing miracles performed
by St. Francis after his death and also in the first of the series, which
shows the youthful Francis honored by a man who spreads out his
cloak before him in the market-place of Assisi (PI. 10). These five
pictures are distinguished by a far more elegant and supple style
than the others.
The difference can easily be seen in the first picture of the series.
The six figures here presented are divided into two corresponding
groups with an open place between them. There is no crowding; on
the contrary there is plenty of space; St. Francis is really moving
hurriedly forward. In the middle background stands Assisi's well
known Temple of Minerva, its open colonnade adding depth to the
picture. The tall, mediaeval buildings on both sides are also less
artificial than the buildings in the other pictures; they betray more
architectural feeling. Figures and buildings combine more organi
cally to create an impression of space. The composition is without
question the best of the whole series. Were all as good as this one,
there would be less temptation to question the attribution to Giotto.
However, the style of the figures in these frescoes also is quite
different from what we find later in Giotto's work. The elongated
proportions of the figures, their small heads, and elegant hands and
feet, the lively gestures, the graceful movements — all combined
give them an individual stamp which does not correspond with
Giotto's art, but rather with that of the so-called St. Cecilia-master.
The great picture in the Uffizi, from which this anonymous master
is generally named, shows the same proportions of figure still more
exaggerated. In the center St. Cecilia is seated on a marble throne

16 GIOTTO
of peculiarly slender form and dehcate detail. The small, fraU
hands of the saint and her narrow face with its long, thin nose,
vividly recall the types in the above-mentioned frescoes. The
peculiar style of the artist's figures appears, however, stiU more
distinctly in the eight small scenes, four on each side of the large
figure. They display a suppleness and mobihty which distinguish
them from the work of other known masters of the fourteenth cen
tury. The excellent relation between the figures and the architecture
is especially noticeable. Both are decidedly attenuated, fragile, and
delicate, but they form organic parts of compositions which display
a marked tridimensional character. All these small pictures show
such an unusual solution of the problem of space that we scarcely
find anything comparable in Florentine art before the middle of the
fourteenth century. Two pictures in Santa Margherita a Montici,
outside of Florence — a Madonna, and the patron saint, with six
scenes from her life — betray the same mannerisms, the same
" Empire "-like figures and slender, architectural forms as the
CecUia picture. Among the other works of the same artist there
deserve mention a smaller Madonna surrounded by saints, in the
Museum of Budapest; a heavUy restored picture representing San
Miniato and scenes from his life, in the church of the same name;
and an enthroned St. Peter in the church of San Simone in Florence.
Both the latter have suffered considerably from restoration, but the
picture of St. Peter is especially important in this connection, as it
bears the date 1301.
Even the most cursory glance at the last four frescoes leaves no
doubt that they are executed by the St. Cecilia-master. The style
of his figures and the supple and individual manner of composition
are unmistakable. Furthermore, he appears here as a captivating
narrator with a capacity for spirited psychological characterization.
The portrayal of St. Francis' visit to the patient who had been given
up by the doubting physician is strikingly brought out in two
groups : the saint and the angels by the sick-bed, and the physician
who evidently gives the two questioning women to understand that
he can no longer do anything. In the representation of the con
fession of the woman raised from the dead the artjst has really hit
off wonderfuUy the fat father-confessor, and at the same time has
given a lively portrayal of the amazement of the spectators. In
both cases he has painted high rooms as stages for the events and
has introduced the figures in these spacious interiors in a natural
manner.

THE FRESCOES IN SAN FRANCESCO 17
In comparison with this virtuoso in composition ^ the second
artist, who executed frescoes 20-24, aU referring to the death and
canonization of St. Francis, appears somewhat fumbling, heavy,
and more primitive. His compositions are crowded with figures so
tightly packed that there could be no possibUity of movement. The
figures are elongated, recalling the St. CecUia-master, though they
have not his elegance and grace. They are throughout stiff er, and
form a kind of transition to those we have seen in the other frescoes
of St. Francis. The problem of space has not been solved with any
particular success. In the pictures which represent the death of
St. Francis (PL 14) the body lies outstretched on a bier in the fore
ground with several friars kneeling or sitting round it. The artist,
wishing to represent farther back a body of priests, monks, and choir
boys celebrating the mass of the dead, has resorted to the primitive
device of placing the figures upon a higher level.
If we endeavor to sum up our impressions of the St. Francis
frescoes in the Upper Church of Assisi, we must first acknowledge
that atJLgast three different artists^ have been employed on these
paintings. From the beginning a scheme was probably drawn
up for the twenty-eight different scenes from the life of the saint,
a scheme thought out in detail by those who had in mind the best
interests of the Church and the Order.
We have here the most complete series known of scenes from the
life of St. Francis, which for several centuries after remained a
model. This series certainly was not fixed upon for any artistic
reasons. Giotto's importance as the painter of St. Francis' life and
St. Francis' importance in the development of Giotto's art of repre
sentation are, on the whole, matters where feeling and imagination
have to a great degree taken the place of facts. But the series.
probably received its canonical form under the direction of the
authorities of the Order.
If we are right in this supposition, it becomes even more probable
that several artists were employed at the same time in the church.
The work was so comprehensive that it naturally was essential to
call upon several hands for its execution. It is scarcely necessary to
recall similar collaborations at a later period, for instance, the decora
tion of the walls of the Sistine Chapel by different Florentine and
Umbrian masters of the fifteenth century. In Assisi, however, the
' I am inchned to share the opuiion of Professor Venturi that the St. Cecilia-master should
be identified with the famous painter Buffalmaco ot whose activities Vasari has so many
stories to relate. Cf. Venturi, Storia dell 'Arte Italiana, v, 290.

18 GIOTTO
style is more uniform in character and a great majority of the paint
ings seem to have been executed under the direction of the same
master. This artist who held a leading position in the execution of
frescoes 2-20 constitutes the central problem for stylistic analysis.
It is he who has been traditionally identified with Giotto, and is re
garded as the pioneer of a new epoch in painting.
We have seen that the paintings of this master are very closely
related to the other paintings in the western portions of the church,
especially the pictures of Isaac and Joseph, the Piet^, the Ascension,
the Pentecost, as well as the Church Fathers on the vaulting. This
connection has been strongly insisted upon by several critics. No
one who has studied the paintings in the Upper Church of St.
Francis can overlook it, though the conclusions which have been
drawn have been rather varying and contradictory. Some students
have supposed that the St. Francis-master was a close follower of
the painter of the earlier frescoes; others have considered the
painter to be the same in both cases, whether it was Giotto or
another. To express any decided opinion on this point is most difficult,
owing to the imperfect preservation of the other paintings. The
correspondence in types, in the proportions of the figures, in the
treatment of drapery, and in technique, especiaUy between the
Church Fathers in the western vault and certain of the St. Francis
frescoes, are certainly striking, but not sufficient to establish the
identity of the artist; they may be explained by an intimate rela
tionship of school. This school must then be caUed Roman, for,
from what we have seen, the Isaac frescoes and the others of the
same group are so closely related to the extant paintings by Pietro
CavaUini in St. CeciUa in Trastevere, that his collaboration in
Assisi seems plausible. The painter of the legend of St. Francis is
clearly an artist of principally Roman training. His liking for
Roman cosmati-work, his taste for rich and stately accessories, the
statuesque character of his figures, and the rather stereotyped,
regular features, which like Cavallini's types seems strongly in
fluenced by antique art, all prove decisively his connection with
Rome. In our analysis of the pictures we have endeavored to lay
stress on this artist's remarkable interest in realistic detaU, com
bined with a poor control of unffied space composition. He draws
architecture and landscapes with accuracy and fullness; at times he
finds expressive pose and gesture for the principal figures, though

THE FRESCOES IN SAN FRANCESCO 19
he is unable to represent several figures in action, and he does not
know how to develop dramatic situation by the use of subsidiary
figures. He cannot represent an assembly of people in a clear and
graphic manner, for he has never fully grasped the human figure as
a cubic reality. The rhythmic construction of the composition which
we shall find so strongly developed in Giotto's Padua frescoes is
missing in the St. Francis pictures. Despite many interesting
features, we can rarely escape the impression that we are facing
large illustrations in which the literary text outweighs the formal
conception of the artist. The power to captivate and transmute
the intense conception of form, which fuses all into an organic work
of art — no matter whether the elements are realistic or literary —
is lacking here. The artist's talent seems to go in a rather superfi
cially decorative or literary direction, not towards any deeper pic
torial conception of the problems of form and space. Viewed in this
light he cannot be called a precursor of Giotto's later work. It
seems hard to account for these deficiencies as the imperfections of
an inexperienced beginner or a servile follower of prototypes. One
is not struck by any lack of artistic abihty, any particular uncer
tainty in the forms of expression. The figures as well as the
architectural motifs exhibit considerable skill for the time; the
former are in several cases quite brilliantly drawn, the latter are
often rich and varied to excess. The artist who has worked here
shows no lack of training, his deficiency does not lie on the surface,
but in artistic conception, in that 'creative power of imagination
which transforms the surface of a painting into a composition full
of rhythmic expression. How this can be accomplished even with
rather limited means and unmodulated detail, we can learn best
from Giotto's frescoes in the Arena Chapel at Padua.
In considering the date of the St. Francis frescoes, the relation
of their style to Pietro Cavallini's paintings of the thirteenth cen
tury in Rome hardly allows us to advance them much beyond 1300.
The collaboration of the St. Cecilia-master (PL 12-13) also points to
a period about 1300 or in the first decade of the fourteenth century.
As soon as we reach the second and third decades of the century, we
find a Giottesque school that had developed different principles of
compositibn. The Legend of St. Francis must have been painted
before the influence of the mature Giotto had gained its powerful
ascendancy in Trecento art, and not least in Assisi. But it is con
ceivable that its execution occupied a number of years and suffered
from interruptions, which would make the work unequal.

20 GIOTTO
Did the youthful Giotto really begin to paint here ? The possi
bility of this traditional assumption is, of course, not excluded by our
previous analysis of the St. Francis pictures, though it is not in ac
cordance with our general conception of Giotto's art. In any case
his work was soon broken off and then so completely retouched
by other artists and restorers that individual characteristics or
tangible traces of his work in the Upper Church of Assisi are hardly
discernible.

Ill
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON GIOTTO
ALTHOUGH it is not our intention to offer a complete mono
graph on Giotto, we feel that it might be helpful to present a
few biographical notes, for the benefit of those who have not had
access to the original sources, on Giotto's hfe and works. The his
torical material is unfortunately scanty. Giotto's personality was
already a topic for discussion among the authors of the fourteenth
century, but it so happens that the greater part of the stories
attached to the famous painter must be relegated to the province of
myth. They make it evident that Giotto was early assigned a seat
of honor among Italy's " uomini famosi," but they contribute very
little to an estimate of his artistic importance.
Dante, as we know, names Giotto as the painter who " hath the
cry " in his day (" ed ora ha Giotto il grido "), obscuring the fame
of Cimabue. (Purgatorio XI, 94-96.) Petrarch and Boccaccio hail
him as the reviver of art.^ Filippo Villani ranks Giotto higher than
any of the masters of antiquity ^ and Cristoforo Landino, in his
commentary on Dante, compares Giotto to the Trojan horse, for out
of him issued all later painters.^ The anecdotes in Franco Sacchetti's
Novelle did still more to popularize Giotto for posterity.
The date of Giotto's birth remains in doubt. Vasari says that
he was born in 1276, but Antonio Pucci, a younger contemporary
of Giotto's, writes in his " Centiloquio " (a versffied adaptation of
Giovanni VUlani's Florentine Chronicle), that Giotto was seventy
years old in 1337, which would set back the date of his birth to 1267.
The question cannot be settled in the absence of documentary evi
dence. On account of Giotto's position in art one is tempted to adopt
Vasari's statement, but Pucci, as the older authority, naturally has
the greater claim to trustworthiness.
A notice in a martyrology in the archives of St. Peter's, written
on July 10, 1342, in reference to the death of Cardinal Jacopo
Gaetano Stefaneschi a short time before, is usually made the basis
1 Cf . Baldinucci, Notizie dei Professori di disegno, i, 40 ff.
2 " De Viris Ulustribus," in vol. vii of Croniche Storiche di Giovanni, Matteo, e Filippo
Villani, Milan, 1848, p. 47.
' Landino's Commentaries on Dante, numerous editions, e.g., Venice, 1529.

22 GIOTTO
of the assumption that Giotto visited Rome between 1298 and 1300.
The notice in question, however, simply states that the cardinal had
an altarpiece made for St. Peter's by the famous painter Giotto, at
the same time as the so-caUed NaviceUa mosaic, but it gives no
definite date for these works.' We shaU subsequently concern our
selves more closely with the altarpiece; as for the NaviceUa mosaic,
which was moved to the portico of the new St. Peter's, it has been
so altered by restoration that it has lost all value for the criti
cism of Giotto's art. The composition can now best be studied in
the old drawings, of which one is in the Chatsworth coUection and
another in the Codice Barheriniano in the Vatican Library.
It is, however, possible that Giotto was Hving in Rome about
1300, the year of the great JubUee, when Pope Boniface VIII buUt,
among other things, a loggia at the Lateran BasUica, which, according
to contemporary authorities, was decorated by Giotto with three
frescoes, showing the Pope proclaiming the JubUee, the baptism of
the Emperor Constantine, and the laying of the foundations of the
Lateran Church. Of the first of these frescoes a fragment remains,
which has been moved inside the church.^ It represents the Pope
standing on a balcony with three priests, one of whom reads aloud
the JubUee proclamation. The painting has, however, been com
pletely ruined by successive restorations and therefore need not
concern us further.
During the next period of his activity Giotto seems to have spent
most of his time in northern and eastern Italy. We know that the
Arena Chapel in Padua was begun in the year 1303 and was entirely
finished in time to be consecrated in March, 1305.^ Presumably
Giotto painted his frescoes there about 1304-05, an assumption
based on strong probabUity, and accepted almost unanimously by
the writers on Giotto. How long he remained in Padua we do not
know, but following the consensus of opinion of the older authors
such as Riccobaldo Ferrarese, Lorenzo Ghiberti, and the so-called
" Anonimo Morelliano," we have good reason -to suppose that he
executed a number of other works besides the frescoes in the Arena
Chapel. The two first-named authorities mention paintings in the
1 Cf. Venturi, Storia dell' Arte Italiana, v, 294; also G. de Nicola in L'Arte, 1906, p. 339.
" An old drawing reproducing the whole of the second composition is preserved in the
Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan. It has been published by Eugene Miintz in Melanges
d' Archeohgie el d'Histoire, 1881. According to Miintz the picture bore the inscription,
Dominus Bonifacius Papa VIII faeit totum opus praesentis thalami An. dni. MCCC.
' Lo Scardeone, De Antiquitate urbis Paiavii, 1560, published an inscription according to
which the foundations of the Arena Chapel were laid in 1303. It was consecrated on March 16,
1305. Cf . Andrea Moschetti, La Cappella degli Scrovegni, Florence, 1904.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 23
Palazzo del Commune (also caUed the Palazzo deUa Ragione), of
which no trace remains; the " Anonimo MoreUiano," writing in the
first half of the sixteenth century (independently of Vasari) tells us
that " nel Capitolo la Passione a fresco fu de mano di Giotto Fioren-
tino." 1 This can hardly refer to any thing other than the chapter
hall at San Antonio. Very probably that great room was once
decorated with scenes from the life of Christ and the history of the
Franciscan Order. But the paintings have been lost, except for two
pictures on an end wall, representing the stigmatization of St. Fran
cis and the martyrdom of the Franciscans at Ceuta, besides eight
figures of saints. These frescoes have evidently been freed from a
coat of plaster in the course of a modern restoration of the hall,
which has suffered harsh treatment, among other things the ravages
of fire. The paintings are considerably renewed, but their style in
dicates clearly that they were originally the work of a great master.
It is quite possible that they are among the wreckage of Giotto's
work. Shortly before, or perhaps shortly after, his activity in Padua,
Giotto seems to have been at Rimini. This appears from the Com-
pilatio Chronologica of the Ferrarese author Riccobaldo, concluded
in 1313. The mention of Giotto, which seems to have been entered
as early as 1305, is of the greatest interest as the oldest reference
to the artist's work that we now possess. It reads as follows:
" Zottus pictor eximus florentinus agnoscitur; qualis in arte fuerit
testantur opera facta per eum in ecclesia Minorum Assisii, Arimi-
ni, Padua, ac per ea quae pinxit in palatio communis Paduae
et in ecclesia Arene Paduae." ^ Unfortunately the author does
not further specify the works in Rimini and Assisi to which he
refers; the former seem, in any case, to have been utterly destroyed.
San Francesco in Rimini was burnt out in the first half of the
fourteenth century. Whatever the reference to the Assisi pictures
may mean, it can hardly apply to anything except Giotto's partici
pation in some of the frescoes of St. Francis, for the other pictures
there are of later date. It would, however, be discordant with
modern scholarly methods to reckon the St. Francis frescoes as
Giotto's work solely on the grounds of such an assertion by an
ancient chronicler. An attribution must stand primarily on criticism
of style; and as we have seen, it is very difficult to base a definite
^ Cf. Anonimo MoreUiano, Notizie d'opere di disegno, publicata di D. Jacopo Morelli, ed.
Frizzoni, Bologna, 1884.
2 Muratori, Rer. Ital. Scriptores IX, Mediolani, 1726. Cf. Rintelen, Giotto, p. 178, and
notes. Rintelen gives a more correct interpretation of the passage than the one usually
followed which was given by Milanesi in his notes to Vasari (cf. Vasari, ed. Sansoni, i, 392).

24 GIOTTO
attribution on the style of pictures in such condition as that of the
Assisi frescoes as they now stand. We have insisted that Giotto's
collaboration in the St. Francis series is conceivable, but not evident,
because of the lack of the characteristics which distinguish Giotto's
later authentic works. Despite Riccobaldo's statement (which is not
substantiated by any document), we must, therefore, leave unsolved
the problem of Giotto's share in the St. Francis frescoes; their style,
as they now appear, is in no wise such as to increase our admiration
for the great artist.
In 1312 Giotto seems to have been back in Florence, for on the
fifteenth of June of that year Rinuccio di Puccio del Mugnaio donates
a sum of money to Santa Maria Novella to supply oil for a lamp to
burn before a crucffix which he is having made by " Giottus Bon-
donis de Florentia." ' Vasari also mentions this crucifix in Santa
Maria Novella, and adds that it was made by Giotto and Puccio
Capanna in collaboration. The only Trecento crucifix which is now
to be found in that church is a rather feeble performance, somewhat
altered by restoration, and showing no pronounced Giottesque
character. Another legal document makes it evident that Giotto was not
living in his native city during the year 1318: by this document he
gives his daughter Bice a farm near San Michele di Aglione, but in
order to do so he has to get his son Tommaso to surrender his claim.^
In 1328 Giotto was called to Naples by King Robert of Anjou
and remained there for at least four years. A document dated Janu
ary 21, 1330, signed by the king describes Giotto as " Magister
Joctus de Florentia pictor, familaris et fidelis noster," distinguished
for his wise deeds and his fruitful activity, " ipsum in famUiarem
nostrum recipimus et de nostro hospicio retinemus." The artist is
accordingly to receive the same benefits as other intimates of the
family. The records of a lawsuit establish Giotto's presence in
Naples two years later.'
No artistic remains of Giotto's sojourn with King Robert now
exist; all that he is said to have painted in the royal residence, Castel
Nuovo (a series of " uomini famosi ") in Santa Chiara, and perhaps
in other churches in Naples, has been lost,^ a loss all the more deplor
able because these works would probably have supplied us with
' Cf. Milanesi, notes to Vasari, i, 394.
' Cf . Crowe e Cavalcaselle, Storia, i, 606, note.
' Cf . Crowe e Cavalcaselle, Storia, i, 546. Document first published by H. W. Schultz,
Denkmdler der Kunst des Mittelalters in TJnleritalien.
* Cf. Venturi, Storia, v, 448, note.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 25
examples of the fuUy mature style of Giotto's old age. The only
memorials of the artist's Neapolitan period that survive are the
anecdotes which Vasari retaUs, presenting Giotto in the role of an
extraordinarily quick-witted conversationalist.
Giotto was finaUy honored by the city of his birth with the title
of City Architect. On AprU 12, 1334, the " Consigho della Citta di
Firenze " passed the following resolution: " In order that the works
which are being undertaken in the city of Florence and are to be
carried out for the benefit of the commune may proceed in the most
perfect manner, which is not possible unless an experienced and emi
nent man is chosen as leader in these works; and as in the whole world
there is to be found none better qualffied for that, and for much
besides, than Master Giotto di Bondone, the painter of Florence, he
shall therefore be named in his native city as Magnus Magister and
publicly regarded as such, so that he may have occasion to abide
here; for by his presence many can have the advantage of his wisdom
and learning, and the city shall gain no small honor because of him.
Wherefore it is provided, ordained, and resolved, that the Lords
Priors, the Gonfaloniere Justitiae and the Council of the twelve Viri
Boni, in the name of the City, select and designate Master Giotto
as leader and master for the buUding operations at the Church of
Santa Reparata, and for the construction and completion of the city
walls and fortffications, and for other works for the aforesaid
Commune." '
This document is interesting not only because it attests full appre
ciation on the part of the Florentines of the great master's unusual
artistic importance, and their endeavor to retain him as an adorn
ment and an honor to the city, but also because it gives proof that
Giotto was well known as an architect. The only building which
can be ascribed to Giotto on historical evidence is the Campanile of
the Cathedral of Florence. We know that the corner-stone of this
stately buUding was laid on the eighteenth of July, 1334, whUe Giotto
was Capomaestro. Attempts have been made to identify a drawing
now in the Opera del Duomo at Siena as the master's original plan.
The drawing presents a typical Gothic bell-tower with a lofty spire,
quite unlike the existing CampanUe. If the assumption is correct
that Giotto made this sketch, it is evident that the succeeding
masterbuilders, Andrea Pisano and Francesco Talenti, did not feel
themselves bound by their predecessor's plan. Only the two lower
stories of the CampanUe, as it now stands, were completed in
Giotto's time. 1 Cf. Baldmucci, i, 39.

26 GIOTTO
Possibly Giotto took a hand in the execution of the earliest reliefs
on the CampanUe; Ghiberti says expressly, " le prime storie furono
di sua mano scolpite e disegnate " and repeats the statement ill his
account of Andrea Pisano's work, where he writes, " Giotto, si dice,
sculpi le prime due storie." These two first reliefs represent the
creation of man and the creation of woman, and to these is added
a thu-d, showing man's first labors. If Giotto did the first two,
he must have done the third also, for they aU show the same individ
ual characteristics of style. The figures are fuU and softly rounded,
the treatment of drapery is flowing, the composition is distinguished
by more harmonious beauty than in the subsequent rehef s. Even if
Giotto himself did not carve them — which is hardly probable when
we consider his age — he may have furnished the drawings for them.
They show good evidence of his plastic genius.
Giotto died on January 8, 1337.
The only one of the earlier accounts of Giotto's work which has
any value as a historical source is Ghiberti's; the later authors, such
as the "Anomino Maghabechiano " (Codice, xvii, 17) ' and Vasari,
have made free use of Ghiberti's statements, which they have elabo
rated and combined with less rehable traditions. Vasari was evi
dently anxious not to pass over briefly such an important artist as
Giotto, and consequently produced a biography rich in anecdote but
deficient in exact information. Only so far as they are supported by
Ghiberti can Vasari's assertions be conceded historical plausibihty;
we may therefore ignore the popular biography and confine ourselves
to the more signfficant portions of Ghiberti's Commentarii on the
work of Giotto.^ MeanwhUe it should be emphasized that even
Ghiberti wrote more than a hundred years after Giotto's death; his
statements often partake of the nature of tradition rather than of
historical fact. It is plain that Giotto, like other great artists, gradu
aUy became the subject of a local legend, which made him responsible
for far more work than ever was executed by his own hand. His
name acquired a sort of collective signffication, which was the more
natural on account of his position at the head of a whole school, a
new group of artists, whose personaUties were far less known than
the master's. We consequently cannot assume that all the works
' Cf . II Codice Magliabechiano, ed. C. Frey, Berlin, 1913.
* Cf. Vita di Lorenzo Ghiberti, con i Commentarj, ed. C. Frey, Berlin, 1886. A later
edition by J. von Schlosser is accompanied by valuable historical notes and misleading attri
butions.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 27
which Ghiberti assembles under Giotto's name were really done by
him; many of them were presumably executed by assistants, merely
under the guidance of the master. Individual attributions, especially
in the case of such an early painter as Giotto, cannot be based on the
opinions of ancient authorities — even if they are as accurate as
Ghiberti — but must be justified by critical analysis of style. The
historic traditions are none the less of great interest, for they reflect
the contemporary appreciation of the artist's importance and of his
comprehensive activity.
Ghiberti first tells the traditional story of how Cimabue, wander
ing one day toward the vUlage of Vespignano, near Florence, found
a shepherd lad drawing a sheep on a flat stone, and how, recognizing
the boy's unusual gift, he proposed to his father, a peasant named
Bondone, that he should take the lad home and teach him the craft
of painting. Ghiberti continues: "He brought in the new art,
abandoned the stiff manner of the Greeks, and became the most
excellent artist in Etruria. Great works were made [by him] in many
places and particularly in the city of Florence; and [about him] there
were a number of pupils, all gifted men like the ancient Greeks.
Giotto perceived in art things which others had not seen. He brought
into being an art near to nature and with it a gentleness, keeping
always within a just measure. He was most experienced in all
branches of art and discovered much knowledge that had been hidden
for about six hundred years. When nature gives, she gives without
stint. His works were numerous both in fresco and wall painting, in
oUs and on wood. He executed in mosaic the NaviceUa in St. Peter's
in Rome, and painted the chapel [the choir] and its altarpiece in the
same church. Most elegantly he painted the Hall of Famous Men of
King Uberto of Naples, and also in the Castel dell'Uovo. He painted
in the church of the Arena in Padua; in fact it is all by his hand, and
the ' gloria mondana ' [Last Judgment] there is also by him. In
the Palazzo deUa Parte he painted the ' Storia della Fede Christiana '
as well as many other things. In the church of the Minorites at
Assisi [San Francesco] he painted almost all the lower part. He also
painted in Santa Maria degli Angeli in Assisi, and in Santa Maria
della Minerva in Rome a crucifix and a panel.
" Works by him done in Florence: — in the Badia, in an arch over
the portal, he painted most exquisitely the Virgin, half-length, with
a figure on either side, and also the choir and the altarpiece. In the
church of the Minorite friars [Santa Croce] four chapels and four
panels. In the Minorite church at Padua [San Antonio ?] he painted

28 GIOTTO
most exceUent works, and with great skUl. In the church of the
UmUiati at Florence [Ognissanti] a chapel, a large crucifix, and four
panels, in one of which is represented the death of the Virgin sur
rounded by angels, the twelve apostles and Our Lord, all done most
perfectly; there is a large panel with the Virgin sitting in a chair
with angels about her, and over the door leading to the cloister
a Virgin, half-length, with the chUd in her arms. In San Giorgio a
panel and a crucifix; at the Preaching Friars' [Santa Maria Novella] a
crucffix, a highly finished panel, and many other things. He worked
for many of the signori. He painted in the Palazzo del Podest^ in
Florence (representing there how the commune was robbed) and also
the chapel of St. Mary Magdalen.
" Giotto deserved the highest fame. He was great in all branches
of art, even in sculpture. On the bell-tower of Santa Reparata, which
was built by him, the first episodes were designed and carved by his
hand. I saw in my time preparatory sketches by his hand for these
reliefs most beautifully designed. He was expert in both kinds of art.
The greatest credit must be given to him, for it was he by whom so
much knowledge was discovered and transmitted, whereby it is seen
that nature had endowed him with every kind of genius. He brought
aU to the highest perfection."
Of the numerous works by Giotto which Ghiberti mentions, the
greater part has been lost; this applies, as we have already explained,
to aU his paintings in Naples and Rome, with the exception of the
altarpiece in St. Peter's, which we shaU shortly consider more closely.
In Padua there remain only the Arena frescoes; in Assisi mainly
school works, which probably were executed partly under Giotto's
supervision and therefore — as usually happened — were early con
nected with the master's name. It was probably a good old tradition
to give Giotto the credit for a large part of the decoration in the
Lower Church at Assisi; most of the paintings there were in his style,
and how great a share he actually had in the execution was a question
which would scarcely trouble the early historians of art.
Of the pictures in Florence which Ghiberti includes in his list,
only scant remnants survive — the much-restored frescoes in the
CappeUa Bardi and the CappeUa Peruzzi in Santa Croce, and two
of the pictures from Ognissanti. Everything else that Giotto is said
to have done in Florentine churches has been lost.
Besides the church paintings, Ghiberti teUs us that Giotto painted
in Florence in the Palazzo del Podesta " el comune come era rubato,"
and " la cappeUa di Santa Maria Maddalena." In this old palace.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 29
now transformed into the National Museum, certain traces of fres
coes remain in what used to be the chapel, representing scenes from
the legends of Mary Magdalen and Mary of Egypt, with a big Last
Judgment on the end waU; but unfortunately they are very frag
mentary and also much restored. These paintings were subjected to
restoration at a very early period, for we know that the chapel was
injured by fire in 1330; for several centuries they were covered with
a layer of plaster, which was not removed untU the middle of the
nineteenth century. The remnants which have survived are in such
bad condition that they scarcely permit any definite criticism of
style. Ghiberti's account of these frescoes is corroborated by the
older Florentine writers, such as Antonio Pucci (in a sonnet; written
in the thirties) and Filippo VUlani, who dwells especiaUy on the por
trait of Dante which the artist is supposed to have introduced, along
with his own, into the picture of the Last Judgment. The portrait
of Dante was again the subject of a rather hot discussion after the
paintings were uncovered in 1847, but this brought out no new
arguments as to the artistic qualities of the frescoes. If we limit our
selves exclusively to the historical evidence, Giotto's authorship of
the paintings in the former chapel of the Palazzo del Podesta, or
Bargello, as it is usually called, may be regarded as well established,
but the value of these pictures as documents for the history of paint
ing is negligible. They can at most be regarded as fading shadows
of Giotto's art; they do not in any way contradict the evidence of
historical tradition, but they offer no new material for the characteri
zation of the master's individual style. The compositions are so
fragmentary and so little of the figures is visible that they hardly
offer any scope for criticism, and we consequently need not return
to these pictures in the course of our more detailed study.
There is, then, not very much in actual existence of the works
which Ghiberti, supported to some extent by other authors, ascribes
to Giotto, but there is enough to afford a basis for analysis of his
artistic style and personality. The authentic works which are still
preserved are stamped with such a distinctive character, and rise so
far above the mass of Trecento painting, that we need not remain in
doubt as to Giotto's individual creative genius. We shall study in
the ensuing pages a few typical examples from various periods of his
activity, analyzing them with attention to composition and style,
for the, purpose of making clear, if possible, the salient features of
this art which became a starting-point for the subsequent develop
ment of painting.

IV
THE FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL AT PADUA
THE little church of Santa Maria deU'Arena in Padua (PL 15),
named from the Roman amphitheater on the site of which it is
buUt, makes, as one approaches it, a drab and insignfficant impres
sion in its setting of rich verdure.
The buUding has long, horizontal hnes; it is narrow in proportion
to its length; only one of its walls is pierced by six high windows.
Over the entrance stood originally Giovanni Pisano's marble
Madonna, which now is placed on the altar, encircled by Giotto's
frescoes, thus giving a valuable reminder that the two greatest crea
tive artists of that time, Giovanni Pisano and Giotto, were working
simultaneously here in Padua. Giovanni, the older of the two, was
a more emotional personality, and very likely Giotto was influenced
by him to a considerable extent. At present, the only ornament on
the plain faQade is a big, tripartite Gothic window.
As one enters through the narrow door, the eye meets with a rich
and brilliant play of colors. The room is lofty. The deep blue, star-
strewn barreled vault is divided by a broad band across the middle
into two large fields, each adorned with five medaUions. Along the
waUs run three tiers of thirty-four fresco compositions, of consider
able size, combined into a unffied decorative effect by means of the
deep blue color of the background. Furthermore, there are in the
narrow wall-spaces on the sides of the entrance to the choir four
paintings, and on the wall above the door a colossal representation
of the Last Judgment.
The harmony between the painted decoration and the architec
ture is, in our opinion, perfect, in spite of the criticisms made of the
distribution of the decoration on the wall between the windows. (Cf .
A. Moschetti, La Cappella degli Scrovegni, Florence, 1904.) The
size of the pictures is more Hmited than in Giotto's other decorative
frescoes, because the proportions of the room made this desirable.
The painter has understood how to adapt himself to the architectural
conditions, he has thought along architectonic lines, and has com
posed his pictures with a view to a rhythmic decoration of the walls
30

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL f 1
and not with the object of producing an iUusion of something beyond
them. It is, on the whole, difficult to point out any entirely pre
served painted decoration of a church interior in Italy of an equaUy
unffied effect. Later artists have, as a rule, lacked the qualffications
for creating architectonic wall decoration of this kind; they have not
preserved that feehng for the function of the walls that Giotto had,
but have used them instead as space for the display of naturalistic
panoramas. The subjects of these frescoes are taken from the lives of the
Virgin and of Christ. The sacred stories are told in picture after
picture, with rising and faUing dramatic eiq)ression, yet the coUective
impression remains restful and harmonious, as of one great unffied,
artistic conception. On entering the chapel one is at first some
what bewildered and awed by the great number of kindred scenes,
the restraint and severity of the decoration; but as soon as the eye
has had time to get a little accustomed to the complete effect, one
begins to notice that there are distinct groups and series, dividing
the contents into chapters, and that these are arranged on general
principles which makes it easier to comprehend it all in one glance.
We can distinguish six sections, or chapters, in the narrative. The
first covers the story of the parents of Mary; the second, the life
of Mary from her birth until her marriage; the third, the story of
the chUdhood of Christ; the fourth, Christ's work as teacher and
his miracles; the fifth, the passion of Christ; the sixth, the cruci
fixion of Christ and his victory over death. As a final chapter the
Last Judgment is represented on the wall over the entrance; here
Christ appears in his supreme glory as the judge of the world.
The text of the first section, the story of the parents of Mary,
is taken from the proto-evangel of St. James the Less, whUe that of
the other sections is from the Gospels; it should be noticed that
the artist's interpretation of the texts is often rather free, and his
dependence on traditional forms of representation very slight.
The pictures are altogether thirty-eight (two of the compositions
being devoted to the Annunciation), arranged in three tiers. The
uppermost tier shows, on the south wall, the six pictures of the first
chapter; and on the north waU the six pictures of the second chapter.
On a level with these, at either side of the triumphal arch, is the
Annunciation. The second tier contains, on the south wall, the five
pictures of the third chapter (the windows here encroach on the space
to a certain extent) ; and, on the north wall, six scenes illustrating
Christ's activity as teacher make the fourth chapter. On the same

32 GIOTTO
level, at either side of the triumphal arch, are shown the meeting of
Mary and Elizabeth, and Judas receiving the pieces of sUver. The
lowest tier has, on the south waU, five pictures: the Passion of
Christ, beginning with the Last Supper and ending with the Scourg
ing; on the north waU, six pictures: the Death of Christ and the
events foUowing closely upon it, beginning with the Carrying of the
Cross and ending with the Descent of the Holy Spirit. Furthest
down on both waUs is painted a base in imitation of stone blocks in
grayish-brown, and between these are, on either side, six Virtues and
six Vices, represented in the form of aUegorical female figures, painted
in imitation of gray stone reliefs.
The large, barreled vault is divided into two parts by a broad
ornamental band. Each part is adorned with five medaUions con
taining busts of Christ, Mary, and prophets; otherwise, the ceihng
is decorated with stars on a dark blue ground. FinaUy, besides
the pictures mentioned, there is, in the lunette-shaped space above
the triumphal arch, a representation of God the Father, surrounded
by angels, in the act of sending forth Gabriel, the angel of the
Annunciation. The question of the order in which these different series of pictures
were painted has lately been under discussion among students, but
no definite conclusion has yet been reached. A certain difference in
the manner of composition in chapters I and II, as compared with
the following, has given rise to the supposition that they were painted
after the completion of the other chapters, i. e., the two lower tiers.
It is especially noticeable that the compositions in chapter I — the
story of Joachim and Anna — are considerably more restrained than
those below, more relief-like and more directly conforming with the
demands of mural decoration. They appear to be the most mature
and latest product of Giotto's activity in the Arena Chapel. The com
positions of chapter II — the story of Mary's youth — are not quite
as restrained and sculptural, but even here one may observe more
concentration than in the pictures below. The richest in psychologi
cal expression and the most versatile in dramatic composition are,
however, the Ulustrations of the Passion in the lowest tier. Here the
artist stands highest as a narrator, and in view of this it is conceiv
able that he might have ended his work with these compositions. If
we simply consider formal criteria, however, the strongest reasons
argue a later dating of the upper pictures. Yet it should be em
phasized that the decorative work is fundamentaUy uniform and
homogeneous in style; the divergences of composition might be

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 33
explained by the greater experience acquired by the artist in the
course of his work.
One is tempted to dwell on picture after picture, analyzing each
. in regard to composition and style; we must refrain, owing to lack
of space. We shall instead select some characteristic specimens from
the various series which fully demonstrate the principles of composi
tion and formal expression characteristic of the entire set. We
therefore begin with the story of Christ's childhood.
The Nativity (PL 16) is an altogether novel, original solution of one
of the oldest and commonest problems of composition in Christian art.
The essential novelty does not consist so much in the iconographie
modifications — the omission of the grotto, the changed positions of
the animals, etc., — as in the fact that the old scheme has been dis
solved through the movement of the figures. The composition is no
longer dominated by an unbroken vertical plane, but shows a rhyth
mic interaction of the dimensions of depth and width — an architec-
tonifc space composition. Mary, the central figure, is reclining on a
bed placed on a ledge of rock halfway up the picture. She is not re
posing in the customary hieratic aloofness, but is animated by a move
ment which brings her in intimate touch with the surroundings and
at the same time characterizes her as a human mother. With the
assistance of a maid she is placing the child back in his crib. The
movement in the picture follows an oblique direction outward. It
begins with the turn of the upper part of Mary's body and con
tinues through her arms and the child to the maid, who stands in
the left corner only partly visible. Directly beneath Mary sits
Joseph, fast asleep, crouched in a heavy mass, on the lowest level of
the picture. He produces almost the effect of an anchor attached to
the lighter and more buoyant female figure on the bed. The same
impression of massiveness is produced by the big sheep lying near
Joseph. Alongside of them the shepherds are standing gazing up
ward, facing into the picture. The broad back of the foremost figure,
in particular, gives an impression of massiveness and weight; but
because of the fullness of the figures and their upward movement
they carry the eye from the lowest plane in the foreground to the
uppermost, which is occupied by the floating angels, one of whom is
descending toward the shepherds. One receives a distinct impres
sion of three horizontal planes, and of the interrelated connection
between these, both upward and downward. At the same time these
horizontal planes denote different grades of depth in the composition,
clearly indicated by the ledges of the rock and the positions of the

34 GIOTTO
figures in relation to them. The constructive framework is strong
and weU defined, without appearing as a skeleton. Each of the
figures has au independent value and a plainly indicated place in the
picture, a definite task to achieve in the composition. They are
constructive parts of an organic whole. The compositional form sub
sequently comes to be better enclosed, but the human import could
hardly be more fuUy expressed. The tone of intimacy struck by
the relation of the mother to the chUd could hardly be purer or
deeper. It is accompanied by the rejoicing of the angels, the intent
listening of the shepherds, and the patient attendance of the weary
Joseph. The second picture of the series, the Adoration of the Magi (PL 17),
contains more figures, and the grouping is consequently somewhat
more compact. Important differences of level in the composition
have again been produced by the arrangement of the rock in ledges.
Mary sits under the same shed as in the previous picture, but the
ground in front of her does not form such a steep incline. It is cut
into steps, providing places at various levels for the three Magi and
for the groom with the camels. A rising rhythm is thus attained,
moving up toward the Virgin, and carried on by the pyramidal rock
behind her. This movement does not, however, follow the relief
plane, but is directed obliquely inward toward the main group, the
Virgin attended by Joseph and an angel. Two recurring diagonals,
indicated by the figures mentioned and the three kings, are thus
placed at right angles. The opposition of the movements toward the
backgroimd is perfectly plain, and at the same time the different
horizontal planes of the picture contribute to the emphasis of the
main figure, the enthroned Virgin, and her attendants. She domi
nates the whole and immediately attracts the gaze of the spectator
to herseH, just as she is the center of the movements of aU the other
figures. The artist's feeling for balance has demanded something to
counterpoise the elevated main group, and this equilibrium he has
effected through the stately camels behind the kings. In the middle
of the picture, where the old king is kneeling, almost isolated, there
is thus formed a depression, whence the lines ascend equaUy on
either side. The triangular masses of the flanking groups balance
each other perfectly; the firm architectonic framework again forms
the basis for the rhythmic effect. The individual features of Mary,
the kings, Joseph, and the servant, are not very marked, yet suffice
to give us a feehng of the moods of the different figures : the stern,
almost brooding reverence of the old man who kisses the feet of the

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 35
chUd; the admiring devotion of the second king, with the horn; the
dreaming tenderness of the youth who is taking the cover off his urn
filled with fragrant myrrh, and finaUy the preoccupation of the
groom who is busily reining in the camels. AU other figures usually
included in the suite of the kings are omitted.
StUl another picture of the same early group may be referred to,
since it shows certain variations: the Massacre of the Innocents
(PL 18) . The composition consists of two distinctly opposed groups,
emphasized by the architectural elements of the background, but the
connection between these is much closer than in the previous ex
ample. The movements are no longer intermediate links, but form
the central motif itself, the artistic import. The figures are aU on the
same horizontal plane, and the artist has not succeeded in bringing
out the distinct figures in the tightly packed group of mothers. We
receive, however, an impression of definite grades of depth by means
of movements occurring behind one another. In the crowd of
mothers three figures stand forth: the one farthest off, with out
stretched empty hands — she has already lost her child; the sec
ond, leaning forward, even to the last moment clutching the leg of
her boy while he is stabbed by the executioner; the third, drawing
back and hugging her child in a convulsive embrace to protect him
against the soldier with raised sword who has already grasped him
by the leg. All of these imploring, protecting, and aggressive move
ments follow parallel directions in the relief plane. In front of the
mothers, but to the right, stands a figure seen from the back, a man
thrusting right into the picture, thus increasing the impression of
depth. He is balanced at the other end of the picture by a figure
turned full front, a soldier who, like two of his comrades, has thrown
away his sword and is recoiling in evident disgust at the butchery.
It is remarkable that only three soldiers in all are carrying out the
orders of Herod against this compact throng of distracted mothers —
with the remaining three human feelings have prevailed. The artist
has apparently tried to lessen the impression of savagery and bestial
slaughter by giving formal preponderance to other elements. The
clash, the conflict between the soldiers and the mothers, is plain
enough, nevertheless. It is not a meaningless jumble of murdering,
where men are likely to wound one another by accident, but a
methodical and weU arranged kUling, carried out according to com
mand. The picture is, perhaps, less shocking but not less expres
sive than more extreme representations of the same subject. The
concentration on a few dominating monumental figures makes the

36 GIOTTO
whole more artisticaUy restrained and appealing than other pictures
of the massacre of the Innocents.
Behind the group of women rises a hexagonal building with a
pointed roof, reminiscent of North Italian baptisteries. There is no
real reason for this; the buUding has probably been inserted as a
formal counterbalance to the balcony in which Herod has been
placed, to produce jointly with the latter a rhythmic division of the
upper half of the picture. The two structures also improve the iUu
sion of space to a considerable degree, because they are not treated
Uke shallow stage wings, but, in spite of their simplffication, with
tactUe sense of reahty. Giotto's architectonic imagination appears
here convincingly, especiaUy if one compares these buUdings with the
arbitrary toy architecture characteristic of the St. Francis frescoes
in the Upper Church at Assisi. In the Arena frescoes the archi
tecture is not intended, any more than the figures, to produce a fleet
ing naturalistic impression or to stand forth as an actual view from
nature; the value of both is symbolic and decorative.
The picture next in order, first in the third series, the chapter on
the teaching activity of Jesus, is an excellent specimen of Giotto's
architectonic manner of composition, both in its general construc
tion and in the actual buUdings represented. The subject is Christ
among the Doctors (PL 19), and the setting is the nave of a Roman
esque basUica. The figures, seated along rows of columns, are
grouped in the shape of a wedge pointing into the background.
The boy Christ forms the apex of the wedge; above and behind him
rises a large apse. Although not constructed according to the laws
of perspective, the interior possesses considerable depth. The solemn
rhythm of the rounded arches, in combination with the two uniform
rows of large seated figures, produces an architectonic impression of
overwhelming grandeur.
The Marriage at Cana (PL 20) has often been made the occasion
for representing a banquet hall with a company at table round the
dominating figure of Christ. Even in a thirteenth-century paintmg of
this scene in the Upper Church at Assisi there is an evident tendency
toward realistic richness of detaU, and a strong suggestion of conviv-
iahty. Giotto raises the story from the level of the reahstic novel
to that of the epic poem. The essential part of his representation
is not the festive meal round a richly spread table, but a restful and
deepf elt sense of the speU of the presence of a strong spu-itual power.
These people do not appear as in life or on the stage, but rather as a
kind of primeval type, whose reahty stands in direct proportion to the

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 37
concentration of its formal expression. The indication of the room
by a screen-like wall, which hardly suggests a real interior but pro
vides an adequate tridimensional stage for the figures, sustains the
abstract generalization. The wall is hung with a drapery up to half
its height and is surmounted by a light gaUery on consoles, in place
of a cornice — elements apparently intended to produce a rhythmic
division of the bare upper part of the picture. The table at which the
figures are seated makes an angle so as to accommodate more guests;
in the foreground to the right there is a bench with some big wine
jars on it. By this arrangement distinct vertical planes of depth are
brought out in the composition. In the middle of the picture, at the
long side of the table, the bride is sitting isolated, like an enthroned
Madonna. The eye is immediately attracted to her as the principal
personage. On either side of this central axis are balanced side
groups, about equal in weight, consisting of the figures seated at the
projecting part of the table and those grouped around the large wine
jars. In the former group Christ is the central figure, in the latter
the stout butler who is sampling the wine. These two are the poles
between which the psychic tension develops. The entire picture is
charged with this tension, the whole representation is pervaded by
the strange, wonder-working power which all feel but nobody is quite
able to explain. Christ quietly issues his order to one of the serving
women — Joseph looks at him wonderingly — the others are wait
ing to hear the result of the butler's test — but the bride seems be
wildered in the presence of the supernatural. We have here a
splendid example of Giotto's psychological power of characterization.
It does not aim at fine individual distinctions — all of the figures
represented are types rather than characters — but it brings out the
essential in the varying emotional state of the figures. It is the
fundamental quality and not the deviations at which the artist is
aiming. That which binds the actors together is stronger than that
which distinguishes them from one another.
In the representation of the raising of Lazarus (PL 21) the same
method of composition as in the wedding picture has been apphed to a
certain extent. Psychic tension suffuses the entire picture, connecting
the two main groups, which are placed rather far out on the sides.
But the artist has not fully realized the expressional value of empty
space, and has inserted intermediate figures between the two poles.
Christ is standing near the left margin of the picture, and behind
him, appearing only in part, are two apostles. He raises his hand,
speaking in the same manner as in the wedding picture. John seems

38 GIOTTO
unconsciously to supplement his gesture. Lazarus has stepped
forth from his tomb in the rock on the right. His face shows signs
of decomposition; the body is tightly swathed. He is able to stand
only with the support of two powerful men. One of these has begun
to remove the shroud, but the other does not seem inclined to un
wrap either his hands or his face, owing to the disagreeable smeU of
the decaying corpse. Further off we see another man who is holding
his mantle to his nose.
Lazarus and his two attendants are standing in a straight line
which runs diagonally inward and at about the middle of the picture
is taken up and continued by a closely packed group of astonished
spectators, inquisitive, but also hesitating a little in front of the iU-
smelling corpse. From the group of spectators only the foremost
figure stands out, a young man who is extending his arm obliquely
outward toward Christ, thereby denoting the opposite diagonal and
linking the figure of Christ (in a rather palpable manner) both with
the spectators and with the man at the side of Lazarus. The group
ing is, consequently, wedge-shaped, but at the same time a direct
connection is established between the principal personages who are
out at the ends of the widely divergent sides of the wedge. The two
vertical planes of the foreground are furthermore emphasized by the
two kneeling women at the feet of Christ. They are lying almost
prostrate, on their knees, with arms resting on the ground — in a
sphinx-like position. In the same part of the foreground are two
small boys, exerting themselves to the utmost in an attempt to lift
the heavy stone slab which formed the door of the tomb. This
easUy comprehensible grouping of figures is of the greatest impor
tance to the space effect of the picture, but there is an added element
which contributes stUl more to the dramatic effect: the isolation of
the figure of Christ in contrast to aU the rest. This is emphasized
too, by the outline of the mountain running obhquely across the
background, taking in the majority of figures, and sloping down
toward Christ, who rises high and powerful against the blue back
ground. It is this opposition which first strikes the eye and im
mediately makes clear the predominant importance of Christ.
On the other hand, one cannot escape noticing the artist's lack of
abUity to represent the more remote figures in the crowd. The
spectators in the background are packed together in a way which
precludes any impression of real bodies. And what are they standing
on, in front of the mountainside which bears down on them ? How
ever, the foremost figures are presented with such overwhelming

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 39
synthetic power and such clear accentuation of their definite place
in the composition that the total impression is grand and convincing.
The scenes from the Passion have, as a rule, an increased number
of figures and richer and more varied forms of composition. They
are all in the lowest tier and are, therefore, most easily visible — a
circumstance which probably has been the reason for the introduc
tion of a greater number and variety of figures. The series opens
with two horizontally extended compositions: the Last Supper and
the Washing of Feet (PL 22), broad epic representations, depending
for artistic effect principally upon the restful rhythmic division of the
width dimension by figures which have been placed in uniform posi
tions on both sides of a long table. The grouping in the Washing
of Feet offers a little more variety. The interiors are in both
instances rather abstract, indicated by a wall in the background and a
canopy-like ceiling supported by extremely slender shafts. Giotto has
here practically made himself independent of realistic considerations,
directing his chief interest to the figures as expressions of his form-
creating imagination. There is a suggestion of compelling force in
their restrained power and firm placing in the picture.
A little less abstract are the interiors in which are enacted the two
subsequent scenes, Christ before the High Priest and Christ before
Pilate (PI. 23) . The scene of the latter is an open yard or atrium with
a large impluvium in the ceiling. This is again supported by four
unnaturally slender columns; otherwise, the simple architecture is
perfectly plausible, consisting merely of plain walls with grated win
dows. Christ, in a brocaded mantle, with the scepter and the crown
of thorns, is placed in a chair at the left. He is sunk into his chair,
with closed eyes, apparently unmindful of the minions who are at
tacking him with blows and pinches, puUing his hair, and shouting
loudly. Blows descend from all sides, but brute force does not seem
to have any effect on the exhausted victim. On the opposite side of
the picture Pilate is standing in conversation with some old men. His
strong figure is faced outward, but he is stretching out his hand and
pointing to Christ with an explanatory gesture, which is repeated by
the old man who has his back turned. Both appear equally anxious
to exculpate themselves and to accuse the victim of the mockers,
who makes no remonstrance of any kind. Their movements are
continued with more violent energy by the bulky negro who is rais
ing a long rod for a blow. He represents the formal connection
between the two main groups and at the same time the culmination
of the attacking brute force.

40 GIOTTO
Since the figures are placed in two almost circular groups, the
impression of space is, of course, brought out in a very striking
manner. The movements cross one another in several different direc
tions, especially around the figure of Christ, where they assume a
centrifugal character, but the dominant direction follows the relief
plane, which is marked by PUate and the negro with the raised rod.
The principle of composition is thus here practicaUy the same as we
have already observed several times: two closed groups balancing
each other, between them an empty space, a pause which emphasizes
the opposing rhythms of the movements. An isolated figure has here
been inserted to strengthen the connection between the main groups.
This figure is possibly a Httle less obvious than the corresponding one
in the Raising of Lazarus, but even so it is not altogether beneficial
to the general effect. The posture of his legs is also imsatisfactory.
Otherwise it is just the absolute firmness of the positions and the
clear definition of the gestures which give the figures such an
extraordinary effectiveness as rhythmicaUy cooperating cubic values.
The faces appear alternately in profile or haJf profile; only the two
principal figures, Christ and PUate, are turned fuU front, thereby
attracting more attention than any of the others. Furthermore the
artist, by placing a kneeling figure before Christ, has contrived to
support and lift this figure, which otherwise, on account of its droop
ing position, might easily have been overshadowed by the rest. On
the whole there is a clearness and an accurate calculation in the
composition which one can only graduaUy appreciate by trying" to
enter into the train of thought of the artist. The characterization
of the faces of Christ and PUate are indeed among the most expr^-
sive that Giotto has achieved: in the one instance, a forcible accentu
ation and anxious tension, and in the other, inner reflection, and
serenity rising superior to humUiation.
A composition of more immediate psychological effect is the rep
resentation of Christ carrying his cross (PL 24) . Here Giotto has
again resorted to the expedient of charging the picture with a
soul-power which is polarized in two figures placed at a considerable
distance from each other. Between them are introduced several
contrasting elements. Christ, the principal figure,1s placed in the
right half of the picture. He stands isolated, bent down under the
weight of the big cross, as if he could not bear up any longer. His
gaze is directed behind him, imploring assistance, and meets that of
his mother, who is farthest away on the left of the picture: she has
just stepped out through the city gate and is looking in despair at

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 41
her son succumbing to his b^rden. She tries to hurry to his assist
ance, but is prevented by a soldier who rudely pushes her back.
Another is giving Christ a push in order to make him start on again.
The multitude is crowding through the gateway. The forward pres
sure can evidently be held back no longer, yet a moment of stag
nation has come, a pause, which, Hke a stroke of lightning, reveals
the whole inner meaning and brmgs out the two main figures. In this
as in so many others of the Arena frescoes the artist has offset the
figure of Christ "against all the rest: seconded by Mary he balances
the entire compact crowd of people.
Furthermore, the face of Christ, again the only one presented full
front, is a harmonious oval, framed by thick black hair and beard.
The expression is weary and submissive, yet the whole appearance
gives an impression of dominating power. His form is monumental
and his placing in the composition is of decisive signfficance. Only
a gate-tower and a part of the gateway indicate the locality of the
event; elsewhere we perceive above the figures the blue background,
against which the great cross stands out in sharp silhouette. It is
not an event which once took place outside the city of Jerusalem
that the artist wishes to represent, but rather a drama of the human
soul in Biblical form. Therefore, the stage arrangement is made so
extremely simple, so general. The artistic expressiveness and the
convincing power do not He in the exterior arrangements, but in the
form of the figures. These appear in a way which leaves no doubt
as to their absolute necessity.
Again, in the celebrated representation of the mourning over the
dead Christ (PL 25) , the stage arrangement is reduced to a minimum.
It consists merely of the outline of a rock drawn obliquely across the
picture with a withered tree on the topmost ledge. But the ground
under the figures is real solid rock, on which the figures are standing
or sitting with all the weight of block-like massive bodies. Since a
considerable space has actually been created in front of the blue
background, this assumes the vaulted appearance of sky : a bleaker
ground and a clearer sky, perhaps, than we know of, but none the
less convincing^ and suggestive as a setting for this overwhelming
tragedy. The figures are arranged on a concentric plan, with Christ
as the pivot. Toward this center all lines, all eyes, all gestures are
directed, and the more closely they approach to it, the more intense
the emotional expression becomes. The nearest figures are leaning
forward to reach the dead Christ with their hands; they kneel or
sit on the ground to protect and caress his precious body. Mary

42 GIOTTO
holds his head on her knee and stiU tries to penetrate his closed eye-
Hds with her gaze. The Magdalen, on the other side, clasps both of
her hands around those feet which she once anointed with costly
ointment and wiped dry with her hair. Other women have taken
hold of the hands of Christ, and a third is supporting the drooping
head. John throws out his arms, as if he were about to ffing himself
headlong on the body; on the opposite side a woman responds with
a simUar motion of the arms, while her neighbor, who stands with
hands clasped, appears to be overcome with grief. Farther away
several weeping women are crowding round, and at the end nearest
the feet the composition is closed by two stalwart men, Joseph and
Nicodemus, the coxmselors, who by their restrained expressions and
calm postures sound the low note in the scale of feehngs. In the
sky the mourning of the heavens and the world is interpreted by a
whole choir of grief -stricken Httle angels; they supply the intense,
piercing treble in this mighty symphony of sorrow.
The extraordinary expressiveness in this composition is naturaUy
dependent on the firm architectonic structure and on the rhythmic
creation of space by means of figures whose form values possess a
classical pondus. Of greatest importance for the space effect is the
placing in the foreground of the figures presented in back view.
These monumental female figures make the foundation waU of the
whole composition, preventing the figure of Christ from sHding out.
The other figures rise gradually behind one another in successive
layers, the furthest formed by the rock, which also serves to enclose
the figures on the right side. Its contour leads down toward Christ,
and the group that it sets off acts as a counterbalance to the group
around the head of Christ. It is here that attention centers. The
sight extinguished in the eyes of Christ explains all the rest. Only
death could arouse the intense soul-life which sways everything in
this picture.
When we pass from the representations of the life of Christ and
the excited scenes of the Passion to the pictures Ulustrating the story
of the Virgin and her parents, it seems like sailing from a stormy sea
into a calm river. The story runs quietly, the scenes take on a more
intimate character, the composition becomes stiU more strictly de
fined, the expression more restrained than in the earher series. One
might speak of a development toward greater clearness, but not of
any essentially new elements in form or manner of composition. The
scenes have the same abstract nature as before. The representations
of Joachim's return to the shepherds (PL 39), and Joachim's offering.

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 43
and his dream are located in mountain landscapes of an exceedingly
simplffied type, consisting of sharply cut, gray rocks of crystalline
formation. Sometimes they remind us more of furrowed lava-beds
than of real rocks. It is the solidity of the mass and the rhythmic
value of the contours which are of importance to the artist, not so
much the characterization of the material itself. Giotto never tries
to produce a naturalistic landscape. He does not attempt to create
a beautiful and charming setting for the action, only backgrounds, or
complements, to the figures, intended to explain the subject and en
hance the space effect. Like the figures, the landscapes serve merely
as buUding stones. The artistic impression is mainly dependent on
the rhythmic division of the picture in clearly defined dimensions of
width and depth. Giotto's compositions are preeminently picture-
architecture; not abstractions, but filled with feeling for reality,
finding expression in intense values of rhythm and form. In as far
as it is the mission of art to create rhythmic form — strong, con
vincing, compelling — for emotions or mental states, Giotto is one
of the greatest artists that ever lived.
We can therefore understand more easUy why Giotto does not
apply himself to any more intimate representation of landscapes, but
is satisfied with these bare rocks, with only here and there a solitary
plant or tree. They fully answer the symbolical and formal demands.
It seems, besides, as if the artist had felt a special need of making the
ground as firm as possible, as if he had desired to emphasize its hard
ness in preference to its softness, thereby providing a safer founda
tion for the figures. If, for instance, we look at the representation of
Joachim's dream (PL 26), we cannot but feel how well the ground is
supporting this slumbering giant, who sits crouching, with his head
resting on his raised knee, at the entrance of the Httle hut. He is com
pletely wrapped up in a wide mantle, and produces an impression of
heaviness like that of a stone block. On the other hand, how lightly
the little sheep and the dog are resting on the hard ground, how
easily the shepherds move, listening to the fluttering angel's wings !
Here the artist's ability of characterizing the supporting and the
weighing, the lightly mobile and the massively solid, stands out most
convincingly. The soaring angel is also of special signfficance be
cause, by his eloquent movement from the upper corner down toward
Joachim in the opposite lower corner, he spans the picture with a
spiritual power which is augmented by the empty space between
the two figures. The gradual sloping of the ground suggests the
continuity of the movement.

44 GIOTTO
The picture immediately preceding, the Angel announcing to
Anna the Birth of a Daughter (PL 27), shows an entirely different
staging, and yet the composition agrees in its main principles with
that of Joachim's Dream. We are removed to the simple bed-cham
ber of the old woman. The room is represented with plain gray walls ;
aU that we see of furniture is a chest, and a bedstead with curtains
drawn aside. On the wall some small objects are hanging beneath the
window. Naturally, the room is shown on a very smaU scale in pro
portion to the figure; the same is true, in an even more pronounced
degree, of the anteroom, where the servant sits at her spinning-
wheel, eagerly listening. Architecture, we have seen, like landscape,
has to Giotto primarUy a symbolic signfficance. It is simplffied as
far as can be done without losing its artistic value. What is here
represented is enough, however, to convince us that the event is
taking place in a real room. The interior has a palpable dimension
of depth. We notice how the light, entering obliquely, is distributed
on walls and objects; we feel something of the intimate atmosphere
of the simple bedroom. The architecture serves as the enclosing
frame of the psychic tension, starting from the angel, who enters
only part way through the window, and terminating in the servant
in the hall; the central point is the powerful female figure, kneeling
in the middle of the room. It is in her that the force of the celestial
annunciation is condensed. The divinely blessed old woman is re
ceiving but at the same time sending out something which the listen
ing servant is endeavoring to catch. The placing of the three
principal figures along a dominating diagonal has created a continu
ous spiritual movement, the message of the angel receives greater
speed and power, and Anna is denoted more plainly as the central
motif. She balances the whole representation. Giotto has contrived
to adapt the lighting to the same end: soft sunlight is shed over
Anna's face, whUe dusk prevaUs in the entry where the servant, who
is dressed in a light color, is dimly revealed. The plastic values of
the figures are enhanced by the gradation of the light effect.
A picture which has justly won general admiration is the Meeting
of Joachim and Anna at the Golden Gate (PL 28) . The emotional in
tensity animating Giotto's representation of humanity here receives
an unusually strong expression; the warm felicity of aged love is per-
sonffied in a simple and noble example in the two old people who are
embracing and exchanging a long kiss. Joachim leans forward with
both arms round Anna's shoulders, whUe she strokes the bearded
cheek of the old man with one hand and with the other clasps his

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 45
powerful neck. The women who have accompanied Anna through
the city gate wait at some little distance, their curiosity curbed by
reverence for the aged couple. The connection between the chief
figures and the group of women is estabhshed through the old nurse,
who has discreetly covered part of her face with her mantle. Behind
Joachim the shepherd boy is approaching with the gifts. Only half of
him is visible, yet he serves to emphasize the forward movement of
the figure of Joachim. This runs obhquely into the picture, whereas
those coming out through the city gate are following the same diag
onal of depth in an opposite direction. The huge gate, flanked by
two massive towers, is built at right angles to this diagonal. In
this way the depth dimension is brought out, and sufficient space is
created in front of the gate for the free movement of the monumental
figures. With an unerring eye for the essential and a gift for clear
architectonic construction, Giotto has refrained from any indication
of the city, and has instead represented only a gate, but a gate of
such imposing form and of such solid structure that it looks almost
as if it were bursting through the frame and growing into an actual
city gate of enormous dimensions. Giotto's architectonic imagina
tion grips the spectator and gives the picture an appearance of
higher reality. The ponderous and powerful architecture also helps,
by way of contrast, to set forth the movement of the figures, perhaps
the most essential factor in representing the spontaneous happiness
and warmth of the meeting.
The Presentation of Mary in the Temple (PI. 29) shows a rather
intricate composition which might easily have proved a complete
faUure with an artist possessing a less pronounced architectonic feel
ing. The picture is divided by two diagonals of depth, indicated by
the movements and gestures of the figures. From the left corner the
chUd Mary, supported by her mother and accompanied by a servant
carrying her belongings, goes up the flight of steps leading to the tem
ple. This movement, tending obliquely inward, leads up to the high
priest on the temple terrace. The other oblique line, which is defined
by the placing of the temple in the picture, has its starting-point in
the two monumental spectators at the right-hand corner; their ges
tures and glances lead inward in the direction of the high priest. It
is in this recipient figure that the principal lines of movement inter
sect. The free space in front of the temple helps to make plain the
direction of these Hnes. With supreme power of simplffication,
Giotto has reduced the temple to a choir wall; above this the pulpit
is erected in the usual way, and from behind rises the pointed roof

46 GIOTTO
of the altar tabernacle. It is, so to speak, only the angles of the
temple buUding that are shown, and the spectator is therefore en
abled to see at the same time what is going on both outside the
temple and in. The architecture is here more symboHc than in most
of the other pictures, yet not without a constructive framework.
From an artistic point of view, it is of greatest significance as an
element for producing space by dividing the composition in both
height and depth. The figures predominate in a striking manner,
and Giotto has done his very best plastic modeling, especially in the
figures of the spectators and the large woman on the stairs; they are
massive and cumbrous, but at the same time well articulated. One
perceives Anna's firm, heavy tread on the stairs and the elastic step of
the youth carrying the pack. The mechanical and the material are
convincingly expressed, and thereby the basis for a strong pictorial
impression has been laid. The psychic import is expressed through
the concentration round the little Virgin before the high priest, a
centralizing tendency of the movement which in a way cooperates
with the diagonal lines predominating in the vertical plane.
In three of the subsequent pictures, showing how the suitors of
Mary hand over their rods to the high priest, how they kneel in
prayer before the altar waiting for the rod of the chosen one to
flower (PL 30), and the marriage of Mary and Joseph, the action is
going on partly inside the temple and partly outside. In all three the
buUding has been placed in the right half of the picture and consists
of a semicircular apse, to which two smaUer chapels and a little
vestibule are joined, the whole recalling the choir in a Romanesque
basilica. Notwithstanding the radical simplffication, this construc
tion impresses us as plausible and monumental. It endows the
pictures, particularly the one where the men kneel before the altar,
with a loftiness and splendor of the greatest importance to the
significance of the whole. The solemn rhythm of the broad arches is
supported by the concentrated power in the group of kneehng men,
which by its compression into a low horizontal mass produces an
effect of restrained energy. The mysterious expectancy, the readi
ness to rise at the sHghtest indication of a response, is expressed
through the coordinating action of the figures and the architecture.
On the entrance wall of the chapel, as already stated, is a repre
sentation of the Last Judgment (PL 31). This composition is so
large and elaborate that it could be made the subject of a much more
detailed study than we can afford at this point. It is the largest
picture Giotto ever painted; though the artist certainly did not

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CIIAPEL 47
execute the whole fresco by his own hand, he made the drawing and
painted the more prominent parts, as, for instance, Christ, the
apostles, and certain groups among the blessed and the damned.
The central point of the composition is represented by the ma
jestic Christ, seated in a rainbow-hued mandorla, separating by a
traditional gesture the blessed from the damned. The face of Christ
is mild and noble, but not of such harmonious perfection as in Pietro
Cavallini's fresco of the Last Judgment. Small angels support the
immense mandorla, four of them announcing the arrival of the Day
of Judgment by trumpet blasts. On either side of Christ the apostles
are stationed in curving rows (in earlier pictures of the Last Judg
ment the apostles are invariably seated in straight rows) ; here there
is already a suggestion of the grouping which becomes customary
during the High Renaissance. Above the apostles, at the sides of
the big window, the heavenly hosts are floating in closed ranks,
armed for battle and marshaled by angels with cross-emblazoned
banners. The military alignment of these hosts makes an imposing
impression. Immediately beneath the feet of Christ two angels are holding a
huge cross, the symbol of the redemption, which traditionally marks
the boundary between the blessed and the damned. Nearest to the
cross, on the side of the blessed, we see Enrico Scrovegni, founder of
the chapel, kneeling and presenting a model of the church to three of
the most beautiful among the emissaries of heaven. It is not, how
ever, the founder in person who holds the little chapel, but a white-
robed monk, who may with probabUity be designated as the architect
of the church. The group stands forth as a singularly signfficant
part of the composition.
The blessed (PL 33) are distributed in three separate tiers. Upper
most, near Christ, saints, prophets, and all the preeminent elect are
approaching under the leadership of the tall and stately Mary, who is
floating in a mandorla of Hght, carried by angels; below them is the
great compact host of those recently deceased, lined up in rows by
sturdy angels as masters of discipline and order. Here we find men
and women of every class in life, many of them with features differ
entiated according to type. The prevailing type is somewhat coarse
and swarthy, the face short and broad, with a straight forehead,
short nose, and ample chin. Further down, on the earth itseK, we
observe the heaviest sleepers among the blessed, who are only now
waking up and helping one another to climb out of their tombs.
These are drawn on a much smaller scale than the rest, probably in

48 GIOTTO
order to denote the distance between heaven and earth — we are
with the artist viewing it all from the exalted position of Christ —
yet with the greatest precision and remarkably accurate movement
and foreshortening.
On the other side of the cross all the horrors of hell are exposed
(PL 32), swept by the stream of fire issuing from the feet of Christ.
The hideous monster, within whose fanged jaws human beings are
tortured, is obligatory in the representations of hell during the thir
teenth and fourteenth centuries, although it is more apt to produce
a comic impression on the modern mind than to increase the grue-
someness of the scene. Round about, people are being tortured in
different ways: they hang by the head or feet, flayed, torn, and
hacked to pieces with tremendous energy by smaU devUs. No
matter how unsympathetic these different torture scenes are, one
ought not to pass them by without attention to the little naked
figures, often represented with the most daring foreshortening, but
with no relaxation in the control of form. Look, for instance, at the
two figures down at the left, bending like acrobats, with their heads
between their knees. What artist, however perfect his naturalism,
would have been able to produce a more convincing impression of
structure and muscle .''
The general scheme is dominated by an evident movement, or
puU, toward the great central figure. Toward him the hosts of
heaven are floating, toward him the elect are rising, around him the
apostles assemble. It is this rising and encircling movement which
prevaUs in the composition, by no means offset by the repelling
power which emanates from Christ toward the damned. Here the
confused multitude of little figures is so great that, at first, one gets
hardly any impression of the unity of the movements; involuntarUy
the eye is attracted to the other side, to the big powerful figures,
whose concordant movements and gestures affect us like a mighty
hymn with strong regular rhythm, carried by hundreds of voices up
toward the Redeemer. This hymn completely drowns the lamenta
tions of the damned, and the representation as a whole has a pre
ponderating tone of heavenly glory and rapture. The strongest
power in this ascending motion is Mary, the Queen of Heaven, who
is distinguished from the rest by her stately form but stUl turns
toward them, helping and exhorting. Her position as mediator
between Christ and mankind is obvious, her mighty personality is
profoundly impressive. She is less the benign mother than the com
manding and protecting divine Virgin: Pallas Athene, in whose

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 49
hand one might see the spear, whose head could proudly wear the
Attic helmet. It is worth noticing how severely the approach of the
blessed toward the heavenly delights has been represented: here is
no treading of a measure in flowery fields, as in later famous pictures
of Paradise (e. g., Fra Angelico's); these monks are proceeding in
serried ranks, as in a church procession, followed by burghers and
women, all in long flowing robes whose parallel folds mark the rising
rhythm of the unifled movement. With the single exception of
Enrico Scrovegni, the kneeling donor, whose distinguished profile is
depicted with more striking character, they are not individuals, but
types, clearly cut and modeled — characteristic representatives of
all classes of mankind, all kinds of temperaments, every walk in Hfe.

