PERUGIA, Collegio del Cambio
The fact that Raphael as a young man was brought to work on Perugino’s extensive cycle of paintings has led scholars to try to identify specifically the work carried out by him and to overlook the degree to which his teacher, who was then at the height of his powers, set the tone in matters of execution, figuretypes and expression. The result can be seen in the exaggerated lengths to which A. Venturi went in trying to decide the extent of the assistance given by the developing genius; Gnoli on the other hand limited Raphael’s contribution to the figure of ‘Fortezza’, while Fischel claimed that the figures of both Solomon and Horatius Cocles should be added to the latter. These attributions have gained only qualified acceptance among recent scholars and in the present author’s opinion rightly so, especially as repeated restoration has left no clear possibility of distinguishing the hands of individual painters. The latest renovation of the wall and ceiling paintings was carried out with great thoroughness and care by Mauro Pellicioli in 1940.
Cr.-Cav. I, p. 66 f. (a.); Bombe 1911, p. 302 (d.); Venturi, Storia VII/2, p. 761 ff. (a.); Gnoli 1913, p. 75 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 2 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 29 (d.); Fischel 1935, p. 434 (a.); Ortolani, p. 17 (d.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 21, 357 (a.); Venturi-Carandente 1955 (a.); Camesasca 1959, Plates 124-5 (by Perugino); Wittkower 1963, p. 157 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 222 (d.); Dussler 1966, p. 78 (d.).
PERUGIA, San Severo
The Saints on the left, reading from the inside outwards are: St. Benedict, St. Placidus and St. Maurus, and those on the right, reading similarly, are St. Romualdus, St. Benedict the Martyr and St. John the Martyr. The names of the saints are included on the strip below the cloud-bank.
In the composition of this painting Raphael must have been stimulated by Fra Bartolommeo’s Last Judgement then in S. Maria Nuova, a work whose persistent influence is also evident, second only to that of Leonardo, in the formal structure of each individual figure. The two tendencies are most clearly shown in the sheet of studies at Oxford (R.Z. IV, No. 210), in which the profile head of the old man representing St. Maurus at the left edge of the picture has all the characteristics of Leonardo, while the youthful, outward-looking head and the two studies of hands for the saint on the extreme right (whose head is destroyed) would certainly have been impossible without Bartolommeo’s art. The sketches of hands in the former Heseltine Collection, London (R.Z. IV, No. 208/9), the drawing of the reading monk in Lille (R.Z. IV, No. 211) and the beardless elderly man represented full-face in Chantilly (R.Z. IV, No. 212), are so close to the S. Severo fresco in subject and in form that they must be considered studies for the planning of this work.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi), p. 323 f. (a.); Rumohr, pp. 523, 524, 525 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 46 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 218 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. I, pp. 182 f., 255 (by Perugino and Raphael); Bombe 1911, p. 308 (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 41, 42 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 41 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 20 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 67, 359 (a.); Longhi 1955, May, p. 22 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 2, 3 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 49 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 226 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 78 (a.); Schug 1967, pp. 479 ff. (a.).
ROME, Accademia di San Luca
PROVENANCE: J. B. Wicar, Lille.
Since the publication of Pungileoni’s Elogio storico di Raffaello Santi da Urbino, Urbino, 1829 (pp. 128 ff.), it has traditionally been accepted that the putto and its lost companion served as bearers for Pope Julius II’s coat of arms, a fresco which was situated, until its removal in 1772, above the fire-place in the so-called Room of Innocent VIII in the Vatican. However, the most recent investigation by Salerno has demonstrated the impossibility of this theory, for the little mural in question is preserved complete in the Museo Pio-Clementino in the Vatican, and clearly shows the entirely dissimilar posture and purpose of the two little boys (see Salerno, quoted below, and also Pietrangeli, ‘Il Museo Clementino Vaticano’ in Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia, XXVII, 1951/2, p. 100). As the provenance has been proved incorrect the question remains whether this putto fragment, which repeats the figure to the left of Isaiah in the church of Sant’ Agostino in Rome, should be considered a contemporary replica from Raphael’s workshop or possibly a copy made in the early nineteenth century, perhaps by J. B. Wicar, who owned the work before it passed to the Accademia di San Luca. The painting is at present being restored by Pico Cellini and a proper decision must wait on the results of this undertaking; the extremely valuable investigations carried out by Salerno, however, already suggest that it is of a very late date. Both Passavant and Cavalcaselle were sceptical about this work because of its poor condition, but surprisingly enough later scholars have been almost unanimous in accepting it as authentic, Dehio even going so far as to consider it Raphael’s original while attributing the fresco in the church of Sant’ Agostino to a lesser artist.
Passavant II, p. 138 f. (r.); Müntz 1882, p. 386 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 144 Note (r.); Dehio 1914, p. 215 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 106 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 71 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 438 (a.); Ortolani, p. 44 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 91 (a.); Salerno 1960, p. 81 ff. (d.); Dussler 1966, p. 79 (d.).
ROME, Church of Sant’ Agostino
205 x 155 cm.
This fresco, which is to be found on the third pillar of the central nave of the church, shows the prophet seated within a frame formed at the top of the picture by two garlanded putti and an inscribed panel. The scroll held by the prophet bears a Hebrew text taken from Isaiah XXVI, 2: ‘Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.’ The Greek inscription on the panel above is in praise of St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin: ‘To St. Anne, mother of the Virgin: to the Holy Virgin, mother of God, to Jesus the Saviour: Jo(hannes) Goritz.’ This painting was originally linked with the sculptured group of St. Anne with the Virgin and Child which Goritz commissioned at the same time from Andrea Sansovino and which is dated 1512; however, the sculpture was moved to a chapel in the church in 1760 and since then the painting has been isolated. Although repeated restoration about 1555-60 and in 1814 had caused such severe damage (at least, in certain parts) that the stylistic quality of the picture was sometimes misjudged (see Dehio’s article), careful renovation carried out in recent years by P. Cellini (whose report on the restoration was published in Boll. d’A. 1960, p. 93 ff.) has revealed that here, as in the Stanza d’Eliodoro (and specifically in the Mass of Bolsena) Raphael was receptive to Venetian influences. The extent to which this figure is indebted to Michelangelo’s Prophets in the Sistine Chapel has been all too strongly emphasized by Vasari, and despite the obvious influence visible in the subject’s posture Raphael’s personal conception of form is evident throughout.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 340 (a.); Rumohr, p. 550 (a.); Passavant II, p. 136 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 400 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 141 ff. (a.); Dehio 1914, p. 213 ff. (r.); Gronau 1923, p. 106 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 70 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 44 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 90 (a.); Biermann, p. 153 (r.); Salerno 1960, p. 81 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 133 f. (a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 33 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 224 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 235 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 79 (a.).
ROME, Palazzo Vaticano
Many scholarly articles have been devoted to the purpose for which this Stanza was commissioned: see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., Bd. III/2, p. 1019 ff., and the essays by Wickhoff, JPK XIV, 1893, p. 49 ff., J. von Schlosser, JAK XVII, 1896, p. 87 ff., J. Klaczko, Jules II, Paris 1902 (2nd ed.), p. 211 ff., also, more recent studies by G. Leyh, H. Biermann, p. 23 ff., and H. Gutman, ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 27 ff. The papal master of ceremonies, Paris de Grassis, was already describing this room as the ‘Camera della Segnatura’ shortly after the paintings had been completed (see his Diarium, ed. Döllinger, Vienna 1882, III, p. 371). The present author therefore supports the view expressed by Gutman and other scholars that the chamber seems to have served as a
papal Court of Justice - i.e. the room in which the sessions of the Signatura Gratiae and the Signatura Justitiae took place under the direction of the Pope himself; Wickhoff and Schlosser, amongst others, had claimed that it was Julius II’s private library. However, the use to which the chamber was eventually put does not exclude the latter theory and Pastor may have been right in supposing that the Stanza, although probably originally intended as the Pope’s library, was in fact used as his work and business room and was thus the scene of the application of the ‘segnature’ (signatures). Schlosser’s thorough investigation of the programme of themes used in the Stanza and its predecessors leaves no doubt as to their nature: they are representations of the four Faculties, theology, philosophy, jurisprudence and medicine (replaced here by poetry), subdivisions which were traditional in the organization of libraries. However, one should not overlook the great importance attached in the ceiling paintings to the idea of Justice, a feature evident even in the tituli, which go back to Justinian’s Corpus Juris. The present author does not agree, however, with Gutman’s theory that the wall-paintings are also based on the subject of Justice, nor is he convinced that the passages from the writings of Bonaventura adduced by Gutman were more than a general source of inspiration. From the testimony of Paolo Giovio in his Life of Raphael, it may be regarded as certain that Julius II personally took part in the choice of the subject matter: ‘pinxit (R.) in Vaticano nec adhuc stabili authoritate cubicula duo ad praescriptum Julii Pontificis’ (Golzio, p. 192), but it is not known who in fact acted as the artist’s immediate theological adviser. The intensive researches now in progress can be expected to produce interesting results on this point.
A. THE CEILING PAINTINGS
For a detailed interpretation of the ceiling paintings see C. G. Stridbeck (I, 1960, pp. 14 ff.). P. Künzle (1964, pp. 533 ff.), in some very valuable observations, explains T. Inghirami’s part in the conception of the programme.
(a) Theology - Plate 115: above the wall-painting of the Disputa. The putto on the left holds a panel with the inscription: DIVINAR / RER, the putto on the right another with the inscription: NOTI / TIA.
(b) Philosophy - Plate 116: above the wall-painting of the School of Athens. The boy on the left carries a panel with the inscription: CAVSA / RVM, the boy on the right another with the inscription: COGNI / TW. The motto comes from Vergil’s Georgica II, 490 (Weizsäcker, op. cit., p. 61).
(c) Justice - Plate 119: above the wall-painting of the Virtues. The putto on the left holds a panel with the inscription: IVS / SVVM, the putto on the right another with the inscription: VNICVIQVE / TRIBVIT. The motto is taken from Justinian’s Corpus juris civilis I, Institutiones, ed. Krüger, p. 3 (Weizsäcker, op. cit., p. 61).
(d) Poetry - Plate 120: above the wall-painting of Parnassus. The putto on the left carries a panel with the inscription: NVMI / NE, the putto on the right another with the inscription: AFFLA / TVR. The motto is adapted from Vergil’s Aeneid VI, 50 (Weizsäcker, op. cit., p. 61). A sketch for the female figure is in Windsor (R.Z. V, No. 228), in which, however, she still appears half-naked; and a fragment of the cartoon for the head of the right putto is in London (R.Z. V, No. 229). There is much disagreement about the attribution of the four medallions. The Theology is supposed by Freedberg to have been painted in collaboration with Sodoma, and Gombosi ascribes both putti to the latter artist. Hoogewerff believes that Raphael finished only the head of the figure of Theology. The Philosophy is ascribed by Gombosi and Hoogewerff to Peruzzi, while Tozzi and Freedberg argue in favour of Sodoma. The Justice is attributed to Tozzi to Sodoma. The present author believes, like Fischel, Redig de Campos and Shearman, that all four paintings are by Raphael.
2. Rectangular Frescoes
(b) Apollo and Marsyas Plate 118
(c) The Judgement of Solomon Plate 121
The four medallions depicting the faculties are not only related vertically to the wall-paintings below them, but they are also part of a ceiling scheme which links them in a twofold relation with the rectangular works which they flank; i.e. each rectangular painting is associated with the medallions to its right and left. Thus the Fall of Man is related both to the medallion of Justice and to that of Theology; and the Judgement of Solomon between Justice and Philosophy refers both to the idea of righteous judgement and to that of wisdom. The picture of Urania, placed between Philosophy and Poetry, personifies the power of the intellect and also the divine harmony of the universal order; and the Marsyas scene, between Poetry and Theology, refers to art and to the flouting of divine authority. This interrelation was early pointed out by Mosler, Düsseldorf (see Passavant I, p. 139); noteworthy contributions have more recently been made by Wind (1938-9, p. 78) and Shearman (1965, p. 161).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 332 ff., VI, p. 385 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 5 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 553 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 111 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 358 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 13 ff. (a.); Grimm 1890, p. 272 ff.; Gronau 1923, pp. 55-9 (a.); Tozzi 1927, p. 171 ff. (by Sodoma); Coppier 1928, p. 13 ff. (by Sodoma); Arslan 1928-9, p. 525 (in part a.); Gombosi 1930, p. 14 ff. (in part a.); Gamba 1932, p. 57 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 436 (a.); Hauptmann, p. 254 f. (a.); Ortolani, p. 30 f. (a.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 317 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 74 ff., 360 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 33 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 4-7 (a.); Putscher, p. 240 ff. (in part a.); Biermann, pp. 27 f., 135 f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 14 f. (a.); Gutman 1958, p. 28 f.; Stridbeck I, 1960 (interpretation); Freedberg, p. 115 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 55 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 230 (partly a.); Shearman 1965, p. 160 f.; Dussler 1966, p. 81 (partly a.).
