The St George Portable Triptych in the Gozo Cathedral Museum

Mario Buhagiar and Charles Cassar attempt to decipher the curious iconography and possible origins of a unique devotional artefact

The principal objective of this paper is to bring to public notice a long-forgotten and unstudied artefact in the Gozo Cathedral Museum: a small brass portable triptych, 500mm x 930mm, contained, when closed, in a protective brass sleevebox, 580 x 580mm, with a low relief of a mounted St George fighting the dragon (Fig. 1). It is the only known example in Malta of a typology of portable triptychs which, in Eastern Christianity and particularly in Russia, persisted in firmly established devotional demand from the Middle Ages to Modern times. In broad terms, it is correct to consider them as the Orthodox church equivalent to the holy medal in the Catholic church; they were similarly intended to be worn round the neck to consecrate and protect the wearer and enrich him or her with indulgences.

Mario Buhagiar is a Professor of History of Art at the University of Malta in the Department he founded and directed for many years. As a researcher and author of several specialised studies on art and archaeology, his scholarship has won him international good repute; he is Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London and Member of the National Order of Merit.

Charles R. Cassar is an art historian. He obtained a Diploma in Baroque Studies, a B.A. (Hons.) and an M.A. in History of Art, all with distinction, from the University of Malta. In 2010, he was inscribed in the Dean’s List for academic excellence. Cassar is the author of Stones of Faith (2012) and is in the process of publishing his research on nineteenth-century ecclesiastical architecture in Gozo.

Our analysis is divided into two parts: the first considers the art historical context; the second considers the artistic and religious significance. It begins by setting out the known provenance and subsequent donation of the triptych, assisted by a handwritten label attached to the artefact.

The art-historical context

The artefact was brought to the attention of Mr Charles Cassar in late 2021, by Joseph Calleja, Project Manager of the Gozo Cathedral Museum, who informed him that for many years it had been stored in the cathedral’s safe. It is now on display, together with other precious liturgical objets d’art from the cathedral’s treasury, in a showcase in the upper (ground-floor level) gallery. Calleja generously opened the showcase to allow him to study and photograph it in detail. Attached to the artefact is a handwritten note, hereunder referred to as the ‘Note’, on an official Curia notepaper with the arms of Mgr Antonio Grech-Delicata-Debono-Cassia, Bishop of Gozo between 1868–1876 (Fig. 2):

Questo Trittico di ottone rappresentante il martirio di San Giorgio fu ritrovato sotto la prima pietra dell’ antica chiesa di detto glorioso Martire nel Rabato di Gozo. Mons. Can. Luigi Debono Cassia lo toglie dal museo di suo zio fu Mons. Antonio Grech Delicata, Vescovo di Gozo, conservato ivi colla data del 26 Agosto 1871, e lo rimette alla S. Cattedrale Chiesa di Gozo, affinchè una cosi pregevole memoria sia permanentemente custodita.

It is probable that the ‘Note’ was written by either the precentor or the treasurer of the Cathedral Chapter, which makes it hard to understand how the classic iconography of St George and the dragon was mistaken for the saint’s martyrdom. To the art historian, its primary interest is its record of the (apparently) well-known tradition of the discovery of the artefact beneath the cornerstone of the Rabat church of St George. Its primary concern was, however, to document the circumstances of its donation. The artefact came from the private collection of Bishop Grech-Delicata where it remained until his death when his nephew and presumable heir, Mgr Luigi Debono-Cassia, removed it from his uncle’s house-museum and presented it to the cathedral for its ‘perpetual custody’. The date is not given, but the fact that the ‘Note’ is emblazoned with Bishop Grech-Delicata’s armorial shield suggests the sede vacante period between the Bishop’s death, on 31 December 1876, and the election of a new bishop, Mgr Pietro Pace, on 17 March 1877. The date ‘26 August 1871’, which Mgr Debono-Cassia found attached to the artefact, is arguably the date when it passed into Bishop GrechDelicata’s hands.

