Blocksatz - B4 - A Critical Catalogue

Transcription

Cover-page
Vorderseiten-Klappentext:
Raphael
A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings and Tapestries
by Luitpold Dussler
With 187 illustrations
This indispensable standard work assembles in handy form all essential information on the paintings of one of the greatest
artists of all time. It consists of a detailed catalogue raisonné, in which the paintings are divided into three groups: paintings on panel and canvas, wallpaintings, and tapestries including the surviving cartoons. For each work the author gives location, measurements and provenance and then goes on to examine questions of authenticity, chronology, iconography and
preservation, and to quote the opinions of other scholars. He also lists the surviving preparatory drawings and the most important copies. The paintings on panel and canvas are catalogued in chronological order, followed by a section on works
wrongly or doubtfully attributed to the master by recent writers. All authentic works are reproduced for easy reference. This
catalogue was first published in German in 1966 (without illustrations). In the present edition the text has been considerably expanded and revised and now incorporates the results of recent research. The book also contains a bibliography of
several hundred books and articles as well as analytical indexes. The author is well known for several other standard works
on Italian Renaissance art, among them a monograph on Sebastiano del Piombo and an important book on the drawings of
Michelangelo.
Phaidon
Rückseiten-Klappentext:
Berenson:
Italian Pictures of the Renaissance
A list of the principal artists and their works with an index of places
Venetian School
‘No other art-historian has devoted so much time, vigour and tenderness to the study of pictures and drawings: the knowledge behind this book must be unique. It offers an incomparable conspectus of the Venetian School’ Raymond Mortimer,
Sunday Times
‘Monumental. Surely the most important single instrument for understanding Venetian painting that we have.’ Lawrence
Gowing, New Statesman
‘A new, greatly enlarged, thoroughly revised edition . . . The value of so lavish an allowance of plates can hardly be exaggerated.’
Connoisseur
Two volumes, 10¾ x 7½ in. Vol. I: 222 pages text, with plates 1-628 and colour frontispiece. Vol. II: 54 pages of text, with
plates 629-1, 334, colour frontispiece and topographical index
Florentine School
‘This magnificent edition, with nearly 1,500 illustrations. In their extended form the lists cover many collections which
were previously ignored . . . for almost seventy years Berenson's lists of the Florentine painters have formed part of the
equipment of students in this field, and it is no mean tribute to his pertinacity and breadth of vision that they should have
grown into this elaborate and efficient book.’
Times Literary Supplement
‘A volume well and abundantly illustrated and nobly produced.’ Quentin Bell, Listener
Two volumes, 10¾ x 7½ in. Vol. I: 240 pages text, 590 illustrations and colour frontispiece. Vol. II: 48 pages text, 888
plates, colour frontispiece and topographical index
Central Italian and North Italian Schools
‘In these lists of artists’ work, now accompanied by 1,988 plates, are distilled the knowledge and perceptive seeing of one
of the greatest art historians.’ Terence Mullaly, Daily Telegraph
‘The present edition is about a third longer than the last pre-war one. To anyone seriously interested in Italian art they are a
goldmine of information.’ Economist
Three volumes, 10¾ x 7½ in. Vol. I: Text, 561 pages and colour frontispiece. Vol. II: Plates 1-994, with colour frontispiece.
Vol. III: Plates 995-1,988, with colour frontispiece
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
RAPHAEL
A Critical Catalogue
of his Pictures, Wall-Paintings
and Tapestries
BY LUITPOLD DUSSLER
PHAIDON · LONDON AND NEW YORK
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY PHAIDON PRESS LIMITED
5 CROMWELL PLACE, LONDON SW7
PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES BY PHAIDON PUBLISHERS, INC.
AND DISTRIBUTED BY PRAEGER PUBLISHERS, INC.
III FOURTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10003
TITLE OF THE ORIGINAL GERMAN EDITION:
RAFFAEL . KRITISCHES VERZEICHNIS DER GEMÄLDE,
WANDBILDER UND BILDTEPPICHE
@ 1966 BY F. BRUCKMANN KG.MUNICH
AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN
@ 1971 BY PHAIDON PRESS LTD
TRANSLATED BY SEBASTIAN CRUFT
ISBN 0 7148 1469 5
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 76-139836
MADE IN GREAT BRITAIN 1971
TEXT PLATES PRINTED BY R. & R. CLARK LTD. EDINBURGH
PLATES PRINTED BY R. J. ACFORD LTD. CHICHESTER
CONTENTS
Preface
vii
Bibliography
ix
PAINTINGS ON PANEL AND CANVAS
1
WALL-PAINTINGS
TAPESTRIES
68
101
Illustrations
109
WALL-PAINTINGS
153
TAPESTRIES
195
Index of Artists
215
Index of Subjects
217
List of Collections
218
Page vii
PREFACE
My catalogue of Raphael’s paintings was first published, in German, in 1966. The present volume, although based on that
earlier work, contains a number of important changes. It retains the division into three parts, dealing with pictures on panel
and canvas, wall-paintings, and tapestry cartoons respectively, but the first section has now been arranged chronologically
rather than in alphabetical order of locations, so as to give an idea of the stages of the artist’s development. In revising the
text for the English edition, I have taken the opportunity to expand the notes on some of the paintings and to deal more
fully with certain problems of iconography and of style. The bibliography has been considerably enlarged, though even in
its present form it cannot claim to be exhaustive. Finally, the Phaidon Press suggested that a visual survey of Raphael’s
painted œuvre would be instructive and useful to the reader; hence the catalogue is here accompanied by a corpus of reference illustrations, which does not, however, include those paintings that I regard as apocryphal. As I have not been able to
examine the Portrait of a Girl in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, I have not included this much disputed picture.
I wish to express my gratitude to all those who have given me information on various points and have kindly lent me photographs, in particular the Berenson Library (Florence, I Tatti), Prof. Herbert von Einem (Bonn), Dr. Fritz Heinemann
(Munich), Dr. Enrique Kropik (Munich), Prof. Deoclezio Redig de Campos (Vatican), Dr. Eduard Safaøik (Rome), Dr. Albert Schug (Cologne), and Dr. John Shearman (London). Lastly I wish to thank Dr. I. Grafe of the Phaidon Press for his
help in the preparation of this volume.
Munich, 1970
L. D
Page vii
Page viii
IN MEMORIAM
LUDWIG VON BALDASS
GUSTAV HARTLAUB
Page viii
Page ix
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABBATE, Francesco. ‘L’attivitá giovanile del Bachiacca.’ In: Paragone, 1965, n. 189, p. 36 ff.
AGRICOLA, Filippo. Notizie ignorate sui famosi dipinti di Raffaello nelle Camere Vaticane, Rome 1839.
ALBAREDO, Piazuelo Joaquín. Los tápices rafaelescos de la parroquia de San Pablo de Zaragoza, Zaragoza 1954.
ALIPPI, A. ‘Nuovi documenti su Raffaello.’ In: Rassegna Bibliografica dell’ Arte italiana XVIII, 1915, p. 133 ff.
ALPATOW, Michael W. ‘Die Sixtinische Madonna von Raphael.’ In: Kunst und Literatur 1955, p. 692 ff. (Berlin).
– ‘La Madonna di San Sisto.’ In: L’Arte LVI, N.S. XXI, 1957, p. 25 ff.
– Die Dresdner Galerie. Alte und neue Meister, Dresden 1966: Zur Sixtinischen Madonna, p. 41 ff.
AMELUNG, Walter. ‘Die Stuckreliefs in den Loggien Raffaels und ihre Vorbilder.’ In: Th. Hofmann, Raphael als Architekt IV, p. 81.
ANTOINE, J.-P. Raphaël et son portrait par lui-même, Rome 1880.
ARSLAN, Wart. ‘Intorno al Sodoma, a Raffaello e alla Stanza della Segnatura.’ In: Dedalo IX, 1928/9, p. 525 ff.
BADT, Kurt. ‘Raphaels Incendio del Borgo.’ In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XXII, 1959, p. 35 ff.
BALDASS, Ludwig von. ‘Die Stellung der Madonna di Gaeta im Werke Raffaels.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst,
N.F. LX, 1926/7, p. 32 ff.
BALDINUCCI, Filippo. Notizie de’ Professori del Disegno da Cimabue in qua (ed. Milan), 1811.
BANDMANN, Günther. ‘Ein Fassadenprogramm des 12. Jahrhunderts und seine Stellung in der christlichen Ikonographie.’ In: Das Münster V, 1952, p. 1 ff.
– Melancholie und Musik, Berlin 1960.
BASCHERO, Renzo. ‘Polemico e studio intorno a una serpenta.’ In: Arte cristiana XLVII, 1959, p. 179 ff.
BAUMGART, Fritz. ‘Beiträge zu Raffael und seiner Werkstatt.’ In: Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, Neue Folge VIII, 1931, p. 49 ff.
BAYERSDORFER, Adolf. Adolf Bayersdorfers Leben und Schriften, München 1902.
BEAN, Jacob. ‘A rediscovered drawing by Raphael.’ In: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bulletin 1964, Summer, p. 1 ff.
BEENKEN, Hermann. ‘Warum die “Madonna di Gaeta” nur eine Kopie ist.’ In: Der Kunstwanderer, 1927/8, p. 186 ff.
– ‘Zu Raffaels frühesten Bildnisschöpfungen.’ In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte IV, 1935, p. 145.
BELLORI, Giovanni Pietro. Descrizioni delle imagini da Raffaello d’Urbino nelle Camere del Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano, Roma 1695, editio Missirini, Rome 1821.
BENKARD, Ernst A. ‘Ein Porträt Raffaels von der Hand des Sebastiano del Piombo.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft I, 1908, pp. 654-6.
– Das Selbstbildnis vom 15. bis zum Beginn des 18. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1927.
– ‘Novelle um Raffael’ In: Die Frau, Blätter der Frankfurter Zeitung, XX. Jg., Nr. 5, 27. March 1938.
BERENCE, Fred. Raphael ou la puissance de l’esprit, Paris 1936.
BERENSON, Bernard. Italian pictures of the Italian Renaissance, Oxford 1932.
BERGSTRÖM, Ingvar. ‘Revival of antique illusionistic wall-painting in Renaissance Art.’ In: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Göteborgs Universitets Arsskrift LXIII, 1957, I, Göteborg 1957.
BERLIN, Staatliche Museen Verzeichnis der ausgestellten Gemälde des 13. bis 18. Jahrhunderts im Museum Dahlem,
Berlin 1958.
BERLINER, Rudolf. ‘Raphaels Sixtinische Madonna als religiöses Kunstwerk.’ In: Das Münster XI, 1958, p. 85 ff.
BERTI, Luciano. Raffaello, Bergamo 1961.
BERTINI, Aldo. ‘L’esordio di Giulio Romano.’ In: La Critica d’Arte VI, 1959, p. 361 ff.
– ‘La trasfigurazione e l’ultima evoluzione della pittura di Raffaello.’ In: La Critica d’Arte VIII, 1961, March-April, p. 1 ff.
BIANCHI, Lidia. La Villa Papale della Magliana, Rome 1942.
BIERMANN, Hartmut. Die Stanzen Raffaels, Munich 1957.
BLUNT, Anthony. ‘The Legend of Raphael in Italy and France.’ In: Italian Studies XIII, 1958, p. 2 ff.
BOCCHI, Francesco. Le Bellezze della città di Firenze, ampliato da Giovanni Cinelli, Florence 1677.
BOCK VON WÜLFINGEN, Ordenberg. ‘Die Verklärung Christi von Raffael.’ In: Der Kunstbrief, Berlin 1946. New edition: ‘Die Verklärung Christi (die Transfiguration).’ Werkmonographien zur bildenden Kunst 9, Stuttgart 1956.
– ‘Ein unbekanntes Bild aus der Jugendzeit Raffaels.’ In: Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 3. Folge, II, 1951, p.
105 ff.
BÖHNER, Philotheus. Additional Remarks to H. B. Gutman, Raphael’s Disputa. In: Franciscan Studies, St. Bonaventura
XXIII, New York 1942.
BOLE, Franz. Raffaels Wandgemälde: ‘die Philosophie’ genannt die Schule von Athen, Brixen 1891.
BOLOGNA, Ferdinando. ‘Un’altra Resurrezione giovanile di Raffaello.’ In: Studies in the History of
Page ix
Page x
Art dedicated to William E. Suida on his eightieth birthday, London 1959, p. 180 ff.
BOMBE, Walter. Perugino. Klassiker der Kunst, Stuttgart 1914.
– ‘Raffaels Peruginer Jahre.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft IV, 1911, p. 296 ff.
BONFIGLIETTI, Rodolfo. ‘Raffaello a Villa Adriana e a Tivoli.’ In: Bollettino di studi storici e archeologici di Tivoli II,
n. 6, 1920.
BORENIUS, Tancred. Catalogue of the Paintings at Doughty House, Richmond, London 1913.
BORGHINI, Raffaello. Il Riposo, Florence 1584.
BOTTARI, Stefano. ‘Raffaello alla Farnesina e la prima “maniera” italiana.’ In: Studi urbinati XXXVI, 1962, p. 167 ff.
BRAUNFELS, Wolfgang. Die heilige Dreifaltigkeit, Düsseldorf 1954.
BRICARELLI, Carlo. II pensiero cristiano del Cinquecento nell’ arte di Raffaello, Turin 1921.
BRIZIO, Anna M. ‘La Santa Cecilia di Raffaello.’ In: Arte Lombarda 1965, Supplementary Volume 9, 1.
– ‘Raffaello.’ In: Enciclopedia Universale dell’Arte XI, 1963, p. 222 ff.
BRUNN, Heinrich von. Kleine Schriften III. Drei Vorträge über Raphael, Berlin-Leipzig 1906.
BUDDENSIEG, Tilman. ‘Raffaels Grab.’ In: Kunsthistorische Studien: Hans Kauffmann zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin
1968, pp. 45 ff.
BURCHARD, Ludwig. ‘Zwei Papstbildnisse Tizians.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XLVI, 1925, p.
121 ff.
BURCKHALTER, Margarethe. Die Bildnisse Raffaels, Laupen bei Bern 1932.
BURKHARD, Arthur. Review of L. Dussler. ‘Raffael. Kritisches Verzeichnis.’ In: Renaissance Quarterly 1968, pp. 45960.
BURROUGHS, Bryson. ‘Two great pictures.’ In: Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum XXVIII, 1933, No. 3, p. 57 ff.
CAMESASCA, Ettore. Camesasca I Tutta la pittura di Raffaello, I Quadri, Milan 1956, second edition 1962. (Biblioteca
d’Arte Rizzoli 24/5.)
– Camesasca II Tutta la pittura di Raffaello, Gli affreschi, Milan 1956, second edition 1962. (Biblioteca d’Arte Rizzoli
26/7).
– Raffaello Sanzio. Tutti gli scritti. Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli 1063, Milan 1956.
– Tutta la pittura di Perugino, Milan 1959.
CANTALAMESSA,Giulio. ‘Un ritratto femminile nella Galeria Borghese.’ In: Rassegna d’Arte XVI, 1916, p. 187 f.
CARDEN, R. W. ‘The Italian Artists in England during the Sixteenth Century.’ In: Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London XXIV (1912), pp. 171 ff.
CARLI, Enzo. Raffaello, Milan 1951.
CARTWRIGHT, Julia. Raphael, London 1895.
CASTAGNOLA 1958. Sammlung Schloss Rohoncz, Katalog Villa Favorita-Castagnola-Lugano, 1958.
CASTAGNOLA 1964. Some Italian Renaissance Pictures in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection. Studies by Philip
Hendy, Lugano-Castagnola 1964.
CASTELFRANCO, Giorgio. Raffaello, Milan 1962 (I grandi maestri del disegno).
CAVALLERI, Ferdinando. ‘La tavola del San Luca insigne opera di Raffaello restituita al suo splendore nella galleria
della pontificia Accademia romana delle Belle Arti.’ Dichiarazione del Professore Cav. Ferdinando Cavalleri consigliere di
essa Accademia nella Classe della Pittura. Rome 1858.
CECCHELLI, Carlo. ‘La “Psiche“ della Farnesina.’ In: Roma I, 1923, p. 9 ff.
– ‘Di un’ignorata fonte letteraria della “Galatea” di Raffaello.’ In: Roma XX, 1942, p. 246 ff.
CECCHINI, Giovanni. La Galleria Nazionale dell’ Umbria in Perugia, Rome 1932.
CELLINI, Pico. ‘Il S. Luca di Raffaello.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XXX, 1936/7, pp. 282-8.
– ‘Il restauro del S. Luca di Raffaello.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XLIII, 1958, pp. 250-62.
CHASTEL, André. Art et humanisme à Florence au temps de Laurent le Magnifique, Paris 1959.
CIARANFI, Anna Maria Francini. Die Galerie Pitti in Florenz, Munich 1956.
CLOUGH, Cecil H. ‘The relations between the English and Urbino Courts.’ In: Studies in the Renaissance XIV, 1967, p.
202 ff.
COMOLLI, Angelo. Vita inedita di Raffaello da Urbino illustrata con note, Rome 1790.
CONESTABILE, Giancarlo. Catalogue descriptif des anciens tableaux et dessins appartenant à Monsieur le Comte Scipion Conestabile della Staffa et exposés dans sa maison à Pérouse, Perugia 1872.
COOK, Herbert. ‘Les Trésors de l’art italien en Angleterre, III: Raphaël et son école.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts XXIII, 3e
pér., 1900, p. 177 ff. and p. 406 ff.
COPPIER, André-Charles. L’Énigme de la Segnatura. Étude historique et technique de la collaboration de Raphaël et de
Sodoma, Paris 1928.
CORSINI-SFORZA, Lina. ‘La collezione artistica di Caterina Nobili Sforza.’ In: L’Arte, I, 1898, p. 273 ff.
COUPRIE, L. D. ‘Rafael’s “Sposalizio”. Een mathematische Analyse van de compositie.’ In: Simiolus II, n. 2, 1967/8, p.
134 ff.
CROWE, Joseph Archer, and CAVALCASELLE, Giovanni B. Raphael, Life and Works. London 1882-1883.
– Raphael. Sein Leben und seine Werke. Carl Aldenhoven edition. Leipzig 1885, 2 vols.
– Geschichte der italienischen Malerei. Jordan edition. 4 volumes, 1877.
– A New History of Painting in Italy. Edited by Edward Hutton, 3 vols., London 1908-9.
– A History of Painting in North Italy. Edited by Tancred Borenius. 3 vols., London 1912.
CUGNONI, G. Agostino Chili il Magnifico, Rome 1878.
CUNNINGHAM, C. C. ‘Portrait of a Man in
Page x
Page xi
Armour by Sebastiano del Piombo.’ In: Wadsworth Atheneum Bulletin, Hartford 1960, p. 15 ff.
CUST, Lionel. ‘Notes on the Collections formed by Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, K.G.’. In: The Burlington Magazine XIX, 1911, pp. 278 ff and 322 ff.
– ‘Notes on Pictures in The Royal Collections.’ In: The Burlington Magazine XXIX, 1916, pp. 202 ff.
DAVIDSOHN, Robert. ‘Das Ehepaar Doni und seine von Raffael gemalten Porträts.’ In: Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft XXIII, 1900, p. 211 ff.
DE ANCONA, Paolo. Gli affreschi della Farnesina in Roma, Milan 1955.
DE’ MAFFEI, Fernanda. ‘Il ritratto di Giuliano, fratello di Leone X dipinto da Raffaello.’ In: L’Arte LVIII, 1959, p. 309
ff.
DE RINALDIS, Aldo. ‘Il restauro del quadro N. 371 della Galleria Borghese.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XXX, 1936, p. 122 ff.
– ‘Una interpretazione della Trasfigurazione di Raffaello in Vaticano.’ In: L’Illiustrazione Vaticana VI, 1935, p. 295 ff.
DE SANTI, P. A. ‘Santa Cecilia e la musica.’ In: Civiltà Cattolica LXXII, 1921, p. 318 ff.
DE VITO BATTAGLIA, Silvia. ‘La “stufetta” del Cardinal Bibbiena.’ In: L’Arte XXIX, 1926, p. 203 ff.
DEHIO, Georg. ‘Die Rivalität zwischen Raphael und Michelangelo.’ In: Kunsthistorische Aufsätze, Berlin 1914, p. 213 ff.
DELARUELLE, Louis. ‘I ritratti di Guidobaldo di Montefeltro e di Elisabetta Gonzaga nelle gallerie di Firenze.’ In:
L’Arte III, 1900, p. 147 ff.
DELICATI, Mons. Pio/ARMELLINI, Mariano. Il diario di Leone X di Paride de Grassis Maestro delle Cerimonie Pontificie. . . . con note di M. Armellini, Rome 1884.
DELLA PERGOLA, Paola. Galleria Borghese. I Dipinti, Rome, I 1955, II 1959.
– ‘Gli Inventari Aldobrandini: l’inventario del 1682.’ In: Arte antica e moderna, 1962, pp. 316-22.
– ‘L’Inventario Borghese del 1693.’ In: Arte antica e moderna, 1964, pp. 219 ff., 451 ff.; 1965, pp. 202 ff.
DOLCI, Michelangelo. ‘Notizie delle pitture che si trovano nelle chiese e nei palazzi d’Urbino, Edizione integrale del testo originale (1755) curata da Luigi Serra.’ In: Rassegna marchigiana XI, 1933, pp. 281-368.
DOLLMAYR, Herman. ‘Die Zeichnungen zur Decke der Stanza d’Eliodoro.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, Neue
Folge I, 1890, p. 292 ff.
– ‘Raffaels Werkstätte.’ In: Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien XVI, 1895, p. 232 ff.
– ‘Lo stanzino da bagno del cardinale Bibbiena.’ In: Archivio storico dell’Arte III, 1890, p. 272 ff.
DONATI, Maria. ‘Dell’attività di Guglielmo di Marcillat nel Palazzo Vaticano.’ In: Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Rendiconti XXV/VI, 1951, p. 267 ff.
DUPORTAL, Jeanne. ‘Une Nouvelle Hypothèse sur le tableau du Louvre dit “Raphaël et son maître d’armes”.’ In: La
Revue de l’Art ancien et moderne XLIV, 1923, pp. 386 ff.
DURAND-GRÉVILLE, E. ‘Trois Portraits méconnus de la jeunesse de Raphael.’ In: La Revue de l'Art ancien et moderne
XVII, 1905, pp. 377-86.
DUSSLER, Luitpold. Sebastiano del Piombo, Basle 1942.
– Raffael, Kritisches Verzeichnis der Gemälde, Wandbilder und Bildteppiche, Munich 1966.
EINEM, Herbert von. ‘Die “Verklärung Christi“ und die “Heilung des Besessenen“ von Raffael.’ In: Abhandlungen der
Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Mainzer Akademie, 1966, n. 5, p. 299 ff.
– ‘Raffaels Sixtinische Madonna.’ In: Särtryck ur Konsthistorisk Tidskrift, 1968, p. 97 ff.
– Review of: L. Dussler, ‘Raffael. Kritisches Verzeichnis.’ In: Kunstchronik, 1968, pp. 21-7.
ERMERS, M. Die Architektur Raffaels in seinen Fresken, Tafelbildem und Teppichen, Strassburg 1909.
ETTLINGER, L. D. ‘A note on Raphael’s Sibyls in S. Maria della Pace.’ In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XXIV, 1961, p. 322 ff.
EUBOEUS, Tauriscus (Baron de Lepel). Catalogue des estampes gravées d’apres Rafaël, Frankfurt am Main 1819.
FALOCI-PULIGNANI. ‘La Madonna di Foligno.’ In: L’Illustrazione Vaticana III, 1932, p. 86 ff.
FARINA. The origin and author of the Madonna dell’Impannata, 1929.
FELDKELLER, Paul. Raffaels Freske 'Die Philosophie’ genannt 'Die Schule van Athen’, Berlin 1957.
FÉLIBIEN, André. Entretiens sur les vies et les ouvrages des plus excellens Peintres, anciens et modernes. Ed. London
1705.
FERBACH. Raphael als Storiograph Julius’ II, Vienna 1961.
FILANGIERI DI CANDIDA, A. ‘Del vero personaggio rappresentato nel preteso ritratto del cardinal Passerini, nella R.
Galleria Nazionale di Napoli.’ In: L’Arte IV, 1901, p. 128 ff.
FILIPPINI, Francesco. ‘Raffaello a Bologna.’ In: Cronache d’Arte II, 1925, p. 201 ff.
– ‘Tommaso, Vincidor da Bologna.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte LXXII, 1928/9, p. 309 ff.
– ‘Le vicende della “Madonna di Loreto” di Raffaello.’ In: L'Illustrazione Vaticana V, 1934, p. 107 ff.
FIOCCO, Giuseppe. ‘Fra Bartolomeo e Raffaello.’ In: Rivista d’Arte XXIX, 1954, p. 43 ff.
FIRESTONE, Gizella. ‘The Sleeping Christ in Italian Renaissance Representation of the Madonna.’ In: Marsyas II, 1942,
p. 43 ff., pp. 54 f. and Notes 56, 57 on pp. 61 f. (on Raphael’s ‘Madonna del Velo’).
FISCHEL, Oskar. Raphaels Zeichnungen. Versuch einer Kritik, Strassburg 1898.
‘Porträts des Giuliano de’ Medici, Herzogs von Nemours.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XXVIII, 1907,
pp. 117-30.
Page xi
Page xii
– ‘Raffaels erstes Altarbild, die Krönung des Hl. Nikolaus von Tolentino.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XXXIII, 1912, p. 105 ff.
– Raffaels Zeichnungen, Berlin 1913-41, I-VIII.
– ‘Raffaels Lehrer.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XXXIV, 1913, p. 89 ff.
– ‘Raffaels heilige Magdalena im Berliner Kgl. Kupferstichkabinett.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen
XXXVI, 1915, p. 92 ff.
– ‘Der Raffael Czartoryski.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XXXVII, 1916, pp. 251 61.
– ‘Raphael und Dante.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XLI, 1920, p. 83 ff.
– ‘Ein Kartonfragment von Raphael. Zur Madonna del Duca di Terranuova.’ In: Amtliche Berichte der Berliner Museen,
1922, Heft 1/2, p. 13 f.
– ‘Verkauf des Porträts von Giuliano de’ Medici.’ In: Kunstchronik, N.F. XXXV, 1925, p. 116 f.
– ‘An Unknown Drawing by Raphael in Zürich.’ In: The Burlington Magazine XLVI, 1925, pp. 134-9.
– ‘Bildnis des Giuliano de’ Medici.’ In: Kunstchronik LIX, 1925-6, pp. 116 f.
– ‘Raphaels Auferstehung Christi.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XLVI, 1925, p. 191 ff.
- ‘Scoperta di putti di Raffaello nella Stanza Segnatura.’ In: L’Illustrazione Vaticana V, 1934, p. 749 f.
– ‘Due ritratti non riconosciuti di Giulio II.’ In: L’Illustrazione Vaticana VI, 1935, p. 209 ff., and in: Bollettino d’Arte
XXVIII, 1934, p. 194 ff.
– In: Thieme-Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon d. bildenden Künstler, vol. XXIX, Leipzig 1935, ad vocem: Santi, Raffaello.
– ‘Raffaels Engelhierarchien in den Loggien.’ In: L’Illustrazione Vaticana VIII, 1937, p. 23 ff.
– ‘Raphael’s auxiliary cartoons.’ In: The Burlington Magazine LXXI, 1937, pp. 167 ff.
– ‘Ritratti raffaelleschi poco conosciuti di Leone X.’ In: L’Illustrazione Vaticana, IX 1938, p. 361 ff.
– ‘Raphael’s Pink Sketch Book.’ In: The Burlington Magazine LXXIV, 1939, p. 181 ff.
– ‘An Unknown Holy Family by Raphael.’ In: The Burlington Magazine LXXXVI, 1945, p. 82 f.
– Raphael. Edited by B. Rackham, London 1948, 2 vols.
– Raphael, Berlin 1962.
FLUGI D’ASPERMONT, M. ‘Le Stanze di Raffaello.’ Supplement to No. 24, 1934 of L’Illustrazione Vaticana.
FOCILLON, Henri. Raphaël, Paris 1926.
FÖRSTER, Ernst. Raphael. 2 vols., Leipzig 1867/8.
– ‘Amor und Psyche yon Raphael.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XVI, 1895, p. 215 f.
FORSTER, Richard. Farnesina Studien, Rostock 1880.
– ‘Noch einmal Raffael’s Galatea.’ In: Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft XXIII 1900, p. 1 ff.
FOSTER, Philip. ‘Raphael on the Villa Madama.’ The text of a last letter. In: Hertziana Jahrbuch XI, 1967/8, p. 308 ff.
FRABETTI, Giuliano. ‘La “S. Cecilia” di Raffaello e alcune consequenze ferraresi.’ In: Emporium 119, 1954, p. 215 ff.
FRANCIOSI, Giovanni. Cecilia raffaellesca, Modena 1872.
FREEDBERG, Sidney. Painting of the High Renaissance inRome and F/orence (2 vols.), Cambridge, Mass., 1961.
FRIEDBERG, Herbert. ‘A painting by Pontojo and the legend of the partridge of St. Nicholas of Tolentino.’ In: Art
Quarterly XXII, 1959, p. 45 ff.
FRIEDMAN, H. ‘The Plant Symbolism of Raphael’s Alba Madonna.’ In: Gazette des Beaux Arts, 6e pér., XXXVI, 1949,
pp. 213 ff.
FRIMMEL, Theodor. Kleine Gemäldestudien, Bamberg, I, 1892.
FRIZZONI, Gustavo. ‘I capolavori della Pinacoteca del Prado a Madrid.’ In: Archivio storico dell’Arte VI, 1893, p. 309
ff.
– ‘Opere di maestri antichi a proposito della pubblicazione dei disegni delle collezioni di Oxford.’ In: L'Arte VII, 1904, pp.
93 ff., IX, 1906, pp. 241 ff., X, 1907, pp. 81 ff.
– ‘Appunti critici intomo aIle opere di pittura delle scuole italiene nella galleria del Louvre.’ In: L’Arte IX, 1906, pp. 401 ff.
– ‘Einige kritische Bemerkungen über italienische Gemälde in der fürstlich Liechtenstein’schen Galerie.’ In: Jahrbuch des
Kunsthistorischen Instituts der Denkmalkommission VI, 1912, p. 83 ff.
- ‘Il ritrattino di Raffaello nella Galleria Borghese.’ In: Rassegna d’arte XII, 1912, p. 1 ff.
FROMMEL, Christoph L. Die Farnesina und Peruzzis architektonisches Frühwerk, Berlin 1961.
GAMBA, Carlo. ‘Raffaello, i suoi veri maestri.’ In: Mélanges Bertaux ,Paris 1924, p. 93 ff.
– Raphael, Paris 1932.
– ‘Raffaello e Fra Bartolommeo.’ In: Rassegna Marchigiana XII, 1934, p. 169 ff.
– Raffaello, Novara 1949.
GAMULIN, Gregorio. ‘Una copia della Madonna del Garofano.’ In: Commentari IX, 1958, p. 160 f.
GARAS, Klara. ‘The so-called Piombo Portrait in the Museum of Fine Arts.’ In: Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae I, 1953/4, p. 135 ff.
GAYE, Giovanni. Carteggio inedito d’artisti dei secoli XIV, XV, XVI, Florence 1840.
GERE, J. A. ‘Some Italian Drawings in the Chatsworth Exhibition.’ In: The Burlington Magazine XCI, 1949, pp. 169 ff.
GERLINI, E. La villa Farnesina in Roma, Rome 1949.
GERSTENBERG, Kurt. Die Sonette Raffaels an seine Geliebte. Third ed., Munich 1967.
GETTY, J. Paul. The Joys of Collecting, London 1966, p. 94 ff. (Madonna Loreto).
GEYMÜLLER, Heinrich von. ‘Trois Dessins d’architecture inedits de Raphael.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 2e per., III,
1870, p. 79 ff.
GHIDIGLIA-QUINTAVALLE, Augusta. ‘Omaggio a Raffaello di Galeazzo Campi.’ In: Commentari XIV, 1963, p. 49 f.
Page xii
Page xiii
GILBERT, Creighton. ‘A miracle by Raphael.’ In: North Carolina Museum of Art, Bulletin VI, 1965, No. 1.
GIOVIO, Paolo. ‘Raphaelis Urbinatis Vita.’ Reprinted in V. Golzio, Raffaello nei documenti, Rome 1936, p. 191 ff.
GLÜCK, Gustav. ‘Ein wenig beachtetes Werk Raffaels.’ In: Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Neue
Folge X, 1936, p. 97 ff.
– Der Weg zum Bild, Vienna 1948.
GNOLI, Domenico. ‘Documenti inediti relativi a Raffaello d’Urbino.’ In: Archivio storico dell’Arte II, 1889, p. 340 ff.
– ‘La sepoltura d’Agostino Chigi nella chiesa di S. Maria del Popolo in Roma.’ In: Archivio storico dell’Arte II, 1889, p.
317 ff.
GNOLI, Umberto. ‘Raffaello, il Cambio di Perugia e i Profeti di Nantes.’ In: Rassegna d’Arte XIII, 1913, p. 75 ff.
– ‘Raffaello e la “Incoronazione” di Monteluce.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XI, 1917, p. 133 ff.
– ‘Mariano di Ser Austerio.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XV, 1921-2, p. 124 ff.
GOLSON, Lucile. ‘Lucca Penni, a pupil of Raphael at the court of Fontainebleau.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 6e pér.,
1957, vol. 50, II, pp. 17 ff.
GOLZIO, Vincenzo. Raffaello nei documenti, nelle testimonianze dei contemporanei e nella letteratura del suo secolo,
Città del Vaticano 1936.
– La galleria e le collezioni della R. Accademia di San Luca in Roma, Rome 1939 (Itinerari dei Musei e Monumenti
d’Italia).
GOMBOSI, Giorgio. ‘Sodoma und Peruzzis Anteil an den Deckenmalereien der Stanza della Segnatura.’ In: Jahrbuch für
Kunstwissenschaft, 1930, p. 14 ff.
– ‘La parte del Sodoma e del Peruzzi nella decorazione della volta della “Segnatura”.’ In: Atti del IIo Congresso Nazionale
di Studi Romani, Rome, II, 1931, pp. 206 ff.
GOMBRICH, E. H. Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia. Charlton Lecture, Durham University. London 1956. Reprinted in:
Norm and Form, Studies in the Art of the Renaissance, London 1966, pp. 64-80.
GOULD, Cecil. ‘The Raphael Cartoons.’ In: The Burlington Magazine XCIII, 1951, p. 93 f.
– National Gallery Catalogues: The Sixteenth Century. Italian Schools, London 1962, pp. 144-61.
GRABAR, J. ‘“Madonna del Popolo” von Raffael und die “Madonna von Nishni Taghil”.’ (Russische Zeitschrift), Moscow 1928.
GRIMM, Hermann. ‘Raphaels Schule von Athen.’ In: Fünfzehn Essays, 3. Folge, Berlin 1882, p. 61 ff.
– ‘Raphaels Madonna di Terranuova’, ib., p. 154 ff.
– ‘Raphaels Galatea in der Farnesina zu Rom.’ ib., p. 380 ff.
– ‘Raphaels erste Zeiten’, ib., p. 395 ff.
– ‘Raphael und Michelangelo.’ In: Zehn ausgewählte Essays, Berlin 1883, p. 7 ff.
– ‘Der Geburtstag Raphaels’, ib., Appendix, p. 382 ff.
– ‘Raphael und das Neue Testament’, ib., Appendix, p. 390 ff.
– ‘Raphaels Gesichtsbildung’. In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen IV, 1883, p. 162 ff.
– Das Leben Raphaels van Urbino. 1. Teil, Berlin 1872. 2. A. 1886 mit Abschluss; 1896 neue Fassung. Ausgabe von L.
Goldscheider, Vienna 1930. Letzte Auflage, herausgegeben von Reinhart Jaspert, Berlin 1947.
– ‘Die Camera della Segnatura.’ In: Fünfzehn Essays, Gütersloh 1890, p. 272 ff.
GRIMME, Hubert. ‘Das Rätsel der Sixtinischen Madonna.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. XXXIII, 1922, p. 41 ff.
– ‘Raffaels Schule von Athen in Dantescher Beleuchtung.’ In: Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft XLVII, 1926, p. 94 ff.
GRONAU, Georg. ‘Die Kunstbestrebungen der Herzoge von Urbino. I.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XXV, 1904, Supplement, p. 1 ff.
– ‘Literaturbericht (Stellungnahme zu Durand-Gréville 1905).’ In: Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft XXX, 1907, p. 569.
– ‘Zwei Predellenbilder von Raphael.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft, 1908, I, p. 1071 ff.
– ‘Ein Jugendwerk Leonardo da Vincis.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. XXIII, 1912, p. 253 ff.
– ‘Raffaello, ritratto di Francesco Maria della Rovere.’ In: Rivista d’Arte VIII, 1912, p. 52 f.
– ‘Die Bildnisse von Raffael und Leonardo in der Czartoryski-Sammlung in Dresden.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst,
N.F. XXVI, 1915, p. 145 ff.
– ‘Raffael. Des Meisters Gemälde.’ Fifth edition revised, Stuttgart, Berlin and Leipzig 1923 (Klassiker der Kunst).
– ‘I ritratti di Guidobaldo da Montefeltro e di Elisabetta Gonzaga in Firenze.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XVIII, 1924-5, p. 443 ff.
–Documenti artistici urbinati, Florence 1936.
– ‘Some Portraits by Titian and Raphael.’ In: Art in America XXV, 1937, p. 93 ff.
GRONER, Anton. Raffaels Disputa, Strassburg 1905.
GRUNER, Ludwig. Raffaels Deckengemälde der Stanza dell’Eliodoro, Dresden 1875.
GRUYER, A. ‘Le Triomphe de Galatée.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts XIII, 1862, p. 423 and XIV, 1863, p. 35 ff.
– Les Vierges de Raphaël et l’iconographie de la Vierge. 3 vols., Paris 1869.
– Les Fresques de Raphaël provenant de la Magliana, Paris 1873.
– ‘Portrait de Jeanne d’Aragon par Raphaël.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts XXII, 2e pér., 1880, p. 476 ff.
– Raphaël peintre de portraits, Paris 1881.
GUARTANA, M. Raffaello, la sua arte e i suoi tempi, Palermo 1920.
GURLITT, W. ‘Die Musik in Raffaels Caecilia.’ In: Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters für 1938, Leipzig 1939, p. 84 ff.
GUTMAN, Harry B. ‘The Medieval Content of
Page xiii
Page xiv
Raphael’s School of Athens.’ In: Journal of the History of Ideas, New York 1942.
– ‘Raphael’s Disputa.’ In: Franciscan Studies, St. Bonaventura XXIII, New York, 1941.
– ‘Zur Ikonologie der Fresken Raffaels in der Stanza della Segnatura.’ In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte XXI, 1958, p. 27
ff.
HARTT, Frederick. On ‘Raphael and Giulio Romano.’ In: The Art Bulletin XXVI, 1944 p. 67 ff.
– ‘The Chronology of the Sala di Costantino.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 6e pér., XXXVI, 1949, p. 300 ff.
– ‘Lignum Vitae in medio Paradisi. The Stanza d’Eliodoro and the Sistine Ceiling.’ In: The Art Bulletin XXXII, 1950, p. 115
ff.
– Giulio Romano, 2 vols., New Haven 1958.
– ‘A drawing of the Fomarina as the Madonna.’ In: Essays in honor of Walter Friedlaender, New York 1965, p. 90 f.
HAUPTMANN, Moritz. Der Tondo, Frankfurt a.M. 1936.
HEINEMANN, Fritz. ‘Das sogenannte Bildnis Raffaels in der Alten Pinakothek.’ In: Pantheon XIX, 1961, pp. 103-4.
– ‘Europäische Malerei des 16. Jahrhunderts.’ In: Kunstchronik XIX, 1966, p. 86.
HEINZL, Brigitte. ‘Eine Kopie Ridolfo del Ghirlandaios’ nach einem verschollenen Werk Raffaels.’ In: Pantheon XXVI,
1968, p. 55 ff.
HERMANIN, Federigo. La Farnesina, Bergamo 1927.
– ‘Die Madonna aus dem Hause Alba und die Madonna di Gaeta.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. LIX, 1925/6, p. 81
ff.
HESS, Jakob. ‘On Raphael and Giulio Romano.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 6e pér., XXXII, 1947, p. 73 ff.
– ‘The Chronology of the Sala di Costantino. Reply to Mr. Frederick Hartt.’ In: Gazette des Beaux- Arts 6e pér., XXXVII,
1950, p. 130 ff.
– Kunstgeschichtliche Studien zu Renaissance und Barock, Rome, I/II, 1967.
HETTNER, Hermann. ‘Raffael und die Anfänge der deutschen Reformation.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst IV, 1869,
p. 153 ff. and p. 187 ff.
HETZER, Theodor. Das deutsche Element in der italienischen Malerei des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1929.
– Gedanken um Raffaels Form, Frankfurt a. M. 1932, second edition 1957.
– Die Sixtinische Madonna, Frankfurt a. M. 1947.
– Aufsätze und Vorträge, Leipzig 1957, 2 vols.
HIRST, Michael. ‘The Chigi Chapel in S. Maria della Pace.’ In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XXIV,
1961, p. 161 ff.
HOFMANN, T. Raffael in seiner Bedeutung als Architekt, 4 vols., Zittau 1908-11.
HOLMES, Charles. Raphael and the modern use of the Classical Tradition, London 1933.
HOOGEWERFF, Gottfried. ‘Die Deutung der Grisaillen unter Raffaels Parnass.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft
VIII, 1915, p. 10 ff.
– ‘A piè del Parnasso.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XX, 1926/7, p. 3 ff.
– ‘Documenti che riguardano Raffaello ed altri artisti contemporanei.’ In: Atti della Pontificia Acca- demia Romana di Archeologia. (Serie III) Rendiconti, vol. XXI (1945/6), p. 254 ff.
– ‘Raffaello nella Villa Farnesina.’ In: Capitolium XX, 1945, p. 9 ff.
– ‘La Stanza della Segnatura, osservazioni e comenti.’ In: Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. (Serie
III) Rendiconti, vol. XXIII f. (1947-9) (published 1950), p. 317 ff.
– ‘Leonardo e Raffaello.’ In: Commentari III (1952), p. 173 ff.
– ‘Raffaello nella Villa Farnesina.’ In: Mededelingen van het Nederlands historisch Instituut te Rome XXXI, 1963, p. 5 ff.
HOPPE, Wilhelm. ‘Das Bild Raffaels in der deutschen Literatur von der Zeit der Klassik bis zum Ausgang des 19. Jahrhunderts.’ In: Heft 8 der Frankfurter Quellen und Forschungen zur germanischen und romanischen Philologie, Frankfurt
am Main 1935.
HOURTICQ, Louis. ‘Sebastiano del Piombo.’ In: La Revue de l'Art ancien et moderne XLIV, 1923, pp. 197-210.
– ‘A propos du double portrait de Sebastiano del Piombo au Musée du Louvre.’ In: La Revue de l’Art ancien et moderne
XLV, 1924, pp. 211/12.
HÜBNER, Julius. ‘Die Sixtinische Madonna.’ In: Jahrbücher für Kunstwissenschaften, 1870, p. 249 ff.
HÜBNER, Paul G. ‘Studien über die Benutzung der Antike in der Renaissance.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft II,
1909, p. 267 ff.
HOLSEN, Christian. ‘Die Halle in Raffaels Schule von Athen.’ In: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz I, 1911, p. 229 ff.
IMDAHL, Max. ‘Raffaels Castiglione-Bildnis im Louvre.’ In: Pantheon XX, 1962, p. 38 ff.
ISNARD, Guy. ‘Vraix et faux Raphaëls.’ In: Jardin des Arts, 1959, p. 636 ff.
JAKOBSEN. ‘Die Madonna Piccola Gonzaga.’ Strassburg 1906.
JEDLICKA, Gotthard. ‘Raffael Hl. Cäcilia’, p. 115 ff. In: Wege zum Kunstwerk, Munich 1960.
JUSTI, Carl. Die Verklärung Christi. Gemälde Raffaels in der Pinakothek des Vatikan, Leipzig 1870.
– ‘Raphaels heilige Cäcilie.’ In: Zeitschrift für christliche Kunst XVII, 1904 p. 130 ff.
KAUFFMANN, Georg. ‘Zu Raffaels Teppich “Paulus im Gefängnis“.’ In: Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 3.
Folge, XV, 1964, p. 123 ff.
KELBER, Wilhelm. Raphael von Urbino I, Leben und Jugendwerke, Stuttgart 1963.
– Raphael von Urbino II, Die römischen Werke, Stuttgart 1964.
KEPPLER, Paul Wilhelm v. Aus Kunst und Leben, Freiburg 1911. Vol. I Gedanken über Raffaels Cäcilia. Vol. II Raffaels
Madonnen.
Page xiv
Page xv
KIRSTEIN, Alfred. ‘Die Idee der Transfiguration Raffaels.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. V, 1894, p. 54 ff.
KLOTZ, Heinrich. ‘Die Gestalt des Michelangelo in Raffaels “Schule von Athen”.’ In: Festschrift für Werner Gross,
Munich 1968, p. 179 ff.
KRAUSS, Franz X. Geschichte der christlichen Kunst. 2 vols., ed. Joseph Sauer, Freiburg 1908, p. 373 ff.
KRISTELLER, Paul. ‘Marcantons Beziehung zu Raffael.’ In : Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XXXVIII,
1907, p. 199 ff.
KRÖNIG, Wolfgang. Raffael-Vortrag. In: Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, 1948/58, p. 96 ff.
KÜNSTLER, Ernst. ‘Motivierung und Datierung zweier Raffael Grisaillen im Vatikan.’ In: Die Weltkunst XXVIII, 1958,
Nr. 7, p. 11 f.
KÜNSTLER, Gustav. ‘Landschaftsdarstellung und religiöses Weltbild in der Tafelmalerei der Übergangsepoche um
1500’. In: Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, N.F. XXVI, 1966, p. 103 ff.
KÜNZLE, Paul. ‘Raffaels Denkmal für Fedro Inghirami auf dem letzten Arazzo.’ In: Mélanges Eugène Tisserant. Vol. VI
Studi e Testi. p. 499 ff. Città del Vaticano 1964.
KÜPPERS, Paul E. ‘Die italienischen Gemälde des Kestner-Museums in Hannover.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft IX, 1916, pp. 125 ff.
LANCKORONSKA, Karoline. ‘Zu Raffaels Loggien.’ In: Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Neue
Folge, IX, 1935, p. 111 ff.
LANZI, Luigi. StoriaPittorica dell’Italia delle belle arti fin presso al fine del XVIII. secolo, Bassano 1789, 1795, 1809.
LARSEN, Erik. ‘A new interpretation of a passage from Vasari’s Life of Raphael.’ In: L’Arte LVIII, 1959, pp. 303 ff.
LAVERY, Felix. Raphael, London 1920.
LAZZARINI, A. Il miracolo di Bolsena. Testimonianze e documenti. Temi e Testi I, Rome 1952.
LEE OF FAREHAM, Viscount. ‘A new version of Raphael’s Holy Family with the Lamb.’ In: The Burlington Magazine
LXIV, 1934, p. 3 ff.
LENINGRAD. Meisterwerke aus der Eremitage. Malerei des 14.-16. Jahrhunderts, Prague 1965.
LERMOLIEFF, J. See: MORELLI.
LEVEY, Michael. ‘Raphael revisited.’ In: Apollo, November 1962, vol. 76, p. 678 ff.
LEYH, Georg. ‘Die Camera della Segnatura – ein Bibliotheksraum?’ In: Festschrift für Georg Leidinger, Munich 1930, p.
171 ff.
LIBERTI, Salvatore. ‘Relazione sulle analisi dei colori degli “Standardi” dipinti da Raffaello.’ In: Bulletin del Istituto
centrale del restauro, 1952, p. 197 f.
LIETZMANN, Johannes. ‘Technische Untersuchungen an drei alten Bildern und sich daraus ergebende Fragen.’ In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte III, 1934, p. 365 ff.
LIGHTBOWN, R. W. ‘Princely Pressures I. Raphael and the Spoliators.’ In: Apollo 1963, vol. 78, p. 98 ff.
LIPHART, Carl E. von. ‘Über ein unbekanntes Exemplar der “La petite sainte famille” genannten Raffael Composition,
ein Werk des Giulio Romano.’ In: Deutschland-Italien. Festschrift für Wilhelm Waetzoldt, Berlin 1941, p. 185 ff.
– ‘Kritische Gänge und Reiseeindrücke.’ In: Jahrbuck der preussischen Kunstsammlungen XXXIII, 1912, p. 201 ff.
LOEFFLER, Elaine P. ‘A famous antique: a Roman sarcophagus at the Los Angeles Museum.’ In: The Art Bulletin
XXXIX, 1957, p. 1 ff.
LOEWY, Emanuele. ‘Di alcune composizioni di Raffaello inspirate a monumenti antichi.’ In: Archivio storico del l’arte,
Serie 2, 1896, p. 241 ff.
LOMAZZO, Giovanni Paolo. Trattato dell’arte della pittura, scoltura et architettura, Milan 1585.
– Idea del Tempio della Pittura, Milan 1590.
LONGHI, Roberto. ‘Precisioni nelle gallerie italiane’: La R. Galleria Borghese, Rome 1928.
– ‘Percorso di Raffaello giovine.’ In: Paragone, 1955, Mai, p. 8 ff.
– ‘Un intervento raffaellesco nella serie “Eroica” di Casa Piccolomini.’ In: Paragone 1964 July, p. 5 ff.
LOTZ, Wolfgang. ‘Raffaels Sixtinische Madonna im Urteil der Kunstgeschichte.’ In: Jahrbuch 1963 der Max Planck Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften.
LOUDEN, Lynn M. ‘“Sprezzatura” in Raphael and Castiglione.’ In: Art Journal XXVIII/I, 1968, p. 43 ff.
LÜDKE, Alfred. The Madonna di Gaeta, Leipzig, n.d.
LÜTGENS, Hans. ‘Raffaels Transfiguration in der Kunstliteratur der letzten vier Jahrhunderte,’ Dissertation Göttingen,
1929.
LÜTZELER, Heinrich. ‘Das Verstehen von Kunstwerken (Raffaels Schule von Athen).’ In: Cicerone, Neue Folge, II,
1949 (I), pp. 1 ff.
LYNCH, James B. ‘The History of Raphael’s Saint George in the Louvre.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 6e pér., LIX, 1962,
p. 151 ff.
MAGHERINI, G. - GIOVAGNOLI, E. La prima giovinezza di Raffaello, Città di Castello 1927.
MAGHERINI-GRAZIANI. ‘Documenti inediti relativi al “San Nicola da Tolentino” e allo “Sposalizio” di Raffaello.’ In:
Bolletino della R. Deputazione di Storia patria per l’ Umbria XIV, 1908, p. 83 ff.
MALAGUZZI-VALERI, Francesco. ‘Nuovi documenti. La Santa Cecilia di Raffaello.’ In: Archivio storico dell’ Arte
VII, 1894, p. 367 f.
MÂLE, Gilberte Émile. ‘La Transfiguration de Raphaël; Quelques documents sur son séjour à Paris (1798-1815).’ In:
Rendiconti Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia XXXIII, 1960/1, p. 225 ff.
MALVASIA, Carlo C. Felsina Pittrice (ed. Zanotti), Bologna 1841.
Page xv
Page xvi
MÄNZ, Harry. Die Farbgebung in der italienischem Malerei des Protobarock und Manierismus, Berlin 1934 (Dissertation).
MARIANI, Valerio. ‘Raffaello e il mondo classico.’ In: Studi Romani VII, 1959, p. 162 ff.
– Incontri con Roma nel Rinascimento, Rome 1960, p. 53 ff.
MARINELLI, Guido Marco. ‘Antonio Raimondi. A portrait painted by Raphael, found at Aix.’ In: The Connoisseur,
1967, April, pp. 249/50.
MARLIER, G. ‘Lambert Lombard et les tapisseries de Raphaël.’ In: Miscellanea Jozef Duverger, Ghent 1968, Vol. I, p.
247 ff.
MATHER, Frank Jewett, Jr. ‘An unrecognized composition by Raphael.’ In: The Art Bulletin XII, 1930, p. 5 ff.
MAULDE, R. De La Clavière. ‘Le Songe du chevalier.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts XVII, 3e pér., 1897, I, p. 21 ff.
MAUROIS, P. Raphaël Dessins, Lille 1961. Exhibition Catalogue.
MAYER, August L. ‘Sitzungsbericht der Münchener Kunstgeschichtlichen Gesellschaft: Vortrag zur Hl. Familie mit dem
Lamm.’ In: Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, N.F. VII, 1930, p. 378.
– ‘A new version of Raphael's Holy Family with the Lamb.’ In: The Burlington Magazine LXIV, 1934, p. 146 f.
MAZZINI, Franco. ‘Fortuna storica di Raffaello nel Cinquecento.’ In: Rinascimento IV, 1953, p. 67 ff.
– ‘Fortuna storica di Raffaello nel Sei e Settecento.’ In: Rinascimento VI, 1955, p. 145 ff.
MELLINI, G. ‘In margine alla Trasfigurazione di Raffaello.’ In: Critica d’Arte, N.S. X, 1963, p. 39 ff.
MENEGAZZO, E. ‘ “Marginalia” su Raffaello, il Correggio e la congregazione benedittina-cassinese.’ In: Italia medioevale e umanistica III, 1960, p. 329 ff.
MEYER-BAER, Kathi. ‘Musical Iconography in Raphael’s Parnassus.’ In: Journal of Aesthetics VIII, 1949, December, p.
87 ff.
MIDDELDORF, Ulrich. Raphael's Drawings, New York 1945.
MONTAGU, Jennifer. ‘Charles Le Brun’s use of a figure from Raphael.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 6e pér., Vol. 51,
1958, p. 91 ff.
MORELLI, Giovanni (Ivan Lermolieff). Kunstkritische Studien über italienische Malerei. Die Galerien Borghese und
Doria Pamfili in Rome, Leipzig 1890.
– Kunstkritische Studien über italienische Malerei. Die Galerien zu München und Dresden, Leipzig 1891.
– Kunstkritische Studien über italienische Malerei. Die Galerie zu Berlin. Edited by Gustav Frizzoni, Leipzig 1893.
MOSSAKOWSKI, Stanislaw. ‘Raphael’s “St. Cecilia”. An Iconographical Study.’ In: Zeitschrift für Kunstge-schichte
XXXI, 1968, pp. 1-26.
MÜLLNER, L. ‘Raphaels Hl.Cäcilie.’ In: Literaturgeschichtliche Studien, Vienna 1895, p. 183 f.
MÜNDLER. O. Review by E. Forster: ‘Raphael.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst III, 1868, p. 296 ff.
MUÑOZ, Antonio. ‘Intorno al S. Luca di Raffaello.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XXX, 1936-7, p. 336.
MÜNTZ, Eugène. Raphaël. Sa vie, son œuvre et son temps, Paris 1882, second ed., Paris 1900.
– Les Historiens et les critiques de Raphaël 1483-1883, Paris 1883.
– ‘Il ritratto del Cardinale Alidosi di Raffaello.’ In: Archivo storico dell’Arte, IV, 1891, p. 328.
NEUERBURG, Norman. ‘Raphael at Tivoli and the Villa Madama.’ In: Essays in memory of Karl Lehmann, New York
University 1964.
NICODEMI, Giorgio. ‘Discorso su due originali della “Bella Giardiniera” da Raffaello Sanzio.’ In: L'Arte LV, 1956, p. 11
ff.
NIEMEYER, Wilhelm. ‘Die Madonna Alba.’ In: Belvedere XII, 1928, p. 18 ff.
– ‘Die Madonna Putbus als Kopie der Madonna Alba.’ In: Belvedere XII, 1928, p. 58 ff.
NIKOLENKO, Lada. Francesco Ubertini called il Bacchiacca, New York 1966.
OBERHUBER, Konrad. ‘Die Fresken der Stanza dell’lncendio im Werk Raffaels.’ In: Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen
Sammlungen in Wien, Neue Folge, XXII, 1962, p. 23 ff.
– ‘Vorzeichnungen zu Raffaels “Transfiguration”.’ In: Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen IV, 1962, p. 116 ff.
– ‘Eine unbekannte Zeichnung Raffaels in den Uffizien.’ In: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen lnstituts in Florenz XII,
1966, Heft III-IV, p. 225 ff.
– ‘Raphael und Michelangelo.’ In: Stil und Überlieferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes, Berlin 1967, II, p. 156 ff.
OERTEL, Robert. Italienische Malerei bis zum Ausgang der Renaissance. Meisterwerke der Alten Pinakothek München,
Munich 1960.
OETTINGER, Karl. ‘Zu Raffaels Kardinaltugenden im Vatikan.’ In: Mouseion. Studien aus Kunst und Geschichte für Otto H. Förster, Cologne 1960, p. 101 f.
OFFNER, Richard. ‘A portrait of Perugino by Raphael.’ In: The Burlington Magazine LXV, 1934, p. 245 ff.
OPPÉ, A. Paul. ‘Right and Left in Raphael’s Cartoons.’ In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes VII, 1944, p.
85 f.
ORTOLANI, Sergio. Raffaello, Bergamo 1942. Second ed. 1945.
OST, Hans. ‘Ein Ruhmesblatt für Raphael bei Maratti und Mengs.’ In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte XXVIII, 1965, p. 281
ff.
PALLUCHINI, Rodolfo. Sebastian Viniziano, Milan 1944.
PANOFSKY, Erwin. ‘Hercules am Scheidewege.’ In: Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, 1930, p. 37 ff.
PARKER, K. T. ‘Some Observations on Oxford Raphaels.’ In: Old Master Drawings XIV, 1939/40, p. 34 ff.
– Catalogue of the collection of drawings in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. 2: Italian schools, Oxford 1956.
Page xvi
Page xvii
PASSAVANT, Johann David. Rafael von Urbino und sein Vater Giovanni Santi. 2 vols., Leipzig 1839.
– Raphaël d’Urbin, second edition, edit. Paul Lacroix, 2 vols., Paris 1860.
PEDRETTI, Carlo. ‘Uno “studio” per la Gioconda.’ In: L’Arte LVIII, 1959, p. 172 ff.
– ‘La “tavola Doria”.’ In: L’Arte LXXI, 1968; reprinted and amplified in: Pedretti, Leonardo da Vinci inedito, Florence
1968, p. 79 ff.
PERKINS, Mason F. F. ‘An unpublished Raphael.’ In: The Burlington Magazine XC, 1948, p. 128 ff.
PFAU, J. Die Madonna von Loretto. Kunstgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Zürich 1922.
– Nachtrag zur kunstgeschichtlichen Untersuchung über die Madonna von Loretto, Zürich 1923.
PITTALUGA, Mary. Raffaello. Dipinti su tavola, Milan 1954.
PONENTE, Nello. Wer war Raffael ? Geneva 1967.
POPE-HENNESSY, John. The Raphael Cartoons, London 1950.
– Raphael. The Wrightsman Lectures, London and New York 1970.
POPHAM, A. E. ‘An unnoticed drawing by Raphael.’ In: Old Master Drawings XII, March, 1938, p. 45 f. and Plate 50.
– ‘An unknown drawing by Raphael.’ In: Festschrift Fr. Winkler, 1958, Berlin 1959, p. 239 ff.
– The Italian Drawings of the XV and XVI Centuries in the Collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle, London
1949.
PORCELLA, Amedeo. ‘La vera “Madonna dell’Impannata” di Raffaello.’ In: L’Illustrazione Vaticana, VIII 1937, p. 57
ff.
POSSE, Hans. Raffaels Sixtinische Madonna, Berlin and Dresden 1922.
– ‘Zur Frage der Sixtinischen Madonna Raffaels.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. XXXVI, 1926/7, p. 233 ff.
– ‘Zur Wiederherstellung der Sixtinischen Madonna Raffaels.’ In: Pantheon VIII, 1931, p. 286 ff.
POUNCEY, Philip, and GERE, J. A. Italian Drawings in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum.
Raphael and his Circle, London 1962.
PRANDI, Adriano. Villa Lante al Gianicolo. Rome 1954.
PRINZ, Wolfram. ‘Vasaris Sammlung von Künstlerbildnissen.’ In: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz XII, 1966. Supplement.
PRISCO, Michele – DE VECCHI, Pierluigi. L’opera completa di Raffaello, Milan 1966.
PROBST, Hans. Die Madonna Sixtina, Bamberg 1910.
PUCCI, O. ‘La Santa Cecilia di Raffaello d’Urbino.’ In: Rivista Fiorentina I, 1908, June.
PULSZKY, Carl von. Beiträge zu Raffaels Studium der Antike, Leipzig 1877.
PUNGILEONI, L. Elogio storico di Raffaello Santi da Urbino, Urbino 1829.
PUTSCHER, Marielene. Raphaels Sixtinische Madonna. Das Werk und seine Wirkung, Tübingen 1955.
QUATREMÈRE DE QUINCY, Antoine-Chrysostome. Histoire de la vie et des ouurages de Raphaël, Paris 1824. Italian edition Fr. Longhena, Milan 1829.
RAGGHIANTI, Carlo Ludovico. ‘Stellungnahme zum Aufsatz von Sanpaolesi.’ In: Critica d’Arte, Notize e Letture,
1938, p. XXXII f.
– La deposizione di Raffaello, Milan 1947.
– ‘Il percorso della deposizione borghesiana di Raffaello.’ In: Belfagor, Florence 1948.
REDIG DE CAMPOS, Deoclezio. ‘Trasfigurazione.’ In: L’Illustrazione Vaticana III (1932), pp. 1057-8 (Pseudonym:
Fabius Pictor).
– ‘Il ritratto del poeta Enzio nel Parnaso della Stanza della Segnatura.’ In: Roma XIV (1935), pp. 193 ff. (republished in
Raffaello e Michelangelo).
– ‘A inspiração platónica e cristã na Stanza della Segnatura de Rafaël no Vaticano.’ In: O Instituto (Coimbra), XCI (1937),
p. 24 (extract, republished in Raffaello e Michelangelo).
– ‘Un disegno preparatorio per la Liberazione di san Pietro nella Biblioteca Nazionale di Rio de Janeiro.’ In: La Rinascita
III (1940), pp. 117 ff.
– ‘Il Pensieroso della Segnatura.’ In: Michelangiolo Buonarroti nel IV Centenario del Giudizio Universale, Florence 1942,
pp. 205-19 (republished in Raffaello e Michelangelo).
– ‘La firma siglata di Raffaello nella Scuola d’Atene.’ In: Arti Figurative I (1945), p. 151.
– Raffaello e Michelangelo. Studi di storia e d’arte, Rome 1946.
– ‘Un probabile ritratto di Serapica dipinto da Raffaello.’ In: Strenna dei Romanisti VIII, 1947, p. 63 ff.
– ‘Il nome di Martin Lutero graffito sulla Disputa del Sacramento.’ In: Ecclesia VI (1947), pp. 648-9.
– Le stanze di Raffaello, Florence 1951, second edition 1966.
– ‘Dei ritratti di Antonio Tebaldeo e di alcuni altri nel “Parnaso” di Raffaello.’ In: Archivio della Società romana di Storia
patria LXXV, 1952, 3. Serie, vol. VI, p. 51 ff.
– ‘Restauri in Vaticano.’ In: Atti della Accademia Nazionale di San Luca VI, 1953/6, p. 31 ff.
– Itinerario pittorico dei musei vaticani, Rome 1954, third edition 1964.
– ‘Notizie intorno all’autoritratto di Raffaello nella Scuola d’Atene.’ In: Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di
Archeologia XXVIII (1955-6), pp. 251-7.
– ‘Cromatismo veneziano di Raffaello nella “Messa di Boisena”.’ In: Venezia e l’Europa, Venice 1956, p. 259 ff.
– ‘L’ex-voto dell’Inghirami al Laterano.’ In: Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rendiconti XXIX,
1956-7, p. 179 ff.
– ‘L’incoronazione della Madonna di Raffaello.’ In: Fede e Arte VI, 1958, p. 343 ff.
– ‘Il ritratto di Andrea da Toledo dipinto da Raffaello nella Stanza di Eliodoro.’ In: Rendiconti
Page xvii
Page xviii
della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia XXXII, 1959/60, p. 163 ff.
– Segno di Raffaello, Ivrea 1960 (teste dagli affreschi delle Stanze della Segnatura e di Eliodoro, con commento).
– ‘Un altro graffito del Sacco nelle Stanze di Raffaello.’ In: Ecclesia XIX (1960), pp. 552-4.
– ‘La “Madonna di Foligno” di Raffaello. Note sulla sua storia e i suoi restauri.’ In: Miscellanea Bibliothecae Hertzianae
zu Ehren von Leo Bruhns, Franz Graf Wolff Metternich, Ludwig Schudt. Römische Forschungen der Biblio-theca Hertziana
XVI, 1961, p. 184 ff.
– ‘La Madonna di Foligno di Raffaello e il suo restauro.’ In: Fede e Arte, 1966 (4), p. 442 ff.
– ‘Julius II. und Heliodor. Deutungsversuch eines angeblichen “Anachronismus“ Raphaels.’ In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte XXVI, 1963, p. 166 ff.
VAN REGTEREN ALTENA, J. Q. ‘Een groot entwerp van Sebastiano del Piombo.’ In: Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum III,
1955, p. 75 f.
RICCI, Corrado. ‘ “L‘ incoronazione di San Nicola da Tolentino” di Raffaello.’ In: Bollettino d'Arte VI, 1912, p. 329 ff.
– Raffaello, Milan 1920.
RICCI, Serafino. Raffaello Sanzio, Bergamo 1920-1921.
RICHA, Giuseppe. Notizie istoriche delle chiese fiorentine IX, Florence 1761.
RICHTER, Georg M. ‘The Peruzzi Madonna.’ In: The Burlington Magazine LXVII, 1935, p. 202 ff.
RICHTER, Irma. ‘The Drawings for the Entombment.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 6e pér., XXVIII, 1945, p. 335 ff.
RICHTER, Jean Paul. ‘Raffaels “Madonna dei Candelabri”.’ In: Kunstchronik XIII, 1878, p. 622 f.
RIDOLFI, E. ‘Di alcuni ritratti delle gallerie fiorentine.’ In: Archivio storico dell’Arte IV, 1891, p. 425 ff.
RIEDL, Peter Anselm. ‘Raffaels “Madonna del Baldacchino”.’ In: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz
VIII, 1957-9, p. 223 ff.
RIVERA, Luigi. Raffaello e varie memorie attinenti all’Abruzzo e a Roma, Aquila 1924.
ROCCA, Emilio Nasalli. ‘Note sulle vicende della “Madonna di San Sisto”.’ In: L’Arte LVI, 1957, p. 73 ff.
ROUCHÈS, Gabriel. Musée du Louvre. Les Dessins de Raphaël, Paris, n.d.
RUMOHR, Karl von. Italienische Forschungen (ed. J. v. Schlosser), Frankfurt a.M. 1920.
SALERNO, Luigi. ‘Il profeta Isaia di Raffaello e il putto della Accademia di San Luca.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XLV, 1960,
p. 81 ff.
SALIS, Arnold von. Antike und Renaissance, Erlenbach-Zürich 1947.
SALVINI, Roberto. La galleria degli Uffizi, Florence 1952.
SANDRART, Joachim von. Academie der Bau- Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste van 1675. Leben der berühmten Maler, Bildhauer und Baumeister. Edited and annotated by A. R. Peltzer, Munich 1925.
SANPAOLESI, Piero. ‘Due esami radiografici di dipinti.’ In: Bollettino d’Arte XXXI, 1938, p. 495 ff.
SASSATELLI, Roselli di Turco. San Giovanni nel deserto di Raffaello Sanzio, 1925.
SAXL, Fritz. La Fede Astrologica di Agostino Chigi, Rome 1934, p. 53 ff.
– Raphael’s ‘Holy Family with the Lamb’ in the possession of Lord Lee. Manuscript in the Warburg Institute, London ca.
1935.
– ‘The Villa Farnesina.’ In: Lectures, London 1957, p. 189 ff. 2 vols.
SCAROFANI, Arduino. La ‘Madonna miracolosa’, Casamari 1954.
SCERBACEVA, M. I. ‘Lorenco Kosta i ženskij portret ego raboty.’ In: Trudy Gosud, 1961, p. 182 ff.
SCHAEFFER, Emil. Die Sixtinische Madonna als Erlebnis der Nachwelt, Dresden 1936.
SCHALKERSWEERDE, Pancrazio. ‘Inconsuete raffigurazioni dell’Immaculata.’ In: Fede e Arte VI, 1958, p. 86 ff.
SCHARF, Alfred. ‘Bacchiacca: a new Contribution.’ In: The Burlington Magazine LXX, 1937, p. 60 ff.
– ‘Raphael and the Getty Madonna.’ In: Apollo LXXIX, 1964, February, p. 114 ff.
SCHEWE, Josef. ‘Raphael’s Sixtinische Madonna.’ In: Das Münster, XII, 1959, p. 201.
SCHMARSOW, August. ‘Raphaels Heiliger Georg in St. Petersburg.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen
II, 1882, p. 254 ff.
SCHMITT, Ursula. ‘Francesco Bonsignori.’ In: Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 3. Folge, XII, 1961, p. 73 ff.
SCHNEIDER, Friedrich. ‘Theologisches in Raffaels Disputa und Transfiguration.’ In: Katholik XIII, 1896.
SCHNEIDER, Hans. ‘Raffael und Lievens.’ In: Oud Holland XXXV, 1917, p. 34 ff.
SCHÖNE, Wolfgang. ‘Raphaels Sixtinische Madonna und die Sixtuskirche in Piacenza.’ In: Kunstgeschichtliche Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Sitzungsberichte, N.F. 1955-6.
– ‘Raphaels Krönung des hl. Nikolaus von Tolentino.’ In: Eine Gabe der Freunde für Carl Georg Heise zum 28. VI. 1950,
Berlin 1950, p. 113 ff.
– Raphael, Berlin and Darmstadt 1958.
SCHRÖDER, Rudolf Alexander. ‘Raffael’ (Vortrag 1950). In: Gesammelte Werke, vol. III, p. 1000 ff., Hamburg 1952.
SCHUG, Albert. Review of: L. Dussler. ‘Raffael. Kritisches Verzeichnis.’ In: Pantheon XXV, 1967, p. 470 ff.
– ‘Zur Ikonographie von Leonardos Londoner Karton.’ In: Pantheon XXVI, 1968, p. 446 ff. and XXVII, 1969, p. 24 ff.
SCHUKOVSKY, A. Über die Sixtinische Madonna. Translated from the Russian, Dresden, n.d.
SERRA, Luigi. Raffaello, Rome 1922; new edition 1941.
Page xviii
Page xix
SHAPLEY, Fern Rusk. Paintings from the Samuel H. Kress Collection, Italian Schools XV-XVI Century, London and
New York 1968.
SHEARMAN, John. Review of: Frederick Hartt, ‘Giulio Romano.’ In: The Burlington Magazine CI, 1959, p. 456 ff.
– ‘The Chigi Chapel in S. Maria del Popolo.’ In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XXIV, 1961, p. 129 ff.
– ‘Die Loggia der Psyche in der Villa Farnesina und die Probleme der letzten Phase von Raffaels graphischem Stil.’ In:
Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien XXIV, 1964, p. 59 ff.
– ‘Raphaels Unexecuted Projects for the Stanze.’ In: Walter Friedländer zum 90. Geburtstag, Berlin 1965, p. 158 ff.
– ‘Le Seizième Siècle européen.’ In: The Burlington Magazine CVIII, 1966, p. 63 f.
– Mannerism, Harmondsworth 1967.
– ‘Raphael . . . “Fa il Bramante”.’ In: Studies in Renaissance and Baroque Art presented to Anthony Blunt, London 1967, p.
12 ff.
– ‘Raphael at the Court of Urbino.’ In: The Burlington Magazine CXII, London, February 1970, p. 72 ff.
SIERRA, Luis. ‘Un San Juanito en el desierto de taller de Rafael inedito–’ en Ona. In: Archivo Español de Arte XXXII,
1959, p. 247 ff.
SIZERANNE, R. de la. ‘Raphaël et Castiglione.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts 5e pér. LXII, 1920, p. 212 ff.
SOMMER, Clemens. ‘A New Interpretation of Raphael’s Disputa.’ In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 6e pér., XXVIII, 1945, p.
289.
SPEISER, Andreas. ‘Beiträge zum Problem des Klassischen.’ In: Concinnitas, Basle 1944, p. 215 ff.
SPINAZZOLA, Vittorio. ‘Di due tavole di Raffaello rinvenute nella Pinacoteca del Museo di Napoli.’ In: Bollettino
d’Arte VI, 1912, p. 337 ff.
SPRINGER, Anton. ‘Raphaelstudien.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst VIII, 1873, p. 65 ff.
– Raffael und Michelangelo, Leipzig 1883.
– ‘Raffaels “Schule von Athen”.’ In: Die graphischen Künste V, 1883, p. 53 ff.
STEIN, Wilhelm. Raphael, Berlin 1923.
STEINER, Rudolf. Raphaels Mission im Licht der Wissenschaft vom Geist, Vortrag. Dornach 1937.
STEINMANN, Ernst. ‘Chiaroscuri in den Stanzen Raffaels.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. X, 1899, p. 169 ff.
– ‘ Die Anordnung der Teppiche Raffaels in der Sixtinischen Kapelle.’ In: Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen
XXIII, 1902, p. 186 ff.
– (On the Loggetta in the Vatican.) In: Kunstchronik 1905-6, p. 541 ff.
– ‘Raffael im “Musée Napoléon”.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft X, 1917, p. 8 ff.
STIX, Alfred, and FRÖHLICH, Lili. Beschreibender Katalog der Handzeichnungen in der Graphischen Sammlung Albertina, Vol. III: die Zeichnungen der toskanischen, umbrischen und römischen Schulen, Vienna 1932.
STRIDBECK, Carl Gustav. Raphael Studies I. A Puzzling Passage in Vasari’ s ‘Vite’, Stockholm 1960.
– Raphael Studies II. Raphael and Tradition. Studies in History of Art, Stockholm 1963.
STÜBEL, Moritz. Raffaels Sixtinische Madonna, Göttingen 1926.
SUIDA, Wilhelm. ‘L’autoritratto e un modello del Sodoma.’ In: Dedalo IX, 1928-9, p. 517 ff.
– Raphael, New York, 1941.
– ‘Marcantonio Raimondi, his portrait painted by Raphael, his connection with Venetian Painters.’ In: Art Quarterly, 1944,
p. 239 ff.
– ‘Raphael’s painting “The resurrection of Christ”.’ In: Art Quarterly XVIII, 1955, p. 5 ff.
– ‘Kooperation in alten Gemälden.’ In: Festschrift Sas-Zaloziecky, Graz 1956, p. 163 ff.
SWOBODA, Karl M. ‘Raffaels Madonna im Grünen in der Wiener Gemäldegalerie.’ In: Kunst und Geschichte,
Vienna, Cologne, Graz 1969, p. 180 ff.
TOLNAY, Charles de. ‘The Music of the Universe.’ In : Journal of the Walters Art Gallery VI, 1943, p. 83 ff.
– ‘Un ritratto sconosciuto di Michelangelo dipinto da Raffaello.’ In: Festschrift Friedrich Gerke, Baden-Baden 1962, p.
167 ff.
TOZZI, M. ‘La volta della Stanza della Segnatura.’ In: L'Arte XXX, 1927, p. 171 ff.
TRENDELENBURG. Raffaels Schule van Athen, Berlin 1843.
URLICHS. ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kunstbestrebungen und Sammlungen Kaiser Rudolf’s II.’ In: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst V, 1870, p. 49 f.
VALENTINER, W. ‘An unknown Raphael.’ In: Bulletin Detroit XV, 1935, Nr. 2, p. 18 ff.
– ‘Zu clem neugefundenen Raphael.’ In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte VI, 1937, p. 327.
VASARI, Giorgio. Le vite de’ piu eccellenti pittori, scultori, et architettori scritte da M. Giorgio Vasari, Florence 1568
ed. G. Milanesi, Florence 1878-85.
VAYER, L. ‘L’affresco absidiale di Pietro Cavallini nella chiesa in Aracoeli a Roma.’ In: Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum IX, 1963, p. 39 ff.
VENTURI, Adolfo. Raffaello, Urbino 1920. New editions 1935, 1952.
– Storia dell’arte italiana IX/2, p. 1 ff., Milan 1935.
– ‘Quattro parti di predella raffaellesca.’ In: L’Arte XLIII, 1940, p. 135 ff.
VENTURI, Lionello. ‘Saggio suIle opere d’arte italiana a Pietroburgo.’ In: L’Arte XV, 1912, p. 122 ff.
– ‘Raffaello e Michelangelo nel 1513.’ In: L’Arte XXI, 1918, p. 279 ff.
– Il Perugino: gli affreschi del Collegio del Cambia, Perugia 1955.
VISCHER, Robert. Raphael und der Gegensatz der Style, Stuttgart 1886.
VÖGELIN, Salomon. Die Madonna von Loretto, Zürich 1870.
VOGEL, Julius. Bramante und Raffael, Leipzig 1910.
Page xix
Page xx
– ‘Zu Raffaels Transfiguration.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft XIII, 1920, p. 298 ff.
– ‘Giulio Romano.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft XIII, 1920, p. 52 ff.
VOLL, Karl. Entwicklungsgeschichte der Malerei. Volume 2, Leipzig 1914, pp. 88 ff. and 96 ff.
VOLPE, Carlo. ‘Due questioni raffaellesche.’ In: Paragone VII, 1956, n. 75, Mrrch, p. 1 ff.
– ‘Notizia e discussione su Raffaello Giovane.’ In: Arte antica e moderna V, 1962, p. 79 ff.
VOSS, Hermann. Die Malerei der Spätrenaissance in Rom und Florenz, Berlin 1920, 2 vols.
WAAGEN, G. F. ‘Über in Spanien vorhandene Bilder.’ In: Zahn’s Jahrbücher für Kunstwissenschaft I, 1868, p. 89 f.
– Die Gemäldesammlung in der Kaiserlichen Eremitage zu St. Petersburg, second edition, St. Petersburg 1871.
WACKERNAGEL, Martin. ‘Sebastiano del Piombo in den vatikanischen Stanzen.’ In: Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft II, 1909, p. 319 f.
WAGNER, E. ‘Ein unbekannter Raphael.’ In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte V, 1936, p. 288 f.
WAGNER, Hugo. Raffael im Bildnis, Berne 1969.
WANSCHER, Wilhelm. Raffaello Santi da Urbino, London 1921.
– Raffaello Santi da Urbino. His Life and Works, London 1926.
WATERHOUSE, Ellis. ‘Paintings from Venice for Seventeenth-century England: Some records of a forgotten transaction.’ In: Italian Studies VII, 1952, p. 1 ff.
WEIZSÄCKER, Heinrich. ‘Literarisches in Raphaels Gedankenwelt.’ In: Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen
LVIII, 1937, p. 59 ff.
– ‘Raphaels Galatea im Lichte der antiken Überlieferung.’ In: Die Antike XIV, 1938, p. 231 ff.
WHITE, John. ‘Raphael: The Relationship between Failure and Success.’ In: Studies in Renaissance and Baroque Art presented to Anthony Blunt, London 1967, p. 18 ff.
WHITE, John and SHEARMAN, John. ‘Raphael's Tapestries and their Cartoons.’ In: The Art Bulletin XL, 1958, pp. 193
ff., 299 ff.
WICKHOFF, Franz. ‘Die Bibliothek Julius II.’
In: Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen XIV, 1893, p. 49 ff.
WILLS, Geoffrey. ‘A newly discovered Raphael Madonna and Child in America.’ In: The Connoisseur, 1967, February,
pp. 133 ff.
WIND, Edgar. ‘Platonic Justice. Designed by Raphael.’ In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes I, 1937/8, p.
69 f.
– ‘“Charity”’. In : Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes I, 1937/8, p. 322 ff.
– ‘The four elements in Raphael’s Stanza della Segnatura.’ In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes II, 1938/9,
p. 75 ff.
– Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, London 1958.
WINTERNITZ, E. ‘Archeologia musicale del rinascimento nel Parnasso di Raffaello.’ In: Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia XXVII, 1952-4, p. 359 ff.
WITTKOWER, Rudolf. ‘The Young Raphael.’ In: Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin, Oberlin College (Ohio), XX,
1963, p. 150 ff.
WÖLFFLIN, Heinrich. ‘Das Problem der Umkehrung in Raffaels Teppichkartons.’ In: Gedanken zur Kunstge-schichte,
Basle 1947, p. 90 ff. Reprinted from Belvedere IX, 1930, p. 63 ff.
– Die klassische Kunst. 1st edition Munich, 1898, 8th edition Basle, 1948.
WOERMANN, Karl. ‘Piacentiner Nachrichten und Urkunden zur Geschichte von Raffael’s Madonna Sistina.’ In: Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft XXIII, 1900, p. 12 ff.
ZAPPA, Giulio. ‘Il nuovo angelo di Raffaello.’ In: Bollettino d'Arte VI, 1912, p. 332 ff.
ZERI, Federigo. ‘La riapertura della Alte Pinakothek di Monaco.’ In: Paragone, 1957, n. 95, November, p. 64 ff.
– ‘The Italian Pictures. Discoveries and problems.’ In: Apollo LXXXIV/2, 1966, December, p. 442 ff.
ZOCCA, E. ‘La decorazione della Stanza dell’Eliodoro e l’opera di Lorenzo Lotto a Roma.’ In: Rivista dell’Istituto Nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, N.S. II, 1953, p. 329 ff.
ZUBOW, W. ‘Zur Komposition von Raffaels “Sposalizio” 1504.’ In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte XVI, 1953, p. 145 ff.
SUPPLEMENT TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY
ASTOLFI, Carlo. Raffaello Sanzio Scultore. Rome 1955.
BRIZIO, Anna M. ‘Lorenzo Lotto e i primi avii del manierismo...’ In: Venezia e l'Europa, Venice 1956.
COCKE, Richard. The Complete Paintings of Raphael. London 1969.
DEGENHART, Bemhard. ‘Raffaels Modellstudien’ In: Kunstwerke der Welt aus dem öffentlichen bayrischen Kunstbesitz, VI, 1966.
EICH, Ernst. Raphael et la benédiction de l'enfant dans le jugement de Salomon. Lausanne 1944.
ERKELENS, Alb. Louise. ‘Rafaëlske grotesken op enige Brusselse wandtapijtseries’. In: Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum,
1962, pp. 115 ff.
Page xx
Page xxi
FEA, Carlo. Notizie intorno Raffaele Sanzio da Urbino. Rome 1822.
FISCHEL, Oskar. ‘A Motive of BelIinesque Derivation in Raphael’. In: Old Master Drawings XIII, 1939, p. 50.
FROMMEL, Christoph L. ‘Bramantes ‘Ninfeo’ in Genazzano’. In: Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte XII, 1969,
pp. 737 ff.
GOULD, Cecil. Raphael’s Portrait of Pope Julius II. The Re-emergence of the Original. London, National Gallery, Publications Department, 1970.
HUEMER, Frances. ‘Raphael and the Villa Madama.’ In: Essays in Honor of Walter Friedländer, New York 1965, pp. 92
ff.
KEMP, Wolfgang. ‘Eine mantegneske Allegorie für Mantua.’ In: Pantheon XXVII, 1969, p. 12.
KRAFFT, Eva M. Die Deckenkomposition Raffaels in der Stanza Segnatura. Ungedruckte Dissertation, Freiburg 1961.
KRASNOVA, N. B. Palatinskie freski skoly Rafaelja v Ermitaže. Leningrad 1961.
KÜNZLE, Paul. ‘Zur obersten der drei Tiaren auf Raffaels Disputa.’ In: Römische Quartalschrift für christliche
Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte LVII, 1962, pp. 266 ff.
LAVAGNINO, Emilio. ‘Influssi della pittura antica nella evoluzione dell’arte di RaffaelIo’. In: Atti Congresso Nazionale
di Studi Romani III. Rome 1942, pp. 365 ff.
LIVERANI, Giuseppe. ‘La Fortuna di Raffaello nella maiolica.’ In: Faenza LIV, 1968, pp. 59 ff.
MARINELLI, Guido Marco. ‘A Rediscovery in Italian Renaissance Art “The Holy Family under the Oak” by Raphael’.
In: The Connoisseur, 1967, pp. 155.
OBERHUBER, Konrad. ‘A Drawing by Raphael mistakenly attributed to Bandinelli’. In: Master Drawings II, 1964, pp.
398 ff.
POPHAM, A. E. ‘A Drawing by Raphael for the “Disputa”.’ In: British Museum Quarterly XVI, 1951, pp. 73 f.
– ‘A Sheet of Drawings by Raphael’. In: British Museum Quarterly XIX, 1954, p. 10.
REDIG DE CAMPOS, Deoclezio. I palazzi Vaticani. Rome 1967.
SCHAFFRAN, Emmerich. ‘Bildnis Papst Julius II.’ In: Weltkunst XXIII, 1953, no. 21, p. 5 and p. 10.
SCHWABE, Julius. ‘Hans Kaysers letzte Entdeckung: die pythagorische Tetraktys auf Raffael’s Schule v. Athen.’ In:
Symbolon V, 1966, pp. 92 ff.
SCHWAGER, Klaus. ‘Ueber Jean Fouquet in Italien und sein verlorenes Porträt Papst Eugens IV.’ In: Festschrift für Kurt
Badt. Cologne 1970.
SHEARMAN, John. ‘Raphael and his Circle.’ In: The Burlington Magazine CVII, 1965, pp. 34 ff.
TIETZE-CONRAT, Erica. ‘A Sheet of Raphael Drawings for the Judgement of Paris.’ In: The Art Bulletin XXXV, 1963,
pp. 300 ff.
WINNER, Mathias. ‘Raphael malt einen Elefanten.’ In: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz XI, 19635, pp. 71 ff.
ZORZI, Giangiorgio. ‘Due schizzi archeologici di Raffaello fra i disegni Palladiani di Londra.’ In: Palladio, n.s. II, 1952,
pp. 171 ff.
ANONYMOUS: ‘Ein Raffael gefunden (4. Variation des Sposalizio)’. In: Die Weltkunst XXIV, 1954, no. 14, p. 7.
– ‘Bildnis des Ariost in Rom.’ In: Die Weltkunst XXV, 1955, no. 21, p. 10.
– ‘Fund einer Kirchenfahne in Gubbio’. In: Die Weltkunst XXVI, 1956, no. 9, p. 23.
– ‘Angebliches Original der “Madonna mit der Nelke” in Nizza.’ In: Die Weltkunst XXVII, 1957, no. 5, p. 11.
– ‘Madonnenfund in Copertino bei Lecce’. In: Die Weltkunst XXVII, 1957, no. 10, p. 6.
Page xxi
CATALOGUE
The following abbreviations are used in the bibliographical references at the end of each entry:
a. = accepted as by Raphael; r. = rejected; d. = doubtful.
R.Z. Refers to O. Fischel, Raffaels Zeichnungen, 1913-41.
Page 1
The first section lists, in approximate chronological order, those pictures which were painted by Raphael or the invention of
which can be attributed to him. These are reproduced on Plates 1-111.
In the second section are listed, in alphabetical order of locations, those pictures which have been attributed to Raphael by
recent scholars but in which the present writer does not recognize the master’s hand or invention.
(a) God the Father holding a Diadem, surrounded by the Heads of four Seraphim in the Mandorla. Fragment.
Plate 5
Wood: 112 x 75 cm.
(b) Fragment of a Madonna
Wood: 51 x 41 cm.
Naples, Capodimonte, Museo Nazionale, No. 50.
PROVENANCE: Sant’Agostino, Cappella Baroncio, Città di Castello; 1789, bought by Pope Pius VI.
These figures and the fragment of an angel’s head in Brescia, Pinacoteca Martinengo (Pl. 4), are the only surviving remnants of the altar-piece of St. Nicholas of Tolentino in which the saint, accompanied by four angels carrying scrolls, was
depicted being crowned by floating half-length figures of God the Father, the Virgin and St. Augustine, while Satan lay
vanquished at his feet. In his left hand Nicholas held an open book with the inscription: PRAECEP / TA. PATR / IS. MEI. /
SERVA / VI. IDEO M / ANEO. I / N EIVS. / DILECT / IONE (John XV, 10). The setting was a round-arched, vaulted hall, with a
view onto the landscape through the rear pillars.
Raphael received this commission from Andrea Baroncio on 10 December 1500. The picture was destined for the latter’s
chapel in Sant’Agostino, Città di Castello, and was delivered on 13 September 1501 (Golzio, pp. 7, 8). As the surviving
documents recording the commission and the delivery name, in addition to Raphael, Evangelista da Pian di Mileto, and as
both painters are repeatedly referred to as ‘magistri’, it must be assumed that Raphael’s older fellow-painter had a not unimportant part in the execution; it can hardly be doubted, however, that Raphael was alone responsible for the invention of
the composition. The painting remained in its place until 1789, when it was seriously damaged by an earthquake, and the
surviving fragments of the upper part (God the Father, the Virgin) and the fragment of an angel (the head) were brought to
Pius VI in Rome. The broken picture was replaced in 1791 by a rather free copy (which lacks the three figures in the upper
half) made by the Roman painter Ermengildo Costantini, which is now in the Museo Comunale at Città di Castello (Fig. 3
in Schöne’s article). On the back is the note: ‘Copia fatta da un originale di Raffaello in oggi in Roma da Ermengildo Costantini l’anno 1791’.
In 1912 Fischel attempted a reconstruction of the altar-piece, basing himself on the fragments of God the Father and the
angel in Brescia (which was still completely overpainted at the time), the surviving original drawings (see below), the description given by L. Lanzi, who saw the picture when it was still intact (Storia pittorica della Italia, Bassano 1789), and
the information given by Pungileoni (Elogio, p. 34), as well as the copy. The results were not completely satisfactory, as
Fischel did not know the Madonna fragment in Naples at the time. An extremely subtle and completely convincing reconstruction was
Page 1
Page 2
provided by W. Schöne about 1950, and his results can be thought almost definitive (see below).
The following drawings have been preserved: a primary sketch for the complete composition (in Lille; R.Z. I, No. 5): below
is St. Nicholas with Satan at his feet (facing in the opposite direction to the figures in the painting), at the left is an angel,
and at the top God the Father, the Virgin and St. Augustine, each holding a crown; on the central axis is a little cherub’s
head; the architecture of the upper and lower sections is lightly sketched. Another study in Lille (R.Z. I, No. 6) shows God
the Father (without beard) and the drapery of the angel on the left of St. Nicholas. In Oxford (Parker Cat. II, No. 504, recto R.Z. I, No. 8) is a drawing for St. Augustine’s right hand (holding the crown) and the drapery of his sleeve, two studies for
the hands of St. Nicholas (holding the cross and a book, a sketch of a figure dressed in a cloak, and a head looking upwards
to the right (for the angel on St. Nicholas’ left); on the back (R.Z. I, No. 7) is the standing clothed angel with a scroll, at the
left of the saint, and a full-length study for the figure of St. Augustine on the right of God the Father and a study for his left
arm.
The most important results of Schöne’s attempt at a reconstruction (see Figs. 4 and 5 in his article) are: (1) the correction of
the dimensions proposed by Fischel: Schöne arrives at a height of 3.90 m. and a width of 2.30 m.; (2) God the Father in the
mandorla in the centre of the upper section is surrounded by four cherubim heads (not six, as Fischel suggested); (3) the
arches of the vaulting and the pillars on either side below are included; (4) the angels surrounding St. Nicholas: (a) the angel on the saint’s right, of which the head exists as a fragment in Brescia, is shown complete; (b) in Costantini’s copy and
also in Fischel the angel described in (a) is positioned close beside the companion on his right, but in Schöne the latter figure is moved to the right of the picture - a place deduced from the direction of the Brescia angel’s gaze; (c) the angel on the
left in Costantini’s copy and in Fischel is moved nearer to the edge so that he occupies a place corresponding to that on the
other side; there is thus sufficient space between this and the central figure for a fourth angel, who is omitted in Costantini’s
copy (left side), but is certainly mentioned by Lanzi in the first edition his work (Bassano 1789), which was based on the
author’s personal observation, and also in Pungileoni (Elogio storico 1829, p. 34); in each case these writers talk of pairs of
angels, and thus imply a symmetrical arrangement, which is in agreement with the tradition of Perugino’s workshop and
also with the early classical composition of the altar-piece. In Fig. 4 of his study Schöne shows this missing angel facing in
the opposite direction to his counterpart on the right. In outline, standing position and gesture and also in the inclination of
the head this figure must be roughly similar to the original, and even the landscape setting has been taken into account in
determining his position. Schöne follows Fischel (in my opinion, correctly) in claiming that the fragment depicting God the
Father is also the work of Raphael, and he compares this figure-type with the Moses by Perugino in the fresco of the Sibyls
and Prophets in the Perugia Cambio (Camesasca, Perugino, Fig. 141), laying especial emphasis on the individuality which
this displays, as opposed to the conventional formula normally used by the teacher. In view of the very personal, expressive
character of the head and the extraordinarily striking hands, there is clearly no reason to ascribe this figure to Evangelista
da Pian di Meleto (as did Longhi and others), whose work is still quite unknown and is merely the subject of completely
vague conjectures; the angel’s head in Brescia can also be seen to be an undoubted production of the young ‘Magister’ now
that the overpainting has been removed. It is possible that Evangelista participated in the rather weak cherubim-heads in
God the Father’s mandorla and also in the fragment of the Virgin’s profile on the left (Schöne also leaves open the possibility of this attribution).
We have no information on any predella paintings which may originally have existed, but their existence may be inferred
from analogy with Raphael’s early altar-pieces. Valentiner suggested that the two predella-paintings in Detroit (p. 57),
which depict scenes from the legend of St. Nicholas of Tolentino, may have belonged to the pala in Città di Castello; this is
not improbable, especially as, if two further predella-works were added, the dimensions would accord with the width of the
picture given in Schöne’s reconstruction. On the question of attribution, see the remarks on the Detroit panels (p. 57).
Lanzi, Storia pittorica della Italia, 2nd edition Bassano, 1795-6, I, p. 378 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 10 f. (lost); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 425 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 81 f. (lost); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 107 ff. (lost); Magherini Graziani, Bolletino di Storia patria per
l’Umbria 1909, p. 88 ff.; Bombe 1911, p. 297 ff. (a.); Fischel 1912, p. 105 ff. and 1913, p. 89 ff. (a.); C. Ricci 1912, p. 329
ff. (a.); Zappa 1912, p. 332 ff. (a.); Spinazzola 1912, p. 337 ff. (a.); Gronau, pp. 4, 5 (a.); Magherini-Giovagnoli, p. 58 ff.
(a.); Gamba, p. 29 f., 3; Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 9 (by Evangelista); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 20, 25, 357 (a.);
Schöne 1950, pp. 113 ff. (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 17 (by Evangelista); Volpe, 1956, p. 8 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 146A
and p. 80 (by Evangelista); Fischel 1962, p. 17 (a.); Wittkower 1963, No. 3, p. 153 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 222 (partly a.);
Dussler 1966, No. 87 (a.); Schug, Pantheon 1967, p. 473 f. (a.).
Angel looking to the Right, in the background Landscape and Pillars. Fragment.
Plate 4
Brescia, Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo, No. 149.
Wood: 31 x 27 cm.
PROVENANCE: Sant’Agostino, Cappella Baroncio, Città di Castello; 1789, Pope Pius VI, Rome.
The head is that of the angel on the right of St. Nicholas of Tolentino in the altar-piece formerly in Città di
Page 2
Page 3
Castello; see also the note on the fragment showing God the Father and the Virgin (Naples, Museo Nazionale; Pl. 5). The
restoration carried out in 1913 leaves no doubt that this is the work of Raphael himself and not that of his collaborator,
Evangelista da Pian di Mileto. Painted in 1501.
Fischel 1912, p. 104 ff. and 1913, p. 89 ff. (a.); Zappa 1912, p. 332 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 5 (a.); Magherini-Giovagnoli, p. 63;
Gamba, p. 30 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 9 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 357 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 113 ff. (a.);
Longhi 1955, May, p. 17 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 3 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 222 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 13 (a.).
The Holy Trinity with SS. Sebastian and Roch kneeling
Back: The Creation of Eve
Plate 1
Plate 2
Città di Castello, Pinacoteca Comunale.
Canvas: 166 x 94 cm.
This work was originally executed as a church standard for the fraternity of the Holy Trinity in Città di Castello; it was
badly damaged in 1638, and the front and reverse sides were separated; restoration was carried out in 1767-8 under Conte
Carlo della Porta. It was recently cleaned with great care (see the report by S. Liberti in Boll. dell’Istituto Centrale del
restauro, 1952, p. 197).
The paintings form an ex-voto commissioned during the plague suffered by Città di Castello in 1499 (hence the presence of
the two Saints invoked against the plague). From the style, which shows formal characteristics and figure types reminiscent
of both Perugino and Pintoricchio (the nude figure of Adam should be compared with Satan lying at the feet of St. Michael
in Perugino’s polyptych in the Certosa at Pavia; Fig. 125 in Fischel, ‘Die Zeichnungen der Umbrer’, 1917), there can be no
doubt that Raphael carried out the commission immediately on receiving it. The painting should therefore be dated 14991500.
The drawing of a bearded man walking to the left, in the style of Signorelli, (London; Pouncey-Gere Cat. No. 2r; Fischel,
R.Z. I, No. 11) is, as Fischel assumed, a study for God the Father on the reverse of the picture. The study of a cloak in Oxford (Cat. Parker II, No. 501r.; Fischel, R.Z. I, No. 2) was used for the figure of the Creator in the picture; and as the same
sheet contains a copy by Raphael after one of the archers in Signorelli’s Martyrdom of S. Sebastian (Dussler, Signorelli,
Fig. 60) in the Church of S. Domenico in Città di Castello, the connection of the sheet with the picture for S. Trinità is confirmed. Camesasca and Pittaluga accept Longhi’s dating of 1503-4, but the stylistic evidence rules out all possibility that
the Christ on the Cross in London, National Gallery (Pl. 25), could have been painted before this work.
COPY: Città di Castello, S. Trinità, by Francesco Ranucci, 1631.
Passavant II, p. 9 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 81 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 104 ff. (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 227, Note I (by Eusebio di San Giorgio); Cook 1900, p. 177 ff. (a.); J. P. Richter, Cat. Mond Collection, London 1910, II, p. 530 (r.); Bombe 1911, p. 296 f.
(a.); Gronau, p. 1 (a.); Magherini-Giovagnoli, p. 25 ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 28 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 17
(a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 357 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 17 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 357 (a.); Schöne 1950, p.
136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 17 f. (a.); Camesasca I, Plates 9A, B (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 22 (a.); Brizio 1963, col.
223 (d.); Dussler 1966, No. 20 (a.).
A Franciscan Saint
Plate 3
Hessen, private ownership.
Wood, tondo, diameter: 15 cm.
PROVENANCE: Urbino, San Francesco; Franz Kühlen, Rome.
On the back of the picture is the note: ‘Chorografia sive Teatrum Metropoliticum Urbinatense 1709 compilati da Antonio
Vannucci di Urbino. A San Francesco. Si vedono anche nel Coro disposti a proporzione quattro quadri di Santi Francescani
dipinti da Rafael d’Urbino mentr’era ragazzo, e prima che arrivasse alla perfezione che l’opere fatte da lui in Roma e fuori
nella gioventù dimostrano; e detti quadretti servivano di coperta all’organo antico di detta Chiesa, onde più per il nome che
ritengano da lui, che per la pittura sono tenuti cari. - Codice del Principe Giuseppe Albani nella libreria a Roma.’ Following
these words is a short vita of San Bernardino da Siena. ‘Provenienza / del quadretto / d’Urbino Comprato a Roma / Ce.
Francesco / Kuehlen vedi: Elogio Storico / di Raffaello Santi / da Urbino / del Padre Pungileoni. Urbino 1829, pag. 7 La
Nota.’ For a thorough analysis of this gloss see the article by Bock von Wülfingen. It has been impossible to trace the present owner of this tiny tondo. Its discoverer, who died in 1960, had attempted, with unusual care, caution and detailed observation, to place it among Raphael’s early works, and his arguments permit at least a hypothetical attribution.
Datable about 1499.
Bock v. Wülfingen 1951, p. 105 ff. (d.); Dussler 1966, No. 51 (d.).
The Resurrection
Plate 7
São Paulo (Brazil), Museum of Art.
Wood: 52 x 44cm.
PROVENANCE: Lord Kinnaird, Rossie Priory; Christie’s sale, London, 21 June 1946.
This predella panel was certified by Berenson as a work from the School of Perugino and appeared in the 1946 auction in
London under the name of the Umbrian artist Mariano di Ser Austerio. Soon after it was sold to the museum it was declared an early work by Raphael (Longhi, Suida). Van Regteren Altena had
Page 3
Page 4
drawn attention to the partial connection between this composition and figure studies in Oxford (Parker Cat. II, Nos. 505
and 506) as early as 1927, and the fleeing guard (Oxford, No. 505) and his recumbent companion seen from the side (Oxford, No. 506) should in fact be considered direct studies for the two figures on the right side of the painting. Oxford, No.
505, also contains a sleeping soldier squatting over his shield whose counterpart appears in the left middle distance of a
predella of the Resurrection in Rouen (Camesasca, Perugino, Pl. 92C). Fischel did not include either of the Oxford sheets
in the corpus of Raphael’s drawings, and left it an open question whether they were the work of Raphael or of Perugino
(Figs. 141, 142 in JPK 1917, p. 135, No. 74 and p. 140, No. 75). Popham supported the attribution to Raphael in the catalogue Italian Drawings exhibited at the Royal Academy, Burlington House 1930, Oxford 1931, p. 34, No. 118, and Parker
has also taken up this opinion. If these studies are by Raphael, which is not impossible, then the relevant figures on the
right (and no doubt also the guards on the left) should be regarded as his contribution to the picture. The overall composition can hardly be his, especially if one accepts the date of about 1502-3 suggested by Longhi; about 1501-2 would be a
more probable date for a picture from Perugino’s workshop in which Raphael took part.
A Resurrection in private ownership in England, with slight variations from Perugino’s panel in the Pinacoteca Vaticana,
Rome (Camesasca, Perugino, Pl. 153), was attributed to Raphael by F. Bologna (Suida Festschrift, 1959); this is not convincing.
Cr.-Cav. I, p. 70, note (d.); Gnoli 1921-2, p. 124 ff. (by Mariano di Ser Austerio); Ragghianti, Sele Arte 1954, Vol. 13, p. 62
(a.); Suida 1955, p. 5 ff. (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 21 (a.); Parker, Oxford Cat. II, p. 256 (in part a.); Camesasca I, Plate 4
(a.); Camesasca, Perugino, p. 166 (in part a.); Volpe, 1956, p. 8 (a.); Bologna 1959, p. 180 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 122
(a.); Dussler 1966, No. 124 (partly a.); H. Wagner 1969, p. 153 (r.).
Madonna with the Child holding a Goldfinch (Solly Madonna)
Plate 8
Berlin-Dahlem, Gemäldegalerie, No. 141.
Wood: 52 x 38 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1821, Solly Collection.
The picture is one of Raphael’s earliest productions and shows him still strongly under the influence of Perugino (he has
even borrowed the turn of the Child’s head from the latter’s panel dated 1493 in the Uffizi - see Camesasca, Perugino, Pl.
51). It can hardly have been painted after 1501, which is the date also suggested by Fischel; Gamba dates it 1500. Longhi
has drawn attention to a second version, which was sold by a London art dealer to an Italian collection in 1952. (The author
knows that version from reproductions only.)
Rumohr, pp. 512, 513 (a.); Passavant II, p. 13 (a.); Müntz, p. 62 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 82 ff. (a.); Morelli 1893, pp. 243 f., 214
and Note 1 (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 303 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 10 (a.); Gamba, p. 31 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p.
17 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 45 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1952, September, p. 46 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 6 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 32 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 5 (a.).
Madonna with Child Blessing, SS. Jerome and Francis
Plate 9
Wood: 34 x 29 cm.
PROVENANCE: Borghese, Rome; 1829, Baron von der Ropp.
The composition is related to that of Perugino’s panel in the Louvre (Camesasca, Perugino, Fig. 49), painted between 1495
and 1500, but Raphael succeeded in eliminating his teacher’s monotony, and in giving the faces a tender animation which
lends them an intimacy foreign to the older artist. A detail study for the head of Jerome exists in Lille (R.Z. I, No. 44).
Gamba’s dating - 1499 - is too early; the painting was probably executed about 1502 under the influence of Pintoricchio’s
altar-piece for S. Maria dei Fossi, now in Perugia, Pinacoteca, No. 274. - Longhi mentions an original example which was
executed at the same time and is now in the Warburg Collection, New York; the author does not know this picture even in
reproduction.
Passavant II, p. 19 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 436 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 62 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 85 (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 240 f.
(a.); Bombe 1911, p. 303 (a.); Gronau, p. II (a.); Gamba, p. 27 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 17 (a.); Fischel
