Summary of opinions expressed at the Cassoni Symposium
(by Caroline Campbell)

 
Morning Session (The Courtauld Gallery)

1.  Battle of Pharsalus Chest (F.1947.LF.3)

Caroline Campbell and Graeme Barraclough presented this ‘problem’ chest, which had initially appeared to be an uncomplicated nineteenth-century construction.  They were now not so sure, and thought that the chest might have earlier origins, but they wanted the opinion of the group, who had more experience of studying fifteenth-century furniture.

There was general discussion as to what – if any – are the documentary benchmarks for cassoni.  In addition, it was suggested that it would be most helpful to establish a chronology of the collecting of cassoni, and views expressed about them, in particular from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, when we know least about their appearance and collection, and even their continuing restoration and manufacture.

The question was raised of how we can define ‘old’, which in this context could mean anything from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century.  Can this be a helpful term in looking at objects which were later reconstructed using older wood?  The consensus was that we should be more discerning, and use more nuanced terms. 


The sides are clearly later additions, slotted into what could be the carcass of an old chest.  They are by a very different hand to the front panel.  The simple moulding is also not in keeping with that on the front of the chest.

Dove-tailing is evident at the back of the chest.  This was not considered sufficient as evidence of fifteenth-century origin, since this construction process was used for far longer.  The back of the chest was the least suspicious part of it.  However, its integrity was questioned, and in particular the oddity of the wood fixings which supported its back sections (above the feet). 


The wooden base of the ‘box’ of the chest looks suspicious as it is of several panels, not just one piece of wood.  One would expect this on an intact fifteenth-century chest.  In general, the underside of the chest is odd, as it is very unclear what function the various gouges were meant to serve.

 

The feet are also complex.  Those at the front are of a far later date than the fifteenth century.  In contrast, the carving of the back feet (in particular that at the left, as you look at the back of the chest) suggests older construction. It appears that an original, low, triangular, spandrel foot survives, around which later, deeper feet were built. The back feet might have been taken from a cassone a sepoltura.  They are quite inappropriate for a marriage chest, which is rather architecturally complex in design.  The fixings of the feet to the chest are new.  It was suggested that several of these might date as late as the 1950s.


The base moulding is a late addition, of new wood, probably made in the early twentieth century.  The carving and decoration is very clumsy, and it adds nothing to the appearance of the chest.


In general, the consensus was that this was a very heavily reworked chest.  Rather than being in essence a fifteenth-century object with later additions and restorations, it was most probably a confection of the early twentieth century, using pieces of wood of diverse dates, and from different pieces of furniture. 

 

2.  Morelli Nerli Chests (F.1947.LF.4; F.1947.LF.5)

Caroline Campbell and Graeme Barraclough made some brief remarks about what we know about the Morelli-Nerli ensemble:  that they are the chests and spalliera associated with Lorenzo Morelli’s commissions for his camera in late 1472 on the occasion of his marriage to Vaggia Nerli.  The documentation was discovered by Kent Lydecker in the Florentine Archives, and published in his PhD thesis of 1987.  Until Ellen Callmann’s Burlington article of 1999 they were considered the only pair of cassoni to remain with their accompanying spalliera, and in relatively intact state.  Callmann argued that they had been very heavily restored in the nineteenth-century, probably in Florence.  A close technical study of the chests by Arabella Davies, and subsequent work on the chests by the Courtauld Department of Conservation and Technology suggested that there were more fifteenth-century elements to the chests than Callmann had thought.  The Courtauld had no axe to grind about the date of the chests, but simply wanted to get as close to the truth as possible.   

Simone Chiarugi reminded the group of the complex gessoing of chests, and the specific types of animal size which were used.

The bottom sections of the chests were much discussed.  All agreed that the feet were a far later addition.  They were out of proportion to the rest of the chest.  The group was perplexed by the two levels of moulding above the feet.   The moulding immediately above the feet to some seemed reasonable for a fifteenth-century date.  Others considered that this looked more likely to have been taken from another piece of furniture, perhaps a cornice, and reused in the nineteenth-century restoration of the Morelli-Nerli chests.  No one was convinced that the garland mouldings could have formed part of the original fifteenth-century objects.   Some thought they were crude later derivations of a Renaissance type, while others categorised them as more typical of early nineteenth-century furniture.


