Catalogue entry
Duccio di Buoninsegna active 1278; died 1319
Duccio’s Maestà
, 2011
Extracted from:
Dillian Gordon, The Italian Paintings Before 1400 (London: National Gallery Company and Yale University Press, 2011).
© The National Gallery, London
© The National Gallery, London
© The National Gallery, London
The following three panels come from the front predella (NG 1139) and back predella (NG 1140 and NG 1330) of Duccio’s Maestà of 1311 for the high altar of Siena Cathedral. Following the entries of the individual panels is a general discussion of the reconstruction, setting, function and antecedents of the Maestà, and of its location, the embellishment of the high altar, and the patron, inscription and aftermath.
NG 1139
The Annunciation
Predella panel from the Maestà
1307(?)/8–11
Egg tempera on wood, 44.5 × 45.8 cm
The Annunciation is described in Luke 1:28–38. The archangel Gabriel tells the Virgin Mary that she is to bear the son of God. The Virgin looks up from the book she has been reading, which is inscribed with the words from Isaiah 7:14: Ecce/virgo/concipi/et et pa/[ri]et filiū et voc/abitur (‘Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name [Emmanuel]’). The Holy Spirit descends from God in the form of a white dove. In the foreground is a vase of lilies signifying the Virgin’s purity.
Technical Notes1
Panel structure and condition
The panel is made up of two boards with a horizontal grain: a narrow piece of wood, about 1.7 cm, has been attached to the bottom of the main board. Overall height of panel 44.5 cm (right side), 44.4 cm (left side); overall width of panel 45.5 cm (top), 45.8 cm (bottom). Painted surface 43.2 × 43.3 cm. All the edges have been cut. The board that formed the main part of the predella was originally about 6–7 cm thick. After NG 1139 was separated from the rest of the predella it was thinned to about 1.7/1.8 cm.2
[page 155] [page 156]
Composite X‐radiograph of NG 1139. © The National Gallery, London
The nails embedded in the lower edge are not original.
Apart from a complex horizontal split beginning c. 21 cm from the top at the left edge and finishing c. 16 cm from the top at the right edge (see fig. 1), and some evidence of worm damage, the panel is in relatively good condition.
There are three rectangular gouged‐out holes at the left edge of the panel. One is 1.7 cm wide and c. 1.5 cm deep, its top edge situated 7.0 cm from the top; the second is 1.8 cm wide and c. 1.3 cm deep, its top edge 24.5 cm from the top of the panel; the third is 2.0 cm wide and c. 0.7 cm deep, its top edge c. 39.4 cm from the top of the panel.3
Photomicrograph of the angel’s drapery, showing underdrawing. © The National Gallery, London
Infrared reflectogram of NG 1139. © The National Gallery, London
There was originally an engaged frame all round, diagonal across the corners. Removal of the frame has exposed unpainted borders approximately 1.5 cm at the top and 1.2 cm at the left and right sides.
Painting condition and technique
Cleaned and restored in 1981–2.
Infrared reflectography reveals two kinds of underdrawing in a liquid medium, probably done with a brush rather than a pen (see figs 2, 3 and 4).4 The angel’s features and drapery were initially drawn with sweeping lines, which appear relatively [page 158][page 159] pale in infrared. Subsequently, some of the more complicated folds, such as those across the shoulder and beneath the elbow, establishing the final position, and the position of the angel’s right leg and left hand curled around the staff, were reinforced with more broken lines, which often overlap and which appear darker in infrared (fig. 4). There are some changes in the angel between the underdrawing and the painting: the mordant‐gilded double stripes were drawn further down along the arm, and the neckline was originally higher up. The angel’s right hand originally had four extended fingers,5 and the area for them was reserved; by the time the green earth underpainting was applied for the flesh, they had been changed to only two, as now (fig. 5).
Infrared reflectogram detail of the angel. © The National Gallery, London
Photomicrograph of the angel’s right hand. © The National Gallery, London
The Virgin’s features and drapery were similarly underdrawn with pale sweeping lines, reinforced with darker lines to the right of and below her right elbow, and along the curve of drapery across her body. There are some small changes: the index finger of her right hand clasping her veil was drawn higher up; the reserve of her index finger in its present position extended further. Very rough underdrawn lines extending out to the right beneath the grey parapet suggest the bunching of folds of drapery, although there are no signs of a seat as seen in some thirteenth‐century Sienese paintings of the Annunciation (see fig. 8).6 Other features may suggest that Duccio was unsure how to finalise this area: the horizontal and lower vertical edges of this part of the parapet, painted white, are not incised, whereas the white painted edge next to the door has been incised twice, first as part of the original laying out of the composition, and then into the wet paint. The dark grey paint surface of the outer grey column continues down, while the rest of the parapet is painted a lighter grey.
Numerous changes were made to the architecture at the top, which is both underdrawn and incised. There is underdrawing for a lower cornice running level with the tops of the rounded arches across the back wall, and the oblique wall and arch framing the angel show a number of attempts to arrive at the oblique angle: the top of the architecture may originally have continued level with the pink wall in the portico above the Virgin’s head, and then risen at an angle above the angel’s head. The interpretation of the infrared reflectogram in this area is complicated by the very free application of initial paint layers.
Other changes include the capital of the first column on the left, which was underdrawn lower down. The capital of the grey arch springing from the pink was originally higher, giving an arch whose apex was closer to the present cornice. Incised and underdrawn horizontal and vertical lines in the upper right‐hand corner are hard to interpret. The horizontal line incised in the gold in the opening beneath the fourth arch is also difficult to explain since it does not line up with any other feature.
The pink wall was originally painted grey. It is possible that the difficulty of differentiating between the different planes in shades of grey led to some of the architecture being overpainted pink, with the rather incongruous result that a grey arch springs from a pink column, resting on an unlikely capital.
One may surmise that Duccio was experimenting with the architecture, hence perhaps the mixture of round and pointed arches (although see below), the many changes, and the unhappy spatial relationship between the architectural elements, such as the immediate juxtaposition of the foremost free‐standing grey column and back pink column.
Much of the architecture has lines incised into the wet paint (fig. 6), sharpening and reinforcing edges. The horizontal lines of the moulding of the upper cornice were incised into wet paint – in the second section from the right the slanting lower edges were ruled twice – and the foliate frieze painted over these incised lines. All the painted outlines of the architecture, the Virgin’s head, and the angel’s head and wing where they border the gold, were incised as was usual. This includes the tips of the angel’s wing and the drapery and right foot to the left of the column.
Photomicrograph of the decorative border in the architecture, showing incisions in wet paint. © The National Gallery, London
Photomicrograph of the dove. © The National Gallery, London
A sample shows bole beneath the orange paint below the wing, proving that this area was intended to be gilded.7 Possibly the gilder omitted to complete the task, and the area covered with bole was at a later stage simply painted orange using lead white, red and black. The handle of the angel’s white staff, the lines guiding the white dove and the stems of the lilies were also incised.
The water‐gilded background is in reasonable condition, although the bole shows through in places. All the decoration of the gold has been incised freehand with a stylus. The gold border has been incised with a leaf decoration, with cross‐hatching in the intervening spaces. The angel’s halo has been decorated with a similar pattern. The Virgin’s halo has delicate lozenges containing flowers in their centre, and a curling pattern in between.
The mordant gilding, used in the double‐line of the angel’s blue robe, the feathering of the angel’s brown wings and the single border edging of the Virgin’s white veil, is in good condition.8 The thick yellow‐brown mordant contains lead white, earth pigments, a little red lead and a little verdigris, and appears to be the same as in NG 1140, NG 1330 and NG 566. The prismatic folds of the Virgin’s red dress and the mordant‐gilded single border edging of her cloak do not always follow the underdrawing.
The overall condition of the painted surface is good, apart from damages associated with the panel. The piece along the bottom may have broken away when the predella was being dismantled, but, being still attached by the canvas layer under the gesso, could be stuck back in place. There is considerable paint loss along the bottom of the picture. Towards the top, two knots in the panel have caused damage in the pink architecture above the Virgin’s head and a horizontal split runs through her face. The Virgin’s face is quite worn, revealing much of the green earth of the flesh underpainting. Her cloak is painted with high‐quality ultramarine, with black in the shadows; its lining is painted with a layer of red lake over ultramarine to achieve a rich purple. Her dress is painted with red lake, white and vermilion.
The angel’s robe is painted with ultramarine, mixed with white to varying degrees; his lilac cloak is painted with white tinted with ultramarine and red lake,9 with some black.
The pink architecture is painted with red earth mixed with white.10 The dark tones of the floor are red and yellow earths mixed with black and white,11 and green earth is used for the tips of the angel’s wings.
The white lilies were painted over the pink of the architecture and have flaked somewhat; they have lost some of the green glazes that would have made them appear more three‐dimensional. Two light purple patches near the flowers are hard to explain: they may be intended to represent buds.
Iconography
This was the opening scene of the front predella, showing seven scenes from the Infancy of Christ alternating with the figures of prophets, on Duccio’s Maestà for Siena Cathedral (see p. 174, fig. 1).12 The next narrative scene was the Nativity (Washington, National Gallery of Art) and the two were separated by the figure of Isaiah (also Washington, National Gallery of Art), who holds a scroll with the same text from Isaiah that the Virgin has been reading. On the other side of the Nativity was Ezekiel, holding a scroll with a text derived from Ezekiel 44:2: VIDI PORTA[M] [I]N DOMO DOM[IN]I CLAUSA[M] VIR NO[N] TR[AN]SIBIT P[ER] EA[M] DOMIN[US] SOLUS I[N]TRAT ET [IN]IT P[ER] EAM (‘I saw the door in the house of the Lord. No man will enter through it. Only the Lord God enters and goes through it’), reiterating the theme of virginity.13 Ruth Wilkins Sullivan has discussed the narrative rhythm of the front predella as based on the text of Matthew 1:18 to 2:23, punctuated by six Old Testament prophets, who each come after the episode to which their prophecies allude.14
The composition and the pose of both the angel and the Virgin Mary are derived from thirteenth‐century Sienese versions of the Annunciation, of which at least four survive: that from the wings of an altar piece by Guido da Siena (Princeton University Art Museum);15 the side scene in the dossal showing Saint Peter Enthroned (Siena, Pinacoteca, no. 15; fig. 8) now attributed to Guido di Graziano,16 which also has a white dove within a white circle17 and three diagonal lines descending from a blue arc of Heaven; the wall‐painting in the atrium in the ‘crypt’ under the east end of Siena Cathedral, attributed by Alessandro Bagnoli to Dietisalvi collaborating with Guido da Siena (fig. 9), and the abbreviated version in the spandrels of NG 6571 (see p. 352 and figs 5 and 6) by another of the painters who was involved in the fresco scheme in the atrium.18 One difference which is immediately striking is that in NG 1139 Duccio has eschewed the dynamic pose of the angel, choosing instead to show the angel’s left foot firmly on the ground and his right foot cleverly picking up the diagonal [page 161]of the frame, in a calm, almost columnar introduction to the whole predella sequence.
James Stubblebine sees the vase of lilies (fig. 10) as coming from Cavallini’s mosaic of the Annunciation in Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome;19 this mosaic is also one of the examples cited by Dietmar Popp of the Virgin Annunciate holding an open book as opposed to a spindle.20
Roger Tarr has made a complex and extremely detailed study of the iconography of NG 1139, of which only a brief summary can be given here. He analyses its innovative features and their implications for the reading of the entire altar piece, arguing that the iconography of NG 1139 is related to the ‘prophetic prescience in relation to Mary’s subsequent life and death as they unfold on the front of the Maestà and to those of Christ as they appear in the main narrative cycle on the back’.21 Tarr interprets the setting as ecclesiastical, combining Romanesque and Gothic features, and thus symbolising the status of the Christian Church, with the coming together of the Old and the New Testaments, and the Virgin’s relationship to primacy of the Church’s authority.22 The inscription on the Virgin’s open book fulfils a dual role: not only has she been reading from the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament the words that prophesy the birth of her own son, but Gabriel echoed Isaiah in his announcement to Mary (Luke 1:31): ‘And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a son and shalt call his name Jesus.’ Tarr sees the motif of the inscribed open book as indicative of the Virgin’s theological role, relevant to the theme of revelation through divine wisdom running across the whole predella. He makes the acute observation that there is a subtle message in the clothes of the Virgin, in that in NG 1139 her dress or undergarment is striated with gold, whereas her garments throughout Christ’s Infancy and Passion are plain until the scene of the Pentecost, where they are wholly striated, and then from the scene showing the annunciation of her death onwards, again only the undergarment is striated: the gold symbolises the conception of Christ, and thus the divinity of Christ’s incarnation (as in the Transfiguration, NG 1330, see p. 170).23 The vase of white lilies denotes the Virgin’s purity.24 The open door Tarr sees as symbolising the porta clausa, referred to by Ezekiel (see above) and traditionally held to be a symbol of Mary’s virginity; open doors recur throughout the Passion scenes while Christ is alive on earth, but are shown closed in the Appearance behind Closed Doors and the Incredulity of Thomas on the back of the altar piece.25
Although Tarr sees the rays as pointing towards the Virgin’s body, as opposed to her head, and thus by implication towards her womb,26 they are not directed towards her womb (as they later so evidently are in the versions of the Annunciation by Gentile da Fabriano and Filippo Lippi).27 In fact the three rays, possibly symbolising the Trinity, seem to be directed at her ear,28 emphasising that the words she hears Gabriel speak are from God, since they come from the blue arc of Heaven representing the power of God overshadowing her: when Mary questions how she will conceive, since she is a Virgin, Gabriel answers: ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; [page 162]therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God’ (Luke 1:34–5). Gabriel carries a staff denoting his status as God’s messenger.29 It is worth noting that the staff has a fleur‐de‐lis tip, echoing the lilies in the vase. Carl Strehlke points out that the staff may derive from the apocryphal Gospel of Saint Bartholomew, in which Satan describes the twelve archangels as rodbearers (‘lictors’) of God who smote him with their rods.30
Attributed to Guido di Graziano, The Annunciation (detail from Saint Peter Enthroned), c. 1260(?). Tempera on wood. Siena, Pinacoteca Nazionale. SIENA Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena © courtesy of Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, Soprintendenza PSAE di Siena & Grosseto. Photo Lensini Siena
Attributed to Dietisalvi di Speme(?), The Annunciation, c. 1260. Fresco in the ‘crypt’ under Siena Cathedral. SIENA © Opera della Metropolitana di Siena: Photo Lensini Siena
The Annunciation was placed directly under the Annunciation of the Death of the Virgin in the upper tier of the Maestà above the main panel, and there was evidently a direct iconographic correlation between the two.31
Attribution
The outstanding quality of NG 1139 is such that an attribution to Duccio himself has never been doubted.
For further comment on Duccio’s Maestà see pp. 174–87.
Exhibited
Provenance
Purchased from C. Fairfax Murray of Florence, 1883 (Clarke Fund).32
Detail of the vase of lilies. © The National Gallery, London
Notes
1. For a discussion of the structure and painting technique of NG 1139 see further the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, pp. 78–83. (Back to text.)
2. The marks of modern battens which have been removed are still visible on the back. (Back to text.)
3. According to the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 79, the final scene of the predella showing the Teaching in the Temple (Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo) has three plugs of new wood in the equivalent position at the right‐hand edge, suggesting that these indentations relate to the fixing of the predella within the outer framework of the predella box. (Back to text.)
4. Advances in reflectography since 1989 now enable the underdrawing to be seen more clearly and show that the lines have not been made with a quill pen as stated in the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 81, but with a brush. (Back to text.)
5. The statement in Davies rev. Gordon 1988, p. 17, and in the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 82, that the fingers were changed from making a Byzantine blessing to a Western‐style blessing is incorrect. Tarr 2000, p. 196, sees the raised hand as one of speech rather than blessing. (Back to text.)
6. See NG 6571, p. 349. (Back to text.)
7. See the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 82, pl. 66. (Back to text.)
8. See Plesters, Roy and Bomford 1982, pp. 171–2. (Back to text.)
9. See the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 82, pl. 70. (Back to text.)
10. See ibid. , p. 83, pl. 71. (Back to text.)
11. See ibid. , p. 83, pl. 72. (Back to text.)
12. For the reconstruction of the front predella see White 1973a, pp. 343–9. (Back to text.)
13. Wilkins Sullivan 1986, p. 601. (Back to text.)
14. Wilkins Sullivan 1986, p. 602, fig. 7, gives a diagram showing the correspondence between text and predella. Although she states (p. 600) that NG 1139 comes from Luke, she also states (p. 601) that it corresponds to the announcement of Christ’s birth in Matthew 1:20–2. However, the announcement in Matthew’s text, where the angel appears to Joseph and not to Mary, is less close to Isaiah than in Luke’s text and thus less relevant to NG 1139. (Back to text.)
15. For a discussion of the altar piece from which this comes see Boskovits in the exh. cat. Maestri Senesi e Toscani nel Lindenau‐Museum 2008, cat. 1, pp. 14–25. (Back to text.)
16. For which see Francesco Mori in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, cat. 12, pp. 88–91, and in Bagnoli, Bartalini, Bellosi and Laclotte 2003, pp. 72–4. (Back to text.)
17. Tarr 2000, p. 197, sees the circle around the dove in NG 1139 as ‘embryo‐like’, in the same way as he sees the vase as ‘womb‐like’ (pp. 189 and 200). (Back to text.)
18. See Bagnoli in Guerrini and Seidel 2003, pp. 107–14. (Back to text.)
19. Stubblebine 1979, I, pp. 6–7 and 54–5. (Back to text.)
20. Popp 1996, p. 204, note 707. On p. 204 he compares the extended finger of the Virgin’s right hand to a thirteenth‐century triptych in Perugia (Bon Valsassina and Garibaldi 1994, cat. 7, pp. 68–73) and sees it as deriving from the sculpture of Nicola Pisano. (Back to text.)
21. Tarr 2000, pp. 185–213, esp. p. 198, starting with a comparison with the Annunciation of the Death of the Virgin on the Maestà. See also Eclercy (2004, pp. 5–12), who uses a comparison between the two scenes as a starting point for a discussion of workshop participation on the Maestà. (Back to text.)