1948, I, p. 44 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 38 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1952, September, p. 46 (a.); Longhi
1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 7 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 40 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 6 (a.).
Madonna with the Child and the Infant St. John (Madonna Diotalevi)
Plate 12
Wood: 69 x 50 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1842, Marchese Diotalevi, Rimini.
The blessing Child is based in almost every detail on that in Perugino’s 1498 Madonna della Consolazione in Perugia,
Pinacoteca, No. 270, or on the same motif in the Pala Tezi (dated 1500), No. 279 in the same gallery (Camesasca, Perugino, Pls. 83 and 151); the type of the infant S. John is found in Pintoricchio’s Madonna in the Fitzwilliam Museum,
Cambridge (Carli, Pintoricchio, Pl. 99). A. Venturi attributed the Berlin picture to one of Perugino’s assistants, while
Gamba believed that the painting was begun by
Page 4
Page 5
a mediocre Umbrian painter and completed by Raphael. There is no proof for either of these assumptions. A date about
1502 is decidedly more probable than Longhi’s suggestion of 1504.
Passavant 1860, II, pp. 334-5 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 72 f. (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 257 f. (a.); Bombe 1911, pp. 303, 308 (a.); Gronau, p. 9 (a.); A. Venturi, Storia VII/2, p. 43 ff. (r.); Gamba, p. 29 (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 17
(a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 44 f. (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Notes 42, 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 21 (a.); Volpe, 1956, p. 8
(a.); Camesasca I, Plate 28 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 32 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223; Dussler 1966, No. 7 (a.).
St. Sebastian
Plate 13
Bergamo, Accademia Carrara, No. 314.
Wood: 43 x 34 cm.
PROVENANCE: Casa Zurla, Crema; Giuseppe Longhi, Milan; 1836, Conte Guglielmo Lochis, Bergamo.
Although the picture is of Peruginesque type, the influence of Pintoricchio can also be seen, especially in the richly ornamented dress; the work dates from 1501-2. The closest parallels for the form of the hand are to be found in the Solly and
Diotalevi Madonnas, Berlin (Pls. 8, 12).
The COPY by Lo Spagna (formerly in the Ross Collection, New York) to which Berenson drew attention in Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, 3e pér., XV, 1896, p. 222 f., can no longer be traced.
Passavant II, p. 30 f. (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 244 (a.); Gronau, p. 13 (a.); Gamba, p. 32 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 17 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 35, 224, 357 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 20 (a.); Volpe, 1956, p. 8 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 5 (a.); Fischel 1962, pp. 24 f., 166 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (a.); Dussler 1966,
No. 4 (a.).
St. George and the Dragon
Plate 10
Paris, Louvre, No. 1503.
Wood: 31 x 27 cm.
PROVENANCE: Cardinal Mazarin, Paris; 1661, King Louis XIV, Fontainebleau.
This small panel and its companion piece, the St. Michael and the Demon in the Louvre, No. 1502 (Pl. 11) were already a
diptych while in the Mazarin Collection, and there can be no doubt that they were designed from the beginning to be seen
in this form. This assumption receives support from the thematic connection of the two scenes and from the obvious interrelationship between their compositions. In the case of the present picture, the Uffizi preserves the cartoon for the figures
(R.Z. I, No. 57).
The date is disputed. Fischel dated the diptych from about 1500, Gronau and Schöne from about 1502, while Cavalcaselle,
Morelli, Gamba, Ortolani, Longhi and Brizio favour a date of about 1504 or even later (Camesasca), pointing to Florentine
influences, especially that of Leonardo. In my opinion the two panels have no features tending in that direction, but show
the continuation of a development, both in form and in colouring, which can already be seen in the Vision of a Knight in
London (Pl. 14) and the Three Graces in Chantilly (Pl. 15), both of which were painted slightly earlier. The last-mentioned
writers date these pictures, too, from about 1504/1505. A copy formerly in the Leuchtenberg Collection, Munich, can no
longer be traced.
Recently Lynch defended again the identification of this panel with the picture given to King Henry VII; but the ‘St.
George, his spere beeing broken and his sworde in his hande’ mentioned in Henry VIII’s inventory of 1547 cannot refer to
the present work, not only because the Louvre picture is clearly some years earlier in style than the St. George in Washington (Pl. 31), but also because it formed a diptych with the Louvre St. Michael, which would doubtless also have been listed
in the English inventory.
Lomazzo, Trattato (ed. Milan), p. 48 (a.); Passavant II, p. 33 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 118 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 160 f. (a.); Morelli
1893, p. 251 (a.); Gronau, p. 7 (a.); Gamba, p. 39 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp.
31, 357 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, pp. 18, 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, p. 8 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate
48 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 21 f. (a.); Lynch 1962, p. 151 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 224 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 103 (a.); Schug,
Pantheon 1967, p. 476 (a.).
St. Michael and the Demon
Plate 11
Wood: 31 x 27 cm.
PROVENANCE: Cardinal Mazarin, Paris; 1661, King Louis XIV, Fontainebleau.
This picture is painted on the back of a chess-board, and forms a companion piece to the St. George in the Louvre, No.
1503 (Pl. 10), with which it was joined as a diptych - see note above. The processions of figures in the middle distance on
either side of the dragon-slayer clearly refer to Dante’s Divina Commedia, Inferno XXIII, 57 ff.: the cowled hypocrites on
the left, and XXIV, 9 ff.: the robbers, nude and partly bound by snakes, on the right. This connection was already pointed
out by Passavant; Fischel broadened and further defined the illustrative elements in Raphael’s ‘first Dante picture’ by referring to Inferno VII, 11 f. for the avenging Michael, and to Inferno III, 134 ff. and VII, 70 ff., where the poet speaks of the
tumult of the elements and the burning city. The visible presentation of these events through the enthralling medium of
vivid colouring may have been aided by the impressions left by paintings from northern Europe, such as the early Netherlandish works in the collection of the Duke of Urbino. Fischel was right in referring to pictures by Hieronymus Bosch.
Page 5
Page 6
Datable about 1502-3.
A drawing for the picture was in the Crozat Collection (Mariette, Cat. No. 102). A copy formerly in the Leuchtenberg collection, Munich, was mentioned by Passavant but appears to have been lost.
Lomazzo, Trattato (ed. Milan), p. 48 (a.); Passavant II, p. 34 (a.); Müntz, p. 119 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 159 f. (a.); Morelli, p.
238 (a.); Fischel, Raphael und Dante, 1920, p. 3 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 7 (a.); Gamba, p. 39 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 31, 357 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, pp. 18, 22 (a.);
Volpe 1956, p. 8 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 46 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 21 f. (a.); Lynch 1962, p. 151 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 224
(a.); Dussler 1966, No. 102 (a.); Schug, Pantheon 1967, p. 476 (a.).
Vision of a Knight
London, National Gallery, No. 213.
Wood: 17 x 17 cm.
Plate 14
PROVENANCE: Palazzo Borghese, Rome; 1798, William Ottley, London; 1801, Sir Thomas Lawrence, London; Lady
Sykes, London; before 1847, Rev. Thomas Egerton, London.
Like the Chantilly panel (Pl. 15), this picture was in 1650 in the Borghese Collection, where it was described by J. Manilli
(Villa Borghese, Rome, 1650, p. 111) as ‘un soldato che giace dormendo alla campagna’ and by Ramdohr (Über Malerei
und Bildhauerarbeit in Rom, 1787, I, p. 292) as ‘an armed knight sleeping in a landscape, watched over by two saints . . . in
Raphael’s first manner’.
This is a companion piece to the Three Graces in Chantilly (Pl. 15) and was originally connected to it, either as a diptych or
on the reverse. The exact interpretation of the subject was given by Panofsky in a detailed investigation, and his findings
were confirmed by the similar results arrived at independently and at the same time by R. Eisler: the armed youth sleeping
beneath the laurel tree is Scipio Africanus, and the two figures whom he sees in his dream are symbolic personifications of
Virtue with her attributes of the sword and the book, on the left, and Pleasure, with her attribute of a proffered flower on the
right. The landscape is likewise symbolic; on the left is the castle of Virtue on a steep rock, on the right smooth, pleasant
fields. The artist’s model was the woodcut of the ‘Choice of Hercules’ from Sebastian Brant’s Ship of Fools in the first edition of the Stultifera Navis, published in Basle in 1497 (Panofsky, op. cit., Pl. VIII), which was very widely known about
1500. The Latin text of this edition, written by Jacob Locher, was based on Book XV of the Punica by the Roman poet Silius Italicus, which is devoted to the story of Scipio Africanus. As this painting, like its pendant at Chantilly, was already in
the possession of the Borghese family in the seventeenth century and as, moreover, the three Graces in the latter picture are
based on the marble group in Siena - where the Borghese family seat was situated - Panofsky suggested that the Vision of a
Knight might have some specific connection with the family. He proved this suggestion by pointing to the fact that members of the family had often received the baptismal name of Scipio and that this had first occurred in the case of Scipione di
Tommaso di Borghese, who was born in 1493 in Siena. Thus the diptych could have been commissioned in 1500-1 for his
confirmation and would be an example of the ‘adhortatio ad iuvenem’ customary at the time. Gould (in Catalogue of the
National Gallery, The Sixteenth Century Italian Schools, London 1962, p. 148) raised certain doubts on account of differences between the two figures of ‘Virtus’ and ‘Voluptas’ as here represented and the classical text, and therefore suggested
the need for another interpretation. It should not be overlooked, however, that the variations may be due on the one hand to
the client’s wishes, or on the other to the refusal of the youthful painter to abandon his own conception of the theme. A
thorough analysis of the two female figures has been provided by E. Wind, who considers that the subject was based not on
the German woodcut in Brant, but on Macrobius’ commentary to Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis. The observations published
by K. von Baudissin, ‘Auf der Suche nach dem Sinngehalt’, in JPK LVII, 1936, p. 88 ff., in no way weaken Panofsky’s investigations.
Raphael’s autograph cartoon for the picture is in London, National Gallery, No. 213A (R.Z. I, No. 40). No agreement has
been reached on the date of the picture. Gould dates it very early, about 1500, whereas most Italian scholars follow Longhi,
who suggested 1504-5 and regards the figure composition as an example of Florentine ‘Classicismo’. But the figure types
are so close to the diptych of St. George and St. Michael in Paris (Pls. 10-11) that 1502-3 seems a more convincing date.
Passavant II, p. 25 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 102 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 155 ff.; Morelli 1893, pp. 222, 237 f. (a.); De Maulde 1897, I,
p. 21 ff.; Gronau, p. 6 (a.); Panofsky 1930, p. 37 ff. (a.); Eisler, Revue archéologique XXXII, 1930, p. 134 f. (a.); Gamba, p.
27 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 10 f. (a.); A. v. Salis 1947, p. 154 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 28 f., 357 (a.);
Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, p. 8 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 44 (a.); Wind
1958, p. 78 f. (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 252 (a.); Freedberg, p. 62, (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 19 f. (a.); Gould, London Cat., 1962, p.
147 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 59 (a.).
The Three Graces
Plate 15
Chantilly, Musée Condé, No. 38.
Wood: 17 x 17 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1650, Villa Borghese, Rome; Henry Reboul, Paris; Woodburn, London; Sir Thomas Lawrence, London;
Earl of Dudley, London; 1885, Duc d’Aumale, Paris.
Panofsky rightly suggested that this work was the
Page 6
Page 7
reverse of the Vision of a Knight in London, National Gallery (Pl. 14), for the two works come from the same collection
and are identical in format and dimensions. There is also a thematic link between their subjects, since by giving the three
goddesses the golden apples Raphael characterized them as Hesperides and thus as symbolic representatives of the rewards
of virtue. The apples were not added before the final stage, for a pentimento (discovered by Frimmel) in the right arm of the
central figure shows that her hand formerly did not hold an apple, but rested on her companion’s right shoulder.
The traditional view is that Raphael was inspired by the antique group in the Libreria Piccolomini in Siena; Suida, however, suggested that the painting was based directly on the reverse of a medal by Niccolò Forzore (?), of about 1486, which
portrays Giovanna Albizzi-Tornabuoni (Hill, A Corpus of Italian, Medals of the Renaissance. London 1930, I, No. 1021, II,
Pl. No. 169); he argued that in the medal the arms are shown, while they are missing in the group in Siena. It is not impossible that Raphael had seen the medal - indeed it is quite likely that there was a replica at the Urbino court; but I feel that
the picture has much more in common with the sculptural group in Siena, if only because here the heads can be seen in a
variety of angles, as opposed to the three strictly profile views on the medal. To argue that the fragmentary condition of the
limbs of the Siena sculptures would have prevented Raphael from basing his picture on this group is to underrate the young
master’s imagination. Painted, like its pendant, 1502-3.
Passavant II, p. 65 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 228 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 162 f. (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 239 (a.); Frimmel 1904, p. 17 ff.
(a.); Gronau, p. 6 (a.); Panofsky 1930, p. 142 ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 27 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Suida, p. 29 (a.); Ortolani, p. 12 (a.); A. v. Salis 1947, p. 153 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 29 ff., 357 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, pp. 18, 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, p. 8 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 45 (a.); Wind 1958, p. 79 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 62
(a.); Fischel 1962, p. 20 f. (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 268 (a); Dussler 1966, No. 18 (a.).
Madonna with the Child reading on her Lap (Madonna Conestabile)
Plate 16
Leningrad, Hermitage, No. 89.
Tempera. Wood, transferred to canvas; tondo, diameter: 18 cm. The tondo is enclosed in a square frame with decorative
corners.
PROVENANCE: Alfano di Diamante, Perugia; Conte della Staffa, Perugia; 1789, Giancarlo and Scipione Conestabile, Perugia; 1870, Tsar Alexander II, St. Petersburg; 1880, given to the Hermitage.
When this picture was transferred from wood to canvas (after 1880) it was discovered that the Madonna originally held not
a book, but an apple, as in the copy drawing in Berlin, executed by a fellow-pupil of Raphael’s in Perugino’s workshop
(Lippmann, JPK II, 1881, p. 62 and Fischel, Die Zeichnungen der Umbrer, Berlin 1917, p. 134, No. 68 recto. Lippmann
still held this drawing to be an original.) The frame is contemporary with the picture and joined to it, and the frame and
panel were originally conceived as a whole.
Datable probably 1502-3, presumably after the Madonna Diotalevi, Berlin (Pl. 12), as the type of the Madonna’s head is
the same. The larger space allotted to the landscape is an argument in favour of the later dating, but Longhi’s dating in the
Florentine period (1504) is too late.
COPIES: Paris, Louvre, No. 1494: by Sassoferrato; Perugia, Galleria Nazionale, No. 20: contemporary; Richmond (for-
merly) Sir F. Cook (Borenius, Cook Cat. I, No. 78): by Sassoferrato; Rome, private collection.
Passavant II, p. 24 f. (a.); Rossi, Giornale di erudizione artistica VI, 1877, p. 321 ff. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 18 ff. (a.);
Müntz, p. 62 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 133 f. (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 299 (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 303 (a.); Gronau, p. 8 (a.); Gamba,
p. 32 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 250 f. (a.); Ortolani, p. 16 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 45, 54, 357 (a.);
Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, p. 7 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 31 (a.); Fischel
1962, p. 32 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (a.); Meisterwerke aus der Eremitage, Malerei des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts, Plate
18 (a.; with Russian bibliography); Dussler 1966, No. 54 (a.).
The Holy Family
Plate 17
London, Sir Brian Mountain.
Wood: diameter 79 cm.
PROVENANCE: Lady Trevelyan, Nettlecomb Court, Williton, Somerset.
This picture is in very good condition and there is no doubt as to its authenticity. Fischel has proved that it is similar in
technique and formal treatment to the Madonna with two Saints in Berlin (Pl. 9). The type of the Virgin is the same as in
the Solly Madonna (Pl. 8), while the landscape is close to that in the St. George in Paris (Pl. 10). For the form of the hands,
see R.Z. I, No. 55, in London.
Datable about 1502.
Fischel (published posthumously) 1945, p. 82 f. (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 70 (a.).
Madonna and Child
Plate 18
New York, Private Collection.
The picture, which is doubtless original, is very close to the Holy Family in the collection of Sir Brian Mountain, London
(Pl. 17), about 1502-3.
The present writer knows it only from the reproduction in Berenson, where it is listed as ‘homeless’.
Berenson, Italian Pictures of the Renaissance, Central and North Italian Schools, London, 1968, Plate 1174.
Page 7
Page 8
Portrait of a Young Man
Plate 19
Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, No. 72.
Wood: 54 x 39 cm.
PROVENANCE: Prince Esterhazy, Vienna.
The portrait, which is not in a good state of preservation, was formerly attributed to Bernardino Luini or to Perugino, and
identified as a likeness of the young Raphael. Passavant in 1860 was the first to attribute it to Raphael. He also suggested
that the sitter was Francesco Maria della Rovere, but this identification was soon abandoned. The attribution to Raphael
was accepted by most writers, but some have remained doubtful down to the present day, and these doubts seem to be justified by the quality of the painting. It should be borne in mind, however,that this picture and the so-called Francesco Maria
della Rovere in the Uffizi, Florence (Pl. 21) would be the artist’s earliest attempts at portraiture and that his teacher’s work
provided only a limited range of models. The placing of the hands in the Budapest picture has been borrowed from Perugino’s portrait of Francesco dell’Opere of 1494 (Florence, Uffizi; Camesasca, Perugino, Fig. 56). H. Wagner, who recently argued against Raphael’s authorship of the present picture, assumes that it and the so-called Rovere in the Galleria
Pitti were painted by the same studio hand. But even if Raphael had a studio at such an early date, it is not likely that he
would have left to his assistants the execution of portraits, a type of painting in which he himself still needed experience.
In my opinion the Budapest portrait was painted about 1503.
Passavant 1860, II, p. 47 (a.); Frimmel 1892, p. 218 (a.); Cust 1916, p. 204 (by Ridolfo Ghirlandaio d.); Gronau, p. 22 (a.);
Burkhalter, p. 48 ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 42 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 23 (r.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 56,
358 (a.); Suida, p. 23, No. 20 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 29 (a.); Masterpieces from Budapest, London, 1960, Plate 9, good colour reproduction; Fischel 1962, p. 41 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (d.); Dussler 1966,
No. 16 (a.); Wagner 1969, p. 47 (r.).
Portrait of a Man
Plate 20
Rome, Galleria Borghese, No. 397.
Wood: 45 x 31 cm.
PROVENANCE: Palazzo Aldobrandini (?), Rome.
Since the careful restoration undertaken by Cavenaghi in 1911, this panel has been recognized as an autograph Raphael
painting dating from about 1503-4. None of the proposed identifications of the sitter - Perugino, Pintoricchio, Serafino
Aquilano - is tenable.
Vasi, Itinerario, 1794, p. 391 (a.); Morelli 1890, p. 174 (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 242 (a.); Frizzoni 1912, p. 1 ff. (a.); Gronau, p.
12 (a.); Gronau 1924-5, p. 452 (a.); Gamba, p. 30 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Offner 1934, p. 254 (by Perugino?); Lietzmann 1934, p. 365 ff. (r.); Beenken 1935, p. 145 (a.); Ortolani, p. 18 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 55 f., 358 (a.); Longhi 1955,
May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 20 (a.); Pergola, Cat. Borghese II, No. 168 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 40 (a.); Dussler 1966,
No.114 (a.).
Portrait of a Young Man with an Apple
Plate 21
Florence, Uffizi, No. 8760.
Wood: 47 x 35 cm.
PROVENANCE: Duke of Urbino; 1631, Medici family, Florence.
This portrait agrees with the description of a picture listed as No. 35 in the Urbino inventory, Pesaro 1631, in which neither
the artist nor the sitter is identified (Gronau, Documenti, p. 80). It was for a long time attributed to Francesca Francia, but
since Gronau first declared it to be an early work of Raphael this theory has not been questioned (except by Lietzmann and
- orally - by Schöne). Gronau’s suggested identification of the sitter as the young Francesco Maria della Rovere received
the support of Fischel, but Lietzmann objected that the features were not those of a fourteen-year-old boy, and that the sitter
must have been ten years older than this. He therefore proposed Guidobaldo I of Montefeltre, and drew up a sketch comparing the portrait of Guidobaldo in the Uffizi, No. 8538 (p. 59), with the portrait of the Rovere youth. This seems to me to
demonstrate a fairly close facial resemblance, but not to provide convincing proof of their identity. Lietzmann denies that
Raphael was the painter of the Uffizi picture No. 8760 and dates it approximately 1496, while Offner and Beenken, who
give it to Raphael, date it about 1500. Stylistic considerations, however, suggest a date of about 1504. The left hand is surprisingly poorly shaped, as Fischel noticed; from the technique, however, it does not seem that any other artist was involved. The close affinity between this painting and the portrait of a young man in Budapest (Pl. 19) seems to favour Raphael’s authorship.
Durand-Gréville 1905, p. 377 (a.); Gronau 1907, p. 569 (a.); Gronau 1912, p. 52 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 21 (a.); Gronau 1924-5,
p. 448 f. (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 201 (Tamarocci); A. Venturi, Storia, VII/3, p. 971 f. (School of Francia); Gamba, p. 41 (a.);
Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Offner 1934, p. 254 (a.); Lietzmann 1934, p. 365 ff. (r.); Beenken 1935, p. 145 (a.); Ortolani,
pp. 23, 25 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 56, 358 (a.); Salvini Cat. 1952, p. 54 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, p. 9
(a.); Camesasca I, Plate 36 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 41 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 45 (a.); Wagner 1969,
pp. 49 f. (r.).
Christ on the Cross with the Virgin, and SS. John, Jerome and Mary Magdalene
Wood: 280 x 165 cm.
Signed at the foot of the cross with the words: RAPHAEL VRBIN / AS / P. The following inscription
Page 8
Plate 25
Page 9
is on the altar stone, which is still preserved in Città di Castello, S. Domenico: HOC. OPVS. FIERI. FECIT. DNICVS / THOME.
DEGAVARIS. MDIII
PROVENANCE: S. Domenico, Cappella Gavari, Città di Castello; 1818, Cardinal Fesch, Paris; 1845, Principe di Canino,
Rome; 1847, Earl of Dudley, London; 1892, Ludwig Mond, London.
This work was painted while the artist was still entirely under the influence of Perugino, and the figures in the teacher’s art
which Raphael used as models have been identified by Morelli. Studies for the lamenting Madonna and the crucified Christ
are preserved in Vienna (R.Z. IV, No. 185), and in Oxford there is another for the kneeling figure of Mary Magdalene (R.Z.
I, No. 41). A further drawing (not quite convincing) is in Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada (Popham, Old Master Drawings XIV, 1939-1940, p. 50 f. and Fig. Pl. 47). This represents a standing saint (John?).
The date 1503 seems to refer to the time of completion, and the picture was probably painted in 1502. Two of the predella
panels are preserved, the scenes from the life of St. Jerome in Lisbon and Raleigh (Pls. 23-4).
When he bought this painting in 1818 Cardinal Fesch had an exact copy painted, which is now in the Città di Castello Museum (No. 56). The original frame is in the church of S. Domenico (see ill. in Schöne, Raphael, p. 48).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 318 (a.); Rumohr, p. 515 (a.); Passavant II, p. 12 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges II, p. 342 ff. (a.); Müntz,
p. 83 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 99 ff. (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 242 ff. (a.); J. P. Richter, Cat. Mond Collection, London 1910, II, p. 512
ff. (a.); Bombe 1911, pp. 301 f., 304 (a.); Gronau p. 14 (a.); Magherini-Giovagnoli, p. 33 ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 31 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 18 f. (a.); Speiser, Concinnitas, 1944, p. 215 (formal analysis); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 36,
358 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 20 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 10 (a.); Schöne, p. 35 and Fig.
48 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 25 (a.); Gould, London Cat., 1962, p. 158 (a.); Volpe 1962, p. 81 (a.); Wittkower 1963, No. 3, p.
155 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 65 (a.); Schug, Pantheon 1967, p. 472 (a.).
A Miracle of St. Cyril
Plate 23
Lisbon, National Museum.
Wood: 23 x 41 cm.
PROVENANCE: Penna Billi near Montefeltre; Trevi; before 1845, art dealer in Rome; Minister Husson da Camera, Florence;
1859 Academy, Lisbon.
(Mentioned by Gaetano Giordani, ‘Intorno Raff. Sanzio . . ., per una tavoletta da lui dipinta nella quale ammirasi Eliseo che
risuscita tre fanciulli’. Bologna, 1871.)
This panel, like its companion in Raleigh (Pl. 24), was presented by the monks of S. Domenico to Cardinal Rasponi (Diary
of Francesco Andreocci of Città di Castello, 27 October 1668, printed by Borenius, Cook Cat. p. 75), but later the two were
separated and by the end of the eighteenth century they were in different collections.
Like the predella in Raleigh (Pl. 24) this panel belonged to the Crucifixion in London, National Gallery (Pl. 25). The first to
draw attention to the very strange legend which is the subject of this work was L. Pillion (‘La Légende de saint Jérôme
d’après quelques peintures italiennes du XV siècle au musée du Louvre’, in GBA XXXIX, 1908, p. 303 ff.); she was followed by Gronau, who gave a complete summary of the subject-matter of this panel and its companion in Raleigh
(Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft 1908.). Both scenes tell the story of miraculous deeds performed by this Doctor of the
Church in combating a sect which was then widespread in the Orient. The Lisbon picture shows St. Cyril using St.
Jerome’s cloak to bring back to life three young men, who then tell of Paradise, Purgatory and Hell and thus give the lie to
the heretics’ denial of the world after death. The Christian and heretic witnesses to this event frame the central narrative.
The story is based on the Hieronymianum by Giovanni d’Andrea, a tract published in Florence in 1491. In style and in their
cursory technique, this panel and the one in Raleigh differ surprisingly from the centre panel of the altar-piece, the Crucifixion, which is entirely Peruginesque. These differences are due largely to the subject-matter with its lively, dramatic narrative, for which the teacher’s studio repertoire provided few models or ideas, whereas the work of Signorelli, who had
painted several altar-pieces for Città di Castello from 1494 to 1498, was a ready source. Raphael’s drawing (R.Z. I, No. 2)
after the archer in Signorelli’s St. Sebastian in the Museo Civico, Città di Castello (formerly in S. Domenico, the same
church for which Raphael’s Crucifixion was intended), suggests such a link, and figures such as the foreshortened dead
man, the St. Cyril with the cloak of St. Jerome bending over the three youths, or the man blessing, in profile to the right (related, in reverse, to the drawing of God the Father in London, Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 3; R.Z. I, No. 11r.), point clearly to
Raphael’s familiarity with Signorelli’s paintings. That the latter may also have provided the model for the fleeing shieldbearer at the left of the panel in Raleigh is suggested by a comparision with the archer in the Martyrdom of St. Sebastian in
the Pinacoteca in Città di Castello or with the soldiers in the Conversion of St. Paul in the sacristy of the Cathedral of Loreto. But the types and proportions of some other figures in both predella panels seem to point to a source in the circle of
Pintoricchio, to whom both panels have, in fact, been sometimes attributed (Passavant, Morelli). It is not known whether
Raphael was in Orvieto around the turn of the century, when Signorelli was working on the cycle of the Last Judgement in
the Cathedral; he certainly knew more pictures by Signorelli than the two in Urbino and the altar-pieces in Città di Castello.
He could
Page 9
Page 10
also have seen works by him and by Pintoricchio in Siena, where he may have been before 1503.
Passavant 1860, II, p. 315 (by Pintoricchio); Cook 1900, p. 177 f. (a.); Gronau 1908, p. 1071 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 16 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Gamba, p. 31 (a.); Ortolani, p. 19 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 358 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 14 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (a.); C. Gilbert 1965, n. I (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 56 (a.).
St. Jerome Punishing the Heretic Sabinianus
Plate 24
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art.
Wood: 23 x 41 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1801, William Ottley, London; William Coningham, London; William Stuart, London; Sir Francis Cook,
Richmond; Mrs. Derek Fitzgerald, Heathfield Park, Sussex.
Painted about 1503, this panel, like the picture in Lisbon (Pl. 23), comes from the predella of the Crucifixion in London,
National Gallery, No. 3943 (Pl. 25). The subject and style are discussed under Lisbon (above). According to legend, Bishop
Silvanus was about to be beheaded when St. Jerome intervened and stopped the executioner. On the right of the kneeling
Silvanus the heretic Sabinianus lies dead beside the writings which he had forged and claimed to be the work of St. Jerome.
His head has been severed from his body, not by the executioner, but by the will of Jerome.
Cr.-Cav. I, p. 97 f. (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 231, No. I (Pintoricchio); Cook 1900, p. 177 (a.); Gronau 1908, p. 1071 ff. (a.); J.
P. Richter, Mond. Collection Cat. 1910, II, p. 528 (r.); Borenius, Cook Cat. No. 64 (a.); Gronau, p. 15 (a.); Gamba, p. 31
(a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 19 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 358 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 15 (a.) Cat. Italian Art
and Britain 1960, No. 316 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (a.); C. Gilbert 1965, No. I (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 110 (a.).
The Coronation of the Virgin
Plates 26-9
Predella: The Annunciation - The Adoration of the Magi - The Presentation in the Temple.
Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana, No. 334.
Wood, transferred to canvas: 267 x 163 cm.
PROVENANCE: commissioned by Alessandra di Simone degli Oddi, 1502-3, for the Cappella Oddi in S. Francesco, Perugia
(as shown by Bombe, Perugino, 1914, p. 249); from 1797 until 1815, in the Musée Napoléon, Paris; 1815, returned to the
Vatican. Condition: the altar-piece and the predella panels were restored a few years before 1797 by Francesco Romero.
The posture and physical types of the apostles and the angel musicians in this picture are based on Perugino’s Ascension,
completed about 1496 (Lyons Museum; Camesasca, Perugino, Pl. 89). The predella scenes, likewise, are so similar to those
of Perugino’s altar-piece in Fano, S. Maria Nuova, of 1497 (Camesasca, Perugino, Pls. 81 and 82) that some critics
(Longhi, Camesasca) have recently revived Durand-Gréville’s assumption that the Fano predella panels are by Raphael.
This hypothesis can neither be proved nor disproved, but the difference in date between the Vatican predella and those in
Fano is clearly visible just as the composition of the Coronation is more advanced than that of the Lyons picture and of Perugino’s Assumption of 1500 (Florence, Uffizi; Camesasca, Perugino, Pl. 145). Most scholars date the Vatican pala from
1503, but Wittkower (referring to Vasari, who mentions the painting before the works commissioned for Città di Castello)
recently suggested that it was painted about 1499-1500 in Perugino’s workshop. In my opinion, however, the extraordinary
maturity of the drawings, and especially of the surviving auxiliary cartoons, tells against such an early date. Sketches for
the angels playing musical instruments are in Oxford, Lille and London; (R.Z. I, Nos. 18-22); a drapery study for the cloak
of St. Thomas, in London, Pouncey-Gere Cat. No. 6v. - Auxiliary cartoons: for St. James: R.Z. I, No. 23, in London; for St.
Paul and his companions on the right: Windsor, Popham-Wilde Cat., No. 788 (see also Popham, OMD XII, 1937-8, p. 45);
and for St. Andrew: R.Z. I, No. 25, in Lille. - For the predella panel of the Annunciation (overall composition), R.Z. I, No.
28 (cartoon), in Paris; for the Adoration of the Magi, R.Z. I, No. 29, in Stockholm; for the central group in the Presentation
in the Temple, R.Z. I, No. 30, in Oxford. A profile study for the woman on the right holding the sacrificial doves (R.Z. I,
No. 32) is in Florence (see also R.Z. I, No. 31: London, Pouncey-Gere Cat. No.6, p. 7).
W. Schöne has included a photomontage illustrating the appearance of the original frame in Fig. 47 of his book on Raphael;
see also his reasons (p. 35).
COPIES: Civitella Bemazzone near Perugia: Coronation of the Virgin ( 1518); Copenhagen Museum: Adoration of the Magi;
Perugia, S. Pietro Maggiore: Annunciation.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 317 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 524 f. (a.); Passavant I, p. 20 ff. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges II, p. 549 ff.;
Müntz, p. 65 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 109 ff. (a.); Morelli 1893, pp. 239 f., 298 f. (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 304 (a.); Gronau, p. 17
f. (a.); Gamba, p. 31 ff. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 17 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 26 f., 28, 358 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 20 (a.); Camesasca I, p. 16 (a.); Redig de Campos, Fede e Arte VI,
1958, p. 343 ff. (report on the restoration); Fischel 1962, pp. 18 f., 25 f. (a.); Wittkower 1963, No. 3, p. 157 ff. (a.); Brizio
1963, col. 223 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 120 (a.); Schug, Pantheon 1967, pp. 474, 481 (a.).
The Marriage of the Virgin (Il Sposalizio)
Plate 32
Milan, Brera Gallery, No. 472.
Wood: 170 x 118 cm.
Page 10
Page 11
On the temple architrave is the inscription: RAPHAEL. VRBINAS.
Dated on the spandrels of the arcades: MDIIII.
PROVENANCE: S. Francesco, Cappella Albizzini, Città di Castello; 1798, Conte Giuseppe Lechi, Brescia; 1801, Giacomo
Sannazari, Milan; 1804, given as a present to the Ospedale Maggiore, Milan; 1806, Brera, Milan.
This picture is based on the altar-piece commissioned from Perugino for the cathedral at Perugia in 1499, and completed by
him about 1504 (Camesasca, Perugino, Pl. 165). As a young pupil, Raphael will have seen the development of the picture
in his master’s workshop, but he will also have known the treatment of the same theme in the Fano predella of 1497
(Camesasca, Perugino, Pl. 82a) and the sketches for the compositionally related fresco of Christ giving the keys to Peter in
the Sistine Chapel, Rome, undertaken in the early 1480s (Camesasca, Perugino, Pl. 28). Perugino’s Sposalizio (formerly in
Perugia, now in Caen Museum) was ascribed by Berenson in 1895 to Lo Spagna and regarded as depending from the picture by Raphael. For a long time now, however, there has been no doubt that this work was created by Raphael’s teacher
and was the model for the young artist’s painting. Comparison between the two versions reveals the extent to which the
young genius altered his model, and the eye for essentials, in the scene of the marriage itself, with which he did so. Raphael’s sense of the classical begins here already to make itself felt, especially in the magnificent architecture and the masterly representation of space.
H. Grimm’s book contains one of the finest appreciations of the picture.
COPIES: Città di Castello, Augustinian monastery; Urbino, S. Giuseppe, sacristy: by Andrea Urbani, 1606.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 318 f. (a.); Rumohr, pp. 515, 522 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 28 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 84 ff. (a.); H.
Grimm, Fünfzehn Essays, 3. Folge, p. 423 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 126 ff. (a.); Morelli 1893, pp. 224, 250 (a.); Berenson, The
Study and Criticism of Italian Art II, London, 1902, p. 1 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 19 (a.); Magherini-Giovagnoli, p. 65 ff. (a.);
Gamba, p. 33 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 19 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 90 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 37 f.,
358 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Zubow 1953, p. 145 ff. (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 20 Lisbon (above). According to legend, Bishop Silvanus (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 22 (a.); Hetzer 1957, II, p. 148 (a.); Freedberg, p. 62 (a.); Fischel
1962, p. 26 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 81 (a.).
The Holy Family with the Lamb; in the background at the left, the Flight into Egypt
Plate 30
Vaduz, private collection.
Wood: 32 x 22 cm.
Inscribed on the neckline of the Virgin’s bodice: RAPHAEL VRBINAS AD MDIV.
PROVENANCE: Casa Gerini, Florence; N. Tacchinardi, Florence; Conte Staffa-Conestabile, Perugia; Viscount Lee of Fare-
ham, Richmond; estate of Lady Ruth, Viscountess of Fareham; private collection, Liechtenstein.
Engraved by: Carlo Gregori (for the Raccolta di 80 stampe della galleria Gerini (Florence, 1786); A. Morghen sculp. et R.
Morghen dir.; Ang. Emilio Lapi; J. Lenfant sculp. et ex.
This picture and the Sposalizio (Brera, Milan; Pl. 32) are both dated 1504, but the Holy Family must have been the later of
the two and was probably painted towards the end of that year. For while the Sposalizio shows Peruginesque echoes in construction and in the figure types, the present picture is very strongly influenced by Raphael’s Florentine impressions. Its
subject points to the world of Leonardo, whose cartoon of the Virgin and Child with St. Anne created such a stir after 1500
and inspired Raphael’s version. In it Leonardo had depicted the Child with the lamb and the Virgin bending forward to
support the Child. Raphael added the figure of St. Joseph, which is also indebted to Florentine models, though more to Fra
Bartolommeo, and achieved a form of composition which, in compactness, clarity and mutual relation of the figures (each
looking intensely at another) reveals elements of the classic style - elements which also imply a study of the sublime models of Leonardo. Here we see Raphael making use for the first time of the stylistic features and stylistic principles of the
High Renaissance, which are found more markedly in the following year, 1505, in the Madonna Granduca (Florence, Pl.
49), the Madonna Tempi (Munich, Pl. 57), the Madonna of the Meadow (Vienna, Pl. 54), and as Oertel has shown, in the
Madonna Canigiani (Munich, Pl. 55). The fact that such elements are here found for the first time suggest that the Holy
Family was painted towards the end of 1504. In its composition, the Gerini picture is also related to St. George fighting the
Dragon (Washington, Pl. 31), which was painted in 1504, but the latter is not so relaxed in structure as the Holy Family. In
its use of colour the picture in Vaduz retains the characteristics of Raphael’s pre-Florentine works: the gem-like brilliance,
the range of nuances and the spontaneous brushstrokes endow the figures and the landscape with a magic that recalls the
fairy-tale picture of the Vision of a Knight of about 1502 (London, Pl. 14).
The picture, named the Gerini version after its eighteenth-century owner, exists in several versions, of which that in Madrid
(Prado No. 296), with the supposed date 1507, was regarded, until a few years ago, as the undoubted original. When the
Gerini version, with its date 1504, turned up, steps were taken to examine both versions more carefully. The Gerini picture
was discussed in detail and objectively, by Viscount Lee of Fareham, who then owned it, in the Burlington Magazine in
1934, together with the
Page 11
Page 12
scientific findings of the restorers A. P. Laurie (London) and Judson (Berne), whose results were confirmed by the Swiss
‘Institut für Kunstwissenschaft’ in Zurich in 1967, and expert opinions on its style given by Roger Fry, Kenneth Clark and
Oskar Fischel. The first stage of the discussions did not include an examination of the state of preservation of the version in
Madrid and therefore the discrepancy between the two dates was not investigated by Lord Lee or other writers (including
the present author in the German edition of this catalogue, 1966). At that time both versions were accepted, not least because of the high reputation enjoyed by the collection of the famous Spanish gallery.
The question was eventually decided in 1967 by A. Schug (Pantheon, November 1967), who had undertaken a very detailed stylistic analysis of the Prado picture and a close examination of its signature and date. His comparison of the two
versions proved that the picture in Madrid showed not only changes in composition (‘the tree behind St. Joseph results from
a re-interpretation of the figure composition as a diagonal across the picture plane’), but also significant misunderstandings
of a copyist (‘the fall of Joseph’s cloak is interrupted by an intrusive section of bluegreen landscape next to the Virgin’s
shoulder and thus made pointless, whereas in the Gerini version his drapery is here hidden by a vertical fold of his sleeve
and thus continues meaningfully’). There are also other features which cast doubt on the authenticity in the Madrid version:
St. Joseph has no halo, to the left of the Child’s halo there appears a kind of cascade instead of a horizontal stream, the
curving road with the fleeing Holy Family top left, instead of leading back to the village, starts quite suddenly, and in the
top left corner there is a flock of circling birds such as is found in no other landscape by Raphael (cf. the different and very
meaningful motif in the cartoon of the Miraculous Draught of Fishes of about 1515-16). Suspicions are finally confirmed
by Schug’s confrontation of the inscriptions on the two versions: in the Gerini version the name is followed by the date AD
MDIV, whereas the picture in the Prado has the meaningless letters MD VII IV, which point to a misinterpretation of an original signature.
Schug’s results (except the wrong date, which he discovered) found support in an unpublished article by Fritz Saxl (‘Raphael’s Holy Family with the Lamb in the possession of Lord Lee’, about 1935; manuscript in the Warburg Institute, London), who not only showed that the Gerini version is datable about the end of 1504, but also proved that the Prado version
is of later date. An important argument for these conclusions was Saxl’s comparison with the engraving by A. Morghen,
which was preceded by C. Gregori’s engraving dated 1786. Saxl’s findings were anticipated by A. L. Mayer, who demonstrated in a lecture given in Munich in 1929 (Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 1930, p. 378) that the Prado version
was not autograph, that its date and signature appeared apocryphal and that its provenance was not known.
To what extent Mayer’s views were justified is shown, apart from the findings already mentioned above, by the following:
Passavant, who had not seen the picture in Madrid, based himself on reports from two painters, David Wilkie and Ludwig
Gruner, who visited Madrid in 1828 and wrote to him of ‘a small picture, only underpainted and left unfinished’, in the oratory of the Escorial; no mention is made of a signature or date. We next hear of the picture in Passavant’s edition of 1860
(II, p. 55): ‘autrefois ce tableau était comme enfoui dans l’oratoire de l’Escorial; on le regardait comme une peinture sans
valeur; mais un jour l’infant Don Sébastien . . . en le voyant pour la première fois, fut frappé de sa beauté et voulut
l’examiner de près; ce ne fut pas sans étonnement qu’il découvrit l’inscription portant le nom de Raphaël. C’est depuis lors
qu’on plaça ce tableau au musée de Madrid.’ What is surprising is the mention of a signature (the editor of Passavant, P.
Lacroix, Note 1: ‘. . . Peint en 1507. Les figures sont très-terminées.’) The discrepancy between the descriptions of 1828
and 1860 can be explained only by assuming that between those dates the picture, which had been only underpainted and
unsigned, had been brought to the later state. That additions were made in that time is proved by an X-ray photograph in the
archives of the Prado. This shows not only that the top layers of the paint date from the nineteenth century, but also that the
paint below differs from Raphael’s technique.
A provenance from the Casa Falconieri, Rome, 1696, which was not given by earlier writers, was introduced by Madrazo
about the middle of the nineteenth century. It was repeated in many later Prado catalogues and also, following Fischel, by
the present writer in the German edition of this catalogue in 1966. This provenance, however, must also be regarded as a
mystification and no longer appears in the museum guides published since the late 1950s (cf. Nueva guía completa del
Museo del Prado, Madrid, 1965, por el Marqués de Lozoya, and New Guide to the Prado Gallery, by Ovidio Cesar Paredes-Herrera). In addition to omitting this supposed provenance from Rome, these guides also omit any reference to the
master’s signature and to the date 1507. They now list the version in Madrid among the works of 1504.
Of the copies listed by Passavant (Pavia, Galleria Malaspina; London, Lord Northbrook; Cassel, Gallery (engraving by R.
Sadeler); and others) the only one of superior quality is that in a private collection in Württemberg. This panel comes from
the collections of Principe di Salerno, Naples, Conte Carlo di Castelbarco-Albani, Queen Marianne of Holland, Prince
Heinrich of Prussia, Schloss Reinhartshausen, Berlin, Graupe sale, about 1930. Datable first half of the sixteenth century
(repr. Catalogue ‘Meisterwerke aus baden-württembergischem Privatbesitz’, Stuttgart, 1958-9, Fig. 1).
Passavant 1839, II, p. 91 (Madrid a.); Passavant 1860, II, p. 55 (Madrid a.); Gruyer, 1869, III, p. 296 (Madrid
Page 12
Page 13
a.); Müntz, pp. 148, 194 (Madrid a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 267 (Madrid a.); Frizzoni, 1893, p. 318 (Madrid a.); Gronau, p. 46
(Madrid a.); Gamba, p. 50 (Madrid a.); A. L. Mayer 1930, p. 378 (r. Madrid picture); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (Madrid a.);
Viscount Lee of Fareham 1934, p. 3, with opinions from R. Fry, K. Clark, Fischel and Laurie (a. Richmond and Madrid
versions); Saxl, unpublished manuscript in the Warburg Institute (a. Richmond, Lee; r. Madrid version); Ortolani, p. 27
(Madrid a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 51 (Madrid a.), p. 359 (Madrid and Lee a.); Fischel 1962, p. 37 (Madrid and Lee a.); Brizio
1963, col. 226 (Madrid a.); Dussler 1966, p. 43 (a. Richmond, Lee and Madrid); Schug 1967, p. 470 (a. Richmond, Lee;
and r. Madrid).
St. George and the Dragon
Plate 31
Washington, National Gallery of Art, No. 26.
Wood: 29 x 21 cm.
Signed on the horse’s breaststrap: RAPHELLO V, and on the garter on the knight’s left knee: HONI.
PROVENANCE: Given by Duke Guidobaldo of Urbino to King Henry VIII in return for the Order of the Garter, conferred on
him in 1504; the panel was handed over by Count Baldassare Castiglione after 10 July 1506 (see C. H. Clough, ‘The Relations between the English and Urbino Courts 1474-1508’ in Studies in the Renaissance, XIV, 1967, p. 207). - 1627, in the
Collection of the Earl of Pembroke (according to an engraving by L. Vorsterman (Wurzbach, Niederl. Künstler-Lexikon
1910, p. 186, No. 70); 1639, King Charles I, London; Henry Hurault, Count Cheverny, Paris; Marquise d’Aumont, Paris;
after 1649, de la Noue Collection, Paris; Laurent Le Tessier de Montarsy, Paris; Charles d’Escoubleau, Paris; Marquis de
Sourdis, Paris; Crozat, Paris; Baron de Thiers, Paris; 1771, Empress Catherine II of Russia, St. Petersburg; Hermitage, Leningrad; 1937, Mellon Collection, New York.
The wrong spelling of the signature, RAPHELLO, suggests, as Schug correctly observed, that the name was added at a later
date, unless it is due to a restorer’s mistake. An examination of the original is required to clear up this point.
As Castiglione’s visit to the English Court was originally planned for February 1505, it is to be assumed that the picture
was painted in 1505, in the early part of Raphael’s Florentine period. It is clearly more mature than the version in the Louvre (which Lynch, 1962, p. 203 ff., wrongly identifies with the picture presented to Henry VII), particularly as regards the
composition: the intense integration of the figures in the landscape, the mastery of spatial relations and the new dramatic
treatment of the action. Rider, horse and dragon are no longer depicted parallel, but interrelated in a moment of greatest
concentration, the saint’s profile and the expressive horse’s head, turned outwards, are closely juxtaposed, and the spear is
aimed straight at the dragon, whose resistance relates him again to the attacker. The kneeling princess, in the middle
ground, is now also related to the scene: no longer fleeing in terror, as in the Louvre picture, her posture suggests deliverance, and the landscape round her strengthens this impression. In the Louvre version, however lively and brilliant, Raphael
had not been able to do without certain Quattrocento elements: the massive horse, the ornamental silhouette of the dragon,
the fragments of the spear, the variety of colours and the delight in the rendering of detail, all these show the artist’s relation to the previous century, whereas the composition of the picture in Washington is the fruit of his Florentine impressions.
The Uffizi possesses the cartoon (R.Z. II, No. 78) for the composition. The picture is in a very good state of preservation.
COPIES: formerly Comte d’Espagnac, Paris (according to Passavant, 1860, II, Note 1, the owner believed it to be original);
Lord Clifford, Irnham (Lincolnshire); seventeenth-century tapestry.
Lomazzo, Trattato (ed. Milan), p. 48 (a.); Passavant II, p. 57 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 139 (a.); Schmarsow 1882, p. 254 ff. (a.);
Cr.-Cav. I, p. 219 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 31 (a.); Gamba, p. 41 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a); Ortolani, p. 23 (a.); Fischel
1948, I, pp. 54, 358 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Volpe 1956, p. 12 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 62 (a.); Fischel 1962,
p. 39 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 224 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 133 (a.); Schug, Pantheon 1967, p. 476 (a.); Louden 1968, p. 43
ff. (a.).
Madonna enthroned with the Child, St. John the Baptist and St. Nicholas of Bari (Ansidei Madonna)
Plate 35
Wood: 209 x 148 cm.
Dated (on the seam of the Madonna’s cloak): MDV. Inscribed on the frieze above the throne: SALVE MATER CHRISTI.
PROVENANCE: Commissioned by Bernardino Ansidei for the chapel of St. Nicholas in San Fiorenzo, Perugia. 1764, in the
possession of Lord Robert Spencer; Duke of Marlborough, Blenheim Palace; 1885, in the National Gallery.
This picture is in very good condition. It is so closely related, in the design of the interior, the style of the throne and the
figure types, with the works painted by Raphael during his stay in Perugia that the invention and part of the execution must
date from the years 1503-4. The closest parallel for the architecture is found in Perugino’s Santa Conversazione in Marseilles, Museum (about 1500; ill. in Camesasca, Perugino, Pl. 161), while the central figure is reminiscent of the Madonna
Diotalevi of about 1502 (Berlin; Pl. 12), and the figure of St. Nicholas was certainly inspired by the San Ercolano in Signorelli’s altar-piece of 1484 for Perugia Cathedral (ill. in Dussler, Signorelli, Klassiker der Kunst, 1927, pl. 40); John the
Baptist, although
Page 13
Page 14
facing in the opposite direction, repeats the standing figure of St. Joseph in the Sposalizio of 1504 (Milan; Pl. 32). The construction of the high throne also points to Raphael’s work before his move to Florence (this is attested by the two altar
sketches in Paris and Frankfurt: R.Z. I, Nos. 45 and 52). However, as the picture is dated 1505 (the two small vertical lines
behind the MDV are only ornamental additions, unconnected with the numeral) one is led to speculate how far experience
gained in Florence has also gone into this work. In my opinion, Florentine influences are almost entirely restricted to the
technique, the soft modelling in the figures of the Madonna, the Child and St. Nicholas - the result of Raphael’s knowledge
of the creations of Leonardo. No drawing connected with the picture is known, but on a sheet with a Madonna and Child in
the Albertina (R.Z. I, No. 53) the type and composition are very similar to the central figure of the painting.
The altar-piece had predella panels, but only the Sermon of St. John in the Mersey Collection, Pulborough (Pl. 34), has survived. Passavant’s statement that all three predella panels represented incidents from the life of the Baptist was based on an
error; the two lost panels in fact depicted St. Nicholas saving seafarers in danger and the Marriage of the Virgin.
Lord Spencer commissioned a copy from Nicola Monti, which replaced the original picture in Perugia, San Fiorenzo, and is
still to be found there.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 323 (a.); Passavant II, p. 43 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 220 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 174 ff. (a.); Manzoni,
Boll. della R. Deputazione di storia patria per l’Umbria V, 1899, p. 627 ff. (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 308 (a.); Gronau, p. 32
(a.); Gamba, p. 40 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 43 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 46 f.,
358 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 21 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 49 (a.); Riedl 1957-9, p. 236 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 33 f. (a.);
Gould, London Cat. 1962, p. 151 ff (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 225 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 62 (a.).
St. John the Baptist Preaching
Plate 34
Pulborough (Sussex), Viscountess Mersey.
Wood: 26 x 53 cm.
PROVENANCE: S. Fiorenzo, Perugia; Lord Robert Spencer, London; Marquis of Lansdowne, Bowood.
This panel is the only known predella painting for the Pala Ansidei of 1505, London, National Gallery, No. 1171 (Pl. 35).
Although the character of the landscape points to an early date, and is closer to the predella paintings in Lisbon and Raleigh
(Pls. 23-4), the grouping, the individual figure types and the movement of the Children show a predominantly Florentine
influence, and suggest a date about 1505-6.
Passavant II, p. 44 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 221 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 188 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 358 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 21 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 53 (a.); Cat. Italian Art and Britain 1960, No.
341 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 33 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 225 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 109 (a.).
Madonna Enthroned with the Child and the Young St. John, SS. Peter, Cecilia, Paul and Catherine; in the lunette,
God the Father with two Angels (Pala Colonna)
Plate 43
New York, Metropolitan Museum, No. 16.30.
Wood: 169 x 168 cm. – altar-piece; 73 x 168 cm. – lunette.
PROVENANCE: Convent church of S. Antonio, Perugia; 1677, Conte Giovanni A. Bigazzini, Perugia; Principe Colonna,
Rome; 1798, Kings Francis I, Ferdinand II and Francis II of Sicily; Duca di Ripalda, Madrid; 1896, C. Sedelmeyer, Paris;
Pierpont Morgan, New York.
The predella panels, representing the Agony in the Garden, Christ carrying the Cross and the Pietà, are in New York, Metropolitan Museum (Pl. 39), in London, National Gallery (Pl. 42) and in Boston, Gardner Museum (Pl. 40); the pilaster panels in Dulwich (Pls. 38, 41).
This altar-piece combines distinct elements characteristic of Raphael’s work in Perugia with others due to the impressions
and experiences gained during his stay in Florence from the end of 1504. The earlier phase is attested by the fact that the
work is composed in two parts, as was conventional in Umbria, the terrace construction and the structure of the throne (cf.
the Pala dei Decemviri of 1495 in the Pinacoteca Vaticana; Camesasca, Perugino, pl. 62) with a canopy that may have
been Raphael’s own invention, and also by the Madonna with the two children (see the Madonna Diotalevi in Berlin; Pl.
12), the figure-types of the angels in the lunette - which are closely related to the figures in the Coronation of the Virgin,
Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana (Pl. 29), painted in 1503 - and the figure of God the Father, which can only have been painted
after Perugino’s version for the altar of S. Pietro in Perugia (now in Lyons, Musée des Beaux-Arts; Camesasca, Perugino,
Fig. 90); Florentine characteristics can already be seen, however, in the overall conception of the latter figure. The influence exerted by Florence (through Fra Bartolommeo and, to a certain extent, Leonardo) is most clearly visible in the two
monumental figures of SS. Peter and Paul and in the two female saints. In the spatial clarification of the figure group and in
the tighter composition, the altar-piece goes beyond the Pala Ansidei, London (Pl. 35) which was conceived shortly before.
It is not easy to determine how far the design progressed when Raphael first worked on it in Perugia, but there can be no
doubt that the final version can only have been undertaken on the basis of the Florentine experiences. The artist may have
completed the work when he was again in Perugia in December 1505.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 324 (a.); Rumohr, p. 513 (a.); Passavant II, p. 39 ff. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III,
Page 14
Page 15
p. 461 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 212 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 170 ff. (a.); J. P. Richter 1902, March, p. 83 ff. (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 308
(a.); Burroughs 1913, p. 2 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 23 (a.); Gamba, p. 39 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.);
Hetzer 1947, p. 43 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 46, 358 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 21 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 37 (a.); Riedl
1957-9, p. 236 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 73 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 33 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 225 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 90 (a.).
The Procession to Calvary
Plate 42
Wood: 24 x 85 cm.
PROVENANCE: Sant’Antonio, Perugia; 1663, Queen Christina of Sweden, Rome; Don Livio Odescalchi, Rome; 1721,
Galerie Orléans, Paris; 1798, George Hibbert, London; 1822, W. Miles, Leigh Court; 1884, Agnew, London; 1884, Lord
Windsor, London.
This work, with the Agony in the Garden in New York, Metropolitan Museum (Pl. 39) and the Pietà, Boston, Gardner Museum (Pl. 40) formed the predella of the Colonna altar-piece, New York, Metropolitan Museum (Pl. 43). The London panel
is superior in composition to the other two. The group of women on the left was copied from the Deposition in Florence,
Accademia, a work started by Filippino Lippi, but continued (from August 1505) by Perugino, who completed it in 1506.
This fact, first noted by Cavalcaselle, leads to the conclusion that this predella panel was painted in 1506 at the earliest, that
is, after Raphael’s stay in Perugia at the end of 1505. Fischel’s assumption that the figure of Christ carrying the Cross is
reminiscent of the Christ giving Communion in the picture by Justus of Ghent in Urbino is probably justified.
Richter and Gronau ascribe the execution of the predella to a pupil, but I can see no reason for doubting that it was painted
by Raphael himself.
COPIES: (formerly) Florence, Panciatichi Collection; London, Mr. Arthur Pollen (see Nicolson, The Spectator, 2 August
1946, p. 114).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 324 (a.); Passavant II, p. 41 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges II, p. 264 (a.); Müntz, p. 217 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I,
185 f. (a.); Richter, Art Journal 1902, March, p. 83 ff. (by Eusebio da San Giorgio); Gronau, p. 24 (by Eusebio da San
Giorgio); Gamba, p. 40 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 46, 358 (a.); Longhi
1955, May, p. 21 (a.); Camesasca, Plate 40, 41A (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 33 (a.); Gould, London Cat., 1962, p. 156 (a.); Brizio
1963, col. 225 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 64 (a.).
Pietà
Boston, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.
Wood: 24 x 28 cm.
Plate 40
PROVENANCE: 1663, Queen Christina of Sweden, Rome; 1689, Don Livio Odescalchi, Rome; 1721, Galerie Orléans, Paris;
Bryan, London; 1798, Bonnemaison, London; 1812, Baron Rechberg, Munich; Sir Thomas Lawrence, London; 1830, M.
A. Whyte, Barron Hill; M. H. Dawson, London; 1900, Mrs. Gardner, Boston.
Like the Agony in the Garden, New York, Metropolitan Museum (Pl. 39) and the Procession to Calvary, London, National
Gallery (Pl. 42) this is a panel of the predella to the Colonna altar-piece, New York, Metropolitan Museum (Pl. 43). The influence of Raphael’s teacher, Perugino, is still noticeable in the figures, but seems to be completely absent in the composition. A drawing for the figure of the dead Christ, formerly owned by Crozat (Recueil d’étampes d’après les plus beaux tableaux ... I, Paris 1729, p. 11 f., No. 27), can no longer be traced. In my view there is no reason to doubt that this little work
was executed by Raphael himself, although this was questioned by Richter and Gronau.
COPY with variations in: Perugia, Galleria Nazionale (store), by Claudio Inglesio Gallo, 1663.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 324 (a.); Passavant II, p. 42 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges II, p. 422 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 217 f. (a.); Cr.Cav. I, p. 185 f. (a.); Richter 1902, March, p. 83 ff. (by Eusebio da San Giorgio); Gronau, p. 25 (by Eusebio da San Giorgio); Gamba, p. 40 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 358 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 41
(a.); Freedberg, p. 69 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 225 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 11 (a.).
The Agony in the Garden
Plate 39
New York, Metropolitan Museum, No. 32.130.1
Wood: 24 x 29 cm.
PROVENANCE: Sant’Antonio, Perugia; 1663, Queen Christina of Sweden, Rome; Cardinal Decio Azzolini, Rome; Don
Livio Odescalchi, Rome; after 1721, Galerie Orléans, Paris; 1800, Lord Elgin, Edinburgh; 1833, Samuel Rogers, London;
1856, Lady Burdett-Coutts, London; 1922, Clarence Mackay, Roslyn, Long Island; since 1932, in the Metropolitan Museum.
Like the Pietà in Boston (Pl. 40), and the Procession to Calvary in London (Pl. 42), this work was a predella panel for the
Pala Colonna in New York (Pl. 43). The composition is preserved in a preparatory drawing in New York (R.Z. II, No. 66),
in which the motif of the kneeling figure of Christ is more accentuated; the comforting angel above to the right is there only
vaguely outlined, and connected with the body of the hill, whereas in the painting this figure is isolated and hovers in a
horizontal position.
Burroughs believed that this scene derived from the scene in the background of Perugino’s fresco of the Last Supper in Foligno (Florence, ex-convent of Onofrio). But the two works have no particularly close relationship, apart from the profilefigure of Christ kneeling and the arm of the angel carrying the
Page 15
Page 16
chalice; the grouping and postures of the disciples are quite different.
A second version appeared in the auction held in Cologne at the M. Lempertz art gallery on 14-15 March 1963 (No. 14, pl.
8). It is also painted on wood, but is slightly wider on the right side (24 x 30 cm.). This work is nearly identical to the New
York example but differs in the figure of the angel, which is more weakly modelled.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, pp. 322 ff.) speaks of another version, which the artist painted in 1507 for Guidobaldo of Urbino
and which Elisabetta gave to Camaldoli (Golzio pp. 15 f.). At the request of Guidobaldo II the picture was returned to the
ducal family in 1570 (Golzio pp. 165 ff.). About 1638 it was in the collection of Bartolomeo della Nave (see Waterhouse in
Italian Studies VII, 1952, p. 14). About the middle of the nineteenth century it was in the Fuller Maitland collection, Stanstead (Sussex), where it was recorded by Passavant (1860, II, p. 21). The picture has not been traced since.
PROVENANCE: Galerie Orleans, Paris; Grossi, Rome; E. Aus’m-Weerth, Bonn; Gittermann, Washington; Arthur Hauth,
Düsseldorf. Cr.-Cav. I, p. 185, Note (copy); Schubring, Cicerone XV, 1923, January (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 358 (replica;
according to the auction catalogue, Fischel had certified this version as original on 3 May 1936).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 324 (a.); Passavant II, p. 41 (r.); Müntz, p. 216 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 184 ff. (r.); J. P. Richter 1902,
March, p. 83 ff. (by Eusebio di San Giorgio); Gronau, with Plate 23 (by Eusebio di San Giorgio); Burroughs 1933, No. 3, p.
57 (a.); Gamba, p. 40 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 358 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate
40A (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 225 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 91 (a.).
A Franciscan Saint; St. Anthony of Padua
Plates 38, 41
London, Dulwich College Picture Gallery.
Wood: 26 x 16 cm. each, with additions on one side of each figure.
PROVENANCE: Sir Francis Bourgeois, London.
These two little panels were pilasters which framed the predella scenes of the Colonna altar-piece in New York (Pl. 43). It
is hardly possible to decide whether the execution is by Raphael. This is due to the somewhat battered condition of both
panels, the heavy restoration and retouching of the head of St. Anthony and the repainting of the lower part of the face of
the other Franciscan (this figure cannot represent St. Francis since no stigmata are shown). These paintings were already
considered workshop productions by Passavant, and Cavalcaselle agreed with his opinion. Raphael’s personal participation
was probably confined to a cursory sketch of the figures.
In L’Arte (1927) A. Venturi suggested that the single figure of St. Francis in the Dresden Gallery (Posse, Kat. Dresden I,
Die romanischen Länder 1929, p. 15, Fig. 39: under ‘School of Perugino’) might also have come from the frame for the
Colonna predella panels and that it might be the work of Raphael himself. This painting is similar to those in Dulwich in
composition, dimensions, and English provenance (1857) and also in the fact that it is a product of Perugino’s workshop;
the set would thus presumably have been completed by a fourth figure, now lost. Camesasca (I, p. 81) correctly rejects the
attribution to Raphael.
Passavant II, p. 42 (r.); Gruyer, Vierges II, p. 265, Note 3 (workshop); Müntz, p. 215 (a.); Gronau, sketch, p. 25 (a.); A.
Venturi 1927, p. 80 ff. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (in part a.); Gamba, p. 40 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp.
46, 358 (a.); Camesasca I, Plates 39a, b (in part a.); Fischel 1962, p. 33 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 25 (d.).
St. Mary Magdalene; St. Catherine
Plates 36-7
Florence, Conte Contini-Bonacossi.
Wood.
PROVENANCE: V. Camuccini, Rome.
These two paintings were probably the wings of an altar-piece whose central section may well have been a painting by Perugino (according to Passavant’s suggestion). Drawings are preserved for both panels: the drawing for Mary Magdalene is
in the Print Room in Berlin (R.Z. I, No. 56a: cut below the diagonal fold); the drawing for St. Catherine is in Paris, Baron
Edmond Rothschild (R.Z. I, No. 56) (formerly in the Habich Collection, Cassel). Like the Madonna with two Saints in Berlin-Dahlem (Pl. 9), both panels show the influence of Pintoricchio in the physical types and the composition. Gronau proposed a date of about 1504, but Fischel’s and Longhi’s dating about 1503 seems more probable.
Passavant II, p. 15 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 577 (a.); Fischel 1915, p. 92 ff. (a.); Fischel 1922, Heft 1-2, p. 13 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 20 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, p. 81 (a.); Dussler 1966, No.
47 (a.).
Madonna with the Child on her Lap, St. John the Baptist and a Little Boy (Madonna Terranuova)
Berlin-Dahlem, Gemäldegalerie No. 247A.
Wood: diameter 86 cm.
Plate 48
PROVENANCE: Duke of Terranuova, Genoa and Naples; 1845, Berlin.
The composition is found in a preliminary study preserved at Lille (R.Z. I, No. 54), in which the motif of the Christ Child
and that of the young St. John are already quite similar to those in the painting, while the Madonna is not only more graceful, but also reveals a yet more archaic character in the supporting gesture of her left hand; the two figures of the accomPage 16
Page 17
panying angels and that of St. Joseph, which are not included in the tondo, also represent the more conservative approach.
(By comparison with the damaged sheet in Lille, the Umbrian school drawing in Berlin (R.Z. I, text volume, Cat. No. 68,
Fig. 62) gives a more exact idea.) The version represented in the picture already shows Florentine influences in the monumental conception of the Virgin, the type of her head and the Leonardo-inspired gesture of her hand, and also in the symmetrical balancing of the composition of landscape as well as figures. For this reason the painting should probably be dated
about 1505, very close in time to the Madonna del Granduca in Florence (Pl. 49). Of the cartoon only a fragment with the
Madonna’s head has survived (Berlin; R.Z. III, No. 104).
Passavant II, p. 36 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 121 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 148 (a.); H. Grimm, 1882, p. 154 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I,
p. 180 f. (a.); Morelli 1893, p. 253 ff. (a.); Fischel 1922, Heft 1-2, p. 13 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 27 (a.); Gamba, p. 40 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 252 (a.); Ortolani, p. 22 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 358 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.);
Volpe 1956, p. 9 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 30 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 224 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 9 (a.).
Christ Blessing
Plate 33
Brescia, Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo, No. 150.
Wood: 30 x 25 cm.
PROVENANCE: Casa Mosca, Pesaro; Conte Paolo Tosio, Brescia.
The dates assigned to this fine early work range between 1502 and 1505. Passavant’s suggestion that it was painted about
1505 has been followed by most Italian scholars, whereas Gronau, Fischel, Schöne and the present writer prefer a date of
1502-3. One argument for an early date is the undulating outline of the forms, reminiscent of the Three Graces in Chantilly,
(Pl. 15), which was hardly painted later than 1503. The small size of the panel is also very rare in the Florentine period.
Gamba’s idea that the picture was painted in 1506 and presumably completed in about 1508 is quite unconvincing.
Rumohr, p. 516 (a.); Passavant II, p. 45 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges II, p. 428 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 187 f. (a.); Morelli 1893, pp.
250, 324, Note 1 (a.); Gronau, p. 13 (a.); Gamba, p. 40 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 19 (a.); Fischel 1948, I,
pp. 33, 357 (a.); Schöne 1950, p. 136, Note 43 (a.); Volpe 1956, p. 8 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 59 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 23
(a.); Dussler 1966, No. 14 (a.).
Portrait of Maddalena Doni
Plate 45
Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 59.
Wood: 63 x 45 cm.
PROVENANCE: Pietro Buono di Francesco Doni, Florence; Giovanni Battista Doni, Florence; Marquise de Villeneuve, Avi-
gnon; 1826, Grand Duke Leopold II of Tuscany, Florence.
Maddalena Doni, the daughter of Giovanni Strozzi, was born in 1489 and married Angelo Doni in 1503. Davidsohn raised
doubts about the identity of the sitter, but apart from Wölfflin, the only scholar to support his view in more recent days was
Ortolani, who considered this a portrait of Doni’s mother-in-law. This identification cannot be proved and would indeed be
very unusual since this and the following portrait are clearly pendants. Despite Cavalcaselle’s opinion it is now generally
agreed that the portrait of the lady, which is based on a portrait-drawing in Paris (R.Z. II, No. 80) greatly influenced by
Leonardo, was painted about 1506, after that of her husband.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 325 (a.); Rumohr, p. 531 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 52 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 208 ff. (a.); Morelli
1890, p. 61 (a.); Ridolfi 1891, pp. 431, 432, 433 (a.); Davidsohn 1900, p. 210 ff. (r.); Bayersdorfer, p. 98 f. (a.); Gronau, p.
40 (a.); Burkhalter, p. 13 ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 47 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 25 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 131
and Note 1 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 57, 359 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 70 (a.); Freedberg, p. 65
f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 41 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 28 (a.).
Portrait of Angelo Doni
Plate 44
Wood: 63 x 45 cm.
PROVENANCE: as previous picture.
As Fischel has pointed out, the portrait of Angelo Doni was executed before that of his wife, Maddalena. Despite Davidsohn’s objections ther can be no doubt as to the identity of its subject, Angelo Doni, who was born in 1476. The marriage
took place in 1503, but the portrait can hardly have been painted before 1505.
Vasari (ed. MiIanesi) IV, p. 325 (a.); Rumohr, p. 531 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 52 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 210 f. (a.); Ridolfi
1891, pp. 431, 432, 433 (a.); Davidsohn 1900, p. 210 ff. (r.); Bayersdorfer, p. 98 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 39 (a.); Burkhalter, p. 5
ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 47 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 25 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 57 f., 359 (a.); Longhi 1955,
May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 68 (a.); Freedberg, p. 65 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 41 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.);
Dussler 1966, No. 29 (a.).
Portrait of a Man with Long Hair and a Black Cap
Plate 22
New York, Glens Falls, Hyde collection.
Canvas: 42 x 33 cm.
PROVENANCE: Whitney Collection, New York; Thos. Agnew, London.
This portrait, which is known to the author only through a photograph, shows formal elements
Page 17
Page 18
characteristic of the end of the Florentine period. The head is reversed from that in the portrait of Angelo Doni in the Pitti
(Pl. 44). Certain hardnesses in the modelling (especially in the chin and mouth) cannot be overlooked, but I include this
portrait in the master’s œuvre, although with some reservation.
Fischel 1948, I, p. 362 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 94 (d.).
Portrait of a Pregnant Woman (La Gravida)
Plate 46
Wood: 66 x 52 cm.
PROVENANCE: Palazzo Pitti, Inv. 1710, Florence.
Although formerly ascribed by Cavalcaselle to Ridolfo Ghirlandaio, this picture is now unanimously recognized to be the
work of Raphael. It dates from about 1506 and was probably executed shortly after the portrait of Maddalena Doni in Florence (Pl. 45). Filippini attempted to identify the subject as Emilia Pia da Montefeltre - see the portrait in Baltimore, Epstein
Collection (p. 56) - but this theory has rightly been rejected by subsequent writers.
A. M. Brizio was right in emphasizing the perfect colouring of this portrait, which proves that Raphael excelled in this respect even before he moved to Rome and that the influence of Sebastiano del Piombo was not, after all, so considerable.
But these merits of the portrait in the Pitti should also make clear that the Lady with the Unicorn in the Galleria Borghese,
Rome (p. 64) can no longer be attributed to Raphael.
Passavant II, p. 67 (a.); Morelli 1890, p. 60 (a.); Ridolfi 1891, p. 433 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 473 (by Ridolfo Ghirlandaio); Gronau, p. 38 (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 217 (a.); Gamba, p. 47 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 26 (a.); Fischel 1948,
I, pp. 59, 359 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 71 (a.); Freedberg, p. 207 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 43 (a.);
Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 37 (a.); Wagner 1969, p. 67 (r.).
Portrait of a Woman (La Muta)
Plate 47
Urbino, Palazzo Ducale.
Wood: 64 x 48 cm.
PROVENANCE: From 1710, in the Palazzo Pitti, Florence; Poggio a Cajano; 1773, in the Uffizi Tribuna, Florence.
This beautifully preserved portrait has been ascribed to Raphael since Passavant, and recent scholars - including E. von
Liphart and Fischel - have increasingly confirmed this claim; but other important authorities, such as Berenson, Wölfflin
and Offner (followed by Suida) have attributed the work to Perugino. Opinions also vary as to the dating. Offner dated it
from about 1500, Gamba and Longhi from the beginning of the Florentine period, von Liphart, Fischel and Volpe from
about 1507. I think that this excellent picture belongs to the stage of development of about 1506. The comparison drawn by
Wölfflin between this portrait and Perugino’s Francesco delle Opere of 1494 in the Uffizi (Camesasca, Perugino, Fig. 56)
seems to me to show up differences rather than affinities, while the detailed analysis undertaken by Ortolani makes clear
how strongly the ‘epurazione in senso fiorentino’ is in evidence. Very significant is his reference to the hands, in which
memories of Roger can be discerned (a point which had already occurred to the present author independently of Ortolani).
From this fact one is led to speculate whether there may have been a renewed meeting in Urbino in 1506, and the sitter may
have been a member of the Urbino court. But Filippini’s suggested identification as Elisabetta Gonzaga is not convincing.
Rumohr, p. 532 (d.); Passavant II, p. 54 (a.); Müntz, p. 224 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 473 (r.); Morelli 1890, p. 56 f. (r.); Ridolfi
1891, p. 428 ff. (r.); v. Liphart 1912, p. 194 (a.); Gronau p. 37 (a.); A. Venturi, Storia VII/2, p. 847 f. (a.); Filippini 1925, p.
215 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 440 (by Perugino); Gamba, p. 38 (a.); Offner 1934, p. 253 (by Perugino); Suida 1934-1936, p.
164, Note 2 (by Perugino); Ortolani, p. 21 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 59 f., 234, 359 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe
1956, March, p. 10 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 93 (a); Freedberg, p. 77 (Bugiardini); Fischel 1962, p. 43 f. (a.); Brizio 1963,
col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 128 (a.); Wagner 1969, p. 37 (r.).
Madonna with the Child on her Arm (Madonna del Granduca)
Plate 49
Wood: 84 x 55 cm.
PROVENANCE: Carlo Dolce, Florence; since 1799, Grand Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany, Florence.
When Rumohr saw this picture in Würzburg, where the Grand Duke of Tuscany kept residence during the Napoleonic rule,
he pointed out that it had deteriorated, especially the flesh tones in the Madonna’s face. His assumption that, as certain echoes of Perugino are still to be found in the conception, the picture may have been painted during Raphael’s first, short stay
in Florence (1504-5) must be qualified in so far as Florentine influences - especially the unmistakable Leonardesque character evident in the Madonna’s face and in the carefully differentiated lighting of the whole figure - predominate over the
Umbrian tradition and point to a consistent advance from the Madonna Terranuova in Berlin (Pl. 48). Although the
Madonna del Granduca reminds one undeniably of the Madonna Tempi (Munich, Pl. 57), it must be at least two years earlier than the picture in Munich, and Putscher’s assumption that the two pictures are related as ‘pendants’ is without foundation. Whether the dark background is original will not be known until the painting has been X-rayed. Provision was made
for a landscape background in a drawing preserved in the Uffizi (R.Z. III, No. 105), where the
Page 18
Page 19
choice between tondo and rectangular format is still left open; and in France Passavant saw a Florentine copy (now lost) in
which a landscape was also included. Fischel is now more reserved with regard to his earlier assumption (1935, p. 435), but
Schöne is convinced that the painting in the Pitti contained a landscape. Putscher is quite wrong in assuming that Raphael’s
use of colour might have been influenced by Antonello da Messina.
Date: 1505.
Rumohr, pp. 529, 530 (a.); Passavant II, p. 35 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 26 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 171 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p.
193 ff. (a.); Morelli 1890, p. 59 f. (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 308 (a.); Gronau, p. 28 (a.); Gamba, p. 38 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p.
480 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 251 f. (a.); Ortolani, p. 22 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 38 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 96 (a.); Fischel 1948, I,
pp. 47 ff., 358 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Putscher, pp. 46, 48, 182, 214 ff. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 42 (a.); Schöne,
p. 35 and Fig. 57 (a.); Freedberg, p. 63 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 34 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 36
(a.).
The Holy Family with St. Elizabeth and the Young St. John (Canigiani Madonna)
Plates 55-6
Munich, Alte Pinakothek, No. 476.
Wood: 131 x 107 cm.
On the neckline of the Virgin’s dress are the words: RAPHAEL. VRBINAS
PROVENANCE: Domenico Canigiani, Florence; 1598, in the tribuna of the Uffizi, Florence; 1691, presented by Cosimo III
to Elector Johann Wilhelm of the Palatinate, Düsseldorf; 1806, Hofgarten-Galerie, Munich; 1836, Pinakothek, Munich.
In its present form the composition lacks the balance originally provided by a glory of angels on clouds in the top corners,
four cherubim at the left and two at the right. Owing to early damage, these were already painted over when the picture was
in Düsseldorf. The original composition is seen in an engraving by Bonasone (B.XV, p. 128, No. 65), a copy drawing in Milan, Ambrosiana (Fischel, Versuch No. 71), the copy made by Biagio Pupini either from a drawing or from the painting
(Oxford; Parker, Cat. II, No. 499, R.Z. III, text, Fig. 137) and in the old copies in Florence (Palazzo Rinuccini; Galleria
Corsini (formerly); the sacristy of the church of San Frediano in Castello). A preparatory study for the group of the Virgin,
St. Elizabeth and the two children is in Windsor (R.Z. III, No. 130). The copy drawings in Paris (R.Z. III, No. 131), Chantilly (R.Z. III, No. 132) and Vienna (R.Z. III, No. 133) reproduce lost studies for sections of the picture. A drawing for the
general composition, as an upright oval, is in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 40; R.Z. III, No. 133a); this can be regarded
as copy of a lost design by Raphael, shortly before he arrived at the final concept. A Raphael drawing in London (PounceyGere Cat., No. 18) of a seated Madonna with the blessing Child on her lap, supported by an angel, is wrongly connected by
Fischel with the Canigiani Madonna (R.Z. III, No. 134), for none of the motifs in this composition correspond closely with
those in the picture. In Hamburg (R.Z. III, No. 133b) there is a single study which Fischel suggests may represent the profile head of the young St. John, and a drawing for the head of one of the cherubim (Figs. 140 and 142 in the text for R.Z. III,
No. 133b).
In style and technique this painting seemed to me formerly datable about 1507, as already proposed by Gronau; but Oertel
may be right in dating it from about 1505, for it is closely related, in the draperies, the figure volumes and the colours, to
the Holy Family in Vaduz (Pl. 30), which is dated 1504 and can be regarded as one of the earliest works of the Florentine
period.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 325 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 68 ff. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 282 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 197 f. (a.);
Cr.-Cav. I, p. 231 ff. (a.); Morelli 1891, p. 145 f. (a.); Voll 1914, II, pp. 88 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 47 (a.); Gamba, p. 52 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 27 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 40 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 97 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 51 f.,
359 (a.); Camesasca I, p. 79 (a.); Oertel, ltalienische Malerei bis zum Ausgang der Renaissance. Meisterwerke der Pinakothek Munich 1960, p. 31 f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 69 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 37 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966,
No. 83 (a.).
Madonna seated with the Child on her Arm (so-called Small Cowper Madonna)
Plate 50
Wood: 60 x 44 cm.
PROVENANCE: Private collection, Urbino; 1780, Earl Cowper, Panshanger; 1917, Joseph Widener (Philadelphia).
Most scholars date this work about 1505 and connect it closely with the Madonna del Granduca in Florence (Pl. 49); the
Umbrian features visible in the latter work have now disappeared. There is good reason for supposing that the church in the
right background is intended to represent San Bernardino dei Zoccoland near Urbino, although it is by no means faithful to
the real building. Gamba dates the picture 1506 and suggests that it might have been commissioned by the monks of that
foundation. - The cartoon in the Uffizi (Fischel, Versuch No. 47) is an exact copy.
COPY: now in private ownership in America, formerly in Florence, Lombardi collection, and before that in Florence, Casa
Peruzzi. Wood: 60 x 44 cm. Although this example had already been declared a copy by Passavant (1860, p. 26) and Cavalcaselle (I, p., Note), G. M. Richter attempted to prove that it was a replica by Raphael himself (Burl. M. LXVII, 1935, p. 202
ff.). Fischel seems also to have adopted Richter’s view (1948, I, p. 358: replica), but it has not been accepted by other
scholars (Camesasca I, p. 84. (r.)).
Passavant II, p. 37 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 37 ff.
Page 19
Page 20
(a.); Müntz, p. 176 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 196 (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 308 (a.); Fischel in Valentiner, Das unbekannte Meisterwerk, Berlin 1930, No. 19 (a.); Gronau, p. 29 (a.); Gamba, p. 49 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 28 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 54, 358 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 43 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 39 (a.); Brizio 1963,
col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 135 (a.).
Madonna and the Child with the Young St. John (Madonna of the Meadow)
