Baden near Zürich, Ros Collection.
Suida attempted to establish a connection between this very mediocre picture and the painting of the Holy Trinity in Città di Castello (Pl. 1) by comparing it with the hovering angels on the verso of the latter work. Any comparison with Raphael’s authentic early works, however, clearly shows the difference between them and this Madonna.
Suida 1934-6, p. 161 ff. (a.); Suida, p. 5 (a.); Bock v. Wülfingen 1951, p. 117, Note 34 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 1 (r.).
Baltimore, Jacob Epstein Collection.
PROVENANCE: 1654 in the inventory of the Medici, Florence; art dealer, Vienna; 1925, Coray-Stoop, Zürich-Erlenbach; Kleinberger, New York. On the back are the name of the sitter - ‘Emilia Pia da Montefeltre’, written in late sixteenth-century script - and a seal, with the words: (Fo)ntico tedescho di V(enezia).
The name given on the back of the panel is certainly correct and is also indirectly confirmed by comparison with the medal by Adriano Fiorentino (Hill, A Corpus of Italian Medals of the Renaissance, Vol. I, No. 345 and Vol. II, Pl. 56); moreover, as shown by Gronau and, in greater detail, by U. Schmitt, this portrait shows such a convincing similarity to that of Elisabetta Gonzaga in the Uffizi (p. 59), as regards size, the use offrontal view, technique and colours, that both must be ascribed to the same master.
Gronau 1924-5, p. 456 ff. (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 215 (by Tamaroccio?); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (a.); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (d.); Ortolani, p. 23 (in part a.); Suida, p. 6 (a.); Lauts, Isabella d’Este, Hamburg 1952, Fig. 35 (d.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 35 (a.); U. Schmitt 1961, pp. 101 ff., 113 (by Bonsignori); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 2 (r.).
Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery.
PROVENANCE: Borghese Palace, Rome (perhaps identical with the ‘quadretto tondo con una Madonna e due teste appresso’ mentioned about 1600 in the Lelio Cinquini Collection, Rome, see Urlichs 1870, p. 51); about 1800, Lucien Bonaparte, Rome; Duca di Lucca, Lucca; 1841, Hugh A. J. Munro, Novar (Scotland); 1882, Art Institute, Chicago; 1901, Walters Collection, Baltimore.
A second version of this picture, showing only slight differences, was owned by Sir Charles Robinson, London, but according to M. Davies its present location is not known. Cavalcaselle paid this work the following tribute: ‘. . . through the beauty of a composition in which every stroke reveals the genius of the Urbino master’. However, Raphael’s participation cannot be seen in either the composition or the execution, for the forced symmetry in the placing of the two angels’ heads and their candelabra runs completely contrary to his spirit. In my view even the central group of the Madonna and Child cannot be regarded as Raphael’s invention, and is far more like a combination of various of his pictorial ideas. The Madonna, for example, derives from the figure (facing in the opposite direction) of the Madonna with the Fish in Madrid (Pl. 85) and the Child seems to be made up of memories of the Madonna della Sedia in Florence (Pl. 84) and the Large Cowper Madonna in Washington (Pl. 70). The clutching motif of the left arm is to be found in a drawing by Penni (not Giulio Romano) (Parker, Oxford Cat. II, No. 576).
never established for certain. It entered the Collection of Rev. Turner in Dorset and was then bought by Robinson and exhibited in 1878 in the Kensington Museum, London. In a publication entitled Raphael’s Madonna dei Candelabri (London, 1906) Robinson claimed it to be Raphael’s original. He received no support, however, for although a few scholars such as Richter and Gronau considered his example superior to the Baltimore painting, they could not dispute its workshop characteristics. Cavalcaselle, who apparently saw the picture as early as 1878, declared it to be a copy. The present writer’s opinion is not shared by Zeri, who recently examined the Baltimore picture and maintains that at least the Virgin and the Child are from Raphael’s own hand.
Passavant II, p. 399 f. (d.); J. P. Richter 1878, p. 622 (in part a.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 100 (in part a.; with Giulio Romano); Müntz, p. 531 (copy); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 181 (in part a.; with Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 361 (by Penni); J. C. Robinson 1907, June, p. 19 ff. (a.); J. Burckhardt, Vorträge ed. Dürr, Basle 1918, p. 322 (invention by Raphael); Gronau, p. 109 (r.); Baldass 1926-7, p. 38 (a.); Gamba, p. 87 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 479 (in part a.); Hauptmann 1936, p. 261 f. (r.); Ortolani, p. 60 (copy); Fischel I, 1948, p. 364 (in part a.; with Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 150B and p. 85 (workshop); Dussler 1966, No. 3 (r.); Zeri, Apollo, December 1966 (a.).
Caracas (Venezuela), Dr. A. Pietri Collection.
PROVENANCE: Filippi Collection, Paris.
This small-scale work portrays a head very similar to that of the front litter-bearer in the Heliodorus fresco, in which, according to Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 442), the features of Marcantonio Raimondi were immortalized. It is obviously based on the wall-painting, which has been copied even down to the little folds in the white shirt. The Caracas picture is mediocre and bears no resemblance to Raphael’s portrait paintings before and after 1510 either in composition or in the treatment of details. As the portrait comes from a collection in Paris it is probably identical with the example there mentioned by E. Förster in his monograph on Raphael (Leipzig 1868, Vol. II), whose provenance goes back to the Vallardi Collection in Milan. In his review of Förster’s book (ZfbK. III, 1868, p. 301) Mündler agrees with the attribution to Raphael. The latter references were not known to Suida.
Suida 1944, p. 239 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 17 (r.).
Città di Castello, Pinacoteca Comunale.
PROVENANCE: Fraternity of the Carità, Città di Castello.
A processional banner, in a very poor state of preservation (especially on the reverse), this work had always been attributed to the school of Perugino, until Longhi declared it to be an early work by Raphael. There is no doubt that the Madonna of Mercy is based on Piero della Francesca’s altar-piece in Borgo San Sepolcro; comparison of this banner with Raphael’s early works, however - and especially with the Trinity in Città di Castello (Pl. 1), painted in 1499-1500 - fails to show the slightest connection in the figure types of the Madonna, the kneeling men, or the crucified Christ on the front or in the compositional form.