22. Tarr 2000, pp. 191–2 and 202–5. For a discussion of the architecture see also Popp (1996, pp. 162–6), who sees the unusual arch at the left as introducing the narrative. (Back to text.)
23. Tarr 2000, pp. 191 and 198; p. 198, note 48; pp. 201 and 207. (Back to text.)
24. For lilies and the Virgin see Levi d’Ancona 1977, pp. 211–13. Tarr (2000, p. 208) sees the five spears of flowers (which he thinks may be irises) as denoting the five sorrows and joys of the Virgin. (Back to text.)
25. Wilkins Sullivan 1986, p. 601, and Tarr 2000, p. 200. (Back to text.)
26. Tarr 2000, p. 197. (Back to text.)
27. Duccio’s Maestà may have inspired Filippo Lippi’s Annunciation in the National Gallery (for which see Gordon 2003, pp. 142–55), where the dove within the spinning golden circles of light could well have been an amalgamation of Gentile’s way of showing the descent of the divine incarnation and Duccio’s encircled dove in NG 1139 (fig. 7), since the Maestà would still have been on the high altar and highly visible. (Back to text.)
28. As in Simone Martini’s altar piece of 1333, also for Siena Cathedral, where they converge with the angel’s words, and in Simone’s Orsini polyptych. (Back to text.)
29. Tarr 2000, p. 195. (Back to text.)
30. Strehlke 2004, p. 129. (Back to text.)
31. See Lisner 2004, p. 88. (Back to text.)
32. See p. 177 of this catalogue for the breaking up of the altar piece and dispersal of the pieces. Stubblebine 1979, pp. 36–7, suggested that Fairfax Murray might have acquired NG 1139 and NG 1140 at the same time as he acquired four other predella panels, the Temptation on the Mountain, the Calling of Peter and Andrew, Christ and the Woman of Samaria and the Raising of Lazarus, shortly after those four panels had been exhibited by the brothers Giuseppe and Marziale Dini of Colle di Val d’Elsa at an exhibition in Colle (Catalogo degli Oggetti d’arte antica presentata alla mostra comunale di Colle di Val d’Elsa, 6–8 September 1879, nos 80–3). In 1898 Lisini was apparently unaware of the existence of NG 1139 and began the sequence of the front predella with the Nativity, and since seven scenes were required he had to end with the Marriage at Cana, which was in fact originally part of the back predella (Lisini 1898, pp. 27–30). (Back to text.)
NG 1140
The Healing of the Man born Blind
Predella panel from the Maestà
1307(?)/8–11
Egg tempera on wood, 45.1 × 46.7 cm
Christ, accompanied by the disciples, came upon a blind beggar. Christ spat on the ground, made clay of the spittle, and put it on the eyes of the blind man, telling him to wash in the pool of Siloam (John 9:1ff.). On the right the blind man has laid down his stick, washed his eyes in a fountain and recovered his sight.
Technical Notes
Panel structure and condition
The original panel has been trimmed to the painted surface, 43.6 × 45.2 cm. Overall size, including non‐original edge, 45.1 × 46.7 cm. The back is no longer visible as it has been reinforced with balsa wood, which has narrow wood strips attached all round. Knots in the wood can be seen in the photograph in the Conservation dossier, taken on 29 September 1982 after a cradle had been removed and before the balsa wood had been put on. Before the cradle was attached, the panel had been thinned to c. 0.6 cm.1
Near the bottom edge, in particular below Saint Peter’s right foot, are traces of original gold, probably from the gilding of the original engaged frame.
Detail of Christ’s head. © The National Gallery, London
Painting condition and technique2
Cleaned and restored in 1982–3.
The water‐gilded background is somewhat worn, as is the gold of Christ’s halo. The halo (fig. 1) is incised freehand with a diamond and circles in the cruciform and tendrils in between.
The only mordant gilding is on the edge of Christ’s robe, where the mordant appears yellow‐brown as in NG 1139 and NG 566.
Infrared reflectography reveals a detailed underdrawing for the figures (fig. 4), done with a brush, similar to that found in the Annunciation (NG 1139, see pp. 157–8, figs 2, 3 and 4) and thus attributable to Duccio. Both the underdrawing and the incisions in the architecture have undergone numerous changes. Two hands seem to have been involved.3 The buildings were initially drawn freehand, almost certainly by Duccio; another hand refined the architecture. Some of the architecture that was drawn was never painted, such as the capitals on the tower on the right and a lunette over the door in the central tower, as well as a lunette in the door beside that.
The second hand seems to have been responsible for the more precise and mathematically designed features of the architecture (see fig. 6). All the straight lines have been incised with the help of a straight edge. These incisions are frequently longer than necessary or continuous where they do not need to be.4 Internal proportions, such as the spaces below the crenellations or the shuttered windows in the tower at the right, have been marked off along these lines with a sharp point, leaving small depressions. Some changes were made to the incised composition, such as the overhang housing a small staircase which itself was a revision to the freehand underdrawing (see fig. 4). The paint of the architecture was also meticulously applied, sometimes leaving small gaps between areas of colour, or neatening straight edges by ruling into the wet paint, or reinforcing them with metalpoint when the paint was dry;5 final incisions, although not with metal‐point, were also ruled into the wet paint of the Annunciation (NG 1139, see p. 159, fig. 6).
Infrared reflectography also reveals several changes made in the final painting of the figures. In the group of the Apostles changes were made to the underdrawn faces, mostly moving their eyes and foreheads a small amount.
The blind man in front of Jesus was painted as drawn, but the same figure at the fountain has undergone numerous changes, which are difficult to interpret (figs 2 and 3).6 Duccio seems to have had difficulty in arriving at a solution for his left shoulder and hand beside the fountain. He may originally have been drawn lower down. The height of his left shoulder has been altered at least twice. It was drawn and part‐painted broader and higher than in its present painted position. His left hand seems to have been grasping folds of drapery away from his body; in the final solution both the underdrawing and the painting of this hand were executed with very emphatic lines as if to conceal earlier attempts at the pose or make clear which lines represent the final pose. His cape is longer than the one he wears when he is shown in front of Christ, again possibly to disguise earlier solutions to the position of the arms.
[page 165] [page 166]
Infrared reflectogram detail of the blind man at the fountain. © The National Gallery, London
Detail of the blind man at the fountain. © The National Gallery, London
Although some of the paint surface, particularly in the draperies of the Apostles, is abraded, generally it is in good condition, except for a large loss at the right‐hand edge: missing is the top of the fountain and much of the blind man’s face, most importantly his left eye, reconstructed when the painting was cleaned in 1982–3. There is a loss in the neck and shoulder of Christ, and in the middle of the foreground (where there are also deep scratches) and all around the edges. The losses at the edges were caused by the removal of the engaged frame. The painting of the figures seems to have been done by Duccio with the help of assistants. The flesh painting, which has been underpainted with green earth, has been thinly painted and is quite worn.
Christ’s cloak has been painted with a very high quality of ultramarine; his red robe is painted with red lake mixed with white, with red lake for the shadows. The garments of the Apostles have been painted with vermilion, red lake, green earth, ultramarine, white, azurite, black, and brown earth.
Unlike the pink walls in the Annunciation, there is no grey under the pink paint of the buildings. The pigments used for the architecture are red, yellow and brown earths, red lake, black and white.
[page 167]
Infrared reflectogram of NG 1140. © The National Gallery, London
Iconography
NG 1140 was probably the seventh of probably nine narrative scenes on the back predella of Duccio’s Maestà (see p. 175, fig. 2), which was devoted to Christ’s ministry. It came after Christ and the Woman of Samaria and before the Transfiguration (NG 1330).
The subject is taken from the Gospel of Saint John (19:1). As Pieter Singelenberg has shown, it is found in both Western and Eastern art: for example, in a fresco in Sant’Angelo in Formis (fig. 5), where the blind man is shown bending over the fountain and the water is pouring from the mouth of a lion, as in NG 1140, a feature which Singelenberg states is found elsewhere; and in a Byzantine manuscript (Paris, Bibl. Nat. MS Gr. 510, f. 316).7 James Stubblebine also suggested that NG 1140 was based on a Byzantine manuscript source, for example, an eleventh‐century manuscript in the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris (grec 74), or a near contemporary thirteenth‐century Codex in Mount Athos (Iviron 5) showing around thirty scenes from Christ’s life.8 As Stubblebine pointed out, usually the composition follows a fixed scheme, with Christ instructing the blind man to go to the pool of Siloe (or Siloam) on the left and the blind man bending over to wash [page 168] his eyes on the right, whereas NG 1140 differs from these in that it shows the blind man standing upright. John White provided the explanation for the change: the blind man, his sight now restored, looks up at the transfigured Christ, who radiates divine light in the next scene, the Transfiguration (NG 1330).9 The thematic connection which might explain the choice of these two scenes and their juxtaposition lies in the words of Christ as he explains why he must accomplish this miracle: ‘As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world’ (John 9:5).
Anonymous Italian painter, Christ healing the Blind Man, eleventh century. Fresco. Sant’Angelo in Formis. CAPUA Sant’Angelo in Formis, Capua © Photo Scala, Florence
Marcia Hall has noted that undyed cloth was worn by beggars and outcasts,10 although Christoph Wagner states that this is not intended as social comment; he sees the scene as depicting blindness as a metaphor for the sins of the world, and brown as the colour associated with sin, emphasised by the contrast between the colourful left side of the composition and the drab colours on the right.11
A drawing of this subject dating from the second half of the fourteenth century in the British Museum (1895–9‐15–680) has been shown to derive from NG 1140.12
Attribution
NG 1140 was attributed by Stubblebine to Pietro Lorenzetti.13 As discussed above, there are at least two hands at work: Duccio was responsible for the design and part of the execution, for example the face of Christ. The draperies and faces of the Apostles seem to have been painted by assistants. An unidentified painter, expert in the depiction of architecture, painted the buildings. He is probably Simone Martini, who almost certainly trained with Duccio; some of the architecture is very similar to that in Simone’s altar piece of Beato Agostino Novello (Siena, Pinacoteca), particularly in the scene of the miracle of a child saved from a dog.14
For further comment on Duccio’s Maestà see pp. 174–87.
Exhibited
Provenance
Purchased from C. Fairfax Murray of Florence, 1883 (Clarke Fund).15
[page 169]Notes
1. Information in the National Gallery Conservation dossier. (Back to text.)
2. For the technique see in particular the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, pp. 83–9. (Back to text.)
3. The account given here differs slightly from that in the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, pp. 86–7, since more advanced reflectography which achieves greater clarity in imaging allows the initial freehand of the underdrawing of the architecture, which is attributable to Duccio, to be seen. For a critique of the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, see Eclercy 2004, pp. 83–7. (Back to text.)
4. In the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 87, it is stated that the only apparent function of one of the horizontal lines is to delineate the edge of a small roof. In fact it is also a guideline for other features further to the left. (Back to text.)
5. The metalpoint was analysed by SEM‐EDX and found to be an alloy of lead and tin. See the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 87. (Back to text.)
6. In the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 88, it is stated that the blind man was at some stage drawn bending over the fountain. More advanced reflectography throws doubt on this interpretation. It is not at all clear what solutions Duccio was experimenting with. The blind man’s raised right hand was in fact underdrawn. It is uncertain whether the bending of his elbow, coinciding as it does with a fault in the gesso (no knot in the wood is visible in the X‐radiograph), is due to chance. (Back to text.)
7. Singelenberg 1958, pp. 105–12, esp. figs 7, 9 and 10. Notice that in Paris, Bibl. Nat. MS Gr. 510, f. 316, the scene is followed by Christ and the Woman of Samaria, which in Duccio’s Maestà must have preceded NG 1140. (Back to text.)
8. Stubblebine 1975, pp. 178 and 181; Stubblebine 1979, I, pp. 49–51, and II, figs 574 and 576. (Back to text.)
9. White 1979, p. 122. For his reconstruction of the back predella see White 1973a, pp. 349–50. (Back to text.)
10. Hall 1992, p. 35. (Back to text.)
11. Wagner 1998, pp. 15–
28. (Back to text.)
12. Pouncey 1946, pp. 168–72; Popham and Pouncey 1950, cat. 269, pp. 168–9, pl. CCXXXIII; Chapman in Chapman and Faietti 2010, pp. 92–5. (Back to text.)
13. Stubblebine 1973a, pp. 190–8, and p. 203, fig. 34; Stubblebine 1979, I, pp. 41 and 56. (Back to text.)
14. Thomas de Wesselow kindly informs me that he came to the same conclusion, partly on the basis of the architecture in the altar piece showing Beato Agostino Novello, but also in the context of architecture in other works by Simone Martini (presented at a seminar given at the National Gallery on 8 July 2002), and in his unpublished PhD thesis of 2000. (Back to text.)
15. See p. 163, note 32, under NG 1139. (Back to text.)
Detail of the architecture in NG 1140. © The National Gallery, London
NG 1330
The Transfiguration
Predella panel from the Maestà
1307(?)/8–11
Egg tempera on wood, 48.5 × 51.4 cm
In the centre is the transfigured Christ on a mountain top with the Apostles Peter, John and James whom he took with him to pray. Standing either side of Christ are Moses on the left and Elijah on the right, who appeared and began talking with him. The voice of God then spoke from a cloud to the terrified Apostles, saying: ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him’ (Matthew 17:1–8; also, with variations, Mark 9:2–8; and Luke 9:28–36).
Technical Notes
Panel structure and condition
Overall size, including original frame 48.5 × 51.4 cm. Thickness of original panel 3.7 cm. Painted surface 44.0 × 46.2 cm. Thickness of frame 1.7 cm.
The panel is of a horizontal grain; it has been tangentially sawn, but close to the centre of the trunk, and has developed a significant convex warp. It was constructed from a main central board with narrow strips added top and bottom. The top join is not exactly horizontal, resulting in a piece of wood c. 3 cm wide on the top right but c. 4.8 cm on the left (verso). The bottom piece is c. 3.5 cm wide. The original frame mouldings are glued to the panel: canvas and gesso extend over them. Modern screws now help to hold them in place.
At the top of the panel a square nail hole is situated c. 4.5 cm from the left edge (recto), driven in c. 1.7 cm from the back of the panel. In the X‐radiograph (see fig. 1) the hole can be seen to extend c. 11 cm into the panel; a similar nail hole is visible c. 12 cm from the right edge (recto), giving a spacing of about 33 cm between the nails. At the bottom, X‐radiography reveals two more nail holes, also about 33 cm apart, one c. 16.3 cm from the left edge and the other c. 1.7 cm from the right. The left hole is c. 11 cm long; the one on the right is partly hidden by the frame moulding so its length is not possible to measure.
On the back of the panel, at the bottom edge, a strip c. 2.2 cm wide and c. 0.3 cm deep has been rebated. This may in some way be connected with the fixing of the panel into the predella box. Two battens, now partly removed, were inserted into the back of the panel in 1891.1 A large knot is visible in the centre, which is responsible for the cracks to the left of the figure of Christ on the front of the panel. The large loss in the figure of Saint John the Evangelist is not connected with any visible fault in the wood.
Painting condition and technique
Cleaned and restored in 1952.
Infrared reflectography reveals a detailed underdrawing in a liquid medium identical to that found in NG 566, NG1139 and NG 1140, with both the characteristic relatively faint underdrawn lines and darker reinforcing lines, all done with a brush (fig. 4).2
At the bottom left‐hand corner behind Peter there is a grid, drawn freehand, the purpose of which is unknown.
The water‐gilded background is quite worn, although the mordant gilding of Christ’s garments has survived well.
The decoration of the haloes has been incised freehand. Christ’s halo is identical to his halo in NG 1140 (see p. 164, fig. 1). Each halo is different: Saint Peter’s has a four‐petal flower, Moses’ curling tendrils, Elijah’s palmette shapes and Saint James’s tendrils.
The edges of Christ’s book have been painted over the mordant gilding, presumably to neaten the edges of the gold. The mordant is yellow‐brown, as in the other panels by Duccio examined for this catalogue (NG 1139, 1140 and 566), and is composed of lead white and yellow earth with a little red lead and verdigris.
The condition of the paint surface is poor. There is a large loss in the figure of Saint John the Evangelist. The picture has a history of flaking resulting in scattered losses, especially from the pink ground around Saint James. There is also damage in Moses’ greyish‐blue robe, which has a pitted surface.
Christ and Saints Peter and John the Evangelist wear the same garments as in the previous scene (NG 1140), except that Christ’s now have mordant gilding to denote his transfigured state. Some of the red lake pattern on his vermilion book may have faded. Saint James wears a cloak painted with ultramarine over a robe painted with vermilion. It seems that his belt was never painted: only exposed gesso is visible. There are no signs of lettering on Elijah’s scroll. His robe is painted with red lake mixed with white, with yellow highlights and green shadows; his purple cloak is painted with red lake mixed with azurite and lead white, with azurite for the shadows. Moses’ brown fur‐lined cloak is made of black mixed with vermilion, and brown earth. Only very small traces remain of the white paint of his scroll.
