This Madonna and Child is in a good state of preservation overall, despite generalised damage caused by xylophagous insects, scratches and patches of colour loss and alterations to the precious materials (particularly the metal leaf used to embellish the figures’ clothes). To this we should add the loss of the Virgin’s left thumb. The group is secured to a painted base that appears to be cut at the top and that, at one time, must have been accompanied by side panels, as clearly indicated by the linchpins along the edges of this support. The holy protagonists must originally have been at the centre of a tabernacle shrine with doors, probably also painted. 

The work entered the Cerruti Collection in the early 2000s. It was still in Florence in February 2003, where it was put up for sale in a Semenzato auction with a correct attribution to the “Master of the Gualino St Catherine” that, as far as I am aware, has never been recorded in literature on the subject. The recognition and naming of this anonymous artist working in the first decades of the 14th century is due to Giovanni Previtali, who covered him as part of his research into the sculpture of central Italy. His work has shed some light in the artistic production of the particular geographical and cultural context that comprised southern Umbria, Abruzzo and the Marche in the Middle Ages.¹ The scholar reconstructed the Master’s activity in various contributions published between the 1960s and the 1980s, uniting a consistent group of carvings around a fine wooden St Catherine that formerly belonged to the prestigious Turin-based collection of Riccardo Gualino and that, after being sold by the dealer Carlo De Carlo in Florence,² is now in a private collection. With the exception of slight natural qualitative inflections, this family of sculptures is characterised by great stylistic and iconographical consistency. Today it comprises a conspicuous number of examples distributed throughout religious buildings and public and private collections in Italy and abroad. One notable characteristic, both in the Cerruti sculpture and in the others, is the adoption of an almost improbable elongated module for the figures, angled physiognomies, and tapered oval faces supported by long necks worthy of Modigliani. Equally typical is their correspondence to a figurative canon in a highly archaic style, which helps to perfectly poise these simulacra between sacred elegance and everyday humanity. There is a very close link between the carving and the chromatic finish, which, where it is preserved, is always very fine. The Cerruti work is an excellent example of this, resplendent in its original colours, which are primarily noticeable in the faces, recalling the paintwork of another eponymous example in the series. However, the similarities with the Gualino St Catherine can also be seen in the arrangement of the drapery, solidly constructed with folds that cut deep into the wood, creating sharp, geometric lines. Additional comparisons can be made with the Madonna and Child at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh,³ with the one in the church of San Giovenale in Logna di Cascia (Perugia),⁴ and with an example formerly in the possession of De Carlo,⁵ and also with - all in Abruzzo - the Virgin in the Bishop’s Palace in Teramo, the one in the church of Santa Maria di Brecciano in Villa Brozzi (Montorio al Volamo, Teramo) and the one formerly at Sant’Angelo Abbamano near Sant’Omero, in the church of San Michele (in the Teramano area, now in the Museo Nazionale di L’Aquila).⁶ Having ascertained the accuracy of the attribution, we need to pinpoint the chronology of the Cerruti sculpture. During the Semenzato auction it was presented as the oldest example in the catalogue of the “Master” and dated to the late 13th century. However, as has been highlighted several times, it would be more plausible to shift this sculptor’s activity to the first half of the 14th century, which would also be the most suitable time period for placing this Madonna. This forward slide in the dating of the sculpture is, in fact, supported by the maturity of a style that has by now mastered the Gothic repertoire on a technical level, with the decision - not a foregone conclusion - to embellish the hems of the cloaks with stamps, and also on an expressive level, as can be seen, for example, in the credible naturalness with which the Child grips his mother’s arm. All the information that can be derived from the fashion of the sculpture points in the same direction, particularly the shape of the Virgin’s dress, characterised by a modest neckline that would have been highly unusual in the early 14th century, but à la page by the third or fourth decade. 

[Federica Siddi]

1 Previtali 1965, pp. 16-25; Id. 1966, pp. 51-53; Id. 1976, pp. 34-41; Id. 1984, pp. 36-41 (all republished in Previtali 1991, pp. 5-15; 40-44; 73-80; regarding Previtali please see: Galansino 2014). Without any claims to completeness, for further reflections on the “Master” and the additions to his catalogue see also: E. Carli, “Per il ‘Maestro della Santa Caterina Gualino’”, in Studi in onore di Giulio Carlo Argan 1984, pp. 59-63; Bergamo 1987, pp. 175-176; R. Bartalini, in Turin 1988a, pp. 91-96; M. Lucco, in Consigli 1993, pp. 18-21. The most recent contributions, albeit without any mention of our sculpture, can be found in: Fachechi 2011, pp. 26-27; pp. 75-76, cat. 3; Delpriori 2015, p. 181 note 44; E. Zappasodi, “Ricezione assisiate nelle Marche. Il Maestro del polittico di Ascoli”, in Cleri, Minardi 2017, p. 224. 

2 A. Tartuferi, in Florence 2001, p. 48, cat. 9. 

3 Recognised initially by Giovanni Romano and then discussed by Previtali 1984. The work has recently been restored: D. de Bellaigue et al., “Revealing the Archetype: The Journey of a Trecento Madonna at the National Museum of Scotland”, in Bridgland 2017, pp. 1-8. 

4 Previtali 1984, pp. 36-41. 

5 A. Tartuferi, in Florence 2001, p. 49, cat. 10. 

6 For the Abruzzo carvings: L. Arbace, in Trento 2010-11, pp. 90-95, cats. 13-14; L. Arbace, in Rimini 2011, pp. 90-95, cats. 13-14.