{"id":912,"date":"2011-06-09T10:53:42","date_gmt":"2011-06-09T14:53:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.vassar.edu\/rosso2\/"},"modified":"2015-08-06T13:21:18","modified_gmt":"2015-08-06T17:21:18","slug":"p-24","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/catalogues\/paintings\/p-24\/","title":{"rendered":"P.24 Madonna and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

P.24 Madonna and Child<\/p><\/div>\n

1540<\/p>\n

Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, no. 54.6.<\/p>\n

Oil on poplar panel, 160.7 x 117.5.1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Fig.P.24a<\/a> color
Fig.P.24b<\/a> bw
Fig.P.24c<\/a> detail<\/p>\n

The most extensive account of the condition, conservation, and color of this picture is contained in Kolch, 1983, which should be consulted.2<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 From this article and my own observations the following brief description is given.\u00a0 The painting is unfinished and is in very good condition.\u00a0 As seen from the back the panel is composed of three planks, the center one slightly narrower than the side ones of equal width.\u00a0 From the front a vertical crack about 38 cm from the left edge between the first two planks can be seen to run the entire height of the painting.\u00a0 It has been filled and inpainted.\u00a0 A second crack about 15 cm long between the second and third planks is visible at the bottom about 38 cm from the right edge.\u00a0 A third crack of about the same length is visible at the upper right about 10 cm from the right edge.\u00a0 This crack is approximately in the center of the third plank. Both of these cracks have also been filled and inpainted.\u00a0 There are two small inpainted scratches in Christ\u2019s left foot, and a small repaired crack behind the Virgin\u2019s thigh.\u00a0 A small damaged area in the forehead of the second angel has also been repaired, as well as a small passage on his chest just left of his armpit.\u00a0 There are small paint losses at the edges and at the left of St. John\u2019s right arm which have been repaired.\u00a0 Very simple and in places very light charcoal outlines are visible as well as a few internal lines of an underdrawing.\u00a0 The underdrawing shows a different placement of Christ\u2019s genitals.\u00a0 There is a pentimento<\/em> along the inner side of Christ\u2019s right leg.<\/p>\n

The painting received limited conservation treatment before it was exhibited in Paris in 1972.\u00a0 It was more fully treated between November 1981 and February 10, 1983.<\/p>\n

The ground of the picture is yellow-tan, visible not painted over within the silhouette of the Virgin\u2019s unpainted foot; this ground has been lightly and variably hand rubbed or brushed creating a faint ripple pattern as the background of the picture.\u00a0 The flesh is generally grayish tan which is quite pink in places, as in the Virgin\u2019s fingers and the cheeks and lips of the angels, but especially in the body and even more in the face of St. John.\u00a0 The Christ Child is more tan.\u00a0 All the hair is dark tan.\u00a0 The large wings of the angels are dark blue green above with some white at the upper edge of the right wing; the lower feathers are lavender brown.\u00a0 The tip of a pale gray-pink wing is visible at the right and there may be, according to Kolch, indications of another wing between the heads of the angels.\u00a0 The Virgin\u2019s turban and dress are a very dark green\u2014like that of the angels\u2019 wings\u2014becoming very dark behind her elbow and upper arm and with white highlights on the turban.\u00a0 She wears a dark crimson sash.\u00a0 St. Anne wears a lavender-gray dress, similar in color to that of the angels\u2019 wings, with light wine red sleeves.\u00a0 The mantle over her head is greenish blue over the left side of her head but is blue overpainted with rust behind her head and body.\u00a0 Her skirt is tan; her book dark brown, which Kolch pointed out was originally green.\u00a0 The over-all effect of the color is very subdued, even somber, and it is more consistent tonally than some black and white photographs, with their strong contrasts, make it appear to be.<\/p>\n

PROVENANCE: The information on the provenance of this picture was discussed by Kolch, 1983, and mentioned by Schaefer, 1986, 32.\u00a0 The files of the museum and photographs of the back of the panel have also been studied.<\/p>\n

