Bartolomeo Schedoni

(Modena, 1578 - Parma, 1615)

The painting in question was purchased by the current owners in 1985 from a private collection in Parma [...].

The following year, in May 1986, a photograph of it was submitted to Bartolomeo Schedoni's greatest expert, the American university professor C. Dwight Miller, who gave a very favorable opinion on the quality of the work, but did not commit himself to a certain attribution to Schedoni, both because he had not had the opportunity to view the canvas directly, and because the conditions of conservation did not allow for a definitive judgment. The scholar, however, suggested to the owners a restoration, which was carried out between 1987 and 1988 by the company Zamboni and Melloni of Reggio Emilia. Carlo Mancosu subsequently drew up an appraisal and a technical report, in which he reported the opinions of Lucia Fornari Schianchi and Daniele Benati, who in the meantime had been able to observe the restored work. They too praised the painting, but did not dare to pronounce themselves in favor of the autograph.

Looking at the canvas, my conclusions support the hypothesis attributing it to the master from Moena, perhaps supported by his workshop, where his brothers and students worked.

The reasons that lead me to consider the work autographed are:

1) The frayed brushstroke that can be seen in various details of the work is typical of the painter. We see it, in this case, in the cloak of the Magdalene, positioned in the lower left part of the painting; in the white drapery of Christ, which descends from the edge of the tomb in the center of the work; in the fingers of the right hand of the Magdalene; in the cloak of Nicodemus and in particular on his left shoulder. Even the shadows painted in the lower right corner, near the feet of Nicodemus, are created with a similar technique.

2) The dimensions of the canvas are exactly half the dimensions of the final work created for Fontevivo (228x283). This consideration could support the hypothesis of a preparatory sketch.

3) There are numerous differences between the two paintings: in the sketch, the Magdalene's blond hair is missing; the face of Joseph of Arimathea is drawn less clearly, appears darker and stands out less against the background; even the clouds on the dark landscape are less visible; the tufts of grass in front of and beside the tomb are missing; the colours of the work are less bright, except in the red cloak of one of the pious women and in that of Nicodemus on the right; the differences would support the autograph of the canvas and its function as a preparatory sketch.

4) Close observation allows us to appreciate the beauty of some details in the faces: that of Christ is rendered in a naturalistic way, with the minute definition of the beard hairs and a clever play of shadows and lights; the face of Saint John the Evangelist is enhanced in its dramatic expression by a strong chiaroscuro contrast; the face of the woman with the red cloak is worthy of the master from Modena, as is that of Nicodemus, which has reddish touches on the tip of the nose and on the cheeks.

5) As in the painting for Fontevivo, in this one too the difference between the earthy complexion of the dead (in Christ and, in fact, in the Mother, psychologically dead at the geometric centre of the canvas, wrapped in her dark blue cloak) and the living (all the other characters, who try to comfort the Mother and honour the body of Christ) has been maintained.

6) As in the painting for Fontevivo, there is a strong chiaroscuro contrast, learned by Schedoni from the example of Caravaggio and applied in the works of the last years of his career.

7) The anatomies are perfect, as are the draperies. A copyist would not have been able to achieve this result.

8) The whole is dynamic, the gestures are theatrical, the bodies are inserted in a rigorous succession of perspective planes: all elements that reaffirm the high quality of the work.

9) The Correggio-style sfumato is clearly visible and should be considered a hallmark of Schedoni, who worked for a long time as a copyist of the works of Antonio Allegri.

10) Numerous copies of Fontevivo's work are known, but none of them ever achieve results comparable to the painting in question."

Expertise by Dr. Federica Dallasta