The decoration of the Arena Chapel is completed, as we have said,
by allegorical representations of seven Virtues and seven Vices,
ranged along the lowest level of either side wall. These paintings
are executed in grisaUle, imitating reliefs carved in stone, and thus in
color as in position form a base for the pictures above. Such treat
ment naturally adapts itself to Giotto's artistic style, for it gives full
scope for the relief effects that the artist so often sought in his compo
sitions, and is the most advantageous medium for his unusual skill
ifl Bringing out the plastic form values of the human figure.
The compositions consist of only one figure each, with or without
attributes; in two instances small illustrative reliefs are added, exem
plifying life in the domain of Justice and of Injustice. The artistic
expression is limited entirely to the values of form and movement in
the individual figures. The conception is not pictorial, in the true
sense: it is not intended to produce any naturalistic illusion.
Several of these allegorical figures might almost have been executed
in stone as well as in color. They synthesize, so to speak, Giotto's
decorative principles, which were developed quite as much under
the influence of sculpture as of painting. These paintings conse
quently occupy an eminent position among the artist's productions,
and explain much of what is most valuable and most typical in his
individual method of expression.
As for the subjects — the seven Virtues and the seven Vices —
Giotto may well have received his inspiration from contemporary
miniatures, or from carvings on the cathedrals, where these figures
frequently appeared, worked into the decoration round portals or
capitals. Shortly before Giotto's time the great Pisan sculptors had

50 GIOTTO
used such personffications on the font at Perugia, along with a whole
group of simUar abstractions. The chief literary sources for allegori
cal representations of the seven Virtues and seven Vices were prob
ably the Psychomachia of Prudentius and the works of St. Augustine
and his mediaeval commentators.^
The Virtues and Vices are arranged in pairs, so that the opposites
balance each other and by their contrast expound the meaning of the
pictures. As we enter, we have the Virtues on our right and the Vices
on our left.
The first pair is Hope and Despair.
Hope (PL 34) — Spes — is a young woman in a classic chiton, who
raises her hands to receive the " crown of life," held by a little angel in
the upper corner. The figure has small wings attached to the shoul
ders and rises a short distance from the ground, floating upward, as
though borne by her great longing. A harmonious undulg.ting move
ment pervades the slender figure, rising diagonaUy upward, its pul
sating rhythm expressed in the rippling folds of the garment, which
clings close to the figure, and in the lifted arms. She is related to the
classical genii or Victories, but has more spiritual quality, more aspi
ration than the ancient figures. Her soaring seems to free her from
aU material bonds, despite her markedly plastic form. The artist
has not felt the need of any attribute to make plain the signfficance
of the elevating force of divine hope.
Despair — Desperatio — is personffied by a very old woman who
hangs herself by means of a long cloth attached to a beam. Her hair
faUs down in wisps across her face, her arms jerk up, her body is
shaken by the convulsive death struggle; a devU takes flight, carry
ing off the released spirit. The human being, without hope and trust
in a higher power, is entirely lost in the agonies of despair. The
artist has given a masterly rendering of the body's weight as it
hangs helpless from the scarf; if this were cut, the body would drop
heavUy to the floor, like a full sack.
Charity — Caritas — is again a young woman in classical costume;
she wears a wreath of roses. She tramples money-bags underfoot and
holds in her right hand a cup overflowing with the fruits and flowers
of the earth, treasures which she wiU distribute for the benefit of
others, for her heart belongs to Christ. FuU of radiant gladness and
humUity, she offers her heart to a little figure of Christ who appears
in the upper corner. Charity is very like Hope, but is not in such
pronounced motion and is therefore, perhaps, not quite as charming.
' Cf . Venturi, Storia dell' Arte, v, 363.

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 51
The task of representing the idea of altruistic love in a single picture
was probably less grateful and stimulating to the artistic imagination
than the concepts of Hope and Despair.
Envy — Invidia — is a horrible crone with goat's horns and bat
ears, rising from the flames of hell. She eagerly stretches forth one
clawed hand and in the other holds a weU stuffed money-bag. From
her mouth issues a poisonous serpent, for envy is the mother of
slander. Faith — Fides — stands out towering and strong like a statue
against the dark background of a niche. She is dressed in the cos
tume of a nun with keys at her belt, like an abbess; in her left hand
she holds her credo, in her right a long cross with which she over
turns an idol. Under her feet lie heretical writings. Two small pray
ing angels are placed in the upper corners of the picture. It is plain
that in this figure Giotto desired above all to express immovable
firmness; Faith is hieratic and imposing, and perhaps represents the
Church itself, even more than the theological virtue.
Disbelief — Infidelitas — is a fat, overfed woman, who totters
toward the fires of hell. In her outstretched hand she carries a little
idol, attached to the end of a string that passes around her neck.
She wears a helmet with pieces that come down over the ears, so that
she does not hear the voice of the prophet, who addresses her from
on high. The whole is a picture of unstable weight, ensnared by a
fragile idol.
Justice (PL 35) — lustitia — sits proud as a queen on a Gothic
throne. She holds the scales of a balance in either hand ; probably the
beam of the balance originally rested on her shoulders, but it is now
missing. In one scale stands an angel, resembling an ancient Victory,
crowning the virtuous laborer, a smith, who sits on the arm of the
throne; in the other scale is a man who draws his sword to dispatch a
criminal. On the base of the throne, like a relief cut in gray stone, is
Life in the realm of Justice: horsemen returning from the chase and
the market, laden with game and wares, and women who play and
dance. Where Justice rules, trade and traffic proceed undisturbed
and life is fuU of joy and fruitful toU.
Injustice (PL 36) — Iniustitia — sits before the crenellated gate
of a half-ruined castle in the woods, on the lookout for booty. He
holds a spear in one claw-like hand, and a sword in the other, fangs
protrude from his mouth, and his profile is that of a bird of prey. Be
fore his rocky tower are displayed the results of his misrule: peace
ful travelers have faUen victims to robbers; a man Hes beneath his

52 GIOTTO
horse, which is held by a bandit; a woman is stretched on the ground,
in agony, and despoUed of her clothes; two armed men approach
from the right. The scene is one of the most animated and dramatic
that Giotto ever produced, entirely expressive in its terseness, com
posed like a relief in stone, but with full movement in the figures.
It is unfortunate that it has not been better preserved.
Temperance — Temperantia — is a middle-aged woman, draped
in a long mantle with a veU over her diadem-crowned head. She has
a bridle in her mouth and holds a sword in one hand and with the
other binds it fast in its sheath. The figure is enclosed, concentrated,
and restrained, as befits Temperance.
Wrath (PL 37) — Ira — is a strikingly expressive contrast to her
opposite. She is again a figure in vigorous motion, although the
movement does not carry her out of her position, or lift her, like
Hope; it is convulsive. The powerful woman bends sharply backward
and with violent effort tears apart her garment over the breast. It is
as though she were about to burst in her passionate anger. She
'7 strives to give vent to her seething emotions, she rages — but at the
same time the strong figure maintains a resistance which to a certain
extent confines the free surge of passion and asserts the fruitlessness
of her wUd endeavor. She may be compared with the ancient repre
sentations of Maenads working themselves into a frenzy.
Fortitude — Fortitudo — is another statuesque figure: a hercu
lean woman, dressed in armor, with a lion's skin over her shoulders
and her head. She holds a great shield in front of her and in the
other hand a drawn sword. Stalwart and unswerving she stands on
guard, alert for the enemy, whose javelins break upon the trusty
shield. Inconsistency (PL 38) — Inconstantia — tries in vain to stand up
right upon the rolling wheel of Fortune. Her arms are outstretched
as she balances herself; the wind catches her streaming mantle as she
moves forward on the swiftly turning wheel — no rest, no security for
her; another moment and she wiU probably be thrown from her mount
,., and another will ride in her place. The form that the aUegory takes
, rather suggests classical models, but again Giotto has contrived to
give added psychological interest by introducing more human feehng.
Wisdom — Prudentia — sits at her desk, holding in one hand a
compass (to measure all things) and in the other a mirror, signifying
that the beginning of Avisdom is, " know thyself." She has two faces ;
^ the one in front is stffi fresh and fair, but the one behind is that of
\ an old man (perhaps signifying the present and the past). The

FRESCOES IN THE ARENA CHAPEL 53
composition is one of those which coincides most closely with the
mediaeval scholastic representation of this favorite subject.
Folly — Stultitia — is a strange flgure of a fool in a feather-
decked costume and head-dress, swinging a club. He seems to be a
clown setting forth to fight imaginary foes.
The most attractive element in all these allegorical representations
is the striking artistic conception which translates into tangible plas
tic form the abstract idea. It is just this restrained, concentrated
means of expression that gives Giotto his most powerful effects. His
skUl lies chiefly in the accent on the essential — both in form and i
composition — and the elimination of the unessential. As for the
technical execution of the allegories, it is probable that it was partly
the work of pupils, who also painted the decorative borders and the
subsidiary figures in the Arena Chapel, but a more definite deter
mination of the individual features in these works is scarcely possible
now, as the paintings have been subjected to considerable restoration.

GIOTTO'S ARTISTIC STYLE IN THE ARENA FRESCOES
IN the course of our study of some characteristic pictures in the
Arena Chapel we have had occasion to observe the basic prin
ciples of composition which raise these frescoes to masterpieces of
the first rank. Above all we have observed how fresco painting be
comes with Giotto a problem of spacing, in which every element, be
it landscape, architecture, or figures, enters first of aU as a mass, or
buUding stone, in the rhythmic and tectonic composition, which is
developed with the greatest clearness in dimensions of both width
and depth. Giotto's architectonic imagination distinguishes his pro
ductions as painter and saves him from that kind of superficial ab
straction which gives much of preceding as weU as of subsequent art
an unreal character. His mode of representation is, as we know,
greatly simplffied, but this simplffication is concrete rather than ab-
I stract; it aims at asserting material existence — volume and weight
— and does not tend toward any dissolution into lines and imaginary
forms. To his contemporaries Giotto appeared as a veritable reahst;
he was praised for his ability to produce Ulusory impressions of actu-
' ahty. To modern observers Giotto appears great and convincing as
a pictorial artist just because he stands so free and independent be
fore the phenomenal world. Notwithstanding his deficient knowl
edge of perspective, anatomy, and other naturalistic devices, he
attains convincing expression of objective phenomena.
It seems hardly necessary to reiterate what has already been
pointed out in regard to Giotto's interpretation of landscape and
architecture. The artist's constant feeling for the supporting func
tion of the ground, for the hard and clear-cut forms of the mountains,
for the rhythm of the contours, gives to his landscapes, in spite of
their bareness, a grandeur which has only in rare instances been
attained by more naturalistic painters. The landscapes are not
views cut out of nature and existing by themselves, but organic ele
ments of an artisticaUy mastered scheme.
The same essential point of view applies to the architecture. It
is simplffied, and gives evidence of a marked feeling for tectonic
structure. Like the landscape it creates space, because it is not in
serted as a mere decorative complement but as an inevitable link in
Si

GIOTTO'S ARTISTIC STYLE 55
the structure of the composition. Both architecture and landscape
thus serve to explain and support the grouping of the figures. The
ground extends horizontally and forms a firm platform for the actors;
the rocks rise rhythmically in steps, dividing or connecting the
figures. The unbroken surfaces and distinct lines lead the eye and
indicate the main lines in the compositions.
As the horizontal plane is something else than a narrow stage,
temporarily set for illustrative purposes, the figures appear really to
be placed behind one another; those farther away can rest on the
same plane as the ones in front. It must, however, be admitted
that this horizontal grouping is still defective in the Arena frescoes,
inasmuch as the figures in the rear often appear to be hard pressed
by those in front of them; but Giotto has at least cut loose from the
old manner of placing the figures step-like above, instead of be
hind, one another. He has realized the value of a consistent hori
zontal grouping, and many times he has succeeded, by indicating
successive vertical planes partly crossing each other, in giving an
impression of the extension backward of the crowd, although he is
not capable of representing the atmosphere between the different
layers of figures, or their relative movements. Even when the figures
are most imposing they are in a certain measure fixed to the wall,
and on this account the majority of these compositions assume a de
cidedly relief-like character. Several of the frescoes seem composed
rather for execution in sculpture than in painting. Possibly the inter- ^
course of the artist with Giovanni Pisano, the greatest contemporary;
sculptor, exerted a certain influence on the development of his style.l
This attachment to the surface which characterizes the Arena pic
tures is, however, beneficial to the decoration. The feeling for the
continuity of the enclosing walls is preserved; it is not Ulusion but
rhythmic significance which is of decisive importance in good decora
tive art.
The style of Giotto's figures is fundamentally plastic, developed |
under the influence of sculpture. The figures are placed by prefer- I
ence in clear sUhouette against the background, the outline is un- !
broken, the fundamental form is not disturbed by any accentuation
of detail. Definite layers, one behind the other, indicate the depth
dimension, almost as in reliefs. As a painter-plastician Giotto is the
first in the specifically Florentine series of artists, who during the
entire Renaissance represent the most vital element in Florentine
painting. Giotto's art would be out of place in Siena, to mention
only the center nearest to Florence, still more in distant localities

56 GIOTTO
such as Venice or Rome. The clear definition of the plastic quahties
of the human body, which we find in Giotto's frescoes, is merely an
individual enhancement of that Florentine spirit which loves the hard
and definite form better than picturesque softness and chiaroscuro.
Yet Giotto cannot be compared to the great painter-plasticians
of the Quattrocento in regard to detailed rendering of the human
shape. His people always retain a typical basic form, with slight
, individual modffications. The anatomical structure is veUed by
, sweeping mantles; the massiveness and unity are emphasized, so'
that the forms make an impression of unshakable resistance. If we
examine the compositions more closely, however, we shaU find that
the figures are not stone blocks, but mobUe human beings. The
', limbs perform their functions in a convincing manner, the feet are
' planted firmly on the ground, the hands have the power of grasping,
and the head is carried proudly, or inclined gently, on the strong
neck. The essential joints in the organic structure stand out in an
j entirely different way from that in the figures of earlier or later Tre-
i cento masters. Although Giotto does not by any means attain the in-
1 cisive anatomical representation which is so characteristic of the
i Quattrocento painters, he does produce an impression of the functions
of the separate limbs. The compeUing energy animating the huge fig-
i ures is naturally discernible in their movements, and the plastic dis
tinctness of the forms gives them added firmness.
Of prime importance also for the impression of organic articula
tion is the treatment of the drapery. The mantles are arranged in
! such fashion that we get an idea of the unity of the large bodies and
of the mobility of the limbs. They are gathered at certain essential
i points, as, for instance, on the shoulders, elbows, hips, knees, etc.,
I according to the poses of the figures, and are from these points spread
out, creating broad, plastic forms. Evidently they are the result of
a very searching study of models, of an endeavor to attain something
better than an external, more or less plausible appearance. In this
respect Giotto seems already to have conceived the ambition of the
later painter-plasticians toward complete realism, palpable form.
Nude figures are exceptional in the frescoes of Giotto. They
occur only in the Last Judgment, if we except Christ in the
Baptism, the Crucffixion, and the Piet&. The figure of Christ is
beautiful and sensitive, though relatively summary in regard to
modeling. The small nude figures among the damned surprise us
by their suppleness and agility, apparently unhampered by any
shortcomings in anatomical knowledge. The master has a remark-

GIOTTO'S ARTISTIC STYLE 57
able eye, not only for the general composition of the body, but also
for the correct position and the organic function of the most impor
tant muscles. An experienced critic has said that Michelangelo is
the first to produce a hell with figures comparable to those of Giotto
in expressiveness of forms and movement.
Giotto's powerful expression of form is supplemented by a great '
dignity in movement and gesture. Even in pictures where the tone
is excited and the people are strongly affected (the Massacre of the \
Innocents, the Crucffixion), the gestures preserve a restraint and i
balance which are of great importance for the monumental impres
sion. Really we have but one instance of any account where the
artist allows the gestures to exceed the limits of moderation and
become violent (the Pieta), but even in this case an evident balance
is obtained by the counterpoise of the figures and the closed grouping.
In short, it is not vivacity, modulation, or richness which are the
most characteristic features of Giotto's gestures — in this regard
other contemporary artists, like Giovanni Pisano or Ambrogio Lor-
enzetti, have progressed further — it is rather the grandezza and
the modestia of the men of the High Renaissance: restrained
dignity and definition. The gestures of Giotto always denote lofty
and profound emotions. The naive garrulity and excitability of the
modern Italian seem completely foreign to the people of this artist;
it never occurs to them to entertain one another or the spectator,
totally absorbed as they are in the action itself. This preoccupation
fascinates the spectator, because, as a rule, the more the actors are
engrossed in their parts the more we are affected, the more we become
convinced of the seriousness of the drama and of the reality of the
emotions. If we recall some typical Quattrocento compositions, with
figures turning toward the public or doing something altogether inde
pendent of the central action, we easily perceive the significance of
the demeanor of the figures in Giotto's pictures.
There is hardly any reason for repeating, in this condensed review,
the observations made in the preceding chapter on gestures indicating
different feelings. Compassion, amazement, grief, and terror are thel |
most common emotions in the art of Giotto, and these are almost!
invariably interpreted by the raising of one or both hands, often ini
connection with an inclination forward or backward of the upper
part of the body. When the emotion has been tempered to a certainj
degree of resignation, the hands are usually folded and raised to the!
chin, or the cheek is resting on one hand. Only in the angels in the;
great mourning scenes (the Crucffixion and the Pieta) do we find a

58 GIOTTO
richer scale of gesture, expressing grief and despair: here people are
tearing their hair, scratching their faces, wildly flinging their arms,
and rending their clothes. But these like most of the other gestures
employed by Giotto are to be regarded as mainly traditional. They
had, in the course of centuries, gradually been stamped as regular
currency for certain emotions; everyone understood their denomi
nation, whUe their actual value was dependent on the abUity with
which the artist administered his funds.
Essentially individual gestures are rare in Giotto, as in the other
painters of the fourteenth century. There are a few: those of the
young man in the Raising of Lazarus, who is pointing one hand
toward Christ and raising the other pensively to the chin; the pro
tecting movement of St. John's arm pressing the little boy toward
himself, when Christ wields the lash over the money changers; the
admonishing gestures of the high priest, when Judas receives his
payment; and the musical movement of the violinist's hand in the
wedding procession. Other gestures in Giotto's works which might
appear individual may be explained as modffications of older ones.
However, it is rather through the position of the figures and the
general movement of their bodies than through the gestures that
Giotto interprets personal emotion.
The movements always proceed in a slow tempo. Even in scenes
where the action (e. g., in the Massacre of the Innocents) would have
required quicker and more passionate motions, there are no more
than tentative suggestions which prove by their lack of freedom that
the human figure contained insoluble problems to the artist and that
he did not possess the dramatic energy of a Giovanni Pisano. We
do not know of a single figure in the compositions of Giotto which is
actually running, or hurrying (feeble attempts at such are made in
the Expulsion of the Money Changers, Pl.41), but we find some who
are walking rapidly with firm steps (the FHght into Egypt, PL 43).
This firm and restrained movement is preeminently characteristic of
Giotto; both earlier and later painters too easily indulge in fussy
haste, for instance, in representing the Adoration of the Magi, or the
Meeting of Joachim and Anna. (Compare these scenes as repre
sented by Pietro Cavallini and Taddeo Gaddi.) If we look at
Giotto's interpretation of the Meeting of Joachim and Anna, or of
the Visitation (PI. 44), we immediately discover that it is just the im
posingly quiet rhythm which impresses us and gives to the represen
tation a deep tone of human dignity and grandeur. Such an andante
maestoso does not recur in Italian art untU the High Renaissance.

VI
THE FRESCOES OF THE CAPPELLA BARDI AND
CAPPELLA PERUZZI
BESIDES the frescoes in the Arena chapel at Padua, the paint
ings in the Cappella Peruzzi and Cappella Bardi in Santa Croce
are generally recognized as Giotto's work. According to Vasari,
Giotto painted four chapels in the great Franciscan church — the
CappeUa Tosinghi and the Cappella Giungi as well as the Bardi and
Peruzzi — but all the chapels were whitewashed at the end of the
seventeenth century, when the church underwent considerable reno
vation in conformity with the taste of the baroque period. About
the middle of the nineteenth century the lime was removed from the
Peruzzi and Bardi Chapels, but in the other two the destruction had
been more complete, so that it was no longer possible to recover any
thing of the ancient decoration. Even in the chapels where the
paintings had remained intact under the plaster there had been con
siderable wear and tear, and a more or less thorough-going restora
tion was considered necessary. Missing portions were retouched,
and although the tracings and contours of the old pictures were
respected, the coloring is new and the technique is very different from
the original. For a nineteenth-century painter it naturaUy was prac
ticaUy impossible to conform to Giotto's method of expression, no
matter how conscientiously he might devote himself to his task. The
result is that these frescoes show a somewhat impure and convention
alized style.
This is particularly true of the frescoes in the Bardi Chapel, illus
trating scenes from the life of St. Francis; these have suffered con
siderably more than the paintings in the Peruzzi Chapel and they
are now of importance mainly as evidences of Giotto's principles of
composition. The Peruzzi frescoes, which present three scenes from
the life of St. John the Evangelist and three from the life of St. John
the Baptist, have preserved considerably more of the original char
acteristics of their style. The form values of the magnificent figures
still have something of their original power. It must, however, be
admitted that these Florentine frescoes, on account of their present
condition, cannot be conceded the same importance as the Arena
paintings for the study of Giotto's individual style and maimer of
59

60 GIOTTO
expression. We can, therefore, consider these works briefly, dwelling
chiefly on the principles of composition exemplffied.
The general style of the frescoes justffies ranking them among the
most mature work of Giotto, executed some years after his sojourn in
Padua, but a more exact dating of these paintings has not as yet been
possible. It follows that as St. Louis of Toulouse is one of the four
saints who decorate the waU of the Cappella Bardi, it is probable that
the painting at least in that chapel was done after 1317, the year of
St. Louis' canonization. But Giotto worked for nearly twenty years
after that date, and for our part we are inclined to place these paint
ings some time after 1320.
Concerning the relative date of the two series, also, divergent
opinions have been advanced. The most usual practice is to date the
frescoes of St. Francis somewhat earlier than those of the two St.
Johns, an opinion that naturally arises if one lays stress on the greater
scale and general enhancement of the style of the figures and the in
creasing realism of the St. John frescoes; but on the other hand the St.
Francis series attains a more consecutive development of rhythmic
composition. Furthermore the Bardi Chapel, where these last were
painted, shows a somewhat more complete decorative scheme: the
roof is embellished with little allegorical representations of the Fran
ciscan vows, as well as a bust of St. Francis, and the altar wall with
four saints, placed two on each side of the big window. Both series,
in any case, stand so far away from the paintings in the Arena Chapel,
in regard to style, that any relative dating based on greater or less
resemblance to these last seems scarcely possible. The Florentine
frescoes form a characteristic group by themselves.
It wUl be convenient to start with a study of the St. Francis fres
coes and then to pass to those that illustrate the lives of St. John
the EvangeHst and St. John the Baptist, for even if the two series
were painted in the reverse order, the figures in the St. John pictures
give a stronger impression of the style which the following genera
tion continued to develop and something of that conception of form
which found its highest expression in the creation of Masaccio.
The St. Francis series begins with a representation of the young
man denouncing his earthly father (PL 45). The scene is an open
place before a large palace which is set at an angle, with the corner
projecting outward and the walls following two diagonal lines back
into the picture. The attempted perspective is somewhat defective,
exaggerating the foreshortening, but the slant of the two walls affords
a good field for a group of figures on each side of the salient angle;

CAPPELLA BARDI AND CAPPELLA PERUZZI 61
both groups have an architectonic setting. The chief figure, the
youth, naked under the mantle which the bishop flings round him,
is placed right in front of the projecting corner, which thus furnishes
as it were a sustaining vertical axis for the composition; it is not
exactly in the middle of the picture, but a little toward the right.
The division on the left is consequently a little the larger, making
ample room for the vehement and sweeping gesture of the angry
father's arm. Two of the spectators are trying with evident effort
to hold him back as he attempts to rush forward, and others show
the curiosity inspired by such a sensational spectacle. Behind the
bishop stand several monks and choir-boys in attitudes of meditative
repose; further out in the wings we see boys about to throw stones
at the naked young man. They are prevented from putting into
effect this typical manifestation of youth by some older persons who
seize one of them by the hair and another by the wrist. Strong and
spontaneous life pulses throughout the entire composition. The fig
ures have strikingly ample place to move in, and are not crowded
together or fastened to the background as are the figures in the
Arena Chapel whenever large gatherings of people are presented.
In the lunette field on the opposite wall we see St. Francis and his
companions kneeling before Pope Honorius III, who is confirming
the rule of the Order (PL 46). Both sitting and kneeling figures are
presented in full profile, facing each other; the room in which they are
placed is shown straight in front, with foreshortening of floor, walls,
and ceiling. From this arrangement the entire composition gains fun
damental lucidity. The back wall of the room, divided into square
panels, affords a broad and effective background for the numerous
profiles. The wall compartments, which are decorated with a leaf
pattern, are separated by moldings so placed as to lend admirable
emphasis and definition to the figures: St. Francis' head comes oppo
site a crossing of the frames, and his hand, stretched out in front of
him, opposite another frame, so that the somewhat isolated figure
receives setting and support. The Pope's throne is raised on a few
steps. There is an undulating movement from the Pope, giving his
benediction, down to St. Francis and on to the group of friars; the
Pope's gesture conveys a fatherly admonition, which the brethren,
humbly kneeling, receive in deepest veneration. The disposition of
the profiles facing each other illustrates clearly the relation of the
giver of the benediction and its recipients.
How anxious the artist was to give his picture unity and complete
ness of decorative effect is further shown by the addition at each side

62 GIOTTO
of the gabled papal haU of a smaller and lower room. In each of
these little antechambers he has placed two large figures. These
could scarcely be considered necessary to the presentation of his
subject, although they might be accounted for as attendant ser
vants, so the artist's chief concern can hardly have been anything
other than the purely formal object of ffiling two vacant spaces.
But whatever the picture gains in point of formal balance from
these accessories it loses in its total effect as the presentation of a
dominant idea.
Below the representation of the establishment of the Order there
occurs a legendary scene: St. Francis before the Sultan (PI. 47), offer
ing to walk through a flaming fire as proof of his God, on condition
that the Mohammedan high priests must do likewise. The scene is
enacted in a great hall which fiUs the whole picture. We look straight
back into the room, which no longer has any ceUing, but is enclosed by
partition waUs hung with costly tapestry. It is probable that a ceU
ing originally existed but was obliterated in the process of restora
tion; something of the kind would have helped to enhance the effect
of depth. The composition is entirely dominated by the Sultan, who
is seated in a high niched throne in the middle of the picture. Owing
to the fact that the throne is set back some distance and is con
structed like an aedicula or niche, the composition has depth, al
though the movement takes place in the relief plane. The figure
of the sultan stands out (a device of space composition which Giotto
had not mastered in the Padua frescoes), but he could not come down
from his throne without running a risk of falling out of the picture.
To the right stands St. Francis, pointing heavenward, ready to step
into the fire, and behind him stands a praying friar. On the other
side we see the Mohammedan priests, who evidently have no desire
to follow their lord's gesture of command in the direction of the fire.
One of them goes so far as to resist the efforts of a servant to force
him over toward the place of danger. Francis' willingness, the reluc
tance of the Mohammedan priests, and the inclination of the Sultan
in favor of the saint, all are brought out strUdngly by the placing
and the movement of the figures. The graphic clearness of the
centralized composition could scarcely be mcreased. How great an
advance on the tentative and hesitating composition of the same
subject in Assisi! There the Sultan is placed m one corner, Francis
and the fire in the middle, the Mohammedan priests in the other
corner. No trace of concentration or psychic tension such as we find
in the Florentine picture offsets the doU-lUie quality of the figures.

CAPPELLA BARDI AND CAPPELLA PERUZZI 63
Both in the expressiveness of its composition and in the clearness
and harmony of its architectonic design the Florentine painting
stands at the summit of Giotto's achievement. It has hardly been
surpassed by any similar representation of a judgment scene.
The composition on the opposite wall, St. Francis Appearing to
the Brethren at Aries (PL 48), is likewise constructed on the princi
ple of centralization. The eye is attracted immediately to the figure
in the middle, the saint who, floating in the air, advances from the
central one of three arches leading into a room at the back. The
scene is divided into two rooms, the front one a loggia or terrazza,
where the brethren are sitting on low benches, and the rear one,
a sort of corridor, also with some figures. This double room is un
usually wide and deep. St. Francis comes quietly floating out of the
back room with raised arms ; the figure looks as though it were Hfted
by the surrounding arch, which curves down in harmony with the
upward curve of the saint's arms. He draws the monks' eyes toward
him, he is in motion, he controls and counterpoises the whole like the
tongue of a balance.
The picture below, which shows two apparitions in coimection
with St. Francis' death, has apparently lost considerable detail in
course of restoration. On the right we see St. Francis appearing in
a dream to the Bishop of Assisi, who Hes in a deep sleep on his bed;
on the left. Brother Augustine on his deathbed sees St. Francis'
last hours in a vision. These two related legends of widely sepa
rated scenes are here represented under the same roof (PI. 49).
Possibly there was originally some separating element which has been
lost in the restoration. The most effective feature of the composition
now remaining, is the group of friars at Augustine's feet, for the
figures come out distinctly, almost as if they were free-standing,
although they are placed one behind the other.
The famous illustration of the lamentation over the dead St.
Francis (PL 50) likewise shows, throughout the whole picture, space
composition and grouping of the same general style as in the three
frescoes last described. The artist has evidently planned a simUar
disposition of his scenes in all the pictures in this chapel. Except in
the first fresco, he has consistently maintained the plane of the actual
wall surface, and has kept his point of sight in the middle of the pic
ture. Leading lines, horizontal and vertical, appear in strong con
trast; the room usually has no very great depth, but is sumptuous in
its display of breadth and affords a firm architectural setting for the
figures. The pervading clarity and unity of the space composition is

64 GIOTTO
the basis of the strong decorative impression made by the frescoes
in the Bardi Chapel.
The scene is set against a rather high wall divided by broad strips
into rectangular areas and is flanked by narrow chapel facades. The
bier has been placed before the chapel doors so that as many as
possible of the friars may have the privilege of a last farewell to the
seraphic brother. It is not quite in the middle of the picture, but a
little to the left. St. Francis' head, toward which the eye is drawn,
lies in a line formed by the supports of the bier and a portion of the
framing of the wall area behind it. The figure is stretched out stiffly
in a perfectly horizontal position, contrasting with the groups stand
ing at his head and his feet. These, the solemn and stately repre
sentatives of the church with their banner and missal, form a kind of
ritual setting for the more animated scene which is enacted closer
to the body. Here the figures are no longer calm and stately, but
throw themselves on their knees or bend over the corpse. They sur
round the bier completely, their position and movement forming a
group rising pyramidally over its center. In the midst are three
kneeling figures on each side. Friars kiss St. Francis' hands and
feet, but the doubting nobleman puts his hand in the wound on the
saint's side as Thomas once did to Christ. The friar by the pffiow
seeks in vain to catch a gleam from behind the eyelids closed in death.
Even those who stand further away are anxiously making the same
attempt to meet the vanished glance; even the monk who has just
come out of the chapel on the right looks straight at the dead man's
eyes. These are the focus where aU rays converge, whence emanates
the spiritual force which charges the entire picture. Only one figure
makes a motion in any other direction — the ugly and simple-looking
friar who sees the soul of St. Francis, a replica in miniature of the
dead man, carried to heaven by seraphim. The contrast between
him and his neighbor, who is intent on penetrating the dead face
with his gaze, sharply brings out the signfficance of the arrangement:
a rehef of the feeling of pressure and tension evoked by the band of
mourners. If we compare this picture with Giotto's other famous repre
sentation of mourning, the Pieta in the Arena Chapel, we notice that
here the unanimous outburst of grief is somewhat subdued, but at the
same time better modulated. The elucidation of the spiritual mean
ing is more restrained, the formal composition more confined. A
strictly architectonic framework, clearly dominated by the verticals
and horizontals, is marvelously combined with the vibrating expres-

CAPPELLA BARDI AND CAPPELLA PERUZZI 65
sion of a whole choir of emotions. In pure composition, Giotto has
rarely attained a higher point.
An independent picture over the entrance to the chapel illustrates
St. Francis receiving the stigmata (PI. 51). The composition is
limited to a single figure, the saint kneeling in a barren mountain
landscape. To the right is a Httle structure resembling a chapel.
The landscape shows the same impressive rock formation that we
know from Giotto's earlier frescoes. The most remarkable feature,
however, is the movement in the kneeling figure. He has been on
his knees, turned in profile toward the left. Suddenly, roused by a
rushing sound in the air, he raises his right knee and swings the
upper part of his body half way round, so that it is almost in full face,
and at the same time he turns his head further to look at a seraph,
from whom issue five golden beams which strike his hands, his
feet, and his side. The vigorous and emphatic torsion of the waist
and the head, combining with the extension of the arms, displays the
figure magnificently and contributes a strong impression of its cubic
volume. This is one of the most fascinating plastic forms that
Giotto ever drew.
If one contrasts this picture with the St. Francis Receiving the
Stigmata (PI. 52), of the Upper Church at Assisi, the latter appears
to be a structureless dummy; if one chooses for comparison any of
the figures in the Arena frescoes, for instance the kneeling youth in
the Mocking of Christ, one finds that it is drawn in a far more sum
mary manner. The artist had not yet attained any such thorough
rendering of the organic structure of the body as in the later Stigmata
picture. In this the treatment of form has become more supple and
delicate, the planes of the figure are less harshly differentiated, and
the appearance of relief entirely overcome. The figure stands out
free in the landscape; one feels that the air moves all round it. The
artist has finally attained the pictorial form which begins the direct
line of development toward the achievements of Masaccio and the
other masters of the Quattrocento. It ,cannot be too emphatically
stated that in these frescoes of St. Francis, Giotto gave the decisive
impulse, not only in the iconographical presentation of his subject
but in all the principles of composition and especially of space
composition, to the entire evolution of Florentine painting in the
succeeding century. (Cf. Masaccio, Benozzo Gozzoli, and Ghir
landajo.) In the Cappella Peruzzi as in the Cappella Bardi we find three
large compositions on either wall, but here the saints flanking the

66 GIOTTO
window are omitted. On the right are set forth three scenes from
the life of St. John the Evangelist : the Revelation in Patmos, the
Raising of Drusiana, the Translation of the Apostle; on the left,
three pictures from the story of St. John the Baptist: Zacharias in
the Temple (PL 53), the Birth and Naming of John (PI. 54), and
Herod's Feast. It might be remarked that the choice of subjects
must have struck the Florentines, who considered the Baptist as
their special patron, as rather odd, for St. John himself does not
appear in any of the pictures except as a newborn child in the Nam
ing scene.
Highest up on the left in a lunette field we see Zacharias officiat
ing at the altar in the temple, while an angel advances toward him
with the glad tidings of the birth of a son. Over the altar, which is
set almost in the middle, rises a tabernacle on columns, and on the
right side a slender structure resembling a portico is indicated. The
architecture is quite abstract but gives a certain support to the cen
tral part of the composition. On each side are placed a few second
ary figures, participating in the scene only as musicians or spectators,
but serving to widen out the composition to the limits of the wall
space. All the more delicate touches have been lost in the process
of restoration. The second picture is divided into two portions by a partition
wall. To the right of this we see the aged Elizabeth lying in her bed,
with three women taking care of her; to the left Zacharias, writing
the name of the newborn child on a tablet, while the boy is presented
to him by a woman who is surrounded by four spectators. Despite
the subdivision of what would otherwise form a single picture of
the birth and naming, the artist has preserved a certain unity in his
treatment of space. The wall in the background is continuous —
Zacharias' compartment is only a little lower than EHzabeth's — and
the whole structure is placed at an angle to the surface plane. The
arrangement of space thus introduced is consistently maintained in
aU four large frescoes in the Cappella Peruzzi. The scene of action
in these four pictures, facing each other in pairs, is always turned
obhquely to the plane of the chapel walls, so that the deepest part
of the room in the picture is furthest away from the entrance. The
artist unquestionably desired to produce the illusion of an actual
room which extends back to a considerable depth, approximately in
the direction of the Hne of sight of a man standing in the middle of
the chapel entrance. To be sure, this appearance is suggested rather
than fully carried out, because the artist lacked the requisite knowl-

CAPPELLA BARDI AND CAPPELLA PERUZZI 67
edge of perspective; none the less his intention is unmistakable and
the resulting effect is by no means unimportant in the total decora
tive impression made by these monumental compositions.
The figures in the Birth and Naming picture are notably large
and stately, draped in plastic robes that have evidently suffered, in
the painting of the folds, under the hand of the restorer. The
same is true of the white bed-clothes covering Elizabeth: these have
lost their original soft folds and have been drawn almost skin-tight.
Behind the bed stand two women, shown only from the waist up,
and from the door in the left foreground another woman is walking
into the room, her back half -turned to the beholder. All three figures
form an effective contrast to the woman stretched out on the bed.
They are entirely free-standing in the room, which incidentally
affords plenty of space for the big bedstead. It is not a mere abstrac
tion or foil for the characters, as at Padua (cf. the Birth of the
Virgin), but has concrete existence, making a cubic body of air
about the figures. The two elements of the composition, figures
and architecture, seem to be more independent of each other than
previously. The figures intersect only as verticals and horizontals,
and each one brings to bear its full value as a free-standing form.
The feeling of dignity and solemnity which dominates the right
side of the picture is still more accentuated in the Naming of John.
The room is even lower, the figures more numerous, the interior more
completely enclosed, the emotional import condensed. The aged
Zacharias sits on a stool, bending forward, resting his writing-tablet
on his knee, plunged in profound meditation. The woman carrying
the lively child and the other figures stand waiting in reverent silence
before the dumb patriarch; there issues from him a compelling still
ness. The composition offsets his powerful figure against the stand
ing group, which gathers in close, as though attempting visibly to
distinguish and separate itself from the rest of the room. The artist
has apparently had the same object in view in placing the two figures
with their backs turned, one on each side of the partition, and walk
ing in opposite directions. Either half of the picture thereby attains
its independent effect, whereas the continuity of the room lends to
the total impression of the picture additional dignity and strength.
The lowest picture shows Herod's Feast (PI. 55), and here Giotto
has attained his freest, most natural expression, both in space com
position and in figure characterization. The whole scene is stamped
with surprisingly graphic realism. The banquet table is laid in an
open hall, supported at one end on slender columns, but at the other

68 GIOTTO
end closed off by a more substantial wall from a smaller room in
which the last tableau of the drama is presented. The hall, as has
already been pointed out, slants back into the picture; it begins a
short distance from the limit of the waU space, leaving room for a
dungeon that rises partly behind the hall and thus adds to the effect
of depth. The severe and massive prison-tower has distinct value as
contrast to the elegant architecture and rich decoration of the loggia.
Above all it gives to the open hall, set slantwise to the surface of
the picture, an impression of capaciousness which greatly enhances
the dramatic effect. This stands out all the more plainly if one
recaUs the banquet scene — the Marriage in Cana — in the Arena
Chapel, in which picture the intensity of feeling is scarcely less, but
the hall has the character of an accidental area surrounding the
figures, not of a clear, open stage where the action unfolds with
natural freedom.
It is the most tense moment of the last act of the drama which
is presented : Salome has finished her dance — her boon is granted.
A soldier enters, in buff coat and helmet, bearing the head of the
Baptist on a charger. There is general consternation in the haU. One
of the guests turns to cast a reproachful glance at Herod, another
averts his face and raises his hands in protest. The two serving
women behind Salome stand as though fascinated. They are
huddled against each other, ready to run from the room, if only they
could tear their gaze from the bleeding head. The one person who
remains undismayed is the musician — he calmly continues play
ing on his big viola, which he handles with evident appreciation of his
music. To the right in an adjoining room we see Salome, delivering
the head to Herodias; thus a subsequent incident is introduced into
the same composition.
Most striking in this picture is the strong sustained emotion that
runs like a shudder through the whole composition. The figures
reflect this in different ways, varying, if not so much as individuals,
at least as diversified types of human nature. It may have seemed
somewhat strange to the artist's contemporaries to find such Hvely
realism in a representation of a weU known Biblical story and un
doubtedly Giotto met with approval far more universal than we
should be willing in our day to accord to the iUustration of a Biblical
subject in modern dress. The later Trecento painters seem to have
held this picture in special esteem, judging from the frequency with
which we find Giotto's fresco reproduced in more or less faithful
copies. (E. g. , in Taddeo Gaddi's frescoes in Castello del Poppi, Casen
tino, and in Agnolo Gaddi's predella in the Louvre.)

CAPPELLA BARDI AND CAPPELLA PERUZZI 69
The cycle on the opposite wall starts with a representation of
St. John in Patmos. The apostle sits sleeping with his head resting
on his hand in the little flat island in the sea; round him in the air
the various revelations succeed each other like the flgures in a kalei
doscope, not suggested as abstractions, but endowed with the volume
and force of actual existing shapes. It is rather noteworthy that
Giotto has collected into one picture whajt usually is divided into
several. The perspective of the sea is effective, but we must not
draw definite conclusions as to the artist's ability as a sea painter
from the evidence of one much restored fresco.
The next picture shows the raising of Drusiana from the dead
(PL 56) by St. John the Evangelist. This composition, rich in figures,
is concentrated with masterly dramatic skill round the main incident,
the reviving of the dead woman. The connection between the saint
and the woman is so surely emphasized that it makes clear the mean
ing of the miracle scene. The mighty apostle stands a little to the
left in the picture, turned in profile. He reaches forth his right hand
toward the woman on the bier and gazes steadily into her face. She
seems to rise without any effort on her part, as though drawn by
magnetic force — and tries to lift her hands toward the apostle.
Their gestures correspond : we understand that one transmits power,
the other receives it. John's miracle-working faculty is perhaps even
more strongly attested by the attitude of the two figures (relatives
of the woman), who kneel trembling at his feet in humble gratitude,
almost worshipping him. Behind the apostle we see a youth with
arms crossed in prayer, who seems to be offering praise to a higher
power. A cripple, propped on crutches, presses forward in the
obvious hope that he, too, may be healed. On the opposite side,
round the resurrected woman, the bystanders give vent to astonish
ment. The nearest leans forward to see if it is possible to convince
himself of the fact; a second throws up his hands in amazement.
Of the others, some crane their necks to see better; from these out
ward the interest diminishes, so that the last figures on each side
show no apparent trace of any participation in the incident. Into
the background are introduced a crenellated city wall and a church
with Gothic windows and several low domes, perhaps inspired by
St. Anthony's at Padua. This space-creating, architectural element
again takes a slanting direction into the picture, and half-way along
there is an angle in the wall which further accentuates the illusion
of depth. The city gate on the left forms a rhythmic counterpoise
to the lofty nave with its domes on the right.

70 GIOTTO
The figures show the same large proportions as in the preceding
frescoes, the same monumental bearing. If one wishes to be con
vinced of what this monumental dignity, clear spacing, and archi
tectonic balance mean for the artistic effect of the composition,
one should simply compare Giotto's painting with Filippino Lippi's
rendering of the same subject in the Cappella Strozzi in Santa
Maria NoveUa. The later composition wiU perhaps more quickly
appeal to the casual observer, thanks to its ornamental embeUish-
ment and its gay, dancing figures, but a thorough study reveals
which master it was who gave to the story its classic form.
The last Ulustration from the life of St. John the EvangeHst marks,
from various points of view, the culmination of Giotto's art. More
freely and surely than in any other composition the artist has here
solved the problems of both space and motion. If the fresco had
been a little better preserved, it would probably appeal to us more
by its pictorial quahties and its treatment of Hght and air, even apart
from the expressiveness of the drawing of its figures. The subject
is the translation of St. John the Evangelist (PL 57).
Giotto has not followed Simeon Metaphrastes' account of St.
John's last hours (as is sometimes stated) ^ according to which the
pupils who come to the apostle's church in the morning find empty
the grave where he had been laid in the evening. Instead he has
foUowed the Golden Legend, where the translation takes place sud
denly in the presence of the whole assemblage. " When he had
finished his prayer (in the grave which he had caused to be dug for
him in front of the altar) he was surrounded by so strong a Hght that
no one could look at him and, when the light disappeared, they foimd
no man in the grave." This bhnding marvel Giotto has tried to
present in a concrete picture and he has succeeded in bringing out
the essentials by the masterly disposition of the group of spectators,
who in the gradually increasing reflection of feeling show the working
of the miracle of light.
The aged apostle soars upward, enveloped in golden rays, but the
men in the temple cannot see him — the flood of light blinds them.
The nearest on the right side has thrown himself on the ground, hid
ing his face in his hands, the next shades his eyes and bends his body
suddenly backward. Beside him stands an old man who instinctively
clasps his hands in prayer as he sees the marvel. Whatever was
directly behind has been lost in restoration; the two characters
farther to the right seem to have no connection with what is going on.
' Cf. C. Guasti, La Cappella de Peruzzi.

CAPPELLA BARDI AND CAPPELLA PERUZZI 71
The figures on the opposite side of the grave are equally unable to
see the apostle, although he floats upward immediately in front of
them. They look instead down into the grave, which they find
empty. Wonder and amazement control their expression and atti
tude. The man nearest the foreground hesitatingly lifts his hand to
his chin; he stands as though paralyzed by the light, while his neigh
bor raises his hands in the usual manner to express his astonishment.
The action takes place in the central aisle of a basilica, which once
more is placed slantwise in the picture. The building has a com
paratively independent existence; it fuffiUs its purpose in space
composition satisfactorily, but naturally it is simplffied in order to
give prominence to the figures. The cornice, the clerestory, and the
vaulted roof are cut so that the soaring apostle and the heavenly
figures that receive him may be more clearly shown. The apostle's
head is placed in the middle of the cornice line, and his figure is set
between two columns — strongly marked horizontals and verticals
contrasting with the pliant inclination of the body and asserting its
buoyant gliding motion. The contrast is also clearly indicated be
tween the slow ascent of the apostle and the gesture of Christ, who
welcomes and assists him upward. The artist has not wished to give
any ethereal subhmation of the subject, but has tried rather to make
the miracle credible on a material basis. Every figure, heavenly as
well as earthly, has its full volume and a movement that can be
accounted for on an organic basis. Yet, there is something more, a
prodigy of power of expression, in the way in which the monumental
figure of the saint lifts its own weight and is drawn upward by an
irresistible force.
The upward surge of the apostle is counterbalanced by the con
trasting movement of the men placed firmly on the ground about
the grave, of those who bend forward, and of the one who throws
himself down. It is especially the idea developed in the presentation
of the men round the grave which furnishes the full artistic explana
tion and completes the structure of the composition. The side-
groups stand at the two extreme ends of the nave. They act as
weights or burdens on a yoke which finally bursts in the middle as
the straining power breaks through the material opposition. The
figures are colossal in proportion to the building — they could reach
the capitals of the columns with their hands — yet we could scarcely
complain of any oppressive crowding of the space.
Here Giotto has plainly discovered a means of artistic expression
quite adequate for the representation of the human shape as a

72 GIOTTO
tridimensional form, placed in a definite lighting. The distance from
these figures in the Peruzzi Chapel to those which Masaccio painted
a hundred years later in the Brancacci Chapel in Santa Maria del
Carmine is not really as great as might appear at first sight. The
fundamental plastic forms of Giotto are quite as powerful as those
of Masaccio, and he is by no means inferior in the matter of presenta
tion of weight, volume, and strength. But the forms are less differ
entiated, the mobility of Giotto's figures is not yet as developed as
Masaccio's and, above all, the modeling in light and shade stUl
remains in its weakest beginnings.
If we look at Masaccio's well known RenderiDfg of the Tribute
Money, we find the figures of Christ and the apostles entirely im
mersed in Hght and air. They advance, completely detached from
the material surface, in the foreground of a wide-sweeping landscape
with atmosphere that fades into the horizon and a ground plane
that stretches to the distant sea and sky. The landscape is no longer
a decorative element of the architectonic composition as it is with
Giotto, it is an artistically synthesized view from nature, real
enough to make the beholder feel that he could move freely in it
and get into contact with the figures.
In Giotto's frescoes this is not yet the case, we are not tempted
to step into the picture and approach the figures. His people belong
to a race whose abstract greatness makes them less approachable and
intelligible than the creations of later painters. They live in a world
of thinner air and larger forms than we are accustomed to. They
are representatives of a humanity among whom individual differen
tiation has not yet excluded the generahzed and the symbolic/ It
is perhaps for that very reason that they always succeeded to such
an unusual extent in stimulating the imagination and the sense of
form of later painters. It is as though they had preserved more
of the eternal, fresh, pulsating fountain of nature, of the primitive,
creating impulse than most of the later, more " natural " figures.
, ^ It is certain that Giotto's Florentine frescoes were of the highest
importance to the subsequent development of art in the city on the
Arno./ I refer not only to their signfficance to the more immediately
succeeding generations of Trecento painters who found here their
starting-point, but rather to what they meant to the great painters
of later times who strove toward the same ideal. Masaccio, of course, ^
is directly inspired by Giotto. His method of artistic expression at
tained greater freedom, but the fundamental quality of his sculptural
form was of the same kind. What lies between him and Giotto

CAPPELLA BARDI AND CAPPELLA PERUZZI 73
seems to sink into relative insignificance when one attempts to sur-
-vey the development with regard to the central problem: the signifi
cance of form in the human figure.
The greatest master of the beginning of the following century,
Michelangelo, also learned from Giotto. We recognize that in his
earlier productions, and we have evidence of it in his drawings.
Michelangelo sketched among~others the right-hand group of spec
tators from the Translation of St. John (the drawings are to be found
in the Albertina collection in Vienna) and probably other figures
from the same frescoes, although the rest of the drawings are no
longer in existence. Michelangelo's figure painting also is impelled
by the striving after symbolic greatness in the human body, and is
stamped with an intense feeling for plastic form. That is one main
point of agreement between Giotto and Michelangelo in their com
prehension of the human figure, and it is clearly perceptible, despite
the tremendous increase of movement and dynamic energy that
raises Michelangelo's figures to another plane. In Michelangelo's
work we find hardly any figure which is entirely at rest, for even
when his people are not actually moving they take attitudes in
which the turn of the body or the tension of the limbs bears wit
ness to a concentrated energy that is repressed only with effort. The
fundamental form therefore does not appear as evident and com
plete as in Giotto. The composition is made up of knots of motion
and acquires a more or less centrifugal character. The clear rhyth
mic design which gives to Giotto's productions such a strong archi
tectonic effect is dissolved and compensated for by principles of
pictorial composition.
As a designer of plastic forms Giotto gives the deciding impulse
to Florentine painting. Earlier than anyone else he formulated the
principle for the representation of the human figure later followed by
the greatest among the painters of Florence. The Peruzzi Chapel
is the starting-point of the whole subsequent development.

VII
PANEL PICTURES BY GIOTTO AND HIS ASSISTANTS
GIOTTO'S artistic style was especially adapted to large wall sur
faces. The sides of churches and chapels formed, so to speak,
his easel. It was as a painter of fresco that he won his greatest
victories and opened new fields of expression for painting; through
an architectonic manner of composition he attained his most impos
ing monumental effects. Easel painting had for him no independent
signfficance.
/ In his quality of pure fresco painter, Giotto is a typical repre
sentative of the art of Florence in the fourteenth century. Painting
In Florence always remained primarily an art of narration in fresco,
liwhile the need for devotional pictures was to no small extent met by
^importation from Siena or by the work of Florentine painters who
had foUowed the trend of the Sienese school. The Florentines had
never to the same degree as the Sienese the taste for elegant small-
scale tempera painting on a smooth plaster surface; they never
sought the graceful and charming, but preferred soHd, powerful
forms. Drawing is the basic quality in their art more than in that
of their other contemporaries — drawing as the medium of signffi
cant form.
Until recently, hardly more than one panel picture has been uni
versally accepted as Giotto's work: the large and massive Madonna
(PI. 58) in the Accademia at Florence. To be sure, this picture is
not signed, but it is mentioned as early as Ghiberti — in whose time
it belonged to the church of Ognissanti in Florence — and its cor
respondence in style to the frescoes in the Arena Chapel is so evi
dent that no doubt as to the authorship could ever arise.
The picture is of the same old-fashioned shape as Cimabue's
Madonna hanging beside it — a broad rectangle with a low triangu
lar pediment, a form soon replaced by more flexible and elegant
Gothic designs. The composition is, however, notably free from the
old-fashioned constraint and flatness. The whole has an emphati
cally tridimensional character.
The Madonna sits on a Gothic throne, approached by two broad
steps. She is thus moved a short distance back into the picture,
and the depth of the throne is further emphasized by its niche-like,
74

PANEL PICTURES 75
vaulted back, surmounted by a Gothic gable with a quatrefoil and
crockets. The extremely Hghtly constructed sides are pierced at two
levels as though by large Gothic windows; their terminal pilasters
are continued up into slender finials. The visible surfaces of the
steps, the bench, and the back are decorated with conventionalized
foliate ornament interspersed with geometrical designs. The attenu- i
ated Gothic forms of the throne contrast with the heavy figure of 1
the Madonna. She gives the impression of overpowering, almost
statuesque, bodily form. It is no longer the traditional odtyiTpeia
with the head sentimentaUy inclined and the hand pointing to the
child, such as we see in Cimabue's pictures, but a more conscious and
lofty woman. Her mantle is not laid in flat folds and calligraphic
lines closely following the silhouetted form, but falls in broad planesj
to the floor, ending without any ornamental convolutions. It
swathes the whole body from head to foot, bringing out its massive
ness. Nothing of the organic form is visible except the neck and
breast, which are not covered by the mantle. The figure is impressive
because of its block-like mass.
The child, too, is of a very powerful type, with a broad body and \
a large, round head. He is supposed to be sitting on the Madonna's i
right knee, but the position is not correctly indicated, unless one
assumes a cushion under the child. The figure is not characterized
in an incisive or striking manner, but is like a grown person in minia
ture. The modehng, however — in the arms and legs, for instance —
is on quite a different plane from Cimabue's. Giotto's bambino ap
pears coarse beside Cimabue's; the decorative beauty, the dominat
ing Hnear style, has been replaced by a frank effort toward clear and
convincing form. The artistic expression is, indeed, less mature in
Giotto, in whose work unsolved difficulties are more noticeable, but
the problem is attacked from an entirely new point of view, a point of
view that has come to prevail in western art, down to the present
day. Of highest importance to the natural and sympathetic effect of
Giotto's picture are the figures which stand round the Virgin's
throne, especially the kneeling angels with vases of flowers. They
are placed in the extreme foreground beside the steps of the throne,
thus indicating the foremost vertical plane of the space composition.
Both are turned in full profile and look up at the Christ-child with
an expression of deepest devotion, doing him homage with their
golden flower-fiUed vases. On the upper step stand two larger angels
offering the crown and the oU of anointment to the newborn king.

76 GIOTTO
Behind these appear the heads of two more angels, and higher up
rows of three saints, on each side of the Madonna. These figures,
which are placed in the narrow spaces between the throne and the
frame of the picture, stand actually behind each other but at the
same time on a rising plane. It apparently has not been possible for
the artist to keep all the figures on a consistently horizontal level.
The desire not to leave the upper portion of the picture unoccupied in
comparison with the lower may have been a contributory reason for
the building up of the groups at the sides. Placed as they are, they
form a fair and reverent guard about the gigantic Madonna and
child. The gaze of saints and angels is fixed upon the child in ex
pectant veneration. And these figures are no longer as in Cimabue
symboHc supporters of the heavenly throne, but real beings, standing
on the same ground as the Virgin's chair. The whole is a unffied and
enclosed space composition.
The color scheme is rather Hght. The Madonna wears a thin,
white garment lying soft on the breast, and a thick, deep blue mantle
covering the rest of the figure. The child's tunic is pale red. The
angels close to the throne wear light green mantles, those further
away, cinnabar red; the kneeling angels are in pure white, loose-
falling tunics. The steps and the ornaments of the throne also dis
play light tones; the artist has evidently sought an impression of
festal brilliance.
A fuller discussion of the stylistic correspondences between this
picture and the Padua frescoes is hardly necessary. Everyone who
has seen both recognizes the identity of form. This Madonna could
without difficulty occupy a place in the Arena Chapel, and seems to
have been painted almost in direct sequence with the frescoes. It is
possible, of course, that a few years intervened.
Both Ghiberti and Vasari mention in connection with this
Madonna other pictures which Giotto painted for the church of
Ognissanti, and among these both authors especially refer to a Dor-
mition of the Virgin (PI. 59), surrounded by the twelve apostles and
numerous angels. Vasari asserts that this picture was particularly
esteemed by Michelangelo, who is said to have remarked that the
subject could not be rendered more truthfully than Giotto had done
it. When Vasari published the second edition of his book (1568) the
picture was no longer in its original place " in the middle of the
church " where it had been when he published his first edition.
Further information concerning this picture does not appear in the
Hterature of art until the middle of the nineteenth century, when it

PANEL PICTURES 77
was in the possession of the English collector, Davenport-Bromley.
It is said to have belonged to Cardinal Fesch at the beginning of
that century and to have been acquired at auction after the car
dinal's death by Mr. Bromley. When the whole Bromley coUection
was placed on sale at Christie's in 1863 the picture was bought back
by the famUy for £997, which indicates that the picture was highly
appreciated. It remained, however, almost hidden from the eyes
of the world at Capesthorne in the north of England. To be sure, it
is mentioned by Waagen in his work on the art treasures of England,
and by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, but as it was never exhibited nor
reproduced it remained practically unknown to the younger genera
tion of students. It is not mentioned in a single one of the special
works on Giotto published at the end of the last and beginning of
the present century.'
But there were more vigilant eyes than those of the student
which did not lose sight of it. Perseverance was naturally crowned
with success; the picture was finally acquired in the spring of I9I4
by a well known dealer in London. It was cleaned, and was found
to be in fairly good condition except for the golden ground, which
had unfortunately been renewed. It has finally passed into the
Kaiser Friedrich Museum at Berlin.
The shape of the picture is rather unusual. It is low and broad
(ca. 1.50 m.), running up to an obtuse point at the top, but square-
ended. This shape suggests that it was painted to fill a space in
some definite part of a larger scheme, or, more probably, to fill a
gable above a door or a choir-screen. The grouping of the figures
closely follows the contour of the panel, only a narrow strip of the
golden ground appearing above the heads of the figures and another
strip of grayish-brown soil in the foreground. This decided cor
respondence of the composition to the shape likewise points to a
definite, decorative mission.
The central portion is occupied by a large, stone sarcophagus into
which the body is being lowered on a pall by two angels. An aged
apostle who kneels before the sarcophagus takes a last, tender fare-
weU, clasping the corpse in his arms. The other apostles stand in
prayer, deeply moved, showing their participation by their gestures
and movements. St. Peter, as usual, reads the mass for the dead;
St. Andrew sprinkles the holy water on the body. None of them
seems to be aware of the supernatural manifestation in their midst:
Christ, with the soul of the departed in his arms. He forms the main
^ This picture was discussed by F. M. Perkins and B. Berenson in Rassegna SArte, 1914.

78 GIOTTO
axis of the composition, rising above the others into the triangular
gable. His figure stands isolated back of the sarcophagus, immedi
ately attracting the chief attention. By way of further support and
affirmation, this vertical axis is carried down in front of the sar
cophagus by a kneeling figure, whose contour practically continues
the Hnes of the figure of Christ. The depth dimension is brought out
by this arrangement, and the strong vertical counteracts the pressure
of the heavy, horizontal masses on both sides. The groups on the
wings are, however, not entirely equivalent : the angels and apostles
to the right form a more compressed mass than the figures to the
left, around the Virgin's head, where the more intimate friends —
St. Peter, St. John, and the women — are stationed, and the move
ment is freer. The angels are vigorous, youthful figures, with long
mantles and large wings; only those who bear the candles are
smaller, Hke half-grown choir-boys. The presence of all these celes
tial witnesses gives to the representation a half-supernatural char
acter. The artist evidently has not intended to create an impression
of reality, as in the narrative frescoes. The composition has an
abstract, purely decorative, signfficance, but this has not prevented
the artist giving the foremost figures, both apostles and angels, full
plastic volume. These figures produce the dominating impression
and define the artistic reality.
The more we look into the different groups the more we are
fascinated by the psychological characterization: on one side the
grizzled old men, stooping heavily over the body, plunged in gloom;
on the other, the youthful angels whispering to each other as though
they had a notion of something mysterious coining to pass through
the presence of their divine Lord. The rhythm of the lines is restful
and serene, rising in slow tempo up toward Christ, especiaUy in the
bowed figures at each end of the sarcophagus. The angels carrying
the body, together with the candle-bearers and the apostle kneehng
in front, form a ring round the sarcophagus, which thereby gains
stUl more palpable importance as the concentration point of the
composition. The coloring is vivid and rather light. Round a pale brick-red
sarcophagus with a border of mosaic, above which the angels hold
the pale green pall, are grouped mantles of light blue, green, yellow,
red, and white. The colors are strongest toward the wings : to the
right, Hght blue, violet, and brick-red; to the left, in the same order,
carmine, light blue, and orange. The color scheme is here higher in
tone than in any other work by Giotto.

