Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-rgz9k Total loading time: 0.83 Render date: 2021-06-24T04:26:40.666Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Embodying Devotion: Multisensory Encounters with Donatello's Crucifix in S. Croce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2020

Geraldine A. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The reception of art is often described in ocularcentric terms, but all five senses could engage devotional objects in late medieval and early modern Europe. This article explores this phenomenon by considering a wooden crucifix with movable arms made by Donatello for the Franciscan church of S. Croce in Florence in the early fifteenth century. It makes new suggestions about the work's original location, its possible patrons, and its functions and reception, especially during the rituals associated with Good Friday. It also reflects on the challenges scholars face when taking a multisensory approach to premodern visual and material culture.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by the Renaissance Society of America

INTRODUCTION

On Holy Saturday in 1293, the Franciscan mystic Angela da Foligno (1248–1309) felt herself being transported into Christ's tomb, where she imagined touching, hearing, and even smelling her dead Savior:

in a state of ecstasy, she found herself in the sepulcher with Christ. She . . . kissed Christ's breast . . . then she kissed his mouth, from which . . . a delightful fragrance emanated. . . . Afterward, she placed her cheek on Christ's own and he, in turn, placed his hand on her other cheek, pressing her closely to him. . . . [She] heard him telling her: “Before I was laid in the sepulcher, I held you this tightly to me.” Even though she understood that it was Christ telling her this, nonetheless she saw him lying there with eyes closed, lips motionless, exactly as he was when he lay dead in the sepulcher. Her joy was immense and indescribable.Footnote 1

Scholars have linked this vision and others like it to Angela seeing from afar depictions of the Crucifixion, Deposition, and Burial of Christ—Taddeo Gaddi (ca. 1290–1366) painted one such image in S. Croce in Florence (fig. 1)—and to watching dramatic reenactments of Christ's Passion at Eastertime.Footnote 2 What has not been suggested is that her intensely physical, multisensory experience might not have occurred at a distance, but could have reflected a similarly physical and multisensory encounter with an actual three-dimensional object—namely, one of the life-size wooden crucifixes that were crucial actors or, better, agents in Holy Week rituals in Italy and throughout Europe in the late medieval and early modern period.Footnote 3

Figure 1. Taddeo Gaddi. Entombment of Christ, ca. 1340. Fresco. Chapel of S. Silvestro in S. Croce, Florence. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

The present article will consider whether such large-scale devotional objects may have been engaged not only by vision, as has often been suggested, but by other senses as well, especially that of touch, and on occasion hearing, smell, and even taste.Footnote 4 It will focus on one example of this genre, a life-size wooden crucifix made by Donatello (ca. 1386–1466) for the Conventual Franciscan church of S. Croce in Florence in ca. 1406–15, just over a century after Angela's multisensory experience (fig. 2). Thanks to a relatively recent restoration and several even more recent exhibitions, Donatello's Crucifix has been the focus of ongoing scholarly interest.Footnote 5 Using a range of documentary sources and material evidence, the article will make new suggestions about the original location of this object, its possible patrons, and its period-specific functions and reception. At the same time, it will reflect more generally on the challenges faced by scholars trying to move beyond the visual in order to take a more multisensory approach to works that premodern beholders would have encountered not, as is often the case today, in photographic reproductions in print, online, or projected on a screen, but rather in the flesh—and sometimes very close to hand.Footnote 6

Figure 2. Donatello. Crucifix, ca. 1406–15 (restored in 2003–04). Polychromed wood, 173 x 168 cm (crucified Christ) and 482 x 187 cm (cross). Chapel of Bardi di Vernio in S. Croce, Florence. Image courtesy of Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali—Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, and Basilica of S. Croce, Florence, overseen by Direzione Centrale per l'Amministrazione del Fondo Edifici di Culto, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l'immigrazione, Ministero dell'Interno.

DONATELLO'S ARTICULATED CRUCIFIX

Today, Donatello's Crucifix is best known not as a devotional object, but as one of the protagonists in a possibly apocryphal contest with a crucifix carved by his friend and artistic rival, Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446), for the Dominican church of S. Maria Novella, also in Florence. Although the competition was mentioned for the first time before 1530 by Antonio Billi (after 1480–after 1550), it was only in the first edition of Le Vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori, e architettori (The lives of the most excellent painters, sculptors, and architects, 1550) by Giorgio Vasari (1511–74) that the tale took on its most complete form. According to Vasari, when Brunelleschi saw his friend's Crucifix, he told Donatello that “he had put on the cross a contadino [peasant] and not the body of Christ, which was most delicate in its members and was graced with a beautiful aspect.” Donatello retorted: “If it were as easy to make as to criticize, my Christ would seem to you Christ and not a contadino: so go get some wood and try to make one yourself.” In response, Brunelleschi “arranged to make a Christ of wood with the same measurements.” When Donatello encountered the finished figure after returning from a trip to the market, he was so astonished to see its “perfection” that he dropped his shopping, eggs and all. Admitting defeat, Donatello told his friend: “‘I'll leave it to you to make the Christs and to me the contadini.’”Footnote 7

Many scholars have used Vasari's passage as the basis for analyzing the two crucifixes in formal terms, comparing and contrasting their styles and compositions using an essentially Wölfflinian vocabulary.Footnote 8 Taking a sociohistorical approach, Patricia Rubin has looked at the incident in the context of other tales of early modern artistic friendship and rivalry with roots traceable back to classical prototypes.Footnote 9 More recently, Jim Harris has explored Vasari's choice of the word contadino to describe Donatello's figure, concluding that the physical type and signs of violence on Christ's body should be linked to Florentine concerns about the laboring classes within the city and in the surrounding contado (countryside).Footnote 10 Focusing on the stylistic nuances of the two crucifixes, or even using a sociohistorical framework to analyze the outward appearance of the two effigies, assumes that Vasari's comparison should, in fact, be understood primarily in visual terms. But it is also productive to consider whether Vasari's implicit criticism of Donatello's contadino Christ was not only about what the figure looked like, but also about what it did—or rather, what was done to it. Such an approach moves beyond art history's ocularcentric assumptions—including Michael Baxandall's influential concept of the “period eye”Footnote 11—and instead encourages an exploration of the multisensory period body, which engaged not only the eyes, but also ears, noses, mouths, and, especially, hands.

In the case of Donatello's Crucifix, an intriguing aspect of its design, with important multisensory implications, is that the figure of Christ is hinged at the shoulders (fig. 3), a feature that would have allowed the effigy's arms to be folded down along its sides.Footnote 12 This position was captured in photographs taken during restoration campaigns in 1972–74 and 2003–04, which show the arms folded two-thirds of the way down (fig. 4).Footnote 13 According to Peter Stiberc, who led the most recent restoration at the Opificio delle Pietre Dure in Florence, the figure's arms could originally have been folded down even further, so as to lie directly next to Christ's torso.Footnote 14 However, with the exception of an important article published in 1992 by John Paoletti, the wider implications of this kinetic aspect of Donatello's Crucifix have been considered only in passing by scholars and restorers alike, who have tended to focus primarily on the visual appearance of the effigy rather than on its multisensory material presence and mobility.Footnote 15

Figure 3. Donatello. Detail of crucified Christ. Image courtesy of Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali—Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, and Basilica of S. Croce, Florence, overseen by Direzione Centrale per l'Amministrazione del Fondo Edifici di Culto, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l'immigrazione, Ministero dell'Interno.

Figure 4. Donatello. Crucified Christ (arms partly folded). Image courtesy of Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali—Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, and Basilica of S. Croce, Florence, overseen by Direzione Centrale per l'Amministrazione del Fondo Edifici di Culto, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l'immigrazione, Ministero dell'Interno.

The physical incarnation of Christ's body was, of course, a central concern for premodern devotees.Footnote 16 Whether made manifest in the Host or depicted in painted or sculpted form, Christ's corporeal presence, actual as well as represented, was crucial both theologically and for contemporary devotional practices since it allowed the spiritual to be made materially present. Sculpting the crucified Christ in wood in particular had a long history throughout Europe, but it was only from the late thirteenth century onward that movable arms became a feature of some life-size variants, including Donatello's figure in S. Croce.Footnote 17

When the articulated joints of Donatello's Christ have been mentioned, this feature has usually been linked only fairly cursorily to the Europe-wide phenomenon known as the Depositio Crucis (Deposition of Christ), the Good Friday ritual that involved symbolically burying a cross, Host, or figure of the crucified Christ (the latter with arms folded down if sculpted and life-size) in a tomblike structure to reenact symbolically Christ's death, descent from the cross, and burial.Footnote 18 Like Christ himself, the items placed in the sepulcher on Good Friday would have been resurrected on Easter morning and displayed once again on the altar.Footnote 19 The sepulchers into which the items were placed could be permanent structures made of stone or wood. More usually, altar tables or temporary tentlike constructions, like the one seen in an early sixteenth-century German woodcut (fig. 5), took on the role of the tomb.Footnote 20 In the print, one sees the moment when actors portraying the women at Christ's tomb discover that the grave is empty, with one member of the group coming out of a tented structure representing Christ's sepulcher erected in the nave of a fairly imposing church. Throughout Europe, documents suggest that the most common type of Holy Week sepulcher was similarly temporary and ephemeral, whether located in a tent or under an altar table.Footnote 21

Figure 5. Hermann Bote (presumed compiler). Quem Quaeritis. Woodcut. Dil Ulenspiegel, pl. 13, 1515 Strasbourg edition. Image from Brooks, fig. 18.

Some more elaborate and permanent stone or wood structures survive, especially in England and Germanic regions. The apparent lack of such permanent tombs in Italy has led some scholars to suggest that Good Friday Depositio rituals involving life-size crucifixes must have been less common in the Italian peninsula in the late medieval and early modern period—although there is at least one example of a permanent sepulcher in Italy, a decorated chest used as a tomb for an articulated figure of Christ during Holy Week by a Perugian confraternity from at least 1375 onward.Footnote 22 There is no doubt, however, that such rituals regularly took place in this period in Italy even if ephemeral sepulchers were usually used. In Florence, this is attested to not only by the S. Croce Crucifix, but by other articulated effigies dating from the early fourteenth to the early sixteenth century. Florentine examples include a crucifix carved by 1333 for the Baptistery (fig. 6), another from the first decades of the fifteenth century modeled on Donatello's figure and originally in S. Felice in Piazza, and a third dated ca. 1500 in S. Trinità.Footnote 23

Figure 6. Giovanni Balduccio (attributed). Detail of crucified Christ, before 1333. Polychromed wood, 176 x 190 cm. Opera del Duomo (formerly in the Baptistery), Florence. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / Sailko.

Further confirmation that such practices took place in Florence comes from a commission given in 1491 (1490 Florentine calendar) to Andrea della Robbia (1435–1525) to carve a new (though now lost) wooden crucifix for Florence Cathedral with “limbs that appear to move” in order to be “shown to the populo [people] every year on Good Friday.”Footnote 24 Later sixteenth-century sources confirm that Depositio rituals involving “a large crucifix” were still taking place in the middle of the Duomo nearly a century later when the object was used for “the burial [ceremony] in the center of the church” on Good Friday.Footnote 25 Similarly, a 1482 inventory of Siena Cathedral lists a “large” wooden crucifix that was “used on Holy Friday.”Footnote 26 In fact, it is notable that more than half of the 126 examples gathered by Kamil Kopania in an important recent survey of the genre came from Italy, with thirty-one originating in Tuscany, including eighteen from Florence and its immediate environs.Footnote 27 All this suggests that Good Friday rituals involving crucifixes with movable limbs were at least as popular in Italy as in Northern Europe.

The documents related to the articulated crucifix in the Florence Duomo are unusual in stating how such an object was to be deployed within public devotional practices. But even this example provides only schematic information about the specific ways in which contemporary beholders engaged such a work. There is even less detailed information about how other articulated crucifixes were used, which poses a serious challenge to scholars interested in exploring the embodied history of such kinetic objects. But by focusing on one example—Donatello's Crucifix for S. Croce—and piecing together evidence from a wide range of sources, some specific to this particular object and others applicable to articulated crucifixes more generally, one can begin to appreciate the significance such works must have had for contemporary beholders, who would have encountered them as three-dimensional objects moving through space and over time and who would have engaged them through senses beyond that of vision alone.

THE CRUCIFIX'S ORIGINAL LOCATION IN S. CROCE

To understand how Donatello's Crucifix was originally engaged, one must first determine where it was originally displayed. Both its authorship and presence in S. Croce were first confirmed in a 1510 guide to Florence by Francesco Albertini (1469–after 1510), but exactly where the Crucifix was initially installed has either been noted by scholars only in very general terms or misunderstood.Footnote 28 This is undoubtedly related to the fact that no documents are known for the work's commission, even though it was the work's patron, rather than its relatively young maker, who was probably better known at the time. The early fifteenth-century documents may have been lost in the 1557 floods that swept through S. Croce's archives, although it is worth noting that no contracts survive for any of Donatello's other works in wood.Footnote 29 The Crucifix is, however, mentioned repeatedly in the first and second editions of Vasari's Lives (1550 and 1568) as being in a specific location that is likely to have been its original one. Of course, Vasari can be a notoriously unreliable source, but in the case of works in S. Croce, his statements should be taken seriously, given that he was in charge of the church's renovation from 1566 until his death nearly a decade later.Footnote 30 In fact, as will be discussed below, it was Vasari who moved the Crucifix to its current location in the Bardi di Vernio Chapel in the north transept of S. Croce (fig. 7). It is thus not surprising that it is Vasari who provides the most detailed information about its location before this final transfer.

Figure 7. Plan of S. Croce, Florence, before removal of the tramezzo in 1566. Plan modified with permission from Hall, Reference Hall1979, fig. 2.

It is also not surprising that the most complete description of the Crucifix's location before the renovation began appears the first time Vasari mentions the object in the 1550 Lives in the “Life of Taddeo Gaddi,” a fourteenth-century painter whose works in S. Croce include a fresco of Christ's Entombment (fig. 1). Slightly less information appears the second time the Crucifix is discussed in the “Life of Brunelleschi,” while by its third appearance in the “Life of Donatello,” the details are even briefer, given that readers have already been told twice before where it was located. All three references state that the Crucifix was found, as Vasari put it in the “Life of Donatello,” “sotto [beneath] the tramezzo [rood screen], next to a story [painted] by Taddeo Gaddi.”Footnote 31 The most detailed information is in the “Life” of this latter painter: “And beneath the tramezzo that divides the church, on the left hand, above the Crucifix of Donato, he painted in fresco a story of Saint Francis, of a miracle that he performed, [in which] a young boy fell from a terrace and died immediately, and Saint Francis appearing in the sky resuscitated him.”Footnote 32 A panel painted by Taddeo for the sacristy of S. Croce depicts the same Franciscan miracle described in Vasari's text, an event that took place in Rome when a boy from the noble Spini family fell from a great height, but was then miraculously brought back to life by the saint's apparition (fig. 8).Footnote 33

Figure 8. Taddeo Gaddi. Saint Francis Resuscitates a Boy Who Fell from a Terrace, ca. 1330–35. Tempera on wood, 48 x 43 cm. Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

All three artists’ lives refer repeatedly to the tramezzo, the massive rood screen erected across the fifth bay of S. Croce in the 1330s, which dominated the church's interior at the time Vasari published the first edition of the Lives in 1550. (See the modified versions of Marcia Hall's reconstructions of the basilica with the tramezzo in place [figs. 7 and 9].Footnote 34) In 1566, as part of Vasari's post-Tridentine renovation of the church, the entire structure was demolished, just two years before the second edition of the Lives was published in 1568.Footnote 35 Significantly, the location of Donatello's Crucifix does not change in the 1568 versions of the Lives of Taddeo, Brunelleschi, or Donatello. By this date, Vasari would have been intimately familiar with S. Croce's interior. Given that he made minor editorial changes to all three passages that mention Donatello's Crucifix in the second edition of the Lives, Vasari would presumably have corrected any errors about the work's original location at the same time.

