Florentine Painting and Its Background

Review: Frederick Antal's Florentine Painting and its Social Background
Reviewed Work(s): Florentine Painting and its Social Background; the Bourgeois Republic
before Cosimo de' Medici's Advent to Power; XIV and Early XV Centuries by Frederick
Antal
Review by: Theodor E. Mommsen
Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Jun., 1950), pp. 369-379
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2707738
Accessed: 03-01-2017 08:24 UTC
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 support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas
This content downloaded from 193.140.207.122 on Tue, 03 Jan 2017 08:24:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEW
FREDERICK ANTAL'S FLORENTINE PAINTING AND

ITS SOCIAL BACKGROUND1
BY THEODOR E. MOMMSEN
Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Frederick Antal published two studies of th

Italian art of the Trecento and the Quattrocento in which he analysed th
main trends of the stylistic developments during these centuries, with sp
cial emphasis upon the Sienese and Florentine schools.2 Although th
studies were generally well received by the scholars working in that fie
the author himself, in the further pursuit of his investigations, became
satisfied with this traditional approach which concerned itself primarily
with a formal analysis, and has come now to the conclusion that no furth
progress is possible "so long as we consider the problem of style from a
purely formal point of view-as in the main art history still does-an
so long as we continue to study the development of styles in a sort
vacuum, unconnected with other aspects of historical development"
The traditional method of explaining styles "merely by putting labels o
them and describing their characteristics" (2), appears inadequate to Dr.
Antal because it fails completely to account for the fact that within the sa
period and country there often exist styles of an entirely different character.
Dr. Antal points to two pictures which used to hang side by side in the
tional Gallery at London. They have the same subject-matter, the Madon
and Child, and both were painted in Florence between the years 1425 an
1426, the one by Masaccio, the other by Gentile da Fabriano. Dr. Antal
asks: "How could two such widely differing pictures have been painted in
the same town and at the same time "(2) ?
It is for this question of "the co-existence of various styles in the same
period" that Dr. Antal now attempts to find a better answer than those
given so far by himself and by other scholars. The crucial problem can be
solved, in his opinion, only by a thorough analysis of the subject-matter of
each work of art, not by a mere description of the formal elements of style.
For, "considering each style as a specific combination of the elements of
subject and form, the thematic elements offer an immediate transition to the
general outlook on life, the philosophy, from which the pictures in question
Frederick Antal, Florentine painting and its social background; the bourgeois
republic before Cosimo de' Medici's advent to power; XIV and early XV centuries
(London: Kegan Paul, 1948), xxxiii, 388; 160 illustrations.
2 "Studien zur Gotik im Quattrocento," in Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunst-
sammlungen XLVI (1925), 3-32: "Gedanken zur Entwicklung der Trecento- und
Quattrocento-Malerei in Siena und Florenz," in Jahrbuch fur Kunstwissenschaft II
(1924-25), 207-239.
369
370 THEODOR E. MOMMSEN
derive" (4). Dr. Antal asserts that "the the

picture, shows more clearly than anything e
as a whole is but part of the outlook, the
through the medium of the artist" (4). W
there hardly ever exists a homogeneous outl
and conflicting economic interests will devid
of antagonistic groups each of which will ha
fact, then, that different styles always exist
for by "the divergence of outlook among
origins and nature of co-existent styles" c
study the various sections of society, reco
thence penetrate to their art" (4).
The passages quoted show that Dr. Antal, f
that works of art, like any other aspects of a
society, ought to be explained as the outgrow
tion and property. He avoids, however, ca
rather declares that he wants to apply "the
the field of art history.3
Dr. Antal's methodological approach is clea
tion of his book. Its first part deals with th
the economic, social and political history of
thirteenth to the first third of the fifteenth
the realms of economics and politics, religio
out of the actual social-economic conditions. On the basis of these founda-
tions, the other two parts of the book investigate the Florentine art of the
fourteenth century (II) and of the early fifteenth century (III). The main
emphasis is placed upon the history of painting, but some attention is also
given to sculpture and architecture, in order to show how certain trends
found their expression in the artistic sphere as a whole. The overall ar-
rangement in these two parts follows a parallel scheme: after a "genera
review" which includes a survey of "the type and character of commis-
sions," come the two principal sections on religious and secular art respec-
tively. In the chapter on the religious painting of the fourteenth century,
the topics of subject-matter and stylistic development are investigated sepa-
3 With the choice of this latter term, Dr. Antal seems to indicate that he is tak-
ing the same kind of approach which has become quite marked in the field of Renais-
sance scholarship during the last decades. Compare, e.g., the statement recently
made by Dr. Hans Baron in his essay entitled: "A sociological interpretation of the
early Renaissance in Florence" (in The South Atlantic Quarterly XXXVIII [1939],
427): "Each generation of historians owns a magic wand, whose touch opens th
past more readily to them, than other methods of approach. The magic wand of
present-day historical research is sociological interpretation." It should be noted,
however, that in Dr. Antal's case the word "sociological" is consistently given a
meaning in accordance with the Marxian doctrine of aesthetics.
ANTAL S FLORENTINE PANTINTG 371
rately, whereas in the other chapters they are treated togeth