Mancini, Istruzione per Città di Castello, Perugia 1732, p. 247 f. (Perugino’s Workshop); Guardabassi, Indice-Guida (dei Monumenti) dell’ Umbria, Perugia 1772, p. 56 (by Francesco da Castello); Longhi, Piero della Francesca, Milan 1927, p. 112 (a.); Ragghianti, La Deposizione, Milan 1947, p. 5 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 14 f. (a.); Camesasca I, Plates 1, 2 (a.); Volpe 1962, p. 81 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 223 (d.); Dussler 1966, No. 21 (r.).
Detroit, Institute of Arts, Nos. 175 and 176.
PROVENANCE: A. Kann Collection, Paris; auctioned, New York 1927.
Because these two panels are based on the same legend as Raphael’s early Coronation of St. Nicholas of Tolentino which was formerly in Città di Castello (Pl. 6), Valentiner supposed them to be predella panels for that altar-piece. I agree with Fischel that this may well be correct; but these two mediocre little pictures are certainly not the work of the young master, especially as Valentiner’s comparison of these predella panels with roughly contemporary works by Raphael - the Vision of a Knight in London (Pl. 14) or the Three Graces in Chantilly (Pl. 15) fails to establish any stylistic or individual similarities. Gnoli attributed the two panels to Eusebio da San Giorgio. Whoever the painter was, he was certainly one of the Umbrians who were trained in Perugino’s workshop towards the end of the century. It is quite possible that Raphael employed an assistant on the predella paintings for the St. Nicholas altar-piece, in this case Evangelista da Pian di Mileto.
Gnoli, Pittori e miniatori dell’ Umbria 1923, p. 105 (by Eusebio da San Giorgio); Valentiner 1927, p. 244 ff. (a.); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 434 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 178 (Eusebio da San Giorgio); A. Venturi 1940, p. 135 f.
(a.); Schöne 1950, p. 134, Note 38 (r.); Bock v. Wülfingen 1951, p. 117 (d.); Volpe 1962, p. 80 (first panel by Raphael and Evangelista, second panel by Evangelista); Dussler 1966, No. 22 (r.).
Detroit, Institute of Arts.
This picture arouses immediate suspicion, and is completely at variance with Raphael’s style. It has in fact been shown by Zeri to be a forgery, based on a work by Girolamo (?) Nardini which depicts the Madonna enthroned, Raphael, Tobias and Sebastian, and has, in the last line of the inscription, the words: Arcan. Raphael. divoq. Sebast. erexit. Ano. D.M.D.V.I. The features of the kneeling patron are exactly the same in the Nardini model as in the forgery in Detroit.
Valentiner 1935, No. 2, p. 18 ff. (a.); Wagner 1936, p. 288 ff. (a. with an attempted reconstruction); Anonymous, Pantheon XVII, 1936, p. 98 (a.); Valentiner 1937, p. 327 ff. (a.); Ortolani, p. 23 (r.); Zeri 1948, p. 178 ff. (forgery); Camesasca, p. 82 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 23 (r.).
Detroit, Mrs. Edsel Ford.
PROVENANCE: Barbarini; Urbino; Patrizi, Rome; Principe Chigi, Rome; Goudstikker, Amsterdam (Catalogue April-May 1930, No. 47).
Composition and forms of the portrait point to a date in the first decade of the sixteenth century, and there is no lack of indications which suggest that it was painted in the circle of the young Raphael. But there are features which militate against an attribution to the master: the composition is average in character, the drawing is pedantic and uninspired, the modelling smooth, and the row of trees in the middleground is monotonous.
Suida Art Quarterly VII, 1944, p. 239 ff. (a.).
This work formed part of the predella for Perugino’s altar-piece of the Madonna enthroned with six Saints (1497).
A. Venturi, Storia VII/2, p. 676 (by Andrea d’ Assisi); Longhi 1955, May, p. 14 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 145 (a.); Camesasca, Perugino, Plate 80 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 222 (a.); Dussler 1966, No: 26 (Perugino).
Florence, Uffizi, No. 288.
PROVENANCE: Urbino, Palazzo Ducale; 1631, Florence, Medici.
The state of preservation is very poor and already drew strong criticism in the nineteenth century from Rumohr and especially from H. Grimm, the latter emphasizing the extensive restorations carried out between the middle of the fifties, when he first saw the picture, and 1878. Fischel, too, discussed the dubious appearance of the portrait, and went into detail, distinguishing between the probably original sections - the eyes, nose, mouth and eyebrows - and the modelling of the head in general, which is dubious in many ways, and the grey-gold background, which was repainted in the nineteenth century. In a written communication, W. Prinz stated that he considered it to be probably a copy of the self-portrait in the School of Athens. The only difference is that turned-up wings have been added to the side of the cap, while its shape on the forehead is the same as in the fresco. The remarkable thickness of neck and shoulder could be an addition by the copyist and the inelegant wavy line of the chest an arbitrary alteration of the robe in the fresco.
counted). - For further copies see the detailed notes in Wagner, p. 64 ff.
Rumohr, p. 561 (a.); Passavant II, p. 63 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 223 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 221 f. (a.); Grimm 1883, pp. 162 ff. (r.); Ridolfi 1891, p. 421 (a.); Gnoli, Rass. d’A. VII, 1920, p. 96 (a.); Gronau, Frontispiece and p. 217 (a.); Burkhalter, p. 24 ff. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Gamba, p. 39 (a.); Ortolani, p. 21 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 60 (a.); Schöne, p. 35 and Fig. 56 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 60 (a.); Volpe 1956, March, p. 6 (d.); Fischel 1962, p. 44 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (d.); Dussler 1966, No. 39 (copy); Prinz 1966, No. 85 (r.); Wagner 1969 (with extensive bibliography), p. 62 (copy? before 1600).
Florence, Uffizi, No. 1441.
On the reverse are the words: ‘Duchessa Isabella Mantovane moglie del Duca Guido’.
PROVENANCE: Urbino, Palazzo Ducale; 1631, Florence, in the possession of the Medici family.
