Don Lorenzo Monaco active 1399; died 1423 or 1424
NG 215, NG 216 and NG 1897 and NG 2862, NG 4062 and L2 
The San Benedetto Altarpiece

Dillian Gordon, 2003

Extracted from:
Dillian Gordon, The Fifteenth Century Italian Paintings, Volume I (London: National Gallery Company and Yale University Press, 2003).

1407–9

Egg tempera on wood, 264.9 x 365.8 cm

NG 215, NG 216 and NG 1897 are fragments from the main tier of the high altarpiece painted by Lorenzo Monaco for the Camaldolese monastery of San Benedetto fuori della Porta Pinti, Florence, probably between 1407 and 1409;¹ NG 2862, NG 4062 and L2 are fragments from the predella.

The centre main tier panel (NG 1897) shows the Coronation of the Virgin. Each side panel contains eight adoring saints arranged in three diagonal rows: three kneeling, three standing, and two in the last row whose heads only are visible. The arrangement is symmetrical;² the monastic founders, Evangelists, mendicant saints, a bishop and a pope are in two pyramidal groups, which culminate at the top in the points of a mitre and a papal tiara.

The predella was devoted to scenes from the life of Saint Benedict.

NG 1897 
The Coronation of the Virgin

1407–9

Egg tempera on wood, 220.5 x 115.2 cm

Christ is about to place on the Virgin’s head a crown of six prominent trefoils surrounding a ribbed pinnacle cap of architectural form. They are seated on a grey throne consisting of a back with a low gable decorated with crockets, below which is an arch nearly semicircular in form. The vault of the arch is decorated with panels of inlay and the back is covered by a curtain suspended at five points (two of them visible). The sides of the throne are pierced by two large cusped openings. Its arms are covered with drapery. Around the throne on the paving beneath the plinth are seven kneeling angels; two of the angels swing censers and another plays a portative organ. The centre of the altarpiece is united with the side compartments (NG 215 and NG 216) by a tiled floor which runs across the whole altarpiece.

Along the grey step of the tiled dais are the remains of an inscription: … S.FLO…(PE?)R…ME…SUE.ET.SU.²

Technical Notes

Panel construction

Maximum height 220.5 cm, width 115.2 cm; thickness of panel approximately 3.7 cm.

On the back is a scribble with 1762 and various illegible words, which have no apparent connection with the history of the picture.

Like NG 215 and NG 216, the panel is made up of three planks with a vertical grain. The left edge has fragments of four half‐dovetail cavities in the back (one with the remains of the inserted butterfly key), which correspond to those in NG 215.

In the centre, at the bottom, is a modern replacement, approximately 26.5 x 15.5 cm, where a later arched tabernacle door was inset (figs 1 and 2). Unlike the tabernacle shutters in Lorenzo Monaco’s Coronation altarpiece in the Uffizi,³ the aperture in the London panel does not seem to be an original feature: there is no evidence in the X‐radiograph of any hinges or carpentry features around the periphery of the tabernacle opening, and there is a good deal of paint and ground loss in the original panel around its outer contours, suggesting an incision made well after the initial execution of the painting. Scientific examination of the pigments of the earliest of the several layers of restoration over the section cut for the tabernacle has identified mixtures of azurite and smalt in the blue draperies, a combination which became rare after the seventeenth century.⁴

Restoration

Cleaned and restored in 1948–9 and again in 1998.⁵

Condition and technique

The paint surface of NG 1897 is less damaged than that of the side panels, although the damage is similarly greater at the bottom of the panel, probably as a result of flooding. The figures of Christ and the Virgin are exceptionally well preserved, as are the heads of the three kneeling angels, although there is some abrasion of the Virgin’s robe and of the throne step where the marbling is worn. Extensive damage to the lateral angels was presumably caused when the altarpiece was dismantled. The hand and surrounding blue paint of the angel on the right holding a censer is badly damaged. As in NG 215 and NG 216, the tiled floor was at some stage overpainted with red, which was removed in a previous cleaning.

The gold background is somewhat abraded. The crown and the haloes are in good condition, except for damage at the left of the Virgin’s halo.

The mordant gilding is generally well preserved, particularly on the Virgin’s robe and blue veil, the throne decoration and the decoration of the border of Christ’s robe, but that on the kneeling angels is less so.

The sgraffito cloth of honour was painted with vermilion, which has blackened; the gold has been punched to suggest the raised gold threads of cloth of gold. The upper border of the cloth was painted in a pattern of blue, white and red (now faded) applied over the gold, into which was scratched a series of freely executed parallel lines to simulate a gold fringe. The cushion has been modelled with dense punching, similar to that in the altarpiece from San Bartolomeo at Monte Oliveto, Florence, completed in 1410 (Florence, Accademia, inv. no. 1890.468), for which see below.

The Virgin’s robe was originally lilac. The fading of the red lake, a mixture of lac lake, ultramarine and white, has been confirmed by scientific examination. Likewise, Christ’s robe, which has been identified as being painted with kermes and lac lakes, has faded considerably. His mantle is in ultramarine.⁶

An area of dark wash along the base of the throne (most clearly visible with infra‐red reflectography), painted over with the white and grey(?) of the throne step, seems to have been intended to create the impression of a shadow below the throne.

