Material Analysis of the Marble Reliefs Attributed to Benedetto da Maiano Representing King Matthias Corvinus and Beatrice of Aragon and Aspects of their Technical Execution

2 018 / 12 3 BU LLET IN DU M USÉ E H O N G R O I S D E S B E AU X-A R T S BU LLETIN D U M U S É E H O N G R O I S D E S B E A U X- A R T S 2 018 / 1 23 T H E M USEU M OF FI NE A RTS IS SU PPORT ED BY T H E M I N IS T RY OF H U M A N R E SOU RCE S. BU DA PE S T CON T EN TS S P O N S O R R É K A VA DA S 7 EDITOR I A L BOA R D JUDIT BORUS • M A R I A NNA DÁGI ZSUZSANNA GILA • • FA L C ON H E A D ON PA P Y RUS C OLU M N ZSUZSANNA DOBOS H A N S RU P P R E C H T G O E T T E – M E T T E M O LT E S E N – Á R PÁ D M . N A G Y É VA L I P TA Y EDITOR I A L SECR ETA RY 29 ZSUZSA NNA GIL A Z U R E RW E R BU NG S- U N D R E S TAU R I E RU NG SG E S C H IC H T E DE R S O G. „ E I L E N DE N F R AU “ (N E A PL E R N IOBI DE / ISIS PE L AGI A ) I N BU DA PE S T M I R I A M S Z Ő C S , R I C H Á R D K Á L D I , Z O LTÁ N M A Y, BER NA DET T BAJ NÓCZI, A ND M Á R I A TÓT H H – 1 1 4 6 B U D A P E S T, D Ó Z S A G Y Ö R G Y Ú T 4 1 . T E L .: +3 6 -1-4 6 9 - 7 10 0 FA X : +3 6 -1-4 6 9 - 7 1 1 1 BULLETIN@SZEPMU V ESZETI.HU 51 TR A NSL ATION M AT ER I A L A NA LYSIS OF T HE M A R BL E R ELIEFS AT T R IBU T ED TO BENEDET TO DA M A I A NO R EPR ESENTING K ING M AT THI A S CORV INUS A ND BE ATR ICE OF A R AGON A ND ASPECTS OF THEIR TECHNIC A L E X ECUTION A N NA BEN T L EY (51– 97), A N NA BE ÁTA JA N KÓ (187 –196), A N NA KÖV E S (197 – 206), J U L I A N N A ÁG O S TON K R ISZ T I NA S A R K A DY (153–178, 215– 222), M I K LÓS SU LYOK (121–130), PAT R ICK TAY L E R (93 –104 ), R É K A VA DA S (7 – 2 8) 67 T Í M E A B A KON Y I, ÁGN E S K U N A A ND DR BER NA DET T BAJ NÓCZI L A NGUAGE COR R ECTION ZSUZSANNA DOBOS • ADR IAN HART A N N E - S O P H I E KOVAC S • • A NNA KÖV ES A LE X A NDR A KOCSIS • EDOA R DO V ILL ATA A N A LTA R PI E C E F ROM PA DUA R E DISC OV E R E D 109 T H E C H A R AC T E R I S T IC S O F T H E PA I N T I N G T E C H N I Q U E D E PL OY E D I N T H E A N N U NC I AT IO N BY G E R A R D SE GH E R S (?) 121 L ’A P O L L O N E T L E S M U S E S D E M I C H E L D O R I G N Y ON THE COV ER DA M I E N T E L L A S M I C H E L D O R I G N Y, A P O L LO A N D T H E M U S E S ( D E TA I L ), 16 4 0 S , M U S E U M O F F I N E A R T S , B U DA PE S T RESPONSIBLE PUBLISHER LÁSZLÓ BA ÁN GENER AL DIRECTOR A NDR E A CZÉR E M USEU M OF FI N E A RTS, BU DA PE S T • 2019 ISSN 0133-5545 137 SEMPR E FEDELE DISEGNI R ECENTEMENTE SCOPERTI DI GA ETA NO GHER A R DO ZOMPINI A N N E - S O P H I E K OVÁ C S 147 HAUTE ÉCOLE, PAR MLLE ÉLISA DE VIENNE : U NE A M A ZONE MODER NE D’EDMOND GEORGES GR A NDJE A N K I NG A BÓDI 169 POLISH T R ACE S—PR I N TS FROM T HE 1960s A ND 1970s FR A NÇOIS M A R A NDET 195 U N PAY S AGE D’E T I E N N E A L L EGR A I N (PA R IS, 164 4 – I D., 1736) AU M U S É E D E S B E AU X-A R T S D E B U DA PE S T Z S Ó F I A VA R G Y A S 203 N EU E RW E R BU NG DE R S A M M LU NG A LT E R SK U L P T U R E N: DIE OHNM ÄC HT IGE M A R I A , E I N E S K U L P T U R AU S DE M S C H WA N T H A L E R-K R E I S , AUS DEM 18. JA HR HU NDERT Z SUZ SA N NA DOBOS 213 A N U N K N O W N T R O M P E L’ Œ I L S T I L L L I F E B Y P R O S P E R O M A L L E R I N I ( 1 7 6 1 – 1 8 3 8 ) A N N E - S O P H I E K OVÁ C S – F R A N Ç O I S L E S P I N A S S E 223 D E L A B O R N E À L E B O U R G : U N PA Y S A G E D ’A L B E R T L E B O U R G R E D É C O U V E R T AU M U S É E D E S B E AU X-A R T S D E B U DA P E S T BOOK REVIEW G YÖRG Y I N AG Y 231 PAU L W I L L I A M S O N A N D G LY N DAV I E S , M E D I E VA L I VO R Y C A RV I N G S 1 2 0 0 – 1550 239 NEW PUBLIC ATIONS 241 EXHIBITIONS 243 NEW ACQUISITIONS 248 PHOTO CR EDITS M I R I A M S Z Ő C S , R IC H Á R D K Á L DI , Z OLTÁ N M AY, BER NADETT BAJNÓCZI, A ND M ÁR I A TÓTH M AT E R I A L A N A LY S I S O F T H E M A R B L E R E L I E F S AT T R I B U T E D T O B E N E D E T T O DA M A I A N O R E P R E S E N T I N G