Catalogue entry
Pesellino (completed by Filippo Lippi and Workshop)
NG 727, NG 3162, NG 3230, NG 4428, NG 4868.1–4, L15
The Trinity with Saints Mamas, James, Zeno and Jerome
2003
,Extracted from:
Dillian Gordon, The Fifteenth Century Italian Paintings, Volume I (London: National Gallery Company and Yale University Press, 2003).

© The National Gallery, London
1455–60
Egg tempera, tempera grassa and oil (all identified) on wood, c. 184.5 x 181 cm
This was the high altarpiece commissioned for their church by the Confraternity of Priests in Pistoia from Pesellino in 1455, and completed after his death in 1457 by Filippo Lippi and his workshop in 1460. In the centre is the Trinity represented by God the Father supporting the crucified Christ, with the Dove of the Holy Spirit between them, surrounded by a mandorla of cherubim and seraphim. Two angels hover at left and right. Standing below on the left are Saint Mamas, holding a martyr’s palm and accompanied by three lions (one head and two muzzles are visible), and Saint James, carrying a book and a pilgrim’s staff. On the right are the Bishop Saint Zeno and Saint Jerome, dressed as a cardinal and carrying a book. The clouds at the base of the cross separate the group of the Trinity from the earthly landscape in which the saints stand. In the foreground the grass is covered with plants, a winding river linking it to the hills beyond.
Scenes from the lives of the four saints are in the predella beneath (a fifth panel, in another collection, is discussed below). In the first panel Saint Mamas, praying behind prison bars, is about to be attacked by four lions. In the second Saint James kneels in a landscape, about to be beheaded by an executioner. In the third Saint Zeno is exorcising a devil issuing from the mouth of the daughter of the Emperor Gallienus, watched anxiously by the emperor and his wife. In the final panel Saint Jerome is removing a thorn from the lion’s paw; a river leads to the mountainous background where two friars or monks are shown reading; a path of stone steps leads from the river up to the church on the right.
Technical Notes – Main Tier
Panel construction
Total panel (overall measurements of five sawn‐up fragments reconstructed as a single main tier): height 184.5/185 cm, width 181 cm. The main tier is made up of vertical planks. A non‐original strip of 1.25 cm runs along the top and down the left (seen from the front) edge. The fragments appear to be of their original thickness, but because of the modern frame and the metal struts and battens of the back, it has not been possible to take precise measurements of thickness.
[page 261] [page 262]
The Trinity Altarpiece, showing dimensions of the fragments (in centimetres) (© The National Gallery, London)

The Trinity Altarpiece before 1929 (© The National Gallery, London)
The dimensions may have been reduced somewhat by the dismembering and rejoining of the five fragments. As is discussed below, there were originally five predella panels. The minimum projected total width of these is 221.3 cm, so the main panel may have lost something from the sides, or, more probably, the predella may have projected on either side. The main panel seems also to have been cut at the bottom, but it is impossible to see the edges. The panel has not been cut at the top, since a barbe in the gesso is visible along the top edge. Before gessoing, the panel appears to have had pieces of linen glued to it: a frayed edge is visible in an X‐radiograph detail.
The altarpiece was dismembered, probably when the Confraternity from which it came was suppressed c. 1783 (see Provenance). The main panel was sawn into five (or possibly [page 263] six – see below) pieces. The five original fragments have been joined together (see figs 1 and 2); the joins are now evident in raking light. The bottom right‐hand corner is an addition, made when the panel was reassembled in 1929/30.1 For the dimensions of the fragments, see fig. 1.

Infra‐red photograph of the Trinity Altarpiece (© The National Gallery, London)
Frame
The frame is modern but reflects the tabernacle all’antica frames of fifteenth‐century altarpieces.
Underdrawing
The entire composition was drawn in considerable and precise detail. The underdrawing (see fig. 3) plays an important role in forming the figures in the painting, in that the paint in the flesh and hair was applied in a fairly thin wash and the outlines, shadows and highlights then reinforced in a linear way (see fig. 5), with very fine and dense hatching and cross‐hatching. The figure of Saint Mamas (fig. 4) was extremely highly worked in the underdrawing, with extensive and elaborate cross‐hatching. The attention paid to this figure could perhaps be the result of the particular interests of one of the priests involved in the commission (see below).
The underdrawing is visible to the naked eye in many areas – notably, Saint Mamas’ hand, feet and hair; Saint James’s face, hair, hands and feet; Saint Jerome’s face, hands, robe and book; Saint Zeno’s hands, face and white drapery; Christ’s body; the left angel’s face and hair, and the right angel’s pink drapery. Infra‐red photography, which reveals further underdrawing, shows that there were some changes in the final painting: the green drapery of the left angel was originally [page 264] drawn fluttering above both feet, and the right foot was drawn in a slightly different position; the curl in the locks of hair below Mamas’ ear has been changed and the cross‐straps of his left leggings were originally drawn lower down; Saint James’s left shoulder was originally higher up, together with a lock of hair and the neckline of his robe; the scallop‐like folds along the bottom of his robe were considerably altered in the final painting; the position of Saint Jerome’s left arm was changed slightly. Infra‐red reflectography shows that the originally single clasp of Saint James’s book was moved to the left to make way for a pearl and a second clasp. The bottom of God the Father’s robe on the left originally extended to touch Saint James’s robe.

Detail of Saint Mamas in L15. Infra‐red photograph. © The National Gallery, London
Condition and technique
The overall condition is surprisingly good, considering the vicissitudes the painting has undergone. There are some scattered losses, and areas of thin and rubbed paint, particularly in the light colours; the dark areas are better preserved. Prominent raised cracks run horizontally across part of the picture (see below). There are several discoloured retouchings.
All the water‐gilding is well preserved, such as the tiara of God the Father, Saint Zeno’s mitre and Saint Jerome’s crozier handle. The haloes, which are mordant gilded, are fairly well preserved, but mordant gilding has broken away in several places, such as the mandorla and God the Father’s aureole, taking with it the layer of paint underneath and leaving visible the bare gesso below.
Some aspects of colour change in the paint layers were examined by the Scientific Department, confirming fading of the red lake glazes, blackening of the vermilion, darkening of the azurite, and browning of the copper green pigments.
NG 3230: Left-hand angel
The fragment is in good condition. There is some discoloration in the green of the robe, diminishing the contrast between the green of the robe and its pinkish‐yellow lining. The angel’s wings were underpainted with azurite and then with a green glaze, which has darkened.
NG 3162: Right-hand angel
This angel is more damaged than the one on the left. The pink robe has faded dramatically; a large amount of underdrawing is visible underneath. The blue ribbons seem to have been reinforced by retouching where they cross the sky. This fragment has in the past been more drastically cleaned than the other fragments.
NG 727: The Trinity
The overall condition is reasonable. The right‐hand blue cherub has lost approximately 2 cm in the wings as a result of the joining of the fragments. Some of the pigments have changed colour, especially in the cherubim, where the azurite has darkened, and in the seraphim, where details of the feathers painted with pure vermilion have blackened.
God the Father’s greyish‐blue drapery consists of ultramarine over azurite, with the ultramarine showing some signs [page 265] of blanching, further distorted by some surface dirt. Behind his head a dark glaze has been identified as consisting of a copper green over artificial malachite and black pigment; this has discoloured and was originally a richer and darker green.

Detail of hands in L15. Infra‐red photograph. © The National Gallery, London
Some of the mordant gilding of the mandorla has flaked off, exposing the bare gesso ground. The top of the tiara, which is water‐gilded and painted with red lake and lead white, originally had mordant‐gilded dots on the left, which have flaked away, and painted dots on the right – in other words, dots catching the light were in gold and those in shadow were painted. Similarly, the neckline of the robe has a gilded pattern on the left and a painted pattern on the right.
In the figure of Christ, the red lake of the halo seems to have faded. Shadows are cast by the nails in the hands.
L15: Saint Mamas and Saint James
The overall condition of the fragment is good, although raised cracks are particularly disfiguring across the face of Saint Mamas and on the chest and sleeve of Saint James. Saint Mamas’ legs are in poor condition, with several scratches and gouges, and it is impossible to tell whether their flat appearance, particularly that of the left leg, is due to damage or to their having been left unfinished. The mordant‐gilded haloes have been repaired along the junction with the hair. These repairs cover locks of hair, but it is impossible to determine whether the haloes originally did so.
Saint Mamas: The yellow lining of the cloak and the green folds along the hem have a few small pentimenti; the folds have been very densely hatched and cross‐hatched in the highlights and shadows. The green is slightly abraded and at the left‐hand side the cloak is brown rather than green, since the glaze here is relatively thin and over lead‐tin yellow, while the glaze on the right passes over a darker and bluer underlayer. With time the contrast between the two has become more pronounced.
As in God the Father, the neckline has mordant‐gilded spots in the light and painted spots in the shadows on the right. Similarly, the embroidered band along the blue hem is part painted, part gilded. The belt is painted in ochre with red spots. It seems possible that it was originally intended to be mordant gilded, but was left unfinished (see below for the interruption in the execution of the painting).
Saint James: The head of the saint is in excellent condition. The red lake of the cloak may have black undermodelling in the shadows (evident in the infra‐red photograph).
[page 266]
Infra‐red photograph of The Beheading of Saint James the Great (NG 4868.2) (© The National Gallery, London)
NG 4428: Saint Zeno and Saint Jerome
This fragment has suffered from abrasion.
Saint Zeno: His mitre, which is in excellent condition, has been water‐gilded, painted with a white layer and then incised with a feather pattern; finally, the gold thus exposed has been punched. The border of the saint’s cope has been water‐gilded and then decorated with ultramarine and with a red lake glaze, which has faded; it has then been incised and punched. Each white pearl casts a shadow. (For the saint’s intended halo, see below.)
Saint Jerome: The figure has suffered similar abrasion to that of Saint Zeno. There is a pentimento in the position of the left arm (visible in the infra‐red photograph), in the folds of the red robe and in the position of the book. Saint Jerome’s halo has been punched, unlike all the others. The mordant gilding of the halo is applied in such a way as to appear transparent, allowing the crozier behind to be seen through it. The bottom right‐hand corner with Saint Jerome’s robe and feet is a modern reconstruction and is now somewhat darkened and discoloured.
The Landscape: In view of the fact that the landscape background runs across two different fragments, each with a different provenance, it has survived remarkably unscathed. It is in good condition, although evidently much discoloured and darkened in the greens.
Technical Notes – Predella
- NG 4868.1, Saint Mamas in Prison thrown to the Lions: 30/30.2 x 42.5 cm, thickness 1.2/1.8 cm.
- NG 4868.2, The Beheading of Saint James the Great: 30 x 42 cm, thickness 1.5/1.8 cm.
- NG 4868.3, Saint Zeno exorcising the Daughter of the Emperor Gallienus: 30 x 42 cm, thickness 1.5/1.8 cm.
- NG 4868.4, Saint Jerome and the Lion: 29.4/29.8 x 43 cm, thickness 1.5/1.8 cm.
Condition and technique
All the panels have been cut on all four edges. All have borders of modern grey paint extending up to the edges. At the sides the borders have gilding underneath, which extends diagonally across the corners. These may have been regilded. The individual scenes were probably divided by flat gold bands, although it is not impossible that they were divided by raised gilded mouldings. The damage to edges of the gesso and paint at the top and bottom of the panels was probably caused by the removal of a gilded moulding. All the panels have scattered losses and small areas of repaint.
The lines of the architecture in all the panels have been incised. All the panels have two thick lines of underdrawing [page 267] running horizontally, one across the top and one along the bottom, approximately one centimetre from the edge, visible to the naked eye at the base of the James panel and at the top of the Jerome panel.

Infra‐red photograph of Saint Zeno exorcising the Daughter of the Emperor Gallienus (NG 4868.3) (© The National Gallery, London)
Infra‐red photography shows that the compositions were laid out in some detail (figs 6 and 7).
NG 4868.1: Saint Mamas panel
A large knot in the wood has caused extensive and visible damage to the painted surface in the figure of Saint Mamas.
NG 4868.2: Saint James panel
X‐radiographs show where nails were driven in for the vertical battens or struts of the predella,2 resulting in damage visible on the paint surface. Infra‐red photographs show pentimenti, also visible to the naked eye, in the skirt and right leg of the executioner, and in the red robe of Saint James. The face of the saint has suffered some damage. Saint James has the only halo which has rays; all the others have a punched decoration.
NG 4868.3: Saint Zeno panel
This panel, like the Saint James panel, has damages to the picture surface caused by nails driven in from the front to supporting struts. There is a pentimento in the position of the saint’s arm. The hands of the fainting girl have been repainted.
NG 4868.4: Saint Jerome panel
This panel has been extremely thinly painted and the colours may have become more translucent with time.
Reconstruction of the predella (fig. 9)
Recently the fifth predella panel has been identified.3 All the predella scenes were painted on a single plank of wood, and the break in the pattern of the wood grain visible on the back of the London panels shows that the central scene is missing. First Pèleo Bacci,4 then Giuseppe Marchini5 and most recently Jeffrey Ruda6 had all drawn attention to a missing panel, but without speculating on its identity or subject matter. The missing predella panel is the Vision of Saint Augustine (fig. 8), now in the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg (inv. no. 5511).7 Several scholars have in the past noted the stylistic affinities of this painting with the Trinity altarpiece, but without realising that the panel was in fact part of the predella.8 However, not only is the panel of the same height as the predella panels in the National Gallery, but it has the same technical features, such as the horizontal lines of underdrawing across the top and bottom of each panel, described above. The design of the painting and the structure and treatment of the landscape are clearly related harmoniously to the scenes with Saint James and Saint Jerome, which would have been on either side. The subject matter relates thematically to the Trinity in the main tier above. Saint Augustine, while at work on a treatise about the Trinity, was walking on the seashore and met a child (the Christ Child), who was spooning water from the sea into a hole in the ground. Augustine pointed out the [page 268] [page 269] [page 270] absurdity of such a task, whereupon the child told him that it was even more futile for Augustine to attempt to understand the Trinity.9 Here the sea is shown as a river and the three blue heads at the top right‐hand corner not only represent the Trinity, but also link with the blue cherubim in the main panel, visually making the connection between the main tier and the predella.