B. THE WALL PAINTINGS
1. The Lunette Pictures
For an interpretation of the subject, see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1003 ff., who also refers to the earlier literature, of which Friedrich Schneider, Theologisches zu Raffael, Mainz 1896, and Fr. X. Krauss, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst, are outstandingly important; Cl. Sommer 1945, p. 289 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, p. 81 ff., and 1962, p. 59 ff.; Redig de Campos, Le Stanze, p. 7 ff.; H. Gutman, Franciscan Studies, St. Bonaventura, N.Y., XXIII, 1942, ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 30 ff. and Ph. Böhner, Franciscan Studies, St. Bonaventura XXIII, 1942, p. 14 ff.; Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 334 ff.; Bandmann 1952, p. 20 f., and Biermann, p. 33 ff. Father Heinrich Pfeiffer, S. J., is at present working on a dissertation dealing with the theological programme of the Disputa and its relation to the ideas of Giles da Viterbo. His researches may lead to important results.
Beside the altar are seated the four Roman Fathers of the Church, on the left Gregory and Jerome, on the right Augustine and Ambrose. The figures behind them on either side, pointing to the Host, cannot be identified. The three standing saints next to Augustine are the Dominican Thomas Aquinas (full-face), the Franciscan Cardinal Bonaventura (reading) and an old man, Pope and martyr, who is probably Julius I represented with the features of Julius II (cf. P. Künzle, ‘Zur obersten der drei Tiaren auf Raphael’s Disputa,’ in: Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Archäologie und Kirchengeschichte, LVII, 1962, pp. 226 ff.). Next comes the powerful profile figure of a blessing Pope, who must be identified with Sixtus IV, and behind him is Dante. The identifications suggested for the remaining figures on the far right of the picture cannot stand up to close investigation. The monk at the back peering out from beneath his hood may be Savonarola. Apart from the two Fathers of the Church none of the figures on the left of the altar is identifiable except the man at the rail whose face is turned in profile towards the young man pointing at the Host and the monk looking upwards at the edge of the picture: the first has the face of Bramante, the second can justifiably be claimed to be Fra Angelico. The two Bishops to the left of the standing man seen from the back are believed by R. De Maio (in Archivium Fratrum Praedicatarium XXXVIII, 1968, pp. 119 ff.) to represent Olivero Carafa of Naples and Tommaso de Vio.
ception. Studies for the groups of angels flanking God the Father are in London and Oxford (R.Z. VI, Nos. 297-300), for those accompanying the Holy Ghost, in Oxford (R.Z. VI, No. 276), and others are in Budapest (R.Z. VI, No. 301). Of the final cartoon only the fragment showing God the Father is known (Paris, R.Z. VI, No. 303).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 335 ff. (a.); Bellori, p. 11 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 94 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 330 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 21 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 60-5 (a.); Hetzer 1932, pp. 25, 26, 34 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 59 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 32 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 80 ff., 360 f. (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 102 ff. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 7 ff. (a.); Hoogewerff 1950, p. 334 ff. (a.); Putscher, pp. 53 and 243 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, pls. 8 ff. (a.); Biermann, p. 33 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 11 f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 118 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 59 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 228 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 159 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 82 (a.).
For an interpretation of the theme see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 995 ff., who also refers to the earlier literature; Grimme 1926, p. 94 ff.; von Simson, Zur Genealogie der weltlichen Apotheose im Barock, Strasbourg 1936, p. 146 f.; Fischel 1948, I, p. 85 ff. and 1962, p. 63 ff.; Gutman, Journal of the History of Ideas, New York 1941 and ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 34 ff.; Hoogewerff, 1947-9, p. 348 ff.; Redig de Campos 1950, p. 15 ff.; Biermann, p. 44 ff.; and Stridbeck I, 1960.
philosopher standing to write) as Francesco Maria della Rovere, for the head has none of the characteristics of a portrait.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 330 ff. (a.); Bellori, p. 25 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 101 ff. (a.); Grimm 1882, p. 61 ff.; Müntz 1882, p. 341 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 46 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 69-76 (a.); Grimme 1926, p. 94 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 60 ff. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 34 ff. (a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 47 ff. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 106 ff. (a.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 348 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 85 ff., 144, 361 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 15 ff. (a.); Putscher, pp. 53, 237 ff., 243 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1946, II, Plates 24-39 (a.); Biermann, p. 44 f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 12 f. (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 476 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 123 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 63 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 228 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 83 f. (a.); Prinz 1966, No. 115.
On the underside of the window-embrasure is the inscription: JVLIVS II LIGVR. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXI. PONTIFICAT. SVI. VIII (Golzio, p. 23). For an interpretation see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 993 ff.; also Meyer-Baer, ‘Musical Iconography in Raphael’s Parnassus’, in: Journal of Aesthetics, December 1949; Winternitz, Archeologia musicale del rinascimento nel Parnasso di Raffaelle in Rend. Pont. Acc. XXVII, 1952/4, p. 359 ff., and Gutman, ZfKstg. XXI, 1958, p. 32 ff.
standing with outstretched arms was believed by Bellori to be Horace. Basing the identifications on his principle of the division into epic, lyric and dramatic poets, Hoogewerff considered this lower group (including the figure standing beside the so-called ‘Horace’) to represent the three Attic tragedians, and identified them according to age: the eldest as Aeschylus, not Pindar, and the other two as Sophocles and Euripides (Vasari and Bellori left the latter pair unnamed). Above this trio stand the remaining five poets, of whom only Boccaccio, the middle-aged, beardless man in front of the tree trunk can be identified with certainty (attested by Vasari and Bellori). The other four have been the subject of lively discussion over the last decades, a discussion centred largely on attempts to identify the poet Tebaldeo, a contemporary mentioned by Vasari. Bellori identified him with the bearded man standing on the right of Urania, looking out towards the onlooker, an opinion accepted by Fischel and others. However, this figure has also been identified as Castiglione, Ariosto (Hoogewerff) and, more recently, Michelangelo (Tolnay 1962, p. 167 ff.; this hypothesis had already been proposed by Gamba, p. 63). In the opinion of the present writer the two former theories are untenable, but the features are not entirely unlike those of Buonarroti. Redig de Campos (1952, p. 51 ff.) finds Tebaldeo in the bearded old man seen in left profile beside the youth looking out towards the onlooker (whom Hoogewerff named Theocritus), and refers to the copy of the poet’s portrait in the Uffizi. However, this full-face portrait does not seem to the present author to show any similarity which might permit an identification with the person portrayed in the fresco, and the theory is also disputed by Tolnay. Hoogewerff saw this old man as the poet Sannazaro, but Redig de Campos, like Bellori, sees the latter’s portrait in the person standing on the old man’s right at the edge of the picture, his face turned to the front. According to Gamba, however, this figure may be Anacreon. While Ariosto can hardly be represented in the standing figure next to Urania (see above), it is not impossible that he is portrayed, as Fischel suggested, in the man calling for silence with his finger on his lips, on the left of Sannazaro. This supposition is supported by the considerable facial similarity with Ariosto’s portrait by Titian in Ferrara, Casa Oriani, and with the woodcut in the 1532 edition of Orlando Furioso. Redig de Campos, however, does not accept this theory and Gamba suggests that this figure depicts the poet Benedetto Accolti.
(Florence, Museo Horne; R.Z. V, No. 254), and another, now lost, showed the head of the Muse to the left of Urania (R.Z. V, No. 253).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 333 ff. (a.); Bellori, p. 43 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 98 ff. (a.); Müntz, p. 354 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 60 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, pp. 66-8 (a.); Coppier 1928, p. 25 ff. (by Sodoma); Gamba 1932, p. 62 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Ortolani, p. 37 ff. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 111 ff. (a.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 322 ff. (partly by Sodoma); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 88 ff., 361 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 27 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 43-9 (a.); Putscher, pp. 51, 245 (a.); Biermann, p. 58 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 13 (a.); Chastel 1959, p. 480 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 121 ff. (a.); Tolnay 1962, p. 167 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, pp. 65 ff., 222 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 229 (a.); Shearman 1965, pp. 159 f., 163 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 84 f. (a.).
On the underside of the window embrasure is the inscription: JVLIVS II LIGVR. PONT. MAX. ANN. CHRIST. MDXI. PONTIFICAT SVI. VIII. (Golzio, p. 23).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 337 (a.); Bellori, p. 41 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 109 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 357 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 70 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 77 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 64 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 482 (a.); Wind 1937-8, p. 69 f. (a.); Ortolani, p. 39 (a.); Wölfflin, p. 113 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, p. 90 f. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 21 ff. (a.); Putscher, pp. 54, 245, 246 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 50-7 (a.); Biermann, p. 60 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 14 (a.); Chastel, p. 483 f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 128f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 67 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 235 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 165 f.; Dussler 1966, p. 85 f. (a.).
2. The Dado-Paintings
Below Parnassus: two grisailles:
Hoogewerff’s interpretation of these two scenes can be regarded as definitive, and that propounded by Wickhoff (1893, pp. 60, 63), based on the memorabilia of Valerius Maximus, must therefore be discarded. Opinions vary as to the identity of the artist. Gamba upheld the attribution to Raphael and it is not impossible (in the present author’s opinion) that he had prepared concetti, even if the painting was not carried out until the twenties. Some scholars attribute the execution to Penni, others to Perino del Vaga; given the alternatives of this artist and Penni, however, the
older assistant seems far more probable on grounds of style and presentation. The cursory sketch in Haarlem. The cursory sketch in Haarlem for the scene showing Augustus (illustrated in Fischel, R.Z. V, text p. 226), which Hoogewerff regarded as Raphael’s original draft, is a workshop product. The composition for the scene depicting Alexander (in Oxford; Parker Catalogue II, No. 570) is close to Penni’s manner.
Passavant II, p. 114 f. (a.); Müntz, p. 366 (r.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 75 f. (by Perino del Vaga); Dollmayr 1895, p. 246 f. (r.); Hoogewerff 1915, p. 10 ff. (by Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 79 (by Penni); Hoogewerff 1926-7, p. 3 ff. (by Penni); Baumgart 1931, p. 63 f. (by Perino del Vaga); Gamba, p. 73 f. (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 436 (by Penni?); Suida 1941, p. 25, Nos. 87-8 (r.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 113, Note 1 (r.); Hoogewerff 1947-9, p. 331 (by Penni); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 49A, B (by Perino del Vaga?); Biermann, p. 28 (r.); Schöne, p. 37, under Fig. 73 (by Perino del Vaga); Chastel, p. 483 (workshop); Künstler 1958, pp. 14 f. (new interpretation); Freedberg, p. 131 (by Penni); Dussler 1966, p. 86 (by Penni).
Below the Cardinal Virtues:
This work, which depicts a historical ceremony, was lent contemporary character by the appearance of the Pope (a portrait of Julius II) and by the portrayal of members of the papal court.
This scene is based on a sketch by Raphael himself (in Frankfurt, R.Z. V, No. 255). Nowhere, however, does the execution of the much-damaged fresco show the work of his own hand. Palluchini’s hypothetical suggestion (p. 123) that the painting may have been restored by Sebastiano del Piombo cannot be accepted; equally erroneous is Coppier’s attribution to Sodoma. A. Venturi and others attributed the execution to G. de Marcillat. The work has remained unfinished.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 334, 337 (a.); Bellori, p. 42 f. (a.); Rumohr, p. 554 (a.); Passavant II, p. 109 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 358 (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 74 f. (a.); Filangieri di Candida 1901, pp. 128 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 78 (a.); Baumgart 1931, p. 52, Note 2 (by Penni?); Gamba 1932, p. 64 f. (workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 39 f. (a by Raphael, b workshop); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 92 ff., 361 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 25 ff. (in part a.); Putscher, p. 254 f. (workshop); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 58, 59 (workshop); Biermann, p. 60 f. (a.); Chastel, p. 484 (workshop); Freedberg, p. 129 (by Penni); Fischel 1962, p. 68 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 230 (a by Raphael, b invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966, pp. 86-7 (invention by Raphael).