Everybody was perplexed by the fact that one could not see how the mouldings of the chests were attached to the chest.  There were further questions about their bases.  It seemed odd that the bottom of the box of each chest was composed of several planks of wood.  There was further discussion of the gouged-out sections under the main body of the chest.  Were these intended to fix the chest to their predella base (the presence of a predella is mentioned in Lorenzo Morelli’s accounts)?  Or were they part of more complex fixing system whereby the spalliere, chests and their base were all attached together?  It was commented that the documentary record suggested that pairs of chests were found on a single base, and that this was much more normal than had been thought before. 


Some possible doubts were expressed about the decorative consoles on the side of each chest.  It was noticed that all four were slightly different.  Technical study at the Courtauld had demonstrated that half of one was a later reconstruction.  However, it was also pointed out that the coats of arms on the consoles were correct for the marriage of Lorenzo Morelli and Vaggia Nerli, and the documentation connecting the chests and this specific alliance had only been discovered in the 1980s.  Thus it could not have been known to a late nineteenth or twentieth century furniture conservator/reconstructor.

The strange distressed gilding on the chests was considered.  It was suggested that this was applied to the lower sections of the chests in the late nineteenth-century.  Simone Chiarugi pointed out the remains of grey paint on the gilding of the lower sections of moulding on both chests.  He said this was commonly found on seventeenth-century gilding.  However, remains of this grey-ish paint could also be seen on the parts of moulding (around the paintings) which the group agreed looked convincingly fifteenth century.   

There was considerable discussion about the textile patterns on the inner lid of the Morelli-Nerli chests, a less costly type of fabric to the white and gold damask shown on the spalliera panels.  Some members of the group were highly sceptical about a fifteenth-century date for these paintings, which they argued recalled textile designs by William Morris & Co.  Conversely, other said that the presence of pigments typical of a fifteenth-century palette( i.e. malachite and azurite), and also the remains of pouncing, supported a fifteenth-century date, given that 19th century fakers seem to have tended to use modern pigments instead of historically correct ones.


The lid of the private collection Ginevra of Genoa chest was opened (with the owner’s agreement).  Some thought its painted pattern incredibly close to those on the inside of the Morelli-Nerli lids.  Others felt the more muted colours supported a fifteenth-century date for this inner lid, and a later one for the M-N pair.  A further body of opinion considered that the Ginevra chest textile pattern was probably fifteenth century, but was quite different to that on the M-N lids, and closer to that on a much restored chest in the National Gallery, London.  It was suggested that Lisa Monnas be asked to look at the textile patterns on the chest interiors and also the spalliere.

Most of the group believed that the rest of the painting inside the chests was probably nineteenth century.  We know that chests were supposed to have been lined with fabric – so why would these ones have been painted?  No remnants of any textile fragments have been found inside the Morelli-Nerli chests.


The paintings on the back of both chests were also discussed.  It was pointed out that the fictive porphery pattern resembled that found on small panels intended for private use, and also the backs of some altarpieces (such as Daddi’s polyptych in The Courtauld).  No one seemed surprised that the spalliera panels were not painted, or even planed down or neatened.  They would never been intended for display, unlike the chest backs which might have been visible, very occasionally.  This could be an indication that the chests were processed through the streets:  however, it was pointed out that this custom seems to have been moribund by the 1470s, and also we know that these chests were commissioned directly by Lorenzo Morelli for his camera. 


Roberta Bartoli mentioned that she had studied afresh Lorenzo Morelli’s papers, and that her reading of these demonstrated that there was not one single spalliera panel, but one associated with each chest.  She had asked one of the archivists at the ASF in Florence to transcribe this, to further clarify this matter.


This raised the issue of the display of the spalliera panels.  Since the nineteenth century, they have been physically attached to the chests, with pieces of machine-made wood and metal clips.  The physical evidence of the spalliere suggests forcibly that this cannot be the original configuration – they do not have damage consistent with being hit regularly by the lid of a chest.  Different opinions were expressed on the height the spalliere were displayed in the exhibition, but there appeared to be agreement that they must have been at least at that height – if not somewhat higher – and that it was highly improbable they could have been attached to the chests.


