1. Religion, Artists and Commisioners 1. Artistic Imagination Versus Religious Function Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Annunciation at Montesiepi ‘Victor M. Schmidt ‘The prime task of medieval painters was to visualize the sacred stories. From the early Middle Ages onwards they developed a pictorial language that suited the purpose well. The actions were completely centered on the protagonists. Frontal attitudes or postures parallel to the picture plane, glances, and a few ges- tures conveyed the meaning of the scenes. Landscape and ar- chitectural elements were added as simple backdrops when their presence was called for by the story. But all this became increasingly complicated during the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance when artists took pride in giving their figures a more lively expression by rendering them in varied movements. Their poses created a sense of space, which in itself became ar- ticulated by landscape and architectural settings. It meant that artists needed to rethink the content and meaning of the stories they were required to visualize. They had to call on their im- agination in a different way. ‘The effect of the new style of rendering the sacred stories was that the spectator could relate them to his own daily environ- ment. However, such a mental operation was not enacted in front of pictures only. As Michael Baxandall, in his well-known study of painting and experience in quattrocento Italy, has ar- gued, the average spectator was used to visualizing these stories for himself, or at least such visualizations would have been of- fered to him in devotional writing and sermons. Particularly in- teresting in this context is Baxandall’s lengthy quotation from a sermon on the Annunciation by Fra Roberto Caracciolo (c. 1425-1495). After distinguishing three mysteries of the Annun- ciation, the friar goes on to explain that the third mystery, that of the angelic salutation, comprises five successive spiritual and mental states of the Virgin. Analyzing the account given in the Gospel of Luke (I: 26-38), he expounds these states with much circumstantial detail. These mental states can be matched with 23'.Raligon, Arts and Commissioners the attitudes in which contemporary painters posed the Virgin (and the angel Gabriel) in images of the Annunciation.’ Il- luminating though such parallels are, it seems justified to sup- pose that they were not typical of the Quattrocento only, but actually existed earlier. To stay with the example of the Annun- ciation, Henk van Os showed in his study of Marian themes Sienese painting that by the fourteenth century artists arrived at various solutions in depicting the angelic salutation by em- phasizing a particular phase in the story. These, too, can be matched with contemporary writings. The Meditationes vitae Christi, written ca. 1300, is a well-known example of devotional literature that retells the holy stories in such a way that the reader feels he is an eyewitness. Not without reason many iconographic innovations have been related to this book? Both the Meditationes and contemporary painting shared the need to give concrete form to the holy stories. ‘There was one important difference, however. The author of the Meditationes, be he the real or the pseudo Bonaventura,> was well versed in theology, but not so the contemporary painter. This was not necessarily a problem. The painter, too, was a professional in his own right, and could usually employ his faculties to give form to a particular need. A good example is the so-called Madonna of Humility. To judge by the speed with which this iconographic type spread during the trecento, it was a real true guess. It expressed a major concern with theological and devotional writing, i.e. the Virgin's humility, in a concrete fashion by showing the Virgin sitting directly on the ground This formula is so visual that it was very likely a painter’s inven- tion, not a theologian’s. Nevertheless, the artist’s imagination could have its dangerous side in that the result need not stand up to theological accuracy or devotional needs. The numerous images of the Annunciation in frecento and quattrocento paint- ing not only show how this prime moment in the history of sal- vation had gained in importance, but also how depicting it had become a major artistic task. The conflict between artistic im- agination and other needs would seem to be illustrated by a fresco of the Annunciation by Ambrogio Lorenzetti at Mon- tesiepi. The fascinating thing about the fresco is that it seems to have been censored: parts of the fresco were overpainted, InReligion, Atte and Comminioners what follows I will discuss the unusual iconography of the An- nunciation and the possible reasons for the overpainting. ‘The Annunciation is part of the fresco decoration of the chapel adjoining the Eremo di S. Galgano, close to the former Cister- cian monastery of S. Galgano at Montesiepi, some 30 km south west of Siena. Ever since they were published by Perkins in 1904, the frescoes have been connected with Ambrogio Loren- zetti, even though the measure of the master’s involvement has remained disputed.5 The question of the attribution acquired new urgency, when during a restoration campaign in 1966 some formidable sinopias were discovered beneath the frescoes. The one of the Annunciation attracted worldwide interest when it was included in several exhibitions in Europe and the United States.° The quality of the work is so remarkable that the at- tribution to the master himself may now be regarded as estab- lished. In her fundamental study of the frescoes, published in 1969, Eve Borsook argued that they were executed by members of Ambrogio’s workshop, using designs prepared by the master.’ As to the date of work, already at the end of the last century Canestrelli identified the chapel with the one mentioned in the will dated June 1, 1340, of Vanni di Tofo also known as Forgia of, the wealthy Salimbeni family. It orders the construction of a most beautiful chapel "iuxta ecclesiam Sancti Galgani" of well cut stones, with vaults and well painted (see Appendix). The present chapel matches these specifications very well, and as Borsook pointed out, the identification may even be confirmed by the fresco in the central lunette. It shows the Virgin enthroned with two saints bearing the name of "Vanni," or John, immediately to her left and right, namely SS John the Baptist and John the Evangelist.” Although we do not know when Vanni Forgia died, the fact that his last will was drawn up while he was "corpore languens" suggests that it happened not long after- wards. On the basis of these data alone one can assume a date in the early 1340s for the building of the chapel and the execution of the frescoes. There are some problems, however. Antonio