Catalogue entry
Duccio di Buoninsegna active 1278; died 1319
NG 1139
The Annunciation
, 2011
Extracted from:
Dillian Gordon, The Italian Paintings Before 1400 (London: National Gallery Company and Yale University Press, 2011).
© The National Gallery, London
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.)
List of references cited
- 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, 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
- 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
- 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 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
- 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
- Eclercy 2004
- Eclercy, Bastian, Suis manibus? Studien zur Beteiligung von Mitarbeitern am Entwurfsprozess von Duccio’s Maestà, Munich 2004
- Gordon 2003
- Gordon, Dillian, National Gallery Catalogues: The Fifteenth Century Italian Paintings, London 2003, 1
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Skaug 1994
- Skaug, Erling, Punch Marks from Giotto to Fra Angelico, Oslo 1994, 1 and 2
- Strehlke 2004
- Strehlke, Carl Brandon, Italian Paintings 1250–1450 in the John G. Johnson Collection and the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia 2004
- 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
- White 1973a
- White, John, ‘Measurement, Design and Carpentry in Duccio’s Maestà’, Art Bulletin, 1973, 55, 334–66 & 547–69
- 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
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/0EB3-000B-0000-0000
- Permalink (latest version)
- https://data.ng.ac.uk/0E6K-000B-0000-0000
- Chicago style
- Gordon, Dillian. “NG 1139, The Annunciation”. 2011, online version 3, March 9, 2025. https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EB3-000B-0000-0000.
- Harvard style
- Gordon, Dillian (2011) NG 1139, The Annunciation. Online version 3, London: National Gallery, 2025. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EB3-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 29 March 2025).
- MHRA style
- Gordon, Dillian, NG 1139, The Annunciation (National Gallery, 2011; online version 3, 2025) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EB3-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 29 March 2025]