The two spalliere were reconstructed at each corner.  However, the group felt that this was probably not indicative of wider reconstruction.  The quality of the carving was considered to be rather good, and its evocation of cornice decoration quite appropriate given the probable placement of the spalliere at some considerable height above the chests.  Comments were also made on the appropriateness and quality of the painted decoration above the main pictorial field, with splitting seed-pods and armillary spheres.


The question was also raised if we could be certain that the spalliere belonged to the same commission as the cassoni.  It was argued from the view points of both attribution and iconography that they must have belonged together.  Doubts were expressed – and agreed with by the group – about the quality of the authorship of the spalliera panel of Horatius Cocles.  The landscape elements were far weaker than those in the spalliera of Mucius Scaevola.  However, there was no reason to doubt that they were by members of the same workshop.  It was pointed out that at the time of this commission, Biagio di Antonio and Jacopo Sellaio shared premises with Lo Scheggia.


3.  Stucco cassone decorated with hunting animals (F.1947.LF.1)

Caroline Campbell and Graeme Barraclough stated that the Courtauld knew nothing about the provenance of this chest, save that it had been bought by Lord Lee of Fareham, and bequeathed to The Courtauld in 1947. 


Fausto Calderai and Simone Chiarugi summarised their extensive work on this category of chests.  They are often wrongly called pastiglia.  Pastiglia would be too fragile for a large chest, and they are actually moulded gesso (stucco).  One has to be quite sceptical about chests decorated with stucco.  They were attractive to nineteenth-century and twentieth-century collectors, and many pastiches were made.  In addition, considerable alterations were made to the remnants of extant stucco chests.  For instance, fifteenth-century stucco fronts were attached to ‘new’ chest, probably made out of remnants of older wood.  Simone Chiarugi showed the group a design for a Sienese cassone, dated 1903, and demonstrated how the pattern would have been pounced through onto gesso to apply the design. 


Simone suggested that this kind of stucco work was used in both Florence and Siena (‘cassoni di stucco relievo’), and that the boards were a standard thickness c. 4cm. The construction of the lid with overlapping boards (mezzo legno) seemed authentic.

The Courtauld chest belongs to a group of stucco chests depicting animals, of which one closely related example is in the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.  The Courtauld chest had an unusual – possibly unique – number of animals, including lions, eagles, dogs and bears (?), and was considered by the group to be beautifully and skillfully decorated.

Question marks were raised about the differing quality of the punched decoration on the sides of the chest.  That at the left (seen from the front) was very fine; some felt the right side was less assured.  Some members of the group wondered if this might have been a nineteenth-century addition. Some remnants of red and green paint were also noted on the right side of the chest.


The back of the chest was more perplexing.  A piece of wood had been fixed around the external edges of the base, like a frame.  None of the group had seen this before on a fifteenth-century Italian chest. 


A narrow strip of wood helping to secure the ring hinges (gangherelle) appears to have been replaced along the top of the back. There was speculation whether backs were deliberately made with a narrow top strip that could be replaced relatively easily, as the hinges wore it out with use.


The group thought that the Courtauld chest was a fine and rare example of a relatively intact stucco chest – despite the problem of the back.   The curved lid was original (and also original to the object), and so were the fixings.  The base was made from one plank of wood.  The internal structure looked fine for a fifteenth-century object.  Fragments of textile were found at the left-hand side of the interior.  Could these be remains of the fabric with which the chest had once been lined?  It was recommended that these fragments be scientifically analysed.


4.  The Triumph of Chastity (P.1966.GP.290)

Tilly Schmidt presented her work on this painting, which was bought by Thomas Gambier Parry from William Blundell Spence in 1875 for £200.  Spence told Gambier Parry it had a Brescian provenance. 


The group’s initial reaction was that this was a late nineteenth-century painting.  Fausto Calderai and Simone Chiarugi observed that it seemed to be on a seventeenth-century piece of wood.  There was some discussion about what could a seventeenth-century cassone look like.