Plate 54
Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, No. 628.
Wood: 113 x 88 cm.
Dated, on the neckline of the Madonna’s dress:
M.C.V.I.
PROVENANCE: Casa Taddeo Taddei, Florence; 1661-3, Archduke Ferdinand Charles, lnnsbruck; 1663, Ambras Castle;
1773, Belvedere, Vienna.
The fact that this picture comes from the Taddei collection in Florence is vouched for by Baldinucci, who mentioned it
while it was still there; it must therefore be one of the two paintings given to Taddeo Taddei by Raphael, according to Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 321). The picture is in a very good state of preservation. No absolute certainty is possible as to the
date of 1506, since the last figure of the inscription is separated from the V by a circular ornament; the reading given in the
latest catalogue (1965) is 1505, and this may well be correct as the picture contains no stylistic features which contradict
this date. Preliminary studies for the composition and for the Children are in Vienna (R.Z. III, Nos. 115 and 116) and in
Chatsworth (R.Z. III, No. 117) and for the whole group in Oxford (R.Z. III, No. 118); the final version is preserved in the
red chalk drawing in New York, Metropolitan Museum (J. Bean, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bulletin XXIII, 1964,
Summer). We have three pictures in which Raphael treated this composition: the present picture, the Madonna del Cardellino in the Uffizi (Pl. 51) and the Belle Jardinière in Paris (Pl. 58). Of these, the Madonna of the Meadow is the earliest: on
the one hand, the figure group is still somewhat loose and while the artist tries out a pyramidal composition it looks as if the
kneeling St. John were an addition to the two other figures; on the other hand, in spite of a tendency towards emphasizing
volumes, flat areas are still relatively pronounced, more so than in the other versions. Raphael was here under the spell of
Leonardo’s famous cartoon of the Virgin and Child with St. Anne - not so much the version which is now in the National
Gallery, London, as another version, now lost, which Leonardo used later, in 1508, for the painting in the Louvre. This is
evident in the Virgin’s lowered arms, in her slightly sloping shoulders, and in her inclined head and oval face, which is
doubtless derived from the type of Leonardo’s St. Anne.
Swoboda, in his recent detailed appreciation of the picture in Vienna, also examined the character of the landscape. He believes that the Madonna del Cardellino was painted before the Madonna of the Meadow.
There is a COPY in Verona, S. Tommaso Cantuariense, Sacristy.
Baldinucci, Notizie VI, p. 230 (a.); Passavant II, p. 49 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 203 ff. (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 308 (a.); Gronau, p.
34 (a.); Gamba, p. 48 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 24 f. (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 38 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp.
50, 358 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 97 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 67 (a.); Freedberg, pp. 65, 66, 67
(a.); Fischel 1962, p. 36 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 137 (a.); Swoboda 1969, p. 180 ff. (a.).
Madonna and Child with the Young St. John holding a Goldfinch (Madonna del Cardellino)
Plate 51
Wood: 107 x 77 cm.
PROVENANCE: According to Vasari this painting was executed for Lorenzo Nasi, Florence, and restored after suffering
heavy damage when a house collapsed on 12 November 1547; Cardinal Carlo Medici, Florence; since 1666, in the Uffizi.
A restoration of the painting after 1547 was undertaken by Michele di Ridolfo Ghirlandaio. Preliminary studies are preserved in Oxford (R.Z. III, Nos. 112 and 114); copies of lost original drawings are in Oxford and Chatsworth (R.Z. III, Nos.
113 and 113a). The composition has evolved logically from the Madonna of the Meadow of 1505 (Vienna; Pl. 54), which is
still characterized by relatively large areas and a somewhat loose arrangement of the figures. In the Madonna del Cardellino, which can hardly be later than 1506, the artist achieves the concentration of a tightly-knit group, an obvious plasticity
and a beautiful contrapposto of the Virgin’s figure, and thus attains a level of classical harmony, in which the landscape
also pays its part. The sources of inspiration were Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo; the former’s cartoon of the Virgin
with St. Anne influenced the form of the Virgin, the latter’s Madonna sculpture in Bruges the motif of the Christ Child. But
in each case Raphael created freely and independently, transmuting the concrete impression into profound personal insight.
COPY: Geneva, Musée d’Art et d’Histoire No. CR 127 (formerly Marquis de Campana Coll.). Wood: 88 x 66 cm. Attrib-
uted by Berenson to Innocenzo da Imola, and by Ragghianti to F. Granacci. - A copy from the time of the Nazarenes in
Winterthur, Robert Biedermann-Mantel Collection; sold by Fischer, Lucerne, 26 June 1964, No. 1090.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 321 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 534 (a.); Passavant II, p. 48 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 146 ff. (a.);
Müntz, p. 158 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 200 ff. (a.); Morelli 1890 (p. 45 (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 308 (a.);
Page 20
Page 21
Gronau, p. 35 (a.); Gamba, p. 49 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 25 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 38 ff. (a.); Wölfflin
1948, p. 96 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 49 f., 359 (a.); Salvini Cat. 1952, p. 54 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca
I, Plate 63 (a.); Freedberg, p. 66 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 36 f. (a.); Wittkower 1963, No. 3, p. 163, Note 34 (a.); Brizio 1963,
col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 41 (a.).
Seated Madonna with the Child on her Lap (Madonna Orléans)
Plate 52
Chantilly, Musée Condé, No. 39.
Wood: 29 x 21 cm.
PROVENANCE: at the beginning of the eighteenth century, Crozat, Paris; Passart, Paris; Decamp, Paris; Galerie Orléans,
Paris; Delaborde de Mereville, Brussels; 1798, Hibbert, London; Vernon, London; Delmarre, London; Aguado, London;
1843, Fr. Delessert, Paris; 1869, Duc d’Aumale.
Fischel and Longhi dated this work 1505, immediately after the Small Cowper Madonna (Pl. 50). In view of the stylistic
closeness to the Madonna Jardinière in Paris (Pl. 58), which is not earlier than 1507, I prefer a date of 1505-6. Gronau suggested 1507 for this work and this date has been accepted by Gamba and other scholars. Whether the curtain and the still
life in the background were painted by Raphael remains to be clarified; Passavant (1860, II, p. 45) explained these accessories as later additions in the manner of D. Teniers.
Passavant II, p. 59 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, pp. 53, 58, Note (a.); Müntz, p. 178 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 223 f. (a.); Gronau,
p. 44 (a.); Gamba, p. 51 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 26 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 96 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p.
359 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 56 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 19 (a.).
Kneeling Madonna with the Child and the Young St. John (Esterházy Madonna)
Plate 61
Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, No. 71.
Wood: 29 x 21 cm.
On the scroll held by St. John is the inscription: ECCE AGNVS DEI.
PROVENANCE: Gift from Pope Clement XI to Empress Elisabeth of Austria, Vienna; Prince Kaunitz, Vienna; Prince Es-
terházy, Vienna (before 1812).
Apart from the landscape at the left, the picture is underpainted only. The composition of the figures dates certainly still
from the Florentine period but it is uncertain whether the picture was executed as early as 1505, as Longhi believes. The architectural elements (which are still lacking in the Uffizi cartoon, R.Z. III, No. 126) are definitely Roman and suggest that
Raphael may have painted this section at the beginning of his stay in Rome. See also the landscape sketch in Weimar (R.Z.
IV, No. 203) showing the ruins of the Forum of Nerva, which are fitted into the left side of the painting. Gamba, Gronau,
Ortolani and Suida date the work from this period and Fischel is inclined to the same view.
COPIES: formerly in Frankfurt, Baron Wendelstadt; Milan, Ambrosiana (unfinished); Florence, Uffizi: this work is unfinished and the figure of St. John is omitted from the composition.
Passavant II, p. 92 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 191 (a.); Müntz, p. 207 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 291 ff. (a.); Frimmel, Galeriestudien 1,1892, p. 217 (a.); Suida 1920, p. 288 (a.); Gronau, p. 46 (a.); Gamba, p. 54 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani,
p. 31 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 126, 359 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 55 (a.); Masterpieces from
Budapest, London 1960, Plate 8, good colour reproduction; Freedberg, p. 486 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 94 (a.); Brizio 1963,
col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 15 (a.).
Madonna with the Child on her Arm (Tempi Madonna)
Plate 57
Munich, Alte Pinakothek, No. H.G.796.
Wood: 75 x 51 cm.
PROVENANCE: Casa Tempi, Florence; 1829-35, King Ludwig I of Bavaria.
Vasari’s observation (IV, p. 321) that Raphael painted two works for Taddeo Taddei (‘che tengono della maniera prima di
Pietro [Perugino], e dell’altra che poistudiando apprese, molto migliore, come si dirà . . .’) was cited by Rumohr, who considered the Granduca Madonna in the Palazzo Pitti (Pl. 49) to be representative of the earlier trend and the Madonna Tempi
to show more strongly the effect of Florentine experiences; but he did not date either picture later than 1504-5. Putscher,
like Fischel, dates the Granduca and Tempi Madonnas from 1505, and considers them ‘companion pieces’. The latter theory seems in no way convincing, for the colouring and technique of the Tempi Madonna suggest that it was painted at least
two years later; Gamba, Longhi, Ortolani and Oertel also support a date of about 1507. It is immediately apparent that the
composition was influenced by Donatello, but it is hardly likely that Raphael had in mind a particular sculpture. The closest
comparison is with the lunette relief of ‘St. Anthony handing the speaking babe to his Mother’ in Padua (cf. H. W. Janson,
The Sculpture of Donatello, Princeton 1957, I, Pl. 302), a fact already noticed by A. Schmarsow (Donatello, Breslau 1886,
p. 46, Note 1).
The Madonna Tempi is one of the finest of Raphael’s Florentine Madonnas. It has already all the characteristics of the classical style: the perfectly balanced composition, the deeply felt bond between mother and child, and the enchanting harmony
of colours, which permeates the whole of the picture.
COPY: according to Cavalcaselle a picture in private
Page 21
Page 22
possession in Rome, dated 1510 and signed R.S.; attributed to Sogliani.
Bocchi e Cinelli, p. 282 (a.); Rumohr, p. 529 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 81 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 43 ff. (a.); Müntz, pp.
152, 176 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 211 f. (a.); Morelli 1891, p. 143 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 30 (a.); Gamba, p. 49 (a.); Berenson 1932,
p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 28 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 38 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 53, 358 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 96 (a.); Longhi
1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Putscher, pp. 42, 46, 182 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 95 (a.); R. Oertel, Italienische Malerei bis zum Ausgang der Renaissance. Meisterwerke der Alten Pinakothek, Munich 1960, p. 32 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 39 (a.); Brizio 1963,
col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 84 (a.).
Madonna with the Child and the Young St. John (La belle Jardinière)
Plate 58
Wood: 122 x 80 cm.
Signed and dated on the seam of the Madonna’s mantle: RAPHAELLO VRB. MD VII
PROVENANCE: Filippo Sergardi, Siena; King Francis I of France, Fontainebleau; King Louis XIV, Versailles.
Vasari mentioned a picture intended for Siena, which Raphael left unfinished when he left Florence in 1508, and which was
entrusted to Ridolfo Ghirlandaio for completion. In his Vita of the latter artist (VI, p. 534) the writer describes the work specifically as a Madonna and refers to a ‘panno azzurro’ which still required finishing. This can refer only to the drapery on
the right and to the colouring of the cloak, a fact already pointed out by Cavalcaselle, although disputed by DurandGréville. - Preliminary studies for the complete composition are in Chantilly and Paris (R.Z. III, Nos. 119 and 120), and a
study for the young St.John in Oxford (R.Z. III, No. 121); the cartoon for the picture is in Holkham Hall (R.Z. III, Nos. 1235).
The Madonna Jardinière, rightly dated 1507, shows the final variation of a theme which the artist had treated earlier in the
Madonna of the Meadow of 1505 (Vienna; Pl. 54) and developed in the Madonna del Cardellino (Florence, Uffizi; Pl. 51).
Although the picture in the Uffizi reveals all the characteristics of the classical style in its general composition, the Jardinière achieves an even stronger centralization: the Virgin’s body is turned sideways, the motif of the isolated hand holding
the book has been abandoned, and a new solution has been adopted for the integration of the two children. In the Madonna
del Cardellino they had indeed been related to each other closely and very effectively, but had not been linked to the Virgin; here the meeting of the eyes and gestures of Virgin and Child convey also a spiritual contact. Some other subtle nuances have also been reserved for this final version of the subject: the silhouette of the group is softer and smoother, the
curves of the Child’s body echo the neckline of the Virgin’s bodice, and the gentle arc of the landscape suggests a kind of
niche. The rounded top is an effective element of the composition.
COPIES: Avignon, Musée; Genoa, Museo Civico; Dresden, Gemäldegalerie, No. 96; London, Victoria and Albert Museum;
Windsor Castle; The Hague, Galerie Cramer (formerly Zürich, private collection): this work was wrongly accepted as
original by Nicodemi (L’Arte LV, 1956, p. 11 ff. with numerous reproductions).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 328 (a.); Passavant II, p. 86 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 155 ff. (a.); Müntz, pp. 156, 169 f.,
191 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 268 ff. (a.); Durand-Gréville, Musées et monuments de France 1907, II, p. 50 (a.); Gronau, p. 43
(a.); Gamba, p. 50 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 26 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 38 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 51,
359 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 97 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 86 (a.); Freedberg, p. 67 f. (a.); Fischel
1962, p. 37 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 96 (a.).
The Holy Family
Plate 53
Leningrad, Hermitage, No. 90.
PROVENANCE: Duc d’Angoulême, Paris; 1653, M. Barroy, Paris; Crozat, Paris; 1771, Empress Catherine II.
The history of this picture cannot be traced back beyond the seventeenth century. Passavant, followed by Milanesi (Vasari
IV, p. 322, Note 5), Gamba and the Hermitage catalogue, identified it with one of the two small Madonnas painted by
Raphael for Guidobaldo da Montefeltre during his stay in Urbino in 1506. This theory is contradicted by the 1631 Urbino
inventory (see Gotti, La Galleria di Firenze 1872, p. 333) and had already been rejected by Cavalcaselle; but the latter’s
suggestion that this was the second of the pictures intended for T. Taddei (Vasari, ed. Milanesi IV, p. 321) is equally untenable, for Vasari gives no details as to the subject of this work. From the physical types of the Madonna and Child, the painting is not incompatible with Raphael’s works of about 1506-7, but its state of preservation is so poor (it was extensively restored even when in the Angoulême collection) that the question whether it is an original work or a copy can hardly be decided.
Its authenticity was denied by Gruyer and Viardot; Müntz had to admit serious doubts, while among more recent scholars
L. Venturi rejected it and Berenson no longer included it in his Lists. (In Fischel’s monograph, 1948, I, p. 359, the painting
is indeed mentioned, but this may be due to the editor, O. Kurz, for it is not included in Fischel’s article on Raphael in ThB. Kstl. Lex. XXIX.) However, as the compositional idea agrees with works of Raphael’s Florentine period, the picture is
catalogued here even though its status has not been determined.
Page 22
Page 23
Passavant II, p. 58 (a.); Müntz, p. 205 f. (d.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 272 ff. (r.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 224 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 36 (a.);
Gamba, p. 41 f. (a.); Ortolani, p. 25 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 57 (a.); Meisterwerke aus der Eremitage, Malerei des 14. bis
16. Jahrhunderts, Plate 20 (a.; with Russian bibliography); Dussler 1966, No. 55 (invention a.).
The Holy Family under the Palm Tree
Plate 59
Duke of Sutherland (on loan to Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland).
Wood, transferred to canvas. Tondo, diameter: 140 cm.
PROVENANCE: Contesse Chivemi, Paris; Marquise d’Aumont, Paris; De la Noué, Paris; President Tambonneau, Paris; Gale-
rie Orléans, Paris; 1798, Earl of Bridgewater, London.
A drawing in Paris (R.Z. III, No. 139) shows the seated Madonna and the Child reaching out to his foster-father in a different position to that adopted in the final version; in softness of expression the drawing is superior to the painting, while the
head of Joseph, drawn in three-quarter profile at the top left of the sheet, is also better than that in the picture.
Fischel correctly dated this painting from the end of Raphael’s Florentine period: the type of the Child is very close to that
in the Colonna Madonna in Berlin (Pl. 62), and the Virgin’s profile and the cut of her dress are closely related to the tondo
of Hope in the predella of the Borghese Entombment (Pl. 66). The dates suggested by other scholars (1505 is the earliest)
are not acceptable. Gruyer, Gamba and Camesasca believe that this picture is identical with the second work for T. Taddei
mentioned without further description by Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 321) - a theory already proposed by Passavant and
Milanesi, but incapable of proof. It is much more probable that this painting is that described in the 1623 Pesaro inventory
as: ‘Christo, Madonna, San Gioseffe et ornamento a foggia di specchio’ (Gronau, Documenti, p. 77), as suggested by
Cavalcaselle (p. 226).
According to Félibien (Entretiens, I, p. 228), a copy of this work was painted for the church of Port-Royal by Philippe de
Champagne.
Passavant II, p. 51 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 259 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 194 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 225 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 45 (a.);
Gamba, p. 50 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 253 (a.); Ortolani, p. 26 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 53, 359 (a.);
Camesasca I, Plate 58 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 38 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 67 (a.).
Madonna with the Child lying on her Lap (The Bridgewater Madonna)
Plate 60
PROVENANCE: Seignelay, Paris; Galerie Orléans, Paris; since 1798, Duke of Bridgewater, London.
From the formal point of view this composition is closely related to the Colonna Madonna in Berlin (Pl. 62) and dates from
Raphael’s late Florentine period, probably from about 1508. The motif of the briskly moving Child goes back to Michelangelo’s tondo of the Taddei Madonna in Royal Academy, London. There are preparatory sketches in London (R.Z. III, No.
109) and in Vienna (R.Z. III, No. 111); the drawing most similar to this picture is that in the Uffizi (R.Z. VIII, No. 359), in
which the composition is reversed. In an anonymous work entitled Madonna Laudomia, published in Turin, 1965, an example in an Italian private collection was claimed to be the original; in fact, however, it has all the characteristics of a copy.
Another version, with traces of a landscape at the top right, belongs to Mrs. M. L. Overbeck, San Diego, Cal.; this was published, as an original, by Geoffrey Willis in The Connoisseur, February 1967, p. 133.
COPIES: Florence, Marchese Torrigiani; London, National Gallery, No. 929; Naples, Museo Nazionale; Rome, Galleria Ro-
spigliosi: Dutch (?), about 1550.
Passavant II, p. 144 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 90 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 390 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 273 ff. (a.); Cook 1900, p. 415
(a.); Gronau, p. 50 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 25 (a.); Hetzer 1947, pp. 40, 41 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 96
(a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 127, 359 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 84 (a.); Freedberg, p. 69 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 94 f. (a.); Brizio
1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 68 (a.).
The Entombment
Plate 67
Wood: 184 x 176 cm.
Signed and dated (on the stone step on the left):
RAPHAEL. / VRBINAS. / M.D.VII.
PROVENANCE: S. Francesco, Cappella Baglioni, Perugia; 1608, in the possession of Pope Paul V, who presented it to Cardinal Scipione Borghese, Rome; 1809-15, in Paris under Camillo Borghese.
This picture was commissioned by Atalanta Baglioni in memory of her son Grifone, who had been murdered in Perugia in
the middle of July 1500. Raphael probably received the commission in the middle of 1506, and the work was finished in
1507, but at that time the artist had not yet received his payment, for he asked his colleague D. Alfani ‘che voi solecitiate
madona Atala(n)te che me manda li denari ...’ (This note, written in his own hand, is found on the back of a drawing of the
Holy Family in Lille (R.Z. III, Nos. 161, 162, with a facsimile); see Golzio, p. 15, and Camesasca, Raffaello Sanzio. Tutti
gli scritti, p. 12 ff.) The progress of the idea from its genesis to the final realization can be followed in a series of preparatory studies. At first the artist planned a Pietà containing many figures, such as Perugino’s painting for S.
Page 23
Page 24
Chiara in Florence (1495), now in the Galleria Pitti (Camesasca, Perugino, pl. 67). Drawings for this composition exist in
Oxford (R.Z. IV, No. 164) and in Paris (R.Z. IV, No. 168), and detail studies for the group of mourning women on the right
are preserved in London (R.Z. IV, No. 165) and Oxford (R.Z. IV, No. 166); see also the study for the dead Christ in Oxford
(R.Z. IV, No. 167). Subsequently, Raphael transformed the scene into a Deposition, whose separate stages are shown in the
compositional sketch R.Z. IV, No. 170 (lost), and the sketches in London (R.Z. IV, No. 171) and Florence (R.Z. IV, No.
175). Detail studies for this version also exist in Oxford (R.Z. IV, Nos. 173, 174), Florence (R.Z. IV, No. 176), Paris, Lugt
Collection (R.Z. IV, No. 177) and London (R.Z. IV, Nos. 178, 179). The magnificent study of an old man (London, R.Z. IV,
No. 172), overwhelmingly influenced by Michelangelo’s statue of St. Matthew in Florence, may have been intended for the
bearer at Christ’s head, but was not used in the final composition. The head of St. John from the J. P. Richter Collection
(Fig. 10 in the article by Irma Richter, GBA 1945) and the verso, with the figure of a griffin (Fig. 37), can hardly be original. The cartoon mentioned by Vasari has not been preserved.
Influences frequently quoted as sources for the dramatic action depicted in this picture include Mantegna’s engraving of the
Deposition (B.3.), memories of Signorelli’s paintings in Borgo San Sepolcro, Cortona Cathedral and the Urbino ducal palace (see the reproductions in Signorelli, Klassiker der Kunst, pp. 130, 124 and 46), Michelangelo’s Christ in the Pietà of St.
Peter’s, and for the woman supporting the swooning figure of Mary, the Doni Tondo, Florence. Works of art from antiquity
also played an important part, a point fully discussed by A. von Salis (Antike und Renaissance, Erlenbach-Zürich 1947, p.
61 ff.), who draws attention to related motifs in Meleager sarcophagi.
Ragghianti’s assumption, anticipated by Rumohr, that Raphael painted the picture with the aid of assistants, seems convincing; the
supposition that the young man carrying the body of Christ has the features of a portrait, and that the murdered Grifone is immortalized in this figure, seems less probable.
The main panel was surmounted by a lunette depicting God the Father blessing, surrounded by the heads of ten angels. This
composition was sketched out by Raphael (an original preparatory drawing for a modello representing God the Father is in
Lille: R.Z. IV, No. 180, height 81 cm., width 88 cm.) and executed by Domenico Alfani: Perugia, Galleria Nazionale, No.
288. The decorative frame, a frieze of putti seated on rams’ heads and crowning griffins (height 36 cm., width 183 cm.) was
executed by the same workshop assistant from a concetto by the master; also in Perugia (Cat. No. 281, Cecchini, 1932).
The predella of this work, with grisaille figures of Faith, Hope and Charity (Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana; Pls. 64-6) is entirely by Raphael himself.
The story of the secret removal of the picture from its original location, and of its illegal purchase by Pope Paul V, who
gave it to his nephew, Cardinal Scipione Borghese, has been set out by J. Sauer in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, Rome
1924, II, p. 436 ff. and R. Belforti, Perusia, 1935, p. 3 ff. The original in Perugia was replaced simultaneously by a copy by
Lanfranco (now lost) and another by Cavaliere d’Arpino, now in store in the Galleria Nazionale, Perugia; also in Perugia,
S. Pietro Maggiore, is a copy by Sassoferrato, and according to Pergola there is another version by the same artist in a private collection in Rome. Passavant mentioned a copy, supposedly by Penni, which formerly belonged to W. von Humboldt,
but this can no longer be traced.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 324, 327 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 535 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 72 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 238 ff. (a.); Cr.Cav. I, p. 249 ff. (a.); Morelli 1890, p. 172 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 48 (a.); Gamba, p. 50 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (in part
a.); Ortolani, p. 26 f. (a.); J. Richter 1945, p. 335 ff. (a.); Ragghianti, La Deposizione, Milan 1947 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 92
ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 62 ff., 359 (a.); Schöne, p. 35 with Fig. 62 (a.); Camesasca I, Plates 72-3 (a.); Pergola, Gall.
Borghese II, p. 116 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 69 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 46 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No.
112 (a.).
Faith, Charity and Hope
Plates 64-6
Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana, Nos. 330-2.
Wood, each 16 x 44 cm.
PROVENANCE: San Francesco, Perugia; 1797-1815, in Paris.
These three grisaille predella panels belong to the Entombment in Rome, Galleria Borghese (Pl. 67). Each panel is divided
into a wide central compartment containing slightly recessed medallions with grisaille figures of one of the ‘Virtues’
painted on a green background, and two narrow side sections with a niche-like concavity occupied by a standing, winged
putto. Vertical strips frame the outside compartments. The three panels show subtle variations, for in each case the outside
figures as well as those at the centre are appropriate to the subject concerned. The panels of Faith and Hope were on the
outside. Faith, her head slightly bowed, is turning to the left; Hope, with her head and her gaze directed upwards, to the
right. The putti standing placidly, holding horizontal tablets inscribed CPX (on the left) and IHS (on the right), are connected
to Faith through the direction of their gaze, while Hope’s companions, depicted full-face, have been designed entirely to
convey an expression of contemplative calm; they have no attributes and no exterior connection with the central figure, appearing as embodiments of confidence. As the two side panels are so restrained in the position and motion of the figures
and so muted in their expressive content, the sense of abundance inherent in ‘Charity’ could receive emphasis in the central
panel; for the figure of Charity possesses movement
Page 24
Page 25
in plenty, and, with her sibyl-like gaze, and the throng of children so closely united with her - three on her lap on the left,
and one little boy on the right, pressing at her - she is the only one of the Virtues who fully harmonizes with the tondo format and reaches a degree of density and tension which shows the spell cast over the artist by memories of Michelangelo’s
Florentine Madonna reliefs. The putti on either side of Charity correspond in form and motif with the intense central figure.
The putto on the left has a cauldron, out of which flames leap up (not fishes, as Oettinger believes), while his companion on
the right pours coins (not grapes, as Oettinger states) from a vessel. They contrast with the putti in the two other predella
panels through their activity and motion, the strong gestures visible in their silhouettes and the fact that they are depicted
nude.
The sketch for Charity is preserved in Vienna: R.Z. IV, No. 181, but as this first concetto does not yet foreshadow a circular
format, it may be concluded that it was only during the progress of the work that the artist decided on this feature, which is
so effective in the finished pictures. The predella shows Raphael’s own hand throughout.
The contention of Wind (Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, I, 1937-8, p. 329 f.) that the drawing in the Albertina and the three panels were the work of a pupil (Alfani) is completely unfounded; the high quality is sufficient evidence against it.
Oettinger has drawn attention to a sixteenth-century copy which came from Vienna and is now in private ownership in Erlangen. Here the three pictures are arranged one above the other to form a single panel; in addition to the vertical strips
these are also framed by full-width bands running across the picture.
Passavant II, p. 78 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 253 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 253 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 49 (a.); Gamba, p. 51 (a.); Berenson 1932,
p. 482 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 254 (a.); Ortolani, p. 27 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 64, 359 (a.); Camesasca I, Plates 78a-c (a.); Oettinger 1960, p. 101 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 47 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 227 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 118 (a.).
Seated Madonna and Child (Colonna Madonna)
Plate 62
Wood: 77 x 56 cm.
PROVENANCE: Casa Salviati, Florence; Casa Colonna, Rome; Duchessa Maria Colonna della Rovere, Rome; 1827, Berlin
Gallery.
This picture, which dates from the end of the Florentine period (1508), is generally described as unfinished, the assumption
being that Raphael left it behind in Florence in this state when he moved to Rome. The present author does not remember
gaining this impression himself, nor was he convinced by Putscher’s remark that ‘X-ray investigation shows that the
Madonna’s head has been greatly altered through overpainting’. According to the director of the gallery (Professor Dr. R.
Oertel), ‘the picture has never been restored. It is a perfect example of good preservation and of firm, clearly visible painting technique. The X-ray photograph of the head (1939) also bears witness to the clear and confident composition of the
underpainting.’ What led earlier scholars to regard the picture as unfinished, Oertel remarks, is rather the impression of
‘lightness and transparency’. The doubts expressed by Cavalcaselle and Gamba as to Raphael’s personal execution are thus
invalidated, and Longhi’s rejection of the picture - and his attribution to an anonymous artist collaborating on the frescoes
in the courtyard of the Santissima Annunziata - becomes completely baseless.
There is a preparatory sketch for the position of the Madonna on a sheet in the Albertina (R.Z. III, No. 107, on the left), and
the position of the Christ Child is very similar to that in a sketch in London (R.Z. III, No. 109, on the right).
COPIES: Passavant mentioned a copy in Florence (Marchese Guadagni) and two in England, but these can no longer be
traced.
Rumohr, p. 526 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 84 ff. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 71 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 182 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 276 ff.
(by Alfani?); Gronau, p. 51 (a.); Gamba, p. 53 f. (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 26 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p.
40 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 66 (a.); Putscher, p. 246 f. (a); Longhi 1952, September, p. 46 (r.); Camesasca I, Plate 85 (a.); Fischel 1962, pp. 48 f., 94 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 9 (a).
St. Catherine of Alexandria
Plate 68
Wood: 71 x 56 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1650, Villa Borghese, Rome; 1800-1, Alexander Day, London; before 1816, Lord Northwick, London;
1824, William Beckford, London.
This excellently preserved picture has sometimes been dated 1505-6, but it certainly belongs to the end of the Florentine
period, 1507-8. In formal structure it is very close to the Entombment in the Galleria Borghese, Rome (Pl. 67).
The primary conception appears in the three preparatory studies in Oxford (R.Z. IV, No. 204), which show the pose for the
figure and also include a detailed drawing of the neck, while the final version corresponds with the copy drawing at Chatsworth (R.Z. IV, No. 206) : (left figure); here, although the subject is shown full-length, the position of the head and the attitude are generally similar to the painting. The drawing of the head on the reverse of the Oxford sketch (R.Z. IV, No. 205)
must have immediately preceded the painting. The cartoon in Paris (R.Z. IV, No. 207) differs from the painting in that the
arrangement of the dress is simpler, being based on a classical model.
The COPY mentioned by Passavant, formerly in the collection of Prince Trubetzkoy in St. Petersburg, is now lost.
Page 25
Page 26
Passavant II, p. 71 (a.); Müntz, p. 236 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 269 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 33 (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 218 f. (a.);
Gamba, p. 51 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 27 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 64 f., 194, 359 (a.); Longhi 1955,
May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 89 (a.); Freedberg, p. 175 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 47 f. (a.); Gould, London catalogue,
1962, p. 146 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 234 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 58 (a.).
Seated Madonna with the Child on her Lap (so-called Large Cowper Madonna)
Plate 70
Wood: 81 x 57 cm.
Signed and dated on the neckline of the Madonna’s dress: MD VIII · / R.V.PIN.
PROVENANCE: 1677, Casa Niccolini, Florence; Palazzo Corsini, Florence; 1780, Earl Cowper, Panshanger; 1918, Lady
Desborough, Panshanger; 1937, A. W. Mellon, Washington.
In type, forms and movement, the Child is most closely related to that in the Madonna del Baldacchino (Florence; Pl. 63);
the Virgin’s face closely resembles the Madonna Colonna in Berlin (Pl. 62), also dating from the end of the Florentine period. Fischel’s view (R.Z. III, No. 134) that there was a connection between this picture and the compositional study in
London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., London, No. 18) cannot be maintained.
A work directly influenced by the Cowper Madonna is the picture by Andrea del Sarto in Rome, Galleria Nazionale, which
must date from about 1509-10 (Freedberg II, Fig. 297).
COPY: Florence, Guido Melli Collection: by Franciabigio. (Identical with the ‘replica’ mentioned by Fischel, 1948, I, p.
395?); in 1907 the Sedelmeyer Gallery in Paris had a copy from the Francis Cunningham Collection, London.
Bocchi e Cinelli, Bellezze di Firenze 1677, p. 408 (a.); Passavant II, p. 83 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 170 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 283 ff.
(a.); Gronau, p. 52 (a.); Fischel in Valentiner, Das unbekannte Meisterwerk, Berlin 1930, No. 20 (a.); Gamba, p. 52 (a.);
Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 28 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 48, 359 (a.); Putscher, pp. 124 f., 185 (a.); Camesasca I,
Plate 94 (a.); Freedberg, p. 216 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 48 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 225 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 132 (a.).
Madonna Enthroned with SS. Bernard, Peter, James and Augustine (Madonna del Baldacchino)
Plate 63
Wood: 277 x 224 cm.
PROVENANCE: Cappella Baldassare Turini in Pescia Cathedral; 1697, sold by Bonvicini, heir to the Turini family, to Ferdi-
nando de’ Medici and placed in the Palazzo Pitti, Florence; 1799-1815, in Paris and Brussels.
According to Vasari this work was commissioned from Raphael by the Dei family for S. Spirito in Florence but was left
unfinished when he moved to Rome in 1508. The state of the painting at that time has been established by the extensive researches of Riedl, whose most important discovery is the fact that the niche architecture was a later addition. His conclusions receive support from Raphael’s compositional sketch in Chatsworth (R.Z. III, No. 143) in which the architectural
background is also missing, while the traditional assumption that one of Fra Bartolommeo’s Sante conversazioni provided
the model for the niche motif is thus greatly weakened. From the present appearance of the painting it seems that Raphael’s
own share was limited to the Madonna and the Child (who is very closely related to the Child in the Large Cowper
Madonna, Washington; Pl. 70), the two cherubs in the foreground and, to a certain extent, the two saints on the left, individual studies for which are preserved in Paris, Florence and Lille (R.Z. III, Nos. 144-8). As earlier scholars repeatedly
stated, the figures of St. Augustine and St. James on the right are quite unlike Raphael’s work in expression and gesture as
well as in formal treatment, while the two angels at the top of the picture are additions dating from the second decade of the
Cinquecento. The angel on the left is directly derived from the figure by Raphael at the right of the Sibyls fresco in S. Maria
della Pace in Rome, about 1512; the angel on the right (which is very poorly executed) is a mirror image of the first. Further alterations to the picture were made by the painter Giov. Ag. Cassena at the beginning of the eighteenth century (the
top of the canopy, and the addition of the coffered cupola); see Figs. 1 and 3 and the reconstruction in Riedl’s article.
COPY: Pescia Cathedral: painted at the end of the seventeenth century by Pietro Dandini.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 328, 329; V, pp. 158, 354 f. (a.); Borghini, p. 387 f. (a.); Richa, Notizie, IX, p. 27 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 89 f. (a.); Rumohr, pp. 524, 527 (a.); Müntz, p. 200 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 293 ff. (a.); Morelli 1890, p. 62 f. (a.);
Dollmayr 1895, p. 344 (in part by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p. 53 (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 220 (a.); Gamba, p. 53 (in part a.);
Berenson 1932, p. 480 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 27 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 98 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 67 f., 359 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 91 (a.); Riedl 1957-9, p. 223 ff. (in part a.); Freedberg, p. 70 f. (a.); Fischel
1962, p. 49 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 227 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 33 (partly a.).
Madonna with the Child and the Young St. John (Aldobrandini-Garvagh Madonna)
Wood: 39 x 33 cm.
Page 26
Plate 71
Page 27
PROVENANCE: Casa Aldobrandini, Rome; Galleria Borghese, Rome; 1800-1, Alexander Day, London; 1818, Lord Garvagh, London.
Ramdohr’s account (in Über Malerei und Bildhauerarbeit in Rom I, Leipzig 1787, pp. 306, 309) proves that this work came
from Prince Aldobrandini’s Collection in Rome, Palazzo Borghese, which originated in the bequest of Lucrezia d’Este (d.
1598). The Aldobrandini Madonna may therefore have been one of the five Raphael Madonnas which are mentioned, without further description, in the 1592 inventory of her possessions (see Paola della Pergola in: Arte Antica e Moderna, 1959,
p. 342). Of these the picture which corresponds most closely to the work in London is that mentioned by Manilli in his description of the Villa Borghese, Rome 1650, p. 112: ‘Vergine, con Christo, e San Giovannino . . . di Raffaelle.’
The suggestion advanced by Gronau (Documenti, pp. 50, 250), that the painting had originally been in the possession of the
Dukes of Urbino, remains unproved, for the relevant passage speaks only of a ‘Madonna di Raffaello’ without giving more
detailed information. The composition of the Virgin and Child is a variation on that of the Madonna with the Pink in New
York, French Gallery (p. 63), and like the latter work, was developed from studies first crystallized in the sketches in Lille
(R.Z. VIII, Nos. 346 and 352). The two detailed studies in London (R.Z. VIII, No. 349) for the heads of the Madonna and
Child are most closely related to the picture, although facing in the opposite direction; these and the studies for the
Madonna in Lille (R.Z. VIII, Nos. 347 and 348), with which they have very much in common, belong to Raphael’s so-called
Pink Sketchbook, which is datable from his early Roman period. The Aldobrandini Madonna can therefore hardly be earlier than 1509-10. The sketch in the Albertina for the ‘Caritas’ tondo of the Borghese Entombment (R.Z. IV, No. 181) can
be regarded as the terminus post quem, as it anticipates the movement of the female figure.
Whether the execution is by Raphael or not is open to question. Fischel and other scholars doubted it, in view of the bright
and cool colouring, and ascribed it to F. Penni or Giulio Romano. In my opinion, however, the brush-work does not suggest
either of these two assistants. C. Gould attributes the execution to Raphael, and explains the discrepancies as the result of
early overpainting.
COPIES: of the numerous copies, I mention the following: Bergamo, Accademia; Edinburgh, National Gallery, No. 1854
(copy with variations); Paris, Louvre, No. 1493: by Sassoferrato.
A sketch copy in Manchester, Whitworth Art Gallery, is mentioned by Gould.
Passavant II, p. 131 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 391 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 102 ff. (a.); Frizzoni, Arte ital. del rinascimento, Milan
1891, p. 227 (by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p. 82 (by Giulio Romano); Gamba, p. 69 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Fischel, Th-B, Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 427 (early work by Penni?); Ortolani, p. 37 (in part a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 40 f. (a.); Fischel
1948, I, pp. 128, 360 (execution by Penni and/or Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 96 (in part by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 95 (by Penni or Giulio Romano); Gould, London Cat. 1962, p. 150 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 233 (a.); Dussler
1966, No. 60 (invention a.).
Madonna holding a Veil, with the Child waking; behind her St. Joseph (Madonna di Loreto)
Plate 73
Wood: 121 x 91 cm.
PROVENANCE: de Scitivaux Collection, Paris; 1816.
Julius II commissioned a ‘Madonna del Velo’ for the church of S. Maria del Popolo in Rome. This work, better known to
posterity as the Madonna di Loreto, was bought in 1591 - along with the portrait of Pope Julius II (Pl. 77) - by Cardinal
Paolo Emilio Sfondrato, and has remained untraced since the latter’s death in 1618. The name ‘Loreto Madonna’ derives
from the example given in 1741 to the Loreto pilgrimage basilica by Girolamo Lottorio of Rome; this was replaced in 1759
by a poor copy, which was taken to France by General Colli during the Napoleonic invasion of 1797. It is quite uncertain
whether the lost Loreto painting was the same as that from S. Maria del Popolo, for this was obviously a very popular devotional picture and had already been copied more than once by the time of Vasari (cf. his Vita of Aristotile da San Gallo, ed.
Milanesi VI, p. 437). Cardinal Sfondrato, too, had commissioned a replica for each of his two brothers. Several drawings
from Raphael’s so-called Red Sketchbook (dating from 1508-9, the beginning of his Roman period) give a partial insight
into the development of the figure of the waking Child; examples are R.Z. VIII, Nos. 350 (London), 351 and 352 (Lille). In
the last-mentioned drawing the Child corresponds exactly in position and in movement to the figure in the painting. These
preparatory studies suggest a date of about 1509, as does the figure of the Madonna, whose head is very similar in type to
the head of ‘Justitia’ in the Stanza della Segnatura, where work was in progress during that year. The persistent influence of
impressions from Florence is noticeable also in a drawing in London, R.Z. VIII, No. 356a - apparently an early copy of the
head of the ‘Loreto Madonna’ - which Fischel described as a ‘reworked cartoon fragment by Raphael’ (see Pouncey-Gere,
Cat. No. 47); this contains unmistakable echoes of Leonardo, particularly of the heads in the Last Supper. Moreover, the
only dated copy of the picture (formerly in the Demidoff-San Donato Collection, Nishnij-Tagil/Urals - see J. Grabar in:
Mitteilungen der zentral. staatl. Restaurierungs-Werkstätten, II, 1928) bears the date 1509, so that it is far more probable
that the original version is from that time rather than from about 1512, to which it was traditionally ascribed.
Filippini supported the latter date by claiming that
Page 27
Page 28
the Madonna was placed in S. Maria del Popolo - at the same time as the portrait of Julius II - as an ex-voto commissioned
by the Pope for his escape from mortal danger in the battle of Mirandola (January 1511). This supposition is not supported
by any contemporary source, and Gozzadini refers only to Julius’ donation of a silver cross to Loreto. The suggestion (advanced by Burkhalter, Schöne and Putscher, and accepted by me in 1966) that this Madonna and the portrait of Julius II
may possibly have formed a diptych can no longer be maintained, as the Codice Magliabecchiano informs us (ed. C. Frey,
1892, p. 128) that the two pictures were hung on different pillars of the church; moreover, as H. v. Einem has rightly
pointed out, the Pope’s portrait is in no way related to the Madonna.
There are many copies (Vögelin listed more than thirty); and several of these have repeatedly been claimed to be the lost
original, among them the painting formerly in Florence, the property of Sir Kennedy Laurie, that at Kyburg near Winterthur, Switzerland, owned by Oberst Pfau (reproduced by Vögelin), and in 1934 a very mediocre specimen of unknown
provenance which came into the possession of the Dutch ambassador in Rome, Mr. van Royen, and was reproduced in
Filippini’s article in Illustrazione Vaticana, V, 1934, p. 107. A version in the Paul Getty Collection was exhibited in 1965
in the National Gallery, London; according to the owner’s catalogue (The Joys of Collecting, 1966) this was formerly in the
Bourbon Collection, Tuileries 1830, Frohdorf (1830-1838) and later in the collection of Princess Bourbon Massimo; sold at
Sotheby’s, 20 July 1938. The arguments brought forward by A. Scharf (Apollo, February 1964) are in no way convincing,
and the picture is a copy from the end of the sixteenth century. A good copy of the late sixteenth century, formerly in the
Collection of Viscount Lee of Fareham (Borenius, Cat. 1923, No. 10), was sold at Sotheby’s in 1966 and acquired by Mr.
Feldmeier, Munich. The heavily restored work formerly in the Demidoff-San Donato Collection in Russia must also be a
copy, and the same applies to the fragment of the recumbent Child in the Galleria Nazionale, Rome (reproduced in Filippini’s article).
Codice Magliabecchiano (ed. Frey), p. 128 (a.); Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 338 f. (a.); VI, p. 437; Passavant II, p. 126 f.
(copy); Müntz, p. 391 (copy); Urlichs 1870, p. 49 ff.; Vögelin 1870, p. 61 (copy); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 84 ff. (copy); Dollmayr
1895, p. 279 (by Giulio Romano); Pfau 1922, and Nachtrag 1923; Gronau, p. 209 (copy); Gamba, p. 68 (copy); Filippini
1934, February, p. 107 ff. (a.); Ortolani, p. 30 (copy); Firestone 1942, pp. 43 ff., 54 f., Notes 56, 57, p. 61 f. (a.); Fischel
1948, I, pp. 128, 361 (copy); Putscher, p. 182 ff. (copy); Camesasca I, Plate 103A (copy); Freedberg, p. 143 (copy by
Penni); Fischel 1962, p. 95 f. (copy); Scharf 1964, p. 114 ff.; Dussler 1966, No. 95 (invention by Raphael); v. Einem,
Kstchr. 1968, p. 24.
Kneeling Madonna holding a Veil with sleeping Child and the Infant St. John (The Madonna with the Diadem)
Plate 74
Wood: 68 x 44 cm.
PROVENANCE: Monseigneur de Châteauneuf, Paris; 1620, Marquis de Vrillière, Paris; Comte de Toulouse, Paris; 1728,
Prince de Carignano, Paris; 1743, Louis XV, Paris.
This work is very closely connected with the so-called Madonna di Loreto, Paris, No. 378 (Pl. 73); both paintings contain
the motifs of the Child lying - here asleep, in the Madonna di Loreto at the moment of waking - and of the mother lifting a
veil with right arm outstretched. In other respects the two pictures are quite different, especially as the Madonna with the
Diadem has full-length figures and includes a landscape. Although no sketch for the composition has been identified, it can
be assumed that Raphael himself was responsible for its invention: two sketches, in the Uffizi (R.Z. VIII, No. 356) and in
Oxford (R.Z. VIII, No. 361), show similarities and affinities. The sheet in Florence can hardly be the work of Raphael himself, but probably reflects a concetto by him and has been used as a cartoon for a tondo composition; here the kneeling
Madonna appears full-length, but she is more erect than in the Madonna with the Diadem, and the straightness of the right
arm lifting the veil is less emphasized than in the painting. The position of the Child lying, awakened, on the bed is similar
to that of the Child in the Loreto Madonna; he lies stretched across the picture at right angles to the onlooker, whereas in
the Madonna with the Diadem he is depicted asleep, and foreshortened at the same slanting angle as in the Oxford drawing
already mentioned. Among the numerous figures in the latter there is also the infant St. John being brought forward on
leading strings held by St. Joseph, who kneels behind him - a motif which also appears, with variations, in the workshop
drawing formerly in the Kühlen Collection, Berlin (Fig. 282, p. 368 Fischel’s text to VIII). In a workshop drawing in Oxford, formerly in the Locker-Lampson Collection (Parker Cat. II, No. 571; Fig. 281, p. 368 and Fischel’s text to VIII), the
young St. John is shown kneeling in prayer and encircled by Mary’s left hand (but his posture is otherwise different from
that of the St. John in Louvre No. 1497); this composition has been used in a picture by Perino del Vaga, who also added
architectural ruins (Rome, Borghese Gallery No. 464; Pergola, Cat. II, No. 159, and Freedberg II, Fig. 528). The invention
of the Madonna with the Diadem justifies the ascription of the composition to Raphael himself and to place it in the Roman
period, about 1512; the execution, however, bears all the marks of the workshop. It has often been given to the young
Giulio Romano, but this does not seem convincing, and Hartt did not include it in his list of Giulio’s works. Further copies
are to be found in Bridgewater House, London, and in the Agars Collection, London, and also in an unknown English collection.
Page 28
Page 29
According to Passavant the last-mentioned example was formerly in Trier and was signed: Raphael 1512. The same subject
of the Madonna lifting a veil (but without a diadem), the sleeping Child and the infant St. John held in the Madonna’s arm,
is to be found in a composition for which there is a cartoon in the Uffizi in Florence. There are differences in the position of
St. John, who is not shown praying and in profile, but facing the onlooker and pointing to the Christ Child with his outstretched right hand. However, the cartoon is in such a poor state of preservation that it is hardly possible to decide whether
it is by Raphael or not (Fischel, Versuch, No. 67). The surviving versions (of which the example in the Edinburgh National
Gallery, formerly the property of the Duke of Westminster, now on loan from the Duke of Sutherland (Fig. 84 in Gronau’s
Klassiker der Kunst) is probably the best) show many features suggesting that this composition is earlier than the Madonna
with the Diadem in the Louvre: the more tender and also more intimately conceived head of the Virgin, the more delicate
and minute execution of her dress and of the folds in the Christ Child’s swaddling-garment, but above all the figure of the
young St. John, who has an unmistakable similarity to the boys painted before the move to Rome (such as in the Madonna
Cardellino etc.). Moreover, if one compares the careful gesture of the Virgin’s arm as she lifts the veil with the strongly
dramatic gesture of the Diadem Madonna, the difference between the two conceptions becomes equally clear. Finally, the
treatment of the landscape also reflects the distance between this composition and the picture in the Louvre: many parallels
for the landscape of the former can be found in the Madonnas painted during the Florentine period, and what is more, the
lofty building on the right has long been identified as the San Salvi Convent near Florence. All these details make it indubitable that the Sutherland version dates from the period before the move to Rome. Both Passavant and Cavalcaselle had already pointed this out, Baldass adduced additional reasons after Gronau had described the work as a variation of the Diadem Madonna, thus dating it from the Roman period. An oblong version, formerly in Spain and in 1858 with Colnaghi,
London (canvas transferred to panel, 124 x 125 cm.), had variation in the landscape: four trees on the left and a large tree
on the right; the townscape on the left also differs from the Sutherland version. Second half of sixteenth century. The Florentine composition, like that in the Louvre, was very popular and was repeated many times both as a rectangular painting
and as a tondo: examples of the former type are in Blenheim (Duke of Marlborough); Florence, Corsini Gallery No. 164
(Berenson 1932, p. 35: by Bacchiacca); Hermitage, Leningrad; Brocca Collection, Milan (lost): examples of the tondo type
are in the possession of: Alte Pinakothek, Munich (store, mentioned on p. 42 in Baldass’ article); Prince of Wied, Neuwied;
Galleria Nazionale, Rome, F. N. 589, by Tommaso di Stefano Lunetti (Pl. 1350 in Berenson, Italian Pictures of the Renaissance, Florentine School II, Phaidon Press 1963).
Passavant II, p. 82, Note 1 and 132 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 220 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 389 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 106 ff. (by
Penni); Dollmayr 1895, p. 360 f. (by Penni); Frizzoni 1896, p. 397 (by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p. 83 (by Giulio
Romano); Filippini 1925, p. 221 (a.); v. Baldass 1926-7, p. 32 ff., Fig. 97 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (by Giulio Romano);
Gamba, p. 69 (a.); Ortolani, p. 39 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 97, Note 1 (r.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 128 and p. 361 (invention in part
a., execution by Penni); Camesasca I, Plate 103B (invention a.); Fischel 1962, p. 95 (r.); Brizio 1963, col. 233 (partly a.);
Dussler 1966, No. 97 (invention a.).
Portrait of Pope Julius II
Plate 77
Wood: 108 x 80 cm.
PROVENANCE: Palazzo Borghese, Rome; Angerstein, London.
The author of the Codice Magliabecchiano (ed. Frey p. 128) and Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 338) tell us that Raphael
painted a portrait of Pope Julius II for S. Maria del Popolo in Rome, and it can be proved that this was to be seen there until
1591 (Lomazzo, Idea, p. 116). The work must have been painted after 1511 since it was then that the artist undertook the
fresco of Gregory IX presenting the Decretals in the Stanza della Segnatura (in which he portrayed Gregory with the features of Julius II) (see Golzio, p. 24), and already in December 1511 mention is made of the donation of a second portrait of
Julius II to the church of S. Marcello in Rome (Sanuto, Diarii, XIII, p. 350). In 1513 Sanuto reported (Diarii XVII, ed. 1886,
p. 60) that the portrait in S. Maria del Popolo had been on show for a week. In 1591 the portrait came, in a slightly dubious
way, into the possession of Cardinal Paolo E. Sfondrati, nephew of Pope Gregory XIV, together with another work by
Raphael which was in the same church - the so-called Madonna di Loreto (Paris, Louvre, see p. 27). A few years later
Sfondrati commenced negotiations for the sale of the portrait to Emperor Rudolf II, but without result (see Urlichs, 1870,
pp. 49 f.). Another prospective buyer for the original portrait was Duke Francesco Maria II of Urbino, as is attested by his
correspondence between 1600 and 1606 with Sorbolengo, his minister in Rome (Gronau, Documenti, pp. 50 f. and pp. 252
ff.), but once again the negotiations were not concluded. Cecil Gould’s recent researches have shown that the portrait
owned by Sfondrati passed into the collection of Cardinal Scipione Borghese, where it remained until it was sold to Angerstein in London at the end of the eighteenth century. In addition to this provenance, we now have the evidence of X-ray
photographs, which demonstrate the high quality of the execution and leave no doubt that the portrait in London is from
Raphael’s own hand (see the detailed report given by Gould, 1970).
Page 29
Page 30
The high quality of the London portrait had already been acknowledged for a long time (Passavant 1860, II, p. 95 note 2;
Cavalcaselle II, p. 84; Pfau 1923, pp. 1 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, p. 69; Dussler 1966, p. 33), although it was usually classified as
a copy. Many scholars regarded the version in Florence (Uffizi No. 1450; wood, 107 x 80 cm.) as the original (Wölfflin
1898, p. 128; Gronau 1923, p. 87; Burchard 1925, p. 129; Berenson 1933, p. 480; Ciaranfi 1956, p. 74; Dussler 1966, p.
32). This acceptance of the Uffizi picture is based on several factors: the early notices of its provenance from the Della
Rovere family in Urbino (see Gronau, Documenti, p. 78: “di mano di Raffaello”), and also the very interesting comparison
of X-ray photographs with those of the London version. These X-rays show, as Gould has pointed out, not only the high
quality, but also signs of pentimenti. It seems possible that Raphael was at least responsible for the lay-in, even if the work
shop assisted in the execution. A second portrait from Urbino (Gronau, Documenti, p. 69), which also came into thepossession of the Medici in 1631 and which is now in the Galleria Pitti (No. 79; wood, 99 x 82 cm.), is generally agreed to be
identical with the copy by Titian mentioned by Vasari (ed. Milanesi, VII, p. 444), which was commissioned from the Venetian master in 1546 (see Burchard 1925, pp. 121 ff.) at the same time as the portrait of Pope Sixtus IV (Florence, Galleria
Pitti).
A chalk and charcoal cartoon, 109 x 82 cm. in size, preserved in Florence, Galleria Corsini No. 148, is known to have come
from Urbino (the 1623 Pesaro inventory describes it as ‘quadro uno di Papa Giulio 2° in cartone fatto da Raffaelle
d’Urbino’, Gronau, Documenti, p. 79). It appears also in the 1663 Medici inventory in Poggio Imperiale, but owing to the
poor condition and reworking it is no longer possible to decide whether it is original or not: Cavalcaselle left this question
open; Burkhalter, pp. 65 f., 68, considers the cartoon a copy by one of Raphael’s followers; Gamba believes it to be authentic.
On the supposed connection between the portrait and the Madonna di Loreto, see p. 27.
A study of the Pope’s head from the life (red chalk, 36 x 25 cm.) is in the Devonshire Collection at Chatsworth. Although
Cavalcaselle (II, p. 81 note) denied that it was autograph, I agree with Fischel (R.Z. V, 257) in regarding it as an undoubted
original.
Literature: Rumohr, p. 559 (Uffizi: r.); Passavant II, pp. 118 f. (Pitti: a.; Uffizi and London: copies); Müntz p. 402 (Uffizi
and Pitti: d.); Cr.-Cav., II, p. 84 (Uffizi: Penni; Pitti: Giovanni da Udine; London: copy); Morelli 1890, pp. 69 f. note (Uffizi
d.; Pitti: Titian); Gronau 1923, p. 88 (Pitti: Titian); Burkhalter pp. 62 ff. (Uffizi: studio), pp. 59 ff. (Pitti: Titian); Gamba p.
68 (Uffizi: r.; Pitti: Titian); Berenson 1933, p. 570 (Pitti: Titian); Ortolani p. 41 (Uffizi: d.; Pitti: Titian); Fischel 1948, I, p.
362 (Uffizi: d.; Pitti: Titian); Wölfflin 1948, p. 131 note 2 (Pitti: d.); Suida p. 25, n. 65 (Uffizi: r.); Camesasca I, Plate 104
(Uffizi: copy), p. 149B and p. 84 (Pitti: Titian); Putscher pp. 182 ff. (Uffizi: r.); Ciaranfi, p. 74 (Pitti: Titian); Gould, 1962
Catalogue, p. 159 (London: copy); Brizio 1963, col. 234 (Uffizi: copy; Pitti: Titian); Dussler 1966, no. 42 (Uffizi: d.), no.
42a (Pitti: Titian); Gould 1970 (London: a.; Uffizi: partly a.; Pitti: Titian).
COPY: Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 79.
Wood: 99 x 82 cm.
PROVENANCE: Urbino.
Passavant considered this picture to be the original from S. Maria del Popolo, and Cavalcaselle thought it the work of Giovanni da Udine (!), but it is now generally agreed to be by Titian. That the latter painted a portrait of Julius in Rome in
1545 – a commission, no doubt, from Duke Guidobaldo II of Urbino - is attested by its mention in the 1631 Medici inventory: ‘un ritratto di Giulio 2° della Rovere viene da Raffaello, copiato da Titiano, dalla Guarderobba d’Urbino’ (Gronau,
Documenti, p. 69). Evidence for this is also provided by Vasari, who saw the picture in Pesaro in 1548 along with another
copy by the Venetian master, the portrait of Pope Sixtus IV (mentioned in the 1652 Medici inventory; now in the Galleria
Pitti). It is sometimes thought that the execution may not be entirely by Titian, but in my opinion the brilliant technique and
the superlative characterization are sufficient to allay all doubts.
Portrait of a Cardinal
Plate 78
Madrid, Prado, No. 299.
Wood: 79 x 61 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1818, in Aranjuez.
Even among the finest portraits of Raphael’s mature period, the Cardinal occupies a special position. The magnificent construction of the figure and the crystalline clarity of every detail are matched by a use of colour which fits this composition.
The combination of these elements constitute the nobility of expression, which gives the sitter his dignified reserve.
A number of suggestions have been made as to the identity of the sitter: Bibbiena (Passavant), Innocenzo Cybo (Cavalcaselle), Alidosi (Filippini), Scaramuccia Trivulzio (Hymans), M. Schinner (Durrer, Robert), and Ippolito d’Este (Fischel,
Ortolani and Camesasca). None of the first four prelates mentioned can be represented in the Madrid portrait, partly because comparison with other portraits fails to show a convincing similarity and partly for reasons of chronology or because
the cardinal concerned did not reside in Rome - as was the case with Alidosi, for example. Convincing arguments against
this identification have been brought forward by Burkhalter. The identification with Ippolito may be thought probable in
view of the close relationship between this portrait and the head of the bishop on the left of the altar in the Disputa, but it
cannot be regarded as proved. The picture can hardly have been painted later than 1511, but Frizzoni’s suggestion of 1507
is certainly too early.
Passavant II, p. 178 f. (a.); Waagen 1868, p. 111 (a.);
Page 30
Page 31
Cr.-Cav. II, p. 333 f. (a.); Müntz 1891, p. 328 (a.); Frizzoni 1893, p. 319 (a.); Hymans, Burl. M. XX, 1911, p. 89 (a.); Durrer, Monatsh. f. Kstw. VI, 1913, p. 1 ff. (a.); Robert, Monthly Numismatic Circular XXI, 1913, p. 659 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 85
(a.); Filippini 1925, p. 221 (a.); Burkhalter, p. 70 ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 67 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 37
(a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 133 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 112, 362 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 98 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 83 f. (a.);
Brizio 1963, col. 234 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 76 (a.).
Madonna and Child (Mackintosh Madonna)
Plate 69
Wood: transferred to canvas: 79 x 64 cm.
PROVENANCE: Galerie Orléans, Paris; 1808, Henry Hope, London; 1816, Samuel Rogers, London; 1856, R.J. Mackintosh,
London.
This picture was severely damaged when it was transferred to canvas in the eighteenth century; this and later restorations
have reduced it to a point where the original brushwork is almost unrecognizable, so that it is not possible to judge whether
the execution was by Raphael himself. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that the example in London is original. A cartoon
in the British Museum (R.Z. VIII, Nos. 362/3), long unrecognized because Berenson incorrectly ascribed it to Brescianino,
is certainly the work of Raphael, as are the studies for the Virgin and Child in Lille and London (R.Z. VIII, Nos. 348-9),
which are at least close to the conception of this work.
Datable about 1512.
COPIES: Genoa, Durazzo Pallavicini Collection, Cat. Figs. 262-4; Perugia, Galleria Nazionale, No. 364: altar-piece by D.
Alfani, 1518; Rome, Galleria Borghese, No. 174 (Pergola, Cat. Borghese II, p. 124: by Sassoferrato) and No. 175 (Pergola,
Cat. Borghese II, p. 124 f.: Italian, first half of the sixteenth century).
Passavant I, p. 146 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 104 ff. (a.); Cook 1900, p. 410 (a.); Berenson, The Study and Criticism of Italian Art,
2nd series, London 1910, p. 39 ff. (by Brescianino); Gronau, p. 107 (a.); Gamba, p. 66 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 37 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 41 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 129, 363 (a.); Putscher, pp. 125 f., 185 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate
107 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 96 f. (a.); Gould, London Cat., 1962, p. 154 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 233 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 63
(a.).
Madonna and Child Worshipped by SS.John the Baptist, Francis and Jerome, and the Donor Sigismondo de’ Conti
(Madonna di Foligno)
Plate 82
Wood, transferred to canvas in 1801: 301 x 198 cm.
PROVENANCE: High altar of S. Maria in Aracoeli, Rome; from 1565, in S. Francesco, Foligno; 1797, removed to Paris;
1815 returned to the Vatican.
This monumental ex-voto picture for the high altar in S. Maria in Aracoeli was commissioned by Sigismondo de’ Conti, a
breve-writer and friend of Julius II. The date of the commission is not recorded, but internal evidence suggests that the
work was completed in the spring of 1512, shortly after the death of Sigismondo, who died on 18 February and was buried
in the choir of the famous Franciscan church. This dating accords well with the colouring and technique, which have been
brought back to their original condition by the restoration undertaken in 1957-8 under the direction of Redig de Campos.
The plastic conception of form which still predominated in the Stanza della Segnatura is here less pronounced; the altarpiece is painted in a more pictorial style, similar to that of the Sala d’Eliodoro, where work was in progress about the same
time. This fact does not rule out the assumption that the idea may have been conceived earlier, although Putscher’s hypothesis (p. 248) that a first version of the painting without the figures of St. Francis and the standing putto may have been
composed about 1509, completely fails to carry conviction. Nor do I accept Grimme’s suggestion that the pala should be
regarded as a memorial picture, which would imply that the figure of Sigismondo de’ Conti should not be understood as a
donor portrait.
In only one of the surviving drawings (London; R.Z. VIII, No. 370) does the floating Madonna with the Child show a direct
relationship with the painting, the sole difference being in the position of the Boy. The other sketches, such as R.Z. VIII,
No. 369, in Chatsworth, and R.Z. VIII, No. 368, in Frankfurt, reflect versions belonging to the same general range of motifs,
as does Marcantonio’s engraving (B.47) of the Madonna on clouds with the Child standing (based on Michelangelo’s
Madonna in Bruges) and angels. On the back of the drawing in Frankfurt are copies of figures in the School of Athens (Zoroaster and others), hence it is possible that Raphael was already considering a composition of this kind while he was working in the Stanza della Segnatura.
In the design of the overall composition, Raphael bore in mind his teacher’s fresco of 1479 in the apse of the choir chapel
of Sixtus IV in St. Peter’s, a work stamped with the character of the Quattrocento, depicting the Madonna on high, surrounded by a mandorla of cherubim, while SS. Peter and Francis commend to her Pope Sixtus IV, who is kneeling on the
left, and SS. Paul and Anthony of Padua appear full-face on the right. (This wall-painting was destroyed in 1609, and is
known only through a cursory sketch made by Grimaldi; see A. Schmarsow, Melozzo da Forlì, Berlin 1886, Pl. XI). Raphael may also have remembered P. Cavallini’s fresco - then still visible - in the apse of the choir of S. Maria in Aracoeli (as
suggested by H. von Einem, 1968, p. 24; cf. the reconstruction by Vayer, 1963, p. 39), although these early paintings offered no more than general schemes as can be seen from Raphael’s debt to the Adoration of the Magi by Leonardo in the
Uffizi, from
Page 31
Page 32
which the figure of the Madonna is taken, almost without change (see Wölfflin, p. 32). - The landscape, with the rich prospect of a city and the arc of light above it - interpreted by Redig de Campos and Schalkersweerde (Pede e Arte VI, 1958, p.
90) as the moon beneath the Virgin’s feet - has given rise to the anecdote that the natural phenomenon referred to a dangerous incident in the life of the donor, supposed to have occurred in Foligno. It has frequently been thought to represent a falling meteor, but has also been interpreted as ball-lightning (see J. Galli, Rend. Pont. Acc. XXVIII, 1910), which seems the
most acceptable explanation.
When the picture was taken to Paris at the end of the eighteenth century, it was restored by the painters Hacquin and Röser.
The recent cleaning and restoration, undertaken in 1957-8 and discussed in detail by Redig de Campos, has brought definitive results, which necessitate revision of many of the opinions held in the past. It is now perfectly clear that the painting
shows no traces of participation by the workshop, and that no artist other than Raphael was responsible for the colours of
any of the figures. The names of Dosso Dossi and Battista Dossi had been mentioned (from Cavalcaselle to Fischel to
Longhi), but Schöne already denied the involvement of Ferrarese artists; nor does the aureole behind the Madonna (reminiscent of Apocalypse XII, I: ‘mulier amicta sole’) or the treatment of the landscape show the hand of either of those two
artists. What, in the use of colour and in the technique, had given rise to these mistaken suppositions is nothing more than
Raphael’s general change from his Florentine, plastic conception of form - still predominant in the Stanza della Segnatura to the pictorial style from 1512 on. In the cathedral of Foligno the original has been replaced by a Roman copy of the sixteenth century.
The figures of the Virgin and Child had a decisive influence on Titian’s altar-pieces in Ancona, Museo Civico (1520) and
in Serravalle, S. Maria Nuova (c. 1545).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 341 f. (a.); Lomazzo, Trattato (ed. Milano), p. 474 (in part by Dossi); Rumohr, p. 564 f. (a.);
Passavant II, p. 134 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 392 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 127 ff. (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 318 (a.); Grimme 1922, p. 48
(a.); Gronau, p. 105 (a.); Faloci-Pulignani 1932, p. 86 ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 66 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p.
42 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 46 f. (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 141 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 133 ff., 363 (a.); Putscher, pp. 48 ff., 79
ff., 216 f., 246 ff. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 100 (a.); Schöne, p. 36 with Fig. 63 (a.); Schalkers-weerde 1958, p. 89 f.; Redig
de Campos 1961, p. 184 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 132 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 99 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 233 (a.); Dussler
1966, No. 117 (a.).
Portrait of a Lady with a Veil (Donna Velata)
Plate 80
Canvas: 85 x 64 cm.
PROVENANCE: Matteo Botti, Florence; Marchese de Campiglia, Florence; since 1620, in the possession of the Medici
family, Poggio Imperiale.
This portrait was not recognized as Raphael’s work until the late nineteenth century, but its authenticity is now beyond
doubt. It is equally certain that this is the ‘ritratto bellissimo’ which Vasari mentions in the Casa Botti, Florence, and which
he describes as a likeness of Raphael’s ‘donna amata’. Passavant compared this picture with the Sistine Madonna (Pl. 83)
and with the Mary Magdalene in the St. Cecilia (Pl. 88), pointing out that the head was of a type of beauty which Raphael
especially loved and which reappears in other works painted by him about the same time. It can also be seen in the face of
the Phrygian Sibyl in S. Maria della Pace (Pl. 154), in the Portrait of a Lady in Hanover (p. 60; this is emphasized by
Fischel) and in the so-called Fornarina in the Galleria Nazionale, Rome (Pl. 93).
Fischel suggested that the ‘Velata’ originally represented St. Catherine, surrounded by a gloriole and accompanied by her
attributes, the wheel and the palm. The Arundel Collection contained such a work (Fischel 1948, II, Fig. 131), which is now
lost, but is known from the engraving by W. Hollar (Parthey No. 87); and Passavant mentioned a similar portrait - but
without halo - in Naples, Marchese Letizia, which he considered a replica of the earlier painting; Fischel’s hypothesis
seems hardly probable, however, firstly because the sixteenth-century sources contain no reference to the work in this form,
and secondly because his arguments are invalidated by the most recent examination of the picture itself. Putscher was able
to ascertain that it was relined at the beginning of the nineteenth century and that a strip of 7 cm. was added at the top; there
would be room for a halo only in the present state of the painting, whereas the original distance from the top of the picture
was insufficient. Putscher also suspects that there may be a small curtain (?) concealed under a later craquelure in the top
left corner, but whether this is an original motif must remain an open question until an X-ray examination is carried out.
Doubts have repeatedly been expressed as to whether the execution is entirely by Raphael himself, but in my opinion these
are probably without foundation (A. L. Mayer thought that the picture was only begun by Raphael and was continued by
another hand); the form and technique of the billowing sleeve-drapery are in no way uncharacteristic of the artist’s style in
the years 1512-15 and Putscher’s comparison with Pope Sixtus’ pluvial in the Dresden picture confirms this conclusion.
The dating of the work ranges between 1512 and 1516; the latter date is supported by Camesasca amongst others, but in
view of the obvious closeness to the Sistine Madonna a dating of 1512-13 seems more acceptable. - Filippini attempted to
identify the sitter as Julius II’s niece, Lucrezia della Rovere, but this suggestion can be ruled out simply on account of
Page 32
Page 33
the painting’s provenance, which is no longer in doubt, from the Botti Collection in Florence.
There is a copy with variations in Strasbourg, Musée des Beaux-Arts. In the catalogue of the 1965-6 Paris exhibition (Le
Seizième Siècle européen. Peintures et dessins dans les collections publiques françaises, No. 245, p. 198) M. Laclotte described this painting, which has recently undergone careful cleaning, as possibly by Raphael. X-ray examination shows that
the Strasbourg picture went through two stages: in the first, the hands were omitted and the décolleté was emphasized; in
the second, the hand, sleeves and white cloth were added and the bosom covered. Laclotte assumes that the invention was
by Raphael himself and also deduces from the technique and colouring that the master himself may have taken part in the
painting, and that, allowing for a substantial contribution from Giulio Romano, Raphael was at least responsible for the final appearance of the work. In my opinion Raphael can have had no part in this picture, which must be by Giulio Romano
alone. It will have been based on workshop models, on the one hand the Velata, and on the other, the Fornarina in the Galleria Nazionale, Rome, and it was very probably not painted until after the master’s death. As the features in the portrait are
idealized rather than concrete and individual, Laclotte’s supposition that the Strasbourg painting might be the pendant of
the portrait of Bindo Altoviti in Washington is invalid. The work was already given to Giulio Romano by Berenson (1932,
p. 262), and since F. Heinemann’s excellent proof of this attribution (Kunstchronik 1966, p.86 f.) it can be regarded as indubitable. Fischel (1948, I, p. 124; 1962, p. 83) also described this portrait as a workshop production.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 355 (a.); Borghini, p. 392 (a.); Bocchi e Cinelli, p. 173 (a.); Passavant II, p. 336 ff. (a.); Müntz,
p. 558 f. (d.); Morelli 1890, p. 64 ff. (a.); Ridolfi 1891, p. 441 ff. (a.); Behmer 1900, p. 339 ff. (in part a.); Fischel 1916, p.
258 f. (a.); Gronau, p. 128 (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 223 f. (a.); A. L. Mayer 1930, p. 378 (in part a.); Burkhalter, p. 76 ff. (a.);
Gamba, p. 103 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 50 (a.); Hetzer, 1947, p. 63 f. (a); Wölfflin 1948, p. 136 ff.
(a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 124, 363 f. (a.); Putscher, p. 179 f. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 119 (a.); Schöne, p. 19 (in part a.);
Freedberg, pp. 179, 180 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 92 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 241 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 38 (a.).
Portrait of Marcantonio Raimondi (?)
Plate 81
Aix-en-Provence, Comte L’Estang de Parade.
This picture was already mentioned by Passavant, but it then disappeared from the Raphael literature until very recently. Its
composition is not incompatible with Raphael’s conception, but a personal examination would be required to form a more
definitive opinion. Passavant knew the portrait only from the engraving by Leisnier, in which the sitter was first named as
Raimondi. Marinelli gives no details of the provenance of the portrait and does not state when it was acquired by the present owner; in Note 16 of his article he quotes positive opinions given by L. Venturi and H. Voss. From its style the picture
would seem to have been painted about 1515. Wagner identifies the sitter not as the Bolognese engraver, but as L. Penni.
Passavant II, p. 432 (d.); G. Marinelli, The Connoisseur, April 1967, pp. 249-50 (a.); Wagner 1969, p. 72 and Note 528.
Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione
Plate 79
PROVENANCE: bought by Alfonso Lopez in the auction of the collection of Lucas van Uffelen, Amsterdam, 9 April 1639,
this work passed then to Cardinal Mazarin’s Collection; in 1661 it was the property of King Louis XIV.
This portrait was painted by Raphael before 1516, very probably in 1514-15 during Castiglione’s stay in Rome as ambassador of Urbino at the Papal court. The first reference to it appears in a letter of 19 April 1516 from Pietro Bembo to Cardinal Bibbiena (Golzio, p. 42 f.). The Latin verses written by the sitter to his young wife Ippolita Torella must date from the
same time or slightly later (Golzio, p. 43). It is not known whether Castiglione took the portrait with him to Madrid when
called there by his diplomatic activities, but there is every reason to assume that from 1529, the year of his death, it remained the property of his family in Mantua until it was sold to Lucas van Uffelen in Amsterdam in 1630. In 1639 the portrait was auctioned there from among Van Uffelen’s effects and came into the possession of the Spaniard, Alfonso Lopez.
The many changes which it has suffered since that time are described in detail by Imdahl, who has attempted a reconstruction of the original dimensions with the aid of the portrait engravings by Sandrart and Edelinck and the reports on the restoration carried out in 1788/89 (see the photomontage, Fig. 6, in his article). If this reconstruction is correct (and I can see no
decisive arguments against it), then the copy by Rubens, which shows both of the sitter’s hands in their entirety, corresponds to the original, although there is no way of deciding which version the Flemish artist may have copied. Fischel as
well as Imdahl thought that Rubens’ copy preserved the original composition, particularly because the hands are shown
complete.
In addition to the indispensable and well considered passages in which Wölfflin and Hetzer (1947) characterized this portrait, we now have also the detailed analysis provided by Freedberg. His comments are largely convincing, particularly
where he points out that it was Raphael’s friendship and deep intellectual sympathy with the sitter which enables him to
represent Castiglione’s personality so successfully.
Page 33
Page 34
Freedberg’s thorough and subtle examination of Raphael’s use of light and colour leads him to enquire into the artist’s
sources of inspiration. He is certainly right in finding striking analogies with contemporary Venetian paintings and in pointing not, as had been usual, to Sebastiano del Piombo, but to Titian. However, the hypothesis that Castiglione brought one of
Titian’s paintings to Raphael’s notice is hardly persuasive. Freedberg’s statement that the Castiglione portrait is a modernized Mona Lisa, particularly in the use of light, seems too far-fetched and does not carry conviction. But these reservations
do not detract from the great merits of his interpretation.
The most recent analysis of the picture, given by Louden, seems altogether too far-fetched and is much less persuasive.
A letter of 12 September 1519, from the Ferrarese ambassador, Paolucci, to Alfonso d’Este (Golzio, p. 97) contains an account of a later portrait of Castiglione by Raphael. The Paris example is identified with that work by the Louvre catalogue
(ed. Hautecœur II, École italienne et école espagnole, Paris 1926, p. 114 f.) and by L. Serra, Raffaello, Rome (undated) but
this theory cannot be reconciled with the style of the Louvre painting. No conclusions can be reached as to the appearance
of the second portrait, if it existed at all (see A. Venturi, L’Arte XXI, 1918, p. 279 ff.), for the mediocre half-length portrait
in Tivoli, Villa d’Este (Fig. 7 in: Pantheon 1962, p. 45), which came from the collections of Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga and Prince Torlonia, can hardly derive from a design by Raphael. Fischel regarded it as a variant of the example in the
Louvre (Th-B, Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 439), with an ‘incorrect addition made to the forehead’; Camesasca (I, p. 75; the picture
is listed under Rome, Galleria Nazionale) also rejects the attribution to Raphael, as does the catalogue by N. di Carpegna,
Quadreria della Villa d’Este, Rome (undated), No. 13.
COPIES: (a) An engraving made by J. von Sandrart during his stay in Amsterdam (1639-42), which reproduces the Lopez
example according to the inscription (Fig. 4 in Imdahl, Pantheon 1962, p. 40).
(b) London, Count Antoine Seilern; by Rubens.
Wood: 89 x 67 cm. Count A. Seilern, Flemish Paintings and Drawings at 56, Princes Gate, London, S.W. 7., London
1955, No. 24; Imdahl, Pantheon 1962, p. 38 ff., Fischel 1962, p. 87.
(c) Vienna, Albertina: pen drawing with wash, by Rembrandt; copied from the Van Uffelen example, which was auctioned
in 1639 and bought by Lopez. Benesch, The Drawings of Rembrandt, London 1954, II, No. 451; Gantner, Rembrandt,
Berne 1964, p. 66 ff.
J. v. Sandrart (ed. Peltzer), p. 417 (a.); Passavant II, p. 187 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 555 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav., p. 261 ff. (a.); De la Sizeranne 1920, p. 209 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 127 (a.); Gamba, p. 102 (a.); Burkhalter, p. 35 ff. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.);
Lugt, Oud Holland LIII, 1936, p. 113 ff. (a.); Ortolani, p. 50 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 64 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 115 ff., 325 f.,
365 (a.); Schöne with Fig. 674 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 115 (a.); Freedberg, p. 333 ff. (a.); Imdahl 1962, p. 38 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, pp. 86 f., 244 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 241 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 105 (a.); Louden 1968, p. 43 ff. (a.).
Portrait of Tommaso Inghirami
Plate 75
Boston, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.
Wood: 89 x 62 cm.
PROVENANCE: Casa Inghirami, Volterra; 1898, Mrs. Gardner, Boston.
Although some scholars are not sure as to whether this or the portrait in Florence, Pitti Gallery (Pl. 76), should be regarded
as the original, I feel that there can now be hardly any doubt that this work is by Raphael. Morelli, who was still able to
study both examples side by side, decided in favour of the portrait in Boston (whose provenance, moreover, is unimpeachable, coming as it does from the house of the sitter). It is occasionally suggested that both versions might be copies, but this
remains completely unproven. The excellent article by Künzle gives the most detailed information on Inghirami’s personality and his friendship with Raphael. Künzle believes that the portrait in Boston was painted as a token of gratitude for
Inghirami’s advice in connection with the programme for the Stanza della Segnatura. The portrait may have hung in the library or study of the sitter. The date of the painting must be 1513-14.
Cr.-Cav. II, p. 187 f. (copy); Morelli 1890, p. 73 (a.); Durand-Gréville 1907, January, p. 29 ff. (d.); Gronau, p. 115 (a.);
Burkhalter, p. 101 ff. (d.); Gamba, p. 47 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 32 (copy); Suida, p. 25, Nr. 66 (a.);
Wölfflin 1948, p. 132 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 112 f., 364 (d.); Camesasca I, Plate 112 (a.); Ciaranfi, Gal. Pitti 1956, p. 50
(replica); Redig de Campos 1956-7, pp. 171 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 177 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 84 (d.); Brizio 1963, col. 241
(a.); Künzle 1964, pp. 499 ff.; Dussler 1966, No. 12 (a.).
Portrait of Tommaso Inghirami
Plate 76
Wood: 91 x 61 cm.
PROVENANCE: Inghirami gave this work to Pope Leo X; Cardinal Leopoldo de’ Medici, Rome; 1675, in the possession of
the Medici family, Florence; 1799-1815, in Paris.
Recent scholars no longer regard this portrait unreservedly as an original work. It was accepted as such by Fischel, however, while Durand-Gréville, Gronau, Ciaranfi, Camesasca and others, consider that Raphael painted both this and the portrait in Boston (Pl. 75), some suggesting that the Pitti version was executed after the work in America. Although it is impossible to come to a final decision without direct comparison of the two portraits, Gamba’s attribution
Page 34
Page 35
of the Pitti painting to Daniele da Volterra carries little conviction. Freedberg suggests that this example might have been
undertaken by Raphael in conjunction with his workshop, and there is much to support this theory; from the point of view
of technique, however, his assumption that Giulio Romano participated in this painting is not really convincing. Künzle accepts Raphael’s authorship.
Passavant II, p. 164 f. (in part a.); Müntz, p. 286 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 186 ff. (a.); Morelli 1890, p. 72 f. (north European
copy); Bayersdorfer, p. 100 (copy); Durand-Gréville 1907, January, p. 29 ff. (in part a.) and Les Arts 1910 (a.); Gronau, p.
114 (a.); Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 126 (a.); Burkhalter, p. 98 ff. (d.); Gamba, p. 47 (by Daniele da Volterra); Ortolani, p. 32
(copy); Suida, p. 25, Nr. 66 (replica); Wölfflin 1948, p. 132 (copy); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 112 f., 364 (a.); Ciaranfi, Galleria
Pitti, p. 50 (workshop replica); Camesasca I, Plate 113 (a.); Redig de Campos, 1956-7, pp. 171 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 178
(by Raphael and Giulio Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 84 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 241 (a.); Künzle 1964, pp. 499 ff.; Dussler
1966, No. 34 (d.).
Seated Madonna with the Child and the Young St. John (Alba Madonna)