There are four wax seals on the back of the panel.\u00a0 Two, near the center and at the bottom, are identical, showing the tasseled hat of a cardinal and a shield with a small rosette in the center of a horizontal band above three vertical stripes.\u00a0 A note in the files of the Frick Art Reference Library states that this is the seal of Cardinal Domenico Tusco (1598\u20131620) as it appears in the top left corner of his portrait in Vienna (no. 302), which has been attributed to Leandro Bassano (E. Arslan, I Bassano<\/em>, Milan, 1960, I, 382, as not Bassanesque, and the sitter\u2019s name given as Tuscu).\u00a0 I have not been able to verify this identification.\u00a0 At the far right and slightly above center is the wax seal of a shield surmounted by a plumed helmet and with a coat of arms in an oval showing one or two sunbursts or flowers but otherwise not legible; Kolch thought it \u201cstylistically close to sixteenth century heraldry.\u201d\u00a0 Better impressions of both these seals appear on the back of the St. Michael attributed to Pontormo and Bronzino in the Museo Civico in Turin (R. C. Prato Pisani, in Pontormo a Empoli<\/em>, 1994, 114, 116, no. 23, with Figs., as Bronzino, where the second seal is described as showing \u201cun campo caricato di una pianta di girasoli fioriti di due terzi stelata e fogliata movente da una terrazza.\u201d\u00a0 This picture may also bear the inscription: \u201cGallery Magri 1836,\u201d which Franklin, 1995, 49, thinks indicates that the Rosso picture was in Italy also by this time.)\u00a0 At the upper left is the fourth very broken wax seal with an unclear device containing the letters B<\/em> and C<\/em> (or G<\/em>) and with an inscription around its curved border containing the letters: AN\u2026DI TE\u2026A.<\/em>.\u00a0 Near the center of the panel (above the cardinal\u2019s seal) is written in ink: Collezione \/ \u2026<\/em> (Kolch reads : Ales.<\/em>) Del<\/em> [or Dal<\/em>] Magno<\/em>; and elsewhere, as reported by Kolch (at the bottom?), in graphite: Collezione Ales.dro Del Magno<\/em> with the date: 1854.\u00a0 Kolch also reported that on the front of the panel, in the lower right corner, there was revealed during the cleaning the word: Magno<\/em>.\u00a0 Schaefer, 1986, 32, thought this name other than that of a collector could be that of a dealer.\u00a0 Toward the upper right there is a circular ink stamp with the inscription: UFFICIO \/ ESPORTAZIONE \/ DI \/ OGGETTI D\u2019ARTE \/ ROMA<\/em>, the last probable word very poorly stamped.\u00a0 Kolch pointed out that while this office was established in 1909, stamps were not applied to works of art until 1947.\u00a0 Below this stamp is written in ink a very large: 6<\/em>.\u00a0 The name: Gambi<\/em> is written in ink just above the center of the panel.\u00a0 An illegible inscription in ink appears next to the cardinal\u2019s seal toward the bottom.<\/p>\n

Longhi, 1951, 61, reported that early in this century (prior to 1931) the picture was in a small collection in Rome with an attribution to Michelangelo.\u00a0 Kusenberg, 1931, 127, stated that it was in the Ernst Remak Collection in Berlin, where, according to the museum, it remained until 1937 or 1938, and then, again according to Longhi, in the same collection in Buenos Aires where it still seems to have been in 1951 when Longhi wrote.\u00a0 (It is not clear how the Italian export\/import stamp on the back of the picture is related to this history of the picture but it might suggest that the picture went to Argentina via Italy.)\u00a0 Subsequently, according to the museum, the painting was in the Herbert T. Kalmus Collection in Massachusetts and in Los Angeles.\u00a0 Given to the museum in 1954 by Dr. and Mrs. Kalmus.\u00a0 It was on loan to the Pomona College Art Gallery between November 1963 and October 1964.<\/p>\n

LITERATURE<\/p>\n

\n

Kusenberg, 1931, 127, as Rosso, but only listed with the comment that it was reported to him by Friedrick Antal who dated it a little before the Volterra Deposition<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Kusenberg, 1935, 62, as still in Berlin, Ernst Remak Collection, and as unfinished, and of around 1521.<\/p>\n

