Toward a Chronology for Paolo di Giovanni Fei

Toward a Chronology for Paolo di Giovanni FeiAuthor(s): Michael MallorySource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Dec., 1964), pp. 529-536Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048214 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 16:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:36:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048214?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


NOTES 529

that in this region the Echternach manuscript production shows an affinity with the Reichenau school.21 The sense of continuity with late classical traditions, shaped by successive Byzantine waves of influence, can be perceived clearly in various first-class productions.

3. The region of Lake Constance. It seems to me that the indications pointing in this direction offer more substance.

Yet inviting as this third possibility is, it too remains conjectural. Unless we come across some new document we must concede scio nihil scire about Theophilus' identity. In any case the identification with Roger of Helmarshausen, highly conjectural, must be taken

cumr grano salis.

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY

This form must have been a favorite one with Theophilus because he described in another chapter how to gild the handles. Now, bi-ansate chalices are extremely rare. One preserved example, the precious "chalice of Abbot Suger" in the National Gallery of Art in Washington shows a similarity to the round-ribbed cup of the chalice described by Theophilus. The channeled sardonyx cup of Suger's chalice is of antique origin. The antique component in Suger's chalice recalls the

continuity in technique and form between some of the works described by Theophilus and the past. Suger's chalice must have been made before 1145, but how much before? Suger does not help us much when he simply states: Comparavimus . . . calicem pretiosum . . . (Erwin O. Christensen, Objects of Medieval Art from the Widener Collection, Washington, 1952). Two other examples of the

12th century are preserved

in the treasury of the Cathedral of Novgorod (I. Grabar, Geschichte der russischen Kunst, II, Dresden, 1958, figs. 210,

21 x). The antiquity of the shape with two handles is attested

by a bi-ansate bowl of massive gold and precious stones from the Petrosa treasure hoard (Rumania), perhaps of the 4th century, and still further back in time by the Mycenaean cups. Incidentally, some of the objects described by Theophilus (orna- mented saddles for ladies, bracelets) indicate that monastic

workshops produced objects for secular as well as clerical

consumption. 21. The same reasoning used by Dodwell that the original

activity of Theophilus is to be placed in the area of the origin of the Wolfenbiittel copy, that is, Cologne or Westphalia, can be paralleled by pointing out that excerpts exist in a manuscript in Brussels (Bibl. Roy., Ms 10247-10258) which probably de- rives from the German part of the Liege diocese. I feel, how-

ever, that such reasoning provides too small a margin of

probability because we know that the lineage of the various

copies is quite complex. The very fact that even early in the Middle Ages copies are known in distant regions of Europe negates the usefulness of such evidence. Dodwell, conveniently for his thesis, fails to draw any conclusion from the fact that

early copies existed in England and in Tegernsee (Bavaria). Of course, later on, books traveled even more freely and all such evidence becomes completely useless.

TOWARD A CHRONOLOGY FOR

PAOLO DI GIOVANNI FEI*

MICHAEL MALLORY

A great deal of study has been devoted to the Sienese painters of the fourteenth century, yet despite this continued attention many of Siena's artists, particularly those of the late Trecento, are still obscure and their works relatively unknown. Paolo di Giovanni Fei is one such artist. His name is recorded in the archives of

Siena between 1369 and 14 11 in numerous documents which tell us of his activity both as an outstanding citi- zen who often held responsible government posts, and as a leading artist who received numerous and important commissions. Despite this relative wealth of documentation, great confusion surrounds this painter's work today, stemming largely from the fact that only one signed painting from his hand has survived, a much damaged polyptych in the Pinacoteca of Siena. Further- more, no dated work has been attributed to him with certainty.' In the light of these facts, the identification of one of Fei's documented paintings, particularly one for which we have the approximate date of execution, is of considerable interest.

The picture in question is a large panel of the Presen- tation of the Virgin in the Temple (Figs. I, 3, and 4) from the Kress Collection, now in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.2 It is erroneously labeled,

as a work by Bartolo di Fredi, an attribution made ver- bally by Bernard Berenson,8 but this identification has been corrected by Professor Millard Meiss who claims instead that it is by Paolo di Giovanni Fei.' Although the surface has been abraded, particularly in the three central figures, the original pigment and gilding is other- wise rather well preserved. Fei's sensitive use of color, rich, warm flesh tones, and emphasis on decorative ef- fects are still evident despite the damage, and the punch work and tooling are all typical of the type used by the master. An examination of certain details fur-

* I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Millard Meiss for the suggestions he has given me in the preparation of this paper.

I. An inventory of works of art in Siena (Bibl. Apost. Vat., Ms Chigiano, I, i. II, fol. 22Ir) compiled in 1625-1626 for Mons. Fabio Chigi, later Pope Alexander VII, lists a painting by Paolo di Giovanni Fei dated 1387 in the church of San Domenico. This reference has been frequently asso- ciated with a Madonna and Child still in that church, known as the Madonna del Rosario, which until its recent cleaning was set into the center of a large composition from the school of Sodoma. The Madonna and Child in San Domenico, however, is closely related in style to the paintings of Francesco di Vannuccio, as R. Offner has pointed out (Art in America, xx, No. 3, April, 1932, pp. 89-114). C. Brandi (Bolletino senese di storia patria, N.S. 4, 1933, PP- 25-42) defends the traditional attribution to Fei by introducing a number of interest- ing documents which, however, do not provide sufficient proof to confirm the attribution. In this case, stylistic evidence super- sedes the inconclusive documentation, and the Madonna and Child in San Domenico should be excluded from Fei's oeuvre, a deletion that would clarify much of the misunderstanding of the master's style. Other references to signed and dated works by Fei exist in documents and old sources, but none can be traced with certainty to a painting that has survived.

2. The dimensions of the painting are 4'97~/ x 4'7Y/4 Before being acquired by the Kress Collection, it formed part of the H. M. Clark and the E. Hutton collections in England.

3. This information comes from the Kress Collection files. The attribution was apparently made without reference to any documentation concerning the painting.

4. M. Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black

Death, Princeton, 1951, p. 28 n. 58.



530 THE ART BULLETIN

ther confirms Fei's authorship. The slanting, almond- shaped eyes, the carefully delineated ears, and the grace- fully posed hands with gently tapering fingers are characteristic of his figures, and the unusual treatment of the thumbs, which grow larger, sometimes even bulbous toward the end, is almost a trademark of his figures' hands. A comparison of the panels of St. John the Baptist and St. Andrew from Fei's signed polyptych in the Siena Gallery (Fig. 2) with Joachim and two male figures from the Presentation (Figs. 3 and 4) makes a very strong case for their common authorship. Also, the profile face of the young girl at the left of Fei's Nativity of the Virgin (No. I 6 in the Siena Gallery)5 is almost identical with one similarly posed at the left side of the Presentation (Fig. 3), a coinci- dence that also indicates that the same hand was at work in both paintings.