Plate 72
Wood, transferred to canvas; tondo, diameter: 95 cm.
PROVENANCE: Commissioned by Bishop Paolo Giovio for the church of the Olivetans in Nocera dei Pagani; 1686,
Marchese del Carpio, Naples; end of the seventeenth century, Duke of Alba, Madrid; 1801, Count Edmund of Burcke, Madrid; 1826, W. G. Coesvelt, London; 1836, Hermitage, Leningrad; 1937, A. W. Mellon, Washington.
In this version of the classical Madonna tondo, which immediately preceded the Madonna della Sedia in Florence (Pl. 84),
the impressions of Raphael’s years in that city (Michelangelo’s tondo relief for Taddeo Taddei, the Doni Madonna, and the
gracefulness of Leonardo) combine with the tendency towards the heroic style of the Roman period, whose early fruits can
be seen in the ceiling- and wall-paintings of the Stanza della Segnatura. The picture can thus hardly be dated later than the
beginning of 1511. There is a first sketch for the overall composition in Lille (R.Z. VIII, No. 364), in which the work is still
conceived as an oblong oval, and on the back of the same sheet there is the marvellous study for the seated mother (R.Z.
VIII, No. 365). I agree with Fischel that the single study for the young St. John, in Rotterdam, Boymans-van Beuningen
Museum (R.Z. VIII, No. 355), should be considered an original by Raphael rather than a copy after the painting; this view
needs some reservations, however, on account of the bad condition of the drawing.
A sheet in the Albertina (Stix-Fröhlich Cat. III, No. 70), which shows the composition as an upright oval, represents, as
Fischel has already suggested with good reason (see under R.Z. VIII, No. 364 and Fig. 289), a stage which could have come
between the model study for the seated Madonna (R.Z. VIII, No. 365) and the definitive version in the picture. The young
St. John is here still shown with his right leg drawn up, as in R.Z. VIII, No. 364, and the right arm of the Christ Child is extended as in the painting, while the Madonna’s body is more upright than in the Lille drawing and in the picture; her head is
only slightly bowed and appears more reserved, an effect which is increased by the band beneath her chin. The drawing is
in poor condition and has been reworked, and I agree with Fischel that Raphael’s own touch is missing; the Vienna catalogue does not seem to be justified in claiming that this sketch is by the master, but as a copy of what may have been an
original pictorial idea by Raphael, it has a particular value. A rectangular drawing in the sacristy of S. Giovanni in Laterano, Rome (89 x 91 cm.) has suffered such damage that its quality is hard to assess; doubts as to its originality were expressed by Cavalcaselle, and Fischel finally rejected it as ‘dully pedantic’. Hermanin defended its authenticity (illustrated
on p. 93 of his article in ZfbK, N. F. 1925-6) and claimed that it was a tracing taken from the Gaeta version and used for the
Alba Madonna.
Passavant II, p. 128 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 208 (a.); Müntz, p. 390 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 98 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 81 (a.);
Hermanin 1925-6, p. 81 ff. (a.); v. Baldass 1926-7, p. 32 ff. (a.); Niemeyer VIII, 1928, p. 18 ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 99 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 255 ff. (a.); Ortolani, p. 39 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 40; Wölfflin 1948, p. 97 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 130, 132, 179, 361 f. (a.); Putscher, pp. 124, 184 f. (a.); Schöne, p. 36 with Fig. 64 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 97 (a.); Freedberg, p. 131 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, pp. 97 f., 110 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 233 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 131 (a.).
COPIES: A large number of replicas exist, some dating from the sixteenth century and some from later times, some rectan-
gular and some in the tondo format. The most discussed version was formerly owned by Prince Putbus on the island of
Rügen and was acquired by a dealer in 1924-5. This is a rectangular panel, 94 x 90 cm., which came from one of the two
churches of the Knights of Malta - S. Leonardo or S. Maria dell’Ospedale - in Gaeta; it passed into the possession of Neapolitan art dealers early in the nineteenth century and was bought in 1830 by the Prussian ambassador, Count Friedrich von
Wylich und Lottum. When it was exhibited in Berlin in 1868, there were already some who claimed that this version was
an original work by Raphael. Later it received much attention in the 1920s, when it was the subject of lively discussion.
Hermanin and Baldass declared it an early work by Raphael and dated it from the Florentine period, Hermanin from 15046, Baldass from about 1507-9. These attempts to establish the Gaeta version as an authentic work by
Page 35
Page 36
Raphael were countered by Niemeyer and Beenken, who proved conclusively that it cannot be by the master, but must be
the work of a copyist who combined elements from more than one source. Niemeyer suggested Penni or A. Sabbatini,
Beenken one of Perugino’s successors. Since then no further notice has been taken of the Gaeta picture.
Other copies: Genoa, Peirano Collection; said to have been owned by a remote descendant of the Rovere family from
Lavagnola near Savona. The format is rectangular, and instead of the tree stump in the original there is a mighty oak tree
(Rovere = oak tree). In La Vergine della Rovere, Genoa 1877 (with illustration) Casella argued that this was a variant of the
Alba Madonna executed by Raphael himself, but it was described by Cavalcaselle as a later copy (II, p. 100 f.). - Paris,
Salle des Ventes de la Douane 1930, attributed to F. Francia; illustrated in Beaux-Arts VIII/2, 1930, p. 12. - Rome, Galleria
Nazionale; from Casa Colonna. - Rome, Galleria Borghese, No. 171: declared a copy by Pergola, Borghese Cat. II, p. 121;
formerly in Rome, Principe de la Pace (Godoy); this example is supposed to have come from the Duke of Alba’s Collection, and to have been presented to Minister Godoy by the personal doctor of the Duchess of Alba in gratitude for his release from prison. This may be the same as the copy in Alicante, Algolfa Collection, which is mentioned in the catalogue of
the Hermitage (ed. 1939), p. 139; this is dubious, however, for in the catalogue this picture is described as an eighteenthcentury work, while Passavant (II, p. 129) called the Godoy example a ‘comparatively old’ copy. - Vienna, Akademie, No.
494: end of the sixteenth century; Eigenberger, Cat. 1927, p. 309. - According to Passavant II, p. 131, other copies existed
in London (Lord Dudley) and in Milan (Collezione Bernardi).
Passavant II, p. 130 (r.); R. Bussler, Ein ächter Raffael. Berlin 1868 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 197 (attributed to Penni;
Gustav Richter, Madonna di Gaeta, Berlin 1895 (a.); Huppertz, Corriere d’Italia, 4 April 1924 (a.); Hermanin 1925-6, p.
81 ff. (a.); v. Baldass 1926-7, p. 32 ff. (a.); Niemeyer 1928, p. 58 ff. (r.); Beenken, 1927-8, p. 186 ff. (copy); Lüdke, The
Madonna di Gaeta, Leipzig, undated. This work includes translations of the articles by Baldass and Hermanin and contributions from Waldmann, Lüdke and Stückelberg; also statements of the authenticity of the Madonna di Gaeta by 11 German and Italian art historians (a.); Fischel, Th-B, Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 437 (replica); Hauptmann, p. 256 f. (copy); Camesasca
I, p. 84 (r.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 361 (old replica with erroneous alterations); Dussler 1966, No. 131 (r.).
Seated Madonna with the Child on her Lap and the Young St. John (Madonna della Sedia)
Plate 84
PROVENANCE: Florence, Medici; 1589, Uffizi Tribuna, Florence; Palazzo Pitti, Florence; 1799-1815 in Paris.
The tondo was the form in which Raphael could best achieve his artistic aims. His early compositions in this form, the
Madonna Conestabile (Pl. 16), the Madonna Terranuova (Pl. 48), and the Holy Family under the Palm Tree (Pl. 59) were
followed by the predella panels to the Borghese Entombment (Pls. 64-6) and the ceiling roundels in the Stanza della Segnatura (Pls. 115, 116, 119, 120), which lead to the classic formulation in the Madonna della Sedia. Its composition has often
been examined, but the picture calls for admiration as a whole rather than for verbal analysis. J. Burckhardt (Vorträge, ed.
E. Dürr, Basel 1918, p. 322) said of it: ‘The Madonna della Sedia sums up, as it were, the entire philosophy of the tondo.’
The solution of the compositional problem is as successful as the expression is unforgettable, and the effect is not marred
by the slightest trace of virtuosity.
An early idea for the composition is found in the pen sketch in Lille (R.Z. VIII, No. 364, top). The picture as almost exactly
contemporary with the Madonna della Tenda (Munich, Pl. 87) and was painted immediately after the Sistine Madonna
(Dresden, Pl. 83), about 1513-14.
COPIES: Dresden, Gallery, No. 97; Stuttgart, Gallery, No. 478; London, Apsley House (omitting St. John; Venturi, Storia,
IX/2, Fig. 302); Capt. Spencer-Churchill Collection, Christie’s sale, 11 February 1966.
Rumohr, p. 564 (a.); Passavant II, p. 294 f (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 240 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 532 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 182 ff.
(a.); Morelli, 1890. p. 63 (a.); Bayersdorfer, p. 98 (a.); Gronau, p. 131 (a.); Gamba, p. 86 f. (a.); Hetzer 1932, pp. 22 f. (a.);
Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 262 ff. (a.); Ortolani, p. 52 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 131, 364 (a.); Hetzer 1947,
p. 55 f. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 96 (a.); Putscher, pp. 126, 179 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate III (a.); Gombrich 1956 (a.); Freedberg, p.
181 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 98 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 234 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 31 (a.).
The Madonna standing on Clouds with SS. Sixtus and Barbara (The Sistine Madonna)
Plate 83
Dresden, Gemäldegalerie, No. 93.
PROVENANCE: Piacenza, San Sisto (donated by Pope Julius II); 1745, bought by King Augustus III of Saxony; 1954 re-
moved to Russia, 1955 returned to the Dresden Gallery.
Not until 1550 was the origin and destination of this work described; Vasari (ed. Ricci, III, p. 111 f.) devoted a single sentence to it: ‘Fece a’ monaci neri di San Sisto in Piacenza la tavola dello altar maggiore, dentrovi la Nostra Donna con San
Sisto, et Santa Barbara, cosa veramente rarissima et singulare.’ Careful research has established that this information applies also to the preceding decades and that the painting had been intended for the above-mentioned Benedictine basilica
from its very inception. It is
Page 36
Page 37
known that at the time of the painting’s completion (1512-13) this church was being extended, and that the new edifice was
consecrated in 1514; it has also been proved that, ever since the foundation of the monastery in the ninth century, the
church had preserved relics of the two saints who appear in the picture, St. Sixtus II and St. Barbara. The relationship
which then existed between Pope Julius II, on the one hand, and Piacenza and the monks of the church of S. Sisto, on the
other, has also been established. While he was still a Cardinal (1500), Julius had subsidized the building of the church with
money obtained from indulgences, and during the war with France the town of Piacenza gave the Papal State its willing
support. On the occasion of the victory celebrations and the three-day thanksgiving procession at the end of June 1512
Piacenza sent a special deputation to pay homage at the Papal court. This must be seen as the background against which the
Sistine Madonna was created. The Piacenza representatives probably requested from the Pope a picture for the high altar,
and Julius, graciously granting their petition in fullest measure, gave the commission to Raphael. The Pope’s personal involvement is reflected in the picture; not only is the martyr Pope portrayed with Julius’ features, but (as H. Grimme was the
first to demonstrate) the embroidery on his pluvial and the ornament surmounting his tiara are based on the motif of the
Rovere coat of arms, the oak leaf and the acorn. St. Sixtus was also the patron of the Rovere family, and Julius II’s uncle
called himself Sixtus IV when he was raised to the Papal throne. Unfortunately the scholar who made this convincing point
went on to give a completely erroneous interpretation of the painting, regarding it as a funerary covering for Julius II,
which, he claimed, decorated the as yet unfinished Michelangelo tomb and only reached the monks at S. Sisto after this was
completed. To disprove this hypothesis of Grimme’s in every detail would require a lengthy dissertation; various important
arguments against it have already been adduced by Putscher (p. 197 ff.), and others can be found in the very important article by R. Berliner (Das Münster, 1958). Strangely enough, Grimme’s interpretation was accepted by Fischel and recently
by H. von Einem, who discussed the picture in great detail; they also agreed with Grimme’s view that the picture represents
the ‘death-bed prayer, Salve Regina’. However, the ‘Salve Regina’ (an invocation of the Virgin and her Divine Son) is not
included in the prayers which the Church prescribes in the liturgy for the dead - as pointed out by the writer in 1962
(Fischel, Raphael, p. 102, Note 10a) and confirmed quite recently, in July 1969, by Redig de Campos in a letter - and hence
the interpretation becomes baseless; moreover, St. Barbara in the picture has none of the characteristics of an intercessor
and cannot be regarded as the patron saint of the dying. In my opinion the work should not be obscured by a deadweight of
interpretation, as has often happened, for these lead one to misapprehend Raphael’s genius, and to overlook the mystery of
the inspiration which he possessed.
The fifteenth-century precedents leading up to this work have been pointed out by Wölfflin and, in even greater detail, by
Putscher (pp. 74 ff.); the efforts of these scholars have been considerably supplemented by R. Berliner, particularly by his
reference to Fra Angelico’s Madonna dei Linaioli (Museo S. Marco, Florence). The Sistine Madonna dates from about the
same time as the Madonna di Foligno (Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana), and sheets such as R.Z. VIII, Nos 369 and 368 (in
Chatsworth and Frankfurt) are very close to the sketch for the Aracoeli picture (London; R.Z. VIII, No. 370); these conceptions, however, are concerned not only with the formal treatment of the hovering motif, but with the central theme of an
Epiphany. For the composition of the work is based on the concept of a manifestation, and this impression remains so firm
from the first moment of seeing the picture that no other interpretation can shake it. This is also the view reached by
Putscher in her thorough and comprehensive book (p. 91 ff.) and by Hetzer in his excellent discussion (1947), which deals
mainly with problems of formal analysis; he treats all speculative interpretations with reserve and speaks only of the idea of
a ‘vision’. Alpatow’s perceptive and subtle appreciation maintains the same view.
The ‘church banner’ theory advanced by Rumohr and still defended by Ortolani (1942) needs no further refutation after
Putscher’ discussion, neither is there any need to go on discussing the question where the picture was placed in the church.
In my opinion it never occupied any other place than that mentioned by Vasari: it was placed above the high altar, and only
there could it have its full effect. The hypothesis advanced by Brunn (Kleine Schriften, Berlin 1906, III) and repeated by
Putscher (p. 12 ff.) that the picture was hung in the apsis of the old choir between the two side windows was formerly also
accepted by Schöne, but as a result of later researches he later changed his view (see Schöne 1955-6, p. 10 f. and 1958, p.
36). Recently W. Lotz (1963) broached the same question and agreed with Schöne’ rejection of the hypothesis. There is no
point in dealing again with such an erroneous idea. There was therefore no need for Raphael to inspect the place where the
picture was to hang (as suggested by Filippini) nor is there any evidence that he went to Piacenza. The work was begun
when Julius II commissioned it in the summer of 1512, and was probably completed in March 1513 at the earliest, perhaps
a few months later. When the new building of S. Sisto was consecrated in 1514 the picture was probably in its destined
place. In 1754 it was replaced in Piacenza by a copy which P. A. Avanzini had painted in 1728. For the other copies see
Putscher, pp. 265 ff.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi), IV, p. 365 (a.); Rumohr, p. 571 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 338 ff. (a.); Passavant 1860, p. 278 ff. (rejects
‘church banner’ theory);
Page 37
Page 38
Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 477 (a.); Müntz, p. 538 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 297 ff. (a.); Woermann 1900, pp. 12 ff. (a.); Probst 1910
(a.); Grimme 1922, p. 41 ff. (a.); Posse 1922 (a.); Gronau p. 133 (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 201 ff. (a.); Posse 1926-7, p. 233
ff.; Posse 1931, p. 286 (a.); Gamba, p. 104 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 61 f. (a.); Schaeffer 1936 (a.); Hetzer 1947 (a.); Wölfflin, 1948, p. 144 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 135 ff. 363 (a.); Putscher (a.; with extensive bibliography);
Schöne, Kunstgeschichtliche Gesellschaft Berlin, Sitzungsberichte 1955-6, Heft 4, p. 10 f. (a.); Schöne, pp. 19, 36 (a.); Alpatow 1957, pp. 25 ff. (a.); Rocca 1957, pp. 73 ff.; Berliner 1958, pp. 85 ff. (a.); Camesasca I, Plates 116-8 (a.); Schewe
1959, p. 201 (a.); Chastel 1959, pp. 492 f. (a.); Freedberg, pp. 170 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, pp. 101 ff. (a.); Lotz 1963; Brizio
1963, col. 234 (a.); Alpatow 1966, pp. 42 ff.; Dussler 1966, No. 24 (a.); von Einem 1968, pp. 97 ff. (a.).
Madonna and Child enthroned, with the Archangel Raphael, Tobias and St. Jerome (Madonna del Pesce)
Plate 85
PROVENANCE: Cappella G. B. del Duce, San Domenico, Naples; 1638, Duca Medina de las Torres, Naples; 1645, King
Philip IV of Spain, Madrid; Aula de S. Escritura, Escorial; 1813, looted and taken to Paris; returned in 1822.
The traditional name of this altar-piece, ‘Madonna del Pesce’, suggests that the young Tobias, holding the fish and recommended by his patron, the archangel Raphael, was regarded as of special importance - which is in fact stressed by the composition: the gesture of the Child, the slight turning of the Virgin’s head, the glance of St. Jerome and the fall of the drapery
are directed towards the two figures at the left. The Hebrew name Raphael signifies ‘medicina Dei’; both he and the young
Tobias, who cured his father’s blindness with the gall taken from the fish, had long been regarded as ‘healers’. Hence G.
Waagen was probably right in thinking that the Dominicans had commissioned the picture for sufferers afflicted with eye
diseases. This is still more likely than various other interpretations, some of which were already rejected by Passavant.
The picture is first mentioned in a letter from P. Summonte to M. A. Michiel written in Naples on 20 March 1524 (Golzio,
p. 151). A preliminary sketch for the composition is in the Uffizi (R.Z. VIII, No. 371). A drawing with bistre wash (Colville
Collection, London) which according to Fischel (R.Z. VIII, No. 372) represents a later stage of the composition can hardly
be accepted as original and had already been rejected by Passavant. A study for the profile head of the archangel (in Berlin;
R.Z. VIII, under No. 372, ill. in text, Fig. 293a) is heavily reworked; it may be by Raphael rather than by Fra Bartolommeo.
It has often been emphasized that the execution of the picture was largely entrusted to the workshop (see Frizzoni), but as
the contribution of Penni or Giulio Romano cannot be determined, the possibility remains that Raphael was responsible for
the final reworking. The picture must date from before 1517, when Gregorius de Gregoriis made a woodcut of the
Madonna and Child group. It was probably painted even earlier, about 1513-14, close in time to the frescoes in the second
Vatican stanza.
COPIES: Escorial; Naples, S. Paolo dei Teatini, sacristy; Valladolid, Museum; according to Waagen (1868, p. 109), there
was also a copy in the Wellington Collection.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 348 (a.); Borghini 1584, p. 391 (a.); Lomazzo (ed. Milan) 1584, p. 286 (a.); Passavant II, p. 150
f. (a.); Waagen 1868, p. 107 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 533 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 396 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 177 ff. (a.); Frizzoni 1893, p. 316 (in part by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 360 (a.); Gronau, p. 108 (a.); Gamba, p. 87 (a.); Berenson
1932, p. 481 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 54 f. (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 144 (invention a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 139 f., 364 (a.);
Camesasca I, Plate 108 (a.); Loeffler 1957, pp. 1 ff., Notes 20, 21 (r.); Freedberg, p. 172 f. (execution by Penni and Giulio
Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 104 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (partly a.); Dussler 1966, No. 74 (invention a.; execution partly
a.).
Madonna and Child with the Young St. John, SS. Elizabeth and Catherine (Madonna dell’Impannata)
Plate 86
Wood: 158 x 125 cm.
PROVENANCE: Bindo Altoviti, Rome; Palazzo Vecchio, Florence (in the private chapel of Granduca Cosimo Medici); 1799-
1815, in Paris.
The radiograph carried out at the instigation of Sanpaolesi shows differences between the present composition and its
original version. The right side of the picture was occupied, not by St. John the Baptist, but by Joseph seated in profile,
with his stick in his right hand; next to him was the head of a boy - probably St. John - portrayed full-face. Apart from minor variations, however, the arrangement of the figures in the left half of the painting has remained the same. An original
drawing in Windsor (R.Z. VIII, No. 373), which Ragghianti groundlessly declared to be a copy, represents the lefthand part
of the picture and, to judge from the variations, can be regarded as the primary sketch.
The second version of the picture - i.e. its present form - is also represented in a drawing by Raphael (Berlin; R.Z. VIII, No.
374), which contains studies for the Christ Child and the seated St. John. These sheets together prove beyond doubt that the
master was personally responsible for the composition of the first version as well as of the final composition. The execution, however, has the character of a workshop
Page 38
Page 39
production (as has long been established); the assistant responsible can only have been G. F. Penni, and not Giulio
Romano, as has often been stated. This is clear from the evidence of the painting itself, and also from the fact that it was
carried out about 1514 (this date has never been queried), when Giulio could hardly have possessed the necessary technical
competence. It is not impossible that Raphael himself painted some of the heads, such as those of St. Elizabeth and the
Christ Child, which Fischel and Ciaranfi claim to be his work.
A REPLICA of this picture is in New York, in the Collection of Dr. Victor C. Thorne (illustrated in Boll. d’A. XXXI, 1937-8,
p. 498); this is probably the same as the work mentioned by Fischel (1935, p. 441) in Philadelphia (see also: Farina, The
Original and Author of the Madonna dell’Impannata, 1929). According to the owner, this painting was purchased before
1850 from the Palazzo Altoviti in Rome and should thus be regarded as a contemporary workshop replica of the Florence
example. Direct comparison of the two pictures in Florence has in no way contradicted this verdict.
COPY: Madrid, Prado, No. 313.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 351 (a.); Rumohr, p. 547 (r.); Passavant II, p. 394 f. (in part a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 336 ff. (in
part by Giulio Romano); Müntz, pp. 531, 533 (workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 135 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni?); Dollmayr
1895, p. 359 (by Penni); Gronau, p. 110 (workshop); Gamba, p. 95 (workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (workshop); Sanpaolesi 1937-8, p. 495 ff. (a.); Porcella 1937, p. 57 (r.; American version a.); Ragghianti, Crit. d’A. III, 1938, Notizie e Letture, p. XXXII f. (a.); Ortolani, p. 60 (workshop); Fischel 1948, I, p. 364 (invention a., execution by Penni); Putscher, p. 29
(workshop); Ciaranfi, Galleria Pitti, p. 48 (in part a.); Camesasca I, Plate 109 (a.); Freedberg, p. 172 ff. (execution by Giulio Romano); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (partly a.); Dussler 1966, No. 30 (invention a.).
Madonna with the Child on her Lap and the Young St. John (Madonna della Tenda)
Plate 87
Munich, Alte Pinakothek, No. H.G.797.
Wood: 66 x 51 cm.
PROVENANCE: Escorial; 1813, Sir Thomas Baring, London; 1814, Crown Prince Ludwig of Bavaria.
Doubts have repeatedly been raised, since the time of Morelli, whether Raphael was responsible for the execution of this
picture, and Alfani or Giulio Romano has been suggested. These suggestions were rightly rejected by Fischel and more recently by Oertel, for, although the picture is by no means in a perfect state of preservation, it shows none of the characteristics of these painters. An early idea for the composition is preserved in Lille (R.Z. VIII, No. 364, top), on a sheet which also
contains a preliminary study, apparently dating from the same time, for the Madonna della Sedia in Florence (Pl. 84), a picture very closely related to the Tenda Madonna. From the stylistic affinity with the frescoes in the second Vatican Stanza it
can be inferred that this work was painted about 1513-14.
COPIES: Of the copies mentioned by Passavant, the example in Turin, Galleria Nazionale No. 146, is the most important.
An eighteenth-century copy is in the Vienna Academy (Eigenberger 1927, I, p. 309).
A. Conca, Descrizione odeporica della Spagna, Parma, 1793-7 (a.); Passavant II, p. 297 f. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 232
ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 531 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 184 f. (by Alfani); Morelli 1891, p. 144 f. (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p.
357 (by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p. 132 (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Gamba, p. 104 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 49
(a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 130, 132, 365 (a.); Putscher, pp. 126, 127, 179 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 110 (in part a.); Freedberg,
p. 347 f. (a.); Oertel, Italienische Malerei bis zum Ausgang der Renaissance. Meisterwerke der Pinakothek, Munich 1960,
p. 33 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 99 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 234 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 85 (a.).
St. Cecilia with SS. Paul, John the Evangelist, Augustine and Mary Magdalene
Plate 88
Bologna, Pinacoteca.
1803, transferred from wood to canvas: 238 x 150 cm.
PROVENANCE: commissioned by Beata Elena Duglioli dall’Olio for the family chapel in S. Giovanni in Monte, Bologna
(see Golzio, p. 28 f.); 1798-1815, in Paris.
This painting is one of the most perfect of Raphael’s works. It owes its existence to Elena Duglioli dall’Olio, a lady of Bologna (later beatified), who was led by a vision to commission it as an altar-piece for her family chapel in the right transept
of S. Giovanni in Monte. She acted through the intermediary of her adviser and relative, Bishop Antonio Pucci, who informed his distinguished uncle in Rome, Cardinal Lorenzo Pucci, of her request; the latter was a close friend of Raphael
and gave him the commission for the picture. This has remained unsurpassed and has made St. Cecilia popular as the patron
saint of music. Previously her regular attributes had been the palm of martyrdom and a book; in the fresco cycle of scenes
from her life painted a few years earlier by Francia, Costa and Aspertini in S. Giacomo Maggiore in Bologna there is no allusion to music (cf. Daniela Scaglietti, ‘La Cappella di Santa Cecilia’, in Il Tempio di San Giacomo Maggiore in Bologna,
Bologna 1964, p. 133 ff.) The idea of honouring her as the patron saint of music derives from the words in the antiphonal
sung at Lauds on the day the Church commemorates her (November 22): ‘Cantantibus organis Caecilia Domino decantabat
dicens: fiat cor meum immaculatum, ut non confundar.’ This point in her legend will have inspired Raphael’s conception of
St. Cecilia; he depicts her in a state of ecstasy, with her eyes raised to Heaven, and with her arms lowered, holding a portable organ, which appears to be about to fall (a few of the pipes can already be seen to be slipping).
Page 39
Page 40
Many other musical instruments are already scattered on the ground, especially prominent being a large viola da gamba
with damaged belly and broken strings, which lies at an angle to the onlooker. In painting these instruments, Raphael was
helped by his friends, Giovanni da Udine, who also helped him in the Vatican loggias (Vasari, ed. Milanesi, VI, p. 551).
The saints grouped around St. Cecilia are Paul and Mary Magdalene (in front), John the Evangelist and Augustine (behind).
It is not known at whose instigation they were included, but they were presumably chosen by an ecclesiastical adviser; I
agree with Justi and Fischel in thinking that the idea of Love played an important part in the choice. (St. John the Evangelist was, moreover, the patron saint of S. Giovanni in Monte.) The concept of music which is the basis of the painting has
been discussed by Justi, and also by Bishop Paul W. von Keppler ‘Gedanken über Raffaels Cäcilia’ in: Aus Kunst und Leben, Freiburg 1905, p. 27 ff., J. Sauer in: F. X. Kraus, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst II, 2, Freiburg 1908, p. 511 f., De
Santi in Civiltà Cattolica LXXII, 1921, p. 328 ff., and (the most penetrating of all) W. Gurlitt, ‘Die Musik in Raffaels
Heiliger Caecilie’ in Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters für 1938, Leipzig 1939, p. 88 ff. While each of these attempts at
explanation contributes valid points, the detailed historical interpretation put forward by Gurlitt probably comes closest to
the basic theme. He sees the picture as a presentation of ‘the Christian concept of music’ in its medieval form, that is: ‘the
inferiority of all music perceived by the senses to what is absolute music in the religious sense, i.e. the Musica coelestis . . .
which can be played only by angels and can be heard only by saints’.
Marcantonio’s engraving (B.XIV, No. 116) was believed by Justi and Wölfflin, as well as by Müntz, to preserve a preliminary sketch by Raphael. Even if this were true in part, I would still consider it almost impossible to attribute such a largely
lifeless conception to the master at a time when his powers were at their height. It seems more realistic to agree with P.
Kristeller (1907, p. 219) that ‘the engraver can only have seen a cursory sketch, which led him to conventionalize it and
make careless mistakes’; moreover, one suspects that Marcantonio may have made arbitrary alterations to bring his graphic
reproduction to a more conventional form. Fischel has pointed out (1935, p. 440) that the engraving is made up of a jumble
of motifs which derive partly from Raphael - Mary Magdalene, e.g., has the profile of the Madonna Tenda (Munich; Pl.
87). It seems probable, however, that the group of five angels playing various musical instruments in the sky represents an
earlier version, even though this polyphonic activity is replaced in the picture by the very much more effective and compact
motif of a group of angels singing. Among the saints, who are so subtly differentiated and animated, the elegant Mary
Magdalene, who looks clearly profane and is the only figure to establish a link with the beholder, has always attracted attention. There is no doubt that her face corresponds to Raphael’s ideal of beauty, such as we meet it above all in the Velata
of the Galleria Pitti (Pl. 80) and the so-called Fornarina in Rome (Pl. 93), but the artist has also distinguished her by her
self-assured bearing, her slim figure, her elegant costume with sharp, metallic drapery, ,and by her cool expression, which
is emphasized by the colour. It is very probable that Raphael was here inspired by a Hellenistic model, and in making such
a choice the classic artist made his first contribution to the stylistic form which we call mannerism. Shearman is therefore
right in quoting the figure of Mary Magdalene as an example of Raphael’s anti-classicism.
No drawings by Raphael have survived, either for the whole composition or for the individual figures. A sketch of St. Paul
standing (Haarlem, Teyler Museum) which Malaguzzi-Valeri once claimed to be by Raphael (Archivio storico dell’Arte,
VII, 1894, p. 367), and which was recently again attributed to him by Lugt (Le Dessin italien dans les collections hollandaises; 1962, No. 63), can only be a sixteenth-century copy; Cavalcaselle (II, p. 305, Note) already regarded it as such.
Recently the iconographic programme of the picture was examined in detail by Mossakowski. He traces its sources to the
Neo-Platonic tendencies then current in Rome, and assumes that these were brought to Raphael’s notice by Cardinal
Lorenzo Pucci and Bishop Antonio Pucci. While the results of Mossakowski’s researches are very informative, no delving
into literature or philosophy is required for an understanding of the picture: the master’s work expresses in full what he had
in mind. It is this clarity and openness of meaning which constitute the greatness of the picture.
The picture can hardly have been painted later than 1514. It has lost much of its effectiveness and expressive power
through being moved from the St. Cecilia Chapel in S. Giovanni in Monte, the place for which it was intended and suited.
For a reconstruction of its original appearance see the photomontage in Schöne, p. 70; the copy which is now in the chapel
has the original frame by the Bolognese A. Formiggine.
COPIES: Dresden, Gallery, No. 94, by D. Calvaert; Rome, S. Luigi dei Francesi, second chapel on the right, by Guido Reni.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 349 f. (a.); Borghini 1584, p. 391 (a.); Lomazzo (ed. Milan), p. 171 (a.); Rumohr, p. 566 (in part
a.); Passavant II, p. 180 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 544 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 301 ff. (a.); Morelli 1890, p. 67 f. (a.); MalaguzziValeri 1894, p. 367 (a.); Müllner 1895 (interpretation); Justi 1904, p. 130 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 117 (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 230
(a.); Gamba, p. 96 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Ortolani, p. 60 (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 55 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 244
ff., 364 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 140 f. (a.); Putscher, pp. 58 f., 185 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 106 (a.); Schöne, pp. 23 f., 37 and
Figs. 70, 71 (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 492 (a.); Jedlicka, Wege zum
Page 40
Page 41
Kunstwerk, p. 115 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 175 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 181 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 239 (a.); Brizio, in ‘Studi
in onore di Giusta N. Fasola’, Arte Lombarda IX, I, Supplemento 1964, p. 99 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 10 (a.); Mossakowski 1968, p. 1 ff. (a.).
Portrait of Giuliano de’ Medici
Plate 89
New York, Metropolitan Museum, No. 49.7.12.
Transferred from canvas to wood: 83 x 68 cm.
Signed on the fluting of the casket under the sitter’s left arm:
R.S.M. . . . V (the gap should be completed: DXI).
PROVENANCE: heirs of Ottaviano de’ Medici, Florence; Casa Baldovinetti, Florence; Casa Brini, Florence; 1866, Grand
Princess Maria of Russia, Florence; Prince Leuchtenberg, St. Petersburg; Principe Sciarra-Colonna, Rome; 1907, Huldschinsky, Berlin; J. Bache, New York.
The existence of a portrait of Giuliano in the possession of Ottaviano de’ Medici’s heirs is attested by Vasari, and in a letter
to Bibbiena of 19 April 1516 (Golzio, p. 43), Bembo mentions a portrait of the recently deceased duke (died 17 March),
which must refer to that of Giuliano. The composition of the New York picture represents Raphael’s style of portraiture of
about 1515, but its authenticity has repeatedly been questioned, and even when accepting it as autograph, some scholars
have allowed the execution to be only partly by Raphael. The change of views is most clearly illustrated by Fischel’s varying comments from 1907 to his final judgement in his monograph (1948, I, pp. 114, 365) where he states that only the head
was carried out by the master. (A copy of the head, attributed to Giulio Romano, is in Alnwick Castle, Duke of Northumberland; cf. H. Mendelsohn, Das Werk der Dossi, Munich 1914, p. 189.) Even the motif on the right of the picture - the
Castel Sant’ Angelo, which had never before been doubted and was interpreted as a reference to Giuliano’s position as the
Pope’s captain general - was later excluded by Fischel from the original version (Thieme-Becker, XXIX, p. 439) and declared to be a later addition; the same view is held by Gamba and other scholars. F. de Maffei, who believes the New York
example to have been executed by Penni (an opinion with which I agree), has drawn attention to a half-length portrait in
Bellinzona (Dr. Luigi Brunetti), which she considers the original work. This picture, on wood, (67 x 53 cm.), which has
been cut down at all four corners, bears the following inscription at the top: (IULIA)NUS MED. LEONIS. X. FR(ATER); it is
supposed to have belonged to the House of Savoy (Castello Monferrino di S. Giorgio in Piedmont) and was brought to
Monte Carlo at the beginning of the twentieth century by Professor C. Rossi, who bequeathed it to the Zambrini di Vallescura family. According to Maffei, this picture may have been given to Philiberta of Savoy on her marriage; it would thus be
datable between the end of 1513 and early 1514. Whether this is correct or not, the colour plate in L’Arte, 1959, does not
give the impression that the work in Bellinzona is of a quality to be ascribed to Raphael himself; it is more likely to be an
old copy. Camesasca mentions this portrait under ‘Turin, in private possession’ and considers it to be original. - The same
article by Maffei also contains illustrations of the copy of the New York example by A. Allori and of the portrait of Giuliano by Bronzino (?), both in Florence, Palazzo Riccardi.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 352 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 175 ff.; v. Liphart, Paris 1867 (a.); Müntz, p. 559 (d.); Cr.-Cav. II, p.
258 (d.); Fischel 1907, p. 117 (a.); Gronau, p. 126 (a.); Fischel, Kstchr. XXXV, 1925, p. 117 (a, but criticizing quality);
Gamba, p. 102 f. (copy); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 59 (copy); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 114, 365 (in part a.); Suida,
p. 26, No. 95 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 150A and p. 85 f. (a.); Maffei 1959, p. 318 ff. (copy by Penni); Freedberg, p. 178 f.
(in part a.); Fischel 1962, p. 85 (in part a.); Brizio 1963, col. 241 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 92 (r.).
Portrait of a Young Man
Plate 90
Cracow, Czartoryski Museum.
Wood: 72 x 56 cm.
PROVENANCE: Reghellini (?), Venice; 1807, Count Adam Czartoryski, Putawy Castle near Warsaw; idem 1830, Hôtel
Lambert, Paris; idem 1848, London; idem 1851, Paris; idem 1871, Cracow; 1915, on loan in Dresden, Gemälde-galerie.
No certain information is available regarding the exact provenance of this portrait, for its former owner in Venice is sometimes called Giustiniani, sometimes Reghellini and sometimes Nicola Antonioli (following the inscription on an outline engraving by Felice Zuliani dating from the beginning of the nineteenth century). It is likely that the original portrait had long
been in a Venetian collection, for it was seen there and copied by A. van Dyck about 1622, as the drawing in his
sketchbook in Chatsworth attests (see G. Adriani, Anton van Dyck, Italienisches Skizzenbuch, Vienna 1940, Pl. 109V). Van
Dyck portrayed the sitter without background, but drew the right hand in its entirety, thus justifying the assumption that the
painting was later cut down on the left. (This fact was noticed by J. Burckhardt, Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte von Italien,
Stuttgart 2nd ed., 1911, p. 265.) There is no proof that the portrait was in the Flemish artist’s own possession (a theory considered improbable by Passavant II, p. 123), or even that it was at one time in northern Europe. However, that the work was
known in the Low Countries in the seventeenth century can be seen from the engraving by P. Pontius and from a portrait of
a man by Jan Lievens. The engraving is described, in the inscription, as a self-portrait of Raphael (and the right hand is still
shown complete); the picture by Lievens, which dates from about 1660 (Cracow, Count Mycielski), is clearly
Page 41
Page 42
based on the Czartoryski portrait (as shown by Schneider). In the Lievens picture the extremely detailed formal similarity
to the original shows that the artist did not take Pontius’ engraving for his model, and as neither Pontius nor Lievens travelled to Italy, a copy of the work must have been known in Northern Europe even if the Czartoryski example was not.
Strangely enough, Fischel considered the subject of this portrait to be a woman of the same physical type as the so-called
Fornarina, and he was followed by Freedberg, who rejects the attribution to Raphael and dates the picture after 1520 (!).
This theory did not find acceptance, for the painting is obviously the portrait of a young man dressed in a very elegant and
fashionable style (see also C. Gould, Burl. Mag. CV, 1963, p. 512). Various suggestions have been made as to the sitter’s
identity, but none is tenable - neither the assumption (which survived from the time of Pontius’ engraving into the nineteenth century) that the work was a self-portrait of Raphael, nor the attempts to identify the sitter as Francesco Maria della
Rovere or Federigo Gonzaga (E. von Liphart). Equally unfounded is Gronau’s supposition that this work might be the portrait of a Flemish painter mentioned in the 1654 Arundel Inventory (Burl. M. XIX, 1911, p. 283), for the sitter’s features are
clearly Italian and his general appearance is not that of a professional man. The suggestion that this work may be the portrait of the ‘Parmesano’ formerly in the Antonio Foscarini Collection, Venice (Jacopo Morelli, Notizia d’opere di disegno,
ed. Frizzoni, Bologna 1884, p. 172), is also without foundation, because the portrait dates from about 1516, when the socalled ‘Parmesano’ was no longer a young man.
Raphael’s authorship has repeatedly been called into question since it was denied by Cavalcaselle; but it was decisively affirmed by Gronau, Fischel and Berenson, and more recent scholars (Ortolani) hold that the design, at least, was by the master. In my opinion this portrait has such qualities (masterly composition; warm, harmonious colouring) that there can hardly
be any doubt of Raphael’s share in it. Part of the execution seems to have been undertaken by a pupil, however, although
how great a proportion could only be ascertained by a new examination of the original; there are no indications that Penni
was involved. The painting can hardly have been carried out before 1516, and the dating proposed by Gronau (the beginning of the Roman period) does not seem convincing.
COPIES: Bergamo, Accademia Carrara; Stuttgart, Gemäldegalerie, No. 482 (destroyed by fire in 1944).
Passavant II, p. 122 f. (d.); Mündler 1868, p. 300 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 222, Note (by T. Viti); E. v. Liphart 1912, p. 201 (a.);
Gronau 1915, p. 145 ff. (a.); Singer, Cicerone VII, 1915, p. 137 (a.); Fischel 1916, p. 251 ff. (a.); Schneider, Oud Holland
XXXV, 1917, p. 34 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 130 (a.); Gamba, p. 108 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 60 (sketch a.);
Fischel 1948, I, pp. 124 f., 364 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 122B (a.); Freedberg, p. 179 (by Penni); Fischel 1962, p. 93 (a.);
Brizio 1963, col. 241 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 52 (a.); Wagner 1969, p. 115, No. 14 (r.).
Portrait of the Medallist Valerio Belli
Plate 91
Saltwood Castle, Lord Clark.
Wood: tondo, diameter: 12 cm.
PROVENANCE: Valerio Belli, Vicenza; Elio Belli, Vicenza; Museo di Ca Gualdo, Vicenza (Inv. No. 1650).
Girolamo Gualdo included the following notice in his description of the Museo Gualdo (1650; manuscript in Venice, Bibl.
Marciana; published in Morsolin’s article): ‘Fu Valerio in stima presso tutti li belli ingegni del suo secolo, e fu ritratto in
tavola da Raffaello, in marmo da Michelangelo e in gesso da Ludovico Chieregato, unico di questa professione, le quali ritratti tutti io conservo’. The portrait in London has every claim to be the example mentioned in the Museo Gualdo.
Datable 1516-17.
Morsolin, ‘Il Museo Gualdo in Vicenza’, Nuovo Archivio Veneto 1894, VIII/I, p. 219 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 122 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 91 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 66 (a.);
Portrait of Cardinal Bernardo Dovizi, called Bibbiena
Plate 92
Canvas: 86x 65 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1698, in the inventory of Grandduchess Vittoria della Rovere; 1799-1815, in Paris.
Vasari mentions a portrait of the Cardinal in the latter’s house at Bibbiena, and he is also depicted on the left of the fresco
of the Battle of Ostia in the Vatican. Passavant’s theory that the sitter might have been the same as the Cardinal portrayed
in the Prado Museum (Pl. 78) can now be ruled out, but it is still an open question whether this badly preserved picture is
an original. Most scholars regard the painting in the Pitti as a copy, although Ciaranfi and Camesasca follow Cavalcaselle
in considering Raphael responsible for the head and parts of the mozzetta. From its present condition the portrait seems
more likely to be a workshop production, its composition based on a version by Raphael of about 1516-17.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi), Ragionamenti VIII, p. 157 (a.); Rumohr, p. 576 (by Girolamo da Cotignola?); Passavant II, p. 178
(copy); Müntz, p. 283, Note 2 (copy); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 264 (in part a.); Morelli 1890, p. 73 (a.); Gronau, p. 211 (r.); Gamba, p.
III (by Penni?); Ortolani, p. 62 (copy); Fischel 1948, I, p. 113 f. (by Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 122A (in part a.);
Ciaranfi, Galleria Pitti, p. 46 (in part a.); Freedberg, p. 339 f. (copy); Fischel 1962, p. 85 (by Giulio Romano); Brizio 1963,
col. 241 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 32 (invention a.).
Page 42
Page 43
Half-length Portrait of Antonio Tebaldeo
Unknown Private Ownership (about 1950 owned by Marchese Riccardo Cherubini; Menchetti, Rome).
Wood: 84 x 64 cm.
As well as the portrait of Tebaldeo in the Parnassus (Pl. 125), Raphael is supposed to have painted another likeness of the
poet in 1516, according to a letter from Bembo to Bibbiena (Golzio, p. 43 f.). It was formerly assumed that this picture was
lost - the Uffizi possesses an old copy with the inscription TIBALDEO (Freedberg, Paintings of the High Renaissance in
Rome and Florence, vol. II, Fig. 425) - but Redig de Campos believes that he has recognized the original in the present
work, which is certainly superior to that in Florence. From the reproduction this seems to be a painting stylistically similar
to the heads of Navagero and Beazzano in the Galleria Doria, Rome (Pl. 95), and to date from the same time. The present
author does not know the portrait from personal inspection and cannot therefore decide on its authenticity. Freedberg mentions an unpublished version in Switzerland, which has been described, unconvincingly, as an original.
Redig de Campos in Archivio della Società rom. di Storia patria LXXV, 1952, 3a serie, vol. VI, p. 51 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p.
336; Dussler 1966, No. 127 (d.).
Young Woman Seated (so-called ‘Fornarina’)
Plate 93
Rome, Galleria Nazionale.
Wood: 85 x 60 cm.
Signed on the bracelet: RAPHAEL VRBINAS.
PROVENANCE: Contessa di Santa Fiore, Rome; Duca Buoncompagni, Rome; since 1642, Palazzo Barberini, Rome.
The sitter closely resembles the St. Mary Magdalene in the St. Cecilia in Bologna (Pl. 88), and also - in so far as a comparison can be made with the frescoes in the Farnesina, which are not in the best state of preservation - the physical type of
Psyche. From this similarity and the informality with which she is depicted it has been assumed that she was Raphael’s
mistress; but the question must remain open since the head is somewhat different from that of the Donna Velata (Pitti Gallery; Pl. 80), whom Vasari described as the artist’s mistress, and this disposes of the suggestion that the Barberini work
might be the girl’s second portrait mentioned by Vasari. In view of the biographer’s statement: ‘ritrasse Beatrice ferrarese
ed altre donne’, there is still plenty of room for possible identifications. Referring to a letter of 23 April 1517, written by
the courtesan Beatrice to Lorenzo of Urbino, Milanesi suggested the possibility that the Medici Duke may have commissioned her portrait from Raphael (Vasari IV; p. 357, Note). Cecchelli, on the other hand, estimating the sitter's age at about
25, rejected this idea and believed that the portrait commemorated A. Chigi’s celebrated friend, called Imperia, who died in
1512. This seems equally unfounded, for his comparison with a medallion, whose subject is not even certainly Imperia and
is depicted in profile, established no particular similarity with the Barberini portrait.
The traditional title ‘Fornarina’ (Baker’s daughter), which continues to be used, is quite legendary and was first used in the
seventeenth century. Fabio Chigi, at that time, was the first to call the sitter a courtesan: ‘Illius sane meretriculae non admodum speziosam tabulam ab ipso (Raphael) effictam vidimus in aedibus Ducis Boncompagni, figura justae magnitudinis,
revincto sinistro brachio tenui ligula, in eaque aureis literis descripto nomine Raphael Vrbinas’. (Quoted from Cugnoni in
Vasari, ed. Milanesi IV, p. 356, Note.)
Of the many versions of the portrait, that mentioned by Chigi, which had been in the Palazzo Barberini since 1642, is undisputedly the best; despite the signature, however, there is still no agreement on the artist. Most scholars ascribe the work
to Raphael himself, but others consider the execution to be probably by Giulio Romano, while accepting the possibility that
Raphael put the final touches to some parts (the head especially); Freedberg and Hartt, however, completely exclude the
picture from the master’s œuvre. In my opinion, the invention may well be by Raphael himself, but the execution was most
probably the work of Giulio Romano. Painted about 1518.
The most valuable appreciation of this portrait is that given by H. Grimm in his biography of Michelangelo, even though it
must be understood in the context of the period when it was written.
COPIES: Rome: Galleria Borghese, No. 172: contemporary; Hartt, Art Bulletin, 1944, p. 93: by Raffaellino dal Colle; Pergola, Cat. Borghese II, p. 121 f.: by an unknown artist of the sixteenth century. - Rome, Galleria Doria Pamfili. - Moscow,
Museum. A copy with variations: Woman at her toilet, in the background a veduta of a palace: Hartt, G. Romano I, p. 57 f.,
and II, Fig. 114: by Giulio Romano and Raffaellino dal Colle.
Borghini 1584, p. 392 (a.); Tezio, Aedes Barberini, Rome, 1642, p. 153 (a.); Passavant II, p. 124 f. (a.); Urlichs 1870, p. 50;
Müntz, p. 405 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 305 ff. (a.); Morelli 1890, p. 68 (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 282 (r.); CorsiniSforza 1898, p. 276 ff. (a.); Cecchelli 1923, fasc. 2, p. 9 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 129 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 261 (by Giulio Romano); Gamba, p. 119 (in part a.); Glück 1936, p. 103 (a.); Ortolani, p. 64 (in part a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 124 (by Giulio
Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 139 (under Gall. Borghese); (in part a.); Pergola, Cat. Borghese II (under No. 172: a.); Fischel
1962, p. 93 (by Giulio Romano); Brizio 1962, col. 239 (partly a.); Dussler 1966, No. 116 (partly a.); Shearman, Burl. Mag.
CVIII, 1966, p. 63 (by Giulio Romano).
Page 43
Page 44
Portrait of Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beazzano
Plate 95
Rome, Galleria Doria Pamfili, No. 403.
PROVENANCE: Padua, Pietro Bembo.
This double portrait dates from April 1516. In a letter of 3 April, Bembo tells Cardinal Bibbiena that he had visited Tivoli
in the company of Raphael, Castiglione and the two humanists Navagero and Beazzano, and as Navagero went to Venice at
the end of the same month, Raphael must have painted the portrait shortly before (Golzio, p. 42). Until 1538 the portrait
remained in Bembo’s house in Padua but in that year it passed to Beazzano, as we learn from Bembo’s communication to
M. A. Anselmi of 29 July 1538 (Golzio, p. 162). As Marc Antonio Michiel also mentions the portrait as being in Bembo’s
possession (Golzio, p. 162), but speaks of it as painted on wood, Passavant and Cavalcaselle regarded the picture in Rome
as a copy, while Morelli, followed by most modern scholars, defended its authenticity. Wölfflin gave it high praise (1948,
p. 115). Fischel supposed that the empty central section formerly contained a landscape background, but there is no proof
for this view; equally improbable is the suggestion that the two halves were originally separate. A. Venturi asserted that the
painting remained unfinished, but this theory, too, is incorrect.
COPIES: Single portrait of Navagero: Madrid, Prado, No. 304; single portrait of Beazzano: Madrid, Prado, No. 305.
Passavant II, p. 292 (Venetian copy); Mündler 1868, p. 276 (a.); Waagen 1868, p. 114 (copy); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 265 (copy?);
Morelli 1890, p. 414 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 151 (a.); Gamba, p. 102 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 62 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 115 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 117 ff., 365 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 123 (unfinished a.); Freedberg, p. 336 ff.
(a.); Fischel 1962, p. 87 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 241 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 115 (a.).
Christ Carrying the Cross (Lo Spasimo)
Plate 96
Transferred from wood to canvas: 318 x 229 cm.
Signed on the stone in the foreground: RAPHAEL VRBINAS.
PROVENANCE: Palermo, S. Maria dello Spasimo; 1662, King Philip IV, Madrid; 1813-22 in Paris.
Vasari, who praises the picture highly although he had never seen it, also tells us how the ship taking it to its destination
was wrecked at the coast of Genoa. When the authorities there found the picture undamaged they were unwilling to give it
up, and it required the intervention of Pope Leo X before they sent it on to its intended destination.
The upright format, which is generally unusual for a painting of this subject, may be due to the fact that (as Waagen was
the first to suggest) the Olivetan monks had commissioned it to take the place of another altar-piece of this shape. This
would explain some strange features of the composition, such as the group below the arch and the isolated horseman with
the banner in the background. That the principal group was based on Dürer’s woodcut from the Little Passion (B. 37) is
hardly to be doubted, but it is significant that Raphael did not take over the expression of suffering and humiliation in the
figure of Christ nor did he suggest the structure of his body. The Christ, the splendid, energetic Joseph of Arimathaea and
the executioner at the left, and probably also the subtly differentiated group of women at the right, can hardly be by anyone
other than Raphael, at least as far as the invention is concerned, but the execution was probably entrusted - as is admitted
by almost all scholars - to Penni and Giulio Romano; the latter also made the drawings in the Uffizi 543E (Hartt, I, Nos. 15,
16, II, Figs. 27, 25). Cavalcaselle and H. Grimm had already observed that some earlier motifs, such as the gesture of the
Virgin and the strong contrapposto figure of the servant, are taken, with variations, from the ceiling tondo of the Judgement
of Solomon in the Stanza della Segnatura.
In the earlier literature the picture was more highly regarded than after 1900. J. Burckhardt (Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte
von Italien, 2nd. ed., 1911, p. 140) stressed the ‘highest creative power’ of the composition; Wölfflin, on the other hand,
denied even the invention to Raphael, although he praised the expression of Christ as ‘moving and true’.
The engraving by Agostino Veneziano (B. 28) is dated 1517 and the picture was therefore probably painted about 1516.
COPIES: Catania, S. Francesco, showing the composition reversed (by Vigneri, 1541); Blaise Castle, Mr. Harford; Madrid,
Academy, by Juan Carreno.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 357 f. (a.); Borghini 1584, p. 392 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 573 (a.); Passavant II, p. 299 (a.); Waagen
1868, p. 110 f. (partly a.); Gruyer, Vierges II, p. 268 (in part a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 310 ff. (in part a.); Morelli 1890, p. 180 n.
(by Giulio Romano); Frizzoni, 1893, p. 317 (in part a.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 273 (by Penni); Gronau, p. 154 (in part a.);
Gamba, p. 106 (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (by Giulio Romano); Ortolani, p. 65 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1948,
I, p. 246 f. (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 152, Note 3 (in part a.); Hartt I, p. 25 f. (by Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 124 (in
part a.); Freedberg, p. 348 f. (invention a.; execution by Penni); Fischel 1962, p. 207 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (partly
a.); Dussler 1966, No. 75 (partly a.).
The Vision of Ezechiel
Plate 98
Wood: 40 x 30 cm.
PROVENANCE: Conte Vincenzo Hercolani, Bologna; 1589, Uffizi, Florence; 1799-1815, Paris.
Page 44
Page 45
The iconography of this picture - God the Father floating on clouds, surrounded by the symbols of the four Evangelists and
accompanied by two angels supporting His blessing arms - suggests that Raphael was given by his patron a simplified description of the celestial event; the Biblical text (Ezechiel I, 4-26) is so fantastic and varying in its sequence that it can
hardly have been the immediate basis of Raphael’s conception of the theme. It was felt already at an early date that the sublime figure of Yahweh had affinities with the Antique, for Vasari remarked ‘a uso di Giove’. Later the archaeologist E.
Loewy examined the composition in detail and pointed to a connection with the Jupiter enthroned on clouds in a relief of
the Judgement of Paris found on a sarcophagus in the Villa Medici, Rome (see Azevedo, Le antichità di Villa Medici,
Rome 1951, Plate XXVIII, 43), which was engraved by Marcantonio (B. 245). The winged ox with raised, bellowing head is
also inspired by the Antique (cf. the Nike sacrificing in Heemskerk’s engraving of Pal. S. Croce, Rome), and also, not improbably, the Angel of St. Matthew. Although the subject called for a composition divided into two parts, it is striking that
the lower zone is dominated completely by the landscape, while the tiny figure of Ezechiel is discovered only on close inspection, at the spot on the left where a beam of light flows down, or rather thrusts down, upon the figure. This dominance
given to an element other than the figures is the more surprising as it is exceptional in Raphael’s work. It was common
enough in Northern Europe and appears, e.g., in Dürer’s woodcuts to the Apocalypse (B. 63, 68, 72), in his picture of All
Saints in Vienna, and Altdorfer’s Madonna on Clouds (about 1526). Hence it seems not far-fetched to suggest that Raphael
was here inspired by a Dürer print; indeed, in the celestial vision, too, parallels with North European compositions can be
recognized. Hetzer (1929, p. 90 and Figs. 15, 16) compares Schongauer’s Temptation of St. Anthony (B. 47), which had already attracted the attention of the young Michelangelo, and it must be agreed that in this case there was probably a direct
connection. But in spite of the part which small works of art may have played here and in spite of the small size of Raphael’s own picture, his composition is virtually of a monumental grandeur.
The invention goes doubtless back to Raphael himself, but the execution is given almost unanimously to the studio, and the
name of Giulio Romano has repeatedly been mentioned. But neither the technique nor the great variety of colours points to
Giulio, and that is probably why Hartt did not include the picture in his list. Fischel thought that T. Vincidor may have
taken part in the execution. Rumohr referred to the engraving by Larmessin and believed that a version now lost, formerly
in the Galerie Orléans, was of higher quality; Fischel leaves this point undecided.
As Malvasia states that Raphael received a payment of eight ducats from Conte Agostino Hercolani in 1510, it was formerly thought that the picture dated from that time. Passavant already doubted this, and only Filippini and Putscher still defend this date, while most scholars, including Fischel, date the picture between 1516 and 1518. Since it served as the model
for an Assumption in the background of a fresco of the Death of the Virgin at Trevignano, which is dated 1517, Raphael’s
picture must have been painted at the beginning of that year at the latest.
The influence of the composition in the early seventeenth century is shown in a drawing of St. Paul Caught up into the
Third Heaven by Agostino Carracci at Windsor (Wittkower, Carracci Drawings, 1952, No. 47, Pl. 16), in a painting of the
same subject by Honthorst at Rome, S. Maria della Vittoria (J. R. Judson, Gerrit van Honthorst, The Hague 1959, Fig. 8)
and another by Domenichino in the Louvre (op. cit., Fig. 62).
COPIES: Paris, Louvre, No. 1513A; Vienna, Academy: seventeenth century (Eigenberger Cat. 1927, I, p. 310).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 350 (a.); Malvasia, Felsina pittrice (ed. Zanotti), p. 46 f. (a.); Lamo, Graticola di Bologna (ed.
Zanotti) 1844, p. 13 (a.); Rumohr, p. 565 f. (Bolognese copy); Passavant II, p. 183 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 540 (in part a.); Cr.Cav. II, p. 308 f. (by Giulio Romano); Morelli 1890, p. 70 f. (r.); Morelli 1893, p. 200, Note (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr
1895, p. 282 (r.); v. Liphart 1912, p. 196 f. (in part a.); Gronau, p. 155 (workshop); Filippini 1925, p. 224 (a.); Gamba, p.
106 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (by Giulio Romano); Ortolani, p. 63 f. (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1948, I, p. 366 (invention a., execution by T. Vincidor?); Putscher, pp. 59 f., 117 ff., 253 f. (a.); Hartt, p. 21 (r.); Camesasca I, Plate 125 (by
Giulio Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 204 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 35 (invention a.); Künstler 1966,
pp. 108 f. (a.).
Standing Madonna with the Child and the Young St.John; in the background St. Joseph (Madonna del Passeggio)
Plate 99
Wood: 88 x 62 cm.
PROVENANCE: Queen Christina of Sweden, Rome; Duca di Bracciano, Rome; Galerie Orléans, Paris.
Cavalcaselle was the first to ascribe this work to Penni, an opinion since accepted by most scholars. The execution leaves
no doubt of this attribution, but the possibility remains that Raphael was responsible for the invention of the main group.
This picture is the best of the known examples. Datable 1516-8.
COPIES: Kedleston Hall; Naples, Museo Nazionale, No. 148; Rome, Galleria Doria; Switzerland 1930, a copy from Fri-
bourg, private collection; another copy, formerly owned by Don Jaime Bourbon, was sold at Sotheby’s, 20 July 1938.
Passavant II, p. 397 f. (by Penni); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 377 ff. (r.); Müntz, p. 531 (copy); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 461 f. (by Penni);
Dollmayr 1895, p. 361 (by Penni); Gronau, p. 209 (by Penni) ; Gamba, p. 114 (by Perino
Page 45
Page 46
del Vaga); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 442 (by Penni); Camesasca I, Plate 148B and p. 86
(d.); Dussler 1966, No. 69 (execution by Penni).
Pope Leo X with Cardinals Giulio de’ Medici and Luigi Rossi
Plate 97
Florence, Uffizi, No. 40P.
Wood: 154 x 119 cm.
PROVENANCE: Pope Leo X, Rome; Palazzo Vecchio, Florence; 1589, Uffizi, Florence; 1797-1815, in Paris.
Raphael’s classic picture was preceded by two group portraits painted by Sebastiano del Piombo, that of F. Carondelet with
his Secretary (about 1511-12; Lugano, Thyssen Collection) and that of Cardinal Bandinelli-Saulli with two disputing scholars (1516; Washington, National Gallery of Art); the latter picture may have been known to Raphael. Both show how fundamentally Sebastiano’s manner of composition differed from Raphael’s. The former lines up his sitters in an arrangement
devoid of tension, he isolates the gestures and depicts objects in precise detail; all these features are avoided by Raphael,
who groups his figures with a compelling compactness and firmness. The seated Pope, whose solemn and majestic figure
asserts itself also without a throne, is here immortalized not as an embodiment of the papacy, but as a patron of the arts in
the tradition of the Medici family. In his portrayal the force of his figure, the plasticity of the volumes, the sumptuousness
of the colours, the fascination of the textures and above all the uncompromising realism of his massive head are so dominant that a confrontation between him and the beholder is unavoidable. A decisive part in establishing this concentration is
played by the two Cardinals, who, like pillars, emphasize the tectonic structure of the composition: Giulio de’ Medici (later
Pope Clement VII) at the left, turned obliquely into the picture, Cardinal Rossi at the right, looking out frontally and holding the Pope’s chair with both hands. Their subtly varied positions give the portrait a wealth of nuances which, in such intensity and wisdom, only Raphael was able to achieve at the height of his powers. Two other essential features are the relation of the figures to the architectural background (any reproduction in which the background is lost destroys the essence of
the picture) and the superb depiction of the light, which imparts to the picture a unique physical and psychological life. The
brilliant rendering of textures - flesh tones, sparkling red velvet in the Pope’s mozzetta, the moiré of his tunic - is the most
telling evidence of Raphael’s mastery in the use of paint. The still life on the table - the illuminated codex, (very probably
the so-called Hamilton Bible, which the Pope owned; cf. P. Wescher, Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der Miniaturen des
Kupferstich-Kabinetts der Staatl. Museen Berlin, Berlin 1931, p. 61), the delicately chiselled bell and the art lover’s magnifying glass - challenges comparisons with the best Flemish paintings. Here, too, Raphael’s mastery is to be admired: he
does not neglect the detail or understate the preciousness of the objects, but the way in which he places them near the edge
of the composition and at the same time in closest relation to the Pope shows how far, even in these ‘accessories’, his picture surpasses Sebastiano’s group portrait in Washington.
The influence of Raphael’s group portrait made itself felt even in the dramatic art of Titian, for there is an unmistakable
link between it and the portrait of Pope Paul III Farnese with his two nephews (1546, Naples).
The participation of Giulio Romano, although mentioned by Vasari, cannot be pinpointed, and hence the theory advanced
by Dollmayr and Gronau, that Raphael's part in the execution was limited to the heads and hands, can hardly be correct.
The work was painted between the second half of 1517 and August 1519, when Cardinal Rossi died.
COPIES: Holkham Hall, Earl of Leicester: Vasari (ed. Milanesi) VII, p. 662; Burkhalter, p. 96. - Naples, Capodimonte, No.
138: Andrea del Sarto; Vasari (ed. Milanesi), V, pp. 41 f.; Burkhalter, p. 95; Berenson 1932, p. 19; Golzio, p. 151 ff. - Rome, Galleria Nazionale, No. 584: Bugiardini; with a portrait of Cardinal Cibo instead of Rossi; Vasari (ed. Milanesi) VI, pp.
206 f.; Burkhalter pp. 95 f.; Berenson 1932, p. 119.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) V, p. 41 f. (in part by Giulio Romano); Passavant II, p. 328 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 429 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p.
330 ff. (a); Morelli 1890, p. 69 (a.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 281 f. (in part by Giulio Romano); Bayersdorfer, p. 99 f. (a.); Voll
1914, II, pp. 96 fr. (a.); Gronau, p. 156 (in part by Giulio Romano); Burkhalter, p. 86 ff. (a.); Gamba, p. 107 (in part by
Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Ortolani, p. 65 ff. (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 131 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 120,
366 (a.); Salvini Cat. 1952, p. 56 (a.); Schöne, p. II with colour plate 4 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 128 (a.); Freedberg, p. 340
ff. (a.); Bertini 1961, p. 6 f. (a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 68 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 89 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col 241 (a.); Dussler
1966, No. 46 (a.).
Double Portrait (so-called ‘Raphael and his Fencing Master’)
Plate 94
Canvas: 99 x 83 cm., with strips added on all sides.
PROVENANCE: Passavant’s statement that the picture came from Fontainebleau is inexact. Before 1625 it was in the Gran-
vella Collection in Besançon, where it was attributed to Pordenone (see A. Castan, ‘Monographie du Palais Granvelle à Besançon’ in Mémoires de la Société d’Émulation du Doubs, 4e serie, 2e vol., 1866, Besançon 1867); after 1625, in Versailles,
Collection of Louis XIV.
Fischel provisionally attributed this painting to Raphael, and has been followed by some later scholars.
Page 46
Page 47
I formerly followed Waagen (according to Passavant 1860, II, p. 356, Note) and Hourticq in giving it to Sebastiano del
Piombo, but I now think that neither this attribution nor an attribution to Polidoro da Caravaggio is nearly as convincing as
Fischel’s. C. C. Cunningham has pointed out (Wadsworth Atheneum Bulletin, Hartford, Conn., Summer 1960, p. 15 ff.) that
there is a remarkable motivic resemblance between the figure in the foreground and the Man in Armour in Hartford,
Wadsworth Atheneum, but he, too, believes the Louvre picture to be by Raphael.
If the picture was designed by the master it may date from 1518-19, for it must have been preceded by the portrait of the
Pope with his nephews (Pl. 97), while the type and contrapposto of the seated figure show stylistic similarities with the
Transfiguration in Rome (Pl. 111). The head in the background undoubtedly represents Raphael in later life - compare
Bonasone’s engraving (B.XV, No. 347). It has repeatedly been suggested that the execution of the picture was entrusted to
Giulio Romano, but there is no evidence for this.
Passavant II, p. 424 f. (d.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 471 (by Polidoro da Caravaggio?); Gronau, p. 210 (r.); Duportal 1923, p. 386 ff.;
A. Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 327, 3 (a.); Hourticq, Le Problème de Giorgione, Paris 1930, p. 130 ff. (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Berenson. 1932, p. 482 (by Giulio Romano?); Gombosi, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXVII, p. 74 (by Sebastiano del Piombo);
Dussler 1942, pp. 61, 138, No. 42 (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Ortolani, p. 68 (d.); Palluchini 1944, p. 187 (a.); Fischel
1948, I, pp. 119 f., 319 (d.); Camesasca I, Plate 138 (in part a.); Freedberg, p. 343 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 89 (d.); Brizio
1963, col. 241 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 107 (design a.); Wagner 1969, p. 98 ff. and p. 110 (r.).
St. Michael
Plate 103
Signed and dated on the hem of the robe:
RAPHAEL· VRBINAS · PINGEBAT· M.D.XVIII.
PROVENANCE: Ordered by Lorenzo de’ Medici for Pope Leo X, who sent it as a gift to King Francis I.
This picture was ordered and painted for the French Court at the same time as the Holy Family of Francis I (Pl. 101) (see
the documents in Golzio, p. 66 ff.). The design must have been by Raphael himself, and so, very probably, was the cartoon,
which passed in the autumn of 1518 to Duke Alfonso of Ferrara as a present from the artist (Golzio, p. 74 f.). The execution
is by Giulio Romano (including the landscape); the present state of preservation shows that the work has suffered damage
similar to that in the Holy Family of Francis I. It is no longer possible to determine whether Raphael himself added the finishing touches to Giulio’s work. Freedberg assumes that Raphael worked on the archangel’s head. For the adverse judgement of Sebastiano del Piombo in his letter to Michelangelo of 2 July 1518, see Golzio, p. 70 f.
In Lebrun’s Fall of the Angels (Versailles, Chapel) the figure of St. Michael is based on this picture by Raphael (Montagu
1958, p. 51 ff.).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 365 (a.); Passavant II, p. 309 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 550 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 317 ff. (a.); Dollmayr
1895, p. 274 f. (by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p. 166 (by Giulio Romano); Gamba, p. 112 (by Giulio Romano); Berenson
1932, p. 482 (by Giulio Romano); Glück 1936, p. 102 (invention a.); Ortolani, p. 64 (by Giulio Romano); Hartt 1944, p. 85
f. (execution by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1948, pp. 275, 366 (invention by Raphael, execution by Giulio Romano with a
certain contribution from Raphael); Camesasca I, Plate 129 (in part by Giulio Romano); Hartt I, p. 27 (a.); Freedberg, pp.
351 f., 354 f. (by Giulio Romano); Bertini 1961, p. 7 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 206 (invention a., execution in
part a.); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 104 (invention a.); Shearman 1967, p. 58 f. (a.).
St. Margaret
Plate 102
PROVENANCE: King Francis I of France, Fontainebleau.
This picture was probably intended for the King’s sister, Margaret of Valois. As early as 1537-40 Primaticcio was engaged
on restoring it. Caggiano del Pozzo saw it in Fontainebleau in 1625, and according to the entry in his diary (see Müntz, p.
550, Note 1) it was then in a very bad state of preservation. Restoration was again undertaken in 1685. These facts make it
impossible to check Vasari’s statement that the panel was painted by Giulio Romano on the basis of a drawing by Raphael,
for the only part of the picture which is still anything like intact is the dragon; this shows indubitable signs of Giulio’s hand
in its formal structure and colours (compare the lion of St. Mark in Giulio Romano’s picture in Rome, S. Maria dell’Anima,
of about 1523; Hartt, G. Romano II, Fig. 94). In spite of the bad state of preservation it seems clear that the invention must
be attributed to Raphael. There is a similar representation of the same theme in Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, (Pl.
109).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) V, p. 524 (by Giulio Romano); Passavant II, p. 316 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 549 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 386 (by
Giulio Romano and Polidoro); Dollmayr 1895, p. 278 (r.); Gronau, p. 167 (r.); A. Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 369 (by Garofalo);
Gamba, p. 113 (by Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (r.); Glück 1936, p. 100 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Ortolani, p. 65
(a.); Hartt 1944, p. 86 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 275 f., 366 (invention by Raphael, execution by Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 151A and p. 87 (r.); Freedberg, p. 364 f. (sketch by Raphael, execution by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 206 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 101 (d.).
Page 47
Page 48
The Holy Family with St. Elizabeth, the Young St. John and Angels (Madonna of Francis I)
Plate 101
Transferred from wood to canvas in 1753: 207 x 140 cm.
Signed, on the lower hem of the Madonna's cloak: RAPHAEL VRBINAS. PINGEBAT M.D.X.VIII
PROVENANCE: King Francis I of France, Fontainebleau; Versailles.
This picture, painted at the same time as the St. Michael in Paris, No. 1504 (Pl. 103), was intended for King Francis I of
France (in this case, for the Queen). It was commissioned by Lorenzo de’ Medici, Duke of Urbino, who was ambassador to
the French court. The progress of the work until its completion and the dispatch of the two pictures are described in the series of reports by B. Costabili from Rome to Alfonso d’Este (1 March, 28 March, 13 April and 27 May 1518) and also in
the letters from G. Gheri in Florence to B. Turini da Pescia and Lorenzo de’ Medici (25 March, 11 April, 15 April, 8 May,
17 May, 3 June, 5 June, 19 June 1518); see Golzio, p. 66 ff. According to these accounts, the Holy Family was started at the
beginning of March 1518, and was completed at the end of May. It can be assumed that Raphael himself provided a design
for the overall composition, particularly as we have single studies for the Madonna, for her drapery and for the Child (Uffizi; R.Z. VIII, Nos. 377 and 378) which represent his instructions to the workshop. The high quality of the two drawings in
Florence shows that they are by the master himself, and not by Giulio Romano, as is claimed by Hartt (I, Nos. 18 and 19)
and Freedberg (p. 351); and I believe that Oberhuber is completely justified in his renewed defence of their authenticity
(Berliner Jahrbuch 1962, p. 136, Note 49 and Wiener Jahrbuch d. Ksth. Slgn. XXII, 1962, p. 63). The studies for the kneeling Madonna in the Louvre (R.Z. VIII, No. 378a; Hartt I, No. 17) and the two cartoon fragments for St. Joseph and the
group with St. Elizabeth in Bayonne and in Melbourne, Howard Spensley Collection (R.Z. VIII, No. 378b, and Fischel, text
volume p. 386, Figs. 297 and 298) are by another hand, very probably by Giulio Romano. The execution of the painting is
almost entirely by the latter (Vasari mentions the picture only in his Vita of Giulio Romano), but it is possible that Raphael
carried out the figure of St. Joseph. The adverse criticism of Sebastiano del Piombo in his letter to Michelangelo (2 July
1518) appears in Golzio, p. 70 f. - The picture has suffered considerable damage. It was already undergoing restoration between 1537 and 1540 at the hands of Primaticcio; and it was further injured during the transfer from wood to canvas.
F. Lavery, in his monograph on Raphael, London 1920, p. 59 ff., describes another example, which was inscribed
RAPHAEL-URBINAS-PINGEBAT-MDXIII on the neck-seam of the Madonna’s dress; this version was in the Marquis de Pimodan Collection from 1661 to 1795, and was bought by John Trumbull in 1797 and then passed, via Christie’s in London, to
Benjamin West. Lavery did not state to whom it belonged when he wrote. Putscher (p. 329) gives a not unfavourable mention of the painting, basing her opinion on a photograph in the Vatican library, but even though I do not know the original,
the date of 1513 inscribed on this version seems to me without much significance, for the composition,which is identical to
that of the Louvre picture, belongs doubtless to Raphael’s late period. A contemporary fresco copy by Raffaellino dal Colle
is in Casteldurante, Corpus Domini.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) V, p. 525 (by Giulio Romano); Passavant II, p. 312 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 393
ff. (in part by Giulio Romano); Müntz, p. 533 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 319 f. (execution by Giulio Romano); Morelli 1890, p.
180, Note 1 (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 276 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gronau, p. 165 (a.); Gamba, p.
112 (invention a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 441 (by Giulio Romano);
Ortolani, p. 64 (sketch a.); Hartt 1944, p. 85 (in part a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 42 (execution by the workshop); Fischel 1948, I, p.
366 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Wölfflin 1948, p. 98 (sketch a.); Camesasca I, Plate 130 (in part by the workshop);
Hartt I, p. 26 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 351 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Bertini 1961, p. 7 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 251 (by Giulio Romano) ; Brizio 1963, col. 240 (partly a.) ; Dussler 1966, No. 98 (invention a.).
St. John the Baptist in a Landscape
Plate 100
Florence, Accademia.
PROVENANCE: Commissioned by Cardinal Pompeo Colonna, Rome, and given as a present to his physician Jacopo da
Carpi in Florence; Francesco Benintendi, Florence; since 1589, in the Medici Collection, Uffizi.
In my opinion, there is no doubt that the invention is by Raphael; but the painting is almost unanimously attributed to his
workshop, although whether it is by Giulio Romano or F. Penni remains disputed (the power of the drawing is a definite
argument for the former artist, while the execution is more characteristic of Penni). Gamba mentioned a drawing of St. John
in the Uffizi (Fig. 100), but this cannot be by Raphael and is clearly a copy, as already stated by Dollmayr and Fischel
(1898, No. 358). A chiaroscuro woodcut by Ugo da Carpi (B.XII, No. 18) with the inscription: RAPHA VR IN also exists.
For details of the numerous COPIES see Pergola, Cat. Borghese, II, No. 173, p. 122 f.
Date 1518-20.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 371 (a.); Rumohr, p. 575 (in part a.); Passavant II, p. 351 ff. (in part a.); Müntz, p. 550 (r.); Cr.Cav. II, p. 389 f. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Dollmayr 1895, p. 360 (by Penni); Frizzoni 1906, p. 417 ff. (a.); Gronau,
p. 174 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (r.); Gambia, p. 114 (by
Page 48
Page 49
Giulio Romano); Ortolani, p. 63 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 367 (sketch a., execution by Penni); Wölfflin 1948, p. 231 (a.);
Camesasca I, p. 87 and Plate 151B (by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 369 (by Giulio Romano; execution by Raffaellino dal
Colle); Dussler 1966, No. 27 (invention a.).
Madonna and Child with St. Elizabeth, St. Joseph and the Young St. John (Madonna del Divin’ Amore)
Plate 104
Naples, Museo Nazionale, No. 146.
Wood: 138 x 109 cm.
PROVENANCE: Lionello Pioda Carpi, Meldola; 1564, Bishop Rodolfo Pio, Carpi; Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, Parma;
1680, Palazzo del Giardino inventory, Naples, Capodimonte; 1798, in Palermo.
The praise which Vasari gave to this picture is somewhat out of proportion to its quality, and although the basic idea for the
composition must have been by Raphael himself, there are no signs of his hand either in the surviving drawings or in the
execution. Cavalcaselle and Camesasca attributed the execution to Giulio Romano, while Dollmayr, Gronau, Fischel and
Freedberg propose, more convincingly, G. F. Penni (Freedberg, like Fischel - 1948, I, p. 367 also denies that the invention
was by Raphael). Penni was certainly responsible for the drawing of Joseph in the Albertina (R.Z. VIII, No. 378c; Fischel,
text, VIII, Fig. 303), and for the badly damaged cartoon in Naples, Capodimonte, Museo Nazionale, No. 680, while the cartoon fragment in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat. 10, No. 51) is by another workshop assistant and was probably prepared for
one of the many later replicas of this painting. I can see no reason to assume with Freedberg that the picture was painted after Raphael’s death, but would date it about 1518, very close chronologically to the Madonna of Francis I in the Louvre
(Pl. 101).
COPIES: Of the copies mentioned by Passavant, I list the following: Althorp, Earl Spencer Collection; Berlin, Kaiser Frie-
drich Museum; Leigh Court, Miles Collection; Leningrad, Hermitage; Madrid, Royal Palace; Milan, Longhi Collection;
Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori; Rome, Villa Pamphili.
A version belonging to A. Valmer, New York, reproduced and claimed as an original in The Burlington Magazine, February 1969, p. XXVII, is more weakly modelled. It is probably a studio replica.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 348 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 147 ff. (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 323 ff. (a.; sketch by Raphael,
execution partly by Raphael with Giulio Romano); Müntz, p. 531 (in part a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 133 f. (execution by Giulio
Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 359 (by Penni); Gronau, p. 172 (r.); Gamba, p. 113 (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (in part
a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 98 (sketch a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 367 (by Penni); Camesasca I, Plate 135 (by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 369 (by Penni); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (partly a.); Dussler 1966, No. 89 (invention a.).
The Holy Family with the Young St. John (Madonna della Rosa)
Plate 105
On the scroll are the letters: [A] GNV [S] ).
PROVENANCE: Prior's Hall, Escorial.
Both the rose, from which the picture derives its name, and the table on which it lies are later additions, and the present
shape of the Christ Child’s left foot is also the result of restoration. The surviving copies show the picture as it was before
these additions were made. Contrary to my earlier opinion, I now think that this composition - like the so-called Small Holy
Family in Paris (Pl. 106) - was based on a design by Raphael, while the execution was left entirely to members of the workshop. Freedberg believes that Raffaellino dal Colle was responsible for the execution. About 1518-20.
COPIES: Barcelona Cathedral; Dresden, Gemäldegalerie, No. 98 (tondo); a version formerly in London, Agnew’s gallery
(1878), and previously in the Munro-Novar Collection; Valladolid, three examples, according to Cavalcaselle.
Passavant II, p. 402 f. (r.); Waagen 1868, p. 113 (execution by Raffaellino dal Colle); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 372 ff. (workshop); Müntz, p. 531 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 385 f. (by Giulio Romano); Frizzoni 1893, p. 317 (by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p.
170 (r.); Gamba, p. 114 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (r.); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 442 (by Penni); Hetzer 1947, p.
41 f. (workshop) ; Fischel 1948, I, p. 366 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Camesasca I, Plate 134 (by Giulio Romano and
Penni); Freedberg, p. 369 (design by Giulio Romano and Raffaelino dal Colle); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (partly a.); Dussler
1966, No. 79 (Giulio Romano and Penni); Oberhuber, Stil und Ueberlieferung 1967, II, p. 157, Note 8 (a.).
Seated Madonna with the Child standing, St. John, and St. Elizabeth (so-called Small Holy Family)
Plate 106
Wood: 38 x 32 cm.
PROVENANCE: Adrien Gouffier, Cardinal de Boissy; Duc de Rouanez; 1662, Louis Henry de Loménie, Abbé de Brienne;
from 1666, in the possession of King Louis XIV, Versailles.
This picture, which is of well-authenticated provenance (see Félibien, Entretien sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellens peintres (nouvelle édition), London 1705, I, p. 224, and the memoirs of the Abbé de Brienne, published by L. Hourticq in GBA XXXIII 3e pér., 1905, p. 238 ff.), belongs among the late versions of the Holy Family in Madrid (the Madonna
of the Pearl, Madonna of the Oak), Naples (Madonna del Divin’ Amore) and the Madonna for Francis I in Paris, No. 1498.
Here, as with the aforementioned paintings, the composition may have been determined by a design sketched by
Page 49
Page 50
Raphael himself. The execution, however, shows no sign of his hand, nor of that of Giulio Romano, but appears far more
probably to be by Penni, as suggested by Fischel and others. Cavalcaselle attributed it to Polidoro da Caravaggio on account of the technique, but in my opinion his hand is not found in this picture any more than in the companion panel (also
in the Louvre, No. 1510) representing ‘Abundantia’; the inscription RAPHAEL VRBINAS, on the latter, is certainly a later addition (perhaps modem?) and the forms are also quite close to Penni.
A slightly later replica of the Louvre example, in Nanterre, Roussel Collection, came from the collection of Cardinal Mazarin, Paris, and (according to the seal on the back) was previously in the possession of Robert Thierry de Saint Thomas-lèsVienne le Châlet. From Félibien (Entretiens I, p. 225 f.) it appears that the picture was bought for Mazarin by Marquis
Fontenay-Marieuil, the French ambassador in Rome, through the intermediary of Cassiano del Pozzo; a comment by Félibien is worthy of notice: ‘Prétendant que c’estoit l’original que Raphael avoit commencé et sur lequel celuy dont j’ay parlé
[the example in the Louvre, then owned by the King] avoit esté copié par Jules Romain’. It is highly doubtful that this picture is the same as the ‘Madonna piccola’ from Isabella d’Este’s collection in Mantua, as was claimed by the anonymous
author of two publications, ‘La Petite Sainte-Famille de Raphaël’, Paris 1892, and ‘Madonna Piccola’, Paris 1896; serious
doubts as to this theory were raised by Gronau; and even Jacobsen, who claimed that the Nanterre version was in part the
work of Raphael, and ascribed the execution of the rest of the painting to Giulio Romano (Die ‘Madonna Piccola Gonzaga’, Strassburg 1906), had to admit that the provenance was inadequately known. The Nanterre painting was attributed to