Barocchi, 1950, 249, repeats Kusenberg.<\/p>\n

Longhi, 1951, 61\u201362, Pl. 31 (1976, 101\u2013102, Pl. 85), as formerly attributed to Michelangelo; he gives it to Rosso at the time of the Volterra painting.<\/p>\n

Briganti, 1953, 51, mentions Longhi\u2019s attribution.<\/p>\n

W. R. Valentiner, \u201cAn Unfinished Altarpiece by Rosso Fiorentino,\u201d Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Bulletin of Art Division<\/em>, VI, 3, 1954, 3\u20136, as by Rosso, around 1518\u20131519; he identifies the old woman as St. Anne.<\/p>\n

Baldini, in Mostra del Pontormo<\/em>, 1956, 128, no. 160.<\/p>\n

Sanminiatelli, 1956, 241, as datable close to the Villamagna altarpiece of 1521.<\/p>\n

Oertel, 1956, 217, Fig. 2, about the same time as Villamagna picture.<\/p>\n

Shearman, 1957, I, 223, 230, II, 220, no. 28, 229, n. 69, as associable with the Eliezer<\/em> in Pisa, and as derived from Raphael\u2019s Madonna dell\u2019Impannata<\/em>.\u00a0 He also believes he sees two color notes on the panel, Ross[o] on \u201cSt. Elizabeth\u2019s\u201d muted rose-red sleeve, the o<\/em> being hidden beneath the opaque contour of the Child\u2019s shoulder, and Grigio<\/em> on her faintly bluish gray cap, near the vertical crack in the panel.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Barocchi, 1958, 236, as near to the time of, but before, the Volterra Deposition<\/em>.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, L\u2019Oeil<\/em>, 72, Dec. 1960, 58, as done in the French period.\u00a0 She speaks of it as Rosso\u2019s meditation on Leonardo\u2019s St. Anne<\/em> and Sarto\u2019s Holy Family<\/em>, and relates it to Rosso\u2019s Religious Allegory<\/em> etched by Fantuzzi, to the Loss of Perpetual Youth<\/em> in the Gallery of Francis I, to the Judith<\/em> engraved by Boyvin, and to the Louvre Piet\u00e0<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Lavin, 1961, 324\u2013326, relates the iconography of the picture to Leonardo\u2019s compositions of the Virgin and St. Anne<\/em>, with their reference to the Immaculate Conception in the figures of St. Anne and to Baptism in the figure of St. John.\u00a0 She sees the pose of Rosso\u2019s St. Anne as related to Leonardo\u2019s in his Louvre picture.\u00a0 Recognizing this iconography also in Rosso\u2019s painting, she sees the St. Anne as also referring to the Prophetess Anna, and St. John as indicating also the New Adam.\u00a0 Quoting from the fourteenth century Vita di Giovanni Battista,<\/em> Lavin recognizes St. John as experiencing \u201cthe full burden of being Christ\u2019s precursor in death, as well as in life.\u201d \u00a0She further suggests that the angels may be Uriel and Raphael.<\/p>\n

Briganti, 1961, 1962, Pl. 15, implying an Italian date.<\/p>\n

Berenson, 1963, 195, Pl. 1462, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Carroll, 1964 (1976), I, Bk. I, 263\u2013265, Bk. II, 164\u2013167, P. 26, II, Bk. III, Fig. 137, as around 1539\u20131540.<\/p>\n

Borea, 1965, as about the time of the S. Maria Nuova altarpiece or shortly thereafter.<\/p>\n

Hauser, 1965, II, Pl. 59.<\/p>\n

Shearman, 1965, I, 36f., n. 2, 167, II, 228, as done around 1520, and as a variant of Sarto\u2019s Holy Family<\/em> in the Louvre, no. 1515; he identifies the old woman as St. Elizabeth.<\/p>\n