K I N G M AT T H I A S C O RV I N U S A N D B E AT R I C E O F A R AG O N A N D A S P E C T S OF T H EIR T ECH N IC A L E X ECU T ION The renowned marble reliefs, representing King Matthias Corvinus (1443–1490) and its pendant depicting his second wife, Beatrice of Aragon (1457–1508), are among the most notable sculpted portraits of the Italian quattrocento, and also bear historical significance in Hungary due to the persons portrayed1 (figs. 1–2). The reliefs are preserved by the the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, though traditionally they have been exhibited in the Hungarian National Gallery, in Buda Castle since their entry into public collection. The first mention of the portraits was in a letter from Emperor Maximilian II (1527–1576) to Gergely Bornemissza, bishop of Csanád and provost of Szepes (today Spiš, Slovakia), dated 20 August 1571. In this letter, the emperor asked the bishop, who was staying in the northeastern part of the Hungarian Kingdom, to send him the reliefs which had come into Bornemissza’s possession from the collection of Imre Bélay, general vicar of the Pauline monasteries of Patak, Újhely and Lád, after his death.2 According to a later letter of the emperor to the bishop, in which he expressed his thanks for sending the portraits, the reliefs already entered the Viennese imperial collection by 14th March 1572.3 Hungarian historiography only rediscovered the two portraits in the nineteenth century.4 Later on the artworks reentered the possession of the Hungarian State as a results of the 1932 Venetian Agreement signed between Austria and Hungary in 1932. In the following year the artworks were inventorized in the Collection of Sculpture before 1800 of the Museum of Fine Arts.5 51 1– 2 · A t t r i b u t e d t o B e n e d e t t o d a M a i a n o , Po r t r a i t o f M a t t h i a s C o r v i n u s , K i n g o f H u n g a r y a n d Po r t r a i t o f B e a t r i c e o f A r a g o n. B u d a p e s t, M u s e u m o f F i n e A r t s Since the sculptures came in the focus of art historical research, various attributions have been proposed. Gyula Pasteiner and Vendel Böheim sought the artist of the reliefs in the circle of Benedetto da Maiano (1442–1497).6 Kornél Divald was the first to connect the portraits to the Dalmatian sculptor Giovanni Dalmata (ca. 1440–after 1509), an artist trained in Italy but active from the early 1480’s until 1490 at the court of King Matthias.7 Divald’s attribution was accepted by Adolfo Venturi, Frida Schottmüller, and Paul Schubring, with Lívia Varga also arguing for the attribution, and only Wilhelm Rolfs regarding the reliefs to be by Francesco Laurana (d. before 1502).8 Afterwards a different attribution was suggested by Jolán Balogh, who, on stylistic grounds, ascribed the reliefs to an unknown Lombard-Milanese artist.9 Simon Meller believed that the artist of the portraits could be the sculptor and medalist Gian Cristoforo Romano (ca. 1465–1512), his new proposal was accepted by both Jan Białostocki and Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann.10 52 In his 1994 monograph on Giovanni Dalmata, Johannes Röll argued anew for the authorship of the Dalmatian sculptor.11 This attribution has recently been refuted by Paolo Parmiggiani in his exhaustive paper dedicated to the two portraits, where he identified the artist of the portrait of King Matthias and that of Beatrice as Benedetto da Maiano.12 Beyond thoroughly comparing the reliefs and the style of Benedetto Maiano, Parmiggiani also analysed the Florentine sculptor’s connections and commissions in Naples in relation to the portraits. Even though the portraits of King Matthias and Queen Beatrix are among the most important pieces of Hungarian Renaissance art, their attribution is still debated without reaching a widely accepted consensus. The artists most often mentioned in relation to the sculptures in the last decades such as Giovanni Dalmata, Francesco Laurana, Gian Cristoforo