Despite Vasari's clear and unchanging descriptions, there has been much confusion about the Crucifix's original location due to a misreading of key documents. This has been compounded by a lack of clarity about the tramezzo itself, especially for scholars writing before Hall's groundbreaking publications on the structure in the 1970s. For instance, H. W. Janson, in his monograph on Donatello, was unclear about the very existence of the tramezzo. This led him to conflate the chapel in the tramezzo mentioned by Vasari with a chapel once associated with the Barbigia family in the fourth bay of the north aisle, which, as discussed below, may have served as a temporary location for Donatello's Crucifix after the tramezzo's demolition in 1566.Footnote 36 Alessandro Conti likewise suggested that Donatello's Crucifix was originally in the former Barbigia Chapel. He further proposed that the Crucifix had been displayed before a frescoed backdrop in this chapel, whose fragments he attributed to Lorenzo di Bicci (ca. 1350–1427) or to his son, Bicci di Lorenzo (1373–1452).Footnote 37

Conti's proposal was revisited by Giovanni Giura in 2011 and has been supported most recently by Francesco Caglioti and Aldo Galli. Giura even created a photo montage showing Donatello's Crucifix surrounded by the fresco fragments, now firmly attributed to Bicci di Lorenzo.Footnote 38 Following Conti, all three scholars have proposed that Bicci di Lorenzo may have been involved in painting Donatello's effigy.Footnote 39 The suggestion that Donatello may have collaborated with painters when working in wood is intriguing and merits further consideration, especially since such collaborations are recorded later in the fifteenth century in the diary of Neri di Bicci (1419–91), son of Bicci di Lorenzo.Footnote 40 But a direct link between Donatello's Crucifix and the frescoes in the fourth bay of the north aisle seems highly unlikely.

There is no doubt about when the Crucifix was moved to its present position in the Bardi di Vernio Chapel since Vasari himself refers to the relocation in a letter of December 1571.Footnote 41 It is also clear that the tramezzo was demolished in 1566. In the approximately five intervening years, it is possible that Donatello's Crucifix was temporarily moved from a chapel in the tramezzo—specifically, a chapel in the left (north) half of the structure, as suggested by Vasari—into the fourth bay of the north aisle, once the site of the Barbigia Chapel. Such a move would have been a plausible response to Vasari's dismantling of the tramezzo since the fourth bay would have been the nearest one on the lay (west) side of the tramezzo in the north aisle to have remained unaffected by the demolition work taking place across the fifth bay of the nave.

A 1596 inventory of S. Croce suggests that the fourth bay in the north aisle was associated with the Barbigia before 1566. This text states that Donatello's Crucifix had been moved to the north transept from “the chapel of the Barbigia, where today is [found] the chapel of the Guidacci”—the latter chapel documented in the fourth bay of the north aisle in the later sixteenth century.Footnote 42 It is likely that the Barbigia's rights to the chapel were reassigned to the Guidacci during Vasari's renovation of S. Croce. This scenario is supported by the fact that the Barbigia, having risen to prominence from popolano (common) origins in the 1480s and then moved to the S. Croce quarter by the mid-1490s, may have already been on their way down again by the 1560s. In fact, by 1594, the male line had been extinguished and its palace on Piazza S. Croce transferred to another family.Footnote 43 The Barbigia Chapel must have been reallocated to the Guidacci by 1571, if not earlier, since by that date the space was being remodeled for the Guidacci and provided with a new altarpiece completed by Vasari in 1572.Footnote 44 Presumably, it was the refurbishment of this chapel that prompted the second relocation of Donatello's Crucifix before the end of 1571 to the Bardi di Vernio Chapel. There seems to have been a general clearout of the old Barbigia Chapel in this period, since the 1596 inventory of S. Croce notes that a painting of the Martyrdom of the Ten Thousand had also been moved from this chapel to that of the Bardi di Vernio.Footnote 45

The Crucifix's temporary location in the Barbigia Chapel shortly before it was transferred to the Guidacci seems to have led Francesco Bocchi (1548–1613/15) to assume in his 1591 guide to Florence that a member of the Barbigia family had been the work's original patron.Footnote 46 But an inventory of S. Croce compiled in 1439 makes it clear that the Barbigia had not, at that time, been allocated a chapel anywhere within the church.Footnote 47 The family therefore are unlikely to have been the patrons in the early fifteenth century of the chapel in the fourth bay of the north aisle (which was in any case unassigned in the 1439 inventory), even though it would eventually become first the Barbigia Chapel (possibly after the family moved to the S. Croce quarter in the 1490s) and then the Guidacci Chapel by 1571. As noted above, the Barbigia were still a humble popolano family when Donatello carved the Crucifix, which makes their patronage of the work even more unlikely.

Bocchi's mistake has given rise to misunderstandings ever since. For instance, in 1845, Filippo Moisé repeated Bocchi's assertion that the Crucifix was made for the Barbigia. He stated first that the family's chapel had been in the north aisle, then later that it had been in the tramezzo Footnote 48—a confusion also seen in Janson, as discussed above. Margrit Lisner, Laura Cavazzini, David Wilkins, and Harris have similarly assumed that the Crucifix's patron was a Barbigia despite a lack of supporting documentation, although all but Wilkins correctly note that the work was originally displayed in the tramezzo.Footnote 49 Most recently, Giura has claimed that the chapel in the north aisle's fourth bay—as noted above, unassigned in 1439, but associated in all sixteenth-century sources with the Barbigia before being transferred to the Guidacci—actually belonged to a branch of the Baroncelli family in the early fifteenth century. Giura then proposes that a member of Inghilese Baroncelli's branch was the patron of both Donatello's Crucifix and Bicci di Lorenzo's frescoes. The linguistic and geographic contortions supporting this suggestion are not convincing, not least since the 1439 inventory clearly locates Inghilese's chapel in the third rather than the fourth bay.Footnote 50 Whether the Baroncelli may have been the patrons of the chapel in the fourth bay in the early fifteenth century before it was assigned to the Barbigia after 1439 is in any case of tangential interest to the present argument, since other evidence supports Vasari's repeated assertion that Donatello's Crucifix was not originally in the north aisle, but rather in a chapel in the tramezzo.

As Hall first demonstrated, the tramezzo itself was a very imposing structure. Two stories high and half a bay deep, it bisected the interior of S. Croce and housed four chapels on its west front, facing the lay part of the church (figs. 7 and 9). Building on Hall's research, Andrea De Marchi has provided important new information about the tramezzo. Two of his key conclusions are, first, that the four tramezzo chapels were probably freestanding two-story structures linked by a series of grilles, and, second, that there was most likely a single (rather than a tripartite) central opening leading to the choirFootnote 51—although the view through this opening to the high altar would have been partially blocked by choir stalls and further grillwork. A panel of ca. 1467 by Fra Carnevale (active 1445–84) depicts a fictional rood screen with four chapels facing the laity, which gives a sense of how such a structure looked, even if many details do not conform to the proposed reconstruction of S. Croce's tramezzo (fig. 10).Footnote 52

Figure 9. Elevation of S. Croce, Florence, looking east toward the tramezzo before it was demolished in 1566, with Donatello's Crucifix shown to scale in the Rimbaldesi Chapel (second chapel from the left). Elevation modified with permission from Hall, Reference Hall1979, fig. 4.

Figure 10. Fra Carnevale (Bartolomeo di Giovanni Corradini). Detail of The Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple, ca. 1467. Oil and tempera on wood, 146.4 x 96.5 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

That Donatello's Crucifix was in one of the four tramezzo chapels is confirmed not only by Vasari, but also by evidence that predates the renovation of S. Croce. As discussed above, Vasari specified that the chapel housing Donatello's Crucifix had a fresco of a Franciscan miracle by Taddeo Gaddi and was on the lefthand side of the tramezzo. Significantly, it was on the left (north) half of the church that Taddeo seems to have painted most of his frescoes in the basilica.Footnote 53 The Crucifix's original location is also referred to twice in a text written in ca. 1537–47 by the so-called Anonimo Magliabechiano, well before Vasari removed the tramezzo in 1566. This document states that the Crucifix was “in Santa Croce on the side of the cemetery in the middle of the church” and, later, that “almost in the middle [of S. Croce], near the door to the cemetery . . . [was] a crucifix, life-size and in relief, by his [Donatello's] hand.”Footnote 54 There was, in fact, a cemetery along the north side of S. Croce accessed by a door just beyond the tramezzo in the sixth bay. Two other sixteenth-century sources written before the tramezzo's removal—one by Billi, the other by Gelli—likewise locate Donatello's Crucifix “in the middle” of the church.Footnote 55 More generally, the phrase “in the middle of the church” was used throughout Europe in this period to refer to rood screens and the chapels and objects attached to them.Footnote 56

Hall's reconstruction of the tramezzo suggests that the chapels most readily described as being in or near the middle of S. Croce would have been the ones flanking the structure's central opening. De Marchi's research supports such a reading since he has confirmed that the chapels on the far ends of the tramezzo (associated with the Asini and Foresta families) were attached to the walls of the basilica, a position difficult to describe as being in the “middle” of the church.Footnote 57 The chapel immediately to the right of the tramezzo's central opening, which belonged to Piero Baroncelli, is unlikely to have housed the Crucifix because it was dedicated to and contained images of Saint Martin, contradicting sources stating that Donatello's Crucifix was below a fresco of a Franciscan miracle.Footnote 58 The Piero Baroncelli Chapel also wasn't on the lefthand (north) side, as specified by both Vasari and the Anonimo Magliabechiano. The most likely original location for Donatello's Crucifix is therefore the first chapel to the left of the tramezzo's central entrance. Such an arrangement would have recalled so-called altars of the cross in Italy and especially north of the Alps that were likewise located in the center of churches, were often set within or in front of rood screens, and frequently housed sculpted crucifixes associated with Good Friday rituals.Footnote 59

COMMISSIONING THE CRUCIFIX

In the earliest version of the 1439 inventory of S. Croce, the chapel immediately to the left of the tramezzo's central entrance is listed as dedicated to Saint Peter and belonging to “Niccolò di Bocchino and descendants, who used to live in [the parish of] Santa Lucia de’ Magnioli.”Footnote 60 This inventory also records the tomb of “Nicholò di Bocchino” in the same chapel.Footnote 61 Both entries are undoubtedly references to a member of the Rimbaldesi, a patrician family whose most prominent member in the late medieval period was Niccolò di Bocchino (fl. 1346–78). Records show that Niccolò's father served twice in one of the Florentine republic's major offices of state in the 1310s. But it was Niccolò, a banker with strong anti-Guelf sympathies, who became a significant political player in Florence when he served in high office no fewer than twenty times between 1346 and 1378.Footnote 62

By 1352, the Rimbaldesi had moved their base from one location to another in the Oltr'arno district of Florence.Footnote 63 This may explain the reference in the 1439 inventory to the family's former home being in the parish of S. Lucia de’ Magnoli. The Rimbaldesi's new parish appears to have been S. Maria Sopr'arno, also known as S. Maria dei Bardi due to its connections with the powerful Bardi family. In a painting of the church's facade made in 1869 by Telemaco Signorini (1835–1901), just before it was demolished, one sees on the right side a Bardi family tomb with the arms of the Rimbaldesi carved over the doorway beside it, thereby making visible the parochial connections between the two families.Footnote 64

Like many other patrician families in this period, both the Bardi and Rimbaldesi were members of a more modest parish church close to their palazzo while also patronizing major mendicant churches like S. Croce. In the case of the Bardi, they maintained links to S. Maria Sopr'arno while simultaneously exercising their patronage rights over some of the most prestigious chapels in S. Croce, including the one immediately to the right of the Cappella Maggiore (High Altar Chapel). This chapel, founded by Ridolfo de’ Bardi, was dedicated to Saint Francis and frescoed in the 1320s with images of the saint's life by Giotto (1266–1337). Interestingly enough, the Franciscan miracle of the resurrected boy said by Vasari to have been painted by Taddeo above Donatello's Crucifix does not appear in the Bardi Chapel fresco cycle, which suggests that its depiction in the tramezzo chapel could have served as a kind of iconographic complement to Giotto's earlier series.

Given that the Rimbaldesi were co-parishioners of the Bardi in S. Maria Sopr'arno from at least 1352 onward, it is possible that Niccolò Rimbaldesi sought to obtain patronage rights in S. Croce sometime after this date. It was also in this period that the Rimbaldesi's prestige reached its zenith, which would tally well with a decision to acquire a chapel in S. Croce and commission a fresco from Giotto's most successful pupil, Taddeo Gaddi, in the decade and a half before the latter's death in 1366.Footnote 65 Perhaps less expected is the Rimbaldesi Chapel's dedication to Saint Peter according to the 1439 inventory. This saint has no obvious connection to the family, although it may be significant that the miracle depicted in Taddeo's fresco was set in Rome, which could be related in a very general way to the Franciscan order's links to the papacy. Given the tramezzo's completion in the 1330s, it is also possible that the chapel had a preexisting dedication to Saint Peter by the time the Rimbaldesi acquired patronage rights after 1352, perhaps as a result of the chapel's original patrons falling on hard times or even dying in the Black Death of 1348. By commissioning a new fresco from Taddeo, Niccolò would have adapted the chapel to his needs by aping both the Franciscan iconography and the Giottesque style of the much grander chapel beside the high altar patronized by his wealthier and more powerful Bardi neighbors. It is even possible that the fresco of a young boy's miraculous resurrection could be related to the death and/or birth of a child from the Rimbaldesi family. For the present argument, what is crucial is that, from an iconographic point of view, no other chapels in or near the tramezzo are better candidates for housing Donatello's Crucifix.Footnote 66

Whatever precise circumstances may have led Niccolò to commission a Franciscan miracle fresco in the mid-fourteenth century for a family chapel in the tramezzo dedicated to Saint Peter, by the 1439 inventory, the Rimbaldesi's brief moment in the political spotlight had come to an end. This was probably hastened by Niccolò's proscription in 1378 for his anti-Guelf tendencies, after which he never again held political office in Florence.Footnote 67 In the last known version of the 1439 inventory, it is in fact Niccolò's son, Giovanni, who is listed as the chapel's patron.Footnote 68 Unlike his father, Giovanni never held political office, nor did any of his sons or grandsons.