Raphael by A. Schmarsow (Kunsthistorische Gesellschaft für photographische Publikationen, 1896 and Basler Nationalzeitung, 26 June 1898 - text printed in Jacobsen’s publication, p. 18 f.) and later by A. Venturi.
In my opinion neither the Nanterre painting nor that in the Louvre was painted by Raphael, both being workshop productions, which were probably separated by no more than a few years. I have not seen any of the copies mentioned by Passavant and Cavalcaselle in Düsseldorf, Cologne and London. An example in Düsseldorf (Heinrich Kolbe; formerly in the
possession of K. M. Schreiber in the same city, and still earlier the property of Président de Saron, Paris) was attributed by
Morelli to Giulio Romano (Kunstchronik, N.F. XIII, 1902, col. 420 ff.). - A version published by C. v. Liphart (1941, p. 185
ff.) is known to the present writer from the reproduction only. It came from the collection of Count Krasinski in Warsaw,
later belonged to Count Golitzine, and was owned by Liphart’s ancestors after 1800. About 1940 it was in a private collection. Liphart describes this version in detail and believes that it was painted by Giulio Romano, while he has a low opinion
of the painting in the Louvre. No decision can be made until the pictures are seen side by side. The drawing for the composition in Windsor (Popham-Wilde Cat. No. 833; Fischel VIII, No. 379a and text illustration 304), is a contemporary copy
with variations, taken from the painting; Caraglio’s engraving (B.XV, No. 5), which is more detailed than the drawing in
Windsor, differs from the final version chiefly in that St. Elizabeth is depicted upright. The drawing and the engraving
show a wall in the background instead of the landscape.
Passavant II, p. 320 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 531 (copy); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 362 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 462 f.
(by Polidoro and Penni); Dollmayr 1895, p. 279, Note 1 (r.); Jacobsen, Die ‘Madonna Piccola Gonzaga’, Strassburg 1906,
p. 5 (workshop); Gronau, p. 171 (by Giulio Romano or Polidoro); Gamba, p. 106 f. (by Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p.
481 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 442 (by Penni); C. v. Liphart 1941, p. 185 ff. (d.); Fischel 1948,
I, p. 366 (by Penni d.); Camesasca I, Plate 131 (by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, pp. 364, 365 (by Giulio Romano); Brizio
1963, col. 240 (invention a.); Dussler 1966, No. 99 (design a.).
The Holy Family under an Oak Tree with the Young St. John (Madonna della Quercia)
Plate 107
Wood: 144 x 110 cm.
On the cradle is the inscription: RAPHAEL PINX.
St. John holds a scroll on which there are the words:
ECCE. AGNVS. DEI.
PROVENANCE: second half of the seventeenth century, Royal Palace, Madrid; 1813-17, in Paris; Escorial.
There is no precise information about the history of the picture before it appeared in Madrid. Filippini refers to Malvasia,
Felsina pittrice (1841 edition; I, p. 47) in support of his suggestion that this is the work which was in the Casali Collection,
Bologna, and was later brought to Spain. It is, however, doubtful whether the latter work was original.
Fischel’s view that the picture is based on a design by Raphael seems to me beyond doubt, especially as the composition
cannot be by any of his assistants. The execution, however, shows nowhere the master’s hand, and was probably, for the
most part, by Giulio Romano, who may have had some help from Raffaellino dal Colle.
The seated Madonna is likely to go back to an antique prototype, and Buddensieg (Festschrift H. Kauffmann 1968, p. 65)
may well be right in suggesting that it is close to the ‘Gemma Augustea’. The use of ancient architectural motifs has been
established by the identification of actual prototypes: the triangular candelabrum basis on which St. Joseph leans is a reminiscence from Tivoli, where Raphael may have seen the collection of Cardinal Grimani on his visit
Page 50
Page 51
in 1517 (Golzio, p. 42); the column basis in the foreground belongs, as Buddensieg has shown, to the Cella of the Temple
of Mars Ultor on the Forum of Augustus (Cod. Coner, ed. Ashby, pl. 124), and the circular ruin top left has been identified
convincingly by Fischel with the Temple of Minerva Medica in Rome.
A contemporary replica in Florence, Galleria Pitti, has a lizard on the left and is therefore known as Madonna della Lucertola. This example was traditionally ascribed to Giulio Romano, but Hartt was right in rejecting the attribution (Art B.
1944, p. 93).
COPIES: The Hague; Hampton Court; Leningrad, Hermitage; Pesaro, private collection; Urbino, private collection; Valen-
cia, Cathedral (sacristy); Windsor. In an exhibition at Manchester, City Art Gallery, 1965, No. 215, a copy by Jan van
Scorel.
Passavant II, p. 304 f. (by Penni); Waagen 1868, p. 113 (a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 382 ff. (by Penni); Müntz, p. 531 (a.);
Cr.-Cav. II, p. 381 ff. (by Giulio Romano, execution by Penni); Frizzoni 1893, p. 318 (by Penni); Dollmayr 1895, p. 280
(by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p. 169 (workshop); Filippini 1925, p. 230 (d.); Gamba, p. 114 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (by
Giulio Romano); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 442 (sketch a.); Hartt 1944, p. 93 (by Raffaellino dal Colle) ; Fischel
1948, I, p. 366 (execution by Giulio Romano and Penni); Camesasca I, Plate 133 (by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 369 f.
(by Giulio Romano and Raffaellino dal Colle).
Dussler 1966, No. 80 (Giulio Romano and Raffaellino dal Colle).
Seated Madonna with the Child. St. Elizabeth and the Young St. John; Joseph in the left middle distance (Madonna
della Perla)
Plate 108
Wood. transferred to canvas: 144 x 115 cm.
PROVENANCE: Bishop Lodovico Canossa, Verona; Cardinal Luigi d’Este; Contessa Caterina Nobili Sforza; Duca Vincenzo
I Gonzaga, Mantua; 1627, King Charles I of England; King Philip IV of Spain; 1813-15, in Paris; 1822, Escorial.
Although Vasari states that this picture was painted during Raphael’s lifetime, a date of about 1523-4 is made more probable by the arguments propounded by Hartt. which are strengthened by Freedberg’s thorough analysis, and also by the close
formal affinities with the figures painted by Giulio Romano in the Sala di Costantino in the Vatican. Cavalcaselle and
Camesasca assume, as do Pouncey and Gere, that the conception goes back to Raphael, and this seems likely, even though
the compositional idea of the figure group lacks the clarity and elasticity of the solution represented by the Madonna of
Francis I in Paris (Pl. 101). The execution is generally ascribed to Giulio Romano.
The same artist was also responsible for a variant of the ‘Perla’ Madonna, the Madonna del Gatto (the ‘Madonna with the
cat’), in Naples, Capodimonte, Museo Nazionale, No. 140, where the composition of the figure group and the arrangement
of the light are different and the scene is transposed into an interior setting; a sketch for the composition of the figures is in
London (Pouncey-Gere, Cat. No. 134). This picture is mentioned by Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 489) among Raphael’s
paintings in the Gonzaga Collection, Mantua. The latter statement clearly stems from his confusion of this painting with the
Madonna Perla.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 351 (a.); Passavant II, p. 306 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Waagen 1868, p. 112 (execution by studio); Gruyer, Vierges III, pp. 348 ff., 360, Note 2 (invention a., execution by Giulio Romano); Müntz, p. 533 (a.); Cr.-Cav.
II, p. 379 f. (execution by Giulio Romano); Morelli 1890, p. 180, Note 1 (by Giulio Romano); Frizzoni 1893, p. 317 (by
Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 357 (by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p. 168 (by Giulio Romano); Filippini 1925, p. 230
(a.); Gamba, p. 113 f. (by Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p.
442 (a.); Hartt 1944, p. 87 (by Giulio Romano); Hetzer 1947, p. 42 (execution by the workshop); Fischel 1948, I, p. 366
(invention and execution by Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 132 (execution by Giulio Romano); Hartt I, p. 53 f. (by
Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 365 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (partly a.); Dussler 1966, No. 78 (Giulio
Romano).
St. Margaret
Plate 109
Wood: 192 x 122 cm.
PROVENANCE: see text.
The first information about this picture comes from Marcantonio Michiel’s Notizie, in which the author mentions the picture in 1528 in the house of Zuanantonio Venier in Venice (Golzio, p. 172). Michiel states that the work was painted on
canvas, but this may well be the result of an oversight, especially as he repeatedly made such mistakes. The work passed
from Venier to the Priuli Collection in Venice and then to England, whence it came into the possession of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in Brussels (it is shown in the picture by David Teniers the Younger in Vienna, Kunsthistor. Museum, No.
378) and was moved, with the rest of his collection, to Vienna after 1657 (see Boschini, La Carta del Navegar pitoresco,
Venice 1660, 4, p. 45, and Boschini, Le Minere di pittura, Venice 1664, 12, p. 525). According to the account in the latter
source this picture came from the Collection of Charles I, and although it is not mentioned in the inventory of the royal collection, this is not improbable, for the same provenance is given by Mariette in Recueil d’estampes . . . (Paris 1742, I, p. 7,
No. 7). On the death of Leopold Wilhelm in 1662, the painting passed to Emperor Leopold II in accordance with the provisions in the archduke’s will.
Page 51
Page 52
The version in Vienna differs from that in the Louvre (Pl. 102) in the pronounced twisting of the body and in the position of
the head, which is turned to the left with lowered gaze; the saint’s right arm crosses in front of her body, and she holds a
crucifix in her left hand. Dollmayr suggested that the Vienna picture was the example mentioned by Vasari (ed. Milanesi,
V, p. 542 f.) as intended for the French court, but this is impossible simply because the picture now in Paris was already
there in 1538-40, when Primaticcio restored it.
The Vienna painting is generally attributed to Giulio Romano. Freedberg gives the invention to him, but thinks it probable
that the execution was due to Raffaellino dal Colle. G. Glück believed that the design was by Raphael himself, and after a
recent inspection of the picture I am inclined to share this view, though I cannot agree with Glück’s assumption that the
picture in Vienna was painted before that in the Louvre.
Datable about 1520.
Passavant II, p. 317 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Müntz, p. 550 (by Giulio Romano); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 386 (r.); Dollmayr 1895, p.
278 (by Giulio Romano and Penni) ; Suida 1934-6, p. 167 (a.); Glück 1936, p. 97 ff. (a.); Hartt 1944, p. 86 (by Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 144B and p. 74 (copy); Freedberg, p. 370 (invention by Giulio Romano, execution by Raffaellino dal Colle); Dussler 1966, No. 138 (studio).
The Visitation; in the background on the left, the Baptism of Christ
Plate 110
Inscribed along the bottom edge - on the left, RAPHAEL. VRBINAS. F.;
in the middle, MARINVS. BRANCONIVS. F.F.
PROVENANCE: painted for the fraternity chapel in S. Silvestro, Aquila; 1655, Escorial; 1813-22, in Paris.
While the inscription on the picture names Marinus Branconius as the patron who commissioned this work, a long inscription on a marble slab still preserved in the original location of the painting (quoted by Passavant II, p. 302 f.) refers to Giovanni B. Branconio, the papal chamberlain in Rome, as the donor.
The discrepancy of the two names is due to the fact that the tablet was not put up until 1625, when historical fact was disregarded and the credit given to the prelate, Giovanni B. Branconio. The donor was Marino, and his son Giovanni arranged
for the commission to be given to Raphael (see L. Rivera, Raffaello e varie memorie . . . Aquila 1920, p. 22 ff.) and may
also have suggested the addition of the Baptism of Christ as an allusion to his patron St. John the Baptist.
The picture was completed on 2 April 1520, for on that day the council of the city of Aquila issued an order which prohibited the copying of this work. The Aquila archives record Branconio’s payment of 300 scudi to Raphael, but there are no
signs that he himself was responsible for either composition or execution. As in Christ carrying the Cross, Madrid (Pl. 96),
the signature should be seen as no more than a sort of trade-mark; and both these commissions originated in the ‘provinces’.
Wölfflin, like Frizzoni, emphatically denied that the invention was due to Raphael, but this view seems hardly justified,
even though the sketch which Raphael presumably made may have been coarsened considerably by Penni, the assistant responsible for the execution. Hartt recently suggested that the painting was done not by Penni, but by Raffaellino dal Colle,
but all the evidence favours the former.
COPIES: see Rivera, op. cit., pp. 30, 114 f. - A copy of the head of St. Elizabeth is in Paris, Louvre, No. 1509A.
Passavant II, p. 302 ff. (in part by Giulio Romano); Waagen 1868, p. 109 (a.); Müntz, p. 538 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 387 f. (by
Giulio Romano and Penni); Frizzoni 1893, p. 317 (r.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 343 f. (by Penni); Gronau, p. 173 (a.); Gamba, p.
114 (by Penni); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (by Perino del Vaga); Glück 1936, p. 102, Note 22 (r.); Hartt 1944, p. 93 (by Raffaellino dal Colle); Wölfflin 1948, p. 152, Note 2 (r.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 367 (by Penni); Camesasca I, Plate 137 (r.);
Freedberg, p. 368 f. (by Penni); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (studio); Dussler 1966, No. 77 (studio).
The Transfiguration
Plate 111
Wood: 405 x 278 cm.
PROVENANCE: commissioned by Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici for his cathedral church in Narbonne, but placed in S. Pietro in
Montorio, Rome, in 1523; 1797-1815, in Paris.
Although the Transfiguration was commissioned by Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici about the same time as the rival picture,
the well-documented Raising of Lazarus by Sebastiano del Piombo (London, National Gallery, No. 1), documents referring
to the former are almost completely lacking. When writing to Michelangelo to describe the progress of his own work, however, Sebastiano refers several times to Raphael’s painting, so that his letters also tell us a certain amount about the Transfiguration. The picture is first mentioned in the letter of 19 January 1517 (Golzio, p. 52 f.), which does not specify the subject matter, but merely states that Raphael had not yet commenced work, and the same information is contained in Sebastiano’s letter of 2 July 1518 (Golzio, p. 70 f.). These facts do not exclude the possibility that compositional sketches, preparatory studies and perhaps even cartoons may have been in progress, while the painting itself had not yet been started.
Early in 1520 the artist promised to complete the work by the beginning of Lent (according to a letter from Paolucci to Alfonso I of Ferrara, after 20 January; Golzio,
Page 52
Page 53
p. 106), and shortly after Raphael’s death (6 April 1520) Sebastiano reported that he had seen the painting in the Vatican
(Golzio, p. 125). How much still required finishing after this date is not known; as the picture was placed on display, one
can assume that Giulio Romano had to make only unimportant additions, probably to the lower right section. It must have
been this contribution for which he requested the balance of his fee (a claim for which B. Castiglione interceded with
Giulio de’ Medici in May 1522; Golzio, p. 146 f.). In 1523 the painting was placed on the high altar of San Pietro in Montorio. The frame, which was the work of Giovanni Barile (Vasari, ed. Milanesi V, p. 571), no longer exists, but the former
inscription is known through Bottari (ed. Vasari 1759, II, p. 125, Note 2; Golzio, p. 148): DIVO PETRO PRINCIPI APOSTOL.
JVLIVS MEDICES CARD. VICECANCELLARIVS D.D. ANNO D. MDXXIII.
In its definitive version the picture combines two Biblical events which are not factually connected in the Gospels: the
Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor (Mark IX, 2-13; Matthew XVII, 2-13) and the healing of the boy possessed by a
devil (Mark IX, 14 ff.; Matthew XVII, 14 ff.). The idea of combining the two episodes is quite unsupported by any tradition
of Christian art, and Raphael would hardly have dared to introduce it as his own innovation; it must be assumed that this
double scene was required by the Cardinal who commissioned the work, especially as this combination results in a meaningful, organic whole: below, human distress and search for salvation; above, the apostles pointing to the Saviour. Whether
Giulio de’ Medici originally commissioned the lower scene only, with the Saviour joined to the group seeking help - as assumed by Bock v. Wülfingen and H. v. Einem - cannot be decided. The hypothesis is made unlikely by the drawings which
Oberhuber has brought together and which show that in a first concetto Raphael worked out the theme of the Transfiguration alone, as a self-contained pictorial composition. This version is preserved in a studio design by Giulio Romano (Vienna, Albertina Sc. R., No. 228; Oberhuber, Fig. 2; a copy by Rubens in the Louvre; Oberhuber, Fig. 1), which Oberhuber
rightly considers - along with the drawing in Paris, No. 3873 - to be a modello. This idea must have been abandoned by the
artist, apparently because of his patron’s wishes; for there is another design by Penni (Paris, No. 3954; Oberhuber, Fig. 4),
which appears also to have been a modello, and in which the double scene is already shown. Here the compositional design
for the lower part is already much the same as in the final picture, while in the upper scene Christ and the two prophets are
still shown standing on the mountain, not floating. (This version was also copied by Rubens in a drawing now in Paris;
Oberhuber, Fig. 3.) The squared sketch in Chatsworth, No. 904 (Oberhuber, Fig. 6) shows how the latter concetto was then
recast in its definitive form for the transfiguration, with Christ and the prophets floating, while the final position of the
apostle on the right was also established. This sketch is thought by Oberhuber, Shearman and van Regteren Altena to be by
Raphael, while Fischel, Parker and Byam Shaw attribute it to the workshop. Whether it is authentic or, like the previously
mentioned sheets, only a copy, the whole composition is certainly based on an invention by the master, which only allowed
a minimum of variation in the main theme. The circular sketch for the Transfiguration in London, Brittish Museum (given
to Raphael by A. Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 335 and Ortolani, Pl. 139, but regarded by Bertini, p. 8 f., Fig. 1, as a copy after
Raphael by a younger artist) cannot reflect an original concetto by the master; this sheet is the work of G. Vasari (see Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 128, Note 29). A final point within this stage of the development is marked by the modello sketch in Vienna, Albertina, Inv. No. 17, 544 (Oberhuber, p. 132 f. and Fig. 9), which shows how the overall composition advanced beyond the Chatsworth design. Although the execution of this drawing is clearly by the workshop, it is connected both in
form and thematic material with the sheet at Chatsworth - as can be seen simply from the fact that in both drawings the figures are still nudes; hence the Albertina sketch must also belong to the primary stage in the evolution of the picture. H. von
Einem (p. 23 ff.) rejects Oberhuber’s conclusions and regards the above-mentioned drawings as later compilations.
Friedrich Schneider (1896, p. 11 ff.) interpreted the iconography of the picture as a reference to the delivery of the city of
Narbonne from the repeated assaults of the Saracens. (Pope Calixtus III had proclaimed August 6 as a feast day on the occasion of the victory of the Christians over the Crescent in 1456.) Von Einem’s doubts about Schneider’s interpretation
seem to me unjustified, and so does his suggestion that the two figures kneeling at the left of the Transfiguration scene represent Justus and Pastor, the patrons of Narbonne Cathedral, rather than the two martyr deacons Felicissimus and Agapitus.
De Rinaldis (1935, p. 295 ff.) explained the lower scene as referring to the Reformation, with the kneeling woman symbolizing Mater Ecclesia and the possessed boy the Reformation. This interpretation is quite erroneous.
The following are all the individual studies by Raphael or by his assistants that can still be traced: Amsterdam, Prof. I. Q.
van Regteren-Altena: detail study for the head and back of the woman kneeling in the right foreground. (The attribution to
Giulio Romano by Hartt I, No. 30, is probably correct; Oberhuber, p. 138 f., ascribes the study with reservations to Raphael, to whom it is given by Regteren Altena.) - Chatsworth, No. 51: a study for the seated figure of St. Andrew and the
apostle seated behind him pointing upwards with his left arm. This drawing was declared a copy by Fischel (Versuch, No.
336) and Hartt (Art B. XXVI, 1944, p. 87, Note 69), but in my opinion Oberhuber’s view (p. 134 and Fig. 10) that it is original is correct; Shearman has orally stated that he agrees with this opinion. Similar studies are
Page 53
Page 54
in the Albertina (Stix-Fröhlich Cat. III, No. 115), but these show clearly a copyist’s hand, and comparison with the sheet at
Chatsworth reveals the high quality of the latter. - Milan, Ambrosiana, vol. F. 273, info No. 36: a nude study of the boy
possessed of a devil, and the elderly man holding him. The latter figure’s posture is different in the painting. (According to
the text in Fischel (1962), p. 216, this is a studio drawing; it is certainly by Giulio Romano, to whom it is attributed by
Hartt I, No. 31 and Oberhuber, p. 134, while Bertini claims (p. 19, Note) that it is by Raphael.) - Paris, Louvre, No. 3864:
two nude men stepping forwards; the figure in front holds his left arm raised high, while his companion behind him bends
forward. These are studies for the pair of apostles middle left; only the stooping figure appears in the painting, and in a
changed posture. (Attributions vary between Giulio Romano and Raphael. Hartt I, No. 28 and Freedberg, p. 357 give it to
the former, Bertini, p. 9 and Oberhuber, p. 134, to the latter - in my opinion correctly. Fischel (1948) I, p. 286; 1962, p. 215,
thought that Raphael later reworked the drawing.) Paris, Louvre, No. 41,118: study for the drapery of the apostle standing
in a red cloak above the seated figure of St. Andrew. (This sheet is listed in the Louvre among the copies, but Oberhuber, p.
138, Fig. 14, ascribes it to Raphael; in my opinion this is very problematic. - Vienna, Albertina, Stix-Fröhlich Cat. III, No.
78: studies of one seated and one standing nude man, and the torso of a man bending forward, seen from the front; in the
centre are studies for the group of apostles at the rear; the seated figure was not used in the painting. (There can be no doubt
that this sheet is by Giulio Romano - Hartt I, No. 29; only Bertini (p. 11) ascribes it to Raphael.) - Vienna, Albertina, StixFröhlich Cat. III, No. 116: study for the seated figure of St. Andrew. (Listed in the catalogue as the work of Penni. In my
opinion this attribution is not tenable; Oberhuber (p. 129 f., Fig. 8) suggests that it may possibly be by Raphael.)
The cartoon for the painting is no longer preserved. Whether a fragment mentioned by Meder (Die Handzeichnung, Vienna
1923, 2nd edition, p. 318) was original it is impossible to tell; he did not state the whereabouts of this fragment, which depicted a foot and some drapery of the kneeling woman. A cartoon for the lower half of the composition, preserved in the
Vatican (the property of Monsignore Stanislav Le Grelle), is a copy after the painting and may have been used as a model
for the replica in Madrid (see Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 141 f.). The original auxiliary cartoons are of great significance for the
picture and are at the same time unique specimens of Raphael's late drawing style. These are: Chatsworth, No. 66: head and
left hand of the apostle standing on the left in a red cloak and pointing upwards with his arm (Hartt, Art B. XXVI, 1944, p.
87; Pouncey-Gere Cat., London, under No. 38; Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 142 f. and Fig. 19). - Chatsworth, No. 67: head of one
of the companions standing behind this apostle (Hartt, op. cit., p. 87; Pouncey-Gere Cat., London, under No. 38; Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 144 f. and Fig. 20).- London, British Museum, Pouncey-Gere Cat., London, No. 37: profile of the head of
St. Andrew seated in the left foreground (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 142 and Fig. 18). - London, British Museum, PounceyGere Cat., London, No. 38: head of the bearded old man, on the left of the apostle in the centre, pointing at the possessed
boy (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 145 and Fig. 22). - Oxford, Parker Cat. II, No. 568: profile head of the beardless apostle bending forwards with both hands on his chest, and three-quarter profile head of the old apostle sitting next to him on the right;
also two studies for the latter’s hands (Pouncey-Gere Cat., London, under No. 38; Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 145). - Vienna,
Albertina, Stix-Fröhlich Cat. III, No. 79: profile head of the apostle in the centre pointing at the possessed boy. Fischel formerly stated orally that this was original, but later he did not mention it (Pouncey-Gere Cat., London, under No. 38; Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 145 and Fig. 23). - Of the above-mentioned sheets Fischel attributes only the drawings in London, No. 37,
and Oxford, No. 568, to Raphael and ascribes the others to Penni (Burl. M. LXXI, 1937, p. 168); Parker (Oxford Cat. II, No.
647) gives London, No. 38 to Penni. In my opinion all the auxiliary cartoons are by Raphael himself.
The extent to which Raphael was personally responsible for the execution of the painting can be defined as follows: nearly
all the figures in the upper region are probably by him - except for the head of Christ, which reveals the hand of Penni also the glory of light and the other parts of the landscape, whose almost Venetian transparency appears nowhere in the
work of either Giulio Romano or Penni. In the lower part Raphael’s execution seems to extend to a considerable part of the
group of apostles on the left, above all the magnificent seated figure of St. Andrew and the two disciples pointing upwards;
the apostles at the edge of the painting, however, may have been painted by Penni, and also the group below Christ (except
for the young man in profile). The group around the possessed boy and the crowd in the background show no signs of
Raphael’s hand, and most of this section is by Giulio Romano: the kneeling woman in the foreground and opposite her;
also the boy uttering a cry and the witnesses at the back. From the point of view of technique the figure of the father holding the possessed boy is more characteristic of Penni than of the younger Giulio Romano.
COPIES: Madrid, Prado, No. 315, by Penni (identical with the copy mentioned by Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 646, destined
for S. Spirito degli Incurabili in Naples); Rome, St. Peter’s: a mosaic by Stefano Pozzi.
Giovio (ed. Golzio), p. 192 (a.); Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 371 f., 378 (a.); Borghini 1584, p. 394 (a.); Lomazzo (ed. Milan), p. 219 (a.); Rumohr, p. 573 (in part a.); Passavant II, p. 353 ff. (a.); Justi, Die Verklärung Christi, Leipzig 1870 (a.);
Müntz, p. 560 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 391 ff. (a.); Dollmayr 1895,
Page 54
Page 55
p. 342 f. (in part a.); Vogel 1920, p. 278 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 202 f. (a.); Lütgens, Göttingen 1929; Gamba, p. 114 (in part a.);
Berenson 1932, p. 482 (in part a.); de Rinaldis 1935, p. 295 ff. (a.); Ortolani, p. 67 ff. (in part a.); Hartt 1944, p. 86 ff. (a.);
Wölfflin 1948, p. 147 ff. (in part a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 278 ff., 367 (in part a.); Bock v. Wülfingen, Die Verklärung Christi, Stuttgart 1956 (first edition 1946) (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 140 (in part a.); Schöne, pp. 31 ff., 38, with Figs. 118-20 (a.);
Hartt I, p. 33 ff. (in part by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 356 ff. (a.); Bertini 1961, p. 1 ff.; (in part a.); Oberhuber 1962, p.
116 ff.; Fischel 1962, p. 209 ff. (in part a.); Mellini 1963, p. 39 ff.; Brizio 1963, col. 240 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 119 (a.);
Künstler 1966, pp. 108 ff. (a.); v. Einem 1966, p. 299 ff. (interpretation).
The Coronation of the Virgin
Wood: 354 x 230 cm.
PROVENANCE: Monteluce convent near Perugia; 1797-1815, in Paris.
This painting was commissioned for the high altar of the Poor Clares in Monteluce on 12 December 1505, and Raphael was
to have delivered it, after submitting a sketch, by 1 January 1508 (Golzio, p. 11 ff.). In the contract of 1505, Domenico
Ghirlandaio’s Coronation of the Virgin in Narni, S. Girolamo, painted 1486 (Lauts, Ghirlandaio, Vienna 1943, Fig. 54),
was specified as the model on which the work was to be based. The lower half of a Coronation traditionally depicted the
apostles assembled round the tomb (as in Raphael’s early work for Perugia, S. Francesco, now in Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana; Pl. 29), but the above-mentioned stipulation clearly means that a group of kneeling Franciscan saints was to be shown
instead, as in the Narni panel. The master received an advance payment as early as on 22 and 23 December 1505 (Golzio,
p. 13 f.), but he seems to have done nothing towards honouring his obligations in the following years, for the original contract was renewed on 21 June 1516, as there had been no progress during the long interval (Golzio, p. 45 f.). The second
contract contains precise instructions: Raphael was to execute the main panel of the Coronation of the Virgin, while the
predella panels, representing the Virgin’s Nativity, Marriage and Death, were allotted to his assistant, Berto di Giovanni,
who was already mentioned in the 1505 contract. The delivery date for all these works was fixed as the Feast of the Assumption (15 August) 1517. In fact, the many commitments in Rome prevented Raphael from fulfilling even these obligations. But we have studies which shed light on his approach to the thematic material.
The following works provide information about these projects (see the detailed analysis by Shearman): compositional
sketches for an Assumption in Oxford (R.Z. VIII, No. 380), the concetti for the Coronation in Bayonne (R.Z. VIII, Nos. 382
and 383) and the detailed design for the same subject in Oxford (R.Z. VIII, No. 384). The studies in Bayonne and the lastmentioned sheet in Oxford (R.Z. VIII, No. 384) can be dated about 1517 since a copy with variations by Penni in the Louvre
(No. 3883) formed the basis of a Coronation of the Virgin by Berto di Giovanni, Raphael's assistant, which (now in Perugia, Galleria Nazionale, No. 309; formerly in S. Agnese di Porto S. Angelo) bears the date 25 July 1517 on the foot of the
throne. Other works which throw light on the development of this subject are Raphael’s sketch for an Assumption in
Stockholm (R.Z. VIII, No. 381) and an engraving by the ‘Master with the Dice’ (B.XV, p. 188, No. 7), which, although of
later date, contains some of Raphael’s vital pictorial ideas from the period of about 1516 (see Shearman’s convincing arguments, op. cit., p. 156).
The Monteluce altar-piece was not painted until a new contract had been made with Giulio Romano and F. Penni on 11
June 1523 (Gnoli, Doc. No. 12); the work was completed on 21 June 1525 (Gnoli, Doc. No. 20). Penni was undoubtedly responsible for the lower half of the picture, which represents the apostles assembled around the empty tomb, while the
highly plastic style and the powerful use of colouring in the upper part reveals the hand of Giulio Romano. No evidence can
be found for Vasari’s statement that Perino del Vaga participated in this work and the suggestion made by Dollmayr and
adopted by Hartt, that the altar-piece was painted by Penni alone, is clearly disproved by the difference in quality between
the two halves. The predella panels by Berto di Giovanni were completed in 1525. They depict the Nativity, the Marriage
and the Death of the Virgin, with a fourth panel, the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple, which was commissioned in
1525.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 545 f. (by Giulio Romano, Penni and Perino del Vaga); Passavant II, p. 380 ff. (sketch a.);
Müntz, p. 662 f. (sketch a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 287 f. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Dollmayr 1895, p. 254 f. (by Penni); U.
Gnoli 1917, p. 133 ff. (a.); Fischel 1925, p. 191 (a.); Hartt 1944, p. 93 f. (by Penni); Camesasca I, p. 87 f. (by Giulio
Romano and Penni); Shearman 1961, pp. 129 ff., 143 ff., 158 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Oberhuber 1962, p. 58 and
Note 134, p. 60 and Note 136 (design a.); Dussler 1966, No. 121 (execution by studio).
Page 55
Page 56
REJECTED ATTRIBUTIONS
Full-length seated Madonna with the Child standing on her Lap; SS. Margaret and Lucia on either side.
Baden near Zürich, Ros Collection.
Wood: 80 x 61 cm.
Signed on the middle seam of the robe: R SANCTIO MXDIX RYFAEL SANCIO.
Suida attempted to establish a connection between this very mediocre picture and the painting of the Holy Trinity in Città
di Castello (Pl. 1) by comparing it with the hovering angels on the verso of the latter work. Any comparison with Raphael’s
authentic early works, however, clearly shows the difference between them and this Madonna.
Suida 1934-6, p. 161 ff. (a.); Suida, p. 5 (a.); Bock v. Wülfingen 1951, p. 117, Note 34 (r.); Dussler 1966, No.1 (r.).
Portrait of Emilia Pia di Montefeltre
Baltimore, Jacob Epstein Collection.
Wood: 42 x 28 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1654 in the inventory of the Medici, Florence; art dealer, Vienna; 1925, Coray-Stoop, Zürich-Erlenbach;
Kleinberger, New York. On the back are the name of the sitter - ‘Emilia Pia da Montefeltre’, written in late sixteenthcentury script - and a seal, with the words: (Fo)ntico tedescho di V(enezia).
The name given on the back of the panel is certainly correct and is also indirectly confirmed by comparison with the medal
by Adriano Fiorentino (Hill, A Corpus of Italian Medals of the Renaissance, Vol. I, No. 345 and Vol. II, Pl. 56); moreover,
as shown by Gronau and, in greater detail, by U. Schmitt, this portrait shows such a convincing similarity to that of Elisabetta Gonzaga in the Uffizi (p. 59), as regards size, the use offrontal view, technique and colours, that both must be ascribed to the same master.
Until the discovery of this picture the portrait in Florence was regarded by Gronau and most other scholars as a work of
Bonsignori, and Berenson, too, attributed it to the Verona school (Caroto).
Both likenesses were very probably executed together, but whatever their date - 1502, 1504 or 1506 - there is not the least
evidence of Raphael’s authorship, for no formal affinities can be found with his works from those years. On the contrary,
U. Schmitt’s detailed comparison of the two portraits with others by Bonsignori reveals such a close similarity that the earlier attribution must be judged convincing. There seems to be no basis for Ortolani’s assumption that Giovanni Santi might
have begun the portrait of Emilia Pia and that, after his death, it was finished by Raphael.
The picture is assumed by Schmitt to date from 1509 as both sitters (who were related) were then at the court of Mantua so
that they could accompany the newly-married couple - Francesco Maria della Rovere and Eleonora Gonzaga - to Urbino.
Gronau 1924-5, p. 456 ff. (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 215 (by Tamaroccio?); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl.
Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (d.); Ortolani, p. 23 (in part a.); Suida, p. 6 (a.); Lauts, Isabella d’Este, Hamburg 1952, Fig. 35 (d.);
Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 35 (a.); U. Schmitt 1961, pp. 101 ff., 113 (by Bonsignori); Brizio 1963,
col. 226 (r.); Dussler 1966, No.2 (r.).
Half-length Madonna with the Child on her Arm; an Angel with Candelabra on either side (Madonna dei Candelabri)
Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery.
PROVENANCE: Borghese Palace, Rome (perhaps identical with the ‘quadretto tondo con una Madonna e due teste appresso’
mentioned about 1600 in the Lelio Cinquini Collection, Rome, see Urlichs 1870, p. 51); about 1800, Lucien Bonaparte,
Rome; Duca di Lucca, Lucca; 1841, Hugh A. J. Munro, Novar (Scotland); 1882, Art Institute, Chicago; 1901, Walters Collection, Baltimore.
A second version of this picture, showing only slight differences, was owned by Sir Charles Robinson, London, but according to M. Davies its present location is not known. Cavalcaselle paid this work the following tribute: ‘. . . through the
beauty of a composition in which every stroke reveals the genius of the Urbino master’. However, Raphael’s participation
cannot be seen in either the composition or the execution, for the forced symmetry in the placing of the two angels’ heads
and their candelabra runs completely contrary to his spirit. In my view even the central group of the Madonna and Child
cannot be regarded as Raphael’s invention, and is far more like a combination of various of his pictorial ideas. The
Madonna, for example, derives from the figure (facing in the opposite direction) of the Madonna with the Fish in Madrid
(Pl. 85) and the Child seems to be made up of memories of the Madonna della Sedia in Florence (Pl. 84) and the Large
Cowper Madonna in Washington (Pl. 70). The clutching motif of the left arm is to be found in a drawing by Penni (not
Giulio Romano) (Parker, Oxford Cat. II, No. 576).
Repeated attempts have been made (by Passavant, Cavalcaselle and Richter) to specify the extent to which Raphael himself
participated in the execution of the Baltimore picture or of the example formerly belonging to Sir Charles Robinson; but as
Raphael had no part in the invention, and it must be thought questionable whether the painting was carried out during his
lifetime, these attempts can hardly stand up to close investigation. The Baltimore example can be ascribed to F. Penni. Sir
Charles Robinson’s painting, which came to light between 1830 and 1840 in the possession of Buchanan, London, was
claimed to come from the Borghese Palace, Rome, but this
Page 56
Page 57
provenance was never established for certain. It entered the Collection of Rev. Turner in Dorset and was then bought by
Robinson and exhibited in 1878 in the Kensington Museum, London. In a publication entitled Raphael’s Madonna dei
Candelabri (London, 1906) Robinson claimed it to be Raphael’s original. He received no support, however, for although a
few scholars such as Richter and Gronau considered his example superior to the Baltimore painting, they could not dispute
its workshop characteristics. Cavalcaselle, who apparently saw the picture as early as 1878, declared it to be a copy. The
present writer’s opinion is not shared by Zeri, who recently examined the Baltimore picture and maintains that at least the
Virgin and the Child are from Raphael’s own hand.
Passavant II, p. 399 f. (d.); J. P. Richter 1878, p. 622 (in part a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 100 (in part a.; with Giulio
Romano); Müntz, p. 531 (copy); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 181 (in part a.; with Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 361 (by Penni); J.
C. Robinson 1907, June, p. 19 ff. (a.); J. Burckhardt, Vorträge ed. Dürr, Basle 1918, p. 322 (invention by Raphael); Gronau, p. 109 (r.); Baldass 1926-7, p. 38 (a.); Gamba, p. 87 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (in part a.); Hauptmann 1936, p. 261 f.
(r.); Ortolani, p. 60 (copy); Fischel I, 1948, p. 364 (in part a.; with Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 150B and p. 85
(workshop); Dussler 1966, No.3 (r.); Zeri, Apollo, December 1966 (a.).
Portrait of the Engraver Marcantonio Raimondi
Caracas (Venezuela), Dr. A. Pietri Collection.
Wood: 13 x 10 cm.
On the back is a contemporary inscription:
M. A / RAIMONDI / ANN / XL / RAPHAEL VRBIN. / PINXIT. / MDX.
PROVENANCE: Filippi Collection, Paris.
This small-scale work portrays a head very similar to that of the front litter-bearer in the Heliodorus fresco, in which, according to Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 442), the features of Marcantonio Raimondi were immortalized. It is obviously based
on the wall-painting, which has been copied even down to the little folds in the white shirt. The Caracas picture is mediocre
and bears no resemblance to Raphael’s portrait paintings before and after 1510 either in composition or in the treatment of
details. As the portrait comes from a collection in Paris it is probably identical with the example there mentioned by E. Förster in his monograph on Raphael (Leipzig 1868, Vol. II), whose provenance goes back to the Vallardi Collection in Milan.
In his review of Förster’s book (ZfbK. III, 1868, p. 301) Mündler agrees with the attribution to Raphael. The latter references were not known to Suida.
Suida 1944, p. 239 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 17 (r.).
Christ on the Cross with the Virgin and St. John
Back: Madonna of Mercy
Città di Castello, Pinacoteca Comunale.
PROVENANCE: Fraternity of the Carità, Città di Castello.
A processional banner, in a very poor state of preservation (especially on the reverse), this work had always been attributed
to the school of Perugino, until Longhi declared it to be an early work by Raphael. There is no doubt that the Madonna of
Mercy is based on Piero della Francesca’s altar-piece in Borgo San Sepolcro; comparison of this banner with Raphael’s
early works, however - and especially with the Trinity in Città di Castello (Pl. 1), painted in 1499-1500 - fails to show the
slightest connection in the figure types of the Madonna, the kneeling men, or the crucified Christ on the front or in the compositional form.
Mancini, Istruzione per Città di Castello, Perugia 1732, p. 247 f. (Perugino's Workshop); Guardabassi, Indice-Guida (dei
Monumenti) dell’ Umbria, Perugia 1772, p. 56 (by Francesco da Castello); Longhi, Piero della Francesca, Milan 1927, p.
112 (a.); Ragghianti, La Deposizione, Milan 1947, p. 5 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 14 f. (a.); Camesasca I, Plates 1, 2 (a.);
Volpe 1962, p. 81 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (d.); Dussler 1966, No. 21 (r.).
Two Miracles of St. Nicholas of Tolentino: he restores dead birds to life - he saves a boy from drowning.
Detroit, Institute of Arts, Nos. 175 and 176.
Wood: 25 x 51 cm. each.
PROVENANCE: A. Kann Collection, Paris; auctioned, New York 1927.
Because these two panels are based on the same legend as Raphael’s early Coronation of St. Nicholas of Tolentino, which
was formerly in Città di Castello (Pl. 6), Valentiner supposed them to be predella panels for that altar-piece. I agree with
Fischel that this may well be correct; but these two mediocre little pictures are certainly not the work of the young master,
especially as Valentiner’s comparison of these predella panels with roughly contemporary works by Raphael - the Vision of
a Knight in London (Pl. 14) or the Three Graces in Chantilly (Pl. 15) fails to establish any stylistic or individual similarities. Gnoli attributed the two panels to Eusebio da San Giorgio. Whoever the painter was, he was certainly one of the
Umbrians who were trained in Perugino’s workshop towards the end of the century. It is quite possible that Raphael employed an assistant on the predella paintings for the St. Nicholas altar-piece, in this case Evangelista da Pian di Meleto.
Gnoli, Pittori e miniatori dell’ Umbria 1923, p. 105 (by Eusebio da San Giorgio); Valentiner 1927, p. 244 ff. (a.); Fischel,
Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 434 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 178 (Eusebio da San Giorgio); A. Venturi 1940, p. 135 f. (a.); Schöne
1950, p. 134,
Page 57
Page 58
Note 38 (r.); Bock v. Wülfingen 1951, p. 117 (d.); Volpe 1962, p. 80 (first panel by Raphael and Evangelista, second panel
by Evangelista); Dussler 1966, No. 22 (r.).
Kneeling Donor (fragment)
Detroit, Institute of Arts.
Wood; transferred to canvas: 61 x 82 cm.
Inscribed on the strip which frames the step below the throne:
RAPHAEL VRBINAS PINXIT A.D.M.D.V.I.
This picture arouses immediate suspicion, and is completely at variance with Raphael’s style. It has in fact been shown by
Zeri to be a forgery, based on a work by Girolamo (?) Nardini which depicts the Madonna enthroned, Raphael, Tobias and
Sebastian, and has, in the last line of the inscription, the words: Arcan. Raphael. divoq. Sebast. erexit. Ano. D.M.D.V.I. The
features of the kneeling patron are exactly the same in the Nardini model as in the forgery in Detroit.
The fact that Valentiner failed to give the provenance of this daub was sufficient to make it suspect.
Valentiner 1935, No. 2, p. 18 ff. (a.); Wagner 1936, p. 288 ff. (a. with an attempted reconstruction); Anonymous, Pantheon
XVII, 1936, p. 98 (a.); Valentiner 1937, p. 327 ff. (a.); Ortolani, p. 23 (r.); Zeri 1948, p. 178 ff. (forgery); Camesasca, p. 82
(r.); Dussler 1966, No. 23 (r.).
Half-length Portrait of a Man, full-face, wearing a beret; mountain landscape in the background.
Detroit, Mrs. Edsel Ford.
Wood: 23 x 17 cm.
PROVENANCE: Barbarini; Urbino; Patrizi, Rome; Principe Chigi, Rome; Goudstikker, Amsterdam (Catalogue April-May
1930, No. 47).
Composition and forms of the portrait point to a date in the first decade of the sixteenth century, and there is no lack of indications which suggest that it was painted in the circle of the young Raphael. But there are features which militate against
an attribution to the master: the composition is average in character, the drawing is pedantic and uninspired, the modelling
smooth, and the row of trees in the middleground is monotonous.
A variant (43 x 33 cm.), with more detailed costume and a higher tree in the landscape at the right, belongs to Mrs. Hanna
Scitovszky, Los Angeles; this has been accepted as a work of Raphael in certificates from Fiocco, E. Sandberg-Vavala, L.
Becherucci, P. Meller and C. Pedretti.
Suida Art Quarterly VII, 1944, p. 239 ff. (a.).
The Nativity of the Virgin
Fano, S. Maria Nuova.
Wood: 25 x 50 cm.
This work formed part of the predella for Perugino’s altar-piece of the Madonna enthroned with six Saints (1497).
Longhi and Camesasca follow Durand-Gréville’s hypothesis (Revue de l’art ancien et moderne 1907) with respect to this
one panel, which they ascribed to Raphael; they attribute the other predella panel, the Annunciation, to Perugino, although
there is no formal difference between the two works.
A. Venturi, Storia VII/2, p. 676 (by Andrea d’ Assisi); Longhi 1955, May, p. 14 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 145 (a.); Camesasca, Perugino, Plate 80 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 222 (a.); Dussler 1966, No: 26 (Perugino).
Self-Portrait
Wood: 47 x 35 cm.
PROVENANCE: Urbino, Palazzo Ducale; 1631, Florence, Medici.
We have documentary proof that the picture came from Urbino and was sent in 1631 to Grand-Duke Ferdinand II de’ Medici in Florence; see Gronau 1936, p. 80: ‘Nota de’ quadri buoni che sono in Guardaroba di Urbino; No. 32: uno detto
(quadro) in tavola. Ritratto di Raffaelle, di sua mano.’
The state of preservation is very poor and already drew strong criticism in the nineteenth century from Rumohr and especially from H. Grimm, the latter emphasizing the extensive restorations carried out between the middle of the fifties, when
he first saw the picture, and 1878. Fischel, too, discussed the dubious appearance of the portrait, and went into detail, distinguishing between the probably original sections - the eyes, nose, mouth and eyebrows - and the modelling of the head in
general, which is dubious in many ways, and the grey-gold background, which was repainted in the nineteenth century. In a
written communication, W. Prinz stated that he considered it to be probably a copy of the self-portrait in the School of Athens. The only difference is that turned-up wings have been added to the side of the cap, while its shape on the forehead is
the same as in the fresco. The remarkable thickness of neck and shoulder could be an addition by the copyist and the inelegant wavy line of the chest an arbitrary alteration of the robe in the fresco.
Very recently H. Wagner, in a detailed discussion, arrived at the same opinion. He assumes, convincingly, that the patron
who ordered the picture (the Duke of Urbino?) may have agreed that the portrait should be based (in reverse) on that in the
School of Athens.
Wagner attributes the picture to a pupil from Raphael’s studio.
A self-portrait on panel was in the collection of Bartolomeo della Nave in Venice about 1638 (cf. Waterhouse in Italian
Studies VII, 1952, p. 14).
COPIES: Rome, Galleria Borghese (Pergola, Cat. Borghese II, No. 179; the attribution to Timoteo Viti
Page 58
Page 59
is rightly discounted). - For further copies see the detailed notes in Wagner, p. 64 ff.
Rumohr, p. 561 (a.); Passavant II, p. 63 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 223 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 221 f. (a.); Grimm 1883, pp. 162 ff. (r.);
Ridolfi 1891, p. 421 (a.); Gnoli, Rass. d’A. VII, 1920, p. 96 (a.); Gronau, Frontispiece and p. 217 (a.); Burkhalter, p. 24 ff.
(a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Gamba, p. 39 (a.); Ortolani, p. 21 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 60 (a.); Schöne, p. 35 and Fig. 56
(a.); Camesasca I, Plate 60 (a.); Volpe 1956, March, p. 6 (d.); Fischel 1962, p. 44 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (d.); Dussler
1966, No. 39 (copy); Prinz 1966, No. 85 (r.); Wagner 1969 (with extensive bibliography), p. 62 (copy? before 1600).
Portrait of Elisabetta Gonzaga
Wood: 59 x 37 cm.
On the reverse are the words: ‘Duchessa Isabella Mantovane moglie del Duca Guido’.
PROVENANCE: Urbino, Palazzo Ducale; 1631, Florence, in the possession of the Medici family.
The attribution to Raphael dates back to Durand-Gréville and was later (1925) confirmed by Gronau, who had opposed it in
1907; some scholars have since accepted it. In my opinion there is no connection between this portrait and Raphael’s works
from the period 1500-5, whereas there are many convincing reasons for attributing it to the Verona school, and in particular
to that of Bonsignori. Detailed stylistic grounds for this opinion are given by U. Schmitt; Fischel was formerly dubious of
the work’s authenticity and does not mention it in his monograph. Ortolani’s hypothesis that it might have been begun by
the father Giovanni Santi and finished by Raphael is untenable. Although this attribution was mistaken there is no doubt
that Raphael made a portrait of the Duchess: the fact is mentioned by Antonio B. Negrini in his Elogj de’ Castiglione, Padua 1733, p. 329 (cf. Passavant 1839, I, p. 111 and II, p. 62). Elisabetta had been the artist’s patron at an early date (see Serlio in Golzio, p. 284).
Morelli 1890, p. 359 (by Caroto?); Delaruelle 1900, p. 147 ff. (by Bonsignori); Bayersdorfer, p. 91 (by Bonsignori); Durand-Gréville 1905, p. 38 ff. (a.); Gronau 1907, p. 569 (r.); Cr.-Cav., A History of Painting in North Italy (ed. Borenius),
London 1912, II, p. 186, Note 4 and p. 262, Note 5 (by Bonsignori); A. Venturi, Storia VII/3, p. 973 (School of Francia);
Gronau 1924-5, p. 443 ff. (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 215 (by Tamarocci); A. L. Mayer, Pantheon II, 1929, p. 354 (by Bonsignori?); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Fischel Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (d.); Suida 1934-6, p. 164, Note 2 (a.); Ortolani,
p. 23 (in part a.); Salvini, Cat. 1952, p. 55 (School of F. Francia); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, March, p. 9
(a.); Camesasca I, Plate 34 (a.); U. Schmitt 1961, pp. 100 f., 116 (by Bonsignori); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (r.); Dussler 1966,
No. 40 (r.).
Portrait of Perugino
Wood: 50 x 37 cm.
PROVENANCE: Medici, Florence; 1704, in the Tribuna, Florence.
Until the end of the eighteenth century this work was listed as a portrait of Luther by Hans Holbein the Younger (according
to the account given by Baldinucci, Notizie VII, p. 293), but comparison with Perugino’s self-portrait in the Cambio, Perugia (Camesasca, Perugino, Fig. 109) clearly shows that it is he who is depicted in this painting. It was later considered a
portrait of Verrocchio by Lorenzo di Credi and was so listed by Berenson, but Degenhart provided convincing proof that it
could only represent Perugino, and the same conclusion was reached independently by Offner and Beenken. There is no
unanimity as to the identity of the painter, however. Offner was followed by Degenhart, Beenken, Ortolani and (at first)
Camesasca in considering this portrait an early work by Raphael, while other scholars showed, mostly through their silence
(Fischel, Gamba, Longhi and Schöne), that they found this attribution impossible.
There is a strong Netherlandish influence-specifically, that of Memling - both in the composition and in the treatment of the
landscape. In my opinion the picture is the work of Perugino, and dates from about the turn of the century.
There is a COPY (with variations) in private ownership in Vienna.
Baldinucci VII, p. 292 f. (by Holbein); A. Venturi in L’Arte XXIV, 1922, p. 11 ff. (by Perugino); Degenhart, Pantheon VIII,
1931, p. 366 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 296 (by Credi); Offner 1934, p. 254 ff. (a.); Lietzmann 1934, p. 365 ff. (r.); Beenken,
Burl. M. LXVI, 1935, p. 142 (a.); Beenken 1935, p. 145 (a.); Degenhart, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte IV, 1935, p. 180
(a.); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (r.); Ortolani, p. 25 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 149 and p. 80 (d.); Camesasca, Perugino, Plate 77 (by Perugino); Dussler 1966, No. 43 (by Perugino).
Portrait of Guidobaldo I da Montefeltre
Canvas: 69 x 52 cm.
PROVENANCE: Urbino, Palazzo Ducale; 1631, Florence, Medici family.
Durand-Gréville was the first to attribute this very mediocre portrait to Raphael. Gronau originally rejected this attribution
(1907) - and was followed by several other scholars - but later accepted it. The work was traditionally ascribed either to the
school of Francesco Francia or to Bonsignori. No discussion is needed to prove that the portrait cannot be reconciled with
Raphael’s art either of the pre-Florentine period or of the years 1505-8. In my opinion it can hardly be attributed to the Verona master, either, for it is
Page 59
Page 60
much closer to the school of Bologna, i.e. Francia and Costa. U. Schmitt also deleted this portrait from the Bonsignori catalogue. For Ortolani’s suggestion regarding Giovanni Santi see Florence, Uffizi, No. 1441 (p. 59).
The fact that Raphael painted a portrait of Guidobaldo in 1507 during his stay in Urbino can be deduced from a letter which
Bembo wrote on 19 April 1516 to Bibbiena: in addition to the portraits of Tebaldeo and Castiglione he also mentions that
of the Duke (who had died in 1508) (Golzio, pp. 43 f.). That picture was already lost in the time of Passavant (Passavant
1839, I, p. 111). A second portrait of Guidobaldo by Raphael, which has also remained untraced, was in the collection of
Bartolomeo della Nave at Venice in 1638 (cf. Waterhouse in Italian Studies, VII, 1952, p. 14).
Delaruelle 1900, p. 147 ff. (by Bonsignori); Durand-Gréville 1905, p. 38 ff. (a.); Gronau 1907, p. 569 (r.); Cr.-Cav., A History of Painting in North Italy (ed. Borenius), London 1912, II, p. 187, Note 1 (by Bonsignori); A. Venturi, Storia VII/3, p.
973 (F. Francia’s workshop); Gronau 1924-5, p. 443 ff. (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 215 (by Tamarocci); A. L. Mayer, Pantheon
II, 1929, p. 354 (copy? after Bonsignori); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Suida 1934-6, p. 164, Note 2 (a.); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl.
Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (d.); Ortolani, p. 23 (in part a.); Salvini, Cat. 1952, p. 56 (School of F. Francia); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22
(a.); Volpe 1956, March, p. 10 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 92 (a.); U. Schmitt 1961, pp. 101, 116, 130 (School of F. Francia);
Brizio 1963, col. 226 (d.; Dussler 1966, No. 44 (r.).
St. Ambrose Baptizing St. Augustine; St. Augustine Disputing with the heretic Fortunatus
Frankfurt, Staedel Institute (on loan).
Predella pictures. Wood, each 30 x 37 cm.
PROVENANCE: Rome, E. Lazzaroni.
These two predella paintings are probably by the same artist as the two panels in Detroit (p. 57), but the two pairs are not
likely to have belonged together and to have formed a predella of the altar-piece with the Coronation of St. Nicholas (Pl. 6).
The two panels in Frankfurt show no more of Raphael’s personal style than those in Detroit.
A. Venturi, L’Arte 1940, p. 135, Fig. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 122 (r.).
Portrait of a Young Man; Landscape background.
Hampton Court, Royal Collection, No. 710.
Wood: 37 x 40 cm.
PROVENANCE: Kensington Palace.
Inscribed on the two clasp-buttons: RAFFAELLO VRBINAS.
This painting, which has certainly been cut off below the chest, must be the same as that mentioned in the inventory of
King James II (Scharf, Royal Picture Galleries, No. 123), which was formerly thought to be a self-portrait of Raphael.
Since Gruyer’s refutation of this view, however, it was no longer given to the master until Volpe and, following his lead,
Camesasca revived the old attribution. The former, who regards it as a self-portrait, points to the stylistic similarity with the
Entombment in the Galleria Borghese (Pl. 67) and also (to a certain extent) with the Madonna del Baldacchino in Florence,
and to the special character of the landscape. None of his arguments stand up to a close examination, however; the landscape in the background of the picture has none of Raphael’s organic composition (especially the landscape behind the sitter’s back) and the composition lacks Raphael’s creative ability. Cavalcaselle’s suggestion that this is the work of a Florentine artist should not be ruled out; but I am not convinced by Heinemann’s attribution to Piero di Cosimo, for the examples
which he suggests for comparison seem inadequate, nor am I confident that the sitter is the same as in the Munich Portrait
of a Young Man (p. 62).
The picture was probably painted about 1507.
According to Heinemann, a later copy of this portrait was sold at Christie’s in London on 8 April 1938.
Passavant II, p. 26 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 475 f. (r.); Morelli 1891, p. 142 (r.); Exhibition of King’s Pictures, London 1946-7,
No. 175 (Umbrian); Volpe 1956, March, p. 14 f. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 88 (a.); Heinemann 1961, p. 104 (by Piero di Cosimo); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (d); Dussler 1966, No. 48 (r.); Wagner 1969, p. 115, Note 13 (r.).
Portrait of a Lady
Hanover, Kestner Museum, No. 289.
Wood: 74 x 50 cm.
PROVENANCE: Bologna; Dr. Kestner, Rome.
As a result of frequent restorations between 1892 and 1950, the face, neck and bosom now show little of the original
brushwork, but in the few intact parts (nape and shoulders) the technique and colouring (the grey and gold tones, etc.) bear
witness to the hand of a master very similar to that responsible for the Donna Velata (Pl. 80), with which there is also a
strong compositional resemblance. But there are no convincing arguments to show that the invention goes back to Raphael
himself. Longhi’s suggestion that this picture should be dated 1504 seems to be quite unsupported by evidence and such an
early date conflicts also with the fact that the work has often been attributed to Sebastiano del Piombo as it accords with his
Roman style; the similarity with the Velata is another argument for not dating the picture in the first decade of the century.
An attribution to Giulio Romano is certainly unjustified.
Passavant 1860, II, p. 362 (d.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 475 (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Küppers 1916, p. 131 (by Sebastiano del
Piombo); Fischel 1916, p. 260 (a.); Gronau, p. 210 (r.); A. Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 356 f.
Page 60
Page 61
(by Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p. 261 (by Giulio Romano?); Gombosi, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXVII p. 73 (by Sebastiano
del Piombo); Dussler 1942, p. 153, No. 89 (r.); Palluchini 1944, p. 184 (r.); Ortolani, p. 51 (r.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 124,
363; Katalog Landesgalerie Hannover 1954, No. 289 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, March, p. 12 (a.);
Camesasca I, Plate 33 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 93 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 49 (d.).
The Madonna appearing to a Kneeling Youth
Helsinki, Dr. Leo Wainstein.
Wood.
PROVENANCE: William Dyce, London; Sterling Dyce, London; D. Nathan, London; Capt. Langton-Douglas, London.
This little picture is a fragment of a predella. In both invention and execution it is extremely mediocre and has no formal
points of contact with Raphael’s youthful works.
Undoubtedly Umbrian, c. 1500.
A. Venturi in L’Arte XXXI, 1928, p. 213 f. (a.); Bock v. Wülfingen 1951, p. 117 (d.); Camesasca I, p. 80 (r.); Dussler 1966,
No. 50 (r.).
The Virgin appearing to a Woman Lying ill in Bed; on the right a Loggia with a View of a Landscape.
Liverpool, Walker Art Gallery, No. 2867.
Wood: 23 x 33 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1836, Liverpool Royal Institution.
This picture, which is obviously an ex-voto, was formerly in store in the gallery and is in very poor condition. Because of
its date of 1495 A. Venturi declared it to be Raphael’s earliest work, but this view did not find acceptance. In the absence of
a personal inspection, Bock von Wülfingen left the verdict open. In my opinion it is not possible to establish any connection with Raphael’s early productions. The painting is described in the gallery as ‘Umbrian 1490-1500’.
A. Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 72 ff. (a.); Bock v. Wülfingen 1951, p. 117 (d.); Camesasca I, p. 79 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 57
(r.).
Standing Madonna holding the Child on her Arm; SS. Jerome and Francis; two Angels with a Crown above the Virgin's Head.
Wood: 185 x 152 cm.
PROVENANCE: Ordered by the heirs of Giovanni Schiavone for the family chapel in S. Maria Nuova de’ Servi, Perugia, in
1507; the work then passed into the hands of two families of the same city, the houses of Cecconi and (subsequently) della
Penna (1821).
Traditionally ascribed to Perugino’s workshop, this picture was recently attributed to Raphael by Longhi, who emphasized
in particular the ‘Florentine’ appearance of the Child. It must be admitted that in form and expression the figure type of the
infant Christ shows a certain affinity, but this makes it the more surprising that Raphael’s genius, which had found clear
expression at that time, is not shown in any other figure, not even in a detail, nor in the landscape, let alone in the execution
of the crown-bearing angels, which are quite mechanical in appearance.
A. Venturi, Storia VII/2, pp. 460, 694 (by Andrea d’Assisi); Berenson 1932, p. 437 (by Perugino); Davies, Cat. National
Gallery. The earlier Italian Schools, London 1961, p. 407 f. (by Perugino); Longhi 1955, May p. 23 (a.); Camesasca I,
Plate 148A (attr.); Camesasca, Perugino, Plate 185 (in part a.); Dussler 1966, No. 61 (School of Perugino).
Seated Madonna with the Child standing on her Lap; Landscape background.
London, Earl of Northbrook (formerly).
Wood: 51 x 36 cm.
PROVENANCE: Baring, London.
Cavalcaselle and Gronau attributed this work to a minor Umbrian painter (Lo Spagna or Eusebio da San Giorgio), but some
modern scholars believe invention and execution to be by Raphael and date it between 1505 and 1507. In my opinion it is
not impossible that Raphael created a similar composition - for the head of the Madonna, see R.Z. II, No. 73 in Montpellier
and for the form of the upper body, see the Small Cowper Madonna in Washington (Pl. 50). But the picture has considerable shortcomings - the clumsy painting of the left arm, the harsh intersection of vertical and horizontal lines, and the
shapeless drapery on the Madonna’s lap; the landscape - especially on the right side - also counts against an attribution to
Raphael. The Child’s posture is modelled on the Christ Child in the Madonna del Cardellino in Florence (Pl. 51).
Cr.-Cav., Ital. Malerei IV, p. 345 (by Spagna) ; R. Fry and C. Phillips in: Catalogue of a Collection of the Pictures,
Umbrian School, London 1910, No. 10 (a.); Gronau, p. 208 (r.); A. Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 126 (a.); Ortolani, p. 28 (a.);
Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 54 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 71 (r.).
Half-length Male Portrait; Landscape background.
London, art dealer, 1962.
Wood: 67 x 53 cm.
PROVENANCE: Sir J. B.Robinson, London; Sotheby’s sale, 27 November 1963, No. 29.
This portrait (which the present author only knows in reproductions) follows the scheme employed in the
Page 61
Page 62
portrait study in Paris (R.Z. II, No. 80, datable about 1505) as well as in the portrait in the Galleria Borghese (p. 64). The
left hand lies on a parapet decorated with a tapestry, and is formally almost identical with the early likeness of the young
Rovere in Florence, Uffizi (p. 8), but the overall impression suggests that this work should be dated rather from the end of
the Florentine period, or even from the early years in Rome. The importance given to the parapet, above all, suggests the
possible influence of Sebastiano del Piombo. Comparison with the Madonnas painted between 1505 and 1508 shows that
the stiff and shapeless landscape in this picture is quite unlike the work of Raphael, and this feature combines with the lack
of structural sensitivity in the painting of the figure to rule out an attribution to him.
Dussler 1966, No. 72 (r.).
Portrait of Lorenzo de’ Medici
Montpellier, Musée Fabre.
Wood: 98 x 74 cm.
PROVENANCE: Siena, in private possession; 1826, Monsignor Fabre, Montpellier.
Goro Gheri wrote to Lorenzo on 6 November 1517, stating that he was planning to commission a profile portrait from
Raphael to be used for the coin which the duke intended to issue (Golzio, p. 63), and this portrait of Lorenzo is mentioned
again a few months later. On 22 January 1518 B. Costabili, writing from Rome, informed Alfonso d’Este that the portrait of
Lorenzo had been dispatched by Raphael (Golzio, p. 65), and this is confirmed by the two letters from the duke to B. Turini
(4 and 5 February; Golzio, p. 66). Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 352 f.) saw the portrait among the effects of Ottaviano Medici
in Florence, and also refers to a copy of it made by Aristotele di Sangallo (ed. Milanesi VII, p. 437). None of the surviving
portraits can claim to be by Raphael, however, for the picture in Montpellier, like the version in Florence (corridor of the
Uffizi), and that in Colworth (Hollingworth Magniac) are clearly the works of copyists.
Borghini 1584, p. 392 (a.); Passavant II, p. 177 (d.); II, 1860, p. 274 (copy); Müntz, p. 553 (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 315 f. (copy);
Gronau, p. 212 (copy); Ortolani, p. 59 (copy); Fischel 1948, I, p. 115 (copy); Camesasca I, Plate 144A and p. 74 (copy);
Fischel 1962, p. 85 f. (copy); Brizio 1963, col. 241 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 82 (r.).
Half-length Portrait of a Young Man, before a Landscape, on either side a pillar.
Munich, Alte Pinakothek, No. 1059.
Wood: 53 x 41 cm.
Signed (on the clasp of the robe): RAFFAELLO VRBINS · P ·
PROVENANCE: Leonardo del Riccio, Florence; J. Hugford, Florence; Count Lactant von Firmian, Leopoldskron; Traut-
mann, Munich; 1817, King Ludwig I of Bavaria; 1835 Staatliche Sammlungen.
The attribution of this work to Raphael and its identification as a self-portrait, accepted since the middle of the eighteenth
century (Vasari, ed. Bottari, II, 1759, p. 88 note 1), were already disproved by Gruyer, but have been revived by Volpe and
Camesasca, although without adequate grounds. It has long been recognized that this picture belongs to the BologneseUmbrian school of between 1500 and 1510, but neither the attribution to Aspertini nor Heinemann’s suggestion of Timoteo
Viti is convincing. The theory that the sitter is the same man as in the Hampton Court portrait, No. 710 (p. 60) must be considered doubtful. Wagner regards the Munich picture as a sixteenth-century pasticcio.
Passavant II, p. 38 (a.); Gruyer 1881, I, p. 95 (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 476 (by Alfani); Morelli 1891, p. 14 (r.); Catalogue of the
Munich Pinakothek 1930, p. 55 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 34 (by Aspertini?); Volpe 1956, March, p. 1 ff. (a.); Camesasca I,
Plate 32 (a.); Zeri 1957, No. 95, p. 68 (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 493 (a.); Heinemann 1961, p. 103 f. (by T. Viti); Brizio 1963,
col. 226 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 86 (r.); Wagner 1969, p. 97 (r.);
Portrait of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese; on the right a View of a Landscape
Naples, Museo Nazionale, No. 145.
Wood: 137 x 90 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1587 Farnese inventory, Parma; 1680, Palazzo del Giardino inventory, Parma; 1802, Galleria Francavilla inventory, Naples.
The identification of the sitter as Alessandro Farnese, the cardinal on the right of the enthroned Pope in the Presentation of
the Decretals (Pl. 127), seems to me no longer certain. The features have more in common with those of the seated cardinal, identified by Suida as Bandinelli Sauli, in the group portrait by Sebastiano del Piombo in the National Gallery of Art in
Washington (F. R. Shapley, Paintings from the Samuel H. Kress Collection, Italian Schools, XV-XVI Century, 1968, p. 166,
Fig. 399). Whether the picture in Naples is by Raphael (as listed in the Farnese inventories since 1587) is a question which
can hardly be answered while it is in its present state. The lack of form in the painting of the mozzetta, the abrupt meeting
of the horizontal and vertical lines and the completely unorganic composition of the right arm, all combine to raise strong
doubts, as do the dark and empty left background and the landscape view, which is purely decorative in effect.
Passavant II, p. 427 f. (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 282 (Florentine copy); Filangieri di Candida 1901, p. 128 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 86
(r.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (in part a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 113 (d.), 363 (Florentine copy); Camesasca I, Plate 105 (d.); Fischel 1962, p. 84 f. (d.); Dussler 1966, No. 88 (r.).
Page 62
Page 63
Seated Madonna with the Child on her Lap; each holding a Pink; on the right a narrow view of a landscape (The
Madonna with the Pink)
New York, French Gallery.
Wood: 28 x 22 cm.
PROVENANCE: Conte Luigi Spada, Lucca.
As Gronau and H. Cook first pointed out, the composition of this picture is derived from Leonardo da Vinci’s Madonna
Benois in Leningrad, Hermitage. Among the sketches by Raphael on a sheet in Lille (R.Z. VIII, No. 346), dating from the
end of the Florentine period, are similar ideas for the position and gesture of the Child, but this primary crystallization reflects a much more animated conception than the many paintings in which it was used. Fischel was therefore right in suggesting that Raphael himself may never have painted such a composition, and Cavalcaselle had already expressed the same
opinion. It must be assumed that the Leonardo-inspired concetto, of which Raphael may have made further and more careful sketches, was used for the painting by one of the master’s assistants, for not one of the surviving versions has the quality
of Raphael’s work. (The copy in the Pembroke Collection is signed on the neckline of the Madonna’s dress: RAPHAELLO
VRBINAS MDVIII.) Suida was therefore wrong in claiming that the New York picture is original.
COPIES: Passavant mentioned numerous copies of this work, whose present locations have been checked by G. Gamulin;
among these are: formerly Leipzig-Lützschena, Baron Speck von Sternburg Collection, now Leipzig Museum; Paris, Louvre, No. 1513B, formerly Timbal Collection; Rome, Galleria Nazionale F.B. 597, formerly Torlonia, school of F. Barocci;
Zagreb, Galerie Strossmayer, No. 386, formerly in Cologna, Ramboux Collection; also Sir Thomas Philipps Collection,
Fenwick, Christie’s sale 26 Sep. 1964, No. 91; and Würzburg, Wagner Museum.
Passavant II, p. 79 f. (copy); Müntz, p. 206 (copy); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 272 (workshop); E. v. Liphart 1912, p. 207 (copy); Gronau
1912, p. 253 ff. (copy); Cook 1914, I, p. 386 (copy); Gronau, p. 208 (copy); Gamba, p. 51 (copy); Suida, p. 7 (a.); Fischel
1948, I, pp. 127, 360 (copy); Camesasca I, p. 83 (r.); Gamulin 1958, p. 160 f. (copy); Fischel 1962, p. 95 (copy); Dussler
1966, No. 93 (design a.).
St. John the Baptist in a Landscape; on the scroll held in the left hand are the words: ECCE AGNVS.
PROVENANCE: Cardinal Adrien Gouffier de Boissy; Claude Gouffier, Oiron (the arms of the French families of Claude
Gouffier and Artus Gouffier are painted on either side of the head); Marquis de la Feuillade, Oiron; King Louis XIV, Fontainebleau; presented by King Louis XVIII to the church of Longport; 1820, Duc de Maillé; Paris art dealer (Cousin).
This picture, which is badly preserved, differs greatly in the saint’s posture from the Florence example (Pl. 100), to which it
is also considerably inferior from the formal point of view. Morelli and Gronau ascribed it to Sebastiano del Piombo, but
there is nothing to suggest the hand of the Venetian artist. The attribution to Raphael, made by Mündler, Frizzoni and Berenson and others, is untenable, and so is Gamba’s view that the landscape shows all the signs of the master’s art. The composition can hardly be by Giulio Romano. I consider this a workshop production dating from the beginning of the twenties.
Passavant II, p. 355 (by Giulio Romano?); Fillon, Chronique des Arts 1867, p. 108 (a.); Mündler 1868, p. 299 f. (a.);
Müntz, p. 550 (copy); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 390 f. (r.); Morelli 1890, p. 54 (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Clouzot, Bull. de l’Art ancien et moderne VII, 1905, p. 262 (a.); Frizzoni 1906, p. 417 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 213 (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Gamba, p.
106 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Boudot-Lamotte 1934, March, p. 49 f.; Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 441 (r.); Ortolani, p. 65 (a.); Dussler 1942 p. 155, No. 98 (r.); Pallucchini 1944, p. 187 (r.); Camesasca I, Plate 121 (in part a.); Freedberg, p. 370 (by Giulio Romano; execution by Raffaellino dal Colle); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (partly a.); Dussler 1966, No.
100 (studio).
Portrait of Giovanna of Aragon
Wood: transferred to canvas: 120 x 95 cm.
PROVENANCE: King Francis I of France, Fontainebleau.
The portrait of this lady, the wife of Ascanio Colonna, was painted as the result of a commission from Cardinal Bibbiena,
who had been an ambassador to the French court in 1518 and intended it as a gift for Francis I. Raphael himself never saw
the sitter, but sent his pupil, Giulio Romano, to Naples to prepare the cartoon from life. The master was therefore probably
not even responsible for the head, as was claimed by Vasari, who never saw the picture. The cartoon by Giulio Romano
(now lost) was in the possession of Alfonso d’Este in 1519 (Golzio, p. 76 f.). The Duke had very probably seen the portrait
during his stay at the French court in 1518, for his wsih to obtain the cartoon is mentioned as early as Christmas 1518. The
portrait was restored by Primaticcio in 1540.
COPIES: Berlin-Dahlem, Staatliche Museum (store); Leipzig Museum of Fine Arts (1961 Cat., pl. 21), formerly in Leipzig-
Lützschena, Baron Speck von Sternburg Collection: by Giulio Romano.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) V, p. 525 (in part a.); Passavant II, p. 323 ff. (a.); Mündler 1868, p. 299 (in part a.); Müntz, p. 556 (in
part a.); Gruyer 1880, p. 476 ff.
Page 63
Page 64
(in part a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 324 ff. (in part a.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 280 f. (by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p. 157 (by Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 125, 366 (by Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate
136 (by Giulio Romano); Maffei 1959, p. 319 (by Penni); Freedberg, p. 345 f. (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 93 (by
Giulio Romano); Oberhuber 1962, p. 68 (by Giulio Romano); Brizio 1963, col. 241 (replica); Dussler 1966, No. 106 (studio).
Seated Evangelist and Two Standing Saints
Philadelphia, John G. Johnson Collection.
Wood: 43 x 34 cm.
The formal structure, physical types and expressions of the figures suggest that the picture comes from the circle of Pintoricchio, but the features cited by Longhi are not sufficient to allow one to identify the apprentice responsible as the young
Raphael.
Berenson, Cat. Johnson I (1913), No. 142 (by Pintoricchio); Berenson 1932, p. 460 (by Pintoricchio); Longhi 1955, May, p.
18 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 146B and p. 80 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 108 (r.).
St. Luke Painting the Madonna; on the right a portrait of Raphael
Rome, Accademia di San Luca, No. 283.
Wood, transferred to canvas.
PROVENANCE: since 1579, in the Accademia di San Luca, Rome.
Scipione da Gaeta restored this picture as early as about 1600, and its poor state of preservation also made further treatment
necessary in more recent times (1857, 1936-7, 1949, according to P. Cellini, see below). It was much admired in the seventeenth century, and was later singled out for praise by Goethe during his Italian journey (see Italienische Reise, InselVerlag edition, Leipzig 1920, pp. 554, 578). Since Passavant, this work had been excluded from Raphael’s œuvre, but in
the last decades renewed attempts were made to attribute it to the master. These have not been convincing, and in my opinion this is a late workshop production, probably by Penni. The picture was recently studied in detail by H. Wagner, who
also gives it to Penni. There is a copy by A. Grammatica in the church of the Accademia di San Luca.
G. Baglione, Le vite de’ pittori, scultori et architetti . . ., Rome, 1642, pp. 124; Passavant II, p. 416 f. (workshop); Gruyer,
Vierges III, p. 570 ff. (r.); Müntz, p. 531 (by T. Viti); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 467 (by T. Viti); Dollmayr 1895, p. 359 (by Penni);
Cellini 1936, p. 282 ff. (a.); Muñoz 1936, p. 336 (a.); Mariani 1937, p. 192 f. (a.); Golzio, La galleria e le collezioni della
Reale Accademia di San Luca in Roma, Rome 1939, p. 16 and Fig. 67 (workshop); Cellini 1958, p. 250 ff. (a.); Camesasca
I, p. 83 f. (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 111 (r.); H. Wagner 1969, p. 72 (Penni).
Portrait of a Young Woman with a Unicorn
PROVENANCE: Olimpia Aldobrandini, Rome.
Since its careful restoration and the removal of overpainting, the portrait has regained its original appearance. The unicorn
(symbol of chastity) could not previously be seen, for during the sixteenth century the picture had been made to represent
St. Catherine through the addition of her attribute, the wheel. The Florentine character of the work is evident, as is the
strong indebtedness to the portrait form used by Raphael in his pre-Roman period (and especially in his portrait study executed under the influence of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, R.Z. II, No. 80), but critics long hesitated to ascribe this work to Raphael himself. The first to do so was Longhi and he was followed by some writers; others, such as Gamba, Berenson, Fischel
and also Freedberg, did not accept the attribution to Raphael. I am not convinced by any of Longhi’s arguments. The lack
of strong compositional structure, the academic derivative approach, the technique and the colouring - cf. above all the portrait of La Gravida (Pl. 46) - all point to an artist who had none of the genius of Raphael. Ridolfo Ghirlandaio has repeatedly been suggested and this name seems to fit the facts best, while Berenson’s attribution to Granacci does not carry the
same degree of conviction. The sitter’s features show some resemblance to the older-looking physiognomy of Maddalena
Doni in the Pitti (Pl. 45) and Ortolani therefore took the portrait in the Borghese Gallery to be a companion-piece to the
portrait of Angelo Doni and considered the portrait in the Pitti to represent his mother-in-law. This hypothesis is not convincing. Datable some time after 1506, possibly after Raphael had left Florence.
Morelli, ZfbKst IX, 1874, p. 172 (by Ridolfo Ghirlandaio); Cantalamessa, Rass. d'A. 1916, XVI, p. 187 ff. (Florentine, 16th
century); A. Venturi, Storia IX/1, p. 507 (by Ridolfo Ghirlandaio); Longhi, Vita artistica 1927, p. 168 and Precisioni 1928,
p. 144 ff. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 267 (by Granacci); De Rinaldis 1936, p. 122 ff. (a.); Ortolani, p. 27 (a.); Longhi 1955,
May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe, March 1956, p. 9 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 61 (a.); Pergola, Gal. Borghese 1959, II, No. 169 (a.); Freedberg, p. 79 (Ridolfo Ghirlandaio); Dussler 1966, No. 113 (Ridolfo Ghirlandaio?); Wagner 1969, p. 67 (a.).
Crucifix
Rome, Marchese Emilio Visconti Venosta.
Wood.
The shafts of this crucifix, which is painted on both sides, end in trefoils decorated with half-length figures. On the front are
St. John and the Virgin (right and left) and SS. Peter and Mary Magdalen (top and bottom). In the corresponding positions
on the back
Page 64
Page 65
are SS. Clare and Francis, Louis of Toulouse and Anthony of Padua.
Earlier scholars generally ascribed these figures to the Pintoricchio circle, but Volpe and Camesasca claimed that this was
an early work by Raphael. I can see no grounds for this attribution; the work must be by a minor master from the circle of
Perugino.
Ricci, Pintoricchio, Perugia 1912, p. 220 f. (by Pintoricchio); Gamba, Dedalo 1920-21, p. 522 (in part a.); Gnoli, Pittori e
miniatori nell’Umbria, 1923, p. 297 (school of Pintoricchio); Volpe 1956, March, p. 8 ff. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 8A, B (a.);
Carli, Pintoricchio, Milan 1960, p. 57 (follower of Perugino); Dussler 1966, No. 123 (r.).
The Creation of Eve
Stockholm, private collection (formerly).
Wood: 28 x 25 cm.
PROVENANCE: Grand-Dukes of Tuscany; Leyland, London; O. v. Weissenberger, Dresden; Mrs. M. Frykberg, Stockholm;
Fischer, Lucerne, sale 4 December 1965.
This picture was attributed to Raphael by Fiocco, who dated it about 1506. But neither the composition nor the figure types
nor the landscape show any signs of Raphael’s art, and everything - particularly the figure of God the Father - suggests that
the work was based on a prototype by Fra Bartolomeo. Whether this prototype was the version now in the Kress Collection
(Fern R. Shapley, K. 1100, Fig. 304, catalogued as by Fra Bartolomeo) cannot be decided without inspection of the picture
from Sweden. Fiocco’s attribution has not found acceptance, and the picture is now generally given to Bacchiacca. A variant (with differences particularly in the landscape at the left), which was in 1937 in the New Palace at Potsdam, was rightly
attributed to Bacchiacca by Scharf.
Scharf, Burlington Magazine, LXX, 1937, p. 65 (by Bacchiacca); Fiocco, Rivista d’Arte; XXIX, 1954, p. 43 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 502 (by Bacchiacca); Abbate 1965, No. 189, p. 36 (by Bacchiacca); Dussler 1966, No. 125 (Circle of Fra Bartolommeo); Nikolenko 1966, p. 40 (Bacchiacca, copy Potsdam).
Allegorical Scene: in the centre is a seated woman, with two ears of com in her right hand and a fruit in her left; at the right
a young man seated with a sword and a shield; landscape background.
Unknown private ownership.
Perkins’ suggestion that this little picture was probably used as a decorative lid for a custodia (a vessel) may well be correct. From the point of view of formal structure and quality, however, an attribution to the young Raphael seems quite unconvincing, and in my opinion the style allows only the general classification as an Umbrian work of about 1500.
Mason Perkins 1948, p. 128 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 126 (r.).
Male Portrait
Vaduz, Prince of Liechtenstein.
Wood: 47 x 37 cm.
PROVENANCE: Marchese Giacomo Bovio, Bologna; 1823, in Vienna.
Following a suggestion made by Waagen and adopted by Bode, this portrait was formerly believed to be by Francesco
Francia. Cavalcaselle was the first to declare it a possible early work by Raphael, but he found no decisive support, for his
attribution was rejected by G. Frizzoni and A. Venturi, while Fischel and Ortolani remained undecided. In my opinion this
portrait is of high quality, for the expression of the head is so clearly defined and individual that no beginner could have
painted it. It is, however, in no way similar to Raphael’s Florentine period portraits, for a comparison shows no parallels in
construction, modelling or use of colour, and the composition of the landscape in particular is quite unlike Raphael’s style
about 1505-6. These facts force one to treat with considerable scepticism each new attempt to attribute the portrait to Raphael and to think rather of a provincial artist. If the portrait of Altobello Averoldi in Washington, National Gallery of Art,
Kress Collection (Fern R. Shapley, 1958, p. 71, Fig. 169) is in fact by Francia, he may also have painted the Vaduz picture.
Filippini, referring to the bust of Duke Guidobaldo I of Urbino in San Bernardino, suggests that the latter may be the subject of this portrait and assumes that the design was by Raphael and the execution by Francia. But a comparison of the two
works clearly shows that the sitters cannot have been the same, and there is no valid reason for believing that the work was
so divided.
Passavant II, p. 61 (r.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 264 f. (a.); Frizzoni 1912, p. 85 f. (by an imitator of Raphael); Filippini 1925, p. 213 f.
(a.); A. Venturi, Storia VII/3, p. 952, Note 1 (by M. Meloni); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Suida 1934-6, p. 164, Note 2 (by
Perugino); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (d.); Ortolani, p. 23 (r.); G. Wilhelm, Meisterwerke aus den Sammlungen
des Fürsten von Liechtenstein, Lucerne Exhibition, 1948, p. 25 (Italian, about 1490); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 21 (a.); Katalog Meisterwerke der Malerei aus Privatsammlungen im Bodenseegebiet, Bregenz 1965, p. 48,
No. 52 (Italian, about 1500); Dussler 1966, No. 129 (r.).
The Holy Family with the Young St. John in a Landscape
Wood: 154 x 114 cm.
PROVENANCE: 1560, Cardinal St. Charles Borromeo, Milan; 1584, sold to the church of S. Maria presso
Page 65
Page 66
San Celso, Milan; after 1769, in the possession of Emperor Joseph II, Vienna; 1779, in the Imperial Gallery, Vienna.
This picture was engraved by Bonasone (B.XV, No. 59) as a work by Raphael, and Suida declared it to be a late work by
the artist. Although Suida was right to date it about 1518 and to include it in the context of works such as the Holy Family
of Francis I in Paris (Pl. 101), the Madonna del Divin’ Amore in Naples (Pl. 104) and others, the compositional structure
does not appear to be an invention by the master. It is an example of the coarsening process by which the forms and motifs
of Raphael’s art (sometimes early, sometimes later) were exploited and combined. Dollmayr’s attribution to Penni has not
been established, but conception and execution are undoubtedly closest to this artist.
Numerous COPIES, some with variations, are listed by Glück and Pergola (Galleria Borghese II, p. 177 f.): in Milan (S. Eustorgio, sacristy), in Naples, Rome and Madrid, in Sweden and in Switzerland.
Passavant II, p. 395 ff. (r.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 394 (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 463 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Dollmayr
1895, p. 362 (by Penni?); Suida 1934-6, p. 164 f. (a.); Glück 1948, p. 125 f. (invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966, No. 139
(r.).
Full-length Madonna with the Child seated on her Lap; landscape background
Vierhouten, D. G. van Beuningen Collection.
Wood: 28 x 19 cm.
PROVENANCE: Cardinal Fesch, Rome; J. Hubert P. Menten, Romerburg; Bachstitz Gallery, The Hague.
Fischel declared this an original work of about 1507-8, on the basis of the drawings in Bayonne (R.Z. III, Nos. 153 and
155), Paris (R.Z. III, No. 144) and Vienna (R.Z. III, No. 150), and his view was supported by Gronau and Borenius. The
connection with these concetti is correct, but the execution is weak and shows no sign of Raphael’s own hand. The picture
is no longer mentioned in Fischel’s monograph, Cat. Raisonné, 1948.
Gronau, Bulletin of the Bachstitz Gallery 1935, p. 15 f. (a.); Fischel, ibid., p. 12 (a.); Borenius, ibid., p. 17 (a.); D. Hannema, Catalogue of the D. G. van Beuningen Collection, Rotterdam 1949, No. 96 and Fig. 129 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 130
(r.).
Portrait of Bindo Altoviti
Wood: 60 x 44 cm.
PROVENANCE: Palazzo Altoviti, Rome; Casa Altoviti, Florence; 1808, Crown Prince Ludwig of Bavaria, Munich; 1836,
Hofgarten-Galerie, Munich; Alte Pinakothek, Munich; 1940, Samuel H. Kress Collection, New York (K. 1239).
This portrait was the subject of much dispute among earlier scholars, but since its recent cleaning there can be no doubt that
it is by Giulio Romano, to whom it had already been attributed by Bayersdorfer and Dollmayr. A detailed investigation of