Romano, and the currently resurfaced Benedetto da Maiano all worked in different fields and often with dissimilar carving techniques, therefore the technical analysis of the reliefs is a crucial aid in getting closer to the correct attribution. Although the reliefs have been in the focus of art historical research from the mid-nineteenth century, the technique of execution was less in the center of interest, and the material of the artworks, if mentioned at all, has showed a wide variety of classification. The reliefs were mentioned to be of alabaster in an early 1571 source, after that in the nineteenth century they were usually registered in the Viennese collection as made of white and black marble.13 In 1898 Vendel Böheim referring to an inventory from 1747 stated that the reliefs were made of serpentine and alabaster.14 Few years later Kornél Divald published the portraits as being of dark jasper and white marble.15 In 1933 the reliefs were inventorised in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts as made of marble on jasper background. Since then the artworks have been generally regarded as being of marble and jasper.It is unsurprising that there are such different accounts of the materials used, as up until the early 1980s no one has examined them thoroughly. In 1982 Hungarian art historians lead by Jolán Balogh, Tibor Klaniczay and Gyöngyi Török organized a large-scale exhibition dedicated to the origins of Renaissance Art in Hungary. The exhibition was held in the castle of Schallaburg in Austria, and its catalogue shortly became one of the most significant books of reference on the subject. In this exhibit the marble reliefs of Matthias Corvinus and Beatrice of Aragon were also displayed.16 On the decision of Éva SzmodisEszláry, the head of the Collection of Sculpture before 1800 at that time, a conservation treatment of the reliefs prior to the exhibition was initiated.17 As a result of pollution and the cumulative build up of grimy fingermarks, the surface of the marbles was soiled. During the conserva- 53 tion process, conservator Géza Hatalay cleaned away the heavy dirt (fig. 3) from the surface with Evatriol, a solution made up of a mixture of fatty alcohol sulphate. Following the cleaning, no protective coating was used on the artworks.18 The solution used for cleaning is usually a slightly acidic material with pH 6, as a consequence of which salts can form on the surface of the marble as a white powdery deposit, due to the chemical reaction with the marble. In this case, however, the conservator probably carefully removed the remnants of Evatriol, as during the X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) performed to determine the composition of the materials no salts were detected. Having removed the layer of pollution from the surface, the conservation work has revealed that important areas of the marble showed a formerly undetected reddish discoloration, which has been 3 · At t r ibu t ed to Benedet to da M a i a no, covered by the surface soiling. The relief Po r t r a i t o f B e a t r i c e o f A r a g o n B u d a p e s t, M u s e u m o f F i n e A r t s (h a l f c l e a n e d i n 1982) of Beatrice of Aragon was affected by the discoloration to a more significant degree. In the following years Éva Szmodis-Eszláry made efforts to undertake an analysis to determine the causes of the discoloration. Several examinations were carried out during the spring of 1985 with the involvement of the Budapest University of Technology in collaboration with the Conservation Department of the Hungarian University of Fine Arts. The aim of these investigations was to identify the composition of the red stains, and to decide whether any conservation treatment was necessary to remove or prevent the eventual expansion of the reddish spots.19 In 1985 samples were taken for analysis from two places on the back side of the Beatrice relief.20 54 4 – 5 · At tr ibu ted to Benedet to da M a i a no, Portr