This article concerns various representations of the Resurrection of Christ as exemplified by the accompanying photos, all of which were taken by me using a phone-camera. Since becoming involved with possibly the most enigmatic example, that of Piero della Francesca (c.1412-1492) in Sansepolcro, I have been noticing other artists' versions in the museums and churches I visit on my travels. These other interpretations, all restricted more or less by the accepted iconography of the subject, do however vary quite a lot, while one or two have clear similarities to Piero's icon.
Before proceeding, a short history of the iconography of the Resurrection might be helpful. In early Christianity, the Resurrection event, which is not described as such in the New Testament, was represented by symbols indicative of the victory of Christ over death (and sin): the first two letters of the originally Greek word 'Christ' in Greek are: Χ and Ρ (chi and rho). These were shown, superimposed such as one might still see in churches today, above a simple Cross and surrounded by a wreath. Later images included the two or three Marys at the tomb, engaged in conversation with an angel who was often seated on a non-Biblical Roman sarcophagus - Christ having been buried in a tomb excavated in the rock; others showed Mary Magdalen talking to the Risen Christ whom she had mistaken for a gardener; sometimes the soldiers, sleeping or not, were included, but not Christ himself. The inclusion of Christ, especially as the central main focus, began seemingly, in Italy, sometime in the 1300s. A final observation concerns the 'tomb' itself: in the Biblical account, Christ was laid to rest in a tomb supplied by a rich man, a Hebrew tomb in Palestine of that period, meaning a hole in a rock, sealed with a large stone. This is significant because the images we normally see do not show a rock tomb, but a Roman-style sarcophagus; indeed, occasionally, both a sarcophagus and a rock tomb are represented! In the image below, Piero has adhered to the contemporary iconography in which there is a Roman-style sarcophagus and no sign at all of a rock (actually a rock wall) with a large hole in it. (1and Note)
Before proceeding, a short history of the iconography of the Resurrection might be helpful. In early Christianity, the Resurrection event, which is not described as such in the New Testament, was represented by symbols indicative of the victory of Christ over death (and sin): the first two letters of the originally Greek word 'Christ' in Greek are: Χ and Ρ (chi and rho). These were shown, superimposed such as one might still see in churches today, above a simple Cross and surrounded by a wreath. Later images included the two or three Marys at the tomb, engaged in conversation with an angel who was often seated on a non-Biblical Roman sarcophagus - Christ having been buried in a tomb excavated in the rock; others showed Mary Magdalen talking to the Risen Christ whom she had mistaken for a gardener; sometimes the soldiers, sleeping or not, were included, but not Christ himself. The inclusion of Christ, especially as the central main focus, began seemingly, in Italy, sometime in the 1300s. A final observation concerns the 'tomb' itself: in the Biblical account, Christ was laid to rest in a tomb supplied by a rich man, a Hebrew tomb in Palestine of that period, meaning a hole in a rock, sealed with a large stone. This is significant because the images we normally see do not show a rock tomb, but a Roman-style sarcophagus; indeed, occasionally, both a sarcophagus and a rock tomb are represented! In the image below, Piero has adhered to the contemporary iconography in which there is a Roman-style sarcophagus and no sign at all of a rock (actually a rock wall) with a large hole in it. (1and Note)
Resurrection by Piero della Francesca, fresco (after 1458?, c.1469 according to Longhi 2) in Sansepolcro
(normally, the word 'fresco' is used to describe the technique which Piero used here, but the recent restoration work has shown that, in fact, a considerable portion of this masterwork was not done in 'buon fresco', that is, it was done in 'fresco a secco'. See Note below)
The article will proceed in a kind of ad hoc fashion, that is to say, not in a chronological sequence of examples, so, to begin, let's look at two sculptural versions, produced roughly 150 years apart. The first is, to my mind at least, a surprisingly modern-looking work, and forms the central panel on the front of a sarcophagus (that is, a sarcophagus on a sarcophagus), now in the Museum at Santa Croce in Florence. The work of a wonderfully robust sculptor called Tino da Camaino, it is a marble sculpture in, let's say, low relief with high relief elements. As can be seen from the photo, it bears an uncanny resemblance to Piero's painting, with Christ smack in the middle, his right leg up on the front edge of his sarcophagus (Piero's Christ has his left leg up); in his right hand he holds his victory flag, and in his left, unlike Piero's, he holds a book. Like Piero's Christ, he looks directly ahead of himself, in a way through us and over us. Although the sarcophagus is clearly different in the two works, the inclusion of the sleeping soldiers, who occupy the entire foreground of these powerful statements, is similar in both; perhaps not easy to appreciate at first glance, there are actually three men shown here, in Tino's relief, only one of whom is more or less fully visible: his two companions are indicated by torsos and heads! But these crammed-in, sleeping men are almost Modernist in their necessary synthesis; large, clean forms, conveying both weight and mass, similar in some ways to the work of Jacopo della Quercia. Horizontal deep sleep contrasting with vertical hyper- alertness!