Libanori, a seventeenth century abbot of S. Galgano, mentions a now lost altarpiece in the chapel bearing the inscriptions "Questa tavola con la Cappella fece fare Ristoro da Salvatella, MCCCXXXVI" BsReligion, Ariss and Commissioners and "Nicolaus Segre me pinxit' (perhaps a misreading for Nicolaus Segne, i.e. Niccold di Segna), which suggests that the frescoes were painted ca. 1336 as well. However, it is far from certain that the altarpiece, which seems to be lost, was originally intended for the chapel. From Libanori’s words it appears that by his time the chapel was used as a sacristy, and it is quite pos- sible that the altarpiece was simply deposited there. Moreover, Canestrelli could not find any record of Ristoro da Salvatella during his archival work on the abbey.! More recently, Alison Luchs argued in favor of the earlier date, pointing out that Ambrogio Lorenzetti acted as a witness to a land transfer drawn up in the monastery on August 15, 1334." But the document does not necessarily imply that Ambrogio was busy decorating the chapel at that time, There are other records of Ambrogio’s contacts with the monks of S. Galgano. In 1344 Ambrogio Painted the famous panel of the Annunciation for the Biccherna, Siena’s most important financial magistracy, when Don Frances- co Minucci, monk of S. Galgano, was ‘its Camerlengo, or treasurer. This may actually support a date in the early 1340s for the S. Galgano frescoes, which is likely anyway on stylistic grounds, as Borsook has shown." There is no serious argument, then, against the identification of the chapel with the one called for in Vanni Forgia’s testa- ‘ment. Clearly the chapel was not intended as a burial ground, as Vanni wished to be buried in his cappella in S. Francesco at Siena, where his son Nerio was already interred. Essentially it had to be a place where a monk of S. Galgano, who was also a priest, had to sing and say masses and divine offices commend- ing the soul of the testator and his son Nerio to the omnipotent God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Galgano and the en- tire celestial court. Certainly this was an exceptional foundation for that time. In some respects the painted decoration was ex- ceptional as well. Despite the fragmentary state of the frescoes, it is possible to give an outline of the program. The vaults were decorated with busts of prophets, and the walls to the left and right of the entrance with scenes from the life of S. Galgano. From what remains of the fresco on the left wall it seems that the subject was a vision granted to the saint in Rome. The subjects in the lunettes of the left and right wall, too, are visions: in both cases1 Ratigion, Artis and Commisioners S. Galgano, accompanied by other saints, looks to the lunette of the wall opposite the entrance, where the Virgin appears enthroned amidst saints, angels and virtues. This Maesta is par- ticularly close to Ambrogio’s fresco of the same subject in S. Agostino, Siena, which probably dates from the late 1330s. Not included in the S. Agostino fresco, however, is Eve, who in the chapel is lying at the Madonna’s feet. This implies that the Vir- gin is meant to be the new Eve, thanks to whom the consequen- ces of original sin were undone. The wall below, finally, to the left and right of the central window, shows the Annunciation, which expounds the theme above. The Annunciation is the scene of the Incarnation, and thus both the beginning of the his- tory of salvation, and the prime reason for the glorification of the Virgin. The Maesta of the central lunette, then, is at the in- tersection of two themes. As the vision of S. Galgano it is re- lated to the cycle of the saint's life, as a Mariological image it reinforces the meaning of the Annunciation below. ‘What is extraordinary about the sinopia of the Annunciation is its iconography. This regards not so much the fact that Gabriel is kneeling before the Virgin, for in this period this at- titude is the rule rather than the exception." Nor are the palm and olive branches rather than the traditional lily in his hand very exceptional, as for both branches parallels can be found in contemporary painting.1 What is extraordinary is the part to the right, which shows Mary's reaction to the heavenly messenger. Apparently he has disturbed her to such an extent that she, half kneeling, half sitting, turns away from him and clings to a column in her room, while her gaze remains fixed on the angel. Admittedly the Virgin's confusion as a result of the angel’s words had been depicted in Italian art since the second half of the thirteenth century. Nowhere in the fourteenth century, however, does one find such wild panic.” The differences between the sinopia and the fresco are also remarkable. The figure standing in the door opening to the left was discarded in the fresco. It may have been a second angel,!* or as was supposed before, a maid.” But whoever the figure may have been, his presence was apparently not crucial. Conversely, the figure who is kneeling behind the angel in the fresco is not present in the sinopia. He is actually the result of an overpaint- ing. As it was carried out al secco, the paint has flaked off so that 1371. Religion, Artists and Commisoners the figure is but a shadow now. Also the Virgin was overpainted al secco, and here too the paint has disappeared, revealing the figure as it was originally intended, Only the head and hands of the "new" Virgin remain, since they were executed as a true fres- co on a newly applied layer of plaster. These are not the only changes in the frescoes, however. In the Maesta above the An- nunciation the Virgin was changed from a crowned Queen of Heaven holding a scepter and an orb into a traditional Madonna holding the Christ Child” Several scholars have tried to trace the sources for Ambrogio’s remarkable figure of the Virgin in the Annunci tion. In her study mentioned above Borsook points to a descrip- tion in a contemporary travel account of the Holy Land by the Franciscan friar Niccold da Poggibonsi. Fra Niccold reports that in the so-called Grotto of the Annunciation at Nazareth there is "la colonna che abraccid santa Maria per Ia paura, quando Vangelo l’annunzid: la detta colonna si é grossa, quanto 'uomo. uote abracciare; dappié della colonna si & un poco di murello, dov’ella usava di stare in orazione."" Important though this story is, the evidence needs some qualification. Thanks to the collection of travel accounts of the Holy Land compiled by Baldi it is possible to get a fair picture of the stories connected with the Grotto of the Annunciation It turns out that from the fourteenth century onwards several stories about columns were in circulation. A group of Dominican friars from Catalonia (1323) tatks about a column behind which the Virgin hid herself out of