a it of M at t hi a s Corv inus, K ing of Hu ng a ry a nd Portr a it of Be atr ice of A r agon. Buda pest, Museu m of Fine A rts (back side) Energy dispersive X-ray analysis and SIMS (secondary ion mass spectrometry)21 were used to determine the elemental composition. The two combined with X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis can also help to define the mineralogical composition. The energy dispersive X-ray analysis and SIMS detected iron and sulphur in the red stains.22 However, from the small amount of samples, it was impossible to determine the mineralogical composition with X-ray diffraction. In consequence, it was only assumed that the discoloration contained iron sulphide. The microstructure of the discolored marble was also examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).23 The report contained a summary and instructions regarding further treatments and the safe keeping of the artworks. The document concluded that the discoloration was most likely due to the natural inclusion in the marble, which in this case is presumably pyrite (FeS2), and in consequence no further treatment was suggested. The analysis also revealed that the structure of the calcite crystals is analogous to Carrara marble. Although the dark green rock of the background, 55 6 · Fr a ncesco L aur a na, Be atr ice of A r agon. New Yor k, The Fr ick Coll ec t ion (inner side) 7 · Benedet to da M a i a no, Filippo Strozzi. Pa r is, L ou v r e (inner side) 56 considered jasper, was not examined, a hand-written note featured an interesting observation made by Pál Kertész, an engineer specialized in geology and mineralogy. According to him the dark green background of the reliefs is not jasper,24 however, he did not specify the component. For a better understanding of the materials of these two marble reliefs, it is necessary to familiarize ourselves with the technique used by the sculptor to carve his work. Both reliefs were created from one single block of marble, whereas several separate slabs of dark stone form the dark background, inserted from the front. The surfaces are highly polished, but the sculptor’s tool marks are visible on the backside (figs. 4–5), that allow for a comparison with other similar sculptural works from the period. To begin with, the marble block was probably carved with a point chisel, the marks of which are no longer detectable on the Matthias and Beatrice reliefs, and are overworked by the claw or flat chisel in order to create a homogenous surface. In the case of Francesco Laurana’s Bust of Beatrice of Aragon in the Frick Collection, New York, it is most likely that mainly a flat chisel was used 25 (fig. 6). Whereas the marks visible on the back sides of the Matthias and Beatrice reliefs show the predominant use of a claw chisel. In another example, on the inner side of Benedetto da Maiano’s Bust of Filippo Strozzi, now preserved in the Louvre, the marks of a claw chisel are also apparent. Probably due to the inscription on the inside of the bust, its surface was slightly more smoothly worked26 (fig. 7). The flat surfaces of the reliefs’ recto were carved with a flat and crawl chisel, the blades of which were almost identical in width. A flat chisel was used at a roughly 45 degree angle to work the finely indented surfaces in the 2-4 cm strips near the edges, while the rougher claw chisel marks are organised vertically in the middle area. The hollowing was done with a much narrower claw chisel, which is less straining on the structure of the stone. This meticulous work was done with a chisel held at a flat angle, moving layer to layer by 1-2 mm, scaling the stone surface. The wide chiselled bevelling on the back of the reliefs, which stops at the edges, could have been done by the sculptor, or could be explained by later damages. In order to achieve different types of surfaces, the tools can be held at various angles. At the edges on the backside of the frame of both reliefs in Budapest, a 