PANEL PICTURES 79
The style indicates that the picture must be assigned to a rela
tively mature period in the master's development. The tall, stately
figures in plastically draped mantles recall the personages in Giotto's
frescoes at Santa Croce. Especially in the Nativity of St. John the
Baptist, Herod's Banquet, and the Raising of Drusiana, one finds
figures with the same proportions and the same kind of drapery.
This does not set a definite date for the picture, but implies that it
was painted in the twenties of the fourteenth century.
Among Giotto's own easel pictures we must also mention some
small panels, now scattered in different collections, but evidently the
remains of a longer series illustrating the life of Christ (PI. 60) . The
scenes which survive are the following: 1. The Nativity and the
Adoration of the Magi (Metropolitan Museum, New York) ; 2. The
Last Supper (Old Pinakotek, Munich); 3. The Presentation in the
Temple (Mrs. J. L. Gardner, Boston); 4. The Crucffixion (Munich);
5. The Entombment (Mr. B. Berenson, Settignano) ; 6. Christ in
Limbo (Munich) . All these pictures except No. 3 measure approxi
mately 44 X 45 cm. ; the shght differences in measurement wliich
appear, hardly to be verffied without removing the pictures from
their frames, may be explained by uneven trimming of the panels.
The Last Supper, evidently owing to later ill-treatment, has lost
most, particularly in height. The proportions of the figures are,
however, the same throughout, and the stylistic correspondences are
so obvious that we must assume that aU were done successively under
the same guidance, if not entirely by the hand of the master. The
series to which they belonged must naturally have comprised more
than these six pictures. Several are now lacking, particularly be
tween the Presentation and the Last Supper. The exact number
missing is difficult to determine, but one may state without hesita
tion that the lost pictures must have been at least as many as those
preserved. We may recall, for comparison, that Taddeo Gaddi's
series of illustrations of the Hfe of Clirist, on about the same scale,
consists of twelve scenes. These are now in the Accademia in
Florence, but they originally served, together with the corresponding
series from the life of St. Francis, as panels in the doors of cupboards
in the sacristy of Santa Croce. Vasari assigns these pictures to
Giotto — a mistake which has often been pointed out. Possibly
the old biographer knew that Giotto had painted something of the
same kind .'' The assumption is easy that Giotto's pictures fuffiUed
a simUar purpose. Further, they were evidently executed for a
Franciscan church, because in the Crucifixion St. Francis is kneeling

80 GIOTTO
at the foot of the cross, together with two donors. Maybe the redis
covery of more of the missing pictures will some day give us further
information as to the original extent and object of the series.
The first pictures in the series are the best preserved, and reveal
the purest artistic qualities. The representation of the Nativity is
in a most unusual way combined with the Adoration of the Magi.
Mary lies under a low shelter on a ledge of rock; in front of her on
a lower level stands the large manger; and still lower, in the fore
ground, kneels the old king, lifting the child out of the manger, while
Joseph, who stands to the left, holds the royal offering. The two
younger kings stand waiting at the other side. In the foreground
lie some goats and sheep, as natural as in the frescoes of Giotto,
and the dog is on the mountain with the shepherds. The shepherds
are listening to the song of the angels, and thus, in direct opposition
to the Gospel story, they will come to adore the child after the kings,
who have arrived early. The fusion of these two subjects, commonly
separate, is carried out with remarkable sureness and grace. Only
the necessary figures are included, and these are so placed that their
signfficance and relation at once appear. The pyramidal design and
unffied space of the composition is achieved by the use of the rock
as a combining element, rising in broad stages from the foreground
and culminating in a peak above the roof of the shelter. It is the
same general arrangement that we saw in the Nativity in the Arena
Chapel, though there the figures were fewer and smaller in relation
to the mountain. The problem was in that case simpler, and the
solution less forced, but the artistic value of the composition in the
little picture appears to us to be about as high as in the fresco.
The individual figures have the strong, plastic forms that we are
accustomed to find in Giotto's people; Mary and the standing king,
especially, are splendid examples of monumental design. The stand
ing king may be compared with Joachim in the representation of his
return to the shepherds. Joseph is the same old man with a broad
head as in the Padua frescoes, Mary can perhaps best be compared
with the great Madonna in the Accademia. The types are Giotto's
throughout; the drapery is treated with all the sculptured firmness
that we find in the frescoes.
The second picture in the series, the Presentation in the Temple,
stands on the same level in regard to quality, but the composition is
simpler and iconographically less important. It consists of only four
figures: Mary and Joseph, Simeon and Hannah, placed on either
side of an altar under a Gothic tabernacle supported by slender

PANEL PICTURES 81
columns. Mary reaches over the altar toward the child, who strug
gles in the arms of Simeon. Hannah is prophesying, and Joseph
stands waiting with the sacrfficial dove. The figures all stand nearly
in the same forward plane, despite the painter's obvious attempt to
place the altar and the figures on an oblique line running inward. A
comparison with the same scene in the Arena Chapel is hardly to the
advantage of the smaller picture, because in the fresco the problem
of the obliquely placed altar is more successfully solved. The figures,
however, entirely correspond to those in the Nativity described
above. Mary and Joseph are identical in the two pictures, Simeon
has the same noble old head with streaming locks as the kneeling
king. The child also is the same in the two pictures. They evi
dently cannot be separated; if we admit one as Giotto's work, we
must include the other also.
The Last Supper, in Munich, is not so well preserved, but evidently
it was worthy of the master. The composition is arranged along the
same fundamental lines as in Padua, with the ponderous apostles
sitting on benches along both sides of a table, at the head of which
Christ is seated with the sleeping John resting his head on his breast.
The Crucffixion has lost still more in the hands of the modern
restorer; originally the figures probably had better defined, plastic
form than they have now. In their present condition they look worn,
and the folds of the drapery are only vaguely defined, in compari
son with the other pictures. Undoubtedly the impression once was
stronger and the master's share in the picture more apparent. The
figures have, after all, the same basic qualities as in the rest of the
set. One notices especially the tall St. John who is bending sideways
and looking across at the swooning Virgin. Nicodemus, behind St.
John, shows the same type as Joseph in the Nativity and in the
Presentation. At the foot of the cross St. Francis and two donors
are kneeling; the man, who wears the embroidered dress of a deacon,
seems to be a high church functionary; his beautiful profile has a
distinct, individual character.
The Entombment and the Descent into Limbo have also suffered
considerably in the course of centuries, yet the latter composition is
remarkable in its dramatic expressiveness. Christ, followed by a
disciple, stands in the gate of Limbo, which opens into a riven
mountain. The guardian demons have faUen asleep, and out of the
cavern unhindered come creeping several venerable patriarchs and
an old woman (Eve ?) whom Christ and his follower receive. Mean
while up on the ledges of the cliff, which drops precipitously down

82 GIOTTO
into the bottomless pit, devUs are torturing some unfortunates with
care and precision. These parts of the picture, the fantastic cliffs
and the smaU figures on them, are, however, entirely repainted, and
it is very likely that a thorough cleaning of the panel would bring
out a rather different, less naturalistic mountain ridge.
Formerly, the three pictures in Munich were attributed to Giotto,
but in the latest catalogue they are ascribed to the school of Giotto.
The same cautious labeling is used for the picture in the Metropoli
tan Museum, while Mrs. Gardner's picture has been assigned by
several authorities to Giotto himself. Approaching the problem sin
cerely and without prejudice, one finds it hard to sustain these dis
tinctions. The minor variations of quality between the pictures may
be accounted for rather as the result of unequal states of preserva
tion than as evidence of different hands, though the master may,
of course, have been assisted by pupils in the execution of some of
the panels in this series.
Among the large crucffixes which at different times have been at
tributed to Giotto we can only accept one as his own work : the cru
cffix (PL 61) in the sacristy of the Arena Chapel at Padua. This is
superior to all the others (in different churches in Florence) partic
ularly in the sensitive modeling of the naked figure and in the
intense expressiveness of Mary and St. John, who are represented as
half -figures on the arms of the cross. It is altogether worthy of the
master's own hand and must be ranked among his finest paintings
on panel.
None of the paintings so far mentioned bears Giotto's signature,
and we have found the criteria for attribution to Giotto in the quah
ties of their style. On the other hand, there exist several pictures
signed with Giotto's name in which internal evidence does not con
firm the assertion of the signature. These are works which evidently
have officially passed as Giotto's, but in which the master's personal
participation has been more or less insignfficant. They represent
Giotto's workshop, and they apparently have been executed with the
assistance of pupils at times when the master himself was too busy
with large frescoes to devote much care to sinaller orders.
Foremost among these pictures should be mentioned the large
representation of St. Francis receiving the stigmata (PL 62) in
the Louvre, which is provided with the authentic signature: "opus
JOCTI FLORENTiNi." This picturc, formerly in the church of St. Fran
cis at Pisa, is described by Vasari among Giotto's works. The main

PANEL PICTURES 83
figure, St. Francis kneeling on the rock, turned in profile to the right,
bears a palpable likeness to the figure in the stigmata fresco in the
Upper Church at Assisi. Either the fresco served as model for the
panel, or both are derived from some famous older original. In any
case the Louvre picture is traditional rather than free in its artistic
character, and does not show any likeness to the Stigmatization in
Santa Croce. Giotto's personal share in this production cannot have
been very great. The rock, the building, and the figure of Christ
floating down on seraph wings, reveal greater freedom than in the
Assisi fresco, perhaps because in these parts the artist did not feel
himself so closely bound to the existing models sanctioned by tradi
tion, but had more freedom to take the purely decorative point of
view. The most fascinating parts of this picture are, however, the
three small predella scenes showing the dream of Pope Innocent, the
confirmation of the rule of the Order, and the sermon to the birds
(PL 63). These likewise show striking resemblance to the cor
responding incidents at Assisi, thus further affirming that the
Louvre picture can hardly have been painted independently of the
Assisi frescoes. Situated in the central church of the Franciscan
Order, these paintings probably assumed at an early date almost
canonical authority in the illustration of the life of the saint (quite
independent of the identity of the master), and under the circum
stances it is only natural that the friars at Pisa desired similar repre
sentations in their large picture. Though his iconography remains
entirely traditional, the artist has notably improved upon the weak
space composition and the limp figure drawing which we observed
in the Assisi frescoes. The credit may belong to Giotto, who prob
ably contributed sketches at least to the compositions, but one
hesitates to reckon the picture as a whole among his works, consider
ing the insignfficance and the faulty articulation of the chief figure.
Besides, the picture has lost a great deal from wear and restoration.
Another picture (PL 64), signed with Giotto's name which, though
good in parts, cannot be regarded as the master's own work, is in the
Pinacoteca at Bologna. It is a polyptych of the usual type, made
up of five separate parts set in a Gothic frame that has been none
too successfully renovated. In the central panel the Madonna sits in
full front, though without any marked hieratic bearing of the body.
To her right stand the Archangel Gabriel and St. Peter, to her left St.
Michael and St. Paul. In a medalhon above the Virgin appears God
the Father with the two swords issuing from his mouth (according
to the Book of Revelation) and the globe and the key in his hands;

84 GIOTTO
in five larger medaUions in the predella are busts of Christ, Mary,
St. John, the Magdalen, and the Baptist. On the step of the throne
we read in Gothic majuscules: " op magistri iocti d flora." The
signature is unquestionably authentic.
Despite the traditional division into five equal leaves, each with
one figure, the ancona makes an original impression, owing to the
variety of attitudes and the spontaneous movement that the artist
has succeeded in bringing into the design. Gabriel, the angel of the
Annunciation, advances toward the Madonna, pronouncing his
heavenly greeting; St. Michael stands in full front, his head fore
shortened, bending forward as he runs his lance into the jaws of the
dragon and crushes its spine with his foot. St. Peter also seems to
move toward the Madonna, using a slender cross as staff and dis
playing a large key. St. Paul takes a step sidewise, thrusting his
sword in the ground and grasping a large volume in his left hand, as
though preparing to defend what he has written with impassioned
words. The differences of temperament are indicated by pose and
movement. The least interesting figure is undeniably the Madonna.
She is small in comparison with the saints; her face has a peculiarly
pointed shape owing to the veil tightly bound under her chin. The
child on the contrary is a more animated little figure than the bam
bino in Giotto's Madonna in the Accademia at Florence.
A difference in technical execution is also discernible between the
Madonna and the saints. The central part is painted more carefully,
with a finer brush, than the wings, which clearly bespeak the fresco
painter. The reddish-violet garments of the archangels are broadly
and cursorily painted, with bluish-gray shadows in the folds. At close
range they seem almost unfinished, but at a greater distance they
stand out Hke fresco painting. It appears easier to trace the master's
hand in the summarily executed, flanking figures, with their strik
ing positions, than in the comparatively insignfficant central figure.
The altarpiece must have been painted in Giotto's studio by one or
more pupils in collaboration with the master, or under his direction.
As it is not the work of a single man it is all the harder to date surely.
Most probably, however, the picture belongs to a comparatively ad
vanced period in the activity of Giotto's bottega.
The third of Giotto's signed paintings is the large representation
of the Coronation of the Virgin (PL 65), which used to hang in the
CappeUa Baroncelli in Santa Croce (now in the Cappella Medici),
and takes its name therefrom. This stately altarpiece, in five sec
tions, which has lost in decorative value owing to the addition in the

PANEL PICTURES 85
fifteenth century of a heavy, rectangular frame, is now generally re
garded as a school work, although it is inscribed : " opus magistri
IOCTI." The rather uneven form values of the picture can most easily
be explained on the theory that it is a school piece, but in order to
sustain this assumption it would be necessary to point out other
works by the same pupil. The general resemblance to the earliest
works of Taddeo Gaddi gradually fades as one looks at the picture
more often and tries to take in the details. Gradually one realizes
that the picture contains much of the master's own strong and in
tense feeling, although the forms are feebler than in Giotto's frescoes.
The central picture, where we see Christ and Mary, half turned
toward each other, sitting on a broad marble throne with four
angels kneeling at the steps, is undeniably the weakest part. Both
figures are somewhat sack-like, but the type, especially Mary's, is
thoroughly Giottesque. Passing to the wings, which are entirely
filled with numerous saints standing in close ranks and with kneel
ing angel musicians, one discovers (PL 66) more of the master's
style and feeling.
As a result of the extraordinary number of figures and their hier
atic position against the abstract gold ground, the picture appears
overcrowded. Only in the foreground, where the angels kneel, is the
effect of space suggested: here three figures are at liberty to move
behind each other. It is evident that the artist did not attempt any
thing but a sumptuous decorative effect, a tone of jubilation and exal
tation, worthy of the heavenly event. The different saints are not
further individualized. The faces are very much elongated, with
long noses and high foreheads, and as the execution is rather cursory,
the placidity of feature and type comes out all the more noticeably.
The most beautiful creatures at this celestial feast are the kneeling
angels, clad in light colors, who compose the orchestra. They are
strong and youthful, they sing and sound their various instruments
(violins, zithers, organs, bassoons, etc.) with enthralling rapture. In
power and breadth of design they are superior to any other panel
paintings we know from the school of Giotto.
The picture as a whole is broadly and somewhat roughly executed;
several of the heads are incompletely drawn and modeled. Seen close
to, the color passages appear unrelated, but at a proper distance
(which of course should be maintained in judging a picture intended
to be seen above the altar in a large chapel) the whole composition
makes a splendid decorative impression, more Hke a fresco than a
panel picture.

86 GIOTTO
In close association with this large Coronation in Santa Croce we
wish to mention the great altarpiece (PL 67) which Giotto is said to
have painted for the high altar at St. Peter's in Rome. This polyp
tych, as is well known, was taken apart, and the pieces preserved
in the sacristy of St. Peter's. It has no signature, but the docu
mentary record of it is so complete that it is almost equivalent to
an autograph.
In a so-called Liber Benefactorum in the archives of St. Peter's,
where information about the benefactors of the church and their
gifts is recorded, one finds under the year 1342, in reference to
the death of Cardinal Jacopo Gaetano Stefaneschi, an entry con
cerning the cardinal's patronage of the church.' It is noted, among
other things, that the cardinal ordered Giotto to paint a picture for
the high altar, for which he should be paid eight hundred florins.
The statement of this necrology is considered good documentary
evidence. The identity of the altarpiece which the cardinal ordered
with the dismembered polyptych in the sacristy of St. Peter's is
proved by the fact that the cardinal himself appears on two of the
panels, in one case as protector and donor. There is no record in
the necrology of the date of execution of the work, and the statement
about the price seems somewhat exaggerated.
The same altarpiece is again mentioned in an inventory prepared
in 1603 by the archivist of St. Peter's, Grimaldi. The picture is here
described with some care, and is said to have been completed by
Giotto about the year 1320. Further corroboration for this piece of
information is not given; as it is no more precisely defined than by
circa, it was presumably arrived at through some combination of
historical facts with which Grimaldi was familiar, and not through
documents or a signature. So this date has no very great impor
tance; still, it is probable enough if we interpret it loosely as mean
ing " in the twenties."
This altarpiece was composed of three high panels, painted on
both sides, with crocketed gables and finials and, underneath, a
double predella divided in the same way. Of the pictures only two
predella pieces are wanting; the others hang in the Sagrestia dei
Canonici at St. Peter's.
The place of honor in the middle of the front was occupied by
Christ Enthroned. He sits on a marble Gothic throne of the
same type that we have seen in the Madonna in Florence, ex
cept that the details are more graceful, and the back is not a
' Cf. chapter III, "Biographical Notes on Giotto."

PANEL PICTURES 87
vaulted niche, contributing to the space composition, as in the
Madonna picture. The back has a flat and oppressive effect, which
is in no degree softened by the many-colored brocade hanging that
covers it. As the bordering side pieces are entirely open and are cut
off at the top by the angles of the Gothic frame, only a very incom
plete illusion of space is produced. The figure looks as though pressed
against the flat throne. He sits full face in a hieratic attitude, his
large right hand raised in the ritual benediction, and the other hold
ing a book on his knee. His mantle is drawn over the left shoulder,
under the right arm, and over the knees, in rather tight folds, with
little of the clear, broad, plastic form that we expect in Giotto's own
paintings. At Christ's feet kneels Cardinal Stefaneschi, a portrait
with good individual characterization. The cardinal's hat is lying
in front of him on the costly Persian carpet ; he devoutly bows his
head to kiss the toe of Christ. The intervals at the sides of the
throne are filled with angels, the foremost kneeling, the rest standing
two by two above each other, on four levels, with no attempt to
create space effect. The figures are treated in a purely decorative
manner, as on the wings of the Baroncelli polyptych, and the types
in these two pictures seem to us to show remarkable correspondences.
The elongated faces, with the long nose, the squinting eyes, and the
small mouth, are easily recognizable. We have already pointed out
the placidity of this type, which may be regarded rather as a product
of the workshop than as the personal creation of the master.
On the reverse St. Peter occupies the central panel (PL 68). He
is more massive and heavy than the Christ-figure, and his throne is
more solidly constructed — a Gothic episcopal throne with a triangu
lar pediment and low arms. The figure appears more real than the
Christ in spite of the fact that it is entirely enveloped in a sheath
like mantle reaching up to the ears. St. Peter pays no attention to
Cardinal Stefaneschi, who kneels at his feet wearing a bishop's mitre
and an embroidered white tunic. The cardinal is presented by his
patron saint, St. George, and offers to the apostle a miniature copy
of the very altarpiece of which this picture forms a part. Here we
get the best possible idea of the rich decorative effect of the ciborium
in its original state. Opposite kneels a canonized bishop who looks
up at St. Peter with an expression of inquiry, and at his side stands
a colleague whose searching glance is likewise directed toward the
saint. On either side stands an attendant angel.
As a whole, this picture undeniably has greater unity and better
space composition than the other side of the panel. The figures are

88 GIOTTO
powerful and their pose is clearly marked. The kneeling bishops
arouse our interest by their portrait-like features. Yet here also one
misses Giotto's strong plastic forms and definite articulation. The
composition may be the master's, but the execution can hardly be
his own. However, one must take into consideration the present
state of the picture, which is dirty and clouded by smoke from the
altar candles. The figures appear almost like shadows through the
grime. Their decorative effect must have been much greater when
St. Peter's gold-orange, the donor's white, and the saints' and angels'
light blue, green, and red, stood out distinctly against the golden
ground. The two pictures which originally flanked the Christ Enthroned
represent the crucifixion of St. Peter and the decollation of St. Paul.
Their counterparts on the reverse each represent two standing
apostles, St. Andrew and St. John, St. James and St. Paul.
The Crucifixion of St. Peter (PL 69) is a composition balanced
with great formal skill, endowed with elements of strong dramatic
expression. The central axis of the long, narrow panel is marked by
the inverted cross to which the apostle is fixed. We cannot, of course,
expect that the extraordinarily difficult problem of a man hanging by
the feet should be adequately solved by a Trecento master; the well
turned figure seems rather to float in the air than to hang by the feet.
The people gathered below are divided into equal groups, closed by
mounted men, so that the contours rise symmetrically toward both
sides, culminating in two acute pyramids, free reproductions of
Roman monuments already used by earlier masters to localize the
scene. Above, where the space is broadest between the pyramids and
the vertical axis, two soaring angels in trailing robes are introduced,
their supple and attenuated bodies forming a connection between the
cross and the monuments, and echoing the contour of the groups
below. Their wings form a pointed arch, a prelude to the Gothic
frame above. Immediately beneath the arch at the top we see the
soul of the saint carried heavenward by other angels.
The figures at the bottom show a rich scale of emotional expres
sion, but they lack the power and intensity of the mourners in
Giotto's frescoes deaHng with a similar topic. The gestures seem less
original. The women who throw back their arms do so with no spe
cial energy, and those who weep are, after all, comparatively resigned.
They maintain a certain elegance, and do not entirely surrender
themselves to their emotions. One can hardly f aU to observe that the
types, especially those of the onlooking soldiers, show strong resem-

PANEL PICTURES 89
blance to the saints in the Baroncelh Coronation. The comparatively
thin, fluent treatment of form is also the same as in the Coronation.
The styhstic connection is such that the two pictures must be
regarded as executed by the same hand in Giotto's workshop.
The other wing, the DecoUation of St. Paul (PL 70), shows a freer
and less symmetrical composition. The setting is a mountainous
landscape, with a ledge in front for the actors, rising in a wall
against the golden ground, and swooping like a great wave across
the picture. Several large and striking trees sprout from the
mountainside. The saint's head has already fallen; his body, in a light man
tle, lies huddled on the ground; and the executioner, in red, is
sheathing his sword. Close behind the martyr stand two of his de
voted disciples, a woman and a youth, tall, slender figures, bowed
and shaken by grief. The frailness of the figures seems to accentu
ate the impression of sensitiveness and suffering. The only other
witnesses are men-at-arms, to the right horsemen, to the left foot-
soldiers, all with the elongated faces that we already know from the
other panel. One of the guards seems to be aware of the marvel that
is manifested in the upper part of the picture. Here we see St. Paul's
mother standing on the edge of a cliff, with raised arms, receiving
the mantle which her son drops as he is bome heavenward by angels.
The Httle woman makes a wonderful impression, standing out in
sharp sUhouette against the background. Two large, floating angels
break the wide, golden expanse and form a link between the mortals
on earth and the blessed apostle soaring upward.
In the middle of the predella (PL 71) the Madonna is placed in an
antique marble exedra, turned in full face, presenting the child, who is
inclined forward. The child is not giving a benediction, but amuses
himself by sucking his fingers. The powerful figure of the Madonna
is closely wrapped in a blue mantle, yet it is tangibly modeled. The
deep and broad niched throne gives to the form a better cubic effect
than we have seen in any other figure of this altarpiece. The angels
and apostles on both sides are much thinner and more fragile, show
ing the tendency towards elegance and linear form already pointed
out in the larger pictures. Most of them carry the head on one side,
and the thin faces easily assume an expression of sentimentaHty.
They are rather attractive little figures, clad in mantles of soft, silken
stuffs, with wide borders of gold embroidery. Each is framed in
ornamental bands of arabesque design, possibly taken from Arabian
glassware. The golden ground has a reddish patina, the colors have a
subdued, transparent luster. The decorative effect is mild and noble.

90 GIOTTO
Still more impressive, in a way, than these apostles are the smaller
figures of saints that decorate the frames of the main panels. They
are tall and elongated, with large heads, and as they stand enclosed
in very narrow spaces their effect becomes quite monumental. Taken
separately, as presented in Plate 72, some of these smaU figures are
among the most interesting in the whole altarpiece.
As it originally stood in its rich Gothic frame with gables and
finials of gUttering gold, the whole altarpiece must have made a
glorious effect. The three parts and the connecting pilasters between
covered more than two and a half meters in width; the height was
about the same as the width. At the apex of the long vista, down
the flat-roofed nave of the old basUica of St. Peter, it is a gleaming
crown to the altar.
The full development of the Gothic decoration in the frame (as
displayed in the little model), and the tendency to lightness and
grace in the drawing of the figures, which already has been pointed
out, suffice for a comparatively late dating; that is to say, if we
keep to the decade indicated in Grimaldi's note, rather after 1325
than before. The close, stylistic connection with the Baroncelh
Coronation also justffies the assignment of the picture to a time when
the master employed several skilful pupils in his workshop.

VIII
GIOTTO'S SCHOOL
WITH the group of pictures last described we have already
touched upon the inclusive problem of Giotto's school.
" Giotto's school " is really one of the vaguest and most misused
terms in the history of art: a name that one hears applied to a great
variety of pictures, provided they have a certain archaic turn, gold
backgrounds, and stately figures. " Scuola di Giotto," " Scuola di
BotticelH," and "Scuola di Rafaello" are the three favorite labels
which the ordinary Florentine uses to characterize the artistic ma
terial from which he has gathered his knowledge of the general evolu
tion of art. According to his conception, Giotto's school comprises
the whole Trecento and perhaps a Httle more: a view which after all
is merely a popular interpretation of the general tendency of Vasari's
presentation of Florentine painting in the fourteenth century.
We shaU first mention under " Giotto's school " a number of
anonymous pictures which must be grouped round the master but
cannot be attributed to Giotto himself. Some of these are probably
products of his workshop, and in a few cases the master may even
have made sketches or drawings for the composition of the paintings,
but did not share in their execution. Strictly, the panel pictures
signed with his name belong to this class. We have found that their
internal, artistic criteria do not correspond to the statement of the
signature; they must have been done by pupils whose work the
master officially sanctioned with his name. The extraordinary repu
tation that Giotto gradually attained probably brought with it more
orders than he could carry out unaided; his pupils and assistants had
to supply what the master himself could not accomplish. Such a
procedure was quite natural at a time when men were still under the
influence of the mediaeval idea of the cooperative production of
works of art. The modern demand for individual originality was
unknown. There are several series of frescoes which stand in the same relation
to Giotto as the signed panels. They do not bear his name, to be
sure, but they have for centuries passed as his work and probably
were regarded as such by his contemporaries. Modern aesthetic
91

92 GIOTTO
criticism has begun to scrutinize them more strictly and has taken an
attitude independent of the old tradition. The results show a marked
tendency to become more and more negative. We have already seen
this in the study of the St. Francis frescoes in the Upper Church at
Assisi; we shall have to recognize a similar outcome of the analysis of
the well known frescoes in the Lower Church of Assisi : the Legend
of Magdalen, the Allegories over the high altar, and the scenes from
the lives of the Virgin and Christ in the right transept. All these
paintings belong to Giotto's immediate following, but their corre
spondence in style to the master's frescoes in Padua and Florence is
not so close as to justify their acknowledgment as his own work
without further evidence.

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 93

^ The Magdalen Frescoes
'''^The personal influence of Giotto seems most probable in certain
compositions in the Magdalen Chapel in the Lower Church at Assisi.
We have no documentary enlightenment on the foundation or deco
ration of the chapel, but it is usually assumed that it was done by
order of Bishop Teobaldo Pontano, who died in 1329. If the assump
tion is correct this date must be regarded as a terminus ante quem.
But it is of hardly any real importance as there are no documents to
prove its validity. Judging by their style, we consider it most
probable that the frescoes were done in the twenties.
On both sides of the entrance to the chapel we see the kneeling
founder, in one case at the feet of St. Rufinus, in the other at the feet
of St. Mary Magdalen (PL 73). The latter representation is note
worthy because of the stateliness of the saint, a towering figure
wrapped in a tightly draped mantle, presented almost fuU face. She
reaches her hand down to the kneeling bishop, who is about half
her size. It can hardly be denied that the gigantic form lacks plastic
clearness; it is soft and sack-Hke. It is not unlikely that, as Rintelen
has suggested, the figure was inspired by the Virgin in the Last
Judgment in the Arena Chapel, who stands in exactly the same posi
tion. A comparison between these two strikingly demonstrates the
difference between firm, sculptural form and a design apparently
grandiose, but actually somewhat loose.
The first picture on the side wall, the Feast of the Pharisee
(PL 74), is the most important artistically. The room where the
table is setjs suggested by a square-paneled back wall and a ceiling
on consoles. One end is also indicated. In order to increase the
depth dimension, the artist has drawn the room obhquely in relation
to the wall surface. The table is shown in front view; on the further
side are seated the Pharisee, two apostles, and another guest; at the
end sits Christ. Three diminutive servants are waiting on the table,
one of them standing before Christ, as in the Marriage at Cana in the
Arena Chapel. Magdalen lies at Christ's feet, wiping them with her
hair. Part of the picture is badly damaged, but it still makes a
strong impression. The space composition holds an intermediate
place between that of the frescoes we have studied in the Arena
Chapel (the Marriage at Cana) and that of the later ones in the
Cappella Peruzzi (e. g., the Birth and Naming of St. John the

94 GIOTTO
Baptist). The figures have place enough to sit and to move, the
servants in front of the table do not threaten to fall out of the pic
ture; there is plenty of room in front as well as behind. The compo
sition is clearer and more spacious than in any of the pictures in the
Arena Chapel. The individual figures are distinguished by great
dignity; one particularly notices the three old men, St. Peter, the
Pharisee, and another, looking reproachfully at Christ, who shows
such gentleness to the adultress. They are marked character types
of the same sort that we find in some of the frescoes in the Arena
Chapel, for instance, the Betrayal. The servants in front of the table
are broad, block-like figures, of the same kind as in the above-men
tioned wedding scene, but not so well proportioned. As a whole,
both for its space composition and its figures, this fresco seems to us
important enough to warrant the inference that the master may
have had some share in its conception.
Less successful is the presentation of the raising of Lazarus
(PL 75), especially if we compare it with the picture at Padua. The
strict concentration and tension is here entirely lacking. The compo
sition is more widespread; the two groups, Christ and his apostles
and Lazarus and his supporters, are posed at a considerable dis
tance from each other; and as the latter group is considerably larger
and placed on a higher level, the figure of Christ is sunk down and
no longer dominates the composition. His gesture is languid; he
stretches his arm far out but does not make a strong and definite
impression of compelling power as in Padua. There is nothing which
integrates the whole. The central position of the two women kneel
ing before Christ attracts the main attention to them, but they do
not in any way support or strengthen the essentials of the composi
tion — rather the opposite. It is not only the group round Christ
which seems listless; we miss also in the group round Lazarus that
energy of pose and gesture which enlivens the corresponding figures
in the Padua fresco. Very illuminating, in this regard, is a compari
son of the boys who are trying to Hft the big stone: in the earlier
fresco they really are working hard; in the later, they do not even
get a good grip on the slab. It is possible that the composition would
have been stronger if more stress had been laid on the figure of Christ,
because in its general plan the picture is monumentally conceived,
but as executed it reveals little of the master's art.
Christ Appearing to the Magdalen after His Resurrection (PL 76),
like the Raising of Lazarus, is set in a barren landscape where naked
rocks serve to emphasize the figures. To the left is the empty tomb

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 95
with two guardian angels; to the right, Christ drawing back from the
kneeling Magdalen. All the figures are marred by faulty drawing,
especiaUy in the unnaturally short arms. Christ is surprisingly
marionette-like in his uncertain movement; Magdalen is over-eager.
If one looks at the corresponding representation in the Arena Chapel,
one finds an unusually pure and noble conception of the Noli me
tangere motif; Christ's movement is firm and clear, Magdalen's ex
pressive, but restrained. The figures form a better closed group than
at Assisi, yet each one is more independent and powerful. The later
picture looks Hke a feeble imitation of the earlier. The painter was
evidently famUiar with the Arena frescoes, but did not succeed in
assimilating the essentials of characterization or of form.
The Magdalen's Journey to Marseilles, and the Dead Woman on
the Isliand in the Sea (PL 77), is the subject of the next fresco. The
picture has a special interest, as one of the earliest known attempts
to depict the marine. To be sure, the boat resembles a gigantic nut
shell and the figures are drawn with sovereign indifference to perspec
tive, but the composition reveals an original creative imagination,
and in certain parts, as for instance the little men working in the
harbor, a rather supple art of representation.
The following Ulustrations of the Magdalen in conversation with
the angels, and the Magdalen receiving the garment from St. Zosimus
(PL 78) show the same poetic imagination and fluent power of repre
sentation as the Journey, but no stronger form values. The figures
of the young woman in the cavern, clad only in her luxuriant wavy
hair, and the old hermit standing outside in his somber gown, are
imbued with a fervent and sensitive lyric feeling which is further em
phasized by the bleak, gray mountain wilderness. But this is not
Giotto's sweeping, epic art.
The Magdalen's Last Communion and Translation (PL 78) shows
stronger reminiscences of the master. The composition is divided
into two groups: to the right, at the altar, Magdalen kneels before
the old priest who gives her the benediction; to the left stand four
deacons in prayer. Above, forming a connecting and enclosing vault
over these vertical members, are angels bearing the departed saint
toward heaven. The lunette is thus given a unffied and harmonious
decoration. But there is only a superficial decorative coordination, no real
space connection between the three groups. The figures are sensitive
and expressive, though lacking something of the clear form and firm
structure characteristic of Giotto. One is uncertain whether they

96 GIOTTO
are supported by their legs or by the skirts of their mantles; the
angels seem barely able to ascend with their heavy burden. It
surely was not Giotto who painted such fumbling and uncertain
movements, but how close these figures stand to the master's in
regard to type plainly appears when we compare these angels with
the angels round the throne of God on the triumphal arch of the
Arena Chapel. The similarity of the types is so striking that one
might be inchned to assume that they were painted from the same
models or cartoons.
On the whole, it seems not altogether improbable that the master
who executed the greater part of the frescoes in the Magdalen Chapel
assisted Giotto in Padua, though in a subordinate capacity. He
certainly had a thorough knowledge of the Arena frescoes and tried
as much as possible to apply what he learned from them in his
pictures at Assisi. To a large extent these appear to be echoes of the
Arena frescoes. The compositional motifs are Giotto's, and, in part,
the types as weU, but the reinterpretation has effaced much of what
was most characteristic and most powerful. Giotto's personal
share in these pictures cannot be estimated as very great; it was
probably limited to the imposition on the style of its characteristic
stamp. The artist responsible for most of the execution in this chapel
is to be met with elsewhere in the Lower Church at Assisi.

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 97

2
The St. Nicholas Frescoes and Panel Pictures by the
Same Master
In close connection with the frescoes in the Magdalen Chapel should
be mentioned the frescoes which decorate the Cappella del Sacra
mento. Over the entrance the two brothers, Napoleone and Gian
Gaetano Orsini, are represented as founders, kneeling one on each
side of Christ, who stands in a Gothic niche : the older brother, in a
bishop's mantle, presented by St. Francis; the younger, as a deacon,
presented by St. Nicholas. The picture, therefore, was presumably
painted before the younger brother had received his cardinal's hat,
which is said to have been given to him in 1321.' Their style also
gives reason to date them round 1320, or a little before.
The subjects of the frescoes in this chapel are taken from the
legend of St. Nicholas. The compositions originally numbered
twelve, but five of them are now almost obliterated. The following
scenes are still clearly discernible. First, there is St. Nicholas saving
three maidens from shame by giving them three bags of gold. We
see the maidens and their poor father sleeping in a loggia, and St.
Nicholas entering with his gift. Second, St. Nicholas rescuing three
wrongfully accused youths from execution : the headsman is already
swinging his great sword over the kneehng victims, but just in time
the pious bishop rushes forward and snatches the hilt so that the
executioner cannot deliver his stroke (PL 79). Two guards, also, are
present. The movement of the figures is extremely energetic and
expressive. The picture really awakes that impression of tension
and surprise which is the dramatic gist of the story. The whole
background is occupied by a large and comphcated gate with a
vaulted loggia over the central arch, and protruding wings with
superstructures at the sides. By means of this architectural back
ground a closed stage is created for the action, and the figures, mov
ing with unusual freedom in different directions, are given greater
appearance of reality.
The succeeding frescoes, which are almost entirely destroyed,
probably represented St. Nicholas saving a ship in a violent storm,
and replenishing the city of Myria with grain. The next is St.
' Crowe and Cavalcaselle give this date, but Thode, in his book on St. Francis of Assisi,
asserts that Gian Gaetano became a cardinal in 1316.

98 GIOTTO
Nicholas pardoning the repentant Roman consul (PL 80), who
wanted to hang three innocent youths. This scene takes place in
front of a Gothic church fagade, reasonably weU and firmly con
structed, richly decorated with cosmati-work, finials, and a Madonna
over the door. The three young men stand with ropes round their
necks; the guilty consul kneels before the saint, who holds him by
a rope, but instead of having him hanged he gives him fatherly
admonition. On either side of the saint stands a portly monk. Here
again one observes a vivid and graphic presentation. The figures do
not show any thorough psychological treatment, the types are rather
uniform, the expressions somewhat meaningless, but the composition
is drawn with a good eye for dramatic contrast.
St. Nicholas appearing in a dream to the Emperor Constantine
(PL 81) urges the liberation of three imprisoned generals, Nepotianus,
Ursus, and Apolhonus. The emperor is sleeping, with his crown on his
head, in a room that opens through large arches on a colonnaded
loggia; on a lower story is a wooden cage in which the three generals
are shut up lUce dogs. The old bishop comes flying in an arc almost
as if he had taken off from a high spring-board. The graphic eluci
dation of the story has again been the artist's main care, and in his
endeavor to attain this he has not hesitated to present the miracle
in a literal form. He has been successful in showing the different
open rooms, one behind the other.
The next picture is almost entirely destroyed. It represents St.
Nicholas resuscitating a maiden in the presence of her parents.
Beyond we see the good bishop restoring the Httle Adeodatus to
his parents (PL 82). The boy had been stolen by the king of the
Agareneans. He acts as slave to the king, and is on the point of offer
ing a cup of wine to his master when the saint arrives precipitately
through the roof, seizes him by the head, and carries him off, substi
tuting another slave in his place. In the picture below, the bishop
returns the little Adeodatus to the family circle gathered round the
dinner-table. The mother rises with open arms, the father grasps the
boy with both hands to convince himself that he is not an apparition.
An older brother lifts his hands in thanksgiving to heaven, and an
elderly man raises his hand to his head as if to clear his brain from
his sudden bewilderment. The servants stand rooted to the spot in
terror at the sight of the bishop bringing in the lost child. The ten
sion, the surprise, the sudden effect caused by the unexpected re
appearance, is interpreted with great sureness; the expressiveness of
movement and pose is dramatically convincing.

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 99
Finally, there is represented the story of the Jew who belabored
the statue of St. Nicholas, after invoking in vain the saint's aid
against robbers. In the entrance arch are twelve saints.
It is evident that the painter of these frescoes must have been one
of Giotto's earliest and most gifted pupils. He attaches himself
directly to the master's concrete, dramatically cumulative mode of
representation, though he by no means attains Giotto's calm and
objective narration. He does not recast the miracles or other sub
jects into a clarified artistic form, and he does not give the monu
mental synthesis which we find, for instance, in Giotto's frescoes at
Padua. The figures are animated by strong emotions which they
express most vividly, but they lack the dignity and pondus of
Giotto's personages. Just as the mode of narration is a somewhat
simplified version of Giotto's concentrated epic manner, so also the
formal expression, the modehng and draping, is purely Giottesque,
but somewhat hasty and superficial. The figures are sculpturally
cast, with strong opposition of light and shade, and the folds are dis
tinguished by rather sharp creases. The cursory execution, however,
sometimes makes them look angular and uneven. It is evident that
this master worked quickly and unhesitatingly, Hke a typical fresco
painter. At bottom, he understood more of the essentials of Giotto's
style than any of the other pupils, but he had not sufficient crea
tive power to bring out the monumental tectonic quality of the
human figure as Giotto did. We can recognize in this master the
incipient tendency toward the picturesque, toward story-telHng,
particularly in the treatment of accessories, architecture, costume,
and drapery, though the tendency is less pronounced in him than
in other contemporaries.
If this painter had Hved a few centuries later he would probably
have become an able illustrator and cartoonist. He has the knack
of catching the essentials in a pose or in a situation without taking
closer account of the secondary circumstances. His types are expres
sive, but lacking in finer psychological modulation. The heads are
comparatively small, often rather angular, the features clean-cut, the
profiles marked by a continuous straight line. The eyes are three-
cornered and long, the whites glistening, the expression often star-
ingly intent. The mouths are smaU, the ears also comparatively
small and well formed. The hands are summarily drawn, the arms
short in proportion to the body. It should, however, be noted that
the proportions of the figures are very variable; some have slender,
elongated bodies (cf. the figures above the entrance arch), others

100 GIOTTO
make an impression of condensed massiveness (cf. the story of
Adeodatus) .
Among the most valuable artisticaUy of the pictures in the Cap
peUa del Sacramento is the one above the Orsini tomb, on the wall
beneath the windows, which unfortunately never has been photo
graphed. It represents the Virgin between St. Nicholas and St.
Francis, aU in half-length, placed under rounded arches. The Christ-
child stands on a railing before the Madonna, grasping the neck-band
of her dress. The figures make a highly monumental impression,
modeled as they are in broad planes with powerful opposition of
Hght and shade. The faces are full; in St. Nicholas one notices
especially the straight, flattened nose that we have observed in several
of the narrative scenes. St. Francis' strong face has a poetic expres
sion. The tone of subdued pathos which sustains the whole con
ception carries our thoughts to Giotto, though the master as a rule
is more objective and less emotional.
In connection with this Madonna fresco should be considered a
big altarpiece, showing the Virgin and four saints — St. John the
EvangeHst, St. Nicholas, St. Peter, and St. Anthony the Abbot —
in haU-length. It belongs to the collection of the Museo dell' Opera
at Santa Croce, Florence (PL 83), and undoubtedly once decorated
some one of the chapels in that church. The monumental character of
the picture has tempted some students to consider it Giotto's own
work. The attribution cannot be maintained, especiaUy as the Virgin
is entirely unlike the type of Giotto's Madonnas and resembles the
Madonna in the Cappella del Sacramento. The chUd is a strong,
rather stiff bambino, who, as in the previous instance, clings to the
front of his mother's dress. The two nearer saints are presented in
full front, the outer pair facing half inward; all have a mighty, statu
esque character. They make a dark concentrated mass against the
gold ground. Their faces are drawn as in the St. Nicholas Chapel
with sharp contrast of light and shade, characterized by a certain
angularity of form and a striking emphasis of the continuous hne of
the forehead and nose. The shape of the picture, with its heavy
gables surmounting the rather severe Gothic trefoU arches, indicates
an early date. It was probably painted somewhat before the St.
Nicholas frescoes, possibly while the artist was still working in
Giotto's ateher in Florence.
A smaUer Madonna by the same hand has recently been presented
to the coUection of the University Museum at Oxford (PL 83). In
the type of both Madonna and chUd it corresponds entirely with the

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 101
picture in Santa Croce; we notice the Madonna's characteristic
straight nose and narrow eyes with a wave-like curve to the upper lid.
The chUd is again a very Hvely bambino, who, in about the same way
as before, caresses his mother and clutches the neck of her garment.
The rendering of form has sculptural firmness and angularity. The
effect of the picture, despite its small size, is monumental, like that
of a big fresco. The same is true of a third Madonna which we
have lately found in the Museum at Bergen, Norway.
We also recognize the master's peculiarities of style in a Httle pic
ture in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum at Berlin (PL 84). It represents
the Madonna seated on a low throne of such unusual depth that
the figure is moved far into the picture. In front of the throne is
spread an oriental rug ornamented with imperial eagles. The broad
space in the foreground is only in part occupied by four stately
saints; four others stand behind the throne. These four pairs of
saints serve as corner pillars to the open room in which the
Madonna is placed; the space effect is remarkably good. The
types of the Madonna and the saints behind the throne recall those
of the principal figures in the Adeodatus fresco in the Cappella
del Sacramento. The short arms and rather flat and wooden hands
also recall some of the figures in the St. Nicholas frescoes.
The same characteristic types recur in certain of the frescoes in
the Magdalen Chapel. If we look, for instance, at the Resurrection
of Lazarus, we find figures in the group round the corpse which
forcibly remind us of the three youths that Nicholas rescues from
hanging. The picture of the Magdalen's last communion and her
ascent to heaven again displays figures, especially in the group of
spectators, which we feel that we have met before in the St. Nicholas
Chapel. They are comparatively short and thickset, with fairly
good, plastic form, produced by strong opposition of light and
shade. In other pictures of this chapel, such as the Noli me tangere,
one traces the rather superficial plastic treatment, the same swift,
fervid, narrative tone, and the rather exaggerated speed of move
ment. One should compare the mother, who rises from the table
with arms outstretched, to the Magdalen who kneels at Christ's
side, reaching out toward him. The type of Christ, likewise, with
the straight, flattened nose and the short arms, makes one think
of certain figures in the chapel of St. Nicholas. Finally, I wish
to recall the fresco in the Magdalen Chapel which iUustrates the
sea voyage to Marseilles, with its ingenious and picturesque com
position. Here the artist's brisk and original talent for narration

102 GIOTTO
appears to the best advantage. For all the disparity between
the landscape and the boat, and the strange proportions produced
by the inversion of the perspective, the picture is none the less
graphic, and parts of it, such as the harbor with the men working
in it, are exceptionally natural and unconstrained. Lazarus, his
sisters, and his friends, who sit in the big nutshell, are types which
strongly remind us of the St. Nicholas frescoes, and the same holds
true to a still higher degree of the guiding angels who float in the air
in front of the ship. In short, we recognize such marked correspond
ence in style between some of the frescoes in the Magdalen Chapel
and the St. Nicholas Chapel, that we feel inclined to conjecture that
the same artist was active in both places. But the Magdalen frescoes
are, as we have seen, less homogeneous in style than the St. Nicholas
frescoes. They show a certain wavering both in composition and in
the drawing of figures. Part of them may be called diluted imita
tions of Giotto's Paduan frescoes, whereas others are freer and less
architectonic in structure. It is consequently somewhat difficult to
determine the relative activity of the masters who executed them,
but if we limit ourselves to the evidence of the figure style, it seems
most probable that the master of the St. Nicholas Chapel had a
signfficant share in the execution of the Magdalen frescoes. In testi
mony thereto we have not only the individual types and figures but
also the vivid narrative tone and the rather condensed mode of
representation. Unfortunately we do not know of any work signed by the master
of the frescoes of the St. Nicholas Chapel, nor is there any documen
tary information to facUitate a closer designation of the painter. If
we wish to identify him with any known name, we are forced to
resort to hypothesis. This seems altogether too tempting to resist.
Perhaps it might bring us closer to a solution, even if we do not reach
one immediately. No one could doubt that the painter is one of
Giotto's earhest and most important pupUs. He probably worked
with the master in Padua, and foUowed him to Florence and to
Assisi. The earhest author who tells anything about Giotto's pupUs is
FiHppo ViUani, who wrote his work De Viris Ulustribus (a collection
of biographies of his famous compatriots ') in the latter half of the
fourteenth century. He names Cimabue first among painters; he
' Chroniche Storiche di Giovanni, Matteo e Filippo Villani, Milano, 1848, vii, 47.

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 103
gives a Hst of Giotto's most important works and characterizes him
in a few fitting words; then he goes on: " From this admirable man
as from a pure and abundant fountain there issued clearest streams
of painting, by whom, painting, rejuvenated and made to emulate
nature, became precious and pleasing: among these Maso painted
most dehcately of aU, with marvelous lovehness; Stefano, the ape
of nature, was more skilful in the imitation thereof; Taddeo, lastly,
painted with such art that he was estimated as a second Dinocrates."
The next author who gives any information about the Florentine
Tyecento painters is Lorenzo Ghiberti, who wrote his Commentaries
about the middle of the fifteenth century. Of the pupils of Giotto he
names only the three mentioned by FiHppo Villani, but he speaks of
more works by these masters, especially in Florence, works now for
the most part destroyed. Only Taddeo's frescoes in Santa Croce and
the paintings ascribed to Maso in the chapel of St. Sylvester in the
same church are still preserved. Ghiberti knew three frescoes by
Stefano in the cloister of Santo Spirito and a St. Thomas Aquinas in
Santa Maria Novella, both in Florence. Of these paintings no trace
remains. Neither does there seem to be anything left of the Gloria
that Ghiberti says Stefano painted at Assisi. If Ghiberti's informa
tion were complete and trustworthy, we should be justified in iden
tifying our anonymous master with Stefano, because his works do
not fit the descriptions of those assigned to Taddeo or Maso; but the
conclusion cannot be definitely drawn, because Ghiberti is by no
means complete. We must make more careful inquiry into what is
known of Stefano.
After Ghiberti, Cristoforo Landino is the next author who deals
with Giotto's pupils, in the introduction to his commentary on
Dante, in the year 1529. He does not add anything new, but is satis
fied with recasting the statement of Filippo VUlani. Of Stefano he
says that he was commonly called " the ape of nature " because he
so successfuUy depicted whatever he chose.
In the so-caUed Libro di Antonio Billi, the next source for the
older art of Florence, written about 1500-07, the account of
Stefano's frescoes in Santo Spirito reappears; we are further told
that he painted an Assumption of the Virgin in the Campo Santo at
Pisa, and that he was a relative of Giotto's.'
We do not find anything in the Codice Magliabechiano beyond
what has been cited already. Here Stefano is named first among
1 Cf. II Liiro di Antonio Billi, ed. Carl Frey, Berlin, 1892, p. 10.

104 GIOTTO
Giotto's pupils, and it is said of him that he lived in Giotto's
time and was the father of Giottino.'
Not until Vasari (1550) do we get any more detailed information
about this artist, but unfortunately it is no longer possible to verify
what Vasari tells us, because none of the works that he enumerates,
either in Florence or in Rome, are now preserved. In describing
Stefano's three frescoes in Santo Spirito, representing the Trans
figuration, Christ walking on the water, and Christ heahng the
possessed, he particularly praises the artist's effort to show the
bodies of his figures under their clothes and his skill in correctly
rendering such architectural details as columns, gates, windows,
cornices, etc. Among other things there was here represented a
very comphcated stairway which displayed such a rich inventive
ness and was so practicable that it is said to have been used
as a model when Lorenzo de Medici built the outer stairway at
Poggio a Cajano. The third picture, representing Christ walking on
the water, derived its unusual interest from the graphic depicting of
the stormy sea, with fantastic monsters, and the terror-stricken
apostles. These hints seem to answer to the observations we
have had occasion to make in our study of the frescoes in Assisi,
where, especially in the St. Nicholas Chapel, we noticed the
good plastic modeling of the figures and the skilful rendering
of architectural detaUs such as the city gate, the fagade of the
church, etc. In the Magdalen Chapel there are remarkable
seascapes. The correspondences between Vasari's observations and ours of
course, caimot be made the basis for any definite conclusions in regard
to the artist, but they prove at least that the master of the St.
Nicholas frescoes, in the present stage of knowledge, may well be
identffied with Stefano Fiorentino. Nor do we know of any other
pupU of Giotto who with equal plausibihty could be named as the
painter of these frescoes.
More accurate historical information concerning the hfe of Stefano
is lacking. He is however mentioned in 1347, with Taddeo, Orcagna,
and Puccio Capanna, among the most prominent painters of Florence
who were proposed for the execution of the altarpiece in San Gio
vanni Fuoricivitas at Pistoja, as " Maestro Stefano in casa de frati
predicatori." ^ The artist consequently seems to have lived among
' Cf. II Codice Magliabechiano, ed. Carl Frey, Berlm, 1892, p. 54.
' Cf. Chiapelli, " Di una tavola dipinta da Taddeo Gaddi, etc." Bulletino storico Pistmese,
1900.

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 105
the Dominicans at Santa Maria Novella. Probably he died soon
after the middle of the century.
Vasari concludes his Vita di Stefano Fiorentino with the follow
ing words : " It is said that he also was an architect ; and what
we have related above makes that assumption probable. He died,
according to report, in the first year of the Jubilee, 1350, at the age
of forty-nine, and was buried in his family vault in Santo Spirito."

106 GIOTTO

The Allegories

On the low, groined vault which curves its sheltering wings down over
the double altar above the tomb of St. Francis in the dark Assisi
church are painted three allegorical compositions on the vows of the
Franciscan Order, Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, and a repre
sentation of St. Francis in glory. These pictures, fitted into trian
gular concave surfaces, are intended to be seen obliquely from below.
The numerous figures, nearly Hfe-size, thus appear in almost recum
bent positions, and the central portions of the compositions are at a
considerably greater depth than the descending corners of the tri
angular fields. Photographs therefore cannot give an entirely cor
rect reproduction of their decorative effect. Furthermore, the color
scheme is here of greater importance than in most Trecento frescoes.
The paintings still keep their original light, harmonious tone; no
restorer has put out of tune the glad, rejoicing chord of blue and gold,
pink and pale green and white, which for nearly six hundred years has
glowed above the seraphic brother's grave; only time and the smoke
of incense have gently subdued the colors. The difficulty is to see the
frescoes properly on account of their situation, for under ordinary
circumstances dayhght is extremely scant. Only in the brightest
season of the year, during the hours when the sun shines in through
the Httle windows in the transept and the choir, can one get an idea
of the beauty of the colors in these paintings. The color effect dis
tinctly separates them from the frescoes of Giotto. Even if one does
not wish to admit a direct influence from Siena — particularly
Simone Martini — one must admit that this new coloristic tendency
leads in the direction which becomes prevalent after the pure
Giottesque style has been affected by the Sienese current that foUows
in the wake of the pictorial Gothic style.
From the point of view of composition the AUegory of Poverty
(PL 85) can be designated as the best. Here we find applied the basic
plan of figure arrangement which later became a favorite in the High
Renaissance: a half -oval with recurved ends. Probably the concave
triangular surface contributed to the development of this design, but
that does not detract from the artist's individual merit. He places
the figures on a cliff which rises stepwise in the middle and thus
serves to bring out the protagonists, in spite of their position furthest
in the background. The group, however, is not kept absolutely in

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 107
the middle, but is moved a Httle to one side, because both St.
Francis, the bridegroom, and Christ, who performs the ceremony,
are placed to the left of the main axis, which is accentuated by
the central figure. Poverty. This ragged old woman, surrounded by
briars, thus dominates the composition, but at the same time the
balance is somewhat disturbed: the left half is weighted more
heavily than the right. The figure groups are otherwise about equal,
both consist of angel choirs forming a semicircle on a somewhat
lower level. Nearest the bride we see the gentle personffications
of Hope and Charity, the former with one hand raised, almost
touching the hand of Poverty, and thereby making a formal link
between the central figures and the side group. The other angels
stand in similar positions, some with the hand under the chin, speU-
bound by the marvelous spectacle that takes place before their eyes.
Further out in the corners are inserted reahstic contrast motifs : to
the left a young man who, imbued with the doctrine of evangehc
poverty, gives his cloak to an old beggar; on the right an angel
who tries in vain to induce worldly-minded persons to follow the
example of St. Francis. Swayed by varying degrees of avarice,
distrust, and scorn, these men endeavor to escape; one of them
contemptuously " makes the fig " at the saint. The top part of
the picture is occupied by two large floating angels bearing a
garment and a church — symboHzing the oblations of the self-
sacrificing — up to heaven, where a Httle God the Father shoots
towards them.
The representation, then, has a carefuUy elaborated allegorical
character. The literary scheme everywhere transpires; it is ob
vious that the composition is effective primarily as an illustration
of the Franciscan vow. It is hard to tell to what extent the artist
was left free by those who gave him his commission; in any case he
did not recast the subject so as to give it genuine artistic value, but
treated it as an imposed program, symboHzing the different items
in various figures and groups. The essential, from the artistic point
of view, is the decorative design, the harmonious covering of surface,
and the clear rhythmic disposition of mass. These decorative prin
ciples are carried out in a manner of which a master of Giotto's rank
need not have been ashamed. Before we attempt to designate the
master more exactly, we must cast a glance at the other Allegories.
In the Allegory of Chastity (PL 86) the theological content is, if
possible, even more independent and less comprehensible than in
the previous case, but the composition fills the space harmoniously.

108 GIOTTO
Against the darkened, golden ground standsforth the high, white mar
ble tower of the castle of Chastity, richly ornamented with cosmati-
work. Chastity herself, a woman dressed in light colors, reads her
matins in the tower window, while two blue-clad angels with large
wings descend upon her, bringing heavenly messages of peace in the
form of a book and a pahn branch. Down on the ground, before the
dark, crenellated wall, old white-bearded warriors in verdigris-green
and golden-brown jerkins, with winged helmets, big shields, and
scourges, are standing guard. None but the chaste may approach
this legendary castle of peace and purity. We see three humble friars
welcomed by St. Francis, accompanied by two golden-haired angels,
while on the other side some of their companions drive off the powers
of evil and destruction, foremost among whom is False Love, a blind
amor with harpy feet and a wreath of roses on his hair. The initiation
ceremony of a Knight of Chastity is represented in the middle fore
ground: two angels are bathing the slender youth with evident care,
and pouring clean water over his body. Two more heavenly ser
vants bring him new clothing, as a symbol of his spiritual rebirth,
while Courage and Fortitude hand him the insignia of his new call
ing: the white banner, the shield, and the sword. The whole scene
is redolent of mediaeval monkish allegory. The dry bones of specu
lation are substituted for artistic Hfe. It is only as decorative
form, independent of its allegorical import, that we can enjoy the
production. The third Allegory —Obedience (PL 87) — is the weakest as a com
position; the artist has here barely contrived to master or gloze over
the formal difficulties. The composition is built round a loggia with
spindly columns, which narrows toward the top to fit the curving
surface. This gives to the architectural structure an appearance of
unreaHty: one cannot help feeling a disquieting doubt as to its
abihty to bear the weight placed on the roof — St. Francis, with the
yoke of obedience on his neck, accompanied by two big kneeling
angels. The scene inside the loggia (PL 88), however, is both beauti
ful and expressive. Holy Obedience, a monk with small wings, holds
the place of honor. He sits with his finger to his Hps and places the
yoke on the shoulders of a kneehng brother. On either side of him sit
Holy Prudence, with a double face, whose mirror dazzles the vices,
and Holy Humility, a mild and tender young woman with her eyes
humbly downcast, holding her light burning before the two kneeling
men who have approached from the opposite side under the guidance
of an angel. The outer corners are fiUed with a choir of kneehng

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 109
angels, accommodated on projections of the sumptuously decorated
marble terrace which supports the loggia. Thus the event is placed
in an abstract sphere, where only the two kneeling men remind us of
earthly reality. The compact bevies of sturdy angels look rather
massive out in the wings, but if we consider them individually we
notice the dreaming expression which beautffies their faces.
In the fourth composition — St. Francis in Glory (PL 89) — the
space has been filled in a more successful and unffied manner,
although the individual figures are more unequal. The whole is
fused into a single great choir, a multitude of angel voices and
heavenly instruments joining in an ecstatic hymn of jubilation in
honor of St. Francis. The staring, expressionless doll in the middle
is not intended to be a portrait of the saint, but of the symbolic figure
bome in procession by the friars on the days of great festivals. He
sits on a throne hung with purple under a gold-embroidered canopy,
and from his visage issue golden rays. It is certainly no Hkeness of the
little Poor Brother of Assisi, the humblest of all living creatures; the
figure is more like a disguised, oriental idol. But the angels round
about him in pink and pale blue garments f alUng to the feet, who blow
trumpets and sing and rejoice, move in a rhythmic dance with
such rapture that we almost fancy ourselves witnesses of the joy of
the heavenly hosts over the glorified saint. The rising rhythm in the
drawing of this great angel choir has in it something moving and
magnfficent. The types of some of the angels diverge from those in
the Allegories; it seems evident that another artist assisted in the
execution of this picture.
It has already been suggested that these compositions give us little
of the saint's nature and spirit. We understand what they represent
with the aid of the literary tradition, but their artistic bearing on the
hfe and teaching of St. Francis remains rather obscure (with the pos
sible exception of the Allegory of Poverty) . We find here no trace of
any conception intended to extract an inner significance from the
dry theological program, or to endow the scheme with Hfe. What
we miss here, in short, is the ardor, the sincerity, the whole
spiritual rapture that lifts St. Francis so high above the level of
mediaeval monasticism. The artist derives no interest from the
story; what personal contribution he makes is independent of the
subject. We have pointed out that the artistic element is to be sought
chiefly in the decorative form. The compositions are designed with
decided feeling for the rhythmic filling of space. They are adapted

110 GIOTTO
harmoniously to the architecture, embelHshing and deepening the
compartments of the big, groined vault; the depth dimension is
remarkably weU brought out; the figures are not pressed flat against
each other. In spite of all this the compositions have a certain
frailness, a lack of architectonic power and unity, which certainly
does not indicate Giotto as the author. If he reaUy did have
anything to do with them, he allowed himself to be fettered to an
unusual extent by the theologico-literary subjects. His biblical and
legendary scenes, which we have studied in Padua and in Florence,
all bear witness to unusual capacity for recasting material artistically
and bringing out new expressional values. Would the artist actually
have stepped back into second place in favor of the writers of the
ological programs ? It seems unlikely.
The individual faces are distinguished by a dehcate beauty which
in certain cases — as for instance in the Allegory of Chastity —
becomes sentimentally flaccid. The Hght tone of the colors, com
bined with the flowing harmony of hne and the soft rounding of form,
endows the better parts of these frescoes with a lyric feeling which
does not correspond to the fundamental epic note of the creations of
Giotto. The large majority of the figures are, as we have noticed,
merely supernumeraries — kneehng angels who have no other func
tion than to act as spectators and occupy large spaces in the com
position. These angels show a uniform, elongated type which, seen
in profile, makes an impression of refinement, but in full face has a
stamp of mask-like flatness. The long nose with a broad root and
the obliquely set eyes then appear in a disquieting manner. Very
characteristic, also, is the shape of the head, which tends to become
narrow toward the top. The back of the head is frequently flattened,
and the cheeks are broad. It is not the type of Giotto's angels, as
we have seen them, for instance, on the triumphal arch of the Arena
Chapel; there the forms are broader and more powerful, and we find
evidence of a much stronger, artistic will.
A distinction of the same kind may also be traced in the modehng
and draping. In Padua we had constant occasion to point out the
sculptural treatment of the folds, which so weU served to exhibit the
tectonic organism of the figures, their mighty tridimensional struc
ture, and the typical form quahties of the body. In Assisi, on the
other hand, the form is wrapped in a soft envelope, a flexible mantle
drawn in thin, tight folds, around the body, which often becomes a
mere jointless bundle. The draping never brings out the structure of
the figure, but conceals it. It has no definite starting-points or

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 111
plastic planes defined by light and shade, but instead undulates
pleasantly, in a more purely pictorial way. Even if we have reason
to beHeve that Giotto's expressional style gradually developed in the
direction of pictorial fluency, it is not probable that he himself ever
lost so completely the fundamental sculptural quality which was
originally his. We here already meet a later stage in the evolution,
a stage indicated by Giotto's closest pupils and successors who, so to
speak, had a new period in their blood and had perhaps come into
contact with more advanced representatives of pictorial Gothic.
It is hardly necessary to point out that in spite of all the dif
ferences we have noted, there is, particularly in the better figures,
such as the angels round St. Francis in Glory, a great similarity to
Giotto's creations — the Allegories, as we know, have been looked
on for centuries as Giotto's work — and the contention may with
some reason be maintained that the compositions are in the manner
of Giotto. To us, however, it is of decisive importance for the attri
bution that the artistic quality does not attain Giotto's level and
that the decorative character of the paintings bears witness to a
later stage in the evolution of Trecento art.

