Lorenzo Riccardi (“La Sapienza” University, Rome)
Panel painting between the 13th and 14th century in southern Lazio:Two “forgotten” works in Amaseno

Amaseno, a small center in southern Lazio, now in the province of Frosinone, is a treasure chest of medieval gems that have yet to be studied. Among them are two works I would like to introduce, which unfortunately, due to poor conservation, have remained on the periphery of Italian panel painting¹. The first work was preserved in the Collegiate Church of S. Maria Assunta, a Cistercian building consecrated in 1179. The painting was a triptych (fig. 1) in which the Virgin and Child were shown enthroned in the central panel, St. Ambrose on the left panel and St. Nicholas on the right. The second work is now kept in the “Laboratori di restauro” of the “Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica di Palazzo Barberini”, but it originally came from the “Santuario di Santa Maria del Perpetuo Soccorso.” The Santuario is best known as “Auricola”, a thirteenth-century monastery, of uncertain Benedictine origin, that  preserved some Cistercian forms before its reconstruction in 1892. The area of this painting is divided into three parts (fig. 2): in the center there is the enthroned Virgin shown nursing Christ, two female saints on either side, the Annunciation of Mary in the upper left and the Nativity of Christ in the upper right.

The “triptych” of the Collegiate
I used the words “was” and “were” because this precious work was stolen in 1977 and disappeared without a trace. In 2002, the central and right panels were discovered in a farmhouse in the province of Mantova, but the left panel containing St. Ambrose remains missing. The frame that held the three panels together no longer exists. The panels have large edges that remain unpainted and circular holes 8 cm. deep where kingpins were used to hold it up.  It does not appear that the frame was removed during a restoration performed by D. Podio and C. Matteucci in 1959/1960, under the direction of C. Maltese². During the restoration the existing damage was repaired with ocher stucco and the repainting was removed. These repairs can be seen in the restoration of the horse’s belly. Following the discovery of 2002, the panels were partially covered with Japanese tissue to prevent falling pictorial material. However, the panels appear to be in a good state of conservation because the fractures, which affect the surface and the wooden support (the most extensive of which appear in the Virgin’s panel), run along the parts plastered in the restoration of 1959/1960. More damage is seen in various other points of the existing panels, which occurred subsequent to the theft, leaving exposed a mixture of plaster and glue on the canvas, which were used to coat the wood so that it may retain the paint. Both panels display several incisions, especially on the outlines of the figures and clothing; in the latter case they do not often coincide with the painted folds. The gold background is made with a technique called clay bole. The triptych’s measure, before part of it went missing and including the original frame, was 1.12 x 1.93 x 0.09 m. The central chestnut panel measured 1.12 x 0.625 x 0.029 m.; and the right panel made of walnut measured 1.11 x 0.63 x 0.029 m.
Due to its form and dimension, the triptych could be considered a “dossale” or a “paliotto” and could be placed upon or under an altar. However, no other paintings compare to the Italian painting, as all contemporary examples are not structured as three separate panels³. Usually this division is typically made into a unique panel, or eventually divided by painted frames⁴. As M. Boskovits noted, the triptych of Amaseno is a rare occurrence because “forse per la mancanza di autorevoli prototipi, il maestro laziale non segue l’abituale impianto compositivo,” suggesting almost a premonition of later sacred conversations, in regards to the figures’ unusual dynamism (St. Nicholas offering up the book and St Ambrose mounting a horse, which is walking gravely towards the right)⁵.
Although incorrectly hypothesized to have been mounted upon a high alter, the triptych was in fact hung in the aisles of the church. In a Visita apostolica of 1580, before the Tridentine ordering, an altar of Saints Ambrose and Nicholas was mentioned⁶.
