Part 9

We must not forget, however, that several doubts arise as to the identity of the person representing Michelozzo.

Vasari recognises him in that old Nicodemus with a hood, who lowers the Christ from the cross in the Deposition, while Milanesi, asserting that Nicodemus has a saint's aureole not a cowl, holds that the portrait of Michelozzo is to be seen in the figure with a black hood who speaks with the disciple beneath him as he gives the body of the Lord into his hands. Certainly Milanesi has good reason to doubt Vasari's assertion, as Nicodemus has no hood: moreover Vasari himself in his second edition of the Lives (1568) assigns as the architect's likeness that very figure with a cowl who is speaking to the disciple. Therefore we must admit that the Aretian Historian was mistaken either in his indication of the figure, or in the reproduction of it as a headpiece to his Life of Michelozzo.

In any case, a similar figure to that in the "Deposition," and with the same head-gear, again appears a little older in the fresco of the convent of San Marco representing the "Adoration of the Magi"; also in another picture of the "Presentation in the Temple"; and in the little square with a "Flight into Egypt", on one of the doors of SS. Annunziata.

If Michelozzo be really portrayed here, we must conclude that the Deposition was painted long before 1442, and the press doors about the same time, or a little later; but the student must take into account the curious fact that in the "Deposition" the disciple who talks to the man with a cowl above him, has also a certain resemblance to the supposed Michelozzo, and that Nicodemus reappears as St. John Baptist on the left of the large altar-piece painted for the church of San Marco, as well as in the picture of the dead Christ, and also as the kneeling King who kisses the feet of the Babe in the fresco of the "Adoration of the Magi."

Therefore, without giving great importance to the question of the true portrait of Michelozzo, we find that these heads, whether of Nicodemus or the hooded disciple, are represented in various pictures by our artist, modified by age, so that from them we may establish the succession of the different works, i. e. first the "Dead Christ" of the Company of the Temple, next the picture at San Marco (1438), then the "Deposition," and lastly the fresco in San Marco, and the little "Annunciation." Thus all these works would certainly date during Fra Angelico's stay in Florence.

But to return to the doors of the presses in the SS. Annunziata, it is true, as Rio writes, that instead of being a series of subjects for future frescoes or altar-pieces, the "stories" seem a hasty resume, often too hasty, of works already painted in the convent of San Marco or other places. Some of them are noticeable for firmness of design and vigour of colouring, others instead are unworthy of the master and evidently show another hand.

To give this great work its due appreciation we must take it as a whole, as the profound genius of Fra Angelico had conceived it. Wishing to give it the unity of a dramatic poem, he placed at the beginning and at the end, like a prologue and an epilogue, two symbolic figures, in the last of which the seven branched candlestick serves as a support to the Old and New Testaments.

We may enumerate among the best scenes the "Flight into Egypt," the "Slaughter of the Innocents," the "Betrayal of Judas," the "Dead Christ," and the "Resurrection of Lazarus," all composed in Giottesque style: but, when we think of the progress of Fra Angelico in art as shown in the frescoes in San Marco, and his best panel paintings, we cannot avoid noticing a certain want of vigour in these presses.

Having become accustomed to the grander methods of fresco painting, in which his talent and ability found greater scope for expression,--even though not attaining to the ease and force of some of his contemporaries and followers,--Fra Angelico must have now found himself at the disadvantage, natural to one who, after moving free in wider space, is suddenly cramped into narrower confines. This explains why we find in some of these small panels, greater conventionality in the representation of scenes and action, and less ease and correctness of execution. We might add also, that many of them, where these defects are especially evident, may be ascribed to other hands, less clever than his own, those of his assistants who were called in to expedite the work and assist the artist.

Rio believes that two of Angelico's paintings, one of which was once in the Dominican monastery of San Vincenzo d' Annalena, and the other in that of the Frati dell'Osservanza in Mugello, but now both at the Belle Arti, were executed later than the frescoes in the Vatican, to which they offer an extraordinary resemblance, not perceivable in the artist's earlier works.

We cannot, however, accept the assertion of the French critic. These two pictures, though utterly different in character and type, too forcibly recall his previous works. And as according to the same author the altar-piece of the monks of the Mugello resembles the other in colouring, technique, the freer style of drapery, the type of the Virgin and character of the figures, we might reasonably conclude that both paintings belong to the period of his residence at Fiesole or Florence, i. e. previous to his departure for Rome in 1445.

