Crucifix, Bronze, iron, and wood, Lombardy, mid-17th century

Atelier mannequin graven and carved stone pine wood Italy, late 19th century Measures: H 102 cm x 25 cm x 14 cm H 40.15 in x 9.84 in x 5.51 in Weight: circa kg 4 State of conse...

Boxwood micro carving Deposition Central Europe, first half of the 18th century It measures: the sculpture 7.40 x 5.31 x 0.6 in (18.8 x 13.5 x 1.6 cm); w...

Pair of thirteen-flame candelabra France or Russia Second quarter of 19th century Cast, chiseled and gilt bronze Height 40.95 in (cm 104), diameter 17,7 in (cm 45) 97 lb (44 kg) Sta...

Embossed and engraved silver plaque La Madonna del lago (The Madonna of the Lake) Probably Milan, post 1824 Brass frame It measures 16.14 in x 13.85 in (41 x 35.2 cm) and it weighs 10.357 pounds (4.698 g): silver 1.31 pounds (598 g) + brass 9.03 pounds (4.100 g) State of conservation: some abrasions on the bottom. The frame is old, but not original. The plaque is made up of a sheet of embossed and engraved silver, and held in a solid brass frame. It depicts the “Madonna del lago” – “Madonna of the Lake” - (the Madonna with Child and San Giovannino) by Marco d'Oggiono (Oggiono, 1474 circa - Milan, 1524 circa), while changing only the background landscape. Almost certainly the subject reproduced in the plaque was taken from a famous engraving by Giuseppe Longhi (Monza, 1766 - Milan, 1831), one of the greatest engravers of his era. The silver is unmarked, probably because originally the Madonna was due to be exposed in a church: sometimes precious metals destined for worship and liturgical use would be exempted from payment and were, therefore, not marked. It is very likely that the plaque was made in Milan because in this city in 1824 the engraving by Giuseppe Longhi was made and printed. In addition, in Milan, the alleged lost painting by Leonardo da Vinci in his Milanese period (1482-1500) would be produced; this is the painting from which Marco d'Oggiono took his version. The painting Marco d?Oggiono was one of Leonardo da Vinci's most brilliant students and collaborators (D. Sedini, Marco d’Oggiono, tradizione e rinnovamento in Lombardia tra Quattrocento e Cinquecento, Roma 1989, pp. 151-153, n. 56; p. 225, n. 124, with previous bibliography). His style reflects in every way that of the Tuscan Maestro, so much so that he was the one who executed some copies of da Vinci's paintings. The execution of the “Madonna del Lago” probably draws inspiration from a lost painting by the Maestro, created while he was living in Milan (1482-1500). There are many similarities with other works by Leonardo such as the “Vergine delle rocce” or the “Vergine con il Bambino e San Giovannino, Sant’Anna e l’Agnello”. The painting, from which the drawing and then the famous engraving were taken, is found today at the M&G Museum of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, where it came to rest after the sale of the Harrington Collection in London in 1917. The work appears in the inventories of the collection of Napoleon and Joséphine Bonaparte at the castle of Malmaison, before 1809. The Malmaison building was born and developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 18th century it belonged to Jacques-Jean Le Coulteux du Molay, a wealthy banker. Later, during the Directory, Joséphine Bonaparte de Beauharnais bought it on April 21st, 1799, but settled at the castle definitively only after her husband separated from her in 1809. She remained there until 1814, the year of her death. When Joséphine died, the estate passed to her son Eugène de Beauharnais, who moved to Munich with his whole family in 1815, bringing with him the collection of paintings he inherited from his mother. Eugène died in 1824 and his wife Augusta of Bavaria (von Bayern), unable to keep it, in 1828 sold the Malmaison to the Swedish banker Jonas-Philip Hagerman. It is likely that in this period Augusta also sold part of the paintings inherited from her husband, including the “Madonna del Lago”. This painting then came into the possession of Leicester Stanhope, fifth Earl of Harrington (1784 - 1862) and then was passed down to his descendants. In 1917, at the death of Charles, eighth Earl of Harrington, his brother Dudley inherited the title and properties and he put up a part of his collections for sale. Among these, precisely, the painting by Marco d'Oggiono was to be found. On the occasion of that auction the painting was presented as a work by Cesare da Sesto, by virtue of a handwritten note by the Countess of Harrington on the back of the table. However, already in 1857, the German critic Gustav Waagen had identified Marco d'Oggiono as the author of the painting, then exhibited in the dining room of Harrington House in London (Treasures of Art in Great Britain, in 4 volumes, London, 1854 and 1857). The engraving Giuseppe Longhi was one of the most renowned engravers in Italy between the end of the 18th century and the first quarter of the 19th century. In 1824 Giuseppe Longhi, based on a design by Paolo Caronni, made a famous engraving of the painting of Marco d?Oggiono. The activity of Longhi was then at the peak of his notoriety, enough to earn him very substantial commissions; it is not risky to suppose that some of his successful engravings were also reproduced using other means: in our case in silver. (A. Crespi, a cura di, Giuseppe Longhi 1766–1831 e Raffaello Morghen...