Although a systematic study of Fei's works has not yet appeared, it is possible to sketch out roughly the lines of his development so that the painting in Wash- ington can be viewed in its proper relationship to the artist's total oeuvre. Several of his paintings that are very closely interrelated stylistically show certain characteristics frequently seen in the works produced during the third quarter of the century. They are sometimes composed with rigid frontality (e.g., the Madonna and Child in the Metropolitan Museum of Art)," or display a tendency to flatten pictorial space, as in the Nativity of the Virgin,7 and the figures appear with- drawn and emotionally disengaged from each other or from the narrative. Fei was in all likelihood work- ing as an independent artist in Siena by 1380, and possibly somewhat earlier, so that he undoubtedly received his training with one of the masters active during the third quarter of the fourteenth century, probably Bartolo di Fredi. Inasmuch as there is no evidence of a general revival at a later date of the style of these masters, it is logical to assume that those of Fei's works that most clearly reflect the outlook of the previous generation were produced at an early period in his career when he was still strongly under its influence.

Other paintings by the master's hand have in common certain characteristics that differ from those mentioned above. These works show increased elongation of the faces and exaggeration of their features, as for example the more slanted and puffy eyes. The faces are more expressive than those in the previous group,

and the gestures of the figures more emphatic. In addition, these paintings have a brighter and richer tonality than the early works, where delicate pastel shades dominate. The paintings that illustrate a development toward a livelier action of the figures and a more in- tense expressiveness would then represent a later stage in Fei's career, which culminates in such works as the Assumption of the Virgin in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.,8 or the triptych of the Crucifixion in the Minutolo Chapel in the Cathedral of Naples.9 This supposition is reinforced by the fact that the paintings of other contemporary Sienese artists, such as Taddeo di Bartolo, show a similar development toward a more lively and expressive style during the first decade of the fifteenth century. Fei's panel of the Presentation of the Virgin stands at the threshold of his later manner, for though it does not conform to the definition of his early works, it does not yet express the master's late style in its most mature form. When we consider that Fei died in 14 I, a date of ca. 1400 for our painting would thus be indicated.

In the light of this analysis, five documents in the archives of Siena may be reviewed in connection with the Washington Presentation. They indicate that it was executed by Fei for the chapel of San Pietro in the Cathedral of Siena around 1398. In the accounts of the Duomo of Siena for the year 1398, we find the following notices: "A Pauolo di Giovanni Fei dipen- tore a di xxvi di marzo per c. peze d'oro fino che li manco per semele altre colori per la tavola di sco. Piero e sco. Pauolo . . . ."; "A Pauolo di Giovanni Fei di-

pentore fiorini[?] cinquanta doro[?] p[er] la tavola di st6 Piero e st6 Pauolo p[er] sua fatiga e colori per patto fece l'operaio colui apare al mio memoriale fo.

52.'1o From these statements, we can assume that Fei's tavola was already under way at that date since the documents record payments for colors and gold that he needed for its execution.

In another document from the Duomo of about the same time, which concerns a payment to Barna di Turino, a wood worker, we have a mention of what must be the same painting, as will be seen in the following documents. After discussing a fonte that Barna made for the Duomo and payment for his work, other paragraphs written in a different colored ink were added to this entry, the last of which records a series of numbers, presumably the amount of the payment,

5. Illus., Guida della pinacoteca di Siena, E. Carli, ed., Milan, 1958, fig. 15.

6. Illus., Catalogue, George and Florence Blumenthal Col- lection, New York, 1926, 1, pl. xxiii. Fei's authorship is undisputed.

7. Illus., R. van Marle, The Development of the Italian Schools of Painting, The Hague, 1924, li, fig. 337. Other than Crowe and Cavalcaselle, who describe the painting as a joint effort of Andrea Vanni and Bartolo di Fredi, modern criticism has been unanimous in attributing the Nativity to Fei.

8. Illus., G. Ferguson, Signs and Symbols in Christian Art, New York, x955, pl. xxIII. Fei's authorship of this painting is also undisputed.

9. This painting was attributed to Andrea Vanni by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, but all other published opinions give it to

Fei. I o. Siena, Archivio dell'Opera del Duomo, Libro d'entrata

e uscita, 1398-1399, No. 377, fols. 6iv and 64r. V. Lusini (II duomo di Siena, Siena, 1911, I, p. 321 n. 73) publishes the first of these documents with some omissions. He also tran- scribes another payment for the painting which, however, does not appear on any of the pages cited by the author as his source. The second document that we cite was also published by G. Milanesi (Documenti per la storia dell'arte senese, Siena, x854, I, p. 37), again with certain omissions. The name Jacopo di Tommaso appears on the cover of the book from which these notices were taken, and thus the original con- tract, according to our second document, should be recorded in his Memoriale. Unfortunately, this book is missing from the archives of the Duomo.



NOTES 531

and states: "schonto ne la tavola di legname fecie, che e alla chappela di San Piero, la quale dipinse Pauolo di Giovanni dipintore.""1 It is likely that Barna's work consisted in the preparation of the panel before it was painted, and possibly in the carving of its decorative parts such as the frame or the pinnacles. This document gives us further valuable information about the painting because it tells us that the work was at that time in the chapel of San Pietro. This is of particular importance, for in an inventory of the Duomo made in I429, the painting in the chapel of San Pietro is described in the following manner: "La Cappella di Santo Piero coruna [sic] tavola dipenta di santo piero e santo pauolo e in- mezo l'Offerta di Nostra Donna."12 A more detailed description of the painting is given in an inventory of 1458: "La Chapella di Sancto Pietro-Uno altare con tavola dipenta colla Ripresentationi al Tempio di Nostra Donna et di sancto Pietro et di sancto Pauolo et di piu altri sancti e sancte."n8 The same information is repeated in an inventory of I467, but without any additional description of the painting.1"

It is from these fifteenth century inventories that we learn that the tavola for which Fei received payment in 1398, and for which Barna di Turino had made the panel, was in fact a triptych which depicted the scene of the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple flanked by figures of St. Peter and St. Paul. When these facts are considered in the light of the deductions drawn from the style of the Presentation in Washington, there can be little doubt that the latter is the central part of the painting referred to in the documents. The St. Peter and St. Paul that are also mentioned, and by whose names the whole triptych was called, must have been separated at one time from the central scene and lost, although if the main panel has survived, it is likely that these flanking figures are also in existence some- where, not recognized as part of the triptych. The "pifi altri sancti e sancte" that are mentioned were probably painted in the predella or on the pilasters, the latter being frequently decorated in this manner in the second half of the Trecento, as for example in Fei's own polyptych No. 300 in the Siena Gallery. They too have been lost or are unrecognized. If we compare the Annun- ciation by Simone Martini and Lippo Memmi in the

Uffizi,15 or Fei's own Nativity of the Virgin in the Siena Gallery, both of which depict central scenes flanked by full-length saints and are only two of the numerous examples in the Sienese tradition for such a composition, we can see that the relationship of height to width in the Washington painting would allow for flanking figures, probably also full length, on either side. The addition of two lateral panels would indeed result in proportions very much in consonance with those of other such large altarpieces.