The work under examination is very interesting regarding both iconographic and stylistic viewpoints. in the central panel the Virgin is seated stiffly on a richly embellished throne without a back; she is wearing a red tunic with folds of matching tones and a blue maphorion with a golden hem and four stars. A crown made up of three peltas, of which the central is the highest, is on her head. She holds the Child with her left hand and has her right arm stretched out in front of him. Christ is lined up with the Mother, but is turned towards his right. He is wearing a contrasting tunic under a golden cloak. He is holding a book in his left hand and with his right hand he could possibly be blessing St. Ambrose. The left panel displays St. Nicholas of Bari, who is wearing an episcopal dress and accessories (chasuble, stole, mitre, pastoral) and on the right is St. Ambrose who must not be confused with the bishop of Milan. He is a local saint, a roman centurion who was martyred in Ferentino (in the province of Frosinone, not far from Amaseno), and therefore became the patron of the town⁷. The saint is portrayed as a horseman: he is wearing a pale blue tunic below a red cloak, knotted on the right shoulder, and swirling backwards, leading to his boots. In his right hand he grips a spear with two red banners, barely visible in the upper level of the painting. Whereas in his left hand he holds the reins to the horse, who walks gravely towards the right, turning his muzzle downwards. The animal’s harness is carefully designed and the red cloth is decorated with a çintamani design.
The triptych has not earned exhaustive critical feedback, but has always been limited to cursory judgments. Tomassetti briefly mentioned it as a work of the fifteenth century⁸. The first presentation of the triptych was the result of C. Maltese, who presented it in an exhibition catalogue in 1961, where it was revealed after the restoration of 1959/1960. The scholar detected within the work “echi della precedente pittura benedettina della Campania settentrionale,” affinity in the frescoes “della navata del duomo di Anagni” and believes that it was made by «un autore immune da inflessioni derivanti dalla capitale»⁹. More radical is E.B. Garrison’s telegraphic opinion that “is Latian of between 1280 and 1300, under both Florentine and Campanian influence”¹⁰. Recently, M. Mihályi drew attention to St Ambrose’s iconography¹¹; while, G. Leone proposed a date of the panel’s execution in the late quarter of the thirteenth century, considering this work in light of southern Italy’s art which in the 13th c. was exposed to the influences of Norman Sicily, as well as other so-called crusaders¹².
The briefly mentioned critiques have brought to light a composite, perhaps even eclectic, character of this painting. First, as already noted, this is a particular type of “triptych”; then the presence of holy horseman, still remains an unicum in the western panel painting until the end of the 13th century. Furthermore, St. Nicholas shows a canonical iconography (despite the uncommon charitable gesture, he is strongly connected to the dynamic nature of the triptych). The Virgin is also represented in a very particular manner. She is dressed with a traditional chromatic (red-blue, although contrariwise) and modest style robes. She wears a golden crown on her head which is a royal symbol that along with the rich garments, regularly occurs in the representations of the Madonna Regina (Basilissa), according to a Roman pictorial tradition, but is also widespread in Campania and Abruzzo¹³.
All the works that can be related to these regions show the Virgin as having a crown resting directly upon her hair or as having a veil that extends down to her shoulders. Despite having preserved some rare and unusual exceptions of 13th century art¹⁴, the Amaseno iconography seems to be linked to a late, more highly paradigmatic image, as the Madonna incoronata. This image appears in the apse of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome and was created by Jacopo Torriti from 1291 till 1296¹⁵. The Madonna incoronata would not be a revival of the typological crown, but a model that would quickly become a normative and widely popular in the innumerous works representing the Incoronazioni della Vergine¹⁶.
Scholars have discussed the affiliation of St. Ambrose with the art of crusaders or of southern Italy. It is evident that the Ferentino patron is derived from the images of holy horsemen, which were venerated by the military orders of the Holy Land¹⁷. The banner that waves from the spear, sadly without its interior decoration¹⁸, provides evidence of this fact. Other proof is the fact that military saints in the West were generally represented standing with the palm of martyr. In Italy, this particular worship is especially widespread in Puglia, along the Crusaders’ routes, but only surviving in mural paintings¹⁹. However, in this case, it is difficult to assume that the Collegiate panels are a “crusader” work or a work of southern Italy. We must remember that St. Ambrose is not included in the Amaseno triptych in order to pay homage to its patron, St. Lawrence, but to the saint of Ferentino.
