Title
Sub Title
AuthorPublisher
Publication
year
JtitleJaLC DOI
Abstract
Notes
Genre
URL

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel
ブランカッチ礼拝堂におけるフィリッピーノ・リッピ
荒木, 文果(Araki, Fumika)
慶應義塾大学日吉紀要刊行委員会
2021
慶應義塾大学日吉紀要. 人文科学 (The Hiyoshi review of thehumanities). No.36 (2021. ) ,p.107- 139

Departmental Bulletin Paper
https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/detail.php?koara_id=AN10065043-20210630-0107

慶應義塾大学学術情報リポジトリ(KOARA)に掲載されているコンテンツの著作権は、それぞれの著作者、学会または出版社/発行者に帰属し、その権利は著作権法によって保護されています。引用にあたっては、著作権法を遵守してご利用ください。
The copyrights of content available on the KeiO Associated Repository of Academic resources (KOARA) belong to
the respective authors, academic societies, or publishers/issuers, and these rights are protected by the Japanese
Copyright Act. When quoting the content, please follow the Japanese copyright act.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

107

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

Fumika Araki…and those in the Brancacci Chapel, half by Masaccio and the other half byMasolino, with the exception of the Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Filippino Lippi⑴.
(F. Albertini, 1510)
Filippo, therefore, gave it its final perfection with his own hand, and executed what
was lacking in one scene, wherein S. Peter and S. Paul are restoring to life thenephew of the Emperor⑵. (G. Vasari, 1568)

Introduction
The Florentine painter Filippino Lippi (1457–1504) started his first fresco*

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP16K16731 forresearch on competitive consciousness of artists at mural decoration projects in thefifteenth century Rome and by Keio Gijuku Academic Development Funds for basic
research on the Brancacci Chapel frescoes. I would like to thank all those who contributed
to the development of this project, especially Akiko Takano for English translation.
⑴ F. Albertini, Memorial of Many Statues and Paintings in the Illustrious City of
Florence by Francesco Albertini (1510): A Critical Edition with Annotations by
Waldemar H. de Boer, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, Firenze 2010, p. 100.
⑵ G. Vasari, Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects: Illustrated- Biographies of the Greatest Artists of Renaissance, Including Leonardo da Vinci,
Michelangelo Buonarroti, Titian, Giotto, Raphael, Brunelleschi & Donatello, trans.
G.C. du de Vere, 2018, Kindle edition.

108

Fig. 1work as an independent master in the early 1480s or shortly before⑶, which was thecompletion of the Brancacci Chapel frescoes in the Basilica of Santa Maria delCarmine in Florence, which was undertaken by the early Renaissance masters
Masaccio and Masolino around 1424 but remained unfinished⑷ [Fig. 1]. As Giorgio⑶

For the frescoes of the Brancacci Chapel by Filippino Lippi, see P. Zambrano & J. K.
Nelson, Filippino Lippi, Milano 2004, pp. 181–223, 327–334; P. Zambrano, “‘Gloria e
fama grandissima’. Filippino Lippi al Carmine”, in Filippino Lippi e Sandro Botticelli
nella Firenze del ’400, ed. A. Cecchi, Roma 2011, pp. 27–39.
⑷ The previous researches on the frescoes of Brancacchi Chapel by Masaccio and
Masolino are compiled in N. A. Eckstein, Painted Glories: the Brancacci Chapel in
Renaissance Florence, New Haven 2014; A. Ladis, Masaccio, La Cappella Brancacci,
Torino 1994.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

109

Vasari (1511–1574) described⑸, the narratives from the life of St. Peter painted in
the 1420s, especially the frescoes depicted by Masaccio were considered to be thebirth of a new style. As a result, all artists, not only Florentine including Filippino
but also artists from other cities, came to visit the chapel to study. It became a kindof scuola [school].
The completion of the frescoes should absolutely be considered an important
event both in the art scene of Florence in the late 15th century and in the career forstill young painter Filippino himself. In fact, a contemporary Antonio Manetti(1423–1497) stated that the Brancacci chapel frescoes were painted by the hands oftre maestri tutti buoni [three good masters]⑹. The first clear statement about
Filippino’s involvement in the Brancacci Chapel had been made by Francesco
Albertini (ca. 1469 – post 1510) as quoted at the beginning. He also referred to thesubject of the fresco that Filippino had painted, Crucifixion of St. Peter. In 1550,
Giorgio Vasari described in the first edition of Le Vite that Filippino had painted St.
Paul Visiting St. Peter in Prison and Disputation with Simon Magus and Crucifixionof St Peter as well as completed the unfinished Resuscitation of the Son of
Theophilus by Masaccio⑺. However, Vasari’s description had not received attentionof the critics after him. Instead, they interpreted the text of the second edition(which is the second quotation at the beginning) as Filippino had only painted the⑸

G. Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori scultori ed architettori scritte da Giorgio
Vasari pittore aretino con nuove annotazioni e commenti di Gaetano Milanesi, vol. II,
Bologna 1973, pp. 297–299.
⑹ A. Manetti, Vite di XIV uomini singhulary in Firenze dal MCCCC innanzi, ed. G.
Milanesi, Firenze 1887, p. 165 ([Masaccio] “dipinse nella cappella de’ Brancacci più
storie, el meglio che v’è: è dipinta di mano di 3 maestri tutti buoni, ma lui, maravigliosa”).
Three painters are Masaccio, Masolino and Filippino. However, the writer did not
mention our painter’s name directly.
⑺ G. Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori italiani da Cimabue,
insino a’tempi nostri: Nell’edizione per i tipi di Lorenzo Torrentini, ed. L. Bellosi & A.
Rossi, vol. I, Torino 1986, p. 498.