3. The grisailles in the window embrasures of the Cardinal Virtues wall.
The subject is taken from the Memorabilia of Valerius Maximus (Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri IX, ed. C. Kempf, Leipzig 1888, p. 301).The fragmentary sketch in Windsor (Popham 1949, Cat. No. 797v.) is the work of Raphael, but the execution may have been left to pupils (Penni?). Unlike its companion, this fresco is in a good state of preservation.
This scene is based on Luke XXII, 38: ‘And they (the disciples) said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.’ As Steinmann has pointed out, the picture differs from the text of the Gospel: it shows Christ walking among his disciples and pointing with his right hand to two crossed swords which lie on the ground. He is therefore depicted as offering the swords to the disciples. The first proclamation of this doctrine on the part of the Church was embodied in the Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’ of Pope Boniface VIII on 18 November 1302. The sketch in Windsor is by Raphael (Popham 1949, Cat. No. 797r.); the execution of the fresco is by the workshop (Penni?).
Passavant II, p. 116 (a.); Steinmann 1899, p. 169 ff. (workshop); Gronau 1923, p. 80 (a.); Baumgart 1931, p. 62 f. (by Penni); Fischel 1935, p. 436 under A (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 87 (invention by Raphael).
We have no information as to the purpose of this room, but the programme of the paintings on the ceiling and walls must go back to Julius II, for the individual scenes containing the Pope’s portrait refer to historical events paralleled in his life. The paintings are not primarily concerned with representing concrete facts, however; more important is the representation of higher ideal qualities of the Papacy: the divinity of its institution and hence its leadership and freedom, the triumph of righteousness, faith and trust. Fateful isolated events become symbols and through their transcendental nature acquire a lastingly expressive character. Opinions differ as to when the paintings in this room were begun. A letter from the Ferrarese ambassador to Isabella d’Este (12 July 1511) reports that Julius ‘fa depenzer due camere a Raffaello’, and this has long been taken to mean that Raphael was already active in this room early in the summer of 1511 while continuing work in the Camera della Segnatura. However, the report shows only that the commission had been given and tells us nothing about the date of its execution (referred to by D. Redig de Campos 1961, p. 194, Note 26). It is more likely that work started early in 1512; towards the end of that year the Mass of Bolsena was completed, according to the inscription. When Raphael received the remainder of his payment, after the middle of 1514, all the frescoes were completed (Golzio, p. 33). The date 1514 below the Liberation of St. Peter provides additional evidence as to the date of completion. According to a letter from the artist to his uncle Ciarla, dated 1 July 1514, work had then already commenced in the Stanza dell’lncendio (Golzio, p. 31 ff.).
A. CEILING PAINTINGS
The surviving evidence suggests that the ceiling was originally divided into eight sections, like that of the Stanza della Segnatura, and that the division into four sections was made possible only after the removal of the ribs (noted by Oberhuber and Count Metternich). It is at once clear that there is a significant connection between the themes of the ceiling paintings and those of the murals beneath them. The Old Testament scenes here depicted have always been interpreted as prefigurations and are established in the typology of the Biblia pauperum and the Speculum humanae salvationis. This connection has been further confirmed in considerable detail by Hartt (1950, p. 124 ff.), although it does not follow that the intermediary was necessarily Vergerio. Another assumption made by Hartt seems also very far-fetched: that the paintings - which are in fact similar to tapestries, for they appear to be hanging from all four corners - are supposed to refer to the idea of the tent of Heaven (see K. Lehmann, ‘The Dome of Heaven’, in Art Bulletin XXVII, 1945), and are thus symbolic of the battle tent used by the warrior Pope (he made his triumphal entry into Bologna beneath a purple baldachin). However, this was by no means an uncommon event, for the Pope always appears beneath a canopy on ceremonial occasions.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 346 (a.); Bellori, p. 83 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 153 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 385 f. (partly by
Giulio Romano); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 109 ff. (in part a.); Dollmayr 1890, p. 292 ff., and 1895, p. 244 f. (by Peruzzi); Steinmann 1899, p. 172 (by Peruzzi); Kristeller 1907, p. 207 (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 89 (a.); Venturi, Storia IX/2, p. 336 ff. (by G. de Marcillat); Baumgart 1931, p. 49 f. (sketch by Raphael, execution by Penni); Gamba 1932, p. 75 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (by Peruzzi); Ortolani, p. 40 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 99 f., 362 (a.); Hartt 1950, p. 124 ff. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 52 (sketch a.); Donati 1951 p. 267 ff. (by G. de Marcillat); Putscher, p. 242 f. (sketch a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 65-7 (by G. de Marcillat); Biermann pp. 69, 162 f. (d.); Freedberg, p. 148 ff. (by Peruzzi); Oberhuber 1962, p. 35 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 74 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 231 (invention by Raphael, execution probably by G. de Marcillat); Shearman 1965, p. 173 f. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 88 (invention by Raphael).
B. THE WALL-PAINTINGS
This work is based on the Second Book of Maccabees (III, 15 ff.) and shows Heliodorus the Syrian being driven out of the Temple in Jerusalem when he attempted to plunder its treasures. The high priest in the centre prays for divine aid while the deliverance takes place on the right, a rider from Heaven throwing the guilty man to the ground while two young men rush forward at his side. The group of women on the left and the majestic figure of Julius II, seated on his litter, witness this miraculous punishment. No agreement has been reached as to the identity of the Pope’s companions - the man at the front in the official dress of the Curia and the two litter-bearers. The courtier is named in the inscription as Giovanni Pietro de Foliariis from Cremona, an identification which is generally accepted; however, C. Ricci has shown (Rass. d’Arte XX, 1920, p. 89 ff.) that this inscription is executed on an oil ground and is not contemporary; the results of the most recent restoration confirm this observation. Moreover, there was no Breve Secretary of that name at the court of Julius II. Ricci, Gamba and Wagner (1969, p. 69) found in this head Raphael’s own features, and comparison with the portrait behind the figure of St. Luke in the Accademia di San Luca (p. 64) in Rome does not completely contradict this suggestion; however, it is doubtful whether the artist would have portrayed himself in such a prominent position. Fischel regarded the farther litter-bearer as a self-portrait and this is very probably nearer the truth than the assumption that this is a portrait of B. Peruzzi or of Giulio Romano. Wagner’s attempt to identify this portrait as Sebastiano del Piombo fails because of the lack of comparable portraits. The foremost litter-bearer, who looks out of the picture, was called Marcantonio by Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 442) and this identification has been accepted ever since.
13). The participation of neither Penni nor Giovanni da Udine can be recognized, nor does Ortolani carry conviction when he suggests that the left section of the composition was not started until after the completion of the Mass of Bolsena. - Fischel and most other scholars consider that this fresco was the first to be painted in the Stanza - an opinion which the present author accepts, for unlike Freedberg he sees no convincing stylistic reasons for dating it after the Mass of Bolsena.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 345 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 57 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 557 (a.); Passavant II, p. 156 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 375 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 120 ff. (execution by Giulio Romano and Giovanni da Udine); Dollmayr 1895, p. 245 f. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 90 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 77 ff. (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 43 f. (in part a.); Hetzer 1947, p. 50 (a.); Wölfflin 1948, p. 115 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 102 ff. 362 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 39 ff. (a.); Biermann, pp. 71 f., 74 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 68-71 (in part a.); White-Shearman, p. 303 f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 15 f. (a.); Bertini 1959, p. 364 (in part by Giulio Romano); Freedberg, p. 158 ff. (in part a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 24, Note 6 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 76 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 230/1 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 167 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 89 (a.).
For an interpretation of the subject, see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1030 ff., Hartt 1950, p. 120 f., Lazzarini 1952, and Biermann, p. 71.
This scene represents the miracle, said to have occurred in Bolsena in the time of Pope Urban IV (1263), in which blood appeared to a German priest who doubted the Transubstantiation. The blood-soaked cloth on which the chalice stood was taken to Orvieto and placed inside a precious reliquary, and in 1477 and 1481 the uncle of Julius II, Sixtus IV, granted indulgences to those who venerated it. On 7 September 1506, on his march against Bologna, Julius stopped at the cathedral in Orvieto to pay homage to the relic; his memory of the visit and the success of his entry into Bologna in 1510 under the protection of the Blessed Sacrament, both showing his deep faith in the Eucharist, may have determined his choice of the subject. The scene does not appear to be directly related to ecclesiastical affairs (such as the Lateran Council).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 342 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 75 ff. (a.); Rumohr, p. 556 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 157 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 376 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 124 ff. (in part by Giovanni da Udine); Gronau 1923, p. 93 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p.
76 f. (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 46 ff. (a.); Hartt 1944, p. 68, Note 7 (in part a.); v. Salis, ‘Klassische Komposition’, in Concinnitas, Basel 1944, pp. 184 ff. Wölfflin 1948, p. 119 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 104 ff., 362 (a.); Putscher, 28, pp. 54 f. (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 43 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 72 ff. (a.); Biermann, p. 77 f. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 15 (a.); White-Shearman, p. 299 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 155 ff. (a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 33, Note 45, p. 34, Note 54 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 78 f. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 231/2 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 90 (a.).
On the architrave of the window below the fresco is the inscription:
For an interpretation of the subject, see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1038 f.; Hartt 1950, p. 121 ff., and Biermann, p. 70 f.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 343 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 79 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 160 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 383 f. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 154 f. (in part r.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 245 f. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 97 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 84 f. (in part r.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 53 f. (a.); Wölfflin, p. 117 ff. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 106 f., 362 (a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 47 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 84-9 (in part a.); Putscher, p. 54 f. (a.); White-Shearman, p. 302 f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 164 ff. (a.); Biermann, p. 79 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 15 (a.); Oberhuber 1962, p. 34 and Note 54; Fischel 1962, p. 79 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 232 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 170 (a); Dussler 1966, pp. 90-1 (a.).
For an interpretation of the subject see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 11th ed., vol. III/2, p. 1037 f.; Hartt 1950, p. 119, and Biermann, p. 72.
This picture depicts the encounter between Pope Leo I and King Attila on the river Mincio near Mantua in A.D. 452. It differs from the original design (see the sketch in Oxford) in that the scene has been transposed to Rome, which is clearly visible in the background. The change was made because the Huns’ threatened invasion of Rome was averted by Leo’s intervention. The apparition of SS. Peter and Paul as armed envoys from Heaven is a legendary incident. The subject was certainly chosen by Julius II in order that his successful resistance against French invasions during his Pontificate should be commemorated through the representation of the ‘liberator Romae’.
flying apostles remain, but St. Peter differs from his counterpart in Oxford in that, apart from the key, he also holds a sword (in his right hand), as in the fresco. The drawing in the Louvre also corresponds with the mural in the composition of the right side, whose dynamic effect and narrative complexity are not yet hinted at in the Oxford sketch; Shearman’s supposition that the Paris project should be dated after the Oxford sketch seems thus to be justified, although Freedberg and Pouncey-Cere reverse the dating. Nevertheless, the version in the Louvre must be considered merely as Raphael’s modello for a pictorial idea; he could never have intended to carry it out as a complete composition in view of the fact that the drawing contains no portraits of the Pope and his entourage (such as appear in the other three frescoes in the Stanza) and would therefore never have obtained his patron’s approval. Julius II, whose features still appear in the Oxford concetto, died while the fresco was still being planned and after a start had been made, and his successor Pope Leo X was therefore portrayed as Leo I, Attila’s historical adversary. The identification with the Medici Pope is beyond doubt, but Fischel’s suggestion that the two cardinals in Leo’s entourage are portraits of Amadeo Berrutti, Governor of Rome, and Francesco della Rovere, Commander of the Castel Sant’Angelo seem unfounded, and the opinion of Redig de Campos that the man leading the Pope’s horse should be identified as the steward Serapica (Giovanni Lazzaro de Magistris) cannot be considered to be more than a hypothesis. There are better grounds for the identification of the elderly ecclesiastic in the middle of the three riders on the Pope’s right as the master of ceremonies, Paris de Grassis (suggested by Fischel and Redig de Campos). The herald next to him is a portrait of Andrea da Toledo; this has been shown convincingly by Redig de Campos (1959-60, pp. 163 ff.), and the identification is confirmed by a comparison with the inscribed tombstone in the courtyard of the Casa dei Cappellani of S. Luigi de’ Francesi in Rome.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 347 f. (a.); Bellori, p. 65 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 159 f. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 379 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 149 ff. (in part r.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 246 (r.); Gronau 1923, pp. 101, 102 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 82 ff. (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (in part a.); Ortolani, p. 53 (a.); Wölfflin, p. 120 f. and Note 1 (r.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 107 f., 194, 363 (in part a.); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 49 ff. (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 80-3 (in part a.); Biermann, p. 82 (in part a.); Schöne 1958, p. 16 (a.); White-Shearman, p. 304 ff. (a.); Freedberg I, p. 161 ff. (in part a.); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 24, 34 and Note 54 (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 80 f. (in part a.); Brizio 1963, col. 232/3 (a.); Shearman 1965, p. 170 ff. (a.); Dussler 1966, pp. 91-2 (a.).