Since the Rimbaldesi appear to have been the patrons of the chapel in which Donatello's Crucifix was displayed up to 1566, it is plausible to suggest that it could well have been a member of this family who commissioned the work—and, given a date of ca. 1406–15 for the Crucifix, the most likely candidate would be Giovanni, Niccolò's son. However, without further documentation, which may no longer exist due to the floods that swept through S. Croce in the mid-sixteenth century, the suggestion that Donatello's Crucifix could have been commissioned by the Rimbaldesi for their tramezzo chapel remains speculative. In light of the decline in the family's fortunes after Niccolò's proscription in 1378, it is also problematic to assume that Niccolò's son, Giovanni, would have had the social, political, and financial wherewithal to undertake the project in the early fifteenth century.Footnote 69 The family could, however, have allowed its chapel to house the Crucifix on behalf of another patron altogether. That patron might not have been an individual, but rather a collective entity such as a confraternity, perhaps one with a link to the Rimbaldesi.

CONFRATERNAL CONNECTIONS

Disciplinati or flagellant confraternities were known for their intensely somatic forms of worship, as well as for their close links with mendicant orders. They were also particularly devoted to the Crucifixion. There is a growing literature on the devotional practices of confraternities and the roles their members played, either collectively or individually, as patrons of art and architecture.Footnote 70 But apart from brief studies of S. Croce's laudesi confraternity, whose members spent their time singing hymns to Mary rather than flagellating themselves, very little research has been carried out on any of the confraternities associated with S. Croce.Footnote 71 This is largely due, once again, to the floods that repeatedly swept through the convent, destroying most confraternity archives.

However, at least one and possibly two flagellant confraternities had been established in S. Croce by the time Donatello's Crucifix was carved. One was the Compagnia del Gesù, founded in 1332. The other was the Compagnia di S. Francesco del Martello, which claimed to have been established in 1400, although the date may have been symbolic, perhaps intended to suggest a link to the 1399 Bianchi penitential movement, given that its statutes only date to 1427.Footnote 72 The surviving documentation for both confraternities in the first half of the fifteenth century is in any case sparse, but it is possible that one of these groups—or individual members, including perhaps a Rimbaldesi—could have commissioned an articulated crucifix in this period.

This suggestion is supported indirectly by a crucifix commissioned by another flagellant confraternity, this one dedicated to Gesù Pellegrini and based in the Dominican church of S. Maria Novella in Florence. According to John Douglas Turner, the confraternity's statutes, written before 1453, refer to commissioning a “large” crucifix that was “like the one of the Company of the disciplinati in Santa Croce in Florence.”Footnote 73 The precise date, design, and even medium of this object, which no longer survives, are unclear. That it could have comprised a sculpted effigy is suggested by the fact that it may have been replaced in 1502 (1501 Florentine calendar) by a still-extant crucifix with movable arms by Baccio da Montelupo.Footnote 74 The pre-1453 document clearly implies that one of S. Croce's flagellant confraternities owned a crucifix by the mid-fifteenth century that was well enough known locally to serve as a prototype for other works. This could be a reference to an older, now lost crucifix that was used in the Bianchi penitential processions of 1399.Footnote 75 But it is also possible that the pre-1453 document refers to Donatello's Crucifix, the most important such object in S. Croce in the first half of the fifteenth century with possible links to a disciplinati confraternity. Which of the two such confraternities in S. Croce the pre-1453 document was referring to is unclear, although the name of the group in S. Maria Novella—Compagnia di Gesù Pellegrini—does echo that of the Compagnia del Gesù in S. Croce.

At the same time, a chapel with a Franciscan-themed fresco could have provided a very congenial setting for a crucifix commissioned by the Compagnia di S. Francesco. Located below Taddeo's fresco of a Franciscan resurrection miracle, Donatello's Crucifix would have encouraged typological connections between Christ and Saint Francis, as seen in Taddeo's panels for S. Croce's sacristy (fig. 8).Footnote 76 Given that the confraternity's oratory, like those of many other confraternities, was underground, in this case beneath a cloister south of the transept, the group would have benefited from being able to display in a chapel in the main body of the church a crucifix intended for public devotional rituals that will be discussed below.Footnote 77 If the confraternity really was founded in 1400 as claimed, this could have triggered a commission for a new crucifix relatively soon afterward to help the group make its mark on S. Croce's annual liturgical calendar.

On the other hand, S. Croce's more well-established flagellant society, the Compagnia del Gesù, was also known as the Compagnia del Gesù e della Croce, which suggests particular devotion to the Crucifixion. This confraternity's oratory—dedicated to the cross—was once again located underground, in this case in the vaults beneath the north transept.Footnote 78 Like the Compagnia di S. Francesco, the Compagnia del Gesù would have likewise benefited from having access to a chapel in the nave in order to perform public devotional rituals involving a crucifix. The confraternity's subterranean oratory beneath the north transept could also have been the site for the temporary sepulcher associated with the Depositio rituals, which are described in some sources as involving sepulchers on the north (or sinister) side of churches.Footnote 79 In light of this, it may be significant that the confraternity's oratory was located directly beneath the Bardi di Vernio Chapel, to which Donatello's Crucifix was moved in 1571 (fig. 7).

It was also in 1571 that a substantial altarpiece depicting the Deposition of Christ by Alessandro Allori (1535–1607) was installed in the Compagnia del Gesù's underground oratory.Footnote 80 Allori was himself a member of this confraternity, as was Vasari, which suggests a close familiarity with the needs of the group.Footnote 81 The Deposition would, of course, have been a particularly appropriate theme for the custodians of a crucifix originally made to be used in rituals reenacting Christ's Descent from the Cross. Indeed, the altarpiece could have served as a permanent painted substitute for these rituals once Donatello's Crucifix had been installed in 1571 in a raised tabernacle in the north transept above the confraternity's oratory, a position from which it was unlikely to have continued to participate actively in the rituals of Good Friday.

Without further documentation, it remains uncertain which of S. Croce's two flagellant confraternities might have been involved in commissioning, using, and then effectively decommissioning Donatello's Crucifix. The suggestion that a disciplinati confraternity in S. Maria Novella may have used Donatello's Crucifix as a model is intriguing. But there is no doubt that a number of other flagellant confraternities in Central Italy definitely did commission their own wooden crucifixes for use on Good Friday, including several with movable limbs. Examples are recorded from the first half of the fourteenth century onward—for instance, Good Friday rituals involving an articulated crucifix were associated with confraternities in 1339 and 1374 in Perugia, 1381 in Assisi, and 1419–1513 in Foligno, while in 1486, an amalgamation of four disciplinati groups staged very public performances in Rome on Good Friday involving an articulated crucifix.Footnote 82 Confraternal involvement in commissioning and using Donatello's Crucifix is thus a real possibility, albeit one that has hitherto not been considered.

THE BIANCHI OF 1399

Donatello's Crucifix may be linked not only to one of S. Croce's disciplinati confraternities, but also indirectly to the Bianchi penitential movement of 1399, whose adherents witnessed “many fine miracles” performed “by means of their crucifixes.”Footnote 83 The devotional practices of the Bianchi echo those of the disciplinati, especially their penchant for self-flagellation, public processions with crucifixes, and intense devotion to the body of Christ. While the Bianchi were generally welcomed by local authorities as they traveled through Central and Northern Italy dressed in bianchi (white) robes in groups numbering in the thousands, some localities, including Florence, Rome, and Venice, did have concerns.Footnote 84 In addition to the processions, the popular image cults that sprang up around the Bianchi, which were often centered on miraculous bleeding crucifixes, seem to have caused some worries in Florence and elsewhere.Footnote 85 Megan Holmes has suggested that the Florentine Franciscans were particularly wary of such unregulated image cults.Footnote 86 It is thus worth noting that it was the minister general of the Franciscan order who reported a charlatan being burned at the stake after modifying a wooden Bianchi crucifix so that fake blood appeared to spurt from its wounds.Footnote 87

Given how well known Bianchi crucifixes must have been in the years immediately following the events of 1399, it is striking that Donatello's Crucifix very clearly does not evoke in its design or material qualities the miraculous crucifixes associated with the movement, such as one displayed at the time in the Florentine baptistery (fig. 6), which in September 1399 was reported to have bled, to the great consternation of the citizenry.Footnote 88 This crucifix and others linked to the Bianchi movement conform to a readily identifiable—and, by 1399, decidedly old-fashioned—type, the crucifixo doloroso (dolorous crucifix), which harked back to late thirteenth-century models such as Giovanni Pisano's processional Crucifix in Siena's Opera del Duomo (fig. 11).Footnote 89 The type featured painfully emaciated and twisting figures of Christ with schematically rendered torsos, spindly arms and legs, and bodies often covered in bloody flagellation striations. Significantly, this type of crucifix had long-standing associations with the Franciscans’ great mendicant rivals, the Dominicans.Footnote 90

Figure 11. Giovanni Pisano. Processional Crucifix and supporting base, late thirteenth century. Polychromed wood with marble base, 71 cm (crucified Christ) and 114 cm (cross and base). Opera del Duomo, Siena. Scala / Art Resource, NY.

The contrasts between crucifixi dolorosi and Donatello's Crucifix, with its solid, anatomically convincing limbs and torso, its uncontorted pose, and its surface polychromy unmarked by signs of flagellation, could have been understood by early fifteenth-century beholders through the prism of the Bianchi movement that had swept through the Italian peninsula just a few years earlier.Footnote 91 Unlike the smaller processional crucifixes carried by the Bianchi through city streets and country lanes without close oversight from either civic or religious authorities, Donatello's weighty, life-size Crucifix was not made to be moved any great distance. While Donatello's supporting cross and those carried by the Bianchi both focused on the symbolism of wood as a material—a topic that will be further discussed below—they did so in very different ways: Donatello's cross had woody patterns painted on its surface, while the Bianchi favored crosses carved to look as though severed stumps of branches were sprouting from their surfaces, as seen in Pisano's Crucifix and examples associated with the Bianchi, as well as in contemporary drawings of the 1399 processions.Footnote 92 A number of Bianchi crosses and the effigies hanging on them also had a distinctive Y-shape, again like Pisano's Crucifix, as opposed to the T-shape of Donatello's cross and figure of Christ.

Most importantly, Donatello's Crucifix did not simply look different from the Bianchi crucifixes; it was also designed to be engaged in very different ways. Rather than giving rise to popular miracle cults featuring effusive outpourings of blood, Donatello's smooth-skinned and detachable figure of Christ, with arms that could be folded down along its sides, instead facilitated carefully choreographed tactile encounters with an anatomically convincing body marked not by multiple bloody signs of extreme violence, but instead by the five clearly delineated wounds associated with Saint Francis's stigmata, the focus of authorized Franciscan devotion, as Harris has discussed.Footnote 93 The particular qualities of Donatello's effigy and supporting cross were thus designed precisely for the kinds of annually recurring devotional practices associated with Holy Week that would have taken place inside the mother church of the Florentine Franciscans under the watchful eyes of friars who themselves would have actively participated in—indeed, may well have led—such rituals. Such close oversight of a very different type of crucifix would have been in stark contrast to the Bianchi's preference for old-fashioned, anatomically exaggerated, contorted, and often heavily scarred crucifixi dolorosi that gave rise to uncontrolled miracle cults in 1399. What precisely the licit devotional practices that took place in S. Croce involving Donatello's Crucifix comprised—and for which his design was particularly appropriate—will be discussed in the following section.

MULTISENSORY DEVOTION AND THE RITUALS OF GOOD FRIDAY

The specific qualities of Donatello's Crucifix as an object and how it may have been originally displayed are crucial for understanding its role in the rituals associated with Good Friday. A wide range of visual and documentary evidence suggests that smaller-scale crucifixes were usually set on top of altar tables. But given Vasari's assertion that Donatello's Crucifix was located beneath Taddeo's fresco, it seems unlikely that the Crucifix, with a supporting cross that was at least 2.5 meters tall, would have been placed on an altar table within a chapel that was itself only just over 5 meters high.Footnote 94 Nor could it have easily been hung on the chapel's back wall or from its vaults given that the figure alone, carved in dense pearwood, is estimated to weigh 30–36 kilogramsFootnote 95—and if one includes the supporting cross, the total weight of the object could easily double. It thus seems plausible that Donatello's Crucifix would have originally been displayed upright on the floor of the chapel, probably set into a fixed floor mount capable of supporting its weight.

Such an arrangement would have resembled a scene painted by Sassetta (active 1427–50) of Saint Thomas Aquinas praying before a sculpted crucifix positioned against the back wall of a chapel and set securely in a floor mount recalling Mount Golgotha in miniature (fig. 12). If there was an altar table in front of Donatello's Crucifix, then the Cardini Chapel in the Franciscan church of S. Francesco in Pescia (not far from Florence) is particularly relevant (fig. 13). This chapel, completed in the 1450s and associated with Brunelleschi's adopted son, Andrea di Lazzaro Cavalcanti (Il Buggiano) (1412–82), still has a wooden crucifix (albeit without movable arms) displayed between an altar table and a frescoed back wall, mounted once again in a miniature Mount Golgotha set into the floor.Footnote 96

Figure 12. Sassetta. Saint Thomas Aquinas Kneeling before a Crucifix, predella from Arte della Lana altarpiece, 1423. Tempera on panel, 25 x 28.8 cm. Pinacoteca Vaticana. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 13. Andrea Cavalcanti (il Buggiano) (design attributed). Cardini Chapel, 1450s. S. Francesco, Pescia. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / Sailko.

In light of these examples, one should reconsider depictions of similarly installed crucifixes, such as those painted by Fra Angelico and his workshop in the Dominican convent of S. Marco in Florence just a few decades after Donatello carved his Crucifix. In scene after scene, wooden crucifixes are shown securely wedged into mounds at ground level, sometimes with sacred figures grasping the lower part of the cross (fig. 14). William Hood has argued that these figures echo those depicted in Dominican prayer manuals, with both the manuals and the frescoes intended to guide devotees in how to use their bodies to achieve appropriately internalized forms of devotion.Footnote 97 Donatello's Crucifix suggests that these images may have served not only as visual aids for worshippers’ current and future meditations, but also as vivid reminders of past devotional experiences involving their own embodied interactions with actual three-dimensional sculpted objects during Holy Week.

Figure 14. Fra Angelico. Saint Dominic Embracing the Crucifix, 1440–41. Fresco, 340 x 206 cm. Convent of S. Marco, Florence. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / The Yorck Project.