Saint Mamas in Prison thrown to the Lions (NG 4868.1) (© The National Gallery, London)

Saint Zeno exorcising the Daughter of the Emperor Gallienus (NG 4868.3) (© The National Gallery, London)

The Beheading of Saint James the Great (NG 4868.2) (© The National Gallery, London)

Saint Jerome and the Lion (NG 4868.4) (© The National Gallery, London)

Filippo Lippi, The Vision of Saint Augustine. Tempera on wood, 28 x 51.5 cm. St Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, inv no.
5511.
© With permission from The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg
© Photo Scala, Florence
The addition of the fifth predella panel means that the altarpiece had a minimum projected width of 221 cm, compared with the present width of the main tier, which is 181 cm. Either the predella projected approximately 20 cm on either side to support the frame, or the main panel has been cut considerably at the sides:10 it may be that Saint Jerome had a lion with him,11 or possibly his cardinal’s hat, which is sometimes shown on the ground beside him; in this case it would have been behind him.12 The width of the predella corresponds with that of the antependium (228 cm) showing the Madonna della Misericordia (see below and fig. 15), which went below,13 if one takes into account that some framing elements and dividing borders must be missing.
Drawings
The drawings that have been associated with the commission are: Seated Monk (fig. 13) and Saints Zeno and Mamas (fig. 10) (both Florence, Uffizi, Gabinetto dei Disegni, inv. nos 674E and 164F respectively), and the Trinity (St Petersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. 4793; fig. 11). They are discussed individually below.
History of the Commission
The altarpiece was painted for the Company/Confraternity of Priests dedicated to the Trinity (Compagnia della Trinità) [page 271]for their church in present‐day Piazza Gavinana (formerly Cino), Pistoia. The commissioning and payments are exceptionally well documented. The documents consist mainly of records kept by the treasurer in charge of the commission, the accounts of the Company, and the legal representations which followed the death of the painter.14 The sequence of events is as follows:

The predella panels of the Trinity Altarpiece in the National Gallery temporarily reunited with the panel from St Petersburg in 1996. © The National Gallery, London
The decision of the decision of the compagnia
On 10 September 1455 the Company, on the initiative of the archpriest Jacopo di Bartolomeo Bellucci, decided to commission an altarpiece for their church;15 it was to cost between 150 and 200 florins, and the priests agreed to sell grain in order to pay for it (350 omine of grain were sold).16 All those present at the meeting agreed that the altarpiece should show the Trinity in the centre and two saints on each side; the three initially selected were Saint James, as patron saint of Pistoia,17 Saint Zeno, as patron saint of the clergy of Pistoia,18 and Saint Jerome. Bacci suggests that Saint Jerome was chosen to be beside Saint Zeno in homage to the canon of the cathedral, Girolamo d’Andrea Zenoni.19 It is also possible that Jerome was chosen because he was said to have had a vision of the Trinity;20 he is the only one of the four main saints shown looking inward and upward at the Trinity. Saint Jerome may originally have been shown with the lion or his cardinal’s hat.21
Because no decision had been made on the fourth saint, the Company’s treasurer, Pero ser Landi – who, with messer Filippo di ser Giovanni, priest of Sant’Andrea, was in charge of the commission – begged to be allowed to have Saint Mamas, to whom he was devoted. This was agreed upon; Saint Mamas’ feast day was to be celebrated by the Company and Pero ser Landi promised to give 6 omine of grain every year.22 Saint Mamas may have proved acceptable because his attribute of lions balanced that of Saint Jerome. Saint Mamas was very rarely shown in Tuscan painting, but his cult was strong in the Veneto, and it is also possible that Pero ser Landi’s choice of him as the fourth saint was in some way connected with the inclusion of Saint Zeno, who, as well as being patron saint of the clergy of Pistoia, was patron saint of Verona:23 Mamas is shown next to Saint Zeno in an altarpiece from San Pietro Martire, Verona (now in Verona, Museo di Castelvecchio, no. 373, inv. no. 152/1B 373), attributed to Giovanni Badile (1373–1451),24 and Mamas and Zeno are shown together in what is presumed to be a preparatory drawing for the Trinity altarpiece (fig. 10). Mamas was an early Christian martyr, who owed his name to the fact that he called his foster mother Ammia mama. He was imprisoned and thrown to lions, although not concurrently as shown in the predella.25
On 6 September, four days before the meeting of the Company, Pero ser Landi had been to Florence to fetch a drawing to show to his fellow members (‘il disegno a vedere alla Compagnia’).26 O’Malley has plausibly argued that this first drawing probably showed the overall structure.27
The commissioning of the altarpiece
On 17 September, one week after the meeting, Pero ser Landi went to Florence to draw up the contract and for drawings he had commissioned (‘per far scritture e per li disegni feci fare’); he claimed for the paper (‘fogli’) needed for this and gave the commission to Pesellino (‘quando alloghai la taula a Francesco Pesello maestro dipintore’).28 It is reasonable to argue that one of these ‘disegni’ could have been the black chalk drawing of Saints Zeno and Mamas in Florence (fig. 10). This drawing could only have been made after the meeting of 10 September, since only then was it decided which saints were to be shown. It was Berenson who first saw this drawing [page 272] as preparatory for the altarpiece.29 A number of changes were made between the drawing and the painting: Mamas’ gesture in the drawing is used for Zeno in the painting; just as Mamas carries a book in the drawing, so Jerome does in the painting; Mamas was moved to the other side in the painting and substituted by Jerome; Zeno’s face in the drawing was given to Jerome in the painting. Another preparatory drawing, the Trinity now in the Hermitage (fig. 11), was first published as being connected with the altarpiece by John Shearman.30

Pesellino, Saints Zeno and Mamas. Black chalk on paper, 25.5 x 10.5 cm. Florence, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria degli Uffizi, 164F. © Gabinetto Fotografico Soprintendenza Speciale per il Polo Museale Fiorentino , permission courtesy of Ministetro della Cultura, all rights reserved

Pesellino, The Trinity. Black chalk and wash on paper. St Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, inv. no. 4793. © With permission from The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg
A week later, on 24 September, Pero ser Landi paid 1 lira 2 soldi to a certain ‘magistro Lorenzo dipintore in Firenze… per sue fatiche di quello primo disegno ch’io fe’ fare’ (‘to Master Lorenzo, painter in Florence, for his trouble over that first drawing which I had made’).31 This first drawing may also be the one referred to as having been fetched from Florence on 6 September.
On 26 September and 8 October Pesellino was paid 20 fiorini larghi (105 lire) in two instalments,32 and on 4 December he was reimbursed one fiorino largho (5 lire 5 soldi) for the linen he had bought for the altarpiece.33 On 26 September and 24 December, three payments amounting to 58 lire 2 soldi (= between 11 and 12 florins) were made to the carpenter Antonio Manetti da Firenze.34
On 10 September 1456, exactly a year after the decision had been taken to commission the altarpiece, Pero ser Landi went to Florence ‘per la taula’;35 thereafter he went to Florence almost monthly, presumably because progress was slow (or as a pretext because he enjoyed going to Florence).
The death of Pesellino
On 10 July 1457 Pesellino was too ill to continue and was paid for his work,36 and on the same day there was a payment to a notary for an estimate of the state of the work made by Filippo Lippi and Domenico Veneziano and for the transporting of a panel from the carpenter (‘dello lodo fu dato per frate Filippo e Domenico da Vinegia e per portatura della taula dello legniame’).37
[page 273]On 29/30 July 1457 Pesellino died.38 On 2 August his partner, Piero di Lorenzo, asked Jacopo Bracciolini, the Vicar of the Bishop of Pistoia, Donato de’ Medici, that payment for the altarpiece be suspended or put on deposit until he had sorted out a disagreement with Pesellino’s heirs, from whom he was claiming half the payment. He said that the arbitrators, whom he did not name, had judged the painting to be half‐finished (‘detti albitri g[i]udichorono fussi fatta la metà’); he also said that Piero di Cosimo de’ Medici had originally been going to judge how much of the sum of between 115 and 200 florins allocated for the payment of the painting should be paid.39
On 20 and 27 September 1457 Piero di Lorenzo appeared before the tribunal of the Mercanzia, arguing that he had been a partner of Pesellino since 1453 and was entitled to half of the 20 florins that Pesellino had so far been paid (that is, 60 lire).40
On 10 October 1457 Monna Tarsia, Pesellino’s widow, appeared before the Mercanzia, disputing Piero di Lorenzo’s claim. The altarpiece was described as almost complete – ‘quasi fornita et tucto quello che insu decta tavola fosse et appartenessesi del maestro, colori et ori et qualunche altra cosa’ (‘almost finished and with everything regarding the panel and appertaining to the master, colours and gold and each other thing’).41
On 14 June 1458 part of the rest of the payment due on the altarpiece (20 florins) was paid to Monna Tarsia (‘per parte di resto della taula’); this brought the total paid to date to Pesellino and his widow to 40 florins.42
It is clear from the documents concerning Piero di Lorenzo’s claim that he had not participated in the painting of the panel and that his interest was purely a business one: whenever the painting is mentioned, it is said to have been painted by Pesellino.43
Thr commission given to Filippo Lippi
More than a year after Pesellino’s death, between 27 September and 3 October 1458, the panel was brought to Pistoia.44
On 31 October the commission to complete the altarpiece was given to Filippo Lippi (‘quando s’allogò la taula a frate Filippo’).45 Not only had the latter been involved in the estimation of the state of completion of the altarpiece, but he and Pesellino had collaborated on at least one other altarpiece46 and Lippi would therefore have been well capable of adapting his style to make it congruent with what had already been painted,47 although ultimately the completion of the altarpiece seems to have been left largely to his workshop.
On 5 November 1458 the panel was transported to Prato,48 where Lippi and his workshop were working (1458–65) on the frescoes for the choir chapel of the Duomo.49 His named assistants, who collected some of the Trinity altarpiece payments, were Don Diamante and Domenico, Lippi’s discepolo.50
On 5 June 1460 the altarpiece was brought from Prato to Pistoia and on 8 June the Bishop Donato de’ Medici judged the painting to be perfect and worth 200 florins (the maximum payment originally agreed by the Company), so Lippi was paid 115 florins, 85 having already been paid to Pesellino and his heirs.51
The contributions of Pesellino and filippo Lippi
Because of the interruption in the execution of the painting, much modern scholarship has been devoted to trying to establish how much of it had been completed by Pesellino before he died, and how much can be attributed to Filippo Lippi and his workshop. The arbitrators, Filippo Lippi and Domenico Veneziano, had judged the painting to be half‐finished, and it was described at the tribunal as nearly complete. Since 85 florins were paid to Pesellino and his heirs, representing just over half of the minimum sum originally agreed (150 florins), it seems likely that the altarpiece was indeed half‐finished. As noted above, the maximum sum agreed (200 florins) was eventually paid, with Lippi receiving 115 florins, which might have included payment for the predella, attributed to Lippi and his workshop and not mentioned in the initial documents (see below), although it is surely probable that the predella was planned from the start, and there is some evidence that this was the case.52
The problem is what exactly half‐finished (‘fussi fatta la metà’) or nearly finished (‘quasi fornita’) meant. Scholars have been divided in their views, while accepting the overall design as by Pesellino. Bacci, Hans Gronau and Martin Davies saw the two pairs of saints as by different hands.53 Marchini saw the two saints on the right, much of the Trinity and the whole of the Saint Mamas predella panel as being by a single hand, and the women in the Saint Zeno predella panel as by yet a third hand.54 Ruda felt that the differences in the appearance of the two pairs of saints could be due to the distinction between the two age groups and their different positions in relation to the light source, and saw the colour choices in the costumes as Lippi’s.55 Davies wrote that ‘Indeed, the only at all prominent parts of this main panel which might pass as purely Lippi’s are the hands of God the Father, and the Dove’.56 However, this minimalist assessment does not seem entirely accurate. It is possible to make some observations concerning the sequence of execution, and therefore the attribution, based on a minute examination of the painting.57 This divides roughly into three: those areas which one might argue are securely attributable to Pesellino, those probably attributable to Lippi and his workshop, and a confusing middle ground where it is impossible to be certain.
Parts of the main tier can, with a degree of confidence, be attributed to Pesellino himself. Evidently the preparatory stages – that is, the underdrawing and those areas which are water‐gilded – were carried out by Pesellino. All the figures attributable to Pesellino are characterised by a very strong grasp of form and structure and follow the technique described above, using a thin wash of paint over a strong drawing and then reinforcing that drawing by the hatched application of paint. Drapery is modelled with a final layer of hatching and cross‐hatching to create highlights and shadows. The gauge for attribution of the actual painting is the figure of Saint Mamas. Bacci58 points out that had the figure of Saint Mamas not already been painted when Pesellino died, then the Company of Priests would certainly have had it deleted from the painting, since the person who had particularly requested [page 274] this figure, Pero ser Landi, was in disgrace by October 1457 (before the commission was given to Lippi), for financial mismanagement and for making excessive trips to Florence when two would have sufficed.59 The figure of Saint Mamas was, however, not entirely completed: the belt was reserved and the leggings may not have been finished. The lions’ manes and muzzles show partly over and partly under Saint Mamas’ yellow cloak and were therefore also part of the first stage. The figure of Saint James is by the same hand as Saint Mamas. The head and feet of God the Father, which are firmly modelled, seem also to be by the same painter as Saint Mamas, and the ultramarine robe has the same type of hatching in lead white to create highlights as is found on Saint Mamas’ sleeve. The angels seem also to have been completed by Pesellino;60 the drapery of the left‐hand angel (fig. 12) is similar in technique to the robe of Saint Mamas, with an underlayer of yellow beneath the green.