Provenance

With NG 215 and NG 216 in San Benedetto fuori della Porta Pinti, Florence. The three panels may have been together in 1557, when they all suffered from flood damage, but it seems that the Coronation of the Virgin had, by the time Vasari saw it in 1568, become separated from its side panels. Davies⁷ points out that Vasari and other writers who refer to the altarpiece mention only the Coronation of the Virgin and not the saints. The fact that NG 215 and NG 216 were both cut down to the same degree at the sides and base, while the centre was not cut down at all, suggests that at some stage the two side panels were separated from the central one but subsequently kept together.⁸ Milanesi described only three angels when he saw the central fragment in 1830 or 1840, and when Johann Anton Ramboux (1790–1866) made his drawing of it (see fig. 3), which has a terminus ante quem of 1843, the fragmentary side angels had already been painted out. It would seem that at an unknown date an attempt was made to disguise the fact that this was a fragment and it was used as an independent altarpiece (fig. 4).⁹

[page 165]

[page 166]

The Coronation of the Virgin was recorded by Vasari in the Alberti Chapel in the cloister of Santa Maria degli Angeli in 1568: ‘Dipinse similmente Don Lorenzo in una tavola che era nel monasterio di San Benedetto del medesimo ordine di Camaldoli fuori della porta Pinti, il quale fu rovinato per l’assedio di Firenze l’anno 1529, una coronazione di Nostra Donna, siccome aveva anco fatto nella tavola della sua Chiesa degli Angeli.’¹⁰ It was recorded there in 1657 by Stefano Rosselli,¹¹ in 1677 by Bocchi‐Cinelli,¹² in 1684 by Del Migliore,¹³ in 1710 by Farulli,¹⁴ in 1759 by Richa¹⁵ and in 1792 by Follini‐Rastrelli.¹⁶ No record of when it was removed has been found.

NG 1897 was discovered in 1830 or 1840 in a chapel of a former Camaldolese abbey at Elmo or Adelmo, near Cerreto – at that time a house for Camaldolese novices – which is said to have belonged at one time to the Camaldolese monastery in Florence.¹⁷ Adelmo is close to San Pietro at Cerreto, where the Uffizi Coronation was discovered,¹⁸ and is said to have been secularised under French dominion at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the building that housed the painting was purchased by the Landi family of neighbouring Certaldo, near Cerreto.¹⁹ NG 1897 was drawn by Ramboux on one of two Italian trips he made between 1818 and 1822 and between 1830 and 1843; the drawing is inscribed Di Lorenzo Monaco alla Badia virgo (?rubbed) Certaldo (Frankfurt, Städelsches Kunstinstitut, Band V, f. 55; fig. 3).²⁰ The painting was seen before or in 1864 in the Landi Collection by Crowe and Cavalcaselle.²¹ Purchased shortly before 1900 from eleven members of the Landi family by M. Galli‐Dunn of Florence, from whom purchased, Clarke Fund, 1902.

Exhibited

London 1947–8, NG , Cleaned Pictures Exhibition (14–16) (only NG 215 and NG 216 had then been cleaned).

NG 4062 
Incidents in the Life of Saint Benedict:

Saint Maurus saves Saint Placidus from drowning, having been instructed to do so by Saint Benedict; Saint Benedict is detained overnight on a visit to Saint Scholastica by a rainstorm.

1407–9

Egg tempera on wood, 29.8 x 52.0 cm

On the left Saint Benedict blesses Saint Maurus and instructs him to go to the aid of Saint Placidus, who has gone, with a pitcher, to fetch water from the river and fallen in. His imminent death by drowning has been revealed in a vision to Saint Benedict while sitting in his cell.

In the centre Saint Maurus walks over the water, as if it were land, and seizes Saint Placidus by the hair.

On the right Saint Benedict visits his sister, Saint Scholastica. As they sit at table she asks him to stay overnight, but he refuses. He is subsequently detained by a rainstorm, which comes in answer to his sister’s prayers.

Technical Notes

Panel construction

Height 29.8 cm, width 51.9/52 cm. Along the top and bottom edges is a border of unpainted wood (0.4 cm), which suggests [page 173] that a moulding has been removed and that the height of the painted area remains unchanged. Painted surface 28.4 x 51.9/52 cm. The panel varies in thickness from 3.4 cm at the left to 3.5 cm at the right.

On the back, original nails which once fixed a vertical strut into place are visible top and bottom. The X‐radiograph shows that the nails were hammered in from the front and covered in tin foil. Seen from the back the strut, measuring 3.5 cm in width, was placed 12 cm from the left edge and 36 cm from the right edge. The back appears to have been cleaned and the edges slightly planed. On the back is handwritten 469.

Condition and technique

The narrative scene was cut diagonally by the frame at the left‐hand corners (see also NG 2862 above), where the resulting unpainted triangles (measuring 7 cm in height and width) originally covered by the frame have since been infilled with modern paint.