Resurrection by Tino da Camaino, marble sarcophagus (c.1318-19), Museum, Santa Croce, Florence
The next piece is a masterwork by the Florentine sculptor, Donatello; it too is the central panel, this time on one of the sides of one of two bronze pulpits he made for the beautiful church of San Lorenzo, also in Florence. The odd thing about these pulpits is that they bear little or no similarity to the usual rotund form of pulpits, but look rather more like sarcophagi (possibly because Donatello studied ancient Roman examples). These panels however are in bronze and so visually operate differently from Tino's stone work, and from Roman examples: they depend for a start on the reflections of light bouncing around on the polished bronze which had elements finished in gold and silver as well.
The Resurrection by Donatello, bronze pulpit (1460-67) in San Lorenzo, Florence
The next image we might look at is a small painted panel which is part of a much larger painted wooden Crucifix, in the Duomo, or cathedral, of Pistoia. It was painted by Coppo di Marcovaldo in about 1274; at this time, such large painted wooden crosses - three metres or more - were to be found in many churches, at least in Tuscany: we also have examples by Cimabue and Giotto. But our interest is in the beautiful, elegant and refined Medieval representation of the Resurrection. It predates Tino's sculpture by about 44 years and the iconography is also older. In fact, in this image, there is no Risen Christ, instead what we see is the Biblical angel, seated on the edge of the non-Biblical sarcophagus, with its lid askew and the winding cloth still visible inside; it is unclear whether this image is meant to suggest that the sarcophagus is within a rock, or standing in front of a rock or hill. The angel is there to inform the three Marys, on the left, that the one they are searching for has risen, that they will not find Him there any longer.
One thing immediately strikes us, apart from the important absence of any Christ figure, and that is the Medieval, not to say Byzantine, representation of the 'landscape' features: both the rocky hill (or rock-tomb) in the background (?), and the stretch of ground in front (?) of the sarcophagus are treated in exactly the same way, and with the same tones in the colours. There is virtually no attempt to convey the idea or, better, the 'reality' of a real, tangible place: what we have here is rather, an 'idea' used to convey the notion of 'outdoors' as opposed to 'indoors'. The three 'objects' are related in space by being placed one in front of the other: the stretch of ground (?) is placed in front of the sarcophagus, and that in turn is placed in front of the large hill - or protruding from the cave of the rock. Note also that the angel, being a heavenly messenger, is somewhat larger than the earthly Marys. But the most important difference is in the iconography itself: we know that Christ has risen but He is nowhere to be seen. This version of the event, without Christ standing at or floating above (see below) his tomb, is the more strictly correct one, in terms of what is retold in the New Testament. And, further, there are no sleeping soldiers!
The Marys at the Tomb by Coppo di Marcovaldo,
one panel from a large wooden Crucifix (1274) in the Duomo of Pistoia
The next example (below) is a very large fresco, painted on the ceiling of the large Spanish Chapel, at Santa Maria Novella, in Florence. It was painted after both Coppo's panel and Tino's sculpture. The entire wall surface, and the ceiling of this chapel, are covered in beautiful and (at least some) socio-historically interesting frescos - this because they show certain historical figures and an image of the cathedral of Florence, before Brunelleschi's dome had been built. What is of immediate interest though is the representation of the Resurrection as, in this case, we have an example of both the older and the newer iconography in the one painting.
Andrea di Bonaiuto has included a number of different events in the one large image, although it is obvious that each occurred at a different time. But, from the point of view of this article, his inclusion of both the Biblical story and the later iconography, of Christ rising out of his tomb, with all their attendant details, is most unusual. Let's have a look at them: on the extreme left we see a symbol of a city, probably Jerusalem, out from which seem to have come the three Marys who now appear to be in conversation with one of two angels seated on the sarcophagus. On the right, we have the later scene where Mary Magdalen encounters someone who looks like the gardener but is in fact the Risen Christ. Returning to the central scene, with the two angels on the sarcophagus, we have the traditional Biblical ingredients, minus the rock tomb; however, above and below - or, in front of - the sarcophagus, we also have respectively, the Risen Christ (shown as it were, floating above) and the sleeping soldiers: this later iconography being seamlessly melded with the earlier one.