This room, whose purpose is unknown, is called after Raphael’s mural of the fire (Incendio) in the Borgo of the Quartiere Vaticano. The decoration seems to have been planned already under Julius II, for the four surviving ceiling paintings - tondi depicting allegorical scenes (Vasari, ed. Milanesi, IV, p. 361; Camesasca 1959, Figs. 187-9) were painted by Perugino at the same time as Raphael was working on the ceiling of the Stanze della Segnatura (1508-10). The fact that Perugino’s decoration was left untouched despite its old-fashioned style is perhaps due to Raphael’s respect for his teacher; however, it is not impossible that redecoration of the ceiling was not carried out owing to lack of time, or because there was not the same interest in continuing an integrated thematic scheme as in the two previous rooms.
1. The Lunette Pictures
The theme of the picture is based on a story in the Liber Pontificalis which relates how a fire that had broken out in the Borgo of St. Peter’s in 847 was extinguished when Pope Leo IV made the sign of the Cross. Whether the scene has symbolic meaning remains an open question: Pastor (Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/I, p. 494 f.) thought that the quenching of the fire might refer to the termination of the schism achieved under Leo X; Redig de
Campos (whose interpretation is followed by Oberhuber) suggests that it may allude to the coming of general peace in Italy on Leo X’s accession to the papal throne, by contrast with the warlike events during the pontificate of Julius II. Pastor was certainly incorrect in assuming that the artist, as architect of St. Peter’s, wished to express in this work his ‘homage and thanks’ to his patron. Recent research - and especially Oberhuber’s penetrating investigation - has left no doubt that the invention of the composition as a whole was Raphael’s own. This also rules out the suggestion, made by K. Badt, that the architecture was painted by Peruzzi, firstly because of the harmonious relationship between the figure arrangement and tile buildings and secondly, because the architecture lacks any structural element which would accord with Peruzzi’s individual approach (on this point see Oberhuber, p. 38 and also the conclusions reached by Ch. L. Frommel, 1961, p. 156 f.). With regard to the execution of the mural, most scholars consider it the work of Giulio Romano and Penni; Shearman (1959, p. 458) and Oberhuber believe that, apart from the group escaping on the left wall and a few of the central figures, the painting was largely carried out by Raphael himself. In my opinion the quality of the three groups of figures in the foreground indicates that Raphael was responsible for their execution and there are also unmistakable signs that he was partially involved in painting the figures on the steps and in the background.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 359, V, p. 524 (in part a.); Bellori, p. 85 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 193 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 443 ff. (a.); Cr-.Cav. II, p. 204 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Dollmayr 1895, p. 251 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gronau 1923, pp. 119-22 (by Giulio Romano); Hetzer 1929, p. 95 f. (invention a.); Gamba 1932, p. 91 f. (in part by Giulio Romano and Penni); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Biagetti 1939, p. 230 f. (discusses the condition of the wall-painting); Hartt 1944, p. 68 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 53 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 100-4 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Biermann, p. 91 ff. (sketch a.); Hartt 1958, p. 21 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Badt 1959, p. 35 ff.; Freedberg, pp. 295, 302 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Oberhuber, 1962, p. 23 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 175 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 92 f. (a.).
This scene is based on the Liber Pontificalis and depicts the naval victory won in A.D. 849 by Pope Leo IV against the Saracens before the gates of the citadel of Ostia. The choice of theme reflects the contemporary preoccupations of the Medici Pope Leo X, who was planning a crusade against the Mohammedans following their repeated threats to the coasts of the Papal State about this time (see Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/I, p. 496 f.). The sea-battle takes place in the background and Leo X appears enthroned in the left foreground, accompanied by Cardinals Bibbiena and Giulio Medici, while a prisoner is led before him. In the right foreground of the picture other defeated enemies are being brought in. Although the execution shows the style and technique of Giulio Romano, particularly in the figure group in the foreground, the present author agrees with Shearman, Freedberg and Oberhuber that Raphael was responsible for the invention. This idea is supported firstly by the frieze-like composition, especially in the depiction of the soldiers - a feature already found in concetti representing similar subjects dating from about 1509 (Oxford; Parker 1956, II, No. 538 - R.Z. IV, Nos. 194/5; earlier scholars regarded these works as sketches for the Ostia mural), and secondly, by the monumental character typical only of Raphael and the superbly rhythmical organic composition of the figure groups. These elements even retain their emphatic power despite the execution by his pupil, whose brushwork has in several ways resulted in the weakening - or even distortion - of the formal and expressive strength of the original sketch. (Shearman considers that the figure of the ferryman at the right intrudes into Raphael’s frieze-like composition and was independently invented by the artist responsible for the execution - i.e. probably by Giulio Romano.) Cavalcaselle and others claimed that Raphael himself was involved in painting the figures of Leo X and the two cardinals. However, the fresco is now in such bad condition that it is impossible to find any single area which shows whether he took part in the execution.
The sea-fight in the background has repeatedly been attributed to Penni, and the participation of Giovanni da Udine has also been suggested, but neither of these assumptions can be checked in the present state of preservation. The same applies to the suggestion, made by Fischel and Gamba, that the picture had been restored by Sebastiano del Piombo (see also Oberhuber, p. 50, Note 106).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 360 (workshop); Bellori p. 95 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 197 f. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 443 (in part a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 211 ff. (sketch a.); Dollmayr 1895, p. 251 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 118 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gamba 1932, p. 92 f. (in part a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (by Giulio Romano); Biagetti 1934, p. 90 ff. (the condition of the wall-painting is discussed); Fischel, 1935, p. 441 (by Giulio Romano); Hartt 1944, p. 71 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 59 (invention a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 105 (in part a., and Giulio Romano with Giovanni da Udine); Biermann 1957, p. 88 f., 96 (a.); Hartt 1958, p. 22 f. (sketch and execution by Giulio Romano with Penni) ; Freedberg pp. 294; 299 ff. (sketch a.); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 24, 46 ff. (sketch a.); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 175 f. (sketch a.); Dussler 1966, p. 93 f. (invention by Raphael).
This scene, which shows the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III in St. Peter’s (A.D. 800), alludes to an event of Raphael’s time - namely the treaty between Leo X and King Francis I, in which the French king followed the example of Charlemagne and pledged himself to defend the Church (Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/I, p. 497 and p. 86 ff.). This alliance was concluded on 2 October 1515; but as Leo X did not return to Rome until 28 February 1516, the design for the picture cannot have been started until after the latter date. The idea of protective patronage is made clear in the inscription below the mural, which runs: CAROLVS MAGNVS RO. ECCLESIAE ENSIS CLYPEVSQVE, and the contemporary event is reflected in the portraits of Pope Leo X enthroned and Francis I kneeling to receive the Imperial crown. The fresco has been badly damaged and repeatedly restored - by L. Sabatini in 1573-6 (see J. Hess, 1947, p. 78 ff.) and by C. Maratta (beginning 1702); and it is therefore hardly possible to make definite identifications of the many individual heads. On the other hand, the information given by Vasari will certainly have been based on a trustworthy tradition and hardly needs to be questioned. He identifies the page kneeling behind the French king as the young Ippolito de’ Medici, who was later to be created a Cardinal, and he also mentions the portrait of Bishop Giannozzo Pandolfini.
similar compositional motifs in the Loggie, serve to strengthen the American scholar’s arguments. Dollmayr, Gronau, Fischel and Freedberg were right in stating that the execution is mostly the work of Penni. Oberhuber assumes that Giulio Romano was engaged on parts of the left half and ascribes the rest to Penni. Passavant and Cavalcaselle thought that Raphael himself intervened in the portrait heads, but this is certainly incorrect, nor are there any signs of the participation of Giovanni da Udine, suggested by Gamba. According to Hartt, neither Giulio Romano nor Penni played any part in the painting of this fresco, which he ascribes to Raffaellino dal Colle; the present author, like Freedberg and Oberhuber, can see no basis for this attribution.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 360 f. (workshop); Bellon, p. 99 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 191 ff. (in part a.); Müntz 1882, p. 446 (workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 290 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 267 (by Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 123 (by Penni); Biagetti 1926-7, p. 238 ff. (the condition of the wall-painting is discussed); Gamba 1932, p. 93 f. (by Penni and Giovanni da Udine); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (by Penni); Hartt 1944, p. 73 f. (by Raffaellino dal Colle); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 59 f. (sketch a.); Camesasca 1956, II, plate 106A (by Penni); Biermann 1957, pp. 89 f., 96 (r.); Hartt 1958, p. 22 (by Raffaellino dal Colle); Freedberg, p. 307 ff. (sketch a.); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 24, 26 ff. (sketch a.); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 176 (by Penni); Dussler 1966, p. 94 f. (invention by Raphael).
Pastor (Geschichte der Päpste, 13th ed., vol. IV/I, p. 498) has shown that this scene is based on an event described in the Liber Pontificalis, which relates that Leo III, in the presence of Charlemagne, took an oath on the Bible in St. Peter’s in answer to a slander uttered by a nephew of Hadrian I. The scene also illustrates an important rule of Canon Law at the time of Leo X, a rule which was repromulgated at the Lateran Council on 19 December 1516 with reference to Pope Boniface VIII’s bull, ‘Unam Sanctam’, and whose purpose was the rebuttal of the Pragmatic Sanction. The idea on which that bull was founded is expressed in the inscription on the cartello at the bottom right: DEI NON HOMINVM EST EPISCOPOS IVDICARE. As the inscription on the window architrave, LEO X. PONT. MAX ANNO. CHRISTI. MCCCCCXVII PONTIFICAT. SVI. ANNO. IIII. (i.e. before 11 March 1517) must refer to the date when the frescoes in the room were completed, this mural must have been executed between December 1516 and the beginning of March 1517. The scene contains a number of portrait-like heads, but the only features clearly recognizable are those of Leo X in the figure of the Pope (according to Biagetti, the original intention was to portray him crowned with the tiara). Redig de Campos is probably correct in identifying the prominent figure at the back on the left as the French King Francis I, whose presence is mentioned by Vasari. Fischel’s suggestion (1907, p. 129) that the bearded man standing behind the front mitre-bearer on the right of the picture represents Giuliano de’ Medici does not stand up to close investigation. Cavalcaselle had believed this figure to be a portrait of Lorenzo de’ Medici.
have been by Raphael (1965, p. 176 f.).
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 360 (workshop); Bellori, p. 98 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 190 f. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 446 (workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 294 ff. (workshop); Dollmayr 1895, p. 267 (by Penni); Gronau 1923, p. 124 (by Penni); Biagetti 1927-9, p. 141 (the condition of this wall-painting is discussed); Gamba 1932, p. 94 (workshop); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (by Penni); Hartt 1944, p. 74 f. (by Giovanni da Lione or Pellegrino da Modena ?); Redig de Campos 1950, p. 61 ff. (sketch by Raphael); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 106B (workshop); Biermann 1957, pp. 90 f., 96 (r.); Hartt 1958, p. 22 (r.); Freedberg, p. 310 f. (sketch by Raphael); Oberhuber 1962, p. 70 ff. (sketch by Raphael); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Shearman 1965, p. 176 f. (workshop); Dussler 1966, p. 95 f. (invention by Raphael).