112 GIOTTO

The Life of the Virgin

This same phase of development is further exempHfied by the pic
tures in the right transept of the Lower Church at Assisi, which both
from their position and their style may be considered as a direct
continuation of the Allegories. They have been generally treated in
connection with the larger Allegories, though with emphasis on their
more flexible and expressive naturahstic style. The lyric feehng is
here still more noticeable. It looks as though the artist had worked
first on the Allegories and then on the scenes from the hves of the
Virgin and Christ, and only in these last had given full expression to
his temperament. A few examples will best demonstrate the
character of these pictures.
The series opens with the Annunciation, represented on both sides
of the entrance to the Cappella del Sacramento, which forms the end
of this transept. The first complete fresco shows the Visitation
(PL 90). The composition is clearly divided by horizontal and
vertical Hnes, the former marked by the mountain ledge against the
blue sky, the latter by the upright figures and the architecture. One
immediately perceives the effect of spaciousness. There is plenty of
room between the figures, lofty sky above their heads, and also place
for a building of considerable size. The aerial perspective is carried
out in an illusory manner and gives a suggestion of atmosphere.
The figures are elongated, their movement a Httle stiff, but expres
sive. The aged Elizabeth shows great tenderness as she bends
forward, grasping Mary's arm with both hands; the same warm
sympathy seems to move the young woman who stands in the door
of Elizabeth's house, gently smiling, with her head bent to one side.
Mary is accompanied by two, noble-looking, elderly women, whose
narrow, tapering heads remind us of the angels in the Allegories, and
by two younger women, talking cheerfuUy to each other, who carry
a basket and a bundle on their unnaturaUy short, weak arms. The
pecuharities of style have already been described: the attenuated
proportions of the figures; the thin, tapering faces; the short, useless-
looking arms — aU widely divergent from Giotto's own work. The
idylHc tone of the composition evinces a distinctly individual con
ception, supported by the mild and Hght color scheme. The bright
blue of the background dominates; the building is pinkish- white,
EHzabeth's costume orange-yellow, Mary's azure; the servants are

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 113
dressed in brownish-red, black, white and blue, and the woman in the
doorway wears a tunic of cinnabar red.
In the next composition — the Nativity (PI. 91) — one is again
struck by the unusually wide space effect. The picture seems to us
almost to fall apart as the result of the great distance between the
figures and their slight spiritual relation. The elements are the tradi
tional ones : in the middle a shed, beneath which Mary sits with the
child in her hands, looking at him with great affection. In front of
the rock in the foreground sits Joseph, half asleep, bending forward
with his chin in his hand; immediately below Mary takes place the
bath scene, which Giotto in Padua completely abandoned as an anti
quated superfluity. (A rather unusual effect is produced by the
drawing of both serving- women on about half the scale of the Virgin,
although they are placed in the immediate foreground.) The goats
and the sheep come prying and sniffing forward toward the women.
The two shepherds in gray capes again show the characteristic type,
with heads narrowed toward the top. The singing and rejoicing
angels are divided into four separate groups, completely decentrahz-
ing the impression.
The Adoration of the Magi (PL 92) is likewise a rather sparse and
extended composition, but the spiritual relation between the figures
is stronger, and a tone of sincerity pervades the whole representation.
The two groups are some distance apart. The Virgin, in a blue
mantle, sits on the right in the porch of a little marble Gothic buUd
ing, and holds the child on her knee with both hands, keeping him
from slipping off as he leans recklessly forward, child-like, to lay
his hand on the head of the old gray-haired king. With touching
tenderness the king takes the chUd's two feet in his hands and kisses
them. On either side of Mary stands an observantly attentive
angel, one of them holding the young king's gifts. Joseph is —
mirabile dictu — omitted, a liberty which the artist probably per
mitted himself in order to balance his composition and make more
room. The group on the left is commanded by the two young kings,
who despite their distance are intimately connected with the main
action. The elder is about to take off his sky-blue mantle (he has al
ready given his sword to a retainer), but when he sees what is happen
ing in the porch on the right, how the venerable old man kisses the
feet of the newborn babe, he seems to be transported to a distant
world of dreams — his hands pause on the clasps of his garment. His
ugly Mongohan-looking squire regards him with curiosity and sur
prise, and the young king at his side tries gently to rouse him to

114 GIOTTO
consciousness. The restless camels and the serving men, who are
kept busy trying to restrain them, make an effective completion of
the composition, in contrast to its delicate sentimentality.
The Presentation in the Temple (PL 93), which follows, set against
the background of a richly ornamented, Gothic church interior, is per
haps the most decorative picture in the whole series. The pale mar
ble walls, relieved by borders of variegated cosmati-work, the high,
spacious vaults, the big, pointed window, through which the blue sky
gleams, all combine to make an impression of width and depth which
is of great importance to the solemn religious mood of the scene.
The figures are arranged in an ellipse, with a wide opening in front.
The enclosing contour at the top is carried upward by the figures,
continuously rising from both sides toward the high shrine in the
middle of the background, while in the foreground it is carried down
ward and inward by the kneeling man to the right and the boy to
the left. As in the previous picture, the figures are divided into
two groups; the empty space — the pause — between them brings
out the connection between the mother and the child, who are
visibly yearning toward each other. All the figures are tall, dressed
in simply draped mantles. One notices, especially, the sibyl-like
prophetess, her leathery, furrowed face framed in a green kerchief,
and the two young people behind Mary and Joseph, one of them
standing with the head sentimentally inclined.
The Flight into Egypt (PL 94) derives its decorative effect pri
marily from the monumental design of the main figure, the queenly-
beautiful Mary sitting, with the child in her arms, on the ass which
strides steadily forward. The composition is a direct translation of
Giotto's representation of the same subject in Padua. If we com
pare these versions it is evident how much weaker, how much more
doll-like, the figure of Joseph has become, and how the landscape has
lost much of its unifying decorative effect, now that it is no longer
dominated by a large, pyramidal rock, as in the Arena Chapel, but
disintegrated into undulating hillocks. The monumental unity and
forceful advancing rhythm of line which characterize the represen
tation in Padua are here missing. The composition seems picked
to pieces and diluted.
The Massacre of the Innocents (PL 95) is a development of Giotto's
earlier composition, bearing witness to the more mobile temperament
and less massive figure style of the younger artist, but also of dimin
ished seriousness and taste. The advance over Giotto's composition
seems to lie chiefly in the easier mastery of involved movements and

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 115
of turbulent figures, but we find here no such dramatic expression
as in Giovanni Pisano's solution of the same problem. It is as if
the wealth of detaU and the elaborate iUustration of the massacre had
to a certain extent weakened the tragic effect. Giotto's severe
concentration was more imposing.
The framing, architectural elements in the background, Herod's
balcony and the Gothic towers on the opposite side, are as usual
slight both in design and decoration. Between them stands a group
of men with lances. The slaughter goes on in the foreground.
The two executioners, who grasp their victims by a leg or an arm,
lunging with their swords, are variations of Giotto's figures. The
third, who bends forward to cut off the head of a dead boy, is a rather
distastefully naturahstic addition of the artist's own invention. The
sorrow and despair of the mothers is increased to the uttermost,
bordering on hysterical frenzy. One spasmodically presses her dead
child to her breast and kisses him; another pathetically raises both
hands, gazing distractedly at the boy who lies limp on her knees; a
third tears the front of her dress, loudly wailing — the executioner
has just wrested her son from her and points the sword at his heart.
More appealing than these overwrought demonstrations of grief are
the individual modulations of indifference, hesitation, and sympathy,
which appear in the faces of the attendant soldiers, most evidently
in the two leading horsemen on the right.
Christ among the Doctors (PI. 96), thanks to its high Gothic archi
tecture, is an unusually decorative composition, in which the figures
play a very secondary part. They are seated on benches along the
waUs, and are smaller and slimmer in relation to the architecture than
in any other work of the period. The faces of some of the Pharisees
are narrow and pointed, like birds' heads.
Christ Returning with his Parents from Jerusalem is a picture of
which more than half is occupied by a view of the city. Outside the
gate, furthermore, stands a high, fantastic palace with attenuated
columns, and a windlass in the top story. Everything is so minutely
and meticulously depicted that the painting has primarily the char
acter of an architectural rendering or a purely ornamental composi
tion. The holy famUy and the three old women of their retinue are
squeezed into the space to the right between the city gate and the
margin of the picture; the thin, elongated proportions of the figures
thereby become the more pronounced.
The last picture in this series — the Crucifixion (PL 97) — makes
its chief appeal by means of three realistic portraits of kneeling Fran-

116 GIOTTO
ciscan friars. The central action is relatively weak in presentation;
the artist apparently has not been capable of working out an individ
ual conception of his lofty theme. It has transcended his mild lyric
temperament. He has tried to subsist on reminiscences from Giotto's
Arena frescoes, and has thus risked the unity and clearness of his
composition. The figure of Christ on the cross seems somewhat
heavy, because it is drawn on a larger scale than the rest; the foot of
the cross is entirely concealed by the Magdalen, who kneels, kissing
the feet of Christ. To the left, as usual, are the relatives of Christ,
St. John and the holy women; to the right, the Roman soldiers and
the Jews, and in front of them the kneeling friars. The figures on
both sides are arranged in two rows, those in front sitting on the
ground or kneeling, so that they reach no higher than the waist of the
figures standing behind — an arrangement which weakens, rather
than strengthens, the impression of space. The figures on the right,
the retreating Jews and the two soldiers, appear almost flat, as
if pressed against the background. The third dimension is here
much less adequately suggested than in the corresponding group in
Giotto's Crucffixion in the Arena Chapel, and, above all, the figures
lack the plastic volume there attained. Those standing to the left
— St. John, who raises his hand to his chin, and the women, who
fling wide their arms — are famiHar to us from Giotto's mourning
scenes in Padua; the artist has merely exchanged the attitudes of
St. John and the women with arms spread, and, incidentaUy, has
greatly weakened their expressiveness by putting them in a line, one
behind the other, instead of in a curve, all drawn toward a gathering
focus. The prominent figure in the foreground, with his back turned,
is also inspired from the Pieta in the Arena Chapel, though he has
lost some of his resistant massiveness.
As a whole, this Crucffixion composition scarcely belongs among
the more original frescoes of the series. It is too unfeeling a patch
work to arouse any deep interest, either by its spiritual or its decora
tive qualities.
Forming a continuation of the decorative arrangement in the right
transept are three scenes representing miracles performed by St.
Francis and one of his followers. The first shows a boy of the Spini
family falling from a window and rising unhurt because of the prayer
of two Franciscan friars (PL 98). AU the numerous spectators,
mostly women, fall on their knees in prayer. The composition thus
consists of a cluster of kneeling people gathered in a ring round the
Httle boy and his rescuers. The tower-like structure from which he

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 117
plunges is shown on the left, balanced on the other side by a richly
articulated church fagade, with priests streaming out of its portal.
Both buUdings are placed obliquely to the surface plane in order to
heighten the illusion of space. The figures form a rather compact
mass, from which no conspicuous plastic volumes stand out. The
whole composition has the feature of genre and naturalistic supple
ness which we have several times pointed out in the Bibhcal frescoes.
The figures also show the same thin forms and narrow faces that we
have there seen. The painter does not seem to have had any real
feeling for Giotto's dominating aim of developing the plastic quality
of the human figure, or for his characterization of type. His incHna-
tion is rather that of the descriptive novelist. He seeks entertaining
detail, portraiture, modulation, rather than the typical. Hence he
may be said to start the evolution toward the genre-like naturahsm
which culminates in the fanciful interpretation of reality of the Quat
trocento painters.
The second miracle represented is the story of the youth from
Suessa crushed under a falling building (PL 98). The legend teUs
how people rushed together from all sides, the youth was dragged out
from the coUapsed buUding, and taken to his mother. In despair she
caUed upon St. Francis for aid — and behold, at midnight, the youth,
who had been carried to a near-by building, was heard to burst into a
song of praise and thanksgiving. The priest of the neighborhood and
his relatives gathered and united in thanks to God. The artist's main
effort evidently has been to give as truthful a translation as possible
in painting of the central episode of the tale. He has hardly suc
ceeded in demonstrating the miracle itself — his presentation is too
Hteral — but he has produced two genre pictures of considerable
expressiveness. In the first we see the people collected round the
faUen house; two men are holding the body. The women who have
come up are lamenting and tearing their hair; the mother kisses the
dead child. The expression of emotion is, again, hystericaUy over
wrought, the sHm figures are on the point of bursting. The massing
of the people is haphazard; the only ones who seem to have a definite
place in the picture are the two men who carry the dead boy, one
standing with his back turned, the other in fuU front, thus suggesting
a definite depth dimension. To the left of these are three figures,
evidently portraits. Traditionally, the foremost, with his hand to
his chin, is supposed to represent Giotto, a statement that cannot be
verified by any authentic likeness. Thode has expressed his opmion
that not the man in front but the third — the one with the large

118 GIOTTO
nose — is Giotto, because the profile has a certain Hkeness to the
portrait of Giotto that Benozzo Gozzoh painted at Montefalco more
than a hundred years later, but this is of course no real proof. The
other figures show variations of the narrow type we already know
from the previous frescoes. Their bodies are excessively attenuated.
As the composition entirely lacks architectural elements, which in
the preceding pictures are of such extreme importance to the decora
tive effect, it appears somewhat empty and bare. The figures are
more dominating than usual. The painting may at first sight seem
foreign to the master of the Allegories, but on closer examination the
correspondences in type and proportion become evident enough to
enable us to maintain the identity of the artist.
The second picture, illustrating the resuscitation (PL 99), is weU
provided with architecture: a large palace loggia occupies the back
ground. In it we see St. Francis appearing to the youth and raising
him on his bed. Several persons hasten down the staircase to
announce to the waiting priests and friends the glad news of the
youth's revival. The building is, as usual, placed diagonaUy, that is
to say, with one corner pointing outward, and thus sufficient room is
provided for the masses of figures in front of the oblique walls. The
problem of space is solved more skilfuUy and naturally than in any
of the frescoes of Giotto. A comparison with Giotto's representation
of St. Francis renouncing his earthly father in the CappeUa Bardi
most readUy suggests itself, because the composition is here arranged
on the same fundamental lines. The placing of the figures is stiffer
and more severe in Giotto's work; every figure has, to be sure, more
independent existence and more powerful form than in the composi
tion of the younger painter, but the massing is not so naturaUy
effected. This gathering of astonished burghers and solemn priests,
who have assembled round the empty bier, is shown with a facihty
entirely unhke Giotto's architectonic manner of composition. The
narrative art has evidently worked itself closer and closer to reality,
but step by step with the gain in naturahstic achievement goes a cor
responding loss in creative imagination and in aptitude for structural
design. One might feel even more doubtful as to the identity of the painter
of this picture. So many of the figures appear to be portraits that
we find the characteristic types in very few of them, yet they do
occur, rather well marked, at the extreme left of the picture: the
young men who stand there with heads inchned remind us strongly
of the spectators in the Presentation of Christ in the Temple. The

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 119
smaller figures who descend the stairs also seem typical of the master
of the Allegories. His hand, then, seems to be traceable in this
picture, but it is not impossible that he worked out the suggestions
of some other artist. Even if that was the case, it must be admitted
that the artist's flexible and uneven talent here achieves surprising
success. This picture is in many respects a long way from the Allegories,
but, nevertheless, we may note even here a palpable inclination
toward genre-like naturalism and inability to recast an abstract
subject in an organic artistic form. It is characteristic of the
painter, in distinction from Giotto, that he never tries to give a
symbolic expression to the spirit and meaning of a miracle or an
allegory, but stays on the surface, illustrating his story, word for
word. This, however, he does skilfully, with an eye for realistic
detail and decorative use of architecture and ornament.
After having studied these legendary frescoes, it might be well to
return once more to the Allegories and particularly to their fram
ing borders; they show very rich ornamental motifs. The vault ribs
are covered with geometrically divided stretches of cosmati-work,
alternating with figures of prophets and angels or small allegorical
representations in round, hexagonal, or quadrangular fields. At the
side of the ribs run broad bands filled mainly with a conventionahzed
acanthus pattern, interspersed with lozenge-shaped fields bearing
busts of angels or other figures (PL 100). In these secondary orna
mental figures we find the painter's weak, affected types most evi
dently displayed.
Did the master really paint these decorative accessories ? It is not
impossible. The types have the same fundamental character as in
the Allegories (see, especially. Chastity); the gradations which are
discernible in the quaHty of form may be the result of greater care
lessness in the execution of subordinate parts. Even if assistants
were employed (which is most likely) we are none the less justffied in
holding to one leading master for this entire decoration. His types,
his feeble form values, and rather loose design, everywhere recur.

120 GIOTTO

The Santa Chiara Frescoes and some Panel Pictures
From the decorative border round the Allegories, the step is not long
to the frescoes on the vaults of the crossing in the church of Santa
Chiara at Assisi (PL 101). The four concave surfaces are here
treated in a manner clearly inspired from the larger pictures in San
Francesco, although these compositions are simpler and more meager.
They are all on one pattern : from the middle of a platform-like ter
race rise two slender, Gothic tabernacles, with trefoil arches and richly
ornamented gables. Under each tabernacle stands a female saint;
the space at the sides is filled with kneeling angels in very much the
same way as in the Allegory of Obedience. In the upper corner of
the triangle is placed a flying angel. The decoration of the borders
and vault ribs coincides closely with the corresponding parts in San
Francesco, although even here the simplffication is noticeable. A
peculiar feature is that the supporting terraces are drawn convex:
the composition bows out in the middle instead of presenting a
recessed center and protruding wings, as in San Francesco. The
artist has evidently attempted to give an increased depth to the
middle, especially by means of the slanting position of the taber
nacles, but the attempt can hardly be called successful. The big
structures threaten to fall out of the picture, instead of deepening
it, and their effect is especially unfortunate when they are seen fore
shortened from various angles, in such a way as to disfigure the pro
portions of the architecture. The artist appears to have attempted,
by the use of a convex plan and the exaggeration of certain dimen
sions in his figures, to counteract the foreshortening in which the
composition as a whole and its component parts must inevitably
appear. It is necessarily seen from below, and, as the vault is un
usually high, from a considerable distance. The effect of the frescoes
varies according to the point from which one looks at them. They
are at their weakest when presented vertically, as in a photograph.
The extravagantly long necks and bird-like heads with big eyes and
very long noses then become surprisingly prominent. The types of
the standing saints seem to correspond closely with those we have
noticed in the borders of the Allegories and to a certain extent with
some of the types in the Allegories themselves. Observe, partic
ularly, the eUiptical form of the face, the long, pendulous nose, the
narrow eyes, the large ears, and the stretched necks, which, alto-

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 121
gether» give them what might be caUed a primitive El Greco type.
The similarities between these paintings and those in San Francesco
are so remarkable that one can hardly help believing that the same
master was, to some extent, active in both places, though at different
periods and under different circumstances, in one case less independ
ently than in the other. In San Francesco he painted, so to speak,
in the shadow of Giotto's greatness — in the representations from the
Hfe of Christ he tried as much as possible to use the master's Paduan
models — and it is also likely that he there had direct support, by
suggestion and advice, from the master himself. In parts of the
Allegories, as in certain of the scenes from the life of the Virgin and
the life of Christ, one stUl feels the pulse of Giotto's art, but it grad
ually weakens. In the Santa Chiara frescoes this animating influence
is no longer present. Giotto's principles have been discarded for a
frail Gothic surface decoration; the firm ground under the painter's
feet seems to be crumbhng. The interval of time must also have been
considerable. There are, besides, on the right wall of the choir of Santa Chiara,
fragments of frescoes which probably depicted miracles. These look
as if they had been executed by the same hand as the frescoes in the
vaulting. They might perhaps form a link with the pictures in San
Francesco, if they were freed from their plaster covering. Further,
we find in the adjoining chapel of San Giorgio a tripartite altarpiece
representing the Crucifixion with two Poor Clares on one side
and a bishop and St. Agnes on the other, evidently originating from
the same workshop as the vault paintings (PL 102). The standing
saints show the characteristic attenuated type, long nose, large ears,
and the same flowing treatment of the folds of the thin, limp dra
peries. A certain refinement undeniably marks these slender fig
ures under their richly ornamented, Gothic trefoil arches. There is a
touch of the same weak sentimentality that we have often observed
in the scenes from the lives of Christ and the Virgin in San Francesco,
now bordering on flimsiness.
The explanation may be the gradual weakening and retrogression
of the painter as he moved out of the sphere of Giotto's personal
influence; or, even more probably, the master who executed the
main part of the frescoes in Santa Chiara may have held a less
prominent place in the production of the Allegories, working in
company with others under the leadership of a stronger hand. To
a certain extent, the two explanations can perhaps be combined.
One may prudently state, at least, that these fresco cycles in San

122 GIOTTO
Francesco and Santa Chiara were produced by the same firm of
artists (consisting of several members, under centralized control)
which means, in the language of the time, la medesima bottega.
A group of several panel pictures scattered through various public
and private coUections may be mentioned in connection with the
Assisi frescoes. These smaU paintings are of a more refined and inti
mate character than the large decorative compositions; they show,
nevertheless, important stylistic correspondences with the frescoes.
The most complete and best preserved are two small triptychs in
the coUections of Mr. F. M. Perkins at Lastra a Signa and the late
Herbert P. Home in Florence. Both these pictures have served as
domestic or portable altars and show the same general pattern with a
triangular top on the central panel enclosing a rather heavy, trefoU
arch. Mr. Perkins' triptych (PL 103) represents in the center the Ma
donna enthroned between two angels with two saints, St. John the
Baptist and St. Peter, standing in front of the throne, and on the
wings the Nativity and the Crucifixion. All the figures are very slen
der and elegant with supple limbs and rather attenuated faces. Al
though the Madonna is represented more than twice the size of the
rest of the figures she hardly makes an impression of heaviness.
Weight and volume seem altogether foreign to the art of this subtle
painter. The types of the angels and also the Virgin's face, marked
by the long, slightly curved noses, correspond rather closely with
several types in the frescoes from the life of the Virgin in the Lower
Church at Assisi; still more characteristic of the painter is the soft
and fluent treatment of the mantles. But this triptych is probably
comparatively early and consequently shows the peculiarities of the
master less marked than in some of the pictures mentioned below.
The little altar picture in the late Herbert P. Home's collection
(PL 104) represents in the center Christ on the cross between the Vir
gin and St. John, and on the wings, which are of two storeys, St. John
the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, and above them a kneel
ing youth in prayer and St. Francis receiving the stigmata. The
composition as a whole makes a sparse and meager impression. The
small, frail figures are set far apart. They are draped in mantles
of soft material falling in long, flowing folds. St. John closely re
sembles the corresponding figure in the Santa Chiara triptych, and
Mary recalls one of the nuns in the same picture. One can hardly
mistake the narrow face, with the long, somewhat oblique nose; the

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 123
soft, attenuated rhythm of the folds is equaUy characteristic. The
figure of Christ is in a comparatively poor state of preservation — ¦
the face, particularly, is badly damaged — but he hangs in the same
way as in the larger altarpiece.
Another little picture which must be given to the same master,
though to an earlier period of his activity, is the Crucifixion in the
Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin (PL 105), officially honored with
the name of Giotto. The Christ is here almost the same figure as in
the fresco of the Crucifixion in the Lower Church, just as in the fresco
we see the Magdalen on her knees embracing the foot of the cross,
thereby producing a feeling of uncertainty as to the connection of the
cross with the ground. The figures are perhaps better proportioned,
in general, than we should expect from this painter, but the flowing
design, the soft draping of the mantles in parallel folds, and, to some
extent, a;lso, the types, indicate that the picture is by the master
whose work we have been describing.
A still smaller picture, in the Museum in Strassburg (PL 105),
representing the same subject, shows styhstic correspondences in the
drawing of the figures and the draping of the mantles, but the figure
of Christ is somewhat different. The picture probably emanated
from the same workshop. There is also a large crucifix (PL 106) in
San Felice in Florence which must be grouped with these small pic
tures of the Crucifixion. The Christ-figure corresponds closely, ex
cept that it is broader and apparently a little more firmly modeled —
probably owing to the larger scale.
The most interesting of the group is a large altarpiece (PI. 107),
originally painted for the high altar of the Duomo in Florence, but
now carefully preserved in the dark crypt under the altar of San
Zenobio. It is painted on both sides, and divided into five sections,
with triangular gables. The form of the picture and its frame is
rather heavy and primitive, indicating an early date, probably not
later than the 1320's.
On the front, the Virgin holds the central place, to the right are
St. Zenobius and St. Crescentius, to the left St. Miniatus and St.
Eugenius, all in half-length. On the reverse are, in the middle, the
Annunciation, and on the sides, four small saints, full length, stand
ing in landscapes: St. John the Baptist, St. Mary Magdalen, St.
Reparata, St. Nicholas. Especially in these small and elegant figures,
clad in soft mantles with tight folds, we recognize the master from
Assisi, though it must be readily admitted that he here stands on a
higher level. May this be due to the fact that the picture is of an

124 GIOTTO
earlier period ? It corresponds in style most closely to Perkins'
little triptych.
The Madonna and the four male saints on the front shqw definite
resemblance of type to certain of the angels in the Allegories. The
attenuation of the faces, the elongated, obhque noses, the long, nar
row eyes, and the sentimental inchnation of the heads, undeniably
recall figures from the Allegories and from the frescoes of the lives of
Mary and Christ. But the drawing is unusually firm; the modeling
has a plastic quality that we are not accustomed to find in this
master. He here comes closer to Giotto's mode of expression and
style of figure than in any of the frescoes, perhaps because this pic
ture is earher than any of his other works that we have considered,
and was painted under the guidance of Giotto, or in any case under
the direct inspiration of his art.
Considerably later is a little Madonna in the John G. Johnson
collection in Philadelphia (PL 108). The Virgin is shown in half-
length with a book in her right hand and the child sitting on her left
arm. He is a plump little boy, nestling close to his mother and lean
ing his head against her cheek. His movement is Hvely and expres
sive; he leans forward and kicks his feet, with one hand grasping his
mother's veil and with the other tightly holding a tiny puppy. The
whole figure has a humorous turn, owing to the chubby shape, the
movement, and the rather natural Httle dog which in this case
replaces the more customary bird in the child's hand. The elon
gated type of Mary and particularly the drawing of her eyes, seems
to us to connect this picture with the paintings previously described,
and the unusually spirited and naturahstic treatment of the tradi
tional subject brings it into close relationship to certain of the
frescoes from the life of the Virgin in the Lower Church in Assisi.

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 125

The Frescoes in San Francesco at Pistoja
After all that we have seen of the work of this master, it is natural
to inquire, with a degree of curiosity, whether anything is known of
his name and personahty. He was evidently one of Giotto's most
active pupils, and was entrusted with the execution of the greater
part of the Allegories, and with the whole series of pictures from the
Hves of Christ and the Virgin. One cannot truthfuUy say that he has
a great and powerful personality; he seems to a high degree depend
ent on models and external sources of inspiration, but he has an
individual temperament of a sensitive, lyrical inclination.
The period of this artist's activity can be assigned with great prob
ability to the second quarter of the fourteenth century. He is a
characteristic representative of that tendency in early Trecento art
which more and more diverges from Giotto's pronounced plastic
style, and, instead, makes new conquests in the domain of the
picturesque and decorative mode of expression which marks the
ripening of Gothic.
We have already in the previous chapter given some information
about Giotto's closest pupils, as mentioned by Villani and Ghiberti.
Of the three artists, Stefano, Maso, and Taddeo, we have connected
the first with the frescoes in the St. Nicholas Chapel; neither Maso
nor Taddeo can be identffied with the master of the Allegories,
because Ghiberti mentions works of theirs in Florence which show
an entirely different character.
Not until the writers of the middle of the sixteenth century, the
anonymous author of the Codice Magliabechiano (xvii, 17) ' who
composed his treatise on the foundation of older records, and Vasari,
who wrote his Lives mainly on the basis of oral tradition, is the
circle of Giotto's pupils widened. The former mentions Bernardo
Daddi and Jacopo dal Casentino, the latter adds Puccio Capanna.
Bernardo and Jacopo are known by several authentic works which
have nothing in common with the frescoes in Assisi. There remains
Puccio Capanna, of whose work Vasari has a good deal to say,
dwelling particularly on his extensive activity in Assisi. It is in his
biography of Giotto that Vasari mentions Puccio.
First, he says, quite generally: " Dipinse il medesimo (Puccio) in
Ascesi nella chiesa di San Francesco molte opere dopo la morte di
' See note, p. 104.

126 GIOTTO
Giotto," but returns, after he has mentioned the artist's work in
Florence and Pistoja, to the paintings at Assisi in the following
words: " Dipinse ancora nella gia detta citta d' Ascesi, nella chiesa
di sotto di San Francesco, alcune storie della passione di Gesii Cristo
in fresco con buona practica e molto risoluta." '
Vasari's statement, that Puccio painted scenes from the Passion
of Christ in the Lower Church at Assisi, has usually been discarded
with the remark that the only real scenes of the Passion to be found
in the Lower Church unmistakably belong to Pietro Lorenzetti, as
first was pointed out by Crowe and Cavalcaselle. The same writers,
however, apply Vasari's statement to the frescoes of the life of Christ
that we have previously described, and add that "Scenes Ulustrative
of the Passion in the Lower Church of Assisi would do him honour
were it possible to forget that Giotto is the author of them." ^ It is
consequently only their conviction, based on considerations of style,
which prevents them from recognizing these works as Puccio's. The
manner in which such trained readers of Vasari apply his words in
this case is of the greatest interest. In our opinion, their appHcation
gives the only possible explanation of what Vasari meant. " Alcune
storie della passione di Gesu Cristo " is not, to be sure, an exact title
for scenes of the life of Christ from the Nativity to the Crucifixion,
but similar inaccuracies are very common in Messer Giorgio. Be
sides, it is conceivable that he confused in his memory the frescoes by
Pietro Lorenzetti and those by " Puccio Capanna," as they are
situated in their respective transepts. He himself furnishes strong
support for the supposition that he meant the frescoes in question
by his characterization of Puccio's manner of expression. " Indeed,"
he writes, " from all that one can judge, Puccio had entirely adopted
his master Giotto's manner and method of working, and he weU
understood how to apply it in the work he executed." Further on
Vasari writes, " I can say with reason that in Assisi, where most of
his works are, and where he seems to have helped Giotto to paint,
they regard him as a citizen, and there still live to this day members
of the Capanni family. Hence one can easUy draw the conclusion
that he was born in Florence, as some have written, and that he was
Giotto's pupU; but that he later took a wife in Assisi, and left chil
dren and descendants. But as it is of no importance to know more
about this, it may be enough to say that he was a good master." '
' Vasari, Vita di Giotto, ed. Sansoni, i, 403.
^ Cf. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, new English ed., ii, 147.
' Cf . Vasari, ed. Sansoni, i, 404.

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 127
From documents, we know of Puccio Capanna only that he was
inscribed in the Guild of St. Luke in Florence, and that in 1347 he
was reckoned among the leading painters of the city. He is men
tioned in this year, together with Stefano, Taddeo, and Orcagna, as
one of the best masters proposed for the execution of an altar picture
for San Giovanni Fuoricivitas in Pistoja (the picture was finally
ordered from Taddeo) .' We do not know the year of Puccio's death,
but it probably occurred soon after.
Vasari assigns to Puccio, besides the paintings at Assisi, the
frescoes in the choir of San Francesco at Pistoja,^ and this attribu
tion is confirmed by later authors, especially Ciampi (1810), who
refers to Vasari's account but at the same time says that the old
chronicle of the cloister records that Puccio began certain works in
the choir of San Francesco which were interrupted by his death.
(" Dicono i ricordi del convento che principio a lavoravi Puccio
Capanna, ma la morte gli impedi compiere il lavoro.") ' The paint
ings in the side chapels are plainly of later date.
The frescoes of the choir are now in a state of utter ruin. They had
b,een completely hidden under a thick layer of greenish-white plaster,
which at the end of the last century was partly chipped off, but so
carelessly that the paintings uncovered were seriously damaged and
unless speedily cared for will be totally lost.
There seem to have been originally ten scenes in the choir from
the life of St. Francis, probably introduced by a representation of
Francis forsaking his father and concluding with his death, but of
these there are visible only No. 2, St. Francis Kneeling before the
Crucifix in San Damiano; No. 4, the Dream of Pope Innocent
IH; No. 6, St. Francis before the Sultan; and half of No. 8,
St. Francis Receiving the Stigmata. Besides these there are figures
of saints on each side of the window, and, in a niche to the right of
the entrance to the choir, the Communion of St. Mary of Egypt.
The compositions on the legend of St. Francis are more or less
faithful reproductions of the canonical frescoes in the Upper Church
at Assisi, which the painter has apparently had occasion to study
carefully. He perhaps even made drawings of them and transferred
the compositions, with certain modffications imposed by the spaces,
to the waUs of San Francesco in Pistoja. This is what seems to have
' Cf. note, p. 104.
' " Ed in Pistoia fece a fresco la Cappella Maggiore della Chiesa di San Francesco." Vasari,
ed. Sansoni, i, 403.
' Cf . Ciampi, Notizie inedite della Sagrestia Pistoiese de' Belli Arredi, Firenze, 1810.

128 GIOTTO
happened at least in the cases of the two first mentioned frescoes, St.
Francis in San Damiano (PL 109) and the Dream of Innocent III.
The chapel in which the youth kneels before the speaking crucifix
is drawn obliquely from the side, so we can see into the apse and at
the same time get a transverse view of the nave. The architectural
element is the same as in Assisi, except that the columns of the
lower story are more slender and the walls of the upper story a
little thinner and lower. The younger painter attempts to get
greater width and spaciousness, and he has made the figure more
flexible. In his representation of the dream of Innocent III (PI. 110), in
which the Pope sees St. Francis holding up the collapsing Lateran
basilica, the artist has accurately copied both the figures and the
architecture of the Assisi frescoes, but here, too, as in the former case,
the figures are made thinner, the proportions lighter. The divergence
is especially noticeable in the columns of the basilica, which is other
wise built exactly like its model. It is of unusual interest, too, to
notice how the younger master, though he tries to copy his model
faithfully, even in the drawing of the saint who steadies the toppling
building with his shoulder, cannot produce the same signfficant im
pression of weight and resisting strength.
St. Francis before the Sultan (PL 111) is also composed in a
manner similar to the Assisi fresco, though with the difference that
the fire is placed between the sultan and the saint: both St. Francis
and the Mohammedan priests stand to the left; the sultan sits to the
right on a high throne, surrounded by his attendants. The architec
ture is noticeably lighter and more spindly than in Assisi. The sul
tan's throne is placed in a peculiar, high, circular building with wiry
columns. The figures are badly damaged, but one can still detect
rather fine characterization both of the sultan and of the man with
a turban standing guard beside the throne. The suppleness of the
figures is most noticeable in comparison with the Assisi frescoes, and
also the soft treatment of the stuffs.
St. Francis Receiving the Stigmata is still largely covered with
whitewash, and also badly worn. The chief figure is not visible —
we therefore caimot compare it with the Assisi fresco — but we do
find the reading friar who sits at one side turning round to see what
is happening. The picture is completed by an open landscape,
finicky and restless, dotted with trees and small animals. The
artist's taste for naturahstic detail has not been controlled by any
consideration of unified decorative effect.

GIOTTO'S SCHOOL 129
Of the original frescoes there remain also the saints on each side of
the window, spare forms with elongated bodies and small, oval faces
(PL 112), who recall, in their main features, the big figures of the
right transept in San Francesco. In quatrefoils on the vault over
the entrance are busts of prophets, whose fine, sensitive type rouses
memories of the Assisi frescoes. Opposite, in an isolated niche, is
painted by another hand a representation of the last communion
of Mary of Egypt. The Assisi painter obviously had nothing to do
with this picture.
Complete certainty as to the master of the choir frescoes in San
Francesco at Pistoja is at present hardly possible. According to
Vasari and other writers, as we have said, they are the work of
Puccio Capanna, and no one can doubt that they are by a pupil of
Giotto, although a comparatively late one. Crowe and Cavalcaselle,
on the authority of a half-destroyed inscription in the entrance to
the chapel, conjecture that these frescoes were painted to the order
of Bandino Conti Ciantori in 1343. This date accords with the style
of the frescoes, and gives us, under the circumstances, an argument
for not dating them earlier.
The frescoes in Assisi, on the contrary, the Allegories and the
Lives of Christ and the Virgin (likewise the other pictures in the right
transept), must be dated in the twenties or at least not far into the
next decade. A period of something like fifteen years must have
elapsed between the works in Assisi and in Pistoja, which would
naturally account for important modffications in the artist's style.
The decisive question, whether the painter is the same in Assisi and
in Pistoja, cannot therefore be answered with certainty for the pres
ent, although this hypothesis appears possible and by no means
improbable. There seems to be much of the same spirit and inter
pretation in these two sets of frescoes; so many correspondences of
form and type bridge the gap between them, that the assumption of
identity in the masters who executed them is defensible. But not
until more of the paintings in San Francesco in Pistoja are freed from
the concealing plaster can we confidently pronounce on the question,
and then it will be easier to decide how much Puccio Capanna
painted in Assisi.
The other works of Puccio which Vasari mentions are entirely
destroyed.

IX
TADDEO GADDI
1
Biographical Notes
NONE of Giotto's other pupils attained such renown in later
centuries as Taddeo Gaddi. His name was not infrequently
made almost synonymous with that of the school of Giotto, and he
was mentioned with high commendation by all the authors who dis
cussed the art of this period. Vasari's statement, that Taddeo was
Giotto's godson and his chosen pupil and assistant, was often repeated,
likewise Cennino Cennini's story, that Taddeo served twenty-four
years in Giotto's workshop. One could scarcely ask for more ! Such
a privilege should have made an able painter of even the most back
ward pupil, particularly according to the ideas of that period, which
looked upon manual dexterity as perhaps the most important require
ment for a painter. Taddeo's close personal relationship with Giotto
was really used as a criterion of his artistic importance and power.
The fame accorded him by posterity, however, was not entirely
due to his preeminence in Giotto's workshop. We should remember
that Taddeo belonged to a family that produced not only a line of
artists but of prosperous merchants, cardinals, and statesmen, who
exercised great social influence in Florence. Unquestionably even
the artistic members of the Gaddi family became more famous as the
wealth and social prestige of the family increased. Whatever lofty
opinions one may hold as to Florence of the Renaissance and its
recognition of individual character and merit, it is vain to deny that
wealth and political influence, then as now, were two of the surest
guarantees of popular favor. The fact that Taddeo's name has
achieved a higher place in general estimation than most of the other
pupils of Giotto, obscuring the renown of more gifted painters, can
hardly be attributed to his artistic achievements. Vasari himself
seems to hint at this in his life of Taddeo, when he points out how
useful it is for merit to receive generous reward, " by which slumber
ing talents are often roused to endeavors which bring not only fame
and honor to themselves and their fatherland, but riches and nobility
to their descendants, as happened to the descendants of the painter,
Taddeo Gaddi." 130

TADDEO GADDI 131
It is only in recent times, since a stricter aesthetic appreciation
has been brought to bear, that Taddeo's very prominent place in
Florentine Trecento painting has been somewhat impaired. Several
authorities have expressed derogatory opinions of his attainments,
and have deplored Giotto's choice of so unworthy an heir to his
artistic legacy. Taddeo has been accused of mannerism, of imitating
the weaker side of Giotto's art — the first and strongest reason for
the decline of painting after the death of the master.
This altered appraisal depends in no small degree on the same
general modification of taste Which has degraded the Carracci and
Guido Reni from their former position of favor, but it has also been
influenced by the habitual choice of Taddeo's least successful work
as the standard of judgment. Vasari correctly estimates Taddeo's
relative significance in the development of Trecento art when he
writes, " Taddeo always continued Giotto's manner, but he did not
improve it, except in regard to color, which he made fresher and more
vivacious than Giotto's."
If we may beHeve Franco Sacchetti's anecdote of the artists at
San Miniato and their conversation about the state of painting
after the death of Giotto, Taddeo himself realized that neither he
nor his contemporaries were able to uphold the best Giottesque
traditions. The introduction of a story which throws a certain light
upon the artists of that time and gives us an idea of who were
the leading men, may be well worth quoting here. Sacchetti writes
{Novella, cxxxvi) :
" In the city of Florence, which was always extraordinarily rich in
new men, there were once certain painters and other masters who
met in a place outside the town called San Miniato al Monte, on
account of certain paintings and other works which were being done
at the church there; when, having been dined by the abbot, and
well fed and wined, they began to dispute; and among other topics,
one of them, who was called Orcagna, the capo maestro of the noble
oratory of Our Lady of Orto San Michele, put this question: who
was the greatest master of painting who had arisen, next to Giotto ?
Some said it was Cimabue, some Stefano, some Bernardo, some
Buffalmaco, some one, and some another. Taddeo Gaddi, who was
one of the company, said: there have certainly been plenty of able
painters, and they have painted in a way that is impossible for
human nature to improve upon; but this art has grown and is
growing worse and worse every day."

132 GIOTTO
Taddeo, son of the weU known painter and mosaic-worker, Gaddo
Gaddi, was probably born about the beginning of the century,
(according to Litta he was born in 1300, but as this author gives a
date of death which can be proved wrong, we must be suspicious
also of his date of birth).' He probably began his artistic career at a
very early age as an apprentice in Giotto's studio, after a whUe
assisting the master in more important ways, and becoming an
independent master about the middle twenties. We find him in
scribed among the " Medici e Speziali " in the roU which covers the
years 1320-53. We have reason to assign Taddeo's earliest known
works to the later twenties; early in the ensuing decade he executed
the large fresco cycle in the CappeUa Baroncelli in Santa Croce.
Several other works in the same church probably followed during the
next few years. In 1342 we find Taddeo at Pisa painting in San
Francesco, and later in the Campo Santo. In 1349 his name appears
in the gabella (the tax hst) of Florence. At that time he belonged to
the parish of San Pietro Maggiore, and according to a note in the
gabella of 1351, he lived in his own house in the Via Santa Maria (the
house was sold by his heirs in 1480). He was then married to Fran
cesca d'Albizzi Ormanni and had about him a group of four or five
sons, of whom three were educated as painters in their father's
workshop : Giovanni, Niccolo, and Agnolo. Of the two other sons,
Zanobi and Alessandro, the former seems to have been a merchant,
though he also carried on diplomatic negotiations for his native city;
concerning the latter, no information is available.
Taddeo at that time held a leading position among the Florentine
artists. He is named first among " the best painters in Florence,"
in 1347, in reference to the order referred to above of the altarpiece
for San Giovanni Fuoricivitas in Pistoja (awarded to Taddeo in
1353). We know, further, that he had a prominent place on the
commission for the Duomo in the years 1359, 1363, and 1366. It
may also be noted that Taddeo is mentioned in the gabella of 1352 as
" Arbitro," probably in some quarrel about property, and in 1355
as the purchaser of a city lot. These short notices, however, throw
no further light on his personal history. In the records of the Guild
of St. Luke we find opposite Taddeo's name the date 1366 (altered
from 1350), no doubt the year of his death, for in the gabella of that
year we find the entry, " Donna Francesca f. olim Albizzi Ormanni
et uxor olim Taddei Gaddi." ^ Taddeo's wife, Francesca d'Albizzi,
' Cf. Litta, Genealogia. Gaddi di Firenze; Famiglia estinta nel 1607.
^ The biographical notes on the Gaddi family are taken from Passerini's genealogical
manuscripts in the Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence, and from the Spoglie Strozziane, ibidem.

TADDEO GADDI 133
survived him for many years; her name appears in the gabella for
the years 1372, 1376, and 1382.
The father's bottega was continued for a few years at least after his
death by the three painter brothers in company. In the gabella of
the year 1376 is recorded, " Johannes, Nicolaus, Angelus, Francisca
olim Taddei Gaddi, S. Piero Maggiore emerunt. . . ."
The brothers, naturally, had been jointly trained to their calling
by their father, and there is no reason to suppose that their individual
variation in style was so great as to prevent their working all three
on one order without producing noticeable inconsistencies. This
circumstance may probably account for a whole group of pictures
which approach the style of Agnolo Gaddi but cannot be ascribed to
him in person.
The fourth brother, Zanobi, " civis et mercator," was sent about
the year 1381, in company with one Giuliano di Bartolomeo, as
special Florentine envoy to the Venetian Republic on the occasion
of certain peace negotiations. He made his wUl in 1400 and died in
the same year. The family was perpetuated by his eight children,
and reached its greatest prosperity in the person of his grandson,
Niccolo di Sinibaldo Gaddi, the founder of the world-famous collec
tion of books and works of art which according to his will passed to
the Pitti family and finally (1755) was bought by the state.

134 GIOTTO 2
The Frescoes in Santa Croce
Lorenzo Ghiberti comments on Taddeo Gaddi's unusual pro
ductivity: " fece moltissime cappelle et moltissimi lavoru in muro;
fu doctissimo maestro e fece moltissime tavole, egregiamente fatte,"
— but mentions only three of his works : a big panel in Santa Maria
dei Servi, " con molte storie e figure," and two frescoes in Santa
Croce. One of these — according to Vasari's account on the parti
tion wall that divided the choir from the nave — represented St.
Francis reviving the chUd that fell out of a tower window. " The
child lies stretched out on the pavement, while the mother and num
erous other women weep over it," writes Ghiberti, and adds, " Questa
storia fu fatta con tanta doctrine e arte et con tanto ingegno, che
nella mia eta non vidi di cosa picta, fatta con tanta perfectione."
Taddeo is supposed to have introduced Dante and Giotto into this
painting, as well as a portrait of himself. The account is further
verffied in the Libro di Antonio Billi, where we learn that Tad
deo stood between the two heroes of Florentine art. This fresco was
entirely destroyed when the wall on which it was painted was re
moved. It is therefore impossible to form any opinion of the com
position, but one inevitably remembers in this connection the two
compositions in the right transept of the Lower Church at Assisi
representing the same story. In one of these we noticed three por
trait figures of which the furthest is usually called Giotto, and the
one in front resembles Dante. Is the middle figure here, too, an
artist's portrait ? One is tempted to think so, and to see in the
group the model of Taddeo's composition.
The second fresco mentioned by Ghiberti was placed over the
door to the sacristy and represented Christ among the doctors. He
adds that it was partly destroyed by the erection of a " concio di
macigno." In just this place there have been discovered, some
years ago, under the plaster, a few figures which evidently belong
to the composition in question (PI. 113). We see the young Christ
seated on a Gothic throne. Below him appears the head of an elderly,
bearded man, and to the right two more heads of men who, moved
by curiosity, peer in through an arch, following with intense interest
the words of the speaker. All these faces make a powerful and
characteristic effect. Christ, turned in full front, is a broad, thick
set figure; his face is full, with regular features, but lacking in any
finer psychological modulation. We do not get the impression that

TADDEO GADDI 135
he is talking; he looks rather lUje a solemn idol. The figures at the
side are more vivacious and show an attempt at individuahzation.
In all probabUity this picture was executed at about the same time
as the frescoes in the adjoining Baroncelli Chapel. According to
certain old records quoted by MUanesi (Vasari, i, 573, note) these
frescoes were ordered by Tano and Gherardo di Mico Baroncelh in the
year 1332, and were finished in 1338. The price is said to have been
807 lire. According to other statements, the chapel itself was not
completed until 1338. In either case the pictures may be assigned
to the thirties, and must be regarded as the earliest large work by
Taddeo that has survived. Probably Taddeo had already begun his
activity in Santa Croce as an assistant under Giotto in the work
on the Bardi and Peruzzi frescoes, and when the old master was
forced by other occupation to leave Florence, he recommended his
pupil for the continuation of the decoration of the same church.
If we may judge from Vasari's description, the great Franciscan
church remained for many years the chief field of Taddeo's artistic
activity. He painted here, besides the Christ among the Doctors and St.
Francis Resuscitating the Dead Child, large series of frescoes in the
Cappella Baroncelli, in the Cappella Bellaci, and in the Cappella di
Sant Andrea, as well as a Pieta in the right aisle under the Marsuppini
tomb. Of these paintings there remain only the Baroncelli frescoes
setting forth the life of the Virgin. There is also preserved in the
Accademia di Belle Arti the series of little pictures which originally
embellished the doors of the cupboards in the sacristy in Santa
Croce. As the earliest dated picture by Taddeo Gaddi in Santa Croce, it
is customary to name the Madonna (half-length) in the lunette
field over the Baroncelli tomb. The tomb bears the date 1327, but
this date does not mark the year of the execution of the painting,
which was unquestionably done later; in style it corresponds to the
frescoes inside the Baroncelli Chapel. These, then, can be most con
veniently taken as a starting-point if one wishes to form an idea of
Taddeo's individual style in the first years of his independent
activity. Here are recorded the more important incidents from the story of
Anna and Joachim and the life of Mary, beginning with the expul
sion of Joachim from the temple, and ending with the adoration of
the Magi. There are in addition some separate figures of David,
St. Joseph and other saints, and aUegorical figures on the ceiling.

136 GIOTTO
The subjects are partly those which Giotto illustrated in the Arena
Chapel, but the compositions are so entirely unlike his that we must
infer that Taddeo never saw Giotto's Paduan works. He apparently
was not yet one of the master's assistants at the time of the dec
oration of the Arena Chapel. If we did not know from historical
evidence that Taddeo worked for a score of years in Giotto's work
shop, these frescoes would hardly give rise to any such assumption.
The conception is diametrically opposite: whereas Giotto sought
severely defined, firm, architectonic composition, using accessories
and details only as symbolic setting to the figures, Taddeo could
hardly have been more detailed in his representation, or more
picturesque in the rendering of the surroundings in which his figures
appear. The first two frescoes, the Expulsion of Joachim from the Temple,
and the Annunciation of the Angel to Joachim (PL 114), are in this
respect especiaUy enlightening. A high three-aisled basilica, shown
half from the side, forms the setting for the ignominious casting out
of Joachim. The structure is rendered with a pretense at reahstic
effect very different from anything in Giotto's architecture; it is not
symbolic but naturalistic scenery, yet it is really much less cogent,
architectonically, than Giotto's simple shrine. The construction of
the building is rather imaginary — irrespective of the omission of
two walls in order to show the figures — and the faulty perspective
makes its stability precarious. The figures are as numerous as can
be accommodated. Besides the high priest and Joachim, who is
retreating on the run, there are six other participants, of whom one
is on his hands and knees, scoffing at Joachim, another rushes to the
altar with his sacrificial lamb, and the rest stand as onlookers, more
or less vividly expressing their surprise. Bustling haste pervades the
scene, and one derives no sense of the deep religious import of the
incident. It looks more like the hustle of a railway station or
something of that sort.
The other half of the picture is occupied by a rocky landscape,
which on account of the effective management of the lighting seems
to extend far into the background. Joachim, who sits on a ledge in
the middle distance, turns sharply round to look at the angel who
addresses him from on high. Two shepherds come wandering along
a path that winds among the rocks, and in the foreground sits a
shepherd lad who is fingering his pipe, while the sheep and goats
drink from the brook or search for food in the crannies of the
mountainside.

TADDEO GADDI 137
This episode in the foreground is a httle pastoral idyll by itself,
with a breath of real fresh air. It contributes nothing in particular
to the narrative, and does not occur in Giotto's version, but here in
Taddeo's fresco it is the most spontaneous expression of the artist's
individual temperament and method of interpretation. It gives us
an inkling of the direction in which his special talent lay.
He was evidently not the man to produce a unified monumental
composition, in the spirit of Giotto; from this point of view he com
pletely failed. The picture disintegrates into several dissimilar
parts, their contents only loosely related. One can hardly speak of
any dramatic concentration or organic structure in the composition.
The figures merely come on the stage to play their parts and then go
off again, and we wait for the scene to change for the next act. The
indispensable and unfaUing connection between figures, landscape,
and architecture which characterizes Giotto's compositions, is
entirely lacking here. The artist has not seen the necessity of
rhythmically combining the elements of his composition, but instead
has attempted to develop a wider display of iUustrative stage-
managing and heightened illusion of detaU. He has tried to obtain
greater effect by expanding his landscape and his architecture, at
the same time increasing the naturalness of their proportion to the
figures, but as all this takes no stronger organic form, the result
remains, to say the least, unbalanced.
Taddeo's figure style can be even better studied in some of the
other frescoes. The story continues with the Meeting of Joachim
and Anna, before the Golden Gate at Jerusalem (PI. 115). Anna,
accompanied by three women, has come out through the gate.
Toward her Joachim hastens forward hurriedly and Anna throws her
self into his arms, falling forward stiffly, like a statue that has toppled
off its base. She would unquestionably hit the ground awfully hard if
it were not for the stalwart resistance interposed by Joachim. The
hurried pace of the movement of the main figures is accelerated in
the shepherd who comes dancing in with long steps behind Joachim.
When one thinks of Giotto's presentation of the same subject, one
recognizes how little Taddeo understood the basic monumental
quality of the master's figure style. He has tried to imitate Giotto's
method of expression : the proportions and the treatment of drapery
are obviously inspired by the figures in the CappeUa Peruzzi, the
personages are imposingly and effectively draped in their ample
mantles. The women who are standing still have an air of statuesque
loftiness, but this is perceptibly weakened the moment the figures

138 GIOTTO
start to move. The superficiahty of the artist's interpretation of
form then becomes evident: he is incapable of expressing correctly
and adequately the construction of the human body.
The background in this picture is filled by a view of the city which
is naturalistic and elaborate. Above the numerous towers rises a
central church with a dome, probably intended for the Chain
Dome in Jerusalem. If one remembers how the city in Giotto's
painting was reduced to a splendid gate, massive and resistant in
its simplicity, Taddeo's version seems trifling. It illustrates the
story, but in no wise strengthens the effect of reality — quite the
opposite. It has the same accidental, theatrical character as the
figures. The Nativity of the Virgin is one of the most successful pictures in
the Cappella Baroncelli but it has unfortunately suffered more than
the rest. The main figure, St. Anna, who was sitting in the bed, is
entirely gone, and over the whole background is painted a new
drapery. What remains is the bathing scene in the foreground, a
homely group with the same touch of intimate naturalism which
attracted us in the pastoral scene in the first fresco. We also see two
women who come to visit the mother, bringing gifts; a servant lifts
a large basket from the head of one of them. This simple episode
with its tone of intimacy has been interpreted with a remarkable
eye for the characteristic. The painter has evidently observed his
figures in real life, and perhaps even made sketches from nature
before beginning to paint on the wall. The picture is not a great
decorative or imaginative work of art, nevertheless it is remarkable
as a free, genre-like combination of figures taken from nature. This
method of procedure is entirely contrary to that of Giotto, to whom
naturalistic effect always was subordinate to abstract rhythm and
structure. In Giotto's representation of the birth of St. John, in
the Cappella Peruzzi, nothing is sacrificed to genre, the composition
is strictly architectonic, the figures have definite functions as parts
of a rhythmic unity.
In the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple (PI. 116), Taddeo
shows very graphicaUy his propensity for theatrical arrangement of
the scene. From a foundation of three high terraces, approached by
ffights of steps turned at various angles, rises a three-aisled church-
building of the same type as in the first fresco. To the right of the
temple is a loggia or cloister; on the left a palace with a curious
spectator in the window. All the buildings are carefully executed
with great attention to decorative detail; none the less the whole

TADDEO GADDI 139
(as a result of the bad perspective) gives the impression of an unsafe
and tottering piece of scenery, or a toy building. The problem was
too difficult for the artist's powers. The figures show a surprising
mixture of genre naturalism and boldness of form. The little Virgin,
who stands on the first terrace, is easily the most pleasing. She
turns round and solemnly addresses her parents and playmates, who
stand at the foot of the steps, waving her farewell. She is a quaint
little child, . posed in a declamatory attitude. There are several
onlookers besides Anna and Joseph: two kneeling women and two
bearded men, whose vast, sacklike shapes bear witness to an effort
not merely to reproduce but to surpass the monumental figures of
Giotto. The Marriage of Mary and Joseph (PI. 117) shows the same inclina
tion toward tastelessextravagance, hurried restlessness, and confusion
in the composition. We see a tightly packed mass of people, of whom
none really has room to move, yet several make violent exertions in
diverse directions. The main incident, the high priest joining the
hands of Mary and Joseph, is almost swallowed up in the crowd.
The artist obviously did not fix his attention on a clear and striking
representation of the betrothal itself, but tried to line up as many
stately figures as possible, and incidentally to work in a few portraits.
According to local tradition, the two bearded men on the left are
Gaddo Gaddi and Andrea Tafi; but whether this is true or not, they
certainly appear to be portraits. The women show more uniformly
the types Taddeo so liked to use, characterized by the full, oval face,
the long, incurving nose, the squinting, slit eyes, the low forehead.
The children in the foreground, who barely come up to the women's
knees, are full-grown pigmies not only in shape and proportion but
in their manner of moving and gesticulating. This picture, more
than any other in the chapel, shows the faults rather than the virtues
of Taddeo's manner. The lack, already emphasized, of architec
tonic design, which allows many of Taddeo's compositions to become
more or less aimless conglomerations of figures, is here the cause of
the notably weak space composition and the meaningless jumble
of people.
Taddeo attained far more successful and original solutions of the
difficulties of composition in the foUowing pictures, showing the
Nativity (PL 118) and related incidents — the Angel's Message
to the Shepherds (PL 119) and the Star Appearing to the Wise
Men. The pictures are tall and narrow; the subjects give no oppor
tunity for the introduction of an audience of secondary characters.

140 GIOTTO
The Nativity introduces a new feature : Mary sits tenderly clasping
the child in her arms, rejoicing over the heavenly gift. The ox and
the ass, placed in the grotto itself, back of the cradle, stretch forward
their heads in sympathy. The herdsman who watches the idyllic
scene is a strongly characterized peasant type.
Next we see how the shepherds out on the pastures received the
glad tidings of the angel. It is a stiU, winter night. The mountain
side, where the two shepherds and their herd of sheep and goats are
lying, is shrouded in darkness. Suddenly there bursts from the
heavens a glow of light, and in the glow appears an angel. The
shepherds wake, and peer up; one shades his eyes from the blinding
glare (PI. 119). Even the nearer goats raise their heads, but with
eyes closed, and the sheepdog stretches himself sleepily. The strong
glare from the sky lights up the ground about the figures, but the
further parts of the mountain remain in half -darkness. The effect of
chiaroscuro successfully suggests something of the quiet of the holy
night. The artist has here solved a problem of painting which had
hardly attracted the attention of Giotto, and he has introduced into
his work a tone of pictorial naturalism that attests his sensitive tem
perament. Once more it looks as if Taddeo must have made direct
studies of nature for his painting. He at least had his eyes open to
the importance of chiaroscuro for producing atmosphere, and he
knew the characteristic movements of men and animals in an unusual
situation like this.
In the corresponding picture (PL 120) also, where the three kings
are shown kneeling on a rock whUe the holy star (represented as a
child surrounded by rays of light) appears to them, the chief problem
is chiaroscuro. The rock remains in comparative darkness, which is
gradually dispelled by the bright beams from the new constellation.
The Hght strikes the kings : the foremost shades his eyes, the others
look up, reverently praying, toward the marvel. The characteriza
tion is neither noteworthy nor original — the figures are rather badly
preserved — but the way in which the artist has handled the prob
lem of lighting gives ample evidence of his pronounced pictorial
talent. It was certainly just this capacity of Taddeo's for producing
illusory light effects and his interest in intimate naturalistic touches,
that won him so many admirers among his contemporaries.
In the representation of the adoration of the Magi (PL 121), Tad
deo's delight in extravagantly large figures has had a less fortunate
influence on his composition. The high, narrow picture is filled two-
thirds of the way up by the two standing kings. At their feet kneels

TADDEO GADDI 141
the third, doubled up Hke a sack, kissing the chUd's feet. The child
is held naturaUy on his mother's knee; she sits squeezed into a narrow
portico of such fragile construction that one fears that it wiU col
lapse. Joseph is a little huddled figure in the right corner. Disre
garding the unevenness and the scarcely restrained exaggeration of
the figure drawing, one misses any real artistic explanation of the
signfficance of the theme, any such sentiment of reverence and
devotion as that which makes Giotto's adoring kings so appealing
and so beautiful.
This impression of superficial illustrative art, deficient in any
deeper comprehension of the human or artistic import of the Biblical
narrative, is here so much the more remarkable because we know
that Taddeo's compositions were partly the result of his acquaint
ance with the pious monk and penitential preacher, Fra Simone
Fidati, called " il Santo da Cascia." ' There exists a letter from Tad
deo to Fra Simone, in which the painter shows his sincere devotion
to the austere confessor and healer, and asks him for his prayers to
avert the sufferings with which he is visited. It also appears that
Taddeo studied with great industry Fra Simone's interpretations of
the gospels (including the Apocryphal Gospels) called La Vita
Christiana, and used the book as guide in designing some of his
compositions; but he plainly failed to extract from Fra Simone any
real artistic inspiration. His respect for the monk seems to have
restricted him to a perfectly literal reproduction of whatever he read,
with no attempt to interpret the spiritual meaning. He permitted
himself hardly any independent imagination or elaboration except
in the subordinate parts, where his talent for picturesque reproduc
tion of nature occasionally prevailed.
The other frescoes painted by Taddeo in Santa Croce are now, as
we have said, mostly destroyed. Only in the Cappella di San SUves
tro (Bardi) there remains a much restored representation of the en
tombment of Christ. The subject may well correspond to the Pieta
beside the Marsuppini tomb, mentioned by Vasari, for the burial
scene is combined with the mourning over the dead Christ, but if
this is correct, the fresco has been removed from its original position.
This does not seem impossible, judging from the background, which
is painted over with a new design of trees and instruments of the
Passion. The style is about the same as in the Baroncelli Chapel.
The elongated type with long, slightly incurved nose, is again
recognizable. The composition is lunette-shaped, enclosed by an
' Cf. "Italo Maione, Fra Simone Fidati e Taddeo Gaddi," in L'Arte, 1914, No. 2.

142 GIOTTO
arch, which gives it more coherence than many other frescoes of
Taddeo's. In the ancient refectory adjoining the cloister at Santa Croce,
now used as a museum, there is a wall painting by Taddeo and his
assistants; a great Last Supper (PL 122), which extends the whole
width of the room, and above it a Crucffixion combined with an
Allegory of the genealogy of the Franciscan Order (PL 123), sur
rounded by four pictures: Christ in the House of the Pharisee, St.
Francis Receiving the Stigmata, and two subjects from the legends
of St. Benedict and St. Louis of Toulouse.
The Last Supper has considerable historic interest as the first of
these great refectory pictures which in the next century came to be
regarded as almost obligatory decoration in the dining-rooms of
Italian monasteries. Their special didactic purpose, of course, was
to remind the monks that they should partake of their daUy meals
in remembrance of the last meeting of Christ and his disciples. The
composition usually follows the account in the Gospel of St. John,
where it is related how John leaned on Jesus' bosom and Peter
exhorted him to ask Christ about the betrayer — incidents not
recorded by Matthew and Mark. The traitor is commonly distin
guished by the breadsop which he holds. He is placed alone on the
nearer side of the long table, seated with his back half turned, and is
characterized as a revoltingly ugly and dwarfish wretch. The other
apostles are all ranged along the opposite side of the table, sitting
some distance apart at regular intervals, five on each side of Christ,
except St. John, who is placed close to the central figure, resting in
his arms. This is the arrangement in Taddeo's fresco and so it
remains, on the whole — naturally with considerable individual
modffication — until Leonardo, with an entirely new conception of
the tremendous theme, breaks the stiff traditional monotony and
imparts to the composition a new meaning, human and dramatic.
Taddeo's fresco is one of the most monotonous of all; the figures
have statuesque isolation, their gestures are mechanical. One can
hardly speak of any psychological characterization. The unity of
the composition depends entirely on the long table: the figures
appear each by itself, some of them with fairly good form values.
In the upper frescoes, the Crucffixion and the scenes from the
saints' lives, a younger artist has presumably collaborated. The
forms are somewhat leaner and harder, especially in the Crucifixion,
with its decorative Franciscan family tree, suggesting a tapestry
pattern. In the small pictures which represent Christ at the Phari-

TADDEO GADDI 143
see's banquet and St. Louis at another banquet, one notices a freer
grouping and a few rather naturalistic figures, but the frescoes are
much restored.
Of Taddeo's large frescoes in Florence there remains only one more,
so far as we know, a Crucifixion in the sacristy of Ognissanti. Christ
hangs on a rather low cross; he has a coarse and unwieldy figure,
represented without much incisive characterization, either physical
or spiritual: the weight of the body does not appear in the figure any
more than the expression of suffering in the face. At the foot of the
cross the Magdalen kneels, quite indifferent, and at the sides stand
Mary and St. John, St. Benedict and St. Francis. The picture is
probably of rather later date, showing Taddeo's style in the shallow
ness of its decline.

144 GIOTTO

The Pisan Frescoes
We know from historical documents that in 1342 Taddeo was oc
cupied on frescoes in the choir of San Francesco at Pisa. Of these,
however, only a few repainted figures in the vault and some busts in
the arch of the entrance now remain. They give us no standard for
judging Taddeo's style at this stage of his evolution. But there are
other frescoes by Taddeo in Pisa which reveal the painter at his best.
We refer to the legend of Job in the Campo Santo (PL 124), tradi
tionally assigned to Francesco da Volterra.
The attribution to Francesco da Volterra was introduced into the
history of art by Ernst Forster, on the basis of a misinterpretation
of certain documents. According to these, Francesco, with four
assistants, was working in the Campo Santo in 1371. Nothing more
is specffied as to the work they did than that they were restoring
certain older frescoes.' The statement gives no adequate reason for
attributing the Job frescoes to Francesco da Volterra; the question
must be decided on grounds of style. Crowe and Cavalcaselle re
mark that the only picture they know by Francesco — a Madonna
in Pugnano near RegoH — is much inferior to the Job frescoes.^
This picture has remained unknown to us, unless it may be identffied
with one in the Galleria Estense in Modena. To judge by the signa
ture of this Madonna, it is really by Francesco da Volterra, and may
thus be made the starting-point of this master's work. The picture
does not show such correspondences with the Job frescoes that we
could accept, without anything further, the identity of the master.
Its style is softer and more linear. The painter has evidently been
influenced by Taddeo Gaddi, but at the same time and perhaps more
noticeably by Sienese art. In our opinion, therefore, Francesco da
Volterra cannot be seriously considered as the painter of the frescoes,
which are evidently by an able worker of the middle of the four
teenth century. The figure style has that massive, rather plastic,
character which after the middle of the century practically disap
peared from Florentine art under the influence of Siena. The
painter in question obviously never stood in intimate connection
with Sienese art. He attaches directly to Giotto, though he has not
' Cf . Ernst Fiirster, Beitrage zur neueren Kunstgeschichte, Leipzig, 1835. " tjber die
alteren Wandgemalde im Campo Santo zu Pisa," pp. 113-15.
• Crowe and Cavalcaselle, new English ed., ii, 166, note.

TADDEO GADDI 145
the master's control of monumental figure drawing. The figures are
stamped with an exaggerated angularity of form and movement.
Of decisive importance for the decorative impression of these
frescoes are the landscapes. AU the terrible trials that are visited
upon the patient old man — the Sabeans carrying off his oxen and
his asses, the fire faUing upon his sheep and his servants, the Chal
deans driving away his camels, and Job's own affliction — are
enacted among dignified and splendid surroundings against imagi
native backgrounds of barren mountains with sparse, brown trees and
sheer cliffs in sharp sUhouette against a greenish sky. These land
scapes contribute largely to the heightening of the emotional effect;
they strike that tone of austere majesty which dominates the whole
story of Job.
In addition to these, all that is left of the cycle is the Prologue in
Heaven (PL 125), when God puts all Job's possessions into the hands
of Satan. The prologue of Goethe's Faust has with good reason
been associated with this picture-poem; both are inspired by the same
mighty text, both are carried by an empyrean imagination.' This
is one of those great universal themes, whose fundamental character
and tone are more easily grasped in a few broad, suggestive features
by a Trecento master than by any more thoroughly naturalistic
artist. The painter understands how to set free our imagination:
peaceful and limitless extends the ocean, against which lofty moun
tains and great cities appear like toys. God the Father descends in a
radiant mandorla, carried by six angels, to the steep summit where
Satan has climbed and now stands restlessly turning and stamping,
eager to begin his work. The contrast between the two main figures,
emphasized by the vastness of the ocean, seems to have a touch of
the high pathos of the Old Testament poem. The other frescoes
from the legend of Job hardly give us reason to expect anything of
such concentrated power. They are rathet spread out, confused in
grouping, containing more animals than human beings. The un
usually decorative landscape combines the scattering scenes into a
unffied effect.
It may have already appeared, from the points emphasized in this
description, how close these frescoes stand to Taddeo Gaddi. If one
were to undertake a detailed study of the drawing of the men and the
animals, their types and movement, this impression might be veri
fied. We can hardly tax the interest of the reader with a minute
scrutiny of this kind, but we wish to point out some particularly
> Cf. P. Schubring, Pisa, Beriihmte KunsistaUen, No. 16, p. 92.