Ragged pieces of a coarse open‐weave canvas applied to the panel before the gesso are visible in the X‐radiograph (see fig. 5). Most of the main architectural lines have been incised.

Saint Maurus’s halo was originally omitted; either the gilder failed to understand the complex pose of the figure, or it was simply forgotten. It was therefore added later, using the lead‐white oil mordant employed by Lorenzo Monaco elsewhere in the altarpiece.

The faces of the figures are worn and the paint has increased in transparency. Otherwise the picture is in good condition. There appears to be less underdrawing than in NG 2862, which seems to be by a different hand (see below).

Subject

Both of the episodes depicted are described in Saint Gregory’s Dialogues (Book II, chapters 7 and 33) and in the Golden Legend ,⁴³ although they do not immediately follow one another, as is implied in the painting.

Provenance

Presumably San Benedetto fuori della Porta Pinti, Florence (see pp . 164–6); purchased from Canon A.F. Sutton, Florence Fund, 1925.⁴⁴

Reconstruction of the Altarpiece

Reconstruction of the altarpiece has been deduced with reference to the Coronation of the Virgin (now in the Uffizi, Florence; fig. 17) signed by Lorenzo Monaco and dated February 1413 (modern style 1414), which he painted for the high altar of Santa Maria degli Angeli, the main church of the Camaldolese Order in Florence.⁴⁷

The six surviving constituent panels of the altarpiece in the National Gallery (NG 215, NG 216, NG 1897, NG 2862, NG 4062 and L2) each have a different provenance, and they entered the Collection at different times. The present frame incorporating the centre and two side panels of the main tier is modern. It is not known when the altarpiece was dismembered. If the main tier did indeed suffer from flood damage in 1557 – as seems likely from the nature of the damage in the lower areas, which is not evident in the predella panels⁴⁸ – this suggests that the dismemberment took place before the flood, probably at the time of its removal from its original location (San Benedetto fuori della Porta Pinti), which may have been in 1529 (see below).

The main tier

The altarpiece, of which the main tier is in the National Gallery, was initially reconstructed by Georg Pudelko.⁴⁹ His identification of the Adoring Saints (NG 215 and NG 216) and the Coronation of the Virgin (NG 1897) as the complete main tier was confirmed by Martin Davies,⁵⁰ after the cleaning of NG 215 and NG 216 in 1940, and of NG 1897 in 1948–9, revealed the painted floor that had been painted out in the side scenes (which was identical to that in the central panel) and also the wings, draperies and faces of four angels on either side of the throne that had been painted out in the side and centre panels (see figs 3 and 4). Each of these three main tier compartments is composed almost identically of three vertical planks (see diagram, fig. 1): two wide planks varying from 45 to 58 cm in width, and a narrow strip at the right‐hand side (as seen from the back). The planks are butt‐joined and glued. All the nail‐holes of the original battens are aligned across all three panels, confirming the association of all three. Furthermore, strips of canvas running across all three panels (visible in the X‐radiographs) confirm that they originally comprised a continuous unified surface. On the back of NG 1897 are the marks and remains of butterfly keys at the edge, with corresponding marks on NG 215. Approximately 7cm is missing between NG 215 and NG 1897, and between NG 216 and NG 1897.⁵¹

The unified picture surface of the main tier was disrupted by the losses incurred on separation of the panels.⁵² After the panels had been reunited, the areas of loss between the side and central panels of the main tier were filled with a neutral colour during the cleaning of 1948–9. During the cleaning of 1998 it was decided to restore the missing parts fictively in order to make clear the unified pictorial surface, but to leave a discernible gap that would show what is original paint and what restoration (see p. 163).⁵³

Predella

By analogy with the Santa Maria degli Angeli altarpiece, the predella probably showed scenes from the Life of Saint Benedict, the titular of the church.

There is no doubt that Saint Benedict admitting Saints Maurus and Placidus into the Benedictine Order (NG 2862), together with a panel in Rome (Pinacoteca Vaticana, inv. no. 193[68]) showing A Young Monk tempted from Prayer and Saint Benedict raises a Young Monk (fig. 8),⁵⁴ and also the Incidents in the Life of Saint Benedict (NG 4062) and the Death of Saint Benedict (L2), are all fragments from the same predella. Originally, NG 2862 directly abutted the Vatican panel, with no intervening frame [page 175] [page 176] moulding. The Vatican panel (29.7 x 65 cm) has been cut at the left edge and has identical diagonal corners at the right (now overpainted): not only is the landscape continuous from NG 2862 to the Vatican panel, but X‐radiographs (see figs 5 and 6) further show that the pattern of wood grain is continuous from one fragment to the other, confirming that they were both painted on the same plank of wood. The same is true of NG 4062 and L2, which were painted on a single plank of wood that was subsequently sawn in two (probably at the same time as NG 2862 and the Vatican panel). The dense grain pattern running in a line some 5–6 cm from the top edge also continues through the two pairs, suggesting that the entire predella was originally painted on a single horizontal plank.

