Mostra Di Duccio at Siena

8/2/2019 Mostra Di Duccio at Siena

1/8

Duccio di Buoninsegna and His School in the Mostra di Duccio at SienaAuthor(s): Giacomo de NicolaSource: The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 22, No. 117 (Dec., 1912), pp. 138-139+142-143+145-147Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/859182 .

Accessed: 31/05/2011 13:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmplhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/859182?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmplhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmplhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/859182?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl


2/8

Notes on Italian Medalsfrom the same model as theone signed by Tegniza,as will be clear from the illustrationin PLATE1I,Jof the Berlinspecimen.19 If so, two medals are to

be credited to Tegniza or Tegnizzi; he was not agreat artist,certainly,but it is satisfactory to beable to remove two more medals from Armand'ssecond volume to his first.9I1have to thankDr, Menadier or a cast of this piece.DUCCIO DI BUONINSEGNA AND HIS SCHOOL IN THEMOSTRA DI DUCCIO AT SIENABY GIACOMO DE NICOLA*HE firstrequisite for the study of therevivalof Italian paintingwhich origi-nated in Central Italy at the end ofthe I3th century is the knowledge ofDuccio. In this respect his art isnearly as important as Cimabue's and Giotto's,and even more important than Pietro Cavallini's,since that may be said to have remained withoutsuccession, owing to the calamities which befellRome in the i4th century, mainly due to theremoval of the papal court to Avignon. The threeschools, the Roman,the Sienese andthe Florentine,rose independentlyof each other fromthe commonbasis of Italo-Byzantinepainting,but the certaintyof Cimabue'spresence in Rome and of Duccio'sand Ugolino's in Florence, the probability ofGiotto's presence in Siena,1 and the frequentconjunction of their works in Pisa, Naples, Assisiand elsewhere lead us not to regardeach masterseparately,but rather to unite them in one widerrange of vision.The effects of such relations culminate in theproblem of the MadonnaRucellai of Santa MariaNovella in Florence. We are still disputing,although we have been long debating,the claimsof Cimabue,to whom the picture is assigned bytradition, of Duccio, to whom the majority ofmodern critics attribute it, and of some imitatorof Duccio for whom it is claimed by the smallgroup of students to which I belong. So, con-versely, any serious study of Duccio involves anexamination of the whole problem of the originsof Italian painting.Siena has just offered the opportunities forsuch an investigation. The Sienese determinedto celebrate the secentenaryof the completion ofDuccio's principal work, the Maestt, which isreckoned to have been finished on the 9th of June,1311, by gathering round it in the Museo dell'Operaof the Duomo a full series of other worksby Duccio and his school. Private owners andthe Sienese and Florentine country churches con-tributed to the exhibition. It was impossible forthe series to be completed, for who would dare to

remove the Madonna Rucellai from the chapel inSanta MariaNovella, or Segna's ancona from theCollegiata di Castiglion Fiorentino ? And whowould dareeven to suggest the loan of the fragmentof the Maesta"rom the National Gallery? More-over, the experiences of former exhibitions inItaly have quiterightly disinclined the MinistryofPublic Instruction from liberality in grantingpermission for the transference of works of art.The best photographic reproductions, therefore,had to supplythe placeof the numerouspaintingswhich were necessarilyabsent.But the exhibition,even as it stood, hasbroughtto light many paintings hitherto unknown; re-united fragments once parts of a single whole,which had long been scattered in various places;demonstrated that some established attributionsare unfounded,and establishedothers. I proposeto give here an account of the principalresults ofsuch investigations,illustratedwith reproductionsof some pictureswhich have neverbeen publishedbefore.We haveonly one picture attributable o Ducciowith absolute certainty,on the strength of docu-ments and a signature, namely, the Maesth. Asingle painting, therefore, is our sole point ofcomparison for the critical attribution of otherDucciesque works, and this example representsthe master's activity at the period of his maturity,13o8 to 1311. Did he attain to the plenitude ofthe Maesti, hrough degreesof development,as weshould suppose, or did he spring out of the Italo-Byzantine school, full grown ? This is what wedo not know from the evidence of the only docu-ments which we possess ; and this is why we muststrictly exclude from the corpusof the master'sgenuine works all the paintings stylistically atvariancewith the Maesta.By submitting the Madonna Rucellai to thiscriterion, its authorship is negatively decided, inspite of the well-known document and any otherswhich may yet appear; its derivationfrom Ducciocan be demonstrated,but it cannot be by his hand.If we continue to apply analysis with equalseverity, very few certified works of Duccio willremain. Besides the Maesth, I cannot point tomore than three in the exhibition,which means, nthe whole of the Senese. Two of them are in theGalleria di Siena, and the third in the church of