the technique and colouring has been undertaken by Hartt, who has also compared the painting with other works by this artist, and his results carry conviction although his dating between 1520 and 1524 may be too late. Vasari reports that Bindo
Altoviti was painted by Raphael when a young man and the name also occurs in Borghini, Riposo, p. 391. Fischel doubted
whether he was the sitter for this portrait, but his objections cannot be substantiated since no valid physiognomic conclusions can be drawn from a comparison with the bust by Benvenuto Cellini0 (Boston, Gardner Museum), which was executed about thirty years later. Hartt suggests that the artist might have deliberately portrayed Altoviti as a younger man than
he actually was in about 1520. In my opinion the structure of the portrait, though not its use of colour, is based on the Violinist by Sebastiano del Piombo (1515) in Ferrières (Baron Rothschild; Dussler, Sebastiano del Piombo, Fig. 32).
Vigée Lebrun mentions a copy in her Souvenir de ma vie, Paris; a replica (?) from the Casa Altoviti, Florence, was in New
York, H. O. Havemeyer Collection; and the catalogue of the Kress Collection mentions a seventeenth-century copy owned
by Marchese Umberto Strozzi.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 351 (a.); Borghini 1584, p. 391 (a.); Rumohr, p. 559 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 142 ff. (r.); Müntz,
p. 402 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 138 f. (a.); Morelli, 1891, p. 147 ff. (r.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 357 (by Giulio Romano); Gronau,
p. 125 (a.); Gamba, p. 95 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 65 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 122,365 (r.); Hartt I, p. 51
ff. (by Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 114 (execution by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 338 f. (by Giulio Romano);
Fischel 1962, p. 91 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 134 (by Giulio Romano); Shapley 1968, p. 105 (a.); H. Wagner, 1969, p. 119,
No. 40 (Giulio Romano).
The Flagellation of Christ
Wood: 56 x 48 cm.
PROVENANCE: George Morland, London; A. Hope, London; Lord Northwick, Cheltenham; J. W. Brett, London; Sir F.
Cook, Richmond; Contini Bonacossi, Florence; Samuel H. Kress Collection, New York (K. 1567).
The attribution to Raphael was first put forward by Longhi, and later in greater detail by Suida, who gave the figure of
Christ to Perugino, and all the other parts of the picture to Raphael. In the catalogue of the Kress Collection (see below) the
attribution was not accepted. The picture has usually been given to the school of Perugino, and in my opinion Borenius’ attribution to Bacchiacca (Catalogue of the Cook Collection, Richmond, Surrey, I, 1913, No. 54) is the
Page 66
Page 67
most convincing. As Fischel has shown (Die Zeichnungen der Umbrer, Berlin 1917, p. 156, No. 93), the figure of Christ is
based on a drawing of St. Sebastian, in Berlin, which was copied by Bacchiacca.
Datable about 1510.
Borenius, Cat. Cook, I, No. 54 (by Bacchiacca); Longhi, Paragone No. 65, May 1955, p. 21 (a.); Suida, in Festschrift W.
Sas-Zaloziecky, Graz 1956, p. 165 f. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 147a, p. 81 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 136 (Bacchiacca); L. Nikolenko, Francesco Ubertini called Il Bacchiacca, New York 1966, p. 65 f. (attr. to Bacchiacca); Fern Rusk Shapley,
Paintings from the Samuel H. Kress Collection, Italian Schools, XV-XVI Century, London 1968, p. 106 (Umbrian School).
The Annunciation
Wood: 40 x 36 cm.
PROVENANCE: W. G. Coesvelt, London; Granville E. Harcourt Vernon, Grove Hall; Contini Bonacossi, Florence; Samuel
H. Kress Collection, New York, 1935 (K. 302).
The angel and the Virgin appear in two tondi; behind them runs a parapet which opens on a landscape view. The picture
ground is decorated with grotesques, and in the lower part are two symmetrical pairs of nude winged putti resting on candelabra.
Formerly an attribution to Raphael was alternately accepted and rejected, but later scholars, except Perkins and R. van
Marle, were almost unanimous in attributing the picture to Perugino (Camesasca, Tutta la pittura del Perugino, pl. 156).
The catalogue of the Kress Collection (Fern R. Shapley, (1968, p. 104 f., Fig. 254) maintains Raphael’s authorship and refers to related figure and landscape motifs in early works of the master in Città di Castello (Pl. 1) and in London (Pl. 14). In
my opinion these arguments are too general to permit a specific attribution to Raphael.
Page 67
Page 68
WALL-PAINTINGS
PERUGIA, Collegio del Cambio
Allegory of Fortitude
The fact that Raphael as a young man was brought to work on Perugino’s extensive cycle of paintings has led scholars to
try to identify specifically the work carried out by him and to overlook the degree to which his teacher, who was then at the
height of his powers, set the tone in matters of execution, figuretypes and expression. The result can be seen in the exaggerated lengths to which A. Venturi went in trying to decide the extent of the assistance given by the developing genius; Gnoli
on the other hand limited Raphael’s contribution to the figure of ‘Fortezza’, while Fischel claimed that the figures of both
Solomon and Horatius Cocles should be added to the latter. These attributions have gained only qualified acceptance
among recent scholars and in the present author’s opinion rightly so, especially as repeated restoration has left no clear possibility of distinguishing the hands of individual painters. The latest renovation of the wall and ceiling paintings was carried
out with great thoroughness and care by Mauro Pellicioli in 1940.
Cr.-Cav. I, p. 66 f. (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 302 (d.); Venturi, Storia VII/2, p. 761 ff. (a.); Gnoli 1913, p. 75 ff. (a.); Gronau
1923, p. 2 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 29 (d.); Fischel 1935, p. 434 (a.); Ortolani, p. 17 (d.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 21, 357 (a.); Venturi-Carandente 1955 (a.); Camesasca 1959, Plates 124-5 (by Perugino); Wittkower 1963, p. 157 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col.
222 (d.); Dussler 1966, p. 78 (d.).
PERUGIA, San Severo
The Holy Trinity and Six Seated Saints
Plate 112
The Saints on the left, reading from the inside outwards are: St. Benedict, St. Placidus and St. Maurus, and those on the
right, reading similarly, are St. Romualdus, St. Benedict the Martyr and St. John the Martyr. The names of the saints are included on the strip below the cloud-bank.
Below the fresco and to the left is the inscription:
RAFAEL DE VRBINO DOMINO OCTAVIANO STEPHANI VOLATERANO PRIORE SANCTAM TRINITATEM ANGELOS ASTANTES
SANCTOSQVE PINXIT. A.D. MDV.
In the composition of this painting Raphael must have been stimulated by Fra Bartolommeo’s Last Judgement then in S.
Maria Nuova, a work whose persistent influence is also evident, second only to that of Leonardo, in the formal structure of
each individual figure. The two tendencies are most clearly shown in the sheet of studies at Oxford (R.Z. IV, No. 210), in
which the profile head of the old man representing St. Maurus at the left edge of the picture has all the characteristics of
Leonardo, while the youthful, outward-looking head and the two studies of hands for the saint on the extreme right (whose
head is destroyed) would certainly have been impossible without Bartolommeo’s art. The sketches of hands in the former
Heseltine Collection, London (R.Z. IV, No. 208/9), the drawing of the reading monk in Lille (R.Z. IV, No. 211) and the
beardless elderly man represented full-face in Chantilly (R.Z. IV, No. 212), are so close to the S. Severo fresco in subject
and in form that they must be considered studies for the planning of this work.
Apart from the representations of Christ and the two angels on either side of Him, the fresco is in very poor condition. The
figure of God the Father has been reduced to a fragment showing His sleeve and hand on the open book in which appear
the initials alpha and omega, the companion to the cherub on the left has been destroyed with the exception of the legs, and
the head of the saint nearest to the front on the right is missing. Repeated reworking and attempts at restoration were undertaken during the nineteenth century, by Carattoli around 1840 and by Consoni in 1872. As a result the original brushwork
in the figures of the saints has been largely ruined and it is difficult to decide whether Raphael finished the work as early as
1505, as stated in the inscription, or a few years later. The inscription has frequently been thought to be of more recent date
and the evidence seems to support this view; however, it is not impossible that the date 1505 refers to the beginning of the
work, and that it reached completion in 1507 or 1508. This supposition is also adopted by Fischel. The six standing saints
in the lower part of the picture are by Perugino and were painted around 1520, during the artist’s final period (Camesasca,
Perugino, Figs. 202-3).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi), p. 323 f. (a.); Rumohr, pp. 523, 524, 525 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 46 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 218 ff. (a.);
Cr.-Cav. I, pp. 182 f., 255 (by Perugino and Raphael); Bombe 1911, p. 308 (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 41, 42 (a.); Gamba 1932,
p. 41 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 67, 359 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.);
Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 2, 3 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 49 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 78 (a.); Schug
1967, pp. 479 ff. (a.).
Page 68
Page 69
ROME, Accademia di San Luca
Standing Putto
114 x 42 cm.
PROVENANCE: J. B. Wicar, Lille.
Since the publication of Pungileoni’s Elogio storico di Raffaello Santi da Urbino, Urbino, 1829 (pp. 128 ff.), it has traditionally been accepted that the putto and its lost companion served as bearers for Pope Julius II’s coat of arms, a fresco
which was situated, until its removal in 1772, above the fire-place in the so-called Room of Innocent VIII in the Vatican.
However, the most recent investigation by Salerno has demonstrated the impossibility of this theory, for the little mural in
question is preserved complete in the Museo Pio-Clementino in the Vatican, and clearly shows the entirely dissimilar posture and purpose of the two little boys (see Salerno, quoted below, and also Pietrangeli, ‘Il Museo Clementino Vaticano’ in
Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia, XXVII, 1951/2, p. 100). As the provenance has been proved incorrect the question remains whether this putto fragment, which repeats the figure to the left of Isaiah in the church of Sant’
Agostino in Rome, should be considered a contemporary replica from Raphael’s workshop or possibly a copy made in the
early nineteenth century, perhaps by J. B. Wicar, who owned the work before it passed to the Accademia di San Luca. The
painting is at present being restored by Pico Cellini and a proper decision must wait on the results of this undertaking; the
extremely valuable investigations carried out by Salerno, however, already suggest that it is of a very late date. Both Passavant and Cavalcaselle were sceptical about this work because of its poor condition, but surprisingly enough later scholars
have been almost unanimous in accepting it as authentic, Dehio even going so far as to consider it Raphael’s original while
attributing the fresco in the church of Sant’ Agostino to a lesser artist.
Passavant II, p. 138 f. (r.); Müntz 1882, p. 386 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 144 Note (r.); Dehio 1914, p. 215 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923,
p. 106 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 71 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 438 (a.); Ortolani, p. 44 (a.); Camesasca
1956, II, Plate 91 (a.); Salerno 1960, p. 81 ff. (d.); Dussler 1966, p. 79 (d.).
ROME, Church of Sant’ Agostino
Isaiah
205 x 155 cm.
Commissioned by Protonotary Johannes Goritz.
This fresco, which is to be found on the third pillar of the central nave of the church, shows the prophet seated within a
frame formed at the top of the picture by two garlanded putti and an inscribed panel. The scroll held by the prophet bears a
Hebrew text taken from Isaiah XXVI, 2: ‘Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.’
The Greek inscription on the panel above is in praise of St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin: ‘To St. Anne, mother of the
Virgin: to the Holy Virgin, mother of God, to Jesus the Saviour: Jo(hannes) Goritz.’ This painting was originally linked
with the sculptured group of St. Anne with the Virgin and Child which Goritz commissioned at the same time from Andrea
Sansovino and which is dated 1512; however, the sculpture was moved to a chapel in the church in 1760 and since then the
painting has been isolated. Although repeated restoration about 1555-60 and in 1814 had caused such severe damage (at
least, in certain parts) that the stylistic quality of the picture was sometimes misjudged (see Dehio’s article), careful renovation carried out in recent years by P. Cellini (whose report on the restoration was published in Boll. d’A. 1960, p. 93 ff.) has
revealed that here, as in the Stanza d’Eliodoro (and specifically in the Mass of Bolsena) Raphael was receptive to Venetian
influences. The extent to which this figure is indebted to Michelangelo’s Prophets in the Sistine Chapel has been all too
strongly emphasized by Vasari, and despite the obvious influence visible in the subject’s posture Raphael’s personal conception of form is evident throughout.
COPIES: Dresden, Gallery, No. 95: by G. B. Casanova; Milan, Ambrosiana: end of the 16th century; Vienna, Kunsthis-
torisches Museum? (formerly Belvedere): attributed to Annibale Carracci.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 340 (a.); Rumohr, p. 550 (a.); Passavant II, p. 136 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 400 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II,
p. 141 ff. (a.); Dehio 1914, p. 213 ff. (r.); Gronau 1923, p. 106 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 70 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.);
Ortolani, p. 44 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 90 (a.); Biermann, p. 153 (r.); Salerno 1960, p. 81 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 133 f.
(a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 33 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 224 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 235 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 79 (a.).
ROME, Palazzo Vaticano
I. STANZA DELLA SEGNATURA
Plates 113-14
Many scholarly articles have been devoted to the purpose for which this Stanza was commissioned: see Pastor, Geschichte
der Päpste, 11th ed., Bd. III/2, p. 1019 ff., and the essays by Wickhoff, JPK XIV, 1893, p. 49 ff., J. von Schlosser, JAK XVII,
1896, p. 87 ff., J. Klaczko, Jules II, Paris 1902 (2nd ed.), p. 211 ff., also, more recent studies by G. Leyh, H. Biermann, p.
23 ff., and H. Gutman, ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 27 ff. The papal master of ceremonies, Paris de Grassis, was already describing this room as the ‘Camera della Segnatura’ shortly after the paintings had been completed (see his Diarium, ed. Döllinger, Vienna 1882, III, p. 371). The present author therefore supports the view expressed by Gutman and other
Page 69
Page 70
scholars that the chamber seems to have served as a papal Court of Justice - i.e. the room in which the sessions of the Signatura Gratiae and the Signatura Justitiae took place under the direction of the Pope himself; Wickhoff and Schlosser,
amongst others, had claimed that it was Julius II’s private library. However, the use to which the chamber was eventually
put does not exclude the latter theory and Pastor may have been right in supposing that the Stanza, although probably originally intended as the Pope’s library, was in fact used as his work and business room and was thus the scene of the application of the ‘segnature’ (signatures). Schlosser’s thorough investigation of the programme of themes used in the Stanza and
its predecessors leaves no doubt as to their nature: they are representations of the four Faculties, theology, philosophy, jurisprudence and medicine (replaced here by poetry), subdivisions which were traditional in the organization of libraries.
However, one should not overlook the great importance attached in the ceiling paintings to the idea of Justice, a feature
evident even in the tituli, which go back to Justinian’s Corpus Juris. The present author does not agree, however, with
Gutman’s theory that the wall-paintings are also based on the subject of Justice, nor is he convinced that the passages from
the writings of Bonaventura adduced by Gutman were more than a general source of inspiration. From the testimony of
Paolo Giovio in his Life of Raphael, it may be regarded as certain that Julius II personally took part in the choice of the subject matter: ‘pinxit (R.) in Vaticano nec adhuc stabili authoritate cubicula duo ad praescriptum Julii Pontificis’ (Golzio, p.
192), but it is not known who in fact acted as the artist’s immediate theological adviser. The intensive researches now in
progress can be expected to produce interesting results on this point.
Assuming that Raphael is hardly likely to have come to Rome earlier than the autumn of 1508, he cannot have started work
on the ceiling before the end of the year. For the dating, see the analysis by Hoogewerff (1945-6, p. 253 ff.) and more recently, Shearman (1965, p. 160 and Notes 12 and 13).
A. THE CEILING PAINTINGS
For a detailed interpretation of the ceiling paintings see C. G. Stridbeck (I, 1960, pp. 14 ff.). P. Künzle (1964, pp. 533 ff.),
in some very valuable observations, explains T. Inghirami’s part in the conception of the programme.
1. Medallions
Plates 115, 116, 119, 120
(a) Theology: above the wall-painting of the Disputa. The putto on the left holds a panel with the inscription: DIVINAR /
RER, the putto on the right another with the inscription: NOTI / TIA.
The motto is drawn from Justinian’s Corpus juris civilis I, Institutiones, ed. Krüger, p. 3 (Weizsäcker 1937, p. 61). There is
a preliminary sketch of the female figure in Oxford (R.Z. V, No. 225) and the drawing for the putto on the right is in Lille
(R.Z. V, No. 226).
(b) Philosophy: above the wall-painting of the School of Athens. The boy on the left carries a panel with the inscription:
CAVSA / RVM, the boy on the right another with the inscription: COGNI / TW. The motto comes from Vergil’s Georgica II,
490 (Weizsäcker, op. cit., p. 61).
(c) Justice: above the wall-painting of the Virtues. The putto on the left holds a panel with the inscription: IVS / SVVM, the
putto on the right another with the inscription: VNICVIQVE / TRIBVIT. The motto is taken from Justinian’s Corpus juris civilis I, Institutiones, ed. Krüger, p. 3 (Weizsäcker, op. cit., p. 61).
(d) Poetry: above the wall-painting of Parnassus. The putto on the left carries a panel with the inscription: NVMI / NE, the
putto on the right another with the inscription: AFFLA / TVR. The motto is adapted from Vergil’s Aeneid VI, 50 (Weizsäcker,
op. cit., p. 61). A sketch for the female figure is in Windsor (R.Z. V, No. 228), in which, however, she still appears halfnaked; and a fragment of the cartoon for the head of the right putto is in London (R.Z. V, No. 229). There is much disagreement about the attribution of the four medallions. The Theology is supposed by Freedberg to have been painted in collaboration with Sodoma, and Gombosi ascribes both putti to the latter artist. Hoogewerff believes that Raphael finished
only the head of the figure of Theology. The Philosophy is ascribed by Gombosi and Hoogewerff to Peruzzi, while Tozzi
and Freedberg argue in favour of Sodoma. The Justice is attributed to Tozzi to Sodoma. The present author believes, like
Fischel, Redig de Campos and Shearman, that all four paintings are by Raphael.
2. Rectangular Frescoes
Plates 117, 118, 121, 122
(a) Adam and Eve
Studies for the motif of Adam in Paris (R.Z. V, No. 224).
(b) Apollo and Marsyas
E. Wind (1958, p. 142 ff.) has pointed out that this scene, which simultaneously treats the two actions of the crowning of
Apollo and the flaying of Marsyas, is based on an antique Roman sarcophagus, of which there was formerly a fragment in
the Villa Borghese; now, however, it survives only in an eighteenth-century drawing in Eton College (Wind, Fig. 1). Wind
also draws attention to the fact that the profile figure of Marsyas is almost identical with the statue in the Museo Capitolino,
Rome.
(c) The Judgement of Solomon
An oblong sketch for the composition is preserved in Oxford (R.Z. V, No. 230) and there are individual studies for the figures of the executioner and the kneeling mother in Vienna (R.Z. V, Nos. 231 and 232).
(d) The Universe (Urania)
A sketch for the composition is in Vienna (R.Z. V, No. 237).
Page 70
Page 71
The four medallions depicting the faculties are not only related vertically to the wall-paintings below them, but they are
also part of a ceiling scheme which links them in a twofold relation with the rectangular works which they flank; i.e. each
rectangular painting is associated with the medallions to its right and left. Thus the Fall of Man is related both to the medallion of Justice and to that of Theology; and the Judgement of Solomon between Justice and Philosophy refers both to the
idea of righteous judgement and to that of wisdom. The picture of Urania, placed between Philosophy and Poetry, personifies the power of the intellect and also the divine harmony of the universal order; and the Marsyas scene, between Poetry
and Theology, refers to art and to the flouting of divine authority. This interrelation was early pointed out by Mosler,
Düsseldorf (see Passavant I, p. 139); noteworthy contributions have more recently been made by Wind (1938-9, p. 78) and
Shearman (1965, p. 161).
The following suggestions have been made as to authorship: Adam and Eve, according to Arslan, by Sodoma: Apollo and
Marsyas, according to Arslan and Ortolani, by Sodoma, according to Gombosi and Hoogewerff by Peruzzi; Redig de Campos attributes the execution to Peruzzi or Sodoma’s assistants; Urania: Gombosi attributes the two putti to Peruzzi. The
present author considers none of these theories tenable: even if one accepts that the workshop may have participated to a
certain extent, taken as a whole the pictures bear witness to Raphael’s personality and command of form. Certain differences in the treatment of the nude, e.g. in Apollo and Marsyas by comparison with Adam and Eve and the Judgement of
Solomon (the latter being the most mature conception) - are due to the artist’s emancipation from the academicism of his
Florentine period.
The small two-part pictures situated above the four rectangular paintings and between the medallions have been thoroughly
analysed by E. Wind (1938-9, p. 75 ff.), who shows that the upper works (painted in grisaille) represent scenes from Roman antiquity, while the pictures below them, which are somewhat larger and painted in colour, are devoted to mythological subjects. According to Wind’s interpretation these pictures, which are executed in pairs, are related to each other in content and represent the four elements, Fire, Water, Earth and Air. His associated interpretation of these works as allegories of
the Virtues: Justice, Patience, Fortitude and Peace, seems less convincing. And his assumption that Raphael was responsible for the invention of these scenes seems no more tenable than Hoogewerff’s attribution to Peruzzi (Rendiconti 1941, p.
321). Reference to the better reproductions accompanying Tozzi’s article leaves little doubt that these scenes were painted
by Sodoma; they have clearly a close formal affinity with the figures which surround the coat of arms of Nicholas V in the
central octagon (which A. Venturi, Grandi artisti italiani, Bologna 1925, p. 66, wrongly attributed to Bramantino).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 332 ff., VI, p. 385 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 5 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 553 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 111 ff.
(a.); Müntz 1882, p. 358 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 13 ff. (a.); Grimm 1890, p. 272 ff.; Gronau 1923, pp. 55-9 (a.); Tozzi 1927,
p. 171 ff. (by Sodoma); Coppier 1928, p. 13 ff. (by Sodoma); Arslan 1928-9, p. 525 (in part a.); Gombosi 1930, p. 14 ff. (in
part a.); Gamba 1932, p. 57 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 436 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 254 f. (a.); Ortolani, p. 30 f. (a.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 317 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 74 ff., 360 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 33 ff. (a.);
Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 4-7 (a.); Putscher, p. 240 ff. (in part a.); Biermann, pp. 27 f., 135 f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 14 f.
(a.); Gutman 1958, p. 28 f.; Stridbeck I, 1960 (interpretation); Freedberg, p. 115 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 55 ff. (a.); Brizio
1963, col. 230 (partly a.); Shearman 1965, p. 160 f.; Dussler 1966, p. 81 (partly a.).
B. THE WALL PAINTINGS
1. The Lunette Pictures
(a) The ‘Disputa’
Plate 123
For an interpretation of the subject, see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1003 ff., who also refers to the
earlier literature, of which Friedrich Schneider, Theologisches zu Raffael, Mainz 1896, and Fr. X. Krauss, Geschichte der
christlichen Kunst, are outstandingly important; Cl. Sommer 1945, p. 289 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, p. 81 ff., and 1962, p. 59 ff.;
Redig de Campos, Le Stanze, p. 7 ff.; H. Gutman, Franciscan Studies, St. Bonaventura, N.Y., XXIII, 1942, ZfKstg. XXI,
1958, p. 30 ff. and Ph. Böhner, Franciscan Studies, St. Bonaventura XXIII, 1942, p. 14 ff.; Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 334 ff.;
Bandmann 1952, p. 20 f., and Biermann, p. 33 ff. Father Heinrich Pfeiffer, S. J., is at present working on a dissertation
dealing with the theological programme of the Disputa and its relation to the ideas of Giles da Viterbo. His researches may
lead to important results.
The centre of the picture is occupied by the Trinity. At the top is God the Father in the act of blessing, accompanied to the
left and right by a trio of angels; below, at the centre of a disc, Christ is enthroned between the Madonna and John the Baptist (on the analogy of the medieval Deësis) and directly below Him is the Dove of the Holy Ghost, attended on either side
by a pair of angels carrying open volumes of the four Gospels. The Elect are also seated in this celestial region, on a cloudbank somewhat below the Rex Gloriae. Those on the left, reading from the outside inwards, are St. Peter, Adam, St. John
the Evangelist, David, St. Lawrence and a sixth figure, which is largely concealed by the group forming the Deësis and
hardly identifiable; those on the right, again starting from the outside, are St. Paul, Abraham, St. James the Less, Moses, St.
Stephen and another half-concealed figure, possibly Joshua. In the middle of the earthly sector stands an altar, on which
rests a
Page 71
Page 72
simple monstrance containing the Holy Sacrament. Beside the altar are seated the four Roman Fathers of the Church, on the
left Gregory and Jerome, on the right Augustine and Ambrose. The figures behind them on either side, pointing to the Host,
cannot be identified. The three standing saints next to Augustine are the Dominican Thomas Aquinas (full-face), the Franciscan Cardinal Bonaventura (reading) and an old man, Pope and martyr, who is probably Julius I represented with the features of Julius II (cf. P. Künzle, ‘Zur obersten der drei Tiaren auf Raphael’s Disputa,’ in: Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Archäologie und Kirchengeschichte, LVII, 1962, pp. 226 ff.). Next comes the powerful profile figure of a blessing
Pope, who must be identified with Sixtus IV, and behind him is Dante. The identifications suggested for the remaining figures on the far right of the picture cannot stand up to close investigation. The monk at the back peering out from beneath
his hood may be Savonarola. Apart from the two Fathers of the Church none of the figures on the left of the altar is identifiable except the man at the rail whose face is turned in profile towards the young man pointing at the Host and the monk
looking upwards at the edge of the picture: the first has the face of Bramante, the second can justifiably be claimed to be
Fra Angelico. The two Bishops to the left of the standing man seen from the back are believed by R. De Maio (in Archivium Fratrum Praedicatarium XXXVIII, 1968, pp. 119 ff.) to represent Olivero Carafa of Naples and Tommaso de Vio.
Without going into the various interpretations proposed for the mural, one can see that its basic purpose is the visible presentation of the Christian faith: in Heaven the Trinity and the throng of the Chosen represented by prophets, apostles and
saints, in the earthly region the participation of mankind in the divine presence through the mystery of the Eucharist. The title ‘Disputa’, which was not used until the end of the seventeenth century, is derived from Vasari’s text (ed. Milanesi IV, p.
335 f.): ‘scrivono la messa, e sopra l’ostia che è sullo altare disputano’. The term ‘disputare’ as it is used here means not a
dispute in the sense of a conflict of opinion, a battle of reasoning and counter-reasoning, but unequivocally ‘affirmare’ - a
fact which is not only made clear by the attitude of the believers, but is also proved by the presence of the transcendental
world. - Which pictorial traditions may have determined, or rather inspired, the final conception of the fresco can only be
conjectured but not proved. Early Christian apse-mosaics in Rome must have played a large part in transmitting these traditions, and before his move to Rome Raphael may also have been inspired in many ways by Fra Bartolommeo’s fresco of
the Last Judgement (in the Museo San Marco, Florence), which had already influenced his mural in San Severo, Perugia.
Drawings: The first stage of the composition is at Windsor (R.Z. VI, No. 258); closely connected are the concetti for the arrangement of the figures of the upper region (Oxford, R.Z. VI, No. 259) and for the terrestrial section (Chantilly, R.Z. VI,
No. 260, and Windsor, R.Z. VI, No. 261). For a detailed discussion of whether the Windsor concetto (R.Z. VI, No. 258) was
the first version, see Shearman 1965, pp. 158 f., 162 f. - Parts of the lower left section are to be found at an advanced stage
in London (R.Z. VI, No. 267) and in the Paris copy (R.Z. VI, No. 268), where the composition of the Church Fathers and
their surroundings has nearly reached its final form and includes the altar with the Sacrament (a motif which was not
planned in R.Z. VI, No. 258). The Frankfurt drawing, R.Z. VI, No. 269, preserves studies of the nude for this version. In the
drawing in the Albertina (R.Z. VI, No. 273) the last stage in the composition of this left section has been reached, and this
version served as the sketch for the cartoon. Even in the first sketch (R.Z. VI, No. 258) the youth on the left near the balustrade, shown turning back and pointing to the altar with his right hand, was a floating figure and a series of studies were
devoted to him (Uffizi, R.Z. VI, No. 264; Lille, R.Z. VI, No. 265; Oxford, R.Z. VI, Nos. 274, 275, 276). Detailed studies for
the so-called heretic at the balustrade are in Paris (R.Z. VI, No. 282) and profile studies for the heads of the young men
kneeling to the left of the old man who stands by Gregory, his back to the beholder, are in Oxford (R.Z. VI, No. 278). The
drapery of this pensive old man seen from the back is the subject of the magnificent study in Oxford, R.Z. VI, No. 281.
Among the surviving sketches for the lower right of the picture are two which show St. Ambrose: seated in both, in one
(Vienna, R.Z. VI, No. 283) he is accompanied by the bearded bishop who points upwards (he appears without a mitre in the
fresco); in the other (Munich, R.Z. VI, No. 284) he is accompanied by a Church Father very similar to the figure in the
fresco. It seems from the sketches in London (R.Z. VI, No. 286) that a much more intriguing conversazione was planned for
the two figures above the door by the right edge of the picture than the group which was finally executed. Detail studies exist in Montpellier (R.Z. VI, Nos. 287, 288) for one of the two, the young man leaning forwards. In Milan (R.Z. VI, No. 292)
there is a cursory sketch for the general arrangement of the celestial regions showing the figures nude in simple outline.
The most remarkable feature of the sketch is that the Virgin’s right hand is pointing downwards, a detail taken up again in
Giulio Romano’s composition in Paris, No. 3867 (Hartt I, No.6, II, Fig. 1). The Madonna in Milan (R.Z. VI, No. 291) with
her gesture of supplication, and the Christ in Lille (R.Z. VI, No. 289) are already close to the fresco. There is a study for
Adam in the Uffizi (R.Z. VI, No. 293). Of the figures of the right-hand row, quick sketches for Abraham and Paul exist in
Lille (R.Z. VI, No. 290), but the study for St. Paul (Oxford, R.Z. VI, No. 296) is very close to the figure in the painting.
There is a study for St. Stephen in the Uffizi (R.Z. VI, No. 295) but in the fresco the figure did not attain the same excitement and impetus as in the original conception. Studies for the groups of
Page 72
Page 73
angels flanking God the Father are in London and Oxford (R.Z. VI, Nos. 297-300), for those accompanying the Holy Ghost,
in Oxford (R.Z. VI, No. 276), and others are in Budapest (R.Z. VI, No. 301). Of the final cartoon only the fragment showing
God the Father is known (Paris, R.Z. VI, No. 303).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 335 ff. (a.); Bellori, p. 11 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 94 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p.
330 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 21 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 60-5 (a.); Hetzer 1932, pp. 25, 26, 34 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 59 f. (a.);
Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 32 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 80 ff., 360 f. (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 102 ff. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 7 ff. (a.); Hoogewerff 1950, p. 334 ff. (a.); Putscher, pp. 53 and 243 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II,
pls. 8 ff. (a.); Biermann, p. 33 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 11 f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 118 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 59 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 228 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 159 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 82 (a.).
(b) The School of Athens
Plate 124
For an interpretation of the theme see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 995 ff., who also refers to the
earlier literature; Grimme 1926, p. 94 ff.; von Simson, Zur Genealogie der weltlichen Apotheose im Barock, Strasbourg
1936, p. 146 f.; Fischel 1948, I, p. 85 ff. and 1962, p. 63 ff.; Gutman, Journal of the History of Ideas, New York 1941 and
ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 34 ff.; Hoogewerff, 1947-9, p. 348 ff.; Redig de Campos 1950, p. 15 ff.; Biermann, p. 44 ff.; and
Stridbeck I, 1960.
The name of ‘School of Athens’ originated with G. P. Bellori, 1695, who entitled his detailed account of this mural: ‘Ginnasio di Atene, ovvero la Filosofia’. Since then the name has been generally and correctly retained, although even in recent
years H. Grimme’s erroneous interpretation of the picture as ‘St. Paul’s speech before the Greek philosophers on the Areopagus’ has led to renewed attempts at justifying the confused description given by Vasari, who considered the foremost
group on the left (Pythagoras and surrounding figures) to represent the Evangelists. Neither this theory, which indicates a
complete misunderstanding of the theme, nor an interpretation based on the writings of St. Bonaventura, put forward by
Gutman, requires refutation. It has also been suggested that the subject matter was derived entirely from Dante’s Divina
Commedia and that the identities of the main figures could be established by reference to the poet. This hypothesis does not
seem tenable either, for although H. Grimme is correct in emphasizing Raphael’s knowledge of Dante (which is also recognized by Fischel), the scheme drawn up by Raphael’s humanistic adviser cannot be explained in relation to the ‘poeta altissimo’ alone. Ever since J. Springer there have been repeated attempts to find names for as many as possible of the numerous figures, but Wölfflin was right in protesting against this tendency in his sound and penetrating analysis, and in fact only
a few of the representatives of the scientific disciplines can be identified with certainty. In the centre of the vaulted hall are
Plato and Aristotle, the former carrying in his left hand a book with the title TIMEO, the latter holding the ETICA; on the
same level, to the left, is the profile figure of Socrates and below him Pythagoras, depicted as an old man kneeling and
writing in a book while a boy holds before him a tablet of the theory of harmony. Bending over a pair of compasses in the
right foreground is Euclid, whose tunic bears an inscription on the collar; R.V.S.M. (Raphael Vrbinas Sua Manu). Two men
are standing behind him: one, shown in back-view, with a crown and a globe in his left hand, is thought to be Ptolemy; the
other, a bearded man depicted facing the onlooker and holding the celestial sphere in his right hand, is the astronomer Zoroaster. Next to the latter are two young men (neither of whom is to be found in the Ambrosiana cartoon): the man in the
dark skull-cap looking towards the front has the features of Raphael himself, a fact which, in spite of Vasari’s statement
(IV, p. 332) was doubted by recent writers (H. Grimm, Benkard, Putscher) on account of the supposed bad state of preservation. The most recent investigations, however, have shown that this head never suffered real damage (see H. Wagner,
1969, pp. 51 ff.). The same is true of the head next to it, which as Morelli rightly pointed out (1890, p. 192 note 1), is a portrait of G. A. Sodoma, whom Raphael here immortalized as the artist who worked in this room before him (see H. Wagner
1969, pp. 54 f.) and who had been responsible for the original planning of the decoration and for the painting of the ceiling.
Lastly, the man lying on the steps has always been believed to represent Diogenes. - All other identifications are more or
less speculative. Whether the group around Socrates includes Alcibiades - the young warrior and the man listening with upturned face at the philosopher’s right hand have been suggested - is uncertain and so is the identity of the ivy-crowned humanist writing in a book at the left edge of the painting. Two other persons also remain unidentified: the very striking figure (believed by Redig de Campos to be Epicurus) standing, book in hand, with his head turned towards Pythagoras, and
the old man with the turban standing behind the latter (for whom Averroes has been suggested). Attempts to identify the
bearded old man beneath the niche of Athena as Bessarion are also unfounded.
According to Vasari, a likeness of Federigo II, Duke of Mantua, can be found in the young man bending over with arms
outstretched behind the figure of Euclid (see Golzio, p. 24: letter from Grossino to Isabella d’Este, 16 August 1511); Luzio,
however, suggests that this prince may be portrayed in the head of the young boy looking from behind the old oriental on
the left, a supposition which is not to be ruled out (Luzio-Renier, Mantova e Urbino, Turin 1893, p. 189, Note, and p. 200,
Note). There is much less justification for identifying the young man in white (behind the philosopher standing to write) as
Page 73
Page 74
Francesco Maria della Rovere, for the head has none of the characteristics of a portrait.
The man sitting alone in the left foreground is generally thought to represent Heraclitus; Redig de Campos, however, suggests that he may be a portrait of Michelangelo - a theory supported by the fact that the figure shows not only the ‘Pensieroso’ or ‘poeta’ in Buonarroti, but also the ‘scultore’ in the remarkable prominence given to the block of stone. From the
position of the head and arms it is clear that Raphael must have known Michelangelo’s Isaiah and Jeremiah when he conceived this motif; this means that the figure can only have originated after the unveiling of the first section of the Sistine
chapel ceiling (14 August 1511), a circumstance also confirmed by technical analysis of the figure and by the way in which
the construction of the fresco itself was planned. On this point see the detailed arguments given by Putscher (p. 237 ff.);
Fischel, on the other hand, includes the figure in the final plan for the composition. An excellent study of this subject was
recently published by H. Klotz (1968).
The invention of the long-admired architecture in this scene has been attributed to Bramante (on the basis of the account
given by Vasari IV, p. 159). The most thorough investigation of this problem has been provided by M. Ermers in: Die Architektur Raffaels in seinen Fresken, Tafelbildern und Teppichen (Strasbourg 1909, p. 38 ff.) in which the author, although
not denying the influence of the architect of St. Peter’s, nevertheless draws a precise distinction between the elements inspired by Bramante and those characteristic of Raphael himself. Another factor which should not be ignored is the relationship, first noticed by Charles Blanc, with Ghiberti’s relief depicting the meeting of Solomon with the Queen of Sheba on
the Porta del Paradiso of the Baptistery in Florence. Hülsen (1911) has pointed out the surprising structural similarity to the
‘Janus quadrifrons’ at S. Giorgio in Velabro. In his monograph on Bramante (Vienna 1956, p. 194 ff.) O. Förster took no
account of Ermers’s investigations and still supports Vasari’s statement.
Drawings exist for: the group around Pythagoras and the philosopher standing on his right (Vienna, R.Z. VII, No. 305), the
recumbent figure of Diogenes (Frankfurt, R.Z. VII, No. 306), the two men talking on the steps to the right above Diogenes,
and the Medusa on Athena’s shield (Oxford, R.Z. VII, No. 307); the figure of Athena in the niche and the three male nichestatues in the vaulted hall and the right crossing (Oxford, R.Z. VII, No. 308); the battle-scene in the relief on the left below
Apollo’s niche (Oxford, R.Z. VII, No. 309); the group of geometricians, including Euclid and the back-view figure of
Ptolemy (Oxford, R.Z. VII, Nos. 311 or 312). The cartoon for the figures is in Milan, Ambrosiana (R.Z. VII, Nos. 313-44) .
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 330 ff. (a.); Bellori, p. 25 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 101 ff. (a.); Grimm 1882,
p. 61 ff.; Müntz 1882, p. 341 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 46 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 69-76 (a.); Grimme 1926, p. 94 ff. (a.);
Gamba 1932, p. 60 ff. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 34 ff. (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 47 ff. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 106 ff.
(a.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 348 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 85 ff., 144, 361 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 15 ff. (a.); Putscher, pp. 53, 237 ff., 243 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1946, II, Plates 24-39 (a.); Biermann, p. 44- f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 12 f. (a.);
Chastel 1959, p. 476 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 123 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 63 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 228 f. (a.); Dussler
1966, p. 83 f. (a.); Prinz 1966, No. 115.
(c) Parnassus
Plate 125
On the underside of the window-embrasure is the inscription: JVLIVS II LIGVR. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXI.
PONTIFICAT. SVI. VIII (Golzio, p. 23). For an interpretation see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 993 ff.;
also Meyer-Baer, ‘Musical Iconography in Raphael’s Parnassus’, in: Journal of Aesthetics, December 1949; Winternitz,
Archeologia musicale del rinascimento nel Parnasso di Raffaelle in Rend. Pont. Acc. XXVII, 1952/4, p. 359 ff., and Gutman, ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 32 ff.
On either side of Apollo are the nine Muses, some standing, some seated, some in pairs and some alone. Few of them can
be recognized with certainty and Vasari mentions none by name. The Muse sitting to the right of Apollo (from the
onlooker’s point of view) is identified by Bellori as Urania and her companion on the left as Calliope or Clio; the former,
however, is more probably Erato and the latter can only be thought of as Euterpe. Framing the chorus on the left is a Muse
with the mask of Tragedy, undoubtedly Melpomene, and her counterpart holding a mask on the other side is Thalia; the
standing Muse, seen from the back, must be Urania. The woman with a musical instrument, reclining at the bottom left of
the painting, is identified by an inscription as Sappho. Vasari gave names to eleven of the male poets, and of those Homer,
Dante and Virgil are clearly recognizable on the hill on the left. Ennius, who is also mentioned, can only be the young man
sitting beside Dante (referred to, but not named, by Vasari. The identification has, however, been convincingly proved by
Redig de Campos in: Roma XI, 1935, p. 193 ff.). The poet to the right of Virgil, not identified by Vasari, is probably Statius; Bellori was certainly incorrect in considering this a self-portrait by Raphael. From this point on, one can no longer be
sure of the identity of the figures. Of the four laurel-crowned personages near Sappho, only Petrarch is certain, being
named by Vasari and Bellori, who do not, however, define his position. Petrarch’s long-haired young neighbour, who is
pointing to Homer, was thought by Bellori to be the Theban poetess Corinna, and Hoogewerff suggested that the poet at the
edge of the painting is Horace and that the other figure by the tree represents Pindar. Following Bellori, however, the latter
poet is usually thought to be depicted in the old man
Page 74
Page 75
seated opposite Sappho on the other side of the fresco, whose companion standing with outstretched arms was believed by
Bellori to be Horace. Basing the identifications on his principle of the division into epic, lyric and dramatic poets,
Hoogewerff considered this lower group (including the figure standing beside the so-called ‘Horace’) to represent the three
Attic tragedians, and identified them according to age: the eldest as Aeschylus, not Pindar, and the other two as Sophocles
and Euripides (Vasari and Bellori left the latter pair unnamed). Above this trio stand the remaining five poets, of whom
only Boccaccio, the middle-aged, beardless man in front of the tree trunk can be identified with certainty (attested by Vasari and Bellori). The other four have been the subject of lively discussion over the last decades, a discussion centred
largely on attempts to identify the poet Tebaldeo, a contemporary mentioned by Vasari. Bellori identified him with the
bearded man standing on the right of Urania, looking out towards the onlooker, an opinion accepted by Fischel and others.
However, this figure has also been identified as Castiglione, Ariosto (Hoogewerff) and, more recently, Michelangelo
(Tolnay 1962, p. 167 ff.; this hypothesis had already been proposed by Gamba, p. 63). In the opinion of the present writer
the two former theories are untenable, but the features are not entirely unlike those of Buonarroti. Redig de Campos (1952,
p. 51 ff.) finds Tebaldeo in the bearded old man seen in left profile beside the youth looking out towards the onlooker
(whom Hoogewerff named Theocritus), and refers to the copy of the poet’s portrait in the Uffizi. However, this full-face
portrait does not seem to the present author to show any similarity which might permit an identification with the person
portrayed in the fresco, and the theory is also disputed by Tolnay. Hoogewerff saw this old man as the poet Sannazaro, but
Redig de Campos, like Bellori, sees the latter’s portrait in the person standing on the old man’s right at the edge of the picture, his face turned to the front. According to Gamba, however, this figure may be Anacreon. While Ariosto can hardly be
represented in the standing figure next to Urania (see above), it is not impossible that he is portrayed, as Fischel suggested,
in the man calling for silence with his finger on his lips, on the left of Sannazaro. This supposition is supported by the considerable facial similarity with Ariosto’s portrait by Titian in Ferrara, Casa Oriani, and with the woodcut in the 1532 edition
of Orlando Furioso. Redig de Campos, however, does not accept this theory and Gamba suggests that this figure depicts
the poet Benedetto Accolti.
The copy of a drawing in Oxford (R.Z. V, No. 237a, with an illustration in the text, Fig. 221, p. 256) and the engraving by
Marcantonio (B. XIV, No. 247, reproduced R.Z. V, p. 257) afford an insight into Raphael’s earlier version of the composition.- In the Oxford drawing the composition of the nudes on the hill is largely the same as that in the fresco. The left side,
however, is of greater clarity, for the figure of Virgil has not yet been limited by his neighbour, the so-called Statius. The
group of poets on the right, however, is merely hinted at in a single figure beside Urania. The two lower sections, on the
right and left of the window bay, do not yet contain groups, but only a single standing figure each. However, at this stage
only a temporary crystallization of the artist’s plans can have been involved, as other relevant drawings attest. On the one
hand there is Raphael’s sketch of a fully clothed man (London, R.Z. V, No. 240) with the pointing gesture of the nude in the
lower right of the Oxford drawing, and on the other there is the sketch copy in the Louvre (R.Z. V, No. 238), which preceded the above-mentioned work and which already established the connection between the old man pointing forwards and
his two companions who then appear in the mural, above a sketch of the trio and beside a cursory concetto of the five poets.
Marcantonio’s engraving, which cannot here be discussed in detail, combines earlier pictorial ideas with completed parts of
the mural (landscape) and with extraneous additions (the flying putti with garlands derive from the fresco in S. Maria della
Pace, as Fischel has already suggested). The position of Apollo alone shows that the sketch in Oxford did not serve as a direct basis for the engraving (his musical instrument and the absence of the motif used by Raphael to depict inspiration);
moreover, Urania appears in the Oxford drawing and in the mural in back view, whereas Marcantonio shows her in profile.
The slack line formed by the four laureates has no analogies in the drawing or the fresco. The lower side sections presuppose the Oxford concetto, but they also make it safe to assume that Raphael made an intermediate version, which probably
preceded the detail copy in Paris (R.Z. V, No. 238). The groups standing vertically on either side render impossible the
Sappho-Pindar composition which is rhythmically, structurally and spatially of equal significance. The preliminary sketch
for the left section of the mural is preserved in a drawing in London (Pouncey-Gere Catalogue, 1962, No. 44 and Plate No.
47 - see also Addenda, p. XVI - where Raphael’s authorship is convincingly propounded).
Preparatory studies for the figures are to be found as follows: for Apollo, in Lille (R.Z. V, No. 245), for Homer in Lille and
Windsor (R.Z. V, Nos. 243, 244 and 246), for Dante in Windsor (R.Z. V, Nos. 246 and 247), for Virgil in Oxford (R.Z. V,
No. 248), for the poet Sappho in Windsor (R.Z. V, No. 246); there is also a study for the poet with outstretched arms at the
lower right edge of the picture and another for the hand of the young poet standing in front of the tree on the right (in London; R.Z. V, No. 241); studies for the feet of the former figure are preserved in Lille (R.Z. V, No. 242). Studies for the
Muse Melpomene are in Oxford (R.Z. V, No. 249), for Euterpe in Vienna (R.Z. V, No. 250), for Erato in Vienna (R.Z. V,
No. 231), for Urania in Vienna (R.Z. V, No. 252), and a general view exists in a copy in the Uffizi (R.Z. V, text, Fig. 224); a
study also exists for the profile head of the Muse to the left above
Page 75
Page 76
Erato (Florence, Museo Horne; R.Z. V, No. 254), and another, now lost, showed the head of the Muse to the left of Urania
(R.Z. V, No. 253).
Coppier considered the execution of the fresco to be the work of Sodoma alone, and Hoogewerff, with minor reservations,
shared this opinion. By other writers, however, Parnassus is generally considered to be by Raphael himself, but in the opinion of the present author workshop assistants may have collaborated. The inscription has led to the general belief that this
was the last of the pictures in the Stanza della Segnatura to be carried out. The style, however, indicates that it was painted
before the School of Athens, very probably in 1510. Freedberg considers that this work followed the Disputa, an opinion in
which the present author concurs.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 333 ff. (a.); Bellori, p. 43 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 98 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 354
ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 60 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 66-8 (a.); Coppier 1928, p. 25 ff. (by Sodoma); Gamba 1932, p. 62 f.
(a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 37 ff. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 111 ff. (a.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 322 ff. (partly by
Sodoma); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 88 ff., 361 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 27 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 43-9 (a.);
Putscher, pp. 51, 245 (a.); Biermann, p. 58 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 13 (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 480 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 121
ff. (a.); Tolnay 1962, p. 167 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, pp. 65 ff., 222 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 229 (a.); Shearman 1965, pp. 159 f.,
163 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 84 f. (a.).
(d) The Three Cardinal Virtues: Fortitude, Prudence, Temperance
Plate 126
On the underside of the window embrasure is the inscription: JVLIVS II LIGVR. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXI. PONTIFICAT
SVI. VIII. (Golzio, p. 23).
It is probable that a different pictorial project was originally envisaged for this wall, as has been emphasized by Putscher
(pp. 83 and 225, Note 21), whose conclusions were endorsed by White-Shearman (1958, p. 306, Note 48) and more recently by Shearman (1965, p. 161 ff.). In this case, the subject would have been a scene from the Apocalypse (VIII, 3-5),
which has survived in the copy drawing in Paris (Louvre No. 3866; Fischel 1898, No. 175; Putscher, Fig. 44).
This supposition is confirmed by the applicability of the theme of ‘Justice’ to this particular position in the room and also
by the style in the drawing, which corresponds with the sketches for the Disputa; moreover, the kneeling Pope on the left is
a portrait of Julius II before he grew a beard (i.e. before Autumn 1511), and the date must therefore be 1509. The rejected
concetto has been used again in the Mass of Bolsena in the Stanza d’Eliodoro. The absence of ‘Justice’ among the Cardinal
Virtues, already noticed by earlier scholars, has been convincingly explained by E. Wind (1937-8, p. 69 f.), who refers to
Plato, Republic IV, 432 ff., where the power of Justice is stated to be so fundamental that she lends her force to every other
virtue. Wind’s interpretation of the putti as representations of the Theological Virtues is equally convincing. The little boy
pointing upwards at the right edge of the picture symbolizes Hope and the putto carrying the torch behind Prudence is an
embodiment of Faith; the little boy holding the mirror in front of Prudence is indeed her own traditional attribute, but if interpreted in the light of St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (XIII, 12) can also be seen as Fides. The putto picking fruit
from the oak tree beside the figure of Fortitude is interpreted by Wind as Charity; this might appear somewhat doubtful, but
he draws attention to a similar representation in a woodcut by Hans Holbein the Younger which bears the inscription ‘Caritas’, and a related example appears in Ripa’s Iconologia (ed. 1645, p. 201). The stem of the oak tree (robur), which Fortitude clasps with her hands, is doubtless intended as a homage to Julius II (Rovere). Gutman (ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 36)
traces the theme back to De virtutibus Cardinalibus by St. Bonaventura.
In formal structure this fresco is closest to the School of Athens. The figures show that Raphael had seen Michelangelo’s
figures in the Sistine Chapel, and the fresco is therefore likely to have been painted during the second half of 1511.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 337 (a.); Bellori, p. 41 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 109 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p.
357 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 70 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 77 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 64 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Wind 19378, p. 69 f. (a.); Ortolani, p. 39 (a.); Wölfflin, p. 113 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 90 f. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 21 ff. (a.);
Putscher, pp. 54, 245, 246 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 50-7 (a.); Biermann, p. 60 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 14 (a.);
Chastel, p. 483 f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 128f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 67 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 235 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 165 f.;
Dussler 1966, p. 85 f. (a.).
2. The Dado-Paintings
Below Parnassus: two grisailles:
(a) Right: Augustus Preventing the Burning of Virgil’s ‘Aeneid’
Plate 128
(b) Left: Alexander the Great Depositing the Poems of Homer in the Tomb of Achilles
Plate 130
Hoogewerff’s interpretation of these two scenes can be regarded as definitive, and that propounded by Wickhoff (1893, pp.
60, 63), based on the memorabilia of Valerius Maximus, must therefore be discarded. Opinions vary as to the identity of the
artist. Gamba upheld the attribution to Raphael and it is not impossible (in the present author’s opinion) that he had prepared concetti, even if the painting was not carried out until the twenties. Some scholars attribute the execution to Penni,
others to Perino del Vaga; given the alternatives of this artist and Penni, however, the older assistant seems far more probable on
Page 76
Page 77
grounds of style and presentation. The cursory sketch in Haarlem for the scene showing Augustus (illustrated in Fischel,
R.Z. V, text p. 226), which Hoogewerff regarded as Raphael’s original draft, is a workshop product. The composition for
the scene depicting Alexander (in Oxford; Parker Catalogue II, No. 570) is close to Penni’s manner.
Passavant II, p. 114 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 366 (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 75 f. (by Perino del Vaga); Dollmayr 1895, p. 246 f. (r.);
Hoogewerff 1915, p. 10 ff. (by Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 79 (by Penni); Hoogewerff 1926-7, p. 3 ff. (by Penni); Baumgart
1931, p. 63 f. (by Perino del Vaga); Gamba, p. 73 f. (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 436 (by Penni?); Suida 1941, p. 25, Nos. 87-8
(r.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 113, Note 1 (r.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 331 (by Penni); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 49A, B (by Perino
del Vaga?); Biermann, p. 28 (r.); Schöne, p. 37, under Fig. 73 (by Perino del Vaga); Chastel, p. 483 (workshop); Künstler
1958, pp. 14 f. (new interpretation); Freedberg, p. 131 (by Penni); Dussler 1966, p. 86 (by Penni).
Below the Cardinal Virtues:
(a) Right: Pope Gregory IX Handing the Decretals to St. Raimund of Peñaforte
Plate 127
This work, which depicts a historical ceremony, was lent contemporary character by the appearance of the Pope (a portrait
of Julius II) and by the portrayal of members of the papal court.
Of the Cardinals mentioned by Vasari (IV, p. 334), the only ones who can be identified for certain are Giovanni de’ Medici
(on the left of the Pope) and Alessandro Farnese (standing in front of the pilaster on the right). Less certain is the identification of the church dignitary at the left as a portrait of Antonio del Monte. Pastor (III, p. 993) doubts the validity of Vasari’s
information, but Gronau, Fischel and Redig de Campos are right in considering it reliable. As Julius is shown with a beard,
his portrait must have been executed after 16 August 1511 (see the letter of that date from the Ferrarese envoy to Isabella
d’Este; Golzio, p. 24); in fact this work, like its companion (see (b) below) can hardly have been painted before the end of
1512. A detailed drawing for the kneeling jurist and his colleagues is in Frankfurt (R.Z. V, No. 256). It has often been
doubted whether Raphael himself played any part in the execution of this painting, and its present state - the result of several restorations - reveals no traces of his own hand, however, no convincing case can be made for any of the assistants
whose participation has been suggested (Penni and Marcillat).
(b) Left: The Emperor Justinian Handing the Pandects to Trebonianus
Plate 129
This scene is based on a sketch by Raphael himself (in Frankfurt, R.Z. V, No. 255). Nowhere, however, does the execution
of the much-damaged fresco show the work of his own hand. Palluchini’s hypothetical suggestion (p. 123) that the painting
may have been restored by Sebastiano del Piombo cannot be accepted; equally erroneous is Coppier’s attribution to
Sodoma. A. Venturi and others attributed the execution to G. de Marcillat. The work has remained unfinished.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 334, 337 (a.); Bellori, p. 42 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 109 f. (a.); Müntz
1882, p. 358 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 74 f. (a.); Filangieri di Candida 1901, pp. 128 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 78 (a.); Baumgart
1931, p. 52, Note 2 (by Penni?); Gamba 1932, p. 64 f. (workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 39 f. (a by
Raphael, b workshop); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 92 ff., 361 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 25 ff. (in part a.); Putscher, p. 254 f.
(workshop); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 58, 59 (workshop); Biermann, p. 60 f. (a.); Chastel, p. 484 (workshop); Freedberg,
p. 129 (by Penni); Fischel 1962, p. 68 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 230 (a by Raphael, b invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966,
pp. 86-7 (invention by Raphael) .
3. The grisailles in the window embrasures of the Cardinal Virtues wall.
(a) The Judgement of Zaleucus
The subject is taken from the Memorabilia of Valerius Maximus (Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri IX, ed. C.
Kempf, Leipzig 1888, p. 301).The fragmentary sketch in Windsor (Popham 1949, Cat. No. 797v.) is the work of Raphael,
but the execution may have been left to pupils (Penni?). Unlike its companion, this fresco is in a good state of preservation.
(b) The Doctrine of the Two Swords
This scene is based on Luke XXII, 38: ‘And they (the disciples) said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto
them, It is enough.’ As Steinmann has pointed out, the picture differs from the text of the Gospel: it shows Christ walking
among his disciples and pointing with his right hand to two crossed swords which lie on the ground. He is therefore depicted as offering the swords to the disciples. The first proclamation of this doctrine on the part of the Church was embodied in the Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’ of Pope Boniface VIII on 18 November 1302. The sketch in Windsor is by Raphael (Popham 1949, Cat. No. 797r.); the execution of the fresco is by the workshop (Penni?).
The lower part of the wall in the Stanza was originally decorated with panelling by the distinguished intarsia artist, Fra Giovanni da Verona (as reported by Vasari, ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 337). His work was badly damaged during the Sack of Rome in
1527 and was replaced by the painted ornamentation of Perino del Vaga during the reign of Pope Paul III (Vasari, ed. Milanesi, V, p. 623).
Passavant II, p. 116 (a.); Steinmann 1899, p. 169 ff. (workshop); Gronau 1923, p. 80 (a.); Baumgart 1931, p. 62 f. (by
Penni); Fischel 1935, p. 436 under A (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 87 (invention by Raphael).
Page 77
Page 78
II. STANZA D'ELIODORO
We have no information as to the purpose of this room, but the programme of the paintings on the ceiling and walls must
go back to Julius II, for the individual scenes containing the Pope’s portrait refer to historical events paralleled in his life.
The paintings are not primarily concerned with representing concrete facts, however; more important is the representation
of higher ideal qualities of the Papacy: the divinity of its institution and hence its leadership and freedom, the triumph of
righteousness, faith and trust. Fateful isolated events become symbols and through their transcendental nature acquire a lastingly expressive character. Opinions differ as to when the paintings in this room were begun. A letter from the Ferrarese
ambassador to Isabella d’Este (12 July 1511) reports that Julius ‘fa depenzer due camere a Raffaello’, and this has long
been taken to mean that Raphael was already active in this room early in the summer of 1511 while continuing work in the
Camera della Segnatura. However, the report shows only that the commission had been given and tells us nothing about the
date of its execution (referred to by D. Redig de Campos 1961, p. 194, Note 26). It is more likely that work started early in
1512; towards the end of that year the Mass of Bolsena was completed, according to the inscription. When Raphael received the remainder of his payment, after the middle of 1514, all the frescoes were completed (Golzio, p. 33). The date 1514
below the Liberation of St. Peter provides additional evidence as to the date of completion. According to a letter from the
artist to his uncle Ciarla, dated 1 July 1514, work had then already commenced in the Stanza dell’lncendio (Golzio, p. 31
ff.).
A. CEILING PICTURES
(a) God Appearing to Noah (above the wall-painting of the Meeting of Leo I and Attila).
Plate 131
(b) The Burning Bush (above the wall-painting of the Expulsion of Heliodorus).
Plate 132
(c) The Sacrifice of Abraham (above the wall-painting of the Mass of Bolsena).
Plate 133
(d) Jacob’s Ladder (above the wall-painting of the Liberation of St. Peter).
Plate 134
The surviving evidence suggests that the ceiling was originally divided into eight sections, like that of the Stanza dell a
Segnatura, and that the division into four sections was made possible only after the removal of the ribs (noted by Oberhuber
and Count Metternich). It is at once clear that there is a significant connection between the themes of the ceiling paintings
and those of the murals beneath them. The Old Testament scenes here depicted have always been interpreted as prefigurations and are established in the typology of the Biblia pauperum and the Speculum humanae salvationis. This connection
has been further confirmed in considerable detail by Hartt (1950, p. 124 ff.), although it does not follow that the intermediary was necessarily Vergerio. Another assumption made by Hartt seems also very far-fetched: that the paintings - which are
in fact similar to tapestries, for they appear to be hanging from all four corners - are supposed to refer to the idea of the tent
of Heaven (see K. Lehmann, ‘The Dome of Heaven’, in Art Bulletin XXVII, 1945), and are thus symbolic of the battle tent
used by the warrior Pope (he made his triumphal entry into Bologna beneath a purple baldachin). However, this was by no
means an uncommon event, for the Pope always appears beneath a canopy on ceremonial occasions.
A feature clearly apparent in the motifs and the type of the figures (despite the very poor state of preservation) is the influence of the forms used by Michelangelo on the Sistine Chapel ceiling which Raphael must have seen in its entirety after the
unveiling at the end of October 1512. This influence is also to be found in the murals of the Mass of Bolsena and Leo’s
Meeting with Attila in the same room, which were executed after the Heliodorus scene. Fischel’s attribution of the ceiling
paintings to Raphael himself is supported by Oberhuber, who has brought forward convincing examples showing the
change in style of the figures and draperies by comparison with the last frescoes in the Stanza della Segnatura. At the same
time, he has also pointed out the weakness in Freedberg’s hypothetical attribution to Peruzzi - i.e. the fact that the paintings
by the Sienese artist show a speedy return to the earlier style. If the ceiling paintings had been the work of Peruzzi it is
highly improbable that the ‘maniera michelangelesca’, which is so marked in these paintings, could have disappeared again
without trace in his subsequent productions. Dollmayr, in his attribution to Peruzzi, was quite wrong in ascribing to him
(like Parker, Cat. Oxford II, No. 462) the sketch of God the Father for the composition of the Burning Bush; a cartoon for
the same figure, in Naples, Museo Nazionale, is in the opinion of the present author (and also of Hartt and Oberhuber) from
Raphael’s own hand. According to Oberhuber the drawing in Oxford is a copy, but Raphael’s style is clearly discernible
and the original can be assumed to have been his work. The sketch in Oxford (Parker, Cat. II, No. 583) showing Abraham
and Isaac is indubitably based on a concetto by Raphael for the ceiling, but can hardly be original (as suggested by Shearman 1965, p. 175).
The present condition of the frescoes makes it impossible to decide whether they were painted by Raphael or not; A. Venturi, Redig de Campos, Camesasca and Donati believe that the execution was due to G. de Marcillat; Baumgart suggested
Penni, although there is nothing to support this assumption. The style indicates that the ceiling paintings were not the first
paintings carried out in the Stanza, and that work on them did not start until 1513; Oberhuber and Shearman also date the
execution of the ceiling paintings to this period.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 346 (a.); Bellori, p. 83 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 153 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 385 f.
Page 78
Page 79
(partly by Giulio Romano); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 109 ff. (in part a.); Dollmayr 1890, p. 292 ff., and 1895, p. 244 f. (by Peruzzi);
Steinmann 1899, p. 172 (by Peruzzi); Kristeller 1907, p. 207 (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 89 (a.); Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 336 ff.
(by G. de Marcillat); Baumgart 1931, p. 49 f. (sketch by Raphael, execution by Penni); Gamba 1932, p. 75 f. (a.); Berenson
1932, p. 483 (by Peruzzi); Ortolani, p. 40 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 99 f., 362 (a.); Hartt 1950, p. 124 ff. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 52 (sketch a.); Donati 1951 p. 267 ff. (by G. de Marcillat); Putscher, p. 242 f. (sketch a.); Camesasca 1956, II,
Plates 65-7 (by G. de Marcillat); Biermann pp. 69, 162 f. (d.); Freedberg, p. 148 ff. (by Peruzzi); Oberhuber 1962, p. 35
(a.); Fischel 1962, p. 74 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 231 (invention by Raphael, execution probably by G. de Marcillat);
Shearman 1965, p. 173 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 88 (invention by Raphael).
B. THE WALL-PAINTINGS
(a) The Expulsion of Heliodorus
Plate 135
This work is based on the Second Book of Maccabees (III, 15 ff.) and shows Heliodorus the Syrian being driven out of the
Temple in Jerusalem when he attempted to plunder its treasures. The high priest in the centre prays for divine aid while the
deliverance takes place on the right, a rider from Heaven throwing the guilty man to the ground while two young men rush
forward at his side. The group of women on the left and the majestic figure of Julius II, seated on his litter, witness this miraculous punishment. No agreement has been reached as to the identity of the Pope’s companions - the man at the front in
the official dress of the Curia and the two litter-bearers. The courtier is named in the inscription as Giovanni Pietro de Foliariis from Cremona, an identification which is generally accepted; however, C. Ricci has shown (Rass. d’Arte XX, 1920,
p. 89 ff.) that this inscription is executed on an oil ground and is not contemporary; the results of the most recent restoration
confirm this observation. Moreover, there was no Breve Secretary of that name at the court of Julius II. Ricci, Gamba and
Wagner (1969, p. 69) found in this head Raphael’s own features, and comparison with the portrait behind the figure of St.
Luke in the Accademia di San Luca (p. 64) in Rome does not completely contradict this suggestion; however, it is doubtful
whether the artist would have portrayed himself in such a prominent position. Fischel regarded the farther litter-bearer as a
self-portrait and this is very probably nearer the truth than the assumption that this is a portrait of B. Peruzzi or of Giulio
Romano. Wagner’s attempt to identify this portrait as Sebastiano del Piombo fails because of the lack of comparable portraits. The foremost litter-bearer, who looks out of the picture, was called Marcantonio by Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 442)
and this identification has been accepted ever since.
According to Giovio’s Life of Raphael, the subject was chosen by the Pope himself, who had already owned tapestries depicting the same story when he was a Cardinal (Müntz 1882, p. 276 and Note 2). G. P. Bellori, the first to point out that this
event of the Old Testament had relevance to events in the life of Julius II, saw in this work an allusion to the usurpers of the
Church States under Louis XII and to their expulsion in 1512. This interpretation was rightly questioned by Pastor
(Geschichte der Päpste III/2, p. 1037, Note 3), who pointed out that a more obvious allusion to this event is provided in the
same Stanza by the Attila fresco. It is much more probable that the Heliodorus scene refers to the crises within the Church the rebellion by schismatic Cardinals and their attempt, in alliance with the French, to call a Council in Pisa, whose miserable failure at the end of the year 1511 helped to restore the Papal authority to new respect.
Original studies are to be found as follows: (a) for the kneeling woman seen from the back on the left - Oxford; Parker 1956, II, No.
557v.; (b) for the mother shielding her child in her lap and a woman standing behind her - Zürich, Kunsthaus (Fischel 1925, p. 134 ff.
and plate 1a). Shearman first regarded this as a study for the Fire in the Borgo (1959, p. 457), but lately revised this opinion (1965, p.
168); (c) cartoons for the profile heads of the two young men behind the horseman on the right are preserved in Paris (G. Rouchès,
Musée du Louvre, Les Dessins de Raphaël, pls. 18 and 19); (d) a cartoon fragment showing the head of the horse is in Oxford (Parker
1956, II, No. 556, Pl. CXXXV).
Shearman has recently pointed out that an early sketch for the whole composition (1956, p. 167 ff.; and Fig. 9) is reflected
in Beccafumi’s copy in pen and wash in Vienna (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 203; hardly identical with that from the von
Savigny Collection, Berlin, mentioned by Rumohr, p. 557, and Passavant II, p. 157 and No. 526). The group with the Pope
on the left is not yet included in this scheme and although the interior in which the high priest is praying already contains
elements found in the fresco, the colonnades adjoining it on either side bear witness to a conception which is still reminiscent of the late Quattrocento. Shearman correctly points to similar formal motifs in Ghirlandaio’s murals in S. Maria Novella and S. Trinita in Florence, and also demonstrates (p. 169) how quickly Raphael’s tectonic ability overcame this tradition, pressing onwards in the spatial design of his mural towards a formal intensity which was not fully realized until the
coming of the baroque.
The present author agrees with Fischel in considering that the execution of the mural was largely undertaken by Raphael
himself. There is no foundation for the idea that Giulio Romano was brought to work (on the right especially) on this painting; this idea, first voiced by Crowe and Cavalcaselle and still maintained quite recently (Bertini), is untenable if only because the young assistant was no more than thirteen years old at the time (see Hartt 1958, I, p. 13). The
Page 79
Page 80
participation of neither Penni nor Giovanni da Udine can be recognized, nor does Ortolani carry conviction when he suggests that the left section of the composition was not started until after the completion of the Mass of Bolsena. - Fischel and
most other scholars consider that this fresco was the first to be painted in the Stanza - an opinion which the present author
accepts, for unlike Freedberg he sees no convincing stylistic reasons for dating it after the Mass of Bolsena.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 345 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 57 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 557 (a.); Passavant II, p. 156 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p.
375 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 120 ff. (execution by Giulio Romano and Giovanni da Udine); Dollmayr 1895, p. 245 f. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 90 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 77 ff. (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 43 f. (in part a.);
Hetzer 1947, p. 50 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 115 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 102 ff. 362 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 39 ff.
(a.); Biermann, pp. 71 f., 74 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 68-71 (in part a.); White-Shearman, p. 303 f. (a.); Schöne
1958, p. 15 f. (a.); Bertini 1959, p. 364 (in part by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 158 ff. (in part a.); Oberhuber 1962, p.
24, Note 6 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 76 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 230/1 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 167 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 89
(a.).
(b) The Mass of Bolsena
Plate 136
For an interpretation of the subject, see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1030 ff., Hartt 1950, p. 120 f.,
Lazzarini 1952, and Biermann, p. 71.
The inscription beneath the mural:
JVLIVS II LIGVR. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXII. PONTIFICAT. SVI. VIII (i.e. before 26 November 1512) refers to the date of
completion (Golzio, p. 26).
This scene represents the miracle, said to have occurred in Bolsena in the time of Pope Urban IV (1263), in which blood
appeared to a German priest who doubted the Transubstantiation. The blood-soaked cloth on which the chalice stood was
taken to Orvieto and placed inside a precious reliquary, and in 1477 and 1481 the uncle of Julius II, Sixtus IV, granted indulgences to those who venerated it. On 7 September 1506, on his march against Bologna, Julius stopped at the cathedral in
Orvieto to pay homage to the relic; his memory of the visit and the success of his entry into Bologna in 1510 under the protection of the Blessed Sacrament, both showing his deep faith in the Eucharist, may have determined his choice of the subject. The scene does not appear to be directly related to ecclesiastical affairs (such as the Lateran Council).
Here, as in the case of the Heliodorus fresco, we have a record of the original conception: the workshop copy in Oxford
(Parker 1956, II, No. 641 and two other examples, 642 and 643, in the same museum). In its overall composition this already indicates many features of the fresco, but the detail variations show clearly that it represents the first version: the architectural design does not yet possess the taut, compact quality it has in the fresco, and the monumental effect is weakened
by the complicated detail which appears in the apse balustrade, in the delicate articulation of the pair of towering candlesticks and in the trio of acolytes behind the altar to the left of the priest. The Pope at worship (in the same posture as in the
abandoned project for the apocalyptic scene (Paris, No. 3866) intended for the Stanza della Segnatura) occupies, with his
entourage, the left part of the picture; in the fresco, however, the kneeling pontiff is raised to the position due to his rank,
opposite the officiating priest, becoming the closest witness of the miracle. The picture cannot have been planned before
the middle of August 1511, for the Pope is portrayed with a beard.
For the question whether an apocalyptic scene (reproduced in a copy drawing in Paris, No. 3866 - Fischel 1898, No. 175)
was originally intended for this wall in place of the Bolsena miracle, see the entry on the Three Virtues in the Stanza della
Segnatura.
No original sheet of studies for the fresco has survived. The drawing of a nude kneeling girl (in Chatsworth, No. 56) which
Fischel formerly connected (1898, No. 197) with the group of women on the left can hardly belong in this context (Shearman 1964, p. 90, Note 136, also denies that it has any connection with the Bolsena picture). The detail study for the Pope
kneeling at his prayer stool (Le Dessin italien dans les collections hollandaises 1962, No. 65), championed by Jaffé (Burl.
Mag. CIV, 1962, p. 233), does not seem to the present author to be from the hand of Raphael, especially as the recto, with
studies of horsemen, can hardly be autograph (see note to the tapestry of the Conversion of St. Paul). The figures of the
four prelates accompanying the Pope excited Vasari’s praise of the artist’s genius for portraiture, but he only mentioned
one by name - the Cardinal of San Giorgio (Raffaello Riario); this is the figure with crossed arms in the back row. Fischel
suggested that the other prince of the Church is a portrait of Cardinal Gabrielli, but this identification can hardly be considered to be more than a hypothesis. M. Wackernagel’s suggestion (1909, p. 319 ff.) that Sebastiano del Piombo might have
participated in the painting of the Swiss Guards has already been refuted by the present author in his monograph on the Venetian artist (1942, p. 112, No. 39), nor is there any evidence for the collaboration of Lorenzo Lotto, which has been postulated by Longhi and Zampetti (Mostra di L. Lotto, 1953, p. XVIII). Palluchini (1944, p. 123), Ortolani and Redig de Campos
(1956, p. 259 ff.) have also denied participation. - Most scholars date the Bolsena mural after the fresco of Heliodorus;
Freedberg’s recent inversion of this order does not seem convincing.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 342 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 75 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 556 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 157 f. (a.); Müntz 1882,
p. 376 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 124 ff. (in part by Giovanni da Udine); Gronau 1923, p.
Page 80
Page 81
93 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 76 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 46 ff. (a.); Hartt 1944, p. 68, Note 7 (in part
a.); v. Salis, ‘Klassische Komposition’, in Concinnitas, Basel 1944, pp. 184 ff. Wölfflin 1948, p. 119 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I,
pp. 104 ff., 362 (a.); Putscher, 28, pp. 54 f. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 43 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 72 ff. (a.);
Biermann, p. 77 f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 15 (a.); White-Shearman, p. 299 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 155 ff. (a.); Oberhuber 1962,
p. 33, Note 45, p. 34, Note 54 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 78 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 231/2 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 90 (a.).
(c) The Liberation of St. Peter
Plate 137
On the architrave of the window below the fresco is the inscription:
LEO X. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXIIII PONTIFICAT. SVI. II. (Golzio, p. 31).
For an interpretation of the subject, see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1038 f.; Hartt 1950, p. 121 ff.,
and Biermann, p. 70 f.
The theme of the miraculous deliverance of the Apostle Peter from prison is drawn from the Acts of the Apostles (XII, 6 ff.)
and the early Christian basilica of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome was dedicated to the memory of this legend. While still a
cardinal, Julius II had been in charge of this church and even as Pope he felt a lasting attachment to it. On 23 June 1512 he
made a papal pilgrimage to the basilica to give thanks for the liberation of the Pontifical State from the oppression of the
French and followed this visit with a triumphal return to the Vatican. The picture thus combines the rescue of Christ’s first
successor with the contemporary event, and the reference to the latter is reinforced by the fact that, both in prison and after
his release, St. Peter bears the unmistakable features of Julius II. This disposes of Bellori’s supposition, made already by
Giovio in his Vita of Raphael and still supported by as recent a scholar as Rumohr, that the allusion is to Giovanni Medici
(Leo X) and the battle of Ravenna (1512).
A study by Raphael for the fleeing soldier on the left is preserved in Windsor, Royal Library (Popham 1949, Cat. No.
799r.). The authenticity of the poorly preserved drawing for the whole composition in Florence, Uffizi, was first denied
(1898, No. 178), and later recognized (1948, I, Fig. 111; 1962, Fig. 130), by Fischel. This concetto gives an idea of the preliminary design and is very similar in construction to the first scheme for the Mass of Bolsena; for as in the latter sketch the
verticals of the window frame are continued in the candlesticks, so they are here continued in the prison walls. Whereas the
fresco contains a flight of steps beginning right in the foreground of the picture, the drawing has an introductory horizontal
plane, and the rising string-boards, like the pillars above, bear too much individual emphasis. The arrangement of the light,
which differs from that in the fresco, has been analysed by Shearman (1965, p. 170). Redig de Campos has drawn attention
to a drawing of the whole composition by Penni (?) in Rio de Janeiro, National Library (1946, p. 75 ff. and pl. 31).
The execution was partly entrusted to Raphael’s pupils, and especially, it seems, on the left side of the picture; however, it
is not likely that Giulio Romano was engaged on this work, as is assumed by Cavalcaselle and Camesasca. Freedberg’s dating after the ‘Attila’ fresco does not seem justified.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 343 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 79 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 160 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 383 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav.
II, p. 154 f. (in part r.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 245 f. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 97 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 84 f. (in part r.); Berenson
1932, p. 483 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 53 f. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 117 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 106 f., 362 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 47 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 84-9 (in part a.); Putscher, p. 54 f. (a.); White-Shearman, p. 302 f. (a.);
Freedberg, p. 164 ff. (a.); Biermann, p. 79 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 15 (a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 34 and Note 54; Fischel
1962, p. 79 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 232 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 170 (a); Dussler 1966, pp. 90-1 (a.).
(d) The Repulse of Attila
Plate 138
For an interpretation of the subject see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1037 f.; Hartt 1950, p. 119, and
Biermann, p. 72.
This picture depicts the encounter between Pope Leo I and King Attila on the river Mincio near Mantua in A.D. 452. It differs from the original design (see the sketch in Oxford) in that the scene has been transposed to Rome, which is clearly
visible in the background. The change was made because the Huns’ threatened invasion of Rome was averted by Leo’s intervention. The apparition of SS. Peter and Paul as armed envoys from Heaven is a legendary incident. The subject was certainly chosen by Julius II in order that his successful resistance against French invasions during his Pontificate should be
commemorated through the representation of the ‘liberator Romae’.
A Raphaelesque concetto for the first version of this composition (analogous to the preliminary sketches for the Expulsion
of Heliodorus, the Liberation of St. Peter and the Mass of Bolsena) has been preserved in the copy in Oxford (Parker 1956,
II, No. 645; a duplicate in London, Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 71). The composition in the drawing is more evenly balanced
than in the highly dramatized fresco, as can be seen in the clear-cut confrontation of the two protagonists - the Pope in the
sedia gestatoria on the left and King Attila on horseback in the right foreground - and in the equilibrium of both halves of
the picture. As the Pope is shown bearded, the figure can refer only to Julius II and the concetto cannot have been executed