Some of the documents mentioned above have been interpreted in a different way by at least two authors. Labarte,18 in his publication of the 1467 inventory of the Duomo of Siena, had knowledge only of the payments to Fei of 1398, and concluded that they were for the artist's work in completing a painting already begun by Bartolo di Fredi. A document of 1392 which records a payment to Fredi is the basis of this hypothesis. It states: "A Bartalo[sic] di Maestro Fredi dipen- tore, fior: vinti, libri ciento vintidue, soldi sei auti per peze d'oro e d'ariento e den: contanti e denari paghati per lui in pifi volte . .. Queste chose auto per la tavola di san Piero che fa."17 The author concludes that Fredi died shortly after 1392, and left unfinished in the chapel of San Pietro a work which Fei later completed. There are, however, considerations that militate against the identity of the panels mentioned in the documents. One is that Bartolo di Fredi did not die until 14Io, and received payments for work done in the Duomo as late as 1397.-1 Why would he not have finished the work himself? Even had he been suddenly incapaci- tated shortly after 1397, after which date we have no further record of him until the notice of his death, he still would have had ample time to finish a painting that he had already begun by 1392, five years earlier. Also, the document cited above which refers to the work done by Barna di Turino gives no indication that Fredi had begun the painting, and in fact, it states that the panel in the chapel of San Pietro was painted by Paolo di Giovanni.

V. Lusini, in his book Il Duomo di Siena, while aware of the document concerning Barna di Turino, still sup- ports the theory that both Fredi and Fei painted the altarpiece in the chapel of San Pietro."9 In order to

ixx. Siena, Archiv. Op. Duomo, Libro nero, No. 705, fol. 163v. This document was published with variations in spelling and wording by S. Borghese, and L. Banchi, Nuoui documenti per la storia dell'arte senese, Siena, 1898, p. 62. In the original document, the date April 30, 1397, appears at the top of the passages concerning Barna, as recorded by Borghese and Banchi, but the first of the added paragraphs speaks in the past tense of the operaio of the Duomo for the year 1398. It precedes the one we have cited in the text, so that they must date from sometime after 1398.

x2. Siena, Archiv. Op. Duomo, Inventari, libro No. 876, 1429, fol. x7v. This document was published with some minor variations in spelling by P. Bacci, Dipinti inediti e sconosciuti di Pietro Lorenzetti, Bernardo Daddi etc., Siena, 1939, p. 171.

13. Ibid., 1458, fol. 26. Published in Bacci, p. 171. The painting is also mentioned in inventories of the Duomo made in 1435, 1446, and 1449 in which it is described as a "tavola grande dipenta a la figura di nostra dofia e di Santo pietro e

di Santo pauolo. .. ."

x4. This inventory was published by J. Labarte, "L'lglise

Cath6drale de Sienne et son Tresor d'apres un inventaire de 1467," Annales archiologiques, xxv, 1865, p. 280. The same information is repeated again in an inventory of 1480.

15. Illus., R. van Marle, Simone Martini, Strasbourg, I 92o, pl. xxII.

i 6. Labarte, loc.cit. 17. Milanesi, II, p. 37. I have been unable as yet to locate

this document in the cathedral archives. I8. Ibid.

x9. Pp. 261, 321 n. 74. In the author's opinion, Barna shaped the panel begun by Fredi and finished by Fei in such a way as to "go well with" a tabernacle which contained a statue of St. Peter of an earlier date. It is difficult to explain how Lusini arrived at the latter conclusion because he did not know the exact shape of either the panel or frame of the painting, or the appearance of the tabernacle. Bacci, loc.cit., considers the documents concerning the painting in the chapel




arrive at this conclusion, Lusini ignores the fact that only Fei is mentioned as the author of the painting, and fails to explain why Barna di Turino was not paid until 1398 or later for a wood panel that, according to his theory, he would have had to have carved by 1392, by which date Fredi had already begun to paint it. It is impossible from these documents to be absolutely certain of what relation, if any, Bartolo di Fredi's painting of I392 had with the triptych executed for the chapel of San Pietro. Probably the document, in refer- ring to "la tavola di san Piero che fa," is designating a panel depicting St. Peter rather than one made for the chapel of San Pietro; or possibly it refers to an altarpiece for the chapel that Fredi did actually execute, but which was moved or destroyed before Fei began his painting. Although most unlikely because of the argu- ment adduced against such an interpretation, it is even possible that Fredi did begin the triptych from which the Presentation of the Virgin remains, but that his work was executed on one of the missing panels (maybe that of St. Peter). In any case, his hand is nowhere evident in the National Gallery painting and unless an eventual reconstruction of the triptych indicated his participation, it is more reasonable to assume that the document of I392 refers to some other work executed by Fredi for the Duomo.