Incidentally, in Andrea's fresco, there are six sleeping guards, a couple of whom are dressed in oriental style, that is, not Roman; on at least one shield are inscribed the letters of the Roman republic: SPQR. The figure of Christ is shown as suspended somewhat above the main action, encircled by an aureola(e), or 'mandorla', of divine glory or grace; he is a sublime figure, clothed entirely in brilliant white, and is clearly meant to be seen as such. We might mention here as well, the not-casual representation of the background landscape, 'framing' as it does the main event, scattered with symbols of trees (not portraits of individual real trees) and even another city in the top right. This landscape is interesting as it is in some elements echoed in the Piero della Francesca version.
Scenes of the Resurrection by Andrea di Bonaiuto (also known as Andrea da Firenze), 1365-67, fresco
The Spanish Chapel, Santa Maria Novella, Florence
The next two paintings are included here precisely because they do have clear concordances with the image at Sanseplocro by Piero della Francesca. The first is by a wonderful Renaissance painter called Andrea del Castagno (1421-1457) and the second is by an anonymous Florentine(?) artist. An important point here is that Andrea del Castagno lived and worked mainly in Florence and his masterpieces are there, including his work in the refectory of the convent of Sant'Apollonia, of which his much deteriorated Resurrection is a part. In Andrea's fresco (not a good photo unfortunately) we can see a number of elements which remind us of Piero's great painting, such as and particularly, the horizontal band across the lower third of the image, formed by the sarcophagus and the sleeping soldiers in front if it. One soldier especially is of interest and he is the one with his head propped up against the edge of the tomb; this figure is very similar to a soldier in Piero's painting, in almost the same position. We do not know if Piero ever saw Andrea's fresco but, in general terms, there are some striking similarities: as mentioned, the disposition of the soldiers and the sarcophagus; the figure of Christ supported on the edge of the tomb; the victory flag - although in the other hand; the partially exposed torso, and the trees on either side of the picture. Given these similarities in the two images in question (Piero's and Andrea's), it would seem possible that Piero was influenced by Andrea's work but, as just noted, the date of Piero's fresco is actually unknown at present.
Resurrection by Andrea del Castagno, 1447, much-damaged fresco, Sant'Apollonia, Florence
The next image shows a version I discovered only recently, near the northern Italian city of Piacenza. It is painted on the wall of a small chapel in a small Romanesque church situated on the top of a fortified hill called Castell'Arquato. Although the hands are doing different things in the work by the anonymous painter, the general position of Christ, and the general composition of the image, are very similar to Piero's, so much so as to seem to me to have been directly influenced by him. Apart from the stance of the Christ, similar to that of Piero's image, and the horizontal sarcophagus, parallel with the picture-plane, as in Piero's, note the framing architecture, much simplified but also present - as beautiful Corinthian columns - in the Sansepolcro fresco.
Let's look at the soldiers particularly: again, four men, disposed as a tight group in front of the sarcophagus; the one in red in the centre resembles in many respects the soldier in the same position in Piero's picture, even in the way his head is leaning against the edge of the tomb. The soldier on the right, with his back to us, also mimics in his pose the corresponding soldier in Piero's painting; and, to 'seal the deal' so to speak, the figure on the left, forming as he does a rough triangle with his position, is obviously taken from Piero, where the same figure is a masterpiece of Renaissance composition (and a much more definite triangle). It is interesting to note here the difference in the handling of the same element, that is, the position and drawing of this particular soldier: in Piero's case, a strong, clear structure, containing in its solitariness a forceful humanist emotional charge; while the figure by the anonymous painter, partly perhaps because it is derived from elsewhere and not the original scheme of that artist, is weak and sloppy, lacking any interior force or conviction 3. The anonymous work at Castell'Arquato is a decoration purely and simply, it carries no power of either religious or emotional import, its innate aesthetic heritage is Medieval even though its putative form is of the Renaissance (the sarcophagus drawn in perspective is not possible before that time).