Monneir, in Seizi\u00e8me Si\u00e8cle\u2026dessins du Louvre<\/em>, 1965, 62, under no. 137, thought the old woman resembled the one in Rosso\u2019s Vertumnus and Pomona<\/em>\u00a0[D.46<\/a>].<\/p>\n

Freedberg, 1966, 583, Pl. 77, as done around 1532.<\/p>\n

Shearman, 1966, 169, n. 10, as 1521\u20131522; he mentions color notes on the panel.<\/p>\n

Carroll, 1966, 179\u2013180, as done in the French period, with the figure of the Virgin related to that in Raphael\u2019s Holy Family of Francis I<\/em> in the Louvre, and the St. John to one of the figures in Sarto\u2019s Caritas<\/em>, also in the Louvre.<\/p>\n

Clark, 1967, 18, Pl. XII, discusses the picture just before the Volterra Deposition<\/em> and sees it as \u201ca half-crazy caricature of an Andea del Sarto.\u201d<\/p>\n

Christopher Lloyd, \u201cDrawings Attributable to Niccol\u00f2 Tribolo,\u201d Master Drawings<\/em>, VI, 3, 1968, 243\u2013245.<\/p>\n

Wolfgang Demmel, \u201cRosso Fiorentino\u2019s Holy Family<\/em>\u201d (unpublished paper), Los Angeles, University of California, 1969, as done in France between 1537 and 1540.\u00a0 His paper explores the picture as \u201ca religious conceit that can be tied with maniera<\/em>\u201d and one that \u201crequires Rosso\u2019s entire career to explain its stylistic and thematic innovations.\u201d<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, Revue de l\u2019Art<\/em>, 1969, 105, as from the French period and related to Fantuzzi\u2019s Holy Family<\/em> (Zerner 74) after Rosso\u2019s design.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, 1969, 43, 139, n. 32, suggests that it may have been done in Rosso\u2019s French period.<\/p>\n

Freedberg, 1971, 485, n. 37, as done in the French period and parodies Sarto\u2019s picture in the Louvre, no. 1515.<\/p>\n

Fredericksen and Zeri, 1972, 179, 592.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, in EdF<\/em>, 1972, 178, no. 201, 179, Fig., as done in France.<\/p>\n

Miles, 1973, 32, states that the arguments for a French date, \u201cif not conclusive, are nonetheless persuasive.\u201d<\/p>\n

Passavant, 1973, 98, argues against a French date for the picture.<\/p>\n

Dumont, 1973, 341, as close to the Volterra Deposition<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Raggio, 1974, 74, states that the influence of Pontormo argues against a French date for the picture.<\/p>\n

Laskin, 1974, 256, as datable in the early 1520s, and clearly related to Sarto\u2019s Louvre Holy Family<\/em>, done around 1515, that Rosso could have known in Florence.<\/p>\n

Carroll, 1975, 22, 24, Fig. 9, 25, as done in France and Rosso\u2019s latest work, possibly being executed at the time he died.<\/p>\n

Carroll, 1978, 24, Fig. 2, 25, 34 42, 46, n. 2, 48, n. 42, as 1538\u20131540.<\/p>\n

Darragon, 1983, 26, as dated at widely separated times.<\/p>\n

Kolch, 1983, on its conservation.<\/p>\n

Fredericksen, 1984, 331, n. 1, as probably painted about the same time as the Volterra Deposition<\/em>.<\/p>\n

L\u00e9v\u00eaque, 1984, 176, 178, Color Pl.1 as Rosso, and by implication done in France, the old woman identified as St. Anne.<\/p>\n

Wilmes, 1985, 111\u2013116, 124, 132, 174, Fig. 15, as \u201cHl. Anna Selbdritt,<\/em>\u201d unfinished, and done around time of Volterra and Villamagna pictures, its theme going back to Sarto\u2019s handling of same subject.<\/p>\n

Schaefer, 1986, 32\u201333, with Color Plate, as by Rosso, and as probably painted before 1523; he identified the old woman as St. Elizabeth.<\/p>\n