A few words about the iconography of the Presenta- tion of the Virgin in the Temple are appropriate in relation to such a large and important painting of that subject. The ultimate textual sources for all representations of the scene are found in apocryphal writings, principally those of the Proto-Evangelium of James (7 and 8)20 and the Pseudo Matthew (4).21 As early as the eighth century the Eastern Church instituted a liturgical celebration commemorating the Presentation

of the Virgin in the Temple, and it is not surprising that we should find numerous representations of the scene in Byzantine art. In these, the action takes place out-of-doors with the High Priest standing within or before a small temple, and the young Virgin advancing toward him followed by her parents, Joachim and Anna. The Presentation itself is often combined with a scene of the Virgin being conducted to the Temple, so that there is frequently portrayed a procession of other young girls, the Daughters of the Hebrews, who follow the Virgin and sometimes carry candles, this motif apparently being based on a passage in the Proto- Evangelium of James, 7:2.22 The steps leading to the Temple, which have an important role in the story as we shall discuss presently, are absent in Byzantine representations of the scene.23 The Western Church was slower to accept the apocryphal texts, and while representations of the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple are not rare in the stained glass windows and sculptural decoration of northern European churches, they are not so common as in the East, and are usually reduced to only a few figures. The procession to the Temple is not included in these scenes, but the steps leading to the altar are often portrayed, sometimes with the Virgin kneeling on them in prayer. In other examples, a greatly simplified version can be seen in which the Virgin is shown on the altar flanked by her parents.2' During the fourteenth century in Tuscany, the scene underwent a number of transformations, and its decorative and illustrative potential was exploited to a greater degree. Both the Florentine and Sienese schools represented it frequently and established separate pictorial traditions which persisted into the fifteenth century.25

of San Pietro which we have cited, but does not mention the notice concerning Bartolo di Fredi. Like Labarte and Lusini, he was unaware of Fei's panel of the Presentation, which had not yet come into the Kress Collection.

20. See M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford, 1924, pp. 41-42.

21. See The Lost Books of the Bible, W. Hone, ed., New York, 1926, p. 20. Also see Syriac History of the Virgin, E. Budge, ed. and trans., London, 1899, pp. 16ff. For a general history of the legend, see Sister Mary J. Kispaugh, The Feast of the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple, Catholic University of America, 1941.

22. James, loc.cit. 23. Among the numerous examples of the scene in Byzan-

tine art, see in particular: illuminations in the Menologium of Basil II, Bibl. Apost. Vat., gr. 1613, of the ixth century (illus., Il menologio di Basilio II, Turin, 1907, II, p. 198); illuminations from the Homilies of Jacobus, Paris, Bibl. Nat., gr. 20o8, and another very similar version of the manuscript, Bibl. Apost. Vat., gr. 1 162, both of the first half of the i2th century (illus., A. Venturi, La Madonna, Milan, 1900, pp. io6-io8 and C. Stornajolo, Miniature delle omilie di Giacomo monaco, Rome, 9x10, pl. 27)i fresco in the chapel, grotto No. v at Mount Latmos of the iith-I2th centuries (illus., T. Wiegand, Der Latmos, Berlin, 1913, pl. Iv, i); fresco in the narthex of the church of St. Nicolas, Curtea de Arges, of the

x3th-x4th centuries (illus., O. Tafrali, Monuments byzantins de Curtia de 4Arges, Paris, 1931, II, pl. cx, 4); and the fresco from the church of the Annunciation, Karan, of the i4th century (illus., Starinar, Iv, 1926-1927, p. 2o4, fig. 31).

24. Among the examples of this scene in sculpture, see the

capital in the north gallery of the cloister of the church of Santa Maria at Estany of the 12th century (illus., Gazette des Beaux-Arts, LXXV, 2, 1933, P. I46, fig. 12), capital of the Royal Portal of the Cathedral of Notre Dame at Chartres of the i2th century (illus., Cathidrale de Chartres; portail occi- dental ou royal, Chelles, 1919, pl. 77), relief on the tympanum of right portal of the west facade of the Cathedral of Notre Dame at Paris of the first half of the

13th century (illus., M.

Aubert, Notre Dame de Paris, Paris, 1928, pl. 29), and the relief in the spandrels of the sedilia of the Lady Chapel of Ely Cathedral of the first half of the 14th century (illus., M. R. James, The Sculptures in the Lady Chapel at Ely, Lon- don, 1895, pl. xiII). For examples in stained glass, see among others: window of the Virgin Mary Chapel of the Cathedral of Saint-Julien at Le Mans of the 13th century (illus., E. Hucher, Les vitraux de la cathidrale du Mans, Le Mans, 1864, pl. 43 unnumbered); window of the church of Saint- ttienne at Mulhouse from the first half of the 14th century (illus., J. Lutz, and P. Perdrizet, Speculum humanae salka- tionis, Mulhouse, i907-1909, II, pl. io2); the windows in the choir of the cloister-church at K6nigsfelden of the x4th century (illus., E. Maurer, "Das kloster K6nigsfelden," in the series Die Kunstdenkmiiler der Schweiz, Basel, 1954, xxxII, fig. 182) and the east windows of the cloister-church at Amelungs- born of the 14th century (illus., H. Wentzel, Meisterwerke der glasmalerei, Berlin, 1951, pl. 137). Also see the scene in the embroidery of the cope of the I3th century in the church of the Madeleine at St. Maximin (illus., A. Christie, English Medieval Embroidery, Oxford, 1938, pl. LX).

25. Some 13th century representations of the scene in Italy follow closely the iconography of the Byzantine tradition,



NOTES 533

Giotto's fresco in the Arena Chapel is perhaps the earliest Trecento representation of the scene in Italy, and it contains many of the basic elements that are repeated in both schools for over a century.28 In it we see the young Virgin at the top of the steps leading to the Temple, parting from her mother Anna, who has accompanied her part of the way up. The child is received by the High Priest, who extends his arms in wel- come. Several other young girls in the Temple en- closure, presumably the Daughters of the Hebrews,27 as well as other male and female figures who flank the steps, observe and comment among themselves on the events that are unfolding before them. Giotto includes in the scene an attendant who stoops under the weight of a covered basket which presumably contains the articles that the young Virgin will need for her future life in the Temple.28 Taddeo Gaddi's famous fresco in the Baroncelli Chapel in Santa Croce (Fig. 6), while based on Giotto's composition, introduces many inno- vations which are influential for the further development of the scene in Florence and elsewhere. He greatly increases the size of the Temple in relation to the figures, conceiving it as a grand, airy structure with side loggias in which we see other young virgins at the right side of the painting. As in Giotto's fresco, the architecture is composed at an oblique angle to the ob- server, but in the Santa Croce painting, it is set upon a platform reached by a stair whose three runs each

contain five steps."2 The apocryphal sources state that the Virgin mounted fifteen steps, and thus Taddeo follows the text more closely than many earlier and later representations in which the number of steps is arbi- trary. On the other hand, he goes directly against the written accounts of the event by depicting the Virgin hesitating, looking back at her parents, for it is stated explicitly that she did not do these things."0 He also includes additional figures who were not present in Giot- to's scene, such as the kneeling figures on the right, the attendants who stand with the High Priest at the top of the steps, and the group of the old woman and two boys who appear at the lower left corner. Another important Florentine fresco of the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple is located in the Rinuccini Chapel in Santa Croce, whose walls were painted by Giovanni da Milano and assistants in I365.-' It is very much dependent on Taddeo Gaddi's neighboring fresco, of which it is in general a more elaborate version. The Temple is depicted as a longitudinal Gothic church with what appears to be a campanile at the apse, and in whose open transepts we can see an increased number of young maidens, both on the ground floor and in the balcony above. Also, as in Giotto's and other Tre- cento representations of the Presentation, the Virgin looks toward the Priest rather than back toward her parents.32