110

unfinished area of Resuscitation. This understanding has been repeatedunquestioningly. Some historians even went so far as to completely ignore
Filippino’s contribution to the project until the beginning of the 19th century.
Filippino was rediscovered in more parts of the frescoes at that time, when thatimportant and complex issue of how to divide the hands of Masaccio and Masolino
became active⑻.
The previous discussions of the Brancacci Chapel frescoes by Filippino weremainly about the distinction between Masaccio, the similarities with his previous
works, the suggestion of the person or the community who had commissioned tosupplement the unfinished parts, and the identification of the models of many
portraits attending the scenes from St. Peter’s narratives. However, the relationshipbetween the preceding frescoes and the parts painted by Filippino has not been fully
discussed yet. In particular, the previous studies based on stylistic analysis haveoften overlooked this issue because they have devoted themselves to extracting thepainter’s original style from the whole chapel frescoes.
In this paper the author introduces a new point of view to the study of the
Brancacci chapel frescoes by Filippino. That is, to conceive it as a “collaboration”
between the painter and antecedent artists. As Goffen argued, to maintain visual
unity among all work was essential to artistic collaboration in the Renaissanceperiod⑼. Consequently, painters who participated in a collaborative production
tended to those who had already established a cooperative system. Masaccio and
Masolino, who worked together in Brancacci Chapel in the 1420s, are a perfect
example of what Goffen pointed out, or Botticelli and Filippino, who painted Lifeof Esther on cassoni can be given as another instance. Evidently, Filippino must⑻

F. Gamba, Filippino Lippi nella Storia della critica, Firenze 1958, pp. 27–36; P.
Zambrano & J. K. Nelson, op. cit., p. 331.
⑼ R. Goffen, Renaissance Rivals: Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael, Titian, New
Haven – London 2002, pp. 9–10.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

111

have needed to create harmony with the preceding frescoes when completing the
Brancacci Chapel mural decoration. However, as he is also a painter of theRenaissance who obtained a strong consciousness of individuality as an artist,
Filippino would not have been satisfied with just imitating the past style like anartisan.
The purpose of this article is to reveal the actual situation behind the
production by shedding light on the anti-Filippino style of Brancacci Chapel
frescoes along with his originality. This is a new approach to the painter’s
psychology against the chapel wall. To discuss this issue, previous discussions
about how Filippino was involved in the frescoes is examined first. Then, the textsof Albertini and Vasari quoted at the beginning of this paper will be re-readattentively, especially the former that has not been treated appropriately until now.
Finally, the author discloses the multiple attitudes of Filippino toward the Brancaccichapel frescoes by focusing on Resuscitation of the Son of Theophilus and
Disputation with Simon Magus and Crucifixion of St Peter located at the lower
register of the wall in which the involvement of Filippino can be pointed out.

1. Lower register frescoes in Brancacci Chapel andthe involvement of Filippino
The present Brancacci Chapel frescoes are divided into three registers. The
upper register is comprised of the paintings on the ceiling and the left and rightlunette. The decoration of the middle register were co-produced by Masaccio and
Masolino and the lower register frescoes were begun by Masaccio and thencompleted by Filippino⑽. The last, which is the main subject of this article, is⑽

A large-scale renovation of the upper part of the chapel was carried out from 1746 to
48. According to Vasari’s description, a cross vault was applied in the ceiling before thatrenovation and figures of four evangelists were painted there. On the left and rightlunette, Vocation of St.Peter and St. Andrew and Navicella were painted but they havealso been lost. Similarly, on the rear wall, St. Peter Weeping and Denial of Christ are

112

Fig. 2conceptually divided into three groups. The left area consists of the left wall and thepilaster on the left side of the arch-shaped entrance [Fig. 2], the right area iscomposed of the right wall and the pilaster on the right side of the entrance [Fig. 3],
and the rear wall which is the left and right rectangle compartments across thewindow.
On the left area, the three narratives told in Legenda Aurea (ch. 44) unfold inchronological order from the front to the back. The story is as follows. The first is
believed to have been painted. The present middle register of the chapel consists of bothsides of the entrance pillars, the right wall, the left wall, and the rear wall across thewindow. The narratives painted there are as follows: Original Sin is on the right entrance
pillar and Expulsion from the Paradise is on the pillar of other side. On the right wall,
Resuscitation of Tabitha and Healing of the Cripple, and Tribute Money are on the left
wall. On the right side of the rear wall, Baptism of the Neophytes and St. Peter Preaching
are on the left across the window.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

113

Fig. 3

St. Paul Visiting St. Peter in Prison [Fig. 4] on the pilaster. St. Paul learned that St.
Peter was imprisoned by prefect Theophilus while preaching in Antioch. St. Paulcleverly negotiated with the prefect and he made a promise to release St. Peter if he
can revive the son of Theophilus who died 14 years ago. On the rectangle wall, thetwo saints are separated by a wall with a barred window. It differs from thedescription of Legenda Aurea in which St. Paul embraced St. Peter, who was
weakened in prison. A sense of urgency can be seen from the appearance of St.
Peter listening to St. Paul by leaning out and pushing his right shoulder against thebars. In front of the building stands St. Paul. Quite dignified is his appearance
captured from behind, that is strikingly similar to the figure of St. Peter standing in
the direction indicated by St. Paul in the next narrative Resuscitation of the Son of
Theophilus on the adjacent wall [Fig. 5]. According to Legenda Aurea, St. Peter
prayed with all his heart in front of the tomb opened by the people and, just then,

114

the dead boy was revived. After that, all the inhabitants of
Antioch including Theophilus came to believe in Christianityand built a majestic church. And they prepared a cathedra for
St. Peter inside the church.
In the horizontal scene, St. Peter is blessing a kneeling
naked young man and Theophilus is watching on the side.
Between the two, St. Paul gets down and looks up to heaven.
The area around them is filled with witnesses of the miracle.
On the right side, St. Peter sits on the cathedra made of cloth on