What, exactly, did the somatic devotional practices that took place on Good Friday entail? Scholars agree that life-size Christ figures with movable limbs like Donatello's were used throughout Europe for the ritual known as the Depositio Crucis in which a Host, cross, or effigy of Christ was symbolically buried in a temporary sepulcher. What has not been considered explicitly is that Donatello's Crucifix and similar effigies may have also played a key role in the Veneration of the Cross. This ritual, which took place before the Depositio on Good Friday, has been traced back to the fourth century to S. Croce in Jerusalem. The custom transferred to the Roman Church in the late sixth or early seventh century and still takes place today in Roman Catholic Good Friday services. In contrast, it is only from about the ninth century onward that documents mention the Depositio, with a fair amount of local variation due to the fact that this ceremony, unlike the Veneration, was para-liturgical.

A description of exactly what happened on Good Friday in the early fifteenth century at S. Croce during the Veneration and Depositio has not yet come to light. But key components of both rituals are described in sources dating from the tenth through the sixteenth century, including in liturgical texts such as various incarnations of the Roman rite used in all Franciscan churches, descriptions of para-liturgical rituals, processionals from Florence Cathedral and other major churches, and an account of a papal visit to S. Maria Novella on Good Friday in 1419.Footnote 98 These sources broadly agree that for the Veneration, a shrouded crucifix was brought to the altar. Slowly, the veil was removed in three steps. Each partial unveiling was followed first by singing, then by collective prostrations. Once the crucifix was fully revealed, it was placed by two deacons on a cushion before the altar. The priest would remove his shoes, kneel, and then kiss the crucifix, with some documents suggesting that it was the lower part of the cross or the feet of the crucified Christ that would be embraced. The pope's 1419 Veneration of the Cross in S. Maria Novella did not involve a detachable effigy with movable arms, but does confirm the key features of the ritual: “the Holy Father went to the high altar of Santa Maria Novella . . . said the office of the Cross, and [then] unveiled it [the crucifix], as is usually done; he placed it at the feet of the altar, and went to sit in his seat, and had his shoes removed and went with great devotion to kiss the Cross and kneeled 3 times.”Footnote 99 This ritual may be alluded to indirectly in visual sources such as a Crucifixion fresco from the later 1430s by Andrea del Castagno (1423–57) for the hospital of S. Maria Nuova in Florence, in which Mary Magdalen kisses the cross just beneath Jesus's pierced feet (fig. 15).

Figure 15. Andrea del Castagno. Mary Magdalen Kissing the Base of the Crucifix, late 1430s. Fresco, 335 x 285 cm. Spedale di S. Maria Nuova, Florence. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

The Veneration continued with other members of the clergy likewise genuflecting and kissing the crucifix, followed by the laity, as described in sources such as Durandus's (ca. 1230–96) Pontificale: “the clergy and the people also adore and kiss the cross.”Footnote 100 Some documents make it clear that lay women as well as men could venerate the crucifix. A few sources suggest that all lay devotees may have performed the ritual outside the confines of the choir using a separate crucifix from the one used by the clergy. For example, in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century in Florence Cathedral, the clergy would “adore and kiss” one cross, while “another cross is placed outside the choir so the people can adore it, and another for the women.”Footnote 101 Similarly, according to an early thirteenth-century processional from Siena Cathedral that Joanna Cannon believes may reflect Dominican practices, the clergy venerated a cross at the high altar, while “separately men and women shall similarly adore other crosses in suitable places.”Footnote 102 That crucifixes may have been worshipped by the laity outside the choir—possibly with the clergy at the high altar using a separate crucifix—has interesting implications for Donatello's Crucifix. One could imagine the latter object being taken out of its floor mount in the Rimbaldesi Chapel, solemnly carried by two deacons through the central entrances to the tramezzo and choir to a specially prepared location in front of the high altar, where it was adored by clerics and laity alike (fig. 7). Alternatively, Donatello's Crucifix could have been presented to the laity for worship in front of its own chapel or, just a few steps away, by the central entrance of the tramezzo, while a separate, presumably smaller, crucifix was adored by the clergy at the high altar. The second scenario would have made handling Donatello's large and weighty Crucifix comparatively unproblematic and would have allowed easy access for women who, according to Donal Cooper, may otherwise not have been allowed to circulate beyond S. Croce's tramezzo in this period.Footnote 103 Venerating the Crucifix in this way would have conformed to Depositio rituals documented especially in Northern Europe as taking place on the lay side of a church by an altar of the cross or near the center of a rood screen.Footnote 104

In whichever location Donatello's Crucifix may have been adored, only after the Veneration had been concluded would it have been used in the Depositio rituals that followed. Unlike the Veneration, detailed information about the Depositio is harder to come by given its para-liturgical status. However, chants do survive from Florence Cathedral and elsewhere related to this ritual, including the so-called planctus Mariae (Marian laments), in which a layperson or cleric took on the role of the Virgin lamenting over the dead Christ.Footnote 105 These chants suggest that the procession to the sepulcher and symbolic burial of Christ's effigy during the Depositio rituals may have recalled actual funerary customs from the period.Footnote 106 The convincing anatomy of Donatello's weighty, life-sized figure of Christ—especially compared to earlier crucifixi dolorosi—would have emphasized the connections between the Depositio and contemporary mourning processions and burial rites.

Although sources confirm that the Depositio took place after the Veneration, they are not always clear about whether this happened before or after Communion. In either scenario, once the Veneration had been completed, the high altar, until then kept dark along with the rest of the church, would have been illuminated by candles and censed in preparation for distributing the Eucharist consecrated on the previous day. In this period, Communion was taken by most of the laity just once per year, with the preferred period being the Triduum from Maundy Thursday to Easter Sunday.Footnote 107 The Eucharist was not always offered at the high altar, but could be distributed from a secondary altar or the center of a rood screen.Footnote 108 Whether lay Communion took place in S. Croce at the high altar or on the west side of the tramezzo, it was only when the Depositio ritual began that acolytes would have removed the nails piercing the hands and feet of Donatello's effigy. After detaching the figure from its cross, the arms would have been folded to the sides and the figure carried in procession, probably on a bier, with singers chanting laments as if at a real funeral before burying the effigy in a temporary sepulcher. The supporting cross would have been placed back into its floor mount, left bare and empty for all to contemplate in the Rimbaldesi Chapel while awaiting the Christ figure's symbolic resurrection on Easter morning.

This reconstruction of how Donatello's Crucifix might have been handled on Good Friday provides a general overview, but only begins to hint at the intensely multisensory experiences contemporary beholders would have had throughout the rituals. Although S. Croce's clergy and friars would have been offered the Eucharist during daily Masses at the high altar, even these privileged men would have only had the opportunity actually to handle a three-dimensional, life-size effigy of Christ during Holy Week. For the laity who may have never entered the choir or taken Communion outside of the Easter Triduum, the act of kissing the Crucifix during the Veneration, combined with other experiences involving all five senses during the Depositio, must have been almost overwhelming.

Of all the senses, it was touch that was engaged most explicitly during the Veneration, which, as noted above, was performed in an unlit church interior. Without the benefit of candlelight, nonvisual senses must have played a much greater role than during normal services, when the laity would have focused primarily on seeing the elevated Host. Interestingly enough, in some painted images that may recall the Veneration, figures effectively serving as proxies for actual, living devotees standing before the painting sometimes appear more concerned with embracing, kissing and caressing the base of the cross or Jesus's wounded feet than with looking directly at Christ himself (fig. 15). This intimate annual tactile encounter with a life-size figure of Christ may explain the often harrowing details meticulously depicted on sculpted effigies, details that would only have been clearly visible to and, crucially, potentially palpable by beholders on Good Friday. These could include raised veins built up from gesso and picked out in pale green or purple paint; rough patches of raw flesh and deep bruises; and dried drips of thickly painted blood spurting from deep gashes, oozing from scored skin, and running along limbs, between toes, and through sweat-caked locks, the last sometimes made from wool or real strands of human hair.

In the case of Donatello's Crucifix, the effigy's polychromed surfaces concentrated less on overwhelming the beholder with a profusion of distressing injuries as seen in crucifixi dolorosi and instead focused on clearly delineating Christ's five main wounds by contrasting a flesh-colored base layer of smoothly polished paint with just a few—and, therefore, all the more visually striking—dark crimson-red rivulets of blood running out of the almost surgically precise incision between the ribs and the clean puncture wounds in the hands and feet (figs. 2, 3, and 4). But more than any single tangible detail or particular chromatic contrast, it was the anatomically convincing body itself carved by Donatello—especially convincing in comparison to earlier examples—that devotees would have registered with their hands and lips during the Good Friday rituals. That devotees really did handle such objects is implied by a payment made in 1451 to “refresh,” that is, repaint a crucifix used on Good Friday in Treviso.Footnote 109 Similar handling may have led to a crucifix on the high altar of a church in rural Umbria being described in the late sixteenth century as having “corroded feet.”Footnote 110 Although there are no obvious signs of such extreme wear on the painted surfaces of Donatello's effigy, the hinges at the shoulders do show evidence of having been opened and closed on numerous occasions.Footnote 111

Tactile engagements with articulated crucifixes are also suggested in probably the most widely diffused devotional text of the late medieval period, the Meditations on the Life of Christ. The earliest version has most recently been dated to the mid-fourteenth century and seems to have been composed in a Franciscan context.Footnote 112 Many scholars have linked the text's highly embodied descriptions of the life of Christ to increasingly empathetic forms of internalized meditation. However, as was the case for painted images of crucifixes set into floor mounts depicted by artists like Fra Angelico (fig. 14), it is possible that the text was also intended to remind readers of past somatic engagements with real effigies of the crucified Christ.

The Meditations opens the section on the Deposition by admonishing readers to

attend diligently and carefully to the manner of the Deposition. Two ladders are placed on opposite sides of the cross. Joseph [of Arimathea] ascends the ladder placed on the right side and tries to extract the nail from His hand. But this is difficult, because the long, heavy nail is fixed firmly into the wood. . . . Nicodemus extracts the other nail from the left hand. . . . [Then he] descends and comes to the nail in the feet. Joseph supported the body of the Lord: happy indeed is this Joseph, who deserves to embrace the body of the Lord! . . . The nail in the feet [having been] pulled out . . . all receive the body of the Lord and place it on the ground . . . [Mary] held His head on her lap . . . and the Magdalen held His feet. . . . [Mary] wiped His face and, kissing His mouth and eyes, wrapped His head in a [cloth]. . . . And then, all adoring Him on bended knees, and kissing His feet, they took Him and carried Him to the tomb. The sepulcher was near the place of the Crucifixion, as far as the length of our church or thereabouts, and they buried Him in it reverently.Footnote 113

The insistently tactile physicality of this scene is remarkable: the weight of the nails and the difficulty of extracting them from Christ's wounds; the heaviness of the descending body; the various witnesses who embrace, cloth, hold, carry, and even kiss the dead Savior. The passage's closing device of relating the sepulcher's location to the length of “our church” also hints at the connections contemporary beholders could have made among descriptions of the Crucifixion in texts like the Meditations, painted representations (both historic and ahistoric) of such scenes, and Holy Week rituals involving tactile engagements with actual sculpted objects like Donatello's Crucifix in their own churches. Although no known documents confirm where the Depositio sepulcher was located in S. Croce, textual and archaeological evidence from throughout Europe discussed above suggests that this could have been under the high altar or the altar of the Rimbaldesi Chapel, in a tentlike structure in front of the rood screen, or possibly in a subterranean oratory belonging to one of S. Croce's disciplinati confraternities. In any of these locations, the Crucifix would have encouraged contemporary devotees to think of the sacred geography of S. Croce as a physical representation of the holy sites of Jerusalem, much as the Veneration and subsequent Depositio were temporal representations of the events of Christ's Passion.

In a recent study focusing primarily on Northern European paintings of the Deposition, Amy Powell has suggested that sculpted effigies of the crucified Christ with movable arms highlighted the lifelessness of the figure and the fiction that underlies the mimetic claims of art itself by calling “attention to the fact that—as movable as it may be—the image is powerless to move itself.”Footnote 114 Unlike paintings of the Crucifixion, Deposition, or Burial of Christ, however, sculpted effigies of Christ must have appeared highly mimetic, even simulachral. Like the real dead Christ, who once rigor mortis had set in would have been stiff and only movable by another living being, a carved wooden effigy would have been equally rigid and passive. In this case, the obvious deadness of the object would have made it a more convincing reminder of or even substitute for its historic prototype. The living acolytes who handled effigies of the crucified Christ would have mimicked Joseph and Nicodemus, who had likewise grasped a similarly dead and rigid Christ. Meanwhile, devotees would have engaged with the wood of the cross and the stiff body of Christ himself much as Mary, the Magdalen, and later visionary saints had been described and depicted as doing in texts and images. In meditative writings on the historical Crucifixion, as well as in painted images of holy figures engaging with crucifixes, contemporary devotees would have been reminded of their own previous tactile encounters with actual sculpted crucifixes. Such sensory memories could thus have served as prompts for future internalized forms of meditation, as suggested above.

Although the emphasis thus far has been on devotees’ tactile engagements with objects like Donatello's Crucifix, it is worth remembering that taste, smell, and hearing were also implicated in Good Friday rituals involving sculpted crucifixes. Throughout the year, sermons would have been heard by the laity congregating in the naves of mendicant churches like S. Croce.Footnote 115 Raised pulpits facing into naves were often incorporated into rood screens in mendicant churches in the pre-Tridentine period to enable sermons to be heard clearly by the laity. But in the case of music, the laity in the nave would have probably heard only a dim, possibly indecipherable echo of the chanting experienced at first hand by the clergy in the choir, including those singing in the new polyphonic style.Footnote 116 Similarly, one must assume that while a faint smell of incense must have wafted through churches during liturgical services, the intense aroma released when the altar, priest, and Gospel book were censed during the liturgy would only have been fully sensible within the enclosed precincts of the choir.Footnote 117

On Good Friday, however, when the laity—or at least lay men—may have been allowed to approach the altar during religious services, they would have been much better positioned to smell the precious incense while partaking of their annual obligatory Communion. At this moment, which would normally occur after the tactile Veneration of the Cross, the smell of incense, the sound of singing, and, most importantly, the taste of the Eucharist itself—described as “so sweet” and “most flavorful” by Angela da FolignoFootnote 118—would have been intensely present in a multisensory combination unavailable at any other time of the year. For the Franciscan friars, these sensations would have been much more familiar thanks to the daily Masses they attended at the high altar, although they too would have only palpably engaged with Donatello's Crucifix during the Easter Triduum. Even if the laity at S. Croce did not venerate Donatello's Crucifix at the high altar, but instead did so on the lay side of the tramezzo, they would still have partaken of their annual Communion afterward and would have witnessed and possibly themselves participated in the Depositio rituals in which Christ's effigy was removed from the cross, placed on a feretrum (bier), and then carried in a solemn procession accompanied by mournful chanting to a temporary sepulcher.Footnote 119 A fifteenth-century processional from Florence Cathedral records the kinds of laments that might have been sung:

When he was being carried to the sepulcher,
she [Mary] followed him,
crying most bitterly,
and she was lamenting . . . saying:
Let me kiss the most holy body of my very sweet son.Footnote 120

The convincing anatomy of Donatello's effigy, especially in comparison to earlier crucifixi dolorosi, would have heightened the links between such laments and practices associated with actual funerals.