The attribution to Raphael dates back to Durand-Gréville and was later (1925) confirmed by Gronau, who had opposed it in 1907; some scholars have since accepted it. In my opinion there is no connection between this portrait and Raphael’s works from the period 1500-5, whereas there are many convincing reasons for attributing it to the Verona school, and in particular to that of Bonsignori. Detailed stylistic grounds for this opinion are given by U. Schmitt; Fischel was formerly dubious of the work’s authenticity and does not mention it in his monograph. Ortolani’s hypothesis that it might have been begun by the father Giovanni Santi and finished by Raphael is untenable. Although this attribution was mistaken there is no doubt that Raphael made a portrait of the Duchess: the fact is mentioned by Antonio B. Negrini in his Elogj de’ Castiglione, Padua 1733, p. 329 (cf. Passavant 1839, I, p. 111 and II, p. 62). Elisabetta had been the artist’s patron at an early date (see Serlio in Golzio, p. 284).
Morelli 1890, p. 359 (by Caroto?); Delaruelle 1900, p. 147 ff. (by Bonsignori); Bayersdorfer, p. 91 (by Bonsignori); Durand-Gréville 1905, p. 38 ff. (a.); Gronau 1907, p. 569 (r.); Cr.-Cav., A History of Painting in North Italy (ed. Borenius), London 1912, II, p. 186, Note 4 and p. 262, Note 5 (by Bonsignori); A. Venturi, Storia VII/3, p. 973 (School of Francia); Gronau 1924-5, p. 443 ff. (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 215 (by Tamarocci); A. L. Mayer, Pantheon II, 1929, p. 354 (by Bonsignori?); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Fischel Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (d.); Suida 1934-6, p. 164, Note 2 (a.); Ortolani, p. 23 (in part a.); Salvini, Cat. 1952, p. 55 (School of F. Francia); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, March, p. 9 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 34 (a.); U. Schmitt 1961, pp. 100 f., 116 (by Bonsignori); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 40 (r.).
Florence, Uffizi, No. 1482.
Until the end of the eighteenth century this work was listed as a portrait of Luther by Hans Holbein the Younger (according to the account given by Baldinucci, Notizie VII, p. 293), but comparison with Perugino’s self-portrait in the Cambio, Perugia (Camesasca, Perugino, Fig. 109) clearly shows that it is he who is depicted in this painting. It was later considered a portrait of Verrocchio by Lorenzo di Credi and was so listed by Berenson, but Degenhart provided convincing proof that it could only represent Perugino, and the same conclusion was reached independently by Offner and Beenken. There is no unanimity as to the identity of the painter, however. Offner was followed by Degenhart, Beenken, Ortolani and (at first) Camesasca in considering this portrait an early work by Raphael, while other scholars showed, mostly through their silence (Fischel, Gamba, Longhi and Schöne), that they found this attribution impossible.
Baldinucci VII, p. 292 f. (by Holbein); A. Venturi in L’Arte XXIV, 1922, p. 11 ff. (by Perugino); Degenhart, Pantheon VIII, 1931, p. 366 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 296 (by Credi); Offner 1934, p. 254 ff. (a.); Lietzmann 1934, p. 365 ff. (r.); Beenken, Burl. M. LXVI, 1935, p. 142 (a.); Beenken 1935, p. 145 (a.); Degenhart, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte IV, 1935, p. 180 (a.); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (r.); Ortolani, p. 25 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 149 and p. 80 (d.); Camesasca, Perugino, Plate 77 (by Perugino); Dussler 1966, No. 43 (by Perugino).
Florence, Uffizi, No. 8538.
PROVENANCE: Urbino, Palazzo Ducale; 1631, Florence, Medici family.
Durand-Gréville was the first to attribute this very mediocre portrait to Raphael. Gronau originally rejected this attribution (1907) - and was followed by several other scholars - but later accepted it. The work was traditionally ascribed either to the school of Francesco Francia or to Bonsignori. No discussion is needed to prove that the portrait cannot be reconciled with Raphael’s art either of the pre-Florentine period or of the years 1505-8. In my opinion it can hardly be attributed to the Verona master, either, for it is much closer to the school of Bologna, i.e.
Francia and Costa. U. Schmitt also deleted this portrait from the Bonsignori catalogue. For Ortolani’s suggestion regarding Giovanni Santi see Florence, Uffizi, No. 1441 (p. 59).
Delaruelle 1900, p. 147 ff. (by Bonsignori); Durand-Gréville 1905, p. 38 ff. (a.); Gronau 1907, p. 569 (r.); Cr.-Cav., A History of Painting in North Italy (ed. Borenius), London 1912, II, p. 187, Note 1 (by Bonsignori); A. Venturi, Storia VII/3, p. 973 (F. Francia’s workshop); Gronau 1924-5, p. 443 ff. (a.); Filippini 1925, p. 215 (by Tamarocci); A. L. Mayer, Pantheon II, 1929, p. 354 (copy? after Bonsignori); Berenson 1932, p. 480 (a.); Suida 1934-6, p. 164, Note 2 (a.); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (d.); Ortolani, p. 23 (in part a.); Salvini, Cat. 1952, p. 56 (School of F. Francia); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, March, p. 10 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 92 (a.); U. Schmitt 1961, pp. 101, 116, 130 (School of F. Francia); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (d.; Dussler 1966, No. 44 (r.).
Frankfurt, Staedel Institute (on loan).
PROVENANCE: Rome, E. Lazzaroni.
These two predella paintings are probably by the same artist as the two panels in Detroit (p. 57), but the two pairs are not likely to have belonged together and to have formed a predella of the altar-piece with the Coronation of St. Nicholas (Pl. 6). The two panels in Frankfurt show no more of Raphael’s personal style than those in Detroit.
A. Venturi, L’Arte 1940, p. 135, Fig. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 122 (r.).
Hampton Court, Royal Collection, No. 710.
PROVENANCE: Kensington Palace.
This painting, which has certainly been cut off below the chest, must be the same as that mentioned in the inventory of King James II (Scharf, Royal Picture Galleries, No. 123), which was formerly thought to be a self-portrait of Raphael. Since Gruyer’s refutation of this view, however, it was no longer given to the master until Volpe and, following his lead, Camesasca revived the old attribution. The former, who regards it as a self-portrait, points to the stylistic similarity with the Entombment in the Galleria Borghese (Pl. 67) and also (to a certain extent) with the Madonna del Baldacchino in Florence, and to the special character of the landscape. None of his arguments stand up to a close examination, however; the landscape in the background of the picture has none of Raphael’s organic composition (especially the landscape behind the sitter’s back) and the composition lacks Raphael’s creative ability. Cavalcaselle’s suggestion that this is the work of a Florentine artist should not be ruled out; but I am not convinced by Heinemann’s attribution to Piero di Cosimo, for the examples which he suggests for comparison seem inadequate, nor am I confident that the sitter is the same as in the Munich Portrait of a Young Man (p. 62).
