Master or workshop? A contract, a ledger and two hands
In 1742 a Maltese confraternity contracted a master painter to supply an altarpiece, 3.2 × 2.1 m, of 'the titular saint, with due ornament', for 60 scudi; 400 gold leaves were itemised separately. The contract says the master must follow 'the design supplied by the prior' but does not name an assistant. The confraternity ledger records payments to a younger painter for 'faces and hands'. Examination shows two distinct handling styles: broad, confident modelling in the drapery and tighter, cooler flesh painting. The saint's attribute is ambiguous: a palm branch is clear, but the object in the left hand is abraded and may be a book or a sword hilt. No preparatory drawing survives. The parish wants a label naming the master alone; a local historian wants the assistant credited as co-author.
1. Assess what the documentary and technical evidence can support about authorship.
Read the worked answer
Documentary evidence establishes a commission and payment, not authorship of every part. The clause 'design supplied by the prior' means the master did not invent the composition; it does not prove he painted it alone. The ledger payment to a younger painter for 'faces and hands' is direct evidence of division of labour. The two handling styles corroborate this, but style alone cannot assign a name. Defensible claim: the altarpiece is a workshop product, with the master responsible for the contract and probably the drapery, and an assistant responsible for flesh areas. Not defensible: 'by the master alone' or naming the assistant as co-author without further evidence. The 60 scudi and 400 gold leaves are consistent with a substantial workshop commission, not necessarily a solo autograph work. The catalogue should say 'workshop of' or 'master and assistant'.
2. Advise on the iconographic uncertainty and the label wording.
Read the worked answer
The palm branch is secure enough to identify a martyr, but the left-hand object is abraded and ambiguous. A book would suggest a doctor of the church or evangelist; a sword hilt would suggest a different martyr. Do not resolve the ambiguity by choosing the more familiar saint. Label: 'The titular saint holding a palm; the attribute in the left hand is abraded and may be a book or a sword hilt.' If the parish needs a name for liturgical use, keep it in a separate note, not in the art-historical label. Further analysis: raking light, infra-red and X-radiography may reveal the lost contour; comparing the attribute with the contract's design, if it survives, would be stronger. Until then, the uncertainty is part of the object's history and should be visible.
3. Explain how you would present the work in a catalogue entry without overclaiming.
Read the worked answer
Structure: object data; condition; provenance; documentary summary; technical description; discussion. In the discussion, separate 'documented' from 'inferred'. Write: 'The contract of 1742 names the master and requires the supplied design; the ledger records payment to an unnamed younger painter for faces and hands. Two handling styles are visible. The altarpiece is therefore best described as a workshop production, with the master's responsibility for the commission and the assistant's contribution to flesh areas.' Avoid 'co-author', which implies equal status and a modern authorship model. Include the iconographic uncertainty. Add a note on the 400 gold leaves and what gilding survives. This is honest, uses the evidence, and leaves room for future analysis.