Contemporary beholders, particularly female devotees, often described the multisensory responses they had to both actual and imagined crucifixes. For instance, Angela da Foligno's multisensory vision cited at the beginning of this article, in which she imagined lying in the sepulcher hearing, smelling, and touching (as well as being touched by) Christ, although clearly influenced by the Crucifixion paintings and Passion reenactments she had witnessed, could also reflect physical encounters with actual crucifixes. Indeed, after touching and smelling the visibly dead, yet still sensually alive, Christ, she heard him say that he had held her tightly just “before I was laid in the sepulcher,” a possible conflation of the tactile Veneration of the Cross with the subsequent, equally tactile Depositio. In the case of Saint Alda (ca. 1249–ca. 1309), after meditating on a carved crucifix, she imagined tasting the blood flowing from the figure's side—an image that brings to mind the mouthlike wounds carved into figures like Donatello's Christ.Footnote 121 The crucial role played in both somatic and internalized forms of devotion by tangible art objects, whether painted or sculpted, is also suggested by Saint Rose of Viterbo (1233–51), who wished to have “an icon” of Christ so that “by holding your keepsake and image in my bodily arms and in my heart, I may often find comfort in it.”Footnote 122 Some contemporaries were clearly uneasy about such practices, as seen in the warning issued by an early fourteenth-century sculptor to “venerate Him [Christ in Heaven] and not this wood.”Footnote 123 But often, the physical allure of tangible objects would have allowed such distinctions to become blurred in the minds—and in the hands, mouths, noses, ears, and eyes—of many devotees.

THE WOOD OF THE CROSS

Although carved figures of Christ were clearly the focus of somatic devotional practices, the supporting crosses on which such effigies hung also merit attention. This is particularly true in the case of (re)movable figures like the one carved by Donatello. After Donatello's effigy of Christ had been buried in a temporary sepulcher, its supporting cross would have stood alone against the back wall of the Rimbaldesi Chapel until Easter morning, framed only by Taddeo's painted resurrection miracle. An early fourteenth-century panel by a Florentine artist depicting Christ's burial not only suggests how the Depositio might have concluded, but also highlights the material reality and symbolic power of the empty cross itself (fig. 16).Footnote 124 This painting depicts the iconography of the four woods—cedar, cypress, palm, and olive, all clearly differentiated by their coloring—which, according to the legend of the true cross, had been used to construct the four sections of the cross: the two main beams, the footrest, and the inscription.Footnote 125

Figure 16. Master of the Codex of Saint George. Lamentation and Burial of Christ, ca. 1330–35. Tempera on panel, 39.7 x 27 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Image courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters Collection, 1961.

In his influential book on German limewood sculpture, Baxandall demonstrated how the medium of wood could itself serve as a bearer of meaning, as well as how its physical properties influenced both what and how objects were carved.Footnote 126 In the case of crucifixes, especially those with movable arms like Donatello's, the choice of wood was undoubtedly due in large part to the fact that the material lent itself to being carved into life-size figures with extended arms—something much more difficult, as well as prohibitively expensive, to attempt in stone or metal. That these figures could be carried to a high altar or the front of a rood screen to be venerated, detached from their supporting crosses, have their arms lowered, and then be buried in temporary tombs was also only possible due to the physical properties of wood, a comparatively lightweight and not overly brittle material that could be polychromed to increase the sense of corporeal presence and verisimilitude.Footnote 127 Documents commissioning a crucifix to be carried in a procession in Florence in 1399 even state that it had to be light in weight.Footnote 128 Although this was presumably a much smaller object than Donatello's Crucifix, using wood for the latter would have made it much easier to transport even over short distances compared to a similarly sized work in stone or metal.

Equally important was the fact that the cross on which Jesus had died was itself made of wood supposedly derived from the tree of knowledge.Footnote 129 Contemporary devotees would have appreciated the significance of carving an effigy of Christ from the same material as the cross on which the real Savior had died. This would have been particularly true for the Franciscan friars of S. Croce for whom the iconography of wood was ever present. Meditation on the wood of Christ's cross was encouraged throughout the order through texts such as Bonaventure's Lignum Vitae (ca. 1257–74) or Ubertino da Casale's Arbor Vitae Crucifixae Iesus (1305). In S. Croce, in particular, woody reminders were everywhere, first and foremost in the very name of the church, dedicated to the holy cross and, since the mid-twelfth century, proud custodian of a supposed relic of the true cross.Footnote 130 In the refectory, the friars would have been reminded on a daily basis of the arboreal metaphors of writers like Bonaventure thanks to an enormous fresco of the tree of life with a crucified Christ in the center painted by none other than Taddeo Gaddi. Just a decade or so before Donatello carved his Crucifix, Taddeo's son, Agnolo, painted episodes from the legend of the true cross in S. Croce's chancel. One of the scenes even shows the queen of Sheba kneeling to worship a wooden beam that would one day become Christ's cross. Such images and iconographies are found far and wide in Franciscan art, perhaps most memorably in Piero della Francesca's slightly later true cross fresco cycle in S. Francesco in Arezzo, where wood is once again repeatedly worshipped and worshipfully depicted (fig. 17).Footnote 131

Figure 17. Piero della Francesca. Burial of Christ's Cross, 1452–66. Fresco, 356 x 190 cm. S. Francesco, Arezzo. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / The Yorck Project.

The importance of wood as a signifier is also evident in Donatello's Crucifix. The restoration campaign completed in 2004 sensationally revealed that beneath layers of overpaint, the supporting cross itself was originally polychromed with a woody pattern of whorls and tree rings (fig. 18).Footnote 132 This unusual feature self-referentially calls attention to the cross's own materiality even if, ironically, it does so by obliterating the wooden support itself beneath a layer of paint. Its highly schematic, almost cartoonlike patterns recall both Agnolo's and Piero's depictions of the wood of the cross and likewise would have been visible from a distance. Such visual strategies are also seen in glazed terra-cotta altarpieces of the Lamentation below an empty cross made in the first half of the sixteenth century by a follower of the della Robbia for S. Francesco in Villafranca in Lunigiana and for the Franciscan sanctuary of La Verna (fig. 19).Footnote 133 Here, the cross, which is permanently empty and thus always fully exposed, insistently reminds viewers of the materiality of wood through yet another highly schematic depiction of whorls and tree rings, even though, unlike Donatello's cross, there is now no wood whatsoever beneath the glazed surfaces. As previously noted, Donatello's strategy of painting fictive woody patterns on the cross to highlight the material's symbolic significance is very different from the Bianchi's preference for crosses like Giovanni Pisano's that emphasize woodiness by carving stumps of branches on their surfaces (fig. 11), even if both strategies were ultimately used for the same iconographic end.

Figure 18. Donatello. Detail of cross. Image courtesy of Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, and Basilica of S. Croce, Florence, overseen by the Direzione Centrale per l'Amministrazione del Fondo Edifici di Culto, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l'immigrazione, Ministero dell'Interno.

Figure 19. Santi Buglioni (attributed). Lamentation, ca. 1532. Glazed terra-cotta. Cappella del Conte di Montedoglio in the Sanctuary of La Verna. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / Accurimbono.

CONCLUSION: FROM OBJECT TO IMAGE

The gleaming gilded vessels on the altar and the candles that were symbolically lit after the Veneration, the chalky feel of the cross's painted wooden surface, the smooth polished skin and palpable drops of congealed blood painted on Christ's skin, the sound of the choir's polyphonic singing and of the mourners’ laments, the heady scent of incense, and the sweet taste of the Eucharist: these were all experienced by the laity only—or at least most intensely—during the rituals associated with Good Friday. During these almost overwhelming sensory experiences, Donatello's Crucifix served as a symbolic marker and the embodied focal point of both spiritual and somatic devotion within a specific early fifteenth-century Florentine and Franciscan context. Unlike the static displays of wooden crucifixes under unwavering artificial light that one sees today in churches and especially in museums and photographic reproductions, late medieval and early modern beholders’ engagement with such works encompassed ever-shifting spatial, temporal, and sensory effects. By considering the specific and the general forms of embodied materiality present in articulated crucifixes like Donatello's, one can begin to gain a better understanding of their original multisensory reception, which was not limited to vision alone and which allowed ideas, beliefs, and desires formulated in the mind to be made manifest in material form in multisensory ways.

However, by the mid-nineteenth century, if not earlier, the woody patterns on Donatello's cross had been painted over and the joints of the figure of Christ had been nailed into a permanent arms-open position. More significantly, already by 1566, the Crucifix had been removed from the multisensory realm of devotion for which it had been made to that of the ocularcentric regime of art by Vasari himself when he tore down the tramezzo that had provided the work with its original physical and devotional context. In the end, Donatello's contadino Christ was perhaps for Vasari simply too easy to handle roughly, even if (or perhaps precisely because) other crucifixes by less well-known or even anonymous carvers continued to be actively worshiped well into the sixteenth century.Footnote 134 In his Lives, Vasari sought retroactively (and anachronistically) to reposition favored earlier artists like Donatello from the realm of the Gothic craftsman to that of the self-consciously modern artist, even if to the Crucifix's original early fifteenth-century beholders, the patron may have been of greater interest than the maker.Footnote 135 Vasari could thus presumably not countenance one of his newly anointed heroes trafficking in base, peasantlike materiality, with all the associated devotional practices this entailed. Unlike Brunelleschi's Crucifix, which must have seemed more capable of maintaining a decorous distance between image and viewer by remaining firmly fixed to its supporting cross high up on a pier in S. Maria Novella, Donatello's Crucifix in S. Croce was an all too evidently palpable object intended to appeal to the hands of beholders as much as to their eyes. The ocularcentric focus of Vasari's new and improved basilica as a whole was made explicit by the Operai of S. Croce when they reported on the removal of the tramezzo to Cosimo de’ Medici: the church now “would be without a doubt more beautiful and delightful to the eye.”Footnote 136

When Vasari undertook the renovation of S. Croce a decade and a half after publishing the first edition of the Lives in 1550, he seems to have seized the opportunity to elevate and reframe Donatello's Crucifix from its original early fifteenth-century devotional context in the tramezzo, since it was Vasari who designed a new gilded tabernacle for the work in 1571 when it was moved to a raised position in the Bardi di Vernio Chapel.Footnote 137 Today, even without Vasari's now lost (re)framing tabernacle, Donatello's Crucifix remains far removed from the multisensory realm of somatic devotion in which it once played such an important role—even if, ironically, the Crucifix is now visually more accessible than ever before, thanks to tourists armed with smartphones and restorers deploying equipment that can reveal the effigy's very core through X-ray technology.Footnote 138 Only by taking the Crucifix's material and multisensory qualities seriously and considering the implications that follow, both physical and metaphysical, can one begin to appreciate how pre-Vasarian beholders would have engaged such an object using all their bodily senses, rather than relying on vision alone.

Footnotes

Many thanks to colleagues who invited me to present parts of this article at the Victoria and Albert Museum, University of York, Renaissance Society of America conference, and College Art Association conference. I am also grateful for the helpful suggestions made by Andrew Chen, Peter Dent, Ena Giurescu Heller, Sarah McNamer, Michèle Mulchahey, Elizabeth Pilliod, Peter Stiberc, and Renaissance Quarterly's reviewers, and to Marcia Hall for kindly allowing me to rework two of her drawings. This article is dedicated to my parents, R. Stanley Johnson and Ursula Gustorf Johnson.

1 Translated in Frugoni, 163n76. All other translations are the author's except where otherwise noted.

2 See, for instance, Morrison; Lunghi, Reference Lunghi2000, 13–38. For Taddeo's fresco, see Long; Dent, Reference Dent, Cooper and Leino2007.

3 On art objects as agents, see Gell. In the present article, “crucifix” refers to a cross with a figure of the crucified Christ, whether painted on panel or sculpted. A crucifix with movable eyes was being used during Holy Week by a Folignese confraternity by 1419, though whether such objects existed in Foligno in the late thirteenth century is unclear: Bernardi, Reference Bernardi2006, 11–12. In Perugia, Siena, Florence, and other Central Italian towns, sculpted crucifixes were in use by the 1330s, with an example in the town of San Miniato dating to as early as 1270–80: Kopania, 47–48, 84–85.

4 For recent ocularcentric analyses of crucifixes, see Lipton; Newbigin, Reference Newbigin2007.

5 The older literature on Donatello's Crucifix is summarized in Janson, 7–12. For key publications since Janson, see Lisner, Reference Lisner1968; Lisner, Reference Lisner1970, 54–56; Paoletti; Lalli et al.; Stiberc; Caglioti, Reference Caglioti2008a and 2008b; Cavazzini; Harris, Reference Harris2010, 1:97–205; Harris, Reference Harris, Harris, Nethersole and Rumberg2011; Giura; Caglioti, Reference Caglioti, Nante and Mercalli2015; Caglioti et al., 20–21, 44; Galli.

6 On the impact of reproductive images on the study of Italian Renaissance sculpture, see Johnson.

7 “Vita di Donato, scultore fiorentino,” in Vasari, 3:204–06 (1550 text). After Billi's pre-1530 text, the Crucifix is next mentioned by the Anonimo Magliabechiano, then Giovan Battista Gelli (1498–1563) who, like Vasari, reported that Donatello's Christ “resembled the body of a peasant.” Translated in Janson, 7–8. The Anonimo Magliabechiano has been identified as Bernardo Vecchietti (1514–90) and his codex dated ca. 1537–47 by Wierda. Janson dated Gelli's text ca. 1550, but it may have been written in ca. 1551–63: Baldassarri, 304n23.

8 On the figures’ supposedly “Gothic” versus “Renaissance” characteristics, see Janson, 11–12. Such terminology is associated with Heinrich Wölfflin, on which see Summers. For more recent examples of this type of analysis, see Tarr, 116; Cavazzini; Caglioti, Reference Caglioti, Nante and Mercalli2015, 39–41; Galli.

9 P. Rubin, 341–47.

11 Baxandall, Reference Baxandall1972, 29–108.

12 First noted by Kauffmann, 19.

13 Paoletti, 87 (fig. 3); Lalli et al., 16 (fig. 5).

14 Email communication from Peter Stiberc.

15 Paoletti.

16 See, for instance, Steinberg; M. Rubin; Dent, Reference Dent2005; Harris, Reference Harris2010, 1:136–71; Wright.

17 On crucifixes with movable arms, see esp. Taubert and Taubert; Taubert, 38–50; Rampold; Tripps, Reference Tripps1998, 114–58; Lunghi, Reference Lunghi2000, 102–08, 121–30, 139–44; T. Jung; Tripps, Reference Tripps, Leuschner and Hesslinger2009; Kopania; Powell, 81–101; Bino.