Passavant II, p. 26 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 475 f. (r.); Morelli 1891, p. 142 (r.); Exhibition of King’s Pictures, London 1946-7, No. 175 (Umbrian); Volpe 1956, March, p. 14 f. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 88 (a.); Heinemann 1961, p. 104 (by Piero di Cosimo); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (d); Dussler 1966, No. 48 (r.); Wagner 1969, p. 115, Note 13 (r.).
Hanover, Kestner Museum, No. 289.
PROVENANCE: Bologna; Dr. Kestner, Rome.
As a result of frequent restorations between 1892 and 1950, the face, neck and bosom now show little of the original brushwork, but in the few intact parts (nape and shoulders) the technique and colouring (the grey and gold tones, etc.) bear witness to the hand of a master very similar to that responsible for the Donna Velata (Pl. 80), with which there is also a strong compositional resemblance. But there are no convincing arguments to show that the invention goes back to Raphael himself. Longhi’s suggestion that this picture should be dated 1504 seems to be quite unsupported by evidence and such an early date conflicts also with the fact that the work has often been attributed to Sebastiano del Piombo as it accords with his Roman style; the similarity with the Velata is another argument for not dating the picture in the first decade of the century. An attribution to Giulio Romano is certainly unjustified.
Passavant 1860, II, p. 362 (d.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 475 (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Küppers 1916, p. 131 (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Fischel 1916, p. 260 (a.); Gronau, p. 210 (r.); A. Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 356 f. (by Giulio Romano); Berenson
1932, p. 261 (by Giulio Romano?); Gombosi, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXVII p. 73 (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Dussler 1942, p. 153, No. 89 (r.); Palluchini 1944, p. 184 (r.); Ortolani, p. 51 (r.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 124, 363; Katalog Landesgalerie Hannover 1954, No. 289 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe 1956, March, p. 12 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 33 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 93 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 49 (d.).
Helsinki, Dr. Leo Wainstein.
PROVENANCE: William Dyce, London; Sterling Dyce, London; D. Nathan, London; Capt. Langton-Douglas, London.
This little picture is a fragment of a predella. In both invention and execution it is extremely mediocre and has no formal points of contact with Raphael’s youthful works.
A. Venturi in L’Arte XXXI, 1928, p. 213 f. (a.); Bock v. Wülfingen 1951, p. 117 (d.); Camesasca I, p. 80 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 50 (r.).
Liverpool, Walker Art Gallery, No. 2867.
PROVENANCE: 1836, Liverpool Royal Institution.
This picture, which is obviously an ex-voto, was formerly in store in the gallery and is in very poor condition. Because of its date of 1495 A. Venturi declared it to be Raphael’s earliest work, but this view did not find acceptance. In the absence of a personal inspection, Bock von Wülfingen left the verdict open. In my opinion it is not possible to establish any connection with Raphael’s early productions. The painting is described in the gallery as ‘Umbrian 1490-1500’.
A. Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 72 ff. (a.); Bock v. Wülfingen 1951, p. 117 (d.); Camesasca I, p. 79 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 57 (r.).
London, National Gallery, No. 1075.
PROVENANCE: Ordered by the heirs of Giovanni Schiavone for the family chapel in S. Maria Nuova de’ Servi, Perugia, in 1507; the work then passed into the hands of two families of the same city, the houses of Cecconi and (subsequently) della Penna (1821).
Traditionally ascribed to Perugino’s workshop, this picture was recently attributed to Raphael by Longhi, who emphasized in particular the ‘Florentine’ appearance of the Child. It must be admitted that in form and expression the figure type of the infant Christ shows a certain affinity, but this makes it the more surprising that Raphael’s genius, which had found clear expression at that time, is not shown in any other figure, not even in a detail, nor in the landscape, let alone in the execution of the crown-bearing angels, which are quite mechanical in appearance.
A. Venturi, Storia VII/2, pp. 460, 694 (by Andrea d’Assisi); Berenson 1932, p. 437 (by Perugino); Davies, Cat. National Gallery. The earlier Italian Schools, London 1961, p. 407 f. (by Perugino); Longhi 1955, May p. 23 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 148A (attr.); Camesasca, Perugino, Plate 185 (in part a.); Dussler 1966, No. 61 (School of Perugino).
London, Earl of Northbrook (formerly).
Cavalcaselle and Gronau attributed this work to a minor Umbrian painter (Lo Spagna or Eusebio da San Giorgio), but some modern scholars believe invention and execution to be by Raphael and date it between 1505 and 1507. In my opinion it is not impossible that Raphael created a similar composition - for the head of the Madonna, see R.Z. II, No. 73 in Montpellier and for the form of the upper body, see the Small Cowper Madonna in Washington (Pl. 50). But the picture has considerable shortcomings - the clumsy painting of the left arm, the harsh intersection of vertical and horizontal lines, and the shapeless drapery on the Madonna’s lap; the landscape - especially on the right side - also counts against an attribution to Raphael. The Child’s posture is modelled on the Christ Child in the Madonna del Cardellino in Florence (Pl. 51).
Cr.-Cav., Ital. Malerei IV, p. 345 (by Spagna) ; R. Fry and C. Phillips in: Catalogue of a Collection of the Pictures, Umbrian School, London 1910, No. 10 (a.); Gronau, p. 208 (r.); A. Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 126 (a.); Ortolani, p. 28 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 54 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 71 (r.).
London, art dealer, 1962.
PROVENANCE: Sir J. B.Robinson, London; Sotheby’s sale, 27 November 1963, No. 29.