* Translated or the author romthe Italian.1 That is to say, the Parigiotto(byabbreviationGiotto)who,with Buonaventuradi Bartolomeo,values the reverse side ofDuccio's Maesti, may be supposedto be none other than thefamous Giotto (see the document in Milanesi, Doc. Sen. ,.p. 178).138


3/8

LA' CENTRE' ()I TRIPTYCH ; SCHO(IOL OF DUCCIO. (AGALLERIADI) SIENA

I)ICCI() DI IUUONINSEGNA ANDI HIS SCHOOL IN THE M(OSTIA I)T DCCCIII AT SIENA


4/8

(1B) HERE ASCII El)EDTO I)UCCIO. MONTEPU1LCIANO

(C) SCHOOL OF D)UCCI(. AS;CIANt) (I)) BY NICCOLO )1 SEGNA MR, CH.ARLES LOESER'S COLLEC-TION, FLORENCE

I)UCCI(O I) IBOt)NINSEGNA AND HIS SCHOOL IN THE MOSTRX D1 IDCCIO AT SIENAIPLATE I)


5/8

(E) MAIDONNA AND CHIID) WITH SAINTS, POLIYPTYCH SCHOOL()IOF GOLIN. PIEVE OF MONTERONGRIF)OLI

(F) MAI)NNA ANI) CHILD) WITH KNEELIN IDO)(NR;HERE ASCURIEDI) T) UGOLIINO. CO)MPA';NIA DI)1MISERICO)DIA, SAN CASCIANO

(G) MATER MISERICORDIE.; SCHO)IL OF IDUCCIO. PIIEVE)F VENRTINE

)ITUCCI 1)1 IONINSEGNA AND HIS' SCHOOL IN -THE 1STRA )I )UCCIO AT SIINAI LATE III


6/8

Ducciodi BuoninsegnaSanta Maria at Montepulciano. Those in theGalleria areNo. 20, the minute panel, exquisite incolour and expression, The Madonna adored byThreeFranciscans,and No. 47, the great completepolyptych which came from the Ospedale dellaScala. These two paintings are perfectly wellknown, but the Madonna of Montepulciano[PLATE II, B] made its first appearance tostudentsatjthe Exhibition. No one, not exceptingBrogi in his "lInventario",2 has ever pointed itout before even under another name. Its ordinaryposition is over an altar on the gospel side, thefirst as you enter the church. It is covered witha 17th-century anvas,which leaves it partlyvisiblethrough a rectangular aperturein the middle. Itwas perhaps under this treatment,frequentin the17th and I8th centuries, that the painting wasdamaged by having its base reduced by about20 centimetres, and the Virgin's mantle daubedwith sky-blue and her tunic with red." However,the Virgin's face and almost the whole Infantremain in perfect preservation. The proportionsin the group at Montepulciano are, as in theMaesth,a little largerthan life. The action of theMother in both pictures,bending over the Infanton her left knee,as He turns towards the spectator,is analogous, and He holds His Mother'sveil inHis hand at Montepulciano in the identical atti-tude in which He holds His own mantle in theMaesta. The similaritybetween the two Virgins,then, strikes us immediately and spontaneously,and thus helps towards certain reconstructions inthe Maestiz,or the face of the Virgin in that greatpictureis utterlyruinedby clumsy repainting,whileat Montepulcianoit is perfectly unchanged, ivorywhite faintly touched with red on the cheeks, anddelicately degraded by ashen shadows. If, then,we merely apply in imagination the painting ofthe Madonna's face at Montepulciano to herpose in the Maesttiwe at once restore her toDuccio's sole certainmasterpiece n all her noblebeauty.The qualitiesof the newly discoveredpaintingofMontepulcianoare not to be found in the triptych,No. 35 of the Galleria di Siena [PLATE I, A], repre-senting TheMadonnaEnthronedamongAngelsandSaints in the centralpanel,with TheAnnunciationand The Coronationabove it, and three scenesfrom the life of Christ on each of the shutters.Certain iconographic tests, such as the presenceof the Virgin in The Flagellation, the position ofS. John in TheCrucifixion n the group under theright hand of Christ,arrangementsquite foreignto Duccio, who is always most compliant to