JESUS CHRIST CRUCIFIED 17th Century Portuguese sculpture in carved wood, polychrome and gilded. Small flaws in the polychromy. Height: (Christ) 32 cm. Height: (total) 86 cm. good co...

Large brutalist cast iron & wood crucifix / cross from Italy, circa 1970s. This is a beautiful linear piece in great condition measuring 10"W x 3"D...

JESUS CHRIST CRUCIFIED Cross in exotic wood, 19th Century Portuguese sculpture carved in ivor... Signs of use. Dim. Height: (christ) 16 cm; (total) 45 cm good conditions

A rare and very fine bronze corpus of Christ after a model by Michelangelo, cast ca. 1597-1600 by Juan Bautista Franconio and painted in 1600 by Francisco Pacheco in Seville, Spain. The present corpus reproduces a model attributed to Michelangelo. The best known example, lesser in quality, is one on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET). The association of this corpus with Michelangelo was first brought to light by Manuel Gomez-Moreno (1930-33) who studied the wider circulated casts identified throughout Spain. The attribution to Michelangelo was subsequently followed by John Goldsmith-Phillips (1937) of the MET and again by Michelangelo expert, Charles de Tolnay (1960). While Michelangelo is best known for his monumental works, there are four documented crucifixes he made. The best known example is the large-scale wooden crucifix for the Church of Santa Maria del Santo Spirito in Florence, made in 1492 as a gift for the Prior, Giovanni di Lap Bicchiellini, for allowing him to study the anatomy of corpses at the hospital there. In 1562, Michelangelo wrote two letters to his nephew, Lionardo, indicating his intention to carve a wooden crucifix for him. In 1563 a letter between Lionardo and the Italian sculptor Tiberio Calcagni, mentions this same crucifix (a sketch of a corpus on the verso of a sheet depicting Michelangelo’s designs for St. Peter’s Basillica [Palais des Beaux-Arts in Lille] may reproduce this). That Michelangelo was working on small corpora in the last years of his life is further evidenced by the small (26.5 cm) unfinished wooden crucifix located at the Casa Buonarroti, considered his last known sculptural undertaking. Michelangelo’s contemporary biographer, Giorgio Vasari additionally cites that Michelangelo, in his later years, made a small crucifix for his friend, Menighella, as a gift. Surviving sketches also indicate Michelangelo’s study of this subject throughout his career, most notably during the end of his life but also during the 1530s-40s as he deepened his spiritual roots. The occasional cameo of crucified Christ’s throughout his sketched oeuvre have made it challenging for scholars to link such sketches to any documented commissions of importance. All the while, in consideration that such objects were made as gifts, it is unlikely they should be linked with commissions. Nonetheless, a number of theories concerning Michelangelo’s sketches of Christ crucified have been proposed and some may regard the origin of the present sculpture. It has been suggested that the corpus could have its impetus with Michelangelo’s work on the Medici Chapel, whose exclusive design was given to the master. It is sensible smaller details, like an altar cross, could have fallen under his responsibility (see for example British Museum, Inv. 1859,0625.552). Others have noted the possibility of an unrealized large marble Crucifixion group which never came to fruition but whose marble blocks had been measured according to a sheet at the Casa Buonarroti. A unique suggestion is that Michelangelo could have made the crucifix for Vittoria Colonna, of whom he was exceedingly fond and with whom he exchanged gifts along with mutual spiritual proclivities. In particular, Vittoria had an interest in the life of St. Bridget, whose vision of Christ closely resembles our sculpture, most notably with Christ’s proper-left leg and foot crossed over his right, an iconography that is incredibly scarce for crucifixes. The suggestion could add sense to Benedetto Varchi’s comment that Michelangelo made a sculpted “nude Christ…he gave to the most divine Marchesa of Pescara (Vittoria Colonna).” Of that same period, two sketches can be visually linked to our sculpture. Tolnay relates it to a sketch of a Crucified Christ at the Teylers Museum (Inv. A034) of which Paul Joannides comments on its quality as suggestive of preparations for a sculptural work. Joannides also calls attention to a related drawing attributed to