Franklin, 1987, 658, n. 54, as unfinished.<\/p>\n

Carroll, 1987, 32, as late in French period.<\/p>\n

Davis, 1988, 201, Fig. 86a, as an Allegory of Salvation<\/em>, and dating around 1521.<\/p>\n

Hamburgh, 1988, 597\u2013599, Fig. 6, recognized the redemptive connotation of the picture.<\/p>\n

Zafran, 1988, 52, under no. 17, as Rosso and done around 1521.<\/p>\n

A. Giovanetti, in Pittura, Cinquecento<\/em>, 1988, II, 826, suggested that the unfinished state of the picture might indicate that Rosso was working on it when he died.<\/p>\n

Rosand, 1988, 32, as late and unfinished.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, 1990, 165, n. 2, as very possibly of the French period.<\/p>\n

Ciardi and Mugnaini, 1991, 17, 18, 56\u201357, no. 6, with Color Pl. 59, 62, as related to Raphael\u2019s Alba Madonna<\/em> and Madonna del Cardellino<\/em> with the figure of St. John similar to that at the lower left of Rosso\u2019s Rebecca and Eliezer<\/em>\u00a0[P.15<\/a>]; hence the implication of a date before the Moses picture [P.14<\/a>]\u00a0and even before the Volterra paintings of 1521 [P.9<\/a> and P.10<\/a>]).<\/p>\n

Joukovsky, 1992, 37, n. 1, 181, n. 1, as French, the old woman as in the Lost of Perpetual Youth<\/em> in the Gallery of Francis I, the picture itself related to the evolution of Rosso\u2019s religious sensibility as remarked by Carroll.<\/p>\n

Pinelli, 1993, Fig. 10, as Rosso, c. 1520.<\/p>\n

Marchetti Letta, 1994, 29, fig. 34, 30\u201331, discussed in the context of the S. Maria Nuova Sltarpiece and Rosso\u2019s Macabre Allegory<\/em>\u00a0(Disputation of the Angel of Death and the Devil<\/em>) drawing of 1517 in the Uffizi [D.1<\/a>].<\/p>\n

Mugnaini, 1994, 108, notes the importance of the glances among the figures.<\/p>\n

Ciardi, 1994, 36, 39, 50, 51\u201352, Fig., 68, 71, 72, relates the angels to those above Donatello\u2019s Cavalcanti Annunciation<\/em>, and sees an expressionistic remaking of Raphaelesque examples such as the Alba Madonna<\/em> and the Madonna del Cardellino<\/em>, but also a drastic restructuring of form possibly related to Michelangelo\u2019s Taddei Tondo<\/em>; notes similarities to a drawing by Berruguette in the Uffizi (9124 F) that is derived from Donatello\u2019s Madonna<\/em> in Vienna.<\/p>\n