This portrait (which the present author only knows in reproductions) follows the scheme employed in the portrait
study in Paris (R.Z. II, No. 80, datable about 1505) as well as in the portrait in the Galleria Borghese (p. 64). The left hand lies on a parapet decorated with a tapestry, and is formally almost identical with the early likeness of the young Rovere in Florence, Uffizi (p. 8), but the overall impression suggests that this work should be dated rather from the end of the Florentine period, or even from the early years in Rome. The importance given to the parapet, above all, suggests the possible influence of Sebastiano del Piombo. Comparison with the Madonnas painted between 1505 and 1508 shows that the stiff and shapeless landscape in this picture is quite unlike the work of Raphael, and this feature combines with the lack of structural sensitivity in the painting of the figure to rule out an attribution to him.
Dussler 1966, No. 72 (r.).
Montpellier, Musée Fabre.
PROVENANCE: Siena, in private possession; 1826, Monsignor Fabre, Montpellier.
Goro Gheri wrote to Lorenzo on 6 November 1517, stating that he was planning to commission a profile portrait from Raphael to be used for the coin which the duke intended to issue (Golzio, p. 63), and this portrait of Lorenzo is mentioned again a few months later. On 22 January 1518 B. Costabili, writing from Rome, informed Alfonso d’Este that the portrait of Lorenzo had been dispatched by Raphael (Golzio, p. 65), and this is confirmed by the two letters from the duke to B. Turini (4 and 5 February; Golzio, p. 66). Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 352 f.) saw the portrait among the effects of Ottaviano Medici in Florence, and also refers to a copy of it made by Aristotele di Sangallo (ed. Milanesi VII, p. 437). None of the surviving portraits can claim to be by Raphael, however, for the picture in Montpellier, like the version in Florence (corridor of the Uffizi), and that in Colworth (Hollingworth Magniac) are clearly the works of copyists.
Borghini 1584, p. 392 (a.); Passavant II, p. 177 (d.); II, 1860, p. 274 (copy); Müntz, p. 553 (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 315 f. (copy); Gronau, p. 212 (copy); Ortolani, p. 59 (copy); Fischel 1948, I, p. 115 (copy); Camesasca I, Plate 144A and p. 74 (copy); Fischel 1962, p. 85 f. (copy); Brizio 1963, col. 241 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 82 (r.).
Munich, Alte Pinakothek, No. 1059.
PROVENANCE: Leonardo del Riccio, Florence; J. Hugford, Florence; Count Lactant von Firmian, Leopoldskron; Trautmann, Munich; 1817, King Ludwig I of Bavaria; 1835 Staatliche Sammlungen.
The attribution of this work to Raphael and its identification as a self-portrait, accepted since the middle of the eighteenth century (Vasari, ed. Bottari, II, 1759, p. 88 note 1), were already disproved by Gruyer, but have been revived by Volpe and Camesasca, although without adequate grounds. It has long been recognized that this picture belongs to the Bolognese-Umbrian school of between 1500 and 1510, but neither the attribution to Aspertini nor Heinemann’s suggestion of Timoteo Viti is convincing. The theory that the sitter is the same man as in the Hampton Court portrait, No. 710 (p. 60) must be considered doubtful. Wagner regards the Munich picture as a sixteenth-century pasticcio.
Passavant II, p. 38 (a.); Gruyer 1881, I, p. 95 (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 476 (by Alfani); Morelli 1891, p. 14 (r.); Catalogue of the Munich Pinakothek 1930, p. 55 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 34 (by Aspertini?); Volpe 1956, March, p. 1 ff. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 32 (a.); Zeri 1957, No. 95, p. 68 (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 493 (a.); Heinemann 1961, p. 103 f. (by T. Viti); Brizio 1963, col. 226 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 86 (r.); Wagner 1969, p. 97 (r.).
Naples, Museo Nazionale, No. 145.
PROVENANCE: 1587 Farnese inventory, Parma; 1680, Palazzo del Giardino inventory, Parma; 1802, Galleria Francavilla inventory, Naples.
The identification of the sitter as Alessandro Farnese, the cardinal on the right of the enthroned Pope in the Presentation of the Decretals (Pl. 127), seems to me no longer certain. The features have more in common with those of the seated cardinal, identified by Suida as Bandinelli Sauli, in the group portrait by Sebastiano del Piombo in the National Gallery of Art in Washington (F. R. Shapley, Paintings from the Samuel H. Kress Collection, Italian Schools, XV-XVI Century, 1968, p. 166, Fig. 399). Whether the picture in Naples is by Raphael (as listed in the Farnese inventories since 1587) is a question which can hardly be answered while it is in its present state. The lack of form in the painting of the mozzetta, the abrupt meeting of the horizontal and vertical lines and the completely unorganic composition of the right arm, all combine to raise strong doubts, as do the dark and empty left background and the landscape view, which is purely decorative in effect.
Passavant II, p. 427 f. (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 282 (Florentine copy); Filangieri di Candida 1901, p. 128 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 86 (r.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (in part a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 113 (d.), 363 (Florentine copy); Camesasca I, Plate 105 (d.); Fischel 1962, p. 84 f. (d.); Dussler 1966, No. 88 (r.).
New York, French Gallery.
As Gronau and H. Cook first pointed out, the composition of this picture is derived from Leonardo da Vinci’s Madonna Benois in Leningrad, Hermitage. Among the sketches by Raphael on a sheet in Lille (R.Z. VIII, No. 346), dating from the end of the Florentine period, are similar ideas for the position and gesture of the Child, but this primary crystallization reflects a much more animated conception than the many paintings in which it was used. Fischel was therefore right in suggesting that Raphael himself may never have painted such a composition, and Cavalcaselle had already expressed the same opinion. It must be assumed that the Leonardo-inspired concetto, of which Raphael may have made further and more careful sketches, was used for the painting by one of the master’s assistants, for not one of the surviving versions has the quality of Raphael’s work. (The copy in the Pembroke Collection is signed on the neckline of the Madonna’s dress: RAPHAELLO VRBINAS MDVIII.) Suida was therefore wrong in claiming that the New York picture is original.
Passavant II, p. 79 f. (copy); Müntz, p. 206 (copy); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 272 (workshop); E. v. Liphart 1912, p. 207 (copy); Gronau 1912, p. 253 ff. (copy); Cook 1914, I, p. 386 (copy); Gronau, p. 208 (copy); Gamba, p. 51 (copy); Suida, p. 7 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 127, 360 (copy); Camesasca I, p. 83 (r.); Gamulin 1958, p. 160 f. (copy); Fischel 1962, p. 95 (copy); Dussler 1966, No. 93 (design a.).