Pudelko was the first to associate the four scenes from the Life of Saint Benedict with the Coronation of the Virgin and the Adoring Saints, and this has been accepted by all subsequent writers.⁵⁵ The scenes were suitable in subject matter, given the dedication of the likely church of origin – San Benedetto fuori della Porta Pinti – to Saint Benedict; furthermore, the subject of Saint Benedict enthroned may have been the original intention for the central panel (see below). The scenes are also very similar to those from the Life of Saint Benedict in the predella of the Santa Maria degli Angeli altarpiece, and in view of the close relationship between the main tiers of the two altarpieces it seems likely, by analogy, that the London Coronation also had scenes from the life of Saint Benedict in its predella. Moreover, the widths of the two pairs of predella scenes (104 and 103.8 cm respectively) correspond closely to the widths of NG 215 and NG 216 (104.8 cm and 101.5 cm respectively).⁵⁶

The London and Vatican fragments make up the parts of the predella that would have corresponded with the side panels. Pudelko⁵⁷ suggested that the missing scene below the central main tier panel could have been Saint Benedict staying Three Years in the Desert. However, Martin Davies⁵⁸ pointed [page 177] out that by analogy with the Uffizi altarpiece the missing central predella scene was likely to have been a Nativity and Adoration of the Magi. Marvin Eisenberg identified the central scene as the Adoration of the Magi in the National Museum, Poznań (fig. 7);⁵⁹ this originally had similar diagonal corners at the left, which have been infilled with modern paint. Eisenberg records that the painting has been cut on both sides. The right side of the panel has been cut more drastically, and by taking the central pilaster of the arcaded wall in the background as the centre of the panel, Maria Skubiszewska has estimated the loss at the right to be approximately 20 cm, which would mean that the original width was about 115 cm – precisely matching the present width of the Coronation of the Virgin panel.⁶⁰ The height of the Poznań Adoration panel is similar to that of the other predella panels. The association of this panel with the altarpiece and with the surviving fragments of its predella is therefore extremely likely.

Pinnacles

Pudelko suggested that the Annunciate Virgin formerly in Vienna, Liechtenstein Collection, now Pasadena, Norton Simon Museum (fig.10), had originally been the right‐hand pinnacle.⁶¹ Davies felt that there was no evidence for this, nor indeed for any of the pinnacles or pilasters.⁶² However, the Annunciate Virgin has been accepted by Eisenberg on grounds of scale, style, an identical halo pattern to that of the adoring angels, decorative detail, the architectural spaces and the anatomy of the figures, and he suggests that, by analogy with the Uffizi altarpiece, the corresponding pinnacle on the left‐hand side was Gabriel and that in the centre the Blessing Redeemer. This panel has been identified as the Blessing Redeemer formerly in the collection of Charles Loeser, then of Carlo de Carlo, now in a private collection (fig. 9).⁶³ Davies, Eisenberg and Laurence Kanter have all rejected Pudelko’s suggestion of a tondo of a saint – identified by him as Saint Cyprianus, but in fact representing Isaiah (formerly the Artaud de Montor Collection, now New York, Richard L. Feigen Collection; diameter 19.5 cm; fig. 20) – having gone below the Annunciate Virgin.⁶⁴

Kanter has suggested an intermediary tier consisting of the panels of the Four Patriarchs: Abraham, Noah, Moses and David in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (figs 11–14).⁶⁵ In favour of his argument is the fact that the four paintings are undoubtedly contemporary with the San Benedetto altarpiece, and share the same halo patterns.

Pilasters

It has recently been suggested by Miklós Boskovits that a Jeremiah (New York, Richard L. Feigen Collection; fig. 21) came from one of the pilasters of the San Benedetto altarpiece.⁶⁶

Attribution

Since the cleaning of the altarpiece, attribution has generally been given to Lorenzo Monaco, with workshop assistance. Davies saw the quality of the side panels with Adoring Saints as ‘less fine’ than the central panel with the Coronation of the Virgin.⁶⁷ Eisenberg suggested other works that could have been painted by the assistant responsible for the Adoring Saints.⁶⁸ Paul Ackroyd has observed that the pattern in the floor tiles differs slightly in the two side panels (figs 15 and 16), implying that two different hands were involved in their design.⁶⁹ In the view of the present writer, the central panel is comparable in style to Lorenzo’s Monte Oliveto altarpiece of Saints Bartholomew, John the Baptist, Thaddeus and Benedict (Florence, Accademia, no. 468), which was begun in 1407 and completed in 1410.⁷⁰ Not only is the style the same, but also, as Anabel Thomas has observed, iconographic elements are repeated – for example, [page 178] Mary’s gesture in NG 1897 is the same as Gabriel’s in the pinnacle in the Monte Oliveto altarpiece.⁷¹

The central panel of the London altarpiece is mainly attributable to Lorenzo himself, while the side panels seem to have been executed by his workshop with intervention by Lorenzo himself. The quality of the predella panels is uneven, and there is a sharp difference between the scenes on the left (NG 2862 and the Vatican panel), which have a pinkish golden palette, and those on the right (NG 4062 and L2), which are greyer and more sombre, this being particularly evident in the different pigment mixtures used for the white habits. Two separate painters seem to have been responsible and there is almost certainly extensive workshop intervention, as in the main tier.⁷² Consistent with the division of hands in the main tier, and with the central part of the altarpiece being by Lorenzo himself, is the fact that the Poznań Adoration of the Magi seems also to be by him and echoes the brilliant palette of the robes of the figures in the main tier above.