Franklin, 1994, 46, 73, 76\u201380, 82\u201383, 153, 154, Pl. 35, Color Pl. 55, as unfinished and done between 1518 and 1520, its main source Sarto\u2019s Holy Family<\/em> in the Louvre and its apparently autograph variant in Munich; he recognizes its relative lack of refinement compared to the Louvre Piet\u00e0<\/em> and sees it as more coherent than the Washing of Christ<\/em> (Allegory on the Birth of Christ<\/em>) print by Master I.\u2640<\/a>.V.\u00a0[E.100<\/a>].<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Although Rosso\u2019s authorship of this picture has never been questioned, its date has not been generally agreed upon.\u00a0 For those who believe it was done in Italy it is seen as closest in style to Rosso\u2019s pictures of 1521, especially the Deposition<\/em> in Volterra.\u00a0 This may be partly due to the fact that the Los Angeles painting in unfinished.\u00a0 Passavant questioned what can be meant by its being \u201cunvollendet.\u201d\u00a0 To support his questioning he brought up Vasari\u2019s reference to \u201cuna bozza\u201d of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist<\/em>, a lost Roman picture by Rosso that was in a Roman church (L.19<\/a>), and which, because it was there must have been considered finished even though Vasari termed it \u201ca sketch.\u201d\u00a0 In this context one might also bring up Vasari\u2019s remark that the S. Maria Nuova altarpiece of 1518 was \u201cabbozata<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 Pasasavant believed the Los Angeles picture is not in good condition.\u00a0 This, however, is certainly not true.\u00a0 The picture shows little evidence of abrasion or restoration; its surface still appears fresh and fluid, and its free brushwork looks quite as Rosso must have left it.\u00a0 This being the case the picture needs to be considered unfinished and not instead as showing a kind of completeness that Rosso intended.\u00a0 The foot of the Virgin is entirely unpainted; it is merely a silhouette of the tan ground of the panel.\u00a0 The figure of St. John is in places hardly worked up at all.\u00a0 And the wings of the angels are quickly set down and would certainly have received some degree of finish if only that of the cherubs\u2019 wings in the altarpiece of 1518.\u00a0 Sketchy as that altarpiece is it has everywhere a final working of its surface that the Los Angeles picture lacks.\u00a0 The Los Angeles picture even lacks the degree of finish of Rosso\u2019s small St. John the Baptist<\/em> of around 1521\u20131522 in Florence (Fig.P.11a<\/a>) and of his Holy Family<\/em> in Baltimore (Fig.P.7a<\/a>), both of which are very loosely painted.\u00a0 More to the point, however, is a comparison with the Volterra Deposition,<\/em> which nowhere gives any evidence of being unfinished, although there is a history of thinking of it as not completed.\u00a0 Thinly painted as it is, its execution entirely fulfills and enlarges upon its drawing.\u00a0 In the Los Angeles picture whole areas of drapery, body, limbs, hands and feet are still undefined, both in terms of drawing and painting, and this is quite unlike any part of the Volterra picture.\u00a0 Such a detail as the extended right hand of one of the angels was never meant to remain as it is, without any real definition of volume or form.\u00a0 What is visible in the Los Angeles picture is an underpainting that would have received a more detailed finished surface.<\/p>\n

Compositionally the Los Angeles painting is not closely related to the Deposition<\/em> of 1521.\u00a0 There the figures are spread out across the plane of the panel with very little overlapping.\u00a0 Although set also within a limited space, the figures in the Los Angeles picture are interrelated within that space in a manner that does not occur in Rosso\u2019s art before his stay in Rome.\u00a0 More particularly, the arrangement of the figures recalls Rosso\u2019s study of 1528 (D.29<\/a>) for the Christ in Glory<\/em> and the Allegory of the Immaculate Conception<\/em> that was designed in Arezzo in 1528\u20131529 (D.31<\/a>).\u00a0 But even more precisely the turning and joining of the forms resemble the disposition of forms in the Piet\u00e0<\/em> in the Louvre (Fig.P.23a<\/a>).\u00a0 There, too, the figures fill the rectangle and limited space of the composition in a comparable manner, and in a way that is quite unlike the design of any other painting by Rosso except the Los Angeles picture.\u00a0 The careful positioning of the Magdalen\u2019s right arm and hand in relation to Christ\u2019s feet in the Piet\u00e0<\/em> is quite like that of the arrangement of the legs and feet at the bottom of the Los Angeles painting.\u00a0 Raggio finds the picture Pontormesque, but except for the swelling forms of the young bodies in the painting, none of the features look particularly dependent on Pontormo.\u00a0 The figural vocabulary of the Los Angeles picture goes back to the Sansepolcro and Citt\u00e0 di Castello altarpieces.\u00a0 The Virgin\u2019s full-cheeked face resembles the face in the lower left corner of the former and the face in the upper right corner of the latter.\u00a0 The right angel\u2019s face, with its widely spaced eyes, shadowed near the nose, and its generally squarish features, is most like that of the Virgin in the Louvre Piet\u00e0<\/em>, and very much like that of Adonis in the Death of Adonis<\/em> in the Gallery of Francis I (Fig.P.22, III S a<\/a>). \u00a0The lithe, tight and stretched body of St. John is like Christ\u2019s in the Louvre picture.<\/p>\n

