Donatello's High Altar in the Santo at Padua. Part One: The Documents and Their Implications Author(s): John White Source: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1969), pp. 1-14 Published by: College Art Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048582 . Accessed: 15/06/2014 14:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art Bulletin. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Transcript
Donatello's High Altar in the Santo at Padua. Part One: The Documents and Their ImplicationsAuthor(s): John WhiteSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1969), pp. 1-14Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048582 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 14:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Donatello's High Altar in the Santo at Padua* Part One: The Documents and Their Implications
JOHN WHITE
The intrinsic quality of Donatello's high altar in Sant'Antonio at Padua, its creative impact on the history of north Italian art in the second half of the fifteenth century, and the complexity of the problems caused by its dismemberment have so far led to eleven major attempts to reconstruct its original form. The process was begun in 1895 by C. Boito, whose solution is in- corporated in the existing altar (Figs. 1, 2). The remaining ten, necessarily theoretical, reconstructions are those of F. Corde- nons, 1895 (Fig. 3); C. de Mandach, 1899 (Fig. 4); D. von Hadeln, 1909 (Fig. 5); H. Kauffmann, 1935 (Fig. 6); R. Band, 1940 (Fig. 7); L. Planiscig, 1947 (Figs. 8, 9); H. W. Janson, 1957 (Fig. 10); J. Pope-Hennessy, 1958 (Fig. 11); G. Fiocco, 1961 (Figs. 12-14); and A. Parronchi, 1963 (Figs. 15-17).1 In
spite of the gradual accumulation of new insights and new information which the reconstructions represent, and in spite of the greatly increased concern with the detailed significance of the documents, especially notable in the investigations by Band and Janson, all of the reconstructions are open to serious objections of one sort or another. What follows is an attempt to produce a reconstruction which adheres to four main prin- ciples. The first is that it should be consistent with the whole of the surviving physical and documentary evidence in all its implications. The second is that full account should be taken of the evidence from secondary sources. The third is that the reconstruction should be in harmony with Donatello's own de- velopment as a sculptor and with the known functional and aesthetic canons of mid-fifteenth-century Italian art. The fourth and final principle is that the arguments used in estab-
lishing the various elements of the reconstruction should be mutually consistent in their logic.
The main body of the documents relating to the construc- tion of the altar was published by Gloria in 1895.2 The corpus was amplified by P. L. Guidaldi in 1932, by R. Band in 1940, and by A. Sartori in 1961 and 1963.3 Among the mass of sur- viving material there seem to be some eighteen entries or groups of entries which have an important bearing on the problem of reconstruction itself.
I. On April 13, 1446, the Arca di Sant'Antonio accepted a gift of 1500 lire from Francesco Tergola for a new high altar on condition that his coat of arms be placed upon it.4
Donatello probably allowed for the incorporation of the Tergola arms in his design, but the documents show that he never actually executed them and that no such arms were incorporated before December, 1473, over twenty years after Donatello had ceased work on the altar.5
II. On April 27, 1447, ten bronze Angels and four Evangelists, one and one half feet square, in the form of animals, were contracted for with Donatello and his associates. The ten Angels were referred to as already cast and the symbols of the Evangelists as ready for casting. All were to be polished and gilded. Furthermore, if the commissioners so desired, "a channel or molding round the cornice of these angels" ("unum canale vel redundinum circa cornicem ipsorum an- gelorum") was to be made with all diligence.6
III. On June 23, 1447, Donatello formally contracted for four
NB Part II of this article will appear in the June 1969 issue of The Art Bulletin. Footnotes and illustrations have been numbered continuously through both parts. A bibliography of frequently cited sources, given short titles in the text, appears at the end of each part. * I wish to record my gratitude to Dr. A. Prosdocimi, who many years
ago eased my path to the study of Donatello's altar; to the authorities of the Archivio di Stato di Padova and of the Archivio della Veneranda Arca del Santo, and in particular to Cav. D. Mauri, Julian Gardner, and W. R. Rearick for their help and suggestions; and finally to the many graduate students with whom I have discussed these problems. 1 See Boito, "La Ricomposizione dell'altare di Donatello," Archivio
storico dell'arte, Serie II, 1895, 141, and L'Altare; Cordenons, L'Al- tare; de Mandach, Saint Antoine de Padoue, 195f.; von Hadeln, "Ein Reconstructionsversuch," 35f.; Kauffmann, Donatello, 109f.; Band, "Donatello's Altar," 315f.; Janson, The Sculpture of Donatello, 162f.; Pope-Hennessy, Italian Renaissance Sculpture, 280f.; Fiocco, "L'Al- tare," 21f., and "Ancora dell'altare," 345f.; Parronchi, "Per la rico- struzione," 109f.
"Documenti," 1961, 38 (22), and "Di nuovo," 1963, 347f. Sartori's publication of 1961 is now the most complete, and will in subsequent notes be referred to as Sartori. The numbers in parentheses refer to the pagination in the offprint from II Santo, Fiocco-Sartori, "I1 Trit-
tico." AdA and ASP are abbreviations for Archivio della Veneranda Arca del Santo and Archivio di Stato di Padova respectively. Refer- ences to the other major publications of the documents referred to in this note and in note 1 above, and included for convenience, will be given as Gloria, Band, and Janson, followed by page reference or doc- ument number.
4 Sartori, 52 (36), ASP, Notarile, t. 3996, c. 8; Janson, 163; Band, doc. 15; Gloria, 5.
5 Sartori, "Di nuovo," 1963, 356-57. On Dec. 15, 1473, Antonio Tergola, Francesco's heir, following legal action, demanded that two marble tablets with his father's arms be set up on the altar in accordance with the original agreement. A document of November 23, 1473, shows that these had already been made at Antonio's expense. Since, as they pointed out, the altar was worth nearly six times the original gift, the authorities of the Arca countered with a proposal to present a design of their own, of convenient size, within three days. This would incorporate the words "These are the arms of Ser Francesco Tergola for a legacy of 1500 lire left for the said altar." They evi- dently had a single tablet in mind, and this is confirmed by the word- ing of a further document of Dec. 16, 1473, in which they present the design and declare that in this form "contentantur apponere armam."
Miracles of St. Anthony, of which the Miracle of the Ass, the Miracle of the Speaking Babe, and the Miracle of the Wrathful Son were already cast, while the Miracle of the Miser's Heart "remains to be modeled" ("superest ad for-
mandum"). Donatello also contracted for two figures, namely, those
of St. Francis and St. Louis, which were likewise already cast.7
IV. On August 4, 1447, Donatello obtained three hundred pounds of metal for casting the fourth Miracle relief, and sent it to the foundry.8
V. On April 23, 1448, Donatello was paid for "eight columns with their capitals, to make an altar for the Saint's day [June 13] to demonstrate the design of the 'pala' or 'ancona' to the foreigners."9
Payments for this altar during April, May, and June 1447
chiefly concern a blacksmith and a carpenter, and the pur- chase of large quantities of nails.10
VI. On June 6, 1448, Donatello was paid for work to date on seven bronze figures: namely, the Madonna, St. Prosdoci- mus, St. Louis, St. Francis, St. Daniel, St. Anthony, and St. Justina, which were to be placed on the high altar."
VII. On February 12, 1449, Nicol6 da Firenze was to be paid 200 lire for "eight colonnettes of marble, partly done and
partly to do." A second entry of the same date records the same pay-
ment as being "for the making of eight columns of marble, four rectangular [quare, literally "square," but not confined to this meaning], four round with flutings, for the altar-
piece.'12 On April 30, 1449, 48 lire was paid for "eight bases for
the columns of marble."13 VIII. On February 22, 1449, Nicol6 and two helpers were paid
60 lire for 60 man-days of work on "the stone which goes behind the altar and some cornices of marble."
On May 12, 1449, two other stonecutters were paid 82 lire for "many cornices and large stones which go within and without the 'pala.' "14
IX. On April 26, 1449, Donatello was paid 500 lire for "five large stones worked with figures, and with the sepulcher of Our Lord, which he has gilded in many places."'"
X. On June 14, 1449, Andrea dalle Caldiere was to receive 120 lire, 18 soldi for 192 pounds of copper at 13 soldi per pound, for making the cornices or moldings of the altar ("le cornixe de l'altaro").
On June 23, 1449, it was confirmed that he did receive this sum."6
XI. On June 23, 1449, Donatello received 285 lire "for the God the Father and the face of the choir" ("per lo Dio Pare e la faza del coro"). This is amplified in a summary of the same date as for "a God the Father in stone which is for the 'chua grande de l'altaro,' " and for exercising himself in having that "marble antependium of the choir ['antipeto dal curo de marmoro']" made."
