The Burlington magazine

by Unknown

ARTICLE I.—ITALIAN PICTURES OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

LAST summer, by the courtesy of Sir Hubert Parry, I was enabled to visit Highnam Court in company with Mr. Berenson. It was intended that we should collaborate in the work of bringing to the notice of students some of the very remarkable Italian paintings in this collection. Owing to ill health and the pressure of other work Mr. Berenson has not been able to do what he had hoped. Under these circumstances I shall confine myself to a brief account of these pictures in the hope that at some future date Mr. Berenson will again take the subject in hand and draw from these examples those more definite conclusions which his far wider knowledge of Italian art would justify. In justice to him I must add that, except where expressly stated, he is not responsible for the ideas here put forward. ¶ A few words on the collection in general may be appropriate; for, no less than the house, the garden, and all its surroundings, the collection at Highnam bears the impress of a very remarkable personality, that of Thomas Gambier Parry, the father of the present owner. On leaving the university, in 1838, Parry bought the Highnam estate, near Gloucester, which became thenceforward his home. But the duties of a country squire, though undertaken with unusual energy and benevolence, did not absorb his entire activities. His enthusiastic love of Italian art led him to travel frequently, and to devote himself to the hope of acclimatizing in England the art of fresco wall-decoration. Realizing the unsuitability to our climate of the true Italian method of fresco painting, he made many researches in technique, which led to the discovery of the method of spirit fresco, which is best known in England from Sir Frederick Leighton’s two examples in the Victoria and Albert Museum. But Parry was not only an inventor; he himself practised the art with considerable success. The church which he built in his park for the village of Highnam is decorated internally by him; the paintings of St. Andrew’s chapel in Gloucester cathedral, and of the roof of Tewkesbury abbey, are also due to him. But perhaps the best known is his decoration of the wooden roof of the nave in Ely cathedral, which must certainly be counted as one of the few really successful modern attempts to recapture the spirit of mediaeval decorative design. All these works were executed by him without payment, and largely at his own expense. ¶ We are, however, not concerned here with Parry as an artist, but as a connoisseur, and the collection at Highnam shows that in this he was as original, as independent of the fashions of his day, and of as fine a taste as in his other capacities. For, at the time when the Highnam collection was made it was not yet a title to social distinction to have one’s walls decorated with Italian primitives. The works of the trecento are not even now estimated at their real value, and it is in the specimens of trecento and early quattrocento painting that the Highnam collection is most remarkable. ¶ Hence, if we take the works in chronological order, we begin at once with a picture which is in its way unique, the Nativity and Adoration ([Plate I]). The singularity of this is that we have here a panel painted in tempera, belonging at the latest to the early years of the fourteenth century, which is not only untouched, but in complete preservation, and which for brilliance and intensity of colour and the perfection of its enamel-like smalto can scarcely be surpassed by works of the succeeding century. It is a small panel in which the figures are drawn with miniature-like precision. The prevailing tone is the pale brown in which the rocky landscape is rendered. It is almost of the colour and surface quality of boxwood or tarnished ivory. Upon this the plants and trees, still treated with the elementary symbolism of Byzantine art, are relieved in vivid black green; while the chief notes in the draperies—which are hatched with gold, according to the Byzantine tradition—are an intense blue green and a very positive transparent pink, with rarer touches of scarlet and celadon green. The effect of this colour scheme is very unusual, and recalls at once the well-known altarpiece of St. Cecilia in the corridor of the Uffizi. Two other altarpieces, by the same master, who is best known from his frescoes in the upper church at Assisi, have been recently discovered by Mr. Herbert Horne in the neighbourhood of Florence, and in these also a similar colour scheme is observable.[50] That the Highnam panel is a contemporary work, and, like those, marks the first germs of a distinctively Italian tradition, is apparent, but the tempting conclusion that it is by the same remarkable painter is not altogether borne out by the forms. For the master of the St. Cecilia altarpiece, though he was Giotto’s contemporary, shows an independent development out of the older tradition. Only in the Assisi frescoes is he influenced, and that in a secondary and superficial way, by Giotto; whereas this panel, which from its composition and the use of gold hatchings on the draperies we may assign to an early period of the movement, bears already decided traces of the style of Giotto. ¶ Whereas in the master of the St. Cecilia altarpiece we note the peculiarity of small heads, elongated figures, fine-drawn features, and spider-like extremities; above all a sense of elegance, almost of affectation, which connects his work more with the decadent classic tradition than with the new ideas of Giovanni Pisano and Giotto; here we have already, more rounded forms, and more solid relief, while the poses are of a kind which allow of re-entering lines, gathering the form together in a self-centred mass. Particularly noteworthy in this respect is the group at the bottom of the composition, where the influence of forms discovered by Giovanni Pisano in bas-relief is clearly apparent. ¶ There are comparatively few extant works of art which exemplify this precise movement in the development of the Italian from the early Christian style, but among them the closest analogy to our picture may be found in the panels at Munich, Nos. 979 and 980, in which a number of scenes are united in a single panel, though not as here in a single composition. We have in them a similar mixture of Byzantine tradition as seen in the gold hatchings on the draperies, similar large and rather heavy masks, similar deep shadows in the eye orbits, while the corners of the mouth are marked by similar round dots. Indeed the angel to Christ’s left in the Last judgement of the Munich panels is almost the exact counterpart of the angel immediately above the Christ in the Highnam Adoration. These Munich panels are considered by Mr. Berenson to be early works by Giotto. Is it possible that we have in the Highnam picture yet another early work by the same hand, and in incomparably better preservation? Besides the general likeness of style to the Munich pictures, there are certain characteristics which would point to such a conclusion; perhaps the most striking is the drawing of the hands. Thus the pose of the Madonna’s hand with the two first fingers outstretched, the others clenched, is a peculiarity constant in Giotto. Another characteristic trait is the tendency to bring the fingers of the opened hand to a point, as in the right hand of the third king.