146 GIOTTO
characteristic figures. The young shepherd who lies closest to the
foreground in the representation of the rain of fire, turning the upper
part of his body half round and raising his hand, is just the same
figure that we have seen in the picture of the angels coming to the
shepherds, in the Baroncelli Chapel. The old, white-bearded Job
who kneels and talks to God, pointing vehemently to his stolen
sheep, is the same as the old king in the picture of the star appearing
to the Magi. The stiff but still monumental gesture (stretching the
arm obliquely downwards) is especially characteristic of Taddeo; it
appears in several figures in the Cappella Baroncelli.
The conclusion resulting from an analysis of style is further sup
ported by the statements of several older authorities. In the Libro
di Antonio Billi we find the following item, under Taddeo's name:
" A Pisa in Campo Santo molte historic di Job." The same entry
recurs in the Codice Magliabechiano, written about fifty years
later; and in the first edition of his Vite, Vasari writes: " Fu con-
dotto a Pisa della comunita, dove nel Campo Santo fece in istorie
tutta la vita del patientissimo Giobbe." What caused Vasari, in his
second edition, to transfer these frescoes from Taddeo Gaddi to
Giotto it is difficult to understand, but in so doing he gave rise to a
misunderstanding which has brought about a reaction in the wrong
direction, apparently unfounded in any sound criticism of style.
When the Job legend is again generally recognized as the work of
Taddeo, it wUl unquestionably raise him in general esteem as a
narrator and decorator. This series discloses an independent,
individual artist; not endowed, to be sure, with " Stefano's " power
of dramatic representation or with "Puccio Capanna's" captivating
lyric temperament, but attractive because of his skill at landscape
and his narrative power — not highly polished, but frequently
cogent and striking.

TADDEO GADDI 147

Panel Pictures
Taddeo's natural method of expression was fresco painting. On
wide wall surfaces he could unfold the sacred story Hke a chronicle,
without any more vigorous concentration or finer formal balance.
His compositions were often arbitrary conglomerations of figures,
throngs devoid of space composition or actual rhythm, yet at
times they attained a certain speed and energy of narration as we
have seen in the Job legend. Taddeo's art is thoroughly illustrative,
often in a very literal manner, but it is lacldng in decorative quality.
It is in the very nature of things that panel painting should not dis
play the artist's most interesting side; in this field he is generally
lacking in the decorative rhythm, the expressive use of color and line,
which raises the smaller works of other Trecento painters to a level of
aesthetic beauty.
The first group of Taddeo's panels comprises the small pictures in
Gothic quatrefoils which originally formed the cupboard doors in the
sacristy of Santa Croce. Of these there are now twelve, representing
scenes from the life of Christ, and ten, showing the more important
incidents in the story of St. Francis, in the Accademia in Florence.
A single picture, belonging to the latter series, is now in Berlin; the
twelfth has disappeared. The paintings were presumably arranged
in pairs in three rows, one above the other, on each door; thus there
were four in each horizontal line and three in each vertical on the
front of a cupboard, which was finished by a rounded gable. One of
the gable pictures is preserved in the Accademia: it illustrates on
one half the Annunciation, on the other the Ascension.
The pictures from the life of Christ show the Visitation, the
Nativity (PL 126), the Adoration of the Magi, the Presentation in
the Temple, Christ among the Doctors (PL 127), the Baptism, the
Transfiguration, the Last Supper, the Crucffixion, the Resurrection,
Christ and the Magdalen, Christ and Thomas. Of these the first
eight show a rather finer and more careful execution than the last
four, an impression which is to no small extent due to the rough
cleaning to which Nos. 9-12 have been subjected. From the
iconographie point of view, several of these scenes from the life of
Christ show a deviation from the normal; this has been plausibly
explained as the result of the influence of Fra Simone Fidati's
exposition of the Bibhcal stories on Taddeo. In the Nativity, for

148 GIOTTO
instance, we do not find the mother sitting in the traditional manner,
but kneeling by the cradle, lifting the covers off the child as if to
exhibit him, while Joseph and the shepherds kneel in adoration at
a lower level. The whole scene has a more ecstatically religious
character than usual; there is here hardly any trace of the human
intimacy which distinctly marks Giotto's fresco in Padua. The
sentiment is weak, but the arrangement of the scene is calculated
to produce a mystic effect.
In the Visitation one notices a similar emphasis on the divine
element, especially manifest in the fact that the two women do not
familiarly embrace each other; Elizabeth kneels before Mary,
stretching out her arms, which barely reach the younger woman.
The Adoration of the Magi consists merely of the Madonna,
who sits on a raised platform with the swaddled child on her
knee, and the three Wise Men, of whom the eldest kisses the baby's
feet. The two others seem to be discussing the guiding star.
Formally, the composition is one of the happiest; it is more
spacious, with better proportion and more mobile figures than any
of the others. The color scale is light and clear; the predominant
tones are blue, gold, cinnabar red, and pink, with grayish-white
architecture. Among the other compositions one should notice Christ among the
Doctors, where Mary and Joseph stand as though rapt in worship,
and the Last Supper, composed quite differently from the usual
manner, showing the last scene of the drama, when Judas forsakes
his place in the circle of apostles. The figures in all these pictures
are rather short and thickset, with big, full faces, straight noses, smaU
mouths, and very long eyes, sometimes almost half-closed. The
extremely small openings of the eyes gives a somewhat sleepy expres
sion. The types remind us of those we saw in the BaronceUi altar-
piece, especially of some of the kneeling angels with round faces and
drowsy eyes. It is certainly possible that Taddeo collaborated in the
execution of that picture. The correspondences in style, in any case,
give us reason to assign the little Santa Croce pictures to a period
when Taddeo was stUl in intimate contact with Giotto, probably
not long after 1330.
The St. Francis pictures are, on the whole, inferior to the series
dealing with the life of Christ. The figures have still more com
pact and bulky proportions. The compositions are, in general,
sunplffied and compressed copies of the standard frescoes in Assisi
and Florence. One leaf of the door was presumably occupied by the

TADDEO GADDI 149
foUowing representations (aU modeled after the Assisi fresco):
(1) St. Francis Forsaking his Father, (2) St. Francis Supportmg the
Lateran BasUica (PL 127), (3) St. Francis before Honorius III,
(4) Christmas Night in Greccio, (5) St. Francis Appearing before the
Brethren in a Fiery Chariot, (6) the Pope Confirming the Rules of the
Order; on the other leaf, (7) St. Francis Appearing before the Breth
ren in Aries, (8) St. Francis Receiving the Stigmata, (9) the Death of
St. Francis, (10) the Martyrdom of the Seven Brethren in Ceuta,
(II) (belonging to the Berlin Museum) the Child who FeU from a
Tower Restored to Life. No. 12 is missing. These copies are,
generally speaking, devoid of any feeling for the decorative or dra
matic quality of the originals. Thus one finds, for instance, in the
Dream of Pope Innocent, that the imposing church building which
appears in the Assisi fresco has become a little pigeon house, which
falls on St. Francis from the top of a doorway. In addition, St. Peter
has been introduced to call the attention of the sleeping Pope to the
threatening phenomenon; this has made the picture clumsier and
more crowded. The Death of St. Francis is a free copy of the
gorgeous fresco of the Bardi Chapel, but the rhythmic grouping and
the lucid space effect which there sustain the monumental impres
sion are here entirely spoiled. These small pictures ever since the
days of Vasari have been honored with the name of Giotto, an
attribution in no way sustained by their artistic qualities, and
unanimously rejected by modern historians of art. The connection
between these pictures and Taddeo's frescoes in the Baroncelli
Chapel is so obvious that it hardly needs to be pointed out in detail.
A comparison between the small Nativity and the Shepherds Receiv
ing the Angels' Message in the Baroncelli fresco is sufficient to prove
unquestionably the identity of the master. Nor can any long time
have elapsed between the execution of these works; the small panels
are perhaps a little earlier - — they reveal more of the style of the
Giotto bottega — but the difference in time can hardly have exceeded
three or four years.
To the same early period of Taddeo's activity must be assigned a
little triptych (PL 128) belonging to Mr. Frank L. Babbott of Brook
lyn, N.Y. It is one of Taddeo's most attractive and decorative
works. The composition is the same as in a number of small portable
altars by Bernardo Daddi and other contemporaries. On the central
panel the Madonna is presented enthroned in a Gothic chair with a
high back. On both sides stand rows of saints. The wings show the
Nativity and the Crucffixion, and above, the Annunciation. The

150 GIOTTO
small size of the triptych, the distribution of the subjects and the
miniature elegance of the style, so vividly recall Bernardo Daddi's
small altarpieces that this picture has been ascribed, even by promi
nent critics, to Bernardo. It shows, however, fundamental diver
gences from Bernardo's style, and decisive resemblances to Taddeo's.
Of the greatest importance in this respect is the very feeble space
composition of the central panel. The throne of the Madonna stands
so close to the foreground that there is not room in front of it for
more than one saint on each side, and of the other figures, who are
arranged in rows up on the background, we see very httle. They
stand seven or eight deep; of the two foremost the heads are visible,
of the rest only the haloes appear, like plates stacked up behind each
other. These figures are entirely imaginary. The artist has given
no suggestion of their positions, or of their bodily reality. The effect
is decorative in an ornamental sense but has no plastic value.
Bernardo Daddi, in similar cases, always took care to let the figures
round the Madonna appear with relatively good, bodily volume; not
only the foremost but those behind are detached from the back
ground and modeled with soft interplay of light and shade, thus
forming a ring round the Madonna's throne, which appears isolated
in space. Taddeo did not feel the need of any such mode of repre
sentation, he did not understand the importance of an isolating space
for the decorative effect, and he was not under the inspiration of the
Sienese models which Bernardo Daddi followed. His composition has
therefore remained flatter, more on the surface, although in other
respects it closely conforms to Bernardo's small Madonna pictures
from the early thirties.
Of the scenes on the wings, the Nativity is the more interesting; it
shows a rather picturesque variation of the old iconographical motif.
The Crucifixion consists merely of Christ on a lofty cross, with the
Virgin and St. John standing beneath. In the Nativity the artist
has placed Mary in front of the crib, haff-recHning, in a rather
naturalistic pose : she leans on her elbow and lifts one knee in a way
which recalls the Baroncelli shepherds. Joseph sits sleeping, and a
shepherd on the mountain behind the shed listens to the message of
the angels who soar in the air. The subdued coloring suggests the
night effect. This composition shows more originality than the cen
tral picture; the dependence on Giotto and Bernardo is less evident.
It is the types, especially, which prove that it was Taddeo who
painted this triptych. We recognize the large, fuU oval, with eyes
far apart and straight nose, from the small pictures in the Accademia.

TADDEO GADDI 151
A comparison between the throned Madonna and the kneeling
mother in the small Nativity is most iUuminating. The faces are
cast in the same form, the bodies have the same proportions. The
child in the triptych is unusually entertaining, represented as he is in
full paradise costume. He is a miniature of the same elderly bam
bino with a big head who appears in the Adoration of the Magi in the
Baroncelli Chapel. The angels in the foreground further assert, by
their types and their rectangular forms, the authorship of Taddeo.
It must, however, be emphasized that the triptych diverges from most
of Taddeo's work in its careful almost miniature-like drawing and
execution. It seems almost as if Taddeo had painted this picture in
direct competition with Bernardo Daddi, who as we know excelled
in such small cabinet pieces, and it is at least evident that Taddeo
was entirely familiar with certain works of his older contemporary,
and that in this case he has made a special effort to free himself from
his usual, broad fresco manner in order to do a picture which in
elegance and nicety could be compared to Bernardo's.
Taddeo's dependence on Bernardo Daddi at the beginning of the
thirties is made still more evident by another work, a little triptych
in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, dated 1334 (PL 129). This is
simply a somewhat cruder copy of Bernardo's small domestic altar
in the Bigallo in Florence, dated 1333. Taddeo has minutely fol
lowed Bernardo's compositional scheme. He has represented the
Madonna seated under a Gothic tabernacle, with a pair of donors
kneeling at her feet, and fourteen saints in an arched band running
round the picture. On the wings (PL 130) are the Nativity, the
Crucifixion, and the legend of St. Nicholas saving the little Adeoda
tus, in just the same forms that Bernardo used in the preceding year.
But in spite of his close imitation of the model, he has not attained
the good space composition which characterizes Bernardo's picture.
He has made the figures larger and more uncouth; he has not raised
the Madonna's throne on a platform or created free space in front of
it, and he has not drawn it with the same depth. Furthermore he
has made the framing columns and profiles much heavier. In con
sequence of all these modifications and inconspicuous alterations, the
decorative effect has been much impaired. The telling spaciousness
and flexible elegance which are characteristic of Bernardo have been
replaced by clumsy broadness and heaviness, testifying that Taddeo
was better trained as a fresco painter than as a maker of small cabi
net pieces. The difference between the Berlin altarpiece and Mr.
Babbott's is considerable, indicating an interval of several years

152 GIOTTO
between the two. It seems as though Taddeo had gradually lost
interest in smaU panel pictures and their sober technique. The
Berlin picture is, however, the feeblest of all Taddeo's altarpieces,
especially in regard to space design.
In two other pictures of the same kind he has solved the same
problem more successfully. In a Httle domestic altarpiece belonging
to the Museum at Strassburg (PL 131) the enthroned Madonna,
surrounded by saints, is rather well isolated in an enclosed space
composition. The throne is here raised on a platform and set some
distance back, as in Bernardo Daddi. Besides the kneeling donors,
there are in the foreground four saints, placed in pairs on either side
of the throne, and further back two more saints and six angels
arranged in corresponding groups. All these figures are represented
with relatively good, plastic form and seem to be actually on the same
plane as the steps of the throne. The figures are stiff and wooden,
as in Taddeo's frescoes, but they have more independent existence
as tridimensional beings than in many of the artist's other works.
In a little Madonna belonging to the collection of the Historical
Society in New York (PL 131), the saints at the sides have gained
still more signfficance. They are now drawn in almost the same
scale as the Madonna and enclose the throne like a compact wall.
The impression of depth is weak, but between the foremost pair of
saints there opens a really free space. The composition is ponderous,
not without a certain monumental breadth.
The improved space composition of these twosmaU, domestic altars
gives us reason to assume that they were painted some years after the
little triptych in Berlin. This assumption is supported by another
small Madonna triptych belonging to the museum at Naples, dated
1336, two years later than the Berlin picture. The central panel of
this triptych shows the Virgin enthroned between St. Peter, St. Paul,
St. Anthony, and a bishop; on the wings are represented the Annun
ciation, the Baptism of Christ and the Deposition from the Cross.
The figures are rather short and heavy, particularly in the central
piece, and there is hardly any attempt at space composition. But in
the Baptism of Christ one notices again Taddeo's power of evoking a
tone of intimacy; also a rather skilful arrangement of the three
figures, Christ, St. John, and the kneeling angel, within the narrow
space. The whole picture is in some respects different from those
described above, but it is evidently by Taddeo, and owing to its
space composition it must be regarded as a connecting link between
the triptych in Berlin and those in Strassburg and New York.

TADDEO GADDI 153
A little, portable altarpiece of the same type as these belonged to
the collection of Marchese Bartolini Salimbeni in Florence, which
was dispersed a few years ago. The picture showed in the middle a
Crucffixion with several figures at the foot of the cross, and in the
wing a Madonna and scenes from the lives of St. Francis and St.
John the Evangelist.
In connection with the small Madonnas should be mentioned a
little picture of the Nativity (PL 133) in the Museum at Dijon. It
is interesting as evidence of Taddeo's inclination toward landscape
painting. The scene is an open sweep of mountains; on the right sits
Mary under a shed, lifting the chUd out of the crib, while Joseph
sleeps with his head in his hands. On the left two shepherds are
approaching. All these figures are comparatively heavy and stiff, as
usual, but they are set in a landscape with monumental lines and
atmospheric gradations showing a keen sense of natural light effects.
The picture has in concentrated form what we have already observed
in some of the Baroncelli frescoes and Campo Santo paintings; an
attempt at broad representation of nature and a realization of the
atmospheric value of lighting, in advance of anything approached by
other painters of the period. Taddeo never became a really great
figure painter, and in that respect he usually appears weak and
unsatisfactory in comparison with his Florentine contemporaries —
but he did introduce important new elements in the observation of
nature, and struck a note unknown in the solemn hymn music of the
older artists.
The larger altarpieces which Taddeo painted offer, as a rule, less
opportunity for naturalistic treatment than the small pictures, in
which narrative scenes are usually included. The big panels con
sist of hieratically arranged saints on both sides of an enthroned
Madonna. Their artistic value must be sought chiefly in the decora
tive patterns of the individual saints and their significance as plastic
or linear creations. Taddeo painted several such altarpieces at
various periods of his protracted activity. The earliest show the
same full-faced types and thickset figures as the smaller pictures
and must therefore be classed in the same group. One of them, pre
senting the Madonna between Saint Margaret and Saint Justina
(PL 132), is in San Martino a Mensola, outside Florence. The Virgin
is represented in almost full face, sitting on a broad, Gothic, marble
throne, and the two saints stand turned half inward. The bodies
are unusually full, drawn with soft rounding of the contours. The
cheeks are puffed, so that the eyes are hardly more than little creases;

154 GIOTTO
the noses are very flat, and the mouths extremely small. The
mantles are wide with heavy folds, contributing to the rounding out
of the forms but not disclosing the structure of the bodies. The
three predella scenes — Christ Entombed, between two donors,
the Annunciation, and the Martyrdom of St. Margaret — have
probably been somewhat mutilated. The picture was removed from
its original, Gothic frame at the end of the fifteenth century and
altered to rectangular shape, additional figures were added between
the triangular gables, and the whole was set into a Quattrocento
tabernacle. Strangely enough, a similar change was made in another altar
picture by Taddeo, related in style to the altarpiece in San Martino
a Mensola. This painting, which formerly belonged to the GalH-
Dunn collection at Poggibonsi, is now in the Metropolitan Museum
in New York. The composition (PL 132) is something like the one
just described: the Madonna sits on a wide, marble throne, holding
the restless bambino in a half -reclining position on her left knee;
but on each side a saint is added: on the left, St. John the
Baptist and St. Lawrence; on the right, St. James and St. Stephen.
The pilasters that separate the saints were painted in the fifteenth
century, and at the same period prophets were added to fill the
spaces between the Gothic arches — very much the same scheme
that we have seen in the San Martino altarpiece. The whole has
been enclosed in a heavy and richly ornamented Quattrocento taber
nacle. Such a Renaissance transformation, entirely removing the
pinnacles and finials of the Gothic polyptych, and compressing the
originally soaring composition under a heavy horizontal, naturally
detracted from the decorative effect. The main figures, however,
remain unmodffied.
There is in existence an odd example of a still more complete Quat
trocento metamorphosis of a painting by Taddeo. It is a fresco
painting transferred to the cloister of St. Mark's in Florence, repre
senting an enthroned Madonna between St. Nicholas and St.
Michael. The composition, the throne, and the face of the Madonna
are probably Taddeo's work, but the lower portion of the Madonna,
the child, and the saints have been completely repainted toward the
end of the fifteenth century, presumably by Sebastiano Mainardi.
He has impressed his characteristic types on the saints. The picture
has the effect of a disguised Trecento Madonna, and furnishes the most
eloquent testimony of the unscrupulous attitude of the Renaissance
in the matter of restoration and renovation. Another large Madonna

TADDEO GADDI 155
by Taddeo, much restored, is painted al fresco high upon the wall
of the entrance hall of the Bargello in Florence.
The most important of Taddeo's later altar pictures, dating from
the fifties, is the big ancona in San Giovanni Fuoricivitas in Pistoja
(PL 133), which he executed in 1353. The Madonna is here sur
rounded by four free-standing saints (Peter, John the EvangeHst,
John the Baptist, and James) ; above her is represented the Annun
ciation, and over the saints are pairs of prophets in half-length. The
figures are noticeably thinner and more limber than in the altarpieces
previously described, the draperies seem to be rather softer and more
floating, the faces smaUer, but one cannot discern any deeper spiritual
conception or any new grasp of the principles of composition. The
Madonna sits in the same rigid attitude, holding the child insecurely
on her left knee, as in the earher altarpieces. She merely has a
slighter figure and more gorgeously ornamented clothes. It seems
to have come naturally to Taddeo to repeat the same stereotyped
Madonna: he had no artistic ambition urging him to recast the
traditional elements of his compositions.
The same representation of Mary, the child, and saints recurs in
the big altar picture in the church of Santa Felicita in Florence
(PL 134). The only difference is that the saints have changed places
or names, and that four little, kneeling angels have been added in
front of the Madonna's throne.
An independent Madonna (PI. 135) of large size, which unques
tionably must be described as one of Taddeo's most beautiful and
attractive pictures has lately been transferred from the Accademia
at Siena to the Uffizi. According to the inscription, this was painted
in 1355 for Giovanni di Ser Segnia a Megognano (near Poggibonsi).
The Madonna sits on a rather high Gothic throne; on either side
stand angels, holding the heavenly crown and jar of ointment, and in
the foreground kneel four others with vases of flowers and censers.
The solemnly decorative character of the composition is substantially
increased by the deep and luminous coloring. The Madonna wears
a garment of gold brocade and a deep blue mantle. The angels on
either side of her are in carmine, and those kneeling in front in white.
The carpet before the throne is cinnabar red. The whole color
scheme has a luminous intensity, a glow that far exceeds anything
one can find in Taddeo's other surviving pictures. One here fully
understands Vasari's verdict, that Taddeo surpassed his master
Giotto as a colorist. The strongly intensified harmony of color in
this work of Taddeo's is in all probability due to Sienese influence.

156 GIOTTO
There are in addition a number of other panels but they con
tribute very little that is new to an estimate of his artistic manner
and ability — which is not very versatile or many-sided. I shall
refer only to the big crucffix (PL 136) in San Giorgio a Ruballa, near
Florence, and the Pieta in the Jarves collection at New Haven. The
rather massive dignity and pondus with which Taddeo sometimes
contrived to endow his figures is demonstrated fairly well in the
dead Christ, but the artist has produced no deeper impression of
pain or of life ebbing to extinction.
According to Vasari, Taddeo was called to Arezzo and Casentino,
and in the castles near there executed frescoes with the assistance of
Jacopo dal Casentino. In the picturesque mediaeval Castello del
Poppi there remain a number of fragments of frescoes (PL 137) which
may possibly be partly by Taddeo, partly by his pupils. In the old
chapel of the castle there are two scenes from the Hfe of Mary: Christ
Presented in the Temple, and the Death of the Virgin; two scenes
from the life of the Baptist: St. John Preaching, and Herod's Feast;
and two scenes from the life of St. John the Evangelist: the Rais
ing of Drusiana, and the Translation of St. John.
The paintings are, as we have said, rather uneven and worn in
places, but they include parts which are still attractive owing to their
character as literal illustrations of legend. This holds true especially
in the representation of Salome's dance with its nobly costumed
dames and portly mandolin players. It is now difficult to state with
any certainty how much work Taddeo himself did at Castello del
Poppi; the figures seem, in general, rather thinner and frailer than
in Taddeo's frescoes, but his school and his general characteristics of
style are none the less recognizable. The sleepy faces and stocky
figures attest the tradition. It is primarily as the founder of a new
tradition of style among the Florentine Trecento artists that Taddeo
deserves a more thorough study. His historical importance is, after
all, greater than his personal contribution to the development of art.
He diverges from the central and most artistically signfficant ele
ments in Giotto's style and wanders into byways which lead off from
the main problem of painting — the creation of signfficant form —
toward narration and the illustrative representation of nature. And
in this direction he was followed by most of the later painters of
the Trecento.

X
BERNARDO DADDI
1
Biographical Notes
BERNARDO DADDI is an artist who in the last ten years has
attained considerable fame. His smaU altarpieces, so suitable
for private collections, have been brought to light one after another,
and it has been discovered that the artist is one of the most attrac
tive and appealing of the earlier Florentine Trecento painters. He is
the more interesting because he inaugurates an essentially new move
ment in this epoch of Florentine art.
Vasari made one of his most serious mistakes when he placed
Bernardo among the pupUs of Spinello Aretino. Bernardo Daddi
was really somewhat older than Taddeo Gaddi for he seems to have
flourished in the thirties and forties. In a certain sense, however, he
may be said to represent a more modern tendency than Taddeo's.
Bernardo established closer contact with contemporary Sienese art
than any other Florentine, and received therefrom impulses which in
several respects led him over the boundaries of strictly Giottesque
painting. The subsequent development of the Florentine Trecento
depended almost as much on the new impetus from Siena as on
the fundamental principles of Giotto's art. In this connection Ber
nardo Daddi must be accorded a prominent place in the history of
Florentine painting.
We are able to establish the following dates in Bernardo's life: he
is twice named in the records of the " Arte dei Medici e Speziali,"
first about in the middle of the third register, which covers the period
from 1312-20 (probably about 1317), and again in the register that
runs from 1320 to 1353. In 1335 Bernardo bought a third share
of a property on the Via Larga in Florence and in the same year he
executed an altar picture for the Cappella di San Bernardo in the
Palazzo Publico in Florence. In 1338 he did a picture showing three
Dominican saints for a chapel in Santa Maria Novella. Both these
pictures have been lost.
Probably the most important notice of Bernardo's life and activity
which has been preserved to posterity is that which deals with his
share in the foundation of the Compagnia di San Luca, a corporation
157

158 GIOTTO
of the painters of Florence under the protection of St. Luke. The
date of this foundation is generally given as 1349, but this is due to
a misreading of the register; the event took place in 1339. In the
same year Bernardo appears as a witness of a death in Florence.
During the financial year of 1346-47 his name occurs three times in
the books of the Compagnia di Or San Michele; he was being paid
for a picture for the high altar in the church of the same name.
The next year, 1348, are recorded the death of Bernardo and the
appointment of guardians for his two minor sons, Daddo and Fran
cesco. These facts, which render untenable the assumption formerly
accepted, that Bernardo lived till the middle fifties,' are derived
from a notary's minutes in the National Archives of Florence,
according to a copy provided by the late Herbert P. Horne in 1906.
The minutes appear among the papers of the notary Francesco di
Ser Giovanni Ciai da Pulicciano, and are dated August 18, 1348.
The heading reads, " Tutela Daddi et Francisci condam Bernardi."
First, the two witnesses are named, Ser Currado de BartoH and
Buonacorsa de Beni, " populi Sancte Reparate." Then it is re
counted that " Thomasius filius condam Bernardi Daddi, pictoris
populi Sancti Laurentii de Florentia, adultus," affirmed in the pres
ence of the judge that his father had died without leaving any tes
tamentary disposition regarding his two minor sons, Daddo and
Francesco. The judge, Simone di Ser Geremia de Soli, consequently
appointed as guardian of the two boys " Benivieni condam Bambi
populi Sancti Laurentii de Florentia, viri et mariti domine Lise
amite ipsorum pupillorum." The document further contains tedious
admonitions to the guardian and juridical stipulations of his obhga-
tions and responsibility, which contribute no more information as to
the circumstances of Bernardo Daddi's family.
This document is of interest as evidence that Bernardo Daddi was
married and had three sons, one of whom was of age at his father's
death, and the other two minors. Of these last, one, Daddo di Ber
nardo, was inscribed among the " Medici e Speziali " in 1358.
Whether the others were active as painters we do not know, but it is
natural to assume that they assisted in their father's workshop. The
family's financial standing, it appears, was good, for we find no
mention of insufficient provision for the maintenance of the sons,
and there are instructions for taking an inventory of the artist's
chattels. Bernardo had evidently contrived to make his artistic
endowments pay.
' Cf . Vitzthum, Bernardo Daddi (1903) and Venturi, Storia dell' Arte Italiana, v, 608.

BERNARDO DADDI 159
If we venture to draw conclusions as to Bernardo's personality
from these scanty notices, together with his paintings, we get the
impression that Bernardo was an indefatigable and painstaking
worker, intelligent and alert, but without any very strong individu-
ahty. He had no apparent ambition to compete with Giotto in the
creation of great monumental paintings; he limited himself almost
entirely to smaller tasks, but within these bounds he attained a
higher level of relative perfection than any other Florentine painter
of his time.

160 GIOTTO

2
Bernardo's Principal Paintings
Three pictures with the signature " bernardus de florentia "
form the groundwork of the bounteous production attributable to this
artist; the earliest bears the date 1328, the latest 1348 — the year of
Bernardo's death. We have every reason to assume that "Bernardus
de Florentia " is identical with Bernardo Daddi, for no other painter
named Bernardo Hving at that period is mentioned by the older
authorities, and the works which may be grouped round the pictures
of "Bernardus de Florentia" obviously belong to an artist of unusual
power and popularity. The identity of the two Bernardo's is further
proved by the altarpiece in Or San Michele: there is documentary
evidence that it was executed by Bernardo Daddi, and it closely
corresponds in style (although it has been seriously disfigured by
repainting) to the works signed by Bernardus de Florentia.
We may take for granted that the picture dated 1328 is not Ber
nardo's earliest work — he had presumably been active as an inde
pendent painter for at least ten years — but as it bears the earliest
date we shall consider it first. This altarpiece (PL 138), which has
been transferred from the church of Ognissanti to the Uffizi, bears
the following inscription: " anno dni mcccxxviii fr nicholaus de
MAZINGHIS de campi ME FIERI FECIT P. REMEDIO ANIME MATRIS ET
fratrum. BERNARDUS DE FLORENTIA ME PINXIT." It represents the
Madonna between St. Nicholas and St. Matthew, aU three in half-
length, placed on panels of unequal size, separated by slender
columns. In the gables over the Gothic arches are inserted in three
medalhons Christ and two angels in half-length. The composi
tion is the same which prevails throughout the whole fourteenth
century in triptychs with half-length figures, but the arrangement is
remarkably stiff. There is no trace of any connection between the
figures; they are presented in isolation, almost hke colored statues
against the gold ground. The modehng is hard and angular, the
drawing is dominated by rigorous verticals, so that the figures look
almost hke rectangles. The faces are relatively long; the noses are
at a marked salient to the straight foreheads, the eyes are very nar
row and extend out towards the temples, the ears are large and set
far back. The doU-hke chUd on his mother's arm testifies to the
artist's inadequate study of nature. He seems to have taken more
interest in rhythmic hne composition than in naturahstic realism of

BERNARDO DADDI 161
detail. Compared with some of Taddeo Gaddi's paintings, this
picture seems stiff and archaic, but we must none the less grant that
the decorative rhythm of line is more completely worked out than in
any of Taddeo's pictures. The beauty of color has been entirely lost
on account of the careless cleaning.
The same style and scheme of composition is repeated in other
altarpieces, executed soon after the first. One of these, kept in
the Stanza del Ispettore in the Accademia in Florence, shows the
Madonna between St. Nicholas, St. Benedict, St. John the Baptist,
and St. John the Evangelist. It bears the inscription: " facta al
TEMPO DI MADONNA GRAZIA PRIMA ABATISSA MCCCXXXIII. RIFACTA AL
TEMPO DI MADONNA BRIGIDA DE RIDOLFI MCCCCCXXX." The six-
teenth-century repainting greatly modffied the decorative effect,
particularly as medallions were added between the gables and the
whole made into a rectangular shape, but the figure style remains
plain. The Madonna and the saints are arranged in the same way
as in the previous instance — they are all turned in half -profile and
the forms have the same squareness and accentuation of verticals
that we have pointed out before.
Another picture (PL 138) similarly composed belongs to the Kaiser
Friedrich Museum in Berlin. Here the Madonna is between St. Sal-
vinus and St. Benedict. It is in a good state of perservation, but un
signed; at the end of the fourteenth century a predella was added,
evidently painted by Bicci di Lorenzo, illustrating three scenes from
the life of Christ. The placing of the figures in half-profile and the
sharply defined silhouette effect are on the whole in accord with what
we have already seen, but the forms are somewhat fuller and a certain
naturalistic interest is expressed in the chUd, who is patting his
mother under the chin. On account of this difference we are in
clined to put the date of the picture forward to the middle thirties.
This triptych is further noteworthy for its clear and briUiant
coloring, which we have had no opportunity to notice in the earlier
pictures. The Madonna wears an amethyst-colored garment and a
deep blue mantle (which has suffered from repainting) ; the bishops
have embroidered mantles of cinnabar red and olive green. The
ornamental lettering of the haloes was evidently supplied in course
of restoration at the end of the fourteenth century. It is rare that
one finds in Florentine paintings of the first half of that century such
luminous and harmonious coloring. The artist evidently had a
pronounced talent for color and an interest in its decorative value
very different from what we find, for instance, in Giotto. His forms

162 GIOTTO
are not cast in a block-like, monumental mold, but are distinguished
by a certain angularity and lack of breadth. We can scarcely count
Bernardo among the immediate pupils of Giotto; he was clearly
more independent of the master than a Taddeo Gaddi or a Puccio
Capanna. Another group of Bernardo's work can conveniently be formed
round the little signed Madonna (PL 139) in the Accademia in
Florence, a picture of very small dimensions, once probably the mid
dle panel of a little domestic altarpiece. The picture bears the fol
lowing inscription: " nomine bernardus de florentia pinxit h.
OP. ANNO dom. mcccxxxii. . . ." The last numerals of the date are
no longer legible; it is possible that it originally read "1333" or
" 1334." The Madonna is here shown sitting on a niched Gothic
throne placed on a platform, approached by two steps, and set a little
back into the picture. On each side of the throne stand two pairs of
angels, and before the steps are St. Peter and St. Paul. The arrange
ment is notably clear and spacious. Before the throne there is a sig
nfficant free space, and the graceful little figures, cleverly arranged
in three rows, one behind the other, are not fastened either to the
background or to each other in any such manner as, for instance, in
the Madonna by Giotto in the same collection. A slight variation
in the attitudes and gestures of the two foremost pairs of angels
strengthens the impression of space and freedom of movement; the
artist has evidently aimed at a different goal than in the stiff altar-
pieces we have hitherto seen. He has tried to create a tridimensional
space composition, with a certain amount of movement and emo
tional relation between the figures. Notice particularly how the
child turns toward the angels. The picture hence derives a more in
timate and naturahstic tone, and has an idyllic charm rather unusual
in Florentine Trecento art.
There are several paintings by Bernardo of the same fundamental
character; they form, in fact, the most numerous group of his works.
They were usually made for small domestic or portable altarpieces
of two or three leaves. The demand for these was apparently very
great in the earlier part of the fourteenth century, and it seems that
Bernardo and his assistants developed the specialty more than other
contemporary masters. They acquired a dexterity at this small-scale
work comparable to that which became the ambition of later cabinet
painters, and it is this very quality which sets them apart from the
broader, monumental expression in fresco technique which absorbed
most of the energies of the Florentine painters of the century.

BERNARDO DADDI 163
One of the earliest smaU Madonnas of this type (PL 139) belonged
to the Sterbini collection in Rome. The Virgin is there seated on a
Gothic throne with a flat back. Two steps lead up to the throne,
which is thus again set into the picture, but the effect of depth is not
as fully developed as in the Accademia Madonna. On either side of
the throne stand two angels, and in front of them, on a lower level,
four saints, arranged in pairs. The child stands on his mother's knee
and grasps her round the neck with both arms. This gives the tone
of intimacy, but the figures are somewhat stiffer than in the preceding
picture. The forms are tender and graceful, and well rounded, al
most as though modeled in wax; the faces are narrow and long with
sharply salient noses and narrow eyes. It is not hard to recognize
the same types as in the larger altarpieces, only they have become
frailer and finer, executed as they are in a delicate, almost miniature
technique. The artist has devoted endless pains to the finishing of the
little faces and to the delicate, gold ornaments on the borders of the
mantles and on the texture draped over the back of the throne. The
rhythm of line is again dominated by strong verticals, which are here
more striking than in the previous picture because the effect of depth
is less developed. We have reason to assume that the picture was
executed earlier than the little Accademia Madonna; its relatively
severe, linear style connects it with the big triptych of the year 1328
in the Uffizi.
PracticaUy the same Madonna (PL 140) recurs in a httle diptych
in the Horne collection in Florence. The Madonna is there placed
beside a Crucffixion, which we can more conveniently study in con
nection with several similar compositions by Bernardo. The mother
and child are the same figures as in the Sterbini picture, but even
more intimately related. Affectionate familiarity is indicated by the
way the child hugs his mother while she in return presses him against
her cheek. The angels are omitted ; on either side of the throne stands
a saint, and two more saints are, as usual, placed nearer in the fore
ground. The effect of depth is about the same as in the previous
case, but the composition appears more spacious because it includes
fewer figures. The forms are better filled out and the predominance
of verticals is not quite as marked as in the Sterbini Madonna. The
picture is crowned by an arc mixtiligne, consisting of an ogee super
imposed on a broken, rounded arch — a form hardly beneficial to the
decorative impression ; its sumptuous curves hang heavy over the
delicate figures.
The same arch is repeated over a little Madonna (PL 141) in the
Naples Museum, which in other ways also is closely related to the

164 GIOTTO
Horne picture. The Madonna sits on a throne of the same simple
shape that we have seen in the two previous panels, and on either side
stand two saints. The child stands on his mother's knee, grasping her
neck-band with one hand and stroking her chin with the other. The
variations are comparatively unimportant, the same lyric tenderness
animates the picture, and no formal development is noticeable. The
only thing really worth special attention is the sonorous harmony of
color. Mary is dressed in a deep red mantle, the child wrapped in a
green coverlet; the saints wear black, white, green, and red robes.
Bernardo's coloring here shows still greater strength and originality
than in the earlier work.
A brighter color effect, partly due to excessive cleaning, is dis
played by a little triptych (PL 141) in the Bigallo collection in
Florence. This piece is of special interest, partly because it is com
pletely preserved (the wings are painted on both sides) and partly
because it is dated 1333, and therefore precedes by a year Taddeo
Gaddi's little triptych in Berlin, which shows nearly the same com
position. Bernardo's work has obviously served as a model for
Taddeo. In the middle panel is the Madonna, seated on a broad,
Gothic throne, raised on a platform and set back a considerable dis
tance into the picture, very much as in the Accademia Madonna.
Before the throne kneel two donors, man and wife, who probably
ordered this altarpiece on the occasion of a son's journey to foreign
parts, for in the wings is represented, among other things, the legend
of St. Nicholas rescuing the little Adeodatus. The saints usually
placed round the throne are here relegated to a narrow band running
outside the frame of the central panel; they are ranged in a row on
the surface, one above the other, as there is no opportunity for space
composition. To replace the saints at the sides, the artist has
elaborated the niche-shaped back and finial-crowned wings of the
throne, so that it takes almost the character of an aedicula enshrining
the Madonna. It has evidently been his aim to create an enclosed
space round the central figure, and he has drawn the seat of the
throne with exaggerated foreshortening. It is very wide in front
and rapidly narrows toward the back, and as the Madonna's mantle
is spread out over the broad front, the effect of the figure is dis
proportionately wide and heavy. The modeling has suffered m
restoration. Mary's type is entirely identical with that of the
Naples Madonna, and the chUd is the same playful bambino: he
stretches his arms toward his mother's face, as he stands on her knee,
as though to caress her, but he does not quite reach her. It is the

BERNARDO DADDI 165
same attempt to impart to the Madonna an air of natural intimacy
that we know from earher pictures.
In style, this picture falls into place between the Madonnas
in the Horne collection and the Naples Museum and the later
one in the Accademia at Florence. The space composition indi
cates an advance on the former, but is not as successfully and
unaffectedly solved as in the little Accademia picture, in which
the surrounding angels and saints are placed with almost astonish
ing precision.
The Accademia Madonna is from the formal point of view the
maturest of all the work we have considered, and it is also the one
that most clearly demonstrates the origin of Bernardo's innovations
in composition. The connection with Giotto's work is even weaker
in these pictures than in the larger altarpieces. The gracefully flex
ible design is entirely unlike the sculptural modehng developed by
Giotto, while the pronounced effort to create enclosed space com
position is also fundamentally divergent from Giotto's more relief
like method. In both respects Bernardo's paintings stand much
nearer to the creations of Ambrogio Lorenzetti. The closest corre
spondence in composition that we can find is in Ambrogio's little
Madonna in the Accademia in Siena, where the central figure
is enclosed by the arrangement of the surrounding saints,
particularly those kneeling in the foreground. The harmony of
color, also, has the same deep resonance as in Bernardo's work,
but the emotional tone has a pathos which Bernardo scarcely
approaches. Bernardo certainly had opportunity to see a considerable quantity
of Ambrogio's work, and he received a strong impression of the Sien
ese master's mature power of representation, especially his superior
solution of the pictorial problem of space and his singing color scale,
but Bernardo was not the man to appreciate fully Ambrogio's
dramatic temperament. We shall have occasion in what follows
to compare more closely the work of Ambrogio and Bernardo,
so for the present we shall merely recall that Ambrogio was living
in Florence between 1332 and 1334, that is to say, just at the time
when Bernardo was completing several of his small Madonnas. It
is manifest that Bernardo came into direct contact with the great
Sienese painter during these years and received impulses which re
tained momentum throughout his activity, but it is probable that he
later saw still more of Ambrogio's work — the Sienese influence
becomes more preponderant as the years go by. There wUl be an

166 GIOTTO
opportunity to inquire further into this when we attempt a complete
diagnosis of the artistic derivation of Bernardo's style.
Besides the little Madonnas already mentioned, there deserve
notice two small pictures (PL 142), one of them belonging to the
Vatican collection, the other to the New York Historical Society.
The compositions are both comparatively simple. In the former
the Madonna is shown unattended, and the saints are isolated in
the wing panels; in the latter she is surrounded by three angels on
either side, placed one above the other without any attempt at space.
The picture in the Vatican has been carelessly restored and changed
in shape, but the Madonna has none the less a delicate, individual
charm, thanks to the intimate relation of mother and child. The
color effect here as in the Naples picture is dominated by the Vir
gin's deep red mantle. The New York Madonna, on the other hand,
is remarkably well preserved, and appeals to us above all on ac
count of the lovable child who stands on his mother's knee and
reaches out to take a bird from one of the attendant angels. This
picture forms part of a diptych, representing in the other half a
much abbreviated Last Judgment. The common characteristics of
these pictures are the placing of the throne in the foreground and the
unusual size of the flgures in relation to the surface of the picture.
These particulars might lead us to assume that both works belong to
Bernardo's earliest period, but the good proportions and modehng
of the figures and the free drawing of the playful bambino make it
difficult to reckon them as more youthful work than the other
pictures we have studied.
This group of early, domestic altarpieces could possibly be ex
tended by the inclusion of one or two more triptychs, among them
a particularly fine one (PL 143) now in a private collection in
Stockholm, representing the enthroned Madonna between four
angels, two saints, and two kneeling donors. On the wings are
the Crucffixion and St. Francis Receiving the Stigmata. The color
effect is unusually pleasing because of its excellent preservation.
The approximate Hmit to the period we have hitherto considered
may be set by a little Madonna triptych (PL 144) in the Accademia
in Siena, dated 1336. The picture is considerably worn, but it is
interesting because it brings out the artist's endeavor to attain
unffied space composition in a characteristic manner. The Madonna
is shown in fuU front, sitting on a throne raised on a platform and set
a little back. On either side of the throne stands a band of worship
ing angels, and in the foreground, one on each side of the empty

BERNARDO DADDI 167
space, are two saints. The lines are predominantly vertical; the
whole is a firmly buUt composition so constructed that exactly those
formal elements which we have previously emphasized are most con
spicuous. The pictures in the wings show the Nativity and the Cru
cffixion, and the story of St. Nicholas saving the little Adeodatus.
As we have already remarked, there are several small Madonnas,
in triptychs or domestic altars, which illustrate in the wings scenes
from the life of Christ — usually the Nativity and the Crucffixion.
Some of these little narrative pictures are artistically interesting, but
they do not form as complete a series as the Madonnas and offer less
substantial material for the study of Bernardo's development. We
may therefore pass over them more hastily.
The Nativity is shown on the wings of the little altarpieces in the
Bigallo collection (PL 145), in the Accademia at Siena, and in the
Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin. (The last-named picture repre
sents the coronation of the Virgin in the central panel.) The com
position is practically the same in all three pictures : the scene is on
a rocky height built up in steps. Mary sits on the ledge with the child
on her knees; Joseph sits dreaming on a lower shelf, in the fore
ground; still lower down, in a corner, stand the shepherds and their
flocks. Behind Mary, higher up on the mountain-side, stands the
cradle under a shed, and round it cluster the adoring angels. The
rock usually rises up to a point back of the shed, so that only a frag
ment of golden ground is left visible. There is a rather good effect
of depth, owing to the indication of successive vertical planes by the
ledges in the rock, and the placing of the different figures. But the
pictures are stiff and the figures lack connection.
An interesting development of the Nativity theme is to be found
in one of the wings of a triptych (PL 146) belonging to Juhus Bohler
in Munich. The middle picture, which shows the Crucffixion, bears
the date 1338, and is therefore somewhat later than the works we
have so far studied. The scene is the same rocky ground divided in
to steps, but the Virgin is not sitting in the traditional attitude with
the child in her lap : she kneels beside the crib, laying the chUd in his
bed. Motherly tenderness is expressed in the natural movement.
The representation, released from the conventional scheme, appeals
to us by its idylHc tone.
In some of these smaU triptychs, as a pendant to the Nativity,
there is on the other wing a Crucffixion, a subject also occurring in
several separate pictures which probably once formed parts of smaU
altarpieces. Two main types may be distinguished among these

168 GIOTTO
relatively numerous Crucifixions: one with only a few figures, and
the other with a number of personages at the foot of the cross. The
first class is best exemplified in the triptychs in the Bigallo collection
and in the Siena Accademia, where Mary and John stand alone,
except for one kneehng saint, at the foot of the cross. The same
composition is repeated in various later pictures, one for instance, in
the Blumenthal collection. New York (PL 148). The older type of
composition, distinguished by a multitude of spectators gathered
round the foot of the cross, is the more usual in Bernardo's earlier
paintings. We find it, for instance, in Home's little diptych, in a
picture in the Accademia in Florence, and in a third (PL 147) belong
ing to Mr. D. F. Piatt of Englewood, N. J. The composition of
these three is approximately the same. The figures are divided into
two groups: to the left, Christ's relatives with the fainting Mary;
to the right, the Jews led by Longinus, proclaiming his faith with up
lifted arm; and nearest to the cross, the kneeling Magdalen. In the
dainty little side piece of the triptych in the Kaiser Friedrich
Museum (PL 149) some mounted men are added to the groups. The
effect is fuller and richer, but the space composition is none the bet
ter. The figures in all these pictures are crowded together in the
foreground and stand out directly against the abstract golden ground;
those at the back thus lose almost all corporeality and seem to be
nothing more than heads rising above those in front. The figure of
Christ is doll-like, slender, and gaunt, with arms almost like strings.
The artist has treated the subject entirely from the decorative
point of view with no deeper feehng for its dramatic importance.
Strong emotional expression is notably lacking in Bernardo's art; he
interests us chiefly because of his pure technique, his fine decorative
feeling, and his skill in space composition.
An especially characteristic example of Bernardo's attempt to
produce an effect of depth and arrange his figures in a unffied space
composition is furnished by the middle panel of the little triptych
(PL 149) in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, showing the coronation
of the Virgin. The two main figures, Mary and Christ, are placed
on a hexagonal throne under a canopy of the same shape. The
throne is raised unusually high in the picture, and before it spread
out wide steps and a free floor space, enclosed by half-circles of
standing saints and kneeling angels in double rows. These liv
ing walls terminate behind the throne, where .they are completed
by floating seraphim. The deep throne therefore stands out free as
in the middle of a room, and owing to the perspective of the can-

BERNARDO DADDI 169
opy and the depth of the niche, Christ and Mary are given full
bodUy volume. In order to make evident the extension of the
foreground, the artist has given two of the kneehng angels long
trumpets, which stretch inward in the direction of the depth diag
onals. The composition is dominated by an uiterest in space con
struction which threatens to convert it mto a mere architectural
design. The same strict principles of composition also mark Bernardo's
frescoes in Santa Croce, in Florence. These paintings, which deco
rate the Cappella Pulci, dedicated to St. Lawrence and St. Stephen,
are mentioned by Vasari as Bernardo Daddi's work. Critical exami
nation of style here entirely confirms Vasari's attribution. There
now remain only two large paintings, and a few separate figures
of saints in the entrance arch. The frescoes have suffered from
restoration, but the characteristic principles of composition none the
less remain evident. On one wall is shown Stephen before the judge
(PL 150), and the stoning; on the other, the martyrdom of St.
Lawrence (PL 151). The chief problem was in each case to present
the figures standing free in space and acting on a stage that has in
dependent existence. In the Stoning, for instance, we see St.
Stephen kneeling, surrounded by four figures which clearly mark the
four corners of a square horizontal plane, turned with one angle
pointing outward. The figure which should indicate the first corner
is set back a little so as not to hide the saint, and instead a man
tle is placed at the exact point of the angle. The three other figures
are executioners, who lift their arms to hurl stones at the kneeling
martyr; their movements emphasize the direction of the two depth
diagonals. The constructive design could not be made more
obvious. The space composition has evidently interested the artist
far more than the characterization of the figures or the dramatic
import of the scene.
In the other hah of the same painting — showing Stephen in the
presence of the judge — the chief movement of the figures follows
the relief plane. The judge sits on an elevated throne in the left
corner of the picture, pointing with outstretched arm toward
Stephen, who stands at the opposite end of the composition, look
ing upward, with raised hand. The transition or connection between
these two leading figures is made by two men, of whom the former,
seen from behind, turns and pushes Stephen by the shoulder with his
outstretched arm. This movement continues the pointing motion of
the judge. The figures are placed in an architectural setting which

170 GIOTTO
helps to define the space: the judge's seat is in a slenderly con
structed, Gothic hall, and a high doorway separates this episode
from the martyr scene. The architecture is tall and narrow, em
phasizing the stiff, vertical rhythm of line, which is also the pervading
characteristic in the figures. The poses and movements are angular
and abrupt; the spare figures have something of the mannikin.
Combined with the doU's-house setting this gives the picture a far
more unreal appearance than we find, for instance, in Giotto's Arena
frescoes, although Giotto there attempted no such realistic scenery
as Bernardo's. But Giotto's form is always significant and his com
positions are rhythmic expressions of his creative imagination, not
theoretical propositions like Bernardo Daddi's frescoes.
In the Martyrdom of St. Lawrence the space composition is
carried out on about the same principle as in the picture last de
scribed, but with greater use of architectural elements. The whole
field is occupied by one scene. Almost in the middle, a short dis
tance from the foreground, lies St. Lawrence stretched out on a grill,
and at the corners of this rectangle are placed four men, the two in
front tending the beUows and poking the fire, the others bringing
baskets of coal. The arrangement thus resembles, in principle, that
of the Stoning of Stephen. The artist has desired before all else to
stress the diagonals, but in order not to conceal the recumbent
figure he has pushed aside the two men in the foreground. Besides
these four figures about the gridiron there are four other men stand
ing two by two, forming groups with the two coal-bearers. The
formal connection is more evident than the psychological; the move
ments and gestures are throughout weak and unexpressive; they lack
entirely the inevitability so characteristic of Giotto's figures.
The architecture, as we have said, is considerably elaborated.
Furthest to the left is a delicately constructed audience chamber, in
which stands the Roman consul, who conducts the execution; this
buUding is continued back with successive angles to the background,
thereby gradually increasing the depth of the picture. Up on the
right side rises a tower, counterbalancing the hall. The architecture
is adapted as a frame to the figures and serves materially to give
stability to the rather straggling composition. The picture has suf
fered from restoration, but it certainly never had any greater decora
tive effect. It is unreal in the same way as the corresponding piece,
in that it lacks the formal qualities of weight and strength, not to
mention the movement essential to a convincing impression of
reality. Fresco composition on a large scale was not the best
medium for a painter of Bernardo's type.

BERNARDO DADDI 171
We have already in our cursory analysis of Bernardo's frescoes had
occasion to notice their fundamental dissimilarity to Giotto's work.
It is plain that the artist did not derive his inspiration from that
source; one can more easily trace a certain resemblance to the paint
ings of the so-called St. Cecilia-master, especially in the Hght and
slender, architectural forms. The theory has been advanced that
Bernardo Daddi was the St. Cecilia-master's pupil.' That is con
ceivable, but far from certain. The determining influence on Ber
nardo's art seems in any case to have come from Siena, or more
definitely from Ambrogio Lorenzetti. In this master we find the
same pronounced attempt to create space as such, to represent a tri
dimensional scene in which the figures can freely move. Ambrogio's
frescoes in San Francesco in Siena are the best examples of this
tendency. It is not impossible that Bernardo saw these paintings,
although such an assumption is by no means necessary to explain the
close relation between Bernardo and Ambrogio. The older master
lived in Florence, as we have pointed out, in the early thirties, and
Bernardo can scarcely have failed to devote close attention to the
principles which Ambrogio developed in his productions. It would
be too much to say that Bernardo's art was wholly derived from
Ambrogio's; that would be an underestimate of Bernardo's Floren
tine environment. It has already been suggested that his frescoes
are to some degree parallel with the work of the St. Cecilia-master,
who in tum bears a very important relation to Giotto. As Ber
nardo, however, devoted himself chiefly to a problem entirely unlike
that which normally occupied Giotto's pupils, it is natural that his
artistic character should diverge from the common type of Giotto's
circle. Yet we find at least one work by Bernardo Daddi in which the
relation to the Giotto school appears obvious. We refer to the big
Madonna (PL 152) in San Giorgio a RubaUa near Florence. This
work, which vividly recaUs Taddeo Gaddi's creations, may well be
described as a derivative from the primitive type of Giotto's Ma
donna in Ognissanti. The composition is about the same as in the
little picture in the Naples Museum: two pairs of angels stand at
the sides of the Madonna's throne, and in front of them, in the fore
ground, two saints, Matthias and George. As the scale of the figures
has been increased to about two-thirds of life size, the character of
delicate cabinet painting has here entirely disappeared, but there is
no compensating advance in plastic quahty, no strong development
' Cf. Suida, "Studien zur Trecentomalerei," Repertorium fiir Kunstwissenschaft, xxvii.

172 GIOTTO
of organic structure in the figures, which have merely become bigger
and heavier dummies. The Madonna, especially, has acquired dis
tended breadth from her mantle, smoothly draped without any
deeper folds. Oddly enough, the faces also seem to have become
more like Taddeo's in this picture than in any other work of Ber
nardo's. What one misses here is the characteristic deepening of the
space to which we have called attention in the smaller pictures: the
Madonna's throne is moved much nearer to the foreground so that
the two saints barely have room in front of it, and the little kneeling
donor is actuaUy outside the picture. It is plain that the painter
felt himself far more closely confined to the example of older models
in this big altarpiece than in the little pictures. He has here made
his effort in the direction of robust massive form rather than of
ample space effect, but neither his talent nor his training was
adapted to this end. This picture is among Bernardo's least success
ful performances, but it has great interest as historical evidence that,
in one period at least, Bernardo was in very close contact with the
workshop of Giotto. It is natural to assume that this contact was
closest before he had come under the influence of Ambrogio Loren
zetti, that is to say before 1332, but on the other hand it is quite pos
sible that when it came to the execution of a big altarpiece, like the
Madonna in San Giorgio a Ruballa, he turned toward older prece
dents than he was accustomed to follow in his smaller works. Natural
istic progress always appeared first in small-scale paintings — in
miniatures, predeUa panels, and little altarpieces — before it made
its way into the big, monumental works. In other words, it is not
necessary to date this Madonna among Bernardo's earliest pictures
because it is more archaic in style than most of his work; but we
think it probable that it was completed before the middle of the
decade 1330-40. After that time — in the later thirties — a gradual
change takes place in Bernardo's style and method of expression.
We can follow this in a number of Madonnas and altarpieces which
next demand our attention.
We have already made some reference to the transitional char
acter of the little triptych in Siena, dated 1336, in which the Ma
donna is represented in full front with comparatively soft and
rounded contours. The picture is in bad condition, and therefore is
not a favorable example. Very closely related to it is a little Ma
donna on one wing of the altarpiece belonging to Julius Bohler in
Munich, which, as we have noted, shows on the middle panel a
Crucffixion with an unusual number of figures. This altarpiece is

BERNARDO DADDI 173
dated 1338. The Virgin sits on the usual high throne, set back some
distance, surrounded by four saints in pans on either side. The tone
of the colormg is brighter than in the precedmg picture and the
figures show a noticeable softness in modeling.
This same general quality becomes more evident in a large painting
(PL 153) in the church of San Giusto a Signano, near Florence, buUt
on the same compositional plan. Peter and Paul stand on either side
of the Madonna, in the foreground, and behind them are two angels,
one of whom hands a rose to the chUd, who turns round sidewise and
reaches out his hand to take the flower. The Madonna has an
unusuaUy monumental appearance; her height in proportion to the
saints and angels is considerably increased, and her form has fullness
and breadth in excess of anything we have hitherto seen among
Bernardo's Madonnas. The space composition is not very far
developed, yet it is somewhat better than in the larger picture at
Ruballa, with which one naturally compares this altarpiece because
of its size. These two Madonnas, in San Giorgio a Ruballa and in
San Giusto a Signano, are the only two of their kind by Bernardo
that we know of. That considerable time elapsed between their
execution is obvious, both from the dissimUarity in the treatment of
form and the difference in color effect. In the Ruballa Madonna
the colors are relatively deep and saturated, and the whole effect is
warm but not luminous; in Signano the color harmony is light,
dominated by the pale green of the angels' garments and the pink of
Mary's. The effect was probably more luminous when first painted
than it is now, as the picture has seriously suffered from wear and
renewal. These two big Madonnas are of unusual interest for the
study of Bernardo's growth because on the one hand, especially in
the case of the earlier picture, they connect him with the school of
Giotto, and on the other they demonstrate his effort toward a more
pictorial treatment of form and a lighter scale of coloring. But
neither of them gives any accurate expression of the artist's central
interest in constructive space composition. This appears more
fuUy in the smaU pictures and in the two large frescoes, which must
for the most part be assigned to the period from 1332 to 1336. Sub
sequently the constructive interest yields to a more unffied decora
tive design, and the forms become meUower.
We have already pointed out this change in the San Giu.sto
Madonna; we find it fuUy displayed in a Madonna which occupies
the center of a little triptych in the Altenburg Museum (PL 154).
The Madonna is here placed on a throne with a Gothic canopy. She

174 GIOTTO
sits some little distance back, leaving room for two samts in front, and
four figures, two angels and two saints, on distinctly smaller scale
than the Virgin, on either side of the throne. The chUd is a lively
bambino, balancing in a rather insecure position on his mother's knee,
reaching one arm across his body to take a flower offered by one of
the saints, and tightly clutchiag a bird in his other hand. His mother
raises a warning finger. The situation has a flavor of chUdish
naughtiness, and gives a more intimate interpretation of the subject
than we usually find in Florentine pictures of the period. The Ma
donna, who is a trffie corpulent, is wearing a mantle which is not
divided over her knees (as was usual earlier) but wraps the whole
figure, uniting it in a broad mass. The saints are stUl thin, but their
proportions are less elongated than before; their contours have
softened, their faces filled out. Yet the similarity in type to the
figures in the Signano picture is sufficiently plain to convince us of
the master's identity. The two Madonnas, especially, are so much
alike that no doubt as to their common artistic origin seems possible.
The wing pictures of this triptych show the Nativity and the Calvary
according to the same iconographie scheme which we have described
in several of the earlier, smaU altarpieces. The compositions have
no new features, but here again one notices the same modffications
ia the method of expression as in the central piece.
Development along the Hnes indicated continues in several later
pictures; among these the big altarpiece (PL 155) from San Pancrazio
(now in the Accademia in Florence) takes a prominent place. It is an
ancona of unusual size, which in its original state, when the upper
portion of the Gothic frame was still in existence, must have made a
magnfficent effect. In the midst sits the Madonna enthroned; on
either side of her, on separate panels bordered by twisted columns
and Gothic, trefoU arches, stand three saints. Above these are
ranged fourteen prophets in half-length, and under the whole picture
runs a high predella comprising eight small scenes from the life of
the Virgin, in round-arched compartments.
The general arrangement in this ancona is practically the same as
in several other large altarpieces from the middle of the fourteenth
century; it is not the composition but the luminous harmony of
color that fascinates us at first sight. The figures furthest out in the
wings, St. Pancras and St. Reparata, are in sky blue and oHve green;
the next two youths, St. Nereus and St. Archilleus, have white and
cinnabar mantles; nearest the Madonna, St. John the Evangelist and
St. John the Baptist wear respectively bright blue and rose. The

BERNARDO DADDI 175
Madonna (PL 156) has a pale red garment and over it an ultramarine
mantle which, however, has darkened. Round the throne are little
angels, standmg and kneehng, in light-colored garments, domg hom
age with flowers and music, lUse a wreath of fan sprmg blossoms
round the throne of the Mother of God.
The impression of space, which might have been produced by the
circular arrangement of the attendant angels, is spoUed by the over
powering and unwieldy figure of the Madonna. Both mother
and child are even rounder and heavier than in any of the pictures
we have seen heretofore, and they are out of proportion to the circu
lar space formed by the little angels at the foot of the throne. The
artist's attempt to enliven the faces of the mother and child with
smUes has not brought a very happy result. It is perhaps just
because of their forced and ineffective expression that the figures
seem even more toy-like than before.
The six separate figures of saints are better proportioned, but show
the same heavy build and limply rounded contours. They stand
alternately facing halfway or fully inward toward the Madonna, but
none of them is brought into closer relation with her by any life-like
motion or gesture. There is no question here of space; it is merely
a series of figures spread out on the surface, undeniably beautiful as
decoration on account of the soft lines and the brilliant colors play
ing against the golden ground. Inasmuch as they thus fulfill their
function successfuUy, we have no reason to expect of them any such
plastic reality of form as we find in Giotto's productions.
The most interesting part of the whole ancona is unquestionably
the series of little scenes from the life of the Virgin and her parents
composing the predella, but before we take up this it is convenient
to run briefly over several other Madonnas connected in style with
that last described. The most interesting of these are a pair of
half-length pictures, one belonging to Mr. Bernard Berenson in
Settignano (PL 157) ; of the other, which in 1908 was in the posses
sion of the artist A. Frattini in Rome, we have now lost track.
In both pictures Mary is turned half to the left with her head in
clined, looking sidelong down at the robust child, whom she holds
sitting on her hands. In Mr. Berenson's picture the child grasps the
mother's neck-band and leans back, impatiently kicking; in the other,
the chUd snuggles close to his mother, holding fast to her veU and
pressing his cheek against hers. The pose is unusuaUy affectionate
and sympathetic. The types of Mary and the child are in both cases
very reminiscent of those in the big Accademia ancona, although the

176 GIOTTO
plumpness is less accentuated, and the faces are not distorted by any
attempted smiles. The gentle, dreamy spirit of the Roman picture
is greatly accentuated by the light coloring: the Madonna has a
white garment beneath her deep blue mantle.
A third half-length Madonna belonging to the same category is
owned by Mr. GrenvUle L. Winthrop in New York (PL 157). The
picture is badly worn, but the composition has unusual charm,
thanks to the affectionate grouping of the mother and child: she
presses him to her breast with both hands and rests her head against
his cheek. The child apparently feels constrained by her endearments
and struggles to free himself. The composition is more graceful and
natural than in any other of Bernardo's Madonnas, and at the same
time remarkable for its closed form, in that the child is iacluded al
most entirely within the outline of Mary's figure.
A fourth picture, also representing the Madonna in half-length
with a robust and kicking bambino on her arm, is in the collection of
Mrs. J. L. Gardner in Boston. The Madonna belongs to the same
group as those just described, though the composition is a little
stiffer and less intimate. In artistic quality this picture is not quite
as fine as some of the others, for instance the Roman Madonna.
One more half-length Madonna which may be mentioned because
of its correspondence in composition to the previous ones belongs to
the Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin (No. 1040, formerly attrib
uted to Agnolo Gaddi). The picture is of fine decorative effect and
the general pattern of the composition is evidently Bernardo's, but
the execution is by some pupU of the master.
An approximate dating of these Madonnas is possible on the
ground of their resemblance in composition and style to the large
Madonna which Bernardo, according to documentary evidence,
executed for the Compagnia di Or San Michele (PL 159) in the year
1347. To be sure, this picture underwent thorough restoration at
the beginning of the fifteenth century, but the main features of the
composition, the type of the Madonna, and the general tendency
of form, are still discernible. It is easy to see that the Madonna's
plump face with the sidelong glance, and also the sturdy child, coin
cide very closely with what we have described in Mr. Berenson's
and Signor Frattini's pictures. These three Madonnas are evidently
sisters, made about the same time. The composition in the Or San
Michele picture is, however, especially archaic, with its vertically
ranged angels on either side of the throne. It looks as if Bernardo
had here consciously followed some older model of some such type of

BERNARDO DADDI 177
composition as we know from the " Madonna Rucellai " in Santa
Maria Novella.
To judge by the characteristic qualities of form and color in these
Madonnas, which date from about the middle forties, Bernardo
must have received new impulses from Sienese art at about that
time. One is almost tempted to assume that he was living in the
Citta deUa Madonna at that period, so strongly are these works
dominated by Sienese elements of style. It is not only the general,
underlying Sienese qualities, such as the soft, rounded forms and the
luminous, shadowless coloring; more special traits appear in some of
these compositions.
We find, for instance, that the Madonna (PL 158) which belonged
to Signor Frattini in Rome repeats, with unimportant variations, the
same composition which Ambrogio employed in two of his well
known Madonnas, one in Rapolano, the other (PL 158) in Mr. D. F.
Piatt's collection in Englewood, N. J. (formerly in Sant Eugenio,
Siena). The Rapolano Madonna, particularly — now very much
worn — is almost the counterpart of the Frattini picture. Not
only do the types and compositional forms correspond, but both
show the same intimate conception. Bernardo gives a milder varia
tion of that intensity of affection which vibrates through most of
Ambrogio's creations, as we find not only in the two pictures above
mentioned, but in his Madonnas in San Francesco and in the Acca
demia at Siena. In the weU known San Francesco picture the chUd
is more animated, kicking in a way which recalls Mr. Berenson's pic
ture, though with the difference that Ambrogio's little boy moves
much more freely than Bernardo's stiff doll. The Madonna theme,
in general, received a naturalistic interpretation much earlier in
Siena than in Florence. The Madonna was to the Sienese a more
tender mother than to the Florentines, who usually looked upon her
from a distance and represented her in hieratic dignity.
It is by no means in Madonnas only that Bernardo's dependence
in the forties on the great Sienese masters is evident. It is equaUy
plain in several, small predella pictures, for instance, those of the large
ancona in the Accademia in Florence, or the scenes from the legend
of St. Stephen in the Vatican Gallery. All these compositions are
very surprising in the midst of Florentine Trecento art.
The first picture in the Accademia predella is the Expulsion of
Joachim from the Temple. The composition shows no trace of
resemblance to Giotto's or Taddeo's version of the same incident.
The model seems rather to have been Ambrogio Lorenzetti's familiar

178 GIOTTO
picture of the Presentation in the Temple, dated 1342, now in the
Accademia in Florence. The scene is in both cases a Gothic church
interior with three aisles, shown ia foreshortening. The high priest
stands in the choir, behind the altar, and in the foreground are the
figures, divided into two groups so that the vista through the nave
is uninterrupted. This skUfuUy designed interior is of splendid
decorative effect, though Bernardo's is less monumental than his
model. The second predella piece represents Joachim, weary and sad, on
his way back to the shepherds on the mountains, sitting down to rest
at the side of a brook. The sheep and the sheep-dog come down to
drink and two shepherds follow them along the path. Old Joachim
does not notice them; he has fallen asleep and hears in his dream the
voice of the descending angel. The mountain landscape is bare and
silent; the golden ground has the tone of gleaming evening sky. In
composition this landscape might be compared to some of the small
views in the Santa Umilita ancona by Pietro Lorenzetti in the
Accademia in Florence, dated 1341.
In the third picture we see Joachim and Anna meeting at the
Golden Gate. The qomposition is in great part filled with architec
ture of rather feeble construction. The main figures do not express
the emotional significance of the situation; they are stiff and indiffer
ent. More expressive are the two conversing shepherds who follow
Joachim. The artist has not been able to infuse anything like the
same importance into this incident that Giotto did, and his com
position is lacking in rhythmic beauty.
The Birth of Mary (PL 160), the fourth picture, is again an in
terior, in which a remarkably good space design forms the founda
tion of the decorative effect. Anna sits upright in the vast bed,
which is drawn in side view, with exaggerated foreshortening. She
wears a gold-embroidered, light blue dress, and washes her hands in
a golden bowl into which a servant is pouring water. The bedcover
is cinnabar red. The drapery which shuts off the bed alcove on the
right is drawn aside to admit two women in light-colored garments,
bearing gifts. Two other women bathe the newborn infant in a shal
low bowl in the foreground. These are all supple, graceful figures, in
costumes with simple folds; their movements are quiet and re
strained; the play of line has a soft and gentle rhythm. The success
ful space composition recalls some of Ambrogio Lorenzetti's interiors
in the small St. Nicholas pictures in the Accademia at Florence.
The fiith picture, also, the Presentation of the Virgin in the
Temple (PL 160), is a colorful and decorative composition, but its

BERNARDO DADDI 179
effect is to some degree impaired by the faulty drawing of the tem
ple portico, in which the artist has again attempted a foreshortening
beyond his skill. The thin, unstable architecture does not cooperate
as successfully as in the previous picture with the graceful figures.
The sixth picture, representing the marriage of the Virgin, is no
longer in position; it was evidently removed before the ancona was
transferred from San Pancrazio to the Accademia, and now hangs in
the Royal Collection in Buckingham Palace, London.
The Annunciation, again, shows a beautiful space composition,
with only two figures, who have plenty of room in the airy loggia.
The kneeling angel and the humble Virgin are drawn with aU Ber
nardo's admirable grace. The quiet, flowing lines of the composition
harmonize perfectly with the virginal sweetness of the Annunciation
story. The Nativity, the last of the series, takes place in an open mountain
landscape in the half-light of early morning. The cradle stands on
the rock, under a shed. The mother, kneehng, hfts a corner of the
coverlet and lays her hand protectingly on the baby. Joseph sits
with his back turned to the spectator, curiously watching the child.
One of the shepherds comes down the mountain path with his sheep
and his dogs; the others, who have lingered higher up, do not seem
yet to have understood the jubilation of the angels. The celestial
music is performed on an orchestra of zithers, violins, trumpets, and
mandolins. This composition displays a novel iconographie design
for the Nativity subject.' The kneeling Virgin connects it with the
new form of representation of the Nativity which gains such popu
larity through Lorenzo Monaco and Fra FUippo, where the tone of
mystic adoration replaces the realistic narration. Bernardo has also
contrived a suggestion of somnolent night by the use of subdued light
and aerial perspective.
Most surprising in aU these pictures is the formal flexibUity with
which the different compositional problems are solved. Though not
highly imaginative, the recasting of reality is carried through with
undeniable poetic feehng and a suppleness which, particularly in the
interiors, is most captivating. We have here the same lyrical reahsm
so characteristic of the illustrations by Sienese masters of the tradi
tional legends. We are reminded, for instance, of Ambrogio's St.
Nicholas series in the Florence Accademia, or Simone Martini's
scenes from the legend of Beato Agostmo NoveUo in San Agostino at
1 Taddeo Gaddi represented the Virgin kneeling beside the cradle, but without the same
tone of intimacy and poetic sentiment.