fear when Gabriel entered the room; the column marks the place where the mystery of the Conception took place. The first part of this legend is also reported by Jacopo da Verona, an Augustinian hermit writing in 1335, while the second part is repeated by William of Boldensele (1336) Ludolph of Sudheim, in his description of the Holy Land of c. 1336, mentions a less exaggerated story, and simply mentions a column “iuxta quam stetit angelus, cum beatam virginem salutavit.” In the fifteenth century, starting with Fra Francesco Suriano (1485), we hear of two columns marking the spots where Gabriel and the Virgin stood, and this version became the standard story for centuries to come. All these stories actually refer to columns that are still there, They were put in as supports for a pillar of the Crusader church built above the Grotto between 1170 and 1187 In theReligion, Artists and Commissioners 1 eyes of later visitors the columns were apparently so con- spicuous that they required an explanation. And, as so often happens, the visitors explained these features by what they al- ready knew about the Annunciation. It will be remembered that the perturbation of the Virgin as a reaction to Gabriel’s arrival was depicted in Italian Annunciation images from the second half of the thirteenth century onwards. Contemporary theologians regarded this reaction as a sure sign of the Virgin's humility." Itis therefore not surprising to find that the columns in the Grotto of the Annunciation were fitted into this frame of reference. Both Ambrogio’s sinopia and the travellers’ accounts, then, share similar concerns. But whether Ambrogio actually knew the story as found in Fra Niccold’s account is open to question. His is just a peculiar version of the stories connected with the Grotto. In fact, according to Baldi’s collection of travel accounts, Fra Niccold is the only one to mention the Virgin embracing a column. Even if Fra Niccold’s travel account is accepted as a literary source, one is still left with the problem of Ambrogio’s visual sources for his extraordinary sinopia. Borsook’s reference to some dramatic figures by Giovanni Pisano is certainly valid, but remains rather general. Van Os, on the other hand, argued that ‘amore specific source can be found in the motif of a figure fall- ing back in terror while holding on to a column. Such figures, occur already in ancient art, particularly in scenes of Cassandra holding on to a column with a statue of Athena to prevent the Greeks from carrying her away. Such a derivation would not be surprising indeed considering Ambrogio’s interest in ancient art5 Quite rightly Dorothea and Peter Diemer objected to this in that such images show too general a resemblance with Ambrogio’s figure to be considered as sources. The turn of the body's upper part that causes Ambrogio’s figure to be so remarkable is totally lacking in these examples. Instead the Diemers pointed to some early Christian images of the Annun- ciation to the Virgin at the spring, an apocryphal story that goes back to the Greek so-called Protoevangelium of James. It is, however, doubtful whether Ambrogio knew such images at all. ‘The images showing the Virgin in such a kneeling and turned pose date from the early Christian period. And what is more, 13940 .Relgjon, Artists nd Comimisionen they are very rare; only three such representations are known today. In order to trace the true sources for the attitude of the Vir- gin in Ambrogio’s sinopia, it is important to note that she ap- pears to be sitting on the floor. The motif of the Virgin Annunciate seated on the ground was a new one at that time. It ‘was the utmost consequence of the notion in theological and devotional writing that Mary's humility was the conditio sine qua rnon for her election to be the Mother of God. One of the ear- liest examples to show Mary's humility visualized in such a con- ‘rete fashion is found in the left wing of a diptych attributed to Simone Martini (Leningrad, Hermitage). Although the panel is difficult to date accurately, it is obvious that the Annunciate with the upper part of her body graciously turned away is derived from that beautiful and complex figure in Simone’s al- tarpiece of 1333 for Siena Cathedral (now in the Uffizi, Florence). If the Virgin in the altarpiece was still seated on a throne, in the Leningrad panel she is sitting on a cushion on the floor.” That Simone Martini introduced the motif of the Virgin Annunciate seated directly on the ground in Italian painting is all the more probable, because it is accepted now that he originated the Madonna of Humility. The oldest known repre- sentation, a fresco on the west portal of Notre-Dame-des-Doms at Avignon (before 1341), is made by him. Not long afterwards ‘one of his followers painted a Madonna of Humility on the tomb of Johanna Aquinas (d. 1343) in S. Domenico Maggiore in Naples. ‘The motif of the Annunciate seated on the ground also oc- ‘curs in the work of Ambrogio’s brother Pietro, as appears from a triptych in Dijon (Musée des Beaux Arts) attributed to the lat- ter and dated to the early 1340s. Comparable figures of the Virgin are found in the work of pupils and followers.” Her at- titude is different, however: she faces the angel and although she sometimes shrinks back somewhat she does not turn away. ‘The latter attitude is the very hallmark of Ambrogio’s sinopia. It can therefore be assumed that Ambrogio based his figure of the Virgin on one of Simone’s. In Simone he could have found an immediate example of a Virgin Annunciate seated on the ground with the upper part of the body turned away, which he then transferred to a monumental scale and endowed with a to-Religion, Arist and Commisioners tally different expression. It is as if Mary completely cast off the modest grace that she still had in Simone. In reaction to the entrance of Gabriel she does not turn away and pull the hem of her mantle towards her like a chaste maiden, but shrinks back in wild panic and throws both her arms around a column in her room. But precisely because she is behaving in this way a com- parison with figures from the work of Simone Martini cannot suffice. What, after all, induced Ambrogio to have his Virgin grasp a column? Apparently it has been overlooked that there are precedents for the motif of the Virgin clinging to a column in Italian An- nunciation images. The oldest example I could find is a histori- cal initial from an early fourteenth century Bolognese choir book. Mary has stood up from a richly decorated seat and grasps a column with both hands in fear.