XII. Also on June 23, 1449, Donatello was paid, among other sums, 12 ducats each for casting two little angels ("Agno- leti") as he had been for the others ("como l'ave dei altri"): 20 ducats for having cast and adorned "la Pieth"; 50 lire for the metal for the Pieta; and 50 ducats for having adorned the four Evangelists and twelve little Angels.18
XIII. Again on June 23, 1449, Nani da Firenze was paid 29 lire for steps of Nanto stone behind the high altar ("drio da Flaltaro grande").19
On the same date Antonio Moscatello the potter was paid 59 lire, 12 soldi for "tiles and border strips which he made for the steps of the high altar."20
7 Sartori, 66 (50), ASP, Archivi Giudiziari, Sigillo, n. 293, fasc. ultimo, c. 48v; Janson, 163; Band, doc. 17.
8 Sartori, 70 (54), AdA, reg. 337 c. 64v; Janson, 164; Gloria, 8; and Sartori, 67 (51), AdA reg. 337 c. 11; Janson, 164; Band, doc. 18; Glo- ria, 8. Payment for the casting of this relief on November 15, 1447, is published by Janson, 164; Band, doc. 19; Gloria, 8. I have not located this entry, which is omitted by Sartori. References to further work on all four reliefs occur on July 1, 1448 (Sartori, 73 [57], AdA reg. 338, c. 12; Janson, 165; Band, doc. 33; Gloria, 11); and on Jan. 29, 1449, when the gilding and silvering was finally completed (Sartori, 74 [58], AdA reg. 338, c. 20 destra; Janson, 166; Band, doc. 37; Gloria, 12).
9 Sartori, 75 (59), AdA reg. 337, c. 16v; Janson, 165; Band, doc. 4; Glo- ria, 9.
11 Sartori, 72 (56), AdA reg. 337, c. 68. 12 Sartori, 76 (60), AdA reg. 338, c. 18 destra; and Sartori, 77 (61), AdA
reg. 338, c. 21 sinistra; Janson, 166; Band, doc. 49b; Gloria, 12. 13 Sartori, 79 (63), AdA reg. 338, c. 30 sinistra; Janson, 166; Band, docs.
49c, d; Gloria, 13. In this connection Sartori, 77/8 (61/2), mentions in passing that at the time of the demolition of the altar the archi- tect Cesare Franco asked the authorities to send "queli pilastrini di marmo ch'erano ne l'altare" to Venice for re-use. He subsequently publishes this document of March 7, 1586, together with a second of
March 12, 1586, which states that the pilasters had been sent ("Di nuovo," 353; AdA, busta 968). This confirms the contentions of those who have argued that none of the existing Donatellesque marble pi- lasters incorporated in the choir screen can ever have formed part of Donatello's altar.
14 Sartori, 77 (61), AdA reg. 338, c. 21 sinistra (not destra as published) and 79 (63), AdA reg. 338, c. 30 sinistra; Janson, 166; Band, docs. 48 and 63, 64; Gloria, 12, 13.
15 Sartori, 84 (68), AdA reg. 338, c. 20 destra (as for April 16); Janson, 166; Band, doc. 44; Gloria, 12.
16 Sartori, 81 (65), AdA reg. 338, c. 34 sinistra (in this entry the weight of metal is incorrectly published as 19 lbs. instead of 192 lbs.), and c. 38 destra.
17 Sartori, 81 (65), AdA reg. c. 37 sinistra, and 81/2 (65/6), AdA reg. 338, c. 39 destra; Janson, 167; Band, doc. 43; Gloria, 13. The key word in the second entry has until recently always been read "chua," as shown here. This appears to be an abbreviation of "cuba" or "cuva," which is Venetian dialect for cupola. Sartori, "Di nuovo," 348, how- ever, reverses his previous reading and asserts that the word is actu- ally written "cuna," which is the Venetian dialect for culla--cradle. There seem however to be no grounds for this reading. The ch of "chua" may be compared with the ch of "fabricha" at the beginning of the entry and at the beginning of seven other entries on the same page. The u compares with the u of "quelo" in the succeeding part of
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On June 26, 1449, Bartholomeo the stonecutter was paid 151 lire, 10 soldi for 95 feet of red and white Veronese mar- ble steps for the high altar.21
XIV. Finally, on the same June 23, 1449, Giovanni da Trento, ironworker, received 14 lire for 195 pounds of iron "for making a grating ['una gradela'] which is made behind the high altar ... ."22
XV. On November 12, 1449, two locks ("do saraure"), or more probably bolts, in view of the price of 1 lira, were bought for the high altar.23
At an unspecified date in 1450 there is a payment for six elements for the door of the altar ("la porta de l'altaro"), which is then referred to a second time as "the iron door of the altar ['la porta de fero da l'altaro']."24
On June 11, 1450, two days before the feast of St. Anthony, porters carried the figures from Donatello's house to the altar, which was still unfinished.25 Then, several years after his de- parture from Padua a final contract concerning its completion contains important references to its form:
XVI. (a) On March 12, 1455, Nicolao the goldsmith con- tracted to carry out two cornices or moldings ("duas soa- zias"), "one below and one above the miracles of St. An- thony the Confessor on the altarpiece of the high altar beneath the feet of the large bronze figures, all around ['cir- cumquaque'] the said altarpiece of copper worked in suit- able size for the work of gilding according to the opinion of those skilled in such things, gilded with ground gold and silvered with good silver, and gilded with fine gold, accord- ing to two given designs consigned and presented to the honorable Lords Stewards in the Chancellery of the Com- mune of Padua, save that in the lower part of the lower
cornice the said Master Nicolaus should make a frieze of copper according to the molding or beginning of a molding which Master Donatello of Florence the sculptor made." (b) ""Likewise the above Master Nicolaus promised the above Lords Stewards to fix the four evangelists, the mir- acles of St. Anthony, the little spirits and all the other crea- tions and works of bronze, which are beneath the big fig- ures, in the said cornices ... and to silver and gild those two leaves of copper ['illa duo folia de ramine'] which are at the head of the said cornices in the middle of the little spirits ['ad capita dictarum soaziarum in medio spiritellorum-']. ." (c) "Likewise the said Master Nicolaus promised the said Lords Stewards to make of copper those works which fall between the spaces of the large bronze figures between the feet of the Saints. .. ."26
At this point the surviving documentation moves beyond the realm of the work carried out under Donatello's supervision or as an immediate continuation or completion of what he had done. Nevertheless, two further groups of documents bear di- rectly on the original structure of the altar.
XVII. On November 9, 1493, an un-named woodcarver in Venice ("Maestro intagador de legname in Vene- zia") is to have 24 lire, 16 soldi "for carving a sepulcher with a Dead Christ with a St. Anthony and St. Francis ['de aver per intagiare uno sepulcro cum uno Santo Antonio e San Francesco']."27
On November 11, 1493, a Venetian artist contracted to make the little bronze door for the sacrifice of the high altar for 12 ducats (74 lire, 8 soldi).
On November 13, 1493, the painter Vicenzo, living in Padua, painted "the sepulcher in front of the altar."
the same entry, of "butare" in the next entry and of "buta" in the next but one. The terminal a may be compared with those of "pieta" three entries later and "fadiga" five entries later. In other instances the terminal a looks slightly different, as its tail is carried on hori- zontally, sometimes to make a connection with the next word and sometimes not. Every letter is clear and there seems definitely to be no fifth letter nor any abbreviation mark signifying such a letter. Finally the terminal ua of "chua" presents a very clear contrast with the terminal na of "adorna" four entries later. A word which could conceivably be read as "cune" but seems more properly to read as "cuve" in terms both of palaeography and of context occurs two pages earlier (AdA reg. 338, c. 37 sinistra) in which Filippo, a car- penter, is paid for quantities of wood and many days' works "cum molti lavorenti abutare piombo e metalo e bronzo nelle chuve del santo." Band, doc. 66, and Gloria, 5, also quote a document of 1444 in which a similar reading occurs in a similar context.
18 Sartori, 82 (66), AdA reg. 338, c. 39 destra; Janson, 167; Band, doc. 43; Gloria, 13.
19 Sartori, 82 (66), AdA reg. 338, c. 40 destra; Janson, 167; Band, doc. 70; Gloria, 13.
20 Sartori, 82 (66), AdA reg. 338, c. 41 sinistra; Janson, 167; Band, doc. 71; Gloria, 13. In a second entry of the same date, Sartori, 81 (65), AdA reg. 35 destra, the figure is given as 58 lire, 12 soldi. Sartori in this entry refers to "certi fioroni." This reference (Janson, 167; Band,
doc. 71; Gloria, 13), which is quite separate, occurs only on AdA reg. 338, c. 35 sinistra, and may or may not be connected with the steps on which several entries show Moscatello to have worked.
21 Sartori, 82 (66), AdA reg. 338, c. 9 and c. 41 sinistra; Janson, 167; Band, doc. 70; Gloria, 13.
22 Sartori, 82 (66), AdA reg. 338, c. 42 destra; Janson, 167; Band, doc. 60; Gloria, 13.
23 Sartori, 82 (66), AdA reg. 339, c. 12. 24 Sartori, 83 (67), AdA reg. 339, c. 54, foglio volante. Sartori reads the
key words as "sei guerqi." The penultimate letter does not, however, look very much like a c and the only abbreviation or other mark above or below the line is the superscribed sign for the preceding r. The letter in question might be a t, but the reading and significance are alike obscure whatever the intended letter.