180 GIOTTO
Siena. In these smaU narrative pictures we meet the same ready
and suggestive solution of the artistic problems of space — either
landscape or interior — as in Bernardo's predella pieces, and a simi
lar supple and fluent drawing in the figures, but the Sienese have a
stiU surer feeling for the expressional value of rhythm of line, and
they generaUy give more suggestive hints of the dramatic or emo
tional import. Bernardo's art appears a little flat and monotonous
alongside of theirs.
Bernardo has, however, created individual works with admirably
expressive rhythm of line. Among these should be pointed out a
small picture in the Jarves collection at New Haven (PL 161), prob
ably once part of a predella along with two other pictures of the same
form, one now in the Musee des Arts Decoratifs (PL 161) in Paris,
and the other in the Museum at Posen. These represent scenes
from the lives of St. Dominic and St. Peter Martyr.
The Jarves picture shows the vision of St. Dominic. The friar,
in black, kneels at one side, reaching his arms up toward two apostles,
St. Peter and St. Paul, who float downward; St. Peter offers him a
sword, St. Paul a book. The figures, kneeling and floating, stand out
in sharply defined silhouette against the golden ground. They are
wrapped in traUing mantles, and their swinging contours form living
curves of motion linked together by means of the outstretched arms.
A rhythmic wave motion is thus carried obhquely across the picture,
suggesting on the one hand the giving and inspiring power of the
floating saints, on the other the aspiration and devotion of the recip
ient. Here Bernardo appears as a true poet of line. The picture in
the Musee des Arts Decoratifs represents St. Peter Martyr stopping
a runaway horse, while preaching in the piazza. The problem of a
mass of people gathered in front of the preacher is a much less appo
site subject for Bernardo's draughtsmanship than the three silhouettes
of the previous picture. The Posen panel shows St. Dominic saving
a ship in a storm.
The eight smaU pictures of the legend of St. Stephen (Pis. 162, 163),
in the Vatican Gallery, also were evidently once parts of a predella.
The writer some years ago explained their subjects, previously un
solved.' The first picture shows the stoning of the young deacon. He
kneels to the right, bending forward with clasped hands. Three men
stand behind him in aggressive attitudes with arms raised to throw
stones at him. The movement, which takes place in the relief plane,
' Cf. "Notizie critiche sui quadri sconosciuti nel Museo Cristiano Vaticano," L'Arte,
Anno IX, Fasc. 5.

BERNARDO DADDI 181
has remarkable swing and speed. As a counterbalance to the kneel
ing martyr, a standing figure is introduced in the lower left-hand
corner. The scene is enclosed by a gray hiUside and some dark trees.
The picture is expressive: the vivid rhythm of Hne in the assault of
the executioners is most effective.
The following pictures of this series illustrate the recovery of the
martyr's body, his solemn entombment, and certain miracles per
formed above his grave. Thus in the second panel we find the holy
Gamaliel appearing in a dream to Lucianus to tell him where the
remains of Stephen are concealed. The patriarch, clad in a white
mantle, is floating over a bed with a red coverlet, on which the
elderly deacon lies sleeping. In front of the bed stand four jars,
three of gold and one of silver. Two of these are filled with red roses,
the third with white; the silver jar contains sweet-smelling saffron.
According to the legend, Gamaliel explains the meaning of the jars
in this way: " These are our relics. The red roses represent St.
Stephen, who lies at the entrance to the tomb. The second jar is
that of St. Nicodemus, who also lies close to the entrance; the silver
jar represents my son Abida who passed from this life pure and
unspotted; his body lies close to mine." Gamaliel then disappears.
The composition is highly suggestive, thanks to the two light-
colored figures and their clear, rhythmically unified play of line in the
room empty except for the bed and the four jars. It reminds us
somewhat of the picture in the Jarves collection.
The next picture, composed on similar principles, represents
Lucianus kneeling before the Bishop of Jerusalem, who sits on his
chair of office to the right of the picture, attended by two monks.
Lucianus is near the middle of a bare room, and in a doorway to the
left stands a servant. The composition is beautifully balanced.
The main figure dominates by his isolation in the middle, and his
connection with the bishop is established by means of their out
stretched arms. Both figures are represented in full profile. The
lines flow gently from the seated to the kneeling figure, suggesting
the quiet and intimate tone of their conversation concerning the
miraculous dream and the place where the relics of St. Stephen are
to be sought.
In the fourth picture we see how the bodies of the four martyrs
were disinterred in the presence of sundry, high church dignitaries
and a crowd of curious men. " Hardly had they opened St. Ste
phen's coffin when a trembling of the earth was felt and a lovely
fragrance spread far around." The task of representing a large mass

182 GIOTTO
of people gathered about the digging men exposes the artist's serious
limitations. He has as usual attempted to produce an effect of space,
a scene where the action is made visible by the arrangement of the
figures in a semicircular wall, isolating the area in which the diggers
work. These men are placed at the four comers of the open grave
just as the executioners are placed at the four corners of St. Law
rence's grill in the Santa Croce fresco. An open scene effect has been
approximated by this device, but the mass of men is crowded to
gether; the artist has been unable to represent figures behind each
other in the same horizontal plane. The decorative effect is therefore
less satisfactory than in the previous pictures.
In the fifth picture the relics of St. Stephen are borne in solemn
procession to Jerusalem. This took place on December 26, 415. The
legend goes on: " Stephen's body had been reduced to ashes, yet the
bones were found in their original position. Subsequently a small
part of the martyr's relics was left at Cafargamala, and the rest was
placed in an urn and borne amid the singing of psalms and hymns to
the Church of Zion in Jerusalem." The artist has substituted for
the urn a coffin, carried on the shoulders of six deacons. Before the
coffin walk the Bishops of Sebaste and Jericho, and in front of them
the singing choristers. The composition is thus entirely dominated
by a series of parallel verticals contrasting with the long horizontals
of the casket, and from these it derives a solemn monumental
character. The sixth picture shows the working of miracles at St. Stephen's
grave. The sick and the crippled kneel round the altar where the
saint's relics are deposited; overhead rises a low, groined vault sup
ported on four columns. The artist has taken fuU advantage of this
arrangement to enclose the whole composition in an architectonic
space which satisfactorUy combines the figures and brings out the
third dimension. The cripples who prostrate themselves round the
altar sarcophagus and the subdued light under the low vault effec
tively suggest a tone of mystic faith and wondering expectancy.
In the seventh picture we again see a solemn procession of deacons
bearing the coffin, followed by the same richly attired prelates. This
represents the final transfer of the relics to Rome. The composition
is a counterpoise to the preceding procession.
The last picture of the series represents the interment of St. Ste
phen in the grave where St. Lawrence had already been laid. In
order to make room for both, St. Lawrence, " the courteous Span
iard," had to move a little. The ensconsing of the two young saints

BERNARDO DADDI 183
takes place in the presence of the Pope and attendant cardinals and
bishops, who form a semicircle round the sarcophagus, some of them
bending forward to help put St. Stephen in place. Outside this
circle stand a number of sufferers, among them a possessed woman
whose devU is taking flight. The little crypt, which is closed in
by a low ceUing on columns, is so crowded that the figures are
crushed against each other; the whole effect is rather obscure and
confused. Originally these little pictures were apparently distinguished by a
light and clear color scale, but they are now darkened by dirt and
smoke. One surmises more than one sees of their beauty of color.
But the attractive compositions and the charm of the figure drawing
maintains them in a place of honor among Bernardo's most delicate
and expressive work.
Characteristically enough these pictures have been ascribed by
several authorities to Sienese painters. Crowe and Cavalcaselle
assigned them to Pietro Lorenzetti, and were followed in this
attribution by Thode. Berenson once ascribed them to Ambrogio
Lorenzetti (cf. Central Italian Painters, first edition); this dis
tinguished authority has long since abandoned that opinion, but it
was given further currency by E. von Meyerburg in his monograph
on Ambrogio Lorenzetti.' Venturi sees in them the same hand as in
the Allegories in the Lower Church in Assisi.^ Several students, how
ever, have independently reached the same conviction as ours, that
the pictures were painted by Bernardo Daddi.
It is particularly interesting to note that several of the best experts
on early Italian art have designated these pictures as Sienese; we
have again and again had occasion to point out Bernardo's close
dependence on contemporary Sienese art, and have even hazarded
the guess that Bernardo for some time worked in Siena. A careful
comparison of these scenes with the predeUa compositions under the
large ancona in the Accademia in Florence can leave no doubt that it
was Bernardo who painted them. The fluently turned flgures are
in both cases the same, and so are the dainty, doU-like types. The
simUarities are unmistakable to those who take the trouble to make
careful comparison; and furthermore we meet in both series the
same kind of space design and architectural motffs, the same soft,
linear style, and the same beguUing realism.
Is nothing more known as to the original situation or purpose of
these predella pieces ? We must answer, nothing certain. We can-
> Zurich, 1903. ' Storia, v, 486.

184 GIOTTO
not, however, refrain from a hypothesis that seems satisfactory so far
as we can judge from style, but needs corroboration by measurements
which we have not had opportunity to make. Is it not conceivable
that these Httle pictures formed the predeUa under the large altarpiece
(PL 164) in Sir Hubert Parry's collection at Highnam Court ? In
this five-leaved polyptych St. Lawrence and St. Stephen occupy the
most prominent places in the wings. They are fully Aasible, whereas
their companions, St. Andrew and St. James, are half hidden. The
two other pairs of saints, standing closer to the central Crucifixion,
are St. Peter and St. Paul, and St. Bartholomew and St. George. It
is not only conceivable but probable that St. Stephen and St. Law
rence were the patrons of the church or chapel for which this picture
was painted, (cf. the placing of St. Pancras in the Florentine
ancona) and if this were the case the predella presumably represented
scenes from the legend of St. Stephen.
The Highnam Court altarpiece bears the following inscription:
" ANO DNI MCCCXLVIII BERNARDUS PINXIT ME QUEM PLORENTIB
finsit." The date gives to this picture an unusual historic interest:
it illustrates the last stage in the artistic evolution of Bernardo. The
figure style is fundamentally the same as in the Florentine ancona —
the rounded faces and the full forms with softly falling draperies are
equally characteristic in both — but the coloring is paler, perhaps
because the artist died before the completion of the work.
In the central panel is represented the Crucffixion, a composition
rich in figures, designed on the same principle as in the Httle triptych
at Bohler's in Munich. The Magdalen kneels, clasping the foot of
the cross; to the left are the relatives of Christ, gathering round the
swooning Mary; to the right, the soldiers who cast lots for the gar
ment. Behind both groups rise mounted men, among them Longinus,
on the right, pointing toward Christ. The space effect is even
weaker than in the smaller picture; the figures are compressed and
partly cut off by the frame. At the same time their forms have
become fuller and heavier, thereby naturally detracting from the
impression of space. This painting is a rather unfortunate enlarge
ment of the composition of earlier small panels. It hardly counter
balances the large saints on the wings. As the central part does not
rise to dominate the whole, the general decorative impression is
unsatisfactory; it seems almost as if one might here detect declining
power and relaxed appreciation of decorative line composition. The
drawing, too, of the individuals is a trffie slacker than in the previous
works of the master. The wide mantles hang like sacks round the

BERNARDO DADDI 185
broad figures, which are cut into, in a disquieting way, by the spindly
frames. This was, as we know, by no means the case in the Floren
tine ancona, where the figures appear free-standing in complete
silhouette of line and color against the golden ground; the forms
there are clearer, and they have despite their softness a firmer tec
tonic structure. Nevertheless both faces and hands, as weU as
draperies, are closely corresponding in the two altarpieces. There is
no room for doubt as to the identity of the master. Some years,
however, must have elapsed between the execution of the two large
pictures. As the later is dated with the year of Bernardo's death, it
is probable that it was completed by assistants.
In connection with the central picture in the Highnam Court
polyptych we wish to refer to three smaller Crucffixions, one in the
coUection of Mr. H. Harris, London; the other in the Uffizi, and the
third in the Accademia, Florence (PL 165). The first one, which is of
small dimensions is by far the finest in quality; the slender, carefuUy
modeled figures correspond closely to the small figures in the St.
Stephen pictures in the Vatican GaUery. It is a little masterpiece,
by Bernardo himself, though not in the best state of preservation.
The two larger Crucifixions are evidently later, and neither of them
can be unreservedly endorsed as the master's own work. Both
represent the subject according to the same principles of composi
tion : the Magdalen kneeling at the foot of the cross, embracing the
post; St. John to the right, facing inward, looking up at Christ; the
Virgin at the left, her face averted, weeping, with hands clasped
under her chin. Small angels collect the blood of the Redeemer in
cups. The Uffizi picture shows somewhat thinner, suppler figures
than in the Accademia, and is on the whole more characteristic of
Bernardo's manner, but it is not well preserved. The Accademia
picture has broader, heavier flgures, and we are more inclined to re
gard this as a product of his workshop.
With these pictures, then, we have reached the limit of Bernardo's
individual achievement, and it is only too probable that some of the
later pieces which might be associated with his name were done in
large part by assistants in his studio. There are, however, one or
two which we feel ought to be mentioned in a description of Ber
nardo's works. Particularly interesting is a little painting, closely
related to the predellas in Florence and Rome, belonging to the
Prato Gallery. This consists of seven Ulustrations of the legend of
the holy girdle of the Virgin, which is counted as the most precious
relic of the Prato Cathedral. The scenes are not separated on

186 GIOTTO
different panels, but form a continuous series withia a uniting
frame. First we see the apostles gathered round the tomb of Mary, which
she has just left; then St. Thomas showing a girdle to the other
apostles, who all stand in a group in front of a church (PL 166).
The third picture shows the marriage of the famous Pratese, Michele
Dragomari, and the fourth an elderly woman giving Michele a basket
in which to bring home the holy girdle. Both these pictures are in
teriors, with the same intimate character as some of the most attrac
tive pictures in the St. Stephen series. They attest Bernardo's art of
creating, with the simplest means — only three figures in a bare
room — a tone of homely quiet and decorative refinement. The
fifth picture illustrates the voyage of Dragomari to Palestine — and
here the limitations of the artist are more evident than his merits.
The sixth represents the sleeping Dragomari on his deathbed, com
mitting the basket with the holy girdle to a canon of the Prato
Cathedral. These small scenes offer no new element in the characterization
of Bernardo's art. They merely confirm what we have already
observed in the works of this amiable cabinet painter; they have
the same suggestive lyrical naturalism and softly decorative rhythm
of line that we have already pointed out in the earlier predellas, but
they are more uneven, and not quite up to the master's standard in
space composition.
There are two small predella fragments with subjects from the
legend of St. Cecilia in the Museum at Pisa, very attractive both in
color and in illustrative arrangement. They were probably executed
by Bernardo himself. Two more small fragments of about the same
size are in the storeroom of the Uffizi. It seems, however, unessen
tial to dwell on the description of every little bit of Bernardo's work
which may have been preserved when we have already analyzed the
more important productions in which his artistic individuality is
most clearly manifested.
Bernardo, on the whole, is a master who does not surprise us by
any sudden leaps in his development. He remains from first to
last the same gentle and sensitive painter, who attains his happiest
results in small Madonna triptychs and narrative predella pieces, but
who lacks the power to create larger monumental compositions. His
naturahsm is almost comparable to that of the miniaturists, and his
fine feehng for soft line is not combined with any corresponding
sense for tectonic structure. The flower-hke charm which distill-

BERNARDO DADDI 187
guishes the best of his frail, tenderly glowing httle Madonnas is
unequaled in the work of any other Florentine Trecento master. Its
home is among the verdant hiUs of Siena.
Bemardo was, to be sure, bom a Florentine, and his art reveals at
the beginning a remarkably speculative feature, particularly in its
attempt to develop tridimensional space composition, but it appears
that his emotional and imaginative nature could not get the desired
nourishment in Florence; he was evidently carried, as years went by,
into increasingly closer contact with the art of Siena, flrst with the
works of Ambrogio Lorenzetti, later on probably with the creations
of other Sienese masters from the following of Ambrogio and Simone.
He thus acquired a position connecting the art of Florence and the
art of Siena during the second quarter of the fourteenth century, and
hence became of unusual importance in the development of painting
in the city on the Arno. The art of Bernardo forms the starting-
point for the preponderant pictorial trend which gains further ground
in Florence during the later fourteenth century in comparison with
the more plastic and monumental style which started from Giotto.
Bernardo evidently had a large following among the younger
Florentine painters, and we have reason to believe that several of
them worked as assistants in his bottega. We judge of these from
PL 167. Among these should, of course, be named in the first place
his son, Daddo di Bernardo, inscribed in the Compagnia di San Luca
in 1351 and in the Arte dei Medici e Speziali in 1358, who perhaps
executed certain of the works in which the style of Bernardo is con
tinued in a somewhat coarser form. As examples of these later
products of Bernardo's bottega — possibly by Daddo — should be
mentioned a large triptych ia the Galleria Corsini in Florence,
representing the Madonna between four saints, and a still larger
Coronation (PL 168) in the Uffizi. The most characteristic feature
in these paintings is the extremely heavy, shortwaisted figures with
large heads and wry mouths. The same characteristics are also evi
dent in the half-length Madonna in Berlin, already mentioned, and in
an altar wing representing St. Catherine and St. Lawrence, in the
University Museum in Gottiogen — to note only a few examples from
among a great number of school pictures.
A better known painter, active for some time in the bottega
of Bernardo, was Alegretto Nuzi, who after settling in the Romagna
became the leading master in that part of Italy, freely developing the
Florentine mode into something more superficially decorative. His

188 GIOTTO
numerous works afford interesting examples of the combination of
the style of Bemardo with the earher Giottesque traditions of the
Romagna, Among the prominent Florentines who received a decisive impulse
from Bernardo's works, the most noteworthy are Andrea Orcagna
and his brother Nardo, whom we shall discuss more particularly in
a later chapter.

XI
JACOPO DAL CASENTINO
A POSITION somewhat smailar to that of Taddeo Gaddi and
Bernardo Daddi was evidently held by a painter called Jacopo
dal Casentino. He was their exact contemporary, but is less known,
and as yet we have not been able to associate with his name such
numerous works as have been attributed to those two painters. The
main reason of his comparative obscurity in modern art history is
that Vasari gives a very misleading account of his life and works,
confusing him with two later painters, Jacopo Landini and Giovanni
dal Ponte. This has been clearly shown by the late Herbert Home
in his " Commentary upon Vasari's life of Jacopo dal Casentino,"
published in the Rivista d'Arte, 1909. The documents printed in this
article prove that Jacopo was a contemporary of Taddeo Gaddi and
Bernardo Daddi. In 1339 he took part in the foundation of the
Compagnia di San Luca in Florence; and he was appointed, together
with Bernardo Daddi and two other painters, Camerlingo of that
company. Jacopo died in 1349, one year after Bernardo Daddi.
The starting-point for any discussion of Jacopo's art must be the
Httle triptych (PL 169) in the coUection of Ser Guido Cagnola in
Milan, which is signed: "jacobus de casentino me fecit." This
picture represents on the middle panel the Madonna enthroned on a
raised platform; on either side stand two angels, and in the foreground
St. John the Baptist and St. Benedict (?). The composition is very
much the same as in some of Bernardo Daddi's altarpieces from the
thirties, though the Madonna is clumsier and broader in proportion
to the size of the picture, and the child looks very like an old man.
His type immediately reminds us of Duccio's bambini. The right
wing shows the Crucffixion, represented in the usual way, with only
Mary and St. John standing at the foot of the cross. The figures
are larger in proportion to the size of the panel than in Bernardo's
Crucifixions. The left wing contains two pictures : above, St. Fran
cis Receiving the Stigmata; below, two standing female saints.
Another picture which, from documentary evidence published in
part by Milanesi and in full by Horne in the above-mentioned article,
may be surely reckoned among the works of Jacopo, is the large

190 GIOTTO
Madonna from the Oratory on the Mercato Vecchio in Florence, now
in the tabernacle on the corner of the Palazzo dell' Arte della Lana
(PL 170) . This again presents the Madonna on a large and ornate,
Gothic throne, surrounded by angels and flanked by two saints in the
foreground, St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist. The
picture has suffered from over-cleaning and restoration, but the types
seem to correspond closely enough to those in Cagnola's triptych to
make it entirely admissible that both are by the same hand. The
characteristic type of Jacopo's Madonnas, saints, and angels is an
elongated oval, with a long, almost straight nose, and very large
eyes, usually drawn with double lines to emphasize the sockets. The
forms are decidedly monumental; the angels of the Mercato Vecchio
piece have an almost statuesque quality. The child is rather hieratic,
and looks Hke a grown man. The difference between Jacopo's
elderly child and Bernardo Daddi's playful bambino is marked. The
general tenor of Jacopo's figures is stiff and severe: one might
suspect him of having been a sculptor as well as a painter.
Jacopo may have been a pupil of Giotto; his resemblance to
Taddeo Gaddi gives ground for such an assumption. But on the
whole he is more conservative and more closely alhed to Byzantine
traditions, possibly transmitted to him by Sienese masters, than
any of his Florentine contemporaries.
A third picture which on grounds of style should be attributed to
Jacopo dal Casentino is a Httle domestic altar (PL 171) in the Uni
versity Museum in Gottingen. The central picture shows the Ma
donna enthroned, attended by three saints on each side and two
kneeling angels in the foreground. All these subsidiary figures are
ranged in rows rising vertically on both sides of the throne, without
much attempt at the realization of the third dimension. The Ma
donna's throne, although elevated on two high steps, is not set back
into the picture. The child is somewhat more life-hke than the two
preceding. He stands on the Virgin's knee and reaches out his hand
for a book offered to him by one of the angels; his mother is play
ing with his foot.
The types of the Virgin and child are the same, though on a
smaller scale, as in the Mercato Vecchio picture. St. John the Baptist
is practically the same in the two pictures, and so are the adoring
angels. We also note the Madonna's long, boneless hands and the
draping of her mantle. The simUarities are so striking that there can
be little doubt as to the identity of the master. At the same time the
smaUer picture is finer and more graceful, recaUing Bemardo Daddi's

JACOPO DAL CASENTINO 191
well known triptychs — an impression which is emphasized by the
wing pictures: the Crucffixion, the Nativity, and the Legend of the
Three Kings and the Three Corpses. Here we find figures, notably
the three kings, which might easily be confounded with figures from
some of Bernardo's later predella scenes. On closer examination,
however, we detect a difference. Jacopo's figures are stiffer, the
drawing is coarser, the technique is broader, the execution less skil
fully adapted to such small-scale work — as we may also observe in
the little triptych in the Cagnola collection. This little Madonna
stands between the two documentarily authenticated paintings by
Jacopo. A fourth picture, revealing the same individual characteristics, is
the enthroned St. Bartholomew in the Uffizi (PL 171). The saint,
wrapped in a light-colored mantle, sits on a marble, Gothic throne,
holding a banner and a book, with three angels on either side and
two others kneeling in the foreground playing on violas. The paint
ing has lost some of its decorative beauty from wear and tear, but
it preserves a certain dignity of design. The adoring angels are
characteristic examples of Jacopo's art; their long faces, with noses
obliquely drawn, are a less pleasing variation of the type observed in
previous pictures.
As a possible work by this master we might add a picture (PL 170)
in the coUection of Mr. Charles Loeser in Florence. The painting,
which is of comparatively small size, represents the dormition of the
Virgin. She lies on a bier, behind which all the apostles are gathered;
in their midst stands Christ with the soul of the departed — in the
form of a chUd — in his arms. The only apostle in front of the bier is
St. John, who kneels, overcome by emotion, and grasps the corpse
with both hands. Angels with long candles kneel in the foreground,
partly cut off by the frame.
The composition might have been suggested by Giotto's famous
representation of the same subject formerly in Ognissanti, Florence,
but mstead of spreadmg out the figures on a broad horizontal plan
he has crowded them into a narrow, vertical composition. The
picture thus appears overloaded, and as the figures are stiff and
uncouth the general impression is heavy and compact. The re
semblance to certain of Taddeo Gaddi's compositions is evident;
there is the same compressing into a narrow space of large sack-hke
forms devoid of any real structure. It may be, however, that the
picture was originaUy somewhat larger, and the decorative impres
sion more satisfactory.

192 GIOTTO
That the picture is not a work by Taddeo but by Jacopo dal
Casentino is proved by the types; the drawing of the eyes and the
nose is particularly characteristic. One should compare the face of
Christ with that of the Virgin in the Cagnola triptych, or the angels
with those who stand round St. Bartholomew's throne in the Uffizi
picture. The similarities are so close that we must assign these pic
tures to the same artist. Also the somewhat oblique position of cer
tain of the heads is very characteristic of Jacopo dal Casentino, who
never was much of a draughtsman. Like Taddeo, he tries to outdo
the monumental greatness of Giotto's personages, and ends by mak
ing his figures almost unwieldy.
Vasari tells us that Jacopo assisted Taddeo Gaddi in fresco paint
ings at Casentino, and from the pictures we have seen it is quite
evident that he must have been for some time in close contact with
this master. His individuality is hard to define in detail as so few of
his works are known. His importance in the general development of
Trecento art is by no means as great as Taddeo's; he probably held a
secondary position, perhaps assisting his more famous contem
poraries, Taddeo and Bernardo, and it is only as a complement to
the discussion of their works that we have introduced a few remarks
about Jacopo's paintings. It may be that further discoveries wUl
make it possible to grant him a more prominent place, but for the
present we must leave him as a craftsman well worth the attention of
students who wish to attain a more complete knowledge of earher,
Florentine Trecento art.

XII
MASO — GIOTTINO 1
Historical Notes
THE earliest writers who offer any information as to the imme
diate followers of Giotto — Filippo Villani and Lorenzo Ghi
berti — both mention three names: Stefano, Maso, and Taddeo.'
These are the only pupils of Giotto's that Villani knows, and though
Ghiberti adds others, such as Buonamico and Orcagna, he evidently
regards the first three as the direct and important successors of the
great initiator of Florentine Trecento painting. As we have already
pointed out in a previous chapter, VUlani and Ghiberti are unques
tionably the best informed authorities on this period, and their
meager notes have practically the value of fundamental sources for
the history of Florentine art in the fourteenth century. So little real
documentary evidence has come down to us, and so few of the works
which can be proved to be by these early masters have survived, that
we have Httle opportunity to test the trustworthiness of their asser
tions, but their statements have been investigated by many later
writers, and the few facts that were capable of verffication have
established their reputation for exactitude. So, in default of new
discoveries, what they have to say about Giotto's pupils may be
used as a basis for discussion, as a kind of working theory.
It is an important question how far Ghiberti's statements are to be
preferred to those of later writers, such as the anonymous compilers
of the Libro di Antonio Billi and the Codice Magliabechiano, and
Vasari. For the artist whom Ghiberti calls " Maso " is presented
by later authors under a different name — " Giottino." The works
which Ghiberti assigns to Maso are, for the most part, attributed by
later writers to Giottino, with the addition of certain other pictures.
In order to attain a complete appreciation of this unusual problem,
it might be well to begin with Ghiberti's account.
" Maso was a pupU of Giotto; there are few things by him that
are not perfect. He did much to abbreviate the art of painting.
' Cf. the previous chapter on " Giotto's School," 1 and 2.

194 GIOTTO
His works in Florence are: over the door in a chapel of the church
of the Friars of St. Augustine [Santo Spirito] the story of the Holy
Ghost, of great perfection; and at the entrance to the piazza of the
same church, a tabernacle inside of which is Our Lady with many
figures around her, executed with marvelous art. He was most
skilful. He did a chapel at the Minorite Friars' [Santa Croce] in
which are legends of St. Sylvester and the Emperor Constantine. He
was a most noble spirit and most gifted in both arts. He also carved
marvelously well in marble a figure, four braccia high, in the Cam
panUe. He was expert in both branches of art, was a man of great
genius and had many pupils, all of them thoroughly trained masters."
Of the works mentioned by Ghiberti, only the frescoes in the
Cappella di San Silvestro in Santa Croce remain; whether we should
be able to follow Ghiberti in his other attributions we cannot tell.
It is, however, rather surprising to find that the next authority, the
Libro di Antonio Billi, (written about 1500-07) assigns to another
painter, caUed Giottino, the same tabernacle on the Piazza di Santo
Spirito that Ghiberti gives to Maso; the St. Sylvester frescoes are
not mentioned by this writer, who records Maso only as the painter
of a fresco on the tower of the Palazzo del Podesta — which
Ghiberti does not mention at all.
This striking contradiction between the statements of Ghiberti
and of the Libro di Antonio Billi did not, of course, pass unnoticed by
later authors. The anonymous writer of the Codice Magliabechiano
(xvii, 17) simply copies them both, ascribing the tabernacle first to
Maso and then to Giottino. A more complicated solution of the
problem is sought by Vasari, who also evidently knew both Ghiberti
and " BUli." He merges the two artists into one, a new personality,
whom he calls " Tomasso di Stefano, detto Giottino," and to this
painter he ascribes all the works Ghiberti gave to Maso and those
which Billi gave to Giottino, besides some important paintings which
neither of these authors had mentioned. To what extent this com
bination of Vasari's might have been upheld by arguments from style
is impossible to tell, because of all the paintings Vasari enumerates
after Ghiberti and " Billi," only the frescoes in the Cappella di San
Silvestro remain. It also appears from Vasari's own words that the
greater part of these paintings were already destroyed at his time;
he mentions them according to tradition. The only pictures he
seems to have studied with his own eyes were the San Silvestro
frescoes and the tabernacle on the Piazza di Santo Spirito. Of the
new material which Vasari assigns to this problematic painter, the

MASO — GIOTTINO 195
foUowing is still in existence, and consequently possible to analyze
in comparison with the San Silvestro frescoes: the Coronation of
the Virgin and two legendary scenes over the pulpit in the Lower
Church at Assisi; the Pieta from San Romeo, now in the Uffizi; and
certain fragments of frescoes in Santa Chiara at Assisi. According
to our opinion, all these paintings may be given to the same master,
whatever his name, and this certainly lends added strength to
Vasari's account.
Unfortunately, however, no painter called Tommaso di Stefano is
known to have existed; only a sculptor of this name is recorded, who
was enrolled in the guild of the stonemasons in 1385, and according
to Milanesi executed a statue for the Campanile in Florence.'
Vasari, who also repeats Ghiberti's statement about Maso's statue
for the Campanile, may have heard about this actual sculptor and
found reason for the misleading name — or, as is more likely, he may
simply have regarded the name " Maso " as an abbreviation of
Tommaso, and for reasons which we are unable to define, made him
the son of a certain Stefano. Possibly Vasari also knew that a
painter with the name of Giotto di Maestro Stefano lived in Florence
during the sixties — he is recorded in the Guild of St. Luke in 1368
and among the painters who worked in Rome for Pope Urban V,
in 1369.2
It thus appears that Vasari was not entirely wrong in his construc
tion of an artistic personality, by whom he had seen some pictures in
Florence and Assisi (which in part still remain) ; but he designated
the artist under a wrong name, possibly because he combined him
with a later historical personality by whom he evidently had seen no
definite works. There are no signed or documentarily attested
paintings by Giotto di Maestro Stefano, a painter who seems to have
been a contemporary of Agnolo Gaddi. This Vasarian mixture is
something like his description of the works of Giovanni dal Ponte
under the name of Jacopo dal Casentino, only with the chronological
order reversed. It may be that the nickname " Giottino " actually
was used both for Maso, who was a pupil of Giotto, and for Giotto
di Maestro Stefano, who naturaUy was called by this diminutive. No
' Cf. Vasari, ed. Sansoni, i, 625.
^ Vasari writes in the life of Stefano and Ugolino Senese: " It is reputed that Maso, called
Giottino, of whom there will be mention below, was the son of this Stefano; and although
many by reason of the suggestiveness of the name hold him the son of Giotto, I by reason of
certain other records that I have seen, and of certain memoirs of good authority written by
Lorenzo Ghiberti and by Domenico del Ghirlandajo, hold it as true that he was rather the son
of Stefano than of Giotto."

196 GIOTTO
name was more likely to become popular for a follower of Giotto
than " Giottino," whether derived from the artist's close relation to
the great master or from his own Christian name.
In a previous publication we have used this name for the artistic
personality who was responsible for the works Vasari describes (or
at least, for those that survive), but it now seems to us more methodi
cal to abandon Vasari's construction and to revert to the statements
of Ghiberti.' We call the artist Maso — admitting the possibility
that he might have been nicknamed Giottino — and start from the
frescoes Ghiberti assigns to him, combining with these other paint
ings showing the same individual characteristics. That is the mode
of procedure which, at least for the present, best answers to the
methods of modern art history. In our previous presentation of
the Giottino problem we dated the activity of this artist at about
1340-70, which made it possible to include among his works certain
paintings which really are too late in style to be by an immediate
follower of Giotto. These must be omitted once we admit that he is
to be identffied with Maso, Giotto's pupil. This painter evidently
was not very productive — or else we may suppose that the greater
part of his works have been destroyed.^
Who this Maso was in actual life is still a matter of conjecture.
Two painters with that name — Maso di Banco and Maso di
Ciacchi — are registered in the rolls of the Guild of St. Luke, both
with the year 1350 after their names. This year, however, has no
definite chronological signfficance, because it was attached to a
number of painters' names when the original records of the guUd
were copied, and only in a few cases was it later altered to that of the
paiater's death. Of the two Maso's only Maso di Banco is further
known by documentary notes, which is perhaps the reason why he
has been identified with the painter mentioned by Ghiberti. Maso di
Banco is inscribed among the Medici e Speziali between January and
AprU, 1346, and in October, 1341 he is the subject of a sequestration
issued by the commercial tribunal in Florence.' It appears from this
document that certain of his movables, among which were parts of
an altarpiece, a Madonna, two saints, a predella, a painting box,
and a grind-stone, deposited in the drug-shop of one Sandro di
' Cf . Giottino und seine Stellung in der gleickzeiligen Jlorentiniscken Malerei, published in
1908, but written in 1906.
2 We must also leave out several pictures attributed to him by Schubring m Jahrbuch der
Konigl. Preuss. Kunstsamlungen, 1900; and by Suida in Repertorium fiir Kunstwissenstkajt,
1904. ' Cf. Poggi, " Nuovi documenti su Maso di Banco " in Rivista d'Arte, 1910, p. 163.

MASO — GIOTTINO 197
Giovanni, were seized as security for his debts. The poor painter
was thus not only deprived of the fruits of his artistic endeavor but
also of the materials for further work. He can hardly have been
one of the most favored artists of Florence; it is not surprising that
his activity should be limited and his actual accompHshments few.'
It is also noteworthy that Maso is not mentioned among " the best
painters " who were proposed for the execution of the altar panel
for San Giovanni Fuoricivitas in Pistoja about 1347 (" li migliori
maestri di dipingere che siano in Firenze per la tavola dell' opera
di Sto Giovanni "), with his contemporaries, Taddeo, Stefano,
Orcagna, etc. This gives us additional reason to suppose that his
personal position was much less prominent, and that he for some
reason never attained the fame and recognition to which his genius
entitled him — granted that, for the present, we accept the identffi-
cation of Ghiberti's Maso with Maso di Banco.

' It reads like a confirmation of this documentary evidence that Vasari, in describing
" Giottino's " PietA, asserts that " he ever aimed rather at fame and glory than at any other
reward, being free from the greed of gain which makes our present masters less diligent and
good. And even as he did not seek to have great riches, so he did not trouble himself much
about the comforts of life — nay, living poorly, he sought to satisfy others rather than him
self." Vasari, vol. i, translated by Gaston du C. De Vere, 1912-14.

198 GIOTTO 2
The Frescoes
The chapel in Santa Croce in Florence where Maso executed his
much discussed frescoes was a foundation of the Bardi family.
According to the gene£|,logical notes of Passerini in the Biblioteca
Nazionale in Florence, Gualtiero di Jacopo Bardi, who died in 1336,
provided in his will that a chapel should be erected in Santa Croce
for him and his descendants. This bequest was carried out through
the care of his sons, and the chapel was dedicated to St. Sylvester.
There are no records to show when this work was completed. Pas
serini claims that the only prominent son of Gualtiero di Jacopo
, Bardi was Andrea Bardi, who was knighted for his gallantry in war,
and he thinks that it is the knight Andrea who is represented kneel
ing over the tomb in the chapel. We have, however, been unable to
find any evidence to sustain this statement. Vasari's assertion that
the chapel and the tomb were founded by Messer Bettino di Bardi
is still more misleading, because the only member of the Bardi family
with the name Bettino (Ubertino) lived in the fifteenth century.'
We are thus left entirely to conjecture for the date of the decoration
of the Bardi Chapel, but if no special reasons prevented the carrying
out of Gualtiero di Jacopo Bardi's will, it is, of course, most natural to
suppose that the paintings were executed sometime during the forties.
Such a date answers best to the general character of their style.
The frescoes represent, as already stated, scenes from the legends
of St. Sylvester and the Emperor Constantine, and besides these
there is over the Bardi tomb a representation of Christ as judge on
the day of judgment (PL 172). All these frescoes are in our opinion
painted by the same master; the distinction which some critics have
made between the legendary paintings and the judgment scene is
impossible to sustain : the style is homogeneous throughout, though
the lighting and the manner of composition is modffied according to
the different subjects.
The composition over the tomb (PL 173) is a very effective and
original variation of the old theme: on the day of resurrection the
graves open, the sun is darkened, the elements are in turmoil, and
Christ, the Judge, soars above the desolation whUe trumpeting
angels announce his coming, and awake the dead, who rise, tremb
ling and praying, from their coffins. This tremendous cosmic theme
' Cf. Vasari, ed. Sansoni, i, 624, and Milanesi's notes.

MASO — GIOTTINO 199
has been presented by the artist with new essential features, which
bring out its meaning with exceUent effect. This darkened land
scape, with rocks pUed up as though by a cataclysm of nature, is so
wUd and inaccessible that no human being has ever been able to ex
plore it. The man who kneels here has evidently just risen from the
dead — roused from among the rocks by the voice of the trumpet.
The grave yawns, and as the dead man looks up his eyes meet Christ,
who floats in a glow of blue light, followed by attendant angels
who bear the sacred emblems, the instruments of the Passion. The
Judge makes the usual gesture with his arms; his expression is stern,
his brows knit. The red mantle lined with green makes a brilhant
contrast to the blue mandorla, which lights up the white, yellow, and
violet garments of the angels. Darkness rests upon the earth.
As the fresco is set back in a niche, it acquires a natural effect of
chiaroscuro which makes it look still more hke a vision.
Only three of the Sylvester frescoes are in good condition; the
other two are more or less damaged. The first composition shows
Constantine sitting in a chariot, announcing to the wailing mothers
his decision not to follow the advice of his doctors, who have pre
scribed a bath in the blood of Christian children as a cure for his
leprosy. It is situated so high up on the wall and is in such a
bad state of preservation that any closer criticism is scarcely
possible. The second scene (PL 173) is Constantine's Dream, in which Peter
and Paul appear to him and announce that because of his pious ab
horrence of human blood he may be healed of his affliction if he will
aUow himself to be immersed in water by the Bishop of Rome, St.
Sylvester. The figures of the two saints are not very distinct, but the
emperor, lying naked in bed with an ermine cap on his head, is vividly
depicted with his arms raised and his mouth open in the excitement of
his portentous dream. There is still more striking characterization in
the figure of the page in blue who appears in the doorway, listening
intently. His bearing and movement suggest figures in Sienese
paintings, and his blond, almost northern, type reminds us of some of
the youths in the works of Simone and Ambrogio.
On the same wall with the Dream is the Bardi tomb, described
above. Over its Gothic pediment are two medallions which are
interesting as connecting links in style between the Resurrection of
the Dead and the scenes from the life of Constantine.
In the third picture — in the lunette on the opposite wall — we
see on one side St. Sylvester, convincing the emperor of the truth of

200 GIOTTO
his vision by showing him pictures of the apostles (PL 174), and on
the other the bishop baptizing the emperor, who kneels naked in a big
porphyry jar. At the top of the picture appears the head of Christ,
radiating golden beams, and the white dove of the Holy Spirit
descending upon the convert. The hall in which the baptism takes
place is paneled with slabs of colored marble, divided by square
frames which contribute to the architectonic structure. The second
of the compartments into which the lunette field is divided is still
more remarkable: the emperor sits in an open loggia with three
round arches on Corinthian columns, suggesting the architecture of
the early Renaissance.
Meanwhile the Empress Helena had expressed her displeasure at
her son's easy conversion to Christianity, and it is decided that a
pubhc disputation should be held for her satisfaction. Bishop Syl
vester argues to such good purpose that everyone present is con
verted except the Jew Lambri. In order to show the superiority of
his religion, the Hebrew has a big bull brought out, and strikes him
dead by merely whispering in his ear. St. Sylvester, however, revives
the bull with an episcopal benediction (PL 175). This incident is
the subject of the fourth composition, an unusually decorative picture,
showing the whole imperial court. The scene is a loggia, with the
same Corinthian columns, carrying in this case a straight entablature
and a back wall painted in a many-colored geometrical design. The
emperor sits on a throne raised on a high dais against the middle of
the back wall, and wears a light blue robe, which is now badly worn.
On his right sits the old empress, in yellow, and on the other side an
old man in a red-brown garment edged with white fur. Both turn in
surprise toward Constantine as they see the bull slowly rising to his
feet at Sylvester's command ; Helena makes the conventional gesture
of astonishment. This whole central section, including both the
figures on the dais and the bishop and the bull at the entrance to the
loggia, is effectively framed by the tall columns, prolonged by the
moldings of the loggia balustrade. On each side is a group of figures,
seated in rows within the loggia, some facing outward, some in
profile, and some with backs turned to the beholder. By this clear
disposition of the wide composition the main incident is well brought
out and a signfficant firmness of structure is attained. Not only has
the artist obtained a happy result by the vertical division of the
picture, but he has very definitely indicated the dimension of depth.
The opening in the balustrade in the foreground and the elevation of
the three main figures in the background (so that the kneeling bull

MASO — GIOTTINO 201
comes up only to their feet) creates a large, open space, which contrib
utes a great deal to the imposing decorative effect of the composition.
The addition of two figures out in front of the balustrade further em
phasizes the depth, and furnishes terminals for the sloping Hnes which
start at the rear waU from the figure of the emperor and descend sym-
metricaUy, running along the heads of the men sitting at the sides.
There is here apparent a calculated clearness of linear and spatial
design, which suggests the direct influence of Ambrogio Lorenzetti.
The Sienese had imquestionably made more progress than the
Florentines in space composition, and Ambrogio, especially, stands
unequaled in this respect by any of the artists of the fourteenth
century. A comparison between Maso's composition and the two
surviving frescoes by Ambrogio in the church of San Francesco in
Siena gives support to our assumption. In the picture showing St.
Louis received as a novice by the Pope, Ambrogio divided his picture
into a main and a secondary compartment by means of a column in
the foreground, and increased the depth by placing his figures in
three different vertical and horizontal planes. In the other fresco,
representing the martyrdom of the Franciscans, he placed the
tyrant on a high throne m the middle of the background and created
a wide, open space m front of the throne by drawing the kneelmg
monks, in the foreground, so low that they do not reach above the
steps of the throne, and by carrying out the lines of depth from the
tyrant to the foreground, over symmetrically arranged groups of
soldiers, to terminate on figures standing at the outer corners. These
are exactly the same principles of space design which we have
observed in Maso's picture, and it is incontestable that Ambrogio
attained a more definite result, partly because the composition is
better concentrated, and less diffused in breadth. But none of the
other Giotteschi, so far as we know, attains such a successful solu
tion of the problem as Maso's. Imagine a rendering of this same
incident by Taddeo Gaddi; what confusion and crowding would have
resulted! The buU would probably have appeared to be flattening
the spectators against the waU.
The types in this picture likewise show the strong iafluence of
Ambrogio. The man who looks at Constantine with an expression
of wondering inquiry is vfery like a Lorenzetti figure, both in his
aquiline profile and in the vehement motion of his head. The same
is true of the two figures just behind Sylvester, especially the man
who sits with his chm in his hand; also of the young man with an
energetic profile who stands furthest to the right in the foreground.

202 GIOTTO
The last composition in this chapel, the only one described by the
various authorities, shows Sylvester reviving the two magicians
(PL 176) who were killed by the poisonous breath of a dragon, and
also shows him closing the dragon's mouth. Thus two distinct inci
dents are represented in the same picture. The continuity of the
scenes gives the artist more scope for his mastery of inclusive space
composition, but he has kept the incidents separate, so that they in
no way conflict. This is achieved by the ingenious introduction into
the foreground of a column at exactly the point where the eye must
shift in order to look from one picture to the other. (The fresco is
too wide and the distance in the chapel too short to permit a view of
the whole at one glance.) The column also stresses the line of the
foreground of the horizontal plane, and forms a kind of counterpoise
to the pilaster bearing k fragment of a broken arch which stands at
the extreme left of the picture. These two together frame the dragon
scene. Having thus deflned the front plane, the artist has built
paraUel to the surface of the picture a rather low, ruined wall at the
further side of the pit, in which the bishop and his companions are
standing beside the dragon. Behind the waU rises a large rectangular
building, with one corner pointing outward, so that its sides lead the
eye toward the background, where stands an arched doorway, and
behind that again a crenellated wall. This carefully planned succes
sion of pillars, walls, and buildings of various heights and at different
angles, produces a depth movement, an impression of space, which
far exceeds anything else of the kind that we can discover in Floren
tine Trecento art.
This painter knew no more than his contemporaries of the exact
laws of perspective, but his eye was true and his feeling for depth
was unusually developed; here again he presumably shows the
potent influence of Ambrogio Lorenzetti. In Maso's painting, as in
Ambrogio's, the decorative impression depends chiefly on the suc
cessful handling of space, whereas in Giotto's work — especially in
his earlier period — the monumental and decorative effect often
suffers from the deficiencies in space design. There is barely enough
room in his compositions for the big figures; it was not until his last
works, the St. John frescoes in the CappeUa Peruzzi, that he attained
a proper balance between the actors and the scene, thereby consider
ably enhancing the monumental impression. At the point where
Giotto abandoned this difficult problem, Ambrogio Lorenzetti began,
and made notable progress in this important province of art. Am
brogio was the first who recognized that the spacial content was a

MASO — GIOTTINO 203
fundamental factor for monumental pictorial effect. Maso followed
Ambrogio directly. The magnfficent impression made by his
maturer work rests chiefly on the treatment of space, which con
sequently deserves particularly minute analysis.
The figures in this last fresco show the same general characteris
tics and the same morphological pecuharities that are to be found
throughout Maso's paintings. They are extremely dignified, though
not monumental in the sense that we have applied the word to
Giotto's work. The treatment of form is soft and well rounded, with
a certain mild beauty of its own, though it does not bring out very
much of the underlying tectonic structure or the capacity for
motion. The draping is supple with small, tight folds; the hair
and beards have a silky texture. One involuntarily recaUs Vasari's
description of Giottino's painting: " i panni, i cappeUi, le barbe e
ogni altro suo lavoro furono fatti e unite con tanta morbidezza e
dihgenza." All the movements have the same restrained harmony,
enhancing the nobility of the personages, which we find in the classic
masterpieces of the High Renaissance. There is the same reluc
tance to disturb the solemn tempo of the scene by vehement or rapid
motion as in the works of Raphael or Fra Bartolommeo.
The greatest energy of movement appears in the first episode,
where we see the bishop down in the dragon's lair, forcibly checking
the vengeance of the refractory winged monster. The old man per
forms his task with evident determination. Of his two companions,
who wear the long cassocks of choristers, we see the face of only one
(the other is partly hidden by the column), but that is quite enough
to make us understand how painful the situation is, at least to the
olfactory organ : the man squeezes his nose tight between his fingers,
and wrinkles his brow.
In the second episode we see the bishop, still followed by his two
deacons, climbing up out of the hole, one foot already on the level
ground, pausing to give a benediction to the two magicians, who at
first lie dead upon their backs, but in the same instant arise and kneel
before the saint. This somewhat naive manner of reproducing the
event by a double representation of the figures is another Sienese
touch. We find it in Simone Martini's picture in San Agostino in
Siena, and in Ambrogio Lorenzetti's representation of St. Nicholas
reviving a boy (in the Accademia in Florence).
The emperor and his suite, who witness the miracle, show no great
astonishment. The monarch rnerely extends one hand, as though
calling attention to some ordinary occurrence. One of the courtiers

204 GIOTTO
cannot entirely repress his surprise; he raises his hands in the usual
manner, palms turned outward. The demeanor of the bishop's
attendants is similar. It seems to show a lack of imagination on the
part of Maso that he should find no other gestures for this scene than
the old, conventional ones which he always used when he ventured
to depict an emotion by any means except facial expression. The
various representations of persons raised from the dead among
Giotto's paintings might have afforded him powerful suggestions for
a more varied scale of gesture if he had cared to devote his attention
to them.
The gentle and harmonious symphony of color, flooded with warm
light, reminds us more of the work of the Sienese masters than of the
earlier Florentine Trecento. YeUow, light green, duU pink, light
blue, and grayish-white are the predominant tones, combined with
unusual delicacy. There is hardly another Florentine of the period
who attains such a beautiful play of color.
In close connection with the frescoes in the Cappella Bardi should
be mentioned the fragments of another extensive cycle which the
painter executed in the former CappeUa Covone in the Badia in
Florence. This chapel is now, since the rebuUding of the Badia in
1625, practicaUy inaccessible, because the only part of it that stiU
survives is situated over the vault of one of the later chapels. One
has to climb over adjoining buUdings in order to reach it, and the
only entrance is through a hole in the old wall. As is well known,
the plan of the Badia was radicaUy changed at the time of the re
buUding of the church. The original choir was situated toward the
Via Proconsolo, where the entrance now is, and on either side of the
choir were high, Gothic chapels. The upper part of one of these
chapels originaUy adjoining the choir is the place where we must
seek the frescoes we are about to study.'
From the fragments which remain, it is evident that the decoration
consisted of scenes from the legends of St. Bartholomew and St.
Stephen, and possibly also some from the lives of other saints. Of
the first picture only the upper part is now visible: it shows a man
standing in a loggia or balcony, looking down as if following some
action going on below. On the opposite wall, at either side of the
Gothic window, there are two martyr scenes (PL 177). The main
figure in each is a kneeling saint attacked by men who swing their
arms; in one case they seem to be throwing stones, so probably the
victim is St. Stephen. In the other the action is not so clear, but it
' We published these frescoes in Monatshefte fiir Kunsiwissenachaft, 1908.

MASO — GIOTTINO 205
may be the beheading of a saint. If, however, because of the like
ness of the kneeling saint to the St. Bartholomew in the next picture,
we interpret this scene as an incident from his legend, it may possi
bly be regarded as the capture of St. Bartholomew, while deeply
absorbed in prayer, by the men of King Astyages.
The best preserved fresco represents the flaying of St. Bartholo
mew (PL 178). In the center of the composition the saint is tied to
a piUar; three men are busy cutting loose his skin, two of them tear
ing it off the arms, and the third, kneeling, at work on the legs with
a long knife. On the left stands the chief executioner, in oriental cos
tume, with a high pointed cap, and behind him stands another man;
on the opposite side stands a group of spectators.
This group of spectators furnishes the closest link with Maso's
other known frescoes. The types show the same full oval with the
straight nose, small mouth, and rather large, round ears, that we
know from the frescoes in the Cappella Bardi in Santa Croce. One
should especially notice the emperor and his courtiers in the resur
rection scene; the witnesses of the martyrdom are exactly the same
people, only differently dressed. Their position, either in full face or
in strict proffle, also identffies the master. The two executioners
with long beards and big, hooked noses are very Hke the old men in
the fresco of the Miracle of the Bull. The somewhat stiff movement
is also noticeable; the actors in the martyr scenes give us the same
feeling of restraint that we have already recognized in Maso's work.
Only one pair of the medallions in the window arches now remains
visible. One shows an old prophet (in half-length), looking down
ward, who might be called an elder brother of the St. Sylvester in the
Bardi frescoes; his face (PL 179) shows the same noble beauty,
which, especially in the old men, has charmed us in Maso's frescoes.
In short, the types, the hands, the ears, the movement and pose in
these paintings, which even in their ruinous condition make a splen
did decorative impression, are such as to estabhsh clearly the author
ship of Maso. In the two best preserved, one can still trace the
monumental, architectural background which is usual in the master's
frescoes. Besides these paintings in Florence there is a group of frescoes in
Assisi which show the same style, though in slightly modifled form,
and have consequently been attributed by several writers to Maso or
Giottino.' We refer to the Coronation of the Virgin (PL 180) which
^ Cf. Schubring in Jahrbuch des Konigl. Preuss. Kunstsamlungen, 1900; and Suida in
Repertorium fiir Kunstwissenschaft, 1904.

206 GIOTTO
fills the big lunette over the pulpit in the Lower Church of San Fran
cesco, and the closely allied frescoes in Santa Chiara, in the old
chapter hall of San Francesco, in San Rufinuccio, and in the Istituto
di San Giuseppe. These paintings form a homogeneous group, and
when we accept the opinion of those who give them to the painter of
the Sylvester frescoes, we do so with special emphasis on the fact that
the Assisi paintings must represent a separate period in his activity.
They were probably executed some years earlier than the frescoes in
Florence; they are less developed in style, though they display the
same types, the same restrained manner of composition, and the
same characteristic, pictorial modeling as the more important and
better preserved paintings in Florence.
Vasari saw these simUarities, and consequently attributed the
Coronation of the Virgin to his " Giottino." He writes about this
fresco as follows : "In the Lower Church of San Francesco at Assisi,
in an arch over the pulpit (there being no other space that was not
painted) he wrought the Coronation of Our Lady with many angels
round her, so gracious, so beautiful in expression of the faces, and so
sweet and delicate in manner, that they show, with the usual har
mony of color which was something peculiar to this painter, that he
had proved himself the peer of all who had existed up to that time;
and round this arch he made some stories of St. Nicholas." (The
" stories " are of St. Stanislaus, not of St. Nicholas).
The picture is now badly worn in places. It shows Christ and the
Virgin seated on a wide, Gothic throne, turned half toward each
other, whUe Christ places the crown on the head of the Queen of
Heaven. On either side stand close ranks of angels, solemn and
still, most of them turned in profile toward the throne. One on each
side turns in the opposite direction, whUe two — symmetrically
placed — face straight out of the picture. Kneeling angel musicians
may once have occupied the space before the throne; the lower part
of the picture is now destroyed.
The types are round with broad forehead, eyes set far apart, and
straight nose, lUie many in the St. Sylvester frescoes; the forms
are well fiUed out; the figures are rather short and powerful, but
modeled with remarkable softness. The whole manner of expres
sion has perhaps even more pictorial charm than in the Florentine
frescoes. Particularly characteristic of the master, it seems to us,
is the stiff and restrained arrangement of the composition. The
figures display practically no movement; they are lined up in rows,
and their decorative value depends more on the individual beauty

MASO — GIOTTINO 207
of each single unit than on any active cooperation. The people who
fiU the compositions of Maso are always stiU and meditative; their
souls are serene, their actions subdued.
It is only natural that the artist did not succeed particularly well
in the two legendary scenes he painted on either side of the Corona
tion : St. Stanislaus Raising a Youth from the Dead, and the Martyr
dom of the Saint. The compositions are squeezed into the surface
of the arch itself, and are none too well preserved. The figures have
little room for movement, and the lines are rigidly vertical. The
conception of the martyr scene, where the old bishop is torn in pieces
before the altar of a stately church and his dismembered limbs are
flung in different directions, is frankly brutal, but the movement of
the figures is lacking in vigor. They seem to lack the force neces
sary to hurl the arms and legs which they have hacked off. The
balance of the design is obvious, the effect rather stiff.
Most closely related to these frescoes are, as already stated,
some other paintings in Assisi, all in more or less deplorable condi
tion, or even partly destroyed. The most important is the large
Crucffixion (PL 181) in the former chapter hall of the Franciscan
cloister (now the gymnasium of a boarding-school which occupies the
premises). This shows, in a large lunette-shaped space, Christ on the
cross, surrounded by eight saints, of whom three stand on either side
and the two nearest, St. Francis and Santa Clara, kneel at the foot of
the cross. The figures are powerful and rather heavy, and lack
variety of pose. Their types remind us of what we have seen in the
Coronation picture. Another less damaged fresco of the Crucffixion,
and fragments of two Passion scenes are to be found in the little
Oratorio di San Rufinuccio, up on the commanding height above
Assisi. This composition entirely corresponds to the central part of
the picture in the chapter hall : only four figures are present, the Vir
gin, St. John, St. Francis, and Santa Clara, the two latter kneeling
at the foot of the cross. Here, too, the statuesque bearing and the
well confined, rather stiff drawing are highly characteristic.
There is a third Crucffixion of the same style in a room in the
present Istituto di San Giuseppe. Fragments are also visible of
the Annunciation, St. Francis Receiving the Stigmata, and, on the
other side of the same wall, an enthroned bishop. Incomplete as
they are, one can see from what remains that they belong to the
same group as the Crucifixions described above.
Finally there is the Madonna and four saints (PL 182) on the altar
wall in the Cappella di San Giorgio in Santa Chiara. They are

208 GIOTTO
statuesque figures, placed each by itself ia a trefoUed, Gothic arch; the
Madonna, in fuU face, sits on a decorated, marble throne. Her resem
blance to the angels in the Coronation is undeniable, but the expres
sion of form has become even softer and more rounded than before.
The fresco has suffered a good deal, and it is not very long since it
was freed from its coating of plaster.

MASO — GIOTTINO 209

Panel Pictures
Only one of Maso's panel pictures can compare in importance with
his frescoes — the Pieta in Uffizi. But we must also notice (PL 183)
a picture m the John G. Johnson collection m PhUadelphia, and
another in Santo Spirito in Florence. In both of these the Ma
donna is represented between two pairs of saints in half-length.
The figures in the Johnson picture are not quite as broad and heavy
as in the Santo Spirito altarpiece, and are better preserved. The
modeling in both has a soft, pictorial quality which to some extent
diminishes the statuesque rigidity. Most characteristic of the mas
ter are the figures turned full face — the outside pair of saiats in
each picture, and the Madonna in Santo Spirito. They are impres
sive not because of any individual characterization, but because of
their emotionless serenity and their broad, pictorial form.
This same harmonious calm makes itself felt still more strongly in
the famous Pieta (PL 184) which formerly hung in the little church
of San Remigio or San Romeo in Florence, and is now one of the
great treasures of the Uffizi. The composition is lucidly constructed,
easily comprehensible, dominated by vertical and horizontal lines.
At the top it is enclosed by an ogee arch, springing only a short dis
tance above the long arms of the cross. On each side of the central
axis, which is denoted by the upright of the cross, stand two power
ful figures in smooth faUing mantles: on the right, Nicodemus and
Peter,' facing each other; on the left, a bishop, St. Remigius, and a
monk, St. Benedict, both facing diagonally outward toward the body,
which lies on the ground. St. John, who stands in the middle, in front
of the cross, bending forward, helps to strengthen the vertical effect,
for his attitude does not cause any rounding of the lines. The same
emphasis of the verticals is repeated in the figure of the Magdalen,
who kneels bolt upright at Christ's feet, on the left, her hands folded
and raised to the level of her chin, with the same gesture as St.
John's. The pose of the two kneeling donors, a nun and a young
girl, is similar, and the position of their arms is equally angular.
In marked contrast to all these figures, the body of Christ stretches
across most of the picture, slightly inclined from the horizontal. He
is noticeably larger than the other figures, and his legs are inordi-
' The type of the figure recalls very closely that of St. Peter, but the figure may also be
interpreted as Joseph of Arimathaea.

210 GIOTTO
nately lengthened, probably because the upper part of them is hidden
by the woman who kneels in the foreground. The kneeling women
form a transition between the recumbent Christ and the row of
standing men; they are kissing his hands, and by their sorrowing
attitudes they express more grief than all the rest of the figures in the
picture. Mary, who is weeping over her son's head, plays no impor
tant part either in the psychology or in the formal composition of the
group. On the other hand, the woman who sits in the lower right
hand corner, her head on her hand, sustains the composition by
forming the termination of the sloping Hne that falls down from St.
John's head through the Virgin's and Christ's. It is noteworthy
that the artist did not succumb to his characteristic love of symmetry
and refrained from introducing a meaningless figure into the lower
left-hand comer. Possibly the space was left vacant in order that the
donors might be more easily visible.
The artistic impression of such a strict composition is naturally
quiet and solemn. It is no tumultuous and overwhelming despair
that is depicted with such suppression of gesture and control of line.
AU dramatic intensity, all audible lament, is dissolved into quiet
contemplation. It is only with a gentle farewell that the two women
kiss the hands of Christ. Mary looks at him, sobbing, but she does
not kiss him, she does not rest her cheek against his, as in most
representations of the episode. The movement of the figures of the
Magdalen and St. John expresses inward sorrow, but does not take
the form of large, liberating gestures; it seems intended to keep in
the emotion, to condense the pain — and when the same gesture is
repeated for the third time, by St. Peter, it expresses horror and pity,
at the sight of the great nails which Nicodemus displays, rather than
mere grief.'
It was not until the beginning of the sixteenth century that
another such quiet, controlled illustration of the mouming over the
dead Christ was produced in Florentine art; the attempt was then
made to strike deeper with fewer and simpler terms, to enhance the
' It might be worth while to quote a part of Vasari's description of this famous PietJ,, lor
even if he names the painter incorrectly, he has observed the work with the eye of an artist
and has evidently appreciated its unusual spiritual beauty: " And it is something marvelous
to consider, not that he ascended with his genius to such a height ot imagination, but that he
could express it so well with the brush. Wherefore this work is consummately worthy of praise,
not so much by reason of the subject and of the invention, as because in it the craftsman has
shown, in some heads that are weeping, that although the lineaments of those that are weeping
are distorted in the brows, in the eyes, in the nose, and in the mouth, this, however, neither
spoils nor alters a certain beauty which is wont to suffer much in weeping when the painters
do not know well how to avail themselves of the good method of art."