We are even less inclined to endorse the opinion of Rio in regard to the date of the painting from the Annalena Convent. The internal organization of the convent was only regulated by a bull of Pope Nicholas V. after 1450, so there is probably no connection between the internal establishment of the convent and the Commission for the picture.

The convent (it is well to remember) was founded in 1453, but the religious intentions of Anna Elena Malatesta met with no slight resistance, and it was not till 1455, that Pope Calixtus III. conceded her permission to "build in her house a public oratory in which mass should be celebrated and the divine Offices performed." We cannot then admit that the picture was specially painted for the convent named after that saintly lady. When one reflects that Anna Elena Malatesta, foundress of the monastery, was educated in the house of Attilio di Vieri de' Medici, and was by Cosimo Pater Patriae married to Baldaccio of Anghiari, it is not unlikely that the picture had been a commission from Cosimo, and that when Annalena was left a widow, and took the vows in 1441, it was offered by him to the convent, to which the sad widow had consecrated all her care. It is the more probable, that it was painted for the Medici, because the two patron saints of their house are represented in it.

SS. Cosmo and Damian only appear in the pictures painted by Fra Angelico in Florence, probably in recognition of the benefits bestowed by Cosimo on the monks of San Marco; moreover, we do not think the work could have been done at Fiesole after the first visit to Rome in 1452, because the figures, weak in chiaroscuro, are still treated as if they were enlarged miniatures, and do not show the character of his later works. On the other hand the picture of the Osservanza in Mugello displays the whole power of the artist, and may be compared, as Rio says, to the panel at San Marco both in the character of the figures and the larger style of treatment.

Vasari cites other works which have unfortunately been dispersed or destroyed, among which were an altar-piece in the Certosa at Florence, representing the "Virgin and Child," with some angels below, and at the sides St. Laurence, St. Zenobi, and St. Benedict; the "Coronation of the Madonna," once in the lunette of the Acciajoli chapel: another with the "Virgin and two saints," painted "con azzurri oltramarini bellissimi," (with beautiful ultramarine blues): and the pictures in the dividing wall of Santa Maria Novella opposite the choir. The "Annunciation," which according to Vasari was in the church of San Francesco at San Miniato, and which Milanesi believes to be in the Museum of Madrid, is instead now in the National Gallery at London. It is a diptych, in one panel the archangel Gabriel, with golden wings outspread, crossing his hands on his breast bows before the Virgin, who in the other panel leans forward to listen to his blessed word. The scene is in a cloister, from the arches of which a field of flowers is seen, and in the distant horizon the outlines of the Apennine mountains. A great lily blossoms beside the Virgin, the two capitals of the columns of the cloister have the Albizzi arms carved on them.

"This good Father painted so many pictures for the houses of the citizens of Florence, that one wonders how one man could so perfectly execute even in many years all that he has done." So writes Vasari, and indeed a complete list of his paintings still existing in Italy and elsewhere would be too long; those we have illustrated will, however, suffice to give a good idea of his artistic genius, and the sentiment with which this gentle artist could represent the marvellous visions of a soul in love with heaven!

IV.

FRA ANGELICO AT ROME AND ORVIETO.

These many and various labours--writes Vasari--"having rendered the name of Fra Giovanni illustrious throughout all Italy, he was invited to Rome by Pope Nicholas V., who caused him to adorn the chapel of the palace, where the pontiff is accustomed to hear mass, with a "Deposition from the Cross," and with certain events from the life of San Lorenzo, which are admirable."

But Vasari errs in giving to Nicholas V. the merit of having called Fra Angelico to Rome; he is also mistaken in affirming that the artist was offered the archbishopric of Florence, and on his modest refusal Sant' Antonino was proposed to the Pope: "and because Fra Giovanni appearing to the Pope to be, as he really was, a person of most holy life, gentle and modest, the archbishopric of Florence having then become vacant, he judged him worthy of that preferment."

It was instead Pope Eugene IV., who wishing to embellish the Vatican with pictures, invited Fra Angelico to Rome in 1445, having admired his sanctity of life, and talent in art when in Florence. That Pope died the following year, but in his successor Nicholas V., Fra Angelico found another sincere admirer and friend, and he remained in Rome to finish the works he had begun. He painted two chapels in the Vatican, the one of the Sacrament for Eugene IV., the other for Pope Nicholas V., whose name it still bears. The former was pulled down by Pope Paul III. to improve the staircase.

