.MTM5Ng.MTIwNzM4: Difference between revisions
CastleCourt (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
CastleCourt (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
pictor nostri [[unclear]] princeps". This is the first | pictor nostri [[unclear]] princeps". This is the first | ||
mention (1358) after the generic one of Ottimo | mention (1358) after the generic one of Ottimo | ||
Commento (Andrea Sancia? | Commento (Andrea Sancia?), of one of the [[crossed out: many]] | ||
totally destroyed neapolitan works conducted by Giotto under King Roberto, and the only | totally destroyed neapolitan works conducted by Giotto under King Roberto, and the only |
Latest revision as of 05:24, 21 January 2022
of the art of Giotto; such that, notwithstanding the crossed out: presence obstacle of the Florentine donor. I do not know if it would be temerity to suspect in this case an incorrect attribution. What is somewhat confusing in connection with an attribution to so impressive written above: momentous a master, is the restriction of its enjoyability to the sophisticated connoisseur; and from crossed out: the ?Doesca's? last crossed out: quotation report on the Madonna of the cathedral, the presence of qualities, especially chromatic; characteristic of miniaturists cannot fail to come to mind.
Not entirely devoid of difficulties is one last contact between Giotto and Petrarch
whose so-called Itinerarium Syriacum describing Naples from the sea, begins with the port and the royal palace, within which is the "Capella regis" containing the master- pieces left there by "conterraneous olim meus pictor nostri unclear princeps". This is the first mention (1358) after the generic one of Ottimo Commento (Andrea Sancia?), of one of the crossed out: many totally destroyed neapolitan works conducted by Giotto under King Roberto, and the only