before the summer of 1511. The copy of another design in Paris, No. 3873, differs from the Oxford sketch in that it shows
only the events on Attila’s side of the picture, while the Pope’s group is so far in the
Page 81
Page 82
background on the left that it has no function as a formal or thematic balance. Only the flying apostles remain, but St. Peter
differs from his counterpart in Oxford in that, apart from the key, he also holds a sword (in his right hand), as in the fresco.
The drawing in the Louvre also corresponds with the mural in the composition of the right side, whose dynamic effect and
narrative complexity are not yet hinted at in the Oxford sketch; Shearman’s supposition that the Paris project should be
dated after the Oxford sketch seems thus to be justified, although Freedberg and Pouncey-Cere reverse the dating. Nevertheless, the version in the Louvre must be considered merely as Raphael’s modello for a pictorial idea; he could never have
intended to carry it out as a complete composition in view of the fact that the drawing contains no portraits of the Pope and
his entourage (such as appear in the other three frescoes in the Stanza) and would therefore never have obtained his patron's
approval. Julius II, whose features still appear in the Oxford concetto, died while the fresco was still being planned and after a start had been made, and his successor Pope Leo X was therefore portrayed as Leo I, Attila’s historical adversary. The
identification with the Medici Pope is beyond doubt, but Fischel’s suggestion that the two cardinals in Leo’s entourage are
portraits of Amadeo Berrutti, Governor of Rome, and Francesco della Rovere, Commander of the Castel Sant’Angelo seem
unfounded, and the opinion of Redig de Campos that the man leading the Pope’s horse should be identified as the steward
Serapica (Giovanni Lazzaro de Magistris) cannot be considered to be more than a hypothesis. There are better grounds for
the identification of the elderly ecclesiastic in the middle of the three riders on the Pope’s right as the master of ceremonies,
Paris de Grassis (suggested by Fischel and Redig de Campos). The herald next to him is a portrait of Andrea da Toledo;
this has been shown convincingly by Redig de Campos (1959-60, pp. 163 ff.), and the identification is confirmed by a
comparison with the inscribed tombstone in the courtyard of the Casa dei Cappellani of S. Luigi de’ Francesi in Rome.
Close inspection of this fresco in recent years (during the progress of restoration) has led to the conclusion that only a much
smaller part of the execution should be attributed to the workshop than had previously been thought. This is especially true
of the right half of the fresco, which Freedberg considered to be largely by Penni (see the objections raised by Oberhuber,
who refers to the masterly foreshortening of the heads of the warriors in the background). The landscape has recently been
ascribed to Lorenzo Lotto (by Longhi), but the present author sees no features which testify convincingly in favour of this
suggestion. - The only remaining original drawing is the study of a horseman in Frankfurt, Staedel Institute, No. 1797,
whose authenticity is rightly accepted by Parker (1956, Oxford II, No. 645), Oberhuber and Shearman, whereas Schwarzweller, according to a written communication, considers it a German copy of the late sixteenth century.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 347 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 65 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 159 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 379 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav.
II, p. 149 ff. (in part r.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 246 (r.); Gronau 1923, pp. 101, 102 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 82 ff. (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 53 (a.); Wölfflin, p. 120 f. and Note 1 (r.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 107 f., 194, 363
(in part a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 49 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 80-3 (in part a.); Biermann, p. 82 (in part a.);
Schöne 1958, p. 16 (a.); White-Shearman, p. 304 ff. (a.); Freedberg I, p. 161 ff. (in part a.); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 24, 34 and
Note 54 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 80 f. (in part a.); Brizio 1963, col. 232/3 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 170 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966,
pp. 91-2 (a.).
III. STANZA DELL’INCENDIO
(Stanza di Torre Borgia)
This room, whose purpose is unknown, is called after Raphael’s mural of the fire (Incendio) in the Borgo of the Quartiere
Vaticano. The decoration seems to have been planned already under Julius II, for the four surviving ceiling paintings tondi depicting allegorical scenes (Vasari, ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 361; Camesasca 1959, Figs. 187-9) were painted by Perugino
at the same time as Raphael was working on the ceiling of the Stanze della Segnatura (1508-10). The fact that Perugino’s
decoration was left untouched despite its old-fashioned style is perhaps due to Raphael’s respect for his teacher; however, it
is not impossible that redecoration of the ceiling was not carried out owing to lack of time, or because there was not the
same interest in continuing an integrated thematic scheme as in the two previous rooms.
Raphael’s work in this room began in the middle of 1514, for in a letter to his uncle Simone Ciarla dated 1 July 1514, he
writes: ‘ho cominciato un altra stantia per S. Sta a dipignere’ (Golzio, p. 31 ff.). Evidence that completion was reached before 19 March 1517 is provided by the inscription on the fresco of the Oath of Pope Leo III and also by the report of 16
June 1517 from the Ferrarese envoy to Alfonso d’Este (Golzio, p. 54) and the letter of 19 July 1517 from Bembo to Bibbiena (Golzio, p. 57).
1. The Lunette Pictures
(a) The Fire in the Borgo
Plate 139
The theme of the picture is based on a story in the Liber Pontificalis which relates how a fire that had broken out in the
Borgo of St. Peter’s in 847 was extinguished when Pope Leo IV made the sign of the Cross. Whether the scene has symbolic meaning remains an open question: Pastor (Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/1, p. 494 f.) thought that the
quenching of the fire might refer to the termination
Page 82
Page 83
of the schism achieved under Leo X; Redig de Campos (whose interpretation is followed by Oberhuber) suggests that it
may allude to the coming of general peace in Italy on Leo X’s accession to the papal throne, by contrast with the warlike
events during the pontificate of Julius II. Pastor was certainly incorrect in assuming that the artist, as architect of St. Peter’s,
wished to express in this work his ‘homage and thanks’ to his patron. Recent research - and especially Oberhuber’s penetrating investigation - has left no doubt that the invention of the composition as a whole was Raphael’s own. This also rules
out the suggestion, made by K. Badt, that the architecture was painted by Peruzzi, firstly because of the harmonious relationship between the figure arrangement and tile buildings and secondly, because the architecture lacks any structural element which would accord with Peruzzi’s individual approach (on this point see Oberhuber, p. 38 and also the conclusions
reached by Ch. L. Frommel, 1961, p. 156 f.). With regard to the execution of the mural, most scholars consider it the work
of Giulio Romano and Penni; Shearman (1959, p. 458) and Oberhuber believe that, apart from the group escaping on the
left wall and a few of the central figures, the painting was largely carried out by Raphael himself. In my opinion the quality
of the three groups of figures in the foreground indicates that Raphael was responsible for their execution and there are also
unmistakable signs that he was partially involved in painting the figures on the steps and in the background.
Drawings: the study of the aged Anchises being carried by Aeneas, in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 75;
Fischel, 1898, No. 195: copy) was attributed to Giulio Romano by Hartt (1958, I, No. 7 and II, Fig. 18) and Freedberg, but
has been proved - to my mind, convincingly - by Shearman (1959, p. 457) and Oberhuber (1962, p. 40) to be by Raphael
himself. The sketch for the two kneeling women with the child, in Vienna, Albertina (Sc. R. 274; Fischel, 1898, No. 189:
copy) and the sheet with the back view of a kneeling woman with uplifted hands, in Paris (Louvre, No. 4008) were asribed
by Hartt (1958, I, Nos. 8 and 8a and II, Figs. 16 and 17) to Giulio Romano, but tentatively given to Penni by Oberhuber
(1962, p. 41). It is difficult to decide between the two assistants, but more important is the unequivocal influence of the
master’s original design, which appears also in the nude study for the girl carrying water (Oxford; Parker 1956, II, No. 652:
workshop copy); the latter is technically closely connected with the two sheets just mentioned (see Oberhuber 1962, Fig.
29). The study for the nude figure of the young man hanging on the wall, in Vienna, Albertina, Inv. No. 4882 (Fischel
1898, No. 190: copy) shows considerable defects and is attributed by Oberhuber (1962, p. 40 and Fig. 33) to Giulio
Romano.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 359, V, p. 524 (in part a.); Bellori, p. 85 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 193 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 443
ff. (a.); Cr-.Cav. II, p. 204 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Dollmayr 1895, p. 251 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gronau 1923, pp. 119-22 (by Giulio Romano); Hetzer 1929, p. 95 f. (invention a.); Gamba 1932, p. 91 f. (in part by Giulio
Romano and Penni); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Biagetti 1939, p. 230 f. (discusses the condition of the wall-painting); Hartt 1944, p. 68 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 53 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 100-4 (by Giulio Romano and
Penni); Biermann, p. 91 ff. (sketch a.); Hartt 1958, p. 21 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Badt 1959, p. 35 ff.; Freedberg,
pp. 295, 302 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Oberhuber, 1962, p. 23 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 175 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 92 f. (a.).
(b) The Sea Victory at Ostia
Plate 140
This scene is based on the Liber Pontificalis and depicts the naval victory won in A.D. 849 by Pope Leo IV against the
Saracens before the gates of the citadel of Ostia. The choice of theme reflects the contemporary preoccupations of the
Medici Pope Leo X, who was planning a crusade against the Mohammedans following their repeated threats to the coasts
of the Papal State about this time (see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/1, p. 496 f.). The sea-battle takes
place in the background and Leo X appears enthroned in the left foreground, accompanied by Cardinals Bibbiena and
Giulio Medici, while a prisoner is led before him. In the right foreground of the picture other defeated enemies are being
brought in. Although the execution shows the style and technique of Giulio Romano, particularly in the figure group in the
foreground, the present author agrees with Shearman, Freedberg and Oberhuber that Raphael was responsible for the invention. This idea is supported firstly by the frieze-like composition, especially in the depiction of the soldiers - a feature already found in concetti representing similar subjects dating from about 1509 (Oxford; Parker 1956, II, No. 538 - R.Z. IV,
Nos. 194/5; earlier scholars regarded these works as sketches for the Ostia mural), and secondly, by the monumental character typical only of Raphael and the superbly rhythmical organic composition of the figure groups. These elements even
retain their emphatic power despite the execution by his pupil, whose brushwork has in several ways resulted in the weakening - or even distortion - of the formal and expressive strength of the original sketch. (Shearman considers that the figure
of the ferryman at the right intrudes into Raphael’s frieze-like composition and was independently invented by the artist responsible for the execution - i.e. probably by Giulio Romano.) Cavalcaselle and others claimed that Raphael himself was
involved in painting the figures of Leo X and the two cardinals. However, the fresco is now in such bad condition that it is
impossible to find any single area which shows whether he took part in the execution.
Page 83
Page 84
The sea-fight in the background has repeatedly been attributed to Penni, and the participation of Giovanni da Udine has
also been suggested, but neither of these assumptions can be checked in the present state of preservation. The same applies
to the suggestion, made by Fischel and Gamba, that the picture had been restored by Sebastiano del Piombo (see also Oberhuber, p. 50, Note 106).
Drawings: (a) a drawing in the Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 74) of a head and two standing nude men, of whom the
one in front, with outstretched arm, served as a study for the soldier to the left of the enthroned Pope in the fresco. This
drawing has been the centre of much discussion, for it bears an inscription by Dürer, which indicates that it was a gift from
Raphael to the great German artist. Hartt (1958, I, No. 9) and Freedberg ascribed the drawing to Giulio Romano; however,
this view has been disproved by Shearman, whose arguments carry unqualified conviction (1959, p. 458), and by Oberhuber (p. 46 f.), who, in a thorough analysis, made the important point that there is no evidence of two artists being involved, and as a result there can be no doubt that the drawing is by Raphael himself. Fischel, too, declared (verbally) that
he had revised his earlier opinion (1898, No. 199) which denied Raphael’s authorship, and Redig de Campos also supports
the attribution to the master.
(b) a single study showing the nude figure of the man kneeling bound at the feet of the Pope (in Paris, Louvre No. 4011). This drawing, classified in the Louvre as a copy after Raphael, has lately been given back to Raphael by Oberhuber (p. 47 and Fig. 44). The present author has not seen the drawing, but judging from the reproduction, he is inclined to doubt the attribution. Shearman (1964, p. 93,
Note 145) considers this sketch to be a copy from the fresco made by Vasari.
(c) A contemporary copy of the presumed modello, showing the overall composition, but with differences in the background scene, is in London, British Museum (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 49); replicas at Chatsworth (No. 68) and in Florence,
Uffizi (No. 1377F). By comparison with the completed fresco, some parts of the group of figures in the foreground reveal
an earlier and superior design (this has been shown by Oberhuber, p. 48).
The date ‘1515’ inscribed by Dürer on the drawing in the Albertina suggests that Raphael was occupied with the planning
of the fresco during that year. Its execution is therefore likely to have taken place about the end of 1515, a date which
Oberhuber considers probable, as does the present author, whereas Camesasca sets it between the end of 1514 and the first
months of 1515.
Freedberg believes that the Battle of Ostia was the first mural executed in the Stanza and dates it therefore from the beginning of 1515 - that is, from the same time as the first sketches for the tapestry cartoons.
With regard to the possible identification of the cartoon sent by Raphael to Alfonso d’Este (Golzio, p. 62 f.) see the entry
on The Oath of Leo III, p. 85.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 360 (workshop); Bellori p. 95 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 197 f. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 443 (in
part a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 211 ff. (sketch a.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 251 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 118 (by
Giulio Romano and Penni); Gamba 1932, p. 92 f. (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (by Giulio Romano); Biagetti 1934, p.
90 ff. (the condition of the wall-painting is discussed); Fischel, 1935, p. 441 (by Giulio Romano); Hartt 1944, p. 71 ff. (by
Giulio Romano and Penni); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 59 (invention a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 105 (in part a., and
Giulio Romano with Giovanni da Udine); Biermann 1957, p. 88 f., 96 (a.); Hartt 1958, p. 22 f. (sketch and execution by
Giulio Romano with Penni) ; Freedberg pp. 294; 299 ff. (sketch a.); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 24, 46 ff. (sketch a.); Brizio 1963,
col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 175 f. (sketch a.); Dussler 1966, p. 93 f. (invention by Raphael).
(c) The Coronation of Charlemagne
Plate 141
This scene, which shows the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III in St. Peter’s (A.D. 800), alludes to an event of
Raphael’s time - namely the treaty between Leo X and King Francis I, in which the French king followed the example of
Charlemagne and pledged himself to defend the Church (Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/1, p. 497 and p. 86
ff.). This alliance was concluded on 2 October 1515; but as Leo X did not return to Rome until 28 February 1516, the design for the picture cannot have been started until after the latter date. The idea of protective patronage is made clear in the
inscription below the mural, which runs: CAROLVS MAGNVS RO. ECCLESIAE ENSIS CLYPEVSQVE, and the contemporary
event is reflected in the portraits of Pope Leo X enthroned and Francis I kneeling to receive the Imperial crown. The fresco
has been badly damaged and repeatedly restored - by L. Sabatini in 1573-6 (see J. Hess, 1947, p. 78 ff.) and by C. Maratta
(beginning 1702); and it is therefore hardly possible to make definite identifications of the many individual heads. On the
other hand, the information given by Vasari will certainly have been based on a trustworthy tradition and hardly needs to be
questioned. He identifies the page kneeling behind the French king as the young Ippolito de’ Medici, who was later to be
created a Cardinal, and he also mentions the portrait of Bishop Giannozzo Pandolfini.
Fischel had already suggested that the composition of the picture was based on instructions by Raphael, and as the great
artistry and complexity apparent in the arrangement of the figures and in the spatial structure cannot be attributed to the inventive powers of either Penni or the youthful Giulio Romano, the present writer agrees with Fischel. Freedberg’s brilliant
analysis of the structure of the painting transforms this supposition into a certainty; Redig de Campos shares the same opinion, as does Oberhuber,
Page 84
Page 85
whose penetrating conclusions, supported by references to similar compositional motifs in the Loggie, serve to strengthen
the American scholar’s arguments. Dollmayr, Gronau, Fischel and Freedberg were right in stating that the execution is
mostly the work of Penni. Oberhuber assumes that Giulio Romano was engaged on parts of the left half and ascribes the
rest to Penni. Passavant and Cavalcaselle thought that Raphael himself intervened in the portrait heads, but this is certainly
incorrect, nor are there any signs of the participation of Giovanni da Udine, suggested by Gamba. According to Hartt, neither Giulio Romano nor Penni played any part in the painting of this fresco, which he ascribes to Raffaellino dal Colle; the
present author, like Freedberg and Oberhuber, can see no basis for this attribution.
Drawings: (a) For the whole composition: in Venice, Biblioteca Querini-Stampalia. Gamba regarded this as Raphael’s design, but technique and style suggest that it is the work of Penni. (During close scrutiny Oberhuber noticed charcoal
sketches in a few places beneath Penni’s lines, and therefore, while he agrees with the attribution to Penni, believes that the
original design was by Raphael himself. See Shearman’s observations, 1965, p. 176, Note 84.)
(b) Detail sketches for the two rows of bishops shown seated in the right foreground of the fresco (recto) and a front view
of a seated bishop in the left background and the two deacons taking part in the coronation ceremony (verso) : in Düsseldorf (I. Budde, Beschreibender Katalog der Handzeichnungen in der Staatlichen Kunstakademie, Düsseldorf 1930, No.
12). By Penni. (c) A nude study for the man carrying a bench in the left foreground: in Chantilly, Musée Condé, F.R. 48
bis. Although Oberhuber (Fig. 58) thinks that this sketch is possibly by Raphael, the execution at least seems to show the
hand of Penni; the same is true of (d), a study for the head of the second bishop in the left background, Paris, Louvre, No.
3983), which Oberhuber (Fig. 59) attributes, with reservations, to Raphael. (e) A drawing supposed by Gamba to be a study
for the head of Leo X (pl. 75), in Florence, Museo Horne, cannot be by the hand of Raphael nor is it a portrait of that Pope.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 360 f. (workshop); Bellon, p. 99 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 191 ff. (in part a.); Müntz 1882, p. 446
(workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 290 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 267 (by Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 123 (by Penni);
Biagetti 1926-7, p. 238 ff. (the condition of the wall-painting is discussed); Gamba 1932, p. 93 f. (by Penni and Giovanni
da Udine); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (by Penni); Hartt 1944, p. 73 f. (by Raffaellino dal Colle); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 59 f.
(sketch a.); Camesasca 1956, II, plate 106A (by Penni); Biermann 1957, pp. 89 f., 96 (r.); Hartt 1958, p. 22 (by Raffaellino
dal Colle); Freedberg, p. 307 ff. (sketch a.); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 24, 26 ff. (sketch a.); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by
Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 176 (by Penni); Dussler 1966, p. 94 f. (invention by Raphael).
(d) The Oath of Pope Leo III
Plate 142
Pastor (Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/1, p. 498) has shown that this scene is based on an event described in the
Liber Pontificalis, which relates that Leo III, in the presence of Charlemagne, took an oath on the Bible in St. Peter’s in answer to a slander uttered by a nephew of Hadrian I. The scene also illustrates an important rule of Canon Law at the time of
Leo X, a rule which was repromulgated at the Lateran Council on 19 December 1516 with reference to Pope Boniface
VIII’s bull, ‘Unam Sanctam’, and whose purpose was the rebuttal of the Pragmatic Sanction. The idea on which that bull
was founded is expressed in the inscription on the cartello at the bottom right: DEI NON HOMINVM EST EPISCOPOS
IVDICARE. As the inscription on the window architrave, LEO X. PONT. MAX ANNO. CHRISTI. MCCCCCXVII PONTIFICAT. SVI.
ANNO. IIII. (i.e. before 11 March 1517) must refer to the date when the frescoes in the room were completed, this mural
must have been executed between December 1516 and the beginning of March 1517. The scene contains a number of portrait-like heads, but the only features clearly recognizable are those of Leo X in the figure of the Pope (according to Biagetti, the original intention was to portray him crowned with the tiara). Redig de Campos is probably correct in identifying
the prominent figure at the back on the left as the French King Francis I, whose presence is mentioned by Vasari. Fischel’s
suggestion (1907, p. 129) that the bearded man standing behind the front mitre-bearer on the right of the picture represents
Giuliano de’ Medici does not stand up to close investigation. Cavalcaselle had believed this figure to be a portrait of
Lorenzo de’ Medici.
The composition goes back, to a large extent, to that of the Mass of Bolsena in the Stanza d’Eliodoro, and for this reason
has been attributed, not to Raphael, but to Penni; in view of the very formal, ceremonial subject, however, it was surely
natural to take the earlier framework as a model, although it was by no means slavishly repeated. The nuances pointed out
by Freedberg, and especially the difference between the other scenes, which were designed to produce a dramatic impact,
and the static quality of the present scene justify the assumption that Raphael himself may have been responsible for the design, although no trace of his hand can be found in the execution. There is no doubt that The Oath of Leo III was executed
primarily by Penni, who was aided by other assistants. Earlier critics already considered that the most important participant
in the work had been the ‘Fattore’, and Dollmayr, Gronau, Fischel, Freedberg and Oberhuber agree with this opinion. Redig de Campos and Hartt, however, suggest that the fresco was painted by a less prominent member of the workshop.
Shearman finds it inconceivable that the
Page 85
Page 86
invention could have been by Raphael (1965, p. 176 f.).
Drawings: (a) for the composition of the upper left section: in Florence, Museo Horne, Inv. dis. 5547. Attributed to Raphael
by Gamba and Camesasca, but there can be no doubt that it is in fact by Penni, although Oberhuber is probably correct in
suggesting (p. 64) that it derives from a concetto by Raphael. Oberhuber also regards this drawing as the final modello for
the wall-painting; (b) for the head of a deacon: in Haarlem, Teyler Museum, Inv. K. I, No. 51, by Penni, to whom it was ascribed by Oberhuber; (c) for the courtier standing in the left foreground of the mural: in Zürich, Kunsthaus; the sketch of a
draped male figure, attributed to Raphael by Shearman (1959, p. 457 and Fig. 57). Fischel’s statement (1935, p. 441) that
the lost cartoon passed into the possession of Alfonso d’Este is incorrect, for the letter of November 1517 from the envoy,
Costabili, to his prince makes explicit mention of ‘una historia di papa Leone IIII’ (Golzio, p. 62 f.), while the subject of
the scene under discussion is Pope Leo III. Costabili must therefore have been referring to a cartoon for one of the other
wall-paintings.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 360 (workshop); Bellori, p. 98 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 190 f. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 446
(workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 294 ff. (workshop); Dollmayr 1895, p. 267 (by Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 124 (by Penni); Biagetti
1927-9, p. 141 (the condition of this wall-painting is discussed); Gamba 1932, p. 94 (workshop); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (by
Penni); Hartt 1944, p. 74 f. (by Giovanni da Lione or Pellegrino da Modena ?); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 61 ff. (sketch by
Raphael); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate I06B (workshop); Biermann 1957, pp. 90 f., 96 (r.); Hartt 1958, p. 22 (r.); Freedberg, p.
310 f. (sketch by Raphael); Oberhuber 1962, p. 70 ff. (sketch by Raphael); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael);
Shearman 1965, p. 176 f. (workshop); Dussler 1966, p. 95 f. (invention by Raphael).
2. The Dado-Paintings
Beneath the four wall-paintings are dado figures in bronze-coloured monochrome - six seated princes, all of them patrons
of the Church. They are: Constantine the Great (beneath The Oath of Leo III); above this is the inscription: DEI NON
HOMINVM EST EPISCOPOS JVDICARE, which refers to the fresco. / Charlemagne (beneath The Coronation of Charlemagne);
above this is the inscription: CAROLVS MAGNVS RO. ECCLESIAE ENSIS CLYPEVSQVE. / Godfrey de Bouillon (beneath The
Fire in the Borgo); above this is the inscription: NEPHAS EST VBI REGVM CHRISTVS SPINEAM CORONAM TVLIT,
CHRISTIANVM HOMINEM AVREAM GESTARE. / Astolph of England (beneath The Fire in the Borgo); above this is the inscription: AISTVLPHVS REX SVB LEONE III. PONT. BRITANNIAM BEATO PETRO VECTI GALEM FACIT (not ‘Vectigalum’, as
transcribed by Biermann). / Ferdinand the Catholic (beneath The Sea-victory at Ostia); above this is the inscription:
FERDINANDVS REX CATHOLICVS CHRISTIANI IMPERII PROPAGATOR. / The Emperor Lothair (opposite the portrait of Ferdinand); above this is the inscription: LOTHARVS IMP. PONTIFICIAE LIBERTATIS ASSERTOR. A figure of Pippin was formerly
between Ferdinand and Lothair but is no longer extant. These paintings, which are flanked by the grisaille herms with outstretched arms, are all the work of Giulio Romano; they were, however, completely repainted by Carlo Maratta in 1702/3.
There are two known sketches by Giulio Romano for the herm-figures (in Haarlem, Teyler Museum, A 65; Hartt 1958, I,
No. 12 and II, Fig. 21) and there is a nude study for the figure of Lothair (in Lille, Musée Wicar, No. 481; Hartt 1958, I, No.
10 and II, Fig. 22). On the other hand, the drawing A 64 in Haarlem, Teyler Museum (Hartt 1958, I, No. 11 and II, Fig. 20)
is so much superior that Shearman and Oberhuber are right in considering it the work of Raphael himself (see also Jaffé,
Burl. Mag. CIV, 1962, p. 233). Mention must also be made of the caryatids which support the vaulting: these are placed at
the corners of the wall by the entry and exit doors and are derived from Egyptian examples (Pevsner-Lang, ‘The Egyptian
Revival’, in: The Architectural Review, CXIX, 1956, p. 249, with illustrations). These, as well as the dado-paintings, date
from the first half of 1517.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) V, p. 524 (by Giulio Romano); Bellori, p. 102 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 198 f. (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 268 (r.); Gamba 1932, p. 94 f. (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (r.); Biermann 1957, p. 88 and p.
170, Note 10; Hartt 1958, p. 22 (r.); Freedberg I, p. 311 (by Giulio Romano); Oberhuber 1962, p. 71 (by Giulio Romano);
Dussler 1966, p. 96 (by Giulio Romano).
IV. SALA DI COSTANTINO
The Wall-Paintings
(a) Constantine Addressing His Troops (Adlocutio)
Plate 143
(b) The Battle of Constantine at the Milvian Bridge
Plate 144
(c) St. Peter Enthroned between Allegorical Figures of the Church and Eternity. – Pope Clement I (depicted with
the Features of Leo X) between Moderation and Kindliness (Comitas). These two sections flank Constantine’s Address.
(d) Pope Alexander I Enthroned, with the Allegorical Figures of Faith and Religion. - Pope Urban I En-throned,
with the Allegorical Figures of Justice and Charity. These two works flank the Battle of Constantine.
Vasari refers to the painted decorations of this room in three passages: firstly, in his Life of Raphael ‘Leone X ordinò che
egli (Raphael) cominciasse la sala
Page 86
Page 87
grande di sopra, dove sono le vittorie di Costantino; alla quale egli diede principio’; secondly, in his Life of Penni, in which
he discusses the works left unfinished at Raphael’s death, amongst which were the paintings in the ‘sala grande di palazzo’,
which were continued by Giulio Romano and Penni ‘ancor che le invenzioni e gli schizzi delle storie venissero in parte da
Raffaello’; thirdly, in his Life of Giulio Romano, in which he gives the most detailed account of the paintings in this room;
the important passages in this context are:
(a) ‘Giulio intanto e Gianfrancesco [Penni] diedero fine a molte cose di Raffaello ch’erano rimase imperfette, e
s’apparecchiavano a mettere in opera parte che’ cartoni che egli avea fatto per le pitture della sala grande del palazzo, nella
quale aveva Raffaello cominciato a dipignere quattro storie de’ fatti di Costantino imperatore’; (b) ‘ed aveva quando mori,
coperta una facciata di mistura per lavorarvi sopra a olio’; (c) ‘Era il partimento di questa sala, perchè era bassa, stato con
molto giudizio disegnato da Raffaello, il quale aveva messo ne’ canti di quella . . . alcune nicchie grandi . . . e dentro alle
nicchie sedevano alcuni papi in pontificale . . .’
Vasari’s reports, which were certainly based on information from Giulio Romano, and were thus compiled some decades
after the completion of the paintings, disagree with the information contained in letters from Sebastiano del Piombo to
Michelangelo; these begin a few days after Raphael’s death and cease at the end of 1520. Their value as documentary evidence can be seen from the fact that the Venetian artist, who himself tried to obtain the commission, records the progress of
the work on the individual sections and the pictorial programme as a whole. His letter of 12 April 1520 (Golzio, p. 125)
states that the pupils from Raphael’s workshop were intending to execute the paintings in oil, and on 3 July (Golzio, p. 129)
he mentions a trial figure painted by them using the oil technique. Sebastiano’s report of 6 September (Golzio, p. 131) is of
special importance, for he deals here with the subjects for the paintings: (a) Constantine’s vision assuring him of victory
(i.e. the scene depicting the Emperor’s address to his troops, with the secondary incident of the Cross in the sky; this is the
painting known as the ‘Adlocutio’); (b) the battle-scene. Neither of the two other scenes from the life of Constantine which
are described by Sebastiano ever reached execution. His letter also contains the information that Leo X intended to commission the paintings from the dead master’s workshop because Raphael’s pupils were in possession of his drawings and,
furthermore, that work was to commence with the battle-scene. According to Sebastiano’s report of 15 (?) October (Golzio,
p. 134 ff.), work was then under way, but the Pope was so little pleased with the trial figures that he had still not made any
definitive decision. Work continued none the less, as we learn from the note sent to Michelangelo by L. Sellaio on 15 December 1520 (Golzio, p. 140) in which the paintings are mentioned with unmitigated scorn. Between this date and the end
of 1521 such good progress was made that Castiglione states in a letter of 16 December 1521, sent to Mantua (Golzio, p.
145 f.), that more than half the room had already been completed. Leo X died shortly afterwards and as his successor, Hadrian VI, had no interest in art, completion was held up during the latter’s pontificate. The decoration was only finished as a
result of the assistance given by the next Pope, Clement VII (from 19 November 1523), a fact indicated in Castiglione’s letter of 5 September 1524 (Golzio, p. 151), and in the inscription in the room itself: CLEMENS VII. PONT. MAX. A. LEONE X.
COEPTVM CONSVMAVIT MDXX IIII, and by the imprese of the two Popes in the painted framing. The work undertaken during this second stage (after 1521) will not be discussed here. - The letters from Sebastiano, the testimony of Vasari and the
trustworthy remark in the first monograph on Raphael, written (before 1527) by Paolo Giovio, who mentions that the last
work undertaken by the great artist was the beginning of the Battle of Constantine in this room (Golzio, p. 191 ff.), make
the following conclusions appear likely:
(1) that Raphael determined the division of the walls of the room - i.e. he planned the arrangement of narrow compartments
depicting enthroned Popes at the sides and pictures of historical subjects in the centre of each wall (the pattern decided on
for the Battle of Constantine and the Adlocutio will also have served as a model for the arrangement of the paintings on the
other two walls, whose subjects had not been decided at the time); (2) that Raphael made sketches for the history-paintings
and for the pictures representing the individual Popes. Vasari mentions cartoons left behind at Raphael’s death (in his Life
of Giulio Romano), but this seems to be a very general statement; there can only have been, at most, a few auxiliary cartoons (such as those for the Transfiguration) and certainly no large scale cartoons, as these were normally worked out by
the workshop. The whole report must be considered of doubtful reliability, however, for elsewhere (in his Life of Penni)
Vasari mentions only ‘schizzi delle storie’ and Sebastiano also refers only to drawings (6 September 1520). If cartoons had
existed they would have been composed under Raphael’s supervision, and the formal and expressive character of the paintings would not have undergone so fundamental a change - even after his death - as is visible in the works which were executed. Had such designs existed, moreover, Leo X would very probably not have hesitated for several months before commissioning the workshop to carry out the scheme; (3) the fact that Raphael undertook the preparation of the wall (mistura)
for oil painting is alluded to repeatedly by Sebastiano (12 April, 3 July, 15 (?) October) and is also mentioned by Vasari
(Life of Giulio Romano); it is confirmed by the payment to Giuliano Leni (19 October 1519, Frey, JPK XXXI, add. section,
p. 29) for scaffolding in the ‘Sala grande’. It is not known whether Raphael took any part in the painting of the wall, for
neither the two historical scenes nor the four pictures representing the Popes show any sign of his hand.
The single figures representing Justice and Comity, the first to be painted on the wall, were used as a test of the oil technique (Vasari, Life of Giulio Romano, p. 527 f.; Sebastiano’s report of 3 July 1520), and date from the period after Raphael’s death, although the designs suggest his authorship. (Shearman, 1965, agrees with Gamba in considering the figure of
Justice to be of higher quality than that of Comity, and is inclined to ascribe it to Raphael. Cavalcaselle II, p. 364, attributes
Justice to Giulio Romano and thinks it inferior to Comity. Passavant mentioned a sketch for the figure of Justice (II, p. 527)
in the von Savigny Collection, Berlin; this was listed as a drawing by Penni, but is now lost.) Of Raphael’s original designs
only the following are known: (a) a seated female figure holding a staff in her right hand, her head slightly inclined in the
other direction; a dog is lying at her feet; this is probably an allegory of Fidelity, i.e. one of the Virtues placed on either side
of the enthroned Popes. (Wind’s interpretation of this figure as ‘Fortuna’ has been convincingly disproved by Shearman.)
The sketch is illustrated in: Oxford Report 1956, Plate XV and Festschrift W. Friedlaender, plate on p. 37, No. 16; (b)
Frankfurt, Staedel, No. 421. A drawing of the youthful caryatid above ‘Charity’ in the picture of Pope Urban I. This sheet is
of extraordinarily high quality and has been tentatively ascribed
Page 87
Page 88
to Raphael by Oberhuber (Berliner Jb. IV, 1962, p. 138 and Fig. 15), although he also suggests that it might be by Penni.
Shearman attributes the sketch, with reservations, to Giulio Romano (1965, p. 180, Note 103), which seems more likely. (c)
Of Raphael’s own sketches for the battle-picture we have only the two nude studies in Oxford, No. 569: a young man
crouching down with his right leg raised and another man, seen from the back, who is bending forwards; both were used in
the scene with the boat at the extreme right of the fresco. The attribution to Raphael is, as Parker (Oxford Cat. No. 569)
admits, not quite certain but comparison with similar figures such as the nude study of the watchman in Oxford, No. 559
(R.Z., VIII, No. 390) tends to favour the master rather than Giulio Romano, to whom the sheet is ascribed by Hartt (I, No.
38, II, Fig. 84). - The cartoon fragment of the warriors fighting on the bridge, in Milan, Ambrosiana (Hartt 1958, I, No. 36,
II, Fig. 81), and another of the soldier in the on-guard position with his sword in his right hand (Hartt 1958, I, No. 36, II,
Fig. 81) are certainly by Giulio Romano.
Although the number of surviving studies is so small, it can be assumed that the composition of the battlescene, which has
always excited great admiration, and was never surpassed in the whole of the Cinquecento, was founded on definitive concetti by Raphael. This is especially true of the group of horsemen in the centre with Constantine and of the group on the
left, which clearly reveals Raphael’s knowledge of Leonardo’s cartoon for the Battle of Anghiari in the Palazzo Vecchio in
Florence. Von Salis (p. 74 ff.) has given a detailed analysis of the decisive influences from the antique, especially from the
related motifs on the Arch of Constantine, and it is hardly conceivable that the task of selecting and arranging elements
from this material for the composition of the painting could have been carried out without Raphael himself. He played no
part in the execution, however, which is the work of Giulio Romano - and not only in the actual brushwork, but equally in
the stylistic conception; i.e. it displays his ‘anti-classical repertoire of forms’, which has been so brilliantly described by
Freedberg (I, p. 568 ff.) that this reference to his analysis is sufficient. This is also true of the scene of the Adlocutio, the
definitive version of which was created by Giulio Romano on the basis of sketches by Raphael. The only surviving preparatory drawing is that of a nude warrior with a lance (Uffizi, No. 542E; Hartt 1958, I, No. 38a, II, Fig. 83). An auxiliary cartoon for the head of the general behind Constantine is in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat. No. 72; Hartt 1958, I, No. 38b), for
which Penni served as a model. The execution of this mural was largely entrusted to Giulio’s assistant, Raffaellino dal
Colle, who was also responsible for large areas of the niches allotted to the Popes.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 369 (in part a.); p. 645 (invention in part a.); V, p. 527 ff. (by Giulio Romano) ; Bellori, p. 105
ff. (sketch by Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano); Passavant II, p. 365 ff. (sketch by Raphael; execution by Giulio
Romano and workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 447 f. (workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 361 ff. (workshop); Dollmayr 1895, p. 347 f. (by
Giulio Romano); Gronau 1923, p. 204 (sketch for the battle picture by Raphael); Gamba 1932, p. 115 ff. (invention by
Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p. 261 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1935, p. 443 (workshop);
Hartt 1944, p. 77 ff. (sketch by Giulio Romano, execution by Raffaellino dal Colle); Salis 1947, p. 75 ff. (in part a.); Hess
1947, p. 73 ff. (in part a.); Hartt 1949, p. 300 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Hess 1950, p. 130 ff.; Redig de Campos 1950, p. 65 f.
(by Giulio Romano); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 152-9 (invention by Raphael; executed by Giulio Romano with assistants);
Biermann 1957, p. 99 f. (sketch by Raphael); Hartt 1958, p. 42 ff. (by Giulio Romano with Raffaellino dal Colle); Freedberg, p. 568 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 40, 56, 58, 65 (workshop); Shearman 1965, p. 177 ff. (sketch by
Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano); Dussler 1966, p. 98 (invention by Raphael).
The Loggie
Plate 145
After the death of Bramante in 1514 Raphael continued building in the Vatican Palace. On the second floor of the Damasus
courtyard west wing he constructed an open loggia with 13 bays, each of which has a somewhat flattened vault containing
four small frescoes of scenes from the Old Testament (Arcades 1-12 in the arcade); only the last bay (No. 13) contains representations taken from the New Testament. The pilasters and walls are embellished with decorative paintings and stucco
reliefs. Since 1813 the arcades have been protected by glass. The architecture and decoration of the Loggie were commissioned by Pope Leo X, whose coat of arms can be seen in the cupola above the central arcade.
I
Plate 146
(a) God separating Light and Darkness
A drawing for the figure of the Creator, in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 64) was attributed by Fischel to Raphael, but in
my opinion it shows all the characteristics of Penni’s style and technique. Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 60, Note 141) shares this
opinion, and the work is classified under Penni’s name in the British Museum.
(b) God separating Land and Waters
(c) God creating the Sun and the Moon
(d) God creating the Animals
II
(a) The Creation of Eve
(b) The Fall
(c) The Expulsion of Adam and Eve
Popham and Freedberg attribute the preliminary drawing in Windsor (Popham Cat., No. 806) to Penni, whereas Oberhuber
(op. cit., p. 60) believes it to be by Raphael; the present author supports the latter opinion. (See Oberhuber’s observations
and his Figs. 52 and 53, which show the condition of the drawing before and after restoration).
Page 88
Page 89
(d) Adam and Eve toiling (badly damaged)
III
(a) The Building of the Ark
(b) The Deluge
(c) Noah leaving the Ark (badly damaged)
(d) Noah’s Sacrifice
IV
Plate 147
(a) Abraham and Melchizedech
(b) God’s Promise to Abraham (in poor condition)
(c) Abraham and the Angels
The composition is reminiscent of Cavallini’s fresco in San Paolo fuori le mura, as Wilpert (Die römischen Mosaiken . . .
1916, II, p. 684) and Hetzer (Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 1923, p. 204) have already pointed out (see also Stridbeck II,
p. 73 f. and Fig. 59). Raphael’s original sketch for the angel in the centre is in Lille, No. 439 (see Collection J. B. Wicar au
Musée de Lille. Cat. Exposition Dessins de Raphaël, 1961, No. 53 and Fig. XXVII). Fischel had intended to include this example in his corpus of Raphael’s drawings. In the Albertina there is a sketch for the composition by Penni (Cat. StixFröhlich III, No. 101 under Perino del Vaga - see Oberhuber, or. cit., p. 60, Note 141: Penni).
(d) The Flight of Lot
The sketch by Penni is in Muncie (Indiana), Ball State Teachers College Art Gallery (see London, Pouncey-Gere Cat., p.
51, and Oberhuber, or. cit., p. 60, Note 141).
V
Plate 148
(a) God appearing to Isaac
(b) Isaac and Rebecca spied upon by Abimelech
(c) Isaac blessing Jacob
(d) Isaac and Esau
The sketch by Penni is in Oxford (Parker, Cat. II, No. 574).
VI
Plate 149
(a) Jacob’s Ladder
Penni’s sketch for the recumbent figure of Jacob is in London, Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 65 (Oberhuber, or. cit., p. 60, Note
141: by Penni).
(b) Jacob and Rachel
The drawing for this composition in the Albertina, catalogued under Perino del Vaga (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 103), is by
Penni (Oberhuber, or. cit., p. 60, Note 141).
(c) Jacob wooing Rachel
(d) Jacob fleeing to Canaan
VII
Plate 150
(a) Joseph’s Dream
(b) Joseph sold by his Brethren
(c) Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife
Stridbeck (II, p. 74 and Fig. 61) finds this composition similar to that of Cavallini’s fresco formerly in San Paolo fuori le
mura. The present author considers a dependence as most unlikely.
(d) Pharaoh’s Dream
VIII
Plate 151
(a) The Finding of Moses
A sketch by Penni in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Dyce, No. 185), is illustrated in Reidinger, A Selection of
Drawings by Old Masters in the Museum Collections, London 1921, Fig. IV (Oberhuber, or. cit., p. 60, Note 141: by
Penni).
(b) The Burning Bush
The sketch in Florence, Uffizi, No. 1222E, attributed by Hartt to Giulio Romano (I, No. 20, II, Fig. 36), is by Penni (see
London, Pouncey-Gere Cat. under No. 67).
(c) The Crossing of the Red Sea
A sketch by Penni is in Paris, Louvre, No. 3850 (see Windsor, Popham Cat. under No. 848, and Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60,
Note 141).
Page 89
Page 90
(d) Moses striking the Rock
The drawing in Florence, Uffizi, No. 509E, is by Penni (see London, Pouncey-Cere Cat. under No. 66, and Oberhuber, op.
cit., p. 60, Note 141).
IX
Plate 152
(a) Moses receiving the Tablets of the Law
There is a preliminary drawing in Paris, Louvre, No. 3849. Oberhuber (p. 62, Note 143 and p. 68) attributes this and the
finished fresco to Raphael.
(b) The Golden Calf
The drawing for the composition preserved in Florence, Uffizi, No. 510E is correctly attributed to Penni by Freedberg (II, p.
414, Fig. 524) and by Pouncey-Cere (Cat., London, p. 51); Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 62 and Note 144) favours an attribution
to Giulio Romano.
(c) The Pillar of Smoke
(d) Moses displaying the Tablets of the Law
X
(a) The Crossing of the Jordan
(b) The Fall of Jericho
(c) Joshua arresting the Course of the Sun and the Moon
(d) The Allotment of the Promised Land
The sketch for the composition in Windsor (Popham 1948, Cat., No. 807) is not by Perino del Vaga as Freedberg (I, p. 415 and II, Fig.
525) assumes, but has all the characteristics of Penni’s pen-drawings (see London, Pouncey-Cere Cat. under No. 67).
XI
(a) Samuel anointing David
(b) David and Goliath
The studies in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 114), there attributed to Penni, are thought by Pouncey and
Cere to be possibly by Raphael.
(c) The Triumph of David
(d) David and Bathsheba
Penni’s sketch for this composition (in London, Pouncey-Cere Cat., No. 66) has a rounded top whereas the fresco is rectangular. The sketch can be regarded as reflecting an earlier stage of the composition and is not, therefore, a copy, as has usually been believed (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 144: by Penni).
XII
(a) The Anointing of Solomon
(b) The Judgement of Solomon
The drawing in Paris, Louvre, No. 3921, is by Penni (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141: by Penni).
(c) The Queen of Sheba
(d) The Building of the Temple
XIII
(a) The Adoration of the Shepherds
(b) The Adoration ofthe Kings
(c) The Baptism of Christ
The sketch for the composition in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 67), attributed by Hartt to Giulio Romano (1958, I, No.
21, II, Fig. 37), is by Penni; Freedberg (I, p. 415) ascribes it to Perino del Vaga.
(d) The Last Supper
The extent of Raphael’s participation in the execution of the paintings is given by Vasari in the following three passages:
(1) ed. Milanesi IV, p. 362 f.: ‘Raffaello fece i disegni degli ornamenti di stucchi e delle storie’; (2) ed. Milanesi V, p. 524:
‘Raffaello si servi sempre di lui [Giulio Romano] nell’opere di maggiore importanza e particolarmente nel lavorare le loggie papali. . . . Perché avendo esso Raffaello fatto i disegni dell’architettura, degli ornamenti e delle storie fece condurre a
Giulio molte di quelle pitture . . .’; (3) ed. Milanesi V, p. 594: ‘ed i festoni e le storie di sua mano (Perino del Vaga); le quali, oltre l’avanzar le altre, son dai disegni e schizzi che faceva lor Raffaello . . .’. In all these reports, as well as in an entry in
the diary of Marcantonio Michiel (27 December 1519) ‘vi erano pitture di gran precio et di gran gratia, el disegno delle
quali viene da Raffaello d’Urbino’ (Golzio, p. 104), Raphael’s controlling part in the planning of the works is clearly stressed.
The number of known sketches by Raphael for the Loggie - and thus the amount of direct proof of his control, is very small
- see sketches IIc, IXa (?) and XIb (?). Nevertheless, one can hardly doubt that he prepared a number of these concetti for his
assistants, for Penni’s extant ‘modelli’ are stamped to a greater or lesser extent, both in the composition and in the figure
style, with the marks of Raphael’s creative inspiration. The great artist did indeed give his assistants conPage 90
Page 91
siderable freedom in the execution of the pictures, as is attested by the figure types, the landscape, the addition of animals
and not least by the overall narrative tone, but the ideas for the majority of the compositions must have been his own. Any
attempt to define the extent of his participation in the painting of these works is a highly problematical undertaking, if only
because the extant preliminary sketch for la is by Penni, a circumstance which does not suggest that Raphael was personally involved in the execution of this compartment. Scholars from the time of Cavalcaselle to the present day, and especially F. Hartt, Freedberg and Camesasca, have also tried to establish more exactly how the work was divided between
Penni and Giulio Romano and have come across equal difficulties. This is because in many cases where individual scholars
have attributed paintings to Giulio Romano, preliminary drawings from the hand of Penni militate against such an assumption, while the claim that Penni’s sketches merely reproduce conceptions by Giulio Romano is no more than a hypothesis,
since they can equally well be regarded as the expression of Raphael’s own inspiration. Vasari’s (ed. Milanesi V, p. 524)
summary account of the scenes by Giulio Romano - mentioning Nos. Id, IIa, IIIa, IIId and VIIIa - provides no definite point
of departure for attributing other works in the series of this artist; for it can be proved that the preliminary drawing for No.
VIIIa is by Penni, who also made the sketches for the other three scenes in this compartment.
Perino del Vaga’s participation is stated by Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 594), whose Life of this artist seems to be generally
reliable, to have consisted of scenes Xa, b and c (presumably also d) and XIIIa, c and d. Hartt and Freedberg, on the other
hand, believe that Perino’s activities were considerably more extensive: the former attributes scenes IVc and d, Va and b,
VIb-d, VIIa and b, and VIIIc to him and also considers him responsible for Loggie Nos. X-XIII while the latter specifies
scenes VIb and d, VIIa and b and Loggie No. Xa-d, XIb and d and XIIIa-d. B. Davidson (Master Drawings I, 1963, No. 4, p.
20) also attributes Xd to this artist, and she has shown that he received payment for painting and stucco works in the years
1546-7. She assumes (ib., No. 3, p. 6) that he was engaged on restoration activities, which may well have entailed going
over many of the scenes in the last compartments (XIIIa, for example).
In my opinion there is a difference between Loggie IV-IX and the later scenes in Loggie X-XIII which extends to figure
types, composition and conception. The pictures in the earlier group show no close affinity to the later creations, but accord
with the surrounding compositions and in some cases (e.g. IVc and d, Va and b, VIb) they have a marked Raphaelesque
stamp, which is lacking in Perino’s scenes and which rules out an attribution to him. Oberhuber is opposed to such expansionist tendencies; he believes that Perino’s participation was limited to scenes Xc and d, XIb-d and XIIIa and refers to a
fresco by Perino, formerly in the Palazzo Baldassini in Rome, which has been detached and is now in Florence, Uffizi (Pl.
VIII in: R. U. Montini - R. Averini, Pallazo Baldassini e l’arte di Giovanni da Udine, Rome 1957). Scenes Xa and b, which
Vasari specified as works by Perino, are ascribed by Oberhuber to Polidoro, with reference to another wall-painting in the
Palazzo Baldassini (Montini, Pl. XI, Fig. 2 and Pl. XIII, Fig. 2). The fact that Polidoro was engaged to work on the Loggie
paintings is attested by Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 142), but without further details. Freedberg attributes pictures XIIc and d
to the Lombard artist and suggests that he assisted with scenes VIb and VIIId, but this theory is weakened by the fact that
there are no ascertainable analogies with undoubted early works by Polidoro. But Freedberg is right insofar as the landscapes in VIb and VIIId differ from those in the other scenes (as was also emphasized by Oberhuber - p. 68); fresco No. XIId
is in very bad condition. Also mentioned by Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 363) were the following artists: Vincenzo Tamagni
(see also ed. Milanesi IV, p. 490), Pellegrino da Modena (see also ed. Milanesi IV, p. 650) and the Bolognese painter Tommaso Vincidor. There is, however, no evidence relating with any degree of certainty to the part specifically played by these
men and it is probable that their collaboration with the workshop was of little significance. In view of our lack of stylistic
criteria Freedberg’s attempt to show that paintings VIId, XIa and XIIa and b are by Pellegrino remains unprovable, although
it must be admitted that these scenes are of considerably lower quality than most of the others. Filippini (1928-9, p. 318) attributes scenes XIIb and d to Tommaso Vincidor, but this hypothesis does not stand up to close investigation. - It is quite a
different matter when it comes to Giovanni da Udine, a painter whose participation was emphasized by Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 362, VI, p. 549 ff.). His inventiveness appears in the cupolas above the compartments and his powers as an ornamental artist and stucco worker never cease to surprise the onlooker with new motifs on the walls and pilasters. Vasari also
praised him as a painter of animals, so it can be assumed that he assisted in scenes such as Id, IIIc and d, VIb, c and d, and
VIIb, whereas attempts to discover his hand in some of the landscapes seem to be of much more doubtful validity. Whether
he was also responsible for the four trompe-l'œil architectural motifs in the corners of the cupola decorations, as has hitherto been supposed, is an open question. K. Lanckoronska (1935, p. 111 ff.) has attributed the invention to Peruzzi, who often employed this technique in his work (Sala delle Prospettive in the Villa Farnesina, about 1516), whereas it never appears in Giovanni da Udine’s productions outside the Loggia decorations. On the other hand, it must be remembered that
the plan was drawn up in a style dictated by Raphael himself, and this consideration makes it improbable that Peruzzi was
responsible for the solutions used in its invention, for, as Frommel has recently demonstrated (1961, p. 158) the construction of the loggia arcades is founded on a spatial and architectonic conception very different from that used by Peruzzi in
the gala delle Prospettive.
The work was carried out between the spring of 1518 and the early summer of 1519. In March 1518 Raphael received a
payment of 32 ducats for his work on the loggie (Golzio, p. 68) and on 4 May 1519 M. A. Michiel reported that they were
completed (Golzio, p. 98); this information is also contained in a letter of 16 June 1519 from Castiglione to Isabella d’Este
(Golzio, p. 100). On 11 June 1519, 25 ducats were paid to Raphael’s pupils (Golzio, p. 99) and this date can be considered
to mark the end of the painting operations.
Passavant II, p. 202 ff. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 447 ff. (some sketches by Raphael); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 405 ff. (by Giulio
Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 283 ff. (workshop); Gronau 1923, pp. 175-201 (workshop); Gamba 1932, p. 111 f. (workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (workshop); Ortolani, p. 63 (mainly by Perino); Fischel 1937, p. 23 ff. (angelic hierarchies);
Fischel 1948, I, pp. 153 ff., 367 (in part
Page 91
Page 92
by Raphael); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 128-53 (workshop); Hartt 1958, p. 28 ff.; Schöne 1958, p. 28 (invention by Raphael); Freedberg, pp. 327 ff., 412 ff. (workshop); Fischel 1962, p. 114 ff. (in part by Raphael); Brizio 1963, col. 242; Dussler
1966, p. 100 f. (in part by Raphael).
La Loggetta
This rectangular chamber, length 49 ft. 5½ ins. (15.74 m.), width 10 ft. 2½ ins. (3.12 m.) and height 13 ft. 6 ins. (4.64 m.),
adjoins the third Loggia. Until 1906, when the two partitions were removed, it was used as a prelate’s living quarters; later
it served as an ante-chamber for the State Secretariat. The first reference to the decoration of the loggetta was made by E.
Steinmann, but it was only during the restoration operations which commenced in the summer of 1943 that the significance
of the room was understood. Scholars are indebted to Redig de Campos for a thorough report on the restoration, which includes a detailed description of the chamber and convincing identification of the artists from Raphael’s workshop who collaborated on the decoration. The design of the room is by Raphael himself, and he probably also established the guidelines
followed by the decorators, but the invention and execution of the pictorial scheme were undertaken by the members of his
workshop - the same artists who carried out most of the painting of Raphael’s Loggias: Penni, Giulio Romano, Giovanni da
Udine and Perino del Vaga. To Penni, Redig de Campos attributes the four grisaille paintings of female statues in fictive
niches, which he regards as allegories of the Seasons (the figure of Winter has been destroyed), and also the scene depicting
Vulcan’s forge (in one of the lunettes). To Giulio Romano he ascribes the mythological stories of the ‘Contest between
Apollo and Marsyas’ and ‘Olympus pleading with Apollo’ (the third scene, the ‘Flaying of Marsyas’, is now lost), and also
probably the smaller ceiling pictures of dancing women. The figures of a seated ‘Woman Spinning’ and a ‘Woman with a
Distaff’, next to ‘Summer’, are given by Redig de Campos to Perino del Vaga, as well as two small scenes depicting pagan
rites, while the extensive decorations on the ceiling and walls, with their widely varying motifs, are by Giovanni da Udine.
- The entire decoration of this room was probably carried out in 1519, for the final passage in the letter from Marcantonio
Michiel to Antonio di Marsilio (4 May 1519; Golzio, p. 98) must refer to the decoration of the Loggetta; this runs:
‘raphaele di Urbino ha dipinto impalazo dil pontefice et una loggia longissima; et va drieto dipingendo due aItre loggie che
saranno cose bellissime . . .’.
Steinmann 1905-6, p. 241 (a.); Redig de Campos 1946, p. 31 ff. and Figs. 2-29 (workshop); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates
154-6 (workshop); Hartt 1958, p. 32 (in part by Giulio Romano); Dussler 1966, p. 102 (workshop).
Cardinal Bibbiena’s Bathroom (La Stuffetta)
This room, which measures 8 ft. 3 ins. (2.52 m.) along each wall, is situated on the third floor above Raphael’s Loggie. The
painted decoration is mentioned by Bembo in three letters to Bibbiena, dated 19 April, 6 May and 20 June 1516 (Golzio,
pp. 43 f., 45 and 48); the last of these dates may be considered to mark the completion of the project. The lunettes and the
grotesques on the ceiling are by Giovanni da Udine, who worked under the influence of the ‘Domus aurea’, but doubtless
under the direction of Raphael, and proved himself an outstanding decorator. The wall scenes, which are framed by aediculae, are largely taken from the Metamorphoses of Ovid and were executed by Penni and the young Giulio Romano. They
depict the following subjects: on the east wall: (1) the Birth of Erichthonius, (2) the Birth of Venus; on the south wall: (3)
Venus and Cupid riding on Dolphins, (4) Venus wounded by Cupid’s Dart; on the west wall: (5) Pan and Syrinx, (6) Venus
removing the thorn; on the north wall: (7) Venus and Adonis, (8) (destroyed). The dados on the individual wall sections are
decorated with Cupids, which are depicted driving teams of snakes, turtles, dolphins and snails. Presumably Raphael prepared cursory sketches for scenes 1-8, but the immediate preparatory drawings were the work of Penni and Giulio Romano
(as already suggested by Dollmayr). Giulio’s original drawing for scene No. 7 is preserved in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. StixFröhlich III, No. 80; Hartt I, No. 13 and II, Fig. 59) and as the painting of this composition reveals his hand, No. 5 also appears to be his work. Dollmayr also ascribes Nos. 3 and 6 to the same pupil, Nos. 2 and 4 to Penni and No. 1 to an assistant
of Penni’s. In London there is a redchalk offset of a drawing for No. 2 (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 282) which may derive
from a model by Raphael; engraving by Marco da Ravenna (B.XIV, pp. 243, 323); and also a sixteenth-century copy (Cat.,
No. 50) after the head of Venus in scene No. 3. The sketch for the composition of picture No. 4 in Windsor (Popham-Wilde
Cat., No. 810) is not a copy after the fresco but shows a technique in many ways very similar to that of Raphael, although it
should not be regarded as the master's own design. The example in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 82) is
based on the drawing in Windsor. The scene was engraved by A. Veneziano (B.XIV, pp. 218, 286) in 1516. The Hermitage
in Leningrad (Cat. 1909, p. 119, Nos. 47-51) owns enlarged fresco copies dating from the seventeenth century (formerly
Villa Mattei; later, Villa Mills, Rome). The most comprehensive illustrations of the details and the overall scheme are those
provided by F. Weege in: Th. Hofman, vol. IV, column 141 ff.
Page 92
Page 93
Passavant II, p. 277 (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 466 ff. (in part by Raphael); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 266 ff. (a.); Dollmayr 1890, p. 272 ff.
and 1895, p. 269 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); De Vito Battaglia 1926, p. 203 ff. (by Giovanni da Udine); Gamba
1932, p. 110 (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 442 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 107 (by Giulio Romano);
Hartt 1958, p. 31 f. (by Giulio Romano) ; Fischel 1962, p. 223; Brizio 1963, col. 242; Dussler 1966, p. 102 (by Penni and
Giulio Romano).
ROME, S. Maria della Pace, Cappella Chigi
Sibyls and Prophets
Plates 153-4
Commissioned by Agostino Chigi.
(a) The four Sibyls are situated above the arch of the chapel. The figure at the left, representing the Cumaean Sibyl (?),
holds in her raised right hand a parchment on which there is an inscription in Greek signifying: ‘The Resurrection of the
Dead’. The putto on her right leans on a tablet which also bears a Greek text; ‘It will come to the light’. The Sibyl turning
to the right (the Persica?) inscribes the following motto on a tablet held by a seated angel: ‘The destiny of Death shall overcome him’. At the crown of the arch a winged putto holding a torch crouches on a socle on which are the initials C.H. Next
comes a sitting angel bearing a tablet inscribed: ‘The heavens surround the vessel of the earth’ and the seated figure of the
Phrygian (?) Sibyl. Between the latter and the Sibyl of Tibur (?) - a figure looking towards the centre of the picture - is a
putto with a panel inscribed in Latin with the words: JAM NO (VA) PROGE (NIES) (Vergil, 4th Eclogue, line 7). The angel
hovering at the right of the picture (a pendant to the angel on the left) holds a parchment scroll with the inscription ‘I shall
open and resurrect’. Apart from the one phrase in Latin, the quotations are given in Greek and are taken from Lactantius,
Divinae Institutiones, Books 4 and 7. This has been shown by Ettlinger, who also shows that the names assigned to the Sibyls date from the eighteenth century, and that there is thus no guarantee of their correctness. In Oxford (Parker 1956, II, No.
562) there is an early sketch for the Phrygian (?) Sibyl and in London a study for the same figure (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No.
36) which is already close to the fresco. On the back of the latter drawing is a drapery study which was probably intended,
at an early stage, for the Cumana (?). Parker (1956, II, No. 562) considered the authenticity of the London drawing an open
question, but in view of the high quality (especially of the recto) there seems to be no reason to doubt that it is by Raphael.
The study of the model for the flying angel on the left and the arm of the Cumana (?) in Vienna, Albertina (Stix-Fröhlich,
Cat. III, No. 73) was formerly regarded by Fischel (1898, No. 279) as a copy, but he later declared it an original (in my
opinion correctly), and planned to include it in his corpus of the drawings (there is a copy in Oxford, Parker 1956, II, No.
646). The same is true of the crouching Sibyl facing left (the Sibyl of Tibur?) in Vienna, Albertina (Stix-Fröhlich, Cat. III,
No. 73) which Fischel has verbally accepted as by Raphael although he had formerly denied its authenticity (1898, No.
280).
(b) The four prophets are painted on either side of the central window of this bay, above the Sibyls. On the left is Hosea,
seated and holding a tablet inscribed: SVSCITABIT EVM DEVS POST BIDVVM DIE TERTIA (Hosea VI, 2; I Corinthians XV, 4).
This prophet is named HABACVC on the dado beneath, which is certainly incorrect (all the dado-inscriptions have been renewed). Jonah is standing beside him, while an angel hovers between them, pointing upwards. In the right half are David
(standing with a tablet bearing the Easter introit: RESURREXI ET ADHVC SVM TECVM) and the seated figure of Daniel; hovering between these two is an angel, whose arms point to the right. A pair of putti hovers, on either side of the arched top of
the window.
An original study for Daniel and the angels is in Florence, Uffizi (Fischel 1898, No. 278). A copy by Rubens in the Regteren Altena Collection, Amsterdam (Fischel 1948, II, Fig. 191, 1962, Fig. 202) depicts the entire Daniel-David group.
An early stage in Raphael’s planning of this work is illustrated in a drawing in Oxford (Parker 1956, II, No. 553V) which
went unrecognized until it was correctly identified and evaluated by Hirst (1961, p. 167 f. and Plate 28a). This shows the
right side of the wall, with the Daniel-David group at the top, the two Sibyls below, and the right half of the middle arch,
with the seated putto carrying two blazing torches at the crown. These hurriedly jotted-down pen sketches already show
many of the basic features of the later version, but some elements (such as the Sibyls group) proclaim more strongly that it
is a first draft, which clearly originated as a series of ideas following each other in quick succession. In the corner of a
sketch in Oxford (Parker 1958, II, No. 557V) Shearman discovered a variant in which the position of the two prophets is reversed - i.e. David is drawn standing on the right, while Daniel is seated on the left (Hirst, pl. 28b). The main drawings on
the latter sheet are two studies for the kneeling women in the fresco of the Expulsion of Heliodorus, which was executed
early in the year 1512; this concetto thus provides an important piece of evidence for the dating of the Chigi chapel commission (see below). Information going beyond that given by the cursory sketches in Oxford, No. 553V and No. 557V, is
provided by a copyist’s drawing (in Stockholm, National Museum) undoubtedly based on Raphael; attention was first
drawn to this sheet by Fischel (Fischel 1948, II, Fig. 193; 1962, Fig. 200). Here the entire group of figures is reproduced,
but the composition of the Prophets in relation to the position of the angels shows that this was an intermediate stage, and
the group of the Sibyls, which is much more simply composed than in the wall-painting, demonstrates the considerable distance from the finished
Page 93
Page 94
work. The copy in Stockholm is especially interesting, however, because it includes two tondi, one on either side of the altar niche, in the wall sections below the Sibyls. Fischel realized, moreover, that it was intended to decorate these with reliefs - for which sketches by Raphael are still preserved: these are ‘Christ in Limbo’: Uffizi, No. 1475r (Hartt 1958, I, No.
22, II, Fig. 35, as Giulio Romano) and ‘The Incredulity of St. Thomas’: Cambridge, formerly in the Dr. Louis Claree Collection (Fig. III, Warburg Journal XXIV, 1961, on p. 176, Pl. 32a). The composition of the laker drawing retains the frieze
style and Hirst’s view that it was the very first concetto of this subject should therefore be accepted. The later form, apparently based on a later sketch of the old composition, transposed into the tondo format, can be seen in the engraved reproduction in B. Picart’s Impostures innocentes, ou Recueil d’estampes d’après divers peintres illustres . . . , Amsterdam,
1734; moreover, the resulting bronze tondi have been identified in the abbey at Chiaravalle (G. Frizzoni, I disegni della
Reale Galleria degli Uffizi, III serie, fasc. 2) and except for a few variations (the standing patriarch on the right and the two
angels above, in ‘Christ in Limbo’) these works clearly correspond to Raphael’s models. There can be no doubt that the
completed tondi never reached their intended places and that the wall sections did not bear the relief decorations for which
provision had been made until, much later, marble rectangles containing putti were added in the baroque period. In view of
the stylistic similarity between these two bronzes and the bronze relief of ‘Christ and the Samaritan woman’ in S. Maria del
Popolo, Chigi Chapel, the artist responsible for them can only have been Lorenzetto, who, according to Vasari (ed.
Milanesi IV, p. 577), was closely connected with Raphael.
The wall paintings are in very poor condition. Even by the first quarter of the seventeenth century the frescoes had so deteriorated that restoration was needed, and this was repeated between 1656 and 1661. Further restoration, undertaken at the
beginning of the nineteenth century by the painter Palmaroli (see C. Fea, Prodromo delle scoperte della antichità di Roma,
1816, p. 43), was not very successful. Raphael originally provided both registers of this picture with a spatial background,
which is reproduced in Giovanni B. Volpato’s engravings of 1772 (see Fischel 1948, II, Figs. 194a, b and c, and diagram,
Note 192; 1962, Figs. 201a, band c, and p. 135); and it is likely that this was an effective part of the picture until the recent
renovation, but in the present state of the work the visible traces of this feature are very few. Despite the repeated activities
of restorers, scholars are generally agreed that the Sibyls were probably painted by Raphael himself, while no decision is
possible with regard to his participation in the execution of the Prophets because of the condition of this part of the fresco.
The attribution of the latter area is already beset with confusion as a result of the unclear report in Vasari, who at first (ed.
Milanesi, IV, p. 340) gives high praise to the execution of the upper part, but later (ed. Milanesi, IV p. 495) stresses, the assistance given by Timoteo Viti. There is no longer any means of deciding whether this statement is correct, but the evidence of the study mentioned above (for Daniel and the angels; in the Uffizi) leaves no doubt that Raphael was also responsible for the composition of the Prophet groups. Indirect support for this assumption is also provided by a squared pen
drawing with wash, which represents the left side of the picture, Hosea, the angel and Isaiah (formerly in the de Triqueti
Collection, Paris; see Fig. 12 in Burl. Mag. XX, 1912, p. 298 f.) and in its technique seems to bear all the marks of the Roman workshop, although it is not characteristic of Giulio Romano himself. The angel is still depicted nude in this sketch,
which served as a preparatory drawing for the cartoon, so it is probable that this work is a transcription of Raphael’s concetto.
Since Passavant scholars have almost unanimously dated these frescoes 1514, although Vasari dated them 1511-12 - i.e. before the final unveiling of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling (31 October 1512). The earlier date has lately found a
champion in Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 32 f.), who draws attention to important formal parallels with the Stanze. These correspondences can be found in the Stanza della Segnatura (Parnassus) and in the Stanza d’Eliodoro, where the left half of the
Expulsion of Heliodorus shows the same fresco style as the Sibyls. The presence of studies for the School of Athens and the
Heliodorus fresco (R.Z. VII, No. 311) on the recto of the sheet in Oxford, above Raphael’s sketches for the group of the
Sibyls and Prophets (Parker, Cat. II, No. 553V) and the Prophets alone, leaves hardly any doubt that the latest possible date
for the work is about 1512. Another important piece of evidence is also to be found in Raphael’s fresco of Isaiah in S.
Agostino, Rome; the style and expression in this figure, which was executed before the riddle of 1512, are much more emphatically products of the ‘maniera nuova’ stemming from Michelangelo’s influence than are the figures in the Pace
Chapel.
An altar-piece, which had been planned, had not been started when Agostino Chigi died; his will contains instructions regarding the completion of the chapel (Golzio, p. 102). Light is thrown on the project, however, by the contract signed by
Filippo Sergardi and Sebastiano del Piombo on 1 August 1530 (published by Hirst, 1961, p. 183 ff.), in which the Venetian
artist undertook to provide a picture of the ‘Resurrection of Christ’ for this chapel (see below). The theme chosen suggests
that this may have been a subject which Raphael had prepared - especially as there are a number of original drawings and
single studies by him, stylistically contemporary with the drawings for the Sibyls and Prophets, which indicate that he was
planning a Resurrection - a project for which there is no evidence from any other source. These sketches are as follows:
overall composition with rounded top: Bayonne, No. 132 (R.Z. VIII,
Page 94
Page 95
No. 387); composition showing the lower section only: Oxford (Parker Cat. II, No. 558 - R.Z. VIII, No. 388) ; Soldiers: Oxford (Parker Cat. II, No. 559r - R.Z. VIII, No. 389) and detail studies for soldiers in Chatsworth, No. 20 (R.Z. VIII, No. 394),
London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 34 - R.Z. VIII, No. 395), Oxford (Parker Cat. II, Nos. 559v and 560 - R.Z. VIII, Nos. 390,
391) and Windsor (Popham-Wilde Cat., Nos. 789 and 799r - R.Z. VIII, Nos. 392, 393). Although Fischel investigated this
group of drawings without relating them to the plan for the altar-piece in the Pace chapel (he assumed that a ‘Lamentation
for Christ’ had been intended for this position), Hirst was emphatic - and, I think, convincing - in connecting these sheets
with the projected altar-piece of the Resurrection. This supposition is confirmed not only by the texts of the scrolls beside
the Prophets and Sibyls (see above), which refer without exception to the Resurrection, but also by Raphael’s alreadymentioned tondi-sketches in Florence and Cambridge (‘Christ in Limbo’ and ‘Christ and St. Thomas’), which could only
have been connected thematically to a ‘resurrezione’. In the same year as Raphael died, Chigi’s executors commissioned
Sebastiano del Piombo to paint an altar-piece ‘sotto le fighure di Raffaello’ (Golzio, p. 140: report from L. Sellaio to
Michelangelo, 15 December 1520). However, nothing seems to have been done, for the requirements are only specified in
the 1530 contract, which states that the scene should represent the Resurrection of Christ ‘con tutte le sue Circumstantie
convenienti a tal pictura’. Here again, the picture never reached execution. Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 573) refers to it without naming the subject matter, but emphasizes the great care with which Sebastiano carried out the technical preparation of
the painting surface and his efforts ‘per passare Raffaello’. This mention led Hirst (p. 178 f.) to conclude that the artist must
already have worked out how best to approach the project, and that when he voiced his ambition of ‘surpassing’ Raphael he
was confident of receiving assistance in the shape of a drawing by Michelangelo. Although this idea may be correct, there
are some important objections. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that Buonarroti went so far in meeting Sebastiano’s demands as
to prepare for him a drawing of an overall composition, such as the ‘Risen Christ’ (Windsor, Popham-Wilde No. 428 Dussler No. 363). After all, the extent to which he assisted the other painter in the case of the picture representing Limbo of
1532 (see Milanesi, Les Correspondants de Michelange, p. 98) and the Pietà for Ubeda (Dussler 69, Fig. 95) had been very
small - in each case Sebastiano had to make do with partial designs, and most of the work was still left to him. Secondly, if
he was receiving such decisive help from Michelangelo, why did he not carry out what (from the 1530 contract) seems to
have been a highly profitable commission? Thirdly, there are important reasons for doubting the correctness of Vasari’s
statements (ed. Milanesi, V, p. 573). The whole subject had not appeared in the 1550 edition (as Hirst also noticed), and
hence the later passage may be tendentious. If true, the latter point would dispose of the suggestion that, as early as 1530,
Sebastiano was confident of assistance from Michelangelo ‘per passare Raffaello’. That the empty niche must have been
filled with a painting of the Madonna later in the sixteenth century becomes clear from the note made by a stucco-worker
when the chapel was restored in 1627 (see Hirst 1961, p. 170 f. and Notes 52-55). At that time Fabio Chigi arranged for the
restoration of his ancestor’s memorial, which had been completely forgotten, and also gave instructions for the inclusion of
a memorial tablet, which remains to this day: AVGVSTINVS. CHISIVS. SACELLVM. RAPH. VRBIN. PRAECIPVO. SIBYLLAR.
OPERE. EXORNATVM. D.D.M. AC. VIRGINI. MATRI. DICAVIT. A. MDXIX. This text has given rise to false conclusions among
scholars, who have taken 1519 as the date of completion or assumed a contemporary altar-piece depicting the Virgin; these
theories have, however, been completely refuted by Hirst’s investigations.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 341 (a.), p. 495 (by T. Viti;) Rumohr, pp. 558, 569 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 165 ff. (a.); Müntz
1882, p. 511 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 169 ff. (in part by Raphael); Gronau 1923, p. 111 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 85 f. (in part
by Raphael); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (in part by Raphael); Ortolani, p. 51 (in part by Raphael); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 178 ff.,
364 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 92-99 (in part by Raphael); Freedberg, p. 169 f. (a.); Hirst 1961, p. 161 ff. (in part by
Raphael); Ettlinger 1961, p. 322 f.; Oberhuber 1962, p. 32 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 133 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, cols. 234-5 (invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966, p. 104 f. (a.).
ROME, S. Maria del Popolo, Cappella Chigi
Plates 155-6
Agostino Chigi’s commission for a funerary chapel to be built and decorated by Raphael dated back to the period 1512-13.
The design of the building was undertaken by the master himself (see Geymüller 1870, p. 79 ff.), who was probably assisted by Antonio Sangallo the Younger (in Uffizi, Dis. arch. 169). Raphael was also responsible for the plan and sketches
for the mosaic pictures in the cupola; these were executed by the Venetian artist, Luigi de Pace, who completed them in
1516 and signed beneath the planet of Venus: LV. D. P. V. F. 1516 (Golzio, p. 41). The theme depicted in the cupola is a basically pagan conception of Heaven, which is ‘Christianized’ by the figures of God the Father in the central circle and of
the angels. The eight trapezoid sections represent the planetary divinities; arching above these half-length figures is the
curve of the zodiac, on which lie angels, each to control the movement of one sign. The seven planets are arranged in anticlockwise order around the circle. First comes the moon-goddess (Diana Luna), in the right transverse axis, followed by
Mercury and then, after a gap, by the
Page 95
Page 96
sphere of the fixed stars; the sequence continues with Venus, Apollo (Helios), Mars and Jupiter and ends with Saturn. This
scene was traditionally thought to represent the creation of the stars, an interpretation based on the scroll - then regarded as
genuine - which appears on the sphere of the fixed stars and bears the following words from Genesis 1, 14: FIANT
LVMINARIA IN FIRMAMENTO COELI. This interpretation has recently been challenged by Shearman, who points out that
such a theme is not suited to the idea of a funerary chapel. A much more probable theory is that proposed by Müntz and
Fischel, who had suggested that this work may have been partly inspired by the world of Dante (Paradiso II, 127; Convivio
II, Chapters 4 and 6). However the most convincing identification of the source seems to be that given by Shearman, who
draws attention to the statement in Plato’s Timaeus (42B) that the human soul originates in the region of the stars and returns to its home in the celestial spheres. It can hardly be disputed that these concepts were very common in Renaissance
thought and will have been familiar to Raphael and Agostino Chigi through the writings of Bembo and Castiglione; it is
well known that they had great influence on Michelangelo. The zodiac can also be fitted easily into this symbolic region
and represents a sign of the transition from the earthly world to immortality; moreover, later on the four Seasons were depicted in the pillar spandrels below, and the choice of this subject emphasizes the idea that the works are concerned with a
symbolic representation of Time. If this interpretation of the star-pictures is, as I believe, entirely correct, then the gesture
of the Almighty in the crown of the cupola also becomes comprehensible: He is shown receiving the souls returning into
eternity. In his excellent study Shearman has shown that the gesture of the Almighty is also connected, both in form and in
content, with the altar-piece of the Assumption, which was originally intended for this chapel. The following sketches from
Raphael’s own hand are still preserved: in Oxford a drawing for God the Father (Parker 1956, II, No. 566) and another for
the angel above the planet Jupiter (Parker 1956, II, No. 567); in Lille, Musée Wicar, a drawing for Mars and the angel
(Fischel, Versuch, No. 285). No documents exist which might give information about the altar-piece planned for this
chapel, although the hypothesis that Raphael himself had planned an Assumption (proposed with all due caution by Shearman) may be considered largely justified. The sketches in Oxford (R.Z. VIII, No. 380) and Stockholm (R.Z. VIII, No. 381)
contain plans for an ‘Assumption’ and a further stage in Raphael’s development of this theme appears in the engraving of
the ‘Master of the Dice’ (B.XIV, No. 7). This theory receives support from the drawing of the Assumption in Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet, by Sebastiano del Piombo, which dates from between 1525 and 1530 (J. Q. van Regteren-Altena in:
Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum III, 1955, IV, p. 75) and is probably connected with the contract agreed in 1526 between
Chigi’s executor, Filippo Sergardi, and the Venetian artist. This is especially convincing, firstly, because Sebastiano is not
known to have received any other commission for an Assumption of the Virgin, and secondly, because the general disposition of the Amsterdam ‘modello’ agrees in its proportions with those of the altar wall (as convincingly proved by Shearman, 1961, p. 149). Under the terms of the contract of 1 August 1530 (given in Hirst, 1961, p. 183 ff.), which superseded
the 1526 agreement, Sebastiano undertook to provide his picture of the Birth of the Virgin as an altar-piece. A drawing for
this work, which is still in situ, had already been provided for inspection. This choice of subject matter is surprising, for it
lacks connection with Raphael’s whole conception of the chapel, especially with the figure of God the Father in the cupola.
It was, however, a decision not completely at variance with the founder’s wishes, for in his Will he had specified an annual
memorial mass to be celebrated on the feast of the Birth of the Virgin, 8 September (see Shearman, p. 148, Note 88). When
Agostino Chigi died in 1520, the decoration of the chapel had not been finished, and his widow made a contract with Luigi
de Pace on 31 May 1520 (Golzio, p. 126 ff.) in which provision was made for further mosaic pictures (eight between the
windows and four tondi in the pendentives ‘secondo li disegni’ in her possession); but the document does not disclose
whether these drawings were left by Raphael at his death. The mosaics were not carried out and instead frescoes were provided by F. Salviati shortly after 1550.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 368 f., 578, V, p. 571 (a.); Passavant II, p. 446 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 514 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II,
p. 271 ff. (a.); D. Gnoli 1889, p. 317 ff. (a.); Fischel 1920, p. 18 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 152 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 108 (a.);
Berenson 1932, p. 483 (invention by Raphael); Ortolani, p. 62 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 149 ff., 365 (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 24
f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 314 ff. (a.); Shearman 1961, p. 129 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 111 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 237 (a.);
Dussler 1966, p. 106 (a.).
ROME, Villa Farnesina, ground floor loggia
The fable of Cupid and Psyche (Apuleius, Metamorphoses, IV, 28 - VI, 24)
Plate 158
A. THE TWO CEILING PAINTINGS
Plates 159-60
(a) The Council of the Gods
A red chalk drawing for the composition of the right section, in Paris, F. Lugt Collection, is certainly based on a concetto
by Raphael, but both technique and formal motifs (the draperies) are far more characteristic of Giulio Romano than of his
teacher. The work is ascribed to Raphael by Jaffé (Burl. Mag. CIV, 1962, p. 233 and Fig. 7) and Oberhuber (Wiener
Page 96
Page 97
Jb., 1962, p. 52), while Shearman (1964, p. 94 f.) tends to favour Giulio Romano. Another sketch which may be based on
Raphael is that depicting the group on the left - Mercury handing the cup of nectar to Psyche, in Chatsworth, No. 55
(Fischel 1898, No. 262: copy; 1948, Fig. 212: study by a pupil); the present version, however, is probably a workshop production. Shearman (1964, p. 96) ascribes this drawing to Penni, an opinion with which the present author concurs.
(b) The Wedding of Cupid and Psyche
Three of the existing drawings for this work are certainly by Raphael - the three female nudes in Windsor, Royal Library
(Popham, Cat., No. 804); Fischel (1898, No. 266) presumed that the sheet was merely worked over by Raphael later, but
Freedberg (p. 326) and Shearman (1964, p. 90) agree with an unqualified attribution to the master. There are two other
sketches which must have originally been drawn by Raphael in stylus and then executed in red chalk by Giulio Romano:
(1) the kneeling figure of Ganymede, in Paris, Louvre, No. 4019 (Hartt 1958, I, No. 24 and II, Fig. 42); (2) the seated female nude seen from the back (Omphale) and the female figure sitting at table beside Jupiter, in Haarlem, Teyler-Museum,
A62 (Hartt 1958, I, No. 25 and II, Fig. 43). In Le Dessin italien dans les collections hollandaises, 1962, No. 70, Lugt claims
that the latter sheet is entirely by Raphael. An excellent drawing for the figure of Apollo, on the left side of the fresco, is in
Vienna, Albertina; it is ascribed by the Stix-Fröhlich catalogue (III, No. 113) to Penni, and was formerly ascribed to Penni