Detail of flying angel from NG 3230 (© The National Gallery, London)
It may also be that the light brown landscape, thinly painted, was laid in by Pesellino, as well as the foreground: the strongly drawn foliage of the foreground is similar to that found in paintings attributed to Pesellino, for example the cassone panels with David and Goliath (NG 6579 and 6580; see pp. 288–9), and very different from that found in paintings by Filippo Lippi, such as NG 666 (see p. 142). The thick paint layers have been identified as consisting of artificial malachite over the layer of solid black pigment, and then glazed with a ‘copper resinate’‐type green, which is now rather discoloured.61
The large trees on the left behind Saint Mamas, which have been reserved, and the trees on the right, thickly painted in a manner very similar to the foreground, also belong to the first stage. An incised circle shows that Saint Zeno was originally intended to have a halo, and this area is now covered by the leaves of the tree behind him (see detail, p. 277). It is possible that it was decided not to give Saint Zeno a halo because of the potential confusion in the overlap with his crozier and Saint Jerome’s halo. The trees on the left seem to have had their final details of dots for foliage added by Lippi, since they have Lippi’s characteristic stippled application and their tips go over the angel above.
Probably by Fra Filippo Lippi and his workshop is the final detailing which disguises the juncture in the middle ground between the two types of landscape. The very fine downward strokes delineating the bushes and shrubs and the reeds and grasses, particularly along the river bank, are of the kind found in the Saint Jerome predella panel, and the dark rough trees and hedges with foliage executed in light spots (also found in the Saint Jerome predella panel) are characteristic of paintings generally accepted as attributable to Lippi, such as NG 667 (see p. 143).
[page 275]Mordant gilding was among the final stages in the execution of a panel painting, and it seems likely that this, too, was carried out by Lippi and his workshop. One of the characteristics of the mordant‐gilded areas in this painting is that those parts of the decoration which are intended to catch the light (which comes from the left) are executed in mordant gilding, while those intended to lie in shadow are painted; for example, both the border and the spots along the neckline of Saint Mamas’ blue tunic, as well as God the Father’s tiara, the spots on his outer robe, and the left‐hand lining and brown border of his pink robe. This technique is also found in works accepted as by Lippi; for example, in the trees in the background of NG 667. It may be that the original intention was to mordant‐gild Saint Mamas’ belt, and that it was left blank by Pesellino and eventually painted by Lippi with dots, which he scattered liberally as the decorative elements of many of his paintings.
One of the more problematic areas concerns the painting of the figures of Saint Zeno and Saint Jerome (see details on pp. 276 and 277), which are in a somewhat abraded condition. Both appear to be by the same hand, but probably not the one that painted Saint Mamas. In the flesh painting there is no evidence that the underlying design is any different from the rest of the composition. However, it does appear that the paint application is not quite the same as in the other figures and the modelling shows less grasp of form and disegno than is found in the painting of Saints Mamas and James. Examination of samples from the flesh painting of the two pairs of figures, Saints Mamas and James and Saints Zeno and Jerome, reveals two varying methods of constructing the flesh tones: in the first pair the flesh is constructed with light pinkish layers of vermilion and white over pale underlayers containing either a little green earth or azurite, while in the other pair there is only a low proportion of lead white, and the earth pigments (principally red and yellow‐brown) and some black are painted directly onto the gesso ground, with no preparatory layer of green earth.62 Caution is needed in making any final assessment, as one might expect different treatment for the representation of older saints. Nonetheless, the difference in technique may suggest a different hand, although not necessarily that of Filippo Lippi, but possibly someone in his workshop to whom he may have allocated the completion.
Another problematic area is the centre of the composition (see detail on p. 279). It seems possible that it was this area which was left only partially painted. There are some unresolved and illogical aspects of the mandorla: It seems likely that this central area was started by Pesellino and completed by Lippi’s workshop, hence the anomalies and inconsistencies.
- (i) the concentric rings above the cross do not follow through below the cross – there are patches of sky instead;
- (ii) the blue cherub at the upper right (see detail on p. 283) is painted with highlights of ultramarine and white (similar to God the Father’s robe), while the other blue cherubim are painted with azurite only and are not as light in colour (evident in the infra‐red photograph, fig. 3);
- (iii) the head and feet of God the Father are probably by the same painter as Saint Mamas, but the painting of his hands is exceptionally weak: they are very pink and feebly modelled, and the sleeves appear to have been painted late in the process. Moreover, in the St Petersburg drawing (fig. 11), which is a fairly detailed study for this part of the painting, two areas were left unfinished: the body of Christ (this is explicable by the fact that this was simply a conventional pose the painter could take from a previous crucifix or Crucifixion) and the hands of God the Father. It seems likely that Pesellino had deliberately left the painting of God the Father’s hands until he could complete an individual study, mindful of the difficulties of showing hands bearing the full weight of the cross;
- (iv) the head of Christ is similar in style to the left‐hand angel; the body of Christ is difficult to assess, since it is painted with only a single layer of paint and may not be completely finished. His beard seems to be by a different hand from that of whoever painted the hair, and may have been painted in the later stages, to integrate the head with the thinly painted body;
- (v) the dove has been painted on top of the cross and the red drapery below and would seem to belong to a later stage;
- (vi) below the arms of the cross the tips of the wings of the cherubim and seraphim go over the landscape and over God the Father; the clouds supporting God the Father’s feet at the base of the cross were among the last things to be painted since they go over the blood dripping down the cross.
It seems likely that this central area was started by Pesellino and completed by Lippi’s workshop, hence the anomalies and inconsistencies.
Lippi and his workshop are generally thought to have carried out the predella, with opinions varying as to the extent of the involvement of Filippo Lippi himself.63 Martin Davies pointed out that the predella is not referred to when the Company decided on the programme for the altarpiece, nor in any of the payments to Pesellino, or indeed to Lippi. It is first surely referred to in 1465, although it is more than likely that it was planned from the beginning.64
It has been suggested that the first two scenes of the predella may have been designed by Pesellino and the predella then completed by Don Diamante, who was working with Filippo Lippi on the frescoes in Prato Duomo.65 Recently the predella scene with Saint Mamas has been attributed to the so‐called Master of the Johnson Nativity (Domenico di Zanobi di Piero?) working in Lippi’s workshop.66 Others have given the predella entirely to Lippi’s workshop.67 Examination with infra‐red photography helps to clarify the problem of attribution. The drawing of the main tier is done with meticulous cross‐hatching (figs 3–5), while the underdrawing of the predella is much more free (figs 6 and 7). It seems likely, from the evidence of the underdrawing of the predella scenes, that the composition of the whole predella was designed by Filippo Lippi – which would, of course, be the case if the piece of wood brought from the carpenter’s shop in 1457 was indeed the predella panel. The underdrawing differs considerably from that of the main tier, but compares well with that of NG 667 (see figs 6 and 7 on pp. 146–7).68
[page [276]]
Details of the four saints (© The National Gallery, London)

© The National Gallery, London

Workshop of Filippo Lippi, Seated Monk. Silverpoint and white heightening on blue prepared paper, 29.5 x 19.4 cm. Florence, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria degli Uffizi, 674E recto. © Gabinetto Fotografico Soprintendenza Speciale per il Polo Museale Fiorentino , permission courtesy of Ministetro della Cultura, all rights reserved

Workshop of Filippo Lippi, Saint Jerome in Penitence. Silverpoint on brown prepared paper, 29.5 x 19.4 cm. Florence, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria degli Uffizi, 674E verso. © Gabinetto Fotografico Soprintendenza Speciale per il Polo Museale Fiorentino , permission courtesy of Ministetro della Cultura, all rights reserved
Two drawings are connected with the scene of Saint Jerome in the predella: a Seated Monk (fig. 13), sometimes attributed to Don Diamante,69 and on the verso a rough sketch showing Saint Jerome in Penitence (fig. 14).70 The existence of two sketches, one with the saint before a desk (that is, Saint Jerome in his study) and one of the saint in penitence,71 suggests that these may have been two preliminary ideas for the final predella scene. Eventually, the scene with the lion was chosen, perhaps for the same reasons of balance as may have dictated the iconography of the main tier, since Saint Jerome’s lion is balanced at the other end of the predella by Saint Mamas’ lions. There was almost certainly some input from Filippo Lippi himself in the actual execution of the predella. The quality of the Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome scenes is noticeably higher than that of the others. As Ruda points out, ‘the figure and landscape types are Fra Filippo’s’,72 and the wash‐like thin painting of the background behind the Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome is particularly fine.
The Other Church Furnishings ordered by the Compagnia
Between July 1456 and July 1457 the Company had been preparing their church to receive the altarpiece, buying 18 braccia of linen for a curtain and yarn for sewing it, ordering a wooden predella (altar step) in intarsia, and preparing the masonry of the altar and stone altar steps.73
In 1460 Lippi was asked to paint the curtain and also to paint a wooden antependium, for 18 florins.74 He was finally paid for the antependium between 11 September 1466 and 8 September 1468.75 This antependium, which showed the Madonna of Misericordia (‘una Nostra Donna cho’l mantello grande tenuto da due angeli e sotto detto mantello sono molte figure di diversi frati’), has been identified as that once in Berlin, presumed destroyed (fig. 15).76
In 1462 the Company commissioned a stained‐glass oculus showing the Trinity, to protect the altarpiece from the elements: ‘conciossa cosa che l’aria ci guastava la soprascritta tavola.’77
In 1465 they added shutters and a frame and canopy to the altarpiece.78 The shutters were to close across the whole altarpiece, including the predella and canopy, which was presumably made of wood: a payment was made to Jacopo di Giovanni Cristiani, alias di Meuccio, ‘per resto degli sportelli ch’egli à fatti, de l’altare della chiesa della Trinità e della predella sta sotto la tavola de l’altare e del sopracelo’. The shutters were attached to the altarpiece by (iron?) bands nailed in place [page [279]][page 280](‘sei bendelle e sei chancri [hinges?] per chonficare agli sportelli che serrano la tavola d’altare’). The painter Meo di Bocchi painted the shutters, canopy and frame with azurite bought specially from the Gesuati in Florence.79 Also in 1465 Meo di Bocchi painted a chest for candles and four shields bearing the insignia of the Company, namely the Trinity.