25 Sartori, 83 (67), AdA reg. 339, c. 14; Janson, 167; Gloria, 14. 26 The three passages above are all excerpted from the same entry: Sar-
tori, 88/9 (72/3), ASP, Notarile, t. 581, c. 254. In a second copy of the contract the reference to "duo folia" in XVI(b) occurs as "duas folias."
27 There can be no doubt at all about the words "intagador de legname" and "intagiare," or about the import of the entry as a whole, although in publishing it, Sartori, 95 (79), AdA reg. 362, c. 32, says that it re- fers to a brother from the Santo's going to Venice to collect a sep- ulcher, etc.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On December 7, 1493, the "little door ['portella']" or- dered from Venice was referred to as a "bronze picture ['quadro di pronzo']."
On July 1, 1494, payment for the "portella di brunzo" was finally made.28
XVIII. On August 3, 1494, it is recorded that the cloth of a
hanging ("paliotto") for the high altar had been made. Between November 14 and November 28, 1494, the ante-
pendium of the altar was painted or renewed. In 1496 a tailor "remade the hanging ['palio'] of cloth of
gold... ."29
This completes the documentation of the construction of the altar and leads on to the only significant early description of Donatello's work. It is the one written ca. 1520 at the begin- ning of Marcantonio Michiel's Notizia d'opere del disegno:30 "In the church of the Santo, above the high altar the four [the previously written five is crossed out] figures of bronze all in the round about ['attorno'] Our Lady, and Our Lady. And un- der the said figures in the seating ['nel scabello'], the two little histories in front and the two behind also of bronze in bas- relief. And the four evangelists in the sides ['cantoni'] two in front and two behind of bronze and in bas-relief, but half-fig- ures. And behind the altar, under the seating ['sotto il sca- bello'] the dead Christ with the other figures around ['a circo'], and the two figures on the right hand, with the other two on the left hand, also in bas-relief, but of marble, were from the hand of Donatello."
Finally, a fifteenth-century drawing roughly scaled in Vene- tian braccia shows the altar situated at the end of the choir, close to the arcading of the ambulatory (Fig. 18). If, as seems likely, the drawing antedates the destruction of Donatello's altar,31 it confirms that the altar's original position was some- where in the curved end-portion of the choir. The freehand style of the drawing and the constant irregularities of position- ing and size, involving errors of a meter or two, are accom- panied by gross distortion of major architectural relationships.
In the case of the choir this entails a transformation of the approximately three-to-four relationship of width to depth into a three-to-two ratio which underestimates the actual depth by a good 6 meters or so.32 Given these circumstances the seemingly precise conclusions as to the width of Dona- tello's altar which have been widely accepted in the recent lit- erature are anything but sound.33 While it is certainly unlikely that an altar situated in this general area was much more than about 7 meters wide, the drawing cannot logically be used for asserting or excluding maximum dimensions anywhere in the range of 4.5 to 6 meters.34 In particular, the rather small dimensions of the altar as drawn by no means exclude an ac- tual size at or slightly over the higher figure, since many of the solid forms shown are drawn on much too small a scale. The dimensions of the main piers of the nave, although accom- panied by fairly accurate numerical notations, are, for ex- ample, drawn as if they were only just over one third of their actual width. This constitutes an error of approximately 4 meters in the representation of each of a major series of 6- meter objects.
At this point it can be seen that the documents themselves establish beyond any reasonable doubt some ten important facts about the nature of Donatello's altar:
1. Then, as now, there were seven bronze figures in the round: the Madonna (h. 159cm), St. Francis (h. 147cm), St. Anthony (h. 145cm), St. Daniel (h. 153cm), St. Justina (h. 154cm), St. Louis (h. 164cm), and St. Prosdocimus (h. 163cm) (VI above). This statement is contradicted by Michiel, who speaks of a Madonna and only four saints.
2. Then, as now, there were four bronze reliefs (h. 57cm, w. 123cm35): of the Miracle of the Speaking Babe, the Miracle of the Ass, the Miracle of the Wrathful Son, and the Miracle of the Miser's Heart (III and IV above); four bronze reliefs (h. 59.8cm, w. 59.8cm)36 of Evangelists' symbols (II, XII above); twelve bronze reliefs (h. 58cm, w. 21cm)37 of Angels (II, XII above); and one bronze relief (h. 58cm, w. 56cm)38 of the Pieta (XII above).
28 Sartori, 79/80 (95/96), AdA reg. 362, c. 33, 33, 19, 40v. A gap is again left at the beginning of the entry of November 11, 1493, for a name which was never actually inserted.
29 Sartori, 91 (75), AdA reg. 363, c. 45v, 5v; AdA reg. 364, c. 35. 30 See Frimmel, Der Anonimo, 2 (fol. 2). 31 Its likely dating in the period 1457-77 is discussed by Guidaldi, "Ri-
cerche," 271f. 32 These ratios are taken from the distance between the piers framing
the entry to the choir, and the distance from the front of the choir arch to the crown of the inside curve of the choir arcading.
33 Kauffmann, Donatello, 109-10, argues that the drawing demonstrates a maximum width of ca. 4.25 meters for the mensa and ca. 5 meters for the structure as a whole.
34 Boito, L'Altare, 32, states that the remains of the foundations of an altar, insufficiently extensive to indicate its form, were uncovered some 4.11m from the inner surfaces of the central piers of the choir arcading.
35 In the Miracle of the Speaking Babe and the Miracle of the Wrathful
Son the width along the lower border seems to exceed this figure by about 3mm. Except at the left end of the Miracle of the Wrathful Son, where the given figure seems to be exceeded by about 5mm, measure- ments of height taken at either end of each relief show no apparent discrepancies of more than Imm. There appears to be no basis for the 105cm width quoted by Fiocco, "L'Altare," 32 (16).
36 Measurements taken along all four sides show the symbols of St. Matthew and St. Luke to be accurate within Imm except for the bot- tom width of the latter (59.2cm) and the right side height (59.5cm). The symbol of St. Mark is accurate to within Imm except for a bot- tom width of 59.4. Only the eagle of St. John is slightly undersize, the height at left and right being ca. 58.9cm, and the width at top and bottom being ca. 59.6 and 59.3cm. There appears to be no basis for the 50 x 65cm dimensions quoted by Fiocco, "L'Altare," 32 (16).
37 Taking the Angels from left to right as at present set up on the altar, the dimensions as measured in centimeters were (1) Dancing Tam- bourine Player, 57.9 x 21.3; (2) Twin Pipe, 58.4 x 21.5; (3) Harp, 58.4 x 21.3; (4) Flute, 58.3 x 21.4; (5) Lute, 58.2 x 21.3; (6) Singers, 58.4 x
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Michiel mentions four Miracles and four Evangelists' sym- bols.
3. Then, as now, there was a partially gilded limestone re- lief (h. 138cm, w. 188cm) of the Entombment (IX above). Mi- chiel also mentions this relief, though stating it to be of marble.
4. All the bronze reliefs, and specifically the Miracles, Evan- gelists' symbols, and Angels, were placed beneath the feet of the figures in the round (XVIa, b above). This is confirmed by Michiel as far as the Miracles and the Evangelists' symbols are concerned.
This point excludes the reconstructions of von Hadeln (Fig. 5) and Kauffmann (Fig. 6) in which an essential feature is the placing of the angels either in the bases of the columns or in the framing piers, at the same level as the big figures and above the base on which they stand.
5. All the existing bronze reliefs, and specifically the Mir- acles, the Evangelists' symbols, and the Angels, were placed in a single line or on a single level.
This is indicated by the ordering of two copper cornices or moldings, to be placed one above and one below the reliefs of the Miracles (XVIa above). All the bronze reliefs, and specifi- cally the Evangelists' symbols, the angels, and the Miracles, were to be fixed in the same two cornices or moldings (XVIb above), which were to be placed one above and one below the Miracles.
This arrangement is seemingly confirmed by Michiel as far as the Miracles and the Evangelists' symbols are concerned. He says that these reliefs were in the "seating" or "scabello." Elsewhere he uses the term to describe the predella of a painted altarpiece,39 and predella panels were invariably set in a single row.
It excludes Boito's reconstruction (Fig. 1) because he places the Angels and the Pieth on the front and sides of the altar table at the same height as the Evangelists' symbols, but be- neath the retable containing the Miracles.
It excludes Cordenons's reconstruction (Fig. 3) because he
places the Pietf and the Evangelists' symbols on the front and sides of the altar table below the Angels and Miracles on the retable.
It contradicts de Mandach (Fig. 4) because he sets the re- liefs in three layers with two Miracles and two Evangelists' symbol at top and bottom, and with the Angels and the Pieta in the middle row.40
It again excludes von Hadeln's reconstruction (Fig. 5), in which the Angels are placed above the level of the remaining reliefs.
It contradicts Planiscig (Fig. 8) because he removes the Evangelists' symbols to two outriding, separated bases set at a lower level than the remaining reliefs.
