No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Piero’s Madonna del Parto: Facts and Conjectures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 May 2019
Abstract
Despite the large amount of work on Piero della Francesca’s Madonna del Parto, there are some problems that require attention, the most important being the alleged effect of the Council of Trent on this picture, which was withdrawn from the cult from 1583 to 1697: the usual interpretation that it had become unorthodox appears to be without foundation. There are also some questions about its iconology, which raise interesting conjectures about syncretic inputs.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © Academia Europaea 2019
References
References and Notes
Banker, J.R. (2013) Documenti fondamentali per la conoscenza della vita e dell’arte di Piero della Francesca (Sansepolcro: Selci-Lama).Google Scholar
Banker, J.R. (2004) Piero della Francesca: Artist and man (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 5.Google Scholar
Family names were not much used at that time except for noble families. In the archival documents Piero is sometimes referred to as Franceschi, after his father, and sometimes as della Francesca, after a maternal grandmother.Google Scholar
Giorni, B. (1977) La Madonna del Parto di Piero della Francesca (Monterchi: Pro Loco), p. 158.Google Scholar
The subject of the pregnant Madonna is not as common as the other Virgin’s representations, but there are many examples fully discussed by Feudale, C. (1954–1957) The iconography of the Madonna del Parto. Marsyas, 7, pp. 8–23.Google Scholar
Longhi, R. (2002) Piero della Francesca. Translated by D. Tabbar (Riverdale-on-Hudson: Stanley Moss Book-Sheep Meadow Press).Google Scholar
Battisti, E. (1992) Piero della Francesca: Nuova edizione riveduta e aggiornata con il coordinamento scientifico di Marisa Dalai Emiliana (Milano: Electa), Vol. 1, p.322.Google Scholar
The dating of the early 1460s is compatible with the picture being painted after Piero’s mother’s death in 1459, since there is a strong oral tradition that the picture was a homage to the late mother. A.M. Maetzke, however, who directed the final restoration of the fresco, proposes a date before 1455 because of the quality of the colour, see Maetzke, A.M. (1993) Risultati e risultanze del restauro: Conservazione, approfondamento critico e nuove prospettive di ricerca. In Piero della Francesca La Madonna del Parto: Restauro e iconografia (Venezia: Marsilio Editori), p. 24.Google Scholar
Battisti, E. (1992) Piero della Francesca: Nuova edizione riveduta e aggiornata con il coordinamento scientifico di Marisa Dalai Emiliana (Milano: Electa), vol. 2, p.530.Google Scholar
Martone, T. (1980) L’affresco di Piero della Francesca in Monterchi: una pietra miliare della pittura rinascimentale. In Convegno Internazionale sulla ‘Madonna del Parto’ di Piero della Francesca (Monterchi: Comune di Monterchi), p. 39, suggests that this piece may have inspired Piero, which is most unlikely, since he erroneously attributes it to Andrea’s uncle, Luca (1400–1482).Google Scholar
A connection between the fresco and death, postulated by Caroline Feudale and by Kenneth Clark, on the basis that the picture was sited in the chapel of a cemetery, may be disregarded, given that the cemetery was built some 200 years after the fresco was painted.Google Scholar
Waterworth, J. (1888) The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent (London: Burne and Oats).Google Scholar
This is a marble carving of Madonna and Child, its only connection with childbirth being a representation of the Holy Girdle which lies on the lap of the Virgin. In accordance to the legend, St Thomas could not witness the Ascension of the Virgin because he was in India. As he expressed scepticism about the Ascension on his return, the Virgin dropped her girdle to prove that She was indeed in Heaven. It was much used by ladies in labour as an amulet (there were copies in Prato and several other cathedrals).Google Scholar
‘We entrust to your protection all the mothers that supplicate to you for the integrity of their children and for a happy delivery.’ (Recorded in November 2017.)Google Scholar
This is a Madonna sculpture which contains a box in Her stomach, faced with glass, that permits the sight of a Baby Jesus inside.Google Scholar
See the description of the chapel, destroyed in the fire of 1734, in Martínez Leiva, G. and Rodríguez Rebollo, Á. (2015) El inventario del Alcázar de Madrid de 1666: Felipe IV y su colección artística (Madrid: Ediciones Polifemo), pp. 87–88. As regards the effect of the Council of Trent on art, a very influential book was Discorso intorno alle imagini Sacre e Profane, by the Cardinal Gabriele Paleotti, published in 1582 (available in memofonte.it). Book 2, Ch. 4 deals inter alia with ‘pitture scandalose’, but there is no reference at all to the Virgin pregnant or otherwise. Admittedly, more about the Virgin was to come in a later book never published. About its influence on our present case, it must be remembered that the Cardinal, as Bishop of Bologna, was only addressing his Diocese and even then not in a prescriptive but only in an advisory capacity, as was the case for all bishops. One interesting case is that of the Annunciations showing a Baby on the Holy Spirit’s beam. Paleotti (Book 4, Ch. 6) proscribes them (which in fact disappear after 1600) not on the basis of their naturalism but on sound theological grounds: the Baby they depict would be wholly formed from the Holy Spirit, which would make the incarnation defective, Jesus having to be wholly human, as generated by the Virgin’s blood.Google Scholar
