Prev Contents Next
    Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 0


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

     1 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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 provided by W. Schöne about 1950, and his results can be thought almost


     2 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 2

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 of 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, Peruginoy, 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 Mileto (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 Castello;


     3 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 3

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    Plate 1

Back: The Creation of Eve    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 1499-1500.
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 1 (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 drawn attention to the


     4 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 4

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

Berlin-Dahlem, Gemäldegalerie, No. 145.
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

Berlin-Dahlem, Gemäldegalerie, No. 147.
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 a mediocre Umbrian painter and com-


     5 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 5

pleted 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 inter-relationship 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

Paris, Louvre, No. 1502.
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.


     6 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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    Plate 14

London, National Gallery, No. 213.
Wood: 17 x 17 cm.

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.


     7 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 7

Panofsky rightly suggested that this work was the 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 (formerly) 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.


     8 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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. I 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    Plate 25

London, National Gallery, No. 3943.
Wood: 280 x 165 cm.

Signed at the foot of the cross with the words: RAPHAEL VRBIN / AS / P. The following inscription is on the altar


     9 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 9

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 shield-bearer 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 also have seen works by him and by Pintoricchio


    10 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 10

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. 1 (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, 27, 28, 29

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.


    11 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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 Fareham, 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 scientific findings of the restorers A. P. Laurie (London)


    12 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 12

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 plaèa 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 a.); Müntz,


    13 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 13

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

London, National Gallery, No. 1171.
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 facing in the opposite direction, repeats the standing


    14 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 14

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, p. 461 ff. (a.);


    15 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 15

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

London, National Gallery, No. 2919.
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    Plate 40

Boston, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.
Wood: 24 x 28 cm.

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 profile-figure of Christ kneeling and the arm of the angel carrying the chalice; the grouping and postures of the


    16 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 16

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, 37

Florence, Conte Contini-Bonacossi.

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)
Plate 48

Berlin-Dahlem, Gemäldegalerie No. 247A.
Wood: diameter 86 cm.

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


    17 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 17

of the accompanying 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, Avignon; 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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 61.
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 characteristic of the


    18 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 18

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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 229.
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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 178.
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 choice between tondo and rectangular format is still left


    19 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 19

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, 56 (X-ray)

Munich, Alte Pinakothek, No. 476.
Wood: 131 x 107 cm.
On the neckline of the Virgin’s dress are the words:

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 (Pouncey-Gere 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, Italienische 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

Washington, National Gallery of Art, No. 653.
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. 196, 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. (a.); Müntz, p. 176 (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 196 (a.); Bombe 1911, p.


    20 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 20

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:

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

Florence, Uffizi, No. 1447.
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. Attributed 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, 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.); Gronau, p. 35 (a.);


    21 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 21

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 Esterházy, 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.


    22 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 22

COPY: according to Cavalcaselle a picture in private 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

Paris, Louvre, No. 1496.
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 Durand-Gréville. - 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. 123-5).
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.
Wood, transferred to canvas: 74 x 57 cm.

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 Th-B. 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.


    23 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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; Galerie 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

Duke of Sutherland (on loan to Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland).
Wood, transferred to canvas: 81 x 56 cm.

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 Rospigliosi: 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

Rome, Galleria Borghese, No. 170.
Wood: 184 x 176 cm.
Signed and dated (on the stone step on the left):

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. Chiara in Florence (1495), now in the Galleria Pitti (Camesasca, Peru-


    24 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 24

gino, 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, 65, 66

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 posses-


    25 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 25

ses movement 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

Berlin-Dahlem, Gemäldegalerie, No. 248.
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

London, National Gallery, No. 168.
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.


    26 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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

Washington, National Gallery of Art, No. 25.
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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 165.
Wood: 277 x 224 cm.

PROVENANCE: Cappella Baldassare Turini in Pescia Cathedral; 1697, sold by Bonvicini, heir to the Turini family, to Ferdinando 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)    Plate 71

London, National Gallery, No. 744.
Wood: 39 x 33 cm.


    27 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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

Paris, Louvre, No. 1513.
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 the Madonna


    28 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 28

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

Paris, Louvre, No. 1497.
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.


    29 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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

London, National Gallery, No. 27.
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).