tradition; the technique by which the colour isapplied over the gold ground4 to an extent neverpractisedby him; thepresentmentof the dramaticelement in the episodes of the Passion by externalmeans, such as gesture, ratherthan by the expres-sion of intimate feeling; certain relics of archaismdiscarded in his work; certain differences in thetypes-all these diversities convince me that thetriptych, fine and beautiful as it otherwise is,cannot be retainedamong Duccio's own works.5Throughout quite another very large group itis easier to perceive than to explain the distinctionbetween the pupils and the master. I do not,indeed, say that analysis cannot be successfullyapplied to such paintings, for that would be aheresy against the canons of art-criticism,but I domaintain that the differences in form betweenthese and their prototype are often so littleapparent that a first judgment is likely to beformed from the lack in the imitators of thespiritualcontent properto the master-that is tosay, from the synthetic effect produced uponourselves-rather than from the slow processes ofanalysis.The Madonna of Asciano [PLATE II, C] is oneof the best preservedworks of this group, nowthat the darkgreen mantle emphasizedwith gold(as in the Madonna at Montepulciano)has beenrelieved of the coat of sky-blue laid over it later;and it is also one of the most beautiful. Butobserve that,though theVirgin's face corresponds,line for line, with the Saint Agnes's in the Maesth,the clumsy forms and spiritless expression of theInfant betray the inferiority of an imitator. Bythe same master is the Madonna (No. 583) of theGalleria di Siena, in which the Infant is morelively, but the type of the Virgin still furtherremoved from Duccio's. Perhaps the polyptych,No. 28, in the same gallery, is by the same handalso; at any rate, it is a painting of the group verynear Duccio. Into this category,which we maycall Duccio's bottega,return also a Madonna in achurch called La Grotta, near Siena, a paintingwhich we should be ableto appreciatemuch betterif it had not been deteriorated,particularly by acoat of bad copal varnish; and another Madonna,belonging to the ContessaTadini-Buoninsegni inFlorence, very delicately painted and tender infeeling, like the little Stroganov picture.Massarello,Mino, Guarnieri,Giovanni di Duccio-how manynames of painterscontemporarywithDuccio, and no doubt his pupils or imitators, arepreserved in the "Archivio di Stateo" in Siena IAnd no work of theirs has come down to us, or,

sInventario generaledegli oggettid'arte della rovinciadiSiena, Siena, 1897.On the occasion of the Mostra several paintings wereproperlyrestoredto their original state. Thus when the sky-blue of the Madonna'smantle at Montepulcianohad beenremoved, the original dark green, although damaged, re-appeared.

4This technique has caused considerabledamage to thepicture,becausethe colour,not havingbeen applied n temperastrong enough to adhere to the metal, has come off in largequantities.4Weigelt also rejects the attribution o Duccio in his recentbook. Weigelt (Curt. H.), Duccio di Buoninsegna,Leipzig,1911, pp. 194-5.145


7/8

Ducciodi Buoninsegnarather, their work really remains concealed inthose Ducciesque productions, the anonymity ofwhich may be dispelled to-morrow by the re-appearanceof a signatureor a document.Quite distinct personalities of the Ducciesquetype begin to take form in Segna and Ugolino.Segna softens Duccio; it might be said that hisfunction in the progress of Sienese art was toserve as the natural transition from Duccio toSimone Martini. But in softening Duccio's formshe weakens the soul. In his relation to Ducciohe reminds us of Lippo Memmi's relation toSimone Martini; the parallelhasperfectanalogies.Where Segna approaches Duccio nearest,and atthe same time is bestdistinguished from him, is ina largepicturein the cathedralof MassaMarittima,which he finished in 1316. It is painted on bothsides of the panel, the back divided into manyrectangularcompartmentscontaining scenes fromthe life of Christ,and the whole work is a simplifiedcopy of the Maestai. The wretched condition intowhich this precious painting, now undergoingrestoration,had been allowed to fall preventeditsinclusion in the exhibition. Among the little-known work of Segna the exhibition offered aMadonna and Child belonging to Mr. CharlesLoeser in Florence [PLATE II, D]. It is a charm-ing and well-preserved figure, retrieved by theskilful care of the distinguished restorer, SignorCavenaghi,in which the delicacy of the modellingand the tenderness of the expression emphasizethe influence of Memmi more, perhaps, than inany otherof Segna'sworks.Ugolino modifies Duccio's examples in a sensedirectly opposite to Segna's. He lengthens andattenuates the figures, clothes them amply indrapery alling in an abundance of broken folds,and endows them with an energy exceedingDuccio's. This energy he perhapsderivedlargelyfrom Giovanni Pisano, for his type of the beardedman, notably S. Paul, for example, correspondsexactly with Giovanni's as expressedin the statueson the fagade of the Duomo of Siena, restless,tortured,the beard bristling from the full cheeks.In the drapery Ugolino accentuates the naturaltendency to gothicism in the school of Duccio;he has more taste than the rest for undulatingmovement in the edges of the drapery, for multi-plied and twisted folds, and for variation in themotives of the grouping and the arrangement ofthe Virgin's veil. He thus seems in this respectin advance of his times, belonging to the beginningof the I5th rather than of the I4th century. Allthis Ugolino reveals to us plainly by the fragmentsof the only picture by hint for which we havedocumentary evidence, the one which he paintedfor the church of Santa Croce in Florence, of whichpart is now in the Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, part