Paris, Louvre, No. 1500.
PROVENANCE: Cardinal Adrien Gouffier de Boissy; Claude Gouffier, Oiron (the arms of the French families of Claude Gouffier and Artus Gouffier are painted on either side of the head); Marquis de la Feuillade, Oiron; King Louis XIV, Fontainebleau; presented by King Louis XVIII to the church of Longport; 1820, Duc de Maillé; Paris art dealer (Cousin).
This picture, which is badly preserved, differs greatly in the saint’s posture from the Florence example (Pl. 100), to which it is also considerably inferior from the formal point of view. Morelli and Gronau ascribed it to Sebastiano del Piombo, but there is nothing to suggest the hand of the Venetian artist. The attribution to Raphael, made by Mündler, Frizzoni and Berenson and others, is untenable, and so is Gamba’s view that the landscape shows all the signs of the master’s art. The composition can hardly be by Giulio Romano. I consider this a workshop production dating from the beginning of the twenties.
Passavant II, p. 355 (by Giulio Romano?); Fillon, Chronique des Arts 1867, p. 108 (a.); Mündler 1868, p. 299 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 550 (copy); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 390 f. (r.); Morelli 1890, p. 54 (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Clouzot, Bull. de l’Art ancien et moderne VII, 1905, p. 262 (a.); Frizzoni 1906, p. 417 ff. (a.); Gronau, p. 213 (by Sebastiano del Piombo); Gamba, p. 106 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Boudot-Lamotte 1934, March, p. 49 f.; Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 441 (r.); Ortolani, p. 65 (a.); Dussler 1942 p. 155, No. 98 (r.); Pallucchini 1944, p. 187 (r.); Camesasca I, Plate 121 (in part a.); Freedberg, p. 370 (by Giulio Romano; execution by Raffaellino dal Colle); Brizio 1963, col. 240 (partly a.); Dussler 1966, No. 100 (studio).
Paris, Louvre, No. 1507.
PROVENANCE: King Francis I of France, Fontainebleau.
The portrait of this lady, the wife of Ascanio Colonna, was painted as the result of a commission from Cardinal Bibbiena, who had been an ambassador to the French court in 1518 and intended it as a gift for Francis I. Raphael himself never saw the sitter, but sent his pupil, Giulio Romano, to Naples to prepare the cartoon from life. The master was therefore probably not even responsible for the head, as was claimed by Vasari, who never saw the picture. The cartoon by Giulio Romano (now lost) was in the possession of Alfonso d’Este in 1519 (Golzio, p. 76 f.). The Duke had very probably seen the portrait during his stay at the French court in 1518, for his wish to obtain the cartoon is mentioned as early as Christmas 1518. The portrait was restored by Primaticcio in 1540.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) V, p. 525 (in part a.); Passavant II, p. 323 ff. (a.); Mündler 1868, p. 299 (in part a.); Müntz, p. 556 (in part a.); Gruyer 1880, p. 476 ff. (in part a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 324 ff. (in part a.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 280 f. (by Giulio
Romano); Gronau, p. 157 (by Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 125, 366 (by Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 136 (by Giulio Romano); Maffei 1959, p. 319 (by Penni); Freedberg, p. 345 f. (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 93 (by Giulio Romano); Oberhuber 1962, p. 68 (by Giulio Romano); Brizio 1963, col. 241 (replica); Dussler 1966, No. 106 (studio).
Philadelphia, John G. Johnson Collection.
The formal structure, physical types and expressions of the figures suggest that the picture comes from the circle of Pintoricchio, but the features cited by Longhi are not sufficient to allow one to identify the apprentice responsible as the young Raphael.
Berenson, Cat. Johnson I (1913), No. 142 (by Pintoricchio); Berenson 1932, p. 460 (by Pintoricchio); Longhi 1955, May, p. 18 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 146B and p. 80 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 108 (r.).
Rome, Accademia di San Luca, No. 283.
Scipione da Gaeta restored this picture as early as about 1600, and its poor state of preservation also made further treatment necessary in more recent times (1857, 1936-7, 1949, according to P. Cellini, see below). It was much admired in the seventeenth century, and was later singled out for praise by Goethe during his Italian journey (see Italienische Reise, Insel-Verlag edition, Leipzig 1920, pp. 554, 578). Since Passavant, this work had been excluded from Raphael’s uvre, but in the last decades renewed attempts were made to attribute it to the master. These have not been convincing, and in my opinion this is a late workshop production, probably by Penni. The picture was recently studied in detail by H. Wagner, who also gives it to Penni. There is a copy by A. Grammatica in the church of the Accademia di San Luca.
G. Baglione, Le vite de’ pittori, scultori et architetti . . ., Rome, 1642, pp. 124; Passavant II, p. 416 f. (workshop); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 570 ff. (r.); Müntz, p. 531 (by T. Viti); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 467 (by T. Viti); Dollmayr 1895, p. 359 (by Penni); Cellini 1936, p. 282 ff. (a.); Muñoz 1936, p. 336 (a.); Mariani 1937, p. 192 f. (a.); Golzio, La galleria e le collezioni della Reale Accademia di San Luca in Roma, Rome 1939, p. 16 and Fig. 67 (workshop); Cellini 1958, p. 250 ff. (a.); Camesasca I, p. 83 f. (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 111 (r.); H. Wagner 1969, p. 72 (Penni).
Rome, Galleria Borghese, No. 371.
PROVENANCE: Olimpia Aldobrandini, Rome.
Since its careful restoration and the removal of overpainting, the portrait has regained its original appearance. The unicorn (symbol of chastity) could not previously be seen, for during the sixteenth century the picture had been made to represent St. Catherine through the addition of her attribute, the wheel. The Florentine character of the work is evident, as is the strong indebtedness to the portrait form used by Raphael in his pre-Roman period (and especially in his portrait study executed under the influence of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, R.Z. II, No. 80), but critics long hesitated to ascribe this work to Raphael himself. The first to do so was Longhi and he was followed by some writers; others, such as Gamba, Berenson, Fischel and also Freedberg, did not accept the attribution to Raphael. I am not convinced by any of Longhi’s arguments. The lack of strong compositional structure, the academic derivative approach, the technique and the colouring - cf. above all the portrait of La Gravida (Pl. 46) - all point to an artist who had none of the genius of Raphael. Ridolfo Ghirlandaio has repeatedly been suggested and this name seems to fit the facts best, while Berenson’s attribution to Granacci does not carry the same degree of conviction. The sitter’s features show some resemblance to the older-looking physiognomy of Maddalena Doni in the Pitti (Pl. 45) and Ortolani therefore took the portrait in the Borghese Gallery to be a companion-piece to the portrait of Angelo Doni and considered the portrait in the Pitti to represent his mother-in-law. This hypothesis is not convincing. Datable some time after 1506, possibly after Raphael had left Florence.