2-3 cm wide band can be detected where the surface was worked more smoothly, the chisel being used at different angles compared to the inner parts. There is a visible horizontal line that goes across the backside of the Beatrice portrait, which was probably a mark used by the sculptor during the carving process. There is no such mark on 57 Marble (wt%) 8 · At tr ibu ted to Benedet to da M a i a no, Portr a it of 9 · At tr ibu ted to Benedet to da M a i a no, Portr a it of Be atr ice of A r agon. Buda pest, Museu m of Fine A rts M at t hi a s Corv inus, K ing of Hu ng a ry. Buda pest, (t he posit ions of da r k stone inl ays) Museu m of Fine A rts (t he posit ions of da r k stone inl ays) the Matthias relief, most likely due to the fact that it is mostly hollowed-out. The two reliefs were treated somewhat differently: in the Matthias portrait the part opposite the face is also hollow. The total depth of the artworks is the same, nevertheless the upper part of the Matthias portrait ca. 1 cm deeper than that of Beatrice, which explains the differences of the hollowing on the backside. On the front side of the relief the two portraits were finely worked with different types of chisels, followed by files, rasps and scrapers used to smooth the surface as much as possible. Drilling was used to richly decorate the hair of the king, and around the face a cavity was left to leave space for the dark green stone background of the marble. Afterwards the surface of the 58 Ti Ca K S Al P Si Mg Fe Matthias-Beatrix no. 1 (white) 0.02 49.38 0.06 0.10 <LOD <LOD 0.45 <LOD 0.05 Matthias-Beatrix no. 2 (white) 0.03 49.84 0.06 0.70 <LOD <LOD 0.21 0.44 0.04 Matthias-Beatrix no. 3 (reddish-brown) 0.02 48.20 0.07 0.30 <LOD 0.32 0.55 <LOD 0.05 Matthias-Beatrix no. 6 (white) 0.02 50.15 0.04 0.12 <LOD <LOD 0.36 <LOD 0.04 Marble (ppm) Sr Pb Zn Cu Ni Mn Cr V Ba Cl Matthias-Beatrix no. 1 (white) 91 25 17 <LOD <LOD 127 19 <LOD 491 231 Matthias-Beatrix no. 2 (white) 91 18 20 <LOD 83 141 15 <LOD 500 <LOD Matthias-Beatrix no. 3 (reddish-brown) 97 159 53 <LOD 88 <LOD 13 <LOD 452 414 Matthias-Beatrix no. 6 (white) 98 20 <LOD <LOD <LOD 174 17 <LOD 496 <LOD Serpentinite (wt%) Matthias-Beatrix no. 4 (black) Matthias-Beatrix no. 5 (black2) Ti 0.05 0.08 Ca 0.36 0.28 S 0.17 0.32 Al 0.98 1.01 P <LOD <LOD Si 16.62 18.12 Serpentinite (ppm) Sr Pb Zn Cu Ni Mn Cr V Ba Cl Matthias-Beatrix no. 4 (black) 3 33 141 30 1628 1231 3818 <LOD 342 977 Matthias-Beatrix no. 5 (black2) <LOD 22 66 48 1461 585 2843 <LOD 301 1272 Hook (ppm) hook hook2 Pb <LOD <LOD Zn 0.1 0.1 Cu 0.2 0.2 Ni <LOD <LOD Mn 0.4 0.4 Cr <LOD <LOD Glue (wt%) glue glue2 S 15.51 24.92 Al 0.21 0.33 Si 0.98 0.94 Ca 36.91 24.05 K 0.38 0.11 K 0.08 0.03 V 0.0 <LOD Mg 11.55 13.71 Ti 0.1 0.1 Fe 5.32 4.40 Ca 37 24 10 · El ementa l composit ion of t he differ ent pa rts of t he r eliefs deter mined w it h h a ndheld X R F a na lyzer (<LOD: below limit of detec t ion) marble was polished very carefully with abrasives of a progressively finer grit, and as a result the surfaces of both marbles became almost uniformly highly polished. The technique used for the inlay of the dark green stone is very similar to intarsia: flat, dark green stone pieces were inserted into the deeply carved areas of the marble. The Matthias relief’s dark background consists of ten pieces (fig 9), while in the case of the Beatrice portrait only five dark green pieces were used (fig. 8). For the portrait of the king the curly hair and the oak wreath crown made it necessary for the sculptor to use more pieces for the inlay. In this case the sculptor also faced another problem: to place the flat stone pieces, which were not flexible, unlike wood, into the areas where the marble folds underneath. The adhesive used to glue the dark, almost black stone appears to differ in the two reliefs: in the work depicting Matthias, it is a black and thick layer, while it is lighter and more fitting in the portrait of the queen. 