It excludes Parronchi's reconstruction (Figs. 15-17) because he removes six of the Angels to a level beneath that of the re- maining reliefs.
It again contradicts Kauffmann (Fig. 6), who places the An- gels in three superimposed layers above the level of the re- mainder of the reliefs.
6. The existing seven freestanding figures formed a single fairly compact group within an altarpiece which was itself reasonably compact in plan (XVIa, b, c above). The mold- ings designed to hold the bronze reliefs are explicitly referred to as running "circumquaque dictam pallam" (XVIa above). Circumquaque is a strong word meaning "all around" or "on every side of," and can in such a context only refer to a rea- sonably blocklike structure. The reference to "the spaces of the large bronze figures between the feet of the Saints" (XVIc above) implies a similar situation. The reconstructions of Boito (Fig. 1) and of Planiscig (Fig. 8), the first with the wing figures partially separated, the second with them completely sepa- rated, are again excluded.41
7. There was originally at the back of the altar an iron grat- ing ("gradela") for which 195 pounds of iron was allocated (XIV above). This figure compares with the 300 pounds of cop- per for the Miracle of the Miser's Heart (IV above). The grat- ing may or may not be the same as the iron door which is also
21.4; (7) Singers, 58 x 21.6 at top and 21.3 at bottom; (8) Rebec, 58 x 21.2; (9) Flute, 58.1 x 21.6; (10) Cymbals, 58.1 x 21.2; (11) Twin Pipe, 58 x 21.2; (12) Tambourine, 58 x 21.3. From these measurements it appears that the heights of eight of the twelve reliefs are within 1 or 2mm of the generally accepted figure and that the maximum discrep- ancy runs up to about 4mm. As regards width, the maximum dis- crepancy is 6mm and the average is a little closer to 21.5cm than to the generally accepted figure of 21cm quoted in the main text. There appears to be no basis for the 52-cm height quoted by Fiocco, "L'Al- tare," 33 (17).
38 The actual measurements of the four sides seem to be as follows: height, 58.7cm left and 58.4cm right; and width, 55.6cm bottom and 55.9cm top; the average height therefore falls within Imm of that of the three tallest Angel reliefs, which include one of the pairs of Sing- ing Angels, and exceeds that of the five shortest, which include the other pair of Singing Angels, by just over 5mm. Although the Pietih is not, therefore, as is often stated, exactly the same height as the
Angel reliefs, it remains closely associated with them and distinct from the remainder of the reliefs in this respect. There appears to be no basis for the 57-cm height quoted by Fiocco, "L'Altare," 32 (16).
39 Frimmel, Der Anonimo, 114 (fol. 71v). On p. 64 (fol. 27v) Michiel dis- tinguishes between the histories in the base or predella ("scabello") of a gilt bronze altarpiece and those in the "little walls of the columns" ("muretti delle colonne").
40 De Mandach, Saint Antoine, 198-200, explains Michiel's statement that the Miracle reliefs were set two in front and two behind by sug- gesting that the lowest of the three levels in his reconstruction, con- taining two of the reliefs, was stepped forward or in front of the two upper rows, containing the remaining pair of Miracle reliefs, which could therefore be said to be behind.
41 The reconstruction by von Hadeln does not contradict the documents in this respect, but its overall width of ca. 7m 20cm places it at or beyond the likely limits suggested by the site, if the altar was in the general area implied by the fifteenth-century drawing (Fig. 18).
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
mentioned (XV above), and for which two locks were needed (XV above). The area covered by the relief of the Miracle of the Miser's Heart is approximately 7,011 sq. cm, which is well over twice the 3,248 sq. cm of the Pieta. An open-work iron grating requiring almost two thirds of the weight of metal needed for the solid Miracle relief can hardly have been as small as the partly open-work Pieta for which between 77 and 125 pounds of copper was apparently allocated.42 This entry therefore conflicts with the reconstructions of von Hadeln (Fig. 5), Kauffmann (Fig. 6), Band (Fig. 7), Janson (Fig. 10), and Pope-Hennessy (Fig. 11), who allocate to the grating a space exactly corresponding to that occupied by the Pieta". Boito (Fig. 2), Planiscig (Fig. 9), and Fiocco (Fig. 14)43 do not mention the grating but leave the same inadequate space free at the back of the altar.
Parronchi observes the divergence between the documentary evidence and the small size of the grating proposed in previous reconstructions, but goes to the opposite extreme with seem- ingly disastrous results. He proposes a screen which would cover the whole of the back of the altar from base to archi- trave. Allowing a minimum vertical clearance of the bronze figures this would involve an area approximately 2 meters high and 3 meters wide. The fact that Parronchi refers several times to the proposed structure as a "trasparente," but in his draw- ings (Figs. 15, 16) shows an opaque screen, draws attention to the inherent implausibility of his proposal.
The primary meaning of gradela is "gridiron." If, as Par- ronchi suggests in his text, a very thin screen covered the whole of the back of the altar, this would not obscure the awk- ward relationship between the four evenly spaced columns and the five figures in front of them. If, on the other hand, as in the drawings which completely mask this awkwardness, a thin opaque sheet of metal is what is really intended, the term gradela would not be appropriate. The thickness of a plain sheet of iron weighing 195 pounds and covering 60,000 sq. cm would, moreover, be in the region of 1.1mm. The use of any metal for supports or stiffeners would further reduce this figure and correspondingly increase the unlikelihood that such a technologically difficult feat, for which there is no known parallel, was ever attempted. The technical difficulties would, of course, be increased still further by any patterning of the metal. On the other hand, apart from the unresolved visual
problem, there is equally little parallel or precedent for a screen of the fineness necessitated by the available weight of metal. Once again the term gradela would hardly be appro- priate.
Whichever alternative is preferred, the difficulties are accen- tuated by Parronchi's further suggestion that the two wing sections could be opened up. This would explain the two locks mentioned in the documents (XV above), but it would also mean that considerable stiffening of the thin screen was re- quired. Finally, there is the practical difficulty that if the screen were placed, as in Parronchi's drawings, inside the line of col- umns in order to disguise the awkward column-figure relation- ship, the "doors" could not, in fact, be used at all. The free- standing figures would prevent them from opening inward and the columns themselves would keep them from opening outward.
8. There were originally four marble fluted columns and four marble piers of considerable height, which formed part of the architectural ensemble (VII above).
Band, by comparing the man-hours and costs involved in producing what were referred to in the documents predomi- nantly as "columns," but also as "colonnettes," with those for making the four-foot-high colonnettes for the choir screen, which were paid for on March 10, 1444, has shown that the columns for the altar must have been well over four feet in height.44
This once more excludes the reconstructions of Boito (Figs. 1, 2), de Mandach (Fig. 4), and Kauffmann (Fig. 6), in which an essential feature is the placing of very much smaller col- umns or pilasters either on the retable (Boito and de Man- dach) or in the altar table itself (Kauffmann).
9. There was originally a superstructure referred to as a "chua grande" containing a God the Father in stone (XI above).
Boito (Figs. 1, 2) and de Mandach (Fig. 4) make no allow- ance for this.45
10. There were originally a marble altar frontal (XI above) and extensive systems of steps in front of and behind the altar (XIII above).
Apart from the relatively straightforward conflict with the documentary evidence which occurs at one or more points in all the existing reconstructions, the implications of the docu-
42 The proportion of tin added to the copper to make bronze appears from the documents to have been small and was probably well below the normal proportion of 1:8. The weight of copper used for the Pietfh is calculated from the fact that the price paid for copper in the docu- ments varies between about 8 and 13 soldi per lb. The price paid in the entry of June 23, 1449, for metal for the Pietat was 50 lire (XII above) at 20 soldi to the lira (5 lire, 14 soldi = 1 ducat). Since the price paid for a separate quantity of 400 lbs. of metal (metallo and ramo, metal and copper, are used interchangeably in the documents), which is mentioned in the same entry of June 23, 1449 (Sartori, 82
[66], AdA reg. 338, c. 39 destra), was just over 10 soldi to the pound, the actual weight of the Piet~i may well have been in the region of 100 lbs. Finally, the difference between the specific weights of iron (7.8 gr. per cm') and bronze (8.8 gr. per cm8) is too small to have any effect on the conclusions drawn in the main text.
43 G. Fiocco, "Fragments of a Donatello Altar," Burlington Magazine, 93, 1932, 203, mentions in passing that the grating was "a protection for the sculptures which might be easily damaged by reason of the softness of the material employed." As will be seen immediately be- low in the discussion of Parronchi's reconstruction, this is most un-
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ments have made for difficulties in other less obvious ways. The most important of these additional complications, first
given serious consideration by Band, is the late stage at which the Pieth and two of the twelve Angel reliefs were introduced into the scheme. Whereas all the other figured bronzes were
ready for display in the temporary altar of June 1448, these three reliefs make their first appearance in a payment docu- ment of June, 1449 (XII above). Although there can be no cer-
tainty in such a matter, it does look very much as if they did not form part of the first scheme, but were added in the light of the experience that was gained and the criticisms that were made on the basis of the temporary wooden altar. In that case, any reconstruction must accommodate both a first solution with only ten Angels and no Pieth, and a second, final scheme with twelve Angels and a Pietai.
