Florentine School, Last Quarter of the 15th Century

Count Isolani, Bologna;
Baron Michele Lazzaroni, Paris;
With Duveen Bros., New York & London;
By whom sold to Mr. William Salomon, New York, before 1919;
His deceased sale, ("Notable Paintings and other Rare Examples of the Art of the Italian Renaissance and Earlier Italian Periods"), New York, American Art Association, 26-27 January 1923, lot 214, where it was acquired prior to the sale by Duveen Bros., New York;
From whom acquired by Mr. Nils B. Hersloff, East Orange, New Jersey, before 1926;
Thence by descent in the family to the present owner.

New York, Duveen Galleries, A Catalogue of early Italian Paintings exhibited at the Duveen Galleries, April-May 1924, no. 12.

W. R. Valentiner, A Catalogue of early Italian Paintings exhibited at the Duveen Galleries, exhibition catalogue, New York 1926, cat. no. 12 (as Piero Pollaiolo);
R. van Marle, The Development of the Italian School of Painting, The Hague 1929, vol. XI, pp. 393-395, reproduced, fig. 242 (as Piero Pollaiolo);
C.H. Collins Baker, "Review:  The Development of the Italian School of Painting XI," in The Burlington Magazine, vol. 56, no. 325 (April 1930), p. 218 (as a questioned attribution mentioned briefly in conjunction with a work attributed by van Marle to Piero della Francesca);
R. van Marle, "Letter to the Editor, A Response to C.H. Collins Baker's Review of The Development of the Italian School of Painting XI," in The Burlington Magazine, vol. 56, no. 325 (April 1930) p. 280 (mentioned briefly in conjunction with the work attributed to Piero della Francesca, as Piero Pollaiolo);
G. Colacicchi, Antonio del Pollaiolo, Florence 1943, p. xxxiii, no. 60, reproduced no. 60 (as Antonio del Pollaiolo);
A. Sabatini, Antonio e Piero del Pollaiolo, Florence 1944, p. 110 (as a questioned attribution);
S. Ortolani, Il Pollaiuolo, Milan 1948, p. 246, no. 191 (as Attributed to Piero Pollaiolo); reproduced pl. 191;
L. Ragghianti Collobi, Catalogo della mostra d'arte antica:  Lorenzo il Magnifico e le arti, exh. cat. Florence, Palazzo Strozzi, 21 May - 31 October 1949, Florence 1949, p. 49, under no. 4 (as a questioned attribution);
B. Berenson, Italian Pictures of the Renaissance: Florentine School, London 1963, vol. I, p. 179, reproduced, vol. II, fig. 774 (as Piero Pollaiolo);
A. Busignani, Pollaiolo, Florence 1969, pp. CLVI-CLVII, reproduced (as Piero Pollaiolo);
L.D. Ettlinger, Antonio and Piero Pollaiuolo:  Complete Edition with a Critical Catalogue, New York 1978, p. 170, under cat. no. 62 (as a questionable attribution in need of further study);
A. G. De Marchi, Falsi primitivi:  Prospettive critiche e metodi di esecuzione, Torino 2001, p. 168, reproduced no. 151 (as Angiolo Tricca?) and p. 190, footnote 155;
M. Secrest, Duveen:  A Life in Art, New York 2004, p. 474;
A. Galli, The Pollaiolo Brothers, eng. trans., Milan 2005, p. 452, under note 50 (as Piero Pollaiolo);
A. Ottani Cavina et. al., Federico Zeri:  Diertro L'Immagine.  Opere d'arte e fotografia, Torino 2009, p. 146, no. 1, reproduced (as Piero del Pollaiolo, Bottega o Maniera).

The following condition report has been provided by David Bull, Fine Art Conservation and Restoration, Inc. 17 East 76th Street, New York, NY 10021, 212-439-1659, david@fineartconservation.net, an independent restorer who is not an employee of Sotheby's. The panel has been thinned at some time in the past and a cradle attached. It remains flat and presently quite stable, although it is clear that there has previously been considerable movement of the panel. Throughout the painting, there has been abrasion in the background, revealing isolated islands of the gesso, with some lesser abrasion in the face. The hair and decorations remain relatively unscathed. The only major loss is located in the neck of the sitter, where there is no original paint remaining. Old retouching covered this passage. The abrasion losses and the damage to the sitter's neck have been carefully inpainted to match the original. A thin clear semi matte varnish covers the surface.
"This lot is offered for sale subject to Sotheby's Conditions of Business, which are available on request and printed in Sotheby's sale catalogues. The independent reports contained in this document are provided for prospective bidders' information only and without warranty by Sotheby's or the Seller."

Known only from old photographs since it was acquired in the mid 1920's, this intriguing Profile Portrait of a Lady is presented here publicly for the first time in more than 80 years.  It has remained with the descendants of Nils Hersloff, who purchased the picture from Duveen Brothers between 1923 and 1926, and thus has been inaccessible to scholars.  Its reappearance and recent cleaning and restoration allow a reassessment of the work and its placement within the body of late quattrocentro Florentine portraiture. 