2. The Dado-Paintings
Beneath the four wall-paintings are dado figures in bronze-coloured monochrome - six seated princes, all of them patrons of the Church. They are: Constantine the Great (beneath The Oath of Leo III); above this is the inscription: DEI NON HOMINVM EST EPISCOPOS JVDICARE, which refers to the fresco. / Charlemagne (beneath The Coronation of Charlemagne); above this is the inscription: CAROLVS MAGNVS RO. ECCLESIAE ENSIS CLYPEVSQVE. / Godfrey de Bouillon (beneath The Fire in the Borgo); above this is the inscription: NEPHAS EST VBI REGVM CHRISTVS SPINEAM CORONAM TVLIT, CHRISTIANVM HOMINEM AVREAM GESTARE. / Astolph of England (beneath The Fire in the Borgo); above this is the inscription: AISTVLPHVS REX SVB LEONE III. PONT. BRITANNIAM BEATO PETRO VECTI GALEM FACIT (not ‘Vectigalum’, as transcribed by Biermann). / Ferdinand the Catholic (beneath The Sea-victory at Ostia); above this is the inscription: FERDINANDVS REX CATHOLICVS CHRISTIANI IMPERII PROPAGATOR. / The Emperor Lothair (opposite the portrait of Ferdinand); above this is the inscription: LOTHARVS IMP. PONTIFICIAE LIBERTATIS ASSERTOR. A figure of Pippin was formerly between Ferdinand and Lothair but is no longer extant. These paintings, which are flanked by the grisaille herms with outstretched arms, are all the work of Giulio Romano; they were, however, completely repainted by Carlo Maratta in 1702/3. There are two known sketches by Giulio Romano for the herm-figures (in Haarlem, Teyler Museum, A 65; Hartt 1958, I, No. 12 and II, Fig. 21) and there is a nude study for the figure of Lothair (in Lille, Musée Wicar, No. 481; Hartt 1958, I, No. 10 and II, Fig. 22). On the other hand, the drawing A 64 in Haarlem, Teyler Museum (Hartt 1958, I, No. 11 and II, Fig. 20) is so much superior that Shearman and Oberhuber are right in considering it the work of Raphael himself (see also Jaffé, Burl. Mag. CIV, 1962, p. 233). Mention must also be made of the caryatids which support the vaulting: these are placed at the corners of the wall by the entry and exit doors and are derived from Egyptian examples (Pevsner-Lang, ‘The Egyptian Revival’, in: The Architectural Review, CXIX, 1956, p. 249, with illustrations). These, as well as the dado-paintings, date from the first half of 1517.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) V, p. 524 (by Giulio Romano); Bellori, p. 102 ff. (a.); Passavant II, p. 198 f. (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 268 (r.); Gamba 1932, p. 94 f. (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1935, p. 441 (r.); Biermann 1957, p. 88 and p. 170, Note 10; Hartt 1958, p. 22 (r.); Freedberg I, p. 311 (by Giulio Romano); Oberhuber 1962, p. 71 (by Giulio Romano); Dussler 1966, p. 96 (by Giulio Romano).
(c) St. Peter Enthroned between Allegorical Figures of the Church and Eternity. - Pope Clement I (depicted with the Features of Leo X) between Moderation and Kindliness (Comitas). These two sections flank Constantine’s Address.
(d) Pope Alexander I Enthroned, with the Allegorical Figures of Faith and Religion. - Pope Urban I Enthroned, with the Allegorical Figures of Justice and Charity. These two works flank the Battle of Constantine.
Vasari refers to the painted decorations of this room in three passages: firstly, in his Life of Raphael ‘Leone X ordinò che egli (Raphael) cominciasse la sala grande di sopra, dove sono le vittorie di Costantino; alla quale egli diede prin-
cipio’; secondly, in his Life of Penni, in which he discusses the works left unfinished at Raphael’s death, amongst which were the paintings in the ‘sala grande di palazzo’, which were continued by Giulio Romano and Penni ‘ancor che le invenzioni e gli schizzi delle storie venissero in parte da Raffaello’; thirdly, in his Life of Giulio Romano, in which he gives the most detailed account of the paintings in this room; the important passages in this context are:
part in the painting of the wall, for neither the two historical scenes nor the four pictures representing the Popes show any sign of his hand.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 369 (in part a.); p. 645 (invention in part a.); V, p. 527 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Bellori, p. 105 ff. (sketch by Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano); Passavant II, p. 365 ff. (sketch by Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano and workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 447 f. (workshop); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 361 ff. (workshop); Dollmayr 1895, p. 347 f. (by Giulio Romano); Gronau 1923, p. 204 (sketch for the battle picture by Raphael); Gamba 1932, p. 115 ff. (invention by Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano); Berenson 1932, p. 261 (by Giulio Romano); Fischel 1935, p. 443 (workshop); Hartt 1944, p. 77 ff. (sketch by Giulio Romano, execution by Raffaellino dal Colle); Salis 1947, p. 75 ff. (in part a.); Hess 1947, p. 73 ff. (in part a.); Hartt 1949, p. 300 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Hess 1950, p. 130 ff.; Redig de Campos 1950, p. 65 f. (by Giulio Romano); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 152-9 (invention by Raphael; executed by Giulio Romano with assistants); Biermann 1957, p. 99 f. (sketch by Raphael); Hartt 1958, p. 42 ff. (by Giulio Romano with Raffaellino dal Colle); Freedberg, p. 568 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Oberhuber 1962, pp. 40, 56, 58, 65 (workshop); Shearman 1965, p. 177 ff. (sketch by Raphael; execution by Giulio Romano); Dussler 1966, p. 98 (invention by Raphael).
ROME, Palazzo Vaticano
After the death of Bramante in 1514 Raphael continued building in the Vatican Palace. On the second floor of the
Damasus courtyard west wing he constructed an open loggia with 13 bays, each of which has a somewhat flattened vault containing four small frescoes of scenes from the Old Testament (Arcades 1-12 in the arcade); only the last bay (No. 13) contains representations taken from the New Testament. The pilasters and walls are embellished with decorative paintings and stucco reliefs. Since 1813 the arcades have been protected by glass. The architecture and decoration of the Loggie were commissioned by Pope Leo X, whose coat of arms can be seen in the cupola above the central arcade.
A drawing for the figure of the Creator, in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 64) was attributed by Fischel to Raphael, but in my opinion it shows all the characteristics of Penni’s style and technique. Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 60, Note 141) shares this opinion, and the work is classified under Penni’s name in the British Museum.
Popham and Freedberg attribute the preliminary drawing in Windsor (Popham Cat., No. 806) to Penni, whereas Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 60) believes it to be by Raphael; the present author supports the latter opinion. (See Oberhuber’s observations and his Figs. 52 and 53, which show the condition of the drawing before and after restoration).
(d) Adam and Eve toiling (badly damaged)
(a) The Building of the Ark
The composition is reminiscent of Cavallini’s fresco in San Paolo fuori le mura, as Wilpert (Die römischen Mosaiken . . . 1916, II, p. 684) and Hetzer (Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 1923, p. 204) have already pointed out (see also Stridbeck II, p. 73 f. and Fig. 59). Raphael’s original sketch for the angel in the centre is in Lille, No. 439 (see Collection J. B. Wicar au Musée de Lille. Cat. Exposition Dessins de Raphaël, 1961, No. 53 and Fig. XXVII). Fischel had intended to include this example in his corpus of Raphael’s drawings. In the Albertina there is a sketch for the composition by Penni (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 101 under Perino del Vaga - see Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141: Penni).
(d) The Flight of Lot (badly damaged)
The sketch by Penni is in Muncie (Indiana), Ball State Teachers College Art Gallery (see London, Pouncey-Gere Cat., p. 51, and Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141).
The sketch by Penni is in Oxford (Parker, Cat. II, No. 574).
(a) Jacob’s Ladder
Penni’s sketch for the recumbent figure of Jacob is in London, Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 65 (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141: by Penni).
(b) Jacob and Rachel
The drawing for this composition in the Albertina, catalogued under Perino del Vaga (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 103), is by Penni (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141).
Stridbeck (II, p. 74 and Fig. 61) finds this composition similar to that of Cavallini’s fresco formerly in San Paolo fuori le mura. The present author considers a dependence as most unlikely.
(d) Pharaoh’s Dream
A sketch by Penni in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Dyce, No. 185), is illustrated in Reidinger, A Selection of Drawings by Old Masters in the Museum Collections, London 1921, Fig. IV (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141: by Penni).
(b) The Burning Bush
The sketch in Florence, Uffizi, No. 1222E, attributed by Hartt to Giulio Romano (I, No. 20, II, Fig. 36), is by Penni (see London, Pouncey-Gere Cat. under No. 67).
A sketch by Penni is in Paris, Louvre, No. 3850 (see Windsor, Popham Cat. under No. 848, and Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141).
The drawing in Florence, Uffizi, No. 509E, is by Penni (see London, Pouncey-Cere Cat. under No. 66, and Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141).
There is a preliminary drawing in Paris, Louvre, No. 3849. Oberhuber (p. 62, Note 143 and p. 68) attributes this and the finished fresco to Raphael.
(b) The Golden Calf
The drawing for the composition preserved in Florence, Uffizi, No. 510E is correctly attributed to Penni by Freedberg (II, p. 414, Fig. 524) and by Pouncey-Cere (Cat., London, p. 51); Oberhuber (op. cit., p. 62 and Note 144) favours an attribution to Giulio Romano.
The sketch for the composition in Windsor (Popham 1948, Cat., No. 807) is not by Perino del Vaga as Freedberg (I, p. 415 and II, Fig. 525) assumes, but has all the characteristics of Penni’s pen-drawings (see London, Pouncey-Cere Cat. under No. 67).
(a) Samuel anointing David
The studies in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 114), there attributed to Penni, are thought by Pouncey and Cere to be possibly by Raphael.
(c) The Triumph of David
Penni’s sketch for this composition (in London, Pouncey-Cere Cat., No. 66) has a rounded top whereas the fresco is rectangular. The sketch can be regarded as reflecting an earlier stage of the composition and is not, therefore, a copy, as has usually been believed (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 144: by Penni).
(a) The Anointing of Solomon
The drawing in Paris, Louvre, No. 3921, is by Penni (Oberhuber, op. cit., p. 60, Note 141: by Penni).
(c) The Queen of Sheba
(a) The Adoration of the Shepherds
The sketch for the composition in London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 67), attributed by Hartt to Giulio Romano (1958, I, No. 21, II, Fig. 37), is by Penni; Freedberg (I, p. 415) ascribes it to Perino del Vaga.
The extent of Raphael’s participation in the execution of the paintings is given by Vasari in the following three passages: (1) ed. Milanesi IV, p. 362 f.: ‘Raffaello fece i disegni degli ornamenti di stucchi e delle storie’; (2) ed. Milanesi V, p. 524: ‘Raffaello si servi sempre di lui [Giulio Romano] nell’opere di maggiore importanza e particolarmente nel lavorare le loggie papali. . . . Perché avendo esso Raffaello fatto i disegni dell’architettura, degli ornamenti e delle storie fece condurre a Giulio molte di quelle pitture . . .’; (3) ed. Milanesi V, p. 594: ‘ed i festoni e le storie di sua mano (Perino del Vaga); le quali, oltre l’avanzar le altre, son dai disegni e schizzi che faceva lor Raffaello . . .’. In all these reports, as well as in an entry in the diary of Marcantonio Michiel (27 December 1519) ‘vi erano pitture di gran precio et di gran gratia, el disegno delle quali viene da Raffaello d’Urbino’ (Golzio, p. 104), Raphael’s controlling part in the planning of the works is clearly stressed.
Romano - mentioning Nos. Id, IIa, IIIa, IIId and VIIIa - provides no definite point of departure for attributing other works in the series of this artist; for it can be proved that the preliminary drawing for No. VIIIa is by Penni, who also made the sketches for the other three scenes in this compartment.