II and III conclude with a chapter on "the social position o
contemporary views on art."
Dr. Antal covers a wide and variegated area, but he main
herence of his book by consistently applying his general sche
ideas to all problems. In view of this coherence it seems pe
the purpose of thi review to cocentrate upon the discussion o
ticular period. Such limitation will make it possible to show m
cally the method of approach and to evaluate more concretely
than would be otherwise possible.
The section of the book in which Dr. Antal deals with the
of Florentine painting from the end of the thirteenth to the
fourteenth century will serve as a good example.
For the first part of this period Dr. Antal stresses most em
the uniqueness of the "new, heroic, classic, 'idealised' styl
work of art, especially of his frescoes in the Bardi and Peruz
S. Croce (164). On Giotto's treatment of the content, Dr. A
the legend of St. Francis has been "rationalised" (163) and
erateness, a kind of lofty objectivity (naturally still far rem
lack of religious feeling) has replaced the vehement gestures
expressions of the earlier works" of Giotto himself and other
The form of Giotto's art is characterized, e.g., by "serenity,"
pact and severe monumentality of style," by "clarity of visio
servation of nature and all the devices of a logical, nature-imit
ism," by "a convincing representation of space," and by an
discover the true structure of the human body" (164), In
other aspects of Giotto's work, Dr. Antal sees "a great per
ment"; but he declares explicitly that "it must never be forg
was at the same time the artistic expression of the undispute
Florentine upper middle clas at their ideological zenith" (1
Antal's thesis that it was "the consistent and systematic uppe
naturalism" (and "the upper-middle-class rationalism of th
teenth century," 164) which "created in Florence an artistic s
different from that which existed at the same period in France
or even in the other relatively advanced cities of Italy" (165;
That in the Florence of the same time there were painters
wholly different from Giotto" (166), finds its explanation in
they were working for other social groups which had a m
taste. For instance, the style of the Master of St. Cecilia, w
like Giotto, the painter of the wealthiest and most cultured m
upper-middle class," is therefore characterized by "a certain h
ity, yet wholly compatible with a high degree of emotionalis
ment reflected also in sudden, abrupt movements" (166). T
third Florentine painter of this generation,