Iconography

The National Gallery painting almost certainly established the model for the Uffizi altarpiece. The Coronation of the Virgin was already a widespread and popular image in Florence. The iconography of the Benedictine scenes seems to have been taken from a variety of sources. Martin Davies suggested that it may have been influenced by the series of frescoes by Spinello [page 179] Aretino in the sacristy of San Miniato al Monte that are datable to soon after 1387.⁷³ However, the derivation is a loose one, although Lorenzo certainly seems to have looked at this series as the most extensive cycle of Benedictine scenes.⁷⁴ While some scenes, such as the Young Monk tempted from Prayer and Saint Benedict raises a Young Monk, and the Death of Saint Benedict, bear a superficial resemblance to the equivalent frescoes by Spinello, the scene with Saint Placidus saved from drowning is totally different.⁷⁵ Particularly skilful in the San Benedetto altarpiece is the interweaving of the indoor and outdoor settings. Although Eisenberg⁷⁶ says that the scenes are in chronological order, this is not quite accurate, since the scenes of the rescue of Saint Placidus and of Saint Benedict with Saint Scholastica have been displaced and the sequence of the whole predella corresponds to the Dialogues, Book II, chapters 3, 4, 11, 7, 33 and 37. (The sequence of these narratives in the Golden Legend follows that in the Dialogues.) The predella of the San Benedetto altarpiece seems to emphasise Saint Benedict’s followers and the subsidiary members of the Order, focusing on Saints Maurus and Placidus and on the role of youthful monks. The scenes buttressed by Saint Benedict admitting Saints Maurus and Placidus into the Benedictine Order and the Death of Saint Benedict further appear to stress the powers of prayer and obedience. These subjects [page 180]would have been eminently suitable for San Benedetto as a recently founded dependence of the mother house of Santa Maria degli Angeli.

Original Location, Patron and Date

It seems likely that the altarpiece described above is indeed the altarpiece of which possibly only the central panel was seen in the Alberti Chapel in Santa Maria degli Angeli by Vasari and described there until 1792 (see Provenance under NG 1897). In both Vasari and Bocchi‐Cinelli the altarpiece in the Alberti Chapel is said to be ‘simile’ to the high altarpiece – that is, a Coronation of the Virgin.

It further seems likely that the altarpiece came originally from the Camaldolese church of San Benedetto fuori della Porta Pinti, as stated by Vasari in 1568, Rosselli in 1657 and Del Migliore in 1684.⁷⁷ Vasari implies that the removal of the painting from San Benedetto was occasioned by the siege of 1529, a then recent event about which his information is likely to be accurate. On 23 December 1442 a Bull of Eugenius IV had unified San Benedetto and Santa Maria degli Angeli so that the monks could move from one monastery to the other, and in 1530, after San Benedetto was destroyed in order to build fortifications during the siege, the monks moved to Santa Maria degli Angeli with their possessions, including church furnishings and relics: ‘I suoi beni uniti al Monastero degli Angeli ove si ritirarano tutti Monaci di S.Benedetto con i loro mobili, sacri arredi e reliquie.’⁷⁸ This is the likely time of the transferral of the altarpiece to Santa Maria degli Angeli. Although the terms he uses suggest that he is basing himself on Vasari, Del Migliore inserts the additional information that another painting by Lorenzo Monaco in Santa Maria degli Angeli also came from San Benedetto: he was therefore probably also using an independent source,⁷⁹ and Martin Davies wrote that it was ‘difficult to doubt’ that the altarpiece came from San Benedetto.⁸⁰

The main reasons to support Vasari’s statement that the altarpiece came from San Benedetto are as follows: the presence of the titular Saint Benedict and of Saint Romuald, founder of the Camaldolese Order, both of whom are in the white habit worn by this reformed Benedictine Order, indicating a Camaldolese foundation; the fragmentary inscription recording that the donor was a Florentine (see below); the close relationship with Santa Maria degli Angeli reflected in the designs of the two altarpieces; the position of honour accorded to Saint Matthew, to whom the site on which the monastery was founded had been briefly dedicated; and the relationship of the drawing to NG 215, discussed below, which suggests that the initial idea for the main tier was to show Saint Benedict enthroned.