Passavant II, p. 202 ff. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 447 ff. (some sketches by Raphael); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 405 ff. (by Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 283 ff. (workshop); Gronau 1923, pp. 175-201 (workshop); Gamba 1932, p. 111 f. (workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (workshop); Ortolani, p. 63 (mainly by Perino); Fischel 1937, p. 23 ff. (angelic hierarchies); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 153 ff., 367 (in part by Raphael); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 128-53 (workshop); Hartt
1958, p. 28 ff.; Schöne 1958, p. 28 (invention by Raphael); Freedberg, pp. 327 ff., 412 ff. (workshop); Fischel 1962, p. 114 ff. (in part by Raphael); Brizio 1963, col. 242; Dussler 1966, p. 100 f. (in part by Raphael).
ROME, Palazzo Vaticano
This rectangular chamber, length 49 ft. 5½ ins. (15.74 m.), width 10 ft. 2½ ins. (3.12 m.) and height 13 ft. 6 ins. (4.64 m.), adjoins the third Loggia. Until 1906, when the two partitions were removed, it was used as a prelate’s living quarters; later it served as an ante-chamber for the State Secretariat. The first reference to the decoration of the loggetta was made by E. Steinmann, but it was only during the restoration operations which commenced in the summer of 1943 that the significance of the room was understood. Scholars are indebted to Redig de Campos for a thorough report on the restoration, which includes a detailed description of the chamber and convincing identification of the artists from Raphael’s workshop who collaborated on the decoration. The design of the room is by Raphael himself, and he probably also established the guidelines followed by the decorators, but the invention and execution of the pictorial scheme were undertaken by the members of his workshop - the same artists who carried out most of the painting of Raphael’s Loggias: Penni, Giulio Romano, Giovanni da Udine and Perino del Vaga. To Penni, Redig de Campos attributes the four grisaille paintings of female statues in fictive niches, which he regards as allegories of the Seasons (the figure of Winter has been destroyed), and also the scene depicting Vulcan’s forge (in one of the lunettes). To Giulio Romano he ascribes the mythological stories of the ‘Contest between Apollo and Marsyas’ and ‘Olympus pleading with Apollo’ (the third scene, the ‘Flaying of Marsyas’, is now lost), and also probably the smaller ceiling pictures of dancing women. The figures of a seated ‘Woman Spinning’ and a ‘Woman with a Distaff’, next to ‘Summer’, are given by Redig de Campos to Perino del Vaga, as well as two small scenes depicting pagan rites, while the extensive decorations on the ceiling and walls, with their widely varying motifs, are by Giovanni da Udine. - The entire decoration of this room was probably carried out in 1519, for the final passage in the letter from Marcantonio Michiel to Antonio di Marsilio (4 May 1519; Golzio, p. 98) must refer to the decoration of the Loggetta; this runs: ‘raphaele di Urbino ha dipinto impalazo dil pontefice et una loggia longissima; et va drieto dipingendo due altre loggie che saranno cose bellissime . . .’.
Steinmann 1905-6, p. 241 (a.); Redig de Campos 1946, p. 31 ff. and Figs. 2-29 (workshop); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 154-6 (workshop); Hartt 1958, p. 32 (in part by Giulio Romano); Dussler 1966, p. 102 (workshop).
ROME, Palazzo Vaticano
This room, which measures 8 ft. 3 ins. (2.52 m.) along each wall, is situated on the third floor above Raphael’s Loggie. The painted decoration is mentioned by Bembo in three letters to Bibbiena, dated 19 April, 6 May and 20 June 1516 (Golzio, pp. 43 f., 45 and 48); the last of these dates may be considered to mark the completion of the project. The lunettes and the grotesques on the ceiling are by Giovanni da Udine, who worked under the influence of the ‘Domus aurea’, but doubtless under the direction of Raphael, and proved himself an outstanding decorator. The wall scenes, which are framed by aediculae, are largely taken from the Metamorphoses of Ovid and were executed by Penni and the young Giulio Romano. They depict the following subjects: on the east wall: (1) the Birth of Erichthonius, (2) the Birth of Venus; on the south wall: (3) Venus and Cupid riding on Dolphins, (4) Venus wounded by Cupid’s Dart; on the west wall: (5) Pan and Syrinx, (6) Venus removing the thorn; on the north wall: (7) Venus and Adonis, (8) (destroyed). The dados on the individual wall sections are decorated with Cupids, which are depicted driving teams of snakes, turtles, dolphins and snails. Presumably Raphael prepared cursory sketches for scenes 1-8, but the immediate preparatory drawings were the work of Penni and Giulio Romano (as already suggested by Dollmayr). Giulio’s original drawing for scene No. 7 is preserved in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 80; Hartt I, No. 13 and II, Fig. 59) and as the painting of this composition reveals his hand, No. 5 also appears to be his work. Dollmayr also ascribes Nos. 3 and 6 to the same pupil, Nos. 2 and 4 to Penni and No. 1 to an assistant of Penni’s. In London there is a redchalk offset of a drawing for No. 2 (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 282) which may derive from a model by Raphael; engraving by Marco da Ravenna (B. XIV, pp. 243, 323); and also a sixteenth-century copy (Cat., No. 50) after the head of Venus in scene No. 3. The sketch for the composition of picture No. 4 in Windsor (Popham-Wilde Cat., No. 810) is not a copy after the fresco but shows a technique in many ways very similar to that of Raphael, although it should not be regarded as the master’s own design. The example in Vienna, Albertina (Cat. Stix-Fröhlich III, No. 82) is based on the drawing in Windsor. The scene was engraved by A. Veneziano (B. XIV, pp. 218, 286) in 1516. The Hermitage in Leningrad (Cat. 1909, p. 119, Nos. 47-51) owns enlarged fresco copies dating from the seventeenth century (formerly Villa Mattei; later, Villa Mills, Rome). The most comprehensive illustrations of the details and the overall scheme are those provided by F. Weege in: Th. Hofman, vol. IV, column 141 ff.
Passavant II, p. 277 (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 466 ff. (in part by Raphael); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 266 ff. (a.); Dollmayr 1890, p. 272 ff. and 1895, p. 269 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); De Vito Battaglia 1926, p. 203 ff. (by Giovanni da Udine); Gamba 1932, p. 110 (a.); Fischel 1935, p. 442 (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 107 (by Giulio Romano); Hartt 1958, p. 31 f. (by Giulio Romano) ; Fischel 1962, p. 223; Brizio 1963, col. 242; Dussler 1966, p. 102 (by Penni and Giulio Romano).
ROME, S. Maria della Pace, Cappella Chigi
Commissioned by Agostino Chigi.
(a) The four Sibyls are situated above the arch of the chapel. The figure at the left, representing the Cumaean Sibyl (?), holds in her raised right hand a parchment on which there is an inscription in Greek signifying: ‘The Resurrection of the Dead’. The putto on her right leans on a tablet which also bears a Greek text; ‘It will come to the light’. The Sibyl turning to the right (the Persica?) inscribes the following motto on a tablet held by a seated angel: ‘The destiny of Death shall overcome him’. At the crown of the arch a winged putto holding a torch crouches on a socle on which are the initials C.H. Next comes a sitting angel bearing a tablet inscribed: ‘The heavens surround the vessel of the earth’ and the seated figure of the Phrygian (?) Sibyl. Between the latter and the Sibyl of Tibur (?) - a figure looking towards the centre of the picture - is a putto with a panel inscribed in Latin with the words: JAM NO (VA) PROGE (NIES) (Vergil, 4th Eclogue, line 7). The angel hovering at the right of the picture (a pendant to the angel on the left) holds a parchment scroll with the inscription ‘I shall open and resurrect’. Apart from the one phrase in Latin, the quotations are given in Greek and are taken from Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, Books 4 and 7. This has been shown by Ettlinger, who also shows that the names assigned to the Sibyls date from the eighteenth century, and that there is thus no guarantee of their correctness. In Oxford (Parker 1956, II, No. 562) there is an early sketch for the Phrygian (?) Sibyl and in London a study for the same figure (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 36) which is already close to the fresco. On the back of the latter drawing is a drapery study which was probably intended, at an early stage, for the Cumana (?). Parker (1956, II, No. 562) considered the authenticity of the London drawing an open question, but in view of the high quality (especially of the recto) there seems to be no reason to doubt that it is by Raphael. The study of the model for the flying angel on the left and the arm of the Cumana (?) in Vienna, Albertina (Stix-Fröhlich, Cat. III, No. 73) was formerly regarded by Fischel (1898, No. 279) as a copy, but he later declared it an original (in my opinion correctly), and planned to include it in his corpus of the drawings (there is a copy in Oxford, Parker 1956, II, No. 646). The same is true of the crouching Sibyl facing left (the Sibyl of Tibur?) in Vienna, Albertina (Stix-Fröhlich, Cat. III, No. 73) which Fischel has verbally accepted as by Raphael although he had formerly denied its authenticity (1898,
The copy in Stockholm is especially interesting, however, because it includes two tondi, one on either side of the altar niche, in the wall sections below the Sibyls. Fischel realized, moreover, that it was intended to decorate these with reliefs - for which sketches by Raphael are still preserved: these are ‘Christ in Limbo’: Uffizi, No. 1475r (Hartt 1958, I, No. 22, II, Fig. 35, as Giulio Romano) and ‘The Incredulity of St. Thomas’: Cambridge, formerly in the Dr. Louis Claree Collection (Fig. III, Warburg Journal XXIV, 1961, on p. 176, Pl. 32a). The composition of the laker drawing retains the frieze style and Hirst’s view that it was the very first concetto of this subject should therefore be accepted. The later form, apparently based on a later sketch of the old composition, transposed into the tondo format, can be seen in the engraved reproduction in B. Picart’s Impostures innocentes, ou Recueil d’estampes d’après divers peintres illustres . . ., Amsterdam, 1734; moreover, the resulting bronze tondi have been identified in the abbey at Chiaravalle (G. Frizzoni, I disegni della Reale Galleria degli Uffizi, III serie, fasc. 2) and except for a few variations (the standing patriarch on the right and the two angels above, in ‘Christ in Limbo’) these works clearly correspond to Raphael’s models. There can be no doubt that the completed tondi never reached their intended places and that the wall sections did not bear the relief decorations for which provision had been made until, much later, marble rectangles containing putti were added in the baroque period. In view of the stylistic similarity between these two bronzes and the bronze relief of ‘Christ and the Samaritan woman’ in S. Maria del Popolo, Chigi Chapel, the artist responsible for them can only have been Lorenzetto, who, according to Vasari (ed. Milanesi IV, p. 577), was closely connected with Raphael.