™ Slightly later is a miniature in a Gospel Book produced in the 1310s for St Mark’s in Venice. Mary is seated before a house and has embraced with both hands a column right next to her. From the same decade dates a miniature in a Missal for Saint Mark’s;® and possibly from about the same period a polyptych by Paolo Veneziano or a fol- lower in S. Pantalon, also in Venice. In both Annunciation scenes the architecture is reduced to a canopy; Mary seizes with one hand a column next to her. A comparable image can be found in a miniature by Giustino di Gherardino da Forli in a Gradual for the Scuola della Carita, again in Venice, which is dated 1365% and in a cutting from a Bolognese liturgical ‘manuscript from about the same period. The Virgin in a trip- tych of ca. 1370-1375 by Lorenzo Veneziano is more expressive in that she shrinks back and grasps with both hands the column on her left (Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection)..” The version of the image with the Virgin standing is seen in a Riminese panel in the Museo de Arte at Barcelon® and a cutting from a Bolog- nese choir book, both dating from the 1340s. What is amusing about the latter representation is that instead of the column, the Virgin supports herself by holding the right stem of the capital M in which the scene is situated.” Later examples with Mary holding on to a real column are found in a fresco in S. Maria Maggiore in Bergamo (13472), a fresco in the Cappella della Madonna in the Sacro Speco, Subiaco (1360s),*! and a panel by Giovanni di Corraduccio in the Pinacoteca of Trevi. From the 141me Religion, Anistsand Commisionens end of the fifteenth century, finally, dates the well-known trip- tych in the Louvre by the Master of the Louvre Triptych (Carlo Braceesco?)*; it inspired an initial with the Annunciation painted by Michele da Genova in an antiphonal in Parma. ‘These examples - undoubtedly there are more - show that the motif of the Virgin Annunciate clasping a column is not so ex- traordinary as might seem at first. Mary's perturbation is made explicit in that she grasps a column that belongs to the architec- tural backdrop or setting of the scene. The motif was probably invented in Bologna or Venice, and then gradually spread to Central Italy. To judge from the examples adduced Ambrogio may well have found the motif in illuminated manuscripts.‘ If the motif of the Virgin Annunciate clinging to a column out of fear is no product of Ambrogio’s imagination, the overall ‘composition of the fresco certainly is. The architecture is too complex to warrant a derivation from North Italian models. The architecture in most of the examples referred to above is still dependent on Byzantine models. In Byzantine painting it is nor- mal to find extensive, sometimes even rather chaotic, structures Placed behind the Virgin, and often behind Gabriel too. Mary is seated on, or has risen from, a richly decorated throne, which is often connected with the architecture by a canopy on two ‘columns (cf. Paolo Veneziano). Sometimes one also finds a wall protruding from the building and resting on a single column (cf. the miniature from the Saint Mark Gospels). A charming ex- ample of architecture with single columns is found in a Byzan- tine icon from the first quarter of the fourteenth century in Moscow (Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts). Here a maid is hold- ing the column, while looking on from behind with curiosity.** ‘The difference between this sort of architecture and that of Ambrogio’s Annunciation is that the former is always a back- drop. The figures are acting before, not in it. The latter was the very thing the Tuscan painters of the trecento were aiming at, and not in Annunciation scenes only. They achieved this not so much by placing the figures in the architecture, but rather the other way around. It is as if the Byzantine structures were broken up and extended to enclose the figures. As the architec- tural settings had to have an open character to permit an easy understanding of the story, slender columns, whether or not in combination with arches, were preferred means for articulation1 Retigon, Artie and Commisioers 1 and differentiation. Among other things this principle led to the beautiful building in the Annunciation in Pietro Lorenzetti’s polyptych in the Pieve of Arezzo-” The division of the scene by the biforate framed arch provided the starting point for two spa- tially articulated rooms, which are connected by a rectangular opening. Gabriel kneels at the left in an anteroom, at the right Mary sits on a bench in her own chamber. Architectural ele- ments, like the consoles supporting the beams in Mary's room and the small loggia above, are rendered with loving care. It appears from the Montesiepi fresco that Ambrogio shared with his brother the preference for detailed and spatially articu- lated architecture. Despite the division of the wall into two hal- ves by the window, the scene is enacted in one space. The back wall of the hall in which the angel is kneeling continues into the right half of the fresco. To the right of that wall a second room ‘opens up. The ceilings of both rooms are connected by two tym- pana placed at a right angle. The crossing is supported by the column which the Virgin is grasping. From a compositional point of view the column has to be there, otherwise the Virgin would have little room for her terrified reaction. Through the construction of the rooms Ambrogio also succeeded in giving the column a place that is both spatially and architecturally con- vincing. This is underlined by the floor pattern, which is con- structed using one vanishing point. Ambrogio’s striking figure of the Virgin, then, can be regarded as a highly original combination of a Virgin Annun- ciate derived from Simone Martini and a North Italian pictorial tradition of the Virgin Annunciate holding on to a column. The figure is situated in a richly detailed and articulated room typi- cal of the Lorenzetti brothers’ spatial concerns. Now that the sources of the sinopia are traced, it might be useful to compare it with other Annunciations by Ambrogio. They show a remarkable variety. The emphasis on the Virgin's fear must have been also characteristic of a lost fresco in Siena, Sigismondo Tizio (1458-1528) describes it in his Historiae senen- e5 as follows. "Ambrogio Lorenzetti [..] made a remarkable painting of the Annunciation of the Virgin with a very graceful descent of the angel for the facade of S. Pietro del Castelvecchio [now S. Pietro alle Scale}, in which he skillfully depicted the consternation of the maid due to the angel’s arrival." One of, 13a 1 Religion, Artateand Commisioners the first reflections of this Annunciation, which probably dated from the 1330s, can be seen in a fresco by a Catalan follower of Ambrogio, Ferrer Bassa, which he executed in 1345-1346 in the chapel of S. Miguel at Pedralbes. The Virgin, seated nearly fron- tally towards the viewer, recoils from the angel, stretching out her left arm with her book all the way to the right, while