San Benedetto was founded on 24 January 1400 in imitation of Santa Maria degli Angeli: in 1400 Francesco di Iacopo de Ricci, whose brother Alessandro was a monk at the Angeli, left money for a monastery to be founded in the city of Florence or outside the city walls. The monastery was founded with seven monks and four lay brothers; on 18 June 1401 it was incorporated into the Order by the General of the Camaldolites, Don Andrea da Faenza,⁸¹ and its first prior, Romualdo di Vanni, was elected.⁸² The church built between 1401 and 1407 was 28 braccia (16.3 m) wide, 42 braccia (24.5 m) long and 30 braccia (17.5 m) high, with a polygonal apse.⁸³ In 1404 one of its founding monks, Bernardo di Gucciocio Ricci, gave the monastery of San Benedetto a tabernacle for the host, which was gilded with pure gold on the inside and painted with figures of saints on the outside.⁸⁴

Recent archival research has established that the high altarpiece for San Benedetto was commissioned in 1407. No painter is mentioned in the document and the crucial question is whether or not this document relates to the London version of the Coronation of the Virgin. In 1975 M.‐L. Frawley found a collection of notes made in the eighteenth century by the antiquarian Giovanni Battista Dei in which he states: ‘La Tavola dell’Altare maggiore fu fatta l’anno 1407 da Luca di Piero di Rinieri dei Beni [sic] Cittadino Fiorentino.’⁸⁵ Dei said that his notes were taken from the Registro of the monastery. This Registro⁸⁶ still exists in the Archivio di Stato in Florence. Divided into several sections, it describes the origins of the foundation, the building of the monastery and chapels, and everything relevant to the divine cult, as well as listing priors (with dates of their election) and monks of the monastery, together with details of purchases and donations, privileges and testaments; it contains extracts from documents dating from 1401 to 1509. A number of different hands contributed over the years, interpolating information in various sections.

The Register contains a scripta (private record of a transaction) describing how in 1407 ‘Luca Pieri Rainerii [i.e. Rinieri] de Berris civis florentinus’ decided to commission an altarpiece depicting saints for the high altar: ‘deliberavit tabulam maioris altaris cum sanctorum picturis facere.’⁸⁷ Luca was to pay for the entire altarpiece, with the exception of 50 gold florins left to the monastery by the notary Christophoro de Barbarino, to be used towards the ornamentation of the main altar in accordance with the wishes of Luca, who had allocated this sum to the altarpiece. In order to perpetuate the memory of Luca and his heirs, the altarpiece was to bear an inscription in gold letters: ‘voluit scribi in ipsa tabula licteris aureis. Hoc opus fecit fieri lucas pieri rainerii de berris civis florentinus etc.’ This corresponds to the fragments of inscription (few though they are) remaining on the altarpiece: …(CIVI)S FLO(RENTINUS)…(P)R(O) (MEMORIA) (ANI)ME SUE ET SU(ORUM HEREDUM), the final words fulfilling the agreement that the altarpiece was to commemorate not only Luca but also his heirs: ‘Et quod dicta tabula semper dicatur et sit ipsi luce et suorum descendentium.’ There were to be no personal arms on the altarpiece. It was never to be moved from the high altar and no one else would ever be permitted to have one made for the high altar. There is a change of tense within the summary, indicating that the altarpiece was completed and handed over: for the initial undertaking of the patron to provide an altarpiece and the reciprocal promises made by the monks, the past tense is used (‘deliberavit’, ‘promiserunt’), and likewise for the delivery of the altarpiece (‘ipsam tabulam contulit huic monasterio. Et fratres ex altera parte ipsam receperunt’), but the present tense is used to record the continuing obligations of the monks concerning the future of the altarpiece (‘obligamus nos’).

The altarpiece was probably completed by 1409. The Registro states that after the death of an earlier benefactor, Luca Gerii Gerii, the monks moved the choir (stalls) from the chapel built by him into the main church: ‘Post mortem vero dicti luce cum tabula maioris altaris completa esset simulque altare ibi esset positum, volentes fratres in maiori ecclesia die noctuque officium celebrare disposuerunt dictum corum de capella sancti luce in ecclesiam transferire ut id comodius agere possent.’⁸⁸ Luca Gerii Gerii, who died on 28 April 1409,⁸⁹ had provided all the necessary furnishings for his chapel (dedicated to Saint Luke), with the exception of the chalice, and the choir stalls had been among the last items to be supplied (‘Ultimo fecit chorum in dicta cappella’).

A new prior of San Benedetto, Raffaele di Guido of Florence, was elected on 24 July 1407; he remained prior until July 1412.⁹⁰ It is presumably no coincidence that the agreement with Luca di Piero dates from the year Raffaele became prior and was drawn up by him; he may well have been the stimulus behind the commission, feeling that the main church needed a high altarpiece, all the more so because the chapels dedicated to Saint Luke and Saint Anthony both already had altarpieces.⁹¹ Furthermore, Luca di Piero’s father had probably only recently died: two documents concerning Luca’s brother Philip (who is also named in the scripta of 1407), dated 1407 and 1408 respectively, call him ‘Filippus olim Pietri Ranierii campsor’.⁹² (For Philip, see also p. 373.) It may be that the death of his father left Luca with the funds to pay for the altarpiece.⁹³ Luca was, like his brother, a member of the bankers’ guild, the Arte del Cambio, so placing Saint Matthew, patron saint of the Arte del Cambio, in a position of honour might particularly have appealed to him, although the primary reason stemmed from the dedication of the monastery (see above).⁹⁴