more bound to the thirteenth century" an
schematic than the Master of St. Cecilia,"
lower in the social scale, though also well
Antal concludes, "was the aspect of painting
different underlying social strata: in Giotto
centration, in the Master of St. Cecilia as
schematisation" (169).
The truth of the thesis that Giotto's style
place because of the unique background w
(164), finds its confirmation "by even a curs
another artist, almost his contemporary
Antal asserts, "it is in the different social st
for the great variation in the artistic concep
mately to be found." Duccio, too, was the
middle-class, but this class of Siena was very
because it "was still closely connected with th
and. . . though in power, was much weak
Throughout the fourteenth century Siena r
class and democratic in its social structure,
tocratic in its ideology" (179). Consequentl
more backward Sienese middle class was on t
secular-rationalist art and more drawn to the various forms of late-Gothic
with its closer association with the art of the past, and its stronger
towards religious feeling, than was that of the upper bourgeoisie in Flore
(particularly about the year 1300)" (177).
Dr. Antal points out that this Sienese outlook on life was bound to m
even in Florence with a considerable amount of response, for it natural
appealed there always to the less advanced strata of society. It was logic
therefore that Sienese influences became the more important in Floren
painting, the more the social stratification in Florence changed and polit
power shifted in the direction of the middle sections of the bourgeoisie
e.g., 176, 187). According to Dr. Antal these alterations in the Florentin
scene which had started while Giotto was still alive became very marke
the period following his death in 1337. The upper bourgeoisie "is no lon
so self-assured and is compelled by necessity to accommodate itself in t
or that particular to lower-middle-class taste; at the same time, it has s
something of its puritanical severity and reveals an inner leaning towar
the aristocratic" (182). Weakened in their political and economic pow
these formerly predominant families considered it now necessary "to ma
continual concessions, ideological and artistic as well" to the lower strat
and they "permitted the infiltration of a certain tendency towards emot
alism, a realism of detail, which was slowly to disrupt the superficially p
ANTAL S FLORENTINE PAINTING 373
served Giottesque schemes of composition" (172). Dr.

idea especially in regard to Bernardo Daddi (active abou
he considers "the most determinant artist of these decades." Daddi's
"composite style," he holds, "corresponded exactly to the mentality
Florentine upper middle class of this generation" (182). At the same
many other artists were at work who satisfied the demands of "a br
and less cultivated public" (183).
To ascertain the validity of this interpretation of the artistic dev
ments in Florence during the first part of the Trecento, we have now
to an analysis of the "foundations" upon which Dr. Antal has based his
general thesis. He states himself that "the preliminary chapters dealing
with the social conditions and the various ideologies offer nothing new to
specialists in the fields with which they are concerned" (5), but in all
fairness to the author it must be said that his historical account proves a
thorough knowledge of the secondary literature available on the subject.
Opinion might, of course, differ in a number of details, but these possible
points of disagreement matter little because the presentation of the facts
as a whole is correct. Real objections, however, have to be raised when
it comes to the evaluation of these facts. Dr. Antal focuses his attention
to such an exclusive degree on Florence that he is bound to misjud
at least to exaggerate, the "uniqueness" of certain Florentine conditio
In a book of a different kind one might lightly pass over such an ob
tion on the ground that it is the result of the natural tendency of an a
to become enamored of his subject. But in Dr. Antal's case we have to
remember that according to his premises the existence of a unique artistic
style presupposes also an equivalent uniqueness of the social and ideological
background.
According to Dr. Antal (166), it is "the unique, developed upper middle
class" which has to be considered as "the most decisive feature" of Giotto's
Florentine background, and consequently he concerns himself primaril
with the structure, the activities and the outlook on life of that class of th
capitalist entrepreneur. He says: "The industry of Florence, particu-
larly the cloth industry and the international trade connected with it, wa
undoubtedly the most important enterprise of an early capitalist characte
in the whole of the later Middle Ages" (13). This statement is correct
but it should be added that the difference between Florence and other
industrial and commercial centers of Italy and Flanders was merely o
of degree and not one of essence. Hardly tenable, however, appears
generalisation which follows the sentence just quoted: "A greater pow
of calculation and rational foresight, and a more intimate knowledge
business conditions, were displayed in Florence than anywhere else in th
entire Christian world." General economic histories of Italy do not b
out the truth of such a categorial statement, and in fact, Dr. Antal attem
to prove it solely by saying that "the rationalisation of business in Floren
was aided by the early introduction of si