None of the earlier reconstructions makes any allowance for this complication. Those of Cordenons (Fig. 3) and von Hadeln (Fig. 5) are, moreover, in positive conflict with any such two-phase development of the design, since in each the
Angels are associated with twelve faces of the supports of the
superstructure in such a way that a mere ten panels can never have seemed to provide an adequate quota. The later scheme
by Kauffmann (Fig. 6) suffers from the same defect, since his
arrangement of the Angels in vertical groups of three in the front and rear of the lateral supports is also irrevocably tied to the number twelve.
Band's solution (Fig. 7), accepted by Pope-Hennessy (Fig. 11), is to suggest that at first there were no bronze reliefs on the sides of the altar, and that an Angel originally formed the central element of both the front and rear faces of the altar. When the Pieta was conceived as the new central feature of the front of the altar, and the iron grating, which first appears in the documents on the same day, June 23, 1449, was given a similar position at the rear, these two Angels were removed to
column-support positions at the sides of the altar. Two more
Angels were then added to fill the now asymmetrically vacant lateral spaces. Janson, as a matter of opinion, dismisses this
original arrangement as being impossibly awkward. More ob-
jectively he points out that it takes no account at all of certain obvious pairings which occur in the design of the Angel re-
liefs.46 In particular, it does not explain why two of the reliefs, which in Band's system must have been among the original ten
panels, are distinguished from the rest by containing laterally oriented pairs of singing angels. A further disadvantage of Band's solution is that according to it the sides of the altar must originally have been completely bare. This is difficult to
accept in a reconstruction which otherwise stresses the revolu- tionary three-dimensional nature of Donatello's design.
Janson's own solution of this problem, to which he pays particular attention, is itself not wholly unassailable in logical terms, since it implies that in the first scheme there were Angel supports for the central columns at the rear, but not for those in front, or possibly vice versa.47 Nevertheless, too much must not be made of arguments on these lines. All we know for certain is that at least the surviving elements must have been there. What else may have been incorporated we have no way of telling. In Fiocco's reconstruction (Fig. 14), for example, Tergola's twice-repeated coat of arms supplied the missing elements beneath the rear columns. Although the documents show that no such arms were ever placed on the altar by Donatello, he may well have allowed for their inclusion at some point. We have also for the most part no way of knowing what there may have been in the way of bronze or marble elements between the bronze reliefs; we know only that we must not allow the overall measurements to become too great. As Janson points out, Band's reconstruction, which already entails a width of 5m 5.6cm, seems, however, to be unaccept- able in proposing that nothing at all intervened between the bronze reliefs.48 This would have left the discrepancies in ver- tical measurement, which range from the 57-cm height of the Miracles, through the 58cm of the Angels and the Pietai, to the 59.8cm of the Evangelists' symbols, quite unexplained. Admit-
tedly, differences of a centimeter or a centimeter and a half are
apt to look less imposing when one is confronted with the re- liefs themselves than when they are discussed in print. How- ever, in spite of the slight variations among the reliefs within each category, the distinctions between the three groups re- main, and are apparently intentional. Band's arrangement is such that maximum prominence would be given to these dif- ferences without their seeming to serve any purpose whatso- ever.
Another point stressed by Janson is concerned with the im- plications not of the documentary but of the surviving physical evidence. It is likely in view of their careful framing as indi-
likely. 44 Band, 321-23. For confirmation of Band's convincing proof that none
of the existing pilasters in the choir screen was part of Donatello's altar see note 13 above. The idea that they were was originally sup- ported by von Hadeln, "Donatello a Padova," L'Arte, x, 1907, 284, and by Venturi, vI, 333ff. Fiocco, "L'Altare," 32 (16), accepts Venturi's conclusions without putting forward any new arguments to support the theory.
45 Kauffmann shows no such feature in his actual reconstruction (Fig. 6), but suggests, Donatello, 118 n. 380, that the reference is to a
canopy or ciborium standing on four columns and enclosing the en- tire altar. Janson, Donatello, 173, points out the lack of documentary support for such a suggestion, and notes the lack of any indication of such a feature on the early ground plan (Fig. 18).
46 Janson, Donatello, 175. 47 Ibid., 177-79. 48 The figure of 5m 5.6cm represents the sum of the widths of the Pietai,
two Miracles, two Evangelists' symbols, and four Angels. Band, "Don- atello's Altar," 324, arrives at the figure 4m 97cm for reasons which are not stated. Janson's objections are given in Donatello, 175.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
vidual units that the Angel reliefs were originally designed to appear as separate entities." If Donatello had wanted a frieze of angels such as appears in Pizzolo's Ovetari altarpiece (Fig. 20) he could perfectly well have had one. The fact is that he did not. Indeed the strength of the individual framing of the Angels and of the Pieth, which is grouped with them also in this respect, is greater than is generally realized. Although exam- ination in situ is not altogether easy on the existing altar, two things seem to be clear. The first is that the outer surfaces of the surrounds are smooth and plain at top and bottom, as might be expected. The second is, however, that the outer sur- faces of the sides are inlaid and gilded with the same pattern as the forward faces.50 The depth of these lateral patterned surfaces is generally about 3.5cm. Since it is inconceivable that these elaborate designs were not intended to be seen, it is cer- tain that the sides of these reliefs were meant to stand out from the neighboring surfaces, and probable that the outer surfaces at top and bottom were not, and that they were im- bedded in upper and lower cornices or similar forms. Among the Evangelists' symbols the outer surfaces of the frame are visible only in that of St. Luke, in which both top and sides are plain and not very carefully finished. The reliefs of the Wrath- ful Son and of the Miser's Heart are inset but there is no evi- dence of patterning where the sides are partly visible. In those of the Speaking Babe and of the Mule, on the other hand, the visible sides and bottom are rough and shallow. It therefore seems that these eight major reliefs were originally intended to be inset, and did not stand out from the general surface of the altar. It also follows that it is unlikely that reliefs with patterned sides were ever designed to be set less than 5cm apart, as are the Angels at the sides, or less than 3 cm apart, as are the Angels and the Pietai on the front of Janson's recon- struction (Fig. 10), which in this latter respect resembles that of Planiscig (Fig. 8).
In spite of the foregoing observations, the bold lateral fram- ing of the Angels is not necessarily so strong an argument against Kauffmann's vertical layering of the reliefs as it is sometimes thought to be.51 Nor is it wholly incompatible with Parronchi's solution, in which the arrangement is similar to some extent, although this reconstruction has likewise been
seen to be fundamentally unacceptable on other grounds.52 There are plenty of precedents and parallels for the vertical layering of framed single figures, and such a configuration would be consonant with the plain upper and lower surfaces and patterned lateral outer surfaces of the Angels' borders. On the other hand, there is an air of extreme improbability about the solution of de Mandach with its two groups of six Angels in a row (Fig. 4), and about those of Boito (Fig. 1) and Fiocco (Fig. 12), which both contain two groups of five Angels in a row.
Janson's own reconstruction is open to the same type of objection. It presupposes that, from the first, eight of the Angel reliefs were grouped in pairs on the sides of the altar to pro- vide bases for the lateral piers. The arguments he uses against the other similar but slightly more extensive groupings are therefore effective against his own solution. The paired reliefs, being split down the middle, make poor bases in both visual and architectural terms. It is inconceivable that if Donatello wanted "supports" in these positions he could not and would not have designed suitable unitary features from the start. Conversely, there is little justification for an argument which implies that Donatello had no real idea of what he was up to; that he had a series of ten reliefs cast as separate entities so that it would later be easy to shuffle them around; and finally that from the start they were so ill-conceived that four fifths of them had eventually to be put in unsuitable positions.' The search for a logical reconstruction of a dismembered work of art forces the permutations game upon the art historian. To attribute such a process to Donatello is to saddle him with a kind of incompetence in matters of design for which there is no evidence.
The very concern with documentary detail which has be- come increasingly apparent in most of the more recent re- constructions has led at times to a neglect of larger issues. The most important of these is a consideration of what does and what does not seem possible in the mid-fifteenth century in terms of aesthetic and of functional design. The problem of the original conception embodied in the temporary altar and of its relationship to the final design is among the factors which has led Janson to take over the particularly unsatisfactory feature
49 Janson, Donatello, 173. 50 In some cases the outer surfaces of the reliefs were invisible, but as is
indicated by the list which follows, indications of patterning were visible on ten of the thirteen reliefs concerned. In some cases the complete inlaid and gilt pattern is present. In others the inlaid metal strips are lost, leaving only the rectangular insets into which they fitted. The distribution of the patterned elements is, moreover, such that there is no reason to think that similar patterning is not present in the three cases in which neither lateral face could be seen clearly. Taking the Angel reliefs from left to right, as at present set up, the indications are (1) Dancing Tambourine: top plain; bottom plain; left patterned, no inlay except in squares; right cut. (2) Twin Pipe: top invisible; bottom invisible; left invisible; right patterned. (3) Harp: top plain; bottom invisible; left patterned; right patterned. (4) Flute: top plain; bottom plain; left invisible; right cut. (5) Lute:
top plain; bottom plain; left invisible; right invisible. (6) Singers: top plain; bottom plain; left patterned; right patterned. (7) Singers: top plain; bottom plain; left patterned; right patterned. (8) Rebec: top plain; bottom uncertain, cut? left patterned; right invisible. (9) Flute: top plain; bottom plain; left cut; right uncertain. (10) Cym- bals: top plain; bottom plain; left patterned, no inlay except in squares; right cut? (11) Twin Pipe: top plain; bottom invisible; left cut; right patterned, no inlay except in squares. (12) Tambourine, top plain; bottom plain; left cut? right patterned, some inlay? Finally, the Pieta": top smooth; bottom invisible; left patterned, no inlay; right patterned, no inlay.