The Trinity (NG 727), detail (© The National Gallery, London)
In June 1465, nearly ten years after the altarpiece had first been commissioned, the whole ensemble was finally hoisted into place.80
Subject and Iconography
The Trinity as the main subject of an altarpiece in Tuscan panel painting is first found at the end of the fourteenth century and into the beginning of the fifteenth.81 However, Pesellino has adapted the old‐fashioned polyptych scheme to suit a Renaissance‐type pala by converting the Trinity into a contemplative Crucifixion set in a landscape with attendant standing saints instead of the Virgin and John the Evangelist. The disposition of the figures in a panoramic landscape was to prove extremely influential.
The four types of tree found in the landscape – cypress and cedar(?) on the left, olive and palm on the right – may be intended to represent the four woods of which Christ’s cross was supposed to have been made.82
It may be that Pesellino derived the pose of Saint Mamas (fig. 17) from Donatello’s David (fig. 16).83 It has been noted that a painting of a lion in a cage was also in the Palazzo Medici (see p. 395, note 31).84 In the Trinity altarpiece are found motifs similar to those in other altarpieces attributed to Pesellino. The organisation of the two pairs of figures is very similar to that in the small panel of the Virgin and Child enthroned with Saints (New York, Metropolitan Museum) attributed to him.85
Influence
The altarpiece was extremely influential. Probably while the painting was in Filippo’s workshop in Prato, the two flying angels were copied in the Nativity (fig. 20) attributed to Don Diamante, painted for Santa Margherita, Prato, now in the Louvre, Paris.86 The figures of Saint Mamas and Saint Jerome were copied in two drawings (Florence, Uffizi, inv. no. 379E, and Frankfurt, Städelsches Kunstinstitut, inv. no. 5585, respectively; figs 18 and 19) attributable to someone working in the workshop in Prato.87 The pose of Saint Mamas was adapted for the ‘Majordomo’ in the Feast of Herod in the frescoes for Prato Duomo: a drawing (Florence, Uffizi, inv. no. 673E v; fig. 21) for the figure, derived from Saint Mamas, has been attributed to Don Diamante.88
Apart from its immediate impact on Filippo Lippi’s workshop, the altarpiece was, as Ruda rightly notes, ‘a milestone in Florentine painting’.89 It was widely copied: the Trinity group was adapted in an engraving of the Triumph of Eternity90 and copied by a local, somewhat mediocre, Pistoiese painter,91 while the angels, also much copied, frequently reappear, for example in Benozzo Gozzoli’s frescoes of 1459 in the Medici Chapel in the Palazzo Medici, Florence.92 The figure style was to influence Verrocchio, and the landscape the Pollaiuoli.
Provenance
Provenance of the whole altarpiece
The altarpiece was commissioned in 1455 by the Company or Confraternity of Priests dedicated to the Trinity, the Compagnia della Santissima Trinità, for their church variously called Santissima Trinità or San Jacopo, in present‐day Piazza Gavinana (formerly Cino), Pistoia, as described above. The altarpiece is mentioned in an inventory of 1492.93 It was [page 281] [page 282] noted in Pistoia by Vasari in 1550, and with slightly more detail in 1568.94 The confraternity was suppressed c. 1783 and the church, except for the façade, subsequently destroyed by fire.95 In 1821 the altarpiece was described as having been sold to a foreigner,96 presumably William Young Ottley (see below).97

Filippo Lippi, Madonna della Misericordia, 1460. Tempera on wood, 100 x 228 cm. Formerly Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen
zu Berlin (presumed destroyed), KFMV 95.
© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Photo: Jörg P. Anders
© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie / Gustav Schwarz

Donatello, David. Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello. © Gabinetto Fotografico Soprintendenza per i beni ambientali e architettonici per le provincie di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia

Pesellino, detail of Saint Mamas from L15 (
© The National Gallery, London
Photo:The Royal Collection / HM King Charles III. Royal Collection Trust / © His Majesty
King Charles III, 2024
)

Workshop of Filippo Lippi: Saint Mamas. Pen and ink with white heightening on brown prepared paper, 35.2 x 12 cm. Florence, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria degli Uffizi, 379E. © Gabinetto Fotografico Soprintendenza Speciale per il Polo Museale Fiorentino , permission courtesy of Minestro della Cultura, all rights reserved

Workshop of Filippo Lippi: Saint Jerome. Pen and ink with white heightening on brown prepared paper, 36.9 x 12.5 cm. Frankfurt, Städelsches Kunstinstitut, 5585. © Städelsches Kunstinstitut, Frankfurt am Main

Attributed to Don Diamante, The Nativity,
c.
1460. Tempera on wood, 167 x 167 cm. Paris, Musée du Louvre, 94DE53029.
Photo: P.Bernard
© GrandPalaisRmn (musée du Louvre) / Philipp Bernard

Workshop of Filippo Lippi, Standing Male Figure. Silverpoint and white heightening on brown prepared paper, 29.5 x 19.3 cm. Florence, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria degli Uffizi, 673 E verso. © Gabinetto Fotografico Soprintendenza Speciale per il Polo Museale Fiorentino , permission courtesy of Minestro della Cultura, all rights reserved
Provenance of the dismembered parts
The central piece – NG 727 – entered the collection of William Young Ottley, who was living in Italy c. 1791/9; it was later seen in the collection by Waagen.98 Warner Ottley sale, 30 June 1847 (lot 19), bought by the Revd Walter Davenport Bromley (1787–1862). Seen in the Davenport Bromley Collection by Waagen.99 Purchased at the Davenport Bromley sale, 13 June 1863 (lot 172).
NG 3162 (the angel on the right): This angel and its companion appear to have been owned by the Lombardi in Florence.100 Bought by the Countess Brownlow from Raffaelle Pinti c. 1867.101 Lent by the Countess Brownlow to the New Gallery, 1893/4 (as Masaccio, no. 109), and by Lord Brownlow to the Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1906 (no. 19).102 Bequeathed by the Countess Brownlow, 1917.
NG 3230 (the angel on the left): Apparently, like NG 3162, with the Lombardi in Florence. Lent by Lord Somers to the British Institution, 1866 (as Masaccio, no. 37), and to the RA , 1873 (no. 182); lent to the RA , 1896 (no. 159), by Lady Henry Somerset (daughter of the 3rd Earl Somers). Purchased from Lord Somers, Temple‐West Fund, 1917.
NG 4428 (Saints Zeno and Jerome): Waagen saw, in the Ottley Collection in 1837, not only NG 727 but also ‘auf zwei anderen Tafeln die Heiligen Jacob und Zeno’.103 He probably meant NG 4428 and L15 (see below). NG 4428 is first definitely recorded in 1906 in the collection of the German Emperor William (II).104 After the First World War it was shown for a time at the Schloss Museum in Berlin. Presented by the NACF in association with and by the generosity of Sir Joseph Duveen in 1929, the year Duveen became a Trustee of the National Gallery.105
L15 (Saints Mamas and James): Like NG 4428, this fragment is clearly one of the pieces seen by Waagen in 1837 in the William Young Ottley (1771–1836) Collection. Bought in 1846 from his brother, Warner Ottley,106 through Ludwig (Lewis) Grüner, and presented by Queen Victoria to the Prince Consort on 26 August 1846. It hung for many years at Osborne House (see p. xxiv, fig. 1),107 but was transferred in 1902 to Buckingham Palace.108 On loan from the Royal Collection since 1919.
NG 4868 (four predella scenes): Found in some buildings attached to San Desiderio in Via Laudesi, Pistoia, which had belonged to a nunnery suppressed in 1786; after they had been in the possession of the Amati family, the Gelli family acquired these buildings for use as a factory.109 Writing on the back of the scene with Saint Zeno suggests that this panel was in the hands of Antonio Gherardini between 7 April and 1 May 1897, perhaps for repair. The four panels were lent by Cav. Antonio Gelli to an exhibition in Pistoia in 1899 (Sala XVI, no. 2). After his death they passed to his daughter, Signora Michelozzi‐Roti, in Florence. Later in the Felix Warburg Collection, New York; presented by Mr and Mrs Felix M. Warburg, through the NACF , 1937.
Exhibited
London 1945/6, NG , National Art Collections Fund Exhibition (31). For details of loans of the various panels, see under Provenance for NG 3162, NG 3230 and NG 4868.
Select Bibliography
- P. Bacci, ‘Il Pesellino, Fra Filippo Lippi, Domenico Veneziano, Piero di Lorenzo, Fra Diamante, Domenico discepolo di Fra Filippo Lippi etc. e la tavola pistoiese della “Trinità” nella Galleria Nazionale di Londra’, in Documenti e Commenti per la Storia dell’Arte, Florence 1944, pp. 113–51.
- G. Marchini, Filippo Lippi, Milan 1975, pp. 168, and cat. 51, pp. 212–13.
- J. Ruda, Fra Filippo Lippi. Life and Work with a Complete Catalogue, London 1993, cat. 53, pp. 449–52.
- D. Gordon, ‘The ‘missing’ predella panel from Pesellino’s Trinity altar‐piece, BM , 138, no. 1115, 1996, pp. 87–8.