18 The Depositio is discussed at length below.

19 A Resurrection painting or sculpture was sometimes put on the altar on Easter morning in place of the effigy buried on Good Friday: Kroesen, 168–69; Kopania, 50; Powell, 84–89.

20 For the woodcut, see Brooks, 65 (fig. 18); Kroesen, 58.

21 Young, 1:122–48, 1:239–335, 2:507–13; Sheingorn, 23–24, 33–45; Kroesen, 45–116; Plum, 361–66.

22 Rihouet, 299–314.

23 The crucifix in S. Felice is now in the Oratorio di San Sebastiano (a.k.a., dei Bini), Florence, while the crucifix originally in Florence's Baptistery has been attributed to Giovanni di Balduccio, among others. For these and other articulated crucifixes, both extant and lost, from Florence and its environs, see Taubert and Taubert, 80–91; Lisner, Reference Lisner1970, 22–23, 57–58; Becherucci and Brunetti, 231–32; Neri Lusanna; Kalina, 84; Kopania, 38, 88, 262–65, 286; Holmes, 192–94; Bellandi.

24 Taubert and Taubert, 90–91, 101–02.

25 Carl, 398 (doc. 3).

26 Taubert and Taubert, 91.

27 Kopania, 37–38, 260–73, 282–83, 285–87. For examples in Umbria and elsewhere in Italy, see Lunghi, Reference Lunghi2000, 102–08, 121–30, 138–44; Rihouet, 299–314.

28 Albertini, 98. All subsequent premodern sources name Donatello as the Crucifix's maker. For recent exceptions, see Harris, Reference Harris2010, 1:105–06; Galli, 162.

29 Wilkins, 125. For the floods in S. Croce in 1333 and 1557, see Moisè, 420, 422; Weissman, 230; Wilson, 89; Pilliod, Reference Pilliod2001, 133.

30 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 16–32.

31 Vasari, 3:204 (1550 text). De Marchi, 2011, 57, interprets sotto as referring to a chapel further down the nave from the tramezzo. But evidence discussed below about S. Croce's geography suggests sotto here means “beneath” the actual tramezzo.

32 Vasari, 2:204–05 (1550 text).

33 Ladis, 124.

34 For Hall's original plan and elevation, see Hall, Reference Hall1979, 197 (fig. 2) and 199 (fig. 4). In figure 7, Hall's plan has been renumbered and a doorway added to chapel no. 10, while in figure 9, Donatello's Crucifix has been incorporated into the second chapel from the left. Other changes to the elevation are based on De Marchi's research: the central section has been changed from a tripartite to a single opening; gabled roofs above the tramezzo's middle bays have been removed; and the Maestro di Figline's Crucifixion panel is now above the central opening, flanked by two panels (probably a maestà and a Franciscan image). De Marchi, 2009, 611–14; De Marchi, 2011, 33–38, 52–53. See also Cooper, Reference Cooper2013, 706–07. On S. Croce's tramezzo, see Hall, Reference Hall1970, Reference Hall1974, and 1979; Giurescu, 201–13. For recent studies of rood screens in general, see J. Jung, Reference Jung2013; Hall, Reference Hall2015.

35 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 17–18.

36 Janson, 9.

37 Conti.

38 Giura, esp. 78 (fig. 8); Caglioti, Reference Caglioti, Nante and Mercalli2015, 40–44, esp. 41 (fig. 2); Galli, 162. Giura's photo montage is unclear about the relation of the Crucifix and frescoes to the altar below, while the scale of the painted figures of Isaiah and David seems disproportionately large. He also does not make a convincing case for linking Donatello's Crucifix to the chapel's possible dedicatee, Beato Gherardo da Villamagna.

39 Giura, 80, 105n45; Caglioti, Reference Caglioti, Nante and Mercalli2015, 60n4; Galli, 162.

40 Santi.

41 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 145–46, 182–83 (doc. 14).

42 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 144–47, esp. 145n12 and 200 (fig. 6).

43 Giura, 77, 103n27.

44 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 144–47.

45 Giura, 76, 103n25.

46 Bocchi, 159.

47 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 145, 153–67 (doc. 1).

48 Moisè, 177, 187n1.

49 Lisner, Reference Lisner1968, 115; Lisner, Reference Lisner1970, 54; Cavazzini, 164; Wilkins, 136, 144n47; Harris, Reference Harris2010, 1:104–05.

50 In the 1439 inventory, Inghilese's chapel “is allato alla porta [next to the door] leading to Via delle Pinzochere,” with both the door (later closed by Vasari) and chapel located in the north aisle's third bay in early sources. Hall, Reference Hall1979, 147, 159 (fig. 2). Giura interprets this instead as referring to a chapel in the next (fourth) bay of the north aisle: Giura, 74–80, 94–95. De Marchi, 2011, 57, supports Giura's suggestion, but Caglioti and Galli are unconvinced: Caglioti, Reference Caglioti, Nante and Mercalli2015, 60n4; Galli, 162.

51 De Marchi, 2011, 33–38.

52 Christiansen, 258–66; Cannon, 40.

53 De Marchi, 2011, 47.

54 Giura, 75. On the Anonimo Magliabechiano, see Wierda.

55 Translated in Janson, 7–8. Billi's text was written before 1530. For the dating of Gelli's text, see note 7.

56 Oswald; Cooper, Reference Cooper2000, 1:33, 130, 227; Cooper, Reference Cooper2001, 45–46.

57 De Marchi, 2011, 34–38, esp. 38 (fig. 8). Giura reads “middle” as referring to the north aisle's fourth bay, but this bay would not have appeared centered within the north flank when the tramezzo was in place. Giura, 75.

58 On the Piero Baroncelli chapel, see Hall, Reference Hall1974.

59 Brooks, 56; Schlegel, 28; Fisher; J. Jung, Reference Jung2000, 631–34, 651n22.

60 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 158.

61 Pines, 631 (cat. no. 136).

62 For offices held by the Rimbaldesi, see Herlihy et al. On the family, see also Anuidi, 427; Brucker, 68–69, 177, 191, 198–99, 205, 208, 254n27, 341; Giurescu, 206–07; Porta Casucci, 203n30.

63 Porta Casucci, 203n30.

64 The tomb, now in the Bargello Museum, Florence, was made for Andrea de’ Bardi in 1342. For Signorini's painting, see https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di_Santa_Maria_dei_Bardi.

65 This suggests a possible date of ca. 1352–66 for Taddeo's lost tramezzo fresco.

66 This includes a chapel dedicated to Beato Gherardo da Villamagna suggested by Giura, but the argument is not very convincing: Giura, 83–94.

67 Brucker, 199n22.

68 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 159.

69 The Rimbaldesi don't appear in Florence's 1427 catasto (tax record) so their wealth in this period is unclear.

70 Recent publications include Terpstra; Wisch and Ahl; Chen.

71 On the laudesi, see Wilson, 89–91.

72 On the sometimes tenuous dates of origin of confraternities and associated crucifixes around 1399–1400, see Bornstein, 192–99, esp. 198n33; Holmes, 48–49.

73 Turner, 222 (doc. 7c). See also Kopania, 167.

74 Turner, 66–68, 119–22, 221–22 (doc. 7).

75 In 1553, Ascanio Condivi (1525–74) mentioned a crucifix in S. Croce associated with the 1399 Bianchi movement, which he conflated with the Black Death of 1348: Holmes, 155–56. Could Condivi have been referring to a crucifix used by the Bianchi-inspired Compagnia di S. Lorenzino formed in 1399 in the quarter (rather than church) of S. Croce? See Weissman, 73–74. There could also be confusion with a crucifix carried in 1399 by the Bianchi from the town of Santa Croce in Valdarno: Morton, 131.

76 Ladis, 114–26.

77 On this confraternity and on Florentine confraternities’ subterranean oratories in general, see Moisè, 415–31; Hall, Reference Hall1979, 164; Henderson, 81n34, 454–55; Sebregondi, esp. 19 (fig. 7), 41–42, 61–62.

78 On this confraternity and its oratory, see Moisè, 421–22; Henderson, 455; Hall, Reference Hall1979, 165–66; Sebregondi, 13–14, 19 (fig. 7).

79 On subterranean and north-side sepulchers, see Young, 1:137–39, 142–43, 2:509–12; Ousterhout, 317; Sheingorn, 34; Pilliod, Reference Pilliod1989, 125–60; Kroesen, 57–58, 61; Ogden, 41.

80 Pilliod, Reference Pilliod1989, 125–60.

81 Pilliod, Reference Pilliod1992, 728; Pilliod, Reference Pilliod2001, 98.

82 Newbigin, Reference Newbigin, Wisch and Ahl2000, 174–75; Bernardi, Reference Bernardi2006, 8–12; Kopania, 44–50; Cannon, 170. See also Bino, 288.

83 Translated in Bornstein, 158. On Bianchi crucifixes, see Morton, 181–82, 150–59; Bornstein, 145–61; Holmes, 47–49, 152–56, 174, 192–94.

84 Bornstein, 162–87; Jansen, 48–54.

85 Morton, 150–59; Bornstein, 165–67.

86 Holmes, 90–91.

87 Morton, 150–54; Holmes, 174.

88 Holmes, 192–94, 323n108. See also Becherucci and Brunetti, 231–32; Neri Lusanna; Kalina, 84; Kopania, 263.

89 On Pisano's Crucifix, see Seidel, 82–87.

90 On crucifixi dolorosi, see De Francovich; Lunghi, Reference Lunghi2000, 65–90; Tomasi; Kalina.

91 Harris has compared crucifixi dolorosi to Donatello's Crucifix in formal terms, but not in relation to the Bianchi movement: Harris, Reference Harris2010, 1:155–62.

92 For such a drawing, see Holmes, 48 (fig. 31).

93 Harris, Reference Harris2010, 1:184–90.

94 The height of the cross today is 4.82 m, but 2.245 m of this is a later addition at the base: see Lalli et al., 27. The estimated height of the chapel is based on annotations in Hall, Reference Hall1974, 333 (fig. 16).

95 Email communication from Peter Stiberc.

96 Paoletti, 89; Bulgarelli. Pisano's Crucifix (fig. 11) has a similar mount.

97 Hood.

98 For the Florentine processionals, see Ghisi; Corbin, 115–16; Cattin; La Salle, 171–200; Toker, esp. 196–97, 269–70. For the papal visit, see Corazza, 260. The description that follows is compiled from these texts and the following sources on the Depositio and Veneration rituals: Lippe, 1:170–73; Brooks; Young, 1:112–48, 2:507–13; Gschwend; Hardison, 128–38; Taubert and Taubert, 91–121; Parker; Belting, Reference Belting1981, 234–42; Bernardi, Reference Bernardi1991, 89–121; Tripps, Reference Tripps1998, 114–58; Kroesen, 147–65; Ogden, 39–71; A. Thompson, 322–26; T. Jung, 57–68; Plum; Kopania, 120–62; Powell, 45–68; Cannon, 163–73; Tripps, Reference Tripps2016.

99 Corazza, 260.

100 Translated in La Salle, 56. See also Plum, 129–31.

101 Translated in Toker, 52, 196.

102 Translated in Cannon, 172–73. On women's participation in these rituals and on venerating more than one crucifix, see La Salle, 9–10, 60–62, 236–38; A. Thompson, 324–25; Toker, 52; Cannon, 166–73.

103 Cooper, Reference Cooper2000, 1:78–79.

104 Young, 2:510; Taubert and Taubert, 92–93; Fisher, 51.

105 Tripps, Reference Tripps2016, 16–19, suggests that Marian statues were sometimes used instead of living participants. On the planctus and other chants, see also Young, 1:496–513; Ghisi; Corbin, esp. 115–16; Cattin; La Salle, 133–368; Plum, 367–68.

106 La Salle, 133–368, esp. 171–200.

107 Browe, 71–92; Cooper, Reference Cooper2000, 1:159; Burnett, 80–96.

108 Jungmann, 506; Hall, Reference Hall, Bertellli and Ramakus1978, 216; Cooper, Reference Cooper2000, 1:81, 158–59; Fisher, 54; Burnett, 80–96; Cannon, 51.

109 Translated in Schulz, 319, 331n47.

111 Email communication from Peter Stiberc.

112 Debates about the dating and authorship of the Mediations do not materially affect the arguments presented here, but for a recent summary, see McNamer.

113 Translated in Ragusa and Green, 341–44.

114 Powell, 81.

115 Meersseman, 2:939–40.

116 Howard and Moretti; Dean.

117 On incense, see Dugan, 24–41.

118 Translated in Mazzoni, 61.

119 On the possible participation of lay men and women, see La Salle, 157–69, 176–77.

120 Translated in La Salle, 180–83.

121 Bennett, 7; Frugoni, 137.

122 Translated in Frugoni, 139.

123 Translated in Cooper, Reference Cooper, Shepherd and Maniura2006, 48.

124 Kanter, 100–05.

125 Baert, 364–66; Ryan, 278; Harris, Reference Harris2010, 1:197.

126 Baxandall, Reference Baxandall1980.

127 On the wood used for crucifixes, see Neilson, 224–28. The pearwood used for Donatello's figure of Christ is relatively uncommon, though interestingly a crucifix also attributed to him in the Franciscan convent of Bosco ai Frati was carved from the same material. Lalli et al., 37n18; Caglioti, Reference Caglioti2008a.

128 Lisner, Reference Lisner1970, 11.

129 Ryan, 277–78.

130 On wood relics, images, objects, and texts associated with S. Croce, see Baert, 350–84; N. Thompson; Harris, Reference Harris2010, 1:190–99.

131 On Agnolo's and Piero's frescoes, see Baert, 350–73, 392–400.

132 Lalli et al., 27–32; Stiberc, 390; Harris, Reference Harris2010, 1:103, 190–205.

133 Gentilini, 337. For the example in Villafranca, see: library.artstor.org/asset/FRICKIG_10310496364.

134 On the ongoing popularity of crucifixes and other image cults in Florence in the Cinquecento, see Holmes, 47–59.

135 Holmes, and Garnett and Rosser, highlight the dangers of assuming a clean break—rather than inevitable entanglement—between what Belting and, more recently, Nagel and Wood have called the era of the sacred image made by craftsmen and that of the aesthetic work of art made by artists. Belting, Reference Belting1990; Nagel and Wood; Garnett and Rosser, 23–34; Holmes, 160–61.

136 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 169.