51 See Janson, Donatello, 143. 52 See above, page 6. 53 See Janson, Donatello, 179. 54 See Jacopo da Montagnana's fresco of the Redeemer and Apostles of
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of the narrow central intercolumniation first proposed by Planiscig. For those who believe, following the documentary evidence, that there were eight supports, and who further be- lieve that these were arranged in three bays with four supports in front and four behind, there are three, and only three, his-
torically viable possibilities. The first of these possibilities is that there were three equal
bays. This is the classical temple-front solution. It is the pat- tern followed by Domenico Veneziano in his St. Lucy altar-
piece (Fig. 21), and by Mantegna in the San Zeno altarpiece (Fig. 22), which is often thought to be a more or less direct re- flection of Donatello's design. It incorporates a relationship found in innumerable painted altarpieces, in tombs, in window and faqade designs in churches and secular buildings alike, and in many other architectural contexts not only in Florence and the Veneto, but throughout Italy and the rest of Europe, be-
fore, during, and after the mid-fifteenth century. The second possibility, which is no less widely sanctioned in
geographical and chronological terms, is that the center was somewhat wider than the wings. This category can be taken to range from those designs in which the center is only frac-
tionally wider than the wings to those in which it is up to about twice as wide. Giovanni Bellini's Frari Altarpiece (Fig. 23), another major work which may well be directly influenced
by Donatello's example, falls into this group, as do a whole series of other painted altarpieces from the Veneto which may contain more or less distant reflections of the Padua Altar.54 An especially interesting example is Jacopo da Montagnana's Madonna della Misericordia with Saints (Fig. 24), in which the center is 72cm and the wings are 53.5cm wide. Such pro- portions are found in innumerable fifteenth-century altarpieces from elsewhere in Italy, and in all the other categories of archi- tectural construction mentioned above in regard to the first
possibility. The third possibility is that the center was many times as
wide as the wings and therefore completely dominated them. This proportion is used much less often than the other two in
fifteenth-century painted altarpieces, but is to be found in a wide range of sculptural and architectural contexts. It is par- ticularly common in fifteenth-century Venetian wall tombs,
and especially in the second half of the century is generally popular elsewhere in wall tombs and altarpieces carved in re-
lief.55 In such designs the need for adequate support across the wide center raises no constructional problems. The supporting and supported elements are notional as regards their structural implications, and the solid relief surface provides visual sup- port for any architrave or similar feature which spans the broad central gap. Pope-Hennessy's visualization of what is
essentially the reconstruction that Band himself more wisely refrained from illustrating even diagrammatically shows how awkward such proportions become when incorporated in a three-dimensional architectural canopy (Fig. 11). Even in the abstract such a relationship becomes tolerable only when translated into the context of an overall high rectangle. Any such general format is, however, ruled out in Donatello's case by the need to maintain a reasonable relationship with the
freestanding bronze figures. So far as I know there is no fif-
teenth-century precedent or parallel for a three-dimensional structure of this kind, with wide center and narrow wings, in which the basic form is that of a low rectangle. As for painted altarpieces, there seem to be no cases, whether at an earlier or a later date, in which such proportions are associated with a Sacra Conversazione or with a central Virgin and flanking saints.5" The inevitable consequence in terms of the seven fig- ures of Donatello's altarpiece is to create a one-five-one group- ing. This effectively cuts off the two outermost figures. It is probably for this very reason that such a solution is never to be found in any of the actual designs of the period.
Finally, there is a fourth possibility which does not entail the establishment of three bays. This involves placing the eight supports mentioned in the documents in such a way as to cre- ate either the actuality or the appearance of a single, rectangu- larly framed space. In relation to the low rectangle which was inevitably involved in Donatello's altarpiece, the same diffi- culties which were apparent in the previous case pertain with even greater force. Many painted altarpieces and wall-tomb structures of simple low-rectangular form exist. On the other hand, such a format is notable for its rarity if not for its total absence among three-dimensional structures. It is never seen, for example, in the many freestanding altar canopies. These
1495, in the Cappella Vecchia of the Palazzo Archivescovile in Padua, in which the center is fractionally wider than the wings. In his trip- tych of the Annunciation between Archangels of 1496, in the Cappella Nuova of the same Palazzo, the difference is rather more substantial (Berenson, Italian Pictures, pls. 123-24).
In the case of Girolamo Mocetto's triptych of the Madonna and Saints in SS. Nazzaro e Celso in Verona, of 1504-06, the center is again only slightly wider than the wings (Berenson, Italian Pictures, pl. 345). In Domenico di Candido da Tolmezzo's Madonna and Saints, in the Museo Civico at Udine, the center seems at first sight to be slightly narrower than the wings (Berenson, Italian Pictures, pl. 323). This, however, is an optical illusion brought about chiefly by internal features in the design of the central compartment. A sculp- tural example of a six-to-four ratio of center to wings may be seen in Francesco Laurana's relief of Alfonso of Aragon and His Court on the
triumphal arch of the Castelnuovo in Naples (Pope-Hennessy, Italian Renaissance Sculpture, pl. 107).
55 Antonio Rossellino's Adoration of the Shepherds in Santa Anna dei Lombardi in Naples, and Benedetto da Maiano's Annunciation in the same church (Pope-Hennessy, Renaissance Sculpture, figs. 46-47) are typical examples of the wide-centered format. Even here, however, as is often the case, the central compartment is in itself a high rectangle. Examples of the low rectangular center occur in Benedetto da Mai- ano's Arca di San Savino in the Duomo at Faenza (Venturi, vx, fig. 459).
56 The nearest approach to a wide, low rectangle with narrow wings oc- curs in Simone Martini's Annunciation of 1333 in the Uffizi. There, however, the iconographic tradition is different and the general effect is modified by the pendant Gothic arches.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
are invariably high rectangles in general structure. The low
rectangle is only supportable, in every sense of the word, when associated with a wall or other solid infilling of some kind. In both the reconstructions which have so far espoused this for-
mat, those of Kauffmann (Fig. 6) and Parronchi (Fig. 15), just such a closing and "supporting" structure has been introduced.
The difficulty with proposals for such closing elements is that however architecturally plausible they may be in the ab-
stract, in actuality they conflict with the surviving physical evidence. It has often been noted that the back of the Virgin's throne contains the iconographically important theme of the Fall of Man. In the context of the altar as a whole it becomes not merely a significant but a central theme. Because of Mi- chiel's statement that the Entombment was at the back of Donatello's altar, and because, given its height of Im 38cm, it could not possibly have fitted into the front, the setting of this relief into the rear of the altar has never been challenged. The Fall and the Entombment; sin, and death which is its inevitable
consequence; the Virgin's role in Christ's triumph over them, further reinforced by the introduction of the Piethi, and wit- nessed by the saints whose lesser miracles attest to the greater miracle of the Resurrection: these are the altar's theme. In such a context it is inconceivable that the relief of the Fall should have been rendered quite invisible. That it is so in the reconstructions of Kauffmann (Fig. 6) and of Fiocco (Fig. 14) is a major argument against them. Parronchi's suggestion that a kind of peephole may have been provided only draws atten- tion to the implausibility of this particular solution.
