that had retained its original surface, because the support was considered
too great an aesthetic intrusion.
The missing areas were then gessoed and inpainted by Sarah
Fisher, head of paintings conservation at the National Gallery (Figs. 22, 23).
Both pictures were then butted together without glue in a single frame
made for the exhibition (Figs. 24, 25).
This arrangement proved successful enough to prompt the two
institutions to agree to the permanent rejoining of the panels subsequent
to the exhibition and joint ownership thereafter.Among the problems presented by the permanent rejoining, the most
difficult to resolve was the discrepancy between the beautiful, uniform
surface ofthe Washington panel and that of the Metropolitan panel,
which displayed such problems as several open splits, warps, and planar
distortions, most of which were related to the cradle (see Fig. 5). Although
the condition of the Metropolitan panel was less than ideal, it was none-
theless stable, given the satisfactory environmental conditions within the
museum. While the aesthetic improvement of the surface had always been
an attractive idea, it was felt that the subtle aesthetic gain did not justify
the extensive structural treatment to which the panel would have to be
subjected. Now, however, in light of the permanent rejoining, the relation-
ship between the upper and lower surfaces seemed important enough to
justify the intervention.Permanent Rejoining
352 Bisacca
Figure 24, right
The two pictures abutted together without
glue in a single frame made for the 1988 exhi-
bition Painting in Renaissance Siena: 1420–1500.
Figure 25, far right
Reverse ofthe panels during the exhibition.
The Washington panel (above) is wider than
the Metropolitan panel because of additions
made to the perimeter.
Figure 22, above
Washington panel after application of gesso.
Figure 23, above right
Washington panel after inpainting by
SarahFisher.