It seems reasonable to accept that the London altarpiece is the one referred to in the document of 1407: if it did indeed come from San Benedetto, then it was probably from the high altar – it is a fairly large work and the monastery, being relatively small, would probably not have had two such altarpieces; furthermore, the few fragments of the inscription correspond to that required in the document. A patron’s name saint did not necessarily figure in the altarpiece, as is shown by the example of the altarpiece commissioned by Domenico Francesco Corsi for the chapel dedicated to Saint Anthony in San Benedetto (now in the Accademia in Florence), which shows the Virgin and Child with Saints Anthony, John the Baptist, Lawrence and Julian.⁹⁵ The Evangelist beside the Virgin in the National Gallery Coronation is Saint Matthew, to whom the monastery was briefly dedicated until it officially became part of the Camaldolese Order in 1401 (see above).⁹⁶ Christa Gardner von Teuffel has suggested to me that the phrase ‘tabulam…cum sanctorum picturis’ could refer to the first concept of the altarpiece being for Saint Benedict enthroned with Adoring Saints (see below for the possibly connected drawings), since it seems unlikely that a description of the Coronation would have been omitted, had this been planned from the outset.

Before Frawley’s discovery of the documentation, discussion of the chronological relationship between the two altarpieces had focused on stylistic comparisons. Whether one accepts the 1407 documentation as relating to the National Gallery altarpiece depends partly on how one assesses the extent of workshop intervention, and partly on whether one sees it as a stage in the progression towards the Santa Maria degli Angeli altarpiece or as the degenerative form of a design executed as a replica ‘in modo et forma’ of the Santa Maria degli Angeli work.⁹⁷

Some writers have dated the London panels earlier. Osvald Sirén⁹⁸ dated the Adoring Saints to before 1408, but he was judging them before cleaning. Most writers have in the past taken the date of the Uffizi altarpiece as a terminus post quem for the San Benedetto altarpiece, as is implicit in Vasari’s wording.⁹⁹ In his monograph on Lorenzo Monaco, Eisenberg dated the altarpiece c. 1415–20.¹⁰⁰

After Frawley’s discovery of documentation for the date of 1407, Kanter – both in his review of Eisenberg’s monograph and in a catalogue entry for the Four Patriarchs – confirmed that in his view the altarpiece was datable to c. 1407 on stylistic grounds as well.¹⁰¹ Most recently, Boskovits has taken the view that the altarpiece was painted shortly before 1407.¹⁰²

Relationship with the Uffizi Version

It seems probable that the National Gallery altarpiece predates the Uffizi version and is the altarpiece commissioned in 1407. Wherever direct comparisons are possible, the Uffizi version is more confident and more competent: its main tier figures are more elegant and willowy and are situated in a more convincing three‐dimensional space, and its decorative elements are superior in every respect. The Uffizi version is more sophisticated and elaborate not only because the mother house that commissioned it was richer and more demanding, but also because of the experience Lorenzo Monaco had gained by the execution of the earlier version and from having completed the Monte Oliveto altarpiece during the same years, 1407–10.

In the predella, changes in the spatial orientation – from the oblique buildings of the London compositions to more straightforward ‘face‐on’ spatial organisation in the Uffizi [page 182] panels – seem to suggest that the scenes have been adapted to fit the more refined shape of the barbed quatrefoils of the Uffizi predella, whose oblique angles would not comfortably accommodate oblique architecture or oblique disposition of the figures.

It has already been noted that the halo of Saint Maurus bending to rescue the drowning Saint Placidus in NG 2862 was originally omitted (fig. 24). This awkward and unsuccessful pose differs from that in the Uffizi version (figs 22 and 23) of the same scene and suggests that the London version was rejected in favour of a simpler and more elegant solution. The sequence of scenes also suggests that the Uffizi version is later. In the London version the scenes are, with one exception (see above), in chronological order, beginning with the acceptance into the Order of Saints Placidus and Maurus and ending with the death of Saint Benedict: the Uffizi version begins with the death of Saint Benedict and ends with the resuscitation of the monk killed by falling masonry. The natural order would be the correct chronological one and any change would suggest subsequent selection for a different purpose.

If the Coronation of the Virgin now in the National Gallery is indeed the altarpiece commissioned in 1407 and completed by 1409, then it was finished approximately five years before completion of the Uffizi altarpiece in 1414 (old style 1413) and the period between the completion of the London version and the commencement of the Uffizi one could have been no more than two or three years.¹⁰³

Although many of the heads in the National Gallery and Uffizi versions are ostensibly similar, both within and between the two altarpieces, there is no evidence of the use of cartoons. Infra‐red examination of the London altarpiece shows no traces of the pouncing or schematic tracing of underdrawn elements that would be the most likely result of cartoon transfer, and the fluid brushed‐in underdrawing is most consistent with a freely drawn composition. The National Gallery’s MARC imaging technology, whereby compositional elements can be overlaid or inverted in a precisely scaled comparison, was used to look for evidence of the use of cartoons. In almost all the examples studied there was no proof of the use of large‐scale drawings. For example, the heads of the National Gallery Saint Stephen and Saint Lawrence are seemingly analogous to their Uffizi counterparts, yet when overlaid to scale they showed significant variation from one another in scale, detail and outline. The same negative result was obtained when comparisons were made of several other figures. In only one instance was a more or less exact coincidence of outline found: namely, in the head of the angel at the top right of the National Gallery central panel and that of the angel on the far left uppermost tier of the Uffizi central section. But even in this case, although the inverted outline is very similar, the actual placement of the eyes is not precisely aligned. The apparent similarity of numerous head types, despite their actual considerable variation from one another, strongly suggests the use of common source drawings on a smaller scale. The use of a collection of patterns of some sort, showing basic physiognomic and drapery types, would seem most in keeping with the available technical evidence.¹⁰⁴

