¹ 1 Hoe was a founder and the first president of The Grolier Club in New York City. The circumstances of Hoe’s acquisition of the painting are unknown; The Grolier Club records include copies of Hoe sale catalogues and newspaper articles about his collection, but nothing detailing his acquisitions. The earlier provenance of this painting is unknown, and is complicated by the fact that it has been confused with the provenances of several other paintings. There are three erroneous provenances that have been proposed for the Cleveland picture, as well as an avenue of research being pursued that may reveal the painting’s actual past provenance. 1) There is a suggestion in the CMA curatorial file that the painting was in the “Lenclanche” [sic] collection in 1890, as per Mandel’s Botticelli catalogue (p. 100). This is incorrect: Mandel, in fact, notes that a different tondo depicting Madonna and Child with the Young St. John was in the Leclanché collection until c. 1890, and was at the time in the Lanckoronski collection, Vienna. 2) It has been suggested by several sources that the CMA painting was possibly in the Rozière collection and appeared in an exhibition at the Palais du Bourbon in the 1880s. Research revealed that the exhibition in question is in fact the Exposition du Palais Bourbon au profit des Alsaciens-Lorrains, held at the Palais Bourbon in 1874. The exhibition contains four paintings of related subject matter attributed to Botticelli, none of which has Rozière listed as the owner or matches the dimensions of the Cleveland picture. Although Plunkett (Sandro Botticelli, 1900), Gebhart (Sandro Botticelli, 1907) Ulmann (Sandro Botticelli, 1893), and Horne (Alessandro Filipepi, commonly called Sandro Botticelli, painter of Florence, 1908) all include Rozière in the provenance, to date no documentary evidence confirming Rozière’s ownership or his lending it to the Bourbon exhibition has been found. 3) An undated letter, most likely written by someone at Ehrich Galleries, located in the National Gallery Archives was thought, since Ronald Lightbown’s summary of the text was published in his Botticelli catalogue raisonné in 1978, to describe the Cleveland picture: “This picture comes from the collection of Cardinal Facchinetti, in Gubbio, Umbria; that Cardinal lived in the seventeenth century or a little later…I purchased the picture myself some twenty years ago in Rimini, from the noble Facchinetti, a Judge, a descendant of the Cardinal…I can repeat to you now that that picture was attributed to Filippino Lippi in the old catalogues of the family; and when I once took it out of the frame I found a small ticket on the panel….bearing the indication, Ridolfo Ghirlandajo; this ticket, written undoubtedly a very long time ago, ought to be there still. Since I bought the picture the many friend-artists and critics who examined it gave as usual different opinions; the names of Lippi, Mainardi, and Botticini have been made…[art historian Giacomo] de Nicola…has come to the conclusion that it may be Botticini’s.” It is unclear why this letter was initially thought to concern the Cleveland picture, but it may be because of the shared Ehrich Galleries connection. However, extensive research revealed that the Ehrich Galleries letter in fact referred to Francesco Botticini’s Assumption of the Virgin, formerly in the Facchinetti collection and attributed to Botticini by Giacomo de Nicola (Old Masters form the Ehrich Galleries, American Art Galleries, Nov. 3, 1927, no. 68). This painting was later in the collection of William Randolph Hearst (Art Objects & Furnishings from the William Randolph Hearst Collection, 1941, p. 14, no. 52-37). 4) A somewhat illegible stamp with a coat of arms and some text was discovered on the back of the Cleveland picture. While research into its implications for the painting’s provenance continues, at this point it appears clear that the painting was located in a Torino collection at some point. The coat of arms appears to display the crest of the House of Savoy, but several Torino archives contacted did not recognize this particular stamp.

² 1 There are two possible ways this painting made its way into the possession of Arthur Hoe, Robert's son, following his father's estate sale. CMA files note, “as sold to A. Haviland but [bought] in,” indicating that while some copies note that Haviland purchased the painting, in fact the painting failed to meet its reserve price and was bought in and eventually returned to Arthur. However, annotated copies of the sale catalogue indicate the buyer was “A. Haviland.” It is possible that Arthur Hoe bought his father's painting back through Haviland, who may have acted as his agent. Furthermore, a letter from Fogg Museum director Edward W. Forbes to Harvard professor of art history Arthur Pope (April 9, 1914) notes that Arthur "bought the picture back at his father's sale." Hoe would later lend the CMA picture to the Fogg from November 1914 to March 1916, when it was likely included in an exhibition of Italian primitive paintings (no catalogue). On March 2, 1916 Hoe informed Forbes that there were several parties interested in purchasing the Botticelli and that he would like to come to Cambridge to retrieve it, much to the dismay of Forbes, who had hoped Hoe would give the painting to the Fogg.

³ It is unclear when and from whom Ehrich Galleries acquired this painting, as various sources provide differing information. The provenances of paintings in other museum collections include purchases by Ehrich Galleries from Baron Lazzaroni, leading some to suggest that the CMA painting, too, followed this path; however, Mandel and Levey's 1967 Botticelli catalogue raisonné notes that Lazzaroni was the most recent owner, and that Ehrich Galleries acquired it c. 1925. However, Yashiro's 1925 Botticelli catalogue raisonné situates the painting with Lazzaroni, so clearly, it must have left the possession of Ehrich Galleries by some point that year. In his catalogue of 1927, Venturi notes that the painting "has come from America and more particularly from the Ehrich Collection," also suggesting that it was with Ehrich Galleries prior to Lazzaroni who resided in Europe. Furthermore, while no definite connection between Hoe and Ehrich Galleries has been established, it is worth noting that Ehrich Galleries also lent several paintings to the Fogg c. 1915, and so it is possible that Hoe was familiar with the gallery and later sold his his painting to them. A 1918 exhibition at the Ehrich Galleries includes a "Madonna, Child, and Saint John," attributed to the Botticelli School which may or may not be the Cleveland picture.

⁴ 1 Lazzaroni, a collector and restorer, certainly owned the Botticelli by 1925, when Yashiro's catalogue raisonné situates the painting in his collection. Lazzaroni died in 1934, although sales of his collection continued to take place through the 1950s, suggesting that works he had owned remained in the possession of family members. A May 6, 1953 Drouot sale of works from the Lazzaroni collection contains “La Vierge, l’Enfant et Saint Jean dans un paysage” (no. 26) attributed to the Florentine school; there is no buyer information or reproduction. It is a tondo with a diameter of 73 cm; the CMA tondo is 75/76 cm. The Musée Avignon confirmed that their version (75 cm), formerly in the Musée Fabre in Montpellier is closer, was never with Lazzaroni, and so it is possible that the tondo in the Lazzaroni sale may be the CMA picture.

⁵ 1 In a letter to art dealer Guglielmo Canessa from 1959 CMA director Sherman Lee writes that he will be visiting Milan and if the painting was “in [Canessa’s] hands,” he would like to see it. It is not clear whether Lee actually saw the painting at this time, or to whom Canessa ultimately sold it.

⁶ 1 According to the invoice from Iolanda d’Antoni, the painting was in a private Milanese collection before she acquired it. Although it is unclear whether Canessa was an owner or dealer in connection with the painting, it is possible that Canessa is the private collector in question.