59 The two portraits have been the subject of recent archaeometric analysis carried out in April 2015.27 The aim was to analyse the elemental composition of the marble and of the dark green stone inlay by using a handheld X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer.28 The metal hanger on the back side and the glue used to join the marble with the green stone was also examined during this occasion. Conservators avoided taking samples from the stone itself, although a very small amount of sample was taken from the adhesive used to glue the dark green stone to the marble, the trace of which is undetectable to the naked eyes. XRF detected elements characteristic to a marble of high purity with very few trace elements. As in the case of examinations in 1985, iron and sulphur were also found, supporting the presence of mineral pyrite. 11 · At tr ibu ted to Benedet to da M a i a no, Portr a it of Be atr ice of A r agon The dark green stone inlay has traditionally Buda pest, Museu m of Fine A rts (deta il) been considered jasper. Jasper is an opaque form of chalcedony with iron content, the latter is a microcrystalline variety of mineral quartz (SiO2). Besides iron (Fe) and silicon (Si) recent analyses (fig. 10) identified a significant amount of magnesium (Mg) and aluminum (Al). In addition, among the trace elements elevated amount of nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr) was also detected (fig. 10). This chemical composition is not specific to jasper. Rather, it is characteristic to serpentine, which can lead to the supposition that the stone inlay on the Matthias and Beatrice reliefs is serpentinite (fig. 11), a very common rock that can be found in abundance worldwide. It can be familiar to art historians as marmo verde di Prato being used abundantly for architectural decoration in the interior and exterior of churches in Florence and Tuscany. Several emblematic Florentine churches, such as Santa Maria Novella, San Miniato al Monte or the Baptistery are decorated with this stone. 60 12 · Four ier-tr a nsfor m infr a r ed spec tru m of t he glue The examination of the metal hanger of the backside of the reliefs using XRF showed that the material used is carbon steel, considered a modern material. The analysis of the glue used to join the green stone with the marble was carried out on a small sample taken from the Matthias relief. The examination was made using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) and X-ray powder diffraction (XRD)29 and the conclusion was that the material is presumably shellac, a natural resin of animal origin imported from Asia used widely by artists from the 17th century until up to the present30 (fig. 12). The presence of shellac suggests a later repair of the Matthias relief. The glue used on the Beatrice relief was not analyzed on this occasion as we considered that it is more difficult to take a sample without leaving a visible trace. Consequently, the identification of the dark green stone as serpentinite can be considered a very important result of the recent archaeometric analysis. It proves the presence of such materials that were most readily accessible and therefore most obvious to be used by artists working in Tuscany. Among the names mentioned in relation to the reliefs this is true in the case of the 61 Florentine artist, Benedetto da Maiano. Though the results seem to strengthen the attribution to Maiano, further analyses are planned to determine the provenance of marble and serpentinite or to have a more precise composition of the glue used to join the serpentinite with the marble. Péter Farbaky, “Architecture and Sculpture in Early Renaissance Hungary: Art and Patronage”, The Sculpture Journal vol. 26, no. 1 (2017), 53–68. 