Collegiata of Santa Maria Assunta, Castell'Arquato (near Piacenza)
The image below takes us into another, later period, that of Venetian Mannerism. It was painted by Titian as one side of a processional banner but was later modified to function as an independent picture to be hung on a wall. It is already different from the paintings we have so far examined in that it is a painting in oil on canvas; the others we have seen have been either in fresco, on a wall, or in tempera on wood. This image is different in many respects from that of the earlier Piero della Francesca: our position is low in respect of Christ, in fact, we can see the soles of His feet! On the other hand, our position in relation to the soldiers is somewhat equivocal: we seem to be more or less on the same level as the they are, although perhaps not really.
Christ is shown floating high above the sarcophagus, looking away into a distance which does not involve us; the sarcophagus is oriented at an angle to the plane of the canvas, pointing slightly upwards because of our viewpoint, and the soldiers are represented as being in a state of confusion, definitely awake, except oddly for the central one. The soldier on our left is actually the largest figure in the composition, a painter's - and Venetian - device to indicate proximity to the scene on the part of the viewer. To my mind, Titian's picture, while obviously of its time, could better function as simply an image of the Risen Christ, that is, with the Christ as the sole subject; the lower part of this painting is rhetorical and over-stated for modern tastes or, at least, for mine.
Resurrection by Titian (Tiziano Vecellio), oil on canvas, 1542-44
Museo Nazionale delle Marche, Palazzo Ducale, Urbino
The following two images are both from the late-Medieval period, containing many contemporary devices but, at the same time, also indicating future developments. The first, by Benedetto di Bindo, about 1412, shares a few elements with the version of Piero della Francesca, not the least being a (certain) knowledge of correct perspective (in the sarcophagus); the lid of the tomb however, indicates that he still has something to learn! But the central, upright Christ and the geometrically constructed sarcophagus are pointers towards Piero's image. The background unfortunately, is an extremely bland suggestion of place; the soldiers are positioned in a balanced fashion, one at either end of the sarcophagus, and two stretched out at its base. In my opinion, a fairly dreary, unthoughtful image.
The second of these two is by Ugolino di Nerio and dates from about 90 years before the di Bindo. Although the earlier work, it is far more engaging, more thoughtful, and as such, more succinct. In both these pictures, Christ is placed in the centre of the composition, with one foot up on the edge of his sarcophagus; both carry the banner of victory, and both are set in a symbolically-represented landscape, Ugolino's being, while still conservative, clearly the more interesting. I don't know this but I suspect from the condition of the colours that Ugolino's picture has been restored, whereas Benedetto's hasn't been; naturally, this makes a great difference to their 'legibility'. Ugolino's painting indicates that he is apparently unaware of perspective drawing, his sarcophagus being typically Gothic in its odd management of planes and geometric space. Nevertheless, there is force in his Christ and beauty in his colours; the reclining positions of his soldiers have been studied and this has added to their diversity and interest. He has moreover, balanced the straight lines of the sarcophagus with the gentle curve of his rocky background.
The Resurrection by Benedetto di Bindo, predella painting, c.1412. Siena
National Gallery, London
The final painting is again a predella picture, that is, one of a series of small paintings placed in the carpentry of the frame at the base (predella) of a much larger altarpiece. This one is extremely interesting because it is an example of the type which contains both forms of Christ's 'tomb', that is, the Biblical rock with a hole in it, and a Roman-style sarcophagus; this little painting also has what may be understood as a heavy stone 'door', apparently just dislodged by the divine event here portrayed. The 'rock' is represented as an independent outcrop, in a red landscape, with a walled city in the left background, and a temple (?) in the right. Four sleeping soldiers, two leaning against the rock, two stretched out on the ground in front of it, complete the iconography. Christ is shown in a Gothic 'S' pose, but with clear classical references in His structure. This painting too is a decoration, fulfilling certain iconographic requirements, but offering little else.
The date of 1480, years after Piero della Francesca is believed to have painted his masterpiece in Sansepolcro, is telling: even at that 'late' date, many artists were still influenced by earlier (late-Medieval) aesthetics; in stark contrast with this however, note the completely Renaissance interior - that is, drawn using perspective - partly visible here to the left in this photo. To be fair, even today, there would be many who would find Piero's image far too refined, far too 'essential', and who would prefer the pleasing decorativeness of Matteo's image, or something similar. Matteo's painting is a delightful thing in its own right and I don't wish to sound as though I don't like it or approve of it; there are many different pictures as there are many different types of people who look at them - or who don't!