Fig. 4the outer wall of the building, which also differs from theoriginal text. St. Peter’s seat is located higher than that of Theophilus, possibly toindicate the superiority of St. Peter. Three people worship on their knees in front of
him and Carmelite monks stand on the left. Also, Meller points out that the groupof people on the right end includes portraits of Filippo Brunelleschi, Leon Battista
Alberti, Masaccio himself, and Masolino from the right⑾.
This series of stories unfolding in this area can be described as a collaboration
beyond the time between Masaccio and Filippino. For Filippino’s involvement in
the Brancacci Chapel frescoes, the description of the second edition of Le Vite by
Vasari had been repeated or sometimes the painter’s participation itself had beendenied as mentioned above. In 1827, Rumohr was the first to shed light on thedescription of Vasari’s first edition⑿. He attributed the central part of Resuscitation
together with Disputation and Crucifixion on the right wall to Filippino’s handbased on stylistic analysis. This proposal was supported by Gaye⒀ andCavalcaselle⒁. In particular, Cavalcaselle put the portrait of five people standing on⑾

P. Meller, “La Cappella Brancacci. Problemi ritrattistici ed iconografici”, in Acropoli,III, 1961, pp. 186 ff. and IV, pp. 273 ff.
⑿ C. F. von Rumohr, Italienische Forschungen, Frankfurt am Main 1920, pp. 378–80.
⒀ G. Gaye, Carteggio inedito d’artisti dei Secoli XIV, XV, XVI, pubblicato e illustrato
con documenti pure inediti, Firenze 1839–49, II, p. 469.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

115

Fig. 5the left end (except the Carmelite monk which is the fourth from the left) tocontemporaries of Filippino and attributed these figures to the hand of the painter.
Their opinion forms the basis of the current view on Filippino’s involvement in thissection as the monograph of 2004 also followed their precedent opinions where
Zambrano listed parts that Filippino had painted: the revived boy, nine of thewitnesses to the miracle on the right including the child, St. Peter’s arm below theelbow, and the group standing on the left edge, except the Carmelite monk⒂. She
also noted that Filippino had erased the hand of a figure regarded as a self-portraitof Masaccio that stands on the right, which was reaching out to St. Peter. Indeed,
the way two painters collaborate on this fresco is more complicated than she
described. Also, to decipher it is quite a pleasant task.
As Zambrano states, the arm below the elbow of St. Peter in the blessing ispainted by Filippino but, apart from that, it is by Masaccio [Fig. 6]. Its clearest
evidence is the color of the saint’s arm which is distinctly separated in the middle.
When completing the Brancacci Chapel frescoes, it would have been impossible for
Filippino to create the exact same colors as it was about 50 years ago. In addition,⒁

J. A. Crowe & G. B. Cavalcaselle, A New History of Painting in Italy, from the second to

the sixteenth century, vol.1, London, 1864, pp. 276–279.
⒂ P. Zambrano & J. K. Nelson, op. cit., p. 332.

116

Fig. 6

when the painter started to work, the wall would have been much darker than when
it was first painted by Masaccio and Masolino due to the passage of time. The
difference in the painted periods of frescoes has become observable by the modern
restorations that unveiled the illuminant coloring by Masaccio. For example, it canbe said from the different color intensity that the head of St. Paul who kneels beside
St. Peter was painted by Masaccio and below the neck was the work of Filippino.
The same is true for a bearded figure in green clothes standing to the right of St.
Paul. Furthermore, by comparing the colored plane with Giornata, which shows the
progress of work on a daily basis, it will be possible to make a broad division
between the hands of Masaccio and Filippino in this fresco [Fig. 7]. The figure
standing on the left edge, which corresponds to Giornata No. 34, is clearly by
Filippino from the usage of color and the manner of profile depicted in detail whichshows his typicality such as the portrait of Francesco Del Pugliese in Virgin inapparition to St. Bernard (ca. 1484–85, Badia Fiorentina, Florence) [Fig. 8]. How
about Giornata No. 33, the pillar at the left end which had been depicted just before
Giornata No. 34? When this pillar [Fig. 9–1] is compared with another one at theFilippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

Fig. 7

Fig. 8117

118

Fig. 9–1

Fig. 9–2

Fig. 9–3

Fig. 9–4* The colored images of Figs. 6 and 9.1–4 can be consulted now on the following website.
https://app.box.com/s/pilx6tq5rfqg24nvis338amxyaqoeyqp

right end of the same fresco [Fig. 9–2] and with the pillars at both ends of the frescoin front (those are sure to have been painted by Filippino)[Figs. 9–3, 9–4], it can beseen that the pillars on the right wall [Figs. 9–3, 9–4] are more bluish in both thebrick-colored capital and the white prism than those on the left wall [Figs. 9–1,
9–2]. Therefore, the pillar of Giornata No. 33 can be identified as not having been
painted by Filippino. Here it is possible to draw a boundary of the time between
Masaccio and Filippino. To supplement the unfinished area of the left wall was sucha complex work.
Regarding St. Paul Visiting St. Peter in Prison, despite Vasari having attributed
it to Filippino in his first edition, it was considered as Masaccio’s work until
Cavalcaselle rediscovered our painter on this fresco in 1864⒃. Although
Cavalcaselle’s proposal was not immediately accepted, it is now arguably admitted.