MASO — GIOTTINO 211
effect by repressing the utterance. Not only the classical calm of his
conception but the clear, constructive design of his picture brings
Maso close to the masters of the High Renaissance. If he had lived
a century and a half later, he might weU have developed into some
thing like the Raphael of the Roman period. He shows the same
striving for balance and harmonious perfection in figure style, the
same clear stress on space as a fundamental element in the solemn,
decorative effect, the same control of form. The great differences
are due almost entirely to the interval in time.
It is easy to find evidences of style to prove that the master of the
Sylvester legend painted this Pieta when we compare the hands, the
ears, the treatment of folds, the gestures and the attitudes. One
can, for instance, take pairs of figures from the different works —
St. Peter and the man behind the bull, Nicodemus and Sylvester,
St. John and the deacon behind Sylvester, St. Remigius and St.
Benedict and the two foUowers immediately behind Constantine
in the resuscitation scene. But it is not primarily these details,
but the general character of the figures, the soft rounding without
shadows, the apparently structureless drawing, the repression in their
whole bearing, which prove that Maso was the painter. It is a rather
common opinion that the picture shows North Italian influence,
among other things in the lettering over the cross.' There seems to
us to be no reasonable basis for such an assumption, for exactly the
same Gothic capitals occur in various Florentine Crucifixions of the
fourteenth century.
On the other hand it is probable that the very manner in which the
sorrow over the dead Christ is interpreted was inspired by Sienese
art. In Florence it was not customary to represent the Pieta before
the cross, whereas in Siena it was exceptional to represent it other
wise. Once Ambrogio Lorenzetti had painted his well known Pieta
at the Foot of the Cross (in the Accademia at Siena), the signfficance
of the symbol of the Passion, or at least some part of it, as the back
ground emotionally most appropriate, seems to have been generally
recognized in his native city. But whether any painter before Maso
would have dared to introduce secular donors in so prominent a place
among the saints, and on such a large scale, is open to question. We
know of no other example in the art of that century, although we
should always remember that many of the most interesting works are
unquestionably among the missing. The younger woman, with the
broad face, highly individuahzed, seems to have been the actual
1 Cf . Schubring, op. cit.

212 GIOTTO
donor; the older woman, dressed as a nun, is set somewhat to one
side. What was her reason for ordering a representation of this
great scene of sorrow ? The death of her father, or some close rela
tive ? The old bishop seems to be protecting her with unusual
warmth. Even in the way he lays his big hand on her blonde head,
there is a depth of feeling.
If the predella is as old as it looks, the arms that are blazoned on it
may give a clue for the identification of the name and date of the
donor. They display a winged dragon on a circular field. The same
arms occur on the graceful, Gothic monument in San Domenico at
Arezzo that is traditionally called " La Cappella dei Dragomanni."
The family is not one of the better known in Florentine history. The
question whether one of the Dragomanni ordered the picture must
for the present remain open. Of the history of the picture all that
we know surely is that it came from San Remigio, where it cannot
have been placed earlier than the fifties, when the church was
completely rebuilt.'
Although the artist's individuality and style have already been
characterized above, yet a few words of summary may be useful.
" Maso " was a Florentine. His most important paintings were
frescoes, executed in his native city. Giotto's work forms the back
ground from which his style emerges, but he never seems to have
fuUy grasped the concentrated dramatic quality of Giotto's creations.
His own epic imagination, guided by unusual care and restraint in
expression, led him in another direction; he found in Ambrogio
Lorenzetti a master better suited to his personal inclination and
talent. Giotto's art became accessible to him mainly through the
medium of Sienese interpretation. Ambrogio's efforts to increase
the signfficance of space design and to render the human form, pic-
toriaUy rather than plasticaUy, seem especiaUy to have appealed to
" Maso." His temperament was lacking in striking contrasts. He never
gave way to emotional impulse, and never became sentimental.
When he represents a tragic scene, he shows a profound feeling for
the human grandeur of his theme. He does not attempt violent
expression of mourning and despair, but brings out manly repression
and quiet solemnity. Some of his works may perhaps at first sight
appear cold, even superficial and meaningless, for the personages
' Gaye, Carteggio, i, 502, 508. Cf . Riccha, Chiese Fiorentine, i, 259.

MASO — GIOTTINO 213
seem to take little interest in the great events in which they partici
pate. But the deeper one penetrates, the more one becomes aware
of the undercurrent of religious feeling.
It is natural that an artist with such a disposition should express
himself in harmoniously roimded forms and that he should endeavor
to attain strict symmetrical balance, even more than the other
painters of the Trecento. It would seem that Giotto's method of
modeling in broad planes of light and shade and his plastic draping
was somewhat too bold and resolute, too incisive for our painter.
Besides, he had a more sensitive eye for the atmospheric tonality
and a keen appreciation of color. His effort was to render his figures
in a fluent line modeling, bringing out their fuU volume, but barely
indicating the organic structure of their bodies ; suffusing them in a
soft, pictorial medium, distinguished for beauty of coloring more
than for rhythmic vitality.

XIII
ANDREA ORCAGNA
1
Historical Notes
COMPARATIVELY few of the painters that followed Giotto
had any real understanding of the master's essential qualities,
the gist and pith of his style as a painter of the human figure. Even
among his immediate pupils foreign influences soon became active
and the plastic method of expression was diverted to a more pictorial
trend. The constant evolution of technical means seems to have
stimulated a desire to display naturalistic effects of light and shade,
which, of course, tended toward a dissolution of strong, plastic design.
Hardly any of these younger men had quite the master's feeling for
the human body as sculptural form, and none of them built his com
positions as architectonically as Giotto. It is only too evident that
they often tried to imitate him both in manner of draping and in the
structure of compositions, but it was mainly an imitation of exter
nals, not based on an instinctive appreciation of the problems that
most concerned Giotto as an artist, and consequently it was of
little value for the development of the fundamental principles of
Florentine art.
It (is therefore so much the more remarkable that we find these
same principles largely vindicated in the works of a younger painter
who may never have worked under the personal guidance of Giotto.
Genius meant more in this case than artistic tutorship, and as
Andrea Orcagna was a Florentine not only by birth but in his artistic
aim and spirit, and was besides a genius of unusual scope, it is only
natural that he should have continued in Giotto's path. Like
Giotto, Andrea was both architect and sculptor as well as painter,
and this activity in diverse branches of the plastic arts was of great
importance to the development of his style as a whole.
Orcagna's central position in the Florentine Trecento has been weU
understood and strongly emphasized by writers of different periods;
he is indeed one of the few of these early men who never seem to have
been quite forgotten, and whose fame rests on authentic works, both
914

ANDREA ORCAGNA 215
in sculpture and painting. Before we enumerate the scanty records
of his life and works which actually survive, it might be well to note
what some of the better informed of the older writers have said about
him as an artist.
Lorenzo Ghiberti calls Orcagna " nobihssimo maestro," and
says that he was " most experienced in one art as weU as in another.
He made the marble tabernacle in Or San Michele, an exceUent
and unique work, executed with the greatest skiU; he was a great
architect, and he worked with his own hand all the stories in this
tabernacle, carving there his own portrait with his own hand in a
marvelous manner. The price of this work was 86,000 florins. He
was a man of exceptional genius. He painted the choir (la cappella
maggiore) in Santa Maria Novella, and several other things in the
same church. And in the church of the Friars Minor (Franciscans)
he did three stories with the greatest art; in the same church, a
chapel and several other things, painted with his own hand. Further
more two chapels in Santa Maria dei Servi are painted by him,
and also a refectory a;t the Friars of Saint Augustine. He had three
brothers; one was Nardo who painted at the Preaching Friars
(Dominicans) the Cappella dell' Inferno, made to order for the
Strozzi family, following in this work what Dante had written in his
Inferno. It is a most beautiful work, executed with great skUl.
The second brother was also a painter, and the third was a painter
of no great prominence."
The anonymous author of II Libro di Antonio Billi, who wrote
more than a generation later than Ghiberti, but evidently independ
ently of him, mentions in the first place Orcagna's frescoes in the
choir of Santa Maria Novella, which, he says, " were spoiled by
Ghirlandajo, who took several beautiful things from them." The
author also mentions Orcagna's altarpiece in the Cappella Strozzi;
and gives him credit for the Inferno and Paradiso frescoes in the
same chapel. He points out, in particular, the artist's own portrait
in the Or San Michele tabernacle, and says that under this figure was
written " He himself made it." FinaUy he makes the following
statements, possibly based on family tradition : " He amused himself
with sonnets, some of which are still preserved. Of his descend
ants remains still in our city one Jacopo di Cione, a merchant in
the Corso degli Adimari who had a house in the Via de' Corazzai
Vecchia." The Codice Magliabechiano offers no additional information on
Orcagna; it contains merely a somewhat confused combination of

216 GIOTTO
the statements in Ghiberti's Commentarii and in II Libro di Antonio
Billi. Vasari's Life of Orcagna is a curious mixture and expansion of the
brief notes of earlier writers combined with literary descriptions of
the famous frescoes in the Campo Santo at Pisa, which Vasari
attributes to Orcagna (probably because of their analogies with the
master's frescoes in Santa Croce). Vasari furthermore makes
Orcagna responsible for the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence (which has
been proved to be of later date) and assigns to him certain paintings
in Florence — the altarpiece in San Romeo, the decoration of the
Cappella Cresci in San Servi, and the frescoes on the fagade of San
ApoUinare — which are no longer in existence and consequently
offer no additional grounds for an estimate either of the style of the
painter or of the trustworthiness of the writer. Concerning Andrea's
early training Vasari makes the following statement, which may be
founded on some tradition, though there is nothing to prove it:
" Born in Florence, Andrea began the study of sculpture whUe
stUl a child, under Andrea Pisano, and to this he devoted himself
earnestly for some years. Subsequently, desirous of enriching his
powers of invention and of attaining distinction in the com
position of historical works, he gave the most dUigent attention to
the practice of drawing, and herein he was powerfully aided by
Nature, which had destined him to universaHty of attainment. He
next, as one effort usually leads to another, made attempts at
painting in colors, both in fresco and distemper, wherein he suc
ceeded so well, with the assistance of his brother Bernardo Orcagna,
that he was taken by the latter to paint in his company in the
church of Santa Maria Novella, where in the main chapel, which
then belonged to the Ricci family, they executed the life of Our
Lady." Whether Orcagna actuaUy started as a sculptor or a painter must
remain a matter of conjecture, as we have no very early signed work
of his in either field, but we at any rate know nothing which makes
Vasari's statements impossible. They are therefore worth consider
ing. It is likely that the two brothers coUaborated to some extent
in larger commissions, but whether they did so in the choir frescoes
in Santa Maria NoveUa can no longer be determined. Ghiberti
states, we have seen, that Andrea painted these frescoes alone, while
he gives Nardo full credit for the frescoes in the Strozzi Chapel in the
same church. The point is, however, of relatively small importance,
as the choir frescoes no longer exist.

ANDREA ORCAGNA 217
The records of the life and works of Orcagna, as of most of these
early painters, are rather scanty, yet sufficient to aUow us to outline
his artistic career. Most of the documents are to be found in
MUanesi's notes to Vasari's Vita di Orcagna and in his Nuovi
Documenti; important additional material is in Karl Frey's book on
the Loggia dei Lanzi.'
The year of Orcagna's birth is not known, but we have reason to
assume that it feU in the first decade of the fourteenth century. His
name appears in the rolls of the "Medici e Speziali" which cover the
years 1320-52; according to MUanesi, the year of his entry into the
guild was 1343. He must have established a remarkable reputation
as painter very rapidly, because in 1347 his name appears " con
maestro Nardo di Balla " (Porta di Balla) in the often-cited docu
ment relating to the execution of the altarpiece for San Giovanni
Fuoricivitas at Pistoja. He is mentioned here in third place, after
Taddeo Gaddi and Stefano.
In 1352, on October 20, " Andreas Cionis, vocatus Arcagnolo,
pictor Sancti Michaelis Vicedominus," is inscribed in the guUd of the
stonemasons of Florence. It may be particularly noted that Andrea
is here called " pictor," in spite of the fact that he is now officially
recognized as a sculptor. We also find that he no longer lived at
Porta di Balla, but in a more central section of the city, near San
Michele Visdomini. Andrea had now evidently attained his repu
tation as one of the greatest masters both in sculpture and in
painting. In 1354 he received from Tommaso di Rosello Strozzi the com
mission for an altarpiece in the Strozzi Chapel in Santa Maria
Novella, and though it was stated in the contract that the picture
must be completed in twenty months, it was not actually delivered
untU 1357.
Orcagna's renown as a sculptor and architect is notably attested
by his appointment in February, 1355 to the office of " Capomaestro
di Or San Michele," which he retained till 1359. The next year
(1356) he submitted a design for part of the fagade of the Cathedral
of Florence, which was accepted by the authorities and publicly
exhibited. Still another important architectural work was entrusted to
Andrea in 1359, when he became Capomaestro at the Orvieto Cathe-
" Cf. also Suida, Floreniinische Maler um die Mitte des XIV. Jahrhunderts.

218 GIOTTO
dral, then under construction. In this capacity he visited Orvieto
several times in the next three years and supervised among other
things the execution of the mosaics on the central part of the fagade.
In 1362 he received his final payment at Orvieto. After that he was
again active chiefly in Florence, and is mentioned several times
between 1364 and 1367 as taking part in the deliberations over the
construction of the Cathedral fagade.
It seems as if Orcagna during his later years had been largely
occupied with architectural problems, and consequently had to leave
the execution of his paintings to his brothers, who evidently worked
in the same bottega. Andrea's greatest work as a painter was the
fresco series in the choir of Santa Maria Novella, and these must have
been done before 1358, because in that year the paintings were
severely damaged by lightning.
Andrea died in 1368 — that is the date written after his name in
the rolls of the Guild of St. Luke.
We know only one picture by Andrea which is authenticated by a
signature: the altarpiece in the Cappella Strozzi. This is by no
means one of his earlier works, as it is dated 1357, but it is the most
important stylistically as well as historically, and must therefore be
made the basis and starting-point of a more detailed discussion of
Andrea's style as a painter. And as this painting can naturally be
considered in connection with certain other altarpieces and small
panels, we shall devote a first chapter to several easel pictures which
can be attributed to the master, and then turn to the large fresco
compositions which the early writers assign to him. No doubt
these large, monumental paintings were once regarded as Orcagna's
most important achievements as a painter, but their present con
dition hardly allows us to attach to them primary importance for
the study of his style. Andrea's sculpture must here be passed over
without further comment, as our task is confined to the Trecento
painting of Florence.

ANDREA ORCAGNA 219

Easel Pictures
The weU known altarpiece (PL 185) m the CappeUa Strozzi in Santa
Maria NoveUa bears the foUowmg signature: " anno dni mccclvii
ANDREAS CIONIS DE FLORENTIA ME PINXIT." It is not divided, Hke
most of the altar pieces of the period, into a middle portion and wings.
The chief figure, Christ, is not isolated, but is connected by symmetri
cal lines with the kneehng figures at the sides, St. Peter and St.
Thomas Aquinas, so that they form together an equUateral triangle.
The standing figures act as terminal pilasters, bounding and empha
sizing the great triangle.
The figure style is distinguished by unusual firmness and strength.
The bodies are somewhat thickset, with large heads and long, well
defined hands and feet; their movement is definite and restrained.
The attitudes show marked contrast between full face and profile,
only the two women deviating a little from this plan. From the
fundamental unity of the posing, combined with the solid structure,
the picture gains an effect of ceremonious grandeur. Before accus
ing the artist of stiffness one should pause to realize how closely the
grand, monumental appearance depends on this very quality. Besides,
there is a glow of color that overpowers any thought of emptiness
and stiffness. Azure, carmine, orange, red- violet (amethyst), light
blue, gray, and black, with luxuriant gold brocade, mingle in a deep
and harmonious play of tones. All the textures are executed with
the greatest care, studied directly from nature, and rendered with
the depth and richness of color that one sees only in the textiles of
the Middle Ages; especially striking is St. Catherine's brocade man
tle with its pattern of palmetto leaves and birds.
There is something about the drapery that attracts us even more
than the beauty of color: the treatment of folds. We allow our
glance to survey calmly the draping of the wide mantles of St. Paul
or St. Peter. We let it follow the big folds and little, testing all the
splays and the gathers, and judging them, so far as possible, by the
standard of nature. After such a scrutiny any unprejudiced observer
must concede that in the difficult art of handling folds this master
stands high among the best who have attained success in this
domain. No other Trecento painter attempts any such thorough and
logical study of drapery as Orcagna. Even Giotto, despite his strict
observation of nature and his plastic feeling, confines himself to mere

220 GIOTTO
suggestion in the matter of draping, and the later Trecento painters
usually lay more stress on the flowing line, on the harmonious falling
of the folds, than on the sharply modulated details of a mantle. It
is not until the great painter-plasticians of the fifteenth century that
Andrea's efforts in this field are resumed. Probably it was in no
small measure Andrea's interest in sculpture that trained his eye for
the plastic qualities of drapery.
The faces are fairly uniform: elongated, with long eyes, straight
noses, small mouths, and full cheeks; only St. Peter and St. Thomas
Aquinas show any variation from this common type. Peter has an
extremely energetic, strongly modeled face with a sharp nose and
deep-set eyes. St. Thomas is one of those pale, well fed Dominican
friars with a great aquiline nose and a sensual mouth, that one may
still see occasionaUy in Santa Maria Novella — probably the portrait
of a contemporary.
The nearest relationship in style to the Strozzi altarpiece is shown
by three big panels, of which two have already been named in
art hterature as Andrea's work, whereas the third has hitherto
remained unrecognized. The best known is the large Madonna
(PL 186) in the Museum in Budapest (formerly in the Somzee collec
tion) which is now officially designated as Orcagna's work. Less well
known is the standing Madonna (PL 188) in the Santi Apostoh
Church in Florence, which we attributed many years ago to Andrea;
in consequence of its poor state of preservation it cannot be con
sidered very important for the study of Orcagna. Entirely unknown
is the unusuaUy interesting Madonna, which we had the opportunity
to study some years since at a Florentine art dealer's, now in the
coUection of Mr. PhUip Lehman in New York (PL 187).
The picture in Budapest shows the Madonna sitting on a bench
which is entirely covered by a gold brocade of rich leaf pattern. The
drapery is held up behind the Madonna by two floating angels, and
two other angels stand in adoration on either side of the seat. In the
foreground kneel two more angels, one playing a viola, the other a
portable organ. The Madonna holds the big chUd sitting on her left
arm and bends her head toward him, whUe the chUd holds tight to
her dress and puts his other arm round her neck. The figures,
especiaUy the Madonna and chUd, are squarely fiUed out, with big,
round heads. Their type reminds one most of St. Lawrence and
St. Catherine in the Strozzi altarpiece; their large, well modeled
hands have the same distinctive form that we noticed there. The
rich, golden brocade behind the Madonna, and also round the chUd's

ANDREA ORCAGNA 221
legs, is executed with the master's admirable precision and accurate
characterization of materials. The color effect is luminous: Mary
has a red garment under her azure mantle, the child has a light red
shirt, and the angels wear light-colored tunics.
The big, heavy figures fill the picture right out to the borders; the
angels' wmgs are partly cut by the frame, which forms a heavy, round
arch over the strictly enclosed composition. The Madonna sits close
to the foreground, so that the two kneeling angels in front of the
bench are almost pushed out of the picture. This manner of com
position on the surface, which is here more pleasing than in the large
altarpiece, gives the picture a relief-hke character. The composition
might easUy be reproduced in some plastic material; this impression
is due to the three successive, vertical planes of slight depth.
This relief-like method of composition stands out even more
strikingly if one compares it, for instance, with the central panel of
Bernardo Daddi's big altarpiece in the Accademia in Florence. The
two Madonnas show obvious resemblances of type, their full forms
and round faces are similar; but the compositions are conceived
with different purposes. Bernardo has placed his Madonna on a
throne set back in the picture and has assembled round her a circle
of attendant angels, introduced in order to suggest an isolated space
in which the Madonna is placed. Andrea maintains the surface
plane and concentrates his effort on the purely decorative design.
The striking similarity of type can hardly be explained otherwise
than by the assumption that at some time Andrea worked under
Bernardo Daddi's guidance. He probably got his training as a
painter in the earlier forties and appropriated his master's character
istic types, but he evidently did not sympathize with Bernardo's
efforts in the direction of space design. He was more deeply rooted
in the pure Giottesque tradition, and plainly did not come into close
association with Sienese art. The strong influence of Ambrogio
Lorenzetti, which was of such profound and decisive importance in
the artistic development of Bemardo Daddi, seems to have passed
Andrea Orcagna without leaving much trace.
This would scarcely have been possible had not Andrea already
devoted himself to sculpture. Had he begun his artistic career under
a painter like Bernardo Daddi, he could hardly have avoided absorb
ing more of the purely pictorial aim; his interest would certainly
have tended more in the direction of such naturalistic problems as
we have traced in the work of Bemardo and Taddeo Gaddi. The
determining factor for Andrea's art, in distinction to that of con-

222 GIOTTO
temporary painters, was this same relief-like and statuesque trend,
which appears, if anything, more markedly in his earlier work than
in his later. This gives strong support to Vasari's statement that
Andrea began his education under some sculptor, and nothing pre
vents us from conjecturing that this sculptor was Andrea Pisano,
the most distinguished of the generation of Florentine sculptors
immediately preceding Andrea Orcagna.
An interesting corroboration of the preponderantly sculptural
character of Andrea's painting is supplied by the Madonna in Santi
Apostoli. Mary is here represented standing, with the child on her
arm. The figure is towering, defined by long, unbroken, vertical lines,
almost like a painted archaic statue. As the result of heavy repaint
ing, the Madonna stands out merely as a silhouette against the gold
ground, but she evidently has once been of considerable plastic
effect. The types of Mary and the child remind us strongly of the
picture in Budapest, although the modeling has been greatly weak
ened by the clumsy restoration. It is now only the general lines
of the composition that rouse any interest in the picture. It is,
incidentaUy, extremely unusual to find a Trecento Madonna standing
isolated in full length. This form of composition does not come into
general favor until the High Renaissance, when the effort to attain
solemn and imposing effects again becomes potent. Andrea has
plainly been led to this mighty and original solution of a traditional
problem of composition by his great feeling for the human body as
a plastic and tectonic phenomenon. The picture demonstrates, in
short, a translation into painting of a sculptural conception. It is
enclosed, like the Budapest Madonna, by a narrow molding
forming an arch over the figure. The usual Gothic embellishments
are entirely omitted.
It is possible, though by no means certain, that this Madonna was
originally flanked by standing saints on separate panels. Several such
separate figures of saints, which plainly were once wing pictures in
large polyptychs have been preserved in various collections. There
are three (PL 189) in the National Gallery in London (where they
long passed as the work of Spinello Aretino), and a fourth, St. Peter,
which probably belonged originaUy to the same series, in the church
of San Stefano at Ponte Vecchio in Florence. Two others, on rather
smaUer scale, are in the Jarves collection in New Haven, and another
pair in a private coUection in Germany. In size and general style,
the saints in the National Gallery — John the Baptist, John the Evan
gelist, and James — together with the St. Peter m Florence, are the

ANDREA ORCAGNA 223
most closely related to the Santi Apostoh Madonna, while the rather
smaller samts, John the Baptist and Peter (PL 190), in the Jarves
coUection, might be connected with the Budapest Madonna. No
definite hypothesis as to the origmal relationship of the pictures can
be advanced untU it is reinforced by more exact information on the
measurements than we have hitherto been able to obtain.
Meanwhile we shaU refer to the big altarpiece in the Palffy col
lection at Bajmocz (Hungary) as an example of how Orcagna placed
isolated figures of saints with a Madonna in a large polyptych. The
picture, which we know only from reproductions, consists of five
leaves and a predeUa. In the middle is a Madonna, sitting on a
bench with no attendant angels, and on each side two saints, stand
ing full face on separate leaves, unconnected compositionally or
psychologically with the central subject. The figures seem to be
powerful, plastic forms; they stand out defined and isolated, like
a row of statues. It is not for its unffied composition that this altar-
piece is of interest, but for the sculptural quality of the separate
figures. It is natural that an altarpiece put together in this manner
should be more Hkely to be taken apart than an organic composition.
Evidently it has been discovered more than once that Orcagna's
saints and Madonnas have so much independent signfficance, entirely
apart from each other, that they can be removed from the formal
scheme without great damage to their artistic effect. The unusually
numerous " disjecta membra " of Orcagna's altarpieces that occur
seem in any case to prove that they were very commonly taken apart.
Of the figures of saints above named, those now in the National
Gallery (originally in the Spedale di Santi Giovanni e Niccolo, out
side Florence) are unquestionably the best. They are as usual in full
face, standing firm with their legs apart, their heavy feet trampling a
costly, brocaded cloth of red and gold with a pattern of pomegran
ates and birds. Their mantles produce a glowing triad of carmine,
sky blue, and light green. The precision and plastic clarity with
which these mantles are worked out is astonishing. Each fold is
chiseled as though in marble or bronze, every line is defined with
the utmost sharpness. Yet the broad forms are well maintained as
wholes, and the tridimensional reality of the figures is entirely
palpable. These are no mannikins or stuffed dummies, but men with
real bodies, although they are not designed in such a way as to bring
out the full value of the forms.
The two saints in the Jarves collection are, as we have said, a
little smaUer, and perhaps not so intensely plastic. Peter stands in

224 GIOTTO
full face, but John the Baptist is turned half round, pointing toward
the Madonna who was in the middle. The same is true of the two
other saints mentioned above — John the Baptist and St. Nicholas
— who are in simUar attitudes and in general correspond to the
saiats in the Jarves collection. In all these pictures we may observe
the artist's masterly handling of drapery and his skiU in rendering
the various materials, the brocade carpets on the floor and the
heavy mantles on the broad shoulders. They corroborate what we
have already said of the more important pictures, but contribute no
new material for the characterization of the painter.
The third Madonna, now in Mr. Lehman's collection, differs in
composition from both those described, and should be dated rather
later. Mary sits low on a cushion, with one leg bent under her; on
the other knee, which is raised, she supports the child, who lies stiff
and straight in her lap, reaching for her breast, which he seizes with
one hand. Mary bends her head a little to one side and looks down
at the chUd, whUe he turns his face away and looks at someone, who
has distracted his attention, with a broad smUe. Four smaU angels
float on either side of the Madonna's head in sUent adoration, and
above, God the Father descends to give her his blessing. The
Madonna wears a bright blue mantle and a gold brocade garment;
the chUd is wrapped in a brocaded coverlet, and the angels have
light tunics, richly sprinkled with fine, gold ornaments. Even the
haloes are more beautifully decorated than usual; one notices
especially the conventionalized rose wreath on the Madonna's head
which closely resembles the more prominent haloes in the Strozzi
altarpiece. Enclosing the whole picture, which is again round
arched, runs an ornamental band engraved with small stars.
In style the Madonna approaches most nearly to the St. Catherine
of the Strozzi altarpiece: it is the same full, strong figure, the same
elongated face with straight nose, long, almond eyes, and wide fore
head. The turned rounding of the head is also characteristic, and
the big, well formed hands are sufficiently obvious. Both the types
and the general style place this picture between the Budapest
Madonna and the Strozzi altarpiece. If the former is to be dated in
the middle forties and the latter in the middle fifties, this Madonna
can be put at about 1350. The sculptural character is here less
striking than in the earlier Madonnas, especially on account of the
freer compositional form, which produces a softer rhythm of line;
the modeling also seems unusually supple and delicate. From the
purely pictorial point of view this painting may be designated as one

ANDREA ORCAGNA 225
of Andrea's most important works, and fortunately it has been pre
served intact. It is also evident that this Madonna attained special
fame, as two different Trecento copies of it exist in Florence. The
first, an entirely faithful reproduction done a score of years after
Orcagna's picture, is in the Uffizi storeroom. It is in the same form
as the original and shows the copyist's attempt at fidehty, but the
figure drawing is stiffer. The other copy, which we saw at a Floren
tine art dealer's some years ago, is a somewhat altered and reduced
version (the angels and God the Father are left out), produced by a
Florentine painter about 1400. It would be very interesting to
know where the original was formerly placed, and whether it was its
situation or its unusual artistic merit that gave it its great reputation.
Closely connected in style with the above-mentioned Madonnas
is a picture, now in the writer's possession, representing Christ
standing in his tomb, supported by Mary, whUe St. Michael and
St. Catherine stand on either side and a bishop saint behind; in
front of the tomb kneels the Httle donor. The picture (PL 191) is of
a solemn effect and has a deeper emotional quality than the paintings
by Andrea we have studied hitherto. The body of Christ appears
almost as if carved in stone, and the stately figures surrounding him
are also preponderantly statuesque. The coloring, however, is deep
and vivid, and the donor who kneels in front of the sarcophagus is
evidently a portrait from life. It is a picture in which Andrea's
power of monumental design is combined with a greater intensity of
feeling than appears in the Madonnas or in the single figures of
saiats. The authorship of the master is most clearly proved by the types.
St. Catherine is a sister of the Budapest Madonna, and St. Michael
is very Hke the kneeling angel with the portable organ in the same
picture. Christ and Mary are practicaUy the same as in the Strozzi
altarpiece. The picture should evidently be dated to about the same
period in the master's activity or a little earlier, that is to say, to the
beginning of the fifties. It forms, in style and composition, a con
necting link between the Madonnas and the large altarpieces of
which, besides the Strozzi picture, two more are stUl to be found in
Florentine churches : one in Santa Maria Maggiore, the other in the
Cappella Bonsi in the Badia.
The picture on the high altar in Santa Maria Maggiore has,
remarkably enough, escaped the notice of the authorities and has
never been mentioned in the literature of art, though it is situated in
one of the most easily accessible churches of Florence. The reason for

226 GIOTTO
this is probably that the picture is usually hidden by a mass of paper
flowers and similar gewgaws, strangely regarded by some people
as suitable church decoration. Nevertheless the picture is artistically
one of the most important altarpieces which have been completely
preserved from the middle of the fourteenth century. It represents
the Madonna enthroned, in full front, with St. Nicholas, St. Andrew,
St. John the Baptist, and St. James on separate panels. Before the
throne kneel two angels, one playing on a double flute, the other on a
portable organ. The boy is half reclining on his mother's lap, kick
ing, and trying to grasp Mary's veil. The saints are powerful broad-
shouldered figures. St. Nicholas is turned in profile toward the
Madonna, the Baptist in full face but pointing inwards with his
hand; the two others are turned half-way. The color effect is clear
and luminous, as in the best pictures of Orcagna : a tuneful harmony
of bright blue, orange, green, and carmine. The halo round the
Madonna's head again shows the conventionalized rose wreath. The
picture evidently belonged to the same period in the artist's evolu
tion as the Strozzi altarpiece. The full rounding of the types, the
modeling of the hands, and the deep colors of the costumes, connect
it with the best of Andrea's creations, and allow us to assign it to the
artist's most mature period.
The altarpiece in the Cappella Bonsi is not so well preserved, but
it derives a special interest from its decidedly architectonic composi
tion. We have reason to believe that it was done somewhat later
than any of the pictures hitherto described — probably in the early
sixties, when Andrea made extensive use of assistants in the execu
tion of his larger orders. The master himself became, as we know,
more and more occupied as years went by with architectural com
missions, and consequently he very probably found it necessary to
entrust his paintings partly to pupils.
The subject of the picture is the descent of the Holy Spirit
(PL 192). The figures are divided between three panels, each
framed in a round arch. In the middle kneel six apostles in a ring,
and in the center of the circle, on an eminence, kneels Mary, in full
face, her hands crossed over her breast. She is stiff and hieratic, like
a statue; her mantle falls in perpendicular parallel lines from her
head down to the ground. On each side of Mary floats a little angel,
and over her head the Holy Ghost descends in the form of a dove,
from which issue golden rays. Around this dominant, central pUlar
the apostles, kneeling close round, make a protecting wall, while the
other figures in the wings form slanting lines leading up to the main

ANDREA ORCAGNA 227
personage. On all the heads appears the tongue of flame of the
Holy Ghost.
It is probable that in the execution of this group the master made
use of assistants, especially in the wings. A scrutiny of the types
confirms this assumption. The two mighty apostles in the extreme
rear, St. Peter and St. John, show close relationship to the kneeling
saints in the Strozzi altarpiece; the Madonna is the same woman
who has appeared as the Virgin in Orcagna's earher pictures; but
in the wings one traces an evident deviation in the types.
A study of the draping leads to the same conclusion. The mantles
of the kneeling apostles in the central panel, especially of the two
furthermost, are draped in clear, plastic folds, defined with the same
admirable sureness that we have described above. The treatment is
on the high level of the best that we have hitherto noted in Orcagna's
work along these lines. The complete mastery of the artist is, how
ever, less recognizable in this case because the picture is worn and
overlaid with dust and smoke. It does not glow with the deep color
ing of the Strozzi altarpiece, but looks duller, darker, and heavier.
The relatively meager quality of the drapery in the wings can easily
be accounted for on the assumption that an assistant was responsible
for the execution.
As complements of these big, partly fragmentary altarpieces by
Orcagna, one should mention certain smaller paintings which help
to illustrate the artist's development and the essential traits of his
personality. Especially original is the little picture (PL 193) in the
Jarves collection in New Haven (formerly ascribed to Simone Mar
tini) which represents the adoration of the Magi. This subject was
ordinarUy Ulustrated in horizontaUy extended pictures, in which the
Madonna could be placed at one end and the rest of the picture filled
with the advancing kings and their suites. The movement was
developed longitudinally. Andrea, however, here broke away com
pletely from the traditional scheme, and worked out his story in the
vertical, rather than the horizontal, plane. The main scene takes
place half way up the panel, where the Madonna sits under a shed,
holding the chUd on her knee, with the three kings standing or
kneeling before her. Below, in the foreground, are gathered the
horses and the soldiers ; above is the manger, with Joseph watching
his ox and his ass; stUl higher and further away is the hUl on which
the shepherds receive the glad tidings. AU the scenes take place on
various levels of a cliff formed in steps. It is exactly the same mode
of composition that we find in contemporary terra cotta or marble

228 GIOTTO
reliefs, and is a direct translation into painting of the methods of
relief sculpture. This picture alone would be strong evidence that
the painter had his fundamental training as a sculptor and continued
to think in the manner of a plastic artist rather than of a mere
brush- worker.
Our attention is especially attracted by the strikingly plastic
treatment of the drapery, particularly in the figures of Mary and the
kneeling king. We have here on a small scale the same broken folds
that we have seen in Orcagna's larger pictures, for instance in the
Strozzi altarpiece. The unusual shape of the picture has perhaps
been the reason for a greater attenuation of the figures than is com
mon in Orcagna, but anyone familiar with the master's types can
readily recognize them here. The kneeling king is a close relative of
the St. Peter in the Strozzi altarpiece, while Mary is a sister of the
Virgin in the same picture. But the most interesting figures are the
two women, Salome and her friend, who are curiously examining the
king's box of myrrh; these figures, as well as the soldiers who are
holding the horses and camels, show a faculty for the observation of
nature but slightly indicated elsewhere in Orcagna's works. The
colors are unusually vivid : red, pink, blue, violet, yellow-green, and
gray tones fuse in rich harmony. The execution is as meticulous
as in a miniature. To assign a definite date to the picture is very
hard; all we can state with certainty is that it was done at a time
when the artist had attained complete mastery over his means
of expression. It marks the high pitch in Andrea's art so far as
decorative design is concemed.
Another interesting httle picture by Orcagna is a portion of a
predella in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. It represents the
birth of the Virgin, and is distinguished by its bright, deep colors.
St. Ann hes at full length in bed; in an open hall in front of her the
chUd is being bathed, and two women who come to offer their fehci-
tations are received by a maid-servant. The picture makes the
effect of a relief composed in two planes; the figures are of high
stature, and their movements are dignffied almost to stiffness. The
plastic treatment of the folds and the bright red, yellow, green, and
blue tones are thoroughly characteristic.
The same general style reappears in a long predeUa (PL 194) in the
John G. Johnson coUection at PhUadelphia. It is divided into three
parts; in the center is shown the Adoration of the Magi; on one side
the DecoUation of St. John the Baptist and the Martyrdom of St.
Lawrence; on the other the Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew, with

ANDREA ORCAGNA 229
an episode from the legend of another saint. The decorative effect
is lively and attractive on account of the brilhant coloring and the
clear, orderly arrangement, which fully brings out each figure. The
central picture is of interest as an example of Andrea's relief-lUie
method of composition. The scene takes place in an open mountain
landscape, built up of shattered rock formations, which run slantwise
across the picture, ledge behind ledge. The landscape thus covers a
considerable expanse, and the various planes of depth appear very
. clearly; the figures are relatively smaU in relation to the scene. The
Madonna sits on a mass of rock, with the chUd on her knees; before
her, on a lower shelf of the rock, kneels the oldest Mage. The two
younger kings stand talking further to the right, and nearer to the
edge of the picture horses and camels are held by grooms. At the
other end of the picture sits Joseph, entirely apart and unparticipat-
ing, and up in the middle, behind a wall of rock, we see the shepherds
and their dog approaching.
The composition is therefore quite unlike the little representation
of the Magi in the Jarves collection, yet there is a traceable connec
tion both in the arrangement of the rock foundation and in the types
of several of the figures. Joseph, for instance, is practically the same
in the two pictures, and the horses and grooms correspond even more
closely. Decisive for the attribution of this picture to Andrea is the
treatment of drapery, which is strikingly typical, especiaUy in the
mantles of the Madonna and the kneeling king. It is, however,
probable that several years elapsed between the execution of these
two dissimUar conceptions of the Adoration. The Jarves picture is
more severe and relief -like than Mr. Johnson's; it is unquestionably
earlier. The long predella probably was not painted before the
sixties. The compositional forms here show a distinct development
away from the predella pictures in the Strozzi altarpiece, and the
types connect themselves rather with Orcagna's later than with his
earlier works.
The adjoining side panels of this predella, which illustrate the
various martyr stories, show notably skilful arrangement of scenes,
especially where architectural surroundings are used. The buUd
ings are naturally very much simplffied, but they have far more
reahty than any of the architecture in the pictures of Taddeo or
Bernardo Daddi. Andrea's architectonic feeling and knowledge
stand out in a striking manner.
The predella pictures in the Strozzi altarpiece are also in a spacious,
horizontally extended form. Especially interesting is the central

230 GIOTTO
picture, representing Peter walking on the water, a composition
which recalls Giotto's famous " NaviceUa " in the vestibule of St.
Peter's at Rome. The gold background is dominant in all these
pictures and gives them an abstract, hieratic character. Some of the
figures stand out like silhouettes against the gold. Decorative draw
ing seems to have been the artist's aim rather than a relief-like
construction, a modffication which is explained by the placing of the
pictures in a big altarwork intended to produce a hieratic, decorative
effect. There is one more altarpiece (PL 195), in the Accademia in
Florence, now attributed to Andrea Orcagna. In the central panel
we see the Virgin Appearing to St. Bernard, and in the wings, two
pairs of saints: St. John the Evangelist and St. Benedict, St. Gal-
ganus and St. Quintinus. The predella shows six scenes from the
lives of these saints, and in the gables are medallions representing
the Annunciation and Christ giving a benediction. The picture
attracts attention chiefly because of its unusually luminous coloring:
white, bright blue, green, and carmine tones glow against the shining
golden ground. In the central picture, where St. Bernard kneels at
his lectern looking up at the Madonna who comes floating down
accompanied by two angels, the artist has strewn the ground with
flowers and put big trees in the background, to indicate the cloister
garden where the incident takes place. The faces are typical of
Orcagna, and the hands are drawn with remarkable firmness and
care, but the figures are crowded together and partly cut off by the
frame. The impression of crowding becomes still stronger when we
turn our attention to the predella scenes. They have none of the
freedom and sureness that we find in the Strozzi altarpiece or in
the Johnson predella. The figures overlap and are huddled together
without any clear grouping. It is hard to believe that Orcagna can
have been personally responsible for these little pictures. They show
something of the stiffness and the deficient clarity which appears in
the work of Jacopo di Cione. We are therefore inclined to assign this
altarpiece to a rather advanced stage of Orcagna's activity, when his
younger brothers or other helpers took a considerable part in the
execution of his paintings. For purposes of comparison one may
mention the beautiful Httle picture in the Fogg Museum at Cam
bridge, illustrating the Nativity, the Annunciation, and the Entomb
ment, which must be regarded as one of Jacopo di Clone's finest and
earliest works. One here finds exactly corresponding figures, drawn
in the same slightly stunted and stiffened version of Andrea's style.

ANDREA ORCAGNA 231
It is only natural that we should meet with various pictures in a
somewhat weakened or diluted Orcagnesque style, as Orcagna main
tained a bottega where other assistants besides his brothers were
employed. Undoubtedly numerous pictures were executed by two
or more of the brothers in collaboration. They are often decorative
and attractive because of their splendidly designed forms and rich
coloring, but they have no further importance tor the study of
Andrea Orcagna's personal artistic achievement; so in this connec
tion they may be passed over.

232 GIOTTO 3
The Frescoes
In his concise notes on Orcagna's works Ghiberti, as we have
already seen, mentions four series of frescoes in different churches
in Florence: "La cappella maggiore" in Santa Maria Novella;
" tre magnffiche storie " in Santa Croce; " due cappelle " in Santa
Maria dei Servi; " uno rifettorio " in Santo Spirito (formerly Sant
Agostino). Of these four series the frescoes in Santa Maria NoveUa
and in Santa Maria dei Servi are no longer in existence; the first was
damaged by lightning and subsequently covered with new paintings
by Domenico Ghirlandajo, and the Santa Maria dei Servi frescoes
were presumably destroyed when the church itself was rebuilt.
Fortunately the fate of the Santa Croce and Santo Spirito paintings
has not been quite so hard : they are not well preserved, to be sure,
but there remains enough of them to give a definite impression of the
master's abffity as a monumental decorator. Thus despite their
fragmentary condition they still hold an important place among
Orcagna's works and they are the more interesting because they
are so little known. The Santo Spirito frescoes have never been
connected with the master in modern times.
The fragments remaining of the " tre magnffiche storie " in Santa
Croce were discovered during the restoration of the church in 1911,
when part of the sixteenth-century plaster was removed from the
waUs and some of the large altarpieces by Florentine academi
cians of Vasari's time were taken down. Behind the fifth of these
pictures (a baroque composition by Minga), about the middle of the
right aisle, several very expressive figures were uncovered, which
evidently had once formed part of a " Trionfo della Morte," (PL 196)
and thanks to the description in Vasari of Orcagna's compositions in
this place, it was easy to identify them. Vasari says of Orcagna, " In
Florence he continued his labors, painting a very large fresco on one
of the walls to the right in the church of Santa Croce, near the center.
The subject of this work is that which he had previously treated in
the Campo Santo of Pisa, in three simUar divisions, but the story of
St. Macarius, exhibiting the dead kings, and that of the hermits on
the mountain is omitted. Repeating all the other parts of the Pisan
pictures, he executed the Florentine work with improved design and
greater care than he had bestowed on that of Pisa, but pursuing a
similar plan as to the composition, as well as in manner, inscriptions,

ANDREA ORCAGNA 233
and other accessories; in this respect the only change was in the por
traits from life, those of the Florentine picture portraying his friends
on one side, whom he placed in Paradise, and his enemies on the
other, who were placed in Inferno."
This fragment, now brought to light, was evidently the portion at
the extreme left of a representation of the triumph of Death. It is
about four meters high, but scarcely more than a meter long. Across
the middle of the picture runs a wide gap, cut in the plaster to make
room for the beam which held up the huge altarpiece that was put
in place when the church was restored in the sixteenth century.
The painting shows a group of lame, halt, and blind, diseased and
emaciated beggars, who eagerly await death. From one of them
issues the following verse:
" Dacche prosperitade ci a lasciati
Ho morte, medicina d'ogni pena, deh, vien
Ci dare omai Tultima cena!"
(Since prosperity has left us,
Oh Death, cure for every ill, come then
And give us finally the last supper!)
Their longing is in vain — Death comes not as a liberator but as
an avenger. Man's wishes do not control his flight. It is the strong,
the good, and the energetic whom he harvests first : at the feet of the
beggars and cripples we see a nun, a cardinal and a knight lying
dead. They lie limp on their backs with their eyes closed; the types
are none the less marked, though not to the same degree as in the
cripples, whose starved and sunken faces seize us with irresistible
pathos, and attest a character painter of high rank.
Higher up on the waU there are painted buildings which are falling
apart, presumably as the result of an earthquake. The city waUs
crumble, towers totter, the sides of houses split — men flee in terror.
Although only a few suggestive elements remain of the representa
tion of this catastrophe, the impression is strong and convmcing.
The cataclysm of nature brings out the helplessness of man in aU its
nakedness. Death triumphs not only in the reaping of separate
individuals but also in the devastating outbreaks of the elements.
It is vain to speculate as to what this composition in its entirety
may have been like, as only small fragments remain, but at least it
gives reason to believe Vasari's statement that Orcagna's frescoes in
Santa Croce corresponded, in the main, to the famous iUustrations
of the Triumph of Death in the Campo Santo in Pisa, although the
relation between these series was plainly the opposite of what Vasari

234 GIOTTO
asserts; it was not the Campo Santo paintings which were the
originals, but the frescoes in Santa Croce. The greater power of the
latter, which is remarked by Vasari, is clearly shown in the surviving
fragments. If we compare the cripples in Santa Croce with the
corresponding figures furthest to the left in the Campo Santo
Triumph, we cannot fail to recognize the superiority of the former,
both in spiritual characterization and in plastic form value. These
gaunt and hollow-eyed faces look as if they had been cast in bronze;
they have a plastic firmness and sharpness which only a master like
Orcagna could attain. The impression of suffering and longing has a
stamp of greatness and nobility which is not to be found in the figures
in the Campo Santo. These later works appear almost like cari
catures beside the Santa Croce frescoes — the tj^es are exaggerated,
the expressions grimacing, the movements forced.
The comparison clearly reveals that the Santa Croce frescoes must
have been painted by a greater master than those in the Campo
Santo, and it also serves to bring out characteristics which justify
the ascription of the Florentine series to Orcagna. Who painted the
frescoes in Pisa is a question that need not detain us at this juncture,
and in what measure this artist used Orcagna's paintings as models
is now impossible to determine owing to the small portion of the
older paintings which survive. Very probably the composition
showed several important deviations from the scenes we can now
study in the Campo Santo, even if the main features were the same.
The ghastly witch who floats down with a raised scythe, fuffilhng the
function of Death, was surely mightier and more terrible in Santa
Croce; the contrast between the sufferers longing for release and the
care-free youths and maidens who are cut off in the midst of life's
joys was still more dramatic — the impression was deepened by the
raging cataclysms of nature.
The decorative value of this stirring composition was certainly
very high. The artist's architectonic quality of design gives us reason
to assume that he here accomplished something of extraordinary
importance. We can only express the hope that larger portions of
these frescoes may still be uncovered.
The old church and cloister of Santo Spirito, or Sant Agostino, as
it was caUed when it belonged to the Augustinian order, was one of
the centers of Florentine Trecento painting. Early authorities like
Ghiberti, " Billi," Vasari, etc., mention important frescoes by
Giotto's principal foUowers (Stefano, Taddeo Gaddi, Maso, Giottino,
Orcagna, etc.), in this church. The loss of aU these pictures is one of

ANDREA ORCAGNA 235
the most serious obstacles to a reconstruction of the history of the
Florentine art of the period.
The rebuUding of old Santo Spirito is known to have been begun
according to Brunelleschi's plans, but whether the cloisters were
included in Brunelleschi's scheme we do not know. In any case a
more complete reconstruction became necessary after the great fire
of 1471. The church was immediately restored in the closest possible
conformity to Brunelleschi's plans, but the cloisters were not com
pleted until the sixteenth century, by Alfonso Parigi and Bartolom
meo Ammanati. What may possibly have survived of the older art
of the fourteenth century was then lost, and in its place appeared
examples of Poccetti's flimsy, opera-foyer painting.
There remains, however, not far from the church a little annex
which, to judge from the architecture, was built at the same time as
the original church at the end of the thirteenth century. It is a long,
narrow room with a high, sloping roof and small, Gothic windows.
From the indications of one of the fragments of fresco still remaining,
this served in former times as the refectory, and plainly is the room
to which Ghiberti refers in his notes when he writes, " e dipinto uno
rifettorio ne' frati di Sant Agostino."
The room has meanwhile suffered from vandalism. It evidently
has been used as a storehouse, and has been divided into two stories
by a flooring buUt across the middle. The great holes made for the
beams gape spectraUy in the walls, as though crying out in sorrow at
man's lack of reverence for mighty works of art. At present the
room is the workshop of the Florentine sculptor Romanelli.
It is easy to understand that the paintings which originally
decorated this room should not be in especially good condition, con
sidering what they have suffered not only from the tooth of time but
from the hand of man. Yet, enough remains to afford a basis for
stylistic criticism, and it is plain that the original composition, even
in the city of monumental paintings, was one of the most glorious.
It is a representation of the Crucffixion (PL 197), which extended
clear across one of the end waUs and reached from the point of the
roof down to within three or four meters of the ground. Beneath
the Crucifixion is the Last Supper (PL 198), represented in the
usual Trecento manner, with Christ and aU the apostles in a row
along one side of the table; at each end of the picture there has been
a saint in a separate niche. Only two flgures from the Last Supper
now remain, the two who were sitting furthest to the right — one in
fuU face, one in profile — the others have been destroyed, some by

236 GIOTTO
the piercing of a large door in the middle of the wall, some by the
more recent erection of a smaU cupboard against the waU on the left
side. Of the two separate saints, only the one on the right is pre
served, a powerful Augustinian in a shell-covered niche.
The splendid Crucffixion is dominated by the lofty wide-spreadmg
cross. None of the figures on the ground reaches as high as Christ's
feet. He looms up like a great, gray shadow over their heads; the
contours have been faded by time, and the mighty figure looks aU
the larger, even more overpowering than before, because the penti-
menti around him run together with the actual drawing. The scale
of the Christ is at least a third larger than that of the other figures.
The position is somewhat stiff; he seems rather to be standing on the
support under his feet than hanging by the arms. The breast, body,
and legs are summarily drawn, without any particular movement in
the Imes. The face appears vaguely through the thick layers of dust;
it is bent sharply forward, with deeply shadowed eyes — one can
discern, with effort, the expression of pain.
In sjonmetrical array on each side of Christ hover ten angels, some
catching his blood in cups, some expressing their despair in the
traditional manner by tearing the front of their garments and wring
ing their hands. But we find no trace here of any such frantic un
restrained grief as in Giotto's Crucffixions. These angels are much
stiffer, and their trailing mantles are draped in plastic folds more
or less suggesting bronze casting. Their symmetrical arrangement
recalls such compositions in sculpture as Orcagna's large Assump
tion in Or San Michele. In fact a closer comparison between the
angels in the fresco and those in the marble tabernacle affords
strong support for the attribution of the two works to the same
master. Beneath the cross runs a great horizontal composition, its contours
rising gradually toward both sides, up to the heads of the mounted
soldiers, and dipping down in the middle, where the figures stand
round the foot of the cross. Here we see on the left the women of
Jerusalem clustering together in timid anxiety, and in front of them,
standing a little lower down, the relatives of Christ, the Marys and
John, of whom only the heads are preserved. On the other side of
the cross the helmets of the foot-soldiers gleam through the darkness.
They form only a small group between the cross and their mounted
comrades, who, led by Longinus, advance from the right in closed
ranks. In the foreground below the riders (furthest to the right) is a
separate group of the men who cast lots for Christ's garment. As

ANDREA ORCAGNA 237
counterpoise to aU these soldiers we see on the other side, behind the
women, a few mounted men. The first of these, in a pure white
garment with a halo round his head, sits reverently praying; he is
perhaps the counselor Nicodemus, who, however, is not usually
represented riding. Behind him we see four horsemen, in pairs, the
two first in helmets and buff coats, the others dressed more like
citizens. Of the figures standing in front of these so Httle is left that
it is hard to recognize their particular character. Very likely they
were, as usual, the Jews, slinking off in fear when the Crucified gives
up the ghost and the sun is darkened. Two little boys are introduced
into the foreground, in the true Giottesque manner, as if to heighten
the impression of actuality of the great throng.
None of these many people makes a vehement motion or an
excited gesture — they are dazed with horror and fear, and remain in
sUent grief. Only Longinus raises his long, mailed arm, designating
Christ to his companions : " ille Filius Dei." The rider immediately
beside him is turned with his back to the beholder, and his horse is
shown in foreshortening from behind, a remarkably hard problem
in perspective that no earlier artist had ventured to attack. The
women express their emotion by mild and subdued gestures. One
raises her hand in the usual manner, the palm tumed out; a few
others lay their hands across their breasts, like Simone's and Ambro
gio's women, and an old woman clenches her fist convulsively, as
though to repress an outburst of agony. Her brows are knitted
in pain, and the corners of her mouth are quivering with agitation.
St. John is the only one who gives audible utterance to his grief;
violent sobs distort his features, as he looks down, probably at
Mary, who lies in a swoon — but she has entirely disappeared from
the picture.
Among the women we recognize several types closely resembling
the Madonnas by Orcagna previously described. The well rounded
face with narrow, almond eyes and straight, prominent nose is very
evident in several of the women, particularly in those furthest to the
right, turned in profile or half-profile. The types are very uniform
and are remarkable less for emotional expression than for plastic
form values.
The mounted soldiers on either side of the cross sit stiff and proud
on their tall Roman horses, in long ranks that run slanting into the
foreground. They wear jerkins of dark green and rusty red, their
helmets and shirts of maU glittermg with the duU gleam of steel.
Over their heads streams a great red banner like a warning " Mene

238 GIOTTO
tekel " in the dark night sky. The foot-soldiers, similarly dressed,
some of whom carry long shields, gather in a dense circle and bend
their helmeted heads to follow the drawing of the deciding lot. In
both groups one recognizes the straight, clearcut profiles, like those,
for instance, of the Strozzi altarpiece; a similar correspondence
exists between the soldiers in full face in the fresco and the Christ and
the St. John in the Strozzi painting. The large, well formed hands
are also noticeable; they entirely accord with what we have seen in
several of Orcagna's panels. The draping of the mantles is broad
and clear, but the folds are so far effaced by wear that it is no longer
possible to base an attribution on them. Still, as far as we can dis
tinguish it, the treatment of folds seems to sustain the prevailing
Orcagnesque character of the painting. The impressively monu
mental effect of this great composition rests in the first place on the
clearness and unity of the disposition of mass. There is hardly any
question here of dramatic centralization. The different groups form
separate parts which are ranged alongside of each other without any
special connecting members, although there is a certain emotional
unity. One feels that the whole was conceived with full appreciation
of the majesty and sublimity of the subject. Without using pathetic
gestures or violent motions, and despite his strict, almost stiff,
continuity of line and his deficient dramatic concentration, the art
ist has succeeded in producing an emotional effect unsurpassed in
monumental grandeur by any other Florentine representation of
the Crucifixion.
Looking down at the fresco below, which shows the two apostles
from the Last Supper and the solitary saint in his niche, one is struck
more forcibly than ever by the plastic quality of the figures. One
apostle is shown in full face, with raised hands; the other turns his
face toward the center, while his body remains in full front, and
crosses his hands over his breast. Both appear isolated, unconnected
emotionally, taking no interest in the great drama in which they are
supposed to be playing parts; they are impressive only because of
their clear, broad forms.
The Augustinian who stands in the niche with a book and a staff
in his hands is more like a portrait — he reminds us in this respect of
the kneeling St. Thomas Aquinas in the Strozzi altarpiece — but the
main quality here again is the supreme realization of tridimensional
form standing free in space. The niche with its classical shell looks
almost like a Renaissance composition. This detail brings out very
strongly the artist's architectural training, and the construction of

ANDREA ORCAGNA 239
the haU in which the Last Supper takes place corroborates this
evidence. The whole composition must once have been solemn and
monumental in effect, due largely to the clear space design and the
statuesque appearance of the isolated figures.
We have reason to assume that all this splendid fresco decoration
was done to the order of a member of the family of Cambi di Napo
leone, whose arms, a black bend on a red and gold field, appear twice
in each side of the frame of the Crucifixion.'
According to Passerini's genealogical notes in the Bibhoteca
Nazionale, the first head of the Cambi di Napoleone family, Neri di
Cambio, moved from Borgo San Sepolcro to Florence in 1347, and
died there in 1355. His son, Filippo di Neri, seems to have been an
influential cloth manufacturer, who was married in 1375 and died in
1385. As we know of no other member of the family at that period,
it was presumably one of these two who ordered the frescoes. One
might suppose that these were done according to the wUl of the elder,
but if this was the case there must have been a delay of some years
before his bequest was put into effect, as on stylistic grounds the
paintings cannot be dated much before 1360.
The frescoes (PL 199) in the Strozzi Chapel in Santa Maria
Novella, which have often been attributed to Andrea, were not
executed by him but by his older brother. Ghiberti says expressly
that Nardo painted "La Cappella del Inferno " for the Strozzi family,
and a closer study of the paintings only strengthens the conviction
that the critical annotator was right. Andrea may have collaborated,
but the figure style is essentially Nardo's; we must, therefore, study
them in connection with Nardo's other work.

The paintings which we have considered should have given us some
idea of Andrea's individual style and artistic development. He
started, presumably, as a sculptor, but he evidently devoted his best
years to painting. In his big altarpieces and Madonnas he appears
as one of the most independent and purposeful of all the Florentine
Trecento painters, a master whose artistic responsibility never
allowed him to lapse into the empty routine and stenciled repetition
of which so many of his contemporaries were guilty. He was, besides,
' This family also possessed two altars in Santo Spirito; one was given up to the monks in
1694, and the other passed to Cavaliere Settiman. The arms of the family are among those
that appear on the exterior of the side wall of the church. At the end of the fifteenth century
the Cambi di Napoleone arms were altered by the insertion of a double eagle, the special
emblem of the Greek emperors. See also Rietstap, Armorial Qiniral, i, 358.

240 GIOTTO
the first — after Giotto — of that many-sided type which became usual
later, in the full Renaissance; the only Trecento artist of whom we
can say with certainty that he was as distinguished as a sculptor and
an architect as he was as a painter. The training that he received as
a builder and a sculptor may also be traced, as we have seen, in his
painting, and it should be emphasized that this is one of the reasons
for his leading position in the specffically Florentine school which was
practically untouched by Sienese influence. Orcagna is often men
tioned as the best pupil of Giotto (he was hardly a pupil of Giotto in
the literal sense) and the first master of the great Renaissance
class. Crowe and Cavalcaselle call him " a universal genius," and
add that " had he lived at a time when perspective had become a
science, he might have been numbered among the greatest artists of
his country." Fortunately ignorance of the laws of perspective is no
absolute barrier to artistic greatness (in fact the reverse has some
times been the case), and if we endorse the first part of the apprecia
tion we may well omit the qualifying clause. Orcagna's art is
especially interesting because it manifests the Florentine spirit in
unusually pure and striking form; it reveals a fundamentaUy plastic
conception of material phenomena, with comparatively little of that
pictorial fluency which becomes prevalent in the later part of the
century.

XIV
NARDO DI CIONE
1
Fresco Paintings
NARDO DI CIONE'S full Christian name, according to Mila
nesi, was Leonardo (Vasari however calls him Bernardo).' He
is said to have been the elder brother of Andrea Orcagna, but he
appears later than Andrea in the roUs of the "Arte dei Medici e
Speziali " : the year of his inscription has been fixed at approximately
1345, whereas Andrea's enrolment took place a year or two before.
In 1355, on the last day of October, " Leonardus Cionis populi
Sancti Laurentii " matriculated in the " Arte dei maestri di pietre e
legnami." On May 21, 1365, Nardo is making his wUl, " corpore
languens," and as the same year appears after his name in the rolls
of the Guild of St. Luke, it is evident that he died before it was over.
He was aipparently unmarried, because in the following year his
three brothers, Andrea, Jacopo, and Matteo, are mentioned as his
" eredi universali."
Nardo does not seem to have been as versatile a genius as Andrea.
We know nothing of his activity as an architect or a sculptor, and his
painting bears convincing evidence that his style was formed not in
the bottega of a carver, but entirely in the exercise of the profession
of painting. His later work is distinguished by a remarkably sure
grasp of the specifically pictorial problems of light and color.
The starting-point for a study of Nardo's style must be taken in
the Cappella Strozzi, as these are the only frescoes of his named by
Ghiberti. Elsewhere we are limited to stylistic comparisons; no
signed works by Nardo have as yet been discovered.
The subject of these frescoes is the Last Judgment, but the artist
has in some degree subordinated the main incident in order to elabo
rate in great detail the ecstasies of the blessed and the torments of the
damned (PL 200). Highest up above the big, Gothic window in the
end wall of the chapel appears Christ in a radiating aureole, sur-
' Cf. Milanesi's notes to Vasari's Vita di Andrea Orcagna, ed. Sansoni, p. 591, and Karl
Frey, Loggia dei Lanzi, p. 101.

242 GIOTTO
rounded by trumpeting angels. On both sides of the window sit
the apostles in two rows, one above the other, three in each row,
with their attributes and books of doom in their hands. As connect
ing links between the heavenly judge and this solemn jury kneel on
one side the Virgin and on the other St. John the Baptist, looking up
pleadingly at Christ. Below these big and powerful figures the com
position is continued on both sides of the window by troops of the
blessed and the damned, crowded together in the relatively small
spaces between the window and the side walls. The figures, which
are drawn in considerably smaller scale than Christ and the apostles,
are arranged in four successive rows, one above the other; one can
hardly speak of any real composition. To be sure the artist tried to
produce a little variety in the attitudes, placing some of the figures
in profile, some in full face, and even one with his back turned, but
the narrow space does not seem to have allowed any other disposition
than this arrangement in steps. This scheme has made it possible for
the artist to maintain the theological classification and separate into
successive stages the various categories, both among the blessed and
the damned, which were part of the framework of mediaeval repre
sentations of heaven and hell. Among the blessed the patriarchs
take the highest place, followed by cardinals, bishops, and poets;
beneath them stand secular rulers and monks; lowest of all, ordinary
citizens and the women who have attained salvation. On the side of
the damned there is a corresponding distinction between heretics,
heathen, malefactors, misers, and other varieties of unbelieving and
sinful men.
It is, however, neither the arrangement of the composition nor its
literary and theological meaning which interests us, but the char
acterization of the individual figures. Many of these representatives
of various classes and spheres of life are not only distinct types but
actual portraits. The profile of Dante among the blessed has
attained great fame; beside him stand two other figures of equally
striking individuality. The women, on the contrary, are of rather
uniform type: small, round faces with long eyes, low foreheads
and have light hair. Their expression is gentle and dreamy,
not without womanly charm. The artist has been much more suc
cessful in the indication of the mild and happy state of the blessed
than of the torment and anguish of the damned. His temperament
seems to have been more lyric than dramatic; he had not the power
of instilling any tragic grandeur into the representation of the
agony of lost souls.

NARDO DI CIONE 243
We could confirm these observations by a survey of the big paint
ings that entirely cover the side walls of the chapel — on one hand
a rnarshahng of all the terrors of hell and on the other an array of the
quiet delights of heavenly bhss. The representation of hell has won
special fame as a faithful iUustration of Dante's Inferno; it is undeni
ably entertaining in its detaUed completeness, but it can hardly be
accorded any great artistic importance. As it has been entirely
repainted, it no longer has any value for the study of Nardo's method
of expression. So far as we know, this painting was the first large
picture of hell in direct conformity with Dante's description.
If the much subdivided hell fresco, with its many compartments
enclosed by curving rock ridges, suggests a vast map, the correspond
ing paradise fresco (PL 201) looks like a big tapestry. It is quite
flat, as though hung against the wall, not intended to produce any
iUusion of reality but merely to decorate an otherwise blank wall.
The painting consists of a series of thirteen successive, overlapping,
horizontal bands, of which only the bottom one is completely visible.
The others consist of half-length figures rising behind each other.
The dominating central axis is accentuated by the large throne at
the top, where Christ and Mary are placed, and by the free space
before the throne, which is only partly filled by two kneeling angel
musicians. The long, horizontal rows are thus broken in the middle,
except for the two lowest planes, which are continuous all the way
across the wall. The decorative effect of the whole depends mainly
upon the unified rhythm of line, the clear opposition of horizontals
and verticals, which dominates the design. To this is added the
light and harmonious play of color which certainly was once still
more vivacious, because the picture is covered with dust and dirt,
and some parts, especially the figures at the middle of the bottom,
have been freely and carelessly repainted.
The artist has here, as in the Last Judgment, arranged the figures
according to the traditional, hierarchical classffication, placing the
holiest and most venerable at the top, and then ranging row after
row of the various classes of the blessed, gradually decreasing in saint-
liness and hieratic importance (PL 202). Thus the two lowest rows
comprise only women — the least holy, but the most beautiful —
virginal figures with Hght wavy hair and charming faces. Here even
the attendant angels are excluded, the heavenly servants who in the
upper rows are placed between the blessed, most of them carrying
instruments — mandolins, zithers, sackbuts, portable organs, etc.
 for the delight of the elect. The bliss of those who have attained

244 GIOTTO
salvation is like delicious heavenly music, a dream of beauty and
harmony, a state of rapture, not of life or action. Nothing happens
here; the representation is entirely abstract, timeless and spaceless,
borne along by the lofty poetry of the vision of beatitude. The
only deviation from this actionless existence which the artist has
so marvelously suggested is produced by an angel in the foreground,
leading a knight and a nun to join the blessed.
If from this general impression of the decorative design one pro
ceeds to a study of individual figures, one observes that the artist
has brought out with great care and unusual skill the characteristic
features and temperaments. Particularly among the older men
there are some portrait-like heads. The others show more unified
types; the angels are aU brothers — their full, oval faces, framed by
fair, waving hair, show little variation. Among the men one notices
a bearded type with broad forehead, short, straight nose, and small
mouth, which especially when turned in full front, is powerful and
striking. The deep expression in the eyes, the furrowed brow,
and the firmly closed mouth, give a stamp of thoughtfulness and
decision. The male as well as the female types are very distinc
tive, easily distinguishable from those of contemporaneous masters.
The figures, when they appear complete, are tall; the round heads
look small on the towering bodies. Remarkably good light-model
ing gives them a soft roundness, and sometimes contributes pictorial
charm. They differ from the more sculpturally treated bodies
which we have seen in Orcagna paintings. In brief, one can here
detect an individual style and a feeling for form which must be
regarded as characteristic of Nardo, and made the basis for further
attributions. In 1910 there were discovered in the Badia in Florence some frag
ments of Trecento frescoes, in a little recess behind a later wall, which
formed a part of the ancient Cappella Giochi e Bastari. The dis
covery aroused considerable interest and was published at length by
Peleo Bacci in an article in the Bolletino d'Arte (January, I9I1),
where the author tries to prove that the frescoes in question are
fragments of paintings which the famous Buffalmaco is said to have
executed in this chapel. Vasari gives a detailed description of these
frescoes, which represented scenes from the Passion, and particu
larly emphasizes the realistic representations of Pilate in prison and
Judas hanging from a tree (PL 203). Vasari's high opinion seems
entirely justffied by what has been brought to light: the hanging
Judas and Pilate peering through the bars of his cell are unusuaUy

NARDO DI CIONE 245
graphic and fascinating for early Trecento work. There remain be
sides only a few fragments (PL 204) of Christ Carrymg the Cross and
some figures from the Crucifixion. Unquestionably these are the
very pictures that served as the basis for Vasari's enthusiastic praise
of Buffalmaco.
Vasari is by no means a dependable authority when it comes to
Trecento painters. It is well known that the good Aretine created
more confusion than order in the history of Florentine Trecento art
by publishing a mass of anecdotes and statements that are, to say
the least, doubtful, about the works of the older masters. We cannot
as a rule depend on his assertions except when they are corroborated
by earlier writers such as Ghiberti or the anonymous author of
the Libro di Antonio Billi. But neither of these has anything to
say about the frescoes in the Cappella Giochi e Bastari. When,
furthermore, we find that Vasari has given misleading information
about the pictures in another chapel in the same church, we have
every reason to take his statements about Buffalmaco's work
with a grain of salt. Vasari tells us that Puccio Capanna painted
in the CappeUa Covone in the Badia, but as was shown in the
chapter on " Maso," the fragments which remain of this decora
tion are the work of a painter considerably later than Puccio
Capanna. Unfortunately we lack anj'^ definite standard of judgment for
Buffalmaco's style.' The frescoes in the Badia at Settimo, which are
ascribed to him by several of the older authorities, are so badly worn
that they can hardly be made the basis of any further attributions.
It seems evident from historical allusions that Buffalmaco was
already a famous artist at the beginning of the fourteenth century,
and that he executed frescoes for the cloister of the Faentine nuns in
Florence (Monistero deUe donne di Faenza) in the years 1314-17.
The artist therefore seems to have been only a little younger than
Giotto, and in any case a member of an earher generation than
Taddeo, Bemardo Daddi, and Orcagna. His art cannot have been
further developed along the lines of naturalistic and pictorial expres
sion than that of these masters, for even the greatest geniuses of
Trecento painting plainly show to which epoch they belong. The
gradual progress in Florentme painting in the period from 1300 to
1380 is so clearly marked in all the painters whose work has been
1 As already stated we beheve that there are good reasons for the identification of Buf
falmaco with the so-called St. CecUia-master, but the closer discussion of this hypothesis
must be left for another occasion.