Iconography
NG 1330 was probably the eighth of probably nine narrative scenes devoted to Christ’s ministry on the back predella of Duccio’s Maestà (see p. 175, fig. 2), coming after the Healing of the Man born Blind (NG 1140)3 and before the Raising of Lazarus (Fort Worth, Kimbell Art Museum). James Stubblebine pointed out that, unlike the other pre‐Resurrection scenes, Christ wears robes with gold striations to indicate his transfigured state, since according to Matthew 17:2: ‘His face did shine as the sun and his raiment was white as the light.’ He again appears in gold striated robes in the post‐Resurrection scenes, except when he is shown disguised as a pilgrim in the Road to Emmaus.4
Christoph Wagner applies the same interpretation to NG 1330 as he does to NG 1140, seeing the contrast in light and shade, and the contrasting of the colourful robes of the Apostles with the brown and neutral tones of the garments of the Old Testament figures, as symbolising the transition to revelation of the divine.5
The feast of the Transfiguration (6 August) was not celebrated by the medieval Latin church and is therefore not often shown in early Italian painting. Two rare examples are the [page 171][page 172] canvas painting (Siena, Pinacoteca Nazionale; fig. 2) attributed to Guido da Siena6 and the very damaged thirteenth‐century fresco on the east wall of the north transept in the Upper Church of San Francesco, Assisi.7 NG 1330 is fairly close to the latter in the poses of the Apostles, insofar as it is possible to judge, but in the fresco Christ is within a mandorla and Moses and Elijah are kneeling. The source of the iconography is probably Byzantine, as found, for example, in the late thirteenth‐century Tetra Evangelion, meaning ‘Four Gospels’ (Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, MS Ludwig II 5, 83.MB.69, f. 45 verso; fig. 3), although there the Apostles are shown half‐length rather than the usual full‐length.8
Composite X‐radiograph of NG 1330. © The National Gallery, London
Attributed to Guido da Siena, The Transfiguration, c. 1270. Tempera on canvas. Detail of Siena, Pinacoteca Nazionale, no. 8. SIENA Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena © courtesy of Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, Soprintendenza PSAE di Siena & Grosseto. Photo Lensini Siena
Anonymous Byzantine painter, The Transfiguration from the Tetra Evangelion (Four Gospels), thirteenth century. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, MS Ludwig II 5. 83.MB.69, f. 45 verso. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA © The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles
For further comment on Duccio’s Maestà see pp. 174–87.
Attribution
The characteristic underdrawing confirms that NG 1330 was designed by Duccio. The condition makes it difficult to assess the extent to which the painting was executed by assistants.
Exhibited
Provenance
Acquired in Siena by R.H. Wilson a few years before he presented it to the National Gallery in 1891.9
[page 173]
Infrared reflectogram detail of Elijah. © The National Gallery, London
Notes
1. Information in the National Gallery Conservation dossier. (Back to text.)
2. Although in the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 86, it is stated that the underdrawing was done with a quill pen, the clearer imaging that is now possible makes it evident that the underdrawing was in fact done with a brush, as in the other panels by Duccio in the National Gallery (see p. 157). (Back to text.)
3. X‐radiography confirms that the two scenes were painted on a continuous plank, with NG 1330 coming after NG 1140 (see the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 83). (Back to text.)
4. Stubblebine 1979, I, pp. 56–7. (Back to text.)
5. Wagner 1998, pp. 15–28, esp. pp. 21–5. (Back to text.)
6. Stubblebine 1964, cat. III, pp. 27–30; Torriti 1980, cat. 8, pp. 24–5. (Back to text.)
7. See Alessio Monciatti in Bonsanti 2002, Schede, p. 608, cat. 2112, and Basilica Superiore. Atlante, p. 1067. (Back to text.)
8. See Neff 1999, pp. 82–7, and the exh. cat. Byzantium. Faith and Power 2004, cat. 169, p. 284. Byzantine examples tend to show the Apostles tumbling away from Christ. (Back to text.)
9. Letter in the National Gallery archives. (Back to text.)
Reconstruction of the front of Duccio’s Maestà based on that by John White, with added frame (largely hypothetical), and not including the full‐length buttresses suggested by Christa Gardner von Teuffel. The missing central panels are: the Assumption(?), the Coronation of the Virgin(?) and the Blessing Redeemer(?). The placing of the surviving pinnacle angels is hypothetical; the appearance of the lost pinnacle angels is based on the Stoclet angel, here repeated in grey. © Philadelphia Museum of Art, Pennsylvania; © Mount Holyoke College Art Museum, South Hadley, Massachusetts. Illustration by Will Foster
Duccio’s Maestà
The Maestà is the only surviving signed work by Duccio. Commissioned for the high altar of Siena Cathedral, probably in 1307/8, and completed in 1311, it was a huge double‐sided altar piece (figs 1 and 2) approximately 5 m square.1 Most of the altar piece survives in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena, but fragments are scattered in various collections – including NG 1139, 1140 and 1330 in the National Gallery.
Iconographic Programme
The main panel (Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo) shows the Virgin and Child enthroned, surrounded by angels. The step of the throne is inscribed: MATER S[AN] [?]C[T] [?]A DEI SIS CAUSA SENIS REQUIEI. SIS DUCIO VITA TE QUIA PINXIT ITA (‘Holy Mother of God, be thou the cause of peace for Siena, and life to Duccio because he painted thee thus’). Kneeling in the front row are the patron saints of Siena, identified by [page 175] inscriptions: from left to right, Saints Ansanus and Savinus/Sabinus, and from right to left, Saints Victor and Crescentius. Standing behind them are, at the outer edges, Saints Catherine of Alexandria and Agnes, followed by Saints Paul and Peter, and then, closest to the angels beside the throne, Saints John the Evangelist and John the Baptist.
Reconstruction of the back of Duccio’s Maestà based on that by John White (see fig. 1). The missing predella panel is either the First Temptation(?) or the Baptism(?). The missing central panels are: the Resurrection(?), the Ascension(?) and the Blessing Redeemer(?). The placing of the surviving pinnacle angels is hypothetical; the appearance of the lost pinnacle angels is based on the Stoclet angel, here repeated in grey. © Private collection; Foundation Huis Bergh © ’s‐Heerenberg, van Heek collection. Illustration by Will Foster
Sabinus is in place of honour, as befits the only bishop saint in a cathedral high altar piece.
The front predella showed scenes from the Infancy of Christ, alternating with prophets who are identifiable by the inscriptions they carry.
From left to right: the Annunciation (NG 1139; see p. 155), followed by Isaiah, the Nativity, Ezekiel (Washington, National Gallery of Art, Andrew W. Mellon Collection); the Adoration of the Magi, Solomon, the Presentation in the Temple, Malachi, the Massacre of the Innocents, Jeremiah, the Dream of Joseph[page 176]and the Flight into Egypt,2 Hosea, the Teaching in the Temple (all Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo).
Above the main figures, paired under an arcade with rounded arches, are the remaining ten Apostles, each identified by an inscription. Reading from left to right: Thaddeus, Simon, Philip, James, Andrew, Matthew, James, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthias. In the pinnacles above the Apostles were scenes from the last days of the Virgin: the Annunciation of the Death of the Virgin, the Arrival of Saint John, the Gathering of the Apostles, the Death of the Virgin, the Funeral Procession of the Virgin, the Burial of the Virgin (all Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo). The missing scenes from the centre of the upper tier are probably the Assumption and the Coronation of the Virgin (see also below).3
On the back of the main tier (now separated from the front) are scenes from Christ’s Passion (Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo), beginning at the bottom left‐hand corner with the double‐sized Entry into Jerusalem and ending at the top right‐hand corner with the Road to Emmaus, with the Crucifixion at the centre, also double‐sized. Missing is the central panel, probably with the Resurrection, which may have shown Christ stepping from the tomb and holding the standard of the Resurrection in one hand, as reflected in many examples of fourteenth‐century Sienese sculpture and metalwork, and later in the altar piece for Santa Croce by Ugolino di Nerio (see NG 4191, p. 441). Above the hypothetical Resurrection may have been the Ascension: the calculation of 34 stories mentioned in the document of 1308/9 (see below) would seem to suggest two scenes missing on the back and therefore two corresponding ones on the front.4
In the upper tier were scenes from after the Resurrection: the Apparition behind Closed Doors, the Incredulity of Saint Thomas, the Apparition on the Sea of Tiberias, the Apparition in Galilee, the Apparition at Supper, Pentecost (all Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo).
The panels with the Funeral Procession of the Virgin and the Incredulity of Saint Thomas, which were back to back, are the only upper tier panels to have kept their original trapezoidal shape; all the others have been cut to a rectangular shape.5
The upper tier panels were crowned, presumably on both sides, by pinnacles, probably with the Blessing Redeemer, and with angels (mentioned in the documents, see below), of which four have been identified: in the John G. Johnson Collection, Philadelphia; Mount Holyoke College Art Museum, South Hadley, Massachusetts; the Dr J. H. van Heek Collection, Foundation Huis Bergh, ’s‐Heerenberg, The Netherlands; and formerly in the Stoclet Collection, Brussels.
The back predella consisted of probably nine scenes from the Ministry of Christ, of which the following eight survive: the Temptation on the Temple (Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo), the Temptation on the Mountain (New York, Frick Collection), the Calling of Peter and Andrew (Washington, National Gallery of Art), the Feast at Cana (Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo), Christ and the Woman of Samaria (Madrid, Thyssen‐Bornemisza Collection), the Healing of the Man born Blind (NG 1140; see p. 165), the Transfiguration (NG 1330; see p. 171), and the Raising of Lazarus (Fort Worth, Kimbell Art Museum). The missing back predella scene was almost certainly the first scene: the Baptism or the First Temptation have been suggested.6
The cathedral is dedicated to the Virgin,7 therefore the front of the altar piece was devoted to the Virgin and the scenes on the back to Christ. The narrative impetus of the scenes basically wound chronologically anti‐clockwise around the altar piece, each part of which was devoted to a particular theme, with the scenes subtly threaded together thematically and compositionally.8 The sequence begins at the bottom left‐hand predella panel, with the Annunciation introducing the Infancy of Christ across the front; it then moves to the back predella, depicting the Ministry of Christ, ending with the Raising of Lazarus; from there it goes up to the Entry into Jerusalem, which introduces the theme of Christ’s Passion, moving from the bottom left‐hand corner up to the right‐hand corner depicting the Road to Emmaus; next, it moves to the upper tier with post‐Resurrection scenes, beginning with the Apparition behind Closed Doors and ending with the Pentecost. Here the Virgin is seated in the centre, which neatly ties in with the upper tier of the front depicting the scenes from the last days of the Virgin, beginning with the Annunciation of the Death of the Virgin.
Oustanding Problems
Despite the survival of a substantial part of the altar piece, there are still several unknowns, such as what scenes may be missing, how precisely the altar piece was framed and how it was supported on the altar, where in the church the high altar originally stood, why the altar piece was double‐sided, what Duccio’s visual sources were, the extent of participation of collaborators and assistants and who they were, who precisely supervised the project, and when the altar piece was begun.
Documents
The date of commencement of the project is not completely straightforward. The first surviving relevant document is dated 9 October 1308.9 It is an agreement between Duccio and the Operaio del Duomo (clerk of works of Siena Cathedral). Its main provisions were that Duccio agreed to work continuously on the panel and not to accept any other work until it was finished;10 he was to be paid 16 Sienese soldi for every day he worked on it with his own hands (‘suis manibus’), and was to reimburse the Opera del Duomo for those days on which he did not work. The Opera were to provide everything necessary to work on the panel, that is, all the materials.
However, John Pope‐Hennessy, in 1980, pointed out that this document is not necessarily the initial contract since it does not stipulate the form and content of the altar piece as was usual.11 It is worth noting that the first mention of the agreement between the parties is in the pluperfect subjunctive (‘Duccius accepisset’ = ‘Duccio had agreed’). The contract then moves into the past perfect tense: ‘communiter et concorditer fecerunt inter se pacta et conventiones infrascripta’ (‘jointly and amicably they made among themselves the following contract and agreements’).12 The commissioning may have coincided with the beginning of Ruggero da Casole’s episcopacy in 1307 (see below).
[page 177]In an undated document published in the nineteenth century, generally supposed to date from around 1308–9, there was a further agreement, to the effect that on the back there were to be 34 stories, and little angels above, to be aggregated at 38 for the purposes of payment and for which Duccio was to be paid 2½ gold florins per story, which would have amounted to 95 gold florins in all.13 The impetus for this agreement may have been that since Duccio – who had apparently started the front first – was being paid according to time spent, he was deliberately taking his time;14 the Opera, realising they had an open‐ended agreement, changed the terms of the contract for payment according to the amount of work done rather than the amount of time taken.15 This agreement is linked to a loan of 50 gold florins to Duccio from the Opera on 20 December 1308, to be repaid by 1 January 1309; the sum corresponds precisely with what Duccio was advanced when he made the agreement in connection with the scenes on the back.16 None of the documents mentions a predella.
The anxiety of the Nove, the governing body of the Comune of Siena, regarding the completion of the altar piece, as well as its cost, is shown in a document of 28 November 1310 (just under six and a half months before the altar piece was completed), when the Nove expressed their wish for the work to be carried out diligently and carefully but also speedily, and asked the Opera to dismiss all but ten men in order to fund the mosaics (for the floor) and the high altar piece.17
On 9 June 1311 the altar piece was, according to a chronicle written in the second half of the fourteenth century by Agnolo di Tura del Grasso, carried from Duccio’s workshop outside the Arco delle due Porte in the house of the Muciatti in a triumphal procession through the city, around the Campo and then to the cathedral. The procession was headed by the Bishop of Siena, Ruggero da Casole, followed by clerics, members of the religious orders and officials of the Comune, holding lamps or candles, followed by women and children; the city’s shops were closed and the bells rang out.18 This information is corroborated by payments made by the Opera on that day to trumpeters and players of shawms and nakers.19
Disassembly of the Altarpiece
The altar piece was moved from its original position when the location of the high altar was changed in the 1360s (see below). It was finally removed from the high altar on 8 July 1506, when Pandolfo Petrucci had it replaced with a ciborium by Vecchietta (moved there from the church of the Ospedale della Scala).20 In 1536 it was in the chapel of Saint Ansanus.21 Carl Strehlke suggested that the reason Vasari (in 1550 and 1568) said he could not find it,22 was because he was presumably looking for a double‐sided altar piece which, according to Ghiberti in his Commentarii of around 1447, showed the Coronation of the Virgin on the front.23
On 18 July 1777 the altar piece was moved to the church of Sant’Ansano in Castelvecchio, and two weeks later, on 1 August, the two sides of the altar piece were separated by sawing through the centre, the saw slipping and damaging the Virgin’s face. By 1789 the two now separate sides had been brought back to the cathedral: the front was restored by the painter Lorenzo Feliciati and placed near the altar of Saint Ansanus, and on 15 May 1790 a payment was made to a carpenter for framing together ‘le pitture esprimenti la vita di Nostro Signor Gesù Cristo’ (unspecified) and the back placed near the altar of the Holy Sacrament (Saint Victor).24 Some of the smaller fragments were placed in the sacristy; in 1798 a cathedral inventory recorded twelve surviving pinnacle panels and only eight predella scenes in the sacristy, and in 1878 those panels, together with the main tier panels, were moved into the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo.25 The earliest certain record of any fragments being in private hands is in 1879, when four predella scenes were exhibited in Colle di Val d’Elsa ,26 although it is possible that already in 1832 Carlo Lasinio had two of the pinnacle angels.27
Construction and Reconstruction
The reconstruction of the Maestà generally accepted is that of John White, made in 1973.28 His reconstruction was revised by Christa Gardner von Teuffel with regard to the structure and outer support of the altar piece. She considered that a frame box was unlikely in the context of such a large free‐standing altar piece, and that the predella, while having some supporting function, would have been inadequate on its own; she argued that the altar piece was supported by lateral piers extending to the ground (coining the term ‘buttressed altar piece’), possibly decorated with fictive cosmati patterns of the kind found on the Virgin’s throne; this would have been a revolutionary solution invented by Duccio to solve the particular problem of this unprecedented type of altar piece and its repercussions far‐reaching and long‐lasting.29
The front panel with the Virgin and Child enthroned with saints and angels is made up of eleven boards with a vertical grain approximately 7 cm thick, while the back is made up of five horizontal planks approximately 1 cm thick; the two sides were nailed and glued directly together.30
On the basis of the pinnacle angel in ’s‐Heerenberg (1.2 cm thick), which has a horizontal grain with remnants of vertical grain fibres, Machtelt Israëls has argued that the pinnacles, as well as the six panels from the upper tier, which has similar remnants of vertical fibres,31 were originally glued and nailed to a central core of a vertically grained piece of wood that was a continuation of the main tier panels of the front. She further argued that the structure was a single unit, with only the predella and piers conceived as separate elements.32
The back and front predella scenes were all painted on two massive horizontal panels. The predella was almost certainly a box predella projecting forward from the plane of the main tier above; it may have been covered by a separate hanging, as first described in the inventory of 1429 (although see the discussion below).33 The Annunciation and the Teaching in the Temple have similar indentations at their left and right sides respectively, confirming that they were terminal scenes.34 It seems unlikely that the predella had painted scenes at the ends as well as the front and back, as suggested by James Stubblebine and Ruth Wilkins Sullivan;35 end scenes could have been obscured by the massive lateral piers proposed by Gardner von Teuffel.
[page 178]
The civic seal of Siena, as copied by Simone Martini in his fresco of the Maestà of 1315 in the Sala del Mappamondo, Palazzo Pubblico, Siena. SIENA © Opera della Metropolitana di Siena: Photo Lensini Siena
Setting and Function
The high altar of the cathedral functioned as the nexus of the civic and religious cult of the Virgin in Siena.36 In 1260 just before the Battle of Montaperti the citizens of Siena, in a ceremony at the high altar, offered the keys of the city to the Virgin; thereafter Siena was titled Civitas Virginis.37 From at least 1267, and very likely before then, the Comune paid for two candles to burn day and night at the high altar,38 as is reflected in the city’s civic seals of 1266 and 1298 (fig. 3), which show the Virgin and Child enthroned with a kneeling angel on either side, each holding a candlestick with a candle.39
The present thirteenth‐century cathedral (fig. 4) was built on the site of a much earlier church.40 The new altar and choir were being constructed in June and September 1259 respectively.41 The choir enclosure probably consisted of carved reliefs by Nicola Pisano and his workshop, of which nine marble panels carved in relief, now in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena, and the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, survive.42 In 1265 the Opera commissioned an octagonal pulpit with scenes from the Childhood and Passion of Christ, sculpted by Nicola Pisano, which was completed in 1268.43 In 1287 a circular stained‐glass window (now in Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo) showing the Death, Assumption and Coronation of the Virgin with the four patron saints of Siena – Sabinus, Crescentius, Ansanus, and Bartholomew (later to be supplanted by Saint Victor) – and the four Evangelists was commissioned, to be paid for by the Comune; it is now accepted as having been designed by Duccio.44 The window was complemented by Duccio’s Maestà sited below, with the Virgin and Child enthroned and small‐scale narrative scenes from the last days of the Virgin.
