Madonna and Child

Attributed to Bonaccorsi Pietro called Perin del Vaga

(Florence 1501 - Rome 1547)

This Madonna and Child has been the focus of a heated debate regarding its attribution. While not all critics accept the name of Perin del Vaga, it is today the most convincing proposal. The panel has formed part of the Borghese Collection since at least 1693, when it was mentioned in the inventory of that year. Over the centuries, the work was painted over on numerous occasions, such that its original appearance was altered. Only in 2008 did a complete restoration operation return it to its pristine state.

Object details

Commentary

The history of the debate over the attribution of this painting has been quite complex and is still not completely resolved. As late as 1959, Paola Della Pergola (pp. 100-101) left the question open, providing only a generic ‘Roman master of Michelangelo’s circle’ in the Borghese catalogue of that year. Before her, Federico Zeri made the oral suggestion of Battista Franco; yet Della Pergola was not convinced. Decades prior, Adolfo Venturi (1893, p. 190) and Roberto Longhi (1928, p. 215) had ascribed the work to Giulio Romano. More recently, critics have continued to propose a variety of names, with Elena Parma Armani (2001, pp. 13-38) opting for a follower of Perin del Vaga (Pietro Bonaccorsi), Nicole Dacos for Perin himself and Paul Johannides for Gianfrancesco Penni (see Herrmann Fiore 2008, p. 48).

For her part, Kristina Herrmann Fiore (2008, pp. 34-72) unhesitatingly upheld the name of Bonaccorsi, noting a connection with a drawing held at the British Museum, which she deemed a preparatory study for the painting. In her opinion, this Madonna and Child is a product of the first period of the artist’s training in Rome under Giovanni da Udine, who – she believed – collaborated in the execution of this panel, painting several meticulously rendered details in the lower portion, including the book, the bird and the fruit basket.

Recently, Caterina Furlan (2020) rejected this hypothesis, as she was not able to detect stylistic correspondences between the work in question and the respective oeuvres of the two painters; yet she did not propose a different attribution.

The painting has formed part of the Borghese Collection since at least 1693, when it was referred to in the inventory of that year as ‘a painting on panel roughly 5 spans high. The Madonna and Child, no. 29, with a gilded frame, by Andrea del Sarto’. That this entry corresponds to our panel is confirmed by the number 29, which is still visible in the lower right-hand corner. The following inventory of 1790 attributed the work to Bronzino, as did the Inventario Fidecommissario of 1833.

The panel is of great interest for several peculiar elements which characterise it, each with a specific symbolic value. To begin with, the basket of fruit would later become the focus of a famous painting by Caravaggio; during the Renaissance, this motif was often incorporated into works of art as a means of evoking meanings associated with different types of fruit, in accordance with the iconography of both ancient and ecclesiastical cultures. Secondly, while birds often appear in representations of the Madonna and Child, here the animal does not correspond to those species traditionally depicted in this type of iconographic representation, in particular the goldfinch. Rather, the bird perched at the bottom of the composition is the rarer bee-eater, recognisable by the colour of its plumage. Yet our current knowledge of the circumstances behind the execution of this work does not allow us to provide an explanation for its presence. Another distinctive element is the Book of Psalms in the Virgin’s right hand. Mary in fact appears to have been interrupted in her reading by her Son, who is about to embrace her. Two sentences of the open pages are legible, traceable to the Old Testament: the first is connected to the coming of the Redeemer, while the second is from the liturgy of the dead. As the two passages do not appear consecutively in the Holy Scriptures, it is evident that the artist made a specific choice, perhaps following the instructions of the patron of the work to include this pair of phrases. Other elements, finally, contribute to creating an image midway between the ideal and the real: in addition to the decorated carpet, the portrayal of the Virgin – with the cabochon tiara that adorns her head, her erect position and the fixity of her gaze – recalls representations of aristocratic women in the Renaissance (see Hermann Fiore 2008).

In 2008, a thorough restoration operation removed the numerous layers of repainting which concealed the work’s original appearance (see Tollo 2008, pp. 77-86).

Pier Ludovico Puddu