n. 9). Single-entry book-keeping, however
Florentine entrepreneur, and it is useful
which A. Sapori has made in reference to th
and not merely to the Florentine: "He had t
his calculations and clear in his book-keeping because he was convinced
that exactness and clearness were indispensable in the pursuit of business
affairs; he satisfied this desire by possessing an adequate mathematical
education."4 It seems impossible, then, to explain the unique "rational-
ism" of Giotto's art merely in "terms of its specific Florentine back-
ground" (166).
Dr. Antal's "method of sociological interpretation" seems to be equally
questionable in its application to one of the other crucial problems of the
book, the explanation of the co-existence of entirely different styles in
Florence and Siena during the early Trecento. He states himself that "in
Siena, just as in Florence, the upper bourgeoisie were ruling at the end of
the thirteenth and throughout the first part of the fourteenth century"
(177), but in other passages he modifies this statement and asserts that
"Siena was more of a petty-bourgeois democracy" (117).5 He justifies
this modification by saying that in Siena "the nobility was far more power-
ful than in Florence during the same period" and that "the upper middle
class were not nearly so economically advanced or so politically secure as
in Florence; even at the height of their power, therefore, they were much
closer in mentality and outlook to the nobility and the petty bourgeoisie
than was the case in Florence" (177). A study of the history of Siena
does not confirm this assertion. From 1277 to 1355 Siena was ruled by
the "Government of the Nine" which consisted of "the merchants, and
manufacturers, the mezza gente as they called themselves"; all the other
classes of the population, that is the magnati, as well as the lower guilds
and the workers, were entirely excluded from political power.6 To be sure,
this government was under continuous attack and it was finally over-
thrown, but it maintained itself in power for almost eighty years (a long
time for any form of government in the Italian cities of the Trecento),
and its rulers were certainly resolved during that period to uphold their
political monopoly. Thus the historian of Florence, Robert Davidsohn,
declares that "not even in Florence . . . did state documents ever speak
as unreservedly and frankly of middle-class rule as they did in Siena,
where in 1318, at a time of great excitement, the necessity of defending the
4 A. Sapori, "La cultura del mercante medievale italiano," in Rivista di Storia
Economica II (1937), 99; cf. also A. Doren, Italienische Wirtschaftsgeschichte I
(1934), 471 f. (see esp. 472, n. 1), 654-659.
5 See also pp. 32 n. 15,132 n. 17, 179, 216 n. 34.
6 F. Schevill, The Story of a Mediaeval Commune (1909), 195; see also L.
Douglas, A History of Siena (1902), 140.
existing Government of the Nine, which rested in the hands

and the mezza gente was strongly emphasized. "
The mezza gente of Siena was not a middle-class in the
of the word but an oligarchy of the wealthy very muc
temporaneous ruling class of Florence which Dr. Antal c
powerful oligarchic upper bourgeoisie" (117). When Dr.
there were only a few banking families in Siena (32, n. 1
remembered that some of them belonged to the greatest fi
the Europe of the fourteenth century, and one might, t
statement that "the wealth of Florence was largely based
and banking activities of a few houses" (16). The style o
built by the leading families of the two cities during the s
not seem to indicate a great divergence in the style of livin
on life, and certainly no concessions to "petty-bourgeois" t
in that respect. No doubt there existed differences betw
Florence: a highly developed individuality has always been t
istic feature of most of the Italian cities and is true eve
tempting to account for these divergences in terms of soci
conditions and not merely of intangible factors, but Dr. An
fails to put up a convincing case for the explanation of the
tween the Sienese and Florentine schools of painting.
Dr. Antal's analysis of the Florentine class structure r
question. He decided "to ascertain the specific character
section of society and to distinguish between them" (5). In
opinion he has not been successful in distinguishing betwee
strata of society which he calls "the nobility" (or "the ar
birth") and "the upper middle class" (or "the bourgeoisie"). It is not
very advisable, when discussing this period, to use the term "noble" in the
way Dr. Antal does, for it is ordinarily reserved for the great landlords of
feudal origin.8 To be sure, there were still some of these formerly very
powerful feudal families left in Tuscany, but few of them played an
important role in Florence or Siena during the Trecento. The real prob-
lem for the ruling classes of the two cities was the people who (since 1277
in Siena, since 1293 in Florence) were officially classified as magnati or
grandi. They included not only landowners but also many of the great
industrialists, merchants and bankers of Florence and Siena, only a few of
whom were also of feudal origin. In the political sense this class was
clearly defined and sharply separated from the ruling guilds of Florence
and the mezza gente of Siena by the fact that they had been disfranchised
and placed under special laws. But in the economic sense these same people
7R. Davidsohn, Geschichte von Florenz (1925), IV, 2, p. 7.
8 On this whole problem see the recent article by A. Sapori, "L'evoluzione mer-
cantile della nobilita italiana nel medio evo," in Rivista del Diritto Commerciate
XLII (1944).
were frequently undistinguishable from the m