Several writers have linked the reason for Duccio’s Maestà having been painted on both sides to the exigencies of the location of the high altar in 1311, and the related issue of the site of the choir stalls. The location of the high altar is not certain but has been deduced from a document of 28 November 1259 concerning the restructuring of the east end of the cathedral. Two options were discussed. The one favoured by the majority was that the altar and choir should be constructed as pleased the canons and the Opera, with one of the rear entrances to the cathedral to remain open.45 The option favoured by a minority was that the altar and choir should be built beneath the great dome, with steps on all sides so that ‘people can ascend and reach the choir and altar of the said cathedral’; this involved lowering the ground level of the cathedral floor and opening a rear door which was at that time closed.46
[page 179]It was argued in 1970 by Antje Middeldorf Kosegarten that the second option was chosen;47 therefore White and Stubblebine concluded that the reason for the Maestà being painted on both sides was its free‐standing position beneath the dome.48
In 1984 Kees van der Ploeg argued that the first option was put into practice, and that the high altar was positioned at the top of steps, in the presbytery.49 He used the Ordo Officiorum of Siena Cathedral, written in 1215, to argue that the choir was situated behind the altar.50 This would have meant that the large‐scale figures on the front of the Maestà, that is, the Virgin and Child, saints and angels, were designed to be viewed from the nave, while the small‐scale scenes of the back were to be viewed by the clergy.51
In 1994 Bram Kempers used the Ordo Officiorum to argue that the choir was placed in front of the altar, and that the liturgy was designed to take place both in front of and behind the altar. He further explained the reason for the Maestà having been painted on both sides as connected with the civic processions that were an integral part of city life.52 Indeed, the rotating sequence of the narrative (described above) positively encouraged anti‐clockwise procession around the altar piece.
In 1995 Edith Struchholz deduced that the choir was indeed, until the 1360s, in front of the high altar; she positioned the altar itself towards the eastern side of the hexagonal choir under the dome.53 She saw the need for a double‐sided altar piece as connected with the eastern entrance to the cathedral, and with the processions that took place on Marian feast days.54
Peter Seiler, accepting Struchholz’s positioning of the choir in front of the altar piece, argued that the paintings of the Passion on the back accommodated extraliturgical private devotional practices linked to the then growing movement of devotion to the Eucharist, and that the depository for the Eucharist was on the reverse side of the altar. However, the crux of his argument depended on two vital mistranslations.55
Gardner von Teuffel suggested that the main reason for the altar piece being double‐sided was its free‐standing position in the hexagonal crossing beneath the dome, as located by Struchholz, and argued that the back was painted with Christological scenes because the crucifix, required on the altar during Mass, was no longer visible to the worshipper behind the altar.56
However, documents of 1360 relating to the knocking down of a wall to make a doorway into the new sacristy describe this wall as being behind the high altar,57 which would be an unlikely specification if the altar were to have been freestanding in the centre of the crossing. And in fact Monika Butzek has recently convincingly argued that neither of the two options discussed in 1259 was chosen, but that instead a third, compromise option was put into practice. This involved reconciling the different levels of the new east end by lowering the presbytery a small amount and reducing the height of the ‘crypt’ or undercroft below: this minimised the difference in level between the presbytery containing the high altar and the area beneath the dome containing the choir, important for the execution of the liturgy.58 Her reconstruction agrees with that of Walter Haas and Dethard von Winterfeld, who argued that the altar was four steps up into the first bay of the chancel, with altars dedicated to Saint Ansanus and Saint Bartholomew on either side, north and south respectively.59
Although in one of the options in the document of 1259 the location of the high altar is specified, this was not the main subject of concern; instead, it was how to support the new east end, and the question of access to the cathedral.60 Indeed, Machtelt Israëls has linked the Christological programme on the back of the Maestà with the disappearance of the rear entrance to the cathedral. She has argued that after it was decided to demolish the old Baptistery in 1304 and incorporate the new Baptistery with the east end, it would by 1308 have been clear that the former eastern entrance to the cathedral from the centre of the city would disappear.61 The back of the Maestà would thus have functioned as a replacement for some of the frescoed scenes from the Old and New Testaments, including the Passion scenes on the wall of the ‘crypt’ or atrium of the eastern entrance, for those citizens and pilgrims arriving from this end of the city.62 She uses the commissioning of the fourth sculpture of an angel candelabra in 1339, painted by Ambrogio Lorenzetti, which was added specifically to illuminate that side of the altar, to demonstrate that the laity had access to the back of the altar piece;63 she points out that Ghiberti’s description of both sides of it tacitly confirms that he (and thus non‐clergy) had access to both sides, even after the altar piece had been moved to the rectangular east end (see below).64
The use of both sides of the altar piece for divine office (perhaps only on certain feast days), and lay access to the back of it, is demonstrated by descriptions of liturgical celebrations in the second Ordo Officiorum drawn up at the beginning of the fourteenth century. In the office of Christmas eve it is stated that: ‘Likewise the other prose Ante saecula is begun by the canto and it is sung in polyphony up to Plasmavit Adam, and the choir [sings]: Et Spiritu Sancto, and thus one part is said behind the altar, the other part in the choir’; and for the Mass of Christmas eve: ‘When the psalm Laudate Dominum de coelis is finished until In sanctis eius the choir immediately begins Pastores dicite. Afterwards two children behind the altar of the Blessed Virgin shall say in unison Infantem vidimus.’65
Which Altarpiece, if any, did the Maestà replace?
Confusion has surrounded which painting, if any, the Maestà replaced on the high altar. The two paintings that have been suggested are the Virgin and Child (Siena, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo) sculpted in wood relief, attributed to the Maestro di Tressa, which has been cut at the sides (probably losing narrative scenes), and the painting of the Virgin and Child still in Siena Cathedral, which has also been cut at the sides (probably losing half‐length saints).66 The confusion is compounded by the fact that both have been given the sobriquets the ‘Madonna degli Occhi Grossi’ and the ‘Madonna delle Grazie’. This apparently stems from a passage in an anonymous Sienese chronicle covering the years 1202 to 1362, stating that the Maestà replaced the Madonna degli Occhi Grossi also called the Madonna delle Grazie.67 Monika Butzek has argued [page 180]that when in 1260 the citizens offered the keys of the city to the Virgin before the Battle of Montaperti, on the high altar was the Virgin and Child by the Master of Tressa (which she renames the ‘Madonna dell’Opera’), painted around 1215, possibly functioning as an antependium rather than altar piece, and that the Madonna degli Occhi Grossi (which she calls the ‘Madonna del Voto’) was commissioned between 1262 and 1274 for the altar of Saint Boniface situated in the south aisle (see p. 295, fig. 10), to commemorate the Battle of Montaperti (which took place on the feast of Saint Boniface).68 Hayden Maginnis has called into question whether the Madonna by the Master of Tressa was an antependium, doubting that it was on the altar in 1260, and like Butzek suggesting that the ‘Madonna del Voto’ was commissioned for the chapel planned in 1262.69 Victor Schmidt has argued that the panel by the Master of Tressa was the antependium for the previous high altar, and that the discrepancy in width between this antependium and Duccio’s Maestà precludes their having been associated with the same altar.70 The Maestà presumably stood on the altar that was constructed in 1259 (see above).
The embellishment of the altar after Duccio’s Maestà had been placed on it in 1311 was considerable. The cathedral had barely been completed when, in 1317, plans were afoot to enlarge it. The complicated permutations are beyond this essay. Suffice it to say that eventually the east end was extended and the high altar located in the second bay of the new rectangular eastern apse (see p. 295, fig. 10).71 In 1362 the Opera took advice from the painters Bartolomeo Bulgarini, Luca di Tommè and Jacomo di Mino del Pellicciaio on moving the Maestà; the colours and varnish of the altar piece were repaired;72 the new high altar was begun on 6 June 1366,73 a wooden baldachin was ready for painting on 15 September 1375 and completed in April 1376,74 and Duccio’s Maestà was in its new position by 1382.75
With the transposition of the altar piece, the east end continued to acquire a plethora of sacred images in different media. In 1404 Paolo di Giovanni Fei decorated a curtain for the high altar with two angels painted in gold,76 which may have been the vermilion cloth mentioned in the inventory of 1429: ‘una tenda vermiglia per cuprire el detto altare’ (‘a vermilion curtain to cover the said altar’). This may perhaps be deduced from the inventory of 1435 as having been a cloth for the altar piece – ‘una tenda vermiglia per coprire la tavola del detto altare con frangie di seta dipenta nel mezzo due angioli che tengono uno tabernacolo dipento [con] el corpo di Christo’ (‘a vermilion curtain to cover the panel of the said altar with a silk fringe painted in the centre with two angels who are holding a tabernacle painted [with] the body of Christ’).77 There is some ambiguity as to whether the silk fringed cloth mentioned in the inventory of 1429 as covering the predella – ‘una tenda per cuprire la predella, con frangie di seta di piu colori, dipenta in mezo’ ‘(‘a curtain to cover the predella, with a fringe of silk in many colours, painted in the centre’) – was for the painted predella or for a wooden predella or altar step.78
The inventories of 1420 and 1429 also show that the baldachin above the altar piece was suspended on four iron poles, bearing three carved and gilded angels in tabernacles, which could be lowered and supplied the officiating priest with host, chalice and corporale; there were two painted boxes with the arms of the Opera for alms, and two ostrich eggs hanging in front.79 The baldachin is visible in the depiction of the Maestà situated beyond the crossing in a Gabella panel of 1483 attributed to Pietro di Francesco Orioli (fig. 5), where the multi‐coloured fringe of a cloth is also clearly to be seen; to the right is Nicola Pisano’s octagonal marble pulpit covered over with a textile, and in the distance the stained‐glass window of 1287.80 The choir precinct was embellished with wooden painted sculptures of Saints Peter and Paul and the four patron saints of Siena, and by 1429 wood sculptures of the Annunciating Angel and the Annunciate Virgin stood on either side.81
The interior of Siena Cathedral, facing the east end. SIENA © Siena Duomo: Photo Lensini Siena
Antecedents
Nothing like Duccio’s Maestà had ever been painted before. It brought together in a single altar piece numerous different prototypes, fused into a single work. Seiler has given a succinct summary of the amalgam of the main types of its altar piece antecedents: the Virgin and Child in vertical format and the dossal in horizontal format, with the addition of pinnacle angels, found in the altar piece for Santa Giuliana in Perugia (now Perugia, Galleria Nazionale) by Vigoroso da Siena dated 1291; and with the addition of a predella, first documented in Cimabue’s lost Maestà (if it was ever painted) for the Ospedale of Santa Chiara, Pisa, and possibly on the lost Maestà of 1302 by Duccio for the Nove; for the arrangement of the narrative scenes on the back he cites Venetian/Byzantine dossals.82
[page 181]
Pietro di Francesco Orioli, The Offering of the Keys of the City of Siena to the Virgin, Gabella panel, 1483. Tempera on wood, 59.1 × 40 cm. Siena, Archivio di Stato, Museo delle Biccherne (inv. 41). SIENA © Archivio di Stato, Siena. Photo Lensini Siena
Iconography
Duccio’s visual sources were eclectic, and have not all been identified.83 Naturally he would have looked at local paintings including the frescoes in the ‘crypt’ of Siena Cathedral, in particular those of the Deposition of Christ and the Annunciation (see p. 161, fig. 9),84 and at local sculpture, especially the cathedral’s pulpit of 1265–8 by Nicola Pisano85 as well as Cimabue’s frescoes in San Francesco, Assisi. Although Byzantine manuscripts were presumably a source, no individual work has been identified.86 It has been suggested that Duccio had been to Rome, and it is noticeable that Roman wall painting programmes with narrative scenes also gave double space to the Crucifixion.87
Attribution
The injunction that Duccio was to work on the altar piece with his own hands is not to be taken as excluding assistants:88 it is evident that Duccio had both assistants and collaborators (see, for example, under NG 1140, pp. 165 and 168).89 However, it is generally agreed that Stubblebine was misguided in [page 182] attempting to divide the individual parts of the Maestà into discrete elements attributable to individual painters such as Ugolino di Nerio, Segna di Buonaventura, the Master of the Albertini/Casole Fresco, Pietro and Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Simone Martini, the Master of Città di Castello, the Master of Tabernacle no. 35, and the Master of the Gondi Maestà.90 As John White and Luciano Bellosi, among others, have pointed out, the division of labour in a medieval workshop was not organised in such a way.91 However, there is no doubt that many of these painters, notably Ugolino di Nerio and Simone Martini, must have worked with Duccio on the Maestà.92
Detail of the transfigured Christ from NG 1330. © The National Gallery, London
The Inscription
The inscription with the signature on the step of the Virgin’s throne (see p. 174) is extremely unusual, and nothing like it had occurred before or was ever repeated afterwards. By 1311 the notion of peace to be sought at the high altar of Siena was already a firmly established theme. Not only had the high altar been the focus of the dedication of the city of Siena to the Virgin before the Battle of Montaperti in 1260, which led to the Madonna del Voto (see above) becoming the object of a devotional cult, but also in 1280 a pact of peace had been made at the altar between the Guelfs and the Ghibellines in the presence of the clergy and members of the government.93 The inscription may thus have been a supplication for political peace for Siena. It also implies an invocation for the peaceful behaviour of its citizens.94 The ‘life’ that Duccio sought for himself was evidently the afterlife in the company of saints, angels and the Virgin and Child.95 There must also have been the sense that the altar piece itself, by its very existence, would ensure perpetual life for its painter.96
Patron
The legal agreements concerning the Maestà were made between members of the Opera del Duomo and Duccio. However, those members were appointed by the Nove, reinforcing the fact that this was a civic as well as a religious commission, the two being inextricably intertwined. The intellectual and theological driving force overseeing the whole project was probably the Dominican, Ruggero da Casole, Bishop of Siena from 9 July 1307 to 7 June 1316,97 and it may have been the beginning of his bishopric that prompted the commission: judging from the documents cited above, 1307 is a plausible starting date. It was almost certainly the bishop with his learning and Duccio with his ingenium who together crafted the exceptionally large, exceptionally complex and exceptionally beautiful unicum which is the Maestà.98
The Aftermath
No altar piece quite like Duccio’s Maestà was ever painted again.99 There was a feeble reduced version in the double‐sided altar piece painted by his workshop in Massa Marittima,100 while the double‐sided altar pieces by Taddeo di Bartolo for San Francesco al Prato in Perugia, in 1403,101 and by Sassetta for San Francesco, Borgo San Sepolcro, in 1437–44,102 were evidently derived from it. However, the most comparable work is Simone Martini’s fresco of the Maestà painted in 1315, and restored in 1321, in the Sala del Mappamondo of the Palazzo Pubblico situated on one side of the Campo.103 The twinning of these two paintings – the one by Duccio, the other by his (probable) pupil and collaborator – was a constant visual reminder of an invisible cord running through the city down the Via dei Pellegrini, linking cathedral and Campo, clergy and Comune in the Civitas Virginis.104
[page 183]Notes
1. Only a brief outline of the issues surrounding the Maestà of 1311 is given here. For an excellent summary with an exhaustive bibliography, see Ragionieri in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, cat. 32, pp. 208–18, and Ragionieri in Bagnoli, Bartalini, Bellosi and Laclotte 2003, pp. 212–20; previously, see also Stubblebine 1979, I, pp. 31–62; White 1979, pp. 80–134; Deuchler 1984, pp. 46–185; van Os 1984, pp. 39–61; Norman 1995, II, pp. 51–80; Bellosi 1998, pp. 9–20; Norman 1999, pp. 33–43. See further Steinhoff 2006, pp. 124–6; Christiansen 2008, pp. 7–29; Israëls 2008, pp. 122–33; De Marchi 2009, pp. 129–40. The relevant documents were published by Michele Pellegrini in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, pp. 507–16; and with a translation into English by Satkowski 2000, I.39–I.44, pp. 69–79, and I.46, p. 80. I am extremely grateful to Monika Butzek and Machtelt Israëls for reading a first draft of this essay and for their many useful comments. (Back to text.)
2. White 1979, p. 121. Given that the inscription on the angel’s cartello is taken from Matthew 2:13, and that the prophets’ texts consistently refer to the preceding scene, Hosea’s text from Matthew 2:20 must refer to the Flight into Egypt, with the Holy Family fleeing the Massacre of the Innocents on the left, as they do in the thirteenth‐century frescoes of the Infancy cycle in the ‘crypt’ (undercroft) of Siena Cathedral. Thus Wilkins Sullivan (1986, p. 607 and note 15) is almost certainly incorrect in identifying this scene as the Return from the Flight into Egypt. See further Ragusa in The Art Bulletin, 69, no. 4, 1987, pp. 646–7, and Wilkins Sullivan’s reply on pp. 647–9. (Back to text.)
3. First suggested by Lisini 1898, p. 32, and again by Stubblebine 1979, I, pp. 47–8, White 1973a, II, p. 567, and White 1979, p. 88. Victor Schmidt (1999, pp. 39–52, in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, cat. 38, pp. 262–3, and in Bagnoli, Bartalini, Bellosi and Laclotte 2003, p. 288) has demonstrated that the Coronation of the Virgin (51.5 × 32.0 cm) attributed to Duccio and his workshop in the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, is too big to have been that panel. See also the calculation of 34 stories cited in note 13 below. For the significance of the Assumption for Siena see Steinhoff 2006, pp. 129–34. (Back to text.)
4. See note 13 below. Concluded also by Andrea De Marchi in Seidel 2004, p. 25, note 36. The most recent reconstruction post‐White 1979 (see note 28 below) is that of Bellosi 1998, p. 12 and the diagram on p. 22. He amalgamates the presumed Assumption and Coronation into a single scene on the front, crowned by God the Father/Blessing Redeemer (‘Eterno benedicente’), and suggests the Ascension, again crowned by God the Father/Blessing Redeemer, thus omitting the Resurrection, which seems improbable. Tronzo’s hypothesis that there was simply a gap in the centre is unlikely (Tronzo 1988, pp. 36–47). (Back to text.)