246 GIOTTO
preserved to our day that we rarely are left in doubt as to the
approximate date of a painting, even when we cannot designate the
individual master.
The fragments in question in the Cappella Giochi e Bastari exhibit,
as we have said, a particularly free, naturalistic manner of represen
tation and a pictorial treatment of form which plainly indicates that
they were done after the middle of the fourteenth century. The
masterpiece, Judas Hanging from a Tree and Pilate in Prison —
which is part of the same picture — attest a study of nature
which exceeds anything that Taddeo Gaddi achieved in that
field. The weight of the dangling man is well rendered, and his
belly burst asunder with the bowels gushing out is a motif which
no painter of Giotto's generation would have undertaken. In the
representation of Christ on the way to Golgotha there appears in
addition to the main figure a stalwart warrior, who with drawn sword
drives away the three women, Mary and her companions, from the
side of the falling Christ. As the figures are only partially preserved,
we cannot get any idea of what the compositions were like. If we
attempt an attribution based on criticism of style, we are therefore
limited to the types and the treatment of form in the separate figures.
We lay special stress on two different masculine types. One, which is
exemplffied by PUate and some of the fragmentary figures in the
Crucffixion, is rather round and full with a broad forehead, short,
straight nose, and small mouth; the other, which is most plainly
shown by Judas and the warrior with the drawn sword, is somewhat
more elongated, with a broad forehead, prominent nose, and pointed
chin. Both these types occur in several of the figures in Nardo's
paintings in the Strozzi Chapel The round type is the commoner,
as we have previously pointed out; the thinner type can be found,
for instance, in the apostle James, who sits to the left in the top row
in the Last Judgment (to mention only one easUy identffied example).
The woman who is shown in fuU front in the illustration of Christ
bearing the cross has the same full, facial oval, the same character
istic drawing of eyes, nose, and mouth, as the angels among the elect.
The noble face of Christ, seen somewhat from the side, recurs among
the apostles in the first rank, near the kneeling Mary in the Last
Judgment. The figures are throughout big and tall, their heads smaU
in proportion to their bodies; a certain stiffness marks their move
ments. They are the same kind of figures as in Nardo's frescoes.
As far as one can judge from the remaining fragments, which are all
more or less worn, the pictorial rendering of form has again had the

NARDO DI CIONE 247
same relatively soft character which we have observed in Nardo's
authentic works. The correspondences in style are on the whole
such that we cannot avoid the conclusion that the interesting Badia
frescoes are also to be reckoned among Nardo's works.
We find further confirmation of our attribution in the frescoes from
the Hfe of the Virgin, which are situated in the cloister at Santa Maria
Novella, just outside the CappeUa Strozzi. These frescoes (PL 205)
have already been assigned to Nardo by several students (Suida,
Venturi, etc.). They represent the message of the angel to Joachim,
the meeting of Joachim and Anna at the Golden Gate, the nativity
of the Virgin, and the presentation in the temple. The rest of the
series is destroyed. Though these paintings are in rather poor
condition in some of them, such as the Meeting and the Presenta
tion, we can still clearly distinguish Nardo's characteristic figure
drawing and his well formed types. The tall forms in the Presenta
tion — the high priest on the temple terrace and the spectators at
the foot of the steps — directly recall the foremost figures in the
Strozzi Paradise, and on the other hand, Christ and the man with
the sword in the Badia frescoes. These frescoes have still greater
interest as testimony of Nardo's ability to produce naturalistic
representations in a remarkably free, pictorial form. Joachim receives
the tidings from the angel, sitting in a wide mountain landscape with
a strikingly actual atmosphere of nature. The Nativity has an
intimate genre-character, and in the Presentation the artist has
successfully solved the architectural problem presented by the
obliquely drawn temple steps and terrace. If one compares these
illustrations of the Hfe of Mary with Taddeo Gaddi's pictures of the
same subjects in the Cappella Baroncelli, one finds that Nardo has
attained clearer and more satisfactory compositional forms than the
older master. His unusual power of observation stands out, for
instance, in the characterization of the two chatting shepherd boys
who follow Joachim to the Golden Gate. Here we have the same
realistic characterization which was so strikingly manifest in the
representation of the hanging Judas, in the Badia Chapel.
Nardo was obviously one of the most distinguished and most
sought-after of the fresco painters of Florence about the middle of the
fourteenth century. He made freer use of the pictorial means of
expression than any of the artists we have studied hitherto. He
could be solemn and monumental when he so desired, and he could
also paint graphically and descriptively when the subject gave
opportunity. But in all these works we can trace the firm drawing

248 GIOTTO
of the figures and the sure handHng of drapery which make him a
worthy brother of Andrea. He combines the good quality of
Orcagna's figure style with a finer interpretation of the purely pic
torial elements of light and atmosphere and a more naturalistic
method of composition.
We have no fixed dates for these various frescoes, but we may
fairly assume that they fall within the fifties or the earlier part of the
next decade. Possibly the Strozzi frescoes are a little earlier than
the paintings in the cloister and the Badia series, although the dif
ferent nature of the works hardly permits us to trace any definite
course of development. All these big setsof frescoes must, however,
belong to the artist's ripest period.

NARDO DI CIONE 249
2
Easel Pictures
Nardo's art shows the same general origin as Andrea's; both received
deciding influence from Bernardo Daddi, but Nardo attaches to a
somewhat earher stage in Bernardo's development than his brother,
which is only natural, considering his greater age. It is furthermore
probable that Nardo devoted himself to painting at an earlier age
than Andrea, who at the outset seems to have spent most of his
artistic energy on sculpture. But in the course of years there un
doubtedly took place continuous artistic intercourse between the
two brothers; which of them contributed most is now hard to deter
mine. The principal difference is that Nardo does not show such a
marked taste as Andrea for sculptural construction and a relief-like
form of composition. His paintings have a more purely decorative
quality. One of the best examples of Nardo's easel pictures is the large
Madonna (PL 206) now in the New York Historical Society's collec
tion (formerly in the Artaud de Montor and the Bryan collections) .
The Virgin is sitting in full front, holding the naked child standing on
her left knee. Her throne is covered with a brocade of the bird and
palmetto pattern which recurs in several of Nardo's paintings. In
the foreground stand St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evange
list, and on either side, St. Zenobius and Santa Reparata, two local
saints, whose presence proves that the picture was painted for some
Florentine church. The composition is entirely built up of longitu
dinal lines converging over the head of the Madonna, in harmony
with the gradual narrowing of the pointed arch of the frame. The
restrained and solemn rhythm of line gives a hieratic impression.
The color scheme is deep and sumptuous : Mary's blue mantle lined
with ermine and the carmine garment under it stand out against the
brocade covering; the two saints at the sides wear brocade mantles of
a red and black pattern on a gold ground. The evangehst has a
cinnabar mantle, and the Baptist's is dark violet. The color
harmony is of the same solemn character as the design, deep and
strong like organ music. The conception has throughout — partic
ularly in the characterization of the youthful Virgin — a poetic under
tone recalling that of the Paradise fresco in the Cappella Strozzi.
Two smaller Madonnas (PL 207), which presumably were once the
central panels in domestic altars, are similar in composition to those

250 GIOTTO
described above. One belongs to Mr. D. F. Piatt in Englewood,
N. J. The Madonna is here presented sitting on a throne which is
set back a little into the picture; on either side stand two saints,
John the Baptist and Francis, Peter and Catherine; behind the
throne are two angels. The Madonna is in full front and holds
the child, on her right arm, in a rather uncomfortable position.
Mary's bearing is severe, but the picture none the less has a some
what more intimate tone than the larger altarpieces, chiefly owing
to the arrangement of the saints and angels in a closer circle round
the throne, producing a better effect of space than in the big
pictures. The other Madonna (PL 207), which belongs to a private coUec
tion in Stockholm, is of somewhat larger size and in a better state of
preservation. The Virgin is here again shown in fuU front and main
tains a hieratic bearing, but the child is a more lively bambino, rest
lessly kicking and reaching out toward a female saint at the side of
the throne. Four angels are holding a drapery of pure gold behind
the Madonna, and in front of her stand six saints. The color effect
is sumptuous: both the mother and the child are wearing red gar
ments; her mantle is a deep azure; the angels and the saints have
deep-toned tunics and mantles and their broad haloes are richly
ornamented. The whole picture thus gives the effect of a ghmmer-
ing mosaic. The execution is distinguished by unusual refinement
and accuracy.
A third Madonna of the same class, though smaller and not so weU
preserved, belongs to Mr. GrenvUle L. Winthrop in New York.
This has on the base a date of which nothing is now legible except:
" ANNO DOMINI MCCC ..."
In these small Madonnas it is not hard to trace Nardo's connection
with Bernardo Daddi, who painted several Httle altarpieces with
enthroned Madonnas in full front surrounded by attendant angels
and saints. We may, for instance, cite in comparison Bernardo's
Httle triptych in the Accademia in Siena, dated 1336. The composi
tion of the central leaf shows noteworthy correspondences with
Nardo's picture in the Piatt collection, although the figures are there
more numerous than in Bernardo's altarpiece and the space composi
tion is better developed. Nardo was probably as little influenced as
his brother Andrea by the Sienese masters who had such profoimd
effect on Daddi, but he none the less shows more interest in the
pictorial solution of the problem of space.

NARDO DI CIONE 251
Nardo's connection with Bernardo Daddi is further lUustrated by
the fact that several modern authorities have attributed one of his
most characteristic, large altarpieces to Bernardo. We refer to the
large Coronation of the Virgin (PL 208) in the lonides coUection in
the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
Christ, in an azure mantle, with both hands places the conical
crown on the head of the Queen of Heaven, who sits beside him, clad
in snow white. Corresponding types may easUy be found in the
Paradise fresco, especially among the beatified maidens on the right
side. Although we can here trace Orcagnesque elements in the
figure drawing and the types, we cannot fail to notice the inferiority
of this work to what we have previously seen of Andrea's, both in
the figures and in the treatment of drapery. Something of the power
ful structure is lacking, and not a little of the plastic sharpness and
clarity on which we have laid special emphasis in Orcagna's painting.
All Nardo's pictures hitherto considered must belong to a period
which cannot be extended much beyond the middle fifties. They
reveal his connection with the older generation, and display, on the
whole, a more rigid style than, for instance, the frescoes in the Badia
in Florence. There are, however, certain other pictures, both large
and small, connected in style with Nardo's work, which evidently
must be dated later than the fifties.
The most interesting of these is the little domestic altar in Sir
Hubert Parry's coUection at Highnam Court, which represents the
Madonna surrounded by eight saints, and on the wings the Nativity
and the Crucffixion, and in the gable the Annunciation. The
Madonna is placed on a throne raised on a high base; two angels
hold a brocade behind her. A rather large space is left free in front,
so that the saints, standing in pairs on either side, have plenty of
room. They are placed along the depth diagonals, and thus lead
the eye up to the Madonna; the back pairs of saints are at the same
angles. A distinct third dimension is thus indicated, and attention
is concentrated on the Madonna, who is at the intersection of the
diagonals. Mary's face wears a slight smUe, and she tries to hold
back the child, who is reaching for St. Peter's big keys.'
The Nativity, which is Ulustrated on one of the wings, also shows
a remarkably good space composition. The scene is as usual a rocky
height divided into unequal ledges: at the bottom sits Joseph sleep
ing, his chin in his hands; a httle higher up is Mary, pressing the
swaddled child to her breast; higher stUl, behind the shed, we see the
' The child's head and the hands of the Madonna are repainted.

252 GIOTTO
shepherds and their flocks. The tone is quiet and intimate; the
mother's relation to the child is affectionate and natural; Joseph's
attitude with his hands round his mouth is extremely naturalistic;
the browsing sheep and goats are of interest, and so is the stream
which splashes down from a spring into a trough.
The Crucifixion, here as in Bernardo's and Taddeo's pictures, is
a more abstract representation. It consists simply of Christ on the
cross and Mary and John standing one on each side, with no further
indication of place or time. The position of Christ is, however,
unusual: he hangs low down, bending sharply forward, as though
his head were too heavy for his arms to support. The artist has
apparently tried to strengthen the impression of physical suffering
by the distortion of the figure. He has introduced a stronger touch
of realism than we find in other Crucffixions of the period. The
picture as a whole bears witness to a highly developed naturalistic
method of representation and a power of characterization which
arouses and holds our interest.
Very closely related to this Crucifixion is a somewhat larger repre
sentation of the same subject in a picture recently transferred from
the Uffizi storehouse to the Museo Bandini at Fiesole (PL 209).
Christ again hangs in the low, bending position which we have just
described; the Virgin and St. John stand on either side of the cross,
looking rather calm and subdued; the Magdalen kneels and embraces
the foot of the cross with both arms. The figures have the same
short, broad type as in the preceding triptych; Mary is exactly the
same figure in both cases, and Christ on the cross is, as we have said,
drawn from the same model. The connection of these two pictures
with Nardo's earlier work is most clearly demonstrated in the
subsidiary figures — the saints in the foreground, in front of the
Madonna's throne, and the five half-length figures in the predella
beneath the Crucffixion. In these the types characteristic of Nardo
are strikingly evident.
On the other hand there is an obvious connection in style between
these small pictures and two larger altarpieces in Florence which
are dated with the year of Nardo's death. These form a separate
styhstic group among Nardo's works, a group which discloses more
clearly than the earlier paintings the artist's poetic temperament
and his highly developed, naturalistic mode of expression. Before we
undertake a more careful study of these two altarpieces we might
briefly mention a pair of wing panels (PL 210) in the Old Pinakotek
at Munich. These are officially attributed to Spinello Aretino, but
they clearly show Nardo's types and flgure drawing.

NARDO DI CIONE 253
Each panel presents five saints, ranged in two rows. They stand
on a brocade carpet of green and gold with a kind of star pattern.
The colormg, originaUy light and briUiant, has been made garish by
over-cleaning. The folds have also been altered somewhat; they are
organically disposed, but not rendered with the breadth and sure
ness of Orcagna. The figures are well proportioned, and their form
values are good, but they are not majestic. The types, especially
those of the older men, should be recognized by anyone who has
studied the Paradise fresco, where the same persons appear, only in
a better state of preservation and with more intense expressions. In
this respect also it is possible that the Munich picture appeared to
better advantage before it had suffered from bungling hands.
To the same group as these last two pictures belong two big
altarpieces in Florence. One of these, exhibited in the Accademia,
represents the Holy Trinity in the center, St. Romuald and St.
Andrew ' in the wings, and in the predella four scenes from the hfe of
St. Romuald (PL 211). The other, a triptych of the Madonna, St.
Gregory, and Job, with the legend of Job in the predella, hangs in
the sacristy of Santa Croce (PL 212).
In the central panel of the Accademia triptych God the Father
(represented almost exactly like Christ) sits on a bench with the
Crucffied before him; over Christ's head floats the white dove. If
one compares God the Father with the Christ in the lonides Corona
tion, one readily discerns that the figure is the same, turned in one
case f uU face, in the other in profile. Their mantles of subdued azure
are draped in the same way, and their hands in both instances are
well formed according to the same models. The bench on which God
the Father sits is covered with the famiHar bird and leaf pattern
brocade, in gold on a red ground. This was apparently the show
piece of the workshop, for which the place of honor in the middle
picture was regularly reserved, whUe the floors of the wing pictures
were covered with a simpler brocade of star pattern, as we have seen
in the Munich pictures and may again observe in both the triptychs
under discussion.
With the figures in the wings, likewise, we can find simUarities in
Munich. Romuald resembles the Munich St. Benedict, Andrew the
St. Paul. The types are so much alike that they might have been
copied; especially the round heads of Andrew (in Florence) and
Paul (in Munich), with their broad, wrinkled foreheads and short
' The figure is inscribed with the name of Andrew, but it was presumably intended to
represent St. John the Evangelist.

254 GIOTTO
noses, show characteristics of the artist which are rarely lacking in
his work. The draping of the mantles is marked by the same rather
stiff precision as in the Munich pictures, although the folds are less
sharp and the color effect less gaudy, which may easily be explained
by the better preservation of the picture. In the little predella pieces
we are chiefly attracted by the wide effect of space, which in con
junction with the unusual dignity of the small and well proportioned
figures, produces a peculiarly solemn and harmonious impression.
Anyone who takes the trouble to scrutinize these little scenes from
the life of St. Romuald will find that they include landscapes unsur
passed in the whole fourteenth century. The picture is dated 1365 —
the year of Nardo's death, or the year preceding it.
The other triptych mentioned above (now in the sacristy of Santa
Croce) bears the same date, a very noteworthy fact, which indicates
that either shortly before or shortly after Nardo's death a special
effort was made in the bottega of the brothers Cione to complete
various orders that had possibly lain untouched for some time. The
inference is easy that the youngest brother, Jacopo, was active in
the completion of these last commissions. The saints in the Santa
Croce triptych — Gregory and Job — may be cited in support of
this conjecture: they are stiffer and more wooden than in Nardo's
earlier work.
The Madonna herself and the chUd, on the other hand, are
unusually appealing figures. Mary sits on just the same kind of
bench, without a back, as God the Father in the picture described
above (the identity of the brocade should also be noted). With both
hands she holds the child, who sits on her left arm; her head is
inclined toward him, and he smilingly clasps her round the neck.
There is a fresh naturalness about the smiling bambino, who is begin
ning to outgrow his little shirt. He is more like a real baby than is
usual in Trecento paintings, where the Christ-child so often looks like
a little old man. Mary's short, full face with long eyes and a smaU
mouth may be recognized in many of the figures in the Strozzi
Chapel. To be sure this artist never attained, as the pictures we have
considered sufficiently prove, the strictly sculptural figure style of
Andrea; but on the whole he is a more progressive modern master.
His treatment of form shows already something of that softening of
contours which later appears so evidently in Masolino's work. He
has a poetic gift of which we can find no trace in the work of Andrea,
the great architect. Most instructive, from this point of view, are

NARDO DI CIONE 255
the little predella scenes under his big altarpieces. Beneath the
Accademia triptych there are incidents from the story of St. Romu
ald, under the Santa Croce Madonna three separate events from the
legend of Job. These representations are with few exceptions set in
somber, mountain landscapes that contrast effectively with the gold
ground of the sky. A few cypresses or orange trees, placed at dif
ferent distances from the background, contribute to the impression
of width and depth. Against the dark rocks rise in strong relief the
little white-clad figures of the monks. The quiet dignity that broods
over them combines in peculiar harmony with the deep, subdued tone
of the scenes. There were few Florentine artists before Lorenzo
Monaco who understood as Nardo did the fusion of landscape and
figures in harmonious accord, and none who could paint landscape
with so much air and space. In these Httle renderings of open coun
try Nardo attained more pictorial effects than any other Trecento
painter, before him or after. He is therefore in this special sense a
more advanced painter than Andrea; he knew how to attain modu
lated suggestions of atmosphere, and impressive space effects. But
his treatment of form had not the plastic strength which raises
Andrea's best work to a special place of honor in the art of the
Florentine Trecento.

XV
JACOPO DI CIONE
JACOPO DI CIONE was, as we have seen, an active assistant
of his older brothers. He is here mentioned in completion of
what has been said of the work of Andrea and Nardo, though he
really belongs to a later generation. It was not until the 12th of
January, 1369, the year after Orcagna's death, that he was enrolled
as an independent master in the "Arte dei Medici e Speziali." In the
ensuing decade he worked with Niccolo di Pietro Gerini, and like so
many of the contemporary minor painters he assisted at different
periods in the decoration of the Florentine Duomo; 1380 Jacopo
paints the stalls of the choir, and in 1389 he assists in painting and
gilding four statues for the fagade.' The latest mention of Jacopo
di Cione, called "Robbiccia," in the documents relating to the
Duomo is of the year 1398. His productivity seems to have been
considerable; it was not the quantity but the quality which declined
with advancing age.
We know from documentary evidence that after Orcagna's death
Jacopo undertook the completion of the large St. Matthew for Or
San Michele, a well known picture now hanging in the Uffizi. Prob
ably the main features, at least, were already composed when Jacopo
took charge of the painting. It is constructed on the same broad,
architectonic principles we have seen before in Andrea's paintings.
Strongly built on straight, unffied lines, the powerful apostle
stands in full front, with the open gospel in one hand and a pen in
the other. He fills the high, narrow panel and dominates the whole
big triptych by the severe effect of line. His mantle is draped in
tight, diagonal folds which so break at abrupt angles on both sides
that the contour of the figure looks sharp and jagged. Orcagna
presumably drew the figure and indicated the lines of the drapery;
Jacopo, who was left to put in all the color, did not know how to
round off and fill out the hard skeleton of the drawing. The figure
is an extreme example of the archaic, rigorous, sculptural style which
we have noticed in Andrea's own work.
' Cf. " II Duomo di Firenze," Documenti suUa Decorazione, etc., per cura di Giovanni
Poggi, Berlin, 1909, pp. 12, 203, 232.

JACOPO DI CIONE 257
In the wings are shown four scenes from the legend of St. Matthew
(PL 214), two on each side, one above the other. On the right, we see
the saint taming the dragon of the magician, and Christ calling him
from the money-changers' table; on the left, the raising of the king's
son from the dead, and the martyrdom of the apostle before the altar.
These little pictures are simple and orderly in composition, but they
make no such impression of space as Nardo's predella pictures.
Their decorative value is not very high, chiefly because the figures are
rather relaxed and clumsy, without energy or dignity in their move
ment. Probably Jacopo did these little scenes with his own hand:
their style forms a link which connects with the works that he
executed without any help from his brothers.
Another picture which Jacopo probably painted while still working
in Orcagna's bottega is in the Fogg Museum in Cambridge, Mass.
(PL 215). It is unusual in many respects, notably in the juxtaposi
tion on one panel of four different scenes from the lives of Mary and
Christ. In the center are the Annunciation and the Nativity, each
under a pointed arch; above, in a medallion, the Crucifixion; below,
in a larger, rectangular composition, the Entombment of Christ. The
various parts have no compositional connection; the Entombment,
especially, is an independent picture, which certainly would be more
effective if it were removed from the distracting influence of the
other scenes. A certain resemblance is evident between this Entomb
ment and Orcagna's Death of Mary on the tabernacle in Or San
Michele, but the single figures lack something of the plastic firm
ness and massiveness which we have pointed out in Orcagna's own
creations. The Annunciation and Nativity are given in the traditional
manner, each with only two figures in profile. We notice, especially,
the clear, plastic draping of the kneeling angel's mantle, and the big,
stiff baby on Mary's knee — doll-like as in Orcagna's Madonnas.
The mother also recalls some of the Virgins by the older brother,
although she is weaker, lacking something of the tectonic structure
which we have observed in his works. The picture as a whole is
rather striking in decorative effect, owing largely to the vivid color
scheme of ultramarine, amethyst, carmine, cinnabar, blue, and
orange, all enclosed in gleaming gold.
It is not without deliberation that we include among Jacopo's
works a large triptych that has already been associated with the
brothers Cione by other students (Cavalcaselle, Suida). This
picture (PL 216) hangs in the sacristy of Santa Croce and shows St.

258 GIOTTO
Giovanni Gualberto enthroned, and four incidents from his life.
These small pictures show great similarity in figure drawing and
manner of composition to the four scenes from the life of St. Mat
thew that we have described above. The central figure, on the
other hand, is very unlike St. Matthew. St. Giovanni Gualberto is
not drawn with straight, sharply broken lines, and he shows none of
the archaism which we noticed in the figure of Matthew. His thick,
gray mantle is baggy, and falls in loose, ill defined folds. The render
ing is weaker and more pictorial than in the Uffizi picture, and one
finds little suggestion of Andrea's plastic modeling. It is, therefore,
probable that if, as we suppose, Jacopo painted this picture, he did
it under the influence of Nardo, and not of Andrea. In any case it
belongs to a rather early stage of his activity.
A type resembling that of St. Giovanni Gualberto recurs in a
Madonna which we may safely assign to Jacopo. This picture
belongs to Mr. Charles Ricketts, in London. The Virgin sits with
the clumsily drawn, naked child on her left arm and places her right
hand lightly on his breast, just as in some of Andrea's pictures. Her
blue mantle, over a carmine garment, is splendidly set off by the
familiar brocade hanging with the red and gold bird and palmetto
pattern, which here covers the entire background. The angels
kneeling at Mary's feet, playing mandolins and zithers, are stiff dolls,
and their mantles are draped in sharp folds, quite like those in the
picture of St. Matthew. The general style of the painting is purely
Orcagnesque, but its relative rigidity and clumsiness shows plainly
that Andrea's less able brother and pupil is the master.
A peculiarly fine example of Jacopo's artistic abUity during his best
period — which presumably fell within the life of Andrea — is the
good-sized picture (PL 217) in the National Gallery which displays
the Crucifixion under a beautiful, Gothic baldachino. It used to be
ascribed to Spinello Aretino, but has little in common with his work.
A comparison with the scenes from the life of St. Matthew should
establish Jacopo's authorship of this picture. The stiffness of the
turned figures, the sharp breaks of the folds, the facial types, and the
Httle, jointless hands, are all very characteristic, although the execu
tion is unusually careful and elegant. Jacopo has here given proof
of his good training, but it seems that he needed to have one of his
older brothers watching over him in order to produce anything
worth while. The four saints painted on a larger scale, two on each
side of the Calvary, must be ranked among the best specimens of
Jacopo's painting, and the medallion in the predella of the Madonna

JACOPO DI CIONE 259
and child shows more delicate feeling than we should have expected
of Jacopo.
Other works of Jacopo's betray stUl more plainly his subservience
to his older brothers. We might mention the four stately Church
Fathers (of the year 1363) that are now placed on either side of a
later Madonna on the high altar of Santa Croce. Executed during
Andrea's life, they still keep much of the plastic and monumental
quality in attitude and form which is the hall-mark of Orcagna's
art, although here it is attenuated and modffied. In the course of
years this quality stiffens into a pattern, as Jacopo gradually for
gets more and more of the artistic principles that ruled in the
Orcagna workshop.
Another interesting picture by Jacopo is in the John G. Johnson
collection in Philadelphia. It represents the Quattuor Coronati,
Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphronianus, and Castorinus, being
scourged by an executioner, while the tyrant who watches the
bloody work is tortured by devils. The four martyrs with hands
tied behind their backs, wearing only a cloth about the loins, must
be reckoned among the earliest nudes in Italian painting, apart from
the ritual representations in Crucffixions and Last Judgments. The
two further figures present the characteristic, broad type, with
aquiline nose. The tyrant and his attendants are more flaccidly
drawn. The artist has tried to evade the difficulties of perspective
by placing the hall, which encloses the scene, diagonally with one
corner pointing into the background.
On a somewhat larger scale than these narrative pictures is a very
remarkable Crucifixion (PL 218), now belonging to Mr. Philip Leh
man in New York. The shape of this picture is very unusual. It is
tall and narrow, terminating at the top in an arc mixtiligne and
spreading out at the bottom into two convex segments. The lower
edge of the picture is broken by a slightly pointed curve; it looks as
if the painting had been made to fit into an architectural setting. On
each side of the molding round the central panel are three narrow,
rectangular pictures of angels in half-length. These are especiaUy
characteristic of Jacopo, showing his typical, broad forehead and
somewhat aquiline nose.
The composition is dominated by the figure of Christ on a cross of
unusual height. The people on the hill before the cross are, as usual,
divided into two groups, on one side the holy women and St. John,
on the other, the Hebrews and the Roman soldiers. Mary Magdalen
kneels, embracing the cross, though Christ's feet are high above her

260 GIOTTO
head. The fainting Virgin is supported by St. John and a young
woman, both kneeling; the women who stand behind them gaze up
at the Crucffied. Still more than the figure of Christ, these women
display the characteristic types. The colors are light and vivid, blue,
yellow, gray, cinnabar, and amethyst prevailing. The treatment of
the folds is decidedly sculptural, and the drawing has much of
Orcagna's firmness, emphasized by rather heavy, black contours.
The picture must be assigned to Jacopo di Clone's early years as an
independent painter, shortly after the death of Andrea.
It is established by documentary evidence that the well known
Coronation (PL 219) in the Uffizi, originally in the Zecca Vecchia,
was ordered from Niccolo di Pietro Gerini, who began it with the
help of one Maestro Simone, but that in the year 1373 it was fin
ished by one " Jacopo di Cino." ' In our opinion this name is merely
a mistaken spelling of " Jacopo di Cione," as the whole style of the
picture indicates the collaboration of this artist. Of the ten patron
saints of Florence who are introduced, the two kneeling at the back
and the two standing St. Johns show the pure Orcagnesque types,
and the handHng of the folds is more sculptural than in Gerini's own
work. Behind the main figure hangs the old familiar brocade of the
Cione bottega. On these two grounds we believe that Jacopo di Cione
was one of the artists who worked in the factory of the great con
tractor, Niccolo di Pietro Gerini.
This theory solves another artistic problem. The great Corona
tion (PL 220) from San Piero Maggiore in the National Gallery,
London, is associated with the work of Orcagna by several authori
ties, even by those who hestitate to accept the statement of Vasari
and Crowe and Cavalcaselle, that Andrea painted it himself. Now
the records of payment of the year 1370 name as the master from
whom the picture was ordered "Niccolaio dipintore," who can hardly
be anyone but Niccolo di Gerini.^ How, then, can this be reconciled
with the Orcagnesque character of the painting? If Jacopo di Cione
was employed by Gerini in 1373 to finish the Florentine Coronation,
is it not easy to assume that he worked for the same employer three
years earlier, and at that time still retained something more of the
manner of Orcagna ?
The National Gallery Coronation is a monumental work that
attracts more attention than most Trecento paintings, not only
' Cf . Catalogue de la Galerie royale des Uffizi, 1899, p. 102.
^ The records of payment are printed in an Appendix by Giovanni Poggi to my Giottino,
pp. 99-102.

JACOPO DI CIONE 261
because of its great size and unusuaUy good state of preservation,
but also because of its wealth of gay color and its hieratic majesty.
It is, indeed, one of the most sumptuous representations of all the
splendors of the heavenly throng on this solemn occasion when Christ
places the crown on the head of Mary. The two chief figures, in
white mantles richly ornamented in gold, sit on a wide, Gothic throne
under an ornate canopy, and before them are kneeling and standing
angels, playing instruments of every kind. On each side are twenty-
four saints, robed in gorgeous mantles, with their various attributes
and gleaming haloes. Under their feet and over the back of the
throne are magnificent brocades. The whole great painting has an
air of festivity and pomp which must have been still more impressive
when the picture was in place on the high altar of the softly Hghted,
old church of San Piero Maggiore. The resemblance in style be
tween the main figures in this picture and those in the Zecca
Vecchia Coronation is quite convincing proof of the identity of
authorship. Around the large picture in the National Gallery are hung five
small panels which are supposed to have formed part of the same
altarpiece as originally framed. They show scenes from the Iffe of
Christ (PL 217), and their artistic quality is in some particulars
finer than that of the main panel.
It is unfortunately evident that Jacopo had not the ability to
maintain the good old traditions of the time of Andrea and Nardo.
His natural gifts were small, and he was very dependent on his
models or on the artist with whom he was actually working. The
strict drawing and plastic modehng which he learned from Orcagna
became more and more relaxed and conventionahzed in the course
of years. The influence of Niccolo di Pietro Gerini was destructive,
on him as on all the other artists who came into contact with this
unscrupulous manufacturer. We may suspect Jacopo of coUabora-
tion in several pictures which are vaguely like the Gerini's in char
acter, but the problem is of far too slight aesthetic importance to
deserve further discussion here.
The proud tradition of the Florentine painter-plasticians, the
continuation and development of Giotto's great revival, was drown
ing in the slough of stagnation and routine just as the purely pic
torial tendency under Sienese influence was coming into f uU bloom —
an accurate indication of the course followed by the main current of
artistic development. It was obviously easier and more attractive

262 GIOTTO
to paint in the graceful, Sienese manner, to cultivate the handling of
light and color and all the other decorative elements than to concen
trate endeavor on the problem of plastic form, a task which could be
successfully undertaken only by such men of genius as Giotto and
Orcagna.

LISTS OF PICTURES BY GIOTTO AND
SOME OF HIS FOLLOWERS

LISTS OF PICTURES
GIOTTO
Assisi. Saw Francesco. Upper Church. Some share in the execution of
frescoes 2-20 of the St. Francis series, now altered by restoration.
Berlin. Kaiser Friedrich Museum. The Dormition of the Virgin.
Boston. Mrs. J. L. Gardner. The Presentation in the Temple.
Floeencb. Santa Croce. CappeUa Bardi. Scenes from the life of St.
Francis.
Ihid. Cappella Peruzzi. Scenes from the lives of St. John the Baptist
and St. John the Evangelist.
Ihid. CappeUa Tosinghi (over the entrance). Assumption of the
Virgin.
Accademia. Madonna.
Bargello. Chapel. Traces of ruined frescoes from the legend of St. Mary
Magdalen, and of a Last Judgment (probably in part).
Mr. Bernard Berenson. Entombment of Christ.
Munich. Old Pinakotek. Last Supper; Crucifixion; Descent into HeU
(three small panels partly restored).
New York. Metropolitan Museum. Adoration of the Magi.
Padua. Arena Chapel. Scenes from the lives of Mary and of Christ; Last
Judgment; Allegorical Virtues and Vices.
Ibid. Sacristy. Crucifix.
Saw Antonio. Chapter Hall. St. Francis Receiving the Stigmata;
Martyrdom of the Franciscan Friars and eight saints; traces of
many ruined frescoes.
Rome. Saw Giovanni in Laterano. Pope Boniface VIII Proclaiming the
Jubilee. Much restored fresco.
GIOTTO'S WORKSHOP
Bologna. Pinacoteca. Polyptych: Madonna and four saints. Signed.
Florence. Santa Croce. CappeUa Medici. The Coronation of the Virgin.
Signed.
Paris. Louvre. St. Francis Receiving the Stigmata. Signed.
Rome. St. Peter's. Sacristy. Altarpiece: Christ, Peter, the Martyrdoms of
St. Peter and St. Paul, Madonna and saints.

266 LISTS OF PICTURES
THE ST. CECILIA-MASTER
(Buffalmaco ?)
Assisi. Saw Francesco. Upper Church. The first and the last four pic
tures of the St. Francis frescoes.
Budapest. Museum. Madonna.
Florence. Saw Simone. St. Peter Enthroned. Dated 1301.
Uffizi. St. Cecilia Enthroned and eight scenes from her life.
Saw Miniato al Monte. St. Miniato and eight scenes from his life
(much repainted).
Sawta Margherita a Montici. Madonna and angels.
Ibid. St. Margherita and six scenes from her life.
THE ST. NICHOLAS-MASTER
(Stefano Fiorentino ?)
Assisi. San Francesco. Cappella del Sacramento. Scenes from the life of
St. Nicholas of Bari; Madonna and a number of saints.
Ibid. Cappella del Maddalena. Scenes from the lives of St. Mary Mag
dalen and St. Mary of Egypt. These frescoes were painted in col
laboration with another pupil of Giotto who had worked with the
master in Padua.
Bergen (Norway). Picture Gallery. Small Madonna.
Berlin. Kaiser Friedrich Museum. Madonna Enthroned, four saints
standing behind the throne, four in the foreground.
Florence. Santa Croce. Museo dell' Opera. Madonna and four saints in
half-length.
Oxford. Ashmolean Museum. Small Madonna, half-length.
Terenzano (near Florence). Madonna and four saints in half-length (?).

LISTS OF PICTURES 267
THE MASTER OF THE LIFE OF THE VIRGIN
(Puccio Capanna ?)
Assisi. Saw Francesco. Lower Church. Right transept. Scenes from the
lives of the Virgin and Christ; two miracles performed by Fran
ciscan friars (executed with the assistance of another painter).
Ibid. Over the High Altar. Allegories of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedi
ence; St. Francis in Glory. (The last executed with the assistance
of a painter who also collaborated in the Magdalen frescoes.)
Berlin. Kaiser Friedrich Museum. Crucifixion.
Florence. Duomo. Crypt of St. Zenobius. Altarpiece: on the front.
Madonna and four saints; on the back. Annunciation and saints.
Saw Felice. Crucifix.
Herbert P. Home Collection. Small triptych: in the center, the
Crucifixion.
Lastra a Signa. Mr. F. M. Perkins. Triptych: Madonna, Nativity, and
Crucifixion (early) .
Philadelphia. John G. Johnson Collection. Small Madonna, the chUd is
holding a puppy.
Pistoja. Saw Francesco. Choir. Traces of frescoes from the life of St.
Francis and of saints (?). (The paintings are in too bad a state to
allow of a definite attribution.)
Strassburg. Museum. Crucifixion.

IN THE MANNER OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED MASTER
AND HIS ASSISTANTS
Assisi. Santa Chiara. On the vault over the altar. Four triangular com
positions of saints and angels.
Ibid. Right aisle. Traces of legendary frescoes.
Ibid. Cappella San Giorgio. Altarpiece: Madonna and four saints.

268 LISTS OF PICTURES

TADDEO GADDI
Berlin. Kaiser Friedrich Museum. No. 1079. Small triptych: Madonna,
Nativity, and Crucifixion. Dated 1334.
Ibid. Nos. 1078 and 1074. Pentecost and Miracle of St. Francis.
Ibid. Assumption of the Virgin (early).
Boston. Museum. Nativity (?).
Brooklyn, N. Y. Mr. Frank L. Babbott. Small triptych: Madonna,
Nativity, and Crucifixion (early).
Castelfiorentino. Santa Verdiana. Madonna (much repainted).
DiJON. Musee. Nativity (?).
Englewood, N. J. Mr. D. F. Piatt. Bust of a prophet.
Fiesole. Museo Bandini. Annunciation (school work).
Florence. Accademia. Nos. 104-115 and 117-126. Twelve scenes from
the life of the Virgin and Christ; ten scenes from the life of St.
Francis.
Santa Croce. Over a door. Christ among the Doctors, fragment of
a larger fresco.
Ibid. Cappella Baroncelli. Twelve scenes from the life of the Virgin
and allegorical figures in the vault, at the entrance to the chapel
over a tomb; Madonna in haK-Iength.
Ibid. Cappella Bardi. The Entombment (much restored).
Ibid. Former Refectory. The Last Supper; Crucifixion and four legend
ary scenes (executed largely by assistants).
Santa Felicita. Sacristy. Madonna and four saints.
Ognissanti. Sacristy. Crucifixion with five saints (restored).
Uffizi. Madonna, two female saints, and angels. Dated 1355.
Ibid. Madonna in half-length (lunette) .
Bargello. Entrance Hall. Madonna Enthroned and a number of kneel
ing donors at her feet. (Restored fresco.)
Saw Marco. Second cloister. Madonna and two saints (largely over-
painted by Mainardi) .
Saw Giorgio a Ruballa. Crucifix.
Herbert P. Horne Collection. St. Stephen, haK-length (early).
Bartolini-Salimbeni Collection {novf dispersed) . Small triptych: Cruci
fixion, Madonna, Raising of Drusiana, and St. Francis Receiving
the Stigmata.

LISTS OF PICTURES 269
Lastra a Signa. Mr. F. M. Perkins. Large Crucifix.
Naples. Museum. SmaU triptych: Madonna and saints. Dated 1336.
New Haven, Conn. Jarves Collection. No. 8. Pieta with Mary and John.
New York. Metropolitan Museum. Madonna and four saints, in Quattro
cento framing.
Historical Society. Small Madonna and saints.
Pisa. Saw Francesco. Vault of the chair. Prophets (restored). Painted
1342.
Campo Santo. Scenes from the life of Job.
Pistoja. Saw Giovanni Fuoricivitas. Madonna and four saints. Dated
1353.
Poppi. (Casentino) Castello. Scenes from the life of the Virgin, St. John
the Baptist, and St. John the Evangelist. (Much deteriorated fres
coes executed largely by assistants.)
^San Martino a Mensola (near Florence). Madonna and two saints,
in Quattrocento framing.
Settignano (near Florence). Mr. Kerr-Lawson. Madonna.
Strassburg. Museum. No. 200. Small triptych: Madonna, Crucifixion,
Nativity, and saints.
Vienna. Lichtenstein Collection. Small Madonna.
Ourousoff Collection. SmaU triptych: Annunciation, Crucifixion, and
saints.

270 LISTS OF PICTURES

BERNARDO DADDI
Altenburg. Lindenau Museum. Triptych: Madonna, Nativity, and
Cmcifixion.
Berlin. Kaiser Friedrich Museum. Madonna and two saints, half-length
(predella by Bicci di Lorenzo).
Ibid. Coronation of the Virgin, Nativity, and Crucifixion.
Boston. Mrs. J. L. Gardner. Madonna, half-length (?).
Cambridge, Mass. Fogg Museum. (Belonging to Mrs. Charles B. Per
kins.) Triptych : Crucifixion, Christ in Gethsemane and six saints.
Dated 1334 Mense Martii.
Englewood, N. J. Mr. D. F. Piatt. Crucifixion.
Florence. Santa Croce. Cappella Pulci. Martyrdom of St. Stephen and
St. Lawrence.
Or San Michele. Madonna and angels (overpainted at the beginning
of the XVth century.)
Accademia. Small Madonna and saints. Dated 1334.
Ibid. Crucifixion, on the back, St. Christopher.
Ibid. Madonna and six saints in full figure; predeUa with ten scenes
from the life of the Virgin. (Late.)
Ibid. Crucifixion. Dated 1344 (possibly school work).
Ibid. Stanza del Ispettore. Madonna and four saints, half-length.
Dated 1333. (Repainted.)
Uffizi. Madonna and two saints, half-length. Dated 1328.
Ibid. Storeroom. Large Madonna, full length. Dated 1333. (Ruined.)
Bigallo. Triptych : Madonna, Nativity, and Crucifixion. Dated 1332.
Museo dell'Opera del Duomo. Virgin in half-length; St. Zenobius, St.
Catherine and kneeling donor. Dated 1334.
Herbert P. Horne Collection. Diptych: Madonna and Crucifixion.
Mr. Bernard Berenson. Madonna in half-length.
Ibid. Crucifixion. Wing from smaU triptych.
San Giusto a Signano. Madonna and two saints, fuU length figures.
Saw Giorgio a Ruballa. Madonna and two saints, fuU length.
Saw Martino alia Palma. Madonna, full length. (Repainted.)

LISTS OF PICTURES 271
Gloucester. Highnam Court. Sir Hubert Parry. Polyptych: Crucifixion
and eight saints. Signed and dated 1348.
London. Lord Ilchester. Madonna, two saints, and two angels.
Ibid. Crucifixion with twelve figures at the foot of the cross.
Henry Wagner Collection (now dispersed). Coronation of the Virgin
(partly repainted) .
Buckingham Palace. Royal Collections. Sposalizio, part of the predeUa
of the Accademia ancona.
Wallace Collection. Nativity and saint. Fragment of a small wing.
Mr. L. Harris. Crucifixion (early).
Meiningen. Palace. Small triptych: Madonna, Crucifixion, and saints.
Munich. Mr. Julius Bohler. Small triptych: Crucifixion, Nativity,
Madonna, and scenes from the hves of St. Nicholas and St. Peter.
Dated 1338.
Naples. Museum. Madonna and four saints.
New Haven, Conn. Jarves Collection. Vision of St. Dominic. Predella
panel.
New York. Historical Society. Small diptych: Madonna and Last Judg
ment.
Mr. George Blumenthal. Crucifixion.
Miss Belle Greene. Madonna and four saints.
Mr. Grenville L. Winthrop. Madonna, half-length.
Oxford. Christ Church. Four music-making angels. Fragment of a
large altarpiece.
Paris. Louvre. Annunciation.
Musee des Arts Decoratifs. St. Peter Martyr Preaching. PredeUa panel.
Sulzbach Collection. Madonna and four pairs of saints.
Pisa. Museo Civico. Two scenes from the life of St. Cecilia. Predella
panels.
Posen. Raczynski Collection. St. Dominic Saving a Ship in a Storm. Pre
deUa panel.
Prato. Pinacoteca. PredeUa with scenes from the story of the Holy Girdle.
Rome. Vatican GaUery. Eight scenes from the legend of St. Stephen.
Ibid. Small Madonna and saints.
Sterbini Collection. Madonna and four saints.
Signor A. Frattini (in 1908). Madonna in half-length.

272 LISTS OF PICTURES
Siena, .dccodemza. Small triptych: Madonna with four saints. Nativity,
and Crucifixion. Dated 1336.
Stockholm. Private Collection. Triptych: Madonna, Crucifixion, and
St. Francis Receiving the Stigmata; Annunciation.
Strassburg. Museum. Bust of two saints.
Vienna. Lanckoronski CoUection. Madonna and music-making angels.

WORKSHOP OF BERNARDO DADDI
Altenburg. Lindenau Museum. Coronation of the Virgin with numerous
saints. Central piece from a small triptych.
Florence. Accademia. Nos. 282 and 284. SmaU diptych: Madonna
and four saints. Crucifixion.
Uffizi. Christ on the Cross, Mary, St. John, and Magdalen.
Ibid. Storeroom. Madonna, full length, chUd holding a bird (much
restored) .
Palazzo Ruccellai. Madonna and four saints, half-length. Quattrocento
framing.
Paris. Louvre. Small triptych: Madonna and saints. Nativity, and Cruci
fixion.
Prato. Pinacoteca. Madonna and four saints in half-length.
Rome. Vatican Gallery. Madonna, half-length.
Ibid. The Virgin, in haJf-length, copied from Bernardo's picture in the
Opera del Duomo, Florence.
Siena. Accademia. Madonna and saints. Central piece from a small
triptych.
PUPIL OF BERNARDO DADDI
Berlin. Kaiser Friedrich Museum. Madonna in half-length (ascribed to
Agnolo Gaddi).
Florence. Uffizi. Coronation of the Virgin with numerous saints.
Palazzo Corsini. Triptych: Madonna and four saints.
Gottingen. University Museum. St. Catherine and St. Lawrence.
MiJNSTER. Landesmuseum. St. John the Baptist and St. John the
Evangelist.

LISTS OF PICTURES 273

JACOPO DAL CASENTINO
Florence. Palazzo dell' Arte della Lana. Madonna Enthroned, saints, and
angels.
Uffizi. St. Bartholomew Enthroned.
Mr. Charles Loeser. The Dormition of the Virgin.
Gottingen. University Museum. SmaU Madonna and legendary scenes
which originally formed wings to the central Madonna.
Milan. Ser Guido Cagnola. SmaU Madonna triptych. Signed.

274 LISTS OF PICTURES

MASO — GIOTTINO
Assisi. Saw Francesco. Lower Church. Coronation of the Virgin and two
scenes from the life of St. Stanislaus.
Ibid. Former Chapter Hall. Crucifixion and eight saints.
Santa Chiara. Cappella San Giorgio. Madonna and four saints (much
restored fresco painting).
Oratorio di San Rufinuccio. Crucifixion and traces of two scenes from
the Passion (ruined frescoes) .
Istituto di San Giuseppe. Fragments of a Crucifixion, St. Francis
Receiving the Stigmata, and of other scenes (ruined frescoes).
Florence. Santa Croce. Cappella Bardi. Five scenes from the legends
of St. Sylvester and Constantine; Last Judgment, over the Bardi
tomb.
Badia. Upper part of Chapel towards Via Proconsolo. Fragments of
scenes from the legends of St. Bartholomew and St. Stephen.
Santo Spirito. Right transept. Madonna and four saints in half-length
(partly restored).
Uffizi. No. 27. Pieta.
Philadelphia. John G. Johnson Collection. Madonna and four saints in
half-length.

LISTS OF PICTURES 275

ANDREA DI CIONE CALLED ORCAGNA
Bajmocz. Palffy Collection. Altarpiece: Madonna and four saints.
(Studio work.)
Berlin. Kaiser Friedrich Museum. No. 1904. Scene from the life of St.
Dominic.
Budapest. Museum. No. 50. Madonna and angels.
Castelfiorentino. Santa Verdiana. St. Verdiana, standing between two
snakes. (Badly preserved.)
Fiesole. Museo Bandini. Sala I, Nos. 11-14. Predella: scenes from
the childhood of Christ (badly preserved studio work) .
Florence. Santi Apostoli. Madonna, standing (much restored).
Badia. Cappella Bonsi. Altar triptych : Descent of the Holy Spirit.
Santa Croce. Fragmentary figures from the Triumph of Death.
Santa Maria Maggiore. Altar triptych : Madonna, four saints, and two
angels.
Santa Maria NoveUa. Cappella Strozzi. Altarpiece: Christ Enthroned
and eight saints. Dated 1357.
Saw Stefano a Ponte Vecchio. St. Peter.
Accademia. No. 138. Vision of St. Bernard and four saints.
Ibid. Presentation in the Temple and two saints. Dated 1364.
(Studio work.)
London. National Gallery. St. John the Baptist; St. John the Evangelist;
St. James.
New Haven, Conn. Jarves Collection. Adoration of the Magi.
Ibid. St. Paul and St. Peter.
New York. Mr. Philip Lehman. Madonna and angels.
Oxford. Ashmolean Museum. Birth of Mary. PredeUa piece.
Philadelphia. John G. Johnson Collection. Predella: Adoration of the
Magi and four legendary scenes.
Stockholm. Private Collection. Christ in the Tomb surrounded by saints.
Vienna. Karl MoU Collection (lately dispersed). Presentation in the
Temple. Part of the same predella as the picture in Oxford.

276 LISTS OF PICTURES
NARDO DI CIONE
Englewood, N. J. Mr. D. F. Piatt. Madonna and saints.
Fiesole. Museo Bandini. Crucifixion.
Florence. Badia. Cappella Giochi e Bastari. Fragments of scenes from
the Passion.
Sawta Croce. Sacristy. Madonna between two saints. Dated 1365.
Santa Maria Novella. Cappella Strozzi. Last Judgment; Paradise and
HeU. (The last named fresco entirely repainted.)
Ibid. First cloister. Four scenes from the life of the Virgin and two
saints.
Accademia. Trinity and two saints. Dated 1365.
Mr. Bernard Berenson. Scene from the life of St. Benedict. PredeUa
piece.
Gloucester. Highnam Court. Sir Hubert Parry. Triptych: Madonna
surrounded by saints. Nativity, and Crucifixion.
London. Victoria and Albert Museum. lonides Collection. Coronation
of the Virgin.
Munich. Old Pinakotek. Two wings of an altarpiece, with a number of
saints.
New York. Dr. Bashford Dean. Resurrection of Christ. Predella panel.
Historical Society. Large Madonna and saints.
Kleinberger Galleries. Small Crucifixion.
Mr. Philip Lehman. Nativity. Predella picture.
Stockholm. Private Collection. Madonna surrounded by saints and
angels.
University Museum. St. Paul Enthroned.

LISTS OF PICTURES 277

JACOPO DI CIONE
CAMBRmGE, Mass. Fogg Museum. SmaU altar picture representing
Annunciation, Nativity, Crucifixion, and Entombment.
Fiesole. Museo Bandini. Crucifix (from Santa Maria Primeriana).
Florence. Santa Croce. Main Altar. The Four Church Fathers. Dated
1363.
Ibid. Sacristy. St. Giovanni Gualberto and scenes from his life.
Uffizi. St. Matthew and four scenes from his life. Completed 1369.
Ibid. Coronation of the Virgin with the four patron saints of Florence
(the picture was begun by Niccolo di Pietro Gerini, 1372).
Ibid. Storeroom. Madonna, four saints, and four kneeling angels.
Gloucester. Highnam Court. Sir Hubert Parry. Annunciation (early).
London. Lord Crawford. Crucifixion and saints. (Inserted in a Quattro
cento tabernacle.)
National GaUery. Coronation of the Virgin, twenty-four saints on each
wing. Five small, separate panels from the same altarpiece repre
senting scenes from the life of Christ. The picture was executed
in 1370-71 in the workshop of Niccolo di Pietro Gerini by Jacopo
di Cione and other painters.
Ibid. Crucifixion, saints on the pUasters and in the medallions of the
predeUa.
Mr. Charles Ricketts. Madonna.
New Haven, Conn. Jarves Collection. No. 16. Madonna surrounded by
four saints.
Ibid. No. 17. Nativity and Resurrection.
New York. Kleinberger Galleries. Coronation of the Virgin and a
number of saints.
Ibid. Large altar triptych: Madonna between four saints.
Mr. Philip Lehman. Crucifixion, angels in half-length in the frame.
Oxford. Christ Church. Madonna between four saints.
Paris. Dr. Widal. Madonna and four saints in half-length.
Philadelphia. John G. Johnson CoUection. Martyrdom 'of the Quattro
Coronati.

INDEXES

INDEX OF ARTISTS

Alegretto Nuzi, 187.
Ammanati, 235.
Andrea di Cione, see Orcagna.
Andrea Pisano, 25, 26, 216, 222.
Benozzo Gozzoli, 65, 118.
Bernardo Daddi, 125, 131, 150, 151, 152,
157-188, 189, 191, 192, 221, 229, 245,
250, 270.
Bicci di Lorenzo, 161.
Buffalmaco, 17, 131, 244, 245.
Carracci, 131.
Cavallini, 9, 18, 19, 58.
Cimabue, 4, 8, 21, 27, 74, 75, 76, 102,
131.
Daddo di Bernardo, 158, 187.
Filippino Lippi, 70.
Fra Bartolommeo, 203.
Fra Filippo, 179.
Francesco da Volterra, 144.
Gaddi, Agnolo, 68, 176, 195.
Gaddi, Gaddo, 132.
Gaddi, Giovanni, Niccolo and Zanobi,
132 133.
Gaddi, Taddeo, 58, 68, 79, 85, 103, 125,
127, 130-156, 157, 161, 162, 177, 191,
192, 193, 197, 201, 217, 221, 234, 245,
247, 268.
Ghirlandajo, 65.
Giottino, see Maso — Giottino.
Giovanni dal Ponte, 189.
Giovanni Pisano, 30, 55, 57, 115.
Giunta Pisano, 4.
Guido of Siena, 4.
Guido Reni, 131.
Jacopo dal Casentino, 125, 156, 189-
192, 195, 273.

Jacopo di Cione, 215, 230, 241, 254, 256-
262.
Jacopo Landini, 189.
Lorenzetti, Ambrogio, 57, 165, 171, 177,
178, 179, 183, 187, 199, 201, 202, 203,
211, 212, 221, 237.
Lorenzetti, Pietro, 126, 178, 183.
Lorenzo Monaco, 179, 255.
Mainardi, 154.
Masaccio, 65, 72.
Maso— Giottino, 103, 125, 193-213, 234.
Masolino, 254.
Matteo di Cione, 241.
Michelangelo, 57, 73, 76.
Nardo di Cione, 188, 215, 216, 217, 239,
241-255, 261, 276.
Niccolo di Pietro Gerini, 256, 260, 261.
Orcagna, 127, 131, 188, 193, 197, 214-
240, 245, 251, 256, 257, 260, 261, 275.
Parigi, 235.
Poccetti, 235.
Puccio Capanna, 24, 104, 125, 126, 127,
146, 162, 245.
Raphael, 203, 211.
St. Cecilia-master, 15, 16, 17, 19, 171.
Simone Martini, 106, 179, 187, 199, 203,
237.
Spinello Aretino, 157.
Stefano Fiorentino, 103, 104, 105, 125,
127, 131, 146, 193, 195, 197, 217,
234.
Talenti, 25.
Torriti, 8.

881

INDEX OF PLACES

Altenburg.
Museum, 173, 270, 272.
Abezzo. San Domenico, 212.
Assisi. San Francesco, Upper Church, 8-20,
23, 24, 27, 28, 127, 128, 265, 266.
— Lower Church.Magdalen Chapel,
93-96, 101, 102, 266.
— St. Nicholas Chapel, 97-102, 104,
266.
— Allegories, 106-111, 119-121, 124,
129, 267.
— Life of the Virgin, 112-118, 126,
129, 267.
— Coronation of the Virgin, 195,
205, 206, 274.
— Former Chapter Hall, 206, 207,
274.
Santa Chiara, 120-122, 195, 207,
267, 274.
Santa Maria degli Angeli, 27.
Oratorio di San Rujinucdo, 206, 207,
274.
Istituto di San Giuseppe, 206, 207,
274.
Bajmocz (Hungary).
Pdlffy Collection, 223, 275.
Bekgen (Norway).
Picture Gallery, 101, 266.
Berlin.
Kaiser Friedrich Museum, 77, 101,
123, 147, 149, 151, 152, 161, 167,
168, 176, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270,
272, 275.
Bologna.
Pinacoteca, 83, 265.
Boston.
Gardner Collection, 79, 82, 176, 265,
270.
Museum, 268.
Brooklyn, N. Y.
Babbott CoUection, 149, 268.

Budapest. Museum, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225,
266, 275.
Cambridge, Mass.
Fogg Art Museum, 230, 257, 270, 277.
Castelpiohentino.
Santa Verdiana, 268, 275.
Dijon. Museum, 153, 268.
Englewood, N. J.
PlaU Collection, 168, 177, 250, 268,
270, 276.
Fiesole. Museo Bandini, 252, 275, 276, 277.
Florence. Campanile, 25, 28, 195.
Cathedral, 25, 123, 217, 256, 266.
Santi Apostoli, 220, 222, 223, 275.
San ApoUinare, 216.
Badia, 27.
— Cappella Covone, 204, 205.
— Cappella Bonsi, 225, 226, 275.
— Cappella Giochi e Bastari, 244,
245, 246, 247, 276.
Santa Croce, 216, 232, 233, 234, 259,
268, 277.
— Cappella Bardi and Peruzzi, 27,
28, 59-73, 93, 118, 135, 137, 138,
202, 265, 268, 274, 275.
— Cappella Baroncelli, 135-141,
146, 151, 153, 247, 268.
— Cappella Medici, 84, 85, 265.
— Cappella Pulci, 169-171, 270.
— Cappella di San Silvestro (Bardi),
141, 194, 198-208.
— Sacristy, 147, 253, 254, 255, 257,
258, 276, 277.
— Museo deir Opera, 100, 101, 266,
270.
San Felice, 267.
Santa Felicitd, 155, 268.

283

284

INDEX OF PLACES

Florence — continued.
San Giorgio ( ?), 28.
San Giorgio a Ruballa, 156, 171, 172,
268, 270.
San Giusto a Signano, 173, 174, 270.
San Marco, 154, 268.
Santa Maria del Carmine, 72.
Santa Maria Maggiore, 225, 226,
275.
Santa Margherita a Montici, 16,
266.
San Martino a Mensola, 153, 269.
San Martino alia Palma, 270.
Santa Maria Novella, 24, 28, 70,
105, 216, 275, 276.
— Choir, 215, 216, 218, 232.
— Cappella Strozzi, 215, 216, 217,
218, 219, 238, 239, 241-244, 246,
247, 248.
— Cloister, 247.
Santa Maria dei Servi, 232.
— Cappella Cresci, 216.
San Miniato al Monie, 266.
Ognissanti, 28, 74, 143, 191, 268.
Or San Michele, 158, 160, 215, 217,
236, 256, 257, 270.
Oratorio di Mercato Vecchio, 190.
San Pancrazio, 174, 179.
San Piero Maggiore, 260, 261.
San Rrnneo, 195, 209, 212, 216, 274.
Saw Simone, 16. 266.
Santo Spirito (San Agostino), 103,
104, 105, 194, 209, 234, 235, 274.
— Former refectory, 232, 235.
San St^ano a Ponte Vecchio, 222,
275.
Accademia di Belle Arti, 74, 79, 80,
84, 135, 147. 148. 149, 150. 161,
162, 165, 166, 175, 178, 183. 184.
185, 203, 221, 230, 253. 265, 268.
270, 272, 275. 276.
Uffizi Gallery, 15, 155, 160, 185. 186,
187, 191, 195, 209, 210, 211. 212.
225. 256, 257, 260, 266, 268, 270,
272. 273. 274. 277.
Palazzo del Podestd, (BargeUo), 28.
29. 155. 194, 265, 268.
Palazzo deir Arte delta Lana, 273.
Palazzo RuceeUai, 272.
Berenson Collection, 79. 175, 177,
265, 270, 276.
BigaUo Collection, 151, 164, 167,
168, 270.

Loggia dei Lanzi, 216.
Bartolini-Salimbeni CoUection, 153,
268.
Horne Collection, 122, 163. 165. 168,
267, 268, 270.
Loeser Collection, 191. 273.
Gloucester. Highnam Court, 184. 185. 251. 271,
276, 277.
Gottingen. University Museum, 187, 190, 272,
273.
Lastha a Signa.
Perkins Collection, 122. 267. 269.
London.
Ilchester Collection, 271.
National Gallery, 222, 223, 258, 260,
261, 275, 276, 277.
Victoria and Albert Museum (loni
des Collection), 251, 253.
Buckingham Palace, 179, 271.
Crawford Collection, 277.
Harris CoUection, 185, 271.
Ricketts Collection, 258, 277.
Wagner Collection, 271.
Wallace Collection, 271.
Meiningeb.
Palace, 271.
Milan.
Cagnola Collection, 189, 191, 273.
Modena.
Galleria Estense, 144.
Montefalco, 118.
Munich.
Old Pinakotek, 79, 81, 252, 253, 265,
276.
Bohler CoUection, 167, 184, 271.
Munster.
Landesmuseum, 272.
Naples.
Santa Chiara, 24.
Museum, 152, 163, 164, 165, 171,
269, 271.
Castel Nuovo, 24.
Castel deir Uovo, 27.
New Haven, Conn.
Jarves Collection, 156, 180, 222. 223,
224. 227, 269. 271, 275, 277.

INDEX OF PLACES

285

New York.
Metropolitan Museum, 79, 80, 154,
265, 269.
Historical Society, 152, 166, 249,
269, 271, 276.
Blumenthal Collection, 168, 271.
Dean Collection, 275.
Kleinberger Galleries, 276, 277.
Lehman CoUection, 220, 224, 225,
259, 275, 276, 277.
Winthrop Collection, 176, 250, 271.
Obvieto.
Cathedral, 217, 218.
Oxford.
Ashmolean Museum, 100, 228, 266,
275.
Christ Church Library, 271, 277.
Padua.
San Antonio, 23, 27, 265.
Santa Maria dell' Arena, 22, 27, 30-
58, 82, 93, 94, 95, 96, 113,116,265.
Palazzo del Commune, 23.
Paeis. Louvre, 82, 83, 265, 270, 271, 272.
Mv.sie des Arts DSooratifs, 180, 271.
Sulzbach Collection, 271.
Widal Collection, 277.
Pebugia. Font, 50.
Philadelphia. John G. Johnson Collection, 124,
228, 229, 259, 267, 274, 275, 277.
Pisa. Campo Santo, 103, 132, 144-146,
147, 153, 216, 232, 233, 234. 269.
San Francesco, 132, 144, 269.
Museum, 186. 271.
Pistoja. San Francesco, 125-129, 267.
San Giovanni Fuoricivitas, 104, 127,
132, 155, 197, 269.
Poggibonsi. GaUi-Dunn Collection, 154.
Poppi. CasteUo, 156. 269.

Posen. Museum, 180, 271.
Prato. Gallery, 185, 186, 271.
Pinacoteca, 272.
Rapolano, 177.
Rimini.
San Francesco, 23.
Rome.
St. Cecilia in Trastevere, 9.
San Giovanni in Laterano, 22, 265.
Santa Maria della Minerva, 27.
St. Peter's, 22, 27, 230.
— Sacristy, 86-90, 266.
Quattro Coronati, 4.
Sistine Chapel, 17.
Vatican Gallery, 166, 177, 180, 271,
272.
Frattini Collection, 175, 177, 271.
Sterbini Collection, 163, 271.
Settignano. Kerr-Lawson Collection, 269.
Siena. Accademia, 168, 177, 211, 272.
San Francesco, 171, 177, 201.
San Eugenio, 177.
San Agostino, 179.
Stockholm.
University Collection, 276.
Private Collection, 166, 250,272,275,
276.
Stbassbueg. Museum, 123, 152, 267, 269, 272.
Tebenzano, 266.
Ubbano alla Caffaeella, 4.
Vienna.
Albertina Collection, 73.
Lanckoronski Collection, 272.
Lichtenstein Collection, 269.
MoU Collection, 275.
Ourousoff Collection, 269.

printed at
the harvard university press
cambridge, mass., u.s.a.

TT^T

ip^:.

hMilK

:sii,i