It is improbable that in this small center the first iconography of holy horsemen were created, because this iconography was heavily worshiped in another large town. Unfortunately, we do not have any knowledge of other previous portrayals of St. Ambrose, but it is plausible that Amaseno looked to Ferentino for inspiration, but the opposite does not hold true. It is also possible that the holy horseman became elaborated upon during the thirteenth century, emulating a model not far from the mural painting of Puglia but consistent with the icons widespread in the Holy Land²⁰ and perhaps arriving in Ferentino following the crusaders or other incidents of contact with the East²¹. Continuing with the idea of the Crusader, it is possible that they decided to connect the patron with these horsemen who fight for Christianity. In Amaseno, the Ferentino prototype (now lost) was quickly copied as an image of reference for the saint, to whom  they wanted to  pay homage.
From a stylistic point of view, the triptych is the work of a good artist, who can draw on formal solutions of other artistic media, such as the miniature and goldsmithery, as seen in the little palm decorations on the throne and on the cover of St. Nicholas’ book. In fact, these stylistic details seem to imitate tooled leather because of their luminescent quality and ornate refinement. The gems on the throne of the Virgin seem to be set according to the griffes technique, as if it was a golden object.
Scholars have rightly drawn attention to the southern/Sicilian component of the triptych, which is essentially the late Comnenian style that spread from Monreale to the Italian peninsula in the first half of the 13th century²². It is a style that has an important clout in both Rome’s and Lazio’s paintings, from the mosaics of Grottaferrata to the frescoes of Anagni’s crypt. The garments of the Child have rigid geometric folds and his thickset face, marked by a large nose and a red mouth, can be compared with some figures of the Aula Gotica of SS. Quattro Coronati in Rome²³. Another late Comnenian “clue” is the anatomical definition in the Virgin’s hands, which brings to mind another pragmatic work, the great hand of the Pantocrator in the Monreale apse. These elements, however, seem chilled and outdated in regards to the vitality of the works of the first half of thirteenth century; for example, they lack the color freshness of Anagni. The weasel-face of the Virgin, the red robes which are loose-fitting and in matching tones, and evidence of some optic problems, seen especially in the halo of the Child, put this triptych in the second half of the thirteenth century. The Collegiate pulpit bears an inscription of some local artists that shows the completion of this work and the whole building in 1291²⁴. The frescoes on the vaulted ceiling and the lunettes of the church’s presbytery are related to this period. Despite their poor condition, the frescoes are very similar to the panels; above all there is a striking similarity between the triptych and the Virgin of the Presentazione al tempio in the lunette. Although these paintings are not studied, F. Gandolfo compared them with the first layer of Grottaferrata’s frescoes²⁵. In our triptych, however, only some elements appear to be referring to the decorations of the roman monastery. The artist chosen to make the panels was recommended by the commissioner and perhaps even came from Grottaferrata. He used an outdated style for the panels, yet this style, in the wake of late Comnenian art, was common to both southern Italy and the Roman paintings of the thirteenth century.

The Auricola icon
The panel is very interesting for its iconography, but it is in a poor state of conservation and is waiting to be restored. In the late 70s of last century the panel was moved to Rome, where some of the damage and the repainting, which had altered a fair chunk of the panel, were only partially cleared away. This work has many lacunas: in the upper section, you can  see the wooden support; in the lower section, the dark gray stucco, made in a previous intervention remains visible. The first restoration was carried out in 1841; an inscription on the back marks both the date and name of the restorer: «G. Pileri p(i)nse p(roprio) p(ennello) / R(estauravit) A(nno) D(omini) 1841». It is possible that he is Giovanni Pileri, best know for his restorations between Rome and Marche a few years later²⁶. The “commissioner” of this intervention was Paolo Roccasecca, who was financed by Francesco Trojani in his work. The Virgin’s head was retouched, while the garments of the figures and the Madonna of the Annunciation scene, found in upper left, were repainted. Although they no longer exist, it is possible that during this restoration Christ’s left eye and the Virgin’s breast were reconstructed. As a result of the restoration, legitimacy was given to this work, but at the cost of a general distortion of the painted surface. However, any documentation of this restoration, as well as of the one completed in the 60s of the 20th century, during which the pictorial material was  consolidated, is missing. . In the late 70s a restoration was again made on the panel, but it has not yet been completed.