5. White 1979, p. 86; exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 76. (Back to text.)
6. For example, Stubblebine 1977, p. 432, and White 1979, p. 86, both suggested that the Baptism and First Temptation are missing, which was endorsed by Wilkins Sullivan (1985, p. 33). Bellosi 1998, p. 18, considers that probably the Baptism is missing. Schmidt 2002, pp. 51–66, has pointed out that the panel in the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, showing the Baptist bearing Witness, cannot have been part of the back predella, as suggested by Boskovits and Padovani 1990, p. 76, since Christ is wearing garments of the wrong colour – gold striated and a deep red, inconsistent with those worn in the other panels – and the haloes are not the same as those in the Maestà. (Back to text.)
7. Monika Butzek has pointed out to me that there is no evidence that the cathedral was dedicated to the Assunta. (Back to text.)
8. For different readings see, for example, White 1979, pp. 124–31, and pp. 129–30, figs 99 and 100; see Deuchler 1979, pp. 541–9, for the boustrophedon reading (i.e. up and down in alternate directions) of the back, and Deuchler 1984, p. 60, for diagrams comparing the different readings by Cooper 1965, Carli 1979, his own 1979, and White 1979. Phillip Earenfight (1994, pp. 6–13, esp. p. 8, and p. 12, note 7) substantiating Stubblebine’s reading (1979, I, p. 57) of the scenes upwards in pairs, points out that Deuchler makes several errors in the chronological sequence, in particular of Peter’s Second and Third Denial. See De Marchi 2009, pp. 130–1, for the rotational impetus of the whole. (Back to text.)
9. White 1979, doc. 28, pp. 192–3; Satkowski 2000, I.39, pp. 69–72; Pellegrini in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, doc. 26, pp. 511–12; Butzek 2006, pp. 32–3, and Giorgi, Moscadelli, Butzek and Loseries 2006, p. 763, doc. 100. (Back to text.)
10. Although Maginnis (in Satkowski 2000, p. 18) notes that there is a record of an altar piece with a Virgin and Child with four saints in San Donato, Siena, apparently signed and completed in 1310 ( ibid. , IV. 12, p. 131); see also Deuchler 1984, p. 30. (Back to text.)
11. Pope‐Hennessy 1980, pp. 45–7. (Back to text.)
12. Deuchler 1984, p. 48. Extract of document as given in Satkowski 2000, pp. 69–72: ‘cum ipse Duccius accepisset a dicto operario ad pingendum quandam tabulam, ponendam supra maiori altari maioris ecclesie sancte Marie de Senis; comuniter et concorditer fecerunt inter se pacta et conventiones infrascripta et infrascriptas… Duccius promisit et convenit… pingere et facere dictam tabulam quam melius poterit et sciverit, et Dominus sibi largietur; et laborare continue in dicta tabula, temporibus quibus laborari poterit in eadem; et non accipere vel recipere aliquod aliud laborerium ad faciendum, donec dicta tabula completa et facta fuerit. Dictus autem dominus Jacoppus operarius, nomine dicti operis et pro eo, dare et solvere promisit dicto Duccio, pro suo salario dicti operis et laborerii, sedecim soldos denariorum senensium pro quolibet die, quo dictus Duccius laborabit suis manibus in dicta tabula…’, which she translates as: ‘whereas the same Duccio undertook from the said clerk of works the task of painting a certain panel to be placed on the high altar of the great church of Santa Maria of Siena, they jointly and amicably made between them the following contract and agreements written below…. the said Duccio promised and agreed… [to paint and] to make the said panel to the utmost of his capability and faculty, which the Lord bestowed upon him; and to work continuously upon the said panel at such times as he was able to work on it – and not to accept or receive any other work to be carried out until the said panel shall have been made and completed. Moreover, the said Lord Jacopo, clerk of works, in the name of and on behalf of the said Opera, promised to give and pay the said Duccio, as his salary for the said project and labor, 16 soldi of Sienese money for each day that the said Duccio shall work with his own hands on the said panel…’ (Back to text.)
13. ‘Questa è la concordia che Buonaventura Bartolomei e Parigiotto ebero inssieme (sic) del fatto de la tavola de’ lavorio de la parte dietro. Conosconno ce sono trenta quatro storie principalmente, le quali stimano per la magiorezza d’alcuna d’esse storie ale comunali et per li angieletti di sopra et per alcun’altra opera se vi si richedesse di penello, che le dette storie sieno trentaotto, et per trentaotto siea (sic) pagato, et abia et aver debia di ciasceduna storia due fiorini d’oro et mezzo, fornendo esso maestro Duccio tutto ciò che ffa (sic) mistiero di penello, e l’operaio debia fornerir di colore et d’altro che bisognasse. Del quale pagamento debia avere il maestro Duccio ora contanti cinquanta fiorini d’oro, e l’atri debia avere scontati questi sicome servirà per storia’ (Satkowski 2000, I.41, pp. 75–6). Translated by Satkowski as: ‘This is the agreement that Buonaventura Bartolommei and Parigiotto arrived at together concerning the work on the back side of the panel. They acknowledge that there are, in essence, thirty‐four scenes, but because a few of these are larger than the average scene and also because of the little angels on top and because of any other work that might require painting, the said scenes shall be valued as thirty‐eight; and he is to have and is owed two and one‐half gold florins for each scene, Master Duccio furnishing all that is necessary to the craft of the brush; and the clerk of works of the Opera must furnish the pigments and all else that might be necessary. Of the total sum he is owed, Master Duccio is to receive fifty gold florins now, and he shall receive the rest, with the deduction of these [50 florins], as the work proceeds, scene by scene.’
There were indeed 34 scenes if there were two now missing from the top, probably the Resurrection and Ascension, and if the Entry into Jerusalem and the Crucifixion, which are double the size of the other scenes, were counted as a single scene, as they seem to have been, and the upper pinnacle panel, possibly showing God the Father/the Blessing Redeemer, were counted in with the angels – and not counting the predella. So for the back Duccio was paid 95 gold florins. If, for the sake of argument, one estimates that he was [page 184]also paid 2½ gold florins per predella scene, then the total for the back would have been 117½ gold florins (White 1979, p. 83, estimates the payment for the back as 110½ florins, and by comparing the square metre area with the Rucellai Madonna he estimates the total to have been 332 lire per side, i.e. close to 110 ½ florins × 2). If the daily work on the same surface area of the front amounted to the same pro rata, then the total paid for the whole altar piece would have been very approximately 235 gold florins. However, at the time the payment for the back was agreed, work on the altar piece had already begun. Thus 235 florins would have represented the minimum payment. The chronicles of Agnolo di Tura et al. stated that the altar piece cost 3,000 gold florins (Satkowski 2000, II.2, p. 101; III.3, p. 111; III.12, p. 119). Lisini (1898, p. 21, note 3) considered that this was possible in view of the fact that at the time one gold florin was worth 53½ soldi. Is it possible that Agnolo di Tura added an extra nought, and that Duccio was in fact paid 300 gold florins altogether? This seems plausible in that over a century later, in 1437, Sassetta, who furnished his own materials, was to be paid 510 gold florins for his (less complicated) double‐sided altar piece for Borgo San Sepolcro. See James Banker in Israëls 2009, II, doc. XV, pp. 569–70. Using a slightly different approach, Hayden Maginnis (2001, p. 63, note 92) has come to the same conclusion. Moreover, if one takes 16 soldi as the average daily payment for both back and front, then at the rate of 53½ soldi per florin the time taken would have been approximately 1,000 days, i.e. 167 working weeks, which, if no work was done on Sundays and some feast days (such as the Assumption on 15 August), would amount to just over three years, which is borne out by the documents. (Back to text.)
14. Duccio’s poverty, as compared with Simone Martini’s wealth, is discussed by Maginnis in Satkowski 2000, pp. 19–20. (Back to text.)
15. Maginnis in Satkowski 2000, p. 18. White (1979, p. 82) explains the different types of agreement by the different nature of the work on the front and back. (Back to text.)
16. White 1979, p. 82, and p. 194, doc. 29; Satkowski 2000, I.40, pp. 72–5; Pellegrini in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, doc. 27, p. 512; Butzek 2006, p. 33; and Giorgi, Moscadelli, Butzek and Loseries 2006, p. 764, doc. 101. Maginnis (in Satkowski 2000, p. 21) sees the loan agreement as pre‐dating the agreement for the painting of the back and to have been an advance, the money owed to Duccio not having yet been calculated. As he points out, the document indicates that the back was already in an advanced state of planning. (Back to text.)
17. Satkowski 2000, I.44, pp. 77–9; Butzek 2006, pp. 33–4. There is a sense that the Nove felt that the commission had hitherto been handled incompetently. There are several references to the cost of the works and finances of the Opera. (Back to text.)
18. Satkowski 2000, II.2 and II.3, pp. 100–3; see also the anonymous chronicle of 1201–1392 ( ibid. , II. 1, pp. 99–100) with a discussion by Satkowski of its status and the anomalies. For a map of the probable route taken see Christiansen 2008, p. 17, fig. 12. As Deuchler (1984, p. 48) points out, it is highly unlikely that it was transported intact, but rather, it was probably assembled in situ. (Back to text.)
19. Satkowski 2000, I.46, pp. 80–1; Pellegrini in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, doc. 33, p. 513. These instruments were traditionally played by civic musicians (see Brown 1984, p. 334). (Back to text.)
20. For the document of 1506 see Lisini 1898, p. 24, note 2; Butzek 2006, p. 178. The ciborium was initially moved for a period of three years, with the Opera obliged to compensate the Ospedale if it was not returned there. (Back to text.)
21. Struchholz 1995, p. 99 (giving the date 1535), and p. 227, inv. 13 (with the date 1536(?)); Ragionieri in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, p. 208 (near the altar of Saint Sebastian). (Back to text.)
22. Vasari, Vite, eds Bettarini and Barocchi, II, 1967, p. 260. (Back to text.)
23. Strehlke 2004, p. 127; see Satkowski 2000, IV.1, p. 125, for Ghiberti’s text. Ghiberti visited Siena in 1416 and thereafter in connection with the bronze panels he designed for the Baptistery, delivered in 1427 (see Krautheimer 1956, p. 396, doc. 131; Butzek 2006, p. 118). (Back to text.)
24. Butzek 2006, p. 241. According to Stubblebine (1979, I, p. 35), 1777 was an error for 1771 (he was basing himself on an inventory dated 1776); several authors – for example Deuchler 1984, p. 73, Bellosi 1998, p. 11, and Ragionieri in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, p. 208 – give the date of removal and carving up as 1771. However, Monika Butzek has kindly made available to me her transcript of the inventory of 1776 (Archivio della Metropolitana di Siena, 1511 [8831], f. 44), noting that the information regarding the cutting up of the altar piece in 1777 has been added in the margin. Stubblebine 1979, II, fig. 561, gives a plan of the cathedral with the different locations of the Maestà. (Back to text.)
25. Stubblebine 1979, I, pp. 35–6. Stubblebine noted that in 1878 only six predella panels were transferred to the museum, but that in 1909 Curt Weigelt identified the Temptation on the Temple in a closet of the Opera. (Back to text.)
26. See note 32 on p. 163 of this catalogue (under NG 1139). (Back to text.)
27. One of the export lists of Carlo Lasinio of 2 May 1832 included ‘due mezze figure di due Angeli’ under ‘Scuola Senese’, each 10 by 6 soldi (= 29. 20 × 17.52 cm; Levi 1993, p. 145). The width given corresponds with all four surviving angel pinnacle panels. One of the two is almost certainly the angel pinnacle panel now in Huis Bergh, ’s‐Heerenberg (width 18.3 cm; the top has been falsely rounded; see Israëls 2008, pp. 122–33), which bears two seals on the back of the panel, identifiable as those of Lasinio and the Camposanto. I am grateful to Machtelt Israëls for sending me an image of the seals. See also p. 350, fig. 1; and p. 51, note 50, under NG 1468. (Back to text.)
28. White 1973a, pp. 334–66 and 547–69; White 1979, pp. 86–95, and pp. 84 and 85, figs 51 and 52. See Deuchler 1984, p. 74, for a list of other reconstructions, pp. 76–7 for diagrams of the reconstructions by Dobbert 1885, Lusini 1911, De Wald 1955 and 1961, Cooper 1965, Stubblebine 1969 and 1979, and White 1979, and p. 78, figs 87 and 88, for Carli 1979; see also Ragionieri in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, p. 210. (Back to text.)
29. Gardner von Teuffel 1979, pp. 36–45. Maginnis (1977, p. 280) pointed out that the proportional system used by White in the reconstruction of the Maestà was missing the crucial measurements of the width, including the frame, which is unknown. (Back to text.)
30. Brandi 1959, p. 17, and p. 18, fig. 2; White 1979, p. 88. The thinness of the back was presumably to minimise the weight. Horizontal panels would have helped to hold together the vertical panels of the front. (Back to text.)
31. Israëls 2008, p. 125. She notes that the observations regarding the vertical fibres on the panels showing the Last Days of the Virgin were made by J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer in 1964. (Back to text.)
32. Israëls 2008, pp. 125–6. Thus the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 76, which states that the upper tier was painted on a single board painted on both sides, has been shown to be incorrect. The wood grain of the Holyoke angel, like that of the ’s‐Heerenberg angel, runs horizontally, but that of the Philadelphia angel runs vertically (Strehlke 2004, p. 129). (Back to text.)
33. Stubblebine 1969, p. 149; White 1979, p. 82; exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, pp. 76–80. However, Machtelt Israëls has pointed out to me that the predella referred to in the inventory may in fact not be the painted predella for the altar piece, but a wooden predella; see also p. 298, note 39 (under NG 1113). Moreover, there is the possibility that the cloth has become confused with that for the altar/altar piece, which in the inventory of 1435 is also described as being painted and having a silk fringe (see below). Monika Butzek has deduced that the inventory traditionally thought to date from 1423 in fact dates from 1429 (see note 3 on p. 296 of this catalogue). (Back to text.)
34. See the exh. cat. Art in the Making 1989, p. 79; also White 1973a, pp. 346–9. (Back to text.)
35. Stubblebine 1977, pp. 430–6, suggested the Baptist bearing Witness and the Raising of Lazarus; Wilkins Sullivan 1985, p. 35, suggested the Baptism and the Anointing in Bethany. See also Ragionieri in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, p. 212, expressing doubt. (Back to text.)
36. Middeldorf Kosegarten 1970, esp. pp. 81–2, showed that the civic and religious cult of the Virgin focusing on the high altar of the cathedral dated back to around 1200. See further Steinhoff 2006, pp. 30–8. (Back to text.)
37. Butzek 2006, p. 16. Machtelt Israëls has discussed the Marian iconography of the frescoes on the urban gates of Siena’s city walls, including a now fragmentary Ducciesque Maestà on the gate of the Due Porte di fuori; Israëls (2004) 2008, pp. 367–89. (Back to text.)
38. Butzek 2006, p. 19. (Back to text.)
39. For the seal of 1266 see Middeldorf Kosegarten 1984, pp. 49–50, also making a connection between the seal and the cathedral altar, and suggesting that the Virgin is intended to be sitting not on a throne but on an altar. See further Cioni 1989, cat. 2. The seal crafted by Guccio di Manaia in 1298 is known only through the painted imitations in the fresco of the Maestà by Simone Martini of 1315 (see fig. 3), and Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s fresco of Good Government (both in the Palazzo Pubblico, Siena), as well as on a Biccherna panel of 1344 (illustrated in Frugoni 2002, pp. 222 and 223). The seal was thus kept constantly in the public eye through the painted imitations; van Os 1984, p. 58, is incorrect in saying that the seal reflected Duccio’s Maestà. (Back to text.)
40. For a detailed history of the complex structure and chronology of the building history see Haas and von Winterfeld, ‘Baugeschichte’, 2006, pp. 393–400. Also very useful is Tim Benton in Norman 1995, II, pp. 129–43. (Back to text.)
41. Butzek 2006, p. 15; and Giorgi, Moscadelli, Butzek and Loseries 2006, p. 729, docs 14 and 15. (Back to text.)
42. See Middeldorf Kosegarten 1984, pp. 52–9, and pp. 335–7, Kat. IV, 1–8. Middeldorf Kosegarten rejects the possibility that the figure of ‘Ecclesia’ formed part of the altar rather than belonging with the other eight panels as part of the choir enclosure. She suggests that the choir enclosure was hexagonal, echoing the hexagon of the cupola above. (Back to text.)
43. Butzek 2006, pp. 19–20; and Giorgi, Moscadelli, Butzek and Loseries 2006, pp. 738–9. doc. 37 [1–8]. For Nicola Pisano’s Siena pulpit see Moskovitz 2005, pp. 61–72. (Back to text.)
44. Alessandro Bagnoli in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, cat. 26, pp. 166–80; Bagnoli in Bagnoli, Bartalini, Bellosi and Laclotte 2003, pp. 162–76. See Butzek 2006, p. 25 and note 362; and Giorgi, Moscadelli, Butzek and Loseries 2006, doc. 59a [3], p. 746. (Back to text.)
45. Giorgi, Moscadelli, Butzek and Loseries 2006, doc. 17, pp. 729–30: ‘quod altare Sancte Marie et chorum prefati episcopatus et que pertinent ad ipsum corum fiant, construantur et actentur et compleantur sicut designatum, ordinatum et statutum est per dominos canonicos dicti episcopatus et operarios hoperis Sancte Marie, salvo quod quedam ianua ex parte retro dicti espiscopatus, videlicet illa que nunc est aperta sit et remaneat aperta…’ (‘that the altar of Saint Mary and the choir of the said cathedral and whatever pertains to the choir shall be done, constructed and executed and completed according to how it has been designed, ordered and decreed by the lord canons of the said cathedral and by the clerks of the works of Saint Mary, on condition that the door which is at the rear of the said cathedral, that is to say, that which is now open, is and should remain open…’). (Back to text.)