The Trinity (NG 727), detail (© The National Gallery, London)
Notes
1. This modern addition was constructed to the order of the National Gallery by Professor E.W. Tristram 1929/30, on the basis of the drawing of Saint Jerome in Frankfurt, Städelsches Kunstinstitut (inv. no. 5585; fig. 19). See note 11 below. (Back to text.)
2. The nails fixing the struts were regularly placed just inside the left edge of the Saint James panel and just inside the right edge of the Saint Zeno panel. (Back to text.)
3. See Gordon, BM , 1996, pp. 87–8. The association of this panel with the National Gallery predella panels was confirmed when the Hermitage panel was lent to the National Gallery for a temporary display, from 6 March to 27 May 1996. (Back to text.)
4. Bacci 1944, p. 117. (Back to text.)
5. Marchini 1975, cat. 51, p. 212. (Back to text.)
6. Ruda 1993, p. 451. (Back to text.)
7. The painting comes originally from Florence and was at one time in the collection of Nicholas I’s daughter, the Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna, in her Villa Quarto near Florence. See T.K. Kustodieva, The Hermitage Catalogue of Western European Painting [I]. Italian Painting, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries, Florence 1994, cat. 124, pp. 234–5, for a full bibliography. Kustodieva notes that the panel has been cradled. It had become separated from the other four predella panels by at least 1899 (see Provenance for NG 4868). It was acquired by the museum in 1917. (Back to text.)
8. For example Ruda, who dated it to the 1430s. Ruda (1993, cat. 27, p. 409, and pl. 246) gives a summary of attributions and previous suggestions concerning the altarpiece from which the panel could have come. (Back to text.)
9. Kaftal 1952 , col. 104. Also J.C. and P. Courcelle, Iconographie de Saint Augustin. Les cycles du XVe siècle, vol. 2, Paris 1969, p. 100. (Back to text.)
10. If the panel has been cut, it has lost equally at both sides, since the centre of the cross is still at the centre of the main tier – as it presumably always was. (Back to text.)
11. Although a drawing which appears to copy the figure of Saint Jerome shows no lion. See note 1. (Back to text.)
12. For example, in the Virgin and Child with Four Saints of c. 1483 attributed to Botticini in the Museo Civico, Prato, which seems to have been influenced in its composition by NG 727; M.P. Mannini (ed.), Il Museo Civico di Prato: le collezioni d’arte, Florence 1990, p. 85, no. 19. (Back to text.)
13. See Bacci 1944, p. 150, for the dimensions. It was 100 cm high. (Back to text.)
14. The documents were published twice by Bacci: in ‘Documenti e commenti per la Storia dell’Arte’, Le Arti, V–VI, 1941, pp. 353–70 and 418–34, and in Bacci 1944, pp. 113–51, giving all the previously published sources; as Davies ( 1961 , p. 417, n. 4) pointed out, Bacci’s publication superseded all previous transcriptions. They are also selectively published by Ruda (1993, doc. 22, pp. 538–9). (Back to text.)
15. Bacci 1944, doc. 1, pp. 113–15. (Back to text.)
16. A useful table of the measures for grain, grapes and olives, including the ‘mina’, is given in M. Spallanzani and G.G. Bertelà (eds), Libro d’inventario dei beni di Lorenzo il Magnifico, Florence 1992, p. xiv. See also F. Edler, Glossary of Medieval Terms of Business, Cambridge, Mass. 1934, p. 184; R. Zupko, Italian weights and measures from the Middle Ages to the 19th century, Philadelphia 1981, p. 155. (Back to text.)
17. For the devotion of Pistoia to Saint James, see A. Chiappelli, Storia e Costumanze delle Antiche Feste Patronali di S Iacopo in Pistoia, Pistoia 1920. For the iconography of Saint James, who was beheaded as shown in the predella, see Kaftal 1952 , no. 155, col. 508. (Back to text.)
18. Saint Zeno was titular saint of the cathedral in Pistoia. See Kaftal 1952 , no. 318, cols 1032–4. One of the treasures of Pistoia was the reliquary with the arm of Saint Zeno, commissioned in Aix‐en‐Provence in 1369. See L. Gai, ‘Note per i rapporti commerciali e artistici di Pistoia con la Provenza nella seconda metà del ’300. Il braccio reliquiario di S. Zeno nel tesoro della cattedrale di Pistoia’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese, 1973, pp. 3–38. (Back to text.)
19. Bacci 1944, p. 118. (Back to text.)
20. See E.F. Rice, Saint Jerome in the Renaissance, Baltimore and London 1985, p. 46. He cites the apocryphal Regula Monachorum, Ch. XXVI (Patrologia Latina 30:414C); Jerome is shown having his vision of the Trinity in the Rinieri altarpiece by Francesco d’Antonio of c. 1430 (for which see also note 93 on p. 187 of this catalogue), now in Avignon, Musée du Petit Palais (M. Laclotte and E. Mognetti, Avignon, musée du Petit Palais. Peinture italienne, 3rd edn, Paris 1987, no. 69b, p. 90). (Back to text.)
21. The fact that the bottom right‐hand corner is missing could suggest that a lion was indeed represented and formed one of the eminently marketable pieces into which the altarpiece was cut up. The fact that a drawing based on the figure does not show the lion is not necessarily indicative that the lion was not included, since it was not necessarily copied directly from the painting, but could have been copied from another drawing (see note 87). For the iconography of Saint Jerome, see also B. Ridderbos, Saint and Symbol. Images of Saint Jerome in early Italian Art, Groningen 1984. (Back to text.)
22. Bacci 1944, p. 114. (Back to text.)
23. See G. Kaftal (with the collaboration of F. Bisogni), Iconography of the Saints in the Painting of North East Italy, Florence 1978, no. 192, cols 648–51. (Back to text.)
24. Mamas is shown enthroned, with a lion and martyr’s palm, in the centre of an altarpiece attributed to Francesco de’ Franceschi (doc. 1443‐68) in Verona, Museo di Castelvecchio (no. 124). (Back to text.)
25. See Roger Fry, ‘Notes on the acts and cult of S. Mamas’, BM , 20, 1911–12, pp. 352–9; Kaftal 1952 , no. 196, cols 656–8. (Back to text.)
26. Bacci 1944, doc. 2, p. 119. (Back to text.)
27. M.M. O’Malley, The Business of Art: Contract and Payment Documents for Fourteenth‐ and Fifteenth‐Century Italian Altarpieces and Frescoes, PhD thesis, Warburg Institute, University of London 1994, p. 134. (Back to text.)
28. Bacci 1944, doc. 2, p. 119. Pero ser Landi’s claims included the hire of a horse, and living expenses for himself and his horse. (Back to text.)
29. B. Berenson, The drawings of the Florentine Painters, Chicago 1938, vol. I, p. 92; vol. II, no. 1838A; vol. II, fig. 182; Degenhart and Schmitt, Corpus der italienischen Zeichnungen, 1300–1450, 1968, I‐2, p. 539, Kat. 529, and I‐4, Tafel 364d. Degenhart and Schmitt also link the drawing with the Virgin and Child with Saints (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art) by Pesellino (see note 85). (Back to text.)
30. J. Shearman, The Early Italian Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen, Cambridge 1983, p. 193. Underneath the drawing is written ‘Dessin pour un tableau d’autel du Pesellino et de Fra Filippo Lippi à Prato maintenant à [la] National Gallery’. (Back to text.)
31. Bacci 1944, doc. 2, p. 119. It is not known who this Lorenzo was. (Back to text.)
32. Bacci 1944, doc. 3, p. 120. For conversion rates and this type of accounting, see R. De Roover, The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank 1397–1494, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, p. 21, and P. Spufford, Handbook of Medieval Exchange, London 1986, pp. 25–8. I am grateful to Jo Kirby for her help in trying to disentangle the complexities of the payments of the Trinity altarpiece, possibly complicated by the fact that Pero ser Landi apparently embezzled the funds (Bacci 1944, p. 131). (Back to text.)
33. Bacci 1944, p. 120. Subsequently Piero di Lorenzo said Pesellino was paid 7 lire 10 soldi for the linen ‘di stio’ See Bacci 1944, doc. 6, p. 123, and Bacci’s commentary on pp. 120 and 124, that linen ‘di stio’ is flax sown in March. (Back to text.)
34. Bacci 1944, doc. 3, p. 120. The carpenter here is probably the carpenter and architect Antonio di Ciaccheri Manetti ( c. 1402–8 November 1460), for whom see F. Quinterio in the Macmillan Dictionary of Art, 1996, pp. 263–4. See Bacci 1944, doc. 5, p. 122. His total payments amounted to 96 lire (approximately 18 florins). (Back to text.)
35. Bacci 1944, doc. 4, p. 121. (Back to text.)
36. Bacci 1944, doc. 4, p. 121. Pero ser Landi had gone to Florence, and evidently finding the painter ill had returned to Pistoia to obtain funds and then returned to Florence to pay the painter (‘per fare saldo con dipintore’). It is not clear whether settling with the painter in fact involved paying Pesellino any money, since the accounts for 26 September and 8 October 1455 say that Pesellino was paid 20 florins in instalments of 42 lire and 63 lire, and after Pesellino’s death Piero di Lorenzo endorses this sum (although see also note 38 below). The sum of 81 lire entered in 1456 in Pesellino’s own workshop account book (‘in uno suo libro della bottegha’), and in the book kept by Matteo di ser Giovanni, acting on behalf of the [page 285]confraternity (Bacci 1944, doc. 5, p. 122) is difficult to explain. (Back to text.)
37. Bacci 1944, doc. 4, p. 121. Since Pesellino was presumably engaged in painting the panel in his workshop, there is some question regarding what precisely the ‘tavola’ was which was fetched from the carpenter. It is possible that this was the predella which would have been a separate unit and which Pesellino seems not to have touched; a predella is not mentioned in the documents until 1465 (see note 8) but it seems unlikely it was not planned from the beginning. The advantage of a ‘tavola all’antica’ was that the main panel, predella, and frame could all be constructed and painted as separate entities. (Back to text.)
38. In his testimony Piero di Lorenzo gave both 29 July and 30 July as the date of death (Bacci 1944, doc. 6, p. 123, and doc. 8, p. 127). Piero’s statement on 2 August 1457 that Pesellino had been paid 30 fiorini di sugello and 4 fiorini larghi (approximately 148 lire) does not correspond with his statement made on 20 September 1457 that Pesellino had been paid 20 fiorini (=105 lire). The latter sum seems to be the correct one although we may not have all the information. On 20 September Piero’s statement that he is owed 60 lire is closer to half 20 fiorini. (Back to text.)
39. Bacci 1944, doc. 6, p. 123. According to G. Gronau (‘In margine a Francesco Pesellino’, Rivista d’Arte, XX, 1938, p. 136), he was called Piero di Lorenzo di Pratese. No autograph work by him survives. On 8 December 1453 Piero di Lorenzo bought a place in the workshop in Corso degli Adimari from the heirs of Pesello (Chiara Lachi, Il Maestro della Natività di Castello, Florence 1995, pp. 176–7). He was, with Zanobi di Migliore, Pesellino’s business partner. In 1453 they agreed to divide their profits over the next three years; Zanobi di Migliore had already left the partnership, which was why Piero di Lorenzo was claiming half the profits (Bacci 1944, p. 127). See also U. Procacci, ‘Di Jacopo di Antonio e delle compagnie di pittori del Corso degli Adimari nel XV secolo’, Rivista d’Arte, XXXV, 1960/1, pp. 3–70, esp. pp. 15–17. For Piero di Lorenzo, see ibid. , p. 56, n. 127, and Ruda 1993, p. 426. Lachi (1995, pp. 21ff.) has suggested that the Master of the Castello Nativity (for whom see NG 3648, p. 248) may be identifiable with Piero di Lorenzo. On p. 25 she lists the works she thinks Piero di Lorenzo may have executed with Pesellino, and on pp. 175–80 she publishes documents concerning him. His age is given as 14 in 1427; he died in May 1487. (Back to text.)
40. Bacci 1944, docs 7 and 8, pp. 124–8. Interestingly enough, Piero di Lorenzo called as witnesses two battiloro (gold beaters) (p. 127). In his catasto declaration of 25 February 1457/8 Piero di Lorenzo says that he is owed 10 florins by Pesellino’s widow, Monna Tarsia: ‘O’ avere fiorini 10 da mona Tarsia donna fu di Francescho di Stefano per adrieto mio chompagno’ (Lachi 1995, cited in note 39, p. 176). See also note 38 above. (Back to text.)
41. Bacci 1944, doc. 9, pp. 128–9. Monna Tarsia claimed that, far from owing money, she herself was owed 100 florins of her dowry from her dead husband’s estate. (Back to text.)
42. Bacci 1944, doc. 10, p. 130. Although ‘per parte di’ is ambiguous, from the fact that subsequently the widow was said to have been paid a total of 85 florins ( ibid. , p. 139; see also below), one may deduce that at this point she received only part of the balance owed. The outcome of the proceedings is not known but Gronau (Rivista d’Arte, 1938, cited in note 39, p. 129) and Pittaluga (in her review of Bacci, Le Arti, 1940–1, in Rivista d’Arte, XXVI, 1950, p. 234) thought that the court found in favour of the widow. (Back to text.)
43. Gronau, Rivista d’Arte, 1938 (cited in note 39), pp. 131–2; Bacci 1944, pp. 126–7; Pittaluga, Rivista d’Arte, 1950 (cited in note 42), p. 235. It is mentioned several times in this way: ‘… decto Francesco, fra quali lavori è stata decta tavola’, ‘… et per lo interesse che decto Piero avesse [in] decta tavola mediante l’opera facta per decto Francesco’ (Bacci 1944, p. 125); ‘…della tavola dipinta per decto Francesco di Stefano dipintore’ ( ibid. , p. 127). (Back to text.)
44. Bacci 1944, doc. 1, pp. 135–6, and Bacci’s commentary ( ibid. , p. 136). (Back to text.)
45. Bacci 1944, doc. 1, p. 135. (Back to text.)