2 Vilmos Fraknói, “Mátyás király és Beatrix dombormű-arczképeinek történetéhez” [To the History of the Portraits of King Matthias and Queen Beatrix ], Archaeologiai Értesítő 11 (1877), 7–11; Lajos Miriam Szőcs is the Head of Department of Sculpture before 1800, Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest. Richárd Káldi is stone sculpture conservator, teacher of Visual Arts at the Conservation Department of the Hungarian University of Fine Arts, Budapest. Zoltán May is senior research fellow at the Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry of the Research Centre for Natural Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Bernadett Bajnóczi is senior research fellow at the Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research of the Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Mária Tóth is retired research fellow at the Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research of the Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Thallóczy, “Mátyás király és Beatrix domborműves arczképeinek történetéhez” [To the History of the Portraits of King Matthias and Queen Beatrix ], Archaeologiai Értesítő Új Folyam 14 (1894), 140–43. 3 Matthias Corvinus und die Renaissance in Ungarn, 1458–1541, Schallaburg bei Melk, exh. cat., eds. Gottfried Stangler, Moritz Csáky, Richard Perger, and Andrea Jünger, Wien 1982, cat. nos. 84–85; Jolán Balogh, A művészet Mátyás király udvarában [The Art in the Court of King Matthias], Budapest 1966, 2 vols, vol. 1, 288–89. 4 Történelem – kép: szemelvények múlt és művészet kapcsolatából Magyarországon. Geschichte – Geschichtsbild: Die Beziehung von Vergangenheit und Kunst in Ungarn, exh. cat. , eds. Árpád Mikó, and Katalin Sinkó, Budapest 2000, cat. no. III-1. (Árpád Mikó). 5 Balogh 1975, cat. nos. 125–26. 6 Gyula Pasteiner, A művészetek története [The History of Arts], Budapest 1885, 374; Jenő Radisics ed., A Habsburg-ház műkincsei. Magyar Műkincsek II. [The Treasures of the Habsburg House. Hungarian Treasures II], Budapest 1898, 40–41. 7 Kornél Divald, Budapest művészete a török hódoltság előtt [Art in Budapest before the Ottoman Occupation], Budapest 1903, 147–48, figs. 52–53, 147. NOTES 8 Adolfo Venturi, “Notizie da Berlino e da Vienna”, L‘arte 10 (1907), 312; Ulrich Thieme and F. Becker eds., Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, vol. VIII, Leipzig We express our gratitude to Marc Bormand for his generous help in the questions regarding the Filippo 1913, Giovanni Dalmata (Frida Schottmüller); Paul Schubring, Die italienische Plastik des Quattrocento, Strozzi bust preserved in the Louvre. We also owe our thanks to Tibor Rostás, Zoltán Kiss, Zsolt Berta, Berlin 1919, 263; Lívia Varga, “The Reconsideration of the Portrait Reliefs of King Matthias Corvinus and Zulejka László for their kind support during the examination of the reliefs. (1458–1490), and Queen Beatrix of Aragon (1476–1508)”, Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 90–91 (1999), 53–72; Wilhelm Rolfs, Franz Laurana, Berlin 1907, 335–36. 1 Newly attributed to Benedetto da Maiano, Portrait of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary and Portrait 9 Jolán Balogh, Adatok Milánó és Magyarország kulturális kapcsolatainak történetéhez. Contributi of Beatrice of Aragon, Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, marble with dark green stone inlay, newly alla storia delle relazioni d’arte e di cultura tra Milano e l’Ungheria, A Budapesti Királyi Pázmány Péter dated 1476, inv. no. 6711, inv. no. 6712, 55 × 38,5 × 13,1 cm. For the complete bibliography until Tudományegyetem Művészettörténeti Gyűjteményének dolgozatai 8., Budapest 1928, 21–24. 1975 see J. Balogh, Katalog der ausländischen Bildwerke des Museums der Bildenden Künste in Budapest, 10 Simon Meller, “Diva Beatrix”, Zeitschrift für Kunstwissenschaft 9 (1955), 79; Jan Białostocki, The Art Budapest 1975, cat. nos. 125–26. Most recent bibliography including the publications after 1975, see of the Renaissance in Eastern Europe: Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, Oxford 1976, 7–8; Thomas DaCos- Mattia Corvino e Firenze. Arte e umanesimo alla corte del re di Ungheria, Firenze, Museo di San Marco ta Kaufmann, Court, Cloister & City: the Art and Culture of Central Europe 1450–1800, London 1995, 2013, exh. cat., eds. Péter Farbaky, Dániel Pócs, and Magnolia Scudieri, cat. nos. 42–43 (Árpád Mikó); 44–45. 