Raffaello da Montelupo copying what is believed to be a lost sketch by Michelangelo. Its relationship with our sculpture is apparent. Montelupo, a pupil of Michelangelo’s, returned to Rome to serve him in 1541, assisting with the continued work on the tomb of Pope Julius II, suggesting again an origin for the corpus ca. 1540. The earliest firm date that can be given to the present corpus is 1574 where it appears as a rather crudely conceived Crucifixion panel, flanked by two mourners in low-relief and integrally cast for use as the bronze tabernacle door to a ciborium now located at the Church of San Lorenzo in Padula. Etched in wax residue on the back of the door is the date, 27 January 1574, indicating the corpus would have at least been available as a model by late 1573. The Padula tabernacle was completed by Michelangelo’s assistant, Jacopo del Duca and likely has its origins with Michelangelo’s uncompleted tabernacle for the Basilica of St. Mary of the Angels in Rome. The impetus for the Padula tabernacle’s Crucifixion panel begins with a series of late Crucifixion sketches by Michelangelo, depicting a scene of Christ crucified and flanked by two mourners (see British Museum Inv. 1895.0915.510; Ashmolean Museum Inv. 1846.89, KP II 343 recto; Windsor Castle RCIN 912761 recto; and Louvre Inv. 700). A faintly traced block possibly intended for sculpting the sketch of the crucified Christ on its recto was discovered by Tolnay on a version of the composition at Windsor Castle. The Windsor sketch and those related to it appear to have served as preparatory designs for what was probably intended to become the Basilica of St. Mary’s tabernacle door. Vasari documents that the project was to be designed by Michelangelo and cast by his assistant, Jacopo del Duca. Michelangelo died before the commission was complete, though on 15 March 1565, Jacopo writes to Michelangelo’s nephew stating, “I have started making the bronze tabernacle, depending on the model of his that was in Rome, already almost half complete.” Various circumstances interrupted the completion of the tabernacle, though its concept is later revitalized by Jacopo during preparations to sell a tabernacle, after Michelangelo’s designs, to Spain for Madrid’s El Escorial almost a decade later. The El Escorial tabernacle likewise encountered problems and was aborted but Jacopo successfully sold it shortly thereafter to the Carthusians of Padula. An etched date, 30 May 1572, along the base of the Padula tabernacle indicates its framework was already cast by then. A 1573 summary of the tabernacle also describes the original format for the door and relief panels, intended to be square in dimension. However, a last minute decision to heighten them was abruptly made during Jacopo’s negotiations to sell the tabernacle to King Phillip II of Spain. Shortly thereafter the commission was aborted. Philippe Malgouyres notes that the Padula tabernacle’s final state is a mixed product of the original design intended for Spain’s El Escorial, recycling various parts that had already been cast and adding new quickly finished elements for its sale to Padula, explaining its unusually discordant quality, particularly as concerns the crudeness of the door and relief panels which were clearly made later (by January 1574). Apart from his own admission in letters to Spain, it is apparent, however, that Jacopo relied upon his deceased master’s designs while hastily realizing the Padula panels. If Michelangelo had already earlier conceived a crucifix model, and Jacopo had access to that model, its logical he could have hastily employed it for incorporation on the door panel to the tabernacle. It is worth noting some modifications he made to the model, extending Christ’s arms further up in order to fit them into the scale of the panel and further lowering his chin to his chest in order to instill physiognomic congruence. A crude panel of the Deposition also follows after Michelangelo’s late sketches and is likewise known by examples thought to be modifications by Jacopo based upon Michelangelo’s initial sculptural conception (see Malgouyres: La Deposition du Christ de Jacopo del Duca, chef-d’oeuvre posthume de Michel-Ange). Jacopo’s appropriation of an original model by Michelangelo for more than one relief on the Padula tabernacle adds further indication that the crucifix was not an object unique to Jacopo’s hand, as few scholars have posited, but rather belongs to Michelangelo’s original...