⒃

Ibid., p. 277.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

119

However, some art historians in the 20th century, such as Salmi and Fiocco suspectthat Filippino may have used a sinopia [underpainting] prepared by Masaccio as itis because the style of this fresco is very close to that of Masaccio⒄. This matter
will be discussed again in detail in Chapter 3 of this paper.
Then the lower right register of the chapel will be examined. St. Peter freed
from prison is painted on the entrance pilaster [Fig. 11]. This narrative is based on
the story described in Acts of the Apostles (12:1–11). It is a miracle that St. Peter
who was imprisoned by King Herod escaped under the guidance of an angel,without being noticed by guard soldiers. In this scene, St. Peter captured from therear left is coming out of prison, with his hand taken by an angel. Beside them, asoldier is sitting in front of the building. He is sound asleep and unaware of theliberation of the saint.
On the right wall, two narratives set in Rome unfold [Fig.10]. First,
Disputation with Simon Magus is painted on the right side of the fresco. Here St.
Peter and St. Paul discuss with Simon Magus in front of Emperor Nero on thethrone. The story had been told in Legenda Aurea and Acts of the Apostles but theexact source of this scene is still unknown. On the left side of the same fresco, St.
Peter is just now being crucified upside down by three executioners. Here many
portraits of Filippino’s contemporaries can be pointed out at the groups of figuresin these frescoes, as Vasari has described. The young man looking at viewers at theright end of Disputation is regarded as Filippino’s self-portrait and the figure next
to his left is Andrea del Pollaiolo⒅. Among the crowd to the right of Crucifixion, thepainter’s self-portrait is repeated on the man who looks at viewers again and the
profiled figure who stands next to his right is considered to be Botticelli. The⒄

M. Salmi, Masaccio, Masolino, Filippino Lippi: la cappella Brancacci a Firenze,
Milano 1949, vol. 2, p. 9 ; G. Fiocco, “Incontro tra Filippino e Masaccio”, in Saggi su
Filippino Lippi: celebrazioni di Filippino Lippi nel V. centenario della nascita, Firenze
1957, pp. 87–94.
⒅ P. Zambrano & J. K. Nelson, op. cit., p. 332.

120

Fig. 10

background of the scene is closed by Roman walls with a pyramid and a landscapecaptured by a fresh touch can be seen from its arch-shaped opening at the middle.
Among the attribution of lower right register frescoes, the whole central partwhich includes Disputation and Crucifixion was described as Filippino’s work in
the first edition of Vasari. Rumohr once again attributed it to the painter in 1827⒆.
Besides, Gaye claimed the attribution of St. Peter freed from prison to him, which
was formerly believed as it was wholly painted by Masaccio⒇. Currently, theirviews are accepted without any objection.
St. Peter Healing the Sick with His Shadow (Acts 5:12–14) painted on the left
across the window at the lower register of the rear wall is attributed to Masaccio
unanimously [Fig. 12]. Also, Distribution of Alms and Death of Ananias (Acts
5:1–11) is basically regarded as a work of Masaccio [Fig. 13]. However, in 1986
Baldini expressed an opinion that the involvement of Filippino can be pointed out
at the clothes and feet of St. John who appears at the right end, and hands ofAnanias lying on the foreground. Indeed, his argument is convincing. For⒆⒇


C. F. von Rumohr, op. cit., pp. 394–397.
G. Gaye, op. cit., p. 469.
U. Baldini, “Restauro della Cappella Brancacci, primi risultati”, in Critica d’Arte, IX,
1986, pp. 65–68.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

121

instance, the color of St. John’s feet is darker whencompared with his face which indicates the difference ofwhen it was painted. Furthermore, his clothes show sometypical examples of Filippino’s style: voluminous cloth
draped over his bent elbow, with undulating color and touch.
Those features can also be observed in the figure in black
clothes who stands on the left edge of Resuscitation [Fig. 14]
and other Filippino’s works painted in the same period such
Fig. 11

as Virgin Mary in Madonna adoring Christ child (ca.1483,
Florence, Uffizi Museum) [Fig.15]. In addition, the postureof the feet of the figure in Resurrection shows a striking resemblance to St. John.
From the above, the author agrees with Baldini’s opinion.
As discussed previously, the “involvement” of Filippino in the Brancacci
Chapel frescoes can be divided into two categories. The first including the left andFig. 12Fig. 13

122

Fig. 14

Fig. 15

rear walls are supplemental work to the frescoes that have already been painted tosome extent by Masaccio.
The second means a new work for Filippino to paint the frescoes from the
beginning on the right wall that has been left blank. Interestingly, the idea todistinguish the two different nature in frescoes of the Brancacci Chapel seems to becommon to Albertini and Vasari’s texts quoted at the beginning of this article.
Furthermore, as it can be interpreted from his work, even Filippino himself had also
shared this same view.

2. The texts by Francesco Albertini and Giorgio Vasari
Francesco Albertini (ca. 1469 – post 1510) was a Florentine cleric. He wasalso known as an antiquarian and dilettante. Albertini lived in Florence since theFor Francesco Albertini, see F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstem, op. cit., pp. 11–37: https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/francesco-albertini_(Dizionario-Biografico) (LastFilippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

1231470s. He was designated to be a chaplain of the Basilica of San Lorenzo in
Florence in 1493, then its canon in 1499. He was indeed Filippino’s contemporary.
He became interested in art under the guidance of the painter Domenico Ghirlandaio(1449–1494) who was also active at the same period as Filippino. In addition,
Albertini had served in the Basilica of San Lorenzo in Florence that houses themausoleum of the Medici family. Considering these facts comprehensively, it isnatural to think that Albertini and Filippino were also direct acquaintances.
Memoriale di molte statue e pitture della città di Firenze is a short guidebookof Florence written by Albertini and published in 1510. It includes brief descriptionsof more than 200 paintings and sculptures that he had seen in major churches,
public and private buildings in Florence. The quoted texts below are all references
to the works of Filippino and Masaccio to examine how Albertini describes them.
1. The freestanding altarpiece in the main chapel was started by Filippino Lippi andfinished by Pietro Perugino, after the death of Filippino This text refers to the Filippino’s final work, Annunziata Polyptych,commissioned by the Basilica della Santissima Annunziata in Florence. Now its
main panel is divided between the same as above and the Galleria dell’Accademia
in Florence and its six smaller panels are now located in the Lindenau-Museum of
Altenburg, the Metropolitan Museum of New York City, the Galleria Nazionaled’Arte Antica in Rome and in a private collection. Here, Albertini describes where
access date 11. 04. 2021).
 F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, op. cit., p. 96. In the original, “La tavola insulata
in cappella maiore è incominciata per Philippo, et finita per Pietro P., morendo Philippo”(F. Albertini, 1863, p. 13). I would like to thank Prof. Jonathan K. Nelson for providing
me a notice about Annunziata Polyptych. For the altarpiece, see J. K. Nelson, “The High
Altar-Piece of SS. Annunziata in Florence: History, Form and Function”, in the
Burlington Magazine, vol. 139, 1997, pp. 84–94.