NATIVITY AND ADORATION: SCHOOL OF CIMABUE
IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY

⇒
LARGER IMAGE

ALTAR-PIECE IN FIVE PARTS, BY BERNARDO DADDI
IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY

⇒
LARGER IMAGE

CORONATION OF OUR LADY, BY AGNOLO GADDI; IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY

Photo Alinari

CORONATION OF OUR LADY, BY TADDEO GADDI; PART OF AN ALTAR-PIECE IN SANTA CROCE, FLORENCE

On the other hand we must point out that the Munich pictures, in spite of the roughness of their execution, indicate a richer imagination, a greater energy of dramatic presentment, than can be claimed for the Highnam piece. There is nothing in the latter which can compare, for instance, with the inexpressible tenderness with which the Virgin contemplates the Child in the Munich picture. In our picture, the attempt to infuse life into the older formula is evident, but the persons of the drama still remain somewhat coldly self-absorbed and aloof; that flash of mutual interaction and sympathy which both Giovanni Pisano and Giotto realized so intensely is still lacking. ¶ In the present state of our knowledge, which leaves open so many unsuspected possibilities, it is, perhaps, unsafe to go further; but at least this can be said, that we have here no Giottesque work in the ordinary sense of the word, which might be more appropriately termed Gaddesque, but a work executed either by Giotto himself, or more probably by some contemporaneous artist who was elaborating at the same time with him the new idea; or if by a pupil, one who came under his influence at a very early date, before Giotto’s own style was fully matured. Certainly this work has none of the academic qualities of the followers who, like Taddeo Gaddi, accepted the formulæ of Giotto’s later style; it has in it, like Giotto’s own work, the spring and vitality which come with the germination of a new and fruitful conception. And among the works of this fascinating period of Italian painting, we know of none which surpass this in the polished perfection of the technique nor in the marvellous preservation of its surface. ¶ The next important picture ([Plate II]), keeping to the chronological order, is one of the most magnificent of the many noble altarpieces which have come down to us from the fourteenth century. Even in Florence itself it would be hard to find an altarpiece in which the religious sentiment of the time is expressed in more imposing forms, or in which the decoration is more sumptuous and the execution more refined. It is, moreover, in wonderful preservation, and the pale flat tints of pure heliotrope, dull scarlet and blue, and white flushed with pink, relieved upon a background of elaborately stamped gold, produce an effect of brilliance and variety toned to a perfect harmony which the artists of Florence rarely surpassed. Indeed, in the pallor and brilliance of the colour scheme, as also in the atmospheric tonality and the absence of vigorous relief in the figures, we are reminded of Sienese art. The forms, however, are essentially Florentine. The inscription at the base leaves us in no doubt about the author of this masterpiece; it runs: ANNO DNI MCCCXLVIII BERNARDVS PINXIT ME QUEM FLORENTIE (sic) FINSIT. The original notion that this Bernardo was the same as Nardo the elder brother of Orcagna has been exposed by Milanesi, to whose researches we owe all that is known of Bernardo da Firenze or Bernardo Daddi, whose chef d’œuvre is the Highnam altarpiece. Bernardo Daddi was almost overlooked by Vasari, who makes him, by an anachronism of more than half a century, a pupil of Spinello Aretino; nor did Crowe and Cavalcaselle realize his importance in their ‘History of Painting.’ Milanesi has, however, discovered many facts about Daddi, who, though inferior in the vitality and freshness of his imagination to Giottino, was perhaps a finer artist than any other of the immediate successors of Giotto. Certainly Taddeo Gaddi, who somehow came to be regarded as the capo scuola, has left nothing comparable to this as regards the variety and self-consistency of the types, the nobility of the design and spacing of the figures, or the research for beauty in the execution. Even in the Crucifixion, though it is only a variation of Giotto’s inventions, there survives, in spite of a tendency to a more sentimental treatment, something of the great master’s dramatic feeling. There is much here, moreover, that seems already to suggest Orcagna, and Daddi may perhaps be regarded as the connecting link between him and Giotto. ¶ What is known of the life of Daddi may be found at length in Milanesi’s commentary to Vasari’s life of Stefano Fiorentino and Ugolino Sanese. Milanesi champions eloquently the cause of this great but curiously neglected artist—that his pleading has not been altogether successful may be due in part to the fact that he endeavours to establish Daddi’s authorship of the frescoes of the Triumph of Death, in the camposanto at Pisa. The improbability of such a view will be apparent to anyone who compares them with the Highnam altarpiece. Daddi, who was born at the close of the thirteenth century, died either in 1348 according to Crowe and Cavalcaselle, or in 1350 according to Milanesi. This picture must therefore be one of his latest, as it is also one of his finest works. It came originally from the church of St. George at Ruballa, whence it passed into the Bromley collection. It is referred to as being in that collection by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, and is mentioned as being in England by Milanesi. ¶ To a considerably later period of the fourteenth century belongs the Coronation of the Virgin ([Plate III]), which is ascribed in the catalogue to Giotto. It is, however, clearly a fine work by the last great Giottesque master of Florence, Agnolo Gaddi, whose characteristic qualities and defects are here admirably displayed. The weak lines of the boneless fingers with their rounded ends, the long thin noses imperfectly articulated with the mask, and the want of life and character in the figures, betray the facile exponent of a stock formula which made but small demands upon the artist’s observation or his feeling for reality. It was, indeed, due to the cleverness and, if we are to believe Vasari, the commercial astuteness of the Gaddi family that Giotto’s style was crystallized into so lifeless a system of design. But Agnolo, though he inherited too much from his father, was more of an artist. Where, as at Sta. Croce, he depicts a stirring narrative, his line, at other times mechanical and slow, becomes alert and expressive of at least the more obvious dramatic effects, while at all times he shows a refined taste and originality as a decorator in the more limited sense of the word. Judged as an imaginative rendering of a supreme event, this picture is certainly cold and inadequate, but as a piece of elaborate decoration it is charmingly designed and brilliantly executed. The brocade hanging, which reminds one of Orcagna’s school, is painted with the utmost skill; on a ground of brilliant orange red, the symmetrical pattern of birds and flowers is relieved in intensest blue and gold. The draperies and flesh are for the most part in that beautiful pale key which Agnolo affected; the opposition of pale grey, blue, and saffron yellow, with stronger notes of mauve and pink, forms one of those complex and sumptuous harmonies of colour which were unfortunately abandoned by the artists of the succeeding century. The general likeness of this to Taddeo Gaddi’s version of the same subject in the sacristy of Sta. Croce ([Plate III]) (there attributed to Giotto) is apparent. Agnolo has even repeated, though in a modified form, the peculiar double sleeve which is not unfrequent in Taddeo’s pictures. The influence of Orcagna is, however, to be seen in the more rectilinear folds and the attempt at structural design in the draperies.