Bishop Grech-Delicata must have been fully aware of the presumed significance of the artefact, but, as argued below, he considered its tradition apocryphal and doubted its sacred and historical interest. It is possible that he abstained from bequething it to the cathedral to avoid giving it an ecclesiastical recognition which he did not share. The ‘Note’ makes it apparent that his misgivings were not shared by the Cathedral Chapter and calls the artefact ‘an object of illustrious history’ (‘di così pregievole memoria’). Assuming that the tradition of its alleged discovery is correct, the suggestion is that it was unearthed during construction works. If this was indeed the case, the most likely period would be 1816–1817, when the church of St George was given a new façade.1 If the story was not simply pious make-belief, in 1876, the discovery was very probably still a living memory and, thus, it is a pity that it was not better recorded.

A secure find from the site was a gilt-copper ciborium recorded in the 1830 pastoral visitation report (Fig. 3).2 It is probable that it shared the same secure concealment box but was much better appreciated. Consisting of an octagonal cup with a pyramidal cover on an elegantly articulate Gothic stem and a multi-lobed base, it is one of finest known late medieval precious metal objets d’art in Malta. It is a work of excellently well-informed craftsmanship and artistic sophistication. Of special interest are the delicately chased Eucharistic birds, such as the pelican and phoenix, which animate the cup. Stylistically, it belongs to a widely diffused, approximately fifteenth-century, Catalan-Aragonese typology.3

The alleged circumstances of the discovery of the ciborium and, possibly, the triptych suggests a carefully calculated attempt to save them from destruction in a time of calamity, when the church of St George was threatened with pillage and destruction. This was, most likely, the devastating Ottoman siege of July 1551 which left Gozo depopulated and in a state of complete devastation. A late eighteenth-century account succinctly tells of the destruction of churches and of devotional and artistic works, and repeats the well-entrenched tradition that in a desperate attempt to save the more precious works ‘… the pious Gozitans securely hid (them) in an impenetrable place the location of which was forgotten … as happened … to the chalice and the bell of the land of Żebbuġ …’.4

Knowledge of the whereabouts of the place of concealment was lost because those responsible were either killed or enslaved. The singling out of a chalice for special mention seems to imply an especially famed chalice, the existence of which was kept alive in popular nostalgic memory. Its association with Żebbuġ and its church bell is probably fortuitous. More likely, it belonged to an important church. The natural temptation is to identify it with the ciborium, but in the absence of evidence this remains guesswork. However, the available documentary evidence suggests that at the time of the Ottoman siege, the church of St George was Gozo’s most important church outside the citadel.

The church of St George is first securely documented in 1450 when, together with four other churches in the borgo of the citadel, it was invested by the Holy See with the privilege of granting the special jubilee indulgence of the Holy Year celebrated by Pope Nicholas V.5 It was either remodelled or rebuilt in 1480.6 Other structural works might have taken place when an abutting church of St Catherine, first recorded in 1539,7 was built at an unknown time. On 14 January 1484, the venerable Don Antonius Mahanuc left a legacy of 1 tarì (‘carenum unum ponderis generalis’) to the incumbent parish priest, Don Giulianus Gadivara,8 who, judging from his surname, was of CatalanAragonese descent. Medieval Gozo appears to have been ethnically and culturally indebted to Catalan-Aragonese influence. This puts the ciborium in a meaningful context.

Artistic and religious significance

The triptych is artistically and culturally distant from the ciborium. It is important to note that the artefact is made of two separate units: the triptych proper (Fig. 6) and the sleeve-box (Fig. 1) which are clearly artistically different. The dichotomy between the two objects is further emphasised by the linguistic difference of their inscriptions. Those on the triptych are in a crude form of Slavonic/ Cyrillic while that on the protective sleeve-box is in Greek. The stylistic and linguistic differences are evidence that

Figs 4-5 overleaf: Fig. 6 they were merged together for convenience rather than by original design. They have the following measurements:

Protective sleeve-box

Triptych when open

Central panel of triptych

Left wing

Right wing

580mm x 580mm

500mm x 930mm

500mm x 500mm

500mm x 230mm

500mm x 201mm9

To permit the wings (or volets) to fold securely on the triptych, the right-hand side wing, which was folded first, has an edge groove (or rebate) to permit the left wing to tightly close on top of it. This explains the different measurements of the two wings (Fig. 5).

The saints on the triptych are identified by Slavonic/ Cyrillic labels next to their head. Except for the sleevebox, which is in Greek, the other names are in Slavonic/ Cyrillic. We are greatly indebted to the generous assistance of Dr Dan Ruscu (Babeș-Bolyai University, Romania) in deciphering the inscriptions.10 His help was vital to our understanding of the portable triptych; our art historical analysis would have been seriously handicapped without it. His transcriptions, translations, and comments are reproduced overleaf.