To return therefore to the more orthodox and more probable three-bay solution, the one relationship which seems upon historical grounds to be quite out of the question is that of the narrow center and wide wings. Such a solution was first pro- posed by Planiscig and later taken up by Janson and by Fiocco. Of all the many surviving altarpieces painted before, during, and after the mid-fifteenth century throughout Italy, and con-
taining three or more bays, not one appears to have a center
which is even slightly narrower than the flanking compart- ments.57 The same is true of stone-carved altarpieces and of wall tombs. It also holds good for window designs from the Romanesque and Gothic trifore to the Palladian window. In church fagades the single notable exception is Alberti's later
design for San Sebastiano in Mantua. This has no precedent and no successor, and itself only resulted from a last-minute
change of plan.58 There seem to be no antique prototypes for such a scheme, and nowhere in the Veneto or elsewhere is there any reflection of such a design in the works which may have been influenced by Donatello's altar. More important still, there is no hint of such proportions in the general structure of
any of Donatello's extant works or in the architectural back-
grounds of any of his reliefs. In the Padua Altar itself it is the even division that occurs in the barrel-vaulted architecture of the Miracle of the Mule. The dominant center is used for the main structure of the Miracle of the Speaking Babe, and the
only slightly wider center for the back-wall detail of that same relief. In the reliefs for his own altarpiece Donatello's ever fertile imagination runs the full gamut of the three possible types of architectural relationship and eschews the architec-
turally unprecedented form. In such a situation only incontrovertible evidence could sup-
port the introduction of a solecism of this kind into the main structure of Donatello's altarpiece. Not only is there no such
evidence, but there is at least one further practical argument against such a possibility. Examination of the plan of the sug- gested structure makes it clear that however the figures were
disposed, whether in a single row or in echelon, they could never have been placed in a line with the front support. This would have left the whole of the aedicula empty behind them. The entire structure would have seemed to be uninhabited when seen from the side and would have looked very odd in- deed from the back. If, on the other hand, the Virgin was set
back, on or near the center line of the canopy, as in Janson's reconstruction, the close-set central pair of columns would have had a severe masking effect. Allowing a ten-degree angle of expansion on either side for the cone of unobstructed vision, which is rather generous in the face of the actual physical situ- ation, the observer would still have had to retreat for a full two
bays before an unobstructed view of the Virgin and Child could be obtained across the entire width of the nave. In par- ticular no such view would have been possible within the area enclosed by the original choir screen. It seems to me unlikely that the central and most important figure, shown in the act of displaying the Christ Child to the faithful, would have been masked in this way. Throughout his career, from the Florence Duomo and Campanile figures onward, Donatello showed himself to be acutely aware of the implications of viewing angles and viewing distances for his designs.59 There is there-
57 One example in which a central feature which is actually wider than the wings appears to be narrower is mentioned in note 54 above. A similar illusion occurs in the case of the painted central element in Girolamo da Treviso's Collalto altarpiece (Berenson, Italian Pictures, pl. 345).
58 See R. Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism, London, 1952, 42f. Whether as afterthoughts or otherwise, such de- signs are of the utmost rarity in any context. One sculptured example is the enclosing structure of Lorenzo Maitani's Teaching in the Tem- ple on the third pier of the faqade of the Duomo at Orvieto (E. Carli, II Duomo di Orvieto, Rome, 1965, pl. 46).
59 See Seymour, Sculpture, 66-67. The partial masking of fully carved figures by the columns placed almost immediately in front of them which occurs in Donatello's Cantoria, represents a special case which does not affect the validity of the present argument. In that design Donatello was using every available means to create an effect of vio- lent and continuous movement. The figures are anonymous and form part of a single homogeneous group. There is no hierarchy of impor- tance and no individual figure is significant in itself. Indeed, the over- lapping of the figures by each other is more extreme than the masking effect of the architecture.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
fore every reason to believe that he would have considered with the greatest care the implications of the three-dimension- ality of his altarpiece. The relationship of the figures to the surrounding architectural supports and the changing patterns of occultation as the observer moved around the altar were almost certainly among the most obvious as well as the most important factors in his planning.
Another matter, which must have concerned Donatello as much as it has exercised those struggling to uncover his orig- inal conception, is the order in which the figures were placed. The paired gradation in height among the saints and the pos- sible implications of their gestures clearly have to be taken into account. This can be done satisfactorily only when the likely form of the architectural superstructure and the distribution of its supports have finally been established, and is better left to a later stage in the discussion. A factor which has, however, greatly influenced the architectural form of a number of the modern reconstructions has been Michiel's assertion that in his day there were four, not six, saints on the altar.
Michiel's statement is the primary consideration which led Boito (Fig. 1) and Planiscig (Fig. 8) to place two saints on out- riding structures, thereby coming into more or less extreme conflict with the subsequently expanded documentary evi- dence. The partial disassociation of the two saints from the main body of the altar would at least do something to explain Michiel's assertion. Janson, however, notes the implausibility of implying, as do Boito and Planiscig, that Michiel would have failed to notice or later forgotten these two saints while re- membering the reliefs of the Evangelists' symbols which were placed beneath their feet.60 Nevertheless, Michiel's statement was among the reasons which led Janson himself to take over from Planiscig the architecturally unacceptable narrow center. Janson dismisses the possibility that Michiel either failed to see two of the figures or merely had a lapse of memory, and assembles considerable evidence tending to show that two of the figures, namely the St. Louis and the St. Prosdocimus, may have been removed from the altar by the early sixteenth cen- tury. In so doing he gives new weight to an idea which in de Mandach's case was simply a casual assertion.61 Janson is at this point mainly concerned to devise a scheme which would, as far as possible, look as reasonable with five figures as with
seven. There is no doubt that von Hadeln's very wide, even intercolumniation would look uncomfortable with the Virgin alone in the central compartment or with only a single saint in either of the no less spacious flanking bays (Fig. 5). At least in the latter respect the less wide lateral bays of Cordenons's otherwise unacceptable reconstruction (Fig. 3) would certainly be less awkward. In Band's solution (Fig. 7) the lateral bays would have to have been left empty or else a very wide spacing adopted for the three figures which remained in the central area. Even Janson's own solution (Fig. 10) would have looked anything but happy with two widely spaced figures in the lateral bays. This would have greatly accentuated the narrow- ness of the central compartment within which the Virgin would remain tightly corseted. There seems to be no doubt that the spatially simple solutions of Kauffmann (Fig. 6) and de Mandach (Fig. 4) would have fared the best, though not particularly well at that, if Donatello's composition had been mutilated in the way that has been suggested.
Whatever Donatello's design may have been, there is every likelihood that the removal of two major figures would have led to a situation which was unsatisfactory in one way or an- other. Unless the design was quite untypically loose, there is no way in which the church officials of the day can be absolved of the charge of visual insensitivity if they did indeed remove two of the main components of the altarpiece. The corollary of this is that no reconstruction should be based upon the premise that they were not insensitive and that the result was not un- satisfactory.
Janson himself considers that the evidence for the removal of the two figures is not conclusive,62 and both Fiocco and Parronchi favor the theory that the figures remained in place but were so situated that Michiel either failed to notice them or else ignored them as being subsidiary features. Fiocco's solution is to place St. Daniel and St. Justina facing backward on either side of the central structure which is situated behind the Virgin. In the drawing of the front elevation of this recon- struction only the four forward-facing saints (Fig. 13), and in that of the rear only the two backward-facing saints (Fig. 14), are visible. It is also noticeable that in the rear elevation St. Daniel and St. Justina have been enormously increased in scale when compared with the surrounding architecture. In the
60 Janson, Donatello, 174. 61 De Mandach, Saint Antoine, 202; Janson, Donatello, 175f. 62 Janson, Donatello, 177. Arguments on the basis of the elevation
which was drawn in connection with the replacement of Donatello's altar (Uffizi 3206 A, discussed by Guidaldi, 257, and illustrated by R. Niccoli, "Di due disegni . . . per un nuovo altar maggiore nella basilica del Santo a Padova" Rivista d'arte, xIv, 1932, 117), but which was much more ambitious than the eventually executed design, seem to be particularly risky. It appears to be much more likely that a complete substitution of figures was intended (Janson, Donatello, 176) than that the St. Louis and St. Prosdocimus alone were to be replaced (Janson, Donatello, 175f.), on the evidence of a drawing in which
the Virgin has been wholly altered in form; a new figure certainly substituted for the St. Daniel as well as the St. Louis; and in which only the St. Anthony can be said to bear a reasonable resemblance to Donatello's prototype, though even then in considerably altered form. Certainly, in such a situation no conclusions should be drawn from the mitred saint's lack of attributes, since it could well be argued that this particular figure's appearance is closer to that of Donatello's St. Prosdocimus than are five out of six of the remainder to their sup- posed counterparts on the original altar. The plan drawing, Uffizi 3205 A (illus. Niccoli, "Di due disegni," 115) does not correspond to the elevation and throws no light on Donatello's scheme.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
frontal view the tops of the mitres of St. Louis and St. Prosdo- cimus are a full head-height below the bases of the capitals of the columns. At the back the heads of St. Daniel and St. Jus- tina, which are in actuality 10cm shorter than St. Louis and St. Prosdocimus, are level with the lower elements of the simi- lar capitals. On the other hand, the side elevation (Fig. 12) shows these capitals to be at the same height as those in front. It is consequently not surprising that the single saints at the back of the altar seem to fit so comfortably into the same com-
partments which in front are no less satisfactorily wide enough for two! Furthermore, there seems to be no justification in the reconstruction itself for the visual separation of the two sets of
figures. When the altar was seen from the front, the backs of St. Justina and St. Daniel would have appeared between St. Francis and St. Louis, and St. Anthony and St. Prosdocimus respectively, confusing and blurring their silhouettes. The saints at the rear would also have contributed to two spatial groups each containing a figure with its back turned toward the central Virgin and Child. Finally, to speak of St. Daniel and St. Justina as being "in the shadow" is scarcely justified in relation to a structure which Fiocco himself believes to have been only a meter and a half deep.