bourgeoisie with whom they were often connecte
ness and by intermarriage. This means also t
sharp line was drawn between these two upper
example is offered by the two families which com
works: both the Bardi and Peruzzi were among t
chants of their time, but in contrast to the Per
Bardi family were not only classified as magnati
origin. In accordance with Dr. Antal's ambigu
be assumed that they had a different outlook on
the other "noble."
Is it, in fact, possible to draw such sharp class distinctions in order
"discover what people belonging to different spheres of society thought
felt about the things that mattered most to them" (5; see also 38) ? Eve
in regard to the ideologies of the various classes of modern industri
society the historian has to proceed in his generalizations with great caut
although he has much richer and more diverse sources of information
his disposal than the medievalist. In view of the absence of articulate
expression of the thought of the lower strata of society it is understandable
that in his chapters on "economic, social, political ideas" and on "religious
sentiment," Dr. Antal concentrates his attention primarily upon the upper
middle class and limits himself to rather vague remarks concerning the
petty bourgeoisie and the workers9 (see 57 f, 66 f, 88 f, 90 f). But it
appears from Dr. Antal's own observation that even within the upper
strata of Florence, in spite of the similarity of economic activities and vested
interests of the members of this group, there did not exist that kind of
homogeneous "philosophy" or "outlook on life" which ought to be ex-
pected in accordance with the premises of his 'sociological' approach. For
instance, we remember that Dr. Antal explains the "rationalism" of
Giotto's art in terms of "the upper-middle-class rationalism" of the early
fourteenth century. But he himself finds also "in the mentality of this
early capitalist class . . .a tendency towards pure speculation and irra-
tionalism," and states that "this irrational factor . . . was very evident
in the early revolutionary period of the upper middle class of Florence
during the thirteenth century, and although its intensity diminished in
some directions during the fourteenth it is felt all the more clearly in others,
even if continually fused with the rational factor" (118 f). This observa-
tion as such is excellent and illuminates well the diversity of ideological
9 A close scrutiny of all the diaries kept by members of both the merchant and
the artisan classes during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in Florence, would
perhaps have enabled Dr. Antal to find more direct evidence in support of his state-
ments, which in their present form are too general to be convincing. See the list of
Florentine diaries compiled by A. Sapori, in Rivista di Storia Economica II (1937),
94-96.
conditions in Florence, as well as in other commerc

period, but within the frame-work of Dr. Antal's th
matters greatly. For, if it is true that "during the per
ing these two components of the attitude to life, the ra
tional, are in a continuous state of conflict and adjustm
strict line of demarcation can be drawn between them, f
one another to form the most varied compromises"
to be concluded that the blending of these elements was
be performed by every individual, whether merchant, in
in his personal way and by his own free decision, an
the specific outlook on life of the individual was not sim
his economic and social position and interests. To be
asserts that "among the upper bourgeoisie the rational
proved the stronger [and] in its own way . . . absorb
(119), but he has also to admit that during the early
"this highly developed rationalism was to be found only
progressive intellectual elite of the upper-middle-class, t
most self-confident," whereas at the same time all the
upper bourgeoisie as a whole "were increasingly domina
lative factor" (289).
Dr. Antal explicitly declares it "necessary to distingu
various upper and lower levels" of the upper bourge
does not interpret this differentiation of outlook as th
nomic diversity within the same social stratum and thu
in this case, to "ascertain the economic and social causes
duced these divisions," one of the main problems of his
his preface (4). This failure to apply the general prin
approach to the analysis of the upper bourgeoisie me
the coexistence of different styles in the same period canno
even only primarily, explained in social and economic t
look over the works of art which originated in Florenc
part of the fourteenth century, we find that quite a f
of artists who were "wholly different from Giotto"
by families belonging to the same group of leading
Giotto's patrons belonged. Dr. Antal tries to account fo
by saying that "the upper bourgeoisie were now com
tinual concessions, ideological and artistic as well," t
(172). This argument, however, is not at all conclus
ings executed by men like Bernardo Daddi, Taddeo G
Banco, in the chapels of S. Croce, which belonged to th
and Bardi families, all were done in the 1320's and 1330
bourgeoisie was still just as firmly entrenched in power
ous decades.
On the other hand one can hardly attri