e.g., the fresco in the Baptistery, Parma (illus., P. Toesca, IIl battistero di Parma, Milan, I960, pl. 23), while others in certain aspects foreshadow the development of the scene during the next century, and are themselves influenced to some degree by northern European representations. In a panel in the Museo Civico of Pisa, the Virgin is portrayed standing on the front wall of a little temple, supported there by her mother, and in this way the child is raised up to the level of the priest. There are no steps visible however (illus., Catalogo della mostra giottesca, Florence, I943, fig. 24a). The relief on the architrave of the central portal of the Cathedral of Siena again shows the Virgin above the level of the ground, this time even higher than the priest, and she is standing at the top of the steps (illus., E. Carli, Sculture del duomo di Siena, Turin, 1941, pl. xIII, fig. 25). The ruined fresco in the apse of the upper church at Assisi may have represented the Presentation of the Virgin for there is now visible a procession of figures who carry what may have originally been torches, and a temple approached by steps. The Virgin, however, is not present, and because the fresco has been completely repainted, it is difficult to be certain of what it originally represented (illus., A. Nicholson, Cimabue, Princeton, I932, fig. I5). The 14th century fresco in the church of Santa Maria in Porto Fuori in Ravenna is still under the influence of Byzantine scenes, while at the same time, the style of the artist leans strongly on Giotto (illus., R. van Marle, The Development, Iv, p. 318).

26. Illus., I. B. Supino, Giotto, Florence, 1920, pl. LxxxI. 27. Giotto, who seems to have been the first artist to

place the Daughters of the Hebrews in the Temple, has a textual source for this arrangement in the Pseudo Matthew, 7: 8: "But the parents . . . left the Virgin with other virgins in the apartments of the temple, who were to be brought up there, and they returned home." See Hone, p. 20.

28. For four north Italian panels of the I4th century that are dependent on Giotto's scene, see E. Sandberg-Vavala, ART BULLETIN, XI, 1929, pp. 376ff. Some additional works influenced by Giotto's fresco include a polyptych in the

Graf. Czernin Gallery, Vienna (illus., Art in America, xxII, 1933, p. 2, fig. h), and the triptych No. 701 in the National Gallery, London (illus., National Gallery Illustrations, Lon- don, 1937, III, fig. p. i81).

29. A 14th century drawing of Taddeo's fresco in the Louvre (illus., B. Berenson, Drawings of the Florentine Painters, Chicago, 1938, III, fig. i), which is almost certainly preparatory to the fresco, preserves its original design. Old restorations, which have lately been removed, completely mis- represented this area of the painting.

30. "She ascended quickly the 15 steps, without looking back, and without inquiring of her parents as children usually do, much to the astonishment of everyone; and the priests themselves wondered at her." Pseudo Matthew 4. (James, The Apocryphal Newv Testament, p. 73.)

31. Illus., A. Venturi, Storia dell'arte italiana, Milan, I907, V, fig. 717.

32. For later Trecento and early Quattrocento representations that are dependent on Taddeo's composition, see among others: retable in the church of Santa Maria in Impruneta (illus., Van Marle, The Development, III, fig. 366); altar frontal in the Cathedral of Pistoia (illus., E. Molinier, Histoire generale des arts appliques, Paris, 1896-19o0, Iv, pl. xii); fresco in the Baptistery of Parma (illus., Alinari No. 39056); and fresco in the chapel of the Sacra Cingolo in the Cathedral of Prato (illus., R. Salvini, L'arte di Agnolo Gaddi, Florence, 1936, pl. xxvii, b).

The predella panel of Bernardo Daddi's San Pancrazio polyptych, now in the Uffizi, No. 8345 (illus., R. Offner, A Corpus of Florentine Painting, New York, 1930, sec. III, III, pl. XIV, 27) for which a drawing also exists (Uffizi No. 18 illus., H. S. Ede, Florentine Drawings of the Quattrocento, London, 1926, fig. i), shows some influence of Giotto's work in that the Virgin looks at the High Priest, although her arms are not folded, and that he reaches out to her in a somewhat similar gesture to that in the Arena Chapel fresco. The Temple is more complete than Giotto's curious structure, but less elaborate than in Taddeo Gaddi's fresco, and like the




The principal pictorial source for the Sienese tradition of this scene appears to have been a now destroyed Lorenzetti fresco executed on the fagade of the Ospe- dale della Scala in Siena. It was painted in 1335, about the same time that Taddeo Gaddi was creating his influential fresco in Florence, and the main elements of the Lorenzetti composition are preserved in a number of "copies" executed by later Sienese masters during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. These paintings are remarkably consistent in repeating over and over again certain motifs which attest to the fact that they had in common a source whose influence was extraordinarily powerful. The earliest is Lippo Vanni's fresco in the church of San Leonardo al Lago (Fig. 5) in which we see the basic elements of the Sienese compositional type.33 The emphasis on an exterior setting for the scene, as portrayed in the Byzantine tradition and still preserved to some degree in Florentine representations, has been greatly reduced. It is dominated by the Temple, which becomes a polygonal, centralized structure approached by a single run of steps, unlike the more complex arrangement in Taddeo Gaddi's fresco. Also unlike the Byzantine and Florentine traditions where the Virgin's parents stand together, Joachim is portrayed at the right side of the Temple and Anna at the left; each is accompanied by other figures who observe the action of the scene. The High Priest is alone at the top of the steps, although the heads of two other figures are visible in the background. He bends down to greet the Virgin, who, as in Giotto's fresco, stands with folded arms at the top of the steps, but who, unlike the Virgin in the Arena Chapel, turns to look back at her mother. Also, as in some of the Florentine representations, the Daughters of the Hebrews are visible in the temple, and they are again portrayed at the right side of the

Priest. With certain variations, such as the number of virgins in the Temple and Mary's position on the steps (in Sienese representations, she is almost always near the top), and other details, the essential elements of this composition are maintained within the Sienese tradition until the first half of the fifteenth century."