ADORATION OF THE MAGI, BY LORENZO MONACO; IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY

THE VISITATION, BY LORENZO MONACO; IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY

MADONNA AND CHILD, WITH ANGELS, BY A FLORENTINE PAINTER OF THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY

TRIPTYCH, BY THE SAME PAINTER; IN THE UFFIZI, FLORENCE

We come next to an artist who was probably at one time Agnolo Gaddi’s pupil. The two little predella pieces representing the Visitation and the Adoration of the Magi ([Plate IV]) are not only among the most charming pieces of the collection, but they are among the best works of an artist whose sense of beauty was almost of the highest order—Lorenzo Monaco. The melodious rhythm of his long-drawn interlacing lines, the sweetness and lucidity of his design, are here beautifully apparent. His peculiar treatment of drapery would seem to indicate that the miniature paintings of northern Europe, particularly of French workmanship, were not without their influence on him. But here, though the main ideas of design are essentially gothic, there is much that already foreshadows the art of the fifteenth century. How much of Fra Angelico there already is in the tenderly expressive gesture of the Virgin’s hands as she raises St. Elizabeth from her knees, while the movement of the right leg and the peculiar disposition of the drapery which it causes are favourite motives with the pupil. Angelico, indeed, had but little to add to this exquisite interpretation of the subject. How much, too, of Fra Filippo Lippi’s genre feeling is already hinted at in the figure leaning against the doorpost—how much of his romance in the woodland background! Lorenzo Monaco’s importance as the inspirer of the new ideas of the quattrocento perhaps deserves more recognition. The Adoration is a variation upon the theme of a predella piece by Lorenzo in the Raczynski gallery at Berlin; but the differences between this, which we must assume to be a late work, and the Berlin picture are remarkable. The head of the second king in particular is so different from Lorenzo’s usual type, so near to what Masolino or the young Masaccio might have done, that one wonders whether some pupil, already advancing beyond his master in the new direction, may not have had a hand in it. ¶ If these works by Lorenzo Monaco show the emergence from the gothic formula of a new spirit, our next picture ([Plate V]) is on the contrary a curious case of retardation. ¶ The general effect of this picture is decidedly Giottesque; the colour scheme is still of the gay and variegated kind that occurs in works of the trecento. The crimson robes with yellow high lights, the indigo blues and apple greens, all belong to the Giottesque tradition; but, none the less, this picture was probably executed at a period when the more original artists had already established the new ideas of fifteenth-century art. The master who executed this was clearly a reactionary who clung to the old, convenient receipts for the fabrication of handsomely decorated altarpieces. His works are not uncommon in and around Florence, and may be easily recognized by the peculiar alert expression of the eyes and the gaiety and piquancy of his faces. One of his pictures in the corridor of the Uffizi is reproduced here ([Plate V]); another is in Fiesole cathedral. The artist shows some evidence of the influence of Lorenzo Monaco, though this is more apparent in the draperies of the Uffizi picture than in the Highnam Madonna. The latter seems in essentials to be rather a continuation of the purely Florentine Giottesque tradition of the end of the fourteenth century, and is probably a somewhat earlier work. ¶ Whoever our artist may be, his work scarcely rises above the level of tasteful and accomplished craftsmanship, and his chief interest is as an example of one phase of the work of the period of transition to the style of the quattrocento. One is apt to forget that long after Masaccio and Castagno had realized in paint the new plastic ideas of Donatello, the older firms of ecclesiastical furnishers went on contentedly in the earlier manner, which was, in fact, better adapted to the requirements of the altarpiece. Even in the next generation Neri di Bicci only made a sufficient pretence to structural draughtsmanship and modelling to pass muster among his contemporaries.