Morelli, ZfbKst IX, 1874, p. 172 (by Ridolfo Ghirlandaio); Cantalamessa, Rass. d’A. 1916, XVI, p. 187 ff. (Florentine, 16th century); A. Venturi, Storia IX/1, p. 507 (by Ridolfo Ghirlandaio); Longhi, Vita artistica 1927, p. 168 and Precisioni 1928, p. 144 ff. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 267 (by Granacci); De Rinaldis 1936, p. 122 ff. (a.); Ortolani, p. 27 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Volpe, March 1956, p. 9 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 61 (a.); Pergola, Gal. Borghese 1959, II, No. 169 (a.); Freedberg, p. 79 (Ridolfo Ghirlandaio); Dussler 1966, No. 113 (Ridolfo Ghirlandaio?); Wagner 1969, p. 67 (a.).
Rome, Marchese Emilio Visconti Venosta.
The shafts of this crucifix, which is painted on both sides, end in trefoils decorated with half-length figures. On the front are St. John and the Virgin (right and left) and SS. Peter and Mary Magdalen (top and bottom). In the corres-
ponding positions on the back are SS. Clare and Francis, Louis of Toulouse and Anthony of Padua.
Ricci, Pintoricchio, Perugia 1912, p. 220 f. (by Pintoricchio); Gamba, Dedalo 1920-21, p. 522 (in part a.); Gnoli, Pittori e miniatori nell’Umbria, 1923, p. 297 (school of Pintoricchio); Volpe 1956, March, p. 8 ff. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 8A, B (a.); Carli, Pintoricchio, Milan 1960, p. 57 (follower of Perugino); Dussler 1966, No. 123 (r.).
Stockholm, private collection (formerly).
PROVENANCE: Grand-Dukes of Tuscany; Leyland, London; O. v. Weissenberger, Dresden; Mrs. M. Frykberg, Stockholm; Fischer, Lucerne, sale 4 December 1965.
This picture was attributed to Raphael by Fiocco, who dated it about 1506. But neither the composition nor the figure types nor the landscape show any signs of Raphael’s art, and everything - particularly the figure of God the Father - suggests that the work was based on a prototype by Fra Bartolommeo. Whether this prototype was the version now in the Kress Collection (Fern R. Shapley, K. 1100, Fig. 304, catalogued as by Fra Bartolommeo) cannot be decided without inspection of the picture from Sweden. Fiocco’s attribution has not found acceptance, and the picture is now generally given to Bacchiacca. A variant (with differences particularly in the landscape at the left), which was in 1937 in the New Palace at Potsdam, was rightly attributed to Bacchiacca by Scharf.
Scharf, Burlington Magazine, LXX, 1937, p. 65 (by Bacchiacca); Fiocco, Rivista d’Arte; XXIX, 1954, p. 43 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 502 (by Bacchiacca); Abbate 1965, No. 189, p. 36 (by Bacchiacca); Dussler 1966, No. 125 (Circle of Fra Bartolommeo); Nikolenko 1966, p. 40 (Bacchiacca, copy Potsdam).
Unknown private ownership.
Perkins’ suggestion that this little picture was probably used as a decorative lid for a custodia (a vessel) may well be correct. From the point of view of formal structure and quality, however, an attribution to the young Raphael seems quite unconvincing, and in my opinion the style allows only the general classification as an Umbrian work of about 1500.
Mason Perkins 1948, p. 128 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 126 (r.).
Vaduz, Prince of Liechtenstein.
PROVENANCE: Marchese Giacomo Bovio, Bologna; 1823, in Vienna.
Following a suggestion made by Waagen and adopted by Bode, this portrait was formerly believed to be by Fran- cesco Francia. Cavalcaselle was the first to declare it a possible early work by Raphael, but he found no decisive support, for his attribution was rejected by G. Frizzoni and A. Venturi, while Fischel and Ortolani remained undecided. In my opinion this portrait is of high quality, for the expression of the head is so clearly defined and individual that no beginner could have painted it. It is, however, in no way similar to Raphael’s Florentine period portraits, for a comparison shows no parallels in construction, modelling or use of colour, and the composition of the landscape in particular is quite unlike Raphael’s style about 1505-6. These facts force one to treat with considerable scepticism each new attempt to attribute the portrait to Raphael and to think rather of a provincial artist. If the portrait of Altobello Averoldi in Washington, National Gallery of Art, Kress Collection (Fern R. Shapley, 1958, p. 71, Fig. 169) is in fact by Francia, he may also have painted the Vaduz picture. Filippini, referring to the bust of Duke Guidobaldo I of Urbino in San Bernardino, suggests that the latter may be the subject of this portrait and assumes that the design was by Raphael and the execution by Francia. But a comparison of the two works clearly shows that the sitters cannot have been the same, and there is no valid reason for believing that the work was so divided.
Passavant II, p. 61 (r.); Cr.-Cav. I, p. 264 f. (a.); Frizzoni 1912, p. 85 f. (by an imitator of Raphael); Filippini 1925, p. 213 f. (a.); A. Venturi, Storia VII/3, p. 952, Note 1 (by M. Meloni); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Suida 1934-6, p. 164, Note 2 (by Perugino); Fischel, Th-B. Kstl. Lex. XXIX, p. 435 (d.); Ortolani, p. 23 (r.); G. Wilhelm, Meisterwerke aus den Sammlungen des Fürsten von Liechtenstein, Lucerne Exhibition, 1948, p. 25 (Italian, about 1490); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 21 (a.); Katalog Meisterwerke der Malerei aus Privatsammlungen im Bodenseegebiet, Bregenz 1965, p. 48, No. 52 (Italian, about 1500); Dussler 1966, No. 129 (r.).
Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, No. 630.
PROVENANCE: 1560, Cardinal St. Charles Borromeo, Milan; 1584, sold to the church of S. Maria presso San
This picture was engraved by Bonasone (B. XV, No. 59) as a work by Raphael, and Suida declared it to be a late work by the artist. Although Suida was right to date it about 1518 and to include it in the context of works such as the Holy Family of Francis I in Paris (Pl. 101), the Madonna del Divin’ Amore in Naples (Pl. 104) and others, the compositional structure does not appear to be an invention by the master. It is an example of the coarsening process by which the forms and motifs of Raphael’s art (sometimes early, sometimes later) were exploited and combined. Dollmayr’s attribution to Penni has not been established, but conception and execution are undoubtedly closest to this artist.
Passavant II, p. 395 ff. (r.); Gruyer, Vierges III, p. 394 (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 463 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Dollmayr 1895, p. 362 (by Penni?); Suida 1934-6, p. 164 f. (a.); Glück 1948, p. 125 f. (invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966, No. 139 (r.).
Vierhouten, D. G. van Beuningen Collection.
PROVENANCE: Cardinal Fesch, Rome; J. Hubert P. Menten, Romerburg; Bachstitz Gallery, The Hague.
Fischel declared this an original work of about 1507-8, on the basis of the drawings in Bayonne (R.Z. III, Nos. 153 and 155), Paris (R.Z. III, No. 144) and Vienna (R.Z. III, No. 150), and his view was supported by Gronau and Borenius. The connection with these concetti is correct, but the execution is weak and shows no sign of Raphael’s own hand. The picture is no longer mentioned in Fischel’s monograph, Cat. Raisonné, 1948.
Gronau, Bulletin of the Bachstitz Gallery 1935, p. 15 f. (a.); Fischel, ibid., p. 12 (a.); Borenius, ibid., p. 17 (a.); D. Hannema, Catalogue of the D. G. van Beuningen Collection, Rotterdam 1949, No. 96 and Fig. 129 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 130 (r.).
Washington, National Gallery of Art, No. 534.
PROVENANCE: Palazzo Altoviti, Rome; Casa Altoviti, Florence; 1808, Crown Prince Ludwig of Bavaria, Munich; 1836, Hofgarten-Galerie, Munich; Alte Pinakothek, Munich; 1940, Samuel H. Kress Collection, New York (K. 1239).
This portrait was the subject of much dispute among earlier scholars, but since its recent cleaning there can be no doubt that it is by Giulio Romano, to whom it had already been attributed by Bayersdorfer and Dollmayr. A detailed investigation of the technique and colouring has been undertaken by Hartt, who has also compared the painting with other works by this artist, and his results carry conviction although his dating between 1520 and 1524 may be too late. Vasari reports that Bindo Altoviti was painted by Raphael when a young man and the name also occurs in Borghini, Riposo, p. 391. Fischel doubted whether he was the sitter for this portrait, but his objections cannot be substantiated since no valid physiognomic conclusions can be drawn from a comparison with the bust by Benvenuto Cellini (Boston, Gardner Museum), which was executed about thirty years later. Hartt suggests that the artist might have deliberately portrayed Altoviti as a younger man than he actually was in about 1520. In my opinion the structure of the portrait, though not its use of colour, is based on the Violinist by Sebastiano del Piombo (1515) in Ferrières (Baron Rothschild; Dussler, Sebastiano del Piombo, Fig. 32).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 351 (a.); Borghini 1584, p. 391 (a.); Rumohr, p. 559 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 142 ff. (r.); Müntz, p. 402 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 138 f. (a.); Morelli, 1891, p. 147 ff. (r.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 357 (by Giulio Romano); Gronau, p. 125 (a.); Gamba, p. 95 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 481 (a.); Ortolani, p. 65 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 122,365 (r.); Hartt I, p. 51 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Camesasca I, Plate 114 (execution by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 338 f. (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1962, p. 91 (r.); Dussler 1966, No. 134 (by Giulio Romano); Shapley 1968, p. 105 (a.); H. Wagner, 1969, p. 119, No. 40 (Giulio Romano).
Washington, National Gallery of Art, No. 1160.
PROVENANCE: George Morland, London; A. Hope, London; Lord Northwick, Cheltenham; J. W. Brett, London; Sir F. Cook, Richmond; Contini Bonacossi, Florence; Samuel H. Kress Collection, New York (K. 1567).
The attribution to Raphael was first put forward by Longhi, and later in greater detail by Suida, who gave the figure of Christ to Perugino, and all the other parts of the picture to Raphael. In the catalogue of the Kress Collection (see below) the attribution was not accepted. The picture has usually been given to the school of Perugino, and in my opinion Borenius’ attribution to Bacchiacca (Catalogue of the Cook Collection, Richmond, Surrey, I, 1913, No.
54) is the most convincing. As Fischel has shown (Die Zeichnungen der Umbrer, Berlin 1917, p. 156, No. 93), the figure of Christ is based on a drawing of St. Sebastian, in Berlin, which was copied by Bacchiacca.
Borenius, Cat. Cook, I, No. 54 (by Bacchiacca); Longhi, Paragone No. 65, May 1955, p. 21 (a.); Suida, in Festschrift W. Sas-Zaloziecky, Graz 1956, p. 165 f. (a.); Camesasca I, Plate 147a, p. 81 (a.); Dussler 1966, No. 136 (Bacchiacca); L. Nikolenko, Francesco Ubertini called Il Bacchiacca, New York 1966, p. 65 f. (attr. to Bacchiacca); Fern Rusk Shapley, Paintings from the Samuel H. Kress Collection, Italian Schools, XV-XVI Century, London 1968, p. 106 (Umbrian School).
Washington, National Gallery of Art, No. 266.
PROVENANCE: W. G. Coesvelt, London; Granville E. Harcourt Vernon, Grove Hall; Contini Bonacossi, Florence; Samuel H. Kress Collection, New York, 1935 (K. 302).
The angel and the Virgin appear in two tondi; behind them runs a parapet which opens on a landscape view. The picture ground is decorated with grotesques, and in the lower part are two symmetrical pairs of nude winged putti resting on candelabra.