46. Giorgi, Moscadelli, Butzek and Loseries 2006, doc. 17, pp. 729–30: ‘quod maior ianua episcopatus que est ex parte retro dicti episcopatus, que nunc est clausa, aperiatur… Et quod altare sancte Marie, et corum ipsius episcopatus fiant et costruantur suptus metam maiorem dicti episcopatus et quod fiant gradi ad ipsum corum ex omnibus partibus per quos gentes ascendant et accedant ad corum et ad altare eiusdem episcopatus’ (‘that the larger/main door of the cathedral which is at the rear of the said cathedral and which is now closed, shall be opened… And that the altar of Saint Mary and the choir of the same cathedral shall be made and constructed below the main cupola of the said cathedral and that steps shall be made leading up to the choir from all sides by which people can ascend and reach the choir and altar of the said cathedral’). The roof of the dome was covered with lead in 1263 and its final copper ‘mela’ (apple/sphere) decoration added that year (Butzek 2006, p. 18). (Back to text.)
47. Middeldorf Kosegarten 1970, pp. 74–5. (Back to text.)
48. Stubblebine 1979, I, p. 34; White 1979, p. 98, fig. 61. White (1979, p. 100) considered the hexagonal steps of the Virgin’s throne in Duccio’s Maestà to echo the hexagonal dome above. (Back to text.)
49. Van der Ploeg in van Os 1984, p. 137, diagram 14. (Back to text.)
50. Van der Ploeg in van Os 1984, pp. 139 and 145, and van der Ploeg 1993, pp. 111–15. For a critique of his use of the Ordo Officiorum see Gardner von Teuffel 1985, p. 391. (Back to text.)
51. Already Julian Gardner (1979) 1983, pp. 297–322, esp. pp. 298–9, had suggested that celebration of the Mass could take place on both sides; then, following van der Ploeg’s theories, van Os 1984, pp. 43 and 51; Mulvaney 1998, p. 159, placed the clergy behind the high altar. This view was still being taken by Bellosi 1998, p. 12, Norman 1999, p. 37, and Steinhoff 2006, p. 126. A second set of choir stalls was added behind the high altar between 1378 and 1397 (Haas and von Winterfeld, ‘Baugeschichte’, 2006, p. 476). (Back to text.)
52. Kempers 1994, pp. 94 and 110–12. Already Middeldorf Kosegarten (1970, pp. 78–9) had argued that the choir was situated in front of the altar. (Back to text.)
53. Struchholz 1995, pp. 24–33, and p. 306, fig. 18, cited by Seiler (1998) 2002, p. 255, reproducing her reconstruction on p. 256, fig. 4. See also Haas and von Winterfeld, ‘Baugeschichte’, 2006, p. 415. (Back to text.)
54. Struchholz 1995, p. 33. (Back to text.)
55. Seiler (1998) 2002, pp. 267–9. On p. 268 he followed Stubblebine’s incorrect translation of part of the inventory of 1435 (Stubblebine 1979, I, pp. 34–5; repeated by van Os 1984, p. 55) – ‘nei canti di detto altare sonno due graticolette di ferro’ (‘at the sides of the said altar are two small iron grilles’), mistranslated as ‘for singing at the said altar…’ – but most importantly Seiler mistook ‘una tenda vermiglia per coprire la tavola del detto altare con frangie di seta dipenta nel mezzo due angioli che tengono uno tabernacolo dipento [con] el corpo di Christo’ (‘a vermilion curtain to cover the panel of the said altar with a silk fringe, painted in the centre with two angels who are holding a tabernacle painted with the body of Christ’) for two angels holding a tabernacle painted with the Man of Sorrows, which he interpreted as a tabernacle for the Host; comparison with the 1435 inventory (see note 79) confirms that the figures of two angels holding a tabernacle were painted on a textile (see also Israëls 2006, p. 47, note 15). The second error concerns the inventory which Lisini dated 1423 but which Monika Butzek has deduced in fact dates from 1429 (see note 3 on p. 296 of this catalogue). Lisini’s text in 1898, p. 23, published also by Stubblebine and Satkowski 2000, III, doc. 2, p. 110, has the phrase ‘nei canti dietro a l’altare’ (‘at the sides behind the altar’), whereas from the 1435 inventory (Lisini 1898, p. 37, note 1) it is clear that the scribe should have written: ‘nei canti di detto altare’ (‘at the sides of the said altar’). Monika Butzek has kindly confirmed that the scribe must have mistranscribed the inventory in the second version. This is further clarified by looking back at the inventory of 1420 (Satkowski 2000, III.1, p. 109), where the iron grilles are described as being at the shoulders of the altar piece, i.e. at the sides, where they were part of the mechanism for hanging the curtain in front of the altar/altar piece (‘ed a le spale del’a[l]tare, due pezi gratichole di fero, chon chandelieri e chon tende rosse ala parte dina[n]zi e fero da chapo a ogni lato, per detta tenda’). (Back to text.)
56. Christa Gardner von Teuffel 2005, pp. 622–3, in her comments on her own article of 1979 concerning the buttressed altar piece. (Back to text.)
57. ‘a fare l’entrata che va ala sagrestia nuova cioè tagliare muro dietro al altare maggiore’ (‘to make the entrance which goes to the new sacristy, that is, to cut the wall behind the high altar’). See Butzek in Cecchi 2001, p. 45, and p. 130, doc. XVII [2b], and Butzek 2006, p. 66. (Back to text.)
58. I am extremely grateful to Monika Butzek, always generous with her help, for sending me the typescript of her lecture on the restructuring of the east end of Siena Cathedral. (Back to text.)
59. Haas and von Winterfeld, ‘Baugeschichte’, 2006, pp. 415, 472 and 476, and p. 415, fig. 36. (Back to text.)
60. See the analysis in Giorgi and Moscadelli 2005, pp. 71–8. (Back to text.)
61. Israëls 2008, pp. 126–32, and p. 180, note 49. She cites Andrea Giorgi and Stefano Moscadelli in Guerrini and Seidel 2003, pp. 85–105, esp. pp. 88–9; Haas and Von Winterfeld, ‘Baugeschichte’, 2006, pp. 364–76 and 454–5. (Back to text.)
62. For weary pilgrims entering the cathedral, the prominence given to the Entry into Jerusalem at the bottom left‐hand corner leading up to the Road to Emmaus in the top right‐hand corner would have had a particular resonance. (Back to text.)
63. Israëls 2008, p. 130, and p. 180, note 43. She transcribes the text in full as follows: ‘pro cereis tenendis et ardendis ad altare virginis gloriose matris. […] quia sicut consuetudo [page 186]antiqua est tres cereos ante altare ipsius virginis Marie in maiori ecclesia expensis comunis accensos teneri ante figuram beate Marie virginis, ita ultra dictos cereos in perpetuum pro futuris temporibus ex parte posteriori dicti altari ante ipsius imaginem teneri constare debeat continue expensis dicti comunis unus alius cereus coequalis forme et magnitudinis, ad reverentiam prelibate virginis Marie et pro honestate maiori spiritualium personarum, que ex parte posteriori predictam orationes faciunt et residentiam in orando coram figura prelibate verginis gloriose et sanctorum figuratorum in tabula supradicta ex dicta parte’ (‘for wax candles to be kept and to be burnt on the altar of the Virgin glorious mother … because according to ancient custom three candles are to be kept burning before the altar dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the cathedral at the expense of the Comune before the figure of the blessed Virgin Mary, thus in addition to the said candles in perpetuity for the future time on the back of the said altar in front of the same image it is affirmed that there should continue to be at the expense of the Comune one other candle of equal form and magnitude, out of reverence for the aforementioned Virgin Mary and for the greater honesty of devout people who pray at the back of the said [altar] in the presence of the figure of the aforementioned glorious Virgin and the saints depicted at the said side of the above mentioned altar piece’). See also Butzek 2006, p. 48. For payments on 28 April 1339 for the wax candles for the angels, including the new one to be made for the back of the altar, see Lisini 1898, p. 23, note 1; Stubblebine 1979, I, p. 34. The wax dripping from the candelabra held by the angels was collected and sold by the Opera (see Butzek as cited above). (Back to text.)
64. Israëls (2008, p. 130) repeats the observation – first made by van der Ploeg (in van Os 1984, p. 147) and taken up by Christiansen (in Christiansen, Kanter and Strehlke 1988, p. 108); Norman 1999, p. 25; Seiler (1998) 2002, p. 266; and Hueck 2007, p. 58 – that the depiction of Saint Anthony attending Mass (Berlin, Gemäldegalerie) by the Master of the Osservanza, painted around 1435–40, shows a view into the east end of Siena Cathedral, with the saint praying behind the altar. While the location appears indeed to be that of the east end of the cathedral, the altar piece depicted is a generic one, relatively simple and squat, in no way resembling Duccio’s Maestà and, pace Gardner von Teuffel 2005, pp. 622–3, lacking the supporting piers or ‘buttresses’ reaching to the floor that she has suggested for the Maestà. (Back to text.)
65. These were cited by van der Ploeg 1993, pp. 93–4. However, because he believed the choir to be situated behind the altar (see note 50 above), and because the choir was reserved for the clergy, he was obliged to explain that it was exceptional for children to have been admitted to the choir. For the date of the second Ordo Officiorum as pre‐1317 see van der Ploeg 1993, p. 137. (Back to text.)
66. For example, Middeldorf Kosegarten 1970, p. 76; White 1979, p. 95; van Os 1984, pp. 11–20; Norman 1995, II, p. 70, and 1999, pp. 29–33; and Steinhoff 2006, pp. 122–4. For the ‘Madonna dell’Opera’ see Silvia Giorgio in Lorenzoni and Guerrini 2003, esp. pp. 64–8. For the ‘Madonna del Voto’ see Silvia Giorgi in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, cat. 2, pp. 54–6, and in Bagnoli, Bartalini, Bellosi and Laclotte 2003, pp. 38–40; also Giorgi 2008, pp. 36–45. This painting had been associated by Bellosi with the narrative scenes scattered in various collections which he attributed to Dietisalvi di Speme but Miklós Boskovits attributed to Guido da Siena. However, Schmidt and Muller 2001, pp. 110–12, showed that the Annunciation (Princeton University Art Museum) in the series, and therefore probably also the Flagellation (Altenburg, Lindenau Museum), had rectangular corners rather than oblique ones and thus could not have come from the ‘Madonna del Voto’; Schmidt points out that the Mounting of the Cross (Utrecht, Museum Catherijneconvent) was not included in Duccio’s Maestà, thus weakening the likelihood of its original provenance being from Siena Cathedral, and that it may in fact indicate a Franciscan context for the panels. Moreover, Boskovits has shown, in the exh. cat. Maestri Senesi e Toscani nel Lindenau‐Museum 2008, cat. 1, pp. 14–25, that certainly the Coronation of the Virgin (London, Courtauld Institute of Art), and therefore perhaps also these narrative paintings, were associated with an Assumption of the Virgin. (Back to text.)
67. See Satkowski 2000, II.1, pp. 99–100. (Back to text.)
68. See Butzek 2001, pp. 97–109. She explains (p. 100) that the name ‘Madonna degli Occhi Grossi’ is due to the votive images of eyes hung before the painting. The possibility of the ‘Madonna dell’Opera’ having been in use as an antependium in 1260 would preclude the possibility of the figure of ‘Ecclesia’ having formed part of the altar. See note 42 above. (Back to text.)
69. Maginnis 2001, p. 137, note 99. See also the discussion of the two panels in Kempers 1994, pp. 97–110, arguing that the painting in relief was carried in processions and only occasionally placed on the high altar, and was the painting before which the ceremony of the dedication of the city of Siena took place in 1260. See also note 68 above. (Back to text.)
70. Schmidt (2002–5) 2007, pp. 23–9, esp. p. 24. (Back to text.)
71. Haas and von Winterfeld, ‘Baugeschichte’, 2006, p. 476. (Back to text.)
72. Lusini 1911, p. 262; Butzek 2006, pp. 68–9 and 72. (Back to text.)
73. Butzek 2006, p. 72. (Back to text.)
74. Butzek 2006, p. 81, andHaas and von Winterfeld, ‘Baugeschichte’, 2006, p. 476. (Back to text.)
75. Van der Ploeg 1993, p. 117. It was in 1382 that the baldachin was finally finished (Lusini 1911, p. 265, and p. 323, note 84 – his notes and text do not always synchronise). For the new position see Struchholz 1995, p. 313, fig. 31. (Back to text.)
76. Butzek in Butzek and Cecchi 2001, p. 131, doc. XXI: ‘per oro per II angnioli dipense ala tenda del altare magiore’ (‘for gold for two angels he painted on the curtain of the high altar’). These are presumably the angels shown holding a tabernacle painted with the body of Christ (presumably a Man of Sorrows), described in the inventory of 1435. See note 55 above. (Back to text.)
77. See note 3 on p. 296 of this catalogue for the redating to 1429 of the inventory traditionally thought to date from 1423; see also note 79 below for the inventory of 1435. (Back to text.)
78. See note 76 above; also note 33. (Back to text.)
79. Lisini 1898, pp. 23–4 (wrongly dating the inventory of 1429 to 1423; see note 3 on p. 296 of this catalogue); Satkowski 2000, III.1 and 2, pp. 109–11 (inventories of 1420 and that wrongly thought to date from 1423). See also Stubblebine 1979, pp. 34–5; Ragionieri in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, p. 208. The inventory of 1420 was partly published by Kees van der Ploeg 1993, p. 114. According to the inventory of 1429 (previously 1423): ‘…l’altar maggiore. Una tavola dipenta da ogni parte co’le figure di Nostra Donna e di più Santi, co le voltarelle da capo in quattro bordoni di ferro, con tre tabernacoletti dentrovi tre agnoletti rilevati et dorati, e quali desciendono a ministrare a la Sancta Messa colla eucaristia et lambicchi et pannicello per le mani. E più quattro agnoletti con candelieri in mano che stanno a servito de’altare dietro e dinanzi: con due graticolette di ferro ne canti dietro a l’altare; con una tenda vermiglia per cuprire el detto altare. Et una tenda per cuprire la predella, con frangie di seta di più colori dipenta in mezo con due capsettine dipente che stanno sul detto altare co l’arme dell’Opera, per pigliare le elemosie. E due huova di sturzo dinanzi per adornezza d’esso altare’ (‘The high altar [has] an altar piece painted on both sides with the figure of Our Lady and many saints, with the canopies supported on four poles of iron, with three tabernacles in which are three carved and gilded angels which descend in order to administer at Holy Mass with the Eucharist with cups and a cloth for the hands. And there are four more little angels holding candles which are used on the altar at the back and the front: with two small iron grilles at the sides behind the altar; with a vermilion cloth to cover the said altar: and a cloth to cover the predella with a multi‐coloured silk fringe painted in the centre: two small painted chests are on the said altar with the emblem of the Opera, to receive alms, and two ostrich eggs adorn the front’). Two ostrich eggs also hung before the high altar of the church of Santa Maria della Scala (see Fabio Chigi’s description of 1625–6 in Bacci 1939a, p. 307). For a discussion of eggs hung before altars (arising from the painting by Piero della Francesca in the Brera, Milan) see Ragusa 1971, pp. 435–43, and Gilbert 1974, pp. 252–4. For the inventory of 1435, which is partly based on the inventory that Lisini wrongly dated 1423, see Lisini 1898, pp. 37–8, note 1. (Back to text.)
80.Valerio Ascani, entry in the exh. cat. Le Biccherne di Siena 2003, pp. 218–19, with illustration. (Back to text.)
81. First documented in 1335 (see Butzek 2006, p. 46, and p. 49, note 637; pp. 69, 77, 92, 120, 136, 149 and 178). See also Satkowski 2000, III.1, p. 109), and Kempers [page 187]1994, p. 118, for the images around the high altar. (Back to text.)
82. Seiler (1998) 2002, p. 251. It is possible also that the design of the front predella came from the altar piece by the Master of Saint Francis, almost certainly painted for San Francesco al Prato, Perugia, around 1272, which Duccio would have seen when he painted the altar piece for San Domenico (see p. 199, fig. 16) in that city. See Gordon (1998) 2002, p. 233; likewise Schultze 1963, p. 144. (Back to text.)
83. See Deuchler 1984, pp. 168–75, for a summary of literary and visual sources. (Back to text.)
84. For the frescoes in the atrium under the Duomo and their impact, see in particular Bagnoli in Guerrini and Seidel 2003, pp. 107–47. (Back to text.)
85. White 1979, pp. 121 and 125. (Back to text.)
86. Stubblebine 1975, pp. 176–85, and 1979, pp. 48–52, explored the iconographic sources, in particular possible Byzantine manuscripts. Wilkins Sullivan (1988, pp. 374–87) noted the change in the Raising of Lazarus to a Byzantine rather than a Western tomb. (Back to text.)
87. Stubblebine 1975, p. 176. See also under NG 1139, p. 161. (Back to text.)
88. See van Os 1984, pp. 40–1. (Back to text.)
89. See, most recently, Eclercy 2004 for a discussion of workshop participation, using a comparison between the Annunciation and the Annunciation of the Death of the Virgin (pp. 5–12
) as emblematic for the participation of assistants in the design of individual scenes.
Boskovits and Padovani (1990, p. 74) see the Maestà as substantially autograph. (Back to text.)
90. Stubblebine 1973a, pp. 185–204, esp. p. 203, figs 33 and 34; Stubblebine 1979, I, pp. 32 and 39–45. (Back to text.)
91. White 1979, pp. 104–6; Bellosi 1998, p. 20. (Back to text.)
92. For the proposed attribution of the painting of the architecture in NG 1140 to Simone Martini see p. 168. (Back to text.)
93. Butzek 2006, p. 24. (Back to text.)
94. Deuchler 1984, p. 58, and p. 195, note 75, also sees the votive inscription as having a dual allusion to the Battle of Montaperti and the peaceful life of Siena’s citizenry. Shaw 2006, pp. 89–103, describes the city at the end of the fifteenth century as being notoriously riven by factions. The citizens of Siena were, unsurprisingly, constantly preoccupied with the concept of peace, which underpins Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s frescoes of Good and Bad Government in the Palazzo Pubblico. (Back to text.)