by Fischel also (1898, No. 263), but he seems to have changed his opinion, for later he planned to include the sketch in his
corpus of the drawings. In my opinion this drawing is undoubtedly based on Raphael, but can hardly be claimed to be autograph; Shearman (1964, p. 96) also attributes the execution to Penni.
Red chalk studies for the group of the three Hours scattering flowers are preserved in Chantilly, Musée Condé. They were
ascribed to Penni by Dollmayr and by Fischel (1898, No. 265), but the latter subsequently intended to include them in his
corpus of Raphael’s drawings and must therefore have considered them originals. Shearman attributes this sheet to Penni.
In my opinion the drawing is better than the execution in the fresco. - Shearman (1964, p. 91 f. and Fig. 92) has recently
drawn attention to a pen drawing in Vienna (Albertina, Garnitur No. 2 W 122) incorrectly inscribed at a later date with the
name of Timoteo Viti. Very little attention had previously been paid to this sheet, which shows Cupid and Psyche in the
same recumbent position as in the right section of the fresco. It cannot be a copy after the fresco, however, as both figures
are depicted full-length - i.e. their legs and feet are not concealed - and the drapery worn by Psyche in the fresco is missing.
Shearman leaves it an open question to whether this sketch is by Raphael or at least a repetition of a Raphael original. The
present author considers the latter supposition very probable. - According to Shearman (1964, p. 96, Note 157) there is an
unpublished original drawing for the figure of Pluto in Berlin, Print Room.
B. THE FOURTEEN LUNETTE PAINTINGS
Plates 161-70
(a) Cupid with an Eagle; (b) Cupid with a Trident; (c) Two Amoretti with Cerberus; (d) Cupid armed; (e) Cupid
with a Griffin; (f) Cupid with Mercury’s Staff; (g) Cupid with a Panther; (h) Cupid with a Pan-Pipe; (i) Cupid with
a Helmet and Shield; (k) Cupid with a Helmet and Shield, victorious over Mars; (l) Two Amoretti with the Club of
Hercules, accompanied by a Harpy; (m) Cupid with a Crocodile; (n) Cupid between a Lion and a Seahorse; (o) Cupid with a Bow and Quiver.
A sheet in Dresden, Print Room, ascribed by Hartt (1958, I, Nos. 26 and 27) to Giulio Romano, shows, on the recto, the
putto flying towards the centre, and on the verso the flying Cupid with the bow, both executed in red chalk over stylus.
Hartt was apparently following Fischel’s former attribution (1898, No. 276); but Fischel subsequently changed his mind
and intended to include these drawings in volume IX of his corpus. Shearman (1964, p. 89 f.) correctly agrees with
Fischel’s opinion.
C. THE TEN TRIANGULAR PAINTINGS
(a) Venus pointing out Psyche to Cupid. Sketch by Giulio Romano in Paris, Louvre, No. 4017 (Hartt 1958, I, No. 23a and
II, Fig. 44); (b) Cupid and the Three Graces; (c) Venus asking Advice of Juno and Ceres; (d) Venus ascending to
Olympus; (e) Venus entreating Jupiter; (f) Mercury flying through the Heavens. A pen drawing in Cologne, WallrafRichartz-Museum (Venturi, L’Arte XXIV, 1921, p. 23, Fig. 4), is considered an original sketch by Oberhuber (Berliner Jb.
IV, 1962, p. 124, Note 27) and may possibly be a quick concetto by the master. Fischel thought (1898, No. 275) that it was
a copy after the fresco, as did von Seidlitz (Rep. f. Kstw. XIII, 1890, p. 115). Shearman (1964, p. 90) ascribes the work to
Raphael and gives convincing reasons in favour of this attribution. (g) Psyche carried by Three Amoretti; (h) Psyche
presenting the Vase to Venus. There is a pen sketch by Raphael for this scene (in Oxford; Parker 1956, II, No. 655, Fig.
23; Dollmayr 1895, p. 310), and this suggests that he may have prepared similar designs for the other compositions. The
Oxford sketch is also mentioned in Fischel’s text (1948, I, p. 138, 1962, p. 138). Parker questioned the authenticity of this
drawing and suggested that it was more probably a sketch after the fresco; however this theory is contradicted by the
greatly different conception of Psyche, and from the point of view of technique there is no reason to doubt
Page 97
Page 98
that it is by Raphael. The authenticity of this work is also supported by Gere (Burl. Mag. XCIX, 1957, p. 162), Oberhuber
(Berliner Jb. IV, 1962, p. 124, Note 27) and Shearman (1964, p. 81 f.). Oberhuber correctly points out the formal affinity
with the pen sketches for the fresco in S. Maria della Pace in Rome (Parker 1956, II, No. 553; Warburg Journal XXIV,
1961, Fig. 28a); these are on the back of the sheet, and have only recently been discovered. Fischel and Hartt (1958, I, No.
23, and II, Fig. 39) ascribe the sketch in Paris (Louvre, No. 3875) to Giulio Romano and consider that the figure of Psyche
was later corrected by Raphael. The present author, however, agrees with Freedberg (p. 326), who attributes the sketch to
Raphael himself. Psyche’s head and the gesture of her left hand are also found in a drawing in Haarlem (Le Dessin italien
dans les collections hollandaises, 1962, No. 69), which certainly derives from Raphael, although Jaffé (Burl. Mag. CIV,
1962, p. 233) can hardly be correct in considering it original. (i) Jupiter fondling Cupid; a drawing in Paris (Louvre, No.
1120), which Fischel (1898, No. 272) considered a copy after the fresco, is regarded by Oberhuber (Wiener Jb. XXII, 1962,
p. 52, Note 108) and Shearman (1964, p. 89) as original; the poor condition of the sheet at first prevents this theory from
carrying conviction, but the marvellous figure of a nude girl on the verso (in my opinion certainly by Raphael) leaves
hardly any doubt as to the attribution of the recto. (k) Mercury carrying Psyche to Olympus.
The question which edition of Apuleius Raphael used has been the subject of a detailed and comprehensive investigation by
Shearman (1964, pp. 62 f., 71 ff.); he concludes that the main source was certainly the version published by Filippo Beroaldo the Elder (first ed. Bologna 1500; seventh ed. Venice 1516), which was the most widely read of contemporary editions. This theory is especially probable in view of the close acquaintance between the editor and his nephew Filippo il
Giovane and Agostino Chigi. Certain scenes depicted in the frescoes, however, come neither from this source nor from the
Italian edition by M. Boiardo (first published 1478, and later in 1508 and 1516), and it is likely that, as Shearman assumes,
the artist had access to other editions, such as the poem ‘La Psyche’ by Niccolò da Correggio, which also passed through
several editions (the first being published in 1507); other scenes may have been based on manuscript versions, which were
also current. The persistent influence of classical models has been pointed out by Gruyer (Raphaël et l'Antiquité, Paris
1864), by P. G. Hübner (1909, p. 279 ff.), and by Fischel (1948, I, p. 191 f.; 1962, p. 143 f.); most recently, important additions were brought to this field by A. von Salis (p. 174 f.; who refers to the Belvedere torso, p. 199 ff.) and by I. Bergström
(1957, p. 45 ff.). The investigations undertaken by Salis leave no doubt that Raphael was familiar with the ceiling paintings
in the Domus aurea in Rome, and that he must also have known mural paintings similar in style to those in Pompeii. The
similarities of the figure motifs in ‘Mercury’s flight to Olympus with Psyche’ (C, k) to Le pitture antiche d’Ercolano, V,
1779, pp. 31, 159 (which are conclusively shown by Bergström) clearly indicate that, although he in no way sacrified his
personal sense of style, Raphael was nevertheless receptive to the stimulus of models of this sort. The above-mentioned
edition of the Pitture also contains examples of amoretti with attributes of various divinities, similar to those here depicted
in the lunettes (B); see vol III, pp. 171 and 175; IV, p. 101; V, pp. 35 and 45. It is remarkable that the connection between
the genii in the lunettes and a Roman tripod in the Museum Maffeianum, Verona (Fig. 30, p. 203 in Salis’ book) was noticed by Goethe (Tagebücher und Briefe Goethes aus Italien, Vol. 2, Weimar 1886, p. 73). This subject has also been discussed by Shearman (1964, p. 79 ff.).
The scenes of the original story take place in the heavens and on earth, but it has long been noticed that Raphael depicts
only the former, while the terrestrial episodes between Cupid and Psyche are missing. There is no lack of indications that
scenes showing Psyche’s life on earth were planned as well, for the gesture with which Venus points down at Psyche (in
the first spandrel - C, a) and Cupid’s similar pointing movement (in the next compartment - C, b) imply a continuation in a
lower register. Steinmann and von Salis have therefore suggested that the walls nearer the ground, at present decorated with
garlands, were originally intended to bear these scenes, and Hermanin thought that these were actually executed and were
then ruined by later damage. There is no proof for these hypotheses, nor for Hoogewerff’s reconstruction, according to
which a series of tapestries based on sketches by Raphael was planned. Moreover, the considerable distance between the
walls and the ceiling spandrels makes it inconceivable that the scenes could have been placed here. It is therefore more
probable that the continuation of the Psyche story was intended for the lunettes below the spandrels, especially as Sebastiano del Piombo had already painted a series of mythological paintings in the corresponding location in the Sala Galatea
(1511-12) and Giulio Romano also chose the lunette sections above the ceiling spandrels for his cycle of related subjects in
the Sala di Psiche of the Palazzo del Tè, after the death of Raphael. In his detailed examination of the whole problem
Shearman has also managed to find, among the available mass of drawings, a few sheets of concetti which indicate that
Raphael was planning the continuation of the Psyche series. Among these are a red chalk design (offset) in Chatsworth, No.
53: ‘Psyche carried by the breezes’ (Shearman 1964, pp. 67 f. and 88, and Fig. 71; the sheet is attributed by Popham, Old
Master Drawings from Chatsworth, Arts Council, London 1949, No. 17, to Raphael; but by Gere, Burl. Mag. XCI, 1949, p.
73, to Giulio Romano. In my opinion it is certainly the work of Raphael. This design clearly shows a line marking out a
semiPage 98
Page 99
circular edge for the composition) and the marvellous drawing of a nude girl in left profile, holding a round mirror in her
hands (Paris, Louvre, No. 1120, verso; Shearman, pp. 68 f., 88 f. and Fig. 73), very probably the same who appears as
maidservant in Bonasone’s engraving, ‘Psyche at her toilet’ (Shearman 1964, Fig. 69). The kneeling woman, looking upwards with her left arm raised (Chatsworth, No. 56; Shearman 1964, pp. 70 and 90 and Fig. 72) may have been intended as
a study for the same scene. The above evidence is perfectly acceptable, but in my opinion any addition must be considered
hypothetical, and I shall therefore not comment on Shearman’s detailed attempt at reconstructing the decoration of the
Loggia (1964, p. 70 f.). - Perino del Vaga painted a cycle representing the earthly scenes of the Psyche table (in the Castel
Sant’Angelo, Rome), but it is not possible to trace these pictures back to lost designs by Raphael (as Steinmann had suggested) any more than this is possible in the case of the long series of engravings by the ‘Master of the Dice’ (B.XV, Nos.
39-70), which date from the 1530s. The compositions are completely lacking in the spirit of Raphael’s work, and their style
reveals nothing more than the general character of Raphael’s followers.
Work on the frescoes was probably carried out mainly during the year 1518. They were finished at the end of December,
for in his letter to Michelangelo at the beginning of 1519 (Golzio, p. 65) L. Sellaio describes them as ‘chosa vituperosa’.
This criticism reflects the opinion of Sebastiano del Piombo and is certainly exaggerated, although a similar verdict was
later given by Vasari (ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 377 f.) in less extreme terms. It is safe to assume that Raphael himself was responsible for planning the overall arrangement and very probably also provided his assistance with more than just the surviving single sketches. The execution was by Giulio Romano, Penni and Giovanni da Udine, and sometimes shows signs of
a certain haste, which is especially noticeable in the painting of the two ceiling pictures (A, a and b), almost unanimously
attributed to Penni. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that repeated later restorations, especially that undertaken by
Maratta, have had a detrimental effect on the colouring, which even the careful renovation undertaken by Sertorio in 1930
could not make good. - The extent to which the various members of the workshop were involved is as follows: Penni,
whose work was based on Raphael’s composition and on partial preparatory drawings by the latter and by Giulio Romano,
was almost certainly responsible for the two ceiling paintings mentioned above (Vasari, ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 644) and for
Nos. 5, 6 and 10 of the triangular scenes, while the remainder of these (Nos. 1-4 and 7-9) clearly show the hand of Giulio
Romano. A very large majority of the amoretti in the lunettes were painted by members of Giulio Romano’s workshop, and
in some cases (for example, Nos. 6, 9 and 12) Penni or his assistants must also have participated in the execution. Vasari
(ed. Milanesi, VI, p. 558) claims that many of these decorative figures were the work of Giovanni da Udine, but there are no
convincing examples which can be used for comparison in support of this attribution, whereas the figures accord perfectly
with the products of the Roman studio. The Udine artist, was, however, entirely responsible for the invention and execution
of the ornamental borders of leaves and fruit, which is the least damaged decoration in the room.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 366 ff. (a.), 377, 644 (with assistance from Penni); V, p. 524 (by Giulio Romano); VI, p. 558
(with assistance from Giovanni da Udine); Bellori pp. 126 ff., 153 f. (in part by Raphael, Giulio Romano and Penni); Passavant II, p. 342 ff. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 519 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 334 ff. (workshop);
Dollmayr 1895, p. 310 ff. (workshop); Förster 1895, p. 215 ff.; Gronau 1923, pp. 158-64 (workshop); Gamba 1932, p. 109
(workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (chiefly by Giulio Romano); Ortolani, p. 62 f. (workshop); Hartt 1944, p. 67 ff. (workshop); v. Salis 1947, p. 190 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 186, 364 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 108-27 (workshop);
Bergstrom, 1957, p. 45 ff. (a.); Saxl 1957, I, p. 189 ff.; Hartt 1958, p. 32 f. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gerlini 1959, p.
25 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Freedberg, p. 322 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Fischel 1962, p. 137 ff. (workshop); Hoogewerff 1963, p. 5 ff.; Shearman 1964, p. 59 ff. (in part by Raphael, Giulio Romano and Penni); Brizio 1963,
col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966, p. 108 f. (in part by Raphael, Giulio Romano and Penni).
ROME, Villa Farnesina, garden room
The Triumph of Galatea
Plate 157
The subject is based on stanza 118 of the poem Giostra by Politian, which appeared in 1476 and was itself derived from the
‘Cyclopes’ of Philostratus (Imagines II, 18). Lodovico Dolce was already aware of this source, for he refers to the ‘poesia
del Policiano’ in his Dialogo della pittura, Venice 1557 (see ed. Barocchi in Trattati d’arte del Cinquecento, Bari 1960, I,
p. 192). There can be no doubt that the principal figure in the centre represents the nymph Galatea, and is a companion to
the nearby figure of Polyphemus (painted in 1511 by Sebastiano del Piombo); she cannot have been intended as a Venus,
for Raphael himself refers to the scene as ‘Galatea’ in his letter of thanks to Castiglione in 1514 (Golzio, p. 30 f.). Vasari
made an error when discussing this work, for whereas he correctly mentions ‘una Galatea sopra un carro’ in his Life of
Raphael (IV, p. 340), he describes the picture as ‘una Galatea rapita dagli Dii marini’ in his account of the life of Peruzzi
(IV, p. 594). But the latter interpretation, although supported by H.
Page 99
Page 100
Grimm (Fünfzehn Essays, 3. Folge, Berlin 1882, p. 380 ff.), who referred to Apuleius’ Metamorphoses IV, 31, was conclusively refuted by Förster (Repertorium für Kstw. XXIII, 1900, p. 1 ff.), and no longer requires discussion, especially since
the subject matter has been explained by A. von Salis (1947, p. 210 ff.). - Opinions differ as to when the fresco was
painted, the only point which is certain being that it was completed by the spring of 1514, for Raphael alludes to it in the
above-mentioned letter to Castiglione. However, a goddess, described as Venus, is already mentioned in E. Gallo: De Viridario Augustini Chigi . . . libellus, Rome 1511, and Blosio Palladio in Suburbanum Augustini Ghisii opus, 1512, and as this
cannot refer to any other painting in the room one must assume that a sketch, at least, was already available in 1511 and
that the execution may have been carried out in 1512. The stylistic character of the work is also in accordance with this dating, which is supported by the close parallels with the frescoes in the Stanza d’Eliodoro (especially the Expulsion of Heliodorus); moreover, one must not overlook the connection with the figures of the Three Virtues in the Stanza della Segnatura
and with the Sibyls in S. Maria della Pace, Rome, which should also be dated about 1512. There has been a tendency,
started by Cavalcaselle, to ascribe part of the execution to Giulio Romano. In my opinion, however, his participation at this
date (1512) seems out of the question, and the fresco is entirely the work of Raphael, while the slightly weaker parts are
due to later restorations. - The frame of pilasters and the tapestry-like dado are discordant additions made by the painter G.
P. Marescotti in 1650.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 340, 594 (a.); Bellori, p. 171 (a.); Rumohr, p. 578 (a.); Passavant II, p. 172 ff. (a.); Gruyer
1862, p. 423 ff.; Müntz 1882, p. 509 ff. (a.); Grimm 1882, p. 380 ff.; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 166 ff. (assistance from Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 253 (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 116 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 70 (in part by Raphael); Berenson 1932, p. 483
(a.); Ortolani, p. 42 f. (a.); Cecchelli 1942, p. 246 ff.; Hetzer 1947, p. 61 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 186 f., 364 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 60-4 (in part by Raphael); Saxl 1957, I, p. 189 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 37, under Fig. 94 (a.); Gerlini
1959, p. 18 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 168 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 140 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 234 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 110 (a.).
URBINO, Casa di Raffaello
Seated Madonna with Sleeping Child
This heavily repainted fresco was formerly always regarded as the work of Giovanni Santi, but Longhi has recently attributed it to the youthful Raphael, referring specifically to the influence of Piero della Francesca. The picture is badly damaged, and I see no features which might justify its inclusion in Raphael’s juvenilia.
Müntz, p. 10 f. (by Giovanni Santi); Berenson 1932, p. 511 (by Giovanni Santi); Ragghianti 1947, p. 5 (a.); Longhi, Paragone 1955, May, p. 14 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 1 (a.); Volpe 1962, p. 82 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 222 (a.); Dussler
1966, p. 110 (Giovanni Santi); Wagner 1969, p. 95 (r.).
Page 100
Page 101
TAPESTRIES
ROME, Pinacoteca Vaticana
Ten tapestries with scenes from the lives of the apostles Peter (four scenes) and Paul (six scenes).
PROVENANCE: Sistine Chapel, Rome.
I. FOUR SCENES FROM THE LIFE OF ST. PETER
(a) The Miraculous Draught of Fishes (Luke V, 1-10)
Plates 171-2
Width (without side-border): 440 cm.
Lower border: Giovanni de’ Medici’s Entry into Rome (1513) and Homage paid to Leo X.
Side-border (right): originally, the Four Elements; now the Seasons (originally woven to form the left border).
Position: on the right of the altar wall.
Cartoon: London, Victoria and Albert Museum.
On the use of early Christian models for this scene, see Stridbeck II, p. 53 ff. The two men drawing in nets in the second
boat were inspired by Michelangelo’s ‘Cascina’ cartoon.
A drawing in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 85), by Giulio Romano (Hartt 1958, I, No. 3), shows on the
recto some of the disciples in the left foreground, followed by a group of women on the shore, while the main action, the
draught of fishes, appears on a smaller scale in the background and also on the verso. The sheet cannot have served as a
modello for the cartoon, as Hartt assumes; this is shown by the emphasis placed on the subsidiary scenery on the recto and
by the pentimenti in the sketch on the verso, which are based on a model by Raphael. The latter features were first pointed
out by Shearman (1959, p. 457), who described the drawings as ‘scherzi’ by Giulio Romano, and additional arguments
against the suggestion that the recto was a modello have been adduced by Oberhuber (Wiener Jb. XXII, 1962, p. 29). Freedberg attributed the recto to Penni (p. 274), but comparison with the compositional study of the main scene (Windsor; Popham-Wilde Cat., No. 808, as Perino del Vaga) shows that this theory is untenable; the latter sheet is by Penni (PounceyGere Cat., London, under No. 68: by Penni; similarly, Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 32 and Fig. 26) and was the modello for the
cartoon.
Passavant II, pp. 236 f., 253; Müntz 1882, p. 486 f.; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 219 ff.; Dollmayr 1895, p. 260; Gronau 1923, pp. 142,
143; Oppé 1944, p. 88; Wölfflin 1947, p. 91 f.; Hetzer 1947, pp. 51, 55; Wölfflin 1948, p. 122 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 259
f., 365; Pope-Hennessy, Plates 1, 12-15; Camesasca 1956, I, Plates 152, 154A; White-Shearman 1958, pp. 205 f., 307 f.,
318; Schöne 1958, p. 26; Freedberg, pp. 277, 282, 283; Fischel 1962, p. 193 f.; Brizio 1963, col. 239; Dussler 1966, p. 111.
(b) Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (John XXI, 1-17; Matthew XVI, 16 ff.).
Plates 173-4
Width (without side border): 560 cm.
Lower border: The sack of the Medici Palace and the flight of Giovanni de’ Medici disguised as a monk (1494).
Right side border: The Fates.
Position: first tapestry on the right wall.
Stridbeck (II, p. 60 ff.) has shown that this scene is based not only on the Gospel of St. John, but also on Matthew XVI, 15
ff., and this explains the double gesture with which Christ confers both the power of the keys and the office of chief shepherd.
This conferring of double authority on St. Peter is not found in Perugino’s fresco in the Sistine Chapel nor in Pollaiuolo’s
ciborium relief for Sixtus IV, formerly in old St. Peter’s, where the grouping of apostles will hardly have remained unnoticed by Raphael. But it is known from Early Christian art and from Roman inscriptions (in the vestibule of old St. Peter’s,
second half of the fifth century); and a miniature in the ‘Prayers and Meditations of St. Anselm’ (twelfth-century English,
in the Verdun library; Stridbeck, Fig. 28) shows the survival of the older tradition. Raphael was also decisively influenced
by Donatello’s relief of the Ascension and the Donation of the Keys to St. Peter (London, Victoria and Albert Museum).
The modello for the overall composition, in Paris, Louvre, No. 3863, is attributed by Hartt (1958, I, No. 2) to Giulio
Romano and by Freedberg (p. 274) to Penni, but as Shearman has pointed out (1959, p. 457), the drawing is of such high
quality that it should rather be credited to Raphael himself (an opinion supported by Oberhuber, Wiener Jb. XXII, 1962, p.
29 f. and Fig. 25). Similarly, the fragment of an offset composition in Windsor (Popham-Wilde Cat., No. 802), which Hartt
regards (1958, I, No. 1a) as a work by Giulio Romano with subsequent corrections by Raphael, is also by the master, as is
the single study for Christ in Paris, Louvre, No. 3854, which Hartt claims (I, No. 1) for Giulio Romano. Shearman, Freedberg and Oberhuber all agree that both these drawings are autograph, while Fischel supported the authenticity of the latter
study.
Passavant II, pp. 238 ff., 253; Müntz 1882, p. 486 f.; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 230 ff.; Dollmayr 1895, pp. 255, 257 f., 260; Gronau
1923, pp. 136, 137; Oppé 1944, p. 85 f.; Hetzer 1947, pp. 51, 55; Wölfflin 1947, p. 92 f.; Wölfflin 1948, p. 124 f.; Fischel
1948, I, pp. 257 ff., 365; Pope-Hennessy, Plates 2, 16, 17; Camesasca 1956, I, Plates 153, 154B; White-Shearman 1958, p.
308 ff.; Schöne 1958, p. 26; Freedberg, p. 273 ff.; Fischel 1962, p. 190 ff.; Brizio 1963, col. 239; Dussler 1966, pp. 111-12.
Page 101
Page 102
(c) The Healing of the Lame Man (Acts III, 1-7)
Plates 175-6
Lower border: Giovanni de’ Medici’s journey to the north (1499 and 1500); the two lions flanking laurel branches with the
Medici arms; the battle of Ravenna (1512).
Right pilaster border: originally the four Seasons, now the four Elements.
Position: second tapestry on the right wall.
An earlier representation of the healing of the cripple is found in Pollaiuolo’s ciborium relief for Sixtus IV, which was formerly in old St. Peter’s. The motif of Peter holding the lame man’s hand at the wrist is anticipated in this work, but the gesture of blessing on the part of the miracle-worker is missing. Stridbeck (II, p. 67) traces the latter motif back to the influence of early Christian examples.
Passavant II, pp. 241 f., 254; Müntz 1882, p. 488 f.; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 235 ff.; Gronau 1923, pp. 138, 139; Oppé 1944, p. 86 f.;
Wölfflin 1947, p. 93 f.; Wölfflin, 1948, p. 125 f.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 192, 263 f., 365; Pope-Hennessy, Plates 3, 18-21;
Camesasca 1956, I, Plates 155A, B; White-Shearman 1958, p. 310 ff.; Schöne 1958, p. 26 f.; Freedberg, p. 277 f.; Fischel
1962, p. 196 f.; Dussler 1966, p. 112.
(d) The Death of Ananias (Acts V, 3-5)
Plates 177-8
Lower border: Gonfaloniere Soderini’s address to the Florentines; two lions, seated, supporting a yoke; on either side are
herms with laurel garlands; Giovanni de’ Medici’s entry into Florence (1512).
Right pilaster border: originally the four seasons, but these are now replaced by the Theological Virtues.
Position: third tapestry on the right wall.
Of the connections with the early Christian tradition mentioned by Stridbeck (II, p. 67 f.), his reference to judgement scenes
is certainly relevant. In the relief of the Judgement of Solomon on the silver casket in San Nazaro, Milan (Stridbeck, Fig.
40), the dramatic representation foreshadows the punishment of Ananias.
Passavant II, pp. 242 ff., 254; Müntz 1882, p. 489; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 238 f.; Dollmayr 1895, p. 258; Gronau 1923, pp. 140, 141;
Oppé 1944, p. 87 f.; Hetzer 1947, p. 51; Wölfflin 1947, p. 94; Wölfflin, 1948, p. 126 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 197, 261 f.,
365; Pope-Hennessy, Plates 4, 22, 23; Camesasca 1956, I, Plates 157A, B; White-Shearman 1958, p. 312 ff.; Schöne 1958,
p. 27; Freedberg, p. 273 ff.; Fischel 1962, p. 195 f.; Brizio 1963, col. 239; Dussler 1966, p. 112.
II. SIX SCENES FROM THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL
(a) The Stoning of St. Stephen (Acts VII, 55-9)
Plate 179
Lower borders: the entry of Giovanni de’ Medici into Florence as papal legate (1492).
Left pilaster border: the trivium.
Position: on the left side of the altar.
Cartoon: lost.
This tapestry is 40 cm. shorter in height and in depth than its counterpart on the right side of the altar, the Miraculous
Draught of Fishes. It is incomplete on the left; the original composition is shown in the version in the Mantua series
(White-Shearman, Fig. 17). The representation of God the Father with Christ in the heavenly region can hardly be faithful
to the cartoon and clearly shows the shortcomings of the tapestry-weaver (see White-Shearman, p. 315).
Stridbeck suggests (II, p. 70) that this composition was probably inspired by Cavallini’s former mural in S. Paolo fuori le
mura (Fig. 44), but this theory is not convincing.
There is a drawing for the composition in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 76), which Dollmayr ascribed to
Penni (1895, p. 261 f.). Oberhuber (Wiener Jb. XXII, 1962, p. 29 and Fig. 24) considers this an early original sketch by
Raphael, and Shearman has now (orally) stated his agreement with this view, although he formerly declared it to be a workshop product (1958, p. 315, Note 58). Filippini’s assumption (1928-9, p. 317 f.) that the cartoon was not executed until after Raphael’s death, and was possibly undertaken jointly by Giulio Romano and Vincidor seems to be without justification;
the tapestry was among those exhibited in the Sistine Chapel on 27 December 1519 (Golzio, p. 104).
Passavant II, p. 240 f.; Müntz 1882, p. 489; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 234 f.; Dollmayr 1895, p. 261 ff.; Gronau 1923, p. 150; Oppé
1944, p. 88; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 264 f., 266; Camesasca 1956, I, Plate 160A; White-Shearman 1958, pp. 200, 314 f.; Schöne
1958, p. 27; Freedberg, p. 273 ff.; Fischel 1962, p. 198; Dussler 1966, p. 112.
(b) The Conversion of St. Paul (Acts IX, 3-7)
Plate 180
Lower border: Saul persecuting of the Christians (Acts VIII, 1, 3).
Left pilaster border: the quadrivium.
In 1528 this tapestry was in the collection of Zuanantonio Venier in Venice (M. A. Michiel, ed. Frizzoni, p. 185). White and
Shearman assume that it was among the works given to Julius III by Connétable Anne de Montmorency in 1553.
Position: the first tapestry on the left wall.
The cartoon for this work is mentioned by M. A. Michiel (Golzio, p. 172), but no longer exists. In 1521 it was in the possession of Cardinal Domenico
Page 102
Page 103
Grimani in Venice and it is listed in 1526 in the inventory of his heir Marino Grimani (Paschini, Rend. Pont. Acc. V, 1928,
p. 182). The present tapestry is 35 cm. narrower than the original version, which is reproduced in the Mantua example
(White-Shearman, Fig. 18). There the figure of the groom who restrains the bolting horse with an upwards swing of his left
hand is seen in its entirety. For the subject matter compare this work with the fresco by Signorelli in Loreto, Basilica di
Santa Casa, Sagrestia della Cura, which was well known to Raphael from early days. He may also have been acquainted
with Leonardo’s sketches for the Battle of Anghiari. The question of how far the work was influenced by classical models
(the Alexander mosaic) is discussed by W. Pinder, Antike Kampfmotive in neurer Kunst (Münchener Jahrhuch d. bild. Kst.,
N.F. V, 1928, p. 371). In Chatsworth there is a study in red chalk showing the two horsemen (the horse is only shown in
outline) and the figure rushing forwards with a lance. By comparison with the tapestry the composition is reversed (Fischel
1898, No. 352: by Penni). Crowe and Cavalcaselle (II, p. 225 f.) considered this drawing a Raphael original, and declared
the version in Haarlem, Teyler Museum, to be a copy. In the catalogue Le Dessin italien dans les collections hollandaises
1962, No. 65, however, the latter work is described as authentic and the example in Chatsworth is not mentioned. In my
opinion the drawing in the Devonshire Collection (Old Master Drawings from Chatsworth, 1962-3, No. 60 and Fig. 60) is
considerably superior to the sheet in Haarlem.
Passavant II, p. 244 f.; Müntz 1882, p. 489; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 224 ff.; Dollmayr 1895, pp. 264, 266; Gronau 1923, p. 144; Oppé
1944, p. 91; Fischel 1948, I, p. 265; Camesasca 1956, I, Plate 160A; White-Shearman 1958, pp. 216, 315 ff.; Schöne 1958,
p. 27; Freedberg, p. 273 ff.; Fischel 1962, p. 197 f.; Dussler 1966, p. 113.
(c) The Blinding of the Magician Elymas (Acts XIII,6-12)
Plates 181-2
At the base of the throne is the inscription: L. SERGIVS PAVLLVS / ASIAE PROCOS / CHRISTIANAM FIDEM AMPLECTITVR /
SAVLI PREDICATIONE.
Left pilaster border: originally the four Cardinal Virtues, here replaced by representations of the four Times of the Day.
Position: second tapestry on the left wall.
Cartoon: London, Victoria and Albert Museum. The niche ornament visible beside Paul in the tapestry is missing in the
cartoon.
This scene was not included in Cavallini’s former cycle in San Paolo fuori le mura, but Stridbeck is hardly mistaken in
supposing (II, p. 70) that the work was inspired by another episode (of which no closer description can be given than that it
represented Paul before the judge; Fig. 46).
Only the upper half of the tapestry remains in this example; the rest was destroyed in the Sack of Rome in 1527. The complete version can be seen in the example in Mantua (White-Shearman, Fig. 2). The original modello for the entire composition (in Windsor; Popham-Wilde Cat., No. 803) is ascribed by Hartt (1958, I, No. 5) to Giulio Romano - an opinion which
the present author considers incorrect. The engraving by A. Veneziano (B.XIV, No. 48), dated 1516, is probably based on a
drawing related to that in Windsor.
Passavant II, pp. 245 f., 254 f.; Müntz 1882, p. 489 f.; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 241 f.; Dollmayr 1895, p. 258; Gronau 1923, p. 145
(Cartoon); Hetzer 1932, p. 61, Note 12; Oppé 1944, p. 91; Wölfflin 1947, p. 95 f.; Wölfflin 1948, p. 128; Fischel 1948, I, p.
266 ff.; Pope-Hennessy, Plates 5, 24; Camesasca 1956, I, Plates 156A, B (Mantua version); White-Shearman 1958, p. 317
f.; Schöne 1958, p. 27; Freedberg, p. 273 ff.; Fischel 1962, p. 199 f.; Dussler 1966, p. 113.
(d) The Sacrifice at Lystra (Acts XIV, 8-18)
Plates 183-4
Lower border: The apostles in Antioch, and Paul with Silas (Acts XV, 22 ff.). Paul expounding the sacred writings in the
synagogue (Acts XIII, 13-16); between the two scenes are a pair of lions with the ring and feathers of the Medici, between
two herm pilasters and a pair of yokes.
Left pilaster border: originally, the Theological Virtues; these have now been replaced by the three Cardinal Virtues.
Position: third tapestry on the left wall.
The scene depicting a miraculous healing in Cavallini’s cycle is suggested by Stridbeck (II, p. 70 f. and Fig. 48) as a possible source of inspiration for a Lystra tapestry, but this shows no definite points for comparison apart from the elaborate architectural background. The scene on the right showing the sacrifice (Fig. 49 in Stridbeck) is comparable with the antique
relief on the cup from Boscoreale (although it should not be overlooked that other classical works provided Raphael with a
very large number of possible models). Cavalcaselle was an early scholar who drew attention to a number of such exemplars (p. 243 f.).
The original silverpoint drawing showing Paul in the same direction as the cartoon is in Chatsworth (Old Master Drawings
from Chatsworth, 1962-3, No. 58 with Fig. 58).
Passavant II, pp. 246 ff., 255; Müntz 1882, p. 490 ff.; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 243 ff.; Dollmayr 1895, p. 258; Gronau 1923, pp. 146,
147; Oppé 1944, p. 90 f.; Wölfflin 1947, p. 96; Wölfflin 1948, p. 128 f.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 268 ff., 365; Pope-Hennessy,
Plates 6, 25-7; Camesasca 1956, I, Plates 158A, B; White-Shearman 1958, p. 318 ff.; Freedberg, p. 273 ff.; Fischel 1962, p.
200 ff.; Dussler 1966, pp. 113-14.
(e) St. Paul in Prison (Acts XVI, 23-6)
Plate 187
Width: 130 cm.
Page 103
Page 104
Lower border: Paul’s vision summoning him to Macedonia (Acts XVI, 9).
Position: a narrow strip on the left wall next to the screen (after the ‘Sacrifice at Lystra’).
Cartoon: lost.
Cavalcaselle ascribed the invention and execution of the composition to Giulio Romano, as does Camesasca, who is clearly
thinking of the latter’s subsequent work in the Sala dei Giganti (Palazzo del Tè, Mantua) when he suggests that the figure
of the earth-giant represents a conception foreign to Raphael’s spirit. In my opinion, there is no doubt that the concetto was
in fact by Raphael. But I believe that the single study of the earth-demon mentioned by Fischel is a copy.
This sketch - formerly in the Grahl Collection, Düsseldorf - shows the figure in the same direction as the tapestry, but even
Fischel himself has expressed doubts about it. There is another study for this figure in New York, J. Scholz Collection
(Hamburg Exhibition 1963; Cat. No. 128, Fig. 24), a silverpoint drawing whose quality is such that it should be regarded as
a Raphael original.
Cavalcaselle and E. Loewy (Archivio stor. dell’Arte 1896, II, p. 241 ff.) established at an early date that the figure-motif derives from the antique type of Uranus. Raphael was very probably acquainted with the relief fragment of the ‘Judgement of
Paris’ in the Villa Medici, Rome (de Azevedo, Villa Medici 1951, No. 54); he cannot have taken the Bassus sarcophagus in
Rome as his model, for this was not discovered until 1595. The figure also appears as a thematic element beneath Jupiter’s
throne in Marc Antonio’s engraving of the ‘Judgement of Paris’, which is based on a Raphael model. - The extent to which
the master’s primary sketch was transformed by the hand of Giulio Romano can be seen from the fragmentary cartoon for
the earth-demon in the Earl of Wemyss Collection, Gosford House (published in G. Kauffmann, Fig. 5). This ‘modello’
(width: 117 cm.) already contains all the features of the tapestry, even including the shattering of the frame by the left hand.
Passavant II, p. 250; Müntz 1882, p. 492; Cr.-Cav. II, 249 f.; Dollmayr 1895, p. 266; Gronau 1923, p. 150; Oppé 1944, p.
90; Fischel 1948, I, p. 266; Camesasca 1956, I, p. 92; White-Shearman 1958, p. 320; Schöne 1958, p. 27; Freedberg, p. 273
ff.; Fischel 1962, p. 198 f.; Georg Kauffmann 1964, p. 123 ff.; Dussler 1966, p. 114.
(f) St. Paul Preaching in Athens (Acts XVII, 16-34)
Plates 185-6
Lower border: Paul as a carpet-weaver; Paul being mocked by the Jews in Corinth; the conversion of the Corinthians; Paul
in court before Gallio (Acts XVIII, 1-3; 5-6; 12-16).
Left pilaster border: Hercules with the vault of heaven.
Position: outside the choir screen on the left wall. Cartoon: London, Victoria and Albert Museum.
In 1528 this tapestry was in the collection of the Venetian Zuanantonio Venier (M. A. Michiel, ed. Frizzoni, p. 185); it was
returned to the Vatican by Connétable Anne de Montmorency in 1553. To commemorate this event the latter’s coat of arms
was added on the partially new (left) border, and the following inscription underneath: Urbe capta partem aulaeorum a
praedonib. distractorum conquisitam Annae Mommorancius Gallicae Militiae praef. resarciendam atq. Julio III P.M. restituendam curavit. The lower border, like that at the side, is to be dated from about 1550. White and Shearman (p. 218)
point out a fundamental difference from the composition of the other dado-borders and leave the question of whether these
four scenes are still connected with the original version. The present author considers that their invention is quite unrelated
to the work as it was originally conceived, for the series of pictures is clearly divided up into sections (thus greatly weakening its frieze-like aspect), while the artificial impression of depth and the different proportions of the figures both betray a
character very unlike that of the Roman workshop. The design of this border is probably due to a French or Flemish artist.
Depictions of this scene are rare, but there is an example in Cavallini’s frescoes in San Paolo fuori le mura (Stridbeck, p. 71
f. and Fig. 54). There a flight of steps leads up to the podium, on which the apostle stands preaching. He occupies the centre
of the picture, and his audience is grouped around him in a wide curve to either side. The Areopagus is surrounded by a
great variety of architectural forms, among them, on the left, a round temple with a cupola. Raphael did not adopt the centralized arrangement of Cavallini’s mural, but modelled his design on a classical relief, in which the Emperor, accompanied
by his retinue, speaks to the people from a raised podium on the left (see Stridbeck, Fig. 55). Stridbeck compares the apostle’s towering figure and orator’s gesture in the tapestry with the figure of St. Paul in the thirteenth-century fresco on the
triumphal arch in San Paolo fuori le mura, where the preaching apostle is depicted in the Orans position derived from early
Christian art (Stridbeck, Fig. 53). P. Künzle has shown (1964) that the stout man with a squint, immediately behind St.
Paul, is a portrait of Raphael’s friend Tommaso Inghirami, the Librarian of the Vatican.
The overall composition, in the same direction as in the cartoon, is preserved in the sketch design in Florence, Uffizi, No.
1217E, which I consider the work of Penni (Freedberg II, Fig. 354). Another sketch in Florence, Uffizi, No. 540E (Fischel
1898, No. 255: school of Andrea del Sarto), which has attracted little attention and which shows Paul preaching with five
listeners, has recently been pronounced an original Raphael study by Oberhuber (Wiener Jb. XXII, 1962, p. 62 and Fig. 56);
if it is not by Raphael, it is certainly based on a modello by him. A modello by Giulio Romano, in Paris, Louvre, is No.
3884 (Hartt I, No. 4).
Page 104
Page 105
Passavant II, pp. 248 ff., 255; Müntz 1882, p. 492 ff.; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 246 f.; Dollmayr 1895, p. 259; Gronau 1923, pp. 148,
149; Oppé 1944, p. 90; Wölfflin 1947, p. 95; Wölfflin 1948, p. 129; Fischel 1948, I, p. 271 f.; Pope-Hennessy, Plates 7, 2830; Camesasca 1956, I, Plates 159A, B; White-Shearman 1958, pp. 207 f., 320 f., 322; Schöne 1958, p. 27; Freedberg, p.
273 ff.; Fischel 1962, p. 202 f.; Brizio 1963, col. 239; Dussler 1966, pp. 114-15.
This series of tapestries was intended to decorate the Sistine Chapel, and Raphael probably received the commission from
Leo X in 1513-14; he received his first payment on 16 June 1515 (Golzio, p. 38) for supplying the cartoons (see below),
and the balance on 20 December 1516 (Golzio, p. 51). We can thus assume that work on the cartoons started no later than
the beginning of the year 1515. The designs were sent to Pieter van Aelst’s tapestry workshop in Brussels, and the Delivery
of the Keys was finished at the end of July 1517 (Golzio, p. 370 f.); on 18 June 1518 the Fleming P. Loroi, received a remittance of 1000 ducats for unspecified tapestries (Golzio, p. 70). In July 1519, the Venetian ambassador reported the arrival
of three tapestries for the Pope (Golzio, p. 101) and on 26 December 1519, seven of the tapestries hung on the walls of the
Sistine Chapel when the Pope celebrated Mass (diary of Paris de Grassis, Golzio, p. 103). According to the description
given by M. A. Michiel on 27 December 1519 (Golzio, p. 103 f.) these were: The Miraculous Draught of Fishes - Christ
giving the Keys to St. Peter - The Healing of the Lame Man - The Martyrdom of St. Stephen - The Conversion of Paul - The
Blinding of Elymas - and The Sacrifice at Lystra. The three remaining tapestries, The Death of Ananias - Paul in Prison and Paul preaching in Athens, must have been in Rome by 1521, for all ten appear in Leo X’s inventory of 1-17 December
1521 (White-Shearman, p. 196, Note 10). A note in the margin of the inventory indicates that seven of the tapestries were
then in pawn. During the Sack of Rome the tapestries were still in the Sistine Chapel during the requiem Mass for the Connétable de Bourbon (Sanuto, Diarii, Vol. XLII, p. 700, XLV, p. 418; Pastor IV/1, p. 502 and Note 2). Shortly afterwards they
were looted and sold by the troops of Charles V. Two tapestries (The Conversion of Paul, and Paul preaching in Athens)
found their way into the collection of Zuanantonio Venier of Venice (Anon. Morelliano, ed. Frizzoni, p. 185 f.), and a few
others were at Lyons in 1530 and were offered to Clement VII for 160 ducats (Gaye, Carteggio II, p. 222). Two letters sent
to the Pope in September 1543 (White-Shearman, p. 215 f.) show that the majority of the tapestries were then in the possession of dealers in Naples. In 1544 the Vatican inventory again lists seven which must by then have been repurchased. When
Connétable Anne de Montmorency returned two tapestries (The Miraculous Draught of Fishes and Paul preaching in Athens) to Julius III in 1553, the Vatican was once again in possession of the whole series. They were stolen once more in
1798, and were acquired by dealers, first in Genoa and then in Paris; in 1808 they were recovered by the Vatican.
Of the cartoons supplied by Raphael to Van Aelst’s tapestry workshop in Brussels, seven are preserved in London, Victoria
and Albert Museum. The other three, for the Martyrdom of St. Stephen, Paul in Prison and the Conversion of Paul, are lost;
the last-mentioned was in the collection of Cardinal Grimani in Venice in 1521. Apart from the Conversion of Paul, the
cartoons remained in the Brussels workshop; later they appeared in Genoa, where they were bought in 1623 for the Royal
Collection by Charles, Prince of Wales. (The assumption that Rubens was an intermediary in the sale is based on the dedication to King George I in Dorigny’s edition of engravings, 1719; but although this source is very late, it seems possible
that the great artist was involved in the transaction, even if only in an indirect manner.) The cartoons, which were painted in
glue distemper on paper and in places still show the charcoal underdrawing, are no longer in very good condition; already
in van Aelst’s workshop they were cut into strips in order to facilitate the weaving and were not reconstituted until 1699,
when they were mounted on canvas. As they had become badly worn during the weaving operations, they were subjected to
repeated restoration, in which some heads were overpainted and the colouring was changed (e.g. in the ‘Miraculous
Draught of Fishes’). Taken as a whole, however, the cartoons give a complete impression of Raphael’s style at the time
when he was at the height of his powers. They were recently cleaned with great care and have now been re-hung in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Vasari reports on the extent to which Raphael himself was involved in the execution of the cartoons (ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 369 f. ): ‘Raffaello fece in propria forma e grandezza di tutti, di sua mano i cartoni coloriti’; in a
later passage (IV, p. 644), he amplified this by referring to Penni’s participation: ‘fu di grande aiuto a Raffaello a dipignere
gran parte de’ cartoni dei panni d’arazzo . . . e particolarmente le fregiature’. Dollmayr, Berenson and Wölfflin interpreted
the latter statement to mean that the cartoons were executed by Penni alone, but more recent scholars (Fischel, PopeHennessy and Freedberg) rightly emphasize that Raphael himself was responsible for a considerable proportion of the
work. His involvement can be seen not only in the general colour scheme, but also in a large number of marvellous heroic
heads, in the realistic figures of Ananias and Elymas and of the cripples in the Healing of the Lame Man and also in the
beautiful figure of the mother holding an infant in the same cartoon.
However, a considerable part of the work was carried out by Penni and Giulio Romano; that is evident from the large number of figures portrayed, whose detail execution, like that of the architectural elements and the landscape, Raphael left to
members of his workshop. Whether Giovanni da Udine was also involved cannot be ascertained. As the compositional arrangement is largely determined by the place for
Page 105
Page 106
which each tapestry was destined, I think it inconceivable that the invention could have lacked the personal directive of
Raphael. The frieze scenes depicting Giovanni de’ Medici and those stories of St. Paul for which no cartoons have survived
will have been the sole work of Penni. Dollmayr’s and Wickhoff’s attribution to B. Peruzzi is untenable. The ornamental
elements of the side borders, on the other hand, suggest that here the Udine artist was employed. Nevertheless it must be
assumed that even these elements are based on preparatory work by Raphael, as he must have been responsible for the significant arrangement and harmonizing of the subject matter. Stylistic considerations suggest that the order in which the cartoons were painted does not correspond with the division into cycles by subject-matter. Attempts to provide approximate
chronological groupings have been made by both Shearman and Oberhuber. They postulate an earlier group consisting of
Christ giving the Keys to Peter, The Death of Ananias and Paul preaching in Athens, and a later group consisting of The
Healing of the Lame Man, The Blinding of Elymas, The Sacrifice in Lystra, The Stoning of St. Stephen, The Conversion of
Paul and Paul in Prison. Apart from small differences, the two scholars disagree only on the position of the Miraculous
Draught of Fishes, which Shearman regards as fairly early, while Oberhuber includes it in the later series. In my opinion,
this cartoon can only belong in the early group.
THE SUBJECTS
Stridbeck has proved in individual cases that the older tradition (works in old St. Peter’s and in San Paolo fuori le mura,
Rome) was not without influence on Raphael’s conception of his project. His two cycles, however, are distinguished by the
definite purpose underlying the choice of subjects. A number of episodes have been omitted, among them the scenes of
martyrdom, which formed part of nearly all the older works. It is this limitation of the subject-matter that reveals the meaning of the two series, which is no less clear for being presented in a concentrated form. The cycle of St. Peter, the apostle to
the Jews, opens with his vocation and continues with his investiture with the power of the keys as Christ’s Vicar on earth;
the divine nature of his mission is demonstrated in the miraculous healing of the lame man in Jerusalem (the Temple), and
in conclusion he is shown exercising the other office granted to him, that of a judge (the punishment of Ananias). These
scenes unmistakably manifest the primacy of the Pope, his judicial power and the divine grace conferred upon him, and
thus they emphasize the legality and validity of the papal office, which had been disputed by a group of heretical cardinals
during the reign of Julius II. The cycle thus continues, in its own manner, the same ideas as had been expressed shortly before in the programme of murals for Stanze Nos. 2 and 3 (in some cases, work was still in progress on these frescoes). The
cycle of tapestries gains special significance from the fact that it was destined to hang in the Sistine Chapel, the setting of
conclaves and the place officially used by the Pope for his sacred functions. This significance is apparent also in the position allotted to the first scene, The Calling of Peter, and to its counterpart on the side devoted to St. Paul, The Stoning of St.
Stephen; both these tapestries were nearest the altar, flanking Perugino’s Assumption of the Virgin, which at that time was
still situated above it. The altar provides a central starting-point for the sequence of tapestries, which proceeds from left to
right on the wall of the Epistle side and from right to left on the wall of the Gospel side. - The series representing the apostle to the Gentiles (‘praedicator gentium’ - Paul’s traditional description), on the left side of the chapel, begins with the
above-mentioned Stoning of St. Stephen in the altar section. The full significance of this subject comes from the fact that it
comprises two meanings: on the one hand, Saul is here shown as a young man, when he was still an enemy of Christianity;
on the other, it shows the first martyr for the new faith proclaiming the renunciation of the world through his sacrifice. The
earthly calling of the first apostles, Peter and Andrew, appears on the right as an expression of triumph, and is contrasted
with the other-worldly character of the martyrdom of Stephen. The following, dramatic scene - the first on the left wall the Conversion of Saul, represents the apostle’s divine vocation, as a parallel to Peter’s legal investiture with the authority
of the keys, on the right, opposite. And just as the next two tapestries on the right, the Healing of the Lame Man and the
Punishment of Ananias, represent St. Peter’s work among the people, so the next two tapestries on the left depict St. Paul’s
activities as an apostle. The Blinding of the Magician Elymas on Paphos demonstrates the power of the Christian missionary in the presence of the heathen praetor, and the next scene, the Sacrifice at Lystra, shows the apostle proving their error
to the pagan crowd, who had greeted his miraculous healing of a cripple with idolatrous wonder. The final scene within the
choir is composed simply as a narrow vertical picture, and has no equivalent on the right wall; it shows Paul’s delivery
from his cell, and thus bears witness to the efficacy of the prayers of God’s apostle. The representation of Paul preaching
on the Areopagus to the People of Athens is placed beyond the choir screen, and thus extends into the area of the chapel occupied by the laity. The subject of this tapestry, the active propagation of God’s Word, received particular official emphasis
during the first decades of the sixteenth century, and is most strikingly portrayed in this apostolic example. It is clear, therefore, that these two cycles embody the theological idea on which the papal Church is based, and there can be no doubt that
the subject-matter was selected for its intellectual significance by ecclesiastical advisers, who were playing a decisive role
in the contemporary affairs of the Church.
The identity of the ‘spiritus rector’ responsible for the tapestries is not known to us (any more than in the case of the Stanze
wall paintings), but it is clear that
Page 106
Page 107
Arrangement of the tapestries in the Sistine Chapel. (After John Shearman)
Page 107
Page 108
the ideas they express were at the very centre of contemporary concern. This is clear from the work published in 1511 by
Cajetan de Vio, the leading Dominican general, Tractatus de comparatione auctontatis papae et concilii, and from his
speech to the Lateran Council in May 1512, in which he stresses most strongly the Pope’s position as ‘vicarius Christi’ (see
Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste III/2, p. 850). The patron’s specifically Medicean interest appears in the borders framing the
main scenes. The friezes below the St. Peter series represent scenes from Leo X’s eventful life, from his cardinalate to his
triumphal entry into Rome in 1513. The vertical borders contain depictions of the four elements, the Fates, the seasons of
the year and the times of the day - i.e. the blind forces in the world; on the one hand these can be seen as contrasts to the
themes of the main tapestries, which proclaim the omnipotence of God; on the other hand they symbolize the character of
the Medici pope, a firm believer in Fate (see the brilliant and perceptive explanations given by White and Shearman). In the
cycle centred on St. Paul, the frieze scenes draw on the Acts of the Apostles for intermediate episodes from the life of this
saint, while the side borders, with their representations of the Liberal Arts and the theological and cardinal Virtues, refer
again to Leo X and honour him as a patron of literature and the arts and extol his moral qualities. While the sequence of
subjects and the symbolic meaning of the tapestries were decided by a spiritual director who can no longer be identified,
the individual scenes and their grouping into a cycle bear witness to a pictorial form which had been calculated to the last
detail by Raphael’s creative genius. I cannot begin to examine here the incomparable way in which the artist has found a
classical solution to every problem posed by his task: how he adapted the construction of each scene to its particular subject-matter and to its position within the pictorial sequence, how he balanced the decorative effects of each side wall and
the varying relationship between each scene and its counterpart opposite, how his sensitive observations took account of the
lighting and the resulting appearance of the colours in the tapestries, and finally how carefully he harmonized the two tapestry series with the earlier paintings which decorated the chapel - the Quattrocento frescoes on the upper part of the walls
and Michelangelo’s ceiling paintings. These factors have been the subject of such excellent analyses by White and Shearman and by Freedberg that once again I need only refer to the commentaries provided by these scholars.
Goethe wrote about these tapestries while he stayed in Strasbourg as a young man, and how greatly they impressed him can
be seen from the mention which they receive in Dichtung und Wahrheit, Book IX (Insel edition 1922, p. 385). His fuller
reference to them in the Italienische Reise (Insel edition 1920, p. 373 ff.) is even more enthusiastic. He had seen the series
in the Vatican in 1787, on the day of Corpus Christi, and he singled out above all the ‘Punishment of Ananias’:
‘There are very few compositions which could be compared to this; here is a great concept, an action of the highest intrinsic
importance, every varied facet of which is depicted in the clearest possible manner.’
Repetitions:
(1) Mantua, Palazzo Ducale. Woven by Van Aelst’s workshop in Brussels for Federigo Gonzaga. This series consists of
nine tapestries (it does not include Paul in Prison), which are in better condition than the series in the Vatican. In some
cases the side borders are the same as in the Vatican, in others the Mantua series preserves the original arrangement for
these vertical strips, and therefore, as White and Shearman have shown in their detailed examination (p. 219 ff.), it provides
important evidence for a reconstruction of the original version. Instead of the Medici stories, which had no relevance to the
patron who commissioned this set, the lower borders of the Mantua tapestries contain decorations of an allegorical nature. These tapestries were originally in the church of St. Barbara, but were later removed to the Duke’s palace; they were in Vienna from 1866 to 1918, and were brought back to Mantua after the end of the war.
Kumsch, Die Apostelgeschichte, Dresden 1914, p. 11.
(2) Madrid, Royal Palace. Like series No. (1) this originated in the Brussels workshop and also consists of nine tapestries,
not including Paul in Prison. The side borders correspond to those in Mantua, while those forming the dado bear ornamental patterns.
Kumsch, p. 11.
(3) Formerly in Berlin, Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum; destroyed by fire during the Second World War. Woven for Henry VIII
in Van Aelst’s Brussels workshop; sold in 1649 to Don Luis de Haro, Marquis de Carpio, after the death of Charles I. In
1662 they formed part of the estate left by the Duke of Alba, Madrid, and in 1823 they were in the possession of Tupper,
the British consul. In 1844 they were the property of the King of Prussia. Like sets Nos. (1) and (2), these were complete
except for Paul in Prison. Garlands of foliage were woven around the edges.
Kumsch, p. 12.
(4) Formerly in Paris, King Francis I. This set also came from the Brussels workshop and consisted of nine tapestries; it is
no longer to be found.
Kumsch p. 13 f.
5) Many repetitions were woven by the workshop founded in 1619 in Mortlake (Surrey); all of these were based on Cleyn’s
copy of the cartoons. One of the best versions woven by this factory was formerly in the possession of Charles I of England, and later belonged to Mazarin; it is now in Paris, Garde-Meuble. For information on the other sets (Dresden; Duke of
Buccleuch; Forde Abbey, W. Miles; Chatsworth, and elsewhere) see Kumsch, p. 14 ff. On the series formerly belonging to
Cardinal Sforza Pallavicini and now in Loreto, Museo della Santa Casa, see Kumsch, p. 26 f., and also G. Pauri, La serie
lauretana degli arazzi di Raffaello, Milan 1926.
Page 108
Page 109
Page 109
Page 110
1. The Holy Trinity with SS. Sebastian and Roch.
Città di Castello, Pinacoteca Comunale
2. The Creation of Eve.
Città di Castello, Pinacoteca Comunale
3. A Franciscan Saint.
Private collection
Page 110
Page 111
4. Head of an Angel. Fragment of the altarpiece
formerly in S. Agostino, Città di Castello.
Brescia, Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo
5. God the Father. Fragment of the altarpiece
formerly in S. Agostino, Città di Castello.
Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte
6. The Coronation of St. Nicholas of Tolentino.
Reconstruction of the altarpiece formerly in
the church of S. Agostino, Città di Castello
7. The Resurrection.
São Paulo, Museum of Art
Page 111
Page 112
8. ‘Solly’ Madonna.
Berlin-Dahlem, Staatliche Museen.
9. Madonna with the SS. Jerome and Francis.
Berlin-Dahlem, Staatliche Museen
10. St. George and the Dragon.
Paris, Louvre
11. St. Michael and the Demon.
Paris, Louvre
Page 112
Page 113
12. Madonna Diotalevi.
13. St. Sebastian.
Bergamo, Accademia Carrara
14. Vision of a Knight.
London, National Gallery
15. The Three Graces.
Chantilly, Museé Condé
Page 113
Page 114
17. The Holy Family.
London, Sir Brian Mountain
16. Madonna Conestabile.
Leningrad, Hermitage
18. Madonna.
New York, Private collection
Page 114
Page 115
19. Portrait of a Young Man.
Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts
20. Portrait of a Man.
Rome, Galleria Borghese
Florence, Uffizi
22. Portrait of a Man.
New York, Glen Falls, Hyde Collection
Page 115
Page 116
23. A Miracle of St. Cyril.
Lisbon, National Museum
24. St. Jerome Punishing Sabinianus.
Raleigh, N.C., North Carolina Museum of Art
Page 116
Page 117
25. Christ on the Cross with the Virgin, and SS. John, Jerome and Mary Magdalene.
Page 117
Page 118
26. The Annunciation.
Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana
27. The Adoration of the Kings.
28. The Presentation in the Temple.
Page 118
Page 119
29. The Coronation of the Virgin. Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana
Page 119
Page 120
30. The Holy Family with the Lamb.
Vaduz, Private Collection
31. St. George and the Dragon.
Washington, National Gallery of Art, Mellon Collection
Page 120
Page 121
32. The Marriage of the Virgin.
Milan, Brera
Page 121
Page 122
33. Christ Blessing.
Brescia, Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo
34. St. John the Baptist Preaching.
Pulborough, Sussex, Viscountess Mersey
Page 122
Page 123
35. Madonna Ansidei.
Page 123
Page 124
37. St. Catherine.
Florence, Conte Contini Bonacossi
36. St. Mary Magdalene.
Florence, Conte Contini Bonacossi
38. A Franciscan Saint.
London, Dulwich
College Art Gallery
39. The Agony in the Garden.
New York, Metropolitan
Museum of Art
40. Pietà.
Boston, Gardner Museum
42. The Procession to Calvary.
Page 124
41. St. Anthony of
Padua.
London, Dulwich
College Art Gallery
Page 125
43. Madonna Enthroned with Saints; in the lunette, God the Father (Pala Colonna).
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Page 125
Page 126
44. Portrait of Angelo Doni.
Florence, Galeria Pitti
45. Portrait of Maddalena Doni.
46. Portrait of a Woman (‘La Gravida’).
47. Portrait of a Woman (‘La Muta’).
Urbino, Palazzo Ducale
Page 126
Page 127
48. Madonna Terranuova.
49. Madonna del Granduca.
Florence, Galleria Pitti
50. The small ‘Cowper’ Madonna.
Washington, National Gallery of Art,
Widener Collection
Page 127
Page 128
51. Madonna del Cardellino.
Florence, Uffizi
52. Madonna Orleáns.
Chantilly, Museé Condé
Leningrad, Hermitage
54. Madonna of the Meadow.
Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum
Page 128
Page 129
55. Madonna Canigiani.
Munich, Alte Pinakothek
56. Madonna Canigiani.
X-ray. Cf. plate 55
57. Madonna Tempi.
58. Madonna Jardinière.
Paris, Louvre
Page 129
Page 130
Duke of Sutherland Collection (on loan to
the National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh)
60. The ‘Bridgewater’ Madonna.
Duke of Sutherland Collection (on loan to
the National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh)
61. Madonna Esterházy.
Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts
62. Madonna Colonna.
Page 130
Page 131
63. Madonna del Baldacchino.
Page 131
Page 132
64. Faith.
65. Charity.
66. Hope.
Page 132
Page 133
67. The Entombment.
Rome, Galleria Borghese
Page 133
Page 134
68. St. Catherine of Alexandria.
69. Madonna Mackintosh.
70. The large ‘Cowper’ Madonna.
Washington, National Gallery of Art,
Mellon Collection
71. Madonna Aldobrandini.
Page 134
Page 135
72. Madonna Alba.
Washington, National Gallery of Art, Mellon Collection
73. Madonna di Loreto.
Paris, Louvre
74. Madonna with Diadem.
Paris, Louvre
Page 135
Page 136
75. Portrait of Tommaso Inghirami.
Boston, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
76. Portrait of Tommaso Inghirami.
77. Portrait of Pope Julius II.
78. Portrait of a Cardinal.
Madrid, Prado
Page 136
Page 137
79. Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione.
Paris, Louvre
81. Portrait of Marcantonio Raimondi (?).
Aix-en-Provence, Private Collection
80. Portrait of a Lady with Veil.
Page 137
Page 138
82. Madonna di Foligno.
Page 138
Page 139
83. The Sistine Madonna.
Dresden, Gallery
Page 139
Page 140
84. Madonna della Sedia.
85. Madonna with the Fish.
Madrid, Prado
86. Madonna dell’Impannata.
87. Madonna della Tenda.
Page 140
Page 141
88. St. Cecilia with SS. Paul, John Evangelist, Augustine and Mary Magdalene.
Bologna, Pinacoteca Nazionale
Page 141
Page 142
89. Portrait of Giuliano de’ Medici.
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Cracow, Czartoryski Museum
91. Portrait of Valerio Belli.
Saltwood Castle, Lord Clark
92. Portrait of Cardinal Bibbiena.
Page 142
Page 143
93. Portrait of a Young Woman
(so-called ‘Fornarina’).
Rome, Galleria Nazionale
94. Double Portrait.
Paris, Louvre
95. Portrait of Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beazzano.
Rome, Galleria Doria Pamfilj
Page 143
Page 144
96. Christ carrying the Cross (‘Lo Spasimo’).
Madrid, Prado
Page 144
Page 145
97. Pope Leo X with Cardinals Giulio de’ Medici and Luigi Rossi.
Florence, Uffizi
Page 145
Page 146
99. Madonna del Passeggio.
Duke of Sutherland Collection (on loan to the
National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh)
98. The Vision of Ezechiel.
100. St. John the Baptist.
Florence, Accademia
Page 146
Page 147
101. Madonna of Francis I.
Paris, Louvre
Page 147
Page 148
102. St. Margaret.
Paris, Louvre
Page 148
Page 149
103. St. Michael.
Paris, Louvre
Page 149
Page 150
104. Madonna del Divin’ Amore.
Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte
105. Madonna della Rosa.
Madrid, Prado
Paris, Louvre
Page 150
Page 151
107. Madonna della Quercia.
Madrid, Prado
108. Madonna della Perla.
Madrid, Prado
109. St. Margaret.
Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum
110. The Visitation.
Madrid, Prado
Page 151
Page 152
111. The Transfiguration.
Page 152
Page 153
WALL PAINTINGS
Pages 153
Page 154
112. The Holy Trinity and SS. Benedict, Placidus, Maurus, Romuald, Benedict Martyr and John Martyr.
(The standing Saints in the lower register were added later by Perugino.) Perugia, S. Severo
Page 154
Page 155
113. View of the Stanza della Segnatura in the Vatican Palace
114. View of the Stanza della Segnatura in the Vatican Palace
Page 155
Page 156
115. Theology.
Vatican, Stanza della Segnatura
116. Philosophy.
117. Adam and Eve.
118. Apollo and Marsyas.
Page 156
Page 157
119. Justice.
120. Poetry.
121. The Judgement of Solomon.
122. Urania.
Page 157
Page 158
123. The Disputa.
Page 158
Page 159
124. The School of Athens.
Page 159
Page 160
125. Parnassus.
Page 160
Page 161
126. The Three Cardinal Virtues: Fortitude, Wisdom and Moderation.
Page 161
Page 162
127. Pope Gregory IX Handing the Decretals to Raimondo of Peñaforte.
128. Augustus Preventing the Burning of the Aeneid.
Page 162
Page 163
129. Emperor Justinian Handing the Pandects to Trebonianus.
130. Alexander the Great Placing the Works of Homer in the Sarcophagus of Achilles.
Page 163
Page 164
131. God Appearing to Noah.
Vatican, Stanza d’Eliodoro
132. Moses and the Burning Bush.
Page 164
Page 165
133. The Sacrifice of Abraham.
134. Jacob’s Ladder.
Page 165
Page 166
135. The Expulsion of Heliodorus.
Page 166
Page 167
136. The Mass of Bolsena.
Page 167
Page 168
137. The Liberation of St. Peter.
Page 168
Page 169
138. Pope Leo I Repulsing Attila.
Page 169
Page 170
139. The Fire in the Borgo.
Vatican, Stanza dell’Incendio
Page 170
Page 171
140. The Sea Victory at Ostia.
Page 171
Page 172
141. The Coronation of Charlemagne.
Page 172
Page 173
142. The Oath of Pope Leo III.
Page 173
Page 174
143. Constantine Addressing his Troops.
Vatican, Sala di Costantino
Page 174
Page 175
144. The Battle at the Milvian Bridge.
Vatican, Sala di Costantino
Page 175
Page 176
145. General View of the Loggie in the Vatican Palace
Page 176
Page 177
146. The Creation.
Vatican, Loggie
Page 177
Page 178
147. The Story of Abraham.
Vatican, Loggie
Page 178
Page 179
148. The Story of Isaac.
Vatican, Loggie
Page 179
Page 180
149. The Story of Jacob.
Vatican, Loggie
Page 180
Page 181
150. The Story of Joseph.
Vatican, Loggie
Page 181
Page 182
151: The Story of Moses.
Vatican, Loggie
Page 182
Page 183
152. The Story of Moses.
Vatican, Loggie
Page 183
Page 184
153. Prophets and Sybils.
Engravings after the wall-paintings in the Cappella Chigi, S. Maria della Pace, Rome
Page 184
Page 185
154a. Prophets.
Rome, S. Maria della Pace, Cappella Chigi
154b. Four Sybils.
Rome, S. Maria della Pace, Cappella Chigi
Page 185
Page 186
155. Elevation of the Cappella Chigi, S. Maria del Popolo, Rome
Page 186
Page 187
156. God the Father and the Celestial Universe.
Cupola mosaic. Cappella Chigi, S. Maria del Popolo, Rome
Page 187
Page 188
157. The Triumph of Galatea.
Rome, Villa Farnesina
Page 188
Page 189
158. View of the Loggia di Psiche, Villa Farnesina, Rome
Page 189
Page 190
159. The Council of the Gods.
Rome, Villa Farnesina, Sala di Psiche
Page 190
Page 191
160. The Wedding of Cupid and Psyche.
Page 191
Page 192
161. Venus pointing out Psyche to Cupid.
162. Cupid and the three Graces.
163. Venus asking advice of Juno and Ceres.
164. Venus ascending to Olympus.
Page 192
Page 193
165. Venus entreating Jupiter.
166. Psyche carried by three amoretti.
167. Psyche presenting the vase to Venus.
168. Mercury carrying Psyche to Olympus.
Page 193
Page 194
+
169. Cupid with armour.
170. Two Cupids with Cerberus.
Page 194
Page 195
TAPESTRIES AND CARTOONS
Page 195
Page 196
171. The Miraculous Draught of Fishes. Cartoon.
London, Victoria and Albert Museum.
Reproduced by gracious permission of Her Majesty The Queen
Page 196
Page 197
172. The Miraculous Draught of Fishes. Tapestry.
Page 197
Page 198
173. Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter. Cartoon.
Page 198
Page 199
174. Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter. Tapestry.
Page 199
Page 200
175. The Healing of the Lame Man. Cartoon.
Page 200
Page 201
176. The Healing of the Lame Man. Tapestry.
Page 201
Page 202
177. The Death of Ananias. Cartoon.
Page 202
Page 203
178. The Death of Ananias. Tapestry.
Page 203
Page 204
179. The Stoning of St. Stephen. Tapestry.
Page 204
Page 205
180. The Conversion of St. Paul. Tapestry.
Page 205
Page 206
181. The Blinding of Elymas. Cartoon.
Page 206
Page 207
182. The Blinding of Elymas. Tapestry.
(Lower half destroyed.)
Page 207
Page 208
183. The Sacrifice at Lystra. Cartoon.
Page 208
Page 209
184. The Sacrifice at Lystra. Tapestry.
Page 209
Page 210
185. St. Paul Preaching in Athens. Cartoon.
Page 210
Page 211
186. St. Paul Preaching in Athens. Tapestry.
Page 211
Page 212
187. St. Paul in Prison. Tapestry.
Page 212
Page 213
INDEX
Page 213
Page 214
Blank Page
Page 214
Page 215
ARTISTS MENTIONED IN THE TEXT
Italic letters l and r refer to the lefthand and righthand columns. (Because there is only one column instead of two as in the
book the abbreviation "l" refers to the first and "r" to the second half of the page)
Adriano Fiorentino, 56l
Agostino Veneziano, 44r, 92r, 103r
Alfani, Domenico (di Paride), 24l, 25l/r, 39l, 62r
Allori, Alessandro, 41r
Altdorfer, Albrecht, 45l
Andrea d’Assisi, 58r, 61l
Andrea del Sarto, 26l, 46l; and School of, 104r
Angelico, Fra, 37r
Antonello da Messina, 19l
Aristotele di Sangallo (Sebastiano Giamberti), 62l
Arpino, Cavaliere d’, 24r
Aspertini, Amico, 39r, 62r
Avanzini, Pier Antonio, 37r
Bacchiacca, Francesco Ubertini, 65l, 66r, 67l
Barile, Giovanni, 53l
Barocci, Federico, School of, 63l
Bartolommeo, Fra, 11r, 14r, 26r, 38l, 65l, 68l, 72l
Beccafumi, Domenico, 79r
Berto di Giovanni, 55l/r
Bonasone, Bartolomeo, 19l, 47l, 66l, 99l
Bonsignori, Francesco, 56l, 59l/r, 60l
Bosch, Hieronymus, 5r
Bramante, Donato, 74l, 88r
Bramantino, Bartolomeo, 71l
Brescianino, Andrea (Piccinelli) del, 31l
Bronzino, Angelo, 41r
Bugiardini, Giuliano, 46r
Caraglio, Gian Jacopo, 50r
Carattoli, Pietro, 68r
Caroto, Giovanni, 56l
Carracci, Agostino, 45r
Carracci, Annibale, 69r
Carreño (de Miranda), Juan, 44r
Cassena, Giovanni, 26r
Castello, Francesco di, 57r
Cavallini, Pietro, 31r, 89l/r, 102r, 103l/r, 104r
Cellini, Benvenuto, 66r
Chieregato, Lodovico, 42r
Cleyn, Francis, 108r
Colle, Raffaellino dal, 43r, 48r, 49l/r, 51l, 52l/r, 63r, 85l, 88r
Consoni, Nicola, 68r
Costa, Lorenzo, 39r, 60l
Costantini, Ermengildo, 1r, 2l
Credi, Lorenzo di, 59r
Dandini, Pietro, 26r
Daniele da Volterra, 34, 35l
Domenichino, 45r
Donatello, 21r, 101r
Dossi, Battista, 32l
Dossi, Dosso, 32l
Dürer, Albrecht, 44r, 45l, 84l
Dyck, Anthony van, 41r
Edelinck, Gerard, 33r
Eusebio da San Giorgio, 15l/r, 16l, 57r, 61r
Evangelista da Pian di Mileto, 1l, 2r, 3l, 57r
Formiggine, A., 40r
Forzore, Niccolò, 7l
Francia, Francesco, 8r, 39r, 65r; and School of, 59l/r, 60l
Franciabigio, Francesco, 26l
Gallo, Claudio Inglesio, 15r
Ghiberti, Lorenzo, 74l
Ghirlandaio, Domenico 55l, 79r
Ghirlandaio, Michele di Ridolfo, 8l, 18l, 20r, 22l, 64r
Giovanni da Lione, 86l
Giovanni da Udine, 30l, 40l, 80l/r, 84l/r, 85l, 91l/r, 92l/r,
99l/r, 105r, 106r
Giovanni da Verona, Fra, 77r
Girolamo (Merchesi) da Cotignola, 42r
Giulio Romano, 26r, 27l/r, 28r, 29r, 33l, 35l, 38r, 39l, 41l,
42r, 43r, 44r, 45r, 46r, 47l/r, 48l/r, 49l, 50l/r, 51l/r, 52l/r, 53l,
54l/r, 55l/r, 56r, 57l, 60r, 61l, 63r, 64l, 66l/r, 72r, 79l/r, 80l,
81r, 83l/r, 84r, 85l, 86r, 87l/r, 88l/r, 89r, 90l/r, 91l/r, 92l/r,
93l, 94l/r, 96r, 97l/r, 98l/r, 99l/r, 100l/r, 101l/r, 102r, 103r,
104l/r, 105r
Grammatica, Antiveduto, 64l
Granacci, Francesco, 20r, 64r
Gregori, Carlo, 11r
Gregoriis, Gregorius de, 38r
Hacquin, Jean Louis, 32l
Heemskerk, Willem Jacobsz, 45l
Holbein, Hans, 59r, 76r
Honthorst, Gerrit van, 45r
Innocenzo da Imola, 20r
Justus of Ghent, 15l
Lanfranco, Giovanni, 24r
Lapi, Angelo Emilio, 11r
Larmessin, de, 45l
Lebrun, Charles, 47r
Leisnier, Auguste, 33l
Lenfant, Jean, 11r
Leonardo da Vinci, 5r, 11r, 14r, 17l/r, 20l/r, 27r, 31r, 35l,
63l, 64r, 68r, 88r, 103l
Lievens, Jan, 41r, 42l
Lippi, Filippino, 15l
Lorenzetto (Lorenzo Lotti), 94l
Lotto, Lorenzo, 80r, 82l
Luini, Bernardino, 8l
Lunetti, Tommaso di Stefano, 29l
Mantegna, Andrea, 24l
Maratta, Carlo, 84r, 86r, 99l
Marcantonio (Domenico da Venezia), 31r, 40l, 45l, 75r, 79l,
104l
Marcillat, Guglielmo di Pietro de, 77l/r, 78r, 79l
Marco da Ravenna, 92l
Marescotti, Giovanni Paolo, 100l
Mariano di Ser Austerio, 3r
Meloni, Marco, 65r
Memling, Hans, 59r
Michelangelo, 20r, 23r, 24l, 25l, 31r, 35l, 37l, 42r, 43r, 45l,
47l, 48l, 52r, 69r, 74l, 75l, 76r, 78r, 87l, 94r, 95l/r, 96l, 99l,
101l, 108l
Monti, Nicola, 14l
Morghen, Antonio, 11r
Morghen, Rafaello, 11r
Nardini, 58l
Pace, Luigi de, 95r, 96r
Palmaroli, Pietro, 94l
Pellegrino (Tibaldi) da Modena, 86l, 91l/r
Penni, Giovan Francesco, 24r, 27l/r, 29r, 30l, 36l, 38r, 39l,
41l, 42l, 44r, 45r, 46l, 48r, 49l, 50l/r, 51l, 52l/r, 53l, 54l/r,
55r, 56r, 64l, 66l, 76r, 77l/r, 78r, 80l, 81l, 82l, 83l/r, 84l/r,
85l/r, 86l, 87l/r, 88l, 89l/r, 90l/r, 91l, 92l/r, 93l, 97l, 99l/r,
101l/r, 102r, 103l, 104r, 105r, 106l
Perugino, Pietro, 2l, 3l, 4l/r, 7l, 8l, 9l, 10l/r, 11l, 13r, 14r,
15l/r, 16r, 18l/r, 21r, 58r, 59r, 61r, 65r, 66r, 67r, 68l, 82r,
101r, 106r; and School of, 3r, 16r, 57r, 61r, 65l, 66r
Peruzzi, Baldassare, 70r, 71l/r, 78r, 79l, 83l, 91r, 99r, 106l
Piero della Francesca, 57r, 100l
Piero di Cosimo, 60r
Pintoricchio, Bernardino, 3l, 4r, 5l, 8l, 9r, 10l, 16r, 64l; and
School of, 65l
Page 215
Page 216
Raffaellino dal Colle, see Colle
Ranucci, Francesco, 3l
Rembrandt, 34l
Reni, Guido, 40r
Röser, Matthias Bartolomäus, 32l
Rubens, 33r, 34r, 53l, 93r, 105r
Sabatini, Lorenzo, 84r
Sabbatini, Andrea, 36l
Salviati, Francesco, 96r
Sandrart, Joachim van, 33r, 34l
Sangallo, Antonio da, The Younger, 95r
Sansovino, Andrea, 69r
Santi, Giovanni, 56l, 59l, 60l, 100r
Sassoferrato, Giovanni, 7r, 24r, 27l
Schongauer, Martin, 45l
Scipione (Pulzone) da Gaeta, 64l
Sebastiano del Piombo, 18l, 34l, 46l, 47l, 48l, 52r, 60r, 61l,
62l/r, 63r, 66r, 77r, 79l, 80r, 84l, 87l/r, 88l, 94r, 95l/r, 96l/r,
98r, 99l/r
Sertorio, 99l
Signorelli, Luca, 3l, 9r, 13r, 24l, 103l
Sodoma, Giovanni, 70r, 71l/r, 73r, 76l, 77r
Sogliani, Giovannantonio, 22l
Spagna, Lo (Giovanni di Pietro), 5l, 11l, 61r
Tamagni, Vincenzo, 91l
Tamarocci, 8r, 56r, 59l, 60l
Teniers, David, 21l
Teniers, David, The Younger, 51r
Titian, 30l, 32l, 34l, 46r, 75l
Ugo da Carpi, 48r
Urbani, Andrea, 11r
Vaga, Perino del, 28r, 45r, 52r, 55r, 76r, 77l/r, 89r, 90l/r,
91l/r, 92l, 99l, 101l
Vasari, Giorgio, 53r, 84l
Vigneri, Jacopo, 44r
Vincidor, Tommaso, 45l, 91l/r, 102r
Viti, Timoteo, 42l, 58r, 64l, 94r, 97l
Volpato, Giovanni, 94l
Wicar, Jean Baptiste, 69l
Zuliani, Felice, 41r
Page 216
Page 217
Index of Subjects
Blinding of Elymas, 103 (Plates 181-2)
Sacrifice at Lystra, 103 (Plates 183-4)
God the Father, 1 (Plate 5), 14 (Plate 43), 95 (Plate 156) The t. Paul preaching in Athens, 104 (Plates 185-6)
St. Paul in prison, 103 (Plate 187)
Creation, 89 (Plate 146)
The Creation of Eve, 31, 65
Paradise and Fall, 89
HOLY FAMILY, MADONNA, SAINTS
Adam and Eve, 70 (Plate 117)
Holy Family, 7 (Plate 17), 22 (Plate 58)
Story of Noah, 89
Holy Family and St. John, 49 (Plate 105), 50 (Plate 107), 65
God appearing to Noah, 78 (Plate 131)
Holy Family under the palm-tree, 23 (Plate 59)
Story of Abraham, 89 (Plate 147)
Holy Family with the lamb, 11 (Plate 30)
Sacrifice of Abraham, 78 (Plate 133)
Holy Family with St. Elizabeth and St. John, 19 (Plates 55Story of Isaac, 89 (Plate 148)
6), 48 (Plate 101)
Story of Jacob, 89 (Plate 149)
Madonna and Child, 4 (Plate 8), 7 (Plate 16), 7 (Plate 18), 18
Jacob’s Ladder, 78 (Plate 134)
(Plate 49), 19 (Plate 50), 21 (Plate 52), 21 (Plate 57), 23
Story of Joseph, 89 (Plate 150)
(Plate 60), 25 (Plate 62), 26 (Plate 70), 31 (Plate 69), 56, 61,
Story of Moses, 89-90 (Plates 151, 152)
63, 66, 100
The Burning Bush, 78 (Plate 132)
Madonna and Child with Saints, 4 (Plate 9), 4 (Plate 12), 13
Story of Joshua, 90
Story of David, 90
Story of Solomon, 90
Judgement of Solomon, 70 (Plate 121)
Isaiah, 69
Vision of Ezechiel, 44 (Plate 98)
(Plate 106), 51 (Plate 108), 56, 61
Expulsion of Heliodorus 79 (Plate 135)
St. Ambrose, 60
St. Anthony of Padua, 16 (Plate 41)
NEW TESTAMENT
St. Augustine, 60
St. Catherine, 16 (Plate 37), 25 (Plate 68)
Annunciation, 10 (Plate 26), 67
St. Cecilia, 39 (Plate 88)
Visitation, 52 (Plate 110)
St. Cyril, 9 (Plate 23)
Adoration of the Shepherds, 90
Franciscan Saint, 3 (Plate 3), 16 (Plate 38)
Adoration of the Kings, 10 (Plate 27), 90
St. George, 5 (Plate 10), 13 (Plate 31)
Presentation in the Temple, 10 (Plate 28)
St. Jerome, 10 (Plate 24)
Baptism of Christ, 90
St. John the Baptist, 14 (Plate 34), 48 (Plate 100), 63
Doctrine of the two swords, 77
St. Luke, 64
Christ handing the keys to St. Peter, 101 (Plates 173-4)
St. Margaret, 47 (Plate 102), 51 (Plate 109)
Miraculous Draught of Fishes, 101 (Plates 171-2)
St. Mary Magdalene, 16 (Plate 36)
Transfiguration, 52 (Plate 111)
St. Michael, 5 (Plate 11), 47 (Plate 103)
The Last Supper, 90
St. Nicholas of Tolentino, 57
Agony in the Garden, 15 (Plate 39)
St. Paul, 102-4 (Plates 179-87)
Flagellation, 66
St. Peter, 81 (Plate 137), 86, 101-2 (Pl. 171-8)
Christ carrying the Cross, 44 (Plate 96)
St. Sebastian, 5 (Plate 13)
Procession to Calvary, 15 (Plate 42)
St. Stephen, 102 (Plate 179)
Christ on the Cross, 8 (Plate 25), 57
Crucifix, 64
Pietà, 15 (Plate 40)
OTHER RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS
Angel, 2 (Plate 4)
Entombment, 23 (Plate 67)
Christ blessing, 17 (Plate 33)
Resurrection 3 (Plate 7)
Coronation of the Virgin, 10 (Plate 29), 55
The Healing of the lame man, 102 (Plates 175-6)
Faith, Charity and Hope, 24 (Plates 64-6)
Death of Ananias, 102 (Plates 177-8)
Liberation of St. Peter, 81 (Plate 137)
Stoning of St. Stephen, 102 (Plate 179)
Conversion of St. Paul, 102 (Plate 180)
OLD TESTAMENT
Page 217
Page 218
Self-Portrait, 58
Disputa, 71 (Plate 123)
Luigi Rossi, 46 (Plate 97)
Donor, 58
Antonio Tebaldeo, 43
Evangelist and two Saints, 64
Cardinal, 30 (Plate 78)
God the Father, 1 (Plate 5), 14 (Plate 43), 95 (Plate 156)
Double portrait, 46 (Plate 94)
Holy Trinity with SS. Sebastian and Roch, 3 (Plate 1)
Unknown men, 8 (Plate 19), 8 (Plate 20), 8 (Plate 21), 17
Holy Trinity and six Saints, 68 (Plate 112)
(Plate 22), 41 (Plate 90), 58, 60, 61, 62, 65
Madonna appearing to a woman, 61
Unknown women, 18 (Plate 46), 18 (Plate 47), 32 (Plate 80),
Madonna appearing to a youth, 61
43 (Plate 93), 60, 64
Madonna of Mercy, 57
Marriage of the Virgin 10 (Plate 32)
Mass of Bolsena, 80 (Plate 136)
MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS
Nativity of the Virgin, 58
Alexander the Great, 76 (Plate 130)
Pope Alexander I, 86
Allegorical Scene, 65
Pope Clement I, 86
Apollo and Marsyas, 70 (Plate 118)
Pope Urban I, 86
Astolph of England, 86
Cardinal Virtues, 76 (Plate 126)
Attila, 81 (Plate 138)
Sibyls and Prophets, 93 (Plates 153-4)
Augustus, 76 (Plate 128)
Theology, 70 (Plate 115)
Charlemagne, 84 (Plate 141), 86
Constantine the Great, 86 (Plates 143-4)
PORTRAITS
Cupid and Psyche, 96-9 (Plates 158-70)
Ferdinand the Catholic, 86
Bindo Altoviti, 66
Fire in the Borgo, 82 (Plate 139)
Agostino Beazzano, 44 (Plate 95)
Fortitude, 68
Valerio Belli, 42 (Plate 91)
Galatea, 99 (Plate 157)
Cardinal Bibbiena, 42 (Plate 92)
Godfrey of Bouillon, 86
Baldassare Castiglione, 33 (Plate 79)
Graces, 6 (Plate 15)
Angelo Doni, 17 (Plate 44)
Gregory IX, 77 (Plate 127)
Maddalena Doni, 17 (Plate 45)
Judgement of Zaleucus, 77
Alessandro Farnese, 62
Justice, 70 (Plate 119)
Giovanna of Aragon, 63
Justinian, 77 (Plate 129)
Elisabetta Gonzaga, 59
Leo III, 85 (Plate 142)
Tommaso Inghirami, 34 (Plates 75, 76)
Lothair, 86
Pope Julius II, 29 (Plate 77)
Parnassus, 74 (Plate 125)
Pope Leo X, 46 (Plate 97)
Philosophy, 70 (Plate 119)
Giuliano de’ Medici, 41 (Plate 89)
Poetry, 70 (Plate 120)
Giulio de’ Medici, 46 (Plate 97)
Psyche, 96-9 (Plates 158-70)
Lorenzo de’ Medici, 62
School of Athens, 73 (Plate 124)
Emilia Pia da Montefeltre, 56
Sea Battle at Ostia, 83 (Plate 140)
Guidobaldo da Montefeltre, 59
Putto, 69
Andrea Navagero, 44 (Plate 95)
Sibyls and Prophets, 93 (Plates 153-4)
Perugino, 59
Universe (Urania), 70 (Plate 122)
Marcantonio Raimondi, 33 (Plate 81), 57
Vision of a Knight, 6 (Plate 14)
List of Collections
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, Comte L’Estang de Parade
BERGAMO, Accademia Carrara
· Portrait of M. Raimondi, 33 (Plate 81)
· St. Sebastian 5 (Plate 13)
BADEN near Zürich, Ros Collection
BERLIN-DAHLEM, Gemäldegalerie
· Madonna, 56
· Madonna Solly, 4 (Plate 8)
· Madonna with SS. Jerome and Francis, 4 (Plate 9)
· Madonna Diotalevi, 4 (Plate 12)
· Madonna Terranuova, 16 (Plate 48)
· Madonna Colonna, 25 (Plate 62)
BALTIMORE, Jacob Epstein Collection
· Portrait of Emilia Pia da Montefeltre, 56
BALTIMORE, Walters Art Gallery
· Madonna dei Candelabri, 56
Page 218
Page 219
BOLOGNA, Pinacoteca
HAMPTON COURT, Royal Collection
· St. Cecilia, 39 (Plate 88)
· Portrait of a young man, 60
BOSTON, Gardner Museum
HANOVER, Kestner Museum
· Pietà, 15 (Plate 40)
· Portrait of T. Inghirami, 34 (Plate 75)
· Portrait of a lady, 60
BRESCIA, Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo
· Madonna appearing to a youth, 61
· Angel, 2 (Plate 4)
· Christ blessing, 17 (Plate 33)
HESSEN, Private collection
BUDAPEST, Museum of Fine Arts
LENINGRAD, Hermitage
· Portrait of a young man, 8 (Plate 19)
· Madonna Esterházy, 21 (Plate 61)
· Madonna Conestabile, 7 (Plate 16)
· The Holy Family, 22 (Plate 53)
CARACAS, Dr. A. Pietri
LISBON, National Museum
HELSINKI, Dr. Leo Wainstein
· Franciscan Saint, 3 (Plate 3)
· Portrait of M. Raimondi, 57
· Miracle of St. Cyril, 9 (Plate 23)
CHANTILLY, Musée Condé
LIVERPOOL, Walker Art Gallery
· The Three Graces, 6 (Plate 15)
· Madonna Orléans, 21 (Plate 52)
· The Virgin appearing to a woman, 61
CITTA DI CASTELLO, Pinacoteca Comunale
· Male portrait, 61
· The Holy Trinity, 3 (Plates 1-2)
· Christ on the Cross, 57
LONDON, Sir Brian Mountain
CRACOW, Czartoryski Museum
LONDON, Dulwich College Picture Gallery
· Franciscan Saint, St. Anthony, 16 (Pl. 38, 41)
DETROIT, Institute of Arts
LONDON, National Gallery
· Two Miracles of St. Nicholas, 57· Kneeling donor, 58
· Vision of a Knight, 6 (Plate 14)
· Christ on the Cross, 8 (Plate 25)
· Madonna Ansidei, 13 (Plate 35)
· Procession to Calvary, 15 (Plate 42)
· St. Catherine, 25 (Plate 68)
· Madonna Aldobrandini, 26 (Plate 71)
· Pope Julius II, 29 (Plate 77)
· Madonna Mackintosh, 31 (Plate 69)
·Madonna and two Saints, 61
LONDON, Art dealer
· The Holy Family, 7 (Plate 17)
DETROIT, Mrs. Edsel Ford
· Portrait of a man, 58
DRESDEN, Gemäldegalerie
· Sistine Madonna, 36 (Plate 83)
EDINBURGH, National Gallery (Duke of Sutherland
loans)
· The Holy Family under Palm Tree, 23 (Plate 59)
· Bridgewater Madonna, 23 (Plate 60)
· Madonna del Passeggio, 45 (Plate 99)
LONDON, Earl of Northbrook (formerly)
FANO, S. Maria Nuova
· Madonna, 61
· Nativity of the Virgin, 58
LONDON, Victoria and Albert Museum
FLORENCE, Accademia
· St. John the Baptist, 48 (Plate 100)
· Tapestry cartoons (on loan from H.M. The Queen), 101-8
(Plates 171, 173, 175, 177, 181, 183, 185)
FLORENCE, Conte Contini Bonacossi
MADRID, Prado
· St. Mary Magdalene, St. Catherine, 16 (Plates 36-7)
· Portrait of a Cardinal, 30 (Plate 78)
· Madonna del Pesce, 38 (Plate 85)
· Christ carrying the Cross, 44 (Plate 96)
· Madonna della Rosa, 49 (Plate 105)
· Madonna della Quercia, 50 (Plate 107)
· Madonna della Perla, 51 (Plate 108)
· Visitation, 52 (Plate 110)
FLORENCE, Galleria Pitti
· Portrait of Maddalena Doni, 17 (Plate 45)
· Portrait of Angelo Doni, 17 (Plate 44)
· La Gravida, 18 (Plate 46)
· Madonna del Granduca, 18 (Plate 49)
· Madonna del Baldacchino, 26 (Plate 63)
· Donna Velata, 32 (Plate 80)
· Portrait of T. Inghirami, 34 (Plate 76)
· Madonna della Sedia, 36 (Plate 84)
· Madonna dell’ Impannata, 38 (Plate 86)
· Portrait of Cardinal Bibbiena, 42 (Plate 92)
· Vision of Ezechiel, 44 (Plate 98)
FLORENCE, Uffizi
· Madonna del Cardellino, 20 (Plate 51)
· Pope Leo X and Cardinals, 46 (Plate 97)
· Self-Portrait, 58
· Portrait of Elisabetta Gonzaga, 59
· Portrait of Perugino, 59
· Portrait of Guidobaldo da Montefeltre, 59
MILAN, Brera Gallery
· Sposalizio, 10 (Plate 32)
MONTPELLIER, Musée Fabre
· Lorenzo de’ Medici, 62
MUNICH, Alte Pinakothek
· Madonna Canigiani, 19 (Plates 55-6)
· Madonna Tempi, 21 (Plate 57)
· Madonna della Tenda, 39 (Plate 87)
· Portrait of a young man, 62
NAPLES, Museo Nazionale
· God the Father, 1 (Plate 5)
· Madonna del Divin’ Amore, 49 (Plate 104)
· Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, 62
NEW YORK, French Gallery
FRANKFURT, Staedel Institute
· Madonna, 63
· St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, 60
NEW YORK, Glens Falls, Hyde Collection
· Portrait of a man, 17 (Plate 22)
Page 219
Page 220
NEW YORK, Metropolitan Museum of Art
ROME, Pinacoteca Vaticana
· Madonna and Saints, 14 (Plate 43)
· Agony in the Garden, 15 (Plate 39)
· Giuliano de’ Medici, 41 (Plate 89)
· Coronation of the Virgin, 10 (Plates 26-9)
· Faith, Charity and Hope, 24 (Plates 64-6)
· Madonna di Foligno, 31 (Plate 82)
· Transfiguration, 52 (Plate 111)
· Coronation of the Virgin, 55
· Tapestries, 101-105 (Plates 172, 174, 176, 178, 179, 180,
182, 184, 186, 187)
NEW YORK, Private collection
· Madonna, 7 (Plate 18)
PARIS, Louvre
· St. George and the Dragon, 5 (Plate 10)
· St. Michael and the Demon, 5 (Plate 11)
· La belle Jardinière, 22 (Plate 58)
· Madonna di Loreto, 27 (Plate 73)
· Madonna with the Diadem, 28 (Plate 74)
· Baldassare Castiglione, 33 (Plate 79)
· Double Portrait, 46 (Plate 94)
· St. Michael, 47 (Plate 103)
· St. Margaret, 47 (Plate 102)
· Madonna of Francis I, 48 (Plate 101)
· Small Holy Family, 49 (Plate 106)
· St. John the Baptist, 63
· Giovanna of Aragon, 63
PERUGIA, Collegio del Cambio
· Allegory of Fortitude, 68
PERUGIA, San Severo
· The Holy Trinity and Saints, 68 (Plate 112)
PHILADELPHIA, Johnson Collection
· Evangelist and two Saints, 64
PULBOROUGH, Viscountess Mersey
· St. John the Baptist, 14 (Plate 34)
RALEIGH, North Carolina Museum of Art
· St. Jerome punishing Sabinianus, 10 (Plate 24)
ROME, Accademia di San Luca
· St. Luke painting the Madonna, 64
· Standing Putto, 69
ROME, Galleria Borghese
· Portrait of a man, 8 (Plate 20)
· Entombment, 23 (Plate 67)
· Young woman with a unicorn, 64
ROME, Galleria Doria Panfili
· Navagero and Beazzano, 44 (Plate 95)
ROME, Galleria Nazionale
· La Fornarina, 43 (Plate 93)
· Cardinal Bibbiena’s Bathroom, 92
· Loggetta, 92
· Loggie, 88-92 (Plates 145-52)
· Sala di Costantino, 86-88 (Plates 143-4)
· Stanza d’Eliodoro, 78-82 (Plates 131-8)
· Stanza dell’ Incendio, 82-86 (Plates 139-42)
· Stanza della Segnatura, 69-77 (Plates 113-30)
ROME, S. Agostino
· Isaiah, 69
ROME, S. Maria della Pace
· Sibyls and Prophets, 93 (Plates 153-4)
ROME, S. Maria del Popolo
· Cupola mosaic, 95 (Plates 155-6)
ROME, Marchese Visconti Venosta
· Crucifix, 64
ROME, Villa Farnesina
· Cupid and Psyche, 96-99 (Plates 158-70)
· Galatea, 99 (Plate 157)
SALTWOOD CASTLE, Lord Clark
· Valerio Belli, 42 (Plate 91)
SÃO PAULO, Museum of Art
· Resurrection, 3 (Plate 7)
STOCKHOLM, Private collection
· Creation of Eve, 65
URBINO, Casa di Raffaello
· Madonna, 100
URBINO, Palazzo Ducale
· La Muta, 18 (Plate 47)
VADUZ, Prince of Liechtenstein
· Male portrait, 65
VADUZ, Private collection
· Holy Family with the Lamb, 11 (Plate 30)
VIENNA, Kunsthistorisches Museum
· Madonna of the Meadow, 20 (Plate 54)
· St. Margaret, 51 (Plate 109)
· Holy Family, 65
VIERHOUTEN, Van Beuningen Collection
· Madonna, 66
WASHINGTON, National Gallery of Art
· St. George and the Dragon, 13 (Plate 31)
· Small Cowper Madonna, 19 (Plate 50)
· Large Cowper Madonna, 26 (Plate 70)
· Madonna Alba, 35 (Plate 72)
· Bindo Altoviti, 66
· Flagellation, 66
· Annunciation, 67
Page 220

Blocksatz - B4 - A Critical Catalogue

Transcription

Similar documents

OLLI Spring 2016 Lecture 5

Il Giornale di Vicenza (ITA) - Comitato decennale Luigi Veronelli

Raphael`s altar-piece patrons in Cittd di Castello

Vulcanizers

Italy Jazz Songs Chart Archive - 15 February, 2012

Brochure Compositi 3°_INGL.indd

Dessert - Ferraros

Ihr Dr. Stefan Schwarzfischer

IVOIRE

C Cooling System - The Rolls-Royce and Bentley Technical Library

THE BONIS FUR SEWING MACHINE Bonis Bros. Machine