Parronchi goes to similar lengths in a somewhat different direction. Here the difficulty, in addition to those mentioned at an earlier stage,6 is that when St. Daniel and St. Justina are
placed facing inward in the two jutting wings in such a way that they are almost invisible from the front, the two figures also become heavily obscured from anywhere else. Given the
original position of the altar at the back of the choir they would have been so masked that neither could have been seen
clearly from the nave. The only direct view from any point other than the steps of the altar itself would have been of their backs. Even then the turning of their heads would only have allowed their profiles to be seen. Conversely, the neat impres- sion of total invisibility in a direct frontal view given by the elevation of Parronchi's reconstruction (Fig. 15) is erroneous and stems from the variability of scale within the diagrams. In both the front and side views (Figs. 15, 17) the width of the columns is conditioned by the 21-cm wide Angel reliefs imme- diately below them. Since both St. Justina and St. Daniel are considerably more than 21cm deep, both figures would always have been in a state of disconcerting partial visibility.
An even more serious objection to Parronchi's solution is
that the structure as a whole is not merely unparalleled in sur-
viving altars of either earlier or later date, but is ceremonially inconvenient. The altar table itself is fractionally over 3 meters wide and is walled in by projecting wings at either side. A
straight flight of five steps about 4.5 meters wide runs down from the front. The unsuitability of such a structure for a ceremonial high mass or other similar occasion involving an
officiating priest, two deacons, acolytes, and various other
attendants, would be hard to exaggerate. Without some sort of rail or other safety barrier it would be not only inconven- ient but actually dangerous in the innumerable comings and
goings of large gatherings of officiants at the great ceremonies of the church. Even if flanking flights of steps were added to
right and left of the main flight, the difficulty of access to the altar itself would remain. The arrangement at the back of Fiocco's reconstruction (Fig. 14) with its flight of steps to an
unguarded 60-cm ledge is if anything more alarming. It is therefore no surprise that similarly designed real structures are notable for their absence.
The difficulties to which Michiel's statement that there were
only four saints has given rise make it important to consider its logical implications with the greatest care. The figure four is only a second thought on Michiel's part. He originally wrote
five and then crossed that out and inserted the new figure. A
simple explanation is that he made a mistake. This could have occurred either because he was acting upon inaccurate hearsay, which is unlikely in view of the location of Donatello's altar so near his home town of Venice, or because although he knew the work himself he was muddled about the details when he came to write up his notes. Being unable to remember the
right number of figures, but realizing that in a symmetrical group centered on the Madonna there could not be an uneven number of flanking saints, he tried to correct himself. Unfor-
tunately, he made the change in the wrong direction, and went from five to four instead of from five to six. An equally simple explanation on the face of it is that he intended from the first to record a Madonna and four saints. At first he made the slip of including the Madonna in the sub-total of saints and then corrected himself. This in its turn can be explained in a number of ways which have already been discussed. Two of the saints may have been hidden when the altar was seen from a normal viewpoint. This possibility again implies that Michiel made a mistake, but a slightly more excusable one. Alternatively,
63 See above, page 6.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
they could have been in a subordinate position and he again either made a mistake or else decided to ignore them. Then again, he may have believed that two of the saints were not by Donatello and so chose to omit them. This is unlikely, since it would preclude precisely the kind of demonstration of expertise which he enjoys making elsewhere in his notes.64 He would have been much more likely to include the two figures and then to mention such a fact, if it was known to him, than merely to leave them out. Nevertheless, this remains a possibility. Finally, the two figures may have been removed. In the light of the sub- sequent demolition of Donatello's altarpiece, this hypothesis allows no logical grounds for any assumptions as to how satis- factory the altar may or may not have looked after their re- moval. If any assumption had to be made, there would be rather more reason to think that the altarpiece looked unsatis- factory, and that this was among the factors which induced a later generation to redesign it.
There is no intrinsic, logically binding reason for preferring one of these explanations to another. In particular, admiration for Michiel's achievement, and a general respect for his ex- pertise, should not lead to the assumption that he was in- capable of making mistakes of the order which is possibly entailed here. In his passage on Pizzolo's presumably no less familiar Ovetari altar in the Eremitani, likewise in Padua (Fig. 20), he refers to the figures as being in the round ("le figure di terra cotta tutte tonde").65 As a description of a continuous relief, this represents a lapse of memory or failure in note- taking which is no less extreme or surprising than the one under discussion. Certainly, since all the possible explanations of Michiel's statement about Donatello's altar are thoroughly debatable, since none of them is provable, and since any one of them may be correct, nothing at all should be done in con- tradiction of the documents or of the surviving physical evi- dence because of a preference for one explanation rather than another. It is particularly important to recognize this since Michiel makes several other mistakes in his description. The least significant are his thinking the painted limestone relief of the Entombment to be marble and his calling all the Evan- gelists' symbols half-length figures, when this term is strictly applicable only to the angel of St. Matthew. It is also perhaps not too important that he omits any reference to the twelve Angels. Finally, however, he leaves out the bronze Piethi. Be- cause of its uniqueness and the importance of its subject mat-
ter, this relief must have had a central position and a place of honor upon the altar. It cannot be written off as an unimpor- tant or minor decorative detail.
It follows that there is every reason to be cautious about taking Michiel at face value, or about reaching extreme posi- tions on the basis of his testimony at the one point at which he himself not only shows uncertainty but also comes into ap- parent conflict with the documentary and physical evidence. Conversely, there is no logical inconsistency in believing that where he does not do so, as in all those cases in which he makes positive statements about the location of the elements which he does record, only the very strongest contrary evidence could sanction a reconstruction which did not fit in with his descrip- tion.
In the light of what has been said, it is now possible to add a further twelve desiderata to the ten points which were listed earlier as being mandatory in any reconstruction based upon the documentary evidence: 1. In any solution involving a tripartite architectural group-
ing, the central compartment should be as wide as or wider than the wings.
2. The elevation should give reasonable results as regards the occulting of the figures by the architectural supports.
3. The gestures of the figures should be satisfactorily related to the general pattern.
4. The variations in the height of the figures should be satis- factorily explained.
5. The relief of the Entombment should be situated at the rear of the altar, below the level of the Miracle reliefs (Michiel).
6. The Virgin and Child, the Pieth, and the Entombment should lie on the central axis of the altar.
7. The relief of the Fall on the back of the Virgin's throne should be visible from the rear of the altar.
8. The final arrangement with twelve Angel reliefs and a Piet' should be compatible with a first stage in design in- volving only ten Angels and no Pieta.
9. The final arrangement should be compatible with a first stage in which ten of the existing Angels reliefs were in- stalled as separate entities.
10. Both the first and the final design should permit a satis- factory architectural separation of the three distinct height categories among the bronze reliefs.
11. The total width of the structure should not exceed about seven meters.
12. The structure as a whole should be reasonably functional as a ceremonial high altar.
In the second part of this article (to appear in the June 1969 issue of The Art Bulletin), I shall propose a reconstruction of the altar that accommodates both the mandatory features and the desiderata outlined above.
The Johns Hopkins University
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF FREQUENTLY CITED SOURCES
Band, R., "Donatello's Altar im Santo zu Padua," Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorisches Instituts in Florenz, 5, 1940, 315f.
Berenson, B., Italian Pictures of the Renaissance, Venetian School, Lon-
don, 1957.
Boito, C., L'Altare di Donatello, Milan, 1897.
Cordenons, F., L'Altare di Donatello, Padua, 1895.
Fiocco, G., "L'Altare grande di Donatello al Santo," Il Santo, Anno I, 1961, 21f.
. "Ancora dell'altare di Donatello al Santo," Il Santo, Anno inI, 1963, 345f.
and A. Sartori, "Il Trittico donatelliano del Santo," Padua, 1961.
Frimmel, T., Der Anonimo Morelliano, Vienna, 1888.
Gloria, A., Donatello fiorentino e le sue opere mirabili nel tempio di S.
Antonio, Padua, 1895.
Guidaldi, P. L., "Ricerche sull'altare di Donatello," Il Santo, Anno Iv, 1932, 239f.
Hadeln, D. von, "Ein Reconstructionsversuch des Hochaltars Donatellos im Santo von Padua," Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 30, 1909, 35f.
Janson, H. W., The Sculpture of Donatello, Princeton, 1957.
Kauffmann, H., Donatello, Berlin, 1935.
Mandach, C. de, Saint Antoine de Padoue et l'art italien, Paris, 1899.
Parronchi, A., "Per la ricostruzione dell'altare del Santo," Arte antica e
moderna, 22, 1963, 109f.
Planiscig, L., Donatello, Florence, 1947.
Pope-Hennessy, J., Italian Renaissance Sculpture, London, 1958.
Sartori, A., "Documenti riguardanti Donatello e il suo altare di Padova," Il Santo, Anno I, 1961, 38.
, "Di nuovo sulle opere donatelliane al Santo," Il Santo, Anno in, 1963, 347f.
Seymour, J., Sculpture in Italy 1400-1500, Harmondsworth and Balti-
more, 1966.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