46. Filippo Lippi painted the main panel and Pesellino the predella (in a reverse of the Trinity altarpiece situation) of the altarpiece for the Novitiates’ Chapel in Santa Croce, Florence (now in the Uffizi, Florence), commissioned by Cosimo de’ Medici c. 1439–45 (see Vasari, Vite , 1550, p. 420; Vasari, Vite, 1550, eds Bellosi and Rossi, 1986 , 1986, p. 400 and n. 7; Vasari, Vite, 1568, ed. Milanesi , III, 1878, pp. 38–9; Vasari, Vite, eds Bettarini and Barocchi , III, 1971, p. 373); Ruda (1993, cat. 32, pp. 414–16) thinks the predella was painted some time after the main tier of the altarpiece. There was also a small painting of Saints Jerome and Francis which in the 1560 Medici inventory was attributed to Filippo Lippi alone (see J. Beck, ‘The Medici Inventory of 1560’, Antichità Viva, XIII, 3, 1974, p. 66 – f.60v, no. 7), but which in the 1492 inventory was attributed to both Filippo Lippi and Pesellino (E. Müntz, Les Collections des Médicis au quinzième siècle, Paris 1888, p. 64). Ruda (1993, p. 383) does not mention this slight adjustment of attribution between the two inventories. Robert Oertel (Frühe italienische Malerei in Altenburg, Berlin 1961, pp. 146–7) suggested that the Medici painting was that in Altenburg and attributed to Filippo Lippi. (Back to text.)
47. For a discussion of why the commission was given to Filippo Lippi, see A. Thomas, The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany, Cambridge 1995, pp. 259–60. See also Procacci, Rivista d’Arte, 1960 (cited in note 39), p. 69, end of n. 151. (Back to text.)
48. Bacci 1944, p. 136, n. 2. On 19 March 1459 a payment is made for porterage of ‘dette taule’ to Prato ( ibid. , doc. 1, p. 136). It may be that the use of the plural means that this included the predella. (Back to text.)
49. Ruda 1993, pp. 258ff. and cat. 56, pp. 455ff. (Back to text.)
50. Bacci 1944, p. 142. Ruda (1993, p. 458) points out that the precise involvement of Domenico in the Prato frescoes is impossible to assess: ‘The mention of an assistant for running two errands is not a basis for attributions’. Don Diamante is documented as having worked on the frescoes. See L. Bellosi, ‘Tre note in margine a uno studio sull’arte a Prato’, Prospettiva, 33–6, 1983–4, pp. 49–55. (Back to text.)
51. Bacci 1944, docs 2 and 4, pp. 137–40. Although Pesellino’s initial payment was in fiorini larghi, Lippi’s final payment was made as 115 fiorini di sugello. The two men who had helped with the transactions were rewarded with trout and spices ( ibid. , doc. 1, pp. 135–6). (Back to text.)
52. See note 37 above. (Back to text.)
53. Bacci (1944, p. 131) and Gronau (Rivista d’Arte, 1938, cited in note 39, p. 130) saw Saints Mamas and James as having been begun by Pesellino himself (see also note 57 below); Davies 1961 , p. 416. Davies, who was not convinced that the Saint Mamas was necessarily by Pesellino, seemed to imply that – as well as those areas he thought were certainly by Lippi – the Saints James and Mamas could also be by Filippo Lippi himself. (Back to text.)
54. Marchini 1975, p. 168. (Back to text.)
55. Ruda 1993, p. 452. (Back to text.)
56. Davies 1961 , p. 416. (Back to text.)
57. Analysis of the paint media has not helped in the attribution of the different parts. See White and Pilc, NGTB , 1996, p. 92. (Back to text.)
58. Bacci 1944, p. 131. Although see Davies’s doubts cited in note 53 above. (Back to text.)
59. Pero ser Landi had made trips on 11 and 18 October, 18 December, 19 February, 15 March, 6 April, 31 May, and 10 July. The investigating commissioners were baffled as to why he had made so many trips to Florence when they felt two would have been sufficient, one for the drawing and one to allocate the commission (Bacci 1944, p. 131). (Back to text.)
60. Bacci’s argument (1944, p. 140) that because the angels were copied when the altarpiece was in Prato (see below) the angels were also painted in Prato does not seem valid. (Back to text.)
61. Paint samples taken and examined by Ashok Roy. This technique of a layer of black under malachite for foliage was common in Florence in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. See also under Uccello, NG 583. (Back to text.)
62. Paint samples taken and examined by Ashok Roy. In both left‐hand and right‐hand figures and parts of the landscape sky the medium used was egg containing an admixture of drying oil (tempera grassa), and in the sky egg tempera alone. In the robe of Saint Jerome the proportion of oil in the emulsion was higher. The reason may be visual, with egg being used for certain colours and egg with oil for others, especially the glazes of lake pigments (White and Pilc, NGTB , 1996, p. 92). (Back to text.)
63. See Ruda 1993, p. 452, for a summary. A drawing (London, British Museum, inv. no. 1895‐9‐15‐442) has been related to the figure of the woman in the scene of S. Zeno exorcising the daughter of the Emperor Gallienus ( Davies 1961 , p. 416). However, the similarities are not close and it seems more likely that this is a preparatory drawing [page 286]for the figure of the Virgin in a scene of the Crucifixion (see Ruda 1993, pp. 498–9, D8). (Back to text.)
64. Davies 1961 , p. 418, n. 6; Bacci 1944, p. 146: ‘…e della predella sta sotto la [ta]vola de l’altare’. (Back to text.)
65. See note 50. Don Diamante was by then a Vallombrosan monk (see Ruda 1993, p. 259). Martin Davies ( 1961 , p. 416) wrote that he ‘would not be willing to exclude Pesellino’s participation entirely from these predelle’. (Back to text.)
66. A. Bernacchioni, ‘Una proposta di identificazione per il Maestro della Natività Johnson, collaboratore di Filippo Lippi a Prato’, in La Toscana al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico, Convegno di Studi promosso dalle Università di Firenze, Pisa and Siena (5–8 November 1992), vol. I, Pisa 1996, pp. 320–1. (Back to text.)
67. Some attempts have been made to distinguish hands. Berenson ( 1963 , pp. 59, 112, 146) saw the Saint James and Saint Jerome panels as by Don Diamante with Filippo Lippi, and the Saint Zeno panel by the Master of San Miniato with Filippo Lippi. Robert Oertel (Fra Filippo Lippi, Vienna 1942, p. 62) saw the predella as designed by Filippo Lippi and executed by his workshop. M. Pittaluga (Filippo Lippi, Florence 1949, p.204) saw the Saint James and Saint Zeno scenes as by Filippo and Don Diamante, the women in the Saint Zeno scene as by another hand, possibly Lippi himself, and the Saint Mamas scene by a distinct assistant; she saw Don Diamante’s participation, but pointed out that we know nothing of the style of Domenico (Rivista d’Arte, 1950, cited in note 42, p. 236). Ruda (1993, p. 452) saw the architectural settings as Lippi’s, although not as distinctively so as the landscapes and figures. For the attribution of the Saint Augustine scene, see note 8 above. (Back to text.)
68. See note 37 above. (Back to text.)
69. Degenhart and Schmitt 1968 (cited in note 29), I‐2, pp. 543–4, Kat. 533, and I‐4, Tafel 366a. (Back to text.)
70. Ibid. , I‐4, Tafel 366b, Kat. 533. (Back to text.)
71. Ruda (1993, p. 334 and D5, p. 496) attributed the drawing of Saint Jerome in penitence to Filippo Lippi himself. (Back to text.)
72. Ruda 1993, p. 452. The white paint of the rocks in the predella panel contains pure egg tempera (White and Pilc, NGTB , 1996, p. 92). It was only possible to take a single sample from the predella. (Back to text.)
73. Bacci 1944, doc. 4, p. 121 (‘per la predella dello altare intarsiata’); p. 122 for the 18 braccia of linen; doc. 2, p. 137, for the yarn. Bacci (p. 122) suggests that the predella in intarsia was eventually substituted by the painted narrative predella. However, it seems clear from the document of 1465 (see below and note 78) that the altarpiece, predella and canopy formed a single unit. The second predella in intarsia – not the one ‘sotto la tavola’ – had a completely different function. Caroline Elam (oral communication) has suggested that such predellas were for placing candles on. (Back to text.)
74. Bacci 1944, docs 13 and 14, p. 139. Also doc. 5, p. 141; doc. 9, p. 144; doc. 13, p. 148. (Back to text.)
75. Bacci 1944, pp. 148–9. Lippi seems to have left the antependium unfinished, as Giovanni di Piero di Tommeo, a local painter, was paid ‘per doratura et metare colori’ (Bacci 1944, doc. 15, pp. 150–1). Ruda (1993, p. 451) points out that the export duty on the antependium was paid only on 18 May 1467. (Back to text.)
76. Bacci 1944, doc. 14, p. 149, and commentary on pp. 149–50, illustrated Tav. XLI; Ruda 1993, cat. 53c, p. 450. Until Bacci identified the antependium as that in Berlin, a series of eighteen single‐figure saints (Ruda 1993, cat. 67, p. 478) was wrongly thought to have been part of the antependium. In fact these panels have a vertical grain. They have recently been proposed as cupboard doors. See E.W. Rowlands, ‘Two Saints from the Workshop of Fra Filippo Lippi, and their companion panels’, Bulletin of the Georgia Museum of Art, vol. 16, 1990, pp. 4–15. (Back to text.)
77. Bacci 1944, docs 10 and 11, pp. 145–6. The drawings of the church made in 1559 and 1760 (see note 94 below) show an oculus on the façade over the west door, but it is unlikely that this is the window through which the elements could have damaged the painting. (Back to text.)
78. All the payments of 1465 are listed by Bacci 1944, doc. 12, p. 146; see also pp. 146–7 for his commentary. It is difficult to determine what function the planks of chestnut wood ordered for the wings would have had, unless it was to reinforce the wings (‘vi sono messi suso gli sportelli’). (Back to text.)
79. The Gesuati specialised in the sale of sought‐after pigments. See P. Bensi, ‘Gli arnesi dell’arte. I Gesuati di San Giusto alle Mura e la Pittura del rinascimento a Firenze’, Studi di Storia delle Arti, 1980, pp. 33–47, esp. p. 35. (Back to text.)
80. Bacci 1944, p. 147. (Back to text.)
81. For example, in the altarpiece (Florence, Accademia) painted by Nardo di Cione for the Ghiberti chapel in Santa Maria degli Angeli in 1365 (L. Marcucci, Gallerie Nazionali di Firenze: i dipinti toscani del secolo XIV, Rome 1965, p. 74, no. 43), in the altarpiece by Agnolo Gaddi in the Metropolitan Museum, New York (B. Cole, Agnolo Gaddi, Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 84 and pl. 45), and in three altarpieces of the Trinity attributed to Mariotto di Nardo: the Trinity with Donors (Impruneta, Collegiata), dated 1418; the Trinity with Saints Anthony Abbot, Michael, Francis, and Julian from Santa Trinita, Florence; and the altarpiece of San Giovanni Battista in San Giovanni Valdarno (now in the museum in Santa Maria delle Grazie). See Fremantle 1975 , figs 950 and 952; and S. Casciu, Il Museo della Basilica di Santa Maria delle Grazie, Montepulciano 1993, p. 19. In the latter there is a similar attempt as in Pesellino’s painting to differentiate between the space occupied by God the Father (the throne) and the Virgin and Mary Magdalene (ground) and a similar ambivalence in suggesting a Crucifixion. (Back to text.)
82. The same combination of trees appears in the altarpiece of the Virgin appearing to Saint Bernard (Florence, Accademia), painted for the Badia di San Salvatore at Settimo c. 1365–70 and attributed to the Master of the Rinuccini Chapel (see L. Dal Prà in Bernardo di Chiaravalle nell’arte italiana dal XIV secolo al XVIII secolo, exh. cat., Certosa di Firenze, Pinacoteca, Milan 1990, p. 57). See also M. Levi d’Ancona, The Garden of the Renaissance. Botanical Symbolism in Italian Painting, Florence 1977, p. 282, no. 9. (Back to text.)
83. Also noted in H. Kauffmann, Donatello, Berlin 1935–6, p. 161 and p. 243, n. 495. I owe this reference to Francesco Caglioti. While Donatello’s David (see A. Rosenauer, Donatello. L’Opera Completa, Milan 1993, p. 189, no. 41) had his hand turned against his hip to hold the stone, there is no functional justification for the twist of Mamas’ hand. The date of the David is disputed (see, most recently, F. Caglioti, Donatello e i Medici. Storia del David e della Giuditta, Florence 2000), and it may be that the Trinity altarpiece provides a terminus ante quem of 1455–7 for the sculpture. The tumbling angels are very similar to the free‐falling angels on Donatello’s relief of the Assumption of the Virgin on the Brancacci tomb in Naples of c. 1426 (Rosenauer 1993, p. 98, no. 14), although it is doubtful that Pesellino could have seen it; he may have seen drawings. (Back to text.)
84. Wolfgang A. Bulst, ‘Die sala grande des Palazzo Medici in Florenz. Rekonstruktion und Bedeutung’, in Pietro de’ Medici ‘il Gottoso’. Art in the Service of the Medici, eds A. Bayer and B. Boucher, Berlin 1993, p. 125, n. 131. If this was, like The Battle of San Romano, stolen from the Bartolini Salimbeni family, it was not reclaimed in 1495 (see p. 395, note 31), but it should be noted that a ‘Gratichola di lioni’ is recorded among their possessions in 1480 and 1483. See F. Caglioti, ‘Nouveautés sur la Bataille de San Romano de Paolo Uccello’, Revue du Louvre, 4, 2001, p. 49 and p. 54, nn 59 and 60. (Back to text.)
85. For the painting in the Metropolitan Museum, see F. Zeri and E.E. Gardner, Italian Paintings: A Catalogue of the Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Florentine School, New York 1971, pp. 92–3. Georg Pudelko (‘Studien über Domenico Veneziano’, MKIF , IV, 1932–4, p. 163, n. 1) considered Pesellino to have based the figure of Saint Zeno on Domenico Veneziano’s Saint Lucy altarpiece. (Back to text.)
86. Ruda 1993, pl. 177. A predella in Prato’s Museo Civico is sometimes associated with it (Mannini 1990, cited in note 12, p. 82, no. 17). Domenico and Don Diamante collected some of the payments for the Trinity altarpiece (Bacci 1944, pp. 142 and 143). See also note 50 above. (Back to text.)