Giotto's style to the fact that he worked fo
gether by common interests and outlook
Peruzzi of Florence and Enrico Scrovegni of
and ideas which were widely different from
Boniface VIII or King Robert of Naples. Or
Dr. Antal's premises that the style of Giotto
views of his patrons ?
Giotto's case is by no means unique. Wh
commissions gathered by Dr. Antal (see esp.
instances of the same painters receiving com
ferent social groups and, on the other hand,
painters receiving commissions from memb
When we turn to the example of the two p
ano and Masaccio, which stimulated Dr. An
logical and ideological background, we lear
commissioned by a Florentine patrician whe
missioned by a Pisan notary who had, we mu
in the social background of Florence. And in
work in S. Maria del Carmine, which Dr. Antal calls "the culminating
achievement of this [i.e., the Florentine] rationalism" of the early fifteen
century (307), it seems worth noting that the patron of this work com
missioned at first "the more conservative Masolino" (307) and that Masa
cio's participation in the decoration of the chapel was probably due to t
recommendations of the Carmelite monks of Pisa (see 346, n. 19) who w
undoubtedly outside "the shallow stratum at the summit of the upper bo
geoisie" of Florence where alone, according to Dr. Antal, "this highly de
veloped rationalism" was to be found (289).
One final question, perhaps the most fundamental, remains. Dr. Anta
declares: "Since the art of the period under discussion expresses mai
the outlook of the patrons of art, it is this that has been emphasiz
throughout rather than the views of the artists, who were generally m
inferior to their patrons in the social scale" (6 f). True enough, th
patrons could and did often stipulate the content of the works which t
commissioned (see 282 f) and their preferences for or aversions to certa
subjects can be interpreted as an indication of their thoughts and feelin
But Dr. Antal wants to explain more than that, he wants to account for t
fact that the same subject-matter, e.g., the Madonna and Child in the c
of Gentile da Fabriano and Masaccio, could be painted in entirely differ
styles. How can this co-existence of divergent styles be attributed to th
commissions given by the patrons? In the whole book only one stipulati
can be found which seems to point in that direction: in 1390, the mercha
Francesco Datini of Prato "expressly stated . . . that he desired the f
ures in a painting of the Man of Sorrows to be as pious and

possible" (211). No other proof of such a relatively def
given for this most important point, and it is doubtful that
be given. For Martin Wackernagel, in his comprehensive bo
fessional position and conditions of the artist in the Florent
discusses in great detail the relationship between artist
does not mention any case which could be interpreted, in t
Antal's thesis, as an attempt by a patron to have his own ide
means of a specific artistic style.10
It is outside the scope of this Journal and also outside th
of this reviewer to appraise Dr. Antal's book from the p
the art historian. However, and this is not simply an after-
can reject the author's ideological premises and interpre
learn a great deal from his penetrating analysis of the char
tures and stylistic developments of the Florentine and Sien
painting. In this respect Dr. Antal certainly demonstrat
mastery of traditional methods and succeeds in giving a
description of one of the most complex periods in the histo
At the same time this reviewer believes that Dr. Antal has
the value of his "sociological interpretation" by which h
show how social and economic, that is, non-aesthetic factors
worked upon aesthetic practice.
Princeton University.
10 See M. Wackernagel, Der Lebensraum des Kiinstlers in der
Renaissance: Aufgaben and Auftraggeber, Werkstatt und Kun
1938), see esp. 213-302.

Florentine Painting and Its Background

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Florentine Painting and Its Background

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Review: Frederick Antal's Florentine Painting and its Social Background

FREDERICK ANTAL'S FLORENTINE PAINTING AND

Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Frederick Antal published two studies of th

derive" (4). Dr. Antal asserts that "the the

rately, whereas in the other chapters they are treated togeth

third Florentine painter of this generation,

served Giottesque schemes of composition" (172). Dr.

was aided by the early introduction of si

existing Government of the Nine, which rested in the hands

were frequently undistinguishable from the m

conditions in Florence, as well as in other commerc

On the other hand one can hardly attri

ures in a painting of the Man of Sorrows to be as pious and

Potrebbero piacerti anche