“THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN ART” 229

despair-all diversities of character, all kindred sympathies annihilated under their pressure-those emotions uttering themselves, not through the face but the form, by bodily contortion, rendering the whole composition, with all its overwhelming merits, a mighty hubbub-Orcagna’s on the contrary embraces the whole world of passions that make up the economy of man, and these not confused or crushed into each other, but expanded and enhanced in quality and intensity commensurably with the ‘change’ attendant upon the resurrection-variously expressed indeed, and in reference to the diversities of individual character, which will be nowise compromised by that change, yet from their very intensity suppressed and subdued, stilling the body and informing only the soul’s index, the countenance. All therefore is calm; the saved have acquiesced in all things, they can mourn no more-the damned are to them as if they had never been;-among the lost, grief is too deep, too settled for caricature, and while every feeling of the spectator, every key of the soul’s organ, is played upon by turns, tenderness and pity form the under-song throughout and ultimately prevail; the curse is uttered in sorrow rather than wrath, and from the pitying Virgin and the weeping archangel above, to the mother endeavouring to rescue her daughter below, and the young secular led to paradise under the approving smile of S. Michael, all resolves itself into sympathy and love.-Michael Angelo’s conception may be more efficacious for teaching by terror-it was his object, I believe, as the heir of Savonarola and the representative of the Protestant spirit within the bosom of Catholicism; but Orcagna’s is in better taste, truer to human nature, sublimer in philosophy, and (if I mistake not) more scriptural.”-Vol. iii. pp. 139-141.

59. We think it somewhat strange that the object of teaching by terror should be attributed to M. Angelo more than to Orcagna, seeing that the former, with his usual dignity, has refused all representation of infernal punishment-except in the figure dragged down with the hand over the face, the serpent biting the thigh, and in the fiends of the extreme angle; while Orcagna, whose intention may be conjectured even from Solazzino’s restoration, exhausted himself in detailing Dante’s distribution of torture, and brings into successive prominence every expendient of pain; the prong, the spit, the rack, the chain, venomous fang and rending beak, harrowing point and dividing edge, biting fiend and calcining fire. The objects of the two great painters were indeed opposed, but not in this respect. Orcagna’s, like that of every great painter of his day, was to write upon the wall, as in a book, the greatest possible number of those religious facts or doctrines which the Church desired should be known to the people. This he did in the simplest

[Version 0.04: March 2008]