No. 387); composition showing the lower section only: Oxford (Parker Cat. II, No. 558 - R.Z. VIII, No. 388) ; Soldiers: Oxford (Parker Cat. II, No. 559r - R.Z. VIII, No. 389) and detail studies for soldiers in Chatsworth, No. 20 (R.Z. VIII, No. 394), London (Pouncey-Gere Cat., No. 34 - R.Z. VIII, No. 395), Oxford (Parker Cat. II, Nos. 559v and 560 - R.Z. VIII, Nos. 390, 391) and Windsor (Popham-Wilde Cat., Nos. 789 and 799r - R.Z. VIII, Nos. 392, 393). Although Fischel investigated this group of drawings without relating them to the plan for the altar-piece in the Pace chapel (he assumed that a ‘Lamentation for Christ’ had been intended for this position), Hirst was emphatic - and, I think, convincing - in connecting these sheets with the projected altar-piece of the Resurrection. This supposition is confirmed not only by the texts of the scrolls beside the Prophets and Sibyls (see above), which refer without exception to the Resurrection, but also by Raphael’s already-mentioned tondi-sketches in Florence and Cambridge (‘Christ in Limbo’ and ‘Christ and St. Thomas’), which could only have been connected thematically to a ‘resurrezione’. In the same year as Raphael died, Chigi’s executors commissioned Sebastiano del Piombo to paint an altar-piece ‘sotto le fighure di Raffaello’ (Golzio, p. 140: report from L. Sellaio to Michelangelo, 15 December 1520). However, nothing seems to have been done, for the requirements are only specified in the 1530 contract, which states that the scene should represent the Resurrection of Christ ‘con tutte le sue Circumstantie convenienti a tal pictura’. Here again, the picture never reached execution. Vasari (ed. Milanesi V, p. 573) refers to it without naming the subject matter, but emphasizes the great care with which Sebastiano carried out the technical preparation of the painting surface and his efforts ‘per passare Raffaello’. This mention led Hirst (p. 178 f.) to conclude that the artist must already have worked out how best to approach the project, and that when he voiced his ambition of ‘surpassing’ Raphael he was confident of receiving assistance in the shape of a drawing by Michelangelo. Although this idea may be correct, there are some important objections. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that Buonarroti went so far in meeting Sebastiano’s demands as to prepare for him a drawing of an overall composition, such as the ‘Risen Christ’ (Windsor, Popham-Wilde No. 428 - Dussler No. 363). After all, the extent to which he assisted the other painter in the case of the picture representing Limbo of 1532 (see Milanesi, Les Correspondants de Michelange, p. 98) and the Pietà for Ubeda (Dussler 69, Fig. 95) had been very small - in each case Sebastiano had to make do with partial designs, and most of the work was still left to him. Secondly, if he was receiving such decisive help from Michelangelo, why did he not carry out what (from the 1530 contract) seems to have been a highly profitable commission? Thirdly, there are important reasons for doubting the correctness of Vasari’s statements (ed. Milanesi, V, p. 573). The whole subject had not appeared in the 1550 edition (as Hirst also noticed), and hence the later passage may be tendentious. If true, the latter point would dispose of the suggestion that, as early as 1530, Sebastiano was confident of assistance from Michelangelo ‘per passare Raffaello’. That the empty niche must have been filled with a painting of the Madonna later in the sixteenth century becomes clear from the note made by a stucco-worker when the chapel was restored in 1627 (see Hirst 1961, p. 170 f. and Notes 52-55). At that time Fabio Chigi arranged for the restoration of his ancestor’s memorial, which had been completely forgotten, and also gave instructions for the inclusion of a memorial tablet, which remains to this day: AVGVSTINVS. CHISIVS. SACELLVM. RAPH. VRBIN. PRAECIPVO. SIBYLLAR. OPERE. EXORNATVM. D.D.M. AC. VIRGINI. MATRI. DICAVIT. A. MDXIX. This text has given rise to false conclusions among scholars, who have taken 1519 as the date of completion or assumed a contemporary altar-piece depicting the Virgin; these theories have, however, been completely refuted by Hirst’s investigations.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, p. 341 (a.), p. 495 (by T. Viti;) Rumohr, pp. 558, 569 f. (a.); Passavant II, p. 165 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 511 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 169 ff. (in part by Raphael); Gronau 1923, p. 111 ff. (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 85 f. (in part by Raphael); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (in part by Raphael); Ortolani, p. 51 (in part by Raphael); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 178 ff., 364 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 92-99 (in part by Raphael); Freedberg, p. 169 f. (a.); Hirst 1961, p. 161 ff. (in part by Raphael); Ettlinger 1961, p. 322 f.; Oberhuber 1962, p. 32 f. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 133 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, cols. 234-5 (invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966, p. 104 f. (a.).
ROME, S. Maria del Popolo, Cappella Chigi
Agostino Chigi’s commission for a funerary chapel to be built and decorated by Raphael dated back to the period 1512-13. The design of the building was undertaken by the master himself (see Geymüller 1870, p. 79 ff.), who was probably assisted by Antonio Sangallo the Younger (in Uffizi, Dis. arch. 169). Raphael was also responsible for the plan and sketches for the mosaic pictures in the cupola; these were executed by the Venetian artist, Luigi de Pace, who completed them in 1516 and signed beneath the planet of Venus: LV. D. P. V. F. 1516 (Golzio, p. 41). The theme depicted in the cupola is a basically pagan conception of Heaven, which is ‘Christianized’ by the figures of God the Father in the central circle and of the angels. The eight trapezoid sections represent the planetary divinities; arching above these half-length figures is the curve of the zodiac, on which lie angels, each to control the movement of one sign. The seven planets are arranged in anti-clockwise order around the circle. First comes the moon-goddess (Diana Luna), in the right transverse axis, followed by Mercury and then, after a gap, by the sphere of the fixed stars;
the sequence continues with Venus, Apollo (Helios), Mars and Jupiter and ends with Saturn. This scene was traditionally thought to represent the creation of the stars, an interpretation based on the scroll - then regarded as genuine - which appears on the sphere of the fixed stars and bears the following words from Genesis 1, 14: FIANT LVMINARIA IN FIRMAMENTO COELI. This interpretation has recently been challenged by Shearman, who points out that such a theme is not suited to the idea of a funerary chapel. A much more probable theory is that proposed by Müntz and Fischel, who had suggested that this work may have been partly inspired by the world of Dante (Paradiso II, 127; Convivio II, Chapters 4 and 6). However the most convincing identification of the source seems to be that given by Shearman, who draws attention to the statement in Plato’s Timaeus (42B) that the human soul originates in the region of the stars and returns to its home in the celestial spheres. It can hardly be disputed that these concepts were very common in Renaissance thought and will have been familiar to Raphael and Agostino Chigi through the writings of Bembo and Castiglione; it is well known that they had great influence on Michelangelo. The zodiac can also be fitted easily into this symbolic region and represents a sign of the transition from the earthly world to immortality; moreover, later on the four Seasons were depicted in the pillar spandrels below, and the choice of this subject emphasizes the idea that the works are concerned with a symbolic representation of Time. If this interpretation of the star-pictures is, as I believe, entirely correct, then the gesture of the Almighty in the crown of the cupola also becomes comprehensible: He is shown receiving the souls returning into eternity. In his excellent study Shearman has shown that the gesture of the Almighty is also connected, both in form and in content, with the altar-piece of the Assumption, which was originally intended for this chapel. The following sketches from Raphael’s own hand are still preserved: in Oxford a drawing for God the Father (Parker 1956, II, No. 566) and another for the angel above the planet Jupiter (Parker 1956, II, No. 567); in Lille, Musée Wicar, a drawing for Mars and the angel (Fischel, Versuch, No. 285). No documents exist which might give information about the altar-piece planned for this chapel, although the hypothesis that Raphael himself had planned an Assumption (proposed with all due caution by Shearman) may be considered largely justified. The sketches in Oxford (R.Z. VIII, No. 380) and Stockholm (R.Z. VIII, No. 381) contain plans for an ‘Assumption’ and a further stage in Raphael’s development of this theme appears in the engraving of the ‘Master of the Dice’ (B. XIV, No. 7). This theory receives support from the drawing of the Assumption in Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, by Sebastiano del Piombo, which dates from between 1525 and 1530 (J. Q. van Regteren-Altena in: Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum III, 1955, IV, p. 75) and is probably connected with the contract agreed in 1526 between Chigi’s executor, Filippo Sergardi, and the Venetian artist. This is especially convincing, firstly, because Sebastiano is not known to have received any other commission for an Assumption of the Virgin, and secondly, because the general disposition of the Amsterdam ‘modello’ agrees in its proportions with those of the altar wall (as convincingly proved by Shearman, 1961, p. 149). Under the terms of the contract of 1 August 1530 (given in Hirst, 1961, p. 183 ff.), which superseded the 1526 agreement, Sebastiano undertook to provide his picture of the Birth of the Virgin as an altar-piece. A drawing for this work, which is still in situ, had already been provided for inspection. This choice of subject matter is surprising, for it lacks connection with Raphael’s whole conception of the chapel, especially with the figure of God the Father in the cupola. It was, however, a decision not completely at variance with the founder’s wishes, for in his Will he had specified an annual memorial mass to be celebrated on the feast of the Birth of the Virgin, 8 September (see Shearman, p. 148, Note 88). When Agostino Chigi died in 1520, the decoration of the chapel had not been finished, and his widow made a contract with Luigi de Pace on 31 May 1520 (Golzio, p. 126 ff.) in which provision was made for further mosaic pictures (eight between the windows and four tondi in the pendentives ‘secondo li disegni’ in her possession); but the document does not disclose whether these drawings were left by Raphael at his death. The mosaics were not carried out and instead frescoes were provided by F. Salviati shortly after 1550.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 368 f., 578, V, p. 571 (a.); Passavant II, p. 446 ff. (a.); Müntz 1882, p. 514 ff. (a.); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 271 ff. (a.); D. Gnoli 1889, p. 317 ff. (a.); Fischel 1920, p. 18 ff. (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 152 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 108 (a.); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (invention by Raphael); Ortolani, p. 62 (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 149 ff., 365 (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 24 f. (a.); Freedberg, p. 314 ff. (a.); Shearman 1961, p. 129 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 111 ff. (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 237 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 106 (a.).
The fable of Cupid and Psyche (Apuleius, Metamorphoses, IV, 28-VI, 24) Plate 158
Commissioned by Agostino Chigi.
A. THE TWO CEILING PAINTINGS
A red chalk drawing for the composition of the right section, in Paris, F. Lugt Collection, is certainly based on a concetto by Raphael, but both technique and formal motifs (the draperies) are far more characteristic of Giulio Romano than of his teacher. The work is ascribed to Raphael by Jaffé (Burl. Mag. CIV, 1962, p. 233 and Fig. 7) and Oberhuber (Wiener Jb., 1962, p. 52), while Shearman (1964, p. 94 f.) tends to favour Giulio Romano. Another
sketch which may be based on Raphael is that depicting the group on the left - Mercury handing the cup of nectar to Psyche, in Chatsworth, No. 55 (Fischel 1898, No. 262: copy; 1948, Fig. 212: study by a pupil); the present version, however, is probably a workshop production. Shearman (1964, p. 96) ascribes this drawing to Penni, an opinion with which the present author concurs.
Three of the existing drawings for this work are certainly by Raphael - the three female nudes in Windsor, Royal Library (Popham, Cat., No. 804); Fischel (1898, No. 266) presumed that the sheet was merely worked over by Raphael later, but Freedberg (p. 326) and Shearman (1964, p. 90) agree with an unqualified attribution to the master. There are two other sketches which must have originally been drawn by Raphael in stylus and then executed in red chalk by Giulio Romano: (1) the kneeling figure of Ganymede, in Paris, Louvre, No. 4019 (Hartt 1958, I, No. 24 and II, Fig. 42); (2) the seated female nude seen from the back (Omphale) and the female figure sitting at table beside Jupiter, in Haarlem, Teyler-Museum, A62 (Hartt 1958, I, No. 25 and II, Fig. 43). In Le Dessin italien dans les collections hollandaises, 1962, No. 70, Lugt claims that the latter sheet is entirely by Raphael. An excellent drawing for the figure of Apollo, on the left side of the fresco, is in Vienna, Albertina; it is ascribed by the Stix-Fröhlich catalogue (III, No. 113) to Penni, and was formerly ascribed to Penni by Fischel also (1898, No. 263), but he seems to have changed his opinion, for later he planned to include the sketch in his corpus of the drawings. In my opinion this drawing is undoubtedly based on Raphael, but can hardly be claimed to be autograph; Shearman (1964, p. 96) also attributes the execution to Penni.
B. THE FOURTEEN LUNETTE PAINTINGS
(a) Cupid with an Eagle; (b) Cupid with a Trident; (c) Two Amoretti with Cerberus; (d) Cupid armed; (e) Cupid with a Griffin; (f) Cupid with Mercury’s Staff; (g) Cupid with a Panther; (h) Cupid with a Pan-Pipe; (i) Cupid with a Helmet and Shield; (k) Cupid with a Helmet and Shield, victorious over Mars; (l) Two Amoretti with the Club of Hercules, accompanied by a Harpy; (m) Cupid with a Crocodile; (n) Cupid between a Lion and a Seahorse; (o) Cupid with a Bow and Quiver.
A sheet in Dresden, Print Room, ascribed by Hartt (1958, I, Nos. 26 and 27) to Giulio Romano, shows, on the recto, the putto flying towards the centre, and on the verso the flying Cupid with the bow, both executed in red chalk over stylus. Hartt was apparently following Fischel’s former attribution (1898, No. 276); but Fischel subsequently changed his mind and intended to include these drawings in volume IX of his corpus. Shearman (1964, p. 89 f.) correctly agrees with Fischel’s opinion.