124

the work is located, the names of the two painters involved in the production andhow it was completed. This polyptych had Descent from the Cross and Assumptionof the Virgin on the front and back of the main panel and it was accompanied by six
smaller panels for each depicted with a saint. However, these structures or a subjectof each panel are not mentioned at all. Also, how the painters shared the work is not
explained.
2. The main chapel with the freestanding altarpiece is by Domenico Ghirlandaio,
whereas the Strozzi Chapel is by Filippino Lippi; both are beautiful .
Here Albertini attributed the Strozzi Chapel frescoes to Filippino. Then hestates his expression as cose bellissime [both are beautiful] together with the main
chapel on the next to the left which was decorated by Ghirlandaio. The positive
attitude of Albertini toward Filippino’s paintings can be read from this text.
3. In the church of San Pancrazio there are paintings by Filippino Lippi, Mariotto
Albertinelli and other modern masters.
4. In the room of the Consiglio Antico [“Ancient Council”], there is an altarpiece
by Filippino Lippi, …



F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, op. cit., p. 97. In the original, “La Cappellamaiore con la tavola insulata è di Domenico G., et quella delli Strozii è di Philippino;cose bellissime” (F. Albertini, 1863, pp. 13–14).
 F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, op. cit., p. 97. In the original, “Nella chiesa di
Sancto Pancratio sono picture di Philippo et Marioctino, et di altri moderni maestri” (F.
Albertini, 1863, p. 14).
 F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, op. cit., p. 99. In the original, “Nella sala delconsiglio antiquo è la tavola di Philip., …” (F. Albertini, 1863, p. 15).

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

125

5. In addition there are the altarpieces by Filippino Lippi at San Donato (1) and in
the Church of the Campora (2)…
All three of the texts above only refer to the name of church and the painter. 3:
Virgin and Child with Saints Jerome and Dominic, originally painted for the
Rucellai Chapel in ​San Pancrazio, currently housed in National Gallery in London.
4: Virgin and Child Enthroned with Saints John the Baptist, Victor, Bernard andZenobius, originally painted for Sala dei Dugento in Palazzo della Signoria,
currently housed in the Uffizi Gallery. 5: (1) Adoration of the Magi, commissionedby the monks of San Donato on the Bellosguardo Hill, currently housed in the
Uffizi Gallery. (2) Apparition of the Virgin to Saint Bernard, originally painted fora chapel dedicated to Saint Bernard which was located in Santa Maria alle Campora
di Marignolle outside the Porta Romana, currently housed in the Badia Fiorentina.
As we have seen so far, when Albertini describes Filippino’s work he nevermentions its subject or the details of the work such as the place where it had been
installed or where in the room the painting or frescoes are located. Its only
exception is the Brancacci frescoes which is quoted at the beginning of this paper:“…and those in the Brancacci Chapel, half by Masaccio and the other half byMasolino, with the exception of the Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Filippino Lippi”.
Meanwhile, the mention of Filippino’s Nerli Altarpiece cannot be found in thedescription of Basilica di Santo Spirito, despite the fact that he certainly shouldhave seen the work. Here he explains about the works by Filippo Brunelleschi,
Taddeo Gaddi, Andrea Sansovino, Michelangelo, and Giottino instead. It seems


F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, op. cit., pp. 100–101. In the original, “Lascio
stare le tavole di Philippo sono a Sancto Donato, et alle Campora, …” (F. Albertini,
1863, p. 17). The numbers in the parentheses are added by the author.
 F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, op. cit., p. 100. In the original,〔Masaccio〕“etla cappella de’ Brancacci meza di sua mano, et l’altra di Masolino, excepto sancto Pietro
crucifixo per mano di Philippo” (F. Albertini, 1863, p. 16).

126

that Filippino is not the most preferable artist of Albertini.
Turning to Albertini’s text of works by Masaccio, some differences from thoseof Filippino can be found. They include much more detailed information about its
subject or the division of the painters.
1. It contains an altarpiece by Masaccio, and the predella and the arch above are by
Uccello.
This is the so called Carnesecchi Triptych originally located on the second
altar on the north side of the nave in Santa Maria Maggiore. Although the opinion
about attribution of the altarpiece is currently divided, Albertini affirms it as
Masaccio and Uccello, and clearly indicates the section that each painter has
depicted.
2. This church has a very large altarpiece by Cimabue next to the beautiful crucifix
by Filippo Brunelleschi, and the Trinity by Masaccio.
The Holy Trinity in Basilica di Santa Maria Novella is a masterpiece by
Masaccio. Here Albertini refers to its subject with the name of the painter.
3. In it [the Carmine] are paintings by ancient masters, especially the ones in thefirst cloister above the door by Masaccio, and those in the Brancacci Chapel, …


F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, op. cit., p. 96. In the original, “nella quale è una
tavola di Masaccio: la predella et l’archo di sopra è di Paulo Uccelli” (F. Albertini, 1863,
p. 12).
 For Carnesecchi Triptych, see A. Cecchi, Masaccio, Bologna 2016, pp. 64–75.
 F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, op. cit., p. 97. In the original, “In decta chiesa è
una tavola grandissima per mano di Cimabove, allato al bello Crucifixo di Philippo
Brunel., et la Trinità è per mano di Tho. Masacci” (F. Albertini, 1863, p. 13).