Fei's Presentation of the Virgin (Figs. 1, 3 and 4), while clearly linked to the Sienese type, is at the same time less traditional than other representations of the scene, and is not without some influence for later Sien- ese paintings. Certain of its aspects are consistent with the established tradition; the Daughters of the Hebrews are in the Temple and at right side of the composition; the patterned floor and sculptural details in the gables point to the Lorenzettian source of the architecture; the raised altar is reached by steps and is decorated by a tabernacle; and the Virgin is portrayed with her arms folded, looking back from the top of the steps. All of the action takes place within the

Temple, and Fei carries to the ultimate the tendency of Sienese artists to minimize the exterior setting. Yet, the architecture of the Temple itself is atypical; it is not a centralized polygonal structure, but rather a large, three aisled Gothic church which we view frontally. This interior was probably based on another Loren- zetti composition, possibly Ambrogio's panel of 1342 depicting the Presentation of Christ in the Temple. The similarity of the architectural requirements between two scenes of the Presentation, and the fact that Ambrogio's panel may also have been in the Du- omo of Siena when Paolo began his work lend support for such a hypothesis." Also unlike most Sienese com-

positions, Fei has placed Joachim and Anna together at the left side of the altar, an arrangement which is closer to the Florentine tradition. In fact, one motif

latter, it is set upon a platform whose steps (not fifteen) are divided by a landing. Several figures beside the High Priest await the Virgin at the top of the steps as in Taddeo's fresco, but there are no virgins in the Temple. The figures of Joachim and Anna are close to those in the Rinuccini

Chapel and the Virgin looks straight ahead in both works, so that the panel may have been a source for the fresco.

Several representations of the scene which were produced during the third quarter of the x4th century are described by Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, pp. 27-28. The emphasis on the mystical entry of the Virgin in the Temple and the exalted role of the High Priest in a scene such as Orcagna's relief on the tabernacle of Or San Michele are discussed by the author, and the influence of this interpretation of the scene can be seen in some of the examples that we have already cited as compositions based on earlier Trecento representations, e.g., the Rinuccini Chapel fresco or the pinnacle from the Impruneta polyptych.

33. These frescoes have recently been published by E. Bor- sook, Burlington Magazine, xcvIIi, 1956, pp. 351-358.

34. Other examples of this compositional type include: panel by Niccolo di Buonaccorso in the Uffizi Gallery (illus., Rivista d'arte, xx, 1938, p. 307, fig. 3); panel formerly in the Kauls- bach Collection (illus., Dedalo, xI, 1930-1931, p. 352); panel by Sano di Pietro in the Vatican Gallery (illus., Mons. E. Francia, Pinacoteca Vaticana, Milan, 1960, pls. 49-50); panel by Giovanni di Paolo in the Siena Gallery (illus., van Marle, The Development, Ix, fig. 252); and fresco by a 15th century Sienese painter in the Collegiata of San Quirico

d'Orcia. In many of these, Anna has one foot on the first

step of the Temple, which may have been a feature of the

original Lorenzetti fresco. The relief on the reliquary of the Cathedral of Arezzo has

some of the features of the Sienese type, but it also appears to be related to Orcagna's relief in Or San Michele (illus., A. d. Vita, Il duomo d'Arezzo, Milan, 1914, fig. 32). The frescoes in the Life of the Virgin in the church of San Giovanni Battista in Campagnatico are largely based on Sienese models, but the scene of the Presentation of the Virgin is atypical in its architectural setting and the position of the

Virgin who joins hands with the priest. The latter motif

originates in the Byzantine tradition and is sometimes seen in 13th century Italian representations, e.g., the fresco in the

Baptistery of Parma or the relief on the west portal of the Cathedral of Siena that we have cited above.

Bartolo di Fredi's fresco in Sant'Agostino in San Gimignano, while displaying certain motifs frequently seen in the more common Sienese type, is unlike them in that the Temple is

composed with one of its sides parallel to the picture plane, and it is on the right side rather than in the center of the scene. Also, the lack of emphasis on the Temple steps and the fact that Anna and attendants enter the scene in a manner reminiscent of a procession, recalls more strongly Byzantine representations than other Sienese examples.

35. Illus., G. Rowley, Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Princeton, 1958, II, pl. 9. For the opinion that Ambrogio's panel was once in the Cathedral of Siena, see A. Venturi, Storia dell'arte italiana, Milan, 1907, V, p. 712.



;" I- r?

;:::

4:8 ,i ?ai ,i;itr~ e~p II -C RILII I1~P t;:

uBI `;

~z? ~JC- I r p?1~;41$P' ? ? ~ I%

t(~ I r II r~

i

B ~ It;

i ~lf:?Cs I I ~iia~

I. Paolo di Giovanni Fei, Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art, Kress Coll.

- po

low 11,-~, Alt zt,- #c rA

71"

v9FU

2. Paolo di Giovanni Fei, Sts. John the Baptist and Andrew

Siena, Pinacoteca polyptych No. 300

..... .....I

tw~l

:iik

rkr

3. Paolo di Giovanni Fei, Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple (detail). Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art, Kress Coll.

P :: i~: I? 13?$~,i- ~i~??-

s hb

,,~? a?n

aw ~ i?~r? %~::-:: i itr~ i?ii;w r- ?:~t?ja:;; r:?"Li?l~

i'- 14 7 ;*;:; ~"c~~la??a::lj?-

?2J--: h ';e ., - 4 6-~Ci .?;-1Ba~il r I .-i

l"lB; ~a-1,6 ("' ~,a -P-- r a II ',?:T~1-X~?'- L "?

i-? ;?" i"

F

I : ?1? :4 -,;a?

?i~

"? ih

a?-

ii

131

~ci,~i'":`~fb ~E~

4. Paolo di Giovanni Fei, Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple (detail). Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art, Kress Coll.