87. These two drawings of Saint Mamas and Saint Jerome form a homogeneous group with a drawing of two women which is related to the Prato frescoes (see Degenhart and Schmitt 1968 , cited in note 29, I‐2, p. 548, Kat. 538 and 539; I‐4, Tafel 368a and 368b). No lion or hat is shown in the drawing of Saint Jerome, which could suggest that they never existed in the painting, although (as stated above) the drawing was not necessarily copied from the painting. (Back to text.)
88. Degenhart and Schmitt 1968 (cited in note 29), I‐2, pp. 545–6, Kat. 534; I‐4, Tafel 366d. A figure of Saint Sebastian in a painting sometimes attributed to Perugino, [page 287]now in the Musée de Nantes, closely reflects Saint Mamas’ pose. See the exh. cat. De Giotto à Bellini. Les primitifs italiens dans les musées de France (Orangerie des Tuileries), ed. M. Laclotte, 2nd edn, Paris 1956, cat. 106, p. 79 and pl. XLIV. (Back to text.)
89. Ruda 1993, p. 452. (Back to text.)
90. See A.M. Hind, Catalogue of Early Italian engravings… in the British Museum, London 1910, p. 121. (Back to text.)
91. Paintings and Sculpture of the Samuel H. Kress Collection, Denver Art Museum, Denver 1954, p. 34, no. 14. (Back to text.)
92. See D. Cole Ahl, Benozzo Gozzoli, New Haven and London 1996, pls 120 and 121. (Back to text.)
93. Bacci 1944, p. 117. (Back to text.)
94. ‘In Pistoia nella chiesa di Sant’Jacopo una Trinità, San Zeno, e Sant’Jacopo.’ Vasari, Vite, ed. Milanesi , 1878, III, p. 38; Vasari, Vite, eds Bettarini and Barocchi , III, 1971, p. 372. It is not clear why he does not mention Saint Jerome. He may not have been able to identify the more obscure Saint Mamas. In the 1550 edition (p. 420) Vasari merely describes ‘una tavola in S. Iacopo, laquale è molto diligentemente finita’ ( Vasari, Vite, 1550, eds Bellosi and Rossi, 1986 , 1986, p. 400 and n. 5). In Il Libro di Antonio Billi (written between 1506 and 1530), ed. Fabio Benedettucci, Rome 1991, p. 88, is ‘una tavola in San Jacopo di Pistoia’, identifiable as the NG painting, but attributed to Pesello. The same information is given in the Codice Magliabechiano (1537–42), ed. C. Frey, Berlin 1892, p. 100. Davies ( 1961 , p. 417, n. 5) says that old sources call the church San Jacopo, although it was dedicated to the Trinity. He cites G. Dondori, Della Pietà di Pistoia, 1666, p. 166 (misprinted 162), and the eighteenth‐century Oretti MSS in the Bibliotheca Archiginnasio at Bologna (B5), where the picture is mentioned (as ‘scuola di Masaccio’) as the high altarpiece of the ‘Chiesa della SSma Trinità, Congrega di Preti’. For drawings of the exterior of the church made in 1559 and 1760, see Pistoia: una città nello stato mediceo, exh. cat., Pistoia 1980, p. 143. I owe this reference to Christa Gardner von Teuffel. (Back to text.)
95. Bacci 1944, p. 117. The Company was one of the religious institutions suppressed by Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany. (Back to text.)
96. F. Tolomei, Guida di Pistoia, Pistoia 1821, p. 97, n. 1. (Back to text.)
97. For the history of how the individual fragments were recognised piece by piece as having come from the Trinity altarpiece, see Bacci 1944, pp. 115–17. (Back to text.)
98. G.F. Waagen, Kunstwerke und Künstler in England und Paris, Berlin 1837, I, p. 397. (Back to text.)
99. Waagen 1854, III, p. 375. For the Revd Walter Davenport Bromley, see D. Sutton, ‘From Ottley to Eastlake’, Apollo, 122, 1985, p. 88. See also p. xxxvi of this catalogue. (Back to text.)
100. Recorded, as by Fra Filippo Lippi, by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, II, 1864 , p. 336, n. 2. (Back to text.)
101. MS note by Collins Baker in his copy of the 1915 catalogue. (Back to text.)
102. Lord Brownlow was a Trustee of the National Gallery from 1897. See also NG 3424. (Back to text.)
103. Waagen 1837 (cited in note 98), I, p. 397. Davies ( 1961 , p. 417) thought Waagen’s notes had been affected by Vasari’s second description. See note 94 above. (Back to text.)
104. P. Seidel et al. , Gemälde alter Meister im Besitze des deutschen Kaisers, 1906/7, pp. 81–2, as Ligurian School. Davies ( 1961 , p. 419, n. 27) thought that it might also have been bought by Queen Victoria. Her eldest daughter, the Princess Royal, married the Emperor Frederick (III) in 1858; a gift to her might explain how the picture turned up in the collection of their son, William (II), but no evidence has been found to that effect. (Back to text.)
105. See T. Borenius, ‘The Pesellino altarpiece’, BM , 54, 1929, pp. 140–6. The panel with Saints Zeno and Jerome had been identified in 1922 as by Pesellino by Hans Kauffmann; see ibid. , p. 223. Four of the fragments had been published, in the hope of identifying this missing piece, by Roger Fry and Lionel Cust, ‘Notes on paintings in the Royal Collections – XIV. A Group of two saints, S. Giacomo and S. Mamante, painted by Pesellino’, BM , 16, 1909–10, pp. 124–8. (Back to text.)
106. For William Young Ottley and his brother Warner, see E.K. Waterhouse, ‘Some Notes on William Young Ottley’s Collection of Italian Primitives’, in Italian Studies presented to E.R. Vincent, eds C.P. Brand, K. Foster and U. Limentani, Cambridge 1962, pp. 272–80, esp. p. 274. Also Sutton, Apollo, 1985 (cited in note 99), pp. 84–5. See also pp. xxv–xxvi of this catalogue. (Back to text.)
107. See the watercolour of 1851 by James Roberts of Prince Albert’s Dressing Room (Windsor, Royal Library), p. xxiv, fig. 1. (Back to text.)
108. See Shearman
1993
1983
(cited in note 30), cat. 196, pp. 192–4. It was first recognised as belonging with the Trinity by Herbert
Horne in 1904. See D. Sutton, ‘Letters from Herbert Horne to Roger Fry’, Apollo, 122, 1985, pp. 138–9, and 142. (Back to text.)
109. Bacci 1944, p. 117. (Back to text.)
Glossary
- all’antica
- Classical, used to describe the classicising frame of
aa pala quadrata - barbe
- The raised lip of gesso which remains on the painted surface after the removal of an engaged frame moulding when the panel and frame have been gessoed at the same time. Its presence is an indication as to whether the image (but not necessarily the panel) retains its original dimensions
- bole
- A red clay applied to the gessoed surface of a panel as an adhesive underlayer for gold leaf
- cassone
- A chest, often given on marriage
- Catasto
- Records of Florentine tax returns
- cope
- A semicircular cloak worn by a bishop (sometimes called a pluvial)
- crozier
- A staff carried by a bishop
- intarsia
- Inlaid wood
- lake
- A pigment made by precipitation onto a base from a dye solution, resulting in a comparatively transparent pigment often used as a glaze
- mitre
- A liturgical hat worn by a bishop
- mordant gilding
- The process of applying gold leaf to an adhesive or mordant, usually done in the final stages of a painting
- pala
- An altarpiece with a unified painted surface
- pala quadrata
- A pala with a square or rectangular field
- pentimento
- Literally ‘repentance’ – used to describe changes made by the artist during the execution of a drawing or painting
- terminus ante quem
AA fixed date before which (a painting must have been made)- water gilding
- Gold leaf applied to wetted bole and then burnished
Abbreviations
Institutions
- NG
- National Gallery, London
Periodicals
- BM
- Burlington Magazine, London, 1903–
- NGTB
- National Gallery Technical Bulletin
Frequently cited works are given in abbreviated form throughout, as listed below:
- Berenson 1963
- B. Berenson, Italian Pictures of the Renaissance: a list of the principal artists and their works with an index of places. Florentine School, 2 vols, London 1963 (lists of 1932 revised)
- Crowe and Cavalcaselle 1864
- J.A. Crowe and G.B. Cavalcaselle, A History of Painting in Italy, 2 vols, London 1864
- Davies 1961
- M. Davies, National Gallery Catalogues: The Earlier Italian Schools, 2nd revised edn, London 1961
- Fremantle 1975
- R. Fremantle, Florentine Gothic Painters from Giotto to Masaccio: a Guide to Painting in and near Florence 1300 to 1450, London 1975
- Kaftal 1952
- G. Kaftal, Iconography of the Saints in Tuscan Painting, Florence 1952
- Vasari, Le Vite, eds Bellosi and Rossi
- G. Vasari, Le Vite de’ più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori italiani da Cimabue insino ai tempi nostri nell’edizione per i tipi di Lorenzo Torrentino, Firenze 1550/Giorgio Vasari, eds L. Bellosi and A. Rossi, Turin 1986
- Vasari, Le Vite, ed. Milanesi
- G. Vasari, Le Vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architetti, ed. G. Milanesi, 8 vols, Florence 1878–85
- Vasari, Le Vite, eds Bettarini and Barocchi
- G. Vasari, Le Vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori nelle redazioni del 1550 & 1568, eds R. Bettarini and P. Barocchi, vol. II, Florence 1967; vol. III, Florence 1971
List of references cited
- Bacci 1941b
- Bacci, P., ‘Il Pesellino, Fra Filippo Lippi, Domenico Veneziano, Piero di Lorenzo, Fra Diamante, Domenico discepolo di Fra Filippo Lippi etc. e la tavola pistoiese della “Trinità” nella Galleria Nazionale di Londra. Documenti e commenti per la Storia dell’Arte’, Le Arti, 1941, V–VI, 353–70 & 418–34 (republished, Documenti e Commenti per la Storia dell’Arte, Florence 1944, 113–51)
- Baker 1915
- Baker, C., National Gallery: Abridged Descriptive and Historical Catalogue of the British and Foreign Pictures, London 1915
- Beck 1974
- Beck, J., ‘The Medici Inventory of 1560’, Antichità Viva, 1974, XIII, 3, 64–6
- Bellosi 1983–4
- Bellosi, L., ‘Tre note in margine a uno studio sull’arte a Prato’, Prospettiva, 1983–4, 33–6, 45–55
- Benedettucci 1991
- Benedettucci, F., Il Libro di Antonio Billi, Rome 1991
- Bensi 1980
- Bensi, P., ‘Gli arnesi dell’arte. I Gesuati di San Giusto alle Mura e la Pittura del rinascimento a Firenze’, Studi di Storia delle Arti, 1980, 33–47
- Berenson 1938
- Berenson, B., The drawings of the Florentine Painters, 3 vols, Chicago 1938, I and II
- Berenson 1963
- Berenson, Bernard, Italian Pictures of the Renaissance: a list of the principal artists and their works with an index of places. Florentine School (revised lists of 1932), 2 vols, London 1963
- Bernacchioni 1996a
- Bernacchioni, A., ‘Una proposta di identificazione per il Maestro della Natività Johnson, collaboratore di Filippo Lippi a Prato’, in La Toscana al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico. Convegno di Studi promosso dalle Università di Firenze, Pisa e Siena (5–8 November 1992), Pisa 1996, I, 313–23
- Borenius 1929
- Borenius, T., ‘The Pesellino altarpiece’, Burlington Magazine, 1929, 54, 140–6
- Bulst 1993
- Bulst, W.A., ‘Die sala grande des Palazzo Medici in Florenz. Rekonstruktion und Bedeutung’, in Pietro de’ Medici ‘il Gottoso’. Art in the Service of the Medici, eds A. Bayer and B. Boucher, Berlin 1993, 89–127
- Caglioti 2000
- Caglioti, F., Donatello e i Medici. Storia del David e della Giuditta, Florence 2000
- Caglioti 2001
- Caglioti, F., ‘Nouveautés sur la Bataille de San Romano de Paolo Uccello’, Revue du Louvre, 2001, 4, 37–54
- Casciu 1993
- Casciu, S., Il Museo della Basilica di Santa Maria delle Grazie, Montepulciano 1993
- Chiappelli 1920
- Chiappelli, A., Storia e Costumanze delle Antiche Feste Patronali di S Iacopo in Pistoia, Pistoia 1920
- Cole 1977
- Cole, B., Agnolo Gaddi, Oxford 1977
- Cole Ahl 1996
- Cole Ahl, D., Benozzo Gozzoli, New Haven and London 1996
- Courcelle 1969
- Courcelle, J.C. and P. Courcelle, Iconographie de Saint Augustin. Les cycles du XVe siècle, Paris 1969, 2
- Crowe and Cavalcaselle 1864
- Crowe, Joseph Archer and Giovanni‐Battista Cavalcaselle, A New History of Painting in Italy, 2 vols, London 1864
- Davies 1961
- Davies, Martin, National Gallery Catalogues: The Earlier Italian Schools, 2nd revised edn, London 1961 (1st edn, London 1951)
- De Roover 1963
- De Roover, R., The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank 1397–1494, Cambridge, Mass. 1963
- Degenhart and Schmitt 1968
- Degenhart, Bernhard and Annegrit Schmitt, Corpus der italienischen Zeichnungen. 1300–1450, 4 vols, Berlin 1968
- Dondori 1666
- Dondori, G., Della Pietà di Pistoia, 1666
- Edler 1934
- Edler, F., Glossary of Medieval Terms of Business, Cambridge, Mass. 1934
- Fremantle 1975
- Fremantle, Richard, Florentine Gothic Painters from Giotto to Masaccio: a Guide to Painting in and near Florence, 1300 to 1450, London 1975
- Fry 1911–12
- Fry, R., ‘Notes on the acts and cult of S. Mamas’, Burlington Magazine, 1911–12, 20, 352–9
- Fry and Cust 1909–10
- Fry, R. and L. Cust, ‘Notes on paintings in the Royal Collections – XIV. A Group of two saints, S. Giacomo and S. Mamante, painted by Pesellino’, Burlington Magazine, 1909–10, 16, 124–8
- Gai 1973
- Gai, L., ‘Note per i rapporti commerciali e artistici di Pistoia con la Provenza nella seconda metà del ‘300. Il braccio reliquiario di S. Zeno nel tesoro della cattedrale di Pistoia’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese, 1973, anno LXXV, III, fasc. 1 and 2, 3–38
- Gordon 1996a
- Gordon, D., ‘The “missing” predella panel from Pesellino’s Trinity altar‐piece’, Burlington Magazine, February 1996, 138, 1115, 87–8
- Gronau 1938
- Gronau, G., ‘In margine a Francesco Pesellino’, Rivista d’Arte, 1938, XX, 123–46
- Hind 1910
- Hind, A.M., Catalogue of Early Italian engravings… in the British Museum, London 1910
- Kaftal 1952
- Kaftal, George, Iconography of the Saints in Tuscan Painting, Florence 1952
- Kaftal and Bisogni 1978
- Kaftal, G., with the collaboration of F. Bisogni, Iconography of the Saints in the Painting of North East Italy, Florence 1978
- Kauffmann 1935–6
- Kauffmann, H., Donatello, Berlin 1935–6
- Kress Collection 1954
- Paintings and Sculpture of the Samuel H. Kress Collection (exh. cat. Denver Art Museum, Denver, 1954), Denver 1954
- Kustodieva 1994