C. THE TEN TRIANGULAR PAINTINGS
(a) Venus pointing out Psyche to Cupid. Sketch by Giulio Romano in Paris, Louvre, No. 4017 (Hartt 1958, I, No. 23a and II, Fig. 44); (b) Cupid and the Three Graces; (c) Venus asking Advice of Juno and Ceres; (d) Venus ascending to Olympus; (e) Venus entreating Jupiter; (f) Mercury flying through the Heavens. A pen drawing in Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum (Venturi, L’Arte XXIV, 1921, p. 23, Fig. 4), is considered an original sketch by Oberhuber (Berliner Jb. IV, 1962, p. 124, Note 27) and may possibly be a quick concetto by the master. Fischel thought (1898, No. 275) that it was a copy after the fresco, as did von Seidlitz (Rep. f. Kstw. XIII, 1890, p. 115). Shearman (1964, p. 90) ascribes the work to Raphael and gives convincing reasons in favour of this attribution. (g) Psyche carried by Three Amoretti; (h) Psyche presenting the Vase to Venus. There is a pen sketch by Raphael for this scene (in Oxford; Parker 1956, II, No. 655, Fig. 23; Dollmayr 1895, p. 310), and this suggests that he may have prepared similar designs for the other compositions. The Oxford sketch is also mentioned in Fischel’s text (1948, I, p. 138, 1962, p. 138). Parker questioned the authenticity of this drawing and suggested that it was more probably a sketch after the fresco; however this theory is contradicted by the greatly different conception of Psyche, and from the point of view of technique there is no reason to doubt that it is by Raphael. The
authenticity of this work is also supported by Gere (Burl. Mag. XCIX, 1957, p. 162), Oberhuber (Berliner Jb. IV, 1962, p. 124, Note 27) and Shearman (1964, p. 81 f.). Oberhuber correctly points out the formal affinity with the pen sketches for the fresco in S. Maria della Pace in Rome (Parker 1956, II, No. 553; Warburg Journal XXIV, 1961, Fig. 28a); these are on the back of the sheet, and have only recently been discovered. Fischel and Hartt (1958, I, No. 23, and II, Fig. 39) ascribe the sketch in Paris (Louvre, No. 3875) to Giulio Romano and consider that the figure of Psyche was later corrected by Raphael. The present author, however, agrees with Freedberg (p. 326), who attributes the sketch to Raphael himself. Psyche’s head and the gesture of her left hand are also found in a drawing in Haarlem (Le Dessin italien dans les collections hollandaises, 1962, No. 69), which certainly derives from Raphael, although Jaffé (Burl. Mag. CIV, 1962, p. 233) can hardly be correct in considering it original. (i) Jupiter fondling Cupid; a drawing in Paris (Louvre, No. 1120), which Fischel (1898, No. 272) considered a copy after the fresco, is regarded by Oberhuber (Wiener Jb. XXII, 1962, p. 52, Note 108) and Shearman (1964, p. 89) as original; the poor condition of the sheet at first prevents this theory from carrying conviction, but the marvellous figure of a nude girl on the verso (in my opinion certainly by Raphael) leaves hardly any doubt as to the attribution of the recto. (k) Mercury carrying Psyche to Olympus.
The question which edition of Apuleius Raphael used has been the subject of a detailed and comprehensive investigation by Shearman (1964, pp. 62 f., 71 ff.); he concludes that the main source was certainly the version published by Filippo Beroaldo the Elder (first ed. Bologna 1500; seventh ed. Venice 1516), which was the most widely read of contemporary editions. This theory is especially probable in view of the close acquaintance between the editor and his nephew Filippo il Giovane and Agostino Chigi. Certain scenes depicted in the frescoes, however, come neither from this source nor from the Italian edition by M. Boiardo (first published 1478, and later in 1508 and 1516), and it is likely that, as Shearman assumes, the artist had access to other editions, such as the poem ‘La Psyche’ by Niccolò da Correggio, which also passed through several editions (the first being published in 1507); other scenes may have been based on manuscript versions, which were also current. The persistent influence of classical models has been pointed out by Gruyer (Raphaël et l’Antiquité, Paris 1864), by P. G. Hübner (1909, p. 279 ff.), and by Fischel (1948, I, p. 191 f.; 1962, p. 143 f.); most recently, important additions were brought to this field by A. von Salis (p. 174 f.; who refers to the Belvedere torso, p. 199 ff.) and by I. Bergström (1957, p. 45 ff.). The investigations undertaken by Salis leave no doubt that Raphael was familiar with the ceiling paintings in the Domus aurea in Rome, and that he must also have known mural paintings similar in style to those in Pompeii. The similarities of the figure motifs in ‘Mercury’s flight to Olympus with Psyche’ (C, k) to Le pitture antiche d’Ercolano, V, 1779, pp. 31, 159 (which are conclusively shown by Bergström) clearly indicate that, although he in no way sacrified his personal sense of style, Raphael was nevertheless receptive to the stimulus of models of this sort. The above-mentioned edition of the Pitture also contains examples of amoretti with attributes of various divinities, similar to those here depicted in the lunettes (B); see vol III, pp. 171 and 175; IV, p. 101; V, pp. 35 and 45. It is remarkable that the connection between the genii in the lunettes and a Roman tripod in the Museum Maffeianum, Verona (Fig. 30, p. 203 in Salis’ book) was noticed by Goethe (Tagebücher und Briefe Goethes aus Italien, Vol. 2, Weimar 1886, p. 73). This subject has also been discussed by Shearman (1964, p. 79 ff.).
line marking out a semicircular edge for the composition) and the marvellous drawing of a nude girl in left profile, holding a round mirror in her hands (Paris, Louvre, No. 1120, verso; Shearman, pp. 68 f., 88 f. and Fig. 73), very probably the same who appears as maidservant in Bonasone’s engraving, ‘Psyche at her toilet’ (Shearman 1964, Fig. 69). The kneeling woman, looking upwards with her left arm raised (Chatsworth, No. 56; Shearman 1964, pp. 70 and 90 and Fig. 72) may have been intended as a study for the same scene. The above evidence is perfectly acceptable, but in my opinion any addition must be considered hypothetical, and I shall therefore not comment on Shearman’s detailed attempt at reconstructing the decoration of the Loggia (1964, p. 70 f.). - Perino del Vaga painted a cycle representing the earthly scenes of the Psyche table (in the Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome), but it is not possible to trace these pictures back to lost designs by Raphael (as Steinmann had suggested) any more than this is possible in the case of the long series of engravings by the ‘Master of the Dice’ (B. XV, Nos. 39-70), which date from the 1530s. The compositions are completely lacking in the spirit of Raphael’s work, and their style reveals nothing more than the general character of Raphael’s followers.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 366 ff. (a.), 377, 644 (with assistance from Penni); V, p. 524 (by Giulio Romano); VI, p. 558 (with assistance from Giovanni da Udine); Bellori pp. 126 ff., 153 f. (in part by Raphael, Giulio Romano and Penni); Passavant II, p. 342 ff. (workshop); Müntz 1882, p. 519 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Cr.-Cav. II, p. 334 ff. (workshop); Dollmayr 1895, p. 310 ff. (workshop); Förster 1895, p. 215 ff.; Gronau 1923, pp. 158-64 (workshop); Gamba 1932, p. 109 (workshop); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (chiefly by Giulio Romano); Ortolani, p. 62 f. (workshop); Hartt 1944, p. 67 ff. (workshop); v. Salis 1947, p. 190 ff.; Fischel 1948, I, pp. 186, 364 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 108-27 (workshop); Bergstrom, 1957, p. 45 ff. (a.); Saxl 1957, I, p. 189 ff.; Hartt 1958, p. 32 f. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Gerlini 1959, p. 25 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Freedberg, p. 322 ff. (by Giulio Romano and Penni); Fischel 1962, p. 137 ff. (workshop); Hoogewerff 1963, p. 5 ff.; Shearman 1964, p. 59 ff. (in part by Raphael, Giulio Romano and Penni); Brizio 1963, col. 238 (invention by Raphael); Dussler 1966, p. 108 f. (in part by Raphael, Giulio Romano and Penni).
ROME, Villa Farnesina, garden room
Commissioned by Agostino Chigi.
The subject is based on stanza 118 of the poem Giostra by Politian, which appeared in 1476 and was itself derived from the ‘Cyclopes’ of Philostratus (Imagines II, 18). Lodovico Dolce was already aware of this source, for he refers to the ‘poesia del Policiano’ in his Dialogo della pittura, Venice 1557 (see ed. Barocchi in Trattati d’arte del Cinquecento, Bari 1960, I, p. 192). There can be no doubt that the principal figure in the centre represents the nymph Galatea, and is a companion to the nearby figure of Polyphemus (painted in 1511 by Sebastiano del Piombo); she cannot have been intended as a Venus, for Raphael himself refers to the scene as ‘Galatea’ in his letter of thanks to Castiglione in 1514 (Golzio, p. 30 f.). Vasari made an error when discussing this work, for whereas he correctly mentions ‘una Galatea sopra un carro’ in his Life of Raphael (IV, p. 340), he describes the picture as ‘una Galatea rapita dagli Dii marini’ in his account of the life of Peruzzi (IV, p. 594). But the latter interpretation, although suppor-
ted by H. Grimm (Fünfzehn Essays, 3. Folge, Berlin 1882, p. 380 ff.), who referred to Apuleius’ Metamorphoses IV, 31, was conclusively refuted by Förster (Repertorium für Kstw. XXIII, 1900, p. 1 ff.), and no longer requires discussion, especially since the subject matter has been explained by A. von Salis (1947, p. 210 ff.). - Opinions differ as to when the fresco was painted, the only point which is certain being that it was completed by the spring of 1514, for Raphael alludes to it in the above-mentioned letter to Castiglione. However, a goddess, described as Venus, is already mentioned in E. Gallo: De Viridario Augustini Chigi . . . libellus, Rome 1511, and Blosio Palladio in Suburbanum Augustini Ghisii opus, 1512, and as this cannot refer to any other painting in the room one must assume that a sketch, at least, was already available in 1511 and that the execution may have been carried out in 1512. The stylistic character of the work is also in accordance with this dating, which is supported by the close parallels with the frescoes in the Stanza d’Eliodoro (especially the Expulsion of Heliodorus); moreover, one must not overlook the connection with the figures of the Three Virtues in the Stanza della Segnatura and with the Sibyls in S. Maria della Pace, Rome, which should also be dated about 1512. There has been a tendency, started by Cavalcaselle, to ascribe part of the execution to Giulio Romano. In my opinion, however, his participation at this date (1512) seems out of the question, and the fresco is entirely the work of Raphael, while the slightly weaker parts are due to later restorations. - The frame of pilasters and the tapestry-like dado are discordant additions made by the painter G. P. Marescotti in 1650.
Vasari (ed. Milanesi) IV, pp. 340, 594 (a.); Bellori, p. 171 (a.); Rumohr, p. 578 (a.); Passavant II, p. 172 ff. (a.); Gruyer 1862, p. 423 ff.; Müntz 1882, p. 509 ff. (a.); Grimm 1882, p. 380 ff.; Cr.-Cav. II, p. 166 ff. (assistance from Giulio Romano); Dollmayr 1895, p. 253 (a.); Gronau 1923, p. 116 (a.); Gamba 1932, p. 70 (in part by Raphael); Berenson 1932, p. 483 (a.); Ortolani, p. 42 f. (a.); Cecchelli 1942, p. 246 ff.; Hetzer 1947, p. 61 f. (a.); Fischel 1948, I, pp. 186 f., 364 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plates 60-4 (in part by Raphael); Saxl 1957, I, p. 189 ff. (a.); Schöne 1958, p. 37, under Fig. 94 (a.); Gerlini 1959, p. 18 ff. (a.); Freedberg, p. 168 ff. (a.); Fischel 1962, p. 140 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 234 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 110 (a.).
URBINO, Casa di Raffaello
This heavily repainted fresco was formerly always regarded as the work of Giovanni Santi, but Longhi has recently attributed it to the youthful Raphael, referring specifically to the influence of Piero della Francesca. The picture is badly damaged, and I see no features which might justify its inclusion in Raphael’s juvenilia.
Müntz, p. 10 f. (by Giovanni Santi); Berenson 1932, p. 511 (by Giovanni Santi); Ragghianti 1947, p. 5 (a.); Longhi, Paragone 1955, May, p. 14 (a.); Camesasca 1956, II, Plate 1 (a.); Volpe 1962, p. 82 (a.); Brizio 1963, col. 222 (a.); Dussler 1966, p. 110 (Giovanni Santi); Wagner 1969, p. 95 (r.).