The attribution of this much published work has been widely discussed since Valentiner first gave it to Piero Pollaiolo in 1926.  Raimond van Marle and Bernard Berenson also gave the portrait to Piero, while Colacicchi (1943) preferred to attribute the work to his brother Antonio.  Subsequent scholars reverted to Piero, including Ortolani (1948), Busignani (1969), and most recently Galli (2005).  During these same years, however, a number of historians found the portrait visually confusing and were hesitant in attribution, and sometimes even questioned its age.

Much of the past uncertainty about the Profile Portrait can be attributed to one of its earliest known owners.  Although said to be part of the famous Isolani collection in Bologna, the first modern owner of the present panel was Baron Michele Lazzaroni.  Lazzaroni was a famous collector, amateur and sometimes dealer, notorious for his "restoration" campaigns on the pictures that passed through his hands.  Working with a restorer by the name of Verzetta (or Vergetas), Lazzaroni overpainted and altered works to bring them more in line with late 19th century tastes and ideals of beauty.  That such a campaign was undertaken on the present work is made clear by a comparison of the work in its current, restored state, and a photograph taken of it pre-treatment (fig. 1).  That such campaigns were rarely detected at the time shows how well Lazzaroni, Verzetta and others like them gauged the tastes, desires and expectations of their times. 

In his discussion of Verzetta's activities, Andrea G. De Marchi remarks on the shared characteristics of the restorer's work, noting the padded and apparently airless atmospheres, pallid complexions and heavy "mascara-lined" eyes as common denominators throughout.¹   Such alterations are clearly visible when one compares the Profile Portrait of a Lady in its current state, with its image in fig. 1.  Several changes are immediately visible.  Firstly, the young woman's hair-line was extended forward, mitigating the appearance of the plucked and shaved forehead that was the fashion of wealthy noble Italian women of the period.  Additionally, the girl's neckline and chin have been made softer and more feminine, with darker shadows, and a bit of black paint giving her eye a heavier-lashed and more languid look.  The folds of her veil were altered slightly, as were the color and texture of her hair.  Finally, the neckline and color of the woman's costume represent perhaps the most drastic changes of all:  the high, modest neckline was altered to create a gentle scoop-neck, over a white chemise. The color was also apparently changed, for when Valentiner comments on the lady's dress in his 1926 catalogue entry, he states that it is "of pink damask."²   When viewed side by side, it is easy to see how the altered version would appeal more to Victorian taste – with its ideal of soft, coquettish femininity – than the more severe, earnest looking girl from the original painting.

Recent technical examination has also proven to be extremely illuminating.  The portrait is on an old panel support which appears to be entirely consistent with paintings of the final decades of the 15^th century.   More compelling, however, is a pigment analysis which has revealed the presence of lead-tin yellow, a color which was employed by artists from very early and up until the late seventeenth century.  After that time, it began to be replaced by other yellows and the formula for it was eventually lost, disappearing by the early nineteenth century at the latest.  It would not be rediscovered until 1941, when scientists were able to isolate its chemical composition.  Samples taken from the jewelry in the sitter's hair, an area which was revealed to be original during recent cleaning, demonstrate high concentrations of lead-tin yellow. Two of the pale yellow "glints" evident in the golden areas of the jewels contain lead-tin yellow at a high concentration in combination with lead white.  Additionally, the green stone contains a small percentage of lead-tin yellow as a means of adjusting the shade of green.  The presence of lead-tin yellow supports the conclusion that this is a period work, as it would be unlikely that a sixteenth or seventeenth century artist would recreate a quattrocento profile portait.² Such early works were ridiculed as crude and primitive during the later Renaissance and Baroque periods and the works of such artists were largely forgotten until the early twentieth century when scholars like Bernard Berenson revived interest in, and understanding of, early Italian art. 

1. "I dipinti affidati alle sue cure... si riconoscono per certi particolari denominatori comuni. Infatti i suoi trattamenti hanno invariabilmente creato atmosfere ovattate e asfittiche, abitate da personaggi pallidi, che ammiccano con occhi bistrati, fra il languido e l'assonnato (See A.G. De Marchi, pp. 67-68)."  De Marchi also discusses the present portrait, which he ascribes tentatively to the 19^th century forger, Angiolo Tricca (op. cit. p. 190). Although he was suggesting this hypothesis only on very old and pre-restoration photographs of the present painting, stylistically the picture appears to be entirely different from the small body of works that can be ascribed to Tricca.  In discussing its history, De Marchi further seems to conflate the present picture with another one ascribed to Piero della Francesca, which had caused a public disagreement between van Marle and C.H. Collins Baker, the reviewer for the Burlington Magazine of the eleventh volume of his magnum opus The Development of the Italian School of Painting (see literature).  

2.  A report of the technical findings is available upon request from the department.