pulling, with her right hand at the hem of her mantle. What made Ambrogio’s lost fresco equally unusual was the flying angel, a ‘motif he was probably the first to introduce. It too can be seen in Ferrer Bassa’s fresco and in later, predominantly Sienese, painting” Ambrogio’s Annunciation of 1344, finally, is remarkable for other reasons. Gabriel has two pairs of wings, a feature still not satisfactorily explained. Mary is not a virgin shrinking back in fear, but a young woman, who seriously and self-confidently crosses her hands on her breast, raises her head and accepts her crucial role in the history of salvation by speaking the words "Eece ancilla Domini." She is the absolute antithesis of her sister at Montesiepi: In the last ten to fifteen years of his life Ambrogio painted at least three different Annunciations. Apparently he was an artist who repeatedly researched the artistic possibilities of the sub- ject. Comparable tendencies also can be found in his other ‘work, and it is fair to say that compositional originality is one of the hallmarks of his style.** No doubt this was the reason why a later fellow artist like Ghiberti referred to him as a "nobilissimo ‘componitore," a "huomo di grande ingegno,” a 'nobilissimo dis- egnatore, .. molto perito nella teoretica di detta arte" and “altrimenti dotto che nessuno degli altri [Sienese painters)" The sinopia of Montesiepi remains a truly remarkable work of art, but in retrospect it is not that strange to find such a work in the ceuvre of Ambrogio. The fresco did not last, however; it was ‘overpainted. The possible reasons for this need to be addressed now. It will be recalled that the figure kneeling behind Gabriel was added at a later stage. The Virgin was changed into a far more conventional figure. She faces the angel, crosses her arms before her breast, bows towards him and thus humbly accepts his message. Finally, the Virgin in the Maesta above the Annun-Religion, Ariss and Comminioners 1 ciation was overpainted as well. In the original fresco she ap- peared as a real Queen of Heaven, crowned and holding a scep- ter and an orb. This rather unusual figure was then changed into a traditional Madonna with the Christ Child. So we are dealing here with three rather radical alterations. ‘The head of the Virgin Annunciate has been ascribed to a follower of the Lorenzetti or, mote specifically, to a follower of Pietro. The repainted Madonna in the Maesta, too, belongs to the same stylistic context. Recently Sharon Dale has argued that both alterations were executed by Niccold di Ser Sezzo when he was still a member of Ambrogio’s workshop. Whether or not one is prepared to accept such specific attributions, the stylistic evidence sufficiently suggests that both figures were repainted by Ambrogio’s shop. The faded figure behind Gabriel is ob- viously difficult to judge stylistically, but he seems to be of the fourteenth century. A figure that is included in such an at- titude in a religious scene can hardly be anyone else than the patron, i.e. Vanni Forgia. Of course it cannot be excluded that someone else other than the original patron had himself added in a later stage, but the few such cases that are known all date from the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries and in- volved a substantial extension or restoration of the original fres- co.* It seems justified, then, to suppose that all three alterations were done at the same time by Ambrogio’s workshop, not long after the frescoes were finished. ‘At this point it may to useful to ask why these changes could not have been avoided in the first place. It is important to point out that the overpaintings did not affect the essence of the program. The Annunciation remained the scene of the mystery of the Incarnation and the primary reason for the glorification of the Virgin. The Madonna above, with or without Child, remained the new Eve in any case. This may indicate that the contract between painter and patron only stipulated the subjects to be depicted, not the manner in which they should be rendered. It is true that mural painters were sometimes re~ quired to submit drawings for the patron’s approval before work was allowed to start. The oldest examples of such modell, however, date only from the late rrecento and seem to have been prompted by rather exceptional commissions.* That in this case a substantial part of the design process was done directly on the 145146 Retin, Artists an Commisioners wall is born out by the sinopia of the Annunciation scene. In contrast to the angel, the Virgin is indicated with many more lines, as if it took the artist some time to find the right form” ice the changes in the frescoes did not essentially alter the content of the program, it can be assumed that they were dic- tated not by theological considerations, as the Diemers sug- gested, but rather by devotional motives.* It is plausible that the Virgin Annunciate had to be changed because she did not in- spire enough religious feeling. In his Treatise on Painting (Il, 92) Leonardo relates how one day he saw "the picture of an angel who, while he was making the Annunciation, appeared to be chasing Our Lady out of her room, with movements which dis- played such offensiveness as one might to show a most vile enemy, and Our Lady seemed as if she would, in despair, throw herself from a window. Bear this in mind so as not to fall into any such defects."” Here Leonardo is criticizing a colleague with arguments usually found in theoretical writing on art: the Annunciation referred to lacked decorum and propriety. It seems like a generalization of the sort of arguments that could have been used by nonprofessionals on purely religious grounds. Moreover, if one relates the addition of the patron in "perpetual prayer" to the overpainting of the Virgin, the latter becomes even more understandable. Had she not been changed, it would have seemed as if she was frightened not only by the angel, but, also by the patron, For him she would not have been the most ideal figure to direct his prayers to. The second version of the Virgin, completely facing the Gabriel and thus the patron, is, bound to fulfil that role more aptly. ‘The Virgin in the Maesta above would have been over- painted for comparable reasons. If the Annunciate was too humble, too human even in her wild panic, to function as the patron's advocate, the new Eve with her orb and scepter was too regal and remote for that. As a mother with her child she is far easier to approach. Confirmation of this hypothesis can be found in later versions of the theme. The fresco in the lunette is the oldest known example of a composition of Mary enthroned, surrounded by saints and with Eve lying at her feet. The later versions, which mostly occur on small panels for private devo- tion, always show a Virgin enthroned with the Christ Child or a1, Religion, Artists and Commissioners 1 Madonna lactans enthroned, never the imperial Queen of Heaven with orb and scepter.” ‘The importance attached to the changes in the figures of the Virgin is underscored by the fact that the head and hands of the Annunciate and the heads of the new Eve and her Child were executed al buon fresco on a freshly applied layer of plaster. The most durable technique was used for the most important parts. In that respect the changes remind one of the overpainting of head and hands often found in icons or altarpieces of the Virgin, as ¢-g. in Coppo di Marcovaldo’s Madonna del Bordone (Siena, S. Maria dei Servi). Here the flesh of the Madonna and the Christ Child were "modernized” in the early fourteenth century, that is to say, adapted to a new religious sentiment.