Domenico Puligo

The Dolgorouky family, Moscow, at an unknown date (created Princes in 1780);
The Princes Ouroussov, Russia;
By descent to Princesse Sophia Katarzyna Alexandrovna Radziwill (1808-1889; née Ouroussov; married Antoine Radziwill);
Prince Pierre Saltykov, Paris;
Hippolyte Octave Edgard Comte de Barral (1832 – 1904);
Marie Joseph Octave Comte de Barral (1877 – 1915);
Fernand Marie Henri Edgard Comte de Barral, and by descent to the present owners.

The original is a little less contrasted than as suggested in the catalogue illustration. The support consists of two vertical planks of equal width. There is a single vertical split in the lower left which runs half way up the picture plane from the lower margin and which is held from extending further by an inserted butterfly at the lower part of the split. There is a curious short diagonal split at the centre left margin. The panels however appear stable. The paint surface is generally very well preserved although there are quite a number of damages and losses around which there is often extensive restoration and retouching. There appear to have been more than one, probably two or three, stages of surface restoration. Along the central panel join there are several small losses and subsequent retouching most notably on the virgin’s sleeve and immediately below it where a large area of the drapery has been strengthened. Immediately beneath the virgin’s neckline and along the join that runs through her face there are groupings of small retouchings most noticeable on her chin, upper lip and eyelid. There is a large area of damage to the left of Joseph’s beard and in the drapery immediately below and to the right of his hand where the paint is now somewhat unstable having begun to tent and flake. There are further restorations along the aforementioned vertical split. The figure of Christ remains largely intact and in original condition though his nose has been lightly strengthened on the bridge and there are some light strengthenings to his torso and shin. Overall the paint surface requires some attention but ultimately it remains in significantly original condition. Sold with a 19th century gilt frame with floral decoration.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

This well preserved Holy Family, unknown to both Ann Genetta Gardner and Elena Capretti when compiling their theses in 1986 and 1989 respectively, can be securely added to the relatively small oeuvre of the Florentine painter Domenico Puligo. Late in his career, Puligo here returns to a composition conceived at a much earlier date, in a smaller panel in the Palazzo Pitti (52.2 by 42.6 cm), itself characterised by a broader or rougher execution that is characteristic of the young Puligo.¹

The present version is more highly finished and painted with a greater refinement than the Pitti version, which itself manifests much more obviously the influence and broader painterly style of Andrea del Sarto. There are several differences between the two versions, notably in the presence of a landscape background here, the daring protrusion of the blue mantle over the ledge and out of the frontal picture plane (although this may have once been present in the Pitti version and subsequently 'cleaned' off), the reduced role of St. Joseph, and the positioning of the Christ child's left arm which here gesticulates away from His body but which, in the Pitti version, remains tucked up against His loincloth. Another interesting note of comparison is in the positioning of the Madonna's little finger on her right hand which still remains awkwardly disjointed despite evidence of the artist's agonising over its positioning on the Pitti version: in this latter a pentiment shows the finger as having been moved from an original position similar to that in the present version, which is to say from a position somewhat awkwardly separate from the other fingers, to one more believable and comfortable. Why Puligo here returns the finger to a less believable position is unclear.

Such changes in composition and such a refinement of technique recall two other works of the same composition, a Holy Family with the infant St. John the Baptist. The first version (also Palazzo Pitti)² is similarly raw in handling as the Pitti version of the present painting, and places the figures in a similarly ill-defined space. When he returns to the composition later in his career, however (Munich, Alte Pinacothek),³ Puligo's more refined style is very apparent, he creates a believable setting, adding a landscape behind the protagonists similar to that in the present panel, and he removes St. Joseph altogether.

A copy is in the Victoria Gallery, Bath, in which, curiously, Christ's left arm gestures away from His body, as here, but his right hand echoes that of the Pitti version, remaining disconnected from His loincloth. The blue mantle falls over the ledge, as it does here, but St. Joseph remains as prominent as he does in the Pitti example. Furthermore, the positioning of the Madonna's little finger replicates that of the Pitti. The (student) copyist's conflation of the two autograph versions may suggest that he had access to both when conceiving his copy, and the Pitti version muct thus have remained in the Puligo workshop until at least the time of the execution of the present version.

We are grateful to Dott.ssa Elena Capretti for endorsing the attribution to Puligo on the basis of a photograph and for her help with this catalogue entry. Dott.ssa Capretti and Dott.ssa Serena Padovani will publish the painting in their forthcoming catalogue of the 15th and 16th century Florentine paintings at the Palazzo Pitti.

Provenance
The pre-Barral provenance has been constructed purely on the basis of the coats-of-arms and inscriptions on the reverse of the panel. The Dolgoroukys were created Princes in 1780 by Catherine the Great in recognition of the conquest of the Crimea and, while it is not known at what point the painting was in their possession, the absence of any princely title in the inscription would argue for a date prior to 1780. The coat-of-arms of the Princes Ouroussov on the reverse confirms their ownership of the painting and it almost certainly belonged to Sophia Ouroussov who married into one of the most important Polish families of the day, the Radziwills, and her married name is inscribed on the reverse. The painting was then perhaps gifted by Sophia Radziwill to Prince Pierre Saltykov whose name is also inscribed on the reverse. They certainly knew each other as they are mentioned as the two godparents present at the baptism of Pierre Kotchubei in Paris in June 1857. This would explain the painting's movement from Russia to France. The third coat-of-arms on the reverse appears, on first glance, to be that of Amadeus II, Duc d'Aosta (1898-1904) and his wife Anne of Orléans (b. 1906); it is however missing the border. In any case, by the time of their marriage the painting was in the Barral collection, where it has remained ever since, and the coat-of-arms thus remains unidentified.


1.  See E. Capretti, S. Padovani, Domenico Puligo. Un protagonista dimenticato della pittura fiorentina, exhibition catalogue, Florence 2002-03, pp. 70-71, cat. no. 3, reproduced. The Pitti version is accepted by Gardner and previous authors on Puligo but downgraded to Puligo's studio by Elena Capretti (1989). Capretti however restored it to Puligo's oeuvre in the 2002-03 exhibition on Puligo at the Pitti.
2.  Ibid., pp. 84-5, cat. no. 10, reproduced p. 85.
3.  Ibid., p. 84, reproduced fig. 55.