Tilly Schmidt explained that there were remnants of an older, and very similar, composition under the painted surface, so that it seems unlikely that the painting was an absolute nineteenth-century creation.  Pigment analysis had not revealed any wholly suspicious pigments, such as Prussian Blue.   The group agreed that the painting was most perplexing, and an excellent example of the British nineteenth-century taste for cassone paintings.  The price was astonishingly high for the period. 


5.  The Siege of Carthage and Continence of Scipio (P.1966.GP.129)

Caroline Campbell and Tilly Schmidt said that this was the first cassone panel which Thomas Gambier Parry purchased.  He had bought it for £40 in July 1858.  It appears to be the earliest cassone painting (identified as such) to enter a British collection.   The painting, which is in good condition for a cassone panel, is painted in a mixture of tempera and oil, apparently by a follower of Lo Scheggia.  The unusual cradling system on the reverse was shown to the group, as well as the pronounced discolouration of the green pigments at the left.


The group discussed the possible use of this and other cassone panels by children.  Was this responsible for the distinctive scratching out of the faces?  The group thought that children were an important and underestimated audience for these paintings, since they would probably have been displayed at their level.  However, this is a hypothesis which is  almost impossible to prove.


Afternoon Session (Victoria and Albert Museum)


6.  Chest, with the arms of the Montefeltro and the Gonzaga families 47-1882

The chest was presented by Enrica Griseta and Nick Humphrey.  Enrica explained the conservation treatment which she is undertaking currently on the object, and demonstrated how layers of dirt had much diminished the intensity of the colours.  This chest was bought for £15 from an unknown source in Florence in 1882.  It is mentioned by Schubring, and has been connected with a group of chests associated with the Florentine convent of Santa Maria Nuova.  It may have been sold by the convent, but this is not certain.


The chest has a simple, rounded shape, with very simple feet.  It is painted with the Montefeltro and Gonzaga coats of arms.  There were at least two marriages between these families in the fifteenth century: those of Agnesina da Montefeltro and Alessandro Gonzaga circa 1450, and Elisabetta Gonzaga and Guidobaldo da Montefeltro in 1488.  The positioning of the arms suggests the latter marriage which would mean that it was probably made in Mantua, and may have been one of 20 that Elisabetta brought with her – 10 gilded, 10 painted with heraldry/devices. The flame motif is derived from the ‘flames of love’, the symbol of the Compagna della Calza, an order of knights based in Venice, to which Guidobaldo’s father Federico (1422–1482) had belonged. What appears to be a letter A (painted in a distinctive, indigo sgraffito of regular, parallel flecks) may also relate to the Gonzaga Infiammati connection (Amor, Ardens?)  rather than Urbino, as has been previously suggested. The white, red, green colours relate to the Gonzaga family. The censer depicted on the chest is probably an impresa or device, but its significance is not clear.


The chest is in very good condition, and appears to have been scarcely used.

Simone outlined the characteristic differences between this chest and those made in Florence (see also David DuBon and Eda Diskant, A Medici Cassone, Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin, vol. 73, no. 317 (June, 1977), pp. 18-24).


7.  Inner lid of a chest?, with putti and a coat of arms, 5939-1859

This object was bought for £3.4.2 from William Blundell Spence in 1859, as the inner side of a cassone lid, with the arms of Gondi and Corbinelli. Nick Humphrey said that Ellen Callmann discussed a group of similar panels (The Burlington Magazine, no. 888, March 1979, vol. CXIX, pp.174-181).). Roberta said that the distinctive clouds under the feet of the flying angels give them the memorable name of putti pattinatori. 


Callmann describes the remains of gesso, and a brocade pattern on the back of the panel  but currently the panel is mounted on a backboard so this was not visible..  The group agreed that this made it quite plausible that it was the outer lid of a chest but although the subject seems appropriate for the interior of a chest, it would also be appropriate for the front of a chest (c.f. the more simple Lorenzo di Credi chest from the Horne Museum, which was in ‘At Home in Renaissance Italy’). Roberta suggested that an attribution to Francesco di Simone Ferrucci might be considered.


8.  Painted frame, 16th century (Sienese?), 7820-1961

There was considerable interest in this frame, in which the fine architectural detail was rendered in paint, rather than carving.  A label indicates that it passed through the hands of  W.B. Spence. Nick Humphrey told the group that an inscription on the back connected the frame with the Sienese painter Bartolomeo Neroni, and produced images of paintings by Neroni which would fit the dimensions of the frame.  The general view was that a date in the earlier years of Neroni’s career (1530s) was likely. The unusual coat of arms has not been identified.