The area of the painting is divided into three parts: in the middle of the panel there is the Virgin enthroned, breast-feeding Christ while almost rocking him. On both sides there are two saints who seem to hold two holy pyxes. Above them, there are two Marian scenes: the Annunciation in the upper left and the Nativity in the upper right. Simple red frames divide the surface of the panel. The measurement of the panel is 1.33 x 1.035 m.
A poor bibliography exists on the Auricola icon. G. Tomassetti introduced it in 1899 as a work of the thirteenth century and focused on the two saints, identified as the «due Marie del Vangelo, che curarono la sepoltura di Gesù»²⁷. This hypothesis is grounded on an inventory of the church’s property of 1731, in which the writer had described the panel as «quadro della Madonna con in braccio il Figlio che sta poppando dalla zinna della gloriosa Madre e con ai piedi due Marie»²⁸. All subsequent scholars have accepted Tomassetti’s opinion²⁹. A date for the painting was also proposed a few times as being in the early fifteenth century, because local tradition says this icon was a gift to Giovanna II, queen of the Kingdom of Naples (1414–1435)³⁰. Recently, G. Leone has confirmed the possibility that the two female saints are two holy Mirofore (Mary of Cleopas and Mary Salome or Mary Magdalene) and that the panel is a work of the first quarter of the fourteenth century, with influences from Puglia and Campania, and contains elements of modern interventions³¹.
The identification of the two anonymous saints is not easy to sort out, because the inventory of the eighteenth century defines them as «due Marie», a term that also refers to the description of other frescoes of our Sanctuary («un dipinto antico nel muro raffigurante Gesù Cristo legato alla colonna e due Marie ai lati»³²). «Maria» may also simply indicate a female and not necessarily one of the women who went to Christ’s tomb. The Virgin with the suckling Christ is instead more particular because it presents unusual features, found not only in her elongated body, which is almost almond-shaped, but also for the iconographic solution: she rocks Christ and she holds him with both hands. The Galaktotrophousa image is more widespread in Lazio and in its neighboring regions where the Mother usually holds the Child in one hand, while offering him her breast with the other  . In pious icons of Lazio, Abruzzo and Southern Italy, Christ is put on her right or left knee, but is never suspended or held in both hands. The Virgin who nurses the Child while rocking him is a rare variant of Galaktotrophusa, best known in several examples of the fourteenth century; however, the Virgin is always painted half-length, in a very tender gesture. In the Amaseno icon the Mother is sitting on throne. Her solemn representation appears to be due to the almond-shape of the Virgin’s body, which prevents her from keeping the Child on her knee. The space was indeed very restricted and there was no other way to portray the breastfeeding.
In view of its poor state of conservation, this panel must be investigated with great care from a stylistic point of view. There are, however, many formal differences: high pictorial quality and some archaic elements that distinguish the female saints, especially the refined faces, with their absent and melancholy expressions. The Virgin is rather solemn, almost “gothic” with the almond-shape of her head and body. Narrative scenes are lively, as in the Nativity of Christ, even if it is possible that there could be further additions.
The icon could be dated back to the early decades of the fourteenth century, not for stylistic reasons which, as we have seen, are shaky, but on the basis of historical observation. In 1315, Count Riccardo da Ceccano had control over the whole valley of Amaseno flume and ordered in his last will and testament that upon his tomb, «in ecclesia sanctae Mariae Castri Sancti Laurentii», was erected «(…) unum altare ubi quotidie divina officia celebrentur pro anima sua (…), quod sit et vocetur altare sanctae Mariae de Auricula ad reverentiam Virginis (…)»³³. The Count chose to be buried in the Amaseno Collegiate, below an altar dedicated to Madonna dell’Auricola, which at that time brought fame to the deceased. It seems plausible that our icon, the emblem of the Sanctuary, already exists and that it is precisely referring to Riccardo’s intervention in favor of this monastery³⁴.