    30 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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 workshop assisted in the execution. A second portrait from Urbino (Gronau, Documenti, p. 69), which also came into the possession 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.


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 û 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.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 333 f. (a.); Müntz 1891, p. 328 (a.); Frizzoni 1893,


    31 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 31

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

London, National Gallery, No. 2069.
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

Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana, No. 329.
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 altar-piece 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 which the figure of the Madonna is taken, almost


    32 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 32

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 (Fede 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.); Schalkersweerde 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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 245.
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


    33 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 33

on account of 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

Paris, Louvre, No. 1505.
Wood, transferred to canvas: 82 x 66 cm.

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.


    34 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 171.
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 attribu-


    35 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 35

tion 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

Washington, National Gallery of Art, No. 24.
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 rectangular 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 1504-6, Baldass from about 1507-9. These attempts to establish the


    36 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 36

Gaeta version as an authentic work by 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 eighteenth-century 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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 151.
Wood, tondo, diameter: 71 cm.

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, 65, 66) 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 adonna 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.
Canvas: 265 x 196 cm.

PROVENANCE: Piacenza, San Sisto (donated by Pope Julius II); 1745, bought by King Augustus III of Saxony; 1954 removed 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 known that at the time of the painting’s completion (1512-13) this


    37 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 37

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.


    38 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 38

(rejects ‘church banner’ theory); 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

Madrid, Prado, No. 297.
Wood, transferred to canvas: 215 x 158 cm.

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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 94.
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 production (as has long been established);


    39 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 39

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).


    40 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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.); Malaguzzi-Valeri 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 Kunstwerk, p. 115 ff. (a.);


    41 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 41

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: ( I U L I A ) N U S   M E D .  L E O N I S .  X .  F R ( A T E R ); 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, Gemäldegalerie.

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 based on the Czartoryski portrait (as


    42 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 42

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 so-called ‘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/1, 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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 158.
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.).


    43 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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 ouvre. 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.); Corsini-Sforza 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).


    44 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 44

Portrait of Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beazzano    Plate 95

Rome, Galleria Doria Pamfili, No. 403.
Canvas: 76 x 107 cm.

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

Madrid, Prado, No. 298.
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 Carreño.

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

Florence, Galleria Pitti, No. 174.
Wood: 40 x 30 cm.

PROVENANCE: Conte Vincenzo Hercolani, Bologna; 1589, Uffizi, Florence; 1799-1815, Paris.


    45 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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

Duke of Sutherland (on loan to Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland).
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 Fribourg, 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 del Vaga); Berenson


    46 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 46

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. 11 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

Paris, Louvre, No. 1508.
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 Granvella 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 série, 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.


    47 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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

Paris, Louvre, No. 1504.
Wood, transferred to canvas: 268 x 160 cm.
Signed and dated on the hem of the robe:

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

Paris, Louvre, No. 1501.
Wood, transferred to canvas: 178 x 122 cm.

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.).


    48 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 48

The Holy Family with St. Elizabeth, the Young St. John and Angels (Madonna of Francis I)    Plate 101

Paris, Louvre, No. 1498.
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.
Canvas: 165 x 147 cm.

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 Giulio Romano); Ortolani, p. 63 (a.); Fischel 1948, I,


    49 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 49

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 Friedrich 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

Madrid, Prado, No. 302.
Canvas: 103 x 84 cm.
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

Paris, Louvre, No. 1499.
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


    50 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 50

have been determined by a design sketched by 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-lès-Vienne 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

Madrid, Prado, No. 303.
Wood: 144 x 110 cm.
On the cradle is the inscription:  RAPHAEL PINX.
St. John holds a scroll on which there are the words:

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


    51 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 51

visit 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; Valencia, 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

Madrid, Prado, No. 301.
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

Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, No. 629.
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.


    52 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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

Madrid, Prado, No. 300.
Wood, transferred to canvas: 200 x 145 cm.
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

Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana, No. 333.
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,


    53 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of 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):
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, British 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.


    54 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 54

Similar studies are 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, Stix-Fröhlich 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, Pouncey-Gere 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, p. 342 f. (in part a.); Vogel 1920, p. 278 ff. (a.);


    55 Link To The Scanned JPG-Image Of Page 55

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

Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana, No. 359.
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 last-mentioned 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).


Prev Contents Next