Drawings

Two small‐scale drawings (figs 25 and 26) are related to the San Benedetto and Santa Maria degli Angeli altarpieces: a Study of Six Kneeling Saints (including Saint Benedict) and a Study of Saint Benedict enthroned (Florence, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, 11E recto and 11E verso respectively). These studies have been used in the argument regarding the relative chronology of the two altarpieces.¹⁰⁵ The fact that they are on the recto and verso of the same sheet and are technically similar suggests that they are closely related in both time and concept. The pen‐and‐ink study of Saint Benedict almost certainly preceded the Six Kneeling Saints, as it is highly unlikely that Saint Benedict would have been represented so prominently twice in the same altarpiece.

The relationship of the drawing of Six Kneeling Saints to the National Gallery left‐hand panel showing Adoring Saints (NG 215) is extremely complex. Degenhart and Schmitt, followed by Eisenberg,¹⁰⁶ argued that it was a preparatory study for the finished painting. However, the function of the drawing, which evolved in several different stages and with the contribution of several hands, is by no means straightforward.¹⁰⁷ The Six Kneeling Saints gives the impression of having been drawn by one or more pupils, perhaps copying piecemeal from Lorenzo Monaco’s initial ideas for the grouping of the saints in the San Benedetto altarpiece, with the master himself adding corrective lines in ink. It would therefore be unwise to use it in any discussion of the chronology of the two altarpieces, and Bellosi and Bellini’s argument to the effect that the inclusion in the drawing of a reference to the rainbow in the Uffizi altarpiece ‘proves’ that this altarpiece came first¹⁰⁸ does not seem valid. The arc of the floor was rejected for this commission, but used for the arched rainbow in the Santa Maria degli Angeli altarpiece; instead, the scene takes place on a tiled floor, hinted at by a horizontal line in the preliminary sketch.

The strong and confident study of Saint Benedict on the other side of the sheet may be connected with the same commission, particularly as it is executed with a quill pen.¹⁰⁹ Degenhart and Schmitt, followed by Eisenberg, plausibly suggested that it is attributable to Lorenzo Monaco himself, that it represents the first idea for the central panel of the London altarpiece (namely, Saint Benedict Enthroned), and that when the subject was changed to the Coronation of the Virgin, only the design of the throne was retained. Even here the design was not adopted in toto but in a rather general way, and selected elements, such as the cusped arch and pyramidal tops to the sides, were used for the Santa Maria degli Angeli altarpiece.

Select Bibliography

• M. Davies, ‘Lorenzo Monaco’s “Coronation of the Virgin” in London’, Critica d’Arte, XXIX, 1949, pp. 202–10.
• B. Degenhart and A. Schmitt, Corpus der italienischen Zeichnungen, 1300–1450, vol. I‐2, Berlin 1968, pp. 269–71.
• M.‐L. Frawley, Lorenzo Monaco and his patrons, unpublished MA report, Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, 1975.
• A. Burnstock, ‘The Fading of the Virgin’s Robe in Lorenzo Monaco’s “Coronation of the Virgin”’, NGTB , 12, London 1988, pp. 58–65.
• M. Eisenberg, Lorenzo Monaco, Princeton, NJ, 1989, pp. 138–45.
• L. Kanter in Painting and Illumination in Early Renaissance Florence 1300–1450, exh. cat., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1994, pp. 253–62.
• M. Boskovits, ‘Su Don Lorenzo Monaco, pittore camaldolese’, Arte Cristiana, LXXXII, 1994, pp. 351–64, esp. pp. 352–4.
• D. Gordon and A. Thomas, ‘A new document for the high altar‐piece for S. Benedetto fuori della Porta Pinti, Florence ’ , BM , 137, 1995, pp. 720–2.
• D. Gordon, ‘The altar‐piece by Lorenzo Monaco in the National Gallery, London’, BM , 137, 1995, pp. 723–7.
• D. Gordon, P. Ackroyd and L. Keith, ‘The Coronation of the Virgin by Lorenzo Monaco in the National Gallery, London’, appendix in M. Ciatti and C. Frosinini (eds), Lorenzo Monaco. Tecnica e Restauro. L’Incoronazione della Vergine degli Uffizi. L’Annunciazione di Santa Trinita a Firenze, Florence 1998, pp. 143–56.
• P. Ackroyd, L. Keith and D. Gordon, ‘The Restoration of Lorenzo Monaco’s Coronation of the Virgin: Retouching and Display’, NGTB , 21, 2000, pp. 43–57.

Notes