utmost limits of beauty in human form when inspiration only is to be expressed, and not angelic or divine being; of which reserve and subjection the most instructive instances are found in the works of Angelico, who invariably uses inferior types for the features of humanity, even glorified (excepting always the Madonna), nor ever exerts his full power of beauty, either in feature or expression, except in angels, or in the Madonna, or in Christ. Now the expression of spiritual influence without supreme elevation of the bodily type we have seen to be a work of Penetrative imagination, and we found it accomplished by Michael Angelo;' but I think by him only. I am aware of no one else who, to my mind, has expressed the inspiration of Prophet or Sibyl; this, however, I affirm not, but shall leave to the determination of the reader, as the principles at present to be noted refer entirely to that elevation of the creature form necessary when it is actually representative of a Spiritual being. 2 which is more I have affirmed, in the conclusion of the first Section, that "of that which is more than Creature no Creature § 7. No repreever conceived." I think this almost self-evident, sentation of that for it is clear that the illimitableness of Divine than creature attributes cannot be by matter represented (though is possible. it may be typified); and I believe that all who are acquainted with the range of sacred art will admit, not only that no representation of Christ has ever been even partially successful, but that the greatest painters fall therein below their accustomed level; 'Perugino and Fra Angelico especially: Leonardo has, I think, done best; but perhaps the beauty of the fragment left at Milan (for in spite of all that is said of repainting and destruction, that Cenacolo is still the finest in existence1) is as 1 [Above, ch. iii. § 28, p. 281.] 2 [Ruskin had not at this time fallen under the spell of Botticelli, whose Sibyls he was afterwards to praise: "He it was who gave the conception of that great choir of the prophets and sibyls, of which Michael Angelo, more or less ignorantly borrowing it in the Sistine Chapel, in great part lost the meaning, while he magnified the aspect (see Ariadne Florentina, ch. vi.).] 3 [Above, sec. i. ch. xv. § 2, p. 209.] [The Cenacolo has in recent years faded away almost fatally. In the Brera Gallery there is a beautiful design in black and red chalk, believed to be a study for the head of our Lord.] much dependent on the very untraceableness resulting from injury as on its original perfection. Of more daring attempts at representation of Divinity we need not speak; only this is to be noted respecting them, that though by the ignorant Romanists many such efforts were made under the idea of actual representation (note the way in which Cellini speaks of the seal made for the Pope), by the nobler among them I suppose they were intended, and by us at any rate they may always be received, as mere symbols, the noblest that could be employed, but as much symbols still as a triangle, or the Alpha and Omega, nor do I think that the most scrupulous amongst Christians ought to desire to exchange the power obtained by the use of this symbol in Michael Angelo's creation of Adam and of Eve, for the effect which would be produced by the substitution of any other sign in place of it. Of these efforts, then, we need reason no farther, but may limit ourselves to considering the purest modes of giving a conception of superhuman but still creature form, as of angels; in equal rank with whom, perhaps, we may without offence place the mother of Christ; at least we must so regard the type of the Madonna in receiving it from Romanist painters. And first, much is to be done by right modification of * I take no note of the representation of Evil Spirits, since throughout we have been occupied in the pursuit of Beauty; but it may be observed generally, that there is great difficulty to be overcome in attempts of this kind, because the elevation of the form necessary to give it spirituality destroys the appearance of evil; hence even the greatest painters have been reduced to receive aid from the fancy, and to eke out all they could conceive of malignity by help of horns, hoofs, and claws. Giotto's Satan in the Campo Santo, with the 1 [The reference seems to be to book i. ch. xliv. of Cellini's Autobiography, where he describes how some of his clumsy competitors had stuck a certain jewel in the middle of the heart of God the Father. He, on the other hand, had arranged it differently, and had "shown God the Father seated, leaning nobly in a sideways attitude which made a perfect composition."] [This is one of the frescoes of the life of Job: Satan accusing Job to God. Ruskin's account of it in his note-book (1845) is as follows: "The Standing of Satan before God.--This I think almost the grandest thing in the Campo Santo, the conception of Satan is indubitably the finest. The eyes of the holy figures are little arched, singularly flat in the hair of the brow, and the brow itself not finely pencilled but thick; still this gives them greater repose and grandeur, and removes them farther from mean prettiness. The principal figure is most perfect in serenity of power; no expression of indignation or passion of any kind in the look given to the accessary circumstances, so as to express miraculous power exercised over them by the Spiritual creature. §. 8 SuperThere is a beautiful instance of this in John Bellini's natural character expressed picture of St. Jerome at Venice.1 The Saint sits by modification upon a rock, his grand form defined against of accessaries. clear green open sky; he is reading; a noble tree springs out of a cleft in the rock, bends itself suddenly back to form a rest for the volume, then shoots up into the sky. There is something very beautiful in this obedient ministry of the lower creature; but be it observed that the sweet feeling of the whole depends upon the service being such as is consistent with its nature. It is not animated, it does not listen to the saint, nor bend itself towards him as if in affection; this would have been mere fancy, illegitimate and effectless. But the simple bend of the trunk to receive the book is miraculous subjection of the true nature of the tree; it is therefore imaginative, and very touching. Serpent gnawing the heart, is fine; so many of the fiends of Orcagna, and always those of Michael Angelo. Tintoret, in the Temptation, with his usual truth of invention, has represented the Evil Spirit under the form of a fair angel, the wings burning with crimson and silver, the face sensual and treacherous. It is instructive to compare the results of imagination associated with powerful fancy in the demons of these great painters, or even in such nightmares as that of Salvator already spoken of (Sec. I. Chap. V. § 12 note), with the simple ugliness of idiotic distortion in the meaningless, terrorless monsters of Bronzino in the large picture of the Uffizii; 3 where the painter, utterly uninventive, having assembled all that is abominable of hanging flesh, bony limbs, crane necks, staring eyes, and straggling hair, cannot yet, by the sum and substance of all, obtain as much real fearfulness as an imaginative painter could throw into the turn of a lip or the knitting of a brow. Evil Spirit. The position of the latter is perfect; his triple wings still expanded, his arms folded tight over his breast, holding each other above the elbow, the claws fixed deep in the flesh, as with jealousy or pain; a serpent coiled round his neck buries its head in a cleft in his bosom. The right hoof lifted as if to stamp." This series of frescoes is now commonly attributed to Francesco da Volterra; but see Ruskin's review of Lord Lindsay, On the Old Road, 1899, vol. i. § 61, where also the description of Satan, just quoted, is given with some revision.] 1 [See above, sec. i. ch. xiv. § 14, p. 189. A picture of St. Jerome in the National Gallery, by Bono of Ferrara, No. 771, shows similar modifications of accessories to express supernatural character.] [See Stones of Venice (Venetian Index, s. "Rocco, Scuola di San," No. 20) for a further description of the Evil Spirit in this picture.] 3 [Cf. above, sec. i. ch. vi. § 8, p. 101.] |