*' The big difference, however, is that in Coppo’s Madonna an older image was brought up to date, while Ambrogio’s figures of the Virgin fell short in religious feeling soon after their execution. It seems, then, that one has to understand the changes in Ambrogio’s Montesiepi frescoes in the following way. The man who called for the construction of the chapel had to be included in the Annunciation scene after all, so that he would be remem- bered as a devout man. If we consider him to be Vanni Forgia dei Salimbeni, as seems justified, his portrait also served as a visual counterpart of the memorial masses and offices that were to be said in the chapel. Moreover, by showing him in "perpetual Prayer’ before the Virgin, his devotion to her would be ap- Parent. But in order to fulfil the role of advocate more aptly the figure of the Virgin Annunciate, as well as that of the Madonna in the Maesta above, had to be adapted. Thus considered, the changes in the frescoes constitute an important document of the religious feelings of patrons around the middle of the trecento. Moreover, thanks to the careful res- toration of the frescoes we are now able to compare Ambrogio’s original artistic intentions with the overpaintings. Ambrogio created a marvelous Annunciation by combining a motif found in North Italian painting with a pictorial type of the Virgin An- nunciate introduced by Simone Martini. It is the culmination of an artistic development that sought to render the Virgin's frightened reaction to the angelic salutation in ever more im. aginative ways. But admirable though the picture may seem from a purely artistic point of view, it was out of context in the 174s 1. Religion, Amit and Commisioners chapel. It would be wrong to call the instigator of the changes a Philistine totally lacking in an understanding of art. One has to take into account the religious function ef the murals. The Vins, goncem was the apt portrayal of the holiest of| figures, the Virgin. Ambrogio’s interpretation was toa imaginative to fulfilArtists and Commissioners 1. Artistic Imagination Versus Religious Function - Victor Schmidt Lam grateful to Eve Borsook, Mark Gudwin, Jan de Jong, Henk van Os and Alice Wohl for their comments upon drafts of this chapter, and to dottssa Carla Zarrili for checking my transseription of the document published in the Appendix. Notes 1. M. Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century aly. A Primer in ‘the Social History of Pictorial Style, 2nd ed. Oxford-New York 1988, 45-56, 164. 165.Notes & Appendinee 2. One ofthe first to do so was E. Mile, Lar religi de la fin du moyen dge en France. Etude sur Viconographie du moyen dge et sur ses sources Ainspiration, 3rd ed, Pris 1925, 2734 3. The opinions about the authorship are summarized in B, Distlbrink, Bonaventure scrpta authentica dubia vel spuria crtice recensia (Subsiia scientific fanciscalia, 5), Rome 1975, 159-160. 4. M. Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena afer the Black Death, New York {ete 1973, 133-156, H.W. van Os, "Marias Demot und Verherrichung in der ‘Sienesischen Malerei 1300-1450," (Kunsthistorische studién van het Neder- lands Historisch Institut te Rome, 1), The Hague 1962, 101-127 5-EM. Perkins "Di alcune opere poco note di Ambrogio Lorenzeti? Rasseg- na date 4 (1904), 186-190. The attribution history up uni the late 1960s sven by Eve Borsook in exh cat. Omagao a Giont, Florence (Orsanmichele) 1967, 26, and idem, “Gli affreschi di Montesicp,* Quademi dane 2, Florence 1960, 39 note 9. 6. Omaggio a », it, 25-26, No. 10 a-b; exh. cat. L'Europe gothique XIe- ‘AiVe siécles, Paris (Musée du Louvre) 1968, 191-192 No. 308; exh. cat. The Great Age of Fresco: Goto to Pontormo, New York (Metropolitan Muscum of Art) 1968, 64-71 Nos, 56. 7.Borsook, op. cit, 33-34, 8 A. Cancstrell, Liabbacia di Son Galgono. Monografia storico-anisica con document ined e numerose ilustazion, Florence 1896, 7375 9.Borsook, op. ct, 11-13 10, Canestreli, op. cit, 74 note 1, and Borsook, op. cit, 12. P. Bacc,“Wden- cazionee restauro della tavola del 1336 di Nicolo di Segna da Siena" Bo! latino dane 29 (1935-1936), 1-13, red to identify a Madonna and Child inthe remo asa fragment ofthe altarpiece mentioned by Libanor, Unfortunately the panel was stolen in 1968, 1, A. Locks, “Ambrogio Lorenzett at Montesiepi* Burington Magazine 19 (4977, 187-188. 12. Borsook, op. cit, 33-34, For the date see also Seidel, op. cit, 229; M. Bos ovis, "Considerations on Pietro and Ambrogio Lorenzeti" Paragone 439 (1986), 2-16, esp, 10-11; B. Cole, Senese Painting from lis Origin tothe Ff teenth Century, New York 1980, 168-174, and Enzo Carli, La pitura senese del Trecento, Milaan 1981, 210-213. For the Annunciation panel, now in the Pinacoteca Nazionale, see R Torti, Le Pinacoteca Nazionale i Siena I din. i, Genou 1990, 73, 1B, For the context of the testament see S.K. Coln, Death and Property in Siena, 1205/1800. Strategies forthe Atri, Bakimore - London 1988, 105-106 Thavebeoh unable to verify all the data about Vanni Forgia supplied by Cohn withthe help of his footnotes. For Vanni see also F. Salimei, 1 Salimben di Siena, Rome 1986, 285, 201ma Notes Appeniaes 14, For the date (and extensive study) see M. Seidel, "Die Fresken des Ambrogio Lorenzetti in S. Agostino,” Miteilungen des Kunsthistorischen In- stitutes in Florenz 22(1978), 185-252, esp, 223-229, 15. Van Os, op. cit, 31-33, 41-42. 16, Ibid, 24-25, 51. See also MJ. Zucker, "Part teenth Centuries," Ant Bulletin 77 (1975), 186-195, sp. 193-195 17. J1H. Stubblebine, Guida da Siena, Princeton 1964, 45; Van Os, op. cit, 42 a. 18, Van Os, op. ct, 26 note 49. 