The Resurrection by Matteo di Giovanni, 1480, probably tempera, predella painting. Siena
The representation of the Risen Christ is, quite apart from the setting of the scene, one of the main variables in images of the Resurrection; it may be put into three rough categories: the uncommunicative and unattainable divine being (Andrea di Bonaiuto and Titian); the divine-man type, severe but consonant with us, if unrealisable (Piero della Francesca, Donatello and Tino da Camaino); and the softer, gentler type, neither man nor divine, a mere symbol (the Anonymous painter, Matteo di Giovanni, Ugolino and Benedetto, as well as, unusually, Andrea del Castagno 4). Naturally, the absence or non-representation of Christ carries with it other, some may say deeper, spiritual significance.
1 The elegantly simplified sarcophagus in Piero's painting, and in Andrea del Castagno's as well, seems to be a free interpretation of classical sarcophagi; I say this because all those that I have seen, including in Rome, have been considerably more elaborate in their decoration and never, in my experience, with coloured marble inlay or panels. Sarcophagi have enjoyed an exceptionally long vogue in Western culture, being in continuous use from Roman times, through the Medieval period into the Renaissance and much beyond. The point in the frescos of course, was the generalised reference to classical models and the requirement for a clearly horizontal formal element, at least in Piero's case.
2 Roberto Longhi, Italian art historian and author of the vastly influential Piero della Francesca (amongst much else), first published in 1927. Longhi's dates for Piero's works are approximate, as they must be, there being a depressing lack of contemporary documents concerning either Piero or his paintings.
 |
| An example of a Roman sarcophagus, decorated in a relatively restrained way Museo Nazionale Romano Terme di Diocleziano, Rome |
2 Roberto Longhi, Italian art historian and author of the vastly influential Piero della Francesca (amongst much else), first published in 1927. Longhi's dates for Piero's works are approximate, as they must be, there being a depressing lack of contemporary documents concerning either Piero or his paintings.
3 Some texts claim that the Saint Catherine chapel in the Collegiata at Castell'Arquato was constructed and frescoed at the beginning of the 15th century, others give a date of 1455! In my opinion, the fresco we are looking at could not have been done as early as the beginning of the 1400s, and is much more likely to be the work of a minor painter of the period post-1450.
Although I would give only a very approximate date for the anonymous Resurrection at Castell'Arquato (late-15th century to early 16th), in relation to the probable influence of Piero della Francesca, as mentioned, scholars have in common that they can't agree on the dating of most of his works. If Piero's version of this subject was painted later than the middle of the 15th century (for example, Longhi's date of c.1469), then I would be confident in saying that his Resurrection was the iconographic source for the image at Castell'Arquato.
4 Andrea del Castagno, usually a robust and forceful painter, is not well-known for the Resurrection image discussed here, but rather, amongst others, for the much larger fresco below that, his Last Supper, a stupendous piece of Renaissance painting, not to mention perspective construction.
 |
Andrea del Castagno, the Last Supper, 1447, fresco in the refectory at Sant'Apollonia in Florence.
Above it, to the left, may be seen his Resurrection, as well as other images. On the left wall is a detached fresco of the Crucifixion, also be Andrea.
Note:
Piero della Francesca, detail of the restoration of his Resurrection in Sansepolcro, being carried out this year. The restorers have removed the infill around the painted fictive frame, partially damaged when the fresco was moved, at some time in the past, together with the part of the wall on which it was painted; obviously, when the restoration is complete, all these 'discoveries' will be hidden once again. In relation to the iconography though, it is interesting that the soldier on the right seems to be leaning his elbow on a rock; that rock may have some reference to the legend concerning the founding of the city of Borgo San Sepolcro, as it was originally called, according to which the town was founded by travellers on their way back from the Holy Land, carrying some rocks from the Holy Sepulchre: hence the name of the city itself, in Italian: Sansepolcro.
In relation to fresco technique, there are two basic methods: in Italian, buon fresco or 'true fresco', where pigments mixed with water are painted directly onto wet plaster; there is no opportunity to correct using this technique, once the plaster has dried. The other is, in Italian, fresco a secco ('when dry') that is, painting on top of true fresco with pigments mixed with a range of binders, such as tempera or oil. The problem with this latter method is that it is not nearly so permanent as true fresco and the risk of the paint falling off the surface is always a problem.
|