Dr Ruscu cautions that the texts are ‘quite negligently written’ and that the triptych ‘could be a bad copy of a better model for the use of the lower classes.’ He points out that portable triptychs are ‘a common presence in Byzantine art, especially [from] the tenth to the eleventh century onwards.’ More importantly, he notes that ‘the pieces known to him are not that small as the present piece.’11 This is a detail that needs to be properly investigated in future specialised studies because it may throw new light on the history of the Gozo triptych.

Transcription

C(вѧт)Ъ ПР(авьдивъ) or ПР (ѣподобномѫченикъ)

Aнтiпa

The St George Portable Triptych with transcription, translation, and comments by Dan Ruscu

Central panel of the portable triptych

Translation svętŭ pravdivŭ or prĕpodobnomǫčenikŭ Antipa Saint righteous/righteous martyr Antipas

Notes svętŭ and pravdivŭ / prĕpodobnomǫčenikŭ are abbreviated. This is the meaning of the small hyphen above the letters.

The inscription puts an ‘I’ instead of ‘и’. The pronunciation, however, is the same.

Transcription

Ο ΑΓ[i]ΟC ΓΕΟΡΓΕΟC

Front Case

Translation

Ho hagios Georgios (the) saint George

The Right Wing

Notes

The ‘i’ is missing and the Γ and Ε are in ligature.

Transcription

ПЕТ(Р)Ъ KAI МІХАІЛЪ

ГЕОРГИ(Й) ВАСИЛЕЙ

ПЕТРЪ ИОАНЪ

Translation

Pet(r)ŭ kai Michailŭ

Peter and Michael

Georgij Vasileij

George and Basil

Petrŭ Ioanŭ

Peter and John

The Left Wing

Notes

Here the inscription seems to combine Slavonic with Greek

Transcription

ГАВРІИЛЪ ПАВЕЛЪ

ГРИГОГЕ ЯМІТРЕІ [sic]

AФАНАСЕИ ВЛАСЕИ [sic]

Translation

Gavriilŭ Pavelŭ

Gabriel and Paul

Grigoge Iamitrei [sic]

Gregory and Demetrius

Afanasei Vlasei

Athanasius and Blaise

Notes

The inscription however should be: ГРИГОРИЕ ДИМІТРIЕ

Grigorie Dimitrie .

Some of the letters are written in a wrong or very deformed manner. My best guess would be Athanasius, which in Slavonic is written Afanasie as with Blaise which is written Vlasei instead of Vlasie

The style of the triptych is obviously Byzantine with clear Slavic connections, probably suggesting a Russian Orthodox origin. The sleeve-box, which Dr Ruscu calls ‘front case’ speaks, as already observed, a stylistically and linguistically different language. It is an evidently better work by a metalsmith open to Romanesque influences to protect the triptych. The differences may have a historical significance for they seem to suggest the adaptation of a quintessentially Greek Orthodox devotional medal to make it acceptable in a Latin Christian context. There is also the possibility that the sleeve-box originally served another purpose from which it was separated and reused as a protective case for the triptych.

Dr Helen Rufus-Ward (University of Sussex) points out that the iconography of St George the Dragon Slayer on the front of the sleeve-box is significant. St George was one of the military saints known as the Holy Riders, saints who were solders in life, martyrs to Christ in death, and then latterly revealed as heavenly protectors. His cult was very active in Russia and throughout Eastern Europe.

Moscow adopted him as its patron saint in 1730. On the sleeve-box, the mounted St George is prominently represented in low relief, slaying the dragon with a sword (or lance) which he holds in his right hand. The neck of the horse is decorated with a formalised flower motif. A thin Greek label identifies him as ‘The St George’.

On the back of the sleeve-box (Fig. 7) is a crude, thinly incised pedestaled Greek cross with sharply pointed finials that support the passion symbols of the spear and the sponge carried on tall sticks. At the crossing of the arms and the upright beam are two short double-pointed lances that cross each other at right angles. Punched triangular incisions, done with a sharp-pointed tool, articulate the pedestal and the cross and the surrounding areas. Four formalised flower motives are symmetrically arranged around the cross, while a less stylised flower provides a touch of elegance to the pedestal.