See de Carlos Varona, M.C. (2006) Entre el riesgo y la necesidad: embarazo, alumbramiento y culto a la Virgen en los espacios femeninos del Alcázar de Madrid. Arena, 13(2), p. 281.Google Scholar
See also Agnoletti, E. (1972) I vescovi di Sansepolcro: (note di archivio) (Sansepolcro: Tipografia Buoncompagni), pp. 44–65.Google Scholar
In ea habetur altare majus indecenter ornatum, cum careat cruce, candelabris, tobaleis, pallio, sgabello, sed ut dictum fuit ad iliud nunquam celebrator, quia habetur aliud altare sub titulo Gloriosae Virginis ad quod habetur magna populi devotio cum multa miracula coram imaginem Gloriosae Virginis quae adest super dictum altare summus Deus operates fuerit (B. Giorni (1989) Monterchi (Monterchi: Pro Loco), p. 207).Google Scholar
Although the use of ‘pulcherrima’ (most beautiful) in reference to the Madonna del Parto is sufficient to exclude its position as non-orthodox, it is even more significant because the meaning of pulcher as ‘morally beautiful’ is well attested both in classical and in medieval Latin (see the Dictionary of Medieval Latin, the Oxford Latin Dictionary, as well as the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, column 2565. Personal communication from Professor James Adams, Oxford). In view of this it is virtually impossible to accept that Piero’s fresco was judged unorthodox.Google Scholar
This is a piece of marble or cement containing relics of a saint. It is sometimes referred to as a portable altar.Google Scholar
Giorni, B. (1986) La Madonna del Parto ed altre opere d’arte dell’antica chiesa di Momentana (Città di Castello: Tipografia Tappini), p. 24.Google Scholar
See for the later restorations Centauro, G. (1993) La Madonna del Parto: Le vicende`storiche e i restauri precedent. In Maetzke, A.M. (Ed.), Piero della Francesca La Madonna del Parto: Restauro e iconografia (Venezia: Marsilio Editori), pp. 41–56.Google Scholar
I should like to express my gratitude to the late don Bruno Giorni for this frank statement, since I had spent a considerable amount of time doing the same and doubting my results.Google Scholar
Martone, T. (1993) La Madonna del Parto di Piero della Francesca e la sua iconografia. In Maetzke, A.M (Ed.), Piero della Francesca La Madonna del Parto: Restauro e iconografia (Venezia: Marsilio Editore), pp. 103–143, p. 103.Google Scholar
Bianconi, P. (1962) All the Paintings of Piero della Francesca. Translated by P.Colacicchi (London: Oldbourne), p. 43.Google Scholar
Tofanelli, P. (2009) La Madonna del Parto, Pagine Nuove. Storia dell’ Arte e dell’ Architettura, (3), pp. 73–94, p. 79.Google Scholar
Giorni, B. (1972) Monterchi e la sua storia (Città di Castello: Tipografia Tappini), p. 1.Google Scholar
Dini, V. (1980) La Madonna del Parto di Piero della Francesca come Portatrice di un Messaggio Sacrale Precristiano. In Biblioteca Comunale di Monterchi (Ed.), Convegno Internazionale sulla ‘Madonna del Parto’ di Piero della Francesca (Monterchi: Comune di Monterchi), pp. 181–185. Dini remarks that the various water sources in Monterchi had a profound significance in pagan times, which, as we shall see, was even preserved in Piero’s times.Google Scholar
In Romance languages to deliver a child is to bring it to the light.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R.H. (2003) The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames and Hudson), pp. 213–214.Google Scholar
Mussacchio, J.M. (2001) Weasels and pregnancy in Renaissance Italy. Renaissance Studies, 15, pp. 172–187. See also de Carlos Varona, M.C. (2006) Entre el riesgo y la necesidad: embarazo, alumbramiento y culto a la Virgen en los espacios femeninos del Alcázar de Madrid. Arena, 13(2), pp. 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Now at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Gallery in Boston.Google Scholar
Jupiter had seduced Alcmena, for which Juno was furious. When the birth was imminent Lucina locked her fingers and crossed her legs so that poor Alcmena could not deliver. A maid, Galanthis, tricked Lucina by announcing to her that her lady had delivered, upon which Lucina relaxed her position and Hercules was born. Lucina, in revenge, transformed Galanthis into a weasel. It is probably because of this that a dead weasel, which would satisfy Lucina, is a good omen for childbirth.Google Scholar
Moyaers, G.D. and Renard, M. (1981) Aperçu critique des travaux relatifs au culte de Junon. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römische Welt (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 142–202.Google Scholar