- Kustodieva, Tatyana K., The Hermitage Catalogue of Western European Painting [I]. Italian Painting, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries, St Petersburg and Florence 1994
- Lachi 1995
- Lachi, C., Il Maestro della Natività di Castello, Florence 1995
- Laclotte 1956
- Laclotte, M., ed., De Giotto à Bellini. Les primitifs italiens dans les musées de France (exh. cat.), 2nd edn, Paris 1956
- Laclotte and Mognetti 1977
- Laclotte, M. and E. Mognetti, Avignon, musée du Petit Palais. Peinture italienne, Inventaire des collections publiques françaises, 2nd edn, Paris 1977 (3rd edn, Paris 1987)
- Mannini 1990
- Mannini, M.P., ed., Il Museo Civico di Prato: le collezioni d’arte, Florence 1990
- Marchini 1975
- Marchini, G., Filippo Lippi, Milan 1975
- Migne 1841–55
- Migne, J.P., ed., Patrologia Latina, Paris 1841–55
- Müntz 1888
- Müntz, E., Les Collections des Médicis au quinzième siècle: le musée, la bibliothèque, le mobilier, Paris 1888
- Oertel 1942
- Oertel, R., Fra Filippo Lippi, Vienna 1942
- Oertel 1961
- Oertel, R., Frühe italienische Malerei in Altenburg: beschreibender Katalog der Gemälde des 13. bis 16. Jahrhunderts im Staatlichen Lindenau‐Museums, Berlin 1961
- O’Malley 1994
- O’Malley, M.M., ‘The Business of Art: Contract and Payment Documents for Fourteenth‐ and Fifteenth‐Century Italian Altarpieces and Frescoes’ (PhD dissertation), Warburg Institute, University of London, 1994
- Pistoia 1980
- Pistoia: una città nello stato mediceo (exh. cat.), Pistoia 1980
- Pittaluga 1949
- Pittaluga, M., Filippo Lippi, Florence 1949
- Pittaluga 1950
- Pittaluga, M., ‘review of Bacci, Le Arti, 1941’, Rivista d’Arte, 1950, XXVI, 233–9
- Procacci 1960
- Procacci, U., ‘Di Jacopo di Antonio e delle compagnie di pittori del Corso degli Adimari nel XV secolo’, Rivista d’Arte, 1960 (1961), XXXV, 3–70
- Pudelko 1932–4
- Pudelko, G., ‘Studien über Domenico Veneziano’, Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 1932–4, IV, 145–200
- Quinterio 1996
- Quinterio, F., in The Dictionary of Art, ed. J. Turner, 1996, 263–4
- Rice 1985
- Rice, Eugene F., Saint Jerome in the Renaissance, Baltimore and London 1985
- Ridderbos 1984
- Ridderbos, Bernhard, Saint and Symbol: Images of Saint Jerome in Early Italian Art, trans. P. de Waard‐Dekking, Groningen 1984
- Rosenauer 1993
- Rosenauer, A., Donatello. L’Opera Completa, Milan 1993
- Rowlands 1990
- Rowlands, E.W., ‘Two Saints from the Workshop of Fra Filippo Lippi, and their companion panels’, Bulletin of the Georgia Museum of Art, 1990, 16, 4–15
- Ruda 1993
- Ruda, Jeffrey, Fra Filippo Lippi: Life and Work with a Complete Catalogue, London 1993
- Seidel 1906/7
- Seidel, P., et al., Gemälde alter Meister im Besitze des deutschen Kaisers, 1906/7
- Shearman 1983
- Shearman, John, The Early Italian Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen, Cambridge 1983
- Spallanzani and Bertelà 1992
- Spallanzani, M. and G.G. Bertelà, eds, Libro d’inventario dei beni di Lorenzo il Magnifico, Florence 1992
- Spufford 1986
- Spufford, P., Handbook of Medieval Exchange, London 1986
- Sutton 1985
- Sutton, Denys, ‘From Ottley to Eastlake’, Apollo (Aspects of British Collecting, Part IV, no. XIV), 1985, 122, 282, 84–95
- Sutton 1985c
- Sutton, D., ‘Letters from Herbert Horne to Roger Fry’, Apollo, 1985, 122, 136–59
- Thomas 1995
- Thomas, A., The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany, Cambridge 1995
- Tolomei 1821
- Tolomei, F., Guida di Pistoia per gli amanti delle belle arti: con notizie degli architetti, scultori e pittori pistoiesi, Pistoia 1821
- Vasari 1878–85
- Vasari, Giorgio, Le Vite de’più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori, ed. Gaetano Milanesi, 9 vols, Florence 1878–85
- Vasari 1967–71
- Vasari, Giorgio, Le Vite de’più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori, eds R. Bettarini and P. Barocchi, Florence 1967 (I and II), 1971 (III)
- Vasari 1986
- Vasari, Giorgio, Le vite de’ piu eccellenti pittori, scultori et architetti italiani, da Cimabue insino a’ tempi nostri nell’ edizione per i tipi di Lorenzo Torrentino, eds Luciano Bellosi and Aldo Rossi, Florence 1550 (Turin 1986)
- Waterhouse 1962
- Waterhouse, E.K., ‘Some Notes on William Young Ottley’s Collection of Italian Primitives’, in Italian Studies presented to E.R. Vincent, eds C.P. Brand, K. Foster and U. Limentani, Cambridge 1962, 272–80
- White and Pilc 1996
- White, Raymond and Jennifer Pilc, ‘Analyses of Paint Media’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 1996, 17, 91–103
- Zeri and Gardner 1971
- Zeri, Federico and Elizabeth E. Gardner, Italian Paintings. A Catalogue of the Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Florentine School, New York 1971
- Zupko 1981
- Zupko, R., Italian weights and measures from the Middle Ages to the 19th century, Philadelphia 1981
List of exhibitions cited
- London 1896
- London, Royal Academy, 1896
The Organisation of the Catalogue
Chronological and geographical limits
Included in this volume are works by artists or workshops the bulk of whose surviving work falls within the first half of the fifteenth century, i.e. around 1400–60: Starnina (d. 1413), Lorenzo Monaco (d. c. 1423), Gregorio di Cecco di Luca (d. c. 1428), Masaccio (d. 1428/9), Masolino (d. c. 1436), Giovanni dal Ponte (d. 1437), Sassetta (d. 1450), Master of the Osservanza (active second quarter of fifteenth century), Francesco d’Antonio (active until 1452), Jacopo di Antonio (Master of Pratovecchio?) (d. 1454), Fra Angelico (d. 1455), Pisanello (d. 1455), Pesellino (d. 1457), Domenico Veneziano (d. 1461), Bono da Ferrara (active until 1461), Apollonio di Giovanni (d. c. 1465), Zanobi Strozzi (d. 1468), Filippo Lippi (d. 1469), Giovanni da Oriolo (d. by 1474), Uccello (d. 1475), Marco del Buono (d. after 1480), Giovanni di Paolo (d. 1482).
The exceptions to this are two paintings whose previous attributions were to artists represented in this catalogue but which are now attributed to artists active primarily in the second half of the fifteenth century. The Virgin and Child with Angels (NG 5581) used to be catalogued as by a follower of Fra Angelico. Now, it is generally accepted as being an early work of c. 1447 by Benozzo Gozzoli, and it is therefore included here. However, his work as an independent painter dates from 1450, and his altarpiece dated 1461 for Santa Maria della Purificazione, Florence, will be considered in a subsequent catalogue. A panel of the Nativity (NG 3648) used to be given to a follower of Masaccio, but technical evidence links it to the altarpiece attributed to the Master of the Castello Nativity (active mid‐fifteenth century), recently identified as Piero di Lorenzo di Pratese – a painter deeply enmeshed in the history of the Trinity altarpiece by Pesellino (NG 727 etc.) considered here.
The majority of the paintings included in this catalogue are from Tuscany, with the exception of those by Pisanello, his pupil Bono da Ferrara and his follower Giovanni da Oriolo. Because so few Venetian paintings in the collection date from the first half of the fifteenth century, those which do will be considered in another volume.
Artists: The artists are catalogued in alphabetical order. Autograph works precede those which are attributed.
Attribution: A painting is discussed under the artist where the attribution is not considered to be in doubt. ‘Attributed to’ implies a measure of doubt. ‘Workshop of’ indicates that the work has been executed by a member of the workshop, sometimes with the participation of the artist concerned.
Title: The traditional title of each painting has been followed, except where further research has made a more precise description possible.
Date: Reasons for the date given in the head matter are explained in the body of each entry.
Medium: This is generally assumed to be egg. Where this has been identified, it is stated.
Support: This is generally assumed to be poplar. Where this has been identified, it is stated.
Dimensions: The overall dimensions are given in the head matter. Height precedes width. More precise dimensions are given in the discussion of each work.
Restoration: The history of the restoration of a painting before it entered the National Gallery is not given unless specifically known.
Technique and condition: These are discussed together, since the condition of a painting is often the result of the techniques employed. Where pigments seemed unusual, samples were examined by Ashok Roy and in some cases the medium has been analysed by Raymond White.
Method: Every painting was examined and measured in the Conservation Department with a conservator – usually Jill Dunkerton, but in some instances Martin Wyld, Larry Keith and Paul Ackroyd. Some paintings were examined by Rachel Billinge with infra‐red reflectography (see p. 478).
X‐radiographs, infra‐red photographs and infrared reflectograms: The reader may find it frustrating that reference is sometimes made to X‐radiographs, infra‐red photographs and infra‐red reflectograms without their being illustrated. This is because once they are reduced to page size they are often no longer decipherable.
Bibliographical information: At the end of every catalogue entry is a Select Bibliography listing the main publications relevant to that entry, in chronological order. The works in this list are cited in abbreviated form in the notes following the entry. Full references to all works cited in the catalogue are given in the List of Publications Cited (pp. 435–55).
Comments: I have attempted to give as full an account as possible with regard to attribution, patronage, date, related panels, original location, subject matter, iconography, etc., and to make this information accessible and interesting to the lay reader as well as to the art historian. Inevitably the text contains some speculation – I have tried to make it clear when an argument is hypothetical. For ease of reference the comments are given subheadings, but their sequence varies according to the requirements of the argument.
Dating and Measurements
Dates – old style and modern
Dates are given in the modern style, but the old style (o.s.) is indicated where pertinent.
- Florence:
- The calendar year began on the feast of the Annunciation, 25 March.
- Pisa:
- The year began on 25 March, but anticipated the Florentine year by one year (i.e. 1 January–24 March = modern).
- Pistoia (stile della Natività):
- The year began on 25 December, anticipating modern style (i.e. 1 January–24 December = modern).
- Siena:
- The year began on 25 March, but sometimes followed the Pisan system.
(See A. Cappelli, Cronologia Cronografica e Calendario Perpetuo, 2nd edn, Milan 1930, pp. 11–16.)
Measurements
The Florentine braccio (fioretino da panno) was the standard unit of linear measurement in Florence from at least the fourteenth until the nineteenth century and was equal to approximately 58.4 cm. In Siena the braccio (per le tele) before 1782 was 60 cm, although Siena also used the braccio of 58.4 cm.
(See A.P. Favaro, Metrologia, Naples 1826, pp. 85 and 118; R. Zupko, Italian weights and measures from the Middle Ages to the 19th Century, Philadelphia 1981, p. 46.)
Infra‐red reflectography
Infra‐red reflectography was carried out by Rachel Billinge using a Hamamatsu C2400 camera with an N2606 series infra‐red vidicon tube. The camera is fitted with a 36mm lens to which a Kodak 87A Wratten filter has been attached to exclude visible light. The infra‐red reflectogram mosaics were assembled on a computer using an updated version of the software (VIPS ip) described in R. Billinge, J. Cupitt, N. Dessipris and D. Saunders, ‘A note on an improved procedure for the rapid assembly of infrared reflectogram mosaics’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 38, 11, 1993, pp. 92–8.
About this version
Version 1, generated from files DG_2003__16.xml dated 07/03/2025 and database__16.xml dated 09/03/2025 using stylesheet 16_teiToHtml_externalDb.xsl dated 03/01/2025. Structural mark-up applied to skeleton document in full; entry for NG583, biography for Uccello and associated front and back matter (marked up in pilot project) reintegrated into main document; document updated to use external database of archival and bibliographic references; entries for L2, NG215-NG216, NG1897, NG2862 & NG4062; L15, NG727, NG3162, NG3230, NG4428 & NG4868.1-NG4868.4; NG583; NG663.1-NG663.5; NG666-NG667; NG766-NG767 & NG1215; NG1436; NG2908; NG3046; NG4757-NG4763; NG5451-NG5454; NG5962-NG5963; and NG6579-NG6580 prepared for publication; entry for NG583 proofread and corrected.
Cite this entry
- Permalink (this version)
- https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E9B-000B-0000-0000
- Permalink (latest version)
- https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E6H-000B-0000-0000
- Chicago style
- Gordon, Dillian. “NG 727, NG 3162, NG 3230, NG 4428, NG 4868.1–4, L15, The Trinity with Saints Mamas, James, Zeno and Jerome”. 2003, online version 1, March 9, 2025. https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E9B-000B-0000-0000.
- Harvard style
- Gordon, Dillian (2003) NG 727, NG 3162, NG 3230, NG 4428, NG 4868.1–4, L15, The Trinity with Saints Mamas, James, Zeno and Jerome. Online version 1, London: National Gallery, 2025. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E9B-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).
- MHRA style
- Gordon, Dillian, NG 727, NG 3162, NG 3230, NG 4428, NG 4868.1–4, L15, The Trinity with Saints Mamas, James, Zeno and Jerome (National Gallery, 2003; online version 1, 2025) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E9B-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 19 March 2025]