19. D. and P. Diemer, "Turbata est in sermone eius. Zu einer ungewohalichen ‘Verkiindigungsdarstellung des Ambrogio Lorenzetti in Befund und Deutung Zum Verhalinis von Empirie und Interpretation in Sprach- und Literaturvis- senschaft, Tubingen 1973, 153-168, esp. 158. It should be noted that compared to previous centuries the motif becomes increasingly rare during the Trecento. See M. Schapiro, "The frescoes of Castelscprio,” in idem, Late Antique Early (Owistian and Medieval a, London 1980, 88, A. Faludy, "The "Annuncation’ of Szepesdaréc: iconography and stylistic relations,” Acta historie artium 24 (1978), 79-84, and G. Millet, Recherches sur Viconoyraphie de VEvangite aux XIVe, XVe et XVTesdcles, Pats 1916, 89-91. 20. Borsook, op cit, 21-32. 21. id, 29-33, 22, Enchirdion loconum sanctorum. Documenta S. Evangel loca respicienta, ed. P Baldi, 2nd ed, Jerusalem 1955, 19ff 23, B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth I: From the Beginning tll the XII Cen- tury, Jerusalem 1969, 174-185; id, Gli seavi di Nazaret, I: Dal secolo XI ad 29, Jerusalem 1984, 5470. 24, Van Os, op it, 42-43, 25, H.W. van Os, "Marginal notes on ‘The Great Age of Fresco,” Simiolus 4 (1969-1970), 6-12, esp. 8-10. 26,D. and P: Diemer, op. cit. Later images ofthis story, with well rather than «spring, constitute a typically Byzantine iconographic tradition, Sce J. Lafon- twine-Dosogne, “Iconography of the Cycle of the Life of the Virgin,’ The Kariye Djami. Studies on the Art of the Kare Djami and Its Intellectual Back- _ground, Princeton 1975, 161-194 esp, 188-190. 27. Van Os, op. city 107-108, Fig 17. For the date ofthe Virgin Annunciate in Leningrad see now also A. Martindale, Simone Martini. Complete edition, Ox- ford 1988, 214-215. The supposed pendant with Gabriel is now inthe National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C 28, Meiss, op cit, 133ff, Van Os, op. ct, 10M. For the dating of the Avignon {resco see now also Martindale, op. cit, 181-183. 29.C. Volpe, Pietro Lorenzet, Milan 1989, 173 No. 139.[Notes & Appendives 30. Wing of a triptych in Siena Pinacoteca Nazionale, No, 92a, See Van Os, op. cit, Fig. S2, and Tortit, op. ct, 130 No. 92. Furthermore a wing of a dip- tych attributed to Bartolommeo Bulgarini (Maestro di Pietro a Ovile) John G. Jobson Collection. Catalogu of lalian Paintings, Philadelphia 1966, 18, No. 92, and Van Os, op cit, Fig. 51. See also a diptych attributed to Naddo Cec- callin Tours, Musée des Beaux-Arts: Exh, eat. Lat gothique siennois: n- ‘uminure, peinture, orevrerie, sculpture, Avignon (Musée du Petit Palais), Florence 1983, 193-194 No. 65, 31. Bologna, Museo Civico, Ms. $24, fol. 224. See A. Conti, La miniatura bologrese. Scuolee boteshe 1270-1340, Bologna 1981, Fig. 135. 32, BM, Ms. lat I, 100, fol. 64. See R. Pallucchini, La pita veneciana del Trecento, Venice - Rome 1964, 81, 99 and Fig, 288, B. Degenhart en A. Schmitt, Corpus der frahitaienischen Zeichnungen 1300-1450, IW, Berin 1980, 30,37 note 2, 66 and Fig. 93. 33. BM, Ms. IL.111, fol, 140, See M, Levi d’Ancona,"Giustno del fu Gherar- dino da Fort gli affreschi perduti del Guaricnto nel Palazzo Ducale di Venezia," Arte veneta 21 (1967), 34-4, esp. 43 Fig. 46 and 4 note 4. For the date see also Degenhart-Schmit, do. ci 34, Pallucchini, op. cit, Fig 25. He dates it in the 1320s, whereas M. Muraro, Paolo da Venezia, University ark - London 1970, 152 places it after 1350 35. BM, Ms. lt. I. 119, fo. 14, Pllucchin, op. cit, Fig. 688; Levi d’Ancona, op. cit, 43, Fig. 4. 36. Now in Padua, Biblioteca Civica. See D. Banzato and F. Pellegrini (eds), Da Giowo al tardogotco. Dpin dei Musei Civic di Padova de! Tecentoe dela prima meta det Quattroceno, Rome 1989, 57 No.3. 37. M. Boskovits, The Thyssen-Bomemisza Collection. Early Italian painting 1290-1470, London 1990, 120-125, 38. B. Berenson, alan Pictures ofthe Renaissance. A Lit ofthe Principal Ar ‘ists and their Works with an Index of Places. ental and North allan Schools, 1, London 1968, 355, and, II, PL 197; exh, cat. Lugano, Thyssen-Bornemisca Foundation, “Maniesato delle cose miracolose." Art italiana det 300 e det 400 da cottezioni in Svizzera nel Lichtenstein, Lugano - Einsiedeln 1991, 123- 130 (with attribution to Francesco da Rimi 38, Now in Ferrara, Pinacoteca Nazionale. See Conti op. cit, Fig. 27 40. R. Toesca, Le pittura e la miniatura nella Lombardia dai pi antchi ‘monument alla meta del Quatrocento, Trin 1966, 102-103, Fig. 162 41. C. Giumelli (ed), 1 monastebenedettni di Subiaco, Milan 1982, Ps, 163- 164, 42. R, van Matle, The Development ofthe lalian Schools of Painting, V, The Hague 1925, 112 Fig 67, and P.Scarpellni, Giovanni di Comaduecio, Foligno 1976, 107 and Figs. 122-125. Lippo Vanni may have painted a comparable ‘composition ina fresco inthe cloister of S. Domenico in Siena. Only the head of the Virgin Annunciate and a portion of a column have remained (now inNotes & Appendes the Pinacoteca Nazionale). See Mostra di opere d'art restaurate nelle province di Siena e Grosseto, Genoa 1979, No. 2, and S, Dale, Lippo Vanni: Sile and {Ieonography, Ph.D. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 1984, 21-22 and 131- 135. 43, Exh. cat. Polypoyques. Le tableau multiple due moyen dge au vingi¢me sidcle, Paris (Musée du Louvre) 1990, 90-92 No. 13 (with older literature). 444, Parma, S. Giovanni Evangelista, MS Q 6, fo. 1. See P, Cesehi Lavagetto, “Libri da coro," in B. Adorni (ed), L'abbacia benedetting di San Giovanni Evangelista a Parma, Parma 1979, 220-225, esp. 225, Nicold Corso, un pittore ‘Per ii Olivetan. Arte in Liguria alle fine del Quatirocenio, Genoa 1986, 132- 133, 45. In this context itis interesting to note that some scholars suggested il+ luminated legal manuscripts from Bologna as one of the sources for “Ambrogio’s "Allegory of Good Government in the Palazzo Pubblico of Siena.” See H. van Os, Sienese Altarpieces 1215-1460. Form, Content, Function. 1, 1215+ ‘1344 (Mediacvalia groningana, 4), Groningen 1984, 60-61, B. Kempers, Kunst, ‘macht en mecenaat. Het beroep van schilde in sociale verhoudlngen 1250-1600, “Amsterdam 1987, 165-167. 46. A. Bank, Byzantine Artin Soviet Museums, 2nd ed, Leningrad 1985, No. 272. For the architectural settings in Byzantine Annunciation images see Mil- let, op. cit, 88-89. 47, The polyptych was commissioned in 1320, See Volpe, op. cit, 121-125 No. 97, 48. BAY, Ms. Chigi G.133, fol. 108: "Ambrosius Laurenti .. picturam con- spicuam nuntiations uirginis cum tam decoro angeli descensu pro facie templi lui petri castri ueteris virgunculeque ex aduentu consternationem optime pinxit.” The passage is also given by G. Freuler, "Die Verklindigung mit dem fliegenden Engel in der sienesischen Kunst, Ein Beitrag zur \Verkundigungsikonographie des 14, Jahrhunderts” in De ante et libris, Festschrift Erasmus 1934-1984, Amsterdam 1984, 153-171, esp. 157. 49. Frouler, op. cit, 33-48. See also idem, Biagio di Goro Ghezzi a Paganico. Laffresco nell'abside della Chiesa di S. Michele, Florence 1986, 33-8, 50. For the iconography of the panel sce: Van Os, op. cit, 48-57, and Ni Muller, “Ambrogio Lorenzett's Annunciation, A Re-examination," Mittelun- gen des Kunsthistorischen Institut in Florenz 21 (197) 1-12. 