"In this work," says Vasari, "which was an excellent one, Fra Giovanni had in his own admirable manner painted stories in fresco from the life of Christ, and had introduced many portraits of eminent persons then living. These portraits would most probably have been lost to us, had not Paulo Jovius caused the following among them to be preserved for his Museum: Pope Nicholas V., the Emperor Frederick, who had at that time arrived in Italy; Fra Antonino, who afterwards became Archbishop of Florence; Biondo da Forli, and Ferdinand of Arragon."

It is probable that after having finished the chapel of the Sacrament, and before the new commission was given by Nicholas V., Fra Angelico--by means of Don Francesco di Barone of Perugia, a Benedictine monk and celebrated master of glass painting--entered into negotiation with the Operai and Consuls of the Duomo at Orvieto, to paint the chapel of the Madonna di San Brizio. But before he accepted the commission he gave them to understand that he could only go to Orvieto in the months of June, July and August, when he did not wish to remain in Rome.

"He demanded 200 gold ducats a year, together with all expenses of board and lodging, colours and scaffolding; besides seven ducats a month for his assistant, and two for his boy. The contract was signed on these conditions by Messer Enrico Monaldeschi, the principal citizen--almost the tyrant--of Orvieto, who always took a personal part in the most important events of the city. Fra Angelico took with him Benozzo di Lese, Giovanni di Antonio da Firenze, and Iacomo di Poli, with whose assistance he commenced the painting in the large lunettes on June 15th 1447. Pietro di Niccola of Orvieto was also employed. They painted together for three months and a half, but Fra Angelico did not return the following year.

"As the summer of 1449 drew near, the overseers, who were left with only Pietro Baroni, a proved artist, endeavoured to persuade Fra Angelico to go back again, and join Baroni, saying that if he failed them, they would prefer to postpone the work, as they looked more to the beauty than the expense, as they always had been accustomed to do. When every hope of obtaining Fra Angelico was lost, they gave Benozzo Gozzoli a trial to continue Fra Giovanni's frescoes," but the effect was not happy.

Fra Angelico painted in the roof of the chapel a "Christ in Judgment," surrounded by a "glory" of angels. Sixteen saints and prophets are seated on clouds with the motto: Prophetarum laudabilis numerus. The Saviour in a circle of light raises His right hand on high, while the left supports a globe on His knees. On both sides are groups of angels in varied attitudes of adoration. The prophets stand out in pyramidal groups on a background of gold, and are either reading or meditating with religious calm. Rosini judges the Christ to be the work of Benozzo Gozzoli, because it seems inferior to the prophets, which show a grander treatment and better execution. "I think," he writes, "that the prophets alone belong to Fra Angelico; the Christ in glory, and the remainder to Benozzo and the others. I am led to this not only by their different style, but the heads of the prophets, although they are disposed one above the other, as the space demands, show the more dignified style, and perfect execution of the Florentine monk. That perfection ought to be seen also in the Christ, which seems to me to be a little inferior to them."

But even while admitting that the features of the Saviour have in some parts the characteristics of Benozzo's style, we must not forget that he derived from his master both his good and bad points, and from the latter especially originated those peculiar defects, which are greatly emphasized in Benozzo's works. Hence it is natural that something of the scholar's manner should appear in that face, but it is no proof that he has worked at it. On the contrary it is enough to prove the impossibility of ascribing this figure to him, to glance at the head of Christ in Benozzo's fresco in the church of St. Francis at Montefalco, representing the meeting of St. Francis and St. Dominic. High up on the left the Saviour raises His right hand and the Virgin kneels at His feet. Now all the figures are absolutely wanting in dignity and character, especially the downcast head of Christ, with its projecting forehead and receding chin, which is absolutely vulgar. Here Benozzo has not even distantly remembered any of his master's noble representations of the Saviour. Therefore not only had he no part in that figure at Orvieto, but neither could he have done the prophets, for they are far superior to the Christ. Finally, it is not probable that Fra Angelico, with the feeling which inspired his work, should entrust to an assistant the execution of such an important figure as the Christ.

Even though the figure of the Christ is not to be compared to the finest of the prophets, yet we find in the countenance the same characteristics as the other heads display. True, it looks worse than it really is, for a crack in the roof has damaged the mouth and beard, and the fresco has besides suffered in the restorer's hands.