IA

aa

-te ell

Svg

5. Lippo Vanni, Presentation of the

Virgin in the Temple, San Leonardo al Lago (photo: Kunsthistorisches Institut)

ink

8. Paolo di Giovanni Fei, Biccherna Panel, i394. Siena, Archivio di Stato (photo: Grassi)

?~ ~?~~;'?~s~a~Rt~8~~,~~ ???i

i~j~rr~~e~a~ i ?-- - . _

??i,: t~I iC~f~-~

w::

:~?" ii ",' r ~;?i

,l~r~rm~C~ i:

J: .O ir~

?:~i:~ ;i!j

::

i ~~~ rg

~t~

6. Taddeo Gaddi, Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple. Florence, Santa Croce, Baroncelli Chapel (photo: Soprintendenza, Florence)

7. Master of the Life of St. Mary, Presentation of the Virgin Siena cathedral, sacristy (photo: Lombardi)

??7 "I?:?~i~i~:~;8.. "3 Rt" ~r~ni:a: ~i~ai

.-" il- --

~A ?; ,i:

p ,e

1.: -% ti~ ?4 (? ~r O AU i?.-? rq..a; -?.-1L L;I r .ii 3 t?- -???,. r r f?;- ?-?I- .r

; ,; _ i :il

?-;';25 ~ a

??? ??? ~

9. Paolo di Giovanni Fei, Biccherna Panel, 1394 (detail) Siena, Archivio di Stato



NOTES 535

in Fei's painting originated in Taddeo Gaddi's fresco in the Baroncelli Chapel; it is the group of the two boys and a kneeling woman (in Fei's panel she is partially hidden by the architecture) placed at the foot of the stairs."6 Also, the two male figures who stand at the right of Fei's composition generally resemble in pose the two similarly placed figures in the Rinuccini Chapel fresco, and the idea of placing the Daughters of the Hebrews in a choir-like structure at the right side of the composition might also be based on the two frescoes in Santa Croce, although admittedly Fei's arrangement is quite different from that of the Florentine works. These instances of outside influence, however, do not grow out of a broader stylistic dependence of the artist on Florence since, to the contrary, he appears to have been trained and to have worked almost exclusively in Siena. The Santa Croce frescoes, which had been painted many years earlier, were well known by the time Fei painted his picture, so that a borrowing of certain of their motifs by a Sienese artist, although not a common occurrence in representations of this scene, is not astonishing.

Around I4I0, another fresco of the Presentation of the Virgin was painted in the sacristy of the Duomo of Siena and because it bears certain resemblances to Fei's panel in Washington, it should be considered in relation to it (Fig. 7).-" In some aspects it is close to the traditional Sienese type-for example Joachim and Anna are seen at either side of the Temple and some exterior space is indicated-but its overall appearance reminds us of Fei's earlier panel. This is most strikingly felt in the general distribution of the figures within the composition, and the fact that the architecture is again portrayed as a large, three-aisled church. Other features link the two paintings, such as the fact that in the fresco as well as in the panel, two figures, presumably also the High Priest and another priest, await the Virgin Mary at the top of the stairs, and that the curious gesture of the figure on the right who points toward the Virgin is repeated in both works."8 The other virgins in the Temple, and the group of two

boys and a kneeling woman which appears in the panel is not visible in the fresco, but it may have been erased

by the severe damage that it has suffered. Unlike Fei's painting and Sienese representations in general, the Virgin of the Sacristy fresco appears to have only begun her ascent of the steps, although she is portrayed in the by now familiar pose. Despite this and other more minor divergences, and the fresco's generally more traditional character, it is likely that Fei's Presentation of the Virgin was its immediate source. The nature of the

relationship between the two paintings is not at all sur-

prising when we recall that Fei's was also executed for the Duomo and was still there when the sacristy was decorated, and that at the same time, the famous Loren- zetti fresco of the Presentation of the Virgin, the ultimate source for nearly all known Sienese representations, was then visible on the fagade of the Ospedale directly across the piazza from the Duomo.39

Another datable panel of around the same period, now in the Archivio di Stato of Siena, can in our opinion be attributed to Paolo di Giovanni Fei (Figs. 8 and

9). Although it is of small dimensions, and artistically it is not among Fei's important works, it is neverthe- less another stepping-stone for the establishment of the artist's chronology. The Biccherna, or office of finance of the Sienese commune, kept its records in books whose wooden covers were decorated, from as early as the thirteenth century, with painted scenes. The panel which was the cover for the book dating from the six- month period between January I and June 30, I394, has been attributed by E. Carli to the master of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, Nos. 590-591 in the Pinacoteca of Siena.4o Although the similarity of pose between the right-hand figure in the Biccherna panel and St. Damian might lead one to associate the two panels, the observation of certain particulars brings out some significant differences. The planar construction of the facial features of the Pinacoteca saints, their fleshier hands, and their more mannered over-all treatment, do not correspond to the conception of the figures in the Biccherna panel, whose elongated hands, prominent

36. Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena, p. 28 n. 58, first made this observation.

37. Documents which record payments to various masters for work done in the sacristy are recorded in Lusini, II duomo di Siena, pp. 343-345, nn. 206-207. For the best discussion of these documents and an attempt to distinguish the hands of the different masters active in the decoration of the sacristy, see C. Brandi, I quattrocentisti senesi, Milan, 1949, pp. 28-36.

38. These details are difficult to see in photograph re-

productions, but they are clearly visible in the fresco itself. The ultimate source for this gesture was probably P. Lorenzetti. It appears first in the Assisi fresco of the Madonna and Saints

by a master in Pietro's entourage. The two prophets on the temple in the sacristy fresco, Moses and Joshua, are the same ones that appear on the facade of A. Lorenzetti's Presentation of Christ, which would support the notion that the architecture of this fresco, and of Fei's panel, came from Ambrogio's painting. It is possible that similar figures once were present on the Washington panel but that they have been lost in its subsequent alterations. The tiny busts of prophets that now

appear in the gables cannot be identified.

39. The panel of the Presentation by Andrea di Bartolo in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. (illus., Ferguson, Signs and Symbols etc., pl. 22), while dependent in most respects on Bartolo di Fredi's fresco in San Gimignano, may reflect the influence of Fei's Presentation in the pose of Joachim and Anna at the left side of the composition, and more remotely in the design of the two male figures at the right.

40. E. Carli, Le tavolette di biccherna, Florence, 1950, p. 42, pl. xxvi. Sts. Cosmos and Damian are illustrated in C. Brandi, La regia pinacoteca di Siena, Rome, 1933, p. 53. The dimensions of the Biccherna panel are .41 x .3 Icm; it has suffered some losses on the left side of the scene which are visible in the illustration. It should also be noted that during the I4th century the Sienese began the new year on the 25th of March, so that the date in the inscription which reads January 1393 to July 1394 should be corrected to January 1394 to July 1394 by the modern calendar.

I am very grateful to Professor Meiss for having suggested to me that this panel was a work by Fei.




ears, and individual treatment of the eyes are characteristic of Fei's style. These features can be successful- ly compared with those in the Presentation of Virgin, despite the great difference in size between the two works; the treatment of the hands in both paintings, for example, follows the same personal formula, and a face such as that of the virgin furthest to the left strongly recalls the features of the Camarlengo. Even closer resemblances can be found by the comparison of the Bic- cherna panel with some of Fei's smaller paintings, such as the above-mentioned Assumption of the Virgin in the National Gallery of Art, the Madonna and Child, Saints and Eve in the Robert Lehman Collection,41 and the diptych of the Madonna and Child with Saints, and Crucifixion,42 in the Pinacoteca of Siena, all of which are unanimously given to Fei by a number of critics.