In its color the Los Angeles picture is unlike the S. Maria Nuova Altarpiece and the Volterra Deposition<\/em>.\u00a0 Nowhere in the Los Angeles painting does the color obtain the brightness and clarity of passages in those early pictures.\u00a0 The white ground of the Deposition<\/em> gives a particular brilliance to its colors as it does also to those in the Villamagna altarpiece (Fig.P.10a<\/a>).\u00a0 The latter picture may be more monochromatic but it has a startling bright climax in the red worn by the Christ Child.\u00a0 The Los Angeles picture is painted on a yellow-tan ground.\u00a0 The general tonality of the picture executed upon that ground is sombre; the colors are dark green, wine red, gray-lavender, and tan.\u00a0 When finished the picture could never have become brighter, but in all likelihood would have become even darker. Although it may never have attained the darkness of the Louvre Piet\u00e0<\/em>, it is, in its tonality, more like that painting than any other work by Rosso.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin has pointed out the resemblance of the picture to the Allegory on the Birth of Christ<\/em>, etched by Fantuzzi (E.81<\/a>) after a drawing by Rosso (D.72<\/a>) that seems to have been executed during the time that Rosso was making his final designs for the Gallery of Francis I.\u00a0 The figure types are similar, but so, too, is, the character of their iconography with its ambivalent meanings.\u00a0 This is a kind of iconography that appears in such late works as Rosso\u2019s Three Fates, Nude<\/em>, engraved by Milan (E.105<\/a>), his Empedocles-St. Roch<\/em> (D.80<\/a>), and his Judith and Holofernes<\/em> (D.84<\/a>), to all of which the Los Angeles picture is also stylistically related.\u00a0 The heads of the two women in this last drawing are virtually identical to those of St. Anne and the Virgin in the Los Angeles picture, as is also the dramatic confrontation of the two figures in both works.\u00a0 Furthermore, the painting is stylistically very similar to Rosso\u2019s very late Annunciation<\/em> drawing, known from a copy in D\u00fcsseldorf (D.83<\/a>).\u00a0 Franklin finds the Los Angeles picture more coherent than Fantuzzi\u2019s etching, but this may have to do with the monochrome of the print and the greater complexity of its subject which require closer reading.\u00a0 The Los Angeles picture was also probably done later.<\/p>\n

It has been observed by both Shearman, Freedberg, Kolch, and Franklin that Rosso\u2019s picture is related to Sarto\u2019s Madonna and Child, St. Elizabeth, the Infant St. John, and Two Angels<\/em>, in the Louvre (no. 1515; Franklin also mentions the variant in Munich).\u00a0 Rosso has borrowed from it the pose of his Christ Child as well as the function of the two angels in the background.\u00a0 Iconographically the two paintings are also partially similar with St. John indicating the Child\u2019s future as the latter clings to the Virgin, while the two angels react to the implications of the Baptist\u2019s meaning.\u00a0 Sarto\u2019s picture was executed in Florence around 1516 and appears to have been sent immediately to Francis I.4<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Rosso would certainly have known the pictures in Francis I\u2019s collection.\u00a0 The pose of the Virgin in Rosso\u2019s painting suggests a derivation from the same figure in Raphael\u2019s Madonna of Francis I<\/em>, in the Louvre, that he also would have known in France.\u00a0 Furthermore, it is possible that the placement of the sleeping St. John in the lower left corner of the painting is dependent upon the child sleeping in the same corner in Sarto\u2019s Caritas<\/em>, also in the Louvre and also owned by Francis I.\u00a0 These correspondences indicate that Rosso\u2019s picture could only have been invented in France.5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Within Rosso\u2019s own oeuvre<\/em> the picture is most identifiable with those works that can be dated at the very end of his life, especially the Annunciation<\/em> in D\u00fcsseldorf and the Judith and Holofernes<\/em> in Los Angeles.\u00a0 The character of their inventions, their large figures, and their broadly and clearly composed compositions seem to belong to a moment slightly later than the energetic and complex Martyrdom<\/em> drawing at Smith College (D.70<\/a>) and the Allegory on the Birth of Christ<\/em> (D.72<\/a>) etched by Fantuzzi. It is also slightly less complex than the Louvre Piet\u00e0<\/em> done very likely around 1538.\u00a0 The iconography of the Los Angeles picture that includes St. John the Baptist after whom Rosso was named suggests that he may have painted it for himself.\u00a0 Its unfinished condition could indicate that he was working on it at the time of his death\u00a0in 1540.6<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