The ornately framed central panel of the triptych celebrates St Antipas of Pergamum, identified by a thin Slavonic label which honours him as ‘Saint and previous page: Fig. 7

Righteous Martyr’. He is represented as a heavily haloed hieratic figure with a distinctive pointed beard reverently holding a closed tome, presumably a Gospel book (Fig. 6). St Antipas was a first-century bishop who, in Eastern Christianity, is sometimes associated with the famous verse in Revelation 2.3: ‘You have persevered and endured hardships in my name and not grown weary’. He is largely unknown in Latin Christianity but has a cult following in the Eastern Church which celebrates his feast on 11 April. His legend goes that he was consecrated Bishop of Pergamum, a city dominated by Satan, by John the Evangelist and suffered martyrdom in 90/95CE, during the Domitian persecutions, by being burnt alive in a bullshaped brazen altar. His martyrdom freed Pergamum from Satan. Dr Rufus-Ward draws attention to the existence of a prayer for the intercession of St Antipas:

Unto the hierarch and renowned Great Martyr of the Lord, to the most excellent protector of all Pergamum, unto him that cast our common foe in ruin, unto Antipas let us sing praises as is due, for health [sic] them that suffer from afflicted teeth.

The prayer shows that supplicants addressed appeals to St Antipas if they required relief from toothache. Dr RufusWard thus further comments that ‘it is not inconceivable that the triptych’s owner may have had dental problems.’

The St Antipas panel has a thin wedge-like extension that projects out of the protective sleeve-box when the folded triptych is fitted inside it. This has a loop for a chain to allow the triptych to be worn on the person (Fig. 9). This was common pious practice especially on portable triptychs. In Russia, they were popularly known as ‘travelling icons’ and were in general use among all classes of society.12 In 1867, Rev. W. Sparrow reported on around 29

Russian portable triptychs which were brought to England from Crimea. He relates: … when a peasant is about to send his son to service in the Army, he often takes from his neck the icon that he and his forefathers have worn, and places it with his benediction on the young soldier’s breast. To the soldier himself, the icon becomes a memento because it usually bears the effigy of some Russian saint, very frequently, the patron saint [of] his family for this icon may have been an heirloom of his religion for, when about to offer his prayers, he opens his triptych or diptych, and kneels before it as a portable altar. He carries it suspended round his neck, through the vicissitudes of a campaign, and when, his labours ended, he returns to his native parish, he often places this cherished possession upon the iconostasis of his village church, as a votive offering to commemorate his preservation …13

The two wings of the triptych are divided in three registers on which the following saints are represented in pairs:

Gabriel, Paul, Gregory, Demetrius, a possible Athanasius and Blaise

In her analysis on the choice of saints, Dr Rufus-Ward points out that ‘some of the saints have connections with Russia. Basil the Blessed was Moscow’s most beloved of saints … St Basil was one of the Northern Russian saints, the protector of domestic animals … The cult of

St Demetrius of Thessaloniki was very active in Russia …’. Iconographically, the saints are hieratic, bust-length figures whose names are inscribed above their heads in what Dan Ruscu calls ‘negligent Slavonic’ because of the ‘wrong and deformed character of the texts’.

The double appearance of St Peter can, perhaps, suggest a special veneration. On the other hand, it is more likely the result of the incompetence of the vernacular artist randomly copying the images of saints on other triptychs. Dr Ruscu generously points out that the saints are correctly represented ‘in their specific habit: Peter and Paul in a sort of an ancient chiton, George and Demetrius in the military chlamis, Gregory and Basil with the episcopal omophorion Therefore, the images can be followed back to better models or archetypes.’14

On the wedge-like extension of the central panel is a rough small image of the face of Christ which betrays a folk-inspired influence of the Edessa mandylion and its miracle-working propensities (Fig. 8). This greatly enriched the devotional character of the triptych. In Orthodox tradition, the mandylion or ‘Holy Face’ was, a true portrait which Christ himself impressed on a cloth for King Agbar of Edessa to miraculously cure him of an illness.15 It is recorded in Constantinople in the tenth century but disappeared in 1204 in the sack of the city during the Fourth Crusade. The earliest known image of the mandylion is a late tenth-century icon in the Monastery of St Catherine on Mount Sinai. In the Orthodox church, the icon is greatly revered, and its feast is solemnly celebrated on 16 August. As Ruscu points out: ‘In the Byzantine tradition, triptychs were perceived in the same manner as the iconostasis … as a stand for icons, and that on Slavic (including Russian-style) iconostasis, the image of the mandylion is almost always represented above the central or imperial doors.’16

