DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61022#0172
ROMAN ART
more concentrated drama. He was helped by his subject and
possibly by the example of the paintings already on the wall. The
desire to make an allusion to the release of Leo m. from captivity
by the French is supposed to have caused him to substitute the
‘Release of St. Peter’ (Plates lxxxvi.-lxxxix.) for a ‘Vision of
St. John the Evangelist,’ which he may have originally planned for
this position. A resemblance between the central group and the
‘Vision of Constantine,’ by Piero dea Francesca, at Arezzo, has been
thought to indicate that this painter,—who is said by Vasari to
have painted in this room,—had already decorated the walls with
a similar subject and influenced Raphael first in his ‘Vision,’ and
finally in the ‘ Release.’ It is more certain that the figures on the
right side are suggested by Filippino’s painting of the same sub-
ject in the Brancacci chapel at Florence, while figures from many
paintings of the Resurrection supplied prototypes for the sleeping
guards.
Its central idea, the depiction of three scenes from the same
incident, is arranged in accordance with the new precepts of
decoration formulated by Leonardo in his notebooks. Italian
taste until the very end of the fifteenth century accepted, without
question, the custom of dividing walls into several spaces, either
horizontal or perpendicular, and filling them with totally discon-
nected scenes. As long as these scenes were merely flat decora-
tive representations the division caused no offence. But when it
was discovered that a flat space could be so treated as to have an
atmosphere of its own, a separate space and a distinct illusion, the
contradiction and the unrest caused by placing several such dis-
tinct spaces in close juxtaposition became apparent. The maxim
that one undivided wall-space should contain one scene became
axiomatic. But the discovery was not immediately followed by a
recognition that each scene should be historically and logically an
unit. The requirements of the narrative historical style could not
have been satisfied by such purity. Hence, by a compromise, the
only unity demanded was the visual unity which required that,
150
more concentrated drama. He was helped by his subject and
possibly by the example of the paintings already on the wall. The
desire to make an allusion to the release of Leo m. from captivity
by the French is supposed to have caused him to substitute the
‘Release of St. Peter’ (Plates lxxxvi.-lxxxix.) for a ‘Vision of
St. John the Evangelist,’ which he may have originally planned for
this position. A resemblance between the central group and the
‘Vision of Constantine,’ by Piero dea Francesca, at Arezzo, has been
thought to indicate that this painter,—who is said by Vasari to
have painted in this room,—had already decorated the walls with
a similar subject and influenced Raphael first in his ‘Vision,’ and
finally in the ‘ Release.’ It is more certain that the figures on the
right side are suggested by Filippino’s painting of the same sub-
ject in the Brancacci chapel at Florence, while figures from many
paintings of the Resurrection supplied prototypes for the sleeping
guards.
Its central idea, the depiction of three scenes from the same
incident, is arranged in accordance with the new precepts of
decoration formulated by Leonardo in his notebooks. Italian
taste until the very end of the fifteenth century accepted, without
question, the custom of dividing walls into several spaces, either
horizontal or perpendicular, and filling them with totally discon-
nected scenes. As long as these scenes were merely flat decora-
tive representations the division caused no offence. But when it
was discovered that a flat space could be so treated as to have an
atmosphere of its own, a separate space and a distinct illusion, the
contradiction and the unrest caused by placing several such dis-
tinct spaces in close juxtaposition became apparent. The maxim
that one undivided wall-space should contain one scene became
axiomatic. But the discovery was not immediately followed by a
recognition that each scene should be historically and logically an
unit. The requirements of the narrative historical style could not
have been satisfied by such purity. Hence, by a compromise, the
only unity demanded was the visual unity which required that,
150