95. Christiansen (2008, p. 16) translates Duccio’s invocation as a plea for ‘long life’; the word ‘long’ however does not appear. (Back to text.)
96. See also White 1979, p. 100. (Back to text.)
97. Seiler (1998) 2002, pp. 265 and 269; and Ragionieri in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, p. 208. For Ruggero da Casole see further Mulvaney 1998, pp. 103–14. For Ruggero’s dates see Gams 1957, p. 752. A major adjustment to the Temptation on the Mountain (New York, Frick Collection) was very likely prompted by theological concerns (see Gordon 2009, p. 21). Although Deuchler 1979, pp. 541–9, esp. pp. 548–9, describes Duccio as a learned painter and an ‘avid reader’ of Flavius Josephus, demonstrated by the topographical details of Jerusalem in the Entry into Jerusalem, which he argues are dependent on Josephus’s De Bello Judaico, the intellectual content underpinning the Maestà is much more likely to have come from the bishop, who as a Dominican would himself have been well educated. (Back to text.)
98. It seems very likely that the process was similar to the type of collaboration one can detect in Sassetta’s San Sepolcro altar piece, where the friars and Sassetta worked together (see Gordon 2009b, pp. 271–83). (Back to text.)
99. Although no altar piece was ever made exactly like it, the impact of the iconography of the Maestà was of course enduring and far‐reaching, also beyond the Italian peninsula. (Back to text.)
100. See Roberto Bartalini in the exh. cat. Duccio 2003, cat. 36, pp. 244–57. (Back to text.)
101. See Solberg 1992, pp. 646–56. (Back to text.)
102. See Gardner von Teuffel 2009, pp. 223–6. (Back to text.)
103. See Martindale 1988, cat. 35, pp. 204–9; Leone De Castris 2003, pp. 12–20. (Back to text.)
104. See also Steinhoff 2006, p. 128, and p. 235, note 22. (Back to text.)
List of archive references cited
- London, National Gallery, Archive, curatorial dossier for NG1330: Letter
- London, National Gallery, Conservation Department, conservation dossier for NG1140
- London, National Gallery, Conservation Department, conservation dossier for NG1330
- Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, MS Ludwig II 5, 83.MB.69: Tetra Evangelion, late thirteenth century
- Mount Athos, Iviron Monastery, Iviron 5: Codex, thirteenth century
- Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, grec 74: an eleventh‐century manuscript
- Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Gr. 510: a Byzantine manuscript
- Siena, Archivio della Metropolitana di Siena, 1511 [8831], f. 44: inventory of 1776
List of references cited
- Ascani 2003
- Ascani, Valerio, in Le Biccherne di Siena. Arte e finanza all’alba dell’economia moderna, ed. A. Tomei (exh. cat. Biblioteca reale del Belgio, Brussels, 16 July – 14 September 2003), Rome 2003, 218–19
- Bacci 1939
- Bacci, Pèleo, ‘L’elenco delle pitture, sculture e architetture di Siena compilato nel 1625–26 da Mons. Fabio Chigi poi Alessandro VII secondo ms. Chigiano I, I, 11’, Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria, 1939, 46, 197–213 & 297–337
- Bagnoli 2003
- Bagnoli, Alessandro, ‘Alle origini della pittura senese. Prime osservazioni sul ciclo dei dipinti murali’, in Sotto il duomo di Siena. Scoperte archeologiche, architettoniche e figurative, eds R. Guerrini and M. Seidel, Milan 2003, 107–47
- Bagnoli 2003a
- Bagnoli, Alessandro, in Duccio. Siena fra tradizione bizantina e mondo gotico, eds Alessandro Bagnoli, Roberto Bartalini, Luciano Bellosi and Michel Laclotte, Siena 2003, cat. 26, 166–80
- Bagnoli, Bartalini, Bellosi and Laclotte 2003
- Bagnoli, Alessandro, Roberto Bartalini, Luciano Bellosi and Michel Laclotte, eds, Duccio. Siena fra tradizione bizantina e mondo gotico, Siena 2003
- Bagnoli, Bartalini, Bellosi and Laclotte 2003a
- Bagnoli, A., R. Bartalini, L. Bellosi and M. Laclotte, eds, Duccio. Alle origini della pittura senese (exh. cat. Santa Maria della Scala, Siena – Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, 4 October 2003 – 11 January 2004), Milan 2003
- Bellosi 1998
- Bellosi, Luciano, Duccio. La Maestà, Milan 1998
- Bomford et al. 1989
- Bomford, D., J. Dunkerton, D. Gordon, A. Roy, with contributions from J. Kirby, Art in the Making. Italian Painting before 1400 (exh. cat. National Gallery, London, 29 November 1989 – 28 February 1990), London 1989
- Bon Valsassina and Garibaldi 1994
- Bon Valsassina, Caterina and Vittoria Garibaldi, eds, Dipinti, sculture e ceramiche della Galleria Nazionale di Perugia. Studi e restauri, Florence 1994
- Bonsanti 2002
- Bonsanti, Giorgio, ed., La Basilica di San Francesco ad Assisi, 4 vols, Modena 2002
- Boskovits 2008
- Boskovits, Miklós, in Maestri Senesi e Toscani nel Lindenau‐Museum di Altenburg, with J. Tripps, ed. M. Boskovits (exh. cat. Complesso museale (Santa Maria della Scala, Palazzo Squarcialupi, Pinacoteca Nazionale), Siena, 15 March – 6 July 2008), Siena 2008, cat. 1, 14–25
- Boskovits and Padovani 1990
- Boskovits, Miklós and Serena Padovani, The Thyssen‐Bornemisza Collection. Early Italian Painting 1290–1470, trans. by F. Pouncey Chiarini, London 1990
- Boskovits and Tripps 2008
- Boskovits, M., ed., with J. Tripps, Maestri Senesi e Toscani nel Lindenau‐Museum di Altenburg (exh. cat. Complesso museale (Santa Maria della Scala, Palazzo Squarcialupi, Pinacoteca Nazionale), Siena, 15 March – 6 July 2008), Siena 2008
- Brandi 1959
- Brandi, Cesare, Il restauro della ‘Maestà’ di Duccio, Rome 1959
- Brown 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988
- Brown, Howard Mayer, ‘A corpus of Trecento pictures with musical subject matter: [part 1]’, Imago musicae, 1984, 1, 189–243; ‘[part 2]’, 1985, 2, 179–282; ‘[part 3]’, 1986, 3, 103–87; ‘[part 4]’, 1988, 5, 167–241
- Butzek 2001
- Butzek, Monika, ‘Per la storia delle due “Madonne delle Grazie” nel Duomo di Siena’, Prospettiva, 2001, 103–4, 97–109
- Butzek 2006
- Butzek, Monika, ‘Chronologie’, in Die Kirchen von Siena: Architektur. Der Dom S. Maria Assunta, eds Walter Haas and Dethard von Winterfeld, Munich 2006, 3.1.1.1., 1–262
- Butzek and Cecchi 2001
- Butzek, Monika and Alessandro Cecchi, eds, ‘Appendice documentaria’, in Simone Martini e l’Annunciazione degli Uffizi, ed. Alessandro Cecchi, Milan 2001, 129–34
- Carli 1979
- reference not found
- Cecchi 2001
- Cecchi, Alessandro, ed., Simone Martini e l’Annunciazione degli Uffizi, Milan 2001
- Chapman and Faietti 2010
- Chapman, Hugo and Marzia Faietti, Fra Angelico to Leonardo. Italian Renaissance Drawings (exh. cat. British Museum, London, 22 April – 25 July 2010), London 2010
- Christiansen 2008
- Christiansen, Keith, ‘Duccio and the Origins of Western Painting’, Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 2008, 66, 1, 3–60
- Christiansen, Kanter and Strehlke 1988
- Christiansen, Keith, Laurence B. Kanter and Carl Brandon Strehlke, Paintings in Renaissance Siena 1420–1500 (exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art), New York 1988
- Cioni 1989
- Cioni, Elisabetta, Il sigillo a Siena nel Medioevo (exh. cat. Palazzo Pubblico, Siena, 25 February – 19 March 1989), Siena 1989
- Cooper 1965
- reference not found
- Davies rev. Gordon 1988
- Davies, Martin, revised by D. Gordon, National Gallery Catalogues: The Early Italian Schools Before 1400, revised edn of Davies 1961, London 1988
- De Marchi 2004
- De Marchi, Andrea, ‘La tavola d’altare’, in Storia delle arti in Toscana. Il Trecento, ed. M. Seidel, Florence 2004, 15–44
- De Marchi 2009
- De Marchi, Andrea, La pala d’altare. Dal paliotto al polittico gotico (dispense del corso tenuto nell’a.a. 2008–2009, Università degli studi di Firenze, corso di laurea in Storia dell’arte), Florence 2009
- De Wald 1961
- reference not found
- Deuchler 1979
- Deuchler, Florens, ‘Duccio Doctus: new readings for the Maestà’, Art Bulletin, 1979, 61, 541–9
- Deuchler 1984
- Deuchler, Florens, Duccio, Milan 1984
- Dobbert 1885
- reference not found
- Earenfight 1994
- Earenfight, Phillip J., ‘Manuscript to altar piece; Duccio’s Maestà Passion cycle and medieval illuminations’, Source, 1994, 13, 3, 6–13
- Eclercy 2004
- Eclercy, Bastian, Suis manibus? Studien zur Beteiligung von Mitarbeitern am Entwurfsprozess von Duccio’s Maestà, Munich 2004
- Evans 2004
- Evans, H.C., ed., Byzantium. Faith and Power (1261–1557) (exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 23 March–4 July 2004), New Haven and London 2004
- Frugoni 2002
- Frugoni, Chiara, ed., Pietro e Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Florence 2002
- Gams 1957
- Gams, Pius Bonifacius, O.S.B., Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae, Regensburg and Graz 1873–86, 1957
- Gardner 1983
- Gardner, Julian, ‘Fronts and backs: setting and structure’, in La pittura nel XIV e XV secolo: il contributo dell’analisi tecnica alla storia dell’arte, eds H.W. van Os and J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer (Atti del XXIV Congresso del Comitato Internazionale di Storia dell’Arte, Bologna, 1979), Bologna 1983, 297–322
- Gardner von Teuffel 1979
- Gardner von Teuffel, Christa, ‘The buttressed altar piece: A forgotten aspect of Tuscan fourteenth century altar piece design’, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, 1979, 21, 21–65 (Gardner von Teuffel, Christa, From Duccio’s Maestà to Raphael’s Transfiguration: Italian Altarpieces and their Settings, London 2005, 119–82)
- Gardner von Teuffel 1985
- Gardner von Teuffel, Christa, ‘review of H.W. van Os and K. van der Ploeg, Sienese altar‐pieces 1215–1460, I, 1984’, Burlington Magazine, 1985, 127, 987, 391
- Gardner von Teuffel 2005
- Gardner von Teuffel, Christa, From Duccio’s Maestà to Raphael’s Transfiguration: Italian Altarpieces and their Settings, London 2005
- Gardner von Teuffel 2009
- Gardner von Teuffel, Christa, ‘Sassetta’s Franciscan altar piece at Borgo San Sepolcro: precedents and context’, in Sassetta: The Borgo San Sepolcro Altarpiece, ed. Machtelt Israëls, Florence and Leiden, Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies and Primavera Press, 2009, 211–29
- Gilbert 1974
- Gilbert, Creighton, ‘“The egg reopened” again’, Art Bulletin, 1974, 56, 252–8
- Giorgi 2003
- Giorgi, Silvia, in Duccio. Siena fra tradizione bizantina e mondo gotico, eds Alessandro Bagnoli, Roberto Bartalini, Luciano Bellosi and Michel Laclotte, Siena 2003, cat. 2, 54–6
- Giorgi 2008
- Giorgi, Silvia, ‘Il dossale di San Bonifazio in onore della vittoria di Montaperti’, in Le pitture del Duomo di Siena, ed. Mario Lorenzoni, 2008, 36–45
- Giorgi and Moscadelli 2003
- Giorgi, Andrea and Stefano Moscadelli, in Sotto il duomo di Siena. Scoperte archeologiche, architettoniche e figurative, eds Roberto Guerrini and Max Seidel, Siena and Milan 2003, 85–105
- Giorgi and Moscadelli 2005
- Giorgi, Andrea and Stefano Moscadelli, ‘Costruire una cattedrale. L’Opera di Santa Maria di Siena tra XII e XIV secolo’, in Die Kirchen von Siena, eds P. A. Riedl and M. Seidel, Munich 2005, 3
- Giorgi, Moscadelli, Butzek and Loseries 2006
- Giorgi, Andrea, Stefano Moscadelli, Monika Butzek and Wolfgang Loseries, ‘Dokumente’, in Die Kirchen von Siena: Architektur. Der Dom S. Maria Assunta, eds Walter Haas and Dethard von Winterfeld, Munich 2006, 3.1.1.2., 724–838
- Gordon 2002a
- Gordon, Dillian, ‘Thirteenth‐ and fourteenth‐century Perugian double‐sided altar pieces: form and function’, in Italian Panel Painting of the Duecento and Trecento, ed. Victor M. Schmidt, Washington D.C. 2002, 229–49
- Gordon 2003
- Gordon, Dillian, National Gallery Catalogues: The Fifteenth Century Italian Paintings, London 2003, 1
- Gordon 2009
- Gordon, Dillian, ‘Duccio’s adjustment to “The temptation of Christ on the mountain” from his “Maestà”’, Burlington Magazine, 2009, 151, 1270, 19–21
- Gordon 2009b
- Gordon, Dillian, ‘What the friars saw: the evolution of the iconography of the Borgo San Sepolcro altar piece and its message’, in Sassetta: The Borgo San Sepolcro Altarpiece, ed. Machtelt Israëls, Florence and Leiden, Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies and Primavera Press, 2009, 271–83
- Guerrini and Seidel 2003
- Guerrini, Roberto and Max Seidel, eds, Sotto il duomo di Siena. Scoperte archeologiche, architettoniche e figurative, Siena and Milan 2003
- Haas and von Winterfeld 2006
- Haas, Walter and Dethard von Winterfeld, ‘Baugeschichte’, in Die Kirchen von Siena: Architektur. Der Dom S. Maria Assunta, eds Walter Haas and Dethard von Winterfeld, Munich 2006, 3.1.1.1., 393–480
- Hall 1992
- Hall, Marcia, Color and meaning. Practice and theory in Renaissance painting, Cambridge 1992
- Hueck 2007
- Hueck, Irene, ‘Die Entwicklung des gotischen Messkelchs in Italien und seine Darstellungen in der Malerei’, in Zeremoniell und Raum in der frühen italienischen Malerei, Stefan Weppelmann, 2007, 52–9
- Israëls 2006
- Israëls, Machtelt, ‘Altars on the street: the wool guild, the Carmelites and the feast of Corpus Domini in Siena (1356–1456)’, in Beyond the Palio. Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena, eds P. Jackson and F. Nevola, Oxford 2006, 44–64
- Israëls 2008
- Israëls, Machtelt, ‘An angel at Huis Bergh. Clues to the structure and function of Duccio’s Maestà’, in Voyages of discovery in the collections of Huis Bergh, ed. A. de Vries, ’s‐Heerenberg 2008, 122–33
- Israëls 2008a
- Israëls, Machtelt, ‘Al cospetto della città. Sodoma a Porta Pispini e la tradizione pittorica delle porte urbiche di Siena’, in L’Ultimo secolo della repubblica di Siena. Arti, cultura e società, eds M. Ascheri, G. Mazzoni and F. Nevola (Atti del convegno internazionale, Siena, 28–30 September 2003 and 16–18 September 2004), Accademia Senese degli Intronati, Siena 2008, 367–89
- Israëls 2009
- Israëls, Machtelt, ed., Sassetta: The Borgo San Sepolcro Altarpiece, Florence and Leiden, Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies and Primavera Press, 2009
- Kempers 1994
- Kempers, Bram, ‘Icons, altar pieces and civic ritual in Siena Cathedral, 1100–1530’, in City and Spectacle in Medieval Europe, eds B.A. Hanawalt and K.L. Reyerson, Minneapolis and London 1994, 89–136
- Krautheimer 1956
- Krautheimer, Richard, Lorenzo Ghiberti, Princeton, New Jersey 1956 (2nd edn, vols I and II, 1970; reprinted, 1982)
- Leone De Castris 2003
- Leone De Castris, Pierluigi, Simone Martini, Milan 2003
- Levi 1993
- Levi, Donata, ‘Carlo Lasinio, curator, collector and dealer’, Burlington Magazine, 1993, 135, 1079, 133–48
- Levi d’Ancona 1977
- Levi d’Ancona, Mirella, The Garden of the Renaissance: Botanical Symbolism in Italian Painting, Florence 1977
- Lisini 1898
- Lisini, A., ‘Notizie di Duccio pittore e della sua celebre ancona’, Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria, 1898, 5, 20–51
- Lisner 2004
- Lisner, Margrit, ‘La Maestà di Duccio. Cromatismo – iconografia del colore: colore e racconto’, Arte Cristiana, 2004, 92, 821, 79–92 & 822 & 171–80
- Lorenzoni and Guerrini 2003
- Lorenzoni, Mario and Roberto Guerrini, Imago virginis: dall’arte delle origini alla Libreria Piccolomini. Leggere l’arte della Chiesa, Quaderni dell’Opera, 2000, 2001, 2002, Siena 2003
- Lusini 1911
- Lusini, Vittorio, Il Duomo di Siena, Siena 1911, 1
- Maginnis 1977
- Maginnis, Hayden B.J., ‘The literature of Sienese Trecento painting 1945–75’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 1977, 40, 276–309
- Maginnis 2000
- Maginnis, Hayden, in Duccio di Buoninsegna: The Documents and Early Sources, Jane Immler Satkowski, ed. and with an introduction by Hayden B.J. Maginnis, Georgia 2000, 13–24
- Maginnis 2001
- Maginnis, Hayden B.J., The World of the early Sienese painter, with a translation of the Sienese ‘Breve dell’Arte dei Pittori’ by G. Erasmi, Pennsylvania State University, University Park 2001
- Martindale 1988
- Martindale, Andrew, Simone Martini. Complete Edition, Oxford 1988
- Middeldorf Kosegarten 1970
- Middeldorf Kosegarten, Antje, ‘Zur Bedeutung der sieneser Domkuppel’, Münchener Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 1970, 21, 73–98
- Middeldorf Kosegarten 1984
- Middeldorf Kosegarten, Antje, Sienesische Bildhauer am Duomo vecchio. Studien zur Skulptur in Siena 1250–1330, Munich 1984
- Mori 2003
- Mori, Francesco, in Duccio. Siena fra tradizione bizantina e mondo gotico, eds Alessandro Bagnoli, Roberto Bartalini, Luciano Bellosi and Michel Laclotte, Siena 2003, cat. 12, 88–91
- Moskovitz 2005
- Moskovitz, Anita Fiderer, Nicola and Giovanni Pisano. The pulpits, Oostkamp 2005
- Mulvaney 1998
- Mulvaney, B.A., ‘Duccio’s Maestà narrative cycles: A study of meaning’ (PhD thesis), Ann Arbor, University of Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1998
- Neff 1999
- Neff, Amy, ‘Byzantium westernized, Byzantium marginalized: Two icons in the Supplicationes Variae’, Gesta, 1999, 38, 1, 81–102
- Norman 1995