COPY: Vienna, Dorotheum, auction, April 13, 2011, as attributed to Rosso Fiorentino (Fig.P.24, Copy<\/a>). Panel, 65.5 x 43.5. Fairly accurate monochrome copy of the composition but with the expressions of all of the heads muted. The right leg of St. Elizabeth is emphasized while in the Los Angeles painting it is hidden by the drapery that falls over it. There is more space above the heads of the angels.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>1<\/sup>From Kolch, 1983, 74.<\/p>\n

<\/a>2<\/sup> The remarks of Franklin (1994, 79, 278, n. 82), are also based on those made by Scott Schaefer in an unpublished talk, \u201cA technical examination of Rosso\u2019s altarpiece in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art,\u201d Rosso conference, London, 2 December 1988.<\/p>\n

<\/a>3<\/sup> These two words could not be seen by Burton Fredericksen (as stated in a letter of 13 March 1970 in the museum\u2019s file).\u00a0 A manuscript catalogue entry at the museum states concerning these sightings: \u201cThe former is a bit of raised color, and the latter consists of two scratches. Neither can be construed as a word.\u201d\u00a0 I have not been able to see these words either, nor are they mentioned by Kolch, 1983.\u00a0 Franklin, 1994, 278, n. 82, also thought Shearman was mistaken.<\/p>\n

<\/a>4<\/sup> Freedberg, 1963, II, 59\u201364, as (1515\u2013) 1516, and as highly probable that it is the \u201cNostra Donna bellissima\u201d that Vasari says was sent to France.\u00a0 Shearman, 1965, II, 227\u2013228, as about 1515, and possibly the picture sent to Francis I, but not provable. Cox-Rearick, 1972, 26, no.27F, as the picture that was sent to Francis I.\u00a0 B\u00e9guin, Paragone<\/em>, 1989, 4, as 1515\u20131516, and very likely the picture that was sent to France.<\/p>\n

<\/a>5<\/sup> On a similar relationship of Sarto\u2019s Charity<\/em> in the Louvre and pictures in Francis I\u2019s collection, see B\u00e9guin, Paragone<\/em>, 1989, 15.<\/p>\n

<\/a>6<\/sup> Kolch, 1983, 74, stated that the poplar support of the painting lends credibility to an early dating, \u201cbut our knowledge of the transport of artists\u2019 materials is still too scanty to offer this as definite proof.\u201d\u00a0 Franklin, 1994, 76, also thought the poplar support gives evidence of a date in Rosso\u2019s Italian years.\u00a0 Until the provenance provided by the seals and inscriptions is fully understood it cannot be ascertained how early the picture can be shown to have been in Italy.\u00a0 But unless this Italian provenance can be taken back to the time of Rosso\u2019s death in 1540, or very near to it, it cannot prove that the picture was painted in Italy.\u00a0 Unfinished as it is the picture probably never had an original site where it was hung, such as an altar is a church or chapel.\u00a0 Given the number of Italians in France in the sixteenth century, the painting, if executed in France, could have made its way to Italy quite early.\u00a0 One need only recall the return of the Moses<\/em> (P.14<\/a>) from France between 1568 and 1587.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1540 Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, no. 54.6. Oil on poplar panel, 160.7 x 117.5.1 Fig.P.24a color Fig.P.24b bw Fig.P.24c detail The most extensive account of the condition, conservation, and color of this picture is contained in Kolch, 1983, which should be consulted.2\u00a0 From this article and my own observations the following […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"parent":814,"menu_order":24,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-912","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=912"}],"version-history":[{"count":40,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/912\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11551,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/912\/revisions\/11551"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/814"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}