References.

1.   I have discussed a thesis about panel painting of 13th – 14th centuries of Lazio at “Scuola di Specializzazione in Beni Storico-Artistici” of “Sapienza Università di Roma”, academic year 2010–2011 (supervisor: M. Righetti Tosti Croce). I refer to Italian version of this paper for a close examination on the Amaseno works.
2.   Arte nel Frusinate dal secolo XII al XIX, Mostra di opere d’arte restaurate a cura della Soprintendenza alle Gallerie del Lazio (Frosinone, Palazzo della Provincia 1961), a cura di C. Maltese, Roma 1961, p. 24 nr. 13.
3.   The only know exception is the Crevole dossal, now in the “Pinacoteca nazionale” of Siena, in which are painted three events of Christ’s life: E.B. Garrison, Italian Romanesque Panel Painting. An Illustrated Index, Florence 1949, p. 158, nr. 414.
4.   For example, the dossal of San Zenobi in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo of Florence: Garrison, Italian Romanesque Panel Painting cit., p. 141 nr. 363. About this typology, see V.M. Schmidt, Tavole dipinte. Tipologie, destinazioni e funzioni (secoli XII–XIV), in L’arte medievale nel contesto 300–1300. Funzioni, iconografia, tecniche, a cura di P. Piva, Milano 2006, pp. 205–244.
5.   M. Boskovits, Appunti per una storia della tavola d’altare: le origini, in Arte Cristiana 80 (1992), pp. 422–438.
6.   Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Congr. Vescovi e Regolari, Visita Apostolica 98, ff. 211r, 220v.
7.   About this saint, see Ambrogio centurione Patrono di Ferentino. Agiografia, Storia, Arte, Devozione, in Atti delle giornate di studio (Ferentino, 1–2 luglio 1995), Roma 1998, pp. 143–162.
8.   G. Tomassetti, Amaseno, Roma 1899, p. 26.
9.   Arte nel Frusinate dal secolo XII cit., p. 24, nr. 13.
10.   E.B. Garrison, Studies in the History of Medieval Italian Painting, IV, Florence 1960–62, p. 388.
11.   M. Mihályi, Sant’Ambrogio da Ferentino in un’immagine medievale, in Ambrogio centurione cit., pp. 143–162.
12.   G. Leone, Icone nel Lazio: dall’Altomedioevo al Novecento, in print.
13.   See, with previous bibliography, U. Nilgen, Maria Regina – Ein politischer Kultbildtypus?, in Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 19 (1981), pp. 1–33; M.P. Di Dario Guida, Icone di Calabria e altre icone meridionali, Soveria Mannelli 1993, pp. 1-33; V. Lucherini, Un raro tema iconografico nella pittura abruzzese del Duecento : la Madonna regina allattante, in Medioevo: i modelli, Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Parma 27 settembre – 1° ottobre 1999), a cura di A.C. Quintavalle, Milano 2002, pp. 682–687.
14.   See, the enthroned Madonna with Child of S. Maria in Grotta of Rongolise  and the Reginae angelorum of the crypts of S. Maria del Piano at Ausonia and of the cathedral of Anagni.
15.   A. Tomei, Iacobus Torriti pictor: una vicenda figurativa del tardo Duecento romano, Roma 1990, pp. 93–125, tav. 20.
16.   M. Mihályi, I cistercensi a Roma e la decorazione pittorica dell’ala dei monaci nell’Abbazia delle Tre Fontane, in Arte medievale n.s., 5 (1991), 1, pp. 155–189.
17.   See, with previous bibliography, M. Immerzeel, Holy Horsemen and the Crusader Banners. Equestrian Saints in Wall Painting in Libanon and Syria, in Eastern Christian Art 1 (2004), pp. 29–60; M.R. Menna, Cavalieri crociati e cavalieri bizanini, in Medioevo: arte e storia, Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi (Parma, 18–22 settembre 2007), a cura di A.C. Quintavalle, Milano 2008, pp. 355–366.