- Norman, Diana, ed., Siena, Florence and Padua: Art, Society and Religion 1280–1400, New Haven and London 1995, vols 1 and 2
- Norman 1999
- Norman, Diana, Siena and the Virgin. Art and Politics in a late medieval City State, New Haven and London 1999
- Padfield et al. 2002
- Padfield, J., D. Saunders, J. Cupitt and R. Atkinson, ‘Improvements in the Acquisition and Processing of X‐ray Images of Paintings’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 2002, 23, 62–75
- Pellegrini 2003
- Pellegrini, Michele, ‘I Documenti’, in Duccio. Alle origini della pittura senese, eds A. Bagnoli, R. Bartalini, L. Bellosi and M. Laclotte (exh. cat. Santa Maria della Scala, Siena – Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, 4 October 2003 – 11 January 2004), Milan 2003, 507–16
- Plesters, Roy and Bomford 1982
- Plesters, Joyce, Ashok Roy and David Bomford, ‘Interpretation of the Magnified Image of Paint Surfaces and Samples in Terms of Condition and Appearance of the Picture’, in Science and Technology in the service of Conservation, eds N.S. Bromelle and G. Thomson (Preprints of the Contributions to the Washington IIC Congress, 3–9 September 1982), International Institute for Conservation, London 1982, 169–76
- Poggi, Cervetto and Villa 1879
- Poggi, V., L. A. Cervetto and G. B. Villa, Catalogo degli Oggetti d’arte antica presentata alla mostra comunale di Colle di Val d’Elsa, 1879
- Pope‐Hennessy 1980
- Pope‐Hennessy, John, ‘A Misfit Master’, New York Review of Books, November 1980, 20, 45–7
- Popham and Pouncey 1950
- Popham, Arthur E. and Philip Pouncey, Italian Drawings in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, London 1950
- Popp 1996
- Popp, Dietmar, Duccio und die Antike. Studien zur Antikenvorstellung und zur Antikenrezeption in der Sieneser Malerei am Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts, Munich 1996
- Pouncey 1946
- Pouncey, Philip, ‘Two Simonesque Drawings’, Burlington Magazine, 1946, 88, 520, 168–72
- Ragionieri 2003
- Ragionieri, Giovanna, in Duccio. Siena fra tradizione bizantina e mondo gotico, eds Alessandro Bagnoli, Roberto Bartalini, Luciano Bellosi and Michel Laclotte, Siena 2003, cat. 32, 208–18
- Ragusa 1971
- Ragusa, Isa, ‘The egg reopened’, Art Bulletin, 1971, 53, 435–43
- Ragusa 1987
- Ragusa, Isa, ‘On Duccio’s cycle of the Infancy of Christ: The Flight and the Return’, Art Bulletin, 1987, 69, 4, 646–7
- Satkowski 2000
- Satkowski, Jane Immler, Duccio di Buoninsegna: The Documents and Early Sources, ed. and with an introduction by Hayden B.J. Maginnis, Georgia 2000
- Saunders et al. 2006
- Saunders, David, Rachel Billinge, John Cupitt, Nick Atkinson and Haida Liang, ‘A New Camera for High‐Resolution Infrared Imaging of Works of Art’, Studies in Conservation, 2006, 51, 277–90
- Schmidt 1999
- Schmidt, Victor M., ‘A Duccesque fragment of the Coronation of the Virgin’, Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux‐Arts, 1999, 90–91, 39–52
- Schmidt 2002
- Schmidt, Victor M., ‘A Duccesque painting representing St John the Baptist bearing Witness in the Museum of Fine Arts’, Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux‐Arts, 2002, 96, 51–66
- Schmidt 2003
- Schmidt, Victor M., ‘Tipologie e funzioni della pittura senese su tavola’, in Duccio. Siena fra tradizione bizantina e mondo gotico, eds Alessandro Bagnoli, Roberto Bartalini, Luciano Bellosi and Michel Laclotte, Siena 2003, 531–69
- Schmidt 2007
- Schmidt, Victor M., ‘Note su alcuni paliotti senesi del Duecento’, La Diana, 2007, 8‐11, 23–9
- Schmidt and Muller 2001
- Schmidt, Victor M. and Norman Muller, ‘Nuove evidenze tecniche sull’ “Annunciazione” di Guido da Siena a Princeton e un’ipotesi di ricostruzione del complesso di appartenenza’, Prospettiva, 2001, 103–4, 110–12
- Schultze 1963
- Schultze, Jürgen, ‘Zur Kunst des “Franziskusmeisters”’, Wallraf‐Richartz Jahrbuch, 1963, 25, 109–50
- Seiler 2002
- Seiler, Peter, ‘Duccio’s Maestà: The function of the scenes from the Life of Christ on the reverse of the Altarpiece: A new hypothesis’, in Italian Panel Painting of the Duecento and Trecento, ed. Victor M. Schmidt, Washington D.C. 2002, 251–77
- Shaw 2006
- Shaw, Christine, ‘Peace‐making rituals in fifteenth‐century Siena’, in Beyond the Palio. Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena, eds P. Jackson and F. Nevola, Oxford 2006, 89–103
- Singelenberg 1958
- Singelenberg, Pieter, ‘The iconography of the Etschmiadzin Diptych and the Healing of the Blind Man at Siloe’, Art Bulletin, 1958, 40, 105–12
- Skaug 1994
- Skaug, Erling, Punch Marks from Giotto to Fra Angelico, Oslo 1994, 1 and 2
- Solberg 1992
- Solberg, Gail E., ‘A reconstruction of Taddeo di Bartolo’s altar‐piece for S. Francesco a Prato, Perugia’, Burlington Magazine, 1992, 134, 1075, 646–56
- Steinhoff 2006
- Steinhoff, Judith B., Sienese painting after the Black Death. Artistic pluralism, politics and the new art market, Cambridge 2006
- Strehlke 2004
- Strehlke, Carl Brandon, Italian Paintings 1250–1450 in the John G. Johnson Collection and the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia 2004
- Struchholz 1995
- Struchholz, Edith, Die Choranlagen und Chorgestühle des Sieneser Domes, Münster and New York 1995
- Stubblebine 1964
- Stubblebine, James H., Guido da Siena, Princeton, New Jersey 1964
- Stubblebine 1969
- Stubblebine, James H., ‘The angel pinnacles on Duccio’s Maestà’, Art Quarterly, 1969, 32, 2, 131–52
- Stubblebine 1973a
- Stubblebine, James H., ‘Duccio and his collaborators on the cathedral Maestà’, Art Bulletin, 1973, 55, 2, 185–204
- Stubblebine 1975
- Stubblebine, James H., ‘Byzantine sources for the iconography of Duccio’s Maestà’, Art Bulletin, 1975, 57, 176–85
- Stubblebine 1977
- Stubblebine, James H., ‘The back predella of Duccio’s Maestà’, in Studies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Painting in Honour of Millard Meiss, eds I. Lavin and J. Plummer, New York 1977, 430–6
- Stubblebine 1979
- Stubblebine, James H., Duccio di Buoninsegna and his School, Princeton, New Jersey 1979, 1 and 2
- Tarr 2000
- Tarr, Roger P., ‘“Ecce Virgo concipiet”: the iconography and context of Duccio’s London Annunciation’, Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2000, 31, 185–213
- Tomei 2003
- Tomei, A., ed., Le Biccherne di Siena. Arte e finanza all’alba dell’economia moderna (exh. cat. Biblioteca reale del Belgio, Brussels, 16 July – 14 September 2003), Rome 2003
- Torriti 1980
- Torriti, Piero, La Pinacoteca Nazionale di Siena. I dipinti dal XII al XV secolo, 2nd edn, Genoa 1980
- Tronzo 1988
- Tronzo, William, ‘Between icon and the monumental decoration of a church: notes on Duccio’s Maestà and the definition of the altar piece’, in Icon, Four Essays, ed. G. Vikan, Washington 1988, 36–47
- Van der Ploeg 1993
- van der Ploeg, Kees, Art, Architecture and Liturgy. Siena Cathedral in the Middle Ages, Groningen 1993
- Van Os 1984
- van Os, Henk W., with a contribution ‘On architectural and liturgical aspects of Siena Cathedral in the Middle Ages’ by Kees van der Ploeg, 1215–1344, 1984 (Sienese Altarpieces 1215–1460. Form, Content, Function, Groningen, 1)
- 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)
- Von Schlosser 1912
- von Schlosser, Julius, Lorenzo Ghibertis Denkwürdigkeiten, I Commentarii, 2 vols, Berlin 1912, 1
- Wagner 1998
- Wagner, Christoph, ‘Metaphern der Blindheit und des Sehens in der Dantezeit. Beobachtungen zur “Heilung des Blindgeborenen” in Duccios “Maestà”’, in Festschrift für Christian Lenz. Von Duccio bis Beckmann, eds F. Billeter, H. Gutbrod and A. Pophanken, Frankfurt am Main 1998, 15–28
- White 1973a
- White, John, ‘Measurement, Design and Carpentry in Duccio’s Maestà’, Art Bulletin, 1973, 55, 334–66 & 547–69
- White 1979
- White, John, Duccio. Tuscan Art and the Medieval Workshop, London 1979
- Wilkins Sullivan 1985
- Wilkins Sullivan, Ruth, ‘The Anointing in Bethany and other affirmations of Christ’s divinity on Duccio’s back predella’, Art Bulletin, 1985, 67, 1, 32–50
- Wilkins Sullivan 1986
- Wilkins Sullivan, Ruth, ‘Some Old Testament themes on the front predella of Duccio’s Maestà’, Art Bulletin, 1986, 68, 4, 597–609
- Wilkins Sullivan 1988
- Wilkins Sullivan, Ruth, ‘Duccio’s Raising of Lazarus reexamined’, Art Bulletin, 1988, 70, 3, 374–87
List of exhibitions cited
- Colle di Val d’Elsa 1879
- Colle di Val d’Elsa, 1879
- London 1989–90
- London, National Gallery, Art in the Making. Italian Painting before 1400, 29 November 1989–28 February 1990
The Organisation and Method of the Catalogue
Sequence
The artists are listed in alphabetical order. Paintings are catalogued in chronological order under the artist’s name. Some artists are identified only as the master of a particular work, such as the Master of the Borgo Crucifix; others are known only through their association with a particular area, such as Pisa, Venice or Umbria.
Attribution
A painting is discussed under the artist’s name where the authorship is not considered to be in doubt. ‘Attributed to’ implies a certain measure of doubt.
Dimensions
Dimensions are given in centimetres; height is preceded by width.
Technical information and method
The paintings listed here, except Segna di Buonaventura’s Crucifix (NG 567), Spinello Aretino’s fresco (NG 1216.1) and Jacopo di Cione’s Crucifixion (NG 1468), have been re‐examined for this catalogue in the conservation studios. The paintings have been remeasured and examined with X‐radiography and infrared reflectography wherever possible.
The X‐radiographs were made using conventional X‐ray sensitive film sheets (30 × 40 cm, Kodak Industrex AA400), which have been scanned to produce 16‐bit mono TIFF digital images and finally assembled using software to produce a mosaic.1 A complete survey of the paintings in infrared was made using a Hamamatsu C2400 vidicon system, equipped with a N2606‐06 vidicon tube, which is sensitive between 500 and 2200 nm (radiation shorter than 900 nm was excluded using a Kodak 87A filter). Where features of interest were identified these were then recorded subsequently, when it became available, with SIRIS or OSIRIS, the Gallery’s digital infrared imaging systems, equipped with InGaAs detectors sensitive between 900 and 1700 nm.2 The paintings were examined with a Wild M650 stereo‐binocular operating microscope at magnifications between 6× and 40×. Photomicrographs were taken using a Zeiss Axiocam HrC mounted on the Wild microscope.
Occasionally references are made to X‐radiographs and infrared images which are not illustrated; this is because once these images are reduced to page size the information they contain is often no longer decipherable.
Technique and condition are discussed together since the condition of a painting is often, among other factors, the result of the techniques employed in its making.
Support
Descriptions of construction and carpentry are based on direct physical examination, infrared images and X‐radiographs. The support is assumed to be poplar unless otherwise stated. Where the wood has been identified positively, this is noted.
Medium
The medium of the paint is assumed to be egg tempera unless otherwise stated. For some of the works, analysis of the binding medium in paint samples has been carried out using Fourier transform infrared microscopy (FTIR) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS), usually during earlier examinations or in conjunction with conservation treatment. The results are described in the individual catalogue entries and, where published, the reference is given. Some further analysis of samples from a few of the paintings has been carried out specifically for this catalogue.
Gilding and tooling
Information on gilding is presented before that on painting, in keeping with the order of execution. Mordant gilding and silvering are included in the discussion on gilding, despite being applied in the later stages, so that all the techniques of metal leaf decoration could be discussed together. The individual punches are described, but the reader is also referred to Erling Skaug’s catalogue published in 1994. The particular gilding technique used by the artists has generally been identified from examination of the surface of the painting with a stereomicroscope. In some cases samples were available from previous examinations and were re‐examined, or occasionally a new sample was taken, particularly where analysis of the metal leaf or investigation of the composition of a mordant was of interest. Where metal leaf has been identified, this has been confirmed with energy dispersive X‐ray analysis in the scanning electron microscope (SEM‐EDX).
Punch mark illustrations
Unfortunately, when printed, some photomicrographs that show depressions in a paint surface appear to the reader reversed. This is particularly disturbing with some images of punch marks in gilding which may seem to show raised pastiglia. This phenomenon is a result of the way the human brain interprets visual signals; expecting a pattern of shadows and highlights to have been caused by raised areas (which would be more usual in normal life), this is the message sent to the reader by the brain.
[page xxiii]Pigments
Descriptions of the pigments for many of the paintings were available from earlier research carried out during the preparation for the 1989 exhibition Art in the Making: Italian Painting before 1400. Information also existed from studies of new acquisitions or from analysis carried out in support of conservation treatment. The paint samples that existed from earlier examinations were re‐examined with optical microscopy, SEM‐EDX and occasionally Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) microscopy. A limited number of new samples were taken to address specific questions that arose during the research for the catalogue. The surface of the paintings was examined under a stereomicroscope wherever possible at magnifications of up to 40×. At this magnification many pigments can be identified with a reasonable degree of reliability, and these examinations greatly extended the information on pigments and pigment mixtures in areas of the paintings that were not sampled, and enabled the observations from samples to be correlated with the appearance of the painting itself.
Comments
As full an account as possible is given with regard to authorship, companion panels – particularly relevant for altar pieces – subject matter, iconography, original location, date, patronage and so on. The compiler has tried to make this information accessible to the lay reader as well as to the art historian. Inevitably there is a certain amount of speculation, but it is made clear where an argument is hypothetical. For ease of reference the comments are given subheadings, but their sequence varies according to the requirements of the argument.
Notes and references
1. X‐radiography and the associated scanning of the plates and processing were carried
out by the photographic departments of the National Gallery. For a full description
of the process see J. Padfield, D. Saunders, J. Cupitt and R. Atkinson, ‘Improvements in the
Acquisition and Processing
acquisition and processing
of X‐ray images of paintings’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 23, 2002, pp. 62–75. (Back to text.)
2. For more details on SIRIS see D. Saunders, R. Billinge, J. Cupitt, N. Atkinson and H. Liang, ‘A new camera for high‐resolution infrared imaging of works of art’, Studies in Conservation, 51, 2006, pp. 277–90. (Back to text.)
About this version
Version 3, generated from files DG_2011__16.xml dated 06/03/2025 and database__16.xml dated 09/03/2025 using stylesheet 16_teiToHtml_externalDb.xsl dated 03/01/2025. Entries for NG564, NG566, NG579.6-NG579.8, NG752, NG1139-NG1140 & NG1330, NG1147, NG1468, NG2927, NG3897, NG5360, NG6572-NG6573 and NG6599 marked for publication; citations for NG6583 altered to include update date.
Cite this entry
- Permalink (this version)
- https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E99-000B-0000-0000
- Permalink (latest version)
- https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E6J-000B-0000-0000
- Chicago style
- Gordon, Dillian. “ Duccio’s Maestà ”. 2011, online version 3, March 9, 2025. https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E99-000B-0000-0000.
- Harvard style
- Gordon, Dillian (2011) Duccio’s Maestà . Online version 3, London: National Gallery, 2025. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E99-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 25 March 2025).
- MHRA style
- Gordon, Dillian, Duccio’s Maestà (National Gallery, 2011; online version 3, 2025) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E99-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 25 March 2025]