11 Johannes Röll, Giovanni Dalmata, Worms am Rhein 1994, 130–32, figs. 139–40. 62 63 12 Paolo Parmiggiani, “Benedetto de Maiano in Ungheria: i ritratti di Mattia Corvino e di Beatrice d’Aragona a Budapest”, Prospettiva 153–54 (2014), 4–41. 13 Balogh 1966, 288; E. von Sacken, Die K. K. Ambraser-Sammlung, Vienna 1855, 2 Bde, Bd. 2, 81. 26 Benedetto da Maiano, Bust of Filippo Strozzi, ca. 1475, white marble, 51,8 × 56,7 × 30 cm, inv. no. 1169. Most recent publications on the bust, see Bruce Boucher, “Afterthoughts on Benedetto da Maiano’s bust of Filippo Strozzi”, The Sculpture Journal vol. 19, no. 2 (2010), 217–23. 14 Radisics 1898, 40. 27 This examination, initiated by the Collection of Sculpture before 1800 of the Museum of Fine Arts, 15 Divald 1903, 147. Budapest involved the collaboration of several institutes: the Institute for Geological and Geochemical 16 Cat. Schallaburg 1982. Research of the Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of 17 Notes of Éva Szmodis-Eszláry from 13 June 1983, attached to the conservation report. Documents Sciences, the Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry of the Research Centre for Natural preserved in the Collection of Sculpture before 1800. 18 The conservation was made by Géza Hatalay. The Evatriol was most likely sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, sodium lauryl sulfate. The report of the conservation is preserved in the Collection of Sculpture before 1800 is dated 30 April 1982. 19 The documentation of the examinations is kept in the archives of the Collection of Sculpture before 1800. 20 The examinations were undertaken at the Budapest University of Technology, at the Department of Atomic Physics, Surfaces Physics Laboratory and at the Department of Materials Science & Engineer- Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, as well as the Conservation Department of the Hungarian University of Fine Arts. 28 A handheld Thermo Scientific–Niton XL3t 900 GOLDD+ XRF analyzer equipped with X-ray tube (50 kV, Ag-target) and large drift detector with resolution of 180 eV was used for the measurements. 29 XRD measurement was carried out using a Philips PW-1730 diffractometer equipped with a graphite monochromator using Cu-Kα radiation at 45 kV and 35 mA. The FT-IR analysis was performed using a Bruker Vertex 70 IR spectrometer equipped with a Hyperion 2000 microscope. 30 A. J. Gibson, “The Story of Lac”, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts vol. 90, no. 4611 (1942), 319–33. ing with the participation of Sándor Várkonyi, Éva Orcsik, László Varga, Gyöngyi Török, and Pál Kertész. 21 Secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) is a technique used to analyze the composition of solid surfaces, by sputtering the surface of the specimen with a focused primary ion beam and collecting and analyzing ejected secondary ions. 22 Sándor Várkonyi, “Beatrix-dombormű műszeres vizsgálata” [The analysis of the Beatrice relief]. Documentation preserved in the archives of the Collection of Sculpture before 1800. 23 Éva Orcsik, “Mátyás és Beatrix márványdomborművek felületi elszíneződésének vizsgálata pásztázó elektronmikroszkóppal” [The Analysis of the Surface Discoloration of the Matthias and Beatrice Marble Reliefs Using Scanning Electron Microscope]. Documentation preserved in the archives of the Collection of Sculpture before 1800. 24 Note of Éva Eszláry-Szmodis dated on 11 November 1990, preserved in the archives of the Collection of Sculpture before 1800. 25 Francesco Laurana, Beatrice of Aragon, 1471−1474, white marble, 40,6 × 40,3 x 20,3 cm, Bequest of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 1961, inv. no. 1961.2.86, see Chrysa Damianaki, I busti femminili di Francesco Laurana tra realtà e finzione, Verona 2008, no. 4, 155–67. 64 65