9.  ‘Onestà e bella’ Casket (9-1890)

Nick Humphrey introduced the object, noting that it had cost the Museum the enormous sum of £467 9s 7d when it was acquired in 1890 from Bardini.  The group felt that this was an exceptionally fine object, decorated with gold and an ultramarine blue (despite some later overpainting).  The raised decoration appears to have been modeled not moulded and  has been analysed as calcium sulphate with an animal glue, but Simone Chiarugi  suggested that such decoration was generally made with either rice powder, or flour powder.


The coats of arms were said in 1885 to be those of  ‘de Nerlis’ – presumably the Nerli family of Florence (however, they are quite unlike the Nerli arms on the Morelli-Nerli chests at the Courtauld), and ‘de Bilioctis’ (Biliotti?). Raised decoration has been lost from the back of the box, revealing what appear to be setting out marks.  There was some debate about the figures on the ends of the box:  were they angels, or women?  The decoration of the stags, and hunting scenes was compared to the treatment of the stucco chest at the Courtauld (viewed by the group in the morning).


10.  Painted and gilded casket, Siena 14th century. 485-1899

One of the groups also looked at this poplar casket (not dissimilar in form to 9-1890), which was thought to be authentic.


11.  Round, gilded ‘hat’ boxes, (488-1899, 489-1899)


12.  Cassone (8974-1863)

James Yorke and Nicola Costaras introduced this object, explaining that it had been conserved by Éowyn Kerr (Kress Fellow in Conservation, 2007-08).  The chest was apparently bought either from William Blundell Spence or from the Milanese dealer Baslini in 1863, for £40.  The group was unanimous that this was the finest object examined during the day.


The group considered the structure of the chest remarkable, as an exceptionally rare example of an almost wholly intact object, still on its base (predella), and with its original lid and fixings.  The lid is made out of two planks, while each side of the chest consists of a single plank.  The chest is decorated on its back with a simple pattern of black spots, and on its sides with a floral pattern mimicking contemporary ‘pineapple’ textiles. The predella bears four angels, each pair holding a coat of arms.  The quality of this painting was noted by the group to be considerably lower than the decoration of the main panel.  Indeed, it was thought to be of such minor quality that it would be difficult to give a precise attribution.  There was no doubt that the predella was integral to the rest of the object.


There was most interest in the front panel of the chest, of a procession (presumably a wedding procession) decorated with modelling in gesso and gilding.  Structurally, the chest had most in common with Sienese chests, and some members of the group thought it was most likely to be Sienese.  Others, noting the parallels between the figures on the front and Pisanello, as well as Bonifacio Bembo, preferred a Northern Italian origin.  Opinions varied as to whether the object might be specifically Milanese, or perhaps from Verona.   The costumes of the men and women probably placed the chest no earlier than the 1420s or 30s.  The devices (of a chained beast – a leopard?) could perhaps provide further leads as to the patron, or circumstances of the commission, together with the coats of arms on the predella section.


At this point the group also examined the detached front panel of the pair of this chest (21 – 1869), which was definitely bought from Baslini, and which also shows a procession.  It was noted that the gilded decoration was finer on the whole chest, while the painted decoration was finer on the detached panel (notably the faces of the figures).


13. Cassone frontal (5791-1860), called Scenes with a Marriage Ceremony

Nicolas Costaras and James Yorke introduced the panel.  There was considerable (but inconclusive) discussion of the subject represented on the panel.  No one could find an immediate answer.  The story of Lucretia was discounted.  Members of the group felt it was more likely to tell a novella, rather than a tale from Roman or Greek history. 

Roberta Bartoli and Caroline Campbell proposed an attribution to the Master of Ladislao Durazzo. No one was able to identify the coats of arms (which seemed to be original to the front panel).


Note: Lorenzo Sbaraglio has suggested (by letter, 2008) that the arms on the right are those of the Cerpelloni family of Florence (extinct mid 16th century). He proposed an attribution to the Master of Charles Durazzo c.1410.