Conclusion

The Gozo portable triptych is of the rustic vernacular typology and clearly of humble origin. In Russia, the wealthy classes had costlier triptychs, sometimes of pure gold. Gilding and enamelling were also common.17 In spite of its artistic poverty, the artefact is, nonetheless, of interest and has characteristics which set it apart from other studied and inventoried triptychs. It is comparatively smaller in size and, contrary to the norm, it is equipped with a protective sleeve-box. Two important questions await an answer: firstly, its date; secondly, the circumstances of its passage to Gozo, allegedly to the church of St George where, if we put faith in the tradition, its great esteem was demonstrated by the care taken to save it from destruction. If, the traumatic Ottoman siege was the reason for its hiding, 1551 would be a sound ante quem date. The Gothic sleeve-box hints at the late Middle Ages, but the triptych is presumably earlier.

Portable triptychs, in the same manner as other Byzantine artefacts, knew very little stylistic change in their long history and are difficult to date on stylistic considerations alone. The dates suggested are tentative and may need revision by a Byzantine art specialist. They are based on tradition and known history. It is tempting to associate the image of St George on the sleeve-box-with the church of St George and to argue that it was made to contain the triptych after it reached the church. This, however, is an idle hypothesis. On the other hand, the possibility that it was the reason for its donation to the church, after it reached Gozo, is worthy of consideration. The answer to the second question is more complex. There is the possibility that it reached Gozo fortuitously as an antique and that legends were woven around it because of the sleeve-box image of St George. Bishop Grech-Delicata may have subscribed to this option. This would explain his reluctance to donate it to the cathedral. There is, however, a more profound and historically correct option. Michele Bacci, Professor of Medieval History at the University of Fribourg and a leading authority on Christian iconography, has generously pointed out that the triptych belongs to a typology of ‘objects widely circulated especially among Russian pilgrims travelling to the Holy Land and Bari’.18 The strategic Mediterranean location of the Maltese Islands made them a convenient stopover on the pilgrimage routes. To Orthodox pilgrims, Bari had a strong appeal because of thaumaturgic shrine of St Nicholas of Myra. It is not improbable that an Eastern Christian who had experienced a serious mishap on his sea route, perhaps shipwreck, found refuge on Gozo, the nearest landfall, and offered his portable triptych to a principal church as an ex-voto for his safe deliverance. The St George on the sleeve-box made the Rabat church of the saint the best choice.

The Gozo portable triptych remains shrouded in mystery, but, whatever its true history, it is an artefact that deserves to be known and appreciated. It is only through a good diagnostic investigation and its study by a specialised Byzantine art historian that we can come to a better understanding of its context and art historical relevance.

Addendum

When this study was already being set for publication, Francesca Balzan brought to our attention three presumably Russian brass holy medals with Cyrillic/ Slavonic inscriptions pertaining to the Gollcher collection at Palazzo Falson Historic House Museum, Mdina. Generously going out of her way, with the enthusiastic cooperation of Palazzo Falson’s curator, Caroline Tonna, she made special arrangements for us to carry out a cursory examination of them. The artefacts are devotionally and stylistically related to the Gozo portable triptych and were similarly intended to be worn round the neck for celestial protection, but they are of better artistic quality and of a later date. Each piece is an independent artefact with a distinctive artistic interest and different date of production. Their provenance is unknown, and the probability is that they were acquired separately.

The first and most artistically significant is an enamelled diptych with the Hodegetria Madonna icon on one volet and a hieratic saint on the other. Unlike the Gozo triptych, it is not a grassroots artefact pendant which, therefore, suggests a better social context. The second is an iconographically interesting single medal filled to capacity with a stylised very complete two-tiered representation of the Nativity narrative. As in the Gozo triptych, the topside has a wedge-like extension with a miniscule crude representation of the Edessa Mandylion. The medallion gives the impression that it was the central volet of a triptych, but there is no evidence for hinges for the side volets. The third piece is a sleeve-box which, like the Gozo sleeve-box, has an image of St George and the dragon. The cult of St George the Dragon Slayer spread widely in Russia in the twelfth century and established him firmly as one of the country’s most revered saints. His prominent image on the two sleeve-boxes is therefore no surprise.