51. Since an up-to-date monograph on Ambrogio is still wanting, I refer tothe recent general discussions of his work by Cole, op. cit, 137-179, and J. White, Art and Architecture in aly 1250 0 1400 (The Pelican History of Art), 2nd ed, Harmondsworth 1987, 371-397 52. Lorenzo Ghiberts Denkwiirdigheten (I Commentar), ed. J. von Schlosser, 1, Berlin 1912, 0-42, Cf. Van Os, op. cit, 55-56. 53. Mis, op. cit, 68; Borsook, op. cit, 31-32. A. Smart, The Dawn of Kalian Painting 1250-1400, Oxford 1978, 106, suggests Pietro himselt.Notes & Appendixes 54. Borsook, op. it, 31-32. 55. D. Kocks, Die Stifterdarstellung in der italienischen Malerei des 13-15. Jahrhundens, diss. Cologne 1971, 203-205. For donor portraits in Anauncia- tion scenes in general see ibid, 483, and G.L. Geiger Fiippino Lippi’s Carafa chapel. Renaissance Ant in Rome, (Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 5), Kirksville (Missouri) 1986, 132-148. 56, R. Oertel, "Wandmalerei und Zeichnung in Italien. Die Anfinge der Entwurfszeichnung und ihre monumentalen Vorstufen,’ Miteiungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 5 (940), 217-314, esp. 244-258, 57. Cole, op. cit, 173. $8. D. and P. Diemer, op. cit, 167-168. 59, Leonardo da Vinci, Teaise on Painting (Codex Urbnas latinus 1270), ed. ‘AP McMahon, Princeton 1956, 1, $8 and I, fol. 33. 60. G. Coor, "Bemerkungen 2 einem ungewabnlichen italienischen Tripty- chon in der Niedersichsischen Landesgalerie Hannover,’ Niederdeutsche Beitrge zur Kunstgeschichte 2 (1962), 152-171, esp. 152-158 and 168 notes 28- 29, E. Guldan, Eva und Maria. Eine Antthese als Bildmotv, Graz - Cologne 1966, 128-135, 215-218. To the paintings listed by Coor and Guldan can be ‘added the central panel of a triptych by a follower of Paolo di Giovanni Fei, which was sold at Christie's, London, July 16, 1971, Lot 94 (as Niceold i Buonaccorso). 61. Van Os, Sienese altarpiece, cit, 2223. 62. The same holds true for altarpieces. See Ch. Hope, “Altarpieces and the Requirements of Patrons,” in T Verdon and J. Henderson (eds), Christianity and the Renaissance. Image and Religious Imagination in the Quattrocento, Syracuse (New York) 1990, 535-571 Append Siena, Archivio di Stato. Diplomatico, Archivio Generale, June 1, 1340 In nomine Domini amen. Universis presens instrumentum publicum inspec~ turis pateat manifeste, quod in testamento et ultima voluntate quod et quam ‘Vannes quondam domini Tofi vocatus Forgia de Salimbenis de Sens fecit sub anno Domini millesimo trecentesimo quadragesimo indictione octava dic primo mensis Juni. Publicum manum Petri notari infrascripi inter alia relicta ct judicia et legata dicti testamenti reliquid et judicavit in hune modum videlicet. Ego Vannes quondam domini Tofi vocatus Forgia de Salimbenis de Senis sanus mente et intellectu per gratiam Jhesu Xpisti licet corpore lan- guens volens facere testamentum et bona mea disponere et saluti mee anime providere, testor, dispono, provideo, ordino, judico et relinquo prout et sicut inferius declaratur. In primis quidem domino nostro Thesu Xpisto filio Dei vivi ct beatissime Maric virgini matri cius meam animam fideliter recommendo et ma 295Noses & Append ‘mei corporis sepulturam cligo apud locum fratrum minorum de Senis. Quod quidem corpus meum sepeliri volo et mando apud dictum locum fratrum ‘minorum in sepultura in qua sepultus est Nerius quondam filius meus et que Sepultura est in mortuorio novo subtus voltas dict loci in cappella mea que est in dicto mortuorio, Et volo, jubeo et mando me ad dictam sepulturam portari in habitu ct vestitu dictorum fratrum ete. Item judico et relinquo quod de red- ditibus mei poderis de Sancto Pietro de Chiuslino [= San Piero Chiusdino} sive de ais bonis meis fiat et fieri debeatiusta ecclesiam sancti Galgani una pulcierima cappella de lapidibus bene concis et cum volis et bene picta. Et facta dicta cappella abbas et monaci diti monasterii sancti Galgani predicti tencantur et debeant in dicta cappella deputare unum ex monacis monasteri suprascripti qui sit presbyter et per dictum presbyterem qualibet die in per- ‘Petuum cani et dict debeant misse et divina offita et in dicts missis et ofits, dlictus presbyter recommendet et recommandare debeat omnipotenti Deo et bbeate Marie virgini ct beato Galgano et toticielesticurie animam meam et supraseripti Nerii quondam fil: mei. Et volo et mando, judico et relinquo Quod dictus abbas et monasterium habeant et habere debeant quolibet anno in perpetuum quattuor modios frumenti de redditibus.suprascripti mei poderis de Sancto Pietro curie de Chiuslino, si de dictis redditibus dict Poderis infrascripti mei heredes seu ille vel illi ad quem vel quos pervenerit ‘mea hereditas infrascripta dictos perpetuos annuos quattuor modi frumenti dicto abbati ct monacis dare voluerint et dederint cum effeta, Sin autem volo ‘et mando, judico et relinquo quod dictum frumentum annuum et perpetuum dlictus abbas et monaci suprascripti habeant et habere debeant quolibet anno in perpetuum de alis bonis meis que magis dicto abbat et monacis placuerint, ‘quod dictus presbyter de dictofrumento habeat et trahat alimenta et cun ¢ ta necessaria vite sue, ne pretestu necessiatisalimentorum dictus abbas ct ‘monaci non subtrahant dic facere et cantare missas et divina offtia in cappe!- la predicta pro-anima mea et dicti Nerii quoadam filii mei. Item judico et relinquo de bonis meis domine Francisce filie mee ete. Et in omnibus alis bonis meis mobilibus et immobilibus, juribus, nominibus et actoribus quibus- cumque et ubicumque sunt t invenire potunt per loca, vocabula et confines Johannem filium quondam Nerii quoadam fili mei nepotem meum michi universalem heredem institu etc ‘Actum Senis in domo in qua jacebat suprascriptus testator coram fratre Ber- ‘ardino Bonauenture, fratre Francisco Bartalomei de ordine fratrum ‘minorum de Senis t Petro Ventura Guainario. Testibus predicts et rogatis. Ego Petrus, apostolica et imperiali et imperiali [sic] auctoritate notarius Publicus, filius quondam Mei Alberti premissis omnibus interfui ct ea suprascripta (illegible word) publicavirogatus,WA -fig. 1 /Ambrogio Lorenzett and workshop, Annunciation and Macst caly 1340's Frescoes in the chapel ofthe Oratorio di San Galgano, MontesicpML 1-fig. 2 Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Gabriel early 1340'. Sinopit for fresco in the chapel of the Oratorio di San Galgano, MontesipiU1 -fig. 3 Ambrogio Lorenzeti, Virgin Annunciate, carly 1340's ‘Sinopia for fresco inthe chapel ofthe Oratorio di San Galgano, MontesicpiW.1-fig. 4 Simone Martini (tt), Virgin Annuncate Let wing of ditych, 30.5 x 21,5 em (Leningrad, Hermitage)cation, polyptyeh, 1333, fe panes)WL. 1-fig. 8 ‘Annunciation, Cuting from choirbook, Bologna, 1340's (Ferrara, Pinacoteca Nazionale)WA -fig. 9 Ambrogio 1344, Pana 130s 150 em (Sean, Paso Nexon)