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

127

The Saint Peter next to the chapel decorated by Starnina is by Masolino, and theSaint Paul is by Masaccio.
In this description of several frescoes by Masaccio in Santa Maria delCarmine, Albertini makes relatively detailed explanations of the location of
frescoes and division between Masaccio and Masolino, together with its subject.
As previously stated, the attitude of Albertini varies between the two painters.
Taking them into consideration, it is highly probable that the background of the textof Brancacci frescoes “excepto sancto Pietro crucifixo per mano di Philippo” wasAlbertini’s intention to clarify the area that was painted by Masaccio, rather than topoint out Filippino’s hand. In other words, he believed that Resuscitation is a workby Masaccio even though he must have known how the frescoes had beendeveloped. Moreover, although in reality the lower register of the right wall that
includes Disputation and Crucifixion and St. Peter freed from prison are fully
attributed to Filippino today, Albertini had little intention of giving that detailed
information throughout his text. For these reasons, the opinion of Albertini can besummarized that the Brancacci frescoes are painted by Masaccio and Masolino,with the exception of the lower register of the right wall that includes Crucifixtion
by the hand of Filippino. Also, the lower register of the left side wall is wholly
attributed to Masaccio, despite the fact it includes supplemental work by Filippino
to Resuscitation.
This interpretation becomes even more probable when the first edition of Le
Vite is taken into consideration, since the similar mentality of the writer can befound there. In its “Life of Filippino Lippi”, Vasari describes as follows.


F. Albertini, ed. M. W. Kwakkelstein, op. cit., p. 100. In the original, “nella quale son
picture di antiqui maestri: et maxime nel primo claustro sopra la porta per mano di Tho.
Masacci: ... El sancto Pietro allato alla cappella dello Starnina è per mano di Masolino,
et sancto Paulo di Masaccio” (F. Albertini, 1863, p. 16).

128

In his earliest youth he completed the Chapel of the Brancacci in the Carmineof Florence, begun by Masolino, and left not wholly finished by Masaccio due tohis death. And so, Filippo led it into its perfection with his own hand together witha rest of the story that Saint Peter and Saint Paul resurrect the emperor’s nephew.
And (stories) that Saint Paul visits Saint Peter in prison, then all of Disputation
between Simon Mago and Saint Peter in front of Nero, and his Crucifix.
In this text, “together with a rest of the story that…” (in original, “insieme con
un resto della storia, quando…”) should be interpreted as “he has led Brancaccichapel into completion by his hands by (A) depicting the Disputation and
Crucifixtion in addition to (B) painting the unfinished parts of Resuscitation. The
figure below is a schematic diagram of this idea.



B

A

To paint the

To depict Disputation andunfinished parts of

Crucifixion

Resuscitation

The original text was translated into English and the word in the parentheses is addedby the author. In the original, “Nella sua prima gioventú diede fine alla cappella de’Brancacci nel Carmino di Fiorenza, cominciata da Masolino e non finita da Masaccio
per la morte sua; e cosí Filippo di sua mano la ridusse a perfezzione insieme con un restodella storia, quando San Piero e San Paolo risuscitano il nipote dello imperatore. E
quando San Paolo visita San Pietro in prigione, cosí tutta la disputa di Simon Mago e di
San Pietro dinanzi a Nerone, e la sua crocifissione. Et in questa storia ritrasse sé et il
Pollaiuolo, per la quale gloria e fama grandissima apportò nella sua gioventú” (G.
Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori italiani da Cimabue, insino

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

129

Because, when Vasari uses insieme con in his text, the word(s) following it
represent(s) another element (which corresponds to circle B in the diagram) that
accompanies a main topic (corresponds to A), regardless of whether it is a personalpronoun or a common noun.
In order to understand the usage of insieme con by Vasari, quoted below aresome examples from the second edition of “Life of Filippo Brunelleschi” where asignificantly large number of its usages can be found.
1. In Florence, a little later, there was a statue of lime-wood to be made for the
Friars of S. Spirito, representing S. Mary Magdalene in Penitence, to be placedin a chapel; and Filippo, who had wrought many little things in sculpture,desiring to show that he was able to succeed in large works as well, undertook tomake the said figure, which, when put into execution and finished, was held
something very beautiful; but it was destroyed afterwards, together with [=insieme con] many other notable works, in the year 1471, when that church was
burnt down.
In this case, (A) represents Brunelleschi’s statue and (B) stands for many othernotable works.

a’tempi nostri: Nell’edizione per i tipi di Lorenzo Torrentini, ed. L. Bellosi e A. Rossi,
vol. I, Torino 1986, p. 498).
 G. Vasari, 2018, Kindle edition. In the original, “Avendosi poi in Fiorenza a fare, peri frati di Santo Spirito, una statua di Santa Maria Maddalena in penitenzia, di legname ditiglio, per portar in una cappella; Filippo, che aveva fatto molte cosette piccole discultura, desideroso mostrare che ancora nelle cose grandi era per riuscire, prese a far
detta figura: la qual finita e messa in opera, fu tenuta cosa molto bella; ma nell’incendio
poi di quel tempio, l’anno 1471, abbruciò insieme con molte altre cose notabili (G.
Vasari, II, 1973, pp. 331–332)”.