18.   Cfr. Immerzeel, Holy Horsemen cit. and Menna, Cavalieri crociati cit., pp. 363–364.
19.   M. Milella, Exercitus Dei. Appunti sull’iconografia dei santi militari negli affreschi pugliesi di età medievale, in Studi in onore di Michele di Michele D’Elia. Archeologia, Arte, Restauro e Tutela, Archivistica, a cura di Ch. Gelao, Matera 1996, pp. 140–147.
20.   Cfr. J. Folda, Crusader art in the Holy Land: from the third Crusade to the fall of Acre, 1187–1291, Cambridge 2005, pp. 338–342.
21.   The Cavalieri Gaudenti were based in Ferentino and  fought the heretics (G. Bonasegale, N. Muratore, Il palazzo dei Cavalieri Gaudenti, in Storia della città 15–16 (1980), pp. 145–152). In the same town, Honorius III and Frederick II met in 1223, with the three masters of orders of knighthood, to arrange for a crusade in Holy Land (J.M. Powell, Honorius III and the Leadership of the Crusade, in The Catholic Historical Review 63 (1977), pp. 521–536). In 1278, the bishop of Ferentino, Jacopo, and that of Torino, Gonifredo o Goffredo, were dispatched as ambassadors to Byzantine court of Michael Palaiologos (E. Plebani, Ferentino e la sua diocesi nell’età di mezzo: fatti e problemi, in Archivio della Società Romana di storia patria 122 (1999), pp. 169–234: 216).
22.   Риккарди Л. Италия. Византийское искусство в Южной Италии // Православная энциклопедия. Т. 28. М., 2012. С. 242–249.
23.   For these frescoes, see A. Draghi, Gli affreschi dell’aula gotica nel Monastero dei Santi Quattro Coronati: una storia ritrovata, Milano 2006. About the painting of Rome and Lazio, see G. Matthiae, Pittura romana del Medioevo, con aggiornamento scientifico di M. Andaloro e F. Gandolfo, I–II, Roma 1987–1988.
24.   About the pulpit and the inscription see A. Ludovisi, Il pulpito della chiesa di Santa Maria ad Amaseno: una nuova proposta di lettura, in Arte Medievale n.s., 4 (2005), pp. 109–118 e M. Gianandrea, La scena del sacro: l’arredo liturgico nel basso Lazio tra XI e XIV secolo, Roma 2006, pp. 184–188.
25.   F. Gandolfo, in Matthiae, Pittura medievale romana cit., II, pp. 321–322, fig. 23.
26.   S. Ricci, s.v. Pileri, Giovanni, in A.P. Torresi, Secondo dizionario biografico di pittori restauratori italiani dal 1750 al 1950, Ferrara 2003, pp. 161–162.
27.   Tomassetti, Amaseno cit., pp. 45–48: 46.
28.   Quoted in A. Magni, Auricola: tra storia e leggenda. Un abbazia fiorente ad Amaseno dal silenzio dei secoli al chiasso della modernità, Roma 1991, p. 45.
29.   Zaccheo, Amaseno cit., pp. 186–187, Giannetta, Le chiese di Amaseno cit., p. 115, Magni, Auricola cit., p. 36.
30.   Cfr. Tomassetti, Amaseno cit., pp. 48. Cfr. L. Morosini, in Giannetta, Le chiese di Amaseno cit., p. 115, E. Piacentini, in Santuari d’Italia. Lazio, a cura di S. Boesch Gajano, G. Cracco, G. De Rosa, G. Otranto, A. Vauchez, Roma 2010, p. 122.
31.   Leone, Le icone cit. (in print).
32.   Quoted in Magni, Auricola cit., p. 45.
33.   Cfr. Tomassetti, Amaseno cit., pp. 138–142.
34.   On this Sanctuary see Tomassetti, Amaseno cit., pp. 35-128, in Monasticon Italiae, I, Roma e Lazio, a cura di P. Caraffa, Cesena 1981, p. 118 nr. 13.