137 Hall, Reference Hall1979, 182–83.

138 Lalli et al., 22 (figs. 13–15).

References

Albertini, Francesco. Memoriale di molte statue et picture sono nella inclyta cipta di Florentia di Francesco Albertini (1510). Ed. De Boer, Waldemar H. and Kwakkelstein, Michael W.. Florence: Centro Di, 2010.Google Scholar
Anuidi, Odoardo. “Prove di nobilità del Conte Giovan Paolo Rimbaldesi.” Rivista del Collegio Araldico 14 (1916): 426–31.Google Scholar
Baert, Barbara. A Heritage of Holy Wood: The Legend of the True Cross in Text and Image. Trans. Preedy, Lee. Leiden: Brill, 2004.Google Scholar
Baldassarri, Stefano U. “Lorenzo Ghiberti e Giovan Battista Gelli tra autobiografia e biografia.” Viator 43 (2012): 299313.Google Scholar
Baxandall, Michael. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy: A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Baxandall, Michael. The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Becherucci, Luisa, and Brunetti, Giulia. Il Museo dell'Opera del Duomo a Firenze. Venice: Electa Editrice, 1971.Google Scholar
Bellandi, Alfredo. “Scultore prossimo a Donatello: ‘Crocifisso.’” In “Fece di scoltura di legname e colorì” (2016), 176–77.Google Scholar
Belting, Hans. Das Bild und sein Publikum im Mittelalter: Form und Funktion früher Bildtafeln der Passion. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1981.Google Scholar
Belting, Hans. Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst. Munich: Beck, 1990.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jill. “Stigmata and Sense Memory: St Francis and the Affective Image.” Art History 24.1 (2001): 116.10.1111/1467-8365.00247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardi, Claudio. La Drammaturgia della Settimana Santa in Italia. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1991.Google Scholar
Bernardi, Claudio. “‘Theatrum Pietatis’: Images, Devotion, and Lay Drama.” Mediaevalia 27.1 (2006): 722.Google Scholar
Bino, Carla. “Le statue del Cristo crocifisso e morto nelle azioni drammatiche della Passione (XIV–XV secolo): Linee di ricerca.” Drammaturgia 13.3 (2017): 277311.Google Scholar
Bocchi, Francesco. The Beauties of the City of Florence: A Guidebook of 1591. Ed. Frangenberg, Thomas and Williams, Robert. London: Harvey Miller, 2006.Google Scholar
Bornstein, Daniel Ethan. The Bianchi of 1399: Popular Devotion in Late Medieval Italy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Brooks, Neil C. The Sepulchre of Christ in Art and Liturgy, with Special Reference to the Liturgic Drama. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1921.Google Scholar
Browe, Peter. Die Pflichtkommunion im Mittelalter. Münster: Regensbergsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1940.Google Scholar
Brucker, Gene A. Florentine Politics and Society, 1343–1378. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Bulgarelli, Massimo. “La cappella Cardini.” In All'ombra delle volte: Architettura del Quattrocento a Firenze e Venezia, ed. Bulgarelli, Massimo and Ceriana, Matteo, 13103. Milan: Electa, 1996.Google Scholar
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “The Social History of Communion and the Reformation of the Eucharist.” Past and Present 211 (2011): 77119.Google Scholar
Caglioti, Francesco. “The Bosco ai Frati Crucifix and Its Position in Respect of Those of Donatello and Brunelleschi.” In Mugello culla del Rinascimento (2008a), 125–63.Google Scholar
Caglioti, Francesco. “Il ‘Crocifisso’ ligneo di Donatello per i Servi di Padova.Prospettiva: Rivista di storia dell'arte antica e moderna 130–31 (2008b): 50106.Google Scholar
Caglioti, Francesco. “I tre Crocifissi grandi di Donatello.” In Donatello svelato: Capolavori a confronto; Il Crocifisso di Santa Maria dei Servi a Padova e il suo restauro, ed. Nante, Andrea and Mercalli, Marica, 3964. Venice: Marsilio, 2015.Google Scholar
Caglioti, Francesco, Cavazzini, Laura, Galli, Aldo, and Rowley, Neville. “Reconsidering the Young Donatello.” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 57 (2015): 1545.Google Scholar
Cannon, Joanna. Religious Poverty, Visual Riches: Art in the Dominican Churches of Central Italy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Carl, Doris. “Die Kruzifixe des Taddeo Curradi in der Kirche der SS. Concezione zu Florenz.” Mitteilungen des kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 28.3 (1984): 394401.Google Scholar
Cattin, Giulio. “Testi melici e organizzazione rituale nella processione fiorentina di ‘depositio’ secondo il manoscritto 21 dell'Opera di S. Maria del Fiore.” In Dimensioni Drammatiche della Liturgia Medioevale, 243–65. Viterbo: Bulzoni Editore, 1977.Google Scholar
Cavazzini, Laura. “Donato di Niccolò Bardi, detto Donatello: ‘Crocifisso.’” In Mugello culla del Rinascimento (2008), 164–68.Google Scholar
Chen, Andrew. “Flagellant Confraternities: Image and Experience in Ritual Context, 1260–1530.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2016.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Keith, ed. From Filippo Lippi to Piero Della Francesca: Fra Carnevale and the Making of a Renaissance Master. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Conti, Alessandro. “Frammenti pittorici in Santa Croce.” Paragone Arte 19.225 (1968): 1020.Google Scholar
Cooper, Donal. “‘In Medio Ecclesiae’: Screens, Crucifixes and Shrines in the Franciscan Church Interior in Italy, c. 1230–c. 1400.” 2 vols. PhD diss., Courtauld Institute of Art, 2000.Google Scholar
Cooper, Donal. “Franciscan Choir Enclosures and the Function of Double-Sided Altarpieces in Pre-Tridentine Umbria.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 64 (2001): 154.Google Scholar
Cooper, Donal. “Projecting Presence: The Monumental Cross in the Italian Church Interior.” In Presence: The Inherence of the Prototype within Images and Other Objects, ed. Shepherd, Rupert and Maniura, Robert, 4769. Farnham: Ashgate, 2006.Google Scholar
Cooper, Donal. “Redefining the Altarpiece in Early Renaissance Italy: Giotto's Stigmatization of Saint Francis and Its Pisan Contexts.” Art History 36.4 (2013): 686713.Google Scholar
Corazza, Bartolommo di Michele del. “Diario fiorentino di Bartolommeo di Michele del Corazza, Anni 1405–1438 (ed. G.O. Corazzini).” Archivio storico italiano 14, ser. 5 (1894): 233–98.Google Scholar
Corbin, Solange. La deposition liturgique du Christ au vendredi saint; sa place dans l'histoire des rites et du théâtre religieux (analyse de documents portugais). Paris: Société d’éditions “Les Belles lettres,” 1960.Google Scholar
Dean, Jeffrey. “Listening to Sacred Polyphony c. 1500.” Early Music 25.4 (1997): 611–36.Google Scholar
De Francovich, Géza “L'orgine e la diffusione del Crocifisso Gotico Doloroso.” Kunstgeschichtliches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana 2 (1938): 143261.Google Scholar
De Marchi, Andrea. “‘Cum dictum opus sit magnum’: Il documento pistoiese del 1274 e l'allestimento trionfale dei tramezzi in Umbria e Toscana fre Due e Trecento.” In Medioevo: Immagine e memoria, ed. Quintavalle, Arturo Carlo, 603–21. Milan: Electa, 2009.Google Scholar
De Marchi, Andrea. “Relitti di un naufragio: Affresci di Giotto, Taddeo Gaddi e Maso di Banco nella navate di Santa Croce.” In Santa Croce: Oltre le apparenze, ed. Marchi, Andrea De and Piraz, Giacomo, 3271. Pistoia: Gli Ori, 2011.Google Scholar
Dent, Peter. “The Body of Christ in Fourteenth-Century Tuscan Sculpture.” PhD diss., Courtauld Institute of Art, 2005.Google Scholar
Dent, Peter. “Contemplative Relief: Meditating on Christ through Sculptural Form in Early Trecento Italy.” In Depth of Field: Relief Sculpture in Renaissance Italy, ed. Cooper, Donal and Leino, Marika, 4169. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2007.Google Scholar
Dugan, Holly. The Ephemeral History of Perfume: Scent and Sense in Early Modern England. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
“Fece di scoltura di legname e colorì”: Scultura del Quattrocento in legno dipinto a Firenze. Ed. Bellandi, Alfredo. Florence: Giunti, 2016.Google Scholar
Fisher, Annika Elisabeth. “Cross Altar and Crucifix in Ottonian Cologne: Past Narrative, Present Ritual, Future Resurrection.” In Decorating the Lord's Table: On the Dynamics between Image and Altar in the Middle Ages, ed. Thunø, Erik and Kaspersen, Søren, 4362. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2006.Google Scholar
Frugoni, Chiara. “Female Mystics, Visions, and Iconography.” In Women and Religion in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, ed. Bornstein, Daniel and Rusconi, Roberto, 130–64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Galli, Aldo. “Donatello: ‘Crocifisso.’” In “Fece di scoltura di legname e colorì” (2016), 162–63.Google Scholar
Garnett, Jane, and Rosser, Gervase. Spectacular Miracles: Transforming Images in Italy from the Renaissance to the Present. London: Reaktion Books, 2013.Google Scholar
Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Gentilini, Giancarlo, ed. I Della Robbia e l'arte nuova della scultura invetriata. Florence: Giunti, 1998.Google Scholar
Ghisi, Federico. “Un processionale inedito per la Settimana Santa nell'Opera del Duomo di Firenze.” Rivista musicale italiana 55 (1953): 363–69.Google Scholar
Giura, Giovanni. “Il ‘Crocifisso’ di Donatello e la cappella del Beato Gherardo da Villamagna in Santa Croce: indagini per una ricostruzione.” In Santa Croce: Oltre le apparenze, ed. De Marchi, Andrea and Piraz, Giacomo, 72111. Pistoia: Gli Ori, 2011.Google Scholar
Giurescu, Ena. “Trecento Family Chapels in Santa Maria Novella and Santa Croce: Architecture, Patronage, and Competition.” PhD diss., Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1997.Google Scholar
Gschwend, Kolumban. Die depositio und elevatio Crucis im Raum der alten Diözese Brixen. Sarnen: Louis Ehrli, 1965.Google Scholar
Hall, Marcia B. “The Tramezzo in S. Croce, Florence and Domenico Veneziano's Fresco.” Burlington Magazine 112.813 (1970): 797–99.Google Scholar
Hall, Marcia B. “The Tramezzo in Santa Croce, Florence, Reconstructed.” Art Bulletin 56.3 (1974): 325–41.Google Scholar
Hall, Marcia B. “The Italian Rood Screen: Some Implications for Liturgy and Function.” In Essays Presented to Myron P. Gilmore: Volume 2, History of Art, ed. Bertellli, Sergio and Ramakus, Gloria, 213–18. Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1978.Google Scholar
Hall, Marcia B. Renovation and Counter-Reformation: Vasari and Duke Cosimo in Sta Maria Novella and Sta Croce, 1565–1577. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Hall, Marcia B. “Another Look at the Rood Screen in the Italian Renaissance.” Institute for Sacred Architecture (2015). http://www.sacredarchitecture.org/articles/another_look_at_the_rood_screen_in_the_italian_renaissance.Google Scholar
Hardison, O. B. Christian Rite and Christian Drama in the Middle Ages: Essays in the Origin and Early History of Modern Drama. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Harris, Jim. “Donatello's Polychromed Sculpture: Case Studies in Materials and Meaning.” 2 vols. PhD diss., Courtauld Institute of Art, 2010.Google Scholar
Harris, Jim. “Defying the Predictable: Donatello and the Discomfiture of Vasari.” In Una insalata di più erbe: A Festschrift for Patricia Lee Rubin, ed. Harris, Jim, Nethersole, Scott, and Rumberg, Per, 151–63. London: Courtland Institute of Art, 2011.Google Scholar
Henderson, John. Piety and Charity in Late Medieval Florence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Herlihy, David, Burr Litchfield, R., Molho, Anthony, and Barducci, Roberto. “Florentine Renaissance Resources: Online ‘Tratte’ of Office Holders 1282–1532.” Brown University, http://cds.library.brown.edu/projects/tratte.Google Scholar
Holmes, Megan. The Miraculous Image in Renaissance Florence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Hood, William. “Saint Dominic's Manners of Praying: Gestures in Fra Angelico's Cell Frescoes at S. Marco.” Art Bulletin 68.2 (1986): 195206.10.1080/00043079.1986.10788332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Deborah, and Moretti, Laura. Sound and Space in Renaissance Venice: Architecture, Music, Acoustics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Jansen, Katherine Ludwig. Peace and Penance in Late Medieval Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Janson, H. W. The Sculpture of Donatello. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Johnson, Geraldine A. “(Un)richtige Aufnahme: Sculpture, Photography and the Visual Historiography of Art History.” Art History 26.1 (2013): 1251.10.1111/j.1467-8365.2012.00917.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, Jacqueline E. “Beyond the Barrier: The Unifying Role of the Choir Screen in Gothic Churches.” Art Bulletin 82.4 (2000): 622–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, Jacqueline E. The Gothic Screen: Space, Sculpture, and Community in the Cathedrals of France and Germany, ca. 1200–1400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Jung, Tanya A. “The Phenomenal Lives of Movable Christ Sculptures.” PhD diss., University of Maryland, 2006.Google Scholar
Jungmann, Josef A. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia). Trans. Brunner, Francis A.. London: Burns & Oates, 1959.Google Scholar
Kalina, Pavel. “Giovanni Pisano, the Dominicans, and the Origin of the ‘Crucifixi Dolorosi.’Artibus et historiae 24.47 (2003): 81101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, Laurence B., ed. Painting and Illumination in Early Renaissance Florence, 1300–1450. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1994.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, Hans. Donatello: Eine Einführung in sein Bilden und Denken. Berlin: G. Grote'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1935.Google Scholar
Kopania, Kamil. Animated Sculptures of the Crucified Christ in the Religious Culture of the Latin Middle Ages. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2010.Google Scholar
Kroesen, Justin E. A. The Sepulchrum Domini through the Ages: Its Form and Function. Trans. Kofod, Margaret. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2000.Google Scholar
Ladis, Andrew. Taddeo Gaddi: Critical Reappraisal and Catalogue Raisonné. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Lalli, Carlo, Moioli, Pietro, Rizzi, Maria, et al. “Il Crocifisso di Donatello nella Basilica di Santa Croce a Firenze. Osservazioni dopo il restauro.” OPD Restauro 18 (2006): 1338.Google Scholar
La Salle, Donald. “Liturgical and Popular Lament: A Study of the Role of Lament in Liturgical and Popular Religious Practices of Good Friday in Northern Italy from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Centuries.” PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1997.Google Scholar
Lippe, Robert, ed. Missale Romanum Mediolani, 1474. 2 vols. London: Harrison and Sons, 18991907.Google Scholar
Lipton, Sara. “‘The Sweet Lean of His Head’: Writing about Looking at the Crucifix in the High Middle Ages.” Speculum 80.4 (2005): 1172–208.10.1017/S003871340000138XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisner, Margrit. “Intorno al Crocifisso di Donatello a Santa Croce.” In Donatello e il suo tempo: Atti dell'VIII Convegno internazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, 115–29. Florence: Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, 1968.Google Scholar
Lisner, Margrit. Holzkruzifixe in Florenz und in der Toskana von der Zeit um 1300 bis zum frühen Cinquecento. Munich: Bruckmann, 1970.Google Scholar
Long, Jane C. “Salvation through Meditation: The Tomb Frescoes in the Holy Confessors Chapel at Santa Croce in Florence.” Gesta 34.1 (1995): 7788.10.2307/767126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunghi, Elvio. La Passione degli Umbri: Crocifissi di legno in Valle Umbra tra Medioevo e Rinascimento. Foligno: Edizioni Orfini Numeister, 2000.Google Scholar
Lunghi, Elvio. “La scultura lignea in Umbria nel XIII secolo.” In L'Umbria nel XIII secolo, ed. Menestò, Enrico, 299331. Spoleto: Fondazione CISAM, 2011.Google Scholar
Mazzoni, Cristina, ed. Angela of Foligno's Memorial: Translated from Latin with Introduction, Notes and Interpretive Essay. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1999.Google Scholar
McNamer, Sarah. “The Debate on the Origins of the ‘Meditationes Vitae Christi’: Recent Arguments and Prospects for Future Research.Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 111.1–2 (2018): 65112.Google Scholar
Meersseman, G. G. Ordo fraternitatis: Confraternite e pietà dei laici nel Medioevo. 3 vols. Rome: Herder, 1977.Google Scholar
Moisè, Filippo. Santa Croce di Firenze. Florence: Galileiana, 1845.Google Scholar
Morrison, Molly. “A Mystic's Drama: The Paschal Mystery in the Visions of Angela da Foligno.” Italica 78.1 (2001): 3652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Frank Wells. “The Bianchi Movement of 1399: Its Individual Characteristics and Chronology.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, 1973.Google Scholar
Mugello culla del Rinascimento: Giotto, Beato Angelico, Donatello e i Medici. Ed. Tosti, Barbara. Florence: Polistampa, 2008.Google Scholar
Nagel, Alexander, and S, Christopher. Wood. Anachronic Renaissance. New York: Zone Books, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilson, Christina. “Carving Life: The Meaning of Wood in Early Modern European Sculpture.” In The Matter of Art: Materials, Practices, Cultural Logics, c. 1250–1750, ed. Anderson, Christy, Dunlop, Anne, and Smith, Pamela H., 223–39. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Neri Lusanna, Enrica. “Per il maestro dell'Annunciazione di San Cassiano.Antichità viva 28.5–6 (1989): 3640.Google Scholar
Newbigin, Nerida. “The Decorum of the Passion: The Plays of the Confraternity of the Gonfalone in the Roman Colosseun, 1490–1539.” In Confraternities and the Visual Arts in Renaissance Italy: Ritual, Spectacle, Image, ed. Wisch, Barbara and Ahl, Diane Cole, 173202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Newbigin, Nerida. “‘L'occhio si dice ch’è la prima porta’: Seeing with Words in the Florentine ‘Sacre Rappresentazione.’Mediaevalia 28.1 (2007): 122.Google Scholar
Ogden, Dunbar H. The Staging of Drama in the Medieval Church. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Oswald, Friedrich. “In medio Ecclesiae: Die Deutung der literarischen Zeugnisse im Lichte archäologischer Funde.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 3 (1969): 313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ousterhout, Robert G. “The Church of Santo Stefano: A ‘Jerusalem’ in Bologna.” Gesta 20.2 (1981): 311–21.10.2307/766940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paoletti, John. “Wooden Sculpture in Italy as Sacral Presence.” Artibus et historiae 13.26 (1992): 85100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Elizabeth C. The Descent from the Cross: Its Relation to the Extra-Liturgical “Depositio” Drama. New York: Garland, 1978.Google Scholar
Pilliod, Elizabeth. “Studies on the Early Career of Alessandro Allori.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1989.Google Scholar
Pilliod, Elizabeth. “Review of ‘Alessandro Allori’ by Simona Lecchini Giovannoni.” Burlington Magazine 134.1076 (1992): 727–29.Google Scholar
Pilliod, Elizabeth. Pontormo, Bronzino, Allori: A Genealogy of Florentine Art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Pines, Doralynn Schlossman. “The Tomb Slabs of Santa Croce: A New ‘Sepoltuario.’” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1985.Google Scholar
Plum, Anne-Madeleine. Adoratio crucis in Ritus und Gesang: Die Verehrung des Kreuzes in liturgischer Feier und in zehn exemplarischen Passionsliedern. Tübingen: Francke, 2006.Google Scholar
Porta Casucci, Emanuela. “‘Un uomo di vetro’ fra corti e cortile. Giovanni Boccaccio, i del Buono e gli altri.Heliotropia 12–13 (2015–16): 189212.Google Scholar
Powell, Amy. Depositions: Scenes from the Late Medieval Church and the Modern Museum. New York: Zone Books, 2012.Google Scholar
Ragusa, Isa, and Green, Rosalie B., eds. Meditations on the Life of Christ: An Illustrated Manuscript of the Fourteenth Century; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Ms. Ital., 115. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Rampold, Reinhard. “Gotische Kruzifixe mit Schwenkbaren Armen--Neuentdeckung in Tirol.” Der Schlern 73 (1999): 425–36.Google Scholar
Rihouet, Pascale. “The Unifying Power of Moving Pictures in Late Medieval and Renaissance Umbria.” PhD diss., Brown University, 2008.Google Scholar
Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Rubin, Patricia Lee. Giorgio Vasari: Art and History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Ryan, William Granger, ed. Jacobus de Voragine's The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Santi, Bruno. “Un diario, un pittore, un monaco: Neri di Bicci e don Romualdo.” In “Fece di scoltura di legname e colorì” (2016), 88101.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Ursula. “Observations on Masaccio's Trinity Fresco in Santa Maria Novella.” Art Bulletin 45.1 (1963): 1933.Google Scholar
Schulz, Anne Markham. “Antonio Bonvicino and Venetian Crucifixes of the Early Quattrocento.” Mitteilungen des kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 48.3 (2004): 293332.Google Scholar
Sebregondi, Ludovica. Santa Croce Sotterranea: Trasformazioni e retauri. Florence: Città di Vita, 1997.Google Scholar
Seidel, Max. “‘Sculpens in lingo splendida’: Sculture lignee di Giovanni Pisano.” In Sacre passioni: Scultura lignea a Pisa dal XII al XV secolo, ed. Burresi, Mariagiulia, 7994. Milan: F. Motta, 2000.Google Scholar
Sheingorn, Pamela. The Easter Sepulchre in England. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1987.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Leo. The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion. London: Faber, 1984.Google Scholar
Stiberc, Peter. “Donatellos Kruzifix in Santa Croce: Untersuchung und Restaurierung im Opificio delle Pietre Dure in Florenz.” Restauro: Forum für Restauratoren, Konservatoren und Denkmalpfleger 6 (2007): 386–94.Google Scholar
Summers, David. “Heinrich Wölfflin's ‘Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe,’ 1915.” Burlington Magazine 151 (2009): 476–79.Google Scholar
Tarr, Roger. “Brunelleschi and Donatello: Placement and Meaning in Sculpture.” Artibus et historiae 16.32 (1995): 101–40.Google Scholar
Taubert, Gesine, and Taubert, Johannes. “Mittelalterliche Kruzifixe mit schwenkbaren Armen.” Zeitschrift des deutschen Vereins für Kunstwissenschaft 23 (1969): 79121.Google Scholar
Taubert, Johannes. Farbige Skulpturen: Bedeutung, Fassung, Restaurierung. Munich: Callwey, 1978.Google Scholar
Terpstra, Nicholas, ed. The Politics of Ritual Kinship: Confraternities and Social Order in Early Modern Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Thompson, Augustine. Cities of God: The Religion of the Italian Communes 1125–1325. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Thompson, Nancy M. “The Franciscans and the True Cross: The Decoration of the Cappella Maggiore of Santa Croce in Florence.” Gesta 43.1 (2004): 6179.Google Scholar
Toker, Franklin. On Holy Ground: Liturgy, Architecture, and Urbanism in the Cathedral and the Streets of Medieval Florence. London: Harvey Miller, 2009.Google Scholar
Tomasi, Michele. “Il Crocifisso di San Giorgio ai Tedeschi e la diffusione del ‘Crocifisso doloroso.’” In Sacre passioni: Scultura lignea a Pisa dal XII al XV secolo, ed. Burresi, Mariagiulia, 5776. Milan: F. Motta, 2000.Google Scholar
Tripps, Johannes. Das handelnde Bildwerk in der Gotik. Forschungen zu den Bedeutungsschichten und der Funktion des Kirchengebäudes und seiner Ausstattung in der Hoch- und Spätgotik. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
Tripps, Johannes. “‘Ein Crucifix, dem ausz den funff wunden rotter wein sprang’: Die Inszenierung von Christusfiguren in Spätgotik un Frührenaissance.” In Das Bild Gottes in Judentum, Christentum und Islam, ed. Leuschner, Eckhard and Hesslinger, Mark R., 117–27. Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2009.Google Scholar
Tripps, Johannes. “The Joy of Automata and Cistercian Monasteries: From Boxley in Kent to San Galgano in Tuscany.” Sculpture Journal 25.1 (2016): 728.10.3828/sj.2016.25.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, John Douglas. “The Sculpture of Baccio da Montelupo.” 2 vols. PhD diss., Brown University, 1997.Google Scholar
Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de’ più eccelenti pittori, scultori e architettori nelle redazioni del 1550 e 1568. Ed. Bettarini, Rosanna and Barocchi, Paola. 6 vols. Florence: Sansoni, 1966–87.Google Scholar
Weissman, Ronald F. E. Ritual Brotherhood in Renaissance Florence. New York: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Wierda, Bouk. “The True Identity of the Anonimo Magliabechiano.” Mitteilungen des kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 53.1 (2009): 157–68.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David G. “Donatello and His Patrons.” In Patronage and Italian Renaissance Sculpture, ed. Christian, Kathleen and Drogin, David, 117–47. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010.Google Scholar
Wilson, Blake McDowell. Music and Merchants: The Laudesi Companies of Republican Florence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Wisch, Barbara, and Ahl, Diane Cole, eds. Confraternities and the Visual Arts in Renaissance Italy: Ritual, Spectacle, Image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Wright, Alison. “‘Touch the Truth’? Desiderio da Settignano, Renaissance Relief and the Body of Christ.” Sculpture Journal 21.1 (2012): 725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Karl. The Drama of the Medieval Church. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Taddeo Gaddi. Entombment of Christ, ca. 1340. Fresco. Chapel of S. Silvestro in S. Croce, Florence. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Donatello. Crucifix, ca. 1406–15 (restored in 2003–04). Polychromed wood, 173 x 168 cm (crucified Christ) and 482 x 187 cm (cross). Chapel of Bardi di Vernio in S. Croce, Florence. Image courtesy of Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali—Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, and Basilica of S. Croce, Florence, overseen by Direzione Centrale per l'Amministrazione del Fondo Edifici di Culto, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l'immigrazione, Ministero dell'Interno.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Donatello. Detail of crucified Christ. Image courtesy of Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali—Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, and Basilica of S. Croce, Florence, overseen by Direzione Centrale per l'Amministrazione del Fondo Edifici di Culto, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l'immigrazione, Ministero dell'Interno.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Donatello. Crucified Christ (arms partly folded). Image courtesy of Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali—Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, and Basilica of S. Croce, Florence, overseen by Direzione Centrale per l'Amministrazione del Fondo Edifici di Culto, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l'immigrazione, Ministero dell'Interno.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Hermann Bote (presumed compiler). Quem Quaeritis. Woodcut. Dil Ulenspiegel, pl. 13, 1515 Strasbourg edition. Image from Brooks, fig. 18.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Giovanni Balduccio (attributed). Detail of crucified Christ, before 1333. Polychromed wood, 176 x 190 cm. Opera del Duomo (formerly in the Baptistery), Florence. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / Sailko.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Plan of S. Croce, Florence, before removal of the tramezzo in 1566. Plan modified with permission from Hall, 1979, fig. 2.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Taddeo Gaddi. Saint Francis Resuscitates a Boy Who Fell from a Terrace, ca. 1330–35. Tempera on wood, 48 x 43 cm. Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Elevation of S. Croce, Florence, looking east toward the tramezzo before it was demolished in 1566, with Donatello's Crucifix shown to scale in the Rimbaldesi Chapel (second chapel from the left). Elevation modified with permission from Hall, 1979, fig. 4.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Fra Carnevale (Bartolomeo di Giovanni Corradini). Detail of The Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple, ca. 1467. Oil and tempera on wood, 146.4 x 96.5 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 10