130

2. The Consuls besought Filippo to undertake the work in company with [= insiemecon] Lorenzo, but he refused, being minded rather to be first in an art of his own
than an equal or a second in that work.
In this case, (A) is equivalent to Filippo Brunelleschi and (B) is Lorenzo
Ghiberti.
3. And as Donato went on to describe the method that the master of that work had
used in its execution, and the finish that was to be seen therein, together with[=insieme con] the perfection and the excellence of the workmanship, Filippo
became fired with an ardent desire to see it, and went off on foot just as he was,in his mantle, cap, and wooden shoes, without saying where he was going, andallowed himself to be carried to Cortona by the devotion and love that he bore toart.
In this case, (A) equates to the master’s method and finishing of the work and(B) means their high leveled workmanship.
What is common in all of these examples is that the word(s) after insieme conrepresent(s) a different element (B) from the main topic (A) and the text of the
Brancacci frescoes should be no exception. In short, Vasari also recognized

G. Vasari, 2018, Kindle edition. In the original, “Fu da’ consoli pregato Filippo chedovesse fare l’opera insieme con Lorenzo; ma egli non volle, avendo animo di volere
essere piuttosto primo in una sola arte, che pari o secondo in quell’opera (G. Vasari, II,1973, p. 336)”.
 G. Vasari, 2018, Kindle edition. In the original, “e cosí seguendo Donato il modo che
aveva usato quel maestro a condurre quell’ opera, e la fine che vi era dentro, insieme conla perfezione e bontà del magisterio; accesesì Filippo di una ardente volontà di vederlo,che cosí come egli era in mantello ed in cappuccio in zoccoli, senza dir dove andasse, sipartì da loro a piedi e si lasciò portare a Cortona dalla volontà ed amore che portava
all’arte (G. Vasari, II, 1973, p. 340)”.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

131

Filippino’s involvement with the Brancacci frescoes in two divisions, that aresupplemental work on the frescoes by Masaccio that have remained unfinished, andFilippino’s own work on the blank wall.
For a long time, many art historians had interpreted the text of the second
edition as completion of the frescoes is equivalent to the supplement ofResuscitation. But when the text of this first edition is taken into consideration, thesecond edition should also be interpreted by the supplement of some words asfollows.
Filippino, therefore, gave it its final perfection with his own hand by depicting
Disputation and Crucifix, and then executed what was lacking in one scene,
wherein S. Peter and S. Paul are restoring to life the nephew of the Emperor.

3. Filippino in the Brancacci Chapel
The texts by Albertini and Vasari suggest that both writers may haveconsidered that the supplement of the frescoes were left unfinished and theexecution of new paintings on blank plane possessed a different nature. To compare
the manner of depicting Resuscitation with Disputation and Crucifixion reveals that
Filippino himself shared the same recognition. In the former, the painter is quite
conscious of the style of the period of Masaccio, which were already painted on the
Brancacci Chapel wall. Meanwhile, in the latter, he is more freely demonstrating
his characteristics while giving consideration to the harmony of the whole.
First, the author would like to point out that the painter consults Masaccio’s
work carefully when he paints the clothes of the crowd that witnesses the miracleof the Resuscitation. As confirmed in the first chapter, Filippino depicted four

G. Vasari, 2018, Kindle edition. In the original, “Filippo, dunque, le diede di sua mano
l’ultima perfezione; e vi fece il resto d’una storia che mancava, dove San Pietro e Paulorisuscitano il nipote dell’imperatore; (G. Vasari, III, 1973, p. 462)”.

132

Fig. 16

people standing in front of the building on the left side and the right half of thegroup surrounding the revived boy in the narrative [Fig. 5]. All of them are wearing
plain garments that cover their whole body. Those bulky and simple clothes arecommon to that of the figures painted by Masaccio in the same scene and thedecoration of clothes can be found only at St. Peter’s collar and sleeves of
Theophilus.
Next, attention should be paid to the drapery that is arranged into a number ofstraight lines, which appears on the surface of their clothes. It resonates with theexpression of the clothes of the figures in the same scene, namely Theophilus, theupper body of the figure sitting in front of him, the Carmelite monks standing to theleft of St. Peter on the cathedra and the central figure kneeling in front of the saint.
Looking over the entire chapel, it has a close affinity with drapery that can be foundon the clothes of the tax collector in Tribute Money painted above this scene [Fig. 16]
and that of the figures in Resuscitation of Tabitha and Healing of the Cripple painted
It brings to mind the text of Vasari, “And he painted his works with good unity andsoftness, harmonizing the flesh-colours of the heads and of the nudes with the colours ofthe draperies, which he delighted to make with few folds and simple, as they are in lifeand nature (G. Vasari, 2018, Kindle edition)”.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

133

Fig. 17by Masolino [Fig. 17]. Interestingly,
the expression of linear drapery showsa higher similarity to Masolino’s stylethan that of Masaccio.
In addition, the direction of theirfeet can also be pointed out. There are
only two patterns. One is to standwith one foot forward like the figurein black clothes on the left edge of thescene. The other is to stand with both
feet pointed outward as the figure in
red dress to his right. It shows somesense of awkwardness especially in

Fig. 18

the former because both feet are depicted in almost the same size and it seems thatboth feet are evenly weighted. This depiction once again shows a closer similarity
to the figure attributed to Masolino today such as St. Peter preaching [Fig. 18] andthe two male figures walking as if they are dancing in the center of Resuscitation of

134

Fig. 19

Tabitha and Healing of the Cripple rather than the figures by Masaccio.
These characteristics are incompatible with the figures that the painterdepicted at the same time. As Vasari described in “Life of Filippino Lippi”, he has
a reputation for dressing his figures in various ways. The distinction is obvious
when looking at the group of figures watching over the Holy Family in Adorationof Magi (ca.1480, National Gallery, London) [Fig. 19]. In this work, nobody wears
the same clothes. The different styles include a belt fastened around the waist,
voluminous clothes that hang down from the shoulder, a collar, feathered hat and soon. Also, linear drapery is almost never seen. Instead, a complex drapery can befound, which is one of the characteristics of Filippino’s style. The figures are“Such was the intelligence of Filippo, and so abundant his invention in painting, andso bizarre and new were his ornaments, that he was the first who showed to the moderns
the new method of giving variety to vestments, and embellished and adorned his figureswith the girt-up garments of antiquity (G. Vasari, 2018, Kindle edition)”.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