in the National Gallery, and others in privatecollections.After these fragments, the next most certainexamples of his work yet discoveredare the threepaintings which the Exhibition owed to the Com-pagnia della Misericordiaof San Casciano, Val diPesa, namely, S. Peterand S. Francis, half-length,and a Madonnaenthroned with the Infant and adiminutivedonor praying on his knees at the footof the throne [PLATE III, F]. The S. Peter isidentical with the figure of S. Peter in the SantaCrocepicturewhich is now at Berlin.The S.Francisis of the same dimensions as the S. Peter,70 by40 cm., the same in decorativedetail, by the samehand, and, indeed,a fragmentof the same picture.In the Madonnaalso, althoughwe cannot imaginethat it was the centre of a polyptych of which thetwo saints formed part, we find accentuated allthe characteristicsproperto Ugolino. So I thinkthat the attribution of the three fragmentswhichis made here for the first time7 will be acceptedwithout hesitation. Ugolino thus adds to hisaeuvre aintings in a rare state of preservation. Notone of the last coats is lost; the painting mighthave been finished yesterday, f the colour had notbeen lost here and there in the Madonna,princi-pally through the applicationof crowns and othervotive offerings. As well as being among the bestpreservedof the Ducciesque paintings,thesepanelsare also among the most beautiful. The boldnesswith which the S. Peter confronts the spectator,the poverty personified in S. Francis clad in theample folds of his heavy frock, the mobile graceof the Virgin's veil and the Infant's tunic, andespecially the incisive naturalism in the donor'sportrait," lace the art and technique of Ugolinoon a level with the achievement of the greatesttrecentisti.I find anotherunknown work by Ugolino, in apolyptych, not included in the exhibition, whichstands overthe altar n the chapel of the CastellodiBrolio in Chianti. It came fromthe neighbouringpieve of San Polo, which is under the patronageof the Ricasoli who own the Castello. It wasstill in San Polo when Brogi described it,9andcompared it to the manner of Segna. It is con-structed in the form usual in polyptychs of theperiod. It represents the Madonnaand Child inthe centre, with SS. Peter and Paul on one side,and SS. John the Baptist and the Evangelist onthe other, all half-length under pointed arcading.Above, in the five cusps, are the half-length figuresof God the Father in the act of benediction, and

6De Nicola (Giacomo),Una copiadi Segna di Tura dellaMaestO i Duccio n L'Arte, g912,asc, I, p. 21, etc.

7The Madonnawas called merely"School of Duccio" byMr. MasonPerkinsin the edition of Crowe and Cavalcaselleedited by Hutton; London, Dent, 9gog, Vol. II, p.'22, note 3.8Tlheemaciated face, the aquiline nose and the upturnedchin give the profilea strangeresemblanceto the conventionaltype of Dante, so that the figure is called by the people ofSan Casciano" l Dantino".9OP.cit., p. 179.146