14.  Leather painted shields: round shields 174-1869 (Rape of Hippodamia); kite shaped shield 3-1865 (Villani family arms)

Doubts were expressed over the tentative attribution to Polidoro da Caravaggio.

 


 

RIHA COPYRIGHT STATEMENT


In order to express concern for inhibitions posed to the publication of art historical research, the International Association of Research Institutes in the History of Art (RIHA) has adopted the following resolution:


RIHA Resolution on Copyright

 

As agreed at the RIHA General Assembly, Rome, 8 November 2008

1.  Statement

 

“Copyright seeks to protect the rights of authorship while securing the dissemination of knowledge. It protects the form of expression of ideas, but not the ideas, information or concepts expressed (…) A regime which is unduly protective of the interest of existing rights holders may therefore inhibit, or even stifle, the development of original material.”

(British Academy, Copyright and Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences, 2006)

RIHA, the International Association of Research Institutes in the History of Art, is concerned that recent developments in technology, legislation and practice have meant that the various copyright exemptions that exist to promote the advance of creative and scholarly work are not being applied to achieve their intended effect. RIHA strongly believes that neither copyright nor licensing rules should inhibit the development and diffusion of original scholarly research, regardless of the way in which it is published or otherwise disseminated.

RIHA calls upon copyright holders and other stakeholders including publishers, galleries, museums, and collecting societies, when dealing with scholarly research, to:

Subscribe to the definition of scholarly research as stated in section 2 of this document


  • Apply the existing copyright exemptions in keeping with their intended purpose
  • Refrain from demanding or refusing unnecessary permissions, or granting these     permissions on unreasonable terms.


RIHA further calls upon collecting societies and monopoly copyright holders, when charging for the use and reproduction of images in scholarly publications, to charge solely the marginal cost to the institution of making the specific reproduction for delivery to the researcher, rather than the costs of creating and maintaining a collection of images or of making provision for a profit margin on transactions.


2.  Definitions of research


For the purpose of clarity, RIHA proposes the following definitions of research:*

A type of non-commercial research whose principal objective is public benefit rather than private profit and/or the recovery of the costs of the research. Scholarly research may include the initial stages of collecting material as well as subsequent stages which involve the analysis and publication of the results. The presentation of the results will be without charge to the recipients or will be at a charge which can only be expected to cover the reasonable costs of production and distribution, including the reasonable profits of a commercial publisher.

Scholarly research

A type of non-commercial research whose principal objective is public benefit rather than private profit and/or the recovery of the costs of the research. Scholarly research may include the initial stages of collecting material as well as subsequent stages which involve the analysis and publication of the results. The presentation of the results will be without charge to the recipients or will be at a charge which can only be expected to cover the reasonable costs of production and distribution, including the reasonable profits of a commercial publisher.

 

Commercial research

 

Research whose principal objective is profit rather than public benefit. Commercial research normally includes a charge to the user that covers the cost of the research as well as its dissemination, and includes a profit margin.

 

Recommendations

 

RIHA asks members to endorse in particular the following British Academy recommendations (paraphrased):


 Recommendation 1

Copyright must provide reasonably broad and practically effective exemptions for research and private study, and for criticism or review.


Recommendation 2

With regard to the exception for research and private study under the 1988 Copyright Act:


a) ‘Research’ should be treated as distinct from ‘private study’ and should not only encompass the intial stages of an academic project but also subsequent analysis and publication

b) Research should be treated as non-commercial where the taking of copyright material is fair, and where any charge to the user would only cover production and distribution of a publication (including reasonable profit of a commercial publisher)


c) Research funded by a research council or charity is by definition non-commercial


d) In the case of commercial research, charges should be reasonable and abuse should be restrained.

 

* The definitions of research are based on the findings and recommendations of the British Academy report Copyright and Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences (2006) and the Guidelines on Copyright and Academic Research, issued as a supplement to the report. RIHA also notes that the Joint Guidelines on Copyright and Academic Research (2008), published jointly by the British Academy and the Publishers Association, offers valuable clarification of some of the issues touched on in the 2006 report. All three documents can be accessed and downloaded at http://www.britac.ac.uk/reports/copyright