135

Fig. 20

showing various postures, and as a result, the placement of their feet is also diverse.
Turning to Disputation and Crucifixion, Filippino depicted an architectural
structure of white and vermilion in the background and placed two narratives at theforeground. It reflects the painter’s awareness of Resuscitation in front of thisfresco. In particular, the same composition is adopted into both frescoes, that is theemperor (Nero and Theophilus) sitting on the throne with two attendants on bothsides of him. It brings harmony to the walls facing each other.
However, Filippino’s original style that emerged from the observation ofAdoration of Magi is engraved firmly also in this fresco. For example, the figure
standing to the left of the upside-down cross wears a cloak over a glittering armor
with gold ornaments. Moreover, the cloaks of the figures who show their backs
appearing in the center and on the right edge of the scene are boldly lifted up andthe various draperies displayed attract viewers’ eyes, while linear draperies are notnoticeable. The finely decorated clothes and throne of Emperor Nero on the rightside of the scene are depicted with a delicate touch which is reminiscent of northernarts. Also, those of the two attendants on either side of him are rounded like

136

Fig. 21–1

Fig. 21–2

inverted tulips, with overlapping trains. The expression can be associated with theclothes of the female figures that appear at the foreground of Esther Faints Before
Ahasuerus (ca. 1470–75, Paris, Louvre) [Fig. 20] from Life of Esther, which waspainted by Botticelli and Filippino in the 1470s, although the drapery line of theattendants is much simpler. By using the same composition of the Emperor (Neroand Theophilus) with two attendants, viewers should have been urged to compare
the works by two artists, Masaccio and Filippino [Figs. 21–1, 21–2]. They musthave enjoyed the sharp contrast between rigid figures sitting calmly in plain clothes
in Masaccio’s area, and finely decorated clothes with a wide array of draperies orlivery posture of Nero who sticks out his right arm while talking loudly inFilippino’s section. It is reasonable to think that the painter must have aimed forviewers to enjoy their works in such a way that would differentiate his own style
from that of Masaccio. Venture to be said, the painter may have even fostered somesense of competition toward his great predecessor. In addition, the voluminous
drapery, or the solemn expression of the regularly arranged hem of the whiteclothes of Simon Magus are also not able to be found in any frescoes by Masaccio

For the Esther panel, see ed. A. Cecchi, op. cit., pp. 94–96.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

137

Fig. 22and Masolino in Brancacci Chapel. Instead, a similar expression can be foundfrequently in Filippino’s paintings, for example Tondo Corsini (ca.1480, Florence,
Collezione Ente Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze) [Fig. 22] which was painted at thesame period as the Brancacci frescoes, or his later works such as the clothes of
Virgin in Apparition of the Virgin to Saint Bernard (1486, Florence, Badia
Fiorentina) [Fig. 8]. It should also be pointed out that everyone shows a different
foot position according to his posture.
As discussed previously, when comparing Resuscitation with Disputation and
Crucifixion and other Filippino’s works of the same period, it was confirmed that
Filippino adopted obviously an archaic style in Resuscitation: simple and bulky
clothes, linear drapery, peculiar foot positions and restrained gestures. St. John in
Death of Ananias, that was added by Filippino, is showing an awkward posture bystanding with one foot forward, which reflects the paintings of two generations ago.
It reinforces the painter’s awareness of the previous styles of the supplemental

138

work.
Furthermore, as mentioned in Chapter 1, St. Paul standing with his back to theviewers in St. Paul Visiting St. Peter in Prison [Fig. 4] had been considered to be
the work of Masaccio by many historians. Some scholars still assumed that it was
based on a sinopia prepared by Masaccio, even after the entire involvement ofFilippino in this fresco become clear. However, in the light of Filippino’s attitude
toward Resuscitation revealed above, it is more natural to think that the painter has
recognized that this fresco thematically relates to Resuscitation as a part of the
supplemental work. He must have been in that mentality and dared to bring his style
closer to Masaccio.

Conclusion
No historical document has been found yet to explain how this important taskof completing the Brancacci Chapel frescoes was commissioned to Filippino. Thus,
there is no way to know if the differentiation of the style between Resuscitation and
Disputation and Crucifixion was ordered from the patron. What is certain is that,for Filippino himself, this project was a great showcase to demonstrate his
versatility as a painter, that is to say, a skill of imitation as an artisan and outstanding
characteristic as an artist at the same time in a single space. These multiple attitudes
toward the project are clearly marked on both the fresco by Filippino and the texts
by Albertini and by Vasari examined in Chapter 2.
Previous researches based on stylistic analysis had pointed out his attractive
originality from the Brancacci Chapel frescoes. Those are the realistic portraits ofwhich Vasari devoted almost all space of the text about the Brancacci Chapel
frescoes in the second edition of “Life of Filippino Lippi”, his emotional
expressions that emerges from dramatic gestures of figures or detailed depictions
and landscapes influenced by northern paintings. Somehow, the comments upon
Filippino’s frescoes in recent publications tend to be a refrain of similar substance.

Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci Chapel

139

The author has introduced a new point of view to the study of the Brancacci chapel
frescoes by Filippino, that is to conceive it as a “collaboration” between the painterand antecedent artists while focused on the anti-Filippino style. Consequently, it
has revealed the painter’s multiple mentality on the scaffold of frescoes seesawing
between imitation and innovation. The completion of the Brancacci Chapel
frescoes should be recognized again as a very significant work for Filippino Lippiin the sense that he was able to construct his identity by confronting his own
characteristics more intensely than usual.