The three Russian pendant medals have notable artistic interest deserving a proper analytical study. We hope to undertake this with the assistance of academic colleagues specialised in the religious art of Orthodox Russian and Eastern Churches. Together with the Gozo portable triptych they open an exciting new window on Malta’s art historical heritage.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Archpriest of the Gozo Cathedral Rev. Joseph Calleja, Dr Dan Ruscu, Giulia Privitelli, Professor Michele Bacci, Daniel Camilleri, Daniel Borg, and CVC Media. Furthermore, we woud like to thank Dr Helen Rufus-Ward for her valuable comments and for peer reviewing this article.

Cancelleria Apostolica and related sources at the Bibiotheca Apostolica Vaticana (Malta: Malta University Press, 2005), 256259. The other churches were Sta Maria Savine, Sti Jacobi, Sti Agostini, and Sti Petri in cimitero.

6 AAF [Archiepiscopal Archives, Floriana] RFBIG [Registrum Fundationum Benificorum Insulae Gaudisii], f.52r-v, Reproduced as Doc. 50 in Stanley Fiorini, Documentary Sources of Maltese History, Part V: Documents in the Curia of the Archbishop of Malta No. 1 (Malta: Malta University Press, 2006), 71. Hereafter referred to as Fiorini (2006).

7 AAF, RFBIG, f.87 reproduced as Doc. 86 in Fiorini (2006), 121-122.

8 Joan Abela, ‘Unearthing Gozo’s Lost Medieval Past’, in Charlene Vella, ed., At Home in Art. Essays in Art in honour of Mario Buhagiar (Malta: Midsea Books, 2016), 42.

9 The 1mm difference is due to the rebate that makes one wing overlap the other.

10 Dr Dan Ruscu is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of GreekCatholic Theology, at the Babeș-Bolyai University, Romania (Departamentul de Istorie Antică şi Arheologie). Dr Ruscu specialises in the art and archaeology of Early Christianity and Late Antiquity and has a good knowledge of Cyrillic/Slavonic. Thanks also to Ms Giulia Privitelli for establishing the close academic contact.

11 Personal correspondence with Dan Ruscu on 22 November 2022.

12 On the Russian portable icons: Richard Eighme Albborn and Vera B. Espinola, eds, Russian Copper Icons and Crosses from the Kunz Collection: Castings of Faith (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1991).

Notes

1 Paul George Pisani, ‘History: Brief Account’, in Charles Cini, ed., St George: Gozo, Golden Basilica (Malta: Salesians of Don Bosco, 2011), 15.

2 AEG [Archivio Episcopale, Gozo], VP [Visita Pastorale] 1830, f.48r, reported in Pisani (2011), 15.

3 There is an almost identical ciborium in the Museu Episcopal, Vic.

4 NLM [National Library of Malta], Ms 1123, Manuscritto antico. Uomini Illustri di Malta, f.4, Mario Buhagiar, ed. and trans.

5 The document in ASV [Archivio Segreto Vaticano], Reg. Vat. 396, ff. xvi -xviii is reproduced as Doc. 188 in George Aquilina and Stanley Fiorini, Documentary Sources of Maltese History, Part IV: Documents at the Vatican No.2: Archivio Segreto Vaticano:

13 Cited in Vera B. Espinola, ‘Copper Icons in Daily Use in Old Russia’, in Eighme and Espinola (1991), 9.

14 Personal correspondence with Dan Ruscu on 22 November 2022.

15 Averil Cameron, ‘The History of the Image of Edessa. The Telling of a Story’, in Harvard Ukrainian Studies: Okeanos. Essays presented to Ivor Sevencenko on his Sixtieth Birthday by his colleagues and students, Vol. 7 (1983).

16 Personal correspondence with Dan Ruscu on 22 November 2022.

17 Vera B. Espinola, ‘Russian Metal Icons in the Smithsonian Institution’, ICOM Committee for Conservation 7th Triennial Meeting (Copenhagen: The International Council of Museums with the J. Paul Getty Trust, 1984), 104.

18 Personal correspondence with Michele Bacci on 7 February 2022.