8/8

Ducciodi Buoninsegnaof four angels. Part of the back-ground, thearcading,and the cusps with thepinnaclesbetweenthem have been entirely regilt, but the colour hasnot been touched. For this reason, and becausea counterpartof every figure has now been foundin works certifiedto Ugolino, such as the picturesat San Casciano and Berlin, it is easy to recognizehis authorshipin this Brolio triptych.Contrary, ndeed,to the opinion of Cavalcaselle,10I do not believe that the polyptych, No. 8 of theMuseo di Santa Croce in Florence, is by the handof Ugolino himself. I amconvinced of this,amongother reasons, by a triptych (demonstrably by thesame artist,when we compare the two arid, heavyand ill-formed infants) which was discovered andput together on the occasion of the Exhibition.The centralpanel, TheMadonnaand Child,comesfrom the pieve of Fogliano, near Siena, and thetwo side panels San Galgano and Sant' Ansanofrom the Galleria di Siena, No. 43 and 44. Thetriptych of Fogliano, as we may now call it, isby a follower of Ugolino, although the currentattribution is to Segna.11Ourknowledge of Ugolino is extended by otherpaintings related to him, and particularly by atriptych in San Giovan d'Asso,and the beautifulpolyptych of the pieve of Monterongrifoli [PLATEIII, E]. A picture at Lucignano in Val di Chianaascribed to Segna cannot be referred o one ratherthan another of the known pupils of Duccio. Infact, the facture s clumsy,and theprincipal nterestis concentrated on decorative details,such as thethronein imitation of verdognolo marble with redcornices,covered with a red cloth fringedwithgoldand lined with ermine,or in a secondary figure,theportraitof the devoteewhom an inscription on thesteps to the throne calls "Madonna Mucia moglieche fu di GuerrinoCiantari".In Segna, as we have seen, and also in themaster of the polyptych of Monterongrifoli,a littleof Simone Martini is woven over a Ducciesquefoundation. In other followers of Duccio, andthese are the most numerous, Pietro Lorenzetti issuperimposed instead. The followers of Duccio,encouraged by the growing fortune of these twopupils, began to desertthe master, to clothe theirideas in other forms, and to speak a different

language. But their wings were not strongenoughto detach them entirely from the old ties,andtheyremain aspirantsonly, tending towardsa new stylewhich is always beyond their reach. Such a stateof mind seems common to all that band ofDucceschi which may be said to lie between theso-called master of the pictureof Citta di Castelloand Niccol6 di Segna.The master of Citta di Castello,to whom fiveor six works can now be assigned,is more pefte-tratedwith the spirit of Pietro Lorenzetti. Some-times,as in the pictureat Crevole,he animatesthegroup of the Madonnaand Childwith the dramaticelement which Lorenzettiexpresses, or example,atAssisi. Niccol6 di Segna, on the contrary, is amore external imitator. In a large Crucifixion,nfresco, in the pieve of Santa Colomba, near Siena,he almost copies in certain groups Lorenzetti'sCrucifixion in the church of San Francesco inSiena. But, as Segna's signed Crucifixion n theGalleria shows especially, he substitutes coarsedrawing and colour for Lorenzetti's nterior force.

Between these two extremesa kind of graduatedseries is represented n the Exhibitioni: first,by theauthor of a picturefrom Monte Oliveto Maggiore,who may also have painted the diptych No. 14in Mr.Jarves'scollection at Newhaven; secondly,by the stronglycharacterizedmasterof a Madonnafrom the Galleria di Siena and of the Madonna,No. 565, in the National Gallery attributeduntilrecently to the school of Cimabue; and thirdly, bythe mere journeyman painter of a polyptych atChianciano; as well as by others. Into this seriescomes also a picture [PLATE II, F] in the pieveof Vertine in Chianti,which offers us one of theearliestrepresentationsof the MaterMisericordice.'5Niccol6 di Segna's Crucifixions dated 1345 ;thepolyptychof thepieveof Chiancianomaybe placedat about 1330, by means of a M.adonna'of theCollegiata di Pomaranceat Pisa, which is closelyakin to it, and is dated 1329. But these dates, sofar advanced in the trecento,are only exceptional.The whole Ducciesque production, which musthave been enormous,considering that, even nowafterso much dispersion,more than x5o fragmentsremain, may be said to have been elaborated inSiena within the thirty years between 129o and1320. What a factory of art, then, Siena musthave been in its golden age, and how great musthave been the dominance of Ducciol

10 However, Mr. Langton Douglas has alreadyrefuted thisattribution n his edition of Crowe and Cavalcaselle London,Murray, 9go8,Vol. IIi, p. 24, note3).11See, for example, Crowe and Cavalcaselle,ed. cit.,Vol. III,pp. 26 and 28, note x; andRassegnad'Arte,19o4,p. 145. sSee Perdrizet Paul),La Viergede Misericorde,aris, 90o8.A PORPHYRY STATUE AT RAVENNABY SIR MARTIN CONWAYOST,f notall,theporphyrysedby the ancients came from Egypt.It was not only quarried in thatcountry,but there also wrought intothe form desired. The Egyptiansfrom remote antiquityexcelled in the working ofhard stones. Even in prehistoric days theyfashioned with rudimentary tools the nume-rous vases and bowls which still astonish themodern excavator. Some of these most ancient

'47

Documents

Mostra Di Duccio at Siena