With the introduction of two datable panels into the still uncatalogued production of Paolo di Giovanni Fei, the basis is established on which to begin to build a chronology of his paintings. A careful study of his development would not only clarify the individual con- tribution of the artist, who was among the leading painters of his time, but also shed light on the whole period of late Trecento and early Quattrocento painting in Siena.

[COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY]

41. Illus., Van Marle, The Development, 11, fig. 340. 42z. Illus., Van Marle, The Development, 11, fig. 343.

AN ICONOGRAPHIC NOTE ON ALTDORFER'S VISITATION IN THE

CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART*

EGON VERHEYEN

In 1950, the Cleveland Museum of Art acquired a Visitation which was formerly in the Schloss Rohoncz collection. The painting (Fig. I), always catalogued as an original by Albrecht Altdorfer,1 shows the Virgin Mary and St. Elizabeth standing in front of a land- scape. They are approached from the left by Zacharias who steps forward from behind a tree. High in the clouds appears God the Father; from his aureole rays descend on the two women. Between Mary and Eliz- abeth one sees the tiny figures of the unborn Christ and St. John, also surrounded by aureoles (Fig. 2). The halo of the Virgin contains the Dove of the Holy Ghost.

This brief description identifies the iconographic type of the painting in Cleveland as belonging to the type of Visitation listed in the Index of Christian Art as "type foetus," although in this case the foetuses are painted in front rather than in the wombs. The Visita- tion of the foetus type occurs only rarely from the early fourteenth to the first quarter of the sixteenth century.2 We find it, with the significant exception of Italy, all over Europe and especially in Germany.3 The

* I am very grateful to Prof. Erwin Panofsky with whom I discussed the subject matter of this note during my stay at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, in i962-i963.

i. Oil on canvas, 40" x 30/2". Inv. No. 50.91. R. Heinemann- Fleischmann, Sammlung Schloss Rohoncz, Ausstellung Neue Pinakothek, Munich, 1930, p. i; Henry S. Francis, "A

Painting and a Drawing by Albrecht Altdorfer," Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, xxxvI, 1950, pp. i i6f.

2. I know only one Visitation of the foetus type before 1300: Belgrade, Bibl. Nat. Cod. 297. It differs from the other type in showing only the foetus of St. Elizabeth. Cf. A. Grabar, Recherches sur les influences orientales dans Part balkanique, Paris, 1928, p. 75, pl. VI, 3. The Elizabeth of the Belgrade Visitation may be traced back to Byzantine representations of the Virgin and Child of the Iconoclastic period. Then the Virgin was shown with the Child in a circle or a mandorla in front of her breast. The Child, however, was not represented as a foetus but enthroned in the mandorla, fully clothed and blessing. This new type, which did not

change during the following centuries, can be found in frescoes

(cf. Ph. Schweinfurth, Geschichte der russischen Malerei im

Mittelalter, The Hague, 1930, p. 87, fig. 34), icons (cf. K.

Onasch, Ikonen, Giitersloh, 1961, pl. 185 p. 352, fig. 5) and on coins from the time of Emperor Mauritius to that of Con- stantine IV (cf. A. Grabar, L'iconoclasme byzantin, Dossier

archeologique, Paris, 1957, pp. 17f., figs. 53, 56). This

Byzantine pseudo-foetus type occurs often in Venetian art, i.e., in paintings which show the Virgin alone (cf. Maestro

Francesco, Madonna and Child, in Arte Veneta, 1951, p. 82,

fig. 84, about 1300) or in connection with other persons or surrounded by scenes (cf. Simone da Cusighe, Polyptych, in R. van Marle, The Development of the Italian Schools of Painting, The Hague, 1924, IV, p. 99, fig. 49, dated 1389). Aside from this pseudo-foetus type in Byzantine art there also existed a more realistic foetus type (i.e., the Child is

dressed only in a little loin cloth and not surrounded by an aureole or a circle), the sources of which may also be traced back to the time of iconoclasm. Mary with such a "foetus"-Child is shown in the Annunciation-icon from Ustjug, now in Moscow, painted in the ith or

xzth century (cf.

Onasch, op.cit., pls. 15, 16, pp. 350f.). 3. The following Visitations of the foetus type are known

to me. This list is based on references in the Index of Christian Art, Princeton. I am very indebted to Miss Rosalie B. Green for her help. (i) Belgrade, Bibl. Nat. Cod. 297, x3th century. Cf. Grabar,

op.cit., pl. vI, 3. (2) New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, group from

Katharinental, Switzerland, ca. 1300. Cf. James R. Rorimer and William H. Forsyth, "The Medieval Galleries," Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, XII, 2, 1953-1954, pp. Iz2ff.

(3) Karlsruhe, Landesbibl., U.H., 1, fol. CLXXVI', ca. 1300. Cf. A. Heimann, Die Zeichnungen des Opicinus de Ca-

nistris, in R. Salomon, Opicinus de Canistris. Weltbild eines avignonesischen Klerikers des 14. Jahrhunderts (Studies of the Warburg Institute), London, 1936, I A, p. 320 n. 2.

(4) Raziins (Switzerland), St. George's church, wall painting in the nave, 4th century. Cf. Kunstdenkmdiler der

Schweiz, 1940, III, fig. 49. The wall painting is very rough and apparently influenced by the group from Katharinental. In both embryos only the upper part of the body is shown.

(5) Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, group from Passau (Figs. 3-5 of this note), ca. 1410.

(6) Zittau, Stadtbibl., MS A. VI, fol. 1z4V, 1400-1410.

Cf. R. Bruck, Die Malereien aus den Handschriften des K6nigreiches Sachsen, Dresden, 1906, p. 256, fig. 167.

(7) Cambridge, Mass., Fogg Art Museum, Spanish (?) em-

broidery, Acc. No. i928.118, 1400-1410. Cf. Burlington Magazine, I, 1929, pl. at p. ioo.

(8) Utrecht, Aartsb. Museum, so-called Middle-Rhenish altar-

piece, ca. 1410. Cf. A. Liebreich, "Der mittelrheinische Altar im erzbisch6flichen Museum zu Utrecht," Wallraf-



Toward a Chronology for Paolo di Giovanni Fei

Documents

Transcript of Toward a Chronology for Paolo di Giovanni Fei