Figure 11. Giovanni Pisano. Processional Crucifix and supporting base, late thirteenth century. Polychromed wood with marble base, 71 cm (crucified Christ) and 114 cm (cross and base). Opera del Duomo, Siena. Scala / Art Resource, NY.

Figure 11

Figure 12. Sassetta. Saint Thomas Aquinas Kneeling before a Crucifix, predella from Arte della Lana altarpiece, 1423. Tempera on panel, 25 x 28.8 cm. Pinacoteca Vaticana. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 12

Figure 13. Andrea Cavalcanti (il Buggiano) (design attributed). Cardini Chapel, 1450s. S. Francesco, Pescia. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / Sailko.

Figure 13

Figure 14. Fra Angelico. Saint Dominic Embracing the Crucifix, 1440–41. Fresco, 340 x 206 cm. Convent of S. Marco, Florence. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / The Yorck Project.

Figure 14

Figure 15. Andrea del Castagno. Mary Magdalen Kissing the Base of the Crucifix, late 1430s. Fresco, 335 x 285 cm. Spedale di S. Maria Nuova, Florence. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 15

Figure 16. Master of the Codex of Saint George. Lamentation and Burial of Christ, ca. 1330–35. Tempera on panel, 39.7 x 27 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Image courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters Collection, 1961.

Figure 16

Figure 17. Piero della Francesca. Burial of Christ's Cross, 1452–66. Fresco, 356 x 190 cm. S. Francesco, Arezzo. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / The Yorck Project.

Figure 17

Figure 18. Donatello. Detail of cross. Image courtesy of Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, and Basilica of S. Croce, Florence, overseen by the Direzione Centrale per l'Amministrazione del Fondo Edifici di Culto, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l'immigrazione, Ministero dell'Interno.

Figure 18

Figure 19. Santi Buglioni (attributed). Lamentation, ca. 1532. Glazed terra-cotta. Cappella del Conte di Montedoglio in the Sanctuary of La Verna. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons / Accurimbono.

You have Access